1. 'Your Bible has been corrupted.'

It is fruitless to try to share the Gospel with a Muslim who thinks that the Bible has been corrupted, since even if he was persuaded to reject the Qur'an, he would never accept the implications of the Bible until he was sure that it was authentic. Bear in mind that a Muslim believes every word of the Qur'an was written by God and brought to Muhammad by the angel Gabriel; it is no wonder that they see the Bible, written by over 40 men including a prime minister (Daniel), fishermen (Peter), a doctor (Luke) and prisoners (Jeremiah, Paul) over almost 2000 years as human and fallible in comparison. To compare the Bible with the Qur'an is therefore not to compare like with like. However, as we shall see, it is logically impossible for the Bible to have corrupted.
We begin with what the Qur'an says about the Bible; many verses actually confirm that it is God's Word and has not been changed. Here are only a few for example: sura 5:43 'How come they to you for judgement when they have the Torah, wherein are contained the commandments of God?'; sura 5:44 'We [God] did reveal the Torah, wherein is guidance and light, '; sura 5:46 'We sent Jesus, confirming that which was revealed before him in the Torah, and We bestowed on him the Gospel wherein is guidance and light, '; sura 5:68 '[Jews and Christians] have no guidance until you observe the Torah and the Injil [Gospel]'; sura 4:136 'Believe in God and His messenger [Muhammad], and the Scripture which He revealed to His messenger [the Qur'an] and the Scripture which He revealed aforetime [the Bible]'; sura 10:91 'If you [Muhammad] are in doubt concerning that which We reveal unto you, then question those who read the Scripture (that was) before you'; sura 15:9 'We reveal the Reminder, and Lo! We truly are its Guardian [ie the Bible is guarded against corruption by God]'; sura 6:34 'There is none to alter the Words of Allah'; sura 10:64 'There is no changing of the Words of Allah.'

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, why does the Muslim not accept the Bible, since current translations are all based upon manuscripts that predate Muhammad?

If it was corrupted, was this by Jews or Christians? Since neither were on speaking terms with each other (sura 2:113 'The Jews say the Christians follow nothing (true) and the Christians say the Jews follow nothing (true), yet both are readers of the Scripture', also see 5:82), how could they agree to change every single Bible identically? Why was there no record of this happening, and why did nobody try to stop it or hide authentic Bibles? The New Testament books were widely distributed as soon as they were written - the 'Jesus Papyrus' of Matthew 26, found 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)?

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). How could 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. The verses used to support corruption in the Bible have been totally misused by Muslims. For example sura 2:42 'Confound truth with falsehood, nor knowingly conceal the truth' was said to have come to Muhammad after two Jews were brought to him for judgement, having committed adultery. The other Jews wanted to test him to see if he, as a prophet of God, knew what was in the Torah. So he asked for a Torah and got a boy to read the punishments for disobedience. When the boy reached Lev 20:10 ('if a man commits adultery with another man's wife, both must be put to death') the Jew accused of adultery slammed his hand over the verse so the boy could not read it (source: Abu Dawood 4449 (Arabic) or 4432 (English)). A far cry from corrupting the text of the Bible. Other verses say that a group of Jews used to listen to Scripture then change it - but (i) it was only a group, not all the Jewish people around the world let alone in Mecca; (ii) they must have had the original genuine copies in order to have been accused of changing it; and (iii) they did not change the written text, they simply told Muhammad that it said things which were not there, in order to mislead him.

---

2. 'What about the predictions of Muhammad in the Bible?'
This is a strange question for someone to ask if they believe that the Bible has been tampered with. It is said that there used to be many prophecies about the coming of Muhammad in the Bible but after he came Jews and Christians deleted as many as possible. Since our translations are based on manuscripts copies centuries before Muhammad this cannot be true but the myth persists. What about the 'prophecies' which were not deleted?
[list]
[li] sura 61:6 says 'Jesus, son of Mary said, "I am indeed the Messenger of God to you, confirming the Torah that is before me and giving good tidings of a messenger who shall come after me whose name shall be Ahmad."' Before you reply, 'But nowhere in the Bible does Jesus talk about such a person!' you will be told to look at John 14:16 'I will ask the Father, and he will give you another Counsellor to be with you, ' The Greek word for Counsellor is parakletos (literally, one who draws alongside, as in a defence barrister in a court of law). Muslims claim that John originally wrote periklytos which apparently is Greek for 'Praised One'. Not a single manuscript of John 14:16 or 14:26 (where parakletos is used again) has periklytos however and one wonders how such a downright lie ever came to be invented. In the context of John 14, the Parakletos is to be with the disciples for ever (v16); He is the Spirit of Truth (v17) who is neither seen nor known by the world, but who lives inside belivers; and He is the Holy Spirit who reminds the Christians of all that Jesus taught them (v26). Could any of these things relate to a physical human being, Muhammad? [/li]

[li]'The LORD came from Sinai and dawned over them from Seir; He shone forth from Mount Paran with tens of thousands of holy ones' (Deut 33:2) and 'God came from Teman, the Holy One from Mount Paran' (Hab 3:3). Muslims claim that Moses came from Sinai, Jesus from Seir and Muhammad from Mount Paran, and the tens of thousands refers to one of his battles fought with ten thousand soldiers! Not only is the context clearly God and nobody else, but the interpretation is based upon a nineteenth-century geographer who apparently identified Paran with Mecca and Teman with Medina. That Paran is actually 1000km away from Mecca can be seen from the chronicles of the Israelites' wanderings, eg in Deut 1:1, also see Num 13 - how could the twelve spies leave Paran (v3), go staight into Canaan and explore the whole country (v21-22), cut some grapes (v23) and bring them back to Paran fresh (v27) in a mere 40 days if they were travelling a total of 2000km?
[/li]
[li] '[The Jews] asked [John], 'Are you the Prophet?' He answered, 'No.'' Although Muslims reject the testimony of John 1 that Jesus was divine (v1, 2, 14, 18, 34, 49) they hold that the Prophet referred to is Muhammad. The origins of this Prophet go back to Deut 18:15 ('The LORD your God will raise up for you a Prophet like me from among your brethen') who is clearly identified to be Jesus in Acts 3:22. Of the differences between Moses andMuhammad, not the least is that Muhammad was not Jewish and yet the Prophet will be from their own brethren (this excludes descent through Ishmael, Isaac's half-brother, Gen 16:12 versus 17:19). Moses is far more comparable to Jesus than to Muhammad: both were born in poverty and there were plots to kill them in infancy (Ex 1:15-16, 22 v. Matt 2:13); yet both were rescued (Ex 2:2-10 v. Matt 2:13). Both were prepared for a period of forty units of time (forty being a biblical unit for preparation): Ex 7:7 v. Matt 4:1); both liberated their people from slavery (Exodus v. John8:32-36); water was subject to them both (Red Sea Ex 14:21 v. Sea of Galilee Matt 8:26); both spoke to God face to face (Ex 33:11 v. Matt 17:3), both their faces shone (Ex 34:29 v. Matt 17:2); both died because of sin (Num 20:12 v. Is 53, John 1:29, 10:15). [/li]
[/list]

---

3. 'Christians worship three gods' - and 'God has no son.'
The Trinity is almost invariably the Muslim's greatest stumbling-block to the Gospel and diverts numerous conversations away from more productive issues. At the start it must be said that there is only being who can fully comprehend the nature of God, and that is Himself. However there are many clues in the Bible to His triune character.
The Qur'an is mistaken in its portrayal of the Trinity as Mary and Jesus being two separate gods besides Allah: 'O Jesus, son of Mary! Didst thou say unto mankind: Take me and my mother for two gods besides Allah?'(sura 5:116); 'How can He [God] have a child, when there is for Him no wife?' (sura 6:101); 'They indeed have disbelieved who say: Allah is the Messiah, son of Mary' (sura 5:17); 'Far be it removed from His transcendent majesty that He should have a son' (sura 4:171). This portryal of Christians as believing that God took Mary as His wife and she and their baby Jesus became two separate gods is as offensive to Christians as it is to Muslims, although there is evidence that heretical sects banished to Arabia were teaching this at the time of Muhammad (known as the Maryamia or Choloridians).

Unfortunately when we say 'Jesus is the Son of God', although we mean 'He is the eternal uncreated Word of God, equal in every respect and fully divined', the Muslim hears in his mind 'God had sex with Mary and she gave birth to Jesus'. It is vital not to say that Jesus is the Son of God to a Muslim - this is not compromising the Gospel, since there are many ways of affirming His divinity without using the convenient but totally misunderstood phrase 'Son of God', as we shall see below.

Helpful pointers include sura 2:177 in which the Arabic ibni-sabili literally means 'son of the road' but is translated 'wayfarer' - just as Jesus is not literally a physical son of God, so a wayfarer is not literally fathered by a road. sura 85:22 is held by the majority of Muslims (Sunnis) to mean that the Qur'an is uncreated, existing with God since the very beginning. If God's word the Qur'an is eternal and uncreated, why is it a problem that Jesus, God's Word should be eternal and uncreated? Indeed there cannot be a time when God's Word has never existed since it is intrinsically a part of God. Interestingly sura 4:171 says Jesus is a Word from God and His Spirit, yet elsewhere the Spirit (Arabic ruuhim minh) is identified as being the very essence of God Himself (sura 2:253 'We supported [Jesus] with the Holy Spirit', 12:87, 58:22 ).

In the Qur'an Jesus has attributes that no other human being has: He was born of a virgin (sura 21:91 - who was Jesus' father according to the Qur'an?) and was sinless (sura 19:19). As a child He made birds out of clay and breathed life into them yet the gift of life is something that only God can give (sura 3:49 - this story first appeared in the heretical Gospel of Thomas in the second century AD). He heals men who were born blind, cures the leper and raises the dead; He has knowledge of what is hidden in men's houses (sura 3:49). He has the power to intercede (sura 3:45 - 'one of those brought near to Allah') yet only God can interceed (sura 39:44); He can forgive sins (sura 61:12), and He alone knows the hour of Judgement (sura 43:61)!

A Muslim will point out that in the Bible Jesus never explicitly says that He is God - and He does not. However, evidence is presented and He allows people to make up their own minds. The Bible categorically denies that there is more than one God (Deut 6:4 'The LORD your God is One' - this verse is quoted by Jesus in Mark 12:29; see also Jam 2:19). Yet the Hebrew word echad for one implies a plurality, eg it is used in Gen 2:24 ('the two shall become one flesh'). God speaks in the plural eg 'Let Us make man in Our image' (Gen 1:26) yet there is no 'royal we' in Hebrew. In Gen 1:2-3 we see all three Persons of the Trinity in action, God, Word and Spirit, and in Matt 28:19 Jesus names these three Persons.

Jesus has the power not only to heal but to forgive sins, and since we sin against God alone, who has the authority to forgive sins except God (Mark 2:7)? Who other than God can demand that our love for Him must be so exclusive that all our other relationships seem like hate in comparison (Luke 14:26)? Since God instigated the Sabbath, only God can be the Lord of the Sabbath, yet Jesus uses this title for himself (Mark 2:28). Jesus passes judgement on our eternal destiny (Matt 25:32, John 5:22) and is with us forever (Matt 28:20). He said that He was the good shepherd (John 10:11) yet God is our shepherd (Ps 23:1). He is the light of the world (John 8:12) yet God is our light and our salvation (Ps 27:1) Heapplied the holy name 'I AM' of God (Ex 3:14) to Himself (John 8:58) - and was stoned for blasphemy. At His trial, when asked by the High Priest if He was the Son of God (a Messianic title,but not automatically one that claimed divinity, as Jesus pointed out in John 10:34-36), Jesus replied, 'I am. And you will see the Son of Man sitting at the right hand of the MightyOne and coming on the clouds of heaven.' (Mark 14:62). This was a direct reference to Dan 7:13-14, in which the Son of Man is given all authority and all peoples worshipped Him. It was this unambiguous claim to divinity that was deemed sufficient grounds for sentencing Jesus to death. Although Muslims have a problem accepting that Jesus really did die (see Deadly Question 5) there can be no denying that Jesus was at the very least sentenced to die.

When a Muslim says that there can be no Trinity he is limiting God, since God is able to do all things (sura 5:17, 19). In fact in sura 27:8 we read that God appeared to Moses in a burning bush (cf. Ex 3:2). If God can lower Himself to the extent of appearing as a fire, surely He can humble Himself to appear as a man (Phil 2:7) - after all, a human is muchgreater than a fire. The question then becomes not, How could God become a man, but Why did He?

---

4. 'Why the atonement? - God forgives me if I confess my mistakes.'
In Islam sins are mistakes which you do, and by saying sorry to God He will forgive you. In addition our good deeds take away our bad deeds (sura 11:114) - but if a man rapes a woman then builds a mosque in penitence, how can this restore honour to the woman? It is little incentive to do good. If I am convicted of driving over the speed limit, I cannot escape punishment simply because I have never had a parking ticket.
Sin dishonours the King of Kings and since we are God's slaves (sura 19:30) we must respect Him and accept punishment for dishonouring Him. It does not matter whether we have committed many or few sins - a small stone is just as likely to sink in the sea as a big one because they both share a stoney nature. In the operating theatre it does not matter whether the scalpel has been contaminated by one germ or millions, it is no longer sterile. The penalty for sin is death (Ezk 18:4, Rom 6:23) and God cannot lie (Num 23:19, Rom 3:4). Everything on earth must perish, and flesh and blood cannot inherit the Kingdom of God (I Cor 15:50); only God lasts for ever (sura 55:26-27). Atonement is therefore necessary because we are not good enough to earn a place in Heaven by our own merits.

God has decreed that the life of an animal is in its blood (Lev 17:10) and the institution of animal sacrifices is a visual aid to understand atonement - without the shedding of blood there is no forgiveness of sins (Heb 9:22). The question remains, how can the blood of a perishable lamb redeem a human, who is also perishable (Heb 9:9, 10:1,10:3) - perishable cannot inherit the imperishable. The only blood which truly has power to take away sins is imperishable blood, and if God appeared in human flesh He would have imperishable blood, which alone is sufficient to take away the sins of the world (John 1:29).

There are two important clues in the Qur'an to this. In sura 5:27 we learn that Abel's sacrifice (of blood, Gen 4:4) was accepted by God whereas Cain's sacrifice (vegetables, Gen 4:3) was not sufficient. Secondly in 37:107 we read that Abraham's son was 'ransomed by a momentous sacrifice', referring to the substitution by God of a ram instead of the boy in Gen 22:13-14. Why was it necessary for God to provide a substitute to save the boy's life? More importantly, why was the ram described as momentous (Arabic al-Azzim - this is one of the ninety-nine Names of God in the Qur'an). How could a ram be greater than a human being, unless it was a representation of an altogether greater sacrifice to come, that of Jesus Christ? (Note: the Qur'an maintains that it was Ishmael, not Isaac who was to be sacrificed. When discussing this story with a Muslim do not get sidetracked onto the issue of which of Abraham's sons was involved since this is a red herring. It is far more important to ask why the sacrifice was needed, and why a ram is described by a word that is a title of God Himself.)

---

5. 'Jesus was never crucified.'
In denying the Crucifixion Islam denies the very reason that Christ came to earth! This belief depends entirely on one infamous verse, sura 4:157: [The Jews said] ''We slew the Messiah Jesus son of Mary, Allah's messenger' - they slew him not, nor crucified, but it appeared so unto them; and lo! those who disagree concerning it are in doubt thereof; they have no knowledge save pursuit of a conjecture; they slew him not for certain'. However, it begs several crucial questions, not least is how Muhammad could claim that a historical event did not happen six centuries after it was recorded by many eyewitnesses.
That Jesus died on a cross and rose from the dead is beyond question from the Gospels ('When they had crucified Him' (Matt 27:35); 'With a loud cry, Jesus breathed his last' (Mark 15:37); 'When they came to Jesus and saw that He was already dead, they did not break His legs' (John 19:33); 'The angel said to the women, 'Do not be afraid, for I know that you were looking for Jesus, who was crucified. He is not here, He has risen from the dead' (Matt 28:5- 7)) The last passage is especially important for Muslims, who pay particular attention to things that angels say to humans.

Extra-biblical evidence for the reality of the Crucifixion includes the pagan writers Tacitus ('Christus suffered the extreme penalty during the reign of Tiberius') and Lucian the Greek ('Christians worship the crucified sage'), the Christian apologist Justin Martyr referred to the 'Acts of Pontius Pilate' (now lost, but must have chronicled the death of Jesus to have been referred to) and Jewish writers Josephus ('Pilate condemned Him to be crucified and to die, ') and Babylonian Talmud ('He was crucified on the eve of the Passover'). Early Christians used the Lord's Supper and the Cross as symbols of their Master's sacrifice (I Cor 11:23) and were never in doubt about the reality of the Crucifixion.

Conventionally Muslims have maintained that a substitute man was crucified but this opens a can of worms. Usually it was said to be Judas Iscariot (impossible since he committed suicide, Matt 27:5; Acts 1:18) or Simon of Cyrene (Mark 15:21, impossible since he came from Libya and would have looked very different from Jesus). Why was it even necessary to involve an innocent substitute? Why did the crucified man not cry out that a mistake had been made? Why did Mary recognise him as her Son (John 19:26)? Why would God deceive the disciples, who, the Qur'an tells us were inspired by God and believed in Jesus (sura 5:111), into thinking that Jesus had died and risen again, since this made them realise that Jesus truly was divine ('declared with power to be the Son of God by His resurrection from the dead, Jesus Christ our Lord' (Romans 1:4-5)). If Jesus was not God, this deception would have caused the disciples to worship another god, which is the greatest sin (shirk) known to Islam. How could God deceive godly men into committing the most ghastly sin imaginable - He is not a deceiver! A further problem is that if the man only appeared like Jesus, perhaps the Qur'an was not even given to Muhammad but to a man who looked like him. Finally, if the substitution theory was correct, if I committed adultery I could escape judgement by claiming that I was actually sleeping with my wife, but she merely looked like another man's wife, and appeal to the Qur'an for a divine precedent.

The important thing about these criticisms and others is that they have been made by Muslims - particularly the medieval scholar Al-Razi, who wrote the 'definitive' commentarty to the Qur'an and is perhaps to Islam what Luther or Aquinas are to Christianity. Since even senior Muslims have problems with sura 4:157, what can we say? The Qur'an talks about Jesus' death in other places as a historical event, e.g. sura 3:55 'Allah said, 'O Jesus! I am taking thee and causing thee to ascend unto Me' and sura 5:117 'I [Jesus] was a witness of them while I dwelt among them, and when Thou tookest me Thou wast watcher over me'. The Arabic word for 'take' (ta-waffa) in these verses means 'death' in every other place in the Qur'an where it occurs, e.g. referring to the death of Muhammad in sura 10:46 (', or whether We cause thee to die, '). In sura 19:15 God says to John the Baptist 'Peace on him the day he was born and the day he dies, and the day he shall be raised alive' and in sura 19:33 Jesus says, 'Peace on me the day I was born, and the day I die, and the day I shall be raised to life'. Since we know that John the Baptist has died (Mk 6:14-29), surely Jesus must have done so to speak in this way.

Sura 3:169 says 'Think not of those who are slain in the way of Allah as dead. Nay, they are living', meaning that the intended effect of those who killed people in God's way was not achieved, as martyrs were remembered more as a result of their death than for their life. Sura 8:17 says that 'it was not you Muslims who slew them, but Allah did it' referring to a battle the Muslims fought and reminding them that God was sovereignly in control of the victory. Finally even the Qur'an admits that it is not impossible for Christ to have have died - 'Who can do anything against Allah, if He had willed to destroy the Messiah son of Mary?' (sura 5:17). The most consistent explanation of sura 4:157 in the light of all these other verses is that the Jews were unable to boast that they had killed Jesus because God was supremely in control in allowing His Son to die on a cross!

---

6. 'The Qur'an contains scientific statements which prove that it was inspired by God.'
It is maintained that there are certain scientific processes described in the Qur'an which were not known at the time of Muhammad and their presence proves that the Qur'an was divinely inspired. Verses have been taken out of context and the translations twisted to try to prove these points. In addition standard textbooks written by Western scientists have been republished in Saudia Arabia with passages from the Qur'an inserted into the text at certain points to give the impression that the Qur'an is accurately describing something which was not discovered until fairly recently. The result is that most people take these claims at face value, since they do not know enough either about the true meaning of the Arabic or about possible sources of the scientific 'facts' in Muhammad's day.
Examples of these claims include verses which talk about rain falling, and others which say that there is water underground - conclusion - the Qur'an is describing the water cycle. A comparison of verses in the Bible shows that the same ideas were around long before Muhammad. Another is a verse which claims that mountains are like tent-pegs and prevent the earth from moving. Geologists are quoted as saying that mountains have 'roots' below the ground that hold the earth in place, when in reality far from preventing earthquakes, mountains are actually built up as a result of seismic activity.

Perhaps the greatest amount written by Muslims in this field concerns the development of the human embryo. Many verses describe how we originate from a drop of semen which gushes forth (sura 53:46) from 'between the backbone and the ribs' (sura 86:7). Muslims claim that the totally false idea that sperm is produced somewhere in the region of the backbone refers to the site of embryological development of the testes which is close to the kidneys - although there is no possibility of this interpretation in the context. In fact the Greek physician Hippocrates taught 1000 years before Muhammad that semen passes through the region of the kidneys and spine. Other verses say that we develop in four stages - a drop of semen, a blood-clot, a piece of chewed flesh and a stage in which bones are clothed with flesh (sura 22:5, sura 23:13). In trying to identify precise points in human development that these stages relate to, Muslim scientists have totally overlooked the fact that Galen, writing at Pergamun in Turkey (Rev 2:12) in AD 150 claimed that humans go through these four stages of development. Other examples could be given from the Qur'an and the Hadith (sayings of Muhammad) which have been twisted to try to show them saying things which have only recently been discovered. In every single case it has been conclusively demonstrated that not only were these things originally taught by the ancient Greeks, but that they were actually well known to the people in Arabia at the time of Muhammad. Far from proving that the Qur'an is divinely inspired, they provide further evidence that it had human origins.

---

7. 'Look at all the depravity in Christian society - Islam is pure.'
In fact the depravity is largely due to large numbers of people rejecting Christ, but many Muslims think that all Westerners are Christians, just as we are tempted to say that all Arabs are Muslims when there are many who are only culturally Muslim.
But why stop at Western society? One could argue (sensitively) that there are as many problems in Islamic societies as there are in Christian societies, except that these are often overlooked or hidden. For example of the countries at war or undergoing civil unrest almost all of them are Muslim. Corruption in Islamic countries is rife. The position of women is far more restricted than in Britain. Under Islamic law if a woman is raped she must bring four witnesses to testify to the crime in order to bring a case. If she claims she was raped but cannot produce four eyewitnesses not only is the case thrown out, but she could be flogged or even stoned to death for having effectively admitted in public to committing adultery. When statistics of violent crimes in the West are compared with those in Muslim countries and found to be much higher, is it because they do not occur in Muslim countries or that they do but people cannot produce the necessary witnesses? One could argue that polygamy was never part of God's sovereign plan and it is impossible to fully take care of more than one wife (Gen 1:27; 2:24; Deut 17:17; I Cor 7:2; I Tim 3:2). Yet the Qur'an allows up to four wives (sura 4:3) and not only did Muhammad have at least nine wives, he used to sleep with all of them in one night (Bukhari vol 7, Hadith 142). Christians are commanded to love our wives as Christ loved the Church and gave His life for her (Eph 5:25,33) whereas the Qur'an commands men to beat their wives if they do not submit to them (sura 4:34 - Arabic word literally means scourge or beat hard). One of Muhammad's wives, Aisha was only seven when he married her, and another, Zainab was originally the wife of his adopted son but was forced to marry Muhammad when he fell in love with her.

Many examples that could be given but these can have the effect of building barriers rather than bridges. It is more productive to show the teaching of Jesus, to live it out in front of your Muslim friend and to ask him what would happen to society if everybody followed His priorities. When answering any of these questions try to avoid being distracted on issues of minor importance and keep looking towards the Cross, upon which oursalvation depends. A genuine Muslim enquirer will have many questions but most of these are red herrings and prevent him from hearing about the good news of salvation through Jesus' atoning sacrifice.


source = http://debate.org.uk/topics/apolog/question.htm

Its much of a writing to grasp in one shot. If I complain about your presentation beiing too long, believe me, it is verry very very long by other peoples standard.

Hello Charlisco,

source = http://debate.org.uk/topics/apolog/question.htm

Please read through what you've posted and comment on the author's perception on Islam. You don't need to be parochial and proxy dependant. I wish you are a good researcher to filter and summarize what you've read concisely.

Many examples that could be given but these can have the effect of building barriers rather than bridges. It is more productive to show the teaching of Jesus, to live it out in front of your Muslim friend and to ask him what would happen to society if everybody followed His priorities. When answering any of these questions try to avoid being distracted on issues of minor importance and keep looking towards the Cross, upon which oursalvation depends. A genuine Muslim enquirer will have many questions but most of these are red herrings and prevent him from hearing about the good news of salvation through Jesus' atoning sacrifice.

If anyone truly live out the teaching of Jesus, it will be interesting to see him/her gets married, respect the parents. Since these are not the hallmarks of the biblical Jesus. Come to think of it, the Christian population will dwindle to nothingness in a matter of 2 to 4 generations.

When I read about the beating of the wife, I often wonder, if the Christians are not thinking that wife beating was not the invention of the Qur'an. But it says beat them lightly. And the explianer of the Qur'an, Muhammad bin Abdullah (as), never beat his wife. So if we are to truly follow the example of the prophet, no one will beat his spouse, even when she deserves to be beaten. And any claim claim by anyone that the prophet beat his wife is false, based on what we know of his personality.

A brother asked if the accusation of the nonmuslims about the Prophet's marriage to Aisha is just about the age of Aisha or just about the differences in their ages? If it is about her age, will it be therefore different, if the husband is 1 year older or younger than her? If it is about the difference in age, will it be therefore different, if she is 20 and the husband is 70 years old or even older? In all of these, no one should forget that she was already engaged to be married and the marriage proposal was simply cancelled because of her father and family acceptance of Islam. Considering that her father and indeed his family, including Aisha entered Islam the very first year of revelation. It means that Aisha was alive, prior to this event. How old? Let say either 4 or 5 years old. We will see that by the time she was the wife of the holy prophet and before the consumation of their marriage in the 2nd year of Hijr, she was at least 19 years old. That is a big difference from 7 or 9!

The main telling sign or event is that she was previously engaged to be married, then the marriage proposal was cancelled because her family became muslims. We should now look at things from that point onward. No one can propose marriage unless there is a living body to propose to. Afterall, in those days there was no sonogram in order to know the sex of the yet unborn. If there is a sign before the modern time, Islam brought it. And Islam did not begin to give the indication about these things until later revelations and not the very first revelation of 5 verses of Surah Alaq, by which Abu Bakr and his household (RA) became followers of the prophet, in his new religion.

@Charlisco:

It is fruitless to try to share the Gospel with a Muslim who thinks that the Bible has been corrupted, since even if he was persuaded to reject the Qur'an, he would never accept the implications of the Bible until he was sure that it was authentic. Bear in mind that a Muslim believes every word of the Qur'an was written by God and brought to Muhammad by the angel Gabriel; it is no wonder that they see the Bible, written by over 40 men including a prime minister (Daniel), fishermen (Peter), a doctor (Luke) and prisoners (Jeremiah, Paul) over almost 2000 years as human and fallible in comparison. To compare the Bible with the Qur'an is therefore not to compare like with like. However, as we shall see, it is logically impossible for the Bible to have corrupted.

You will not be taking the statement of men, the writers of the Bible as direct words of God. Would you? In this simply observation, you will see that to claim that it is God's word, when actually it is coming from men, is a corrupted definition of presenting the Book. Further, we will see that the Catholic Bible has more Books and Chapters than the protestants. If this is not visual sign of corruption, the tell me what it is? You will have to agree that both can not claim to be perfectly matched, since the chapters are not the same and so are the contents. Which therefore is the real Bible: You will have to discard one as a fake, if you present one as the real thing! Then we will have many people being unhappy about this decision.

Then wait, the Jews who only read the first part of the bible, which excludes the later part, the New Testament, flatly disagree and rejects the later part. Hence, we will see 2 different parts, each one disagreeing wth relative verses from the other. A good example is the concept of God. While the OT of the Jews, states that God is One entity. The NT of the Christians, turns that same concept on its head by saying that God has 3 distinctive entities, coequal and dwells in Him. This is the reason for the concept of Trinity, an idea and word not clearly defined and not written anywhere in the Bible. You might say it is imported from outside of its pages, after Jesus was lifted up.

Yesterday, I waschatting with Ali Sina of faithfreedom.org. He was telling me that I will never be able to prove him wrong, and it will be as if one was to prove 2+2=5! I had to remind him that he never must have heard the speech of the christians about 3=1! He thought I was funny. But that is the reality of things. The Christians truly believe this idea, otherwise they will not be Christians.

I am praying that we all see the light of guidance and accepts it before we die. Amin.

If anyone truly live out the teaching of Jesus, it will be interesting to see him/her gets married, respect the parents. Since these are not the hallmarks of the biblical Jesus. Come to think of it, the Christian population will dwindle to nothingness in a matter of 2 to 4 generations.

Care to tell me these teachings in the Bible that limit people from marrying and resepcting their parents?

Please read through what you've posted and comment on the author's perception on Islam. You don't need to be parochial and proxy dependant. I wish you are a good researcher to filter and summarize what you've read concisely

Yet does not mean that none of these things are true. Present a rebuttal to his post.

You will not be taking the statement of men, the writers of the Bible as direct words of God. Would you? In this simply observation, you will see that to claim that it is God's word, when actually it is coming from men, is a corrupted definition of presenting the Book.

God spoke through fire and you accept it, but cannot accept that God spoke through men?

Further, we will see that the Catholic Bible has more Books and Chapters than the protestants. If this is not visual sign of corruption, the tell me what it is? You will have to agree that both can not claim to be perfectly matched, since the chapters are not the same and so are the contents.

The chapters and contents are the same. If I have an acounting book and my friend owns the same book, but I have a few chapters missing n my book does this mean that my book is corrupted and lacks the truth of accounting? If I have chapter 1,5,6,7 and ha has the same chapters and then more does this mean that my chapters are not the same as his? No. Does it mean that the contents of the chapters I have are different? No.
Another example, I am an accounting student at my University and my friend is also an accounting student at another university, we're both enrolled in Intermediate Accounting I, but the book that she uses for her class is different from the book that I use in my class in words and all, does it mean that both books do not convey the exact same concepts? No.
If it does then how is it that the same employer hires both if us. Shouldn't they then choose who has the upper hand from the book? Shouldn't they then declare one book as having the true contents and the other as not? If it was done so, why do accounting firms hire students from different universities who sit for the same title course but use different books?

Then wait, the Jews who only read the first part of the bible, which excludes the later part, the New Testament, flatly disagree and rejects the later part. Hence, we will see 2 different parts, each one disagreeing wth relative verses from the other

This only proves the authenticity and uncorrupt nature of the Bible.

A good example is the concept of God. While the OT of the Jews, states that God is One entity. The NT of the Christians, turns that same concept on its head by saying that God has 3 distinctive entities, coequal and dwells in Him.

All three were in the Old Testament, passages have already been shown to you. To play ignorant.

This is the reason for the concept of Trinity, an idea and word not clearly defined and not written anywhere in the Bible

very much defined. The Father, the Son, the Holy Spirit, straight form Jesus' mouth.

You might say it is imported from outside of its pages, after Jesus was lifted up.

It was there before Jesus was lifted up, know the Bible before you speak on it please, thanks. Jesus spoke of it before he was lifted up. Stop contradicting yourself. Above you state that it is in the New Testament and now you state that it is after Jesus was lifted up, well the New Testament consists of before and after Jesus was lifted up, so which one is it?

I had to remind him that he never must have heard the speech of the christians about 3=1! He thought I was funny. But that is the reality of things.

Whose reality yours or mine? What's the basis of reality? It is your misunderstanding of it.
It's amazing, I remember you telling me that you don't need interpretation and things are as clear as day and you don't need to be fed lies. Yet when I present to you that in the Qu'ran the infant Jesus said that he would die and rise again, you proceed to interpret for me. So I ask why should I receive interpretation from you? I don't need an interpretation or guidance, I can read the Qu'ran and have read it and it is clear as day and I don't need to be fed lies.

I am praying that we all see the light of guidance and accepts it before we die. Amin

Amen.

Now I have to address this. You have tried to prove to me and other Christians that there is no Spirit, and that the idea is corrupt, yet you went back to the same corrupt idea and tried to prove that the corrupt idea is Muhammad? Why?
How can it be corrupt when it doesn't suit you and then be authentic when it does? That is called flip-flopping and lying.

When I read about the beating of the wife, I often wonder, if the Christians are not thinking that wife beating was not the invention of the Qur'an

When did Christ encourage beating of the wife? Don't forget Christians walk in the footsteps of Christ. Don't confuse it with judaism.

But it says beat them lightly

Tell that to the women who run for their lives.

And the explianer of the Qur'an, Muhammad bin Abdullah (as), never beat his wife.

And the Qu'ran says not to steal, but if you are to follow in the footsteps of the prophet you will be raiding your neighbours right now. What kind of a prophet does not practice what he preached? What kind of a prophet from God does not live within the confinement and rules set by God? He is supposed to be a model for Muslims, how come he had exceptions for himself?

@~Lady~: For starter, Jesus did not marry. And this is the reason we have nuns, monastries, fathers, and the head of the church himself, the pope is not married.

My darling, am happy you are not taking that route.

Then we should not forget that Jesus was told in a gathering once, that his mother wanted his attention. His response was very simple and direct that it is obvious that he did not care for her and did not pay too much attention to her demand. Could this be the reason that the protestants don't really care too much for her person? The mother of their lord, the vessel that carried their salvation?

quote:
JESUS CHRIST: WHO IS MY MOTHER?
July 13, 2007 in Believe It Or Not, Bible, Christian, Christianity, Church, Deceivers, Deception, God, Heaven, Hell, It's Not Too Late!!, Jesus, Jesus Christ, News, Out From Rome, Personal, Politics, Spiritual, Spirituality, Writing by soulrefuge

There is a very interesting portion of scripture in the gospel according to Matthew. In this passage of scripture, the Lord Jesus Christ showed us that he did not elevate His natural family above His spiritual family. Here is the passage:

While he (Jesus) yet talked to the people, behold, his mother and his brethren stood without, desiring to speak with him. Then one said unto him, Behold, thy mother and thy brethren stand without, desiring to speak with thee. But he answered and said unto him that told him, Who is my mother? and who are my brethren? And he stretched forth his hand toward his disciples, and said, Behold my mother and my brethren! For whosoever shall do the will of my Father which is in heaven, the same is my brother, and sister, and mother. (Matthew 12:46-50)

Jesus was informed by someone that His mother (Mary) was outside with her other children and they wanted to speak with Him. Jesus then took that opportunity to show the people that His spiritual family were those who did the will of His Father. Jesus specifically asked the question “Who is my mother? and who are my brethren?” and then He answered His own question by stretching forth His hand toward those who were sitting before Him, those who were listening to him teach. Jesus took that opportunity to make it clear that not even His own family (in the natural) were to be elevated above those who followed him and did the will of the Father. Every single person has the opportunity to join the family of God by believing in Jesus Christ. The Lord Jesus Christ is not a respector of persons and this passage of scripture has made that very clear. I became part of that very same family of God when I was born again of the Spirit in 1989. You can read my testimony on this blogsite or you can listen to the audio version at THE ONWATCH RADIO PODCASTunquote

This is different from the Jesus of Qur'an who specifically declared that he was made never to be a burden, a disrespecter, or source of anguish for Mariam, his mother. We see that in no time in that verse or its explanation/interpretation below it from the above Bible quote that he attended to her. It was ignore, ignore and ignore as if it is business as usual. Thats the Jesus the Muslims know.

can someone pls EXPLAIN the meaning of CHRISTMAS and 25th DECEMBER, cos av never come accross that date in the BIBLE in my life, and yet it's being celebrated all over the world.
Av asked so many christains, and they say it's a date set aside 2 celebrate the birth of JESUS christ, which i find very contradicting to a particular verse of REVELATIONS(cant remember ryt now)

can someone pls EXPLAIN the meaning of CHRISTMAS and 25th DECEMBER, cos av never come accross that date in the BIBLE in my life, and yet it's being celebrated all over the world.
Av asked so many christains, and they say it's a date set aside 2 celebrate the birth of JESUS christ, which i find very contradicting to a particular verse of REVELATIONS(cant remember ryt now)

For starter, Jesus did not marry. And this is the reason we have nuns, monastries, fathers, and the head of the church himself, the pope is not married.

That is not the reason why.

My darling, am happy you are not taking that route.

Sorry to burst your bubble, but I've been thinking of it for the past year and some months. Looking at my situation, God may be hinting that I turn and serve him fully.

Then we should not forget that Jesus was told in a gathering once, that his mother wanted his attention. His response was very simple and direct that it is obvious that he did not care for her and did not pay too much attention to her demand. Could this be the reason that the protestants don't really care too much for her person? The mother of their lord, the vessel that carried their salvation?

Don't misqoute the Bible dear, he never insinuated that he did not care for his mother or his family. His mother was with him until he took his dying breath, when he rose, and when he ascended. His mother was with the apostles too when the Holy Spirit came upon them at pentecost.
When his family asked to speak to him, he didn't dismiss them saying that he didn't care for them, he only affirmed that those who do the will of the Father is his brother, sister, and mother. Basically his true disciples, but no where in there does it say that he doesn't care for his mother or what it is she had to say. Clearly he did when he turned water into wine. His mother requested it and he did as she requested. She directed the servers to do whatever it is that Christ told them to do. This shows authority.
The Protestants don't care for her because they think don't view the Bible in full view but from a narrow view.

This is different from the Jesus of Qur'an who specifically declared that he was made never to be a burden, a disrespecter, or source of anguish for Mariam, his mother.

How did he cause pain to his mother? How did he disrespect her?

can someone please EXPLAIN the meaning of CHRISTMAS and 25th DECEMBER, because av never come accross that date in the BIBLE in my life, and yet it's being celebrated all over the world.
Av asked so many christains, and they say it's a date set aside 2 celebrate the birth of JESUS christ, which i find very contradicting to a particular verse of REVELATIONS(can't remember ryt now)

Can you stop polluting the threads? Take your search for trouble elsewhere.

@~Lady~

Sorry to burst your bubble, but I've been thinking of it for the past year and some months. Looking at my situation, God may be hinting that I turn and serve him fully.

Even though you did not tell me why there is an order that practices celibacy, I do not want you to do it. I don't want all that prettiness, being a woman and some more to go to waste. The brain and all, must be transferred to some progeny, offspring(s)! LOL. And by the way there is no where in the Bible you can show me that you don't have to marry. Serving God means obedience to Him, alone. Now tell me how depriving yourself of the chance of being a mothe will mean that you are in a full trottle up to serving Him?

Don't misqoute the Bible dear, he never insinuated that he did not care for his mother or his family. His mother was with him until he took his dying breath, when he rose, and when he ascended. His mother was with the apostles too when the Holy Spirit came upon them at pentecost.
When his family asked to speak to him, he didn't dismiss them saying that he didn't care for them, he only affirmed that those who do the will of the Father is his brother, sister, and mother. Basically his true disciples, but no where in there does it say that he doesn't care for his mother or what it is she had to say. Clearly he did when he turned water into wine. His mother requested it and he did as she requested. She directed the servers to do whatever it is that Christ told them to do. This shows authority.
The Protestants don't care for her because they think don't view the Bible in full view but from a narrow view.

And i know about the protestants, already. First their plagiarism of the catholic Bible, but dropping about 7 Books from it. It is their way of saying that they are independent? Now thats dishonesty, considering that they criticize the Catholics, without any shame. I guess I am partial to the catholics since many of my friends are.

Now, tell me what you will say is the underpinning sentiment of that verse from the bible about Son and mother, if the son was not jesus and the mother was not Mary? Lets take it out of the Bible. Lets just say for a moment, its an interraction of dialogue recorded in a novel. What would you say the son is to his mother, when he addressed his audience like that, knowing fully well that his mother was waiting to have an audience with him?

You do know that it is the unimmediate response of President Bush, who was still reading my pet goat that in the earlier days of 911, that he was so satired all over the place.

This story of not responding to mother's call, immediately reminds me of Juraij, in one of the 3 children who spoke in the Cradle. I think Jesus and the child in Suratul Buruj is the third along with the child in the story of Juraij.

Allah says in the Qur'an to obey ones parent, until if they ask you to disobey Him. This points in the same line wha Jesus of Islam said in the Qur'an about his mother. In the case of juraij, he was praying and it was then his mother called him. He did not come out of prayer, and he made his prayer long. But his mother was angry as she had called him thrice. So she prayed to God that this son of hers who was so holy, but ignored her call, because he was praying for his eye to see prostitute. Please bear in mind that this man was very devoted to god's worship, and it was almost impossible for him to perform illicit sex.

But the mother's prayer was accepted by Allah. in time a prostitute had a child. So the society asked who was the father, the child said Juraij! This was horror. So thy went to bring juraij, who confronted the mother and child. He was so angry that i think he tapped the child hard who spoke that he was ordered to say it, so that juraij's mother prayer could come to pass. Kindness to mother is always to be in speech and deeds, both in public and private.

How did he cause pain to his mother? How did he disrespect her?

Wait until you have your own child. Lets take a scenario. He is with his friend on a summer evening. They were all sitting on the stoops. And you and friends are walking out to catch some movies. So you were trying to get his attention. but it was his friend who noticed instead. That friend had to tell him that his mother was trying to tell him something. But how would you feel if he says "Oh, who is my mother and family? You my passe are. Afterall, it is you guys that make not not feel lonely!" Now thats a thing to reflect about.

My dear. think about it.

Even though you did not tell me why there is an order that practices celibacy, I do not want you to do it. I don't want all that prettiness, being a woman and some more to go to waste. The brain and all, must be transferred to some progeny, offspring(s)! LOL. And by the way there is no where in the Bible you can show me that you don't have to marry

Thanks for the complement but I don't live by my beauty but by the Word of God. Beauty fades dear.

If I show you where it is in the Bible what will you give me? (I don't have my Bible with me, I am at work, so I'll put it up when I get home)

First their plagiarism of the catholic Bible, but dropping about 7 Books from it.

dropping books from the Bible is not plagiarism or corruption. Plagiarism is taking the original and formulating something else and taking credit for it. They don't take credit for anything and did not formulate any other ideas from it.
Plagiarism is what Muhamad did with the Qu'ran, he basically took the stories and ideas of the Bible and turned it into something else and then took credit for it. But to have full claim he claimed that the original books have been corrupted. That is the ONLY way the Qu'ran can hold as authentic.

Now, tell me what you will say is the underpinning sentiment of that verse from the bible about Son and mother, if the son was not jesus and the mother was not Mary? Lets take it out of the Bible. Lets just say for a moment, its an interraction of dialogue recorded in a novel. What would you say the son is to his mother, when he addressed his audience like that, knowing fully well that his mother was waiting to have an audience with him?

Well see it would be easier if Christ was just a mere mortal and didn't have the powers that he has. But seeing that Mary herself knows very well who her Son is and she praised him too, you can't compare her to any regular mother who has seniority over her son. No one can have seniority over God. Again the passage did not say that he dismissed his mother oh no, it only points out that Jesus proceeded to use that as an opportunity to show who his true family is. You cannot dispute that after he said this he didn't go to his mother's aide. I showed you a passage where he obeyed his mother.

Wait until you have your own child. Lets take a scenario. He is with his friend on a summer evening. They were all sitting on the stoops. And you and friends are walking out to catch some movies. So you were trying to get his attention. but it was his friend who noticed instead. That friend had to tell him that his mother was trying to tell him something. But how would you feel if he says "Oh, who is my mother and family? You my passe are. Afterall, it is you guys that make not not feel lonely!" Now thats a thing to reflect about.

Except my child is not God himself. Besides it was already professied that the blessedness of Mary would be challenged by the true blessedness.
Mary knew what was up. She allowed it to happen and was the starter of his ministry. The first miracle that Jesus did, Mary asked for it.

@Georgee

can someone please EXPLAIN the meaning of CHRISTMAS and 25th DECEMBER, because av never come accross that date in the BIBLE in my life, and yet it's being celebrated all over the world.
Av asked so many christains, and they say it's a date set aside 2 celebrate the birth of JESUS christ, which i find very contradicting to a particular verse of REVELATIONS(can't remember ryt now)

I think this is not the best thread to ask these questions and if you really want to know the truth about Christmas and Dec. 25, go to search engine and learn about it or you create thread on that and I would come in but please this is not a thread for your questions.

Thanks

Christians are lost. Lets place rhe two faiths on the scale of common sense, christianity is a religion founded by paul. Some guys wake up one day, write several books and attribute them to God almighty. Bullshit!!!

We are humans. We cant think beyonf our capacities as humans. Even if men write from now till judgement day, they would not exceed the capacities Allah has bestowed on them.

As humans, in our shallow capacities, xtians think God looks like us, as in eyes, nose, hair and all that (Man we created in our own image)

xtians say God has a son (Auzubillah). Thats a human characteristic and dem dey attribute am to God. The person they are writing about is beynd all that!!!!

All praises due to Allah (SWT) who is free from all that xtians ascribe to him!!!!

@~Lady~

If I show you where it is in the Bible what will you give me? (I don't have my Bible with me, I am at work, so I'll put it up when I get home)

If you can show it to me, then make your demand. InshaAllah, I will meet it. If you can't show that it is a general thing for all, then I will make my own demand and you have to oblige. Deal?

But interestingly, I want you to know that they Jews find it offensive and blasphemous enough to want to kill Jesus by his merely claiming to be son of God. What does this show, it simply shows that the Jews never used to hearing anyone or group calling themselves or being addressed as son or children of God. If they did before, they would have taken it as a known quantity when it was said in the New Testament that Jesus said it. I submit to you that it is either that the Bible writers imported children of God statement into the Old Testament, or that the part that opposes the possible position that anyone can claim to be son of God, in the New testament is false. One side has to be lying.

So get ready to dress up like a muslim woman. Edo and indeed is very familiar with Islam. I am eager to welcome you to the fold.

@~Lady~:

dropping books from the Bible is not plagiarism or corruption. Plagiarism is taking the original and formulating something else and taking credit for it. They don't take credit for anything and did not formulate any other ideas from it.
Plagiarism is what Muhamad did with the Qu'ran, he basically took the stories and ideas of the Bible and turned it into something else and then took credit for it. But to have full claim he claimed that the original books have been corrupted. That is the ONLY way the Qu'ran can hold as authentic.

I am sure if I took out 7 chapters from your book accounting, and Title it as complete, you will tell me that that is not true. The author of the text will tell me that that is not true. He will tell me that I just simply did not have a full document to successfully solve accounting problems. If I call this new book accounting textbook, in the latest version, all accountants and the original author of the textbook will declare me as a plaigerist. This is what the Protestant Bible is to the catholics'.

Now let us observe the Qur'an in the same light of accounting. There are elements in accounting principals, anyway. Account issues will have to include some valued goods and receivable, etc, which have to include balance sheet of cash and valuables. There are also expenditures for goods and services. If a new theory is developed and produces a more detailed process with thorough efficiency at the daily problems of account problems, could this new ideal process be claimed by old and arcace process to be a plaigarized copy of itself? Hardly because the essence of accounting involves trading/commercial.

These are common elements to the theories, old or new of accounting. The story of mankind, prophets, creations, death and judgement, etc are all common to any text of religion books. Just the same way that the Religion of Judaism will falsely claim that you the christians lay claim on some of their issues and personages. This is the same false claims that you both are now claiming against the muslims. Interestingly, nither of you remember that Ibrahim (as) was from Iraq. Iraq is a muslim society. Definitely not a Jewish and/or Christian society. If anyone were to lay claims on Ibrahim (as), a figure that will definitely points to the truth, before him and after him, it will be the Muslims. Afterall Ibrahim was not a Jew nor a Christian, but an Hanifan, Musliman. Are the prophets before and after him in a differenet religion from him? The answer will be no.

Well see it would be easier if Christ was just a mere mortal and didn't have the powers that he has. But seeing that Mary herself knows very well who her Son is and she praised him too, you can't compare her to any regular mother who has seniority over her son. No one can have seniority over God. Again the passage did not say that he dismissed his mother oh no, it only points out that Jesus proceeded to use that as an opportunity to show who his true family is. You cannot dispute that after he said this he didn't go to his mother's aide. I showed you a passage where he obeyed his mother.

Your statement above begged the questions that could be raised by John 5; 18. I will post it below where first it destroys the any idea that anyone ever called God his father, prior to what the post Jesus New testament Bible writers claimed that Jesus said. It also destroys the possible assumptions that Jesus could ever be equal to God. Please read the below quoted verse;

Jn. 5:18 For this reason the Jewish leaders were trying even harder to kill him, because not only was he breaking the Sabbath, but he was also calling God his own Father, thus making himself equal with God.

This verse confirms to us that the Jews/Children of Israel finds Jesus supposed statement shocking to the point of blasphemy. This is because such an utterance was not familiar to them. They actually then say that the mere claiming of sonship to God is actually equating himself to be equal to God. It clearly shows that no prophet has ever claimed that for himself or at anytime for his audience. You will therefore see that what was claimed written in the Old Testament about childen and father between Israelites and God is a lie. If it is not then John 5 verse 18, above is a lie. Either way, some part is a lie. Woman, I was going to keep John 5:18 till I need to use it, but just have to force my hands!

2 Corinthians 13: 14 The grace of the Lord Jesus Christ, and the love of God, and the communion of the Holy Ghost, be with you all. Amen.

Matthew 28:19 Go ye therefore, and teach all nations, baptizing them in the name of the Father, and of the Son, and of the Holy Ghost


These two verses right above, then to the Jews are not correct by their view in John 5 Verse 18. They do not accept Jesus to be son and the trinity that could be deduced from Matthew 28 verse 19, is also shot dead. We will therefore see that Jesus had no superiority over his own mother, whose womb he was incubated in for as long as God allowed him in ther. The woman whose milk he nursed on and gained his strength. The woman who trained him. Jesus was not arrogant, and you know it. What I did before was to point out the unfortunate mindset of the Bible writers, not being consistent, in their supposed revelation. How can a person who was to display the best of character for all diss his mother like that!

Except my child is not God himself. Besides it was already professied that the blessedness of Mary would be challenged by the true blessedness.
Mary knew what was up. She allowed it to happen and was the starter of his ministry. The first miracle that Jesus did, Mary asked for it.

See. You just agreed with the Bible writers about the dissing of Mary by Jesus. But I first raised it, using disrespect or disregard, instead of your usage of the word challenge, you got up in arms.Well, what would he be challenging her about? Was she against him in any viewpoint? When you challenge a person, it means that you find them lacking. Even if I find my mother lacking in anything, I will still have to tell her in respectful manner. In all the three times that spoke to my mother about Christianity, there was never a time I did not do it when it was only the two of us and I never raised my voice, nor did I ever persuaded her more than necessary. In other things that my mother had done that I did not approve of, I never at anytime tell her when there is a soul but always the two of us.

But the Qur'an commanded us not to break the ties of bound between us and the womb that bore us. This is inclusive of everyone. That also included Jesus, etc. No wonder that Jesus said in defense of his mother as a babe in the cradle that he was never to be over bearing and or a source of discomfort to her. But your statement of challenge to Mary by Jesus above truly brings up your initial question of how did he serve as a discomfort to her. You will see that the Bible said challenge. When you challenge a person, they feel emotional discomfort. It simply means that you put the person on the defense. Jesus did not do that to his mother. It is the Bible writer who writes what is not true.

Finally, if we then talk about those who speak in honorable terms about Jesus, you will never find anything more truthful and honorable than what the Qur'an says about Jesus.

It let us know that he was not God, because God would never exhibit human qualities. Even the Angels do not exhibit human qualities. Yet they are also creations and very inferior to God!The fact of the matter is that the Qur'an reminds us that Jesus would never go against the Will of his God. The Qur'an teaches us what Jesus taught his disciples that God is Lord Supreme and he is One and diffrenet from him, Jesus His creation. Read the descriptions of the work of the "Another Comforter," baby.

@post :

(a) I think it is the quran that is corrupted for the following reasons :

A COPY can never be equal to the ORIGINAL. Moreover as is shown here, there is an ENORMOUS number of DISCREPENCIES in the QURAN.

Contrary to all the assertions and attempted falsifications of the historical records, the Quran is found to be as CORRUPTIBLE as any other document written or recorded by HUMAN beings:


1 Since writing materials were very scarce in Arabia at the time of Muhammad and most of the people were ILLITERATE, the Quran was first of all 'memorised' by different people at different times in different places whenever and wherever the alleged 'revelations descended' to Muhammad over a period of almost 23 years.


2 It is a fact that human memory can be very selective and subjective hence altering the original events and when transmitted down the line it would inevitably be corrupted.


3 Verses were written on palm fronds, bark of trees, bones of sheep or camels, bits of wood or stone, strips of leather, potsherds and odd bits of parchment again in different places at different times. To collect, collate and analyse such disparate materiel fully, comprehensively and truthfully is impossible.


4 According to the Hadiths, some verses were eaten by a goat - since they were written on palm fronds or tree bark - on the day Muhammad died.


5 Other verses perished during the civil wars that occurred after Muhammad's death during which many of the memorisers were slaughtered.


6 Quranic verses were deleted and or added to by Muhammad and or his followers over a period of almost 23 years (Abrogating & Abrogated verses). There never was an 'original' manuscript of the Quran.


7 It is reported in Ahadith that Abdullah Sarh, who was one of scribes who wrote down the verses as recited to him by Muhammad would suggest variations to them to which Muhammad agreed upon. After a while, Abdullah decided to renounce 'Islam' on the ground that if the 'revelations' were from Allah, then not even Muhammad would have had the audacity to change them. Later, when Muhammad 'conquered' Mecca, he wanted him murdered to shut his mouth.


8 Since the Kufic script had no vowels, hence there were different interpretations of the verses made by different people adding to the confusion and the multiplicity of Quranic manuscripts.


9 The Quran is full of Abrogated and Abrogating verses which no Omniscient 'God' would have committed; such a multitude of 'changes of the Divine Mind' cannot and should not be attributed to a divine Being since this would constitute the ultimate blasphemy.


10 The Quranic texts that existed after the death of Muhammad were numerous and incompatible. There was not in existence any collection of revelations in a final form because as long as he was alive, new 'MADE to ORDER REVELATIONS' were being added to or changed by Muhammad from the earlier ones.


11 Muhammad never had the chance to authorise and supervise the collection of a single Quran for his followers to adhere to. This was his greatest and most devastating failing and the cause of a continuous division of his Umma for the last 1400 years.


12 Umar ibn al Khattab ordered Zaid ibn Thabit, Muhammad's secretary, to collect all the available records into one compilation.


13 It is a matter of record that Umar al Khattab always insisted that there was Surat al Rajam which of course is not included in Uthman's version.


14 In Uthman's version of the Quran, Meccan verses were interloped into Madinan Suras and vise verse.


15 The Quran is not 'written' in the chronological order of the 'revelations' but in the order of the Suras with the most verses in descending order. The first verse - from Laylat al Qadr - of the Quran of the first Sura is actually the 96th in this arrangement instead of being the first.


16 The first Sura in the Quran is al Fatiha of SEVEN verses and should have been between the 105th to 114th instead had it not been for the fact that it should not have been a Sura in the Quran but just an opening supplication and hence the Quran should have had only 113 Suras.


17 The fact that almost every verse in the Quran needs interpretations, interpolations and elaborations, speaks volumes as to its legibility and ease of understanding even by the greatest authorities on the Arabic language. A chapter in Jalal al Din al Suyuti's Kitab al Itqan is devoted to this by addressing not only the misarrangement of the contents of the Uthmanic recension of the Quran but also its difficult language.


18 Many of the Mutaazelite authors (c. 220/835) such as Ibrahim al Nazzam, Ibn Hazm, Abu'l Hussein al Khayyat, Hesham b Amr al Fuwati, Abbad b Sulayman and others openly acknowledged that the arrangement and syntax of the Quran are neither miraculous nor eternal, and can be compared equally to any that can be produced by others. The number of Quranic aberrations from the normal rules and structure of the Arabic language exceeds one hundred.


19 It contains sentences which are incomplete and not fully intelligible without the aid of explanations.


20 It contains over 100 words which are definitely NOT Arabic in origin but from Syriac, Aramaic, Hebrew, Ethiopic, Persian, etc. Moreover it contains unfamiliar Arabic words as well as words used with other than the normal meaning.


21 It contains numerous verbs and adjectives inflected without observance of the concords of number or gender.


22 There are numerous illogically and ungrammatically applied pronouns that sometimes have no referent.


23 It contains predicates which in rhymed passages are often remote from the subject.


24 It contains no details about the manners of prayers, ablutions, rituals, laws and punishments. All these have to be found in the Ahadith and the Sunna of Muhammad, without which, the Quran is totally deficient.


25 As the Empire expanded with rapidity, new collections were being put forward with serious textual variations. Uthman ordered Zaid and three other 'scholars' to draw up an 'authorised' version and all the others, six important codices - which had additional revelations that Uthman omitted from his standardised text- were BURNT. So much for the sanctity of the Book of Allah.


26 Ubai bin Ka'b al Ansari who was one of several memorisers of Muhammad's 'revelations' had many Suras in his manuscript which Uthman omitted from the standard version or Umar had disallowed earlier.


27 The SATANIC VERSES cast a serious shadow about even the inadvertent or deliberate corruptibility of the Quran by Muhammad himself.


If SATAN was able to put verses in the mouth of Muhammad without him realising that they were not 'divinely revealed', one can ask the pertinent question:

How many other Quranic verses were 'revealed' to Muhammad by Satan without his knowledge?


28 17: 88 Say: "If the whole of mankind and Jinns were to gather together to produce the like of this Qur'an they could not produce the like thereof even if they backed up each other with help and support.

Moreover, how could the Quran assert that no HUMANS or JINNS could emulate the verses of the Quran when Satan did just that ?

It's very easy copying and pasting all kind of junk these days.

i wish it is possible to remove 'copy and paste' function from NL. At least it would force people to start thinking and maybe  understand the contents of their posts before commiting

the_seeker:

i wish it is possible to remove 'copy and paste' function from NL. At least it would force people to start thinking and maybe  understand the contents of their posts before commiting

you really dont want to do that, it will severely compromise the ability of muslims to post anything regarding islam or the quran.

davidylan:

you really dont want to do that, it will severely compromise the ability of muslims to post anything regarding islam or the quran.

Really, David?

muhsin:

Really, David?

Yes. 99.9% of muslims don't know the Quran and Hadiths. They just follow what their cleric says.  That is why copying and pasting is inevitable in their posting because they cannot think with their brains.

Mr man u are high, you need to relax before you enter gutter

Abu Zola:

Mr man u are high, you need to relax before you enter gutter

You and your mafia boss are high and both of you are already in the gutter.

It seems the ogogoro you wack is still on effect. Gutter man.

Abu Zola:

It seems the ogogoro you wack is still on effect. Gutter man.

abu zola are u still alive ?

dat paedophile n normadic man dey call mohammed deliberately twisted n distorted facts n truths from d bible n mixed it with malicious statements 2 suit his weired and abnormal lifestyle n so dat he can attract a lotta followers.fortunately 4 d perversed fellow he has suceeded,dat is y it is natural 4 a muslim man 2 marry an underaged n not av any sense of guilt or shame,even when his 1st born from his 1st wife is older than his child wife .its absolute waste of time arguing or preaching 2 a muslim,by d time God is reasdy 4 such a fellow he will arrest him like he arrested saul by makin him blind n later restoring his sight 4 his glory