Allah is Satan and Mohammad was jealous of Christianity

[VermilionUK]

Taken from: http://debatingchristianity.com/forum/v ... hp?t=12279

Muhammad wrote the koran in response to Judiasm and Christianity. He was jealous and wanted all the attiontion and praise, so he annointed himself as the one to be worshopped. Him and Allah(Satan). He would not humble himself in light of the truth. When his followers are confronted with the truth they act out as Muhammad would do. They turn into homicidal crybabies. Everyone that worshops Islam are worshopping the epitome of evil.

Question for debate: Is there any evidence to suggest that this (or any of this) is true?

[TrueReligion]

So all your claims are answered here, and shows that your statements and claims for Jesus being son of God is wrong, Jesus was only a man chosen by God as A Messiah and Prophet, which muslims accepts and respect Jesus as well.

If Jesus wasn't of divinity what about (fulfilled) prophesy?

P4JC

can you quote d verse of promised prophecy in bible?

[TrueReligion]

THe Koran was written by dictation. Jesus often refered himself as the son of God. His crucifixion is confirmed in the first 4 books of the NT which is based on 1000's of eye witness accounts.
BOH, you yourself made bible contradicted and less authenticated, because Jesus never wrote Bible, and neither any of his diciple, whch is proven by christian scholars. so Quran is correct, Bible is un-authenticated.
tHE 4 NT books arethemself contradicting with each other, example I gave of geneology of Jesus in Luke and other. So Bible is again wrong, Quran does;nt contrdict withint itself.
Your claim of 1000 witness account is false, because none of diciple witness the crucifiction, and Mary idnt wrote any of 4 NT book, which shows that Bible is not reliable at all.

John 3:16 "For God so loved the world that he gave his one and only Son that whosoever believes in him shall not perish but have eternal life."
The N.T. scriptures show that when Jesus is referred to as the only "Son" of God it means Jesus is the unique "Son" of God. With respect to being a "Son of God", “monogenes� is only used for Jesus.

This John said, not God or any of diciple, and the author of Gospel of John is not John the baptist, John the carpenter, neither is John son of zebedee, its some unknown author, long long time after Jesus departure.want proof? Where did NT states that Jesus is the unique son of God? Did God said that or Jesus said that? if he is Son of God, y there is geneology of Jesus in NT? Those 21 and 40 accounts mentioned in NT are foster parents of Jesus?

Matt 11:27-
Jesus- "All things have been committed to me by my Father. No one knows the Son except the Father, and no one knows the Father except the Son and those to whom the Son chooses to reveal him."

Yeah, this clearly means that Jesus dont know anything, only God knows everthing, means Jesus is not God and not to be worshpied, same as mentioned in Quran:)

John 5:22 Christ again calls Himself the Son of God, and elaborates:
"Moreover, the Father judges no one, but has entrusted all judgment to the Son, that all may honor the Son just as they honor the Father. He who does not honor the Son does not honor the Father, who sent him."

Again, John is not accepted by christian scholars, its only church who is keen to keep it in Bible.
Also these words are not authenticated as Jesus words, and even you take it as Jesus words, its contradicting with verse of Mathew 11:27, which says that only father knows, no1 else not even the son. so Bible again is contradicting

In John 5;15 Jesus healed someone on the Sabbath, Jesus said "My Father is always working, and I too must work". THis saying made the Jewish authorities all the more determined to kill him; not only had he healed on the sabbath, but he had said that GAod was his own Father and in this way had made himself equal with God.

No, This was not the case, the blasphemy for Jesus was raised for different issue, for healing, Jesus said that"I cast out devil with the finger of father",and "I myself can;t do anything" which clealy means that all the miracles and healing which Jesus did was from God, same like Elijah,Moses and other prophets did.
This clearly means that Jesus is not unique,and he is equal as all the prophets, which is mentioned in Quran.

other places JOHN 8:36, JOHN 10:36, JOHN 11:4


For your all John Account, I wil provide you the christian historians remarks, which never accepted and authenticate Gospel of John.

The Inauthenticity of The Gospel Of John
There is no authority for the claim that the Gospel of John is the book of the Apostle John to whom it has been attributed. On the contrary, there are several arguments that strongly refute this claim.

The First Argument. Before and after the period of the Prophet Jesus, the style of writing and the method of compiling books were similar to the style of the present Muslim writers. It does not appear from this Gospel that John was making his own statements. It is not possible to refute the obvious evidence which the text itself offers unless strong arguments are presented to negate it.

The Second Argument. This Gospel contains this statement in 21:24: ``This is the disciple which testifieth of these things: and we know that his testimony is true,`` describing the Apostle John. This denotes that the writer of this text is not John himself. It leads us to guess that the writer has found some script written by John and has described the contents in his own language making some omissions and additions to the contents.

The Third Argument. In the second century AD when the authorities refused to accept this Gospel as the book of John, Irenaeus, a disciple of Polycarp the disciple of John, was living. He did not make any statement to negate those who refused to accept the book and did not testify that he had heard Polycarp saying that this Gospel was the book of John, the Apostle. Had it been the book of John, Polycarp must have known it. It cannot be the truth that he heard Polycarp saying many secret and profound things whichhe related but did not hear a single word about a matter of such importance. And it is even more unbelievable that he had heard it and forgot, since we know about him that he had great trust in verbal statements and used to memorize them. This is evident from the following statement of Eusebius regarding the opinion of Irenaeus about verbal
statements: “I Listened to these words with great care by the grace of God and wrote them not only on paper, but also on my heart. For a long time, I have made it my habit to keep reading them.� It is also unimaginable that he remembered it and did not state it for the fear of his enemies. This argument also rescues us from the blame of refusing the genuineness of this Gospel from religious prejudice. We have seen that it was refused in the second century AD and could not be defended by the ancient Christian. Celsus, who was a pagan scholar of the second century AD, fearlessly declared that the Christians had distorted their Gospels three or four times or more. This change of or distortion changed
the contents of the text. Festus, the chief of the Manichaeans and a scholar publicly
announced in 4th century AD: “It has been established that the book of the New Testament are neither the books of the Christ, nor are they the books of his apostles but unknown people have written them and attributed them to the apostles and their friends.�

The Fourth Argument. The Catholic Herald, printed in 1844, includes the statement in vol. 3 on page 205 that Stapelin said in his book that the Gospel of John was undoubtedly written by student of scholar in Alexandria. See how blatantly he claims it to be a book of a student.

The Fifth Argument. Bertshiender, a great scholar said: “The whole of this Gospel and all the Epistles of John were definitely not written by him but by some other person in the second century A.D.�

The Sixth Argument. Grotius, a famous scholar, admitted: “There used to be twenty chapters in this Gospel. The twenty-first chapter was added after the death of John, by the church of Ephesus.�

The Seventh Argument. The Allogin, a sect of the Christians in the second century AD, disowned this Gospel and all the writing of John.

The Eighth Argument. The fist eleven verses of chapter 8 are not accepted by any of the Christian writers and it will soon be shown that these verses do not exist in the Syriac version. If there were any authentic proof to support it most of the Christian writer would have not made such statements. Therefore the opinion of Bertshiender and Stapelin is undoubtedly true.

The Ninth Argument. Horne in chapter two of vol. 4 of his commentary says: “The information that has been covered to us by the historians of the church regarding the period of the four Gospels is defective and indefinite. It dose not help us reach any meaningful conclusion. The ancient theologians have confirmed absurd statements and written them down. Subsequent people accepted them just out of respect to them. These false statements thus were communicated from one writer to another. A long period of time has passed, and it has become very difficult to find out the truth.� Further in the same volume he says: The first Gospel was written either in 73 A.D. or 38 A.D. or in 43 A.D. or in 48 A.D. or in 61, 62, 63 and 64 A.D. The second Gospel was written in 56 A.D. or at any time after it up until 65 A.D. and most possible in 60 or 63 A.D. The third Gospel was written in 53 or 63 or 64 A.D. The fourth Gospel was written in 68, 69, 70 or in 89 or 98
A.D.�

Now all these arguments and remarks, are given by known christian scholars, and to their accounts and authenticity, there is no doubt. Which clearly shows that Gospel of John is not authenticated, and nothing can be taken from this gospel as reliable reference.

God himself calls Jesus his son in Mathew 17;5 "This is my own son to whom I am pleased- listen to him!" and in Luke 3;22 a voice came from heaven and said to Jesus "you are my own dear son. I am pleased with you".
I could go on.....

Now for your verse of Mathew ,
Contradiction . Matthew reports in chapter 8 that a scribe came to Jesus and
asked his permission to follow him wherever he went. Then a disciple said to him that first he should go and bury his father and then follow Jesus. Matthew describes many events after this, and in chapter 17 reports the event of the Transfiguration of Jesus [Matt. 17:5].
Luke, on the other hand, reports the request of the scribe in chapter 9 after the
Transfiguration. One of the two texts must be wrong.
For Luke accounts, its also false as in 3:23 he refer Heli as Father, which is a false claim, and contradicting with account of Mathew.

Proclaiming Jesus to be NOT the son of God to whom was never crucified is lying and is hurtful to those that love Jesus, and steers people away from getting to know the one true God.

We muslims love Jesus as well, and Muslims are the only non-christians who believe in Jesus and respect him in a best way.
For Son of God, see this.

Jesus called himself as “Son of man� (e.g. Luke 9:22) innumerable times. And in Luke 4:41, he actually rejected being called “Son of God�: “And demons also came out of many, crying, ‘You are the Son of God!’ But he rebuked them, and would not allow them to speak, because they knew that he was the Christ.�
However, there are numerous places in the Old Testament where this title has been given to others.

God called Israel (Prophet Jacob) His “son� when He instructed Prophet Moses to
go to Pharaoh in Exodus 4:22-23, “22 And you shall say to Pharaoh, ‘Thus says the Lord, “Israel is my first-born son, 23and I say to you , ‘Let my son go that he may serve me.’ �

In 2nd Samuel 8:13-14, God calls Prophet Solomon His son, “13 He [Solomon]
shall build a ho use for my name, and I will establish the thro ne of his kingdo m for ever. 14 I will be his father, and he shall be my so n.�

God promises to make Pro phet David His son in Psalms 89:26-27, “26 He shall
cry unto me, ‘Thou art my father, my Go d, and the rock of my salvation,’ 27Also I will make him my first-born, hig her than the kings of the earth.�

Angels are referred to as “sons of God� in The Book of Job 1:6, “Now there was a
day when the sons of God came to present themselves before the Lord, and Satan also came among them.�

In the New Testament, there are many references to “sons of God� other than
Jesus. For example, when the author of the Gospel according to Luke listed Jesus’
ancestors back to Adam, he wrote: “The son of Enos, the son of Seth, the son of Adam, the son of God.�

Now you claim that what is unique in the case of Jesus, is that he is the only
begotten Son of Go d, while the others are merely “sons of God�. Ho wever, God is
recorded as saying to Prophet David, in Psalms 2:7, “I will tell the decree of the Lord: He said to me, ‘You are my son, today I have begotten you.’

So all your claims are answered here, and shows that your statements and claims for Jesus being son of God is wrong, Jesus was only a man chosen by God as A Messiah and Prophet, which muslims accepts and respect Jesus as well.

There is so much sick and twisted things here, I don't even know where to begin. THe Bible is less authenticated because Jesus didn't write it? Islam teaches that the Bible is not autheticated, but the Koran, written by dictation by one uneducated, evil, lying pethetic man, is. THe truth means nothing to all of Islam. Everyone reading this needs to understand the evil the false religion Islam is. THe phylosophy created from Islam is that there are multible truths and that no one can have any faith in anybody, or anything supernatural at all. No faith, no Father, no Son, no Holy Ghost, leaving nothing at all for a spiritual guide but the iron fist of Muhammad, the lyer, murderer, rapists, pedophile. Islam is a prison.

BOH. all the remarks posted above are not from any muslims, they all r frm christian greatest scholars n source.
Where does Islam comes here? do you have any proof of watever u said?y u can't come wid any reliable proof? do u deny these remarks frm the known christian histoians n scholars? if u deny thn provide ur evidence also. Blaming Islam without proof is not making Islam bad, its just showing how bad the teachings in christianity.