What would be the main reason to become a muslim?

[Mairo]

Hi DadManG,

There are many people who have quoted parts of the Quran in your thread. Can you tell me what do you think about what you have read so far?

In addition to Aisha's suggestion of reading the Quran and comparing with the Bible, I would also suggest learning about the life of Muhammad and understanding how the revelation of the scripture occurred, if you do not know anything about that currently. I think you would find it interesting and educational.

I do like your question "why should I believe it is true"? That is a very important question for you to answer. I think it is important for people to distinguish between true and false prophets. Again, I am not sure what your motivations are or what your goal is for this thread, which would really help in figuring out how to continue this conversation. But if you are indeed searching for truth, I would advise you to turn to the Lord in prayer and ask him to guide you to what is true.

As Muslims, we have been convinced upon reading/hearing the Quran that it is indeed the truth revealed by God to Muhammad, who was indeed a prophet and servant of God. The prophecy of Muhammad can be ascertained in part by studying about Muhammad - what his character was like, how he lived & treated others, what he said about God, etc. . . . and seeing that everything he did and said was in agreement with those prophets of God who came before him.

But it is for each person to reflect and reach their own conclusions about these things. Whatever it is that you choose to believe is fine. I hope you will also have respect for those of us who differ from your opinion. God is the one who will decide between all differences in the end.

[5.48] And We have revealed to you the Book with the truth, verifying what is before it of the Book and a guardian over it, therefore judge between them by what Allah has revealed, and do not follow their low desires (to turn away) from the truth that has come to you; for every one of you did We appoint a law and a way, and if Allah had pleased He would have made you (all) a single people, but that He might try you in what He gave you, therefore strive with one another to hasten to virtuous deeds; to Allah is your return, of all (of you), so He will let you know that in which you differed;

[28.53] And when it is recited to them they say: We believe in it surely it is the truth from our Lord; surely we were submitters before this.

 

[Mairo]

Hi again DadManG,

I do not know if you are still referring to this thread, but I wanted to add one more thing.

You said, based off of this statement:

JOH 10:33 The Jews answered Him, "For a good work we do not stone You, but for blasphemy; and because You, being a man, make Yourself out to be God."

Is it logical to conclude that Jesus is either God, a liar or a crazy person. Not a Prophet?

I have heard this argument used often to support the Christian idea that Jesus must be God or the Son of God and I reject it. I rejected this claim well before I became Muslim, to me it is not a logical conclusion at all. I find that the conclusion the Jewish leaders were drawing about Jesus that he was blaspheming was an incorrect assumption. Jesus did not claim to be God, but the Jewish leaders interpreted his teachings as such, and so wanted to use their assumption to convict him of blasphemy. In fact, the Jewish leaders were never able to comprehend Jesus's teachings at all, which is what he was trying to explain to them in the full text you quoted (John 10:24-33). But there are and will always be people, "the lost sheep of Israel", who will hear him correctly and understand what he taught.

He did claim to be the Messiah, which is simply translated as "the Anointed One". No where in the Bible does it state that the Messiah will be God incarnate or Son of God. Muslims do believe his claim as Messiah, and also believe the prophecy that Jesus will return again.

"Narrated Abu Hurayrah: The Prophet (peace be upon him) said: There is no prophet between me and him, that is, Jesus (peace be upon him). He will descend (to the earth). When you see him, recognise him: a man of medium height, reddish fair, wearing two light yellow garments, looking as if drops were falling down from his head though it will not be wet. He will fight for the cause of Islam. He will break the cross, kill swine, and abolish jizyah. God will perish all religions except Islam. He will destroy the Antichrist and will live on the earth for forty years and then he will die. The Muslims will pray behind him." hadith Abu Dawud 37:4310

"How will you be when the son of Mary descends amongst you and he will judge people by the Law of the Qur'an and not by the law of the Man." hadith Sahih Bukhari 4:55:658

Salam

 

[Bluegazer]

1- Response to your understanding of certain Biblical verses​

[Genesis 6:5-7 and Exodus 31:17]​

I posted the verses of Genesis 6:5-7 and Exodus 31:17 -in post #37- to show that the Bible contains phrases that negate the belief that God Almighty is perfect. I -as a Muslim- affirm that God Almighty is perfect.


To post #37, click on the following link:

http://www.turntoislam.com/forum/showpost.php?p=151855&postcount=37


And you, DadManG, replied as follows in post #43:

Very good questions:
I am sure that we could go back and forth picking at each others "bible".
I will try to respond to your questions in this one, but I think I will try to look at the historical evidences for our beliefs. It seems that trying to find out if the bible and the quran are historically accurate would be a worthy adventure.

Quote:
When the LORD saw how great was man's wickedness on earth, and how no desire that his heart conceived was ever anything but evil, he regretted that he had made man on the earth, and his heart was grieved. So the LORD said: "I will wipe out from the earth the men whom I have created, and not only the men, but also the beasts and the creeping things and the birds of the air, for I am sorry that I made them."

It has never occurred to me to consider an emotion like grieve to be negative. The above quoted verses only display His character/desire for man.

As to the verses referencing God "resting" on the seventh day, the word for rested can also be translated as ceased. God ceased from His work.

I am not trying to convert anyone. I realize that it is difficult to have a deep conversation this way.

Thank you for your responses

Source: http://www.turntoislam.com/forum/showpost.php?p=151920&postcount=43


I have four points to state [A,B,C and D]:

==================================

A- You said, "I am sure that we could go back and forth picking at each others "bible". "


The Holy Book we Muslims believe God Almighty revealed to Prophet Muhammad [peace be upon him] is called the Qur'an. It's not one of your Bible versions.

We Muslims believe that God Almighty did reveal Holy Scriptures to other prophets as well, such as Abraham, David, Moses and Jesus [peace be upon them all]. However, only one of these Scriptures was preserved intact, and remains to this day free from any corruption; the Qur'an.

I don't want to dwell on this point. I'll return to it in the next posts found below.

If -however- you meant that I posted verses from other versions of the Bible in my post #37 when you wrote "picking at each others "bible".", then I apologize.

=================================

B- You said, "It has never occurred to me to consider an emotion like grieve to be negative. The above quoted verses only display His character/desire for man."

I completely disagree.

Again, Genesis 6:5-7 reads as follows:

When the LORD saw how great was man's wickedness on earth, and how no desire that his heart conceived was ever anything but evil, he regretted that he had made man on the earth, and his heart was grieved. So the LORD said: "I will wipe out from the earth the men whom I have created, and not only the men, but also the beasts and the creeping things and the birds of the air, for I am sorry that I made them."

[New American Bible]


Why was God's heart [according to the above Biblical verses and not my belief] grieved? Because God "regretted that he had made man on the earth"

Don't you find these verses blasphemous?

God Almighty -the All Knowing, the All Wise and the All Powerful- regrets a decision He has made and is grieved by it??

And the added insult -as if the first insult is not enough- is the sentence at the beginning which states "When the LORD saw how great was man's wickedness on earth, and how no desire that his heart conceived was ever anything but evil,...."

Excuse me??!!

Are you seriously telling me that God Almighty -the All Knowing, the All Wise and the All Powerful- did not know about "man's wickedness on earth, and how no desire that his heart conceived was ever anything but evil" until after he saw this wickedness and evil happening?

Again, don't you find this blasphemous?

It seems, DadManG, that Muslims and Christians have a very different definition of what it means to be "perfect".

We Muslims believe that regretting a past decision, feeling grief for it and not knowing about future events certainly and totally negates the perfection that is due to God Almighty.

I seek refuge with Allah from such blasphemies.

=====================================

C- What about the verse that says "for I am sorry that I made them"?


God Almighty apologizes?

Do you, DadManG, believe that God Almighty apologized?

Or maybe it is meant here as an expression of regret. And yet to even say that God Almighty regrets is a blasphemy, and I seek refuge with God Almighty from believing in any blasphemy.

====================================

D- You said -concerning Exodus 31:17- "As to the verses referencing God "resting" on the seventh day, the word for rested can also be translated as ceased. God ceased from His work."


Firstly, there would be no need to mention that God ceased on the seventh day. That would be understood by the fact that God Almighty created the Heavens and the Earth in six days.


Secondly, you said "the word for rested can also be translated as ceased. God ceased from His work."

Here, we need to look at all the English versions of the Bible and how they translated Exodus 31:17. I will colour in red and set in bold type any word or phrase that means something more than just "ceased", like so. Let's see what the different English versions have to say:


1- Bishop Richard Challoner's revision of the Douay-Rhemis version:

For in six days the Lord made heaven and earth, and in the seventh he ceased from work.

Source: http://www.newadvent.org/bible/exo031.htm


2- The New American Bible [currently the official English version of the Roman Catholic Church]:

Between me and the Israelites it is to be an everlasting token; for in six days the LORD made the heavens and the earth, but on the seventh day he rested at his ease."

Source: http://www.vatican.va/archive/ENG0839/__P2C.HTM


3- The New International Version:

It will be a sign between me and the Israelites forever, for in six days the LORD made the heavens and the earth, and on the seventh day he abstained from work and rested.

Source: http://www.biblegateway.com/passage/?search=Exodus 31:17&version=31


It's very clear that "rested" here does not mean stopping or ceasing from work.


4- The New American Standard Bible:

It is a sign between Me and the sons of Israel forever; for in six days the LORD made heaven and earth, but on the seventh day He ceased from labor, and was refreshed.

Source: http://www.biblegateway.com/passage/?search=Exodus 31:17;&version=49;


5- The Message:

It's a fixed sign between me and the Israelites. Yes, because in six days God made the Heavens and the Earth and on the seventh day he stopped and took a long, deep breath.

Source: http://www.biblegateway.com/passage/?search=Exodus 31:17;&version=65;


6- Amplified Bible:

It is a sign between Me and the Israelites forever; for in six days the Lord made the heavens and earth, and on the seventh day He ceased and was refreshed.

Source: http://www.biblegateway.com/passage/?search=Exodus 31:17;&version=45;


7- New Living Translation:

It is a permanent sign of my covenant with the people of Israel. For in six days the Lord made heaven and earth, but on the seventh day he stopped working and was refreshed.

Source: http://www.biblegateway.com/passage/?search=Exodus 31:17;&version=51;


8- King James Version:

It is a sign between me and the children of Israel for ever: for in six days the LORD made heaven and earth, and on the seventh day he rested, and was refreshed.

Source: http://www.biblegateway.com/passage/?search=Exodus 31:17;&version=9;


9- English Standard Version:

It is a sign forever between me and the people of Israel that in six days the LORD made heaven and earth, and on the seventh day he rested and was refreshed.

Source: http://www.biblegateway.com/passage/?search=Exodus 31:17;&version=47;


10- Contemporary English Version:

This day will always serve as a reminder, both to me and to the Israelites, that I made the heavens and the earth in six days, then on the seventh day I rested and relaxed.

Source: http://www.biblegateway.com/passage/?search=Exodus 31:17;&version=46;


11- New King James Version:

It is a sign between Me and the children of Israel forever; for in six days the LORD made the heavens and the earth, and on the seventh day He rested and was refreshed.

Source: http://www.biblegateway.com/passage/?search=Exodus 31:17;&version=50;


12- New Century Version:

The Sabbath day will be a sign between me and the Israelites forever, because in six days I, the Lord, made the sky and the earth. On the seventh day I did not work; I rested.

Source: http://www.biblegateway.com/passage/?search=Exodus 31:17;&version=78;


It's very clear that "rested" here does not mean stopping or ceasing from work.


13- 21st Century King James Version:

It is a sign between Me and the children of Israel for ever; for in six days the LORD made heaven and earth, and on the seventh day He rested and was refreshed.

Source: http://www.biblegateway.com/passage/?search=Exodus 31:17;&version=48;


14- American Standard Version:

It is a sign between me and the children of Israel for ever: for in six days Jehovah made heaven and earth, and on the seventh day he rested, and was refreshed.

Source: http://www.biblegateway.com/passage/?search=Exodus 31:17;&version=8;


15- Young's Literal Translation:

between Me and the sons of Israel it [is] a sign -- to the age; for six days Jehovah made the heavens and the earth, and in the seventh day He hath ceased, and is refreshed.

Source: http://www.biblegateway.com/passage/?search=Exodus 31:17;&version=15;


16- Darby Translation:

It shall be a sign between me and the children of Israel for ever; for [in] six days Jehovah made the heavens and the earth, and on the seventh day he rested, and was refreshed.

Source: http://www.biblegateway.com/passage/?search=Exodus 31:17;&version=16;


17- New Life Version:

It is something special between Me and the people of Israel forever. For the Lord made heaven and earth in six days. But He stopped working and rested on the seventh day.

Source: http://www.biblegateway.com/passage/?search=Exodus 31:17;&version=74;


It's very clear that "rested" here does not mean stopping or ceasing from work.


18- Holman Christian Standard Bible:

It is a sign forever between Me and the Israelites, for in six days the LORD made the heavens and the earth, but on the seventh day He rested and was refreshed.

Source: http://www.biblegateway.com/passage/?search=Exodus 31:17;&version=77;


19- New International Reader's Version:

It will be the sign of the covenant I have made between me and the people of Israel forever. " 'I made the heavens and the earth in six days. But on the seventh day I did not work. I rested.

Source: http://www.biblegateway.com/passage/?search=Exodus 31:17;&version=76;


It's very clear that "rested" here does not mean stopping or ceasing from work.


20- New International Version - UK:

It will be a sign between me and the Israelites for ever, for in six days the LORD made the heavens and the earth, and on the seventh day he abstained from work and rested.

Source: http://www.biblegateway.com/passage/?search=Exodus 31:17;&version=64;


It's very clear that "rested" here does not mean stopping or ceasing from work.


21- Today's New International Version:

It will be a sign between me and the Israelites forever, for in six days the LORD made the heavens and the earth, and on the seventh day he abstained from work and rested.

Source: http://www.biblegateway.com/passage/?search=Exodus 31:17;&version=72;


It's very clear that "rested" here does not mean stopping or ceasing from work.


22- The Ferrar Fenton Bible:

It is a sign between Me and the children of Israel forever; for in six ages the EVER-LIVING made the solar system and the earth, but upon the seventh age, He rested and refreshed.

Source: http://www.ferrarfenton.com/pdf/exodus.pdf


You'll find verse 17 of chapter 31 of Exodus at the bottom of the left hand column on page 33 of the PDF file found in the above source link [page 84 in the original Bible].


23- The Revised Standard Version:

It is a sign for ever between me and the people of Israel that in six days the LORD made heaven and earth, and on the seventh day he rested, and was refreshed.

Source: http://quod.lib.umich.edu/cgi/r/rsv...book=Exodus&chapno=31&startverse=17&endverse=


24- The New Revised Standard Version (Anglicized Edition):

It is a sign for ever between me and the people of Israel that in six days the Lord made heaven and earth, and on the seventh day he rested, and was refreshed.

Source: http://bible.oremus.org/?passage=Exodus+31:17


Let us review the results:


We reviewed 24 English versions of the Bible:

- 1 version simply stated that God "ceased from work" and did not add any other thing.
- 14 versions added that God was "refreshed" on the seventh day.
- 1 version added "at his ease."
- 1 Version added that God "took a long, deep breath".
- 1 version added that God was "relaxed".
- 6 versions added "and rested" or "rested" after it was already mentioned in the verse that God abstained from or ceased or stopped the work [of creating the heavens and the earth].


I seek refuge with Allah from attributing that He "rested", was "refreshed" or any such thing.


So, only one version simply stated that God "ceased from work" on the seventh day. That, DadManG, is your opinion of what Exodus 31:17 translates to.


The rest of the versions [numbering 23] all add something more. The majority [10 out of 23] add that God was "refreshed" on the seventh day.


So, it's very clear that the vast majority of the translators and editors of the English versions of the Bible do not agree with your following above mentioned statement:

"As to the verses referencing God "resting" on the seventh day, the word for rested can also be translated as ceased. God ceased from His work."


-------------------------------------------


Do you know what Allah the Almighty revealed in the Qur'an about the creation of the Heavens and the Earth?


Please read the following:

And indeed We created the heavens and the earth and all between them in six Days and nothing of fatigue touched Us.

[Translation of the meanings of the Qur'an 50:38]

Source: http://qurancomplex.org/Quran/Targama/Targama.asp?nSora=50&l=eng&nAya=38#50_38

 

[Bluegazer]

2- The article "Searching for ... the Muslim Christ"​

In post #45 you posted a link to an article titled "Searching for ... the Muslim Christ". I read the whole article. I was not convinced.


It depends too much on the Bible as being "the inerrant word of God". The phrase was not used, but that's what a reader understands.


The article also presents many "discoveries" as evidence that the Bible is accurate. However, I will -God willing- present evidence [from overwhelmingly Christian sources] that shows just how credible the Bible really is.

 

[Bluegazer]

3- The Story of the Adulteress​

[John 7:53-8:11]​

To begin with, let's review the Story of the Adulteress:

Jesus went unto the mount of Olives. And early in the morning he came again into the temple, and all the people came unto him; and he sat down, and taught them. And the scribes and Pharisees brought unto him a woman taken in adultery; and when they had set her in the midst, They say unto him, Master, this woman was taken in adultery, in the very act. Now Moses in the law commanded us, that such should be stoned: but what sayest thou? This they said, tempting him, that they might have to accuse him. But Jesus stooped down, and with his finger wrote on the ground, as though he heard them not. So when they continued asking him, he lifted up himself, and said unto them, He that is without sin among you, let him first cast a stone at her. And again he stooped down, and wrote on the ground. And they which heard it, being convicted by their own conscience, went out one by one, beginning at the eldest, even unto the last: and Jesus was left alone, and the woman standing in the midst. When Jesus had lifted up himself, and saw none but the woman, he said unto her, Woman, where are those thine accusers? hath no man condemned thee? She said, No man, Lord. And Jesus said unto her, Neither do I condemn thee: go, and sin no more.

John 7:53-8:11 (King James Version)


With recent English versions of the Bible, some comments were made about this story. They are as follows [I have coloured some phrases in red and used bold type, like so. I also underlined some phrases, like so]:

17 [⇒ 7:53-⇒ 8:11]The story of the woman caught in adultery is a later insertion here, missing from all early Greek manuscripts. A Western text-type insertion, attested mainly in Old Latin translations, it is found in different places in different manuscripts: here, or after ⇒ John 7:36 or at the end of this gospel, or after ⇒ Luke 21:38, or at the end of that gospel. There are many non-Johannine features in the language, and there are also many doubtful readings within the passage. The style and motifs are similar to those of Luke, and it fits better with the general situation at the end of Luke 21:but it was probably inserted here because of the allusion to ⇒ Jeremiah 17:13 (cf the note on John ⇒ John 8:6) and the statement, "I do not judge anyone," in ⇒ John 8:15. The Catholic Church accepts this passage as canonical scripture.

New American Bible

Source: http://www.vatican.va/archive/ENG0839/__PXF.HTM

----------------------------------

The Roman Catholic Church admitted there were serious doubts concerning John 7:53-8:11 even before footnote 17 of the New American Bible mentioned above on the Vatican website.


The following is from Volume VIII of the Catholic Encyclopedia [which was published in 1910]. It's found under the entry "Gospel of St. John" and the subheading "V. Critical Questions Concerning the Text"

John 7:53-8:11

This passage contains the story of the adulteress. The external critical evidence seems in this ease to give still clearer decision against the authenticity of this passage. It is wanting in the four earliest manuscripts (B, A, C, and aleph) and many others, while in many copies it is admitted only with the critical mark, indicative of doubtful authenticity. Nor is it found in the Syrian translation of Cureton, in the Sinaiticus, the Gothic translation, in most codices of the Pe*!*!*!*!o, or of the Coptic and Armenian translations, or finally in the oldest manuscripts of the Itala. None of the Greek Fathers have treated the incident in their commentaries, and, among Latin writers, Tertullian, Cyprian, and Hilary appear to have no knowledge of this pericope..

Notwithstanding the weight of the external evidence of these important authorities, it is possible to adduce still more important testimony in favour of the authenticity of the passage. As for the manuscripts, we know on the authority of St. Jerome that the incident "was contained in many Greek and Latin codices" (Contra Pelagium, II, xvii), a testimony supported today by the Codex Bez of Canterbury (D) and many others. The authenticity of the passage is also favoured by the Vulgate, by the Ethiopians Arabic, and Slavonic translations, and by many manuscripts of the Itala and of the Armenian and Syrian text. Of the commentaries of the Greek Fathers, the books of Origen dealing with this portion of the Gospel are no longer extant; only a portion of the commentary of St. Cyril of Alexandria has reached us, while the homilies of St. John Chrysostom on the Fourth Gospel must be considered a treatment of selected passages rather than of the whole text. Among the Latin Fathers, Sts. Ambrose and Augustine included the pericope in their text, and seek an explanation of its omission from other manuscripts in the fact that the incident might easily give rise to offense (cf. especially Augustine, "De coniugiis adulteris", II, vii). It is thus much easier to explain the omission of the incident from many copies than the addition of such a passage in so many ancient versions in all parts of the Church. It is furthermore admitted by the critics that the style and mode of presentation have not the slightest trace of apocryphal origin, but reveal throughout the hand of a true master. Too much importance should not be attached to variations of vocabulary, which may be found on comparing this passage with the rest of the Gospel, since the correct reading of the text is in many places doubtful, and any such differences of language may be easily harmonized with the strongly individual style of the Evangelist.

It is thus possible, even from the purely critical standpoint, to adduce strong evidence in favour of the canonicity and inspired character of this pericope, which by decision of the Council of Trent, forms a part of the Holy Bible.

Written by Leopold Fonck. Transcribed by Michael Little.

The Catholic Encyclopedia, Volume VIII. Published 1910. New York: Robert Appleton Company. Nihil Obstat, October 1, 1910. Remy Lafort, S.T.D., Censor. Imprimatur. +John Cardinal Farley, Archbishop of New York

Source: http://www.newadvent.org/cathen/08438a.htm


The phrase "Pe*!*!*!*!o" appears because there seems to be a program that turns the letters s, h, i and t into *!*!*!*!, even when these letters are not used alone and form part of another word [which starts with P and then goes on to include E, S, H, I, T and O. !


I did not mean to be rude. I'm just explaining to the reader why the phrase "Pe*!*!*!*!o" appeared above.

--------------------------------------------------------

((The earliest and most reliable manuscripts and other ancient witnesses do not have John 7:53-8:11.))

New International Version

Source: http://www.biblegateway.com/passage/?search=John 7:53-8:11;&version=31;

----------------------------------

a. John 7:53 Later mss add the story of the adulterous woman, numbering it as John 7:53-8:11

New American Standard Bible

Source: http://www.biblegateway.com/passage/?search=John 7:53-8:11;&version=49;

----------------------------------

a. John 7:53 John 7:53 to 8:11 is absent from most of the older manuscripts, and those that have it sometimes place it elsewhere. The story may well be authentic. Indeed, Christ's response of compassion and mercy is so much in keeping with His character that we accept it as authentic, and feel that to omit it would be most unfortunate.

Amplified Bible

Source: http://www.biblegateway.com/passage/?search=John 7:53-8:11;&version=45;

---------------------------------

[The most ancient Greek manuscripts do not include John 7:53–8:11.]

New Living Translation

Source: http://www.biblegateway.com/passage/?search=John 7:53-8:11;&version=51;

----------------------------------

a. John 7:53 The words And everyone through sin no more (8:11) are bracketed by NU-Text as not original. They are present in over 900 manuscripts.

New King James Version

Source: http://www.biblegateway.com/passage/?search=John 7:53-8:11;&version=50;

---------------------------------

[The earliest manuscripts and many other ancient witnesses do not have John 7:53-8:11.]

Today's New International Version

Source: http://www.biblegateway.com/passage/?search=John 7:53-8:11;&version=72;

---------------------------------

2 The narrative of the sinful woman (chap. vii. 53 to chap. viii. 11) is rejected by the most competent authorities as a spurious interpolation. The question will be found fully discussed in the introduction to the larger edition of Westcott's and Hort's Greek New Testament (page 299, section 388); and it is given as their opinion that this particular passage "has no right to a place in the Text of the Four Gospels." The language of the MSS. containing the passage varies considerably; but the generally accepted reading I have added at the end of this Gospel, where it is placed as an appendix for reference, but not in any way as a part of the Sacred Text.

Ferrar Fenton Bible

Source: http://www.ferrarfenton.com/pdf/john.pdf

The verses of John 7:53 - 8:11 were completely dropped from the text, and the above quoted text was written -on page 1027 of the original Bible and on page 17 of the PDF file- as footnote no. 2.

-----------------------------------------------

There are other English versions of the Bible that do not contain any footnotes doubting the authenticity of the Story of the Adulteress, such as the King James Version, the 21st Century King James version and the American Standard Version.


If you want to check all of the versions, go to the following website and check each version:

http://www.biblegateway.com/

---------------------------------------

I think it's pretty obvious what all of the above means.


There was no adulteress who was brought to Jesus Christ [peace be upon him].


Jesus [peace be upon him] did not say, "He that is without sin among you, let him first cast a stone at her". And he did not say, "Neither do I condemn thee: go, and sin no more."


It was all a fabrication.

 

[Bluegazer]

4- The Comma Johanninum​

[part of 1 John 5:7-8]​

What is the Comma Johanninum?


It's a phrase within verses 7 and 8 of chapter 5 of the First Epistle of John. I'll quote 1 John 5:7-8, and I'll colour the Comma Johanninum in red and set it in bold type, like so.

And there are Three who give testimony in heaven, the Father, the Word, and the Holy Ghost. And these three are one. And there are three that give testimony on earth: the spirit and the water and the blood. And these three are one.

[Douay-Rheims version, as revised in 1749 by Bishop Richard Challoner]

Old Testament first published 1609 by the English College at Douay
New Testament first published 1582 by the English College at Rheims
Revised and Annotated 1749 by Bishop Richard Challoner
Imprimatur. +James Cardinal Gibbons, Archbishop of Baltimore, September 1, 1899

Source: http://www.newadvent.org/cathen/08435a.htm


The Comma Johanninum is also sometimes called the "passage of the three witnesses".


To view 1 John 5:7-8 from the Challoner revision of the Douay-Rheims version in another website, click on the following link:

http://www.drbo.org/chapter/69005.htm


From the Preface of the 1989 Edition [published by Tan Books] of the Douay-Rheims version, you'll find the following:

The present Bible is the Challoner revision (1749-1752) of the Douay-Rheims Bible. Catholics owe the saintly Bishop Richard Challoner (1691-1781) a great debt of gratitude for undertaking this work. Challoner was one of those courageous priests who traveled around offering Mass secretly for small groups during the religious persecutions in England. Such Catholics needed a Bible, and had needed one for 100 years. The Douay-Rheims Bible had been printed a few times on the Continent but had never really spread to England. Some Catholics in England were even reading the King James version -- a situation which Bishop Challoner knew had to be rectified.

Source: http://www.drbo.org/preface.htm


And from the Introduction found in the 1899 Edition [published by the John Murphy Company], you find the following at the beginning:

The Holy Bible Douay-Rheims Version

With Challoner Revisions 1749-52
1899 Edition of the John Murphy Company

IMPRIMATUR:
James Cardinal Gibbons, Archbishop of Baltimore, September 1, 1899.

Source: http://www.drbo.org/intro.htm


Bishop Richard Challoner commented on 1 John 5:7-8 as follows:

The spirit, and the water, and the blood... As the Father, the Word, and the Holy Ghost, all bear witness to Christ's divinity; so the spirit, which he yielded up, crying out with a loud voice upon the cross; and the water and blood that issued from his side, bear witness to his humanity, and are one; that is, all agree in one testimony.

[This quote is coloured yellow in the following link to the source]

Source: http://www.newadvent.org/bible/1jo005.htm#7


You can also see the same comment of Bishop Richard Challoner coloured red in the following link:

http://www.drbo.org/chapter/69005.htm


I can safely say, therefore, that the above Douay Rheims version was the official English version of the Roman Catholic Church. That's because it was revised by Bishop Richard Challoner and it received the Imprimatur of James Cardinal Gibbons [the Archbishop of Baltimore] on September 1, 1899.


The Comma Johanninum [also known as the "passage of the three witnesses"] was also found in the Authorized Version [commonly known as the King James Version] of the Bible. The Authorized Version was the official Bible of the Church of England, the official Church of the Kingdom of England [and afterwords of England within the United Kingdom of Great Britain]. Here is 1 John 5:7-8 in the King James Version. Again, I have coloured the Comma Johanninum in red and set it in bold type, like so:

For there are three that bear record in heaven, the Father, the Word, and the Holy Ghost: and these three are one. And there are three that bear witness in earth, the Spirit, and the water, and the blood: and these three agree in one.

Source: http://www.biblegateway.com/passage/?search=1 John 5:7-8;&version=9;



I can now safely say that the Comma Johanninum [also known as the "passage of the three witnesses"] was part of the New Testament portion of the Bible. This was the case for Roman Catholics and for Protestants.


Why the need to state all of the above?


Well, you'll find the following written in Volume VIII of the Catholic Encyclopedia [which was published in 1910] under the title "Epistles of Saint John" [specifically under the section "FIRST EPISTLE"]. Please take special note of the parts I set in bold type and coloured red, like so. I have also underlined some parts, like so. Also, please note the part I set in bold type and coloured blue, like so:

III. Integrity

The only part of the letter concerning the authenticity and canonicity whereof there is serious question is the famous passage of the three witnesses: "And there are three who give testimony (in heaven, the Father, the Word, and the Holy Ghost. And these three are one. And there are three that give testimony on earth): the spirit, and the water, and the blood: and these three are one" (1 John 5:7-8). Throughout the past three hundred years, effort has been wade to expunge from our Clementine Vulgate edition of canonical Scripture the words that are bracketed. Let us examine the facts of the case.


A. Greek Manuscripts

The disputed part is found in no uncial Greek manuscripts and in only four rather recent cursives -- one of the fifteenth and three of the sixteenth century. No Greek epistolary manuscript contains the passage.


B. Versions

No Syriac manuscript of any family -- Pe*!*!*!*!o, Philoxenian, or Harklean -- has the three witnesses; and their presence in the printed Syriac Gospels is due to translation from the Vulgate. So too, the Coptic manuscripts -- both Sahidic and Bohairic -- have no trace of the disputed part, nor have the Ethiopic manuscripts which represent Greek influence through the medium of Coptic. The Armenian manuscripts, which favour the reading of the Vulgate, are admitted to represent a Latin influence which dates from the twelfth century; early Armenian manuscripts are against the Latin reading. Of the Itala or Old Latin manuscripts, only two have our present reading of the three witnesses: Codex Monacensis (q) of the sixth or seventh century; and the Speculum (m), an eighth or ninth century manuscript which gives many quotations from the New Testament. Even the Vulgate, in the majority of its earliest manuscripts, is without the passage in question. Witnesses to the canonicity are: the Bible of Theodulph (eighth century) in the National Library of Paris; Codex Cavensis (ninth century), the best representative of the Spanish type of text: Toletanus (tenth century); and the majority of Vulgate manuscripts after the twelfth century. There was some dispute as to the canonicity of the three witnesses as early as the sixth century: for the preface to the Catholic Epistles in Codex Fuldensis (A.D. 541-546) complains about the omission of this passage from some of the Latin versions.


C. The Fathers

(1) Greek Fathers, until the twelfth century, seem one and all to have had no knowledge of the three witnesses as canonical Scripture. At times they cite verses 8 and 9 and omit the disputed portions of verses 7 and 8. The Fourth Lateran (A.D. 1215), in its decree against Abbot Joachim (see Denzinger, 10th ed., n. 431) quotes the disputed passage with the remark "sicut in quibusdam codicibus invenitur". Thereafter, we find the Greek Fathers making use of the text as canonical. (2) The Syriac Fathers never use the text. (3) The Armenian Fathers do not use it before the twelfth century. (4) The Latin Fathers make much earlier use of the text as canonical Scripture. St. Cyprian (third century) seems undoubtedly to have had it in mind, when he quotes John, x, 30, and adds: "Et iterum de Patre et Filio et Spiritu Sancto scriptum est -- Et hi tres unum sunt" (De Unitate Ecclesiæ, vi). Clear also is the witness of St. Fulgentius (sixth century, "Responsio contra Arianos" in P. L., LXV, 224), who refers to the above witness of St. Cyprian. In fact, outside of St. Augustine, the Fathers of the African Church are to be grouped with St. Cyprian in favour of the canonicity of the passage. The silence of the great and voluminous St. Augustine and the variation in form of the text in the African Church are admitted facts that militate against the canonicity of the three witnesses. St. Jerome (fourth century) does not seem to know the text. After the sixth century, the disputed passage is more and more in use among the Latin Fathers; and, by the twelfth century, is commonly cited as canonical Scripture.


D. Ecclesiastical Documents

Trent's is the first certain ecumenical decree, whereby the Church established the Canon of Scripture. We cannot say that the decree of Trent on the Canon necessarily included the three witnesses. For in the preliminary discussions signs that led up to the canonizing of "the entire books with all their parts, as these have been wont to be read in the Catholic Church and are contained in the old Latin Vulgate", there was no reference whatsoever to this special part; hence this special part is not canonized by Trent, unless it is certain that the text of the three witnesses has "been wont to be read in the Catholic Church and is contained in the old Latin Vulgate". Both conditions must be verified before the canonicity of the text is certain. Neither condition has as yet been verified with certainty; quite the contrary, textual criticism seems to indicate that the Comma Johanninum was not at all times and everywhere wont to be read in the Catholic Church and is not contained in the original old Latin Vulgate. However, the Catholic theologian must take into account more than textual criticism; to him the authentic decisions of all Roman Congregations are guiding signs in the use of the Sacred Scripture, which the Church and only the Church has given to him as the Word of God. He cannot pass over the disciplinary decision of the Holy Office (13 January, 1897), whereby it is decreed that the authenticity of the Comma Johanninum may not with safety (tuto) be denied or called into doubt. This disciplinary decision was approved by Leo XIII two days later. Though his approval was not in forma specifica, as was Pius X's approval of the Decree "Lamentabili", all further discussion of the text in question must be carried on with due deference to this decree. (See "Revue Biblique", 1898, p. 149; and Pesch, "Prælectiones Dogmaticæ", II, 250.)

Written by Walter Drum. Transcribed by Ernie Stefanik.

The Catholic Encyclopedia, Volume VIII. Published 1910. New York: Robert Appleton Company. Nihil Obstat, October 1, 1910. Remy Lafort, S.T.D., Censor. Imprimatur. +John Cardinal Farley, Archbishop of New York

Source: http://www.newadvent.org/cathen/08435a.htm


So, what did the Roman Catholic Church do to the Comma Johanninum [also known as the "passage of the three witnesses"]?


It [i.e., the Roman Catholic Church] simply struck it out of the Bible.


1 John 5:7-8 of the Revised New Testament of the New American Bible [which is presently the official English version of the Roman Catholic Church, and posted on the Vatican website] reads as follows. I have added two red astrix signs [* *] to show where the Comma Johanninum used to be found:

So there are three that testify, * * the Spirit, the water, and the blood, and the three are of one accord.

Source: http://www.vatican.va/archive/ENG0839/__P12F.HTM


So, the Comma Johanninum -which reads "in heaven, the Father, the Word, and the Holy Ghost. And these three are one. And there are three that give testimony on earth"- has been erased from the Bible.


And why was that done?


The only logical answer is that the Roman Catholic Church admitted that a forgery has occurred and therefore decided to put things right.

=======================================================


What about other English versions of the Bible which belong to other Christian denominations? What do they say about the Comma Johanninum?


Please read the following, and note the phrases I set in bold type and coloured red, like so:

a. 1 John 5:8 Late manuscripts of the Vulgate testify in heaven: the Father, the Word and the Holy Spirit, and these three are one. 8 And there are three that testify on earth: the (not found in any Greek manuscript before the sixteenth century)

New International Version

Source: http://www.biblegateway.com/passage/?search=1 John 5:7-8&version=31

----------------------------------

a. 1 John 5:8 A few late mss add ...in heaven, the Father, the Word, and the Holy Spirit, and these three are one. And there are three that testify on earth, the Spirit

New American Standard Bible

Source: http://www.biblegateway.com/passage/?search=1 John 5:7-8;&version=49;

----------------------------------

a. 1 John 5:7 The italicized section is found only in late manuscripts.

Amplified Bible

Source: http://www.biblegateway.com/passage/?search=1 John 5:7-8;&version=45;

---------------------------------

a. 1 John 5:7 A few very late manuscripts add in heaven—the Father, the Word, and the Holy Spirit, and these three are one. And we have three witnesses on earth.

New Living Translation

Source: http://www.biblegateway.com/passage/?search=1 John 5:7-8;&version=51;

--------------------------------

The text of 1 John 5:7-8 appears as follows in the English Standard Version:

For there are three that testify: the Spirit and the water and the blood; and these three agree.

The Comma Johanninum was dropped without giving any explanation.


Source: http://www.biblegateway.com/passage/?search=1 John 5:7-8;&version=47;

--------------------------------

The text of 1 John 5:7-8 appears as follows in the Contemporary English Version:

In fact, there are three who tell about it. They are the Spirit, the water, and the blood, and they all agree.

The Comma Johanninum was dropped without giving any explanation.


Source: http://www.biblegateway.com/passage/?search=1 John 5:7-8;&version=46;

---------------------------------

a. 1 John 5:8 NU-Text and M-Text omit the words from in heaven (verse 7) through on earth (verse 8). Only four or five very late manuscripts contain these words in Greek.

New King James Version

Source: http://www.biblegateway.com/passage/?search=1 John 5:7-8;&version=50;

----------------------------------

a. 1 John 5:7 So . . . witnesses A few very late Greek copies and the Latin Vulgate continue, "in heaven: the Father, the Word, and the Holy Spirit, and these three witnesses agree. And there are three witnesses on earth:"

New Century Version

Source: http://www.biblegateway.com/passage/?search=1 John 5:7-8;&version=78;

-----------------------------------

The text of 1 John 5:7-8 appears as follows in the American Standard Version:

And it is the Spirit that beareth witness, because the Spirit is the truth. For there are three who bear witness, the Spirit, and the water, and the blood: and the three agree in one.

The Comma Johanninum was dropped without giving any explanation.


Source: http://www.biblegateway.com/passage/?search=1 John 5:7-8;&version=8;

--------------------------------------

The text of 1 John 5:7-8 appears as follows in the Darby Translation:

For they that bear witness are three: the Spirit, and the water, and the blood; and the three agree in one.

The Comma Johanninum was dropped without giving any explanation.


Source: http://www.biblegateway.com/passage/?search=1 John 5:7-8;&version=16;

---------------------------------------

a. 1 John 5:7 Other mss (the Lat Vg and a few late Gk mss) read testify in heaven, the Father, the word, and the Holy Spirit, and these three are One. 8 And there are three who bear witness on earth:

Holman Christian Standard Bible

Source: http://www.biblegateway.com/passage/?search=1 John 5:7-8;&version=77;

--------------------------------------

The text of 1 John 5:7-8 appears as follows in the New International Version - UK:

For there are three that testify: the Spirit, the water and the blood; and the three are in agreement.

The Comma Johanninum was dropped without giving any explanation.


Source: http://www.biblegateway.com/passage/?search=1 John 5:7-8;&version=64;

------------------------------------

a. 1 John 5:8 Late manuscripts of the Vulgate testify in heaven: the Father, the Word and the Holy Spirit, and these three are one. 8 And there are three that testify on earth: the (not found in any Greek manuscript before the fourteenth century)

Today's New International Version

Source: http://www.biblegateway.com/passage/?search=1 John 5:7-8;&version=72;

-----------------------------------

The text of 1 John 5:7-8 appears as follows in the Ferrar Fenton Bible:

that there are three who give evidence - the Spirit, and the Human Nature and the Earthly Life; and these three were in that One.

To view the above verses, click on the following link to a PDF file, and then read the top of the right hand column on page 4 of the PDF file [page 1048 in the original Bible]:

http://www.ferrarfenton.com/pdf/first-john.pdf


There is a note to "1" after the end of verse 8, but when I read the footnotes on page 1048 [page 4 of the PDF file], there was no explanation of why the Comma Johanninum was dropped.

---------------------------------------

There are other English versions of the Bible that include the Comma Johanninum in the text of 1 John 5:7-8 without adding any footnotes that doubt its authenticity, like the 21st Century King James Version, the Worldwide English (New Testament) and others.


You can check them out at the following website:

http://www.biblegateway.com/

========================================================


The conclusion is very simple.


The Comma Johanninum [also known as the "passage of the three witnesses"] was a forgery introduced into the text of the New Testament.


The Roman Catholic Church and many Protestant denominations have struck out this forgery from their versions of the Bible.

 

[Bluegazer]

5- The effect of the discovery of the forgery of the Story of the Adulteress [John 7:53-8:11] and of the Comma Johanninum [part of 1 John 5:7-8] on a (former Christian) Biblical scholar; Professor Bart D. Ehrman​

To begin with, who is Bart D. Ehrman?


The following is a short biography of him. It was taken from the University of North Caroline at Chapel Hill website:

Bart D. Ehrman is the James A. Gray Distinguished Professor at the University of North Carolina at Chapel Hill. He came to UNC in 1988, after four years of teaching at Rutgers University. He recently finished a term of service as Chair of the Department of Religious Studies at UNC.

Professor Ehrman completed his M.Div. and Ph.D. degrees at Princeton Seminary, where his 1985 doctoral dissertation was awarded magna cum laude. Since then he has published extensively in the fields of New Testament and Early Christianity, having written or edited nineteen books, numerous articles, and dozens of book reviews. Among his most recent books are a college-level textbook on the New Testament, two anthologies of early Christian writings, a study of the historical Jesus as an apocalyptic prophet (Oxford Univesity Press), and a Greek-English Edition of the Apostolic Fathers for the Loeb Classical Library (Harvard University Press).

Professor Ehrman has served as President of the Southeast Region of the Society of Biblical literature, chair of the New Testament textual criticism section of the Society, book review editor of the Journal of Biblical Literature, and editor of the monograph series The New Testament in the Greek Fathers (Scholars Press). He currently serves as co-editor of the series New Testament Tools and Studies (E. J. Brill) and on several other editorial boards for monographs in the field.

Winner of numerous university awards and grants, Professor Ehrman is the recipient of the 1993 UNC Undergraduate Student Teaching Award, the 1994 Phillip and Ruth Hettleman Prize for Artistic and Scholarly Achievement, and the Bowman and Gordon Gray Award for excellence in teaching.

Source: http://www.unc.edu/depts/rel_stud/people/facultydocs/bio-ehrman.shtml


Professor Ehrman was interviewed by a lady. Her name is Terry Gross. This interview was conducted on December 14, 2005. It was aired in the radio station WHYY on the program Fresh Air. It was also aired on NPR [National Public Radio] all over the United States.


Here's a short description of that interview titled "Bart Ehrman's 'Misquoting Jesus' ". It was taken from the NPR website:

Fresh Air from WHYY, December 14, 2005 · Scholar Bart Ehrman's new book explores how scribes -- through both omission and intention -- changed the Bible. Misquoting Jesus: The Story Behind Who Changed the Bible and Why is the result of years of reading the texts in their original languages.

Ehrman says the modern Bible was shaped by mistakes and intentional alterations that were made by early scribes who copied the texts. In the introduction to Misquoting Jesus, Ehrman writes that when he came to understand this process 30 years ago, it shifted his way of thinking about the Bible. He had been raised as an Evangelical Christian.

Ehrman is also the author of Lost Christianities: The Battle for Scripture and the Faiths We Never Knew, which chronicles the period before Christianity as we know it, when conflicting ideas about the religion were fighting for prominence in the second and third centuries.

The chairman of the religious studies department at the University of North Carolina in Chapel Hill, Ehrman also edited a collection of the early non-canonical texts from the first centuries after Christ, called Lost Scriptures: Books that Did Not Make It into the New Testament.

Source: http://www.npr.org/templates/story/story.php?storyId=5052156


You can listen to the whole interview by clicking on the "Listen Now" icon found at the top of the page, in the source I mentioned above.


You could also click on the following link:

http://www.npr.org/templates/player/mediaPlayer.html?action=1&t=1&islist=false&id=5052156&m=5052159


From the beginning of the interview, you'll know that Professor Ehrman was a Protestant [specifically a "Born-Again" Christian from the age of 15]. He now refers to himself as an Agnostic [i.e., he's not sure about the existence of God Almighty - I seek refuge with God Almighty from going astray -].


To DadManG;

I do not desire that you become an Agnostic. My aim -in posting the link to the interview- is to show you how this Christian lost his faith because of what he discovered in the course of his specialized study of the Bible. He refers to both the Story of the Adulteress [John 7:53-8:11] and to the Comma Johanninum [part of 1 John 5:7-8], both of which I have discussed in detail in my posts above.


To all my brothers and sisters in Islam:

Because such scholars have witnessed the corruption of the Bible, many of them begin to doubt even the authentic and true events that happened to the Prophets [peace be upon them all], such as the miraculous birth of Jesus Christ [peace be upon him] from the Virgin Mary and the miracles of other prophets [peace be upon them all].


Therefore, it is vital that we Muslims should always remember to trust the Qur'an and the authentic sayings of our Messenger Muhammad [peace be upon him] in deciding where these Biblical scholars have been correct and where they got it wrong. And we should always ask Allah the Almighty to strengthen our faith and guard us against disbelief.

 

[Bluegazer]

6- The Documentary "Who Wrote the Bible"​

The documentary Who Wrote the Bible? was aired on Christmas Day 2004 in the UK on Channel 4. It was presented by Dr. Robert Beckford [a Christian Theologian].

Dr Robert Beckford, is looking for for good answers to what sounds like a simple question: Who wrote the Bible?

It's a question that has preoccupied biblical scholars for several generations but Beckford, who is director of the Centre for Black Theology at the University of Birmingham, forsakes the library and takes to the road in a journey from Jerusalem to Rome and on to the USA (with a stopover in Walthamstow). On the way, he talks to American pilgrims shouldering crosses on the streets of Jerusalem, to the head of the Pope's Bible Institute, to a former criminal and boxing promoter in East London, and many more.

Source: http://robertbeckford.co.uk/taxonomy/term/2+3


And you can also check out the Channel 4 website about this documentary:

http://www.channel4.com/culture/microsites/C/can_you_believe_it/debates/bible.html


But who is Dr. Robert Beckford?

Robert Beckford is Reader in Black Theology and Culture at Oxford Brookes University, Oxford, and is the author of a number of books in the field of religion, popular culture and politics, including a study of Gang Culture in Birmingham and an examination of the hermeneutical quality of reggae-dub.

A teacher for most of his life, he first taught adult literacy at Bournville College in the early 1990s and progressed to become a tutor in theology at Queens College in Birmingham (1992-8) where he taught trainee clergy. He began teaching at the University in 1999, working first as a research fellow with offenders at Birmingham prison and then moving to the teaching staff in 2001. He Joined Oxford Brookes as the Reader in Black Theology and Popular Culture in January 2007.

A firm believer in teaching for social change, Robert also educates in community centres, care homes and male prisons. He currently supervises post graduate students in religion, politics and cultural studies.

As well as teaching Robert has presented a number of documentaries for the BBC and Channel 4 covering a range of subjects including Jamaican Independence, the rise of fundamentalist Christianity, historical revisions of empire, the Bible and world conflict, Gospel Music, Reparations and Patron Saints. He gained a BAFTA in 2001 for diversity in educational broadcasting. He is currently the presenter of the Sunday Morning Show on BBC WM.

Source: http://robertbeckford.co.uk/node/1


According to an article by Liz Ford published in the Guardian newspaper on 17th of May, 2005, Robert Beckford studied religion and sociology at Houghton College in New York, [U.S.A.], received his Masters degree in Hermeneutics at what was then London Bible College, in Middlesex, and is now the London School of Theology and finally received his PhD degree from the University of Birmingham.

http://education.guardian.co.uk/higher/profile/story/0,11109,1485116,00.html


Click on the following video to view the documentary. It runs for 1 hour and 43 minutes:

[vg]2061773048178434620[/vg]

 

[Bluegazer]

7- Some of the words of Pope Pius XII and the Preface of certain versions of the Bible
​

Please click on the following link to read what I posted in another thread "Is the Bible corrupt":

http://www.turntoislam.com/forum/showpost.php?p=71443&postcount=22

 

[Bluegazer]

8- The words of a Roman Catholic priest who's also a Biblical scholar​

To read what Francis J. Moloney [who's a Biblical scholar and a Roman Catholic priest] said, please click on the following link:

http://www.turntoislam.com/forum/showpost.php?p=71447&postcount=23

 

[Bluegazer]

9- Conclusion​

DadManG,


I know that what I've written may hurt you a lot, but that is not my intention. I have tried to minimize this hurt -as much as possible- by quoting from Christian sources [almost all of the time].


Therefore, your statement in post #24 ["I must believe the bible"] is just wrong. And I have shown you why I believe it to be wrong.



I'm impressed by your politeness and civil manner, and I truly hope you all the best.


Take care of yourself,

Best regards,

Bluegazer

 

[dianek]

Bluegazer......I think you are brillant and thorough and I wish you lived near me so you could teach me both the Bible and the Qu'ran. I unfortunately as a Christian never read the whole bible.....not that I am stupid or anything but the words just began to run together and confuse me. The Qu'ran translation I have would probably mean more to me had I ever read the entire Bible. Me and Old English just don't agree.....can't read Shakespeare either....it's terrible. However, it would all be so much more meaningful for me to have someone with your knowledge of both to refer to and study with. God Bless You!!!! And I think though that DadmanG abandoned ship....I find Christians do that when they feel that they just can't convince us as to why they believe as they do. My best friend got "frustrated" with me last week as she had no more answers for me. Instead she stuck her priest on me via email!!!!! LOL!!!

 

[Optimist]

masha'Allah ... excellent, excellent work.

I nominate the thread to be sticky in the muslim-Christian dialogue section for future reference.

May Allah SWT bless you brother bluegazer and make your work pure for pleasing HIM.

 

[DadManG]

Thank you for your response.
I will try to be brief. If I understand what you are saying,
1. that the Jews religious leaders understood Jesus to be saying that He is God
2. that His first followers understood the SAME thing
3. that His first followers believed it to the point of dying for that belief.
4. That the followers of Jesus continue to believe this
5. that it wasn't until +-600 years later that God finally decided to tell someone a different story.

I just can't make that jump.

Respectfully

A person will die for what they believe is true, but not for what they know is a lie.

 

[TheHumbleWun]

Mashallah brother Bluegazer.

Your work always ceases to impress me. May Allah swt reward for your time, dedication and hard work.

 

[dianek]

Thank you for your response.
I will try to be brief. If I understand what you are saying,
1. that the Jews religious leaders understood Jesus to be saying that He is God
2. that His first followers understood the SAME thing
3. that His first followers believed it to the point of dying for that belief.
4. That the followers of Jesus continue to believe this
5. that it wasn't until +-600 years later that God finally decided to tell someone a different story.

I just can't make that jump.

Respectfully

A person will die for what they believe is true, but not for what they know is a lie.

Have you truly not read a word anyone has said.....People in the day of Jesus "went around their a@* to get to their elbow" so to speak in describing things. A lot of the words were not literal.......I was a christian and I NEVER walked away from church thinking Jesus was the Physical SON of God, I never walked away believing that Jesus was GOD.......I believed him to be the chosen son of God....meaning God chose him among all others to speak his word, not that he was the Word. So making the jump to islam was not hard at all. When my husband told me Christians believe that Jesus is God I argued adamantly that no we didn't.....God was God! And then as I went to Church in light of our discussions, I began to realize that the congregation glorified Jesus but God was RARELY mentioned. You are not taking the time to read these responses because you are afraid....afraid you might begin to see truths that you are not ready to face. Look at the Bible, read the story of Lot and the story in Eziekiel about the lewd behaviors.....do you really think that God would have really wanted such graphic stories to be written as his word? I don't. If you have an opportunity, read up on the Restored Church of God......I feel that they are closest among Christians to Islam. The ideals are uncanny. ALSO, how can you put faith in the Bible as the word of God when there are many scholars who can't even agree as to the divinity of the Book. Open your eyes and read! I am a better Christian now because I am a Muslim.....I love Jesus because I am a Muslim.

 

[DadManG]

Bluegazer, I commend you for your efforts and the amount of time you have put into your response. When I first entered this website and started this thread, I really had no idea where it would lead.
I realize that only until God opens a persons eyes to know Him will we ever be able to. I suppose my next step would be to find as many "experts" that would say something to disprove the Quran. I have decided to not do this. I want to appeal to you conscience, and remind you that we ALL will stand before a Holy and Just God, to be judged for everything we have said, thought or done. We are not holy, we have sinned against God. surely you would admit to having sinned against God. That makes us His enemies. God will NOT bring His enemies to heaven. He will send them to hell. Because they have sinned (broken His Law).
Have you ever read in the book of Isaiah 64:6 But we are all as an unclean thing, and all our righteousnesses are as filthy rags; and we all do fade as a leaf; and our iniquities, like the wind, have taken us away.
The word for "filthy rags" is actually "a womans menstrual rag"
Only the righteousness of the life and death of Jesus Christ could satisfy God's wrath, and save us. We must put our faith and trust in Him.

Please read this booklet.
**REMOVED**


Again, thank you for the dialogue. I think it is time for me to move on.
Peace

 

[justoneofmillion]

Bluegazer, I commend you for your efforts and the amount of time you have put into your response. When I first entered this website and started this thread, I really had no idea where it would lead.
I realize that only until God opens a persons eyes to know Him will we ever be able to. I suppose my next step would be to find as many "experts" that would say something to disprove the Quran. I have decided to not do this. I want to appeal to you conscience, and remind you that we ALL will stand before a Holy and Just God, to be judged for everything we have said, thought or done. We are not holy, we have sinned against God. surely you would admit to having sinned against God. That makes us His enemies. God will NOT bring His enemies to heaven. He will send them to hell. Because they have sinned (broken His Law).
Have you ever read in the book of Isaiah 64:6 But we are all as an unclean thing, and all our righteousnesses are as filthy rags; and we all do fade as a leaf; and our iniquities, like the wind, have taken us away.
The word for "filthy rags" is actually "a womans menstrual rag"
Only the righteousness of the life and death of Jesus Christ could satisfy God's wrath, and save us. We must put our faith and trust in Him.

Please read this booklet.
*removed*


Again, thank you for the dialogue. I think it is time for me to move on.
Peace

hi there and welcome
whom did jesus pbuh die as a ransom to god or to the devil! and did he die as a god as a man or as both!the relation between mary and adam how are they related to each other could you tell us something about that if you don t mind it would be nice ! and please be kind an stick with us a little
take care

 

[DadManG]

Thank you for your response.
No, I am not afraid. I just don't know what else to say to you. I have lost track with what I have said to the many ones I have responded to. I hope I am not repeating myself to you.
As I just wrote to Bluegazer, I could now start offering problematic portions from the Quran, ie *removed* or *removed* and then we would just keep going back and forth.

I am not sure if that would really be profitable.
Thank you for the oppurtunity to dialogue with you. Would you please read the booklet found at:
*removed*

 

[gazkour]

"I realize that only until God opens a persons eyes to know Him will we ever be able to"

You are right on that one!

Cordially I invite you read the Quran and let your conscience find any contradictions in it, you can get the help of "experts" if you want. Just come and tell us when you find one.
And never ever be satisfied with what a christian expert or website will tell you on Islam, the best way to know what Islam is about is to consult a muslim expert.

Or if you want to insist and exhort us into Christianity, come again but, next time, offer us something better than Islam, if you can.

We will be always open for discussions and dialogue.

May Allah guide us all.