The Quran contains a lie

[CoreIssue]

Note: The first 11 posts here are reposts from the old board by CoreIssue.

Posted: Fri Mar 04, 2005 4:03 pm by CTZonEdit

The Quran states that Christ was not crucified.
Conflicting with every known reputable scholar, historian, and archeologist findings.

To continue to believe in the light of such evidence that Christ was not crucified, to believe that Christians "borrowed" the symbol of the cross from other religions is arrogance or blind faith.

The Quran contains a lie and therefore fails as a divine revelation from Allah.

God does not lie.

[CoreIssue]

:nod:

[CoreIssue]

http://www.christiantalkzone.net/forum/images/smiles/laughing6.gif Continue deludin' yourself.

It has been proven beyond doubt that the crucifixion was a hoax propagated by those who have tampered the previous Scriptures.

One can go to http://www.load-islam.com/forums/showthread.php?t=703 (http://www.load-islam.com/forums/showthread.php?t=703) and witness the evasive tactics used by these wannabe apologists who cannot respond adequately when confronted with facts that demolishes their blind-faith.

Islam, unlike Christianity, does not teach a concept of “original sin”. Adam’s sin was his and his alone; and, according to the Qur’an (for the Qur’anic narration of the story of Adam and Eve, see: the Qur’an: 2: 30-39; 7; 19; 17: 61; 18: 50; 20: 116-17, etc.), God forgave both Adam and Eve when they turned to God in repentance; accordingly they were once again restored to divine mercy. Hence there is no concept of Adam passing on to his progeny an original sin, and therefore no need for stipulating a redeemer for such sins.

There is no original sin, every one is born into a state of fitrah, a state of natural innocence; sin is acquired later by our own conscious and willful actions. The Prophet (peace and blessings be upon him) said, “Every child is born into a state of fitrah or natural state of innocence.”

Islam teaches that God is All-Compassionate and All-Merciful; He is not bound by the rule of a blood sacrifice in order to forgive His servants. To assume that God can forgive only by accepting a blood sacrifice and therefore to state that Jesus or Muhammad died for our sins is not acceptable in Islam. Allah says: “O My servants who have wronged against their souls! Do not despair of Allah’s mercy! For Allah forgives all sins; for He is indeed Forgiving, Compassionate. Turn to your Lord repentant, and submit to Him before the torment overtakes you when you shall not be helped.” (Az-Zumar: 53-54)


Islam teaches that every individual is responsible for his/her own salvation. Not Abraham, or Moses, or Jesus, or Muhammad can save us; they are only capable of saving themselves through God’s grace. In the words of the Qur’an: “Whoever commits a sin commits it only against himself. Allah is Knowing, Wise.” (An-Nisa': 111); “Allah does not charge a soul with more than it can bear. It shall be requited for whatever good and whatever it has done.” (Al-Baqarah: 286); “Each soul earns only on its own account, nor does any laden (soul) bear another’s load.” (Al-An`am: 164) “He who is rightly guided, it is for himself; and he who goes astray, it is to his own detriment. No soul can bear another’s burden.” (Al-Isra': 15)

Everyone, male or female, can directly approach God without any intermediary of a prophet, saint or priest. God is closer to us than our own jugular veins. Almighty Allah says in the Qur’an: “We created man, and We know the promptings of his soul, and We are nearer to him than his own jugular vein.” (Qaf: 16) “When My servants ask you about Me, tell them I am nigh, ready to answer the prayer of the suppliant when he/she prays to Me; therefore let them respond to Me and believe in Me, that they may be rightly guided.” (Al-Baqarah: 186)

So the entire concept of someone dying for our sins is inimical to the Islamic world-view or understanding of the natures of man and God. Islam beckons us all to respond to God’s message and receive His grace and salvation through faith, good works and leading a responsible moral and ethical life.

A few questions have been raised at http://www.load-islam.com/forums/showthread.php?t=1024 (http://www.load-islam.com/forums/showthread.php?t=1024)

1.Which Bible or the books are inspired? Is it the Greek Orthodox, Roman Catholic, Protestant, Ethiopic, Coptic or the Syriac? Please remember that they contain different number of books. It is just not the "oh! those are different translations".

2. How can we trust the Church tradition when she herself cannot produce a reliable bunch of books worth calling a Bible?

3. Why should we trust the Church which cannot even produce a set of manuscripts throughout the centuries which can be relied on instead of the guess work to find which reading is the original?

4. How do we know that Isa(P) said what is there in the Bible as there is no way of confirm how his words got transmitted? This is one of the major argument of Islamic traditionalists against the Older scriptures which deal with Israa'iliyat stuff. And they were rejected outright for very obvious reasons.

Lastly, Peace be unto all people who follow God's Guidance—the pure way of Abraham the patriarch of all the prophets. The clear way of pure monotheism, which avoids confusing the Creator with the created, is nothing but the Straight Path of Islam—which means submitting to and worshipping God alone.

[CoreIssue]

Greetings kadafi.

Contrary to what you may think you are welcome to post here.

On your site we tried to get you to stop the personal insults by asking then then giving back as you gave to see if that would stop you. All you did was close the topic and threaten to ban CTZ and myself.

I note that simply to say here do not start the personal insults at all. They are not allowed.

And here you are required to answer questions directly and not evasively. Which means you stay on topic. That applies to everyone here. No exceptions.

That is the sum total of the discussion that will occur here regarding what happened there. Anyone wishing to see what occurred can go to the link and read for themselves.

So we can discuss. But leave the other nonsense on your site where it seems to be welcome. It is not welcome here.

Your questions will be addressed in following posts. And questions will be addressed to you as well in either this topic or others.

[CoreIssue]

Islam, unlike Christianity, does not teach a concept of “original sin”. Adam’s sin was his and his alone; and, according to the Qur’an (for the Qur’anic narration of the story of Adam and Eve, see: the Qur’an: 2: 30-39; 7; 19; 17: 61; 18: 50; 20: 116-17, etc.), God forgave both Adam and Eve when they turned to God in repentance; accordingly they were once again restored to divine mercy. Hence there is no concept of Adam passing on to his progeny an original sin, and therefore no need for stipulating a redeemer for such sins.

There is no original sin, every one is born into a state of fitrah, a state of natural innocence; sin is acquired later by our own conscious and willful actions. The Prophet (peace and blessings be upon him) said, “Every child is born into a state of fitrah or natural state of innocence.”
In order for sinners to come to repentance, they must first believe that they are born into sin, they are sinners, and that they need a Savior. They must believe that Jesus paid the penalty for their sin (the sin debt) and was the propitiation for that sin, and accept His sacrafice. By Islam removing the concept of original sin, they have effectively removed any and all need for a Savior in their religion.

A tactic Satan used, and was successful with apparently. It's being swallowed by 1 billion strong world wide.

[CoreIssue]

kadafi,

I moved your post to the appropriate topic. It is off topic here.

If you wish to talke about what was posted on your site then keep it in the
topic about that topic on your site. (http://www.christiantalkzone.net/forum/viewtopic.php?t=1458)

http://www.christiantalkzone.net/forum/images/smiles/wink.gif This topic has enough points to discuss on its own. Don't interject other issues.

[CoreIssue]

It has been proven beyond doubt that the crucifixion was a hoax propagated by those who have tampered the previous Scriptures.
Then the burden is on you to show what those tampered with scriptures say.

There are over 24,000 manuscripts and fragments. The NT ones dating back to about 50 AD and the OT ones back to about 300 BC.

All when laid next to the current Bible agree.

The Quar'an cannot make the same claim. The oldest document dates to 800 AD and the formation of it clearly demonstrates there were older documents that were commanded burnt.

In other words we are just suppose to take the word of the editor that he picked the right stuff to go in the Quar'an.

That don't fly as proof.
Islam, unlike Christianity, does not teach a concept of “original sin”. Adam’s sin was his and his alone; and, according to the Qur’an (for the Qur’anic narration of the story of Adam and Eve, see: the Qur’an: 2: 30-39; 7; 19; 17: 61; 18: 50; 20: 116-17, etc.), God forgave both Adam and Eve when they turned to God in repentance; accordingly they were once again restored to divine mercy. Hence there is no concept of Adam passing on to his progeny an original sin, and therefore no need for stipulating a redeemer for such sins.
And the Quar'an is a false document. So we reject it unless you can give evidence of why we should accept it.

The Bible was given via prophets who performed miracles evidenced my many, saints and enemies alike. No such evidence for the Quar'an.

Islamic proof claims parallel exactly the level of Mormon. Moonie and many other such claim. But they sure cannot all be right.

So a high level of proof is demanded to accept. The Quar'an does not possess it.
There is no original sin, every one is born into a state of fitrah, a state of natural innocence; sin is acquired later by our own conscious and willful actions. The Prophet (peace and blessings be upon him) said, “Every child is born into a state of fitrah or natural state of innocence.”
Circular logic here.

The topic subject is a lie in the Quar'an. Quoting the Quar'an to prove the Quar'an is non evidence. It is a doctrinal statement only.

As are your other declarations.

You have to do better than that to show why we should accept it.

Everyone, male or female, can directly approach God without any intermediary of a prophet, saint or priest. God is closer to us than our own jugular veins. Almighty Allah says in the Qur’an: “We created man, and We know the promptings of his soul, and We are nearer to him than his own jugular vein.” (Qaf: 16) “When My servants ask you about Me, tell them I am nigh, ready to answer the prayer of the suppliant when he/she prays to Me; therefore let them respond to Me and believe in Me, that they may be rightly guided.” (Al-Baqarah: 186)

So the entire concept of someone dying for our sins is inimical to the Islamic world-view or understanding of the natures of man and God. Islam beckons us all to respond to God’s message and receive His grace and salvation through faith, good works and leading a responsible moral and ethical life.

True. But what Islam believes does not make it true.

Bahai are a form of Islam, being a cult of or otherwise, and make the same arguments you do for proof.

You would quote your Quar'an to dispute that claim.

But Islam points to their corrupted version of the OT to support their claims.

We point to the uncorrupted version to show the claims of Islam are a lie.

So again you must provide the ancient copies of the Bible to show alterations.

Starting with documents non existent before 800 AD does not foot that proof requirement.
1.Which Bible or the books are inspired? Is it the Greek Orthodox, Roman Catholic, Protestant, Ethiopic, Coptic or the Syriac? Please remember that they contain different number of books. It is just not the "oh! those are different translations".
Translations do not constitute another Bible. A non argument.

Also some of these issues parallel the formation of the Quar'an. You have one individual with one doctrinal mind set who determined the contents of the Quar'an.

On the other hand with the Bible the individual books had always been there from the time of their writing by the original authors, not hand me down claimed oral traditions (a non proof to any real scholar).

The Catholic Bible was cannonized AFTER the real Bible and was a political move to protect the power of the Popes and the Catholic Church.

The 66 Books of the Bible have been in circulation from the beginning. The OT books adopted and formalized centuries before Christ.

The Bibles with the Apocrapha speak for themselves by the very definition of Apocrapha.
Main Entry: apoc·ry·pha
Pronunciation: &-'pä-kr&-f&
Function: noun plural but singular or plural in construction
Etymology: Medieval Latin, from Late Latin, neuter plural of apocryphus secret, not canonical, from Greek apokryphos obscure, from apokryptein to hide away, from apo- + kryptein to hide -- more at CRYPT
1 : writings or statements of dubious authenticity
2 capitalized a : books included in the Septuagint and Vulgate but excluded from the Jewish and Protestant canons of the Old Testament -- see BIBLE table b : early Christian writings not included in the New Testament

2. How can we trust the Church tradition when she herself cannot produce a reliable bunch of books worth calling a Bible?

False argument. Translations are not other Bibles and the cannonized Bible is not challenged.

Again, if the Bible was changed provide copies of what it was before being changed.

And shoving this question back at you how can we accept the Quar'an when all the prior writings not in agreement with one man were burnt?

And how can we accept something written 200 years after the claimed author from conflicting oral traditions that had to be sorted into good and bad boxes for inclusion?

3. Why should we trust the Church which cannot even produce a set of manuscripts throughout the centuries which can be relied on instead of the guess work to find which reading is the original?

There never were originals for the Quar'an. Mohammed wrote nothing down. Nor did his followers.
4. How do we know that Isa(P) said what is there in the Bible as there is no way of confirm how his words got transmitted? This is one of the major argument of Islamic traditionalists against the Older scriptures which deal with Israa'iliyat stuff. And they were rejected outright for very obvious reasons.
Because his Apostles who were his witnesses wrote what he said directly.

And there is not one document out there from other witnesses saying it did not happen.

Now apply that same proof demand to the Quar'an and you are in major trouble.

You cannot have it both ways but you keep trying to do so.

Plus prophets wrote their materials in their life times as given by God. Again leaving the Quar'an with a big problem in trying to make this argument against the Bible when it fails this requirement completely.

And don't try the old Moses didn't write the books nonsense. Old argument long abandoned.

Further, Christ use copies of the OT with the same content of what we have today. He confirmed the OT as being from God as is.

The Quar'an fails the demands you made most miserably when it is put under the microscope according to your proof tests.

History confirms Christ, the crucifixion and the Bible. But all Islam wants to do is declare the evidence lies.

But the Academic world doesn't buy your arguments.

Think about it. Whatever standard of proof you lay on the Bible must be used equally on the Quar'an. And the Quar'an cannot stand up to the challenge.

Christ was not crucified? http://www.christiantalkzone.net/forum/images/smiles/blink.gif What an old outdated argument.

[CoreIssue]

Kadafi,

Please try to stay on topic. We saw these tactics on your site where you make long winded posts that bring up irreleveant issues.

We ask simple questions that dictate a simple answer is required, not long winded posts that are off topic.

I said the Quran contains a lie because it states that Christ was not crucified. A devine revelation would not contain a lie if it was from God.

And instead of answering you went longwinded again and brought up issues about the bible being tampered with.

A) That is has nothing to do with what I brought up.
B) You have no proof for this accusation.
C) Even if you had proof, this again has no bearing on the issue.

So please just answer the questions asked, stay on topic and it will make things alot easier for everyone involved.

[CoreIssue]

It has been proven beyond doubt that the crucifixion was a hoax propagated by those who have tampered the previous Scriptures.
The Apostles faced heavy persecution and threats of death from Jewish and Roman authorities for (1) their beliefs and (2) actions based on their beliefs. They had nothing materialistic to gain from proclaiming the crucifixion and resurrection of Christ within such a hostile environment and time period. If it were a lie, then most likely they would have taken the "path of least resistence," as Peter did in denying Christ three times, and admitted that it was indeed a lie.

- - - - - - - - - -

Cornelius Tacitus (55-120 CE), who is one of the most prominent and credible Roman historians, wrote about Christ:
"Hence to suppress this rumor, he falsely charged with the guilt, and punished with the most exquisite tortures, the persons commonly called Christians, who were hated for their enormities. Christus, the founder of the name, was put to death by Pontius Pilate, procurator of Judea in the reign of Tiberius: but the pernicious superstition, repressed for a time, broke out again, not only through Judea, where the mischief originated, but through the city of Rome also." (Annals XV, 44)
*Note: Christus is a common Roman misspelling of Christ.

Here Tacitus, a non-Christian source, verifies that Christ was indeed put do death by Pilate.

Lucian, a Greek satirist, scronfully wrote about Christians and Christ:
"The Christians, you know, worship a man to this day--the distinguished personage who introduced their novel rites, and was crucified on that account . . . You see, these misguided creatures start with the general conviction that they are immortal for all time, which explains the contempt of death and voluntary self-devotion which are so common among them; and then it was impressed on them by their original lawgiver that they are all brothers, from the moment that they are converted, and deny the gods of Greece, and worship the crucified sage, and live after his laws." (The Death of Peregrine, 11-13)</SPAN>
Here Lucian, a non-Christian source, scornfully mentions some Christ's teachings that Christians follow and verifies that Christ was killed by crucifixion.

The Babylonian Talmud says:
"It has been taught: On the eve of the Passover they hanged Yeshu. And an announcer went out, in front of him, for forty days (saying): 'He is going to be stoned, because he practiced sorcery and enticed and led Israel astray. Anyone who knows anything in his favor, let him come and plead in his behalf.' But, not having found anything in his favor, they hanged him on the eve of Passover." (Sanhedrin 43a, cf. t. Sanh. 10:11; y. Sanh 7:12; Tg. Esther 7:9).
*Note: The Hebrew word [I]Yeshu is equivalent to the Greek word Iesous, or Jesus.

Here the Babylonian Talmud, also a non-Christian source, states that Christ was found guilty by the Sanhedrin for "practic sorcery" and "hanged" or crucified. The mention that Christ "practiced sorcery" is likely the skeptical interpretation of the miracles Christ did as recorded by the Gospel accounts.

Josephus, a prominent Jewish aristocrat and historian, mentions Christ in this controversial quote:

"Now there was about this time Jesus, a wise man, [I]if it be lawful to call him a man, for he was a doer of wonderful works, a teacher of such men as receive the truth with pleasure. He drew over to him both many of the Jews, and many of the Gentiles. He was the Christ, and when Pilate, at the suggestion of the principle men among us, had condemned him to the cross, those that loved him at the first did not forsake him; for he appeared to them alive again the third day; as the divine prophets had foretold these and ten thousand other wonderful things concerning him. And the tribe of Christians so named from him are not extinct at this day. (Antiquities, XVII, 33, italics added)

This genuineness of this passage, called the Testimonium, it heatedly debated by scholars today, especially the italicized parts. This is because he calls Jesus the "so-called Christ" later in his writings. Josephus participated within the Jewish against Rome during 66-73 CE, but when captured he worked to please the Roman emperors. He was eventually named "Flavius Josephus" after the Flavian emperors. Thus, some have called him a "turncoat" with an uncertain character. But at the very least, it is reasonable to assume that he did mention Christ in terms of him being a prominent teacher and being put to death on the cross.

A 4th Century Arabic version of this passage says:
At this time there was a wise man who was called Jesus. And his conduct was good and [he] was known to be virtuous. Many people from among the Jews and other nations became his disciples. Pilate condemned him to be crucified and to die. And those who had become his disciples did not abandon his discipleship. They reported that he had appeared to them three days after his crucifixion and that he was alive; accordingly, he was perhaps the messiah concerning whom the prophets have recounted wonders. (Kitab Al-Unwan Al-Mukallal Bi-Fadail Al-Hikma Al-Mutawwaj Bi-Anwa Al-Falsafa Al-Manduh Bi-Haqaq Al-Marifa)
This 4th Century Arabic version of Josephus's words is probably closer to what he really said, for it is more of a neutral text. It clearly shows that Christ was sentenced to crucifixion by Pilate, died on the cross, and then mentions that Christ's disciples were claiming he had risen.

- - - - - - - - - -

From these sources, we get the following facts:

1) Christ existed.
2) Christ "practiced sorcery," or did unexplained things that were interpreted negatively.
3) Christ was found guilty by the Sanhedrin because nobody would defend him.
4) Christ was sentenced to death by crucifixion by Pilate.
5) Christ died.
6) The disciples of Christ claimed that Christ rose after three days, appeared to people, and was the Messiah.
I said the Quran contains a lie because it states that Christ was not crucified. A devine revelation would not contain a lie if it was from God.
And kadafi uses his arsenal of unproven pro-Muslim commentary to avoid this fact and stay within his mental box. http://www.christiantalkzone.net/forum/images/smiles/dance02.gif

[CoreIssue]

Adding to what Lucky said,
It has been proven beyond doubt that the crucifixion was a hoax propagated by those who have tampered the previous Scriptures.
And just where and what are this supposed and claimed previous scriptures?

Please post them or a link to them.

And a hint. That does not mean what Mohammed or some other Islamic said they said. It means historical evidence contemporary to the time of Christ.

[CoreIssue]

Here is a most interesting article from Newsweek magazine about Jesus. As you will see by reading the article, the resurrection has been established and believed from the very beginning. And this is a secular news source discussing this.... not a Christian-based magazine.

They didn't get everything completely right...but it is a very conservative article considering it is a secular news source. I'm posting it to show that even the secular media can substantiate the resurrection.

Take a look....

If page does not load correctly, click here (http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/7244999/site/newsweek/?GT1=6305).

[TLIR]

Note: The first 11 posts here are reposts from the old board by CoreIssue.

Posted: Fri Mar 04, 2005 4:03 pm by CTZonEdit

The Quran states that Christ was not crucified.
Conflicting with every known reputable scholar, historian, and archeologist findings.

To continue to believe in the light of such evidence that Christ was not crucified, to believe that Christians "borrowed" the symbol of the cross from other religions is arrogance or blind faith.

The Quran contains a lie and therefore fails as a divine revelation from Allah.

God does not lie.

It's not just the Quran, their god was a liar and a murderer from the begining.