[notloc_D]

Could you please share with us Islamic prophecy about the end times?

[segovius]

Originally Posted by notloc_D

Could you please share with us Islamic prophecy about the end times?

Many of the Islamic end-time prophecies are similar to the Christian ones - perhaps the Islamic are more detailed and (I would argue) have demonstrably already come to pass.

The anti-Christ also figures large in Islamic eschatology - some say he has a symbol he can be recognised by and that this symbol is one eye. Certainly he is described as being 'one-eyed' but this is probably literal though some say it is also his 'icon'.

After the antichrist the religion of Islam will be totally corrupted and the opposite of what the Prophet (saws) originally taught. This is an actual quote from Muhammad on this issue:

There will come a time for my people when there will remain nothing of the Qur'an except its outward form and nothing of Islam except its name and they will call themselves by this name even though they are the people furthest from it. The mosques will be full of people but they will be empty of right guidance. The religious leaders (Fuqaha) of that day will be the most evil religious_ leaders under the heavens; sedition and dissension will go out from them and to them will it return.

Then there are some specific prophecies which precede the second coming of Christ (have confirmatory links of these if any one interested):

• It will be hot in winter (and vice versa).
• The length of days is stretched, i.e. a journey of a few days is covered in a matter of hours.
• The nations of the earth will gather against the Muslims like hungry people going to sit down to a table full of food. This will occur when the Muslims are large in number, but "like the foam of the sea".
• Rain will be acidic or burning
• The people of Iraq will recieve no food and no money due to oppression
• People will hop between the clouds and the earth
• Smog will appear over cities because of the evil that they are doing
• Earthquakes will increase (Bukhari & Muslim)
• There will be attempts to make the deserts green
• The conquest of Constantinople by the Muslims (Ahmad)
• The conquest of India by the Muslims,
• The Euphrates will disclose a treasure
• A man will leave his home and his thigh or hip will tell him what is happening in his home.
• Men will begin to look like women and women will begin to look like men
• Three major landslides (one in the East, one in the West, and one on the Arabian peninsula).

Also there are some prophecies that tell of fires in Baghdad and a war there prior to the utter destruction of Syria.

The Ka'aba at Mecca will also be destroyed and then Jesus will return. Tradition has it he will return in Damascus but this must mean before the destruction of Syria (which may not be an orthodox prophecy anyway). This is the passage in question:

The Ka’bah will be destroyed by Dhu’l-Suwayqatayn from Ethiopia. And Allah will take the Qur’an away from the earth, and not one ayah of it will be left or in people’s hearts. Allah will not permit His Book to remain on earth if it is not benefitting anyone and no one is acting in accordance with it. So this thing will come to pass.

There are also prophecies which state that God will send a new Revelation and that the Muslims (or Arabs) will find this a great test. There is also a 'rapture' like belief where the souls of the good are taken by a strange wind and only the 'bad' are left behind on earth.

Here is a link to more of this stuff with the caveat that I do not necessarily endorse this site's interpretations but make of it what you will.

[notloc_D]

Wow....thank you. Do you think we are in those times now?

(It amazes me how similar the prophecies are to Christianity)

What is so significant about India.

and can you provide the links?

[Doofy]

Originally Posted by notloc_D

(It amazes me how similar the prophecies are to Christianity)

Not when you realise that all mohammed did was copy the Bible but leave the good bits out.

[notloc_D]

Originally Posted by Doofy

Not when you realise that all mohammed did was copy the Bible but leave the good bits out.

do you believ in the bible

[Doofy]

Originally Posted by notloc_D

do you believ in the bible

Yep. Although I do understand that some bits (i.e. Adam and Eve) are metaphors.

[notloc_D]

do you believe in revelations?

[Doofy]

Revelation? Yep.

[notloc_D]

I'm still trying to figure out this redneck english guy thing. Are you one of those soccer hoodloms?

[Doofy]

Originally Posted by notloc_D

I'm still trying to figure out this redneck english guy thing.

I'm a rural, well-heeled, Christian, vegetarian, Bush-defending, Conservative-voting, truck-loving, 4x4-driving, long-haired, traditionalist, white, English, heterosexual male chick-magnet with an IQ over 60 who doesn't subscribe to any normal social "fads" or political "fashions".

Thus, everybody who's not a hot chick hates me for some reason or another. Here in the UK, everyone who says "discrimination is wrong" constantly goes out of their way to discriminate against me for at least one of the above reasons - it's a result of a weird leftie political/social environment prevalent here. The things I like happen to get me labelled as a redneck, so hey who am I to argue?



Oh. And I eat babies (proper redneck food, goes great with the grits).

Originally Posted by notloc_D

Are you one of those soccer hoodloms?

No. I hate soccer - and everything about it. Cowboys fan myself (well, at least while they had Troy and Emmitt in their starting line-up and UK TV covered the games properly).

[notloc_D]

Originally Posted by Doofy

I'm a rural, well-heeled, Christian, vegetarian, Bush-defending, Conservative-voting, truck-loving, 4x4-driving, long-haired, traditionalist, white, English, heterosexual male chick-magnet with an IQ over 60 who doesn't subscribe to any normal social "fads" or political "fashions".

Thus, everybody who's not a hot chick hates me for some reason or another. Here in the UK, everyone who says "discrimination is wrong" constantly goes out of their way to discriminate against me for at least one of the above reasons - it's a result of a weird leftie political/social environment prevalent here. The things I like happen to get me labelled as a redneck, so hey who am I to argue?

).

Perfect!

Oh. And I eat babies (proper redneck food, goes great with the grits).

A vegeterian who eats babies....oh, you mean Canadian babies, we all know they have no meat! Hint: Add a little hot sauce, it covers up that bitter taste

No. I hate soccer - and everything about it. Cowboys fan myself (well, at least while they had Troy and Emmitt in their starting line-up and UK TV covered the games properly).

Soccer isn't a sport...
as for the cowboys...go 'Skins!

[segovius]

Originally Posted by Doofy

Not when you realise that all mohammed did was copy the Bible but leave the good bits out.

If that is the case then he was one of the greatest poets and writers the world has ever seen. The Qur'an is recognized (by those who know what they're talking about and whose job it is to know such things) as a masterpiece of the poetic form that ranks alongside Shakespeare for meter and composition.

As it happens, there is no need to resort to such a textual-analytical approach as your reasoning is flawed on the first instance.

The Bible consists of the Old and New Testaments - these are contradictory and were chosen arbitrarily by the Church to support their own particular version of 'Christianity'. Equally significant are the books they left out such as particular Gospels and sayings of Jesus - many of these are preserved in Islamic tradition, there is a mosque in India for example decorated with calligraphy that is in effect the 'lost' (read suppressed and censored) Gospel of Thomas.

Your argument therefore cannot stand because the Bible is not a coherent whole and was essentially constructed by the Church. Even the Old Testament they include is not the one accepted by the Jews which is significantly different (why they felt they had the right to co-opt someone else's religion and adjust it is an interesting topic all of it's own).

Muhammad cannot therefore have 'copied the Bible' because demonstrably if he copied anything (which he did not - and his teachers were Christians btw) then he could only be accused of copying the suppressed elements of Christianity which have actually been censored from the BIble.

I think it is Christianity itself that 'cut out the good bits' of Christ's teaching. Literally as well as figuratively.

[notloc_D]

segovius...me thinks you are taking doofy a little too serious there.

Anyway...could you ploease tell me what the significance of India in the Islamic religion is.

[Doofy]

Originally Posted by segovius

If that is the case then he was one of the greatest poets and writers the world has ever seen. The Qur'an is recognized (by those who know what they're talking about and whose job it is to know such things) as a masterpiece of the poetic form that ranks alongside Shakespeare for meter and composition.

There's no doubt that the Devil inspires a good yarn.

Originally Posted by segovius

I think it is Christianity itself that 'cut out the good bits' of Christ's teaching. Literally as well as figuratively.

You're wrong. The good bit (the whole point) is right there at the end of the gospels. You guys cut it out, not us.

[notloc_D]

maybe I was wrong! Comparing the Qu'ran to Shakespeare....maybe I am taking seg too serious

[Doofy]

Originally Posted by notloc_D

maybe I was wrong! Comparing the Qu'ran to Shakespeare....maybe I am taking seg too serious

Dr. Doofy recommends watching some Roadrunner cartoons as a cure for this ailment. *beep* *beep*.

[notloc_D]

Originally Posted by Doofy

Dr. Doofy recommends watching some Roadrunner cartoons as a cure for this ailment. *beep* *beep*.

No...road runner is for rednecks...woody woodpecker is for good 'ol boys!

[segovius]

Originally Posted by Doofy

Dr. Doofy recommends watching some Roadrunner cartoons as a cure for this ailment. *beep* *beep*.

I can definitely recommend this as the most appropriate course of action for those out of their depth in the current discussion. I believe it is currently airing on something called the 'Toon Network' whatever that may be.

Otherwise I must say that the literary angle is not my opinion (and I used it only as an illustration) as I am not a world renowned Orientalist literary scholar and therefore any objections should be addressed to Professor E H Palmer (Oxford University) whose researches led him to state:

That the best of Arab writers has never succeeded in producing anything equal in merit to the Qur'an itself is not surprising. In the first place, they have agreed before-hand that it is unapproachable, and they have adopted its style as the perfect standard; any deviation from it therefore must of necessity be a defect. Again, with them this style is not spontaneous as with Muhammad and his contemporaries, but is as artificial as though Englishmen should still continue to follow Chaucer as their model, in spite of the changes which their language has undergone. With the Prophet, the style was natural, and the words were those in every-day ordinary life, while with the later Arabic authors the style is imitative and the ancient words are introduced as a literary embellishment. The natural consequence is that their attempts look laboured and unreal by the side of his impromptu and forcible eloquence.

And to Professor Hamilton Gibb (Oxford again):

Though, to be sure, the question of the literary merit is one not to be judged on a priori grounds but in relation to the genius of Arabic language; and no man in fifteen hundred years has ever played on that deep-toned instrument with such power, such boldness, and such range of emotional effect as Mohammad did.

As a literary monument the Koran thus stands by itself, a production unique to the Arabic literature, having neither forerunners nor successors in its own idiom. Muslims of all ages are united in proclaiming the inimitability not only of its contents but also of its style..... and in forcing the High Arabic idiom into the expression of new ranges of thought the Koran develops a bold and strikingly effective rhetorical prose in which all the resources of syntactical modulation are exploited with great freedom and originality.

The influence of the Koran on the development of Arabic Literature has been incalculable, and exerted in many directions. Its ideas, its language, its rhymes pervade all subsequent literary works in greater or lesser measure. Its specific linguistic features were not emulated, either in the chancery prose of the next century or in the later prose writings, but it was at least partly due to the flexibility imparted by the Koran to the High Arabic idiom that the former could be so rapidly developed and adjusted to the new needs of the imperial government and an expanding society.

The comparison to Shakespeare is not a stylistic one (which would be blasphemy) but rather is to say that as Shakespeare's works, as many masterpieces of genius do, occupy a unique niche - neither building on past works or being copied successfully subsequently - then so does the Qur'an in Arabic literature. There is quite simply nothing like it in form either before or since.

It is therefore the greatest expression of the Arab mind if you are taking the view that it is not divine. What other options are there?

And it follows from that if there are works of Islamic literature that are world masterpieces and ARE ranked alongside the greatest poets of the West such as Shakespeare, Milton and Chaucer (all of whom are indebted to Islamic sources btw but that's a different story) then by definition if (IF) one takes the view that Muhammad wrote the Qur'an himself then he must stand amongst these poets - especially seeing, as I said, that they themselves borrowed heavily from Islamic thought and ideas.

Thankfully we do not have to go down this tortuous route and get into an angels-on-pinheads sort of debacle as Muhammad did not create the Qur'an of himself.

[Doofy]

Originally Posted by segovius

Thankfully we do not have to go down this tortuous route and get into an angels-on-pinheads sort of debacle as Muhammad did not create the Qur'an of himself.

Exactly. It's an excellent work of prose created by God's former favourite angel. You wouldn't expect rubbishy tripe from a former angel, now would you? *beep* *beep*

[segovius]

Originally Posted by Doofy

*beep* *beep*

Err...don't look down but you've overshot the cliff and are walking on thin air....oops......

[notloc_D]

sergov...

India?

[Doofy]

Originally Posted by segovius

Err...don't look down but you've overshot the cliff and are walking on thin air....oops......

I realise it's difficult for you guys to see the difference between the good and bad characters in the cartoon of life, but I should nevertheless point out that the character who says *beep* *beep* is not the one who ends up at the bottom of the canyon.



(oh, and *beep* *beep*)

[BRussell]

I'm feeling rather nonplussed by this whole discussion. I'd even go so far as to say that I'm feeling quite minussed.

[Doofy]

Originally Posted by BRussell

I'm feeling rather nonplussed by this whole discussion. I'd even go so far as to say that I'm feeling quite minussed.

It's a Tuesday... ...what did you expect for a Tuesday?

[segovius]

Originally Posted by BRussell

I'm feeling rather nonplussed by this whole discussion. I'd even go so far as to say that I'm feeling quite minussed.

Never mind, we've moved on. I'm really getting into this Roadrunner thing BR - it's actually quite compulsive. This coyote tried to blow up the Roadrunner and but mistimed and blew himself up instead - then an anvil fell on his head and he got run over by a freight train.

It's great!

[mojo2]

Originally Posted by notloc_D

No...road runner is for rednecks...woody woodpecker is for good 'ol boys!

Just to remind you, the derogatory term that brothers use in referring to whites is, "peckerwood."

I reject any assertion that the Road Runner cartoons are anything but racially INERT!

However, I wonder if an argument could be made likening the Coyote's struggles to the process of 'jihad?'

[Taliesin]

Originally Posted by Doofy

Not when you realise that all mohammed did was copy the Bible but leave the good bits out.

Since the Quran is the message of God and not the message of Muhammad...
If it was the devil's message, then he did quite a bad, if not very bad job, defeating with it himself, not only confirming all previous revelations, but also calling to believe in God, to hate the devil, to do good, to prepare for judgment day, to live a righteous life, to help the needy...

By the way the jewish leaders said exactly the same about prophet Jesus, namely that he were inspired by the devil and Jesus answered in Matthew 12:

24But when the Pharisees heard this, they said, "It is only by Beelzebub,[d] the prince of demons, that this fellow drives out demons."

25Jesus knew their thoughts and said to them, "Every kingdom divided against itself will be ruined, and every city or household divided against itself will not stand. 26If Satan drives out Satan, he is divided against himself. How then can his kingdom stand? 27

Oh, irony, how blind can one get, the devil inspired the christians to deify Jesus and by this to deviate from God's message. The gospels are clear in this, Jesus always called the people to pray to God and to worship Him, and he did it too as an example to follow, and he humbled himself before God and was the beloved servant of God, just like Isaiah prophecied it to be, and yet christianity has developed into such a way as to mistake Jesus as God and to worship him.

Taliesin

[Railroader]

Originally Posted by notloc_D

India?

I too would like to know.

[Hawkeye_a]

Obsession with geographic territory. whats new ? lol..... look around, India, Russia, Indonesia, Israel, Cyprus, Kurdishstan, Bosnia, Lebanon..take ur pick.

Speaking of revelations,etc....i just borrowed a book on Nostradamus...look forward to reading it. Ive actually read the book of Revelations, and ......it's worth a read.... beleive it or not, its a page turner.

As far as prophesies.... its eerie how similar they all seem to be..... from Native American to Christian to Islamic. All the same theme, all the same essential prediction.

[segovius]

Originally Posted by Hawkeye_a

As far as prophesies.... its eerie how similar they all seem to be..... from Native American to Christian to Islamic. All the same theme, all the same essential prediction.

What does that tell you then?

[Hawkeye_a]

Originally Posted by segovius

What does that tell you then?

That theyre eeriely similar.

Oh that and ...the end is coming

[Y3a]

<< The length of days is stretched, i.e. a journey of a few days is covered in a matter of hours. >>

Sounds like dimentional time warping - gravity from a black hole? That would also cause erthquakes and land slides.

[segovius]

Originally Posted by Y3a

<< The length of days is stretched, i.e. a journey of a few days is covered in a matter of hours. >>

Sounds like dimentional time warping - gravity from a black hole? That would also cause erthquakes and land slides.

I was thinking more like air travel and mass transportation.

Actually, this is one of the ones I disagree with interpretations of - I have seen it translated as saying that time appears to be shorter, ie time goes quicker and I think that is certainly happening. In my case anyway - not quick enough though some days.....

[ebuddy]

Originally Posted by segovius

If that is the case then he was one of the greatest poets and writers the world has ever seen. The Qur'an is recognized (by those who know what they're talking about and whose job it is to know such things) as a masterpiece of the poetic form that ranks alongside Shakespeare for meter and composition.

You're not really alleging divinity in the Quran by comparing it to the literary works of Shakespeare are you?

The Bible consists of the Old and New Testaments - these are contradictory and were chosen arbitrarily by the Church to support their own particular version of 'Christianity'.

The Church? Which Church? Were they involved in the original canonization of the Hebrew Scriptures? Are you familiar with the Council in the year A.D. 90? Please also site some examples of contradiction or I may be required to recite Quranic verses in which ants speak and the sun sets in a giant pool of water.

Equally significant are the books they left out such as particular Gospels and sayings of Jesus - many of these are preserved in Islamic tradition, there is a mosque in India for example decorated with calligraphy that is in effect the 'lost' (read suppressed and censored) Gospel of Thomas.

These are referred to as the Apocryphal books. They were not left out, rather they were never at any point "in". Anyone can write books, one has to conclude whether or not they are to be deemed Scripturally credible. You encounter this same conundrum with your Hadiths. They were not in line with historical accuracy, they were not in line with literary stylings, and in fact themselves contradicted the very essence of God as told by those before Thomas. One such example is the account of a young Jesus who performs miracles for nothing more than sport. It was deemed heresy and rightly so. It's no shock to me that your doctrine holds dear to some of these writings. There were several critieria used for the selection of Biblical text. Among them were historical accuracy, continuity in stylings, and in some cases were found parallels of legends such as Buddha and others. The Books to which you refer were written subsequent to Matthew, Mark, Luke, and John. Some of it parallels Luke. There is also another collection of 114 sayings supposedly made by Jesus Himself in which women were not allowed into Heaven. One such statement made by Jesus regarding His own mother Mary; "I myself shall lead her in order to make her male, so that she too may become a living spirit resembling you males. For every woman who will make herself male will enter the kingdom of heaven."

While you may find it interesting to claim that these are the valuable books of the Bible that were "left-out" by Christians, I'm left wondering why you would "take them in."

Your argument therefore cannot stand because the Bible is not a coherent whole and was essentially constructed by the Church.

False. In actuality, the Old and New Covenants are in brilliant alignment with one another. Truly miraculous are the over 330 prophecies found in the Old, referenced and affirmed by only one book, the New Testament. I'm sure this won't stop you just as it has not stopped many other Muslims from making the same false claims. There is no New Testament without the Old. The Gospel of Christ is the central message of the entire Bible, essential for our salvation. Jesus affirmed that He is the Christ of the Old Testament (Luke 24:25-27). Above all, we need the Old Testament to see Jesus in it and to know what He fulfilled for us. The Old Testament is important because we believe it is God-breathed and useful for teaching, rebuking, correcting and training in righteousness (2 Timothy 3:16) Without It we would not understand much of the New Testament, especially why God sent Jesus.

Even the Old Testament they include is not the one accepted by the Jews which is significantly different (why they felt they had the right to co-opt someone else's religion and adjust it is an interesting topic all of it's own).

False. To claim transliteration as co-opting and changing is disingenuous in the least. Malicious at the most. Jews use the Torah, what Christians refer to as the Pentateuch. They are entirely similar with the only exception being the order in which it is comprised and of the fact that it is numbered at all. Original Hebrew did not differentiate numerical sequence. The order in which the books appear in the Tanakh or Torah is based on the Hebrew text and the order in which the books appear in the "Christian" version of the Old Testament is based on the Greek Septuagint or translation of the Hebrew text. It's really just as simple as that.

Muhammad cannot therefore have 'copied the Bible' because demonstrably if he copied anything (which he did not - and his teachers were Christians btw) then he could only be accused of copying the suppressed elements of Christianity which have actually been censored from the BIble.

Not only were they never included in the Bible, they were deemed heresy. Again, it is no surprise to me that you are found embracing this text. They were not suppressed, they were heretical and debunked with lack of authenticity, historical accuracy, and literary continuity.

I assume by your statement that Muhammad was taught by Christian(s), you are referring to Waraqa Ibn Nawfal. While it is no shocker that it is entirely possible Waraqa Ibn Nawfal read the Gospels, he died shortly after Muhammad's claim of prophethood and could not have in any way been instrumental in Muhammad's compilation of writings. If so, I'd have to say Waraqa Ibn Nawfal was a miserable teacher evidenced by the numerous inaccuracies and distortions in the Quran regarding Christian teachings. Christian doctrine gives a test of prophethood in the Bible and Muhammad fails these tests miserably. This, in Muhammad's own words, makes Christian doctrine (and henceforth, the curriculum of his "Christian" teacher) an adversary to Muhammad's claim and an enemy to the "prophets".

I think it is Christianity itself that 'cut out the good bits' of Christ's teaching. Literally as well as figuratively.

You can think what you want. This wouldn't be the first time misinformation has formulated "thoughts".

[Taliesin]

Originally Posted by ebuddy

...evidenced by the numerous inaccuracies and distortions in the Quran regarding Christian teachings. Christian doctrine gives a test of prophethood in the Bible and Muhammad fails these tests miserably. This, in Muhammad's own words, makes Christian doctrine (and henceforth, the curriculum of his "Christian" teacher) an adversary to Muhammad's claim and an enemy to the "prophets".

It's the other way around, my friend, most of christian doctrines are a distortion regarding Jesus' teachment as laid down in the gospels (with the exception of parts of John's gospel). Jesus himself is an adversary of most of christian doctrines. I'm everyday astonished how blatantly obvious that is while reading the synoptics and the other parts of John's gospel.

Oh, by the way, I'm pretty sure that segovious is not a muslim, maybe an agnostic ex-christian.

Taliesin

[ebuddy]

Originally Posted by Taliesin

It's the other way around, my friend, most of christian doctrines are a distortion regarding Jesus' teachment as laid down in the gospels (with the exception of parts of John's gospel). Jesus himself is an adversary of most of christian doctrines. I'm everyday astonished how blatantly obvious that is while reading the synoptics and the other parts of John's gospel.

Oh, by the way, I'm pretty sure that segovious is not a muslim, maybe an agnostic ex-christian.

Taliesin

So we're saying The Quran is wrong and the New Testament is wrong. We've been through all this before and yet end at the same precipice each time. How is Jesus' life and teachings in any way contradictory to Christian doctrine? I've shown you in the very synoptics (Christian doctrine) you cite, the claims of Jesus you fail to accept. I'm astonished every day that you continue to try to use the very Gospels that establish the falsehood of your faith. And yet, we will remain at the same precipice, each saying the other is wrong.

[notloc_D]

I Want To Know The Significance Of India According To Seg And The Quran

[segovius]

Originally Posted by ebuddy

You're not really alleging divinity in the Quran by comparing it to the literary works of Shakespeare are you?

No, I am saying that as it also ranks amongst the greatest works of world literature then those that argue that it was written by Muhammad himself must confront the issue of his status as a world literary figure. They cannot attempt to debunk him as a Prophet and not address the implications.

The Church? Which Church? Were they involved in the original canonization of the Hebrew Scriptures? Are you familiar with the Council in the year A.D. 90? Please also site some examples of contradiction or I may be required to recite Quranic verses in which ants speak and the sun sets in a giant pool of water.

Feel free to cite the Qur'anic verses in question. Re the Bible contradictions there are literally hundreds, some more significant than others. I suppose the best known would be the two conflicting creation stories in Genesis or the number of Saul's granddaughters and even who killed him. Here are a few others:

Death of Judas: "And he (Judas) cast down the pieces of silver into the temple and departed, and went out and hanged himself." (Matt. 27:5)

"And falling headlong, he burst asunder in the midst, and all of his bowels gushed out." (Acts 1:18)

Location of Jesus first sermon: "And seeing the multitudes, he (Jesus) went up into a mountain: and when he was set, his disciples came unto him: And he opened his mouth, and taught them, saying...." (Matt.5:1,2)

"And he came down with them, and stood in the plain, and the company of his disciples, and a great multitude of people...came to hear him.. ." (Luke6:17,20

Joseph's father: "And Jacob begat Joseph the husband of Mary, of whom was born Jesus, who is called Christ." (Matt 1:16 )

"And Jesus himself began to be about thirty years of age, being (as was supposed) the son of Joseph, which was the son of Heli." (LUK 3:23)

"And Solomon had forty thousand stalls of horses for his chariots, and twelve thousand horsemen." (Kings 1 4:26)

"And Solomon had four thousand stalls for horses and chariots, and twelve thousand horsemen; whom he bestowed in the chariot cities, and with the king at Jerusalem." (Chron 2 9:25)

These are referred to as the Apocryphal books. They were not left out, rather they were never at any point "in". Anyone can write books, one has to conclude whether or not they are to be deemed Scripturally credible. You encounter this same conundrum with your Hadiths. They were not in line with historical accuracy, they were not in line with literary stylings, and in fact themselves contradicted the very essence of God as told by those before Timothy. One such example is the account of a young Jesus who performs miracles for nothing more than sport. It was deemed heresy and rightly so. It's no shock to me that your doctrine holds dear to some of these writings. There were several critieria used for the selection of Biblical text. Among them were historical accuracy, continuity in stylings, and in some cases were found parallels of legends such as Buddha and others. The Books to which you refer were written subsequent to Matthew, Mark, Luke, and John. Some of it parallels Luke. There is also another collection of 114 sayings supposedly made by Jesus Himself in which women were not allowed into Heaven. One such statement made by Jesus regarding His own mother Mary; "I myself shall lead her in order to make her male, so that she too may become a living spirit resembling you males. For every woman who will make herself male will enter the kingdom of heaven."

Many of the Gnostic scriptures are a mixed bag ranging from magic, sorcery to general debauchery and as such not to be taken seriously. I suppose that is why they were persecuted by the early Church and both they themselves and their writings destroyed. In many cases though, some of their works are (imo) genuine representations of a Christological tradition and there are many works which are offensive to the Church in one way or another which are omitted on these grounds.

It is fairly inevitable from an academic point of view that as technology advances we will find 'lost' scriptures which may possibly have deserved inclusion had they been known at the time of the Bible's compiling. Obviously current Christian thought forbids this possibility.

Technology does however enable us to say without doubt that the bible has been subject to extensive alteration and excision (as well as inclusion of non-original passages) and there are many proven examples of this.

While you may find it interesting to claim that these are the valuable books of the Bible that were "left-out" by Christians, I'm left wondering why you would "take them in.

"

Well, one assesses a tree by it's fruits. Of course one must have a rudimentary knowledge of horticulture and not being under the opinion, say, that gardening is the same as water-ski-ing.

One reads what one reads and it echoes (or not) in an individual's conscience surely?

False. In actuality, the Old and New Covenants are in brilliant alignment with one another. Truly miraculous are the over 330 prophecies found in the Old, referenced and affirmed by only one book, the New Testament. I'm sure this won't stop you just as it has not stopped many other Muslims from making the same false claims. There is no New Testament without the Old. The Gospel of Christ is the central message of the entire Bible, essential for our salvation. Jesus affirmed that He is the Christ of the Old Testament (Luke 24:25-27). Above all, we need the Old Testament to see Jesus in it and to know what He fulfilled for us. The Old Testament is important because we believe it is God-breathed and useful for teaching, rebuking, correcting and training in righteousness (2 Timothy 3:16) Without It we would not understand much of the New Testament, especially why God sent Jesus.

Ok, fair enough though I disagree as do the people whose religion the Old Testament is a statement of.

False. To claim transliteration as co-opting and changing is disingenuous in the least. Malicious at the most. Jews use the Torah, what Christians refer to as the Pentateuch. They are entirely similar with the only exception being the order in which it is comprised and of the fact that it is numbered at all. Original Hebrew did not differentiate numerical sequence. The order in which the books appear in the Tanakh or Torah is based on the Hebrew text and the order in which the books appear in the "Christian" version of the Old Testament is based on the Greek Septuagint or translation of the Hebrew text. It's really just as simple as that.

What is it if it is not co-opting to adopt someone else's Scriptures and amalgamate them into your own while they do not agree with this position?

Not only were they never included in the Bible, they were deemed heresy. Again, it is no surprise to me that you are found embracing this text. They were not suppressed, they were heretical and debunked with lack of authenticity, historical accuracy, and literary continuity.

Who has the power to 'deem heresy' and how did they get it?

I assume by your statement that Muhammad was taught by Christian(s), you are referring to Waraqa Ibn Nawfal. While it is no shocker that it is entirely possible Waraqa Ibn Nawfal read the Gospels, he died shortly after Muhammad's claim of prophethood and could not have in any way been instrumental in Muhammad's compilation of writings. If so, I'd have to say Waraqa Ibn Nawfal was a miserable teacher evidenced by the numerous inaccuracies and distortions in the Quran regarding Christian teachings. Christian doctrine gives a test of prophethood in the Bible and Muhammad fails these tests miserably. This, in Muhammad's own words, makes Christian doctrine (and henceforth, the curriculum of his "Christian" teacher) an adversary to Muhammad's claim and an enemy to the "prophets".

You are basing your argument on assumptions and selective reasoning.

You do not have to believe that the Qur'an is divine revelation but if you refuse to argue from that position, if even to attempt to destroy it, then there is hardly any point in discussing with Muslims is there?

Similarly you cannot refer everything to the Bible if you wish to persue logic. If I say I have a document written by aliens from the planet Tharg and you write a book refuting my claim, I cannot argue against your book with a passage from my own which says "Earthlings will try to call you a loon" and retain any credibility.

Therefore Christian doctrine is not a benchmark on Prophethood if you wish to assess the potential validity of non-Christian traditions.

You can think what you want. This wouldn't be the first time misinformation has formulated "thoughts".

Yes, I can agree there. It is certainly rampant.

[notloc_D]

Seg, are you going to answer my question? And what about those links.

[segovius]

Originally Posted by notloc_D

Seg, are you going to answer my question? And what about those links.

Umm...err...what was the question again? Refresh my memory....India?

[notloc_D]

India...what is the significance of India in the Quran and you end days analysis

[Taliesin]

Originally Posted by ebuddy

So we're saying The Quran is wrong and the New Testament is wrong. We've been through all this before and yet end at the same precipice each time. How is Jesus' life and teachings in any way contradictory to Christian doctrine? I've shown you in the very synoptics (Christian doctrine) you cite, the claims of Jesus you fail to accept. I'm astonished every day that you continue to try to use the very Gospels that establish the falsehood of your faith. And yet, we will remain at the same precipice, each saying the other is wrong.

No, I'm saying the synoptic gospels are right, ok they contradict each other on small elements here and there, but overall they represent together Jesus' gospel, the essential message, God's word, which is by the way the same in the Quran. John's gospel has also a few of Jesus' sayings that are interesting and maybe true, but they are entrenched in a philosophical idea with the destruction of the jewish temple and the expellation of jews in mind.

The synoptic gospels and parts of John's gospel are interwoven and linked with the old testament, in that you are absolutely right. The gospels without the old testament would be hollow as Jesus' gospel is the confirmation and fulfillment of the old testament.

But exactly that's what led to the misconceptions in the first centuries of christianity, they looked upon the gospels, ie. the translated versions (hebreic and greek) of Jesus' sayings, which were made in arameic, without the backing of the old testament and took the word "son/servant" as meaning literal son, instead of the way that idiom was used in the old testament.

And once that way was taken, there seemed to be no easy way back, once the idiom son of god was interpreted as literal son of god and not as servant of god as it was meant in the old testament, it was only a question of time until Jesus was declared equal to God and then being God Himself, in order to prevent polytheism entering through the arian-heresy.

Really, christianity would win a lot, if it restudied Jesus' gospel and finally realize that jesus never thought of himself to be God nor said so.

Taliesin

[segovius]

Originally Posted by notloc_D

India...what is the significance of India in the Quran and you end days analysis

Well, to be honest I don't really know

I guess that Islam first spread there through the trade routes in the 8th century but I don't know the significance other than that. There seems to be some focus on the region though for a lot of traditions - Jesus is supposed to be buried in Kashmir and to have lived there after surviving the crucifixion. There is a tomb I believe.

[Taliesin]

Originally Posted by ebuddy

I've shown you in the very synoptics (Christian doctrine) you cite, the claims of Jesus you fail to accept.

No, you have shown your interpretation of this verses and I have refuted them in the other thread you cited them in, but I guess you didn't take the time to read my reply, cause how can a muslim understand anything about Jesus, right (let's just ignore that Jesus' gospel is also the heritage of muslims, and let's forget that Jesus himself was a muslim (ie. someone who submitted his self wholeheartedly to God))?

Taliesin

[Doofy]

Originally Posted by Taliesin

Since the Quran is the message of God and not the message of Muhammad...
If it was the devil's message, then he did quite a bad, if not very bad job, defeating with it himself, not only confirming all previous revelations, but also calling to believe in God, to hate the devil, to do good, to prepare for judgment day, to live a righteous life, to help the needy...

No, Old Nick did a perfect job with it.
See, the only way you're going to get to heaven is by believing that Jesus died for your sins. Two billion muslims don't think He did. That's a good result for Old Nick if you ask me.

[Taliesin]

Originally Posted by Doofy

No, Old Nick did a perfect job with it.
See, the only way you're going to get to heaven is by believing that Jesus died for your sins. Two billion muslims don't think He did. That's a good result for Old Nick if you ask me.

Says christian doctrine which is itself influenced by Old Nick.

Taliesin

[Doofy]

Originally Posted by Taliesin

Says christian doctrine which is itself influenced by Old Nick.

He's double bluffing you.

[segovius]

Originally Posted by Doofy

No, Old Nick did a perfect job with it.
See, the only way you're going to get to heaven is by believing that Jesus died for your sins. Two billion muslims don't think He did. That's a good result for Old Nick if you ask me.

Then why did he incorporate the true (in the Christian sense) motif of the second coming of Christ?

Surely he had the option not to include this and the fact that he did (in your theory) means that it will certainly lead some to draw parallels between Christianity and Islam and even investigate those parallels.

Over millennia some of those would embrace Christianity. He has therefore made a huge mistake. It would have far more deceptive effect if he'd made a religion which denied Jesus completely.

Also, why incorporate elements in which he loses? Why not promote one where he wins?

The only possible argument theologically can be that he is predestined to lose - if there is any doubt or possibility that he might win then he would never harm his cause by projecting scenarios where he is 'evil' and will be 'defeated' - and if this is the case why bother? Is he stupid?

What's the point if everything's already mapped out?

The people who did the tampering with the Bible and adjusted Christ's teaching weren't quite up to the job theologically or intellectually and they painted themselves into a corner with a series of impossible logical constructs and non sequturs - from then on in they had no choice but to obfuscate and keeo the populace uneducated and hope they didn't start thinking for themselves and introducing punitive counter-measures just in case they did.

Overall they did a pretty good job - much like your Old Nick. Curiously.

[Doofy]

Originally Posted by segovius

Then why did he incorporate the true (in the Christian sense) motif of the second coming of Christ?

You mean where Christ comes back and says he was a good muslim all along? Embellished somewhat, don't you think?

If there's no original sin, then why was there the virgin birth? What was the point? If the "second prophet" has a virgin birth, why didn't the "first prophet"?

It all comes down to one fact: The best way of telling a lie is to surround it with truth.

[segovius]

Originally Posted by Doofy

You mean where Christ comes back and says he was a good muslim all along? Embellished somewhat, don't you think?

If there's no original sin, then why was there the virgin birth? What was the point? If the "second prophet" has a virgin birth, why didn't the "first prophet"?

It all comes down to one fact: The best way of telling a lie is to surround it with truth.

You're avoiding the issue - why need to tell it at all if it's all mapped out?

And what about original sin - in your view, does sin exist as a separate reality to God or is He somehow the cause of it ?

If He is not the cause then how does it exist? How can something which God has not willed come into being?

If He is the cause then is that not a problem in Christian terms?