Transparency and credibility of factual facts

[somo]

For truly I tell you, until heaven and earth disappear, not the smallest letter, not the least stroke of a pen, will by any means disappear from the Law until everything is accomplished.

Matthew 5:18
The Prophet Jesus peace be upon him,
came to complete the law of the ancient prophets
Without decrease or increase
The remaining authentic verses in the Old Testament cannot be omitted

Why such variance in viewpoints? To begin with, different theological camps disagree on which books should be included in the Bible. One camp’s apocrypha is another’s scripture. Secondly, even among those books that have been canonized, the many variant source texts lack uniformity. This lack of uniformity is so ubiquitous that The Interpreter’s Dictionary of the Bible states, “It is safe to say that there is not one sentence in the NT in which the MS [manuscript] tradition is wholly uniform.”[2]

Not one sentence? We can’t trust a single sentence of the Bible? Hard to believe.
Maybe

The fact is that there are over 5700 Greek manuscripts of all or part of the New Testament.[3] Furthermore, “no two of these manuscripts are exactly alike in all their particulars…. And some of these differences are significant.”[4] Factor in roughly ten thousand manuscripts of the Latin Vulgate, add the many other ancient variants (i.e., Syriac, Coptic, Armenian, Georgian, Ethiopic, Nubian, Gothic, Slavonic), and what do we have?
A lot of manuscripts

A lot of manuscripts that fail to correspond in places and not infrequently contradict one another. Scholars estimate the number of manuscript variants in the hundreds of thousands, some estimating as high as 400,000.[5] In Bart D. Ehrman’s now famous words, “Possibly it is easiest to put the matter in comparative terms: there are more differences in our manuscripts than there are words in the New Testament.”[6]
How did this happen?

Poor record keeping. Dishonesty. Incompetence. Doctrinal prejudice. Take your pick.

None of the original manuscripts have survived from the early Christian period.[7]/[8] The most ancient complete manuscripts (Vatican MS. No. 1209 and the Sinaitic Syriac Codex) date from the fourth century, three hundred years after Jesus’ ministry. But the originals? Lost. And the copies of the originals? Also lost. Our most ancient manuscripts, in other words, are copies of the copies of the copies of nobody-knows-just-how-many copies of the originals.
No wonder they differ

In the best of hands, copying errors would be no surprise. However, New Testament manuscripts were not in the best of hands. During the period of Christian origins, scribes were untrained, unreliable, incompetent, and in some cases illiterate.[9] Those who were visually impaired could have made errors with look-alike letters and words, while those who were hearing-impaired may have erred in recording scripture as it was read aloud. Frequently scribes were overworked, and hence inclined to the errors that accompany fatigue.

In the words of Metzger and Ehrman, “Since most, if not all, of them [the scribes] would have been amateurs in the art of copying, a relatively large number of mistakes no doubt crept into their texts as they reproduced them.”[10] Worse yet, some scribes allowed doctrinal prejudice to influence their transmission of scripture.[11] As Ehrman states, “The scribes who copied the texts changed them.”[12] More specifically, “The number of deliberate alterations made in the interest of doctrine is difficult to assess.”[13] And even more specifically, “In the technical parlance of textual criticism—which I retain for its significant ironies—these scribes ‘corrupted’ their texts for theological reasons.”[14]

Errors were introduced in the form of additions, deletions, substitutions and modifications, most commonly of words or lines, but occasionally of entire verses.[15] [16] In fact, “numerous changes and accretions came into the text,”[17] with the result that “all known witnesses of the New Testament are to a greater or lesser extent mixed texts, and even several of the earliest manuscripts are not free from egregious errors.”[18]

In Misquoting Jesus, Ehrman presents persuasive evidence that the story of the woman taken in adultery (John 7:53-8:12) and the last twelve verses of Mark were not in the original gospels, but added by later scribes.[19] Furthermore, these examples “represent just two out of thousands of places in which the manuscripts of the New Testament came to be changed by scribes.”[20]

In fact, entire books of the Bible were forged.[21] This doesn’t mean their content is necessarily wrong, but it certainly doesn’t mean it’s right. So which books were forged? Ephesians, Colossians, 2 Thessalonians, 1 and 2 Timothy, Titus, 1 and 2 Peter, and Jude—a whopping nine of the twenty-seven New Testament books and epistles—are to one degree or another suspect.[22]
Forged books? In the Bible?

Why are we not surprised? After all, even the gospel authors are unknown. In fact, they’re anonymous.[23] Biblical scholars rarely, if ever, ascribe gospel authorship to Matthew, Mark, Luke, or John. As Ehrman tells us, “Most scholars today have abandoned these identifications, and recognize that the books were written by otherwise unknown but relatively well-educated Greek-speaking (and writing) Christians during the second half of the first century.”[24] Graham Stanton affirms, “The gospels, unlike most Graeco-Roman writings, are anonymous. The familiar headings which give the name of an author (‘The Gospel according to …’) were not part of the original manuscripts, for they were added only early in the second century.”[25]

So what, if anything, did Jesus’ disciples have to do with authoring the gospels? Little or nothing, so far as we know. But we have no reason to believe they authored any of the books of the Bible. To begin with, let us remember Mark was a secretary to Peter, and Luke a companion to Paul. The verses of Luke 6:14-16 and Matthew 10:2-4 catalogue the twelve disciples, and although these lists differ over two names, Mark and Luke don’t make either list. So only Matthew and John were true disciples. But all the same, modern scholars pretty much disqualify them as authors anyway.
Why?

Good question. John being the more famous of the two, why should we disqualify him from having authored the Gospel of “John”?
Umm … because he was dead?

Multiple sources acknowledge there is no evidence, other than questionable testimonies of second century authors, to suggest that the disciple John was the author of the Gospel of “John.”[26] [27] Perhaps the most convincing refutation is that the disciple John is believed to have died in or around 98 CE.[28] However, the Gospel of John was written circa 110 CE.[29] So whoever Luke (Paul’s companion), Mark (Peter’s secretary), and John (the unknown, but certainly not the long-dead one) were, we have no reason to believe any of the gospels were authored by Jesus’ disciples


How the Bible was corrupted by Dr. Bart Ehrman YouTube
‫كيف تم تحريف الانجيل الدكتور بارت ايرمان‬‎ YouTube


New Testament of the Bible regarding Jesus by Yusha ...



هندوسية تدخل الإٍسلام بعد سؤال مترجم A hindu woman is accepting Islam



مسيحي يعتنق الإسلام في حوار مع عباس ...

[somo]

The human being has an inherent and inborn recognition of his Creator. This is a consequence of a pledge which Allah took from the soul of every one of us before we came into this world, Allah Says (what means): "And [remember], when your Lord took from the children of Aadam, their children behind them, and made them testify over their own selves, [saying to them], 'Am I not your Lord?' They said, 'Yea.'"[Quran 7:172]'

the souls were created long ago and only instilled into the human bodies at a prescribed time inside the mother’s womb. This happened over the passing of time and continues to happen till the end of time.

There is, of course, a difference in the soul of Adam and the soul of the rest of Allah’s creation, in that the former came directly from Allah, while the latter was created. All souls were created from the back of Nabi Adam (Alayhis-salaam) and preserved in the realm of the World of Souls (Aalamul-Arwaah). Subsequent to Nabi Adam’s entry into this world, as each human fetus developed to a period of 120 days, its soul that was existing millenniums before was introduced into the womb to give life to that fetus.



Elijah and Moses did not really appear to Jesus at the mountain.

the story of their appearance on the mountain of Transfiguration should be read as symbolic rather than as a real event.

Indeed there is life after death this life is exam a test for all of us to find out real Almighty GOD. Jesus Peace be upon him is not dead Almighty Raised him and Almighty will send him back before day of resurrection. Jesus is one of the mighty Prophet of GOD like Ibraham P.B.U.H, Mosis P.B.U.H and many others and last Prophet Muhammad P.B.U.H. please for God sake just for single time read The Holy QuAan with translation before its “too late”







القرآن يذهل العالم ويكشف 10 أسرار تاريخية عن الفراعنة ومصر القديمة لم تُكتشف إلا حديثاً




How the Bible was corrupted by Dr. Bart Ehrman YouTube







Christian Preacher's Conversion to Islam! - "I Tried to Make Muslims Christian" I Towards Eternity

[William]

Re “Elijah and Moses did not really appear to Jesus at the mountain.
The story of their appearance on the mountain of Transfiguration should be read as symbolic rather than as a real event.”
What evidence do you have to support this claim?

Re “please for God sake just for single time read The Holy QuAan with translation before its “too late”
What you ask is tantamount to advising I worship a particular holy book, something I find categorically, a form of Idolism.

I understand that in Islam, the Quran is viewed as the literal Word of God and serves as an important guide to understanding and worshipping Him. From what you’ve explained, I can see how Muslims believe the Quran helps to foster a deeper connection with God.
However, I approach this from a different standpoint. For me, any intermediary, including a sacred text, risks shifting the focus away from the direct worship and relationship with God. While Islam may not consider this reliance on the Quran as idolization, I personally find that placing such emphasis on a specific text or medium could distract from the direct and pure worship of God. To me, God is accessible without any intermediary, and my spiritual connection with Him does not require a particular book or guide.
I understand that different faiths approach this in various ways, but I wanted to express my own concern that what may not be considered idolization in Islam, I do. I value the directness of my relationship with God, and I prefer to keep it unmediated by texts or objects, no matter how sacred they may be.

[somo]

Something that brings the historicity of the passage into doubt is that the disciples supposedly knew, without being told, that the two strangers speaking to Jesus were Moses and Elijah. Why would they so easily and so confidently come to this conclusion?

with the gospels offering no evidence for their assumption nor permitting any doubt that the assumption was correct

the purpose of this gospel anecdote was simply to associate Jesus with the revered ancient prophets. Jesus never really met Moses and Elijah on the mountain.


This becomes more curious when I turn to the Old Testament and find that nearly all biblical scholars`` say there was no Exodus from Egypt as portrayed in the Bible, .This means that Moses could not have appeared on the Mount of Transfiguration , whether in the flesh, as a ghost or a spirit.

The only rational explanation is that the Transfiguration story is a literary creation, having first appeared in Mark’s Gospel, then copied to the other New Testament gospels.






2-





Hinduism is considered a polytheistic religion, as it recognizes the existence of about 330 million gods, but there is only one god above these gods, which is the Brahma

Christianity worships the Prophet Jesus Christ as God or the Son of God, and He is the Savior of humanity from its tragedies and pains, and that He bears their sins for them.

The Jews worship God, but with attributes that are not worthy of God’s greatness, and they say that Uzair is the son of God.

They are all spiritual and do not care about their books, so do we know who is the true God or the true religion through them?

Only in your own spiritual way will everyone remain on the path of darkness and falsehood


There must be correct scientific and historical evidence for religious books, then spirituality comes on a disciplined basis after knowing the true God

It is not just an illusory spirituality that depends on the whims and desires of humans, and everyone does what they like and worships what they like








3-


The Prophets of the Old Testament such as Abraham, Noah and Jonah never preached that God is part of a Trinity, and did not believe in Jesus as their saviour. Their message was simple: there is one God and He alone deserves your worship. It doesn’t make sense that God sent Prophets for thousands of years with the same essential message, and then all of a sudden he says he is in a Trinity and that you must believe in Jesus to be saved.

The truth is that Jesus preached the same message that the Prophets in the Old Testament preached. There is a passage in the Bible which really emphasizes his core message. A man came to Jesus and asked “Which is the first commandment of all?”Jesus answered, “The first of all the commandments is Hear, O Israel, the Lord our God, the Lord is one.’’[Mark 12:28-29]. So the greatest commandment, the most important belief according to Jesus is that God is one. If Jesus was God he would have said ‘I am God, worship me’, but he didn’t. He merely repeated a verse from the Old Testament confirming that God is One.

Some people claim that Jesus came to die for the sins of the world. But consider the following statement of Jesus: This is eternal life: to know you, the only true God, and Jesus Christ whom you sent. I have glorified you on earth by finishing the work you gave me to do.[John 17:3-4].

Also Jesus said “salvation is of the Jews” [John 4:22]. So according to this we don’t need to believe in the Trinity or that Jesus died for our sins to attain salvation since the Jews don’t have these beliefs.



. The Early Christians

Historically there were many sects in early Christianity who had a range of beliefs regarding Jesus. Some believed Jesus was God, others believed Jesus was not God but partly divine, and yet others believed he was a human being and nothing more. Trinitarian Christianity which is the belief that God, Jesus and the Holy Spirit are one in three persons became the dominant sect of Christianity, once it was formalized as the state religion of the Roman Empire in the 4th Century. Christians who denied Jesus being God were persecuted by the Roman Authorities[2]. From this point onwards the Trinitarian belief became widespread amongst Christians. There were various movements in early Christianity which denied the Trinity, among the more well known of them is Adoptionism and Arianism.

Dr Jerald Dirks who is an expert on early Christianity had this to say on the subject: Early Christianity was quite conflicted about the issue of the nature of Jesus. The various Adoptionist positions within early Christianity were numerous and at times dominate. One can even speculate that Arian and Nestorian Christianity might well be an extremely sizable source within Christianity today, if it were not for the fact that these two branches of Christianity, which were located primarily in the middle east and in North Africa were so similar to the Islamic teaching regarding the nature of Jesus that they quite naturally were absorbed into Islam at the beginning of the seventh century.”

Since there were so many sects in early Christianity, each with different beliefs about Jesus and with their own versions of the Bible, which one can we say was following the true teachings of Jesus?

It doesn’t make sense that God sends countless Prophets like Noah, Abraham and Moses to tell people to believe in one God, and then suddenly sends a radically different message of the Trinity which contradicts his previous Prophets teachings. It is clear that the sect of Christianity who believed Jesus to be a human Prophet and nothing more, were following the true teachings of Jesus. This is because their concept of God is the same as that which was taught by the Prophets in the Old Testament.
Jesus in Islam

The Islamic belief about Jesus demystifies for us who the real Jesus was. Jesus in Islam was an extraordinary individual, chosen by God as a Prophet and sent to the Jewish people. He never preached that he himself was God or the actual son of God. He was miraculously born without a father, and he performed many amazing miracles such as healing the blind and the lepers and raising the dead – all by God’s permission. Muslims believe that Jesus will return before the day of Judgement to bring justice and peace to the world. This Islamic belief about Jesus is similar to the belief of some of the early Christians. In the Quran, God addresses the Christians about Jesus in the following way:

O People of the Book, do not commit excesses in your religion, and do not say anything about God except the truth: the Messiah, Jesus, son of Mary, was nothing more than a messenger of God, His word, directed to Mary and a spirit from Him. So believe in God and His Messengers and do not speak of a ‘Trinity’– stop [this], that is better for you– God is only one God, He is far above having a son, everything in the heavens and earth belongs to Him and He is the best one to trust. [4:171]

Islam is not just another religion. It is the same message preached by Moses, Jesus and Abraham. Islam literally means ‘submission to God’ and it teaches us to have a direct relationship with God. It reminds us that since God created us, no one should be worshipped except God alone. It also teaches that God is nothing like a human being or like anything that we can imagine. The concept of God is summarized in the Quran as:

“Say, He is God, the One. God, the Absolute. He does not give birth, nor was He born, and there is nothing like Him.” (Quran 112:1-4)[4]

Becoming a Muslim is not turning your back to Jesus. Rather it’s going back to the original teachings of Jesus and obeying him.

[somo]

someone told me

The Qur'an

I just read the first chapter and it’s explanation online and I’m quite taken aback. I’ve also heard the recitation online - this is otherworldly - and feels divine in origin.

What if we are wrong about Islam and it truly is the final message from God to mankind?

I mean, think about it. All the monotheistic religions are from the Middle East, and Islam claims to be a continuation of the very same tradition stemming back all the way from Adam, to Noah, to Abraham, to Moses, to Jesus and finally to Mohammed. When I look into the core theology which each of these chosen of God preached, I find the very same unshakeable message - it’s continuity is undeniable - and to deny this fact would be akin to signing away all of ones faculties of reason, logic, and higher thinking.

If you truly are a seeking heart, why don’t you pick up a Quran and read/study it with sincerity like I am?

I can’t believe I’m preaching to read the Quran already lol but yeah, do it, if you can live up to your username.



Do not take your information from anti-Islam sites

Do not take your information from Christian missionary organizations




I always say you should learn about Islam from specialized Islamic centers



The Qur'an is in Arabic and the translation of the Qur'an is only an approximation of the meaning of the Qur'an




Many non_muslims learn the Arabic language in order to study the original manuscripts of the Qur’an as an original source and return to it if the translation makes a mistake in the meanings of the Qur’an.


Because you have an original source for the Qur’an, which is the Arabic language in which the Qur’an was revealed, even if there is an error in one of the translations to interpret the meanings of the Qur’an.You have an original source to correct the translation







Unlike Christians, they do not understand their Bible and interpret it according to their whims



Christ spoke the Aramaic language

However, you will not find the original source of the Bible as a reference for Christians in the Aramaic language, but only translations in different languages such as Greek and other languages. You do not have a reliable and original source to correct the mistakes of the writers and the incorrect translation.


شهادة روعة! أمريكية تفاجئ الدعاة وتعتنق الإسلام أثناء البث المباشر لهذا السبب


عقلي مع الإسلام لكن قلبي مع النصرانية | نصرانية محترمة تسأل محمد علي









نهاية مذهلة لا تفوتك! مسلم مرتد يعيد النظر في قراراته بعد حديث مع حمزة وعباس




600 Priests CONVERT To ISLAM (UNBELIEVABLE!)



What Priests Find in Islam? Stories of Christians Who Converted to Islam!

[somo]

Is the Qur'an God's Word? by Dr Zakir Naik | Full Lecture



Is the Islam True Religion If Yes, How? Answered By Dr. Zakir Naik



How to prove that Islam is the 100% true religion Dr Zakir Naik

[William]

[Replying to somo in post #143]

1. The Historicity of the Transfiguration:
You suggest that the Transfiguration story, where Jesus is described as meeting Moses and Elijah, is symbolic rather than literal, partially because the disciples seemed to recognize these figures without prior introduction. I understand the logic, but I find it lacking in concrete evidence. Symbolism in religious narratives is certainly common, but claiming an event is symbolic requires more than the presence of supernatural or unexplainable elements. Without historical or textual evidence directly indicating a symbolic intention by the authors, this remains an assumption rather than a substantiated argument.

To illustrate, consider a comparable event in Islamic tradition: the Isra and Mi'raj—the Night Journey and Ascension of Muhammad in which he is said to have traveled from Mecca to Jerusalem and then ascended through the heavens, meeting earlier prophets, including Moses and Jesus, before returning to Mecca. Like the Transfiguration, this event is supernatural and invites questions of literal versus symbolic interpretation. Mainstream Islamic belief holds it as a literal, miraculous journey, but some scholars, especially within Sufi mystical traditions, interpret the Mi'raj as a spiritual or symbolic journey, representing a profound connection with GOD rather than a physical movement through space.

Additionally, modern accounts of Near-Death Experiences (NDEs) and astral projection present similar encounters. Many people report spiritual journeys or encounters with deceased relatives, historical figures, or even figures from religious tradition, without leaving their physical surroundings. These experiences are often described as intensely real by those who have them, and like the Transfiguration or Mi'raj, can be interpreted as either literal or symbolic depending on one’s beliefs.

These contemporary experiences, along with historical narratives from various religious traditions, demonstrate that such encounters can be understood in multiple ways. Without specific evidence indicating a symbolic intention in the Transfiguration account, treating it as symbolic remains speculative—much like interpreting the Isra and Mi'raj as a purely spiritual journey rather than a literal one. Therefore, while the Transfiguration could be read symbolically, such a conclusion would require more than an assumption based on the supernatural nature of the event.

2. Criticism of Other Religions and Polytheism:
You seem to argue that faiths like Hinduism, Christianity, and Judaism are on a "path of darkness and falsehood" due to differing beliefs about GOD, such as Hinduism’s polytheistic elements or the Jewish understanding of GOD’s nature. However, this claim presents a false dilemma by suggesting that the only true understanding of GOD is the Islamic one, with all others falling into error.

There are many pathways to understanding and relating to the divine, and each tradition you mentioned approaches GOD’s oneness in ways that reflect their unique theological and cultural perspectives. While Islam certainly emphasizes monotheism, other faiths may also aim to uphold the unity and supremacy of GOD in their own terms, such as Hinduism’s concept of Brahman as the ultimate reality beyond its many deities, or Judaism’s unwavering monotheism.

3. Historical Sectarian Variability in Early Christianity:
Your point about early Christian sects having varied views of Jesus’ divinity is accurate and historically grounded. Christianity, like many religious traditions, had a wide array of interpretations regarding Jesus’ nature and relationship with GOD. However, asserting that the Islamic view of Jesus as a prophet is the only accurate interpretation overlooks the historical and cultural context within which each sect formed. Christianity’s theological development included diverse voices, but this diversity does not necessarily imply one “correct” interpretation, as early followers may have perceived the divine and human aspects of Jesus in varied ways, influenced by regional, cultural, and doctrinal factors.

If the goal is to identify a single “true” representation of Jesus’ teachings, then historical context and religious plurality within early Christianity should be examined comprehensively, rather than concluding that Islamic interpretations alone reflect his original teachings.


4. The Emphasis on Text-Based Worship and Idolism:
You encouraged reading the Quran "before it’s too late," implying that it provides the only truly accurate understanding of GOD. I understand that in Islam, the Quran is viewed as the literal Word of GOD, essential for connecting with Him and discerning the true path. However, urging someone to read a particular sacred text as a requirement for knowing GOD can risk positioning it as an intermediary rather than a mere guide. This emphasis could be interpreted as bordering on idolism—placing such importance on a text that it becomes the main route to GOD, rather than GOD Himself being fully accessible.

This point connects with my perspective, which aligns with what I call the Subjective GOD Model (SGM). The SGM emphasizes that each individual has a direct and unmediated relationship with GOD, without the need for any particular text or external authority. In this view, GOD’s presence is inherently accessible within each person, and individuals can shape their understanding of divine truths through personal experience and spiritual discernment. Rather than relying on any one holy book or institution, the SGM promotes co-creation with GOD—meaning individuals evolve their moral and spiritual understanding in collaboration with GOD through their lived experiences.

While I recognize that the Quran holds a central role in Islam, I view it as an intermediary itself, potentially creating a layer between worshippers and GOD. From the SGM perspective, any specific text could unintentionally distract from a direct engagement with the divine. For me, GOD is accessible without intermediary texts or objects, and spirituality arises from a personal, inner relationship with the divine rather than through institutional or scriptural validation.

5. Consistent Divine Message and Change over Time:
You noted that it doesn’t make sense for GOD to send prophets over thousands of years with a single message of monotheism, only for Christianity to later develop the concept of the Trinity. While Islam sees itself as a continuation and clarification of monotheistic traditions, theological differences and variations over time don’t necessarily negate the validity of other interpretations. Religious traditions evolve, influenced by historical, cultural, and doctrinal developments, and each interpretation reflects the understanding of its followers at that time.

It’s also worth noting that the belief in a divine mystery, as Christianity teaches regarding the Trinity, doesn’t necessarily mean a contradiction of monotheism. Rather, it is viewed by Christians as an unfolding understanding of GOD’s nature, rather than a contradiction of prior messages. While Islam rejects the Trinity, this doesn’t inherently negate its value or coherence for those within that tradition.

6. Variety within Theological Frameworks as Indicative of Truth:
In your discussion of other religions, you seemed to suggest that the differences in theological frameworks among various Christian and Jewish sects are evidence of Islam’s superiority or purity. However, the existence of diversity within a faith tradition doesn’t inherently imply falsehood or inferiority. All major religions, including Islam, have diverse sects and interpretations. This diversity reflects human attempts to understand the divine, which can be approached in multiple valid ways.

Conclusion:

In conclusion, I suspect the clarity and dedication Islam brings to its understanding of GOD, and I can see why you view it as the truest path. My perspective, however, leads me to a broader understanding of religious diversity—not as an indication of error, but rather as a reflection of the many ways humans seek to connect with the divine. Each tradition offers its own unique path to understanding GOD, shaped by cultural, historical, and spiritual insights that contribute to a richer, more comprehensive view of the divine.

I see value in recognizing unity among all faiths, suggesting that these diverse paths ultimately point to the same universal truth—that GOD is indeed ONE. This unity in purpose and devotion across religious boundaries speaks to a shared essence that underlies all sincere following. In my view, insisting that only one tradition holds the complete truth may unintentionally limit our perception of GOD’s infinite nature. Instead, the diversity of faiths might itself be a sign of GOD’s encompassing reality, showing us that there are as many ways to know and honor GOD as there are people who seek Him.

Thank you for this dialogue. I think that our discussion reflects a deeper, mutual pursuit of understanding and connection with GOD, which remains a central purpose across all paths.

[somo]

A -

There is a difference between the Quran and the Bible.

There are a few authentic verses from the Bible that do not contradict the sayings of the ancient prophets, and the words of the Prophet Jesus, and the words of the Prophet Muhammad, peace be upon them.


In the Quran Allah informs us that He revealed a number of books, including the pages of Prophet Abraham (Ibraaheem may Allah exalt his mention), the Psalms of Prophet David (Daawood may Allah exalt his mention), the Torah of Prophet Moses (Moosaa may Allah exalt his mention), the Injeel (Gospel) of Prophet Jesus (‘Eesaa may Allah exalt his mention), and finally, the Quran of Prophet Muhammad sallallaahu `alayhi wa sallam ( may Allah exalt his mention ). Of these revealed texts only the Quran remains intact in its original form. All of the others (as complete books) have been lost, their remains have survived only as fragments or tampered with in some way so as to make their authenticity doubtful. Nowhere in the Quran is the Bible even mentioned, to say nothing of its being among the revealed texts of Allah, or as Christian claim “The Word of God.” Further, we know from respected scholars that although some fragments of the Psalms, the Torah, and the Injeel (the teachings of Prophet Jesus) may be found in the Bible, comprised of the Old and New Testaments, the Bible cannot rightfully be called “The Word of God.”

So if the Bible is neither narrated by God nor written by Him, and, as such, is not ‘the word of God,’ then what is it? By any objective criteria, the Bible is a book containing a compilation of stories, legends, folk tales, folk lore, myths, sagas, narratives, poetry, fragments of scriptures (fragments from the Psalms, the Torah, and the Injeel as already mentioned), letters (esp. in New Testament), visions, dreams, accounts of events from doubtful sources (not eye witnesses), editors’ or scribes’ notes, as well as human errors.



. On the contrary, the Glorious Quran is the Speech of Allah and, through the Angel Gabriel, was revealed to Prophet Muhammad sallallaahu `alayhi wa sallam ( may Allah exalt his mention ); later compiled into a book more than 14 centuries ago it remains preserved in its original form until today.

\\\\\\\\


B -





It appears after the fall of the Bible and the scandal of its distortion

Christians began to say this is a spiritual book, this is a historical book, This is a book that I don't care about

Do not rely on religious texts to know God

It is surprising that they know their alleged Lord from this book


They cite the verses of this book on the crucifixion, redemption, and the Trinity, and consider it a reference to them despite its distortion




The importance of God's messages to know the true God

Allah, the All Wise, All Knowing, All Merciful and Just, created this Universe in order to test and examine His obedient slaves and reward them, and to punish the disobedient. He Says (what means): "We did not create the heavens and the earth and that between them in play. We did not create them except in truth, but most of them do not know." [Quran 44: 38-39]


Allah also made clear the main goal for the creation of mankind, Saying (what means): "I did not create the Jinn and Mankind except for My worship" [Quran 51: 56]
Allah, the Exalted, did not leave His slaves to rely upon their intellect and inclination to guide them to the correct way; rather He sent them Messengers as bringers of good tidings and warners. He sent the revealed Books with them to be a reference in those matters wherein they disagreed, so that no excuse would remain for the people and the proof would be established against them. Thus, after sending the Messengers, there would be no further excuse for people before Allah.


Indeed, their mission covered every good and banished every evil. They brought to humankind everything needed for their well being and happiness in this world and the Hereafter. There is nothing good, which they did not inform the people about and nothing evil that they did not warn the people against.
‘Abdullaah bin `Amr bin Al-`Aas, may Allah be pleased with him, said that the Prophet sallallaahu `alayhi wa sallam ( may Allah exalt his mention ) said: "There was never a Prophet before me except that it was a duty upon him that he should guide his nation to every good that he knew and warn them against every evil that he knew…" [Muslim]
Indeed, calling to Allah was the mission of the Messengers in order to bring the people out from darkness into light. There are many basic principles upon which their calls were based, which were the starting point for calling to Allah. These fundamental principles are:
1. Tawheed (Monotheism)
2. Prophethood
3. The Hereafter
Every book revealed by Allah gave great importance to these points. The most important and sublime of these three principles and the most fundamental of them all is Tawheed (Oneness) of Allah.
Allah Says (which means): "And We certainly sent into every nation a Messenger, (saying): 'Worship Allah and avoid Taaghoot (false objects of worship).' " [Quran 16: 36]
Allah has informed us about some of the Prophets, may Allah exalt their mention, and how they faced their people. We see that all of them proceeded upon the universal way laid down by Allah and followed the methodology Allah established for all of them. Not a single one of them is at variance with it, Allah Says (which means): "And We had certainly sent Nooh to his people, (saying): 'Indeed, I am to you a clear warner, that you not worship except Allah. Indeed, I fear for you the punishment of a painful Day.'" [Quran 11: 25-26]


https://www.islamweb.net/en/article/235 ... messengers


Chinese professor accepts defeat from Sheikh Othman after all his research was in the Bible


بروفيسور صيني يتقبل الهزيمة من الشيخ عثمان بعد أن كانت كل أبحاثه في الإنجيل



نهاية صادمة! بعد أروع النقاشات التي دارت بين الشيخ عثمان ومبشر مسيحي


Shocking End! After the most wonderful discussions that took place between Sheikh Othman and a Christian missionary



The miracles of the Holy Quran amazed the world and the mistakes of the Christians’ book
معجزات القرءان الكريم أذهلت العالم وأخطاء كتاب النصارى



بابا الفاتيكان يطرد قس باحث عن الحقيقة من الكانيسة بسبب اسئلته المحرجه
Pope expels truth-seeking priest from church over embarrassing questions




Why Is Islam Spreading So Fast? w/ Paul Williams from Blogging Theology | LSESU Islamic Society








2-

Reflecting on some of the abundant signs and miracles and which could only be possible by some form of divine intervention in violation of cosmic laws and norms.



All perfect praise be to Allaah, The Lord of the Worlds. I testify that there is none worthy of worship except Allaah, and that Muhammad, sallallaahu ‘alayhi wa sallam, is His slave and Messenger.

The majority of the Muslim scholars agree that the Israa' and Mi'raaj were both physical and spiritual. Although some scholars say that only the spirit of the Prophet sallallaahu `alayhi wa sallam ( may Allaah exalt his mention ) ascended, the most sound opinion is the first one. Ibn Jareer may Allaah have mercy upon him said, 'It is meaningless to say that only the Rooh (spirit) of the Prophet sallallaahu `alayhi wa sallam ( may Allaah exalt his mention ) ascended during the Israa' and Mi'raaj as if this is the case, this phenomenon would not be considered as an evidence to the Prophet's prophecy nor would it be considered a proof for the revelation nor would those who deny it be considered apostates'.

And the verse (which means): {"Glorified (and Exalted) be He (Allaah) [above all that (evil) they associate with Him] Who took His slave (Muhammad (sallallaahu ‘alayhi wa sallam) for a journey ……."}[Quran 17:1] also does not denote that taking him for a journey by night means taking his soul only. Moreover, the authentic narrations prove the fact that Al-Buraq (a riding animal from Heaven) was brought to him and he went on his sacred journey riding on this animal. If the Mi'raaj were with his soul only, the soul would not ride on Al-Buraq. Imaam Ibn Katheer may Allaah have mercy upon him said, 'If the Israa' were in sleep no doubt it would not astonish the People of Makkah and they would not accuse him of lying, and some of the new Muslims would not become apostates'. A person consists of a body and a soul. Allaah The Almighty Says (what means): {The sight (of Prophet Muhammad (sallallaahu Alayhi wa sallam) turned not aside (right or left), nor it transgressed beyond the limit (ordained for it).}[Quran, 53:17] Sight is a part of body, not the soul.


https://www.islamweb.net/en/fatwa/83413 ... -spiritual

The Mi’raj of the Prophet is spiritual or physical, Dr Zakir Naik Question and Answer












3-


Was Jesus a Prophet?


The New Testament makes it clear that Jesus Christ was the greatest of all the prophets or spokesman which God had sent to the world. Indeed, Jesus was One who spoke to the people on behalf of the true God. We see this demonstrated in a number of ways in the New Testament. The evidence is as follows.
1. Jesus Confirmed That He Was a Prophet

The gospels confirm that Jesus believed that He was a prophet. Matthew records the following episode in Jesus’ hometown of Nazareth:

And they took offense at him. But Jesus said to them, “Prophets are not without honor except in their own country and in their own house.” (Matthew 13:57 NRSV)

Jesus acknowledged that He was a prophet in His hometown. This is despite the fact that His own people rejected Him.

2. The People Knew He Was a Prophet

The people considered Jesus to be a prophet. When Jesus asked His disciples whom the people thought He was they made the following reply,

“Well,” they replied, “some say John the Baptist, some say Elijah, and others say Jeremiah or one of the other prophets.” (Matthew 16:14 NLT)

The people of that day realized that Jesus of Nazareth spoke for God in a unique way.

The crowds in Jerusalem also testified that Jesus was a prophet. They recognized that He was sent from God to speak to them. The Bible says,

The crowds were saying, “This is the prophet Jesus from Nazareth in Galilee.” (Matthew 21:11 NRSV)

Again, Jesus is seen as a prophet by the great crowds.

3. The Woman in Samaria Knew Jesus Was a Prophet

A woman that Jesus met in the city of Samaria perceived Jesus as a prophet. John’s gospel records the following:

“Sir,” the woman replied, “I see that You are a prophet.” (John 4:19 HCSB)

Jesus told her things about herself that only a prophet of God would know. She recognized His unique calling.

4. The Blind Man That Jesus Healed Recognized He Was a Prophet

A certain blind man that Jesus healed realized that He was a prophet. The religious leaders questioned him about his miraculous healing. We read about this in John’s gospel. The conversation went as follows:

So they said again to the blind man, “What do you say about him? It was your eyes he opened.” He said, “He is a prophet.” (John 9:17 NRSV)

It was obvious to this man that Jesus was at least a prophet.

Jesus (pbuh) is not God but a Messenger of God - Dr Zakir Naik

[somo]

4-


The problem with Christians is following Paul and not the teachings of Christ.


Paul called himself a liar, “7 For if the truth of God hath more abounded through my lie unto his glory; why yet am I also judged as a sinner?(Romans 3:7).


Paul got what is Christianity and reshaped it as he saw fit. His version is different from what Jesus taught.


There are a lot of things that were said and done by the historical Jesus that Paul decided to ignore and declare that the law law jesus followed is nailed to the cross the idea of Jesus died for our sins is absurd it makes Hitler who believed in him blush

Paul is considered the first person to have corrupted the religion of the Christians. Between 51 and 55 CE,


He claimed that ‘Jesus may Allaah exalt his mention was sent to replace the Old Testament with another one, and that he adopted of incarnation by way of the word or the son of God or the Holy Spirit. Based on this idea, he initiated the creed of the crucifixion, salvation, the resurrection of ‘Jesus may Allaah exalt his mention and his ascension to heaven in order to sit on the right of the Lord so as to make Judgment.


Likewise, Paul did the same with Peter who attacked him and departed from him and all this provoked the people against him. Therefore, Paul wrote the epistle to the Galatians explaining his creed and principles. Then, he continued his missionary trips in the company of his disciples to Europe and Asia Minor until he finally died in Rome in 65 CE during the reign of Nero.


Throughout the first three centuries of Christianity, there was strong resistance against Paul's beliefs. During the second century CE Hippolytus of Rome, Vitus and Origen denied that Paul was an apostle. During the third century, Paul of Samosata appeared and was followed by the Paulicians but they only had a limited effect. Thus, began the abandonment of the Sharee'ah of the Tawraah and the spread of paganism and the concept of the Trinity and the crucifixion in Christianity.



It doesn’t make sense that God sends countless Prophets like Noah, Abraham and Moses to tell people to believe in one God, and then suddenly sends a radically different message of the Trinity which contradicts his previous Prophets teachings. It is clear that the sect of Christianity who believed Jesus to be a human Prophet and nothing more, were following the true teachings of Jesus. This is because their concept of God is the same as that which was taught by the Prophets in the Old Testament


Do you follow Jesus or Paul? Adnan Rashid in a calm dialogue with Christians
هل تتبعون يسوع أم بولس؟ عدنان رشيد في حوار هادئ مع مسيحيين







5-


Trinity in the literal sense was the version that evolved in stages and then coalesced in 325 AD to the satisfaction of Constantine in Nicaea.

It had been a hot topic and it was more or less determined that different councils and scholars would debate this until they came up with a version that pleased the emperor. The winning doctrine was the version we have today.


Christ never taught the Trinity. The literal Trinity does not exist in the Bible. It was to cement Jesus into the Godhead so no other religion could ever compete, or be considered as an authentic teaching on a par with Christianity.


but at no time was Jesus literally G.d.
This does not take much consideration to understand that G.d is not subject to any form of division, G.d is alone and transcendent, nor does G.d enter into a relative state of imperfection by becoming some physical version of His spiritual perfection.


They got it wrong in 325 AD and nobody seems to have the courage or conviction to correct it today. It's an albatross around the neck of the Catholics.
You may be exacerbated that some can't see your point of view, but that's a good thing, because religion is not strengthened by just accepting errors of theology without question.







There are several key verses which Christians use to prove the biblical origin of the Trinity. Upon analysis of these verses, one can clearly see that they do not prove the Trinity, but rather the same monotheistic message of God.

. The Bible Says that God is Greater than Jesus
John 14:28 “My Father is greater than I.”
John 10:29 “My father is greater than all.”
Jesus can not be God if God is greater than him. The Christian belief that the Father and son are equal is in direct contrast to the clear words from Jesus.


. Jesus Never Instructed His Disciples to Worship Himself or the Holy Ghost, but God and God Only

Luke 11:2 “When you pray, say Our Father which art in heaven.”

John 16:23 “In that day, you shall ask me nothing. Whatsoever you ask of the Father in my name.”
John 4:23 “The hour cometh and now is, when the true worshippers shall worship the Father in spirit and in truth; for the Father seeketh such to worship him.”


If Jesus was God, he would have sought worship for himself. Since he didn’t, instead he sought worship for God in the heavens, therefore, he was not God.


Ahmed Deedat exposes the Trinity to the public.flv


Dr Zakir Naik uses Bible to prove Trinity is a Lie








6-





All perfect praise be to Allah, The Lord of the worlds. I testify that there is none worthy of worship except Allah and that Muhammad, sallallahu ‘alayhi wa sallam, is His slave and Messenger.


It does not matter how many sects and opinions there are, but what matters is that these opinions do not contradict the Quran

In Islam, the opinion of anyone who contradicts the Qur’an and the Sunnah of the Prophet Muhammad, peace be upon him, is not taken into account.

But in Christianity, every person interprets the verses of the Holy Book according to his whims, even if it contradicts the teachings of Christ.




Ahlus-Sunnah (Sunnis) are not a sect like the other sects who {have divided their religion and became sects, every faction rejoicing in what it has}. Rather, it is a title for all the Muslims who sincerely follow the example of the Prophet, sallallahu ‘alayhi wa sallam, and his Companions and adhere to their methodology. Allah, The Exalted, says (what means): {And the first forerunners (in the faith) among the Muhajireen and the Ansar and those who followed them with good conduct - Allah is pleased with them and they are pleased with Him, and He has prepared for them gardens beneath which rivers flow, wherein they will abide forever. That is the great attainment.} [Quran 9:100]

Hence, Ahlus-Sunnah are all the Muslims who adhere to the straight path that Allah, The Exalted, has enjoined us to follow, and other sects have deviated from the correct path. Ahlus-Sunnah are not the ones to be criticized; rather, the other sects are the ones who should be criticized for their deviation. ‘Abdullah ibn Mas‘ood, may Allah be pleased with him, reported, "The Messenger of Allah, sallallahu ‘alayhi wa sallam, drew for us a line (in the sand), then he drew lines to its right and left. Then he pointed at the middle line and said, 'This is the path of Allah.' Then he recited the verse: {And this is My path, which is straight, so follow it; and do not follow (other) ways, for you will be separated from His way. This has He instructed you that you may become righteous.} [Quran 6:153]" [Ahmad]

In fact, Sufis are not all the same; some of them are righteous, while others are wicked. The terms “Tasawwuf” and “Sufism” appeared relatively late, and were not known during the best first three virtuous generations of Islam; but were introduced and widely used later on.






Muslims pray prostrate on the ground like the Prophet Christ, peace be upon him


“And going a little farther, he fell on the ground and prayed that, if it were possible, the hour might pass from him. And he said, ‘Abba, Father, all things are possible for you. Remove this cup from me. Yet not what I will, but what you will’…And again he went away and prayed, saying the same words” (Mark 14:35-36, 39).

Mark says that Jesus “fell on the ground.” The idea of falling on your face before God is found all throughout the Old Testament as an outward sign of humility when approaching God (Numbers 20:6).





The problem here

Do Christians pray only to the Father as Jesus prayed?
Or do Christians pray to Jesus and not to the Father?

The second question: Do Christians pray like Jesus’ prayer and prostration to the Fatherand his face on the ground?

Of course, no, no, no, no, no, no, no, no



كيف كان المسيح عليه السلام يصلى؟ || ?How Did Jesus (as) Pray

[somo]

Prophet Muḥammad's personality was very simple, compassionate and loving towards others. This human aspect did not stem from his abstract human personality, but rather from the fact that he was a human being chosen by Allah to bear the responsibility of prophethood. Allah therefore purified him, taught him and sent him as a mercy to the world.


However, the human aspect of the Prophet – blessings and peace be upon him – is clearly observable in the various situations of his life. We find it in his behavior towards his family members. It has never been reported in Islamic traditions that he was violent towards his family. On the contrary, he devoted part of his time to the service of his family, helping them with the various domestic tasks. In addition, he allowed them to attend Fridays and feasts, and he even held running competitions with them.



The Messenger of Allah loved servants and workers, and treated them well. He recommended to his companions, and to Muslims in general, that they be benevolent towards servants and slaves.


The human aspect of the Prophet was not limited to his entourage, he behaved in the same way with his enemies and on the battlefields.


During his greatest victory, when the Prophet retook Makkah and his Quraysh enemies were defeated and surrendered to him, he entered it humbly, with his head bowed, without vengeance or bloodshed. He granted complete forgiveness to his enemies simply and unconditionally surrendering. Moreover, in his battles, the Prophet advised Muslims not to kill children, women and old people, in this connection, he recommended them thus: "Do not kill an old man, a young child or a woman ".



The tenderness of the Prophet was not limited to humans, but also extended to include animals who are unable to express their pain and needs. He urged his companions to be kind to animals, telling them the story of the man who took pity on a thirsty dog and presented it with water. So Allah forgave him and admitted him to paradise.



A careful examination of the life of the Prophet - blessings and peace be upon him - shows us that he suffered persecution and injustice in Mecca; however, he was not swayed by the cruelty he experienced, and he had no unbridled desire to seek revenge on those who wronged him.



Such is the personality of the Prophet peace be upon him – the human being who changed the face of the world, a simple, merciful and great personality.




شاب يعتنق الإسلام بعدما اقتنع بحجج محمد علي






شاب بريطاني يعتنق الإسلام بعدما اقتنع بحجج شمسي

[William]

[Replying to somo in post #147]

Hello Somo,
Thank you for your thoughtful responses. I appreciate the opportunity to engage with these important theological ideas. After carefully considering your replies, I believe there are areas where our perspectives diverge significantly. I’d like to address these while pointing out some logical fallacies in your arguments that may have affected the way certain points were presented. Identifying these can help ensure that our discussion remains grounded in clear, fair reasoning.

1. Textual Authenticity and the “Word of God” (Straw Man Fallacy)
In response A, you argue that the Bible cannot be considered the “Word of God” due to its supposed textual alterations and inconsistencies, especially when compared to the Quran. However, this critique sidesteps my main argument, which was not focused on declaring the Bible as entirely or exclusively divine but rather on recognizing it, like other religious texts, as a valid pathway to understanding God. By concentrating solely on discrediting the Bible’s textual reliability, your response essentially constructs a straw man argument—a misrepresentation of my actual position.

My emphasis was on how various texts, even if not viewed as literal “Words of God,” can still offer genuine, spiritually enriching connections to the divine for many believers.
To effectively engage, it would be important to consider the broader inclusivity I emphasized, rather than focusing only on defending the Quran as the sole unaltered text.

2. Literal vs. Symbolic Interpretations of Sacred Narratives (Begging the Question)
You appear to argue that the Quran’s literal preservation automatically implies that its events, such as the Isra and Mi’raj, must be interpreted as literal rather than symbolic. This stance, however, begs the question—it assumes what it aims to prove by presuming that literal interpretation is inherently more valid.

My point was not to question the Quran’s importance to Muslims but to propose that many religious narratives, including those in the Quran, can be interpreted in ways that emphasize their spiritual significance rather than their literal historicity.
By defaulting to the idea that only literal interpretations are valid, your response doesn’t engage with the possibility I raised—that sacred narratives may hold profound spiritual meanings that resonate even without being taken literally. Dismissing this interpretive flexibility may restrict the richness and accessibility of divine encounters within sacred texts.

3. Exclusivity of the Quran as an Intermediary (Circular Reasoning and False Dilemma)
In both of your responses, you place a strong emphasis on the Quran as the unaltered guide to God’s nature, and you suggest that only through such a preserved text can one gain a correct understanding of the divine. However, this point seems to rely on circular reasoning: the argument assumes the Quran’s unique authority to prove its authority, which doesn’t independently validate its exclusivity.

You also frame the understanding of God as an either-or proposition (a false dilemma), suggesting that people must rely on the Quran or else depend on unreliable, distorted texts. This framework overlooks the possibility of accessing divine truth outside any one text, which was a central point of my original argument through the Subjective God Model (SGM).

In SGM, I emphasized a direct, personal relationship with God, where each individual connects with the divine without relying on specific intermediaries, be they texts or institutions. By presenting a binary choice, the response inadvertently narrows the scope of spiritual experience and overlooks my point that God’s presence is accessible to everyone, independent of external authorities.

4. Generalizations About Christians and the Bible (Hasty Generalization)
In response B, you make a sweeping claim that Christians have “given up” on the Bible or no longer consider it a reliable source for knowing God. This hasty generalization unfairly overlooks the diversity of belief within Christianity and the millions of Christians who maintain deep reverence for the Bible, finding spiritual fulfillment and guidance in it. While it’s true that certain Christian scholars critically examine the Bible’s historical context, this doesn’t diminish its role as a foundational text for many.

Acknowledging this diversity within Christianity would strengthen the discussion, as it would reflect the same respect for sincere belief that you value in Islam. Dismissing other religious traditions based on generalizations could unintentionally limit our ability to appreciate the spiritual depth and dedication that believers across religions find in their sacred texts.

5. Multiple Pathways to the Divine (False Dilemma and Appeal to Authority)
Both responses rely heavily on Quranic authority to establish Islam’s exclusivity, presenting this as the singular way to understand God. However, by doing so, they suggest that all other traditions are inherently flawed, creating a false dilemma that doesn’t account for the diversity of valid spiritual paths. This dichotomy risks overlooking the complexity of human spirituality and the many ways people, across diverse traditions, find unity with the divine.

Additionally, leaning on the Quran’s authority without independently engaging with other viewpoints introduces an appeal to authority, assuming the Quran’s claims as self-validating proof without addressing why people of other faiths might experience their own scriptures as divinely inspired. My point was to suggest that each tradition provides unique insights into God’s nature, shaped by cultural, historical, and personal context, rather than asserting that any one tradition holds a complete monopoly on truth.

1. Literal Interpretation and the Role of Miracles (Begging the Question)
Your argument regarding the Isra and Mi’raj relies on a literal interpretation of the event, asserting that the physical nature of the journey is essential for validating the Prophet Muhammad’s (peace be upon him) prophecy. By asserting that only a physical journey could serve as evidence of his prophethood, the argument begs the question by assuming from the outset that literal interpretation is necessary to affirm divine intervention. In other words, it presupposes that only tangible, physical acts can convey divine truth, which is an unproven premise. Many religious traditions would argue that spiritual experiences, symbolic visions, or metaphorical teachings are equally valid as expressions of the divine.

My point in discussing symbolic versus literal interpretations was not to deny the value or authenticity of the Isra and Mi’raj but to suggest that profound spiritual truths can emerge from symbolic or non-literal readings of sacred events. Throughout religious history, numerous traditions, including Islamic mysticism, have held space for metaphorical interpretations that convey spiritual wisdom. Recognizing this possibility could enhance our understanding of divine encounters by allowing us to appreciate both physical and spiritual dimensions without requiring that all events be taken literally to hold meaning.

2. Assumptions About Divine Encounters and Exclusivity (Appeal to Authority)
You’ve presented arguments from prominent Islamic scholars who assert that only a literal interpretation can validate the Prophet’s experience and serve as evidence of his prophethood. While I respect these scholarly perspectives, this approach leans on an appeal to authority without addressing why literalism is inherently more reliable or why the symbolic perspective I proposed should be disregarded. Citing authorities without directly engaging with alternative interpretations limits our discussion and potentially excludes other valid perspectives.

The emphasis on literal interpretation as the "most sound opinion" suggests an exclusivity that may unintentionally restrict divine encounters to specific, predetermined forms. By emphasizing authoritative interpretations over other possible understandings, the response narrows the space for personal discernment, which is central to the Subjective God Model (SGM) I mentioned. SGM suggests that individuals can encounter God and divine truths through diverse, personalized spiritual experiences, which may not always align with traditional interpretations.

3. False Dilemma: Body vs. Soul in Divine Experiences
Your explanation hinges on the assumption that the Isra and Mi’raj must involve both body and soul to be meaningful or miraculous, implying that a purely spiritual experience would lack impact or validity. This presents a false dilemma by positioning body-and-soul unity as the only way for the event to convey its significance. In reality, numerous religious traditions accept that profound divine encounters can occur spiritually, even without a physical component.

Many believers worldwide report transformative spiritual journeys or visions that they interpret as encounters with the divine, regardless of whether these events occur bodily or solely in spirit.

For instance, in mystical traditions across religions, including Sufi interpretations within Islam, spiritual journeys and encounters are often described as happening on an inner, non-physical plane. A broader perspective could recognize that both physical and spiritual experiences have the potential to convey divine truths, depending on the person’s spiritual needs and context.

4. Spiritual Symbolism and the Universality of Divine Encounters
In your response, you highlight that miracles like the Isra and Mi’raj serve as validations of prophethood and as signs of divine power. While this is central to Islamic belief, it’s also valuable to consider that divine encounters often transcend religious boundaries. Miracles, spiritual journeys, and divine signs are found across religious traditions, often seen as universal expressions of the divine reaching out to humanity in different forms. By embracing the possibility that symbols, metaphors, and literal events alike can convey divine truths, we can cultivate a richer understanding of spirituality.

Acknowledging the symbolic value of these experiences doesn’t detract from their power; instead, it allows us to see that divine messages might be presented in ways that resonate personally with each individual. This inclusivity doesn’t limit the significance of miracles but rather suggests that such events are universally accessible, inviting each person to interpret and understand them according to their spiritual needs.

1. Selective Evidence and Confirmation Bias
Your response provides a list of New Testament passages that describe Jesus as a prophet. While these references certainly exist, selective evidence—choosing only those passages that support a specific view—limits the scope of interpretation. This approach risks confirmation bias by reinforcing an interpretation that aligns with Islamic theology without engaging with the fuller context of Jesus’s role in Christianity, which includes not only his role as a prophet but also his position as the Messiah and, for most Christians, the Son of God.

In the New Testament, Jesus is indeed referred to as a prophet, particularly by those who encountered him in his ministry. However, Christian theology traditionally holds that Jesus’s identity is multi-faceted, encompassing prophetic, priestly, and divine aspects. For a comprehensive engagement, it would be beneficial to consider passages where Jesus is described in ways that go beyond the role of a prophet, such as when he is called the “Son of God” (Matthew 16:16) or when he identifies himself with divine authority (John 10:30, John 14:6). Ignoring these elements restricts the complexity of Christian theology and limits the potential for mutual understanding.

2. Equivocation Fallacy on the Term “Prophet”
The term "prophet" is used in various ways across religious traditions. In your response, “prophet” is presented as if it has a single, universally agreed-upon meaning. However, Christian and Islamic understandings of the term differ significantly. By equivocating—using a term with multiple meanings as if it has only one—you overlook how Christians might understand Jesus’s prophetic role differently.

In Christianity, “prophet” refers to someone who reveals God’s truth, but this does not limit Jesus to only a prophetic role. For many Christians, Jesus’s role as prophet does not negate his divinity or his unique status as the incarnation of God. Using “prophet” with the Islamic meaning to interpret New Testament passages may not fully capture the Christian theological framework, which sees Jesus as both a prophet and more than a prophet. This distinction is crucial for constructive interfaith dialogue, as it recognizes the terms used by each faith without conflating or minimizing their unique meanings.

3. False Dilemma: Either Prophet or Divine
By emphasizing Jesus as a prophet, the argument implicitly suggests a false dilemma—that Jesus must be either a prophet (as in Islamic theology) or divine (as in Christian theology), without room for a nuanced interpretation. This binary framework oversimplifies the theological complexity of Christian belief, where Jesus can be seen as fulfilling multiple roles simultaneously. Most Christian denominations hold that Jesus embodies a unique role that goes beyond a typical prophet, encompassing both divine and human aspects.

In early Christianity, followers grappled with how to describe Jesus’s identity, ultimately concluding that he was both fully human and fully divine. This unique nature led early Christians to perceive Jesus as one with God, as described in the doctrine of the Trinity. By acknowledging that Jesus’s role can be multifaceted, the discussion could expand beyond a simple prophet-or-divine binary, allowing for a more nuanced understanding of Christian belief.

4. Overlooking Historical and Contextual Development of Christian Theology
While the Gospels indeed document how people recognized Jesus as a prophet, your argument doesn’t account for the historical and theological development within Christianity that led to a broader understanding of his role. Early followers of Jesus did recognize him as a prophet, but Christian theology evolved to encompass his messianic and divine roles, as described by figures such as Paul and John.

The New Testament reflects a range of views as early Christians processed and articulated their understanding of Jesus’s identity, which wasn’t limited to a prophetic role. Recognizing this development provides context for how Christians arrived at doctrines that see Jesus as fulfilling both prophetic and divine roles. Engaging with these broader perspectives would allow for a more complete discussion of how Jesus’s identity was perceived within early Christianity.

5. Simplicity vs. Complexity in Religious Identity
Religious figures often hold complex roles within their traditions. As in Islam, where Prophet Muhammad (peace be upon him) is viewed as both a prophet and a leader of the ummah, Christian theology holds Jesus as both a prophet and more. Simplifying Jesus’s role to that of only a prophet may not account for the unique theological position he occupies in Christianity.

While the New Testament contains references to Jesus as a prophet, Christian belief does not view this role as exhaustive of his identity. For many Christians, Jesus is a prophet, priest, king, and divine incarnation, occupying a singular place that doesn’t fit neatly into a single category. This approach to religious figures as having multi-dimensional identities can enrich interfaith discussions and allows each tradition’s beliefs to be seen in their full complexity.

_____________

Somo, I acknowledge the clarity and dedication with which Islam presents its understanding of God, and I see why this path resonates so strongly with you. My perspective, however, embraces an inclusive view that values unity across faiths and beyond, seeing all sincere paths to understanding as reflections of the same divine reality. Rather than asserting one exclusive truth, I understand that the diversity of beliefs—both traditional and non-traditional—reveals the vastness of GOD’s essence and the countless ways people seek to connect with the divine.

Each tradition and personal journey offers its own path, shaped by unique insights, history, and culture. Recognizing these varied paths as valid enriches our appreciation of GOD’s infinite nature, which I understand cannot be confined to any single expression or text. Through the Subjective GOD Model (SGM), this vision of unity becomes possible, allowing each individual to engage with GOD in a mindful and personal way, honoring their unique spiritual journey while contributing to a collective understanding of the divine.

Moreover, SGM encourages exploring spiritual insights that are not traditionally religious, such as experiences through lucid dreaming, Near-Death Experiences (NDEs), astral projection, and practices like plant-based awareness-heightening methods. Concepts such as Gaia Theory, Simulation Theory, and the search for universal consciousness can also foster alternate perspectives, offering new ways to understand interconnectedness and divine presence. While these experiences and theories are unconventional, they provide profound encounters that can deepen one’s relationship with GOD and with the universe.

My intention isn’t to challenge beliefs but to propose that this broad spiritual diversity reflects the boundless ways GOD reaches out to humanity. Both literal and symbolic understandings of divine encounters, across traditional and non-traditional paths, reveal the many dimensions of spiritual insight.



Thank you for engaging in this dialogue, which I understand brings us closer to appreciating GOD’s presence in all forms, across all paths.

__________________


No subject is beyond question.
The phrase "No subject is beyond question" is a powerful assertion of intellectual openness and critical inquiry. It suggests that all topics, including deeply held beliefs or traditional doctrines, should be open to examination, discussion, and thoughtful reflection. This mindset can foster a more profound understanding, as it encourages individuals to explore ideas fully rather than accepting them solely on authority or tradition.

In a spiritual or philosophical context, this phrase implies a willingness to explore the mysteries of existence, the nature of God, and the diversity of religious experiences with both respect and curiosity. It supports an approach where beliefs can evolve, deepen, and be understood more personally, as it invites open-minded engagement with a wide range of perspectives.

Ultimately, "No subject is beyond question" reflects a commitment to personal growth and the pursuit of truth, recognizing that questioning does not necessarily mean challenging or diminishing but rather seeking deeper clarity and insight. This phrase aligns well with interfaith dialogue and the Subjective GOD Model, where individual exploration is valued as a path to a more authentic relationship with the divine.