Quote
First : No Muslim said that christians claim that there were a physical intercourse could forbid. We know your understandings and beliefs about Jesus and the trinity so I do not think that throwing such accusations is fair.
Believe me.. I have been told by muslims that I as a Christian believe that Jesus being Son of God implies a physical union between Almighty God and Mary. To hear this made me feel sick, to have such blasphemy laid at the door of Christians who have never ever in the history of the world believed such a thing. Where do they get this wild idea in their head? Not the Bible for they do not read or understand it... Not from Christians because we do not believe it.. It can only come from Islam or Muslims, that they possibly misunderstand verses in the Quran is their problem not mine. I can see where the less enlightened may get that idea from these Suras such an implication can be taken. How can He have a child without a consort??? Implies that there must be a physical union for a child to result. Taken neither wife nor son..!!! Again it does rather seem from this that God needs a wife in order to have a son. Beget and begotten appears here to be used in the human sense.. Where the actual term in the Bible used is monogenes.. Which means unique.. Which is how we see Jesus.

Sura 6:102 “The originator of heavens and earth! How can He have a child, when there is for Him no consort?”


Sura 72:3 “We believe that He - exalted be the glory of our Lord - hath taken neither wife nor son.”


Sura 112:1-4 “Proclaim, 'He is the One and only GOD. The Absolute GOD. Never did He beget. Nor was He begotten. None equals Him.”

Quote


The passage you quoted has also a similarity in the quran :
Because of that, We decreed upon the Children of Israel that whoever kills a soul unless for a soul or for corruption [done] in the land - it is as if he had slain mankind entirely. And whoever saves one - it is as if he had saved mankind entirely. And our messengers had certainly come to them with clear proofs. Then indeed many of them, [even] after that, throughout the land, were transgressors.


Surah Al Maidah verse 32
and this does not seem at all incongruous to you that this almost identical passage is found in the Quran? The original from the Mishnah Sanhedrin... The Mishnah is a Jewish commentary on the Torah. It is not or ever was part of the Torah and so was not considered scripture.. Because the word for blood is in the plural in Gen. 4:10, a Rabbi came up with the supposition that all Abel's offspring had been killed with him which signified that any murder or life-saving act had universal implications. This was a theory set out in the Mishnah by a man.... Not a decree from God. How did a Rabbi's commentary make its way into the Qur'an and be quoted as word from Allah?

Quote
Fourth: As for the medievil monk I say that brother اسلامي عزي shows how easily it is to judge followers of a whole religion based on the actions of just a few. Those indians must have been saying to themselves that christianity is a religion of terror BASED ON THE ACTIONS OF THEIR SLOTERRERS
this cuts both ways .. Don't you think? Which I have been saying all along. You cannot judge a religion on the actions of some of its "misguided" followers. Simply because a follower is a monk or whatever does not make them any better or worse than any other follower. They are the same human in nature as anyone else, as such are sinners.. In need of redemption. No difference from some imams calling for hatred against non muslims in the name of Islam. I'm sure you would agree that they do not speak for Islam when they call for such. Such comparisons are pointless, as pointless as comparisons about Old Testament punishments and their relevance to today's Christians who live under the New Covenant. In fact, many of the Old Testament punishments such as stoning, cutting off hands and public lashing are alive and well and found in Islam... And in some parts of the world today are still used or at least the threat of their use still exists.

Peace unto you.