To Muslims: Proof from the Quran that Mohammad/Islam is wrong

[seekinheart]

No, if God has the mercy to draw me back from all my terrible choices and disbelief then I am sure He can do the same for all contributors here. However if other Christians are happy to interact with the muslims here who have exceptionally hardened hearts, God must have given them extreme patience that I do not have.

I just believe for the resident Muslims on *this forum only* my role is finished. I have a heart for Muslims who have started looking for the Truth because they have realised they are not being taught what is actually in the Islamic texts. I no longer have patience to continue interacting with those who have rejected Jesus but pretend they are rejecting Christianity for "intellectual" reasons. They only deceive themselves.

I dont blame you really, the arguments are tired, and have been disproven, this is a case of a closed mind and a closed heart.

 

[seekinheart]

If you want to talk about logic and intellectuality, and not emotional beliefs. Lets not forget this fact -

The NT, documents are out of the 1st century, during the lifetime of the eyewitnesses.

And you take the document written in Arabia, six centuries later, with no historical independent sources, and apparently this is more accurate on who Jesus was?

Give over, and give your head a wobble, theres nothing intellectual about this argument.

Not too mention the Qu'Ran denies the crucifixion which most, skeptics and critics agree occured.

 

[Haich]

So the idiot who started this thread adds nothing, whilst everyone is arguing.

Typical bait thread designed to rile people up. This is why I hardly join the religious discussions anymore.

 

[Kung Fu]

If you want to talk about logic and intellectuality, and not emotional beliefs. Lets not forget this fact -

The NT, documents are out of the 1st century, during the lifetime of the eyewitnesses.

Absolute nonsense. Academic historians with peer reviewed work have disproven this long ago.

Why do you lie so much?

 

[seekinheart]

Absolute nonsense. Academic historians with peer reviewed work have disproven this long ago.

Why do you lie so much?

Norman Geisler shares the following observation in regards to a number of liberal/radical scholars who have been persuaded by the evidence for a pre-70AD dating: There is a growing acceptance of earlier New Testament dates, even among some liberal scholars. To illustrate this point, former liberal William F. Albright and radical critic John A.T. Robinson. William F. Albright wrote, ‘We can already say emphatically that there is no longer any basis for dating any book of the New Testament after about AD 80, two full generations before the date between 130 and 150 given by the more radical New Testament critics of today.’ (Recent Discoveries in Bible Lands, 136). Elsewhere Albright said, ‘In my opinion, every book of the New Testament was written by a baptised Jew between the forties and eighties of the first century (very probably sometime between about AD 50 and 75)’ (‘Towards a More Conservative View,’ 3). This scholar went so far as to affirm that the evidence from the Qumran community show that the concepts, terminology, and mind set of the Gospel of John is probably first century (‘Recent Discoveries in Palestine’). ‘Thanks to the Qumran discoveries, the New Testament proves to be in fact what it was formerly believed to be: the teaching of Christ and his immediate followers between cir. 25 and cir. 80 AD’ (From Stone Age to Christianity, 23). …John A. T. Robinson wrote a revolutionary book titled Redating the New Testament, in which he posited revised dates for the New Testament books that place them earlier than the most conservative scholars ever held. Robinson places Matthew at 40 to after 60, Mark at about 45 to 60, Luke at before 57 to after 60, and John at from 40 to after 65. This would mean that one or two of the Gospels could have been written as early as seven years after the crucifixion. At the latest they were all composed within the lifetimes of eyewitnesses and contemporaries of the events. Assuming the basic integrity and reasonable accuracy of the writers, this would place the reliability of the New Testaments beyond reasonable doubt.[6] While some New Testament critics may continue to hold to certain presuppositions (and unproved assumptions) which may fall into the category of ‘the tradition of the elders,’ in light of the case made above for early dating of the gospels, I would like to suggest that all New Testament scholars/critics put aside their presuppositions and take a fresh look at the evidence in this article. The case for early dating is strong, certainly stronger than a late, post-70AD dating, except for the possibility of John’s gospel. But even then, John A. T. Robinson offers a compelling case for John’s gospel being dated before or by 65AD in his book referenced above. “While it is certainly possible that the Gospels were all written after the destruction of the temple, it is not evidentially reasonable. In fact, the primary motivation for denying the early authorship of the Gospels is simply the bias against supernaturalism that leads skeptics to redate the Scriptures to some point following the fulfillment of Jesus’s prophecy.”[7]

https://existenceofgod.org/the-case-for-the-early-dating-of-the-gospels/

 

[Kung Fu]

Norman Geisler shares the following observation in regards to a number of liberal/radical scholars who have been persuaded by the evidence for a pre-70AD dating: There is a growing acceptance of earlier New Testament dates, even among some liberal scholars. To illustrate this point, former liberal William F. Albright and radical critic John A.T. Robinson. William F. Albright wrote, ‘We can already say emphatically that there is no longer any basis for dating any book of the New Testament after about AD 80, two full generations before the date between 130 and 150 given by the more radical New Testament critics of today.’ (Recent Discoveries in Bible Lands, 136). Elsewhere Albright said, ‘In my opinion, every book of the New Testament was written by a baptised Jew between the forties and eighties of the first century (very probably sometime between about AD 50 and 75)’ (‘Towards a More Conservative View,’ 3). This scholar went so far as to affirm that the evidence from the Qumran community show that the concepts, terminology, and mind set of the Gospel of John is probably first century (‘Recent Discoveries in Palestine’). ‘Thanks to the Qumran discoveries, the New Testament proves to be in fact what it was formerly believed to be: the teaching of Christ and his immediate followers between cir. 25 and cir. 80 AD’ (From Stone Age to Christianity, 23). …John A. T. Robinson wrote a revolutionary book titled Redating the New Testament, in which he posited revised dates for the New Testament books that place them earlier than the most conservative scholars ever held. Robinson places Matthew at 40 to after 60, Mark at about 45 to 60, Luke at before 57 to after 60, and John at from 40 to after 65. This would mean that one or two of the Gospels could have been written as early as seven years after the crucifixion. At the latest they were all composed within the lifetimes of eyewitnesses and contemporaries of the events. Assuming the basic integrity and reasonable accuracy of the writers, this would place the reliability of the New Testaments beyond reasonable doubt.[6] While some New Testament critics may continue to hold to certain presuppositions (and unproved assumptions) which may fall into the category of ‘the tradition of the elders,’ in light of the case made above for early dating of the gospels, I would like to suggest that all New Testament scholars/critics put aside their presuppositions and take a fresh look at the evidence in this article. The case for early dating is strong, certainly stronger than a late, post-70AD dating, except for the possibility of John’s gospel. But even then, John A. T. Robinson offers a compelling case for John’s gospel being dated before or by 65AD in his book referenced above. “While it is certainly possible that the Gospels were all written after the destruction of the temple, it is not evidentially reasonable. In fact, the primary motivation for denying the early authorship of the Gospels is simply the bias against supernaturalism that leads skeptics to redate the Scriptures to some point following the fulfillment of Jesus’s prophecy.”[7]

https://existenceofgod.org/the-case-for-the-early-dating-of-the-gospels/

This is absolute nonsense because we have no idea who the eyewitnesses actually were and so how do we know what they're saying is actually true? Another discrepancy is that outside of "Christian" sources none of the stuff the NT claims is backed by sources outside of NT.

Also, how could an eyewitness see or hear what Jesus said in his prayers in the Garden of Gethsemane when he was ALONE?

From what century is your most complete and oldest NT from?

 

[AspiringSoul]

If you want to talk about logic and intellectuality, and not emotional beliefs. Lets not forget this fact -

The NT, documents are out of the 1st century, during the lifetime of the eyewitnesses.

And you take the document written in Arabia, six centuries later, with no historical independent sources, and apparently this is more accurate on who Jesus was?

Give over, and give your head a wobble, theres nothing intellectual about this argument.

Not too mention the Qu'Ran denies the crucifixion which most, skeptics and critics agree occured.

nice logic
pity you don't pay a damn attention to your scripture though..


John 16
7 But very truly I tell you, it is for your good that I am going away. Unless I go away, the Advocate will not come to you; but if I go, I will send him to you. 8 When he comes, he will prove the world to be in the wrong about sin and righteousness and judgment: 9 about sin, because people do not believe in me; 10 about righteousness, because I am going to the Father, where you can see me no longer; 11 and about judgment, because the prince of this world now stands condemned.

so Jesus had to go, for the Comforter/Advocate to do these things?
ok but here's the thing, the Comforter, as in, the Holy Spirit...acts through people. Therefore it would take people to fulfill this. Which people? in the history of christianity, this has NEVER been done.
he will prove the world to be in the wrong about sin and righteousness and judgment

12 “I have much more to say to you, more than you can now bear. 13 But when he, the Spirit of truth, comes, he will guide you into all the truth. He will not speak on his own; he will speak only what he hears, and he will tell you what is yet to come. 14 He will glorify me because it is from me that he will receive what he will make known to you. 15 All that belongs to the Father is mine. That is why I said the Spirit will receive from me what he will make known to you.”

again this relates to the holy spirit, however in action through people...and here we're talking about prophecy and 'guide you into ALL the truth'
'not speak of his own, he will speak only what he hears'
that there is divine revelation.

Now, Jesus obviously also said
Unless I go away, the Advocate will not come to you;

yet
John 14
16 And I will ask the Father, and he will give you another advocate to help you and be with you forever— 17 the Spirit of truth. The world cannot accept him, because it neither sees him nor knows him. But you know him, for he lives with you and will be in you

the holy spirit was already in the disciples. So why did it take Jesus having to leave, for the holy spirit to come?

I'm confident the Pauline epistles and the book of Revelation are NOT IT. why? because Jesus said
I have much more to say to you, more than you can now bear.

Those people, the disciples, were never capable of understanding 'the Truth'. That's why John of Patmos fell down to worship the angel. These people had a shit understanding..and that is even post-Pauline teachings. The reality is also that Paul's teachings/epistles were not even written with you in mind, they were written only to those whom they were addressed to.


Also, John 16 links to Isaiah 42
Sing to the Lord a new song,
his praise from the ends of the earth,
you who go down to the sea, and all that is in it,
you islands, and all who live in them.
11 Let the wilderness and its towns raise their voices;
let the settlements where Kedar lives rejoice.
Let the people of Sela sing for joy;
let them shout from the mountaintops.
12 Let them give glory to the Lord
and proclaim his praise in the islands.
13 The Lord will march out like a champion,
like a warrior he will stir up his zeal;
with a shout he will raise the battle cry
and will triumph over his enemies.
14 “For a long time I have kept silent,
I have been quiet and held myself back.
But now, like a woman in childbirth,
I cry out, I gasp and pant.
15 I will lay waste the mountains and hills
and dry up all their vegetation;
I will turn rivers into islands
and dry up the pools.
16 I will lead the blind by ways they have not known,
along unfamiliar paths I will guide them;
I will turn the darkness into light before them
and make the rough places smooth.
These are the things I will do;
I will not forsake them.
17 But those who trust in idols,
who say to images, ‘You are our gods,’
will be turned back in utter shame.


this is followed on by a condemnation of the jewish people. In otherwords it isnt a messianic text. So when was this fulfilled? post Jesus...(since the first 10 verses in Isaiah 42 pertain to Jesus and Christianity).
it's fairly obvious, Islam.


what about
Revelation 11
2 But exclude the outer court; do not measure it, because it has been given to the Gentiles. They will trample on the holy city for 42 months.

Muslims conquered Jerusalem in
637AD
first crusade where it was lost to Christians..
1099AD
Muslims took it back in 1187 and held it till 1948. 761 years and 462 years
Total 1223 years of Muslim control.
In lunar years that is 1223 X 1.03068
That comes to exactly 1260 years.

which again links to Isaiah 42

6 I the Lord have called thee in righteousness, and will hold thine hand, and will keep thee, and give thee for a covenant of the people, for a light of the Gentiles;
(as in, Jesus opened the way for gentiles, which is what Isaiah 42 relates to aswell as the Pauline epistles).
The point here isnt to diminish christianity, it played it's role upto a certain point.

Here's my argument with Paul's teachings..
i agree with him...
BUT there's a point missing
read between the lines

If Abraham and the Patriarchs were already reckoned by faith..that would mean the Israelites were like christians, living in faith and the grace of God. Then why did God see fit to give them the Mosaic law?
think about all that Paul spoke, why would God take people away from 'faith' and into bondage to the law?
well Paul explained this very clearly. The law wasnt created to make people righteous, but to reveal the depths of sin. Eg sin is known in relation to laws..
this applies to islam in a big way too. Eg if Gentiles were living under Faith/Grace (whilst believing in Jesus), why did God see fit to give islam? it would appear a backwards step..yet based on Paul's own logic it makes sense.
Likewise, the israelites went to Egypt for 400 yrs where they lost true belief. Christianity went to Rome and became something else. What you follow is NOT christianity. You follow the doctrine of the catholic church even if you're not catholic. You believe in a dead man more than a living messiah.

Lastly, i dont see where islam is wrong. Muslims are wrong, we're fallible humans, but islam isnt wrong

-It says Jesus is the Word of Allah, made flesh.
This is the very essence of the idea you refer to as 'Son of God' but it does so without using dumb language like 'son of God'.
The Son was only a metaphorical/symbolic application for 'The logos' (the greek Logos concept). Therefore it isnt necessary to use the word 'Son' when people may take it literally (jews didnt take it literally, God even called Israel 'my first born' that isnt literal). The Father and Son relationship is an analogy to describe an aspect of God's ontology.
The Logos (The Word of God) IS something muslims believe in and sufis went to depth in explaining.

-The crucifixion, i believe in it. Verse 4:157 addresses the sadducee/judaic context in relation to it.
i've explained this one to you already. Even guys like al tabari believed in it.
i dont believe in no substitute theory either. In fact the 'substitute' comes from the Gnostic apolcalypse of Peter, where it was still describing the PHYSICAL BODY which is created in the likeness of the Spirit, eg 'they didnt kill the spiritual Jesus but only the body, which is his likeness only'.

so where else does that leave us? we dont worship Jesus as God, absolutely NOT and thank God we have a brilliant tradition of theology and a mystical tradition of sufism that is in so many ways linked to the ideas prevalent in the New testament itself.
we're way better placed than christians.

THIS is the reality of modern christianity
21Not everyone who says to Me, ‘Lord, Lord,’ will enter the kingdom of heaven, but only he who does the will of My Father in heaven. 22Many will say to Me on that day, ‘Lord, Lord, did we not prophesy in Your name, and in Your name drive out demons and perform many miracles?’ 23Then I will tell them plainly, ‘I never knew you; depart from Me, you workers of lawlessness!’…

with the likes of David transexual Wood, Ergun Caner, Sam shamoun, seriously this shit is embarassing. I'm not trying to be vulgar, seriously, i could never follow a religion where these kind of guys are prevalent.
there are all kinds of shit muslims too, but we fall short of your lot.

one of the biggest problems is that so much of the magnum opus of islamic understanding of Christianity, was lost in time.
What exists in old books, in arabic, isnt going to be released to people willy nilly esp when it's dominated by sectarian and personal agendas.
Muslim-Christian dialogue as it is today, is a post-modern english speaking one. It has coincided with the age of information..
so whoever got his word in first, got it mass printed and it became a monopoly.
i believe Ahmad Deedat, as brilliant as he was, was wrong on many of the things he said.
i think zakir naik is a parrot who's made 'dawah' a business for himself and his family and had a celebrity status until he was shut down.
Ahmed Deedat was a real don, i loved the guy. I wish i could meet him in person and share my thoughts with him..more than anyone in recent memory, he's the stand out guy.
HOWEVER on Tawheed/pure monothiesm they're not wrong. They have the correct understanding of God.

I take it a bit further, my understanding of metaphysics via islam, sufism, vedanta, taoist philosophy aswell as even ancient egyptian and sumerian mythology (limited as that is, it's still interesting how connected they are)...it just goes in deep on the very concepts the NT was relating to.

you can claim you have the holy spirit, but you have no guarantee of that. Afterall why wasnt the holy spirit in such people?
21Not everyone who says to Me, ‘Lord, Lord,’ will enter the kingdom of heaven, but only he who does the will of My Father in heaven. 22Many will say to Me on that day, ‘Lord, Lord, did we not prophesy in Your name, and in Your name drive out demons and perform many miracles?’ 23Then I will tell them plainly, ‘I never knew you; depart from Me, you workers of lawlessness!’…

The holy spirit in Quran and hadith, note: the Holy Spirit IS NOT THE ANGEL GABRIEL, not based off this
Whoever satirises the Apostle from amongst you, or praises him and helps it is all the same, And Gabriel, the Apostle of Allah is among us, and the holy spirit who has no match. (Book #031, Hadith #6081)

they're both different.

(2) Narrated Sa'id bin Al-Musaiyab: 'Umar came to the Mosque while Hassan was reciting a poem. ('Umar disapproved of that). On that Hassan said, "I used to recite poetry in this very Mosque in the presence of one (i.e. the Prophet ) who was better than you." Then he turned towards Abu Huraira and said (to him), "I ask you by Allah, did you hear Allah's Apostle saying (to me), "Retort on my behalf. O Allah! Support him (i.e. Hassan) with the holy spirit?" Abu Huraira said, "Yes." (Book #54, Hadith #434)


We gave Moses the Book and followed him up with a succession of messengers; We gave Jesus the son of Mary Clear (Signs) and strengthened him with the holy spirit. Is it that whenever there comes to you a messenger with what ye yourselves desire not, ye are puffed up with pride?- Some ye called impostors, and others ye slay!
(سورة البقرة, Al-Baqara, Chapter #2, Verse #87)

Say, the holy spirit has brought the revelation from thy Lord in Truth, in order to strengthen those who believe, and as a Guide and Glad Tidings to Muslims.
(سورة النحل, An-Nahl, Chapter #16, Verse #102)

^^
remember John 16

You have no guarantee of the holy spirit, nor on getting accepted by Jesus, despite calling him 'lord'.
God gave people 'living in faith', the mosaic law, after they'd lost their belief in Egypt. There's no reason why the same didnt happen with gentiles after authentic christianity was lost in rome. there was nothing in any part of the NT guaranteeing christians would remain faithful, however there was enough suggesting christians would fall...

Jude 1
3 Dear friends, although I was very eager to write to you about the salvation we share, I felt compelled to write and urge you to contend for the faith that was once for all entrusted to God’s holy people. 4 For certain individuals whose condemnation was written about long ago have secretly slipped in among you. They are ungodly people, who pervert the grace of our God into a license for immorality and deny Jesus Christ our only Sovereign and Lord.

5 Though you already know all this, I want to remind you that the Lord at one time delivered his people out of Egypt, but later destroyed those who did not believe.

^^ i made this point already.

6 And the angels who did not keep their positions of authority but abandoned their proper dwelling—these he has kept in darkness, bound with everlasting chains for judgment on the great Day. 7 In a similar way, Sodom and Gomorrah and the surrounding towns gave themselves up to sexual immorality and perversion. They serve as an example of those who suffer the punishment of eternal fire.

8 In the very same way, on the strength of their dreams these ungodly people pollute their own bodies, reject authority and heap abuse on celestial beings. 9 But even the archangel Michael, when he was disputing with the devil about the body of Moses, did not himself dare to condemn him for slander but said, “The Lord rebuke you!” 10 Yet these people slander whatever they do not understand, and the very things they do understand by instinct—as irrational animals do—will destroy them.

11 Woe to them! They have taken the way of Cain; they have rushed for profit into Balaam’s error; they have been destroyed in Korah’s rebellion.

12 These people are blemishes at your love feasts, eating with you without the slightest qualm—shepherds who feed only themselves. They are clouds without rain, blown along by the wind; autumn trees, without fruit and uprooted—twice dead. 13 They are wild waves of the sea, foaming up their shame; wandering stars, for whom blackest darkness has been reserved forever.

14 Enoch, the seventh from Adam, prophesied about them: “See, the Lord is coming with thousands upon thousands of his holy ones 15 to judge everyone, and to convict all of them of all the ungodly acts they have committed in their ungodliness, and of all the defiant words ungodly sinners have spoken against him.” 16 These people are grumblers and faultfinders; they follow their own evil desires; they boast about themselves and flatter others for their own advantage.



there's a lot here.

Deuteronomy 33
"The LORD came from Sinai and dawned over them from Seir; he shone forth from Mount Paran and he came with ten thousands of saints

this is also fulfilled through islam. When Mecca was conquered, the army was 10000 strong. Mt Paran is Mecca.
in fact, sinai, seir and paran are all muslim lands. Likewise the 7 churches in Revelation, are all located in muslim cities today.
that wasnt a strong enough sign for you, cool.

You hold onto that roman paganism though. Islam is Abrahimic.

 

[Yellowbunzz tasty]

Unlike Christians, we don't base our faith upon the sand of emotion and conjecture, we base our faith upon firm foundations placed by God, through experience, logic, reason and humility.


And among them are those who listen to you, but We have placed over their hearts coverings, lest they understand it, and in their ears deafness. And if they should see every sign, they will not believe in it. Even when they come to you arguing with you, those who disbelieve say,
"This is not but legends of the former peoples."
(Surah 6:25)

From my knowledge as a Christians as long as you start using your intellect too much, that's when you will begin to fall from grace. I have personal experience with this.

And also, correct me if I'm wrong but Islam doesn't believe in Jesus...right.

If so then how can you be saved? Because in the olden days only the ones from a particular family lineage went to heaven and the rest would go to hell. And because God loved people so much he decided to send his own son to die on the cross and come back to life so that *anyone* can be saved.

It doesn't matter where you come from anymore. And the only way to get to God is through Jesus Christ his son.

If you don't believe Jesus Christ existed that automatically means that you don't believe in the true God, because without Jesus you can't get through to God.

Do enlighten me

 

[Yellowbunzz tasty]

This is absolute nonsense because we have no idea who the eyewitnesses actually were and so how do we know what they're saying is actually true? Another discrepancy is that outside of "Christian" sources none of the stuff the NT claims is backed by sources outside of NT.

Also, how could an eyewitness see or hear what Jesus said in his prayers in the Garden of Gethsemane when he was ALONE?

From what century is your most complete and oldest NT from?

Who were the eyewitnesses for Mohammad?

 

[Yellowbunzz tasty]

Why

Also, notice how on practically every thread of mine I have wussy Christians going "Y u attack Christianity, wah wah", yet they have zero sensitivity when it comes to Islam. They think that saying the most offensive, false and fallacious things makes them the most righteous.

Why do you hate Christians so much? Judging by your constant responses on how fake, ignorant and liers christians are. I personally don't agree with any religion either then Christianity(not mainstream Christianity) yet I wouldn't go to the extent of Grouping you all and calling you names.

The fact that you're aggressive makes me wonder if you are stagnent in your faith since I do believe that the quaran too teaches for you to be kind,patient, respectful and loving to other individuals.

Yet your character doesn't quite portray that here either then laughing at other Christians posts.So if the holy spirit is living through you as a muslim, why are you acting this way?

 

[Kung Fu]

Who were the eyewitnesses for Mohammad?

There's literally thousands and thousands of hadith's from numerous amounts of different people who were companions speaking about Mohammad on what he was doing, saying, and teaching. That's the beauty of Islam we have chains of narrations which were written down and verbal. And that's all outside of the Quran.

What does Christianity have on Mark, John, and etc. outside of the NT?

 

[seekinheart]

This is absolute nonsense because we have no idea who the eyewitnesses actually were and so how do we know what they're saying is actually true? Another discrepancy is that outside of "Christian" sources none of the stuff the NT claims is backed by sources outside of NT.

Also, how could an eyewitness see or hear what Jesus said in his prayers in the Garden of Gethsemane when he was ALONE?

From what century is your most complete and oldest NT from?

how does it make any more sense to believe what Muhammad and the Qu'Ran says about someone that lived six centuries before him lol.

 

[Kung Fu]

how does it make any more sense to believe what Muhammad and the Qu'Ran says about someone that lived six centuries before him lol.

What did Muhammad say about Jesus?

 

[seekinheart]

What did Muhammad say about Jesus?

No lets take out your theological persuasion, logically what is more trustworthy, if we are talking about intelligence.

Dont answer that, its rhetorical.

 

[Yellowbunzz tasty]

There's literally thousands and thousands of hadith's from numerous amounts of different people who were companions speaking about Mohammad on what he was doing, saying, and teaching. That's the beauty of Islam we have chains of narrations which were written down and verbal. And that's all outside of the Quran.

What does Christianity have on Mark, John, and etc. outside of the NT?

How is that any different from people who witnessed Jesus?

You are basically saying there are no witness to Jesus either then the bible therefore claiming he didn't exist yet you claim Mohammed does due to chains if narrations which were written down and verbal.

But that's how we know about Jesus as well, through narrations which were written(Bible) and verbal. There is so much proof when it comes to Jesus also due to the fact that the time period is influenced by his ressurection AD(After the Death of Christ)

Eluding to the part about Mark, John and etc. The New Testement was written after Noah, when the world was cleaned through a flood since the world was full of evil which is similiar to what's happening now.

So it were during the days of Noah so shall it be in the end times.

To know more about these people you should go and dig into history yourself and I'm sure you'll find plenty of things. My main focus as a Christian isn't to be educated only the lives of Mark, John and try knowing EVERYTHING about them which Im sure Ill find but instead gain a relationship with God by learning more about him.

 

[Kung Fu]

How is that any different from people who witnessed Jesus?

You are basically saying there are no witness to Jesus either then the bible therefore claiming he didn't exist yet you claim Mohammed does due to chains if narrations which were written down and verbal.

But that's how we know about Jesus as well, through narrations which were written(Bible) and verbal. There is so much proof when it comes to Jesus also due to the fact that the time period is influenced by his ressurection AD(After the Death of Christ)

Eluding to the part about Mark, John and etc. The New Testement was written after Noah, when the world was cleaned through a flood since the world was full of evil which is similiar to what's happening now.

So it were during the days of Noah so shall it be in the end times.

To know more about these people you should go and dig into history yourself and I'm sure you'll find plenty of things. My main focus as a Christian isn't to be educated only the lives of Mark, John and try knowing EVERYTHING about them which Im sure Ill find but instead gain a relationship with God by learning more about him.

Because all you have is the NT and within the NT have only several people, who's identities can't be identified, talk about Jesus. And let's not forget to mention the interpolations which further makes the claims about Jesus in the NT further dubious.

Whereas just with the hadiths alone we have numerous amounts of people through verified chains of narrations which attest to the teachings, sayings, and life of Mohammed.

Are you claiming the NT was written after Noah prior to the coming of Jesus? If you are you're going to have provide evidence for that.

Also, I've dug enough to know that academic Bible historians have torn your "eyewitnesses" claim to shreds. Your Bible writers were anonymous. Not only that but they were either mind readers or full of lies. Jesus prayed in the Garden to God alone so how could any eyewitness know what he was saying?

 

[AspiringSoul]

how does it make any more sense to believe what Muhammad and the Qu'Ran says about someone that lived six centuries before him lol.

by virtue of faith, belief and common sense and by basic deduction from what was given before.
the message of Jesus nor Paul was complete...as there were promises still left. There were things Jesus said, things Revelation said, what Isaiah said, what Genesis said, that were meant to be fulfilled.

apart from the fact islam believes in Jesus, confirms he was 'the Wod made flesh' and the messiah...
christians are unhappy because we dont use third rate dumb language like 'son of God'.
yet for 2000 yrs and all over the world, 99.999% of christians don't even know that the word LORD in the context it related to psalm 110, was 'adoni' not Adonai.

with such shit understanding and language..yeh, new religion, new scripture, new revelation, new prophecies...necessary.

logic..like i said before.
Paul's argument that the israelites were in faith. Yet God saw fit to give them the law because they lost true belief.
this totally applies to gentiles ie christians lost true belief. Basic truth.
It's why islam has held the holy land for 1260 lunar yrs in fulfillment of prophecy..
this also relates to the parable of tenants.

don't talk to us about the validity of your scripture if you pay no damn notice to it.
you dont even know what John 1:1 means.

How can you think to educate us? it's laughable.
it doesnt matter if im living in 10000AD, God isnt a man.

 

[AspiringSoul]

Because all you have is the NT and within the NT have only several people, who's identities can't be identified, talk about Jesus. And let's not forget to mention the interpolations which further makes the claims about Jesus in the NT further dubious.

Whereas just with the hadiths alone we have numerous amounts of people through verified chains of narrations which attest to the teachings, sayings, and life of Mohammed.

Are you claiming the NT was written after Noah prior to the coming of Jesus? If you are you're going to have provide evidence for that.

Also, I've dug enough to know that academic Bible historians have torn your "eyewitnesses" claim to shreds. Your Bible writers were anonymous. Not only that but they were either mind readers or full of lies. Jesus prayed in the Garden to God alone so how could any eyewitness know what he was saying?

the gospel accounts contradict each other in several places. eg the geneology of Jesus, that one is laughable.
as such, the gospels are basically like Hadith.

however, the Quran supports them. That's the only reason they get a pass by me and why i choose to 'believe' and accept them as they are.
it's ironic , i would genuinely not believe in the NT were it not for the Quran supporting it.

Furthermore, it's because of sufi islam and their many works, that i became familiar with concepts like Fana and wahdat al wujud or wahdat ash-shuhud, the lataif system and how they relate to the metaphysics and God's ontology..
by understanding all that...
the NT was pretty easy to understand.

most christians will never grasp the meaning of John 1:1
however they'll cling onto their beliefs and argue because that's all they have.
the most basic things they believe in, like 'being saved' arent even guaranteed when Jesus says he'll reject many.

well
test this one
'many will come to me saying LORD LORD'
this is funny.
as i have highlighted and what NO CHRISTIAN has highlighted.. even when Jesus referenced the title 'lord' with the rabbis, he quoted/referred to Psalm 110. in the context of psalm 110, the 'lord' of David (ie the messiah) was ADONI, whilst THE LORD was ADNAI/YAHWEH.
so each time a xtian is saying LORD JESUS and literally thinking Jesus is God, they have done fucked up and will be rejected easily.

Jude 1 said that the Israelites were 'in faith', before the law of Moses, yet they lost their belief in Egypt, hence God sent Moses with LAWS to correct them.
Paul said the gentiles in christianity, were 'in FAITH'. if the israelites in egypt lost belief..then why should anyone assume the gentile christians didnt lose faith?
Afterall the churches in Revelation 2/3, most had lost the way. Jude 1 tells us the christians sitting at the feasts, have already lost the way..in his own time, how much more applicable is this centuries later?

when you have david wood, sam shamoun, ergun caner, as the faces of Christianity....i k now for sure that religion is dead and i know Jude 1 is more relevant than ever.
furthermore, the 7 churches in Revelation, all those cities became muslim. Muslims inherited Jerusalem for 1260 yrs..

 

[Yellowbunzz tasty]

Hu

Because all you have is the NT and within the NT have only several people, who's identities can't be identified, talk about Jesus. And let's not forget to mention the interpolations which further makes the claims about Jesus in the NT further dubious.

Whereas just with the hadiths alone we have numerous amounts of people through verified chains of narrations which attest to the teachings, sayings, and life of Mohammed.

Are you claiming the NT was written after Noah prior to the coming of Jesus? If you are you're going to have provide evidence for that.

Also, I've dug enough to know that academic Bible historians have torn your "eyewitnesses" claim to shreds. Your Bible writers were anonymous. Not only that but they were either mind readers or full of lies. Jesus prayed in the Garden to God alone so how could any eyewitness know what he was saying?

Didnt God tell these people what to write in the bible as well? God is the word, what is written in the bible therefore your theory is debunked.

God wrote the bible....not people...his holy spirit entered people in order to write it so that we wouldn't be blind to the evil of this world.

And also as someone who is Christian like I've said before you you don't follow logic. Like the bible says at Proverbs 3:5 "trust the Lord with all your heart and lean not in your own understanding"

Which is very much accurate because if you start looking for loop holes, you will eventually find them, trust me.

Thats why we as believers take God's word and leave it as it is. Yes, the bible has been corrupted yet God guides us towards the truth and living a righteous life.

The problem with you is that youre relying too much on evidence and less in the holy spirit. You want proof of this and that but you should probably go read the bible yourself. Because if you would have read the bible you would know how the New Testament was made.

If you say that Jesus doesn't exist that means you can't be forgiven for your sins which only means you arent saved.

Because God doesn't allow sin in heaven and his children aren't sinners therefore if you aren't washed by the blood of Jesus Christ then you aren't saved .

 

[Yellowbunzz tasty]

the gospel accounts contradict each other in several places. eg the geneology of Jesus, that one is laughable.
as such, the gospels are basically like Hadith.

however, the Quran supports them. That's the only reason they get a pass by me and why i choose to 'believe' and accept them as they are.
it's ironic , i would genuinely not believe in the NT were it not for the Quran supporting it.

Furthermore, it's because of sufi islam and their many works, that i became familiar with concepts like Fana and wahdat al wujud or wahdat ash-shuhud, the lataif system and how they relate to the metaphysics and God's ontology..
by understanding all that...
the NT was pretty easy to understand.

most christians will never grasp the meaning of John 1:1
however they'll cling onto their beliefs and argue because that's all they have.
the most basic things they believe in, like 'being saved' arent even guaranteed when Jesus says he'll reject many.

well
test this one
'many will come to me saying LORD LORD'
this is funny.
as i have highlighted and what NO CHRISTIAN has highlighted.. even when Jesus referenced the title 'lord' with the rabbis, he quoted/referred to Psalm 110. in the context of psalm 110, the 'lord' of David (ie the messiah) was ADONI, whilst THE LORD was ADNAI/YAHWEH.
so each time a xtian is saying LORD JESUS and literally thinking Jesus is God, they have done fucked up and will be rejected easily.

Jude 1 said that the Israelites were 'in faith', before the law of Moses, yet they lost their belief in Egypt, hence God sent Moses with LAWS to correct them.
Paul said the gentiles in christianity, were 'in FAITH'. if the israelites in egypt lost belief..then why should anyone assume the gentile christians didnt lose faith?
Afterall the churches in Revelation 2/3, most had lost the way. Jude 1 tells us the christians sitting at the feasts, have already lost the way..in his own time, how much more applicable is this centuries later?

when you have david wood, sam shamoun, ergun caner, as the faces of Christianity....i k now for sure that religion is dead and i know Jude 1 is more relevant than ever.
furthermore, the 7 churches in Revelation, all those cities became muslim. Muslims inherited Jerusalem for 1260 yrs..

Jesus was God in flesh.