Last roman emperor

[BigBiceps]

Fought to death to stop Islam from gaining foothold in Europe and turks having the glory of extinguishing the last remnants of the Roman Empire. It's shameful the whole christendom did not rush to constantinople at that darkest hour, which was year 1453.

Ever so often you read about some guy or story like this and it just almost makes you cry.

God forbid that I should live as an Emperor without an Empire. As my city falls, I will fall with it. Whosoever wishes to escape, let him save himself if he can, and whoever is ready to face death, let him follow me.
- Constantine XI

 

[Luffymaxxing]

Islam should've won

 

[BigBiceps]

Islam should've won

Islam got way too many followers considering how much sense Christianity makes and how Islam just does not.
Christianity spread because people liked the message, it made sense and people considered it truthful. Islam spread because arab hordes conquered the territories where Islam is today practiced and even then they had poor results in conversion, almost all ex-ottoman territories in Europe resisted Islam despite hundreds of years of rule. It took 500+ years for muslims to convert Persia from non-abrahamic religion with no remaining central authorities, zoroastrianism.

 

[danielrjsha]

dnrd sorry

 

[BigBiceps]

dnrd sorry

Its alright if you're queer, being a chad history buff isn't for everyone

 

[danielrjsha]

what

 

[Latinolooksmaxxer]

its Berlusconi

 

[Lynxress]

Its alright if you're queer, being a chad history buff isn't for everyone

 

[BigBiceps]

View attachment 2898205

Honestly the men who are not history enjoyers gotta be some kind of betas

 

[Lynxress]

Honestly the men who are not history enjoyers gotta be some kind of betas
View attachment 2898227

Most people I know would prefer to watch a fictional movie or TV show instead of studying about real history.

Selling hopes is way easier than selling harsh truths

 

[Michael Myers]

Islam got way too many followers considering how much sense Christianity makes and how Islam just does not.
Christianity spread because people liked the message, it made sense and people considered it truthful. Islam spread because arab hordes conquered the territories where Islam is today practiced and even then they had poor results in conversion, almost all ex-ottoman territories in Europe resisted Islam despite hundreds of years of rule. It took 500+ years for muslims to convert Persia from non-abrahamic religion with no remaining central authorities, zoroastrianism.

Islam makes more sense because unlike the Bible, the Qur’an was never rewritten. Meanwhile the bible has been rewritten throughout the centuries by different men.

 

[BigBiceps]

Islam makes more sense because unlike the Bible, the Qur’an was never rewritten. Meanwhile the bible has been rewritten throughout the centuries by different men.

Qur'an was rewritten many times. Caliph Uthman just burned the versions he didn't like with a consult/expert in Islam and chose one to be the official Qur'an.

It's a weak argument to say that a book is false because people have exercised their freedom and wrote a different translation etc. of the same book for a different church. It's easy to distinguish the new school corrupted versions though, King James version and the other older ones (pre 1990s) bibles are nearly always legit.

Also the fact that there is active attempts to corrupt the bible speaks for its authenticity. Satan is hard at work trying to fool the most gullible, while he completely ignores the qur'an, not seeing it worth adultering with at all. What does that tell you?

 

[BigBiceps]

Most people I know would prefer to watch a fictional movie or TV show instead of studying about real history.

Selling hopes is way easier than selling harsh truths

A shame really, so many good TV shows could be made of historical events too, but hollywood rather make some degenerate garbage

 

[Michael Myers]

Qur'an was rewritten many times. Caliph Uthman just burned the versions he didn't like with a consult/expert in Islam and chose one to be the official Qur'an.

It's a weak argument to say that a book is false because people have exercised their freedom and wrote a different translation etc. of the same book for a different church. It's easy to distinguish the new school corrupted versions though, King James version and the other older ones (pre 1990s) bibles are nearly always legit.

Also the fact that there is active attempts to corrupt the bible speaks for its authenticity. Satan is hard at work trying to fool the most gullible, while he completely ignores the qur'an, not seeing it worth adultering with at all. What does that tell you?

It was never rewritten, nice try bud. And how is it a weak argument? Your holy book is practically written by men, different men throughout the centuries. Furthermore a real holy book wouldn’t mention any whores, dick sizes or ejaculation volume. Guess which book does this?

 

[Clavicular]

Islam makes more sense because unlike the Bible, the Qur’an was never rewritten. Meanwhile the bible has been rewritten throughout the centuries by different men.

It hasnt been rewritten you know this, its been retranslated into tons of different languages

 

[Michael Myers]

It hasnt been rewritten you know this, its been retranslated into tons of different languages

“It’s been never rewritten,” says the random NTmaxxer on a forum. Meanwhile my Catholic high school told me. At least some Christians are honest.

 

[Clavicular]

“It’s been never rewritten,” says the random NTmaxxer on a forum. Meanwhile my Catholic high school told me. At least some Christians are honest.

I go to catholic school keep copecelling, its the same shit but maybe a sentence will be written in a different way due to translation issues

for ex. "he is in schoolyard" "he resides in the schoolyard"

literally equivalent difference

 

[BigBiceps]

It was never rewritten, nice try bud. And how is it a weak argument? Your holy book is practically written by men, different men throughout the centuries. Furthermore a real holy book wouldn’t mention any whores, dick sizes or ejaculation volume. Guess which book does this?

It was, there used to be many versions. Look it up.

Your holy book is based on the word of mouth of a man who owned slaves, had over 10 wives at the same time, demanded people to convert to his religion or suffer war etc. This same man then said that he is holier than Jesus, who never sinned, never lusted after women, never did a wrong deed, was seen as a miracle worker and a healer by people of his time, fulfiller of prophecies who the ruler of jews at the time was afraid of.

This holy man of yours was also holier than those who wrote the bible, those men who wrote the words of Jesus and spread them on pain of death. Most of the early christians who spread the word were brutally murdered. Only 1 of Jesus' disciples died a natural death, in exile mind you. Others suffered sadistic torture. How many people do you know that would go through that for a lie?

 

[Michael Myers]

I go to catholic school keep copecelling, its the same shit but maybe a sentence will be written in a different way due to translation issues

for ex. "he is in schoolyard" "he resides in the schoolyard"

literally equivalent difference

I spent 6 years in a Catholic high school. And no, I was told in Dutch about this.

 

[Michael Myers]

It was, there used to be many versions. Look it up.

Your holy book is based on the word of mouth of a man who owned slaves, had over 10 wives at the same time, demanded people to convert to his religion or suffer war etc. This same man then said that he is holier than Jesus, who never sinned, never lusted after women, never did a wrong deed, was seen as a miracle worker and a healer by people of his time, fulfiller of prophecies who the ruler of jews at the time was afraid of.

This holy man of yours was also holier than those who wrote the bible, those men who wrote the words of Jesus and spread them on pain of death. Most of the early christians who spread the word were brutally murdered. Only 1 of Jesus' disciples died a natural death, in exile mind you. Others suffered sadistic torture. How many people do you know that would go through that for a lie?

You clearly never read the Qur’an nor do you know what you are talking about. You make some ridiculous claims, I won’t even entertain you at this point.

 

[BigBiceps]

You clearly never read the Qur’an nor do you know what you are talking about. You make some ridiculous claims, I won’t even entertain you at this point.

Right. Well take this one thing with you from this conversation.

Look up what happened to Jesus' disciples and early christians. Who would die like that for a lie?

 

[Michael Myers]

Right. Well take this one thing with you from this conversation.

Look up what happened to Jesus' disciples and early christians. Who would die like that for a lie?

What I will take is I’m arguing with someone who is making up stuff about Islam because he clearly lacks any understanding whatsoever.

 

[Bushman]

The last Roman Emperor in the West was Francis II
The last Emperor in the East was Mehmed VI

 

[MaghrebGator]

It was never rewritten, nice try bud. And how is it a weak argument? Your holy book is practically written by men, different men throughout the centuries. Furthermore a real holy book wouldn’t mention any whores, dick sizes or ejaculation volume. Guess which book does this?

First and foremost the Uthman part i already addressed once here. Even christians don't use it anymore nowadays.
https://looksmax.org/threads/how-are-white-people-real.1020062/page-2#post-15350679. We even have manuscripts from the time of the Prophet with the same exact pages that we possess today.

What's even worse about the Bible is that we don't know who are John, Luke, Matthew and Mark exactly, especially the first one. It's ridiculous.

I have an entire gigantic essay in my future (Insha Allah) proof for Islam thread about just this specific subject

Here is part of it
The memorization of the Qur'an

The Qur'an is the most memorized book in human history. It is estimated that about 200 million people alive have memorized it, and it reaches such a scale that you could throw all the copies we have into the sea and a random small group of children from Somalia to Indonesia would bring the same exact book in a matter of hours. An amazing achievement taking also into account that it contains more than 75.000 words and that it is revealed in Arabic which is one of the most difficult languages to learn, but as Allah revealed the Qur'an would be made easy to remember and those obstacles would not be anything but proof of the Strenght of God. Something impossible to achieve with way smaller books, let alone the Bible because we don't possess any original manuscripts, neither the books on their original languages or the general knowledge of this language itself.

He says (Interpretation of the meaning): "And We have certainly made the Quran easy for remembrance, so is there any who will remember?"


Preservation of the Qur'an and Corruption of the Bible

Allah, the Almighty, says in the Quran (Interpretation of the meaning): “Indeed, it is We who sent down the Quran, and indeed, We will be its guardian.”

As proven by the most ancient manuscripts we have available, the book is the same as we have today (Manuscript of Birmingham which was, in all probability from the time of the Prophet himself. The Manuscript of San'aa, The codex Parisino-Petropolitanus from the 7th century. The Tubingen fragment)

Compare this with the Old Testament oldest manuscript, the famous Dead Sea Scrolls which date around 3rd century BCE to 1st century CE, around more than a 1000 years after Moses first revelations (Peace and Blessings be upon him)

And the New Testament oldest complete manuscripts, which dates from the 4th century CE, 400 years after Jesus (Peace and Blessings be upon him). The story goes even further when early manuscripts didn't contain some of the most famous biblical verses neither they were mentioned in the works of early scholars, like the famous prostitute story which ends in the verse "Let the one who has not sinned to cast a stone first" from John 7:53-8:11, which is not found until several centuries later added on a greek manuscript. Among other famous fabricated verses according to the vast majority of historians is also John 3:16 "For God so loved the world that he gave his one and only Son, that whoever believes in him shall not perish but have eternal life."

Allah addresses this corruption by saying (interpretation of the meaning): “Do you covet that they will believe in your religion in spite of the fact that a party of them (Jewish rabbis) used to hear the Word of Allah (the Tawraat), then they used to change it knowingly after they understood it?”

In another verse Allah says (Interpretation of the meaning): "But woe to them who fake the Scriptures and say: "This is from God," so that they might earn some profit thereby; and woe to them for what they fake, and woe to them for what they earn from it"

Another verse (interpretation of the meaning): “So because of their breach of their covenant, We cursed them, and made their hearts grow hard. They change the words from their (right) places and have abandoned a good part of the Message that was sent to them. And you will not cease to discover deceit in them, except a few of them. But forgive them, and overlook (their misdeeds). Verily, Allah loves al-Muhsineen (good-doers).”

 

[BigBiceps]

What I will take is I’m arguing with someone who is making up stuff about Islam because he clearly lacks any understanding whatsoever.

And what part did I make up about Islam?

 

[BigBiceps]

The last Roman Emperor in the West was Francis II
The last Emperor in the East was Mehmed VI

No. Last legitimate emperor of West Rome was Julius Nepos. Mehmed VI, Mehmed the conqueror or any other ottoman emperor have nothing to do with the romans. Turks were migrationary people who arrived to anatolia in the eve of the crusades, their only link to romans is that they found their new homeland to the ex-roman territory.

Holy roman emperors at least were emperors ruling over rome for a time, crowned by the pope, the leader of the religion which was the state religion of the Roman Empire. So it's kind of debatable if HRE could be called the successor of West Rome, but there's really no debate about the Ottomans. British or French empires aren't called successors to Roman Empire either, even though they were found on ex-roman territory too.

 

[pig_face]

What's insensible about islam?

 

[BigBiceps]

First and foremost the Uthman part i already addressed once here. Even christians don't use it anymore nowadays.
https://looksmax.org/threads/how-are-white-people-real.1020062/page-2#post-15350679. We even have manuscripts from the time of the Prophet with the same exact pages that we possess today.

What's even worse about the Bible is that we don't know who are John, Luke, Matthew and Mark exactly, especially the first one. It's ridiculous.

I have an entire gigantic essay in my future (Insha Allah) proof for Islam thread about just this specific subject

Here is part of it
The memorization of the Qur'an

The Qur'an is the most memorized book in human history. It is estimated that about 200 million people alive have memorized it, and it reaches such a scale that you could throw all the copies we have into the sea and a random small group of children from Somalia to Indonesia would bring the same exact book in a matter of hours. An amazing achievement taking also into account that it contains more than 75.000 words and that it is revealed in Arabic which is one of the most difficult languages to learn, but as Allah revealed the Qur'an would be made easy to remember and those obstacles would not be anything but proof of the Strenght of God. Something impossible to achieve with way smaller books, let alone the Bible because we don't possess any original manuscripts, neither the books on their original languages or the general knowledge of this language itself.

He says (Interpretation of the meaning): "And We have certainly made the Quran easy for remembrance, so is there any who will remember?"


Preservation of the Qur'an and Corruption of the Bible

Allah, the Almighty, says in the Quran (Interpretation of the meaning): “Indeed, it is We who sent down the Quran, and indeed, We will be its guardian.”

As proven by the most ancient manuscripts we have available, the book is the same as we have today (Manuscript of Birmingham which was, in all probability from the time of the Prophet himself. The Manuscript of San'aa, The codex Parisino-Petropolitanus from the 7th century. The Tubingen fragment)

Compare this with the Old Testament oldest manuscript, the famous Dead Sea Scrolls which date around 3rd century BCE to 1st century CE, around more than a 1000 years after Moses first revelations (Peace and Blessings be upon him)

And the New Testament oldest complete manuscripts, which dates from the 4th century CE, 400 years after Jesus (Peace and Blessings be upon him). The story goes even further when early manuscripts didn't contain some of the most famous biblical verses neither they were mentioned in the works of early scholars, like the famous prostitute story which ends in the verse "Let the one who has not sinned to cast a stone first" from John 7:53-8:11, which is not found until several centuries later added on a greek manuscript. Among other famous fabricated verses according to the vast majority of historians is also John 3:16 "For God so loved the world that he gave his one and only Son, that whoever believes in him shall not perish but have eternal life."

Allah addresses this corruption by saying (interpretation of the meaning): “Do you covet that they will believe in your religion in spite of the fact that a party of them (Jewish rabbis) used to hear the Word of Allah (the Tawraat), then they used to change it knowingly after they understood it?”

In another verse Allah says (Interpretation of the meaning): "But woe to them who fake the Scriptures and say: "This is from God," so that they might earn some profit thereby; and woe to them for what they fake, and woe to them for what they earn from it"

Another verse (interpretation of the meaning): “So because of their breach of their covenant, We cursed them, and made their hearts grow hard. They change the words from their (right) places and have abandoned a good part of the Message that was sent to them. And you will not cease to discover deceit in them, except a few of them. But forgive them, and overlook (their misdeeds). Verily, Allah loves al-Muhsineen (good-doers).”

Why do muslims think that the fact that a book is short makes it more authentic or in any way impressive that 200 million of the 1.9 billion muslims in the world can memorize it? 75000 words is roughly 150 pages worth of text according to google. So 10% of all muslims can memorize 150 pages worth or text?
That's not something you should be bragging about. If I'm not mistaken, Islam puts a really big emphasis on the memorozation of their holy book, and yet 10% can do it, when bible has 783,137 words, more than 10 times the amount compared to Qur'an, and I'm pretty sure 10% of christians can memorize the events of the bible accurately and tell if something has been added or removed.

Regarding the authenticity of the bible, we can pretty certainly say that the old testament is verified as authentic, and by reading the both testaments, you can easily see how the books link together. They form a perfect full book. There is 340 000 cross references across the book, a book that was written by many people over hundreds of years. It's an impossible feat to forge something like that, something added or removed will stick out like a sore thumb.

You make these claims about the accuracy of the bible, but you never read it. You only know the version your prophet Muhammad wanted you to know 600 years after the latest events of the bible took place. Only from year 600 and something onwards people could be saved, does that sound like something God would do? Let people be mislead for so long?

 

[BigBiceps]

What's insensible about islam?

Muhammad splitting the moon (global event recorded by no one else), Muhammad riding a unicorn, yet not recorded by non-muslim sources even though Muhammad and arabs weren't isolated from the rest of the world.
A spirit attacking Muhammad in a cave and making him a messenger, whereas other prophets were usually in contact with God directly. Is it certain that this spirit in fact was angel Gabriel, when we know that the world is infested by fallen angels as well?

These come to mind, I've not read the Qur'an myself so I can't point out the rest of the inaccuracies, but these stories just raised too many questions about Islam for me to consider it being truthful.

 

[radicalrationalist]

it was a different time, when men thought their actions mattered. and that is the only way you'll be remembered. nowadays men are afraid to "mispronoun" someone. when this empire falls, all record of its existence will be burned out of embarrassment.

 

[MaghrebGator]

Why do muslims think that the fact that a book is short makes it more authentic or in any way impressive that 200 million of the 1.9 billion muslims in the world can memorize it? 75000 words is roughly 150 pages worth of text according to google.

Can guess easily from this that you don't have any idea of anything related to books if you used that method of measuring. Pages are irrelevant, you could write the Count of Monte Cristo in two pages if you wanted by comprising the words. The most standard copy of the Qur'an has more than 600 pages, quite frankly of all the arguments you could pick this is the most ridiculous and selfexposing one.

So 10% of all muslims can memorize 150 pages worth or text?
That's not something you should be bragging about.

I should though. Apart from being the most memorized book in history by far its a gigantic one (Contrary to what you are trying to sell) and in on one of the most difficult languages and scripts to learn, which speaks volumes about it's divine origin. Bring me any popular book in it's original both form and language of 1000 words and show me how many people have memorized it when compared to the Qur'an, let alone the scam of the current Old and New Testament which even the Pope himself not only hasn't memorised, but can't even guess to this day it's original content

If I'm not mistaken, Islam puts a really big emphasis on the memorozation of their holy book, and yet 10% can do it, when bible has 783,137 words, more than 10 times the amount compared to Qur'an, and I'm pretty sure 10% of christians can memorize the events of the bible accurately and tell if something has been added or removed.

No. You are adding the Old Testament and the New Testament. The Old Testament is gigantic, the New Testament is (Generally) only 2.5 times more in words than the Qur'an, with more or less 180.000, with different variations depending on sects and what books of the New Testament they accept as cannon.

Heck christians don't even know anything of the Bible except "God created the Heavens and the Earth in 6 days and rested on the 7th" (Saying that an all powerful God rested), the John 3:16 verse (Especially american christians) which is considered a complete fabrication by a great number of historian, the verse of the prostitute and the stone which even the majority of christian reject for the reasons exposed above in the other comment, and they know some about exodus because of the movie, some about the flood and a couple of things here and there. They don't even know the most basic of the basic stuff like the ettiquette of the behaviour of men, women, when in chruch, etc

A Qur'an memorizer knows by the dot the entire rulings of the Qur'an, the interest prohibition, the the hijab ruling, ramadan rulings, food rulings, etc, to the point that a man with a suit could come to any laymen muslim and tell him "Interest is not forbidden" yet he would never accept it because even if he did not memorize it he has listened it so much in his society that he can detect it in miliseconds.

Regarding the authenticity of the bible, we can pretty certainly say that the old testament is verified as authentic, and by reading the both testaments, you can easily see how the books link together. They form a perfect full book.

No, they don’t at all in fact. Even individually the gospels don’t form a, what you call, "perfect book" in line with the beliefs of the majority of christians, greatly differing with the beliefs of early christians for example.

The New Testament for example has amazing differences between one book (Let's say Matthew or Mark) and another (Let's say John or Luke) of one single event that completely changes the entire theology of Christianity, completely ommitt events that are crucial for christian theology, etc. It's something pretty much established on academia really. We could get on specifics without a problem right now.

There is 340 000 cross references across the book, a book that was written by many people over hundreds of years. It's an impossible feat to forge something like that, something added or removed will stick out like a sore thumb.

First and foremost there are not 340.000 cross references, and the number differs vastly from ranges of few tens of thousands to the unrealistic number you brought. Out of those "cross references" the VAST majority are basically "X New person" in the year 500 reads "Y old person" in the year 400 and he mentions it. Or "X person" reads the Old Testament because he was a scribe and he copies it or mentions it (Not even a scribe but just some random villager who somehow learned how to write 3 words by some locsl priest and put them in a paper or a skin) and after 1500 years archeologists and random people find those manuscripts in some church or castle or house and some christian apologists add it as "cross references". Something pretty much normal and obvious.

The Bible is BY FAR (By really far) the most edited book in human history, the second one not being the Qur'an but the Quixote. This shows that 1-They don’t hold any original of the first copies which means the book is completely open to constant edition and reinterptetation without a reliable source, 2-They heavily rely on translations and not an original language which means every single word is highly subject to a change of meaning (Something easily provable with the Bible), and for every popular edition the popular understanding of the book will change more and more and be more far from the original meaning, 3- The fact that a 2.5 times bigger book than the Qur'an and if we include the Old Testament a 10 times bigger book needs, literally, hundreds of thousands of more editions is by itself a heavy red flag when at the same time it is not even the most read book compared with the Qur'an (Something also easy to prove)

You make these claims about the accuracy of the bible, but you never read it.

I have read the entire Bible and very possibly know it more than any user on here. I engaged several times with christian apologetics who have gifted me the New Testament version that is in every hotel from what i've heard, i hold a KJV of both the Old and New Testament (In a same book) and i read different versions online a lot online. I also hold some exegesis books but mainly rely on the web to read them because a lot are difficult to get.

You only know the version your prophet Muhammad wanted you to know 600 years after the latest events of the bible took place.

Yet somehow he got way closer to the dominant historian account than Mark, Matthew, Luke and John, and even the biggest difference between Islam and historian narrative is that Jesus was crucified when Islam doesn't even deny there was some sort of crucifixtion but not of Jesus but that someone (Possibly Judas or whoever betrayed him) was made to resemble him

Only from year 600 and something onwards people could be saved, does that sound like something God would do? Let people be mislead for so long?

No, we don't believe in that. That is a misrepresentation of islamic beliefs that showcases (Again) your low level of knowledge in the subject we are addressing.

In Islam we believe that every person and nation is not punished until they receive a proper messenger
Allah says (Interpretation of the meaning): Whoever is guided is only guided for [the benefit of] his soul. And whoever errs only errs against it. And no bearer of burdens will bear the burden of another. And never would We punish until We sent a messenger.

A verse which by the way the Bible could learn a lot from since both Jewish and Christian theology teach that people are punished both in this life and most importantly, in the hereafter by that of which they have no control of, in several verses (A lot of verses in fact of people punished directly because of religious rulings without them having a single possibility to change it since they were born or put in a condition involuntarily) like Deuteronomy 23
"No one who has been emasculated by crushing or cutting may enter the assembly of the LORD. No one born of a forbidden marriage nor any of his descendants may enter the assembly of the LORD, even down to the tenth generation."

In Islam we believe that anyone who did the best efforts to follow the original message of Jesus after his death has gone to paradise, even if it did not reach him properly. However those who misinterpreted it purposefully to promote polytheist like beliefs like the people present in the Council of Nicea will go, in general, to hell.

 

[BigBiceps]

Can guess easily from this that you don't have any idea of anything related to books if you used that method of measuring. Pages are irrelevant, you could write the Count of Monte Cristo in two pages if you wanted by comprising the words. The most standard copy of the Qur'an has more than 600 pages, quite frankly of all the arguments you could pick this is the most ridiculous and selfexposing one.

I should though. Apart from being the most memorized book in history by far its a gigantic one (Contrary to what you are trying to sell) and in on one of the most difficult languages and scripts to learn, which speaks volumes about it's divine origin. Bring me any popular book in it's original both form and language of 1000 words and show me how many people have memorized it when compared to the Qur'an, let alone the scam of the current Old and New Testament which even the Pope himself not only hasn't memorised, but can't even guess to this day it's original content

No. You are adding the Old Testament and the New Testament. The Old Testament is gigantic, the New Testament is (Generally) only 2.5 times more in words than the Qur'an, with more or less 180.000, with different variations depending on sects and what books of the New Testament they accept as cannon.

Heck christians don't even know anything of the Bible except "God created the Heavens and the Earth in 6 days and rested on the 7th" (Saying that an all powerful God rested), the John 3:16 verse (Especially american christians) which is considered a complete fabrication by a great number of historian, the verse of the prostitute and the stone which even the majority of christian reject for the reasons exposed above in the other comment, and they know some about exodus because of the movie, some about the flood and a couple of things here and there. They don't even know the most basic of the basic stuff like the ettiquette of the behaviour of men, women, when in chruch, etc

A Qur'an memorizer knows by the dot the entire rulings of the Qur'an, the interest prohibition, the the hijab ruling, ramadan rulings, food rulings, etc, to the point that a man with a suit could come to any laymen muslim and tell him "Interest is not forbidden" yet he would never accept it because even if he did not memorize it he has listened it so much in his society that he can detect it in miliseconds.

No, they don’t at all in fact. Even individually the gospels don’t form a, what you call, "perfect book" in line with the beliefs of the majority of christians, greatly differing with the beliefs of early christians for example.

The New Testament for example has amazing differences between one book (Let's say Matthew or Mark) and another (Let's say John or Luke) of one single event that completely changes the entire theology of Christianity, completely ommitt events that are crucial for christian theology, etc. It's something pretty much established on academia really. We could get on specifics without a problem right now.

First and foremost there are not 340.000 cross references, and the number differs vastly from ranges of few tens of thousands to the unrealistic number you brought. Out of those "cross references" the VAST majority are basically "X New person" in the year 500 reads "Y old person" in the year 400 and he mentions it. Or "X person" reads the Old Testament because he was a scribe and he copies it or mentions it (Not even a scribe but just some random villager who somehow learned how to write 3 words by some locsl priest and put them in a paper or a skin) and after 1500 years archeologists and random people find those manuscripts in some church or castle or house and some christian apologists add it as "cross references". Something pretty much normal and obvious.

The Bible is BY FAR (By really far) the most edited book in human history, the second one not being the Qur'an but the Quixote. This shows that 1-They don’t hold any original of the first copies which means the book is completely open to constant edition and reinterptetation without a reliable source, 2-They heavily rely on translations and not an original language which means every single word is highly subject to a change of meaning (Something easily provable with the Bible), and for every popular edition the popular understanding of the book will change more and more and be more far from the original meaning, 3- The fact that a 2.5 times bigger book than the Qur'an and if we include the Old Testament a 10 times bigger book needs, literally, hundreds of thousands of more editions is by itself a heavy red flag when at the same time it is not even the most read book compared with the Qur'an (Something also easy to prove)

I have read the entire Bible and very possibly know it more than any user on here. I engaged several times with christian apologetics who have gifted me the New Testament version that is in every hotel from what i've heard, i hold a KJV of both the Old and New Testament (In a same book) and i read different versions online a lot online. I also hold some exegesis books but mainly rely on the web to read them because a lot are difficult to get.

Yet somehow he got way closer to the dominant historian account than Mark, Matthew, Luke and John, and even the biggest difference between Islam and historian narrative is that Jesus was crucified when Islam doesn't even deny there was some sort of crucifixtion but not of Jesus but that someone (Possibly Judas or whoever betrayed him) was made to resemble him

No, we don't believe in that. That is a misrepresentation of islamic beliefs that showcases (Again) your low level of knowledge in the subject we are addressing.

In Islam we believe that every person and nation is not punished until they receive a proper messenger
Allah says (Interpretation of the meaning): Whoever is guided is only guided for [the benefit of] his soul. And whoever errs only errs against it. And no bearer of burdens will bear the burden of another. And never would We punish until We sent a messenger.

A verse which by the way the Bible could learn a lot from since both Jewish and Christian theology teach that people are punished both in this life and most importantly, in the hereafter by that of which they have no control of, in several verses (A lot of verses in fact of people punished directly because of religious rulings without them having a single possibility to change it since they were born or put in a condition involuntarily) like Deuteronomy 23
"No one who has been emasculated by crushing or cutting may enter the assembly of the LORD. No one born of a forbidden marriage nor any of his descendants may enter the assembly of the LORD, even down to the tenth generation."

In Islam we believe that anyone who did the best efforts to follow the original message of Jesus after his death has gone to paradise, even if it did not reach him properly. However those who misinterpreted it purposefully to promote polytheist like beliefs like the people present in the Council of Nicea will go, in general, to hell.

Of course words are what makes a book long or short, and there's 10 times more words in the bible than in the qur'an. It's stupid to say there's 600 pages so it's like a half a bible, when the first Harry Potter book, a book written for children, has more words and only 300 pages. No disrespect to your holy book, but it certainly is not a long one and apparently not made to be long, but memorizable, and the fact that 10% of the muslims have it memorized is not really some miraculous feat.
You muslims like to compare your memorization capabilities to christians, but we do not make it a thing of large importance to memorize every word written but rather to understand what it is all about, who Jesus is, what he did and how he is linked to all that was written in the old testament. Christian faith is not about rituals, but about putting full trust in Jesus Christ and following him.

I commend you for reading the bible, but it is truly not as edited as you think. The oldest known bibles are Codex Sinaiticus and Codex Vaticanus from slightly after year 300 and there's also the Garima Gospels from Ethiopia. These all point to integrity of the modern bibles. When it comes to even older versions, I personally think it's just that it was hard to preserve a lot of those old bibles. There were religious schisms from the start and it's important to note that Christianity was not really tolerated before the 4th century. Practicing christianity was illegal in Rome and they didn't really have any allies, even jews hated christians.
It's safe to assume a lot of the early bibles were destroyed because of the persecution.
Qur'an says Jesus was not crucified, but in those manuscripts from year 300 onwards it is mentioned he was, repeatedly. So the corruption of the bible into this completely different message would have happened before the year 300 by your muslim logic. Why didn't Muhammad already come at year 300 then? According to you muslims, that's when the word of God would've been lost already.

One other thing that I found odd about what you wrote. You said that children of unlawful marriages etc. inherit that sin and are not welcome to heaven. According to old testament, of which there exists the dead sea scrolls etc. we know that sins of the father are not inherited to children, but every man shall be judged by his own deeds. This paints a clear divide between muslim teachings vs those of other abrahamic religions. Islam contradicts all these texts that are considered authentic by jews and christians, and says they're heretical because a man was made a prophet by a spirit/angel and given these new teachings, in clear contradiction to how, at least according to my remembrance, all other prophets were approached and talked to by God, not angels.

 

[Marsiere214]

u forgot to mention that the jews led the ottomans to an opening in the gate
they also did that to Bulgaria when they opened the gates of tarnovo.
They also helped the muslims conquer spain before the ottomans.

 

[Marsiere214]

Islam got way too many followers considering how much sense Christianity makes and how Islam just does not.
Christianity spread because people liked the message, it made sense and people considered it truthful. Islam spread because arab hordes conquered the territories where Islam is today practiced and even then they had poor results in conversion, almost all ex-ottoman territories in Europe resisted Islam despite hundreds of years of rule. It took 500+ years for muslims to convert Persia from non-abrahamic religion with no remaining central authorities, zoroastrianism.

islam has followers only in the low iq countries. iq and islam are correlated.

 

[BigBiceps]

u forgot to mention that the jews led the ottomans to an opening in the gate
they also did that to Bulgaria when they opened the gates of tarnovo.
They also helped the muslims conquer spain before the ottomans.

For real? Kinda like they are now opening gates of Europa to them.

 

[Marsiere214]

For real? Kinda like they are now opening gates of Europa to them.

620 years ago, Tarnovgrad fell through vile treachery and thus Bulgaria fell under Ottoman slavery.

July 17, 1393 – the blackest date in our History!

“… This unknown Jew who brilliantly fulfilled his task was Lazar Cohen…. received an order from the members of the Sanhedrin, penetrated into the Bulgarian fortress of Tsarevets, appeared before Patriarch Euthymius and assured him in the most vile way that the Turkish troops had lost all ability to fight and would not be able to renew the siege of Veliko Tarnovo. He said that severe epidemics had caused panic in the Sultan's army, he swore that the Turks were in the hands of Ivan Shishman's already strengthened troops, and that therefore the Sultan had given the order to retreat.

... and the Jew Cohen, like Judas Iscariot, quietly picked up the keys of the city gates and handed them over to his assistant - the Jew Hasson, who, taking advantage of the enthusiasm, encompassed the entire population, opened the city gates and handed the keys to Celebi Suleiman..."

wrote already in 1930, Mikhail Varshavsky (pseudonym of Prof. Vladimir Vladikin).

Relying on Latin and Greek sources, M. Varshavski describes the events of the unsuccessful 3-month siege of our capital by the armies of Bayezid I:

“Betrayal. The members of the Sanhedrin, who were in Burgas and followed the course of the struggle through their spies, could not accept this failure. What was left for them to do? Convinced that the Sultan was unable to break the defenders of Turnovo without their participation, the Jews in turn gave an order to organize a betrayal as soon as possible. A Jewish volunteer was found, whom the Sanhedrin provided with all the necessary means for this purpose, including a copy of the Sultan's retreat order. Historians note this tragic episode only as a legend, that an unknown Jew betrayed Tarnovo."

Unfortunately, today most YOUNG Bulgarians do not know how Bulgaria fell under Turkish slavery. They know, for example, the year (1393 and/or the date – July 17) in which we fell under the Turkish yoke (presence according to some political idiots), they have heard the names of Ivan Shishman and Bayazid, but they do not know exactly how we fell under Turkish slavery.

Varshavski points out that at this decisive moment the agents of the Sanhedrin and Queen Sara-Theodora herself, the second wife of Tsar Ivan Alexander, who died in 1371, intervened and betrayed Tarnovo to the Ottoman scimitar.

"The inhabitants of the city had gathered in the square, where Patriarch Euthymius offered a thanksgiving prayer. Cohen gave the agreed signal and on July 17, 1393, the Turkish troops stormed through the open gates of the city. (………..) According to legends, the fate of the traitor Lazar Cohen was interesting and instructive. After handing over the keys to Sultan Bayazid, he demanded a large reward; gave it to him, but the greedy Jew still remained dissatisfied. Then Bayezid seethed and said: "Give him such a reward as a traitor deserves, who will betray me for a handful of gold!..." The guard crushed the traitor and threw him into the abyss from a fortress tower. The place where he was thrown and buried is still known as the "Jewish Grave". Everyone who passed by threw a stone with contempt, disgust and curse for eternity at the traitor and his hellish deed!...
These tragic events for Bulgaria were later reflected after the liberation by Ivan Vazov, in the poem "Jewish Grave" and in a story by Angel Karaliychev, published in the magazine "Svetulka" before 1944.

Grigoriy Tsamblak also speaks of betrayal, but does not describe it in detail. Other authors such as Jovan Raic, Vasil Beron and Konstantin Irecek, as well as folk tradition, confirm that the fortress-Capital fell after betrayal, and that the traitor was a Jew.

The same is confirmed by the French author Sonjeon, who says that the traitor was a foreign Jew, an immigrant.

But our casion historians are still silent. 135 years of SILENCE!

Some historical facts during the reign of Tsar Ivan Alexander are important here.

In 1352, the Ottoman Turks captured the fortress of Cimpe on the Dardanelles, and in 1354 the great ford - Gallipoli. This is considered to be the beginning of the Turkish invasion of the Balkans. With the assistance of Queen Sara-Theodora, the Turks invaded Thrace and captured Rodosto, Baia-Eski, Lyule-Burgas and Edirne and concluded a treaty with Bulgaria, which gave them the legal right to organize combat units in Thrace for further campaigns in Christian countries, and Bulgaria was obliged to provide them with active support.

By concluding this treaty with Sultan Murad I, essentially a voluntary vassalage, Tsar Ivan Alexander counted on the Turks' appetite to be satisfied by the occupied territories, and that the rest of Bulgaria would be saved. However, he did his calculations wrongly "without the innkeeper" (the Sanhedrin). Under the pressure of his wife Sara-Theodora, Tsar Ivan Alexander made another fatal mistake and instead of announcing his first-born son Ivan Sratsimir as heir to the throne, he divided the kingdom into two. Ivan Sratsimir gave the western part, known as the Kingdom of Vidin, which, however, was insignificant in terms of territory. The main part - the kingdom of Tarnovo, he gave to Ivan Shishman (essentially 100% Jewish), who was the first-born son of the Jewish woman Sara-Theodora. After this insane act, inspired by the evil genius of the king - Sara-Theodora, Bulgaria actually disintegrated into five parts - the Kingdom of Vidin, the Kingdom of Tarnovo, the Kingdom of Karvun, the Kingdom of Wallachia and the Western part (Macedonia), which consisted of numerous vassal principalities.

Beginning in 1354 onwards, Murad I's Ottomans launched massive incursions across the Dardanelles into Thrace and the Balkans. There are reports that the Turkish troops were transferred by ships and means of the Venetian Jews.

Author David Duke, quoting S. Shu, gives us the following information:

"... In the 13th century, Byzantine Jews supported the occupying armies of the Turks...In the 14th century, they supported the conquest of Constantinople by the Ottoman Turks, which took place with the help of the Jews."

After Tsar Ivan Shishman (1371-1393) sat on the throne in Tarnovo, encouraged by his mother, he began to pursue an independent policy, different from that of his older brother Ivan Sratsimir (1356-1396) in the Kingdom of Vidin . The two are in conflict and hardly maintain a relationship. The other parts of the fragmented Bulgarian state - the Dobruja despotism and the principalities in southwestern Bulgaria and Macedonia - lead a separate policy.

Taking advantage of this fragmentation of Bulgaria and the weakness of Byzantium, the Ottomans launched a decisive offensive to conquer the Balkan Peninsula. After the Battle of Chernomen, they first captured the strong Bulgarian fortresses of Samokov and Ikhtiman, and then, with much bloodshed, Bitola.

In 1382, with the help of a Bulgarian-Mohammedan traitor, Sofia was captured, and a little later Thessaloniki also fell, probably with the active help of the Thessaloniki Jews, who had an influential colony there.

In the spring of 1393, Sultan Bayazid I crossed Stara Planina with a large army, headed for Tarnovo and surrounded it from three sides. The siege was long, hard and prolonged, and no help came from anywhere. For unknown reasons, Tsar Ivan Shishman with part of his army was not in Tarnovo, but was in Nikopol, and the defense of the city was led by Patriarch Euthymius. All Tarnov residents, from the children to the 80-year-old old men, threw spears and shot arrows against the strong enemy. The courage of the defenders of the fortress was great, but the enemy hordes were also increasing every day. Due to the long siege, the food ran out and this worsened the defense even more... Encouraged by their shepherd Patriarch Euthymius, the defenders repelled the attackers, but they themselves were reduced in number due to malnutrition and dehydration. The military council met every day. Bayezid I and his son Celebi were furious that the city would not surrender. They sent notices to the besieged that if they did not surrender they would all be destroyed...

 

[BigBiceps]

620 years ago, Tarnovgrad fell through vile treachery and thus Bulgaria fell under Ottoman slavery.

July 17, 1393 – the blackest date in our History!

“… This unknown Jew who brilliantly fulfilled his task was Lazar Cohen…. received an order from the members of the Sanhedrin, penetrated into the Bulgarian fortress of Tsarevets, appeared before Patriarch Euthymius and assured him in the most vile way that the Turkish troops had lost all ability to fight and would not be able to renew the siege of Veliko Tarnovo. He said that severe epidemics had caused panic in the Sultan's army, he swore that the Turks were in the hands of Ivan Shishman's already strengthened troops, and that therefore the Sultan had given the order to retreat.

... and the Jew Cohen, like Judas Iscariot, quietly picked up the keys of the city gates and handed them over to his assistant - the Jew Hasson, who, taking advantage of the enthusiasm, encompassed the entire population, opened the city gates and handed the keys to Celebi Suleiman..."

wrote already in 1930, Mikhail Varshavsky (pseudonym of Prof. Vladimir Vladikin).

Relying on Latin and Greek sources, M. Varshavski describes the events of the unsuccessful 3-month siege of our capital by the armies of Bayezid I:

“Betrayal. The members of the Sanhedrin, who were in Burgas and followed the course of the struggle through their spies, could not accept this failure. What was left for them to do? Convinced that the Sultan was unable to break the defenders of Turnovo without their participation, the Jews in turn gave an order to organize a betrayal as soon as possible. A Jewish volunteer was found, whom the Sanhedrin provided with all the necessary means for this purpose, including a copy of the Sultan's retreat order. Historians note this tragic episode only as a legend, that an unknown Jew betrayed Tarnovo."

Unfortunately, today most YOUNG Bulgarians do not know how Bulgaria fell under Turkish slavery. They know, for example, the year (1393 and/or the date – July 17) in which we fell under the Turkish yoke (presence according to some political idiots), they have heard the names of Ivan Shishman and Bayazid, but they do not know exactly how we fell under Turkish slavery.

Varshavski points out that at this decisive moment the agents of the Sanhedrin and Queen Sara-Theodora herself, the second wife of Tsar Ivan Alexander, who died in 1371, intervened and betrayed Tarnovo to the Ottoman scimitar.

"The inhabitants of the city had gathered in the square, where Patriarch Euthymius offered a thanksgiving prayer. Cohen gave the agreed signal and on July 17, 1393, the Turkish troops stormed through the open gates of the city. (………..) According to legends, the fate of the traitor Lazar Cohen was interesting and instructive. After handing over the keys to Sultan Bayazid, he demanded a large reward; gave it to him, but the greedy Jew still remained dissatisfied. Then Bayezid seethed and said: "Give him such a reward as a traitor deserves, who will betray me for a handful of gold!..." The guard crushed the traitor and threw him into the abyss from a fortress tower. The place where he was thrown and buried is still known as the "Jewish Grave". Everyone who passed by threw a stone with contempt, disgust and curse for eternity at the traitor and his hellish deed!...
These tragic events for Bulgaria were later reflected after the liberation by Ivan Vazov, in the poem "Jewish Grave" and in a story by Angel Karaliychev, published in the magazine "Svetulka" before 1944.

Grigoriy Tsamblak also speaks of betrayal, but does not describe it in detail. Other authors such as Jovan Raic, Vasil Beron and Konstantin Irecek, as well as folk tradition, confirm that the fortress-Capital fell after betrayal, and that the traitor was a Jew.

The same is confirmed by the French author Sonjeon, who says that the traitor was a foreign Jew, an immigrant.

But our casion historians are still silent. 135 years of SILENCE!

Some historical facts during the reign of Tsar Ivan Alexander are important here.

In 1352, the Ottoman Turks captured the fortress of Cimpe on the Dardanelles, and in 1354 the great ford - Gallipoli. This is considered to be the beginning of the Turkish invasion of the Balkans. With the assistance of Queen Sara-Theodora, the Turks invaded Thrace and captured Rodosto, Baia-Eski, Lyule-Burgas and Edirne and concluded a treaty with Bulgaria, which gave them the legal right to organize combat units in Thrace for further campaigns in Christian countries, and Bulgaria was obliged to provide them with active support.

By concluding this treaty with Sultan Murad I, essentially a voluntary vassalage, Tsar Ivan Alexander counted on the Turks' appetite to be satisfied by the occupied territories, and that the rest of Bulgaria would be saved. However, he did his calculations wrongly "without the innkeeper" (the Sanhedrin). Under the pressure of his wife Sara-Theodora, Tsar Ivan Alexander made another fatal mistake and instead of announcing his first-born son Ivan Sratsimir as heir to the throne, he divided the kingdom into two. Ivan Sratsimir gave the western part, known as the Kingdom of Vidin, which, however, was insignificant in terms of territory. The main part - the kingdom of Tarnovo, he gave to Ivan Shishman (essentially 100% Jewish), who was the first-born son of the Jewish woman Sara-Theodora. After this insane act, inspired by the evil genius of the king - Sara-Theodora, Bulgaria actually disintegrated into five parts - the Kingdom of Vidin, the Kingdom of Tarnovo, the Kingdom of Karvun, the Kingdom of Wallachia and the Western part (Macedonia), which consisted of numerous vassal principalities.

Beginning in 1354 onwards, Murad I's Ottomans launched massive incursions across the Dardanelles into Thrace and the Balkans. There are reports that the Turkish troops were transferred by ships and means of the Venetian Jews.

Author David Duke, quoting S. Shu, gives us the following information:

"... In the 13th century, Byzantine Jews supported the occupying armies of the Turks...In the 14th century, they supported the conquest of Constantinople by the Ottoman Turks, which took place with the help of the Jews."

After Tsar Ivan Shishman (1371-1393) sat on the throne in Tarnovo, encouraged by his mother, he began to pursue an independent policy, different from that of his older brother Ivan Sratsimir (1356-1396) in the Kingdom of Vidin . The two are in conflict and hardly maintain a relationship. The other parts of the fragmented Bulgarian state - the Dobruja despotism and the principalities in southwestern Bulgaria and Macedonia - lead a separate policy.

Taking advantage of this fragmentation of Bulgaria and the weakness of Byzantium, the Ottomans launched a decisive offensive to conquer the Balkan Peninsula. After the Battle of Chernomen, they first captured the strong Bulgarian fortresses of Samokov and Ikhtiman, and then, with much bloodshed, Bitola.

In 1382, with the help of a Bulgarian-Mohammedan traitor, Sofia was captured, and a little later Thessaloniki also fell, probably with the active help of the Thessaloniki Jews, who had an influential colony there.

In the spring of 1393, Sultan Bayazid I crossed Stara Planina with a large army, headed for Tarnovo and surrounded it from three sides. The siege was long, hard and prolonged, and no help came from anywhere. For unknown reasons, Tsar Ivan Shishman with part of his army was not in Tarnovo, but was in Nikopol, and the defense of the city was led by Patriarch Euthymius. All Tarnov residents, from the children to the 80-year-old old men, threw spears and shot arrows against the strong enemy. The courage of the defenders of the fortress was great, but the enemy hordes were also increasing every day. Due to the long siege, the food ran out and this worsened the defense even more... Encouraged by their shepherd Patriarch Euthymius, the defenders repelled the attackers, but they themselves were reduced in number due to malnutrition and dehydration. The military council met every day. Bayezid I and his son Celebi were furious that the city would not surrender. They sent notices to the besieged that if they did not surrender they would all be destroyed...

Wow. At least Bayezid had enough sense to kill the traitor. It's truly shameful that the whole christendom were not there to defend the balkans from day 1. Year 1400 should not have turned with ottomans occupying European territory.