Did Muhammad exist as a real historical figure?

sk0rpi0n

Active member
Rape of Muslim women is against Islamic law - although the rape of non-Muslim women is not, if they are 'captured in battle' or bought as slaves. Technically, a Muslim woman can be raped if she is a slave who converted to Islam after her capture.

There's nothing in the Quran to support your claims regarding "rape".

Taking women "captured in battle" is a practice that goes back to Old Testament times. Maybe you haven't read the Old Testament, but here's what it says on the matter:

"10 When thou goest forth to war against thine enemies, and the Lord thy God hath delivered them into thine hands, and thou hast taken them captive, 11 And seest among the captives a beautiful woman, and hast a desire unto her, that thou wouldest have her to thy wife; 12 Then thou shalt bring her home to thine house, and she shall shave her head, and pare her nails; 13 And she shall put the raiment of her captivity from off her, and shall remain in thine house, and bewail her father and her mother a full month: and after that thou shalt go in unto her, and be her husband, and she shall be thy wife. 14 And it shall be, if thou have no delight in her, then thou shalt let her go whither she will; but thou shalt not sell her at all for money, thou shalt not make merchandise of her, because thou hast humbled her.". (Deuteronomy 21:10-14)

"...but save for yourselves every girl who has never slept with a man" (Numbers 31:18)


You also avoided my question about bold faced lying. I'll ask again:

Did you mean "bold face lying" like when Peter lied to save himself and was not rebuked by Jesus?
Or when the midwives lied to save the Israelite infants from the Pharaoh and were rewarded by God?
Or when Rahab lied to save the Israelite soldiers and was not punished by God?
 

Andreas

Active member
There's nothing in the Quran to support your claims regarding "rape".

Taking women "captured in battle" is a practice that goes back to Old Testament times. Maybe you haven't read the Old Testament, but here's what it says on the matter:

"10 When thou goest forth to war against thine enemies, and the Lord thy God hath delivered them into thine hands, and thou hast taken them captive, 11 And seest among the captives a beautiful woman, and hast a desire unto her, that thou wouldest have her to thy wife; 12 Then thou shalt bring her home to thine house, and she shall shave her head, and pare her nails; 13 And she shall put the raiment of her captivity from off her, and shall remain in thine house, and bewail her father and her mother a full month: and after that thou shalt go in unto her, and be her husband, and she shall be thy wife. 14 And it shall be, if thou have no delight in her, then thou shalt let her go whither she will; but thou shalt not sell her at all for money, thou shalt not make merchandise of her, because thou hast humbled her.". (Deuteronomy 21:10-14)

"...but save for yourselves every girl who has never slept with a man" (Numbers 31:18)


You also avoided my question about bold faced lying. I'll ask again:

Did you mean "bold face lying" like when Peter lied to save himself and was not rebuked by Jesus?
Or when the midwives lied to save the Israelite infants from the Pharaoh and were rewarded by God?
Or when Rahab lied to save the Israelite soldiers and was not punished by God?
Peter repented, therefore he didn't need to be rebuked. In Christianity, if you repent you are forgiven. Saul of Tarsus repented and was ordained an Apostle. True grace and mercy is not offered by Islam but its allah offers harshness, fear and uncertainty. It's a sad thing to see people kissing the black rock idol and leaving without real hope. Killing infidels is supposed to give you an automatic pass to heaven where you can commit fornication with virgins. Sick.
 

Andreas

Active member
Sure you do, silly!! You can tell them the ISLAMIC foolishness about your false prophet, and the Phony Religio/Governmental system he founded.

I used to think that Muhammad was a false and immoral prophet, but now I'm more inclined to think that most everything about him was made up and invented in the 8th-10th + centuries. Rulers of the the Arab evil empire made it up. People have been conned into going along with the standard Islam narrative but more serious scholarship is questioning the very foundations of this religion. For example, the original inscriptions on the dome of the rock in Jerusalem are actually referring to Jesus as the servant and messenger of God.
 

sk0rpi0n

Active member
Peter repented, therefore he didn't need to be rebuked.

Oh yeah.

But Rahab and the Egyptian midwives in Egypt also lied but they didn't repent. And they weren't rebuked either. Instead, we see the following:

  1. Rahab's lie was counted as a good deed (James 2:25)
  2. The midwives were even rewarded for their lies. (Exodus 1:20-21)

Furthermore...

Jacob used deception to trick his father in law. And he wasn't rebuked for it.

Jacob's sons used deception to trick their enemies. And he wasn't rebuked for it.

So according to the Bible, God not only allows lies, deception and trickery under certain circumstances, but also rewards those actions!

Saul of Tarsus repented and was ordained an Apostle

I didn't bring up Paul. But since you did, the fact is there was only room for 12 apostles.
Matthias replaced Judas. Paul only claimed he was made an apostle but provides no evidence besides his own words.
 
Last edited:

Andreas

Active member
Oh yeah.

But Rahab and the Egyptian midwives in Egypt also lied but they didn't repent. And they weren't rebuked either. Instead, we see the following:

  1. Rahab's lie was counted as a good deed (James 2:25)
  2. The midwives were even rewarded for their lies. (Exodus 1:20-21)

Furthermore...

Jacob used deception to trick his father in law. And he wasn't rebuked for it.

Jacob's sons used deception to trick their enemies. And he wasn't rebuked for it.

So according to the Bible, God not only allows lies, deception and trickery under certain circumstances, but also rewards them!



I didn't bring up Paul. But since you did, the fact is there was only room for 12 apostles.
Matthias replaced Judas. Paul only claimed he was made an apostle but provides no evidence besides his own words.

You seem to have some Biblical knowledge, but most of it comes from anti-Christian sites, yes?

Rahab wasn't commended for lying but in having faith in God.
The midwives lied because the alternative was killing babies, so they felt like they were answering to a higher law. There is nothing in the Holy Bible that tells us to lie, in fact "all liars will have there place in the lake of fire". Lying is something to be repented of from a Christian viewpoint.

Let me help you with the term "Apostle". There were 12 disciples of Christ, who were called "Apostles". The twelve hold a special place of significance in Christianity because they followed Jesus before and after the resurrection. But, the term "Apostle" is one office of the 5 fold ministry of the Church. In other words, there were others who were called Apostles other than just the 12 disciples of Christ. Apostle means "messenger" and designates a ministry like a pioneer missionary. So the Twelve were Apostles but there were others who were apostles that were not part of the Twelve. I can understand how this could be confused by someone who doesn't know the Bible. Hope that helps.
 

sk0rpi0n

Active member
You seem to have some Biblical knowledge, but most of it comes from anti-Christian sites, yes

No. I'm a former Christian. I get my Biblical knowledge from the Bible.

Rahab wasn't commended for lying but in having faith in God.

She wasn't rebuked for lying either.

In James 2:25, we read she was considered righteous for her actions... that she was able to perform after lying.

The midwives lied because the alternative was killing babies

I know. And Abraham also lied because the alternative was getting killed and having his wife raped by the pharaoh.

So the Bible is telling is that "lying" is permitted under certain circumstances, i.e., if it prevents a greater evil (or achieves a greater good). But it prohibits lying for deception or selfish reasons.

it's the same thing in Islam.

So the Twelve were Apostles but there were others who were apostles that were not part of the Twelve.

This is a little off topic. But the fact is there were/are only 12 apostles. That's because Jesus himself said:

"...you who have followed me will also sit on twelve thrones, judging the twelve tribes of Israel” (Matthew 19:28)

we also read in Revelation:

"The wall of the city had twelve foundations, and on them were the names of the twelve apostles of the Lamb” (Revelation 21:10, 14)

So as we see...12 tribes. 12 thrones. 12 foundations. 12 apostles. No room for a 13th.

In Acts 1, Peter had to choose between 2 men (Matthias and Barsabbas) to replace judas. As we know, Matthias ended up being selected. If it were even possible for there to be a 13th apostle, Peter would have selected both Matthias and Barsabbas instead of drawing lots to choose between those 2 men. But he knew there were only meant to be 12 apostles.
 

Bob Carabbio

Well-known member
Those inscriptions are from the Quran.
But the ONLY SIGNIFICANT THING that makes ISLAM totally worthless as a religious system is that they teach that Jesus WAS NOT CRUCIFIED, thereby eliminating His primary purpose, and leaving ISLAMICS with NO SAVIOR, so that they are still in their SIN, and Hellbound.
 

sk0rpi0n

Active member
But the ONLY SIGNIFICANT THING that makes ISLAM totally worthless as a religious system is that they teach that Jesus WAS NOT CRUCIFIED, thereby eliminating His primary purpose, and leaving ISLAMICS with NO SAVIOR, so that they are still in their SIN, and Hellbound.

his primary purpose was not to be crucified for the sins of man.

Proof:
  • Jesus prayed to be saved (Matthew 26:39)
  • According to Hebrews 5:7, Jesus prayed to be saved from death, and he was heard.
  • According to psalm 22 (which seems to be prophecy about Jesus), Jesus cries out to God for help, and is ultimately heard. See verse 24.
So there was no crucifixion to begin with. You're still accountable for your sins.
 

Bob Carabbio

Well-known member
his primary purpose was not to be crucified for the sins of man.

Proof:
  • Jesus prayed to be saved (Matthew 26:39)
  • According to Hebrews 5:7, Jesus prayed to be saved from death, and he was heard.
  • According to psalm 22 (which seems to be prophecy about Jesus), Jesus cries out to God for help, and is ultimately heard. See verse 24.
So there was no crucifixion to begin with. You're still accountable for your sins.
Hook, Line, and Sinker. If you think anything you cherry picked is "Proof" that Jesus WAS NOT crucified, then you're just parroting ISLAMIC Lies.
 

sk0rpi0n

Active member
If you think anything you cherry picked is "Proof" that Jesus WAS NOT crucified, then you're just parroting ISLAMIC Lies.

No, I'm only "parroting" what the Bible says on the matter.

You're just ignoring parts of the Bible that contradict your beliefs.
 

Bob Carabbio

Well-known member
No, I'm only "parroting" what the Bible says on the matter.

You're just ignoring parts of the Bible that contradict your beliefs.
Tutorial:

how to manufacture "Doctrine":
1) Invent your doctrine according to what you want to believe & teach others.
2) Go through the Bible and collect all the Scriptures that you think SUPPORT your doctrine - catalog these as you "Proof Texts".
3) Go through the Bible and find all the Scriptures that challenge your doctrine - catalog these as your "Problem Texts"
4) Invent viable rationalizations for your problem texts, "Proving" that they "aren't problems at all"/"don't actually mean what they say".
5) TEACH your doctrine using you "Proof Texts" as support, and de-fusing attacks with your rationalizations.

All Clear now????
 

sk0rpi0n

Active member
Tutorial:

how to manufacture "Doctrine":
1) Invent your doctrine according to what you want to believe & teach others.
2) Go through the Bible and collect all the Scriptures that you think SUPPORT your doctrine - catalog these as you "Proof Texts".
3) Go through the Bible and find all the Scriptures that challenge your doctrine - catalog these as your "Problem Texts"
4) Invent viable rationalizations for your problem texts, "Proving" that they "aren't problems at all"/"don't actually mean what they say".
5) TEACH your doctrine using you "Proof Texts" as support, and de-fusing attacks with your rationalizations.

All Clear now????

You're doing the exact same thing.

You've collected scriptures that you think support your doctrine of crucifixion being a sin sacrifice and call them "proof texts".

I KNOW that the crucifixion doctrine is unbiblical because the Bible teaches OVER AND OVER that every man is repaid according to his deeds.

For the Son of Man is going to come in the glory of His Father with His angels, and will then repay every man according to his deeds. (Matthew 16:27)

“I, the Lord, search the heart, I test the mind, Even to give to each man according to his ways, According to the results of his deeds." (Jeremiah 17:10)

You will recompense them, O Lord, According to the work of their hands. (Lamentations 3:64)

And will He not render to man according to his work? (Proverbs 24:12)

"and I will recompense them according to their deeds and according to the work of their hands” (Jeremiah 25:14)

"...great in counsel and mighty in deed, whose eyes are open to all the ways of the sons of men, giving to everyone according to his ways and according to the fruit of his deeds" (Jeremiah 32:19)

“For He pays a man according to his work, And makes him find it according to his way." (Job 34:11)

"according to your ways and according to your deeds I will judge you,” declares the Lord God" (Ezekiel 24:14)

Also I scattered them among the nations and they were dispersed throughout the lands. According to their ways and their deeds I judged them (Ezekiel 36:19)

"O house of Israel, I will judge each of you according to his ways.” (Ezekiel 33:20)

He will repay him according to his deeds. (Hosea 12:2)

Then they repented and said, "As the Lord of hosts purposed to do to us in accordance with our ways and our deeds, so He has dealt with us." (Zechariah 1:6)

If you address as Father the One who impartially judges according to each one’s work, conduct yourselves in fear during the time of your stay on earth; (1 Peter 1:17)



According to their works/deeds/ways. That's what the Bible teaches over and over and over. there's no question of Jesus being punished according to someone else's evil works.

Yet, here you are handwaving away everything that goes against your doctrine of crucifixion taking away a persons sins.
 

Bob Carabbio

Well-known member
You're doing the exact same thing.

You've collected scriptures that you think support your doctrine of crucifixion being a sin sacrifice and call them "proof texts".
Then deal with Isaiah 53, and the Book of Hebrews, not to speak of Eph 2:8,9. What's your creative "Work around" - and you might also consider the entire temple sacrifice system that fills the Old Testament, and the necessity of BLOOD to remit SIN. There's no BLOOD in any of your "Works salvation" texts.
 

Andreas

Active member
No. I'm a former Christian. I get my Biblical knowledge from the Bible.



She wasn't rebuked for lying either.

In James 2:25, we read she was considered righteous for her actions... that she was able to perform after lying.



I know. And Abraham also lied because the alternative was getting killed and having his wife raped by the pharaoh.

So the Bible is telling is that "lying" is permitted under certain circumstances, i.e., if it prevents a greater evil (or achieves a greater good). But it prohibits lying for deception or selfish reasons.

it's the same thing in Islam.



This is a little off topic. But the fact is there were/are only 12 apostles. That's because Jesus himself said:

"...you who have followed me will also sit on twelve thrones, judging the twelve tribes of Israel” (Matthew 19:28)

we also read in Revelation:

"The wall of the city had twelve foundations, and on them were the names of the twelve apostles of the Lamb” (Revelation 21:10, 14)

So as we see...12 tribes. 12 thrones. 12 foundations. 12 apostles. No room for a 13th.

In Acts 1, Peter had to choose between 2 men (Matthias and Barsabbas) to replace judas. As we know, Matthias ended up being selected. If it were even possible for there to be a 13th apostle, Peter would have selected both Matthias and Barsabbas instead of drawing lots to choose between those 2 men. But he knew there were only meant to be 12 apostles.

The Twelve were in a special category, but there were still others that were apostles. Why do you argue, read it in the Bible PLEASE
 

sk0rpi0n

Active member
Then deal with Isaiah 53,

If Isaiah 53 "proves" Jesus took on your sins, then by the same logic, Ezekiel 4 "proves" the prophet Ezekiel took on the sins of the people. We read that Ezekiel, just like the Jesus of Christian doctrine, also "bore the sins" of the people of Israel.

eze4.jpg

Whatever you say Jesus did, Ezekiel did it before. Yet, you don't believe that Ezekiel literally bore the sins of others.

and the Book of Hebrews

Which chapter and verse are you referring to? This one?

"..and, once made perfect, he became the source of eternal salvation for all who obey him" (Hebrews 5:8)

Yeah, he's the source of salvation, IF you obey him, i.e., if you do the things he said. Merely believing Jesus died for your sins wont win you a free ticket to heaven. That's not how it works.

and you might also consider the entire temple sacrifice system that fills the Old Testament, and the necessity of BLOOD to remit SIN.

What of it? Ezekiel says people will resume killing animals as sin sacrifices again in the future. So if they're going to return to sacrificing animals for sin, what then was the point of Jesus' sacrifice? Wasn't that supposed to be the final and perfect sacrifice?

There's no BLOOD in any of your "Works salvation" texts.

Those texts are from the Bible. You reject those texts because they contradict your doctrine of crucifixion taking away a persons sins.
 

Andreas

Active member
If Isaiah 53 "proves" Jesus took on your sins, then by the same logic, Ezekiel 4 "proves" the prophet Ezekiel took on the sins of the people. We read that Ezekiel, just like the Jesus of Christian doctrine, also "bore the sins" of the people of Israel.

View attachment 2557

Whatever you say Jesus did, Ezekiel did it before. Yet, you don't believe that Ezekiel literally bore the sins of others.



Which chapter and verse are you referring to? This one?

"..and, once made perfect, he became the source of eternal salvation for all who obey him" (Hebrews 5:8)

Yeah, he's the source of salvation, IF you obey him, i.e., if you do the things he said. Merely believing Jesus died for your sins wont win you a free ticket to heaven. That's not how it works.



What of it? Ezekiel says people will resume killing animals as sin sacrifices again in the future. So if they're going to return to sacrificing animals for sin, what then was the point of Jesus' sacrifice? Wasn't that supposed to be the final and perfect sacrifice?



Those texts are from the Bible. You reject those texts because they contradict your doctrine of crucifixion taking away a persons sins.
You are taking a word or phrase and trying to piece an argument together but ignoring the context. Ezekiel's "bear the sin" does not justify anyone, it is symbolic judgment as Ezekiel often illustrated his message to Judah. Isaiah 53 is awesome in its power and promise that "my righteous servant shall justify many". Ezekiel 4 is symbolic of judgment while Isaiah 53 is filled with the promise of peace, justification and intercession.

On a side note, I was always amazed that the famous boxer Muhammad Ali became Muslim and dropped his given name of an anti-slavery crusader and adopted his Muslim name when both "Muhammad" and "Ali" were said to be slave holders. Some people like that warlord type harsh religion over the forgiving and kind Savior. Of course the Savior is God and has all authority as King of kings and has power over spiritual snakes and scorpions. Jesus, name above all names!
 

sk0rpi0n

Active member
You are taking a word or phrase and trying to piece an argument together but ignoring the context. Ezekiel's "bear the sin" does not justify anyone,

I'm not ignoring the context. But you are ignoring the fact that the Ezekiel also had to "bear the sins" of people. That's exactly what Christians say Jesus did.

If you can accept that Ezekiel "bearing the sins" of people does not mean he literally bore the sins of others or justified anyone, then the same applies to Jesus.

Ezekiel 4 is symbolic of judgment while Isaiah 53 is filled with the promise of peace, justification and intercession

Phrasing matters. Since the same phrasing about "bearing the sins" of others is used for both Ezekiel and Jesus, it follows they mean the same thing.

Either Ezekiel and Jesus both literally took on the sins of others and "justified" sinners. Or they didn't. But Christians have to interpret Ezekiel "bearing the sins" differently because it messes with their doctrine that Jesus was the only man who bore the sins of others.
 

Andreas

Active member
Again, you're taking things out of context. Isaiah 53 specifically mentions peace, justification, and intercession while Ezekiel is illustrating a sign of the impending siege of Jerusalem (Ez 4:7). Ezekiel is about judgment and destruction upon the city and his lying on his side doesn't justify anyone, rather it is an illustration of the coming judgment on the land. Isaiah is all about promise and peace and justification and life based upon the one who bore the sins. Ezekiel doesn't bear the sins as to justify anyone but as a sign to the people of judgment of sin.
 
Top