Qu'ran: Did Jesus die?

[Sonic247]

Becuase Jesus became a sinner,

You know I love your post man, but "became sin" has a slightly diffrent conotation.

 

[TashaN]

I agree, of course. Many muslims would stipulate "them" to mean the Prophets, not necessarily the books, since many of the books no longer existed at the time.

We believe in both, books and prophets, even if Jesus himself was here along with his books, he would be just a muslim and he would followed the Quran.

I understand their distinction, but I do not believe it is justified.

Please don't jump to conclusions, because we didn't claim anything yet.

The Surah above does not even make a claim of finality for Muhammad.

Don't tell me that you want to drag this thread into Prophet Mohammed being the final Prophet or not, then saying, Bahaullah is the one who should come after Mohammed, etc.

This thread is not about that, and even though i didn't want to jump into conclusions, but my assertion is based on facts and observations. We better concentrate about the topic at hand.

 

[TashaN]

That is not what I am saying. I believe that the Qu'ran and the Bible are in harmony when both are understood correctly. What I am saying is that the interpretation given to the Qu'ran by many Muslims is in contradiction to the Bible and therefore the interpretation is incorrect.

Aha, i got it. So you mean that the Quran MUST be interpreted based on the translation of the translation of the translation of the translation of the interpretations of the bible?

Here is what the Qu'ran says about the Bible: Sura 3:84 Say "We believe in Allah ... and in the books given to Moses, Jesus and the prophets, from their Lord: We make no distinction between one and another among them"

You have no proof that it was about the bible, because the bible was collected by the church and those who came after that whether they are Christians scholars, or even unknown authors. The verse was talking about Torah, Injil, etc. The bible contain the word of God, Jesus but the majority is not the word of God, and its not even the word of Jesus.

 

[Popeyesays]

"You have no proof that it was about the bible, because the bible was collected by the church and those who came after that whether they are Christians scholars, or even unknown authors. The verse was talking about Torah, Injil, etc. The bible contain the word of God, Jesus but the majority is not the word of God, and its not even the word of Jesus."

If he is wrong relying on a personal interpretation, then so are you.

From the bare words of the verse it is not justified to say what the Gospels are and what they are not. Interpretation is a two-edged sword, it cuts the user most when he ignores the fact that he is using it,

Regards,
Scott

 

[TashaN]

The Qu'ran quotes a prophecy by the child Jesus that he would die and rise again to life: Sura 19:33 "So peace is on me the day I was born, the day that I die, and the day that I shall be raised up to life again!"

The day he dies is after his next coming, because we believe that he didn't die a real death as we know it, and the day he shall be raised up is with all human beings on the day of resurrection.

Jesus is God in the flesh and told His disciples that it was for that purpose (to die) that he came into the world.

I never saw this verse where he says that he came to die for your sins, but rather, i saw him asking his disciples to buy swords and defend themselves from those who wanted to harm him.

Jesus did not die, He left before the body died. A Roman soldier did not break his legs because the body was already dead but he put a sword through his heart just to make sure. SInce the Biblical record is not provided by a Roman soldier it is safe to believe that it was His disciples who witnessed these things.

So that means you don't know, and you don't have any solid proof. Therfore, any claim you make about this issue is false bcause you didn't provide a solid proof about wha you claim to be true.

Any such text that you might mention would not be the word of God because it contradicts the Bible. There is no book of Barnabus in the Bible.

Even if it was in the bible itself? impressive.

I have never seen a verse in the Qu'ran that says that Jesus was saved from the cross.

Read post 216.

 

[Popeyesays]

Jesus was saved from the cross. God took Him up from it--in the spiritual sense. The body left behind was just a body.

In that sense Jesus did not taste of death. but then neither ahs anyone else. For we are all taken up to God.

Judgment Day as such is symbolic, not physical. No one is going to clamber out of a grave, because the next life has nothing to do with bodies in the first place.

Regards,
Scott

 

[benign6]

IF Jesus died does anyone know where he was burried ???????????

 

[Popeyesays]

IF Jesus died does anyone know where he was burried ???????????

The Gospel relates His burial, but does not specify where. The tombsite was provided by Joseph of Armiethea.

What happened to the body in particular is up to faith/

Regards,
Scott

 

[JayHawes]

I never saw this verse where he says that he came to die for your sins, but rather, i saw him asking his disciples to buy swords and defend themselves from those who wanted to harm him.
So that means you don't know, and you don't have any solid proof. Therfore, any claim you make about this issue is false bcause you didn't provide a solid proof about wha you claim to be true.

Even if it was in the bible itself? impressive.

Read post 216.

1)

Jesus never commanded his disciples to buy any swords, dont make up stuff. He told Peter to put up his sword (John 18:10,11). Jesu never told the disciples to defend him from those who were coming for him. He was willing to die. Dont just make up stuff, that's not good. Here are the verses where JESUS says:

Joh 3:16For God so loved the world, that he gave his only begotten Son, that whosoever believeth in him should not perish, but have everlasting life.Joh 3:17For God sent not his Son into the world to condemn the world; but that the world through him might be saved.
______________________________________________________________
1co 15:3"...Christ died for our sins according to the scriptures";
Ro 5:8 -But God commendeth his love toward us, in that, while we were yet sinners, Christ died for us.Ro 5:9Much more then, being now justified by his blood, we shall be saved from wrath through him.

2) History prooves the bible true in the account of the crucifixion. If we examine the Bible, and all the things described concerning the Crucifixion. About how they nailed Jesus to the cross, about how Jesus suffered after hanging there, about how they broke their legs. If we analyze history we discover that this is the exact thing that the Romans did. And the Romans record in history how certain peoples' died on the cross and what they suffered, it is not much different from the account given in the Bible except the fact that Jesus died in 3 hours, and his legs were not broken because prophecy said so.

What many Muslims seem to ignore is that fact that the Romans carried out the crucifixion. Pilate condemned him to death after asking the Jews whether or not they wanted him dead (thus not a case of mistaken identity). The romans were present at the crucifixion, they stayed there to make sure everything went right. And Roman historians record that a man named Jesus died upon the cross. Never (i mind you) do they say that they saw Jesus caught up to God, not anyone eles other than his disciples, after he had risin from the grave. Muslims also seem to ignore that Jews were present at the hundreds at his crucifixion, many Pharisees, Saducees, and priest were present. Even John and Jesus's Mother Mary, and Mary Magdalene, and Mary sister of Lazarus, were present at the crucifixion. They, having walked with Jesus, and Mary having raised Jesus would have known what her son looked liked and sounded like. When Jesus shouted "Woman! Behold thy Son (referring to John), Jesus here was handing Mary over to the Apostle John for he to take care of her. Let me also tell that Jesus died in a Jewish nation, a Jewish city...not an arabian City. How then can we put the testimony of someone born 600 years later, who had never seen Jesus or anything that happened over eye witness testimonies? There is no authority in declaring factual history false- not one is able to: That Jesus, not Judas died on the cross for the sins of the World.

 

[JayHawes]

The Gospel of Barnabas

The book of Barnabas is not and was not in the Bible. The Gospel of Barnabas contradicts the Bible, Geography, history and even the Koran itself. It is a midevil forgery that I am surpirsed any Muslim quotes seeing that it contradicts the Koran more than once:

**The Koran teaches that Jesus was the Messiah, and that Mohammed was not the Messiah.

Allah giveth thee glad tidings of a word from him, whose name is the Messiah, Jesus, son of Mary (Qur'an 3:45, Pickthall).

Gospel of Barnabas

**Jesus confessed and said the truth, "I am not the Messiah". (chap. 42). Then said the priest: "How shall the Messiah be called?" ... (Jesus answered) "Muhammed is his blessed name" (chap. 97).

The Qur'an clearly teaches that Mary had pain when she gave birth to Jesus:

(A)nd she withdrew with him to a far place. And the pangs of childbirth drove her unto the trunk of the palm tree. (Qur'an 19:22-23, Pickthall)​

However, the Gospel of Barnabas teaches the opposite: The virgin was surrounded by a light exceeding bright, and brought forth her son without pain (chap. 3).​

The Qur'an teaches that there are seven heavens: The seven heavens and the earth praise Him (Qur'an 17:44, Pickthall). However the Gospel of Barnabas teaches that there are nine heavens:

Verily I say unto thee that the heavens are nine, among which are set the planets, that are distant one from another five hundred years journey for a man (chap. 178).​

Not quotng the vast geographical errors where whoever wrote it states that Jesus sailed to inland cities...lol...
​

It is not wise for any Muslim to quote any book that is false, and proven fasle. Whoever wrote this book is clearly not Barnabas, becuase Barnabas was a Jew and went with Jesus to all the places Jesus went, How then shall he say that they sailed to a fishing village. When that city is not a fishing village but actually 20 miles inland?​

Dont try to roove the Bible (crucifixion) wrong using the BIble of Barnabas. It is forged, and it disagrees with the Koran. Surely you should beleive that it is false since the Koran is The Word of God to you, you should beleive that this Gospel is fasle...lol...:sad4:​

Christians had reasons for eliminating the Gospel of Barnabas, mainly becuase it was fake. The only existing manuscript is in Italian and Spanish from the 16th Century. As far as we know it may be forged by someone from that time period. Whoever wrote it, wrote it to agree with the Muslim Faith. But they however were not Jewish becuase they did not even know the right currency or the geographic area.​

​

**The Jubilee Year. The Jubilee year is a celebration commanded by God in the Torah. It was to be observed every fifty years:

Consecrate the fiftieth year and proclaim liberty throughout the land to all its inhabitants. It shall be a jubilee for you; each one of you is to return to his family property and each to his own clan. The fiftieth year shall be a jubilee for you (Leviticus 25:10-11, NIV).​

In the year 1300 A.D. Pope Boniface VIII falsely proclaimed that the Jubilee should be celebrated by Christians every 100 years instead of 50 years. However the next Pope, Clement VI, changed it back to every 50 years, and so it was celebrated in 1350 A.D. [8]. Therefore, in the church's history there is a 50-year period when the Jubilee was thought by many to be every 100 years. The author of the Gospel of Barnabas has unknowingly accepted the Pope's false decree as true and included it in his book. For in the Gospel of Barnabas these words are put on Jesus' lips:

(I)nsomuch that the year of Jubilee, which now comes every 100 years, shall by the Messiah be reduced to every year in every place (chap. 82).​

Is there any other evidence that could date this book to the 14th century? There is.
_____________________________________________________________________________________________

To be frank there is no evidence that the Gospel of Barnabas is an Ancient Document, or even from the Bible. Quoting it is baseless.

Some of what was written (identifed by **) is quoted from http://answering-islam.org/Green/barnabas.htm , visit it to read it in its enterity.

 

[TashaN]

Jesus was saved from the cross. God took Him up from it--in the spiritual sense. The body left behind was just a body.

In that sense Jesus did not taste of death. but then neither ahs anyone else. For we are all taken up to God.

Judgment Day as such is symbolic, not physical. No one is going to clamber out of a grave, because the next life has nothing to do with bodies in the first place.

Regards,
Scott

You know why this issue is so important to our Christian friends?

Because Paul told them that if Jesus didn't raise from the dead then their preaching is in vain, or something along the lines.

For us, we don't care whether that was spiritual death, the soul left the body or the whole body, etc which appeared in all your arguments and the others and none of it has any solid proof. Therefore, we say that Allah knows best and he will tell us all about it in the after life.

What we know for sure that even if Jesus himself was here, he would just be a Muslim, and if he was there while prophet Mohammed was there, he would have no choice but to follow prophet Mohammed "peace be upon him" because it's not about who was greater, but about the plan of this message of God, and his orders.

 

[TashaN]

Jesus never commanded his disciples to buy any swords, dont make up stuff.

"When I sent you without purse, and scrip, and shoes, lacked ye anything?" And they said, "Nothing" Then said he unto them, "But now, he that hath no purse, let him take it, and likewise his bag; and he that hath no SWORD, let him sell his garment and buy one!" (HOLY BIBLE) Luke 22:35-36

To see all the verses, you would be interested to see this post of mine.

http://www.religiousforums.com/forum/showthread.php?p=675182#post675182

Post # 218.

He was willing to die.

All the verses you quoted didn't show Jesus saying that he is willing to die. Don't show the verses where the later authors say Jesus had to die for us. Just back up your claim that Jesus was personally willing to die.

Thank you.

How then can we put the testimony of someone born 600 years later, who had never seen Jesus or anything that happened over eye witness testimonies? There is no authority in declaring factual history false- not one is able to: That Jesus, not Judas died on the cross for the sins of the World.

For the simple fact that he was a prophet of God but not his own knowledge. You will say that you don't believe he was a prophet and it's your right, but you can't prove for me that he was crucified in that way because the Quran says "it was made to appear to them" and that means, even if the eye witness was there, so they will see nothing but Jesus overthere.

Also, till now, no body could prove to me that Jesus was died for the sins of the world, for the simple fact that he didn't claim such a thing.

 

[Muffled]

so where is your tafsir and hadith to support what you say about this verse. Again he is talking about rising on the Day of Resurrection.

So who was God praying to when he was on the cross. When God or Jesus said the father is greater then I who is he talking about. When Jesus was praying who was he praying to. Who is the one from his own statement in the bible that sent him and gave him the power.

so where is there books all we have is the canons which none of them but Mark was there and he was 10. Where is the Gospels of the companions of Jesus peace be upon him.

The book contradicts itself so of course it will contradict other books.

because the church, not God or Jesus removed it and called it apocrypha and did not consider someone who walked with him and whose own book says to recieve him when he comes as a testimony of him, not to mention it was in his language.

Your religious leaders change books, and scripture verses like hotels change sheets. Just as the protestants did to the catholics, and the JWs to them, and the Mormons etc. etc. the original king James version itself had books removed by someone other then King James.

Surah 4:157 And because of their saying, We killed Christ Jesus the son of Mary, the Messenger of Allah, but they killed him not, nor crucified him, but so it was made to appear to them, and those who differ therein are full of doubts, with no certain knowledge, but only conjecture to follow, for of a surety they killed him not.

Now you have.

I have seen this verse and it says nothing about Jesus being saved from the cross. You have fantasized that it says this but it doesn't. This is another instance of a Muslim rearranging the Qu'ran to agree with their own ideas instead of accepting the word of God.

This is a problem with the Qu'ran. One event is listed right after another but no time separation is indicated. If one were to assume that the death and resurrection were that closely tied it would be in agreement with the Bible that the resurrection of Jesus occurred within the same time frame. The Ascension was not a rising from death since Jesus was alive when He ascended. Jesus does not have to arise on the day of resurrection because he is still alive from the time He ascended.

I don't know how you can be so misinformed. The canon of the Bible was well established by 666AD when the Qu'ran was taking shape.

You will have to document this because I have no information that Barnabus was ever a book in the Bible. In fact I don't remeber seeing this as part of the Apochrypha either.

That is a definite exaggeration. Christianity is not as firmly tied to the scripture as other religions because we have God at our disposal as the Paraclete. This way we don't get caught up in misinterpretations as the Muslims and Jews do because our faith is in the living God not in ourselves. Muslims have developed this myth about the Bible being changed so that they can ignore the word of God. And Muslims don't have the Paraclete to correct their thinking in this regard. Of course you are still without excuse because you can have the faith of Abraham and hear God directly as Abraham did.

 

[Dirty Penguin]

[/color]

I have seen this verse and it says nothing about Jesus being saved from the cross. You have fantasized that it says this but it doesn't. This is another instance of a Muslim rearranging the Qu'ran to agree with their own ideas instead of accepting the word of God.

This is a problem with the Qu'ran. One event is listed right after another but no time separation is indicated. If one were to assume that the death and resurrection were that closely tied it would be in agreement with the Bible that the resurrection of Jesus occurred within the same time frame. The Ascension was not a rising from death since Jesus was alive when He ascended. Jesus does not have to arise on the day of resurrection because he is still alive from the time He ascended.

I don't know how you can be so misinformed. The canon of the Bible was well established by 666AD when the Qu'ran was taking shape.

You will have to document this because I have no information that Barnabus was ever a book in the Bible. In fact I don't remeber seeing this as part of the Apochrypha either.

That is a definite exaggeration. Christianity is not as firmly tied to the scripture as other religions because we have God at our disposal as the Paraclete. This way we don't get caught up in misinterpretations as the Muslims and Jews do because our faith is in the living God not in ourselves. Muslims have developed this myth about the Bible being changed so that they can ignore the word of God. And Muslims don't have the Paraclete to correct their thinking in this regard. Of course you are still without excuse because you can have the faith of Abraham and hear God directly as Abraham did.

I'm confused. Wasn't it You whu said the you believed the Quran and the Bible are in harmony?

I could be wrong... But I'm sure it was you.

 

[Dirty Penguin]

I have seen this verse and it says nothing about Jesus being saved from the cross. You have fantasized that it says this but it doesn't. This is another instance of a Muslim rearranging the Qu'ran to agree with their own ideas instead of accepting the word of God.

Quran 4:157 (Arberry Translation)
and for their saying, 'We slew the Messiah, Jesus son of Mary, the Messenger of God' -- yet they did not slay him, neither crucified him, only a likeness of that was shown to them. Those who are at variance concerning him surely are in doubt regarding him; they have no knowledge of him, except the following of surmise; and they slew him not of a certainty -- no indeed;

The thinking is when looking at this verse is where it says "neither crucified"....This would certainly mean he wasn't put up on the cross to begin with. So in essence you are incorrect...that verse DOES say he was saved from the cross.

This is a problem with the Qu'ran. One event is listed right after another but no time separation is indicated.

If you truely understood the Quran you wouldn't have made this statement. It is said that the Quran was given to Muhammed by the Angel Gabriel. The content of the Quran confirms the scriptures before it. It does not have to go into detail because the scriptures before it is what is supposed to be read as well. So one could read the Torah as well as the Quran.

You will have to document this because I have no information that Barnabus was ever a book in the Bible. In fact I don't remeber seeing this as part of the Apochrypha either.

There's no question that there are some scriptures that have not made it to the collection of the scriptures known as the bible (collection of writings). The book of Barnabas' authenticity would have to be confirmed just like what was done with the Dead Sea Scrolls etc....

Christianity is not as firmly tied to the scripture as other religions

Now that is definately true.

because we have God at our disposal as the Paraclete. This way we don't get caught up in misinterpretations as the Muslims and Jews do because our faith is in the living God not in ourselves.

This is crap and I can't believe you went there. ANY and EVERY group can and has misinterperted the scripture in the name of God. Go back to the history books and examine the christian history. Some, not all, of them have been the biggest liars and murderers who have ever lived.

Muslims have developed this myth about the Bible being changed so that they can ignore the word of God.

Stephens 1550 Textus Receptus
John 1:18
qeon oudeiV ewraken pwpote o monogenhV uios o wn eiV ton kolpon tou patroV ekeinoV exhghsato

Alexandrian
John 1:18
qeon oudeiV ewraken pwpote monogenhV qeos o wn eiV ton kolpon tou patroV ekeinoV exhghsato

It's no denying that the bible was translated using different manuscripts but as we can see there are differences in these manuscripts.

 

[Muffled]

Quran 4:157 (Arberry Translation)
and for their saying, 'We slew the Messiah, Jesus son of Mary, the Messenger of God' -- yet they did not slay him, neither crucified him, only a likeness of that was shown to them. Those who are at variance concerning him surely are in doubt regarding him; they have no knowledge of him, except the following of surmise; and they slew him not of a certainty -- no indeed;

The thinking is when looking at this verse is where it says "neither crucified"....This would certainly mean he wasn't put up on the cross to begin with. So in essence you are incorrect...that verse DOES say he was saved from the cross.



If you truely understood the Quran you wouldn't have made this statement. It is said that the Quran was given to Muhammed by the Angel Gabriel. The content of the Quran confirms the scriptures before it. It does not have to go into detail because the scriptures before it is what is supposed to be read as well. So one could read the Torah as well as the Quran.



There's no question that there are some scriptures that have not made it to the collection of the scriptures known as the bible (collection of writings). The book of Barnabas' authenticity would have to be confirmed just like what was done with the Dead Sea Scrolls etc....

Now that is definately true.

because we have God at our disposal as the Paraclete. This way we don't get caught up in misinterpretations as the Muslims and Jews do because our faith is in the living God not in ourselves.

This is crap and I can't believe you went there. ANY and EVERY group can and has misinterperted the scripture in the name of God. Go back to the history books and examine the christian history. Some, not all, of them have been the biggest liars and murderers who have ever lived.



Stephens 1550 Textus Receptus
John 1:18
qeon oudeiV ewraken pwpote o monogenhV uios o wn eiV ton kolpon tou patroV ekeinoV exhghsato

Alexandrian
John 1:18
qeon oudeiV ewraken pwpote monogenhV qeos o wn eiV ton kolpon tou patroV ekeinoV exhghsato

It's no denying that the bible was translated using different manuscripts but as we can see there are differences in these manuscripts.

You should learn how to read your text. SInce a likeness of Jesus being crucified is shown to them then you can not say that the text is saying that nothing like a crucifixion is happening to Jesus. Most translations have this as "it appeared to them." Likeness can have a connotation of swapping out but appearance does not.

Agreed. The Bible is a more informative text on the crucifixion.

Here is what Google found on the Book of Barnabus:

The Gospel of Barnabas is a medieval document claiming to be an account of the life of Jesus. It displays a distinctly Muslim bias, and purports to show that Jesus was not the Son of God, nor the Messiah. The document is generally regarded by most scholars as a forgery.
A Gospel of Barnabas is first mentioned on a list of heretical books dating from the fifth century. No further information is given, and no manuscript survives from that date. The next mention of the Gospel occurs in the fifteenth century. An Italian and Spanish version were located in that time period.
The Gospel of Barnabas displays a number of internal problems and external anachronisms that firmly fix its origin in the fourteenth century, somewhere in Western Europe. These problems can be divided into several categories.
The Gospel of Barnabas makes a number of historical and geographical blunders. The Gospel asserts that Jesus was born while Pontius Pilate was governor of Judea. Secular history tells us that Pilate did not become governor until 26 or 27 AD. The Gospel describes Nazareth as a coastal city, when in fact it is located in the hill country, some distance from the Sea of Galilee. Palestine is described as a beautiful, lush country during the Summer. In fact, Palestine has a Winter rainfall, and much of the countryside is barren desert.

I don't doubt this but I was speaking idealistically. Ideally every Muslim could hear from God but realistically it probably doesn't happen very often. It has appeared to me that culturally Muslims refrain from hearing from God but maybe that is just a misunderstanding on my part.

Of course. I would like to see the translations to see which made it into my NASB version. When there are differences a decision has to be made about authenticity and one or the other selected. "Begotten is an unfortuante word since Jesus was only half begotten but I suppose we don't have a word for what actually happened.

 

[Dirty Penguin]

Quran 4:157 (Arberry Translation)
and for their saying, 'We slew the Messiah, Jesus son of Mary, the Messenger of God' -- yet they did not slay him, neither crucified him, only a likeness of that was shown to them. Those who are at variance concerning him surely are in doubt regarding him; they have no knowledge of him, except the following of surmise; and they slew him not of a certainty -- no indeed;

You should learn how to read your text.

Are you about to seriously teach me how to read the Quran. Will you be teaching me in arabic as well?

SInce a likeness of Jesus being crucified is shown to them then you can not say that the text is saying that nothing like a crucifixion is happening to Jesus.

I think I see where you're going. Are you saying that Jesus was put up on the cross but wasn't slained, wasn't crucified, because the act itself was halted by God in the next verse saying he was raised up?

"and for their saying, 'We slew the Messiah, Jesus son of Mary, the Messenger of God' -- yet they did not slay him, neither crucified him, only a likeness of that was shown to them. "

However you try to interpert it, he wasn't slained or crucified. The original question will still be NO.. He didn't die.

Of course. I would like to see the translations to see which made it into my NASB version. When there are differences a decision has to be made about authenticity and one or the other selected.

So now you can understand how muslims arrived at the notion that the bible has been tampered with. It may or may not be intentional but the different manuscripts of the bible do raise the questions.

 

[JayHawes]

"When I sent you without purse, and scrip, and shoes, lacked ye anything?" And they said, "Nothing" Then said he unto them, "But now, he that hath no purse, let him take it, and likewise his bag; and he that hath no SWORD, let him sell his garment and buy one!" (HOLY BIBLE) Luke 22:35-36

To see all the verses, you would be interested to see this post of mine.

http://www.religiousforums.com/forum/showthread.php?p=675182#post675182

Post # 218.



All the verses you quoted didn't show Jesus saying that he is willing to die. Don't show the verses where the later authors say Jesus had to die for us. Just back up your claim that Jesus was personally willing to die.

Thank you.




For the simple fact that he was a prophet of God but not his own knowledge. You will say that you don't believe he was a prophet and it's your right, but you can't prove for me that he was crucified in that way because the Quran says "it was made to appear to them" and that means, even if the eye witness was there, so they will see nothing but Jesus overthere.

Also, till now, no body could prove to me that Jesus was died for the sins of the world, for the simple fact that he didn't claim such a thing.

1) Please finsh quoting. Jesus told them to buy the swords to accomplish Prophecy, not just to defend him because he didn't want to die.

Lu 22:37 -For I say unto you, that this that is written must yet be accomplished in me, And he was reckoned among the transgressors: for the things concerning me have an end.

Lu 22:38 -And they said, Lord, behold, here are two swords. And he said unto them, It is enough.

He taught many times the Gospel of nonviolence (Matthew 5:39 ), and even told Peter to put up his sword (John 18:11), one of the very swords you suppose Jesus told them to buy to defend him....If it was meant for this, Jesus would not have told Peter to put it up.

2) The simple fact that Mohammed gave "false" revelation is proof enough that he was not a Prophet (of course this is my "opinion").

I refer to the revelation that Mohammed pur foward.

That al-Lat, al-Uzza and Manat, were the daughters of Allah. What's strange is that al-Lat, al-Uzza and Manat, were daughters of Mohammed's tribe's main god, al-lah, a moon god. Mohammed later on in the Quran seeks forgiveness for giving this false revelation, for giving the words of Satan.

3) Jesus' claim that he came to die for the sins of the World:

John 3:16- It is Jesus speaking.

"For God so loved the world that he gave his only begotten son that whosoever belvies in him shall not perish but have everlasting life.

1 Corinthians 15:3 "...Christ died for our sins according to the scriptures"

Joh 4:42 -And said unto the woman, Now we believe, not because of thy saying: for we have heard him ourselves, and know that this is indeed the Christ, the Saviour of the world.

Mt 1:21 -And she shall bring forth a son, and thou shalt call his name JESUS: for he shall save his people from their sins.

Mt 26:28 -For this is my blood of the new testament, which is shed for many for the remission of sins.

There are many more times where Jesus forgives the sins of many people's. His blood though, as he says, will be shed for the remission of sins.

 

[Popeyesays]

"JOhn 3:16- It is Jesus speaking.

"For God so loved the world that he gave his only begotten son that whosoever belvies in him shall not perish but have everlasting life."

No, it is GOD speaking. That's the main source of quibble here, that you blithely interchange the speaker without reasonable justification.

"That al-Lat, al-Uzza and Manat, were now the daughters of Allah. What's strange is that al-Lat, al-Uzza and Manat, were daughters of Mohammed's tribe's main god, al-lah, a moon god. Mohammed later on in the Quran seeks forgiveness for giving this false revelation."

from Wikipedia:
Early versions of the Qur'an allegedly contained verses that were later expunged, known as Satanic Verses.
Have you thought of al-Lat and al-'Uzza and Manat the third, the other Shaitan allegedly tempted him to add the following line:
These are the exalted Gharaniq, whose intercession is approved. The incident of the insertion of theses verses was not however mentioned by any of Muhammad's companions and is most likely to be a later fabrication according to the vast majority of earlier (eg. Ibn Kathir and Qadi Iyad) and later Islamic scholars (eg. al-Albani).

So you are referring to verses that only really exist inthe minds of Islam bashers.

Regards,
Scott

 

[JayHawes]

"JOhn 3:16- It is Jesus speaking.

"For God so loved the world that he gave his only begotten son that whosoever belvies in him shall not perish but have everlasting life."

No, it is GOD speaking. That's the main source of quibble here, that you blithely interchange the speaker without reasonable justification.

"That al-Lat, al-Uzza and Manat, were now the daughters of Allah. What's strange is that al-Lat, al-Uzza and Manat, were daughters of Mohammed's tribe's main god, al-lah, a moon god. Mohammed later on in the Quran seeks forgiveness for giving this false revelation."

from Wikipedia:
Early versions of the Qur'an allegedly contained verses that were later expunged, known as Satanic Verses.
Have you thought of al-Lat and al-'Uzza and Manat the third, the other Shaitan allegedly tempted him to add the following line:
These are the exalted Gharaniq, whose intercession is approved. The incident of the insertion of theses verses was not however mentioned by any of Muhammad's companions and is most likely to be a later fabrication according to the vast majority of earlier (eg. Ibn Kathir and Qadi Iyad) and later Islamic scholars (eg. al-Albani).

So you are referring to verses that only really exist inthe minds of Islam bashers.

Regards,
Scott

1) If you actually pick the Bible up you will notice that John 3:16 is in red letters, they are the words spoken by Jesus Christ, about what God was saying. Jesus is speaking for most of that Chapter, besides Nicodemus responding to him. It is not God speaking as you assume.

2) I'm sure Muslims would love to have erased this verse from history, they failed. Who wrote this article on Wikipedia? Muslims probably wrote it, it is therefore inaccurate and one-sidded. As is stated also on Wikipedia though, there were many Islamic Scholars that spoke of this verse....it seems even they do Muslims reject.