La ilaha illAllah - No God except Allah?

[Khalfan]

You think it is impossible to get the agreement of all the Evangelists from the Gospels, which is an assumption.

Primarily, the Evangelists agree that Jesus performed a miracle by allaying a storm. This is the major point of agreement. Secondarily, the Evangelists agree that Jesus’ disciples asked Him for help when they were scared and desperate. Consequently, it is irrational to presume that the Evangelists do not agree because one of them focuses on how fear caused Jesus’ disciples to rebuke Him for being asleep at the time of a crisis. This is a minor detail.

You cannot say that either one happened or the other is wrong, for it is possible and reasonable for humans to ask for help from someone and rebuke the same person at the same time.

Always you say the gospels are in agreement and then assume of a possibility of agreement. If the gospels are already in agreement, why do you still have to assume the possibility by saying, “it is possible and reasonable for humans…” ? You have to assume becasue the gospels are not in agreement in the case, how the disciples expressed their fear, by rebuke or prayer?

It is not a minor detail. It teaches a big lesson, if Jesus (a) was worshiped by his disciples. To know that we have to make sure the passeges mentioning such cases are not assumptions of the writers or of the people where the writers were getting their information.

I am all the more confused when I see that you do not understand the reason for my confusion.

What is that so-called “evolving story of Jesus”? Assumption!

If the gospels gives us enough supporting to assume that the story about Jesus (a) was evolving over time, why don’t assume so?

Sorry, but this is an irrational argument. Why do you think we have to know the exact word Jesus used??? How is it possible to know Jesus’ exact words if we take into consideration the fact that Jesus spoke two languages??? What will your next argument be? Will you say it is impossible to know the exact meaning of the word Jesus used without seeing His gestures and facial expressions?

You have to know atleast the translation of what he exactly said rather than assuming he could have called something that mean something like this or this. And if possible, its always better to go as deep as possible, trace his gestures and facial expressions while he was saying something. We know that Jesus (a) never said clearly that he is God or asked to worship him. Instead, he pointed to his God and our God. But still you claim that Jesus (a) mentioned his divinity in his sayings like ‘I am the way, truth and life’ or ‘I and my father are one’ or ‘neither doth any one know the Father, but the Son, and he to whom it shall please the Son to reveal him’ when you don’t know and YOU DON’T CARE to know what exactly Jesus (a) said.

 

[planten]

From Khalfan:

We know that Jesus (a) never said clearly that he is God or asked to worship him. Instead, he pointed to his God and our God. But still you claim that Jesus (a) mentioned his divinity in his sayings like ‘I am the way, truth and life’ or ‘I and my father are one’ or ‘neither doth any one know the Father, but the Son, and he to whom it shall please the Son to reveal him’ when you don’t know and YOU DON’T CARE to know what exactly Jesus (a) said.

**Quite True. Jesus never told any one to worship him. He said “I am the way, the truth and life”. that is perfect. He had every right to say that. At that time there was no one in that place appointed (sent) by God. It was only Jesus. So he was the way, the truth and the life. He used to talk in parables too.

“I and my father are one”. That is another good sentence. But christians take it wrongly. It only means that Jesus and God are together. God is with Jesus.

“Niether does any one know the father but the son…” in the same context, Jesus is teaching that there is no way to go to God except through him. But christians try to take literal meanings of words when it is not right to do that. Even if Jesus is saying that he is the son of God, it does not mean that he is the son of God. It is only symbolic, not real. It could be spiritual.

When no one checked the church about the son business, they started believing that Jesus was really the son of God (in real terms). Then later they were boldened enough to make Jesus the begotton son of God. Then later they felt that they were successful. So they stepped up their efforts to say that Jesus was the ONLY begotten son of God.

Hell. What is all that?

Already they had one leg on the Unity stand and the other on the Trinity. They had believed in Trinity. But due to the pressure and onslought from Islam and Judaism, they had to come back (halfway) to the Unity of God.**

 

[Angelos]

Always you say the gospels are in agreement and then assume of a possibility of agreement. If the gospels are already in agreement, why do you still have to assume the possibility by saying, “it is possible and reasonable for humans…” ? You have to assume becasue the gospels are not in agreement in the case, how the disciples expressed their fear, by rebuke or prayer?

It is not true that I assume the possibility of agreement with regard to the Gospels. I am only referring to reasonable examples from our secular world to refute your assumptions. When I use the sentence “It is possible and reasonable for humans …”, I underline the fact (something everyone knows well) that a human sometimes asks for help from another human with a reprimanding tone due to his/her emotions (fear and panic) at the same time. You cannot deny this fact.

It is not a minor detail. It teaches a big lesson, if Jesus (a) was worshiped by his disciples. To know that we have to make sure the passeges mentioning such cases are not assumptions of the writers or of the people where the writers were getting their information.

Sorry, but this makes no sense to me. In both cases Jesus’ disciples believe that He has power to save them from death, which is the primary message.

Besides, the fact that Jesus’ disciples doubted about Him or reproved Him for being asleep at the time of a storm has no impact on Christ’s divinity. This is because Jesus is essentially divine, His divine personality not being dependent on the faith or reaction of His disciples. There are many Muslims who get angry with God and call Him to action with harsh statements in their prayers. Does this mean God will cease to be the God of Muslims or that Muslims do not really worship Him?

If the gospels gives us enough supporting to assume that the story about Jesus (a) was evolving over time, why don’t assume so?

No such assumption can be derived from the Gospels though! What makes you approach the Gospels with doubts and several presumptions is your disbelief in their authenticity, which is based on your faith in the Koran.

You have to know atleast the translation of what he exactly said rather than assuming he could have called something that mean something like this or this. And if possible, its always better to go as deep as possible, trace his gestures and facial expressions while he was saying something. We know that Jesus (a) never said clearly that he is God or asked to worship him. Instead, he pointed to his God and our God. But still you claim that Jesus (a) mentioned his divinity in his sayings like ‘I am the way, truth and life’ or ‘I and my father are one’ or ‘neither doth any one know the Father, but the Son, and he to whom it shall please the Son to reveal him’ when you don’t know and YOU DON’T CARE to know what exactly Jesus (a) said.

You have misunderstood my post a third time in a row. I have never said “Jesus could have referred to a notion”. We know perfectly well Jesus taught His disciples that He was the Lord/Master/Ruler/King of the world. I am not interested in the exact word Jesus uttered at that time or the exact pronunciation of that word as long as I know what He meant.

How can you expect us to go as deep as possible to reach Jesus’ gestures and facial expressions? This is an absurd expectation condemned to disappoinment.

Again you are impetuously trying to teach Jesus what to say and how to say! Sorry, Jesus is not at your disposal to deliver His message in the way you want Him to do for your personal satisfaction.

Why do you think Jesus said no one could know the Father but Himself (the Son)?? Why do you think Jesus said “Before Abraham was born, I am”? Why do you think Jesus said “The Father and I are ONE”??? Do you know what Jesus clearly meant with all these statements? How?

You don’t know what you are talking about because you are obssessed with the Christian tenet of Jesus’ divinity, and I don’t care about your presumptions. However, I am still waiting for you to answer the questions I posed in my previous post. Both the one related to your assertion that many things about Jesus are missing from the Gospels and the ones related to the textual variations in the Koran. Please inform me of the exact instructions God gave to Moses’ mother.

Thanks.

 

[Angelos]

**Quite True. Jesus never told any one to worship him. He said “I am the way, the truth and life”. that is perfect. He had every right to say that. At that time there was no one in that place appointed (sent) by God. It was only Jesus. So he was the way, the truth and the life. He used to talk in parables too.

“I and my father are one”. That is another good sentence. But christians take it wrongly. It only means that Jesus and God are together. God is with Jesus.

“Niether does any one know the father but the son…” in the same context, Jesus is teaching that there is no way to go to God except through him. But christians try to take literal meanings of words when it is not right to do that. Even if Jesus is saying that he is the son of God, it does not mean that he is the son of God. It is only symbolic, not real. It could be spiritual.

When no one checked the church about the son business, they started believing that Jesus was really the son of God (in real terms). Then later they were boldened enough to make Jesus the begotton son of God. Then later they felt that they were successful. So they stepped up their efforts to say that Jesus was the ONLY begotten son of God.

Hell. What is all that?

Already they had one leg on the Unity stand and the other on the Trinity. They had believed in Trinity. But due to the pressure and onslought from Islam and Judaism, they had to come back (halfway) to the Unity of God.**

Maybe you could answer my questions about the textual variations in your scripture. Waiting for an answer

 

[cathopologist]

**They should not forbid you to believe in One God. If you say you believe in One God only, that is your faith. You should be permitted to register as such. Nobody should stop you.

And that applies to name of Allah. There is no harm if any one wants to call God as Allah, it should be alright. But I believe there are many misled Mullas in various countries and they do such wild bad things.**.

Try telling that to Muslim government officials, in a country dominated by Muslims. Its not just the mulla’s, its the Malaysian government that feels that way. Do you know how many Muslim converts to Christianity have tried changing their identity cards to be recognized as Christians but to no avail? I think its a desperation to let the world think that Islam is the world’s fastest growing religion, when it’s clearly not the case.

 

[planten]

Try telling that to Muslim government officials, in a country dominated by Muslims. Its not just the mulla’s, its the Malaysian government that feels that way. Do you know how many Muslim converts to Christianity have tried changing their identity cards to be recognized as Christians but to no avail? I think its a desperation to let the world think that Islam is the world’s fastest growing religion, when it’s clearly not the case.

**They are foolish. They won’t listen to me at all and may punish me too. But how long they can stop people from chosing their faith. A mUslim is a Muslim who wants to be a Muslim. A christian is a christian who wants to be a Christian. That is the fact. Those bad laws won’t help any one. That will damage the cause of the Malayasion government. That is not Islamic law. It is the Malayan law. **

 

[SFC]

1 - God that Moses spoke to, loved the Jews. But the being that muhammad met in the dark Hira cave can’t wait to kill the jews and christians.

Bible – Isai 54:8 8 In a surge of anger I hid My face from you for a moment,
but I will have compassion on you with everlasting love,"says the Lord your Redeemer.

Qur’an – Sur 5:51 “Believers, take not Jews and Christians for your friends.” Hadith : The Hour [Resurrection] will not take place until the Muslims fight the Jews and kill them. And the Jews will hide behind the rock and tree, and the rock and tree will say: oh Muslim, oh servant of Allah, this is a Jew behind me, come and kill him!

1. The Jewish God strictly forbids His people from taking blood, and blood taking is an abomination! But Allah praises even blood-sucking insects, like mosquitoes!

Bible - Ge 9:4 - But flesh with the life thereof, which is the blood thereof, shall ye not eat.

Quran - Sur 2:26 - Allah does not shy away from citing any kind of allegory,* from the tiny mosquito and greater. As for those who believe, they know that it is the truth from their Lord.

1. The Jewish God appeared personally to Moses in a burning bush during the day and descended as a dove on Christ in full view of the public. But Allah’s ‘gabriel’ appeared in the dark in the Hira cave alone (without witnesses) with Muhammad who later freaked out in pain (according to hadiths and an admission by Muhammad’s own foster mother).

Bible - Ex 3:2 - And the angel of the LORD appeared unto him in a flame of fire out of the midst of a bush: and he looked, and, behold, the bush burned with fire, and the bush was not consumed.
Wikipedia - Hira or the Cave of Hira is the location where Muhammad, according to Islam, received his first revelations from Allah (God).

Very clearly then, the being that met muhammad in the dark Hira cave was NOT the same as the one that Moses saw at the burning bush. Plus of course, the quran recorded not a single miracle by muhammad nor prophesy unique to islam. In other words, allah unlike the God that met Moses was unable to perform any great works. If muhammad was the greatest prophet greater than even Moses or Enoch why was he inferior in miraculous power to them? Why was Moses buried by God, Enoch brought up to the heavens by God, Jesus resurrected, but Muhammad still rotting in Mecca?

Sorry for the bluntness, but these are facts. So, even if allah literally means god, nobody should say “there is no god but allah” cos that is the same as saying “there is no fish but fish”, cos that is oxymoronic. Now if allah is a NAME, then we ought to ask, why did God refuse to tell Moses His name when Moses asked? But God instead replied with “I am”. None of the prophets in the bible knew God by name cos God never gave His namecard.

Now, if a criminal comes up to you and say “hey, here’s God’s namecard, take it and worship”. What would you say? Let’s not be deceived.

Nice! After reading countless posts here is someone that stopped for a minute and said: God and Allah the same? Really?
You know how you easily know that Allah is not God?, put Jesus in the equation.

 

[Analyzer]

This sounds like another assumption, but anyway

First, I should remind you that none of the Gospels was written as Jesus’ biography. You assert that there is limited information about Jesus’ life and teachings in the New Testament primarily because you mistakenly regard the Gospels as books written to relate Jesus’ whole life story.

**As far Gospel attributed to St. Matthew:

“the place where the gospel attributed to Matthew] was composed, a plausible suggestion is that it was Antioch, the capital of the Roman province of Syria. That large and important city had a mixed population of Greek-speaking Gentiles and Jews.” – NAB **

 

[Analyzer]

For Saul/Paul, “[T]hough an idol be nothing, yet things offered up to idols are not to be eaten, for fear of scandal.” —DR Bible.

In 1 Cor.8 he says:

“4- But as for the meats that are sacrificed to idols, we know that an idol is nothing in the world, and that there is no God but one.
5- For although there be that are called gods, either in heaven or on earth (for there be gods many, and lords many).” –DR Bible

It would be intersting to know what would be the underlined sentences in Arabic?​

 

[Analyzer]

If Allah is the Arabic word for God, how does this phrase “La ilaha illAllah” make sense? ilaha means God in arabic, why don’t Muslims say La ilaha ill ilaha?

**You are actually mistranslating the Arabic phrase which is also found in the Holy Quran in Surah 37: 35 and Surah 47: 19.

ilaah = god
Allaah = The God**

But in order to understand in Biblical terms, read Arabic and English translation of 1 Corinthians 8: 3-5, because there too the words ‘god’ and ‘God’ are used:

**

​

ولكن ان كان احد يحب الله **فهذا معروف عنده.

فمن جهة اكل ما ذبح للاوثان نعلم ان ليس وثن في العالم وان ليس اله آخر الا واحدا.

لانه وان وجد ما يسمى آلهة سواء كان في السماء او على الارض كما يوجد آلهة كثيرون وارباب كثيرون

The above is Arabic Translation (from a Bible) of 1Corinthians 8:3-5:

3 But if one loves God, one is known by him.
4 So about the eating of meat sacrificed to idols: we know that “there is no idol in the world,” and that “there is no God but one.”
5 Indeed, even though there are so-called gods in heaven and on earth (there are, to be sure, many “gods” and many “lords”),

arabicbible.com/bible/nt/1cor/8.html

Now lets see Surah 47:19 :

فَاعْلَمْ أَنَّهُ لا إِلَهَ الا اللَّهُ وَاسْتَغْفِرْ لِذَنبِكَ وَلِلْمُؤْمِنِينَ وَالْمُؤْمِنَاتِ وَاللَّهُ يَعْلَمُ مُتَقَلَّبَكُمْ وَمَثْوَاكُمْ

47:19 Know, therefore, that there is no god but Allah, and ask forgiveness for thy fault, and for the men and women who believe: for Allah knows how ye move about and how ye dwell in your homes.

Did you see any difference in your Bible and in the Quran , in the Arabic words for:

- god ( اله )

and

-God ( الله )

No difference, right? So what is your objection?​

 

[inJESUS]

Come on inJESUS, lets do it in the spirit of learning each other. I always thought you are better than anyone in the forum and knows many things about Islam. But disappointing.

oh believe me, i learn and i learn but i have to see yet one Muslim *learning *what the gospels are about.

Muslims come here with what they “think” are problems in the Bible, and they get frustrated why we do not even see them in the same way…that’s because Muslims want to teach us what our scriptures are or are not, and that’s because Muslims want to project on our scriptures what they believe about their scriptures.

Yet all Muslims forget that, unlike what the quran says, we are noy people of the book, we are not slaves to letters, and we do not deify a book like Muslims do…so basically you are not really interested in what exactly Jesus said because you will still reject it, whether about His divinity or crucifixion or anything that Muhammad did not like.

So in order to save you the energy and time, you must know that in order to refute our understanding , you must refute the tradition first, and then the Bible…and by tradition i mean, you must refute the understanding of the disciples’ of Jesus’ apostles…do not forget that we have a tradition, a church established by Jesus, and not a book.

meanwhile you can explain to us why one single all-knowing author will repeat the same passage changing his words?

 

[planten]

Nice! After reading countless posts here is someone that stopped for a minute and said: God and Allah the same? Really?
You know how you easily know that Allah is not God?, put Jesus in the equation.

Yes fight and trample on the name of God just like the Jehovas Witnesses do. What an idea and prejudice.

 

[Analyzer]

So in order to save you the energy and time, you must know that in order to refute our understanding , you must refute the tradition first, and then the Bible…and by tradition i mean, you must refute the understanding of the disciples’ of Jesus’ apostles…do not forget that we have a tradition, a church established by Jesus, and not a book.

**First of all St. Mark and St. Luke.were not apostles.

As far the author of NT’s first Gospel attributed to a certain saint named ‘Matthew’ is actually unknown even to your NAB’s commentators:

"The unknown author**, whom we shall continue to call Matthew for the sake of convenience, drew not only upon the Gospel according to Mark but upon a large body of material (principally, sayings of Jesus) not found in Mark that corresponds, sometimes exactly, to material found also in the Gospel according to Luke.

“This material, called “Q” (probably from the first letter of the German word Quelle, meaning “source”), represents traditions, written and oral, used by both Matthew and Luke. Mark and Q are sources common to the two other synoptic gospels; hence the name the “Two-Source Theory” given to this explanation of the relation among the synoptics.”

“In addition to what Matthew drew from Mark and Q, his gospel contains material that is found only there. This is often designated “M,” written or oral tradition that was available to the author. Since Mark was written shortly before or shortly after A.D. 70 (see Introduction to Mark), Matthew was composed certainly after that date, which marks the fall of Jerusalem to the Romans at the time of the First Jewish Revolt (A.D. 66-70), and probably at least a decade later since Matthew’s use of Mark presupposes a wide diffusion of that gospel. The post-A.D. 70 date is confirmed within the text by Matthew 22:7, which refers to the destruction of Jerusalem.”

So author of Matthew too cannot be Jesus’ disciple. Now left non-synoptic John’s gospel:

“[The Gospel according to John] does not follow the same order or reproduce the same stories as the synoptic gospels. To a much greater degree, it is the product of a developed theological reflection and grows out of a different circle and tradition. It was probably written in the 90s of the first century.”

usccb.org/nab/bible/index.htm#matthew

All these statements are of your Bible’s commentators. From this none of your “cononized” gospels were wrtitten by Apostles of Jesus.

Now by whom was the first list of the books of the Catholic Bible drawn up?
By Pope Damasus, at the Roman Council of 382 A.D. In the fourth century.​

 

[planten]

Originally Posted by inJESUS
So in order to save you the energy and time, you must know that in order to refute our understanding , you must refute the tradition first, and then the Bible…and by tradition i mean, you must refute the understanding of the disciples’ of Jesus’ apostles…do not forget that we have a tradition, a church established by Jesus, and not a book

.

That is interesting news. Now the christians are going to the church and disowning the book. It proves that Jesus had nothing to do with any book.

 

[Angelos]

**As far Gospel attributed to St. Matthew:

“the place where the gospel attributed to Matthew] was composed, a plausible suggestion is that it was Antioch, the capital of the Roman province of Syria. That large and important city had a mixed population of Greek-speaking Gentiles and Jews.” – NAB **

Multiple face Muslim poster (maybe I should call you half Jewish because of the nick Aaronjo), I hope one day you will learn to make a point by whatever you write. The things you copy and paste from some sites (these are all modern assumptions btw!) can prove nothing. This reference about the probable place of the Gospel’s composition has nothing to do with the authenticity of the written text.

I should also remind you that Mohammad’s scribes started to fabricate the Islamic scripture in Mecca, the center of Arabic paganism. LOL

 

[Angelos]

For Saul/Paul, “[T]hough an idol be nothing, yet things offered up to idols are not to be eaten, for fear of scandal.” —DR Bible.

In 1 Cor.8 he says:

“4- But as for the meats that are sacrificed to idols, we know that an idol is nothing in the world, and that there is no God but one.
5- For although there be that are called gods, either in heaven or on earth (for there be gods many, and lords many).” –DR Bible

It would be intersting to know what would be the underlined sentences in Arabic?​

It is also interesting to know that the authors of the Koran deny the true existence of pagan godS although Allah supposedly asks Muslims not to revile those non-existing idols for the fear that the idolaters can revile Him in return:

Surah 6:108
Revile not those unto whom they pray beside Allah lest they wrongfully revile Allah through ignorance.

According to the Koran, Allah is one of the many gods:

Surah 2:163
Your God is One God; there is no God save Him, the Beneficent, the Merciful.

The Arabic original of this verse strikingly replaces the word ALLAH with ILAH!

More, the Koran contends that there are several Creators (!), the BEST of which is Allah:

Surah 23:14
Then We made the seed a clot, then We made the clot a lump of flesh, then We made (in) the lump of flesh bones, then We clothed the bones with flesh, then We caused it to grow into another creation, so blessed be Allah, the best of the creators.

 

[Angelos]

**First of all St. Mark and St. Luke.were not apostles.

As far the author of NT’s first Gospel attributed to a certain saint named ‘Matthew’ is actually unknown even to your NAB’s commentators:

"The unknown author**, whom we shall continue to call Matthew for the sake of convenience, drew not only upon the Gospel according to Mark but upon a large body of material (principally, sayings of Jesus) not found in Mark that corresponds, sometimes exactly, to material found also in the Gospel according to Luke.

“This material, called “Q” (probably from the first letter of the German word Quelle, meaning “source”), represents traditions, written and oral, used by both Matthew and Luke. Mark and Q are sources common to the two other synoptic gospels; hence the name the “Two-Source Theory” given to this explanation of the relation among the synoptics.”

“In addition to what Matthew drew from Mark and Q, his gospel contains material that is found only there. This is often designated “M,” written or oral tradition that was available to the author. Since Mark was written shortly before or shortly after A.D. 70 (see Introduction to Mark), Matthew was composed certainly after that date, which marks the fall of Jerusalem to the Romans at the time of the First Jewish Revolt (A.D. 66-70), and probably at least a decade later since Matthew’s use of Mark presupposes a wide diffusion of that gospel. The post-A.D. 70 date is confirmed within the text by Matthew 22:7, which refers to the destruction of Jerusalem.”

So author of Matthew too cannot be Jesus’ disciple. Now left non-synoptic John’s gospel:

“[The Gospel according to John] does not follow the same order or reproduce the same stories as the synoptic gospels. To a much greater degree, it is the product of a developed theological reflection and grows out of a different circle and tradition. It was probably written in the 90s of the first century.”

usccb.org/nab/bible/index.htm#matthew

All these statements are of your Bible’s commentators. From this none of your “cononized” gospels were wrtitten by Apostles of Jesus.

Now by whom was the first list of the books of the Catholic Bible drawn up?
By Pope Damasus, at the Roman Council of 382 A.D. In the fourth century.​

Again these commentaries, which are presumptions, do not prove anything. You are wasting your precious time by copying and pasting these “comments” although they never support the stupid Islamic theory that a book named Injeel had been revealed to Jesus.

 

[SFC]

.

That is interesting news. Now the christians are going to the church and disowning the book. It proves that Jesus had nothing to do with any book.

From the Catechism of the RCC

841 The Church’s relationship with the Muslims. "The plan of salvation also includes those who acknowledge the Creator, in the first place amongst whom are the Muslims; these profess to hold the faith of Abraham, and together with us they adore the one, merciful God, mankind’s judge on the last day."330

Neither i share this belief nor the attitude of the Church towards the Word of God. You wish the Bible be disowned, because it stand witness of the Truth. But do not worry Planten there is a time coming were having a Bible will be prohibited. Then your claim that THE GREAT I AM and Allah are the same is going to be more viable.

 

[SFC]

From the Catechism

839 "Those who have not yet received the Gospel are related to the People of God in various ways."325

The relationship of the Church with the Jewish People. When she delves into her own mystery, the Church, the People of God in the New Covenant, discovers her link with the Jewish People,326 "the first to hear the Word of God."327 The Jewish faith, unlike other non-Christian religions, is already a response to God’s revelation in the Old Covenant. To the Jews “belong the sonship, the glory, the covenants, the giving of the law, the worship, and the promises; to them belong the patriarchs, and of their race, according to the flesh, is the Christ”,328 "for the gifts and the call of God are irrevocable."329

This is more like it! I cannot stop reading it. It is great.

 

[planten]

From the Catechism of the RCC

841 The Church’s relationship with the Muslims. "The plan of salvation also includes those who acknowledge the Creator, in the first place amongst whom are the Muslims; these profess to hold the faith of Abraham, and together with us they adore the one, merciful God, mankind’s judge on the last day."330

Neither i share this belief nor the attitude of the Church towards the Word of God. You wish the Bible be disowned, because it stand witness of the Truth. But do not worry Planten there is a time coming were having a Bible will be prohibited. Then your claim that THE GREAT I AM and Allah are the same is going to be more viable.

I could not understand you fully well. But I was surprised at angelos that he was saying that no book was revealed to Jesus. I could not believe that. That is denial of the bible new testament. Please see the post of angelos again here:

From angelos: Again these commentaries, which are presumptions, do not prove anything. You are wasting your precious time by copying and pasting these “comments” although they never support the stupid Islamic theory that a book named Injeel had been revealed to Jesus.

---