Are Muslims okay with Muhammed actions?

[Byzantine_Wolf]

Elwill, I don’t mean to sound snooty, but you’ve practically destroyed your argument by using the greatest logical fallacy most Muslims commit.

we don’t believe in the bible to be entirely the word of God so we didn’t need to deal with it’s contradictions

You have done nothing in the past few posts but quote the Bible to prove that Jesus isn’t divine. Now you’ve gone around and essentially confessing, “The Bible is corrupt.” This is common for Muslim apologetics, but (similar to the non sequitor fallacy) while this may work well in front of your fellow Muslims, non-Muslims laugh out loud at how poor an argument it is.

It is the most perfect example of the circular argument. A Muslim says, “This Bible verse proves Jesus isn’t divine!” A Christian answers, “You forgot these verses, and the full context of the verses you mentioned.” The Muslim then responds, “Well the Bible is corrupt, the Christians must have added them in later.”

A reality come into play here. The circular logic of this line of thinking is evident to those with eyes to see: anything that agrees with Mohammad and his teachings is accepted outright, while anything that disagrees with his teachings are thrown out. Why? Because they don’t agree with him, therefore they must have come from somewhere else. In doing so, the Muslim destroys his case without even knowing it, for he admits that the source he used to defend it is tarnished.

As I’ve said before, this line of thinking is also faulty in that it contradicts how God revealed scripture before. The NT was not written with the argument, “Just believe what we tell you - the Jews changed the scripture to hide Jesus.” Instead, the apostles encouraged the people to read their scripture and see the truth, and at no point did they accuse any one of corrupting scripture to hide anything. The NT was verified by the OT, not the OT by the NT. By contrast, the Koran demands that the OT and NT coincide with it. Why did God change His method of revelation? Why should we believe a book that comes later, rather than verify the Koran by that which came before? Is that not what cults such as Mormonism and Jehovah’s Witnesses do?

It is quite ironic that one hadith, while speaking of Jews and Christians, actually describes Islamic exegesis quite perfectly:

Narrated Ibn Abbas:
They, the people of the Scriptures, divided this Scripture into parts, believing in some portions of it and disbelieving the others. [Sahih Bukhari Volume 5, Book 58, Number 281]

The fact is the problem of these verses is not mine, but your own. I choose to follow what Christ taught, what His followers the apostles recorded, and what was taught by the early Church founded by the apostles and carried on by men who knew the apostles personally. Muslims choose to follow the teachings of a man who came 600 years later and claimed to have a better version of the message, and backed by nothing but a personal revelation which only he saw, heard and could confirm. His followers are encouraged to ignore the truths in scripture and simply accept at face value a holy book penned by someone who claims to have come from God.

To return to the original topic of this thread…this is why so many have a problem with Mohammad.

 

[Byzantine_Wolf]

B W, I see most of the songs of Soloman as the prophesies for Muhammad.

They are not - and if you are to make such proclamations, I would ask you (for perhaps the fourth time now) to cite sources and explain yourself.

I have read various Muslims accounts of supposed prophecies of Mohammad, and they are all false, or taking the verses completely out of context. One humorous example is Acts 3:20-22 - what Muslims who use it forget is the passage quotes the famous “a prophet like” prophesy in Deuteronomy. This passage is also claimed by Muslims to predict Mohammad…but in the passage in Acts, Peter is actually stating that it is prophesying Christ.

Jesus said, “Before abraham was, I AM.” or I am. It is complicated sentence. We cannot derive the meaning that jesus wa sbefore Abraham. The words of the sentence do not support it.

They are not complicated to any one, except those who do not wish to call a spade a spade. You’ve just given the theological version of, “It depends on what the meaning of the word ‘is’ is.”

Do you mean the Father…

Planten, I will be blunt: you’ve admitted to me that you didn’t study the Trinity. Do not argue with people over something you admit to know little about. I don’t understand nuclear physics, but you won’t find me on a science forum arguing with people who have studied the subject, claiming they’re wrong.

Show respect to your fellow forum members, and show respect to Christians - do not argue what you yourself admit you know nothing about. Having an opinion and having an educated opinion are two vastly different things.

 

[elwill]

Elwill, I don’t mean to sound snooty, but you’ve practically destroyed your argument by using the greatest logical fallacy most Muslims commit.

i will try my best to satisfy you in my discussions

You have done nothing in the past few posts but quote the Bible to prove that Jesus isn’t divine. Now you’ve gone around and essentially confessing, “The Bible is corrupt.” This is common for Muslim apologetics, but (similar to the non sequitor fallacy) while this may work well in front of your fellow Muslims, non-Muslims laugh out loud at how poor an argument it is.

corruption of the bible is in my beliefs , it dosn’t need confission .
but actually i didn’t mean to discuss the corruption of the bible nor did i tried to proof it , so ignore this confession from me

It is the most perfect example of the circular argument. A Muslim says, “This Bible verse proves Jesus isn’t divine!” A Christian answers, “You forgot these verses, and the full context of the verses you mentioned.” The Muslim then responds, “Well the Bible is corrupt, the Christians must have added them in later.”

it wasn’t my circular logic at all , please understand my point
i asked you about some words be told by jesus in some place in the bible , you answered me then by redirect me to different verse which proof your point without giving me convinced answers about the verses i cited in the first place , it means to me that you commit cherry picking in your bible to strength your faith
you need to give me explanation for the verses which seems to me contradict your beliefs , for i didn’t ask you about the verses which backup your beliefs

The fact is the problem of these verses is not mine, but your own. I choose to follow what Christ taught, what His followers the apostles recorded, and what was taught by the early Church founded by the apostles and carried on by men who knew the apostles personally. Muslims choose to follow the teachings of a man who came 600 years later and claimed to have a better version of the message, and backed by nothing but a personal revelation which only he saw, heard and could confirm. His followers are encouraged to ignore the truths in scripture and simply accept at face value a holy book penned by someone who claims to have come from God.

okey , i allready discuss with you the records of apostles , i didn’t discuss the quran nor hadeeth nor the issue corruption , are we in agreement now ?

To return to the original topic of this thread…this is why so many have a problem with Mohammad.

offcourse they have problem with mohammed because it’s different religion ,
i’m sure from that

 

[planten]

Evidence. Quote something.

Early Church Fathers such as Ignatius and Polycarp believed in the Trinity. They believed Christ was divine. And they knew the apostle John. They were HIS disciples. So please, if you’re going to make a wild claim like that, back it up.

**B W, what I was saying is that church has diverged too much from the right path. Have a look at the belief of the Jews. From the time of Noah to Abraham to Moses there never was any Trinity. There is no “Trinity” in bibleNT. So you people have altered course. Not Jews or Muslims.

I had told you honestly that I had a dialogue with some Christian and he openly admitted that Trinity was very difficult to explain, in fact it was a mystery. Those were the words of a person like you. You can keep up your Trinity (whatever it means to you). Muslims do not need it as the Jews do not go near your Trinity. So I hope you understand that you are alone in Trinity. i.e odd one out.

I have followed the arguments (discussion) of Elwill with you about the subject of divinity of Jesus. Elwill had quoted enough verses of the bibleNT to prove that Jesus and Father were two different things. I am very happy that Elwill gave quite a few verses of the bible to prove to you that The Father was the fathe rof all. Jesus said “Now I go to your father and to my father, to your God and my God.” That meant Jesus had a God. Jesus prayed to that God. While Jesus was here nobody openly consistently prayed to Jesus.

When Jesus says “My God and your God.” it is well understood. Jesus also had a God to whom he prayed in the garden before his arrest. He had a God whom Jesus called while he was up on the Cross. So do we understand that a god has another God? or was he calling himself.

Jesus had Some One who sent him. B W please see all the complications of the Trinity. I will take note of Elwill’s reply to you. They are clear verses of the bibleNT. Nothing from the Quran. So you should read them carefully and agree to them…

**

 

[Byzantine_Wolf]

B W, what I was saying is that church has diverged too much from the right path.

In that case, Islamic apologetics again has double standards, for Mohammad taught that the first two or three generations of Muslims would be faithful to his teachings. Yet when we go to Jesus, suddenly Muslims believe that the first generation of Christians were unfaithful and distorted His word. Is that consistency?

Have a look at the belief of the Jews. From the time of Noah to Abraham to Moses there never was any Trinity. There is no “Trinity” in bibleNT. So you people have altered course. Not Jews or Muslims.

From Adam up to Moses there was no mention of the Ten Commandments. From Adam up to Solomon there was no mention of the Temple. And…from Adam up to Mohammad, there was no mention of the Koran. God has given gradual revelation in terms of policy and how to guide His people. Yet he maintained the method - everything revealed was consistent with what came before, not the other way around. This is the fault of the Koran and Islamic revelation.

And I think the Jews on the forum would disagree that Muslims didn’t alter course

I had told you honestly that I had a dialogue with some Christian and he openly admitted that Trinity was very difficult to explain, in fact it was a mystery.

One Christian is not enough to give you the ability to argue on a point. I already discussed this with Zaki, and while he seemed to get it, you do not. I am not discussing the Trinity with you any more, and that is final. You’ve admitted that you didn’t study it, and I will not continue discussion on a person whose knowledge on the subject is backed only by personal arrogance.

I will take note of Elwill’s reply to you. They are clear verses of the bibleNT. Nothing from the Quran. So you should read them carefully and agree to them.

No, they are using the logic of the Koran to back up his own belief by distorting their original passages. No one in early Christianity believed what Muslims believed - they all believed in the Trinity, and they all believed in the deity of Christ. Again, how can you believe what you believe about the followers of Mohammad while at the same time believing what you believe about the followers of Christ? Again, why does the Koran become the final authority when revelation has never worked this way?

 

[Byzantine_Wolf]

offcourse they have problem with mohammed because it’s different religion

You still do not understand. Being a different religion is nothing to me, but when that religion teaches you essentially to lie to yourself, what does that say? How can a sane person argue from the Bible for their evidence, then suddenly admit in the middle of the debate:

corruption of the bible is in my beliefs

It would be like if lawyer brought for someone he presented as a prize witness, then turned to the jury in his closing statements and said, “That prize witness is corrupt and known to lie.” No lawyer would do this, yet this is how Muslims argue with the Bible. Why?

The answer why is simple: because they have to. Because they need the Bible to prove they belong to an Abrahamic belief, but because so much of Mohammad’s teachings are not supported by Jews and Christians who know their scripture (which was even a problem in Mohammad’s time) they have to turn around and accuse the other two faiths of distorting the Word of God. On what basis? Because of a book that came 600 years later, not from the Church or the Jewish faithful but from a man who essentially said, “Take my word for it”? Is this not what Mormonism did? Is this not what Jehovah’s Witnesses did? Is this not what the Ba’hai (who believe in Mohammad as a prophet) did? For Muslims, is this not what the Ahmadi do?

The fact is, I am not cherrypicking anything - I am being consistent with the teachings of the Church whom Christ Himself said the gates of hell would not prevail against (Matt 16:18) and with whom Christ would be with always, even onto the ages of ages (Matt 28:20). What was being written by Ignatius, Polycarp and Clement I was still being written by Saint John Damascene nearly 700 years later.

I do not use the logic of a man who came 600 years later and claimed he knew the truth from personal revelation. I do not use that man’s teachings as a basis for my faith, because I recognized that doing so would be lying to myself and ignoring the Divine Truth that stared me in the face. That is why people have a problem with Mohammad.

 

[GraceDK]

Elwill, I don’t mean to sound snooty, but you’ve practically destroyed your argument by using the greatest logical fallacy most Muslims commit.

You have done nothing in the past few posts but quote the Bible to prove that Jesus isn’t divine. Now you’ve gone around and essentially confessing, “The Bible is corrupt.” This is common for Muslim apologetics, but (similar to the non sequitor fallacy) while this may work well in front of your fellow Muslims, non-Muslims laugh out loud at how poor an argument it is.

It is the most perfect example of the circular argument.

(…)

The fact is the problem of these verses is not mine, but your own. I choose to follow what Christ taught, what His followers the apostles recorded, and what was taught by the early Church founded by the apostles and carried on by men who knew the apostles personally. Muslims choose to follow the teachings of a man who came 600 years later and claimed to have a better version of the message, and backed by nothing but a personal revelation which only he saw, heard and could confirm. His followers are encouraged to ignore the truths in scripture and simply accept at face value a holy book penned by someone who claims to have come from God.

To return to the original topic of this thread…this is why so many have a problem with Mohammad.

This is a rational and well reflected post. Thank you for keeping the standard of logical reasoning and honest theological reflexion even while discussiong with people who dont have a tradition of testing their faith on reason, moral conscience and critical analysis.

 

[GraceDK]

…I do not use the logic of a man who came 600 years later and claimed he knew the truth from personal revelation. I do not use that man’s teachings as a basis for my faith, because I recognized that doing so would be lying to myself and ignoring the Divine Truth that stared me in the face. That is why people have a problem with Mohammad.

And again.
Bravo

 

[elwill]

You still do not understand. Being a different religion is nothing to me, but when that religion teaches you essentially to lie to yourself, what does that say? How can a sane person argue from the Bible for their evidence, then suddenly admit in the middle of the debate:

It would be like if lawyer brought for someone he presented as a prize witness, then turned to the jury in his closing statements and said, “That prize witness is corrupt and known to lie.” No lawyer would do this, yet this is how Muslims argue with the Bible. Why?

The answer why is simple: because they have to. Because they need the Bible to prove they belong to an Abrahamic belief, but because so much of Mohammad’s teachings are not supported by Jews and Christians who know their scripture (which was even a problem in Mohammad’s time) they have to turn around and accuse the other two faiths of distorting the Word of God. On what basis? Because of a book that came 600 years later, not from the Church or the Jewish faithful but from a man who essentially said, “Take my word for it”? Is this not what Mormonism did? Is this not what Jehovah’s Witnesses did? Is this not what the Ba’hai (who believe in Mohammad as a prophet) did? For Muslims, is this not what the Ahmadi do?

The fact is, I am not cherrypicking anything - I am being consistent with the teachings of the Church whom Christ Himself said the gates of hell would not prevail against (Matt 16:18) and with whom Christ would be with always, even onto the ages of ages (Matt 28:20). What was being written by Ignatius, Polycarp and Clement I was still being written by Saint John Damascene nearly 700 years later.

I do not use the logic of a man who came 600 years later and claimed he knew the truth from personal revelation. I do not use that man’s teachings as a basis for my faith, because I recognized that doing so would be lying to myself and ignoring the Divine Truth that stared me in the face. That is why people have a problem with Mohammad.

okey i’m sorry for my saying that i believe that bible is corrupted , as for actually i dont mean to discuss with you my beliefs or proof to you the corruptions of it , i just trying to understand the entire verses of the bible , so i’m sorry

can we get back to our discussion with ignoring the issue of the corruption and with ignoring what i believe about the bible ?

 

[Byzantine_Wolf]

okey i’m sorry for my saying that i believe that bible is corrupted , as for actually i dont mean to discuss with you my beliefs or proof to you the corruptions of it , i just trying to understand the entire verses of the bible , so i’m sorry

can we get back to our discussion with ignoring the issue of the corruption and with ignoring what i believe about the bible ?

You’re missing the point. You believe in it because the Koran, the hadith sources, your prophet, his followers, and all of Islam teaches you to believe it. That is the source of your argumentation. This is why you are arguing about the Bible the way you are.

As I said, no one in the early Church argued the way you did. Saint Ignatius, a disciple of John, never wrote like that about Jesus. Clement I, who was also a disciple to the apostles, never wrote like that about Jesus. Saint John Chrysostom, who wrote homilies on the entire Gospel of John in the 4th-5th century, would have a heart attack reading the exegesis of John 8 presented here on this forum. All of these men belonged to the Church Christ founded, a Church I must remind everyone that He promised not only would never have hell prevail against it (Matt 16:18), but that He would be with always, even onto the end of the age (Matt 28:20). However, if we are to believe what Islam believes about Christ and the ancient scriptures, then Jesus was either a liar or God is a victim of fatalism.

I cannot entertain the heretical beliefs of a man who came 600 years after Jesus with new revelation that he was the only source of. I reiterate that, sadly, Mohammad essentially told his followers to lie to themselves about spiritual truth. This, I argue, is inconsistent. How can we believe that? How can we trust someone who centuries later, with no ties to the Church, teaches something different? How can I believe in church and scriptural corruption when no historical or patristic evidence supports it? Why should we believe in a revelation that is confirmed not by that which came before it but by the demand of one man to follow it? These are all serious questions that I think Muslims do not ask themselves in an honest fashion.

Again, I’m sorry, but the reason we are arguing here today is because Mohammad did not know his scripture, and his followers were left with a lie based on circular reasoning. And this thread, questioning the actions of Mohammad, is a perfect place to bring this up

 

[Benjamin8o8]

You still do not understand. Being a different religion is nothing to me, but when that religion teaches you essentially to lie to yourself, what does that say? How can a sane person argue from the Bible for their evidence, then suddenly admit in the middle of the debate:

It would be like if lawyer brought for someone he presented as a prize witness, then turned to the jury in his closing statements and said, “That prize witness is corrupt and known to lie.” No lawyer would do this, yet this is how Muslims argue with the Bible. Why?

The answer why is simple: because they have to. Because they need the Bible to prove they belong to an Abrahamic belief, but because so much of Mohammad’s teachings are not supported by Jews and Christians who know their scripture (which was even a problem in Mohammad’s time) they have to turn around and accuse the other two faiths of distorting the Word of God. On what basis? Because of a book that came 600 years later, not from the Church or the Jewish faithful but from a man who essentially said, “Take my word for it”? Is this not what Mormonism did? Is this not what Jehovah’s Witnesses did? Is this not what the Ba’hai (who believe in Mohammad as a prophet) did? For Muslims, is this not what the Ahmadi do?

The fact is, I am not cherrypicking anything - I am being consistent with the teachings of the Church whom Christ Himself said the gates of hell would not prevail against (Matt 16:18) and with whom Christ would be with always, even onto the ages of ages (Matt 28:20). What was being written by Ignatius, Polycarp and Clement I was still being written by Saint John Damascene nearly 700 years later.

I do not use the logic of a man who came 600 years later and claimed he knew the truth from personal revelation. I do not use that man’s teachings as a basis for my faith, because I recognized that doing so would be lying to myself and ignoring the Divine Truth that stared me in the face. That is why people have a problem with Mohammad.

The same reason I have a problem with Mohammad as well. Great post!

hello everybody,

God Bless.

 

[elwill]

You’re missing the point. You believe in it because the Koran, the hadith sources, your prophet, his followers, and all of Islam teaches you to believe it. That is the source of your argumentation. This is why you are arguing about the Bible the way you are.

As I said, no one in the early Church argued the way you did. Saint Ignatius, a disciple of John, never wrote like that about Jesus. Clement I, who was also a disciple to the apostles, never wrote like that about Jesus. Saint John Chrysostom, who wrote homilies on the entire Gospel of John in the 4th-5th century, would have a heart attack reading the exegesis of John 8 presented here on this forum. All of these men belonged to the Church Christ founded, a Church I must remind everyone that He promised not only would never have hell prevail against it (Matt 16:18), but that He would be with always, even onto the end of the age (Matt 28:20). However, if we are to believe what Islam believes about Christ and the ancient scriptures, then Jesus was either a liar or God is a victim of fatalism.

I cannot entertain the heretical beliefs of a man who came 600 years after Jesus with new revelation that he was the only source of. I reiterate that, sadly, Mohammad essentially told his followers to lie to themselves about spiritual truth. This, I argue, is inconsistent. How can we believe that? How can we trust someone who centuries later, with no ties to the Church, teaches something different? How can I believe in church and scriptural corruption when no historical or patristic evidence supports it? Why should we believe in a revelation that is confirmed not by that which came before it but by the demand of one man to follow it? These are all serious questions that I think Muslims do not ask themselves in an honest fashion.

Again, I’m sorry, but the reason we are arguing here today is because Mohammad did not know his scripture, and his followers were left with a lie based on circular reasoning. And this thread, questioning the actions of Mohammad, is a perfect place to bring this up

for the third time i assure to you that i’m not trying to discuss the corruption of the bible .

but anyway , as long as you can’t answer my questions about your bible , i will incline to trust mine
thank you for the discussion anyway

and you are wellcome if you have any questions about islam

salam

 

[planten]

And again.
Bravo

GDK, you are trying to support B W for saying the following:

Originally Posted by Byzantine_Wolf
…I do not use the logic of a man who came 600 years later and claimed he knew the truth from personal revelation

** What was the good thing in that post of B W to Elwill? B W does not use the logic of a person who comes as a man and messenger (Muhammad) to mankind like the previous messengers had come.

But B W is ready to believe in a person (Jesus) who came as a god and preached that he was God. B W is ready to believe that a walking talking man could be a God. But B W is not ready to believe that a man is amessenger of God. Quite a bad logic of B W.

Even though Jesus as a man never said that he was God. If Jesus said “I am” the B W would try to take it as if Jesus said “I am God.”. That would be a very bad logic, putting words into the mouth of Jesus. Attributing something to jesus which he never claimed. And that thing is a sinful thing too for Jews, i.e. blasphemy. The Jews would not and did not accept anything that Jesus said. Even though he did not say anything wrong.

The Jews became divided. Some believed and loved Jesus. The others hated Jesus and wanted to kill Jesus. Allah helped those who believed in Jesus and they prevailed upon their enemies ( i.e. the enemies of Jesus).

For proof, Please see the last verse 14 of chapter 61 of Quran. The word Kaafir **is also used there for the opponents of Jesus. So there were Kaafir in the time of Jesus. Read Quran and be happy. Thanks. .

 

[planten]

**

Originally Posted by Byzantine_Wolf
…I do not use the logic of a man who came 600 years later and claimed he knew the truth from personal revelation

**

I would further honestly question B W about the messages that Jesus was getting from God. Jesus said that was saying what God was telling him to say. He was doing what he was told to do by the father. How did Jesus know what father wanted him to do?.

It shows that there was some communication between Jesus and God (The Father). That could be called the Communion. That is always through an angel. We Muslims also believe that the angels bring the messages from God.

Jesus was sent. That means he was sent on some mission and he was guided during that mission.

How he was receiving the guidance?? Please explain. That is what we also believe the role of the Holy Spirit. We Muslims believe in the Holy Spirit. The Quran says " We aided (helped, guided) Jesus with the Holy Spirit." Al-Quran 2:253. It was the Holy Spirit with Jesus. That was the angel.

But if not then please tell how Jesus was getting messages from God? We Muslims Love Jesus and Mary and all real apostles of Jesus and we are happy with them all.

 

[jakasaki]

And again.
Bravo

Byzantine Wolf-

I ecco Grace’s post. Excellent postings.

 

[Byzantine_Wolf]

What was the good thing in that post of B W to Elwill? B W does not use the logic of a person who comes as a man and messenger (Muhammad) to mankind like the previous messengers had come…B W is ready to believe that a walking talking man could be a God. But B W is not ready to believe that a man is amessenger of God. Quite a bad logic of B W.

I believe in Messengers of God. I believe Moses, Elijah and John the Baptist were all sent by God. However, I believe only in messengers who could confirm their prophethood through miracles or signs from God. I believe only in that evidence which I see before me in my studies. I believe that which God reveals to me in the Divine Truth. And that Divine Truth is Jesus Christ.

What I refuse to believe is that some man 600 years after Jesus, who has no connection with Judaism or Christianity, receives a revelation only he can confirm, only he heard, and only he saw, and expects us to simply accept it. He expects us to lie to ourselves. He expects us to read his Koran and “be happy.” He expects us to forsake 600 years of history and consistent orthodox doctrine so that we can believe his personal revelation, for which there is no proof.

I can see already that you’re simply repeating your arguments without demonstrating them, so I will not spend too much in response when it seems that my arguments will be rejected outright simply because of a refusal to listen. I have made my points clear, and I pray that those with ears to hear (Luke 14:35) will understand and the Spirit of God will work within them. I do not engage in apologetics or debate to win tiny little “victories,” but with the prayer that God will use me to speak to people and bring them to divine Truth.

 

[GraceDK]

I believe in Messengers of God. I believe Moses, Elijah and John the Baptist were all sent by God. However, I believe only in messengers who could confirm their prophethood through miracles or signs from God. I believe only in that evidence which I see before me in my studies. I believe that which God reveals to me in the Divine Truth. And that Divine Truth is Jesus Christ.

What I refuse to believe is that some man 600 years after Jesus, who has no connection with Judaism or Christianity, receives a revelation only he can confirm, only he heard, and only he saw, and expects us to simply accept it. He expects us to lie to ourselves. He expects us to read his Koran and “be happy.” He expects us to forsake 600 years of history and consistent orthodox doctrine so that we can believe his personal revelation, for which there is no proof.
.

Amen to that…
I may add that we speak of Muhammad denying not 600 years but some thousand years of the history of God’s Covenant with the chosen people.
I want everyone spiritual to ponder how Islam wages war on the two most clearly mentioned components in the Bible when it comes to bringing salvation into the world: The woman, and Israel. It’s written already in genesis that the woman will give birth to the child that will crush the head of satan. So of course satan hates women and we can also see a wish for unhealthy domination of women in Islam. Secondly the Jews have been targeted severely and are still. There is almost an infernal hatred against Jews in the middle east these years and its getting worse and worse. We know that the grand mufti of Jerusalem cooperated with Hitler in solving the “Jewish problem” and today in Europe antisemitism is rampant wherever there is muslim immigration…

These are tendencies that point at the traits of the opponent of God.

 

[planten]

**
B W, Thanks for your posts. I believe that Jesus was a messenger of God. He was a prophet. He said he was sent. He was doing as the father was telling him to do. Please see my post #1020. There is no serious immediate punsihment for any of the beliefs. You can have any belief you like and you can tell me and teach me whatever you believe. i would listen to you.

Please see my post again. I had asked something. You may be knowing the answer. If you do then let me know. Otherwise there is no compulsion or pressure from me. Please see again:

I would further honestly question B W about the messages that Jesus was getting from God. Jesus said that he was saying what God was telling him to say. He was doing what he was told to do by the father. How did Jesus know what father wanted him to do?.

It shows that there was some communication between Jesus and God (The Father). That could be called the Communion. That is always through an angel. We Muslims also believe that the angels bring the messages from God.

Jesus was sent. That means he was sent on some mission and he was guided during that mission.

How he was receiving the guidance**

 

[Rachel_Malloy]

This thread is now closed. Thank you for your participation.

God bless-

Rachel