Muslim myths about Christianity

[Ilah]

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

Any particular reason why you don't actually try to refute his claims, rather than posting something silly?

[Bowman]

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.

The video is not very convincing, brother.

Research something that has a hard archeological date attached to it.

Even if the Book of Revelation mentions something like it, it doesn't mean that the Kaaba is influenced by the Christians.

There can be no doubt that islam modeled their kabba after the Biblical description of it.

The Book of Revelation dictates >75% of their book of faith – right down to the green and gold colors of the New Jerusalem that are the signature colors of islam.

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.

No one ever said that Christians built the kabba.

Further, there is no evidence that the kabba came from Hinduism, either.

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.

Let me know what you find.

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.

Well…that is what islam is, right?

Islam is merely an attempt at interpreting their scripture set...albeit a very poor job of it!

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.

Pagan Arabs of the day were illiterate.

Literacy was almost exclusively relegated to the Jews & Christians.

Further, the Koran itself proclaims loudly and proudly that it merely piecemeal copied the previous Jewish and Christian scriptures.

No mystery.

The answer is contained within the Koran itself.

No need to look external to it.

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.

The Koran is magnitudes more variant oriented than even that of the Holy Bible.

At least the Bible variants do not change its theology.

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?

If you study the Arabic of the Koran, it always points back to what?

The Holy Bible!

What better way to reach the ignorant masses than to set the record straight in a non-divinely inspired set of chapters which proclaims that the god ‘allah’ is a pagan god and that Jesus Christ is the true creator God of the Universe?

The authors of the Koran knew that the Bible was the word of God. They also knew what they were writing was not – so they never attempted to say that it was – but, rather point back to the Holy Bible at every occasion, and set the whole thing to rhyme.

[St Croix]

Abraham was Trinitarian.

You mean he was visited by three angels?

[St Croix]

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

I agree. This method of exegesis leaves much to be desired. In the OT the term "mashiyach" was frequently used of kings and priests. But the translators of Daniel 9;25, 26 were determined to apply "mashiyach" to Jesus, so they dishonestly translated it "messiah" by which any reader would immediately infer Jesus. Many commentators apply Dan 9:25,26 to the high priest Onias III.

[Bowman]

You mean he was visited by three angels?

No.

He was visited by the triune God.

[St Croix]

No.

He was visited by the triune God.

You mean a God who spake and who had a spirit?

[Ilah]

You mean he was visited by three angels?

I think some believe it's three angels as you say or some believe it's god and two angels. I think Bowman is one of the minority that believe it's a triune god. It doesn't make sense as the three men are not described in detail. For all we know, it could be the three wise men.

[Ilah]

The video is not very convincing, brother.

Research something that has a hard archeological date attached to it.

I am looking for it but it's difficult as nothing is showing up yet. Also I can't find out when the Christians showed up in Arabia.

There can be no doubt that islam modeled their kabba after the Biblical description of it.

The Book of Revelation dictates >75% of their book of faith – right down to the green and gold colors of the New Jerusalem that are the signature colors of islam.

I suppose what you say also makes sense, but that doesn't change the fact that there is no Hinduism influence. Majority of it is Hinduism influence but the model of the Kaaba itself is likely based on what the Book of Revelation states. Originally the Kaaba was merely a Pagan temple closely resembling the cube Hinduism had. The new shape maybe based on what the Book of Revelation describes but the origin is Hinduism in it's entirety. It's still treated in the same way the Hinduism treat theirs.

No one ever said that Christians built the kabba.

Further, there is no evidence that the kabba came from Hinduism, either.

There's no evidence to suggest that the Kaaba came from the Book of Revelation either. It's just you taking advantage of coincidences. The similarities between Hinduism and Islam is not a coincidence. I believe Islam takes its influences from Judaism and Christianity mostly now but the Pagan Arabs were heavily influenced by Hinduism. The video I've linked to you before pretty much shows you the similarities between Islam and Hinduism. I don't need to repeat myself. Only the Quran is heavily influenced by the Bible.

Let me know what you find.

Will do when I find something concrete.

Well…that is what islam is, right?

Islam is merely an attempt at interpreting their scripture set...albeit a very poor job of it!

I wouldn't say a very job is done in interpreting their scriptures but rather a good job of concealing the truth. After all the Quran doesn't entirely agree with the Sharia Law and the Hadiths.

يَا أَيُّهَا الَّذِينَ آمَنُواْ لاَ تَتَّخِذُواْ
الْيَهُودَ وَالنَّصَارَى أَوْلِيَاء
بَعْضُهُمْ أَوْلِيَاء بَعْضٍ وَمَن
يَتَوَلَّهُم مِّنكُمْ فَإِنَّهُ مِنْهُمْ إِنَّ اللّهَ
لاَ يَهْدِي الْقَوْمَ الظَّالِمِينَ

That's verse 5:51. Could you translate that?

Pagan Arabs of the day were illiterate.

Literacy was almost exclusively relegated to the Jews & Christians.

Further, the Koran itself proclaims loudly and proudly that it merely piecemeal copied the previous Jewish and Christian scriptures.

No mystery.

The answer is contained within the Koran itself.

No need to look external to it.

lol. But it doesn't say it outright as if you read it from the mindset of the author, then it blames others for it. If you read it externally then yes, the Quran does admit to being flawed.

The Koran is magnitudes more variant oriented than even that of the Holy Bible.

At least the Bible variants do not change its theology.

There's also grammar changes in the various copies of the Quran. The Quran found in Yemen had no signs which the modern Quran do. I've read one article, I need to find it again, that suggests that Islam was actually created much later than originally thought. The early "muslims" that were nice to their neighbours were most likely Pagan Arabs and thus Islam started later and that's when they became evil and wanted to conquer other lands.

That makes sense to me as the Hadiths do not show Muslims being nice. They were deceiving, rapists, slave traders, inhumane and what not. Definitely not the kind of people you want as your neighbours.

If you study the Arabic of the Koran, it always points back to what?

The Holy Bible!

What better way to reach the ignorant masses than to set the record straight in a non-divinely inspired set of chapters which proclaims that the god ‘allah’ is a pagan god and that Jesus Christ is the true creator God of the Universe?

The authors of the Koran knew that the Bible was the word of God. They also knew what they were writing was not – so they never attempted to say that it was – but, rather point back to the Holy Bible at every occasion, and set the whole thing to rhyme.

But if they can't read then what's the point? It's obvious they didn't understand the message and look at how they ended up. Arrogant and stuck in 8th century.

[Bowman]

I think some believe it's three angels as you say or some believe it's god and two angels. I think Bowman is one of the minority that believe it's a triune god. It doesn't make sense as the three men are not described in detail. For all we know, it could be the three wise men.

Genesis chapters 18 – 19 comprise the longest Trinitarian proof text in the entire Holy Bible.

· Yahweh appears as ‘three men’ to Abraham (Gen 18.1 – 2)
· Abraham addresses the ‘three men’ as ‘my Lords’ (adonai - plural)
· Abrahams responds… “If I have found favor in your (singular) sight (singular)…” (Gen 18.3)
· “They answered Abraham” indicating that each of the ‘three men’ were Lord (Gen 18.5) (Effectively eliminating the three angels or God and two angels argument)
· Yahweh speaks of Yahweh in the third person (Gen 18.14, 19)
· God the Father remained to talk with Abraham, then returned to Heaven without going to Sodom (Gen 18.33)
· According to the text, there are at least two Yahwehs in Genesis 18 – 19. One Yahweh stated that he would go down to Sodom – and then two of the ‘three men’ went to Sodom (Gen 18.2, 22; 19.12). Abraham remained talking with another Yahweh (Gen 18.21 – 22). Later, Yahweh is described as being in Heaven while Yahweh is mentioned as being in Sodom (Gen 19.24)
· Gen 18 -19 shows us that there was never such a thing as the ‘Majestic Plural’

[Ilah]

So Christianity isn't monotheism and neither is Judaism? I know there's evidence that before Judaism came to be, the Hebrews were polytheistic and later created Judaism which was a monotheistic faith. Pretty much how Islam came to be.

[Bowman]

I am looking for it but it's difficult as nothing is showing up yet. Also I can't find out when the Christians showed up in Arabia.

I suppose what you say also makes sense, but that doesn't change the fact that there is no Hinduism influence. Majority of it is Hinduism influence but the model of the Kaaba itself is likely based on what the Book of Revelation states. Originally the Kaaba was merely a Pagan temple closely resembling the cube Hinduism had. The new shape maybe based on what the Book of Revelation describes but the origin is Hinduism in it's entirety. It's still treated in the same way the Hinduism treat theirs.

There's no evidence to suggest that the Kaaba came from the Book of Revelation either. It's just you taking advantage of coincidences. The similarities between Hinduism and Islam is not a coincidence. I believe Islam takes its influences from Judaism and Christianity mostly now but the Pagan Arabs were heavily influenced by Hinduism. The video I've linked to you before pretty much shows you the similarities between Islam and Hinduism. I don't need to repeat myself. Only the Quran is heavily influenced by the Bible.

Will do when I find something concrete.

The Hinduism argument is weak.

I wouldn't say a very job is done in interpreting their scriptures but rather a good job of concealing the truth. After all the Quran doesn't entirely agree with the Sharia Law and the Hadiths.

يَا أَيُّهَا الَّذِينَ آمَنُواْ لاَ تَتَّخِذُواْ
الْيَهُودَ وَالنَّصَارَى أَوْلِيَاء
بَعْضُهُمْ أَوْلِيَاء بَعْضٍ وَمَن
يَتَوَلَّهُم مِّنكُمْ فَإِنَّهُ مِنْهُمْ إِنَّ اللّهَ
لاَ يَهْدِي الْقَوْمَ الظَّالِمِينَ

That's verse 5:51. Could you translate that?

يأيها الذين ءامنوا لا تتخذوا اليهود والنصرى أولياء بعضهم أولياء بعض ومن يتولهم منكم فإنه منهم إن الله لا يهدي القوم الظلمين

Ya ayyuha allatheena amanoo la tattakhithoo alyahooda waalnnasara awliyaa baAAduhum awliyao baAAdin waman yatawallahum minkum fa-innahu minhum inna Allaha la yahdee alqawma alththalimeena

5.51 O! You, whom they believed, do not take the Jews and the Christians (as) allies, some of them (are) allies (of) some, and who he protects them from you, so truly he is from them, truly ‘allah’ I do not guide the nation, the wrongdoers.

lol. But it doesn't say it outright as if you read it from the mindset of the author, then it blames others for it. If you read it externally then yes, the Quran does admit to being flawed.

Is this clear enough....?

والكتب المبين إنا جعلنه قرءنا عربيا لعلكم تعقلون وإنه في أم الكتب لدينا لعلي حكيم

Waalkitabi almubeeni inna jaAAalnahu qur-anan AAarabiyyan laAAallakum taAAqiloona wa-innahu fee ommi alkitabi ladayna laAAaliyyun hakeemun

And The Book, the clear. Truly we have made it an Arabic collection, perhaps you comprehend. And truly it, in company with the source, from The Book, eminent, full of wisdom. (43.2 – 4)

[Ilah]

The Hinduism argument is weak.

I reckon it's because I'm looking for it using the wrong words or so. But I haven't searched recently. Also I don't think it's weak at all. It's a fact that the Kaaba existed before Islam ever existed. I agreed with the fact they remodeled it but the way it's being treated is no different than the way Hindus treat theirs. I'll try to find something else as I recall reading something about the word Kaaba being from Tamil or something.

يأيها الذين ءامنوا لا تتخذوا اليهود والنصرى أولياء بعضهم أولياء بعض ومن يتولهم منكم فإنه منهم إن الله لا يهدي القوم الظلمين

Ya ayyuha allatheena amanoo la tattakhithoo alyahooda waalnnasara awliyaa baAAduhum awliyao baAAdin waman yatawallahum minkum fa-innahu minhum inna Allaha la yahdee alqawma alththalimeena

5.51 O! You, whom they believed, do not take the Jews and the Christians (as) allies, some of them (are) allies (of) some, and who he protects them from you, so truly he is from them, truly ‘allah’ I do not guide the nation, the wrongdoers.

That does not even make sense to me. Could you explain what the verse trying to say. I assume it has nothing to do with being friends as that's what the Muslims translate it as meaning not to take Jews and Christians as friends.

Is this clear enough....?

والكتب المبين إنا جعلنه قرءنا عربيا لعلكم تعقلون وإنه في أم الكتب لدينا لعلي حكيم

Waalkitabi almubeeni inna jaAAalnahu qur-anan AAarabiyyan laAAallakum taAAqiloona wa-innahu fee ommi alkitabi ladayna laAAaliyyun hakeemun

And The Book, the clear. Truly we have made it an Arabic collection, perhaps you comprehend. And truly it, in company with the source, from The Book, eminent, full of wisdom. (43.2 – 4)

That verse doesn't make sense either to me. I guess it would make sense in Arabic. I assume the verse is supposed to be saying that the Quran is a collection of the Bible but arabized but you have to read the Bible to get the full wisdom of God?

[Ilah]

The Hinduism argument is weak.

I reckon it's because I'm looking for it using the wrong words or so. But I haven't searched recently. Also I don't think it's weak at all. It's a fact that the Kaaba existed before Islam ever existed. I agreed with the fact they remodeled it but the way it's being treated is no different than the way Hindus treat theirs. I'll try to find something else as I recall reading something about the word Kaaba being from Tamil or something.

يأيها الذين ءامنوا لا تتخذوا اليهود والنصرى أولياء بعضهم أولياء بعض ومن يتولهم منكم فإنه منهم إن الله لا يهدي القوم الظلمين

Ya ayyuha allatheena amanoo la tattakhithoo alyahooda waalnnasara awliyaa baAAduhum awliyao baAAdin waman yatawallahum minkum fa-innahu minhum inna Allaha la yahdee alqawma alththalimeena

5.51 O! You, whom they believed, do not take the Jews and the Christians (as) allies, some of them (are) allies (of) some, and who he protects them from you, so truly he is from them, truly ‘allah’ I do not guide the nation, the wrongdoers.

That does not even make sense to me. Could you explain what the verse trying to say. I assume it has nothing to do with being friends as that's what the Muslims translate it as meaning not to take Jews and Christians as friends.

Is this clear enough....?

والكتب المبين إنا جعلنه قرءنا عربيا لعلكم تعقلون وإنه في أم الكتب لدينا لعلي حكيم

Waalkitabi almubeeni inna jaAAalnahu qur-anan AAarabiyyan laAAallakum taAAqiloona wa-innahu fee ommi alkitabi ladayna laAAaliyyun hakeemun

And The Book, the clear. Truly we have made it an Arabic collection, perhaps you comprehend. And truly it, in company with the source, from The Book, eminent, full of wisdom. (43.2 – 4)

That verse doesn't make sense either to me. I guess it would make sense in Arabic. I assume the verse is supposed to be saying that the Quran is a collection of the Bible but arabized but you have to read the Bible to get the full wisdom of God?

[St Croix]

So Christianity isn't monotheism.

It is. God has only one throne or one seat of power discernible to men. It is by his throne that he is defined. One throne means one God. This is how the apostle Paul defined God, the Father, by reference to his supreme authority and by reference to his throne. For Paul, there is only one God, the Father.

Christianity posits that the Father is capable of sharing his throne with other enities in the form of God. As men only have discernment of God's throne, they are unable to discern other "God" entities. The revelation of Christ showed that God's word was also resident on God's throne, alongside the Father. That does not make two Gods because there remained only one throne.

In the revelation of the Son, the divine entity seated on the throne is shown to be complex, but not divided. The Word and the Father are One. To men and as heavenly entities, they are one. They cannot be divided.

The term "triune" God is extremely deceptive. It tends to suggest that we can pray to three separate Gods, and treat them as individual persons by analogy with human persons. That is not true. Christians are instructed to pray only to the Father, even though we are informed God has lent his power to the resurrected son who sits at his right hand. The source of all divine power is in the Father alone. The means of access to the Father is via the Son. Hence prayers are addressed to the Father in the name of the Son.

[Bowman]

I reckon it's because I'm looking for it using the wrong words or so. But I haven't searched recently. Also I don't think it's weak at all. It's a fact that the Kaaba existed before Islam ever existed. I agreed with the fact they remodeled it but the way it's being treated is no different than the way Hindus treat theirs. I'll try to find something else as I recall reading something about the word Kaaba being from Tamil or something.

Its myth until you can demonstrate otherwise, brother...

That does not even make sense to me. Could you explain what the verse trying to say. I assume it has nothing to do with being friends as that's what the Muslims translate it as meaning not to take Jews and Christians as friends.

The text states that not all people who call themselves Jews & Christians can be taken as allies.

Who would disagree with this?

That verse doesn't make sense either to me. I guess it would make sense in Arabic. I assume the verse is supposed to be saying that the Quran is a collection of the Bible but arabized but you have to read the Bible to get the full wisdom of God?

Plainly, the text tells us that the original languages of the Holy Bible had to be translated into the Arabic of the Koran (i.e. the Collection).

An open admission that the Koran is not divine nor original.