On the road to Damascus, while persecuting the early Christians, after the death of Jesus, a man claimed that he saw a vision, a vision of Jesus. The man was Saul of Tarsus (Latinized as Paul). From there on, the teachings of Christ were transformed and Romanized and modern Christianity was born.
The vision in which Paul claims that Jesus gave him an authority to teach in his name is recorded a number of times in the New Testament. 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 fabricated "evidence" because of inconsistencies. For example:
1. Acts (9:3-7)
[3] Now as he journeyed he approached Damascus, and suddenly a light from heaven flashed about him.
[4] And he fell to the ground and heard a voice saying to him, "Saul, Saul, why do you persecute me?"
[5] And he said, "Who are you, Lord?" And he said, "I am Jesus, whom you are persecuting; [6] but rise and enter the city, and you will be told what you are to do."
[7] The men who were traveling with him stood speechless, hearing the voice but seeing no one.
In this description, it is stated that only Paul fell to the ground. And, the other men who traveled with him did not see anything but heard a voice. Compare this to the next description:
2. Acts (22:6-9)
[6] "As I made my journey and drew near to Damascus, about noon a great light from heaven suddenly shone about me.
[7] And I fell to the ground and heard a voice saying to me, `Saul, Saul, why do you persecute me?'
[8] And I answered, `Who are you, Lord?' And he said to me, `I am Jesus of Nazareth whom you are persecuting.'
[9] Now those who were with me saw the light but did not hear the voice of the one who was speaking to me.
In this description, in complete contradiction to the one above, Paul states that those who traveled with him did not hear the voice but saw the light. The previous description said that they did not see anything but heard a voice!
3. Acts (26:14)
[14] And when we had all fallen to the ground, I heard a voice saying to me in the Hebrew language, `Saul, Saul, why do you persecute me? It hurts you to kick against the goads.'
In this description, Paul says that they "all" fell to the ground whereas in the previous description, only Paul had fallen to the ground.
In any court of law, anywhere in the world where justice is upheld, this testimony of Paul would have been thrown out as fabrication and he would have been prosecuted for perjury.
Paul's Christianity is not what Jesus taught:
The German philosopher, Fredrick Neitzsche recognized Paul's role in constructing the "new" Christianity, and was convinced of deception:
In Nietzsche's view, the very worst of them was Paul, the actual founder of the Christian church and doctrine. Nietzsche was convinced that Paul was not sincere in his beliefs, that "his requirement was power." Nietzsche cannot bring himself to believe that Paul, "whose home was the principal center of Stoic enlightenment," is sincere when he offers up a hallucination as proof that The Redeemer still lives. Paul invented the doctrines of 'eternal life' and 'the Judgement' as a means to his ends. In Die Morgenrote (translated by R. J. Hollingdale as Daybreak, Cambridge Univ. Press, 1982), Nietzsche had earlier discussed Paul's frustrations at being unable to master, and to comply with, Jewish law, and hence Paul "sought about for a means of destroying" that law. Christianity offered Paul just the weapon he had been seeking.
"Allah!
None has the right to be worshipped but He, the Ever Living, the One Who
sustains and protecs all the exists. It is Who has sent down the Book (Al
Quran) to you with the truth, confirming what came before it, and He sent
down the Taurat (Torah) & the Injil (Gospel)."
(Surah Ali
Imran: 2-3)
Posts
36 comments:
There are so many misunderstandings of the Bible perpetrated by Muslims toward other Muslims. Here, we see a cut and paste from an atheist site. The original author having no idea what the Bible really says. Let's examine each claim.
1. What was seen.
In the first verse, Acts 9, we see the companions "saw no one". In the second verse, Acts 22, they "saw the light". The author somehow marks this as a contradiction. Although how this is viewed as contradictory I cannot understand. The companions saw a light, but not the person of Jesus Himself.
2. What was heard.
In Acts 9 we read "they heard a voice". In Acts 22 we read "they did understand the voice". Most translators of Acts 22 correctly translate the word "akouw", used in the accusative tense, as "understood". Some translators use the word "hear" in the sense that the word hear and understand can be interchanged. For example, "I talked to him for over an hour, but I don't think he heard a word I said". I can see how the mistake of thinking this was a contradiction could be made. However, you can see this in the words of Jesus by looking at passages such as Matthew 13:13"Therefore I speak to them in parables; because while seeing they do not see, and while hearing they do not hear"
3. Bodily position.
The Bible was written in Greek. The word translated as "stood speechless" in Greek is "eneoi". This word has nothing to do with bodily position. The translators use the English expression "stood speechless", which idiomatically means to be dumbstruck. However, this has nothing to do with bodily position. In English, you can say that you "stood speechless" while being seated for dinner, or laying on the couch. Yes, the English language can be stupid sometimes.
Finally, I find it fascinating that the author tries to back up his claims by citing Nietzsche, a man whose most famous line is "God is dead". I wonder if the author really values Nietzsche’s opinion on religious matters. Am I the one who finds it ironic that a flaming atheist must be used to try to validate Islam?
OH! Yeah! is it really copy and paste job, May I ask you which atheist site it is from.
Finally you admit by saying "Yes, the English language can be stupid sometimes." well my friend Robert that means 90% of the bible's are all corrupt or stupid because they are interpretation by human from Greek to English and agree with that mean being stupid.
Before you put any comments or your ideas I would like you to tell me who wrote "Act", while you do that also tell me if this person met Jesus (peace be upon him) and Paul.
abdullah,
Yes, the original post was copy and pasted from an atheist site named bigissueground.com. Why Muslims need to quote atheists in order to attempt to further their own cause is an irony which I hope you will ponder. Also, I hope you will apply your (justified) disdain for copy and pasting to the original poster rather than my hand-crafted response.
By your logic, Qur'an translated to English are stupid and corrupted as well. Is that really what you meant to say?
Luke was the author of Acts, and I am glad you brought this up. Luke knew Paul, but we do know if he ever met Jesus face to face. Unlike Islam, Christianity has independent corroboration of Jesus’ life from those people who hadn't even met him, but thoroughly researched the matter.
By the way, according to Islam, how many witnesses are required to confirm truth?
Robert you said article is from bigissueground.com but you never proved us where, show me the proof. It's like me saying you got from cnn and expect me to believe it, show me the exact link.
You said "By your logic, Qur'an translated to English are stupid and corrupted as well. Is that really what you meant to say?" Here is a good example how many time did we see new versions of Bible. The Quran doesn't depend on any translation because the original language of the script is still spoken and understood and studied in depth even by people who aren't native Arabic speakers now this is not the case for Bible.
You said "Luke was the author of Act" that's funny why do you say that? FYI: The author of Act is anonymous. Can you show me the evidence that Luke actually takes the credit for witting "Acts".
Your question about witness I will inshaAllah answer you that once we are done with this topic because we all know how you are good at changing the topic and this time we will stick with what we started.
salam alaikum abdullah,
The original author copied the material from
www.bigissueground.com/
atheistground/
asadi-paulandchristianity.shtml
Also, you seem to believe that the original language of the Bible is not well understood. That is a deception that has been handed to you, and you ate it up. New Testament Greek is very well understood, and studied. I myself can read it, as can millions of Christians. If yo claim the Bible is corrupted because it is translated into English, then you had better claim the Qur'an is corrupted when translated into English.
It is almost universally accepted that Luke wrote acts. (Perhaps only Muslims would dispute this). First, consider Luke 1:1 and Acts 1:3. Next, consider the use of "we" and "us" in Acts when relating to the journeys of Paul. Luke was one of only a handful of men with Paul that entire time.
And you are correct that we should be careful about not changing the topic. All of the alleged contradictions presented have been dismissed. Thank you for reminding us to stay on topic.
Robert, did you meet Muhammed Asadi? If not how do you know he is an Atheist? If you met him can you prove it to us why you say he is a Atheist. I am interested in learning.
What language was the Bible written in and what language did Jesus speak? What is the single language that the whole Bible was written in? And where can I see the whole Bible and who has it? Keep your answers short and to the point.
You said "If you claim the Bible is corrupted because it is translated into English, then you had better claim the Qur'an is corrupted when translated into English." I never said the Qur'an in English is the Holy Quran because there is no one in the world who can do a completely accurate translation of it and the Bible is a good example of it because we see a new version every few years, whereas if you pick up a Holy Quran from today and from 100 or 1000 yrs it is the same. Now don't go in Harakaat because that is for non-Arabic speaking people to help them pronounce words and not to change the word or meaning.
You said "It is almost universally accepted that Luke wrote acts. (Perhaps only Muslims would dispute this)." Robert FYI: It is only accepted by people who blindly believe that because if you use your brains you will notice that the author of that book is unknown. Robert can you explain this to me "Although the author does not name himself, evidence outside the Scriptures and inferences from the book itself lead to the conclusion that the author was Luke. (From the NIV Bible Commentary [1], page 1643)" Now tell me if the Quran would have said that what in the world would you say. I need a simple answer with an open mind.
abdullah,
I will keep my answers simple for you, as you requested.
Muhammad Asadi is writing on a page titled "Atheist ground". Therefore, either he is an atheist, or else a really confused Muslim.
The Bible was written in Greek. Jesus spoke Aramaic, and most likely both Hebrew and Greek as well. You can get a Greek copy of the New Testament if you would like from any bookstore such as Amazon.com. Let me know if you have trouble finding it, and I will help.
There are also new English translations of the Qur'an every few years, so I don't get your point at all.
To explain the point about Luke not naming himself, the author is stating that it is quite obvious Luke is the author, even though not explicitly stated.
Again, you keep changing topics, which is fine by me, because I am happy to explain all the misconceptions Muslims have about Jesus and the Bible, but let us not forget the original point; the alleged contradictions in Acts have been shown not to be actual contradictions.
Robert thanks for trying to keep it simple and not changing the topic.
First of all Muhammad Asadi is not writing on "Atheist ground" but people like you there are others who do copy and paste job and that is one of the work by an Atheist. Please do some research before accusing anyone :).
You said "The Bible was written in Greek." You are wrong Bible was not written in Greek I would encourage you to think before you reply.
You said "Jesus spoke Aramaic, and most likely both Hebrew and Greek as well." OH! Yeah! atleast you do admit that Jesus (PBUH) spoke Aramaic good for you but again I cannot buy you answer when you said "likely" that's like a bias person when it comes to your religion you are ok to buy anything but it comes to other religion you don't, I guess you watch too much FOX news lol.
No I don't want to read the Greek Bible because if Jesus (PBUH) never spoke that language then its no use because we lost the real message. FYI: Like English, when translated in Green you miss out many things and it "Stupid" to read something that has lost the message.
You said "There are also new English translations of the Qur'an every few years, so I don't get your point at all." The point is simple we have something to go back and check were as you don't. And 90% or more people read and believe in English Bible to be 100% accurate can you believe that robert.
You said" To explain the point about Luke not naming himself, the author is stating that it is quite obvious Luke is the author, even though not explicitly stated." I said simple answer you didn't even reply to my question but instead wisely changed the topic so I will ask the question again. "tell me if the Quran would have said that few chapters of those books are unknown what in the world would you say. I need a simple answer with an open mind.
Lastly I you said "Again, you keep changing topics" what a joke.
"I am happy to explain all the misconceptions Muslims have about Jesus and the Bible, but let us not forget the original point; the alleged contradictions in Acts have been shown not to be actual contradictions" - Robert Sievers
LOL most Muslims dont bother going into this much detail about your book....we know our book and unlike you we know where it come from.
Most people who posses logic and decide to use the wonderfull gift dismiss Christianity or atleast the Trinitarian brands of it at well the Trinity itself
Muslims probably know more about your religion and book than most Christians.
Anyways sorry for interupting....you guys dont need to reply to this
Peace be with y'all
Just to reply to one of the things you said Robert, you said that you yourself can read Greek and said that the greek copy of the bible is easily found.
Im not questioning wether you can read greek but it would surpirse me that someone like you would make a claimof read THE Greek Bible. Cause guess what..there aint one!!! As brothers before have said there are over 24000 greek manuscripts from where the cannonical new testaments comes from...not to mention the New Testament Apocrypha and other non cannonical gospels....So sincee there is over 24000 of these manuscripts i would higly highlydoubt that you have read all of htem...beacuase if you did...with an open mind atleast...then your view of Chritianity would be significantly changed
The most earliest manuscripts raise serious serious serious questions about major christian tenents like The divinity of Jesus (PBUH)...cruxifiction and ressurection
For example...in the very very famous incident were Pontius Pilate gives "Jesus who is called the Messiah" and "Barabbas" to the public and asks them to decide they they want to be freed. This is the decision that decides that The first should be crucified..and the crowd picks barabas
That what most contemparrary bibles say bBUUT in the one of hte earliest and most likely to be the orignal manuscript there is one very very very crucical word extra than the later manuscripts.
The two Choice Are "Yeshua Mashiach" and "Yeshua Barabbas"
Yeshua is the Orignal word for Jesus!!! There were two Jesuses at the trial....Jesus the Messiah and Jesus the Brabbas (which means "son of the father")
That throws off the whole equation dosent it...if there are two Jesusus how do you know which one is crucified or weather if it are really the same person and the trial means something completely different!!!
Thats just one example
another quick one would be the beggining of the gospel of Mark today reads "The beginning of the gospel of Jesus Christ, the Son of God. " Some of the earlier manuscripts didnt have the "son of God" part.
The above are just some examples...there are several other who are much much much stronger in their case than the above
Robert, the Bible as we have it today is the result of several authors' writings throught time...most of them unknown....perhaps the Bible still contains a few verses from its orignal divine revalations to Moses (PBUH) or Jesus(PBUH) but as a whole its sevearly been changed
I hope God guides you and leads you to the truth.
Peace and blessings be unto the guided
salam alaikum abdullah,
I am pleased that you are interested in understanding the Greek manuscripts. If I understand you correctly, you are saying that if 1 Greek manuscript has a one word, or one letter error, and the other 23,999 agree, your contention is that they must all be thrown out?
Perhaps you would be a Christian if one of the early Popes found any variant manuscript and burned them, in order to make it appear there was complete agreement in all manuscripts.
Regardless, it also surprises me that you don't believe the Qur'an when it says God's word cannot be altered. Are you suggesting it can, thus denying the Qur'an, or are you suggesting The Bible wasn't originally God's Word, also denying the Qur'an?
Robert good job of putting you words in my mouth if you see my reply in no place I said I want to understand Greek manuscript but instead I said "No I don't want to read the Greek Bible because if Jesus (PBUH) never spoke that language then its no use because we lost the real message"
Dude all I am asking are the names of people who put the bible together and said this is "Bible", can you give me those names and if you cannot please stop posting yout things and admit it that you have no clue.
abdullah,
Yes, those names of people who cannonized the Bible are known. If you want to know them so you can have confidence in a decision to follow Jesus, I will get them for you.
So, do you believe the Qur'an lies when it says God's word doesn't change, or do you believe it lies when it says God gave His word to the earlier prophets? Do you even realize that when you assult the Bible, you undercut your own Qur'an and its teachings?
Give me the names. As far as you other comment "If you want to know them so you can have confidence in a decision to follow Jesus" I already follow Prophet Jesus (peace be upon him) message but I don't follow the Paul and other unknown authors of Bible.
About your last comment, I think you are again changing the topic so let just get this answered then we can jump to anther one OK!.
abdullah,
Do you want me to post all 24,000 names of each manuscript copyist? What exactly do you want, and why?
As for following prophet Jesus, you do not. You follow what Muhammad tells you that Jesus told you to follow.
37 "He who loves father or mother more than Me is not worthy of Me; and he who loves son or daughter more than Me is not worthy of Me. 38 And he who does not take his cross and follow after Me is not worthy of Me. 39 He who has found his life will lose it, and he who has lost his life for My sake will find it. "
Robert you said "Do you want me to post all 24,000 names of each manuscript copyist? What exactly do you want, and why?"
Are you telling me that there are 24,000 people who sat together and said ok! we have collected the whole manuscript and this we will call Bible and agreed upon to be the word of God? Dude give clear and accurate answer instead of playing around.
abdullah,
The Holy Spirit testifies to the truth of the Scripture, and so having the name of the 230 biships at the council of Carthage is not relevent. You are driving down a dead end.
OH! well you came down to 24,000 to 240 but again you didn't answer my question. Either answer it or say you don't know, its that simple. I will be waiting few more days and if I don't get the answer from you soon then I guess I am right.
abdullah,
You are asking a question that does not have an answer. There isn't a set person, or group of people, who determine what is Scripture and what is not. If you want to know the names of various manuscript authors, those could be provided. If you want the names of the participants at the Council of Carthage, I am sure such a list exists in some reference book somewhere.
Personally, I don't have the list. I have no idea what you even want.
Unlike Islam, Christianity doesn't rely on some dead guy (like Uthman) to tell us which variation of the Qur'an is the right one.
Robert you said "You are asking a question that does not have an answer." Yes that's what I wanted to hear from you, we have no answer to who accurately: wrote, gathered and authorized the Bible. Robert think what you are saying and preaching. I with my brotherly love, invite you to Islam, to take the Shahadah before its too late.
salam alaikum abdullah,
I know exactly what I am saying. The Bible, as it stands, is not made by any one man. The Qur'an, as it stands, has required the intervention of specific men.
I invite you to put your faith in Isa ibn Jehova this very day.
I guess you just don't have solid evidence that's why you are talking like that. Well my job is done I have prooven you my point but if you still want to fool yourself its your call. May God should you the straight path.
salam alaikum abdullah,
Yes, you have proven your point that the men who put together the Qur'an are well-known, whereas the Bible was gently guided by the hand of God in such a way the human involvement became irrelevent. I concede the point. ad
Robert you made me laugh. You seems to have no good point so now you are getting into a useless argument which has no basis to the discussion. So I don't want to waste my time writing to you so from my side Adios Amigo
(39:3) Lo, religion is exclusively devoted to Allah.4 Your religion is entirely consecrated to Him. As for those who have taken others than Allah for their guardians, (they say): “We worship them only that they may bring us nearer to Allah.”5 Allah will judge between them concerning what they differ about.6 Verily Allah does not guide anyone who is given to sheer lying, is an utter unbeliever.
25 Jesus said to her, "I am the resurrection and the life; he who believes in Me will live even if he dies, 26 and everyone who lives and believes in Me )will never die. Do you believe this?" 27 She said to Him, "Yes, Lord; I have believed that You are the Christ, the Son of God, even He who comes into the world."
abduallah, now let me ask you a question. Who was responsible for putting the Qur'an in the order in which it now is recited?
Robert the verse you quoted is useless to me, because we don't even know who actually wrote those verses. If you don't even know who wrote them, then what is the point to learning them. You have done a poor job of showing me any proof that the bible is the word of God since you can't even prove its authenticity, it's authors and its compilers.
salam alaikum abdullah,
Actually, the Qur'an states the Injil is God's Word, and it is your choice to ignore that if you wish.
My question, however, still stands. Who was responsible for putting the Qur'an in the order in which it now is recited?
Robert, Yes! Holy Qur'an states the Injil is God's Word but today's bible is not the same as the Injil which was revealed.
As far as your question it has already been covered before and then when you didn't have any points to prove you changed the topic like you are doing now. I guess you think we are dumb to sit and listen to what you preach without challenging you. Well it doesn't work here Amigo.
abdullah,
Again, I think it strange you do not listen to your own Qur'an that the Bible of Muhammad's time, which is the same as today, is intact.
[2.41] And believe in what I have revealed, verifying that which is with you, and be not the first to deny it, neither take a mean price in exchange for My communications; and Me, Me alone should you fear.
But that is between you and God.
But please forgive me if you have already answered my question. I did not understand the answer, and so humbly request you tell me again. What man, or men, are responsible for putting the Qur'an in its current order?
WOW! Robert you are a genius. I am very shocked about what you showed, come on dude at least before you copy and paste check the context of the verse. It doesn't even talk to us, it is talking to other people, I won't give you who but if you are interested do some research. Once again your brilliancy of copying and pasting showed you have less knowledge about Islam.
As far as your question goes I need you to admit that you don't have any clue who the authors and compilers of the bible are, then we can talk or else you will just make circles like always.
I also will answer your "humbly request" which I am pretty sure has an evil purpose but I would like to give you one more chance. But before I do I would like to know your purpose behind it and if it is to just argue then I don't want to waste time answering you, instead there are more people who are open minded and thirsty to learn the truth.
salam alaikum abdullah,
The verse in question, Qur'an 2:41, asserts that the Torah and Injil, are indeed in tact in Muhammad's time. Here is what Al-Tabari has to say regarding this verse.
"The meaning of the passage is 'Believe in that which I sent down in confirmation of what is with you, o Jews' and what is with them is the Torah and the Evangel (Injil)"
Of course, many modern day Muslims have innovated meanings into the Qur'an that the early umma never envisioned, but again, it is your choice. The point is that for you to claim the Bible is corrupt is to call the Qur'an a liar.
As for the copying and pasting accusation: I understand that you must believe I am an idiot. The Qur'an tells you that people who don't accept Islam do so becuase they are uneducated. So I don't take it personally; it is just another way that you have been deceived. You are commanded to believe that an educated person could never refuse Islam on intellectual grounds.
Finally, as for the authorship of the Bible, it was written by the Holy Spirit through the human agency of Matthew, Mark, Luke, John, Paul, Peter, James, and Jude. What we don't have a clue about is who put the Qur'an into its current order, and why they chose the order they did.
Let's recap.
1. The Qur'an confirms the Bible isn't corrupted.
2. You complain about not knowing the human agency behind creation of Holy books, yet have no idea who put the Qur'an into order.
abdullah, it is true that you are indeed a "slave of Allah". And as your Qur'an says, Allah is the best of deceivers".
Don't get angry dude, cool down.
First from the quotation I don't see that at the time of Prophet Muhammed (PBUH) the Bible was in tact I don't know were you are getting that from, or is it your way of adding things.
You said "I understand that you must believe I am an idiot." I don't understand that but if you have no evidence you are proving it to yourself that you are one. By the way I never said you are educated either so you are putting yourself in that category.
As far as your list goes "human agency of Matthew, Mark, Luke, John, Paul, Peter, James, and Jude." I will pick a couple form the list you gave.
Matthew: All the books in his gospel don't seems to be his, there are some anonymous authors which were just added to matthew. Am I right?
John: We have John 1, 2, 3 who wrote them.
Luke: The book of Act is given to him but till today we can't be 100% sure if he is really the author except based on useless assumptions which we already talked about and you totally ignored the topic because you didn't know about it.
Another question I would want to know is who the other authors are because as we all know the list you gave are not the only ones.
Next topic
You said "What we don't have a clue about is who put the Qur'an into its current order, and why they chose the order they did." Just because you don't doesn't mean "We" it means you don't have a knowledge about it, The Quran history is kept with so much in depth that there is no single book on earth that has that much info, I will give you the info but until we have completed one thing I hate jumping on other and I asked you the purpose of you leaning this but you again ignored it. So give me the purpose if you want to learn it and also like i said above a few times now till i get the answer who the authors and compilers of the bible are, then we can talk or else you will just make circles like always or admit that it has human involvement, then we can go ahead
Lastly
You said
1. The Qur'an confirms the Bible isn't corrupted.
NO PROOF then its your word not the word of God
2. You complain about not knowing the human agency behind creation of Holy books, yet have no idea who put the Qur'an into order.
I do so stop accusing me I first want you to admit that you cannot prove who the authors and compilers of the bible are
You said "abdullah, it is true that you are indeed a "slave of Allah". And as your Qur'an says, Allah is the best of deceivers".
Good example of your knowledge of Arabic, shame shame shame, you now prove you are an idiot, not just in knowledge of Islam, but in knowledge of Arabic too.
salam alaikum abduallah,
There is no anger here. I am disappointed, however, that you refuse to listen to logic. Again, this is your choice.
I am not going to argue with you over what the word "makr" means in Arabic. Neither are am I going to discuss Biblical authorship when you refuse to believe even what your own Qur'an says about the trustworthiness of the Bible, confirmed by early Islamic tafsir. If you won't listen to your own religion's writings, you certainly are not going to listen to me.
Let us both agree that you are a slave of Allah.
I sorry to see that you regard my questioning you and asking of you for solid proof, as an argument. I have always come across people who are very stubborn in quite this way instead of listening to others. May God of Abraham, Moses, Jesus and Muhammed (peace be upon them) guide you. And thank you for recognizing that I am a slave of Allah.
“To Allah we belong and to Him we shall return”
abdullah,
You assume the God of Abhaham is the God of Muhammad, but as you say, you have no proof. And yes, stubbornness is definitely something Jesus speaks of. I challenge you to read the context.
14 "In their case the prophecy of Isaiah is being fulfilled, which says,
'YOU WILL KEEP ON HEARING, BUT WILL NOT UNDERSTAND;
YOU WILL KEEP ON SEEING, BUT WILL NOT PERCEIVE;
15FOR THE HEART OF THIS PEOPLE HAS BECOME DULL,
WITH THEIR EARS THEY SCARCELY HEAR,
AND THEY HAVE CLOSED THEIR EYES,
OTHERWISE THEY WOULD SEE WITH THEIR EYES,
HEAR WITH THEIR EARS,
AND UNDERSTAND WITH THEIR HEART AND RETURN,
AND I WOULD HEAL THEM.'
Robert said "You assume the God of Abhaham is the God of Muhammad, but as you say, you have no proof."
Robert you are on drugs or you have very bad sense of humor. Because if you have any knowledge about Islam you won't say that.
Robert said "I challenge you to read the context." I did read it and if you read it in context you will understand. Good try of change the topic again.
You are quoting from Matthew but you don't even know if Matthew wrote those verse and no one on the face of earth can proof that he wrote it so again your point is useless.
You say you are born again christian then why don't you reply Zacks article http://www.askmuslims.com/search/label/Born%20again%20christian
Askmuslims admin please close this comment section because Robert has nothing useful to talk and just have no clue what he is talking and can't proof anything so he is now playing is old tricks.
May Allah give you guidance.
Post a Comment