Many of the Christians reject the Qur’an out rightly (even before having an opportunity to read what is written inside it) because they have been programmed right from childhood with the belief that Jesus (peace be upon him) was the last prophet of God sent to the entire world to die for the sins of all mankind. But how true is this claim? Have we not really been fooled with the assumption that religious faith of our parents is always right? Is it not high time for us to wake up from our slumber and then seek the truth with all diligence and open-mindedness? Was Jesus actually sent to the entire world? If Jesus ( pbuh) was actually the last prophet of God sent to the entire word, then why did he have to say: I WAS NOT SENT EXCEPT TO THE LOST SHEEP OF THE HOUSE OF ISRAEL (Matthew 15:24). Now compare this Biblical verse with this Qur’anic verse; And We have not sent you ( O Muhammad-pbuh) except as a giver of glad tidings and as a Warner to ALL MANKIND, but most men do not know(Qur’an 34:28). See how Bible categorically declared that Jesus (pbuh) was sent only to the Israelites and see how Qur’an declared that Muhammad (pbuh) was sent to all mankind! There is no any indication in that Biblical verse that Jesus (pbuh) would later have anything to do with the Non- Israelites. In fact, when Jesus (pbuh) was sending out his apostles for evangelical mission, he also warned them categorically to avoid preaching to the Gentiles i:e the Non-Israelites: THESE TWELVE JESUS SENT FORTH, AND COMMANDED THEM,SAYING, GO NOT INTO THE WAY OF THE GENTILES,AND INTO ANY CITY OF THE SAMARITANS ENTER YE NOT: BUT GO RATHER TO THE LOST SHEEP OF THE HOUSE OF ISRAEL (Matthew 10:5-6). This further corroborates the fact that Jesus was sent only to the Israelites. But many of the Christian scholars proclaimed that this command of not preaching to the Gentiles was later cancelled and replaced by new command of preaching to all the nations in Matthew 28:19, where Jesus was reported to have commanded the apostles to make disciples of all nations. Therefore, according to these Christian scholars, Jesus (pbuh) who was originally sent only to the Israelites later became the last prophet sent to the entire world. But should we really accept Matthew 28:19 as the actual word of Jesus (pbuh)? If the apostles were later instructed by Jesus to preach the gospel to all the nations of the world as spuriously stated in Matthew 28:19, then why did Peter have to tell some of the Gentiles (Cornelius and his households) that sent for him as follows; YOU ARE WELL AWARE THAT IT IS AGAINST OUR LAW FOR A JEW TO ASSOCIATE WITH OR VISIT A GENTILE. BUT GOD HAS SHOWN ME THAT I SHOULD NOT CALL ANYONE IMPURE OR UNCLEAN (Acts 10:28 NIV)? This very incident occurred many years after Jesus’ departure from this world. Was Peter, who happened to be a Jewish man, not aware of the Jesus’ new command of preaching to all the nations stated in Matthew 28:19? Then why did peter have to say it is unlawful for him to associate with or visit a Gentile i:e the Non-Israelite? Has he forgotten such a very great and important command in Matthew 28:19? Very hard to believe! The fact that the other apostles also criticized peter and became astonished when they overheard that Peter later honored the invitation of those Gentiles ( Acts 11:1-18) prove that Peter and other apostles were completely unaware of the Jesus’ new command of preaching to all the nations in Matthew 28:19; Not that they had all forgotten. How could all apostles have forgotten such a very great and important command from their master? Even when Peter was justifying his visitation to those gentiles, he only defended himself and convinced the other apostles by making reference to the vision he had before he received the message from those Gentiles (Acts 10:1-28, 11:4-18) instead of simply reminding the other apostles about the so-called new command in Matthew 28:19.
Moreover, if it was already in the divine plan ( i:e before Jesus came into the world) that the command of not preaching to the Gentiles in Matthew 10:5-6 would later be cancelled and replaced by the new command of preaching to all the nations in Matthew 28:19, then Jesus’ statement in Matthew 15:24 should have been; “IT IS NOT YET TIME FOR THE GENTILES” or something similar in meaning, rather than; “I WAS NOT SENT EXCEPT TO THE LOST SHEEP OF THE HOUSE OF ISRAEL”. All these facts are enough to prove that the new command of preaching to all the nations attributed to Jesus in Matthew 28:19 and other similar verses like it in other books of the New Testament are nothing but forgery. This is not a surprise because Jesus has already foretold that many liars would impersonate him and deliberately lie against him.
Furthermore, is it really biblical and logical to believe that Jesus (pbuh) was sent to die for the sins all mankind? How could an innocent soul die for the sins of the guilty ones when Deuteronomy 24:16, Ezekiel 18:20-22, Jeremiah 31:30, 2nd Chronicles 25:4 and 2nd Kings 14:6 established that THE PERSON THAT COMMITS SIN IS THE ONE WHO WILL DIE. The doctrine which says “an innocent and righteous man (rather than animal) must be killed in order to earn forgiveness of sins for those who are guilty” is not consistent with what the Bible teaches. After the sin of the Golden Calf, God expressed His intention to destroy the Jewish people. Moses intercedes, and asked God to blot him out of His book (i:e to condemn him) as a means of atonement for the sins committed by his followers. But God rejected the request made by Moses and told him that “Whoever has sinned against Me, him will I blot out of My book!” (Exodus 32:30-33). If Jesus was truly destined to suffer and die for the sins of all humanity, then God should have told Moses plainly that his offer of atonement was rejected because Jesus had taken upon himself this great task of atoning for the sins of all the generations and that if the followers of Moses desire forgiveness for their sins, they should believe in the future Crucifixion of Jesus. But nothing of such was recorded. On the contrary, the request made by Moses was rejected on the basis that WHOEVER HAS SINNED AGAINST GOD, him WILL GOD PUNISH, NOT THE INNOCENT.
Furthermore, Luke 5:32 and Mark 2:17 recorded a verse where Jesus said; “I have not come to call the righteous BUT SINNERS TO REPENTANCE”. If Jesus has actually come to die for the sinners, he would have mentioned it in this verse since he was talking about the purpose of his coming WITH RESPECT TO THE SINNERS. Moreover, if this baptism of repentance, for which Jesus came to invite the sinners to observe, is sufficient to atone and wipe away our sins as stated clearly in Acts 2:38, 3:19,Mark 1:4, Isaiah 55:6-7 and Ezekiel 33:10-20, then is there any need again for atonement of sins through Jesus crucifixion?
The original Jesus’ disciples, before Paul came into scene, were only commanded to warn the people with this message; Repent, for the kingdom of heaven is at hand (Matthew 10:5-7, Mark 1:14, 15). There was no any reference of sin atonement through Jesus crucifixion in their preaching. In fact , when Peter was addressing the congregation of Israelites after Jesus departure, he said to them as follows: Repent, and let everyone of you be baptized in the name of Christ for the REMISSION OF SINS; and you shall receive the gift of holy spirit.(Acts 2:38). You can see that Peter and the other apostles only asked the Israelites to remit their sins by observing the baptism of repentance. Peter did not mention remission of sins through Jesus crucifixion in this long discussion he had with the children of Israel.
Even logically, this very doctrine cannot be true because telling the believers that they will no longer be held responsible for all their sins since one innocent man had already been held responsible on their behalf seems to imply that they are now free to commit sins as long as they believe in this atonement sacrifice. Whereas telling the believers that, except they repent sincerely by turning from their sinful ways, they themselves will be held responsible for their sins would make them think twice before committing any sin. Of course the latter is more logical and reasonable than the former. In fact, the resurrection of Jesus make this sin atonement doctrine to be even more illogical because if the punishment which Jesus received in place of the sinners is a continuous one and not temporary, then this can make the sinful believers to feel sorry for Jesus and become more remorseful. This may discourage them from committing more sin. But since according to the Christians, Jesus had been resurrected and the punishment received by Jesus in place of the sinners had already ended, then there is no any cause for alarm if the sinful believers in this doctrine seized this opportunity to commit more sins. In fact, one would expect the sinful believers to utilize and maximize this opportunity by committing more sins since the punishment for those sins had already been accomplished by Jesus on the cross in the time past. Have you now seen that atonement of sins through Jesus crucifixion is the most illogical concept you can ever think of!
Christians are programmed to believe that it is only the sacrificial blood of Jesus that can take away our sins i:e it is impossible for the blood of bulls and goats to take away sins (Hebrews 10:4). However, Leviticus 16:21-30 says as follows "the GOAT will carry on itself all the sins of Israelites to a remote place and the man shall release the goat in the wilderness......Then before the LORD, you will be clean from all your sins”. But Christian scholars usually proclaim that animal sacrifices could only “cover” sins; they could not take them away; but when Jesus shed his own blood, then the sins were taken away. But is there any indication whatsoever in the verse in the book of Leviticus quoted above that the sins of Israelites were only covered and not completely taken away? God says: “Then before the LORD, you will be CLEAN FROM ALL YOUR SINS”. To insist and proclaim that there is a difference between “take away of sins” and “clean from all sins” is only an attempt to resolve an obvious and irreconcilable contradiction between Hebrews 10:4 and Leviticus 16:21-30. The only way to resolve this contradiction is when the term “take away of sins” in Hebrews 10:4 implies complete removal of humanity sinful nature; and NOT achieving divine forgiveness for already committed sins. However, complete removal of humanity sinful nature by blood of Jesus is impossible as nobody can be completely free from committing minor sins; “If we say that we have no sin, we deceive ourselves, and the truth is not in us (1 John 1:”. Therefore, the contradiction between Hebrew 10:4 and Leviticus 16:21-30 still remain valid. Besides, if removal of humanity sinful nature is compulsorily required for salvation and the ONLY WAY to achieve this is by shedding of Jesus’ blood on the cross, then how did old Testament saints like Abraham, Moses, Ezekiel, Joshua, Jeremiah etc and their sincere followers managed to have eternal life? The blood of Jesus can never remove their sinful nature because these people have already lived and died before the alleged crucifixion. Again, their already committed sins have been forgiven through animal sacrifices in the book of Leviticus when God Almighty declare as follows; THEN BEFORE THE LORD, YOU WILL BE CLEAN FROM ALL YOUR SINS (Leviticus 16:30). There is no any indication in this very verse that their sins is only temporarily erased and then would permanently taken away by blood of Jesus. Therefore, if some set of people among the children of Adam, who live and die before Jesus arrival, can attain salvation, righteousness and reconciliation back to God, then is there any need again for just and merciful God to curse and condemn an innocent soul on the cross of Calvary before another set of people among the children of the same Adam can attain similar success?
Christians are also programmed to believe that divine forgiveness and remission of sins can ONLY be obtained by shedding of blood (Hebrews 9:22). Yet in 2nd Chronicles 7:14, God Almighty says “If My people, who are called by My name will humble themselves, and pray and seek My face, and turn from their wicked ways, then I will hear from heaven, and I will FORGIVE THEIR SINS and will heal their land.”. Again in Isaiah 55:7,God Almighty declares; let the wicked forsake their ways and the unrighteous their thought. Let them turn to the LORD; He will have mercy on them, and to our God, for he will FREELY PARDON. Furthermore, in Ezekiel 33: 10-16, God says; “Son of man, say to the Israelites; this is what you are saying: our offenses and sins weigh us down, and we are wasting away because of them. How then can we live? Say to them: as surely as I live declares the sovereign Lord, I take no pleasure in the death of the wicked, but rather that they turn from their ways and live. Turn! Turn from your evil ways! Why will you die, people of Israel? Therefore, son of man say to your people… if someone, one who is wicked, REPENTS, that person’s former wickedness will not bring condemnation… And if I say to the wicked person, you will surely die, but they then turn from their sins and do what is just and right…follow the decree that gives life, and do no evil--that person will surely live: they will not die. NONE OF THE SINS that person has committed will be remembered against them. They have done what is just and right; they will surely live”. You can see that God did not ask the wicked sinners to shed any blood before their sins can be forgiven in all these verses. What He actually wants from them is sincere repentance from their sinful ways. However many Christian Scholars generally insist that the remission of sins can ONLY be obtained by vicarious blood sacrifice , and they cite as proof Leviticus 17:11 which says: “For the life of the flesh is in the blood, and I have given it to you upon the altar to make an atonement for your souls; for it is the blood that makes an atonement for the soul.” But does this verse clearly teach that blood is the ONLY means God has provided to make atonement? Certainly not! The verse quoted above says; “for it is the blood that makes an atonement for the soul.”. The verse did not say; “for it is ONLY the blood that makes an atonement for the soul.” In the Torah, blood sacrifices were not the only path to atonement; there were other ways to achieve forgiveness. For example, INCENSE was served to atone for the people in Numbers 16:46-47, and GIVING OF CHARITY is described in Exodus 30:15-16 and Numbers 31:50 as "MAKING ATONEMENT FOR YOUR SOUL"– the same expression used in Leviticus 17:11. In fact, King Solomon prophesied that the Jewish people would earn forgiveness for their sins in the land of their enemies by sincere repentance and prayer where they could not have access to blood atonement sacrifices; "If they RETURN TO YOU WITH ALL THEIR HEART AND WITH ALL THEIR SOUL in the land of their enemies who have taken them captive, and PRAY TO YOU TOWARD their LAND which You have given to their fathers, the CITY which You have chosen, and the HOUSE which I have built for Your name; then hear their prayer and their supplication in heaven Your dwelling place, and maintain their cause, and FORGIVE Your people who have sinned against You and ALL THEIR TRANSGRESSIONS which they have transgressed against You…” (I Kings 8:46-50). See how God would forgive the sins of the Israelites if they repent and pray toward the house of God in Jerusalem just like the Muslims used to pray toward the house of God in Mecca. All these facts prove that Hebrew 9:22 is WRONG by asserting that without the shedding of blood there is no forgiveness of sins. Again, when Daniel advised the King Nebuchadnezzar on how he would atone for his sins and his iniquities, he did not ask the King to shed any blood. Read what he asked the King to do:"Therefore, O king, let my counsel be acceptable unto you, and break off your sins by PRACTICING RIGHTEOUSNESS, and your iniquities by SHOWING MERCY TO THE POOR (Daniel 4:27)".

I'll prefer the religion i can read and understand their holy book at my own pace to the one i'll need an interpreter

OP were you born a Muslim or Christian? Either way you were not there when those books (quran or bible) were written.

Why do we debate religion? I would wish we all base our religious convictions on personal encounter with God and not what we were born into or told.

If you are truly convinced through seeing the manifestation of God in Islam good for you and if someone else has seen the truth through the coming, death and resurrection of Jesus Christ good for him too.

We should not stop at reading either the quran or Bible only but encountering God personally. Then you know you are not following the crowd or your parents.

That contraction called xtianity is a big fraud, a mighty deception and a large business empire

OP I'm a Muslim but please take this elsewhere. Wrong section to post and take care of yourself instead of backbiting into others with this copy and pasted material. You didn't even care to add paragraphs sef .

Let's all live in peace biko

Religion is the opium of the people. We must be careful about believing all we read or hear about. Like I once mentioned to my friends that, many Christians today idolise Jesus Christ as God in spite of the fact that Jesus himself disclaim this and always referred to God as "Father"
Some even make ignorant reference to a time when Jesus said euphemistically, "I and my father are one".
Muslims too quote verses from the quran to justify their stand on mass murder of innocent people by calling it "holy war or jihad'. But I must remind them that Islam is a religion of peace and strictly devoted to worshipping God (Allah) and must be regarded as such. To become a devoted Muslim, you must learn to tolerate the Christians and if need be, educate them on religious truths and as well try to see their own side on issue of worship as strictly their own opinion which should also be respected. I am happy the Muslims also believe Jesus had a message from God to mankind whether you claim that the message was for the Israelites alone or not, please let us accept the discipline of total submission to the Will of God in his message. The mention of Jesus alone in the quran is enough proof that both religions ( Christianity and Islam) share same origin and both must be equally respected.
There are some grey areas though in certain stories about men of God in both the Bible and the Quran particularly on the issue of Abraham's first son. My belief is that Ismael was Abraham's first son and he was the one who Abraham wanted to sacrifice to God before Allah said "no" to taking of one's life and instead offered a ram. But many Christians would dispute this fact but would want to argue that Ismael was Abraham's illegitimate son. Let these Christians understand that God does not discriminate and He is a just God. He would not unjustly deny Ismael his position in the family. And remember also that Isaac was Sarah's only child and that she would rather volunteer Hagar's son for a burnt offering rather than her only child ( my opinion, though ).
Christians, Muslims, please let's be tolerant of each other's religion.
PEACE!

I am a Christian and i am presently reading the Quran just to know what exactly makes islam do the things they do