what is so unbelievable about muhammed's prophecy?

[SYRIANKID]

God bless.

Let's call it a night,

Peace to those who follow the right guidance. And no hard feelings, but religion is a topic that gets hot, add that to the fact that it's 3:30 AM, and that gets us a volatile cocktail.

[deeyala]

WOW
never thought the thread could take this funny turn...!
why waste one's efforts on proving the oppsite party is wrong while we can concentrate on reinforcing our own claims with solid proof, or at least sound reasoning.. and believe it or not, only then will it be convincing..
why can't both parties admit that they don't know enough about the opposite's beliefs?
a Christian friend of mine said it best: he said he doesn't believe muhammed was a prophet, because the last prophet God send was His son, yet he said that Islam and christianity had so much in common and the differences, apart from the parts about Jesus, were very slight.. but the teachings were basically the same....and with having lived in a country whose majority are muslims, he fully realizes they are ordinary people with beliefs to be equally respected .. his single take on Islam is one thing: he doesn't believe it to be a God-sent religion...
unlike you Khan, whose real -life acquaintance with muslims is pretty non-existent and your knowledge about Islam is equivalent to what you hear on Tv right after the news about a suicide bombing... he lived with muslims and realizes they're quite as peaceful as anyone else.. the only problem is he believes that muslims are going to rot in hell for denying Christ as their savior..
he said the different bible versions were slightly different, eventhough they quite held the same meaning.. he even said that the qur'an could be seen as on of the many versions of the bible, because basically they teach the same things...!
how you fail to admit that , has more to do with your being so sure of what you think (think-not believe), that you feel it's not worth wasting any more of your precious time on.. why can't you just say; muslims will rot in hell, but their life is quite normal..
can't you realize that even a man- made religion won't go calling for blood shed??? because then, who would be the followers: psychos most probably.. and i think you can hardly classify muslims on this forum as psychos...!

and finally according to me, why i don't believe Jesus is the son of God.. i wouldn't be posting any qur'an quotes or something... just a simple opinion of mine, that you needn't even argue in the first place... well, my opinion is that there's one God who's created all, who's incomparable and omnipotent.. and having a son who's equally divine challenges such uniquness and supremacy...
i don't need a third person (Jesus) to reach through to God, i know God can directly to what i have to say... God isn't all busy with watching the world that he needs a son to carry messages to Him from the people He's created..
and i refuse to kneel infront of a statue of Jesus or Mary in prayer, eventhough i believe in what they stand for, because simply i know no one has ever seen God- that would be the ultimate prize for believers on the day of judgement- so i'd rather have my God unseen, than link Him to an image that by no means matches His greatness..
having said this, that's why i am a muslim not a christian....
and everyone, i am not belittling any of you christian fellows, i am merely saying how i feel..
so what about you Khan, why are you a christian not a muslim? tell me about what you think and feel and your own point of view.. rather than giving me what you believe is facts....

[nForce]

WOW, how does SyrianKid stay so calm with people like KhunPaulsen?

Khan did you read what he was asking?

For anything you say to have ANY credibility it has to be able to be backtracked perfectly to the source (Jesus), WHICH YOU HAVENT PROVEN IT CAN BE.

You can only backtrack it to many years after Jesus, and hmm in todays court it wouldnt even be considered. Then to save your skin, you say 'prove it is currupt', LOL this once you've read again will realise how illogical this is.

If you are claiming something to be the word of God, IT IS YOU that has to prove that the texts havent been tempered with, not the other way around, this is primary school education here.

So how about lets cut all this bull****;

SyrianKid, you prove that the Qu'ran hasn't been altered since Muhammeds revelations.

KhunPaulsen, you prove that the NT hasn't been altered since Jesus' revelations.

[drewkowsky]

So how about lets cut all this bull****;

SyrianKid, you prove that the Qu'ran hasn't been altered since Muhammeds revelations.

KhunPaulsen, you prove that the NT hasn't been altered since Jesus' revelations.

I found the main problem with SK's arguement to not being able to explain Muhammad's regressiveness

[sticklegs]

WOW, how does SyrianKid stay so calm with people like KhunPaulsen?

Khan did you read what he was asking?

For anything you say to have ANY credibility it has to be able to be backtracked perfectly to the source (Jesus), WHICH YOU HAVENT PROVEN IT CAN BE.

You can only backtrack it to many years after Jesus, and hmm in todays court it wouldnt even be considered. Then to save your skin, you say 'prove it is currupt', LOL this once you've read again will realise how illogical this is.

If you are claiming something to be the word of God, IT IS YOU that has to prove that the texts havent been tempered with, not the other way around, this is primary school education here.

So how about lets cut all this bull****;

SyrianKid, you prove that the Qu'ran hasn't been altered since Muhammeds revelations.

KhunPaulsen, you prove that the NT hasn't been altered since Jesus' revelations.

you know every copy of "Harry Potter" is the same too.

[sticklegs]

I found the main problem with SK's arguement to not being able to explain Muhammad's regressiveness

why would a religion be progressive? Shouldn't the law of god be the same throughout time, or does god every once and awhile say "oh **** I forgot something, lets add this".

[drewkowsky]

why would a religion be progressive? Shouldn't the law of god be the same throughout time, or does every once and awhile say "oh **** I forgot something, lets add this".

No its not like that

[nForce]

I found the main problem with SK's arguement to not being able to explain Muhammad's regressiveness

What regressiveness?

The fact that the Qu'ran refers to Biblical scriptures?

[drewkowsky]

What regressiveness?

The fact that the Qu'ran refers to Biblical scriptures?

No, SK never addressed the progressive revelation that Khan brought up.

[Memnoch]

why would a religion be progressive? Shouldn't the law of god be the same throughout time, or does god every once and awhile say "oh **** I forgot something, lets add this".

Yes I fully belive that if a religion is founded on the Literal teachings of God then it has no need to modernise as it's message remains as vital today as it was many, many years ago.

This is why I was pleased that Cardinal Ratzinger was appointed the new pope as he said he would hold firm to the Church's teachins, and not give in to moral relativism and the sweeping Liberal tide.

It's true that Islam is progressive in the sense that it took the previous holy texts and sorted them into a stronger less debatable faith, that had clearer morals and codes.

[KhanPaulsen]

WOW
never thought the thread could take this funny turn...!
why waste one's efforts on proving the oppsite party is wrong while we can concentrate on reinforcing our own claims with solid proof, or at least sound reasoning.. and believe it or not, only then will it be convincing..
why can't both parties admit that they don't know enough about the opposite's beliefs?
a Christian friend of mine said it best: he said he doesn't believe muhammed was a prophet, because the last prophet God send was His son, yet he said that Islam and christianity had so much in common and the differences, apart from the parts about Jesus, were very slight.. but the teachings were basically the same....and with having lived in a country whose majority are muslims, he fully realizes they are ordinary people with beliefs to be equally respected .. his single take on Islam is one thing: he doesn't believe it to be a God-sent religion...
unlike you Khan, whose real -life acquaintance with muslims is pretty non-existent and your knowledge about Islam is equivalent to what you hear on Tv right after the news about a suicide bombing... he lived with muslims and realizes they're quite as peaceful as anyone else.. the only problem is he believes that muslims are going to rot in hell for denying Christ as their savior..
he said the different bible versions were slightly different, eventhough they quite held the same meaning.. he even said that the qur'an could be seen as on of the many versions of the bible, because basically they teach the same things...!
how you fail to admit that , has more to do with your being so sure of what you think (think-not believe), that you feel it's not worth wasting any more of your precious time on.. why can't you just say; muslims will rot in hell, but their life is quite normal..
can't you realize that even a man- made religion won't go calling for blood shed??? because then, who would be the followers: psychos most probably.. and i think you can hardly classify muslims on this forum as psychos...!

and finally according to me, why i don't believe Jesus is the son of God.. i wouldn't be posting any qur'an quotes or something... just a simple opinion of mine, that you needn't even argue in the first place... well, my opinion is that there's one God who's created all, who's incomparable and omnipotent.. and having a son who's equally divine challenges such uniquness and supremacy...
i don't need a third person (Jesus) to reach through to God, i know God can directly to what i have to say... God isn't all busy with watching the world that he needs a son to carry messages to Him from the people He's created..
and i refuse to kneel infront of a statue of Jesus or Mary in prayer, eventhough i believe in what they stand for, because simply i know no one has ever seen God- that would be the ultimate prize for believers on the day of judgement- so i'd rather have my God unseen, than link Him to an image that by no means matches His greatness..
having said this, that's why i am a muslim not a christian....
and everyone, i am not belittling any of you christian fellows, i am merely saying how i feel..
so what about you Khan, why are you a christian not a muslim? tell me about what you think and feel and your own point of view.. rather than giving me what you believe is facts....

to SK's post: I agree it has become best to let the subject rest.

nforce: I'll say entirely that I can't trace it back to Jesus flawlessly, but at the same time there is no legible evidence that shows it might be written by someone else. So, yes, it is possible, but as God says in Isaiah, He protects His word.

deeyala: I actually have two Muslim friends, and I don't take what I see on television as any grain of truth. What I've said is what I've reached through my own studies and discussing it with Christian brothers and one of my Muslim friends (time allows us to discuss it, my other friend is a very busy man). There isn't a very big Muslim population in Arizona as of yet.

The modern biblical variations do possess differences from eachother, as the newer ones tend to leave things out and are best avoided, this is why the KJV is still the most highly regarded. The scripture of the KJV and ancient manuscripts get along very well.

Why am I not a Muslim? Based on what I've seen from stories, and from the recorded history of Muhammed's life. A bad tree bears bad fruit (I'm referring to how the three Jewish tribes were handled most specifically). No offense meant, but I highly doubt anyone is going to change their positions over this.

The progressive revelation issue isn't something SK failed to address drewkowsky, it is just something he overlooked in what he perceived to be my double standards and contradictions. It was the answers.

[SYRIANKID]

No, SK never addressed the progressive revelation that Khan brought up.

The argument of "progressive revelation" is faulty for two reasons which I already mentioned.

1. A Jew can argue that according to Christian belief, Jesus' message is REGRESSIVE revelation, revoking all laws, changing the nature of God, changing the nature of salvation, adding an intermediary between God and man, and associating the worship of God's creation along with God...

2. Before you use the argument of "progressive revelation" you must first prove WHAT the doctrine is that Jesus (pbuh) came with. I mean this is the whole FOCUS of this debate! Muslims DENY that modern Christianity has what Jesus (pbuh) taught, so for a Christian to argue that Islam is false BECAUSE it "regresses" on what Jesus taught, FIRST requires that they PROVE what Jesus taught!

To do that, you have to provide a perfect chain of transmission from Jesus' (pbuh) quotes and actions to the first complete manuscript of the NT.

But Christians can't do that, because there is a big empty void between any remnants of any book of the NT and the life of Jesus (pbuh) AND the first COMPLETE manuscript of the NT, that is, completely containing all the books in that order, is dated at roughly 325, the year of the Council of Nicaea, that famous debate where Christians had to vote on who Jesus was in relation to God and what he taught...coincidence? Of course not, it's a big warning sign to Christians.

[SYRIANKID]

SyrianKid, you prove that the Qu'ran hasn't been altered since Muhammeds revelations.

That's very easy, sir:

http://forum.bodybuilding.com/showth...ighlight=mouth

This book is a MUST READ

http://forum.bodybuilding.com/showpo...83&postcount=1

It is 300 pages completely outlining how IMPOSSIBLE it is for even a DOT in the Qur'an to have been altered. It will blow your mind. It also compares the Qur'an's preservation to how the NT and OT were first recorded and transmitted.

[TheBrain]

WOW
never thought the thread could take this funny turn...!
why waste one's efforts on proving the oppsite party is wrong while we can concentrate on reinforcing our own claims with solid proof, or at least sound reasoning.. and believe it or not, only then will it be convincing..
why can't both parties admit that they don't know enough about the opposite's beliefs?
a Christian friend of mine said it best: he said he doesn't believe muhammed was a prophet, because the last prophet God send was His son, yet he said that Islam and christianity had so much in common and the differences, apart from the parts about Jesus, were very slight.. but the teachings were basically the same....and with having lived in a country whose majority are muslims, he fully realizes they are ordinary people with beliefs to be equally respected .. his single take on Islam is one thing: he doesn't believe it to be a God-sent religion...
unlike you Khan, whose real -life acquaintance with muslims is pretty non-existent and your knowledge about Islam is equivalent to what you hear on Tv right after the news about a suicide bombing... he lived with muslims and realizes they're quite as peaceful as anyone else.. the only problem is he believes that muslims are going to rot in hell for denying Christ as their savior..
he said the different bible versions were slightly different, eventhough they quite held the same meaning.. he even said that the qur'an could be seen as on of the many versions of the bible, because basically they teach the same things...!
how you fail to admit that , has more to do with your being so sure of what you think (think-not believe), that you feel it's not worth wasting any more of your precious time on.. why can't you just say; muslims will rot in hell, but their life is quite normal..
can't you realize that even a man- made religion won't go calling for blood shed??? because then, who would be the followers: psychos most probably.. and i think you can hardly classify muslims on this forum as psychos...!

and finally according to me, why i don't believe Jesus is the son of God.. i wouldn't be posting any qur'an quotes or something... just a simple opinion of mine, that you needn't even argue in the first place... well, my opinion is that there's one God who's created all, who's incomparable and omnipotent.. and having a son who's equally divine challenges such uniquness and supremacy...
i don't need a third person (Jesus) to reach through to God, i know God can directly to what i have to say... God isn't all busy with watching the world that he needs a son to carry messages to Him from the people He's created..
and i refuse to kneel infront of a statue of Jesus or Mary in prayer, eventhough i believe in what they stand for, because simply i know no one has ever seen God- that would be the ultimate prize for believers on the day of judgement- so i'd rather have my God unseen, than link Him to an image that by no means matches His greatness..
having said this, that's why i am a muslim not a christian....
and everyone, i am not belittling any of you christian fellows, i am merely saying how i feel..
so what about you Khan, why are you a christian not a muslim? tell me about what you think and feel and your own point of view.. rather than giving me what you believe is facts....

Your friends mistake...(NEW AND EVERLASTING COVENANT so Prophecy is NOW too)
The last prophet is not Jesus in any Christian belief. Jesus actually says the rules from now on is that if you accept a prophet you get the gift of prophecy. Paul, John, Peter and about every apostle speak about having prophecy and how to do it in the New Testament after Jesus is risen to heaven.

Your mistake...Christianity and Islam are exact opposites not about the same.

If you would read the Gospel it is all based on ONE thing.

You must receive the HOLY SPIRIT to live forever. Islam is totally in the dark about how to get the HOLY SPIRIT nor do they know what it is.

Let me give you some help with the Gospel.

THE KINGDOM OF GOD is a term used by Jesus over and over again.

He says its inside you. Unless the Holy Spirit gets inside you...you aren't part of the Kingdom of God.

Ever heard the term God's property...its a term to describe someone once the Holy Spirit dwells in them.

[nForce]

nforce: I'll say entirely that I can't trace it back to Jesus flawlessly, but at the same time there is no legible evidence that shows it might be written by someone else. So, yes, it is possible, but as God says in Isaiah, He protects His word.

So HOW do you know that it is the true untouched word of God?

Wow, re-read that sentence for a second. You only believe in Christianity becuase no one can prove that it doesn't track back to Jesus.

Thats some ignorance right there.

So KhunPaulsen, if you did find a religion which could be back tracked perfectly to its Messenger, what is your reasoning for rejecting it and picked another religion over it?

[drewkowsky]

So HOW do you know that it is the true untouched word of God?

Wow, re-read that sentence for a second. You only believe in Christianity becuase no one can prove that it doesn't track back to Jesus.

Thats some ignorance right there.

So KhunPaulsen, if you did find a religion which could be back tracked perfectly to its Messenger, what is your reasoning for rejecting it and picked another religion over it?

Mormonism can be tracked down to Joseph Smith
Why should someone pick a false religion even if it can be directly traced back to the false prophet?

[nForce]

There should be two questions asked;

Can it be tracked perfectly back to it's Messenger?

if yes;

Is it the word of God?

Does Christianity, Judaism or Islam fill BOTH these two?

[SYRIANKID]

Mormonism can be tracked down to Joseph Smith
Why should someone pick a false religion even if it can be directly traced back to the false prophet?

No, because the 1st requirement is not fullfilled:

1. Proof of Prophecy = miracle, prophecies, divine characteristics that can be testable today that render revelations impossible to have come from anyone but God.

2. Authentic transmission to insure the doctrine is the same as the one the Prophet taught.

1 without 2 is useless, but so is 2 without 1.

[drewkowsky]

No, because the 1st requirement is not fullfilled:

1. Proof of Prophecy = miracle, prophecies, divine characteristics that can be testable today that render revelations impossible to have come from anyone but God.

2. Authentic transmission to insure the doctrine is the same as the one the Prophet taught.

1 without 2 is useless, but so is 2 without 1.

re-read what I wrote SK and what it was in responce to
authentic transmission is a neat little thing, but on its own it is nothing

[SYRIANKID]

re-read what I wrote SK and what it was in responce to
authentic transmission is a neat little thing, but on its own it is nothing

Yeah I completely agree with you, that's why I answered your question in my post.

Authentic transmission is nothing by itself, but also useless is a Prophecy in a book where you cannot trace back every other detail in the book to the Prophet.

[drewkowsky]

Yeah I completely agree with you, that's why I answered your question in my post.

Authentic transmission is nothing by itself, but also useless is a Prophecy in a book where you cannot trace back every other detail in the book to the Prophet.

OK good
thanks for the exorcism responce in the Ask ABout Islam thread by the way

[nForce]

drewkowsky, what religion are you if you don't mind me asking?

[drewkowsky]

drewkowsky, what religion are you if you don't mind me asking?

I'm a Christian
was raised Catholic, spent most of my teenage years as an agnostic at best, and now identify mostly with Methodists and non-denominationalists. I have taken a decent number of religious studies classes in college, though.

[nForce]

Can your religion be perfectly back tracked to it's Messenger?

And if not, whats your view on this?

[drewkowsky]

Can your religion be perfectly back tracked to it's Messenger?

And if not, whats your view on this?

No I dont think it can be perfectly traced(this was a time before that was even very feasible or considered), but the writings of the early church fathers, the gospels themselves, tradition, ancient manuscripts etc. give me enough confidence as to the veracity of the Bible.

[mahmoud mohamed]

Anybody care to discuss with me regarding this issue of extreme punishment?

This is a big misunderstanding even among many uneducated moslims.

Hell in a arabic is a place for ''Fetna'' in the qurann a part of a verse meaning ''when they are being ''yoftanon'' in fire''

Feta is when you put gold in fire so dirt and unwanted solids gets out of it and leaves it pure gold.

This is very well known concept in islam, and among scholars

Authenticated Prophet Tradition explained that any one with a single atom in his heart of "No God except God the one the only one ''Allah in arabic'''' will go to paradise whether he is punished for sins in hell and purified or forgiven by the mercy of God.

And technically speaking, it's quite rare to find a human with not even a single atom of "No God except God the one the only one".

you can read this post it clarifies this point.

http://forum.bodybuilding.com/showpo...1&postcount=11

and this small clarifying reply

http://forum.bodybuilding.com/showpo...0&postcount=14


SO Basically When God talks about filling hell, most of them is having punishment for sins to get pure, then go to heaven in the level they deserve by His mercy.

Eternal punishment is only for Eternal human devils, Those who can't ever be humble enough (Even in hell they can't, they won't) to confess their sins and worship their creator, God the one one the only one.


God the one the only one is the most knower of all things.

[SYRIANKID]

Anybody care to discuss with me regarding this issue of extreme punishment?

Ask in the "Ask about Islam" thread.

[mahmoud mohamed]

Ask in the "Ask about Islam" thread.

My dear borhter, i don't see any objection of making the discusion here, you and my other moslim brothers have done a very good effort clarifing issues in this thread.

If you have another openion regarding this issue just refer to the link of your post in Ask about Islam thread.

You see, when we take the simple concepts of islam, there's no problem in understanding things like hell, and heaven.

[Thudd]

what was muhammed sent with that seems so unbelievable to you, regarding the Islamic teachings??

I don't find anything unbelievable in his teachings; he's welcome to teach anything he wants. What I don't believe is that it was divine revelation from an omnipitent/omnipresent supernatural being.

[deeyala]

I don't find anything unbelievable in his teachings; he's welcome to teach anything he wants. What I don't believe is that it was divine revelation from an omnipitent/omnipresent supernatural being.

thanks for this answer, this is like the second most reasonable answer i've read on this thread... i wasn't trying to convince anyone that he's a prophet, but i only needed to clarify that his teachings had nothing to do with it..
you don't believe he's a prophet, because you chose to believe he's not... period..!
13:43 The Unbelievers say: "No apostle art thou." Say: "Enough for a witness between me and you is Allah, and such as have knowledge of the Book."