[BaronOB]

Re: Here I Am

That’s true. Atheists are kafir (infidels).
We don’t deny Muhammad (pigs be upon him) is dead..

What?

[BaronOB]

Re: Here I Am

When I realised Christianity was wrong, I returned to my original faith.

Christianity can not be wrong because it is Religion from God, in difference to
your political movement which demands non-stop 24/7 killing of non-Muslims.

http://www.thereligionofpeace.com/

Muslims can still bribe dumb political correct western politicians, but more and more peoples around the world wake up and demand prohibition of Islam in Western countries.We do not need this hateful political movement by us.

[BaronOB]

Re: Here I Am

Up until two years ago I was a Baptist, but now I go to a local mosque..

You follow a wrong 'prophet' Mr. Izmael .....

http://www.barenakedislam.com/

Your political movement called Islam is not from God.

[Sammy The Penitent]

Re: Here I Am

This is a promise that a prophet would come from among the brethren of the Israelites. If this was about Isa/ Jesus (piss be upon him), shouldn't it read "from among their children?" The brothers of the Israelites are the Ishmaelites and the Prophet (pigs be upon him) was a descendant of Ishmael. Also it says that Allah will put His words in his mouth and the Prophet (pigs be upon him) would speak everything Allah commanded. Muhammad (pigs be upon him) did this.

The Holy One from mount Paran is Muhammad (pigs be upon him). Paran is in the region of Mecca.

Hey HoMo-hammad,

What is it about you and farm animals? Are these references to some sort of devient sexual act that is required by all mooslims?

One question: Since you guys don't wear boots, how do you keep them in place....tie their back legs to your sandals?

[Faith_Machine]

Re: Here I Am

Israel Abraham sounds like a Jewish name to me. If you guys hate Jews so much, how come you go around calling yourselves Jewish names and dressing like Jews and being all greedy and deceitful like Jews? Shouldn't you try to distinguish yourselves from them in some way?

[Harold Law]

Re: Here I Am

I have just recently taken a second wife and I have two sons and a daughter. I would never strap bombs to them, especially not my wives or daughter. Their main chance for martyrdom is if they die in childbirth. We're not going to take over the country if we blow up our children, are we? I'm just hoping that Obama will soon bring in Sharia law and we can breath a sigh of relief. Not sure if he'll do it, though. He seems a bit soft.

Two wives? You should go talk to the Mormoons or something, you people probably have alot in common. Of course the Mormoons don't fornicate with goats and scream about snack bars all day. What Mosque/Terrorist training camp do you attend? If possible please supply GPS coordinates, much appreciated.

YIC, Harold Law

[Pim Pendergast]

Re: Here I Am

The Bible, however, contains some glaring errors (another reason why I left Christianity). What about King Ahaziah's age?

II Kings 8:26
Two and twenty years old was Ahaziah when he began to reign; and he reigned one year in Jerusalem.
II Chronicles 22:2
Forty and two years old was Ahaziah when he began to reign, and he reigned one year in Jerusalem.

So was he 42 or 22?

II Chronicles 21:20
Thirty and two years old was he (Jehoram) when he began to reign, and he reigned in Jerusalem eight years, and departed without being desired.

Or was he 2 years older than his father Jehoram?

I'm afraid I can't leave your blasphemous accusation unanswered. This can easily be explained without resorting to the mental gymnastics required for abrogation. Answers in Genesis gives a good answer, even though these passages aren't in Genesis.

Dr. Jones makes the case that 42 should remain in 2 Chronicles 22:2. He points out that Ahaziah’s age was indeed 22 as 2 Kings 8:26 says. However, he interprets 2 Chronicles 22:2 as the beginning of the kingly reign of his family line (starting with Omri, then his son Ahab, and then Ahab’s daughter Athaliah who was Ahaziah’s wife).

Dr. Jones points out that the numbers given in the Hebrew text are not the numerals 42 and 22 but are written out as “two and forty” and “two and twenty,” which would seem to make a copyist mistake less likely. Hence, he reinterprets the verse instead of appealing to a copyist mistake.

He points out that the words was and old in 2 Chronicles 22:2 are not in the original Hebrew but were added to the English translation to make it smoother. Without them, it reads “a son of 42 years.” Dr. Jones states:

Thus the sense of Ahaziah’s being “a son of 42 years” in his reigning is seen to refer to his being a son of the dynasty of Omri which was in its 42nd year. Putting the two Scriptures together reveals that Ahaziah was 22 years old when he began to reign during the 42nd year of the dynasty of Omri, of which he is also an integral part.3 [emphasis in original]

Just ignore the rest of the article that puts forward as a viable option the possibility that a copyist error was made in the ancient manuscripts. Jesus said:

Mat 5:18 For verily I say unto you, Till heaven and earth pass, one jot or one tittle shall in no wise pass from the law, till all be fulfilled.

The word jot is derived from the word iota, the smallest letter in the Greek alphabet. Iota was in turn derived from yodh, the smallest letter in the Hebrew alphabet. A tittle is a generic term for any small distinguishing mark on a letter, such as the dot above the English letter i. Jesus promised that not even the smallest letter, or part of a letter, would be lost from the law. So a copyist error isn't an option.

Isn't this much more straightforward than your silly abrogation doctrine?

[Pastor Ezekiel]

Re: Here I Am

Dear Hateful Islamofascist;

Kindly haul your sand nigra butt over to THIS thread and answer the questions posed. I defy you!

Repent now, or burn in hell for all eternity. Either way.

YIC,

--Pastor Ezekiel

[James Hutchins]

Re: Here I Am

Welcome Isreal! Not often we get a mooslime who realized the error of his wayss and found Jesus. I do have to mention you still look like one of those 'left hand wipers' and may want to consider a normal suit of clothes. You'll stand out at the Freehold International Airport.

[Izmael ibn Ibrahim]

Re: Here I Am

Abrogation sounds like a synonym for a glaring contradiction. It sounds like a doctrine you guys just made up to work around any inconsistencies in the Koran. The Bible contains no mistakes.

Naskh (abrogation) has nothing to do with contradictions in the Qur'an. The Qur'an itself speaks of abrogation (Surah 16:101 Surah 2:106). Allah reveals His will in stages, according to changing circumstances.

The Bible, however, contains some glaring errors (another reason why I left Christianity). What about King Ahaziah's age?

II Kings 8:26
Two and twenty years old was Ahaziah when he began to reign; and he reigned one year in Jerusalem.
II Chronicles 22:2
Forty and two years old was Ahaziah when he began to reign, and he reigned one year in Jerusalem.

So was he 42 or 22?

II Chronicles 21:5
Jehoram was thirty and two years old when he began to reign, and he reigned eight years in Jerusalem.
II Chronicles 21:20
Thirty and two years old was he (Jehoram) when he began to reign, and he reigned in Jerusalem eight years, and departed without being desired.

Or was he 2 years older than his father Jehoram?

[Didymus Much]

Re: Here I Am

...I know Muhammad (pbuh) was unlettered. I didn't say he wrote it...

I didn't say you did. The point is, he didn't write it, someone else (we don't know who) wrote down what they remembered he said (so you're taking their word for that), and someone else again (we don't know who) collected what the second people wrote (so you're taking their word that they got everything, missed nothing, and copied it all perfectly) and then destroyed all of his documentation, so checking his information is impossible.

Like I said, if a high school student submitted an essay based on that kind of information, they'd fail.

Allah <<< your typical 12 year old.

Surely, a being that created everything in the entire universe would have done better?

[Russell Holbeck]

Re: Here I Am

In one place you say you were muslim since birth in another place you say you are relatively new to islam. You do not make any sense. Since you were already a Baptist I think you should become a Baptist again it should be very easy.

I also think two wives is too many. One is plenty. I know I was married but she is dead now.

Thank you.

Rusty

[Pim Pendergast]

Re: Here I Am

There are two answers to this. First, Surah 2:62 applied to People of the Book before the Prophet Muhammad (pbuh) came. Second, this verse has been abrogated by Surah 3:85. Either way I don't see a problem.

Abrogation sounds like a synonym for a glaring contradiction. It sounds like a doctrine you guys just made up to work around any inconsistencies in the Koran. The Bible contains no mistakes.

[Izmael ibn Ibrahim]

Re: Here I Am

Furthermore, cathlics are not even Christian, so their version is irrelevant.

Yes, it would be very convenient if catholics weren't real Christians.

It's foolishness to think the LORD speaks arabic. Why would the LORD of Lords speak some nomadic desert language? That doesn't make sense.

Mat 27:46
And about the ninth hour Jesus cried with a loud voice, saying, Eli, Eli, lama sabachthani? that is to say, My God, my God, why hast thou forsaken me?

Was Jesus (pbuh) God or not?

I hope this has been informative.

I know Muhammad (pbuh) was unlettered. I didn't say he wrote it.

We believe in the Trinity, but we are by no means polytheists. The following verse clearly shows how our one and only God is three Persons.

1 Jn 5:7 For there are three that bear record in heaven, the Father, the Word, and the Holy Ghost: and these three are one.

Can't you see how irrational that sounds? You either have three gods or you have one. You can't have three and one.

I have another question for you. I've established that we're monotheists, so you should consider us People of the Book. Are we going to heaven or to hell? Koran 2:62 reads: "Lo! Those who believe (in that which is revealed unto thee, Muhammad), and those who are Jews, and Christians, and Sabaeans - whoever believeth in Allah and the Last Day and doeth right - surely their reward is with their Lord, and there shall no fear come upon them neither shall they grieve." But 98:6 reads: "Lo! those who disbelieve, among the People of the Scripture and the idolaters, will abide in fire of hell. They are the worst of created beings." Please explain.

There are two answers to this. First, Surah 2:62 applied to People of the Book before the Prophet Muhammad (pbuh) came. Second, this verse has been abrogated by Surah 3:85. Either way I don't see a problem.

[Pim Pendergast]

Re: Here I Am

Well, that's tricky. I'm relatively new to Islam and there are different opinions. I believe that if you are a trinitarian, you are a polytheist and therefore kafir. But if you followed the original monotheistic teachings of Jesus, you would be People of the Book in the proper sense.

We believe in the Trinity, but we are by no means polytheists. The following verse clearly shows how our one and only God is three Persons.

1 Jn 5:7 For there are three that bear record in heaven, the Father, the Word, and the Holy Ghost: and these three are one.

You say you "used to be a Christian." You should know this verse, then.

For me the clincher was the fact that the Qur'an is pure. Christianity has so many different versions of the Bible, based on many variant texts. Christians can't even agree among themselves how many books should be in the Bible, the catholics throw in the apocrypha. No one speaks the original languages the Bible was written in anymore, and this makes translation difficult. The Qur'an was written in one language: Arabic, which is still spoken today. Muslims are encouraged to read the Qur'an in Arabic (I'm still learning). There are no textual variants of the Qur'an. It is identical to how Muhammad received it.

There are many versions of the Bible, but True Christians(tm) use only the 1611 KJV, which has the non-canonical apocrypha at the end. Don't bring the catholics into it. Catholics aren't Christians. There aren't any textual variants to be worried about. The Textus Receptus is the only reliable New Testament text.

But what you said about the Koran isn't true.

Most Muslims claim that the text of the Qur'an is identical to that received by Muhammad. This is a convenient thing to believe, but is it the truth? There is overwhelming evidence that it is not.

I have another question for you. I've established that we're monotheists, so you should consider us People of the Book. Are we going to heaven or to hell? Koran 2:62 reads: "Lo! Those who believe (in that which is revealed unto thee, Muhammad), and those who are Jews, and Christians, and Sabaeans - whoever believeth in Allah and the Last Day and doeth right - surely their reward is with their Lord, and there shall no fear come upon them neither shall they grieve." But 98:6 reads: "Lo! those who disbelieve, among the People of the Scripture and the idolaters, will abide in fire of hell. They are the worst of created beings." Please explain.