How can we be sure that Jesus did not die on the cross?
-
The Quran is in an Arabic tongue of Quraysh. Mohammed, Ahmed and Mahmood are hebrew words. They are used in the hebrew scriptures as descriptions not as proper names. The parents of Mohammed were probably versed in Hebrew but because he was an orphan, the Qurayesh clan raised him. It is like being in Egypt and thinking that Joseph is an Egyptian but he was not. He was a Hebrew.
So, you're saying that Muhammad, though raised in modern-day Arabia, was actually a Hebrew? -\
This is wrong. The name Muhammad in the instances in the Bible are the same descriptions given in the Qur'an
And those who believe and do good works, and believe in what was sent down to Muhammad (the praiseworthy), for it is the truth from their Lord... (472)
It's the same word and same descriptions, just used in a different (but similar) language. The Hebrew transcript literally says "mahamad" (or mahmad), and according to Ben Yehuda's Hebrew-English Dictionary, this word is pronounced "MAHAMAD", which is nearly identical to "MOHAMMED". Also, it is defined as "lovely, coveted one, precious one, praised one". And, as we already know, the Arabic word for "praised one" is MUHAMMAD. So, these are different variations of the same word. There is no difference between "mahamad" and "muhammad" other than cultural dialect. It's like comparing the name "Abraham" to "Ibrahim", or "Jerusalem" to "Yerushalayim". Both pairs are cultural variations of the same words. There is no difference in meaning.
Peace,
Ahmad
-
So, you're saying that Muhammad, though raised in modern-day Arabia, was actually a Hebrew? -\
This is wrong. The name Muhammad in the instances in the Bible are the same descriptions given in the Qur'an
And those who believe and do good works, and believe in what was sent down to Muhammad (the praiseworthy), for it is the truth from their Lord... (472)
It's the same word and same descriptions, just used in a different (but similar) language. The Hebrew transcript literally says "mahamad" (or mahmad), and according to Ben Yehuda's Hebrew-English Dictionary, this word is pronounced "MAHAMAD", which is nearly identical to "MOHAMMED". Also, it is defined as "lovely, coveted one, precious one, praised one". And, as we already know, the Arabic word for "praised one" is MUHAMMAD. So, these are different variations of the same word. There is no difference between "mahamad" and "muhammad" other than cultural dialect. It's like comparing the name "Abraham" to "Ibrahim", or "Jerusalem" to "Yerushalayim". Both pairs are cultural variations of the same words. There is no difference in meaning.
Peace,
Ahmad
Read these verses in context and you will find that Mohammed is not a person but simply means lovely or desire. In the arabic language, Mohammed is never used as a description for something lovely or pleasurable. It is almost always used as a proper name. And it started from the prophet. Mohammed was a very unique name for an Arab. Note also that Mohammed descended from a tribe called Bani-Hashem. Does the word Hashem ring any bells? Yep. Hashem is a hebrew word for 'the name'. Jews call God Hashem as they think YHVH is too holy to be pronounced. But Hashem could also be referring to a person in the Hebrew scritpures.
1Ch 1134 The sons of Hashem the Gizonite, Jonathan the son of Shage the Hararite
Hashem = "fat"
- a Gizonite, father of some sons who were members of David's mighty warriors.
Peace.
-
Read these verses in context and you will find that Mohammed is not a person but simply means lovely or desire. In the arabic language, Mohammed is never used as a description for something lovely or pleasurable. It is almost always used as a proper name. And it started from the prophet. Mohammed was a very unique name for an Arab. Note also that Mohammed descended from a tribe called Bani-Hashem. Does the word Hashem ring any bells? Yep. Hashem is a hebrew word for 'the name'. Jews call God Hashem as they think YHVH is too holy to be pronounced. But Hashem could also be referring to a person in the Hebrew scritpures.
1Ch 1134 The sons of Hashem the Gizonite, Jonathan the son of Shage the Hararite
Hashem = "fat"
- a Gizonite, father of some sons who were members of David's mighty warriors.
This is an interesting comparison, but it is based on your interpretation. The literal translation of Solomon 516 is
HIKKO MAMITTAKIM WIKULLO MUHAMMADIM ZEHDOODEH ZEHRAEE BAYNA YARUSHALAM.
"His mouth is most sweet yea, he, MUHAMMAD. This is my beloved, and this is my friend, O daughters of Jerusalem."This text, which is translated as "altogether lovely", is clearly speaking about a person. Therefore, the one described as "mahamad" is an actual human being; it's not used as a description. It's a name.
-
Arabic came after hebrew and aramaic. I really don't see Mohamad in any of the verses mentioned in the links you gave. It just isn't there.
Have you read about the Pentecost? How about the fruits of the Holy Spirit? This is not the effect of Mohammad!! Sorry.
I'm not sure what the fasting issue is
Acts 13
Barnabas and Saul Sent Off
1In the church at Antioch there were prophets and teachers Barnabas, Simeon called Niger, Lucius of Cyrene, Manaen (who had been brought up with Herod the tetrarch) and Saul. 2While they were worshiping the Lord and fasting, the Holy Spirit said, "Set apart for me Barnabas and Saul for the work to which I have called them." 3So after they had fasted and prayed, they placed their hands on them and sent them offMany Christians fast at Lent, before communion on retreats- We do not go around saying we fast for that would not be humble.
-
But is Mohammad the beloved of any one from Jerusalem?
All of this needs to be read together as one train of thought.
10 My lover is radiant and ruddy,
outstanding among ten thousand.
11 His head is purest gold;
his hair is wavy
and black as a raven.12 His eyes are like doves
by the water streams,
washed in milk,
mounted like jewels.13 His cheeks are like beds of spice
yielding perfume.
His lips are like lilies
dripping with myrrh.14 His arms are rods of gold
set with chrysolite.
His body is like polished ivory
decorated with sapphires.15 His legs are pillars of marble
set on bases of pure gold.
His appearance is like Lebanon,
choice as its cedars.16 His mouth is sweetness itself;
he is altogether lovely.
This is my lover, this my friend,
O daughters of Jerusalem. -
Peace Pvb,
But is Mohammad the beloved of any one from Jerusalem?
You have to consider the spiritual aspect of that poem/song. Throughout the Hebrew scriptures (i.e. the Torah), the "spouse" of Bani-Israel is Allah Himself, and He often speaks of His love for the nation of Israel. When they turn away from Him and worship false gods, throughout the Biblical books of Isaiah and Jeremiah, He even refers to it as "adultery". In Isaiah 545, He plainly calls Himself the "husband" of Israel. So, when the "muhammadim"/praised one is referred to as the "beloved", it is speaking about this one being the beloved of God. The fact that it also says, "O daughters of Yerushalam" shows that this person would be separate from the Bani-Israel, as was Muhammad of Arabia. The word "doodi"/beloved is not used exclusively in the Hebrew scriptures; it is often used to describe God's prophets, messengers, and others specifically blessed by Him. It's also used in the Greek scriptures to refer to Yeshua (Jesus) and his followers.
Peace,
Ahmad
-
LOL! We have really gotten off topic here. I was somewhere and the thread was closed when it went off topic!
Look at all of Song Of Solomon from the first chapter, is Mohammad in any other verses? If a main character, the beloved of GOD then he should be mentioned some where else in the Book.
Yes this is about the relationship of GOD and His people, Jesus and the Church.
http//www.searchgodsword.org/com/mhc-con/view.cgi?book=so
http//ldolphin.org/wedding.html
Sorry I don't see Mohammad here.
-
Peace Pvb,
This is amazing to me... Christians look at this verse, and many of them openly and boldly declare that this passage is about JESUS, even though it clearly says MUHAMMAD. ) So, how do you know this passage is about Jesus? The Hebrew scriptures were defined by comparison and prophetic analogies. It doesn't necessarily have to mention a prophet's name to be referring to him. However, in this case, the prophet's name IS clearly mentioned; yet you still reject it... The Hebrew name "YESHUA" means "salvation", and it can also be translated to mean "the Lord is salvation". Yet, I can guarantee that if this passage said, "I am seeking my Lord for 'yoshia'/salvation," Christians would IMMEDIATELY say this is a direct mention of Jesus (Yeshua). That doesn't seem hypocritical to you?
Peace,
Ahmad
-
Are you referrng to?
http//www.menorah.org/yeshname.htmlBut Jesus is salvation- His actions of laying His life down for us earns Him the spot. So not only is His name mentioned but His actions also are recorded. All of the Holy Bible leads to Jesus.
One small word points to what you think is Mohammad's name, but the whole chapter does not point to Mohammad. Mohammad has never been a beloved of Jerusalem.
Sorry it just isn't there. I know how desparately Muslims want Mohammad to be in the Holy Bible, it would validate them and their religion.
This has actually been a funny discussion for me- on another forum a Muslim accused the Bible of supporting pornography - Song of Solomon was the Book sited as being pornographic!! LOL!
-
Peace Pvb,
This is amazing to me... Christians look at this verse, and many of them openly and boldly declare that this passage is about JESUS, even though it clearly says MUHAMMAD. ) So, how do you know this passage is about Jesus? The Hebrew scriptures were defined by comparison and prophetic analogies. It doesn't necessarily have to mention a prophet's name to be referring to him. However, in this case, the prophet's name IS clearly mentioned; yet you still reject it... The Hebrew name "YESHUA" means "salvation", and it can also be translated to mean "the Lord is salvation". Yet, I can guarantee that if this passage said, "I am seeking my Lord for 'yoshia'/salvation," Christians would IMMEDIATELY say this is a direct mention of Jesus (Yeshua). That doesn't seem hypocritical to you?
Peace,
Ahmad
I am not taking sides here but, for info;
Once a sort of freind , a sometimes drugy character, saw me standing in a shop and walked in and said "Br .......,you don't know me at all", and i started wondering what the hell is talking about "You don't know how great a person i am" , "Did you know that i am even mentioned in the quran by name" hypno
God Almighty what is the world coming to........
God Bless.
-
Peace Pvb,
But Jesus is salvation- His actions of laying His life down for us earns Him the spot. So not only is His name mentioned but His actions also are recorded. All of the Holy Bible leads to Jesus.
So, despite this same Bible saying that God is THE ONLY SAVIOR ('beside Him there is no other', you are still content with saying that Jesus is a savior too? What blasphemy! )
The Hebrew scriptures mention Muhammad several times. I already pointed out several examples for you. What about the countless number of times he's mentioned in the Biblical book of Isaiah, where it depicts him spreading the message to the gentiles? Jesus never preached to the gentiles, and he said his message was for the Jews only. Muhammad is the one who preached to the gentiles...
I know how desparately Muslims want Mohammad to be in the Holy Bible, it would validate them and their religion.
This statement is HILARIOUS! The Christian Bible was admittedly constructed at the Council of Nicea, a historical fact, which was orchestrated by a man who WASN'T EVEN CHRISTIAN OR JEWISH! It is a completely forged document which contains a few documents of authenticity, like an ear of corn with only one good kernel. laugh How can the Bible "validate" anything? It isn't even validated itself...
Peace,
Ahmad
-
Peace,
This dispute is expected and it will not go away. This is because the scriptures are fundamentally different. Even the name of God is different. The Quran's Torah and Injeel have no relation to the Bible whatsoever. Maybe some of the true teachings echo through the Jewish and Christian literature. But the Quran quotes the Book of Moses, the Torah and the Injeel and these quotes are not found in the KJV Bible. Thats was one of the reasons the Quranic revelations were mandatory as a mercy to mankind.
981 Those who rejected amongst the people of the Scripture and those who set up partners would not leave until proof came to them.
982 A messenger from God reciting purified scripts.
983 In them are valuable books. (all the initialed verses that clear common disputes eg. truth of Mary)Peace.
-
Peace Rami,
This dispute is expected and it will not go away. This is because the scriptures are fundamentally different. Even the name of God is different. The Quran's Torah and Injeel have no relation to the Bible whatsoever. Maybe some of the true teachings echo through the Jewish and Christian literature. But the Quran quotes the Book of Moses, the Torah and the Injeel and these quotes are not found in the KJV Bible. Thats was one of the reasons the Quranic revelations were mandatory as a mercy to mankind.
Perhaps you are correct, at least to an extent... The Bible has definately been changed, and there's literally no disputing that; it's been historically verified plenty of times. However, in the original Hebrew and Aramaic texts, they may have been very similar (if not identical) to the Arabic qur'an. For a fact, the qur'an echoes many of the stories mentioned in the Legends of the Jews and in the oral traditions; so perhaps this was the real Torah. As of right now, regarding these concepts, we don't know if they're true or not... For a certainty, though, the Injeel (or "Gospel" is not the same script as the 4 Gospels in the Bible cannon today, and the Taawrah (or "Torah" is not the same as the Biblical Hebrew scriptures. Still, I think parts of these scriptures may possibly be contained within the Bible, especially in the original texts and in the original languages...
Peace,
Ahmad
-
Sorry but the Gospels John, Mark, Matthew and Luke have not been changed- your Quran validates the very Gospel we have today as the Scripture send down by GOD. Does GOD allow His scripture to be altered? Muslims say no!! LOL!! If the Gospel has been changed then so has the Quran and that is why Uthmann burned the various renderings.
Look up the Peshitta written in aramaic- the language of Jesus. The Gospels in use today are the very same used by the earliest Christian church.
It is only your interpretation of the Quran that makes it seem so alien to the Holy Bible.
Rami- I have been told that Muslims do not have the person name of GOD mentioned in the Quran- it is the generic word for the God. Yes the personal name of GOD is in the Bible.
You are correct until Muslims interprete the Quran correctly they will never see the truth that is in the Gospel.
LOL!! The Quran even mentions the truth of the resurrection of Jesus.
019.033
YUSUFALI "So peace is on me the day I was born, the day that I die, and the day that I shall be raised up to life"!
PICKTHAL Peace on me the day I was born, and the day I die, and the day I shall be raised alive!
SHAKIR And peace on me on the day I was born, and on the day I die, and on the day I am raised to life.This next verse could be a prophecy about Muslims themselves!
019.034
YUSUFALI Such Jesus the son of Mary a statement of truth, about which they dispute.
PICKTHAL Such was Jesus, son of Mary a statement of the truth concerning which they doubt.
SHAKIR Such is Isa, son of Marium; the saying of truth about which they disputeJesus is the WORD of GOD made flesh!! A manifestation of GOD.
019.035
YUSUFALI It is not befitting to Allah that He should beget a son. Glory be to Him! when He determines a matter, He only says to it, "Be", and it is.
PICKTHAL It befitteth not Allah that He should take unto Himself a son. Glory be to Him! When He decreeth a thing, He saith unto it only Be! and it is.
SHAKIR It beseems not Allah that He should take to Himself a ! son, glory to be Him; when He has decreed a matter He only says to it "Be," and it is.How many Messsiah's are mentioned in the Quran?
-
Hi everyone. How can we be sure that Jesus (pbuh) did not die on the cross when even secular historians attest to the idea that he did? ???
There is no sectarian hostorian that attest that he did lol, Josephus and other "accounts" have been proven false and josephus was admittedly forged by the catholic church
-
Sigh Wow your contradicting yourself This should be easy, GOD willing.
Sorry but the Gospels John, Mark, Matthew and Luke have not been changed- your Quran validates the very Gospel we have today as the Scripture send down by GOD.
Typical response of a christian that hasn't even studied origin of bible
The following is quoted from "Text, NT," from the Interpreter's Dictionary of the Bible, 2nd edition, (Abingdon, 1962), p. 595-598
"A study of 150 Greek MSS (manuscripts) of the Gospel of Luke has revealed more than 30,000 different readings...It is safe to say that there is not one sentence in the NT in which the MS (manuscript) tradition is wholly uniform...But there are many thousands which have a definite effect upon the meaning of the text...It is equally true that many of them do have theological significance and were introduced into the text intentionally...Many thousands of variants which are found in the MSS of the NT were put there deliberately. They are not merely the result of error or of careless handling of the text. Many were created for theological or dogmatic reasons. It is because the books of the NT are religious books, sacred books, canonical books, that they were changed to conform to what the copyist believed to be the true reading. His interest was not in the "original reading" but in the "true reading"- as perceived by the Roman goyim (Gentiles), Christian redactors, or course".
Make sure not to miss the bold. As you can see scribes would change the meaning of verse depending on their religious stance. Admitted in your BIBLE
Does GOD allow His scripture to be altered? Muslims say no!! LOL!! If the Gospel has been changed then so has the Quran and that is why Uthmann burned the various renderings.
Modern day Gospels aren't GOD's scriptures, they are a result of oral transition for about 10-20 years. There were many Gospels running around, some which even said Jesus wasn't GOD. Jesus and his disciples were dead by the time they started writing new testament manuscripts(which weren't even thought of as a divine revelation!) so there was noone to verify which was true or not. The gospel of jesus in the quran is the words of jesus spoke to his disciples. Considering we don't even have any proof of what jesus actually said to his disciples(Gospels weren't written by disciples the author is annonymous) yeah, we can't say the christian Gospel is Jesus word's. Nice try.
Look up the Peshitta written in aramaic- the language of Jesus. The Gospels in use today are the very same used by the earliest Christian church.
It is only your interpretation of the Quran that makes it seem so alien to the Holy Bible.
What does that have to do about anything, you just proved the invalidity of the gospels. Jesus spoke aramaic and our oldest gospels(Except a VERY few) are all written in greek. And are found after his death and his disciples. Why exactly can't we find a gospel written in Aramaic? Ironically, Peshitta isn't written till around what 6th century? That is about 500 years after jesus died, that's not accuracy at all.
Rami- I have been told that Muslims do not have the person name of GOD mentioned in the Quran- it is the generic word for the God. Yes the personal name of GOD is in the Bible.
If your refering to YHWH, your totally wrong. First of all, YHWH doesn't mean "I am", which is proven by scholars in this subject. I'll link you with an article that proves YHWH doesn't mean "I am" and the real definition of it is in the quran surah 32, In your new testament it doesn't have the correct definition of YHWH.
http//www.jewishencyclopedia.com/view.jsp?artid=52&letter=N&search=YHWH#164
ExcerptIn appearance, Yhwh () is the third person singular imperfect "al" of the verb ("to be", meaning, therefore, "He is," or "He will be," or, perhaps, "He lives," the root idea of the word being,probably, "to blow," "to breathe," and hence, "to live." With this explanation agrees the meaning of the name given in Ex. iii. 14, where God is represented as speaking, and hence as using the first person?"I am" (, from , the later equivalent of the archaic stem ). The meaning would, therefore, be "He who is self-existing, self-sufficient," or, more concretely, "He who lives," the abstract conception of pure existence being foreign to Hebrew thought. There is no doubt that the idea of life was intimately connected with the name Yhwh from early times. He is the living God, as contrasted with the lifeless gods of the heathen, and He is the source and author of life (comp. I Kings xviii.; Isa. xli. 26-29, xliv. 6-20; Jer. x. 10, 14; Gen. ii. 7; etc.). So familiar is this conception of God to the Hebrew mind that it appears in the common formula of an oath, "ai Yhwh" (= "as Yhwh lives"; Ruth iii. 13; I Sam. xiv. 45; etc.).
Don't miss the bold
You are correct until Muslims interprete the Quran correctly they will never see the truth that is in the Gospel.
LOL!! The Quran even mentions the truth of the resurrection of Jesus.
I have proven above the gospel is no means a true representation of what jesus said or taught, and early christians didn't believe it was divinely inspired.
"With the exception of Papias, who speaks of a narrative by Mark, and a collection of sayings of Yeshua, no Christian writer of the first half of the second century (i.e., up to 150 C.E.) quotes the Gospels or their reputed authors." Orpheus, Reinach, p. 218
"It is certain that they (the early Christians) believed the Old Testament books to be a divine and infallible guide. But the New Testament was not so considered. The latter collection was not called Scripture, or put on a par with the Old Testament as sacred and inspired, till the time of Theophilus of Antioch (180 A.D.)" (Ibid. 5).
The new testament wasn't even considered divien until 180 A.D. That's 150 years after christ died.
Nowhere in the quran does it say jesus got crucified
019.033
YUSUFALI "So peace is on me the day I was born, the day that I die, and the day that I shall be raised up to life"!
PICKTHAL Peace on me the day I was born, and the day I die, and the day I shall be raised alive!
SHAKIR And peace on me on the day I was born, and on the day I die, and on the day I am raised to life.This next verse could be a prophecy about Muslims themselves!
019.034
YUSUFALI Such Jesus the son of Mary a statement of truth, about which they dispute.
PICKTHAL Such was Jesus, son of Mary a statement of the truth concerning which they doubt.
SHAKIR Such is Isa, son of Marium; the saying of truth about which they disputeJesus is the WORD of GOD made flesh!! A manifestation of GOD.
019.035
YUSUFALI It is not befitting to Allah that He should beget a son. Glory be to Him! when He determines a matter, He only says to it, "Be", and it is.
PICKTHAL It befitteth not Allah that He should take unto Himself a son. Glory be to Him! When He decreeth a thing, He saith unto it only Be! and it is.
SHAKIR It beseems not Allah that He should take to Himself a ! son, glory to be Him; when He has decreed a matter He only says to it "Be," and it is.Yes jesus is the word of GOD, GOD said "be" and jesus was made, jesus isn't GOD, so you can try to stop twisting the scriptures.
How many Messsiah's are mentioned in the Quran?
The question is How many messiahs are in the bible, I can name 4 off the top of my head, King Cyrus, Solomon, King David, Jesus
If anything you've proven the quran superior to bible
-
But don't believe me let's see what scholars have to say about the new testament
"In the Twentieth Century it is astounding to hear Christian people declare that the Bible and particularly the New Testament , says so-and-so, and that therefore it must be true. Do they not understand that the New Testament is a collection of books of varying credibility only in the Fourth Century A.D., by clergy having the limited mentality of that very uncritical age?" (Authur Weigall, The Paganism in Our Christianity, G. P. Putnam's Sons, New York, 1928, p. 34).
"The Scriptures were in the hands of the clergy only, and they had every opportunity to insert whatsoever they pleased; thus we find them (New Testament) full of interpolations. Johann Solomo Semler, one of the most influential theologians of the eighteenth century, speaking of this, says " The Christian doctors never brought their sacred books before the common people; although people in general have been wont to think otherwise; during the first ages, they were in the hands of the clergy only" (Robert Taylor, Diegesis, p. 4.
"All the earliest external evidences points to the conclusion that thy synoptic gospels are non-apostolic digesis of spoken and written apostolic tradition, and that the arrangement of the earlier material in orderly form took place only gradually and by many essays..." (T. W. Doane, Bible Myth And Their Parallels In Other Religions, The Truth Seeker Co., New York, 1882, p. 463.).
-
Peace,
wow With no intention of sounding biased, Real Truth hit the nail right on the head, and he's definately done a sufficient amount of research on this subject...
bravo Very good information, RT, and great post. Welcome to the forum...
Peace,
Ahmad
-
Hi everyone. How can we be sure that Jesus (pbuh) did not die on the cross when even secular historians attest to the idea that he did? ???
salaam pg & all,
strange as it may, we can actually ask jesus (isha) about it.
ponder on this verse
2200. Fa-itha qadaytum manasikakum faothkuroo Allaha kathikrikum abaakum aw ashadda thikran famina alnnasi man yaqoolu rabbana atina fee alddunya wama lahu fee al-akhirati min khalaqin
2200. So when you (pl.) have determined your solitude, remember God like you remember your forefathers, or a better remembrance. But some people say, ?Our Lord, accomplish us in this world,? and in the Hereafter, none to him any share!then, this verse
2154. Wala taqooloo liman yuqtalu fee sabeeli Allahi amwatun bal ahyaon walakin la tashAAuroona
2154. And don?t you (pl.) say about anyone killed in the path of God as dead. They are alive rather, even though you do not perceive them.when we remember jesus (among our forefathers. so too are abraham, muhammad, jacob, joseph, solomon, etc. we are all of the same mould and origin.), and ask him, insha-Allah he will talk to us. read the second part of 2154 with extra care, please. insha-Allah, God will allow us to attain a perception beyond imagination, for God is the Lord of comprehension. He is the Merciful Compassion.
but if asking jesus is beyond your courage, then ask God Himself.
also ponder on these verses
2152. Faothkuroonee athkurkum waoshkuroo lee wala takfurooni
2152. Therefore, you (pl.) remember Me, I shall remember you, and be grateful to Me, and don?t you disbelieve.-
Wa-itha saalaka AAibadee AAannee fa-innee qareebun ojeebu daAAwata alddaAAi itha daAAani falyastajeeboo lee walyu/minoo bee laAAallahum yarshudoona
-
And when My servants ask you (s) about Me, verily I am close. I shall answer pleas of support when one pleads to Me, so let them answer My call, and have faith in Me, so that they follow the right way.
-
Wa-in jahadaka AAala an tushrika bee ma laysa laka bihi AAilmun fala tutiAAhuma wasahibhuma fee alddunya maAAroofan waittabiAA sabeela man anaba ilayya thumma ilayya marjiAAukum faonabbi-okum bima kuntum taAAmaloona
-
Even if they compel you to compare Me, of which you have no knowledge, then do not obey them, and socialize amicably with them in this world, while you pursue the way of one who frequently turns to Me. Moreover, your (pl.) recourse is with Me, therefore I am advising you what you should be doing.
and of course, please ponder on the verses quoted by TheNabi (joe).
our wish is that we spend much more time 'entertaining' (dedicated to; engrossing ourselves in) God, rather than ideas diametrically opposed to the lessons contained in the Qur'an. please revert to God, as indicated by emboldened red of 3115 above.
may God guide us all. insha-Allah.
peace
mohammed noh -
-
LOL!! I don't think you want to use arguments against the Holy Bible that are exactly the type that can be found against the Quran. You would learn much if you used the effort of discrediting the Bible to find out the truth.
Read the following, Paul was referencing the Scripture in his Epistles.
1 Corinthians 15
3For what I received I passed on to you as of first importance that Christ died for our sins according to the Scriptures, 4that he was buried, that he was raised on the third day according to the Scriptures, 5and that he appeared to Peter, and then to the Twelve. 6After that, he appeared to more than five hundred of the brothers at the same time, most of whom are still living, though some have fallen asleep.When did Paul live, ca 5 - 67 AD. So the Gospels that we have today actually existed before 67AD.
Cool - an internal reference to the truth of that Bible. Does anything like that exist in the Quran? So much is made on the number of Books accepted by the different Christian groups- that doesn't matter!! What does- the 4 Gospels were always considered the GOSPEL Truth.
Have you ever read anything about Polycarp or the students of the original disciples?
Oh and don't make the mistake of combining the Gospel and New Testament into one entity- LOL! I know how you like the number 1!! The Gospel is a part of the New Testament.