Is Islam true?

one clear indication of the untruthfulness of islam is the utter nonsense muhammad talks about the holy faith of Christ

eg. in the quran 5: 72  we are accused of "joining other gods with God", which is false. 

 5: 73 informs us "they do blaspheme who say allah is one of three..."  one of three what?  what on earth does this phrase "one of three" mean?  christians certainly dont believe God is one of three. 

muhammad further compounds his confusion in this matter in 5: 116  where we learn that (according to him) the holy trinity consists of 1. - allah    2. - isa     3. - maryum.  (all 3 of them being seperate gods!!!!)

even if there were not a word of truth in christianity or in the notion of the holy trinity, the above verses are enough to disprove islam 

Edited by fredifreeloader

Ahmed, far from convincing me that Islam is true, you are confirming what I suspected all along that Islam doesn't allow for genuine candour. I have always acknowledged where I got points wrong, probably stated it several times if you look back. But you never admit an error. Why is that?

1) The "Prophet" contradicts many of the teachings of earlier prophets, eg Jesus teaches that marriage was comprised of one man and one woman. He was correcting various false notions of marriage, eg polygamy, etc. Muhammad's teaching is not the same as that, it is a regression. Jesus says it's black, Muhammad says it's white, and they are both prophets. That is a logical contradiction.


God cannot change his mind - this is one of the attributes of God, God cannot change. Muhammad claimed that God changed his mind on which direction to pray to three times (Kabaa, Jerusalem, then the Kabaa again). It would have been reasonable if Muhammad said, let's pray this way now, because the Jews reject this teaching, but he claimed that God now wanted them to do it. Surely, God would know in advance, and why would He go through the motions, only to solemnly say "Change of plan, you should pray towards the Kabaa again!"

Point 1 remains firm

2) It seems to focus on a God who is "all merciful", but it's followers are often unmerciful, eg Muhammad led a massacre in retaliation. Surely, Jesus teaching of turning the other cheek is more advanced, therefore, Muhammad is making a regressive change to an earlier prophet's teachings.

Who was it that said in this forum, (to paraphrase) "ah well, Muhammad only looked on at the execution of the 600 or so men, he didn't make the decision"? That's not good enough! Muhammad didn't practice what he preached. He was only conciliatory early in the Qu'ran when he was weak, as soon as he gained the power he so ferverantly craved all mercy went out the window.
 Point 2 remains firm

3) I don't buy the line that Jesus' true teaching was lost and the Gospel is completely in error. The Gospel was produced out of an oral tradition of many witnesses, while the Qu'ran is dependent entirely on the religious experience of one man.

Which is more likely to be a true representation of the teachings, practice and beliefs of christians from the beginning, the gospels (a written down account of the circulating oral tradition) and some of the apostles own letters with all the writings of the disciples' disciples (eg Polycarp was a disciple of John, Irenaeus of Polycarp) and the Church fathers' writings, all the vast archaelogical record of buildings, artefacts , etc., the 100s of historical references of what the Christians of that time believed, or the singular "epileptic-like" diatribe of a trader in a cave in Arabia? The simplest explanation is that this vast record far outweighs the  fallable words of one power-loving uneducated man. (I have no problem with him being undeucated, but the Qu'ran displays a failure of education)

 Point 3 remains firmer now. I would sooner believe what thousands saw and heard, than what one simply claimed to hear. They did (thousands saw and heard) because the Jews recorded a reference to Jesus in their Talmud, which is a sign that he did exist.

4) I have had many (what I consider) genuine religious experiences, which confirmed for me the truth of the Catholic faith. These contradict Muhammad's claims.

Point 4 remains too, because God has confirmed that the Catholic Faith is true by what he has revealed to me. God assuming humanity and bestowing on it its true dignity is not impossible for God. Muhammad's logic seems to be that somethings are impossible for God, while Christians believe that "nothing is impossible for God" (what the Angel Gabriel said to Mary).



Edited by Melco

In the name of God most Gracious most merciful, the God to whom Jesus also used to pray, I begin:

Melco wrote: In the name of the Father, and of the Son and the Holy Spirit� Private revelations are not required for salvation. Public revelation is intended to express everything about God and everything necessary for our salvation. You are latching onto words, but private here, means that it isn't necessary to believe in or know about private revelations in order to achieve salvation - they are nice to knows, not need to knows, though they may assist in giving an indication of God's Will for a particular time and place.

I guess you didn�t pick my point. I have no interest in your visions and therefore, no comments upon as what you have seen or what not. I am only alluding to such practices, where ordinary people can easily be mislead when only blind faith is forwarded as a tool for convincing the others about its happening. Though, initially seemingly innocent looking �private� experiences, then later on, suddenly convert from private to public revelation just merely through one�s own choice of appropriate time. How much truth it has, no one dares to ask, then.

Melco wrote: The notion of Trinity can be found obliquely even in the Old Testament, eg Genesis 1 26 Then God said, "Let us make man in our image, in our likeness Genesis 18  1 The LORD appeared to Abraham near the great trees of Mamre while he was sitting at the entrance to his tent in the heat of the day. 2 Abraham looked up and saw three men standing nearby. When he saw them, he hurried from the entrance of his tent to meet them and bowed low to the ground.  3 He said, "If I have found favor in your eyes, my lord, [a] do not pass your servant by. (Notice he speaks to the three and says "my lord") In a sense the trinity is hidden from sight in the old testament.

 

O my dear brother, it is highly inappropriate for some learned person like you to pick on words used as �figure of speech� to show any relevance to your assertion of Trinity in OT. Use of �us� or �our� is just a way as conversation used to take place at that time. Even now, in royal kingdom, the royal decree is always addressed in plurality, even though it is from just a �singular� king. Such translational difficulties in the absence of originals, is another dimension of falsehood in which people are easily seen being mislead.

Coming to your second evidence from Genesis 18, it is inappropriate and hence false, both logically as well as rationally to assume that, three human figurative characters are addressed as �One God� in this narration. The evidence to this correct understanding has both internal as well external sources. Internally, if we keep reading this narration in Genesis 18, we shall find:

 �Abraham Pleads for Sodom

 16 When the men got up to leave, they looked down toward Sodom, and Abraham walked along with them to see them on their way. 17 Then the LORD said, "Shall I hide from Abraham what I am about to do?�

Thus it becomes immediately clear, that these three men were not the �LORD�. Hence nothing to do with Trinity, unless someone is merely looking at the word �three� anywhere in narration to point out Trinity in it. Its simply like cutting the cloth to fit the person.

Now for external evidence, we have Quran that also narrate the same incident but with clear identity of these three characters as actually the �angels� sent by the God in human form. So your theory of hidden Trinity in OT is in shallow water.

  

Melco wrote: In Mark's Gospel (yes, one of the Gospels you claimed erroneously had no reference to Christ's divinity) , you find a public acknowledgement by God of who he was.

Brother, again, its not correct to attribute such claim onto me as I always provided you the written evidence of your own Biblical scholars. So, it�s in fact your words against them and I have nothing to do with it. However, now that you have involved me into it, I shall go ahead to synthesize your quotes from your provided references.

Melco wrote: Mark1, 10,As Jesus was coming up out of the water, he saw heaven being torn open and the Spirit descending on him like a dove. 11And a voice came from heaven: "You are my Son, whom I love; with you I am well pleased." (The Voice represents God the Father, Jesus is called the Son, the Spirit is the Holy Spirit)

 

1. It must be remembered that OT is also full of such phrases as �sons of God�, but how and when it got capitalized in NT, is best known to those who invented it. Here are few examples: �Genesis 6:2
   the sons of God saw that the daughters of men were beautiful, and they married any of them they chose.
   Genesis 6:1-3 (in Context) Genesis 6 (Whole Chapter)
2. Genesis 6:4
   The Nephilim were on the earth in those days�and also afterward�when the sons of God went to the daughters of men and had children by them. They were the heroes of old, men of renown.
   Genesis 6:3-5 (in Context) Genesis 6 (Whole Chapter) �

Can anyone among the people before Jesus time, ever thought that this �sons� can be taken in a literal sense?

The same goes in his other example where he says 

Melco wrote: Christ's Divinity in Mark's Gospel Oh, how does Mark begin the Gospel? 1The beginning of the gospel about Jesus Christ, the Son of God. And again 5When Jesus saw their faith, he said to the paralytic, "Son, your sins are forgiven."  6Now some teachers of the law were sitting there, thinking to themselves, 7"Why does this fellow talk like that? He's blaspheming! Who can forgive sins but God alone?"  8Immediately Jesus knew in his spirit that this was what they were thinking in their hearts, and he said to them, "Why are you thinking these things? 9Which is easier: to say to the paralytic, 'Your sins are forgiven,' or to say, 'Get up, take your mat and walk'? 10But that you may know that the Son of Man has authority on earth to forgive sins . . . ." He said to the paralytic, 11"I tell you, get up, take your mat and go home." 12He got up, took his mat and walked out in full view of them all. This amazed everyone and they praised God, saying, "We have never seen anything like this!"

In this narration, the very issue has been aptly responded by Jesus and that is �10But that you may know that the Son of Man has authority on earth to forgive sins . . . .". Here we well recognize that Jesus is clearly distinguishing himself as one being on earth as son of man. Is there any moment when he addressed himself as son of God? Yet my Christian brothers are forcing to conclude him to be what he denounces to be by categorically saying he is �son of man� as a title for him. Secondly, all Prophets, have been given special powers by the God to use them during the transmission of the message of God. These are the famous miracle found commonly in OT as well as Quran. With that in mind, Jesus was only proclaiming of these powers vested in him by the God.

I give up on you, you aren't really taking these points seriously. You aren't interested in the truth,only in defending your personal system of meaning...No one can argue with you, because there is nothing within Judaism, Christianity or human history that can ever count as evidence against what you believe. You are not really engaging, only fielding back. Anyone could do that...

Jesus is Lord of all! He will judge me, and you and Muhammad. Islam is a heretical offshoot, no more...


Edited by Melco