Merciful Servant sees Muhammad in Isaiah 42, but was there a smudge in his Bible?

DUSTY

Established
Joined
Jun 30, 2019
Messages
265
Isaiah 42:3 -
A bruised reed he will not break,
and a smoldering wick he will not snuff out.
In faithfulness he will bring forth justice;

That is SOOOOO not Muhammad. Muhammad was a caravan thief who ordered the murder of poets and poetesses. He waged war against innocent people and took thousands upon thousands as slaves. His followers wiped out entire ancient and vibrant civilizations. That's not justice nor is it someone who is as peaceful as a person who would let a smoldering wick alone.
 





Karlysymon

Star
Joined
Mar 18, 2017
Messages
3,564
@Infinityloop
While you didn’t elaborate on your personal convictions regarding this verse (and iam not pressing you on it), iam just curious as to where Muslims get this idea from. For a moment, let me operate from the position that we (Christians) are wrong about Isaiah 42 as a prophecy about Christ.

Muslims can’t just read Muhammad into that chapter given that the name isn’t even mentioned. So iam asking, how and from where did this belief get entrenched in Islam? Care to comment on the OP?
I love how Isaiah talks so specifically of the coming of Muhammad(pbuh) ;)
There's absolutely no way you can twist around it. It's clear for everyone who have eyes to see and a mind to read. Also, I believe Isaiah to be talking about two different prophets one of them being Muhammad(pbuh).

-Muhammad(pbuh) is the New Song.
-He's a descendant of the people of Kedar and made them rejoice and lift up their voice.
-Sela is a mountain in Medina where when the prophet entered the city the inhabitants literally sang a song of joy (they literally sang on his arrival).
-He was a warrior and him and his people led battle shouts praising the Most High.
-He literally drove out the idol worshipers and they turned in shame and ran (they literally carved out images of their false gods and worshiped them).
 





Joined
Mar 14, 2017
Messages
2,560
What pisses me off is as someone who regularly quotes from the bible inc this chapter, it frustrates me seeing muslims butcher it with their third grade logic and then seeing these shitty christians jump on it.
when i quote this chapter, christians like @Red Sky at Morning can't say shit and go into hiding.

Isaiah 42 is relevant to islam from the 10th verse to the 20th (i think). No doubt about that whatsoever.
the first 9 verses are relevant to Jesus and christianity.
in fact these third rate muslims see where it says 'bring justice to the nations' part and think 'well jesus didn't do that so it must be about mohammad' but they overlook the second coming aspect to that. obv it is frustrating as hell seeing so many dumb people spout opinions, it's why i act the way i do because i can't stand BS.


Isaiah 42:3 -
A bruised reed he will not break,
and a smoldering wick he will not snuff out.
In faithfulness he will bring forth justice;

That is SOOOOO not Muhammad. Muhammad was a caravan thief who ordered the murder of poets and poetesses. He waged war against innocent people and took thousands upon thousands as slaves. His followers wiped out entire ancient and vibrant civilizations. That's not justice nor is it someone who is as peaceful as a person who would let a smoldering wick alone.
Moses, Joshua, David, Solomon...they all murdered in the name of God, so stfu with your fake morality...especially when you're quoting from Isaiah 42, FFFS

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.


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

But those who trust in idols,
who say to images, ‘You are our gods,’
will be turned back in utter shame.


and yet you said
His followers wiped out entire ancient and vibrant civilizations. That's not justice nor is it someone who is as peaceful as a person who would let a smoldering wick alone

seriously YOU absolute daft bastard!!!!
swear to God these stupid bitches on here.


As for his followers wiping out civilisations....
muslims ruled india for 800 yrs and every kind of religion/denomination and ethnicity not only still exists, but india was the richest land on earth three times over in that time.
muslims ruled over every major religion and many different ethnicities, long before white people/colonialists did...and for a lot lot longer.
Whilst we know from christian history that every type of 'non believer' was wiped out...(what happened to vikings?), under muslims as long as people paid their tax they were protected.
it is only in recent history with these american invasions and the western creation of these fake 'terrorist' groups that we're seeing all these small minority groups leaving iraq/syria. their existence proves muslims werent wiping them out!!

hint
https://www.jpost.com/Middle-East/Report-Israel-treating-al-Qaida-fighters-wounded-in-Syria-civil-war-393862

do you want to debate me 'dusty'? let's go.
 





Last edited:
Joined
Mar 14, 2017
Messages
2,560
@Infinityloop
While you didn’t elaborate on your personal convictions regarding this verse (and iam not pressing you on it), iam just curious as to where Muslims get this idea from. For a moment, let me operate from the position that we (Christians) are wrong about Isaiah 42 as a prophecy about Christ.

Muslims can’t just read Muhammad into that chapter given that the name isn’t even mentioned. So iam asking, how and from where did this belief get entrenched in Islam? Care to comment on the OP?
perhaps because isaiah 42 begins with
“Here is my servant, whom I uphold,
and you christians insist Jesus is GOD?

seriously though a lot of muslims have never read the whole bible, they merely hear of some parts of the bible, read them and just generalise about it without specific intel. So for example it says

In faithfulness he will bring forth justice;
4 he will not falter or be discouraged
till he establishes justice on earth.
In his teaching the islands will put their hope.”


they quickly think 'Well Jesus didnt do that did he?'
obv this is one of those chapters that didnt hint at a a 'second coming of Jesus' type of context. it's part of why Jesus was rejected in the first place..because he didnt establish justice, instead he said 'render unto ceasar...'
However to someone who knows the difference...
Isaiah 42:1-9 Christianity
Isaiah 42:10-20 Islam
the rest are a condemnation of the jewish people where God says
You have seen many things, but you pay no attention;
your ears are open, but you do not listen.”


isaiah 42:10-20 most def cannot be a post-Jesus second coming/messianic era prophecy because the later verses go on to condemn the jewish nation based on the previous signs. It's obvious this is a pre-messianic period prophecy..and it clearly connects with islam.

Sing to the Lord a new song,

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.


kedar...he was the son of Ismael and the ancestor of the Quraysh tribe.
Sela is a mountain of Medina.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Sela_(Saudi_Arabia)
in fact reading that, it's all the more fitting

"The Prophet Muhammad in the "Battle of the Trench" prayed to God for victory on Mount Sela'.

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.

another example
Revelation 11, it talks of the gentiles trampling on the outer court for 1260 days.
whilst this is largely speculative with the numbers, it just happens that the period muslims ruled al aqsa was 1260 lunar years...exact.
 





Karlysymon

Star
Joined
Mar 18, 2017
Messages
3,564
perhaps because isaiah 42 begins with
“Here is my servant, whom I uphold,
and you christians insist Jesus is GOD?

seriously though a lot of muslims have never read the whole bible, they merely hear of some parts of the bible, read them and just generalise about it without specific intel. So for example it says

In faithfulness he will bring forth justice;
4 he will not falter or be discouraged
till he establishes justice on earth.
In his teaching the islands will put their hope.”


they quickly think 'Well Jesus didnt do that did he?'
obv this is one of those chapters that didnt hint at a a 'second coming of Jesus' type of context. it's part of why Jesus was rejected in the first place..because he didnt establish justice, instead he said 'render unto ceasar...'
However to someone who knows the difference...
Isaiah 42:1-9 Christianity
Isaiah 42:10-20 Islam
the rest are a condemnation of the jewish people where God says
You have seen many things, but you pay no attention;
your ears are open, but you do not listen.”


isaiah 42:10-20 most def cannot be a post-Jesus second coming/messianic era prophecy because the later verses go on to condemn the jewish nation based on the previous signs. It's obvious this is a pre-messianic period prophecy..and it clearly connects with islam.

Sing to the Lord a new song,

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.


kedar...he was the son of Ismael and the ancestor of the Quraysh tribe.
Sela is a mountain of Medina.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Sela_(Saudi_Arabia)
in fact reading that, it's all the more fitting

"The Prophet Muhammad in the "Battle of the Trench" prayed to God for victory on Mount Sela'.

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.


another example
Revelation 11, it talks of the gentiles trampling on the outer court for 1260 days.
whilst this is largely speculative with the numbers, it just happens that the period muslims ruled al aqsa was 1260 lunar years...exact.
I understand but so often, the argument used against Christian beliefs is that we are just reading our own beliefs into the text and that they have nothing to do with what the Jews believed. The same can be said about Islam. Here is my post from anther thread.

Infinityloop said

Ok firstly, do you actually know what the Tanakh actually prophecies? and do you know what the Jewish view of a messiah actually is? because Christianity is completely divorced from what it claims to be a fulfillment of.

I said:
I could also switch this around on Islam. If Muslims see Muhammad in Isaiah 42 and Deut 18, is that how Jews view those prophecies aswell? Or are they in just plain denial about that reality…the reality of Muhammadic prophecies…completely divorced from what it claims to be a fulfilment of? Would Rashi agree?
https://www.chabad.org/library/bible_cdo/aid/15973/showrashi/true
 





Red Sky at Morning

Superstar
Joined
Mar 15, 2017
Messages
8,437
Cutting to it, there seems to be good evidence coming through that the location of the real Mt Sinai is in Saudi Arabia.

Saudi Arabia opens tourism to ancient biblical sites: 'The atmosphere is changing'

https://www.foxnews.com/world/saudi-arabia-christian-tour

Furthermore, a fresh look at scripture points to Jesus potentially returning to Mt Sinai en route to His triumphal return to Jerusalem. This would give a new angle to the mention of the rejoicing of Kedar and Sela (Petra) in Isaiah 42.

 





Last edited:
Joined
Mar 14, 2017
Messages
2,560
I understand but so often, the argument used against Christian beliefs is that we are just reading our own beliefs into the text and that they have nothing to do with what the Jews believed. The same can be said about Islam. Here is my post from anther thread.

Infinityloop said

I think he was referring more to the trinitarian doctrine. Islam is not far off from judaic monothiestic theology (tawheed, the Oneness of God).
The other aspect, eg Mohammad in the bible, is not so straight forward. To wrap your head around it, you would have to know more about the jewish mindset in that period of time. They were awaiting the messiah in the early 7th century. They had finally established a jewish state in Jerusalem, although it was an appendage to the Sassanian empire.
The seeds the jewish nation was planting (as in, like the law of attraction) came into the world but they didn't receive it's fruit, their enemy did. That is what God said would happen in Leviticus 26
https://www.biblegateway.com/passage/?search=Leviticus+26:14-18&version=NIV
so when the Quran told jews to 'You will find him in your own book', it is deeper than it appears on the surface.
Mohammad was a reflection of the jewish people's personal archetypal messiah, a figure like Moses and David.

in islam, it is written that there are 3 stages of faith. The first one is Iman/belief eg to posess belief but still be sinful.
The second one is ISLAM which is perfect surrender to the will of God. Islam is a dualistic state of Object and Subject, Creator and Creation. The trouble with trying to attain the state of islam, ie peace/surrender is that we still exist in a state of multiplicity...
it is like Iblees in the islamic version. As a jinn, made of fire (which represents desire)....desire is a product of separation eg the consciousness of the individual vs all else...
this fire made iblees ascend to a higher level than the angels of light..it was his desire to become greater. The problem was when his attention (eye) was turned 'downward' to Adam, it became a destructive fire.
If you read up on what St Thomas Aquinas wrote about Seraphs (beings of fire), you'll understand the qualities of this fire.
So basically we humans also possess that fire.
the fire is what buddhists call Tanha/craving. it is the root of all suffering.

Ihsan is 'to worship Allah as if you see Him, or if you can't do that then at least understand that He sees you'.
Ihsan comes from a Single minded (as in like Jesus said, make your eye single...) perspective eg to see Oneness in All eg to see God in all things..but more than that, it is a means of attaining unity of consciousness to the point where, like Paul said 'to the pure all things are pure'..do you get this? Ihsan is the true christian perspective, whereas islam was the jewish perspective.
now the religion of islam teaches the 2 higher paths but Ihsan is superior.

These 2 paths, islam and ihsan are what the 'works vs faith' and 'slaves vs sons of God' theme in the NT is about. It is called the philosophy of right-action vs the philosophy of non-action.

The point is, the jews were in that state of multiplicity and duality with God...this meant they saw such things as 'enemies'..so they wanted a Davidic king who would built a jewish empire. Likewise they wanted a Moses like prophet who would wield the LAW.

When they tested Jesus with the law of stoning, he said 'he who is without sin'
when they tested Mohammad, he said 'bring your book and see what it says in that'

if Mohammad was jewish, he would be everything the jews wanted. That is why the Quran says 'you will find him written in your own book'...it is designed to reflect the jewish mindset, eg will they notice it?

hence in Isaiah 42 God says
Who is blind like the one in covenant with me,
blind like the servant of the Lord?
20 You have seen many things, but you pay no attention;
your ears are open, but you do not listen.”
21 It pleased the Lord
for the sake of his righteousness
to make his law great and glorious.
22 But this is a people plundered and looted,
all of them trapped in pits
or hidden away in prisons.
They have become plunder,
with no one to rescue them;


the outcome was that the jews didn't receive the messiah they wanted, then they massacred christians in jerusalem, then the persians withdrew their support and the byzantines took back Jerusalem.

obv when these 'experts' discuss islam vs christianity, not a single one talks about the 7th century contexts or the Leviticus 26 part.
They cant be very good at their job if they havent understood these themes, because they are so blatant.


Also, there is a hadith that mentions Gabriel and the Holy spirit as 2 distinct beings. Despite that, muslims lied about Gabriel and called him the holy spirit. Yet later muslims go on quoting John 16 to say 'it is about Mohammad, the comforter'.

Why are people so dumb? it isnt difficult to grasp.
like Jesus said in John 16
'he will only speak what he hears' 'he will tell you what is to come' eg the holy spirit acts through people...so some person would become the recipient of the holy spirit to pass the message on to people.
That is why Jesus said
2 “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.
dont get me wrong
im taking into account the epistles and the book of Revelation prophecies
BUT They don't outweigh the Gospels. The apostles job was to go out and preach the GOSPEL.
Jesus said 'much more to say to you' meaning there was far far far more to know that what Jesus brought. So the holy spirit was going to reveal it...obv through a person/people.
in 2000 yrs, i can't see that anywhere else but islam. it's the only one that makes sense.

The Quran says
(4) 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)


you've got to connect this with everything else

-the promise to Ismael, a great nation, 12 princes (see the hadith of the 12 caliphs of Quraysh), the final one who is supposed to be the Mahdi btw.
-Isaiah 42's new song prophecy
-Revelation 11, foretold 2 witnesses, not 1 but 2...i believe it is symbolic of islam and christianity. However going even further, the 'gentiles will trample on the outer court for 1260 days' has been fulfilled through muslim control over the temple mount.

muslims conquered Jerusalem in 636AD
until the first crusade in 1099
Muslims regained Jerusalem in 1187
Until muslims lost Jerusalem in 1948
463+761=1224 years. However these are solar years, the prophecy is in lunar years.
1 years = 1.0306812089059 years
1260 years

(btw the above...i take 1948 because i dont think muslims have actually had any real control since jewish independence, even though officially muslims lost it in 1967, it was just a formality).

Furthermore
if you think about it, Paul effectively compared the gentile christians, to the patriarchs of judaism, eg Abraham, Isaac, Jacob
the implication being that the patriarchs didn't live under the law and yet were righteous.

YET what Paul didnt explain was that despite being 'righteous' God saw fit to give the israelites a law (through the Torah).
What had changed? it's that the israelites lived in egypt for 400 yrs and therefore lost the essence of their real religion.
In the same manner, i believe christianity was under the grace of God, until it became the roman religion and then effectively became this trinitarian religion. That is why God revealed a gentile religion with a law...akin to the mosaic law.
It also places far more weight on the idea of Jesus 'fulfilling the law of God'. Eg just like he dealt with the mosaic law, he has to deal with the Quranic law. That is why in the hadith prophecy it says

4) Narrated Abu Huraira: Allah's Apostle said "How will you be when the son of Mary (i.e. Jesus) descends amongst you and he will judge people by the Law of the Quran and not by the law of gospel (Fateh-ul Bari page 304 and 305 Vol 7) (Book #55, Hadith #658)
thisobv doesnt mean he will literally have people flogged for fornication/adultery like the Quran states...but he will 'fulfill the law' like he did with the mosaic law. that has a higher perspective to it...eg 'turn the other cheek'
although in the Quran it does already say things like

(1) And We ordained therein for them: "Life for life, eye for eye, nose for nose, ear for ear, tooth for tooth, and wounds equal for equal." But if anyone remits the retaliation by way of charity, it shall be for him an expiation. And whosoever does not judge by that which Allah has revealed, such are the Zalimun (wrong-doers).
(سورة المائدة, Al-Maaida, Chapter #5, Verse #45)


there's not much else for me to say to that, other than, my perspective makes sense...it is more complete than the bog standard christian one on it's own which, for example, totally dismisses Ismael as a 'wild ass of a man'.

On a micro scale you can look at how Jesus was before the ascension compared to how he is supposed to be after he descends..
this is reflected in the passive and active aspect of Mohammad when he was in Mecca and then he went to Madina.
this is reflective of jewish messianic ideas eg the messiah ben Joseph and the messiah ben David.
 





Joined
Mar 14, 2017
Messages
2,560
Cutting to it, there seems to be good evidence coming through that the location of the real Mt Sinai is in Saudi Arabia.

Saudi Arabia opens tourism to ancient biblical sites: 'The atmosphere is changing'

https://www.foxnews.com/world/saudi-arabia-christian-tour

Furthermore, a fresh look at scripture points to Jesus potentially returning to Mt Sinai en route to His triumphal return to Jerusalem. This would give a new angle to the mention of the rejoicing of Kedar and Sela (Petra) in Isaiah 42.

If the new song prophecy in Isaiah 42 is about the 'triumphant return of Jesus'...
why does it then go on to condemn the jewish nation from verse 20 onwards?
The return of Jesus marks the turning point for the jewish nation, their redemption.

Nowhere in the bible does it say Jesus is returning to MOUNT SINAI.
This is out of pure desperation because the sinai reference says

Deuteronomy 33
This is the blessing with which Moses the man of God blessed the people of Israel before his death. 2 He said,

“The Lord came from Sinai
and dawned from Seir upon us;
he shone forth from Mount Paran;
he came from the ten thousands of holy ones,
with flaming fire at his right hand.


Habakkuk 3
God came from Teman,
the Holy One from Mount Paran.Selah
His glory covered the heavens,
and the earth was full of his praise.


so what you've done is, knowing those sort of references you've attempted to divert the attention they're receiving from muslims.
we know where Mount paran is..

When jesus returns, he isn't going to be converting people, he's going to be judging people, what they did before.
That's why it's called the Harvest!!!

take a break with your weak, biased illogical views.
 





Red Sky at Morning

Superstar
Joined
Mar 15, 2017
Messages
8,437
If the new song prophecy in Isaiah 42 is about the 'triumphant return of Jesus'...
why does it then go on to condemn the jewish nation from verse 20 onwards?
The return of Jesus marks the turning point for the jewish nation, their redemption.

Nowhere in the bible does it say Jesus is returning to MOUNT SINAI.
This is out of pure desperation because the sinai reference says

Deuteronomy 33
This is the blessing with which Moses the man of God blessed the people of Israel before his death. 2 He said,


“The Lord came from Sinai
and dawned from Seir upon us;
he shone forth from Mount Paran;
he came from the ten thousands of holy ones,
with flaming fire at his right hand.


Habakkuk 3
God came from Teman,
the Holy One from Mount Paran.Selah
His glory covered the heavens,
and the earth was full of his praise.


so what you've done is, knowing those sort of references you've attempted to divert the attention they're receiving from muslims.
we know where Mount paran is..

When jesus returns, he isn't going to be converting people, he's going to be judging people, what they did before.
That's why it's called the Harvest!!!

take a break with your weak, biased illogical views.
None taken ;-)

As to the Mt Sinai question, I had never really thought about it but Joel Richardson made a very interesting case for it. I had not connected it to the Isaiah 42 question till this thread made me connect the ideas.

I’m not making a doctrine out of it, but I would invite anyone to listen to what he has to say and judge the matter themselves.

What really did get my attention recently is the about-face that Saudi Arabia seem to have had on the most likely location for Mt Sinai, as the features still remaining at the site are indicative of very Biblical events indeed taking place there!

https://doubtingthomasresearch.com

4EADCD9F-FD7C-4145-B0C1-AEDF1E4434BE.jpeg

The Split Rock of Horeb in Saudi Arabia, believed to be the rock that Moses struck from which water flowed out of for the Israelites.
 





Karlysymon

Star
Joined
Mar 18, 2017
Messages
3,564
so when the Quran told jews to 'You will find him in your own book',
So this is where the idea comes from. I see.
Also, there is a hadith that mentions Gabriel and the Holy spirit as 2 distinct beings. Despite that, muslims lied about Gabriel and called him the holy spirit. Yet later muslims go on quoting John 16 to say 'it is about Mohammad, the comforter'.
Gosh, i'd completely forgotten about this in our (christians and muslims) old debates. Thanks for the reminder :D

While you didn't participate in the Barnabbas thread, Haich gave me a link to this website and while i was looking for something, i found this:

The truth is that the four Gospels which the Christian Church has recognized as Canonical are neither an authentic means of knowing the Prophet Jesus (peace be upon him) Prophecies about the Prophet (peace be upon him) nor are they a reliable source for knowing the correct biography and the original teachings of the Prophet Jesus (peace be upon him) himself, but by far the more trustworthy means for this is the Gospel of Barnabas which the Church has declared as heretical and apocryphal. The Christians have done whatever they could to conceal it, and it remained lost to the world for centuries. In the 16th century only one copy of its Italian translation existed in the library of Pope Sixtus V, and no one was allowed to read it. In the beginning of the 18th century it came into the hands of one John Toland. Then, changing different hands it found its way in 1738 into the Imperial Library of Vienna, In 1907 an English translation of this Italian manuscript was printed at the Clarendon Press, Oxford, but probably soon after its printing the Christian world realized that the book cut at the very root of the faith which was attributed to the Prophet Jesus (peace be upon him). Therefore, its printed copies were destroyed somehow, and then it never went into print any more. Another copy of it, a Spanish translation from the Italian manuscript, existed in the 18th century, which has been mentioned by George Sale in his Preface and Preliminary Discourse to the English translation of the Quran. This too was made to disappear, and no trace of it exists anywhere today. I had an opportunity to see a copy of the English translation published from Oxford and I have read it word by word. I feel that it is indeed a great blessing of which the Christians have kept themselves deprived only out of prejudice and stubbornness.
http://www.islamicstudies.info/tafheem.php/old_commentary/?sura=61&verse=1&to=14


So why don't you guys quote more from this gospel on here rather often quoting from the usual 4 gospels, since its apparently more authentic?
 





Joined
Mar 14, 2017
Messages
2,560
So this is where the idea comes from. I see.

Gosh, i'd completely forgotten about this in our (christians and muslims) old debates. Thanks for the reminder :D

While you didn't participate in the Barnabbas thread, Haich gave me a link to this website and while i was looking for something, i found this:

The truth is that the four Gospels which the Christian Church has recognized as Canonical are neither an authentic means of knowing the Prophet Jesus (peace be upon him) Prophecies about the Prophet (peace be upon him) nor are they a reliable source for knowing the correct biography and the original teachings of the Prophet Jesus (peace be upon him) himself, but by far the more trustworthy means for this is the Gospel of Barnabas which the Church has declared as heretical and apocryphal. The Christians have done whatever they could to conceal it, and it remained lost to the world for centuries. In the 16th century only one copy of its Italian translation existed in the library of Pope Sixtus V, and no one was allowed to read it. In the beginning of the 18th century it came into the hands of one John Toland. Then, changing different hands it found its way in 1738 into the Imperial Library of Vienna, In 1907 an English translation of this Italian manuscript was printed at the Clarendon Press, Oxford, but probably soon after its printing the Christian world realized that the book cut at the very root of the faith which was attributed to the Prophet Jesus (peace be upon him). Therefore, its printed copies were destroyed somehow, and then it never went into print any more. Another copy of it, a Spanish translation from the Italian manuscript, existed in the 18th century, which has been mentioned by George Sale in his Preface and Preliminary Discourse to the English translation of the Quran. This too was made to disappear, and no trace of it exists anywhere today. I had an opportunity to see a copy of the English translation published from Oxford and I have read it word by word. I feel that it is indeed a great blessing of which the Christians have kept themselves deprived only out of prejudice and stubbornness.
http://www.islamicstudies.info/tafheem.php/old_commentary/?sura=61&verse=1&to=14


So why don't you guys quote more from this gospel on here rather often quoting from the usual 4 gospels?
the gospel of barnabas is probably a muslim forgery...i never read too much into it. i know it is dumb.

the 'substitute' theory which muslims have written about, is due to a piss poor reading of the gnostic apocalypse of peter. Where in the GAoP it talks of the 'substitute being put to shame' it is talking of the 'stony vessel' eg the physical body born in the likeness of the spirit.
so at some point some clueless muslim read it, made a fast assumption, wrote a book..and it got passed on.

Then muslims did something insane..
as they wrote english translations of the Quran, they began to insert their own meanings like this

(1) And because of their saying (in boast), "We killed Messiah 'Îsa (Jesus), son of Maryam (Mary), the Messenger of Allah," - but they killed him not, nor crucified him, but it appeared so to them [the resemblance of 'Îsa (Jesus) was put over another man (and they killed that man)], and those who differ therein are full of doubts. They have no (certain) knowledge, they follow nothing but conjecture. For surely; they killed him not [i.e. 'Îsa (Jesus), son of Maryam (Mary) عليهما السلام]:
(سورة النساء, An-Nisaa, Chapter #4, Verse #157)

and so, similarly when in the Quran it says
(1) But the transgressors changed the word from that which had been given them; so We sent on the transgressors a plague from heaven, for that they infringed (Our command) repeatedly.
(سورة البقرة, Al-Baqara, Chapter #2, Verse #59)


it doesnt mean the actual texts were changed, it means their interpretations were changed.

the greatest problem here has been that islam came new to the west through immigration...and that came along with the age of information, book printing, videos etc. So muslims didnt have a period to really settle mentally and know wtf they were saying before they began printing their ignorant views and monopolising the entire dawah industry...which is what it is. it is a business.
Ahmad Deedat is dead..he didnt make his sons his inheritors in this 'business' but Zakir Naik did...and all he did was copy Ahmad Deedat's points.

however saying that, when i used to listen to the debates, muslims always won those debates. even with their wrong arguments, the christians were more wrong. that's because christians use the scatter gun approach to attacking islam...and it fails on everything because there's no depth to an argument....and when there's no depth it isnt well thought out, it can easily be refuted with some basic logic.
For example..
christian: muslims dont have guarantee of salvation like we do
answer: erm yes we actually do, but it is cocky to insist on that. furthermore Jesus proved christians don't have guarantee of salvation
going more in depth
you only have this salvation if you died with Jesus..and for that to happen, requires a spiritual connection, 'gnosis' of Jesus...'i am in you and you are in me'..it is a deeply mystical state of existence where effectively the qualities of Jesus become yours...and as a branch you merge with the tree.
as a result, becoming a saintly type of person becomes effortless.
this type of salvation in turn kills the carnal side to a person...and a person didnt have to struggle dealing with sinfulness all the time.
if someone claims to be born again yet is struggling with temptation, lust, greed, envy, addiction, there's no chance that person is actually born again.

the other type of salvation, is the accountability of sin as opposed to the nature of sin..
yet all a person needs to do is sincerely turn to God and ask for forgiveness. It's granted..and a person is forgiven.


do you get the idea? im basically just looking at how christians debate and see it as absurd.
muslims, despite having very poor arguments against christianity, gain the upper hand in debates..

i was watching a hyde park debate, that indian/pakistani looking christian girl..vs muslims
she begins by claiming to be an ex muslim...which is instantly BS. it says a lot that christians need to lie about being ex muslims for credibility.
then...when a muslim answers her on something she says 'dat is taqqiyah' and im like 'does this bitch even know what taqqiyah is?' 'how dumb are these people?'
however on the actual debate..the muslim is like 'der is nuttin unto like da Allah' and the christian is like 'God is everywhere, God is everywhere, that is dumb, so you're saying God is somewhere else? omg that makes no sense' and she's utterly confused and angry.

she's trying to point to God's Immanence and prob doesnt know what that means..and the muslim is pointing to God's Trancendence.

they are both stupid to not meet at the same level and actually understand what they're saying.

However i have to insist, the Quran is absolutely spot on...the trinitarian concept is a mystical truth on God's Immanence, it is not a theological truth on God's Transcendent nature, so why was it made into a doctrine?
because christians are dumb too...
personally i think most of religion from outside the scripture, is straight up stupid, just like most people are stupid.



the NT was compiled long before Mohammad SAW. The Quran speaks in the present tense when it refers to the 'truth' of the Gospel. i do not have any issue with the NT at all. Not one bit. I have a different manner of understanding it though.

The Quran states that Allah Inspired the disciples of Jesus to believe in him. It also tells us that Allah caused the believers (in Jesus) from the jews, to become victorious over the disbelievers.
So when i read any type of anti-paul material by muslims, i just dismiss it.

btw, the trinitarian doctrine, the nicene creed and such things are a problem and imo clearly anti-bible because Jesus said the son doesnt know the last hour, cannot do anything of his own...and we're told Jesus emptied himself. my understanding of the universal consciousness, which i apply to the 'logos/word of God, image of God and Son of God' is that it's like a prism which reveals the qualities of God which are Immanent in creation.
Basically God is Immanent on the macrocosmic level and the microcosmic level. That is, the Son and holy spirit.
The Son/Logos, is beyond thinking about...eg it is God's Eternal expression..
when we think of the universe, how far can it go knowing what we know today? the universe is vast beyond our comprehension.
Then there's the idea that there isnt 1 universe, but infinite universes..again beyond our comprehension.
so basically God is Immanent everywhere and He is also Immanent within ourselves...
that's all it needs to be simplified to.
in islam the primary attribute of Allah's Immanence, is MERCY/RAHMA
it says Bismillah IrRahman IrRaheem
this is basically my understanding of that trinity eg the Transcendent Essence, Immanent on the macrocosmic and microcosmic levels.

The reason im saying this is because it is insane that we have this debate...and all the while right there in front of us, every chapter in the Quran except 1, begins with those words.
What the Quran says is 'desist, say not God is 3' and that is justified because when i was a kid growing up, no christian i knew, could explain the trinity. "god is 3 PERSONS" is wrong..God is in every single one of us, God is beyond comprehension in the manner of His Immanence.
It should have been called the UNITARIAN God.

i know this is all over the place, but if you've read it all you know what i mean.
to even say 'God is 3' confuses most people and acheives nothing.
 





Axl888

Established
Joined
Jul 29, 2019
Messages
253
Just a quick observation.

The Koran acknowledges only few scriptures other than itself as holy writings that came from God, and these are:

1. Torah (Genesis, Exodus, Leviticus, Numbers & Deuteronomy)
2. Injeel (Gospel, but now corrupted according to muslims)
3. Zaboor (Psalms)

And therefore, writings/scriptures apart from the three mentioned and the Koran do not have divine inspiration and probably just 'fairy tales' authored by men (according to Islam).

But isn't it strange or rather disingenuous that some muslims use scriptures like the Book of Isaiah which is NOT part of scriptures acknowledged by the Koran as divinely inspired and therefore deemed to be corrupted or a lie, and yet they still quote verses from this book to validate Islam and claim prophesies about Muhammad? Is Isaiah even considered a prophet according to the Koran?
 





Joined
Jul 20, 2019
Messages
1,028
Just a quick observation.

The Koran acknowledges only few scriptures other than itself as holy writings that came from God, and these are:

1. Torah (Genesis, Exodus, Leviticus, Numbers & Deuteronomy)
2. Injeel (Gospel, but now corrupted according to muslims)
3. Zaboor (Psalms)

And therefore, writings/scriptures apart from the three mentioned and the Koran do not have divine inspiration and probably just 'fairy tales' authored by men (according to Islam).
You're arguing from Catholic/Protestant assumption here and you don't even notice there that these terms are in the singular. Also the etymology of the two most important there "Torah" means 'teaching, instruction or way' and "Gospel" means 'good news or glad tidings'.

"Torah", Tawrat, functionally means the Jewish scriptures in it's general historical use. The word "Torah" itself in Judaism applies to both the Pentateuch EQUALLY as much as it does the Talmud (which is called "Oral Torah"). This is because "Torah" means teaching, and is associated 100% with the revelation from God to Moses at Mount Sinai which still remains central to the Israelite religion, Samaritanism and Judaism. Torah is a Law and collection of teachings given to Moses, not a book contained in the Bible in-and-of-itself. The Pentateuch is mainly just a Hadith collection of Moses' life. With the exception to Deuteronomy in particular - which for a multitude of reasons, seems to be the closest we have to the Tawrat in the form of it's revelation or implementation by the actual Moses.
When the Qur'an refers to words such as that, it is semantically referring to Revelations, not books. This is where you strawman us, strawmanning us only makes you look foolish and ignorant.

As for Injeel:
"And We sent after them in their footsteps Jesus, son of Mary, verifying what was before him of the Taurat and We gave him the Injeel in which was guidance and light, and verifying what was before it of Taurat and a guidance and an admonition for those who guard (against evil)." - Surah 5:46

It is the revelation to Jesus given by God, embodied as a Law and Teaching. Nobody "gave" Jesus the books of "Matthew, mark, luke and john", in fact Jesus was long gone after that too, lmao.
Some of the closest examples of the semantic use is very close to the Didache (which was taken as scripture by many early forms of Christianity and practically predates the entire "New Testament") and what we see presented as the "sermon on the mount" in Matthew 5-7. But NOT the story of Jesus' life.
Jesus' life simply written by a bunch of people would be Hadith or Seerah, NOT scripture. This sets aside the issue that there is no chain of transmission for matthew mark luke and john and that none of them date far back enough to even be considered properly historical, in comparison to various other non-canonical texts (of which still aren't the proper Injeel).

The Qur'an doesn't, nor Islam, takes any official position on the Bible (a 66 book canon decided upon by a bunch of guys in a room back in the 4th century) as a whole because it doesn't acknowledge it at all. The Bible wasn't written or transmitted by God (aside from the very certainty of a concrete historical use of Deuteronomy in a much early version by the historical Moses - minus the inserts), let alone 'canonized by God', ROTFL.

The Bible is not a collection of Revelations, it is a collection of historical accounts, poems, wisdom literature, letters and visions.
Matthew, Mark, Luke and John are not the Injeel, there is no such possibility of this ever logically being the case whatsoever. And all the Paulian and Johannine epistles are especially not the Injeel either.

As for the Zaboor, that is more mysterious, both in relation to what the Ketuvim book itself actually is and what the Qur'an is referring to.

None of this throws out any of the value to be found in the Bible but it means that you have to reconsider what the Bible, both as a religious collection of texts, and doctrinally, is.

The Protestant idea of "scripture" is also very different from the Catholic and Orthodox idea of Scripture, as is Christianity as a whole's perspective of the Tanakh entirely divorced from the Jewish and Samaritan understanding of the same texts. And the Islamic view of scripture is entirely different from the above, for reasons of Divine Authority over the authority of man.
Alongside this you have to realize that the very idea of canon in your own religion is incoherent, you must keep that in mind when you analyse your own collection of books (the Bible).

But isn't it strange or rather disingenuous that some muslims use scriptures like the Book of Isaiah which is NOT part of scriptures acknowledged by the Koran as divinely inspired and therefore deemed to be corrupted or a lie, and yet they still quote verses from this book to validate Islam and claim prophesies about Muhammad? Is Isaiah even considered a prophet according to the Koran?
What do you actually think that the Book of Isaiah is?, is the first question I would like to ask you there.
 





Last edited:

Axl888

Established
Joined
Jul 29, 2019
Messages
253
You're arguing from Catholic/Protestant assumption here and you don't even notice there that these terms are in the singular.
"Torah", Tawrat, means the Jewish scriptures in it's general historical use. The word "Torah" itself in Judaism applies to both the Pentateuch EQUALLY as much as it does the Talmud (which is called "Oral Torah"). This is because "Torah" means teaching, and is associated 100% with the revelation from God to Moses at Mount Sinai which still remains central to the Israelite religion, Samaritanism and Judaism. Torah is a Law and collection of teachings given to Moses, not a book contained in the Bible in-and-of-itself. The Pentateuch is mainly just a Hadith collection of Moses' life. With the exception to Deuteronomy in particular - which for a multitude of reasons, seems to be the closest we have to the Tawrat.
When the Qur'an refers to words such as that, it is semantically referring to Revelations, not books. This is where you strawman us, strawmanning us only makes you look foolish and ignorant.

As for Injeel:
"And We sent after them in their footsteps Jesus, son of Mary, verifying what was before him of the Taurat and We gave him the Injeel in which was guidance and light, and verifying what was before it of Taurat and a guidance and an admonition for those who guard (against evil)." - Surah 5:46

It is the revelation to Jesus given by God, embodied as a Law and Teaching. Nobody "gave" Jesus the books of "Matthew, mark, luke and john", in fact Jesus was long gone after that too, lmao.
Some of the closest examples of the semantic use is very close to the Didache (which was taken as scripture by many early forms of Christianity) and what we see presented as the "sermon on the mount" in Matthew 5-7. But NOT the story of Jesus' life.
Jesus' life simply written by a bunch of people would be Hadith or Seerah, NOT scripture. This sets aside the issue that there is no chain of transmission for matthew mark luke and john and that none of them date far back enough to even be considered properly historical, in comparison to various other non-canonical texts (of which still aren't the proper Injeel).

The Qur'an doesn't, nor Islam, takes any official position on the Bible (a 66 book canon decided upon by a bunch of guys in a room back in the 4th century) as a whole because it doesn't acknowledge it at all. The Bible wasn't written or transmitted by God (aside from the very certainty of a concrete historical use of Deuteronomy in a much early version by the historical Moses), let alone 'canonized by God', ROTFL.

The Bible is not a collection of Revelations, it is a collection of historical accounts, poems, wisdom literature, letters and visions.
Matthew, Mark, Luke and John are not the Injeel, there is no such possibility of this ever logically being the case whatsoever. And all the Paulian and Johannine epistles are especially not the Injeel either.

As for the Zaboor, that is more mysterious, both in relation to what the Bible book itself is and what the Qur'an is referring to.

None of this throws out any of the value to be found in the Bible but it means that you have to reconsider what the Bible, both as a religious collection of texts, and doctrinally, is.

The Protestant idea of "scripture" is also very different from the Catholic and Orthodox idea of Scripture, as is Christianity as a whole's perspective of the Tanakh entirely divorced from the Jewish and Samaritan understanding of the same texts. And the Islamic view of scripture is entirely different from the above, for reasons of Divine Authority over the authority of man.
Alongside this you have to realize that the very idea of canon in your own religion is incoherent, you must keep that in mind when you analyse your own collection of books (the Bible).



What do you actually think that the Book of Isaiah is?, is the first question I would like to ask you there.
Well first of all, I did not ask for your definition and commentaries of the Torah, Injeel and Zaboor.

You can read below where the Book of Isaiah belongs to.

Books of the Tanakh[edit]
The Tanakh consists of twenty-four books: it counts as one book each Samuel, Kings, Chronicles and Ezra–Nehemiah and counts the Twelve Minor Prophets (תרי עשר‎) as a single book. In Hebrew, the books are often referred to by their prominent first word(s).

Torah[edit]
The Torah (תּוֹרָה, literally "teaching"), also known as the Pentateuch, or as the "Five Books of Moses". Printed versions (rather than scrolls) of the Torah are often called "Chamisha Chumshei Torah"" (חמישה חומשי תורה‎ "Five fifth-sections of the Torah") and informally a "Chumash".

  • Bereshit (בְּרֵאשִׁית, literally "In the beginning") — Genesis
  • Shemot (שְׁמֹות, literally "The names [of]") — Exodus
  • Vayikra (וַיִּקְרָא, literally "And He called") — Leviticus
  • Bemidbar (בְּמִדְבַּר, literally "In the desert [of]") — Numbers
  • Devarim (דְּבָרִים, literally "Things" or "Words") — Deuteronomy
Nevi'im[edit]
Main article: Nevi'im

Nevi'im (נְבִיאִים‎ Nəḇî'îm, "Prophets") is the second main division of the Tanakh, between the Torah and Ketuvim. It contains three sub-groups. This division includes the books which cover the time from the entrance of the Israelites into the Land of Israel until the Babylonian captivity of Judah (the "period of prophecy").

Their distribution is not chronological, but substantive.

The Former Prophets (נביאים ראשונים‎ Nevi'im Rishonim)

  • Yĕhôshúa‘ (יְהוֹשֻעַ) — Joshua
  • Shophtim (שֹׁפְטִים) — Judges
  • Shmû’ēl (שְׁמוּאֵל) — Samuel
  • M'lakhim (מְלָכִים) — Kings
The Latter Prophets (נביאים אחרונים‎ Nevi'im Aharonim)

  • Yĕsha‘ăyāhû (יְשַׁעְיָהוּ) — Isaiah
  • Yirmyāhû (יִרְמְיָהוּ) — Jeremiah
  • Yĕkhezqiēl (יְחֶזְקֵאל) — Ezekiel
The Twelve Minor Prophets (תרי עשר‎, Trei Asar, "The Twelve"), which are considered one book

  • Hôshēa‘ (הוֹשֵׁעַ) — Hosea
  • Yô’ēl (יוֹאֵל) — Joel
  • ‘Āmôs (עָמוֹס) — Amos
  • ‘Ōvadhyāh (עֹבַדְיָה) — Obadiah
  • Yônāh (יוֹנָה) — Jonah
  • Mîkhāh (מִיכָה) — Micah
  • Nakḥûm (נַחוּם) — Nahum
  • Khăvhakûk (חֲבַקּוּק) — Habakkuk
  • Tsĕphanyāh (צְפַנְיָה) — Zephaniah
  • Khaggai (חַגַּי) — Haggai
  • Zkharyāh (זְכַרְיָה) — Zechariah
  • Mal’ākhî (מַלְאָכִי) — Malachi
Ketuvim[edit]
Main article: Ketuvim

Ketuvim (כְּתוּבִים‎, "Writings") consists of eleven books, described below. They are also divided into three subgroups based on the distinctiveness of Sifrei Emet and Hamesh Megillot.

The three poetic books (Sifrei Emet)

  • Tehillim (תְהִלִּים) — Psalms
  • Mishlei (מִשְׁלֵי) — Proverbs
  • Iyyôbh (אִיּוֹב) — Job
The Five Megillot (Hamesh Megillot). These books are read aloud in the synagogue on particular occasions, the occasion listed below in parenthesis.

Other books

  • Dānî'ēl (דָּנִיֵּאל) — Daniel
  • ‘Ezrā (עֶזְרָא) — Ezra and Nehemiah
  • Divrei ha-Yamim (דִּבְרֵי הַיָּמִים) — Chronicles
The Jewish textual tradition never finalized the order of the books in Ketuvim. The Babylonian Talmud (Bava Batra 14b — 15a) gives their order as Ruth, Psalms, Job, Proverbs, Ecclesiastes, Song of Solomon, Lamentations of Jeremiah, Daniel, Scroll of Esther, Ezra, Chronicles.

In Tiberian Masoretic codices, including the Aleppo Codex and the Leningrad Codex, and often in old Spanish manuscripts as well, the order is Chronicles, Psalms, Job, Proverbs, Ruth, Song of Solomon, Ecclesiastes, Lamentations of Jeremiah, Esther, Daniel, Ezra.[citation needed]

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Hebrew_Bible#Books_of_the_Tanakh
 





Red Sky at Morning

Superstar
Joined
Mar 15, 2017
Messages
8,437
You're arguing from Catholic/Protestant assumption here and you don't even notice there that these terms are in the singular. Also the etymology of the two most important there "Torah" means 'teaching, instruction or way' and "Gospel" means 'good news or glad tidings'.

"Torah", Tawrat, functionally means the Jewish scriptures in it's general historical use. The word "Torah" itself in Judaism applies to both the Pentateuch EQUALLY as much as it does the Talmud (which is called "Oral Torah"). This is because "Torah" means teaching, and is associated 100% with the revelation from God to Moses at Mount Sinai which still remains central to the Israelite religion, Samaritanism and Judaism. Torah is a Law and collection of teachings given to Moses, not a book contained in the Bible in-and-of-itself. The Pentateuch is mainly just a Hadith collection of Moses' life. With the exception to Deuteronomy in particular - which for a multitude of reasons, seems to be the closest we have to the Tawrat in the form of it's revelation or implementation by the actual Moses.
When the Qur'an refers to words such as that, it is semantically referring to Revelations, not books. This is where you strawman us, strawmanning us only makes you look foolish and ignorant.

As for Injeel:
"And We sent after them in their footsteps Jesus, son of Mary, verifying what was before him of the Taurat and We gave him the Injeel in which was guidance and light, and verifying what was before it of Taurat and a guidance and an admonition for those who guard (against evil)." - Surah 5:46

It is the revelation to Jesus given by God, embodied as a Law and Teaching. Nobody "gave" Jesus the books of "Matthew, mark, luke and john", in fact Jesus was long gone after that too, lmao.
Some of the closest examples of the semantic use is very close to the Didache (which was taken as scripture by many early forms of Christianity and practically predates the entire "New Testament") and what we see presented as the "sermon on the mount" in Matthew 5-7. But NOT the story of Jesus' life.
Jesus' life simply written by a bunch of people would be Hadith or Seerah, NOT scripture. This sets aside the issue that there is no chain of transmission for matthew mark luke and john and that none of them date far back enough to even be considered properly historical, in comparison to various other non-canonical texts (of which still aren't the proper Injeel).

The Qur'an doesn't, nor Islam, takes any official position on the Bible (a 66 book canon decided upon by a bunch of guys in a room back in the 4th century) as a whole because it doesn't acknowledge it at all. The Bible wasn't written or transmitted by God (aside from the very certainty of a concrete historical use of Deuteronomy in a much early version by the historical Moses), let alone 'canonized by God', ROTFL.

The Bible is not a collection of Revelations, it is a collection of historical accounts, poems, wisdom literature, letters and visions.
Matthew, Mark, Luke and John are not the Injeel, there is no such possibility of this ever logically being the case whatsoever. And all the Paulian and Johannine epistles are especially not the Injeel either.

As for the Zaboor, that is more mysterious, both in relation to what the Ketuvim book itself actually is and what the Qur'an is referring to.

None of this throws out any of the value to be found in the Bible but it means that you have to reconsider what the Bible, both as a religious collection of texts, and doctrinally, is.

The Protestant idea of "scripture" is also very different from the Catholic and Orthodox idea of Scripture, as is Christianity as a whole's perspective of the Tanakh entirely divorced from the Jewish and Samaritan understanding of the same texts. And the Islamic view of scripture is entirely different from the above, for reasons of Divine Authority over the authority of man.
Alongside this you have to realize that the very idea of canon in your own religion is incoherent, you must keep that in mind when you analyse your own collection of books (the Bible).



What do you actually think that the Book of Isaiah is?, is the first question I would like to ask you there.
From the above, I’m not entirely clear if you think that Muhammad is in Isaiah 42 or not? I’m also unsure if you personally regard it as an authoritative book or not?
 





Axl888

Established
Joined
Jul 29, 2019
Messages
253
You stated the following and made an assumption on what it meant to strawman us, so I corrected you :)
OK, were there other scriptures categorically mentioned in the Koran that supposedly came from God other than the Torah, Injeel, Zaboor and the Koran itself?
 





Joined
Jul 20, 2019
Messages
1,028
From the above, I’m not entirely clear if you think that Muhammad is in Isaiah 42 or not? I’m also unsure if you personally regard it as an authoritative book or not?
My own views on that book are complex, I've read a lot of scholarship on it (both religious by Jews and Christians, as well as secular) and I am of two minds about it.
There is clear Prophetic revelation there in it and it is one of the most Islamic books in the entire Bible with a lot of connections but at the same time it's clearly undergone massive additions since the historical Isaiah (who is not doubtfully a real person), which sheds issues with taking it at face value.
My own concerns are more about it's actual authenticity rather than whether it prophecies Muhammad or not, when it clearly has some kind of overshadowing (even hypothetically if it wasn't really to Muhammad), in a much more unabashed way than if we were to apply the same alleged passages to Jesus.
 





Top