Why would God allow his holy book to be corrupted by man?

[zcaz]

The Bible clearly teaches that Jesus is God incarnated and this is evident through comparison ..
_____________________________________________________________
Who saves the world?
"I, even I, am the LORD; and beside me there is no saviour." Isaiah 43:11

...the Father sent the Son to be the Saviour of the world. 1 John 4:14
______________________________________________________________
The word and God are one
In the beginning was the Word, and the Word was with God, and the Word was God John 1:1

...the Word was made flesh, and dwelt among us...John 1:14
______________________________________________________________
God is the first and the last
I the LORD, the first, and with the last; I am he. Isaiah 41:4

Jesus said, "Fear not; I am the first and the last:" Revelation 1:17
______________________________________________________________
Only God is to be worshipped
... Then saith Jesus unto him... Thou shalt worship the Lord thy God, and him only shalt thou serve. Matthew 4:10

While [Jesus] spake these things unto them, behold, there came a certain ruler, and worshipped him... Matthew 9:18
______________________________________________________________
Who is the Messiah?
...unto us a child is born, unto us a son is given: and the government shall be upon his shoulder...and his name shall be called... The mighty God, The everlasting Father... Isaiah 9:6 (talking about god being the messiah)

The woman saith unto him, I know that Messias cometh, which is called Christ: when he is come, he will tell us all things. Jesus saith unto her, I that speak unto thee am he. John 4:25-26
______________________________________________________________

So here is clear cut evidence that Jesus in the Bible indirectly claimed to be God. If you reject this, you would have to believe that God allowed his word to be manipulated by man and or changed his mind when he gave Muhammad his revelation.

Wouldn't it make sense however, that the Bible claims Jesus is the only way to salvation, and Satan being the clever deceiver/copy cat that he is, gave a false revelation to Muhammad with the sole purpose of discrediting Jesus?

With so many Islamic organizations and movements out there hellbent on destroying Christians and Jews alike, it seems as if Islam is a 'wolf in sheeps clothing' where they do have good messages of peace but also a huge following of spiritual and political leaders who claim the Imam Mahdi is alive and is going to help in the uprising of Islam(sounds a lot like the Christian prophesied anti-christ).

I'm not trying to be offensive, I'm just wondering how Islam is justified in their beliefs that there is an almighty God, yet he allowed his word to be semi-perverted?

[Murad]

Orientation within Islam? I'll do some research on this.

Its quite easy.

How do you view Abu Bakr, Umar & Uthman (r.a) ?

If it's negative then you are Shia, if it's positive then you are mainstream Sunni.

I'll read about that. What makes someone a Sufi or is that some kind of special mystical category???

Yep Sufism is the "mystical" view of Islam, well thats what they say.

[Halo_Hulk]

Murad, I would like to preface this post by saying that I'm not being combative or 'seeking you out' on here, but taking your advice and checking out the Islam sub-forum (which i didn't know was here).

Also, you do know that 1 John 4:14 is not Jesus talking? It is quite deceptive of you to destroy the context by putting '...' in the beginning. Also, just to make things clear, the Disciple John did not author that Gospel. It is a myth, with no objective evidence. The only reason why Christians believe that the Gospel of John, which was written 90 years after Jesus, & in a completely different language from what Jesus spoke (Jesus spoke aramaic the Gospels are in Greek) is because "Church TRADITION" says so. Another belief that relies on the fallacious argument from authority.

There is no objective evidence for the authorship or interpretation of the Quran or the Bible. Whether it is "Church tradition" or the "tradition of the Hadiths" it does matter because you cannot objectively prove that those people knew Jesus or Muhammad or even their disciples. It is circular because you go right back to your religious authority on the matter, and it is fallacious in the sense that YOU must also appeal to authority.

[Murad]

Murad, I would like to preface this post by saying that I'm not being combative or 'seeking you out' on here, but taking your advice and checking out the Islam sub-forum (which i didn't know was here).

Not at all, feel free to ask any question, i dont get offended too easily

There is no objective evidence for the authorship or interpretation of the Quran

You are wrong for the first half & making that statement out of assumption i guess.
There are historical & eye witness accounts which we call the "Sahih Hadiths" (That have unbroken chains of narrators) that documents the transition of the Oral Recitation of the Quran from his(Muhammad's) mouth to the scribes that recorded it down on to text. You then have the family of the Prophet giving testimonies (Infact Umar compiled the Quran from the manuscripts of Hafsa[A wife of the Prophet])
The history of Islam is well documented, i dont think this is really disputed, just look at how well his life is documented. But you are right, there is no authoritative interpretation.

Whether it is "Church tradition" or the "tradition of the Hadiths" it does matter because you cannot objectively prove that those people knew Jesus or Muhammad or even their disciples.

Before making unsubstantiated claims i do suggest you learn abit about Islam. If you are claiming that the Prophet did not know his disciples you are confronted with tens of thousands of hadiths that you need to explain. There are detailed recordings UP TO THE DATE on what Muhammad & his disciples done, for example he migrated from Mecca to Medina on 9 September 622 with his companion Abu Bakr, this is documented by numerous seperate sources with unbroken chains of narrators.

It is circular because you go right back to your religious authority on the matter, and it is fallacious in the sense that YOU must also appeal to authority.

No you are wrong, there is no "Religious Authority" in Islam, as in, we have no pope or the "Vicar of Christ" etc...
The only authority is the Quran & then the Sahih hadiths. All the evidence on earth points towards Muhammad authoring the Quran unless you want to dispute this, we have no problem. The 4 canonical Gospels on the other hand are given their authorship by the Church, there are no eye witness testimonies nor do you have reports/testimonies by anyone who lived & talked with Jesus.

Look at how beautifully the history of Islam has been documented:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Islam
Can any Abrahamic religion match this?

[Halo_Hulk]

Murad, I would like to preface this post by saying that I'm not being combative or 'seeking you out' on here, but taking your advice and checking out the Islam sub-forum (which i didn't know was here).

Not at all, feel free to ask any question, i dont get offended too easily

There is no objective evidence for the authorship or interpretation of the Quran

You are wrong for the first half & making that statement out of assumption i guess.
There are historical & eye witness accounts which we call the "Sahih Hadiths" (That have unbroken chains of narrators) that documents the transition of the Oral Recitation of the Quran from his(Muhammad's) mouth to the scribes that recorded it down on to text. You then have the family of the Prophet giving testimonies (Infact Umar compiled the Quran from the manuscripts of Hafsa[A wife of the Prophet])
The history of Islam is well documented, i dont think this is really disputed, just look at how well his life is documented. But you are right, there is no authoritative interpretation.

I have already been over the chain if narrations with Muslim graduate students that study religion. The complexity and detail of the accounts don't make them true. How do you know that the scribes knew Muhammad? How do you know what they originally recorded? There is no external confirmation outside of the bias of those around him, and that is with allowing the authenticity of the hadiths which is NOT proven.

Whether it is "Church tradition" or the "tradition of the Hadiths" it does matter because you cannot objectively prove that those people knew Jesus or Muhammad or even their disciples.

Before making unsubstantiated claims i do suggest you learn abit about Islam. If you are claiming that the Prophet did not know his disciples you are confronted with tens of thousands of hadiths that you need to explain. There are detailed recordings UP TO THE DATE on what Muhammad & his disciples done, for example he migrated from Mecca to Medina with his companion Abu Bakr, this is documented by numerous seperate sources with unbroken chains of narrators.

I appreciate your suggestion, but I study religion at the graduate level and i am aware of your argument. Do the "unbroken chain of narrators" have original letters or dates that can be tested? Without that, we must take the writers and assemblers of the hadiths for their word, which is certainly NOT evidence. If it is evidence then the lineage of apostolicity from the apostles to the bishops and popes is also evidence.

It is circular because you go right back to your religious authority on the matter, and it is fallacious in the sense that YOU must also appeal to authority.

No you are wrong, there is no "Religious Authority" in Islam, as in, we have no pope or the "Vicar of Christ" etc...
The only authority is the Quran & then the Sahih hadiths. All the evidence on earth points towards Muhammad authoring the Quran unless you want to dispute this, we have no problem. The 4 canonical Gospels on the other hand are given their authorship by the Church, there are no eye witness testimonies nor do you have reports/testimonies by anyone who lived & talked with Jesus.

Exactly. The hadiths are narrations that are claimed to be from the followers of Muhammad. That is your authority, just like the Church Fathers are the authority for Christians.

Look at how beautifully the history of Islam has been documented:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Islam
Can any Abrahamic religion match this?[/quote]

Documentation isn't surprising considering that it is over 500 years later than Christianity. Sure, the history of Judaism and Christianity are rigorously documented as well but with 1000-500 years of time being elapsed before Islam.

[Murad]

Murad, I would like to preface this post by saying that I'm not being combative or 'seeking you out' on here, but taking your advice and checking out the Islam sub-forum (which i didn't know was here).

Not at all, feel free to ask any question, i dont get offended too easily

There is no objective evidence for the authorship or interpretation of the Quran

You are wrong for the first half & making that statement out of assumption i guess.
There are historical & eye witness accounts which we call the "Sahih Hadiths" (That have unbroken chains of narrators) that documents the transition of the Oral Recitation of the Quran from his(Muhammad's) mouth to the scribes that recorded it down on to text. You then have the family of the Prophet giving testimonies (Infact Umar compiled the Quran from the manuscripts of Hafsa[A wife of the Prophet])
The history of Islam is well documented, i dont think this is really disputed, just look at how well his life is documented. But you are right, there is no authoritative interpretation.

I have already been over the chain if narrations with Muslim graduate students that study religion. The complexity and detail of the accounts don't make them true.

Absolutely correct.

How do you know that the scribes knew Muhammad?

Uhmm, they talked to him?
That is like asking how do you know Ceaser knew Mark Antony.

How do you know what they originally recorded?

We have the authenticated copies of the authenticated Quran, we also have numerous independant sources that quote the Quran confirming that it hasn't been changed.

There is no external confirmation outside of the bias of those around him

How do you expect someone to record something in Medina from Rome?
It is as authentic as authentic can be, numerous seperate sources, each sahabi of the Prophet.

, and that is with allowing the authenticity of the hadiths which is NOT proven.

The authenticity of the hadiths are proven by its narrators. Some narrations are less authentic because they are by people who were "Less Known", but then you have big names that shaped Islam like "Abu Bakr" "Umar" "Uthman" "Annas" etc... whose eye-witness testimonies cannot be doubted. These are the men who fought in wars & risked their lives for Muhammad(pbuh).

Whether it is "Church tradition" or the "tradition of the Hadiths" it does matter because you cannot objectively prove that those people knew Jesus or Muhammad or even their disciples.

Before making unsubstantiated claims i do suggest you learn abit about Islam. If you are claiming that the Prophet did not know his disciples you are confronted with tens of thousands of hadiths that you need to explain. There are detailed recordings UP TO THE DATE on what Muhammad & his disciples done, for example he migrated from Mecca to Medina with his companion Abu Bakr, this is documented by numerous seperate sources with unbroken chains of narrators.

I appreciate your suggestion, but I study religion at the graduate level and i am aware of your argument. Do the "unbroken chain of narrators" have original letters or dates that can be tested? Without that, we must take the writers and assemblers of the hadiths for their word, which is certainly NOT evidence. If it is evidence then the lineage of apostolicity from the apostles to the bishops and popes is also evidence.

Yes they have dates (We have the birth-dates of the narrators & their death dates) & they have been examined by scientific methods, for example the letter from Muhammad(pbuh) to Rome has been scientifically & scholarly been proven authentic beyond doubt.

It is circular because you go right back to your religious authority on the matter, and it is fallacious in the sense that YOU must also appeal to authority.

No you are wrong, there is no "Religious Authority" in Islam, as in, we have no pope or the "Vicar of Christ" etc...
The only authority is the Quran & then the Sahih hadiths. All the evidence on earth points towards Muhammad authoring the Quran unless you want to dispute this, we have no problem. The 4 canonical Gospels on the other hand are given their authorship by the Church, there are no eye witness testimonies nor do you have reports/testimonies by anyone who lived & talked with Jesus.

Exactly. The hadiths are narrations that are claimed to be from the followers of Muhammad. That is your authority, just like the Church Fathers are the authority for Christians.

They are not "Claimed" they ARE authentic, we are talking about thousands of seperate testimonies comming from different people who got into contact with Muhammad(pbuh) during their lives. Do you want to dispute and debate this with textual evidence or not? You are playing games here, if you have any OBJECTIVE reasons to dispute the Authentic Hadiths, lets debate them here.

Look at how beautifully the history of Islam has been documented:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Islam
Can any Abrahamic religion match this?

Documentation isn't surprising considering that it is over 500 years later than Christianity. Sure, the history of Judaism and Christianity are rigorously documented as well but with 1000-500 years of time being elapsed before Islam.

Besides the Bible what documentation of Jesus can you provide?
Besides the Bible what documentation of Jeremiah can you provide?
Besides the Bible what documentation of Moses can you provide?

[Halo_Hulk]

How do you know that the scribes knew Muhammad?

Uhmm, they talked to him?
That is like asking how do you know Ceaser knew Mark Antony.[/quote]
No, it wouldU be likened to asking whether Peter talked to Jesus. You have no independent verification other than members from your own religion.

How do you know what they originally recorded?

We have the authenticated copies of the authenticated Quran, we also have numerous independant sources that quote the Quran confirming that it hasn't been changed.
[img]http://www.answering-christianity.com/q ... n_mss1.jpg[/[/quote]
quoting an apologetic website that I have already read through does not make your point. I could just as easily reference 'answeringIslam'.

Please, tell me more about your claims for 'independent verification'. All you have is Muslim tradition. From WIKI,
Muslim tradition agrees that although the Qur’an was authentically memorized completely by tens of thousands verbally, the Qur’an was still established textually into a single book form.

There is no external confirmation outside of the bias of those around him

How do you expect someone to record something in Medina from Rome?
It is as authentic as authentic can be, numerous seperate sources, each sahabi of the Prophet.

they are circular arguments. One can just as easily make the case that the New Testament is independent verifications of Jesus' teachings by the claims of authorship from Church tradition.

, and that is with allowing the authenticity of the hadiths which is NOT proven.

The authenticity of the hadiths are proven by its narrators. Some narrations are less authentic because they are by people who were "Less Known", but then you have big names that shaped Islam like "Abu Bakr" "Umar" "Uthman" "Annas" etc... whose eye-witness testimonies cannot be doubted. These are the men who fought in wars & risked their lives for Muhammad(pbuh).

that is like saying that the authenticity of the Gospels is proven by it's authors. It is circular.

Whether it is "Church tradition" or the "tradition of the Hadiths" it does matter because you cannot objectively prove that those people knew Jesus or Muhammad or even their disciples.

Before making unsubstantiated claims i do suggest you learn abit about Islam. If you are claiming that the Prophet did not know his disciples you are confronted with tens of thousands of hadiths that you need to explain. There are detailed recordings UP TO THE DATE on what Muhammad & his disciples done, for example he migrated from Mecca to Medina with his companion Abu Bakr, this is documented by numerous seperate sources with unbroken chains of narrators.

I appreciate your suggestion, but I study religion at the graduate level and i am aware of your argument. Do the "unbroken chain of narrators" have original letters or dates that can be tested? Without that, we must take the writers and assemblers of the hadiths for their word, which is certainly NOT evidence. If it is evidence then the lineage of apostolicity from the apostles to the bishops and popes is also evidence.

Yes they have dates (We have the birth-dates of the narrators & their death dates) & they have been examined by scientific methods, for example the letter from Muhammad(pbuh) to Rome has been scientifically & scholarly been proven authentic beyond doubt.

do you have any links to the "scientific methods" used for dating Hadith other than a YouTube clip?

It is circular because you go right back to your religious authority on the matter, and it is fallacious in the sense that YOU must also appeal to authority.

No you are wrong, there is no "Religious Authority" in Islam, as in, we have no pope or the "Vicar of Christ" etc...
The only authority is the Quran & then the Sahih hadiths. All the evidence on earth points towards Muhammad authoring the Quran unless you want to dispute this, we have no problem. The 4 canonical Gospels on the other hand are given their authorship by the Church, there are no eye witness testimonies nor do you have reports/testimonies by anyone who lived & talked with Jesus.

Exactly. The hadiths are narrations that are claimed to be from the followers of Muhammad. That is your authority, just like the Church Fathers are the authority for Christians.

They are not "Claimed" they ARE authentic, we are talking about thousands of seperate testimonies comming from different people who got into contact with Muhammad(pbuh) during their lives. Do you want to dispute and debate this with textual evidence or not? You are playing games here, if you have any OBJECTIVE reasons to dispute the Authentic Hadiths, lets debate them here.

From WIKI,
Hadith were evaluated and gathered into large collections during the 8th and 9th centuries.

Between 70 and 170 years the hadiths were gathered. This is NO different than Christian sources of tradition. All of your "scholarship" claims are by Muslim believers that are partial to Islam. Western academic scholarship is beginning to critically assess the Hadith and Quran, and we are already starting to see the same issues that Christianity has dealt with the last hundred years. I hope that you are prepared to learn the truth.

Look at how beautifully the history of Islam has been documented:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Islam
Can any Abrahamic religion match this?

Documentation isn't surprising considering that it is over 500 years later than Christianity. Sure, the history of Judaism and Christianity are rigorously documented as well but with 1000-500 years of time being elapsed before Islam.

Besides the Bible what documentation of Jesus can you provide?
Besides the Bible what documentation of Jeremiah can you provide?
Besides the Bible what documentation of Moses can you provide?[/quote]

lol, what proof do YOU have of Moses, Jeremiah, Jesus, or any prophets before Muhammad? Are they not you prophets as well? How does the Quran prove their historicity?

[Murad]

How do you know that the scribes knew Muhammad?

Uhmm, they talked to him?
That is like asking how do you know Ceaser knew Mark Antony.

No, it wouldU be likened to asking whether Peter talked to Jesus. You have no independent verification other than members from your own religion.

That is evidence for historians. Tens of thousand of eye witness testimonies is evidence, like it or not.

How do you know what they originally recorded?

We have the authenticated copies of the authenticated Quran, we also have numerous independant sources that quote the Quran confirming that it hasn't been changed.

quoting an apologetic website that I have already read through does not make your point. I could just as easily reference 'answeringIslam'.

I did not quote an apologetic website, posting images is not quoting.

Please, tell me more about your claims for 'independent verification'. All you have is Muslim tradition.

Regarding the letter, there have been ink testings & the low quality ink proves it was recorded down before the Umayyad caliphs (The time of the Prophet). Regarding the hadiths, there are literally hundreds of thousands (About half a million) each telling his experience with the Prophet, but only a few thousand have been verified authentic beyond doubt, (The verification process examines the narrator & other hadith sources), the authentic Hadiths are called "Sahih Hadiths". To claim a "Sahih Hadith" (Which has been historically verified) is unauthentic is an absolutely ridiculous claim & since you are making the accusation, you have to present your evidence.

From WIKI, Muslim tradition agrees that although the Qur’an was authentically memorized completely by tens of thousands verbally, the Qur’an was still established textually into a single book form.

Yes, the magnitude of people compliments the authenticity of the Quran, also read the line above what you quoted:

Most of Muhammad's companions, tens of thousands, learned the Qur’an by heart, repeatedly recited in front of Muhammad for his approval or the approval of other Sahaba Muhammad approved and also compiled it in written form while he was alive.

Now what about the canonical Gospels? Oh thats right, anonymous authors written in GREEK (Jesus & his disciples spoke Aramaic)

There is no external confirmation outside of the bias of those around him

How do you expect someone to record something in Medina from Rome?
It is as authentic as authentic can be, numerous seperate sources, each sahabi of the Prophet.

they are circular arguments.

No you are making a fallacious argument, in historical analysis, bias does not effect the truth of a specific event, it affects the authors personal emotional opinions. & it is not just one source, its thousands of different sources.

One can just as easily make the case that the New Testament is independent verifications of Jesus' teachings by the claims of authorship from Church tradition.

What objective evidence can you provide to prove the disciple John wrote the "Gospel Of John"?
I can provide thousands of eye witness testimonies regarding Islam, please incite me on the credibility of Christianity.

, and that is with allowing the authenticity of the hadiths which is NOT proven.

The authenticity of the hadiths are proven by its narrators. Some narrations are less authentic because they are by people who were "Less Known", but then you have big names that shaped Islam like "Abu Bakr" "Umar" "Uthman" "Annas" etc... whose eye-witness testimonies cannot be doubted. These are the men who fought in wars & risked their lives for Muhammad(pbuh).

that is like saying that the authenticity of the Gospels is proven by it's authors. It is circular.

Thats the question, WHO wrote the Gospels? Where are your eye witness testimonies? What historical evidence do you have?

Whether it is "Church tradition" or the "tradition of the Hadiths" it does matter because you cannot objectively prove that those people knew Jesus or Muhammad or even their disciples.

Before making unsubstantiated claims i do suggest you learn abit about Islam. If you are claiming that the Prophet did not know his disciples you are confronted with tens of thousands of hadiths that you need to explain. There are detailed recordings UP TO THE DATE on what Muhammad & his disciples done, for example he migrated from Mecca to Medina with his companion Abu Bakr, this is documented by numerous seperate sources with unbroken chains of narrators.

I appreciate your suggestion, but I study religion at the graduate level and i am aware of your argument. Do the "unbroken chain of narrators" have original letters or dates that can be tested? Without that, we must take the writers and assemblers of the hadiths for their word, which is certainly NOT evidence. If it is evidence then the lineage of apostolicity from the apostles to the bishops and popes is also evidence.

Yes they have dates (We have the birth-dates of the narrators & their death dates) & they have been examined by scientific methods, for example the letter from Muhammad(pbuh) to Rome has been scientifically & scholarly been proven authentic beyond doubt.

do you have any links to the "scientific methods" used for dating Hadith other than a YouTube clip?

Letters sent by the Islamic Khilafah can be analysed scientifically (Regarding the time it was written to establish its authenticity), but Hadiths are a collection of testimonies, the people giving the testimonies such as Abu Bakr, Umar, Uthman (These men fought wars with Muhammad side by side & risked their lives for him)
spents half their lives sleeping in the same house as Muhammad(pbuh).

If you want to know the process of authenticity establishment of the hadiths, read this (Science of Hadiths).

Just a few links to hadiths collections:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Sahih_al-Bukhari
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Sahih_Muslim
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Al-Sunan_al-Sughra
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Sunan_Abu_Dawood
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Sunan_al-Tirmidhi
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Sunan_ibn_Majah
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Kitab_al-Kafi
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Man_la_yahduruhu_al-Faqih
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Tahdhib_al-Ahkam
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Al-Istibsar
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Al-Muwatta
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Musnad_Ahmad_ibn_Hanbal
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Sunan_al-Darimi
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Shamaail_Tirmidhi
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Sahih_Ibn_Khuzaymah
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Sahih_Ibn_Hibbaan
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Al-Mustadr ... l-Sahihain
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Riyadh_as-Saaliheen
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/The_Book_o ... m_ibn_Qays

etc...etc...

It is circular because you go right back to your religious authority on the matter, and it is fallacious in the sense that YOU must also appeal to authority.

No you are wrong, there is no "Religious Authority" in Islam, as in, we have no pope or the "Vicar of Christ" etc...
The only authority is the Quran & then the Sahih hadiths. All the evidence on earth points towards Muhammad authoring the Quran unless you want to dispute this, we have no problem. The 4 canonical Gospels on the other hand are given their authorship by the Church, there are no eye witness testimonies nor do you have reports/testimonies by anyone who lived & talked with Jesus.

Exactly. The hadiths are narrations that are claimed to be from the followers of Muhammad. That is your authority, just like the Church Fathers are the authority for Christians.

They are not "Claimed" they ARE authentic, we are talking about thousands of seperate testimonies comming from different people who got into contact with Muhammad(pbuh) during their lives. Do you want to dispute and debate this with textual evidence or not? You are playing games here, if you have any OBJECTIVE reasons to dispute the Authentic Hadiths, lets debate them here.

From WIKI,
Hadith were evaluated and gathered into large collections during the 8th and 9th centuries.

Between 70 and 170 years the hadiths were gathered. This is NO different than Christian sources of tradition. All of your "scholarship" claims are by Muslim believers that are partial to Islam.

Yes but we have the NAMES OF THE PEOPLE giving the testimonies, the magnitude of testimonies (Almost half a million [most are seperate people]) also verifies the authenticity. No historian that i know of challenges this, do you want to challenge the authenticity of the Sahih Hadiths objectively (Which means you have to present evidence) or not?

Western academic scholarship is beginning to critically assess the Hadith and Quran, and we are already starting to see the same issues that Christianity has dealt with the last hundred years. I hope that you are prepared to learn the truth.

More western academics should asses the Quran & the Sahih hadiths, the more the better. (Karen Armstrong is a big name)

Then you have western academics such as Bart Erhman whom has utterly destroyed any claim of authenticity within the Gospels.

Look at how beautifully the history of Islam has been documented:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Islam
Can any Abrahamic religion match this?

Documentation isn't surprising considering that it is over 500 years later than Christianity. Sure, the history of Judaism and Christianity are rigorously documented as well but with 1000-500 years of time being elapsed before Islam.

Besides the Bible what documentation of Jesus can you provide?
Besides the Bible what documentation of Jeremiah can you provide?
Besides the Bible what documentation of Moses can you provide?

lol, what proof do YOU have of Moses, Jeremiah, Jesus, or any prophets before Muhammad? Are they not you prophets as well? How does the Quran prove their historicity?

Yes they are prophets, but you do not see the "Five books of Moses" within the Quran, do you?

[Jacob Simonsky]

Halo_hulk,

In your search for proof of the authenticity of the Holy Quran sooner or later you will have to trust someone. If you went to where the archives are it is doubtful you'd be allowed to see them since you are of a different religion. If you could see them would you believe? There is always the remote chance that everything was an elaborate hoax. If you are willing to take so much in Christianity on faith then why do you demand so much from Islam? Any worship of God is largely a matter of faith. If you were to become convinced that there were no hoax then what? You are Christian (I think) so if you are happy and fulfilled as one then why change? It is a great mistake to expect emotional agreement will necessarily follow intellectual discovery. Be content to know that there is, after all, one God whose methods we will not always understand. there are no perfect religions. We are not perfect. Our abilities to understand are not perfect. We all know this. Yet we demand so much.

Yaqub

[Halo_Hulk]

Halo_hulk,

In your search for proof of the authenticity of the Holy Quran sooner or later you will have to trust someone. If you went to where the archives are it is doubtful you'd be allowed to see them since you are of a different religion. If you could see them would you believe? There is always the remote chance that everything was an elaborate hoax. If you are willing to take so much in Christianity on faith then why do you demand so much from Islam? Any worship of God is largely a matter of faith. If you were to become convinced that there were no hoax then what? You are Christian (I think) so if you are happy and fulfilled as one then why change? It is a great mistake to expect emotional agreement will necessarily follow intellectual discovery. Be content to know that there is, after all, one God whose methods we will not always understand. there are no perfect religions. We are not perfect. Our abilities to understand are not perfect. We all know this. Yet we demand so much.

Yaqub

Thank you for your response, brother. My demand for evidence was only to counter Murad's demand in regard to the Church Fathers. It was to prove a point that we, Muslims and Christians, have to employ a reasonable amount of faith in the men that claimed to safeguard the message of God. I am very much content to believe and worship God as a Christian while knowing that my Muslim brothers and sisters are doing the same from their own tradition. Take care.

Ryan

[salvation2011]

The Bible clearly teaches that Jesus is God incarnated and this is evident through comparison ..
_____________________________________________________________
Who saves the world?
"I, even I, am the LORD; and beside me there is no saviour." Isaiah 43:11

...the Father sent the Son to be the Saviour of the world. 1 John 4:14
______________________________________________________________
The word and God are one
In the beginning was the Word, and the Word was with God, and the Word was God John 1:1

...the Word was made flesh, and dwelt among us...John 1:14
______________________________________________________________
God is the first and the last
I the LORD, the first, and with the last; I am he. Isaiah 41:4

Jesus said, "Fear not; I am the first and the last:" Revelation 1:17
______________________________________________________________
Only God is to be worshipped
... Then saith Jesus unto him... Thou shalt worship the Lord thy God, and him only shalt thou serve. Matthew 4:10

While [Jesus] spake these things unto them, behold, there came a certain ruler, and worshipped him... Matthew 9:18
______________________________________________________________
Who is the Messiah?
...unto us a child is born, unto us a son is given: and the government shall be upon his shoulder...and his name shall be called... The mighty God, The everlasting Father... Isaiah 9:6 (talking about god being the messiah)

The woman saith unto him, I know that Messias cometh, which is called Christ: when he is come, he will tell us all things. Jesus saith unto her, I that speak unto thee am he. John 4:25-26
______________________________________________________________

So here is clear cut evidence that Jesus in the Bible indirectly claimed to be God. If you reject this, you would have to believe that God allowed his word to be manipulated by man and or changed his mind when he gave Muhammad his revelation.

Wouldn't it make sense however, that the Bible claims Jesus is the only way to salvation, and Satan being the clever deceiver/copy cat that he is, gave a false revelation to Muhammad with the sole purpose of discrediting Jesus?

With so many Islamic organizations and movements out there hellbent on destroying Christians and Jews alike, it seems as if Islam is a 'wolf in sheeps clothing' where they do have good messages of peace but also a huge following of spiritual and political leaders who claim the Imam Mahdi is alive and is going to help in the uprising of Islam(sounds a lot like the Christian prophesied anti-christ).

I'm not trying to be offensive, I'm just wondering how Islam is justified in their beliefs that there is an almighty God, yet he allowed his word to be semi-perverted?

WOuld God allow this? If you read revelations from a non Christian perspective you will see that it is written about Jesus (who is NOT the LAMB in revelations, the LAMB is the chosen Jacob/Israel... the suffering servant referred to in Isaiah) Rev 1:5 and from Jesus Christ, who is the faithful witness, the firstborn of the dead, and the ruler of the kings of the earth. This position is clearly established in Rev 13... it was not a literal "beast" of the sea (not really a beast, its allegorical/poetic), not the antichrist (which is a manmade word). It is what God set up to prune his people... those who remained faithful to the one God are the "saved" ones, not the other way around which Christians believe. Christians are God's literal salvation for those faithful to the one God... as described in the reaping of the harvest in Rev 14... Christians refer to themselves as the vine who bear fruit. When Jesus was on the cross and said "it is done" that is a refernce to the setting up of the abomination of desolation in Rev and in 14 again it is repeated that blessed are those who die in the Lord from now on... the Lord meaning God, Allah, Hashem... the one true God. I am seeing this to mean that we are already in the promised land time... it has been done and when Christians die having taken the baptism in Jesus' name or the holy communion of his body and blood, they are literally prepping themselves to be God's promised salvation to the chosen tribe... deceived that they are praising God incarnate, they are actually dying as sinners because they have violatd the commandments to worship only God and not make idols (crosses, carvings of the dead Jesus on the cross... it makes me physically ill thinking about worshipping such an symbol). The plagues are being poured out on a continual basis.

The deception of revelations to Christians who have the "characters" wrong, is that they will be the saved ones when they are actually the ones dying for the salvation of others. Im not going to go so far as to label myself any particular religion yet, but the more I am learning about Islam and Judaism... its one of them that I will eventually fall into. I dont know my biological bloodline... my father is completely a missing piece and my birth mother tried to abort me but was too late and obviously wanted to forget I ever happened. So there is great difficulty in finding out my true bloodline, if it even matters... it does to Judaism, not sure if it does for Islam. True Judasim does not encourage converts bc you either are in the chosen or not by blood (another wrong reference from Chrisitianity... they believe that blood being shed by one person is the salvation. Blood's importance in the bible is identity and the literal blood of those who have broken covenant with God to be shed for those holy ones. Wow, I need to take a break now, this is very deep stuff!

My disclaimer: This is simply what I am seeing as I am reading the story of revelations and using all the references back (to NT and OT) to support what is written. I do not claim to know what the true purpose is, bc only God knows that... this is simply what I am being led to learn and see. Praise God alone!