The Koran / Bible

[Atticus Finch]

http://youtube.com/watch?v=arRWrDeU4RU& ... ed&search=

Some really great theological discussion here between a defender of the Qur'an and of the Bible.

There's nothing more that I love than thinking about these issues. I cannot thank people enough on this site for the patience in answering my confusions. There's something so wonderful about searching for the truth about God that really makes my days great.

[Judah]

The Christian side of that debate was taken by William Lane Craig.
If you enjoy his arguments, then you will find more treats to behold at his "virtual office" right here.
He is also one of the Bible Scholars interviewed by Lee Strobel for his book mentioned above.

[Gman]

I guess I always find it amusing that Muslims claim that they believe in the same God and Jesus that we do, but then they go and say that the death and resurection of Christ in not historical, (as what they seem to be debating here). Which raises the question... Did Jesus truly die on the Cross?

When you hear a Muslim charge that Jesus did not die on the cross, one of the first things you will want to do is ask for historical proof to back up this claim. He will not be able to provide it. He will simply repeat what he has read or heard from the Quran. You can then take the opportunity to explain the substantial evidence in support of the fact that Jesus did die on the cross.

In the Quran they clearly say that Jesus wasn't really killed on the cross. There are no grey areas here...

Sura [4:157] And for claiming that they killed the Messiah, Jesus, son of Mary, the messenger of GOD. In fact, they never killed him, they never crucified him - they were made to think that they did. All factions who are disputing in this matter are full of doubt concerning this issue. They possess no knowledge; they only conjecture. For certain, they never killed him.

In scripturally proving your case for Jesus' death on the cross, the following points may prove helpful...

. There are numerous predictions in the Old Testament that Jesus would die (Isaiah 53:5-10; Psalm 22:16; Daniel 9:26; Zechariah 12:10).

. There are many predictions in the Bible that Jesus would be resurrected (see Psalm 16: 10; Isaiah 26:19; Daniel 12:2; John 2:19-21; Matthew 12:40; 17 :22- 23), but one cannot be resurrected unless one has first died.

. Jesus often spoke of the fact that He was going to die for the sins of humankind (John 2:19-21; 10:1011; Matthew 12:40; Mark 8:31).

. Jesus' own mother and His beloved disciple John were eyewitnesses of His crucifixion (John 19:2527).

. Jesus was beaten beyond recognition by Roman guards, given a crown of thoms, and then crucified. He bled from large wounds to His hands and feet, losing a phenomenal amount of blood. He was stabbed in the side with a spear; from the spear wound came "blood and water" (John 19:34). The accumulation of such wounds yields 100 percent nonsurvival.

. At the last moment of life, Jesus gave up His spirit to the Father (Luke 23:46-49).

. Pilate checked to make sure Jesus was dead (Mark 15:44-45).

. More than 500 people saw him after the resurrection at a single time (1 Cor 15:6).

. Ancient non-Christian historians recorded Christ's death as a fact. This includes such notables as the Roman historian Cornelius Tacitus and the Jewish historian Flavius Josephus. And early Christian writers like Polycarp affirmed Christ's death.

I think the point that many can miss here with all this talk (besides all these facts above) is that if Christ didn't really die on the cross and become resurrected for us, that means we have no valid scarifice for our sins... This flys directly against the God of the Bible... Christ had to die for us as an atonement for our sins... If not, then we really are NOT saved either or are pleasing in the eye's of God... This is a foundational Biblical principle... So how can our God's be the same as he claims?

G -

[Atticus Finch]

I've been having doubts about why the name and belief in Jesus will save one from the punishment of his sins. Of course, it's rooted in logic to suppose that without such a thing we would all fall short of the mark of perfection. If a man lived each of his days and killed a person each day for his entire life, but upon his death bed he accepted Christ with full sincerity of heart in repentance of his sins then is it still logical to assume this man into Heaven?

Please don't take my doubts as insults. It is good to question. It is good to explore. It is good to be sure. It is good to rely on both wisdom, logic, knowledge, and then faith in understanding. I am trying my best as I can to fully understand and investigate all. There are some points which go against the logic in which I try to understand them. It would seem, to me, a great injustice if a man like the above who killed many could be forgiven of his sins and accepted into Heaven.

[Gman]

I've been having doubts about why the name and belief in Jesus will save one from the punishment of his sins. Of course, it's rooted in logic to suppose that without such a thing we would all fall short of the mark of perfection. If a man lived each of his days and killed a person each day for his entire life, but upon his death bed he accepted Christ with full sincerity of heart in repentance of his sins then is it still logical to assume this man into Heaven?

Atticus, it is a tough question that we have been debating on this forum now for years... (just look up salvation or faith). In one aspect we can say yes if he/she accpected Christ with "full sincerity" of heart, but in another aspect how do we know the full sincerity of the heart? Sometimes, I think we should let God decide this and not jump to our own conclusions since we are not God, right?... Although I think others may disagree with this approach.

As Jeremiah says...

Jeremiah 17:9 The heart is deceitful above all things, and desperately wicked: who can know it?

Please don't take my doubts as insults. It is good to question. It is good to explore. It is good to be sure. It is good to rely on both wisdom, logic, knowledge, and then faith in understanding. I am trying my best as I can to fully understand and investigate all. There are some points which go against the logic in which I try to understand them. It would seem, to me, a great injustice if a man like the above who killed many could be forgiven of his sins and accepted into Heaven.

Insults?? Oh, I think it is an excellent question too... Today it is Tuesday 9/12/06 and we are still talking about this very subject... Just peek around the board here...

It's when someone stops asking questions is where we would need to be concerned... Is so then maybe we are physically or spiritually dead..

Take care,

G -

[August]

I've been having doubts about why the name and belief in Jesus will save one from the punishment of his sins. Of course, it's rooted in logic to suppose that without such a thing we would all fall short of the mark of perfection. If a man lived each of his days and killed a person each day for his entire life, but upon his death bed he accepted Christ with full sincerity of heart in repentance of his sins then is it still logical to assume this man into Heaven?

Please don't take my doubts as insults. It is good to question. It is good to explore. It is good to be sure. It is good to rely on both wisdom, logic, knowledge, and then faith in understanding. I am trying my best as I can to fully understand and investigate all. There are some points which go against the logic in which I try to understand them. It would seem, to me, a great injustice if a man like the above who killed many could be forgiven of his sins and accepted into Heaven.

If there is no hope for such a man, is there hope for any of us? How do you distinguish between that man, and us other sinners?

Looking at it in the way that you describe should serve as a comfort, not a concern. We are all sinners, and nothing that we do can ever be regarded as meritorious enough to gain salvation. Salvation is a gift from God that we have a choice to accept or discard.

In terms of it being an injustice, I think it is natural for you to feel that way, it does seem unfair at face value. However, does it not also show us that God's grace has no limits? Does it not prove that we can absolutely believe that God keeps His promises? From our human perspective, we equate reward with performance, but if that was true for God, then we would all be doomed.

[FFC]

I've been having doubts about why the name and belief in Jesus will save one from the punishment of his sins. Of course, it's rooted in logic to suppose that without such a thing we would all fall short of the mark of perfection. If a man lived each of his days and killed a person each day for his entire life, but upon his death bed he accepted Christ with full sincerity of heart in repentance of his sins then is it still logical to assume this man into Heaven?

Please don't take my doubts as insults. It is good to question. It is good to explore. It is good to be sure. It is good to rely on both wisdom, logic, knowledge, and then faith in understanding. I am trying my best as I can to fully understand and investigate all. There are some points which go against the logic in which I try to understand them. It would seem, to me, a great injustice if a man like the above who killed many could be forgiven of his sins and accepted into Heaven.

Atticus, with or without Jesus we all miss the mark every day. If there are any here who don't I'd love them to be my mentor. The point is it is not the amount of sin that we have done in our life that keeps us out of heaven, it's sin... period. The reason that belief in Jesus is the only way to eternal life is because God planned it that way.

If you are familiar with the old testament way of atonement you know it was through the sacrificing of a perfect and unblemished lamb. The problem was that this was only a temporary covering and had to be done continuously.

Now we have the perfect Lamb of God, Jesus Christ, who was and is perfect because He is sinless, and He is sinless because He is God. This sacrifice does not just cover but cleanses once and for all.

The question is will you take part in this sacrifice by believing that Christ is the only way to be reconciled to God and cleanse you of your sins once and for all and inherit eternal life, or will you not?

[Atticus Finch]

I feel very misled by the Qur'an and its followers. I had been reading websites about the "scientific miracles" within the Qur'an. I though, "Great! This must be it then, right?" and read more and more. I checked in with my rented Qur'an to make sure the verses were presented honestly (as honest a translation might be) and sure enough they were perfect.

I then watched some videos of some scientist proclaiming the truth of the Qur'an. This is where my first doubts set in. They looked uneasy. Not the kind of uneasy that one looks when disdcovering a profound truth but rather scared. They looked like they had been forced to say the things. I went hunting around on Google. Found information which proved my doubt true. The scientists' comments were taken out of context and if not that they were driven by bribery.

I cannot trust anything anymore. Every has their own sick agenda. There is no want to spread truth but only to spread lies.

It makes me want to consider atheism for a life time since that is the most definite of all theories up to now.

[Gman]

It makes me want to consider atheism for a life time since that is the most definite of all theories up to now.

Why? Also how is it the most definite theory?

[FFC]

I feel very misled by the Qur'an and its followers. I had been reading websites about the "scientific miracles" within the Qur'an. I though, "Great! This must be it then, right?" and read more and more. I checked in with my rented Qur'an to make sure the verses were presented honestly (as honest a translation might be) and sure enough they were perfect.

I then watched some videos of some scientist proclaiming the truth of the Qur'an. This is where my first doubts set in. They looked uneasy. Not the kind of uneasy that one looks when disdcovering a profound truth but rather scared. They looked like they had been forced to say the things. I went hunting around on Google. Found information which proved my doubt true. The scientists' comments were taken out of context and if not that they were driven by bribery.

I cannot trust anything anymore. Every has their own sick agenda. There is no want to spread truth but only to spread lies.

It makes me want to consider atheism for a life time since that is the most definite of all theories up to now.

Don't give up now, Atticus, you've come so close.

[ray]

When comparing these two books it's also beneficial to look at the author of the Qa'ran. Find a good biography and read about him then see how you view the Qa'ran.

Ray

[Judah]

I have just come across a paper on this subject that others may also find interesting. It is in .pdf format.

{link no longer exists - removed by request of author}

For anyone interested in following up Ray's suggestion above (that of reading a biography of Muhammad) this account of the activities of Islam's prophet will be sure to chill your spine:
The Root of Terrorism a la Islamic Style by Abul Kasem.

It is included as an Appendix relating to The Diary of Muhammad in Vernon Richards' authoritative E-book, Islam Undressed.

Oh, be sure to compare the character of Muhammad with the character of Jesus, the latter to be found in the four Gospels.

I wholeheartedly recommend the reading of this book written by Vernon Richards as it provides considerable and accurate information on the subject of Islam. The author is well regarded as knowledgeable on the subject, and has not been taken in by the taqiyya of Islamic clerics. You will find no political correctness here. And for those who like a bargain, it is one excellent book which you can simply download in its entirety for free.

[Judah]

It frequently comes up as an accusation against the Bible that it is full of violence, especially in the Old Testament, so therefore it is no better than the Qur'an in that respect.

As Christians we need to know how to answer these questions and accusations.

It happens that the violence found in the Qur'an and that in the Bible is very different from each other. Sure, there is warfare and people get killed, but the context and motive must be examined.

The Old Testament is all about God selecting a "chosen people" and nurturing them through the times, teaching them, disciplining them, and protecting them as they become a nation with the task of coming to know Him and understand His ways. The violence (allowed by God, or orchestrated by Him) that you find in the Bible is where He has acted to protect His chosen people and to show that, although He is exceedingly patient, He will not tolerate the terrible sins of the godless. The Bible records history and through it teaches us about the expectations God has for us, and about His wrath against unrighteousness.

In the Qu'ran you have statements of Muhammad, or statements that he claims to have come from "Allah" via the Angel Gabriel. These are not historical narratives as in the Bible, but instructions meant for all time. They tell Muslims what they must do, such as kill the infidel, not in a particular time and circumstance in history, but as an inviable absolute. Our Judeo-Christian God simply does not do that.

So, that is the major difference.

Also, apologetic arguments need to be employed for each separate incident that you find in the Bible. When you follow those up, God's violence - or rather, the effect of His wrath on the peoples' sin - is seen in a context that displays those aspects of His character that include patience, faithfulness, righteousness, etc. Muslims are simply given violent instructions like commandments for all time. And the violence is that which serves Muhammad and his followers, not to display the righteous love and glory of God.



Here is a link to an excellant paper on this subject:
Violence in the Koran and the Bible by Dr Samuel Bacchiocchi.
It is well worth the read.


Also, here is a passage quoted from Chapter 6 of Vernon Richards' E-book, Islam Undressed, that will help give further understanding:

Non-Muslim Christian Violence

Undeniably, Christians have in the past also committed despicable acts in the name of their religion, and in recent history the Serbia conflicts and the Protestant-Catholic Northern-Ireland clashes stand out as examples. Detractors will continue to try to deflect criticism by pointing out such hatred and violence conducted in the name of Christianity. Though it is true that there has been many atrocities committed by misguided Christians (Spanish Inquisition, the Salem witch-hunts, and others), do not lose focus on the problem at hand today. Remember all those atrocities are diametrically opposed with Christian scripture and philosophy where the greatest commandment was affirmed by Christ to be:

"Thou shalt love the Lord thy God with all thy heart, and with all thy soul, and with all thy mind. This is the first and great commandment. And the second is like unto it, Thou shalt love thy neighbor as thyself. On these two commandments hang all the law and the prophets" [Matt. 22:37-40].

So the basic tenet of the Christian faith is that people are the children of God, created in His image, and are all of value to Him. The basic tenet of Islam is that some people are chosen by God to be Muslim, but the rest are -not- the people of God, and that a Muslims duty is to expedite Allah's plan for non-believers to be converted …or dispatched to hell! There are three major differences and distinctions that can be drawn between Christian crimes and the acts committed in Islam's name. The first difference is that the unfortunate events were limited in both time and scope …they had an end. The second distinction is that terrorists acting from Christian cultures always did their vile deeds in violation its scriptural teaching (the words and example of Christ), not in fulfillment of it, as in Muhammad's Islam. The third dissimilarity is that people from Christian cultures who perform terrorist acts against others are recognized as criminals, not worshiped as heroes.

Shortly after Mohammed's death, the warriors of Islam struck out against Christians with enormous energy. Palestine, Syria, and Egypt -- once the most heavily Christian areas in the world -- quickly succumbed. By the eighth century, Muslim armies had conquered all of Christian North Africa and Spain. In the eleventh century, the Seljuk Turks conquered Asia Minor (modern Turkey), which had been Christian since the time of St. Paul. The Byzantine Empire was reduced to little more than Greece. In desperation, the emperor in Constantinople sent word to the Christians of Western Europe asking them to aid their brothers and sisters in the East. The 'Crusades' were the response to that desperate cry.

Due to disinterest, ignorance, and the tendency of Western societies toward excessive self-criticism, misconceptions about the Crusades remain common. Generally portrayed as a series of unprovoked holy wars against Islam, they are supposed to have been the epitome of self-righteousness and intolerance -- a black stain on the history of the Catholic Church in particular and Western Christian civilization in general. Since September 11, variations of this theme have been used to explain -- even justify -- Muslim terror against the West. Former president Bill Clinton himself, in a speech at Georgetown University, fingered Muslim anger at the Crusades as the "root cause" of the present conflict.

But the truth is that the Crusades were not religiously inspired unprovoked aggressions intended to forcibly convert the non-Christian world. In A Concise History of the Crusades, by renowned medieval historian Thomas F. Madden, the record is set straight. The Crusades, he shows, were not the brainchild of an ambitious pope, nor were they inspired by opportunistic, cold-blooded plundering knights. What they were was a much delayed response to more than four centuries of conquests in which Muslims had already captured two thirds of what was the old Christian world. At some point, Christianity as a faith and a culture had to defend itself or be subsumed by Islam. The Crusades were that defense. The story of the Crusades is one of Western reaction to Muslim advances -- they were no more offensive than was the American invasion of Normandy.

The Crusades did not accomplish their objectives, and unfortunately the end of the medieval Crusades and withdrawal of the Christian forces did not bring an end to Muslim Jihad. Islamic states like Mamluk Egypt continued to expand in size and power, and the Ottoman Turks built the largest and most awesome state in Muslim history. The Ottoman Turks proceeded to not only conquered their fellow Muslims, thus further unifying Islam, but also continued to press westward, capturing Constantinople and plunging deep into Europe itself. Under Suleiman the Magnificent the Turks came within a hair's breadth of capturing Vienna, which would have left all of Germany at their mercy. At that point Crusades were no longer waged to rescue Jerusalem, but Europe itself. By the 15th century, the Crusades were no longer errands of mercy for a distant people but desperate attempts of one of the last remnants of Christendom to survive. Europeans began to ponder the real possibility that Islam would finally achieve its aim of conquering the entire Christian world. In 1529, Suleiman the Magnificent laid siege to Vienna. If not for a run of freak rainstorms that delayed his progress and forced him to leave behind much of his artillery, it is virtually certain that the Turks would have taken the city.

It is often asserted that Crusaders were merely mercenaries and ne'er-do-wells who took advantage of an opportunity to rob and pillage in a far away land. Recent scholarship has demolished that contrivance. The truth is that the Crusades were notoriously bad for plunder. A few people got rich, but the vast majority returned with nothing. It is also often assumed that a central goal of the Crusades was the forced conversion of the Muslim world to Christianity, but nothing could be further from the truth. Muslims who lived in Crusader-won territories were generally allowed to retain their property and livelihood, and always their religion. It was not until the 13th century that the Franciscans began conversion efforts among Muslims, but those efforts were mostly unsuccessful and finally abandoned. In any case, such efforts were by peaceful persuasion, not the threat of violence.

Although there were undoubtedly opportunist bad-apples in the barrel, the typical Crusade soldier was motivated by the same spirit that drives the US today, the spirit of freedom and self-determination, the desire to live free of the horrors faced by non-Muslims in Muslim lands. They were defending their families, communities, and friends under siege as are we. Whether we admire the Crusaders or not, it is a fact that the world we know today would not exist without their efforts. Without the Crusades, Christianity might well have followed Zoroastrianism, another of Islam's rivals, into complete extinction.

"When accusing the West of imperialism, Muslims are obsessed with the Christian Crusades but have forgotten their own, much grander Jihad. In fact, they often denounce the Crusades as the cause and starting point of the antagonism between Christianity and Islam. They are putting the cart before the horse. The Jihad is more than four hundred years older than the Crusades". — Paul Fregosi, Jihad in the West: Muslim Conquests from the 7th to the 21st Centuries

[Byblos]

Excellent post, Judah. Thank you.

[Gman]

Yes Judah.... Good stuff..

I was reading in the website by Dr. Samuele Bacchiocchi where it states in the hadith how to obtain paradise.. Wow..

Again he said, "Know that Paradise is under the shades of swords." (4:73).

As stated from another post...

There is only one way to guarantee entrance into Paradise and this makes the perfect motive for suicide bombers and jihad fighters. The only way to know for sure that you will get into Paradise is to die in jihad-to die while fighting the enemy of Islam.

Jihad simply means that Muslims must fight the enemy of Allah until the enemies die or the Muslims die. The word jihad actually means "struggle." Jihad has even been defined in legal terms by Islamic fiqh as follows:

[Jihad] is fighting anybody who stands in the way of spreading Islam. Or fighting anyone who refuses to enter into Islam (based on Surah 8:39).

Simply put, if you die in jihad, you don't even have to go to the grave and wait for judgment; you go directly to Paradise. Jihad is really a legal contract between Allah and the Muslim. If the Muslim fights, Allah rewards him in the afterlife.

Let those (believers) who sell the life of this world for the Here after fight in the Cause of Allah, and whoso fights in the Cause of Allah, and is killed or gets victory, We shall bestow on him a great reward. Surah 4:74, QURAN

http://discussions.godandscience.org/about2365.html