Is Islam true?.

[total relism]

And the light shineth in darkness, and the darkness did not comprehend it.

You don't get my fruit vs. roots reference? HAVE you read you Bible at all?
Consider this:

Ye shall know them by their fruits

A well known scripture. Compare that to any other reference to fruit and fruit bearers and it is clear that Jesus wants his followers to look for the fruits, and not consider the obscurity where it was brought forth from. Hence.. fruits not roots.
It is a fallacy to judge a prophecy or a religious mission on the obscurity of the person/persons bringing it forth. And that is why when considering the life and acts of near all the church fathers, you'd find something to point to and COULD declare their message void, IF we went down that path.

If you want me to engage in a "the Bible can't be true because..." I would be not following the fruits vs. roots principle I just put forth.
BUT since I am not adhering to Christian teaching... I am not obliged to follow its "rules".

I would have asked which version of the Bible you considered most correct or true to the ... um original, and start from there.

what jesus is saying is, any true believer will produce good fruit, that you can tell who truly believes by there fruit not there words. Than this would be another case as to why islam is false, because of Muhammad fruit. Tell me about theses acts of the church fathers, please tell me about james peter paul and jesus, what did they do that was bad fruit? paul after conversion. The bible version I find most correct is, the original only. The original herbrew and greek.

Actually I have read all of Koran.It can seems true , but some things which I have read are not true.For example the events about dying of S.t Jesus. Also it force Muslims to attack non-Muslims whenever they can.( In other words: Jihad) And many other things. Am I right?

Yes I made a post on this on this thread, post 20 and 23.

Firstly, it assumes that all Muslims interpret the Qur'an as you do. I don't think they do. The vast majority of the Muslims I know personally are more than willing to interpret these verses as being orders from God to Muhammad in a historical situation, a situation that has passed and is no longer relevant.

The problem with these discussions is that we equate our personal analysis of what the Qur'an says as how Muslims interpret their religion and thus how they should live. That decision is not at all ours to make.

We cannot speak of "Islam" as just being the Qur‘an and the Sunna. In order to correctly define Islam, we should look at the behaviour of people calling themselves Muslims.
.

You are correct here,many Muslims [and christian] chose to inteprit passages as they may, but in the case with koran and Muhammad,we can see how Muhammad himself lived and understood these verses. As well as the earliest followers of islam. In fact even Muhammad said, later generations of Muslims would reject the proper understanding of the jihad/violent verses. That would be referenced in this debate I believe.
Nadir Ahmed vs. David Wood: "Does Islam Promote Violence Towards Non-Muslims?"
http://www.answeringmuslims.com/2011...oes-islam.html

[Sigurd]

what jesus is saying is, any true believer will produce good fruit, that you can tell who truly believes by there fruit not there words. Than this would be another case as to why islam is false, because of Muhammad fruit. Tell me about theses acts of the church fathers, please tell me about james peter paul and jesus, what did they do that was bad fruit? paul after conversion. The bible version I find most correct is, the original only. The original herbrew and greek.

nvm about the fruit... I don't think you understood the core message there.

If only Christianity was founded on the teachings of the persons you listed...
The disciples were mere fishermen. Any of their contemporaries would view them as such. What possibly could a fisherman tell you, a scholar of 20 years of the Tora?
Jesus, the Nazarene.
Was he brought up like one? eating special food, unshaven and uncut hair or was he the carpenter son, callused and weird. This guy must be autistic the way he don't respond to scorn.

No... today's Christianity is built on other church fathers: Jerome, Athanasius, Augustine, Origen, Irenaeus to name a few.
And on the question of which Bible version... you fell in the trap as predicted.

[Brenus]

"No wonder he hates Muslims fervently." Nope. He hates Muslims because he is who he is. Most of the families in former Yugoslavia has dual components (part Muslim, part Christian Orthodox, or Catholic/Orthodox, etc.). It didn’t stop them to fight, but, after the war, even now, the Yugoslavian Brotherhood is deeply regretted. Bosnians (formerly known as Muslims) want to go to Belgrade, Serbs want to go to Dalmatia, and Croatians want to deal with Novi Sad. They even re-run the relay for Youth…

The other aspect of his origin, when he portrays himself as Christian is which one as Catholic (mainly Croats) and Pravo Slavs (mainly Serbs) are Christian but do not read the Bible in the same way.
The Wars in Yugoslavia were done for economic, political and territorial reasons and based on fear from an unhealed past. The only way to separate the local populations is the Religious backgrounds as they were all Yugoslav before. But that is another subject.

[total relism]

TR - is your basic contention that the contradictions of the Koran are a problem because it purports to be the dictation of The Prophet, whereas the Christian Bible purports to be a collection of heterogeneous texts?

Yes or No answer, please.

No please read this thread and OP for answer, also my posts.

“and use the bible and verse to try and prove it, that is ok with you.” Well, YOU are claiming that the Bible is 100 % true. So, yes, to prove you are wrong, I have to refer to YOUR claims.
“You also clearly have not read the bible to make the claims you have” Never claim I read the Bible, I try, but too boring… And I even told you I took my samples in Internet previously… No stop the faint indignation and answer in using your brain…

“you with no understanding of bible” don’t have to understand the Bible, as there is nothing to understand. YOU are telling that it is 100 % true, so we have just to read it. So when sentences are contradictories, well, that is enough to prove that the Bible is not 100 % true, so, according to YOU, not the words of God.

“How did we get here anyways?” That is the pleasure of this site. You start with a subject and you finish with another. Welcome in the world of Totalwar.org.

“nor do you reject bible because of these claimed contradictions” That is true. Mainly. I don’t reject the Bible, I am an atheist. Nor I reject Aladdin, White Snow Thor, Visnu and othres stories for kids and adults; even I prefer these Aladdin and Snow White to the Bible. Not saying there is not interesting stories in the bible. I like when David sent his best soldier to a certain death to get his wife, and the slaughter of the population, except the virgins for the soldiers own use…

“the former Yugoslavia, a region from which I come”: I was there (Gorazde, Doboj, Brcko, Derventa, Sarajevo, Bijelina, Vukovar and other places) . I saw, Muslim, Pravo Slavs and Catholic killing each other, between neighbours, on the name of a God. They speak the same language, drink the same coffee, were friends, born in the same villages, eat the same food, and killed the others because Gods of Love… I work with all of them…

My whole point, I proved your contradictions wrong using the bible

it is odd that you claim things of the bible, that it contradicts itself etc yet have not read the bible. That was my point.

agree 100%, yet as I showed not once does it contradict itself. I showed your supposed best,are incorrect.

Pleasure, I call it pain lol. I dont understand why if people want to talk on a subject islam, they cant just look up thread and find it, instead it is not very much about islam at all.

You reject the bible, your atheist, you reject what it claims to be, toe word of god. Bible has backing in history, it can be tested, alladin cannot, neither can life from non life, origin of big bang,missing links, increase complexity, design from no designer,information from matter etc etc these fairy tale stories i cannot believe in, that as atheist you must.

I never said anything about Yugoslavia, not sure where that came from, also please dont get us started on all the killings atheist have done in the name of evolution.

Ah, he's from that part of the world.

No wonder he hates Muslims fervently.

Dont hate at all, i love there culture, I do not like a false religion leading people astray. I am from USA. But your post seems exstermely bigoted against a certain people/group, very intolerant.

nvm about the fruit... I don't think you understood the core message there.

If only Christianity was founded on the teachings of the persons you listed...
The disciples were mere fishermen. Any of their contemporaries would view them as such. What possibly could a fisherman tell you, a scholar of 20 years of the Tora?
Jesus, the Nazarene.
Was he brought up like one? eating special food, unshaven and uncut hair or was he the carpenter son, callused and weird. This guy must be autistic the way he don't respond to scorn.

No... today's Christianity is built on other church fathers: Jerome, Athanasius, Augustine, Origen, Irenaeus to name a few.
And on the question of which Bible version... you fell in the trap as predicted.

You claimed christian founders were evil did bad etc. I asked for evidence what they did, you provided none. The bible was written by james,paul,peter john etc the disciples, that is were these later theologians got there theology from. As they themselves base there teachings on the bible and original disciples. They the disciples were taught by Jesus. Yes I dont see any bible translation as perfect, who would? why does that matter at all?.

"No wonder he hates Muslims fervently." Nope. He hates Muslims because he is who he is. .

what makes you claim I hate Muslims for? If I really hated them, than why wouldn't I as christian , just let them be lead astray by a false prophet? Does not me learning about islam and trying to discuss with them why it is wrong show that i love not hate them?

[Brenus]

"get us started on all the killings atheist have done in the name of evolution." Oh? When? In the name of evolution... You are funny, you are a comic... This the most STUPID thing I ever read. Well except some short passages of Holly Books...

[Hax]

Dont hate at all, i love there culture, I do not like a false religion leading people astray. I am from USA. But your post seems exstermely bigoted against a certain people/group, very intolerant.

True. I'm bigoted towards people with opinions that I deem idiotic. I'm not perfect, and I'm well-aware of that.

I'm bigoted towards self-styled "Persian" Iranian racist nationalists, who instead of taking responsibility for their own actions seek comfort and self-value in kingdoms gone for centuries and whose hatred stretches to the many different peoples called "Afghans", "Indians", "Arabs", and "Jews".

I'm also bigoted towards the holier-than-thou attitudes of religious converts, especially converts to Islam, who think that their interpretation of their religion is the first one given even, when they can't even string two phrases of Arabic together.

I'm bigoted against New-Age spiritual types as well, y'know, people calling themselves Buddhists (which I used to do, but is a name I've not given myself in well over a year) as some kind of justification of outrageous behaviour often involving liberal use of drugs and sex.

I may not fully understand the meaning of the term "bigoted", but if it means that I don't treat everyone's opinion equally, that does make me a bigot. It's not bad per se when someones opinion is wrong, but it doesn't mean they should be treated gently. Not at all.

[Brenus]

"neither can life from non life, origin of big bang,missing links, increase complexity, design from no designer,information from matter etc etc these fairy tale stories i cannot believe in, that as atheist you must." Life from no life was done in laboratory, so check your information.
Again, you miss the point. Big Bang and others are theories. Bible was never back by history.
Let's pretend that the Israelis were a bunch of slaves escaping. Let's pretend for the sake of it that the Living God of Egypt decide to pursuit escaped slaves (nothing else to do, you know, just the greatest Civilisation of the times to lead...). Let's pretend that the Red Sea Opened, and paf, Pharaoh is dead. Where is the Pyramid? Where are the monuments (Egyptian) commemorating the death of a Living God? Even they would have said he died in Battle, but nothing, not even a name...

And by the way, who Created God, if you don't believe in a Creature without a Creator?

And again, as Atheist I must nothing. That is the beauty of it. I just have to say: I don't know. I can see you problem as you reduce all to a belief. That narrows your field of investigation and mind.

"I proved your contradictions wrong using the bible" I have no contradiction as I have no belief. There are no text to follow, no Doctors of Faith to listen, no obscure texts to explain. Even if somebody would come with another explanation than evolution, it wouldn't prove a God. Even life after death wouldn't. That is what don't go in you mind.

"That was my point." You point would be valid if you would tell that the selected parts of the Bible I copy and pasted are not from the Bible. You didn't, so they are. They are in contradiction to each other, so the Bible is not 100 % true. Again, I don't need to read the bible, Few very precise one are enough. Like in math, a simple error makes all the answer wrong. Your claim is proven busted.

[total relism]

"get us started on all the killings atheist have done in the name of evolution." Oh? When? In the name of evolution... You are funny, you are a comic... This the most STUPID thing I ever read. Well except some short passages of Holly Books...

Never herd of hitler,stalin,pol pot? if need be and can quote for you why evolution lead them to there worldview to kill ,unfit,less evolved,unhuman unwanted individuals. In fact both darwin.hitler said if you chose not to kill unwanted less evolved etc peoples, you are going against evolution. But since this will lead to long topic, just read here were it was already disused.
https://forums.totalwar.org/vb/showt...ity&highlight=

True. I'm bigoted towards people with opinions that I deem idiotic. I'm not perfect, and I'm well-aware of that.

I'm bigoted towards self-styled "Persian" Iranian racist nationalists, who instead of taking responsibility for their own actions seek comfort and self-value in kingdoms gone for centuries and whose hatred stretches to the many different peoples called "Afghans", "Indians", "Arabs", and "Jews".

I'm also bigoted towards the holier-than-thou attitudes of religious converts, especially converts to Islam, who think that their interpretation of their religion is the first one given even, when they can't even string two phrases of Arabic together.

I'm bigoted against New-Age spiritual types as well, y'know, people calling themselves Buddhists (which I used to do, but is a name I've not given myself in well over a year) as some kind of justification of outrageous behaviour often involving liberal use of drugs and sex.

I may not fully understand the meaning of the term "bigoted", but if it means that I don't treat everyone's opinion equally, that does make me a bigot. It's not bad per se when someones opinion is wrong, but it doesn't mean they should be treated gently. Not at all.

I think I like you sir, its good to know our own bias.

"neither can life from non life, origin of big bang,missing links, increase complexity, design from no designer,information from matter etc etc these fairy tale stories i cannot believe in, that as atheist you must." Life from no life was done in laboratory, so check your information.
Again, you miss the point. Big Bang and others are theories. Bible was never back by history.
Let's pretend that the Israelis were a bunch of slaves escaping. Let's pretend for the sake of it that the Living God of Egypt decide to pursuit escaped slaves (nothing else to do, you know, just the greatest Civilisation of the times to lead...). Let's pretend that the Red Sea Opened, and paf, Pharaoh is dead. Where is the Pyramid? Where are the monuments (Egyptian) commemorating the death of a Living God? Even they would have said he died in Battle, but nothing, not even a name...

And by the way, who Created God, if you don't believe in a Creature without a Creator?

And again, as Atheist I must nothing. That is the beauty of it. I just have to say: I don't know. I can see you problem as you reduce all to a belief. That narrows your field of investigation and mind.

"I proved your contradictions wrong using the bible" I have no contradiction as I have no belief. There are no text to follow, no Doctors of Faith to listen, no obscure texts to explain. Even if somebody would come with another explanation than evolution, it wouldn't prove a God. Even life after death wouldn't. That is what don't go in you mind.

"That was my point." You point would be valid if you would tell that the selected parts of the Bible I copy and pasted are not from the Bible. You didn't, so they are. They are in contradiction to each other, so the Bible is not 100 % true. Again, I don't need to read the bible, Few very precise one are enough. Like in math, a simple error makes all the answer wrong. Your claim is proven busted.

Would you debate me on creation vs evolution 1v1? are you on twcenter? or on the topic has life been created in the lab?

I understand evolution/big bang is theory, but if your atheist you must believe certain things such as life from non life etc.
Bible is indeed backed up by history/archaeology.

Q: Have you found in your researches in archeology anything that has contradicted the biblical account in a definite sense?
A: There have been plenty of claims that things contradict the biblical account, but the Bible has a habit of being proved right after all. I will remember one of the world’s leading archaeologists at Gezer rebuking a younger archaeologist who was ‘rubbishing’ the Bible. He just quietly said, ‘Well, if I were you, I wouldn’t rubbish the Bible.’ When the younger archaeologist asked ‘Why’?, he replied, ‘Well, it just has a habit of proving to be right after all.’ And that’s where I stand.
http://creation.com/archaeologist-co...-and-the-bible



I know of no finding in archeology that’s properly confirmed which is in opposition to the Scriptures. The Bible is the most accurate history textbook the world has ever seen.

Dr Clifford Wilson, formerly director of the Australian Institute of Archaeology, being interviewed by radio by the Institute for Creation Research (ICR radio transcript No. 0279–1004
Dr. Clifford Wilson His Ph.D. is from the University of South Carolina, and included ‘A’s for field work in archaeology undertaken In association with Hebrew Union College in Jerusalem.


The hebrew did leave monument were the red sea was parted, looking for reference. The Egyptians did record when pharoahs died/plus they dont record negative history when they lose battles etc to any country not just isreal.


No one created god,that would be impossible, or that what created him would be god. how did nothing create everything and matter?

than your not atheist but agnostic.


I said i proved your claimed bible contradictions wrong.


Than you did not read my responses, so i shall re-post for you. Not one thing you posted is a contradiction, I mean most are just terrible.

first claim
Answered on post 144, but just to add to it.

The opposite of love is not anger,but hate. God is angry at things that destroy his creation and his love for us.
If God Weren't Angry...
http://www.christianpost.com/news/if...t-angry-80980/


I used to think that wrath was unworthy of God. Isn't God love? Shouldn't divine love be beyond wrath? ?God is love,and God loves every person and every creature. That's exactly why God is wrathful against some of them. My last resistance to the idea of God's wrath was a casualty of the war in the former Yugoslavia, a region from which I come. According to some estimates, 200,000 people were killed, and over 3,000,000 were displaced. My villages and cities were destroyed, my people shelled day in and day out, some of them brutalize beyond imagination, and I could not imagine God not being angry. Or think of Rwanda in the last decade of the past century, where 800,000 people were hacked to death in one hundred days! How did God react to the carnage? By doting on the perpetrators in a grandfatherly fashion? By refusing to condemn the bloodbath but instead affirming th perpetrators' basic goodness? Wasn't God fiercely angry with them? Though I used to complain about the indecency of the idea of God's wrath, I cam to thin that I would have to rebel against a God who wasn't wrathful at the sight of the world' evil. God isn't wrathful in spite of being love. God is wrathful because God is love (Miroslav Volf as quoted in Is God a Moral Monster? by Paul Copan, 192).

But go read post 144 first


second
this is the easiest one I have encountered from you,no the Joshua one. actually read Galatians [its a good book] v 2 is to help out each other financially/spiritually etc fufiling the law of Christ to love your neighbor as yourself.V 5 is saying everyone will be accountable to god for there own actions. Do you truly believe the same author [paul] contradicted himself just a few verse away?.


Third
seriously? you gota try reading the bible some time. Look at those passages, Muslims come up with much better one than atheist websites [were is shabir alley when you need him] matt verse, is saying there is no neutral position, either your with him or against him. Both mark/luke verse are saying they are with jesus. Me thinks you did not even read these before posting. You could have found much better ones.


So in your best 8 or so attempts here and post 143, have yet to show a contradiction. Or "non sense" as you claim. Yes rapes/murder etc are recorded in bible, because they happen. Man is sinner,bad things happen, bible tells truth not a bedtime story. So what is true, both, the god who loves and is love. Please read

proclaiming, "The LORD, the LORD, the compassionate and gracious God, slow to anger, abounding in love and faithfulness, 7 maintaining love to thousands, and forgiving wickedness, rebellion and sin. Yet he does not leave the guilty unpunished
exodus 34 6-7





also post 144
First one. Not a contradiction between OT and NT, or ot.

proclaiming, "The LORD, the LORD, the compassionate and gracious God, slow to anger, abounding in love and faithfulness, 7 maintaining love to thousands, and forgiving wickedness, rebellion and sin. Yet he does not leave the guilty unpunished
exodus 34 6-7

This passages lets you now, that god is all loving ps 145.9 yet because he loves he judges jer 13.14. A all loving god must also hate sin, he must also punish sin, because he does love. This does not mean he does not love the sinner.

7#If at any time I declare concerning a nation or a kingdom, that I will pluck up and break down and destroy it, 8#and if that nation, concerning which I have spoken, turns from its evil, I will relent of the disaster that I intended to do to it. 9#And if at any time I declare concerning a nation or a kingdom that I will build and plant it, 10#and if it does evil in my sight, not listening to my voice, then I will relent of the good that I had intended to do to it.
Jeremiah 18 7-10

"'Have I any pleasure in the death of the wicked?,' says the Lord God, 'And not rather that he should turn from his way and live? For I have no pleasure in the death of anyone,' says the Lord God. 'So turn and live! Say to them, "As I live," says the Lord God, "I have no pleasure in the death of the wicked, but that the wicked turn from his way and live. Turn back, turn back from your evil ways. For why will you die?"'" (Ez. 18.23,32; 33.11)


also this same claim could be pointed out of koran, yet I never saw this as a contradiction.
allah loves 2.222
allah does not love the unbelievers 3.30-35 god does not love the evil doers 3.56-57
Muslims were created to help Muhammad in war 9.40
unbelievers are enemies 4.101 etc etc


2 That is very good one I had never herd before, thank you. but no contradiction

first you must read proverbs 30.4. Than john 33.5-18. You will see the context in witch it is used clearly. No one can understand haven but those that come from haven, down to earth to exspalin haven. That happened once only jesus. Than read proverbs 30.4


3 That is just terrible and I am now depressed, its 100% true that you have never read bible to make a claim like this as a contradiction. No wonder you believe the koran/bible both worship same god, you never read bible.

Judges God could beat any army if he chose to do so, judges 4.13-15 [and rest of bible] had isreal obeyed god they would have won any battles as he would have fought for them to victory 2.1-3 18-22. This is a repeating cycle in the promise land, clearly seen by anyone who has read the bible.



4 sin
Ot sacrifices were a covering for sin, they could "sanctify" and "pruify" heb 9.13,23 But could never remove sin and guilt. Otherwise as paul points out in hebrews,they would not need to be repeated over and over. That is why in john 1.29 john the baptist says

The next day John saw Jesus coming toward him and said, "Look, the Lamb of God, who takes away the sin of the world!
john 1.29

Jesus took away the sins of the world, he did not cover the sins, to be scarficed over and over. Read hebrews for more on this, great book.


5 you must read Colossians 1

Colossians 1:18 states, “And He is the head of the body, the church, who is the beginning, the firstborn from the dead, that in all things He may have the preeminence.”

20 But Christ has indeed been raised from the dead, the firstfruits of those who have fallen asleep. 21 For since death came through a man, the resurrection of the dead comes also through a man. 22 For as in Adam all die, so in Christ all will be made alive.
Corinthians 15:20-22

Jesus Christ was not the first person ever raised from the dead, but the first to rise and not die again. in bodily form as well. He is our first-fruits [Jewish festival] fulfillment of ot.

Romans 6:9 says, “knowing that Christ, having been raised from the dead, dies no more. Death no longer has dominion over Him.”
Revelation 1:18 records Jesus' words to the Apostle John. “I am He who lives, and was dead, and behold, I am alive forevermore.”


also firstborn can also refer to rank read psalm 89.27 ex 4,22, clearly not first in a series.




we are getting far off topic, please debate me 1v1 or discus on topic. I will be doing thread on our topic soon.

[Sigurd]

You claimed christian founders were evil did bad etc. I asked for evidence what they did, you provided none. The bible was written by james,paul,peter john etc the disciples, that is were these later theologians got there theology from. As they themselves base there teachings on the bible and original disciples. They the disciples were taught by Jesus. Yes I dont see any bible translation as perfect, who would? why does that matter at all?.

I did NOT claim such. The only thing I hinted at was their obscure backgrounds, their roots so to speak. Not once did I mention that they had bad fruits. That was all you
And oh yes... you have weird ideas about the origin of the Bible.

Why you need a perfect Bible? well gosh... (that is if you are not Catholic) It is the primary source of your priesthoods, authority and theology... all though much of your theology is the musings of the church fathers. Stuff that you can't really back up using the Bible, but uphold as if your life depended on it.

[Brenus]

“I said i proved your claimed bible contradictions wrong.” You said, but you did prove nothing.
“The opposite of love is not anger, but hate” Casuistic. Jesuit’s answer to explain God’s slaughters and Genocides. "I will not pity, nor spare, nor have mercy, but destroy." (JER 13:14). If that is when your God is only angry, I don’t want to know when he really dislikes somebody…

“Do you truly believe the same author [paul] contradicted himself just a few verse away?.” Well, he obviously did, as show in the quote.

Stalin never killed to spread “Evolution”. He even never killed to spread atheism (as the first victims of Stalin were the first Communists). He killed for political gains.
As Pol Pot is concern, he killed because He didn’t believe in Evolution, if you want to go this way. He thought that Towns corrupted the population and they had to be Purified but going back to the fields. Funny enough, the re-education by work is the base of all Jails and Workhouses by Conservative Religious Government.
You carry on to repeat the same things, and to make assumption, When you have in front of you the text proving you wrong, you try, as the Good Priests in the XVI, to twist the words. Then you try to orientate the topic. Fair enough, I do it as well.

[total relism]

Can you read Arabic poetry?

no is deserving of death bad? like make me jump off a building to rid myself of it bad?. LOl.

lol.

If you stay on this board, you'll find out that there are several members here with far more intimate knowledge of communism than you have. Like me, for example, with my background in the Norwegian Stalinist party(NKP). And of course the person you quoted, Brenus.

To state that Pol Pot "killed in the name of evolution" only serves to show your ignorance of the subject, sorry.

If you're genuinely interested in learning more about socialist ideals, then this is a good place to do it. But you'll need to fix your attitude from "debating to win" to "debating to learn".

Never said they killed in the name of evolution, I said there belief in evolution/atheism is what led them to, what justified them doing what they did. Good thread for it here
https://forums.totalwar.org/vb/showt...ity&highlight=


this thread is islam.

I did NOT claim such. The only thing I hinted at was their obscure backgrounds, their roots so to speak. Not once did I mention that they had bad fruits. That was all you
And oh yes... you have weird ideas about the origin of the Bible.

Why you need a perfect Bible? well gosh... (that is if you are not Catholic) It is the primary source of your priesthoods, authority and theology... all though much of your theology is the musings of the church fathers. Stuff that you can't really back up using the Bible, but uphold as if your life depended on it.

what weird ideas about origin of bible? is it not weird to claim as you have done that the gospel of Thomas a forgery written over 100-200 years after thomases death is not reliable?. To instead only accept books by apostles of jesus written in there life time?. Weird idea.

The bible is 100% were we get truth as a christian, The original bible written is 100% accurate. I challenge you once again, show me one thing I have said/claimed that cant be backed up by the bible. Also tell me what theology of mine comes from some early church father not the bible.

[Hax]

no is deserving of death bad? like make me jump off a building to rid myself of it bad?. LOl.

Yes, it's absolutely horrible.

Seriously though, no, but in order to understand exactly why these verses about poets are in the Qur'an is to assess the position of poetry in the pre-Islamic period. Poetry and magic were often conflated, and there was this idea that certain verses were inspired by the jinn.

In this particular region, these poets would often engage in improvised rhymed debates and they called out Muhammad to defend himself using the same kind of poetry. Muhammad replied by saying that the Qur'an was not poetry and that those poets that had challenged him would actually go to hell.

That doesn't necessarily tell us much about how Muhammad perceived poetry in general, which is a practice that continued throughout Muhammad's time (cf. al-Busiri's Mantle Ode) but how he responded to this very specific form of poetry.

[Sigurd]

what weird ideas about origin of bible? is it not weird to claim as you have done that the gospel of Thomas a forgery written over 100-200 years after thomases death is not reliable?. To instead only accept books by apostles of jesus written in there life time?. Weird idea.

The bible is 100% were we get truth as a christian, The original bible written is 100% accurate.I challenge you once again, show me one thing I have said/claimed that cant be backed up by the bible. Also tell me what theology ofmine comes from some early church father not the bible.

Ehm... I think you have engaged too many debaters. The highlighted part must be someone else. I haven't mentioned any gospels in this debate yet.

You say books written by the Apostles. How sure are you that Peter wrote the letters in the NT? How about the gospel of John?
And you keep referring to an original bible, original manuscripts... The original Hebrew and the original Greek. Now.. Do you have access to the original, or know where they might be?

It would be crucial to check them for any discrepancies when a new translation is brought forth.

An example of theology not from the bible... let's see... how about trinitarianism?

[Philippus Flavius Homovallumus]

No please read this thread and OP for answer, also my posts.

Then you don't have a leg to stand on, because I know from close study of the Gospels that their accounts of Christ's life contradict themselves.

For example - the account of the calling of the first disciples; in Matthew Peter is a fisherman, butin John he is already a disciple of John the Baptist.

Clearly, one of the Gospel writers is in error - more likely it is the one who wrote down John, because he witnessed none of the events firsthand (except possibly the Passion).

Now, I shall respect your intelligence and expect you to go away and read Matthew and John side by side, at which point you will see that I am right. If you tell me I am wrong, which I know I am not, I shall post the relevant chapters in full, with commentary.

Claiming the Bible is perfect, or never in error, or never contradicts itself, is not only factually wrong, it is an offence unto God because such a text would be a complete waste of time and if the Bible were exactly as God had designed it God would have to be an idiot. Further, we know that surviving manuscripts of the Bible are corrupt and despite our best efforts there are even a few verses which have become totally unrecoverable due to errors made by the scribes who produced the copies over the last two to three millennia.

Even assuming a perfect original text, all current copies of the Bible are are essentially corrupt, in one aspect or another, and that includes all copies and editions in the original languages.