Proof of Islam?

[Duncan]

3. After fleeing to Medina, Mohammad told the people that the Bible was corrupted. When was it corrupted?

Brother every eminent christian scholar know the Bible is corrupted and to fully understand what a Muslim means when he says that the Bible is corrupted, we must first understand what in his mind is the concept of uncorrupted revealed literature. Briefly stated, Muslims have basically two criteria for this.

Firstly, the Muslim mind contrary to (a majority of) the early Christians, at least such Christians as played a major role in the canonization1 of the books of the New Testament, does not believe that God's revelation is accessible to all men without distinction2. On the contrary, it believes that God reveals His words to those whom He selects from amongst men. Such men are of impeccable character and repute. They bring with them clear evidence of their divine authority. These men are called Prophets, or Messengers of God, by the Muslims. Whatever they say and whatever they do with reference to religious beliefs or actions gets the status of True Religious Teachings. No one other than the Prophets or Messengers of God holds this position. The apostles of any Prophet, are by their very name, subordinate to these Prophets or Messengers of God. They only deliver the message of a Prophet and do not speak or write with divine inspiration. Consequently, Muslims believe that the origin of any divine literature must lie with some Prophet (and thus God) and not with a Prophet's disciples or apostles.

Secondly, such writings, actions or sayings of the Prophets must come down to their followers through unbroken and absolutely dependable chains of transmission. For instance, it should not be so that a compilation of the sayings of a Prophet is suddenly made available to the world, while in the past it is not known to exist. If such be the case, the Muslim mind would not base its religious beliefs3 on such a narrative. This also means that such a transmission must be free of any kind of alteration, and must be delivered to the later people in exactly the same words as it was delivered to the companions of a Prophet.

Thus, when a Muslim says that the text of the Bible is corrupted, all that he means is that:

1. The books that comprise the Bible are not the ones given by the respective prophets to whom they are ascribed.

2. These books do not meet the criteria of unbroken and dependable chains of transmission, and

3. A number of intentional and unintentional changes have occurred in the text of these books.

It should be borne in mind that Muslims do believe that the Torah was revealed to Moses, and the Gospel was revealed to Jesus. But it is pretty obvious from these books as they appear in the Bible today that neither of the two books are the same ones which were revealed to these Prophets of Allah or even dictated by them. They are more of a historian's account of the lives and teachings of Moses and Jesus respectively than books revealed to them.

The Bible that is normally read around the world today is basically a translation of the (narration of the) original text. The various books that constitute the Bible today were first written in languages other than English or German or Urdu or Arabic. For example, the Genesis is thought to be originally written in Hebrew. So is Exodus and the other books of the Pentateuch.

Let us first consider the Torah (or the Pentateuch). The Torah is believed to be revealed by God to Moses. Thus it is believed to be revealed somewhere around the 13th century BC. But the books that we have with us today that constitute the Torah do not date as farther back. Furthermore, experts on the text of the Bible also believe that the Torah, as we have it now, was not written or even dictated by Moses himself. Geddes MacGregor, in his book, "The Bible in the Making" writes:

All you have to do to see that the Old Testament as we know it did not come straight from the pen of its several authors, is to look at the first three chapters of Genesis. There you will find two quite distinct accounts of the creation of man. The account in the first chapter is startling different from the account in the second and third.

There is no doubt that these two stories of the creation of man which have been set down together in the opening chapters of Genesis belong to very different periods. The second is by far the more primitive one, and between the writings of the two narratives about as much time elapsed, as has elapsed between the day of Christopher Columbus and our own. The disparity is obvious from the character of the stories themselves: you can detect it in reading them alongside each other in an English Bible. If you were reading them in Hebrew you would be struck by the fact that throughout the first account, the word used for "God" is from "Elohim", while in the second the name assigned is that of "Yahweh".

The use of the term "Elohim" goes further back, however, than the date of the passages in Genesis in which it is used. A study of various passages in the Hebrew Bible shows that there must have been originally two documents, of which the author of the more primitive one used the name Yahweh in referring to God, while the author of the other used the name Elohim. Scholars call the first document J, from "Jahveh" ("Yahweh"), and the second document E, from "Elohim". (London: William Clowes and Sons Ltd, 1961, pp. 23-24,)

The author has then described briefly how the first six books of the Hebrew Bible have come down to us. A summary of the writer's description follows4:

J was the product of the southern kingdom, while E of the northern kingdom. Some time after 721 BC, a writer in the southern kingdom put these two documents together with additions of his own. The work of this scholar is called JE by the modern scholars. In the following century, JE was enlarged by the addition of the discourses of Deuteronomy (these are apparently, addresses delivered by Moses, shortly before his death)5. Around 500 BC, a school of priests undertook further editorial revision. Finally, in the fifth century BC, this codification was incorporated with JE as revised and expanded by the Deuteronomic editor.

In other words, J and E are the two most primitive narrations of the life and teachings of Moses (though not written or dictated by him). Both these narratives are not similar, and differ with each other in many respects. J (written somewhere around 850 BC)6 and E (around 750 BC) were combined and added upon in (around) 650 BC and the resulting document was called JE. In (around) 550 BC, further additions were made from a document called D (dated around 621 BC) and thus, the document now became JED. In (around) 400 BC, priestly ritual laws, (written around 500 - 450 BC) were added to JED - now growing to JEDP. JEDP, as it became in 400 BC, is the Pentateuch (The Torah) as we now know it. Thus, a book considered and believed to be written by and revealed to Moses (around the 13th century) is actually written in the fourth or the fifth century7.

This then is the reality about the Torah. No doubt, the text of these books do contain parts of revelations to Moses, but, the situation as it actually stands does not endorse that all the material contained therein is revelation -- all revelation. Consequently, Geddes MacGregor writes:

There are, indeed, probably echoes in the Old Testament itself of dissatisfaction with the revisions. Jeremiah, for instance, having questioned whether his compatriots are justified in their confidence in possessing the Law of God revealed to Moses, warns them: Behold, the false pen of the scribes hath wrought falsely (Jeremiah viii.).

The position of most of the other books of the Old Testament is not much different.

 

[Duncan]

3. After fleeing to Medina, Mohammad told the people that the Bible was corrupted. When was it corrupted?

Sorry forgot to mention the NT, the New Testament does not consist of any book that even claims to be written or dictated or even proposed to be written by Jesus -- the prophet of God (as Muslims believe him to be), to whom, as the Muslims believe, the real Injil was revealed. All the New Testament consists of, besides the book called "Revelation", are four biographies of Jesus claimed to be written by his disciples, and some letters (claimed to be) of his disciples. The case of "Revelation" is just a little bit different, as it is presented completely as a narrative of a dialogue of Jesus with one of his disciples. Recognizing this fact, C. F. Evans writes:

The only New Testament book, which appears to have been written self-consciously as if for canonical status (but only until the imminent end) is Revelation, with its solemn blessing on those who read and hear it and its threat of damnation on anyone who adds to or subtracts from it, but this is because writing had become a solemn and mysterious act in the apocalyptic tradition, and it is significant that Revelation, though a mosaic of Old Testament phrases and allusions, nowhere makes any explicit citation from it. (The Cambridge History of the Bible, Vol 1, Cambridge: University Printing House, 1970, p. 234)

It seems that in the beginning all the writings now included in the New Testament with many others that were in circulation among Christians were written only to preserve the life and teachings of Jesus peace be upon him, as was understood or interpreted by their respective writers. Most of these writings it seems were never meant, initially, to become the basis or canons of a new religion. So whoever had anything related to the life and teachings of Jesus peace be upon him, he wrote it down. This is quite understandable. Disciples of all great people tend to do this and, no doubt, such writings are of great importance for a student of history. But placing them at the exalted status of canons or basis of a new religious belief does not seem to be quite justified. Thus, it seems that initially no one even thought about collecting and publishing all the writings that were in circulation8 and at that time they were probably not even as much revered as they later became. C. F. Evans writes:

So long as Christianity stood close to Judaism, or was predominantly Jewish, scripture remained the Old Testament, and this situation can be seen persisting in such a document as I Clement, with its frequent and almost exclusive appeal to the Old Testament text. The elevation of Christian writings to the position of a new canon, like those writings themselves, was primarily the work of Gentile Christianity, whose literature also betrays a feeling that the very existence of the Old Testament was now a problem to be solved and that there was need of some new and specifically Christian authority. ... what eventually took place was precisely what in the earliest days of the Church could hardly have been conceived, namely, the creation of a further Bible along with that already in existence, which was to turn it into the first of two, and in the end to relegate it to the position of 'old' in a Bible now made up of two testaments. The history of the development of the New Testament Canon is the history of the process by which books written for the most part for other purposes and from other motives came to be given this unique status; and the study of the New Testament is in part an investigation of why there were any such writings to canonize, and of how, and in what circumstances, they came to possess such qualities as fitted them for their new role, and made it impossible for them to continue simply as an expansion of, or supplement to, something else. (The Cambridge History of the Bible, Vol 1, Cambridge: University Printing House, 1970, pp. 234-235)

He further writes:

During the apostolic age the Christian Bible consisted of the Old Testament alone. (The Cambridge History of the Bible, Vol 1, Cambridge: University Printing House, 1970, p. 286)

Consequently, it seems quite obvious that this status was given to these books only at a later stage. Initially, they were neither considered as divine nor as canons of a new religion. They were simply regarded but a narration of the teachings of a Prophet by such people as were his companions or by those who had been companions of his companions. Nothing more than that. Furthermore, to improve the attitude towards them, it was claimed that they were divinely inspired. Geddes MacGregor writes:

Prominent in the measures taken to safeguard the Church against the dangers that beset it was the attempt to provide a body of Scripture that could be set side by side with the Old Testament and have, for Christians, a comparable status. But this movement to limit the Christians Scriptures to a fixed number of books was much stronger among some Christian communities than among others. (The Bible in the Making, Cambridge: William Clowes and Sons Ltd, 1961, pp. 39-40)

This process of selecting some of the books that were in circulation at that time as more authoritative and making a New Testament on their basis began in the second century. By the end of the second century churches in the West, especially Rome, accepted some books to be more authoritative and started calling them the New Testament. In this categorization of the books in circulation, Revelation, the Epistle to the Hebrews, II Peter, II and III John, and Jude were considered to be less authoritative.9 While among the Eastern or Greek Fathers, there was considerable disagreement even in the fourth century10.

 

[Duncan]

3. After fleeing to Medina, Mohammad told the people that the Bible was corrupted. When was it corrupted?

If you look at the "corruption" alleged.

A few methods have been devised by textual scholars of the Bible to infer which of the text given in the old manuscripts is most likely that of the originally written document. A number of books have been written on the explanation of these methods. One such book is Bruce M. Metzger's "The Text of the New Testament: Its Transmission, Corruption and Restoration". The author, in the preface of the book has briefly mentioned why it is important to apply textual criticism on the Bible. He states:

The necessity of applying textual criticism to the books of the New Testament arises from two circumstances: (a) none of the original documents is extant, and (b) the existing copies differ from one another. The textual critic seeks to ascertain from the divergent copies which form of the text should be regarded as most nearly conforming to the original. (Oxford: The University Press, 1964, Preface)

This statement, in other words simply means that the oldest of the manuscripts of the New Testament that we have, do not comply with each other. In such a state, a simple mind, is obviously prone to believing that the text of the New Testament from its oldest of days was not safe from corruption.

C. F. Evans after a detailed analysis of the various reasons that can be ascribed to the variant readings of the New Testament presents his conclusion in the following words:

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

Bruce M. Metzger has outlined the causes of error in the transmission of the text of the New Testament, in a separate chapter of his book, "The Text of The New Testament". He has broadly divided such errors into two categories: (a) Unintentional Changes, and (b) Intentional Changes. A summary of the unintentional changes, he mentions, follows:

Errors Arising from Faulty Eyesight: This maybe of any one of different natures. For example, a scribe with such a problem, found it difficult to distinguish between Greek letters that resemble one another; this was especially the case where the previous copyist had not written with care. Then, there can be a problem of jumping from one line to other and thereby omitting a line or a few lines, if both the lines ended or began with similar words. Errors Arising from Faulty Hearing: Such problem can especially arise when the scribe is making a copy from dictation. A scribe is more prone to this problem in the case of two or more words with the same pronunciation. Errors of the Mind: This category of errors seem to have arisen during the particular instance when the copyist was holding a sentence or a phrase in his mind, whether after looking at the previous copy, if the copy was made by looking at a previous copy, or after hearing the sentence, if the copy was made from dictation. This error can result in a number of variations in the text. For example, the copyist may unintentionally substitute a word with a synonymous word. The sequence of words may be unintentionally altered. The letters of a word may be so transported that causes a different word to be written in the copy being so made. The passage being so written may be replaced in the mind of the scribe with a similar passage that is better known to the scribe. Errors of Judgement: Such errors may arise when a scribe mistakes some words written on the margin of a previously written manuscript to be part of the text being written. (Oxford: The University Press, 1964, pp.186-195)

A summary of the unintentional changes, the author mentions, is give below:

Changes Involving Spelling and Grammar: The scribe may, with a motive of correction, change or alter the spelling of a word or the sequence of words in a sentence. Harmonistic Corruptions: Since the monks normally knew portions of the Scriptures by heart, they tended to make changes in the text to harmonize discordant parallels or quotations. Addition of Natural Complements and Similar Adjuncts: Where the scribe thought a phrase to be missing a few words that, in his opinion, should have been there, he added such words as he thought were obviously missing and were meant to be there. Clearing up Historical and Geographical Difficulties: The scribes who were aware of a particular historical or geographical reference being made in the text and found that reference to be incorrect in some way, tended to correct such reference. Conflation of Readings: When the same passage was given differently in different manuscripts most scribes incorporated both readings in the new copy which they were writing. Alterations made because of Doctrinal Considerations: When the words of the manuscript which was used as a source differed from or negated the doctrine to which the scribe ascribed himself, he was tempted to alter the words in a way that prevented the particular doctrine from losing its ground. Addition of Miscellaneous Details: Some scribes had the tendency of adding details to some event that was referred to in the text. (Oxford: The University Press, 1964, pp.195-206)

The author has given a number of examples under each sub-category of these changes.

This, then, is what confuses the Muslim. Muslims do not believe that the books that now constitute the New Testament were written by Jesus, whereas, the basis of Christianity is ascribed to him. Even if these books were ascribed to Jesus, the Muslims have never been provided with unbroken and dependable chains of transmission of these books from one generation to the next. The case of the Torah is no different. Lastly, even experts on the text of the Bible believe that it has not remained safe from intentional and/or unintentional changes in the text. Consequently, in the situation, as it stands, Muslims have no option but to believe that the books of the Bible as we have them today do not truly reflect the true teachings of the Prophets to whom they are ascribed.

 

[Duncan]

4. Who are the parents of the Virgin Mary?

Mary, the Mother of Jesus, holds a very special position in Islam, and God proclaims her to be the best woman amongst all humanity, whom He chose above all other women due to her piety and devotion.

“And (mention) when the angels said, ‘O Mary! Indeed God has chosen you, and purified you, and has chosen you above all other women of the worlds. O Mary! Be devoutly obedient to your Lord and prostrate and bow with those bow (in prayer).’” (Quran 3:42-43)

She was also made by God an example to follow, as He said:

“And (God sets forth the example for those who Believe) of Mary, the daughter of Heli, who guarded her chastity, so We blew into it through Our Angel (i.e., Gabriel), and she believed in the words of her Lord and His Scriptures and was of the devoutly obedient.” (Quran 66:12)

Indeed she was a woman who was fit to bring such a miracle as that of Jesus, who was born without a father. She was known for her piety and chastity, and if it were any different, then none would have believed her claim to have given birth while remaining in a state of virginity, a belief and fact to which Islam holds true. Her special nature was one which many miracles proved of from her early childhood. Let us recount what God revealed in regards to the beautiful story of Mary.

So to answer your question, Mary was born to Heli and his wife Hannah, who was of Davidic descent, thus coming from a family of Prophets, from Abraham, to Noah, to Adam, may the Peace and Blessings of God be on them all. As mentioned in the verse, she was born to the chosen family of Heli, who was born into the chosen family of Abraham, who was also born into a chosen family. If you are interested in full story let me know and I will keep writing.

 

[Tokita]

Mary, the Mother of Jesus, holds a very special position in Islam, and God proclaims her to be the best woman amongst all humanity, whom He chose above all other women due to her piety and devotion.

“And (mention) when the angels said, ‘O Mary! Indeed God has chosen you, and purified you, and has chosen you above all other women of the worlds. O Mary! Be devoutly obedient to your Lord and prostrate and bow with those bow (in prayer).’” (Quran 3:42-43)

She was also made by God an example to follow, as He said:

“And (God sets forth the example for those who Believe) of Mary, the daughter of Heli, who guarded her chastity, so We blew into it through Our Angel (i.e., Gabriel), and she believed in the words of her Lord and His Scriptures and was of the devoutly obedient.” (Quran 66:12)

Indeed she was a woman who was fit to bring such a miracle as that of Jesus, who was born without a father. She was known for her piety and chastity, and if it were any different, then none would have believed her claim to have given birth while remaining in a state of virginity, a belief and fact to which Islam holds true. Her special nature was one which many miracles proved of from her early childhood. Let us recount what God revealed in regards to the beautiful story of Mary.

So to answer your question, Mary was born to Heli and his wife Hannah, who was of Davidic descent, thus coming from a family of Prophets, from Abraham, to Noah, to Adam, may the Peace and Blessings of God be on them all. As mentioned in the verse, she was born to the chosen family of Heli, who was born into the chosen family of Abraham, who was also born into a chosen family. If you are interested in full story let me know and I will keep writing.

Thanks for trying to explain your point of view regarding Trinity. Trinity is the hardest thing for Muslims to accept because Shirk is considered blasphemy. My comment to that is simple.
1. Your interpretation of when Jesus asked the Father that they "all may be one as you and I as One" is erroneous. The meaning of that id Jesus wanted the Church to remain in unity with Him and His teaching as He and God and One. The Church is considered the body of Christ.
2. the Old Testament introduced us to how man came to know God and the real sinfulness of man and his desperate need for salvation. In Christianity and Judaism, even the prophets sin.
3. The New Testament shows us the real nature of God as a loving, caring, merciful and unrevengeful God. He is not demanding but humble. He taught us the real meaning of humility because He loves us and wishes all to be saved.
4. God is not like man and He does not think like us. Islam limits God and lets Him sound like a narrow-minded individual who demands absolute obedience and that He is not the Father but a demanding creator. In Christianity, He is the loving caring Father that cares about His children.
5. If you believe that God cannot be what He chooses then you limit Him. Islam considers God as one who humiliates Himself by becoming a Human. Ahmed Deedat, whom I am sure you have heard of, once said unintelligently, "when Jesus dies on the cross, who was taking care of the world?" Do you see how simple and desert type mentality such people think and limit God?
6. Regarding the Seven Spirits of God that you mentioned, I recommend that you read the Book of Isaiah. If one says to you that you have the spirit of understanding, does that mean you have two spirits? Also, in Christianity, the number seven implies completeness.

The prophet Isaiah says, “The Spirit of God shall rest on Him;” and thereafter calls our attention to that Spirit in His septenary work or grace, by saying, “The spirit of wisdom and understanding, the spirit of counsel and might, the spirit of knowledge and piety; and He shall be filled with the spirit of the fear of God.” Isaiah 11:2-3

And what of the Revelation? Are they not there called the seven Spirits of God, Revelation 3:1 while there is only one and the same Spirit dividing to every one severally as He will? 1 Corinthians 12:11 But the septenary operation of the one Spirit was so called by the Spirit Himself, whose own presence in the writer led to their being spoken of as the seven Spirits."

You did not answer my question regarding the corruption of the Bible. When, how, and where it was corrupted. If you are looking at translations where are the areas of corruption? The Bible was pronounced as corrupt by Muhammad only after he was chased out of Mecca because people found out who he really was and could not find his name in the Bible as in the verse you listed in an earlier post. By the way, all of the verses you list I know and some by heart.

Who are Sabians and who are the Merriamites and what are their rituals? Do you know?

 

[Tokita]

If you look at the "corruption" alleged.

A few methods have been devised by textual scholars of the Bible to infer which of the text given in the old manuscripts is most likely that of the originally written document. A number of books have been written on the explanation of these methods. One such book is Bruce M. Metzger's "The Text of the New Testament: Its Transmission, Corruption and Restoration". The author, in the preface of the book has briefly mentioned why it is important to apply textual criticism on the Bible. He states:

The necessity of applying textual criticism to the books of the New Testament arises from two circumstances: (a) none of the original documents is extant, and (b) the existing copies differ from one another. The textual critic seeks to ascertain from the divergent copies which form of the text should be regarded as most nearly conforming to the original. (Oxford: The University Press, 1964, Preface)

This statement, in other words simply means that the oldest of the manuscripts of the New Testament that we have, do not comply with each other. In such a state, a simple mind, is obviously prone to believing that the text of the New Testament from its oldest of days was not safe from corruption.

C. F. Evans after a detailed analysis of the various reasons that can be ascribed to the variant readings of the New Testament presents his conclusion in the following words:

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

Bruce M. Metzger has outlined the causes of error in the transmission of the text of the New Testament, in a separate chapter of his book, "The Text of The New Testament". He has broadly divided such errors into two categories: (a) Unintentional Changes, and (b) Intentional Changes. A summary of the unintentional changes, he mentions, follows:

Errors Arising from Faulty Eyesight: This maybe of any one of different natures. For example, a scribe with such a problem, found it difficult to distinguish between Greek letters that resemble one another; this was especially the case where the previous copyist had not written with care. Then, there can be a problem of jumping from one line to other and thereby omitting a line or a few lines, if both the lines ended or began with similar words. Errors Arising from Faulty Hearing: Such problem can especially arise when the scribe is making a copy from dictation. A scribe is more prone to this problem in the case of two or more words with the same pronunciation. Errors of the Mind: This category of errors seem to have arisen during the particular instance when the copyist was holding a sentence or a phrase in his mind, whether after looking at the previous copy, if the copy was made by looking at a previous copy, or after hearing the sentence, if the copy was made from dictation. This error can result in a number of variations in the text. For example, the copyist may unintentionally substitute a word with a synonymous word. The sequence of words may be unintentionally altered. The letters of a word may be so transported that causes a different word to be written in the copy being so made. The passage being so written may be replaced in the mind of the scribe with a similar passage that is better known to the scribe. Errors of Judgement: Such errors may arise when a scribe mistakes some words written on the margin of a previously written manuscript to be part of the text being written. (Oxford: The University Press, 1964, pp.186-195)

A summary of the unintentional changes, the author mentions, is give below:

Changes Involving Spelling and Grammar: The scribe may, with a motive of correction, change or alter the spelling of a word or the sequence of words in a sentence. Harmonistic Corruptions: Since the monks normally knew portions of the Scriptures by heart, they tended to make changes in the text to harmonize discordant parallels or quotations. Addition of Natural Complements and Similar Adjuncts: Where the scribe thought a phrase to be missing a few words that, in his opinion, should have been there, he added such words as he thought were obviously missing and were meant to be there. Clearing up Historical and Geographical Difficulties: The scribes who were aware of a particular historical or geographical reference being made in the text and found that reference to be incorrect in some way, tended to correct such reference. Conflation of Readings: When the same passage was given differently in different manuscripts most scribes incorporated both readings in the new copy which they were writing. Alterations made because of Doctrinal Considerations: When the words of the manuscript which was used as a source differed from or negated the doctrine to which the scribe ascribed himself, he was tempted to alter the words in a way that prevented the particular doctrine from losing its ground. Addition of Miscellaneous Details: Some scribes had the tendency of adding details to some event that was referred to in the text. (Oxford: The University Press, 1964, pp.195-206)

The author has given a number of examples under each sub-category of these changes.

This, then, is what confuses the Muslim. Muslims do not believe that the books that now constitute the New Testament were written by Jesus, whereas, the basis of Christianity is ascribed to him. Even if these books were ascribed to Jesus, the Muslims have never been provided with unbroken and dependable chains of transmission of these books from one generation to the next. The case of the Torah is no different. Lastly, even experts on the text of the Bible believe that it has not remained safe from intentional and/or unintentional changes in the text. Consequently, in the situation, as it stands, Muslims have no option but to believe that the books of the Bible as we have them today do not truly reflect the true teachings of the Prophets to whom they are ascribed.

Please don't copy rhetoric, I can give thousands of pages of the same if you wish.
Simply answer the questions direct: When was the Bible corrupted, how, and by whom. The Hadith is very clear and the Quran as well - that was before Muhammad was ousted to Medina. I know of Muslims do not like to answer and tend to deflect their answers. Here is a Sura that discourages people from answering direct questions:

"O ye who believe! Ask not questions about things which if made plain to you, may cause you trouble. Some people before you did ask such questions, and on that account lost their faith." (Surah 5:101-102).

Muhammad himself did not like people to question him:
"The Holy Prophet himself forbade people to ask questions ...so do not try to probe into such things." (The Meaning of the Qur'an, Maududi, vol. III, pgs. 76-77)

"The prophet was asked about things which he did not like, and when the questioner insisted, the Prophet got angry. (vol. 1, no. 92) The Prophet got angry and his cheeks or his face became red. (vol. 1, no. 91) "Allah has hated you...[for] asking too many questions." (vol. 2, no. 555; and vol. 3, no. 591, Bukhari's Hadith commenting on Muhammad's reaction to hostile questioners.)

Also, the Hadith is very clear, Muhammad judged people by the Bible. Sura 29.46. "Do not argue with those who were given the Book save in the best way, unless it be those of them who are given to wrongdoing (and, therefore, not accessible to courteous argument). Say (to them): "We believe in what has been sent down to us and what was sent down to you, and your God and our God is one and the same. We are Muslims wholly submitted to Him."

Finally, The Book of Isaiah was written 500 years before Jesus is verbatim like in the Bible we have. The Bible is written in many languages and there are many interpretations. The Quran in Arabic, although there are several Qurans (Sana Quran is different) Muslims do not speak of that.

Salvation comes through One who loves humanity. The One who is loving, caring, passionate, and delivers what people ask. I quoted the Bible in a past post "Ask in My Name and you shall receive" Jesus said. You can talk about what you believe all day long but can you really prove it. The statement I quote will prove to you who Jesus really is. It will put all of your arguments to sleep.

 

[Tokita]

Sorry forgot to mention the NT, the New Testament does not consist of any book that even claims to be written or dictated or even proposed to be written by Jesus -- the prophet of God (as Muslims believe him to be), to whom, as the Muslims believe, the real Injil was revealed. All the New Testament consists of, besides the book called "Revelation", are four biographies of Jesus claimed to be written by his disciples, and some letters (claimed to be) of his disciples. The case of "Revelation" is just a little bit different, as it is presented completely as a narrative of a dialogue of Jesus with one of his disciples. Recognizing this fact, C. F. Evans writes:

The only New Testament book, which appears to have been written self-consciously as if for canonical status (but only until the imminent end) is Revelation, with its solemn blessing on those who read and hear it and its threat of damnation on anyone who adds to or subtracts from it, but this is because writing had become a solemn and mysterious act in the apocalyptic tradition, and it is significant that Revelation, though a mosaic of Old Testament phrases and allusions, nowhere makes any explicit citation from it. (The Cambridge History of the Bible, Vol 1, Cambridge: University Printing House, 1970, p. 234)

It seems that in the beginning all the writings now included in the New Testament with many others that were in circulation among Christians were written only to preserve the life and teachings of Jesus peace be upon him, as was understood or interpreted by their respective writers. Most of these writings it seems were never meant, initially, to become the basis or canons of a new religion. So whoever had anything related to the life and teachings of Jesus peace be upon him, he wrote it down. This is quite understandable. Disciples of all great people tend to do this and, no doubt, such writings are of great importance for a student of history. But placing them at the exalted status of canons or basis of a new religious belief does not seem to be quite justified. Thus, it seems that initially no one even thought about collecting and publishing all the writings that were in circulation8 and at that time they were probably not even as much revered as they later became. C. F. Evans writes:

So long as Christianity stood close to Judaism, or was predominantly Jewish, scripture remained the Old Testament, and this situation can be seen persisting in such a document as I Clement, with its frequent and almost exclusive appeal to the Old Testament text. The elevation of Christian writings to the position of a new canon, like those writings themselves, was primarily the work of Gentile Christianity, whose literature also betrays a feeling that the very existence of the Old Testament was now a problem to be solved and that there was need of some new and specifically Christian authority. ... what eventually took place was precisely what in the earliest days of the Church could hardly have been conceived, namely, the creation of a further Bible along with that already in existence, which was to turn it into the first of two, and in the end to relegate it to the position of 'old' in a Bible now made up of two testaments. The history of the development of the New Testament Canon is the history of the process by which books written for the most part for other purposes and from other motives came to be given this unique status; and the study of the New Testament is in part an investigation of why there were any such writings to canonize, and of how, and in what circumstances, they came to possess such qualities as fitted them for their new role, and made it impossible for them to continue simply as an expansion of, or supplement to, something else. (The Cambridge History of the Bible, Vol 1, Cambridge: University Printing House, 1970, pp. 234-235)

He further writes:

During the apostolic age the Christian Bible consisted of the Old Testament alone. (The Cambridge History of the Bible, Vol 1, Cambridge: University Printing House, 1970, p. 286)

Consequently, it seems quite obvious that this status was given to these books only at a later stage. Initially, they were neither considered as divine nor as canons of a new religion. They were simply regarded but a narration of the teachings of a Prophet by such people as were his companions or by those who had been companions of his companions. Nothing more than that. Furthermore, to improve the attitude towards them, it was claimed that they were divinely inspired. Geddes MacGregor writes:

Prominent in the measures taken to safeguard the Church against the dangers that beset it was the attempt to provide a body of Scripture that could be set side by side with the Old Testament and have, for Christians, a comparable status. But this movement to limit the Christians Scriptures to a fixed number of books was much stronger among some Christian communities than among others. (The Bible in the Making, Cambridge: William Clowes and Sons Ltd, 1961, pp. 39-40)

This process of selecting some of the books that were in circulation at that time as more authoritative and making a New Testament on their basis began in the second century. By the end of the second century churches in the West, especially Rome, accepted some books to be more authoritative and started calling them the New Testament. In this categorization of the books in circulation, Revelation, the Epistle to the Hebrews, II Peter, II and III John, and Jude were considered to be less authoritative.9 While among the Eastern or Greek Fathers, there was considerable disagreement even in the fourth century10.

Jesus did not come to write the Bible. He did not need to. He left people to witness and record His message and His role. I have already quoted Al-Razi about the Quran.

 

[Duncan]

Thanks for trying to explain your point of view regarding Trinity. Trinity is the hardest thing for Muslims to accept because Shirk is considered blasphemy. My comment to that is simple.
1. Your interpretation of when Jesus asked the Father that they "all may be one as you and I as One" is erroneous. The meaning of that id Jesus wanted the Church to remain in unity with Him and His teaching as He and God and One. The Church is considered the body of Christ.
2. the Old Testament introduced us to how man came to know God and the real sinfulness of man and his desperate need for salvation. In Christianity and Judaism, even the prophets sin.
3. The New Testament shows us the real nature of God as a loving, caring, merciful and unrevengeful God. He is not demanding but humble. He taught us the real meaning of humility because He loves us and wishes all to be saved.
4. God is not like man and He does not think like us. Islam limits God and lets Him sound like a narrow-minded individual who demands absolute obedience and that He is not the Father but a demanding creator. In Christianity, He is the loving caring Father that cares about His children.
5. If you believe that God cannot be what He chooses then you limit Him. Islam considers God as one who humiliates Himself by becoming a Human. Ahmed Deedat, whom I am sure you have heard of, once said unintelligently, "when Jesus dies on the cross, who was taking care of the world?" Do you see how simple and desert type mentality such people think and limit God?
6. Regarding the Seven Spirits of God that you mentioned, I recommend that you read the Book of Isaiah. If one says to you that you have the spirit of understanding, does that mean you have two spirits? Also, in Christianity, the number seven implies completeness.

No thanks to you for taking time to read and reply. I know trinity was invented, I can even tell you invented it if you are interested to know.

I mean even if we use the Christian mathematical equation of "trinity", it does not add up. The Christian's technique of addition is that {Father}& {Son} & {Holy Spirit} are all "equal" and therefore 1.0. Yet the Bible gives us a different equation for the numerical value of Jesus.

Jesus admits "..my Father is greater than I", {John 14:28}

This subtracts a Decimal {-0.1}

"I can of mine own self do nothing...," {John 5:30}

This subtracts another decimal {-0.1}

At this point, Jesus in no longer a complete 1.0 but now a {0.8}

Now the list of figures are {Father} =1.0 {Jesus} = 0.8 and {Holy Spirit} = 1.0, Bringing the Total to {2.8}

Reading and depending on the Bible, there is a "quantity" that is overlooked by Christians which has clear value in this equation. Jesus was baptized because He had to fulfill the legal requirements for entering into the priesthood like Melchizedek (Psalm 110:4; Heb. 5:8-10;6:20) Melchizedek has no beginning and no end, no Mother and no Father {Hebrew 7:3}, now that is what I call an immaculate conception!

First, Jesus sought to be a High Priest like Melchizedek. Second, Melchizedek had a more miraculous birth, without a "mother" or "father", with no beginning or end, although Melchizedek clearly worshiped ONE God so we will give Melchizedek a value of {0.9}

Now the total according to the Bible and Christian belief is {Father} =1.0 {Jesus} = 0.8 {Holy Spirit} = 1.0 and {Melchizedek} = 0.9

Bringing the Total to {3.7}

There are more variables which we can add for example Genesis 32:24-30 Jacob wrestles with God. God can not win against Jacob.

This information would make Jacob a {1.1} the Father would remains at {1.0} since through out the Bible, Isaiah 43:10-11,Deuteronomy 4:39, Isaiah 45:18, Isaiah44:6, Isaiah45:6, Isaiah 45:22, Exodus 20:3, Exodus 34:14, the Bible "Clearly" States that God is {1.0}

"For there is One God, and one mediator between God and men, the man Christ Jesus", (I Timothy 2:5).

Of course I am not that good in math, there is a form of advanced mathematics in Christianity that I just can't comprehend, that is the "changing variables" Which means, at one point in the Bible, God is given a quantity and then later on that quantity is either subtracted from or added to or in other words, "fluctuating values".

For example: God is given the value and quantity of "Never sleeping", (Psalm 121:4): "Behold, he that keepeth Israel shall neither slumber nor sleep." And Yet according to trinity then Jesus is supposed to have this "Equal" power but "Jesus sleeps"

How can Jesus be 100% Equal if he worshipped God as any other mortal (Luke 5:16): "And he withdrew himself into the wilderness, and prayed."

Jesus was tempted by Satan for forty days (Luke 4:1-13) but in James 1:13 is said: "...for God cannot be tempted with evil.."

I am confused, If the Father, Son, and Holy Spirit are "Equal", why doesn't the Bible "consistently" say they are equal instead of giving them and "others" changing values.

I think I will refer to the "teachers edition" to get the answers to this complicated question "

"O people of the book! commit no excesses in your religion: nor say of Allah aught but the truth. Christ Jesus the son of Mary was [no more or less than] a messenger of Allah, and His word, which he bestowed upon Mary, and a spirit preceding from Him: so believe in Allah and his messengers.

Say not "Three": desist!, it is better for you, for Allah is one God, Glory be to Him, Far exalted is He above having a son. To Him belong all things in the heavens and the earth. And enough is Allah as a disposer of affairs." Quran (4):171.

Now it all makes sense, the Quran clarified what the Bible is saying. I would be going against the Bible itself if I had "unsupported inconsistent faith in trinity" because the Bible says: "For God is not the Author of confusion, but of peace.." (I Corinthians 14:33).

 

[DagonVarunaMitraApolloZan]

Duncan! Look at all the work you put in! Fantastic! Eid Mubarak!

Here is a combination of some posts which may be of interest to some:
"
I do agree with that, I'm totally opposed to anthropomorphism. What I consider to be God, which I describe here:
Azathoth : A Dialogue with Dagon - Pastebin.com
ttps://pastebin.com/T6guWmjn

Is not a human or a creature, and the "intelligence" factor is only related to an ability to selectively generate or not generate rather than obstructed generation. The "Aum" is basically mentioned in that document as I explain.

God is "bodiless, pure, like nothing", literally like nothing, not a vacuum, not space, not laws, not information, so absolutely not anthropomorphic but is the force responsible for every moment of generated information and its appearance of change.

What I explain in that document is clarification or elaboration or detail for what was in this:
Two Logics One Miracup(s) - Pastebin.com

What I've found through now maybe two decades of asking people about their thoughts and views, is that there must be a developmental period where concepts and words like God take on meanings and even visual references in the minds of people which become extremely calcified and difficult to move or escape from, even if they become atheists later, they continue to think of this word in ways which specifically refer to a very human-like being or form, some form, and getting them away from such a notion proves to be difficult, even if they deny God exists, what they are saying doesn't exist is heavily attached to this notion.

Which is why murti and images and symbolism like that or stories like those in the Bible or Puranas can be utterly destructive due to free and heavy anthropomorphism.

There is no such God, and even if there was and it were to come down saying such, that would never be God, but just information, just like anything else, God can never be that.

So even when people say "I'd believe in God if God showed himself or appeared to me", I take it as a statement that they are still stuck on that damned concept of a bodily God creature and are far from understanding the true power or why it can never ever be information and why anything that is information is in a sense our equal and not appropriate for worship nor powerful no matter how powerful it may appear.

Even why God is "One" is not just a mere statement or claim, but is due to there being nothing or any factor which can be divided as the substrate underlying the generation and elimination and generation of information.

Even everyone on this website, from all the religions, mainly seems to not comprehend what God is, and what they say they believe in and talk about is just conjecturing and what they imagine are usually just total lies and falsehood.

That is the case all across the world.

The Atheists often come closer to God than many of the theists in their understandings, but they become locked about this word "God" and also locked into science and scientific systems and explanations, also into other arbitrary and temporary dream-like convincing things such as the existence of bodies and minds, that there are real objective objects and bodies receiving signals, when all they ever are or ever know is the flat layer of information that is being experienced, which like a television screen, they don't if know if they really have a back side at all. In another flat layer of information, an entirely different story could be told in an instant, and so they become lost in the immediate story being told in them and "as" them moment to moment. Stepping just a notch back or past the wall of all inclusive information which makes up the whole of their reality, the sight of their own hands before them and a sense of depth like the depth of a video game which should have given them a clue, is nothing except what is not like what they are, the opposite of all this information and appearance and stuff, and it is generating the whole of their illusion and the whole of their impression that they even have a mind, which is nothing more than a painted thing painted in a frame and gone and then a new frame.

That is why we, for all our talk, are not the truly living and thinking ones we appear to be, but that is the impression produced like pictures in a flip book that when flipped through appear animated and active through the appearance of change.

I don't believe anyone on just about any website or much of the world has much of an understanding or much of a religion, and much of their worship and meditations and thoughts seem misdirected.

There should be no blind faith involved, no confidence for the sake of confidence, no boldness, but a strict reasoning which makes every thing clear and sharply detailed and explained without any holes or escapes.

Now, in asking people about such things, I've found even clear reasoning is not sufficient though to experience the true fruits and joys of knowing Mitra precisely, but what is needed over this is interaction and clear response with real and undoubtable, improbable, and totally powerful results made of information, real experiences with real objects and real dialogue and near impossible predictive speech and intelligence and coherence involved. Stories like that are at the bottom of my "Miracup(s)" document, but what those experiences are credited to and why specifically is an extremely important first factor, since without that, and just experiencing things, one would be lost as to what is doing it and why it can not or is never anything else.

That even gives me the thought that without the proper preliminary understanding, the God and the God's activities and clear communications remain totally concealed because if they were to be apprehended the people would misunderstand and give credit falsely to their erroneous conceptions they have become cursed to serve and feed wastefully and towards no improvement for their conditions inside and which they sense around them. "

 

[DagonVarunaMitraApolloZan]

"
The majority of popular and nominal Christians and even those who call themselves "practicing", often seem to be of all religions the least religious or least practicing anything at all. They mostly seem like atheists and justca step away from doing nothing. Many of the yammering Atheists are former yammering Christians, since it was always a lot of talking and arguing and very little meditation, thoughtfulness, spiritual thinking, or worship, based on their own reports and descriptions.

If anyone doesn't think so, then identify step by step the Christian practice and method of worship.

Very few remaining Christians seem to perform traditional and ancient worship practices. I take issue with people calling themselves religious and not being able to describe anything but thoughts and statements and no daily or regular activities or practices with a clear purpose towards worship and remembering God specifically. "

"
"The Church Fathers, of course, agreed, and loudly declared the fact that God is an unchangeable, immaterial spirit who has an entirely simple (“incomposite”) nature—that is, a nature containing no parts. Since all bodies extend through space and thus can be divided into parts, it is clear that God cannot have a body.

Tatian the Syrian
“Our God has no introduction in time. He alone is without beginning, and is himself the beginning of all things. God is a spirit, not attending upon matter, but the maker of material spirits and of the appearances which are in matter. He is invisible, being himself the Father of both sensible and invisible things” (Address to the Greeks 4 [A.D. 170]).

Athenagoras
“I have sufficiently demonstrated that we are not atheists, since we acknowledge one God, unbegotten, eternal, invisible, incapable of being acted upon, incomprehensible, unbounded, who is known only by understanding and reason, who is encompassed by light and beauty and spirit and indescribable power, by whom all things, through his Word, have been produced and set in order and are kept in existence” (Plea for the Christians10 [A.D. 177]).

Irenaeus
“Far removed is the Father of all from those things which operate among men, the affections and passions. He is simple, not composed of parts, without structure, altogether like and equal to himself alone. He is all mind, all spirit, all thought, all intelligence, all reason” (Against Heresies2:13:3 [A.D. 189]).

Clement of Alexandria
“The first substance is everything which subsists by itself, as a stone is called a substance. The second is a substance capable of increase, as a plant grows and decays. The third is animated and sentient substance, as animal, horse. The fourth is animate, sentient, rational substance, as man. Wherefore each one of us is made as consisting of all, having an immaterial soul and a mind, which is the image of God” (Fragment from On Providence [A.D. 200]).

“Being is in God. God is divine being, eternal and without beginning, incorporeal and illimitable, and the cause of what exists.” (ibid.).

“What is God? ‘God,’ as the Lord says, ‘is a spirit.’ Now spirit is properly substance, incorporeal, and uncircumscribed. And that is incorporeal which does not consist of a body, or whose existence is not according to breadth, length, and depth. And that is uncircumscribed which has no place, which is wholly in all, and in each entire, and the same in itself” (ibid.).

“No one can rightly express him wholly. For on account of his greatness he is ranked as the All, and is the Father of the universe. Nor are any parts to be predicated of him. For the One is indivisible; wherefore also it is infinite, not considered with reference to inscrutability, but with reference to its being without dimensions, and not having a limit. And therefore it is without form” (Miscellanies 5:12 [A.D. 208]).

Origen
“Since our mind is in itself unable to behold God as he is, it knows the Father of the universe from the beauty of his works and from the elegance of his creatures. God, therefore, is not to be thought of as being either a body or as existing in a body, but as a simple intellectual being, admitting within himself no addition of any kind” (Fundamental Doctrines 1:1:6 [A.D. 225]).

“John says in the gospel, ‘No one has at any time seen God,’ clearly declaring to all who are able to understand, that there is no nature to which God is visible, not as if he were indeed visible by nature, and merely escaped or baffled the view of a frailer creature, but because he is by nature impossible to be seen” (ibid. 1:1:8).

Athanasius
“God, however, being without parts, is Father of the Son without division and without being acted upon. For neither is there an effluence from that which is incorporeal, nor is there anything flowering into him from without, as in the case of men. Being simple in nature, he is Father of one only Son” (Letter on the Council of Nicaea 11 [A.D. 350]).

Didymus the Blind
“God is simple and of an incomposite and spiritual nature, having neither ears nor organs of speech. A solitary essence and illimitable, he is composed of no numbers and parts” (The Holy Spirit 35 [A.D. 362]).

Hilary of Poitiers
“First it must be remembered that God is incorporeal. He does not consist of certain parts and distinct members, making up one body. For we read in the gospel that God is a spirit: invisible, therefore, and an eternal nature, immeasurable and self-sufficient. It is also written that a spirit does not have flesh and bones. For of these the members of a body consist, and of these the substance of God has no need. God, however, who is everywhere and in all things, is all-hearing, all-seeing, all-doing, and all-assisting” (Commentary on the Psalms129[130]:3 [A.D. 365]).

Basil the Great
“The operations of God are various, but his essence is simple” (Letters 234:1 [A.D. 367]).

Ambrose of Milan
“God is of a simple nature, not conjoined nor composite. Nothing can be added to him. He has in his nature only what is divine, filling up everything, never himself confused with anything, penetrating everything, never himself being penetrated, everywhere complete, and present at the same time in heaven, on earth, and in the farthest reaches of the sea, incomprehensible to the sight” (The Faith1:16:106 [A.D. 379]).

Evagrius of Pontus
“To those who accuse us of a doctrine of three gods, let it be stated that we confess one God, not in number but in nature. For all that is said to be one numerically is not one absolutely, nor is it simple in nature. It is universally confessed, however, that God is simple and not composite” (Dogmatic Letter on the Trinity 8:2 [A.D. 381]).

Gregory of Nyssa
“But there is neither nor ever shall be such a dogma in the Church of God that would prove the simple and incomposite [God] to be not only manifold and variegated, but even constructed from opposites” (Against Eunomius1:1:222 [A.D. 382]).

John Chrysostom
“[Paul] knows [God] in part. But he says, ‘in part,’ not because he knows God’s essence while something else of his essence he does not know; for God is simple. Rather, he says ‘in part’ because he knows that God exists, but what God is in his essence he does not know” (Against the Anomoians1:5 [A.D. 386]).

“Why does John say, ‘No one has ever seen God’ [John 1:18]? So that you might learn that he is speaking about the perfect comprehension of God and about the precise knowledge of him. For that all those incidents [where people saw a vision of God] were condescensions and that none of those persons saw the pure essence of God is clear enough from the differences of what each did see. For God is simple and non-composite and without shape; but they all saw different shapes” (ibid., 4:3).

Augustine
“In created and changeable things what is not said according to substance can only be said according to accident. . . . In God, however, certainly there is nothing that is said according to accident, because in him there is nothing that is changeable” (The Trinity 5:5:6 [A.D. 408]).

Cyril of Alexandria
“We are not by nature simple; but the divine nature, perfectly simple and incomposite, has in itself the abundance of all perfection and is in need of nothing” (Dialogues on the Trinity 1 [A.D. 420]).

“The nature of the Godhead, which is simple and not composite, is never to be divided into two” (Treasury of the Holy Trinity 11 [A.D. 424]).

“When the divine Scripture presents sayings about God and remarks on corporeal parts, do not let the mind of those hearing it harbor thoughts of tangible things, but from those tangible things as if from things said figuratively let it ascend to the beauty of things intellectual, and rather than figures and quantity and circumscriptions and shapes and everything else that pertains to bodies, let it think on God, although he is above all understanding. We were speaking of him in a human way, for there is no other way in which we could think about the things that are above us” (Commentary on the Psalms 11[12]:3 [A.D. 429]). "

 

[Duncan]

You did not answer my question regarding the corruption of the Bible. When, how, and where it was corrupted. If you are looking at translations where are the areas of corruption? The Bible was pronounced as corrupt by Muhammad only after he was chased out of Mecca because people found out who he really was and could not find his name in the Bible as in the verse you listed in an earlier post. By the way, all of the verses you list I know and some by heart.

When? after Moises and Jesus, people used to change it the meaning of it, any christian scholar will tell you. I can name you so many contradiction in the bible if you wish to know more. and by the way God himself accused the Christian and the Jew of corrupting the Bible.

How? Allaah says about the Jews (interpretation of the meaning): “Do you (faithful believers) covet that they will belive in your religion in spite of the fact that a party of them (Jewish rabbis) used to hear the Word of Allaah (the Tawraat), then they used to change it knowingly after they understood it?” [al-Baqarah 2:75]

Qutaadah said: “The phrase ‘then they used to change it knowingly after they understood it’ refers to the Jews, who used to hear the words of Allaah, then they altered it after they had understood what it meant.”

Abu ‘Aaliyah said: “They took what Allaah had revealed in their Book describing Muhammad (peace and blessings of Allaah be upon him), and changed its meaning.” Ibn Zayd said: “The phrase ‘[they] used to hear the Word of Allaah (the Tawraat), then they used to change it’ refers to the Tawraat which Allaah revealed to them; they changed it, making what it permitted forbidden, and what was forbidden allowed, changing the truth to falsehood and falsehood to truth…” [Tafseer Ibn Katheer]

Allaah also said (interpretation of the meaning): “Among those who are Jews, there are some who displace words from (their) right places and say: ‘We hear your word (O Muhammad) and disobey,’ and ‘Hear and let you (Muhammad) hear nothing.’ And Raa’ina [in Arabic this means, ‘Be careful, listen to us and we listen to you,’ whereas in Hebrew it means ‘an insult.’] with a twist of their tongues and as a mockery of the religion (Islam). And if only they had said, ‘We hear and obey,’ and ‘Do make us understand,’ it would have been better for them, and more proper, but Allaah has cursed them for their disbelief, so they believe not except for a few.” [al-Nisaa’ 4:46]

The phrase “[they] displace words from (their) right places” means that they misinterpret them and understand them in a way that Allaah did not intend, doing this deliberately and inventing lies against Allaah. [Tafseer Ibn Katheer]

Allah says (interpretation of the meaning): “So because of their breach of their covenant, We cursed them, and made their hearts grow hard. They change the words from their (right) places and have abandoned a good part of the Message that was sent to them. And you will not cease to discover deceit in them, except a few of them. But forgive them, and overlook (their misdeeds). Verily, Allaah loves al-Muhsineen (good-doers).” [al-Maa’idah 5:13]

The phrase “because of their breach of their covenant, We cursed them” refers to the fact that they broke the Covenant which had been made with them, so Allaah cursed them, i.e., He kept them away from following the True Guidance. “[We] made their hearts grow hard” means that they will not benefit from any preaching because their hearts are so hard. “They change the words from their (right) places” means that they play havoc with the words of Allaah and misinterpret His Book, taking it to mean things that were never meant and attributing to Allaah things that He never said; may Allaah protect us from that.

“[They] have abandoned a good part of the Message that was sent to them” means that they stopped following its teachings because they did not want to follow them. Al-Hasan said: “They did not adhere to their religion or keep their duties towards Allaah, without which no deeds are acceptable to Him; their fitrah (innate nature) was not sound and their deeds were not righteous.” [Tafseer Ibn Katheer]

So it becomes quite clear that the ways in which the Children of Israel tampered with the Tawraat and Injeel include the following:

1. Changing
2. Omitting
3. Adding things and attributing to Allaah words that He did not say
4. Misinterpreting the words of Allaah.

When Muhammad (peace and blessings of Allaah be upon him) was sent, the original Tawraat and Injeel had already been altered and distorted. Allaah revealed the Qur’aan to His Prophet Muhammad (peace and blessings of Allaah be upon him), and guaranteed that He Himself would preserve it, as He says (interpretation of the meaning): “Verily We: it is We Who have sent down the Dhikr (i.e., the Qur’aan) and surely, We will guard it (from corruption).” [al-Hijr 15:9]

This distinguishing feature was not found in any Book before the Qur’aan. From the time of Muhammad (peace and blessings of Allaah be upon him) until the present (more than fourteen hundred years) the Qur’aan has stayed the same, and not a single letter of it has been changed, as ancient manuscripts and the hearts of generation after generation of people who have memorized the entire text and earned the title of “haafiz” bear witness. We ask Allaah to guide us to the true and straight path. And Allaah knows best.

 

[Duncan]

Who are Sabians and who are the Merriamites and what are their rituals? Do you know?

I already answered that one brother please refer to my previous post.

 

[Duncan]

Duncan! Look at all the work you put in! Fantastic! Eid Mubarak!

Here is a combination of some posts which may be of interest to some:
"
I do agree with that, I'm totally opposed to anthropomorphism. What I consider to be God, which I describe here:
Azathoth : A Dialogue with Dagon - Pastebin.com
ttps://pastebin.com/T6guWmjn

Is not a human or a creature, and the "intelligence" factor is only related to an ability to selectively generate or not generate rather than obstructed generation. The "Aum" is basically mentioned in that document as I explain.

God is "bodiless, pure, like nothing", literally like nothing, not a vacuum, not space, not laws, not information, so absolutely not anthropomorphic but is the force responsible for every moment of generated information and its appearance of change.

What I explain in that document is clarification or elaboration or detail for what was in this:
Two Logics One Miracup(s) - Pastebin.com

What I've found through now maybe two decades of asking people about their thoughts and views, is that there must be a developmental period where concepts and words like God take on meanings and even visual references in the minds of people which become extremely calcified and difficult to move or escape from, even if they become atheists later, they continue to think of this word in ways which specifically refer to a very human-like being or form, some form, and getting them away from such a notion proves to be difficult, even if they deny God exists, what they are saying doesn't exist is heavily attached to this notion.

Which is why murti and images and symbolism like that or stories like those in the Bible or Puranas can be utterly destructive due to free and heavy anthropomorphism.

There is no such God, and even if there was and it were to come down saying such, that would never be God, but just information, just like anything else, God can never be that.

So even when people say "I'd believe in God if God showed himself or appeared to me", I take it as a statement that they are still stuck on that damned concept of a bodily God creature and are far from understanding the true power or why it can never ever be information and why anything that is information is in a sense our equal and not appropriate for worship nor powerful no matter how powerful it may appear.

Even why God is "One" is not just a mere statement or claim, but is due to there being nothing or any factor which can be divided as the substrate underlying the generation and elimination and generation of information.

Even everyone on this website, from all the religions, mainly seems to not comprehend what God is, and what they say they believe in and talk about is just conjecturing and what they imagine are usually just total lies and falsehood.

That is the case all across the world.

The Atheists often come closer to God than many of the theists in their understandings, but they become locked about this word "God" and also locked into science and scientific systems and explanations, also into other arbitrary and temporary dream-like convincing things such as the existence of bodies and minds, that there are real objective objects and bodies receiving signals, when all they ever are or ever know is the flat layer of information that is being experienced, which like a television screen, they don't if know if they really have a back side at all. In another flat layer of information, an entirely different story could be told in an instant, and so they become lost in the immediate story being told in them and "as" them moment to moment. Stepping just a notch back or past the wall of all inclusive information which makes up the whole of their reality, the sight of their own hands before them and a sense of depth like the depth of a video game which should have given them a clue, is nothing except what is not like what they are, the opposite of all this information and appearance and stuff, and it is generating the whole of their illusion and the whole of their impression that they even have a mind, which is nothing more than a painted thing painted in a frame and gone and then a new frame.

That is why we, for all our talk, are not the truly living and thinking ones we appear to be, but that is the impression produced like pictures in a flip book that when flipped through appear animated and active through the appearance of change.

I don't believe anyone on just about any website or much of the world has much of an understanding or much of a religion, and much of their worship and meditations and thoughts seem misdirected.

There should be no blind faith involved, no confidence for the sake of confidence, no boldness, but a strict reasoning which makes every thing clear and sharply detailed and explained without any holes or escapes.

Now, in asking people about such things, I've found even clear reasoning is not sufficient though to experience the true fruits and joys of knowing Mitra precisely, but what is needed over this is interaction and clear response with real and undoubtable, improbable, and totally powerful results made of information, real experiences with real objects and real dialogue and near impossible predictive speech and intelligence and coherence involved. Stories like that are at the bottom of my "Miracup(s)" document, but what those experiences are credited to and why specifically is an extremely important first factor, since without that, and just experiencing things, one would be lost as to what is doing it and why it can not or is never anything else.

That even gives me the thought that without the proper preliminary understanding, the God and the God's activities and clear communications remain totally concealed because if they were to be apprehended the people would misunderstand and give credit falsely to their erroneous conceptions they have become cursed to serve and feed wastefully and towards no improvement for their conditions inside and which they sense around them. "

Thank you brother for your Eid wishes, much appreciate it

 

[DagonVarunaMitraApolloZan]

Jesus did not come to write the Bible. He did not need to. He left people to witness and record His message and His role. I have already quoted Al-Razi about the Quran.

Tokita must be right. Jesus, the bodily man who died, must be God?

 

[DagonVarunaMitraApolloZan]

I already answered that one brother please refer to my previous post.

I don't think Shaitans can read too well though, because they are very impatient, possibly dyslexic, mixing up things with crossed eyes and reading backwards.

 

[Duncan]

Tokita must be right. Jesus, the bodily man who died, must be God?

A God who dies

 

[DagonVarunaMitraApolloZan]

Please don't copy rhetoric, I can give thousands of pages of the same if you wish.

Do so! I wish! Come on tough guy, do it! Duncan can surely take you on, and you're already good at merely ignoring what he writes and all the work put in for you (really others, since you are blocked from benefitting of course).

Come on you big brawny well-oiled Christian, use those Cross-Bearing Muscles and rock hard faculties to defeat this Wurm of a Muslim one and for all!

Wolf wanted Proof of Islam, Proof as to why Muslims believe what they do instead of believing that a Bodily Man was exclusively God incarnate. The only way to prove that is by putting duncan in his place, washing him with the blood of endless rhetoric you claimed exists which refutes duncan.

Duncan is furthermore surely weakened by having fasted for his imaginary "Allah", and now has less spiritual (demonic surely), strength to fight off your hot white (and caucazoid?) light from his darkened understand.

Or do you not have mercy enough to spare your time and give as much effort as duncan is giving? Won't you attempt to save a poor Oogaboogaist like him so you can share a place in God's Empire?

 

[Tokita]

No thanks to you for taking time to read and reply. I know trinity was invented, I can even tell you invented it if you are interested to know.

I mean even if we use the Christian mathematical equation of "trinity", it does not add up. The Christian's technique of addition is that {Father}& {Son} & {Holy Spirit} are all "equal" and therefore 1.0. Yet the Bible gives us a different equation for the numerical value of Jesus.

Jesus admits "..my Father is greater than I", {John 14:28}

This subtracts a Decimal {-0.1}

"I can of mine own self do nothing...," {John 5:30}

This subtracts another decimal {-0.1}

At this point, Jesus in no longer a complete 1.0 but now a {0.8}

Now the list of figures are {Father} =1.0 {Jesus} = 0.8 and {Holy Spirit} = 1.0, Bringing the Total to {2.8}

Reading and depending on the Bible, there is a "quantity" that is overlooked by Christians which has clear value in this equation. Jesus was baptized because He had to fulfill the legal requirements for entering into the priesthood like Melchizedek (Psalm 110:4; Heb. 5:8-10;6:20) Melchizedek has no beginning and no end, no Mother and no Father {Hebrew 7:3}, now that is what I call an immaculate conception!

First, Jesus sought to be a High Priest like Melchizedek. Second, Melchizedek had a more miraculous birth, without a "mother" or "father", with no beginning or end, although Melchizedek clearly worshiped ONE God so we will give Melchizedek a value of {0.9}

Now the total according to the Bible and Christian belief is {Father} =1.0 {Jesus} = 0.8 {Holy Spirit} = 1.0 and {Melchizedek} = 0.9

Bringing the Total to {3.7}

There are more variables which we can add for example Genesis 32:24-30 Jacob wrestles with God. God can not win against Jacob.

This information would make Jacob a {1.1} the Father would remains at {1.0} since through out the Bible, Isaiah 43:10-11,Deuteronomy 4:39, Isaiah 45:18, Isaiah44:6, Isaiah45:6, Isaiah 45:22, Exodus 20:3, Exodus 34:14, the Bible "Clearly" States that God is {1.0}

"For there is One God, and one mediator between God and men, the man Christ Jesus", (I Timothy 2:5).

Of course I am not that good in math, there is a form of advanced mathematics in Christianity that I just can't comprehend, that is the "changing variables" Which means, at one point in the Bible, God is given a quantity and then later on that quantity is either subtracted from or added to or in other words, "fluctuating values".

For example: God is given the value and quantity of "Never sleeping", (Psalm 121:4): "Behold, he that keepeth Israel shall neither slumber nor sleep." And Yet according to trinity then Jesus is supposed to have this "Equal" power but "Jesus sleeps"

How can Jesus be 100% Equal if he worshipped God as any other mortal (Luke 5:16): "And he withdrew himself into the wilderness, and prayed."

Jesus was tempted by Satan for forty days (Luke 4:1-13) but in James 1:13 is said: "...for God cannot be tempted with evil.."

I am confused, If the Father, Son, and Holy Spirit are "Equal", why doesn't the Bible "consistently" say they are equal instead of giving them and "others" changing values.

I think I will refer to the "teachers edition" to get the answers to this complicated question "

"O people of the book! commit no excesses in your religion: nor say of Allah aught but the truth. Christ Jesus the son of Mary was [no more or less than] a messenger of Allah, and His word, which he bestowed upon Mary, and a spirit preceding from Him: so believe in Allah and his messengers.

Say not "Three": desist!, it is better for you, for Allah is one God, Glory be to Him, Far exalted is He above having a son. To Him belong all things in the heavens and the earth. And enough is Allah as a disposer of affairs." Quran (4):171.

Now it all makes sense, the Quran clarified what the Bible is saying. I would be going against the Bible itself if I had "unsupported inconsistent faith in trinity" because the Bible says: "For God is not the Author of confusion, but of peace.." (I Corinthians 14:33).

Let me highlight a few of your posts as it would take a long time to educate you:
1. The words of Jesus you highlighted as He could not do anything on His own are the words of man-Jesus. You need to understand the nature of Jesus (God and Man). God humbled himself to feel like us, act like us, eat like us, and teach us what it means to be humble). If He did not embody the nature of man everything He wid would be biased. He would be biased.
2. Trinity for me is not difficult to understand. The Sun for instance cannot be separated from its rays, itself, or the heat it gives. When people tell you to get out of the sun, does that mean you are inside of it? One needs to understand the nature of God. He is not a human being with our limited understanding as Islam portrays him. He can be and can do anything. Can you honestly say that an hour in your lifetime is 60 minutes in God's? God's past, present, and future can be one and do not have to be separate. Islam simply comes with the nomad mind and as such it portrays God with limits. Only people author confusion.
3. When Jesus was tempted by Satan, Didn't He say "You shall not tempt the Lord your God?" As I said, Jesus embodied the nature of deism and humanity, but lived and suffered as we do in order for us to come to know Him better.
The only thing I will go back on, all your comments and denials can be put to sleep by doing what Jesus asked. "Ask in Name ...." Like I said, He is not a liar. You can read and reason all you want but eventually nothing stands against the test.
You believe the Quaran and Muhammad. I am OK with that. I can prove my point to anyone from the Bible - only those who take the challenge successfully. My Bible shows me how by the words of Christ, which I quoted. Also,
John 1:4:1 tells us "Dear friends, do not believe every spirit, but test the spirits to see whether they are from God, because many false prophets have gone out into the world.
You can convince yourself that Jesus is whom He said He was by doing what He asked. Or, you can continue to quote the Quran, which you know my feelings about. Like I said, nothing you quote me I do not know.

 

[DagonVarunaMitraApolloZan]

A God who dies

Well when Jesus died, only his body died, and God as Ghost Jesus descended into Hades / Sheol and told the other ghosts and shades there the good news, which is that he is God and to worship him as the "Begotten Son of God who is God". So those desperate souls who had enough blood luckily poured into the ground to help them hiss and whisper "okay, whatever" were thus saved! Then God elevatored back into his corpse and simply walked out, visiting his old colleagues and explaining to them that his return to his body is proof that he is God. These few men then witnessed this body fly high up into the sky and dissappear into the depths of outer space, so that Jesus could be near at His own right hand.

Tokita basically demonstrated in a very careful and systematic fashion why Christians are demonstrably superior in their religion and understanding and practices(?), and how Muslims like you are dumb-dumb heads who think guns are candy dispensers and just spend your days and nights murdering people across the world.

Your God, Allen is it? Your Moshlom God Allen is tyranical, because little children get cancer and have horrific and painful diseases, but the God of Tokita, who we know lovingly as Baba or Papa, he doesn't give cancer to babies and children, so when people are praying and crying in hospitals and children are intensely suffering, Baba, who is Jesus, turns and smiles down on them, and his smile is warmth, and the child looks up and coughs up blood on his own face and smiles back.

I think I understand now how Tokita, a supposed former Muslim, found Christianity to be far superior to Islam.

Islam is a religion for the wicked people quite frankly, because 5 times a day at least they worship Allen and think of Allen all throughout the day.

These killers also keep their bodies clean all day, even their anuses and genitals, free from all odors or poop residue, because they are perverts and Allen has told them that he prefers them to be clean and purified all day, I guess, and who knows why.

What else do these slimey wet swines do? Oh yeah, they give "Zuckit" and tell people to also give "Zuckit" and they take their wealth, earnings, and even physical efforts and energy and dish out to the poor and needy sick and in trouble. Allen surely wishes for them to be poor and so is asking them to waste their money, because it is known to us that Allen, besides being imaginary and not existing, is actually That Old Drakkon, The Power Of Death, God of this Aeon who has deluded the minds, The Enemy of many. Yes, the very same, Cancer-giver, Evil Overlord, even though your Allen doesn't exist, he does exist as the source and cause of all the things Good Baba Daddy doesn't do.

What else do these clowns with brightly colored afros do?

They say "We are Moshloms, Allen has Power Over Everything, Allen's Will Controls Everything, No one withstands the might of Allen!" how foolish? Can they not see with their very eyes that Baba, Baba who came to Earth as Baby the Begotten Son of Baba who is Baba, is smiling? Smiling at Allen's lies, and says "Oh Allen! You think you are so powerful eh? You think you can show your power by giving little children cancer and making them cough up blood? Well! Let me show you what I can do!" Then Baba smiles.

What can Baba do against your Allen? Ha-Ha-Ha, oooo, you. You...you. You. You. Baba. Yes. Allen, nuh-uh, no Allen. Yep.

What else?

Oh yeah, you Mozleums also do other bad things, you are told to respect your elders and the elderly, and parents, and your mothers? How do you even know how to do that when your own God Allen has not even been born out of a woman! Our God Baba was an actual baby who breast fed from a human and drank human breast milk! Our God Baba when he was Baby had his poopoo cloth cleaned by a human, his own mother he was born out of! So how can your Allen say "be good to your parents" without having said what our God Baba Baby said "Wah Wah Clean My Bummy Mommy I did Poo Poo Mommy! I will die but rise again and show my colleagues I am Gag, Gaga, Gag Agh"

I wonder if Tokita is even a Christian like me or is just a prankster.

God-man (Christianity) - Wikipedia

Hypostatic union - Wikipedia

If Tokita is truthful, they chose this above Islam, and have truly outwitted Dark Allen.

Behold the Image of Baba and Shudder you Allenites!
https://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipe...or.png/220px-Composite_christ_pantocrator.png

"
The most basic explanation for the hypostatic union is Jesus Christ being both God and man. He is both perfectly divine and perfectly human.

The Athanasian Creed recognized this doctrine and affirmed its importance, stating that "He is God from the essence of the Father, begotten before time; and he is human from the essence of his mother, born in time; completely God, completely human, with a rational soul and human flesh; equal to the Father as regards divinity, less than the Father as regards humanity. Although he is God and human, yet Christ is not two, but one. He is one, however, not by his divinity being turned into flesh, but by God's taking humanity to himself. He is one, certainly not by the blending of his essence, but by the unity of his person. For just as one human is both rational soul and flesh, so too the one Christ is both God and human." "

Subhan'Allah!

Magnifique, Mwuah! What a Masterpiece! See? That just proves it. God is a fleshy Man and you've been wasting your time worshipping what is Like Nothing.

"
In Kierkegaard's Philosophical Fragments, the dual nature of Christ is explored as a paradox, i.e. as "the ultimate paradox", because God, understood as a perfectly good, perfectly wise, perfectly powerful being, fully became a human, in the Christian understanding of the term: burdened by sin, limited in goodness, knowledge, and understanding.[8] This paradox can only be resolved, Kierkegaard believed, by a leap of faith away from one's understanding and reason towards belief in God; thus the paradox of the hypostatic union was crucial to an abiding faith in the Christian God.

As the precise nature of this union is held to defy finite human comprehension, the hypostatic union is also referred to by the alternative term "mystical union". "

 

[DagonVarunaMitraApolloZan]

Part 2 of Tokita's Dao:

See? A smart white guy like Kierkegaard even said it, but a stupid shadow mud-man could never understand something from the world of Light (skinned?).

Incarnation - Wikipedia

https://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipe...phni_002.jpg/220px-Meister_von_Daphni_002.jpg

Oh Baba, how I look upon your beautiful face in my mirror!

"This foundational Christian position holds that the divine nature of the Son of God was perfectly united with human nature in one divine Person, Jesus, making him both truly God and truly man. The theological term for this is hypostatic union: the Second Person of the Trinity, God the Son, became flesh when he was miraculously conceived in the womb of the Virgin Mary.[9]Biblical passages traditionally referenced in connection with the doctrine of the Incarnation include John 3:1-21, Colossians 2:9, and Philippians 2:7-8. "

"
Instead of the word "apotheosis", Christian theology uses in English the words "deification" or "divinization" or the Greek word "theosis". Traditional mainstream theology, both East and West, views Jesus Christ as the preexisting God who undertook mortal existence, not as a mortal being who attained divinity. It holds that he has made it possible for human beings to be raised to the level of sharing the divine nature: he became human to make humans "partakers of the divine nature"[6] "For this is why the Word became man, and the Son of God became the Son of man: so that man, by entering into communion with the Word and thus receiving divine sonship, might become a son of God."[7] "For He was made man that we might be made God."[8] "The only-begotten Son of God, wanting to make us sharers in his divinity, assumed our nature, so that he, made man, might make men gods."[9]

The Westminster Dictionary of Christian Theology contains the following in an article titled "Deification":

Deification (Greek theosis) is for Orthodoxy the goal of every Christian. Man, according to the Bible, is 'made in the image and likeness of God.'. . . It is possible for man to become like God, to become deified, to become god by grace. This doctrine is based on many passages of both OT and NT (e.g. Ps. 82 (81).6; II Peter 1.4), and it is essentially the teaching both of St Paul, though he tends to use the language of filial adoption (cf. Rom. 8.9—17; Gal. 4.5—7), and the Fourth Gospel (cf. 17.21—23).
The language of II Peter is taken up by St Irenaeus, in his famous phrase, 'if the Word has been made man, it is so that men may be made gods' (Adv. Haer V, Pref.), and becomes the standard in Greek theology. In the fourth century, St. Athanasius repeats Irenaeus almost word for word, and in the fifth century, St. Cyril of Alexandria says that we shall become sons 'by participation' (Greek methexis). Deification is the central idea in the spirituality of St. Maximus the Confessor, for whom the doctrine is the corollary of the Incarnation: 'Deification, briefly, is the encompassing and fulfillment of all times and ages,' . . . and St. Symeon the New Theologian at the end of the tenth century writes, 'He who is God by nature converses with those whom he has made gods by grace, as a friend converses with his friends, face to face.' . . . "

SEEEEE?

"Sharers" what you Allenites and Marmitidans call SHIRK is the FOUNDATION of Tokita's Religion of ABBA.

Divinization (Christian) - Wikipedia

"

• In John 10:34, Jesus defends himself against a charge of blasphemy by stating: "Have I not said that ye are gods?" It is widely believed that Jesus is referring toPsalms 82:6 in saying "Ye are gods and children of the most high."
• Christ's defence against the charge of blasphemy includes the following passages from John 10:33–36

The Jews answered him, saying, For a good work we stone thee not; but for blasphemy; and because that thou, being a man, makest thyself God. Jesus answered them, Is it not written in your law, I said, Ye are gods? If he called them gods, unto whom the word of God came, and the scripture cannot be broken; Say ye of him, whom the Father hath sanctified, and sent into the world, Thou blasphemest; because I said, I am the Son of God?
"

So while you open your Mouth of Sauron, you are adressing Tokita, and don't you know Tokita is on their way to becoming a God, a God-Man just like Baby? So have a little respect Dumpling.

When a person is on their way to becoming a CEO or a President, and knowing that is their future destination, you should start practicing kneeling towards them from the get-go. That is why I'm so kind to Tokita, because someday they will be a God among Gods.

What about you? Silly Mossman? Because you said that God never pooed and is not a MAN and you will never be a SHARER (Mushrikuun), you will be CURSED and this will be your end:

Matthew 13:41
The Son of Man will send out his angels, and they will weed out of his kingdom everything that causes sin and all who do evil.

Matthew 13:42
They will throw them into the blazing furnace, where there will be weeping and gnashing of teeth.

Matthew 13:43
Then the righteous will shine like the sun in the kingdom of their Father. Whoever has ears, let them hear.

DO YOU HAVE EARS DUMKIN? You better hope not!

Matthew 13:49
This is how it will be at the end of the age. The angels will come and separate the wicked from the righteous

Matthew 13:50
and throw them into the blazing furnace, where there will be weeping and gnashing of teeth.

Matthew 13:51
"Have you understood all these things?" Jesus asked. "Yes," they replied.

Matthew 13:53
When Jesus had finished these parables, he moved on from there.

Matthew 13:54
Coming to his hometown (GODS HOMETOWN), he began teaching the people in their synagogue, and they were amazed. "Where did this (God-)man get this wisdom and these miraculous powers?" they asked.

BeCause He is GOD, Duhhhh!!!

Matthew 13:55
"Isn't this the carpenter's son? Isn't his mother's name Mary, and aren't his brothers James, Joseph, Simon and Judas?

Matthew 13:56
Aren't all his sisters living right here with us? Where then did this man get all these things?"

Matthew 13:57
And they were deeply offended and refused to believe in him. Then Jesus told them, “A prophet is honored everywhere except in his own hometown and among his own family

Ahem, now back to your fate:

THE ALL LOVING BABA WILL SAY TO YOU AND YOUR ILK (while carrying a human expression on his human face):

Matthew 25:30
"And throw that worthless servant outside, into the darkness, where there will be weeping and gnashing of teeth.' "

See? See how much Baba Loves and is Loving? A Love Allen will never show you, for all your fasts and dedication!

Baba is so Loving, He will also say:

Matthew 7:23
Then I will tell them plainly, 'I never knew you. Away from me, you evildoers!'

"
9Which of you, if his son asks for bread, will give him a stone? 10Or if he asks for a fish, will give him a snake? 11So if you who are evil know how to give good gifts to your children, how much more will your Father in heaven give good things to those who ask Him!12In everything, then, do to others as you would have them do to you. For this is the essence of the Law and the Prophets.Luke 13:22-30)

13Enter through the narrow gate. For wide is the gate and broad is the way that leads to destruction, and many enter through it. 14But small is the gate and narrow the way that leads to life, and only a few find it.Luke 6:43-45)

15Beware of false prophets. They come to you in sheep’s clothing, but inwardly they are ravenous wolves. 16By their fruit you will recognize them. Are grapes gathered from thornbushes, or figs from thistles? 17Likewise, every good tree bears good fruit, but a bad tree bears bad fruit. 18A good tree cannot bear bad fruit, and a bad tree cannot bear good fruit. 19Every tree that does not bear good fruit is cut down and thrown into the fire. 20So then, by their fruit you will recognize them.21Not everyone who says to Me, ‘Lord, Lord,’ will enter the kingdom of heaven, but only he who does the will of My Father in heaven. 22Many will say to Me on that day, ‘Lord, Lord, did we not prophesy in Your name, and in Your name drive out demons and perform many miracles?’23Then I will tell them plainly, ‘I never knew you; depart from Me, you workers of lawlessness!’Luke 6:46-49)

24Therefore everyone who hears these words of Mine and acts on them is like a wise man who built his house on the rock. 25The rain fell, the torrents raged, and the winds blew and beat against that house; yet it did not fall, because its foundation was on the rock.26But everyone who hears these words of Mine and does not act on them is like a foolish man who built his house on sand. 27The rain fell, the torrents raged, and the winds blew and beat against that house, and it fell—and great was its collapse!”28When Jesus had finished saying these things, the crowds were astonished at His teaching, 29because He taught as one who had authority, and not as their scribes. "