Why should I become a Muslim, and why you should become a Christian.

[Ibn_Taymiya]

why isn’t the Word eternal?

The verse tells that the Son was received up to Heaven and sat on the right hand of God after his mission was ended, which tells that this happened after incarnation, so during incarnation, where was the Son? This verse means that during incarnation, the son was not at Heaven, otherwise, He won’t have ascended back to Heaven since He was already there during incarnation. Was he the one who creates people and organizes the Universe? Or it was the Father and the Holy Spirit who were doing so and left the mission of salvation to the Son?

He did, that is one reason the Jews rejected Him, and the Muslims’ accusation of “corrupt” Bible. Picking one verse, thinking you can use it to discredit other things He said means you’re the one who doesn’t understand what He meant.

Really did he quote Isaiah 9:6? The Jews would have had the right to reject him if he said that he is God since he is blaspheming, and they know from their scriptures what blaspheming means, so to prove them wrong, either that Jesus tells that he didn’t mean blasphemy or that he quotes their scriptures to prove that the Messiah is God, so if the second was the case, he would have quoted a verse like Isaiah 9:6 or a verse from that kind, have you ever used Psalm 82:6 to prove that the Messiah is God? I have never seen any Christian doing this but all use Isaiah 9:6, because it doesn’t even talk about the Messiah, but when Jesus quotes this verse, he is refuting any charge of blasphemy against him as I explained in the last post. I haven’t seen solid evidence for Jesus’ divinity or for the Trinity in the Bible till now.

the human nature needs to eat. Does that mean the Word isn’t the eternal Word just because the human nature needs to eat? and suppose God ate, does it mean He is no more God? what about God speaking with humans? just because He spoke with human language it means He is no longer God?

So you imply by your first question that it is the human nature which eats, and that was what I needed. As for your second question, eating means that God needs food so He eats, does God need food? For me no, may be you say yes, but I consider this a kind of idolatry. God speaks with humans as an honor for them not because He needs to speak with them as the case with eating.

and pray tell, what does your theory prove, if not the eternal and uncreated Wisdom speaking? and how doesn’t it have anything to do with the Trinity if the Trinity is about the Father, His Word/Wisdom and Sprit? nit-picking words discredit your approach.

What I want to reach is that your concept of the word in the NT has nothing to do with the concept of wisdom present in the OT.

What’s wrong with it? The Holy Spirit is the Spirit of Wisdom.

Didn’t you refer to the Word as Wisdom? Choose something. May be you call the Holy Spirit as the Spirit of Wisdom, but I haven’t seen it used before to express the Trinity especially with the Holy Spirit neither have I seen the Holy Spirit called God’s Wisdom ( other than the Spirit of Wisdom) as you use this expression with the son not the HS. Note also that this quote is the oldest statement which mentions the Trinity in words, so when it is used that way, it’s a clear proof that this doctrine had undergone development along the Church’s history.

I can see you are nit-picking human language used to explain abstract truth, but i still cannot see a refutation to the Father, His Word and Spirit being One God.

Really? I know that you know that you are refuted and contradicting yourself every post. Till now I cannot see this doctrine standing on its own, we haven’t even discussed the fact that it has no solid evidence in the Bible.

 

[Ibn_Taymiya]

so according to you Jesus had to be born as such to show the virgin mary’s piety?

 

[Ibn_Taymiya]

my church belief is not “something else” because the Church does not teach preserved dots and letters in the first place so you are creating a problem where there is none, because you as a Muslim believe in preserved dots and vowels, even though there are many Qurans, so you tell us they are all the preserved words of Allah as if Allah did not make up his mind as to what he supposedly uttered. This concept is totally alien to us.

 

[Ibn_Taymiya]

He will return because He did not die the first time?

You can read the hadith of his return to know why he will return. Jesus (Peace be upon him) is a man, that’s why he wasn’t crucified because if he was crucified, he would have died, but God wants him to return alive without death.

what is written in the gospel of Judas does not contradict the crucifixion but affirms it but the point was defending the betrayal of Judas … it is you who follow a conjecture because no Muslim can agree on what happened. Christians never ever doubted the crucifixion and the Gnostics who did it based it on their philosophy that matter is an “appearance” and hence the body of Jesus was an “appearance” and hence “crucified in appearance”, it does not mean that someone else was crufified and this is exactly what Muhammad quoted but Muslims who do not know this gnostic philosophy think that it means it was someone else.

Well, read the Gospel of Judas again:
The Gospel of Judas states that Jesus told Judas “You shall be cursed for generations” and then added, “You will come to rule over them” and "You will exceed all of them, for you will sacrifice the man that clothes me
en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Gospel_of_Judas
According to the Apocalypse f Peter:
“He whom you saw on the tree, glad and laughing, this is the living Jesus. But this one into whose hands and feet they drive the nails is his fleshly part, which is the substitute being put to shame, the one who came into being in his likeness. But look at him and me.”
en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Gnostic_Apocalypse_of_Peter

there were many authors writing about the same event, and you talk about contradiction. What if the Quran has contradictions yet supposedly revealed by the same person?

The contradictions between the gospels about the story of crucifixion are so famous, and we may discuss it if you like.

and pray tell, how does this passage relate to Allah making people think that the one being crucified is Jesus? isn’t it a trick to make people see what is not there to tell them later they were wrong?

Well, some people knew it wasn’t Jesus who wasn’t crucified, and even if this wasn’t the case and no one knew about that, it won’t have changed nothing since it is not a vital matter of faith since all your belief in salvation through the cross is false, so it wasn’t a matter of faith, like the case if a man thought that his son was dead, then after a long time he discovered that his son is alive, is this a trick?

 

[Ibn_Taymiya]

of course , because when you say not one dot was changed, you actually mean not one dot in the differentQurans, all revealed by Allah differently to give *different *meanings! add to them God knows how many abrogations, forgotten chapters, chapters eaten by goats, and effaced verses to “test” you and although the differing Qurans existed because of Allah, still Uthman decided to burn the different Qurans that Allah intented to reveal as such .As i told you, if you believe in this, you will believe in absoutely anything because you already put in your mind that there is no corruption when any non-Muslim will see clearly that your arguments are corruption of men attributed to Allah. You call it a masterpiece, we call it incorehent chaos.

So you are still using a set of arguments in small sentences to scare me and make anyone feel that Islam is not true, I have already used some arguments against the Bible in the same way and you ignored them. Actually, all you arguments are nothing, as for the abrogations and forgotten chapters, we are already discussing them. As for the Sura eaten by goats, you are referring to a false hadith which was made by some shia. As for what Caliph Uthman did, first of all, he did it in front of all Sahaba, and all of them agreed on that, which is a clear proof that what they burnt has nothing to do with burning something from the message of the Quran, but the case was that the Quran was sent first in different accents to help different Arabic tribes reading it, so he burnt all the other accents and kept one accents to unite all Muslims so that it won’t confuse some Muslims as this happened already, but it has nothing to do with the message of the Quran itself.

Saying that these are corruptions of men attributed to Allah has no evidence, but the evidence in the Quran and Sunna are against that.

it isn’t about being “strange” since Muhammad not only taught it, but ordered it and his followers stoned people as well and many things are found in the hadith but not in the Quran since the sunna is to be followed anyway, which renders your theory stranger than Allah effacing a verse to “test” you into following the sunna, which he orders in the Quran anyway.

Well, in the beginning, it must be clear to you that it’s clearly evident from the Sunna that this verse was abrogated by recitation only as I gave what Umar said before, and there are other hadiths proving so, so this has nothing to do with corruption, even Umar refused to add it to the Quran although he knew that it was in the Quran, which clearly means that he understands the situation. What we are discussing here is why it was abrogated, which is another issue of the wisdom of God in that. What I said could be a reason, and I actually I see it could be a reason since some people already denied it. What you are saying that stoning was known through other hadiths by the act of the Prophet (Peace be upon him), you are right, but still you must have taken into consideration that many cases were mentioned in the Quran, but we still need to know how the Prophet (Peace be upon him) applied them, and this is one of the cases.

It’d be a great way out to tell you there are missing verses in the Bible in order for God to test us and see who will stick to the Church tradition, but we do not, because we do not have to present illogical arguments in order to insist on preserved letters and dots since we do not believe in it in the first place, whereas you are obliged to give these arguments otherwise your whole trust in your book collapases. This is why you create problems when there is none to us, exactly because we do not rely on dots and vowels to trust in God’s faithfulness but on the “infallible” Church He established by Jesus’ disciples and their successors till today and this is where real trust is, as there can be many preserved books yet not from God.

 

[inJESUS]

Didn’t you say that what the Father does, the Son also does?

You are talking as if God were a material being that can be divided.
Whatver the Father does, the Son does as the eternal Word because we do not seperate the Father, from His Word. The Father and His Word are One. If the Word took a human flesh, it does not stop being the eternal and unseperate Word of God since humanity is the additional nature to the unseperate Word of the Father.

I didn’t ignore it. But all the Bible gives that impression…

 

[inJESUS]

The verse tells that the Son was received up to Heaven and sat on the right hand of God after his mission was ended, which tells that this happened

The “right hand” issue was solved in the previous reply and all power , authority and glory are to the eternal Word which is God, which is the Alpha and Omega." And now, Father, glorify me in your presence with the glory i had with you before the world began".

The Jews know from their scriptures what blaspheming means,

 

[inJESUS]

. ok if not mistaken i already showed the problem in this theory so we are left with the bold part.In other words, Allah knows best.

Did I say that we didn’t try? We are trying to understand it, but even if we couldn’t, this proves nothing. God has a wisdom about that and we don’t know it, the same as you don’t know why God waited till Jesus time to incarnate and save people.

there is time for everything to happen; this has nothing to do with why Jesus, among all prophets, was born without a biological father. If you couldn’t know, ask those who know and who have known for 2000 years.

You haven’t even told me why did Jesus need to be born of a virgin

do you really need me to tell you? In the beginning was the Word, and the Word was with God, and the Word was God. And the Word became flesh and made his dwelling among us, and we saw his glory, the glory as of the Father’s only Son, full of grace and truth.

It is called Incarnation of the Word.

So Jesus was born as such neither to prove Mary’s piety nor to speak in the cradle as these have nothing to do with the virgin birth.

Blindly repeating the same question. I have already answered it before.

Did you answer what mirale is this that is neither seen nor proved nor verified nor serves any purpose to humanity in Islam?

And you still can’t give me evidence for the script I mentioned in Matthew although a huge event like that should have been documented especially when it happens within another huge event.

can you explain your request please? i didn’t understand what you’re asking for.

Even the other gospels don’t recognize it when they mention the crucifixion.

so what? we disbelieve in it because other gospels do not mention it? what about the whole churches knowing it? they are wrong because other gospels do not mention it? your Quran doesn’t mention a thousand thing, yet you believe them according to the sunna .

You still believe that your faith is based on evidence? You are actually deceiving yourself.

should i remind you about my reply where i said we do not have evidence because it is something we cannot verify in the first place? we have faith in what the Bible and Church teach. In other words, you and i believe in the same thing by faith because no evidence can be given, the difference is that you do not know why or are trying to understand why.

the Quran is not a historical book and it focuses more on the morals of the story than its historical events.

And I have already gave you a link about what some archaeologists think that it refers to that story, but you totally ignored it.

no i haven’t ignored it, i read it. There are other sites refering to other archeological sites related to this story. That is why i didn’t want to waste time on exchanging links. So be it, you believe it isn’t a myth, Aritotle happened to mention a similar theme under inspiration, so be it.

So there is no evidence on what you are saying. That’s nice.

no i have no evidence that Plato “created” it. I have evidence that Aristotle (Phys., IV, xi) refers to a similar tale about sleepers at Sardes

Again, prove first that your faith is the Orthodoxy faith referring to Jesus (Peace be upon him), then try to talk about the Quran.

i must prove my faith in opposition to Gnostics who believed matter is an illusion and an appearance, that is why Jesus was crucified “in appearance” as Muhammad repeated after them? If Muhammad did not teach that matter is an evil illusion, why did he quote heretics who based their crucifixion theory on such philosophies that oppose the Bible?

 

[inJESUS]

Do you still believe that the Bible is well-preserved?

of course, because i’ve been trying to explain to you that we do not believe in preserved dots and vowels in the first place. Is this concept so hard to grasp? you think am using “tactics” when i show you are building arguments based on your Islamic understanding, not ours? Jesus did not even give a book but a Church , that’s number one. Number 2, Justin Martyr and John Chrysostom are not the church. They have their own views, there is no Church consensus on what they claimed in the quotes. So again, your whole faith is built on a book, trusting a book, and since it collapses otherwise, you come telling me Allah abrogates a whole chapter and makes you forget other texts and tests you to see who will follow the sunna by effacing verses (when he obliges you to follow it in the first place) and allows a goat to eat some others and give different divine Qurans yet burnt by Uthman and the remaining have differences in meaning. You are obliged to say all this because otherwise your faith collapses and your reasons are very clear to us that you are attributing corruption to Allah because you cannot attribute it to men.

What you go through, being believers in a book, to defend all this scriptural chaos, is totally alien to us. We are not people of the book as Muhammad calls us , neither are we people of letters and dots in order to resort to your arguments to defend our book. I repeat , Jesus left no book, despite what Muslims say, He left a Church and apostles and teachers and apostolic fathers and we believe in the Church’s infallibility because we trust Jesus’ words and promises.

And my point was that you must compare the whole circumstances of different people to understand whether they were true in what they believed or not.

Muslims were true, and Mormons were true, and Bahai were true, and Ahmadi were true. No one defends or dies for what he knows to be a lie but people can defend and die for what they do not know is a lie.

I didn’t say that the miracle is about darkness, it’s about the deep ocean waves, do you think that people used to know that there were waves in the at depth of the sea?

if i haven’t adressed what you meant, then am sorry.

I checked it again, may i ask where yuo got the following translation from?
world of darkness similar to that found in the depth of an ocean **where **billowy waves are superimposed upon billowy waves topped by dark clouds creating a coat of darkness superimposed upon coats of darkness (Sura 24)

In your translation, the word “where” is linked to the “depth of an ocean”, however, in the original Arabic, the word overwhelmed (in other translations) or “where” (in this translation) refers to the sea, not to its depth because depth is feminine wheras the verb is masculin, refering to the sea.

{ أَوْ كَظُلُمَاتٍ فِي بَحْرٍ لُّجِّيٍّ يَغْشَاهُ مَوْجٌ مِّن فَوْقِهِ مَوْجٌ مِّن فَوْقِهِ سَحَابٌ ظُلُمَاتٌ بَعْضُهَا فَوْقَ بَعْضٍ إِذَآ أَخْرَجَ يَدَهُ لَمْ يَكَدْ يَرَاهَا وَمَن لَّمْ يَجْعَلِ ٱللَّهُ لَهُ نُوراً فَمَا لَهُ مِن نُورٍ }

Would you consider this Biblical verse a scientific miracle:

He spoke and stirred up a storm.
It lifted the **waves **high.
26 They rose up to the heavens. **Then they went down deep into the ocean. **
In that kind of danger the people’s boldness melted away.

You even didn’t tell me your criteria for believing that a book is from God or not, you said that we believe that the Quran is miraculous, and that’s what I was discussing with you.

well i have a criteria that i cannot write publically but i will give you the “rational” one, so-to-speak because this is what you’re asking about i think : my criteria is the person of Jesus the Christ: His message of salvation starting OT, His message in the NT which explains the Old in the New, the too many OT prophecies and fulfillments which renders the whole Bible a harmonious unit waved by the same Spirit which can by no means be the creation of man because prophesies and fulfillments and harmony in addition to the eternal message of salvation and its fulfillment cannot be the creation of different men in different ages to different people. The odds of one person fulfilling all these prophecies in harmony and bringing the Old to its fulfillment proves that the one behind them is not a human being. Of course not to mention the rise of the Church so this is what i call a “miraculous” book. I do not call a book put together haphasardly without theme or harmony but according to length starting with calling Jews and Christians object of wrath and misguided a miraculous book but you see, we have totaly different criteria.

And you didn’t tell me whether the Quran was made by Prophet Muhammad (Peace be upon him) or not.

we’ve got to ask Waraqa ben Nawfal

And still we don’t have evidence of whether the heretics were refuted or well-represented or not, since the Roman Empire burnt the heretic books and their arguments were lost.

how not if we have full treaties against them?

 

[inJESUS]

You can read the hadith of his return to know why he will return. Jesus (Peace be upon him) is a man, that’s why he wasn’t crucified because if he was crucified, he would have died, but God wants him to return alive without death.

do you believe that Jesus is the only prophet who did not die ?

Well, read the Gospel of Judas again:
The Gospel of Judas states that Jesus told Judas “You shall be cursed for generations” and then added, “You will come to rule over them” and "You will exceed all of them, for you will sacrifice the man that clothes me

 

[inJESUS]

So you are still using a set of arguments in small sentences to scare me and make anyone feel that Islam is not true,

even if not one accent was changed from the Quran, it does not mean it is from God and people here know this so am neither scaring you nor “misguiding” others. Am presenting the arguments of believers in words and dots and the problems in their literature in contrast to believers who have a totally different understanding of scriptures and history.

As for the Sura eaten by goats, you are referring to a false hadith

 

[inJESUS]

Sorry i haven’t replied to your post 140, i just saw it. I will reply later inchallah as it is getting late.

 

[Reuben_J]

** As for what Caliph Uthman did, first of all, he did it in front of all Sahaba, and all of them agreed on that,** which is a clear proof that what they burnt has nothing to do with burning something from the message of the Quran, but the case was that the Quran was sent first in different accents to help different Arabic tribes reading it, so he burnt all the other accents and kept one accents to unite all Muslims so that it won’t confuse some Muslims as this happened already, but it has nothing to do with the message of the Quran itself.

Saying that these are corruptions of men attributed to Allah has no evidence, but the evidence in the Quran and Sunna are against that.

This is new to me. The last time I discussed this with Muslims, I was told that not all the Sahaba agreed with Uthman. Beside those who dissented had no way of opposing Uthman who was a Caliph. Do you have any reference?

For the benefit of other posters, why would there be different accents since it is supposed to be revelations recorded verbatim? Angel Gabriel spoke to Mohammad, I would say, in one accent. So how could it come out in different accents?

 

[planten]

** inJesus, your post #159, you have asked who gave permission to Uthman to burn the other parts of Quran. I do not know who did it. But I remember that in year 305 A.D. many versions of the bible were considered un-authentic, un-holy and they were destroyed by order of the emperor, and not included in the bibleNT. Only four gospels were permitted as correct ones.

Even gospel by Barnabas was expelled. But Paul was admitted honorably into the bible. Who allowed all that? Please can you tell me?

Uthman had the correct version of the Quran with him after consulting all the scribes and Huffaz (Who remembered all the Quran by heart). So that was very good effort to compile the correct version of the Quran and to expel any doubtful matters.**

 

[Reuben_J]

** inJesus, your post #159, you have asked who gave permission to Uthman to burn the other parts of Quran. I do not know who did it. But I remember that in year 305 A.D. many versions of the bible were considered un-authentic, un-holy and they were destroyed by order of the emperor, and not included in the bibleNT. Only four gospels were permitted as correct ones.

Even gospel by Barnabas was expelled. But Paul was admitted honorably into the bible. Who allowed all that? Please can you tell me?

Uthman had the correct version of the Quran with him after consulting all the scribes and Huffaz (Who remembered all the Quran by heart). So that was very good effort to compile the correct version of the Quran and to expel any doubtful matters.**

You seem to suggest there were different versions of the Quran which were burned.

I am not too sure that all the scribes agreed. I have heard this discussion before and I clearly remember that not all agreed.

 

[inJESUS]

** inJesus, your post #159, you have asked who gave permission to Uthman to burn the other parts of Quran. I do not know who did it. ** try to know in your spare time please.

 

[Ibn_Taymiya]

You are talking as if God were a material being that can be divided.

And if the word took the human additional nature , the Father and the Holy Spirit should also take it since they are one in action and Whatver the Father does, the Son also does.

the impression is correct but your understanding of “main” and “follower” is faulty. You do not say Allah is eternal because the Quran is eternal.

As I said before, your example of the Quran doesn’t apply here as the Word of God is an attribute as His Sight and Hearing, once you believe in sight and hearing the same as you believe in God’s word, you may have a point, but you have a clear distinction which proves that your belief in the word is not just an attribute but a distinct person which is not the case with the Quran.

In other words, we do not tell God what to reveal, we believe in what He reveals and we understand it accordingly without adding that which He did not reveal.

So please stop trying to show the Trinity as if it can be explained by the attributes example, because it cannot. If you simply said that from the beginning, I would have respected this answer much more.
But even in the OT I couldn’t see what you are talking about, I see the word of God as an ordinary attribute of Him, not that it’s a full person. God talks to us by His word as He sees us by His sight as He hears us by His Hearing, and all these are present in the Bible. The Bible even sometimes mentions it in plural “the words of God”, does this mean that the second person in the Trinity became persons? No, but it has nothing to do with the Trinity.

in any case, if you go a bit beyond that, you will have a better understanding of human language used to explain abstract ideas.

If it was just the case of human language, he won’t have needed to mention the word “bowel” as there is no need at all to it. He would have just said that the word is in Him.

where did you read the Word was unbegotten? and what does unbegotten Word mean? that it didn’t exist?

No, but that it was in God’s bowels. I think I have been clear about that and kept on repeating it. If an embryo is still in his mother’s belly, he is still unbegotten although he exists. This is what I mean. The same case here, the word was in God’s bowels, but it hasn’t been begotten yet although it still exists, which means that the word which is supposed to be God is changing. I don’t see that this is a nit-picking as this is what the passage implies.

does God have a mouth? God sending His Word that “goes out of His mouth” is like saying the eternally begotten Word, always existing with God, as God.

Isaiah tells that God has a mouth not me. As for your explanation to what Isaiah says, I cannot see a relevance so please explain more.

 

[Ibn_Taymiya]

being an Arab, it is stange that you don’t know this expression used till today " he is my right arm", unless you are telling us God has actually a hand.

The word “right arm” means a helper which is different from authority, so does God need a helper? Besides the scriptures you gave are talking about God’s right hand, which is different than sitting down at God’s right hand, and no verse in the OT joined God’s right hand or arm with His word which is a clear proof that all these don’t talk about sitting on God’s right hand as the case with the NT writers who used to take the OT out of context.

The “right hand” issue was solved in the previous reply and all power

Read all what I said then answer but don’t take the first sentence out of context and reply it alone, the verse tells that sitting on the right hand occured in Heaven. This verse means that during incarnation, the son was not at Heaven, otherwise, He won’t have ascended back to Heaven since He was already there during incarnation. Was he the one who creates people and organizes the Universe? Or it was the Father and the Holy Spirit who were doing so and left the mission of salvation to the Son?

Ye are gods, you say, proves Jesus did not claim divinity? why then does the passage end with “Therefore they were seeking again to seize Him, and He eluded their grasp” because Jews understood it , you did not.

So if we are going with what the Jews understood, and surely they know their book well, and they should be the reference, we will come to the conclusion that Jesus is a false prophet who is blaspheming, and the Jews will have the right to falsify him. Do you really believe it that way?
Actually if we are looking from a Christian perspective to the conversation between Jesus and the Jews, we will come to the conclusion that the Jews were right in everything they did, but this is not the case since Jesus clearly pointed out that he wasn’t blaspheming in John 10:33-34 but the Jews’ ego who wanted to catch any mistake from him drove the to do so because they were proven false and Jesus refuted them proving that he wasn’t blaspheming so the tried to catch him out of their anger and ego.

yes

So is it the human nature who also raises from the dead or this is his divine nature?

am not sure if you know more than John:

Actually you suppose that I believe John is the one who said so which is not true, but anyway, where did John say that the word is the wisdom present in the OT? or where did the OT itself say that God’s word is God’s wisdom? The OT tells that God’s wisdom was possessed and set up which cannot be the case for God.

So do you take Teophilus’ explanation of the Trinity as a proof for the early belief in the Trinity, One God?

Well, then by your logic do you take the Ebionites’ belief in Jesus as a proof for the early belief that Jesus is NOT God? Ebionites were earlier than Theouphilus. They win.

Isa. 11:2 “the spirit of the Lord shall rest on him; the spirit of wisdom and understanding.”

Let’s look at the full verse:
Isa 11:2 And the Spirit of Jehovah shall rest upon him, the spirit of wisdom and understanding, the spirit of counsel and might, the spirit of knowledge and **of the fear of Jehovah. **

So accroding to the verse, we can also call the Trinity: God, His word and His fearing of God. Does this make sense to you? There is a difference between saying the spirit is God’s wisdom or that it is the spirit of wisdom since the latter tells about the wisdom of mankind given by God not the wisdom of God Himself.

BTW, whom was this verse talking about?

 

[Ibn_Taymiya]

ok if not mistaken i already showed the problem in this theory so we are left with the bold part.In other words, Allah knows best.

And I have already answered what you said as well, go back to my last post. And even if the case was that we don’t know the wisdom for that, this would change nothing.

there is time for everything to happen; this has nothing to do with why Jesus, among all prophets, was born without a biological father.

Yes, it has, as all are the acts of God and only Him who knows the full wisdom in them, you don’t know why it is the time for it to happen, but you take it as the suitable one because you believe God is wise, not necessary because you know why.

do you really need me to tell you? In the beginning was the Word, and the Word was with God, and the Word was God. And the Word became flesh and made his dwelling among us, and we saw his glory, the glory as of the Father’s only Son, full of grace and truth.

You still didn’t tell me why he was born of a virgin. Incarnation could happen with no need to be born of a virgin.

Did you answer what mirale is this that is neither seen nor proved nor verified nor serves any purpose to humanity in Islam?

It was verified by speaking in cradle, and was proved to the Jews. For you, how did the Jews know about Jesus’ virign birth, they were even used to calling him “son of Joseph”.

can you explain your request please? i didn’t understand what you’re asking for.

Give me an external non-Christian historical evidence telling that this occured with crucifixion.

so what? we disbelieve in it because other gospels do not mention it? what about the whole churches knowing it? they are wrong because other gospels do not mention it? your Quran doesn’t mention a thousand thing, yet you believe them according to the sunna .

There is a lot of difference between the style of the Quran and the style of the Sunna, and you can see that clearly. But the styles of the four Gospels are similar and are supposed to tell about the same event, and if this was a small event, there may have been no problem about that. But the problem is that it is a very huge event, by which the other gospels not mentioning it puts it in question.

In other words, you and i believe in the same thing by faith because no evidence can be given, the difference is that you do not know why or are trying to understand why.

Well, you proved that you also don’t know why in many acts of God nor did I say that I am not trying to understand as my posts already prove the opposite. The case was that you asked me about an evidence about that from the Jews, and now you retreated and said that it’s a matter of faith, that was my objective from putting that script and it was achieved.

no i haven’t ignored it, i read it. There are other sites refering to other archeological sites related to this story. That is why i didn’t want to waste time on exchanging links. So be it, you believe it isn’t a myth, Aritotle happened to mention a similar theme under inspiration, so be it.

And Babylonians and many other cultures happened to mention the flood of Noah also, so be it.

of course, because i’ve been trying to explain to you that we do not believe in preserved dots and vowels in the first place. Is this concept so hard to grasp?

They are not just dots and vowels, but lost verses, addition, replacement, anonymous writers, textual variants in the core of your beliefs, errors,…etc. But still it’s a preserved Bible.
I am not talking about the church now as I said before, you believe that the Bible is the uncorrupted word of God, and this is what we are discussing here.

You see these are their own views? On what basis? Both are ancient fathers who were much close to the age of the OT and surely they have seen what you didn’t see. Or were they heretics who blasphemed against the Holy Spirit who is supposed to tell them everything? They are not talking about just opinions, they are talking about what they saw. Or may I tell you about the dispute between church fathers on the canonicity of different books? And you are talking about chaos?

No one defends or dies for what he knows to be a lie but people can defend and die for what they do not know is a lie.

So if Muslims in Mecca were really proven false when the Arabs refuted the Sura like it challenge, why did they continue on and die for a false belief?

I checked it again, may i ask where yuo got the following translation from?

From a Quran e-book downloaded from islamspirit.com an Arabic site.
I read what you said about the translation, but I couldn’t understand your point, as for the Bible verse, could you tell me where is it?

my criteria is the person of Jesus the Christ: His message of salvation starting OT, His message in the NT which explains the Old in the New, the too many OT prophecies and fulfillments

So I see that your criteria is your faith only, that’s nice because all your faith could be refuted, but I think it needs an independent thread.

we’ve got to ask Waraqa ben Nawfal

Waraqa ben Nawfal has only met the Prophet (Peace be upon him) in the beginning and died immediately after that, so if Waraqa was the one who wrote the Quran why did he tell the Prophet (Peace be upon him) about it? Why didn’t he claim it for himself? And who wrote the verses talking about events happening after Waraqa died?

how not if we have full treaties against them?

When you try to know about someone and what he says in a case, do you ask him or his enemies?

 

[Ibn_Taymiya]

do you believe that Jesus is the only prophet who did not die ?

God didn’t tell us about another prophet who didn’t die.

yes and i already told you that it claims that Judas’ act of handing Jesus for crucifixion was not a betrayal. This gospel does not serve your purpose but refutes it

The Quran didn’t say it was a betrayal, it just said he wasn’t crucified, but he was made to appear that way to them.

is this a shia hadith?

What I meant is that this hadith is false because it doesn’t meet the hadith standards, what I meant by shia is that it had shia origins which had its way to Sunni books but it fails because it doesn’t meet the high standards of hadith science.

who gave Uthman the right to burn that which Allah revealed ? is this respect for the Word of Allah? or were they different?

This action of Uthman has ever since been condemned in the strongest terms by the Shias so seems things are not as rosy as you are telling us.

Again, it wasn’t Uthman alone, it was the whole sahaba, and as I said that their consensus is infallible.
Ali Ibn Abi Talib says:“O people don’t exceed in Uthman, for by Allah he did what he did with all of us, and if I were him, I would have done the same.”

Musa’b Ibn Sa’d says:" I saw people (sahaba) when Uthman burnt the masahef, they like it and no one condemned it"

What you gave here these were the rebels against Uthman due to the fitnah made, and they were motivated by the Jew Abdullah ibn Saba’ who gave them false information about Uthman, so many of them were ignorant people who did that out of what Ibn Saba’ told them, but there were no sahaba within them.

Your question about the 7 dialects (different from the recitations, they are something else), they were 7 Arabic accents for the Quran which were sent as a help for the Arabic tribes in the beginning of Islam, no change in meaning or more than one meaning as the case with recitations, and when Islam spread along different regions in Uthman’s caliphate, and many people entered Islam, many problems occured due to this and they were about to fight each other, so at that time, the need for the 7 dialects became less, and the problems coming from them became more, so what Uthman did is that he left one dialect to cease that diversity at his time and for every time after him. And he didn’t do that alone, but all the sahaba agreed with him about that.

like who?

The khawarej used to do so, the Ahmadis now and many liberals, and there may be others but these are whom I know now.

fine, but why do you say it is a test to see who will believe in the teachings of the sunna, if following the sunna is obligatory anyway?

Well, many people already feel that the Sunnah has a less authority than the Quran that’s why they may attack some hadiths they don’t like although they are proven to be highly authentic and say that they contradict the Quran, and the stoning verse is an example, you’ll find many of those who deny it say that the Quran tells that the punishment of the adulterers is only 100 lashes and since the Quran has a higher authority than the hadith, we reject the hadiths telling that the married adulterer must be stoned. That’s how most of them think.

As a side note, can you please explain this to me? thx :

Sahih al Bukhari, Volume 2, Book 23, Number 374, on the authority of Anas bin Malik:

Well, in the beginning you must know that there was a diversity among scholars concerning the word “qaaraf” قارف as some scholars say it means sinned and others say it means had sex with his wife, and in both cases there is no problem in the hadith, and if we took the second meaning put in the translation here which has a better authority than the first meaning, scholars made the reason that the one who burries her won’t be tempted by the Satan to remember what happened between him and his wife while burrying her. What the Sahabi di is that he just burried her, and no problem in that also as it is not necessary that one of her relatives is the one who does so as long as he is known to do it well, the same as a doctor curing a woman, and also this was infront of all people and no kholwa (that he was alone with her).