Islam's Plagiarized Christian Origins

[Byzantine_Wolf]

The question is placed that Quran got its story from the Bible, when we say it was revealed by God. We were just saying that even certain things in the Bible can be found from before its time, does it mean that it plagiarized it???

………:ehh:…

My question is if the Bible plagiarized the flood, that means the Koran plagiarized it too. They both tell the same story: the people were sinful, Noah was a righteous man spared by God in an ark, all the sinners drowned, the end.

I have never heard a Muslim claim that flood was plagiarized. Probably because most Muslims realize to call the flood a rip-off of the pagan times would be condemning Islam as a rip-off of pagan beliefs. Again, try to be consistent if you’re going to debate Christians.

 

[planten]

………:ehh:…

My question is if the Bible plagiarized the flood, that means the Koran plagiarized it too. They both tell the same story: the people were sinful, Noah was a righteous man spared by God in an ark, all the sinners drowned, the end.

.

**That was good idea. If there is a problem (allegation) on bible about plagiarising then there is no need to blame Quran about plagiarism.

The best thing is to drop the charge of plagiarism on Quran and be comfortable**.

 

[DeusVult09]

So your admitting the Bible changed to keep up with the language. However, its quite obvious that these are english translations of the Bible. The translations may vary 1 million times if it wants, but the original must not change. Furthermore, the Quran is perfect so it does not need to change. If you want to believe that the Bible was changed, so be it. Majority of the Christian world would disagree. Actually, it is not to fewer and fewer people, because millions of people around the world speak Arabic, and Arabic grammer derives from the Quran because of it’s exquisite and articulate use of language. We take pride in that yes, the true Quran is in Arabic, and no matter how many times you translate it into english or other languages, people will still learn Arabic to understand the original Quran (im talking about the Non-Arab speaking people.) Your areguments here are completely useless.

again look at your sana manuscripts and you tell me if they are perfect. you could not repond about them or explain 1 single thing other than claiming that DrPuin wasprejudiced and making up lies agianst Islam. The quran has changed more than the bible.

 

[DeusVult09]

**Christos is right, 100%. The catholics have no law about marriages or divorce. King Soloman had 300 wives and 1000 concubines. Nothing is known about the first thirty (30) years of Jesus life from the bible. It is good that Quran does not mention anything bad about any man of God, Joseph son of Jacob, jacob and Issac and Moses and Jesus. But Jesus had said that all who came before him were robbers and decievers. That is in the bibleNT.

Bible also blames the disciples of Jesus horribly that they abused Jesus, cursed him even sold Jesus for thirty coins of silver. The worst of all, bible tells us that all disciples ran away and disappeared when Jesus was arrested. Very bad.

Quran does not approve such things. It says that the disciples were steadfast and they stoodby Jesus. All the dirty things are written in the bibleOT, the Master base book and original of the christians. Our Quran does not support any accusation. Thanks to Allah.

So where did the Quran plagiarise the bibles? At present, the evangelists are trying hard that nobody should read the Quran. The moment any one will get hold of a Quran, he/she will become wiser.**

I have proven clear plagiarism time and time again and not 1 Muslim can offer anything to refute the mountain of evidence against Islam. Please will somebody explain to me how a Christian saint’s idea of heaven got into the kroan

Haha jesus’s disciples abandoned him so what? the quran as i have already proven is nothing but a bunch of plagiarized apocryphal tales re-written 600 years after the event so there is no chance what so ever that anything it says is historically factual about the life of Jesus.

 

[DeusVult09]

**That was good idea. If there is a problem (allegation) on bible about plagiarising then there is no need to blame Quran about plagiarism.

The best thing is to drop the charge of plagiarism on Quran and be comfortable**.

Hah why drop anything. I have proven the korna is nothing but plagairised tales, teachings and oral traditions which come straight from Christianity. And you cannot say anything. I have so much damning evidence against Islam when it coems to plagiarism there is nothing you could say that would ever make me believe it. Why should I follow a religion that has to plagiaries its heaven from some syriac hymns??

I have proven the quran is palgiarised and not the word of any diety if you can refute each and every claim i have made at the begining of this post then do . if not then stop wating my time

 

[planten]

Hah why drop anything. I have proven the korna is nothing but plagairised tales, teachings and oral traditions which come straight from Christianity. And you cannot say anything. I have so much damning evidence against Islam when it coems to plagiarism there is nothing you could say that would ever make me believe it. Why should I follow a religion that has to plagiaries its heaven from some syriac hymns??

I have proven the quran is palgiarised and not the word of any diety if you can refute each and every claim i have made at the begining of this post then do . if not then stop wating my time

**Deus, I have told you that the Quran is the real word of God while your bible is a writing by some unknown men who read the older scripture (BibleOT) and put their ideas about Jesus in their own words. Those were not the words of God. Those were the words of men. The bibleNT you have in English is not in the words of God. It is all a translated work, plagiarised from the older testament. So you should look after your own palgiarisation and leave quran alone.

There were 124,000 men praying under the command of the messenger Muhammad in the last Hajj (year nearly 0632 A.D.) That ws the good result of 23 years of good work by the prophet Muhammad and his great followers. Compare that to your three years of Jesus preaching in Palestine. Only three years. That is a very little time.

Then after that every one was on the run. They were all Jews, followers of Jesus who were running around, hiding from the persecution. That period lasted 300 years. Compare the three years good work of Jesus with the 300 years of bad work by the enemies of Jesus while the real followers were hiding in caves.

We have enough knowledge about the doings of your senior religious leaders. In the end, in year 325 A.D. you needed an emperor to validate your religion. How bad!!

Quran is independent. It does not depend on any outside support. It explains itself. It has a strong unbroken history and complete reliance. Quran is available in original Arabic language. Quran is telling that it was revealed on the heart of Muhammad. Quran is telling that was revealed in Arabic language.

Your bible does not tell anything, does not tell if it was revealed to Jesus. Bible does not tell in which language the original bible was revealed or compiled. There is no original bible available now, any where on earth. Forget plagiarisation of the Quran. Look after your bible.please.**

 

[DeusVult09]

**Deus, I have told you that the Quran is the real word of God while your bible is a writing by some unknown men who read the older scripture (BibleOT) and put their ideas about Jesus in their own words. Those were not the words of God. Those were the words of men. The bibleNT you have in English is not in the words of God. It is all a translated work, plagiarised from the older testament. So you should look after your own palgiarisation and leave quran alone.

There were 124,000 men praying under the command of the messenger Muhammad in the last Hajj (year nearly 0632 A.D.) That ws the good result of 23 years of good work by the prophet Muhammad and his great followers. Compare that to your three years of Jesus preaching in Palestine. Only three years. That is a very little time.

Then after that every one was on the run. They were all Jews, followers of Jesus who were running around, hiding from the persecution. That period lasted 300 years. Compare the three years good work of Jesus with the 300 years of bad work by the enemies of Jesus while the real followers were hiding in caves.

We have enough knowledge about the doings of your senior religious leaders. In the end, in year 325 A.D. you needed an emperor to validate your religion. How bad!!

Quran is independent. It does not depend on any outside support. It explains itself. It has a strong unbroken history and complete reliance. Quran is available in original Arabic language. Quran is telling that it was revealed on the heart of Muhammad. Quran is telling that was revealed in Arabic language.

Your bible does not tell anything, does not tell if it was revealed to Jesus. Bible does not tell in which language the original bible was revealed or compiled. There is no original bible available now, any where on earth. Forget plagiarisation of the Quran. Look after your bible.please.**

You have told me the kroan is the word of God but you have not proven it. Far from the case I proved that the Koran is nothing but a bunch of plagairised spurious oral traditions, beliefs and teachings which came stiaght from Christianity. The NT cannot Plagiarize the OT because it quotes the OT time and time again by saying “ is it not written, it is written” blah blah that is not plagiarism. Plagiarism is taking somebody else’s work and passing it off as your own. That is plagiarism. Jesus was a Rabbi (a jewish religious teacher) so it is impossible for him to plagiarize Judaism. That is absurd. St Paul was also a Jew so he cant plagiarize Judaism. Almost all of the NT writers were Jews. How can they plagiarize their own religion? This argument falls down again.

Yes the NT is a translated work from Koine Greek a language which I have studied. You think the Koran you read automatically appeared in enlgish? Hahah my god! No I will not leave the Koran alone because you have not proven the NT plagiarises the OT as it constantly uses direct quotes from the OT (which is not plagiarism) and you have not provided 1 single argument against any of the material I have provided.

we never needed a emperor to validate our religion it existed unchanged for long before Constantine . You can go to the fathers know best section on the Catholic Answers main site and see writings from early Church fathers confirming that all Christian doctrines existed long before Constantine so don’t go there.

Muslims always say how Mohammad was persecuted in Mecca. Muslims don’t know the meaning of the word. Christians suffered 10 separate persecutions before Constantine and the more it was persecuted the more it grew. No other religion on earth has been spread like that and it’s a miracle it survived at all.

23 years vs 3 years. Jesus did more in his 3 years than mohamamd did in his entire 23 year prophetic carreer of conquest and debauchey. Its quality that matters not quanitity

Arabic? Hahah so the NT is in the original Greek language? What difference does that make lol. The original language was Koine greek for all the books of the New Testament escept for Mathew scholars think there may have been an Aramaic version of the Gospel Of Mathew Which predated the Greek one.

Hahah where is the original koran?

the Samarqand and Topkapi Korans are two early ones from the 8th century. These were the earliest until the Sana manuscripts were discovered dated to 645-690 AD.
So these are the original? No! this the copy of the codex made by uthman the original manuscipts they used are gone . so do the Sana manuscripts back up islam’s assertions?

NOPE! they destroy them! They are so damning that the Yemenite authorities wont allow schoalrs to study them any further. Why are they so damning? Because each word was written in a quffic script without vowel markings giving each word 30 meanings. On top of this the original text was wahsed off and the later text was written on top of it . And when this original text was examined forensically schoalrs discovered that the text had been seriously altered changed and corrupted. With entire surah’s being reorded and rewritten. Yet not 1 word of it has ever been changed? I don’t think so. No 1 NT document is anywhere as damning as this because we don’t think out holy book came floating down from the middle of nowhere.

The original Documents for the NT don’t exist because as i said christiany suffered 10 separate persecutions it’s 1st 300 years with many places of worship
and manuscripts being burnt wholesale (especially under Nero). Not to mention that much of the papyrus used by the NT writers would have degraded over time as it only survives in good conditions.

I have proven that your koran is plagiarised. I revealed its spurious sources time and time again and you cant offer one arguemtn just say ohh its not! I have to asked you planteen again how did a 4th century christian saitns hymns get into your koran if its not plagiarism? how did the story of christians being persecuted by the Romans for not following roman gods become a story about muslims being persecuted by a pagan ruler in the Koran ? Why in theoriginal tale do they come back to warn a Trinitatian emperor Theodosius II of a heretical threat to crhsitianity. Why would allah care about a heretical threat to christianity since its already heretical to him? and why would he warn a “heathen” trinitarian emperor? Why do these men even quote St Paul is he a prophet of Allah too? How is this confirming what came before? The koran’s version seems to contradict what came before? But its corrupted right? and only the kroan has the right version? If so provide a manuscript proving it!

 

[DeusVult09]

You want to talk about authors? Who wrote all the spurious Apocyphal gospel stories which made their way into your koran? If these are true why were some of them written 400 years after the fact by people who obviously couldn’t be eywitnesses. Nobody has any idea who wrote any of them but their stories are all in your koran , the aleldged word of God.

I have proven the kroan is not the word of god. I have proven it 100% and you havent been able to provide 1 response to any of this material which I find pretty pathetic.

I suggest you look up the difference between quoting and palgiarism and i also suggest you come up with a refutation of my material other than “the koran is the word of god end of discussion” because that doesnt convince me at all

I will not stop analysing the koran’s palgiarism until i get a proper answer

laters

 

[planten]

**Deus, your penultimate post was too long. So I cannot quote it. You have rightly said that bible was written in some Greek language. that is bad enough. Jews had nothing to do with Greek. Why your bible was in Greek?

Further, you are right that your book was in Greek. So that was not from Jesus. That was from some one who took your religion to Greece and modified everything.

Your word Christ is also Greek word. What Greeks had to do with Judaism or Jesus. They were pagans believing in sons and daughters of God and goddess of Beauty etc. Every one knows that Greeks were pagans. The Monotheistic faith of Jesus had nothing to do with Greece.

That is where your religion was developed and spoiled. It is also well known that it was done by Saul of Tarsus who took off to Greece and developed the new religion which you are following now. Still you do not have any real bible, nothing original. Most of the bible is from Paul and not from Jesus who was the real base of the faith, founder of the faith. Paul had been an anti-christ.**

 

[Christos]

Can i ask as to why my posts from 185 to 191 were completely ignored? Is there a reason, or did you just miss it. Btw, Deus i have answered regarding the Sana Manuscripts and it is also in 185. Please respond to those please. Thanks.

 

[Christos]

Post # 1085 - Round 4

Can i ask as to why the Book of Revelations by St Peter (also known as the Apocolypse of Peter) was not accepted, when Jesus himself said “And I say also unto thee, that thou art Peter. And upon this rock I will build my church” Mathew 16:18

Here in the Apocolypse of Peter, from the earliest times, it is written.

“Come therefore, let us go on with the completion of the will of the incorruptible Father. For behold, those who will bring them judgment are coming, and they will be put to shame. But me they cannot touch. And you, O Peter, shall stand in their midst. Do not be afraid because of your cowardice. Their minds shall be closed, for the invisible one has opposed them.”

When he said those things, I saw him seemingly being seized by them. And I said "What do I see, O Lord, that it is you yourself whom they take, and that you are grasping me? Or who is this one, glad and laughing on the tree? And is it another one whose feet and hands they are striking?"

The Savior said to me, “He whom you saw on the tree, glad and laughing, this is the living Jesus. But this one into whose hands and feet they drive the nails is his fleshly part, which is the substitute being put to shame, the one who came into being in his likeness. But look at him and me.”

But I, when I had looked, said “Lord, no one is looking at you. Let us flee this place.” But he said to me, "I have told you, “Leave the blind alone!” And you, see how they do not know what they are saying. For the son of their glory instead of my servant, they have put to shame."
(Personal Note* Like in the Quran "That they said (in boast): ‘We killed Christ Jesus The son of Mary, The Messenger of Allah.’ 4:156. Here Jesus says the same, look at wht they are saying. )

And I saw someone about to approach us resembling him, even him who was laughing on the tree. And he was filled with a Holy Spirit, and he is the Savior. And there was a great, ineffable light around them, and the multitude of ineffable and invisible angels blessing them. And when I looked at him, the one who gives praise was revealed. And he said to me, “Be strong, for you are the one to whom these mysteries have been given, to know them through revelation, that he whom they crucified is the first-born, and the home of demons, and the stony vessel, in which they dwell, of Elohim, of the cross, which is under the Law. But he who stands near him is the living Savior, the first in him, whom they seized and released, who stands joyfully looking those who did him violence, while they are divided among themselves. Therefore he laughs at their lack of perception, knowing that they are born blind. So then the one susceptible to suffering shall come, since the body is the substitute. But what they released was my incorporeal body. But I am the intellectual Spirit filled with radiant light. He whom you saw coming to me is our intellectual Pleroma , which unites the perfect light with my Holy Spirit.”

(Personal Note* It is a substitute. In the Quran it says continuing the verse previously mentioned. "But they killed him not, Nor crucified him, but so it was made to appear to them, and those who differ therein are full of doubts, with no (certain) knowledge, but only conjecture to follow, for of a surety they killed him not. ")

“**These things, then, which you saw you shall present to those of another race who are not of this age **. For there will be no honor in any man who is not immortal, which has shown that it is able to contain him who gives his abundance. Therefore I said, “Every one who has, it will be given to him, and he will have plenty.” But he who does not have, that is, the man of this place, who is completely dead, who is removed from the planting of the creation of what is begotten, whom, if one of the immortal essence appears, they think that they possess him - it will be taken from him and be added to the one who is. You, therefore, be courageous and do not fear at all. For I shall be with you in order that none of your enemies may prevail unto you. Peace be to you, Be strong!”

(Personal Note* Indeed these things which Peter saw, was presented to another race, the Arabs. This version of the crucifixion is written in the Quran, where it was meant to appear that Jesus was crucified. Also, please do onot confuse the Gnostic Apocalypse of Peter, with this Apocolypse of Peter. This was discovered in 1910. Furthermore, “Clement of Alexandria considered the Apocalypse of Peter to be holy scripture. Eusebius, Historia Ecclesiae (VI.14.1)”, as well as many others.)

 

[Christos]

You want to talk about authors? Who wrote all the spurious Apocyphal gospel stories which made their way into your koran? If these are true why were some of them written 400 years after the fact by people who obviously couldn’t be eywitnesses. Nobody has any idea who wrote any of them but their stories are all in your koran , the aleldged word of God.

I have proven the kroan is not the word of god. I have proven it 100% and you havent been able to provide 1 response to any of this material which I find pretty pathetic.

I suggest you look up the difference between quoting and palgiarism and i also suggest you come up with a refutation of my material other than “the koran is the word of god end of discussion” because that doesnt convince me at all

I will not stop analysing the koran’s palgiarism until i get a proper answer

laters

Just because they were part of the Apocrypha doesnt mean that they were NOT the word of God. The Apocrypha were just versions which were too interpolated to be fixed. Read my posts 185-191 about the Dead Sea Scrolls, revealing the corrections in the Book of Isaih, and there are many many others. Read those post please.

 

[DeusVult09]

Can i ask as to why my posts from 185 to 191 were completely ignored? Is there a reason, or did you just miss it. Btw, Deus i have answered regarding the Sana Manuscripts and it is also in 185. Please respond to those please. Thanks.

No I didn’t ignore I just didn’t find it convincing. You said that if 1 word is changed then it corrupted and you claimed it was because people just wrote it down on the same parchment when they were memorizing it.

I don’t find such an answer at all convincing as it does not address the total disparity bettween contemporary Koran’s and this original text on the Sana Manuscripts and the later Korans. If this was the case the original would not be a re-ordered and altered text but the same text and it wouldn’t be on an actual copy of the koran. They were not all on single page manuscripts.

Your assertion that its just scribes re-using the paper is laughable and not convincing at all. If so much as 1 word is changed in the Koran it falls down as unlike the Bible Muslims believe it came out of thin air and was revealed word for word the same as it is now by god. You have no proof that it was just scribes re-using the paper and not an evolution of the text which Dr Puin believes but hes “prejudiced” isn’t he? What proof do you have he’s prejudiced? You have answered nothing.

The only thing that has been ignored her is My Original post which every single Muslim on here.

 

[DeusVult09]

Just because they were part of the Apocrypha doesnt mean that they were NOT the word of God. The Apocrypha were just versions which were too interpolated to be fixed. Read my posts 185-191 about the Dead Sea Scrolls, revealing the corrections in the Book of Isaih, and there are many many others. Read those post please.

If you accept them as the word of god then you will also have to accept the canonical gospels as most of them were written far earlier than these apocryphal gospels. If theya re the word of god then please tell me who wrote them? You always say nobody knows who originally wrote the canonical gospels. So who wrote these apocryphal gospels if they are the word of god. And if they are the word of god why in oen does jesus say when he speaks from the cradle that he is “the logos, the son of god” and in the kroan he says that he is a “prophet or messenger of allah”
That’s a bit of a contradiction if this was the previous word of god lol

No The Apocrypha has nothing to do with Jesus its the books written after the formulation of the jewish Canon around 3rd century BC (which martin Luther removed from the bible ) such as such as wisdom of Solomon, Sirach, 1st and 2nd Maccabees etc .He removed them form his bible and placed them in his translation of the bible as “The Apocrypha” meaning hidden in greek. It is these books you are referring to when you talk about The Apocrypha. (these books are still in the catholic bibles)

The NT Apocrypha on the other hand were various spurious, dubious, irrelevant and heretical texts which were never accepted by the church. As I have already said the canonical gospels are considered by most scholars to be the earliest. They were more than too interpolated to be fixed that’s utter garbage some of them were so late written even after the Nicene creed and anonymously like the gospel of Psuedo-Mathew.
Others like the gospels of James were early but considered to be Gnostic or heretical I think. It was not to do with interpellations many of them were just dubious in the 1st place. So dubious oral traditions are the word of god to now as well as hymns? Thanks for letting me know

 

[DeusVult09]

Post # 1085 - Round 4

Can i ask as to why the Book of Revelations by St Peter (also known as the Apocolypse of Peter) was not accepted, when Jesus himself said “And I say also unto thee, that thou art Peter. And upon this rock I will build my church” Mathew 16:18

Here in the Apocolypse of Peter, from the earliest times, it is written.

“Come therefore, let us go on with the completion of the will of the incorruptible Father. For behold, those who will bring them judgment are coming, and they will be put to shame. But me they cannot touch. And you, O Peter, shall stand in their midst. Do not be afraid because of your cowardice. Their minds shall be closed, for the invisible one has opposed them.”

When he said those things, I saw him seemingly being seized by them. And I said "What do I see, O Lord, that it is you yourself whom they take, and that you are grasping me? Or who is this one, glad and laughing on the tree? And is it another one whose feet and hands they are striking?"

The Savior said to me, “He whom you saw on the tree, glad and laughing, this is the living Jesus. But this one into whose hands and feet they drive the nails is his fleshly part, which is the substitute being put to shame, the one who came into being in his likeness. But look at him and me.”

But I, when I had looked, said “Lord, no one is looking at you. Let us flee this place.” But he said to me, "I have told you, “Leave the blind alone!” And you, see how they do not know what they are saying. For the son of their glory instead of my servant, they have put to shame."
(Personal Note* Like in the Quran "That they said (in boast): ‘We killed Christ Jesus The son of Mary, The Messenger of Allah.’ 4:156. Here Jesus says the same, look at wht they are saying. )

And I saw someone about to approach us resembling him, even him who was laughing on the tree. And he was filled with a Holy Spirit, and he is the Savior. And there was a great, ineffable light around them, and the multitude of ineffable and invisible angels blessing them. And when I looked at him, the one who gives praise was revealed. And he said to me, “Be strong, for you are the one to whom these mysteries have been given, to know them through revelation, that he whom they crucified is the first-born, and the home of demons, and the stony vessel, in which they dwell, of Elohim, of the cross, which is under the Law. But he who stands near him is the living Savior, the first in him, whom they seized and released, who stands joyfully looking those who did him violence, while they are divided among themselves. Therefore he laughs at their lack of perception, knowing that they are born blind. So then the one susceptible to suffering shall come, since the body is the substitute. But what they released was my incorporeal body. But I am the intellectual Spirit filled with radiant light. He whom you saw coming to me is our intellectual Pleroma , which unites the perfect light with my Holy Spirit.”

(Personal Note* It is a substitute. In the Quran it says continuing the verse previously mentioned. "But they killed him not, Nor crucified him, but so it was made to appear to them, and those who differ therein are full of doubts, with no (certain) knowledge, but only conjecture to follow, for of a surety they killed him not. ")

“**These things, then, which you saw you shall present to those of another race who are not of this age **. For there will be no honor in any man who is not immortal, which has shown that it is able to contain him who gives his abundance. Therefore I said, “Every one who has, it will be given to him, and he will have plenty.” But he who does not have, that is, the man of this place, who is completely dead, who is removed from the planting of the creation of what is begotten, whom, if one of the immortal essence appears, they think that they possess him - it will be taken from him and be added to the one who is. You, therefore, be courageous and do not fear at all. For I shall be with you in order that none of your enemies may prevail unto you. Peace be to you, Be strong!”

(Personal Note* Indeed these things which Peter saw, was presented to another race, the Arabs. This version of the crucifixion is written in the Quran, where it was meant to appear that Jesus was crucified. Also, please do onot confuse the Gnostic Apocalypse of Peter, with this Apocolypse of Peter. This was discovered in 1910. Furthermore, “Clement of Alexandria considered the Apocalypse of Peter to be holy scripture. Eusebius, Historia Ecclesiae (VI.14.1)”, as well as many others.)

Fist off you aren’t talking about the Apocalypse of Peter but the Gnostic Apocalypse of Peter a different text from the 2nd century discovered with many other Ngostic texts at Nag Hamadi.

en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Gnostic_Apocalypse_of_Peter

No scholar think the apocalypse of peter was written by Peter, please understand that. You are quite misinformed on the subject.

As it is a Gnostic text, all it does is confirm that Islam was influenced by heretical forms of Christianity something I already knew. You can read it all here jacksonsnyder.com/sss/pages/Apocalypse%20of%20Peter%20Gnostic.htm

So are Gnostic texts the word of Allah now too ? is that what you are telling me? haha I have started to lose count of all these conflicting palgiarised texts you think are his word.

if so you must think all the Gnostic doctrines are correct then? I mean every single last one including those about the goddess Sophia “wisdom” and about Mary being in the trinity (which is why the Koran talks about Mary as if she’s in the trinity when Allah condemns it).

005.116
And when Allah saith: O Jesus, son of Mary! Didst thou say unto mankind: Take me and my mother for two gods beside Allah?

004.171
O People of the Book! Commit no excesses in your religion: Nor say of Allah aught but the truth. Christ Jesus the son of Mary was (no more than) a messenger of Allah, and His Word, which He bestowed on Mary, and a spirit proceeding from Him: so believe in Allah and His messengers. Say not “Trinity” : desist: it will be better for you: for Allah is one Allah: Glory be to Him: (far exalted is He) above having a son. To Him belong all things in the heavens and on earth. And enough is Allah as a Disposer of affairs.

(please not though Catholics pray for Mary’s intercession we have never considered her a Goddess or part of the trinity)

So all along these Gnostics were muslims? wow i cant believe i didnt know! lol i was right when i said Islam was a Christian heresy and all this does is back up my point . Thanks

 

[Christos]

No I didn’t ignore I just didn’t find it convincing. You said that if 1 word is changed then it corrupted and you claimed it was because people just wrote it down on the same parchment when they were memorizing it.

I don’t find such an answer at all convincing as it does not address the total disparity bettween contemporary Koran’s and this original text on the Sana Manuscripts and the later Korans. If this was the case the original would not be a re-ordered and altered text but the same text and it wouldn’t be on an actual copy of the koran. They were not all on single page manuscripts.

Your assertion that its just scribes re-using the paper is laughable and not convincing at all. If so much as 1 word is changed in the Koran it falls down as unlike the Bible Muslims believe it came out of thin air and was revealed word for word the same as it is now by god. You have no proof that it was just scribes re-using the paper and not an evolution of the text which Dr Puin believes but hes “prejudiced” isn’t he? What proof do you have he’s prejudiced? You have answered nothing.

The only thing that has been ignored her is My Original post which every single Muslim on here.

They are actually fragments and not a full Quran. I repeat not an actual full copy of the Quran, but fragments. They may not have been single page manuscripts, but are those the ones that are different? Do you have the proof for that? You have no proof that it wasnt. We are at a stalement then. Still you have ignored my comments on the Bible, still consisted in the posts 185-191. Only a small portion of 185 was relating to the Sana Manuscripts. Your original post has already been discussed many times, you are unwilling to agree with us, is that our fault?

 

[Christos]

If you accept them as the word of god then you will also have to accept the canonical gospels as most of them were written far earlier than these apocryphal gospels. If theya re the word of god then please tell me who wrote them? You always say nobody knows who originally wrote the canonical gospels. So who wrote these apocryphal gospels if they are the word of god. And if they are the word of god why in oen does jesus say when he speaks from the cradle that he is “the logos, the son of god” and in the kroan he says that he is a “prophet or messenger of allah”
That’s a bit of a contradiction if this was the previous word of god lol

Even many of the Books in the current Bible, are questioned as to who wrote them, them how can you ask me who wrote this or any of the Apocrypha. Once, again, we mention and i have shown proof in the posts that the Bible had gone through many corrections, and that too by different people, not just one. Who knows, which one added what into the Bible, and took out what from the Bible. (The Dead Sea Scrolls proove of the corrections made to the Bibles.)

No The Apocrypha has nothing to do with Jesus its the books written after the formulation of the jewish Canon around 3rd century BC (which martin Luther removed from the bible ) such as such as wisdom of Solomon, Sirach, 1st and 2nd Maccabees etc .He removed them form his bible and placed them in his translation of the bible as “The Apocrypha” meaning hidden in greek. It is these books you are referring to when you talk about The Apocrypha. (these books are still in the catholic bibles)

The NT Apocrypha on the other hand were various spurious, dubious, irrelevant and heretical texts which were never accepted by the church. As I have already said the canonical gospels are considered by most scholars to be the earliest. They were more than too interpolated to be fixed that’s utter garbage some of them were so late written even after the Nicene creed and anonymously like the gospel of Psuedo-Mathew.
Others like the gospels of James were early but considered to be Gnostic or heretical I think. It was not to do with interpellations many of them were just dubious in the 1st place. So dubious oral traditions are the word of god to now as well as hymns? Thanks for letting me know

Yes i believe many verses in the Apocrypha were heretical, that because it too had many verses added into. But they were changed too far to ever be reversed, where as the others were just a few here and there. That is why even in the 20th century interpolations were being removed from the Bible. Which for centuries before, those same verses were thought to be that from God. So, even now you cannot say that it is fool-proof, when there is still a chance of having interpolations. There were many versions of the Apocrypha, some much more heretical than the other. One found in 1886-1887, and another version found in 1910 was the Apocalypse of Peter, which is different from the Gnostic Apocalypse of Peter, which was obviously much more heretical. Further, this Apocalypse is dated to the end of the second century AD. This was not removed from the Canon in First Council of Nicea because it was not widespread at that time, so therfore how can you say it is part of the Bible many many years later.

 

[Christos]

Fist off you aren’t talking about the Apocalypse of Peter but the Gnostic Apocalypse of Peter a different text from the 2nd century discovered with many other Ngostic texts at Nag Hamadi.

en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Gnostic_Apocalypse_of_Peter

No scholar think the apocalypse of peter was written by Peter, please understand that. You are quite misinformed on the subject.

Just because it does not suit your liking it was ruled that it was not written by Peter. Further, I am talking about the Apocalypse of Peter and NOT that of the Gnostic Apocalypse of Peter. I clearly stated that in my post. Are you really reading them, or just skimming through?

en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Apocalypse_of_Peter

I’m finding this hilarious now, your telling me that im thinking of another, when i clearly told you that i am not.

 

[sedonaman]

**Deus, I have told you that the Quran is the real word of God while your bible is a writing by some unknown men who read the older scripture (BibleOT) and put their ideas about Jesus in their own words. Those were not the words of God. Those were the words of men. The bibleNT you have in English is not in the words of God. It is all a translated work, plagiarised from the older testament. So you should look after your own palgiarisation and leave quran alone.
**

Here we have a post by Christos, a Muslim:

The Quran was immediatly written down as the verses were being revealed. Muhammad ensured they were written correctly by having the scribe read back what they wrote, and he would verify if it was correct. Furthermore, it is most commonly assumed that the Quran was gathered together during Uthman’s time, much later then the Prophet. The Prophet had his own copy of the verses of the quran, but they were written on many different things. Therefore, immediately after the Prophets death, Abu Bakr, got a scribe to write these on a single item(rather than bark, paper, and so on.) Finally, he binded these together. This copy was passed to Umar, and later his daugher Hafsa. Uthman when he decided to unify the Quran in one dialect, he took this copy of the Quran from Hafsa, and got it duplicated to send to the other people.

So who wrote down the Qur’an ? Men! Who said it was “written correctly” ? A man! And he did it for his own self-aggrandizement. Why did the apostles write down the Gospels? It would have been much easier for them to forget the whole Jesus thing and not be martyrs.

The only way you can reconcile what you say is if you already believe Mohammed is Allah’s perfect messenger, which Christians reject most vehemently, along with the Qur’an as some sort of holy scripture. So you can abandon the arguments that he is and that the Qur’an is the word of God. It might be the word of Allah, but it is not the word of God. Period.

 

[planten]

Here we have a post by Christos, a Muslim:

So who wrote down the Qur’an ? Men! Who said it was “written correctly” ? A man! And he did it for his own self-aggrandizement. Why did the apostles write down the Gospels? It would have been much easier for them to forget the whole Jesus thing and not be martyrs.

**sedonaman, we do not deny that the Quran was written by men. But remember who dictated it. Thos emen did not write out of their own mind or memory. Those men wrote whatever was dictated to them. The Prophet of God received the words (revelation) and got it written down.

had Jesus done something similar, nobody would have raised any objection to the bible. But Jesus did not have his messages committed to writing. Can you see the difference between bible and Quran.

Did you want that Muhammad should have taken to grave himself whatever he received from Allah?? That would have been a grave mistake and disobedience of Allah. A prophet is supposed to teach and preach whatever guidance he receives from God. Muhammad did it in the best way.
**

The only way you can reconcile what you say is if you already believe Mohammed is Allah’s perfect messenger, which Christians reject most vehemently, along with the Qur’an as some sort of holy scripture. So you can abandon the arguments that he is and that the Qur’an is the word of God. It might be the word of Allah, but it is not the word of God. Period.

Believing in Muhammad is the same way as believing in Jesus or Moses or Abraham.