Muslim myths about Christianity

[Bowman]

It's different in that you say that no man existed by the name of Muhammad.

Its the exact same in the fact that both modern names are rooted in the Biblical Jesus Christ.

Is it the Quranic Arabic?

Yes.

How much have you re-rendered the Quran?

Roughly 1/3

[Ilah]

Its the exact same in the fact that both modern names are rooted in the Biblical Jesus Christ.

How is that the same? Muhammad became a name after it was adopted/given to someone. Jesus was never a word but a name. You say that Muhammad was a mere word. If no one adopted or was given it as a name then how would it have become common?

[Bowman]

How is that the same? Muhammad became a name after it was adopted/given to someone. Jesus was never a word but a name. You say that Muhammad was a mere word. If no one adopted or was given it as a name then how would it have become common?

If we look to the classic Arabic definition for 'Isa' we discover that the term actually means 'red mixed with white'....obviously, this refers to the slain Lamb.

Alternately, 'Muhammad' means 'Praised One'.

Anyone even remotely familar with the Holy Bible will immediately know that these terms apply to Jesus Christ.

[barnasha]

Anyone with any sense of historical honesty would not assume that all interpretations of text which were written before Jesus must necessary relate or refer to him.

[Dan Zebiri]

And if you yourself have any sense of historical honesty, or even mere intellectual decency at all, barnasha, then pose your question to your own self and go address the post in this thread here :

http://www.theologyweb.com/campus/sh...10#post3185110

wasallaam.

[Ilah]

If we look to the classic Arabic definition for 'Isa' we discover that the term actually means 'red mixed with white'....obviously, this refers to the slain Lamb.

Alternately, 'Muhammad' means 'Praised One'.

Anyone even remotely familar with the Holy Bible will immediately know that these terms apply to Jesus Christ.

Or anyone familiar with the Bible will want to apply these terms to Jesus Christ. It's not necessary it applies to him.

[Bowman]

Or anyone familiar with the Bible will want to apply these terms to Jesus Christ. It's not necessary it applies to him.

There can be absolutely no doubt that these terms apply directly towards the Biblical Jesus Christ.

No doubt at all.

There are scores of Koranic epithets that apply directly towards Jesus Christ.

The term ‘Muhammad’ is just one.

The entirety of the Koran revolves around Jesus Christ.

Legions of suras are named in His honor.

Legions of suras are copied from the Book of Revelation – of which, Jesus is shown to be God Almighty.

Not a chance coincidence – but careful planning by the early Arab Christians who penned the Koran.

[Ilah]

There can be absolutely no doubt that these terms apply directly towards the Biblical Jesus Christ.

No doubt at all.

There are scores of Koranic epithets that apply directly towards Jesus Christ.

The term ‘Muhammad’ is just one.

The entirety of the Koran revolves around Jesus Christ.

Legions of suras are named in His honor.

Legions of suras are copied from the Book of Revelation – of which, Jesus is shown to be God Almighty.

Not a chance coincidence – but careful planning by the early Arab Christians who penned the Koran.

So, the Arab Christians decided to invent their own religion by combining the OT and the NT? They also wiped out the Pagan Arabs and the Arab Jews, left little to no traces of the Pagan Arabs?

Although some of what you say seems plausible. The same can be used as evidence for Islam merely copying the Pagan Arabs or Hinduism. Watch this video.

[Bowman]

So, the Arab Christians decided to invent their own religion by combining the OT and the NT? They also wiped out the Pagan Arabs and the Arab Jews, left little to no traces of the Pagan Arabs?

Arab Christians wanted to set the record straight in a land of confusion.

That is why you will see the authors of the Koran declaring (i.e. 'say') and clarifying elements of orthodox Christianity within the pages of the Koran. Such it is with the Trinity - of which is never denied in the Koran - and, of which, examples are provided of what it is not.

Only islam denies the Trinity.

The Koran does not.

Although some of what you say seems plausible. The same can be used as evidence for Islam merely copying the Pagan Arabs or Hinduism. Watch this video.

Thanks for the link...however, the concept of the kabba (cube) and the holy fountain of water was, once again, taken from the Book of Revelation....not from Hinduism.

The only part which the authors of the Koran agree with is the fact that 'allah' is a pagan Arab moon god idol.

[Ilah]

Arab Christians wanted to set the record straight in a land of confusion.

That is why you will see the authors of the Koran declaring (i.e. 'say') and clarifying elements of orthodox Christianity within the pages of the Koran. Such it is with the Trinity - of which is never denied in the Koran - and, of which, examples are provided of what it is not.

Only islam denies the Trinity.

The Koran does not.

Fair enough. So does that mean Sharia Law is not part of the Quran?

Thanks for the link...however, the concept of the kabba (cube) and the holy fountain of water was, once again, taken from the Book of Revelation....not from Hinduism.

The only part which the authors of the Koran agree with is the fact that 'allah' is a pagan Arab moon god idol.

The Kabba belonged to the Pagan Arabs and it existed before the Christians even showed up. Do explain why you believe it's taken from the Book of Revelation though.

True but, Allah was originally merely a title for Sin the Moon god. It was originally Al-ilah shortened to Allah. Some of the names of Allah are names of foreign deities. A lot of the things in the Quran and what not, are from the outside. There is little, if any, pure Arabic in the Quran. Even the word Quran is apparently Syriac but Arabised. By adding "Al" to some or most of the words it became Arabic.

[Bowman]

Fair enough. So does that mean Sharia Law is not part of the Quran?

It has been of no interest....thus, no comment...

The Kabba belonged to the Pagan Arabs and it existed before the Christians even showed up. Do explain why you believe it's taken from the Book of Revelation though.

The New Jerusalem was described as a cube in the Book of Revelation long before it was written in the Koran, and long before Muslims actually attempted to construct it.

They claim to not worship idols - but all they can think of is making a life journey to a man-made cube and trying to kiss the rock.

This is idol worship pure and simple.

True but, Allah was originally merely a title for Sin the Moon god. It was originally Al-ilah shortened to Allah. Some of the names of Allah are names of foreign deities. A lot of the things in the Quran and what not, are from the outside. There is little, if any, pure Arabic in the Quran. Even the word Quran is apparently Syriac but Arabised. By adding "Al" to some or most of the words it became Arabic.

The Koran is a smelting pot of Arabicized words.

The fact that words from other languages needed to Arabicized tells us that the Arabic language is far from pure - and that there were no equivalent Arabic words to describe the things that needed to be told...such it is with the word injil - which was Arabicized from the Greek meaning Gospel (i.e. Salvation through Jesus Christ)....now how did this term end up in the Koran?

[Ilah]

The New Jerusalem was described as a cube in the Book of Revelation long before it was written in the Koran, and long before Muslims actually attempted to construct it.

They claim to not worship idols - but all they can think of is making a life journey to a man-made cube and trying to kiss the rock.

This is idol worship pure and simple.

The Hindus had a temple like it. The Pagan Arabs were the ones who constructed the temple which was there even before the Jews or Christians showed up. So it has little to do with the Book of Revelation and more to do with Hinduism. Even the rock is placed in the same manner that the Hindus place theirs. The only difference is that the Muslim's have it placed in the corner.

All Muslims did was reconstruct it every time it was destroyed. I'm sure it's been destroyed twice under Muslims rule.

I'm aware of Muslims being in denial of idol worship.

The Koran is a smelting pot of Arabicized words.

The fact that words from other languages needed to Arabicized tells us that the Arabic language is far from pure - and that there were no equivalent Arabic words to describe the things that needed to be told...such it is with the word injil - which was Arabicized from the Greek meaning Gospel (i.e. Salvation through Jesus Christ)....now how did this term end up in the Koran?

Possibly with the help of the Arab Christians who became Muslims either through their own desire or by force. Could even be the Jews as they were well educated. The scribe, Muhammad had with him, was an ex-Jew, I think. He left Islam when he realised Muhammad was not a true messenger, as the scribe would make suggestions to make the verses sound better and Muhammad would agree. The scribe was eventually killed for apostasising.

[Bowman]

The Hindus had a temple like it. The Pagan Arabs were the ones who constructed the temple which was there even before the Jews or Christians showed up. So it has little to do with the Book of Revelation and more to do with Hinduism. Even the rock is placed in the same manner that the Hindus place theirs. The only difference is that the Muslim's have it placed in the corner.

All Muslims did was reconstruct it every time it was destroyed. I'm sure it's been destroyed twice under Muslims rule.

I'm aware of Muslims being in denial of idol worship.

Perhaps you could provide a verifiable archeological reference for your assertion.

Possibly with the help of the Arab Christians who became Muslims either through their own desire or by force. Could even be the Jews as they were well educated. The scribe, Muhammad had with him, was an ex-Jew, I think. He left Islam when he realised Muhammad was not a true messenger, as the scribe would make suggestions to make the verses sound better and Muhammad would agree. The scribe was eventually killed for apostasising.

No one named 'Muhammad" existed at the time...thus, any reference to 'him' has no meaning at all and merely emanates from ignorant islam.

For the Koran to acknowledge Jesus' crucifixion until death upon the cross, His subsequent singular resurrection, and that He is God Almighty....most assuredly tells us that Christians penned the text.

[barnasha]

No one named 'Muhammad" existed at the time..

Yes, and you don't exist now... (who cares about evidence to the contrary?)

[Ilah]

Perhaps you could provide a verifiable archeological reference for your assertion.

The Hindus have similar structure to the Kaaba. This video is explains it better than the previous one I linked. It's not new to them and it's widely accepted that the Kaaba was a Hindu temple before it became what it has. Even if the Book of Revelation mentions something like it, it doesn't mean that the Kaaba is influenced by the Christians. There's no evidence that the Christians went to Mecca and built the Kaaba. Unless you can show me that Christians had anything to do with the Kaaba, aside from the fact that it's mentioned in the NT, it makes sense that the Kaaba is taken from Hinduism.

About the 786, I'm still on the fence about it. I don't think it's actually Islamic but I know Muslims in India and Pakistan use the numerals. I reckon it was the Indian Muslims who came up with 786. Unless I find more credible evidence for it, I'm going to assume it's not Islamic but merely innovation added later.

No one named 'Muhammad" existed at the time...thus, any reference to 'him' has no meaning at all and merely emanates from ignorant islam.

For the Koran to acknowledge Jesus' crucifixion until death upon the cross, His subsequent singular resurrection, and that He is God Almighty....most assuredly tells us that Christians penned the text.

Not necessarily. The Pagan Arabs are known to have formed their religion by copying Hindus. You can't assume that everything is false that the Islamic sources reference. There are lies involved but there are some truths in there which the Muslims deny. I think it's more plausible that the Pagan Arabs copied some texts from the Bible, both the OT and the NT, to make the Quran. One reason for this is the way the Quran is. It's not coherent as the Bible is and seems to be put together without understanding the content. There's evidence that there were multiple Quran which differed from one another. I don't know if you've read about the copies of the Quran found in Yemen but they were different from the Quran currently available and predate the current copies of the Quran.

What would be the point in Arab Christians penning the Quran when they already have the Bible? It would serve them no purpose as it would mean they abandoned Christianity to form their own religion. Isn't that wrong?