Who's the Koranic father of Jesus?

[The Cat]

You have not tried to show us that an ISA can be derived out of this. With Mashallah, you would get MSA. How can MSA be Jesus?

You're conveniently mixing up everything all the time (2)

It's not Jesus I was talking about here, silly, it's Masih (Messiah), Mā šāʾ Allāh (ما شاء الله), Masha Allah: MS-h: "God has willed it".

How can you apply Hebrew roots to Aramaic and Arabic words? The name Jesus is a corruption. Yeshua is Aramaic. Yashua or Joshua is Hebrew. With that kind of argument, the Chapter Joshua in the stone age and the bronze age Bibles should be named Jesus.... So, Yeshua, a name of Aramaic is not Yashaa, a verb of arabic.

You're conveniently mixing up everything all the time (3)

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Yeshua_%28name%29" onclick="window.open(this.href);return false;

Yeshua, spelled יֵשׁוּעַ (Yēšūă‘) or ישוע in Hebrew, was a common name among Jews of the Second Temple Period, and is thought by scholars and religious groups to be the Hebrew or Aramaic name for Jesus.... An argument in favor of the Hebrew reduced form ישוע Yeshua, as opposed to Yehoshua, is the Old Syriac Bible (c. 200 AD) and the Peshitta preserve this same spelling but using the equivalent Aramaic letters ܝܫܘܥ. Yeshu.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Yahshua" onclick="window.open(this.href);return false;
Commonly used by individuals in the Sacred Name Movement.... Critics say that in their labor to get the pronunciation "Yahshua" out of יהושע, they are ignoring Hebrew linguistics that do not allow the waw to be silent, so "Yahshua" is a questioned translation.... Christians, historians, and linguists outside the sacred name movement for the most part reject the term Yahshua in favor of Yeshua (ישוע) as the original pronunciation.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Yahshuah" onclick="window.open(this.href);return false;
Rejected by mainstream linguistics and textual scholarship in the field of ancient languages.

You've just proven yourself a total fool in linguistic, let alone logic.

Regarding your comment "18.23-24: And say not of anything: Lo! I shall do that tomorrow, Except if Allah will (Yashā'a Allāhu).", please note that the word Will carries no significance in the translations, as there are other words such as Want and Wish available. If you write Allah wills and "wills" is Jesus, the verb according to you, then it would mean Allah Jesuses (verb form).

You're conveniently mixing up everything all the time (4)

You're deluded. First of all you'd deserved to be stone to death for daring to say that Allah's will (want or wish) carries no significance:
the whole Koran is Allah's Will, want or wish! How can you be a Muslim and state something like that!

You're mixing everything up to fit your assertion, including the English Jesus. Pitiful attempt. Words change from one language to another.
In English, the root Yeshua is found in the common YES. ... And, yes it's a wonder why a proper name like Yeshua so became WILL in the Koran.
In 18.24; 9.27; 24.46; 30.48 and 42.19 it's always used as a verb, which instantly refer us to John 1.1: ''And the Word was God...''

Still again, the shared etymology is obvious: Yeshua (YS-h) became Allah's Will (YS-h). In the Koranic context,
we're not dealing with Yeshua as a named person, a 'son', but as the Spirit and Word of Allah, His Ruhullah...

So, can you show me for which prophets Rasoolin Kareem has been mentioned in Quran? You could not.

You're conveniently mixing up everything all the time (5)

But first, thanks for admitting that Gabriel is never mentioned as the Rasoolin Kareem.

The only honored prophet mentioned in the Koran is Isa, 3.45.
Ith qalati almala-ikatu ya maryamu inna Allaha yubashshiruki bikalimatin minhu ismuhu almaseehu AAeesa

Translated: Y. Ali: Held in honor; Pîckthall: Illustrious; Shakir: Worthy of regards.
Honored being the most often translation.
http://www.islamawakened.com/Quran/3/45/default.htm" onclick="window.open(this.href);return false;

So these verses pertains to Isa, namely Allah's Yasha'a
69.40: Certainly, it is the Word brought by an honored Messenger
81.19: That this is in truth the word of an honored messenger
86.13: Most surely it is a decisive word

Being Allah's Yasha'a, his decisive Word, Isa (a title) is the honored messenger and there's no other match.

You wrote: Rasoolin Kareem has only been used for Gabriel, not for Jesus or others.
http://www.forum09.faithfreedom.org/vie ... 98#p135498" onclick="window.open(this.href);return false;

So you've lied once again, and this for a third time: nowhere is Gabriel associated with rasoolin kareemin...
How could a mindless automaton, who had to bow to Adam, be such!

The rooster has now called the light:

Three falls: You're OUT.

[Ghalibkhastahaal]

You have not tried to show us that an ISA can be derived out of this. With Mashallah, you would get MSA. How can MSA be Jesus?

You're conveniently mixing up everything all the time (2)

It's not Jesus I was talking about here, silly, it's Masih (Messiah), Mā šāʾ Allāh (ما شاء الله), Masha Allah: MS-h: "God has willed it".

How can you apply Hebrew roots to Aramaic and Arabic words? The name Jesus is a corruption. Yeshua is Aramaic. Yashua or Joshua is Hebrew. With that kind of argument, the Chapter Joshua in the stone age and the bronze age Bibles should be named Jesus.... So, Yeshua, a name of Aramaic is not Yashaa, a verb of arabic.

You're conveniently mixing up everything all the time (3)

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Yeshua_%28name%29" onclick="window.open(this.href);return false;

Yeshua, spelled יֵשׁוּעַ (Yēšūă‘) or ישוע in Hebrew, was a common name among Jews of the Second Temple Period, and is thought by scholars and religious groups to be the Hebrew or Aramaic name for Jesus.... An argument in favor of the Hebrew reduced form ישוע Yeshua, as opposed to Yehoshua, is the Old Syriac Bible (c. 200 AD) and the Peshitta preserve this same spelling but using the equivalent Aramaic letters ܝܫܘܥ. Yeshu.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Yahshua" onclick="window.open(this.href);return false;
Commonly used by individuals in the Sacred Name Movement.... Critics say that in their labor to get the pronunciation "Yahshua" out of יהושע, they are ignoring Hebrew linguistics that do not allow the waw to be silent, so "Yahshua" is a questioned translation.... Christians, historians, and linguists outside the sacred name movement for the most part reject the term Yahshua in favor of Yeshua (ישוע) as the original pronunciation.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Yahshuah" onclick="window.open(this.href);return false;
Rejected by mainstream linguistics and textual scholarship in the field of ancient languages.

You've just proven yourself a total fool in linguistic, let alone logic.

Regarding your comment "18.23-24: And say not of anything: Lo! I shall do that tomorrow, Except if Allah will (Yashā'a Allāhu).", please note that the word Will carries no significance in the translations, as there are other words such as Want and Wish available. If you write Allah wills and "wills" is Jesus, the verb according to you, then it would mean Allah Jesuses (verb form).

You're conveniently mixing up everything all the time (4)

You're deluded. First of all you'd deserved to be stone to death for daring to say that Allah's will (want or wish) carries no significance:
the whole Koran is Allah's Will, want or wish! How can you be a Muslim and state something like that!

You're mixing everything up to fit your assertion, including the English Jesus. Pitiful attempt. Words change from one language to another.
In English, the root Yeshua is found in the common YES. ... And, yes it's a wonder why a proper name like Yeshua so became WILL in the Koran.
In 18.24; 9.27; 24.46; 30.48 and 42.19 it's always used as a verb, which instantly refer us to John 1.1: ''And the Word was God...''

Still again, the shared etymology is obvious: Yeshua (YS-h) became Allah's Will (YS-h). In the Koranic context,
we're not dealing with Yeshua as a named person, but as the Spirit and Word of Allah, His Ruhullah

So, can you show me for which prophets Rasoolin Kareem has been mentioned in Quran? You could not.

You're conveniently mixing up everything all the time (5)

But first, thanks for admitting that Gabriel is never mentioned as the Rasoolin Kareem.

The only honored prophet mentioned in the Koran is Isa, 3.45.
Ith qalati almala-ikatu ya maryamu inna Allaha yubashshiruki bikalimatin minhu ismuhu almaseehu AAeesa

Translated: Y. Ali: Held in honor; Pîckthall: Illustrious; Shakir: Worthy of regards.
Honored being the most often translation.
http://www.islamawakened.com/Quran/3/45/default.htm" onclick="window.open(this.href);return false;

So these verses pertains to Isa, namely Allah's Yasha'a
69.40: Certainly, it is the Word brought by an honored Messenger
81.19: That this is in truth the word of an honored messenger
86.13: Most surely it is a decisive word

Being Allah's Yasha'a, his decisive Word, Isa (a title) is the honored messenger and there's no other match.

You wrote: Rasoolin Kareem has only been used for Gabriel, not for Jesus or others.
http://www.forum09.faithfreedom.org/vie ... 98#p135498" onclick="window.open(this.href);return false;

So you've lied once again, and this for a third time: nowhere is Gabriel associated with rasoolin kareemin...
How could a mindless automaton be such!

The rooster has now called the light:

Three falls: You're OUT.

Thanks for flushing yourself down repeatedly.

[The Cat]

Thanks for flushing yourself down repeatedly.

[Ghalibkhastahaal]

Ghalibkhastahaal wrote

Allah never supported the stone age Bible or the bronze age Bible and it's bronze age New Testament, in Quran. Quran does not even mention the words Bible and the New Testament, because those were not given to Moses and Jesus

.

you say Allah protects his books and no one can change his words so if the torah and gospel TN are not Allahs books then where are the real books ? show us the books Allah protected which he gave moses and Jesus ?

if you cannot show the real books protected that means Allah is full of sh!t just like his fake prophet mohmamed.

Ghalibkhastahaal wrote
Muhammad was not told about the Bible and the New Testament and he was never asked to refer to those two books. He was not even told to consult the people who had God-given scriptures with them. The message was that people have been given scriptures and if he had any doubts, he could see that others before him had received too. But he had no doubts.

Bull Mohammed and his followers were told to ask the people of the scriptures christians and Jews if they had any doubts remember Mohammed came on the scene in the 7th century and the Bibles we have today are the same bible as then.

If thou wert in doubt as to what We have revealed unto thee, then ask those who have been reading the Book from before thee (10:94 AYA/95 MP)

then why is Allah telling Muslims and Mohammed if in doubt to ask christians and Jews if the bible was corrupt?

Beg Sahib,

Can you show me if Allah said anywhere in the stone age Bible and the bronze age Bible, "I shall protect my books or scripture"?

The entire stone age Bible, which was compiled in 400 BC, is not the Torah. The entire bronze age New Testament is not the Injeel and it was not even a God-given book. If Jesus came back by mistake, he will throw it away.

When Allah said in Quran, "No one can change His words" or "His words cannot be changed", that is true. Look at the true words of God in the Hebrew Bible. One can easily find them and one can pick them up like picking up pebbles from the sea sand, leaving the sand ( written by men) behind. They could not change the Law, although now they don't observe it.

Same goes for the bronze age New Testament. One can easily pick up, what God revealed through Jesus, which can be found only in the Beatitudes and Parables, which no one could change. The rest is "the sand full of salt and dust" written by unknown men.

[Ghalibkhastahaal]

Thanks for flushing yourself down repeatedly.

It is a pleasure to discuss with you, when you are not in the spinning mode. Have a good day.

[Ghalibkhastahaal]

Spoiler! :

Why is that required?? If you have seen me, you have seen the Father. I am in the Father and the Father is in me. Jesus and the Father are one. Not one and the same, but linked as one.

And your point is what, that this statement somehow links Jesus to God in their essence?

The expression of being "in" eachother can easily be understood if one looks at the context of its use throughout the NT;
Jn14:1-9 shows the apostles having trouble understanding Jesus, in v7 Jesus says to know him would be to know God since he was conveying knowledge about God. Then Phillip asks him to see God (meaning his disciples seperated between Jesus and God) to which Jesus answers "He that has seen me has seen the Father". God cannot be seen according to Jesus Jn1:18,5:37 so the only way that He can be known is through His signs and messengers (Jesus in this case).

Jn14:10-11"I am in the Father, and the Father in me.." as well as Jn17:21,23,26 all use the same expression of being "in" eachother for Jesus, the believers and God. Jesus asks God "just as you are in me and I am in you. May they also be in us", he wants the believers to be "in" God and "in" himself so that they believe in his mission "so that the world may believe that you have sent me". This irrefutably proves that being "in" eachother is a figure of speech meaning a common position of truth. When Jesus is "in" us Col1:27, it does not make us divine or the messiah.
Same thing with Jn10:30"I and my father are one" the verse doesnt say "one God". The word "one" doesnt mean physical unity but unity of principle and agreement as it is crystal clear in Jn17 where Jesus asks God that all his followers "may be one". The expression is used today. Even in the Quran, the messengers are "one" with God because of their common position of truth and the fact that they represent God's authority on earth 4:80"He who obeys the Messenger, obeys Allah".

In 1Cor3:8KJV Paul says that he had planted the seed and Apollos had watered it. Then he said, "he who plants and he who waters are one". In the Greek texts, the wording of Paul is the same as that in Jn10:30, yet no one claims that Paul and Apollos make up "one being". Also, the NIV translates 1Cor3:8 as "he who plants and he who waters have one purpose". This further proves the non-literal meaning of the expression and the deliberate translation of the phrase as "are one" in one bible, but as "have one purpose" in another bible further exposes the trinitarian bias of bible editors.
Jesus as a prophet of God always did God’s will, not his own Lk22:42,Jn5:30,6:38; he and God have "one purpose".

Why would a liar continue to lie when it continues to cause them torture and imprisonment?

You mean such as the prophet Muhammad throughout the majority of his prophetical call?

So Paul was tortured and emprisonned. Are you speaking of the Paul of the NT, the one who was one of the chief persecutors of eary Christianity and who allegedly found faith in Jesus in the most self-contradictory way and thus entered the ranks of the early Christians, was protected throughout his "ministry" from the Jewish crowd wanting to kill him by the Roman authorities who had even deployed an army for his sake Acts16:37-39,21:31-32,22:25-29,23:12-27,25:11-12,24-25,26:32 and who apparently even aqcuitted him from all charges laid against him by the Jews Acts23:29,25:13-26:31. A bizarre twist follows, showing Paul being given an escort to Rome to present his case to Caesar himself, simply because he had requested it and yet all local authorities had cleared him from any charges.
Upon his arrival to Rome, he was allowed to live by himself, receive visitors and continue his preaching freely, protected by a soldier Acts28:16-31. It is said he was finally acquitted of the charges against him and therefore started travelling around Europe and the Mediterranean coasts to spread his teachings to the gentiles.
It is hard therefore to imagine how he would be arrested again by the Romans and brought back to Rome to be executed as Church tradition alledges. In fact, the so-called "prison letters" -though traditionally ascribed to Paul in his Roman captivity despite recent Biblical scholarship– actually say nothing beyond the words "prisoner in Jesus Christ" and "bonds" to endorse that claim. Yet, Pauline vocabulary is full of such words evoking servitude, suffering and "imprisonment", all of which to convey the idea of his metaphorical servitude to Jesus. "Rome" is nowhere mentioned in any of the prison letters. The whole claim rests on the single reference to "Caesar's household" of Phil4:22, and the use of "palace" in Phil1:13"My bonds in Christ are manifest in all the palace, and in all other places".

The Bible does not say how or when Paul died, and history does not provide any information. It is only Christian tradition that has some unreliable accounts on how his life ended around the mid 60s A.D., during the reign of Nero.

http://www.biblestudy.org/question/sauldie.html" onclick="window.open(this.href);return false;
"But there is great uncertainty on these subjects, so that we cannot positively rely on any account that even the ancients have transmitted to us concerning the death of this apostle; and much less on the accounts given by the moderns; and least of all on those which are to be found in the Martyrologists. Whether Paul ever returned after this to Rome has not yet been satisfactorily proved. It is probable that he did, and suffered death there, as stated above; but still we have no certainty" (Commentary on the Bible by Adam Clarke, commenting on Acts 28:31).

Why would a liar continue to lie when it continues to cause him to collect 20% of the booty? See the difference?

The prophet Muhammad's position in his nation as a statesman, similarly to the prophet Moses' status among his people, required him to centralize and redistribute the religious taxes and war booty primarly among the needy and displaced as made clear in the Quran, then for the establishement of the Muslims as a nation and for the defense budget.
What is your basis for comparing prophets and statesmen like Muhammad and Moses to Paul who admitted using deception in his modus operandi to teach his followers how to be effective missionaries "I have made a fool of myself, but you drove me to it...crafty fellow that I am, I caught you by trickery"2Cor12:11,16, he openly encouraged lying when preaching Jesus Phil1:15-18,1Cor9:19-21, because "The important thing is that in every way, whether from false motives or true, Christ is preached" in order to "win as many as possible" (we can witness this even today with the deception of missionaries exploiting the weak and vulnerable minds as they did in the past, they have been caught in some Muslim countries spreading false Qurans or distorting its meaning to fit their doctrines)
This strategy helped him earn money from the Gentiles for the expansion of his church in Jerusalem and beyond to reachout to the gentiles (which further marginalized the original followers of "the way") 2Cor8.

Anybody with common sense would know that regardless of whether Paul was truly guided or not, or whether he was right or not, he was sincere and no liar.

Why dont you clear these apparent lies from Paul on which rests his entire claim of "conversion" that led him to join those whom he was appointed to destroy, Jesus's follower known as the follewers of "the way".
So on his road to Damascus, Paul claims to have seen Jesus in a vision. If we were to analyze these variant descriptions, made by the same man, as in a court of law, they would be thrown out as fabrication.
It is particularly clear in the KJV -other bible versions such as the NIV attempt to harmonize the accounts- in Acts 9:3-7 where Paul falls to the ground and the others didnt see anything except hearing Jesus'voice then in Acts 22:6-9 the others didnt hear the voice but saw the light and in Acts 26:14 all fall contradicting 9:3-7.

Thanks very much for tearing Paul apart. Paul wrote and spoke so much that he used to forget all the lies that he had written and told earlier. Paul was notoriously famous for that. He lied through his teeth.

[Nosubmission]

Thanks very much for tearing Paul apart. Paul wrote and spoke so much that he used to forget all the lies that he had written and told earlier. Paul was notoriously famous for that. He lied through his teeth.

Thanks for tearing Muhammad apart. Muhammad spoke and prated so much that he used to forget all the lies that he had told earlier. This is why prior to his migration he said that Isaac and Jacob were Abraham's two sons, but after the migration he said that Ishmael and Isaac were Abraham's two sons.

He first said that the names of the four major patriarchs were Adam, Noah, Abraham, and Israel (Surah 19:58).
Later he replaced Israel with Imran and said that Imran was Jesus' grandfather (Surah 3:33-35)

The evolution in the Qur'an has been proven true.

Muhammad was notoriously famous for that. He lied through his teeth and also his bottom, from where he got his revelation.

[Ghalibkhastahaal]

Thanks very much for tearing Paul apart. Paul wrote and spoke so much that he used to forget all the lies that he had written and told earlier. Paul was notoriously famous for that. He lied through his teeth.

Thanks for tearing Muhammad apart. Muhammad spoke and prated so much that he used to forget all the lies that he had told earlier. This is why prior to his migration he said that Isaac and Jacob were Abraham's two sons, but after the migration he said that Ishmael and Isaac were Abraham's two sons.

He first said that the names of the four major patriarchs were Adam, Noah, Abraham, and Israel (Surah 19:58).
Later he replaced Israel with Imran and said that Imran was Jesus' grandfather (Surah 3:33-35)

The evolution in the Qur'an has been proven true.

Muhammad was notoriously famous for that. He lied through his teeth and also his bottom, from where he got his revelation.

Once again, that was no submission, Nosubmission. It would have been better if you had made no submission at all. It was a very weird submission, full of Tu Quoque!

However, your response was a Plagiarized Tu Quoque!

Where did Muhammad say that Isaac and Jacob were Abraham's two sons and where did he say after the migration that Ishmael and Isaac were Abraham's two sons, as you falsely alleged?

[Nosubmission]

Once again, that was no submission, Nosubmission. It would have been better if you had made no submission at all. It was a very weird submission, full of Tu Quoque!

However, your response was a Plagiarized Tu Quoque!

NO. You do not know what Tu Quoque fallacy is.

My response simply corrected the tahrif in your statements and wrote their original form.

Where did Muhammad say that Isaac and Jacob were Abraham's two sons and where did he say after the migration that Ishmael and Isaac were Abraham's two sons, as you falsely alleged?

Here:

The comparison of the Meccan verses about Abraham’s sons with those of the Medinan period is evidence for the difficulties Mohammad went through while talking of Abraham’s descendants. His vague knowledge on the issue was at first limited to the number of Abraham’s sons, which had been a Biblical teaching. Mohammad repeated what the Bible said: Abraham had two sons. However, Mohammad had to wait until after the migration to get these two sons’ names correct. Prior to the migration his observations gave him the wrong idea that of Abraham’s two sons, Isaac was the firstborn whilst Jacob the second. As a result of Ishmael’s uncanny replacement with Isaac, the chapters of the Mecca period by no means affiliated Ishmael with Abraham although the Jews and Christians did not deny or alter the Biblical doctrine that Abraham had fathered Ishmael before Isaac.

Being unaware of Ishmael’s relation to Abraham, Mohammad kept repeating Isaac and Jacob’s name along with Abraham and did not come to his senses until his migration to Medina, after which he raced to correct his mistake by removing Jacob from the group of Abraham’s two sons. This correction was quite smooth and theologically beneficial as Abraham’s first reference to Ishmael as his first son in the Qur'an was thematically tied to the construction of the Cube and Ishmael’s alleged settlement in Mecca........................

The rest can be found at the appendix of this article: http://answering-islam.org/authors/masi ... ther2.html" onclick="window.open(this.href);return false;

[Ghalibkhastahaal]

Once again, that was no submission, Nosubmission. It would have been better if you had made no submission at all. It was a very weird submission, full of Tu Quoque!

However, your response was a Plagiarized Tu Quoque!

NO. You do not know what Tu Quoque fallacy is.

Yes, you know Tu Quoque better than I and you do it very well because you do it most of the time.

My response simply corrected the tahrif in your statements and wrote their original form.

Where did Muhammad say that Isaac and Jacob were Abraham's two sons and where did he say after the migration that Ishmael and Isaac were Abraham's two sons, as you falsely alleged?

Here:

The comparison of the Meccan verses about Abraham’s sons with those of the Medinan period is evidence for the difficulties Mohammad went through while talking of Abraham’s descendants. His vague knowledge on the issue was at first limited to the number of Abraham’s sons, which had been a Biblical teaching. Mohammad repeated what the Bible said: Abraham had two sons. However, Mohammad had to wait until after the migration to get these two sons’ names correct. Prior to the migration his observations gave him the wrong idea that of Abraham’s two sons, Isaac was the firstborn whilst Jacob the second. As a result of Ishmael’s uncanny replacement with Isaac, the chapters of the Mecca period by no means affiliated Ishmael with Abraham although the Jews and Christians did not deny or alter the Biblical doctrine that Abraham had fathered Ishmael before Isaac.

Being unaware of Ishmael’s relation to Abraham, Mohammad kept repeating Isaac and Jacob’s name along with Abraham and did not come to his senses until his migration to Medina, after which he raced to correct his mistake by removing Jacob from the group of Abraham’s two sons. This correction was quite smooth and theologically beneficial as Abraham’s first reference to Ishmael as his first son in the Qur'an was thematically tied to the construction of the Cube and Ishmael’s alleged settlement in Mecca........................

The rest can be found at the appendix of this article: http://answering-islam.org/authors/masi ... ther2.html" onclick="window.open(this.href);return false;

The polemicists at answering-islam, are mostly ignorant fools. They do not realize that the genealogies given in the bronze age gospels, Matthew and Luke are absurd and hilarious.

I read the link and I must say that those folks are doing nothing but spinning aimlessly.

Here is a verse, which the ignorant fools have not even read or mentioned:

2:133 Were you present, when Jacob was dying and asked his children, "Who will you worship after me?" They replied, "We will worship only Allah, whom you, your forefathers Abraham, Ishamel and Isaac acknowledged as their God and to Him we will submit."

Looks like they have never read this. About the other verses, they cannot comprehend. Thanks very much for providing the link to the silly site.

[Nosubmission]

The polemicists at answering-islam, are mostly ignorant fools.

Logical fallacy of attacking the writers rather than their arguments.

They do not realize that the genealogies given in the bronze age gospels, Matthew and Luke are absurd and hilarious.

Two logical fallacies: It started as a RED HERRING, then took the form of TU QUOQUE.

I read the link and I must say that those folks are doing nothing but spinning aimlessly.

And your counter arguments? You are simply attacking the writers with a baseless accusation.

Here is a verse, which the ignorant fools have not even read or mentioned:

2:133 Were you present, when Jacob was dying and asked his children, "Who will you worship after me?" They replied, "We will worship only Allah, whom you, your forefathers Abraham, Ishamel and Isaac acknowledged as their God and to Him we will submit."

Looks like they have never read this. About the other verses, they cannot comprehend. Thanks very much for providing the link to the silly site.

Looks like you have not read the article. Surah 2:136, which is almost identical in form with the verse you quoted above, was quoted in the section of the appendix. The writer of the article did not promise to quote EVERY single verse that accidentally binds Isaac and his offspring to Abraham through Ishmael in the Qur'an. More, Surah 2:133 belongs to Medina period, which proves the writer's point again!

[Eagle]

As a result of Ishmael’s uncanny replacement with Isaac, the chapters of the Mecca period by no means affiliated Ishmael with Abraham. Being unaware of Ishmael’s relation to Abraham, Mohammad kept repeating Isaac and Jacob’s name along with Abraham and did not come to his senses until his migration to Medina, after which he raced to correct his mistake by removing Jacob from the group of Abraham’s two sons.

Funny. You missed 14:39"Praise be to Allah, Who has given me in old age Ismail and Ishaq; most surely my Lord is the Hearer of prayer". In this Meccan verse, Ibrahim thanks God for granting him only 2 sons as a result of a prayer given his old age, and Jacob came as a nafila/addition 21:72 from Isaac which is why this same verse does not mention Ismail. When verses such as 19:49 speak of Allah giving Jacob to Ibrahim that giving does not only signify the giving of a son, for of Moses it is said a few verses further on, "We gave him his brother Aaron, a prophet" though Aaron was older than Moses and his brother.

The rest can be found at the appendix of this article: http://answering-islam.org/authors/masi ... ther2.html" onclick="window.open(this.href);return false;

you and your articles

[Nosubmission]

Funny. You missed 14:39"Praise be to Allah, Who has given me in old age Ismail and Ishaq; most surely my Lord is the Hearer of prayer". In this Meccan verse, Ibrahim thanks God for granting him only 2 sons as a result of a prayer given his old age, and Jacob came as a nafila/addition 21:72 from Isaac which is why this same verse does not mention Ismail.

Funny. You missed the fact that Surah 14 is the FIRST and ONLY Meccan chapter that binds Ishmael to Abraham through Ishmael's supposed settlement in Mecca. Read it again:

Being unaware of Ishmael’s relation to Abraham, Mohammad kept repeating Isaac and Jacob’s name along with Abraham and did not come to his senses until his migration to Medina, after which he raced to correct his mistake by removing Jacob from the group of Abraham’s two sons.

Second, "addition" does not necessarily mean "grandson" in Arabic. Surah 21:72 simply means that Jacob was the second son given to Abraham after Isaac and that his "birth" was a bonus.

Third, both Surah 21 and Surah 29, which are Meccan chapters and refer to Jacob as Abraham's second son, come after Surah 14. This proves that Muhammad could not become FULLY aware of his mistake until after his migration to Medina. He reached consistency only in the Medina chapters.

None of the Medina chapters refers to Jacob as Abraham's additional son or second son.

When verses such as 19:49 speak of Allah giving Jacob to Ibrahim that giving does not only signify the giving of a son, for of Moses it is said a few verses further on, "We gave him his brother Aaron, a prophet" though Aaron was older than Moses and his brother.

So you mean Jacob was not given as a son to Ibrahim, but as a brother! The Qur'an teaches Ibrahim and Yakoub were brothers!

The rest can be found at the appendix of this article: http://answering-islam.org/authors/masi ... ther2.html" onclick="window.open(this.href);return false;

you and your articles

You and your stupid theories.

[Ghalibkhastahaal]

Spoiler! :

The polemicists at answering-islam, are mostly ignorant fools.

Logical fallacy of attacking the writers rather than their arguments.

They do not realize that the genealogies given in the bronze age gospels, Matthew and Luke are absurd and hilarious.

Two logical fallacies: It started as a RED HERRING, then took the form of TU QUOQUE.

I read the link and I must say that those folks are doing nothing but spinning aimlessly.

And your counter arguments? You are simply attacking the writers with a baseless accusation.

Here is a verse, which the ignorant fools have not even read or mentioned:

2:133 Were you present, when Jacob was dying and asked his children, "Who will you worship after me?" They replied, "We will worship only Allah, whom you, your forefathers Abraham, Ishamel and Isaac acknowledged as their God and to Him we will submit."

Looks like they have never read this. About the other verses, they cannot comprehend. Thanks very much for providing the link to the silly site.

Looks like you have not read the article. Surah 2:136, which is almost identical in form with the verse you quoted above, was quoted in the section of the appendix. The writer of the article did not promise to quote EVERY single verse that accidentally binds Isaac and his offspring to Abraham through Ishmael in the Qur'an. More, Surah 2:133 belongs to Medina period, which proves the writer's point again!

Thanks very much for the foolish link. I have read the article. It is silly and the writer is an ignorant fool. answering-islam is notoriously famous for writing extremely stupid articles. Trust me, please.

[Ghalibkhastahaal]

you and your articles

I second that. Thanks very much.

[Nosubmission]

Thanks very much for the foolish link. I have read the article. It is silly and the writer is an ignorant fool. answering-islam is notoriously famous for writing extremely stupid articles. Trust me, please.

Logical Fallacy of AD HOMINEM is going on!

Sorry, I cannot thank you for your addiction to these fallacies.

[Muhammad bin Lyin]

Why is that required?? If you have seen me, you have seen the Father. I am in the Father and the Father is in me. Jesus and the Father are one. Not one and the same, but linked as one.

And your point is what, that this statement somehow links Jesus to God in their essence?

The expression of being "in" eachother can easily be understood if one looks at the context of its use throughout the NT;

Your theory is one way to look at it, but there are many ways. Personally, i have my own, more abstract ideas about what Jesus' relationship to God was. But, we're discussing the text and main stream Christianity, and it really isn't conclusive one way or the other and people, even Christians themselves, have debated about this for years. I'm not going to bother to get into that endless debate, and you should have known that my point was not to do so, but to say that people who extrapolate the Trinity from the NT are not doing so by making that up out of thin air. There's plenty of basis for it if one looks at it one way and focuses on the verses that might suggest that, rather than focusing on the verses that might refute it. There are tons of theories, and while you at least attempted to back up your theory using reasoning, it's still an unproven theory like the rest. Jesus is very cryptic and it's difficult to tell what he really means sometimes. But you invent so many things that it shouldn't surprise me that you have an invention for this as well.

Why would a liar continue to lie when it continues to cause them torture and imprisonment?

You mean such as the prophet Muhammad throughout the majority of his prophetical call?

Where does the Quran say that?? Why do you say majority? According to the hadiths, it seems to me like he got his revenge pretty quickly, and nothing really bad ever happened to him. His powerful Uncle (who never converted to Islam and thought Muhammad was crazy if I remember correctly) always protected him and he was never jailed. He finally leaves and comes back and gets his revenge.

What did Islam ultimately do for Muhammad?? It made him a conqueror and ruler and gave him an army of fighters willing (or even wanting) to die for his cause.

So Paul was tortured and emprisonned. Are you speaking of the Paul of the NT, the one who was one of the chief persecutors of eary Christianity and who allegedly found faith in Jesus in the most self-contradictory way and thus entered the ranks of the early Christians, was protected throughout his "ministry" from the Jewish crowd wanting to kill him by the Roman authorities who had even deployed an army for his sake Acts16:37-39,21:31-32,22:25-29,23:12-27,25:11-12,24-25,26:32 and who apparently even aqcuitted him from all charges laid against him by the Jews Acts23:29,25:13-26:31. A bizarre twist follows, showing Paul being given an escort to Rome to present his case to Caesar himself, simply because he had requested it and yet all local authorities had cleared him from any charges.
Upon his arrival to Rome, he was allowed to live by himself, receive visitors and continue his preaching freely, protected by a soldier Acts28:16-31. It is said he was finally acquitted of the charges against him and therefore started travelling around Europe and the Mediterranean coasts to spread his teachings to the gentiles.
It is hard therefore to imagine how he would be arrested again by the Romans and brought back to Rome to be executed as Church tradition alledges. In fact, the so-called "prison letters" -though traditionally ascribed to Paul in his Roman captivity despite recent Biblical scholarship– actually say nothing beyond the words "prisoner in Jesus Christ" and "bonds" to endorse that claim.Yet, Pauline vocabulary is full of such words evoking servitude, suffering and "imprisonment", all of which to convey the idea of his metaphorical servitude to Jesus.

Philipeans 1

12 Now I want you to know, brothers and sisters, that what has happened to me has actually served to advance the gospel. 13 As a result, it has become clear throughout the whole palace guard and to everyone else that I am in chains for Christ.

This means he is locked up for his beliefs in Christ rather than some metaphor for his general servitude to Christ. Note the palace guard.

14 And because of my chains, most of the brothers and sisters have become confident in the Lord and dare all the more to proclaim the gospel without fear.

"Dare" all the more to preach because of Paul's servitude to Jesus?? That doesn't make any sense. The word "dare" is there. But it makes sense to say that in spite of what happened to Paul, they still DARED to continue to preach.


15 It is true that some preach Christ out of envy and rivalry, but others out of goodwill. 16 The latter do so out of love, knowing that I am put here for the defense of the gospel. 17 The former preach Christ out of selfish ambition, not sincerely, supposing that they can stir up trouble for me while I am in chains.


Stir up trouble for him while he's in servitude to Jesus, or stir up trouble for him while he's in prison? Which makes sense?


18 But what does it matter? The important thing is that in every way, whether from false motives or true, Christ is preached. And because of this I rejoice.

And you accused Paul of telling his followers to lie if need be in order to gain converts, but take another look at it now. He's not telling anybody to lie or say anything false, he's talking about people's motives for spreading the truth and saying that even if their motives aren't pure, it's still better than them not spreading the truth at all. I suppose I would agree.

"Rome" is nowhere mentioned in any of the prison letters. The whole claim rests on the single reference to "Caesar's household" of Phil4:22, and the use of "palace" in Phil1:13"My bonds in Christ are manifest in all the palace, and in all other places".

And it's pretty clear that this is not only a metaphor for servitude to Christ, because his followers still DARE to preach, even after Paul's "chains". And from this, we gain the fact that chains were both literal and metaphorical when he mentioned them, which is probably where the church got it's justification from, for it's interpretation.

The Bible does not say how or when Paul died, and history does not provide any information. It is only Christian tradition that has some unreliable accounts on how his life ended around the mid 60s A.D., during the reign of Nero.

http://www.biblestudy.org/question/sauldie.html" onclick="window.open(this.href);return false;
"But there is great uncertainty on these subjects, so that we cannot positively rely on any account that even the ancients have transmitted to us concerning the death of this apostle; and much less on the accounts given by the moderns; and least of all on those which are to be found in the Martyrologists. Whether Paul ever returned after this to Rome has not yet been satisfactorily proved. It is probable that he did, and suffered death there, as stated above; but still we have no certainty" (Commentary on the Bible by Adam Clarke, commenting on Acts 28:31).

So they think it's probably true that he did, but they can't outright prove it. It's funny how you think proof is important when it suits your argument, and not important when it doesn't. And I'm not the only person that sees this about you.

Why would a liar continue to lie when it continues to cause him to collect 20% of the booty? See the difference?

The prophet Muhammad's position in his nation as a statesman,

And what made him a statesman?? The religion HE preached. Sounds like his story did indeed provide him with great benefit.

similarly to the prophet Moses' status among his people, required him to centralize and redistribute the religious taxes and war booty primarly among the needy and displaced as made clear in the Quran, then for the establishement of the Muslims as a nation and for the defense budget.

And who could audit Muhammad?? How could we know?

What is your basis for comparing prophets and statesmen like Muhammad and Moses to Paul who admitted using deception in his modus operandi to teach his followers how to be effective missionaries "I have made a fool of myself, but you drove me to it...crafty fellow that I am, I caught you by trickery"2Cor12:11,16,

Sorry to have to quote someone else, but this person answered that sufficiently. After all, if you think about it with common sense, who ever tells people that he wants to have as followers that he lied to them or that he lies to them? so i think this article was correct.

http://www.answering-islam.org/Response ... ceiver.htm" onclick="window.open(this.href);return false;

he openly encouraged lying when preaching Jesus Phil1:15-18, 1Cor9:19-21, because "The important thing is that in every way, whether from false motives or true, Christ is preached" in order to "win as many as possible" (we can witness this even today with the deception of missionaries exploiting the weak and vulnerable minds as they did in the past, they have been caught in some Muslim countries spreading false Qurans or distorting its meaning to fit their doctrines)

This was answered above. You are completely wrong about this. He was questioning the motives of some who were preaching, not the message they were preaching, but saying that even if their motives aren't the purest, it's still better than not preaching at all. But never did he tell anybody to lie. Muslims are the liar about this. You have been lied to by fellow Muslims.

This strategy helped him earn money from the Gentiles for the expansion of his church in Jerusalem and beyond to reachout to the gentiles (which further marginalized the original followers of "the way") 2Cor8.

Paul gets some sorely needed, willing donations while Muhammad simply took booty by force. Let's compare the two.

Anybody with common sense would know that regardless of whether Paul was truly guided or not, or whether he was right or not, he was sincere and no liar.

Why dont you clear these apparent lies from Paul on which rests his entire claim of "conversion" that led him to join those whom he was appointed to destroy, Jesus's follower known as the follewers of "the way".
So on his road to Damascus, Paul claims to have seen Jesus in a vision. If we were to analyze these variant descriptions, made by the same man, as in a court of law, they would be thrown out as fabrication.
It is particularly clear in the KJV -other bible versions such as the NIV attempt to harmonize the accounts- in Acts 9:3-7 where Paul falls to the ground and the others didnt see anything except hearing Jesus'voice then in Acts 22:6-9 the others didnt hear the voice but saw the light and in Acts 26:14 all fall contradicting 9:3-7.

7 The men traveling with Saul stood there speechless; they heard the sound but did not see anyone.
9 My companions saw the light, but they did not understand the voice of him who was speaking to me.

In 7, we have someone else saying what happened to Paul, and in 9 we have a quote of Paul explaining what he thought happened. And, there actually is a difference between "anyone" and "the light". You can see a light without seeing anyone. So no, this would not be thrown out in a court, because first of all, this is not a quote from Paul in both instances, and the two accounts are not directly contradictory.

[Skenderbeg]

Ghalibkhastahaal"

Allah never supported the stone age Bible or the bronze age Bible and it's bronze age New Testament, in Quran. Quran does not even mention the words Bible and the New Testament, because those were not given to Moses and Jesus

Then Where are the books Allah gave moses and Jesus please tell me ? so I could read those whole books since the Quran says no one could change or corrupt Allah's word, Those books must be around in full for all of us to read or else allah is a liar..he sent his propets and theorfore must be able to protect their words and books fully uncorrupted. Where can I read everything Jesus taught ? since Allah sent him as one of his greatest prophet calling him, prophet, Messiah, his word, spirit. born holy to a virgin who is sinless pure son and a sign to all nations, suerly someone so great Allah must have protected his book fully right Muslims ? since you don't believe in the NT then where is the book of Jesus for us to read ? the whole book of Jesus and don't play little games by saying a few words in the bible are true and the rest is corrupted because then that would mean Allah is a liar weak and failed to protect his books from being changed and corrupted. you Muslims cannot have it both ways.....either Allah protects all his books or not, in which case he is a fake god.

Ghalibkhastahaal wrote

Muhammad was not told about the Bible and the New Testament and he was never asked to refer to those two books. He was not even told to consult the people who had God-given scriptures with them. The message was that people have been given scriptures and if he had any doubts, he could see that others before him had received too. But he had no doubts

you making sh!t up just like a stupid Muslims of course Mohammed was told about the Torah and TN Mohammed even said he was in those two books, so save me the Muslim stupid baloney, take your brains out of your ass for once and see the light.

Those who follow the Messenger (Mohammed), the Prophet who can neither read nor write, whom they will find described in the Torah and the Gospel (which are) with them (7:157 MP).

How can they find Mohammed in the Torah or the Gospels if they are corrupted ? you Muslims keep twisting sh!t to defend the defenseless Quran lies and make up anything from exposing Mohammed the fraud.

The Quran is just an invented book for Arabs to compete with Jews and Christian.. Moahmmed copied and twisting the bible for arabs...

We have made it a Qur'an in Arabic, that ye may be able to understand (and learn wisdom). (Quran, 43:3)"

And before this, was the Book of Moses as a guide and a mercy: And this Book CONFIRMS (IT) in the Arabic tongue; to admonish the unjust, and as Glad Tidings to those who do right. S. 46:12 Y. Ali

[Eagle]

Funny. You missed the fact that Surah 14 is the FIRST and ONLY Meccan chapter that binds Ishmael to Abraham

so first you say "the chapters of the Mecca period by no means affiliated Ishmael with Abraham", after i bring a Meccan verse 14:39 where
the prophet Ibrahim thanks Allah for granting him only Ismail and Isaac, you still say that the prophet Muhammad was "unaware of Ishmael’s relation to Abraham" and that he "did not come to his senses until his migration to Medina" which implies that any verse affiliating the prophet Ibrahim with his firstborn Ismail should be Medinan, where Muhammad allegedly "came back to his senses" unless you mean that he learned this information then went back to Mecca where he wrote that sura?

Second, "addition" does not necessarily mean "grandson" in Arabic. Surah 21:72 simply means that Jacob was the second son given to Abraham after Isaac and that his "birth" was a bonus.

Yes nafila is a general word and no there is nothing in the verse narrowing down its meaning to mean that Jacob was Ibrahim's son. In fact everything, whther from extra-Quranic sources, to the Quran itself where Ibrahim thanks Allah for granting him only Ismail and Isaac support this fact

both Surah 21 and Surah 29, which are Meccan chapters and refer to Jacob as Abraham's second son

Bring the words "second" and "son"

come after Surah 14

But chapters 21/29/14 are all Meccans, where the prophet Muhammad was supposedly unaware of Ismail being Ibrahim's son yet sura 14 refutes you unless the prophet made 2 migrations to Medina only for the sake of writing down sura 14?

None of the Medina chapters refers to Jacob as Abraham's additional son or second son

Rephrase this like that, no single verse refers to Jacob as Ibrahim's son.

So you mean Jacob was not given as a son to Ibrahim, but as a brother!

wahabna means we gave, not necessarly in the sense of sonship, thats the point

[Nosubmission]

so first you say "the chapters of the Mecca period by no means affiliated Ishmael with Abraham", after i bring a Meccan verse 14:39 where
the prophet Ibrahim thanks Allah for granting him only Ismail and Isaac, you still say that the prophet Muhammad was "unaware of Ishmael’s relation to Abraham" and that he "did not come to his senses until his migration to Medina" which implies that any verse affiliating the prophet Ibrahim with his firstborn Ismail should be Medinan, where Muhammad allegedly "came back to his senses" unless you mean that he learned this information then went back to Mecca where he wrote that sura?

I stand corrected. That mistake is going to be corrected in the article very soon too.

Yes nafila is a general word and no there is nothing in the verse narrowing down its meaning to mean that Jacob was Ibrahim's son. In fact everything, whther from extra-Quranic sources, to the Quran itself where Ibrahim thanks Allah for granting him only Ismail and Isaac support this fact

How can you know for sure that the verse means Jacob was Abraham's grandson then? Does nafila always mean grandson when used in a verse about fathers and their sons? If so, prove it!

There is something you also ignore: Surah 29 does not have the word nafila. Actually, the word nafila does not occur in Surah 19 and 6 either!

Bring the words "second" and "son"

You bring the word grandson.

Those chapters refer to TWO of Abraham's SONS.

The discrepancy between Surah 14 and all the other Meccan chapters is obvious. When we have Ishmael's name in Surah 14, Jacob is not mentioned. When Jacob is mentioned, Ishmael is dropped. What a nice coincidence!

But chapters 21/29/14 are all Meccans, where the prophet Muhammad was supposedly unaware of Ismail being Ibrahim's son yet sura 14 refutes you unless the prophet made 2 migrations to Medina only for the sake of writing down sura 14?

NO. You have to play the ignorant fool and disregard the chronological order of the Qur'an chapters. Surah 21 and 29 come after Surah 14, and in those chapters your pagan prophet forgot about Ishmael, going back to his faulty formulation that replaced Isaac with Jacob and Ishmael with Isaac again! He repeated his mistake most likely due to a copying error.

Rephrase this like that, no single verse refers to Jacob as Ibrahim's son.

The Qur'an refutes you:

And We bestowed on him Isaac and Jacob, and We established the prophethood and the Scripture among his seed, and We gave him his reward in the world, and lo! in the Hereafter he verily is among the righteous. (Surah 29:27)

wahabna means we gave, not necessarly in the sense of sonship, thats the point

This makes no sense in this debate. A useless point then!