Muhammad is Jesus says Koran...

[ApplePie7]

And yet Jesus did not write one book in the Bible, but his followers did and said his name was Jesus.

Christians never claim that Jesus wrote the Biblical material, brother.

So you have a straw-man argument going.

Muslims, however, claim that their prophet “Muhammad” had a hand in procuring their Koran – of which, is not supported at all by their book of faith.

It is pure Islamic myth.

Hmm.....if Jesus did not write any books of the Bible and the books were mostly oral until hundreds of years after his death when it was written, what do you know to be truth and what to be fiction?

Do not attack another faith, until you are sure of your own.

Since no one claims ownership of the Koran, according to the Koran, and the oldest extant fragment of a sura is dated to over a century after Islam’s supposed “prophet” even lived…then what do you really have, brother?

 

[Yusuf Evans]

Muslims, however, claim that their prophet “Muhammad” had a hand in procuring their Koran – of which, is not supported at all by their book of faith.

It is pure Islamic myth.

Muslims believe that the message was delivered to the Prophet SAW by the angel Gabriel. The Prophet passed the message to others; he had no hand in the message per se.

Since no one claims ownership of the Koran, according to the Koran, and the oldest extant fragment of a sura is dated to over a century after Islam’s supposed “prophet” even lived…then what do you really have, brother?

We have the Holy Book in it`s original language and it has not been edited to this day; Christianity does not have that luxury.

 

[ApplePie7]

Muslims believe that the message was delivered to the Prophet SAW by the angel Gabriel. The Prophet passed the message to others; he had no hand in the message per se.

The Koran never states that Gabriel delivered a message to someone named "Muhammad", brother.

You are just parroting your islamic training.

This is pure myth unsupported by the Koran.

We have the Holy Book in it`s original language and it has not been edited to this day; Christianity does not have that luxury.

Another pure islamic myth, brother.

As already stated, your oldest extant copy is a mere fragment of one sura, dated to over 100 years after your so-called "prophet" even lived.

To say that you have the original, is simply laughable...

 

[christian08]

And yet Jesus did not write one book in the Bible, but his followers did and said his name was Jesus. Hmm.....if Jesus did not write any books of the Bible and the books were mostly oral until hundreds of years after his death when it was written, what do you know to be truth and what to be fiction?

Do not attack another faith, until you are sure of your own.

My friend that telephone game many muslims claim falls. All Scripture was written before the end of the first century. Meaning all writings were eye witness accounts. The telephone game, as you hinted, is oral, audible. All scripture was writen, again during the time the Lord's disciples were still alive ministering, and passed down.

 

[Edward Palamar]

Do not attack another faith, until you are sure of your own.

That is a ludicrous statement to make when one takes into account that Faith is a gift from God. Though the devil might look upon the diversity of religion that men have had as a success in putting us at odds with each other, Christ's prayer is for unity. The gift of Faith is one, the gift of Hope is one, and the gift of Love is one. And Christ's prayer is that we be of one Faith, one Hope and one Love.

 

[Just James]

The gift of Faith is one, the gift of Hope is one, and the gift of Love is one. And Christ's prayer is that we be of one Faith, one Hope and one Love.

And yet you have a trinity in your creed, not Unity.

 

[Edward Palamar]

And yet you have a trinity in your creed, not Unity.

This Koranic ayah (which, ironically Muslims are trained to use all the time for their position) actually plainly states that the Trinity is not “three”, but instead, it is “one”, and then proceeds to list out Father, Son, and Spirit…

يأهل الكتب لا تغلوا في دينكم ولا تقولوا على الله​

إلا الحق إنما المسيح عيسى ابن مريم رسول الله​

وكلمته ألقيها إلى مريم وروح منه فءامنوا بالله​

ورسله ولا تقولوا ثلثة انتهوا خيرا لكم إنما الله​

إله وحد سبحنه أن يكون له ولد له ما في ​

السموت وما في الأرض وكفى بالله وكيلا​

Ya ahla alkitabi la taghloo fee deenikum wala taqooloo AAala Allahi illa alhaqqa innama almaseehu AAeesa ibnu maryama rasoolu Allahi wakalimatuhu alqaha ila maryama waroohun minhu faaminoo biAllahi warusulihi wala taqooloo thalathatun intahoo khayran lakum innama Allahu ilahun wahidun subhanahu an yakoona lahu waladunlahu ma fee alssamawati wama fee al-ardi wakafa biAllahi wakeelan

4.171 You The Book's family, certainly do not go beyond the limits in your faith, and they do not say on “allah” except The Truth (is) only the Messiah Jesus, Mary's son, “allah’s” messenger, and his Word, cast forth to her, Mary, and Spirit from him; so believe on account of “allah”, and His messengers, and they do not say: "Three." Refrain (it is) agreeable certainly your only “allah” one godglory be to him, that He has certainly been his Son,truly His what is in the heavens and what is in the earth and He sufficed on account of “allah”, a witness.


Observe that this ayah is directed at ‘The Book’s family’ (ahla alkitabi) – which refers to the followers of the Holy Bible; i.e. Christians.

For the Muslim, it then gives instruction as to what the correct interpretation of the Holy Bible needs to be regarding (among numerous things), the concept of the Trinity.

In this classic Islamic one-hit-wonder we are told not to refer to the one “allah” as “Three”, as even his messengers do not say “Three” - because he is not the result of counted things (thalathatun)….and yet, in the very ayah itself it lists-out directly, Father, Son, & Spirit.

This is a classic Koranic example in which the authors display their understanding of the Biblical concept of the Holy Trinity, and give the example of what it is not by the usage of the word “Three”…and what it is, by the example of “one”.

"My strength is made perfect in weakness."

 

[Just James]

Edward,

ApplePie7's rendering is incoherent in English and reflects his lack of knowledge in basic Arabic sentence structure.

 

[Edward Palamar]

Edward,

ApplePie7's rendering is incoherent in English and reflects his lack of knowledge in basic Arabic sentence structure.

It is for this very reason I prefer our correspondence to be on the open forum. I do not find your judgement to be so in what ApplePie7 has written. Please explain.

 

[ApplePie7]

Edward,

ApplePie7's rendering is incoherent in English and reflects his lack of knowledge in basic Arabic sentence structure.

Brother JJ,

If you have issue(s) with our renderings then just step up to the plate and point to the exact place, directly.

Telling others about your problem, as if searching for someone who agrees with you, rather than directing your concerns to the source, will not further your position.

Does it somehow help you to talk sideways to a person rather than directly at them?

Don’t be shy…

 

[Edward Palamar]

Actually, my last two posts were made in disagreement with Edward Palamar.

You haven't explained where the English is incoherent aside from referencing abuses of others which is also a violation of forum rules. I find ApplePie7's interpretations to be in accord with the eternal reign of Jesus Christ. He is non-abusive in his presentation and is the greatest help to English speaking Arabs, as well as a blessing to the rest of us for the time and effort he has put into serving Christ.

 

[ApplePie7]

Actually, my last two posts were made in disagreement with Edward Palamar.

Anyway, now that I have pinpointed your problems in grammar (i.e. lack of knowledge in basic Arabic sentence structure), I suspect any further discussions on Arabic grammar with you would be deleted by the moderators (as happened recently).

Brother JJ…

What you have attempted to do is base entire threads on discrediting another individual – of which, is not tolerated in this forum.

You already agreed that Islam bases en entire creed upon one, single, solitary verse out of the thousands upon thousands in their Koran, regarding Jesus’ crucifixion.

You further have come to realize that in this one, single, solitary verse, the entire meaning pivots upon one, single, solitary word.

It is little wonder why you would so upset over something like this – however, this does not give you license to stalk us in other threads and dedicate entire threads towards personal debasement.

You would not spend so much time and energy on 4.157 if you already had other areas of the Koran which supported the Islamic view that Jesus was never crucified until death upon the cross.

However, as we can see, your actions have spoken very loudly, as 4.157 is the only game in town for your faith regarding Jesus’ crucifixion – at least this is what Islam has told you.

You need to broaden your horizons, brother…as Jesus’ crucifixion is mentioned in numerous locations in your book of faith….like it, or not…

 

[Quoth]

MOD HAT ON

Just a Reminder:
"Start threads that are relevant to that forum's stated purpose; submit replies that are relevant to the topic of discussion."

MOD HAT OFF​

 

[Just James]

Brother JJ…

What you have attempted to do is base entire threads on discrediting another individual – of which, is not tolerated in this forum.

While you base thread after thread on discrediting millions of individuals (Muslims) based on falsehood and deception, which is contrary to the forum rules that I have read referring to the flaming of “other members or groups of members”.

And anyway, I was discrediting your ability to translate the Quran and your false claims about it, which is perfectly justified.

You already agreed that Islam bases en entire creed upon one, single, solitary verse out of the thousands upon thousands in their Koran, regarding Jesus’ crucifixion.

I have stated to you on at least two occasions that there are other evidences, and yet you still persist in this claim against me.

For instance, your lack of verified eyewitness accounts of the crucifixion also supports our position (see below).

You further have come to realize that in this one, single, solitary verse, the entire meaning pivots upon one, single, solitary word.

The verse pivots on the Arabic word for “not” like the Ten Commandments also pivot on the word “not”. And it actually appears four times in that Quranic verse with an unambiguous meaning.

You have claimed that the word generates a “conditional mood” for which there is no evidence in the verse, no evidence in any of the respected translations and no evidence even in your own hotchpotch mistranslation.

It is little wonder why you would so upset over something like this – however, this does not give you license to stalk us in other threads and dedicate entire threads towards personal debasement.

Now this is an interesting accusation that you make and reflective of psychological projection on your part, since you are the one who appears to pounce on every meaningful contribution from a Muslim, hijacking threads and generally debasing discussions with wild and false claims about the Quran.

Not only that, but you actively participated in that deleted thread with contributions at every juncture, without any word of protest about the creation of the thread (to my recollection), while the thread went on for some eight pages before deletion. If you were debased, then it was through your own frequent contributions, which only revealed your lack of knowledge in basic Arabic sentence structure.

You would not spend so much time and energy on 4.157 if you already had other areas of the Koran which supported the Islamic view that Jesus was never crucified until death upon the cross.

However, as we can see, your actions have spoken very loudly, as 4.157 is the only game in town for your faith regarding Jesus’ crucifixion – at least this is what Islam has told you.

Not really – you lack verified eyewitness accounts of the crucifixion.

So, I would be able to say that you only follow historical conjecture regarding the crucifixion, even if that Quranic verse had never been revealed. The truth of the Quranic verse is supported by your lack of historical evidence.

You need to broaden your horizons, brother…as Jesus’ crucifixion is mentioned in numerous locations in your book of faith….like it, or not…

Do you believe your deceptions about the Quran have been forgiven in advance by the act of crucifixion?

 

[ApplePie7]

While you base thread after thread on discrediting millions of individuals (Muslims) based on falsehood and deception, which is contrary to the forum rules that I have read referring to the flaming of “other members or groups of members”.

And anyway, I was discrediting your ability to translate the Quran and your false claims about it, which is perfectly justified.

Our threads revolve around Koranic exegesis, and revealing Biblical truth that has been lost to centuries of Islamic ignorance.

I have stated to you on at least two occasions that there are other evidences, and yet you still persist in this claim against me.

4.157 is the only Koranic verse mentioning Jesus’ crucifixion, according to Islam, brother.

As we can see, this one ayah is still bothering you…as you jump headlong into a thread dedicated to the Koranic “Muhammad”, while you still keep talking about the Islamic crucifixion ayah, 4.157.

For instance, your lack of verified eyewitness accounts of the crucifixion also supports our position (see below).

John witnessed Jesus’ crucifixion, brother.

Even the authors of sura 86 were cognizant of this…

The verse pivots on the Arabic word for “not” like the Ten Commandments also pivot on the word “not”. And it actually appears four times in that Quranic verse with an unambiguous meaning.

Thanks for acknowledging that a pivotal word indeed exists in this one ayah – this is half the battle…

This pivotal one word is “wama”, and it occurs three times in the ayah, not four times, brother.

You have claimed that the word generates a “conditional mood” for which there is no evidence in the verse, no evidence in any of the respected translations and no evidence even in your own hotchpotch mistranslation.

Per the classic definition, and, as already demonstrated to you numerous times, “wama” indeed governs the conditional mood of the ayah…of which, is positive…not negative.

 

[Just James]

In which case, please provide a (classic) definition of “conditional mood”, since you were the one to first introduce this English term.

Please do not dodge this one.

 

[Just James]

Some other points:

1) Simply stating "John" does not constitute providing a verified eyewitness. John who?

2) The word "ما" appears four times in that Quranic verse as a negating particle.

3) Otherwise, what you quoted from me already contains adequate responses to you.

And God knows best.

 

[ApplePie7]

In which case, please provide a (classic) definition of “conditional mood”, since you were the one to first introduce this English term.

Please do not dodge this one.

We already repeatedly provided 100% verifiable classic Arabic references in the other threads which discuss this topic, brother.

You have not provided any classic Arabic references for any of your terms, brother.

Why don't you fire-up one of your other threads to further your concern over 4.157.

This thread is dedicated to comprehending the Koranic "Muhammad".

When you are ready to tackle this topic, then please come back...

 

[Just James]

We already repeatedly provided 100% verifiable classic Arabic references in the other threads which discuss this topic, brother.

You have not provided any classic Arabic references for any of your terms, brother.

I anticipated that you would try to dodge this one.

Please provide a definition of “conditional mood”, if you are indeed truthful.

 

[Just James]

Why don't you fire-up one of your other threads to further your concern over 4.157.

This thread is dedicated to comprehending the Koranic "Muhammad".

When you are ready to tackle this topic, then please come back...

You raised this subject yourself further up the page and then object when I engage you in it.

I take it by your silence on simply “John” that you are unable to verify him as an eyewitness to the crucifixion.

And so we see, it is your theology that teeters on an alleged incident, for which you lack verified eyewitness accounts, confirming the truth of Verse 4:157 that you have “only conjecture to follow”.