Muslims: How could the Trinity NOT work?!

[inJESUS]

My dear friend, that is what I said, that the one that came, is not the same as that what it came from. If there is no source, there won’t be any outcome. The outcome is dependent of the source but the source is not dependent of the outcome which makes them separate, deferent and distinct from one another. Isn’t that clear? I hope so.

strange, you understand the idea yet you keep asking how can they be equal yet distinct?

Here, i inserted words in your paragraph.

My dear friend, that is what I said, that the one that came(Jesus), is not the same as that what it came from(Father). If there is no source(Father), there won’t be any outcome(Jesus). The outcome(Jesus) is dependent of the source(Father) but the source(Father) is not dependent of the outcome (Jesus)which makes them separate, deferent and distinct from one another. Isn’t that clear? I hope so

Result, Jesus and the Father are indeed distinct.

The remaining question is : are they equal?

It was already established that the Word of the Father, though distinct from Him in function (source, outcome), is equal to Him in nature (uncreated, eternal, divine).

Final result : Jesus is distinct from the Father but is equal to Him.

Quote:
simply because Wisdom comes from the Father. Am not talking about power here. Am saying Wisdom comes from the Father and it is not the Father in function but in nature.

You have to decide, whether the parts of God (the wisdom part and the spirit part) had its own individual personality with its own mind/wisdom to think or they were puppets of the head/Father.

you contradicted yourself. You just agreed in the previous passage that God is the source of His Word/Wisdom. What do puppets have to do here? what the Wisdom of God does is what God does unless God’s Wisdom is different than God. What the Spirit of God does is what God does. The Father, His Word and Spirit are inseperable because they are the same One God.

.

 

[inJESUS]

It is very simple. Here is the above mentioned question.

Have the wisdom of Man in Jesus (pbuh) had the access to the wisdom of God in Jesus? Just like the ability to find answer in the Wisdom of God for the questions that pops up in the wisdom of man. Have he had that ability?

If the answer is YES,

Why Jesus (pbuh) was making unnecessary prayers in private while he could find answer in his own wisdom of God? Why he was making ignorant statements in public?

If the answer is NO,

You are failing to prove Jesus (pbuh) was the wisdom of God and the divinity in Jesus (pbuh) becomes nothing but a lie.

Jesus had human wisdom and divine wisdom. Again, how can God have both? rather, can’t God have both?

Let’s think. God is soooo knowlegeable, sooo intelligent, sooo powerful. His Mind is limitless. His Knowledge is unmatcheable. His Wisdom is overwhelming. What are we in comparison? we who fail to understand ourselves, we who fail to understand material things next to us. Whatare we in comparision? what is our wisdom in comparsion to His? what is our mind in comparision to His? nothing. Can you imagine what could happen if the described above God wants to communicate with us using His Wisdom? catastrophe. It’s like a philosopher talking philosophy to a 3 year-old child even much worse…it’s like a scientist talking to a donkey. So how does God approach us?
the answer is : using our own thoughts, wisdom and mind otherwise we won’t understand a word.He uses our language, He uses our words, He uses our expressions, He uses our imagery, He uses what we can understand as humans. He lives, watches, and understands our limited thoughts and knowledge. He, in His nature, has His own Wisdom but deals with us using our own limitation and capacity. In other words, He combines both for our sake: His Divine Wisdom with our human wisdom. He knows when to use His Divine Wisdom and when to use our wisdom. He knows what we should know and what we should not know. He knows what we can understand and what we cannot. He knows what to reveal and what to hide using His Wisdom and our. Having our wisdom is His Divine Wisdom is God’s power.

If God (Jesus) himself was supposed teach against the law that he only taught in Ezekiel, God is contradicting himself.

do you know anything in the OT other than one sentence in Ezekiel? if you are refering to atonement, i already said it is related to the Levitical Law, not a sentence in Ezekiel.

Another problem is, where did Jesus (pbuh) say he was come to die for the sins of the mankind?

here’s an example:

" this is my blood of the covenant, which will be shed on behalf of many for the forgiveness of sins." Matthew 28

If he was indeed came to give his life for the sins of the mankind, why would he pray to be saved from it (which is again, God contradicting himself)?

again, why did He cry when He saw Eliazar dead knowing He will resurrect Him in a minute? because He reacted to sad events and good events with laughter or tears as a human being. He was not sensless. He was full of feeling for humanity. Did you expect Him to be so joyful, all laughing and happy about the horrible suffering He’ll go through as if He had no feelings? He was very anxious and sad even though He knew He will raise Himself. He knew very well He WILL be crucified, resurrected and come back again to judge. He was showing his anxiety amid His knowledge of victory. If God knows a horrible accident will happen to me tomorrow but that i will survive, does it mean He will not feel for what is going to happen? knowlege does not negate feelings.

Do you believe Jesus (pbhu) prayed to be saved from the cross? Now, I don’t think that prayer will insult your intelligence or God’s character.

1-am still waiting for an answer. Who was it?

2- All the previous prophets who were killed, none of them prayed for salvation right?none of them cried God help me right? yet God gave a blind ear right?

3- Jesus knew that He will be raised. He, as a true human, was showing His anxiety of what will come, knowing He WILL be crucified and that He WILL be raised. Jesus gave His life voluntarily but this does NOT mean He was sensless to suffering.You read half of the sentence all the time.

Of course you do believe God cried, laughed, ate, felt sad, wept, felt happy, tempted of evil,

why, do you believe Allah is sensless? Allah does not feel angry? does not feel sad? does not feel happy?does not feel love? doesnt your sunna say we are created in his image? we, the creature, have more feelings than Allah? what kind of deity you believe in?

repented, rested from work,

yes but Allah has hands and feet and chin, ascends his thrown and descends to earth at night , hears and listens and sees and prays the Quran before creation are ok? ah these are not to be taken literally but when it comes to the Bible, they should be taken literally because it “must” be wrong and corrupt. Ok got it.

Is Allah scandalized by humanity yet says we are created in his image and in the best mould? and swears by trees and the sun and the moon and angels and created things? is Allah scadalized by humanity yet talks to humans using human language, words, and expressions? He cant be scandalized yet swear by created things and use human expressions, can he?

broke promises,

that was Allah and Muhammad with their treaties, as far as i know.

confused people,

like on the cross ?

begotten children,

as Muhammad misunderstood it, asking how can He have a son without a wife?

contradicted himself,

you mean abrogated his laws every now and then to suit Muhammad’s ambitions? because the Bible talks about 2 different covenants extended throughout thousands of years when Allah abrogates most of his laws withing 23 years. I really fail to catch your argument.

killed his own son (killed himself in fact) for the sake of entire criminals,

naaa killed many prophets for the sake of entire criminals. Why bother in the first place with all these tortured and killed prophets.

was jealous, deceive so on and on…

Allah is the best deceiver. Isnt this in your book?

Sometimes you write good things, at other times you remind me of classical islamic arguments that betray a very shallow theology.Why is that?

If you say, this is nature of God, I am sorry to say but, you are far far away from your God my dear.

my God is a Father.If you believe Allah is senseless, does not love or feel sad or feel happy, if you believe he is sick with anything related to humans, then please do not say you believe in the God of previous prophets because previous prophets taught He is a Father who cares, loves, feel sad, feel happy ecc.

You are saying he was quoting psalms, because there are some similar words in Psalms, right? Neither Jesus (pbuh) nor the gospel reporter said that he was quoting Psalms.

maybe they expected the readers to be a bit knowledgeable about the Psalm? or maybe Jesus should have said : hey am quoting the Psalm. Shouldn’t Muhammad have said he was quoting Paul ? yet knowlegeable people know the quotations.

The NT is FULL of OT quotes. You don’t expect the authors to put into ( ) that it is a quote right? knowledgeable people know best.

 

[inJESUS]

We never say, Quran have its own wisdom/mind to think. What is revealed in Quran is part of Allah’s wisdom, a quality with God.

1-the Quran is not a human so obviously it has no mind.Since it is a book it has papers and ink.

2- the Islamic teaching is that the Quran is the eternal, uncreated, speach/mind of Allah. I don’t think Sunnis break God’s mind into parts unless you can show me otherwise.

But when you say, that quality of God (word in flesh) had its own wisdom/mind to think, you are talking about a different personality. They are not one in nature either, since one is the source and the other is the outcome.

1- source and outcome= same nature because both are uncreated and eternal

2- the Word, again, took a human form. A human wisdom does not negate a divine wisdom unless God cannot do it.

Do we really do that? NO. When we say Quran is the word of God, we don’t mean word of God is only Quran. It just like saying, fire is light but light is not only fire. Honey is sweet but sweet is not only honey. Quran is the Word/wisdom of God but wisdom of God is not only Quran. But you say wisdom of God alone came on earth.

didnt the eternal enter the realm of time and space in a material form? half or full is irrelevant.

How can you make such a question, when you read ‘nothing in heaven or earth can contain God’ in the Bible and still believe a man contained God? My dear, you cannot make your own cake and also eat it.

who on earth said a man contained God? He is God before taking a human body.He incarnated into virgin Mary. You still did not understand this after thousands of posts?

And Jesus (pbuh) said, he cannot do anything his own, unless he is empowered by Father.

because the Father is the source? because the Father sends His Word and not the other way round? how many times should i repeat this very simple idea?

Jesus can do whatever the Father can do. Is that not omnipotence? Jesus can give power to His followers, wherever they are, to do miracles. Is that not omnipotence when only God can empower people everywhere at the same time? Jesus gives wisdom to all at the same time, Isn’t this omnipotence? Jesus gives peace the world cannot give, isn’t this omnipotence? Jesus knows what people in a different city are talking about, or what they are thinking within themselves, isn’t this omnipotencw?Jesus can raise Himself, isn’t this omnipotence? Jesus can be with different people at the same time, isnt this omnipotence? or are all corrupt as usual? i hope you are not refering to the fig tree again cuz a kid of 10 years in Palestine or Lebanon knows the season of figs…lets not be joking and i already explained what it means in context and with OT references.

these are corrupt right?

If you say God can see and we too can see, that doesn’t give you the right to draw an eye of God.

and if Jesus is not God, He has no right to say what i wrote in the above quotation unless you understand who Jesus is better than Jesus. No human, no prophet, can say he gives wisdom, or power, or peace to all people, at all times, everywhere.

Where did you explain the question of fig tree?

i explained twice in previous posts.

 

[inJESUS]

It is relevant my dear. It is the only relevant point. As far as you say, the wisdom of God in flesh is complete and had its own individual wisdom/mind to think. Both are not applicable to Quran. So stop equalizing Quran and word of God in flesh.

you understood nothing so far. I am NOT making a full comparison between a book and a human being. Am a bit more intelligent than that am quote the Sunni teaching to show that in islam the word of Allah is uncreated and eternal. Since only Allah is uncreated and eternal, it means that His word is not another Allah (monotheism) but is the nature of Allah though distinct. Exactly the Christian teaching.

Quote:
thats what sunni believe in too

“And know that the phrase ‘Kalām Allah’ (Allah’s Word) is applied to the beginningless unuttered speech (kalām nafsī qadīm), which happens to be a quality (sifah) present with His being (dhat) – High is He.

And know that in the beginning was the Word (beginingless unuttered speach) , and the Word was with God (which happens to be present with His being) and the Word is God ( his dhat- quality).

= pure monotheism

did you understand this or not?

As soon as you claim, that word, the complete wisdom of God came in flesh with its own separate individual mind to think, that becomes a being with Godly power but not God.

what? godly power but not God? oh my. How can the Wisdom of God be not God if it took a human form pray tell? pray tell why would God stop being God if He took a human form. Pray tell why God cannot take a human form and stay God?

It can think its own and God too can think its own. I think the Holy Spirit too has its own wisdom and it too can think its own. That makes them three beings with their own thoughts and will. Two of them are the assistants in certain functions of the head. Do God need those assistance to fulfill his functions?

assistance? does God need His Wisdom to assist Him? does He need His Spirit to assist Him? it’s His NATURE! not his assistance. These are not secretaries you know.

 

[famdigy]

you guys are still flogging a dead horse, Its obvious we don’t see eye to eye on the true religion so why don’t we leave it at that. To each his own and every person is responsible to being true to their religion

 

[inJESUS]

you guys are still flogging a dead horse, Its obvious we don’t see eye to eye on the true religion so why don’t we leave it at that. To each his own and every person is responsible to being true to their religion

it is not about convincing anyone about anything. It is simply explaining the True Trinity concept, not the wrong one found in the Quran. In other words, no Muslim has to believe in anything but a Muslim cannot explain to us the Trinity based on what Muhammad thought it means.

 

[inJESUS]

You cleverly ignored the question.

Do the Son and Holy Spirit have their own mind to think, or are they just puppets of the Father God?

you were given the answer. If not clear yet, here we go:

God is a single “actor,” with a single will. Everything God does is an act of the entire Trinity, acting as one, not as a committee.

In other words, it is not that the Father does one thing and His Wisdom and Spirit do another. The Trinity does exactly the same thing because the Trinity is ONE SINGLE GOD.

Do NOT mix the incarnation of Jesus with the Trinity .Do NOT mix Jesus’ 2 natures with the Trinity. The Trinity exists before the incarnation of Jesus as a man.

 

[Keikiolu]

Actually, once again, you’re wrong. (I don’t say that much, it is kinda fun!)

Do it more. Just be sure you’re conversation partner is in fact wrong when you say it.

It’s also a relatively good “cure” for being a weenie-backsided squishy brained worm. Not that you’re necessarily that,… just that it IS a good way to get out of the habit of being that paritcular critter.

Quote:
Originally Posted by Keikiolu forums.catholic-questions.org/images/buttons_cad/viewpost.gif
No. The Holy Trinity is a reality, not an explanation.

The “thing” described by the trinity doctrine is real, the trinity doctrine is an attempt to pull together scripture to support, solidify and explain a particular perspective on that reality.

I made no mention of “scriptural support” for the Holy Trinity. THE HOLY TRINITY is not the “support” for THE HOLY TRINITY.

It is THE HOLY TRINITY, which IS the thing, not the description, of God.

You are free to believe that “the reality of the trinity” could, possibly, be described as “the holy duodecaty” if you like, via whatever “support” from scripture as interpreted by, oh I don’t know, yourself perhaps.

But as a Catholic, the Holy Trinity is the reality, not a description OF that reality.

Is God one or many? You will say God (the trinity) is one. Appending the concept of trinity is simply a way to explain (while keeping intact God’s unity) how God can exhibit different characteristics. The characteristic is not God. God is manifold-panentheistic arguments hold a certain amount of sway with me.
The trinity doctrine is a convenient construct and interpretation/explanation of your perspective on God’s divinity.

You may believe whatever relativistic nonsense you wish.

It would fun to go back and forth on this but I think we are both intelligent enough to realize that a compromise on our perspectives on this issue is not possible.

Quite so! My only question is whether you call yourself a Catholic, or not?

Quote:
Originally Posted by Keikiolu forums.catholic-questions.org/images/buttons_cad/viewpost.gif
Personal revelation is accessable to individual persons, but it can’t contradict revelation as given by God to THE CHURCH.

Sure it can. Problem is, you say “THE CHURCH” gets to declare which revelations are valid, ergo, nothing will ever trump the Church because it won’t contradict itself. Rather convenient don’t you think?

VERY convenient. But it’s the same kind of “convenient” as the “convenience” which doesn’t permit 1+1 to equal anything but 2.

In other words, the truth of it makes for an inherent “convenience”.

When you make the rules, you get to decide who is wrong. Everything congruent to the Church’s perspective is a self-fulfilling prophecy (pun intended), everything contradictory is chalked up to some sort of mental disorder on the part of the recipient…lol

And you’re more than welcome to your particular variety of mental illness.

When YOU get to make the rules, YOU simply and instantly break the first commandment, and get to deal with the consequences of that decision.

Best to 'ya, buckeroo…!!

Mahalo ke Akua…!
E pili mau na pomaikai ia oe. Aloha nui.

 

[Peregrino]

Do it more. Just be sure you’re conversation partner is in fact wrong when you say it.

I did. You are quite clearly wrong.

It’s also a relatively good “cure” for being a weenie-backsided squishy brained worm. Not that you’re necessarily that,…

What a back-handed way of name calling. I forgive you though calling names seems to be the “catholic” response around here when people come up against the wall and the “authority” argument is not accepted. How Christian of you. Lucky for me we live in a more civilized time. Centuries ago I guess you would have had the luxury of turning me over to the inquisition if I said something heretical.:knight2:

But as a Catholic, the Holy Trinity is the reality, not a description OF that reality.

Being Catholic obviously has no bearing on what is or is not reality…

The trinity is a Christian description of the reality that is God. It is a mental construct. God is the object described by that construct. God is God. God is one. If you want to delineate three “qualities” of God be my guest and call it the trinity. God is still God and God is still one.

And you’re more than welcome to your particular variety of mental illness.

And I fully support your right to being deluded, brainwashed or whatever cop-out you want to choose in place of critical thinking and questioning. :hypno:

Best to 'ya, buckeroo…!!

Yippee kay ay.

 

[Khalfan]

Uh,… which one are you quoting from?

I’m using the RSV-CE (Revised Standard Version-Catholic Edition).

Check 1 John 5:7 in RSV -CE.

1 John 5:6 This is he who came by water and blood, Jesus Christ, not with the water only but with the water and the blood. 7 **And the Spirit is the witness, because the Spirit is the truth. **8 There are three witnesses, the Spirit, the water, and the blood; and these three agree. -RSV-CE

Check the same in another Catholic version Bible.

1 John 5:6 This is he that came by water and blood, Jesus Christ: not by water only, but by water and blood. And it is the Spirit which testifieth, that Christ is the truth. 7 **And there are three who give testimony in heaven, the Father, the Word, and the Holy Ghost. And these three are one. **8 And there are three that give testimony on earth: the spirit, and the water, and the blood: and these three are one. -Douay-Rheims Bible

Hope that inanity is clear for you now.

Now, contact the authors of the RSV -CE and check what do they have to say about throwing out the trinity concept from 1Jn 5:7.

 

[Khalfan]

Do you understand that there are MYSTERIES concerning the Holy Trinity?

Apparently you don’t, which is characteristic of moslems, as islam is essentially a “rationalistic materialistic” perversion of Christianity, which distances itself FROM it’s source (Christianity) by thinking it can ANSWER all the UNANSWERABLE parts of that source by “materialistic rationalization”.

To actually answer your question:

Jesus is Fully God and Fully Man, therefore Jesus as man has a mind as any FULL MAN.

The Holy Spirit is a “spirit person”, and as all persons have a mind, He has a mind.

All these individual minds (including God the Father) are never in conflict with one another, always agree with one another, and are not in any way “puppets” of one another.

HOW precisely that works is a MYSTERY, which is simply humanly not fully comprehendable, yet nevertheless exists.

How do we know it exists? Because we are told by God, via the Magisterium, that that is so.

If that “reason” doesn’t satisfy you, then you’re not a Catholic, which I imagine we can both agree with cheerfully.

Thanks for being such an excellent example of “what you are”, dude…!

Mahalo ke Akua…!
E pili mau na pomaikai ia oe. Aloha nui.

So they are 3 with 3 individual mind of their own even if they don’t conflict with each other in anything as you said.

Jesus (pbuh) did conflict with the will of the father. He was not a willing partner in the cross event since he prayed for another solution than cross (eventhough he agreed to the will of the father. Of course, no one can stay against the will of the father ever, even if we want to)

There are two problems with it.

1. Son and Spirit was indeed puppets, since they are not the HEAD, which think and decide for anything to happen in heaven or earth.
2. Son was not supposed to think against the will of the HEAD/Father ever. Since Jesus (pbuh) did thought something that HEAD/Father never thought of, they were their own with the ability to conflict each other as and when needed.

The result is, 3 individual minds with 3 thoughts and wishes. Since they are Gods, they are 3 Gods of their own.

= Pure politheism.

Do mind/wisdom of man in Jesus (pbuh) had the access to the mind/wisdom of God?

I know that it is a mystery for you. But still, i want to see how logically you can deal (If you can do it at all) the problem.

 

[Vincent]

You cleverly ignored the question.

Do the Son and Holy Spirit have their own mind to think, or are they just puppets of the Father God?

I didn’t ignore the question. I answered it here:

This oneness also means that there is one and only one knowing and willing operation that the three **equally **

possess. To use your language, each does not “have their own mind to think” that is not **equally **possessed by the others.

Because of this equality, the Son and Holy Spirit are not “puppets” of the Father

 

[inJESUS]

So they are 3 with 3 individual mind of their own even if they don’t conflict with each other in anything as you said.

correct. they do not conflict because it it ONE God acting. Your confusion, as shown below, is about Jesus’ second nature, not the Trinity.

Jesus (pbuh) did conflict with the will of the father. He was not a willing partner in the cross event since he prayed for another solution than cross (eventhough he agreed to the will of the father. Of course, no one can stay against the will of the father ever, even if we want to)

 

[Khalfan]

what part is missing in Mark? the resurrection is not missing in Mark’s gospel unless i didn’t get what you mean.

((The most reliable early manuscripts and other ancient witnesses do not have Mark 16:9-20.))

Mark 16:9 Later mss add vv 9-20

Now you may have got what I meant.

Second, does any missing event in one gospel prove it did not happen? hence the missing miraculous birth in John proves it did not happen? i just can’t follow your reasoning.

Since it is missing in the ‘earliest’ accepted scripture and later the story is gettting developed in Matthew to luke to John like a snowball, it is impossible to have it happened.

i quoted Mark. What do you mean the resurrection story is missing in Mark?

That’s not the end of it. 9-20 is what I said is missing and quoted above from 2 versions. What you have quoted is, his body was missing. There can be other reasons too. Just like we Muslims believe that he was taken up to God.

2 points here:

No 2 people EVER give the same exact testimony ever. Take this example of 9/11:

2 people witnessed it. The first reports:

i saw one plane hitting the tower. Fire was everwhere. People were screaming and others were falling off the building.

the second reports :

i saw 2 planes hitting the tower. People were falling off the tower. Firemen arrived 5 mn later. Ambulances carried hundreds of injured.

Obviously both testimonies are different yet both are correct. You will find no 2 humans who will give the same exact details using the same sentence sequence with the same orders and words, let alone 4 different people talking about the same thing.

the other very important point is the following :

yiu believe the Quran is “munzal”, that is, the exact replica of Allah\s mind/words. This is NOT what inspiration means. Being inspired gives the person the ability to write truth using his OWN words, personnality, audiance ecc. The inspired author is NOT a robot who repeats God’s literal words via an angel.So when Matthew writes to Jews, he will use, by inspiration, a different approach than , lets say, Paul who wrote to gentiles because Jews and gentiles do NOT share the same belief, background, mentality or state of mind. To prove Jesus is the Messiah, Matthew HAS to quote previous scriptures in light of what Jesus did/said. Paul, on the other hand, will have a completely different approach with gentiles who do not have scriptures.Hence, both will write with difference approaches, choice of words, arguments, ecc, both being inspired to reach different kinds of people.

So your approach does not reflect reality neither does it reflect the different audiance behind the different gospels.

So you agree, the writings were their own and the source was their memory and heresay. In fact, memorising the the teachings of Jesus (pbuh) were not practiced as it happened in the case of Quran in the time of Prophet (pbuh). That is why we find 2 versions for even the lord’s prayer that Jesus (pbuh) taught.

I said earlier, atleast the sayings of Jesus (pbuh) was supposed to be the same, even if there was 40 reporters who wanted to follow Jesus (pbuh) so closely. With the available records of Gospels, getting the sayings of Jesus (pbuh) accurate is impossible but to assume, it was something like that. Since later additions and deviations are visible all over the gospels, it is impossible to assume even that Jesus (pbuh) ever taught anything close to any verse in any ‘According to Gospel’.

all of these manuscripts and apocrypha talk about Jesus’ death. Find me ONE apocrypha that denies his crucifixion cuz i found none. And who is Mr. Barnabas ? please don’t tell me it is that 16th century forgery? give me this manuscript that denies Jesus’ crucifixion.

barnabas.net/

Please note that, Quran and Muslims doesn’t deny crucifixion and death.

And how many rejected apocrypha and manuscripts are available today? Even the originals of accepted books are not available. The missing part in Mark, the recreation Q gospels, the contradictions in the living gospels all together gives enough reason, not to believe in death of Jesus (pbuh) for anyone. For me, Quran is the first. Other evedences too support the claim of Quran.

quotations please. All the gospels report bad actions on the part of the apostles. Jesus Himself said Judas will betray Him, Peter will deny Him ecc so your point is?

what on earth does this have to do with the testimony of the gospels? Jesus was saying that His spiritual sword will sever a man from his father, and daughter from her mother, and so on ( a reference to Micah 7:6) and continues to teach that :“Anyone who loves his father or mother more than me is not worthy of me; anyone who loves his son or daughter more than me is not worthy of me; and anyone who does not take up his cross and follow me is not worthy of me. Whoever finds his life will lose it, and whoever loses his life for my sake will find it.”

My point is, when Paul wanted to overrule the teachings of Jesus (pbuh), he had to criticize the desciples as happened with Peter. Even in the Gospels, it appeares like giving bad impression on Mary and close family of Jesus (pbuh), as thinking of him as MAD. While Jesus (pbuh) taught old laws are valid and to be followed, Paul invalidated those and preached his own gospels. the laws that Jesus (pbuh) taught about cercumsicion, eating swine, eating meat that killed in the names of other Gods, etc. revised by Paul.

 

[inJESUS]

((The most reliable early manuscripts and other ancient witnesses do not have Mark 16:9-20.))

Mark 16:9 Later mss add vv 9-20

Now you may have got what I meant.

ah you were talking about manuscripts.
9-20 is not about the resurrection (mentioned before 9-20) but about the appearances of Jesus **after **the resurrection. So what you can question is not the mentioning of the resurrection but Jesus’ appearances **after **the resurrection. Here as well it is an argument from silence because some manuscripts do not have it and others do. It is not true that the “most” reliable documents do not have it :

Syriac Peshitta, translated somewhere between the middle of the 2nd century and the end of the fourth contain the verse. Likewise, most other Syriac versions contain Mark 16:9-20, including the Curetonian (3rd c.), Palestinian (5th c.), and most of the Harclean (7th c.). The Latin Vulgate has it.We find a probable allusion to Mark 16:18 in the words of Papias, as recorded by Eusebius. Papias, a contemporary with several of the Apostles and their companions.Around 165 AD, we find Justin Martyr making an allusion to Mark 16:20.Irenaeus quotes Mark 16:19 outright(177 AD), and Tatian the Assyrian included the ending in his Diatesseron, a document attempting the harmonisation of the four Gospel narratives (~175 AD). Tertullian refers to Mark 16:19 around 215 AD, and Tregelles reports that Hippolytus (~235 AD) quotes Mark 16:18-19 at least twice. There are 5 manusripts that lack it and 18 that have it putting in mind it was quoted by the earliest church fathers. So my point stands : the resurrection is not missing in Mark’s gospel.

Since it is missing in the ‘earliest’ accepted scripture and later the story is gettting developed in Matthew to luke to John like a snowball, it is impossible to have it happened.

nop it is not missing in the earliest accepted scripture. It is missing in later manuscripts . It was quoted by early church fathers . Furthermore, how did you fail to realize that the passage in question is POST-resurrection? Lets say, for arguments’ sake, that 9:20 does not belong to Mark’s gospel, this still does not deny the resurrection

That’s not the end of it. 9-20 is what I said is missing and quoted above from 2 versions. What you have quoted is, his body was missing. There can be other reasons too. Just like we Muslims believe that he was taken up to God.

haha but you don;t believe he was buried do you? if a body is missing, it means people already saw the body dead in the tomb it means there was a tomb it means there was someone dead the passage says:

He said to them, "Do not be amazed! You seek Jesus of Nazareth, the crucified. He has been raised; he is not here. Behold the place where they laid him.

As clear as the sun. Crucified, raised. Period. (all before 9:20)

So you agree, the writings were their own and the source was their memory and heresay.

yes and no. The writings were their own in the sense that they were not “fed” what to write via an angel - they were not phone machines but were inspired as to how to approach their audiances by giving the testimony of what they witnessed themselves or what they heard from the apostles and other eye witnesses if they were not eyewitnesses like Luke. No hearsay whatsoever. All report things they witnessed, and if they were not first hand witnesses, they said so. Those who were not eyewitnesses of Jesus were eyewitnesses of Peter, John, Matthew and other dozens of disciples . Hearsay would be someone who did not witness neither Jesus, nor the disciples, nor any eye witness, like Muhammad that’s why he got all things wrong.

In fact, memorising the the teachings of Jesus (pbuh) were not practiced as it happened in the case of Quran in the time of Prophet (pbuh). That is why we find 2 versions for even the lord’s prayer that Jesus (pbuh) taught

1- if 10 people memorized something does not make it true and if 10 people gave the same meaning using different words does not make it wrong.

2-What 2 different versions? luke ommitted a few words, it’s not that he gave a different prayer did he?

I said earlier, atleast the sayings of Jesus (pbuh) was supposed to be the same, even if there was 40 reporters who wanted to follow Jesus (pbuh) so closely. With the available records of Gospels, getting the sayings of Jesus (pbuh) accurate is impossible but to assume, it was something like that. Since later additions and deviations are visible all over the gospels, it is impossible to assume even that Jesus (pbuh) ever taught anything close to any verse in any ‘According to Gospel’.

first off, this prayer is found in your sunna on Muhammad’s mouth so i doubt you will question it even though it is muhammad who changed many of the words, not Matthew or Luke. So the one who gave a different version is Muhammad. Second, i find your assessment rather strange. Usually when people corrupt things, they make the same additions to perfect their work don’t they? they write the same things cuz it looks more “perfect”. Why then didn’t they “insert” the “who is in heaven” that Luke ommitted? again, if you are looking for gospels that are 1 photocopy, you are looking in the wrong place. If you are looking for robots repeating the same exact words, again you are in the wrong place. The Lords prayer is pretty clear to all of us,and it’s message is not into question. None of the gospel authors write the same exact words but all give the same meaning ; this is what inspiration means . The prophets of the OT wrote the same things and commandmants and description of God each using his own words…no prophet wrote like the other even if they were contemporaneous and sent by the same God…this makes testimonies richer and this what happened in scriptures for thousands of years from OT till NT and you will not change how God revealed things for thousands of years only because you are stuck on words instead of meaning. Different testimonies, different word selection, different imagey,different details, different audiance, One Truth. If anybody taught you differently about God’s revelations, he surely is not talking about the God of the OT and NT cuz things have been like this for thousands of years. You harmonize scriptures to get the broader meaning you can. Different testimonies, different details, different titles and descriptions to different audiances and backgrounds all enrich the message and the meaning instead of repeating the same things as if we are limited idiots. God is not a robot nor are prophets nor are people and scriptures are not letters but messages.

 

[inJESUS]

barnabas.net/

LOL.

Then the disciples wept after this discourse, and Jesus was weeping, when they saw many who came to find him, for the chiefs of the priests took counsel among themselves to catch him in his talk. Wherefore they sent the Levites and some of the scribes to question him, saying: ‘Who art thou?’

        **Jesus confessed, and said the truth: 'I am not the Messiah.' **

YET at the very start of this forgery Jesus is called the Christ: God has during these past days visited us by his prophet Jesus Christ

Whatever idiot wrote this, he did not know that Christ means Messiah!
Congratulations. You are taking the testimony of a book that does not consider Jesus the Messiah. Is this gospel the original word of Allah dear Muslim?

Lets continue:

In chapter 3 we are told that Herod and Pilate both ruled in Judea at the time of Jesus’ birth: There reigned at that time in Judaea Herod, by decree of Caesar Augustus, and Pilate was governor. This is historically wrong for Herod and Pilate never ruled Judea at the same time. Herod ruled Judea alone from 37-4 B.C., while Pilate ruled thirty years later from 26-36 A.D . The real Barnabas lived during the rule of Pilate, so if he really was the writer of this book, how could he make such a simple mistake?

In chapters 20-21 of this book we are told about Jesus sailing to Nazareth and being welcomed by the seamen of that town. He then leaves Nazareth and goes up to Capernaum! WOW! Nazareth was not a fishing village…it was about 14 km from the sea of Galilee and situated in the hills of a mountain range! . Capernaum was the fishing village that Jesus arrived at with his disciples, not Nazareth . Nazareth and Capernaum were 2 towns which Jesus often visited with His disciples therefore any disciple of Jesus would know these towns pretty well. However the author of this book does not! he was neither Jesus\ disciple nor ever lived in that region in the first place.

What i like is this:

Mr Barnabas supposedly wrote : Let a man content himself therefore with the wife whom his creator has given him, and let him forget every other woman.

Why did Mr. Muhammad enjoy dozens of women as wives and sexual toys if this gospel says the truth?

What i like most is this : Allah turned Judas into Jesus!
why did your Allah kill someone else instead of Jesus? can someone die for someone else’s sake?

Should i continue dear Muslim? should i expose all the erroneous introduction to this gospel written by a Muslim who knows no history ? or did you learn the lesson by now? it is because you do not check what you read that you ended up like this. The gospel of Barnabas is a Medieval forgery , that is, written after Muhammad when i was talking about the early apocrypha.

The apocrypha i am talking about are before Islam, not after and none denies Jesus’ crucifixion, not even the gnostic apocalypse of Peter that Muhammad quoted from.

Please note that, Quran and Muslims doesn’t deny crucifixion and death.

what?

And how many rejected apocrypha and manuscripts are available today? Even the originals of accepted books are not available. The missing part in Mark, the recreation Q gospels, the contradictions in the living gospels all together gives enough reason, not to believe in death of Jesus (pbuh) for anyone. For me, Quran is the first. Other evedences too support the claim of Quran.

many are available…dozens…and none reject the crucifixion. All manuscripts attest to it be it orthodox, apocrypha, and even non-Christian. Even the Quran says Jesus was crucified, but with gnostic terms…but you don’t realize or dont want to confess it. People stuck with letters instead of meaning read " neither killed nor crucified" and ahaaa think they understood, not realizing that gnostics before Muhammad said the same without denying it was Jesus so when asked about what happened, you got no clue because you have words without meaning in your book; the meaning is with the gnostics’ teachings that Muhammad adopted.

and am still waiting for any manuscript that denies the crucifixion, not a medieval comic forgery to promote islam .

My point is, when Paul wanted to overrule the teachings of Jesus (pbuh), he had to criticize the desciples as happened with Peter. Even in the Gospels, it appeares like giving bad impression on Mary and close family of Jesus (pbuh), as thinking of him as MAD.

what on earth does Paul have to do with any of this? Paul spoke highly of the other apostles, and so did they speak highly of him. Paul spoke badly of himself! All gospels report bad actions of the apostles. ALL. Paul has nothing to do with your conspiracy therory. It’s not even in the Bible.

While Jesus (pbuh) taught old laws are valid and to be followed, Paul invalidated those and preached his own gospels. the laws that Jesus (pbuh) taught about cercumsicion, eating swine, eating meat that killed in the names of other Gods, etc. revised by Paul.

lovely mashallah. It was PETER who dealt with the dietary law, not Paul ; it was Peter and Paul that dealt with circumcision, not Paul ; where do get your info from? i hope Muhammad did not get these wrong as well. Jesus gave His disciples the authority to explain things after He leaves and this is what happened.
If you check before believing who you think are scholars, you’d save yourself and others a lot of time and you’d give yourself more credit.

 

[Khalfan]

LOL.

Then the disciples wept after this discourse, and Jesus was weeping, when they saw many who came to find him, for the chiefs of the priests took counsel among themselves to catch him in his talk. Wherefore they sent the Levites and some of the scribes to question him, saying: ‘Who art thou?’

        **Jesus confessed, and said the truth: 'I am not the Messiah.' **

YET at the very start of this forgery Jesus is called the Christ: God has during these past days visited us by his prophet Jesus Christ

Whatever idiot wrote this, he did not know that Christ means Messiah!
Congratulations. You are taking the testimony of a book that does not consider Jesus the Messiah. Is this gospel the original word of Allah dear Muslim?

Lets continue:

In chapter 3 we are told that Herod and Pilate both ruled in Judea at the time of Jesus’ birth: There reigned at that time in Judaea Herod, by decree of Caesar Augustus, and Pilate was governor. This is historically wrong for Herod and Pilate never ruled Judea at the same time. Herod ruled Judea alone from 37-4 B.C., while Pilate ruled thirty years later from 26-36 A.D . The real Barnabas lived during the rule of Pilate, so if he really was the writer of this book, how could he make such a simple mistake?

In chapters 20-21 of this book we are told about Jesus sailing to Nazareth and being welcomed by the seamen of that town. He then leaves Nazareth and goes up to Capernaum! WOW! Nazareth was not a fishing village…it was about 14 km from the sea of Galilee and situated in the hills of a mountain range! . Capernaum was the fishing village that Jesus arrived at with his disciples, not Nazareth . Nazareth and Capernaum were 2 towns which Jesus often visited with His disciples therefore any disciple of Jesus would know these towns pretty well. However the author of this book does not! he was neither Jesus\ disciple nor ever lived in that region in the first place.

What i like is this:

Mr Barnabas supposedly wrote : Let a man content himself therefore with the wife whom his creator has given him, and let him forget every other woman.

Gospel of Barnabas is not a Islamic book. The people that made Bible itself full of ‘inspired’ fabricated stories, will never accepts such concepts as Jesus (pbuh) wasn’t on the cross. I can understand that. I don’t expect you will ever accept book of barnabas as an apocrypha even. But a story is been told in that. Whether or not it was Judas on the cross, it matches with what Quran said, it wasn’t Jesus (pbuh) on the cross. Even if there wasn’t any written manuscripts available, (I already said, how possibly it can be available since all contradicting scriptures were burned) the one prayer of Jesus (pbuh) to be saved from the cross is enough for us to believe, he was saved.

Why did Mr. Muhammad enjoy dozens of women as wives and sexual toys if this gospel says the truth?

Do you really need an answer for this? Neither the living Bible says the truth. Nowhere Jesus (pbuh) taught one wife for one man. If it was a law if God, none of the prophets would have married morethan once in OT. Why prophet married morethan once is need a bit of explanation. I don’t want to drag thish discussion into some other topic.

what?

Quran says, there was something happened on the cross that the jews felt, Jesus (pbuh) died on the cross.

many are available…dozens…and none reject the crucifixion. All manuscripts attest to it be it orthodox, apocrypha, and even non-Christian. Even the Quran says Jesus was crucified, but with gnostic terms…but you don’t realize or dont want to confess it. People stuck with letters instead of meaning read " neither killed nor crucified" and ahaaa think they understood, not realizing that gnostics before Muhammad said the same without denying it was Jesus so when asked about what happened, you got no clue because you have words without meaning in your book; the meaning is with the gnostics’ teachings that Muhammad adopted.

and am still waiting for any manuscript that denies the crucifixion, not a medieval comic forgery to promote islam .

No use for waiting my dear. Your ancsestors burned out all of those. They kept only the ones that goes along with Pauline teachigs. If WE get some thing from them, that gonna be the end of Christianity. In fact we don’t need that to disprove Bible. God says in Quran, “If it was from someone else than God, you would have found many mistakes in it”. When we do that one test with Bible, it is more than clear that Bible is not from God. God says in Quran, “they wrote something of their own and say, it is from God”. We find that many times in Bible as it is in 1 jn 5:7 and many other places.

Forgery to promote Islam? I can imagine, based on what you said that.

what on earth does Paul have to do with any of this? Paul spoke highly of the other apostles, and so did they speak highly of him. Paul spoke badly of himself! All gospels report bad actions of the apostles. ALL. Paul has nothing to do with your conspiracy therory. It’s not even in the Bible.

Paul is the only one who have to do everything with Christianity. He is the founder of it. When Jesus (pbuh) said, he came to fulfill the law, Paul said, Jesus abolished the law. When Jesus (pbuh) said he came to preach the good news of God, Paul said Jesus came to die for us. When Jesus (pbuh) said all the is to be followed, Paul said, it is invalid. 14 / 27 in NT is not small influence my dear. It has a lot to do with what you believe.

lovely mashallah. It was PETER who dealt with the dietary law, not Paul; it was Peter and Paul that dealt with circumcision, not Paul; where do get your info from? i hope Muhammad did not get these wrong as well. Jesus gave His disciples the authority to explain things after He leaves and this is what happened.
If you check before believing who you think are scholars, you’d save yourself and others a lot of time and you’d give yourself more credit.

And they were not supposed to teach against what Jesus (pbuh) taught. When circumsicion was a law and Jesus (pbuh) asked to keep it, how could they teach against it? When eating swine was prohibited by law and Jesus (pbuh) asked to follow the law, how could they teach against it? I know, you will have your own reasonings to go against Jesus (pbuh), but you are programmed to believe what is taught in church.

 

[Khalfan]

ah you were talking about manuscripts.
9-20 is not about the resurrection (mentioned before 9-20) but about the appearances of Jesus **after **the resurrection. So what you can question is not the mentioning of the resurrection but Jesus’ appearances **after **the resurrection. Here as well it is an argument from silence because some manuscripts do not have it and others do. It is not true that the “most” reliable documents do not have it :

Syriac Peshitta, translated somewhere between the middle of the 2nd century and the end of the fourth contain the verse. Likewise, most other Syriac versions contain Mark 16:9-20, including the Curetonian (3rd c.), Palestinian (5th c.), and most of the Harclean (7th c.). The Latin Vulgate has it. We find a probable allusion to Mark 16:18 in the words of Papias, as recorded by Eusebius. Papias, a contemporary with several of the Apostles and their companions.Around 165 AD, we find Justin Martyr making an allusion to Mark 16:20.Irenaeus quotes Mark 16:19 outright(177 AD), and Tatian the Assyrian included the ending in his Diatesseron, a document attempting the harmonisation of the four Gospel narratives (~175 AD). Tertullian refers to Mark 16:19 around 215 AD, and Tregelles reports that Hippolytus (~235 AD) quotes Mark 16:18-19 at least twice. There are 5 manusripts that lack it and 18 that have it putting in mind it was quoted by the earliest church fathers. So my point stands : the resurrection is not missing in Mark’s gospel.

You have to deal with your own Christian NIV scholars to find what coould have happened. If it was true, why is it missing in even ONE ‘most relieable’ manuscripts? There something wrong my friend. The ‘earliest most relieable manuscript’ you quoted above is dating AD 165. 165 years from Jesus (pbuh) uis a big gape and please, mind the gape.

nop it is not missing in the earliest accepted scripture. It is missing in later manuscripts . It was quoted by early church fathers. Furthermore, how did you fail to realize that the passage in question is POST-resurrection? Lets say, for arguments’ sake, that 9:20 does not belong to Mark’s gospel, this still does not deny the resurrection

haha but you don;t believe he was buried do you? if a body is missing, it means people already saw the body dead in the tomb it means there was a tomb it means there was someone dead the passage says:

He said to them, "Do not be amazed! You seek Jesus of Nazareth, the crucified. He has been raised; he is not here. Behold the place where they laid him.

As clear as the sun. Crucified, raised. Period. (all before 9:20)

You cannot assume ‘Jesus’ was resurrected unless ‘Jesus’ himself proves it. The later developed contradicting gospel records are enough to prove, it was never happened.

What I said, is one of many possibility. To know where and how Jesus (pbuh) was when he was supposed to get arrested, how Jesus (pbuh) can get into the tomb alive, how the body of the cricified man could have disappeared, we should know the actual event as it happened. Since it is not clear what exactly happened in Quran or in Bible (since the story is full of contradictions), the whole event needs to be reconsidered as how it could have happened in reality. But unless God reveals it, we cannot recreate history.

yes and no. The writings were their own in the sense that they were not “fed” what to write via an angel - they were not phone machines but were inspired as to how to approach their audiances by giving the testimony of what they witnessed themselves or what they heard from the apostles and other eye witnesses if they were not eyewitnesses like Luke. No hearsay whatsoever. All report things they witnessed, and if they were not first hand witnesses, they said so. Those who were not eyewitnesses of Jesus were eyewitnesses of Peter, John, Matthew and other dozens of disciples. Hearsay would be someone who did not witness neither Jesus, nor the disciples, nor any eye witness, like Muhammad that’s why he got all things wrong.

1- if 10 people memorized something does not make it true and if 10 people gave the same meaning using different words does not make it wrong.

2-What 2 different versions? luke ommitted a few words, it’s not that he gave a different prayer did he?

Luke ommitted becasue he wasn’t learned to pray so. Isn’t that clear?

If 10 people memorise 1 gospel without even a single difference, it can be confirmed, the source of the gospel is the same. That is how scholars reproduces Q Gospels. It is reasonable to any logical mind except some preprogrammed church puppets. And if 10 people are memorised same gospel like the lord’s prayer, and each of them differes with one another, any reasonable mind can say,

a) the source of the gospel they learned it from, is different.
b) human error could have differed the gospel when they recall it. c) the actual gospel could be something different than they recall it.

first off, this prayer is found in your sunna on Muhammad’s mouth so i doubt you will question it even though it is muhammad who changed many of the words, not Matthew or Luke. So the one who gave a different version is Muhammad. Second, i find your assessment rather strange. Usually when people corrupt things, they make the same additions to perfect their work don’t they? they write the same things cuz it looks more “perfect”. Why then didn’t they “insert” the “who is in heaven” that Luke ommitted? again, if you are looking for gospels that are 1 photocopy, you are looking in the wrong place. If you are looking for robots repeating the same exact words, again you are in the wrong place. The Lords prayer is pretty clear to all of us,and it’s message is not into question. None of the gospel authors write the same exact words but all give the same meaning; this is what inspiration means. The prophets of the OT wrote the same things and commandmants and description of God each using his own words…no prophet wrote like the other even if they were contemporaneous and sent by the same God…this makes testimonies richer and this what happened in scriptures for thousands of years from OT till NT and you will not change how God revealed things for thousands of years only because you are stuck on words instead of meaning. Different testimonies, different word selection, different imagey,different details, different audiance, One Truth. If anybody taught you differently about God’s revelations, he surely is not talking about the God of the OT and NT cuz things have been like this for thousands of years. You harmonize scriptures to get the broader meaning you can. Different testimonies, different details, different titles and descriptions to different audiances and backgrounds all enrich the message and the meaning instead of repeating the same things as if we are limited idiots. God is not a robot nor are prophets nor are people and scriptures are not letters but messages.

You are right. The only problem is, the actual message of God is lost in that ‘Different testimonies, different word selection, different imagey,different details, different audiance’. You don’t even know who, when and for what purpose, it was written. What we know is, in year 382 AD some ‘Christians’ compiled some books talking about Jesus (pbuh) and God as and how they believed it, from many places into one book and named it Bible. Many contradicting books were distroyed forever which wasn’t going along with the concept they believed. Some writings kept as apocrypha since it wasn’t going along with other books in every detail but in many. So that it became ‘inspired’ for some but not for all. There was only 3 doubtful books according to early church but later it became 7. How was that, is too -unknown. 4 inspired books removed from ‘inspired books’ of Bible. Many verse and chapters weren’t there in the ‘most reliable early many scripts’. The most cerculating version -KJV have 5 REVISIONS in last 400 years.

My great great great great great grandpa made will for me. He told that to my great great great great grandpa. He made a slight change in it and told my great great great grandpa. He made a slight change in it and told my great great grandpa. He made a slight change in it and told my great grandpa. He made a slight change in it and told my grandpa. He made a slight change in it and told my father. He made a slight change in it and told me about the will of my great great great great great grandpa and insisting me to believe it is as it was done by him!!!

There are thousands of Books written about Allah and Mohamed (pbuh) among Muslims since 1400 years. But none of them ever enterd INTO the Quran to be part of it.

 

[Khalfan]

what other proof than the same ideas found in the sunna which were taught by people you accuse of non-validity because they were not eyewitnesses? the same Luke who is not an eyewitness wrote about the miraculous birth. Does it mean it is not correct because he is not an eyewitness? yet Muhammad wrote the same? Muhammad is not an eyewitness to even 0.00001% of Jesus yet you believe what he says. The difference between Luke and Muhammad is that Luke TALKED and WALKED with eyewitnesses INCLUDING Jesus’ disciples, something Muhammad did not, yet you believe what Muhammad said. Not to mention that Paul’s exact words are quoted by your prophet as Allah’s word. Yes the same Paul you hate so much ; his words are said to be Allah’s words by Muhammad. Was Muhammad plagiarizing Paul? you bet he was because he quoted an idea ORIGINATED by Paul, who combined 2 scriptures together and Muhammad simply quoted Paul’s combination of scriptures a plagiarism as clear as the sun because the quote is found in no other scripture but Paul’s letters

on the one hand you question the validity of the non-eyewitnesses yet we find their teachings in your sunna. Then you question the “author” of this or that gospel yet we find the “questioned” authors quoted by your prophet. Either these people who are “unknown” and “non eye-witnesses” are liars and as a result Muhammad is, or they were inspired and that’s why Muhammad quoted their words. To us there is no question they were truthful because they were the disciples’ disciples and were later quoted by their disciples …a circle , a whole tradition.

Are you serious in asking two similar concepts can’t be told twice? You have the problem in accepting that because,

a) You want to disprove Quran by saying it is copy of earlier writings.

b) You don’t accept even if we say, previous prophets were teaching the same message of Quran. Paul could have got it from any ‘true’ teaching of Jesus (pbuh).

nop in fact the apocrypha differ in many points from the Quran.
The apocrypha talk about Jesus’ crucifixion, resurection, Him being God ecc things very, very orthodox that you do not believe in. Yet they were rejected because they were NOT apostolic and because some had fiction + truth.What Muhammad quoted from the apocrypha were some passages from here and there that he thought were correct. Example, the legend of Jesus talking in the craddle. Where did it come from? from a jealous writer who wanted to defend Mary’s virginity so he invented this scenario. It is wrong because it never happened. Why? simply because the accusations against Mary were held AFTER Jesus’ ministry, not before another plagiarism is about Jesus giving life to clay birds. Wow how deep. The gospel Muhammad took this passage from is halarious since it portrays Jesus the baby as a magician having fun with things, one of them is giving life to clay birds. Where did the gnostic crucifixion come from? some Christians with a Jewish background could not “swallow” the fact that their Messiah was tortured and killed. In their understanding, He is to be victorious, so how can he suffer? to reconcile both, they replied to the Jews who were boasting of “killing the Messiah” : do not boast! it appeared to you that you crucified and killed him but you did not because the one you crucified was his “appearance” (= his body") whereas the Spirit of the Messiah hence the “true Jesus” was raised to God victorious, mocking all of you who thought you can kill him".

No i was not quoting the Quran. I was quoting gnostics

Well done my friend. You can make better stories. And is this how all stories made by your ancsestors? I think so. Because no one knows when the original was written. No one knows when the ‘apocrypha’ were written. No one knows who wrote it and for what purpose. You will say No… No… No… it was written before Mohamed. You know that all those ‘inspired’ books in the first Bible is not ‘inspired’ today. You know that many verse and chapters were not there in the early scripts.

Please, mind that i can make better stories too regarding Jesus (pbuh) according to Bible and other available sorces which will go along with Quran’s teaching. But we don’t do that, since the information we have is limited.

the same self-proclaimed disciple was quoted by your prophet.

Second, how do i measure? first off, Paul walked and talked and preached with the other disciples who attested to him. Second, Paul gave the same teachings as Jesus and the other disciples. Third, he lived at a time where eyewitnesses were living and they attested to him. Fourth, delete all of his letters, we still find Jesus who was crucified and resurected, the same Jesus the Word in flesh. Anyone who gives a different gospel than that of Jesus, be it Allen White, Muhammad or Joseph Smith is a false prophet.

NO. NOT AT ALL. Jesus (pbuh) asked to keep the law. Paul said, Jesus (pbuh) himself abolished the law. It was Paul’s letters written first and cerculating around. The writing ‘disciples’ could have influenced by those and made thier own interpretation for what they saw. That is why we have a growing Jesus in Mark to John.

 

[Khalfan]

if i live 6000 year or 20000 year from now, what is historical is historical, and what is in the scriptures is and will remain God’s revelation. What opposes scriptures and history and logic is rejected on the spot. Any self-proclaimed prophet who insults God’s power by saying His word is corrupt and by such re-invents scripture and history will be no more than an anti-Christ, a false Messiah, a wolf in sheeps’ clothing and a joke. So my answer is: it is not about years, it about the same message that parallels God’s revelations and human history or not.

Quran or Mohamed (pbuh) never said God’s words currepted. Quran said about Torah as, the people mixed thire own words with it. Quran said about Injeel as, they left behind the Gospel of God and wrote something of their own and said it is from God. Even today, if you can bring me the original words of God (alone) from the Pentateuch, I will believe in it. If you can bring me the ‘Good news of God’ (alone) that said in Mk 1:14, I will believe it.

Thanks for agreeing, you will still look for canonicity, even if God himself is infront of you and revealing something to you.