By using this site, you agree to our Privacy Policy and our Terms of Use. Close

Forums - General Discussion - A Muslim writes about Jesus - Is This The Most Embarrassing Interview Fox News Has Ever Done?

tiffac on 29 July 2013
mrstickball said:
tiffac said:
Note to Fox News, next time read pass the cover of the book.

Also about the discussion if the Bible is factual or not. Its actually both yes and no.

Yes because actual historical figures, prophets have written the gospel and No, because the Bible and its content has probably been changed, edited, cut or censored to benefit the few and use it as their main weapon.

The Vatican.


You don't realize this, but there are copies/manuscripts available of the Bible that have been discovered that pre-date any Vatican involvment in the Bible. P4, P45, P46, P47, P66, and P75 all pre-date Vaticanus, Sinaticus, and Alexandrinus among others. These manuscripts and fragments were all dated to 200AD and 250AD - which is 50+ years before Vaticanus.

But how did this contradict my point that the current form of the Bible has not been tampered by the Vatican?

Edit: You did backed me up though that the Bible has historical basis.



Around the Network
Mr Puggsly on 29 July 2013

I have two thoughts on this...

I think its fair to say we expect bias when someone of one religion writes about another. Being on Fox News gave him an opportunity to explain himself.

She completely dropped the ball by saying he doesn't admit he's a Muslim. She was digging for controversy where there really isn't any.



Recently Completed: 
River City: Rival Showdown for 3DS (3/5) - River City: Tokyo Rumble for 3DS (4/5) - Zelda: BotW for Wii U (5/5) - Zelda: BotW for Switch (5/5) - Zelda: Link's Awakening for Switch (4/5) - Rage 2 for X1X (4/5) - Rage for 360 (3/5) - Streets of Rage 4 for X1/PC (4/5) - Gears 5 for X1X (5/5) - Mortal Kombat 11 for X1X (5/5) - Doom 64 for N64 (emulator) (3/5) - Crackdown 3 for X1S/X1X (4/5) - Infinity Blade III - for iPad 4 (3/5) - Infinity Blade II - for iPad 4 (4/5) - Infinity Blade - for iPad 4 (4/5) - Wolfenstein: The Old Blood for X1 (3/5) - Assassin's Creed: Origins for X1 (3/5) - Uncharted: Lost Legacy for PS4 (4/5) - EA UFC 3 for X1 (4/5) - Doom for X1 (4/5) - Titanfall 2 for X1 (4/5) - Super Mario 3D World for Wii U (4/5) - South Park: The Stick of Truth for X1 BC (4/5) - Call of Duty: WWII for X1 (4/5) -Wolfenstein II for X1 - (4/5) - Dead or Alive: Dimensions for 3DS (4/5) - Marvel vs Capcom: Infinite for X1 (3/5) - Halo Wars 2 for X1/PC (4/5) - Halo Wars: DE for X1 (4/5) - Tekken 7 for X1 (4/5) - Injustice 2 for X1 (4/5) - Yakuza 5 for PS3 (3/5) - Battlefield 1 (Campaign) for X1 (3/5) - Assassin's Creed: Syndicate for X1 (4/5) - Call of Duty: Infinite Warfare for X1 (4/5) - Call of Duty: MW Remastered for X1 (4/5) - Donkey Kong Country Returns for 3DS (4/5) - Forza Horizon 3 for X1 (5/5)

Ganoncrotch on 29 July 2013
tiffac said:
mrstickball said:
tiffac said:
Note to Fox News, next time read pass the cover of the book.

Also about the discussion if the Bible is factual or not. Its actually both yes and no.

Yes because actual historical figures, prophets have written the gospel and No, because the Bible and its content has probably been changed, edited, cut or censored to benefit the few and use it as their main weapon.

The Vatican.


You don't realize this, but there are copies/manuscripts available of the Bible that have been discovered that pre-date any Vatican involvment in the Bible. P4, P45, P46, P47, P66, and P75 all pre-date Vaticanus, Sinaticus, and Alexandrinus among others. These manuscripts and fragments were all dated to 200AD and 250AD - which is 50+ years before Vaticanus.

But how did this contradict my point that the current form of the Bible has not been tampered by the Vatican?

Edit: You did backed me up though that the Bible has historical basis.

Fragments of it are older than the vatican? you can take fragments of a story and write the rest in any way you please, you do realize this right



Why not check me out on youtube and help me on the way to 2k subs over at www.youtube.com/stormcloudlive

tiffac on 29 July 2013
ganoncrotch said:
tiffac said:
mrstickball said:
tiffac said:
Note to Fox News, next time read pass the cover of the book.

Also about the discussion if the Bible is factual or not. Its actually both yes and no.

Yes because actual historical figures, prophets have written the gospel and No, because the Bible and its content has probably been changed, edited, cut or censored to benefit the few and use it as their main weapon.

The Vatican.


You don't realize this, but there are copies/manuscripts available of the Bible that have been discovered that pre-date any Vatican involvment in the Bible. P4, P45, P46, P47, P66, and P75 all pre-date Vaticanus, Sinaticus, and Alexandrinus among others. These manuscripts and fragments were all dated to 200AD and 250AD - which is 50+ years before Vaticanus.

But how did this contradict my point that the current form of the Bible has not been tampered by the Vatican?

Edit: You did backed me up though that the Bible has historical basis.

Fragments of it are older than the vatican? you can take fragments of a story and write the rest in any way you please, you do realize this right


Wasn't that what I said?



daredevil.shark on 29 July 2013
mrstickball said:
MDMAlliance said:
mrstickball said:


New Testament is a bit different, though. There are 20,000 manuscripts that have been found and utilized to make up what we read today. Between the 20,000 source manuscripts, there is almost no variance between them, aside from translation differences between the languages they are written in. They all say the same thing about Jesus, and the writings thereafter by Paul, Peter, and the writers of the Gospels.

I think you'd be hard pressed to find any document from antiquity that is even close to that kind of relaibility - even the works of the historical scholars that make up our understanding of the ancient world. Even then, the 3rd party, non-religious accounts of Christianity agree with what the NT says, where the statements are available.

Having said that, a book writen by a Muslim on Christ is going to be heavily biased against Christ's claims. Much in the same way if a Christian wrote about Mohammed.

You speak as if you have anywhere near as much background as this guy in Religious History.  I have talked to someone who was studying Religion and he would disagree with you, just as Aslan would.  There are many bad translations in the Bible and there are also books that have been lost (New Testament).  

Also, your last part really shows how prejudiced you are.  Him being Muslim suddenly means he's going to be biased against Christ's claims?  I know how you make your arguments and I rarely ever agree with you, and you make really bad arguments all the time so I'm not even going to bother responding past this.


You do....Understand what Islam says about Jesus, right?

Muslims' belief in Jesus is vastly different than a Christian's belief in Jesus. One believes he is the messiah, and son of God. The other believes he is simply another prophet of God. Why would you believe that someone that has that faith will publish books that would attack his own religions' beliefs about that person?

Like I said, it'd make as much sense as a Christian proclaiming that Mohammed is Allah's prophet, and that Jesus isn't the Son of God. They're conflicting religious viewpoints.

A simple Wikipedia search on Jesus in Islam would agree with this statement: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Jesus_in_Islam

Just read a bit. You'll understand why both religions' beliefs of Jesus are heavily conflicting with one another.

I am not being prejudiced against Muslims by stating this simple fact. No Muslim believes the way I do about Jesus. If they did, they really couldn't be considered Muslim, because it would negate their own prophet's declaration about the nature of Allah. Likewise, taking a Muslims' account of the nature and lack of divinity of Christ would fully negate the core components of what a Christian believes. They are mutually exclusive. Yes, both believe that Jesus existed, but their belief on his nature are heavily divergent.

If you can't understand this, then I really have nothing else to say to you. These statements aren't an attack against Muslims. I respect their right to believe differently about Al-Isa than I do. But I'm not going to agree with their viewpoint, because I do believe its wrong as a Christian - because if I did take their viewpoint on the nature of Al-Isa, then I would no longer be a Christian.

Thank you sir for understanding. I am a muslim and I believe in Jesus or Isa (sm) but in a different way. We believe Jesus or Isa (sm) was not crucified and is still alive. BTW Foxnews strikes again. They havent read the book beyond the cover. lol.



Around the Network
Ganoncrotch on 29 July 2013
tiffac said:
ganoncrotch said:
tiffac said:
mrstickball said:
tiffac said:
Note to Fox News, next time read pass the cover of the book.

Also about the discussion if the Bible is factual or not. Its actually both yes and no.

Yes because actual historical figures, prophets have written the gospel and No, because the Bible and its content has probably been changed, edited, cut or censored to benefit the few and use it as their main weapon.

The Vatican.


You don't realize this, but there are copies/manuscripts available of the Bible that have been discovered that pre-date any Vatican involvment in the Bible. P4, P45, P46, P47, P66, and P75 all pre-date Vaticanus, Sinaticus, and Alexandrinus among others. These manuscripts and fragments were all dated to 200AD and 250AD - which is 50+ years before Vaticanus.

But how did this contradict my point that the current form of the Bible has not been tampered by the Vatican?

Edit: You did backed me up though that the Bible has historical basis.

Fragments of it are older than the vatican? you can take fragments of a story and write the rest in any way you please, you do realize this right


Wasn't that what I said?

oh, yeah sorry I'm a bit tired actually meant my reply to Mr stickball and not to you, I agree with you completely having fragments of a story and making a massive book out of it and trying to say that it happened word for word as it was in the bible is just rediculous. Even just in translation so much of the original story can be lost/amended in any way you want really.



Why not check me out on youtube and help me on the way to 2k subs over at www.youtube.com/stormcloudlive

tiffac on 29 July 2013
ganoncrotch said:
tiffac said:
ganoncrotch said:
tiffac said:
mrstickball said:
tiffac said:
Note to Fox News, next time read pass the cover of the book.

Also about the discussion if the Bible is factual or not. Its actually both yes and no.

Yes because actual historical figures, prophets have written the gospel and No, because the Bible and its content has probably been changed, edited, cut or censored to benefit the few and use it as their main weapon.

The Vatican.


You don't realize this, but there are copies/manuscripts available of the Bible that have been discovered that pre-date any Vatican involvment in the Bible. P4, P45, P46, P47, P66, and P75 all pre-date Vaticanus, Sinaticus, and Alexandrinus among others. These manuscripts and fragments were all dated to 200AD and 250AD - which is 50+ years before Vaticanus.

But how did this contradict my point that the current form of the Bible has not been tampered by the Vatican?

Edit: You did backed me up though that the Bible has historical basis.

Fragments of it are older than the vatican? you can take fragments of a story and write the rest in any way you please, you do realize this right


Wasn't that what I said?

oh, yeah sorry I'm a bit tired actually meant my reply to Mr stickball and not to you, I agree with you completely having fragments of a story and making a massive book out of it and trying to say that it happened word for word as it was in the bible is just rediculous. Even just in translation so much of the original story can be lost/amended in any way you want really.

Its okay bro, I had the feeling the reply wasn't for me. It happens to the best of us :)



Ganoncrotch on 29 July 2013
daredevil.shark said:
mrstickball said:
MDMAlliance said:
mrstickball said:


New Testament is a bit different, though. There are 20,000 manuscripts that have been found and utilized to make up what we read today. Between the 20,000 source manuscripts, there is almost no variance between them, aside from translation differences between the languages they are written in. They all say the same thing about Jesus, and the writings thereafter by Paul, Peter, and the writers of the Gospels.

I think you'd be hard pressed to find any document from antiquity that is even close to that kind of relaibility - even the works of the historical scholars that make up our understanding of the ancient world. Even then, the 3rd party, non-religious accounts of Christianity agree with what the NT says, where the statements are available.

Having said that, a book writen by a Muslim on Christ is going to be heavily biased against Christ's claims. Much in the same way if a Christian wrote about Mohammed.

You speak as if you have anywhere near as much background as this guy in Religious History.  I have talked to someone who was studying Religion and he would disagree with you, just as Aslan would.  There are many bad translations in the Bible and there are also books that have been lost (New Testament).  

Also, your last part really shows how prejudiced you are.  Him being Muslim suddenly means he's going to be biased against Christ's claims?  I know how you make your arguments and I rarely ever agree with you, and you make really bad arguments all the time so I'm not even going to bother responding past this.


You do....Understand what Islam says about Jesus, right?

Muslims' belief in Jesus is vastly different than a Christian's belief in Jesus. One believes he is the messiah, and son of God. The other believes he is simply another prophet of God. Why would you believe that someone that has that faith will publish books that would attack his own religions' beliefs about that person?

Like I said, it'd make as much sense as a Christian proclaiming that Mohammed is Allah's prophet, and that Jesus isn't the Son of God. They're conflicting religious viewpoints.

A simple Wikipedia search on Jesus in Islam would agree with this statement: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Jesus_in_Islam

Just read a bit. You'll understand why both religions' beliefs of Jesus are heavily conflicting with one another.

I am not being prejudiced against Muslims by stating this simple fact. No Muslim believes the way I do about Jesus. If they did, they really couldn't be considered Muslim, because it would negate their own prophet's declaration about the nature of Allah. Likewise, taking a Muslims' account of the nature and lack of divinity of Christ would fully negate the core components of what a Christian believes. They are mutually exclusive. Yes, both believe that Jesus existed, but their belief on his nature are heavily divergent.

If you can't understand this, then I really have nothing else to say to you. These statements aren't an attack against Muslims. I respect their right to believe differently about Al-Isa than I do. But I'm not going to agree with their viewpoint, because I do believe its wrong as a Christian - because if I did take their viewpoint on the nature of Al-Isa, then I would no longer be a Christian.

Thank you sir for understanding. I am a muslim and I believe in Jesus or Isa (sm) but in a different way. We believe Jesus or Isa (sm) was not crucified and is still alive. BTW Foxnews strikes again. They havent read the book beyond the cover. lol.

yeah I loved towards the end of the video just him kinda staring at her.... I WROTE IT ON PAGE 2 THAT I'M A MUSLUM?!..... nope sorry mr muslim I was afraid if I read your jihad scribblings I will clearly turn into a terrorist.... the worst thing is, there are quite a few American fox news watchers who are perfectly happy with this sort of attitude towards someone, disregarding everything he has done in his life, his qualifications, the time he spent on his works, the books he has both read and written about the subject matter... because of his race and religon. These same people are the first to be seen marching the streets banging on Pictures of martin Luther Jr when Zimmerman was declared not guilty. No Racism anywhere in the states..... Unless you're muslum then it's fine.



Why not check me out on youtube and help me on the way to 2k subs over at www.youtube.com/stormcloudlive

trashleg on 29 July 2013

What an ignorant bitch.

Kudos to Aslan for handling himself so well, I'd have flipped.



Highwaystar101 said: trashleg said that if I didn't pay back the money she leant me, she would come round and break my legs... That's why people call her trashleg, because she trashes the legs of the people she loan sharks money to.
DaRev on 29 July 2013
Fifaguy360 said:
DaRev said:
Fifaguy360 said:
DaRev said:
Fifaguy360 said:
DaRev said:
happydolphin said:
IIIIITHE1IIIII said:

This dude obviously didn't read the sourse he quoted. Just taking the first purported contradiction i.e. "1)How many generations were there between Abraham to David?  Matthew 1:17 lists fourteen generations.  Matthew 1:12-16 lists thirteen generations." If he had read the Bible he would see that while Mat 1:17 does say that there were 14 generations between Abraham and David, Mat 1:12-16 lists the generation after that time, i.e. after David, and clearly states in Mat 1:12 that "And after they were brought to Babylon,...", mean those (13? I didn't count) generations were after the Abraham to David generations.

I didn't read the rest of the "contradictions" because the author clearly stumbled out of the gate with his point. Try again...please

It says from Abraham to David are fourteen generations. There are only twelve from Abraham to David listed.

Also it says from "from David until the captivity in Babylon are fourteen generation"...but it's thirteen ....then thirteen again for the last count.

The author(of the website) made a mistake in quotation there, but you will see the discrepancy if you just read it yourself.

you don't know what "generation" means, but as a tip, try not to miss Abraham and Davaid thenselves. Plus the bible quotes generations FROM not generations BETWEEN. In any event here they are: Abraham, Isaac, Jacob, Judah and brothers, Perez (and Zerah), Hezron, Ram, Amminadob, Nahshon, Salmon, Boaz, Obed, Jesse, and David.

You're saying FROM Abraham to Isaac is two generations? FROM 1 to 2 is 2 numbers?

For arguments sake I'll roll with your answer. From David to the exile of Babylon would be 15 generations if we include David and Jeconiah.

Just a reminder. Counting generations as suggested by the text gives 12, 13, 13. Your way gives 14, 15, 15. We're trying to reconcile with 14, 14, 14.

Matthew 1:17 counts David in two generations. This is because Matthew 1 not only lists the geneology of Jesus but also list HISTORICAL periods in the jewish ancestry. As I said before, the book of Matthew was written for Jeewish sensibilities, so while the geneology of Jesus is important, it is also more imporrtant for JEWS to undertsand the geneology's historical context. You don't just read the words on the page of the Bible, you also need to understand their significance, i.e. the geneology of Jesus might also be a historical account of fact when Israel was taking into captivity. Plus I'm surre there is some prophesy being fullflied in there if you can take the time to study WHEN they went into captivity.

Anyways, here is how the geneology goes.

  1. The history of Israel from Abraham to David: Abraham, Isaac, Jacob, Judah and brothers, Perez (and Zerah), Hezron, Ram, Amminadob, Nahshon, Salmon, Boaz, Obed, Jesse, and David. That’s 14 generations from Abraham to David. We don’t count Zerah as he is the same generation as Perez.
  2. From David to deportation to Babylon: David, Solomon, Rehoboam, Abijah, Asa, Jehoshaphat, Joram, Uzziah, Jotham, Ahaz, Hezekiah, Manasseh, Amon, Josiah. That’s 14 generations. Notice that the passage says: “from David to the deportation.” Therefore, David is considered the first generation in the deportation.
  3. From Babylon to the time of Jesus: Jeconiah, Shealtial, Zerubbabel, Abiud, Elikim, Azor, Zadok, Achim, Eljud, Eleazar, Matthan, Jacob, Joseph, Jesus. 14 generations.

In #2, why aren't you counting Jeconiah? He was definitely there at exile listed as Josiah's son.

Also from Abraham to Isaac is one generation. Not two. You can't include Abraham because he's point zero. Keyword is from. From 6 o'clock to 7 o'clock is only 1 hour.

What were talking about here are CONTRADICTIONS in the NT. What we are not talking about is whether the Bible can count properly. With that said, Matthew 1:17 CLEARLY states that it counts the generation of Daid twice:

17 Thus there were fourteen generations in all from Abraham to David, fourteen from David to the exile to Babylon, and fourteen from the exile to the Messiah.

Whether you think that is silly or not is irrelivant, as there is no CONTRADICTION because the passage of scripture tells us how it is made up those 42 (not 41) historical (not necessarilly counting) generations. What you should now go and do, is to find out what is the SIGNIFICANCE of counting David's generation twice



Nintendo Network ID: DaRevren

I love My Wii U, and the potential it brings to gaming.