The Muslim jesus

[Xaaji Xunjuf]

[AYOUB]

Thanks for sharing Xaaji. Good programme but it would have been even better if it touched a bit more on what Quran says about the birth of Mariam (as) and other issues like the "trinity".

 

Say: "If ((Allah)) Most Gracious had a son, I would be the first to worship."

Noble Qur'an (Az-zukhruf 43:81)

 

 

 

 

[Boondheere]

it´s immposible that a human to be born whit out father or DNA from 2 different people.. jesus story is not more true than harry potter or cigaal shidaad or dhagdheer. Islams holy books talk about jesus because 600 before islam become in existance the story of jesus was widely known in middle east therefore probablyit was borrowed from jews bibles the old testemony and changed part of jesus being the son of god. actually 60% of quran is identical copy of jews bible( thé old testemony).

[AYOUB]

Boondheere;907149 wrote:

it´s immposible that a human to be born whit out father or DNA from 2 different people...

Here comes another one fresh from a biology class. We've heard that script before.

 

I guess the bio teacher told you also it was impossible for Jesus (AS) not to have a father; yet they have believe life started when a parentless single cell popped into life in its own. They also told you it's impossible for Adam (AS) to have been created from clay, yet you've swallowed the theories that claim life started in some muddy primordial soup, right?

 

Boondheere;907149 wrote:

Islams holy books talk about jesus because 600 before islam become in existance the story of jesus was widely known in middle east therefore probablyit was borrowed from jews bibles the old testemony and changed part of jesus being the son of god. actually 60% of quran is identical copy of jews bible( thé old testemony).

There you go again. There's a lot a difference between the Jesus in the bible and Qur'an, as you see in the above documentary posted by XX. For example, Qur'an says he was not crucified and explicitly rejects the trinity - a concept not accepted even by some christians.

 

The Qur'an does not agree with the bible's portrayal of some of the greatest messengers of Allah committing sins like adultery and incest.

 

The are other forms differences between the "two scriptures". The bible is wrong to call the ruler of Egypt a "pharaoh" at the time of Yusuf (AS) because that title was adopted centuries later. The Qur'an accurately calls the ruler of Egypt at the time of Yusuf (as) a "malik" and appropriately calls Pharaoh the ruler of Egypt during the time of Musa (as). If the Qur'an was copied from the bible, it would have contained similar error - especially when you consider this only became apparent after the discovery of the Rosetta Stone and subsequent translation of the hieroglyphics.

[GaraadMon]

AYOUB;907758 wrote:

Here comes another one fresh from a biology class. We've heard that script before.

 

I guess the bio teacher told you also it was impossible for Jesus (AS) not to have a father; yet they have believe life started when a parentless single cell popped into life in its own.

They also told you it's impossible for Adam (AS) to have been created from clay

, yet you've swallowed the theories that claim life started in some muddy primordial soup, right?

Wouldn't being made from clay imply that we are a silicon-based life form?

[xabad]

AYOUB;907758 wrote:

Here comes another one fresh from a biology class. We've heard that script before.

 

I guess the bio teacher told you also it was impossible for Jesus (AS) not to have a father; yet they have believe life started when a parentless single cell popped into life in its own. They also told you it's impossible for Adam (AS) to have been created from clay, yet you've swallowed the theories that claim life started in some muddy primordial soup, right?

 

 

There you go again. There's a lot a difference between the Jesus in the bible and Qur'an, as you see in the above documentary posted by XX. For example, Qur'an says he was not crucified and explicitly rejects the trinity - a concept not accepted even by some christians.

 

The Qur'an does not agree with the bible's portrayal of some of the greatest messengers of Allah committing sins like adultery and incest.

 

The are other forms differences between the "two scriptures". The bible is wrong to call the ruler of Egypt a "pharaoh" at the time of Yusuf (AS) because that title was adopted centuries later. The Qur'an accurately calls the ruler of Egypt at the time of Yusuf (as) a "malik" and appropriately calls Pharaoh the ruler of Egypt during the time of Musa (as). If the Qur'an was copied from the bible, it would have contained similar error - especially when you consider this only became apparent after the discovery of the Rosetta Stone and subsequent translation of the hieroglyphics.

The Qur'an must not be referring to the Jesus of the Christians but a figment of Muslim imagination, although i don't believe in the trinity BS, it is a fact the Romans executed a Jewish man called Jesus. this is solidly historical and corroborated by non-religious scientific studies ( Romans records of prefect of Judea Pontius Pilate). so the christian story is partly true.

 

secondly, its wrong to say the Bible does not use to the word melek, it uses both pharaoh and Melek in genesis. The bible, unlike the Qur'an, uses both Pharaoh and Melek to refer to the King of Egypt in the account of Moses and the Exodus. The Qur'an also introduces its own terminology " Al Aziz " that was never known in ancient Egypt. The point is the Qur'an is just a plagiarism of earlier judaeo scriptures and a poor attempt at that too.

[Xaaji Xunjuf]

What people forget is that Islam is not a new religion its a continuation of allahs message since the beginning of times so the gospels were send by god the same way the suhufis of ibrahim Scrolls of ibrahim were send to ibarahim in his time. So ofcourse you will find similar stories in the Quran but not identically the same about Muse Isa sulayman daud and some other prophets not mentioned in the jewish scriptures Like Salah shucayb luqmaan . Also the story of lut in the bible is not the same as the one in quran. Or prophet hud is also not mentioned in the hebrew bible.

 

Allah mentions in the quran that he revealed the gospel injiil to jesus son of mary only to him not the gospel of johh paul.The gospel of jesus was not a book it was revelation of knowledge Cilm . Jesus did not carry a book around when he was preaching the word of Allah. So the message jesus got according to what Christians today believe and message jesus got according to Muslims is totally different. The Quran is authentic in its form never changed exist in its original text revealed to prophet Muhammad csw.

[Raamsade]

AYOUB;907758 wrote:

Here comes another one fresh from a biology class. We've heard that script before.

 

I guess the bio teacher told you also it was impossible for Jesus (AS) not to have a father; yet they have believe life started when a parentless single cell popped into life in its own. They also told you it's impossible for Adam (AS) to have been created from clay, yet you've swallowed the theories that claim life started in some muddy primordial soup, right?

No human being was ever created from "clay." Life did start from simpler chemical compounds that grew into bigger compounds over millions of years. You should give biology class you deride a try, you might actually learn something.

 

There you go again. There's a lot a difference between the Jesus in the bible and Qur'an, as you see in the above documentary posted by XX. For example, Qur'an says he was not crucified and explicitly rejects the trinity - a concept not accepted even by some christians.

Historians have a true and tried method of ascertaining the credibility of a source. The closer the source is to the event being discussed, the more credible the source. That doesn't imply the source is accurate just more credible. How do you expect us to take the Quran's account of Jesus over the Bible's when the Quran was written some 600 years after Jesus? So, if I was analyzing the life of Jesus I'd take the Bible and other written contemporary accounts of Jesus's life and then the Quran.

[nuune]

Atheist such as Boondheere, Xabad, blacklash, and the renowned Raamsade will not stop talking about Islam until we fully agree with them that we are DAANYEERO, be happy guys, we are daanyeero, now, STOP talking about the religion you left, can you do that, no you won't be able to do that, because to talk about Islam is the only option you have, in fact, it is the only topic that trigers your brain to malfunction, without SOL, your life would have being so miserable, SOL gave you the platform to air your polluted hatred against Islam, well let your hatred grow at a faster RATE, summun bukmun cumyun.

[Raamsade]

Waraa Nuune, maxaad la neeftuuree sxb? Caga dhigo, orod koob shaah ah soo cab, saliid macsaro is mari, xaaska dhegta ka soo qaniin dabadeedna adoo degan oo gaggabeyn dib u akhri this thread. Cid meesha Islam caaysey ama tustey neceeb Islam loo qabo ma jirto... marka ninyahow naga daa is yeelyeelka.

[GaraadMon]

nuune;908698 wrote:

Atheist such as Boondheere, Xabad, blacklash, and the renowned Raamsade will not stop talking about Islam until we fully agree with them that we are DAANYEERO, be happy guys, we are daanyeero, now, STOP talking about the religion you left, can you do that, no you won't be able to do that, because to talk about Islam is the only option you have, in fact, it is the only topic that trigers your brain to malfunction, without SOL, your life would have being so miserable, SOL gave you the platform to air your polluted hatred against Islam, well let your hatred grow at a faster RATE, summun bukmun cumyun.

The thread creator responded in earnest. What's your problem? It's not even your thread.

[xabad]

[AYOUB]

xabad;907843 wrote:

The Qur'an must not be referring to the Jesus of the Christians but a figment of Muslim imagination, although i don't believe in the trinity BS, it is a fact the Romans executed a Jewish man called Jesus. this is solidly historical and corroborated by non-religious scientific studies ( Romans records of prefect of Judea Pontius Pilate). so the christian story is partly true.

Scientific bay baratay. The bible itself does not stand up to any serious scrutiny and you want to take us to some will goose chase.

 

xabad;907843 wrote:

secondly, its wrong to say the Bible does not use to the word

melek

, it uses both pharaoh and

Melek

in genesis. The bible, unlike the Qur'an, uses both Pharaoh and Melek to refer to the King of Egypt in the account of Moses and the Exodus.The Qur'an also introduces its own terminology " Al Aziz " that was never known in ancient Egypt. The point is the Qur'an is just a plagiarism of earlier judaeo scriptures and a poor attempt at that too.

You're arguing against yourself, and I don't mean the "plagiarism" and "figment of imagination" accusations within a few lines. What I said was; unlike the bible, the Qur'an never wrongly uses the title pharaoh for the ruler of Egypt during the time of Yusuf (AS). It would have if it was plagiarised, wouldn't it?

 

PS Aziz was a minister not the King. Basic Islam RE.

[AYOUB]

Raamsade;908694 wrote:

No human being was ever created from "clay." Life did start from simpler chemical compounds that grew into bigger compounds over millions of years. You should give biology class you deride a try, you might actually learn something.

That was in a muddy primordial soup, right? Just imagine if Tesco lentil soup was available then?

 

Raamsade;908694 wrote:

Historians have a true and tried method of ascertaining the credibility of a source. The closer the source is to the event being discussed, the more credible the source..

Says the chap who was just telling me about things that allegedly took place millions of years ago.

 

Raamsade;908694 wrote:

That doesn't imply the source is accurate just more credible. How do you expect us to take the Quran's account of Jesus over the Bible's when the Quran was written some 600 years after Jesus? So, if I was analyzing the life of Jesus I'd take the Bible and other written contemporary accounts of Jesus's life and then the Quran.

Be my guest...

 

The fact is that there are over 5700 Greek manuscripts of all or part of the New Testament.[3] Furthermore, “no two of these manuscripts are exactly alike in all their particulars….* And some of these differences are significant.”[4] *Factor in roughly ten thousand manuscripts of the Latin Vulgate, add the many other ancient variants (i.e., Syriac, Coptic, Armenian, Georgian, Ethiopic, Nubian, Gothic, Slavonic), and what do we have?

A lot of manuscripts

A lot of manuscripts that fail to correspond in places and not infrequently contradict one another.* Scholars estimate the number of manuscript variants in the hundreds of thousands, some estimating as high as 400,000.[5] *In Bart D.* Ehrman’s now famous words, “Possibly it is easiest to put the matter in comparative terms: there are more differences in our manuscripts than there are words in the New Testament.”[6]

How did this happen?

Poor record keeping. Dishonesty. Incompetence. Doctrinal prejudice. Take your pick.

None of the original manuscripts have survived from the early Christian period.[7]/[8] The most ancient complete manuscripts (Vatican MS. No. 1209 and the Sinaitic Syriac Codex) date from the fourth century, three hundred years after Jesus’ ministry. But the originals? Lost. And the copies of the originals? Also lost. Our most ancient manuscripts, in other words, are copies of the copies of the copies of nobody-knows-just-how-many copies of the originals."

Source

http://www.leveltruth.com/articles/The%20New%20Testament.doc

[Ambassador]

Thank you for posting this, xaaji. I wonder why atheists spend so much time refuting religions from which they have chosen to leave? If you are so convinced that you are right and we are wrong then what have you got to prove? I think most atheists are doubtful of their belief, hence why they constantly fish for reassurences.