₦airaland Forum

Corner is now the new PK

COYG!!!

SIRTee15:
I asked U b4 and I will asked U again. Have I heard of Didache? Who used it?

Yeah, I know it's like handbook for early Christians. What I just don't know is how it will help solve this issue of forgeries all over your new testament.

SIRTee15:
Dont disturb your head. The gospels books were not called Matthew, Luke, John or Mark in the 1st century. They were not even known as gospel until the 2nd century.
The gospels were initially called the memoir of the apostles. That was the name early Christians called them.
So stop barking at the wrong tree regarding name of gospel. Focus on the injeel.

Is this another way of saying 'Yeah all our canonised gospels are anonymously written and they are all forgeries'?

SIRTee15:
Guy I'm not interested in your verbose obviously made up fake theory. I'm not here to discuss the Christian gospel.
I'm asking U about the injeel. ALLAH CALLED THE MESSAGE GIVEN TO JESUS THE INJEEL.
THE INJEEL IS MENTIONED IN THE QURAN AND QURAN IS MEANT TO BE ETERNAL.

MY QUESTION IS CLEAR,.DONT ANSWER Question I DIDNT ASK U...

1. THE INJEEL IS WRITTEN IN WHAT LANGUAGE?

2. IF INJEEL IS NOT WRITTEN IN GREEK, THEN HOW COME THE BOOK HAS A GREEK NAME.

3. WHAT IS THE NAME ALLAH GAVE TO THE MESSAGE OF JESUS. WHAT IS THE MESSAGE OF JESUS CALLED.
WHAT DID JESUS CALL HIS MESSAGE.

EVERY MESSAGE SENT BY ALLAH HAS A NAME

ALLAH CALLED THE MESSAGE GIVEN TO MOSES THE TAWRAH
ALLAH CALLED THE MESSAGE GIVEN TO DAVID THE ZABUR
WHAT IS THE NAME OF THE MESSAGE OF JESUS AS GIVEN BY ALLAH.
WHAT DID ALLAH CALL THE MESSAGE OF JESUS
ALLAH SAID IN THE QUR'AN 'WE GAVE THE INJEEL TO PROPHET ISA'
WHY DID ALLAH ASCRIBED A GREEK NAME TO THE MESSAGE OF JESUS IF THE MESSAGE IS FOR THE JEWS?

So what if the Qur'an is Eternal word of Allah.

God is not supposed to know everything about the past present and future? I'm not even suprise, You believe in a God that admitted lacking in knowledge of all things.


Qur'an doesn't specify the language it could have been written in any language. But it was revealed to Jesus Christ in the language they would have been speaking in first century Palestine.


Why would Allah use the name Isa when the Arabic form of Yeshua should have been Yasu
Why would some Arabs around 4th century used Isa. At least there is archeological evidence that the name Isa predate Islam. If Isa predate Islam, most likely injeel too.
It is not a makeup theory, it is just common sense.

SIRTee15:
Ok are U saying the gospel circulating during the time of muhammed- 6th and 7th century period was corrupt.
I will like U to confirm above.
because I don't want U to change mouth later when I bring evidence.

What kind of question is this.

Is it not the same forgeries you have now they were using in 6-7th century?.

At least God is giving you a way out.

Q5:48
We have revealed to you this Book with the truth, as a confirmation of previous Scriptures and a supreme authority on them. So judge between them by what Allah has revealed, and do not follow their desires over the truth that has come to you. To each of you We have ordained a code of law and a way of life. If Allah had willed, He would have made you one community, but His Will is to test you with what He has given ˹each of˺ you. So compete with one another in doing good. To Allah you will all return, then He will inform you ˹of the truth˺ regarding your differences.

SIRTee15:
Muslims should stop behaving like cowards and learn to defend their prophet and their religion. If it's the truth, they should not be ashamed of it.

Muslims are so embarrassed by the way and manners their prophet died they didn't want the thread alive anymore- they want it dead.

Imagine the deception. If U are so proud of your prophet. Why are U scared of his dark side?

Calma!

Both the Qur'an verse and the Statement of the the prophet in the Hadith are Idioms.

The Qur'an verse is just an Idiomatic way of saying I will grab him by his hand and kill him on the spot if he ever try to make things up in God's name and not literal cutting of the aorta

Just like the report from Aisha, the phrase is idiomatic way of the prophet saying I am dying.

There are records of people using same idiom around the time. Except if we are going to believe everyone aorta was cutting off here and there in 7th century Arabia.

If anything, this is another proof the Qur'anic text is not the making of the Prophet. Scholars that have studied both the Qur'an and Hadith have noticed the vocabulary and linguistic style of the Qur'an is quite different from that of the Prophet. I don't know how it is easy to keep up switching vocabulary and style like that for 23 years.

SIRTee15:
I don't care about Arabic language or the many richness or meaning it has. Bocs that's lie u was to jump to.

Erudite Arabic scholars have done a good job translating the hadiths and Quran for us.
Your opinion is inconsequential!!!!

Below is your answer.

Now tell me How many meaning does aorta have in Arabic?

Ok
For the sake of this argument let's assume both words mean aorta

How does the Qur'an verse and the Hadith disprove Islam or expose our Prophet as a liar?

Before you answer the question I want you to have the following at the back of your mind

- He knew miraculously that the food was poisoned. So he did not fail the test the Jewish lady was trying to put him through.

- He lived for another four years after khaybar and continue to receive revelation up untill Islam has been perfected. So he did not Just pass away abruptly.


Q5:3.......Today I have perfected your religion for you, completed My favour upon you, and chosen Islam as your way...

-The chapter that talked about cutting off the aorta is Meccan chapter and not Medina chapter so the chapter would have been revealed at the early stage of his Prophet Hood.

Are you telling us God continue to allow him made things up in his name till everything has been completed then severe his aorta afterwards to prove he is a false prophet?

This should be an easy win

COYG!!!

SIRTee15:
Ok Qasim6

U know me and evidence are 5&6.
But let's leave that for another day.

Stop playing!
You and bringing evidence that has no substance is 5 and 6.
Bringing what some ancient Jews believed sometimes ago is not good enough, except if there is Prophetic backing to such beliefs.

They could have been wrong, they have no authority.

SIRTee15:
But what I want U to explain is why is the message of Jesus called Injeel.

First tell me ....the injeel is written in what language?

Now if the book given to Jesus isn't written in greek, why is the book given a greek name.

Why did Allah give a greek name to the book given to Jesus when he wasn't sent to the greek and the message was in native language of Jesus which is not greek.

The Injeel, or the revelation given to Jesus, was not initially a written text. Instead, it was likely transmitted orally, and Jesus disciples may have recorded it. It is most likely what Papias was describing that Matthew wrote in Hebrew or Aramaic. these early writings are now lost and are distinct from the canonical Gospels we know today.

The Gentile Christians which later became the predominant movement did not preserve this document because it was at odd with their beliefs because we know that the Christian sect that used this version of Matthew gospel were later declared heretic.

So the question is if Mathew indeed penned something down and it is not what was later named Mathew in the New testament, WHERE IS THE ORIGINAL DOCUMENT AND WHO THE HELL FORGED ANOTHER FORGED DOCUMENT (MARK'S GOSPEL) THEY LATER NAMED MATHEW??

The Arabs might have been using the word injeel to mean the gospel of Jesus before Islam and it has already became a word they were familiar with. We know Injeel is the arabized form of euangelion and euangelion definitely the Greek translation of what it would have been in Aramaic because Mathew that we are told was the first to write the gospel wouldn't have named the document he wrote euangelion since he wrote in Hebrew or Aramaic.

Just like Isa is more likely an arabized form of Iesous rather than Yeshua. and there is archeological evidence Isa was used by Arabs before Islam.

SIRTee15:
2. U mentioned the injeel is corrupt. Now I want U to confirm...was the injeel during the time of Muhammed already corrupted.
Muhammed lived around 6th and 7th century. Was the injeel already corrupted by this period?

Of course it has been corrupted long before the Prophet. But some of the teachings of Jesus Christ still find there way into the canonical gospels like the hypothetical Q gospel. so there is still some elements of truth in the forgeries.

SIRTee15:
What about Alexander the Great. Was he given a book too since he's a prophet in Islam.

Lol

And where did u get this idea of Alexander the Great being a prophet in Islam from?

PROVERBZ:
The questions still begs, why is Jesus message called good news, the very same thing Christians called it because they claimed it contained news of salvation which is indeed good news.

Other prophets talked about prophets coming, John the baptists talked about Jesus coming, why isn't his message titled good news too?

You can believe whatever you like as a Christian on why Jesus message is good news. He died for your sins or salvation by grace or whatever...

But don't come here to tell us what we should believe. We believe the good news of Jesus is about the last universal Prophet and the kingdom of God that was coming. As you can see the Qur'an verse I quoted even said Jesus brought the good news of a Prophet to come after him.

PROVERBZ:
Still bla bla bla.
The question was to show me a verse in your own sources where Jesus claims that Mohammed is sent to all nations and not just the Arabs or isrealites etc.

U failed to do so and also brought up a verse in the Bible which I have no idea what u are trying to show me, but I haven't even opened the verse and I know that it does not contain what I have asked for because it's not in the Bible.

My conclusion is that u have made innovations to your own religion in an attempt to defend the Islamic delimmas that have been pointed out. I'm sure islam frowns at innovations or does taqiiyaa cover you here

Lol

U are already even making conclusions.

Let's say there is no verse where Jesus was reported to have described a messanger coming after him as a prophet to all mankind.

There is a verse where Jesus is described to have given good news of Ahmad as prophet after him.

There is another verse that describe Ahmad as prophet to all mankind.

The prophet was also reported to have said
I have been given five things which were not given to any other prophet including, “…Every prophet would be sent to his nation exclusively, but I have been sent to all mankind.” [Al-Bukhari and Muslim]

And Jesus was reported to have said
"I am only sent to the lost sheep of house of Israel"

You can connect the dot..

GothamCities:
No scripture was revealed to Jesus. Jesus Himself was a Revelation of God's Word. Papias didn't describe anything. Show us manuscripts referencing this descriptions of Papias.

If a Gospel was revealed to Jesus by Allah, how come the said Gospel became forged? Does Allah not have the power to preserve his own revelations?

Show us proof of such gospel. Show us proof of the forgery you claim on the current Bible.


Your belief is inconsequential as long as it runs contrary to reality.


I have asked you to show us the discrepancies between the manuscripts that existed before Mohammed and the transcriptions from those manuscripts which we use today. Bring out disparities from the original Hebrew and Greek texts.

Forgeries in the Bible are merely Islamic hearsays. No evidence. No proof.



The Quran is not an authority in anything whatsoever as it does not even accurately describe events. Such blunders as Mariam the sister of Aaron being the mother of Jesus or the Samaritan who was in the congregation in Moses' days, or that Solomon died standing, and the many embarrassing blunders leave much to be desired of it for an authority. There's no single truth in the whole book. It's all fabrications, lies, etc.

That's why:

1. Mohammed has no proof of any angelic visit.

2. Nothing the Quran says in its warped historical narratives has any evidence anywhere in history.

3. There's no evidence anywhere that God endorsed mohammed.

4. There's no manuscript anywhere where mohammed was recorded as a coming prophet. Your Papias reference is flawed as Papias never made any reference pointing to any Ahmad dead or alive in his days.

4. All found manuscripts have been miraculously preserved. Different kings and emperors of Rome tried their best to obliterate the existence of the Biblical manuscripts but God showed His Sovereignty by preserving them. I don't know why Allah could not preserve the so called revelation of Jesus! Did Allah reveal it only for it to be destroyed and not useful to anyone? Why is Allah so powerless that his Injeel was destroyed without any trait?

The same Torah that existed before Jesus is what we're still using today in our Churches. The same Gospel books that the early fathers who lived before Mohammed read in their gatherings are still the same books we use today. Did you even read that Eusebius quoted from our current book of Mathew as far back as 185 AD? Where did you get your forgery tales from?

This is delulu grandeur!

I thought it is a common knowledge that all the canonical gospels were anonymously written.

Nobody knows who wrote all your gospels.

Are you not familiar with this fact or you just want to be hiding like an ostrich?

Your scriptures both the old and new testament have been fingered.

GothamCities:
My friend, it was the same book that existed before Mohammed, during mohammed and after Mohamed. There's no difference between what we carry today and the manuscripts that existed before Mohammed.

Did Mohammed know it was forged before he declared it as the Injeel? When he declared that the Injeel, was he declaring the forged books? When exactly was the book forged? How was it forged? Who forged it?

This is the false Islamic narrative that has been sold to you in order to prevent you from reading the Bible or believing anything in it. If the Christians forged their own Bible, why is the Old Testament Bible of the Christians the same as that of the Jews? Or did the Jews and Christians sit down at the same table to forge the Torah?

If the Bible has been forged, why would it maintain the original texts, contexts and themes as the oldest existing manuscripts including newly discovered manuscripts of the dead sea scrolls in 2017?

The Bible contains prophecies and words that could be used to test its authenticity. Why would anyone want to adulterate it? Why is the forged book still fulfilling prophecies today?

This is one of the many lies aka Islam dilemma you all be chanting around.

Qur'an is not calling the forged gospels you have now as injeel. Injeel was a scripture revealed to Jesus. it would have been revealed in Aramaic or Hebrew and it is most likely what Papias was describing.

Our belief has always been the earlier scriptures have been fingered and the message there in adulterated.

Here is what Qur'an actually says about the Bible.

Q5:48
We have revealed to you this Book with the truth, as a confirmation of previous Scriptures and a SUPREME AUTHORITY on them. So judge between them by what Allah has revealed, and do not follow their desires over the truth that has come to you. To each of you We have ordained a code of law and a way of life. If Allah had willed, He would have made you one community, but His Will is to test you with what He has given ˹each of˺ you. So compete with one another in doing good. To Allah you will all return, then He will inform you ˹of the truth˺ regarding your differences.

so Qur'an is meant to be a supreme authority over the previous scripture and not affirm everything there in.

GothamCities:
The forgeries are merely imaginary. They only exist in Islam. There's no evidence anywhere for such. Please get out of the Islamic institutional deceit.

And it is very obvious the gospels we have now are forgeries.

Matthew an eye witness to the ministry of Jesus can not be using Marks (that was not eye witness) to write his own account.

WHERE IS THE GOSPEL WRITTEN BY MATTHEW IN ARAMAIC/HEBREW DESCRIBED BY PAPIAS??

And who the heck wrote this gospel you are carrying around as gospel according to Matthew?

PROVERBZ:
u quoted a verse where Isah says there would be a prophet named Ahmad. What I didn't see there is that he would be a prophet for all nations. I need a verse where isah says this before we can move on.
The reason why I am demanding this is because u claimed isahs message was named Good news because he came to introduce a prophet for all mankind which previous prophets were not and this makes it a big news. Personally, I fail to see how this is a good news. Prophets are simply messangers and i don't think any community celebrated the coming of a prophet in the Bible. People waited and celebrated the coming of a messiah tho.

At least you have seen a verse where Jesus talked about Ahmad.

Q7:158
Say, “O humanity! I am Allah’s Messenger to you all. To Him ˹alone˺ belongs the kingdom of the heavens and the earth. There is no god ˹worthy of worship˺ except Him. He gives life and causes death.” So believe in Allah and His Messenger, the unlettered Prophet, who believes in Allah and His revelations. And follow him, so you may be ˹rightly˺ guided.

Isaiah 42 also described him as a light to all nations.

GothamCities:
My dear, what do you mean by "that original Mathew!" The earliest earliest surviving manuscripts of the book of Mathew date back to the 2nd or 3rd century AD. These are manuscripts that are about 400yrs older than Mohammed. These manuscripts forms the basis of our current Book of Mathew. There's nowhere in the earliest manuscripts or in the translations where the name Ahmad was ever mentioned. Why are you guys so bendy on being deceived?

1. Early manuscripts of Mathew: Codex Vaticanus (c. 325-350 AD) and Codex Sinaiticus (c. 350 AD) are two of the oldest and most reliable manuscripts.

2. Patristic citations: Quotes from early Church Fathers, such as Origen (c. 185-254 AD) and Eusebius (c. 260-340 AD), provide valuable insights in the book.

Some notable manuscripts of Matthew's Gospel include:

- Codex Vaticanus (c. 325-350 AD)

- Codex Sinaiticus (c. 350 AD)

- Codex Alexandrinus (c. 400-440 AD)

- Codex Ephraemi Rescriptus (c. 400-440 AD)

All these manuscripts correlate remarkably with each other!

My guy you are the one that has been deceived. You are the one carrying a forged book around calling it message of Christ. I'm sorry to break this sad news to you.

GothamCities:
There's no manuscript anywhere that contains this lie.

Of course there is no manuscript that contains that truth, because you guys have nothing other than forgeries.

PROVERBZ:
I didn't ask u about this fairy tales, lol. I simply asked u to show Me the Islamic sources where Jesus claimed that there would be a prophet for all nations coming after him. Don't bother about Christian sources, use your Islamic sources. I heard u have a whole chapter written about Jesus and that his name was mentioned more times than any other. Surely, something as important as this would have been included and u would not have to make it up to try and correct the Islamic delimma I pointed out.

So the Qur'an verse I quoted flew over your head??

And in the meantime, you all can accept it's forged documents you are carrying around calling the message of Christ.

GothamCities:
There's no news about that! Everyone knew before Jesus Christ that the Kingdom of God was coming. It was no news at all. So, what's the Good News about that as far as Jesus is concerned? The News had existed before Jesus and is not related to Jesus at all.

Jesus didn't talk about any coming prophet. If you think He did, kindly show us where.

The Good News is a message of Salvation. The remedy for perishing souls which is found in Christ alone. That's what the Good News was all about. It has been so before Mohamed, during mohammed and after Mohamed. The Good News has not changed. It only changed in Islam.

Here is how Papias described gospel written by Apostle Matthew

"Papias said that Matthew the Apostle was the first to write a gospel, and that he did so in Hebrew. Papias also said that others translated the Hebrew or Aramaic gospel to the best of their ability. "

The Mathew we ended up with was written in Greek and forged using Marks.

Bring me that original Mathew and I will show you where Jesus talked about the final messanger.

Q 61:6
And ˹remember˺ when Jesus, son of Mary, said, “O children of Israel! I am truly Allah’s messenger to you, confirming the Torah which came before me, and giving good news of a messenger after me whose name will be Aḥmad.” Yet when the Prophet came to them with clear proofs, they said, “This is pure magic.”

PROVERBZ:
Good.. use Islamic sources to show me where Jesus is recorded talking about this prophet for all nations.

My bro, if u are not able to fins this, then u must explain how u came about this hogwash u made up.

Perhaps it's time to accept that Allah copied the Christians without thinking.

Here is how Papias described gospel written by Apostle Matthew

"Papias said that Matthew the Apostle was the first to write a gospel, and that he did so in Hebrew. Papias also said that others translated the Hebrew or Aramaic gospel to the best of their ability. "

The Mathew we ended up with was written in Greek and forged using Marks.

Bring me that original Mathew and I will show you where Jesus talked about the final messanger.

Q 61:6
And ˹remember˺ when Jesus, son of Mary, said, “O children of Israel! I am truly Allah’s messenger to you, confirming the Torah which came before me, and giving good news of a messenger after me whose name will be Aḥmad.” Yet when the Prophet came to them with clear proofs, they said, “This is pure magic.”

PROVERBZ:
Does this not sound stupid to u?? Firstly, like u said, daniel and every other prophet had talked about this 'kingdom coming' so it wasnt new. Also, why didn't the message of the person who prophesied the coming of Jesus get his message called good news since in islam Jesus is supposed to be the messiah?

The messiah concept in Islam is also another Dilema for Islam. Messiah means anointed one and was used to refer to a savior. The jews were waiting for a miilitary savior to save them from the Roman's and the Christians expected him to make atonement for their transgressions there by granting salvation and saving them from the fires of hell. Now, my question is, what is Isah anointed to save in Islam? From the account of Islam, he was the most useless prophet ever. His message got missing, didn't do nothing etc.
Why is he the messiah?

Why all this dilemmas??

You may benefit on strengthening your logical reasoning skills.

All previous prophet before Prophet Muhammad were all sent to some group of people or some sect, The last prophet is to the whole of mankind, So it's a big thing coming. Bringing such news is a good news.

And the kingdom of God is supposed to end the Romans rule. The Roman empire is no more here for some centuries now. FOR HOW LONG SHOULD WE WAIT FOR??

All this nonsense someone dying for your sins is all hogwash that have no scriptural backing. And no, our prophet is not useless. He will complete his mission on his 2nd coming.


All those dilemmas are just in your head!

PROVERBZ:
Cc Qasim6 steep ken4christ

The good news Jesus Christ brought was the glad tidings of the final messanger and also the Kingdom of God that was coming.

Same Kingdom of God prophesied by Daniel.

So, Yeah his message was good news in all ramifications and you guys should stop fooling around with all these nonsense nonexistence Islam dilemma.

Man-shitty downfall is finally here.

But where was this downfall when Arsenal needed it last season

Padipadi:
Let's save it for crêtins like Manchester United

Fairs

Padipadi:
2 more nukes for Forest. Na 3-0 dem go chop

I'm thinking 4, make we use them wake up from our slumber

RightChannel:
For allah to have adopted the usage of Royal We as you guys said it means allah has partners or group of people in Royalty. Who are these people or partners of allah for him to have used We?

Why do you think the Arabs have to use it the same way the English monarch use it?

In Proverbs 9:10 qadosh was in plural form in Hebrew but translated as "the holy one" because they understand it is a majestic plural and not plural of number. what do you have to say about that?

RightChannel:
We all seen and read from the quran that happens to be the direct statements of allah layer mentioned and reckon with some females goddesses. For allah to have adopted Royal We as you said, don't you think allah is referring to these female deities?

No, you have not read anything. You are only deceiving yourself.
The names of those goddesses are mentioned in chapter 52 of the Qur'an.

This is the back story: the Arabs used to detest having female child to the extent that some even killed their female child but they worshiped goddesses uzza, ulat and manat and they believed these 3 goddesses were daughters of Allah.

Then Allah address this in the Qur'an

Q 53:19 Now, have you considered Lat and Uzza
Q53:20 and the third one, Manat, as well?
Q 53:21 Do you prefer to have sons while you attribute to Allah daughters?
Q 53:22 Then this is a biased distribution!
Q 53:23 These ˹idols˺ are mere names that you and your forefathers have made up—a practice Allah has never authorized. They follow nothing but assumptions and whatever their souls desire, although true guidance has already come to them from their Lord.

It is just a way of speaking sense into them.
— You hate having daughters but you believe God Almighty has daughters.

And verse 23 even make it known those names were just mere names their ancestors cooked up with no authority.

So why will the WE now be a reference to Allah and the same goddesses Allah is telling us are mere names they cooked up themselves?

AntiChristian:
Engaging you guys is a waste of time and effort.
I can't keep going in circle. You can believe whatever you want.



You don summarize how dumb he is. I wonder how his life is in reality if not in the same circles!

As in those guys reeks of dumbness and it's a common traits in all of them. I don't really know why they behave that way.

I already gave him evidence that the two scholars he brought did not believe what he is claiming they believe but he kept bringing it because he copied that from AnsweringIslam and I am supposed to swallow it.

Kukutente23:
I already gave you the name of the scholar. It is for you to disprove it with facts. Here are facts that you've not been able to disprove concerning the acclaimed use of royal we in the Qur'an:
1. There is no use of royal we in pre-Islamic Arabia
2. The southern Arab tribes had no kings or royalty so there was never any word specifically designated for royalty or majesty in those places
3. The explanation of royal we is an afterthought at best since there's no reference from the Qur'an or Hadith to support it. There's no evidence that the claim is correct.

I already told you why I think it is used in the Qur'an. My personal opinion is that it was used because that's how the pre-Islamic Arabs referred to their gods in conversations. Most polytheistic religions use the plural respect in the second and third person plural when referring to their gods. We see this in Canaanite worship, Greeks and even African religion. What is important to understand is that monotheistic religions never use this. Judaism does not. Hinduism and Zoroastrianism does not neither does Christianity. So the use of plural is a vestige of the cultural practices prevalent in Arabia among the polytheists and not any royal we as you all erroneously claim.
What detail are your saying the narrator was mistaken about. The answer is either right or wrong regardless of the satisfaction of the questioner the Hadith might even be lying that the Rabbi accepted the answers as true. But we all know the answer is wrong. And that question was meant to test Muhammad's prophethood claim. He failed.
Are you saying the camel urine drinking Hadith is a lie now?

Engaging you guys is a waste of time and effort.
I can't keep going in circle. You can believe whatever you want.

Kukutente23:
Is Allah the given name of God now in Islam? I thought Allah simple means God in Arabic. If it is the given name, then it implies that the Islamic God is totally different from the Jewish God since the Jewish God's given name is Yahweh. Also, since the name Allah has existed in Mecca before Muhammad, it means Allah is simply an Arabic idol and not the God described in the Qur'an whose prophets are majorly Jewish. That will mean the Qur'an is a lie cause an Arabic idol cannot have Jewish prophets. It just doesn't make sense.
There are Jews that accepted Jesus as saviour too such as Nicodemus. But the general view among Jews is that Jesus did not come to die for their sins nor was he a son of God. Same holds for Muhammad. It's also not true to claim Jews sabotaged Muslims in a war. That's just an excuse for the expansionist plans of Muhammad.
The Bible also uses kings to refer to rulers of Egypt. Pharaoh and king is used interchangeably. Besides, Pharaoh has been used for the king of Egypt since the time of early civilisation so there's nothing to it. The use of Pharaoh dates back much farther than you claim. It's put at 3150BCE

Qur'an 112
Say: He, Allah is one
Allah the Sustainer
He begets not nor is He begotten
And there is none comparable to Him.

The name of God in Islam is Allah with all the several names He used to describe Himself in the Qur'an.
Unfortunately u don't even know if Yahweh is the correct pronunciation of YHWH.

The Arabs always identify Allah as the supreme being before Islam and Allah was not worshiped as Idol, it is the same name Arab Christians used for God before Islam, and most likely the Jews of Medina would have used the same name for God.

If it is not true they sabotage the Muslims then tell us what actually happened.

No bro, it is a known fact that the usage of Pharaoh for kings in Egypt only dates to the New kingdom era and not 3150BCE. The kings at the time of Abraham and the time Joseph were not called Pharaohs.

The Encyclopaedia Britannica states:
“Pharaoh, (from Egyptian per ʿaa, “great house”), originally, the royal palace in ancient Egypt. The word came to be used metonymically for the Egyptian king under the New Kingdom (starting in the 18th dynasty1539–1292 BCE), and by the 22nd dynasty (c. 945–c. 730 BCE) it had been adopted as an epithet of respect. It was never the king’s formal title, though, and its modern use as a generic name for all Egyptian kings is based on the usage of the Hebrew Bible.”

Kukutente23:
The languages that made allowance for the use of risk We had historical explanation for it. In the case of the Qur'an, it was strange as such usage did not exist in pre-Islamic Arabia. I already pointed out that Islamic scholars already agreed that royal We did not exist in pre-Islamic Arabia. So if it's a creation of Islam, it should have been explained in the hadith or Qur'an just as that of Moses in Exodus 7:1 was explained.

Whether the Jewish Rabbi was satisfied does not change the fallacy in that claim. So you agree with Muhammad's answer that orgasm determines a child's facial resemblance with his parents. The simple question the Rabbi should have thought of is a situation whereby the child does not resemble both parents. Does that mean the mother automatically can be convicted for adultery? Since according to Muhammad a child must resemble either father or mother.
Where's the evidence they got cured? Are you aware the Arabian govt have actually banned the drinking of camel urine because of its health hazard? Like, I'm sure if it was not a prophet of Islam that asked people to drink camel urine, you'll probably be mocking the followers of that religion for being so gullible but here you are defending the drinking of camel urine. OK let me ask. Do you agree with those Christians who drink holy water for healing?

Guy, you don't have any proof that it was not used pre-Islam. All you are trying to do is impose how it is/was used by English monarch on the Qur'an and I don't really get why it has be the same way.

There are no Islamic scholars that agreed the rhetoric was not used pre-Islam. Stop relying on AnsweringIslam, they are going to embarrass you.
The fact that there is no evidence of anyone getting confused about its usage is also a testament to the fact that it was not new to them.

And I will like to know your own theory on why it is used in the Qur'an, do you also think it refers to Allah and his daughters like Antiislam or you have a different opinion?

Don't ask me if I agree or dont agree.
The fact is the questionnaire already had a prior knowledge to what he was asking and he was satisfied with the answer he got.
It is Hadith, the narrator of the Hadith might have been mistaken on the details. If it is Qur'an text it will be a different thing entirely.

Of cos they need to ban the drinking of camel urine because the Prophet did not say it is a cure to every ailment and there is another narration of the same Hadith that only mentioned camel milk and did not mention urine.

Kukutente23:
It's not about worshipping same God or not. It's obvious from the Qur'an that Muhammad was referring to the Israelites God YHWH in his Qur'an. Funny enough, he never used the given name of God but instead seemed to prefer the Arabic transliteration of Eloha. Maybe because that's the name he's familiar with from his tribe. The fact is that Jews don't see Muhammad as a prophet. They rejected him totally which is why he declared them unbelievers and waged wars against them. I'm not aware of any Jew who believes Islam is a fulfilment of anything.

How's it a mistake that the Egyptian kings were called Pharaoh? What should they have been called according to the Quran.

If you agree that the knowledge of the prophets was already known before Muhammad, how then is his rendition of stories that are already known a revelation?

Well, Allah is the name by wish God revealed himself to Muhammad and he did not reveal himself as YHWH to Abraham too, so there is nothing funny about that.. what is actually funny is how the correct pronunciation of YHWH became forgotten.

Guy stop making stuff up, there are Jews that accepted Islam during the life time of the Prophet and he did not declare them unbelievers. Even Christians with their many Gods were not declared unbelievers. They are called People of the book in the Qur'an
The Muslims only begin to fight the Jews when they started sabotaging the Muslims like what the banu Qurayza did.

The decipher of the Egyptian hieroglyphs in the 18th century have shown that the Qur’an’s use of the terms ‘Pharaoh’ and ‘King’ in relation to Egypt is historically accurate.

Qur'an only use Pharaoh when speaking of Moses encounter with Egyptian king and used King when talking about Abraham and Joseph encounter with Egyptian kings.

Pharaoh only started being used as a title for the king much later in Egyptian history, during the New Kingdom period (1550-1069 BCE).

But the Bible used Pharaoh for the kings Abraham and Joseph encounter in Egypt.

Dsimmer:
Because you can't debunk my fact. You can't do taqiya with me with a foreign Arab religion 😅

I reiterate, Arab pedophile Mohammad had nothing to write about the exploits of his Arab ancestors (Ishmael's ancestors) hence the reason why he had to plagiarize the Jewish history which he muddled up in his Quran without sequence 😂 The camel urine drinking dumb Pedophile.

Btw, Have you drank your own camel urine today? 😅

Pele my dear, you will be alright.

Don't worry, you won. no taqiyya today

Dsimmer:
Says the one championing the stupidity of a camel urine drinking Pedophile foreign Arab criminal Mohammad. The irony. You're wailing because I always whoop you with facts which you can't debunk. You can't do taqiya with me. Lol.

As a matter of fact, Mohammad plagiarized the Jewish history which he muddled up in Quran, even as the Jewish history had nothing to do with him to begin with, considering Jacob and Jacob descendants are not the ancestors of Mohammad. Mohammad is an Ishmael's descendant. But since he had nothing to write about the exploits of his Arab ancestors, he had to write the Jewish history but then, why muddle up the names and events of the Jewish history which had nothing to do with him to begin with? Meanwhile, you can't even find the sequence of events in the Quran which is muddled up. It's only in the Bible that people can find the sequence of the Jewish history.

Meanwhile, Have your dumb self drank your own camel urine like the dumb camel urine drinking Arab Pedophile criminal Mohammad asked dumb people like him to drink camel urine?

Na just this copy and paste every where
Sorry dear, u'll be okay.

Kukutente23:
Where does historical narrative prove the Quran narrative of Jewish history to be true? I challenge you to give just one example. Do you know why you guys are in conflict with Jews today, because they believe Muhammad was a fake prophet who came and distorted their history and books. You know nothing.
Again, nothing Muhammad wrote in his quran about Jewish narrative was unknown at the time he was born. There were Christians as well as Jews in Mecca. Even his uncle Waraqah was a Christian. Do you dispute these facts?

You are just making up a lot of stuff

U are likely to see an orthodox Jew that will tell you they worship the same God as the Muslims .

I know there are some that consider him a false prophet but there also Jews that believe he is a prophet to the Ishmealites. Infact some of them consider the advent of Islam as a fulfillment of Genesis 17:20.

For a start on the challenge
Why are the Egyptian kings at the time of Abraham and Joseph called Pharaoh in the Bible?

Qur'an does not make that mistake.

And I haven't said anywhere that the Arabs were living in isolation and they knew nothing about Jews and Christians.

Kukutente23:
Well, you are wrong. The language does not allow for that. In reality, it is like a grammatical blunder but the reason for it is well known. The reason for Allah's We is disputed because it is not known. It is not congruent with any other cultural usage of the word that is known in the pre-Islamic Arabia and you have to rely on English usage that is totally unrelated to attempt an explanation. Note that even the English royal we is grammatically inconsistent. But it is understood just as the Elohim usage is understood. That is the simple thing that we require from you guys on this thread. This is page 5 and nothing is forthcoming from you guys.




There is no such usage pre-Islam. The southern Arabian tribes of which Muhammad's Quraysh is one never had any royalty not to mention having a pronoun reserved for their royalty. The northern tribes who had Kings were never organized enough to have written texts and organization. How many things did his followers know or understand? Even the Miriam/Mary debacle was raised by the Jews not his followers. When he claimed that a child resembles who first achieved orgasm among his parents, none of his followers is known to have questioned him. Heck!! When he told them to drink camel urine, they did not question him. Questioning or doubting the prophet is viewed as unbelief not so?

I don't really care if the usage of plural for a singular being in all the languages that it is being used is a grammatical blunder or not.. the fact remains that there are languages that accomodate that.

You will have to bring evidence of how people were surprised for its usage when those verses were revealed, if you can't then abeg let this argument slide.

The Miriam/Mary was raised by Christians of najran and not Jews.

The person that asked the question about child resemblance was a Jewish Rabbi and he was satisfied with the answer he got for whatever question he asked because he became a muslim afterwards.

The people he prescribed the camel urine for indeed got cured of their ailment. So??

Kukutente23:
Let me quickly correct some ignorrance from you based on your very limited knowledge of Jewish history and culture.
David was a King. A King in biblical times is usually anointed as seen by Samuel anointing both Saul and David in his days and Nathan anointing Solomon as King. Now in Psalms, it is clearly written that "Touch not my anointed". In other words, the anointed one of God is not to be touched by the people even if they commit sin. It is for that reason that Miriam was stricken with leprosy for condemning Moses, Eli's sons were left untouched even when they offered profane sacrifices, David numbered the people and Kings led Israelites to idolatry but were never punished by the people because the general belief is that prophets, priests and Kings have immunity from Moses' laws. I hope that explains your misconception of why David was not punished for adultery by stoning.
In the case of Jesus and the harlot, Jesus did not prevent the men who were ready to stone her. He only told them to stone her if they were also without sin at which they ran away probably because they were her customers themselves and Moses' law required that both the male and female adulterers were to be stoned together. It is this awareness that made them leave the scene cause they couldn't stone her without carrying out same on themselves.
If you insist that Mary was exempted from the charge of adultery because baby Jesus spoke up, then it also implies that Jesus should have been exempted from the charge of blasphemy levied against him by the Jews since he performed many miracles in thier presence. Instead, the Jews accused Jesus of using Beelzebub to cast out demons in Matthew 12. You need to know that the Jews' grouse with Jesus was his rejection of their interpretation and practice of Moses' laws without any mercy or temperance. So it is not about being dogmatic. In every narration, you have to look at the historicity and the possible reasons. Swallowing anything told you just makes you a blind follower. Muhammad did not explain to anyone how Jews accepted Mary as an unmarried woman with child!! He simply waived it aside due to his ignorance.
I'm happy you are aware of the general conception that it was the gospel of James that Muhammad was influenced by in his narration of the life of Jesus and Mary. However, note that Muhammad did not read them himself. He only repeated the parts that are well known in oral renditions. You need to know that Jews give oral rendition of accounts and they sometimes differ based on the sect the teacher belongs to. What is obvious though is that Mary's father was not Imran. Whether you go with Luke's genealogy or James's, Imran was the father to Moses and Miriam and not Mary. If Mary's father's name was Imran, then the gospel of James would have registered it. The obvious thing is that Muhammad confused Miriam with Mary. That's why there is so much similarity between the two as it concerns the quran

All I can see here is just too much talk and no ingredient.
You guys just want to talk from every side of your mouth.

When the Qur'an confirms the Biblical narratives.
---- He copied the Bible

When the Qur'an go against the Biblical narratives.
--- He made a mistake

When historical evidence proof the Qur'an narrative to be true and the biblical narrative to be false for the same event.
--- He must have heard it somewhere else.