proverbs, I respectfully disagree.

>>This is not a thread about the authenticity of a particular religion or it’s Scriptures<<

It most certainly is, but my point was the dearth of evidence supporting the activities of Jesus in his lifetime, not the "authenticity" of any particular religion. To me, it is a very dangerous act to base an entire mission of hatred on vague and ancient documents.

Let's quickly review a few posts.

>>I'm most focused on your point about 'How Modern muslims interpret' the Quran << (Boaz)

>>Just because Mohammad borrowed some Biblical stories does not qualify Him as a Jewish prophet, nor does it make the Qur’an a divine revelation<< (coach)

>>The Word of God is Jesus – any contradiction to the Bible is therefore a false prescription that can only lead humanity astray<< (coach)

>>I doubt I would be part of the 'problem' as you put it, if I didn't find such things as this in the Quran... So, we have convincing evidence from A) Quran B) Hadith that we are the scum of the earth who Allah must destroy << (Boaz)

>>The absence of any such rebuttal would then support the contentions of a number posters above who source the problems back to the Koran itself.>> (Bigmal)

And so on, and on, and on.

The entire anti-Islam campaign here is based upon interpretations of its scriptures, just as every pro-Christian here justifies their position by reference to their own. How can it not be about the scriptures?

Incidentally, your references are a) all derived from Wikipedia and b) dreadfully thin. In fact, I would myself use them as strong evidence of my own point, that contemporary support for the gospel stories upon which Christianity is based - loaves and fishes, raising the dead etc. - is non-existent.

You may start another thread on this topic if you wish, but you won't be able to get past the fact that the only people who believe there is adequate evidence of Jesus' activities are those who have to believe in order to justify their blind faith

BOAZ_David

I don't know why you confuse me with a Celeste. My name is Peter.

Another correspondent thought I was female, I know not why. I believe you said you are sometimes around Flinders St station. If so I will look you up.

Actually, there is another argument that I didn't make, proverbs, that is very much along the lines of your "they didn't deny his existence, therefore he must have existed" train of thought.

Not that I am offering an opinion either way, as I said before, on whether or not there was this guy called Jesus, just that the deeds that are attributed to him may have been invented later in order to command some kind of following.

My new argument goes like this, thanks to Philo who forced me to check a KJV quote from Luke on another thread.

According to Luke, this guy Jesus was seriously famous.

e.g. Luke 4.14 "Jesus returned [to Galilee] in the power of the spirit, and there went out a fame of him through all the region round about" and Luke 4.37 "the fame of him went out into every place of the country round about" and Luke 5.15 "so much the more went there a fame abroad of him, and great multitudes came together to hear..."

In amongst all this were the tales of the miracles - lepers, the guy with palsy, the guy with "a spirit of an unclean devil" and so on.

So we have all the makings of seriously newsworthy events - headline stuff too, not just A Current Affair material. Not only the miracles, the crowds, the kerfuffle, but all the authority figures that he went around upsetting too, surely they would have mounted some form of public defence...

Surely, someone would have been sufficiently impressed to record the events? And others sufficiently motivated to retain those records for future reference?

But what do we have?

Silence.

No contemporary sources.

At all.

None.

Now I am sure that to you, this is the clearest evidence possible that the stories are true, 'cos hey, who in their right mind would concoct such stuff?

But to me, it is one big hole, through which a truck may safely be driven.

Proverbs,

“It is a thread about why Muslim academics do not speak out against those who are supposedly misrepresenting Islam by committing acts of terror in the name of Islam.
The question is, what do the academics believe?”

http://www.islamfortoday.com/murad04.htm
http://www.rayhawk.com/classics/matusa/islam.html

My top comment still stands: its media and audience choice, you can google zillions of statements by muslim academics if you ‘chose’ to.
All muslims know that Islam and its academics is against violence.
I acknowledge your problem when your source of learning of Islam is the Media and Boaz David.

Boaz,

A challenge from another type: a proof that the Bible prophecy is about Mohammed pbuh:
http://www.jamaat.net/muhinbible/muhinbible.html
30 years outstanding article and none of your 'truth seeker'mob dared to comment. Any thoughts? :-)

Peace,

T

Fellow_Human: Please- mohamad mentioned in the Christian Bible - what a load of utter and total garbage! mohamad "stole" the Bible as have many other false (dare I say pagan) prophets. Your religion F_H is a death loving anti democrat cult. Regards, numbat

FH,

Your desperate attempt to prove Islam by conveniently using the Bible for reference is hypocritical and fraudulent to say the least. If you want to use the Bible use it in its entirety – not just half a verse here and there.

Deedat and his supporters have tried it for decades and failed. But it seems you are still using his deceptive theories in your da’wa efforts of converting the world to your cult.

The Qur’an and the Bible are two different documents. The Bible is historically and archeologically reliable – the Qur’an is not (unsubstantial words of one Arab man).

All the claims made – starting by your alleged prophet down to today’s Islamic scholars – that the Qur’an is the direct word of (God) are simply not plausible – view the many mistakes, bogus biblical accounts, and flagrant doctrinal differences with the real God as revealed in the Bible.

Islamic scholars dismiss the Bible out of prejudice and fear. They know that it reveals The Truth but prefer to smear it with: “it has been altered” thus discouraging Muslims to read it.

Allah the God of Islam resembles the God of the Bible, and that causes a lot of confusion for the casual observer. The test is in the differences and not the similarities.

Mohammed could not have met the real God (YHWH) in his so called revelations through a spirit. Allah is simply a mistaken identity, a pretend god. But Mohammad continued with his deception by refusing to acknowledge the real God worshipped by Jews and Christians.

What Mohammad lacked theologically he compensated with the sword.

The last “prophet” was Jesus – God-The-Son Himself. No further revelation was needed after He fulfilled the law and ALL the prophets before Him.

Your failure to understand the full nature of the Triune God puts you in a very disadvantaged position to argue your case. You see God with Qur’anic eyes and not as revealed by the prophets through the centuries before Mohammad.

The Bible clearly warns about false prophets coming after Jesus. So why would it endorse Mohammad?