600 years ago, so nobody should know....

Einard

Originally posted by samerosie at 11-1-2005 06:28 PM:


Similarly with the Bible,  if Paul had never met Jesus and lived way ahead in time of Jesus's death, why should anyone believe his account of Jesus?

Well, before converting himself into christianity, paul was a very aggressive person whos against the believers, kill etc. But just like Muhammad in his cave, paul met "Holy Spirit" and paul became a believer. (but in Muhammad case is "ALLAH"). That is the turning point for paul. Paul preach as what Jesus disciples did and wrote those texts. Unlike Muhammad, Angle "Jibril" ask him to "recite" and anyhing comes out are now known as Quran. I remember also during my tender time, during sunday school,  I used to "recite" and I know for sure i need to know my subject like in the back of my head before i can recite.

FaithHealer3

Originally posted by Debmey at 2005-1-11 05:25 PM:
Simple. Since muhamad did not meet Jesus and lived a thousand miles from where it happned 600 years later, why shld anyone beleive in his account of Jesus?

Good question.

Apparently Muhammad wanted the Christians to join him. By, taking away the suffering and the dead of jesus(ref Q:4.157), Muhammad affectively destroyed the basic believe of true Christians.

I thought the idea in Q:4.157 was a genius idea, but i was disappointed to discover that the idea was not original at all.

It was just another story of cetak rompak.. Muhammad had made very little change to the fake claim of.. Basilides,120-140 AD, in their view, it was not, Christ who died on the cross, but rather Simon of Cyrene, who was constrained to carry the cross for him, and mistakenly crucified in Christ's stead. Simon having received Jesus' form, Jesus assumed Simon's and thus stood by and laughed at them. Simon was crucified and Jesus returned to His Father. So we have a case of the big switch!



[ Last edited by FaithHealer3 on 12-1-2005 at 12:19 AM ]

Debmey

Originally posted by ashna at 2005-1-11 08:54 PM:


what do you have in mind? st. paul? ;)

I asked first.

The truth is, Mo could not have been correct when all the sources contemporary to Jesus, Christian and non Christian contradict Mo's version.

snipersnake

muhammad's source of jesus' history is quran.

Debmey

How can the Quran be mo's  source when he was the one who spoke it?
Then yu must be saying that Mo imagined things.

snipersnake

nah..its clear he receive revelations..then one of his close companions..usually abu hurairah wrote the revelation down quickly..refer to history deb.

nightlord

Again I say you guys are a confused lot.

None of the companions wrote anything down, because MO did not want it done that way.

snipersnake

wel wel..we got another one here..read the history la dei..
http://www.sunnah.org/history/quran_compiled.htm

if u dont know dont simply say..

Debmey

in other words, Mo had no clue at all to what happened during Jesus time.
He wasn't even born yet and it happned more than a 1000 km away.
Mo is therefore in error and cannot be trusted since his account contradicted all contemporary sources of Jesus.

Oreng

ok, if you all christians believe in your jesus being crucified and it is so important to you, what is the evidence ? where is the tomb ? where is the grave ? when did he alive again ? who saw him alive again ? if your jesus is real man-in-flesh how could he endure such torture for many days and without food, dont you think that the true God played magic with the spectators ? why the account of your jesus being crucified only appear in the bible but not in history books ? Dont you think it is because people were actually confuse at to the whole episode and Prophet Muhammad had to tell the truth that it was not Jesus who was crucified but God made it like so...

Originally posted by Einard at 11-1-2005 09:20 PM:


Well, before converting himself into christianity, paul was a very aggressive person whos against the believers, kill etc. But just like Muhammad in his cave, paul met "Holy Spirit" a ...

Unfortunately, Paul did not preach like Jesus's disciples did.  He preached to gentiles and that circumcision is not important.  Jesus taught the opposite.  Paul said Jesus was the answer to sinners but Jesus said "Do this and you shall Live".  Why did Jesus asked people to do a bunch of stuff to be saved when Paul said the opposite?

May be Paul did that because he wanted the people to like him, after all he was Saul of Tarsus, a well known persecutor of Christians.

Jesus taught the opposite.  Paul said Jesus was the answer to sinners but Jesus said "Do this and you shall Live".

isn't that the same...?

Debmey

Jesus never said gentiles need to be circimcised either.

Mo on the other hand preached violence and terror, coimpletely contrary to Jesus. So how can mo be truthful?

ashna

Originally posted by Debmey at 12-1-2005 12:11 PM:
Jesus never said gentiles need to be circimcised either.

Mo on the other hand preached violence and terror, coimpletely contrary to Jesus. So how can mo be truthful?

please see things in various angles. you cannot see the things in depth at all because your mind has been corrupted.

Well, if you read the bible you would know the difference.

Paul's teaching to overwrite the Law and just have faith in order to be saved.  He taught Jesus did on the cross for the sins of mankind and that sins are inherited from Adam.  He said "....Therefore by the deeds of the law there shall no flesh be justified in his sight: for by the law [is] the knowledge of sin. But now the righteousness of God without the law is manifested, being witnessed by the law and the prophets"

What's wrong with Paul when Jesus clearly taught to uphold the Law.

Jesus said "For verily I say unto you, Till heaven and earth pass, one jot or one tittle shall in no wise pass from the law, till all be fulfilled. Whosoever therefore shall break one of these least commandments, and shall teach men so, he shall be called the least in the kingdom of heaven: but whosoever shall do and teach [them], the same shall be called great in the kingdom of heaven".

Paul is in contradiction with other gospel writers, read James, read Mark, read Matthew.

Jesus said in Matthew to feed the poor and hungry.

In contrast to Paul

"For even when we were with you, this we commanded you, that if any would not work, neither should he eat".

You want to follow Jesus himself who brought the good news or Paul who thought he saw Jesus and spreading doubtful "good news" which are in contradiction of what Jesus taught?

Originally posted by Debmey at 12-1-2005 12:11 PM:
Jesus never said gentiles need to be circimcised either.

Mo on the other hand preached violence and terror, coimpletely contrary to Jesus. So how can mo be truthful?

That is because Jesus never intended to preach outside the House of Israel.  Remember the story about the Samaritan?  Jesus's teaching was exclusively for the non gentiles.

Whilst Mohammad brough the message to all mankind gentiles and non gentiles while upholding the Law of Moses.

snipersnake

Originally posted by Debmey at 11-1-2005 06:11 PM:
Jesus never said gentiles need to be circimcised either.

Mo on the other hand preached violence and terror, coimpletely contrary to Jesus. So how can mo be truthful?

hihihi..are you afraid to be circumsised??

Originally posted by samerosie at 12-1-2005 12:20 PM:
Well, if you read the bible you would know the difference.

Paul's teaching to overwrite the Law and just have faith in order to be saved.  He taught Jesus did on the cross for the sins of mankin ...

so you are saying that paul is a liar, aren't you?

a very damn good liar, aren't you?

Debmey

Originally posted by samerosie at 2005-1-12 12:26 PM:


That is because Jesus never intended to preach outside the House of Israel.  Remember the story about the Samaritan?  Jesus's teaching was exclusively for the non gentiles.

Whilst Mohammad b ...

not true. israel was under occupation and there were people who wanted to harm Jesus even in Israel itself. There is no excuse for mo to preach violence even if he needs to preach elsewhere.

Originally posted by me at 12-1-2005 12:55 PM:


so you are saying that paul is a liar, aren't you?

a very damn good liar, aren't you?

I am just pointing out the contradiction between Jesus's and Paul teaching.

If only you read your bible.