sagenaija:
[size=6pt][/size]
Think about these:
Israel was expecting a Messiah.
This was after they've had Moses and the prophets. So, he was not just viewed as 'another prophet'.
Even your Koran calls Jesus "THE MESSIAH". Not a Messiah but the Messiah.

Mathew 1 - the angel's words to Joseph
"But after he had considered this, an angel of the Lord appeared to him in a dream and said, “Joseph son of David, do not be afraid to take Mary home as your wife, because what is conceived in her is from the Holy Spirit. She will give birth to a son, and you are to give him the name Jesus, because he will save his people from their sins.”
Matthew 1:20‭-‬21 NIV

John 1 - John the Baptist's declaration
"The next day John saw Jesus coming toward him and said, “Look, the Lamb of God, who takes away the sin of the world!"
John 1:29 NIV


Luke 4 - Jesus at the start of his work
"and the scroll of the prophet Isaiah was handed to him. Unrolling it, he found the place where it is written: “The Spirit of the Lord is on me, because he has anointed me to proclaim good news to the poor. He has sent me to proclaim freedom for the prisoners and recovery of sight for the blind, to set the oppressed free, to proclaim the year of the Lord’s favor.” Then he rolled up the scroll, gave it back to the attendant and sat down. The eyes of everyone in the synagogue were fastened on him. He began by saying to them, “Today this scripture is fulfilled in your hearing.”
Luke 4:17‭-‬21 NIV

Jesus's declaration
"Then he opened their minds so they could understand the Scriptures. He told them, “This is what is written: The Messiah will suffer and rise from the dead on the third day, and repentance for the forgiveness of sins will be preached in his name to all nations, beginning at Jerusalem."
Luke 24:45‭-‬47 NIV

So, CLEARLY Jesus's primary mission to the world was to be the atoning sacrifice for mankind's sin.

Jman24:

There is no difference between you and the ancient Greece/pegan - ( belief in human sacrifice)

Jman24:

Max I'm back for you
Let's say he agrees to just pure worship without being a registered jw member would you identify with his beliefs ?

sagenaija:
[size=6pt][/size]
Think about these:
Israel was expecting a Messiah.
This was after they've had Moses and the prophets. So, he was not just viewed as 'another prophet'.
Even your Koran calls Jesus "THE MESSIAH". Not a Messiah but the Messiah.

Mathew 1 - the angel's words to Joseph
"But after he had considered this, an angel of the Lord appeared to him in a dream and said, “Joseph son of David, do not be afraid to take Mary home as your wife, because what is conceived in her is from the Holy Spirit. She will give birth to a son, and you are to give him the name Jesus, because he will save his people from their sins.”
Matthew 1:20‭-‬21 NIV

John 1 - John the Baptist's declaration
"The next day John saw Jesus coming toward him and said, “Look, the Lamb of God, who takes away the sin of the world!"
John 1:29 NIV

Luke 4 - Jesus at the start of his work
"and the scroll of the prophet Isaiah was handed to him. Unrolling it, he found the place where it is written: “The Spirit of the Lord is on me, because he has anointed me to proclaim good news to the poor. He has sent me to proclaim freedom for the prisoners and recovery of sight for the blind, to set the oppressed free, to proclaim the year of the Lord’s favor.” Then he rolled up the scroll, gave it back to the attendant and sat down. The eyes of everyone in the synagogue were fastened on him. He began by saying to them, “Today this scripture is fulfilled in your hearing.”
Luke 4:17‭-‬21 NIV

Jesus's declaration
"Then he opened their minds so they could understand the Scriptures. He told them, “This is what is written: The Messiah will suffer and rise from the dead on the third day, and repentance for the forgiveness of sins will be preached in his name to all nations, beginning at Jerusalem."
Luke 24:45‭-‬47 NIV

So, CLEARLY Jesus's primary mission to the world was to be the atoning sacrifice for mankind's sin.

MaxInDHouse:




Do you still think you deserve a reasonable or direct reply from any right thinking person?
Come on, you don't have any faith so what you think is irrelevant.
Why do you think most people like you are running after Max?
Well it's because you can see that this person have a strong faith that's not wavering and you don't, so you're disturbed about it just like atheists and agnostics.
Oh sorry you're also an atheist!

sagenaija:
[size=6pt][/size]
Think about these:
When you quoted passages from the Gospels it wasn't reported speech. Now that I quoted from same Gospels it is reported speech. Isn't that interesting?

Taking away sin means the means through which sin is paid for!

This is love: not that we loved God, but that he loved us and sent his Son as an atoning sacrifice for our sins.
1 John 4:10 NIV

He is the atoning sacrifice for our sins, and not only for ours but also for the sins of the whole world.
1 John 2:2 NIV

Jman24:

Stop using the hide and seek tactics. Did he ask you to defend for him?
It's obvious you do have a hard time replying or explaining things to me.
Reply directly to my questions for you
Max the guy man

Janosky:

Romans 3:29-30, John 4:23-24 "the God is "He".
"He" is how many persons?

sagenaija:
[size=8pt][/size]
Emp.iree, can't you see that you contradicting yourself right here? The same Bible you claim is a story book is the same you run to in order to support your point. Who says that the portions you quote are correct and the ones I quote are wrong?

Let's not even go to the Koran. We've been there before. And we know it was equally 'Witnesses' that wrote the Koran. Mohamed even forgot some verses he had earlier given and had to be reminded. Not to mention that those who eventually compiled it were hundreds of miles away from the purported scene of events.

[b]Recent research shows that Islam as we know it today never came to be until the 9th or 10th century. Nothing of Islam can be traced back to the time of Mohamed ‐ no manuscripts, no coins, no rock inscriptions, qibla positions, etc. Do you guys have the assurance that Mohamed's works were acceptable to Allah, not to talk of yours? Don't you keep interceding for him?

You don't want to accept or understand the 'stories' of the Bible yet you want 'interpret' them. Isn't that interesting? Jesus did and said things for definite purposes. When you ignore the context you lose the meaning.

This is what the Scripture presents:
"Yet to all who did receive him, to those who believed in his name, he gave the right to become children of God"
John 1:12 NIV

"For God so loved the world that he gave his one and only Son, that whoever believes in him shall not perish but have eternal life."
John 3:16 NIV

"Jesus performed many other signs in the presence of his disciples, which are not recorded in this book. But these are written that you may believe that Jesus is the Messiah, the Son of God, and that by believing you may have life in his name."
John 20:30‭-‬31

The standard of the God of the Bible is 100%. Nothing less. All the 'good works' in this world will qualify no one to meet up with God's standard because man has a fallen nature. No man is able to meet that standard. Only Jesus did. Therefore, anyone who comes to God through him is accepted by God. That, Emp.iree, is the simple gospel.

sagenaija:
[size=8pt][/size]
Unless one goes into long 'essays' you guys never think we're presenting plain facts.

You can't say that a report is faulty or wrong or false and then go to the same report to affirm something. In this case we are talking about the Bible: you cannot say on the one hand that it is corrupted and unreliable and then go back to it to prove that it affirms Islam in any way. It is either one or the other.

However, the Koran affirms the Bible. So, when you claim that it is corrupted you are turning against your Koran. Doesn't the Koran say that Allah preserves his revelations? If it is right then the Koran is wrong. Either way the Koran has no basis to stand.

Empi.ree, If the Koran was already written and in one bound volume during the time of Mohamed then what did Abu Bakr do? And what did Uthman do?
It is a well known fact that the first complete text was compiled during the Caliphate of Abu Bakr, after Mohamed's death:

b]Narrated Zaid bin Thabit Al-Ansari:[/b]

who was one of those who used to write the Divine Revelation: Abu Bakr sent for me after the (heavy) casualties among the warriors (of the battle) of Yamama (where a great number of Qurra' were killed). 'Umar was present with Abu Bakr who said, 'Umar has come to me and said, The people have suffered heavy casualties on the day of (the battle of) Yamama, and I am afraid that there will be more casualties among the Qurra' (those who know the Qur'an by heart) at other battle-fields, whereby a large part of the Qur'an MAY BE LOST, unless you collect it. And I am of the opinion that you should collect the Qur'an." Abu Bakr added, "I said to 'Umar, 'How can I do something WHICH ALLAH’S APOSTLE HAS NOT DONE?' 'Umar said (to me), 'By Allah, it is (really) a good thing.' So 'Umar kept on pressing, trying to persuade me to accept his proposal, till Allah opened my bosom for it and I had the same opinion as 'Umar." (Zaid bin Thabit added Umar was sitting with him (Abu Bakr) and was not speaking me. "You are a wise young man and we do not suspect you (of telling lies or of forgetfulness): and you used to write the Divine Inspiration for Allah's Apostle. Therefore, look for the Qur'an and collect it (in one manuscript)." By Allah, if he (Abu Bakr) had ordered me to shift one of the mountains (from its place) it would not have been harder for me than what he had ordered me concerning the collection of the Qur'an. I said to both of them, "How dare you do a thing WHICH THE PROPHET HAS NOT DONE?" Abu Bakr said, "By Allah, it is (really) a good thing. So I kept on arguing with him about it till Allah opened my bosom for that which He had opened the bosoms of Abu Bakr and Umar. So I started locating Qur'anic material and collecting it from parchments, scapula, leaf-stalks of date palms and from the memories of men (who knew it by heart). I found with Khuzaima two Verses of Surat-at-Tauba WHICH I HAD NOT FOUND WITH ANYONE ELSE, (and they were):--


"Verily there has come to you an Apostle (Muhammad) from amongst yourselves. It grieves him that you should receive any injury or difficulty He (Muhammad) is ardently anxious over you (to be rightly guided)" (9.128)

b]Did you notice what Abu Bakr initially said?
And you still believe that the Koran was in one single volume during the time of Mohamed?

But then maybe you guys want to rewrite history again in the 21st century to give us a new narrative. I will not be surprised if you even deny the above hadith.

Unlike the Holy Bible which has over 25,000 manuscripts with copies dating over two thousand years (i.e., Dead Sea Scrolls), the Koran’s manuscript evidence pales in comparison. Moreover, no two koranic manuscripts are identical (which is rather amusing in light of the repeated Moslem attack on the NT textual tradition.

Emp.iree, I thought that you are more intelligent than to query research. Are you thinking that research done TODAY cannot bring up new information about events of 2,000 years ago? If that's how you're reasoning then no wonder you've bought into the PROPAGANDA of Islam hook line and sinker.

According to the standard Islamic narrative, Mohamed started Islam as a new religion, distinct from Judaism and Christianity. But confirmation of that story is difficult, because it is based not on documents from that time – there are very few of them – but from eighth- and ninth-century literary sources, well past Mohamed’s lifetime.

Scholars who drew mainly from the 7th century documents have come to the staggering conclusions that: the original Moslem sanctuary was in the northern hijaz, not in Mecca, and that the story of Mohamed in Mecca was a later fiction, that Abu Bakr never existed but was "invented" when Mohamed's death was backdated. Etc.

b]The name Mohamed was not found in coins and INSCRIPTIONS until decades after he purportedly died[/b]. How come no archeological findings about Islam's origins has been found in Mecca?

Some have even said that 'Mohamed' is not a personal name but Arabic rendering of a Syriac word meaning "the highly praised one" which could well be a person other than Islamic Mohamed

So, when one of your scholars - Yasir Qadhi - said several months ago that "the standard narrative has HOLES in it" he knew what he was saying. (You may even also deny him here if his position challenges your own)

Just as Mathew and others wrote the Gospels, it was others who wrote what Mohamed recited. MOHAMED NEVER WROTE DOWN ANY PORTION OF THE KORAN!

We do not claim that the Gospels were written down during the time of Jesus. But we believe those who wrote the Gospels and the rest of the Bible were INSPIRED by God.

sagenaija:
[size=6pt][/size]
Islam speaks from both sides of the mouth.

1.On the Bible
The Bible version are TRANSLATIONS! Do you understand, Emp.iree? Or do you want that explained further?

Koran 10:94 - And if thou (Muhammad) art in doubt concerning that which We reveal unto thee, then question those who read the Scripture (that was) before thee. Verily the Truth from thy Lord hath come unto thee. So be not thou of the waverers.

If you say the Koran did not say 'Bible' then you have no right to refer to anywhere in the Koran to argue that the Koran states in it that the Bible has been changed. Do you get it? If, according to you, the Koran NOWHERE mentions the Bible then you cannot go back to the same Koran to argue that it says the book it never mentioned has been corrupted or changed. Also, you cannot go to the same book to affirm the prophet hood of Mohamed or anything in Islam like many of you do.

If you claim that what the Koran refers to as what 'the people of the book' had is lost or corrupted then you are admitting that the Koran is wrong in saying that Allah preserves his word. Do you know the implication of this as it affects even the Koran?

2. On "Quran was written down in his Mohamed's) lifetime"
The issue is not what Moslems agree or disagree on; the issue is what does your history show? If from your books we know that that it was those after Mohamed's death who started compiling the Koran but you are today telling us that Moslems now agree that it was already in one BOUND volume during the time of Mohamed who should we believe - your books or you?
Is it your agreement as Moslems that supersedes history? Should your agreement not, in fact, be based on what history, through your books, shows?
The simple fact is that the Koran was not one whole document during the time of Mohamed.

Your books tell us Zaid said "How dare you do a thing WHICH THE PROPHET HAS NOT DONE?" yet are claiming that your prophet had done it. Do you believe your books or just what you want to believe?

And if the Koran was not in a bound copy it is a serious issue because:
1. It means that Mohamed couldn't have systematically reviewed it with his companions like you claim.

If a hundred people have different portions of the Koran how will he go about reviewing it? Who will he call to bring what verse or chapter?
2. It means that the collection from parchments, scapula, leaf-stalk of date palms, etc can be questioned as not being of certain origin, as Abu Bakr had no existing document to check his collections with.

Your 'stories' tell us that Abu Bakr compiled a book from materials gathered from different sources; that Uthman did his own separate compilation after which he BURNT (an 'offence' Moslems will kill others for today!) other copies not acceptable to him; other different compilations happened hundreds of years after them YET you still claim "What they had is what we have". What who had? Abu Bakr? Uthman? Hafs? Wash?

b]3. You missed this but let me give it to you again: This is the recent research I talked about - [/b]
Scholars who drew mainly from the 7th century documents have come to the staggering conclusions that: the original Moslem sanctuary was in the northern hijaz, not in Mecca,

sagenaija:
[size=6pt][/size]
Islam speaks from both sides of the mouth.

1. Islamic literature and websites like Sunnah.com and about Islam.net show us CLEARLY what Islam say the people of the book are. But we know that, in order to win an argument, you guys will deny your sources, your prophet or even Allah.

If the Koran never referred to Christians or Bible then on what basis do you Moslems claim that it is corrupted?

2. We have your history as to how the Koran evolved but because it doesn't quite look neat you now want to change the narration.
If the Koran was "written down" in the time of Mohamed then what did Abu Bakr do? And after him what did Uthman do? Reprint more copies?

You ask for the relevance of what Zaid told Abu Bakr.
When Zaid said "How dare you do a thing WHICH THE PROPHET HAS NOT DONE?" It should be CLEAR to anyone that he was saying that there was NO COLLATED KORAN at the time of Mohamed! Open your eyes man! Why close up your brain!

b]3. On memorisation[/b]
I guess you guys make a hype out of memorisation because it makes you feel good. You think it's some additional stuff to use in 'selling' your religion .

Did Mohamed perfectly memorise the Koran?

No, and the Hadith and Koran are very clear about this.

Narrated Aisha: The Prophet heard a man reciting the Qur'an in the mosque and said, "May Allah bestow His Mercy on him, as he has reminded me of such-and-such verses of such a Surah." (Sahih al-Bukhari: vol. 6, bk. 61, no. 556; also Sahih Muslim: bk. 4, no. 1720

Narrated Abdullah ibn Mas'ud: ... (Muhammad said) I am only a human being and I forget just as you do; so when I forget, remind me ... (Sunan Abu Dawud: bk. 3, no. 1015; also Sahih al-Bukhari: vol. 1, bk. 8, no. 394)

So, did Mohamed forget? Yes!
If Mohamed to whom the Koran was revealed forgot, why do you guys still make a big deal about memorisation?

4. Even when you guys know the truth you keep saying 'show us', 'bring the Koran that is....'. We know that you don't have the Abu Bakr or Uthman's Koran. But I just gave you two other versions there ‐ the Hafs and the Wash.
You are talking as if a non-moslem caught burning a 'fragment' of the Koran today will be spared your wrath. Why deny the obvious?

5. Simple questions on origin of Islam are beginning to shake you up. Please answer these two simple questions:
1. Where did majority of those who wrote Islamic books write from - Mecca or Medina or farther away?
2. Which archeological findings do we have from Mecca to support Islam's origins?

I hope you won't come up with 'Allah knows best'.

b]6. Who was Mohamed sent to according to these?:[/b]

1)"(Mohammed) You are only a Warner and for every nation there is a guide." (13:7)

2)"And we have sent no messenger but with the language of his people, that he might make (the message) clear for them." (14:4)

The Koran here proves that as per his own standards Mohamed can only be a guide for his nation i.e. Arabs.

sagenaija:
[size=6pt][/size]
I'm not sure why you attached that clip.
Are there former Moslem Preachers, Mullahs, Imams, Scholars and Dawah missionaries who left Islam and converted to Christianity?

sagenaija:
[size=6pt]
1. I take it that you agree that Moslems have no reason to claim that the Bible is corrupted. I also take it that you agree that Moslems have no reason to go to the Bible to affirm Mohamed or Islam.

2. I have shown you that the Koran was not in a COLLATED form at the time of Mohamed. Zaid's initial query when asked to do so should make this clear.

3. I have shown you that Mohamed forgot portions of the Koran to make you see the idiosy of these excuses we are getting about oral traditions.

Look at my first statement above. The fact that there are conflicting stories and positions in your books ordinarily should be a red flag showing that something is wrong. But for some strange reasons you guys miss that out.

Emp.iree, did the Koran not say that Allah can will for Mohamed to forget a verse or recitation? And you still want us to believe the contrary?

4. About 5,000 differences have been found between the Hafs and Wash Korans alone. Why should 'recitation' change the meanings of portions of the Koran?

You guys have simply chosen to blind your eyes to the truth about your religion.
[quote]I had prefer to be blinded by Quran than Christianity that has no source.


[quote]
5. I see the nice way you try to run away from the origins of your religion. Again, an attempt to close your eyes to the truth

It's always difficult for a person who has spent all his life in a religion like Islam to want to accept its flaws.

6. You even came up with a REINTERPRETATION of the Koran! Interesting!
So, when we go to the hadith, you will go to Sira. If you are not satisfied with the two you ask for Koran. And even when the Koran is produced you REINTERPRET it to suit your narrative.
Look at my first statement above again.

The Koran CLEARLY says:
1)"(Mohammed) You are only a Warner and for every nation there is a guide." (13:7) and
2)"And we have sent no messenger but with the language of his people, that he might make (the message) clear for them." (14:4)

And you are telling us that the Koran is lying. And you then go into your own 'logic' on how it is so. When you are not satisfied with the Koran you invent your own premises and conclusions.

Why don't you first try and explain those verses to us?

sagenaija:
The Question No Christian Can Answer
- By David Wood

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=uA23-bUOdTI
One of the most common accusations Christians hear from their Moslem friends is that Christians believe that 1+1+1=1. But is this what Christians believe?
What happens if we apply the same sort of analysis to Allah, Mohamed, and the Koran?
David Wood investigates.

Empiree, Lukgaf, Rashduct4luv, Antichristian, motayoayinde, mhmsadyq, haekymbahd or Realismailakabir

Empiree:
Debate That Put David Wood out of business 3 years ago in New York

xproducer:


====

"For there are three that bear witness in heaven: the Father, the Word, and the Holy Spirit; and these three are one." - 1 John 5:7

"For what man knows the things of a man except the spirit of the man which is in him? Even so no one knows the things of God except the Spirit of God." - 1 Corinthians 2:11

“For My thoughts are not your thoughts, Nor are your ways My ways,” says the Lord. “For as the heavens are higher than the earth, So are My ways higher than your ways, And My thoughts than your thoughts." - Isaiah 55:8-9

"Oh, the depth of the riches both of the wisdom and knowledge of God! How unsearchable are His judgments and His ways past finding out!" - Romans 11:33

Janosky:


Remove that FRAUD of 1 John 5:7 KJV from your post.
It's a confirmed man made fabrication.

1 Corinthians 2:11 & 1 Corinthians 15:50, did Paul contradict himself?

xproducer:


====

"For there are three that bear witness in heaven: the Father, the Word, and the Holy Spirit; and these three are one." - 1 John 5:7

MightySparrow:

Mohammed himself is not worthy to be called a prophet nor his revelation' credible..

AntiChristian:
This verse is a lie, an insertion to the Bible manuscript. It is only found in the KJV. See the verse in some translations. But God is not the author of confusion! Even the Bible is confused on trinity!

New International Version
For there are three that testify:

New Living Translation
So we have these three witnesses—

English Standard Version
For there are three that testify:

Berean Study Bible
For there are three that testify:

Berean Literal Bible
For there are three bearing testimony:

King James Bible
For there are three that bear record in heaven, the Father, the Word, and the Holy Ghost: and these three are one.