The Quran wasn't a book, it was speech.

originally posted by: BELIEVERpriest
a reply to: Isurrender73

Maybe you didnt read my last post. I quoted verses from the Bible that bluntly state that Jesus paid for our sin with His own life unto death. We have all been forgiven of our sins. The question is do you accept that forgiveness or do you seek to justify yourself with dead works?

Anyways, my point remains that the Koran does not go hand in hand with the Bible. One of them is flawed, and my faith is in the Bible.

But you are using an "argument from authority." The whole "The Bible is true because the Bible says so" is a logical fallacy. So there is both the fact that in the early years of Christianity a bunch of competing scriptures and sects were eradicated and the reality that the interpretation of the canon is incorrect. Try reading some of Jesus' words from a yoga or mystical understanding and one can come up with other interpretations.

How can you have "faith in the Bible" when we know for sure there are some contradictions, some mistranslations, and as noted before, suppressed alternative texts/books?

Double post

originally posted by: BELIEVERpriest
a reply to: Isurrender73

No, Jesus had to die twice on the Cross. First His spirit died when sin entered Him, then His spirit was revived when it was finished and His body died. Man was first created as body, soul, and spirit. When Adam sinned, his spirit died and his body began aging. This is why God said "dying ye shall die". This is also why Jesus said we must be born again (of spirit and water). Under the adamic curse, we are all born with dead spirits, so it was Jesus' spiritual death that finished it, His physical death facilitated His resurrection.

You will have back up all of that with scriptures. Everything you said is false.

We are not born with dead spirits, this is why it is said that children always see their father in heaven.

We are born in ignorance and our spirit does not die until we are of age and disobedient. I imagine the age of accountability to the Holy Spirit doesn't even begin until 13 per Jewish tradition.

We need to be born again, because we sin. The penalty for ALL sin is death. Every act of disobedience causes the spirit to die. This is what Buddha called cyclical existence.

The man who sins, spiritually dies. The man who dies is spiritually resurrected when he repents.

This process of death, repentance and life continues until we break free from it. This is not something that takes multiple lives. I myself have died and been resurrected many times in my ignorance. But this cyclical life ended when accepted the Holy Spirit as my guide to perfection.

When you follow the light and overcome sin you are born again, but this time as an immortal who can no longer die. Because you will no longer sin.

The only sin that a born again disciple of Christ might commit are out of ignorance. The one who is born of the spirit does not die because of ignorance so long as he repents when he learns the truth.

God is forgiving. But the man who returns to sin knowingly, it is as though he never repented, therefore he returns to spiritual death.

My daughter was not born spiritually dead. And anyone who tells their children this lie has caused great harm to the mind of thier child.

My child was born spiritually alive, and she remains so. If she continues to follow the path that Christ had me show her, she will make mistakes out of ignorance but she will not knowingly break the commandments.

She has already sinned in her life, so I am not claiming she has not, I am claiming that it is possible to not break the commands once you have both reached the age of reason and accepted the stone of perfection that was rejected by the church.

If you believe fallen, in your mind you will remain fallen.

If you believe you are raised above sin, then you will overcome it.

It is all faith.

I was justified by faith, but how can anyone know I believe in the perfect one if I don't pursue perfection? Justified by faith, proven by works. I do not need to prove anything to my father because he knows my heart and has accepted me. But I do need works to prove to my brothers that I believe in perfection.

If I continue to sin, what benefit was Christ to me?

The reason you go to church is to find a way out. This is why Christ came to take away your sin, so that you might find a way out of the mind trapped by false beliefs in Original Sin.

originally posted by: BELIEVERpriest
a reply to: theantediluvian

The NT fulfills the OT, they do not contradict. The Koran, on the other hand does a very poor job at trying to co-op the Bible.

That's a Christian view, not a Jewish one.

The mashiach (messiah, "anointed one") of Jewish prophecy is not divine, not born of a virgin, doesn't die for anyone's sins, isn't resurrected, etc. He's supposed to be a descendant of David and the literal King of Israel who restores the state of Israel, gathers together the exiles, restores the Temple, fights the wars of God, spreads knowledge of the Torah and unites all of mankind.

Assessed objectively, the claims you make about your faith aren't any more valid than those made by a Muslim.

originally posted by: ElectricFeel
Tell me if this makes sense:

An illiterate Arab (who was known to be illiterate by his friends and family for over 40 years)

Mohammed was NOT illiterate, the Hadiths indicate that he COULD read AND write.

suddenly starts reciting verses

Which verses? If you are referring to Torah, he got many of those very wrong.

This speech laid the foundation for Arabic grammar for the next 1400 years.
The Koran was only formally written down and distributed much later.

Arabic was spoken long before Mohammed.

He had epilepsy?: False. Muhammad showed no medical symptoms of any mental illnesses.

Since when is epilepsy considered a mental illness?

Why did so many people fight him?: It was not because they were not convinced.

History lesson to follow this.

To summarize, I believe, as a Muslim that the Quran is the verbatim word of God because:

Which god?

I am not convinced that an illiterate man can suddenly become Shakespeare.

Uthman compiled the Quran from many Muslims.

The Quran was narration, speech. Yet it's grammatical accuracy and attention to detail is astounding. As a reasonable person, I cannot believe that is a coincidence.

I will show that it is neither coincidence nor divine.

I don't know if you are Quran-only Muslim, but the Hadiths do explain abrogated verses, which does disqualify your statement that the Quran was not filtered or edited because abrogation is both filtered and edited. Unless you read the Hadiths, you will not know the verses that were abrogated or who contributed to Quranic verses. But here are my rebuttals.

Starting with Mecca, there is an inconsistency in the name of the city..

Quran 3:96 says Bakkah, Quran 48:24 says Mecca. The inconsistency of name shows two different authors.

Mohammed was born into Banu Hashim, of the Quraysh tribe. The Quraysh tribe controlled Mecca since Qusai ibn Kilab, who through war and diplomacy had the keys to the Ka'aba, he controlled the Ka'aba and therefore the god Hubal, which was later called Allah, by the Quraysh, Qusai ibn Kalib was 300 years before Mohammed, he controlled the religion of Mecca, he was the originator of the religion of Mohammed, so therefore Mohammed could no have been the founder of Islam because even his father was named Ab'dulla, slave of Allah.

Mohammed did not invent a new religion, he merely enforced the already accepted religion of the Quraysh tribe, the ruling tribe for 300 years.

Mohammed attacked his own tribe, going AGAINST the Quran, what Quran? The already written Quran of Qusai ibn Kalib,

Surat Quraysh 106:1 For the accustomed security of the Quraysh 2Their accustomed security [in] the caravan of winter and summer 3: Let them worship the Lord of this House 4: Who has fed them, [saving them] from hunger and made them safe, [saving them] from fear.

Did THAT come from Mohammed? NO, because Mohammed attacked the Quraysh in Batn Rabigh Caravan Raid, contradicting the Quran verse stating the Quraysh had accustomed security in the lord of the Ka'aba. Why then would Allah say the Quraysh had security because of the ka'aba, but then Mohammed attacked them because they didn't accept him? Contradiction, because Mohammed was of the Quraysh. Then Mohammed followed with more attacks against the Quraysh, violating that Quran verse, that you say he apparently spoke, or wrote.

The Arabs were trading with the Romans before the era of the birth of Christianity, the Arabs already spoke Arabic and wrote Arabic, they were traders with Rome, including the Quraysh who were traders and merchants. There are too many links and resources of trading with Rome.

And just to show that the earliest Roman and Greek writers knew about Mecca, Strabo and Pliny both called Mecca as Macae, and is that the same place? Yes, according to the modern Saudi oil company here, Macae, Makkah Saudi Arabia

And the Quran even gets the father of Abraham wrong, it says

Surat Al-'An`ām 6:74 And [mention, O Muhammad], when Abraham said to his father Azar, "Do you take idols as deities? Indeed, I see you and your people to be in manifest error.

The father of Abraham was Terah, if the Quran should be consistent in language, then it should have gotten the very name of Abraham's father correct.

I cannot be convinced that Islam was founded by Mohammed as the earliest sources long before Mohammed state that the symbols, language and writing in their religions were long before Mohammed. The Romans and Greeks were trading at Mecca long before Mohammed was born, the ka'aba was merely a place of worship where Allah had preeminence before Mohammed, the circumabulation was before Mohammed, the kissing of the black stone was before Mohammed and ramadan was before Mohammed. He kept the rituals of the Quraysh tribe, contradicting the very Quran that he claims to have spoken, so if the verses were spoken by Mohammed, that means the verses were already written and it was during the time of Qusai ibn Kalib. The founder of Islam was NOT Mohammed, he merely came along later as the military representative of the Quraysh, warring against his own tribe to establish himself as new leader of the Quraysh.

Now convince me otherwise and if you use Hadith, then you are going to have to explain why so many people had different Quran verses....

Jesus is a son of God and not God Our Father in Heaven himself.

"After this manner therefore pray ye: Our Father which art in heaven, Hallowed be thy name." - Matthew 6:9

"Our Father" - meaning not just Jesus.

Jesus prayed that God The Father's will be done and NOT his own:

"Saying, Father, if thou be willing, remove this cup from me: nevertheless not my will, but thine, be done." - Luke 22:42

And Jesus never said you go to heaven by believing he died for your sins (Paul said that, not Jesus), Jesus said it's important to follow his teachings which came from God:


"Not every one that saith unto me, Lord, Lord, shall enter into the kingdom of heaven; but he that doeth the will of my Father which is in heaven." - Matthew 7:21

"And why call ye me, Lord, Lord, and do not the things which I say?" - Luke 6:46

"And every one that heareth these sayings of mine, and doeth them not, shall be likened unto a foolish man, which built his house upon the sand:" - Matthew 7:26

Allah (al ilah) is Arabic for the Aramaic/Hebrew word for God "Elah" or "El".

So, there is no contradiction between Jesus's actual words and what the Quran says about works being important for salvation (instead of faith Jesus already died for all sins), or about Jesus not being God The Father/Creator or the "only" son of God.

If the "devil" wanted to trick everyone, what better way than saying you can do whatever you want, rape, lie, steal, because Jesus already gave himself as a sacrifice for all your sins?

Jesus taught that The Law of God is important and what that Law is:

"Therefore all things whatsoever ye would that men should do to you, do ye even so to them: for this is the law and the prophets." - Matthew 7:12

Just wanted to point out some similarities between Jesus's actual words and what Muslims believe...

a reply to: WarminIndy

The Hadith is full of lies. The Hadith has had much added to it. The Koran is a song, that is so perfect when sung that it would be almost impossible for it to be corrupted.

It would be like someone corrupting your favorite songs. You would know the words that didn't fit. And the Koran is a song, you can't just change words in a song, you would mess up the rhythm.

But the Hadith is easily corrupted.

The Hadith is like the Talmud, there is some truth, some spirit, but also lies. The fact they claim it is from Allah makes the lie even greater. The Hadith is a contradiction to the Koran.

The Koran itself neither says many of the things the Hadith claims nor does it contradict scriptures.

It is a well known practice, within scriptures, that names can change as they are being interpreted from one language to another. At times the names are more like titles that have meaning, so the interpreter might have choosen to interpret by title rather than sound. Since it's common in all the scriptures for names to change, this is does not present the contradiction that you contend it does.

a reply to: arpgme

Don't be so hard Paul. Paul said believe in Jesus. Paul didn't say believe in rituals.

Paul said if you believe you will be saved.

If I say I believe in being a vegetarian, it could used as a metaphor for saying I believe in Jesus.

If you say you believe in being a vegetarian, but continue to eat meat, then you don't really believe.

When Paul says believe in Jesus. He is saying believe in Spiritual perfection that comes through faith in the Holy Spirit.

It is not Paul's fault that the church keeps teaching Original Sin.

And if you don't believe in the Holy Spirit then you cannot understand and be filled by it.

Paul said the indwelling of the Holy Spirit comes by faith, not works. He did not say thay one can continue to sin and still be one the Holy Spirit.

You can't work to know the Holy Spirit is in you. You have to have faith in it. If you actually have faith, then tou WILL have works that follow your faith. If you don't have works, then you only have faith in words. The spirit is not about words, but about action, loving and giving actions.

So when when Paul says if you don't believe in the Holy Spirit, the light Christ Jesus, you are condemned, again he is not lying.

Anyone who doesn't have faith that perfect love lives in them and can guide them is condemned to wander alone in the darkness. Not condemned by God, but rather condemned by their own mind and what they have believed.

Christians who believe in Original Sin, are mentally trapped in sin. They cannot escape this trap/curse unless they change thier mind and pursue spiritual perfection.

Again, none of this is Paul's fault. He said believe in Christ, stop eating meat/sin, or stop calling yoursevelves vegetarians/disciples.

Paul was ready to kick the unrepentant sinner out of church. He did not say that accepting Christ allowed you to continue to sin, but rather forgave for your past transgressions.

I know the church teaches that is impossible to become perfect. But again Paul says it's impossible to become perfect unless you believe in the Holy Spirit, because as Paul says many times, the sons of God do not continue to sin.

Yet You can google Christian salvation and you will see people arguing for imperfection.

People actually arguing to be fallen, this is how trapped the mind of the one who believes in Original Sin. If you are arguing that Jesus permits sin, then you have never known the Holy Spirit.

The problem is the church not Paul.

originally posted by: Isurrender73
a reply to: WarminIndy

The Hadith is full of lies. The Hadith has had much added to it. The Koran is a song, that is so perfect when sung that it would be almost impossible for it to be corrupted.

It would be like someone corrupting your favorite songs. You would know the words that didn't fit. And the Koran is a song, you can't just change words in a song, you would mess up the rhythm.

But the Hadith is easily corrupted.

The Hadith is like the Talmud, there is some truth, some spirit, but also lies. The fact they claim it is from Allah makes the lie even greater. The Hadith is a contradiction to the Koran.

The Koran itself neither says many of the things the Hadith claims nor does it contradict scriptures.

It is a well known practice, within scriptures, that names can change as they are being interpreted from one language to another. At times the names are more like titles that have meaning, so the interpreter might have choosen to interpret by title rather than sound. Since it's common in all the scriptures for names to change, this is does not present the contradiction that you contend it does.

Um, OK.

See, the problem you do have is now the Quran DOES have abrogated verses.

Surat Al-Baqarah 2:106 We do not abrogate a verse or cause it to be forgotten except that We bring forth [one] better than it or similar to it. Do you not know that Allah is over all things competent?

Allah then cannot be the speaker nor the author of the Quran verse here, because the author says we, then says Allah. Indicating the speaker here is not speaking at the directive of Allah, only that the speaker abrogated (edited) a previous verse.

More abrogation

2:240... this Verse has been cancelled (abrogated) by Verse 4:12]

6:69 ... of this Verse was cancelled (abrogated) by the Verse 4:140 ...

16:101... the Quran, i.e. cancel (abrogate) its order] in place of ..

So then, are you to disregard the previous verses?

Here is what they said

4:12 And for you is half of what your wives leave if they have no child. But if they have a child, for you is one fourth of what they leave, after any bequest they [may have] made or debt. And for the wives is one fourth if you leave no child. But if you leave a child, then for them is an eighth of what you leave, after any bequest you [may have] made or debt. And if a man or woman leaves neither ascendants nor descendants but has a brother or a sister, then for each one of them is a sixth. But if they are more than two, they share a third, after any bequest which was made or debt, as long as there is no detriment [caused]. [This is] an ordinance from Allah , and Allah is Knowing and Forbearing.

4:140And it has already come down to you in the Book that when you hear the verses of Allah [recited], they are denied [by them] and ridiculed; so do not sit with them until they enter into another conversation. Indeed, you would then be like them. Indeed Allah will gather the hypocrites and disbelievers in Hell all together -

So in these two verses, can you explain without Hadith why they were abrogated?

And then can you tell me this, if Allah is Knowing and Forebearing, why would Allah then change the tune of the song midway and make it a whole new song without telling you why?

And why would Allah who is Knowing not realize beforehand that his Knowing was wrong and then change? Either Allah knows or he doesn't, and if he doesn't then he probably should be not listened to.

Either Allah knows or he doesn't. But without Hadith, please tell us why these verse were changed.

a reply to: WarminIndy

First they are wrong. The Koran does not change its message. Their are no abrogated verses in the Koran.

I have read through all of the requirements for inheritance and it is mathematically perfect. It appears I can solve a word problem better than those you are quoting. There is no change, rather the entire sequence, although seperated by other parts of the song are continuous and do not cause a mathematical inequity.

You have completely missed the point of the quote., where the Koran says that verses are brought forth that are better than the previous ones.

What Mohammed is talking about here is the elimination of rituals. The previous texts demanded ritual and righteousness. The Koran only recommends some rituals and demands righteousness.

So the rituals of the Jews and Christians have been replaced, abrogated by the Koran. Because Allah is not about rituals, he is about loving one another.

So the Koran has brought forth better verses than its predecessors, eliminating ritual salvation.

Those who claim the Koran changes the message throughout are the same ones that claim the bible is corrupt. But neither the bible nor the Koran are corrupt. The words given to us by God, perserved by God have not been corrupted.

Only the men at church, who separate us into denominations, have corrupted the meaning.

In this the NT is the same to the OT, since Jesus abrogated the OT by teaching forgiveness of sins. The OT taught stoning to death, so Jesus brought forth better words than Moses. And Mohammed better than Christ.

It was Christ himself who said, you will do greater things than me. Eliminating ritual salvation is one of those great things done in the Koran.

originally posted by: Isurrender73
a reply to: WarminIndy

First they are wrong. The Koran does not change its message. Their are no abrogated verses in the Koran.

I have read through all of the requirements for inheritance and it is mathematically perfect. It appears I can solve a word problem better than those you are quoting. There is no change, rather the entire sequence, although seperated by other parts of the song are continuous and do not cause a mathematical inequity.

You have completely missed the point of the quote., where the Koran says that verses are brought forth that are better than the previous ones.

What Mohammed is talking about here is the elimination of rituals. The previous texts demanded ritual and righteousness. The Koran only recommends some rituals and demands righteousness.

So the rituals of the Jews and Christians have been replaced, abrogated by the Koran. Because Allah is not about rituals, he is about loving one another.

So the Koran has brought forth better verses than its predecessors, eliminating ritual salvation.

Those who claim the Koran changes the message throughout are the same ones that claim the bible is corrupt. But neither the bible nor the Koran are corrupt. The words given to us by God, perserved by God have not been corrupted.

Only the men at church, who separate us into denominations, have corrupted the meaning.

In this the NT is the same to the OT, since Jesus abrogated the OT by teaching forgiveness of sins. The OT taught stoning to death, so Jesus brought forth better words than Moses. And Mohammed better than Christ.

It was Christ himself who said, you will do greater things than me. Eliminating ritual salvation is one of those great things done in the Koran.

Will you please read the Quran verses again?

ABROGATION.

You said it was never edited, I showed you where it was edited. You now say there was no abrogation, I showed you the verses. Will you continue to deny the word abrogation in the Quran?

Let's look at this logically again...

A = Abrogation
B = Quran Verses about Abrogation

so therefore the only logical conclusion is:

C = Quran has abrogated verses.

Are you denying that the Quran was abrogated by different authors, when it plainly says that it was?

Allah must abrogate himself all the time, he can't even get facts straight about previous things he apparently said, as though he has memory loss.

Sorry, you are simply wrong, because the Quran says the abrogation was within the Quran, not outside of the Quran. You are going to have to read the verses again, because everyone not Muslim that has read my post has now seen that the Quran contradicts itself and is abrogated by different authors.

Please, again, explain why the verses were abrogated without the Hadiths. I sure can show you, but you don't want Hadith, therefore you are going to have to justify the abrogation without support, because the abrogation is there. One verse says that "this is an ordination from Allah", but then within two surats later, the abrogation shows up, saying that it is no longer an ordination from Allah. How does Allah do this in just two surats?

Why the denial now of abrogation in the Quran? Do you not believe every verse in the Quran?

a reply to: WarminIndy
You do realise how hilarious your discussion looks to an outsider? Isurrender says that there is no abrogation in the Quran, and that the Hadith are false, and you respond by saying that there IS abrogation in the Quran, and the proof is that there is abrogation in the Quran (also some pretty weird A, B and C logic).

And because God refers to God as "God", this is proof that there are different authors?

Still, none of the examples you provided show abrogation occurring within the Quran. You posted two verses saying the same thing and say one abrogated the other, then you post a verse explaining inheritance in case the husband dies and another in case the wife dies, and say they abrogate each other?

a reply to: AudioOne

I am winning the debate, as the Koran does not harmonize with the Bible the way some would have you believe. And trust me, your opinion is just as irrelevant to me as mine is to you.

a reply to: Isurrender73

Look, you can believe whatever you want about Allah, Jesus, the Holy Spirit, Santa Clause, and garden gnomes. Your personal faith is not my problem. My point is, that from a literary perspective, the Koran does not belong with either the OT or the NT. You have to lie you yourself and others to believe that. Its like saying that the Sherlock Holmes series goes together with Shakespeare. There's no connection.

a reply to: BELIEVERpriest
The problem being, from a literary perspective, the NT doesn't belong with the Hebrew scriptures. If you're doing the sort of mental gymnastics that force them together, then surely the same could be applied to the Quran and the other two.

originally posted by: babloyi
a reply to: BELIEVERpriest
The problem being, from a literary perspective, the NT doesn't belong with the Hebrew scriptures. If you're doing the sort of mental gymnastics that force them together, then surely the same could be applied to the Quran and the other two.

This is the same regurgitated junk over and over again. Read Hebrews, Romans, Galatians, and Revelation. From the spiritual principles down to the prophecies, the OT and NT are one. To state otherwise is ignorance. Like another poster said, the four gospels and Acts are the fulfillment of the Pentateuch.

a reply to: BELIEVERpriest
Tell that to the 14 million jews worldwide who disagree (never mind the millions who lived and died after Christianity was formalised) as well as the secular literary scholars.

a reply to: babloyi

I dont have to. Jesus will Himself.

a reply to: BELIEVERpriest
Certainly, according to your beliefs. But then we're back at that point: Your BELIEFS tell you that the NT and OT are one, the Muslim BELIEFS tell them that their religion is a continuation of Judeo-Christian belief, and Jewish BELIEFS (for the most part) tell them that this is not true.

a reply to: babloyi

Thank you for understanding, I thought maybe I wasn't being clear enough.

I think we have someone who has not studied the Koran simply regurgitating what they have heard. I have read three different interpretation to sort through the bias.

Where it is claimed their is abrogated verses in the Koran, they are incorrect.

If one correctly understands they will see the logic in the Koran progresses as you continue to read. It is progressive, building off itself, this is how it was revealed, through a series of progressive revelations.

Progressive and teaching, not abrogated.

Only a new teaching that is better than the rituals salvation of the Christians and Jews.