Samunique:
Pls what is your point here with all this long post, bcs u have not made any point ?

Are you saying here that the Bible doesn't support Jesus as being the Son of God or what is your point ?

I want state here that this your logic is very boring , the same over and over.

You asked whether Jesus is the son of God, and I went to the Bible the very source of his birth, life and teachings,

all u could do was to bore me with what you copy from Wikipedia and some Quranic verses from a man whose source of revelations was uncertain, that's if he had any at all. Bcs some of the stories he told about Jesus were all in apocrypha that were already in circulation during his time, and some plagiarized biblical stories and characters.

So u want to use the words of a man who thought he was demon possessed as criterion to disprove the Lordship and Sonship of our Lord Jesus Christ
You must be a joker ?

JUST LOOK AT YOUR HYPOCRISY HERE !

SO U BELIEVED THIS JARGONS YOU COPIED WITHOUT QUESTIONING BUT CANNOT BELIEVE THE BIBLE THE BOOK YOUR ALLAHH ASKED HIS PROPHET TO CONSULT IF HE HAS ANY DOUBT

U SEE WHY I REFUSED TO ANSWER YOU IN THE FIRST PLACE?

CAUSE I KNEW IT WOULD BE SAME SAME OLD STORY, LOGIC AND PATTERN.

pls, u may not bother to quote me if it,s this same boring old logic of yours is all that u have to offer. Except if u have any tangible evidences to show that the "holy bible" does not support the claim that Jesus is God's Son, or concrete scholarly and historical evidences ( which i know may not exist anywhere )to buttress your points. As for that your Quran , forget about it !

Empiree:
who started long epistle, me or you?.




Your Bible is self CONTRADICTORY. There is no difference between son of God and Son of God. Both mean the same thing in essence.




exactly what happens when you can not defend your religious doctrines. I know from the start that you have little clue how your bible works.





See your confusion again?. Here you affirmed how Jesus was born of Mary and at the same time you said he's son of God borne without woman. You asked me if God can do anything, why can He give birth to Jesus without a woman?. You are very ridiculous. I will ignore you soon because you guys can turn good brain to lifelessly one with your silly doctrines.



Why are you throwing tantrum?. You shouldn't worry about Wikipedia. You shouldn't worry about Quran. You shouldn't worry about plagiarism. You should worry about defending your bible, which obviously you failed at. Your next move now is to insult. Yet you said at the beginning that you wanted no insult. Fake ex-muslim.




See see, now you have started just because you can't defend your silly beliefs. Your bible is false. Your bible is your source of confusion and I can't help you, sir. Sonship and Lordship of Jesus is nothing but fake story cooked up by people who probably smoked weed before writing trash. I know how to insult the moment you crossed my line.





the same way you believe unfounded stories posted by your buddy up there without second guess. So it is a tit for tat. Your bible is filled with hearsays from head to bottom




your bible is your own nightmares. There are lots of confusing therein. It portrays Jesus a man born of human being and at the same time, some writers tried to make him God and they came up with Trinity.

There is no way you can get out of your confusion for as long as you have your bible. The question is, WHO WROTE THE BIBLE?

Empiree:
it is quite easy to spot your motives. Bro, it will not work. It is over 1400years now and Islam is still winning. You can say whatever you want. You simply trying to say that "since Muhammad killed innocent people I would stop believing in him". If that's your mission, I swear you are wasting your time. I am telling this right now. I understand history is very important. And yes, chain of transmission doesn't always guarantee authenticity of a report. When it comes to history or written docs, if something is not removed something has gotta be added because it is not REVEALATION. Only Quran has absolute authority in Islam and Qur'an did not give order to our prophet to kill someone just for being criticized. We have seen many handsome characters of the prophet (saw) in many ahadith how he treated his antagonists.

However, when it comes to war, there is no room for nonsense but rules of engagement prevail. If incident of Asma etc ever happened at all, it was definitely act of treasonous or wickedness on their part which perhaps posed these to the Muslim community at that time. This kind of thing exist today. Take the case of Pakistani woman, Affia Siddiqui for example who was jailed by US for posing a threat to it's army. She was arrested and now serving life behind bars. Similarly this is what happened t in the case of Asma and others. They were Jews, the killers of your God. The only reason that make me consider your case is because we seen traces of these Jewish activities on several attempts to kill our prophet (saw), and one of them finally succeeded in planning poison in his food. Possibilities exist that they posed threats to muslims which resulted to them being killed just as the case of Banu Qurayza tribe. Now, read the attachment. Here is one example of their activities probably left out by Ibn Ishaq etc.

Was Ibn Ishaq inspired by Allah?. Who certified accuracy of his report?.

Empiree:
The more I read the story the more it sounds bogus. I'm just wondering why Christians are the ones vocal about this fake stories?. Jews don't even worry much about it unlike you. This shows that you guys have ulterior motives. We muslims are under no obligation to believe the bogus stories narrated by Ibn Ishaq and subsequently narrated in Abi Daud and ibn Saad

Here are further arguments to consider.

plainbibletruth:


Are you saying you have no motive yourself?

Emp.iree, it is CLEAR to any careful reader of Islamic literature – Koran, Hadiths, biographies, etc – that you can ALWAYS find opposite views or claims about the SAME ISSUE in ALL of these Islamic documents.

It needs repeating: ISLAM SPEAKS FROM BOTH SIDES OF THE MOUTH!

Consequently, for every issue pointed out, Islam can quickly easily throw up the opposite. The GOOD, the BAD, and the UGLY have ALL been thrown into the cesspool of Islam.

So, I can be sure that you will either claim a “misunderstanding” of those verses or run to the same materials you may claim are “questionable”

You have taken pains to paste portions of Islamic literature advocating peaceful relations with others. Now what about these:
Fight those who believe not in God and the Last Day and do not forbid what God and His Messenger have forbidden -- such men as practise not the religion of truth, being of those who have been given the Book -- until they pay the tribute out of hand and have been humbled. Q. 9:29 Arberry

b]But (even so), if they repent, establish regular prayers, and practise regular charity, - they are your brethren in Faith: (thus) do We explain the Signs in detail, for those who understand. But if they violate their oaths after their covenant, and taunt you for your Faith, - fight ye the chiefs of Unfaith: for their oaths are nothing to them: that thus they may be restrained[/b]. Q. 9:11-12 Y. Ali

Need I quote from the hadith also?

Islam finds all sorts of excuses to wriggle out of what is ordinarily a clearly bad picture of Mohamed. For instance: Mohamed engages in clearly UNPROVOKED RAIDS on a people, kill, destroy, loot their properties; then a man is grabbed and asked to reveal the location of hidden treasures and then killed; and what do Moslem ‘scholars’ and apologists do? SIMPLE! The man is BRANDED a war criminal, guilty of murder and treason! You saw right: WAR CRIMINAL! A man whose community was invaded by Mohamed and whose people NEVER INITIATED the attack becomes ‘a war criminal’! All to justify what the “prophet” did as just and right. That can only be Islamic “ingenuity”. Even when a man whose home is INVADED kills another in self defence he is branded a “war criminal”. That can only be in Islam.

Everything that earliest extant writers of Islam wrote is being turned upside down and are labelled as “fabrications” simply because current human rights will show Mohamed as the war criminal and since Islam STANDS OR FALL ON MOHAMED his apologists must “defend” him at all cost, no matter how ridiculous.

If today's Moslem like you Empiree are seeing things in a different light maybe REFORMATION is coming to Islam; just maybe!

plainbibletruth:

To answer you in the words of your friend: "How market"?

OLUWABIG:
so Muhammad died of food poisoning what a prophet Lmao .

Demmzy15:
Your lord and savior died on the cross like a criminal, and guess what, he was poisoned as well. Do you want proofs Yoruba Christian?

OLUWABIG:


where is the proof ooo ?

plainbibletruth:
[size=6pt][/size]

The NT is said to be "NEW". Can a new thing be different from an old one? If the New replaces the Old why would you want to insist on referring to the Old?

The Christian has moved on from the old: If Islam still wants to cling to its past so be it.

In Luke 2:35 we have:
"so that the thoughts of many hearts will be revealed. And a sword will pierce your own soul too".
So, Empiree, just because you see the word "sword" in a verse of the Bible does not mean you see it as literal and immediately make it to mean guns today. Context matters. Look at the context of that portion you quoted.

Moslems are pained that the quality of the life of Mohamed cannot be equated with that of Jesus.

But, because they feel they must "defend" Mohamed they are ready to throw caution to the wind in order to give him a "makeover".

So, what you want us to believe is that every negative thing about Mohamed either in the koran or any other book of Islam should be jettisoned. In which case even the koran can be "DENIED", "QUERIED" or simply explains away, all in a bid to project Mohamed in ONLY a good light.

Very soon your message will be that Islam expanded by people wholeheartedly accepting Islam without ANY battle having to be fought. People just saw the "beauty" of Islam and clamoured for it; even begging Moslems to allow them become Moslems.

Soon we'll be told that Mohamed never even verbally opposed anyone. He wouldn't even hurt a fly with his words. He was so "peaceful" that the whole world was AMAZED at him and his humility that they started running after him.

Only the "Islamic mind" can do that. For those who are more rational and honest that just wouldn't happen.

To the rational minds objectivity ensures that they look at things from more factual standpoint rather than being emotional.

The FACTS are in the historical books of Islam. Even though Moslems like you are questioning the FACTS in your own books, history remains the same and will stand against you in judgement.

TRUTH will always conquer. A lie will require more and more lies to cover up its track. TRUTH does not require such.

Lie self destruct. TRUTH builds and heals. No lie comes from the truth.

Demmzy15:
Criminal or poison part?!

OLUWABIG:


both

plainbibletruth:
[size=6pt][/size]

The NT is said to be "NEW". Can a new thing be different from an old one? If the New replaces the Old why would you want to insist on referring to the Old?

The Christian has moved on from the old: If Islam still wants to cling to its past so be it.

In Luke 2:35 we have:
"so that the thoughts of many hearts will be revealed. And a sword will pierce your own soul too".
].

OLUWABIG:







@plainbibletruth I don't know when the UNESCO be came comedians when they claim Islam is the most peaceful religion isn't that a mockery of the highest order ?

Empiree:
you never made sensible contributions. You are just like the other dude who now ran away after been battered

Kuanku:
Islam is the religion of peace and highest following as well. Prophet of Islam have told the Muslims to stay positive with the Christian. A Muslim guy is allowed to marry with a Christian lady. Everyone needs to stay in limit while talking about the religion. What do you people think?

Empiree:
Look, you quoted Hadith and you want me to explain to you. Even though I knew before hand that you were not interested in my explanation, this was the reason I drew parallel example from contemporary world system of govt. But instead you came up with their system is not about religion. But you forgot that they separated religion from State but they maintained their religious status which means they are still influenced by their Christian religion one way or the other. I simply used similarity btw their system and Islamic system.

I sensed you would reject my analysis was the reason I said that the hadith you cited was in the context of military classification not a general rule. Please go back and re-read if you missed it. The Hadith in that context is mostly referring to Quraishi people who were fighting the prophet (saw) and the Muslims. I explained this to username before. Here I found this short video to buttress my position.


https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Coo6Po_7STk&t=323s

But if you insist that the Hadith is present continuous tense, then, the Hadith is perfectly in harmony with this Bible verse. They have the exact same undertones


Jesus said in Luke 19:27


"But those enemies of mine who did not want me to be king over them--bring them here and kill them in front of me."



Just has the Hadith you quoted is literal, this Bible verse is literal. There is nothing metaphorical about it at all. It is direct because you believe that Jesus is coming back to take the believers (Christians) to heaven, and fight and kill non-believers (Muslims).


But if you reject this explaination, I will ask you if Luke 19:27 is past tense, present tense or future tense?


What is Jesus coming back to do?. Is he going to love his enemies and take them too to paradise or fight and kill them for not believing in him as Son of God according to your belief?.

true2god:
It seems we are saying the same thing but from different angles. As I said earlier, and as you rightly concurred, the shahada is a wartime declaration imposed upon the non-muslims who were forced to join the Muslim ummah or die (Qur'an 9:28-30, sahih Bukhari 4:52:196 and sahih Muslim 33).

My point is this, why saying the shahada since the ummah is no longer fighting the kafir, at least for now? You tired making a parallel between the US oath of citizenship but I smoked your ass, hope you won't do that again.

On Muslims' popular biblical verse, to create a moral relativism between righteous Jesus and evil Mohammed, you quoted:

Jesus said in Luke 19:27
"But those enemies of mine who did not want me to be king over them--bring them here and kill them in front of me."

Can you please read the entire chapter of Luke 19 and see how disingenuous an average Muslim is?

MightySparrow:
I think the topic should be: What Muslims Should Know About Islam.

OLUWABIG:


who bartered who ?

Empiree:


So, no, Christians did not move on from Old Testament

plainbibletruth:

Again, for all those verses you quoted look at the CONTEXT!

Btw, why do you think that because those verses are in the OT, that Islam is justified? That's hardly any reasonable way of proving a point.

Jesus Christ fulfilled the Law. Didn't you see it there? He said he came to fulfil it and he did. The Christian is therefore no longer under the Law; that is the plain truth.

That is why the Bible declared that: "Christ is the culmination of the law so that there may be righteousness for everyone who believes." Romans 10:4.

He then set up the New Covenant.
"In the same way, after the supper he took the cup, saying, “This cup is the new covenant in my blood, which is poured out for you." Luke 22:20.

He also became the intermediary between mankind and God:
"For there is one God and one mediator between God and mankind, the man Christ Jesus, who gave himself as a ransom for all people. This has now been witnessed to at the proper time."

Because he ALONE satisfied God:
"Salvation is found in no one else, for there is no other name under heaven given to mankind by which we must be saved.” Acts 4:10

Empiree:
stop your trash. Shahada has nothing to do with war on kufar. This is your own twist. Declaration Of Faith is just a way of Christian baptism. You baptise to be born again, right?. So in Islam, you take shahada and enter the fold of Islam and then take bath afterwards. What's that nonsense you are trying to attach to it.

And Luke 19:27 of the NT, is equally violent as OT. JESUS supported OT letter by letter. Therefore, Luke 19:27 is not parable. It means exactly what it says. It is your fraudulent pastors and Bishop, and pope that interpreted it in parable version. Not Jesus

Empiree:
After 1400years?. It's there anything new that we don't know?.

true2god:
You like making unrelated references, you are not a good student of research. However for the purpose of this discussion, I will always be of help to you.

Baptism was never instructed with a caveat for war and destruction, unlike the shahada. It quite funny that all the while you pretended as if you never saw the hadith I quoted with regards to the origin of the shahada. Anyway, let's compare Christian baptism with Islamic shahada;

Matthew 28:19 New International Version (NIV)
Therefore go and make disciples of all nations, baptizing them in the name of the Father and of the Son and of the Holy Spirit.

See the clause: 'go and make disciples (preach and no threat of war) of all nations'.

Now let us look at the Islamic shahada:

sahih Muslim 33:

It has been narrated on the authority of Abdullah b. 'Umar that the Messenger of Allah said: I have been commanded to fight against people till they testify that there is no god but Allah, that Muhammad is the messenger of Allah, and they establish prayer, and pay Zakat and if they do it, their blood and property are guaranteed protection on my behalf except when justified by law, and their affairs rest with Allah

Can you see the difference between Jesus' mandate and Mohammed's threat? How can you even compare the two instructions; one for peace and the second for war.

I know you will ignore as usual, is sahih Muslim a weak or fabricated hadith (Muslims' denial strategy)?

true2god:
[size=2pt]Yes because over 90% of Muslims are ignorant of Islami and Islamic history. Over 80% Islamic source documents are codified in Arabic hence making it difficult for Muslims, and none Muslims alike, to understand the imperial nature of Islamic. The internet age is however unmasking and decoding Islamic 'coded' teachings which were, before now, hidden from the kafir.

Muslims are now on constant damage control mode after we non-muslims started reading and de-coding Islamic coded, and mafia-like, teachings and practices. Some 30-yrs ago all hadith from Bukhari and Muslim are sahih (authentic) but today the disingenuous Muslims have categorized their so-called sahih hadith' into:

1. Strong hadith

2. Weak Hadith

3. Fabricated hadith.

Ironically, all these 'classes' of hadith are in the same book called sahih (authentic) Bukhari or sahih Muslim. What a shame!

As for sirah rasool allahh, some Muslims, especially non-arab Muslims are in a denial mode. Islamic books must be rejected; the honour of the apostle of allahh must be protected. Muslims are also denying Islamic history by Altabari. We are getting there, the next the Muslims will reject is the Qur'an itself (the poster face of Islam). [/size]

Empiree:
Amazing how you talk about CONTEXT but you are adamant when you quote a verse of Quran, and then insist it breeds violence while you overlook the context.

Empiree:

Good. That was meant to tell you that you are a pot calling the kettle black

Empiree:

He fulfilled the Laws means that he laid down foundation for you to follow. Otherwise, all those laws and violence verses would have been expunged before he gone. But they are kept bcus they are still operational. But you are telling me that christians have no rule whatsoever. They just live on earth to do as they wish?. You are incredible.

Empiree:

This simply means you MUST abide by those laws so long as you claim to be his follower. The verse doesn't say "after he is gone, the laws are no longer operational". This verse is just like prophet Muhammad(saw) left the rules and laws behind for us to follow. It doesn't mean after he is gone the laws are redundant. That's wrong interpretation and understanding. They are still there in your bible. Otherwise i would have agreed with you. You're still using both OT and NT. Therefore, you are bound to follow and apply those laws.

Empiree:

Sir, this is fraud. Who wrote this?. I guess Luke, right?. Luke said in chapter 2 that "Even as they delivered them unto us, which from the beginning were eyewitnesses, and ministers of the word;"

So Luke himself was not eyewitness. everything written in it was hearsays from other eyewitnesses. So how reliable is this verse?. It contradicts other bible verses. I believe that by Jesus blood you meant his death was sacrifice and a new covenant, right?. But then he cried to God to safe him on the cross . That doesn't sound like someone willing to sacrifice his blood for you

Empiree:

I dont have problem with this. All prophets and messangers were in similar position.

Empiree:

Yes, during his time(ONLY) and to Israelite people ONLY. It has nothing to do with you. You are African. We are now living in the time of Muhammad(saw)

plainbibletruth:

Does the koran have any context?

No one is saying that Christians have no rule whatsoever. Man, where do you get your deductions from?


Again, the Christian is under the New Covenant!

But the koran acknowledged the gospels of which the book of Luke is one.

Btw, Mohamed NEVER wrote the koran himself, did he?

And all the hadiths you use but are not too sure about were also not written by Mohamed; were they?

Empiree:
After 1400years?. It's there anything new that we don't know?.

Empiree:
You have been told the context of the hadith you decided to look the other way. So it is a waste of time going over this. For record, origin of shahada did not start with the hadith in question. Origin of shahada is in the sura 112 which preaches tawheed (Oneness of God). This the foundation of shahada and it was revealed in Mecca before any war. This is what muslim chanted around Mekkah while facing persecution.

As for Matthew 28:19, this is a fraud. Jesus didnt write this. It was Matthew or some other writer because it is clear that not all christians believe trinity. This passage indicates trinity. Unitarian christianity reject trinity.



What goes around comes around. Thats why, with help of internet, most atheists you see today were once christians. They are rejecting christianity in drove. And there is news going around that your retired Pope Benedict 16 renounced christianity and have made pilgrimage to Makkah. I saw the video of him in Mecca but I can not confirm its authenticity. And i dont expect mainstream media to report it. It was said that this was the reason he stepped down from Papal.

No one tells you that islamic book history are 100% accurate. They were written by human without supervision of the prophet(saw). Since we understood this, it is easy for us to discern falsehood from truth using Quranic standard