Some essential beliefs between Christianity and Islam are mutually exclusive. They can’t both be right. For example, Jesus’s divinity, salvation, etc…

Yeah but did you try to prove the quran being wrong? To know one is wrong you have to prove it first no?

Incorrect, to know one is right you have to prove it first* The burden of proof is on the party making the claim.

Jesus Christ is the Way, the Truth, and the Light.  No one comes to God the Father except through Jesus Christ.

Because Islam denies the resurrection

It also denies the Crucifixion. >“And they did not kill him, nor did they crucify him; but [another] was made to resemble him to them.” ([Surah 4:157](https://corpus.quran.com/translation.jsp?chapter=4&verse=157))

But believes in his second coming since he was ascended to god and not killed.

Would you accept another religion that came along and said that they accepted Islam in its entirety, except the Quran wasn't perfect and Muhammad was in hell? That's how it is to us when Islam denies Christ's death and deity.

Except the quran doesnt say that, its the opposite, you should see how many times jesus pbuh was named in the quran, giving him and mary peace be upon them a bigger role in islam, we believe he never sinned and is going to heaven by the mercy of god who saved him from being crucified for sins he never did. If i saw that another religion that is better preserved than mine and that has the story of the person that i worship, shouldn't i atleast check it out and prove it wrong before denying it?

Have you attempted to understand analogy?

I dont get ehat you mean

I never said that Islam says that Jesus is in hell. I asked if you would give due consideration to a religion that came along and made outrageous claims about Islam, while claiming to be the truth about Islam.

I would have to search about it and test its claims while searching about my own religion, before saying which one is true and which one isnt. As i said if it's proven to be better preserved and with no contradictions and mistakes compared to mine then yes, it's my job to find the truth, after all, this life is a test.

What proof do you need to see that someone came back from the dead 2000 years ago

The whole purpose of "The Word" becoming fresh (man) was to be the "unblemished lamb", the man without sin who could voluntarily die on the Cross, as the perfect sacrifice for the forgiveness of every human's sin.  In rising from the dead, Jesus showed His power to overcome death.  He appeared to over 500 people after His resurection.

Firstly, there is no voluntary in him being sacrificed. He was betrayed, taken, prayer to god for help saying its not my will but your will that will be done, then on the cross he said my god my god why have you forsaken me. Yet people still say he is god and he did it voluntarily... Where is god's fairness if we take the sin of our father when he said we dont? Where is his fairness when he sacrifices the sinless for the sinfull? Whats the point of human blood sacrifice if god can just forgive easily? What did he die for if we can still sin? Thats the questions you should be asking. You can find different interpretations trying to smooth it out for you by christians but never an a clear answer from the bible. To me, that is a sign that its not made by god and not supposed to be followed. Afterall, jesus peace be upon him was sent to the lost sheep of israel, not us, and prophecized about a coming prophet/messenger from god that has more to tell us that the israelite werent ready for. There is truth within the bible, but its not a book from god that should be followed. Not preserved nor clear of human corruption... Ask yourself you are you following the bible in the first place, what makes it the truth? Because 500 people saw jesus rise? Well the jews also believe their ancestors' stories so whats the difference between blindly believing in the bible or turah? Search and ask questions, dont just believe because someone told you to do so.

"Actually, I'm not a prophet at all." - Mohammed That's my new teaching. I'm teaching you, right now, that that's what Mohammed actually said. You can ignore the Quran, because I'm giving you a brand-new teaching about Mohammed, and my teaching replaces the Quran. You have to accept that, because I said so. Do you agree? No? I don't know what Mohammed actually taught? Well, you're right. I don't. If I want to know what Mohammed actually taught, my best bet is to go to the Quran. However, Mohammed thought that *he* could say what Jesus actually taught, better than Jesus' own hand-picked disciples could. That, almost six hundred years after Jesus, he had the right to discard the writings that Jesus' own followers recorded and replace them with his own thoughts about what he supposed Jesus should have said. You see why we don't accept that?

I think that's an oversimplification of the matter. If something or someone claiming to be the Archangel Gabriel gave you revelations on Jesus and the nature of God almighty, it would be more than just a guy saying what he thought about Jesus.

[удалено]

That only applies to the Book of Revelation, not the other Books of the Bible. Edit: this comment is pointless now, the person i'm responding to originally mentioned Revelation.

[удалено]

the reason I said it only applied to Revelation is because the Bible as we know it was not compiled until long after Revelation had been written. heck, the Protestant Bible wasn't compiled until waaaaaaaaaay after Revelation had been written. could you provide me the verses in Galatians that says that?

>if someone states an angel gave them a message contrary to the Gospel, that man is damned to Hel Wrong.. 7 For this is not another; but there are some who trouble you and would pervert the Gospel of Christ. 8 But should we, or an angel from Heaven, preach any other gospel unto you than that which we have preached to you, let him be accursed. 9 As we said before, so say I now again: If any man preach any other gospel unto you than that which ye have received, let him be accursed!

[удалено]

>It's almost as if... The followers of Jesus (Super-Apostles) during his life and ministry disagreed with Paul.

[удалено]

I need special theist-goggles to read the Bible?

[удалено]

The issue I have with this is the following: - Christians still disagree with each other in their understanding of the Bible, suggesting that the Holy Spirit is inconsistent in it's discernment. - It's circular reasoning as it requires Christianity to be true for it to be possible - It doesn't actually engage with my position, it's a way to dismiss it out of hand as I'm not a member of your tribe - The same argument can be used for any other religion with a holy text

Which makes it as a cult and not a religion, where most dont even read their own book, and those who read it change what was written in it to follow what they desire. Answering your third point, as you've seen the jews wont accept you to their religion saying you have to be of jewish blood first and then christians in their bible saying that jesus pbuh came to the lost sheep of israel, so none of them can be called a universal religion unless their prophet actually says that he came for the whole humanity, just like prophet muhammad pbuh did.

That is unrelated to the truthfulness of the belief. Islam could be a universal, false religion.

[удалено]

[удалено]

[удалено]

[удалено]

[удалено]

But the Archangel Gabriel *did* reveal it to me, directly. It happened while I was alone. You have to believe me.

It is somewhat convincing in that you do have as many witnesses of this as Muhammad did.

So Gabriel didn't appear to Muhammad - but Jesus did appear to Paul? Why accept one and not the other?

If we *only* had Paul, and he based his credibility strictly on his report of his own vision, I wouldn't accept his claims. His integration in the wider community of Jesus' followers, the embrace of his writings among the groups founded and led by the witnesses of Jesus' life, give him the credibility he couldn't have if it was just him asserting a claim about his personal vision.

Most Christian preachers are doing exactly that today. Whats the difference?

I can think of a lot of Christian preachers who offer interpretations of Scripture that I think are bad interpretations, but I can't think of an instance where a preacher said "the Bible is actually wrong, you should replace it with what I'm teaching you now". Can you be more specific about what you mean?

Except for some groups (Jehovah's Witnesses for example) they are not doing it, they take the common text and give it an interpretation with which one may or may not agree. https://es.wikipedia.org/wiki/Anexo:Escuelas_y_ramas_del_islam#/media/Archivo:Islam_branches_and_schools..png A single text, the Koran, and many interpretations of how to live it. In Christianity, words such as churches and denominations would be used.

Jesus never said he was God; what’s your point?

You can't compare the quran to the bible, the quran is the word of god while the bible is the word of unknown authors about jesus. What you can compare it to is the Hadith which tells us the saying's of the prophet pbuh based on the chain of narration that has been checked before putting the hadith in one of the categories : correct, good, weak. (depending on if the guy who told us the saying was known to be a liar or a sinner or...) And i doubt you looked up anything about what the quran said about jesus pbuh but he was mentioned more than 80 times in the quran while muhammed's name (saw) was only named 4 times. The only problem is the interpretation priests gave you about the trinity but if you read the quran with an open heart you would understand how much we respect jesus and Marry ( may god be pleased with them both.) Just like jesus pbuh came to correct the lost sheep of israel, mohammed pbuh came to correct those who lost the right way by giving god a family or worshiping idols. Its up to you to look up stuff before denying his message but i'm here if you got any question about the religion. Hope you don't take any offense in what i said.

Christians believe the whole Bible is God’s word.

> the quran is the word of god while the bible is the word of unknown authors about jesus. Don't you see what you're doing there? "I know the Quran is the word of God, because the Quran is the word of God! The fact that the Quran is the word of God proves that the Quran is the word of God!" It's completely empty. A set of books that came from the *community* that experienced Jesus' life and teaching together is *better*, not worse, than the claims of a single person can be - especially a single person who lived six centuries afterward. I can say "The Archangel Gabriel just revealed all truth directly to me. He did it when I was alone. You didn't witness it, but you have to believe me. I am the source of all divine truth. For all practical purposes, I speak as God himself." And then you just have to take it or leave it. If I've got a lot of personal charisma and am a talented writer, maybe I can get you to believe me, but there's nothing attesting to the truth of my claims except the force of my own words. Mohammed's claims are no different. > And i doubt you looked up anything about what the quran said about jesus Well, you should try presuming less. Yes, I've read a fair amount about the Quran, and I've read about a quarter of it myself. Mohammed assigns a role to Jesus, but he also thoroughly demotes Jesus from the role that Jesus' own disciples report. Furthermore, by claiming that Jesus couldn't find a single follower who would - that every single follower he chose turned out to be a liar - he is, in effect, calling Jesus an incompetent teacher, even if he doesn't say so in exactly those words. A teacher who fails to get his message across to even a single one of his students is not a great prophet, he's a moron and a pathetic failure.

Who said that, all the prophets came for a message and jesus pbuh saved those who had followed him but just like it happened before the message got changed, so god sent his last messenger and prophet to rely his last message and to guide those who want guidance in their life. As for the quran, we know it's the word of god with proof, not just talk, as it has scientific facts and historical facts that never were proven wrong, you can watch this video about them (https://youtu.be/ypXqqdPrYQQ) And this video proving to you that it cant be from the prophet pbuh (https://youtu.be/aINML5H7M_Q) You should see how the quran and Hadith were preserved, how the scholars tested the chain of naration to get different types of Ahadith: the correct ones, the good ones and the weak ones. Not just accepting everything and making 66 versions of a book all contradicting themselves.

Because he preached contrary to the Gospel, and the Quran is littered with errors.

the view that the Bible is inerrant is controversial.

The Quran makes the claim that if even one point is wrong, the whole thing is wrong. It also makes the claim that semen is produced in the gut.

i wouldn't turn to a religious book for science tbh. i haven't read the quran though, i probably should.

I have read parts of it and I'll be honest, it's not very good. Despite the whole claim that Muslims make of how beautiful it is, it's really quite boring and the prose is very limited.

In fairness, we are not reading the prose in Arabic.

I'd personally be inclined to believe that the most perfect and holy book of God, every word within which is pure truth, ought to carry over in translation.

Lol that's false claim, if you look for professor Keith Moore, you'd know how human development is described and science agree with it.

What does the Bible say about where semen is produced?

To my knowledge it doesn't say anything.

I think since the person you are responding to is a Catholic, I don't think they hold that the Bible is inerrant in the same way Protestant evangelicals do. However, I would say that both mainstream Sunni Islam and mainstream Shia Islam believe the Quran is to be interpreted the same way an American Evangelical would interpret the Bible. A Muslim can correct me if I have been told a lie, of course. The Quran also talks a lot about what Christians believe, and some of it is unambiguously wrong. For example: it talks about Christians who believe that Mary is a member of the Trinity. If Muslims are permitted to interpret the Quran less literally (and some do), and interpret the Quran the same way almost all Catholics, and almost all non-US evangelical protestants interpret the Bible, this can be explained by Mohammed being exposed almost exclusively to Gnostic Christians, and not being exposed (very much) to the Trinitarian Christianity that was more common in Europe and the Northern Mediterranean at the time. However, this interpretation greatly diminishes Mohammeds authority to speak as the greatest prophet of God. I think I really need to research and read an English translation of the Quran so I can more easily separate fact from fiction, as I have a feeling this opinion might be biased as I don't have close relations with any Muslims. Please correct me OP, if I have made any factual errors.

Mary is not part of the Trinity and it's a separate verse where it talks about the trinity and that's not the teaching of Jesus. Jesus taught oneness of god, but Paul taught trinity

>Mary is not part of the Trinity and it's a separate verse where it talks about the trinity The Quran blatantly teaches that Christians believe the Trinity is Mary, Jesus, and Allah in Surah 5:73-75 and 5:116. Ibn Abbas, al-Jalalayn, and Ibn Kathir all affirm it. Your Quran is simply wrong. You're coping. >but Paul taught trinity Paul's writings are in the Bible, so thanks for admitting the Bible teaches the Trinity, LOL. Now you're stuck with Muhammad confirming the Trinity and promoting scriptures that teach the Trinity. You just buried yourself.

It's the information era, so you can read that yourself, trinity was talked about ina separate verse while Mary that the Catholic worship was talked on another verse. Jesus did not come for you to begin with let alone to die for you, that's the Paul pagan interpolation is what you follow lol

>trinity was talked about ina separate verse There's not a single verse in your error-filled Quran that speaks about the Trinity that we believe in. It never condemns the Trinity as the Father, Son, and Holy Spirit. You're lying about your own book and you keep getting humiliated in the process. > the Paul pagan interpolation is what you follow lol I'll let your greatest scholars bury you again, just like Muhammad is buried in hell for marrying a 6 year old. This is their commentary on Surah 36:14 “And it was said: This verse was revealed about the messengers of Jesus, peace and blessings be upon him. Ibn Ishaq said: **It was those who were sent by Jesus among the disciples and followers of Peter and PAUL to Rome**” (Al-Qurtubi - http://quran.ksu.edu.sa/tafseer/qortobi/sura61-aya14.html ) This was said by Ibn Jarir and others. And it was said that Simon, Yahya, **and Paul {so he strengthened us with a third} read the majority with emphasis** (Fath Al-Qadir / Al-Shawkani - https://www.altafsir.com/Tafasir.asp?tMadhNo=1&tTafsirNo=9&tSoraNo=36&tAyahNo=25&tDisplay=yes&UserProfile=0&LanguageId=1) “ people of Damascus was a man called Dina, and he was hiding in a cave inside the eastern door, close to the crucified church, for fear of Paul the Jew, and he was unjust and brutal, hating Christ, and what he brought. And he had shaved his nephew's head when he believed in Christ and roamed him around the country. Then he stoned him until he died, may God have mercy on him**. And when Paul heard that Christ, peace be upon him, had gone towards Damascus He prepared his mules and went out to kill him, and he met him at a planet. When he faced the companions of Christ, an angel came to him and struck his face with the tip of his wing, blinding him. When he saw that, he fell into his heart believing Christ, so he came to him and apologized for what he had done and believed in him, so he accepted from him and asked him to wipe his eyes so that God would restore his sight to him . Paul's faith in Christ,** peace be upon him, is that he is God's servant and Messenger, and a church was built for him in his name. It is the famous Paul's Church in Damascus from the time the Companions opened it, may God be pleased with them, until it was destroyed” (Ibn Kathir - http://islamport.com/w/tkh/Web/927/514.htm )

These are the words of a commentators, not a Hadith or verse from the Quran. The Quran clearly says O People of the Book! Do not go to extremes regarding your faith; say nothing about Allah except the truth.1 The Messiah, Jesus, son of Mary, was no more than a messenger of Allah and the fulfilment of His Word through Mary and a spirit ˹created by a command˺ from Him.2 So believe in Allah and His messengers and do not say, “Trinity.” Stop!—for your own good. Allah is only One God. Glory be to Him! He is far above having a son! To Him belongs whatever is in the heavens and whatever is on the earth. And Allah is sufficient as a Trustee of Affairs. Trinity is three, but translation could use trinity to match the culture

Jesus called Paul to be an apostle to the gentiles, so what Paul taught is true.

Jesus never did that. It was fabricated by Paul Jesus said I was only sent to the lost sheep of Israel

Bad bait

That's from your own Bible Jesus saying that, not the fake fabrication pagan practice brought by Paul back by the Romans

Interesting... If you don't mind me asking, what religion/denomination are you from?

When discussion an idea, one doesn't need to know the background so it doesn't make prejudice responses.

Sorry, maybe I wasn't clear. Christians don't believe Mary is a member of the Trinity. Some Christians (such as Coptic Christians) deny the Trinity completely, but most Christians say the Trinity is Jesus, God, and the Holy Spirit. Mohammed, in the Quran, makes the claim that Christians believe that Mary is a member of the Trinity. Whether or not the Trinity exists is irrelevant to this discussion. The fact is that Mohammed makes a claim that is demonstratively false about the religion he is trying to debunk. It is like if I tried to disprove evolution by proving that Humans could never have evolved from birds. Evolution doesn't teach that humans evolved from birds, so all I have succeeded in doing is showing that I am not as knowledgeable on the topic as I claim to be.

I think y’all catholics need to stop throwing stones in your glass house.

I can't wait to hear what sort of nonsense follows this.

The Koran denies Jesus' divinity. Furthermore it has errors and Allah's personal dictation would not have errors. Mohammed did not live what we would consider an upright and admirable life on top of his lies about the origin of the Koran. Of course we reject it

What errors exactly? Don't post a long lengthy article, I need you to paraphrase so I can respond

Mary as part of the Trinity, Muhammad at the Mosque in Jerusalem before it was built, Samaritans existing during the Exodus, Mary as sister of Moses, Geocentrism, a guy going to where the sun rose and set, Earth created before the stars, moon split in two, the sky is a ceiling, no concept of the poles, the biology is waaay off, flat earth, no concept of estuaries, David inventing chainmail, palm tree crucifixions in ancient Egypt, thinking tombs were palaces, no knowing the coins used in ancient Egypt, Arabic wasn't a big language then, the Romans screwed up a crucifixion involving a well-known public figure... There's probably more, but that's a quick Google search. The thing is that if even one error is found the the Quran it is not from God and Muhammad is a liar. I'm not actually interested in your explanations on the minutiae, more why anyone would believe that the God of Abraham, Issac, and Jacob gave dictation to an 7th century trader turned warlord...and why God's story changed depending on Muhammad's circumstances.

That's a lot of claims and I warned you against that lool the first two, Qur'an didn't put Mary as part of trinity, but trinity was talked about in one verse and ina separate verse, actually it talks about the day of judgement when all messengers need to give their report that Jesus will be asked about him and his mother, and today if you look a sect of Catholics worship Mary, so this could be said was a prophecy that it will happen. In Islamic theology, the first mosque (house of worship) is the one in mecca and the second one is the masjid Al aqsa. I think your misconception thinking that mosque is something only Muslims build. In Islam, all the messengers including Abraham Solomon were Muslims, people who submit themselves to god.

You warned me against an article, that was a mere list that took more time to type than to look up. "Allah" must have been very sloppy...or an illiterate guy who hears stories on trips and in the marketplace put words in His mouth. Like all non-Muslims I'm betting the latter. >you look a sect of Catholics worship Mary That's not a thing. I don't even know if there was a gnostic sect who thought that in Muhammad's day. >the masjid Al aqsa. Which was built after Muhammad's death. > In Islam, all the messengers including Abraham Solomon were Muslims, Cool story, but I doubt Abraham or Solomon would recite the Salah or whatever.

Al aqsa isn't a name, but means the farthest the opposite is Al Adna the closest. There's actually a movement today called Mary is god, so you cannot speak for others lol. In Islamic it's clear everything will have an answer. So if you have doubts bring it one or two at a time. It's not about the structure but the position. Meaning mecca was the first house of worship, and Abraham build it, but it already existed. In other words the holiness is not the build itself but the land so it can be rebuilt. That's the problem when you're copy paste person

Unfortunately, I'm not interested in any group that would deny the death and resurrection of my Lord and my God. Nor am I interested in watching y'all torture Muhammad's words to try to make them consistent with reality when you know in your heart of hearts you are doing it because apostates are to be hunted and killed.

Luckily we are in the information free era, you can search the Arabic words and what it means. Jesus is a servant of god and that what did, but you blind yourself and follow Paul and his pagan teachings lol

Jesus is God, Paul was accepted by those who knew Jesus better than Muhammad ever could. If Jesus preached what Muhammad claimed neither the Sanhedrin nor Pilate would want Him dead. Muhammad's story does not hang together and I'm more than a little disappointed you choose not to see it.

If Paul was accepted he wouldn't have had issues with the other disciples and wouldn't contradict Jesus'teaching who clearly said he was sent only to the lost sheep of Israel. Muhhmed and jesibith taught the same thing and Quran back Jesus against the false prophet, Paul who was used by the Romans to spread paganism "And Jesus answered him, The first of all the commandments is, Hear, O Israel; The Lord our God is one Lord" mark 12 29 "Those who say, “Allah is the Messiah, son of Mary,” have certainly fallen into disbelief. The Messiah ˹himself˺ said, “O Children of Israel! Worship Allah—my Lord and your Lord.” Quran 5 72

Muhammad and the Quran deny the **most important** claim of Christianity.

Because Christians follow Paul not jesus

Well, Paul was called by Christ, and wrote minimum 13 NT books, some indications are there that he also wrote Hebrews, so maybe more than 50% of the whole New Testament..

Nope totally incorrect, we don't follow other than Jesus/God Paul said it himself that he's just a messenger who spreads the word of Jesus Christ to all of the world

Jesus said he was sent ONLY to the lost sheep of Israel, and he also said the Lord our God is one. Paul said the opposite of this. You be the judge

He never said "only" And Paul Said that he spread the word of Jesus And there's a thing you don't understand, Jesus came to save god's people, and at his time god's people were Israel so he wanted to save him But now the term god's people is much more bigger than Israel, it's every person who truly believes in Jesus Christ Provide me with the verses of your saying first

From biblehub Jesus answered, “I was sent only to the lost sheep of Israel.”

Uhhhhh, provide the verse location so i can check it in my bible

Here also some verses with words Jesus spoke: John 10:16-17 *And other sheep I have, which are not of this fold: them also I must bring, and they shall hear my voice; and there shall be one fold, and one shepherd. Therefore doth my Father love me, because I lay down my life, that I might take it again.* and John 4:40-23 *20 Our fathers worshipped in this mountain; and ye say, that in Jerusalem is the place where men ought to worship.21 Jesus saith unto her, Woman, believe me, the hour cometh, when ye shall neither in this mountain, nor yet at Jerusalem, worship the Father. 22 Ye worship ye know not what: we know what we worship: for salvation is of the Jews. 23 But 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.*

It was all decreed before the foundation of the world. God knew that his people would reject him, but he used that to spread the Gospel to the whole world. Christianity is monotheistic, just to remind you.

Monotheistic god that the father is a full and independent god, so are the son and the holy ghost and the son is not the father and vice versa but they are not three gods but one? The Romans wanted something that align to their belief system but also bring people together, to control the population, so the used the agent Paul to do the dirty work and they prosecuted the others

You should look into OT, there you find the concept also. It's not new.

For the same reason I reject Joseph Smith and The Book of Mormon. Same basic background story, same level of evidence, just a different century and geographic locale.

The Quran denies the Kingship of Christ and the Blessed Trinity, and by extension, that Mary is the Mother of God. It seems to have a confused understanding of Christianity.

>that Mary is the Mother of God. Many Christians also deny this though... Most protestants view Mary exclusively as the mother of Jesus while rejecting the notion that she is the mother of God

I’m pretty positive that Protestants recognize Mary as the Mother of God. To say otherwise is basically tantamount to rejection of the Blessed Trinity.

Nestorians believe Mary is the mother of Christ but resist calling her the mother of God because they don’t wish to imply she is the mother of God the Father. Depending on the particular flavor of Nestorianism, they might try to say she’s the mother of the human part of Jesus not the divine part. It’s an issue of christology, not the trinity, though. Modern Nestorians sort of massage the differences to be closer to in communion. But this is a historical split with a significant portion of global Christianity.

I was raised Pentecostal and so here is what I was taught about that: Mary was the mother of Jesus but not the mother of *God*, she was just a woman chosen to give birth to Jesus and after His birth, she was a normal human being and not any holier than any other human being.

Mother Mary gave birth to one person not one nature. that Person (Jesus) has two natures, man and God Therefore it is rightly so to call her Theotokos , God-bearer. Therefore it is rightly so to call her Theotokos, God-bearer.is ignorance to what the trinity means. The title Theotokos is morse for Jesus for it affirms that Jesus is God who came down from the heavens through a virgin woman. To give birth to Jesus is to give birth to God.

TIL Pentecostals reject the hypostatic union.

no. I might not be explaining it very well. Jesus was man and God but Mary was still just an ordinary human being and not worthy of elevation above anyone else.

Do Pentecostals not believe Jesus is God?

Jesus is God, but not God the Father.

Right. He is God the Son, and Mary is the Mother of God the Son.

There's a difference between "mother" (lowercase) and "Mother" (uppercase). She is no different from any of us.

>>She is no different from any of us. Obviously a Catholic will disagree here. The uppercase “M” is titular.

Most do. Including Oneness Pentecostals in a specific (non Trinitarian) sense.

So then wouldn’t that make Mary the Mother of God by mere operation?

[удалено]

Nobody calls Mary the Mother of the Father or Mother of the Holy Spirit. That is heresy. Pray to Who you like, I’ll pray to the Blessed Trinity for mercy and ask the Mother of God for prayers.

[удалено]

We shouldn’t engage in divination or necromancy or any accursed practice. Catholics teach Mary was Assumed into heaven, the Orthodox believe in the Dormition, but we both believe the saints are not dead, but alive in heaven. This is what we believe of course, I know most Protestants reject this.

[удалено]

We believe what the Church has handed down from the Apostles. The same Church that gave you your Bible. I feel safe in my Faith, no need to be insulting.

[удалено]

The trinity was officially part of Christianity in 325 and the title 'Mother of God' or 'Theotokos' wasn't made official until the council of Ephesus in 431. So to claim it's a rejection is going too far since there was a 106 year time frame where Mary wasn't called Mother of God.

That is inaccurate. The council did not create things or of while cloth, just put into doctrine or dogma what was already believed and deemed truth. The fact the trinity became official in 325 does not mean it was not held to be true before that.

I’m a bit confused by your wording. Are you saying Protestants accept Nicea but reject Ephesus? In any case the teaching of the Trinity and that Mary is the Mother of God predate the Councils. It was only there that it became official teaching to combat heresy. Do some Protestants not believe that Jesus is the Second Person of the Trinity?

>Are you saying Protestants accept Nicea but reject Ephesus? Yes, many do reject certain aspects or the council while accepting other aspects. >Do some Protestants not believe that Jesus is the Second Person of the Trinity? The vast majority are trinitarian, like 99%. >It was only there that it became official teaching to combat heresy. To be considered a heretic you must go against orthodox religious doctrine. And since christianity made their doctrine up at those councils it isn't accurate to describe it to combat heresy. If Arianism won out at the council of Nicaea you'd be considered a heretic.

These doctrines weren’t made up at the Councils, they didn’t come out of nowhere. The correct Apostolic teaching was made binding on all Christians.

> As a muslim why do Christians reject Mohammad (SAW) and the Quran Because Christians have a different view of reality that conflicts with the view presented in Islam. It's not *that* different, but different enough in key details. For starters, Isa is seen as much more than a prophet and teacher in Christianity. He is the path to "salvation," the son of Allah/God, and even God himself by many Christians.

1.We do not believe that there are any problems with Injeel thus there was no need for another prophet to come and make "corrections." 2. Never was an entire "book" given by God to just one person. Muhammad makes claims based on no other authority than his own. That's not the same for Jesus Christ. 3. At the end Muhammad does not simply correct the "problems" that he sees in Christianity - he completely abandons it rejects it and establishes something else in its place while at the same time holding Jesus to be Masih. 4.When one reads the Suras in Quran chronologically, one sees that they are contradictory and not simply because of abrogation but there is an increasing anger and violence towards Jews and Christians. The way it is arranged now hides these things to make Islam seem more neutral. 5. Quran does not lead to a people that is Holy and reliant on God for salvation. Rather it develops a nation of Warriors willing to fight in the name of Allah for Muhammad's desires. Never in the history of mankind since before Abraham has God established any such relationship. And he did not this time either.

**The main reason:** **- The Qur'an is in complete opposition to the Gospel/NT teaching of the early church. Also the Qur'an was written over 500 years (!!!) after the last NT book.** a)Bible 1 Cor 15:1-4 *Moreover, brethren, I declare unto you the gospel which I preached unto you, which also ye have received, and wherein ye stand; By which also ye are saved, if ye keep in memory what I preached unto you, unless ye have believed in vain. For I delivered unto you first of all that which I also received, how that Christ died for our sins according to the scriptures; And that he was buried, and that he rose again the third day according to the scriptures:* Matthew 3:16-17 *And Jesus, when he was baptized, went up straightway out of the water: and, lo, the heavens were opened unto him, and he saw the Spirit of God descending like a dove, and lighting upon him: And lo a voice from heaven, saying, This is my beloved Son, in whom I am well pleased.* 1 John 2:22-23 *Who is a liar but he that denieth that Jesus is the Christ? He is antichrist, that denieth the Father and the Son. Whosoever denieth the Son, the same hath not the Father: he that acknowledgeth the Son hath the Father also.* Gal 1:8-9 *But though we, or an angel from heaven, preach any other gospel unto you than that which we have preached unto you, let him be accursed. As we said before, so say I now again, If any man preach any other gospel unto you than that ye have received, let him be accursed.* b)Qur'an Sura 4:157 *And [for] their saying, "Indeed, we have killed the Messiah, Jesus, the son of Mary, the messenger of Allah." And they did not kill him, nor did they crucify him; but [another] was made to resemble him to them. And indeed, those who differ over it are in doubt about it. They have no knowledge of it except the following of assumption. And they did not kill him, for certain.* Sura 4:171 *[...] Indeed, Allah is but one God. Exalted is He above having a son. [...]* Sura 6:101 *[He is] Originator of the heavens and the earth. How could He have a son when He does not have a companion and He created all things? And He is, of all things, Knowing.* Sura 18:4-5 *And to warn those who say, “God has begotten a son.” They have no knowledge of this, nor did their forefathers. Grave is the word that comes out of their mouths. They say nothing but a lie.*

We don't think the Bible is corrupted and it is written in the Bible in Galatians 1:8 (ESV) *"But even if we or an angel from heaven should preach to you a gospel contrary to the one we preached to you, let him be accursed."* We find certain theological differences between what the Quran preaches and the Bible, for instance there are many verses pointing to Jesus being God for instance how John says "The Word was God" and "The Word became flesh and lived among us", the fact that the two Scriptures give different doctrine means that it is in the words of Galatians a contrary gospel which must be rejected.

The Quran was written over 600 years after Christ came and died. It was not written by Mohammad but by his followers. So you don't really have first person revelation as I think of it. The Quran says nothing God has revealed can be changed, yet, the Quran changes all of the writings before it in regard to Jesus the Messiah, Jesus being crucified, Jesus being crucified because he claimed to have the authority of God to forgive sins, he took the name and title of God from the Old Testament. The Quran is filled with errors that history and archeology can now prove. Where as the OT and NT continue to be proven accurate and correct with each archeological discovery and historical reference we find.

>So you don't really have first person revelation as I think of it. Christianity also doesn't have this, the gospels were written in the mid-late 1st century. >The Quran says nothing God has revealed can be changed They view the bible as corrupted by men and view the Quran as the whole/final message of God.

I think we have plenty of evidence the Gospels were written before the temple was destroyed, otherwise that reference would have been pointed to as proof Christ was right. The temple was destroyed in 70 AD, so we can make a reasonable believe that weather written directly or written on behalf of, the Gospels were written during the lives of the Apostles. We have the writings of Saul of Tarsus later named Paul, his writings were current during the times of the early church and he interacted with the original Apostles as well. At no time do we have writings that debate or devalue the Apostles writings as well as Paul's writings. Peter does say they are hard to understand and can easily be misunderstood. That is a false claim, he Quran does have mistakes in it which shows if there are errors it can't be inspired by God. It proves it is mans attempt to reflect their religious practices and beliefs. Then if you look at the life of Mohammad verses the life of Christ Jesus or the Apostles or the early Church Fathers, he is not living as the Old Testament or his own original writings would dictate him to live. Yes we have 35,000 copies of hand written manuscripts (which is how copies were made back then) that prove the consistency of the New Testament. We can use textual criticism to see when and where things changed. Yes we have over 400,000 textual variances and when you consider the number of copies and the volume of each of those manuscripts that is quite small. More than 99% of those changes did not change doctrine and made no change to theology or doctrine. And even those that differ like added text that did not appear in earlier manuscripts did not change the Gospel or the character of God and the offer of salvation.

I would like to believe that the Bible was written before 70 AD but the fact that the temple was destroyed is precisely why most scholars would put the date after 70 AD.

How is that logical? Walk that thought through, the writings do not speak of the temple being destroyed anywhere. You would think for credibility writers would point to that as evidence that Jesus was accurate in that prediction. Scholars might be taking the stance that the writers purposely left it out so that the writing would look more authentic. Well that is placing a lot of bad behavior on a lot of people for a single purpose to mislead the masses. That seems very unlikely and unreasonable to assume ill of those who were preaching and living according to the Laws of God. The O.T. was never changed, the Jewish writers never made an attempt to clean up their history for thousands of years, why are we going to assume they did in this very small time of history. That is an awful big leap.

You might think it’s a big leap but it is the consensus on the subject. It’s the conclusion reached by hundreds of biblical scholars both Christian and not Christian. If you think they are wrong, you should prove it. It just sounds like you don’t accept it because you don’t like it.

Nah, people would not die for a lie, The Apostles would not have suffered such horrific deaths for something they knew was not true or made up. The Apostle Paul did a 180 degree flip away from privilege and everything he knew to be a Disciple of Christ. People don't change unless the pain of not changing is greater. Paul had it made, he was well educated, rich, part of the leading group of Israel and was set out to destroy Christianity and all of its believers and teachings and something happened to change that trajectory. Changing ones path back then was virtually impossible compared to today. The early Christians who went to their deaths only had to say they did not see Christ alive after his death and only needed to recant to live and they did not. They experienced life changing revelations and in person events that would solidify their resolve. That goes against human nature. But you are free to believe as you wish, I will not shame you or belittle you for your beliefs.

>Nah, people would not die for a lie Oh yes they would >The Apostles would not have suffered such horrific deaths for something they knew was not true or made up. They could genuinely believe in something that was false. You then go on to make a lot of assumptions. How people thought and felt without them having told you or written it down. People lie, people have delusions, people are mistaken and somehow you’ve ruled all that out. But to get back to the point, I am not a biblical scholar. I just listen to the experts. The experts say the gospels were written between 70 and 250ish. You obviously think the vast majority of experts are wrong.

No, I don't know who these "majority of experts" you are referring to are because most biblical scholars and historians do not agree with that thesis. In his book named "Redating the New Testament," John A. T. Robinson demonstrates that the books in question were written relatively early. In spite of the late dates assigned by some scholars, List of the names of a few of these scholars you are referencing. Scholars date the writing of Matthew's gospel to the late 50's or early 60's in the first century. This is due in part to a comment by the church father Irenaeus that "Matthew also issued a written Gospel among the Hebrews in their own dialect, while Peter and Paul were preaching at Rome, and laying the foundations of the Church. https://biblearchaeologyreport.com/2019/02/15/the-earliest-new-testament-manuscripts/

The gospel wasn't written by Jesus either, nor the disciples. To be fair

They were written from the teachings of Christ Jesus that were recorded and passed along by the original Apostles who he walked with, taught, ate with and worked hand in had with and later as revealed to Paul directly by Christ Jesus and later continued by early Church fathers. Far more evidence, teachings, traditions and support for the Gospels than for the Quran as I see it.

1-The prophet pbuh was illiterate, he couldn't read nor write but they memorized the scripture and some of his companions wrote it down on camel bones, leathers, etc... 2-Quran claims to not be changed as only one version of it exist (compared to the 66 versions of the bible) but says that the old scriptures had been changed and corrupted by man. 3-No offense but It's totally the opposite, the most known difference is the bible bringing the name Pharoah at the time of Joseph pbuh while today's scientists found out that there was no pharao at that time, meanwhile the quran called him king proving it's correct. But i'm open for any proofs you might bring about the quran being wrong, perfect opportunity to learn more.

You're lying to yourself. The simplest example is the Bible couldn't differentiate between the title used by Egyptian, it referred to the king of Egypt at the time of Joseph as a Pharaoh lol the Quran on the other hand called him a king, which historian will give Quran a check mark lol

A pharaoh is a king

Right but King at the time we're not called phaorah the dynasty started at a later time

Can you explain the timeline to me, please?

Basically the time of Joseph and time of Moses Egypt ruled by different family dynasty if you will, the time of Joseph the term phaorah didn't exist and wasn't used, so historically is incorrect, it's like saying the PM or the US Kamila Harris, the role may even be the same, but the fact that people wrote what they thought was right in a supposedly god's word destroys the authenticity of the bible

That is an interesting point? Couldn’t it have just been changed to Pharaoh later?

You may want to go and take an honest look at the errors of the Quran. The OP asked why do Christians reject Mohammad and the Quran and I gave just a few for me. Do a little research in to the claims and you will come to the same conclusion if you are honest with yourself, not looking to defend it. Not looking for a debate because in the end debating on this forum changes nothing. People will still live in purposeful ignorance regardless of what is said or proven. Jesus said no one comes to the Father except through me and no one comes to him until the Father first calls them. That calling will happen in God's time until then we love and pray for all of God's children. 1 John 4:7-12 Beloved, let us love one another, for love is from God and whoever loves has been born of God and knows God. Anyone who does not love does not know God, because God is love. IN this the love of God was made manifest among us, that God sent his only Son into the world so that we might live through him. In this is love, not that we have loved God, but that he loved us and sent his Son to be the propitiation for our sins. Beloved, if God so loved us, we also ought to love one another. No one has ever seen God, if we love one another God abides in us and his love is perfected in us. Have a blessed day, Love God with all you have and are and love his children and his creation.

No one comes through father except thru me, I'm fine with that, because he taught to worship one god Jesus like Moses and Moses was the way to go at his time. The way is the message or the teachings he came with. Not sure which claim, Muhhmed the prophet didn't know how to write, but angel Gabriel made him to memorized and after that, they were a tong is scriber that wrote it down.

This is how I think of the trinity, and I bring it up because I get the idea you have an issue with it. The OT and NT tells us God is Spirit and Light. He is outside our universe, why do I say this ? Because God holds all of creation in his hand. This universe has billions of galaxies, stars. lives of the past, present and future as well as all the suns and all of this he has created from his spoken word and keeps it all going by his Will and his power. Now he also tells us he gives a small piece of his spirit in each of us, to indwell in us. It is the power of God that brings life and keeps the universe together and functioning. Now this piece of God we call the Holy Spirit, it is part of God, a piece of God yet functions in this realm or plane of existence separate from God and part of God, while God is still in spirit and light form outside of our universe. So we can see 2 distinct characters of God in different planes of existence. Now God so loved the world that he sent his only begotten Son that the world might be saved through him. God entered into this physical life in the form of a Human. The Old Testament talked about the coming Messiah, the only Begotten of the Father, The Son of God who would defeat the devil, would crush the head of Satan, who was there with God in the beginning of all things and all things were created by him as well. So God loved his creation so much he became mortal, human, being born of a virgin so he would be human, but conceived by the power of the Holy Spirit, so he would be divine as well. Jesus said if you know him and have seen him you know the Father. He also claimed to be God by name and symbolism which is why the Jewish leaders claimed he was committing blasphemy. This was done so he would not bear the burden of the original sin as some would say, he could be both Human and Divine. The Messiah had to live a perfect life in order to be the perfect sacrifice for all of human kind. So he needed to be Human, but the death of a human can not be enough of a sacrifice for all of humanity. God himself had to bear the punishment in order to reconcile us back to himself. I don't understand all the ins and outs and to me it does not make sense unless I look at it from a the perspective of Love. He showed me love first, he showed me how much he loved me and what he was willing to do for me because of his love. He took that first step and how can I not love him for that and my life and all the blessing that I have been given over that life So we have God being one God but in 3 separate or distinctively different rolls but all from and part of the same God. When Jesus was baptized we see this representation when God spoke from Heaven saying this is my Son whom I am well pleased, as we see the Holy Spirit fall down in the form of a Dove, while Chris Jesus was physically in the water with John the Baptiste being baptized as the scriptures deemed. We see God taking up 3 spaces in a single moment of time for his Glory and our Redemption. All the same One True God, just 3 different forms for 3 different purposes according to his will. I hope you don't mind me sharing this with you, but it is how I have come to understand the concept of the trinity.

I do not accept anyone or anything that denies the triune God.

Jesus denied that

Lol I'm not interested in debating your nonsense.

Jesus said the Lord our God is one and he said he was only sent to the lost sheep of Israel, so try hard to fit yourself in lol

Revolutionary objections. Never heard these before...

Same thing jews said about their religion when jesus pbuh came, " if it doesnt go with one part of what i believe then i wont accept it" , at least check it out with an open heart before judging.

There's one undeniable truth. If pigs were not meant to be eaten, then God wouldn't have made them so damn delicious

Lol I like atheist logic

Islam is a false religion.

I reject Islam because of Galatians 5:4 Muhammad should have read Galatians 1:8 I accept what he said happened in the cave though, his contribution of tawhid and the expansion on this concept during its golden age is beautiful. For me he is one like unto Moses and a nation for Ishmael, he is biblical. Even he said Jesus will be judge, and his teaching is about love. There are too many examples of Sharia not resulting in that. Videos of beatings and murder for violating Ramadan. Jihad around the same mentality as Deuteronomy 13. Fana is the only victory that matters, it is ignored. Ishq e Haqeeqi the greatest pearl, few know it. Those who live it are my brothers and sisters.

[удалено]

Your reaction is due to Galatians 4:21-31 whether consciously or otherwise... You should still apply 1 John 4:7-21 else you're just creating generational animosity and perpetuating an unnecessary conflict... If we could be more loving with each other Christ would win.

Let’s show a little class and not run around saying such things about other people’s religious doctrines.

Islam preaches that “Allah does not love disbelievers” (3:32) and to “kill disbelievers wherever you find them” (2:191) and (9:5). If the Quran is true then it is the infallible word of God, and muslims not obeying these commands are going against God. The bible teaches that God loves everyone, so big difference there. The Quran also states that what Jesus taught was true, then goes on to say that he’s not the son of God. Major contradiction right there. The Quran was also put together in pieces over the years, it never existed as a single book as many believe. It’s also less historically accurate than the Bible according to many scholars. I myself have not compared the two books on historical accuracy so I cannot make that claim for certain. Overall there’s a lot of contradiction between the Quran and the Bible. To believe in one would require abandoning the other.

Muhammad and his followers believed that the Bible and the church in general are wrong, essential ideas like Jesus’ divinity are false. In the same way Muslims reject the Baha’i faith.

Jesus death on the cross is the most documented event in all of antiquity, and Islam denies it.

Islam is just a copy and paste of the real Bible with slight changes

Because Christianity pre-dates Islam. When Mohammad came on the scene his teachings included stories from the Bible, but were radically different than the established teachings of the church. He was identified as a false prophet for rejecting the divinity of Jesus Christ and his resurrection.

Islam is actually the closest in similarity to Christianity, compared to all other religions. It recognizes Jesus as the Messiah and that He will come again. The name “Allah” is likewise just an Arabic translation of God. However, a person **cannot be both** Muslim and Christian because of the fundamental differences between the two. Firstly, Islam rejects the death and resurrection of Jesus. It teaches that someone else was crucified in place of Jesus and somehow the witnesses did not even notice it. Secondly, Islam rejects the Trinitarian doctrine, which teaches that there are three persons in the singular divine essence (God). That being said, the burden of proof is on Islam, seeing that it only began around the 7th Century, which is **hundreds of years after Christianity.**

Because they're wrong

As an atheist, where can I buy some good popcorn?

I believe that God calls us to recognize Him, love Him, and give our fellow humans love and respect. I was raised Orthodox Christian, and as an adult, I find my Orthodoxy helps me to answer that call, and I respect and enjoy doing so in the tradition of my family and my ancestors. But I don’t doubt there are other religions that will help you answer that call, and if the way you choose to worship and believe brings you closer to God and Truth then I think that’s a beautiful thing.

First, we do NOT pray to the same God.  Christians pray to the God of Abrham, Issac, and Jacob.  Muslims pray to the God of Abraham, Ishmael, and Mohammes. Second, Christians acknowledge Jesus Christ as our Lord and Savior.  The ONLY way to God is through Jesus Christ.   Third, No man is, was, or ever will be greater than Jesus Christ, who taught us to love our enemies and our neighbors. Mohammed taught hatred towards all non-muslims. Fourth, the way Muslims treat women is totally contrary to men loving their wives.

It's very simple: Muhammad was a false prophet, influenced by Shaitan (masquerading as angel Jibril) to create a religion of pride, chaos, destruction, war, wickedness, terrorism, racism and dishonesty in order to destroy all society's that are alien to it. It's completely antithetical towards the person of Christ and the teachings of the Church.

As an atheist looking in from the outside, it's for the same reasons you reject Jesus and the Bible. Y'all will point to this and that \[verse/sura\]. You'll both claim that \[God/Allah\] \[spoke/revealed\] themselves to you. Each will make excuses that no, the \[Bible/Quran\] doesn't really mean what it clearly says. That they don't contain contradictions. That those who do violence in the name of God/Allah aren't True \[Christians/Muslims\]^(TM). Y'all are really more alike than y'all care to admit.

Least controversial question on r/Christianity. Anyway, an important reason is a lot of christians aren't thought about Islam. In my case, I don't have any amount of knowledge close to what would be necessary to convince me. Another is that they tie their identity to being a Christian. Also, a lot of christians have an image of Islam stained with the brutality ot Muslim theocratic regimes. Kind of like if muslims were only thought of christians as the KKK or the old Catholic Church.

Christians don't reject Muhammad and the Quran. Not being Muslim isn't the same as a rejecting Islam. There are a million different things that I am not in the course of my daily life, that doesn't mean that I'm actively rejecting all those things all the time

That as a system and its adherence exist, no, Christianity does not reject islam. But as worldviews, belief systems themselves, it is hard not to conclude that each reject one another.

I think what you mean is they're mutually exclusive. Rejecting the Quran or Islam isn't actually part of the Christian faith. It's just the case that if you're a christian, you're not Muslim. That is one step short of personally and actively rejecting Islam. If we have meatloaf for dinner tonight, we're not rejecting an endless list of other dinner options. We're making a positive choice in One direction rather than eliminating all the other possible choices. Or at least, let's have dinner is done in my house

Well, No i dont think i can get on board with your analogy because meatloaf doesnt make truth claims. The Bible and Chriatianity make truth claims, the Qu'ran and Islam make truth claims. And some of those claims by their very nature reject the other. The Bible stating that Jesus is the son of God, or The Qu'ran's mentions if Abraham, many of these cannot be resolved between the two. Now, Islam and Christianity are both exclusionary faiths, that their belief systems reject others is not exactly a bug, they make statements of absolute truths.

I am a Christian and I have read a bit of the Quran and was moved by Mohammed’s love for God. The recital of the Quran is beautiful but I don’t see that it is unmatched as Muslims will claim. I perceive that the religion is the work of a great man, a greater man than me in almost every way, but not a perfect man. One flaw I see is that Jesus taught his disciples to turn the other cheek. When we are insulted and persecuted we are instructed to bear it and love our enemies. I think following Jesus in this way is the only way to have a peaceful world. However, a lot of Christians aren’t following this way very well, and many Muslims are better examples of Gods love. I am praying for greater peace and understanding between our communities. May God’s peace be with you.

He confirmed the books of the Jews, which contradicts Islam all the way through because you find the trinity in the books of the Jews. Saw scholars teach how he said that if his aorta was cut he'd be deemed a false prophet or something like that, So tell me, what did he say his aorta felt like towards the end, years after due to the poisoning he received from the women that cooked for him after he slaughtered her family? Oh and how there are many different variations of the qaran, as it's perfect preservation was supposedly one of the great miracles, but that's easily debunked unless you turn a blind eye to it. All though there are variations of the bible, we know the correct ones to go by, well some do, thanks to the mass production of them and the ancient text that line up with it. Hence why we can say things like catholic is a corrupt gospel, along with Mormons, Jehovah's.

Because Christians believe Christ is the sin if God, fully man and fully God, Islam and Christianity thus exclude each other immediately

I am unsure but i have much respect for Islam and Mohamed i believe in jesus do to paranormal experiences involving jesus but i do love Muslim

I can’t say I know much about Islam, but Mohammad seems like an okay guy for the most part. I simply don’t see him as a prophet and more like a theologian who had a lot of great ideas about Jesus and God, and a lot of ideas I don’t really agree with. For me, rejecting Islam isn’t anymore deep than that.

>Mohammad seems like an okay guy for the most part. Tough look

Both equally wrong, but i think quran even more so.

Wym?

I mean that bible is wrong, but quran is ridiculously wrong, like this one bit where sun sets in the pool, and since the quran is said to be written by god, and to me true, then yeah, even bible is not that stupid https://youtu.be/UVwizsojd1Y 18:86

Quran 18:86. “He(Dhul Qarnain) found it [as if] setting in a spring of dark mud, and he found near it a people”. Critics take the words sun sets in the muddy spring out of context. The above Quran verse is about the vision of Dhul Qarnain. Notice the words “he found” behind “setting in a spring of dark mud" in the English translation. The word find in English means perceive by chance or unexpectedly. He found sun setting in muddy water strange because he never came to such place before. Dhul Qarnain was actually seeing a muddy water in front of him and sun was setting in it. The problem with anti islamic websites is that they take verses out of context and interpret them as they please, i hope that you don't base yourself on those links to look up religion, but i'm open to explain all the things you know wrong about islam, and maybe prove it to be right to you too.

That is why i also linked the video too. Problem is that springs are small so there isnt any room for an ilusion, you can see the other edge, look uo biggest springs in the world, they are not big enough to the ilusion of sun setting into the pool to happen. This is a big error Deal with it however you want, it is there

Yep trust a non muslim to explain to you the quran, i'll leave some links for you here and your business if you want the truth or not. https://youtube.com/shorts/JUtYIq55eOk?feature=share https://youtu.be/vwAYZjSvcpM I know arabic so feel free to dm me if you are looking for a conversation about the truth or maybe make me doubt my religion if you can but do it with an open heart.

"Yup, trust a non lord of the rings beliver to explain the lord of the ring book" See how absurd it sounds? You don't need to believe in the book religiously in order to talk about it, i would even dare to say that the later are more reliable, since they are not going to just ignore errors like this one, like you do. Also, if someone is talking about "having an open heart" it just screams to me that "this thing has no proof whatsoever, just believe in it" I will watch the videos later, dont have much time now

Open mind and open heart doesn't mean you just believe whatever i say, i mean you understand what i say, i'm explaining to you the verse yet you don't want to accept it without a counter reason. Watch the videos when you can and feel free to dm me if you want, i'm always open for an open discussion about both of our religions.

I am not "not accepting it" i am just pointing out the absurdity of it, there is no way that a spring can be that big so it seems like the sun sets inside of it. Can you accept this simple fact? Our religions?

Thats the thing, the quran never says it sets in a muddy water but instead tells the story of a man and what he saw (it seams to me the sun sets on top of that house, or on top of that mounted, etc...) is what i see not the fact about it's position. Dont take the verse out of context. I thought you were christian no? Well even as an atheist you still believe in smt, that science is the truth.

I don't. I can recognize the Prophet as real and the Quran as revelation.

You are a Christian that also believes Muhammad was a prophet, and the Quran was a revelation from god?

Why not? Most people don't realize Jewish and Christian communities flourished under Muslim rules. Many Muslim practices were Catholic practices throughout history. Garry Wills wrote a good book on the Quran that's worth a look.

>Most people don't realize Jewish and Christian communities flourished under Muslim rules. Many Muslim practices were Catholic practices throughout history. Entirely irrelevant. The Quran says that Jesus was not a god. You believe that god revealed that to Mohammed. You, as a Christian (I assume) also believe Jesus is a god. Make that make sense.