• Starting today August 7th, 2024, in order to post in the Married Couples, Courting Couples, or Singles forums, you will not be allowed to post if you have your Marital status designated as private. Announcements will be made in the respective forums as well but please note that if yours is currently listed as Private, you will need to submit a ticket in the Support Area to have yours changed.

Islam doesn't condone terror

Status
Not open for further replies.

Rebax

Newbie
Mar 19, 2011
83
0
✟22,693.00
Faith
Muslim
Marital Status
Private
You truly respect Jesus,If that were true then you wouldn't stone people to death in muslim countries.As for your comment about the Bible being corrupted,what a joke.If it's corrupted,Who corrupted the text and when was it corrupted?Evidence Please.Also thanks for clarifying the fact that there is no such thing as a moderate in Islam.Now maybe you'll enlighten us on what a true muslim is?Is a true muslim a Jihadist?How about OBL?

I've said this loads of times, Jesus (Pbuh) was a normal man and a messager of God. Not God as you believe.

You think Bible begin corrupted is a joke?

"The unknown author, whom we shall continue to call Matthew for the sake of convenience, drew no only up the Gospel according to Mark but upon a large body of material (principally, sayings of Jesus) not found in Mk that corresponds, sometimes exactly, to material found also in the Gospel according to Luke. (The New American Bible, ISBN: 978-0-529-06484-4, Page 1008)"
"As for the place where the gospel was composed, a plausible suggestion is that it was Antioch, the capital of the Roman province of Syria. (The New American Bible, ISBN: 978-0-529-06484-4, Page 1009)"
So we clearly see, both the author or authors and the place of composition of the "Gospel of Matthew" are unknown.


"Although the book is anonymous, apart from the ancient heading "According to Mark" in manuscripts, it has traditionally been assigned to John Mark, in whose mother's house (at Jerusalem) Christians assembled. (The New American Bible, ISBN: 978-0-529-06484-4, Page 1064)"​
"Although there is no direct internal evidence of authorship, it was the unanimous testimony of the early church that this Gospel was written by John Mark. (From the NIV Bible Commentary [1], page 1488)"
We certainly do not know whether Mark was the author or not! The quote clearly states "no direct internal evidence of authorship". Also, the so-called unanimous testimony of the early church:

- Does not prove that the author was Mark.

- Nor does it prove that other people did not alter and modify the book, especially when the book was written at least 40-50 years after Christ. We don't even know if Mark even wrote the book. "Traditionally, the gospel is said to have been written shortly before A.D. 70 in Rome, at a time of impending persecution and when destruction loomed over Jerusalem. (The New American Bible, ISBN: 978-0-529-06484-4, Page 1064)"
"Serious doubts exists as to whether these verses belong to the Gospel of Mark. They are absent from important early manuscripts and display certain peculiarities of vocabulary, style and theological content that are unlike the rest of Mark. His Gospel probably ended at 16:8, or its original ending has been lost. (From the NIV Bible Foot Notes [1], page 1528)"
"This verse, which reads, "But if you do not forgive, neither will your heavenly Father forgive your transgressions," is omitted in the best manuscripts. (The New American Bible, ISBN: 978-0-529-06484-4, Page 1081)"
"This passage, termed the Longer Ending to the Marcan gospel by comparison with a much briefer conclusion found in some less important manuscripts, has traditionally been accepted as a canonical part of the gospel and was defined as such by the Council of Trent. Early citations of it by the Fathers indicate that it was composed by the second century, although vocabulary and style indicate that it was written by someone other than Mark. (The New American Bible, ISBN: 978-0-529-06484-4, Page 1088)"
So, in reality, we don't really know whether Mark was the sole author of this Gospel or not, nor do we know when and where the "gospel" was even written. And since The New Testament wasn't even documented on paper until 150-300 years (depending on what Christian you talk to) after Jesus, then how are we to know for sure that the current "Gospel of Mark" wasn't written by some pro of Mark?


Even the Roman Catholic Encyclopedia says the bible has been ''Alerted''.
Also, the ex-christian theologian admits that bible is corrupted. I would like to see evidence of you that says against that the bible haven't been corrupted.
 
Upvote 0

Rebax

Newbie
Mar 19, 2011
83
0
✟22,693.00
Faith
Muslim
Marital Status
Private
Don't refer to personal attacks, it kills the tiny credibility you are striving for. What is the religion of the jihadists? What is the jihad are they after? I have no quarrel about what you support, the problem is with what you don't support...

You still commit to tu quoque fallacy. Quran is used to establish terror, it has always been. It doesn't have to be in the form of a car bomb, the problem is the vague definitions and the struggle of the muslim to apply Quranic instruction into all aspects of life including government and politics. You are so far away from the actual topic here, it is not even funny, you are displaying typical cyber-jihadist behavior, you are defending Quran by attacking other Scriptures without even having a clue about the historical context of what is said in there.

I am sure much better than what the Islamic Sultans have done to males that worked in their whorehouses (Harem) smashing their testicles. Now instead of slinging mud and playing the appeal to hypocrisy maybe you can explain the violent attitude of muslims around the world without blaming anyone else for your own faults.

It's funny how your words go against Islam against the value of a slave.

This is a quote from BBC news.

''

Islam's approach to slavery added the idea that freedom was the natural state of affairs for human beings and in line with this it limited the opportunities to enslave people, commended the freeing of slaves and regulated the way slaves were treated:
  • Islam greatly limited those who could be enslaved and under what circumstances (although these restrictions were often evaded)
  • Islam treated slaves as human beings as well as property
  • Islam banned the mistreatment of slaves - indeed the tradition repeatedly stresses the importance of treating slaves with kindness and compassion
  • Islam allowed slaves to achieve their freedom and made freeing slaves a virtuous act
  • Islam barred Muslims from enslaving other Muslims ''
And the Sultans and so on are history, I though christian bring up this argument when they spoke about the crusaders...''Oh we've already apologized for it. Forget it we live in the present'' Oh, karma ey?
If you read your faiths history it have been much darker. Just take the 1500 as an example where you couldn't even make a statement as ''The sun is not the centre in the unversium''. You would get killed. Jews/Christians/Muslims lived in peace until colonism took place with was by Christian countries.

Thank to God middle-east is getting on feet again, in my homeland christians have their own region where they can leave in peace and everyone respects that :3

Peace.
 
Upvote 0

Rebax

Newbie
Mar 19, 2011
83
0
✟22,693.00
Faith
Muslim
Marital Status
Private
Really? Where is your home, who is your people? Who defines that? Do you live in an islamic state which you claimed is impossible to establish perfectly? How can you defend a way of life when you can't even establish there is an authority on the face of Earth to decide the matters for you?

What a generalized way to put it!!! It could be anyone. Irony is tyrannical leaders ruled in mid-east, under different flavors of islam for centuries, they still oppress their people, but somehow West is responsible and when West comes to rescue, they are the oppressors. Again the definition can be fitted to mean ANYTHING.

Learn for once and for all, this is a not a verse posting contest, your off-context quote mining doesn't mean anything to anyone, your explanations are what matters. Look above, you quoted Baqarah, no context, no history of it, then you proceeded to use it to promote a defensive jihad which by your definition can be used also as OFFENSIVE.

Do I have to mention Mubarak in egypt, that tyrann who was living above the moon while his people were starving, and when the people took action, what did Obama said? Your arguments dosen't fit reality :/
 
Upvote 0

plenary

Newbie
Jan 18, 2011
210
7
✟22,874.00
Faith
Christian
Marital Status
Single
Politics
US-Republican
Even the Roman Catholic Encyclopedia says the bible has been ''Alerted''.
Also, the ex-christian theologian admits that bible is corrupted. I would like to see evidence of you that says against that the bible haven't been corrupted.

There are a vast number of resources because of which corruption of the Bible is extremely unlikely, because of the number of texts... (because in that way, it can be seen whether a specific text is corrupted...)

Where is your evidence that Muhammad was a prophet? He even makes claims that there haven't been any prophets between Jesus and him?? Paul was a prophet, John was a prophet etc.... Muhammad claimed to be the last prophet, Christianity still has prophets...


Introduction

Many skeptics believe that the Bible has been drastically changed over the centuries. In reality, the Bible has been translated into a number of different languages (first Latin, then English and other languages, see History of the Bible). However, the ancient manuscripts (written in Hebrew, Aramaic, and Greek) have been reliably copied over the centuries - with very few alterations.
Old Testament

How do we know the Bible has been kept in tact for over 2,000 years of copying? Before the discovery of the Dead Sea Scrolls, our earliest Hebrew copy of the Old Testament was the Masoretic text, dating around 800 A.D. The Dead Sea Scrolls date to the time of Jesus and were copied by the Qumran community, a Jewish sect living around the Dead Sea. We also have the Septuagint which is a Greek translation of the Old Testament dating in the second century B.C. When we compare these texts which have an 800-1000 years gap between them we are amazed that 95% of the texts are identical with only minor variations and a few discrepancies.
New Testament

There are tens of thousands of manuscripts from the New Testament, in part or in whole, dating from the second century A.D. to the late fifteenth century, when the printing press was invented. These manuscripts have been found in Egypt, Palestine, Syria, Turkey, Greece, and Italy, making collusion unlikely. The oldest manuscript, the John Rylands manuscript, has been dated to 125 A.D. and was found in Egypt, some distance from where the New Testament was originally composed in Asia Minor. Many early Christian papyri, discovered in 1935, have been dated to 150 A.D., and include the four gospels. The Papyrus Bodmer II, discovered in 1956, has been dated to 200 A.D., and contains 14 chapters and portions of the last seven chapters of the gospel of John. The Chester Beatty biblical papyri, discovered in 1931, has been dated to 200-250 A.D. and contains the Gospels, Acts, Paul's Epistles, and Revelation. The number of manuscripts is extensive compared to other ancient historical writings, such as Caesar's "Gallic Wars" (10 Greek manuscripts, the earliest 950 years after the original), the "Annals" of Tacitus (2 manuscripts, the earliest 950 years after the original), Livy (20 manuscripts, the earliest 350 years after the original), and Plato (7 manuscripts).
Manuscript Evidence for Ancient Writings Author Written Earliest Copy Time Span # Mss. Caesar 100-44 B.C. 900 A.D. 1,000 yrs 10 Plato 427-347 B.C. 900 A.D. 1,200 yrs 7 Thucydides 460-400 B.C. 900 A.D. 1,300 yrs 8 Tacitus 100 A.D. 1100 A.D. 1,000 yrs 20 Suetonius 75-160 A.D. 950 A.D. 800 yrs 8 Homer (Iliad) 900 B.C. 400 B.C. 500 yrs 643 New Testament 40-100 A.D. 125 A.D. 25-50 yrs 24,000 Thousands of early Christian writings and lexionaries (first and second century) cite verses from the New Testament. In fact, it is nearly possible to put together the entire New Testament just from early Christian writings. For example, the Epistle of Clement to the Corinthians (dated 95 A.D.) cites verses from the Gospels, Acts, Romans, 1 Corinthians, Ephesians, Titus, Hebrews, and 1 Peter. The letters of Ignatius (dated 115 A.D.) were written to several churches in Asia Minor and cites verses from Matthew, John, Romans, 1 & 2 Corinthians, Galatians, Ephesians, Philippians, 1 & 2 Timothy and Titus. These letters indicate that the entire New Testament was written in the first century A.D. In addition, there is internal evidence for a first century date for the writing of the New Testament. The book of Acts ends abruptly with Paul in prison, awaiting trial (Acts 28:30-31 (1)). It is likely that Luke wrote Acts during this time, before Paul finally appeared before Nero. This would be about 62-63 A.D., meaning that Acts and Luke were written within thirty years of ministry and death of Jesus. Another internal evidence is that there is no mention of the destruction of Jerusalem in 70 A.D. Although Matthew, Mark and Luke record Jesus' prophecy that the temple and city would be destroyed within that generation (Matthew 24:1-2 (2),Mark 13:1-2 (3), Luke 21:5-9,20-24,32(4)), no New Testament book refers to this event as having happened. If they had been written after 70 A.D., it is likely that letters written after 70 A.D. would have mentioned the fulfillment of Jesus' prophecy. As stated by Nelson Glueck, former president of the Jewish Theological Seminary in the Hebrew Union College in Cincinnati, and renowned Jewish archaeologist, "In my opinion, every book of the New Testament was written between the forties and eighties of the first century A.D."
Conclusion

With all of the massive manuscript evidence you would think there would be massive discrepancies - just the opposite is true. New Testament manuscripts agree in 99.5% (5) of the text (compared to only 95% for the Iliad). Most of the discrepancies are in spelling and word order. A few words have been changed or added. There are two passages that are disputed but no discrepancy is of any doctrinal significance (i.e., none would alter basic Christian doctrine). Most Bibles include the options as footnotes when there are discrepancies. How could there be such accuracy over a period of 1,400 years of copying? Two reasons: The scribes that did the copying had meticulous methods for checking their copies for errors. 2) The Holy Spirit made sure we would have an accurate copy of God's word so we would not be deceived. The Mormons, theological liberals as well as other cults and false religions such as Islam that claim the Bible has been tampered with are completely proven false by the extensive, historical manuscript evidence.
[/quote]
http://www.godandscience.org/apologetics/bibleorg.html
 
Last edited:
Upvote 0

HumbleSiPilot77

Senior Contributor
Jan 4, 2003
10,040
421
Arizona
✟27,775.00
Country
United States
Gender
Male
Faith
Eastern Orthodox
Marital Status
Married
Politics
US-Others
I would be glad if you put up the verses that say the opposite of it?
WHY? Are you authorized to provide tasfir?

We muslims believe Jesus (Pbuh) Predicted the right things from God but later on it was corrupted/rewriten.
When was it corrupted, who corrupted it, how was it corrupted? If all scriptures prior to Quran had been, how come Quran was not, logically? You haven't proven a corruption case yet.

You can deny that, if you are interested in this issue maybe you need to read about the authoers of the bible, none even knows for sure who they are.

There is an unbroken link of Holy Tradition that the Christian Church holds where the authors are correctly identified. The identity, the name of the author at that point becomes a moot point as we have textual proof that the originals were passed down without change. Gospel of Matthew was written by St. Matthew, however why does it matter if it was penned down by some scribe we don't know, or copied and distributed? Do you know all the names of the scribes that wrote the copies of the Quran Uthman burned? NO, you don't. So stop arguing things that doesn't matter.
 
Upvote 0

HumbleSiPilot77

Senior Contributor
Jan 4, 2003
10,040
421
Arizona
✟27,775.00
Country
United States
Gender
Male
Faith
Eastern Orthodox
Marital Status
Married
Politics
US-Others
My argument was not You think...I said you don't know for sure instead of searching in the Quran after so called violence things, you haven't even been able to put up a verse?
If we put up a verse, what is your credential to give us a scholarly answer? Quoting the Answering-Islam page of the nutcase Osama Abdallah doesn't work...
 
Upvote 0

HumbleSiPilot77

Senior Contributor
Jan 4, 2003
10,040
421
Arizona
✟27,775.00
Country
United States
Gender
Male
Faith
Eastern Orthodox
Marital Status
Married
Politics
US-Others
Murdering an innocent person is not aloud in Islam, it's one of the greatest sins. Death worship? We only worship God who was not born and will last forever. We believe in him without putting idols in his side. There's only one God who's worth to be worshipped and that's Allah, the merciful.

Peace.
It is not "aloud" it is "allowed"... Am I innocent? Tell me. I am a US servicemember and I left Islam. To me, from my perspective, I am quite innocent. But to others I am not. Who determines who is innocent? You don't answer that question, you keep beating around the bush.
 
Upvote 0

Rebax

Newbie
Mar 19, 2011
83
0
✟22,693.00
Faith
Muslim
Marital Status
Private
There are a vast number of resources because of which corruption of the Bible is extremely unlikely, because of the number of texts... (because in that way, it can be seen whether a specific text is corrupted...)

Where is your evidence that Muhammad was a prophet? He even makes claims that there haven't been any prophets between Jesus and him?? Paul was a prophet, John was a prophet etc.... Muhammad claimed to be the last prophet, Christianity still has prophets...
Is Our Copy of the Bible a Reliable Copy of the Original?[/quote]

John/Paul was not prophets. If these people were being "inspired" by God, I wondered, then why did they need to put these words into other people's mouths (in our example, in the mouth of John). Why did they not just openly say "God inspired me and I will add a chapter to the Bible in my name"? Also, why did God need to wait till after the departure of Jesus to "inspire" his "true" nature? Why not let Jesus (pbuh) say it himself?



The great luminary of Western literature, Mr. Edward Gibbon, explains the reason for the discardal of this verse from the pages of the Bible with the following words:

"Of all the manuscripts now extant, above fourscore in number, some of which are more than 1200 years old, the orthodox copies of the Vatican, of the Complutensian editors, of Robert Stephens are becoming invisible; and the two manuscripts of Dublin and Berlin are unworthy to form an exception...In the eleventh and twelfth centuries, the Bibles were corrected by LanFrank, Archbishop of Canterbury, and by Nicholas, a cardinal and librarian of the Roman church, secundum Ortodoxam fidem. Notwithstanding these corrections, the passage is still wanting in twenty-five Latin manuscripts, the oldest and fairest; two qualities seldom united, except in manuscripts....The three witnesses have been established in our Greek Testaments by the prudence of Erasmus; the honest bigotry of the Complutensian editors; the typographical fraud, or error, of Robert Stephens in the placing of a crotchet and the deliberate falsehood, or strange misapprehension, of Theodore Beza."
"Decline and fall of the Roman Empire," IV, Gibbon, p. 418.

Edward Gibbon was defended in his findings by his contemporary, the brilliant British scholar Richard Porson who also proceeded to publish devastatingly conclusive proof that the verse of 1 John 5:7 was only first inserted by the Church into the Bible in the year 400C.E.(Secrets of Mount Sinai, James Bentley, pp. 30-33).

Regarding Porson's most devastating proof, Mr. Gibbon later said

"His structures are founded in argument, enriched with learning, and enlivened with wit, and his adversary neither deserves nor finds any quarter at his hands. The evidence of the three heavenly witnesses would now be rejected in any court of justice; but prejudice is blind, authority is deaf, and our vulgar Bibles will ever be polluted by this spurious text."

To which Mr. Bentley responds:

"In fact, they are not. No modern Bible now contains the interpolation."

Mr. Bentley, however, is mistaken. Indeed, just as Mr. Gibbon had predicted, the simple fact that the most learned scholars of Christianity now unanimously recognize this verse to be a later interpolation of the Church has not prevented the preservation of this fabricated text in our modern Bibles. To this day, the Bible in the hands of the majority of Christians, the "King James" Bible, still unhesitantly includes this verse as the "inspired" word of God without so much as a footnote to inform the reader that all scholars of Christianity of note unanimously recognize it as a later fabrication.

Peake's Commentary on the Bible says

"The famous interpolation after 'three witnesses' is not printed even in RSVn, and rightly. It cites the heavenly testimony of the Father, the logos, and the Holy Spirit, but is never used in the early Trinitarian controversies. No respectable Greek MS contains it. Appearing first in a late 4th-cent. Latin text, it entered the Vulgate and finally the NT of Erasmus."

It was only the horrors of the great inquisitions which held back Sir Isaac Newton from openly revealing these facts to all:

"In all the vehement universal and lasting controversy about the Trinity in Jerome's time and both before and long enough after it, the text of the 'three in heaven' was never once thought of. It is now in everybody's mouth and accounted the main text for the business and would assuredly have been so too with them, had it been in their books… Let them make good sense of it who are able. For my part I can make none. If it be said that we are not to determine what is scripture and what not by our private judgments, I confess it in places not controverted, but in disputed places I love to take up with what I can best understand. It is the temper of the hot and superstitious part of mankind in matters of religion ever to be fond of mysteries, and for that reason to like best what they understand least. Such men may use the Apostle John as they please, but I have that honor for him as to believe that he wrote good sense and therefore take that to be his which is the best"
Jesus, Prophet of Islam, Muhammad Ata' Ur-Rahim, p. 156

According to Newton, this verse first appeared for in the third edition of Erasmus's (1466-1536) New Testament.

For all of the above reasons, we find that when thirty two biblical scholars backed by fifty cooperating Christian denominations got together to compile the Revised Standard Version of the Bible based upon the most ancient Biblical manuscripts available to them today, they made some very extensive changes. Among these changes was the unceremonious discardal of the verse of 1 John 5:7 as the fabricated insertion that it is. For more on the compilation of the RSV Bible, please read the preface of any modern copy of that Bible.

Such comparatively unimportant matters as the description of Jesus (pbuh) riding an ass (or was it a "colt", or was it an "ass and a colt"? see point 42 in the table of section 2.2) into Jerusalem are spoken about in great details since they are the fulfillment of a prophesy. For instance, in Mark 11:2-10 we read:

"And saith unto them, Go your way into the village over against you: and as soon as ye be entered into it, ye shall find a colt tied, whereon never man sat; loose him, and bring [him]. And if any man say unto you, Why do ye this? say ye that the Lord hath need of him; and straightway he will send him hither. And they went their way, and found the colt tied by the door without in a place where two ways met; and they loose him And certain of them that stood there said unto them, What do ye, loosing the colt? And they said unto them even as Jesus had commanded: and they let them go And they brought the colt to Jesus, and cast their garments on him; and he sat upon him. And many spread their garments in the way: and others cut down branches off the trees, and strawed [them] in the way And they that went before, and they that followed, cried, saying, Hosanna; Blessed [is] he that cometh in the name of the Lord: Blessed [be] the kingdom of our father David, that cometh in the name of the Lord: Hosanna in the highest."

Also see Luke 19:30-38 which has a similar detailed description of this occurrence. On the other hand, the Bible is completely free of any description of the "Trinity" which is supposedly a description of the very nature of the one who rode this ass, who is claimed to be the only son of God, and who allegedly died for the sins of all of mankind. I found myself asking the question: If every aspect of Christian faith is described in such detail such that even the description of this ass is so vividly depicted for us, then why is the same not true for the description of the "Trinity"? Sadly, however, it is a question for which there is no logical answer.

No credible Biblical scholar on this earth will claim that the Bible was written by Jesus himself. They all agree that the Bible was written after the departure of Jesus peace be upon him by his followers. So, if the authors of the Bible were people other than Jesus, then did they have Jesus or the Holy Spirit in them guiding their hands and dictating to them word for word what to write? As it happens, once again the answer is no. Who says so? The majority of today's credible Christian scholars do. For example:
Dr. W Graham Scroggie of the Moody Bible Institute, Chicago, a prestigious Christian evangelical mission, says:
"..Yes, the Bible is human, although some out of zeal which is not according to knowledge, have denied this. Those books have passed through the minds of men, are written in the language of men, were penned by the hands of men and bear in their style the characteristics of men...."
"It is Human, Yet Divine," W Graham Scroggie, p. 17
Another Christian scholar, Kenneth Cragg, the Anglican Bishop of Jerusalem, says:
"...Not so the New testament...There is condensation and editing; there is choice reproduction and witness. The Gospels have come through the mind of the church behind the authors. They represent experience and history..."
"The Call of the Minaret," Kenneth Cragg, p 277
For example, we read in the Bible the words of the author of "Luke":
"It seemed good to me (Luke) also, having had perfect understanding of all things from the very first, to write unto thee in order, most excellent Theophilus, (Luke 1:3)"
If you consider the Bible the word of GOD, well, it is quite obvious that Luke decided to write his Gospel because he wanted to please the president or the
leader at that time Theophilus. This however has several problems: (1) It compromises GOD because there is a biger purpose than GOD to write the Gospel, (2) It shows that Luke wouldn't have written his Gospel if it wasn't for that leader, and (3) Luke was not inpired when he wrote his Gospel because he said that he decided to write it after he had full understanding of it, which means that he wrote it with his own human words and thoughts and not GOD's.
Its a nice direct answer to the highly visited "Christian Think Tank" site you sended me.

"O People of the Book! Why do you reject the Signs of God, when you [yourselves] bear witness [to their truth] ?. O People of the Book! Why do you clothe Truth with falsehood, and conceal the Truth, while you have knowledge? (The Noble Quran, 3:70-71)"
"Say: 'O People of the Book (Jews and Christians)! Why do you reject the Signs of God, when God is Himself witness to all you do?' Say: 'O People of the Book! Why do you obstruct those who believe from the path of God, Seeking to make it crooked, while you were yourselves witnesses? But God is not unaware of what you do' (The Noble Quran, 3:98-99)"
"Truly, the Religion in the Sight of God is Islam (literally: "the submission"). Nor did those who were given the scripture dissent therefrom except after knowledge had come to them, through envy of each other. But whosoever disbelieves in the Signs of God, [then surely,] God is swift in calling to account. (The Noble Quran, 3:19)"
"They are not all alike. Of the People of the Scripture there is a party who stand [for that which is right], they recite the revelations of Allah throughout the night, falling prostrate [before Him]. (The Noble Quran, 3:113)"
"And there are, certainly, among the People of the Book, those who believe in God, and in that which was sent down unto you, and in that which was sent down unto them, humbling themselves before God: They will not sell the Signs of God for a miserable gain! For them is a reward with their Lord, and God is swift to take account. (The Noble Quran, 3:199)"
"O people of the Book! Now has come unto you Our messenger, revealing to you much of what you used to hide in the Book, and passing over much. Indeed, there has come to you from God a light and a plain Scripture (The Noble Quran, 5:15)"

Peace brother.
 
Upvote 0

Rebax

Newbie
Mar 19, 2011
83
0
✟22,693.00
Faith
Muslim
Marital Status
Private
WHY? Are you authorized to provide tasfir?

When was it corrupted, who corrupted it, how was it corrupted? If all scriptures prior to Quran had been, how come Quran was not, logically? You haven't proven a corruption case yet.



There is an unbroken link of Holy Tradition that the Christian Church holds where the authors are correctly identified. The identity, the name of the author at that point becomes a moot point as we have textual proof that the originals were passed down without change. Gospel of Matthew was written by St. Matthew, however why does it matter if it was penned down by some scribe we don't know, or copied and distributed? Do you know all the names of the scribes that wrote the copies of the Quran Uthman burned? NO, you don't. So stop arguing things that doesn't matter.

Read the works of James white, former christian about bible is corrupted. Tell me once you're done.
 
Upvote 0

HumbleSiPilot77

Senior Contributor
Jan 4, 2003
10,040
421
Arizona
✟27,775.00
Country
United States
Gender
Male
Faith
Eastern Orthodox
Marital Status
Married
Politics
US-Others
I've said this loads of times, Jesus (Pbuh) was a normal man and a messager of God. Not God as you believe.
Prove it. From our own Scriptures... You keep asking that we should put up verses for you, here is your turn.

You think Bible begin corrupted is a joke?

"The unknown author, whom we shall continue to call Matthew for the sake of convenience, drew no only up the Gospel according to Mark but upon a large body of material (principally, sayings of Jesus) not found in Mk that corresponds, sometimes exactly, to material found also in the Gospel according to Luke. (The New American Bible, ISBN: 978-0-529-06484-4, Page 1008)"
"As for the place where the gospel was composed, a plausible suggestion is that it was Antioch, the capital of the Roman province of Syria. (The New American Bible, ISBN: 978-0-529-06484-4, Page 1009)"
So we clearly see, both the author or authors and the place of composition of the "Gospel of Matthew" are unknown.


"Although the book is anonymous, apart from the ancient heading "According to Mark" in manuscripts, it has traditionally been assigned to John Mark, in whose mother's house (at Jerusalem) Christians assembled. (The New American Bible, ISBN: 978-0-529-06484-4, Page 1064)"​
"Although there is no direct internal evidence of authorship, it was the unanimous testimony of the early church that this Gospel was written by John Mark. (From the NIV Bible Commentary [1], page 1488)"
We certainly do not know whether Mark was the author or not! The quote clearly states "no direct internal evidence of authorship". Also, the so-called unanimous testimony of the early church:

- Does not prove that the author was Mark.

- Nor does it prove that other people did not alter and modify the book, especially when the book was written at least 40-50 years after Christ. We don't even know if Mark even wrote the book. "Traditionally, the gospel is said to have been written shortly before A.D. 70 in Rome, at a time of impending persecution and when destruction loomed over Jerusalem. (The New American Bible, ISBN: 978-0-529-06484-4, Page 1064)"
"Serious doubts exists as to whether these verses belong to the Gospel of Mark. They are absent from important early manuscripts and display certain peculiarities of vocabulary, style and theological content that are unlike the rest of Mark. His Gospel probably ended at 16:8, or its original ending has been lost. (From the NIV Bible Foot Notes [1], page 1528)"
"This verse, which reads, "But if you do not forgive, neither will your heavenly Father forgive your transgressions," is omitted in the best manuscripts. (The New American Bible, ISBN: 978-0-529-06484-4, Page 1081)"
"This passage, termed the Longer Ending to the Marcan gospel by comparison with a much briefer conclusion found in some less important manuscripts, has traditionally been accepted as a canonical part of the gospel and was defined as such by the Council of Trent. Early citations of it by the Fathers indicate that it was composed by the second century, although vocabulary and style indicate that it was written by someone other than Mark. (The New American Bible, ISBN: 978-0-529-06484-4, Page 1088)"
So, in reality, we don't really know whether Mark was the sole author of this Gospel or not, nor do we know when and where the "gospel" was even written. And since The New Testament wasn't even documented on paper until 150-300 years (depending on what Christian you talk to) after Jesus, then how are we to know for sure that the current "Gospel of Mark" wasn't written by some pro of Mark?
Copying and pasting arguments from a different forum doesn't actually address the issue here. This guy is talking about the difficulty identifying the authors, which is not a case, since we have the unbroken Church Tradition and external Church documents about this, your source doesn't mention an iota about textual integrity, so pick your arguments correctly.
Even the Roman Catholic Encyclopedia says the bible has been ''Alerted''.
Also, the ex-christian theologian admits that bible is corrupted. I would like to see evidence of you that says against that the bible haven't been corrupted.
You haven't proven that Bible is corrupted yet that you should ask us counter-arguments and evidence. John Dominic Crossan has a certain agenda and most of the time he disregards Early Church Fathers' testimonies. So what is your argument?
 
Upvote 0

b&wpac7

Nechamya ben Avraham
Dec 18, 2010
1,723
54
✟24,799.00
Faith
Judaism
From my point of view, there's no reason to suspect that the Jewish or Christian scriptures have truly been corrupted. From a Jewish point of view, copying the Torah was done very carefully, with letters being counted to ensure that the correct number were written on each line and with checking. It was considered extremely important to preserve those writings.

I imagine Christians also treasured their scripture and went through painstaking measures to ensure the accuracy of what was preserved.

If you have to base your beliefs on the idea that previous people got their scriptures wrong, you better turn your attention back to your own. I think it's grasping at straws.
 
Upvote 0

Rebax

Newbie
Mar 19, 2011
83
0
✟22,693.00
Faith
Muslim
Marital Status
Private
It is not "aloud" it is "allowed"... Am I innocent? Tell me. I am a US servicemember and I left Islam. To me, from my perspective, I am quite innocent. But to others I am not. Who determines who is innocent? You don't answer that question, you keep beating around the bush.

If you hit a person...beat him up till he's half death, taking over his house and he later comes back and kill you, are you innocent? That was just an example of defensive Jihad.

"Fight in the cause of Allah those who fight you, but do not do aggression, for Allah loves not the aggressors. Fight in the way of Allah against those who fight against you, but begin not hostilities. Lo! Allah loveth not aggressors. And slay them wherever ye find them, and drive them out of the places whence they drove you out, for persecution is worse than slaughter. And fight not with them at the Inviolable Place of Worship until they first attack you there, but if they attack you (there) then slay them. Such is the reward of disbelievers. But if they desist, then lo! Allah is Forgiving, Merciful. And fight them until persecution is no more, and religion is for Allah. But if they desist, then let there be no hostility except against wrongdoers." (Al-Baqarah 190-194)

You cleary see that in that verse which a lot of the people here seem to use. Is that wrong?

How hard is it to understand that someone who dosen't harm you is innocent? Seems to be hard for you to understand.
 
Upvote 0

Rebax

Newbie
Mar 19, 2011
83
0
✟22,693.00
Faith
Muslim
Marital Status
Private
From my point of view, there's no reason to suspect that the Jewish or Christian scriptures have truly been corrupted. From a Jewish point of view, copying the Torah was done very carefully, with letters being counted to ensure that the correct number were written on each line and with checking. It was considered extremely important to preserve those writings.

I imagine Christians also treasured their scripture and went through painstaking measures to ensure the accuracy of what was preserved.

If you have to base your beliefs on the idea that previous people got their scriptures wrong, you better turn your attention back to your own. I think it's grasping at straws.

I've already been through it all. Thank you for the advice though. I'm not trying to slam my christian/jewish brothers like this, no. But when people is full of hate and don't want to understand and listen, they keep arguie in a circle that goes around and around without really paying attention. My world is bigger than hitting on christians/Jewish people. I just had it as an example of how wrong they are about what they say. My sources are christian theologians/Books who already admited this .

My challange is still left to everyone that says Islam condone terror. These people won't even put up a verse with apporves their argument.

Peace :)
 
Upvote 0

HumbleSiPilot77

Senior Contributor
Jan 4, 2003
10,040
421
Arizona
✟27,775.00
Country
United States
Gender
Male
Faith
Eastern Orthodox
Marital Status
Married
Politics
US-Others
It's funny how your words go against Islam against the value of a slave.

This is a quote from BBC news.
Yes the source you didn't read!

Islam greatly limited those who could be enslaved and under what circumstances (although these restrictions were often evaded)


Islam treated slaves as human beings as well as property

Islam banned the mistreatment of slaves - indeed the tradition repeatedly stresses the importance of treating slaves with kindness and compassion

How is it compassionate when you have to remove one's testicles?

Islam allowed slaves to achieve their freedom and made freeing slaves a virtuous act
How? Explain how did a slave achieve freedom?

Islam barred Muslims from enslaving other MuslimsWhy, the non-muslims are less human?

And the Sultans and so on are history

Were they muslim or not?

, I though christian bring up this argument when they spoke about the crusaders...''Oh we've already apologized for it. Forget it we live in the present'' Oh, karma ey?
I didn't apologize for the Crusades, they were necessary political moves in order to protect important assets with military might from the islamic savages that claimed certain lands were theirs while theologically and geographically they had no ties to those lands. If you want to talk about today, I can still show you pictures of Indonesian muslims cutting limbs, ears, fingers off of Christians in their persecution.
If you read your faiths history it have been much darker. Just take the 1500 as an example where you couldn't even make a statement as ''The sun is not the centre in the unversium''. You would get killed. Jews/Christians/Muslims lived in peace until colonism took place with was by Christian countries.
Irrelevant and your effort to change the topic has been noted. If you want to talk about Inquisition start a new thread.

Thank to God middle-east is getting on feet again, in my homeland christians have their own region where they can leave in peace and everyone respects that

Own region? They are not mixed with muslims? Problem right there... Muslims mix with everyone else where they go.
 
Upvote 0

HumbleSiPilot77

Senior Contributor
Jan 4, 2003
10,040
421
Arizona
✟27,775.00
Country
United States
Gender
Male
Faith
Eastern Orthodox
Marital Status
Married
Politics
US-Others
Do I have to mention Mubarak in egypt, that tyrann who was living above the moon while his people were starving, and when the people took action, what did Obama said? Your arguments dosen't fit reality :/
How does this answer anything I said?

Jihad can be defensive. Such as protecting our homes, people, land and way of life.
Really? Where is your home, who is your people? Who defines that? Do you live in an islamic state which you claimed is impossible to establish perfectly? How can you defend a way of life when you can't even establish there is an authority on the face of Earth to decide the matters for you?

It can be Liberating, helping free others from tyranny and oppression and it can be preemptive which is launched only when Muslims know for sure that there is treason against their peaceful treaties with the enemy, when the enemy has a serious plan to attack them.
What a generalized way to put it!!! It could be anyone. Irony is tyrannical leaders ruled in mid-east, under different flavors of islam for centuries, they still oppress their people, but somehow West is responsible and when West comes to rescue, they are the oppressors. Again the definition can be fitted to mean ANYTHING.

Do you think it's wrong to kill in those cases? If so then tell me why you think so. Stop speak without evidence, when I reply to you I put up evindences for what I say but your argument is word against word.
Learn for once and for all, this is a not a verse posting contest, your off-context quote mining doesn't mean anything to anyone, your explanations are what matters. Look above, you quoted Baqarah, no context, no history of it, then you proceeded to use it to promote a defensive jihad which by your definition can be used also as OFFENSIVE.
 
Upvote 0

b&wpac7

Nechamya ben Avraham
Dec 18, 2010
1,723
54
✟24,799.00
Faith
Judaism
I've already been through it all. Thank you for the advice though. I'm not trying to slam my christian/jewish brothers like this, no.

Works for me. :) I wouldn't suggest that your books are corrupted either. I prefer to tackle the works as written, in the end. Seems more... sporting, wouldn't you say?

Shalom :)
 
Upvote 0

Rebax

Newbie
Mar 19, 2011
83
0
✟22,693.00
Faith
Muslim
Marital Status
Private
Yes the source you didn't read!

Islam greatly limited those who could be enslaved and under what circumstances (although these restrictions were often evaded)

Islam treated slaves as human beings as well as property

Islam banned the mistreatment of slaves - indeed the tradition repeatedly stresses the importance of treating slaves with kindness and compassion
How is it compassionate when you have to remove one's testicles?

Islam allowed slaves to achieve their freedom and made freeing slaves a virtuous actHow? Explain how did a slave achieve freedom?

Islam barred Muslims from enslaving other MuslimsWhy, the non-muslims are less human?



Were they muslim or not?


I didn't apologize for the Crusades, they were necessary political moves in order to protect important assets with military might from the islamic savages that claimed certain lands were theirs while theologically and geographically they had no ties to those lands. If you want to talk about today, I can still show you pictures of Indonesian muslims cutting limbs, ears, fingers off of Christians in their persecution.
Irrelevant and your effort to change the topic has been noted. If you want to talk about Inquisition start a new thread.



Own region? They are not mixed with muslims? Problem right there... Muslims mix with everyone else where they go.

They were given their own region in the capital of Hawler, so they could practise their religion in peace. How is that a problem?

You didn't apologize for crusaders, your pope and most of the christians did though. I've never claimed I support killing of jews/christians/any human begins...Why do you bring this up to me?


Muhammad(pbuh) personally freed 63 slaves, and his wife Aisha freed 67. In total his household and friends freed 39,237 slaves.

And some Quran verse about this;


[9:60] Charities shall go to the poor, the needy, the workers who collect them, the new converts, to free the slaves, to those burdened by sudden expenses, in the cause of GOD, and to the traveling alien. Such is GOD's commandment. GOD is Omniscient, Most Wise. [2:177] “Righteousness is not turning your faces towards the east or the west. Righteous are those who believe in GOD, the Last Day, the angels, the scripture, and the prophets; and they give the money, cheerfully, to the relatives, the orphans, the needy, the traveling alien, the beggars, and to free the slaves; and they observe the Contact Prayers (Salat) and give the obligatory charity (Zakat); and they keep their word whenever they make a promise; and they steadfastly persevere in the face of persecution, hardship, and war. These are the truthful; these are the righteous.”
 
Upvote 0

Rebax

Newbie
Mar 19, 2011
83
0
✟22,693.00
Faith
Muslim
Marital Status
Private
Works for me. :) I wouldn't suggest that your books are corrupted either. I prefer to tackle the works as written, in the end. Seems more... sporting, wouldn't you say?

Shalom :)

Thank you. I'm not trying to put up my faith to heaven and bring someone els down to the earth, I'm just brining up arguments from what I've read when it comes to history and so on.

Peace my jewish brother :)
 
Upvote 0

HumbleSiPilot77

Senior Contributor
Jan 4, 2003
10,040
421
Arizona
✟27,775.00
Country
United States
Gender
Male
Faith
Eastern Orthodox
Marital Status
Married
Politics
US-Others
If you hit a person...beat him up till he's half death, taking over his house and he later comes back and kill you, are you innocent? That was just an example of defensive Jihad.
You don't know that, maybe I was, maybe he raped a loved one of mine, you don't know the circumstances in any case, you can't propose who is innocent under what circumstance, basically God is the judge, not you. Jihad is wrong when it is physical, simple as that. That is why Judeo-Christian Scriptures do NOT teach, guide, or suggest to act defensive in a physical manner, they speak about God's sovereignty and His right to vengeance.
"Fight in the cause of Allah(the cause of Allah is to spread Islam as there is no other religion that is accepted before him) those who fight you (I will fight Americans because they have "corrupt" lifestyles they want to impose to the world and they want to oppress the true muslims, they fight us by humiliating muslims around the world), but do not do aggression, for Allah loves not the aggressors. ...

You cleary see that in that verse which a lot of the people here seem to use. Is that wrong?
Mindset of a jihadist, tell them they are wrong.
How hard is it to understand that someone who dosen't harm you is innocent? Seems to be hard for you to understand.
Exactly, many nations that stood before the Islamic military might were innocent, they have done NO HARM to muslims, muslims were the aggressors to capture Jerusalem in 11th century that triggered the Latin response. Your logic is flawed, I am innocent, I didn't hurt any muslims, but I am not considered innocent because I wear the US military uniform. So in the eyes of the politically guided muslim, the definition of innocent is not a constant. You fail to recognize the problems of your own ummah.
 
Upvote 0
Status
Not open for further replies.