Mohammad's Message vs Jesus' Message

[loverOfTruth]

LoverofTruth: If I had to guess I'd say that you've never even read the Bible. You're just repeating what some imam told you about it.

Unable to respond to scriptural evidences provided, you are now coming up with baseless assumptions. Unlike most evangelical Christians, who just copy/paste some material from anti-Islamic website without actually citing the sources, I give reference to everything I take from any other sources.

 

[-Peacemaker-]

Unable to respond to scriptural evidences provided, you are now coming up with baseless assumptions. Unlike most evangelical Christians, who just copy/paste some material from anti-Islamic website without actually citing the sources, I give reference to everything I take from any other sources.

You forgot to quote the imam that gave you a bunch of Gospel passages and told you what they were supposed to mean

 

[loverOfTruth]

You forgot to quote the imam that gave you a bunch of Gospel passages and told you what they were supposed to mean

If you think Imams at the mosques have time or any interest to teach the inconsistencies, contradictions and mistakes in the Bible - you are quite mistaken. Quit talking non-sense and quit avoiding the real issue, if you have counter argument with evidence, feel free to bring those up.:run:

p.s: And yes, quit blaming the Imams for the obvious mistakes in the Bibles and for ignoring the obvious teachings of Jesus(pbuh) from the Bible in lieu of Paul's

 

[-Peacemaker-]

If you think Imams at the mosques have time or any interest to teach the inconsistencies, contradictions and mistakes in the Bible - you are quite mistaken. Quit talking non-sense and quit avoiding the real issue, if you have counter argument with evidence, feel free to bring those up.:run:

p.s: And yes, quit blaming the Imams for the obvious mistakes in the Bibles and for ignoring the obvious teachings of Jesus(pbuh) from the Bible in lieu of Paul's

TBH, you pretty much lost me after this piece of rock solid logic. It pretty much sapped my motivation to make a serious effort to keep this going with you.

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.

 

[Dingbat]

LoverofTruth: If I had to guess I'd say that you've never even read the Bible. You're just repeating what some imam told you about it.

Just like you, your pastor, and the Holy Qur'an.

 

[loverOfTruth]

TBH, you pretty much lost me after this piece of rock solid logic. It pretty much sapped my motivation to make a serious effort to keep this going with you.

Huh? What a lame excuse....you have not answered anything with scriptural evidence - and I have provided many.

 

[-Peacemaker-]

Just like you, your pastor, and the Holy Qur'an.

You may not believe this, and I don't really care either way but I had literally done no research whatsoever on the Koran before I opened it for the first time. I'd never heard a Christian preach about it or read a Christian commentary on the subject. The Koran is, in part, a reaction to the Bible. That being the case, it logical that there would be more preaching on the Bible in a mosque than the Koran in a church. I approached it knowing that it was a revered piece of literature by its readers and assumed that even if I didn't agree with its theology that I would at least respect its value as a piece of literature. I was SHOCKED at what I was confronted with. It literally read like a bunch of random thoughts strung together. I could see no clear thesis whatsoever in what I read. I doubted my own abilities to judge literature. I went online to try to learn more and what I learned was that much of the Western world sees the book the same way I did.

 

[Dingbat]

You may not believe this, and I don't really care either way but I had literally done no research whatsoever on the Koran before I opened it for the first time. I'd never heard a Christian commentary on the subject. I approached it knowing that it was a revered piece of literature by its readers and assumed that even if I didn't agree with its theology that I would at least respect its value as a piece of literature. I was SHOCKED at what I was confronted with. It literally read like a bunch of random thoughts strung together. I could see no clear thesis whatsoever in what I read. I doubted my own abilities to judge literature. I went online to try to learn more and what I learned was that much of the Western world saw the book the same way I did.

I am amused that an intellectual giant has the gall to speak for the entire Western World.:biglaugh:

 

[-Peacemaker-]

I am amused that an intellectual giant has the gall to speak for the entire Western World.:biglaugh:

Nice try. I said "much of" , the implication being the majority of the Western world not the entirety. I feel safe making that claim largely because Islam represents a small minority in this part of the world.

 

[Dingbat]

Nice try. I said "much of" , the implication being the majority of the Western world not the entirety. I feel safe making that claim largely because Islam represents a small minority in this part of the world.

The arrogance is astounding.

I mean really you think Westerners can't understand the Qur'an? Then pray tell how so many people have read it, written about it, and there are a plethora of academic programs dedicated to Islam? Magic? Or are they all filthy Middle Eastern Muslims? How do you explain the sharp rise of conversion in the West? People can't understand the Qur'an so you claim so they are being forced? Seriously the ignorance of your claims and the idea that you represent the whole of Western thought is ludicrous. All you are doing now that you have been bested with scripture is attacking people. Logical fallacy after logical fallacy everything from appeals to authority, ad hominem, and bandwagon.

 

[-Peacemaker-]

The arrogance is astounding.

I mean really you think Westerners can't understand the Qur'an? Then pray tell how so many people have read it, written about it, and there are a plethora of academic programs dedicated to Islam? Magic? Or are they all filthy Middle Eastern Muslims? How do you explain the sharp rise of conversion in the West? People can't understand the Qur'an so you claim so they are being forced? Seriously the ignorance of your claims and the idea that you represent the whole of Western thought is ludicrous. All you are doing now that you have been bested with scripture is attacking people. Logical fallacy after logical fallacy everything from appeals to authority, ad hominem, and bandwagon.

No one's been bested with any Scripture. The idea that verses from the Gospels as well as the over 40 OT prophecies predicting the messiah serve as some smoking gun in the case for Mohammed is ludicrous. Christians have spent an infinite more amount of time reading both the Old Testament and the New Testament. You see, for us these books are not corrupted meaning they are actually worthy of a significant amount of our time. Muslims start out with a claim that these books have been corrupted. The problem is that they can't actually pinpoint WHERE. Right away, credibility is lost and it's going to be difficult to get many people to even read "Scripture based" claims from such sources much less put a serious amount of effort into responding to them. Maybe in the Muslim mind the discernment process is simple: everything that the angel claiming to be Gabriel supposedly said that contradicts the Bible represents a "contamination" of the Scriptures. That may work for some but it's going to be difficult to get most educated people to take one seriously when this represents the bulk of that person's discernment process. And for every Bart Ehrman I could quote 100 New Testament scholars who contradict him. One of the arguments I might post if I was interested in addressing Ehrman's claims is that if the standards he used to evalute the NT's reliability were applied to the Koran, that it would be found to contain many similar "errors". What we're left with is a standoff, your scholars verses my scholars. It's funny how when it comes to worship and morality that academia tends to be more split than on subjects that have little bearing on our lives like spore germination of fungi. Could it be that the gods/God (ie things that people trust most) are making their presence felt? I think so. Also, I never said people couldn't understand the Koran. It's not that the book is intelligible.

 

[-Peacemaker-]

Also, if you guys have a genuine interest in reading prophecies about the messiah, I recommend starting at Isaiah 53. Then familiarize yourselves with the story of Jesus by get this....actually reading the Gospels as opposed to picking 1 or 2 isolated verses off your Islamic apologetic websites. Beware that there is surely a Muslim apologetic as well as a Jewish one which will attempt to argue why Jesus does not fit in favor of some alternate messiah. They will have supposedly learned men who argue their position just as Christians do as is the case with every issue involving God/gods (ie. what people trust most). IMO, people need to read it for themselves and allow it speak to them.

 

[F0uad]

But please quote this Hadith.




All of the above pretty much agree between Quran and Bible in my view.
I agree that, Christianity and Islam do not agree about above list. But That is due to interpretations, and people's understanding of Quran verus Bible.
For example, let's consider Quran alone. Do not different sects of islam, contredict each other regarding original teachings of Islam, and interpreting Quran?
Let alone, Christians versus Muslims. Their contradictions is mostly due to their own interpretations.
Now, you can choose one of the above, as you wish, and show one verse from Bible, and One verse from Quran to show they contradict. Then I will show, they do not contradict "If interpreted within the context and when considering the whole Message of the Books"

Well i am not sure if you are taking me serious or your simply ignoring what i have said. Since we both have different interpretations why cant we read the text as it is?

Lets say there is no Tasfeer(context/commentary) lets be Quranist and ''Hadithist'' for once. Are you still then insisting that they are the same?

Let me try this with a different argument who wrote the sayings in of the ''prophets'' in the bible when they were dead in that time? Who wrote Hebrews? Who wrote the gospels? According to Islam the Torah only came to Moses(pbuh) however when we read the Torah it describes how he died..

Can you give me any historical evidence a chain-of-narration or anything regarding the preservation of the OT or the NWT?

 

[Muffled]

There was a Mohammed that has been confirmed by writings from others in Arabia. There are no confirmations of anyone called Matthew, Mark, Luke, or John. I don't see how one could logically compare the two. Biblical scholars even acknowledge that they are not entirely sure where the Gospel manuscripts come from and who authored them entirely.

Paul claimed to have gone through a conversion but I find it odd he ends up back in the land of his masters with very little interaction with the rest of Christendom.

In other words what you are saying is that they are not historical figures because they weren't making front page news. You could say the same about me but that doesn't make me or tehm any less likely to be persons. I believe the reality is that someone did the writing.

I believe Paul's only master is Jesus. I believe there is plenty of evidence in Paul's writings that he had interaction with the churches.

 

[InvestigateTruth]

Well i am not sure if you are taking me serious or your simply ignoring what i have said. Since we both have different interpretations why cant we read the text as it is?

Lets say there is no Tasfeer(context/commentary) lets be Quranist and ''Hadithist'' for once. Are you still then insisting that they are the same?

Let me try this with a different argument who wrote the sayings in of the ''prophets'' in the bible when they were dead in that time? Who wrote Hebrews? Who wrote the gospels? According to Islam the Torah only came to Moses(pbuh) however when we read the Torah it describes how he died..

Can you give me any historical evidence a chain-of-narration or anything regarding the preservation of the OT or the NWT?

Haha, I think you are avoiding the comparison.
All I am saying, let's try and see if the "Concepts" in Quran, and the Bible are in contradiction.
If you believe Quran is perfect, and Bible is significantly corrupted, it should be very easy for you to show a couple important contradictions between Quran and Bible, wouldn't it be? Like I said, I agree with Authentic Hadithes.

Regarding the chain, I don't think that proves anything, as how can you prove the honesty and accuracy of those who, you would call part of the chain? Only God knows the Heart of Men.
Even If indeed It was possible to show the chain for Bible, One still can argue if those who were part of the chain distorted it. Or later, other people distorted it. So, I don't think that would get anywhere.

 

[Muffled]

Once again that is the biggest joke ('audible'). Did you hear it ? Oh I see - some people did, right ? How do you know ? Oh wait, through some anonymous authors who never met Jesus(pbuh) and told you so - who supposedly recorded events centuries after the supposed events have occurred. And we are back to square one. And by the way, even the originals of what those anonymous authors wrote doesn't exist anymore - its just copies of copies of copies of translations ... Sorry

And once again remember we have Two messages -the Qur'an and the Hadith.

The Hadith is essentially the more authentic version of your 'audible' accounts of events. How do I know ? Because people who told me heard from people who eventually knew Prophet Muhammad(pbuh) and saw him/heard him/lived with him and then passed it down with an unbroken chain of narration and the chains and authenticity of the reporters are vetted rigorously.

On the other hand, you don't even have the privilege of something similar to the Qur'an, the verbatim word of God, which was all written down at the time of Prophet Muhammad(pbuh) and then passed down generations after generations unaltered.

So no, Jesus(pbuh) is not playing the part of Gabriel - they are separate.

The authors aren't anonymous but are identified as Matthew, Mark, Luke and John

According to Jesus He speaks the word of God directly. I believe He is not playing the part of Gabriel because He is not an intermediary between man and God; He is God in the flesh.

This may be true but I believe all of the authors were either eyewitnesses or were recording the accounts of eyewitnesses.

This is not true. Scholars attribute the writings to the same generation in which Jesus lived.

I don't have information about early manuscripts but I am aware that documents are available in Greek which would have been the original language of Luke if not the others.

I believe the Hadith is highly suspect in its authenticity.

 

[Muffled]

I don't want to take anybody's side.

I think the Bible is not perfectly the Words of Jesus, the way Quran is the Words of Muhammad. So, the Bible is less accurate if we are comparing which one is a more accurate representation of original teachings.

Having said that, the fact is, this does not mean at this time, the Message of Muhammad is preserved better than Jesus, even if Quran is remained perfectly.
The reason is, Muslims often understand Quran based on Hadithes and Man-made Tafseers from their own sects. They often accept only the Hadithes and Tafseers from their own sects or school of thoughts.
According to Islamic Hadithes, Muhammad said Muslims will be divided into 72 or 73 sects. And in fact there are many sects, each interprets Quran somewhat differently, So, obviously not all of the interpretations can be true. The Sunnis and Shias often don't agree on Authenticity of Hadithes. Even Sunnis do not always trust their own Hadithes, or agree, and indeed there are seen many inaccuracies in most Hadithes, which non can deny.



On the other hand, I think Muslims often are exagerating small inaccuracies in Bible in order to claim it is severly corrupted.
But we should realize, finding a few inaccuracies, does not prove corruption in the fundamental teachings as ALL Four Gospels agree on fundamental teachings.



What we can find out from History, is that, Muhammad and the early Muslims did not believe that the Text of Injil and Torah were corrupted.

The word that Quran uses in the verses, which Moslems often refer to as indication of changes to Books, is "Tahrif".
According to Moslem Scholar Amin Ahsan, there are 4 types of tahrif,
which mainly means misinterpretation, and twisting the meaning, and not changing the actual Text.

Tahrif - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia


In fact, there are evidence that, Prophet Muhammad and early Moslems, believed that the meaning of them were twisted and misinterpreted, but not the Texts, and Quran in many verses confirms Injil and Torah, that existed at the time of Muhammad.

Upto 315 years after Muhammad, the recorded Historical evidence show that, the Muslims believed that the intention of Quran was to say that the Jews and Christians had misinterpreted the Text of their Books. For example:

Al-Bukhari reported that Ibn ‘Abbas (Cousin of Muhammad) said [the Jews] alter and add although none among Allah’s creation can remove the words from His book, they alter and distort their apparent meaning” – with this Hadith it is clear that those who walked with the Prophet (PBUH) believed the text of the Torah was original, while holding the view that the Jews perverted their interpretation.


In the year 796 Abu l-Rabi Muhammad ibn al-Layth (a courtier to Kalif Harun al-Rashid ) penned a letter to Constatine VI stating that the word “tahrif” should be read as the Jews had distorted their sense. “Whoever looks in the books of the prophets will find Muhammad (PBUH) mentioned, but the people of the book have obscured these references by changing their interpretation”. Ibn al-Layth categorically denies the possibility of passages having been added to, or omitted from, the scriptures, and he then goes on to use the text of the Torah as proof of the authenticity of the Torah (a belief both he and the kalif share).

300 year after Muhammad still, Abu Bakr Muhammad ibn al-Tayyib al-Baqillani was of the opinion that the words of Moses were still extant in their Hebrew original and that the Jews had inadvertently made mistakes in their translations.


It is only in later years, that some of Moslems started to say the actual text of the injil or Torah were corrupted.
Source:
http://www.judaism-islam.com/islam-teaches-torah-is-corrupted-tahrif-but-what-does-that-mean/


For example the verse 5:41, here is the translation by Muhammad Asad correctly:


"O APOSTLE! Be not grieved by those who vie with one another in denying the truth: such as those who say with their mouths, "We believe," the while their hearts do not believe; and such of the Jewish faith as eagerly listen to any falsehood, eagerly listen to other people without having come to thee [for enlightenment]. They distort the meaning of the [revealed] words, taking them out of their context, saying [to themselves], "If such-and-such [teaching] is vouchsafed unto you, accept it; but if it is not vouchsafed unto you, be on your guard!" [Be not grieved by them-] for if God wills anyone to be tempted to evil, thou canst in no wise prevail with God in his behalf. It is they whose hearts God is not willing to cleanse. Theirs shall be ignominy in this world, and awesome suffering in the life to come-" 5:41

http://www.islamawakened.com/quran/5/41/default.htm

The Verses that Quran revealed regarding "Tahrif" It has to do with writing certain Books and Interpretations regarding Injil or Torah, at the time of Muhammad. You would know that if you do your research as to what was the reason those verses were revealed historically.

Yes, There are verses in Quran that talk about "Modification" and alteration by the Religious Leaders. however, those refer to misinterpretations of ONLY particular cases.

One of them is concerning the penalty of adultery, when the prophet was to explain the penalty of Adultry to some Jewish leaders.
Which the Quran reveals "They distort the meaning of the [revealed] words, taking them out of their context" See Quran 4:44-46

It is clear, in that instance, by perverting the Text is meant "Misinterpretation" and "twisting" as the Torah still contains the verse that says punishment for adultery is death by stone.
Another example is: "A part of them heard the Word of God, and then, after they had understood it, distorted it, and knew that they did so." Quran 2:75
This verse, also indicates that the meaning of the Word of God hath been perverted, not that the actual words in the Text of Bible are changed.

Another example,: "Woe unto those who, with their own hands, transcribe the Book corruptly, and then say: ‘This is from God,’ that they may sell it for some mean price." Quran 2:79

This verse was revealed regarding the Jewish leaders who were living at the time of Muhammad. For they had written false interpretations to refute the claims of Muhammad.

As regrads to 5:13 and 5:14, I believe this is the correct translations, by Asad:

"Then, for having broken their solemn pledge, We rejected them and caused their hearts to harden-[so that now] they distort the meaning of the [re-vealed] words, taking them out of their context; and they have forgotten much of what they had been told to bear in mind; and from all but a few of them thou wilt always experience treachery. But pardon them, and forbear: verily, God loves the doers of good."
http://www.islamawakened.com/quran/5/13/default.htm

Thus again, Quran is saying they distorted the meaning of the Text. They forgot to follow the teachings. It does not say, the actual text was distorted.


Therefore, why wouldn't Muslims go with what Prophet Muhammad taught, and what His True Companions believed, in order to reach to original view of Islam. I think Many Muslims agree The Islam that exist today, are mere sects with many additional ideas and Tafseers that are man-made, which I think, this idea is surely another man-made addition to original Islam.

- Peace

You can think that but I believe you will have no evidence to back up your thinking.

The Qu'ran is a lot less reliable because there are many more years between what He said and when people wrote it down.

 

[loverOfTruth]

Also, if you guys have a genuine interest in reading prophecies about the messiah, I recommend starting at Isaiah 53. Then familiarize yourselves with the story of Jesus by get this....actually reading the Gospels as opposed to picking 1 or 2 isolated verses off your Islamic apologetic websites. Beware that there is surely a Muslim apologetic as well as a Jewish one which will attempt to argue why Jesus does not fit in favor of some alternate messiah. They will have supposedly learned men who argue their position just as Christians do as is the case with every issue involving God/gods (ie. what people trust most). IMO, people need to read it for themselves and allow it speak to them.

That's the best you could come up with - Isaiah 53 and that even without handling/responding to any of the verses I have stated. You just have your excuse of 'Imam' and now 'Islamic/Muslim apologetic' sites. All I have done is given you plain old biblical passages and gave my explanation as to why it fails to prove your point - the least you could do (if you were really able to, regardless of where you think it came from), is respond to those with a valid explanation. But you failed miserably. Anyway, I'll respond to your Isaiah 53 when I get better from my viral fever. Watch out for that

 

[loverOfTruth]

You can think that but I believe you will have no evidence to back up your thinking.

The Qu'ran is a lot less reliable because there are many more years between what He said and when people wrote it down.

Is that the Holy Ghost in you speaking ? Cause all available historical facts and evidences suggest otherwise. But you are free to live in your state of denial.

 

[InvestigateTruth]

You can think that but I believe you will have no evidence to back up your thinking.

The Qu'ran is a lot less reliable because there are many more years between what He said and when people wrote it down.

Well, I think there is a more clear History how Quran was written than how Bible.
But, I really don't care about this topic as much, since I believe both Quran and Bible were meant for old times. They are just too old.
But I agree that, even about Quran it is not possible to prove, they are 100% the Words of Muhammad.
I just believe that, because Baha'i Scriptures confirm that.

- Peace