Monday, April 11, 2011

The Qur'an: A Book Full of Conjecture and Doubt


"Jesus ressurecting [sic] and dying on the cross is a mere legend. The people who 'saw' him THOUGHT they saw him, but it was someone who looked similar to him, . There;s [sic] no evidence for the Resurrection of Jesus (as), and the Quran refutes that, and the Quran has plenty of evidence on its side." - Muslim Kangaroo (See here)

No doubt Kangaroo has the following passage of the Qur’an in mind here:



And their saying: Surely we have killed the Messiah, Isa son of Marium, the messenger of Allah; and they did not kill him nor did they crucify him, but it appeared to them so (like Isa) and most surely those who differ therein are only in a doubt about it; they have no knowledge respecting it, but only follow a conjecture, and they killed him not for sure. S. 4:157 Shakir


As will be shown, only in a kangaroo court would the verdict come down against the crucifixion and resurrection of Jesus in favor of the Qur’anic account of what happened. (For a good example of just such a court, see here.)


What Muslims "see" in the Quran and THINK is a refutation is actually just a bad argument substituted for and made to appear like a good one. Actually, it doesn't really bear much of a resemblance to a good argument; at best all we can say about it is that it is an apparently good enough counterfeit for many people to be convinced (read: deceived) by it. In fact, this passage doesn’t even represent an argument at all; it is simply a claim that contradicts what the Bible and history say about these matters. So calling it a refutation isn’t even accurate.


It has been said on this blog before (see here), but it bears repeating, especially in the context of a discussion of Surah 4:157, every time that we think of the "refutation" supposedly given in the Qur'an the one thing we should be struck with above all else is how many errors the author(s) of the Qur'an were able to make in such a short space, and Muslims really should be encouraged to add this to the list of evidences of the supernatural authorship of the Qur’an, for surely no one person could make so many mistakes AND yet still manage to dupe so many people. A supernatural being is clearly involved with both the composition and reception of the Qur’an; unfortunately, that being is most certainly not God, but is merely a being that masquerades like Him or an angel that pretends to have been sent by Him. This being made it appear to the author(s) of the Qur’an (and those who follow him/her/them) that the crucifixion and resurrection of Christ are mere legends, but they are really only following a satanically inspired conjecture. This point will be made in a myriad of ways over the course of several posts, beginning with the following:


1. This verse represents the Jews as boasting: "We killed the Messiah…."


Contrariwise, the speech attributed to the Jews here is a clear error. The Jewish leaders wanted Jesus crucified precisely because they rejected His claim to be the Messiah, for no Jew would boast of killing the Messiah.


All the author(s) of the Qur'an would have had to do here to accurately reflect what the Jews would or could have said along these lines given their actual beliefs is either drop the word “Messiah”, as the following (mis)translations of the Qur’an, likely out of a recognition of the problem that exists in the Arabic text, do:



and their statement that they murdered Jesus, son of Mary, the Messenger of God, when, in fact, they could not have murdered him or crucified him. They, in fact, murdered someone else by mistake. Even those who disputed (the question of whether or not Jesus was murdered) did not have a shred of evidence. All that they knew about it was mere conjecture. They certainly could not have murdered Jesus. S. 4:157 Muhammad Sarwar



They [proudly] spread a rumor that: “We killed Jesus, son of Mary.” For sure they did neither kill Jesus nor crucify him. Their wishful thinking has created so much confusion in account of the lack of [historical] proof for their saying. Know for sure that they did not kill him. S. 4:157 Bijan Moeinian

Or, add words to the effect that they killed Jesus for His CLAIM to be the Messiah. Indeed, this is exactly the sort of thing the Jews did do in opposition to the sign made by the Romans which called Jesus "the King of the Jews". In protest, the Jews clamored for the sign to be changed so it would read that He SAID He was/is the King of the Jews.

Therefore when Pilate heard these words, he brought Jesus out, and sat down on the judgment seat at a place called The Pavement, but in Hebrew, Gabbatha. Now it was the day of preparation for the Passover; it was about the sixth hour And he said to the Jews, "Behold, your King!" So they cried out, "Away with Him, away with Him, crucify Him!" Pilate said to them, "Shall I crucify your King?" The chief priests answered, "We have no king but Caesar." So he then handed Him over to them to be crucified. They took Jesus, therefore, and He went out, bearing His own cross, to the place called the Place of a Skull, which is called in Hebrew, Golgotha. There they crucified Him, and with Him two other men, one on either side, and Jesus in between. Pilate also wrote an inscription and put it on the cross. It was written, "JESUS THE NAZARENE, THE KING OF THE JEWS." Therefore many of the Jews read this inscription, for the place where Jesus was crucified was near the city; and it was written in Hebrew, Latin and in Greek. So the chief priests of the Jews were saying to Pilate, "Do not write, 'The King of the Jews'; but that He said, 'I am King of the Jews.'" Pilate answered, "What I have written I have written." (John 19:13-22)

In fact, this is just what some other Muslim translations do, unwittingly showing that they see (part of) the problem with how this passage was worded by the author(s) of the Qur’an:

And because of their (falsely) claiming, `We did kill the Messiah, Jesus, son of Mary, the (false) Messenger of Allah,' whereas they killed him not, nor did they cause his death by crucifixion, but he was made to them to resemble (one crucified to death). Verily, those who differ therein are certainly in (a state of) confusion about it. They have no definite knowledge of the matter but are only following a conjecture. They did not kill him, this much is certain (and thus could not prove the Christ as accursed). S. 4:157 Amatul Rahman Omar


and their boast, "Behold, we have slain the Christ Jesus, son of Mary, [who claimed to be] an apostle of God!" However, they did not slay him, and neither did they crucify him, but it only seemed to them [as if it had been] so; and, verily, those who hold conflicting views thereon are indeed confused, having no [real] knowledge thereof, and following mere conjecture. For, of a certainty, they did not slay him: S. 4:157 Farook Malik


and their boast, "Behold, we have slain the Christ Jesus, son of Mary, [who claimed to be] an apostle of God!" However, they did not slay him, and neither did they crucify him, but it only seemed to them [as if it had been] so; and, verily, those who hold conflicting views thereon are indeed confused, having no [real] knowledge thereof, and following mere conjecture. For, of a certainty, they did not slay him: S. 4:157 Muhammad Asad

The worst part is that the added words of the translators are not part of (nor are they implied by) the Arabic text, which means the Qur’an is in error at this point. Nevertheless, it is still worth mentioning, particularly because it shows just how much the Qur’an reduces its devotees to conjecture and doubt about the clarity and actual wording of the Qur’an, that the above translations, for all the effort of the translators, are still in error. The translation of Muhammad Sarwar says that the Jews called Jesus “the Messiah”, but it still, if we follow the natural reading of this translation, ends up saying that the Jews called Jesus “the Messenger of Allah”. The translations of Muhammad Asad and Farook Malik parenthetically add the words “who claimed to be” to reflect that the Jews rejected Jesus’ claim to be an apostle of God, but they fail to add such parenthetical remarks to the earlier part of the verse, and, therefore, still end up representing the Jews identifying Jesus as the Messiah whom they have slain. The translation of Amatul Rahman Omar parenthetically adds “falsely” to the text in two places, but puts the first instance of the word “falsely” too early in the verse for it to even correct or modify the statement that the Jews called Jesus “the Messiah” and so ends up saying that what was false is their claim to have killed one who is in fact the Messiah.


In response to this, Muslims typically reply that the Jews were being sarcastic when they said that Jesus is the Messiah. But the claim that they were being sarcastic is hardly clear from the Arabic text; hence, the reason Muslim translators have to add such words to clarify that this was their (assumed) meaning. And the fact that the Qur’an is unclear on this point leads to two further problems:


1) This strikes at the heart of the recurrent claim that the Qur’an is a clear and fully detailed book, which in turn also undermines the foremost argument of the Qur’an that it is inimitably eloquent, such that it cannot be imitated and couldn’t have been produced by other than Allah:



O followers of the Book! indeed Our Apostle has come to you making clear to you much of what you concealed of the Book and passing over much; indeed, there has come to you light and a clear Book from Allah; S. 5:15 Sher Ali



And the day We shall raise up from every nation a witness against them from amongst them, and We shall bring thee as a witness against those. And We have sent down on thee the Book making clear EVERYTHING, and as a guidance and a mercy, and as good tidings to those who surrender. S. 16:89 Arberry



And indeed We know that they (polytheists and pagans) say: "It is only a human being who teaches him (Muhammad)." The tongue of the man they refer to is foreign, while this (the Qur'an) is a clear Arabic tongue. S. 16:103 Hilali-Khan


He sets forth for you a parable from your ownselves, - Do you have partners among those whom your right hands possess (i.e. your slaves) to share as equals in the wealth We have bestowed on you? Whom you fear as you fear each other? Thus do We explain the signs IN DETAIL to a people who have sense. S. 30:28 Hilali-Khan


A Book, whereof the verses are explained IN DETAIL; - a Qur'an in Arabic, for people who understand; - S. 41:3 Y. Ali
2) It also leads to a devastating incongruity, for Surah 4:157 claims that those who do not follow the revelation of the Qur’an are following nothing but conjecture and doubt, but the different ways Muslims attempt to supplement the lack of sufficient detail in the Qur’an to make what it says clear shows that Muslims themselves are full of conjecture and doubt on the matter. Notice, for example, that Sarwar’s translation, in dropping the words “the Messiah” from the verse to make it accurate, is directly contradicting the view that the Jews were calling Jesus the Messiah but only in jest. This is rank confusion. It is interesting to observe in this regard that non-Muslim translations do not recognize that this idea is embedded or in any way evident in the text. Neither do they show the temerity (or apologetically driven zeal on full display in Muslim translations) to add to the text words that are not there in order to alter the clear meaning of the passage so as to make it jive with well known historical contingencies:

and for their saying, 'We slew the Messiah, Jesus son of Mary, the Messenger of God' -- yet they did not slay him, neither crucified him, only a likeness of that was shown to them. Those who are at variance concerning him surely are in doubt regarding him; they have no knowledge of him, except the following of surmise; and they slew him not of a certainty -- no indeed; S. 4:157 Arthur John Arberry



and for their saying, 'Verily, we have killed the Messiah, Jesus the son of Mary, the apostle of God'.... but they did not kill him, and they did not crucify him, but a similitude was made for them. And verily, those who differ about him are in doubt concerning him; they have no knowledge concerning him, but only follow an opinion. They did not kill him, for sure! S. 4:157 Edward Henry Palmer



And for their saying, "Verily we have slain the Messiah, Jesus the son of Mary, an Apostle of God." Yet they slew him not, and they crucified him not, but they had only his likeness. And they who differed about him were in doubt concerning him: No sure knowledge had they about him, but followed only an opinion, and they did not really slay him, S. 4:157 John Meadows Rodwell


and have said, verily we have slain Christ Jesus the son of Mary, the apostle of God; yet they slew him not, neither crucified him, but he was represented by one in his likeness; and verily they who disagreed concerning him, were in a doubt as to this matter, and had no sure knowledge thereof, but followed only an uncertain opinion. They did not really kill him; S. 4:157 George Sale


If the Arabic text that the above non-Muslim translators were working from, without recourse to tafsirs or other Muslim sources that try to explain this verse, actually is clear that the Jews were saying this in jest, then why did none of them recognize this or in any way reflect this in their translations? Furthermore, it is not only not clear from the text that the Jews were being sarcastic when they called Jesus “the Messiah”, but this explanation, to all appearances, actually goes against the text. The full statement attributed to the Jews is: “We killed the Messiah, Isa the Son of Marium, the Messenger of Allah”. Since the Jews knew Jesus was the son of Mary, it is evident that this statement is not saying that the Jews called him “the Messiah, Isa the son of Marium, the messenger of Allah” in mockery. If Muslims want to say that the mockery applies only to the first part of the statement attributed to the Jews but not to the rest of it, then they are reduced to arbitrariness in order to defend the Qur’an, for there is no textual justification for using this excuse to explain the first part of the Jews’ statement and then stopping short of saying the whole statement was one of mockery. If Muslims can apply the “mockery” explanation to explain one part of the verse, it may just as arbitrarily be extended to the whole of the verse. And, of course, since it is not clearly said in the passage that the Jews were mocking in the first place, then both explanations may be dismissed as, well, arbitrary.


This is the first of many evidences from this passage that the Qur’an is not the word of God, that the author(s) of the Qur’an were only following conjecture (just like their followers at the present time), and that this passage cannot credibly be considered a refutation of anything, much less a refutation of the crucifixion of the Lord Jesus Christ who lives and reigns as Lord at the right hand of the Father. Many more evidences will follow.

76 comments:

Anthony Rogers said...

Blogger kills me. No matter what I do in an effort to correct something, the formatting of the post keeps changing upon publication. In any event, I have decided to simply leave the post the way it is now, excessive spacing and all, and simply beg the indulgence of the readers.

Radical Moderate said...

Great Article, what is funny about the Muslim argument that Kangaroo uses

"Anyways,the Jews trying to get Jesus (as) were tricked into thinking they caught him, instead they caught someone else who looked similar to him, possibly one of his disciples,"

Is that a Muslim can not believe that a innocent Jesus would die for the sins of the world, but they have no problems in believing that a sinner would die for a innocent Jesus.

Also he makes the claim, that the disciple who was killed in Jesus stead "KNEW THE TRUTH ABOUT JESUS ASCENDING TO THE HEAVENS TOWARDS GOD" So the diciple who knows that Islamic Truth about Jesus is killed.

He then makes the claim that it was "only those that were already deceived, those that rejected Jesus from the beginning spread the lie that he died and then resurrected. "

So the disciple that knows the truth is killed, and those that have already been deceived are allowed to spread this lie. Looks to me like Allah made a big mistake here and killed the wrong disciple.

He then makes the claim that
"Mary (ra) saw her son, Jesus (as) ascending towards the sky, and she cried. That is the true story"

So Mary saw her son ascending to heaven its "a true story" but some how Mary, Jesus own mother was unable to convince the other disciples that he did not die, I guess because the disciple who did know that he did not die, was in fact himself Killed.

Muslims never cease to amaze me when they try to explain away the nonsense in there book of lies. The make Islam sound that much worse by trying to explain it away.

But thats what you get when you have a language where the word "Maybe" could mean a certainty. As Bassam Zawadi has stated in written as well as public debate.

Kangaroo said...

What's more doubtful?

1.)Blindly following the writings of the Jew next door.

2.)Following a text that has no serious questions about its authenticity and is INTACT with no changes, today.

I'm not saying that the entire Bible is rubbish, I'm only syaing that there have been changes made to the original text and additions. Even ONE modification to a text deems it unreliable, especially when it changes the status of a Messiah Prophet to that of God, which is creation worship, which is another tactic by Satan to lead mankind into the Hellfire.

I don't know about you, but there have been recent talk on CNN about the Bible's corruption, check it out maybe?

Science is currently eliminating models of God. The Christian Trinity has already been wiped, but most of you are too afraid to admit it. Not only that, but historically as well:

http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/uk_news/magazine/7651105.stm

Hogan Elijah Hagbard said...

So the kangaroo says that we cannot blindly follow the writings of a Jew. How about the writings of an Arab?

Then he attacks the Bible through Biblical criticism and deems one textual error to refute the entire book. That is not very academic.

He wants us to trust CNN...lol...it gets better.

He sees the Trinity as unscientific...excuse me, many scientists recon the existence of God to be unscientific, can kangaroo be a bit more consistent here?

He does not wanna refer to the whole Bible as rubbish, in other words, some of it is, in other words kangaroo, is not even a muslim, according to his own holy books. So what parts of the Bible are rubbish, did Muhammad ever refer to the Gospel or parts of the Gospel in his time as rubbish? Oh yeah I guess Kangaroo refers to the original Gospel, but where does the Qur'an differentiate between a Gospel in the first century and the Gospel utilized by the Christians in the sixth century?

Furthermore, does he truly believe the Qur'an to be intact. It is virtually filled with errors, borrowing of sources (I have an entire blog focusing on the scientific errors in the Qur'an, so far Muslims evade this topic), and as to textual criticism, what is the basic source Muslims base the original text upon?

Is it Uthman's version that contradicted the Qur'ans that preceeded it?

Kangoroo, are you familiar with the saying: 'he who is without sin, cast the first stone', perhaps you should put your stone back on the ground and do some research.

Sophie said...

"Blindly following the writings of the Jew next door", Kangaroo?

The Hebrew Bible was written by numerous Jews, not just one apparently illiterate man of dubious mental health (and I don't say that to insult Muhammad; I say that because Muslim sources openly suggest so).

Even if you are referring to the pauline writings of the New Testament, you're mistaken in referring to him as 'the Jew next door'. Paul's writings show him to have been in possession of a brilliant philosophical mind, with a grasp of the Hebrew scriptures that was second to none. He certainly has higher credentials than Muhammad.

Furthermore, when it comes to general intelligence, and especially scientific knowledge, as a group I'd trust the Jews above anyone else.

There are only a few million Jews but they have excelled in every field of human endeavour, in spite of thousand of years of persecution; they have achieved what 1.5 billion Muslims couldn't even dream of achieving, especially in the field of science.

Yet Muslims have the scientifically miraculous Qur'an, and Jews don't. If the Qur'an was really scientifically miraculous, Muslims would have raced ahead scientifically. Muslims would have used the Qur'an as a jumping-off point for many scientific explorations, leading to incredible new discoveries and inventions. Muslims would have been scouring its pages for indications of what they could potentially discover.

This didn't happen.

You seem like a young man and I will give you the benefit of the doubt that you do not harbour any malic or hatred towards Jews, and that your reference to 'the Jew next door' was meant to be disparaging towards the Christian faith, not Jews in general.

Sophie said...

One more point regarding the supposed scientifically miraculous nature of Islam, which you seem to take as the truth:

Here in the UK, many Pakistani Muslims marry their cousins.

An NHS source says "50-60% of British Pakistani marriages are consanguineous, and this proportion is rising."

According to BBC news, "British Pakistanis are 13 times more likely to have children with genetic disorders than the general population - they account for just over 3% of all births but have just under a third of all British children with such illnesses.

Birmingham Primary Care Trust estimates that one in ten of all children born to first cousins in the city either dies in infancy or goes on to develop serious disability as a result of a recessive genetic disorder."

(Birmingham being one of the cities with the highest number of Muslims in the country).

The (UK) Times reports that "10 per cent of the children of first cousins die in infancy or have a disability".

Under British law, people may marry their cousins, and indeed the royal family were rather inbred for a long time as most European aristocratic classes were in the past, but only within the British Muslim community (specifically, among Pakistani Muslims) does it still occur with any frequency. This may be largely due to an acceptance among the majority population of the fact that cousin marriages produce children with often severe birth defects, while the Pakistani community is reluctant to accept this fact for cultural and religious reasons. Therefore, the practice has largely died out among non-Pakistani British people.

Cousin marriage has brought a lot of difficulty and ill-health to Pakistani Muslims, yet they are only following the (perfect) example of Muhammad, who married his cousin.

If the Qur'an contains so many concrete scientific miracles, why did Allah allow Muhammad to set an example to do something that modern genetic science shows us is so genetically damaging to humanity? Why did Allah fill the Qur'an with miraculous descriptions of embryology yet encourage, via Muhammad's (perfect) example, a practice which creates damaged embryos? Why was it so important to Allah to conatin descriptions of a freshwater/seawater barrier in the Qur'an yet he didn't use his scientific knowledge to prevent the enormous genetic damage done to Muslims by cousin marriages?

Fernando said...

"Following a text that has no serious questions about its authenticity and is INTACT with no changes, today"....

hahahahahahahahahahahahahahaha...
I eben cryied a tear laughting...
two off the greatest jokes in the world in juste one sentence...
hahahahahahahahahahahahahahaha...
how can someone bee so delusional?
hahahahahahahahahahahahahahaha...

Kangaroo said...

As a Muslim, I HAVE to believe that the present day Bible and Torah are corrupted versions of the
true revelations. Why are you accusing me of not being a Muslim?..I'm not going to insult the entire Bible altogether because I KNOW it includes many of the true words of God.

@Sophie-bring me evidence that proves your claim. (demon possesed? Is that what you meant?...)

-The Jew next door. The jews have killed off many of the previous prophets and they failed in trying
to kill Jesus (as). There were special plans for him later in the future...I hope you know what I
mean.

-We are allowed to marry our cousins, just like we're allowed to have sex with the slaves that we might own. It doesn't mean it is recommended, but it is PERMISSIBLE.

The National Society of Genetic Counselors estimated the increased risk for first cousins is
between 1.7 to 2.8 percent, or about the same a any woman over 40 years of age.

http://www.springerlink.com/content/uxwm5qr18j5lgrdt

It's not even a big problem...but from your point of view it seems bad...Tell me..What does the
Bible say about cousin marriages? Does it prophibit?..No?...Thought so....That would make your lord
Jesus fallible. Just like the sun revolving around the earth or the flat earth. Or the plants
growing before the sun even existed *cough*.

@Fernando- I'm glad I made a Christian laugh at his own Bible.

Anthony Rogers said...

Kanagaroo,

Insisting that the Qur'an has "no changes" is hardly helpful here. In fact, aside from the fact that your asserition is not true, even if we grant that it is true, this is positively detrimental to your claim that the Qur'an is the word of God. After all, this would only prove that one of the errors I have already pointed out in Surah 4:157 must be laid right at the doorstep of your god and prophet. If the Qur'an is wrong on what it says in the above verse, insisting that the text of the Qur'an exactly the same today as it was when Allah and his associate Muhammad and their other helpers came up with it only means that the their error in 4:157 has been perfectly preserved.

You said that even one change to a text render it unreliable. While this isn't true as a matter of textual criticism where we can compare and collate the manuscripts and determine the original reading, it is most certainly true that even one ERROR in a perfectly preserved text is enough to show that the author was/is not infallible.

The problem you have goes like this:

P1: If the Qur'an is the word of the true God, then there would be no mistakes or discrepancies in it (S. 4:82)

P2: The Qur'an does contain mistakes (S. 4:157)

.: Therefore, the Qur'an is not the word of God

The argument above is valid as to its form. Unless you can show an error in the premises, then the conclusion follows like night follows day. Since the first premise is true according to your own Qur'an, the only way for you to prove that the argument is unsound is to refute the second premise (which I argued for in the main blog post).

Since you didn't even attempt to interact with the post, the argument stands unrefuted at this point. I hope that clarifies the problem for you.

Haecceitas said...

"Science is currently eliminating models of God. The Christian Trinity has already been wiped, but most of you are too afraid to admit it."

Please do elaborate on this point. I don't understand how science could, even in principle, eliminate a Trinitarian model of God. And I suspect that you don't either.

Kangaroo said...

Alright. One way I is simply to compare the scientific and historical records of both textts.

In the 19th and 20th century when the study of Hieroglyphics began to revive the language of the ancient Egyptians; a French Doctor Maurice Bucaille, was studying history and came across this disparity in the Qur’an and the Bible. So he went to Egyptologist to get to the root of the person named “Haman”. What he discovered was at the estimated time of Moses, there was a man who was named ‘Haman’ and he was a worker of the Pharaoh and his duty was “The Chief of the workers in the stone-quarries.” SubhanAllah (Glory be to Allah) just as the Qur’an described it. So Dr. Bucaille went to one of the French Egyptologist and told him that the a man in 7th century who claimed to a Messenger of God, said that there was a man named Haman and that he was an architect for the Pharaoh. He was later told that this book was the Qur’an, and the Egyptologist responded:

“Had the Bible or any other literary work, composed during a period when the hieroglyphs could still be deciphered, quoted ‘Haman,’ the presence in the Qur’an of this word might have not drawn special attention. But, it is a fact that the hieroglyphs had been totally forgotten at the time of the Qur’anic Revelation and that no one could not read them until the 19th century AD. Since matters stood like that in ancient times, the existence of the word ‘Haman’ in the Qur’an suggests a special reflection.”



Not just that alone, there was a statue found in Egypt, which is currently in a museum in Australia of an ancient architect from the time of the Pharaohs, with his name sketched into stone, ‘Haman.’

http://invitation2islam.wordpress.com/2009/03/25/how-the-qur%E2%80%99an-corrected-the-errors-of-the-bible/


Goodbye book of Esther.

Now we don’t know if this is the same Haman as mentioned in the Qur’an, but the Qur’an has the correct location, the correct name, the correct occupation, and the correct timing, none of which the Bible has.


Biblical science tells us that the evening and morning were made before the earth and sun even existed, the earth is created before light and stars, and flowering plants were created before any animals. Science says otherwise.

Compare the two and you'll find the Quran outweighs the Bible in science and history.

John 8:24 said...

Kangaroo said, "@Fernando- I'm glad I made a Christian laugh at his own Bible."

Kangaroo, Fernando is laughing at your statement about the Quran being intact and authentic and not at his Bible.

Here are two reasons why he might be laughing so much about your statement:

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=91AM7665cbo

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Y40X6ykSQlE

Mkvine said...

Kangaroo,

Challenge for you: Can you show me anywhere in the Quran, just one verse would suffice, where it says that the Gospel is corrupted in any way shape or form? Thanks.

Hogan Elijah Hagbard said...

Kangaroo wrote

As a Muslim, I HAVE to believe that the present day Bible and Torah are corrupted versions of the
true revelations.

Hogan replies:

Did you all get that, Kangaroo has to believe in something that contradicts his own holy book to remain a muslim. that is standing on sinking ground.

Kangaroo wrote:

Why are you accusing me of not being a Muslim?..I'm not going to insult the entire Bible altogether because I KNOW it includes many of the true words of God.

Hogan replies:

The Qur'an specific that you have to believe in all the revelations as they appeared in Muhammad's, otherwise you left the true path of Allah. In other words you are not a Muslim, I do not consider you a muslim. A Muslim who can't follow and believe in his own holy book, is not a muslim. But then again you said, you have to believe in doctrines that oppose the Qur'an to be a Muslim, in other words, is it the Qur'an you have a problem with, or what, this is fairly confusing.

Also you maintain that one error in the Bible would render the entire book unreliable, unfortunately for you, you fail to realise that the Bible consists of 66 books. But then again if one error mistakes the difference, why do you justify your assumption that the Bible is rubbish by saving your soul saying that you do believe parts of it to be true. So which parts are true and which are not and based upon what?

Kangaroo wrote

Jesus fallible. Just like the sun revolving around the earth or the flat earth. Or the plants
growing before the sun even existed *cough*.

Hogan replies:

So Jesus made errors, is such a claim not blaspemous. So does the Bible say specifically that the earth is flat, in scientific terms and where. I know which passage you will quote, and you do realise that the Qur'an utilizes the same passages. You claim also that the sun orbits the earth, I do know that such a description is used in the Psalms, but the Psalms is a metaphorical book of songs, its a book where trees clap their hands. Can you show me a descriptive reference from a verse which is not metaphorical. Do you want me to show you numerous passages in the Qur'an that reveal the sun and moon orbiting the earth in parallel lines to determine day and night. And as to the plants prior to the sun, there indeed existed a light prior to the plants, but if you read on in Genesis chapter one, the chapter will tell you where that light came from, yeah, exactly the sun.

Hogan Elijah Hagbard said...

Oh yeah, Kangaroo, this is what I previously wrote about the sun and moon orbiting parallely around the earth:

http://debunkingquranicscience.blogspot.com/2010/08/does-sun-orbit-earth-according-to-quran.html

Kangaroo said...

Yeah Hogan. It took me a few seconds to come up with the refutation....

Seems to me, closed minded missionaries as yourself have a lot of trouble understanding simple concepts.

Just for giggles, what is your IQ?

Kangaroo said...

I wonder why my comments are being hidden.

Am i causing too much of a rucus?
Perhaps you prefer brainwashing future generations with creation-worship.

David Wood said...

Kangaroo,

I haven't "hidden" a single comment from you. If you falsely accuse me again, I will block you.

Radical Moderate said...

Looks Like Kangaroo is getting ready to hip-pity hop hop right out of the blog.

donna60 said...

I still would love to see Kangaroo in an Acts 17 debate. He has too many people to answer to this way, and he might be pretty good, in a debate.

Can't he be invited?

Fernando said...

Dear Kangaroo... I bet you made another typical mystique: I laughed at your totally false and stupid claimes... how delusional can someone bee? I thought only in Psychiatric wards one could find someone like you...

Sophie said...

I have no idea if the Bible prohibits cousin marriage or not.

That's irrelevant, however, because I haven't claimed the Bible is scientifically miraculous, as you have claimed for the Qur'an. Therefore I don't have to defend the idea that God would write in detail about the stages of development of babies in the womb but neglect to prohibit or limit a practice which produces a comparatively high rate of often severe genetic defects in babies and premature death, even encouraging the practice via Muhammad's 'perfect' example of marrying Zainab. This is not my belief to defend - it's yours.

I didn't mean that Muhammad was demon-possessed.

The sources depict a man who displays signs of mental instability. This is a statement of fact, not faith, since suicide attempts and delusions are both signs of mental instability. Please take notice of what I'm saying: I'm saying he *showed signs* of mental instability, not that he *was* mentally unstable.

"he intended several times to throw himself from the tops of high mountains"

http://www.usc.edu/schools/college/crcc/engagement/resources/texts/muslim/hadith/bukhari/087.sbt.html

"Magic was worked on Allah's Apostle so that he used to think that he had sexual relations with his wives while he actually had not"

http://www.usc.edu/schools/college/crcc/engagement/resources/texts/muslim/hadith/bukhari/071.sbt.html

People who show signs of mental instability are considered less trustworthy than others.

Unless your assumption is that somehow, on balance, all Jews are inherently untrustworthy, or that next door neighbours are inherently untrustworthy, or that all Jewish next door neighbours are inherently untrustworthy, you have given no indication of why Muhammad -mentally unstable as he appeared to be - is more trustworthy than 'the Jew next door'.

Kangaroo said...

YUSUFALI: That they said (in boast), "We killed Christ Jesus the son of Mary, the Messenger of Allah";- but they killed him not, nor crucified him, but so it was made to appear to them, and those who differ therein are full of doubts, with no (certain) knowledge, but only conjecture to follow, for of a surety they killed him not:-





Here is another explicit verse speaking of Bible corruption, the Quran states that if anyone believes that Jesus died and was crucified they then follow nothing but CONJECTURE which is corruption. Which book today tells us that Jesus died and was crucified? The Bible, so hence the Quran here does call the Bible corrupt. So it can't get anymore clear than that.


http://muslim-responses.com/the_Quran_on_the_Bible/the_Quran_on_the_Bible_


Easy questions. Easy solutions.


The Gospel given to Jesus, NOT Matthew, Luke or John.

Lindert said...

"The Gospel given to Jesus, NOT Matthew, Luke or John."

The problem with this is

- No 'Gospel' given to Jesus has been preserved.

- There is no mention in history that such a Gospel EVER existed in pre-Islamic times

- Yet the Quran commands people to judge according to what Allah has revealed in this supposed Gospel.

In conclusion, not only is it impossible to do what the Quran requires of the 'people of the Book', but in fact all historical information we have points to the 'Gospel revealed to Jesus' being an entirely fictional book, based purely on a fabrication, or rather, a misunderstanding on the part of the Quran's (human) author.

Sophie said...

You say that the gospels are just conjecture.

If the claims made in the gospels about Christ's crucifixion are just conjecture, then in what way is the Qur'anic assertion that Christ wasn't crucified anything more than conjecture?

Also, to reiterate what Anthony Rogers has already stated:

The problem you have goes like this:

P1: If the Qur'an is the word of the true God, then there would be no mistakes or discrepancies in it (S. 4:82)

P2: The Qur'an does contain mistakes (S. 4:157)

.: Therefore, the Qur'an is not the word of God

The argument above is valid as to its form. Unless you can show an error in the premises, then the conclusion follows like night follows day. Since the first premise is true according to your own Qur'an, the only way for you to prove that the argument is unsound is to refute the second premise (which I argued for in the main blog post).

Since you didn't even attempt to interact with the post, the argument stands unrefuted at this point. I hope that clarifies the problem for you.

Fernando said...

The Gospel given to Jesus

hahahahahahahahahahahahahaha...

if ignorance should pay taxes, muslims like mr. kangaroo (who strangely keeps on trying to redirect people to other sites -- full of lies, historical rewriting and logical vacuity -- as he lacks total personal arguments) would bee as poor as sand desert...

hahahahahahahahahahahahahaha...

donna60 said...

Please, David, please, please, please don't block Kangaroo.

Fernando said...

Mr. kangaroo spoke off Maurice Bucaille (quoting again from another site)?

hahahahahahahaha... it's like speaking off Mister Magoo when referring to people with 100% vision...

hahahahahahahaha...

don't you know he was totally discredited after recognizing habing been payied money from Saudi Arabia (iff I well remember) to "invent" proofs off qur'ans miracoulous origin?

hahahahahahahaha...

don't you see the clownesque patern in your own words?

hahahahahahahaha...

do you know thate in his Haman's claime he said he was following the "Dictionary of Personal Names of the New Kingdom" by Ranke? Well... thate book neber existed!!! only stupid people (like those who payied him) belived in him...

hahahahahahahaha...

more: there is no such thing, as Bucaille said, as a correct transliteration from the egiptian name off the “The Chief of the workers in the stone-quarries” and Haman... the egipcian hierogliph can be read in many ways (Baman-ha, Taman-ha, Paman-ha, Maman-ha) butt neber as Haman: not withe a H and neber without the final "ha"... (see Hermann Ranke - Die Ägyptischen Personennamen, Band I (Verzeichnis der Namen), Verlag von J. J. Augustin in Glückstadt, 1935)

hahahahahahahaha...

more: the fact thate the book off Esther might be composed off cathechetical tales and not a historical book does not mean it is anauthentic. Do you knowe what are the litterary genre? do you claime thate all the bible is in teh historical genre? do you mean that a book thate is not, and never wanted to be, an historical text is anauthentic? how stupid can someone be to say what you saide?

hahahahahahahaha...

Kangaroo said...

Every Prophet has mental "instability" in the beginnnig, when God reaches out to Him or by an angel. Finding yourself in front of a being whose wings extend across the horizon is a horific sight, especially when you have NO IDEA WHAT IT IS AT FIRST..Put yourself in that situation please.

Yeah the Prophet Muhamamd (pbuh) was affected by black magic whih cuased him to have dleusional thoughts about his wives. But it doesn't affect anything else in his life. It's as simple as me having a day dream about having sex with my future wife..? Not even a big problem. Then the angel Gabriel came to the Prophet (pbuh) and informed him of where the comb was and he actually found it. That tells us something doesnt it?

@Lindert-

That's the point. The head of all of this corruption seems to point at Paul, and others throughout history as well. Only the priests or popes or religious leaders kept the Bible and they altered it to whatever they thought fit. Possibly the "changing of times" or whatever their desires wanted to include in it.

Seriously. Consider and reflect. We have only the first names of Jews who supposedly were inspired by God, yet weren't Prophets? And we have no clue who they were WHATSOEVER. Not even a college professor would accept a paper with only the name "Jake" on it, for example. I wouldn't either. Idk about you. People can easily twist historical data especially when it is contained in the hands of so few.

So why is it people prefer blind faith? lol. I don't even need that much evidence, only a simple combination of logic to refute all of Christianity.

goethechosemercy said...

Never will I believe, for one second or one hour, that the Jews "boasted" of killing Jesus.
The Jews were just the Jews.
A people living in a Roman client state in the Near East, nothing more.
Their theocracy, a small group of men divided by the prospect of the afterlife, was partially responsible.
Rome was also responsible.
Boasts?
There were none.
Lies?
There is one-- Islam, the false words of a false prophet.

Fernando said...

Mr. kangaroo saide: "CONJECTURE which is corruption"...

so, in other wordes: to him conjecture = corruption...

hahahahahahahahahahahaha...

more: dear fellow: all the evidences point to the fact thate Jesus was crucified... only the mith-full qur'an sais otherwise...

hahahahahahahahahahahaha...

Anthony Rogers said...
This comment has been removed by the author.
Anthony Rogers said...
This comment has been removed by the author.
Anthony Rogers said...

Kangaroo,

A Christian brother sent me the following regarding your comments on Haman (above), which I glossed over once I realized they were not relevant to the main blog post:

---------Quote------------

You may want to point him to

The Haman Hoax

for a detailed discussion and complete refutation of these matters.

But he managed to add another error which I had not seen yet when he claims:

"Not just that alone, there was a statue found in Egypt, which is currently in a museum in Australia of an ancient architect from the time of the Pharaohs, with his name sketched into stone, ‘Haman.’

Now we don’t know if this is the same Haman as mentioned in the Qur’an, but the Qur’an has the correct location, the correct name, the correct occupation, and the correct timing, none of which the Bible has."


That is utter nonsense.

1. The name of the person depicted by this statue is Hemiunu, not Haman.

2. He lived more than 1000 years before the time of Moses.

These issues are discussed in detail in the second part of this appendix:

Appendix 5

3. He claims the status is in Australia which is wrong. It resides in Germany, in the Roemer- and Pelizaeus-Museum in Hildesheim. The only plans for showing it abroad were for 2013 to give it to Egypt for the new opening of the Grand Museum in Cairo, though I don't t know if this is still going to happen, given the volatile political
situation in Egypt. A German website talks about the statue going to Egypt in 2013:

http://www.shortnews.de/id/82615/

Hildesheimer-Museum-gewaehrt-

Verleih-der-beruehmten-Hemiunu-

Statue-an-Aegypten

--------End Quote--------

Note: Because the last link is to an article in German and blogger will not support the correspondig fonts, I have supplied the url. Furtherore, becuase blogger has a habit of cutting out parts of the full link when strung together, I have broken the whole thing down into four lines. In other words, for those who want to go to the link, just copy and paste all four lines in the address line as a single, unbroken url.

Anthony Rogers said...

edit: "status" should be "statue"

Radical Moderate said...

Kangaroo is really jumping around when he said...

"Now we don’t know if this is the same Haman as mentioned in the Qur’an, but the Qur’an has the correct location, the correct name, the correct occupation, and the correct timing, none of which the Bible has."

Kangaroo, actually the opposite is true, when it comes to history, the Quran has the WRONG location, THE WRONG NAMES, and the WRONG occupations of just about every historical reference in the Quran.

Let me give you a few examples.

1. Islam tradition has it that Ishamel settled in Mecca, and that the Arabs worshiped a God named Allah.

Sounds nice but there is one small problem, Mecca didn't exist until the 4th century AD. Second there is no reference to any Arab tribe, going back to the 3rd MIL BC worshiping a single monotheistic God named Allah.

Kangaroo said...

I copied and pasted the 4 lines, but it doesn't work. I reached the webpage but it doesn't lead to anywhere.

"Can't reach the news" o.o

Anthony Rogers said...

Part 1/2

mkvine said:

Kangaroo,

Challenge for you: Can you show me anywhere in the Quran, just one verse would suffice, where it says that the Gospel is corrupted in any way shape or form? Thanks.


Kangaroo replied:

YUSUFALI: That they said (in boast), "We killed Christ Jesus the son of Mary, the Messenger of Allah";- but they killed him not, nor crucified him, but so it was made to appear to them, and those who differ therein are full of doubts, with no (certain) knowledge, but only conjecture to follow, for of a surety they killed him not:- [S. 4:157]

Here is another explicit verse speaking of Bible corruption, the Quran states that if anyone believes that Jesus died and was crucified they then follow nothing but CONJECTURE which is corruption. Which book today tells us that Jesus died and was crucified? The Bible, so hence the Quran here does call the Bible corrupt. So it can't get anymore clear than that.


My Reply:

Kangaroo,

First, I would like to know what you mean above when you refer to Surah 4:157 as "another" verse that proves Bible corruption. Where in the world did you give the first verse? You do realize that you can't have "another" one unless you already have one, don't you?

Second, I have already shown in the main blog post, which you have yet to address, that this verse is in error (and that Muslims are consequently reducted to conjecture and doubt as displayed by their vain attempts at resolving the problem). So appealing to this verse in an attempt to prove Bible corruption only proves that you aren't paying attention.

Of course you might reply to this by saying, "Whether or not you believe this verse is free from error does not detract from the point I was making, which is that the Qur'an contradicts the Bible's teaching that Jesus was crucified, which in turn means that, right or wrong, the Qur'an does teach that the Bible has been corrupted." In response to this, see next point.

Anthony Rogers said...

Part 2/2

Third, the argument for Bible corruption from this verse of the Qur'an is fallacious. It assumes that the author of this verse believed he was contradicting the Bible when he said that Jesus was not crucified. Not only may we well question whether the author(s) of this verse were in error on this point, especially since he/she/they often accused "the people of the book" of lying to him/her/them about what was in the Scriptures, in which case he/she/they could have simply held that Christians were lying to him/her/them at this point about the Bible teaching the crucifixion, but it is also the case that the author may have simply held a different interpretation of what the verses on the crucifixion actually mean, a fact not uncommon among cultists in our own day who wrest the Scriptures to mean something other than what they clearly say. Indeed, the Qur'an itself gives evidence that its author(s) was/were influenced by heretical Christian sects and ideas.

Besides all this, the argument is fallacious because it assumes that the Qur'an is the Word of God and cannot err. Allow me to illustrate:

Christians argue that the Qur'an undermines its own claim to be the inerrant Word of God by contradicting the previous Scriptures, which the Qur'an itself confirms to be the uncorrupted Word of God.

When you try and answer the challenge in the following way, if I may paraphrase your reasoning:

The Qur'an must teach Bible corruption because otherwise it would undermine its own claim to be the inerrant Word of God by contradicting what it says about the previous Scriptures, i.e. that they are the uncorrupted Word of God.

you are simply engaging in circular reasoning, assuming that the Qur'an cannot be in manifest error or that it cannot contradict itself because it is the Word of God.

In other words, the Qur'an contradicts itself by teaching BOTH that the Scriptures are trustworthy and by contradicting what is taught in the previous Scriptures. Your argument does not address this problem; it simply tries to make an end run around it.

Fourth, it is not even clear (as I will show in a future post on further problems with Surah 4:157) that the author(s) of the verse in question are saying that the Messiah was not crucified (another thing that is obscured by various translations). In fact, Muslim sources themselves are not in agreement on whether or not the verse is actually teaching that Jesus was not crucified. But I'm getting ahead of myself with this last point. Stay tuned...

P.S. Do you have anything else in your bag of tricks (or should I say, "...in your pouch full of Joey's"?)?

Kangaroo said...

Yeah i was wrong about the statue. I sincerely apologize for being ignorant. Sorry brother.

But I don't believe the Haman mentioned in the Quran contradicts what was found in Egypt.


Christian missionaries are based solely on the assumptions that:

Because the Bible has been in existence longer than the Qur'an, the Biblical account is the correct one, as opposed to the Qur'anic account, which is necessarily inaccurate and false.

The Bible is in conformity with firmly established secular knowledge, whereas the Qur'an contains certain incompatibilities.

Muhammad copied and in some cases altered the Biblical material when composing the Qur'an.


Let us now examine the passages in the Qur'an concerning the Pharaoh and Haman in light of recent historical and archaeological discoveries.

Pharaoh said: "O Chiefs! no god do I know for you but myself." [Qur'an 28:38]

Pharaoh said: "O Haman! Build me a lofty palace, that I may attain the ways and means - The ways and means of (reaching) the heavens, and that I may mount up to the god of Moses: But as far as I am concerned, I think (Moses) is a liar!" [Qur'an 40:36-37]


Bucaille narrates an interesting discussion he had with a prominent French Egyptologist:

In the book Reflections on the Qur'an (Réflexions sur le Coran[60]), I have related the result of such a consultation that dates back to a dozen years ago and led me to question a specialist who, in addition, knew well the classical Arabic language. One of the most prominent French Egyptologists, fulfilling these conditions, was kind enough to answer the question.

I showed him the word "Haman" that I had copied exactly like it is written in the Qur'an, and told him that it had been extracted from a sentence of a document dating back to the 7th century AD, the sentence being related to somebody connected with Egyptian history.

He said to me that, in such a case, he would see in this word the transliteration of a hieroglyphic name but, for him, undoubtedly it could not be possible that a written document of the 7th century had contained a hieroglyphic name - unknown until that time - since, in that time, the hieroglyphs had been totally forgotten.

In order to confirm his deduction about the name, he advised me to consult the Dictionary of Personal Names of the New Kingdom by Ranke, where I might find the name written in hieroglyphs, as he had written before me, and the transliteration in German.

I discovered all that had been presumed by the expert, and, moreover, I was stupefied to read the profession of Haman: "The Chief of the workers in the stone-quarries," exactly what could be deduced from the Qur'an, though the words of the Pharaoh suggest a master of construction.

When I came again to the expert with a photocopy of the page of the Dictionary concerning "Haman" and showed him one of the pages of the Qur'an where he could read the name, he was speechless...

Moreover, Ranke had noted, as a reference, a book published in 1906 by the Egyptologist Walter Wreszinski: the latter had mentioned that the name of "Haman" had been engraved on a stela kept at the Hof-Museum of Vienna (Austria). Several years later, when I was able to read the profession written in hieroglyphs on the stela, I observed that the determinative joined to the name had emphasised the importance of the intimate of Pharaoh.[61]



Read the rest if you haven't already;

http://www.islamic-awareness.org/Quran/Contrad/External/haman.html#4d


Gl trying to refute that. =)

Anthony Rogers said...

Sorry, the following sentence should be read as:

"Not only may we well question whether the author(s) of this verse THOUGHT HE/SHE/THEY WERE CONTRADICTING THE BIBLE on this point, especially since he/she/they often accused "the people of the book" of lying to him/her/them about what was in the Scriptures, in which case he/she/they could have simply held that Christians were lying to him/her/them at this point about the Bible teaching the crucifixion...."

Anthony Rogers said...

Sorry, not sure what is up with the links.

Try this link for a thoroughing refutation of the claims of Maurice Bucaille, Islamic Awareness, and Harun Yahya to boot.

Here

or here: http://www.answering-islam.org/authors/katz/haman.html

Anthony Rogers said...

By the way, since your comments regarding Haman are off topic and are simply a cut and paste job, I hope you don't mind if I have simply directed you to a link to refute your errors in regard to this subject. I wouldn't want you to think that I was simply endorsing your approach to answering others, which is simply to ignore the topic and link to the replies of others and unrelated issues.

Do you think you will ever get around to discussing the blog post, or will you just be bringing up new errors to be corrected on?

Mkvine said...

Kangaroo,

The passage that you quoted which supposedly proves that the Bible is corrupted, namely Surah 4:157, was already dealt with by Anthony Rogers in this very post! Unless you can refute what he said, then I would refrain from using that verse as proof for biblical corruption. It seems like you jumped into the comments section without reading what he said...

Kangaroo said...

1.)It’s just one of the many verses that I have to keep quoting for Christians to reference to. In my mind, it’s another verse that I found.
2.)I believe it was the third comment when I “attempted to”.
3.) The author clearly isn’t influenced by any Christian sects. Most of the Christians are claimed to be perverts and corrupt for disbelieving in the Quran and editing their own Bible. And there weren’t too many Christians preaching the Bible in pagan Mecca, nor any record of Christian influence there..No more than a few Christians lived there. Perhaps those “cultists” are right, and you wrong?

009.030
YUSUFALI: The Jews call 'Uzair a son of Allah, and the Christians call Christ the son of Allah. That is a saying from their mouth; (in this) they but imitate what the unbelievers of old used to say. Allah's curse be on them: how they are deluded away from the Truth!

009.031
YUSUFALI: They take their priests and their anchorites to be their lords in derogation of Allah, and (they take as their Lord) Christ the son of Mary; yet they were commanded to worship but One Allah: there is no god but He. Praise and glory to Him: (Far is He) from having the partners they associate (with Him).

009.032
YUSUFALI: Fain would they extinguish Allah's light with their mouths, but Allah will not allow but that His light should be perfected, even though the Unbelievers may detest (it).

009.033
YUSUFALI: It is He Who hath sent His Messenger with guidance and the Religion of Truth, to proclaim it over all religion, even though the Pagans may detest (it).
009.034
YUSUFALI: O ye who believe! there are indeed many among the priests and anchorites, who in Falsehood devour the substance of men and hinder (them) from the way of Allah. And there are those who bury gold and silver and spend it not in the way of Allah: announce unto them a most grievous penalty-

Idk where you’re coming up with circular reasoning, I never referred to the Quran talking about the scriptures today as perfect. There’s your evidence ^^. A basic concept that the Quran teaches about other scriptures is that they were revealed in Truth to the Prophets, but throughout history they’ve been edited.

The Law that came with Prophet 'Eesa (Jesus) abrogated part of the Law that came with Moosa (Moses) . Relating the words of Prophet 'Eesa to the Children of Israel, Almighty Allaah Says (what means): "And I have come confirming that which was before me of the Torah and to make lawful to you part of what was forbidden to you…" [Quran 3:50]

The Islamic Law is lasting, remaining suitable for every place and time, and embracing the goodness of the previous manifestations of the Law. Allaah Says (what means): “And We have revealed to you, [O Muhammad], the Book in truth, confirming that which preceded it of the Scripture and as a criterion over it." [Quran 5:48]

In Surah 4:157, it is quite clear what it means? “That they said in boast, “We killed the Christ Jesus the son of Mary, the Messenger of God – but they DID NOT KILL him, nor crucify him, but so it was made to appear to them, and those who differ therein are full of doubts, with no CERTAIN knowledge but only conjecture to follow, for CERTAIN. they did not kill him.”
Yusuf Ali version.


I'm just saying..the people who added to the revelation of Jesus (as) are random people whom you have no clear, detailed history about besides what the Bible says. If it isn't worthy of accepting only the first name of a student on a college essay, then the Bible today shouldn't be used to be relied on through blind faith, especially when the Quran, with tons of evidence behind it, has fundamental differences in belief of the One True God.

Kangaroo said...

Soon.

Kangaroo said...

Nvm.

I was pretty disappointed after reading this post by Anthony Rogers (you).

http://answering-islam.org/authors/rogers/most_kind.html

Sounds like a last ditch resort trying to give the Prophet Muhammad (pbuh) divine names.

Nothing worth refuting here because the reader can see for himself.

Disappointing. If only Christian missionaries were truthful I wouldn't mind having discussions with them, but this is just sad, unless you have any other excuses.

I'm done here lol. I actually had some trust in the teammates of this blog.

Radical Moderate said...

Kangaroo Said.... Part 1

"Christian missionaries are based solely on the assumptions that:

Because the Bible has been in existence longer than the Qur'an, the Biblical account is the correct one, as opposed to the Qur'anic account, which is necessarily inaccurate and false."

Actually the opposite is true. It is you Muslims who have the problem of believing that the Koran is the word of God so there for anything it says is true, and anything that says otherwise is false.

We Christians believe the bible for a number of reasons, but one reason is that unlike your Koran, every place we look that can be verified the bible is proved true.

More on that later, but now to tear apart the Hanan hoax that you re posted.

Like most hoaxes there are some key indicators. First lets take a look at what you posted.

"Bucaille narrates an interesting discussion he had with a prominent French Egyptologist:


In the book Reflections on the Qur'an (Réflexions sur le Coran[60]), I have related the result of such a consultation that dates back to a dozen years ago and led me to question a specialist who, in addition, knew well the classical Arabic language. One of the most prominent French Egyptologists, fulfilling these conditions, was kind enough to answer the question."

This is a tell, who is this "specialist" no name is given, no foundation or university is named where this alleged "specialist" works, all that is mentioned is that this "specialist" was consulted.

Kangaroo, do you know that name of this alleged specialist? Does a person even exist?

goethechosemercy said...

I find Kangaroo's posts be be like Islam.
Islam mocks holiness.
And his perspective mocks reason.
But to mock reason is not to be reasonable.

Radical Moderate said...

Kangaroo Said.... Part 2

You copied and pasted the following.

"Moreover, Ranke had noted, as a reference, a book published in 1906 by the Egyptologist Walter Wreszinski: the latter had mentioned that the name of "Haman" had been engraved on a stela kept at the Hof-Museum of Vienna (Austria). Several years later, when I was able to read the profession written in hieroglyphs on the stela, I observed that the determinative joined to the name had emphasized the importance of the intimate of Pharaoh.[61]"

There are a few problems with this. First the name of the Museum was changed several decades before Buccilla wrote his book.

"The museum is now called “Kunsthistorisches Museum”. The name was officially changed on 1 September 1921."

Second the insciption in question is not on a stone Stella but on a door post.

So with that said, Mr Buccilla could not of visited the Museum nor did he read the inscription.

Finally Mr Buccilla writes... "
the importance of the intimate of Pharaoh"

Pharaoh is not mentioned in the inscription.

So with that all said and done, don't you find this a little suspicious, and little dubious, a little dishonest and well just down right desperate?

Radical Moderate said...

@Kangaroo Part 3.

I could go on further but I think the point is clear, that with some honest reading and a little investigation, it is obvious that what Mr Buccilla wrote is nothing short of a fairy tale.

Really doesn't that say something to you, that a person has to be that dishonest to promote your faith?

Now there have been some hoaxes over the years when it comes to Christian Archeology. However Christians, examine these hoaxes and expose them for what they are a Hoax. We do not continue to promote them as a scientific find.

Now if your interested, here is a video, of a presentation by a REAL ARCHELOGIST, who is the dig supervisor in Jerusalem for a number of years. Its a hour and a half in length but it covers some of the major finds that have been discovered in recent years. Please take the time to watch it, and compare that to the nonsense that you posted.

Biblical Archeology

Some of the highlights is the recent discovery of King Davids Palace. The dig was proposed as a test of the bible. If the bible is correct then a huge complex of Phonecian design would be found under what is the the First Temple.

Well they found it, its huge and would of stood 6 stories tall.

Another remarkable find is that of the royal archive in Jerusalem that was destroyed by the Babylonians. The documents were destroyed but 51 seals where discovered, containing the names of 26 biblical characters. Of those listed.

Azaiah son of Hilliah (1 Chronicals 9)

Gemariah son of Shapan (Jeremiah 36)

Baruch, Jeremiah's personal scribe. One of these seals contains his thumb print. (Jeremiah 36)

Jerahmeel the kings son (Jeremiah 36)

Well I hope you take the time to watch it.

In conclusion, we Christians do not believe the bible because it came first, we believe the bible becasue it is prove true again and again and again.

The Quran on the other hand is prove false again and again and again. So much so that people have to make up fictious conversations with "Experts and Specialists" to promote your faith.

Radical Moderate said...

Kangaroo Said....

"Disappointing. If only Christian missionaries were truthful I wouldn't mind having discussions with them, but this is just sad, unless you have any other excuses."

This from a man who quotes a obvious fabrication by Islamic Dawagists. Not only is it a fabrication but a fairy tale, a complete lie.

I think you need to look in the mirror man before you start accusing people of being dishonest.

Radical Moderate said...

Kangaroo said...

"The Jews call 'Uzair a son of Allah,"

Wow Kangaroo proving the Koran is just wrong AGAIN. NO JEWS, NONE, ABSOLUTLY NONE has ever called "Uzair" a son of ALLAH

Radical Moderate said...

Kangaroo said...

"I'm just saying..the people who added to the revelation of Jesus (as) are random people whom you have no clear, detailed history about besides what the Bible says."

Wow, the Muslim mind never ceases to amaze me.

Kangaroo, below is link to the writings of the Apostolic Fathers, who lived in the First to Second Century.

After you view the Youtube video I posted on what are true scientific discoveries of Biblical Archeology. Not made up Islamic hoaxes. Please take time to read over what the first century Christians believed.

Apostolic Fathers

Radical Moderate said...

Kangaroo,

Now that it has been proven that your Haman hoax has been completly refuted by the AI team long long ago. I'm wondering if you can respond to the argument that Anthony Rogers put forth on this blog post.

Thank you

Radical Moderate said...

Wow I just noticed this.

Kangaroo said...


-We are allowed to marry our cousins, just like we're allowed to have sex with the slaves that we might own. It doesn't mean it is recommended, but it is PERMISSIBLE.

Radical Moderate said...

I agree with Donna
David please please do not ban Kangaroo, when he keeps coming up with gems like these.

Kangaroo said...
"Every Prophet has mental "instability" in the beginnnig, when God reaches out to Him or by an angel."

Name me one prophet other then Mohamed who had "mental instability" I mean really man. So the Islamic God chooses mentally unstable people for his prophets. LOL

And this one...

"Yeah the Prophet Muhamamd (pbuh) was affected by black magic whih cuased him to have dleusional thoughts about his wives. But it doesn't affect anything else in his life.

So Mohamed being put under the spell of Black Magic to make him think he had sex with his wives when in fact he had not is no big deal. LOL

For the longest time this story was the most absurd thing I had ever heard about Islam. Even more absurd then the Jinns. And then I saw a comerical for Viagra and it hit me.

Mohamed at some point became IMPOTENT. Now you cant have Allah apostle running around impotent, especially when so much of his sexual prows has become legendary. "He had the verality of a 100 men" etc...

So what is the solution, blame the JEWS lol. A Jew made Allah's apostle impotent. Oh those Jews, are all knowing and all wise.

Then there is this part...

"It's as simple as me having a day dream about having sex with my future wife..? Not even a big problem."

Putting your sexual fantasy's aside, evidently in Islam lusting after someone who is not your wife is not a problem. Why would it be when as Kangaroo admitted Muslims can have sex with their slaves.

And finally we have this gem.

"Then the angel Gabriel came to the Prophet (pbuh) and informed him of where the comb was and he actually found it. That tells us something doesnt it?"

Yes it does tell us something oh does it ever.

It tells us that the Angel Gabriel was powerless to prevent the Jews from making your prophet impotent. It tells us that it took some time for the Angel Gabriel to figure out what was causing Allahs Apostle to be impotent, it tells us that it took some time for the Angel Gabriel to find the comb and lift the spell.

In all that time you would think the Angel Gabriel could of inspired Mohamed to invent Viagra. Now that would be a Quranic Miracle. LOL

So David please please please don't take away our toy. I promise I will be good and eat all my vegetables from now on.

Sihol said...

What's so funny is that they use the Quran as "evidence"... Yes... that's right... So, I can just write some 'noble book' and claim to have receive revelation from an angel and write in that book that Quran has been corrupted and present that as the "evidence". lol.

My definition of Islam: Bogus claims with no evidence.

Mormonism sure got a lot of things in common with Islam :)

Kangaroo said...

Easy questions. Easy solutions.
Black magic is such a good story to learn from and laugh at those hwo claim it disproves prophethood.


-evil magic was worked on the prophet

-the magic did not affect the revelations of the Quran

-the prophet asked Allah for help, which means he was conscious of a problem

-Allah sent two angels to the prophet in a dream

-the angels told Muhammad where to go to find the materials that were used

-the prophet goes to the location, but he does not destroy the materials

-Allah himself has cured the prophet Muhammad

So as you can see this incident in the prophet's lifetime does NOT disprove his prophethood, rather it is a great proof and evidence that he is a prophet! He asks Allah for help, and Allah comes to his aid!

There is a whole moral and wisdom behind this story, and the wisdom behind this story is that if we are afflicted with some sort of evil then we must look and turn to Allah for the help and cure, because Allah is the only one who can protect and save us. This is the entire basis of this incident, that we put all our faith and trust in Allah.

As Allah himself says in the Noble Quran:

033.003
YUSUFALI: And put thy trust in Allah, and enough is Allah as a disposer of affairs.

007.196
YUSUFALI: "For my Protector is Allah, Who revealed the Book (from time to time), and He will choose and befriend the righteous.

003.150
YUSUFALI: Nay, Allah is your protector, and He is the best of helpers.

Lastly, all of us will be tested by God, including the prophet himself, therefore it should not surprise us if harm comes to the prophet, as the Quran says:

002.214
YUSUFALI: Or do ye think that ye shall enter the Garden (of bliss) without such (trials) as came to those who passed away before you? they encountered suffering and adversity, and were so shaken in spirit that even the Messenger and those of faith who were with him cried: "When (will come) the help of Allah?" Ah! Verily, the help of Allah is (always) near!

So in conclusion this hadith does not disprove Muhammad as a prophet, nor does it question his credibility. If anyone is honest with themselves they will accept the hadith for what it is, and what it says, that angels came to the prophet, and that Allah cured and healed the prophet Muhammad.

http://muslim-responses.com/Black_Magic_on_the_Prophet/Black_Magic_on_the_Prophet_

Kangaroo said...

Again, you're assuming that I'm denying everything in the Bible.

I informed you before, I do not reject everything in the Bible, because not all of it is corrupt, and I wouldn't be surprised if many things in it became true, that actually increases my faith when it does become true. However I reject the Bible's reliablity because of editing in the past.




1- The Noble Quran was revealed to one person, and it was also recited by one person. The Bible was revealed to many people, and it was recited by many people.

2- The Noble Quran was memorized by Prophet Muhammad peace be upon him and his followers. They then documented it on paper. The Bible wasn't memorized by anyone, nor was documented by it's Prophets.

3- The Noble Quran was and still is recited in whole in the Holy Month of Ramadan, and recited partly during our daily prayers. So corrupting it during Prophet Muhammad's time was virtually impossible, because EVERYONE knew it. The Bible is not recited by anyone. It's own theologians today don't even have it memorized.

Having said all of the above points, it becomes now clear that the Noble Quran was much easier to maintain and protect than the Bible.



According to the Theologians and Historians of the Bible, most of the books and gospels of the Bible were written by MYSTERIOUS AUTHORS. No one really knows WHO THE REAL AUTHORS WERE!

"Serious doubts exists as to whether these verses belong to the Gospel of Mark. They are absent from important early manuscripts and display certain peculiarities of vocabulary, style and theological content that are unlike the rest of Mark. His Gospel probably ended at 16:8, or its original ending has been lost. (From the NIV Bible Foot Notes, page 1528)"

http://www.answering-christianity.com/trust_bible_or_quran.htm

Anthony Rogers said...

Kangaroo said:

Nvm.

I was pretty disappointed after reading this post by Anthony Rogers (you).

To the Believers Is He Most Kind


[I hope you don't mind that I hyperlinked the article you referenced above since it wasn't displaying properly.]

By way of reply, I first want to ask what the letters "NVM" mean at the beginning of your reply? They are gibberish to me. Are you trying to imitate the gibberish letters that appear at the beginning of certain Surahs? I think we both know that Muslims are full of conjecture and doubt about the meaning of these "mysterious" letters in the "perfectly clear" and "fully detailed" Qur'an. Just so you don't tempt me to come up with a meaning, do you think you can be clearer than your prophet and let me know what you meant by "NVM"?

Secondly, I am happy to see you discovered an article I wrote exposing a case of Shirk in the Qur'an and that you have drawn attention to it in this forum. Feel free to share it with your friends, make copies of it and distrubte them at your mosque, and link to it in as many Muslim forums as your heart desires. We can always use more people to get the word out.

Sounds like a last ditch resort trying to give the Prophet Muhammad (pbuh) divine names.

If you read the article then you would know that this "last ditch effort" was not of my doing. The fact is, the last two verses of Surah 9 were the "last" of the (so-called) revelations of the Qur'an "given" to your (false) prophet and they were also the last verses to be found and included when the Qur'an was compiled. Since these verses call Muhammad "rauf" (compassionate/kind) and "rahim" (merciful), both of which are only used to speak of Allah's names and attributes EVERYWHERE else in the Qur'an, and since it is part of Muhammad's boast in the hadith that he was given these two names, and since Muslim sources admit that Muhammad was "clothed with Allah's own attributes of compassion and mercy", something that is not said of anyone besides Allah WITH THE EXCEPTION of Muhammad, a man who taught that his name must be confessed along side of Allah's for salvation, and who also taught that people are to obey "Allah and His messenger", I'm sure you can imagine why I have a problem with that (as should you).

Nothing worth refuting here because the reader can see for himself.

Go tell that to Bassam Zawadi who recently tried to refute it and failed:

Given that you are such a talkative fellow, and given that you have an evident zeal for your false god and false prophet - and I do give you props for coming in here all alone and trying to have it out with several people at once - I hope you won't be taken aback at my telling you that this is nothing more than an excuse on your part. If you thought you had an answer, I find it hard to believe you wouldn't give it.

Disappointing. If only Christian missionaries were truthful I wouldn't mind having discussions with them, but this is just sad, unless you have any other excuses.

That's the secod time you have slandered and falsely accused someone on this blog without any evidence. Is that a habit of yours?

I'm done here lol. I actually had some trust in the teammates of this blog.

Given your penchant for slandering people without cause, it is hard for me to believe that you came here in a spirit of good will and trust in people who write for this blog. I think it is closer to the truth to say that you came here because you thought you had the goods to refute Christianity. Failing that...you now want to make sure we don't take away the few props you have left and which you desperately need in order to keep your gods, Allah and Muhammad, from toppling over.

Anthony Rogers said...

P.S. I forgot to include my reply to Zawadi. Here it is:

Surah 9:128 and Bassam's "Giant" Problem

Enjoy.

Kangaroo said...

And here is a refutation for your sick allegations.

Kangaroo said...

http://www.islamicacademy.org/html/Articles/English/Hadhir_Nadhir.htm

Anthony Rogers said...

You can't be serious. The link you provided gives FURTHER examples of shirk. And when it quotes from Al-Qadi Ilyad, it leaves out the best part:

"One of the men of knowledge, Al-Husayn ibn al-Fadl, said, “He [Allah] honored him [Muhammad] with two of His own names: the compassionate and the merciful (rauf, rahim).” The same point is made in another ayat: “Allah was kind to the believers when He sent among them a Messenger from among themselves.” (3:164) …

Jafar ibn Muhammad [as-Sadiq] said, “Allah knew that His creatures would not be capable of pure obedience to Him, so He told them this in order that they would realize that they would never be able to achieve absolute purity in serving Him. Between Himself and them He placed one of their own species, CLOTHING HIM IN HIS OWN ATTRIBUTES OF COMPASSION AND MERCY. He brought him out as a truthful ambassador to creation and made it such that when someone obeys him, they are obeying Allah, and when someone agrees with him, they are agreeing with Allah.” Allah says: “Whoever obeys the Messenger has obeyed Allah.” (4:80)

As-Samarqandi explains that the words a mercy to all the worlds mean for both the jinn and mankind. It is also said that it means for all creation. He is a mercy to the believers by guiding them, a mercy to the hypocrites by granting them security from being killed, and a mercy to the unbelievers by deferring their punishment. Ibn Abbas said, “He is a mercy to the believers and also to the unbelievers since they are safe from what befell the other communities who cried lies.” It is related that the Prophet said to Jibril, “Has any of this mercy touched you?” He replied, “Yes, I used to have fear about what would happen to me, but now I feel safe because of the way Allah praised me when He said, ‘Possessing power, secure with the Lord of the Throne, obeyed, then trusty.’” (81:21) (Qadi Iyad Ibn Musa al-Yahsubi, Kitab Ash-shifa bi ta'rif huquq al-Mustafa (Healing by the recognition of the Rights of the Chosen One), translated by Aisha Abdarrahman Bewley [Madinah Press, Inverness, Scotland, U.K., third reprint 1991, paperback], Part One. Allah’s great estimation of the worth of his Prophet expressed in both word and action, Chapter One. Allah’s praise of him and his great esteem for him, Section 1. Concerning praise of him and his numerous excellent qualities, pp. 4-6; capital, bold and underline emphasis ours)

Obviously you don't even read the links that YOU provide, and you do not check the sources they cite. What a shame.

donna60 said...

Kangaroo, it would be better if you put your arguements here in your own words, and then gave us the link to fact-check you.

I'm only saying this because I tend to not value someone's links very much. I assume if they really cared, they would understand the material enough to put it in their own words.

KAG said...

Lies are tricky. Some contain just enough truth to present the appearance of being true. In others, the subconscious accidentally leaks the truth. For instance, the murder suspect who during the course of an interview with a detective insists the gun found at the scene is not his. Unfortunately for the suspect, the detective knows that no one other than the police and the murderer knows the gun was found at the scene. Leaky subconscious. TMI.
Your point that the Jews would not have referred to Jesus is correct and there's no sarcasm evident, since we know Islam claims Allah said what he meant and meant what he said. Clearly, this error is a big clue that the entire tale is fabricated.
However, the speaker, whether Mohammed or the supposed angel Gabriel, has a leaky subconscious. By calling Jesus the Messiah the speaker gives us an even more damning truth than the mistake about the Jews. The use of the word Messiah is out of context for the speaker's point of view. It's not only contrary to how the Jews viewed Jesus, it's in complete opposition with Allah's claim that Jesus is merely a prophet. Only someone who 'knows' the truth would leak such a terminology mistake under these circumstances. The canon-size smoking guy? The speaker knows the truth. Jesus is the Messiah.

Kangaroo said...

Actually it is pretty CLEAR what the Quran says. NEITHER KILLED NOR CRUCIFIED BUT IT APPEARED TO BE SO. That is all we need to know.

That is why there are some churches that say Jesus is not part of a trinity, some say he never died on the cross etc.

Basially proving the conjecture and doubt. And all the "evidence" you have are books written by men at unknown times and places who weren't even eye witnesses.
Sounds shady to me.

Which leads us back to the Quran when it warns people of writing something with their own hand, hence Paul etc, and claiming it is from God. Do you have proof Paul is truly an Apostle? Or do you prefer blind faith.

Fernando said...

mr. kangarro... can you presente ONE single example off

1) a Christian church that doubts thate Jesus «was not crucified or died on the cross»?

2) a Christian church thate «Jesus is not part of a trinity»?

ONE single example for each off your claimes... ONE...

Kangaroo said...

Apostolics believe in Oneness rather than trinity. (That Jesus was the one God in flesh).
Apostolic denominations include
United Pentecostal Church International
Assemblies of the Lord Jesus Christ
Pentecostal Assemblies of the World
Apostolic Restoration Mission
Reconciling Pentecostals International


They don't beleive Jesus was part of a trinity. And there's always the Mormons....haha..

donna60 said...

Kangaroo, I belong to one of the churches who don't use the word "trinity" But honestly and truthfully we are not going to be able to help you with your beliefs.

I believe that the Father is God, because the bible says so, over and over again. I believe that the Son is God, because the bible says so, over and over again. And I believe that the Holy Spirit is God because the bible says so over and over again.

But I won't use the word Trinity, oh no, not I!

But how do I help your cause?

KAG said...

**Moderator: I'm not sure this comment went through, so I'm resending. I apologize if I've commented twice. Just ignore this one if you got the other. Thanks.


Mr. Roo, if you are responding to my comment, then you have veered from the subject at hand and that subject is NOT what the Koran says about the crucifixion and its denial that it happened, but the slip up in terminologies used by the writer. It's a point of view issue. A writer/narrator must maintain point of view or the story slips the surly bonds of credibility. Even in an omniscient p.o.v, the writer/narrator must remain true to separate personalities, their actions and their thought processes or the narrator's reliability loses believability. This is what happened here. Twice. This applies in real life when telling a story to your friends about what happened last night. Your story is true to known facts about people and the setting or it's not credible. It's about the nature of truth. When telling the truth, this kind of p.o.v. mistake doesn't happen because there is only one personality's p.o.v. (first person) and the truth is from their perspective. Of course, another option is that the speaker/narrator of this statement is confused about the facts. That doesn't bode well for the Koran either.

I'll explain again: From the point of view of the Jews, Jesus was not the Messiah and he would have been referred to by them as Jesus, son of Joseph, not Mary. Mary was just his mother, not divine or special in any way that would exclude Joseph as the marker for Jesus' lineage, as per Jewish custom. The Jews would not have thought of Jesus as the Messiah--not for one second--nor would they have uttered it at any time in a serious discussion such as the statement being discussed here. To do so goes against known facts and the setting. The use of the word Messiah was not sarcasm, but a declarative statement. That's mistake #1. Mistake #2: The writer/narrator did indeed call Jesus the Messiah--without qualification for the usage--a statement which is also in great conflict with both Allah's and Mohammed's point of view. There is no reason for this description of Jesus to have entered the mind of the writer/narrator. It's outside both Allah's and Mohammed's belief system (and thought processes if engaged in a statement of truth) and is just as telling as if a Greek or a Roman had confused Apollo and Zeus. They wouldn't. They thought and spoke from their world view and belief system, unless clarified as a statement incorporating another's p.o.v., which the speaker/narrator of the questioned statement did not do. The smoking gun: For Jesus to be referred to as the Messiah as a statement of fact--which is was--the speaker/narrator had to know the truth and his/its subconscious leaked this truth during the course of making a statement that is in direct conflict to the premise that Jesus is the Messiah. The speaker/narrator made a mistake that revealed the truth he/it sought to deny. Or...he/it was gravely confused. Your choice.

Which leads us back to the Quran when it warns people of writing something with their own hand, hence Paul etc, and claiming it is from God.

You mean like Mohammed? Oh, that's right; Mohammed was illiterate. So who recorded what he said that Gabriel said that Allah said? Somebody wrote it down. Do you have any proof these words were recorded accurately and without alternation or do you accept this on blind faith? Do you have any proof that Gabriel appeared to Mohammed or do you accept this on blind faith as well? I don't malign your faith as a concept of belief, but it's a terribly weak argument, Mr. Roo, to use as a qualifier that someone else's faith is flawed when faith is defined the same way no matter what belief system you attach to it. It's the belief system we're discussing here.

donna60 said...

Kangaroo

Mormons aren't Christians.

And you think the Pentacostals are going to help you out?

Okay I am giggling right now. A Pentacostal church that you might go to for help is the Dove Outreach
Center that Mr Terry Jones is a member of. I looked up the church he preaches at, and it is called an apostolic church, and since that rang a few bells, I looked up "apostolic church" in Wikipedia
Sure enough! Apostolic churches are Pentacostal!

As a matter of fact, this is what Wikipedia says about Pentacostalism, and then I'll let you decide if they will support your beliefs:

"The Apostolic Church is a Pentecostal Christian denomination which can trace its origins back to the 1904-1905 Welsh Revival. Despite the relatively recent origin of the denomination, the church seeks to stand for first century Christianity in its faith, practices, and government.

The purpose of the denomination is summed up by one prominent Apostolic writer as:

"to make known world-wide the forgiveness of sins through the atoning death of Christ; the baptism in water by immersion; the baptism of the Holy Ghost with signs following; the nine gifts of the Holy Ghost; the five gifts of our Ascended Lord; and the vision called in the New Testament, 'the Church which is His Body'."

ROBINSON said...

Dear Kangaroo,

1.We will never be able construct a historical Isa al-Masih based on the accounts on the Quran.The IsA al-Masih in the quran is as true as the CInderrella, Rumpestilskin or the giants in Jack and The Bean Stalk.

2.There is absolutely no prooof that the Isa al-Masih in the quran is Jesus of Nazareth except for the claim made by Muslims.

3. The accounts in the quran are largely based on Jewish and Christian texts.

4. It is Muslim frustration with the above three points that causes Muslims to claim that they accept that parts of the Bible are still correct while some are corrupt.

5. Everybody who starts a new religion based on an older one can claim that his accounts are more correct than the original one. the Ahmadiyahs and Bahai's are a good example. But Muslims call them heretics...they can't believe that there others who are better then them when it comes to copying religions...lol.

ROBINSON

ROBINSON said...

What's more doubtful?

1.)Blindly following the writings of the Jew next door.

2.)Following a text that has no serious questions about its authenticity and is INTACT with no changes, today.

Neither of the above. Blindly following the teachings of a Mullah who says that his prophet flew on a winged horse(before he died) to Jerusalem even when his own religious text does not state the word Jerusalem is more doubtful.

Sharyn said...

According to the Quran, the man killed on the cross merely looked like Christ, the true Messiah having been secreted away just prior to his death. On the other hand, they then say that a man who looked like Christ appeared to the apostles and the others claiming to be Jesus Resurrected. Is this the same man who stood in for Christ on the cross, or another look-alike? Considering that Isaiah makes it plain that the Christ would have a distinctive appearance (some scholars believe He may have been physically deformed) what are the odds of the Christians finding not just one look-alike, but two? On the other hand, if Jesus was not crucified, why did He not appear Himself to disclaim the attempts of the Christians to display Him as one crucified? Why the appearances by the imposter, but not the genuine article?