The Muslim Stance

[JoeyKnothead]

Its my understanding of Islam that it wants to 'take over' the world, making Islam the default religion for all. I ask these questions in a sincere effort to seek the truth, and I ask in an honest effort to clear the air.

Please forgive me if I'm in error, and I can't quote the Koran, I'm trying to get some clarification.

1- Does Islam seek to impose its brand of religion on the world?
2- Does Islam allow others to worship as they please, with no restrictions, taxes, or any other impediments?
3- Leave Israel out. Do NOT include it in this thread. Could Islam allow Jewish people to form their own communities? Again, we will NOT discuss Israel What I'm asking is could Islam accept a Jewish community to exist outside of any place that Islam considers holy?

4- I understand how delicate the Israel issue is, and I do NOT want to stir that nest up in this thread. If anyone wishes to discuss Israel start a different thread.

[TrueReligion]

One problem - the earlier verses of the Quran peaceful ones have been followed by violent verses and qccording to the Quran allah sends verses and then sends better verses. Chapter 5 is qn earlier chapter.

The following was ordained for the Jews not muslims- violence was ordained for Mudlims; Your own Quran shownig the Holy Bible is not violent.

5.32 On that account: We ordained for the Children of Israel that if any one slew a person - unless it be for murder or for spreading mischief in the land - it would be as if he slew the whole people: and if any one saved a life, it would be as if he saved the life of the whole people. Then although there came to them Our messengers with clear signs, yet, even after that, many of them continued to commit excesses in the land.

That was one of your own at a recent conference, nothing about not being violent towards non-muslims:
http://www.thestar.com/news/gta/article ... t-of-islam
Reviving the spirit of Islam
Thousands gather to pray, talk about faith in secular world

"Maybe it's time to save the ship to say that I am going to take an oath to be non-violent," he said, speaking of the widespread violence in the world by Muslims against other Muslims.

"And that I refuse as a Muslim to kill another Muslim and also as a Muslim to defend the rights of others." He added that he thought Islam should not be practised as it was 10 centuries ago.

The precept of the Koran is, perpetual war against all who deny, that Mahomet is the prophet of God. The vanquished may purchase their lives, by the payment of tribute; the victorious may be appeased by a false and delusive promise of peace; and the faithful follower of the prophet, may submit to the imperious necessities of defeat: but the command to propagate the Moslem creed by the sword is always obligatory, when it can be made effective. John Quincy Adams
(Sixth President of the United States

Can you please clear your posts, as you are mixing all the posts together, whatever you are trying to say is not at all clear.

You are taking the verse of Quran as killing for all? amzaing your understanding it, the verse in actual is refered to al the humanity, not like Bible where its writen clearly that .

Matthew 10
34-Do not suppose that I have come to bring peace to the earth. I did not come to bring peace, but a sword.

35-For I am come to set a man at variance against his father, and the daughter against her mother, and the daughter in law against her mother in law.

36-And a man's foes shall be they of his own household.

This is very clear of the intentions of christians, that they are in real following this verse. Since the time of christianity, till today.

And the worst one.

Luke 19:27

27But those enemies of mine who did not want me to be king over them—bring them here and kill them in front of me."

So its true that in bible is clearly mentioned for killing, one who dont believe in faith of christianity. But in Quran, only killing is for people who create mischeif in land. and for the same purpose, we have police and army in every country.
So you mean that Quran is ordering for killing, its same like you say every country in the world is ordering for killing, as they have army and police for that

[van]

One problem - the earlier verses of the Quran peaceful ones have been followed by violent verses and qccording to the Quran allah sends verses and then sends better verses. Chapter 5 is qn earlier chapter.

The following was ordained for the Jews not muslims- violence was ordained for Mudlims; Your own Quran shownig the Holy Bible is not violent.

5.32 On that account: We ordained for the Children of Israel that if any one slew a person - unless it be for murder or for spreading mischief in the land - it would be as if he slew the whole people: and if any one saved a life, it would be as if he saved the life of the whole people. Then although there came to them Our messengers with clear signs, yet, even after that, many of them continued to commit excesses in the land.

That was one of your own at a recent conference, nothing about not being violent towards non-muslims:
http://www.thestar.com/news/gta/article ... t-of-islam
Reviving the spirit of Islam
Thousands gather to pray, talk about faith in secular world

"Maybe it's time to save the ship to say that I am going to take an oath to be non-violent," he said, speaking of the widespread violence in the world by Muslims against other Muslims.

"And that I refuse as a Muslim to kill another Muslim and also as a Muslim to defend the rights of others." He added that he thought Islam should not be practised as it was 10 centuries ago.

The precept of the Koran is, perpetual war against all who deny, that Mahomet is the prophet of God. The vanquished may purchase their lives, by the payment of tribute; the victorious may be appeased by a false and delusive promise of peace; and the faithful follower of the prophet, may submit to the imperious necessities of defeat: but the command to propagate the Moslem creed by the sword is always obligatory, when it can be made effective. John Quincy Adams
(Sixth President of the United States

Can you please clear your posts, as you are mixing all the posts together, whatever you are trying to say is not at all clear.

You are taking the verse of Quran as killing for all? amzaing your understanding it, the verse in actual is refered to al the humanity, not like Bible where its writen clearly that .

Matthew 10
34-Do not suppose that I have come to bring peace to the earth. I did not come to bring peace, but a sword.

35-For I am come to set a man at variance against his father, and the daughter against her mother, and the daughter in law against her mother in law.

36-And a man's foes shall be they of his own household.

This is very clear of the intentions of christians, that they are in real following this verse. Since the time of christianity, till today.

And the worst one.

Luke 19:27

27But those enemies of mine who did not want me to be king over them—bring them here and kill them in front of me."

So its true that in bible is clearly mentioned for killing, one who dont believe in faith of christianity. But in Quran, only killing is for people who create mischeif in land. and for the same purpose, we have police and army in every country.
So you mean that Quran is ordering for killing, its same like you say every country in the world is ordering for killing, as they have army and police for that

Sorry you are so confused. What is your native language?

The conference recently held reinforces the idea that a muslim must not kill a muslim but says nothing about not killing non-believers- to do so would to go against the Quran.

If you would take your time and read Luke 19 you would see it is a parable that Jesus is telling about a king and what the king did and is not an order for any believer to go out and kill non-believers. I will not get into what the parable means for fear of confusing you further.

The other Matthew 10 is a prediction of Jesus'- many families have been divided over and torn apart over HIS teachings. This is not an order to go out and do the tearing apart of families it just happened. Again this is not an order for any believer to go out and kill non-believers.

Did you know that there are many translations of the Bible suited to various age levels and abilities? My children were given age appopriate Holy Bibles as children-preschoolers then more advanced as they progressed in their reading skills. The main messages are intact in all the translations-just uses everyday instead of Olde English.

If you are not a native english speaker say arabic then you can get one in your native tongue here:
http://www.biblegateway.com/passage/?se ... rsion=ALAB

Bible Translation By Grade Level

It may help to know what the approximate reading level is for a given translation. Here's a quick guide for the most popular translations:

Translation Grade Level

KJV 12th
RSV 12th
NASB 11th
NRSV 11th
ESV 10th
NIV 7th-8th

Translation Grade Level

HCSB 7th-8th
NKJV 7th
NLT 6th
Message 4th-5th
NCV 3rd
NIRV 3rd

[TrueReligion]

One problem - the earlier verses of the Quran peaceful ones have been followed by violent verses and qccording to the Quran allah sends verses and then sends better verses. Chapter 5 is qn earlier chapter.

The following was ordained for the Jews not muslims- violence was ordained for Mudlims; Your own Quran shownig the Holy Bible is not violent.

5.32 On that account: We ordained for the Children of Israel that if any one slew a person - unless it be for murder or for spreading mischief in the land - it would be as if he slew the whole people: and if any one saved a life, it would be as if he saved the life of the whole people. Then although there came to them Our messengers with clear signs, yet, even after that, many of them continued to commit excesses in the land.

That was one of your own at a recent conference, nothing about not being violent towards non-muslims:
http://www.thestar.com/news/gta/article ... t-of-islam
Reviving the spirit of Islam
Thousands gather to pray, talk about faith in secular world

"Maybe it's time to save the ship to say that I am going to take an oath to be non-violent," he said, speaking of the widespread violence in the world by Muslims against other Muslims.

"And that I refuse as a Muslim to kill another Muslim and also as a Muslim to defend the rights of others." He added that he thought Islam should not be practised as it was 10 centuries ago.

The precept of the Koran is, perpetual war against all who deny, that Mahomet is the prophet of God. The vanquished may purchase their lives, by the payment of tribute; the victorious may be appeased by a false and delusive promise of peace; and the faithful follower of the prophet, may submit to the imperious necessities of defeat: but the command to propagate the Moslem creed by the sword is always obligatory, when it can be made effective. John Quincy Adams
(Sixth President of the United States

Can you please clear your posts, as you are mixing all the posts together, whatever you are trying to say is not at all clear.

You are taking the verse of Quran as killing for all? amzaing your understanding it, the verse in actual is refered to al the humanity, not like Bible where its writen clearly that .

Matthew 10
34-Do not suppose that I have come to bring peace to the earth. I did not come to bring peace, but a sword.

35-For I am come to set a man at variance against his father, and the daughter against her mother, and the daughter in law against her mother in law.

36-And a man's foes shall be they of his own household.

This is very clear of the intentions of christians, that they are in real following this verse. Since the time of christianity, till today.

And the worst one.

Luke 19:27

27But those enemies of mine who did not want me to be king over them—bring them here and kill them in front of me."

So its true that in bible is clearly mentioned for killing, one who dont believe in faith of christianity. But in Quran, only killing is for people who create mischeif in land. and for the same purpose, we have police and army in every country.
So you mean that Quran is ordering for killing, its same like you say every country in the world is ordering for killing, as they have army and police for that

Sorry you are so confused. What is your native language?

The conference recently held reinforces the idea that a muslim must not kill a muslim but says nothing about not killing non-believers- to do so would to go against the Quran.

If you would take your time and read Luke 19 you would see it is a parable that Jesus is telling about a king and what the king did and is not an order for any believer to go out and kill non-believers. I will not get into what the parable means for fear of confusing you further.

The other Matthew 10 is a prediction of Jesus'- many families have been divided over and torn apart over HIS teachings. This is not an order to go out and do the tearing apart of families it just happened. Again this is not an order for any believer to go out and kill non-believers.

Did you know that there are many translations of the Bible suited to various age levels and abilities? My children were given age appopriate Holy Bibles as children-preschoolers then more advanced as they progressed in their reading skills. The main messages are intact in all the translations-just uses everyday instead of Olde English.

If you are not a native english speaker say arabic then you can get one in your native tongue here:
http://www.biblegateway.com/passage/?se ... rsion=ALAB

Bible Translation By Grade Level

It may help to know what the approximate reading level is for a given translation. Here's a quick guide for the most popular translations:

Translation Grade Level

KJV 12th
RSV 12th
NASB 11th
NRSV 11th
ESV 10th
NIV 7th-8th

Translation Grade Level

HCSB 7th-8th
NKJV 7th
NLT 6th
Message 4th-5th
NCV 3rd
NIRV 3rd

Since you are not acepting my explanation and clarification of verse of Quran you quote, I also have the right not to accept any of your clarification and explanation of Bible verse.
Through history, its observed that Christians killed other people of faith, in the name of religion, which is self proof that Christians follow bible, whch gives order for killing.
If you want to know the killing by christians, please read the post and join there for any discussion.

http://debatingchristianity.com/forum/v ... hp?t=12551

(Victims of the Christian faith)

[van]

Yes! Christians have in the past today and in the future will more then likely do bad evil things-they are humn and sinners. In behaving in such a way they are not following the Gospel or Jesus' teachng.

I understand you are saying that you believe that the Quran's violent verses were for specific wars. Why do so many of your imams preach to kill the non-believers? I think it is because they think they are at war with non-believers at all times. The Quran tells them they are. I am causing mischeif by just questioning the validity of the Quran and Islam and so according to Islam should be killed.

Are you saying that all your imams are misunderstanding the quran? All those that preach hate?

Yes I know that the Quran is vague and much too easily taken out of context by many misunderstanders of Islam- that to me is proof that it is not a book for all of man, revealed by GOD. It is used much better as a tool for war.

OK changing subject a bit now to a new study out - suprememcy of men over women in Islam:
4.34 Men are the protectors and maintainers of women, because Allah has given the one more than the other, and because they support them from their means. Therefore the righteous women are devoutly obedient, and guard in absence what Allah would have them guard. As to those women on whose part ye fear disloyalty and ill-conduct, admonish them, refuse to share their beds, beat them; but if they return to obedience, seek not against them Means: For Allah is Most High, great.

http://www.jpost.com/servlet/Satellite? ... e/ShowFull

Report: 77% of Gaza women face violence

A religion that needs religious police!!

[TrueReligion]

Yes! Christians have in the past today and in the future will more then likely do bad evil things-they are humn and sinners. In behaving in such a way they are not following the Gospel or Jesus' teachng.

But Bible teaches kiling of inocent people, so ofcourse those christians are good christans, that they are following Bible
I understand you are saying that you believe that the Quran's violent verses were for specific wars. Why do so many of your imams preach to kill the non-believers? I think it is because they think they are at war with non-believers at all times. The Quran tells them they are. I am causing mischeif by just questioning the validity of the Quran and Islam and so according to Islam should be killed.

This is what Bible say, not Quran to correct you dear

Are you saying that all your imams are misunderstanding the quran? All those that preach hate?

No true Muslim would teach this, the given such statments are giving for self defence, which is allowed in war

Yes I know that the Quran is vague and much too easily taken out of context by many misunderstanders of Islam- that to me is proof that it is not a book for all of man, revealed by GOD. It is used much better as a tool for war.

If its not a book for all men, why millions of christians left Bible and Christianity and join Islam and they belief in QURAN?

OK changing subject a bit now to a new study out - suprememcy of men over women in Islam:
4.34 Men are the protectors and maintainers of women, because Allah has given the one more than the other, and because they support them from their means. Therefore the righteous women are devoutly obedient, and guard in absence what Allah would have them guard. As to those women on whose part ye fear disloyalty and ill-conduct, admonish them, refuse to share their beds, beat them; but if they return to obedience, seek not against them Means: For Allah is Most High, great.

http://www.jpost.com/servlet/Satellite? ... e/ShowFull

Report: 77% of Gaza women face violence

A religion that needs religious police!!

This is for women, who follow wrong path, who do adultery, bad things, ofcourse if your child do bad thing, want to beat other children , break neighbours glass, abuse elders always, you would punish the child to teach him lesson or love him to do more like this?

Infact as I told you, as per BIBLE, women is a curse on mankind. and women is punished till end of this world, by God giving her pain of labour in pregnancy.

"I will greatly multiply thy sorrow and thy conception; in sorrow thou shalt bring forth children; and thy desire shall be to thy husband, and he shall rule over thee."--Genesis 3:16

By this third chapter of Genesis, woman lost her rights, her standing--even her identity, and motherhood became a God-inflicted curse degrading her status in the world.

In the New Testament, the bible decrees:

"Let the woman learn in silence with all subjection. But I suffer not a woman to teach, nor to usurp authority over the man, but to be in silence. For Adam was first formed, then Eve. And Adam was not deceived, but the woman being deceived was in the transgression."--1 Tim. 2:11-14
One bible verse alone, "Thou shalt not suffer a witch to live" (Exodus 22:18) is responsible for the death of tens of thousands, if not millions, of women. Do women and those who care about them need further evidence of the great harm of Christianity, predicated as it has been on these and similar teachings about women?

Church writer Tertullian said "each of you women is an Eve . . . You are the gate of Hell, you are the temptress of the forbidden tree; you are the first deserter of the divine law."

Wow, what a place for women Christinaity is giving.

Martin Luther decreed: "If a woman grows weary and at last dies from childbearing, it matters not. Let her die from bearing, she is there to do it."

Such teachings prompted 19th-century feminist Elizabeth Cady Stanton to write: "The Bible and the Church have been the greatest stumbling blocks in the way of woman's emancipation."

The various Christian churches fought tooth and nail against the advancement of women, opposing everything from women's right to speak in public, to the use of anesthesia in childbirth (since the bible says women must suffer in childbirth) and woman's suffrage. Today the most organized and formidable opponent of women's social, economic and sexual rights remains organized religion. Religionists defeated the Equal Rights Amendment. Religious fanatics and bullies are currently engaged in an outright war of terrorism and harassment against women who have abortions and the medical staff which serves them. Those seeking to challenge inequities and advance the status of women today are fighting a massive coalition of fundamentalist Protestant and Catholic churches and religious groups mobilized to fight women's rights, gay rights, and secular government.

Why do women remain second-class citizens? Why is there a religion-fostered war against women's rights? Because the bible is a handbook for the subjugation of women. The bible establishes woman's inferior status, her "uncleanliness," her transgressions, and God-ordained master/servant relationship to man. Biblical women are possessions: fathers own them, sell them into bondage, even sacrifice them. The bible sanctions rape during wartime and in other contexts. Wives are subject to Mosaic-law sanctioned "bedchecks" as brides, and male jealousy fits and no-notice divorce as wives. The most typical biblical labels of women are "harlot" and "whore." They are described as having evil, even satanic powers of allurement. Contempt for women's bodies and reproductive capacity is a bedrock of the bible. The few role models offered are stereotyped, conventional and inadequate, with bible heroines admired for obedience and battle spirit. Jesus scorns his own mother, refusing to bless her, and issues dire warnings about the fate of pregnant and nursing women.

There are more than 200 bible verses that specifically belittle and demean women. Here are just a few:

(See Woe To The Women: The Bible Tells Me So for a more comprehensive list)

Genesis 2:22 Woman created from Adam's rib
3:16 Woman cursed: maternity a sin, marriage a bondage
19:1-8 Rape virgins instead of male angels


Exodus 20:17 Insulting Tenth Commandment, considering a wife to be property
21:7-11 Unfair rules for female servants, may be sex slaves
22:18 "Thou shalt not suffer a witch to live"
38:8 Women may not enter tabernacle they must support


Leviticus 12:1-14 Women who have sons are unclean 7 days
12:4-7 Women who have daughters are unclean 14 days
15:19-23 Menstrual periods are unclean
19:20-22 If master has sex with engaged woman, she shall be scourged


Numbers 1:2 Poll of people only includes men
5:13-31 Barbaric adulteress test
31:16-35 "Virgins" listed as war booty


Deuteronomy 21:11-14 Rape manual
22:5 Abomination for women to wear men's garments, vice-versa
22:13-21 Barbaric virgin test
22:23-24 Woman raped in city, she & her rapist both stoned to death
22:28-29 Woman must marry her rapist
24:1 Men can divorce woman for "uncleanness," not vice-versa
25:11-12 If woman touches foe's penis, her hand shall be cut off


Judges 11:30-40 Jephthah's nameless daughter sacrificed
19:22-29 Concubine sacrificed to rapist crowd to save man


I Kings 11:1-4 King Solomon had 700 wives & 300 concubines


Job 14:1-4 "Who can bring a clean thing out of an unclean? not one . . ."


Proverbs 7:9-27 Evil women seduce men, send them to hell
11:22 One of numerous Proverbial putdowns


Isaiah 3:16-17 God scourges, rapes haughty women


Ezekiel 16:45 One of numerous obscene denunciations


Matthew 24:19 "[woe] to them that are with child"


Luke 2:22 Mary is unclean after birth of Jesus


I Corinthians 11:3-15 Man is head of woman; only man in God's image
14:34-35 Women keep in silence, learn only from husbands


Ephesians 5:22-33 "Wives, submit . . ."


Colossians 3:18 More "wives submit"


I Timothy 2:9 Women adorn selves in shamefacedness
2:11-14 Women learn in silence in all subjection; Eve was sinful, Adam blameless

Why should women--and the men who honor women--respect and support religions which preach women's submission, which make women's subjugation a cornerstone of their theology?

When attempts are made to base laws on the bible, women must beware. The constitutional principle of separation between church and state is the only sure barrier standing between women and the bible.


Source ->http://www.ffrf.org/nontracts/women.php


But if ever you want the real place of women given by ISLAM, read this so you would know the high rank given to women by Islam, which even non-muslim acknowledged.

Women's Rights in Islam

http://www.muslimtents.com/shaufi/b2index.htm

[van]

Once again the Old Testament is the history of man shwoing our sinful nature and why we need Jesus.

The Gospel and Jesus do not teach or order men to beat their wives for any reason as in the Quran.

You know very little about the Holy Bible and Christianity: This is not a cut, when I started studying Islam 6 years ago I know nothing about it either.

When Christians say Gospel we mean Mathew, Mark, Luke and John. That is Jesus' Gospel, the GOOD NEWS and it is located in the New Testament.

Also included in the New Testament are letters that people who knew Jesus wrote through inspiration of GOD to help explain certain things that a new churches that might have had a question about.

OK so you mention:
Matthew 24:19 "[woe] to them that are with child"
Jesus is talking about the end times and how dreadful it is going to be. Nothing about a husband beating a wife.

Luke 2:22 Mary is unclean after birth of Jesus
Iin ancient times all women were considered unclean because of all the blood and body fluids-no beating going on here.

Did you know that even today people must wear gloves and covering to protect themselves from anothers blood and body fluids?

[TrueReligion]

Once again the Old Testament is the history of man shwoing our sinful nature and why we need Jesus.

The Gospel and Jesus do not teach or order men to beat their wives for any reason as in the Quran.

You need to look care Pal. there are many verses from New Testament there which clearly means that Christianity and Bible teaches violance against women, atleast as I explain, Quran tells only if wife do bad thing, which is ofcourse allow and is not something consider to be bad or wrong in any case

You know very little about the Holy Bible and Christianity: This is not a cut, when I started studying Islam 6 years ago I know nothing about it either.

Seems you know little about Bible and Chrisitnaity, dats why you never came to defend it in any of the posts, and your ignorance of New Testament is clearly showing how much Bible you have read

When Christians say Gospel we mean Mathew, Mark, Luke and John. That is Jesus' Gospel, the GOOD NEWS and it is located in the New Testament.

Yeah, and all these Gospels are stating against each other account, means all contradicting with each other, how funny are your Good News are Also, to correct you, there is no Gospel of Jesus in New Testament, maybe you never read Bible yourself dear

Also included in the New Testament are letters that people who knew Jesus wrote through inspiration of GOD to help explain certain things that a new churches that might have had a question about.

Sorry Van, but Jesus never wrote any letter to any other people, neither he instruct any1 to wrote letter on his behalf. Your knowledge of your own religion is very weak, I told you, I know much more and better christianity than you do

OK so you mention:
Matthew 24:19 "[woe] to them that are with child"
Jesus is talking about the end times and how dreadful it is going to be. Nothing about a husband beating a wife.

Luke 2:22 Mary is unclean after birth of Jesus
Iin ancient times all women were considered unclean because of all the blood and body fluids-no beating going on here.

Did you know that even today people must wear gloves and covering to protect themselves from anothers blood and body fluids?[/quote]

I told you, as you are not taking explanation of Quran from me, I also have right not to take any of your explanation of Bible, you have to be fair to debate here.

[van]

In the Holy Bible- Jesus is the Gospel - the Good News.

1 Corinthians 15
1Now, brothers, I want to remind you of the gospel I preached to you, which you received and on which you have taken your stand. 2By this gospel you are saved, if you hold firmly to the word I preached to you. Otherwise, you have believed in vain.
3For what I received I passed on to you as of first importance: that Christ died for our sins according to the Scriptures, 4that he was buried, that he was raised on the third day according to the Scriptures, 5and that he appeared to Peter, and then to the Twelve. 6After that, he appeared to more than five hundred of the brothers at the same time, most of whom are still living, though some have fallen asleep. 7Then he appeared to James, then to all the apostles,

You question the differing stories in the Gospel- these are separate eyewitness accounts that GOD inspired men to record. If you take all the accounts they can be melded together to understand the event to it's fullest.

Why do you think the early church would include different accounts if they contradicted each othe? They compliment each other.

[TrueReligion]

In the Holy Bible- Jesus is the Gospel - the Good News.

1 Corinthians 15
1Now, brothers, I want to remind you of the gospel I preached to you, which you received and on which you have taken your stand. 2By this gospel you are saved, if you hold firmly to the word I preached to you. Otherwise, you have believed in vain.
3For what I received I passed on to you as of first importance: that Christ died for our sins according to the Scriptures, 4that he was buried, that he was raised on the third day according to the Scriptures, 5and that he appeared to Peter, and then to the Twelve. 6After that, he appeared to more than five hundred of the brothers at the same time, most of whom are still living, though some have fallen asleep. 7Then he appeared to James, then to all the apostles,

Are these the words of Jesus? or any of his diciple?

You question the differing stories in the Gospel- these are separate eyewitness accounts that GOD inspired men to record. If you take all the accounts they can be melded together to understand the event to it's fullest.

Yes, thats why all four Gospels are contradicting with each other, and giving different information, maybe the writers were drunk while getting inspiration right?

Why do you think the early church would include different accounts if they contradicted each othe? They compliment each other.

Who said that Church agreed on these books of NT? and included in Bible?

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.�
The Epistle and The Revelation
The Epistle to the Hebrews, the Second Epistle of Peter, the Second and the Third
Epistles of John, the Epistle of Jacob, the Epistle of Jude and several verses of the First
Epistle of John are wrongly attributed to the apostles. These books were generally
supposed to be doubtful up until 363 AD and continue to be considered false and
unacceptable to the majority of Christian writers up until this day. The verses of the first
Epistle of John have been omitted in Syrian versions. The Arabian churches have rejected
the second Epistle of Peter Epistles of John, the Epistle of Jude, and the Revelation.
Similarly the churches of Syria have rejected them from the beginning of their history.
Horne says in the second volume of his commentary (1822) on pages 206 and 207:
``The following Epistles and verses have not been included in the Syrian version and the
same was the case with Arabian churches; the second Epistle of Peter, the Epistle of Jude,
both the epistles of John, the Revelation, the verses from 2-11 of chapter 8 in the gospel of
John, and chapter 5 verse 7 of the first Epistle of John. The translator of the Syrian version
omitted these verses because he did not believe them to be genuine.
Ward confirms this in his book (1841) on page 37: “Rogers, a great scholar of the
Protestant faith has mentioned the name of a number of Protestant scholars who declared
the following books as false and excluded them from the holy scriptures: the Epistles to the Hebrews, the Epistle of Jacob, the second and the third Epistles of John, and the
Revelation.�
Dr Bliss, a learned scholar of the Protestant faith stated: “All the books up until the
period of Eusebius are found acceptable,: and he insists on the point that: “The Epistle of
Jacob, the second Epistle of Peter and the second and third Epistles of John are not the
writing of the Apostles. The Epistles of the Hebrews remained rejected for along period;
similarly the Syrian church did not acknowledge the second Epistle of Peter, the second
and third Epistles of John, the Epistle to Jude and Revelation.�
Lardner said in vol. 4 of his commentary on page 175: “Cyrillus and the Church of
Jerusalem did not acknowledge the book of Revelation in their period. Apart from this, the
name of this book does not even occur in the list of Canonical books which he wrote.� On
page 323 of the same volume he further said: “Revelation was not the part of the Syrian
version. Barhebroeus and Jacob did not include this book for comments in their
commentary. Abedjessu omitted the second Epistle of peter, the second and the third
Epistles of John, the Epistle of Jude and the Revelation from his list. All other Syrian have
the same opinion about these books�.
The Catholic Herald (1844) contains the following statement on page 206 of vol. 7:
Rose has written on page 161 of his book that many Protestant scholars consider the book
of Revelation non-believable. Professor Ewald has produced powerful arguments to prove
that the Gospel of John and the Epistles of John and the Revelations of John cannot be
the writings of the same person.
Eusebius makes the following statement in chapter 25 of vol. 7 of his history:
Dionysius says that some ancient writers excluded the book of Revelation from the Holy
Scriptures and have completely refuted it. He said that this book is meaningless and a
great example of ignorance. Any association of this book with John or with a righteous man
or with any Christian is wrong. In fact, this with book was attributed to John by a heretic
Cerinthus. I wish I had the powers of excluding it from the Holy Scriptures. As far as my
own opinion is concerned, I believe it to be from someone who was inspired. But what I
cannot easily believe is that the writer was any of the apostles, or that he was the son of
Zebedee or brother of Jacob.� On the contrary the idiom of the text and style strongly
indicate that the writer cannot have been the Apostle John who is mentioned in the Book of
Acts because his presence in Asia Minor is not known. This John is totally a different man who is an Asian. There are two graves in the city of Ephesus, both bearing the inscription
of John. The contents and the style of this book indicate that John, the Evangelist, is not
the writer of this book. Since the text of the Gospel and the Epistles is as refined as the
style of the Greeks. Contrary to this the book of Revelation contains a text very different in
style from the Greeks, full of uncommon expressions. Besides this the Evangelists have a
common practice in that they do not disclose their names in the Gospels nor in the
Epistles, but describe themselves in the first person or in the third person, which writer of
this book has mentioned his own name. In the revelation of Jesus in chapter 1 he says:
“The revelation of Jesus Christ which God gave unto him to show unto his servants things
which must shortly come to pass; and he sent and signified id by his Angel unto his servant
John.� He also writes in chapter 4: “John to the seven churches which are in Asia.� In
chapter 9 he says: “I, John, who am your brother, and companion in tribulation and in this
kingdom, and patience of Jesus Christ.� Again in 22:8 he says: “I John saw this things and
heard them.�
He mentions his name in all the above verses contrary to the general practice of the
Evangelists. The explanation that the writer has disclosed his name against his normal
practice in order to introduce himself cannot be acceptable because if this had been his
object he would have used specific words together with his name defining his intention. For
example, he could have written John, the sun of Zebedee or brother of James. He only
uses some general words like “your brother�, companion in patience etc., which do not
serve the purpose of his introduction.
Eusebius also says in chapter 3 of vol. 3 of his book: “The first Epistle of Peter is
genuine, but his second Epistle should never be included in the Holy Scripture. Fourteen
Epistles of Paul are, however, read. The Epistle to the Hebrews has been excluded by
some people.�
He further elaborates in chapter 25 of the same book: “It has been a point of debate
whether the Epistles to James, and Jude, the second epistle of Peter, and the Epistles of
John I and II were written by the Evangelists or some other writers of the same names. It
should be understood that the Acts of Paul, the Revelation of Peter, the Epistle of
Barnabas and the book entitled, “The Institution of the Disciples� are rejected books and
this can be proved. The Revelation should also be included in this list.�

Eusebius also quotes a statement of Origen concerning the Epistle to the Hebrews
in chapter 25 of vol. 6 of his book: “It is a popular notion among the people that this Epistle
(Hebrews) was written by Clement of Rome (150-220) and some people think that it was
written by Luke.�
The Irish missionary Lyon (178) and Hippolitus (220) and Nouclus, the missionary of
Rome (251), refused to accept the genuineness of the Epistle to Hebrews. Turtullien, the
bishop of Carthage (d. 200) says that this Epistle belongs to Barnabas. Caius, the
Presbyter of Rome (d. 251) counted thirteen Epistles of Paul and did not count this Epistle.
Cyprien, the bishop of Carthage (248), does not make any mention of this Epistle. The
Monophysite churches still refuse to acknowledge the second Epistle of Peter and the
second and third Epistles of John.
Scaliger disowns the Epistle to the Hebrews by saying that whoever was the author
of this Epistle had wasted his time.
Eusebius, in chapter 23 of vol. 2 of his book says: “Generally this Epistle is
supposed to be false and several ancient writers have mentioned this. Our opinion about
the Epistle of Jude is not different but many churches still act according to it.�
The History of the Bible (1850) contains this statement: “Grotius says that this
Epistle, that is, the Epistle of Jude was written by Jude Oskolf (Archbishop) the 15th Oskolf
of Jerusalem living in the period of Emperor Hadrian.�?
Eusebius has stated in his history vol. 6, chapter 25: “Origen said in vol. 5 of his
commentary on the Gospel of John that Paul did not write any thing to the Churches, and if
he wrote to any Church it was not more than a few lines.�
According to Origen, all the Epistles which are attributed to Paul, where not written
by him. They are hypothetically attributed to him. Perhaps a few lines of Paul might also
present in these Epistles.
Keeping all this statements in mind, we are led to believe the truth of the following
statement made by Festus: “The author of the New Testament is neither Jesus Christ nor
his apostles, but a certain man of unknown identity has written them and attributed them to
the Evangelists.� The truth of this statement has been proved beyond doubt. We have
already shown earlier in this book that this six Epistles and the book of Revelation were
believed in and remained rejected up to 363; and they were not acknowledged even by the council of Nicaea in 325. Then in 364 the members of the council of Liodesia
acknowledged the six Epistles. The Book of Revelation remained excluded even in this
meeting but later on in 397 was acknowledge by the Council of Carthage.
The decision of the two councils about these cannot be considered as an argument
for obvious reasons. Firstly all the councils had acknowledged the Book of Jude. The
Council of Liodesia then accepted the ten verses of chapter 10 from the Book of Esther,
and the six chapters subsequent to chapter 10. The Song of Solomon, Tobit, Baruch,
Ecclesiastes and Maccabees were acknowledged by the council of Carthage, while all the
subsequent councils confirmed the decision of the above three councils. Now, if the
decisions of these councils were founded on authenticated arguments, which they most
certainly were not, then the Protestant would have accepted them, but on the other hand, if
their decisions were arbitrary, as was in fact the case, it was necessary for the Protestants
to reject all of these books. We are very much surprised to note that they accepted the
councils` decision regarding the six Epistles as well as the Book of Revelation but rejected
it concerning the other books, especially the book of Judith which had been unanimously
acknowledged by the councils. This decision was again arbitrary and with out justification.
Their only proffered reasons, does the original versions of these books has been lost,
cannot be accepted because Jerome confirmed the fact that he found the original versions
of Jude and Tobata in the Chaldean language and the original book of Ecclesiasticus in
Hebrew, and these books have been translated from the original versions. On this basis,
the Protestants should at least accept these books and they should in fact reject the
Gospel of Matthew since the original of that book was lost.
The statement of Horne, already quoted previously, proves the fact that the ancient
Christians were not very particular about looking into the authenticity of their traditions.
They used to accept and write all kinds of mythical and fabulous stories and traditions
which were followed and acted upon by the people of subsequent times. In view of this, the
most acceptable conclusion is that the scholars of these councils must have heard some of
these traditions, which, after having been rejected for centuries, where acknowledged by
them without any authentication.
Because the holy scriptures are treated by the Christians in the same way as
ordinary books of law and civil administration, they continually changed and altered the
texts to suit their needs. A few examples of this will be sufficient to establish our claim. The Greek translation was consistently acknowledged as the authoritative text from the time of
the Apostles to the 15th century. The Hebrew versions were believed to have been
distorted and the Greek translation was considered the accurate version. Subsequently the
position of these books was altogether changed.
The destroyed version was acknowledged as accurate and accurate one as
distorted. The Book of Daniel in the Greek version was genuine in the eyes of the early
scholars, but after Origen declared that it was incorrect, they rejected it and replaced it with
the version of Theodotion.
The Epistle of Aristias remained on the least of the Holly Scriptures but in the
seventeenth century some objections were raised against it and suddenly it turned into a
false document in the eyes of all the Protestant scholars.
The Latin version is believed genuine by all the Catholics, while it is considered
distorted and unbelievable by the Protestants.
The small book of Genesis remained genuine and believable up until the 15th
century while the same book was declared false and rejected in the 16th century.
The Third Book of Ezra is still acknowledge by the Greek church but has been
rejected by both the Catholics and Protestants.
Similarly the Song of Solomon was considered genuine, part of the Holly Scriptures
and can still be found in the Codex Alexandrine, yet it is now rejected.
The gradual realization of the distortions present in a number of their holy books is
bound to lead the Christians, sooner or later, to admit to the truth of the fact that the great
parts of the Judeo-Christian scriptures have undergone great changes and distortions.
We have shown that the Christians do not possess any authentic records or
acceptable arguments for the authenticity of the books of either the Old Testament of The
New Testament.

Now if you want the books, which are droped out from current Bible, I can provide you that list as well

[van]

1 Corinthians 15 is written by Paul.

Paul lived ca 5 - 67 AD. He was a hebrew that presecuted the early Christians. When Stephen was martyred for following Jesus Paul was there giving approval to it.

Paul had a miraculous conversion while out on a trip to presecute more Christians and Jesus appeared to Paul. Paul changed his life forever.

You are not telling me anyting I didn't already know -except that 38AD date seems very early which would be absolutely amazing: Do you have refernce for that?

"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.�

You are confusing Gospel and the other Book of the New Testament. Yes there has been question about some of the New Tetsament Books. There is just not enough proof for these Books to include them in the Holy Bible. Some believe otherwise.

There are certain ones that all agree on like the 4 Gospels.

Not to confuss you but there are many Books out there that are considered Christian writtings but not Holy Scripture. Again because of proof.

There is New Testament and Old Testament Apocrypha. Also there are false Gospels that were written way too late after the fact to be anything other then made up.

if I remmeber correctly there is one in particular that has some of the stories similar to the Quran about Jesus making the birds of clay. We just do not have enough proof to include it in the Holy Bible and know it was written in the 2nd or 3rd century.