[ernestombayo7]

I posed a simple question to the thread starter,

And the big question, why should we trust the koran narrative of jesus which was written 600 years after the life of Jesus,has no eye witness accounts or support,and to top it all up,the authors of the koran never saw,or personally interviewed Jesus or any eye witness to the supposed events.

We should discard evidence given by Jesus own disciples,his brother and various eye witnesses who wrote the new testament in Israel where the events occured,for a document written in Medina Saudi Arabia,600 years later.

and he failed to answer that.

[Ndigila2]

Originally Posted by Muhammad_4

Did Romans Crucified Jesus?
I asked you this question before, but let me repeat again:
His legs were not broken by the Roman soldiers: John 19:32-33: "Then came the soldiers, and broke the legs of the first, and of the other which was crucified with him. But when they came to Jesus, and saw that he was dead already, they broke not his legs." Can you rely on these soldiers' assertion that Jesus was dead, or did they want to save him out of their belief that he was really innocent?

I've answered this before. It seems you're only concerned with asking questions but not listening to the answers.

First of all, by claiming that his legs weren't broken means that your admitting that he was already on the cross. Meaning that he was crucified, (which defeats the Islam claim that someone else was crucified in his place).

Secondly, your logic is flawed. Jesus was crucified in front of a crowd, not only infront of the soldiers. If the soldiers really wanted to save him, then why did they let other people take the body down and bury him? Do you think that it's only soldiers who know how to tell whether a man has died?

Originally Posted by Muhammad_4

Hebrews 7:3. "Without father, without mother, without descent, having neither beginning of days, nor end of life; but made like unto the son of God; abideth a priest continually."
Who is he? The answer is in Hebrews 7:1: "Melchisedec, king of Salem, priest of the most high God, who met Abraham ..."
He is more unique than Jesus or Adam. Why is he not considered a son of God or God Himself? !
You answer that please!

Man, you should at least make an effort to understand Christianity before criticizing it.

The passage in context compares Christ's priesthood to the priesthood of Melchisedec as opposed to the Levitical priesthood. The Levitical priesthood depended on descent, Melchisedec's genealogy isn't mentioned not because he didn't have one, but because his priesthood didn't depend on genealogy.

In any case, you still haven't answered the question. Why did Jesus have to be born of a Virgin if he was merely meant to be a prophet?

[Ni_Diambo]

I hear you, 111.

At one time, the guy can hardly construct a coherent sentence in English. The next moment, he's an expert in Greek to English translation. All questions asked are dodged and converted to discussing the Bible. if you dont believe it, visit all these threads in this section.

I asked a basic question that has never been answered: Is the Word of God as good as God Himself?

You can't engage this guy in any intelligent discussion. As I said before, to him, this forum is a preaching one. the rest of us see it as an open discussion one.

[ATLian]

Originally Posted by Ni_Diambo

Inheriting Mohammed_4's mantle? Karibu jukwaani.

With this stories going around of people using multiple handles, I'd bet that Muhammad_4 is Fulldoz. Look at the grammar, the lack of paragraphs, the exact sort of content, the apparent pasting of other people's thoughts, etc.

[ATLian]

Originally Posted by Dr. Krent

The prophet Isaiah, in Isaiah 53, prophesied of someone who was to come and "be cut off" from among his people for "their transgressions". In his prophesy, Isaiah likened that person to a lamb of God. .

Is there a chance that, like the Jews believe, Isaiah's prophesy hasn't been fulfilled yet? Maybe Christians started celebrating in the 2nd quarters while the game still had 2 more quarters to go! Maybe in 2067, the real Lamb that Isaiah mentioned will come!

[flexxxx]

Right, im not amuslim, nor a christian, nor ajew, but i thought mohamed, who formed islam, was born about 570 AD ??

how could jesus have been a muslim? damn confused

[Muhammad_4]

Originally Posted by ernestombayo7;

We should discard evidence given by Jesus own disciples,his brother and various eye witnesses who wrote the new testament in Israel where the events occured,

Mhh! Very clever question!
But I posed this question some months ago and I didnt get an answer, so let me repeat may be you can have an answer today:
Read what Luke said about his recording in 1:2-3. "Even as they delivered them unto us, which from the beginning were eyewitnesses, and ministers of the word. It seemed good to me also, having held perfect understanding of all things from the very first, to write unto thee in order, most excellent Theophilus."
If Luke had said that he himself was not an eyewitness and the knowledge he gathered was from eyewitnesses and not as words inspired by God, would you still believe that the Bible is God's word?
Similarly the Christians (atleast those I know) do not believe that there is a book that was written by Jesus or one of his disciples during his lifetime that was lost after that.
As for the Gospel that is in your hands, they acknowledge that it was not written by Jesus (peace be upon him), nor did he dictate it to someone else to write it down. Rather they wrote it after the Messiah was taken up (into heaven).
They are agreed that Luke and Mark did not see the Messiah, rather he was seen by Matthew and John. These four accounts which you call the Gospel, and you call each one of them a Gospel, were written by these men after the Messiah had been taken up into heaven. They (Writters) did not say that they are the word of God or that the Messiah conveyed them from God, rather they narrated some of the words of the Messiah and some of his deeds and miracles.
With regard to the Christians, there is no dispute among them or anyone else that only one hundred and twenty men believed in the Messiah during his lifetime… and all of those who believed in him concealed themselves and were afraid during his lifetime and afterwards; they called people to his religion in secret and none of them disclosed himself or practised his religion openly, because any of them who was caught was executed.
They continued in this manner, not showing themselves at all, and they had no place where they were safe for three hundred years after the Messiah was taken up into heaven.
Then when the Emperor Constantine became a Christian, the Christians prevailed and started to practise their religion openly and assemble in safety.
If a religion is like this, with its followers practicing it in secret and living in constant fear of the sword, it is impossible for things to be transmitted soundly via a continuous chain of narrators and its followers cannot protect it or prevent it from being distorted. (quoted from the Book Al-Fasl, 2/4-5.)
In addition to this huge disruption in the chain of transmission of your books, which lasted for two centuries, these books did not remain in the languages in which they were originally written, rather they were translated, more than once, by people whose level of knowledge and honesty is unknown. The contradictions in these books and their shortcomings are among the strongest evidence that they have been distorted and that they are not the Gospel (Injeel) that Allaah revealed to His slave and Messenger ‘Eesa (peace and blessings of Allaah be upon him). Allaah indeed spoke the truth when He said (interpretation of the meaning): “Had it been from other than Allaah, they would surely, have found therein many a contradiction”[4:82].

[!!!111]

so, then, we should take the word of a single illiterate desert wanderer who claims that Allah spoke to him and dictated every single word directly to him instead? I'd rathe rbelieve several corroborating stories than stories from one single source that claims monopoly over truth and God.

What proof does your mohammed have that God indeed did speak to him? And how come so many of the supposed original words of Allah borrow from jewish and Christian faiths that precede Islam? And just why are muslims so obsessed with the annihilation of Jews, who are a cornerstone and foundation of their faith? Who wrote down the Koran? Mohamed was illiterate, which means he had someone write the words down, which means he had the possibility of inserting his own interpretations on the final copy!

Use the Koran to answer this Question if you dare, mohamed.

[Muhammad_4]

Originally Posted by !!!111;

I'd rathe rbelieve several corroborating stories than stories from one single source that claims monopoly over truth and God.
......Use the Koran to answer this Question if you dare, mohamed.

It seems very strange to me! that you have already decided which position you are taking, then you want me to bring proof from the Quran! What is the use of that while you have already take the position?!
Let me stick with the Gospel:
I would like to point out that, the Gospel which speaks most of the belief in the trinity and the divinity of the Messiah (peace be upon him), so that it has become a reference-point for the Christians in your arguments in support of this falsehood, is the Gospel of John.
This Gospel is subject to doubts about its authorship even among some Christian scholars themselves, as is not the case with the other Gospels in which you believe. This is an ancient doubt which goes back to the second century CE according to your own history.
Professor Stadlin says: The entire Gospel of John was written by one of the students of the Alexandrian school. One sect, in the second century, rejected this Gospel and everything that was attributed to John".(end of the quote)
In the Encyclopaedia Britannica it says:
As for the gospel of John, it is undoubtedly fabricated. Its author wanted to pitch two of the disciples against one another, namely St. John and St. Matthew".
This writer who appears in the text claimed that he was the disciple who was loved by the Messiah, and the Church took this at face value and affirmed that the writer was the disciple John, and it put his name on the book, even though the author was not John for certain. This book is like the books of the Torah, in that there is no connection between them and the one to whom they are attributed. We feel sorry for those who did their utmost to make the connection, between this philosopher who wrote the book in the second century, and the disciple John the fisherman, for their efforts were to no avail and with no guidance.(Quoted from Muhaaraat fil-Nasraaniyyah by Shaykh Muhammad Abu Zahrah).
It is strange indeed that you (Christians) cast aspersions on the authorship of this Gospel which you affirm was written especially to support this falsehood, the false belief in the divinity of the Messiah, which is ignored in the other gospels, until this gospel was written, at the least.
Yoosuf al-Khoori says: John wrote his Gospel at the end of his life, at the request of the bishops of Asia and elsewhere. The reason for that is that there were sects that denied the divinity of the Messiah, so they asked him to prove it, and to highlight that which Matthew, Mark and Luke had neglected in their Gospels.
So, take the heed !!!111

[!!!111]

I told you to answer from an Islamic perspective, and you chose to answer from the perspective of a christian-basher. Not to mention that you didn't actually address the questions posed.

You are a waste of breathing air. Go somewhere quiet and engorge yourself with food.