Mohammad's Message vs Jesus' Message

[F0uad]

[youtube]59txpioPYJI[/youtube]
Bart Ehrman on the Qur'an - YouTube

Interestingly, Bart is silent about the Koran because he fears Muslims killing him if he dares to criticize it.



[youtube]aT8uGolJqtc[/youtube]
Bart Ehrman Speaks About the Quran - YouTube

He also doesn't appreciate it when people liken him to a Muslim

Bart is also known as a man that REJECTS the Koran's alternate ending to Jesus' life in which he avoids getting executed. Bart, like most serious historians agrees that the man was in fact killed by the Romans. We have a source from Tacitus ( from outside the Bible) which confirms the report that he was killed at the order of Pontius Pilate.

Its better for me not to get involved because i can dismiss that in 1sec including the contradiction report in the NWT about that ''Order"

As for people killing him its a fallacy and not a argument, why don't you yourself actually look into the Islamic sources regarding the Quranic Preservation? He said he doesn't know anything about the Quran.

 

[-Peacemaker-]

Its better for me not to get involved because i can dismiss that in 1sec including the contradiction report in the NWT about that ''Order"

As for people killing him its a fallacy and not a argument, why don't you yourself actually look into the Islamic sources regarding the Quranic Preservation? He said he doesn't know anything about the Quran.

No one here is even arguing about the preservation of the Koran. Do you know why? Because there's absolutely nothing historical in it. It's the personal revelation of one man given by an angel claiming to be Gabriel. Even if it could be proven that the message in the Koran is 100% the original that was given to Mohammed it wouldn't change the fact that it's still just the personal revelation of one man. As far as attacking Erhman. You're right that these attacks don't actually shoot down his argument. I just find it interesting that Muslims use this man as a defense when the Koran actually would call him a liar given that he ackowledges Jesus' death

 

[F0uad]

No one here is even arguing about the preservation of the Koran. Do you know why? Because there's absolutely nothing historical in it. It's the personal revelation of an angel claiming to be Gabriel. Even if it could be proven that the message in the Koran is 100% the original that was given to Mohammed it wouldn't change the fact that it's still just a personal revelation given to one man. As far as attacking Erhman. You're right that these attacks don't actually shoot down his argument. I just find it interesting that Muslims use this man as a defense when the Koran actually would call him a liar given that he ackowledges Jesus' death

First of all there is no need to generalize i didn't use him, however hes work is scholarly so i am not sure why people including (Muslim) cannot use it? Actually there is no need to use him since most of the Christian Historians and Scholars agree on a certain date of the gospels and that it was written by unknown authors to start with.

Secondly preservation has nothing to do with revelation we are talking about preservation and not teachings or the idea that someone was inspired to write anything.

Thirdly himself stated a couple of times that there are conflicting stories regarding the "Crucifixion'' if you actually took time to watch and listen hes whole lectures regarding it.

 

[Ingledsva]

Where doesTanakh have a prohecy of Jesus?

This is off topic. Do it in another thread.

On topic, Jesus has this as His message: John 4:25 The woman saith unto him, I know that Messiah cometh (he that is called Christ): when he is come, he will declare unto us all things.
26 Jesus saith unto her, I that speak unto thee am he.

LOL! And just how can it be off topic when I am questioning exactly what you claimed?

You said -

On the contrary, I believe Christians bring cogent evidence that the Tanakh predicts the coming of the Messiah in such a way that it can only be Jesus.

 

[InvestigateTruth]

Really nice attempt in twisting the statements to try to fit your views and it still doesn't make it what you are trying to make it.

I put logical arguments to analyze the verses, including all those Hadithes to support my view.
And in fact, I am not even a Christian to defend the Bible. Baha'is have their own 200 volumes of New Scriptures revealed for this Age.
Baha'is believe the Laws of Quran and Bible are mostly abrogated as they were revealed for older Ages.

I was just giving you the evidence for the misunderstanding of Muslims regarding the meaning of alteration and corruption.
The point is, when Muslims claim the Bible is corrupted when they cannot prove it, at the end it is only funny. It makes others to think, Muslims try to justify their religion by the claim that Bible is corrupted but Quran is not.
I think instead if you discuss the corruption in interpretations of Bible by giving logical arguments, just as Quran and Muhammad did ORIGINALLY, you would see a better result.

 

[loverOfTruth]

[youtube]59txpioPYJI[/youtube]
Bart Ehrman on the Qur'an - YouTube

Interestingly, Bart is silent about the Koran because he fears Muslims killing him if he dares to criticize it.

[youtube]aT8uGolJqtc[/youtube]
Bart Ehrman Speaks About the Quran - YouTube

He also doesn't appreciate it when people liken him to a Muslim

Bart is also known as a man that REJECTS the Koran's alternate ending to Jesus' life in which he avoids getting executed. Bart, like most serious historians agrees that the man was in fact killed by the Romans. We have a source from Tacitus ( from outside the Bible) which confirms the report that he was killed at the order of Pontius Pilate.

No one here is even arguing about the preservation of the Koran. Do you know why? Because there's absolutely nothing historical in it. It's the personal revelation of one man given by an angel claiming to be Gabriel. Even if it could be proven that the message in the Koran is 100% the original that was given to Mohammed it wouldn't change the fact that it's still just the personal revelation of one man. As far as attacking Erhman. You're right that these attacks don't actually shoot down his argument. I just find it interesting that Muslims use this man as a defense when the Koran actually would call him a liar given that he ackowledges Jesus' death

The reason I quoted Bart Ehrman is because he is a well known NT scholar with knowledge of Biblical manuscript and their textual integrity as well as early Christian history. But he is not a scholar on the history of the Qur'an or its preservation, so I am not sure why it would even matter as to what he thinks of the Qur'an. But to be very honest, you don't even need a scholar like Ehrman to find out the mistakes, contradictions and inconsistencies in the Bible. Any normal person can see it with their own eyes. For example,

* Peter's account: Jesus(pbuh) was hung on a tree according to the books of "Acts". Acts 5:30 "The God of our fathers raised up Jesus, whom ye slew and hanged on a tree."

Whereas, Jesus(pbuh) was crucified on the cross according to some other accounts. Mark 15:32 "Let Christ the King of Israel descend now from the cross, that we may see and believe. And they that were crucified with him reviled him."

So which one is it ? Hanging on a tree is certainly not the same as being crucified on the cross.

* Now, you can also see the comparison chart showing all different versions of the resurrection story of Jesus in different Gospels here :
Comparison of Gospel Accounts of the Resurrection of Christ - ReligionFacts

* Here are some other examples that I have noted earlier in other threads:
http://www.religiousforums.com/forum/3161291-post17.html

http://www.religiousforums.com/forum/3161426-post23.html

* Finally, the fact that even the name Yeshua got changed to Jesus by the time of NT is another reason why we start questioning what else changed ? See how the name got changed here : Was Jesus a common name back when he was alive? - Slate Magazine

Now when you compare that to the scriptures of Islam, I have already told you that Bible essentially consists of the type of material which is in the Qur'an(that is direct revelation from God) and the type of material which is in the Hadith(that is teachings/events related to Messenger of God) and not to mention some other human writings not related to either. So even if I were to take only those 2 types of material in the Bible and compare it to the Qur'an and the Hadith, the historical accuracy and authenticity of the material in the Bible doesn't even compare given the numerous errors, inconsistencies, contradictions and above all the lack of unbroken chain of narrators dating back to the source (which is most important for historical authenticity). And when you doubt the Qur'an(via the revelation) you are essentially throwing out a big chunk of the biblical texts which are also only possible to have come through revelation - you can't just accept the possibility of one and not the other. So it doesn't work out for you either way. Sorry.

 

[loverOfTruth]

I put logical arguments to analyze the verses, including all those Hadithes to support my view.
And in fact, I am not even a Christian to defend the Bible. Baha'is have their own 200 volumes of New Scriptures revealed for this Age.
Baha'is believe the Laws of Quran and Bible are mostly abrogated as they were revealed for older Ages.

I was just giving you the evidence for the misunderstanding of Muslims regarding the meaning of alteration and corruption.
The point is, when Muslims claim the Bible is corrupted when they cannot prove it, at the end it is only funny. It makes others to think, Muslims try to justify their religion by the claim that Bible is corrupted but Quran is not.
I think instead if you discuss the corruption in interpretations of Bible by giving logical arguments, just as Quran and Muhammad did ORIGINALLY, you would see a better result.

Right. From a Baha'i scholar of Islam with specialty on Translating Islamic scriptures with an intent to twist what it really means to fit what suits the Baha'i. Nice try.:sarcastic

 

[InvestigateTruth]

Right. From a Baha'i scholar of Islam with specialty on Translating Islamic scriptures with an intent to twist what it really means to fit what suits the Baha'i. Nice try.:sarcastic

Well, I see a lot of prejudging and negative things in what you say, which is not even a logical argument, but only judging. You really think that helps you?


For example:

you say: "From a Baha'i scholar of Islam"

My responce: Just because it is a Baha'i view of Islam, does not make it false. I am supporting my arguments using ISLAMIC SOURCES.

then you say: "with an intent to twist"

My responce: This is again a prejudging, with nothing to back it up. How do you know my intent?

Then you say: "Nice try"

haha, well, the evidence is there. I don't see you have any logical argument here.

then you do this: :sarcastic

haha,

 

[loverOfTruth]

Well, I see a lot of prejudging and negative things in what you say, which is not even a logical argument, but only judging. You really think that helps you?


For example:

you say: "From a Baha'i scholar of Islam"

My responce: Just because it is a Baha'i view of Islam, does not make it false. I am supporting my arguments using ISLAMIC SOURCES.

then you say: "with an intent to twist"

My responce: This is again a prejudging, with nothing to back it up. How do you know my intent?

Then you say: "Nice try"

haha, well, the evidence is there. I don't see you have any logical argument here.

then you do this: :sarcastic

haha,

Here's my next move ...

Your turn - Go.

 

[davidthegreek]

Mohammad’s story is very charismatic in that it describes an illiterate man who ultimately conquers and converts the entire Middle East and northern Africa to his religious beliefs. Mohammad’s doctrine is similar to Moses’ in carry out punishments. Mohammad claims Jesus as a prophet but unlike Mohammad Jesus never outlined punishments for sins, in fact it is the opposite Jesus states a sinner cannot punish a sinner, only god can punish sins. This message is exemplified by the story of the woman that was about to be stoned for adultery and Jesus intervened to prevent it.

Muslims argue that Jesus foretells of Mohammad’s coming in the New Testament in the Gospel of John as the “Paraclete”. How can Muslims cite the New Testament foretelling the coming of Mohammad as prophetic and yet reject those very same texts becasue they are in conflict with Islamic teacings?

wasn't "paraclete" supposed to refer to the holy spirit? Are muslims actually arguing that (God Forgive me.) Mohammed is the incarnation of the holy spirit.?

 

[davidthegreek]

The Islamic idea is that there are truths in the bible but also errors so someone can cite what he considers as the truth to proof hes case.


.

We do the same too. If not, Then how do you explain the schism and the so many denominations within christianity? Certain it was not God's plan.

 

[loverOfTruth]

wasn't "paraclete" supposed to refer to the holy spirit? Are muslims actually arguing that (God Forgive me.) Mohammed is the incarnation of the holy spirit.?

Not incarnation of Holy Spirit but rather that 'paraclete' could not refer to Holy Spirit instead it refers to a Prophet (i.e.Muhammad(pbuh))
A "Paraclete" like Jesus

Biblical Prophecies on the Advent of Muhammad(pbuh)

 

[FearGod]

I put logical arguments to analyze the verses, including all those Hadithes to support my view.
And in fact, I am not even a Christian to defend the Bible. Baha'is have their own 200 volumes of New Scriptures revealed for this Age.
Baha'is believe the Laws of Quran and Bible are mostly abrogated as they were revealed for older Ages.

I was just giving you the evidence for the misunderstanding of Muslims regarding the meaning of alteration and corruption.
The point is, when Muslims claim the Bible is corrupted when they cannot prove it, at the end it is only funny. It makes others to think, Muslims try to justify their religion by the claim that Bible is corrupted but Quran is not.
I think instead if you discuss the corruption in interpretations of Bible by giving logical arguments, just as Quran and Muhammad did ORIGINALLY, you would see a better result.

You are always insisting to say that the bible wasn't corrupted even though many christians admitted this fact whereas you are refusing it because Bahaullah said the bible is correct and never corrupted,so you are the one whom trying to defend Bahaullah by twisting verses to support your purpose.

QUESTIONS.

You are saying that every age needs new revelation,
So what did Bahaullah bring to the new world which wasn't known before since all previous books including the bible wasn't corrupted.

Did Bahaullah come only to interpret the holy books (bible & quran) ?
What is your view regarding Mirza Ghulam Ahmad as the promised one as the Ahmadiyya believed him to be so and also came in similar time
to Bahaullah,so do you think that god sent 2 different messengers for the same age ?
Who is the true messenger Bahaullah or Mirza Ghulam and what is you evidences and proof.

 

[InvestigateTruth]

FearGod, If you do not mind, let's go by the facts. But not prejudging. OK?

You are always insisting to say that the bible wasn't corrupted even though many christians admitted this fact

The Majority of Christian Scholars agree that there are only few MINOR inaccuracies.
Do you know the difference between Minor inaccuracies, and corrupted?
The Christians Believers never admitted that Bible is corrupted. they admitt there could be some minor inaccuracies.
Even if some Christians said Bible is totally corrupted, that does not prove it. The same also say the same about Islam.

so you are the one whom trying to defend Bahaullah by twisting verses to support your purpose.

But this is an accusation. You are claiming I am twisting it. Show me an example how and where I twisted it. Will you?

QUESTIONS.

You are saying that every age needs new revelation,

I don't say that. The Quran says that.

So what did Bahaullah bring to the new world which wasn't known before since all previous books including the bible wasn't corrupted.
Did Bahaullah come only to interpret the holy books (bible & quran) ?

oh God. You forgot already your own thread?
http://www.religiousforums.com/forum/religious-debates/141389-bahai-islam.html
We already replied to that.

What is your view regarding Mirza Ghulam Ahmad as the promised one as the Ahmadiyya believed him to be so and also came in similar time
to Bahaullah,so do you think that god sent 2 different messengers for the same age ?
Who is the true messenger Bahaullah or Mirza Ghulam and what is you evidences and proof.

This is quite off-topic. But I believe each person is responcible to investigate the Truth, and decide for himself/herself.

 

[FearGod]

FearGod, If you do not mind, let's go by the facts. But not prejudging. OK?

The Majority of Christian Scholars agree that there are only few MINOR inaccuracies.
Do you know the difference between Minor inaccuracies, and corrupted?
The Christians Believers never admitted that Bible is corrupted. they admitt there could be some minor inaccuracies.
Even if some Christians said Bible is totally corrupted, that does not prove it. The same also say the same about Islam.

So you are saying minor inaccuracies.

Did such minor inaccuuracies caused by man or god.
if by god,then how god made such minor inaccuracies.
if by man,then man had corrupted the bible by such minor inaccuracies.

But this is an accusation. You are claiming I am twisting it. Show me an example how and where I twisted it. Will you?

See your post http://www.religiousforums.com/forum/3176132-post92.html

The quran and hadith said the holy books were corrupted and you are trying to twist it as to be not corrupted,so what you call this.

I don't say that. The Quran says that.

and in Bahaullah age we got 2 messengers at the same time with 2 messages.

oh God. You forgot already your own thread?
http://www.religiousforums.com/forum/religious-debates/141389-bahai-islam.html
We already replied to that.

There was no convincing reply,because there is nothing new with Bahaullah other than explaining other holy books as you are doing now and not discussing your own belief as a distinct one.

This is quite off-topic. But I believe each person is responcible to investigate the Truth, and decide for himself/herself.

it is on topic because both muslims and christians refused Bahaullah as a messenger and then your posts depending on Bahaullah is already off-topic because both don't have trust on him as a true messenger of god.

Mirza Ghulam Ahmad & Bahaullah appeared to be 2 messengers for the same age with 2 different messages.

Of course as a muslim i trust both to be false and the return of Jesus PBUH will be very close according to the minor signs which had already achieved and also the events for the 2nd return of Jesus PBUH is different than Mirza Ghulam Ahmad & Bahaullah according to Islam and christian view.one example is Armageddon.

 

[InvestigateTruth]

So you are saying minor inaccuracies.

Did such minor inaccuuracies caused by man or god.
if by god,then how god made such minor inaccuracies.
if by man,then man had corrupted the bible by such minor inaccuracies.

There are inaccuracies in Hadithes too. Does that mean they are ALL corrupted?
Or only the ones that are proved to be false hadithes corrupted?

See your post http://www.religiousforums.com/forum/3176132-post92.html

The quran and hadith said the holy books were corrupted and you are trying to twist it as to be not corrupted,so what you call this.

Haha, you are saying: "The quran and hadith said the holy books were corrupted "

While, all they said is, the meaning of the Holy books are twisted.

and in Bahaullah age we got 2 messengers at the same time with 2 messages.

So, did you know at arround the same time of Jesus, there were others who claimed to be Prophets?
Did you know that arround the same time of Muhammad, there were others who claimed to be prophets?
What's your point? Why didn't you believe them if you are telling the truth?

There was no convincing reply,because there is nothing new with Bahaullah other than explaining other holy books as you are doing now and not discussing your own belief as a distinct one.

Perhaps, you should state, in that thread, why you think there was no convincing reply.
Will you?

Of course as a muslim i trust both to be false ....

Of course, there has been many Muslims who became Baha'is, just as there were many Christians who became Bahai's.

 

[-Peacemaker-]

The reason I quoted Bart Ehrman is because he is a well known NT scholar with knowledge of Biblical manuscript and their textual integrity as well as early Christian history. .

Did you know that Erhman admits that the Gospels do indeed affirm the divinity of Jesus (John 8:58; 10:30; 20:28) ?

 

[FearGod]

There are inaccuracies in Hadithes too. Does that mean they are ALL corrupted?
Or only the ones that are proved to be false hadithes corrupted?

You are comparing the hadith with the words of god.
Yes many hadith were corrupted and were also false because that was recorded long after Mohammed PBUH death.

That is irrelevant to the holy books which should be pure with no errors.

Haha, you are saying: "The quran and hadith said the holy books were corrupted "

While, all they said is, the meaning of the Holy books are twisted.

You are the one to say that the meaning only changed by interpretting both books,so you are acting as scholar to correct muslims,christians and jews and that is refused by the 3 Abrahamic religions to have such interpretation from Bahaullah

So, did you know at arround the same time of Jesus, there were others who claimed to be Prophets?
Did you know that arround the same time of Muhammad, there were others who claimed to be prophets?
What's your point? Why didn't you believe them if you are telling the truth?

What is their holy books those prophets whom claimed to be messengers at the time of prophet Mohammed PBUH and what their religion was called compared to Bahaullah and Ahmadiyyah,i didn't know that there was another faith born at the same time with Islam

Perhaps, you should state, in that thread, why you think there was no convincing reply.
Will you?.

Because simply there is no convincing answer from your side,nothing at all.
Tell me if there is one,copy and paste if you think there is one.

Of course, there has been many Muslims who became Baha'is, just as there were many Christians who became Bahai's.

Aha,i know now why Bahai faith is around 5 millions all around the world because many christians and muslims are converting to your faith.

 

[-Peacemaker-]

And when you doubt the Qur'an(via the revelation) you are essentially throwing out a big chunk of the biblical texts which are also only possible to have come through revelation - you can't just accept the possibility of one and not the other. So it doesn't work out for you either way. Sorry.

You can repeat this over and over but it will never actually make any sense. The only way it would make sense is if we lived in a world where there was no such thing as a false prophet.

 

[loverOfTruth]

Did you know that Erhman admits that the Gospels do indeed affirm the divinity of Jesus (John 8:58; 10:30; 20:28) ?

You are misrepresenting the context of Bart Ehrman's statement here. Ehrman contends that certain widely held Christian beliefs, such as the divinity of Jesus, are associated not with the original words of scripture but with later alterations. Here are some excerpts from his books :

"The idea that Jesus preexisted his birth and that he was a divine being who became a human is found only in the Gospel of John; the idea that we was born of a virgin is found only in Matthew and Luke. It is only by conflating the two views that one could come up with the view that became the traditional, orthodox doctrine." p 74, Jesus, Interrupted: Revealing the Hidden Contradictions in the Bible (And Why We Don't Know About Them)- Bart D. Ehrman


"The view of Jesus as divine did not develop in every early Christian community at the same time or in the same way. For centuries there continued to be some communities that did not hold to this view, such as the Ebionites. In some communities the view came into being remarkably early (evidently in Paul's). In others there is no evidence that it happened at all(Matthew or Mark's). In others it took several decades (John's). But by the second and third centuries it became quite a common doctrine as there various communities exchanged views. Jesus was not simply the Jewish son of God whom God had exalted at his resurrection. He was himself God. This was one of the most enduring theological creations of the early Christian church." p 254, Jesus, Interrupted: Revealing the Hidden Contradictions in the Bible (And Why We Don't Know About Them)- Bart D. Ehrman


"1 Tim. 3:16, where most later manuscripts speak of Christ as "God made manifest in the flesh," this early manuscript originally spoke, instead, of Christ "who was made manifest in the flesh." The change is very slight in Greek...A later scribe had altered the original reading, so that it no longer read "who" but "God"...In other words, this later corrector changed the text in such a way as to stress Christ's divinity. It is striking to realize that the same correction occurred in four of our other early manuscripts of I Timothy, all of which have had correctors change the text in the same way, so that it now explicitly calls Jesus "God"." p 157, Misquoting Jesus: The Story Behind Who Changed The Bible and Why - Bart D. Ehrman

But as I have shown you even without quoting Bart Ehrman, you can see the contradictions, inconsistencies and mistakes in the Bible.