Miracles in the Qur'an

[elwill]

You believe there is wisdom behind allowing scriptures to get fully corrupted and allowing them to be deeply ingrained into the culture so you end up with billions of followers that truly believe in them?

it's just strange question , it seems as the question of , Why God not guide all the world to him ? it's hard to answer this questions but it's the will of God to distiguish whom believe and whom disbelieve .

So now there's constant conflict and bloodshed over what is correct and what isn't.

for muslims we didn't find any errors or contradictions with our beliefs .
christians says it's not truth relegion because it differ from thier faith , sometimes they say ' may be quran corrupted , how did you know !? , but they never said quran is corrupted and our proofs is .....
the same with jews , they didn't believe in islam because the prophet of islam not from jews as they waiting.

How do you know that a single letter wasn't change? When was the earliest Qur'an written down?

there is no other choice for us , we have just one version from quran around all the world .

It doesn't make sense that God would allow the Injeel to magically disappear, because if it was recovered sometime, showing the validity of the Qur'an's claim about Jesus..then I imagine there would be more converts. Also who wrote this Injeel?

Injeel exist now , is a collection of books from many authers through the time , even the master copy founded in a greek language not in hebrew(language of witnesses)

 

[HumbleSiPilot77]

Ibn Al-Qayyim specifies five kinds of ‘Tahreef’, or changes, that crept into the Books:
1. Part of the text was lost;
2. Additions were made;
3. Incorrect translation;
4. Meaning was changed or interpreted incorrectly, and;
5. Words and phrases were substituted for others

I really can't care what Ibn Al-Qayyim struggles to prove his point. There is no TAHREEF in the Christian Scriptures. He can't prove his points with isolated local examples and translations, because we do have original mss, too. How can the books have been corrupted, when copies of the old testaments, dating from 100 to 200 years before Jesus (Dead sea scrolls) have been found. Those copies are identical to the old testament as we know it today (King James version) Is it that those people knew the future and decided to change it before Jesus showed up?? Think about it. That argument is weak.....

The books of the old testament were written over a long period of time, and copies of the book were scattered by nomadic tribes and priests across the mid east region, Africa and parts of Europe.

Let's try to think about those things for a minute:

I imagine a group of people traveling around the globe trying to collect all of those books and change their content...now how much sense does that make? Are we talking about a worldwide conspiracy here? Which is harder to do...change a few hundred (thousand book) across the world.

Let's just admit for a minute that the conspiracy was true. At what point did it occur? Before Christ? In which case, the Jews had the foresight to leave everything in there concerning Christ (Which by the way they did not recognize) but remove everything that concern Muhammad??? Please let's be serious here. Okay, let's move on and assume that they were changed after Christ...Wouldn't the Jews who did not recognize Christ and until this day did not convert to Christianity say something?

Thanks to the dead sea scrolls, we know that if the books were altered, they were altered before (at least 100 years) Christ, which leaves us with the worldwide conspiracy theory. Now, I believe that we all have a brain here....HOW IN THE WORLD IS THAT POSSIBLE?? People, please understand that the Bible is a collection of Books that were written in different periods of times, it was not "given" to one man.

I ask you: Which one is easier: For one man to change one book or for 1000 to change several books and agree upon what should be in it? You do the math.

I believe it is more likely for Muhammad to have been misguided...(that is why he should have checked with the people of the book as he was instructed to do).

Pro 30:4 Who has gone up to Heaven, and come down? Who has gathered the wind in His fists? Who has bound the waters in His garments? Who has made all the ends of the earth to rise? What is His name, and what is His Son's name? Surely you know.

Pro 30:5 Every Word of God is refined, He is a shield to those who seek refuge in Him.

Pro 30:6 Do not add to His Words, that He not reprove you, and you be found a liar.

WHEN?

If the Bible was corrupted, was this before or after Muhammad? If before, why does God tell Muhammad to refer to a corrupted Scripture for guidance, and why does he say of the Torah and Gospel ‘wherein is guidance and light’ rather than ‘wherein there used to be before they were corrupted’? If after Muhammad, why does the Muslim not accept the Bible, since current translations are all based upon manuscripts that predate Muhammad?

HOW?

If it was corrupted, was this by Jews or Christians? Since neither were on speaking terms with each other (s2:113 ‘The Jews say the Christians follow nothing [true] and the Christians say the Jews follow nothing [true], yet both are readers of the Scripture’, see also 5:82), how could they agree to alter every single Bible identically?

The New Testament books were widely distributed as soon as they were written. By the 6th century, there were 230 biblical manuscripts in existence, translated into 8 languages (Latin, Syriac, Coptic, Armenian, Gothic, Nubian, Georgian and Ethiopic). How could a conspiracy to change each Bible have been logistically possible? Why was there no record of this happening, and why did nobody try to stop it or hide authentic Bibles?
The ‘Jesus Papyrus’ of Matthew 26, displayed in Magdalene College and recently dated to AD 68, was found in Egypt. Presumably Matthew was still alive when it was written - so why did he not try to correct it if it had been tampered with? Why did the Christians not remove embarrassing stories like Peter’s denial of Christ (Matt 26:69-75) or Paul and Barnabas’ disputation (Acts 15:39)?

WHY?

What is the Bible’s testimony of itself? ‘All Scripture is God-breathed...’ (2 Tim 3:16); Peter describes Paul’s writings as Scripture, since some people maliciously distort his teaching ‘as they do the other Scriptures’ (2 Pet 3:16). ‘The Law was given through Moses’ (John 1:17) and Jesus said ‘Scripture cannot be broken’ (John 10:35). His words are ‘spirit and life’ (John 6:63) and He has the ‘words of eternal life’ (John 6:68).

Why would anybody dare to add or remove portions of Scripture, when faced with the warning in Rev 22:18-19: ‘If anybody adds anything to them, God will add to him the plagues described in this book. And if anybody takes words away from this book of prophecy God will take away his share in the tree of life and the holy city....’?

Significantly, the early Muslim commentators (eg. Bukhari, al-Razi) were all agreed that the Bible could not be changed since it was God’s Word and several centuries passed before Muslims claimed that the Bible had been changed, when they carefully read the stories in the Qur’an and noted that they were different from those in the Bible.

 

[MK11]

I really can't care what Ibn Al-Qayyim struggles to prove his point. There is no TAHREEF in the Christian Scriptures. He can't prove his points with isolated local examples and translations, because we do have original mss, too. How can the books have been corrupted, when copies of the old testaments, dating from 100 to 200 years before Jesus (Dead sea scrolls) have been found. Those copies are identical to the old testament as we know it today (King James version) Is it that those people knew the future and decided to change it before Jesus showed up?? Think about it. That argument is weak.....

Well in the beginning, I would like to say that I see you have a gross misunderstanding of what Muslims mean when they say that the Bible is corrupted (I actually see that vast majority of Christians have that misunderstanding), Muslims NEVER meant that ALL the Bible is corrupted, they say that this book contains true and false scriptures. The case is that there is extensive evidence that there are lots of interpolations present in the Bible nowadays either by adding or eliminating or by replacement or contracdictions, but all that doesn't negate the fact that there are still true scriptures in the Bible, and that's why the Prophet (Peace be upon him) ordered us neither to believe nor to disbelieve the People of the Book.

As for DSS, well, first of all I see that what you said about them being identical to the Bible nowadays is not so accurate, because the case for them is that they are only some FRAGMENTS, what you found there identical to the Bible is a collection of some fragments, and they don't represent the majority of the Bible. Besides, many apocrypha (according to your canon)have been found also in Qumran as Genesis Apocryphon for example, and many other apocrypha, and a book like Ester wasn't found at all there, which puts a huge question mark about the authenticity of that book, what I mean is that what was found in that cave doesn't represent the Bible at all, and doesn't give an indication of the OT canon present at that time, that's why I still don't recognize it as a proof for Bible's authenticity.
Even if I continued on with you and assumed that they really represent the Bible, they are already 300 years later after Malachi the last OT prophet. So please give me a proof that the Bible was saved within that period.

Let's just admit for a minute that the conspiracy was true. At what point did it occur? Before Christ? In which case, the Jews had the foresight to leave everything in there concerning Christ (Which by the way they did not recognize) but remove everything that concern Muhammad??? Please let's be serious here. Okay, let's move on and assume that they were changed after Christ...Wouldn't the Jews who did not recognize Christ and until this day did not convert to Christianity say something?

Again we don't say that interpolation occured once, it occured at a long interval of time, either in the OT or in the NT. As for the Jewish corruption to the Bible, Christians already accuse them of doing so, Justin Martyr says in his dialogue with Trypho:

Chap. LXXII. — Passages Have Been Removed by the Jews from Esdras and Jeremiah.​

And I said, “I shall do as you please. From the statements, then, which Esdras made in reference to the law of the passover, they have taken away the following: ‘And Esdras said to the people, This passover is our Saviour and our refuge. And if you have understood, and your heart has taken it in, that we shall humble Him on a standard, and170 thereafter hope in Him, then this place shall not be forsaken for ever, says the God of hosts. But if you will not believe Him, and will not listen to His declaration, you shall be a laughing-stock to the nations.’171 And from the sayings of Jeremiah they have cut out the following: ‘I [was] like a lamb that is brought to the slaughter: they devised a device against me, saying, Come, let us lay on wood on His bread, and let us blot Him out from the land of the living; and His name shall no more be remembered.’ (Jer_11:19) And since this passage from the sayings of Jeremiah is still written in some copies 235 [of the Scriptures] in the synagogues of the Jews (for it is only a short time since they were cut out), and since from these words it is demonstrated that the Jews deliberated about the Christ Himself, to crucify and put Him to death, He Himself is both declared to be led as a sheep to the slaughter, as was predicted by Isaiah, and is here represented as a harmless lamb; but being in a difficulty about them, they give themselves over to blasphemy. And again, from the sayings of the same Jeremiah these have been cut out: ‘The Lord God remembered His dead people of Israel who lay in the graves; and He descended to preach to them His own salvation.’172
171 It is not known where this passage comes from.
172 This is wanting in our Scriptures: it is cited by Iren., iii. 20, under the name of Isaiah, and in iv. 22 under that of Jeremiah. — Maranus.
http://www.ccel.org/ccel/schaff/anf01.viii.iv.lxxii.html​

Another one? look at what was said by St. Chrysostom in his Homilies on Gospel Matthew:​

"6. We see here the cause why the angel also, putting them at ease for the future, restores them to their home. And not even this simply, but he adds to it a prophecy, “That it might be fulfilled,” saith he, “which was spoken by the prophets, He shall be called a Nazarene.”383​

And what manner of prophet said this? Be not curious, nor overbusy. For many of the prophetic writings have been lost; and this one may see from the history of the Chronicles.384384 For being negligent, and continually falling into ungodliness, some they suffered to perish, others they themselves burnt up385385 and cut to pieces. The latter fact Jeremiah relates;386the former, he who composed the fourth book of Kings, saying, that after387a long time the book of Deuteronomy was hardly found, buried somewhere and lost. But if, when there was no barbarian there, they so betrayed their books, much 56 more when the barbarians had overrun them. For as to the fact, that the prophet had foretold it, the apostles themselves in many places call Him a Nazarene.388"​

Pro 30:4 Who has gone up to Heaven, and come down? Who has gathered the wind in His fists? Who has bound the waters in His garments? Who has made all the ends of the earth to rise? What is His name, and what is His Son's name? Surely you know.

Pro 30:5 Every Word of God is refined, He is a shield to those who seek refuge in Him.​

Pro 30:6 Do not add to His Words, that He not reprove you, and you be found a liar.​

I was already about to quote similar scripts as Deu 2:4, and Rev22:18-19, but I see that I don't need to, because you already answered yourself. When God orders the Jews not to add nor to eliminate His words, is this a proof that they couldn't be corrupted? Of course not, but this is a clear proof that they COULD be corrupted, for God won't order them to do something that couldn't be done, otherwise you must say that Jews didn't worship idols because God ordered them not to do so. And this is not the case with the Quran, God never ordered us like that with the Quran, but He clearly said that He will preserve it. Got it?

If the Bible was corrupted, was this before or after Muhammad? If before, why does God tell Muhammad to refer to a corrupted Scripture for guidance, and why does he say of the Torah and Gospel ‘wherein is guidance and light’ rather than ‘wherein there used to be before they were corrupted’? If after Muhammad, why does the Muslim not accept the Bible, since current translations are all based upon manuscripts that predate Muhammad?

I think that I answered that question before, but as for the verse you quoted, let's look at the whole verse:
44. Surely, WE sent down the Torah wherein was guidance and light. By it did the Prophets, who were obedient to US, judge for the Jews, as did the godly people and those learned in the Law, because they were required to preserve the Book of ALLAH, and because they were guardians over it. . (Holy Quran 5:44)
See, the same concept I am telling about, they were required to preserve it, but that doesn't mean that they really did.

If it was corrupted, was this by Jews or Christians? Since neither were on speaking terms with each other (s2:113 ‘The Jews say the Christians follow nothing [true] and the Christians say the Jews follow nothing [true], yet both are readers of the Scripture’, see also 5:82), how could they agree to alter every single Bible identically?

We didn't say so, I have alreaady explained our point.

 

[MK11]

The New Testament books were widely distributed as soon as they were written. By the 6th century, there were 230 biblical manuscripts in existence, translated into 8 languages (Latin, Syriac, Coptic, Armenian, Gothic, Nubian, Georgian and Ethiopic). How could a conspiracy to change each Bible have been logistically possible? Why was there no record of this happening, and why did nobody try to stop it or hide authentic Bibles?

​

Evidence is not measured by the number of Bible manuscripts, but by their date, yes you have lots of manuscripts, but what shall they do when they are all after the third century AD? I am talking about manuscripts not fragments. I will talk about fragments now.​

The ‘Jesus Papyrus’ of Matthew 26, displayed in Magdalene College and recently dated to AD 68, was found in Egypt. Presumably Matthew was still alive when it was written - so why did he not try to correct it if it had been tampered with? Why did the Christians not remove embarrassing stories like Peter’s denial of Christ (Matt 26:69-75) or Paul and Barnabas’ disputation (Acts 15:39)?

Really? What a spectacular proof? Should I get baptized now? But according to what denomination?
Is this your evidence that the NT is preserved? A small fragment containing small part of Gospel Matthew is a proof that ALL NT was present at that time, I think this is a huge imagination, especially when I see that Gospel of Matthew is historically NOT written by him, which is the case as well with all Bible writers. I have my proof on that point, but let's go back to our issue. Please give me the evidence that the writer of Matthew didn't quote this fragment to build up his book? Or that this fragment is not a part of another apocyphon gospel? Or that it says that it is a part of Gospel according to Matthew? The same thing applies to other fragments. The case was that after Jesus (Peace be upon him) was raised, many gospels were written, and many books were referred to as Gospels, and I am sure you know that well, and many of these writers tried to collect Jesus life in a book and quoted many sources (as Luke clearly admits for example). So when we find an anonymous fragment containing a verse in the contemporary NT, this couldn't be an evidence at all that this fragment is a part of canonical NT.​

What is the Bible’s testimony of itself? ‘All Scripture is God-breathed...’ (2 Tim 3:16); Peter describes Paul’s writings as Scripture, since some people maliciously distort his teaching ‘as they do the other Scriptures’ (2 Pet 3:16). ‘The Law was given through Moses’ (John 1:17) and Jesus said ‘Scripture cannot be broken’ (John 10:35). His words are ‘spirit and life’ (John 6:63) and He has the ‘words of eternal life’ (John 6:68).​

Why would anybody dare to add or remove portions of Scripture, when faced with the warning in Rev 22:18-19: ‘If anybody adds anything to them, God will add to him the plagues described in this book. And if anybody takes words away from this book of prophecy God will take away his share in the tree of life and the holy city....’?​

The same comic arguments of Zakaria Boutros, AbdulMasih Basit, Josh McDowell, and other Christian apologists. I think I have already answered them.​

Significantly, the early Muslim commentators (eg. Bukhari, al-Razi) were all agreed that the Bible could not be changed since it was God’s Word and several centuries passed before Muslims claimed that the Bible had been changed, when they carefully read the stories in the Qur’an and noted that they were different from those in the Bible.​

Well, according to what I know, Al Razi didn't say so, may be Imam Bukhari said something like that, but we believe that we take and reject from anyone except the Prophet (Peace be upon him).
God said in the Quran:​

79. Woe, therefore, to those who write the Book with their own hands and then say, `This is from ALLAH,' That they may take it for a paltry price. Woe, then, to them for what their hands have written, and woe to them for what they earn.( Holy Quran 2:79)​

Ibn Abbas, the Prophet's disciple said:​

"O Muslims! How could you ask the People of the Book about anything, while the Book of Allah (Qur'an) that He revealed to His Prophet is the most recent Book from Him and you still read it fresh and young Allah told you that the People of the Book altered the Book of Allah, changed it and wrote another book with their own hands. They then said, `This book is from Allah,' so that they acquired a small profit by it. Hasn't the knowledge that came to you prohibited you from asking them By Allah! We have not seen any of them asking you about what was revealed to you.''​

Besides, which is much more important, is that when you look at the quotations from the Torah and Injeel in the hadith books, you will find that they massively differ from your Bible, and I am 100% sure that Imam Al Bukhari didn't know about the attrocities in the Bible as the very shameful sins attributed to prophets and the differences between the Bible and the Quran, but it seems that he had different givens which he built on his conclusion.​

 

[elwill]

MK11 , wellcome my brother

thank you for your sharing , i just wanna to tell you that Bushmaster specifically understand what we mean
we made many depates in this forum with him about corruptance of the bible

so , please i just don't want for him to succeed in reverting the topic . do you understand what i mean ?

 

[MK11]

No problem brother elwill, I moved his post and my reply to a new thread
http://christianforums.com/t7169434-bushmaster-corruption.html

 

[ChildishFears]

so , it made me think , is our illeteral arab prophet(pbuh) was interesting in science of greek culture?

I don't see why you would underestimate your Prophet like this, who's to say he didn't hear these concepts in passing? Just because he may of been illiterate doesn't mean he was stupid or ignorant of everything and the early Muslims were interested in Greek philosophy. The point is, it isn't miraculous if it was known already.

the site not cantradit with my interpretation .
the word 'daha' is arabic verb which used in arabic language with four points i stated above
1- To extend.
2- To roll.
3- To even out.
4- Causing to become egg-shaped or creating, making or producing eggs

so the translation of 'daha' not egg_shape , i agree
but arab use this verb with reforming somthing to the egg_shaped
so that muslims interpret it with english word describe meaning of this word

The Earth is practically a perfect sphere., the Earth is ever so slightly flattened at the poles, due to its rotation, technically making it an approximate "oblate spheroid", a rounded shape with a sight bulge at the equator.

However, the difference made by the bulge is minute. The diameter at the equator is only 42.72 kilometers greater than the diameter at the poles. Considering that the average diameter of the Earth is about 12,742 km, the difference is infinitesimal – nothing at all like the shape of an ostrich egg, which is visibly an oval. The average ostrich egg is 15 cm long and 13 cm wide.

Therefore, the claim that the Earth is shaped like an ostrich egg is not only unfounded scripturally, it is scientifically inaccurate

1) It's saying the Earth is not egg-shaped.
2) The site said that verse isn't talking about the shape of the earth.

 

[ChildishFears]

it's just strange question , it seems as the question of , Why God not guide all the world to him ? it's hard to answer this questions but it's the will of God to distiguish whom believe and whom disbelieve .

Basically like what has been said before Allah only knows why.

for muslims we didn't find any errors or contradictions with our beliefs .
christians says it's not truth relegion because it differ from thier faith , sometimes they say ' may be quran corrupted , how did you know !? , but they never said quran is corrupted and our proofs is .....
the same with jews , they didn't believe in islam because the prophet of islam not from jews as they waiting.

there is no other choice for us , we have just one version from quran around all the world .

Yes, but when was the first one written completely down?

Injeel exist now , is a collection of books from many authers through the time , even the master copy founded in a greek language not in hebrew(language of witnesses)

Wait... I thought the Injeel was a single Gospel about Jesus' message of monotheism--And where is it today exactly? The gnostic and canonical gospels are not the Injeel.

 

[elwill]

Basically like what has been said before Allah only knows why.

not exactly , actually i agree with adeep openion
that every prophet be sent to his own people , while mohammed (pbuh) be sent fro all the world until the last hour.

Yes, but when was the first one written completely down?

In the last sermon of the prophet he said , "I have left with you something which if you will hold fast to, you will never fall into error-a plain indication, the Book of God, and the practice of His Prophet."
This makes it quite evident that the Qur'an in the written form-though not necessarily in a single volume-existed during his time.
There are also three hadiths in Sahih Al-Bukhari4 that inform us that Angel Gabriel used to recite the Qur'an with the Prophet once a year during Ramadan, and that he recited it with him twice in the year the Prophet died.

The chief scribe who used to record the revelation dictated by the Prophet was Zayd ibn Thabit. After the Prophet's death, in the battle of Yamamah, a large number of the companions who had memorized the Qur'an died. As a result, Caliph Abu Bakr appointed Zayd to collect all the available written versions of the Qur'an and to produce a master copy.
When Zayd completed this work, he gave the collection of written materials to Abu Bakr As-Siddiq, who kept it with him till his death. After his death, `Umar ibn Al-Khattab, the second caliph, finally gave it to his daughter Hafsa-one of the Prophet's wives-for safekeeping. It was from this collection of material that Caliph `Uthman ibn `Affan prepared several copies in the form of the first books of the entire Qur'an. Some of these copies still exist today.
After the Qur'an was collected in a single volume-known as a mus-haf-Caliph `Uthman sent copies of it to the different provinces that were ruled by the Muslims. The succeeding generations of Muslims always included a large number of people who memorized the Qur'an in its entirety. The extent to which the Qur'an was preserved is also evident in the fact that the way in which the Prophet Muhammad used to recite the Qur'an was also recorded and passed down from generation to generation.

Wait... I thought the Injeel was a single Gospel about Jesus' message of monotheism--And where is it today exactly? The gnostic and canonical gospels are not the Injeel.

you ar right i just meant the bible , i think that injeel must be in hebrew (language of jesus (pbuh) ) but it's lost

 

[elwill]

I don't see why you would underestimate your Prophet like this, who's to say he didn't hear these concepts in passing? Just because he may of been illiterate doesn't mean he was stupid or ignorant of everything and the early Muslims were interested in Greek philosophy. The point is, it isn't miraculous if it was known already.

well , is Greek culture also knew about the stages of human creating ?

is greek culture knew about the reducing of the earth from it's sides?
"Do they not see that We gradually reduce the earth from its sides?

is greek culture knew that moon is actually dark , and it's light originally from the sun?
is greek culture knew that heavens and the earth were one peace , then exploded ?

if you didn't find these few examples in pre_islamic culture inform me , so i tell you what quran said about these facts

1) It's saying the Earth is not egg-shaped.
2) The site said that verse isn't talking about the shape of the earth.

can you plz see this vedio
it will show you what happens to the earth through a time , the counter of days in the upper corner
and keep your reference with the word dahaha and it's 4 meanings

http://answering-christianity.com/egg-shaped_earth.wmv

 

[HumbleSiPilot77]

so , please i just don't want for him to succeed in reverting the topic . do you understand what i mean ?

That you are desperate and afraid that I will tackle this well and send you home again? I will be busy this week though, I have other arrangements...

 

[MK11]

Well, instead of that overconfidence and loud words from where you try to make others feel that they are defeated (the usual psychological war technique), you would have better said that you are simply busy and that you will reply another time, but I actually don't advise you on continuing on that technique because it doesn't work with me, for this has been an outdated technique. So my advice is that you don't need to have a loud voice, if you really have a real argument.
BTW, you can check my homepage:
http://christismuslim.googlepages.com/

 

[HumbleSiPilot77]

Well, instead of that overconfidence and loud words from where you try to make others feel that they are defeated (the usual psychological war technique), you would have better said that you are simply busy and that you will reply another time, but I actually don't advise you on continuing on that technique because it doesn't work with me, for this has been an outdated technique. So my advice is that you don't need to have a loud voice, if you really have a real argument.
BTW, you can check my homepage:
http://christismuslim.googlepages.com/

See, what you perceive doesn't really interest me when I speak of the truth of what I perceive, your page is riddled with theological and historical errors and an unadulterated outsider understanding of Christian faith, per example "Taking Mary as a god is what the Catholics do concerning the intercession of Mary, since they pray to her and believe that she can benefit them, we as Muslims consider this as idolatry even if they didn't say that she is a god This is comical compared the true reason and practice of asking saints their prayers for us. There is a thread going on right now about this, something like pope baptizes prominent muslim or etc. You seem to quote St. John 17 and then highlight "you the only true God, and Jesus Christ whom you have sent but skip a theologically very important aspect of you have given him authority over all flesh, to give eternal life to all whom you have given him. Come on now, if you are attempting to satisfy an ego that has to have confidence in the islamic faith, do this by understanding our faith correctly. Don't go around and try to sell, "look Jesus didn't say that, he said actually said this" when we have testimonies of Apostles and their successors from the first of half of Christian millennium. Your website might have confused when I freshly decided to convert from Islam, but I studied well-over qualified in the matter of islamic stance against Christianity being a member of an apostolic church.

 

[MK11]

See, what you perceive doesn't really interest me when I speak of the truth of what I perceive, your page is riddled with theological and historical errors and an unadulterated outsider understanding of Christian faith, per example "Taking Mary as a god is what the Catholics do concerning the intercession of Mary, since they pray to her and believe that she can benefit them, we as Muslims consider this as idolatry even if they didn't say that she is a god This is comical compared the true reason and practice of asking saints their prayers for us. There is a thread going on right now about this, something like pope baptizes prominent muslim or etc.

Don't you know about intercession, veneration, Hail Mary, taking their pictures? Even Protestants reject this and consider it as idolatry.

You seem to quote St. John 17 and then highlight "you the only true God, and Jesus Christ whom you have sent but skip a theologically very important aspect of you have given him authority over all flesh, to give eternal life to all whom you have given him. Come on now, if you are attempting to satisfy an ego that has to have confidence in the islamic faith, do this by understanding our faith correctly.

And what was that eternal life Jesus gives? That they know that the Father is the only true God and that Jesus is the Christ sent by Him. This is how Jesus defines it, not that you believe that he is your God or your savior.

Don't go around and try to sell, "look Jesus didn't say that, he said actually said this" when we have testimonies of Apostles and their successors from the first of half of Christian millennium. Your website might have confused when I freshly decided to convert from Islam, but I studied well-over qualified in the matter of islamic stance against Christianity being a member of an apostolic church.

So please give me testimonies of the apostles where they quote the WHOLE gospels within the the first of half of Christian millennium. Not even thi, give me a single quote of these quotes where he mentions that the script he quoted is mentioned in Gospel Matthew or Mark or Luke or John which was written by the apostle Matthew or John or by Luke or Mark the pupils of Peter and Paul, unless you do so. I cannot accept using a similar word to what is mentioned in the Gospel as a testimony, since as I said, at that time many Gospels were found and quotes of Jesus (Peace be upon him) were spread either they were true or false, but that doesn't mean that the Gospels were found the way they are found now.

BTW,why didn't you carry over my thread? I am really so anxious to see these huge refutations you promised.

 

[HumbleSiPilot77]

Don't you know about intercession, veneration, Hail Mary, taking their pictures? Even Protestants reject this and consider it as idolatry.

I am not a Protestant. If you misunderstand certain practices of the early church this is not my issue.

And what was that eternal life Jesus gives? That they know that the Father is the only true God and that Jesus is the Christ sent by Him. This is how Jesus defines it, not that you believe that he is your God or your savior.

Over what authority and method you claim to have interpreted the Scriptures? Where does it say that "eternal life" means a similar concept of islamic profession of faith? Greek translation strictly indicates lifetime in eternity. Where do you get the completely irrelevant discernment? Based on what?

So please give me testimonies of the apostles where they quote the WHOLE gospels within the the first of half of Christian millennium. Not even thi, give me a single quote of these quotes where he mentions that the script he quoted is mentioned in Gospel Matthew or Mark or Luke or John which was written by the apostle Matthew or John or by Luke or Mark the pupils of Peter and Paul, unless you do so. I cannot accept using a similar word to what is mentioned in the Gospel as a testimony, since as I said, at that time many Gospels were found and quotes of Jesus (Peace be upon him) were spread either they were true or false, but that doesn't mean that the Gospels were found the way they are found now.

First of all, you do not set conditions how I will answer to your points. Second, you may want to get yourself familiarized with the oral traditions of the early Church and most importantly the Holy Tradition which even the Scriptures are part of. We don't learn our faith from scholars but those who carried it delivered to us as indicated in Scriptures.

BTW,why didn't you carry over my thread? I am really so anxious to see these huge refutations you promised.

Refuting you is not the problem, it seems like you are not following what you were asked to is. Are you going to carry it over your own theories? I calmly explained you why.

 

[MK11]

I am not a Protestant. If you misunderstand certain practices of the early church this is not my issue.

So according to me, this still is considered as idolatry, and this is what the Quran meant, don't forget that I was originally explaining a Quranic verse. Either you consider this worship or not, I consider this as an idolatry from my Muslim point of view, as I consider the acts of Shia, some Sufis and many ignorant Muslims when they go to graves of their imams or walis and ask them or pray to them, I consider this also as Shirk same as I consider for Catholics.

Over what authority and method you claim to have interpreted the Scriptures? Where does it say that "eternal life" means a similar concept of islamic profession of faith? Greek translation strictly indicates lifetime in eternity. Where do you get the completely irrelevant discernment? Based on what?

Based on John 17:3

First of all, you do not set conditions how I will answer to your points. Second, you may want to get yourself familiarized with the oral traditions of the early Church and most importantly the Holy Tradition which even the Scriptures are part of. We don't learn our faith from scholars but those who carried it delivered to us as indicated in Scriptures.

Sorry, but your conditions are very weak to judge the authenticity of a book, just because an early writer gives an allusion with a similar word in the Gospel, you will consider this as an outstanding testimiony for the whole NT, God was true when He called you "those who went astray".
BTW, look at those who delievered the tradition, you will find that many Church Fathers adopted HERETIC opinions, as if they didn't have a holy spirit who "guides them to the whole truth". Either they were blaspheming against the holy spirit, or it seems that the holy spirit is not the paraclete

Refuting you is not the problem, it seems like you are not following what you were asked to is. Are you going to carry it over your own theories? I calmly explained you why.

Well, it seems that you became no more interested in refuting me, as you like. But as for "my own theories", well I see that this is the logical analysis of what evidence means, not that I depend on a 2*2 inch fragment or an allsuion from an early heretic father to prove my book. Then you call yourself an ORTHODOX, and that Christianity is based on history, sorry that may work with some people in the Church, but doesn't work with Muslims.

 

[HumbleSiPilot77]

So according to me, this still is considered as idolatry,

Sorry to break the news to you, but "according to you" doesn't mean much in this context. You can call it a donkey because according to you it has a tail and four legs, but it is a horse. The difference of your allegation and the actual approach does matter because Christian doctrine has always thought ONE God.

and this is what the Quran meant, don't forget that I was originally explaining a Quranic verse. Either you consider this worship or not, I consider this as an idolatry from my Muslim point of view, as I consider the acts of Shia, some Sufis and many ignorant Muslims when they go to graves of their imams or walis and ask them or pray to them, I consider this also as Shirk same as I consider for Catholics.

Which shows your ignorance in that view of what this prayer actually means and how it is conducted. It matters if what I practice is not worship because it would only reflect a Quranic misunderstanding. I have pointed you to a source thread about Blessed Theotokos that is going as of now under the title Pope baptizes prominent Italian muslim, go over there please and save me time.

Based on John 17:3

Interestingly, the original greek words for eternal life in this verse are the same with those found anywhere in the Scriptures where HE talks about KINGDOM of HEAVEN, or PARADISE where there is eternal life, it is quite interesting you go with this particular one because it includes that there is knowledge of God follows in eternal life. It concludes, Jesus Christ, whom Father sent, which hardly implies any Quranic approach to a human prophet. Christians always believed God sent His Son to our time and world.

Sorry, but your conditions are very weak to judge the authenticity of a book, just because an early writer gives an allusion with a similar word in the Gospel, you will consider this as an outstanding testimiony for the whole NT, God was true when He called you "those who went astray".
BTW, look at those who delievered the tradition, you will find that many Church Fathers adopted HERETIC opinions, as if they didn't have a holy spirit who "guides them to the whole truth". Either they were blaspheming against the holy spirit, or it seems that the holy spirit is not the paraclete

Like I said, kid, your attitude is everything if you want a proper discussion and you are showing me signs that you are not interested in a professional exchange. Couple of things, you are not at a level to actually criticize the authenticity of a book by incomplete arguments that doesn't consider both sides of the story. You are doing too much assuming, I haven't even started yet. Again, we don't rely on single tiny bits and pieces of information solely, and again you don't call out what I consider evidence given "proper" criticism is not asserted. Last but not least, your Quranic message what Allah calls Christians doesn't interest me if you are with the intent of shoving an islamic understanding towards Christian history. Heresy, as within Islam, always existed, and this is not the fault you can lay on God, God promised His Spirit's guidance but He didn't suggest His spirit would override free will.

Well, it seems that you became no more interested in refuting me, as you like. But as for "my own theories", well I see that this is the logical analysis of what evidence means, not that I depend on a 2*2 inch fragment or an allsuion from an early heretic father to prove my book. Then you call yourself an ORTHODOX, and that Christianity is based on history, sorry that may work with some people in the Church, but doesn't work with Muslims.

My Scriptures say; Answer not a fool according to his folly, lest thou also be like unto him. Answer a fool according to his folly, lest he be wise in his own conceit.
(Pro 26:4-5 KJVR)

Now you are babbling about stuff I have not even take a stab at, don't get ahead of yourself, instead of wasting my time here, respect my wishes as you want me to respect yours. You have not dealt with the Orthodox Church and its history yet, you arrogantly assert we rely on a "heretic" father? Your context is blurry at best. Seems like you wish to satisfy an ego at best and unfortunately I am not your device to do so.

 

[MK11]

Sorry to break the news to you, but "according to you" doesn't mean much in this context. You can call it a donkey because according to you it has a tail and four legs, but it is a horse. The difference of your allegation and the actual approach does matter because Christian doctrine has always thought ONE God.
Which shows your ignorance in that view of what this prayer actually means and how it is conducted. It matters if what I practice is not worship because it would only reflect a Quranic misunderstanding. I have pointed you to a source thread about Blessed Theotokos that is going as of now under the title Pope baptizes prominent Italian muslim, go over there please and save me time.

When you ask a dead man for intercession or pray to him, this means that you believe that this man could benefit and harm, and this couldn't be from a dead man unless he has divine properties, which we consider as shirk, and as I told you this applies on Shia and Sufis as it is applied on Christians. If you are not willing to reply that, you don't have to, I will see your thread.

Interestingly, the original greek words for eternal life in this verse are the same with those found anywhere in the Scriptures where HE talks about KINGDOM of HEAVEN, or PARADISE where there is eternal life, it is quite interesting you go with this particular one because it includes that there is knowledge of God follows in eternal life. It concludes, Jesus Christ, whom Father sent, which hardly implies any Quranic approach to a human prophet. Christians always believed God sent His Son to our time and world.

Well, I know that word eternal life means paradise, so what? And I know that this is the way to eternal life, that "that they know the Father (not God see verse 1) THE ONLY TRUE GOD, and Jesus the Christ, the one whom He sent).

Like I said, kid, your attitude is everything if you want a proper discussion and you are showing me signs that you are not interested in a professional exchange. Couple of things, you are not at a level to actually criticize the authenticity of a book by incomplete arguments that doesn't consider both sides of the story. You are doing too much assuming, I haven't even started yet. Again, we don't rely on single tiny bits and pieces of information solely, and again you don't call out what I consider evidence given "proper" criticism is not asserted. Last but not least, your Quranic message what Allah calls Christians doesn't interest me if you are with the intent of shoving an islamic understanding towards Christian history. Heresy, as within Islam, always existed, and this is not the fault you can lay on God, God promised His Spirit's guidance but He didn't suggest His spirit would override free will.

Till now, I see that you don't want to answer anyhting, if you can, then do it, but I see that you are wasting my and your time in worthless conversation, then calling me a kid, thanks. I didn't ask you to apply Islamic standards, because in this case there is no way for failure, but I think that I have questions about your evidence and reasons why I don't consider this as an evidence. If you are not interested, why didn't you say it from the beginning? You'd have saved our time.

I didn't say that heresy didn't exist with Islam, yes it existed, and Prophet Muhammad (Peace be upon him) warned us about it a lot, but that doesn't mean that we accept a testimony of a heretic, it may be some cases that some may drive conclusions or false opinions based on wrong criteria or technique, but they have a good intention(which appears clearly from his life and writing), in this case he is excused, for this is considered an Ijtihad, but this couldn't happen in Christianity, because it is supposed that he has the holy spirit who guides him to the truth, if he didn't accept the guidance of the holy spirit this means that he surely has a bad intention, and that will mean that you either leave him, or take your faith from a heretic guy. That's what I meant.

Note: I was so late in my reply because I went to pray

 

[ChildishFears]

well , is Greek culture also knew about the stages of human creating ?

I believe so

is greek culture knew about the reducing of the earth from it's sides?
"Do they not see that We gradually reduce the earth from its sides?

You may have to explain this one to me.

is greek culture knew that moon is actually dark , and it's light originally from the sun?

Yep

Among the first in the Western world to offer a scientific explanation for the Moon was the Greek philosopher Anaxagoras (d. 428 BC), who reasoned that the Sun and Moon were both giant spherical rocks, and that the latter reflected the light of the former. His atheistic view of the heavens was one cause for his imprisonment and eventual exile.[71]

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Moon

is greek culture knew that heavens and the earth were one peace , then exploded ?

I am not sure if there is any pre-Islamic culture that explained the Big Bang Theory. But I don't find the Qur'an to be too convincing. 1) It's incredibly vague in explaining it. 2) It appears like it's saying the Earth was already completely formed when the Heavens and the Earth split up. The Earth was nonexistent in the early Universe.

if you didn't find these few examples in pre_islamic culture inform me , so i tell you what quran said about these facts

Okay

can you plz see this vedio
it will show you what happens to the earth through a time , the counter of days in the upper corner
and keep your reference with the word dahaha and it's 4 meanings

http://answering-christianity.com/egg-shaped_earth.wmv

[/QUOTE]

I'm sorry but the website I provided explicitly saids that the earth is NOT egg shaped and that the ayat is NOT talking about the shape of the earth.
Also I think in the video they purposely distorted the shape of the earth, look at any other picture of the earth and you'll see:

http://images.google.com/imgres?img...-a&rls=org.mozilla:en-US:official&hs=ydg&sa=N

http://rst.gsfc.nasa.gov/Sect19/earth-3d-space-tour-big.jpg

http://apod.nasa.gov/apod/image/0501/earth_apollo17.jpg

Compared to this:

http://www.fortunecity.com/oasis/bondi/346/jpg/egg.jpg

There's a significant difference in shape.

 

[ChildishFears]

not exactly , actually i agree with adeep openion
that every prophet be sent to his own people , while mohammed (pbuh) be sent fro all the world until the last hour.

I think it would be more believable if Allah had sent down a prophet for EVERY culture [not just the ones in the Near East] simultaneously at the time of Muhammad. It seems pretty exclusive since all major monotheistic religions originated in the Near East and no where else in the world.

In the last sermon of the prophet he said , "I have left with you something which if you will hold fast to, you will never fall into error-a plain indication, the Book of God, and the practice of His Prophet."
This makes it quite evident that the Qur'an in the written form-though not necessarily in a single volume-existed during his time.

I remember hearing that bits and pieces of the Qur'an were written on leaves, bark and other things.

The chief scribe who used to record the revelation dictated by the Prophet was Zayd ibn Thabit. After the Prophet's death, in the battle of Yamamah, a large number of the companions who had memorized the Qur'an died. As a result, Caliph Abu Bakr appointed Zayd to collect all the available written versions of the Qur'an and to produce a master copy.

What do you mean by different versions? Were these versions conflicting with each other? When [what date] was the final version gathered and written down?