The Bible Led Me to Islam

They can be.

Well, these "Demons" were at one time angels in heaven with God and his son and would personally know who Jesus was and although Jesus did not say they were wrong, he would not accept their witness on his behalf.
​

Yes, according to Mark, Matthew and John. The Bible was meant to be translated and it does not change or destroy the original intent of the text.

What do you mean by original form? Do you mean in scroll form or do you mean in the original languages?

Why? There is nothing wrong with calling Jehovah, God (Allah) but God is not a name but only a title. God's name is Jehovah.

I am not a trinitarian and the Bible does not teach the Trinity, so perhaps you should ask some one who believes that.

When he did the will of his father.

Jehovah did not use the Quran to glorify Jesus or his mother Mary.

Oh, by the way, how many times does the Quran glorify the name of God, Jehovah?

Once again,I am not a trinitarian and the Bible does not teach the Trinity.

But yes, we have been asked by God to approach him in the name of his son Jesus and when God asks me to do something, I try to do it.

The first was written by Moses about 1513 B.C.E. and the last was written by John about 98 C.E.

What about Adam?

Contradictions? Why, contradictions or no, what does that prove? Many books are written every year without "contradictions" does that prove that they are inspired by God? No, it just proves that the writers did their homework.

 

so OWB theirs no holy spirit??

 

so the jews are christians too, but of a 'lesser' kind as their anointed one was not the Son or Messiah. now why would God need to anoint his Son too, like the earthlings Moses and the others ? and why would his Son be eating, drinking like the earthlings ? so he was not just mimicking humans in spirit, but some ape-like ..what did you say ?

one time angels, so by the time Jesus was on earth ..they straightened their act and gave witness to who they saw in heaven. i guess Mary was never there ?​

oh no ? in the various versions/translations ..you donot come across any unoriginal intent of the text ? what was the original intent of the text ? who really knows ?

we have the "according to's" in Islam as well (and so do the Jews) if you didn't know this. it's called Hadeeth (teachings of the Sunnah, or the ways of the Prophet) but unlike the Bible ..it is not claimed to be the Word of Allah

either, or. and by that i donot mean something that's been translated from an unoriginal language back into the original language

man, what are you really saying ? is it a title, name, proper name, proper title ?

so what you're really saying is the trinitarians are not christians

how many more times was he mentioned as Servant or something else and not Son ? and come on, glorifying his Son/Servant [direct descendant] by mentioning who else was he God to ...earthlings. or rather they all, including Jesus as servants of the Almighty

so you donot believe baby Jesus spoke in the cradle ? or according to, who, was that story ?

how many times is the Son glorified versus the 'Father'[/quote]

why would God need to be approached in the name of the son and not his own. why would he ask something like that ? i mean the Most High being approached via someone else

where does God ask you to approach him in the name of Jesus? whose according to, is that ? so you are not a trinitarian because the Bible does not teach trinity, but you are a twonitarian because Father God asked you to approach him through Jesus - Son God, but you also said Jesus was not God .....??

Originally Posted by OlderWaterBrother
Jesus is not God and I do not kneel before pictures of him.

so God has asked you to approach him through Jesus, a human ? angel ? spirit ? the Son (the only begotten) who cannot be called God ?

over 16 centuries eh? that must've been one tough revelation by the Most High ....why did God need so many Prophets/Messengers and so long to send the Word ? so even Jesus did not get to see the completed version

how do you explain the no-father, no-mother birth ? why would the Most High want to prove something like him begetting a son when he easily created heaven's and all that is on earth without a parent

i asked about contradictions in the Bible. so you acknowledge there are contradictions but it doesn't prove anything. many books are written that donot have contradictions which proves the writers did their homework. but in the case of the Bible, who forgot the homework ?

you seem to be wanting to throw it all, but donot think you've really taken the time to read what's been written by the author i've quoted in the original post

 

Bismillah...

 

I am a man but my name is Zachary. Yahweh is the one true God but his name is Yahweh. Isn't that confusing is it? "God" is merely a word used to attempt to seperate the creator from the creation without commenting on what his name actually is. Much the same when we say "The Lord".

Also it is important to note that the terms "God" and "The Lord" are often used to refer to the one true God, with out fear of using his name in vain (as his name is not used when using these terms), which is a major sin.

That probably depends on how hung up on the word "christian" he is, he is using language to suggest that one can follow the teachings of Jesus without accepting church doctrine of the trinity.

You need to read the Torah again, OWB's views are far more consistant then you make them out to be.

If you do read the Old Testament, you will find the hebrews were required by God to make continual burnt offerings to him not only to clean sin but as a continual sacrifice in order to show recognition to him.

The messiah as predicted in the Old Testament, is the ultimate blood sacrifice (and all sacrifices to God are blood sacrifices), continually cleansing and the final recognition of God.

If you want to recognise God, you must do so through sacrifice, as he has ordered it and as he has always ordered it. So if you do not accept Jesus and his sacrifice, than you are rejecting the cleansing and recognition of God that comes with this sacrifice.

But i would have thought you would have noticed this if you had actually read the bible, sacrifice is continually spoken of throughout the Old Testament, i really don't know how you missed it actually.

Again you need to read the Old Testament, sacrifice is important to God.

Do Muslims make the continual sacrifice? one burnt offering in the morning and one in the evening? plus forgivness sacrifices? How do they avoid this with out accepting an everlasting sacrifice?

And if you're a Muslim you can add another few centuries to God's revelation, what's your point?

God does not need to prove anything. It is his way to grant women fertility and how he created the Messiah, is not surprising considering his way.

Do Muslims accept that the Hebrews were wrong and that there is no Messiah? If Mohammed is the last prophet, Jesus not the Messiah and the word is complete, does that mean God lied or the Hebrews were wrong in the prediction of the Messiah?

 

so how did this name come about being ? and which one is really the correct one ? Yahweh, Yahuva, Jehovah, YHWH, Tetragrammaton ...?

why 'according to' Mathew 27:46 is Jesus crying out "Eli, Eli lama sabachtani (My God, My God why hast thou forsaken me). was Jesus also not allowed to pronounce Yahweh, Jehovah etc (major sin you say?)

and i reckon you don't see any similarity between Eli and Elah and Ilah and Allah. what's Alleluia ?

the inconsistencies in Torah and Bible is what's being debated, not OWB or my view of his view

sure im not denying the necessity to sacrifice. but when did this change to human sacrifice, or wait ..since Jesus was God - God in-the-shape-of human's sacrifice. But since Jesus was God and in the shape of human ..but really a spirit, he wouldn't have bled - and God only requires or accepts blood sacrifices!

you say, in the old testament (Torah of Jews) it was prophesised that Jesus is the ultimate blood sacrifice ..so the Jews (men) took it upon themselves to sacrifice (God) Jesus. and you have no problem in accepting that as it was a (Jewish) prophecy that must've been fulfilled. and now that the sacrifice (for all mankind's sins is done with) let's keep on sinning ?

what's burnt offerings ? different from sacrifice ? and after an everlasting sacrifice ...there's still a need for more sacrifices ?

the first sacrifice was Abraham's and it is for every Muslim to offer, as was required at the time of Moses, Jesus as well apart from times of other Prophets

the Word of Allah (God, Jehovah, Yahweh, YHWH) does not keep getting added as times go. it's not a series of revelations, but one and the same

what ? it was all about granting women fertility? because prior to that they were infertile?

Hebrews, you mean Jews ? first Jesus was to be sacrificed as it was prophesised and now we wait for him coming back as that is prophesised too. couldn't wait to get rid of him and can't wait for his return now. and they (Jews)waited for the coming of Messiah too and when it was known that Jesus was the Messiah, they had to crucify him for it was prophesised.

Mohammed is the last Prophet and the Word is indeed complete. it was complete when Torah was revealed, Injeel was revealed ..but for the men who made alterations

please do make an attempt to read the original post, and comment

 

Yes there is Holy Spirit, it's just not part of a trinity.

 

whats your trinity?

 

The trinity is a pagan concept, adopted by the early apostates and is not a Bible teaching. So, I have no trinity.

 

please explain....

 

Hey, OlderwaterBrother believes the Bible is all to read, at least for the purpose of confidently discoursing the advised hearts of discontent.

 

Well, gods in numbers of three abound in religions other than Christianity and since it seems to me that the Scriptures that are used to prove the trinity are few and far between and those are stretched petty thin, it seems to me that the trinity is something placed over Christianity from the outside and does not come from within.

If you want to know more, I can give you some info to look at.

 

PM please...

 

Muslims vs. Islamists by Soner Cagaptay
Hurriyet Daily News
January 27, 2010I am thankful to Mr. Umaru Abdul Mutallab, the father of the failed Christmas day bomber. In late 2009, Mr. Abdul Mutallab, a Muslim, approached U.S. authorities in his native Nigeria to warn them of his son's slide into Islamist ideology. Mr. Abdul Mutallab's altruistic initiative is a case in point about the conflict between Muslims and Islamists.
While Islam is the faith of 1.4 billion people, Islamism is not a form of the Muslim faith or an expression of Muslim piety. Rather, it is a political ideology that strives to derive legitimacy from Islam. Islam and Islamism are not synonymous, and there is even a tension between the two, exemplified by the case of this Nigerian Muslim father turning in his Islamist son to the authorities.
So if Islam is a faith, then what is Islamism? It can be best described as an "anti-" ideology, in the sense that it defines itself only in opposition to things. That is, Islamism stands not for but against.
For starters, Islamism is anti-Semitic in promoting the view that Jews are evil. Because Jews live in Israel, it is also anti-Israeli, and it is also anti-American due to its distorted view of Jews' role in the United States. "Jews are evil, they run America, therefore America is evil" – this is the mantra of Islamist thinking.
Islamism is also anti-Christian, having a perverted view of the religion as well. And since Jews and Christians live in the West, many Islamists are anti-Western. They likewise oppose liberal democracy and secularism, as these institutions originated in the West.
What is more, Islamists tend to be anti-capitalist because – now you follow the logic – capitalism originates from the West. Many also believe that "Jews invented capitalism" and therefore see capitalism as doubly evil. When they make money, however, Islamists often soften their negative attitude toward capitalism, anti-capitalism being ever the corruptible link in the Islamists' "anti-" ideology.
Paradoxically, Islamists also consider communism evil – "the Jews invented that as well." That Karl Marx, who had Jewish grandparents, was raised a secular Protestant is irrelevant to Islamist zealots who find "evil Jews" everywhere. Islamists see Jewishness in all things they dislike politically. Take, for instance, Mustafa Kemal Atatürk, who had no Jewish heritage. Many Islamists, who cannot imagine a genuine Muslim who shares Western values, will tell you he is a crypto-Jew.
Islamism is therefore not about the Islamic faith. Rather, it is a dystopian ideology that distorts religion and reality to fit its "anti-" platform. In fall 2009, in a recent case demonstrating this pattern, Turkish Islamists attended the funeral of Caliph Ertuğrul Osman, the descendant of Westernizing Ottoman sultans, lamenting the caliphate as the anti-Western institution par excellence.
Distortedly, these Islamists envisioned Osman, a Scotch-drinking, Wagner-listening, Western Muslim and resident of Upper East Side in New York City, as the leader of their Islamist crusade, arriving at his funeral only to celebrate this delusion.
But perhaps worst of all, Islamists distort their very own religious texts so as to befit this "anti-" platform. Consider the various annotations of the Muslim sacred book, the Koran. The book was originally written in classical Arabic, a rich, sophisticated language with tens of thousands of words and nuances, as well as flowing poetry. Over eighty percent of the world's Muslims don't speak or read Arabic, so the book has to be translated, requiring the addition of numerous annotations. These annotations differ depending on the edition of the text. In the case of Islamists, these are the seeds of hatred.
I was raised in Turkey and read the Koran with Turkish annotations. The first time I read an Islamist Koran was when I was 26, living in New York City. Praying at an American mosque, I came across an English-language Koran printed in Saudi Arabia, the main purveyor of Islamist texts worldwide. In its man-made annotations, this Koran preached violence and hatred towards Jews, Christians, the West and Western institutions generally.
In Turkey, the Diyanet, the country's highest authority for the Muslim faith, prints Korans that are "halal," i.e., without such hateful annotations. This institution is part of the secular government bureaucracy in Turkey, an ironic fact that is not without good consequences. The Diyanet promotes and protects tolerant Turkish/Balkan Islam, which explains why generations of Turks have grown up in Turkey shunning Islamism. The right Koran can firewall the minds of Muslims against Islamism, and in Turkey, Muslims have thus far won out against the Islamists.
The future of many countries in the world, and the future of the West, will be determined by this battle between Muslims and Islamists. Islamists want to convert Muslims to their hateful ideology. God knows the world needs more Muslims and fewer Islamists.

 

what else is placed over Christianity from the outside (innovation) ?

 

"Christianity" has much that apostates have added to it. The trinity is one plus "Hellfire", purgatory, immortality of the soul, Christmas, Easter, the cross, use of images in worship, rapture and I could go on but you get the picture. These things are not scriptural and true Christians have not allowed them to creep into their worship.

 

How do true Christians worship?

 

What does it mean to you waterbrother that Jesus must go that the comforter may come.

 

excellent question, lets see what owb's gotta say about that. but not just owb, to all christians ..including the Papacy (?)

 

you know owb, you're much more closer to Islam than you would like to believe. If only you'd abandon the 'begotten' story ..so you really think God begot Jesus ? did Mary have him in her womb for all 9 month's ? or was it like 9 days since it is the Most High's 'only begotten' ? remember, anything not in the scriptures that is attributed to Jesus himself revealing/inspired by God is blasphemy