Milton

Yes, many left the path, and taught false doctrines. But why did the Qu'ran not address them by their names? I mean, there were different groups that went by different names. Why not address each issue with each group? Why label all Christians under one group? For example, I have had Muslims approach me arguing about the Trinity. What do you think I do? I don't believe the Trinity, so what do I care? Whatever their argument is, it becomes completely meaningless and void.

So, whatever the Qu'ran says about those heresies, it is all meaningless and void to any other group. Besides, it is clear that the majority did not accept nor consider those to be Christians. So, why would Mohammed call them Christians? In fact, if they were wrong, then that means that they were not christians, because Christians were the followers of Jesus, and if anyone did do as Jesus taught, then they were not his followers. In one of the accounts, God promises the followers of Jesus that He would preserve them until the day of judgment. So far, I have not seen that day, so according to the Qu'ran, God is preserving Christianity--and it is not within the Islamic religion.

River

You asked some valid questions. It would be meaningless to add every single group and denomination . The Scripture would be a bore if it included everyone i.e Mariamites, Mormons, Methodists, Catholics , Gnositics, Episcopalians.....the list would not end. Also, how should names be given. Buddha is speculated to be Prophet Dhul-Kifl of the Qur'an. Buddha might not have been his real name. Some call him Siddharth Gautama. Also, Hinduism is not one relgion but a conglomerate of Religions...so you cant' really name them. And the word " hindu" was not named by their followers. For example , people call the Innuit the Eskimo, when in actuality this is not their name.

Secondly, the Qur'an mentions more religions by name than other Scriptures...it names the Jews, Christians, Sabeans/Mandeans, Magians (Zoroastrians/Parsee), the Quraish as well as the Muslims.

Yes, the Qur'an says it will raise the true followers of Jesus above all people....and it says there will be a day when everyone will believe in Him. Jesus Christ on his Second coming will descend in Damascus, Syria. He will descend over a Minaret in Omayyid Masjid during Fajr prayer. He will fight the One-eyed tyrant( Dajjal) of Khurasan ( afghanistan). And ultimately, he will destroy the AntiChrist (Dajjal) near the Gate of the Lodd in Jerusalem. He will establish peace ...and will preach imaan islaam or "Purified Islam".

-River

River

Yes .. Muhammad (pbuh) came to confirm the Law ( Al-Furqan) , the same way Jesus stated that he came not to destroy the law but fulfill it ( during his time)


Prophet Muhammad is mentioned in the New Testament for all those that reflect.

http://www.aramaic.org/PARAVLETE.html

http://jamaat.net/muh-christ/Bucaille.html


and Prophet Muhammad's name appears word for word in the Song of Solomon. Dont' believe me. Take a look, then.

http://www.jews-for-allah.org/Muhamm...d-in-Songs.htm

Milton

I did not ask for it to mention every single denomination that existed. I only ask that it would address each group to which it was referring, and not label them "Christians". It would be like me saying "South-Africans are white". I know there are whites in south-africa, are all south-africans white? No. Are whites the majority in south-africa? No. So don't you think my statement would be incomplete, or just wrong? If anyone else read it, they would think that I am claiming that all south-africans are white. So, I should make the statement differently. I should say "there are white south-africans," or I could say "there are some white south-africans." But should the Qu'ran use the term Christian? Let's say it can use the term Christian, as if it was using the term 'south-african.' It would still be required to declare what group or denomination, the same as 'white' is represented in the example above. Don't you think so?

Magus55

Where did you get that translation? First of all, I don't even know if you can translate aramaic into Hebrew, and second Aramaic is based off Ancient Hebrew, not Arabic.


Luk 6:40 The disciple is not above his master: but every one that is perfect shall be as his master.

How do you get Muslim out of that? It says everyone that is Perfect, not muslim.

Bree

I was under the impression that "aramaic" and "Hebrew" were one and the same. The dictionary defines "aramaic" as "a Semetic dialect" and "Hebrew" as "the language of the Semites" so one assumes they are interwoven in some way.

EstherRose

Luke 6:40
.åáøë úåéäì íìù ãéîìú ìëì éãå åáø ìò äìòð ãéîìú ïéà

In Hebrew. Where does it say muslim???

Luke 6:40
אין תלמיד נעלה על רבו ודי לכל תלמיד שלם להיות כרבו׃


Also in Hebrew. Where does it say muslim???

Luke 6:40
"A pupil is not above his teacher; but everyone, after he has been fully trained, will be like his teacher.

This is the verse. I have demonstrated on another thread where River's so-called translation is not an original carefully studied translation but instead a loosely worded translation done by someone with a personal and political agenda. Yet still he keeps spouting these lies.

There are many things that superficially resemble something else but are not like it at all. Classic example is the face on Mars.

I can print out the Masoretic text in Hebrew of the Song of Solomon, if you'd care to show me where exactly the so called name of your false prophet is.

Doctor X

The text was written in Greek.

Not that anyone is paying attention. . . .

--J.D.

Milton

The problem with taking a word from another language, and thinking that just because it sounds like some word in your own language, that they mean the same thing.

That would be like taking the word "embarrass" in English, and say that it means the same thing as the word "embarasar" in Spanish. In fact, when I was just learning English, I used to think this is what the word meant.

Doctor X

Well . . . if it was . . . and you were . . . you would be quite embarrassed, methinks!

--J.D.