1) The "Prophet" contradicts many of the teachings of earlier prophets, eg the teaching of monogamy. A genuine prophet, because he speaks on behalf of God can develop but not contradict an earlier prophet's words. Why? Because God cannot change his mind or He is imperfect and not omniscient (all knowing). We remember, that Muhammad claimed that God changed his mind on which direction to pray to three times (Kabaa, Jerusalem, then the Kabaa again). Strange that.

Monogamy wasn't taught by earlier Prophets.  Jacob had Racheal and Leah, Abraham had Sarah and Hagar, both King David and King Solomon has mulitple wives and concubines.  Polygamy was practiced by the jews for centuries after Christ, even some Christians practiced polygamy in the early church. 

Now, I'm not Muslim.  I just wanted to point out the first contradiction you posted was not a contradiction.  Sorry.  And for Catholicism, there is alot taught by the Catholic Church that is their own creation.  Priestly celebacy, etc are evolutions in Christianity, not founded in scriptural evidence.

I'm not Muslim, I'll leave that to the Muslims.  But, I would like you to post the references in your bible to the priestly celebacy.

Since, Jesus, John and the Apostles were Jews and Rabbis marry.  Also, the Popes and priests of the early Catholic Church married, OH and the EASTERN ORTHODOX CHRISTIANS, who are older than the Roman Papacy have married priests and unmarried priests?

Welcome, Melco:

The "Prophet" contradicts many of the teachings of earlier prophets, eg the teaching of monogamy. A genuine prophet, because he speaks on behalf of God can develop but not contradict an earlier prophet's words. Why? Because God cannot change his mind or He is imperfect and not omniscient (all knowing). We remember, that Muhammad claimed that God changed his mind on which direction to pray to three times (Kabaa, Jerusalem, then the Kabaa again). Strange that.

Not to seem disrespectful, but, when it comes to some matters religious, what isn't strange?

I'm not a Muslim either, but, just taking your first point, what are at least parts of the the Sermon on the Mount if not, I won't say a contradiction, but an abnegation of the Mosaic (from Moses) laws which preceded it?  Jesus, in that sermon, said: "Ye have heard it said [by Moses] an "eye for an eye" ... but I say unto you [this, opposite] ..."  Also, it was under the then-existing Mosaic Law that the woman (naturally) taken in adultery was brought to be stoned (punishment as per Moses).  Jesus is said to have interrupted that and was thus, as I see it, probably sealing his fate (with the Sanhedrin) in the process.  I suppose, in that unique and characteristically paradoxical Christian sense, this could be considered a mere "development" rather than a "contradiction," but I notice that that same rather flexible allowance for paradox is not usually extended to Islam.

At any rate, these are a couple of cases in point and I state, at the outset, and in anticipation, that I am disinclined to engage in what seem at times endless discussions, or prevarications, concerning the differences between the Schools of Hillel and Shammai or any of those other ill-defined "Jewish fables" that St. Paul warns against somewhere and early on in the book of Titus.

How's this for a punchy opener on my part?  Now, with this salvo, I'm back to discussing that other strange thing: politics!

Welcome, again, and I hope that your time here proves rewarding.

Best regards,

Servetus

Very logical and to the point, bro servetus. Hitting a bull eye is one thing that I always admire.

I thought, bro Melco, your ignorance about Islam, reflected through your questions, could be attributed to a general trend among non-Muslims. However, I am surprised to know when you talk about your own, with the same level of ignorance. This is indeed very strange.

Melco wrote: 3) I don't buy the line that Jesus' true teaching was lost and the Gospel is in error. The Gospel was cross-checked by hundreds of witnesses, while the Qu'ran is dependent entirely on the religious experience of one man.

Which gospel are you talking about, bro Melco? Gospel according to Jesus or according to someone else? Also, kindly provide your references for those �hundreds of witnesses� who cross-checked the gospel. This gospel, thta you claim to be cross-checked, was it in English, Greek, Latin or was it in Aramaic? Merely closing the eyes can�t hide the facts.  

Melco wrote: Perhaps, we stop calling each other ignorant, none of us here know the full truth.

Now this is a realistic view that I must appreciate.

Melco wrote: �..what I mean by "contradiction" and "development" . There is such a thing as an organic development, which I consider Islam not to be, but a mishmash and in many instances a regression.

Melco wrote: AhmadJoyia, biblical scholars agree that the written texts followed and were secondary to the oral transmission of witnesses, who together with the apostles were witnesses to various parts of Jesus' story. Mark's Gospel was written in about 70ad, because many of the witnesses were being executed or growing old.

So, is there any authenticity in oral transmissions? I mean were these not be considered as folk lure myths/stories, people still used to narrate in some part of the world? Where is the evidence? Simple statements like �Multitude of people heard��..� can�t be considered a reliable evidence. Isn�t it? Secondly, since when �Mark� and �Luke� are considered to be among the 12 Apostles? Not appointed by Jesus himself, at least that I can tell. Thirdly, if anonymous person�s accounts, such as Mark (without true ID of Last name), came into written form about half a century later, what level of authenticity can be attributed to other accounts, which all came later than Mark, and heavily depended on his account?

Melco wrote: There are many clues in the texts, which show that  these witnesses were drawn from, eg in Mark's Gospel it says that Simon of Cyrene was the father of Rufus, etc. (This was added as a reference to where the story came from and was included as these were known to the Christian community).

How could books of anonymous authorship provide any authentication for their legitimacy? I don�t know.

Melco wrote: One of St. Paul letters to the Corinthians dates from 50ad and already establishes that the Christian community was already taking shape without there being any written Gospels at that stage.

Yap! St. Paul�s accounts could be seen as authentic, but the fact is, he himself wasn�t there when everything happened around Jesus. He didn�t even meet Jesus in his life on earth. But yet we see him being the champion of defining faith.

Melco wrote: There obviously had too be many witnesses to supply this early community with Jesus' sayings and miracle stories.

Kindly provide their names. Without this, no authentication can be established. Is there any publication that can be considered authentically reliable without the author�s credentials?  

Melco wrote: Yes, there are 4 gospel accounts, each with different communities they are writing for and different goals.

Kindly associate these communities with the 4 gospels that you wish to consider. I shall appreciate it as I really don�t know of them.

 

Melco wrote: My eyes are wide open, my friend, I have seen the Lord and he has called me 3 times, I am not groping entirely in the dark for answers.  Peace be with you!

But, my brother, the OT as well as Jesus in NT said that no one has seen the �Lord�. How is it that you come to contradict them? I think, I don�t have any other way to analyze your statement other than as what you say, though you may claim anything having seen it.

Christians believe their religion to be correct, Muslims believe their religion to be the true religion, etc.  blah, blah, blah

A persons religion is based upon faith, not in historical facts, rational discussions, etc.  When a person finds something they are looking for in a particular religion they then give their faith to it.

Do you think that little boys and girls in the United States being raised as Christians are going to be anything other than Christians?  OK, maybe a few will not.  Indoctrination is not 100% effective.

Some will begin to think for themselves and question what was taught them as fact!

Same holds true for all little boys and girls regardless of the faith they are being indoctrinated in.

I am raising my children to think and decide for themselves.  If they grow up and decide to become Muslim, Buddhist, etc and are happy, then they have made the right decision for themselves!

Quadratus, to Emperor Hadrian about 125 AD:

Justin Martyr, to Emperor Antoninus Pius about 150 AD:

Welcome, Liberty:

"Christians believe their religion to be correct, Muslims believe their religion to be the true religion, etc.  blah, blah, blah.  A persons religion is based upon faith, not in historical facts, rational discussions, etc."

Sorry.  Are you meaning to suggest that St. Augustine, for example, employed neither facts nor rationality in his works?  What about Hans K�ng?  Finally, if rationality has nothing to do with it, why would the Prophet Isaiah (1:18) write:

"Come now, let us reason together ..."

Serv   

Melco wrote: 10) Why is there is still little prosperity in Muslim countries?

That is not a religious fault. 

Dear Malco! Peace be on you. Here are the replies to your post:

1) The "Prophet" contradicts many of the teachings of earlier prophets, eg the teaching of monogamy. A genuine prophet, because he speaks on behalf of God can develop but not contradict an earlier prophet's words. Why? Because God cannot change his mind or He is imperfect and not omniscient (all knowing). We remember, that Muhammad claimed that God changed his mind on which direction to pray to three times (Kabaa, Jerusalem, then the Kabaa again). Strange that.

Reply:   It is your ignorance to say that earlier Prophets preached monogamy:

The Qur�an is the only religious book, on the face of this earth, that contains the phrase �marry only one�. There is no other religious book that instructs men to have only one wife. In none of the other religious scriptures, whether it be the Vedas, the Geeta, the Talmud or the Bible, does one find a restriction on the number of wives.

According to these scriptures one can marry as many as one wish. It was only later, that the Hindu priests and the Christian Church restricted the number of wives to one. In earlier times, Christian men were permitted as many wives as they wished, since the Bible puts no restriction on the number of wives. It was only a few centuries ago that the Church restricted the number of wives to one.

Polygamy is permitted in Judaism. According to Talmudic law, Abraham had three wives, and Solomon had hundreds of wives, Solomon had over 900 wives etc. The practice of polygamy continued till Rabbi Gershom ben Yehudah (960 C.E to 1030 C.E) issued an edict against it. The Jewish Sephardic communities living in Muslim countries continued the practice till as late as 1950, until an Act of the Chief Rabbinate of Israel extended the ban on marrying more than one wife.

Quran is the only religious book on the face of the earth that says �marry only one�. The context of this phrase is the following verse from 4:3: "Marry women of your choice, two, or three, or four; but if ye fear that ye shall not be able to deal justly (with them), then only one."

Before the Qur�an was revealed, there was no upper limit for polygamy and many men had scores of wives, some even hundreds. Islam put an upper limit of four wives. Islam gives a man permission to marry two, three or four women, only on the condition that he deals justly with them. In the same chapter it is said: "Ye are never able to be fair and just as between women...." [Al-Qur�an 4:129] Therefore polygamy is not a rule but an option.

By nature males and females are born in approximately the same ratio. A female child has more immunity than a male child. A female child can fight the germs and diseases better than the male child. For this reason, during the pediatric age itself there are more deaths among males as compared to the females. During wars, there are more men killed as compared to women. More men die due to accidents and diseases than women. The average life span of females is more than that of males, and at any given time one finds more widows in the world than widowers.

In the USA, women outnumber men by 7.8 million. New York alone has one million more females as compared to the number of males, and of the male population of New York one-third are gays i.e sodomites. The U.S.A as a whole has more than twenty-five million gays. This means that these people do not wish to marry women. Great Britain has four million more females as compared to males. Germany has five million more females as compared to males. Russia has nine million more females than males. God alone knows how many million more females there are in the whole world as compared to males.

Suppose my sister happens to be one of the unmarried women living in USA, or suppose your sister happens to be one of the unmarried women in USA. The only two options remaining for her are that she either marries a man who already has a wife or becomes public property. There is no other option. All those who are modest will opt for the first.

Allah�s decrees never contradict and no one can alter Allah�s commands except for Him alone, neither He change His mind but it is our limitation to which he eases His commandments.

Like once we seek for repentance or forgiveness Allah changes his decree from punishment to forgiveness. Secondly none of the decree given in Quran which was later altered contradicts. Like once Allah says don�t offer prayers once you are intoxicated, and later we are told that wine is forbidden and is Satanic. Does it contradict? The first order is still valid.

If you could read the three chapters of Old Testament you will come to know what it contains for Jews and Christians. Read Exodus and Leviticus and tell me that if these instructions were not meant to be followed why were they given to you people?   

So why the direction or KAABA was changed? Because, before (the Children of Ismael) or the Ismaelites the Jews were regarded as the Ummah or the divine nation. They denied the Prophet Hood of Muhammad (like of Jesus) but were given a time to accept Muhammad as their awaited Prophet or the Messiah. But they didn�t.

So the divine honour to worship in the direction of Jerusalem was taken away as a sign that the Jews no more holds the position of �Chosen People of God� and Mecca was declared as the new direction of worship. Kabba just denotes the unity of Muslim nation-hood and that they all worship one and only God, thus they face one direction to represent that there is only one centre and that is One God. But Christians can�t face one direction as you consider 3 gods and confuse it One God. How can be there one centre for you? Let it be clear that no Muslim worship the Kabba itself, they just pray in the direction.

2) It seems to focus on a God who is "all merciful", but it's followers are often unmerciful, eg Muhammad led a massacre in retaliation. Surely, Jesus teaching of turning the other cheek is more advanced, therefore, Muhammad is making a regressive change to an earlier prophet's teachings.

Reply:   When this massacre took place and where?? The conquer of Mecca is probably the only example in the world history where not even a single individual lost his life. The Jesus saying is taken out of context, he never said that revenge should not be taken rather he meant to say it is better to forgive at certain times. If you think that is in reality what he meant, then what about the rapist who rape one sister and kill her, would you offer the second one to do the same?? Moreover what would you say about this: "If any man come to me, and HATE NOT his father, and mother, and wife, and children. . . HE CANNOT be my disciple." LUKE 14:26.

3) I don't buy the line that Jesus' true teaching was lost and the Gospel is in error. The Gospel was cross-checked by hundreds of witnesses, while the Qu'ran is dependent entirely on the religious experience of one man.

Reply:   There are some over 5000 contradictions in Bible but the space doesn�t permit me to quote these all. Here are some major, for an ignorant like you:

(a) "No man hath seen God at any time John 1: 18 (b) " (God) whom no man hath seen, nor can see .,."I TIMOTHY 6:16 (c) "And he (God) said, Thou canst see my face: for there shall no man see me, and live. EXODUS 33:20

Contradicted by: (a) "And the Lord spoke unto Moses face to face, as a man speaketh unto his friend Exodus 33:11 (b) 'And they (Moses, Aaron and seventy others) saw the God of Israel . ." EXODUS 24:10 (c) "And Jacob called the name of the place Peniel for I have seen God face to face, and my life is preserved GENESIS 32:30

And as a special favour God shows his back parts to Moses "And I (God) will take away my hand and thou shalt see my back parts . . . " EXODUS 33:23

Other contradictions: (a) The "Lord" tempted David . . . 2 SAMUEL 24:1 or "Satan provoked David . . . I CHRONICLES 21:1.   (b) 700 or 7000? "Horsemen" or "Footmen" . . . ? 2 Samuel 10:18 vs 1 CHRONICLES 19: 18.    (c) Solomon had 2000 baths or 3000 baths? 1 KINGS 7-26 vs 2 CHRONICLES 4:5.    (d) Solomon had 4000 stalls of horses or 40000? 2 CHRONICLES 9:25 vs 1 KINGS 4:26.    (e) Did Saul enquire of the Lord or didn't he? 1 SAMUELS 28:6 vs 1 CHRONICLES 10:13-14 (f) Heaven, no man hath ascended JOHN 3:13 Contradicted by. 2 KINGS 2:11 Elijah ascended, and GENESIS 5:24 Enoch ascended.    (g) Jesus lost "None" of his disciples JOHN 18:9 Contradicted by. He lost only "One" JOHN 17:12    (h) ALL are sinners 2 CHRONICLES 6:36 Contradicted by: "Whosoever is born of God DOTH NOT commit sin.." 1 John 3:9.

Please approach these witnesses and religious scholars to eradicate these some of the contradictions so that I could let you know about the others. While Quran is guardian for itself: 15:9 Surely We have revealed this message and We will most  surely be its guardian (against any alterations).

Strangely these experiences of the man even admonishes himself, gives instructions to himself and not a single word has been altered since last 1500 years. So I think you should try to read these experiences and compare these with other religious books you would find the answer.

29:48. And you did not recite before it any book, nor did you transcribe one with your right hand, for then could those who say untrue things have doubted.

69:44. And if he (Muhammad) had fabricated against Us some of the sayings, 45. We would certainly have seized him by the right hand, 46. Then We would certainly have cut off his aorta. 47. And not one of you could have withheld Us from him. 48. And most surely it is a reminder for those who guard (against evil). 49. And most surely We know that some of you are rejecters. 50. And most surely it is a great grief to the unbelievers. 51. And most surely it is the true certainty 52. Therefore-glorify the name of your Lord, the Greatest.

4:82. Do they not then ponder on the Quran? that if it would have from any other than Allah, they would have found in it many contradictions.

12:105. And how many signs in the heavens and the earth which they pass by, yet they turn away from these.

4) I have had many (what I consider) genuine religious experiences, which confirmed for me the truth of the Catholic faith. These contradict Muhammad's claims.
Reply: No experiences mentioned?? Without reading Bible you are just following what you saw your elders were.

5) Many of the Qu'ran's lines look like paraphrases of the Bible's verses, which is immediately suspicious. The Qu'ran is an amalgamation of Judaic, Christian and Arabic Polytheistic and cultural ideas, therefore, it doesn't appear to spring from a pure source, a Divine Mind, ie God. There are too many references to theological disputes of the day to convince me otherwise than it all came from the mind of Muhammad, however poetic the words might have been. 

Reply: This is a clear indication that all these scriptures were revealed by the same divine source means ALLAH. The old scriptures were altered but Quran maintains the originality. This is exactly what Islam says. Remember Prophet Muhammad was born as an illiterate and received no education but the word of God. Please analyse all the scriptures without the in born prejudices of a Catholic.

2:41. And believe in what I have revealed to you (Quran), verifying that which is with you (Torah and Injeel), and be not the first to deny it, neither take a mean price in exchange for My communications; and Me alone should you fear.

35:31. And that which We have revealed to you of the Book, that is the truth verifying that which was before it (Torah and Injeel); most surely with respect to His servants Allah is Aware, Seeing.

6) Islam don't seem to be open to honest critique in search of the truth for fear of being less than obedient, but in order for a religion to be rational, this must be allowed. Religious beliefs can't be self-contradictory.

Reply: This is a sweeping statement, please be specific. There is no verse which forbids the healthy critique or analysis rather it encourages that.

7) Moses forbade making idols or gods out of people, but Muhammad is being treated like this, as he is the only one, apart from God that one cannot make an image of. Last time I looked, Muslims had photos on their passports, this a complete contradiction.

Reply: This is the proof that you know nothing about Islamic beliefs:

18:110. Say: (Oh Muhammad) I am only a mortal like you; I only receive revelations that your god is only One God, therefore whoever hopes to meet his Lord, he should do good deeds, and not join any one in the service of his Lord.

3:144. And Muhammad is no more but an apostle; like him the apostles have already passed away; if then he dies or is killed will you turn back upon your heels? And whoever turns back upon his heels! he will by no means do any harm to Allah in the least and Allah will only reward those who are thankful.

8) There is no uniform belief system or singular authority in Islam. If it came from one God, there should be.

Reply:  Wrong! Quran and Prophet is the authority. The religious scholars have a standing and position but they can�t go against Quran and Prophet. Moreover everyone is free to hold his opinion against the religious scholars based on logic and reason. There is no concept of Theocracy in Islam as the Church had ruled the Christendom for centuries.

9) Why isn't Love promoted more highly in Islam? Why does justice or anger always get greater emphasis?

Reply:   Wrong on this occasion too. Don�t just believe and read the selected portions of Quran published by the western propagators:

5:2. O you who believe! do not violate the signs appointed by Allah nor the sacred month, nor (interfere with) the offerings, nor the sacrificial animals with garlands, nor those going to the sacred house seeking the grace and pleasure of their Lord; and when you are free from the obligations of the pilgrimage, then hunt, and let not hatred of a people-- because they hindered you from the Sacred Mosque incite you to exceed the limits, and help one another in goodness and piety, and do not help one another in sin and aggression; and be careful of (your duty to) Allah; surely

Allah is severe in requiting (evil).

42:40. And the recompense of evil is punishment like it, but whoever forgives and amends, he shall have his reward from Allah; surely He does not love the unjust.

42:43. And whoever is patient and forgiving, then these are surely actions of great courage.

29:46. And do not dispute with the followers of the Book (Jews/Christians) except by what is best/kind, except of those who act unjustly, and say: We believe in that which has been revealed to us and revealed to you, and our God and your God is One, and to Him do we submit.

10) Why is there is still little prosperity in Muslim countries?

Because we are not following our religion and following the west blindly. Our rulers (imposed by West) have no interest in religion our socio-economic problems and are just busy in amassing the wealth for themselves. Corruption, illiteracy etc is not bothering them anymore.

Pray we get rid of them.

Shams Zaman  Pakistan    [email protected]

Servetus wrote: Welcome, Liberty: "Christians believe their religion to be correct, Muslims believe their religion to be the true religion, etc.  blah, blah, blah.  A persons religion is based upon faith, not in historical facts, rational discussions, etc." Sorry.  Are you meaning to suggest that St. Augustine, for example, employed neither facts nor rationality in his works?  What about Hans K�ng?  Finally, if rationality has nothing to do with it, why would the Prophet Isaiah (1:18) write: "Come now, let us reason together ..." Serv

I know that many people much more intelligent than I have attempted to use reason to prove their religion is true or correct.  I worked for a woman that believed that Albert Eistein proved to himself using reason and rational thinking that god exists.

I can not prove the existence of god, nor can you prove that one religion is right and another is wrong.  It is ridiculus to argue the merits of Islam vs Christianity.

Do you deny that most people accept their religion that they were indoctrinated in growing up?  That their parents pretty much decided which religion would be theirs?

If reason had anything to do with it, then the United States would be more evenly divided between Muslims, Jews, Christians, etc, and the Middle East would not be predominately Muslims.  If we did not program our children to accept a certain religion then there would be a great variety in each society.  As it is, there is not!

Melco, your last post clearly indicates that your sources of information are very dubious. Many of them are written by non-Muslims with the clear intention of slurring Islam. If you use those sources and argue there is no one but only yourself in loss. However, Brs Shams Zaman and Ahmed Joyia who have better knowledge of the Bible I am sure will answer you.

Regarding your question: 5) Many of the Qu'ran's lines look like paraphrases of the Bible's verses, which is immediately suspicious. The Qu'ran is an amalgamation of Judaic, Christian and Arabic Polytheistic and cultural ideas, therefore, it doesn't appear to spring from a pure source, a Divine Mind, ie God. There are too many references to theological disputes of the day to convince me otherwise than it all came from the mind of Muhammad, however poetic the words might have been. 

The Qur'an was revealed to the Prophet Mohammed (PBUH) only because the earlier religions were corrupted. The main corruption in the Bible is attributing divinity to Christ. What you find in the Qur'an is certainly also there in the Bible, but not in its original form. I know that some of the Christians read a translation of the Qur'an which is translated by a Christian/Jew. You will certainly be mislead if you read those translations. I suggest you get hold of a copy of the translation & commentary by Yusuf Ali and read it. It may help clear a lot of your confusion which is clearly arising from wrong sources of information.

Ignatius, bishop of Antioch, letter to the Trallians (110-115 AD):

My dear bro Melco, thanks for your trust in me for asking such an important question. Instead of me giving you the reply, a non-christian that anyone can lable me easily to hide under the false hood, let us see as what Christian Biblical scholars themselves say about the authorship of the Gospels. For the purpose of brevity, I shall only quote about Gospel of Matthew and John as same results go directly to the other two gospels as well. Here are the excerpts from �Introduction� by New American Bible (NAB) society.

About Matthew:

The questions of authorship, sources, and the time of composition of this gospel have received many answers, none of which can claim more than a greater or lesser degree of probability. The one now favored by the majority of scholars is the following. The ancient tradition that the author was the disciple and apostle of Jesus named Matthew (see http://www.nccbuscc.org/nab/bible/matthew/matthew10.htm#v3 - Matthew 10:3 ) is untenable because the gospel is based, in large part, on the Gospel according to Mark (almost all the verses of that gospel have been utilized in this), and it is hardly likely that a companion of Jesus would have followed so extensively an account that came from one who admittedly never had such an association rather than rely on his own memories. The attribution of the gospel to the disciple Matthew may have been due to his having been responsible for some of the traditions found in it, but that is far from certain. The unknown author, whom we shall continue to call Matthew for the sake of convenience, drew not only upon the Gospel according to Mark but upon a large body of material (principally, sayings of Jesus) not found in Mark that corresponds, sometimes exactly, to material found also in the Gospel according to Luke. This material, called "Q" (probably from the first letter of the German word Quelle, meaning "source"), represents traditions, written and oral, used by both Matthew and Luke. Mark and Q are sources common to the two other synoptic gospels; hence the name the "Two-Source Theory" given to this explanation of the relation among the synoptics.

About John:

Critical analysis makes it difficult to accept the idea that the gospel as it now stands was written by one person. John 21 seems to have been added after the gospel was completed; it exhibits a Greek style somewhat different from that of the rest of the work. The prologue ( http://www.nccbuscc.org/nab/bible/john/john1.htm#v1 - John 1:1-18 ) apparently contains an independent hymn, subsequently adapted to serve as a preface to the gospel. Within the gospel itself there are also some inconsistencies, e.g., there are two endings of Jesus' discourse in the upper room ( http://www.nccbuscc.org/nab/bible/john/john14.htm#v31 - John 14:31 ; http://www.nccbuscc.org/nab/bible/john/john18.htm#v1 - 18:1 ). To solve these problems, scholars have proposed various rearrangements that would produce a smoother order. However, most have come to the conclusion that the inconsistencies were probably produced by subsequent editing in which homogeneous materials were added to a shorter original. Other difficulties for any theory of eyewitness authorship of the gospel in its present form are presented by its highly developed theology and by certain elements of its literary style. For instance, some of the wondrous deeds of Jesus have been worked into highly effective dramatic scenes (John 9); there has been a careful attempt to have these followed by discourses that explain them (John 5; 6); and the sayings of Jesus have been oven into long discourses of a quasi-poetic form resembling the speeches of personified Wisdom in the Old Testament. The gospel contains many details about Jesus not found in the synoptic gospels, e.g., that Jesus engaged in a baptizing ministry ( http://www.nccbuscc.org/nab/bible/john/john3.htm#v22 - John 3:22 ) before he changed to one of preaching and signs; that Jesus' public ministry lasted for several years (see the note on http://www.nccbuscc.org/nab/bible/john/john2.htm#v13 - John 2:13 ); that he traveled to Jerusalem for various festivals and met serious opposition long before his death ( http://www.nccbuscc.org/nab/bible/john/john2.htm#v14 - John 2:14-25 ; 5; 7-8); and that he was put to death on the day before Passover (John l http://www.nccbuscc.org/nab/bible/john/john8.htm#v28 - 8:28 ). These events are not always in chronological order because of the development and editing that took place. However, the accuracy of much of the detail of the fourth gospel constitutes a strong argument that the Johannine tradition rests upon the testimony of an eyewitness. Although tradition identified this person as John, the son of Zebedee, most modern scholars find that the evidence does not support this. The fourth gospel is not simply history; the narrative has been organized and adapted to serve the evangelist's theological purposes as well. Among them are the opposition to the synagogue of the day and to John the Baptist's followers, who tried to exalt their master at Jesus' expense, the desire to show that Jesus was the Messiah, and the desire to convince Christians that their religious belief and practice must be rooted in Jesus. Such theological purposes have impelled the evangelist to emphasize motifs that were not so clear in the synoptic account of Jesus' ministry, e.g., the explicit emphasis on his divinity.

Melco wrote: Ahmad, you won't see any new epistle coming from me or any other Christian, because all public revelation from God ended with Christ.

Melco wrote:   Ahmad, I never seek religious experiences, faith is enough and Jesus said "blessed are those who haven't seen and yet believe". However, I will tell you that I saw a private iconic image of Jesus' face on a cross over several hours, in 1993 during 2 separate months.

So what about stigmata wounds?? When are they coming?

Brother, frankly speaking, what you might have seen, could be anything. How can you rule out the possiblity about 'satan'. Yea, you can tell me that it was peaceful icon, therefore very genuine, but the fact is that deception is what 'Satan' is all famous about. Isn't it? So, be careful as what it says to you. If it is against the teachings of Jesus (not what other think about him), then you can safely reject it. Think rationally and reason well before you conclude anything from such "visions". There are many stories of similar nature, where people behaved eratically upon such "illusionary" images appearing in their visions. They all landed in trouble. 

Melco wrote: I've seen it a number of times since. It is no skin off my nose if you believe or not. The Lord has called me by name, I could hear him distinctly. He isn't angry, but very peaceful and kind.

Melco wrote:  Many of the Qu'ran's lines look like paraphrases of the Bible's verses, which is immediately suspicious. The Qu'ran is an amalgamation of Judaic, Christian and Arabic Polytheistic and cultural ideas, therefore, it doesn't appear to spring from a pure source, a Divine Mind, ie God. There are too many references to theological disputes of the day to convince me otherwise than it all came from the mind of Muhammad, however poetic the words might have been. 

069:38. So I do call to witness what ye see,

069: 39. And what ye see not,

069:40. That this is verily the word of an honoured apostle;

069:41. It is not the word of a poet: little it is ye believe!

069:42. Nor is it the word of a soothsayer: little admonition it is ye receive.

069:43. (This is) a Message sent down from the Lord of the Worlds.

069:44. And if the apostle were to invent any sayings in Our name,

069:45. We should certainly seize him by his right hand,

069:46. And We should certainly then cut off the artery of his heart:

069:47 Nor could any of you withhold him (from Our wrath).

069:48 But verily this is a Message for the Allah.fearing.

069:09. And We certainly know that there are amongst you those that reject (it).

069:50. But truly (Revelation) is a cause of sorrow for the Unbelievers.

069:51. But verily it is Truth of assured certainty.

069:52. So glorify the name of thy Lord Most High.

Liberty, you originally wrote:  "Christians believe their religion to be correct, Muslims believe their religion to be the true religion, etc.  blah, blah, blah.  A persons religion is based upon faith, not in historical facts, rational discussions, etc."

I responded by saying:  �Sorry.  Are you meaning to suggest that St. Augustine, for example, employed neither facts nor rationality in his works?  What about Hans K�ng?  Finally, if rationality has nothing to do with it, why would the Prophet Isaiah (1:18) write: "Come now, let us reason together ..."

You then said (henceforth in blue):  �I know that many people much more intelligent than I have attempted to use reason to prove their religion is true or correct.  I worked for a woman that believed that Albert Eistein proved to himself using reason and rational thinking that god exists.�

And were you able to determine if her �belief� was grounded in fact?

�I can not prove the existence of god ��

For that matter, I doubt that it will be required of you.  At any rate, and as I see it, God does not require our proofs. 

�� nor can you prove that one religion is right and another is wrong.�

For that matter, I would not try.  That said, a quick review of this thread should show that it was opened with a set of metaphysical statements, propositions, or theorems.  One can respond to these statements reasonably, as I think I did and have.   

�It is ridiculus to argue the merits of Islam vs Christianity.�

Then by all means don�t do it.  I would not want you to be subjected to ridicule.  Please do note, however, that this forum (the Interfaith forum more so) is established for that purpose.

�Do you deny that most people accept their religion that they were indoctrinated in growing up?  That their parents pretty much decided which religion would be theirs?�

This, it seems, is exactly how traditions are at this point, while �parents� and �viviparous births� are still somewhat the norm, continued.  So in answer to your question, no I do not.  On the other hand, it seems equally clear that plenty of people, and often for �reasons� of their own, convert from one religion to another or, what is more often these days, especially in America and Europe, to no religion at all.  Personally, I don�t think that Hans Kung�s (see, for example, Judaism Between Yesterday and Tomorrow) efforts in establishing ecumenical dialogue are ridiculous and I could hardly appreciate his book if he used neither reason nor facts in his presentation.  In that book, I learned plenty about Judaism, Christianity and Islam.  Their relative merits and demerits were discussed by what I consider a fair-minded Christian and modern scholar practically without a peer.

�If reason had anything to do with it, then the United States would be more evenly divided between Muslims, Jews, Christians, etc, and the Middle East would not be predominately Muslims.  If we did not program our children to accept a certain religion then there would be a great variety in each society.  As it is, there is not!�

Have we sufficiently dealt with this?

Servetus

Servetus,

Excuse me for butting in here in what is a fascinating debate, but some of us were, very inadequately on all sides I think, attempting to approach this question on another page. 'Free will'

If faith requires no proof, why do all religious arguments and rreligious intellectual struggles require and insist on using materialist evidence to make a point?  

Those who do not believe in material as primary and absolute, resort to it in order to exemplify or justify the existence of something they readily admit cannot be proved. 

If an 'element' which somone believes exists, is not on the Periodic Table of Elements, it is not possible to demonstrate the existence of that new 'element' if that 'element' has not been discovered, but only described by reference to those 'aliments' which have been discovered.  I'm open to persuasion.  

Thanks bro Melco for your kind response though incomplete and therefore unsatisfactory.

Melco wrote: As I have been teaching Mark's Gospel for 2 years, I can say with certainity there are many references to Jesus' divinity, however, John above all gives it most emphasis.

Bro, that is why I posted from your own Biblical scholars and nothing is from my own side. Do you intend to confront them?

Melco wrote: I was a little lazy and undefined in what I last wrote, because I lost the first two attempts before posting. We do make silly mistakes, exactitudes and truth aren't quite the same.

Niether it is for only believing through blind faith.

Melco wrote: Public revelation ends with New Testament.

What ever suit you, my brother, though you yourself acknowledged that NT took almost 1000 years to canonize in the form that we now have. Despite this, I know several �Christian� denominations who do consider many apostles/saints still under the direct communication with divine Jesus, regulating their lives on day to day basis. Public or private communication is not an issue. The moment people claim to have a visionary visitation of Jesus to them, for whatever reason they may provide to inform, their claim doesn�t remain private anymore. Isn�t it?

Melco wrote: My experience was a private revelation, and it had a private purpose. I did wonder if it was a trick by Satan. I asked many others if they could see it and they couldn't. I was attacked by the devil when I was a child and when it failed (my prayers protected me), another person near became possessed and proceded to say and do as you would expect in these circumstances. The following day (I was at a Summer camp), he asked me to help him and I exorcised him in Christ's name (very  reservededly). I  waited many years for God to send me some consolation to ease my pain, especially for what was said to me.  I feared God's judgement, but Jesus showed me the side of his suffering face to remind me that suffering is a sign of being close to God.

It�s no more a private revelation. Simply because, now you are using it as a tool to impress/convince others, even if your nose skin get changed or not.

Melco wrote: I meant to say in an earlier message, that God the Father (Lord) is unseen, but Christ is the image of the invisible God. I know that doesn't make sense. These aren't different Gods, but "roles" within God. ("roles" isn't quite right, but near enough)

O my dear brother, if you are not clear yourself, kindly give yourself a break. Think logically and rationally. You would also acknowledge this fact that �Trinity� is just a human explanation to numerous inconsistencies present in the NT just to make it appear as having some divine origin. Even the word �Trintiy� itself is alien to NT. Never used by any of the Gospel writers, whosoever they might be. So why would any logical thinker, a person like you, to get stuck with this confusing notion. Leave this notion away, and let us pray together to the same God, the God to whom Jesus also used to pray. Jesus bowed down in his prayers to the God and we should also bow down to pray like him. He came to guide us to the God and we Muslims do revere him same as we revere our Prophet Mohammad; nor more nor less. This is the best course of action that we must all look forward to adopt.

Welcome, Tim, and you are by no means an intrusion.

�If faith requires no proof, why do all religious arguments and religious intellectual struggles require and insist on using materialist evidence to make a point?�

I am not sure that I fully understand the question, but, to my view, the opening premise, that faith requires no proof, might be called into question.  Although the term is at this point somewhat ill-defined, faith, it seems to me, at least a type of it, does not invariably operate in the absence of proof.  Consider, e.g., that Judaism recalls the revelation of the Torah to Moses on Mt. Sinai, an event which it contends was in actuality witnessed by the children of Israel, and early Christians broadcast, at the risk of both life and limb, the resurrection of Jesus.   Islam, for its part, presents an apparently illiterate prophet as having received, or recited, what stands to this day as the definitive work of Arabic Literature.  In short, then, the faithful also inhabit the material world.

�Those who do not believe in material as primary and absolute, resort to it in order to exemplify or justify the existence of something they readily admit cannot be proved.� 

I enjoyed reading Ahmad�s response to this paragraph.   I might add that it is no doubt difficult for Judaism, at this point, and again as an example, to prove that Moses existed and that he received the Torah.  Does memory, myth, legend, etc., count for nothing?     

�If an 'element' which somone believes exists, is not on the Periodic Table of Elements, it is not possible to demonstrate the existence of that new 'element' if that 'element' has not been discovered, but only described by reference to those 'aliments' which have been discovered.  I'm open to persuasion.�  

I don�t know.  This I will say, and despite especially modernist objections to the contrary, I am rather of the opinion that there still exists a relationship between physics and metaphysics and between chemistry and alchemy.  I am not one to disparage the at times keen faculties of the ancients, my forefathers and yours (this is not to suggest that you are one to disparage them either), and I do, I hope, remain open to persuasion as well.

Servetus

 6Now some teachers of the law were sitting there, thinking to themselves, 7"Why does this fellow talk like that? He's blaspheming! Who can forgive sins but God alone?"

 8Immediately Jesus knew in his spirit that this was what they were thinking in their hearts, and he said to them, "Why are you thinking these things? 9Which is easier: to say to the paralytic, 'Your sins are forgiven,' or to say, 'Get up, take your mat and walk'? 10But that you may know that the Son of Man has authority on earth to forgive sins . . . ." He said to the paralytic, 11"I tell you, get up, take your mat and go home." 12He got up, took his mat and walked out in full view of them all. This amazed everyone and they praised God, saying, "We have never seen anything like this!"

One more example, Mark 14

Again the high priest asked him, "Are you the Christ,^{[ http://www.biblegateway.com/passage/?book_id=48&chapter=14&version=31#fen-NIV-24809f" title="See footnote f - f ]} the Son of the Blessed One?"

 62"I am," said Jesus. "And you will see the Son of Man sitting at the right hand of the Mighty One and coming on the clouds of heaven."

 63The high priest tore his clothes. "Why do we need any more witnesses?" he asked. 64"You have heard the blasphemy. What do you think?"

The Blasphemy clearly was to claim to be God

What you have really is a far fetched claim by Islam, that Christ wasn't divine, but yet was a prophet. If God made him a prophet, then where is the true record of his prophesy if not in the gospels and letters of his followers? If they weren't a record, then God mustn't be able to tell the future (so isn't omniscient) or God is incompetent (so isn't omnipotent). But that is absurd, as God is All Powerful and All Knowing, therefore, if Jesus was a prophet, then the record in the Gospels must give his key teaching. (Why would God send Jesus as a prophet if no true record remained?).

O my dear brother Melco, thanks for your reply, though, as usual, partial response to my questions.

Melco wrote: Ahmed, I am sorry if my words fail in relation to God, but God's inner nature is beyond the capacity of the human mind. I do not intend to challenge the biblical scholars, certainly having studied this more than me, they are closer to the truth.

 In our discussions, after your points No. 1 & 2, now is the turn for your points No. 3 & 4 to go out of the window, where you agree with the remarks of your own Biblical scholars. Continuing with the same pace, shortly all others would follow the course.

Melco wrote: (By the way, the Old Testament, not the NT took about 1000 years to be put together.)

Melco wrote: Ahmed, let me very clear, Christians believe that God is One. You think because we speak of trinity, that we believe of three gods, that isn't the case. We are very particular that these persons comprise one Being. Not everything is comprehensible.

Melco wrote: I  love  reading about physics, but it would be sillly of me to then assert that because I don't understand how quantum leaps happen, they can't happen.

Melco wrote: Muhammad pedaled as a master trader/salesman would  a great story for the gulable,���.

Melco wrote: ���. but his idea of Judaism and Christianity is so far from the historic truth, that I find hard to believe that there are a billion people that believe it.

Melco wrote: � (Obviously, I realise many are coerced to remain a muslim, eg in Egypt).

Quran, very categorically, pronounce there is no compulsion in faith. Your example from the practices of some is non-comparetive.

Melco wrote: The Qu'ran while it borrows from stories Muhammad heard, shows a distorted idea of these religions.

I do see some new remarks by bro Melco. I shall respond to them in the next setting, God's Willing.

one clear indication of the untruthfulness of islam is the utter nonsense muhammad talks about the holy faith of Christ

eg. in the quran 5: 72  we are accused of "joining other gods with God", which is false. 

 5: 73 informs us "they do blaspheme who say allah is one of three..."  one of three what?  what on earth does this phrase "one of three" mean?  christians certainly dont believe God is one of three. 

muhammad further compounds his confusion in this matter in 5: 116  where we learn that (according to him) the holy trinity consists of 1. - allah    2. - isa     3. - maryum.  (all 3 of them being seperate gods!!!!)

even if there were not a word of truth in christianity or in the notion of the holy trinity, the above verses are enough to disprove islam 

servetus - i do not know arabic, but your statement that '"one of three" might mean "one [distinct] of three [persons] in a single Godhead" seems to have passed the translators by:

khalifa: pagans indeed are those who say that God is a third of a trinity

shakir: certainly they disbelieve who say: allah is the third (person) of three

yusuf ali: they do blaspheme who say: surely God is one of three in a trinity

sher ali: they surely disbelieve who say: surely allah is the third (person) of the three

pickthal: they surely disbelieve who say: lo! allah is the third of three

BUT progressive muslims: rejecters indeed are those who have said: "God is a trinity"  ----- this however is nullified by the next sentence ---"there is no god but one god", thus they have not understood that "trinity" is one God

going by 5: 116, it also seems to have passed muhammad by, as the talk there is clearly of 3 gods, not 3 persons in the Godhead

now i have heard of origen, but did not know of his reference to those who "equated mary with the holy spirit"  what did he have to say about them?  their elevation of mary into holy ghosthood runs into a brick wall in luke 1: 35  -- "..the Holy Ghost shall come upon thee...."  -----now allah the all-knowing and all-wise would certainly, by definition, have known this verse, or at least that it would become "corrupted" into its present form, but perhaps gabriel got it all wrong in the transmission, or perhaps muhammad just hadnt a clue what he was talking about

In the name of God most Gracious most merciful, the God to whom Jesus also used to pray, I begin:

Melco wrote: In the name of the Father, and of the Son and the Holy Spirit� Private revelations are not required for salvation. Public revelation is intended to express everything about God and everything necessary for our salvation. You are latching onto words, but private here, means that it isn't necessary to believe in or know about private revelations in order to achieve salvation - they are nice to knows, not need to knows, though they may assist in giving an indication of God's Will for a particular time and place.

I guess you didn�t pick my point. I have no interest in your visions and therefore, no comments upon as what you have seen or what not. I am only alluding to such practices, where ordinary people can easily be mislead when only blind faith is forwarded as a tool for convincing the others about its happening. Though, initially seemingly innocent looking �private� experiences, then later on, suddenly convert from private to public revelation just merely through one�s own choice of appropriate time. How much truth it has, no one dares to ask, then.

Melco wrote: The notion of Trinity can be found obliquely even in the Old Testament, eg Genesis 1 26 Then God said, "Let us make man in our image, in our likeness Genesis 18  1 The LORD appeared to Abraham near the great trees of Mamre while he was sitting at the entrance to his tent in the heat of the day. 2 Abraham looked up and saw three men standing nearby. When he saw them, he hurried from the entrance of his tent to meet them and bowed low to the ground.  3 He said, "If I have found favor in your eyes, my lord, [a] do not pass your servant by. (Notice he speaks to the three and says "my lord") In a sense the trinity is hidden from sight in the old testament.

O my dear brother, it is highly inappropriate for some learned person like you to pick on words used as �figure of speech� to show any relevance to your assertion of Trinity in OT. Use of �us� or �our� is just a way as conversation used to take place at that time. Even now, in royal kingdom, the royal decree is always addressed in plurality, even though it is from just a �singular� king. Such translational difficulties in the absence of originals, is another dimension of falsehood in which people are easily seen being mislead.

Coming to your second evidence from Genesis 18, it is inappropriate and hence false, both logically as well as rationally to assume that, three human figurative characters are addressed as �One God� in this narration. The evidence to this correct understanding has both internal as well external sources. Internally, if we keep reading this narration in Genesis 18, we shall find:

 �Abraham Pleads for Sodom

 16 When the men got up to leave, they looked down toward Sodom, and Abraham walked along with them to see them on their way. 17 Then the LORD said, "Shall I hide from Abraham what I am about to do?�

Thus it becomes immediately clear, that these three men were not the �LORD�. Hence nothing to do with Trinity, unless someone is merely looking at the word �three� anywhere in narration to point out Trinity in it. Its simply like cutting the cloth to fit the person.

Now for external evidence, we have Quran that also narrate the same incident but with clear identity of these three characters as actually the �angels� sent by the God in human form. So your theory of hidden Trinity in OT is in shallow water.

Melco wrote: In Mark's Gospel (yes, one of the Gospels you claimed erroneously had no reference to Christ's divinity) , you find a public acknowledgement by God of who he was.

Brother, again, its not correct to attribute such claim onto me as I always provided you the written evidence of your own Biblical scholars. So, it�s in fact your words against them and I have nothing to do with it. However, now that you have involved me into it, I shall go ahead to synthesize your quotes from your provided references.

Melco wrote: Mark1, 10,As Jesus was coming up out of the water, he saw heaven being torn open and the Spirit descending on him like a dove. 11And a voice came from heaven: "You are my Son, whom I love; with you I am well pleased." (The Voice represents God the Father, Jesus is called the Son, the Spirit is the Holy Spirit)

1. It must be remembered that OT is also full of such phrases as �sons of God�, but how and when it got capitalized in NT, is best known to those who invented it. Here are few examples: � http://www.biblegateway.com/passage/?book_id=1&chapter=6&verse=2&version=31&context=verse -
   the sons of God saw that the daughters of men were beautiful, and they married any of them they chose.
   http://www.biblegateway.com/passage/?book_id=1&chapter=6&verse=1&end_verse=3&version=31&context=context - - Genesis 6 (Whole Chapter)
2. http://www.biblegateway.com/passage/?book_id=1&chapter=6&verse=4&version=31&context=verse -
   The Nephilim were on the earth in those days�and also afterward�when the sons of God went to the daughters of men and had children by them. They were the heroes of old, men of renown.
   http://www.biblegateway.com/passage/?book_id=1&chapter=6&verse=3&end_verse=5&version=31&context=context - - Genesis 6 (Whole Chapter) �

Can anyone among the people before Jesus time, ever thought that this �sons� can be taken in a literal sense?

The same goes in his other example where he says 

Melco wrote: Christ's Divinity in Mark's Gospel Oh, how does Mark begin the Gospel? 1The beginning of the gospel about Jesus Christ, the Son of God. And again 5When Jesus saw their faith, he said to the paralytic, "Son, your sins are forgiven."  6Now some teachers of the law were sitting there, thinking to themselves, 7"Why does this fellow talk like that? He's blaspheming! Who can forgive sins but God alone?"  8Immediately Jesus knew in his spirit that this was what they were thinking in their hearts, and he said to them, "Why are you thinking these things? 9Which is easier: to say to the paralytic, 'Your sins are forgiven,' or to say, 'Get up, take your mat and walk'? 10But that you may know that the Son of Man has authority on earth to forgive sins . . . ." He said to the paralytic, 11"I tell you, get up, take your mat and go home." 12He got up, took his mat and walked out in full view of them all. This amazed everyone and they praised God, saying, "We have never seen anything like this!"

In this narration, the very issue has been aptly responded by Jesus and that is �10But that you may know that the Son of Man has authority on earth to forgive sins . . . .". Here we well recognize that Jesus is clearly distinguishing himself as one being on earth as son of man. Is there any moment when he addressed himself as son of God? Yet my Christian brothers are forcing to conclude him to be what he denounces to be by categorically saying he is �son of man� as a title for him. Secondly, all Prophets, have been given special powers by the God to use them during the transmission of the message of God. These are the famous miracle found commonly in OT as well as Quran. With that in mind, Jesus was only proclaiming of these powers vested in him by the God.

Melco wrote: One more example, Mark 14 Again the high priest asked him, "Are you the Christ,[f] the Son of the Blessed One?"  62"I am," said Jesus. "And you will see the Son of Man sitting at the right hand of the Mighty One and coming on the clouds of heaven."  63The high priest tore his clothes. "Why do we need any more witnesses?" he asked. 64"You have heard the blasphemy. What do you think?" The Blasphemy clearly was to claim to be God

Oh, really? But through which sentence? The question asked doesn�t show any such thing whose affirmative response can be taken as Blasphemy for claiming to be God. Let us see this question more closely and we find �Are you the Christ, the son of the Blessed One?�

First of all, the phrase is not �Son of God� but it is �Son of the Blessed One�. Hence it is not logical to equate God = Blessed One. In fact, a human, a creation of God, can only be titled as �Blessed One�, simply because only God can be the one provides Blessings and the one who receive this blessing, the human, is known as the Blessed One. God Himself can never be called as �Blessed One�, simply because He is above all such things; He is the source of all blessings. Isn�t it? So essentially, this phrase only hint at making Jesus to be that human savior, son of a human who was blessed by God, may safely be attribute to his mother Mary, that these Jewish people were waiting for a long time.

Secondly, it must be remembered from Jewish traditions, that they were already awaiting for the decent of a human savior, the Christ, who would rescue their nation from the slavery of the oppressors. It is ironical to say that the Jews were looking for some divine Godhead as their savior, if the meaning of �Blessed One� is as what you say. However, if they were really looking for divine savior, then why would they accuse Jesus of blasphemy?  Hence, the blasphemy was not because of his acceptance as a divine being, but towards their unexpected awe as what they had a pre-conceived notion that the savior would look like and behave in a certain way, where Jesus seemed to be totally opposite of their expectations. (I don�t want to go into the details of those expectations, but suffice is to know that none of them was of divine nature of savior). On the more, the state of Jews at that time was so pathetic, that Jesus was not the only one got such a treatment at their hands, but many before him also got killed through their hands. The famous example of John the Baptist is sufficient to prove this point. Was he not accused of Blasphemy and thus got treated badly in their hands and hence got killed through their provocation to the Romans?

Melco wrote: What you have really is a far fetched claim by Islam, that Christ wasn't divine, but yet was a prophet. If God made him a prophet, then where is the true record of his prophesy if not in the gospels and letters of his followers? If they weren't a record, then God mustn't be able to tell the future (so isn't omniscient) or God is incompetent (so isn't omnipotent).

Melco wrote: But that is absurd, as God is All Powerful and All Knowing, therefore, if Jesus was a prophet, then the record in the Gospels must give his key teaching. (Why would God send Jesus as a prophet if no true record remained?).

Melco wrote: Ahmed, far from convincing me that Islam is true, you are confirming what I suspected all along that Islam doesn't allow for genuine candour. I have always acknowledged where I got points wrong, probably stated it several times if you look back.

Melco wrote: But you never admit an error. Why is that?

For the rest of the response to this post, I shall need another sitting. Till then, Peace be upon all of you. Regards

I know I still have to reply bro Melco's repetitions of all the points where he is still trying to catch on the straws. But for a quick response on "Christianity as a local message", it would be more prudent to see as what Jesus himself said while on this earth.

Matthew 15:21-28 (New International Version)

Melco, most or all of your questions have been amply answered by Brs Ahmad Joyia & Shams Zaman, and also Angela and Servetus,  but as your intention on this site ISLAMICITY  is not to learn about Islam but to ridicule and insult the Prophet of Islam, perhaps all our responses will not be read and reflected upon by you. However, for the sake of those who are interested in knowing the truth about Islam here are a few answers to some of the matters you have raised.

Melco wrote: A consensus Muslim account of the massacre of the Qurayza��who soon rendered his concise verdict: the men were to be put to death, the women and children sold into slavery, the spoils to be divided among the Muslims.

Bani Quraiza were a Jewish tribe who after having entered a treaty to fight with Muslims against any invasion of Madina, betrayed at a critical time when the Muslims were under siege. This by any standard is treated as high treason against the state. Subsequently, they ie the traitors made a special request to appoint Sa�d Mu�adh as the decision maker whose ruling was accepted by both parties to be implemented. Sa�d Mu�adh and his Aws tribe were allies of Bani Quraiza. Sa�d Mu�adh�s gave the decision based on the Old Testament or Torah  according to the verdict the active fighters must be put to the sword but the women and the children, the cattle and everything else in the city, all its spoils, shall be enjoyed by the enemy � Deuteronomy � XX:10-15. So, this decision was not made by the Prophet of Islam, instead it was based on the Old Testament. For this don�t blame the Prophet of Islam. If execution of traitors is declared to be unlawful then there would be no peace in the world.

It is ridiculous to compare this with the massacre of innocent Muslims by the Serbs.  The Muslims in Bosnia did not commit any treason nor were they traitors, it was the same kind of poison that many hardline Christians have shown throughout history towards Muslims as well as others for eg the Crusades, the Conquistadors in South America, Ireland etc.

Melco wrote: There are over 2 billion Christians in the world (32%), 1.2 billion Muslims (19%). The local message in reality is spreading universally. In fact, the word "Catholic" means "Universal".

Are you referring to people with Christian names? For your kind information many Churches have been sold because of lack of attendance and have been turned into Mosques. Most people with Christian names are either atheists (because trinity makes no sense to them) or have already converted to Islam but have not changed their names. The local message is ISLAM which is spreading universally, how much ever you may detest it. People who are sincerely seeking God�s guidance are guided to the truth of Islam � submission to the ONE and ONLY TRUE GOD � NOT SON, NOT HOLY GHOST! For those in the quest for the truth ISLAM makes complete sense.

Now I have a question for you. In Deuteronomy, Chapter 18, verse 18 it reads (translation):

I will raise them up a Prophet from among their brethren like unto thee, and I will put my words in his mouth; and he shall speak unto them all that I shall command him.

Can you explain what this means and who this person is?

Ah! Very beautiful my brother Melco. Thanks for providing an evidence to contradict your own point where Bible is contradicting itself, reflecting 180 degree turn in policy or as you say "change of mind". Isn't it? Beside this, even this part of your quoted passage from NT, can easily be argued, where Mark 15 is a time in story when Jesus appearance was non-human, based on the faith of only those who believed him and not as a human in history, irrespective of the faith, when he is quoted in Matthew 15. A curious but strange point to note as why this "change in mind" after leaving the earth? Is this really a change by Jesus himself or imposed by someone else? Who knows and whom to believe, especially once we now know that none of the gospels are authored by any of his 12 disciples, the sole witnesses of Mark's account? Do you see this line of reasoning, that may provide a path to logical sift the true message of real Jesus from the adulterated one.

On the issue of "corrupt Gospell" kindly note that its the declaration of your own Biblical scholars. I merely provided you the true state as what they think to be the truth about authorship of gospels, yet I called it "conjectural based" and not anything else. It would be wrong to attribute such a notion of "corrupt Gospel" to me. On the same lines, I always respect your faith and your beleifs on "whatever" you believe in. Never shall you find me emotionally doing disrespect to any of your sacred books or personailities. If I have done so, any where in the past, I apologize for that, though I still maintain, I haven't. Can I expect the same from my Christian brothers? Irrespective of their reply, I shall abide by my promise.  

Now coming to the use of Gospel, suffice is to note that since I am dealing with my Christian brothers who are eager to put faith without logic on the gospels, despite the facts provided by their own Biblical scholars, can I expect any rationality in them to reflect on any other evidence provided to them? I don't think so. Am I being disingenous in doing so? I don't think so. Let the readers of the forum decide for themselves. 

Dear brother stop worrying about Prophet Mohammad and his message. If you don't like it, fine, there is no compulsion in faith. Our weakness to make you understand the truth, may provide you the sufficient proof to defend your case in acknowldging it at the day of Judgement. Your intention to rationalize it through your own wisdom, is all what is perfectly known, none other but God Himself to whom we all are answerable. However, it must also be realized that one would always be answerable for making irrationale decisions based upon falsehood despite clear evidences were shown to you. No one can escape them as a excuse of ignorance.

Now coming to your simplistic assumptions, presumably from your ignorance and not through bad intentions, when you say "Maryga, Muhammad's war was conducted as a private army, not on behalf of a state.", suffice is to note that Madina was a multi ethenic, multi cultural and multi religious state, when the attacks on any one of the community among them would be considered as attack on all; a pact that they concluded among themselves during their peace agreement. A short and brisk google (may not for a long) shall help you again, only if you like to know it.

Melco wrote: I detest all war, but in any case, how can you use "treason" in this case?

I believe in God the Father Almighty, Maker of heaven and earth. 

And in Jesus Christ his only Son our Lord; who was conceived by the Holy Ghost, born of the Virgin Mary, suffered under Pontius Pilate, was crucified, dead, and buried; he descended into hell; the third day he rose again from the dead; he ascended into heaven, and sitteth on the right hand of God the Father Almighty; from thence he shall come to judge the quick and the dead. 

I believe in the Holy Ghost; the holy catholic Church; the communion of saints; the forgiveness of sins; the resurrection of the body; and the life everlasting. AMEN.

�one clear indication of the untruthfulness of islam is the utter nonsense muhammad talks about the holy faith of Christ � muhammad further compounds his confusion in this matter in � now allah the all-knowing and all-wise would certainly, by definition, have known this verse, or at least that it would become "corrupted" into its present form, but perhaps gabriel got it all wrong in the transmission, or perhaps muhammad just hadnt a clue what he was talking about.�

I am happy to continue this discussion with you, Fredifreeloader, but it would help, from my side, if you could tone down what sounds to me (and I grant my perceptions could be wrong) like sarcasm and just generally bad manners.  That you take issue with Islam and with Muhammad is understood.  So do I, on some points, but, to use a crude expression, in the main I don�t really have a dog in this Christianity vs. Islam doctrinal fight and I am interested to discuss the issues with participants from all angles without resorting, in that process, to throwing gauntlets.  That said, I am gone for the week-end but do hope to respond to your post at some point.  And please do excuse me if I have misunderstood you thus far.

Thank you and best regards,

Servetus

Now I have a question for you. In Deuteronomy, Chapter 18, verse 18 it reads (translation):

 I will raise them up a Prophet from among their brethren like unto thee, and I will put my words in his mouth; and he shall speak unto them all that I shall command him.

 Can you explain what this means and who this person is?

FREDFREELOADER WROTE: deuteronomy 18: 18 refers to the Lord Jesus Christ

MELCO WROTE: fredifreeloader, bravo!

If that is so Jesus is a Prophet as God has stated in the Qur�an why are you so confused?

MELCO WROTE: You speak of Biblical scholars as if they are a homogenous group, they are not. Some of the scholars of the New Testament aren't even Christians.

What is the matter with you? Why do you believe in a book which is written by non-Christians! If the writers themselves are not convinced about what they have written, wouldn�t it be satan alone that would have convinced you?

MELCO WROTE: Loads of people have wrong ideas about who Jesus is. Even in his day, they did. Today, some people say he was the result of a Roman's rape, some say he had a relationship with Mary Magdeline, that he had kids, that he was a revolutionary, that he was unaware of any divine origin, etc. Many of these things said about him are blasphemous and untrue. Everyone wants to think their speculation is true, but the only reliable account of Jesus is found in the Church (and the Bible) who knew him.

The loads of people you refer to are your own so called �Christians�! The Church of Scotland is also one which omitted virgin birth! Muslims believe in the virgin birth of Christ! Because of all the confusion that you have created and so desperately and with such futility you try to convince people of the divinity of Christ, that is the reason why your churches are deserted and people are dreaming up all sorts of ideas about Christ.

Melco wrote: You just think you know, but you haven't a clue. Christ was not surpassed by a mere mortal, such as Muhammad. Muhammad will have to face God one day and account for his assertions.

Mr Melco our Prophet Mohammed (PBUH) never claimed to be anything but a mortal. He never claimed divinity nor did Prophet Jesus (PBUH). You say Muhammed will have to face God � which God? The One and Only God or Jesus? If you are referring to the former you are right, and I agree with you but if you are referring to the latter, may God have Mercy upon you and guide you to the right path, Ameen!

Melco wrote: Christ's role was to gather the people of Israel and the Gentiles together, so that God would dwell in his people.

You are wrong � not the Gentiles! According to the Holy Bible � Matthew 10:5-6

(Jesus for Jews Only)

These twelve Jesus sent forth, and commanded them saying,

Go ye not into the way of the Gentiles,

And into any city of the Samaritans enter ye not:

But go ye rather unto The Lost Sheep of the House of Israel.

Melco wrote: You compare Muhammad to Christ.

You are wrong. We love them both equally as those great souls who were sent by God to guide us sinners to the right path! So comparison has no meaning.

Melco wrote: We see Christ as God's Word become flesh.

That is where you err! Obey Christ�s word which is the Word of God conveyed to you. Leave this �flesh� business out of it! God does�nt need sustenance to survive as Christ did and so did our Prophet and all other Prophets!

Melco wrote: The Qu'ran presumably is God's Word become book. Muhammad in this way of looking at it would then be like a mediator or recipient of God, as Mary is.

You are close to the truth. Mary in Islam has a great place being the mother of a great Prophet and she was pure but she did not preach. Whereas our Prophet preached the truth and led was a great reformer.

As George Bernard Shaw has put it in �The Genuine Islam�

�I have studied him � the Wonderful Man � And in my opinion far from being an Anti-Christ, he must be called the saviour of humanity.�

And Professor K.S Ramakrishna Rao has summed our Prophet as �In the person of the Prophet of Islam the world has seen this rarest phenomenon on earth, walking in flesh and blood.�

maryga - there are so many areas where you seem to have got things so wrong, but i will try to answer a few of your points.  first of all christians dont have a problem viewing the Lord Jesus Christ as a prophet, because he was a prophet.  we have a problem with folks who say he was only a prophet. 

i do not know what book youre referring to when you talk of a book written by non-christians

true, the Lord Jesus Christ came to israel.  israel had been promised a messiah, and God duly performed his promise.  Gods promises never fail.  But look at john 1: 11 - "he came to his own" - this fulfils the promise of God in this respect, but then we read the sad words "and his own received him not" - israel rejected Christ, although God has not finished with them, they will eventually be saved - romans 11: 26.

now muslims are claiming the holy gospel is only for jews.  this claim is very false indeed.  it was always Gods intention that the holy gospel should be spread throughout the world.  this can be seen in the old testament, even before our glorious Lord came into the world.  look at psalm 66: 3 - "for all the world shall worship thee: sing of thee, and praise thy name".  there are other verses showing that the gentiles would come into the benefit of Gods great salvation in the old testament

consider also the book of the prophet jonah, who was sent to preach repentance to the city of nineveh (a gentile city, far from the land of israel) - jonah had to be virtually dragged there, so unwilling he was to go.  but he went and through his preaching, the city was saved from destruction

the clincher is in matthew 28: 19.  (the Lord Jesus Christ is speaking to his disciples here)  what a wonderful verse this is! ---"go ye therefore, and teach all nations, baptising them in the name of the Father, and of the Son, and of the Holy Ghost".   this verse tells us that the message is for all nations.  not just for the jews.  it also teaches us the blessed truth of the holy trinity, father, son and holy ghost, three persons, but one God, blessed forever.  please note that it does not say in the names of , but in the name of.  so these three persons together have one name.  they are not three gods, as muhammad falsely claimed (see my previous post on this thread) - they are one God.  muslims claim this doctrine is an invention of men, but here we have it from the mouth of our blessed Lord himself

now you are claiming the church of scotland denies the virgin birth of Christ, kindly substantiate this claim

also, we do not care what the george bernard shaws of this world have to say about anything

maryga - there are so many areas where you seem to have got things so wrong, but i will try to answer a few of your points.  first of all christians dont have a problem viewing the Lord Jesus Christ as a prophet, because he was a prophet.  we have a problem with folks who say he was only a prophet. 

Now we have a fourth dimension of Christ! So Christians don�t have a problem viewing Jesus as a prophet, then he sits on the right hand side of God, then he becomes the holy ghost and then he becomes god? I don�t know how people believe this nonsense.

Yes, we Muslims believe he was only a prophet, and we have good reasons for it. We do not demean God by bringing Him to the level of a human being � firstly by someone giving birth to him, then he living as a human carrying out all the metabolic functions of a human- such as taking sustenance to survive, excreting the sustenance, praying to God � then himself becoming God. Please don�t try to defend your beliefs here � it is of no use and it makes absolutely no sense.

God has been very Kind and Merciful to us by sending Prophet Mohammed (PBUH) in setting the record straight. We don�t have to grapple anymore with three becoming one and one becoming three or whatever. Your beliefs to you and our beliefs to us. We will all know the truth when we stand before God. I have absolutely no doubt that Islam is the only truth � ie the unadulterated belief in the ONENESS OF GOD and that He was neither begotten nor does He beget and that there is NONE like HIM.

i do not know what book youre referring to when you talk of a book written by non-christians

This refers to Melco�s post. Please go back and read if you wish to know what I am talking about.

true, the Lord Jesus Christ came to israel.  israel had been promised a messiah, and God duly performed his promise.  Gods promises never fail.  But look at john 1: 11 - "he came to his own" - this fulfils the promise of God in this respect, but then we read the sad words "and his own received him not" - israel rejected Christ, although God has not finished with them, they will eventually be saved - romans 11: 26.

now muslims are claiming the holy gospel is only for jews.  this claim is very false indeed. 

Muslims are not claiming anything. I have merely pointed out the inconsistencies in Melco�s post. Your Bible says one thing and you say another.

.  it was always Gods intention that the holy gospel should be spread throughout the world.  this can be seen in the old testament, even before our glorious Lord came into the world.  look at psalm 66: 3 - "for all the world shall worship thee: sing of thee, and praise thy name".  there are other verses showing that the gentiles would come into the benefit of Gods great salvation in the old testament

but christians have always viewed Christ as a prophet, and they have never ever believed that he "became the holy ghost" or that he "became" God - i really dont know where you get all this from.  we dont believe it.  we also dont demean God by "bringing him to human form"  i never heard such misrepresentation in my life. 

so youre saying now that the Holy Scriptures have been "meddled with", but that some bits have been left "unaltered" - well youll have to provide evidence of meddling then

yes melco said that some new testament scholars werent even christians, then you asked why he believed a book not written by christians, so what book were you talking about?

I also do not know Arabic but there is, at any rate, a difference between a verse�s translation and its exegesis.  As I understood, you posed a question concerning exegesis, the �meaning� of the verse.  According to the dogma of the Trinity, which, by the way, I was raised to confess as truth, there are three separate, distinct �persons� in the Trinity, though they are �consubstantial� and therefore One.

This, to my view, is a separate though related issue and it involves the elevation (or deification) not only of Jesus but also of Mary (to theotokos).  I addressed parts of this in my above post.

Sorry.  It wasn't in Origen's Contra Celsus, but in his Commentary of the Gospel of St. John.  What he has to say about them, or even to them, is less important to me, at this point, than it is to establish that there in fact was an early book, the Gospel According to the Hebrews, a fragment of which Origen cites, which evidentally equates Mary, the mother of Jesus, with the Holy Spirit (and thus, as Christians would have it, with "one [distinct] of three [persons]" of the Trinity.) Writes Origen:  �If any one should lend credence to the Gospel according to the Hebrews, where the Saviour Himself says, "My mother, the Holy Spirit took me just now by one of my hairs and carried me off to the great mount Tabor �" 

I do understand that you will probably not be one of those who lends credence to the Gospel According to the Hebrews but, this issue aside, I cite the case to again suggest that there might have been early �heretical� sects which, by the time of Muhammad�s emergence, had found their way to Arabia and which were including Mary as part of their Trinitarian formulations.  These and other Quranic verses could well and at times be addressed to them and thus some of these issues are at best moot.

This is very early (first century) Christianity.  [Edit add: There were many sects flying about.  Some, including the Ebionites,] held fast to the Torah and to their Hebrew Gospel and were not given to quoting the writings of either Paul of Tarsus, whom they considered apostate, or his Greek disciple, Luke, as holy writ, protest though the great Origen in this book does.

Servetus

Ref:  http://www.newadvent.org/fathers/101502.htm - http://www.newadvent.org/fathers/101502.htm

Shams, the "Comforter" is the Holy Spirit. The Acts of the Apostles makes it very clear what he meant. The story of Penecost is the do with the coming of the Holy Spirit, when the disciples receive the gifts necessary to carry out their mission.



a book containing the reflection of Judo-Christians sources/reflections even though Arabs were completely in dark about the teachings of these religions.
Shams, aren't you aware that Muhammad had many dealings with Jews and Christians. He had many dealings especially with Jewish people, who lived in Medina and Mecca. Considering he was religious, he surely would have spoken to them about their beliefs. And surely, this would be true of many Arabs as trade meant they would have learned about each other's belief.
Also the following is worth noting (but I expect my Muslim friends know this already):

Melco, please provide a reference for this statement:

"Khadijah's uncle Bishop Waraka ibn Nophel was an Ebionite [sic] bishop and taught Mohammad a lot of old and new testaments stories.  (Coincidently, he believed that Jesus wasn't divine.)"

Following my most recent post to Fredi, which refers to the Ebionites (and to their apparently lost Hebrew Gospel), and following also our earlier reference to the Nestorians, I am interested to know exactly how it was determined that Khadija�s (wasn�t it cousin?) Waraq was both a bishop and an Ebionite.  If this is so, if he were Ebionite, it seems important to note that the Ebionites in general did not consider Jesus divine (nor the Torah abrogated) but did consider Jesus a prophet, priest and king (i.e., the promised Messiah).

Thank you.

Servetus  

shams my friend - there is so much in your last post, it would take a whole book to deal with it.  i shall start with your bold reference to  an "unaltered book for the last 1400 years"  i assume you were referring to the quran.  you also urge us to "think of a book which cant be altered" - again presumably the quran

well we already know this is not true, of course.  for example, consider the following hadith - bukhari vol8 book82 no.816.  it concerns the verses of the rajam ie the stoning to death of adulterers.  it makes it clear that this punishment has been revealed by allah.  but it is no longer found in the quran, which is supposed to be the complete revelation of allah.  there are other hadith which point this out

consider also sahih muslim book8 no.3421, narrated by aisha.  this concerns the number of sucklings which make a marriage unlawful.  it says of this verse "and it was before this time found in the quran and was recited by the muslims"   -------but where is it now??

consider also the following information from the understanding islam website:

http://www.understanding-islam.com/related/history.asp - http://www.understanding-islam.com/related/history.asp

note the differences in the various codices, notably the notorious samarqand codex.  note the changes and deletions of words.  note the differences in singular and plural.  note the differences in verbs.  note the differences in declensions.  note the variant readings, which run into thousands.  note the character of the individual held to be responsible for the present-day quran.

when i showed this to a muslim, he said "oh its obviously a qadiani website, sponsored by americans and jews."  but he could not answer any of the points on it

i have started reading up on the history of the quran, and so far its looking like a very dodgy document indeed, i must say

Thank you, DavidC.  I have a translated copy -although not presently in hand- of the early Islamic historian, al-Tabari, one of the sources that Martin Lings might also have used in writing his book?  In al-Tabari's Muhammad at Mecca (SUNY Univ Press), as I recall, the Christian monk, Bahira, is clearly identified both by name (Bahira) and by sect (Nestorian) and is located in Syria.  Again, this all relates to the monophysite controversy which had, by the time of Muhammad's emergence, raged throughout Christendom and which is referred to above.  There is thus really no guessing there, on that point, as far as I am concerned, as it can be to a point confirmed.

What I should like to confirm for myself, and have as yet been unable to do so, is what I surmise: that the Ebionites, or a variant of them, were on the Arabian penninsula.  Here Melco identifies Waraq as being not only Ebionite but also a bishop and I am interested in his source.  That would solve some things to my mind and as it relates to my research.

Finally, I have been thinking about your other brief post to this thread, the one in which you state:  "In my experience, it is only AFTER one demonstrates faith that the grace of God rewards them with the proof. This is generally referred to in Christianity as sanctification."  Though you probably know this reference well, your statement reminds me of that so to speak "higher" or more complete faith which the author of Hebrews (the canonical Epistle, that is, and not the long-lost Gospel) describes or explicates in the eleventh chapter of that book.  Well said, then, on your part and good point.

"Perhaps ibn Sa'd has more answers regarding the Ebionites."

Excellent suggestion.  Are there any resident Muslim scholars, or at least diligent students, who might help us here?

Thank you.

Servetus      

something else shams, your assertion that deuteronomy 18: 18 refers to muhammad is very wide of the mark indeed.  first of all ishmael was a half-brother to isaac, not a full brother. also isaac had other half-brothers see genesis 25: 2 - zimran, jokshan, medan, midian, ishbak and shuan.  going by your logic that the "brethren" of deut. 18: 18 does not refer to the israelites themselves, why do you assume that the prophet is a descendant of ishmael and not of one of the other half-brothers??

the truth is that the "brethren" are the israelites themselves.  look at deuternomy 17: 15 - here they are told how to choose their future kings from among their "brethren".  going by your logic that the brethren are the ishmaelites, this would mean that all their kings would have to come from ishmael.  this is just total nonsense.  i dont know where you get it from

your comparisons of moses and muhammad dont count for much in view of the comparisons between moses and the Lord Jesus Christ

they were both israelites, muhammad was not////they both left egypt to perform the work of God (hebrews 11: 27, matthew 2: 15, was muhammad ever in egypt?//////they both performed great signs and wonders - muhammad did not//////they were both mediators of a covenant between God and his people - muhammad was not/////they both knew God intimately - muhammad did not  (exodus 33: 11 - God spoke to moses face to face, as a man speaks to his friend - note it says "spoke to", not "saw") -God never spoke with muhammad, it was allegedly gabriel///////they both forsook great wealth to share the poverty of the people (hebrews 11: 25-26, 2 corinthians 8: 9), muhammad did not

MashaAllah! Brilliant Br Shams Zaman!

Fredi and Melco - I think this conversation is futile! I have noted that your sources of information about Islam are from dubious sources as your intention is to prove that Christianity is the only way. If you are just googling around, looking up wikipedia etc you are only going to find information that will satisfy your appetite to find fault with Islam as the information from such sources has been written by non-Muslims.

I do not like the way you refer to our beloved Prophet (Pbuh). Anyone who reads up about our beloved Prophet Mohammed (PBUH) are in complete awe of this greatest personality who has such a great following. You have absolutely no idea when you speak in such a ridiculing way. Those who sincerely seek to know about Islam and the Prophet of Islam would read from authentic sources. If you are truly searching the truth then Muslims on this forum can suggest to you some good books to read. But I don't believe you are interested.

We Muslims are more than convinced that Islam is the only way to the truth. We find Christianity full of contradictions and a hotch potch and were it not Islam would never have arrived. Unfortunately, many persist more out of arrogance and hatred of Islam so good luck to you. As I have said before to you your religion to us ours.

maryga - you may think that my sources about islam are dubious, but they are 1. the quran  2. the hadith  3. abul ala maududi and other renowned islamic scholars. 

well we know the quran at least has been altered extensively.  nobody knows what the original quran was.  parts of it have gone missing and thousands of words have been changed.  this is a fact recognised by intelligent and informed muslims.  this also proves that what muhammad said "there is none the change the words of allah" is false.  the promise has not been kept

Freddifreeloader,

The reason why Ar-Rajm was not found in the Qur�an is because it is a punishment set forth in the Torah as punishment for Jews who committed adultery.  It is stated in the Qur�an that Allah commanded Muhammad to judge People of the Book (Muslims, Christians and Jews) by their own book.  So, when two Jews came to the Prophet Muhammad (pbuh) to settle and issue of adultery, the Prophet Muhammad (pbuh) told them to bring a Torah.  They bought a Torah along with a Rabbi to read it; however, the Rabbi was covering a part of the scripture with his hand.  When he was told to remove his hand, the verse of Ar-Rajm was revealed.  Some people have falsely stated that this means Ar-Rajam was revealed to Muslims; however, that is not the case. (see Bukhari Vol 6, Book 60, Hadith 079).

It is not known whether any act of adultery committed by a Muslim who was stoned to death took place at the command of the Prophet Muhammad (pbuh) after the revealing of Sura 24, Nur, Ayat 2. 

24:2 The woman and the man guilty of adultery or fornication,- flog each of them with a hundred stripes: Let not compassion move you in their case, in a matter prescribed by Allah, if ye believe in Allah and the Last Day: and let a party of the Believers witness their punishment.

However, it is known that Sura Nur was not reveal until after the migration to Medinah, so, it is possible that the normal punishment at that time for adultery was stoning to death and that after Nur 24 was revealed, the Prophet Muhammad (pbuh) no longer had Muslims stoned to death for coming adultery or fornication. 

I looked at the hadith you quoted regarding suckling and there appears to be a discrepancy in the ahadith regarding how many times is necessary for a wet nurse to suckle a male baby before he if forbidden to take her as his wife.  That is, how many times must a woman suckle a child before she is considered his �foster mother�?  Ahadith 3414 � 3420 of Book 8 in Muslim�s collection of ahadith state that one or two times does not make a woman who suckles a child a �foster parent� to that child.  Ahadith 3421 and 3422 of Book 8 in Muslim�s collection�the ones which you claim give rise to the Holy Qur�an being altered�state that at one time is was 10 and another 5.  However, ahadith 3425 � 3428 of Book 8 in Muslim�s collection state that the Prophet Muhammad told a woman to go suckle a male so that he would no longer be lawful to her in marriage.  He didn�t tell her to go and suckle this male 2 times or 5 times or 10 times.  He simply said for her to go suckle him and he will become unlawful for you to marry.

There is a reference to suckling in the Qur�an.  It is as follows:

4:23 Prohibited to you (For marriage) are:- Your mothers, daughters, sisters; father's sisters, Mother's sisters; brother's daughters, sister's daughters; foster-mothers (Who gave you suck), foster-sisters; your wives' mothers; your step-daughters under your guardianship, born of your wives to whom ye have gone in,- no prohibition if ye have not gone in;- (Those who have been) wives of your sons proceeding from your loins; and two sisters in wedlock at one and the same time, except for what is past; for Allah is Oft-forgiving, Most Merciful;

As you can plainly see, there is no reference to the number of times necessary to suckle a male in order for a wet nurse to become the foster-mother to him thereby making her (the wet nurse) unlawful for him to marry, UNLESS, you take the word �suck� to be singular.

If we turn to Bukhair�s collection of ahadith, there are 14 ahadith regarding the issue of suckling and what is and is not lawful in Islam regarding the status of the wet nurse and her off-spring with respect to those she suckled.  In not one of them is there a reference to a specific number of times a child must be suckled in order for their wet nurse to be considered their foster-mother.  In not one of the ahadith is it mentioned that the Prophet Muhammad (pbuh) asked how many times the person had been suckled by that particular wet nurse in order to determine whether or not the wet nurse had become the foster-mother of the person(s) involved.  Nor is it mentioned that he said, �She has suckled you X times; therefore, she is your foster-mother.� 

One of the things which you, or anyone else for that matter, need to keep in mind is that the Prophet Muhammad (pbuh) was the example of right living in Islam and that although we are told to abide by the Qur�an (the Divine Revelation of Allah) and to follow the Sunnah (the example of right living in Islam present by the life and acts of the Prophet Muhammad (pbuh)), we cannot hold the Sunnah to be equal of the Qur�an.  First of all, the Divine Revelation of Allah as present to the Prophet Muhammad (pbuh) is the PURE WILL OF ALLAH, whereas the life of the Prophet Muhammad (pbuh) is an example of how to imply the PURE WILL OF ALLAH to our life so that we can submit to the PURE WILL OF ALLAH.  Yes, we are told that the Prophet Muhammad (pbuh) presented us with an �Excellent Example� of how to live our lives in Islam; however, it is not one and the same as the PURE WILL OF ALLAH.  If it were, we would have to say that the PURE WILL OF ALLAH and the life of the Prophet Muhammad were one and the same, which would be tantamount to making the same mistake that the Christians made in believing that Jesus was Allah in the flesh.

Second, although we are promised by Allah that the Qur�an (the PRUE WILL OF ALLAH as was revealed to the Prophet Muhammad (pubh) through the Holy Spirit which was willed upon the Angel Jibril by Allah) would never be corrupted and that the life of the Prophet Muhammad (pbuh) was indeed and excellent example for us, what we know today of the life of the Prophet Muhammad (pbuh) is only what we know through the ahadith.  These ahadith were collected after the death of the Prophet Muhammad (pbuh).  There were literally 10�s of thousands of them, many of which were falsely created as a means to corrupt Muslims.  It took many years of hard work and dedication for scholars to try and remove the falsified ahadith and to classify the remaining ones.  In fact, there is an entire science built around ahadith, the collecting and presentation of them.   Within the collection of ahadith which we have now there are many ahadith which are consider less that �strong�; that is, their validity is in question.  Unless one has studied the science of ahadith, one may not be able to know by merely reading a given hadith whether it is �strong� or �weak�; therefore, it is not wise to simply throw ahadith at the Qur�an and say, �Look, this hadith does this or that to the validity of the Qur�an.�  In fact, the Sunnah (the actual way and life) of the Prophet Muhammad (pbuh) was never a judgment of the Qur�an but rather an excellent example of how to apply Islam to our lives so that we can submit our wills to Allah in the way which is most pleasing to Him.

So, although it is always right (i.e., obligatory) to measure any statement of knowledge which we receive outside of the Qur�an (e.g., ahadith, statements made by scholars, Shaykhs, Imam, or any other person who claims to have true knowledge of Islam) with the Qur�an, it is never okay (i.e., it is shrik) for us to measure the Qur�an by any human being�s statement, not even the Prophet Muhammad�s (pbuh). If the information which is presented to us contradicts what is in the in the Qur�an, we are told not to believe or follow it.  Please note that I am not referring to any of the translations of the Qur�an, but rather, to the Qur�an as it was reveled to the Prophet Muhammad (pbuh) in its original tongue (language). 

You claim there �the quran at least has been altered extensively�, that �nobody knows what the original quran was� and that �part of it have gone missing and thousands of words have been changed.�  Furthermore, you claim that �this is a fact recognized by intellingent and informed muslims.�  You state that this �proves that what Muhammad said �there is none the change the words of allah� is false� and that �the promise has not been kept.�  I�m sorry but you really do need to substantiate your claims here.  Just because you believe you have found some ahadith which give rise to contradictions in the Qur�an or lead �some people� to question the valid of the Qur�an, it does not prove anything other than that some �ahadith� contradict the Qur�an and that �some people� believe this gives justification to claim that the Qur�an contains alterations, has missing parts and missing words (however many that may be). 

You made a grand mistake here.  Just because I can contradict something doesn�t mean there are any contradictions in the thing I am contradicting.  That is, if you say that 2 + 2 = 4 and I say that you said 2 + 2 = 5, then I have certainly contradicted you but I have not proven that you made a contradiction in saying that 2 +2 = 4.  Even if a million people agreed with me, it would not proved that you said anything other than 2 + 2 = 4.   Claiming that such and such contradicts the Qur�an does mean that there are actual contradictions in the Qur�an.  Saying �X� about a thing is not the same as �X� actually being true of the thing being spoken of.  In order to prove it, you would have to provide evidence by way of producing an authentic Qur�an, in its mother tongue (that is, in the language which it was presented to the Prophet Muhammad (pubh), through the Holy Spirit which was willed to the Angel Jibril by Allah, which is not the same as those which currently exist or have existed in the past.  So, as I said before, please bring on something which truly substantiates your claims.

Ashukru-lillahi Rabbil-Alameen wala- hawla  wala quwata illa billah

Sister Khadija

(Fredi:) servetus - from what ive been able to find out about ebionites, by googling, is that some of them did believe in the virgin birth, but none of them believed in the divinity of christ and therefore could not have subscribed to a trinity at all

Thank you, Fredi.  And thus, curiously enough, the Ebionites sound rather more like the (Christian) �people of the Book� referred to in the Quran [edit add: when the Quran speaks approvingly of them] than do the average modern (Greco-Roman) Trinitarians.  An in-depth study of the Ebionites will usually trace them to the controversy (with the observant Jewish community) that St. Paul describes in his letter to the Galatians and thus also ultimately to the desposyni, or physical brothers of Jesus, and especially to the martyred (ref Josephus) James the Just, Patriarch of the Jerusalem Church, which church was unfortunately destroyed in the year 70.

At any rate, and the (side) issue of the Ebionites for the moment aside, I think it has been established, with the quote from Origen, that prior to Muhammad, there was a �Gospel According to the Hebrews� which was being disseminated by those �who gave it credence� and within which Jesus is said to identify his mother with the Holy Spirit and thus with �one [distinct] of three [persons]� in the later (Nicene Council) Trinity.  This fact, combined with the 'monophysite' and other controversies which were related to the elevation of Mary to theotokos, or �Mother of God,� should, in my opinion, be considered when one not only reads but tries to understand these and other Quranic verses that you brought forward.  Again, the Quran might be, at times, addressing some of these more historically obscure issues and certain issues may be largely moot (I don't know).

(Melco:) I had one source that said the bishop [sic] was Khadijah's cousin and another said Uncle. Thanks for correcting that.

You are welcome.  Not to seem to quibble, but, to my perhaps at times overly pedantic satisfaction, it also has yet to be determined that Waraq was a bishop.

(Melco:) "Strange that the person who discerned Muhammad's prophetic nature, was called Nestor. (Would it be too much of a conspiracy theory, that Muhammad was the spokesperson for an Ebonite-Nestorian Ideological Conspiracy? Nahhh....)"

I think it is rather more likely that Islam is Arius's answer to [edit correct:] Athanasius, long in arriving.  We could start a side topic in the �Conspiracy Theory� section, though.  Have you ever read the, well, (tongue-in-cheek) astounding Jack Chick�s assessment of the role the papacy played in the establishment of Islam?  Amazing!   

(Melco:) "I don't really know which sources to believe, wikipedia says "Waraqah was a Nestorian monk, Mecca's priest or preacher according to some sources, and died a Nestorian Christian."

For my part, I notice that there is no mention of his being an Ebionite.  I understood, especially in light of the final chapters of Gibbon�s Decline and Fall of the Roman Empire, that the doctrinal form of Christianity which found its way to Arabia was neither that of Roman Catholicism nor of its, well, spin-off (because of shared books and doctrines), Protestantism, but rather was Nestorian (Syrian) and Monophysite (Abyssinian/Ethoipian).      

From this point onward, I hold back.  I am not going to venture too deeply into this, and I do recognize your �if,� but it has not been established that Waraq was an Ebionite and I don't care to discuss, in detail, the relationship (see link) which may or may not exist between the "Gospel According to the Hebrews" and the "Matthew" Gospel(s) - the lost Hebrew (to which St. Jerome and others refer) and the Greek one of the present New Testament.  I would rather call "Sports Radio" and talk about the New York Yankees (smile).

Best regards,

Servetus

Ref:  http://www.newadvent.org/cathen/10057a.htm - http://www.newadvent.org/cathen/10057a.htm

Melco wrote: So, when two Jews came to the Prophet Muhammad (pbuh) to settle an issue of adultery So, Muhammad has been called upon to make a judgement on an issue of Adultery? What is the prohibition on adultery really about really? Is it saying you may not have an affair with someone you are not married to? Yes. But on a deeper level, isn't it based at the deeper level on an anthropological view of humanity, that says that sex is/should be exclusive between a man and a woman, about faithful to one? If this is true and Muhammad of the many wives is not fit to judge - he's the worst offender. It's not just about legalities of marriage, it's about being exclusively for one alone.

No, I disagree.  Because in Polygamous relationships, there is not adultery because the man is only sleeping with women he is legally married to under the law.  It would be adultery in the US where polygamy is illegal, but in Jordan or another country where its legal.  It is not adultery.  Sex outside of marriage is adultery....therefore a punishable sin.  Since Muhammed married his wives, there would be no adultery.  However he would still be the leader in the area and so be called to judge others.  He was required to judge them by the laws God gave to them.  Therefore, since the Torah prescribes stoning as a death penalty, he would have been required to levy that judgement on the guilty party.

King Solomon has multiple wives, yet you would not question the judgements that he made in regards to a matter such as adultery.  The Bible expresses his profound wisdom over matters.

All right my brothers I am back, for a while, as I am already committed else where. So resuming from where I left the thread, I begin by replying bro Melco�s comments:

Melco wrote: You speak of Biblical scholars as if they are a homogenous group, they are not. Some of the scholars of the New Testament aren't even Christians.

Bro, kindly note I am referring as �biblical scholars� to those who are in NAB society. I don�t think there are any non-Christians in that society. Secondly, this society is responsible for, beside many other things, for the production of another English language Bible. Hence the people I am referring you for anonymity of the gospels, is from your own authenticated scholars.

Melco wrote: You say: It would be wrong to attribute such a notion of "corrupt Gospel" to me. Yes, just as it would be wrong to attribute Muhammad's message as from God, it's an idea got from the world around him.

Melco wrote: Loads of people have wrong ideas about who Jesus is. Even in his day, they did. Today, some people say he was the result of a Roman's rape, some say he had a relationship with Mary Magdeline, that he had kids, that he was a revolutionary, that he was unaware of any divine origin, etc. Many of these things said about him are blasphemous and untrue. Everyone wants to think their speculation is true, but the only reliable account of Jesus is found in the Church (and the Bible) who knew him.

Bro sorry to say, without evidence, even your own sayings in favour of Church are baseless. Isn�t it. It is for this very reason that we are reading from your own Bible.

Melco wrote: Your idea that there is a discontinuity between the Gospel and the historical Jesus is totally misplaced and a myth.

I have provided you with the evidence, none but from your own scholars. If you disagree, without repeating it time and again, put forward your argument.

Melco wrote:  The Gospels provide the closest picture we have of Christ.

Melco wrote:  Muhammad was 6 centuries removed from it, he doesn't know anything about Jesus, apart from what he heard in the marketplace, just hearsay.

Melco wrote: The truth of the Gospel can't be ascertained from a few choice quotes, it has to be taken as a whole.

Yet, my Christian brothers unknowingly read this passage in their routine as of a divine origin. Brother, it is this kind of uncertainty, that people spend their whole life on such statements to be true, which later on, are told that they are no more than gibberish. Just imagine what can be said about rest of the cardinal verses of NT on which whole concept of Trinity is based upon?  

Melco wrote: The Catholic Church doesn't interprete the Gospel in a fundamentalist or literalist way. If it is seeming to contradict, it's because the basis of one's interpretation is wrong. The basis of your interpretation of the Bible is wrong.

Melco wrote: You think Christ hasn't risen from the dead, but I have seen him and heard him. I know it is true.

Meleco wrote: That's on a par with Muhammad, except all I know is that I am not lying.

Melco wrote: You just think you know, but you haven't a clue. Christ was not surpassed by a mere mortal, such as Muhammad. Muhammad will have to face God one day and account for his assertions. Christ's role was to gather the people of Israel and the Gentiles together, so that God would dwell in his people. His sacrifice replaces once and for all the animal sacrifices of the Temple. He is the innocent one, the lamb of God.

Melco wrote: You are a lieralist, you haven't a clue what significance words and phrases have in the Gospels. You come into a conversation mid-stream and think you know what is being spoken of, when the topic is something else.

Melco wrote:  The only meaning that can be given to the gospels, if you read them in their entirety is that Christ came into the world to cleanse humanity of their sins, to reconcile humanity back to God, etc.

Cleansing of humanity in the same way as many prophets came before him by asking people to recognize oneness of God and doing good. Not through any other �change of mind� ways. If this is what you meant, I may agree with your understanding of the bible. Am I correct?

Melco wrote: You compare Muhammad to Christ.

No, we don�t. For us both were humans, came from the same God, with same message as many others who came before them and we don�t distinguish among them.  

Melco wrote: We see Christ as God's Word become flesh. The Qu'ran presumably is God's Word become book. Muhammad in this way of looking at it would then be like a mediator or recipient of God, as Mary is.

Regarding the quotes of Irenaeus, suffice is to know that he was a person  more than 100 years after the time of Jesus http://www.newadvent.org/cathen/08130b.htm - http://www.newadvent.org/cathen/08130b.htm . How is his testimony be reliable more than anyone else and you are here to resolve the �discontinuity� of gospels from Jesus? How is this quote going to provide any light on the issue?

Regarding the �apostle�s creed� it is an amalgamation of ideas based upon, mostly on the conjectures and some times on spurious verses. One example of spurious verses have already been shown, and others can be provided, on demand.

Melco wrote: ������ 3. By Union - God is present by perfect union of Christ with God. God's Divine Spirit is present in Christ's human body and soul. It is this union, which makes Christ different, this in total is what is meant by the Incarnation.

khadija -  what is clear from what youre saying is that the verse on suckling as described in sahih muslim 8: 3421 is not the verse from the quran you quoted (4:  23).  therefore that verse (which was previously in the quran) is no longer there, for whatever reason.  this can only mean that the quran was either corrupted previously, or is corrupted now.

as for other changes in the quran, i have already posted a link.  here it is again:

http://www.understanding-islam.com/related/history.asp - http://www.understanding-islam.com/related/history.asp

your comments, or anyone elses, on this, would be most welcome.

also i have not said anything about perceived contradictions in the quran.

It is strange when someone forwards a reference website, like the one by bro fredi has suggested http://www.understanding-islam.com/related/history.asp - http://www.understanding-islam.com/related/history.asp , without going through the details of it, assuming a lot from his/her own preconceived notions, he would fall into such conundrums. If at all the author of this website is saying something about different flaws in Quran, it must also be noted that he is also of the view that these all are from misunderstanding of different statements (Quranic verses or ahadith etc.). Hence with a correct understanding, which he thinks he has it, they all can be replied logically. He do consider Quran to be unadulterated, word to word, preserved book of God. Kindly read closely and carefully. 

ahmad - it is indeed a dreadful thing to fall into conundrums.  but a flaw is a flaw is a flaw - even if it comes from "misunderstandings of different statements (quranic verses or ahadith etc.)"  if one quran says one thing and another quran says another, then we have confusion, and you cannot tell what the quran actually is.  if the boast had not been made that nothing in the quran could ever possibly be changed, then there would be no problem.  but the boast is continually being made, hence the difficulty.  and hence one reason why we cannot believe the quran.

anyway any further discussion with me on this topic will have to wait until next monday at least, due to pressure of deadlines (another terrible thing to fall into, ahmad) ----i hope this thread will still be well alive when i come back

Melco wrote: All I will say, Ahmad, is that Christ gave his authority to the Catholic Church via Peter and those that succeed him. "I call you Rock and upon this Rock , I will build my Church" and again "What you bind on earth will be considered bound in heaven, and what you loose on earth will be considered loosed in heaven".  The true Lord is saying that he is the master builder building up the Church.  He is the one who guides the Church and when his Incarnation passes through death, in Resurrection, his Church is his Incarnation. The Church itself is his body, those in authority in the Church are his voice, those who care for the poor and sick are his hands. Those who are his, listen to his voice, those who are with him gather in, those who are against him scatter out. It was through Him the whole universe was made, in it we see his footprints and in humanity we see his image and likeness. Even if we reject him, yet he keeps us in existence, he is ever patient and though we will each in turn some day die, every second we live is proof of his constant love. You look for physical proof, here it is: I am alive!

But the Roman Catholic Church was established by Paul, not Peter.    The Roman Catholic Church has done more damage to this world through its inquisitions, persecutions and destruction of indigenous cultures.  They burned libraries, suppressed the likes of Galileo, destroyed all knowledge and writings of the ancient american peoples and outright burned the men who dared try to make the bible readable to the masses.  They are hardly models of a glorified faith.

"servetus - youre not making any sense to me.  if the ebionites did not believe in the divinity of Christ, how could they be the people referred to in the quran who made isa a god next to allah?"

I am sorry, Fredi.  Perhaps I stepped from the Tube and did not "mind the gap," or properly fill in the blanks.  (I veered off onto a side topic.)  To my view, and let me be clear on this point, it is unlikely that the Quran is in this particular case, with �cease and desist orders� of this type, referring to the Ebionites.

Please disregard the Ebionites, for now. The door does not hinge upon them.  Please simply notice that Origen, 500 years before Muhammad, quotes a fragment of the lost �Gospel According to the Hebrews.�  In that fragment, Jesus is said to identify his mother as the Holy Spirit.  If Mary is also his mother, it follows that Mary is thus equated, even if obliquely, with the Holy Spirit.  Full stop.  Do we thus far agree?

If so, my primary point is therefore this: it is plausible that, by the time of the Islamic advent, there were �heretical� -at least heretical by post-Nicene standards-  Christian sects that were, to use your original word, �confusing� Mary with the Holy Spirit (you cite Quran 5:116) and who were teaching in Arabia.  Thus, some Quranic verses which seem generally addressed to Christians might be also at least in part addressed to these earlier sects as well (especially those verses which don�t seem to readily apply).  At any rate, it is something to consider. 

Note also, and this relates to the discussion concerning Waraq above, that Islamic sources indicate that there was, in Arabia at the time of Muhammad�s emergence, a (singular?) Hebrew Gospel:

�Khadija then accompanied [Muhammad] to her cousin Waraqa bin Naufal bin Asad bin 'Abdul 'Uzza, who, during the PreIslamic Period became a Christian and used to write the writing with Hebrew letters. He would write from the Gospel in Hebrew as much as Allah wished him to write.(1)�

It would be interesting to know, for sure, if there were a relationship between this above-mentioned Gospel and that in part quoted by Origen.  But that is another ride and I won't go there for now.

Serv

Ref: (1)

http://www.usc.edu/dept/MSA/fundamentals/hadithsunnah/bukhari/001.sbt.html - http://www.usc.edu/dept/MSA/fundamentals/hadithsunnah/bukhar i/001.sbt.html

Most of the questions asked by bro Melco are made in comparison with Christianity. How can answers to these, remain out of it, without discussing the Christianity practiced today? 

Regarding the relations between Peter and Paul, here is an extract from a famous christian writer (The Rt Revd Pierre W. Whalon
26 February 2004) 
 

"While we should give great honor to these two men, it is worth remembering that Paul and Peter actually fought a great deal. Paul told the Galatians that when Peter came to visit the Gentile congregation at Antioch, �I opposed him to his face, for he was clearly in the wrong.� (Gal. 2: 11) Written after the apostle�s death, the Second Letter of Peter, points out in a gentler tone that Paul�s letters �have many obscure passages� (2 Peter 3:10) which many, who do not presumably belong to Peter�s circle of disciples, misinterpret to their destruction. It is probably an echo of the conflict that pitted the two directly against each other. We do not have reliable biblical information whether they ever reconciled in this world."