10-25-2004, 02:25 PM
Umm_Zachariah,
The book is called "Ulum Al-Quran" by Ahmad von Denffer, a Muslim. Not a non-Muslim seeking to somehow attack the Quran.
Shameem,
Quote:if the person leading the prayers makes a mistake an individual behind him will correct him.
Okay, great. But that is in TODAY'S times, AFTER the Quran was standardized. There was a time in the past where a similar situation occured to what you just described and one Muslim was reciting the Quran differently from the way the other Muslim knew. I know that many will claim that this is just one of the "7 readings". But the fact remains that there was something different in words, pronunciation, etc.
So, yeah... after all the other copies of the Quran were burned, you have 1 standard text today. But hadith recordings lets us know that there WERE and ARE some differences between texts. Now, maybe these differences did not affect anything doctrinally that Muslims believe, but they do/did exist. Why do Muslims seem to have such a hard time just admitting this??
:-S
It doesn't change or affect your faith in some way, does it? I mean, the important thing is your relationship with Allah, right? So why so much emphasis in this Book never having any differences? It's like the book is being worshipped, to me.
Quote:the problem with the bible is that it was changed by hands of men . why is it that the 4 canonical gospels in the bible begin with "according to". it seems to me that they were opinions according to these writers.
This doesn't make sense to me.
See... Muslims believe that the Gospel was an actual BOOK. Like what was composed under Muhammad. But that is incorrect. The Gospel is the MESSAGE ABOUT Jesus, the Anointed One. Thus, if I go out and minister, I am preaching "The Gospel". If my next door neighbor goes somewhere different, uses different words than I do, but the MESSAGE is still about Jesus Christ and His sacrifice for us, THAT is "The Gospel."
Do not think that the word means the same thing between us, because it doesn't. So, for the Christian (i.e., Me), there is nothing "strange" about the words "according to". All 4 teach the exact same things. They may have different stories, etc., but all point to the same person and what He taught, believed and what His purpose was in coming to Earth.
Quote:and this why they some of them contradict one another.
No they do not.
Quote:did you know thet there were originally 70 gospels but only 4 were chosen .
Okay, first you try to show that having different Gospels "according to" different people proves that there is something wrong. Now, you're saying that we should have 70 of them.
And everything that has the name "Gospel" on it does not mean that it was TRULY the message of Christ.
Do you know what FORGERIES are?
Do you know what HERETICS are?
Were there not some forged hadith?
Just because something has the title "hadith" on it doesn't make it original, true or accurate. Same thing with the Bible. A lot of people tried to imitate the TRUE message about Jesus and some invented their own stories. So when these documents surfaced, they faced scrutiny, as they should.
Do you know that some of these so-called "gospels" you refer to record Jesus as saying ridiculous things like, "If a man eats a lion, then the lion becomes man"? Do you think Jesus would say something so silly? So why should we accept something just because someone put the term "gospel" on it.
Similarly to what you say about Islam, there were hundreds and thousands of believers who WERE acquainted with Jesus and His teachings. Thus, when they heard something that contradicted what they knew, it was rejected. Very simple, really.
Quote:why i don't know. the catholic church tried to hide many of them because a lot of them told the truth and they feared losing their powers over the people if the people knew the truth.
There WAS NO Catholic church in the beginning. In the beginning, there was just THE CHURCH. I know it's popular to blame everything on the Catholic church, but a lot of things that are stated simply aren't true. There is CLEAR evidence that ALL 4 GOSPELS we have today were circulated, used and studied among the early church which was NOT what we know of today as the "Catholic Chuch".
Quote:i have heard many christians refute the gospel of barnabus even though it was translated from its original armaic to english by a couple of christian individuals.
<b>*SIGH*</b>
Anyone who believes this document, I must conclude, WANTS to believe a lie. There <b>IS NO ARAMAIC</b> copy of this silly book. There is only ONE copy, dated to the Middle Ages written in Latin. And there is clear evidence in the book itself that the person who wrote it did not live in the time of Jesus. They make reference to men wearing <b>hosiery</b> and claimed that they sailed to parts of the Jewish land which are nowhere near any sea port at all.
Quote: barnabus was with christ unlike theother so called disciples.
Wow! This is truly amazing! Barnabas did not become a follower of Jesus until AFTER His death! How do you even known anything about Barnabas unless you read our so-called "corrupted Bible"??? And if you read the Bible, you will easily see that Barnabas had to learn about Jesus from other disciples who DID walk with Him, because Barnabas did not.
Where do you get your information from??? :-S
Quote:i suggest you open up your mind and truly contemplate christianity and look at its origin and compare it with what jesus really said.
Oh, and I suppose that what Jesus really said is contained in the "gospel of barnabas"??? Every REAL scholar doesn't even fool with that nonsensical book because it is so easily proven to be a forgery.
How can you tell me to open up my mind to a lie?
Quote: remember that back in those days there were many ideas that had god/son relationships.
Well, some would say that just about everything about Islam was part of some other religion, even the idolators of Arabia, and Christian and Jewish fables. Does that negate what you believe and have faith in? No.
And I have studied all of those so-called comparisons of Christianity with ancient religions, too.
Look.... why all the Christian/Bible attacks?
Islam should be able to stand on it's own without having to put down other faiths.
But every time I look around, that's what I see: Islamic apologists trying to somehow bolster Islam by insulting other faiths. Yet, if people subject Islam to the same type of scrutiny, it's called racist, hatred or some other ugly name.
Why the double-standard?
