U
UnworthySoul
Guest
con’t…
Believe what you wish, but like i said the islamic system of belief is not new and is only a re-affirmation of the message of the previous Prophets and Messengers, that the people restrict all their worship to God alone.
I’m sorry but it is in no way a re-affirmation of the previous prophets and messengers. It cannot be because the message is not conducive to the prophets of old. If you read the Bible, then the Quran and Hadith, the latter ascribe different messages from the prophets than the former does. Your claim is because the Bible is corrupt or tainted. Mind you, there is no proof to support this, and all the evidence points to the amazing continued accuracy of the Bible after 2,000 years, but you do not accept this. Nothing to be done about that. If you refuse to accept fact, then you have made your decision.
Islam does not say as the Jews say that Jesus was a ‘bastard’, nor do we say as the Christians say that he is God or son of God. Rather, he is the Messiah, the son of the virgin Mary, born by the permission of God when He said ‘Be’ and he was. He was from the Mighty Prophets and Messengers, a true servant of God, sent only to call the children of Israel to worshipping God alone.
And yet you base this on the teachings of a man who was born centuries after Christ lived, all the while ignoring what was written from accounts of those who walked with Christ Himself. You ignore the very institution Christ established to instead follow the teachings of a man who had no clear knowledge of Christ. You see some of the Truth but fall short of seeing the complete Truth. The people who wrote the Gospels were students and scribes of those who walked with Christ in person. They personally knew these Apostles and jotted down what they were told. Do you think they would have gone about this in a cavalier manner? Of course not. They were meticulous in what they wrote.
This claim he made it simple so as to get the people to accept ‘his’ faith, this actually goes against what is historically reported.
What are your historical sources on this?
The arabs of that time were extremely opposed to the message of Muhammed and tried every way they could to stop him from spreading his message. They persecuted and tortured his followers, tried to kill him, insulted, harrased, and abused him… they did alot of harm to him and his followers. And this didnt go on for just a couple years, rather it went on for 2 decades where he was constantly facing trials and tribulations against his enemies, until God finally gave him victory over the people of Makkah. And indeed those tried and tested by the people the most are the Prophets and Messengers!
Mohammed was no saint. To imply such is just plain false. I will be happy to go into this later because it is a topic with HUGE detail and not fit for this thread.
Like i said, the Prophet Muhammed came to re-affirm the message of the previous Prophets and Messengers.
I’m sorry but that is simply not true. His own message was far too different and skewed from the original source material to be a continuation of anything. It was an appropriation of what he liked and a negation of what he did not like.
con’t…
Believe what you wish, but like i said the islamic system of belief is not new and is only a re-affirmation of the message of the previous Prophets and Messengers, that the people restrict all their worship to God alone.
I’m sorry but it is in no way a re-affirmation of the previous prophets and messengers. It cannot be because the message is not conducive to the prophets of old. If you read the Bible, then the Quran and Hadith, the latter ascribe different messages from the prophets than the former does. Your claim is because the Bible is corrupt or tainted. Mind you, there is no proof to support this, and all the evidence points to the amazing continued accuracy of the Bible after 2,000 years, but you do not accept this. Nothing to be done about that. If you refuse to accept fact, then you have made your decision.
Islam does not say as the Jews say that Jesus was a ‘bastard’, nor do we say as the Christians say that he is God or son of God. Rather, he is the Messiah, the son of the virgin Mary, born by the permission of God when He said ‘Be’ and he was. He was from the Mighty Prophets and Messengers, a true servant of God, sent only to call the children of Israel to worshipping God alone.
And yet you base this on the teachings of a man who was born centuries after Christ lived, all the while ignoring what was written from accounts of those who walked with Christ Himself. You ignore the very institution Christ established to instead follow the teachings of a man who had no clear knowledge of Christ. You see some of the Truth but fall short of seeing the complete Truth. The people who wrote the Gospels were students and scribes of those who walked with Christ in person. They personally knew these Apostles and jotted down what they were told. Do you think they would have gone about this in a cavalier manner? Of course not. They were meticulous in what they wrote.
This claim he made it simple so as to get the people to accept ‘his’ faith, this actually goes against what is historically reported.
What are your historical sources on this?
The arabs of that time were extremely opposed to the message of Muhammed and tried every way they could to stop him from spreading his message. They persecuted and tortured his followers, tried to kill him, insulted, harrased, and abused him… they did alot of harm to him and his followers. And this didnt go on for just a couple years, rather it went on for 2 decades where he was constantly facing trials and tribulations against his enemies, until God finally gave him victory over the people of Makkah. And indeed those tried and tested by the people the most are the Prophets and Messengers!
Mohammed was no saint. To imply such is just plain false. I will be happy to go into this later because it is a topic with HUGE detail and not fit for this thread.
Like i said, the Prophet Muhammed came to re-affirm the message of the previous Prophets and Messengers.
I’m sorry but that is simply not true. His own message was far too different and skewed from the original source material to be a continuation of anything. It was an appropriation of what he liked and a negation of what he did not like.
con’t…