# Debating Muslims



## Irishcat922

I have an ongoing debate with two Muslims via e-mail. These guys are sending out general e-mail to a large list of people refuting all the claims of Christianity. I have challenged them to debate me privately, and we have been doing so for a few weeks now. 
If anyone has any experience here I would greatly appreciate any advice. I am not sure if a presuppositional type of apologetic would work here, so I have limited my arguments to more of a classical approach. These guys at least for now seem to be very open minded.


----------



## Irishcat922

How do I move this? I meant to put it in the apologetics forum.


----------



## Abd_Yesua_alMasih

It would be helpful to know the claims they are making also :book:


----------



## Irishcat922

I have done some study of thier theological beliefs. The two I am talking to mainly are attacking the fundamentals, Primarily the Trinity and the deity of Christ.


----------



## openairboy

Hey Irishcat,

Here are a couple of posts that I wrote for another list, but you may find them helpful:

"Learning from Bahnsen Van Til's apologetic has two sides: not
answering a fool according to his folly; answering a fool according
to his folly. Briefly, monism, as I am using it here, essentially
says that all of reality is one, i.e. hinduism. There are a couple
other forms of monism, but this is the one I am referencing. This
view destroys all predication, logic, etc. They can in turn speak of
illusion, but this is contingent upon differentiation; thus
undermining monism.

With Islam the internal inconsistency lies in the fact that it
teaches that the Gospel, Torah, and the Psalms are the words of Allah
and that Moses, etc., down to Jesus are prophets. The problem ties
in with the nature of revelation, which has to be consistent or
developed from all previous revelation according to Deut. 13, which
they supposedly accept. The Koran, however, contradicts the
teachings of the Gospel, Torah, and Psalms, i.e. Jesus didn't die,
Jesus isn't the "Son of God", number of people on the Noah's ark,
etc. So there is internal inconsistency here. The Muslim will
respond that the text has been corrupted, but they can't show where,
when, etc., this corruption occured. It is merely asserted, b/c it
contradicts the Koran, but there is no historical reason for this.
Mohammad was content to say that they are the Word of Allah, so when
did the corruption come? There are also verses that teach that
Allah's word cannot be corrupted, which would undermine the assertion
that the text has been corrupted, but this really depends on your
interpretation/translation of those texts. I have two Koran's Yusef
Ali's (the standard) and Asad's (give to me by Muslims). Ali's
translation suggests that Allah's words cannot be corrupted, but the
other centers on "promises" not being broken. I need to research
this angle more, because it is important. Another angle that Bahnsen
references comes from Surah 42:11, I believe, and speaks of nothing
in creation being like Allah. Some Muslims interpret this around
Allah's transcendence and how he is utterly other, which would
destroy anything in creation relating w/ him, which would destroy
language and hence the Koran. Using the "prophets" we can
demonstrate the necessity of atonement, which Islam denies, etc., so
this gives us grounds to speak with them. Also, Surah 25 teaches
that it is o.k. to beat your wife. The western Muslim will object,
claiming it is a light "tapping", but it is the same language used to
address "beating" camels. They will say this shows respect for
creatures, but they are grasping at straws. The history of Islam
demonstrates otherwise. Anyway, there are other angles that work,
but the internal inconsistency is the route to go.

Zwemer's The Moslem Doctrine of God is very helpful in demonstrating
how "removed", "other", etc., Allah truly is compared with YHWH.
This is available on-line at http://www.answering-
islam.org/God/index.html and is worth a read.

Hope that helps. I can write more if you need, but that is the
basics."

Two: 

"The last thread on TAG and Islam made me do a little more reading on
the topic, and I have decided to post a few verses and the comments
made on those verses by Muhammad Asad. This Koran has explanatory
notes, which is the equivalent of one of our study Bibles, so take
the explanation for what they are worth, one man's comments. I do,
however, find the passages and comments fascinating and helpful in
our apologetic, especially if Asad is a trusted source, which I am
taking him for one because this Koran was given to me by a Muslim.
These verses can easily be researched and developed further for our
apologetic, so if you have any resources on the doctrines of Islam
and interpretation of these texts, please offer what you have. I
have several other Muslim "theologies", given to me with this Koran,
that I can check out if more information is desired, but they are
currently tucked away in my basement. I will write out the verse and
then Asad's comments in []. Any of my own comments will be set off
with ().

Surah 42:11, "The Originator [is He] of the heavens and the earth.
He has given you mates of your own kind-just as [He has willed that]
among the beasts [there be] mates-to multiply you thereby: [but]
there is nothing like unto Him, and He alone is all-hearing, all-
seeing."

[The phrase 'there is nothing like unto Him' implies that He is
fundamentally-and not merely in His attributes-'different' from
anything that exists or could exist, or anything that man can
conceive or imagine or define; and since 'there is nothing that could
be compared with Him' (112:4), even the 'how' of His
being 'different' from everything else is beyond the categories of
human thought.]

Surah 112:1-4, "Say: 'He is the One God: God the Eternal, the
Uncaused Cause of All being. He begets not, and neither is He
begotten; and there is nothing that could be compared with Him."

[The fact that God is one and unique in every respect, without
beginning and without end, has its logical correlate in the statement
that 'there is nothing that could be compared with Him'-thus
precluding any possibility of describing or defining Him.
Consequently, the quality of His Being is beyond the range of human
comprehension or imagination: which also explains why any attempt
at 'depicting' God by means of figurative representations or even
abstract symbols must be qualified as a blasphemous denial of the
truth.]

Surah 6:100, "And yet, some [people] have come to attribute all
manner of invisible beings a place side by side with God-although it
is He who has created them [all]; and in their ignorance they have
invented for Him sons and daughters! Limitless is He is His glory,
and sublimely exalted above anything that men may devise by way of
definition(88):"

[(the 88 refers to the footnote) i.e., utterly remote is He from all
imperfection and from the incompleteness which is implied in the
concept of having progeny. The very concept of 'definition' implies
the possibility of a comparison or correlation of an object with
other objects; God, however, is unique, there being 'nothing like
unto Him' and, therefore, 'nothing that could be compared with Him'-
with the result that any attempt at defining Him or His 'attributes'
is a logical impossibility and, from the ethical point of view, a
sin. The fact that He is undefinable makes it clear that
the 'attributes' (sifat) of God mentioned in the Qur'an do not
circumscribe His reality, but, rather, the perceptible effect of His
activity on and within the universe created by Him.]

What are your thoughts?"


If you have any questions, I can try to help from there. My web time has been cut to a minimum due to work, but I will get back to you asap.

openairboy


----------



## Abd_Yesua_alMasih

openairboy just reminded me how useful http://www.answering-islam.org is if you need quick refrences. They have a lot and being mostly ex-muslims they know how people within the religion work. It would be good, Irishcat922, if you spent some time reading through that site.


----------



## VirginiaHuguenot

A couple of thoughts on the subject of Christian-Muslim apologetics. 

The website http://www.answering-islam.org is a great one. I found a lot of useful articles and links on it. 

Although the issue has not been raised on this thread, the issue of jihad has been a major interest of mine in light of recent debates on terrorism. Some of the article on this website were especially helpful to me in better understanding the concept of jihad, which the articles indicate is rightly understood, in part, as 'holy war' and is essential to Islam. This point is very significant in light of the many Muslims and non-Muslims who mistakenly argue that jihad only refers to one's personal struggle against evil and is not a call to violence against 'unbelievers' and thereby seek to portray today's Islamic terrorists as those who are outside mainstream Islam. It is true that there are many different interpretations and applications of jihad, but jihad has historically and Koranically (if that is a word) been properly understood to denote the required physical struggle of Muslims against 'unbelievers.' Islam may be a religion of peace among Muslims, but not to non-Muslims. 

Another point addressed in the thread is the Muslim claim that there is no Trinity, ie., Allah is one God and Jesus, Isa, is not God but a great prophet whom Muhammad's teaching has superseded. This reminds of the Baha'i teaching of progressive revelation. I was once a Baha'i, a member of a religion born in Iran in the 19th century, which built on the Muslim idea that Judaism and Christianity were based on partial revelation from God, while Islam is the fulfillment of God's revelation through the prophet Muhammad. Likewise, Baha'ism teaches that all major prophets throughout history have been sent by God to progressively reveal divine truth, culminating (so far) in the teaching of Bahá'u'lláh, the founder of the Baha'i Faith. They argue that each revelation, whether by Jesus or Moses or whomever, was true for that period of time, but is superseded by the next prophet. This argument does violence to the logic of truth because the prophets contradict each other. Most notably for me personally, is the claim by Jesus that "I am the way, the truth, and the life: no man cometh unto the Father, but by me," a claim that is irreconcilable with the claims of Muhammad or Bahá'u'lláh. Jesus, in fact, claimed to be the Son of God and in doing so set Himself apart from all other 'prophets.' As Jesus is one Person of the Triune God, Muslims and Baha'is cannot consistently claim to praise the man and his teachings and yet reject His claim to Divinity. 

Much more could be said along these lines, but I thought I would offer these comments which came to mind while reading this thread.


----------



## Irishcat922

I think those are good arguments Kieth I will forward those if you dont' mind. Will you e-mail them to me? Thanks.


----------



## openairboy

Hey Sean,

Your best is to just "copy" and "paste" out of this forum, b/c that is all I would do to email them to you. I originally posted those to a discussion forum and did a "cut and paste" to transfer them here. Maybe I will put them in a word document for easy transfer...

I would love to hear how the Muslims respond. I have used these arguments in discussion with Muslims on college campuses, but they have been ill-equipped to respond. Broadly speaking, the Muslims I have interacted with do not know their position real well, but have a "stock pile" of common objections to Christianity--Trinity, Incarnation, textual criticism (30,000 variations, etc.). Beyond that, the dialogue is somewhat limited when it comes to critiquing the Koran, b/c I have found they do not know their own position real well.

Please keep me posted,
openairboy


----------



## Irishcat922

I used those arguments with my Muslim friends Kieth. One of them e-mailed me back and said that wasn't fair. I am not sure what he meant by that he just went into his normal spiel trying disprove the diety of Christ.


----------



## Puritan Sailor

> _Originally posted by Irishcat922_
> I used those arguments with my Muslim friends Kieth. One of them e-mailed me back and said that wasn't fair. I am not sure what he meant by that he just went into his normal spiel trying disprove the diety of Christ.


What was not fair about it?


----------



## Puritan Sailor

I second Samuel Zwemer's writings. He was a reformed missionary to the Middle East in the early 1900's. He has some very good things to say. He notes that the most important thing to have in evangelising to Muslims is good old fashioned Christian love. You can have the greatest arguments in the world, but if you don't live them, then the Muslims consider you a hypocrite, as they have a great many "Christian" influences in their history.


----------



## openairboy

> _Originally posted by Irishcat922_
> I used those arguments with my Muslim friends Kieth. One of them e-mailed me back and said that wasn't fair. I am not sure what he meant by that he just went into his normal spiel trying disprove the diety of Christ.



Hey Sean,

Just ask, why not? It is one thing to say they aren't fair, but a whole other thing to show that they are not. Ask them specifically where the argument is misconstruing the Muslim faith, b/c you don't desire to "bear false witness" and you want to interact with their best arguments. 

Now, I would go back over some of the verses I quoted, especially as they relate to the Scriptures being the revelation of Allah. The Koran claims the Gospels are Allah's Words, so they either need to show that our claims to deity (John 1:1, etc.) are invalid or they have to show corruption of the text. If this is not done, then I would point to their dishonesty in dealing with your arguments.

Also, since they are set on "disproving" your arguments make sure you spend your time listening (be slow to speak and quick to listen) to them, set the standard. It is one thing to really listen and provide a cogent response and another to simply look to lob new arguments at your opponent. Finally, set the tempo in the debate and say that will continue the discussion if they are willing to discuss one issue at a time. I wouldn't allow them to muddy the waters with a thousand different arguments.

Please keep me posted. If it is a public forum, maybe I can join in. If you think it is valid, feel free to post some of their arguments and we can interact further.

sdg,
openairboy


----------



## Irishcat922

> _Originally posted by puritansailor_
> I second Samuel Zwemer's writings. He was a reformed missionary to the Middle East in the early 1900's. He has some very good things to say. He notes that the most important thing to have in evangelising to Muslims is good old fashioned Christian love. You can have the greatest arguments in the world, but if you don't live them, then the Muslims consider you a hypocrite, as they have a great many "Christian" influences in their history.



I read Michael Madany's book the Bible and Islam, he was a reformed missionary in the Middle East for over twenty years, and basically he says the same thing, but he adds to not back down from them, they interpret that as feminine. We have to stand our ground in love.


----------



## Irishcat922

Thanks everyone very helpful so far. I am still debating these guys, they simply want to continue to try to prove that the Bible doesn't teach the Trinity or that Jesus was God. Thier arguments are very simplistic, and circular. They say because the Bible never says that specifically God is a Trinity, therefore it doesn't teach the Trinity. and that Jesus never specifically said I am God, therefore he is not God. I have shown them over and over that the Bible is very clear on these issues yet they just go back to this type of reasoning. Frankly they are starting to get on my nerves alittle bit, but they continue e-mailing me so i feel it is my duty as a Christian to try to keep discussing these issues.


----------



## openairboy

> _Originally posted by Irishcat922_
> Thanks everyone very helpful so far. I am still debating these guys, they simply want to continue to try to prove that the Bible doesn't teach the Trinity or that Jesus was God. Thier arguments are very simplistic, and circular. They say because the Bible never says that specifically God is a Trinity, therefore it doesn't teach the Trinity. and that Jesus never specifically said I am God, therefore he is not God. I have shown them over and over that the Bible is very clear on these issues yet they just go back to this type of reasoning. Frankly they are starting to get on my nerves alittle bit, but they continue e-mailing me so i feel it is my duty as a Christian to try to keep discussing these issues.



Irishcat,

Well, the life and actions of Jesus state that he is God, as well as his words. This is a much larger discussion, but the way to mount your case is to root them in the O.T. I don't know if you have access to it, but B.B. Warfield wrote a book on the divinity of Jesus, and he will help you establish your case from the OT that the Messiah must be divine. [I just typed a search in and came across this Warfield article (http://credimus.com/theology/misc/deity_christ.cfm).] If that storyline is true, then you can lead into the fact that Jesus is the fulfillment of this story. If you take this story and show who YHWH was in the Exodus, then show Jesus' "I am" statements, then they are read in a brand new light. This is an explicit statement to his deity. The fact that "I am God" isn't used is simply anachronistic. The Jews knew exactly what he was saying in his WORDS and ACTIONS. Also, find a good book on the meaning of symbols, because this will enable you to understand to Jesus' actions in a substantive manner and you can understand what his actions are saying (Actions speak louder than words...).

Ask them where the Koran teaches that you can only believe that which is explicitly stated, assuming that Jesus' words and actions aren't explicit. If they can't explicitly show where that is the case, then ask them why they are holding you to that standard? It is utter nonsense to hold someone to that standard, and assume that the argument isn't produced both inductively and deductively.

Take this whole oppurtunity as a way to learn your story better and articulate it better to others. Take some time to delve into the OT story ("Knowing Jesus Through the OT" may be a helpful book) and begin to unravel this story. What story line did Jesus enter? Explain how the Koran doesn't complete, but negates this story. 

It may be an excercise in futility, so temper your approach. You are only responsible to share the truth with them. The time may come that the situation simply becomes casting pearls before swine, so you shake off your feet and move on.

openairboy


----------



## LarryCook

Is this thought too simplistic? .....that Islam, which acknowledges the validity of the Jewish and Christian Holy Scriptures, departs from and adds to the truth of both based on the revelation of one man (a la Mormanism)...there are no voices, either contemporary to Mohammed or previous to him, that provide a collaborating message. Would Satan have liked to create a lineage of writers comparable to the Holy Scriptures to defeat this vulnerability? I would imagine so. How much of an impact on our faith does the fact that God used so many men over so many years to lay down a progressive revelation have? With Islam, one must accept many things that only one man has testified to. 

Of course, this is just the tipity tiptop of a huge iceberg of problems with Islam (most of which I couldn't intelligently address). I do, however, try and always remember R. Zacharias' message from "Jesus Among Other Gods" that people in this faith (and other false religions) are very sincere about their beliefs and to treat them accordingly.

Larry


----------



## alwaysreforming

If I could just add two cents in here:
It seems to me that trying to debate Muslims over the fact that the Bible proves the Trinity might be too much to take on. If I was involved in something like this, I would try not to set the bar so high. I would argue simply for the divinity of Christ, and limit my approach to that in the beginning.

As long as an argument is at the point of "prooftexting", it is going to be next to impossible to "prove" the Trinity. The Trinity is a "doctrine" of the Christian faith, an extrapolation of the Truths contained in the Bible. I don't think that a Muslim would be open-minded enough or even Biblically literate enough, (or even have the Spirit of God to aid his understanding), to comprehend and believe something so outside his present belief system.

HOWEVER, once you get past the hurdle of the Divine nature of the Lord Jesus Christ, the Muslim's mind just may be a little more open to the concept of the Trinity. After all, he has just overcome a huge barrier and saw something as being true that he was previously convinced was false. When that happens, sometimes people's minds open up a little bit.


----------



## Irishcat922

I have tried to avoid debating The doctrine of the Trinity but these guys insist on pursuing it. I have discussed the Divinity of Our Lord with them and they just continue to deny the clear teaching of the Word of God. So it is simply round and round we go with these guys. I am currently going almost verse by verse through the book of John with them debating the Deity of Christ.


----------



## C. Matthew McMahon

> The Koran also says that a prophet cannot lie. Jesus was a prophet. Therefore he couldn't have lied about being the Son of God and, ergo, the Koran has been refuted.



Definitely use this - it destroys their argument. Mohamed said this so it winds up being self defeating. You win either way - either Mohamed is wrong, and thus the Muslim nation crumbles, or Muhammad was right, and Jesus was a prophet, and prophets cannot lie, therefore Jesus is God and Mohamed is wrong.


----------



## Irishcat922

This a sample of the e-mails they are sending out, this is why I felt compelled to engage these guys in debate. I somehow got on their mailing list.

The book of John-18
Beloved all, greeting in the name of the only true LORD, the LORD that is 
greater than Jesus, greater than Moses, the LORD that can crush Jesus and 
Moses and Muhammad with one word from Him, the LORD that can destroy Jesus 
and his mother in a glimpse, and the LORD that Jesus prayed through the 
night, early in the morning to, and shed tears saying: please let this hour 
pass, but not my will, by thy will be done. The LORD that the man on the 
cross screamed begging and saying: Eloi, Eloi, Lama Sabactny. The LORD that 
does not cry out to any other, or need help from any other as Jesus always 
needed from the true one. The LORD that no one can spit on, whip with a 
hundred lashes, make him carry his cross, and then be killed on the stick or 
on the tree.
Some of you beloved remember how we proved by the books that Jesus was not 
from the children of David, according to Jesus as well, but when Trinity 
ever heard a word spoken by Jesus that they worship. Quiet a weird relation 
Trinity has with the god they made up, the god that they worship, they are 
the only people who never heard a word Jesus spoke, and the only nation 
after his blood, after eating his flesh, and after burning him or placing 
him in every fire they could, those who are against the orders of Jesus and 
the LORD over Jesus, and they are doing the worst evil against the LORD 
through worshipping the man Jesus instead of worshipping His LORD.
Again, listen to John 7;42, they said: haven't the Scripture said that the 
Christ cometh from the seed of David? I hear those saying this after some 
said: this is the Christ, why they said what they said? Simple, looks like 
people who were knowledgeable knew how Jesus was not from the seed of David, 
long before me the genius one discovered it, but when the rest of genius 
among us would understand Jesus was not from David, and Trinity is telling 
nonsense every time they claim Jesus was from David. Is it possible that our 
preachers really do not know how to read the books, is it true they do not 
see the obvious, is it true that they skip over what contradicts their false 
teaching, and the question is why? Why our preachers pretend not to see, or 
hide what they understand which contradicts what they say in churches? Our 
preachers are playing a dangerous role in bringing people to damnation in 
the name of Salvation.
Now a word to the Zionist Christians, our dear Jewish's puppets and slaves 
unto their Jewish masters; please read what Jews are from what their chiefs 
say about them, John 7;49 says: but for those people who are ignorant about 
the law from the common; those are cursed. Evil Christian Zionists are 
helping a cursed nation, the enemies of the LORD, read the books, see how 
evil are those from their own books, and from the very books you believe in. 
Then they said in John 52: search the books, no prophet comes from the 
Galilee. Those who knew the books so well are challenging us by saying: 
search the Scripture; do you see a prophet coming from the Galilee? Very 
well, Nazareth is from the Galilee, how Jesus is a prophet? This is simple, 
and we can always answer the Jews, and defy the evil they are all about 
against Jesus and the prophets, we tell them: Jesus was not from Nazareth, 
as Trinity falsely preaches as well, and Trinity in this is none Biblical 
always. Jesus was from Bethlehem.
How many from our Trinity brethren are ignorant about how Jesus was born in 
Bethlehem, none? Why those same say: Jesus of Nazareth, I know how this is 
mentioned in the books, but remember, it is always Jews who are behind every 
evil, and those are professionals in twisting the truth and the facts, as 
they stole Palestine, removed it from the world map, and called it the State 
of Israel. Being fooled by the Jewish evil twisting makes any of you a fool, 
and do not blame Satan Advocates from the enemies of the LORD and the 
enemies of His Christ. No Jesus was not from Nazareth, read Mathew chapter 
two, it says Jesus was born in Bethlehem.
Now some of us are attacking the Muslims' Qur'aan with evil lies, let us 
see what we have in Judeo-Christians' says in John 8: this woman was taken 
in Adultery, now Moses in the law commanded us that this woman should be 
stoned. I want to ask you beloved, those who believe in the book of John, 
why you never questioned any thing? They say: Moses commanded, I wonder why 
John falsifies the truth, wasn't Moses who commanded, go back to Leviticus 
20;10 and read how this was the LORD of Moses. This kind of false preaching 
and teaching, made so many say with evil hearts: the law of Moses, who said 
that the law was of Moses, as they say: Qur'aan is made by Muhammad, when 
those Satan Advocates will quit, and see things in the right prospective? No 
dear naÃ¯ve who know nothing, the law was not of Moses, the Qur'aan is not 
from the making of Muhammad, and all came from the LORD Almighty whether you 
want to believe or not makes no difference. It was the LORD who commanded to 
stone prostitutes or women taken in adultery. Because some made this from 
Moses, made things easy to accept prostitutes today, or turn most women into 
looking and acting like harlots, a new boy friend every few days, with 
clothes worse than old prostitutes worn by average women today.
No beloved, John made a mistake here; this is not commanded by Moses, but 
by the LORD of Moses. Now Jesus said: who have no sin let him cast the first 
stone, well, I thank John who claim Jesus said such a thing, what do we have 
here? The LORD of Abraham Isaac and Jacob says: stone harlots to death, 
according to John; Jesus said: no more we will listen to this god of old. In 
the matter of fact; since adultery is allowed now because we all sin, and no 
one can cast a stone against any evil any more, then let us do as we wish, 
kill, rape, taken in adultery, do all kind of evil, no one should say a 
thing, because he who has no sin should cast the first stone, and since we 
all sin, then let us shut up, thank you John. Is this good teaching, is this 
LORD of goodness to extremes, allow evil to happen, and do not punish evil, 
because you all are evil and full with sins?
If stupid humanity found rules and regulation to put all evil at the 
punishment stand, murderers are hanged or put to the chair, thieves are 
jailed for a long period of time, and all of other evil done is punishable, 
though we are evil but we found rules to punish evil, now Jesus wants evil 
to prevail, just because we all have sins, is not this new law such a 
wonderful thing, and let us return to the law of the jungle, since you re 
full with it, shut up and say nothing. I want to believe John, I want to 
believe that Jesus may allow prostitution, but sorry I couldn't, because 
some made Jesus god, they forgot that Jesus could not speak such evil in 
contradiction to true Deity, and true Deity would punish Jesus for such an 
evil. No, Jesus did not say such evil, and Jesus said: I did not come to 
abolish the law and the profits, but to fulfill, which means to apply and 
attain to, to watch how people will do as the LORD wishes. Until next time 
with love.


----------



## SmokingFlax

Wow...there are so many fabrications and misinterpretations in this letter that I don't know where to start!


----------



## openairboy

First, I know I don't know these men at all, but I doubt they wrote this. The whole nature of the writing seems rather public and stock, i.e. for mass consumption. I don't know the nature of your discussion with these men, so maybe it is a "legit" writing, but my gut tells me it is from a stock pile of munitions that our soldiers didn't guard.

Second, it is a very difficult read, because it is so full of blasphemy. I don't think I have ever felt so personally offended by a piece of writing. I know that men hate God, I interact on college campuses with God-haters everyday, but something in this seems exceptionally wicked.

Third, it is very poorly written, and the argument, I believe, doesn't make any sense. I read it twice and haven't a clue what they are after.

Finally, I stand with my previous post to know the story of the OT. They agree that Jesus did not come to abolish the law and the prophets, but to fulfill. O.k., lets begin here and see what the "law and the prophets" teach. How did Jesus fulfill these? We can prove Jesus from the OT, so we don't need NT "proof texts". All we have to show, and I believe it can be readily done, especially from Isaiah, that the Messiah must be divine rather than human in origin. Pick up Warfield or Reymond's work on the OT messiah, and you will be well equipped.

I few years back I got into a debate with some universalists and realized shortly into the discussion that it is a losing battle. First, they had a stock pile of ammo that I wasn't ready for. All they had to do was cut and paste and we don't have a whole lot of books, especially ones readily available, that combat universalism, so my leg work was 100 times what their's was. Second, they approach the text with a form of fundamentalis, i.e. "all means all". So when it says we can do all things through Christ, does this mean we can fly? Live underwater? Have infinite knowledge? In display of stupidity and desire for consistency they would say, "If he wanted us to." Nice talkin' with you guys...good bye.

openairboy


----------



## VirginiaHuguenot

Sick, sick, sick! 

I'll pray for much grace as you continue the discussion with these infidels, brothers.


----------



## Abd_Yesua_alMasih

> _Originally posted by openairboy_
> First, I know I don't know these men at all, but I doubt they wrote this. The whole nature of the writing seems rather public and stock, i.e. for mass consumption. I don't know the nature of your discussion with these men, so maybe it is a "legit" writing, but my gut tells me it is from a stock pile of munitions that our soldiers didn't guard.
> 
> Second, it is a very difficult read, because it is so full of blasphemy. I don't think I have ever felt so personally offended by a piece of writing. I know that men hate God, I interact on college campuses with God-haters everyday, but something in this seems exceptionally wicked.
> 
> Third, it is very poorly written, and the argument, I believe, doesn't make any sense. I read it twice and haven't a clue what they are after.


----------



## Irishcat922

I think you are right it is part of a general e-mail I think they send out pell-mell. I have been debating them over his "exposition" of the book of John. Wherein he has been going verse by verse trying to prove that Jesus wasn't who He said He was. Which he has been sending out to a large group as well.


----------



## Irishcat922

This what he wrote to me today after using Paul Manata's argument on him.

"Brother Sean, very well spoken no doubt, and you are absulutly right, you 
said a lot of things, allow me to have little time to answer this message."


----------



## SmokingFlax

Here is the real heart of these Islamicists post:

"...Jewish's puppets and slaves unto their Jewish masters..."

"...but remember, it is always Jews who are behind every 
evil, and those are professionals in twisting the truth and the facts..."

They would like to take Jesus and make him into a Palestinian "freedom fighter". 

It seems clear to me also that they are simply perpetrating the line from the 19th century conspiratorial text The Protocols of the Learned Elders of Zion that it is the Jews who are behind every thing that is wrong in the world -thus giving them implicit worship (whether they realize it or not) by suggesting that it is The Jews (and not God) who is in control of the world.


----------



## Puritan Sailor

Interesting quotes Paul. So where do we get this popular notion that Islam is a "religion of peace"?


----------



## Irishcat922

Here is his response to your arguments i used with him yesterday, Paul. See what I mean look at the reasoning i am dealing with.

You said: Koran claims that the Bible was given by Allah. It claims that the 
Torah, the psalms of David, and the Gospels of Isa (Jesus) are all revealed 
by Allah. So, it claims that the Bible is the word of God.
Yes brother, Qur'aan claims and it is correct, but it does not 
claim Psalms to be from David, even you are wrong that they were. Psalms 
speaking about the Temple that was built after the death of David could not 
be from David, unless he was singing from the grave. Now, the Bible, the 
Torah that Qur'aan speaks about are not what we have in the hands today, the 
Torah of Moses was burned by the Babylonians prior Babylonian slavery, and 
the Bible Jesus received was burned by Christians at Niece in the third 
Century AD. What you have today is the Jewish Tanak, most of it were written 
after Moses, and books according to Mathew, according to Luke, according to 
Mark, and according to John with some message and the book of Acts. What you 
have is different from the Bible of Jesus mentioned in the Qur'aan.
Now, the Bible claims that any future revelation must not contradict 
previous revelation (cf. Deut 13, for one). (So, are we following? According 
to the Koran the Bible is from Allah. So, Allah has told us that future 
revelation cannot contradict previous revelation).
Absolutely wonderfully true, however, as I said above, the books 
in our hands we may call whatever we wish, they are not from Jesus, but 
about him, and not was mentioned in the Qur'aan, because the Bible of Jesus 
is a copy from the Qur'aan, or vise versa, Qur'aan is a copy from the Bible 
and the Torah of Moses.
Now, Koran contradicts the Bible (it should not have to be stated that Koran 
comes after the Bible, chronologically). For example, it says that Mariam 
was Jesus' mother, not Mary. It says that one of Noah's sons died in the 
flood. It claims that God cannot have a son. It claims that Jesus did not 
die on the cross but rather it was Judas. It claims that salvation is by 
good deeds and Allah's mercy.
Yes, I understand why you are confused here, Jesus and his 
mother were not from America, or spoke English, and the mother of Jesus 
never heard this name Mary ever, nor Jesus knew his mother by the name Mary 
brother. Miriam the sister of Moses was called such because this is Hebrew, 
also Miriam the mother of Jesus. If you may find an Arab Christian, ask him 
to read the name of the mother of Jesus from the Arabic version of your 
book, and he will say: Miriam. Yes, one of the sons died, also the wife of 
Noah, contradicting what you call Judeo-Christian book, and not 
contradicting the Torah, or the Bible of Jesus. I showed you how the LORD 
cannot have a son even from your book under the messages of: the LORD 
children, and told you how this is just a title for those who are in the 
LORD, with the strongest proofs possible s well from your books. Yes, even 
your book clearly tells that Jesus did not die on the cross, but this we 
will discuss some other time, just remind me.
Therefore, according to Koran, Koran refutes itself!
True, if we take what you have to be the books it speaks about, 
but they are not, and Qur'aan does not refutes itself.
Now, that was too easy wasn't it?
My way, not your way, yes it is.
The Muslim Willl claim that we have changed or altered the words of Allah.
No, you have changed and altered the words of men such as stated 
above, even as we speak you are making a new book, with better English. It 
is a known fact that your book is the champ of revision in human history, 
every time they review they take out, and add to it, and change as much as 
possible, if you wish me to give you couple of examples how it changed, 
happily will.
I have no problem, at the beginning, to use some evidences here. For 
example, we can show the Bible has manuscripts dating from 50 yrs afterit 
was written. In the chester beatty monastery we have the complete NT dating 
about 200 yrs after. We can show a complete Bible 350 yrs after in Vaticanus 
M.b. (give a few years or take on the dates) These dates are important 
because the Koran itself tells Christians and Jews to consult their bible's 
to see if what Mohamed says is true. Why would Koran tell Christians to 
check a changed, or altered Bible?
You think it did, but you forgot my friend how Qur'aan came 1425 
years ago, a lot could have happened during this period, and what used to be 
in the hands, is nowhere insight any more. Your Old Testament was collected 
during the years of 1500, also the NT, they were fragments of many books, 
your scholars chose what to consider from heaven, and dismissed all the rest 
as none heavenly, read some examples in the Lost Bible book at bookstores, 
also the Seminar of Jesus.
Now, the good Muslim Willl be consistent with his presuppositions. He Willl 
say, "Koran says you changed the Bible. That is my ultimate authority and so 
I trust it." This is all fine and good, i.e., it's what we should expect 
when we have a presuppositional commitment.
I wish you changed in it, you completely burned it, nd adopted 
words of men.
Now, it just so happens that Koran also tells us that "no one can change or 
alter the words of Allah."
That is why Qur'aan never been changed, one version, all over 
the world.
Let's follow out the argument here. They are going to be on the horns of a 
serious dilemma.

(1) If it is true that no one can change or alter the words of Allah then 
the Bible was not corrupted, and therefore, the Muslim falls from my first 
argument.
Notice, we did not say: completely burned our of hands, we said 
altered, the situation is different, and you did not make any success with 
this, better luck next.
(2) If the Muslim protests that someone did indeed change the Bible then the 
Koran itself is false, since it told us that no one could change the words 
of Allah!
Again, no one changed the Bible, you changed men words in what 
you call NT, no more and no less.
I can do this in a different way as well: Koran says that a prophet of God 
cannot lie. It also says that God cannot have a son. Now, Jesus, a prophet 
of Allah, said that He was God's Son. So, either the Koran is correct and 
therefore, Jesus didn't lie; so God can have a son. Or, Jesus lied and 
therefore, the Koran is wrong that a prophet of God cannot lie!
My friend, your NT says Jesus lied, Mathew Jesus said: John is 
the Elijah, the book of John, John said he wasn't. Again, we are speaking 
about the Bible of Jesus, and in that Jesus never said he was god, or the 
son, then Qur'aan did not lie.
Or, check this one out: Around Surah 45 or 46, Koran tells us that nothing 
in human experience can be likened to Allah. Now, if that is true then the 
Koran cannot be what it claims to be. A revelation from Allah, telling about 
Allah, in human language and experience.
No, it say: there is nothing like the LORD Himself, and sending 
us books in a language that we understand, does not say there is someone 
like our LORD. It is His mercy to treat us as such, if He speaks His 
language we will not understand, and this is not an evidence for anything.
As far as my worldview goes. I Willl assume that it is true because it 
provides the preconditions for knowledge. I Willl argue that unless it were 
presupposed we could not make intelligible, salvation, have remission of 
sin, God's Holiness, His mercy,...all of which the Muslim says that God is. 
When he asks, how can I be right with God, I Willl assume the bible's 
teaching. I Willl assume, for example, the truth of the resurrection, 
because without it being presupposed I would have know warrant for knowing 
anything.
Not exactly, and did not make your point.




[Edited on 2-11-2004 by Irishcat922]


----------



## Puritan Sailor

Hey Irish, where's this guy from? I think part of the problem is a language barrier. Another issue you should pin him done on is that he claims the Bible we have today is corrupted. But he has no proof of that. He said that the only basis for our Bible is a text from 1500? I don't think so. He's simply living in denial if that's the case. Even liberal scholars acknowledge this


----------



## Irishcat922

It's interesting that he quotes the Jesus seminar. Obviously been watching to much American T.V.


----------



## Irishcat922

I am fixin to write him back on his claims on scripture. I will post his response.


----------



## VirginiaHuguenot

> _Originally posted by Paul manata_
> 
> 
> 
> _Originally posted by puritansailor_
> Interesting quotes Paul. So where do we get this popular notion that Islam is a "religion of peace"?
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Check the stats. Islam is ONLY a religion of piece where they are a minority. In the minority they preach tolerance. When they get in charge it begets what you see in the Arab/ Islamic countries. I'm sick of the whole "we're peaceful" argument. They say all thse texts and "terrorists" are aberrations. Well, the problem is that when you have so many aberrations you the "peaceful" are the real aberrations.
Click to expand...


I concur!


----------



## Irishcat922

That's what i told my Sons that these guys call me their friend but realistically if they had the opportunity they would Kill me.


----------



## SmokingFlax

Regarding "peaceful Islam, this is almost a replay of the previous PB topic:

Surprising article. Muslims being self critical!

from a month and 1/2 ago. Manata's last comments here were almost exactly my observation on this issue...as well as what true Islam is.

.................................................................... 

Quote:

" Now, the Bible, the 
Torah that Qur'aan speaks about are not what we have in the hands today, the 
Torah of Moses was burned by the Babylonians prior Babylonian slavery, and 
the Bible Jesus received was burned by Christians at Niece in the third 
Century AD. What you have today is the Jewish Tanak..."

As Patrick mentioned, this statement is ENTIRELY without any proof whatsoever.

And then this guy goes on to try and and justify his position by quoting from the OT??? After he just said that it is not legitimate??? How arbitrary can you get?


----------



## Irishcat922

This is what I am dealing with!

"Again I say: people did not corrupt what is from the LORD, what you have is 
not from the LORD, and corrupting it as you are doing in every revission 
does not make you corrupting what is from the LORD, but what is from man. I 
said: the Boble of Jesus spoken abou tin the Qur'aan, is not in your hands, 
because Christians of Old burned it, and adopted what you have today in the 
leadership of a man called Athanasious. Corrupting what you have is not a 
challenge to god, but to men who wrote those books. OK, let me put a 
challenge in your way to simplify things: go to Mathew, find me where Mathew 
claimed that he received his book from god, when Paul said all Scripture is 
from god, he spoke abou tthe Old Testament, because the book of Mathew ws 
not around. Go to Mark, show me where he claimed to receive his from god, go 
Luke 1:1 to read who and where he received, and why he wrote his book, 
search John and come back to tell me where he said he received his book from 
god, I m not speaking bout Revelation, when this man was sleeping on the day 
of the LORD, and received his book in dreams. I am speaking about the book 
of John. Let me give you how you altered and corrupted in your book, just a 
couple of examples. In Exodus Abraham said to Isaac: god himself will 
provide the gift for the alter, other versions say: god will offer himself 
as a gift for the burnt offering. In the first we see god helping by giving 
an offering, in the second god becomes available for being burned himself. 
Go to book store, open diffrent versions of your NT, Mathew chapter 2 speaks 
about wise men from the east, look through many to see how many say: Magi 
from the East, and this changed because Magi are fire and Satan worshipers. 
I have evidance without a number, I did not wish to bring this, you started 
by criticizing the Qur'aan, I hate to show you what I hve about your book, 
it is horrible, and you can tell I red a lot. Therefore, your book which is 
man made is being corrupted from time to time with every revission, and this 
has nothing to do with defying god as you say, because god has nothing to do 
with it, nd I am sorry to be the one to say this"


[Edited on 3-11-2004 by Irishcat922]


----------



## Irishcat922

I brought that up with Him he did'nt seem to want to touch it. I will press the issue with him


----------



## Puritan Sailor

> _Originally posted by Irishcat922_
> This is what I am dealing with!
> 
> OK, let me put a
> challenge in your way to simplify things: go to Mathew, find me where Mathew
> claimed that he received his book from god, when Paul said all Scripture is
> from god, he spoke abou tthe Old Testament, because the book of Mathew ws
> not around. Go to Mark, show me where he claimed to receive his from god, go
> Luke 1:1 to read who and where he received, and why he wrote his book,
> search John and come back to tell me where he said he received his book from
> god, I m not speaking bout Revelation, when this man was sleeping on the day
> of the LORD, and received his book in dreams. I am speaking about the book
> of John.



We had a thread dealing with this issue about the self-attesting claims of the NT not too long ago. You can read it here at

http://www.puritanboard.com/forum/viewthread.php?tid=6381


----------



## Irishcat922

I think he's mad now! Yet he rambles on without answering my question!

You really did not answer my question, what is your proof that the original 
>documents were destroyed, and isn't Allah powerful enough to preserve truth 
>without man corrupting it?
> ----- Original Message -----



My friend, no book from a sane god would insult all the prophets, and did 
not leave any from this evil. No book from a sane god would insult god 
himself, and call him a liar. No book from a sane god would have so much 
contradictions, yet be called by some harmony. Even this book in your hands, 
in the book of Ezra it says the Israelis lost the Troah, and they think they 
found it. No book from a sane god would teach there is nothing like out 
LORD, then at Geneses says: he made mn on his image and likeness. If you are 
interested in hearing the lies, and how horrible is the situation, I will 
send you messages I wrote under the title of holy lies. Babylonian burned 
the Old books of Moses and David. Christians burned the Bible of Jesus 
carried by two thirds of the communion at Nicae, Arius had the Bible of 
Jesus, he and those with him were put to death, and Athanasious won with the 
four gospel, and then all were forced on you by a pagan Roman Emperor named 
Constantine. As I said; the Greek version says: Kata to Mathion, or 
according to Mathew, so on for all four books, you and I know why Luke wrote 
the book of Luke and Acts, to present to Theophilis, other things are mere 
letters from Paul to churches taken for reveon, no other nation took simple 
letter for heavenly revelation except Christians. John had more letters to 
sevniffrent churches thn those of Paul, and even his letters were considered 
to be sent by god, and you have many gods to answer to my friend. All I am 
asking you: please realize Jesus is one of the servants of the true LORD, 
worship the true LORD as Jesus worshiped him. If you cannot find where Jesus 
bowed and kneeled in prayer to the true LORD, I will help you find them, why 
you cannot see the prayer of Jesus, if he ws god, then his worship should 
have been done to Satan, he will not bow and kneel to himself. Now, what 
question you have I did not answer?


----------



## Irishcat922

I brought those points up to him Paul. I wrote him again this morning to give me hard historical proof that i could research for myself. I have had no response other than this. I am going to continue to try to provoke a legitimate response from him. Until then maybe at least we have him thinking.


----------



## VirginiaHuguenot

Although not related to the ongoing debate, I find this article about how Muslims tend to gain weight during Ramadan interesting (not unlike my experience as a Roman Catholic during Lent).

http://story.news.yahoo.com/news?tmpl=story&cid=583&e=4&u=/nm/20041103/od_nm/morocco_ramadan_dc


----------



## VirginiaHuguenot

Supposedly. The fast is from sunrise to sunset. At sunset, apparently, some Muslims go hog wild.


----------



## Irishcat922

This is what he wrote in response to the arguments you suggested yesterday Paul.

"Very good, need time, I am willing to answer but just let me reflect close."

Like you said he is probably getting counsel from an Iman.


This is the latest garbage he is mailing out.

Dear beloved all, Greetings in the name of the only true LORD, the LORD over 
Muhammad, the LORD over Jesus, and the LORD over great Moses. Also I send 
you the best wishes for you and your loved ones. We are still looking at the 
issue of how different beliefs teach us how to treat women, we said that 
those who believe in the Jewish Tanak, or what we invented by saying: Old 
Testament, do not hear and abide to what the book teaches, therefore, their 
belief is an empty one. None of them treat women as geneses said; as a help 
to man, or take Moses seriously about not touching women when pure before 
meeting with the LORD in prayer, because touching women make men impure 
according to the book of Exodus. None believe the woman will be 33 days 
impure for bringing a man child, and double that for having a woman child, 
because women children cause double impurity and unseemliness. None abide 
by killing witches, or not allow a witch to live as Exodus 22:18 stated. It 
is amazing, those who have this kind of teaching do not follow, but follow 
what is found in Muslims books about how to treat women, while Muslims have 
different teaching, and they follow what is found in other's books as well.
Let us go further into the books, but before I do, I need to speak out what 
is on my mind regarding Mr. Bush who won. This man said he is a protector 
for the Jews in the world, but in his hypocrisy he said that he protects 
freedom and democracy, then why this hypocrite is making those who speak bad 
about Jews to shut up, if he has any decency, he should take the 
Judeo-Christian book from the hands, and burn it, because it is all against 
the Jews, the enemies of the LORD. Read the miserable picture of the Jews 
from what is called god, they are horrible, let us give this Jewish 
protector a hand, not a finger, let us burn the Judeo-Christian book that 
speaks so miserably about the Jews, and the champ of Anti-Semitic, start 
with the Jewish Tanak.
Let us look at how Leviticus looks at women, and how much of this those who 
say they accepted Leviticus apply to their lives. Leviticus 15:19 says: and 
when a woman is in her blood period, she shall be put apart from everyone 
for seven days, and whosoever toucheth her should be unclean until the 
evening, everything she touches or sleeps on become unclean, anyone touching 
what she comes in contact with becomes unclean, if anyone makes love with 
her, becomes unclean for seven days, and every bed he also touches become 
unclean for making love to this woman in her period (plague), and the book 
continues to tell how women in this period are such unholy plague and 
contagious.
Please hear me out, women are our mothers, our sisters, our daughters, and 
our beloved wives, I wonder if god has anything to do with those teachings 
mentioned in the Jewish Tanak, or are they from Jewish hand written? The 
LORD made women in such a state of having blood period, women during this 
period suffer a lot as it is, they are moody, they are in a state of 
embarrassment, in a state that they need our love, and should put them at 
ease from this stressful moments. Why women according to Leviticus Jewish 
book are such a plague, even touching them make us impure, unclean all day 
long, even touching their bed, or anything they touch will make us unclean, 
and unholy? Is not this something the LORD made them live through, I know 
they themselves are not suppose to touch the holy book, but taking them in 
our arms, or a little kiss on the cheek for comfort, make us catch some 
disease and uncleanness? Why those who believe in Leviticus attack other 
beliefs and the way they treat women, is this teaching about making women 
look like plague so wonderful? Imagine we treat our women as what we are 
ordered in this book, would this make a loving life more desirable, or so 
miserable? Those who believe in Leviticus should hush up about how others 
treat their women.
Leviticus 19:20 tells us how if a man slept with a woman engaged to another, 
but she is still a slave, they should not be put to death, which means if 
the woman is not a slave, and a man made love to her, they both should die, 
are we doing any of this, are we following the orders of god? None are 
doing, and yet have true belief in Leviticus. Leviticus 21:9 says: every 
daughter of a priest commits adultery, she should be burned with fire, I 
don't see this happening anywhere. Verse 13 says: a priest should marry only 
a virgin, and should not marry a divorced, or impure woman that committed 
adultery, and no prostitutes. Another horrible picture of how Jews treat 
women is in Numbers 12:10-15, which speaks of how Miriam the sister of Aaron 
and Moses was spoken about and treated. For those who speak against multi 
marriages in other's beliefs, Deuteronomy 17;17 says: kings should not take 
many women, so that he will not fall into temptation. For those who are 
angry with those with multi marriages, Abraham had three wives,, Jacob had 
four, Moses had three, David had 100, Solomon had 700, why some are so evil 
against any prophet with 9 wives?
Deuteronomy 21:10 says: if you capture a beautiful woman and has a desire 
unto her from the enemies at war, bring her home, shave her head (make her 
bold), cut her nails, and make her cry her family for one month, then you 
mate with her, then she will become your wife, and you her husband. Then you 
may divorce her, and let her go, but do not sell her for money, because you 
raped (humiliated) her before you marry. Is not god so great with his 
teachings, are we following this since we say we believe in it, and why we 
should curse others for how they treat their women? Until next time; with 
this blessings for women from god, and how we shouLd treat them


----------



## Irishcat922

I brought all that up to him, that is what he is having to get back with me on. I'll keep you posted as he responds. 

Thanks for all your input it has been very helpful thus far.

[Edited on 4-11-2004 by Irishcat922]


----------



## Irishcat922

Paul'

I thought the Hadith is not considered on the same level of insiration as the Koran. I mean I'm sure it probably carries as much weight with a devout Muslim. But is it good to use it in such debates?

[Edited on 4-11-2004 by Irishcat922]


----------



## Irishcat922

Here is my friends latest rebuttal. I think he is like you said Paul using his phone a friend option. But i guess I am too. I am using alot of your arguments on him, so I guess that's fair.

This is my answer for your question, do not come back saying I 
did not answer.
This is my question: If we corrupted it in the 3rd century then why did 
Mohamed tell Christians, IN THE SEVENTH CENTURY, to read their Bible to see 
if Mohamed was telling the truth???
Where did he say such?
You say we burned it in the third century, right? Koran was written in the 
7th, right? So, in the 7th century we had a new, blasphemous, incorrect, 
word from God, right? Now, this is what Koran says:
Surah:
[10.93] And certainly We lodged the children of Israel in a goodly abode and 
We provided them with good things; but they did not disagree until the 
knowledge had come to them; surely your Lord will judge between them on the 
resurrection day concerning that in which they disagreed.
[10.94] But if you are in doubt as to what We have revealed to you, ask 
those who read the Book before you; certainly the truth has come to you from 
your Lord, therefore you should not be of the disputers.
Since you know this, let me tell you how the Ayahs before were 
speaking about the story of how Israelis escaped Pharaoh, I want to draw 
your attention to Ayah 83, where Moses declared Israelis as Muslims. Anyway, 
Ayahs 75-93 that you brought, speak about what happened with the Israelis, 
this is found even in the made up books in the hands today, Allah said: if 
you are in doubt, ask those who have the stories even today. How those 
stories are somewhat correct, although books were burned? Ezra brought those 
stories from the memories of the Israelis who were in Babylonian slavery, if 
you take the books from the hands of your Jewish Rabbi, also Christian 
priests, don't they remember those stories so well? Having true stories does 
not make the books legitimate, and saying compare to what even those have, 
does not make the books from the LORD.
See, the Jews are talked about in 93 then Mohamed talks to the Christians in 
94. He says that if people want to see that Islam is true then they need to 
ask those who have read the book (Bible/Gospels). 94 says that the Book is 
TRUE. Mohamed calls the Bible true IN THE SEVENTH CENTURY.
No, Allah says to Muhammad, what you received is the truth, 
compare even to what they have, and they will tell you they hve the same 
stories. Allah says: what Muhammad received is the truth, not what Jews had 
is the truth.
But remember, we burned it in the third. Now, NO ONE, not even the Jesus 
seminar, says that our Bibles have been corrupted since the seventh century. 
So if our Bibles are the same as they were in the seventh then Mohamed told 
them to read a Bible where Jesus, a prophet, who can't lie, calls himself: 
the Son of God. But this is a lie, according to Islam.
As I said, having the stories almost half true, does not make the 
books true, take the Qur'aan out of our hands, we will still tell you the 
stories as they are, because we memorize our book better than any other 
nation before us, and we are the only nation that memorize the whole book as 
well, even as little children.
Again we have Mohamed telling people to judge by what is found in the 
Gospels and Torah, wherein truth is revealed. Look, in Sura 5:50-51 (46-47) 
Allah says, "And We caused Jesus, son of Mary, to follow in their footsteps, 
confirming that which was revealed before him and We bestowed on him the 
Gospel wherein is guidance and a light, confirming that which was (revealed) 
before it in the Torah -- a guidance and an admonition unto those who ward 
off evil. Let the People of the Gospel judge by that which Allah hath 
revealed therein. Whoso judgeth not by that which Allah hath revealed, such 
are evil-livers."
Ayahs 50-51 do not say what you say they do, then I went to Ayahs 
5:46-47, Allah speaks about the true Bible of Jesus, what you have as I said 
is not from Jesus bit man made thing. One more info I did not mention is the 
fact that I do also believe that during the days of Muhammad, we may still 
have some remnant who had parts of the true Bible of Jesus, because the real 
struggle against this Bible was under the Roman controlled Syria and 
Northern Egypt, but at Saudi the Bible was still safe for some time, until 
it completely disappeared. What you have is not the true Bible, read Ayah 
57:27, where Allah says He gave Jesus the Bible, while what you have was not 
received/given by Jesus, but was written by men such as Mathew..etc. Now 
your book speaks about the Bible of Jesus, let us look at examples:
(1) Read Mathew 4:23, which says: Jesus was teaching in their Synagogues, 
teaching the Gospel of the Kingdom. We all know that the NT was not around 
during Jesus time, yet he had a Gospel of the Kingdom, and the Old Testament 
was called the Tanak, never called by Gospel by any of the Jews, or anyone 
else. Mathew 9:35 speaks how Jesus was preaching the Gospel of Heaven, and 
don't tell me this is the Jewish Tanak, never Jews called their book as 
such. Verse 11:5 says: and the poor are receiving the Gospel, this is before 
any of the four wrote his.
(2) Luke 9:6 says: they went preaching the Gospel and healing the people. 
None of the Disciples saw any of the books in the NT.
(3) Acts 14:7 sys: and there they preached the Gospel, which means of Jesus, 
because as we said they had none of the NT available yet, they preached the 
same what Jesus had for a Gospel. Let me tell you: I have tens of examples 
that speak about a Gospel that existed before your NT, where is this Gospel 
my friend, where is the Bible Allah gave unto Jesus, not what Mathew and the 
rest wrote, or mere meaningless letters that you made revelation from 
heaven?
I think I explained enough, to show how mistaken you are.

[Edited on 6-11-2004 by Irishcat922]


----------



## Irishcat922

They don't understand that Jesus never personally wrote anything. They think from what I read, that when we refer to the Gospel, we are refferring to the writings of Jesus. They call them Injeel.


----------

