~Lady~: I thought I answered the question that nagged you so terribly, about Messiah. The Messiah for Children of israel/Jews/Israelites was Jesus. The prophet to the world did not have to be titled, Messiah, does he? The prophet/Messenger to the whole world in one single shot was M.uhammad. I hope you can now rest easy.


Unless your desire is for Frizy to answer you, directly. Otherwise, I am sure you will rest wasier now.

I will answer your request about the authenticity of the Qur'a.n in the morning.

~Lady~: I thought I answered the question that nagged you so terribly, about Messiah. The Messiah for Children of israel/Jews/Israelites was Jesus. The prophet to the world did not have to be titled, Messiah, does he? The prophet/Messenger to the whole world in one single shot was M.uhammad. I hope you can now rest easy.

The Qu'ran does not state that Muhaaamad is the messiah, it states that Jesus is the messiah.
In this gospel, Jesus said he is not the messiah and when asked who the messiah is, he said Muhaaamad.
If Jesus was sent to the house of Isreal, he would have easily stated that he is the messiah of the Isrealites but Muhaaamad is the messiah of the muuslims. He did not state that. In him stating that he is not the messiah, removes him from any consideration of messiahood, the Qu'ran states that he is the messiah or a messiah, depending on how you look at it.

So is Jesus the messiah or is Muhaaamad the messiah?

I really do want Frizy to respond he believes in this gospel since he is posting it. He said that just because it is a gospel doesn't mean it necessarily holds all truth, but what he fails to realise is that the term gospel means truth. SO ULTIMATELY the question is does he believe in the truth or does he believe in the Qu'ran?

So once again your response doesn't answer my question.

@~Lady~: If "gospel" means the "truth," then a single "untruth" found in whatever is called/assumed "gospel" will actually nullifies such a "gospel," from actually standing the test of gospel/truth. Will you not agree? If you are then saying that the New testament is truth 100% because it is dubbed "gospel," then the Old testament (Taurah and Psalm) would not be truth, either, since it is not called "gospel!" But you have it in your Bible, that is the Old testament, which completely disagrees with your "gospel/new testament" in many ways. I will now ask you, here and now; Is the Bible a complete truth then? Is Moses and David books when they disagree with Paul and acts of apostles part of the Bible, the post Jesus part of the "gospel" can be agreed upon as false or what?

You live in the USA: You will agree with me that truth is a very subjective thing. You know it and I know it. And just because the Qu.r'an is not called "gospel," an English word does not mean truth can not be called other than being called "gospel." The Qu.r'an is called Furqan, Kitab Al Karim and many others. each one of the names in Arabic points to absolute truth, a standard that no other book can ever reach.

I do not think from what Frizy is saying about the Barnabas gospel, he has taken it as 100% truth. No Mu.sli.m believes it like that. Just like no Mu.sl.im will say that there is no single truth in the Bible. What Frizy said as i read his opinion is that he believes that Barnabas gospel is 1000% is truer than the canonical gospels. Either was, the truth 100% is AlQur'an Karim.

@Lady

the term gospel means truth

if its not in the NICENE CREED 325 AD there is no Gospel exist that you called Matthew, Mark, Luke and John, how come you said it is the Truth? wherein you do not even know the author of the So called Gospel

the quality of debate on this forum is now apalling.

@Davidylan: Spice it up, man. You can do it.

Look, let me help: I was just talking to an associate. A major christian man. He was telling me that he was blessed and highly favored. I kinda reflected just this once, back to the arguments/debates on Nairaland. Here on Nairaland, the christians always reinforce that humans have inherited "Original sin," from Adam, our father.

I am saying to myself as I listen to this guy, and of course you David (Aburo tio fe pe mi; Its okay and don't worry about it. I just want to point it out to you), Sheniqua, etc, that how do you cope with this duality;

On one hand you have original sin that will never leave you. On the other hand, you are highly favored and blessed.

How can these two; Negative (the sin that you inherited) and, blessed and highly favored (your own claims without telling us who is the one that blessed you and highly favored you, regardless of your evilness)?

Please help me on this one! Where are the christian pundits: Imhotep, etc, etc, etc.

olabowale:

@Davidylan: Spice it up, man. You can do it.

believe me, sometimes its so bad even i can no longer help.

olabowale:

Look, let me help: I was just talking to an associate. A major christian man. He was telling me that he was blessed and highly favored. I kind of reflected just this once, back to the arguments/debates on Nairaland. Here on Nairaland, the christians always reinforce that humans have inherited "Original sin," from Adam, our father.

I am saying to myself as I listen to this guy, and of course you David (Aburo tio fe pe mi; Its okay and don't worry about it. I just want to point it out to you), Sheniqua, etc, that how do you cope with this duality;

On one hand you have original sin that will never leave you. On the other hand, you are highly favored and blessed.

How can these two; Negative (the sin that you inherited) and, blessed and highly favored (your own claims without telling us who is the one that blessed you and highly favored you, regardless of your evilness)?

alhaji - i will call you this weekend, e ma binu sir.

On the issue of original sin, you are wrong when you say it can never leave you. Lets use an analogy; as a male you automatically inherit your surname . . . you didnt give urself. BUT does that mean you cant go to the law court when you turn 18 to have your name changed? Of course you have that right.
So it is with original sin, as soon as we were born into the world we inherited (NOT sin persay) but the very nature of sin. We inherited a weak flesh, prone to be disobedient, prone to error and unwilling to yield to the things of the Spirit. But Christ came and through His blood we are now "legally" able to change our surnames from "son of man" to "son of God".
Christ went to court on our behalf, His blood paid the price for our sin and thus through Him we shed that nature of sin to become clothed with God's own nature.

Does that mean we will never make mistakes again? No, just like a few people will still associate you with ur father's old surname, so will your flesh still be prone to temptation.

@4Him:

On the issue of original sin, you are wrong when you say it can never leave you. Lets use an analogy; as a male you automatically inherit your surname . . . you didnt give yourself. BUT does that mean you can't go to the law court when you turn 18 to have your name changed? Of course you have that right.

What I inherit is more that just his family name. I inherit his traits as well. Everything in his bloodline. Just the way that my children will inherit it from me. Lets take the case of Michael (Jacko) Jackson, to illustrate the issue for a better clarity: regardless of the many plastic surgeries, his makeup remains the same. A proof of it is his children. They did not look like the new Mickie, but the old Off the wall album and the previous Michael jackson of the Jackson 5 fame.

The right to change your name therefore, according to you, does not truly erase your being part of the family name. Considering that when the family reunion is held, there will not be any allowance for your new name, which you only "adopt." Adoption means strangeness but not originality.

So it is with original sin, as soon as we were born into the world we inherited (NOT sin persay) but the very nature of sin. We inherited a weak flesh, prone to be disobedient, prone to error and unwilling to yield to the things of the Spirit. But Christ came and through His blood we are now "legally" able to change our surnames from "son of man" to "son of God".

So your "not sin persay," is truly saying that there is no original sin. It is meaning that no one inherited "original sin," put prone to be sinful afterward, when one is able to commit sins. Why don't you say that in the first place, but instead gives us the running around with your (Jiving) claim that we are not sinless, even as a new born baby? To have the tendency to sin, is not the same as being a sinner. Big difference. Now that we have established that at best, Jesus was here to shoreoff your "tendency to sin, since there is no original sin inherited," may I ask you if there is anyone you know in history or on nairaland who this Jesus effort have covered 100%? Anyone of you sinless? If the answer is no, then you have been playing with wrong idea, or Jesus role was wrongly exagerated or he was a total failure in that prophesy to "protect you," from ever committing sin.

Christ went to court on our behalf, His blood paid the price for our sin and thus through Him we shed that nature of sin to become clothed with God's own nature.

If Jesus went to court, it is obvious that he was not the Judge. Please who was the Judge? That Judge must be different and also Higher than Jesus. You have proven to me that God is Higher than Jesus, in your above postulation. But I want you to say it again? Who is the Boss of the other, between Jesus and God Almighty? Did God ever called Jesus God or a Higher title? Did Jesus ever called God a lesser title, or called God Jesus or any other, except that God is God the Lord of Jesus?

Does that mean we will never make mistakes again? No, just like a few people will still associate you with your father's old surname, so will your flesh still be prone to temptation.

David, I was checking my shoes to see if the doodoo that you are flinging all over the places is rising for that I can take. I smell the fowl odor though. Your never ever be able to get away from committing sins/mistakes shows that the petition of Jesus was not accepted completely by the Judge. If it was accepted at all. If there was any petition at all. what we see here on the Nairaland is enough to show that the christians with all their "Jesus," have not been able to shake off the sinning nature of man more noticeably than the m.uslims. The atheist and agnostics are not fairing worse, either.

Will you now accept that if Jesus had made the effort to defend you and the outcome is as there was never a defense mounted, you probably made a false claim on him or he failed terrible in his effort, because you are still guilty?

i cant help u olabowale, discussing with you is a fruitless exercise.

@4Him: I am laughing at your repose. You are like a riot, with a response that leads to nowhere. I can help you, David. I never will give up on you. (Gba bee; lol).

olabowale:

@4Him: I am laughing at your repose. You are like a riot, with a response that leads to nowhere. I can help you, David. I never will give up on you. (Gba bee; lol).

thank you sir. and i mean that honestly.

If you are then saying that the New testament is truth 100% because it is dubbed "gospel," then the Old testament (Taurah and Psalm) would not be truth, either, since it is not called "gospel!"

No it doesn't. I have an accounting book and it's not called "Gospel" of accounting, does that mean that it does not hold the truth about accounting?
The Qu'ran is not called gospel either so would that mean that it doesn't hold the truth?

If you will call a book or anything gospel then it should be the truth, but just because you don't call anything gospel does not mean that it is not the truth.

But you have it in your Bible, that is the Old testament, which completely disagrees with your "gospel/new testament" in many ways

The Old Testament does not disagree with the New Testament, it foretells it. The Old Testament actually supports the New Testament. The Old Testament comprises the history of God's goodness and wrath, while prophecying of a New Covenant that will be made to all people. God choose a particular people to use to show and prove his power to the rest of the world so that they may come to believe that God truly is all powerful and magnificent and the one true God. After showing these to the people God gives a new Covenant (New Testament) but this time around he opens it to the rest of the world. The rest of the world can see how God was merciful to the people he chose to use to show himself and they can also see how his wrath can be detrimental. But now the rest of the world know that he is the one true God and are eager to worship him and love him and at the same time stay true to his commandments and never distance themselves from him. God in return loves them and protects them and leads them to paradise with him.

The Old Testament was not written in a day ar in a particular age. They have centuries between them and it is made up of books written by those who were inspired by God at different times. Putting thses books together, it is actually amazing how none of it negates the other. How at different times the same prophecy was spoken of, it is amazing how consistent they were even though they had centuries between them.

Let me put it like this. When there's a new drug coming out, let's say for weight loss, the pharmaceutical companies test the drug on certain people who are willing and when the drug is tested to be true and proven to work, the drug is put on the shelf for the rest of the world to use. Now ofcourse God is not to be used, but I just wanted to give you a similar scenario.


You want me to believe a book that negates consistency. A book that is inconsistent with the other books and its only claim to fame is that the other books are corrupted. You like using human logic a lot so let's use it here. You actually expect me to believe a book that is inconsistent with the other books and its only claim to fame is that the other books are corrupted? Does that seem logical to you. You want me to believe a book that cannot stand on its own as truth and the only way it can is to cast doubt on the previous books. You want me to follow a prophet that is inconsistent with the other prophets both in his writings and his actions. Yet he lays claim that he is like the other prophets, but in fact he is nothing like them. I am sorry, but I won't follow him and won't believe in his lies.

Sorry but God is not an author of confusion.

I will now ask you, here and now; Is the Bible a complete truth then? Is Moses and David books when they disagree with Paul and acts of apostles part of the Bible, the post Jesus part of the "gospel" can be agreed upon as false or what?

Well I addressed this above and I will say it again, Moses and David books and other prophets books do not nullify or disagree with the New Testament books but foretell of the New Testament and supports it.

I'm sure you've been taught that all your life and certain verses were shown to prove their point, but I can assure you, that they are wrong. I know they are wrong because I am not in a position of desperation to prove anything to you and because I know what the Bible contains. I am also not in a position to pick and choose. I won't look at a verse without looking at those before and after it to see the context in which it is used. I also won't pick and choose without understanding the history of the Bible and how it came to be. They however, did not take their time to study the Bible and see the connections in the Old and New Testaments. So trust me they have no idea, don't go shopping for puppies in the supermarket. When I wanted to learn about The Great Religion I came to you and did not listen to the Priests or Pastors about it. I came directly to the people who "live" The Great Religion and study it. Please don't go to the people who do not "live' Christian and study it. They will only look at it from a one sided view.

They will tell you that Muhaamad was foretold in the Old Testament and the New Testament as the comforter, but when you see the Old and New Testament it tells of a Spirit as the comforter, you see that Muhaaamad isn't a Spirit, so they say that the Bible and Torah are corrupted so yoou won't pay attention to the books but to what they say.
It is very unfortunate that that lie has been passed down from generation to generation. A young girl said to me why are Christians and Muuslims fighting, don't the Christians know that Muhaamad was in the Bible. I asked her is Muhaaamad the comforter that was told of in the Bible she said yes. I asked her is Muhaaamad a Spirit she said no, then I said how can Muhaamad be the comforter that is spoken of in the Bible then if he wasn't a Spirit because the comforter spoken of in the Bible is a Spirit, she was dumbfounded. The only way that the Qu'ran and Musslim beliefs can be proven is if the Bible and Torah are looked at as corrupt. If not, the Qu'ran holds no base. So I ask you why is it that the Bible and Torah have to be looked at as corrupt, why can't the Qu'ran just stand on its own without shedding a negative light on anything? Clearly God can stand on his own without shedding a negative light.

And just because the Qu.r'an is not called "gospel,"  an English word does not mean truth can not be called other than being called "gospel."

You do realise that you just negated your above statement about the Old Testament. How can you apply this concept to the Qu'ran and not to the Old Testament. The Old Testament is known by Torah, Pentateuch, Prophetic books and more.

I do not think from what Frizy is saying about the Barnabas gospel, he has taken it as 100% truth. No Mu.sli.m believes it like that. Just like no Mu.sl.im will say that there is no single truth in the Bible. What Frizy said as i read his opinion is that he believes that Barnabas gospel is 1000% is truer than the canonical gospels. Either was, the truth 100% is AlQur'an Karim.

That is why I say he does not know the meaning of Gospel. The cannonical Gospel holds the truth and that's why they are called Gospel (Truth). It is not a percentage of truth, but total and absolute truth. There is no half truth. If it is half truth, then it is a lie.

Stop making excuses and falling short. The Gospel of Barnabas is not the truth, no ifs and/or buts about it.


Prove the Qu'ran to me without trying to prove the Bible or Torah as c orrupted. I bet you $100 you can't.

@~Lady: You are finished and now I can respond?

100 USD? lol. When you are won over, all I want you to do is accept Is.lam. And be benefitted.

@~Lady~: Please note that my effort to proof the authenticity of AlQur'an, being 100% words of God, and, 0% word of anyone else, including Mu.hammad, and or Angel Gabreil, is a very rigorous task. It simply means that I should try to analyse every verse of the AlQur'an to you, confirming that no one chapter, verse, word or letter is from anyone. This is exactly what I am doing.

Thank God that you are younger, and, has your full life ahead of you. I pray that I will be around for a long time, with the other Mu.slims, males and females, who want to contribute to this effort. In the process, my prayer is that you receive and others like you receive guidance. I also pray that the hearts of the mus.lims become firmer and stronger on this way (deeni hanifan). Amin.

My first thought is to open a separate thread on this subject matter. But I do want you to open the thread, yourself, since you are the one who throws out the challenge; Normally, Isla.m calls for the one who denys to carry the burden of providing the proof of denial. In your case, since you are seeking the truth, it will an exception.

A word of caution; I repeat again that all the contents of the AlQur'an, the 114 Surahs, everything, is from God. Which means anything spoken by anyone, eg, the dialogue between Moses (as) with Pharaoh (Lanatullah), was inspired by God. And it is God who reiterated it to Prophet Mu.hammad (as), was not there, in form of a story.

Let me quote the very first revealed verses of the AlQur'an, a mere 5 Verse (and at that time, this was the AlQur'an), to whet your appetite, but to get you thinking about this glorious Book. I hope you will have a lot of questions. We will treat them as you present them. God willing there will be alot of eye opening for all.

From Surah Alag (The Clot; as in a stage in the gestation period of man).


quote;
The Beginning of the Prophethood of Muhammad and the First of the Qur'an revealed

Imam Ahmad recorded that `A'ishah said: The first thing that began happening with the Messenger of All.ah from the revelation was dreams that he would see in his sleep that would come true. He would not see any dream except that it would come true just like the (clearness of) the daybreak in the morning. Then seclusion became beloved to him. So, he used to go to the cave of Hira' and devote himself to worship there for a number of nights, and he would bring provisions for that. Then he would return to Khadijah and replenish his provisions for a similar number of nights. This continued until the revelation suddenly came to him while he was in the cave of Hira'. The angel came to him while he was in the cave and said, "Read!'' The Messen- ger of Allah said,

{Please note that he seemed to have been cultured for what was to come to him, later in life. This above is a very direct proof}.

«فَقُلْتُ: مَا أَنَا بِقَارِىء»

(I replied: "I am not one who reads.) Then he said, "So he (the angel) seized me and pressed me until I could no longer bear it. Then he released me and said: `Read!' So I replied: `I am not one who reads.' So, he pressed me a second time until I could no longer bear it. Then he released me and said:

{You will see that the Angel was getting his attention. Getting him to focus on what is inevitable. The Angel was not bent in hurting him. Further, his honest declaration to the Angel shows that could have been able to put a masterpiece like the AlQur'an together, because he did not have the Academic qualifications for it}

﴿اقْرَأْ بِاسْمِ رَبِّكَ الَّذِى خَلَقَ ﴾

(Read in the Name of your Lord who has created.) until he reached the Ayah,

﴿مَا لَمْ يَعْلَمْ﴾

(That which he knew not. )'' So he returned with them (those Ayat) and with his heart trembling until he came (home) to Khadijah, and he said,

«زَمِّلُونِي زَمِّلُونِي»

(Wrap me up, wrap me up!) So they wrapped him up until his fear went away. After that he told Khadijah everything that had happened (and said),

{Please see that he was very concerned and confused; Just the same way Moses was after the incident of the "Burning Bush". I hope you know that Moses was a prophet? Just imagine if there was a group of people who believed, in whatever they believed in, and Moses came with something different from their belief. Wouldn't these people, who thought that they are on the "truth," which Moses is now saying that they are wrong have the same exact opinion as the Christians have of M.uhammad and the Mu.slims?}

«قَدْ خَشِيتُ عَلَى نَفْسِي»

(I fear that something may happen to me.) Khadijah replied, "Never! By All.ah, Alla.h will never disgrace you. You keep good relations with your relatives, you speak the truth, you help the poor and the destitute, you serve your guests generously, and you help the deserving, calamity afflicted people.'' Khadijah then accompanied him to her cousin Waraqah bin Nawfal bin Asad bin `Abdul-`Uzza bin Qusay, who, during the period of ignorance became a Christian and used to scribe the Scriptures in Arabic. He would write from the Injil in Hebrew as much as All.ah willed for him to write. He was an old man and had lost his eyesight. Khadijah said to him, "O my cousin! Listen to the story of your nephew.'' Waraqah asked, "O my nephew! What have you seen'' All.ah's Messenger described what he saw. Waraqah said, "This is An-Namus whom Al.lah had sent to Musa. I wish I was young and could live until the time when your people would drive you out.'' A.llah's Messenger asked,

{Pay attention to the prerevelation character and quality of the Prophet. You could not have imagined a better man on earth, but definitely among his people. The Christian man, Waraqah was able to identify that this man, has been chosen as a Prophet/Messenger. He was able to predict the future reactions of his people about him; the same that major prophets/Messengers suffered before him. Weren't Jesus, Moses to name a few and even their father Abraham belied and berated, etc, in a way that you know that their community did not not like their effects on the statusquo of their times?}

«أَوَ مُخْرِجِيَّ هُمْ؟»

(Will they drive me out) Waraqah replied in the affirmative and said, "Anyone who came with something similar to what you have brought, was treated with hostility and enmity; and if I should remain alive till that day then I would firmly support you.'' But Waraqah did not remain. He died and the revelation paused until All.ah's Messenger became sad according to what we were told. Due to this grief he set out a number of times with the intent of throwing himself from the mountain tops. However, every time he would reach the peak of a mountain to throw himself from it, Jibril would appear to him and say, "O Muha.mmad! You are truly the Messenger of Al.lah!'' Therefore, his worry would be eased, his soul would be settled and he would return (down from the mountain). Then, when the revelation did not come again for a long time, he set out as he had done before. So when he reached the peak of the mountain, Jibril appeared to him again and said to him the same as he had said before.'' This Hadith has been recorded in the Two Sahihs by way of Az-Zuhri. We have already discussed this Hadith's chain of narration, its text and its meanings at length in the beginning of our explanation of Sahih Al-Bukhari. Therefore, whoever would like to read it, it is researched there, and all praise and blessings are due to Al.lah. So the first thing that was revealed of the Qu.r'an were these noble and blessed Ayat. They are the first mercy that A.llah bestowed upon His servants and the first bounty that All.ah favored them with.

{The clarity is as certain as the daylight is, in that God is using Jibril to strengthen the heart and the total person of M.uhammad, the Messenger of A.llah. Why would the Angel continually appear to him to strengthen him by not allowing him to jump off the cliff and end it all up? Does that remind you of an event in the Bible? Jesus and Satan interracting together? In the case of M.uhammad, it is he and the ArchAngel of AlRahman.}


"This was the First of the Qur'an revealed "


﴿بِسْمِ اللَّهِ الرَّحْمَـنِ الرَّحِيمِ ﴾

In the Name of Allah, the Most Gracious, the Most Merciful.

﴿اقْرَأْ بِاسْمِ رَبِّكَ الَّذِى خَلَقَ - خَلَقَ الإِنسَـنَ مِنْ عَلَقٍ - اقْرَأْ وَرَبُّكَ الاٌّكْرَمُ - الَّذِى عَلَّمَ بِالْقَلَمِ - عَلَّمَ الإِنسَـنَ مَا لَمْ يَعْلَمْ ﴾

(1. Read! In the Name of your Lord Who created.) (2. He has created man from a clot.) (3. Read! And your Lord is the Most Generous.) (4. Who has taught by the pen.) (5. He has taught man that which he knew not.)


My dear, I will be waiting to read your repose. In the shortest time possible, we will have that thread to have a full dialogue about the AlQur'an.

if its not in the NICENE CREED 325 AD there is no Gospel exist that you called Matthew, Mark, Luke and John, how come you said it is the Truth? wherein you do not even know the author of the So called Gospel

huh?

clarify your statement please

Burning Bush". I hope you know that Moses was a prophet? Just imagine if there was a group of people who believed, in whatever they believed in, and Moses came with something different from their belief. Wouldn't these people, who thought that they are on the "truth," which Moses is now saying that they are wrong have the same exact opinion as the Christians have of M.uhammad and the Mu.slims?}

You forget that it is how Christianity spread. There were those who held other beliefs that they thought were true, but with proof they came to believe. You still have only proved Christianity to be true to me.

I already told you that I won't believe anything that is said in the Qu'ran until you can prove that it is God directly that is speaking.

You went from God was speaking to God speaking through Angel Gabriel, if this is the claim that you hold, you cannot dismiss the writings of the Torah or the Bible. It's funny how you mention inspiration from God. Meanwhile when we tell you that the writings are inspiration from God you dismiss it. SO now you admit that God actually inspires people to write.

A word of caution; I repeat again that all the contents of the AlQur'an, the 114 Surahs, everything, is from God. Which means anything spoken by anyone, eg, the dialogue between Moses (as) with Pharaoh (Lanatullah), was inspired by God. And it is God who reiterated it to Prophet Mu.hammad (as), was not there, in form of a story

I thought you won't believe in the writings that are inspirations from God

By the way if you want to caution me to believe that it is from God, you must first prove that it is from God. Showing that the writings that came before it were corrupted does not prove it to be true. Show the authenticity before I can even try to believe anything from the book.

Showing me the writings of the book and explanation of it, proves nothing to me. I have a literature book and I can explain the story but that doesn't mean that the book is historically or remotely close to historically correct

@~Lady~: Please note that my effort to proof the authenticity of AlQur'an, being 100% words of God, and, 0% word of anyone else, including Mu.hammad, and or Angel Gabreil, is a very rigorous task. It simply means that I should try to analyse every verse of the AlQur'an to you, confirming that no one chapter, verse, word or letter is from anyone. This is exactly what I am doing

I thought that the Angel Gabriel was telling the story and God was speaking through the Angel. Now the words don't come from the angel?

Never! By All.ah, Alla.h will never disgrace you

How did Khadijah know about All'ah when All'ah was not known at that time? This was the beginning, certainly he hadn't told Khadijah about All'ah yet until after she was done consoling him.
Won't this then mean that there was an entity called All'ah before the revelations came?

Khadijah then accompanied him to her cousin Waraqah bin Nawfal bin Asad bin `Abdul-`Uzza bin Qusay, who, during the period of ignorance became a Christian and used to scribe the Scriptures in Arabic.

I thought muhaaamad didn't know Christians and that all this was new to him? If he knew Christians doesn't it mean that he must have heard the scriptures and didn't understand them? Therefore leading to his own path of understanding, Isl'am.

(I fear that something may happen to me.) Khadijah replied, "Never! By All.ah, Alla.h will never disgrace you. You keep good relations with your relatives, you speak the truth, you help the poor and the destitute, you serve your guests generously, and you help the deserving, calamity afflicted people.'' Khadijah then accompanied him to her cousin Waraqah bin Nawfal bin Asad bin `Abdul-`Uzza bin Qusay, who, during the period of ignorance became a Christian and used to scribe the Scriptures in Arabic. He would write from the Injil in Hebrew as much as All.ah willed for him to write. He was an old man and had lost his eyesight. Khadijah said to him, "O my cousin! Listen to the story of your nephew.'' Waraqah asked, "O my nephew! What have you seen'' All.ah's Messenger described what he saw. Waraqah said, "This is An-Namus whom Al.lah had sent to Musa. I wish I was young and could live until the time when your people would drive you out.'' A.llah's Messenger asked,

This is all in the Qu'ran? I thought only God spoke in the Qu'ran?

The Christian man, Waraqah was able to identify that  this man, has been chosen as a Prophet/Messenger. He was able to predict the future reactions of his people about him; the same that major prophets/Messengers suffered before him. Weren't Jesus, Moses to name a few and even their father Abraham belied and berated, etc, in a way that you know that their community did not not like their effects on the statusquo of their times?}

How could he have already been rejected by his people before he even started speaking to them? How could he have suffered if his messengership had not even been announced?

The cousin was not a Christian. He would have dismissed any possibility of Muhaaamad being a prophet. If he was a Christian, he would know that there would be none after Christ.
I know he wasn't using another Bible. The existing Bible is the only one to have come. In the Bible Christ warned against false prophets and let us know that there won't be any other person who would lead them to God other than himself. (Don't give me the crap that the Bible is corrupted, it is the same Bible that the cousin must have read, how come he didn't mention what the Bible said?)

Ok you can continue.

This thread is a no-brainer.
This is what the Council of Trent has to say about scripture =>


And it has thought it meet that a list of the sacred books be inserted in this decree, lest a doubt may arise in any one's mind, which are the books that are received by this Synod.
They are as set down here below:


Of the Old Testament:
the five books of Moses, to wit, Genesis, Exodus, Leviticus, Numbers, Deuteronomy; Josue, Judges, Ruth, four books of Kings, two of Paralipomenon, the first book of Esdras, and the second which is entitled Nehemias; Tobias, Judith, Esther, Job, the Davidical Psalter, consisting of a hundred and fifty psalms; the Proverbs, Ecclesiastes, the Canticle of Canticles, Wisdom, Ecclesiasticus, Isaias, Jeremias, with Baruch; Ezechiel, Daniel; the twelve minor prophets, to wit, Osee, Joel, Amos, Abdias, Jonas, Micheas, Nahum, Habacuc, Sophonias, Aggaeus, Zacharias, Malachias; two books of the Machabees, the first and the second.


Of the New Testament:

the four Gospels, according to Matthew, Mark, Luke, and John; the Acts of the Apostles written by Luke the Evangelist; fourteen epistles of Paul the apostle, (one) to the Romans, two to the Corinthians, (one) to the Galatians, to the Ephesians, to the Philippians, to the Colossians, two to the Thessalonians, two to Timothy, (one) to Titus, to Philemon, to the Hebrews; two of Peter the apostle, three of John the apostle, one of the apostle James, one of Jude the apostle, and the Apocalypse of John the apostle.



But if any one receive not, as sacred and canonical, the said books entire with all their parts, as they have been used to be read in the Catholic Church, and as they are contained in the old Latin vulgate edition; and knowingly and deliberately contemn the traditions aforesaid; let him be anathema.

if its not in the NICENE CREED 325 AD there is no Gospel exist that you called Matthew, Mark, Luke and John, how come you said it is the Truth? wherein you do not even know the author of the So called Gospel

Ok so you know I like to answer every question. I like educating people on the matter.

So this is what I can get from what you're saying.

1. The Gospels did not exist until the Nicene Creed,

Wait do you mean the council of Nicea, because the creed is a prayer

2. Before the council the gospels matthew, mark, luke,and john did not exist

They did, they were written about 35-40 years after the death of Christ. They weren't written in 325 AD. They were compiled into a book to make it easier and official, but they weren't written then. History has proven this.

3. We do not know the author of the gospel

We do know the author to be God, we do know the writers to be Matthew, Mark, Luke, and John. The writers let us know that it is them and history of the Church lets us know too. There were those that were surrounding them at that time and they knew about the writings and used the writings even before 325 AD.


My dear do not come up against the history of the Church, you will fall short. Eye witnesses dear, are more reliable.

This is how we know it is true.

I hope this addresses your issue

@~Lady~:

My dear do not come up against the history of the Church, you will fall short. Eye witnesses dear, are more reliable.

This is how we know it is true.

I hope this addresses your issue

Only if the eyewitnesses are truthful in their recounting the stories to the hearers, who must also be truthful, so as not to add or change anything to or from the stories. We do not have that in the Bible. Since the New Testament is what we are writing about here, we see a lot of gimmick going on. We see a lot of fallacy and we see alot of jumping into conclusions without any logic.

2. Before the council the gospels matthew, mark, luke,and john did not exist

They did, they were written about 35-40 years after the death of Christ. They weren't written in 325 AD. They were compiled into a book to make it easier and official, but they weren't written then. History has proven this.

Lets take the lower number of years to present an argument here. This was just the number of years that I left high school. I can not even remember all my high school buddies' names. The street i used to pass through for all those 5 years, I can not remember them. Was Jesus ministry not a mere 3 years? Is the number of years i spent in high school not more than 3, whereof, I could not accurately remember the exactly all the events that happened in my life.

Even a shorter time period will dull the memory! Ten years ago I left a city that I loved very much, and my ability to describe the city is not as good as my first year that I left the place. You must know that the longer the passes on an event, and without putting the details down, when it was just happening, the more it fades into the memory and becomes a thing forgotten. This is the case with your Bible. one liner will not do. And you can not just defend the indefensable with just trust me. It will not wash.

3. We do not know the author of the gospel

We do know the author to be God, we do know the writers to be Matthew, Mark, Luke, and John. The writers let us know that it is them and history of the Church lets us know too. There were those that were surrounding them at that time and they knew about the writings and used the writings even before 325 AD.

How do you know that the Author was God? Is there a verse in the bible that testifies to this? There are many verses in the AlQur'an that let us know that God is the Speaker. He Himself states it. Please stop trying to come up with a conclusion that has no logical process of observation. Am asking you to stat a separate thread for our discussion about the AlQur'an. I hope you will do it.

@~Lady~

You forget that it is how Christianity spread. There were those who held other beliefs that they thought were true, but with proof they came to believe. You still have only proved Christianity to be true to me.

Is this not the same way that Is.lam spread? Taking in for the most part those who are Pagans, christians and Jews! How do you figure that I am saying that Christianity is true? If I believe that, would I be a mus.lim? Is it not my disbelieving paganism, judaism and christianity that I am none of them, but a mus.lim?

I already told you that I won't believe anything that is said in the Qu'ran until you can prove that it is God directly that is speaking.

As I was reading Surah Alaq, yesterday, for my repose to you at that time, I came across a portion of Surah Alaq, which dealt with one of the Uncles of the Prophet (AS). That Uncle was a man named Abu Jahal (father of ignorance be cause of his unbelief). Below is for you and others to read about it: In itself was a miracle.

quote:Scolding of Abu Jahl and the Threat of seizing Him
Then Allah says,

﴿أَرَأَيْتَ الَّذِى يَنْهَى - عَبْداً إِذَا صَلَّى ﴾

(Have you seen him who prevents. A servant when he prays) This was revealed about Abu Jahl, may Allah curse him. He threatened the Prophet for performing Salah at the Ka`bah. Thus, Allah firstly admonished him with that which was better by saying,

﴿أَرَءَيْتَ إِن كَانَ عَلَى الْهُدَى ﴾

(Have you seen if he is on the guidance.) meaning, `do you think this man whom you are preventing is upon the straight path in his action, or

﴿أَوْ أَمَرَ بِالتَّقْوَى ﴾

(Or enjoins Taqwa) in his statements Yet, you rebuke him and threaten him due to his prayer.' Thus, Allah says,

﴿أَلَمْ يَعْلَم بِأَنَّ اللَّهَ يَرَى ﴾

(Knows he not that Allah sees) meaning, doesn't this person who is preventing this man who is following correct guidance know that Allah sees him and hears his words, and He will compensate him in full for what he has done Then Allah says by way of warning and threatening,

﴿كَلاَّ لَئِن لَّمْ يَنتَهِ﴾

(Nay! If he ceases not,) meaning, if he does not recant from his discord and obstinacy,

﴿لَنَسْفَعاً بِالنَّاصِيَةِ﴾

(We will scorch his forehead.) meaning, `indeed We will make it extremely black on the Day of Judgement.' Then He says,

﴿نَاصِيَةٍ كَـذِبَةٍ خَاطِئَةٍ ﴾

(A lying, sinful forehead!) meaning, the forehead of Abu Jahl is lying in its statements and sinful in its actions.

﴿فَلْيَدْعُ نَادِيَهُ ﴾

(Then let him call upon his council.) meaning, his people and his tribe. In other words, let him call them in order to seek help from them.

﴿سَنَدْعُ الزَّبَانِيَةَ ﴾

(We will call out the guards of Hell!) `And they are the angels of torment. This is so that he may know who will win -- Our group or his group' Al-Bukhari recorded that Ibn `Abbas said, "Abu Jahl said, `If I see Muhammad praying at the Ka`bah, I will stomp on his neck.' So this reached the Prophet , who said,

«لَئِنْ فَعَلَ لَأَخَذَتْهُ الْمَلَائِكَة»

(If he does, he will be seized by the angels.)'' This Hadith was also recorded by At-Tirmidhi and An-Nasa'i in their Books of Tafsir. Likewise, it has been recorded by Ibn Jarir. Ahmad, At-Tirmidhi, An-Nasa'i and Ibn Jarir, all recorded it from Ibn `Abbas with the following wording: "The Messenger of Allah was praying at the Maqam (prayer station of Ibrahim) when Abu Jahl bin Hisham passed by him and said, `O Muhammad! Haven't I prevented you from this' He threatened the Prophet and thus, the Messenger of Allah became angry with him and reprimanded him. Then he said, `O Muhammad! What can you threaten me with By Allah, I have the most kinsmen of this valley with me in the large.' Then Allah revealed,

﴿فَلْيَدْعُ نَادِيَهُ - سَنَدْعُ الزَّبَانِيَةَ ﴾

(Then let him call upon his council. We will call out the guards of Hell!)'' Ibn `Abbas then said, "If he had called his people, the angels of torment would have seized him at that very instant.'' At-Tirmidhi said, "Hasan Sahih.'' Ibn Jarir recorded from Abu Hurayrah that Abu Jahl said, "Does Muhammad cover his face with dust (i.e., from prostration) while he is among you all'' They (the people) replied, "Yes.'' Then he said, "By Al-Lat and Al-`Uzza, if I see him praying like this, I will stomp on his neck, and I will certainly put his face in the dust.'' So the Messenger of Allah came and he began praying, which made it possible for Abu Jahl to stomp on his neck. Then the people became surprised at him (Abu Jahl) because he began retreating on his heels and covering himself with his hands. Then it was said to him, "What's the matter with you'' He replied, "Verily, between me and him is a ditch of fire, monsters and wings.'' Then the Messenger of Allah said,

«لَوْ دَنَا مِنِّي لَاخْتَطَفَتْهُ الْمَلَائِكَةُ عُضْوًا عُضْوًا»

(If he had come near me, the angels would have snatched him limb by limb.) The narrator added; "Allah revealed an Ayah, but I do not know whether it is concerning the Hadith of Abu Hurayrah or not:

﴿كَلاَّ إِنَّ الإِنسَـنَ لَيَطْغَى ﴾

(Nay! Verily, man does transgress.) to the end of the Surah.'' Imam Ahmad bin Hanbal, Muslim, An-Nasa'i and Ibn Abi Hatim all recorded this Hadith. unquote.

And in Surah Ala'a, we see that God indicates that some people will not even accept guidance, even in the face of overwhelming evidences. I do not want you to fall into that grouping. But if it is the way you see yourself, then there is nothing I can do about it.

quote; from surah Ala'a
The Command to remind


Allah then says,


[فَذَكِّرْ إِن نَّفَعَتِ الذِّكْرَى ]


(Therefore remind in case the reminder profits.) meaning, remind where reminding is beneficial. From here we get the etiquette of spreading knowledge, that it should not be wasted upon those who are not suitable or worthy of it. The Commander of the believers, `Ali said, "You do not tell people any statement that their intellects do not grasp except that it will be a Fitnah (trial) for some of them.'' He also said, "Tell people that which they know. Would you like for Allah and His Messenger to be rejected'' Allah said:


[سَيَذَّكَّرُ مَن يَخْشَى ]


(The reminder will be received by him who fears,) meaning, `he whose heart fears Allah and who knows that he is going to meet Him, will receive admonition from what you convey to him, O Muhammad.'


[وَيَتَجَنَّبُهَا الاٌّشْقَى - الَّذِى يَصْلَى النَّارَ الْكُبْرَى - ثُمَّ لاَ يَمُوتُ فِيهَا وَلاَ يَحْيَا ]


(But it will be avoided by the wretched, who will enter the great Fire. There he will neither die nor live.) meaning, he will not die and thus be allowed to rest, nor will he live a life that is beneficial to him. Instead, his life will be harmful to him, because it will be the cause of his feeling of the pain of torment and various types of punishments what he is being punished with. Imam Ahmad recorded from Abu Sa`id that the Messenger of Allah said,


«أَمَّا أَهْلُ النَّارِ الَّذِينَ هُمْ أَهْلُهَا لَا يَمُوتُونَ وَلَا يَحْيَوْنَ، وَأَمَّا أُنَاسٌ يُرِيدُ اللهُ بِهِمُ الرَّحْمَةَ فَيُمِيتُهُمْ فِي النَّارِ فَيَدْخُلُ عَلَيْهِمُ الشُّفَعَاءُ فَيَأْخُذُ الرَّجُلُ الضِّبَارَةَ فَيُنْبِتُهُمْ أو قال: يَنْبُتُونَ فِي نَهْرِ الْحَيَا، أو قال: الْحَيَاةِ، أو قال: الْحَيَوَانِ أو قال: نَهْرِ الْجَنَّةِ فَيَنْبُتُونَ نَبَاتَ الْحِبَّةِ فِي حَمِيلِ السَّيْل»


(Concerning the people of the Fire who are deserving of it, they will not die nor will they live. Regarding the people that Allah wants mercy for, He will cause them to die in the Fire. Then He will allow the intercessors to come to them, and a man will take his groups of supporters and plant them (or he said (they will be planted) in the River of Al-Haya (or he said (Al-Hayah, or Al-Hayawan, or Nahr Al-Jannah). Then they will sprout up like the sprouting of the seed on the moist bank of a flowing stream.) Then the Prophet said,


«أَمَا تَرَوْنَ الشَّجَرَةَ تَكُونُ خَضْرَاءَ، ثُمَّ تَكُونُ صَفْرَاءَ، ثُمَّ تَكُونُ خَضْرَاءَ؟»


(Haven't you all seen the tree that is green, then it turns yellow, then it turns green (again)) Abu Sa`id then said that some of those present said, "It is as if the Prophet used to live in the desert wilderness (i.e., due to his parables of nature).'' Ahmad also recorded from Abu Sa`id that the Messenger of Allah said,


«أَمَّا أَهْلُ النَّارِ الَّذِينَ هُمْ أَهْلُهَا فَإِنَّهُمْ لَا يَمُوتُونَ فِيهَا وَلَا يَحْيَوْنَ، وَلَــكِنْ أُنَاسٌ أو كما قال تُصِيبُهُمُ النَّارُ بِذُنُوبِهِمْ أو قال: بِخَطَايَاهُمْ فَيُمِيتُهُمْ إِمَاتَةً حَتْى إِذَا صَارُوا فَحْمًا أُذِنَ فِي الشَّفَاعَةِ، فَجِيءَ بِهِمْ ضَبَائِرَ ضَبَائِرَ فَبُثُّوا عَلى أَنْهَارِ الْجَنَّةِ فَيُقَالُ:يَا أَهْلَ الْجَنَّةِ أَفِيضُوا عَلَيْهِمْ، فَيَنْبُتُونَ نَبَاتَ الْحِبَّةِ تَكُونُ فِي حَمِيلِ السَّيْل»


(Concerning the people of the Fire who will be dwellers of it, they will not die in it nor will they live. However, there will be a group of people - or as he said -( whom the Fire will burn due to their sins - or he said - (their wrongdoings. So, He will cause them to die until they become burnt coal. Then the intercession will be allowed and they will be brought group after group, and they will be scattered over the rivers of Paradise. Then it will be said: "O people of Paradise! Pour down upon them.'' Then they will sprout like the growing of the seed that is upon the moist bank of the flowing stream.'' Then, a man from among the people present said, "It is as if the Messenger of Allah used to live in the desert wilderness.'' Muslim also recorded this Hadith.


[قَدْ أَفْلَحَ مَن تَزَكَّى - وَذَكَرَ اسْمَ رَبِّهِ فَصَلَّى - بَلْ تُؤْثِرُونَ الْحَيَوةَ الدُّنْيَا - وَالاٌّخِرَةُ خَيْرٌ وَأَبْقَى - إِنَّ هَـذَا لَفِى الصُّحُفِ الاٍّولَى - صُحُفِ إِبْرَهِيمَ وَمُوسَى ]


(14. Indeed whosoever purifies himself shall achieve success.) (15. And remembers the Name of his Lord, and performs Salah.) (16. Rather you prefer the life of this world.) (17. Although the Hereafter is better and more lasting.) (18. Verily, this is in the former Scriptures) (19. The Scriptures of Ibrahim and Musa.) unquote.

You went from God was speaking to God speaking through Angel Gabriel, if this is the claim that you hold, you cannot dismiss the writings of the Torah or the Bible. It's funny how you mention inspiration from God. Meanwhile when we tell you that the writings are inspiration from God you dismiss it. SO now you admit that God actually inspires people to write.

I could not have been able to dismiss what is in the Bible, except that we see that even the Bible itself, sometimes have a verse and other times in the future just have the same verse as a footnote. I remember the Bible I used in High School, prior to 1970. But in the same school, the freshmen for 71 or 72 had a different Bible from the same Press, under the same name, but different editions/revisions! What I said by inspiration is that prior to Muha.mmad being told in the AlQur'an, the story of Moses and Pharaoh already happened. Moses was inspired in goodness by God, while Pharaoh was inspired to do evil, because of his heart of disobedience. When the story was being told to Mu.hammad, it was coming directly, word for word, through Jibril. I think you must now understand it.

The AlQur'an is therefore by this 100% from God. That is different from the Bible, which we can clearly see some of it are just from men: The Epistles of Paul and others are the very examples, which I am sure you can not deny.




[Quote]
I thought you won't believe in the writings that are inspirations from God
[/quote]

You simply amusing me now. I do not see how you could say this in good conscience. Inspiration did not come to Paul and people like him. Is this clear? If we look at how he bastardize d the 10 Commandments, we will see that that can't be inspiration from God. And Jesus, the servant of God, could never have left the earth, wile he obeyed the 10 commandments, but inspired somebody else, Paul to disobey it, while Jesus was right there on the "right side," of "father!"

By the way if you want to caution me to believe that it is from God, you must first prove that it is from God. Showing that the writings that came before it were corrupted does not prove it to be true. Show the authenticity before I can even try to believe anything from the book.

So if that is proven, what will be your next step? If I know that it is beneficial to you, then we can go into that very subject. And I have already encouraged you to begin a thread for this nyway. But if something smell funny, should we not say it has a foul odor? By saying this truth, should that be a reason for your stubbornness? Lol!

quote:From surah Alaq; is M.uhammad the speaker here, telling himself to put his own face on the floor? I am sure will not say that. You know better.
Amusement for the Prophet
Then Allah says,

﴿كَلاَّ لاَ تُطِعْهُ﴾

(Nay! Do not obey him.) meaning, `O Muhammad! Do not obey him in what he is forbidding from such as steadfastness in worship and performing worship in abundance. Pray wherever you wish and do not worry about him. For indeed Allah will protect you and help you, and He will defend you against the people.'

﴿وَاسْجُدْ وَاقْتَرِب﴾

(Fall prostrate and draw near (to Allah)!) This is just like what has been confirmed in the Sahih of Muslim on the authority of Abu Salih who reported from Abu Hurayrah that the Messenger of Allah said,

«أَقْرَبُ مَا يَكُونُ الْعَبْدُ مِنْ رَبِّهِ وَهُوَ سَاجِدٌ، فَأَكْثِرُوا الدُّعَاء»

(The closest that a servant can be to his Lord is when he is in prostration. Therefore, make abundant supplications (i.e., while prostrating).)'' It has also been mentioned previously that the Messenger of Allah used to prostrate when he recited

﴿إِذَا السَّمَآءُ انشَقَّتْ ﴾

(When the heaven is split asunder.) (84:1) and

﴿اقْرَأْ بِاسْمِ رَبِّكَ الَّذِى خَلَقَ ﴾

(Read! In the Name of your Lord Who has created.) (96:1) This is the end of the Tafsir of Surah Iqra' (Surat Al-`Alaq). Unto Allah is due all praise and thanks, and He is the Giver of success and protection against error. unquote.

(See that not every very starts with "say," above. Yet you can identify that M.uhammad is not the speaker.) Right?

Showing me the writings of the book and explanation of it, proves nothing to me. I have a literature book and I can explain the story but that doesn't mean that the book is historically or remotely close to historically correct

Except that your literature book has no spiritual guidance, etc. I wonder why you are not asking the same questions about the Bible? But if you are seeking the truth and you refuse to accept it when it is presented to you, who is at fault, then? If nothing will mean anything to you, aren't we just beating a dead horse here? Until you are willing to look at things with clear objectivity, then we are just playing Pacizzi here!





[Quote]
I thought that the Angel Gabriel was telling the story and God was speaking through the Angel. Now the words don't come from the angel?
[/quote]

Where did I say otherwise? Hello, woman! AlQur'an, is 100% from God. All of it through Angel Gabreil (Malaika Jibril) to M.uhammad, except the last 4 verses of Surah baqarah, which M.uhammad got from God directly, during the night Journey to heavens and beyond and back, in a single night. That is now settled. Right?




[Quote]
How did Khadijah know about All'ah when All'ah was not known at that time? This was the beginning, certainly he hadn't told Khadijah about All'ah yet until after she was done consoling him.
Won't this then mean that there was an entity called All'ah before the revelations came?
[/quote]

What is the name of God the Creator, in Bini language, from the people who are Animists? Then Christians? Then M.uslims? Are they different when they speak Edo? In yorubaland, we call God the Creator: Oluwa, Olorun, Eledumare, etc. All yoruba speakers know that you are talking about the same God, and not Jesus, or idols or whatever! Those names were there before Christianity, Is.lam entered Yorubaland. Same with A.llah the Almighty. The Arabs, before I.slam orChristianity or even Judaism, knew that A.llah stands for the Lord God the Creator. There is no reason to change the name that is proper for him, and He calls Himself that, just because some pagans used it! Afterall, the christian Arabs and the Jewish Arabs call Him the same nme: A.llah.




[Quote]
I thought muhaaamad didn't know Christians and that all this was new to him? If he knew Christians doesn't it mean that he must have heard the scriptures and didn't understand them? Therefore leading to his own path of understanding, Isl'am.
[/quote]

It does not mean that, woman. You are now grabbing for straws. The truth is that your suggestions are very weak and one will simply ask you, wouldn't the Jews think this is the case with Jesus and their very reason for ignoring him? That and many others, which include their disbelief. The same that the Jews and Christians, etc are exibiting toward M.uhammad?




[Quote]
(I fear that something may happen to me.) Khadijah replied, "Never! By All.ah, Alla.h will never disgrace you. You keep good relations with your relatives, you speak the truth, you help the poor and the destitute, you serve your guests generously, and you help the deserving, calamity afflicted people.'' Khadijah then accompanied him to her cousin Waraqah bin Nawfal bin Asad bin `Abdul-`Uzza bin Qusay, who, during the period of ignorance became a Christian and used to scribe the Scriptures in Arabic. He would write from the Injil in Hebrew as much as All.ah willed for him to write. He was an old man and had lost his eyesight. Khadijah said to him, "O my cousin! Listen to the story of your nephew.'' Waraqah asked, "O my nephew! What have you seen'' All.ah's Messenger described what he saw. Waraqah said, "This is An-Namus whom Al.lah had sent to Musa. I wish I was young and could live until the time when your people would drive you out.'' A.llah's Messenger asked,


This is all in the Qu'ran? I thought only God spoke in the Qu'ran?
[/quote]

Did you read my saying that the above is in the AlQur'an? You are almost behaving like Dubya ad Dart Badder; If you repeat it enough they will begin to believe it. I leave my statement whic you responded to intact, so that people and you can revisit it, again.





[Quote]
How could he have already been rejected by his people before he even started speaking to them? How could he have suffered if his messengership had not even been announced?
[/quote]

Just the same way the protestant argue that you, a Catholic is not a Christian! You see a problem here? There were presidents where prophets suffered. So the man was able to predict all of these about the future of M.uhammad. And by the way, Mughirah, predicted him as a prophet, when he was a little boy on a journey with his Uncle to Syria. The journey was aborted because they feared that the Jews in Syria will recognized him, even as a child and tried to kill him!

The cousin was not a Christian. He would have dismissed any possibility of Muhaaamad being a prophet. If he was a Christian, he would know that there would be none after Christ.
I know he wasn't using another Bible. The existing Bible is the only one to have come. In the Bible Christ warned against false prophets and let us know that there won't be any other person who would lead them to God other than himself. (Don't give me the crap that the Bible is corrupted, it is the same Bible that the cousin must have read, how come he didn't mention what the Bible said?)

But the outcome is different than what you suggested, above. Today, M.uhammad is a personage revered the world over. The US Supreme court has his personage as one of the few on the facade of the cour house. Brooklyn Public library or the Museum on Eastern parkwayhas his name as No 1 of all important persons among 100 of the world. By the way Jesus or Moses was No 2 while the other was No 3. Is Isla.m the dominant religion in America? No! Yet they find Mu.hammad to be the most appropriate man to be No 1!

My darling, who is the "another Comforter," promised by Jesus? Further who was the "Former Comforter," that lived before the promise of another one? It is very clear that the former and the another can not be the same "Comforter!" Therefore how many Holy Spirits as Comforters are there? Please give names and don't be stingy! If the another came during the speaking of the tongue after Jesus left, what did the former do, before the another came?

If I wager with you, the 100 USD you promise will not be enough as my winning prize! Money is not my problem and not my trial, either!

Sheniqua, Imhotep, etc, rally around your sister to resolve this matter! Am waiting.

@lady
I have seen your persistent responses on whether Jesus is the Messiah or not. The first thing you need to understand is that I'm a Mus'lim and I would not go against the generally accepted belief our beloved prophet- The prophet Muhamm'ed enjoined upon us by the Command of All'ah.
So to answer your question: Jesus is the Messiah.

The good thing about knowing the truth is you're able to filter from your head what is right from wrong. The Gospel of barnabas may have said otherwise for the following reasons:
1. Jesus himself thought a man greater than him will come thus named him that
2. The Messiah (Jesus) may have refused the title because of the elders of the land who hated him extremely because of his truthtelling
3. Barnabas the writer may have avoided calling Jesus that for the fear of people worshipping Jesus as God.

Note this is just an assumption, I was not there when the writer was writing, neither have I said all in the Scripture is right because its only God that is perfect.

Therefore Jesus is the Messiah.

Chapter 42  THE TRANSFIGURATION

Then the disciples wept after this discourse, and Jesus was weeping, when they saw many who came to find him, for the chiefs of the priests took counsel among themselves to catch him in his talk. Wherefore they sent the Levites and some of the scribes to question him, saying: "Who are you?"

Jesus confessed, and said the truth: "I am not the Messiah." They said: "Are you Elijah or Jeremiah, or any of the ancient prophets?" Jesus answered: "No." Then said they: "Who are you? Say, in order that we may give testimony to those who sent us." Then Jesus said: "I am a voice that cries through all Judea, and cries: "Prepare you the way for the messenger of the Lord," even as it is written in Esaias;."

They said: "If you be not the Messiah nor Elijah, or any prophet, wherefore do you preach new doctrine, and make yourself of more account than the Messiah?" Jesus answered: "The miracles which God works by my hands show that I speak that which God wills; nor indeed do I make myself to be accounted as him of whom you speak. For I am not worthy to unloose the ties of the hosen or the ratchets of the shoes of the Messenger of God whom you call "Messiah," who was made before me, and shall come after me, and shall bring the words of truth, so that his faith shall have no end."

The Levites and scribes departed in confusion, and recounted all to the chiefs of the priests, who said: "He has the devil on his back who recounts all to him." Then Jesus said to his disciples: "Truly I say to you, that the chiefs and the elders of our people seek occasion against me." Then said Peter: "Therefore go not you any more into Jerusalem." Therefore said Jesus to him: "You are foolish, and know not what you say, for it is necessary that I should suffer many persecutions, because so have suffered all the prophets and holy one of God. But fear not, for there be that are with us and there be that are against us."

And having said this, Jesus departed and went to the mount Tabor, and there ascended with him Peter ;and James ;and John ;his brother, with him who writes this. Whereupon there shone a great light above him, and his garments became white like snow and his face glistened as the sun;, and lo! there came Moses and Elijah; speaking with Jesus concerning all that needs must come upon our race and upon the holy city.

Peter spoke, saying: "Lord, it is good to be here. Therefore, if you will, we will make here three tabernacles, one for you and one for Moses and the other for Elijah." And while he spoke they were covered with a white cloud, and they heard a voice saying: "Behold my servant, in whom I am well pleased; hear you him."

The disciples were filled with fear, and fell with their face upon the earth as dead. Jesus went down and raised up his disciples, saying: "Fear not, for God loves you, and has done this in order that you may believe on my words."

Chapter 43 THE DOCTRINE OF THE MESSIAH  

Jesus went down to the eight disciples who were awaiting him below. And the four narrated to the eight all that they had seen: and so there departed that day from their heart all doubt of Jesus, save [from] Judas Iscariot, who believed nothing. Jesus seated himself at the foot of the mountain, and they ate ofthe wild fruits, because they had not bread. Then said Andrew: "You have told us many things of the Messiah, therefore of your kindness tell us clearly all." And in like

manner the other disciples besought him.

Accordingly Jesus said: "Everyone that works works for an end in which he finds satisfaction. Wherefore I say to you that God, truly because he is perfect, has not need of satisfaction, seeing that he has satisfaction himself. And so, willing to work, he created before all things the soul of his Messenger, for whom he determined to create the whole, in order that the creatures should find joy and blessedness in God, whence his Messenger should take delight in all his creatures, which he has appointed to be his slaves. And wherefore is this, so save because thus he has willed?

Truly I say to you, that every prophet when he is come has borne to one nation only the mark of the mercy of God. And so their words were not extended save to that people to which they were sent. But the Messenger of God, when he shall come, God shall give to him as it were the seal of his hand, insomuch that he shall carry salvation and mercy to all the nations of the world that shall receive his doctrine. He shall come with power upon the ungodly, and shall destroy idolatry, insomuch that he shall make Satan confounded; for so promised God to Abraham, saying: "Behold, in your seed I will bless all the tribes of the earth; and as you have broken in pieces the

idols, O Abraham;, even so shall your seed do.""

James answered: "O master, tell us in whom this promise was made; for the Jews say "in Isaac," and the Ishmaelites say "in Ishmael;." Jesus answered: David, whose son was he, and of what lineage?" James answered: "Of Isaac; for Isaac was father of Jacob, and Jacob was father of Judah, of whose lineage is David."

Then Jesus said: "And the Messenger of God when he shall come, of what lineage will he be?" The disciples answered: "Of David." Whereupon Jesus said: "You deceive yourselves; for David in spirit calls him lord, saying thus: God said to my lord, sit you on my right hand until I make your enemies your footstool. God shall send forth your rod which shall have lordship in the midst of your enemies. If the Messenger of God whom you call Messiah were son of David, how should David call him lord? Believe me, for truly I say to you, that the promise was made in Ishmael, not in Isaac.

Chapter 44 THE LINEAGE OF THE MESSIAH  

The disciples said: "O master, it is written in the Book of Moses, that the promise was made in Isaac." Jesus answered with a groan: "It is so written, but Moses did not write it, nor Joshua, but rather our rabbins, who do not fear God! Truly I say to you, that if you consider the words of the angel Gabriel, you shall discover the malice of our scribes and doctors. For the angel said: "Abraham, all the world shall know how God loves you; but how shall the world know the love

that you bear to God? Assuredly it is necessary that you do something for love of God." Abraham answered: 'Behold the servant of God, ready to do all that which God shall will.'

Then spoke God, saying to Abraham: "Take your son, your firstborn Ishmael;, and come up the mountain to sacrifice him." How is Isaac firstborn, if when Isaac was born Ishmael was seven years old? Then said the disciples: "Clear is the deception of our doctors: therefore tell us you the truth, because we know that you are sent from God." Then answered Jesus: "Truly I say to you, that Satan ever seeks to annul the laws of God; and therefore he with his followers, hypocrites and evil-doers, the former with false doctrine, the latter with lewd living, to day have contaminated almost all things, so that scarcely is the truth found. Woe to the hypocrites! for the praises of this world shall turn for them into insults and torments in hell.

"I therefore say to you that the Messenger of God is a splendour that shall give gladness to nearly all that God has made, for he is adorned with the spirit of understanding and of counsel, the spirit of wisdom and might, the spirit of fear and love, the spirit of prudence and temperance, he is adorned with the spirit of charity and mercy, the spirit of justice and Piety, the spirit of gentleness and patience, which he has received from God three times more than he has given to all his creatures.

O blessed time, when he shall come to the world! Believe me that I have seen him and have done. him reverence, even as every prophet has seen him: seeing that of his spirit God gives to them prophecy. And when I saw him my soul was filled with consolation, saying: "O The Great Prophet;, God be with you, and may he make me worthy to untie, your shoelatchet;, for obtaining this I shall be a great prophet and holy one of God." And having said this, Jesus rendered his thanks to God.

@Lady

Ok so you know I like to answer every question. I like educating people on the matter.
So this is what I can get from what you're saying.

1. The Gospels did not exist until the Nicene Creed,

Wait do you mean the council of Nicea, because the creed is a prayer

Yes the Council of Nicaea a consensus among all the priests to come into one common believe. I think the meaning of the word Creed is to “Believe” or article of faith”. Not a prayer as you define.

2. Before the council the gospels matthew, mark, luke,and john did not exist

They did, they were written about 35-40 years after the death of Christ. They weren't written in 325 AD. They were compiled into a book to make it easier and official, but they weren't written then. History has proven this.

if that is the truth the gospel had been written “about 35-40” years after Christ, then who is the Author of that. Can we point our finger to the name itself as the author and writer of that books.

We do not know the author of the gospel

We do know the author to be God, we do know the writers to be Matthew, Mark, Luke, and John. The writers let us know that it is them and history of the Church lets us know too. There were those that were surrounding them at that time and they knew about the writings and used the writings even before 325 AD.

The foundation of the Christian religion is based upon the bible. Although penned by human hands, believers insist that this book is the "inspired word of God" (as what Lady said), it is claimed that the people who wrote the bible were inspired or directed by god to write his laws and teachings.

The bible is a blend of ancient Middle Eastern history, Jewish law, and mythology-- mythology both traditionary among the Jews but also borrowed from neighboring nations such as Babylon and Assyria. An important question arises: do the historical parts of the bible offer proof that supports the miraculous parts?

There are some religious people who accept that the bible is not the literal truth.
The Biblical Fundamentalist, or inerrantist. However, even the liberal believer, who insists that although the bible is not accurate in its history or science, will not be shielded from my words. Those who claim that the bible offers moral and spiritual teachings will be shown that not only is that statement unsupportable, but that the exact opposite can be demonstrated.

How can we know that the bible is true? As far as the New Testament None of the contemporary Jewish or Roman historians, living during the time in which Jesus said to have lived, wrote one word about him. Modern biblical scholars agree that the New Testament scriptures were written 35 to 40 (as lady said) years after the alleged events, and the names Mark, Matthew, Luke and John were attached afterward by the Church. The clergy do not mention this fact, and would have their flocks go right on believing that Matthew, Mark, Luke and John were written by the men whose names they bear. But this is not the truth.

"The question is, were the authors of these four gospels inspired?
If they were inspired, then the four gospels must be true.
If they are true, they must agree.
The four gospels do not agree." (what do you think Lady priest)

So, why do people believe the bible is true? Christians say things like:

•"It must be true because everybody just knows it's true. How can the whole world be wrong?"
•"The Bible is true because it is the word of God."
•"It's true because it is the most perfect moral guide ever produced. Nothing written by humans approaches its perfection."
•"Its writings span 1,500 years, and there are no errors, contradictions or difficulties. No book written by mere humans could be so flawless."
The Christian uses these assertions instead of facts-- belief in place of evidence

No one can tell, except that we tell each other so. Priests and ministers, who make their living selling salvation, tell us so. But why should we believe them? What authority do their words carry, other than the authority that they give themselves? Strip away the claim that the bible is the "word of God", and who in their right mind would still believe it?
Basically, the Christian believe the bible is true because they parents told them, and then they told not to question them. In the west, you are told the Christian bible is true. In the middle east, the New Testament is held to be false, and the Jews endorse only the Old Testament. If you are Is,lamic, the K’oran is the only true bible. Other religions have their own sacred writings. Which book you believe depends predominantly on where you were born. You believe what your parents tell you, just like they believe what their parents told them, and so on, since the book was written. For the most part, you are either a Protestant, Catholic, Jew, Muslim, Hindu or Buhddist because your parents were.

You were brought up to believe it. Under the same circumstances, you would have believed anything. Centuries ago, to disagree with the Bible was to face punishment, shame, torture and even death. Given these conditions, it is no wonder that nobody questioned it for two thousand years. It is obvious why Christianity had such a stranglehold on the minds of the population. To disagree was to be executed.

As far as "inspiration" goes, how can anyone establish the truth of this claim? What does it mean to be "inspired"? Most theologians would say that it meant that god used men as instruments, making them write his thoughts. How can an inspired man prove that he is inspired? How can he know himself that he is inspired, and not insane? He couldn't possibly know for sure. And what is inspiration anyway? Did he take possession of their minds and destroy their wills? Were these writers only partly controlled, so that their mistakes, ignorance and prejudices were mingled with the wisdom of God? Some people assert that men were guided to write god's will, through their own words and in the prejudices of the times. How are we to separate the mistakes of man from the thoughts of God?[/color][color=#990000][color=#990000][/color] How could we do this without being inspired ourselves? If the original writers were inspired, then the translators should have been too, and so should be the men who tell us what the bible means.

My dear do not come up against the history of the Church, you will fall short. Eye witnesses dear, are more reliable.
This is how we know it is true.
I hope this addresses your issue

Lady if I fall short its doesn’t mean you defeated me…if I fall short it doesn’t mean you change my faith…as far I’m here I will respond to you as long I can figure it out. If not I just leave it for you to clarify the issued.

If you are pressure to this one never mind to answer it just focus your discussion on your own issued.

Peace (English), …Shalom…(Hebrew),…Salam (Arabic)
God…(English),…, ELI…, (Hebrew ),….ILAH (Arabic)

Only if the eyewitnesses are truthful in their recounting the stories to the hearers, who must also be truthful, so as not to add or change anything to or from the stories. We do not have that in the Bible.

How do you know it's not in the Bible? Are you an eyewitness too? Can you refute what they saw because you were there? I would rather take an eyewtiness account over someone who received a revelation on the issue. Seeing that we're using logic here, is it logical to believe an eyewitness or someone who claimed to have received divine revelation and his only way to prove his revelation is by labelling the eyewitness as a liar?

Since the New Testament is what we are writing about here, we see a lot of gimmick going on. We see a lot of fallacy and we see alot of jumping into conclusions without any logic.

We're discussing the Bible as a whole not just the New Testament. To understand the New Testament you must be knowledgeaable about the Old Testament.
Logica according to whom? The fact that you use human logic to understand God shows your limitations.

Lets take the lower number of years to present an argument here. This was just the number of years that I left high school. I can not even remember all my high school buddies' names. The street i used to pass through for all those 5 years, I can not remember them. Was Jesus ministry not a mere 3 years? Is the number of years i spent in high school not more than 3, whereof, I could not accurately remember the exactly all the events that happened in my life.

Once again I will need for you to use better examples.

When you leave high school do you continuously relive the moments or do you move on to other moments. The message in the New Testament had sustained for years. Everyday the apostles live the message and preach the message, they continue to tell the message everyday of their lives, it is not something that can be forgotten so easily, not when there is a constant reminder.

You also forget that it was not just one eyewitness but hundreds of eyewitnesses and they all professed the same thing.

Even a shorter time period will dull the memory! Ten years ago I left a city that I loved very much, and my ability to describe the city is not as good as my first year that I left the place. You must know that the longer the passes on an event, and without putting the details down, when it was just happening, the more it fades into the memory and becomes a thing forgotten. This is the case with your Bible. one liner will not do. And you can not just defend the indefensable with just trust me. It will not wash.

Sorry it is not the case with the Bible. These apostles didn't just witness something and then disappear into thin air and then resurface again to write the events. They continually told the event the exact same way every single time. It stayed in their memory.

I am still a student and I learned algebra when I was in school in Nigeria, I left Nigeria over 10 years ago. I am still very good in algebra because till today I continually apply it to my studies in accounting, so I know I won't forget it.
Or better yet, I learned how to cook egusi soup when I was home in Nigeria, but I haven't fogotten how to prepare it because I cook it at least once every two weeks. I am constantly on it.
This is the case of the disciples. They didn't disappear and then reappear 30 years later to write their respective books. The Church didn't begin when they wrote their books, no, it began way before and it continued on with the same words that were used in the Bible to teach the Christians the message from God. They wrote it when they saw that all the disciples were beginning to die off and they didn't want the message to be watered down. That is why the message is still authentic today even with the translations, it still contains the same message.

How do you know that the Author was God? Is there a verse in the bible that testifies to this?

Yes. There are countless verses that let you know that what came out of the mouth of the disciples and apostles and prophets is the Word of God. Seriosuly man, you claim to know the Bible, yet you do not know this?

What do you expect, that God would come and say write these down?
That's not even how it is in the Qu'ran. God wasn't speaking the angel gabriel was.

God spoke through people like he has always done.

There are many verses in the AlQur'an that let us know that God is the Speaker. He Himself states it

Angel Gabriel stated it. If you would hang on to the belief that God spoke through Angel Gabriel, why can't I hang on to the belief that God spoke in the Bible through the Prophets and the disciples?
Unless you can prove to me that God himself opened his mouth and spoke directly to Muhaaamad, I won't take the words of the qu'ran to be true. If you want me to hold it to be true then you have to hold the words of the Bible to be true also. In the Bible you will see God speaking through his angels, not just Gabriel and also through his prophets, and then later on through his disciples. In the Bible you get the full view of it, not just a summarised story. Nothing hidden. You get the full story.

Please stop trying to come up with a conclusion that has no logical process of observation. Am asking you to stat a separate thread for our discussion about the AlQur'an. I hope you will do it.

Why can't we just continue with this one sheesh? We've been talking about the Qu'ran the whole time.

The good thing about knowing the truth is you're able to filter from your head what is right from wrong. The Gospel of barnabas may have said otherwise for the following reasons:
1. Jesus himself thought a man greater than him will come thus named him that
2. The Messiah (Jesus) may have refused the title because of the elders of the man who hated him extremely because of his truthtelling
3. Barnabas the writer may have avoided calling Jesus that for the fear of people worshipping Jesus as God.

1. Jesus said there is none greater
2. He NEVER refused the title, that is why your Qu'ran acknowledges him as the messiah
3. Barnabas was not a disciple of Christ, so the gospel that he wrote was in accordance to him witnessing

There are four Gospels that have a central theme, that cite the same events, gospel of Barnabas sticks out like a sore thumb. It is the only one that goes against all the writings of that time. The only claim that it can make is that the other Gospels are corrupt (hmm sounds familiar). It is the only gospel that doesn't know the geography of that era. There's so much contradictions with history and the gospel and I am ashamed from muuslims everywhere that you would even consider the content of this fable to be true. It only goes to show the desperation you have to prove Christianity false and yet again fail.

Note this is just an assumption, I was not there when the writer was writing, neither have I said all in the Scripture is right because its only God that is perfect

I am glad you stated it as just an assumption.

Yes the Council of Nicaea a consensus among all the priests to come into one common believe. I think the meaning of the word Creed is to “Believe” or article of faith”. Not a prayer as you define.

They already had one belief. If you want to know what truly happened at the council please do some extensive research on it. I will try to help you find a reliable source that will truly clarify everything for you. It had been three centuries after the death of Christ, certainly their belief did not start then. In order for them to even come together certainly they already had a belief.

if that is the truth the gospel had been  written “about 35-40” years after Christ, then who is the Author of that. Can we point our finger to the name itself as the author and writer of that books.

Yes, God. Those who penned it down were the disciples of Christ and they wrote exactly what they saw and what they were told by Christ to tell the world. They penned these things down when they saw that the disciples were being killed one by one. The Holy Spirit prompted them to write down these things so that it won't be passed away or watered down as time went on. These were accepted as Gospels because they are disciples of Christ. The other writings were not accepted because they were not directly linked to Christ. Honestly people wrote down things that were not in accordance with the teachings of Christ and it was obvious. The very essence of the message that Christ taught us was conveyed in these Gospels. Nothing to be added nothing to be subtracted.

The bible is a blend of ancient Middle Eastern history, Jewish law, and mythology-- mythology both traditionary among the Jews but also borrowed from neighboring nations such as Babylon and Assyria. An important question arises: do the historical parts of the bible offer proof that supports the miraculous parts?

Prove this. How about you take it up with the history of the Jewish people. I'm pretty sure they would not fancy you mixing up their history.
The books of the Bible were written overtime by the prophets of God. Eyewitnesses.

Yes the historical parts offer proof of it. Especially of Jesus' death, resurrection and spread of his ministry. The tomb he was buried in, the hill he was nailed to the cross, the place of his birth, everything lines up together. You're trying to prove the Bible false why don't you prove the Qu'ran true. Tell us the historical facts of the Qu'ran. Certainly proving the Bible false does not prove the Qu'ran to be true. So why do you hold on to the belief in the Qu'ran?

Those who claim that the bible offers moral and spiritual teachings will be shown that not only is that statement unsupportable, but that the exact opposite can be demonstrated

Demonstrate it!!!

How can we know that the bible is true? As far as the New Testament None of the contemporary Jewish or Roman historians, living during the time in which Jesus said to have lived, wrote one word about him.

Show us!!!

Modern biblical scholars agree that the New Testament scriptures were written 35 to 40 (as lady said)  years after the alleged events, and the names Mark, Matthew, Luke and John were attached afterward by the Church. The clergy do not mention this fact, and would have their flocks go right on believing that Matthew, Mark, Luke and John were written by the men whose names they bear. But this is not the truth.

How about you get it in your head that the Church itself was started by Christ and that these disciples make up the priests of the church, they wrote it down and therefore passed it on. It wasn't attached afterwards my dear, they let us know that they penned it down. Most especially John at the end of his book. He let us know who was writing it.
How about you get to know that these men also had disciples who knew that they wrote these books. How about you get to know that the history of writings in the Church is well kept and the authors are well known because it is passed down in history without a gap in it. Why don't you do some reading on what the contents of the gospels are. Find out what tey talk about and compare it to the writings of ignatius of anitoch
Well since you know the truth, why don't you share it with us?

"The question is, were the authors of these four gospels inspired?
If they were inspired, then the four gospels must be true.
If they are true, they must agree.
The four gospels do not agree." (what do you think Lady priest)

Stating that the four gospels do not agree, will not make them disagree. SO BANG YOUR HEAD ON THE WALL AND SCREAM IF YOU WANT TO, THEY WILL ALWAYS AGREE BECAUSE THEY ALREADY DO Those who have read them know this.

•"It must be true because everybody just knows it's true. How can the whole world be wrong?"
•"The Bible is true because it is the word of God."
•"It's true because it is the most perfect moral guide ever produced. Nothing written by humans approaches its perfection."
•"Its writings span 1,500 years, and there are no errors, contradictions or difficulties. No book written by mere humans could be so flawless."
The Christian uses these assertions instead of facts-- belief in place of evidence

No because history has proven it so. Not just Jewish history or Christian history, but Roman history, Egyptian history and more. So no matter how much or how long you deny it. It is still the truth.

No one can tell, except that we tell each other so. Priests and ministers, who make their living selling salvation, tell us so.

1. Priests don't make a living
2. History already told

But why should we believe them? What authority do their words carry, other than the authority that they give themselves? Strip away the claim that the bible is the "word of God", and who in their right mind would still believe it?

Why should we believe Muhaamad and the Imams, by what authority do their words carry, other than the authority that they give themselves? Strip away the claim that the Qu'ran is the "word of God", and who in their right mind would still believe it?

But let's see about the Bible and who in their right mind would believe it even if it's not called the word of God. Oh yes that's right the Jews and the others whom they came in contact with, who were named in the Bible. The destruction of the temple as Christ predicted, the destruction of the temple as Jeremiah predicted. Dude your palying with history of nations (I'll have to come back and list them for you) the Bible doesn't just contain the history of the Jews but the history of others too. Those who came in contact with the Jews have these events in their history also, so are you going to claim that they too have corrupted their history? Everything about the Qu'ran is based on the the events that took place in the Bible which includes the Torah and the New Testament. Don't for one minute think that the Bible was written only after the death of Christ. It was written by Moses and the other Prophets themselves. They had prophecies which came true.

Basically, the Christian believe the bible is true because they parents told them, and then they told not to question them.

Stop taking what is applied to Muuslims and apply it to Christians. Christians are encouraged to question the Bible and they do so everyday. That is the reason why you always hear so many people raising questions about the Bible, I know it is very intriguing. I became a Catholic a year and 2 months ago. I had to attend religious classes for one year. I was told to study the Bible and come with questions. Trust me I came with hard questions, just like I'm doing now with Olabowale and I received answers, not just answers that I wanted to accept but answers that put an end to my questions. I came up with as much as I wanted, the Priest was shocked but also very happy that I cared enough about my beliefs to make sure that I am taking the right step. So many people go through that class each year and they are told what things are and why things are done and why they're done a certain way. So trust me Christians are very much told to question their faith.
I know several muuslims who cannot question their faith because they're "cautioned" that the Qu'ran is 100% the word of God and out of fear of God wouldn't even dare question it, oh and also out of fear of dying, they don't want to die or be ridiculed or disowned so they do not question.

In the west, you are told the Christian bible is true

My dear Nigeria is not in the West and neither is China or India where Christianity is slowly rising. These people have seen the work of the true God and are coming to believe. They feel his love for them and understand him more.

In the middle east, the New Testament is held to be false, and the Jews endorse only the Old Testament

Would this be because the middle east consits of muuslim nations and that the Jews don't even acknowledge Christ as the Christ? duh?

If you are Is,lamic, the K’oran is the only true bible

Why would you call the Qu'ran the only true Bible, do you know what Bible means?

Other religions have their own sacred writings. Which book you believe depends predominantly on where you were born

I would like to differ. I have friends who were born and raised in the north of Nigeria, and they are strong and devout Catholics. I have an uncle who converted from Islam to Christianity and he is a strong and devout Catholics. I know several Priests who are in the Arab nations today and they ofcourse are strong and devout Catholics. I also know an author who is a Priest today anda actually wrote a book about Islam (I am currently reading it) who was a strong and devout muuslim. He was a muuslim from birth and till today still lives in the middle east but now a Catholic priest.

You believe what your parents tell you, just like they believe what their parents told them, and so on, since the book was written. For the most part, you are either a Protestant, Catholic, Jew, Great One, Hindu or Buhddist because your parents were.

Well then maybe I should let you know that I am an exception to the rule and so is my uncle. My mother's parents are Catholic, my mother is a Protestant (she was secular before she became one, even though her parents are Catholic), I am a Catholic. My uncle's family are all muuuslims, he is a Catholic Christian. SO you see my dear it is not what your parents tell you, it is what you hold to be the truth.
It would be naive of me to say that it's the muuslims that hold on to the belief that their parents taught them( although the percentage is much higher with muuuslims) but I do know that there are some Christians who converted to Is'lam. So please dear stop being naive and wrong in your claims.

You were brought up to believe it. Under the same circumstances, you would have believed anything. Centuries ago, to disagree with the Bible was to face punishment, shame, torture and even death

Even in this day and age it is taboo to question the Qu'ran or the prophet. You are to face punishment, shame, torture, and yes even death. An innocent teacher was killed because she threw the Qu'ran (unknowingly) into the trah can. No one will kill you if you throw the Bible in the trash can.

Maybe you don't know history but the Christians were the ones persecuted for having their beliefs, and even by your muuuslims. That is why the crusades happened, the muuuslims went about killing Christians and intimidating them (choose Islam or death).

Trust me I know that Christianity has not been perfect, but I can assure you that we have been pushed. It's either we fought back or Christianity was going to be wiped off the face of the earth by muuslims. Thank God we fought back so that the truth cannot be hidden. No wonder Isl'am is always trying to ridicule us and trying to find faults in us. That is the only way that you can prove the Qu'ran to be true. Truth should definitely learn to stand on its own.

Given these conditions, it is no wonder that nobody questioned it for two thousand years. It is obvious why Christianity had such a stranglehold on the minds of the population. To disagree was to be executed.

Once again stop taking the beliefs of Isl'am and applying it to Christians.
Maybe you haven't heard of Martin Luther, the greatest rebel in Christianity, newsflash, he wasn't killed, and because of him today you have the protestants. I wonder if Is'lam had a Martin Luther, he would survive. For some reason I think not, if a woman did not survive innocently putting the Qu'ran in the trash, a rebel won't survive.

As far as "inspiration" goes, how can anyone establish the truth of this claim? What does it mean to be "inspired"? Most theologians would say that it meant that god used men as instruments, making them write his thoughts. How can an inspired man prove that he is inspired? How can he know himself that he is inspired, and not insane? He couldn't possibly know for sure.

I am really loving your questions. How did Muhaamad know that it was an angel that was speaking to him? How did he even know that God existed? Why did he not think that he was running mad and was having nightmares?

How are we to separate the mistakes of man from the thoughts of God? How could we do this without being inspired ourselves? If the original writers were inspired, then the translators should have been too, and so should be the men who tell us what the bible means.

Good now apply these same questions to the Qu'ran.

1 The Bible has prophecies that came true, that is how people came to believe
2 The Bible has incidents of when men asked God to prove himself, he did, people came to believe
3 The Bible has events that took place in history, Jews, Egyptians, Romans, and more, the history of these nations tell the same story of the same events, people came to believe.

Lady if I fall short its doesn’t mean you defeated me…if I fall short it doesn’t mean you change my faith…as far I’m here I will respond to you as long I can figure it out. If not I just leave it for you to clarify the issued.

I am not looking to defeat you, I am not looking to change your belief, I was just letting you know that the history of the Church is well documented and your calims will be proven false.

@~Lady~.

How do you know it's not in the Bible? Are you an eyewitness too? Can you refute what they saw because you were there? I would rather take an eyewtiness account over someone who received a revelation on the issue. Seeing that we're using logic here, is it logical to believe an eyewitness or someone who claimed to have received divine revelation and his only way to prove his revelation is by labelling the eyewitness as a liar?

You do not have to be an eyewitness to know lies on a matter from the truth. A person who received a revelation on a matter (eg, Moses, Jesus, and Muhamm.ad (AS Jami'a), is better than an eyewitness. For example, a person's eye can see something different from the reality. Have you heard the phrase, it depends from the angle from which you are looking at it? As to the one who receives revelation from God about what an eyewitness sees, one is safe to take the words of the one who received revelation over the eyewitness any day. If Jesus did not receive relation about keeping the 10 Commandments, then it would have been easy to postulate, as the later generations did, about calling him god. It is the fact that the christians called him god that brought about the doctrine of trinity! Going back to the time of Jesus, one will have to agree that Jesus received revelations about  the 10 commandments, serving as a reminder for those who practice them and a warming for those who have not began to practice them.

As we know, God is the Greatest and He is One and Indivisible. Then in His creations, the Angels are in general closer to him and greater than humans. Among mankind, the prophets of God are the ones who received revelations, sometimes from God directly, eg. Moses. In revelations through Angel, eg Zachariah. And in combination of the two, from God directly and through Angel, eg Mu.hammad. We see that Jesus is in the group that received revelations from Angel, since he was strengthened with the Holy Spirit (Malaika Jibril).

Among those who are followers of the way that the prophet brought, none should be greater than the prophet they follow, or the one that was the prophet they follow or the prophet that follow the prophet they follow. First, if you disagree with me, in how I list entities above, please state it very clearly and present your own.

From the rest of mankind, it is very clear then that the ones who know the prophets are those who were the eyewitnesses.  The eyewitness of Moses can not be higher than Prophet Abraham, or Zachariah in the matters that concerns Moses. But the eyewitnesses will be higher than the later genrations that came after them. Say those who were with Moses will know more about the accuracy of what Moses did more than those Children of Israel born immediately after Moses died. I would also belive that Moses will know about Jesus more than any of the disciples of Jesus. Jesus will also know more about Moses more than those people who were emancipated from Egypt in the Exodus of the Children of Israel.

If you do not disagree with the facts that I laid out here about Moses and Jesus and their eyewitnesses to each other, then apply the same to Muhamm.ad in the matters about Jesus. Afterall, the Jews do not believe that Jesus is a prophet, the way the Christians do not believe Mu.hammad is a prophet.





[Quote]
We're discussing the Bible as a whole not just the New Testament. To understand the New Testament you must be knowledgeaable about the Old Testament.
Logica according to whom? The fact that you use human logic to understand God shows your limitations.
[/quote]

If you are discussing the Bible as a whole, then know that the jews do not rekorn with the New Testament. Therefore that claim of bible as a whole is circumspect. But now, you will see that the Bible that you are talking about, a a whole has an old testament view of God, as being One. Then the new teastament view of God is a mix bag, sometimes it is One God, but then it has a doctrine of "Trinity," a word that it does not contain, whatsoever. Now tell me how do you reconcile the two opposing issues; which one is true? Which ever you chose will nullifies the other. For sure am limited, please present the unlimited argument, without forcing me to accept the obviously unacceptable.





[Quote]
Once again I will need for you to use better examples.

When you leave high school do you continuously relive the moments or do you move on to other moments. The message in the New Testament had sustained for years. Everyday the apostles live the message and preach the message, they continue to tell the message everyday of their lives, it is not something that can be forgotten so easily, not when there is a constant reminder.

You also forget that it was not just one eyewitness but hundreds of eyewitnesses and they all professed the same thing.
[/quote]

From my initial presentation above about who to be believed, the eyewitness or the generations that come later, as long as none is a prophet, you will see that those who were with Jesus had better record tahn the immediate generation that came after it. The disciples of Jesus, whatever remained from the 12 and the rest of the eyewitnesses, they must be better at vouching for what Jesus did, than say Paul!

Just to show you that even the records of these people were not as accurate as you had postulated, and it clearly lacked full inspirations from God, you will see that the recorded information on many events in the Bible differ from one Gospel to the other Gospel. (Some are recorded as arguments in showing the discrepancies in the Bible; please check them out yourself). The evidences are therefore not sufficient that if the eyewitness account is different from the earsay account, it is better to differ to the eyewitness. If we follow this thinking, then Paul's accounts will have to be discarded, whereever it differs to the eyewitness accounts.

But since you have more than one version of event(s), if you take the accounts of the eyewitnesses, then the only one that can be accepted is what a future prophet of God says about the matter. This is why I will take the information from Jesus about Moses, while I will reject what the Jewish Scholars say about the same subject. This is why I will take the Information about Jesus from M.uhammad, while I will reject watever any eyewitness or earsayer will  say, even if he said he was "inspired!" The fact is that Prophets are select group of few men among men. Afterall, M.uhammad went to heavens and back, in one part of a single night! This is enough to valid him, even from every argument anyone can present.

But wait, is it not ironic that all he said before he spoke about what you disagree with, and what he said after what you disagree with all correct? If he is correct in everything else, then he must be correct in this single thing tht you disagree with. Afterall, you do not have any othe material source to proof that he was wrong, except the Bible. Nothing also supports that the Bible is correct, except the Bible.

While Bible lacks full detail about what happened to the body of Pharaoh, after he drowned, the AlQur'an, did not do an incomplete job. It spoke about the preservation of the body of the drowned Pharaoh. Please ask anyone you know with any knowledge about the body of this pharaoh. They will tell you that it is in Egypt. It was preserved, not by mummification, but all the sign that he drowned is well known. We must face the truth, when we are truly wanting to know it.





[Quote]
Sorry it is not the case with the Bible. These apostles didn't just witness something and then disappear into thin air and then resurface again to write the events. They continually told the event the exact same way every single time. It stayed in their memory.
[/quote]

So why are there conflicting accounts about the same event(s) in the Bible? Why are there some important information missing on one gospel and it is in another? Why are some verses even relegated to common footnotes, in one version? Why are there so many versions without any two completely agreeing with each other, never mind all agreeing? Why is the Catholic Bible have more books, than the Protestants'? These are just few pointers to keep the mind wandering and trying to find out about the absolute truth!

I am still a student and I learned algebra when I was in school in Nigeria, I left Nigeria over 10 years ago. I am still very good in algebra because till today I continually apply it to my studies in accounting, so I know I won't forget it.
Or better yet, I learned how to cook egusi soup when I was home in Nigeria, but I haven't fogotten how to prepare it because I cook it at least once every two weeks. I am constantly on it.
This is the case of the disciples. They didn't disappear and then reappear 30 years later to write their respective books. The Church didn't begin when they wrote their books, no, it began way before and it continued on with the same words that were used in the Bible to teach the Christians the message from God. They wrote it when they saw that all the disciples were beginning to die off and they didn't want the message to be watered down. That is why the message is still authentic today even with the translations, it still contains the same message.

I am very certain that Algebra and the process of doing it, has changed since I left high scholl. In our days they call it addmath. But it is really calculus. Yet when you do advance math; linear algebra, differential equations, much other advanced maths, like inequalities (please don't ask me to define them. I can't remember anything), there are many formula to solve a problem. The professor may restrict you to a particular formulae. If you solve the problem by another, you will arrive at an answer, but your process is completely wrong. You could get a fat zero, because you did not follow instructions. Today, you have grade school children doing complex math, which i will call "New Math."

If they repeated and lived the messages all the years, then one should ask you, why are there so many versions of the same story that they all told and lived? Then it will be necessary to ask, which version is true, since there is more than one? Did they really lived it or it is just your own wish? If they truly lived it, there story would have been one after the other, locking steps together. There should not have been any single difference.




[Quote]
Yes. There are countless verses that let you know that what came out of the mouth of the disciples and apostles and prophets is the Word of God. Seriosuly man, you claim to know the Bible, yet you do not know this?
[/quote]

It is you who have demostrated that you know little about what an entity actually said from what other entities said or allegedly said that the primary entity said. If you defend the Bible, without presenting a single verse that says that God directly said that He is the Only speaker, then you have done not so good a job. There is no way you can claim that the mundane details of spatial descriptions, in the Gospel is from God. There is no way  that even the more mundate materials from the book of the act of the apostles are from God. Definitely, there is no way that you can proof that the details of the conversion of Saul to Paul is from God. Did God tell him to write that kind of narratives in the Bible? Will that be claimed to be words of God? Finally, all the epistles, letters to the churches, can they be called words of God? It is not possible. Let shed off the garment of pride and self deceit. Truth stands alone and falsehood has no helper.

What do you expect, that God would come and say write these down?
That's not even how it is in the Qu'ran. God wasn't speaking the angel gabriel was.

In the AlQur'an, Angel Gabreil transported all the revelations to Mu.hammad, except the last 4 verses, of Surah Baqarah, which he received directly, in heaven, at the same time that he received the specific methodology of the mus.lim prayers known as Salah.  You are actually destroying your own primary premise. I am grateful to god about that. We can see that God does not come down, hence Jesus could not be God. (You have spoken the truth. I will give you that).

God spoke through people like he has always done.

Except that many lied and embellished. We still hear about people who are claiming that God is speaking to them, today. I remember Oral Robert who bullied his followers to pay out mant tens of million Dollars in one week or so. I remember Jim Baker's Carolina's organization. Pat Robertson is not doing bad at speaking to God. No, not at all. There are still many who calimed God speaking to them and it is very clear from their modus operanda that they are very far from God. I wonder why some of the primary disciples of Jesus disagreed with Paul's process of evangelising, at the beginning? That was before they were brought in line to accept whatever Paul said.





[Quote]
Angel Gabriel stated it. If you would hang on to the belief that God spoke through Angel Gabriel, why can't I hang on to the belief that God spoke in the Bible through the Prophets and the disciples?
[/quote]

Hang on whatever you will. At least as a friendly brother to you in the human race, you heard the truth from me. I wonder if Angel Gabreil is not important in speech than any disciple, and apostle, eg apostle Paul? Whose words, if they differ, should be believed as coming directly from God? I am reminded of the events of Angels destroying Sodom and Gommorrah, and the struggle between Jacob with Angel. It was in this struggle that Jacob was remaned Israel. I wonder if the Angels, as a group of being are not more superior in speech and get direct information from God than an apostle, Paul?

Unless you can prove to me that God himself opened his mouth and spoke directly to Muhaaamad, I won't take the words of the qu'ran to be true. If you want me to hold it to be true then you have to hold the words of the Bible to be true also. In the Bible you will see God speaking through his angels, not just Gabriel and also through his prophets, and then later on through his disciples. In the Bible you get the full view of it, not just a summarised story. Nothing hidden. You get the full story.

Read Surah Najm. Read about the Night Journey to heavens (Isra wa Miraj). There should not be arrogance in the heart when one is seeking the truth. One should also pray to God without having a secret in the heart. God Almighty knows the heart. Heonly can guide the heart that is yearning for truth to true guidance.

Your demand of quid pro quo of AlQur'an and Bible between us reminds me of the demands of the pagan Arabs on the Prophet; They asked him that he should allow them and he joining them on some days to worship their idols, and they will inturn become M.uslims. I guess they were saying you scratch my back and i will scratch yours. A.llah the Almighty revealed a surah known as "Kafiruun," because of this. The surah is uncompromising about not mixing faiths. (To you is your way, and to me is mine: I definitely will not worship what you worship. And you will not in our state worship what i worship). You should read it. I think is one of the last 10 chapters of the AlQur'an: I do not have the chapter number off head.





[Quote]
Why can't we just continue with this one sheesh? We've been talking about the Qu'ran the whole time.
[/quote]

I thought it will help you to realise that we are not dealling with the Barnabas bit. But I will do as you wish.

Barnabas In the Bible

The New Testament of the Bible consists of four Gospels ( reports about the life and teachings of Jesus) the acts of the Apostles (being the history of the early Christians), and Epistles of Paul etc.
In his Epistle to the Colossians (Chapter 4, Verse 10) Paul describes Barnabas thus: " . . . Barnabas, touching whom ye received commandments; if he comes unto you, receive him." Here Paul refers to commandments of Jesus.

Among other references in Paul's Epistles is the following in the Epistle to the Galatians:

"And when James, Cephas and John, who seemed to be pillars, perceived the grace that was given me, they gave to me and Barnabas the right hands of fellowship, that we should go to the heathen and they unto the circumcision." (Chapter 2. Verse 9).

In the Acts of the Apostles, Barnabas is mentioned as follows:

"And Joses, who by the Apostles was surnamed Barnabas, which is, being interpreted, (The son of consolation), a Levite, and of the country of Cyprus." (Acts 4:36).

Paul was a Jew who was persecuting the Christians. He is said to have seen Jesus in a vision and to have become a convert to the creed of Jesus. Among the disciples of Jesus, Barnabas was a dynamic evangelist. Paul also became a preacher, with the difference that Paul began to over-praise and deify Jesus. "And straightaway he preached Christ in the synagogues, that he is the son of God." (Acts 9: 20).

ACTS 9:26 and 27: "And when Saul ( Paul ) was come to Jerusalem he assayed to join himself to the disciples, but they were all afraid of him and believed not that he was a disciple. "But Barnabas took him and, brought him to the Apostles.

ACTS 11:22-30: "Then tidings of these things came unto the ears of the Church which was in Jerusalem; and they sent forth Barnabas, that he should go as far as Antioch.

"Who, when he came, and had seen the grace of God, was glad, and exhorted them all, that with purpose of heart they would cleave unto the Lord.
"For he was a good man, and full of the Holy Ghost and of faith: and much people was added unto the Lord.

"Then departed Barnabas to Tarsus, for to seek Saul: "And when he had found him, he brought him unto Antioch. And it came to pass, that a whole year they assembled themselves with the church, and taught much people. And the disciples were called Christians first in Antioch.
"And in these days came prophets from Jerusalem unto Antioch.
"And there stood up one of them named Agabus, and signified by the spirit that there should be great dearth throughout the world: which came to pass in the days of Claudius Caesar.

"Then the disciples, every man according to his ability, determined to send relief unto the brethren which dwelt in Judaea.

"Which also they did and sent it to the elders by the hands of Barnabas and Saul."