[Zimphire]

Taliesin you are changing your arguement now.

From the Bible of today supports your illogical reasoning when it doesn't.

To the Bible they are using now doesn't support it, but it once did!


You are hanging on a thin thread of embarrassment.

The very fact that God in the Bible said no, he will not be part of it you cannot deny.

If that part wasn't there you may have had a small point.

But since it is there, and the Bible doesn't support your ideals, nothing you can say or do will make you look right. And you'll as you say it will never "Win" this argument.

Ever.

But feel free to keep trying.

I do enjoy coming in here each morning to get a chuckle out of whatever spin you have came up with.

It's entertaining.

[Macrobat]

http://redwing.hutman.net/~mreed/war...tfuldodger.htm

[ebuddy]

Originally Posted by Taliesin

Hmm, don't you believe anymore in human's free will?

Taliesin

Of course I believe in human's freewill. It is this freewill that allows us to conduct ourselves in a manner that greatly dissappoints God. Do you believe in human's freewill to make good or bad decisions?

[ebuddy]

[QUOTE=Taliesin]You will be amazed at how plain the Bible can be about convenants:

There you have it, even before Abraham was born, God made a convenant with Noah and all of his descendants and all life on earth for all generations to come, this includes Abraham, Ismaeel and Isaac and co.

Yeah, and at the end it states clearly that the Covenant is between God and all the earth. In the one Biblical passage you cited the word "all" was used 7 times interestingly not including the statements regarding all living things that came out of the ark with Noah. I don't recall ever stating that God cannot make separate Covenants or that throughout history God has only made one Covenant. When God makes a Covenant, it's clearly a Covenant because He says it is. If Noah had asked; "but what of Taliesin, will he too be part of the Covenant?" and God said; "I've heard you, but my Covenant is for you alone, not the descendants of Taliesin" I'd have to admit that the Bible clearly (for whatever reason) isolated Taliesin out of the Covenant. Taliesin has a computer, he's clearly blessed, and he has settled where he has settled, but it does not make that city his own nor does it mean that by virtue of his blessings that God has made another particular Covenant with Taliesin. How could I know this? Because God is very clear about a Covenant when it's a Covenant.

Not to say that the Bible is reliable on the story of Noah, it's really slightly different, for example the big flood has not flooded the whole earth but merely a portion of the country Noah preached in and in which his message was rejected, but ok, I promised that I would debate from within the Bible, so...

I certainly hope you've spent the lion-share of your time properly interpreting the Quran. I'd hate to think that you'd twist it's literature to suit your will like you have done with the Holy Bible in this thread.

Oh, and just to make it complete, I even found a message in the Bible, in which prophet Moses says that God promises a new prophet that will be like Moses, meaning off course prophet Muhammad:

"20.But the prophet who presumes to speak a word in my name that I have not commanded him to speak, or who speaks in the name of other gods, that same prophet shall die.' 21. And if you say in your heart, 'How may we know the word that the LORD has not spoken?'-- 22. when a prophet speaks in the name of the LORD, if the word does not come to pass or come true, that is a word that the LORD has not spoken; the prophet has spoken it presumptuously. I'd say you're right, this passage does in fact prophecy of Muhammed.

Taliesin's misinterpretation of this source: www.biblegateway.com (The Standard English Version)

Therein Moses talks to his people, aka the descendants of Isaac and promises a prophet "like me from among you" , "from your brothers". The brothers are off course the descendants of Ismaeel or at least some other tree of descendants of Abraham but not the tree of Isaac's descendants.

The statement prior to that is what clues you in to why it was prophesied; For this is what you asked of the LORD your God at Horeb on the day of the assembly when you said, "Let us not hear the voice of the LORD our God nor see this great fire anymore, or we will die."
The Lord says this is good. It means they fear Him. What does he say he'll do? Raise up a prophet from among them. A peer. A Human. One who stands between them and the Lord as Moses had done on the mountain.

The description of the false prophet therein,"But the prophet who presumes to speak a word in my name that I have not commanded him to speak, or who speaks in the name of other gods, that same prophet shall die. Describes perfectly prophet Muhammad.

fixed.

Surah 4 proclaims the religion of Islam will fall and be replaced by another;"If He pleases, He will cause you to pass away, oh people, and bring others in your stead. For this hath God power."

Surah Ahzab 33 verse 67 mentions the problem with Islamic misinterpretation of the Bible; "Oh our lord! Indeed we obeyed our chiefs and our great ones, and they misled us from the way of God."

Surah 50, Quf, verses 41-42 predicts the second coming of Jesus Christ:"And listen for the Day When the Caller will call Out from a place Quite near. The day when they will hear a Bwall of the last in truth: that Will be the day of Resurrection."

Slowly, but surely I get the impression that the heated rejection of the proof I offered for the Bible's acknowledgment of a convenant with Ismaeel...OOPS! I mean Isaac, like this one: "Yes, but your wife Sarah will bear you a son, and you will call him Isaac. I will establish my covenant with him as an everlasting covenant for his descendants after him.

You're right Taliesin, this is why the discussion is heated and rejected by you.

You are though not alone in that regard, numerous christian/jewish theologians before you, centuries and even millenias before you had the same strategical idea like you and changed certain passages of the Bible, in order to make it look like Ismaeel was excluded from a convenant between God and Abraham's descendants.

Religious difference. You're wrong on this, but that's okay. Essentially, Muhammed saw the strife between various tribes of Arabs being a religious difference not unlike ours. In order to unite them he decided to use monotheism as a central focus to avoid the convoluted and mythical beliefs in moon gods, sun gods, wind gods, etc...He bastardized Judaism because anything less would've been conversion to Judaism and would've been wholly rejected by most Arabs. This rendered them with a faith and a doctrine that changed according to the whims of a man, the Quran.

Remember that the old testament is based upon the greek and hebraic written versions of witness-reports that were orally transferred among the descendants of Isaac:

Yet, it was a bastardization of these bogus "witness reports" that begat your religion. A religion as I succinctly illustrated above using the very Quran itself, prophecies the fall of Islam and it's replacement by another.

The reason why the original documents are lost are numerous, for example the destruction of the first temple through the Babylonians destroyed much of what was collected in written form, more severe is though that the Babylonians killed the priest-hood and many other jews and expelled them...

Except for a few documents found in clay jars in a cave; the Dead Sea scrolls, establishing credibility in it's almost word for word match in what we see in our Bibles today.

Note I used unbiased western, christian and jewish sources.

You'll notice that I too used Eastern, unbiased, Muslim, and Jewish sources up to and including the Quran.

Taliesin
P.S.: Off Topic: Am I the only one who thinks the new design of the forum is much more uglier than the previous one?

I think the new interface is actually a little easier to see and neater, more organized in general. I like it.

[von Wrangell]

How respectful

[ebuddy]

Originally Posted by von Wrangell

How respectful

My comment on the new interface? I can't find anything else questionable about my post???

[Zimphire]

And it's not as if Tali has been respectful in this thread.

This has really gotten silly. Is there anyone else but Tali in here that believes what Tali believes?

Just curious.

[von Wrangell]

Originally Posted by ebuddy

My comment on the new interface? I can't find anything else questionable about my post???

If you can't realise what part of your post was disrespectful there is little I can say to help you realise it.

[Zimphire]

How is a person supposed to know what he did wrong, if you wont show him?

I mean if he did something wrong, it would be easy to point out right?

Just point it out so he wont do it again.

[ebuddy]

Originally Posted by von Wrangell

If you can't realise what part of your post was disrespectful there is little I can say to help you realise it.

Can you illustrate where I'm wrong? The Quran clearly says what it says. It affirms my points. Can you argue them or are you engaging in some blind allegiance to an ideal for which you have no input whatsoever? I have done absolutely nothing that was not first done to me. I've provided verses from the Quran that support my view. I can see why this is frustrating to you, but it certainly doesn't show me you're grounded in common sense and tolerance.

I'm sorry if you find this offensive, but I'm left wondering why you didn't pipe up with your distaste of this level of disrespect for my Scripture.

[Zimphire]

I think this thread had gone on long enough.

Really. Tali is never going to admit being wrong, we can't prove him wrong any worse than we already have.

The only really thing left to do is point and laugh.

And that will only get ugly.

[von Wrangell]

Originally Posted by Zimphire

Really. Tali is never going to admit being wrong, we can't prove him wrong any worse than we already have.

Maybe I'm forgetting my English but

[von Wrangell]

If you can't see the difference in calling a book 2 billion people use for guidance and calling their Prophet a fraud, liar and the work of Satan compared to discussing particular verses in the Bible and what they mean there is no point trying to explain it to you.


But anyway. Both sides in this debate have given some good arguments for their side and it doesn't seem as clear cut as some of you'd like to think.

ps. The Christian and Jewish scriptures are not your scriptures any more than the the Quran is Taliesins, they belong to everybody and everyone is free to analyse them as they wish. At least as long as they do it with some respect which is something you failed remarkably in your post.

pps. And why would God exclude people who believe in him(Muslims) from the covenant?

[Taliesin]

[QUOTE=ebuddy]

Originally Posted by Taliesin

You will be amazed at how plain the Bible can be about convenants: I don't recall ever stating that God cannot make separate Covenants or that throughout history God has only made one Covenant. When God makes a Covenant, it's clearly a Covenant because He says it is.

That was about time that you finally realize it, I have said it multiple times, that God promised the land between nile-river and euphrat-river to the descendants of Abraham before Isaac was born, therefore meaning all descendants, and they all definetly populated then the promised land, and because of the split of Isaac and Ismaeel and the circumscision of both, there are obviously multiple convenants with God and it is further confirmed by God's convenant with Noah and his descendants for all generations.

Originally Posted by ebuddy

I certainly hope you've spent the lion-share of your time properly interpreting the Quran. I'd hate to think that you'd twist it's literature to suit your will like you have done with the Holy Bible in this thread.

Hmm, interesting what does the Quran have to do with Israel and zionism, you are way off topic here. If you want to talk about the Quran and Islam, open another thread for it and we will discuss it there.

Originally Posted by ebuddy

"20.But the prophet who presumes to speak a word in my name that I have not commanded him to speak, or who speaks in the name of other gods, that same prophet shall die.' 21. And if you say in your heart, 'How may we know the word that the LORD has not spoken?'-- 22. when a prophet speaks in the name of the LORD, if the word does not come to pass or come true, that is a word that the LORD has not spoken; the prophet has spoken it presumptuously. I'd say you're right, this passage does in fact prophecy of Muhammed.

Indeed, since prophet Muhammad said strictly only what God has told him and the Quran strictly adheres to monotheism, and everything prophet Muhammad said and promised to his followers in his 23 years of preaching and prophesing came true, for example polytheism was abolished in Arabia, prophet Muhammad is defenitively a true prophet and similar to Moses, thanks for acknowledging it.

Originally Posted by ebuddy

The statement prior to that is what clues you in to why it was prophesied; For this is what you asked of the LORD your God at Horeb on the day of the assembly when you said, "Let us not hear the voice of the LORD our God nor see this great fire anymore, or we will die."The Lord says this is good. It means they fear Him. What does he say he'll do? Raise up a prophet from among them. A peer. A Human. One who stands between them and the Lord as Moses had done on the mountain.

Indeed, you are right on that one, but it's still amazing how it fits prophet Muhammad, but I guess that's the description of all prophets of God. Just out of curiosity, who do you think was that promised prophet from among the descendants of Isaac? It can't be Jesus, as like you and the christians always say he is not a prophet but according to you, he was God himself, and besides Jesus was not like Moses a political/state-person, he was not inspired after part of a life as mere human, but created from the get-go for his purpose...

Originally Posted by ebuddy

Surah 4 proclaims the religion of Islam will fall and be replaced by another;"If He pleases, He will cause you to pass away, oh people, and bring others in your stead. For this hath God power."[/i]

If you want to discuss the Quran and Islam open a thread for it, but just as a reminder, if you do that please always provide the numeber of the sura and the number of the verses, so that I can find it more quickly, since a lot of suras are very big. Besides there is a very big difference between saying "If God pleases, he will replace you" and saying "Hey, the sura proclaims the replacement of Islam":
The first difference is off course the condition, "if He pleases", the second difference is the emphasis on people and nations that could be replaced by God if He pleases and not the replacement of religion or message aka Quran. The third difference is off course that it's not clear what the context is, who is meant, if some special nation is meant or if it is a general warning that his convenant is two-sided and can be suspended if it is broken by us humans.

But scanning through sura 4 I found also this interesting portion:

153. The people of the Book ask thee to cause a book to descend to them from heaven: Indeed they asked Moses for an even greater (miracle), for they said: "Show us God in public," but they were dazed for their presumption, with thunder and lightning. Yet they worshipped the calf even after clear signs had come to them; even so we forgave them; and gave Moses manifest proofs of authority.

154. And for their covenant we raised over them (the towering height) of Mount (Sinai); and (on another occasion) we said: "Enter the gate with humility"; and (once again) we commanded them: "Transgress not in the matter of the sabbath." And we took from them a solemn covenant.

155. (They have incurred divine displeasure): In that they broke their covenant; that they rejected the signs of God. that they slew the Messengers in defiance of right; that they said, "Our hearts are the wrappings (which preserve God's Word; We need no more)";- Nay, God hath set the seal on their hearts for their blasphemy, and little is it they believe;-

156. That they rejected Faith; that they uttered against Mary a grave false charge;

157. That they said (in boast), "We killed Christ Jesus the son of Mary, the Messenger of God;- but they killed him not, nor crucified him, but so it was made to appear to them, and those who differ therein are full of doubts, with no (certain) knowledge, but only conjecture to follow, for of a surety they killed him not:-

158. Nay, God raised him up unto Himself; and God is Exalted in Power, Wise;-

159. And there is none of the People of the Book but must believe in him before his death; and on the Day of Judgment he will be a witness against them;-

160. For the iniquity of the Jews We made unlawful for them certain (foods) good and wholesome which had been lawful for them;- in that they hindered many from God's Way;-

161. That they took usury, though they were forbidden; and that they devoured men's substance wrongfully;- we have prepared for those among them who reject faith a grievous punishment.

162. But those among them who are well-grounded in knowledge, and the believers, believe in what hath been revealed to thee and what was revealed before thee: And (especially) those who establish regular prayer and practise regular charity and believe in God and in the Last Day: To them shall We soon give a great reward.

163. We have sent thee inspiration, as We sent it to Noah and the Messengers after him: we sent inspiration to Abraham, Isma'il, Isaac, Jacob and the Tribes, to Jesus, Job, Jonah, Aaron, and solomon, and to David We gave the Psalms.

164. Of some apostles We have already told thee the story; of others We have not;- and to Moses God spoke direct;-

Combine that with the verse you have found and it describes perfectly the fate of ancient Israel... convenant broken, God punishes and replaces them by other nations...

Originally Posted by ebuddy

Surah Ahzab 33 verse 67 mentions the problem with Islamic misinterpretation of the Bible; [b]"Oh our lord! Indeed we obeyed our chiefs and our great ones, and they misled us from the way of God."[/i]

The context is after the judgment day, when those that disobeyed God and the prophets were/will about to be thrown into hell, they uttered/will utter as a sort of justification for their wrongdoing against God and his prophets that they were misled by some leaders and chiefs among them:

64. Verily Allah has cursed the Unbelievers and prepared for them a Blazing Fire,-

65. To dwell therein for ever: no protector will they find, nor helper.

66. The Day that their faces will be turned upside down in the Fire, they will say: "Woe to us! Would that we had obeyed Allah and obeyed the Messenger."

67. And they would say: "Our Lord! We obeyed our chiefs and our great ones, and they misled us as to the (right) Path.

68. "Our Lord! Give them double Penalty and curse them with a very great Curse!"

It doesn't deal about any interpretations of any scriptures, you were really funny about the socalled "islamic misinterpretation of the Bible" here ebuddy, but about the direct disobedience of people that lived at the time of the prophets and that conspired against the prophets and disobeyed them. Those people always existed near every prophet but their conspiracies always failed, and the punsihment that they got/will get is described there in this verse of the Quran.

Originally Posted by ebuddy

Surah 50, Quf, verses 41-42 predicts the second coming of Jesus Christ:[b]"And listen for the Day When the Caller will call Out from a place Quite near. The day when they will hear a Bwall of the last in truth: that Will be the day of Resurrection."[/i]

Jesus is one of our greatest islamic prophets, even greater than Moses and Abraham, we muslims have no problem with Jesus and we would be happy and honoured if he would come back shortly before ressurection and the last day. But the verse you are quoting is not talking about Jesus, but just describes what the last day will sound like.

Originally Posted by ebuddy

You're right Taliesin, this is why the discussion is heated and rejected by you. [/i]

The discussion is rejected by me? I'm the one who keeps discussing, zimphire is rejecting the discussion and chose instead to resort to personal attacks, which shows his insecurities. The discussion is heated because you as christians think the old testament is not to be quoted or used by non-christians for their arguments, and feel personaly attacked that a muslim quotes the Bible.

Originally Posted by ebuddy

Religious difference. You're wrong on this, but that's okay.[/i]

Oh, no that's what the old testament is confirming, that Ismaeel is covered even by two convenants, the one of Noah and the one of Abraham, and settled inside the promised land with his descendants, and his descendants never vanished from there, even through the hey-days of ancient Israel, during which Israel destroyed all other nations, like those from the caananites, and a lot of others but never those from Ismaeel's descendants. Quite to the contrary the descendants of Isaac broke their convenant and were replaced through other nations, like the Quran-verse you quoted up there of sura 4 described generally.

I don't know though if you just don't see the truth or if you are just too proud to admit it.

Originally Posted by ebuddy

Essentially, Muhammed saw the strife between various tribes of Arabs being a religious difference not unlike ours. In order to unite them he decided to use monotheism as a central focus to avoid the convoluted and mythical beliefs in moon gods, sun gods, wind gods, etc...[/i]

Sure that's what God has often done, invoked prophets in order to lead Abraham's descendants away from polytheism towards monotheism, but to think Muhamad did it on his own without God's will and invoking/inspiration is rediculous considering his illeteracy and the knowledge in the Quran that exceeded human's knowledge for centuries and not to forget his success against a much stronger polytheistic Mecca, which wouldn't have possible without God's help and will.

Originally Posted by ebuddy

He bastardized Judaism because anything less would've been conversion to Judaism and would've been wholly rejected by most Arabs.[/i]

No, you really are clueless about Judaism. Judaism was never offered to arabs by the jews, as the jews strictly kept it to their chest, only for the descendants of Isaac, etc.. such that Judaism became a tribe-religion. The jews never tried to converse any non-descendants of Isaac, so the question if arabs would have rejected Judaism never came up.

Besides if you would have read the Quran honestly and with an open mind and heart, you would have found that it indeed confirms Judaism, acknowledges the prophets of Judaism as well as the laws of Moses and others... and calls for believing in the one God, lord that created everything.

Originally Posted by ebuddy

This rendered them with a faith and a doctrine that changed according to the whims of a man, the Quran. [/i]

LOL.

Originally Posted by ebuddy

Yet, it was a bastardization of these bogus "witness reports" that begat your religion. A religion as I succinctly illustrated above using the very Quran itself, prophecies the fall of Islam and it's replacement by another. [/i]

No, God invoked Muhammad as prophet and sent the Quran as God's direct word in order to refresh Judaism and to restore his message to humanity that got so destroyed and changed due to the two destructions of the Temple.

Originally Posted by ebuddy

Except for a few documents found in clay jars in a cave; the Dead Sea scrolls, establishing credibility in it's almost word for word match in what we see in our Bibles today. [/i]

That should really alarm you about the authencity of the Dead Sea scrolls, if they really match so good.

Originally Posted by ebuddy

You'll notice that I too used Eastern, unbiased, Muslim, and Jewish sources up to and including the Quran. [/i]

No, the only source you presented was the Quran, and those verses said only things I agree with.

If you really want to discuss the Quran and Islam, please open a thread of its own for it, could be fun.

Taliesin

P.S.: Zimphire, sorry but I can't respond to you anymore, you have resorted back to personal attacks, so I will ignore you.

[Taliesin]

Originally Posted by von Wrangell

If you can't see the difference in calling a book 2 billion people use for guidance and calling their Prophet a fraud, liar and the work of Satan compared to discussing particular verses in the Bible and what they mean there is no point trying to explain it to you.

Thank you for making that clear, exactly that's the difference.

Taliesin

[Zimphire]

I didn't think this thread could make me laugh any harder.



I PDF'd it so years later I could read it again.

[Zimphire]

Jesus is one of our greatest islamic prophets,

Cept Jesus wasn't Islamic, he was Jewish. Not that it matters.

Even greater than Moses and Abraham, we muslims have no problem with Jesus and we would be happy and honoured if he would come back shortly before ressurection and the last day. But the verse you are quoting is not talking about Jesus, but just describes what the last day will sound like.

What you mean is, you have no problems with Jesus, as long as people don't try to say he was the Son of God, and part of God. And only through him will you be saved.

The very basis of immortality.

[von Wrangell]

So Christianity shouldn't use Jesus' teachings because he was Jewish? Or does that only apply to Islam?

And you seem to be lacking in understanding of Islam. Muslims don't have a problem with Jesus. Muslims disagree with the people who thinks Jesus was God, Son of God or part of God(or all of the before mentioned). They don't have a problem with Jesus.

Again. Muslims don't have a problem with Jesus and he is one of their most revered sources for belief. His teachings are amongst the most important teachings a Muslim can study.

Got it or do I have to explain it to you again?

[Zimphire]

Originally Posted by von Wrangell

So Christianity shouldn't use Jesus' teachings because he was Jewish? Or does that only apply to Islam?

Wow what a knee-jerk

When you call someone an "Islamic Prophet" you are basically calling them Islamic.

And you seem to be lacking in understanding of Islam. Muslims don't have a problem with Jesus. Muslims disagree with the people who thinks Jesus was God, Son of God or part of God(or all of the before mentioned). They don't have a problem with Jesus.

Isn't that what I just said? Yes, yes it is.

Got it or do I have to explain it to you again?

100% Pretentiously silly.

I had it before.

You might want to go back and read my post again where I said

What you mean is, you have no problems with Jesus, as long as people don't try to say he was the Son of God, and part of God. And only through him will you be saved.

Now compare that to what you said above. Same thing.

Take time out to actually comprehend what I said, instead of what you THINK I said, and then knee-jerk and post a response.

THX.

[von Wrangell]

Originally posted by Zimphire:
What you mean is, you have no problems with Jesus, as long as people don't try to say he was the Son of God, and part of God. And only through him will you be saved.

Meaning Taliesin has a problem with Jesus if people call him Son of God etc etc.

What I said:
Muslims disagree with the people who thinks Jesus was God, Son of God or part of God(or all of the before mentioned).

Meaning just what it says. That Muslims disagree with the people that call him that. Not Jesus. I even highlighted it for you.

And yes calling Jesus "Islamic Prophet" means just that. In the eyes of Muslims Jesus was a Muslim. A believer in one God.

So tell me, why can't Muslims consider Jesus an Islamic prophet but Christians can consider Jesus a "Christian prophet/God" when Jesus was like you said a Jew?

If Jesus was a Jew(like you claim) why is it OK that Christians have him as their prime source for belief but Muslims aren't allowed to do the same?

[Zimphire]

Originally Posted by von Wrangell

Meaning Taliesin has a problem with Jesus if people call him Son of God etc etc.

What I said:
Muslims disagree with the people who thinks Jesus was God, Son of God or part of God(or all of the before mentioned).

Meaning just what it says. That Muslims disagree with the people that call him that. I even highlighted it for you.

YOU AREN'T READING WHAT I AM POSTING.
GO BACK AND READ

That is EXACTLY WHAT I SAID in the post you replied to.

You didn't need to underline anything. You just repeated what I said. Obviously you didn't read my post. Again.

And yes calling Jesus "Islamic Prophet" means just that. In the eyes of Muslims Jesus was a Muslim. A believer in one God.

Well they are wrong. He was not a Muslim, but a Jew.

So tell me, why can't Muslims consider Jesus an Islamic prophet but Christians can consider Jesus a "Christian prophet/God" when Jesus was like you said a Jew?

Tell me, where did I say you couldn't? I didn't. You are making things up now.

Don't reply to my posts unless you plan on reading them.

[von Wrangell]

Well I think I've highlighted your lack of both understanding of Islam and your basic comprehension skills well enough now.

Thanks for making it so easy.

[Zimphire]

OMG!!! LOL!

von you basically repreated what I said, then when I told you that you repeated what I said, you repeated it again.

The came back and claimed you somehow showed me something.

You are more deluded than Talisan.

I am beginning to see a pattern here.

I am not the one with the comprehension problem bub.

[von Wrangell]

The only pattern here is that you revert to personal attacks when you can't contribute to the thread in any meaningful way.

Now please just put me on ignore(like I will do with you) so that this thread can live on and the discussion will be able to go on without any mudslinging. OK?

[Zimphire]

von the post I posted that you quoted contained no personal attacks.

You replied to it, and obviously did not read it. You replied to it with a overtly condescending tone

"Got it or do I have to explain it to you again?"

What was funny was, I said the EXACT same thing you did. So no explaination was needed.

I tried to explain that to you once. You ignored that post too.

After that, I am sorry, you are free game.

[ebuddy]

Originally Posted by von Wrangell

If you can't see the difference in calling a book 2 billion people use for guidance and calling their Prophet a fraud, liar and the work of Satan compared to discussing particular verses in the Bible and what they mean there is no point trying to explain it to you.

If you don't see how a Muslim, using the Bible (a book over 2.5 Billion People use for guidance and calling their savior a liar, a heretic, and lunatic for claiming to be the Son of God) to supposedly prophecy the leader of Islam's coming as opposed to our Savior's coming, then you're right-there is absolutely nothing to discuss with you. You have no point, no intellectual argument to bring to the table, only blind allegiance to a futile argument.

But anyway. Both sides in this debate have given some good arguments for their side and it doesn't seem as clear cut as some of you'd like to think.

You may have noticed that the Bible isn't clear to those who have a presupposition. The adherents to Christianity (the three vocal ones in this thread anyway) that use the Bible for guidance, ironically all agree that Taliesin is mistaken. You and Taliesin (who don't use the Bible for guidance) are the ones saying that the Bible is unclear, mistaken in much of it's text, twisted by Jewish scribes to favor Isaac's descendants, etc... i.e. it is clear to the adherents of it, not so clear to those adhering to the Quran. A book that is not so clear to me. I hope you're starting to understand how unfair your indictments are. If something rubs you the wrong way, it shouldn't be contingent upon whether a person is Muslim or Christian.

ps. The Christian and Jewish scriptures are not your scriptures any more than the the Quran is Taliesins, they belong to everybody and everyone is free to analyse them as they wish. At least as long as they do it with some respect which is something you failed remarkably in your post.

I've done nothing, but the same exact thing that has been done to me. I've used the Quran to make my point. You obviously have absolutely no argument against what I've said using the Quran. Von, you're really not helping Taliesin in the least bit. You are only showing that to you, fairness and equality in treatment is only contingent upon whether or not you're Muslim. This is painfully clear.

pps. And why would God exclude people who believe in him(Muslims) from the covenant?

This has already been addressed with paragraphs and paragraphs of data. If I thought you'd read with interest, I'd repost the answer. Given the nature of your reply above... no thanks, read back through the thread on your own for the answer to your question.

[von Wrangell]

Originally Posted by ebuddy

If you don't see how a Muslim, using the Bible (a book over 2.5 Billion People use for guidance and calling their savior a liar, a heretic, and lunatic for claiming to be the Son of God) to supposedly prophecy the leader of Islam's coming as opposed to our Savior's coming, then you're right-there is absolutely nothing to discuss with you. You have no point, no intellectual argument to bring to the table, only blind allegiance to a futile argument.

He never called Jesus a liar, a heretic or a lunatic. He would never do that as a Muslim would never do that. Jesus is one of the most important figures in Islam. His message in the Bible is also one of the most important parts of Islam. But the precise quotes from the Bible are considered as being equal(or at least similar) to the Hadiths.

Taliesin hasn't once in this thread called Jesus what you claimed he did and he hasn't said anything like that about the Bible. The Bible is important to Muslims but with the warning that it has been tampered with by humans. He didn't say the Bible was from Satan or that Jesus was from Satan, but you did that to the Quran and Muhammed.

You may have noticed that the Bible isn't clear to those who have a presupposition. The adherents to Christianity (the three vocal ones in this thread anyway) that use the Bible for guidance, ironically all agree that Taliesin is mistaken. You and Taliesin (who don't use the Bible for guidance) are the ones saying that the Bible is unclear, mistaken in much of it's text, twisted by Jewish scribes to favor Isaac's descendants, etc... i.e. it is clear to the adherents of it, not so clear to those adhering to the Quran. A book that is not so clear to me. I hope you're starting to understand how unfair your indictments are. If something rubs you the wrong way, it shouldn't be contingent upon whether a person is Muslim or Christian.

But again, he never called Jesus or the Bible the work of Satan. Something you did with Muhammed and the Quran.

I've done nothing, but the same exact thing that has been done to me. I've used the Quran to make my point. You obviously have absolutely no argument against what I've said using the Quran. Von, you're really not helping Taliesin in the least bit. You are only showing that to you, fairness and equality in treatment is only contingent upon whether or not you're Muslim. This is painfully clear.

I decided against starting to point out the errors in your post because I wasn't sure you were worth it after claiming Muhammed and the Quran was the work of Satan. Starting a "debate" like that makes people rather ignore you than prove you wrong.

This has already been addressed with paragraphs and paragraphs of data. If I thought you'd read with interest, I'd repost the answer. Given the nature of your reply above... no thanks, read back through the thread on your own for the answer to your question.

I've read the paragraphs and paragraphs of opinions. Not data. There is nothing that could be called data when discussing religion.

In those paragraphs of opinions I never saw anything that explained why God would exclude people who believe in him from being a part of the covenant. There has been nothing so far that shows why God would bless a few that believe in him but not all.

[ebuddy]

[QUOTE=Taliesin]

Originally Posted by ebuddy

That was about time that you finally realize it, I have said it multiple times, that God promised the land between nile-river and euphrat-river to the descendants of Abraham before Isaac was born,

Then prophecied the son of Sarah would be the heir of the Covenant. When God asked; Why not just make Ishmael heir of the Covenant? God answered that he hears Abraham, but to him and his barren wife will be born the heir of the Covenant isolating Ishmael away from this Covenant. When God makes a Covenant it is clearly a Covenant. When God clearly isolated someone out of the Covenant, it's clear just as it is writtten clearly.

therefore meaning all descendants, and they all definetly populated then the promised land,

It doesn't matter who populated what. Jackals populated the area as well, it does not make them heir to the Covenant by virtue of domicile. You can say "all", but the Bible does not say "all" and in fact isolates Ishmael away from the promise in accordance with miracle birth to barren women in honor of Covenant, later to be tested successfully. It is only questionable to you and adherents of the Quran, not to those who read the Bible. It mentions no "other" Covenant, no "additional" Covenant. When the Bible says not to change a word or "tittle" of Scripture, this means not to change so much as the dot of an 'i'. To add entire words and change entire meanings of Scripture to support a view that does not apply to today anyway, is to bastardize the Book I use for spiritual guidance and wisdom. You realize you are not going to change my mind on this. I want to make sure at least that was clear before we proceed.

and because of the split of Isaac and Ismaeel and the circumscision of both, there are obviously multiple convenants with God

You have to guess this, or speculate this, there are not "obviously multiple" anythings. Ishmael was blessed, but not part of the Covenant. This was made clear on several occasions.

and it is further confirmed by God's convenant with Noah and his descendants for all generations.

God's Covenant with all the earth (including jackals, donkeys, and heiffers) never to destroy it in it's entirety via flood in no way reflects or affirms a Covenant with Ishmael.

Hmm, interesting what does the Quran have to do with Israel and zionism, you are way off topic here. If you want to talk about the Quran and Islam, open another thread for it and we will discuss it there.

What does the Bible?

Indeed, since prophet Muhammad said strictly only what God has told him and the Quran strictly adheres to monotheism, and everything prophet Muhammad said and promised to his followers in his 23 years of preaching and prophesing came true, for example polytheism was abolished in Arabia, prophet Muhammad is defenitively a true prophet and similar to Moses, thanks for acknowledging it.

I've acknowledged none of the above, in fact aren't Muhammed's prophecies in the Hadiths, text you claim is questionable? What exactly did Muhammed prophecy? Unless Moses married a 10 year old girl and/or raped a 9 year old Jewish girl (today known as a pedophile) the same day he destroyed her family, or had upwards of what; 10 wives? I'd say Moses and Muhammed are actually quite different. Thanks for noticing. Look, to be clear these are religious differences. To believe in the Trinity makes me an infidel correct? I'm just trying to make absolutely sure we understand one another.

Indeed, you are right on that one, but it's still amazing how it fits prophet Muhammad, but I guess that's the description of all prophets of God. Just out of curiosity, who do you think was that promised prophet from among the descendants of Isaac? It can't be Jesus, as like you and the christians always say he is not a prophet but according to you, he was God himself, and besides Jesus was not like Moses a political/state-person, he was not inspired after part of a life as mere human, but created from the get-go for his purpose...

You read the Bible with presuppositions, to clarify what you missed in Moses proclaimation would obviously do no good as evidenced by your already mistaken interpretation of Scripture in Genesis. Jesus was more than a prophet, which includes prophecying, but not limited to it.

If you want to discuss the Quran and Islam open a thread for it, but just as a reminder, if you do that please always provide the numeber of the sura and the number of the verses, so that I can find it more quickly, since a lot of suras are very big.

This was not a thread about the Bible, but this didin't stop you from posting your misinterpretation of it. If you'd like to do this, perhaps you should start another thread called Misconceptions of the Bible and we can hash that out if you're interested. You've found your calling in this Taliesin. BibleGateway.com does not require passage numbers, it contains a concordance as well as word or text search all to make the job easier. Maybe you should post a QuranGateway.com. or Koran.com, or Qu'ran.com

Besides there is a very big difference between saying "If God pleases, he will replace you" and saying "Hey, the sura proclaims the replacement of Islam"

I don't see a difference at all. I further qualified it with chiefs and leaders leading you away from God, all mentioned in the Quran. This is obviously regarding Islamic misinterpretation of the Bible. I think you lack understanding of the Quran.

The first difference is off course the condition, "if He pleases", the second difference is the emphasis on people and nations that could be replaced by God if He pleases and not the replacement of religion or message aka Quran.

You're misinterpreting the Quran Taliesin. It is further qualified in the following text where I said the leaders are leading them away from God. Is this the Sunni's or the Shi'ites I don't know, but I can tell you're reading the Quran wrong. Not including the Quran stating clearly a Covenant by God made to Islam that it would be replaced.

The third difference is off course that it's not clear what the context is, who is meant, if some special nation is meant or if it is a general warning that his convenant is two-sided and can be suspended if it is broken by us humans.

Again, you're misinterpreting the Quran. God made a Covenant with those of the Islamic faith. It is obviously saying that "all" of Islam will fall and be replaced.

But scanning through sura 4 I found also this interesting portion:
Combine that with the verse you have found and it describes perfectly the fate of ancient Israel... convenant broken, God punishes and replaces them by other nations...

Name for me a people that hasn't had this happen???

It doesn't deal about any interpretations of any scriptures,

It does too. It's as clear as day to me using the Quran to affirm my point.

you were really funny about the socalled "islamic misinterpretation of the Bible" here ebuddy, but about the direct disobedience of people that lived at the time of the prophets and that conspired against the prophets and disobeyed them. Those people always existed near every prophet but their conspiracies always failed, and the punsihment that they got/will get is described there in this verse of the Quran.

It is apparent to me that you're not reading the Quran with understanding.

Jesus is one of our greatest islamic prophets, even greater than Moses and Abraham,

But not the Son of God, not part of the Godhead, not the Christ, not greater than Muhammed right?

we muslims have no problem with Jesus and we would be happy and honoured if he would come back shortly before ressurection and the last day. But the verse you are quoting is not talking about Jesus, but just describes what the last day will sound like.

It's clearly talking about Jesus as the One Who Calls. It's clearly stating more than what the day will sound like, it's also talking about the One who calls. The Quran says it, but you don't understand the Quran.

The discussion is rejected by me? I'm the one who keeps discussing, zimphire is rejecting the discussion and chose instead to resort to personal attacks, which shows his insecurities. The discussion is heated because you as christians think the old testament is not to be quoted or used by non-christians for their arguments, and feel personaly attacked that a muslim quotes the Bible.

You as Muslims are trying to misinterpret the Bible, add words to it, take words away from it, and twist it's content to prove your point. This I have a problem with. I have no problem with you reading the Bible, but I'd suggest you try to gain a higher understanding of it before you try to claim it affirms a point you want it to or to quote it. Most Bible-believing Christians won't even do this for fear of getting it wrong. You, with absolutely no respect for it, have no concerns about misquoting it and twisting it and fail to realize how disrespectful this is to the adherents of it. I called you to task for this and you also resorted to personal attacks affirming for me your misunderstanding and limited educaton on the matter. You're welcome to disagree with the Bible, but to twist it to suit an argument the Bible does not support is a wretched way to conduct yourself and you should be ahamed.

Oh, no that's what the old testament is confirming, that Ismaeel is covered even by two convenants

Correct, Ishmael would not be drowned by world-wide flood, but there was no second Covenant for him.

the one of Noah

The same one that also covered jackals, donkeys, and heiffers yes.

and the one of Abraham,

Not the one of Abraham. That's why Abraham asked about it and it was clearly explained to him, fortified with a miracle birth to Sarah of Isaac as the "reckoned heirs".

and settled inside the promised land with his descendants, and his descendants never vanished from there, even through the hey-days of ancient Israel, during which Israel destroyed all other nations, like those from the caananites, and a lot of others but never those from Ismaeel's descendants.

Jackals, donkeys, and camels settled there too and remain today in spite of all the "travesties committed by Israel." Are they part of the Covenant also? While you're at it, you really should read the numerous biographies offered on Muhammed, he was quite a violent man. Hardly conducted himself in accordance with what you would call "Prophetous" behavior.

Quite to the contrary the descendants of Isaac broke their convenant and were replaced through other nations, like the Quran-verse you quoted up there of sura 4 described generally.

Humankind is incapable of adhering wholly to a Covenant with God. This is part of the problem and the reason why Jesus' life, death on the cross, and ascension into heaven were necessary.

I don't know though if you just don't see the truth or if you are just too proud to admit it.

Why the personal attacks? I see the truth and am not proud of anything other than my belief that Jesus, the son of God, our salvation, the way the Truth and the light; lived, died, and ascended into heaven to be seated at the right hand of the Father as attonement for my sins, and that if I repent I too will be included in the Lamb's Book of Life and be seated at the right hand of the Father.

No, you really are clueless about Judaism.

You too.

Judaism was never offered to arabs by the jews, as the jews strictly kept it to their chest, only for the descendants of Isaac, etc.. such that Judaism became a tribe-religion. The jews never tried to converse any non-descendants of Isaac, so the question if arabs would have rejected Judaism never came up.

It most certainly did. Muhammed had plenty of time to learn Judaism and plenty of help in so doing.

Besides if you would have read the Quran honestly and with an open mind and heart, you would have found that it indeed confirms Judaism, acknowledges the prophets of Judaism as well as the laws of Moses and others... and calls for believing in the one God, lord that created everything.

and Muhammed. Tell me this, can a Christian openly worship Jesus as his savior in a Muslim nation? Do Muslim nations have synagogues, Christian churches, crosses and steeples? Is there freedom of worship in Muslim nations?

No, God invoked Muhammad as prophet and sent the Quran as God's direct word in order to refresh Judaism and to restore his message to humanity that got so destroyed and changed due to the two destructions of the Temple.

I disagree and do not submit to the word of the Quran nor Muhammed. Muhammed was a brutal man, the Quran changed along with him, abrogations occurred that nullify text before it such as 24:2 which abrogates the punishment of adultery, stated in 4:15-16. This happens numerous times throughout the Quran and is known as Nasikh wa Mansukh. "The changers and changes." or "the ones who nullify and the nullifications". Therefore, you must consider the chronology behind the statements and take Muhammed's final statements as the crux of the faith. *

If you really want to discuss the Quran and Islam, please open a thread of its own for it, could be fun.

If you really want to discuss the Bible and Judaism or Christianity, please open a thread of it's own for it, could be fun.

Taliesin

ebuddy

[Zimphire]

Originally Posted by ebuddy

Then prophecied the son of Sarah would be the heir of the Covenant. When God asked; Why not just make Ishmael heir of the Covenant? God answered that he hears Abraham, but to him and his barren wife will be born the heir of the Covenant isolating Ishmael away from this Covenant. When God makes a Covenant it is clearly a Covenant. When God clearly isolated someone out of the Covenant, it's clear just as it is writtten clearly.

This is worth repeating.

[Zimphire]

The discussion is rejected by me? I'm the one who keeps discussing, zimphire is rejecting the discussion and chose instead to resort to personal attacks, which shows his insecurities.

Again for the 10th time. (Please pay attention this time)

I was more than happy to discuss this with you. When me and ebuddy showed you that you were wrong about said Bible scripture, it was YOU that got defensive and started the silly petty personal attacks.

We tried again, same thing. After that, there was really nothing left to discuss. When someone is so stubborn as you are, and wont admit to being wrong, when it's painfully obvious you are, discussion fails.

All there is left to do is point and laugh.

You don't want an honest discussion. You want to distort, and all out make things up and want us to buy it as fact, and claim you great.

That isn't going to happen, because you are so far off the mark it's not even funny.

The discussion is heated because you as christians think the old testament is not to be quoted or used by non-christians for their arguments and feel personaly attacked that a muslim quotes the Bible.

You are projecting again. No one cares if you use the Christian Bible or quote it. Just do it honestly, and NOT out of context.

No one here is getting mad at you for quoting the Christian Bible.

No one is getting mad at you at all.

We just wanted to correct your misunderstanding. Sorry if that upset you.

You are going to have to come to grips one of these days that you are indeed wrong in this matter.

And until then, there really isn't anything to discuss with you.

[deomacius]

Well, I saw a quote from von stating that Islam and Christianity worship the same God. I'm not sure if I'm overlooking it or it was edited out, but I wanted to respond briefly to that.

While Muslims would like you to think we worship the same God, the fact is that we don't. All one needs to do is look at the very different descriptions of (in the Bible and the Quran) and the relationship between God and his followers. They are very different.

[Zimphire]

Originally Posted by deomacius

While Muslims would like you to think we worship the same God, the fact is that we don't. All one needs to do is look at the very different descriptions of (in the Bible and the Quran) and the relationship between God and his followers. They are very different.

Correct

In a secular sense, they could be viewed as one in the same.

In a spiritual sense they are not.

[von Wrangell]

Originally Posted by deomacius

Well, I saw a quote from von stating that Islam and Christianity worship the same God. I'm not sure if I'm overlooking it or it was edited out, but I wanted to respond briefly to that.

While Muslims would like you to think we worship the same God, the fact is that we don't. All one needs to do is look at the very different descriptions of (in the Bible and the Quran) and the relationship between God and his followers. They are very different.

Could you elaborate on that?

And then perhaps explain how a people who look at Moses, Abraham, Jesus and Noah as great prophets and messengers of God don't worship the same God as the Jews and Christians.

[deomacius]

Originally Posted by von Wrangell

Could you elaborate on that?

And then perhaps explain how a people who look at Moses, Abraham, Jesus and Noah as great prophets and messengers of God don't worship the same God as the Jews and Christians.

Von,

It's one of those things you have to discover yourself. If you really wanted to know, between the Quran and the Bible, there is enough information to paint a picture of two distinctly different entities. Go check it out. Just because they've borrowed a few of the Biblical historical figures and given it their own twist, that doesn't mean we believe in the same God.

[Zimphire]

There are ways to test the spirit, or prophet.

I believe the Bible refers to asking them if Jesus was the son of God.

You are known by your fruits.

Funny how a lot of religions ARE alike. I mean not all can be correct right?

None of them however say Jesus was the son of God, and through him you might be saved.

Well none but Christianity.

The very basis of Christianity. The one thing that can save your soul.

[Taliesin]

Originally Posted by deomacius

Well, I saw a quote from von stating that Islam and Christianity worship the same God. I'm not sure if I'm overlooking it or it was edited out, but I wanted to respond briefly to that.

While Muslims would like you to think we worship the same God, the fact is that we don't. All one needs to do is look at the very different descriptions of (in the Bible and the Quran) and the relationship between God and his followers. They are very different.

Yes, the descriptions are different in a few cases, but it's still the same God we are talking about in Islam, christianity and Judaism, the one who created the universe, hell and paradise, Adam and Eve, the angels animals, insects and jinns... the one God who tests human in this life, the one who creates every born life and who ends every life, the one God who warns humans about the arrival of judgment day/last day, the one God who sent out Adam, Noah, Abraham, Moses, Jesus and Muhammad as prophets and messengers of His word...

We are definetively talking about the same God, but the differences are in the descriptions of him in the New Testament, Old Testament and Quran. Since the old and new testament are merely witnessreports of the words and deeds of prophets, and espescially the old testament is changed so much due to the two destructions of the Temple and the change of native language among the jews... I believe the description of God and his plan in the Quran is much more correct, because the Quran is the direct word of God, just like the person of Jesus was, and because the Quran was from day one learned by heart by all followers of Muhammad and because prophet Muhammad led once a year for a whole month long prayers during which he recitated what was revealed of the Quran till then, and because the text of the Quran was on top of that fixed shortly after prophet Muhammad's death, drawing from the "learned by heart" Quran. Since then the language hasn't changed , the language of the Quran is since then still taught in arabic schools.

All together this makes the Quran much more reliable than the Bible so I believe if the description of God differ slightly and God for example says directly in the Quran that Jesus is a wonder to humanity, a for the purpose created prophet, and not the son of God or God's incarnation as a human, then I believe that the Quran got it right.

Because christians, espescially the catholic church have built a big ritual around the myth of Jesus' Godness and the Quran contradicts that idea, the christians, espescially from old times, demonized prophet Muhammad and the Quran, called it a work of Satan...

But ask yourself, would Satan inspire a "holy" book that condemns himself and promises for himself eternal punishment in hell, and would a work of Satan call for the belief in one God and abolishment of polytheism, and for the adherence to Moses' ten commandments, and to Jesus' concept of forgivance and tolerance and other prophet's messages? Would Satan call for daily prayers to God, the creator of the universe and humankind, would Satan call for charity and help regarding the poor, would he call for sexual intercourse only inside a marriage, etc...?

Taliesin

[Zimphire]

Originally Posted by Taliesin

Yes, the descriptions are different in a few cases, but it's still the same God we are talking about in Islam, christianity and Judaism, the one who created the universe, hell and paradise, Adam and Eve, the angels animals, insects and jinns... the one God who tests human in this life, the one who creates every born life and who ends every life, the one God who warns humans about the arrival of judgment day/last day, the one God who sent out Adam, Noah, Abraham, Moses, Jesus and Muhammad as prophets and messengers of His word...

The one that created Jesus his only son, To die for our sins so that we may have everlasting life...

OOps, not the same one.

We are definetively talking about the same God,

In your opinion. You need to learn to differentiate between fact, and what you believe.

but the differences are in the descriptions of him in the New Testament, Old Testament and Quran. Since the old and new testament are merely witnessreports of the words and deeds of prophets, and espescially the old testament is changed so much due to the two destructions of the Temple and the change of native language among the jews...

Prove it has changed. Go on, prove it. BTW according to the Bible, the BIble was written under the influence of the Holy Spirit. Meaning direct from God. You do know that right?

I believe the description of God and his plan in the Quran is much more correct,

Well at least you worded it right this time. "You believe"

because the Quran is the direct word of God,

So was the Bible and the Quran. But you knew that right?

just like the person of Jesus was, and because the Quran was from day one learned by heart by all followers of Muhammad and because prophet Muhammad led once a year for a whole month long prayers during which he recitated what was revealed of the Quran till then, and because the text of the Quran was on top of that fixed shortly after prophet Muhammad's death, drawing from the "learned by heart" Quran. Since then the language hasn't changed , the language of the Quran is since then still taught in arabic schools.

Ok, and you know what, I believe you when you say it hasn't changed. You know why? I don't have any proof otherwise, and wouldn't make such comments unless I could prove it.

All together this makes the Quran much more reliable than the Bible

tsk tsk tsk, you forgot "In my opinion"

so I believe if the description of God differ slightly and God for example says directly in the Quran that Jesus is a wonder to humanity, a for the purpose created prophet, and not the son of God or God's incarnation as a human, then I believe that the Quran got it right.

Well that is on you to choose, but that again proves it's not the same God. Esp when the VERY BASIS of Christianity pertains to that very thing.

Because christians, espescially the catholic church have built a big ritual around the myth of Jesus' Godness and the Quran contradicts that idea, the christians, espescially from old times, demonized prophet Muhammad and the Quran, called it a work of Satan...

Well that may be true, but that is of no reason why they might be wrong. Again, this is of your opinion. Not fact.

But ask yourself, would Satan inspire a "holy" book that condemns himself and promises for himself eternal punishment in hell, and would a work of Satan call for the belief in one God and abolishment of polytheism, and for the adherence to Moses' ten commandments, and to Jesus' concept of forgivance and tolerance and other prophet's messages? Would Satan call for daily prayers to God, the creator of the universe and humankind, would Satan call for charity and help regarding the poor, would he call for sexual intercourse only inside a marriage, etc...?

Taliesin

Or would Satan make a religion that said everything that Christianity says, but leaves out the very thing that would bring you salvation.

Believing that Jesus was the son of God, and Died for your sins, and through him you might be saved.

Again, a possibility, not a known fact, and just MHO

I am just glad you decided to drop the whole "The Christian Bible supports my assertions" silliness.

And what we are talking about now, can't really be proved either way, and is mostly opinion.

So we really can't argue that our OPINIONS are wrong.

[Taliesin]

Originally Posted by ebuddy

Then prophecied the son of Sarah would be the heir of the Covenant.

Up to this point you are right and the old testament supports that, Isaac would be the heir of the convenant. But it nowhere states that there would be only one heir of the convenant, that idea is only and additional interpretation by christian/jews aka mere humans.

Quite to the contrary, God says in other old testament verses that Abraham shouldn't be worried about Ismaeel, meaning off course that God would take care of him and his descendants spiritually and secularly, because Ismaeel is also a descendant of Abraham, also heir of the convenant, also circumscised, and God promised he would make Ismaeel also to a seed of nations inside the promised land, which was by the way my point from the beginning. That you don't see it similiar is really strange, since history has already proven me right, and I have already found the cause for your disbelief in that regard, and that is the centuries-old anti-Islam-propaganda, since Islam came up from among the descendants of Ismaeel, by christian priests/popes/catholic church, that has inflicted christian theology and the christian communities even beyond the catholic circles.

So, it's not the old testament or history that is favouring your stance, but more so jewish and christian doctrine. In some cases the jewish doctrines, aka human interpretations of the scriptures, have even found its way into the old testament after editing/translations/restorations were necessary after the 2x-destructions of the temple in Jerusalem.

Originally Posted by ebuddy

It doesn't matter who populated what. Jackals populated the area as well, it does not make them heir to the Covenant by virtue of domicile. You can say "all", but the Bible does not say "all" and in fact isolates Ishmael away from the promise in accordance with miracle birth to barren women in honor of Covenant, later to be tested successfully.

Actually it does matter very much who populated what. I'm surprised that you think of animals so bad, which again shows how little you know about God, religion and life. The animals had never free will, so a convenant is/was not necessary, as animals have/had no free will to disobey God.

For angels a convenant is also unnecessary, as they haven't a free will either, they can't /couldn't disobey God. If you want to cite the devil as counterexample, he was never an angel just a jinn, who have like humans free will, at least according to the Quran.

As to the word "all": That wasn't necessary as God promised the land to the descendants of Abraham before any descendant of Abraham was born, so it includes every descendant automatically. If you want to use zimphire's argument that Abraham disobeyed God and Ismaeel was not planned, etc..., that argument doesn't hold, as God was always allknowing and as God creates all born life, and if God didn't want Ismaeel to be born, he would have not allowed it. By the way Abraham was very old when he got Ismaeel as son, so even that required God's special help and will to make it possible.

Originally Posted by ebuddy

It is only questionable to you and adherents of the Quran, not to those who read the Bible. It mentions no "other" Covenant, no "additional" Covenant. When the Bible says not to change a word or "tittle" of Scripture, this means not to change so much as the dot of an 'i'. To add entire words and change entire meanings of Scripture to support a view that does not apply to today anyway, is to bastardize the Book I use for spiritual guidance and wisdom. You realize you are not going to change my mind on this. I want to make sure at least that was clear before we proceed.

As real "scripture", the descendants of Isaac have only the psalms of David and the ten commands of Moses, everything else is human's witness-reports of the deeds and sayings of prophets, which paint due to the destruction and lost of original witness-reports changed according to the doctrine and interpretations and political ambitions of the leading jews.

So while today's christians might hold the belief and ideal of not changing the scriptures, the ancient people who were responsible didn't adhere to it, so that you are now caught in the dilemma of not wanting to change a scripture that was already changed irresponsibly.

But even within that changed old testament, the truth shines through about multiple convenants, like the promise to Noah showed, like the verse that said that the circumscision would be the sign, like the promise of the land between nile-river and euphrat-river to Abraham's descendants before any descendant was born, etc...

Originally Posted by ebuddy

God's Covenant with all the earth (including jackals, donkeys, and heiffers) never to destroy it in it's entirety via flood in no way reflects or affirms a Covenant with Ishmael.

Oh, yes it does and Noah's convenant is the same convenant as the one with Abraham and all of his descendants. You should really think more throroughly about it, the promise of God not to destroy humanity again with a flood reflects the idea of the old testament that God destroyed all wicked and unbelieving and sinning people with the big flood, so that with Noah and his descendants, a fresh start could be made, so that God promised a real convenant with Noah and his descendants for all generations, so that whenever a split up is made the convenant is multiplied accordingly.

The special additional convenant with Abraham and all his descendants was made by God in order to populate the promised land between nile-river and euphrat-river with all of Abraham's descendants and in order to make them into big nations, that would adher to monotheism and fight polytheism. This promise has been fulfilled by God.

Originally Posted by ebuddy

What does the Bible (have to do with Israel)?

The old testament is all about ancient Israel, so it's definitively on topic, since secular zionists try to abuse the old testament for their ambitions and propaganda.

Originally Posted by ebuddy

I've acknowledged none of the above, in fact aren't Muhammed's prophecies in the Hadiths, text you claim is questionable? What exactly did Muhammed prophecy?

The Hadits are not reliable, they are more like myths and fairytales, human's witnessreports that were often changed according to political ambitions and ideologies of the political leaders of the different timephases. You should also know that Muhammad himself never made any prophecies, he just voiced God's direct word, and God's prophecies in the Quran deal only with judgment day and afterlife.

Sure one could do the same like christian priests did for centuries and interpret certain verses that dealt with the time and conditions and occurrences around prophet Muhammad as a sort of a prophecy dealing about the future, that is by the way what radical islamists and propagandists among muslims are doing, but that would be dishonest.

Originally Posted by ebuddy

Unless Moses married a 10 year old girl and/or raped a 9 year old Jewish girl (today known as a pedophile) the same day he destroyed her family, or had upwards of what; 10 wives? I'd say Moses and Muhammed are actually quite different. Thanks for noticing.

Oh, please, you should really not believe anti-Islam-propaganda: Prophet Muhammad had only one wife until she died. Then his uncle, who had always protected prophet Muhammad from the polytheists died, too, then the polytheistic Mecca offered prophet Muhammad the position of king over all arabic tribes, if he would include polytheism into his message. When he rejected, the polytheists started to agitate against him, terrorizing and torturing his followers and when they even tried to assassinate him, while he should sleep, God warned prophet Muhammad, so that he left Mecca and went for Medina, where most of his followers went to, after Mecca started to terrorise and oppress them.

Then Mecca started the war against Medina and stole all the property of Muhammad and his followers in Mecca. In Medina then Muhammad continued his preaching and voicing of God's word and increased his fellowship, so that the jews in Medina became aware, and the jews there tried to find out if Muhammad was the prophet the old testament announced, and they gathered with prophet Muhammad to ask him questions about God and his message, about the previous prophets, etc.. and while prophet Muhammad fulfilled the description of him in the old testament, they nonetheless rejected him on the basis that their "changed" scriptures describe certain aspects differently, but more important was that they rejected him because according to their wrong doctrine/interpretation, the prophethood lies only in the line of Isaac's descendant.

Regardless of that rejection the Quran, God's word, called for the respect for the "people of the book" despite their wrong interpretations and tampered scriptures, and even called muslims to pray in the direction of Jerusalem.

There during the years in Medina, during the years of war with Mecca, Muhammad was over fifty years old, he started again to marry as a form to win the loyalty of tribes and in order to spread God's word also to women through his wifes that he would teach God's word, who would teach it to other women, so that they could teach it to their children, etc...

Not prophet Muhammad was perveted, but the christians who interpreted their wildest and sinful desires into the political and religious marriages of prophet Muhammad. As to the 9/10 year old wifes, they were welcomed into the households of the other wifes and were treated like daughters by Muhammad as well as the other grown up wifes.

Originally Posted by ebuddy

Look, to be clear these are religious differences. To believe in the Trinity makes me an infidel correct? I'm just trying to make absolutely sure we understand one another.

No, eventhough the Quran criticizes the wrong interpretation of Jesus' nature by christians, the muslims are still called to respect the "people of the book" , who are clearly distinct from the unbelieving polytheists. After all, the christians still believe in the same God, they just think wrongly that God was in Jesus, too. It's a wrong idea, but the christians still pray and believe in God, so they are believers, and the Quran promises for them the same opportunity to paradise as for muslims and jews, if they believe in God and commit good deeds.

Originally Posted by ebuddy

You read the Bible with presuppositions, to clarify what you missed in Moses proclaimation would obviously do no good as evidenced by your already mistaken interpretation of Scripture in Genesis. Jesus was more than a prophet, which includes prophecying, but not limited to it.

Just to get you right, so you suggest that Moses promised prophet is probably Jesus, but it wouldn't connect with the verse that said that the prophet would be like Moses, ie. a state-man, a human living a normal life until inspired, etc.. I think that it was some prophet between Moses and Jesus from the descendants of Isaac, but the description of the prophet could as well fit for Muhammad.

Originally Posted by ebuddy

This was not a thread about the Bible, but this didin't stop you ...

Zionism is off course a secular project, so that discussing the old testament would be not necessary, but the secular zionists are abusing the concept of the "promised land" from the old testament for their propaganda, so I had to discuss that aspect, too, and found that the old testament promised the land between nile and euphrat to all descendants of Abraham, which is historically proved and confirmed, and so made clear that jews/zionists have no monopoly on it religiously. The consequence I drawed was then that there are two people having a conflict about a land the both have the same religious right to, so that I suggested to leave out religious aspects, since they nullify each other, and you and others reacted offended and hostile to the use of the old testament by a muslim.

Taliesin

[Taliesin]

Originally Posted by ebuddy

I don't see a difference at all. I further qualified it with chiefs and leaders leading you away from God, all mentioned in the Quran. This is obviously regarding Islamic misinterpretation of the Bible. I think you lack understanding of the Quran.

Wow, so the Quran criticizes the misinterpretation of the Bible by the Quran... Cool!

Originally Posted by ebuddy

You're misinterpreting the Quran Taliesin. It is further qualified in the following text where I said the leaders are leading them away from God. Is this the Sunni's or the Shi'ites I don't know, but I can tell you're reading the Quran wrong. Not including the Quran stating clearly a Covenant by God made to Islam that it would be replaced.

Islam means God-devotion, the religion for people that are devoted to God, aka muslims, so obviously if people are no longer devoted to God, Islam, God-devotion would cease to exist.

Originally Posted by ebuddy

Name for me a people that hasn't had this happen???

Descendants of Ismaeel for example?

Originally Posted by ebuddy

It does too. It's as clear as day to me using the Quran to affirm my point.

It is apparent to me that you're not reading the Quran with understanding.

This is a thread about Israel, if you want to talk about the Quran open a thread of its own.

Originally Posted by ebuddy

But not the Son of God, not part of the Godhead, not the Christ, not greater than Muhammed right?

Yes, yes, ?, more correct: Not greater than the Quran, Muhammad was merely the one voicing God's word, aka Quran, and Jesus was personally God's word.

Originally Posted by ebuddy

You as Muslims are trying to misinterpret the Bible, add words to it, take words away from it, and twist it's content to prove your point. This I have a problem with.

No, you have a problem when a muslim reads the old testament and actually thinks, analyses and draws conclusions from it, while you are obviously just accustomed to the "Yes, and amen"-concept of scripture-reading.

Originally Posted by ebuddy

You, with absolutely no respect for it, have no concerns about misquoting it and twisting it and fail to realize how disrespectful this is to the adherents of it.

I have the absolutest respect for the prophets of God, like Abraham, Ismaeel, Isaac, jacob, Joseph, Moses, Jesus, Muhammad and others, and that's why I don't have much respect for the old testament because it describes them and their messages wrong in certain aspects, which is understandable considering the destruction and lost of original scriptures, the change of native language among the jews and the not completely reliable nature of witnessreports and translations per se. But despite these shortcomings I have adhered to discuss the topic of promised land and convenants from within the old testament, and I have found enough proof and arguments for my interpretation.

You and other christians reacted hostile to that because the conclusion I drawed from it goes against the centuries old christian/jewish doctrine/interpretation that was influenced by natural rivalship between the two lines of descendants and later on by rejection of the prophethood of Muhammad because the Quran contradicted the wrong interpretation of Jesus' nature by half of the christians.

Originally Posted by ebuddy

While you're at it, you really should read the numerous biographies offered on Muhammed, he was quite a violent man. Hardly conducted himself in accordance with what you would call "Prophetous" behavior.

Really? You should really read something beyond anti-Islam-propaganda, for then you would find that Muhammad was one of the most peaceful humans ever. The war polytheistic Mecca started against Medina that harbored Muhammad off course had to be defended against.

Originally Posted by ebuddy

Humankind is incapable of adhering wholly to a Covenant with God.

No, it's not, the convenant between God and all of the descendants of Abraham just called for belief in God and adherence to the commandments of Him and obedience to the prophets He sends. What led to the suspension of the convent with Isaac's descendants was not the breaking of laws through individuals, but the systematic disobedience to God's law up to the priesthood that controlled/tampered with the scriptures, like the disregardment for the Sabbath that jews had to observe or even the introduction of polytheism into the Temple of Jerusalem. That is no joke, the jews at a certain time and circumstance allowed that polytheists could worship their gods in the Temple of Jerusalem...

Even more severe was the priesthood's decision to close down the scriptures, and not to accept any more of God's messages and God's prophets, which led to the killing of legitimate prophets.. That was way before Jesus arrived.

Originally Posted by ebuddy

It most certainly did. Muhammed had plenty of time to learn Judaism and plenty of help in so doing.

Jews kept Judaism strictly to their own people, aka descendants of Isaac, and didn't teach it to other bloodlines. Besides, many people could have learned Judaism, yet no one came up and was successful in abolishing polytheism in Arabia, only with God's will, help, inspiration was it possible for Muhammad to voice the Quran in a stunning arabic poetry-language, to describe biological, geograhical and cosmological things in such a way that exceeded human's knowledge for centuries, and win a war against a much stronger polytheistic Mecca.

Originally Posted by ebuddy

Tell me this, can a Christian openly worship Jesus as his savior in a Muslim nation? Do Muslim nations have synagogues, Christian churches, crosses and steeples? Is there freedom of worship in Muslim nations?

I know a lot of muslim nations with churches, synagogues and christians living there, but I also know muslim nations that suppress any other faith than Islam, but that is beside the point, as the actual practice of Islam can at times and places be done wrongly and against the call of tolerance regarding people of the book that is made clearly in the Quran, and I try my best to correct that.

I know also some muslim nations that even suppress muslims and try to force them into certain rituals, despite the Quran saying that in religion there should be no compulsion or forcing.

Besides, in christian countries it was much worse for muslims than the other way around, since the christians really thought of Islam and the Quran as a satan-inspired religion and message.

Yes, nowadays the tolerance in christian countries is good, but that is only due to secularization.

Originally Posted by ebuddy

I disagree and do not submit to the word of the Quran nor Muhammed. Muhammed was a brutal man, the Quran changed along with him, abrogations occurred that nullify text before it such as 24:2 which abrogates the punishment of adultery, stated in 4:15-16. This happens numerous times throughout the Quran and is known as Nasikh wa Mansukh. "The changers and changes." or "the ones who nullify and the nullifications". Therefore, you must consider the chronology behind the statements and take Muhammed's final statements as the crux of the faith. *

No, my friend, you got it completely wrong, that are the Quran-verses in question:

24:2. The woman and the man guilty of adultery or fornication,- flog each of them with a hundred stripes: Let not compassion move you in their case, in a matter prescribed by God, if ye believe in God and the Last Day: and let a party of the Believers witness their punishment.

4:15. If any of your wifes are guilty of lewdness, Take the evidence of four (Reliable) witnesses from amongst you against them; and if they testify, confine them to houses until death do claim them, or God ordain for them some (other) way.

4:16. If two men among you are guilty of lewdness, punish them both. If they repent and amend, Leave them alone; for God is Oft-returning, Most Merciful.

The first verse was the form of punishment for men and women having sex with each other without being married at all not with each other, not with anyone other. So a punishment for pre-marriage-sex.

The second verse was the punishment for a married woman that cheated her husband and had sex with another man, and for which four witnesses existed.

The third punishment was for two men excerising homosexual intercourse, also with four witnesses, and with a possibility for repenence and forgiving.

So, just different punishments for different offenses.

Taliesin

[von Wrangell]

Just a quick question that really comes down to the basis of your disagreement.

How do you know that Muhammed was a descendant of Ishmael and not Isaac?

[eklipse]

Originally Posted by Zimphire

tsk tsk tsk, you forgot "In my opinion"

Of course it's 'in his opinion' you pedantic twit.

This is a public message board, who the hell else's opinion do you think he would be posting? Jackie Chan's? Mother Theresa's?

[ebuddy]

Originally Posted by Taliesin

Wow, so the Quran criticizes the misinterpretation of the Bible by the Quran... Cool!

That's right, that's what it says. You really must study your Quran to know. You just misunderstand it.

Islam means God-devotion, the religion for people that are devoted to God, aka muslims, so obviously if people are no longer devoted to God, Islam, God-devotion would cease to exist.

The arabic word 'islam' simply means; "submit". That's all, not God-devotion and all that flowerly stuff, it means simply submit. Evidenced by the lack of religious tolerance found in regions that adhere to it's tenets.

This is a thread about Israel, if you want to talk about the Quran open a thread of its own.

This thread is about the secular movement of Zionism correct? Well, this would mean it also has nothing to do with the Bible, particularly your misinterpretation and changing of it.

Yes, yes, ?, more correct: Not greater than the Quran, Muhammad was merely the one voicing God's word, aka Quran, and Jesus was personally God's word.

Ironically, God's word seemed to fit exactly the circumstance that the human Muhammed found himself in, numerous times. God worked out an awful lot of details regarding the lifestyle of one guy.

No, you have a problem when a muslim reads the old testament and actually thinks, analyses and draws conclusions from it, while you are obviously just accustomed to the "Yes, and amen"-concept of scripture-reading.

That's wrong, and judging by your ignorance of the numerous, well-documented, third party biographies of your "inspired man of God" Muhammed, it's apparent to me that your indictment against me exposes your level of scrutiny regarding the fallacies of the Quran, as well as the abhorant lifestyle of the one you call great.

I have the absolutest respect for the prophets of God, like Abraham, Ismaeel, Isaac, jacob, Joseph, Moses, Jesus, Muhammad and others, and that's why I don't have much respect for the old testament because it describes them and their messages wrong in certain aspects, which is understandable considering the destruction and lost of original scriptures, the change of native language among the jews and the not completely reliable nature of witnessreports and translations per se. But despite these shortcomings I have adhered to discuss the topic of promised land and convenants from within the old testament, and I have found enough proof and arguments for my interpretation.

There are reasons why you believe the Bible is incorrect, yet you continue to try to use it to support your view. That's why I posted quotes of the Quran, a book of twisted Judaism to unite various arab tribes to avoid conflict due to religious differences. The Quran clearly says what I said it says because I want it to. I don't believe in that book therefore I've got no problem using it for anything. I hope you're starting to understand my problem with you in this thread. I would urge you to use the Quran to make your points, not a book you don't believe in. Why? Because you've proven woefully ignorant of the text, the Spirit, and the Laws, and reasons behind how this book came to be.

You and other christians reacted hostile to that because the conclusion I drawed from it goes against the centuries old christian/jewish doctrine/interpretation that was influenced by natural rivalship between the two lines of descendants and later on by rejection of the prophethood of Muhammad because the Quran contradicted the wrong interpretation of Jesus' nature by half of the christians.

No, I reacted hostile to severe reading comprehension problems. I actually have no problem with being patient toward one who wants to learn, but when one can't read through their own presuppositions-then makes his argument on misreading, and defends it with beligerance I get hostile as you put it.

Really? You should really read something beyond anti-Islam-propaganda, for then you would find that Muhammad was one of the most peaceful humans ever. The war polytheistic Mecca started against Medina that harbored Muhammad off course had to be defended against.

Really? You should read more than just Islam apologetics and justifications for the murders at Muhammed's hands.

I know a lot of muslim nations with churches, synagogues and christians living there,

Name three.

but I also know muslim nations that suppress any other faith than Islam, but that is beside the point, as the actual practice of Islam can at times and places be done wrongly

Not according to the Quran. Islam is to submit.

and against the call of tolerance regarding people of the book that is made clearly in the Quran, and I try my best to correct that.
I know also some muslim nations that even suppress muslims and try to force them into certain rituals, despite the Quran saying that in religion there should be no compulsion or forcing.
Besides, in christian countries it was much worse for muslims than the other way around, since the christians really thought of Islam and the Quran as a satan-inspired religion and message.
Yes, nowadays the tolerance in christian countries is good, but that is only due to secularization.

While this is true, we generally find people that "submit" to a religion, and find those that do not submit to this same religion in big trouble within those regions.

No, my friend, you got it completely wrong, that are the Quran-verses in question:

No, I'm right and you're wrong, The Bible was written before the Quran. The Quran is a twist on the Bible to unite under monotheism w/o the pesky task of trying to unite them unto Judaism. The Quran in essence, is less than an eye-witness account of history, was written even later than the Gospels, and in fact even less credible historically and was less relevant to mankind than it was to Muhammed. It was written by Muhammed, for Muhammed, but the Quran still proves I'm right and you're wrong. Are you starting to see what I'm doing here????

The first verse was the form of punishment for men and women having sex with each other without being married at all not with each other, not with anyone other. So a punishment for pre-marriage-sex.
The second verse was the punishment for a married woman that cheated her husband and had sex with another man, and for which four witnesses existed.
The third punishment was for two men excerising homosexual intercourse, also with four witnesses, and with a possibility for repenence and forgiving.
So, just different punishments for different offenses.

You're mis-reading the Quran and are incorrect. It says what I want it to say. It's a historically inaccurate account written by one man, for one man, but it still proves I'm right and you're wrong.

[deomacius]

Originally Posted by Taliesin

Yes, the descriptions are different in a few cases, but it's still the same God we are talking about in Islam, christianity and Judaism, the one who created the universe, hell and paradise, Adam and Eve, the angels animals, insects and jinns...

This is news to me. I don't recall any jinns in the Bible. Only Angels that went astray.

Since the old and new testament are merely witnessreports of the words and deeds of prophets, and espescially the old testament is changed so much due to the two destructions of the Temple and the change of native language among the jews...

So you mean to tell me that despite the horrendous punishment God promised those who "added to" or "took from" the words of the Bible, that someone would change it's message anyway? I'm not buying it. Not in that day and age.

I believe the description of God and his plan in the Quran is much more correct, because the Quran is the direct word of God, just like the person of Jesus was, and because the Quran was from day one learned by heart by all followers of Muhammad and because prophet Muhammad led once a year for a whole month long prayers during which he recitated what was revealed of the Quran till then, and because the text of the Quran was on top of that fixed shortly after prophet Muhammad's death, drawing from the "learned by heart" Quran. Since then the language hasn't changed , the language of the Quran is since then still taught in arabic schools.

That's funny because my God says that he would prefer us NOT to carry on with long prayers and such. See below.

Matthew 6:6-8 (New King James Version)

6But you, when you pray, go into your room, and when you have shut your door, pray to your Father who is in the secret place; and your Father who sees in secret will reward you openly.[a] 7And when you pray, do not use vain repetitions as the heathen do. For they think that they will be heard for their many words.

8"Therefore do not be like them. For your Father knows the things you have need of before you ask Him.

All together this makes the Quran much more reliable than the Bible so I believe if the description of God differ slightly and God for example says directly in the Quran that Jesus is a wonder to humanity, a for the purpose created prophet, and not the son of God or God's incarnation as a human, then I believe that the Quran got it right.

Then you have proven my point. We are indeed talking about a different God. See below.

John 1:1-3 (New King James Version)

(A) 1 In the beginning was the Word, and the Word was with God, and the Word was God. 2He was in the beginning with God. 3All things were made through Him, and without Him nothing was made that was made.

Because christians, espescially the catholic church have built a big ritual around the myth of Jesus' Godness and the Quran contradicts that idea, the christians, espescially from old times, demonized prophet Muhammad and the Quran, called it a work of Satan...

I am a Christian, I am NOT a Catholic. They tend to put more emphasis on Maryian worship and rituals. Please don't lump me in with them either.

But ask yourself, would Satan inspire a "holy" book that condemns himself and promises for himself eternal punishment in hell, and would a work of Satan call for the belief in one God and abolishment of polytheism, and for the adherence to Moses' ten commandments, and to Jesus' concept of forgivance and tolerance and other prophet's messages? Would Satan call for daily prayers to God, the creator of the universe and humankind, would Satan call for charity and help regarding the poor, would he call for sexual intercourse only inside a marriage, etc...?

If they take the glory off of God? Yes! If they alter his message enough to prevent people from obeying God's wishes? Absolutely. See below.

John 14:5-7 (New King James Version)

5Thomas said to Him, "Lord, we do not know where You are going, and how can we know the way?"

6Jesus said to him, "I am the way, the truth, and the life. No one comes to the Father except through Me.

[vmarks]

Someone else's opinion:

http://www.templemount.org/quranland.html


WHAT THE QUR'AN REALLY SAYS


by Shaykh Prof. Abdul Hadi Palazzi



THE QUR'AN SAYS THAT ALLAH GAVE THE LAND OF ISRAEL TO THE JEWS
AND WILL RESTORE THEM TO IT AT THE END OF DAYS


THE QUR'AN SAYS:



"To Moses We [Allah] gave nine clear signs. Ask the Israelites how he [Moses] first appeared amongst them. Pharoah said to him: 'Moses, I can see that you are bewitched.' 'You know full well,' he [Moses] replied, 'that none but the Lord of the heavens and the earth has revealed these visible signs. Pharoah, you are doomed.'"


"Pharoah sought to scare them [the Israelites] out of the land [of Israel]: but We [Allah] drowned him [Pharoah] together with all who were with him. Then We [Allah] said to the Israelites: 'Dwell in this land [the Land of Israel]. When the promise of the hereafter [End of Days] comes to be fulfilled, We [Allah] shall assemble you [the Israelites] all together [in the Land of Israel]."


"We [Allah] have revealed the Qur'an with the truth, and with the truth it has come down. We have sent you [Muhammed] forth only to proclaim good news and to give warning."


[Qur'an, "Night Journey," chapter 17:100-104]


SHAYKH PROF. PALAZZI COMMENTS:


God wanted to give Avraham a double blessing, through Ishmael and through Isaac, and ordered that Ishmael's descendents should live in the desert of Arabia and Isaac's in Canaan.


The Qur'an recognizes the Land of Israel as the heritage of the Jews and it explains that, before the Last Judgment, Jews will return to dwell there. This prophecy has already been fulfilled.


****************************************



MUSLIMS MUST RECOGNIZE THE STATE OF ISRAEL AS A JEWISH STATE


Is there any fundamental reason which prohibits Muslims from recognizing Israel as a friendly State?


I realize that a negative answer to the above question is taken for granted by popular opinion. My approach, however, is not based on popular opinion or the current political situation, but on a theological analysis of authentic Islamic sources.


Viewing the Jewish return to Israel as a Western invasion and Zionists as recent colonizers is new. It has no basis in authentic Islamic faith. According to the Qur'an, no person, people or religious community can claim a permanent right of possession over any territory. The Earth belongs exclusively to God, and He is free to entrust sovereignty over land to whomever He likes for whatever time period that He chooses.



"Say: 'O God, King of the kingdom (1), Thou givest the kingdom to whom Thou pleasest, and Thou strippest off the kingdom from whom Thou pleasest; Thou endowest with honour whom Thou pleasest, and Thou bringest low whom Thou pleasest: all the best is in Thy hand. Verily, Thou hast power over all things.'"(2) [Qur'an 3:26]


From the above Qur'anic verse we deduce a basic principle of the Monotheistic philosophy of history: God chooses as He likes in the relationship between peoples and countries. Sometimes He gives a land to a people, and sometimes He takes His possession back and gives it to another people.


In general, we can say that He gives as a reward for faithfulness and takes back as a punishment for wickedness, but this rule does not permit us to say that God's ways are always plain and clear to our eyes, since His secrets are inaccessible to the human intellect.


Using Islam as a basis for preventing Arabs from recognizing any sovereign right of Jews over the Land of Israel is new. Such beliefs are not found in classical Islamic sources.


Concluding that anti-Zionism is the logical outgrowth of Islamic faith is wrong. This conclusion represents the false transformation of Islam from a religion into a secularized ideology.


Such a false transformation of Islam was in fact made by the late Mufti of Jerusalem, Haj Amin el-Husseini. He is the one person most responsible, both morally and materially, for the repeated Arab defeats in their conflict with the Jews in Israel.


Husseni not only incited Arabs against Jews. He also encouraged the torture and murder of all Arabs who correctly understood that Arab cooperation with Jews was a precious opportunity for the development of the Land of Israel. Husseini ended his woeful life by putting his perverted religious teachings at the service of the evil and pagan Nazis.


After Husseini came Jamal al-Din 'Abd al-Nasser. Nasser based his policy on Pan-Arabism, hatred and contempt for Jews, and an alliance with the atheistic Soviet Union. Nasser's terrible choices were critical factors in maintaining Arab backwardness. Fortunately, most of Nasser's mistakes were afterward corrected by the martyr Anwar Sadat. (3)


After the defeat of Nasserianism, Islamic fundamentalist movements made anti-Zionism the primary feature of their propaganda. They presented the negation of any Jewish rights to the Land of Israel as rooted in authentic Islam and derived from authentic Islamic religious principles.


***********************************



THE LAND OF ISRAEL IN QUR'ANIC EXEGESIS


The fundamentalist Muslim program to use Islam as an instrument for political warfare against Jews finds a major obstacle in the Qur'an itself. Both the Bible and the Qur'an state quite clearly that the right of the Israelites to the Land of Israel does not depend on conquest and colonization. This right flows from the will of almighty God Himself.


Both the Jewish and Islamic Scriptures teach that God, through His chosen servant Moses, decided to free the offspring of Jacob from slavery in Egypt and to constitute them as heirs of the Promised Land. Whoever claims that Jewish sovereignty over the Land of Israel is something new and rooted in human politics denies divine revelation and divine prophecy as explicitly expressed in our Holy Books (the Bible and Koran).


The Qur'an relates the words by which Moses ordered the Israelites to conquer the Land:



"And [remember] when Moses said to his people: 'O my people, call in remembrance the favour of God unto you, when he produced prophets among you, made you kings, and gave to you what He had not given to any other among the peoples. O my people, enter the Holy Land which God has assigned unto you, and turn not back ignominiously, for then will ye be overthrown, to your own ruin.'" [Qur'an 5:20-21]


Moreover - and those who try to use Islam as a weapon against Israel always conveniently ignore this point - the Holy Qur'an explicitly refers to the return of the Jews to the Land of Israel before the Last Judgment - where it says: "And thereafter We [Allah] said to the Children of Israel: 'Dwell securely in the Promised Land. And when the last warning will come to pass, we will gather you together in a mingled crowd.'" [Qur'an 17:104]


Therefore, from an Islamic point of view, there is NO fundamental reason which prohibits Muslims from recognizing Israel as a friendly State.


*********************************************



ISLAM AND NORMALIZATION OF RELATIONSHIPS BETWEEN ISLAMIC STATES AND THE JEWISH STATE


PLO documents can in no way be regarded as Islamic. The PLO leaders are a gang of criminals and thieves, and Arabs will be the main victims of any supposed "Palestinian State" under their leadership.


I do not believe that Islam is the factor preventing normalization between Arabs and the State of Israel. The real problem is that members of the ruling classes in Arab countries believe their authority and power would be threatned by democracy, modernization, and education in the Arab world. They use a distorted interpretation of Islam as a political tool, and unfortunately the majority of uneducated Arabs believe their poisonous propaganda.


I believe that we must return to the time when Islam was in the vanguard of scientific progress and interfaith dialogue. Instead of false "leaders" such as Qadhafi, Saddam Hussein, Arafat [el-Husseini] or Yasin, we Muslims again need true leaders such as al-Ghazali, Ibn Rushd and Ibn Khaldum.


King Faysal of Iraq said: "The Arabs, and particularly the educated ones among them, must look at the Zionist movement with the deepest sympathy."


Tragically, true leaders such as Faysal were silenced, and fanatics such as Haj Amin al-Husseini prevailed.


The evil consequences of the victory of fanaticism are clear for all to see: Jews expelled from Arab countries where the lived in peace for over one thousand years, "Palestinian" refugees, terrorism, etc. To avoid future mistakes, we must learn from our past ones.


Unfortunately, there are Arabs who believe that they must fight against Israel until they completely destroy it (a tragedy which I do not believe the God of Israel will ever permit to happen - Never again!).


Unfortunately, there are also naive and foolish Israelis who believe, incredibly to me, that they will achieve "peace" with their Arab neighbours by giving the murderer "Arafat" [el-Husseini] a State, an army, etc. This is insane. You Jews are supposedly famous for your intelligence. How can some of your "leaders" be so stupid?


From the perspective of the natural world, I am not optimistic about what the future holds. However, from the supernatural perspective of faith, we who believe in God must face the future with a positive attitude.


We must have faith that we will see the day when real peace and prosperity - which can only be based on true faith in God and His Word (the Bible and Rabbinic Tradition for you; the Bible, Qur'an and Authentic Islamic Tradition for us) - will spread throughout the world. Meanwhile, we must work together to prepare for a better future.


********************************************



MUSLIMS MUST RECOGNIZE JEWISH SOVEREIGNTY OVER JERUSALEM


From an Islamic point of view, is there any fundamental reason which prohibits Muslims from recognizing Jerusalem both as an Islamic Holy Place and as the capital of the State of Israel?


I realize that a negative answer to the above question is taken for granted by popular opinion. My approach, however, is not based on popular opinion or the current political situation, but on a theological analysis of authentic Islamic sources.


JERUSALEM IN THE QUR'AN


The most common argument against Muslim acknowledgment of Israeli sovereignty over Jerusalem is that, since al-Quds [Jerusalem] (4) is a Holy Place for Muslims, Muslims cannot accept that it is ruled by non-Muslims, because such acceptance amounts to a betrayal of Islam.


Before expressing our point of view on this question, we must reflect upon the reason for which Jerusalem and Masjid al-Aqsa [the Al Aksa mosque] hold such a sacred position in Islamic faith.


As is well known, the inclusion of Jerusalem among Islamic holy places derives from al-Mi'raj, the Ascension of the Prophet Muhammed to heaven. The Ascension began at the Rock, usually identified by Muslim scholars as the Foundation Stone of the Jewish Temple in Jerusalem referred to in Jewish sources.


Recalling this link requires us to admit that there is no connection between al-Miraj [the Ascension] and Muslim sovereign rights over Jerusalem since, in the time that al-Miraj took place, the City was not under Islamic, but under Byzantine administration. Moreover, the Qur'an expressly recognizes that Jerusalem plays for Jews the same role that Mecca does for Muslims.


We read:



"...They would not follow thy direction of prayer (qiblah), nor art thou to follow their direction of prayer; nor indeed will they follow each other's direction of prayer..." (5)


All Qur'anic commentators explain that "thy qiblah" [direction of prayer for Muslims] is clearly the Ka'bah of Mecca, while "their qiblah" [direction of prayer for Jews] refers to the Temple Mount in Jerusalem.


To quote only one of the most important Muslim commentators, we read in Qadn Baydawn's Commentary:



"Verily, in their prayers Jews orientate themselves toward the Rock (sakhrah), while Christians orientate themselves eastwards..." (6)


In complete opposition to what "Islamic" fundamentalists continuously claim, the Book of Islam [the Qur'an] - as we have just now seen - recognizes Jerusalem as the Jewish direction of prayer.


Some Muslim commentators also quote the Book of Daniel (7) as a proof for this.


After reviewing the relevant Qur'anic passages concerning this matter, I conclude that, as no one denies Muslims complete sovereignty over Mecca, from an Islamic point of view - despite opposing, groundless claims - there is no reason for Muslims to deny the State of Israel - which is a JEWISH state - complete sovereignty over Jerusalem.


************************************



ISLAMIC HOLY PLACES


Anti-Jewish sentiments expressed by Islamic leaders throughout the Middle East are, in fact, not religious in nature, but, rather, political. The best proof of this is in the fact that Islamic anti-Judaism is quite recent.


Omar ended the Roman ban that prevented Jews to enter Jerusalem, the Ummayad caliphs in Cordoba built a synagogue for Maimonides, and Salahu-d-Din, after defeating the Crusaders, wrote to the Jewish leaders, "Your exile is over. Whoever wants to come back is welcome."


The late King Faysal of Iraq openly expressed his sympathy for the Zionist movement, while King Abdullah of Jordan was compelled to wage war against Israel by the other Arab leaders.


Recently, the Resident Arab ["Palestinian"] Wakf has made pronouncements, such as that the Western Wall (Kotel) is not a Jewish shrine, but, rather, the wall to which the Prophet's [steed] was tethered, or, at best, the wall surrounding the Muslim Mosque. The Wakf has also stated that all of Hebron should be turned over to the Resident Arab ["Palestinian"] Authority, and that Jews would be forbidden to pray in the Cave of the Patriarchs.


These kinds of declarations by the PLO gangsters are ridiculous and absurd.


The Kotel was effectively, according to the Islamic tradition, the place where al-Buraq [the Prophet's steed] was tethered, but it was already an existing part of the Herodian structure. Muslims have never prayed close to it, and it has never had a special relevance in Islam. On the contrary, everyone knows how important it is for Jewish worshippers.


Apart from Mecca, no Islamic holy place is off-limits for non-Muslims. Historical sources say that the Prophet Muhammad entertained a delegation of Christians from Najran in the Mosque of Medina, and permitted them to celebrate a mass inside the Mosque, notwithstanding the fact that Christian rites can include words that are against Islam [such as stating that Jesus is God].


There is nothing in Jewish worship that can be offensive for Muslims, and nothing in Islamic Law prevents Jews to pray on Haram al-Sharif/Har Habayyit (the Temple Mount), in the Cave of Machpela or in any other place that is regarded as holy by Muslims.


Every time I meet those who say otherwise, I ask them to identify a single authoritative Islamic source as legal proof of their claim. None of them has ever answered such a request of mine.


********************************************



NOTES:


1. The original Arabic word we translated as "kingdom" is mulk, from a Semitic root m-l-k, that is common to both Arabic and Hebrew. According to Islamic theological terminology, the three synonyms for "kingdom" are mulk, malakut and jabarut. They refer respectively to the physical, psychic and spiritual levels of existence. Of course, G-d can be called King of all of them; if here only mulk is quoted, it depends on the fact that this verse directly concerns the earthly domain. To denote a kingdom in the secular and political sense, Arabic commonly uses another derived form, that is mamlakah.


2. Koran 3:26. For typographical reasons, it is not possible to reproduce here the original Arabic text of the Koran, which must nevertheless be understood as quoted. As well here as in other Koranic quotations, the English translation of the meaning of Koranic words from Arabic is my own, but based on the most authoritative English commentaries, such as M. Marmaduke Pickthall's "The Meaning of The Glorious Koran" (Beirut 1973), 'A. Yusuf 'Ali, "The Holy Koran - Text, Translation and Commentary" (Maryland 1983) and A. 'A. Maududi "The Holy Koran - Text, Translation and Brief Notes" (Lahore 1986).


3. In using the term "martyr" I do not simply refer to one who lost his life for a good cause. I give a precise translation of the Arabic word "shahid," which identifies a "martyr" in the strictly religious sense; that is to say, someone who spent his life serving the cause of G-d. Since making peace with former enemies is an explicit Koranic order (see Koran 8:61), and since, according to Islam, Peace is G-d Himself, any believer who is killed because of his search for Peace must be understood as a religious martyr. The same considerations clearly apply to Yitzhak Rabin. 4. Arabic name of Jerusalem, from the root q-d-s, meaning "holiness". It is an abridged form of Bayt al-maqdis, "the sanctified House" or "the House of the Sanctuary", an exact equivalent of the Hebrew Beth ha-mikdash. The name originally referred only to the Temple Mount, and was afterward extended to the City as a whole. This extension of meaning became common among Arabs from the tenth century C.E. onwards. Earlier Islamic sources use the name Iliyia, an adaptation to Arabic pronounciation of the Roman name Aelia.


5. Koran 2:145.


6. M. Shaykh Zadeh Hashiyaah 'ali Tafsir al-Qadn al-Baydawn (Istanbul 1979), Vol. 1, p. 456.


7. Daniel 6:10


***********************************



Prof. Abdul Hadi Palazzi has been a lecturer in the Department of the History of Religion at the University of Velletri (Rome, Italy).


In 1987, after completing his secular and religious education in Rome and Cairo, he was asked to serve as an Imam (spiritual leader) for the Italian Islamic Community. In addition to numerous Masters Degrees, Prof. Palazzi hold a Ph.D in Islamic Sciences by decree of the Grand Mufti of the Kingdom of Saudi Arabia.


In 1989 he was appointed a member of the Board of Directors of the Italian Muslim Association (AMI) and afterward elected its Secretary General.


In 1991 he was asked to act as Director of the Cultural Institute of the Italian Islamic Community (ICCII), with a program based on the development of Islamic education in Italy, refutation of fundamentalism and fanaticism, and deep involvement in inter-religious dialogue, especially with Jews and Christians.


In 1997, Prof. Palazzi's essay entitled "The Jewish-Moslem Dialogue and the Question of Jerusalem" was published by the Institute of the World Jewish Congress.


In 1997, Prof. Palazzi joined the International Council of the Root & Branch Association.


In 1998, Prof. Palazzi and Dr. Asher Eder (Jerusalem, Israel) co-founded the Islam-Israel Fellowship, which promotes a positive Muslim attitude towards Jews and Israel based on what Prof. Palazzi believes are the authentic teachings of Muhammed as expressed in the Koran and Hadith (Muslim Oral Tradition). Prof. Palazzi serves as Muslim Co-Chairman of the Fellowship. Dr. Eder serves as the Jewish Co-Chairman.

[Zimphire]

Originally Posted by eklipse

Of course it's 'in his opinion' you pedantic twit.

eklipse you need to learn the difference between stating fact and opinion.

Especially before you start calling others twits.

It will make you look like less of a moron.

When stating an opinion you WORD it like an opinion. You don't state it as fact.

Talisan has a habit of turning his (Usually really off base) opinions as fact.

For example

"We are definetively talking about the same God,"

That isn't offering an opinion. That is stating a fact.

Not that it matters. Talisan has lots any credibility he had in his own thread.

And now it's just gotten extremely pathetic.

But by all means eklipse, make idiotic posts like this one.

I am sure it makes you feel all superior and above me.

Too bad it backfired.

[Zimphire]

Originally Posted by vmarks

Someone else's opinion:

http://www.templemount.org/quranland.html

[eklipse]

Originally Posted by vmarks

Someone else's opinion:

http://www.templemount.org/quranland.html


WHAT THE QUR'AN REALLY SAYS


by Shaykh Prof. Abdul Hadi Palazzi

....

You really should pick your sources more carefully: http://www.ifrance.com/amipalazzi/indexgb.htm

[von Wrangell]

wow, just wow.

[MacManMikeOSX]

Todah Vmarks ani maniakh sheattah yachol ldaber 'Ivrit. attah amarta mah shertziti lichtov ach haytah mtuqtzeret tov yoter, lif'amim qasheh l'hasbir tziyoniyut la'goyim mekho"l.

[lil'babykitten]

Originally Posted by eklipse

You really should pick your sources more carefully: http://www.ifrance.com/amipalazzi/indexgb.htm