/* */

PDA

View Full Version : For the Christians, what are the last words of Jesus (as)?



Dawud_uk
01-10-2009, 10:00 AM
peace be upon those who follow righteous guidance,

a question to the christians, what are the last words of jesus christ (upon him be peace)?

peace be upon those who follow righteous guidance,
Reply

Login/Register to hide ads. Scroll down for more posts
Keltoi
01-12-2009, 02:16 AM
Christ's last words on the cross were "It is finished".
Reply

Dawud_uk
01-12-2009, 07:05 AM
format_quote Originally Posted by Keltoi
Christ's last words on the cross were "It is finished".
are you sure?
Reply

Keltoi
01-12-2009, 02:28 PM
format_quote Originally Posted by Dawud_uk
are you sure?
Actually I was mistaken, the last words were reported to be "Father, into Thy hands I commend my Spirit."
Reply

Welcome, Guest!
Hey there! Looks like you're enjoying the discussion, but you're not signed up for an account.

When you create an account, you can participate in the discussions and share your thoughts. You also get notifications, here and via email, whenever new posts are made. And you can like posts and make new friends.
Sign Up
doorster
01-12-2009, 02:34 PM
...
Reply

doorster
01-12-2009, 02:36 PM
edit

Reply

Keltoi
01-12-2009, 02:43 PM
Christ reportedly stated 7 things while on the cross

1. "Father, forgive them, for they know not what they do." Gospel of Luke 23:34

2. "Truly, I say to you, today you will be with me in Paradise." Gospel of Luke 23:43


3. "Jesus said to his mother: "Woman, this is your son".
Then he said to the disciple: "This is your mother."
Gospel of John 19:26-27

4. "My God, my God, why have you forsaken me?" Matthew 27:46 and Mark 15:34

5. "I thirst" Gospel of John 19:28

6. When Jesus had received the wine, he said, "It is finished";
and he bowed his head and handed over the spirit.
Gospel of John 19:30


7. Jesus cried out in a loud voice,
"Father, into your hands I commend my spirit"
Gospel of Luke 23:46
Reply

بنــuaeــت
01-12-2009, 03:23 PM
Brothers



That (الله) the campus of the Koran, translated into another language

But I can explain another sense in any language
Reply

Dawud_uk
01-12-2009, 03:53 PM
format_quote Originally Posted by Keltoi
Christ reportedly stated 7 things while on the cross

1. "Father, forgive them, for they know not what they do." Gospel of Luke 23:34

2. "Truly, I say to you, today you will be with me in Paradise." Gospel of Luke 23:43


3. "Jesus said to his mother: "Woman, this is your son".
Then he said to the disciple: "This is your mother."
Gospel of John 19:26-27

4. "My God, my God, why have you forsaken me?" Matthew 27:46 and Mark 15:34

5. "I thirst" Gospel of John 19:28

6. When Jesus had received the wine, he said, "It is finished";
and he bowed his head and handed over the spirit.
Gospel of John 19:30


7. Jesus cried out in a loud voice,
"Father, into your hands I commend my spirit"
Gospel of Luke 23:46
keltoi,

i feel you are not being entirely honest here. i dont know if that is intentional or not.

lets take the last two qoutes,

luke 23:46
Then Jesus cried out with a loud voice and said, “Father, into your hands I entrust my spirit.”After he said this, he breathed his last.

so here it is saying the last words of jesus (upon him be peace) are “Father, into your hands I entrust my spirit.”

but then we come to john 19:30
“It is finished.” Then he bowed his head and released his spirit.

so two different acounts of his last words, now either one is correct and hence the other incorrect, or both are incorrect but both are not possibly correct.
Reply

Keltoi
01-12-2009, 04:41 PM
format_quote Originally Posted by Dawud_uk
keltoi,

i feel you are not being entirely honest here. i dont know if that is intentional or not.

lets take the last two qoutes,

luke 23:46
Then Jesus cried out with a loud voice and said, “Father, into your hands I entrust my spirit.”After he said this, he breathed his last.

so here it is saying the last words of jesus (upon him be peace) are “Father, into your hands I entrust my spirit.”

but then we come to john 19:30
“It is finished.” Then he bowed his head and released his spirit.

so two different acounts of his last words, now either one is correct and hence the other incorrect, or both are incorrect but both are not possibly correct.
We are referring to two different accounts of the crucifixion. No author states "These were the last words of Christ". Luke describes an account of the crucifixion, and the words of Christ that were audible to the observer, and John records another account. They are two separate accounts written by two different authors.

The two versions appear to describe a different chronology of Christ's statements, but that is hardly unexpected when two sources are written from different points of view.
Reply

Danah
01-12-2009, 07:33 PM
I am not trying to attack here or say anything wrong, but the verses there are somehow did not make any sense to me.

1. "Father, forgive them, for they know not what they do." Gospel of Luke 23:34
here its obvious that he was satisfied for his end peace be upon him.

4. "My God, my God, why have you forsaken me?" Matthew 27:46 and Mark 15:34
but here it looks as he was not satisfied with that end. Even though, he knew from the moment that he came to earth that God send him to purify human sin *as stated in the bible*

correct me if I am wrong please
Reply

Keltoi
01-12-2009, 07:38 PM
format_quote Originally Posted by SAYA
I am not trying to attack here or say anything wrong, but the verses there are somehow did not make any sense to me.

here its obvious that he was satisfied for his end peace be upon him.

but here it looks as he was not satisfied with that end. Even though, he knew from the moment that he came to earth that God send him to purify human sin *as stated in the bible*

correct me if I am wrong please

Knowing the task and experiencing the result are two different things. However, on the issue of the "Why have You forsaken", there are two lines of thought. One belief is that He was quoting from the Old Testament in this instance. The other belief is that He was referring to His separation from God in those moments when the sin of the world was on His shoulders.
Reply

Danah
01-12-2009, 07:56 PM
format_quote Originally Posted by Keltoi
Knowing the task and experiencing the result are two different things. However, on the issue of the "Why have You forsaken", there are two lines of thought. One belief is that He was quoting from the Old Testament in this instance. The other belief is that He was referring to His separation from God in those moments when the sin of the world was on His shoulders.
do you mind explain more about the two thoughts you mention above? I am interesting in knowing more about this issue
Reply

Umar001
01-12-2009, 07:58 PM
Bismillahir Rahmanir Raheem,

May the Peace from Almighty God be upon those who follow guidance.

This is not meant as a disrespectful post.

When one takes the four accounts and weaves them together, in reality the individual has now come up with a 5 Gospel. A Gospel which has Jesus say and do things which no one of the other Gospels have him say or do. This of course has been done in history, I cannot recall the name from memory, diatasaron, or something along those lines, a compilation of the Gospels put into one, it was famous in ancient Christianity.

When one does the above, whether rightly or wrongly, one can often fail to see the emphasis placed on the actions and sayings of Jesus by the Gospel authors. The Jesus is Luke, who is in full control, tells the women to not worry about him but themselves and their children and who commands his spirit into the father, is not like the Jesus in Mark, who is silent and feels forsaken.

Of course one can find many improbable reconciliations to the texts, Catholic Scholar Raymond E Brown, in his Introduction to the New Testament notes:

The recognition that the evangelists were not eyewitnesses of Jesus’ ministry is important for understanding the differences among the Gospels. In the older approach, wherein the evangelists themselves were thought to have seen what they reported, it was very difficult to explain differences among their Gospels. How could eyewitness John (chap.2) report the cleansing of the Temple at the beginning of the ministry and eyewitness Matthew (chap.21) report the cleansing of the Temple at the end of the ministry? In order to reconcile them, interpreters would contend that the Temple-cleansing happend twice and that each evangelist chose to report only one of the two instances.17 However, if neither evangelist was an eyewitness and each had recieved an account of the Temple-cleansing from an intermediate source, neither one (or only one) may have known when it occurred during the public ministry. Rather than depending on a personal memory of events, each evangelists has arranged the material he reieved in order to portray Jesus in a way that would meet the spiritual needs of the community to which he was addressing the Gospel. Thus the Gospels ahve been arranged in logical order, nor necessarily in chronological order. The evangelists emerge as authors, shaping, devolping, pruning the transmitted Jesus material, and as theologians, orienting that material to a particular goal.

The Footnotes;

17 Many other examples of improbable reconciliations could be offered. Since Matt has a Sermon on the Mount and Luke has a similar Sermon on the Plain (Matt 5:1; Luke 6:17), there must have been a plain on the side of the mountain. Since Matt has the Lord’s Prayer taught in that sermon and Luke has it later on the road to Jerusalem (Matt 6:9-13; Luke 11:2-4), the disciple must have forgotten it, causing Jesus to repeat it. Mark 10:46 places the healing of the blind man after Jesus left Jericho, while Luke 18:35; 19:1 places it before Jesus entered Jericho. Perhaps Jesus was leaving the site of OT Jericho and entering the site of NT Jericho!

Blog

As an aspiring trainee historian wanabee I would say the words most likely to be true out of all in the Gospels, are the ones by Matthew and Mark. I think most Historical Jesus researchers would tell you the same (that's a pure guess though)

Br.al-Habeshi
Reply

glo
01-12-2009, 09:38 PM
format_quote Originally Posted by Dawud_uk
luke 23:46
Then Jesus cried out with a loud voice and said, “Father, into your hands I entrust my spirit.”After he said this, he breathed his last.

so here it is saying the last words of jesus (upon him be peace) are “Father, into your hands I entrust my spirit.”

but then we come to john 19:30
“It is finished.” Then he bowed his head and released his spirit.

so two different acounts of his last words, now either one is correct and hence the other incorrect, or both are incorrect but both are not possibly correct.
Greetings, Dawud_uk

As somebody who seems to spend a fair amount of time speaking with Christians at a dawah stall you are no doubt aware that the four gospels present four different accounts of Jesus' life.
Not only are they written by four different individuals, they are also addressed at different audiences.

To give an analogy, a while ago I went on a week's training course to Liverpool with a work colleague of mine.
When we returned I told people all about the events during that course. But I gave a different accounts to, say for example, my husband than I did to my friends or my children.
My friend, who had shared pretty much the same events during that week, probably gave even different accounts to her husband, her children, her neighbours, her friends etc, etc.
The event was the same; neither of us lied when we told our stories - yet the accounts we gave will differ.

It strikes me again and again that Muslims try to compare the Gospels with the Qu'ran ... and end up not being able to compare the two because they are so different in nature.

I believe the Gospels are much more akin to the Hadiths in their narrative nature: the account of other people of Jesus' life, his teachings, his actions, his death ...

Peace :)
Reply

Q8sobieski
01-12-2009, 10:01 PM
Each of the four Gospels are free-standing narratives and don't need to be interwoven to create a single narrative. Each narrative tells essentially the same story from different points of view. Matthew is often to be directed toward Jews whereas John was directed more toward Greeks. Each Gospel attempts to bring the main themes of Christianity to different communities in a way that would be meaningful to each community. To be sure, there are other Gospels; Thomas, Philip, Mary and others. It was Athanasius, around the year AD 300, who decided that the number of Gospels ought to be only four. His desire for four, rather than three or five, seems to have been arbitrary. Anyway, Jesus' last words in each Gospel need to be understood only in terms of that particular Gospel.
Reply

Umar001
01-12-2009, 11:04 PM
Bismillahir Rahmanir Raheem,

format_quote Originally Posted by Q8sobieski
Each of the four Gospels are free-standing narratives and don't need to be interwoven to create a single narrative. Each narrative tells essentially the same story from different points of view. Matthew is often to be directed toward Jews whereas John was directed more toward Greeks. Each Gospel attempts to bring the main themes of Christianity to different communities in a way that would be meaningful to each community. To be sure, there are other Gospels; Thomas, Philip, Mary and others. It was Athanasius, around the year AD 300, who decided that the number of Gospels ought to be only four. His desire for four, rather than three or five, seems to have been arbitrary. Anyway, Jesus' last words in each Gospel need to be understood only in terms of that particular Gospel.
That does not seem to leave much of an answer for the person seeking to find Jesus' lost words according to the 4 Gospels.

Br.al-Habeshi
Reply

Keltoi
01-12-2009, 11:24 PM
format_quote Originally Posted by Al Habeshi
Bismillahir Rahmanir Raheem,



That does not seem to leave much of an answer for the person seeking to find Jesus' lost words according to the 4 Gospels.

Br.al-Habeshi
I understand that some might feel the need to know for certain what Christ's last words on the cross were, but in terms of Christianity the important theme is what Christ died for and what that brought to us. That is the central message of the Gospel and what they were written to convey.
Reply

Keltoi
01-12-2009, 11:33 PM
format_quote Originally Posted by SAYA
do you mind explain more about the two thoughts you mention above? I am interesting in knowing more about this issue
For a subject like this it is helpful to refer to past theologians and their beliefs on the topic.

Here is Martin Luther:




Christ was and remains just and did not commit any sins ....

But at the moment in which he suffered, he took upon himself everything that is ours as if it were truly his, suffering even for that which we should have borne because of our sins and which the ****ed already suffer....

The punishment of God which strikes because of sins is not only the pains of death but also the fear and horror of the troubled conscience which experiences the eternal wrath and as if it were eternally abandoned and driven far from the face of God ....(p. 603)

In the eyes (of God) also, Christ was like one abandoned, one accursed, a sinner, a blasphemer, one ****ed, even if he is without sin and without guilt. The fact that he says "you have abandoned me" is certainly not a joke, a game, or hypocrisy. He is truly abandoned in all, as is the sinner when he sins...(p. 605)[3]


John Calvin:


And about the ninth hour Jesus cried. Though in the cry which Christ uttered a power more than human was manifested, yet it was unquestionably drawn from him by intensity of sorrow. And certainly this was his chief conflict, and harder than all the other tortures, that in his anguish he was so far from being soothed by the assistance or favor of his Father, that he felt himself to be in some measure estranged from him. For not only did he offer his body as the price of our reconciliation with God, but. in his soul also he endured the punishments due to us; and thus he became, as Isaiah speaks, a man of sorrows, (53:3.) Those interpreters are widely mistaken who, laying aside this part of redemption, attended solely to the outward punishment of the flesh; for in order that Christ might satisfy for us, 6 it was necessary that he should be placed as a guilty person at the judgment-seat of God. Now nothing is more dreadful than to feel that God, whose wrath is worse than all deaths, is the Judge. When this temptation was presented to Christ, as if, having God opposed to him, he were already devoted to destruction, he was seized with horror, which would have been sufficient to swallow up a hundred times all the men in the world; but by the amazing power of the Spirit he achieved the victory. Nor is it by hypocrisy, or by assuming a character, that he complains of having been forsaken by the Father. Some allege that he employed this language in compliance with the opinion of the people, but this is an absurd mode of evading the difficulty; for the inward sadness of his soul was so powerful and violent, that it forced him to break out into a cry. Nor did the redemption which he accomplished consist solely in what was exhibited to the eye, (as I stated a little ago,) but having undertaken to be our surety, he resolved actually to undergo in our room the judgment of God.

John Gill:

The whole of it evinces the truth of Christ's human nature, that he was in all things made like unto his brethren; that he had an human soul, and endured sorrows and sufferings in it, of which this of desertion was not the least: the heinousness of sin may be learnt from hence, which not only drove the angels out of heaven, and Adam out of the garden, and separates, with respect to communion, between God and his children; but even caused him to hide his face from his own Son, whilst he was bearing, and suffering for, the sins of his people. [6]


That is alot of text, but hopefully it is helpful on the issue.
Reply

AntiKarateKid
01-13-2009, 03:14 AM
In the eyes (of God) also, Christ was like one abandoned, one accursed, a sinner, a blasphemer, one ****ed, even if he is without sin and without guilt. The fact that he says "you have abandoned me" is certainly not a joke, a game, or hypocrisy. He is truly abandoned in all, as is the sinner when he sins...(p. 605)[3]

But isn't, according to Christianity, Christ God himself?

Your account would be less confusing if you said that Jesus and the Father were two separate gods. But to say that God is viewing himself as abandoned, and accursed, is..... unpalatable?
Reply

Q8sobieski
01-13-2009, 05:22 AM
format_quote Originally Posted by AntiKarateKid
But isn't, according to Christianity, Christ God himself?

Your account would be less confusing if you said that Jesus and the Father were two separate gods. But to say that God is viewing himself as abandoned, and accursed, is..... unpalatable?
I think this is only because Muslims are terrified of shirk or anything that seems like polytheism. Most Christians do not worry much about that sort of thing since there is no premium placed on ideological purity in Christianity.

But, if I may, the Gospel of John explains the convoluted thinking which has Jesus elevated to God status. No, keep in mind, Christians only decided that Jesus was indeed "God" around the year AD 300. A common belief at the time was Arianism which eventually found its way into Islam. But John states:

1In the beginning was the Word, and the Word was with God, and the Word was God. 2He was with God in the beginning.
3Through him all things were made; without him nothing was made that has been made. .... (SNIP) ...
14The Word became flesh and made his dwelling among us. We have seen his glory, the glory of the One and Only,[d] who came from the Father, full of grace and truth.


The Christian looks are Jesus as the manifestation of all that is divine and the embodiment in human form of God's nature.

I think much of the theological confusion between Muslims and Christians stems from Muslims' literalness and Christians' love of metaphor. In this respect, there really can be no theological discussion between Muslims and Christians since both look at their respective books, and the stories recounted there in, in fundamentally different ways.

It is for this reason that I contend that the god of the Christians and the god of the Muslims are different figures. Jesus too is a fundamentally different character in the Koran than in the Bible. It is no use pretending that YHVH, Deus, and Allah are all the same.
Reply

Keltoi
01-13-2009, 05:28 AM
format_quote Originally Posted by AntiKarateKid
In the eyes (of God) also, Christ was like one abandoned, one accursed, a sinner, a blasphemer, one ****ed, even if he is without sin and without guilt. The fact that he says "you have abandoned me" is certainly not a joke, a game, or hypocrisy. He is truly abandoned in all, as is the sinner when he sins...(p. 605)[3]

But isn't, according to Christianity, Christ God himself?

Your account would be less confusing if you said that Jesus and the Father were two separate gods. But to say that God is viewing himself as abandoned, and accursed, is..... unpalatable?
Your view shows a confused understanding of Christ's nature. Yes, Christ is God. However, in the context of Christ's humanity He was also Man. I gather from your description that you view this relationship as the totality of divinity staring through Christ's eyes akin to staring out of a Halloween mask. That is not the case.

Christ was both divine and human in perfect unity. Christ was fully God and fully Man. Christ being fully Man was submissive and at the mercy of God the Father. If that wasn't the case there could be no perfect atonement for the sins of mankind. That is why we refer to Christ the Son, and God the Father. They are not separate "gods", but One God who became manifest in the flesh through the Son, Jesus Christ.

I'm sure you don't believe it, but your question leads me to assume you view God as some constant physical form that is either here or there. That is not the Christian understanding and I assume is not the Islamic understanding either.
Reply

AntiKarateKid
01-13-2009, 05:28 AM
Associating other things with God, be it worshipping a stone statue, thinking the world is all there is and that probability decides all, attaching too much significance to worldly items, are all different forms of shirk.


Muslims do not take everything literally. If we did wouldnt we be christian when the Bible says "Jesus is the begotten son"?

Islam interprets scripture with God's perspective. Not the trinity's, not Ganesh's, not Zeus'.
Reply

AntiKarateKid
01-13-2009, 05:34 AM
format_quote Originally Posted by Keltoi
Your view shows a confused understanding of Christ's nature. Yes, Christ is God. However, in the context of Christ's humanity He was also Man. I gather from your description that you view this relationship as the totality of divinity staring through Christ's eyes akin to staring out of a Halloween mask. That is not the case.

Christ was both divine and human in perfect unity. Christ was fully God and fully Man. Christ being fully Man was submissive and at the mercy of God the Father. If that wasn't the case there could be no perfect atonement for the sins of mankind. That is why we refer to Christ the Son, and God the Father. They are not separate "gods", but One God who became manifest in the flesh through the Son, Jesus Christ.

I'm sure you don't believe it, but your question leads me to assume you view God as some constant physical form that is either here or there. That is not the Christian understanding and I assume is not the Islamic understanding either.

I am not sure your post addressed my question.

You belive God forsook Christ.
Christ is God.
God forsook himself.

I believe that God does not forsake himself. Is not accursed or what have you. Is not human and divine at the same time, but when he shows lack of omnicience, is explained away by saying he emptied himself of divinity and selectively chooses when to have bouts of it.

Also, while we are on this, Keltoi, could you please explain to me why I should believe that God came down in human form, had himself, tortured and killed, in order to save us from his own wrath?:enough!:
Reply

Woodrow
01-13-2009, 05:42 AM
format_quote Originally Posted by Keltoi
Knowing the task and experiencing the result are two different things. However, on the issue of the "Why have You forsaken", there are two lines of thought. One belief is that He was quoting from the Old Testament in this instance. The other belief is that He was referring to His separation from God in those moments when the sin of the world was on His shoulders.
I would like to reply just in reference to the last sentence:

The other belief is that He was referring to His separation from God in those moments when the sin of the world was on His shoulders.
I believed that to be true during much of my Christian years, but now I find it to be an impossible concept, if Jesus(as) was God(swt). It makes no sense to have God(swt) seperated from God(swt)

Just a rambling thought, I doubt if this has anything to do with the point Bro. Dawud is trying to make.
Reply

Q8sobieski
01-13-2009, 05:55 AM
format_quote Originally Posted by AntiKarateKid
I am not sure your post addressed my question.

You belive God forsook Christ.
Christ is God.
God forsook himself.
...

Also, while we are on this, Keltoi, could you please explain to me why I should believe that God came down in human form, had himself, tortured and killed, in order to save us from his own wrath?:enough!:
AntiKarateKid, can you explain to my why Muslims kill goats at Eid al-Adha (or is it Eid al-Fitr, I always forget)? It is quite similar.

The death of Jesus should not be understood as a diety coming down to Earth just to have himself tortured, as it seem to a literal reader. It represents a "blood sacrifice" and atonement for past sins. Christianity is, at its heart, a symbolic religion whereas Islam is highly literal. Until we understand that, we will always talk right past one another and accuse the other of being silly.
Reply

AntiKarateKid
01-13-2009, 06:02 AM
format_quote Originally Posted by Q8sobieski
AntiKarateKid, can you explain to my why Muslims kill goats at Eid al-Adha (or is it Eid al-Fitr, I always forget)? It is quite similar.

The death of Jesus should not be understood as a diety coming down to Earth just to have himself tortured, as it seem to a literal reader. It represents a "blood sacrifice" and atonement for past sins. Christianity is, at its heart, a symbolic religion whereas Islam is highly literal. Until we understand that, we will always talk right past one another and accuse the other of being silly.
Certainly not. The goat killing does nothing to relive sins. Perhaps you are thinking of the practice of "scapegoat"? Which is not found in Islam.

During the celebration of Eid al-Adha, Muslims commemorate and remember Abraham's trials, by themselves slaughtering an animal such as a sheep, camel, or goat. This action is very often misunderstood by those outside the faith.

http://islam.about.com/od/hajj/a/adha.htm


You have brought up nothing to support your worldview bubble of Islam being literal and not metaphorical.

So if I am so literal, why am I not christian when I read about Jesus pbuh being the begotten son?:rollseyes Hmm? Or how about Jesus pnuh saying "the father and I are one"? Christians interpret that literally, Muslims metaphorically.


Guess how I atone for my sins? I ask God for forgiveness and change myself for the better. No blood required.

Your metaphorical/literal view of Islam and Christianity is a blanket statement that not only lacks foundation but gives you ridiculously off the mark beliefs about Islam.
Reply

Woodrow
01-13-2009, 06:03 AM
format_quote Originally Posted by Q8sobieski
AntiKarateKid, can you explain to my why Muslims kill goats at Eid al-Adha (or is it Eid al-Fitr, I always forget)? It is quite similar.

The death of Jesus should not be understood as a diety coming down to Earth just to have himself tortured, as it seem to a literal reader. It represents a "blood sacrifice" and atonement for past sins. Christianity is, at its heart, a symbolic religion whereas Islam is highly literal. Until we understand that, we will always talk right past one another and accuse the other of being silly.
It is at Eid al-Adha and it is sometimes called a sacrifice, but it is more of an act of charity. One third of the meat is to be given to the poor. If we do not actually slaughter a goat we donate 1/3 the price of a goat to the poor.

The goat is eaten and not offered up as a burned sacrifice for atonement, etc. It is a memory type thing and has to do with being a reminder of what Allaah(swt) has given us.
Reply

Triumphant
01-13-2009, 08:56 AM
I'm doing mental gymnastics here trying to understand the Bible!! I don't have to do this with the Quran
Reply

glo
01-13-2009, 10:17 AM
format_quote Originally Posted by Triumphant
I'm doing mental gymnastics here trying to understand the Bible!! I don't have to do this with the Quran
What you call 'mental gymnastics' I call 'actively engaging with the Word of God'.
The Bible is so alive and can be read on so many different levels, I don't think I will ever tire of reading, studying, pondering and applying it.

Salaam :)
Reply

Dawud_uk
01-13-2009, 10:37 AM
format_quote Originally Posted by glo
What you call 'mental gymnastics' I call 'actively engaging with the Word of God'.
The Bible is so alive and can be read on so many different levels, I don't think I will ever tire of reading, studying, pondering and applying it.

Salaam :)
glo, how do you deal with the many contradictions in what you consider to be the word of God such as the one i have pointed out here?
Reply

^[AnKaBooT]^
01-13-2009, 10:50 AM
actually,
"My God, my God, why have you forsaken me?" Matthew 27:46 and Mark 15:34
were the words of someone who god replaced for Jesus(a.s.) and jesus did not die on the cross.
His face wass changed to look like Jesus(a.s) and only after he was killed did the children of israel began to ponder if the crucified is Jesus(a.s.) then where is he?(the guy who was crucified and he agreed to capture Jesus(a.s.) but his face was turned to look like him so the captors got tricked into killing this guy)

If the Crucified is he(the guy who was crucified) then where is Jesus(a.s.)?

info about this guy,
He was one of jesus followers but he attempted to betray him by working for the romans and got his face turned to look like Jesus so he will be crucified instead Jesus(a.s) is i the fourth heaven.
Reply

Zamtsa
01-13-2009, 12:02 PM
An Nisa(4):157 That they said (in boast) "We killed Christ Jesus the son of Mary the Apostle of Allah"; but they killed him not nor crucified him but so it was made to appear to them and those who differ therein are full of doubts with no (certain) knowledge but only conjecture to follow for of a surety they killed him not. 663

For Christian: the crucified man was a bad man, while Jesus, he was made ascend to the 3rd sky through angels of Allahu Ta'ala, by His (Allahu Ta'ala) command.


QS.An Nisa(4):158 Nay Allah raised him up unto Himself; and Allah is Exalted in Power Wise.


Infact Almasih Jesus son of Mary will descend to the earth, because he ain't die yet, and all at time, all Christians and Jews will become Muslim:


An Nisa(4):159 And there is none of the People of the Book but must believe in him before his death; and on the Day of Judgment He will be a witness against them.


He will be judge with Al Qur'an and As Sunnah and he will do these things:

descend (to the earth). When you see him, recognise him: a man of medium height, reddish fair, wearing two light yellow garments, looking as if drops were falling down from his head though it will not be wet. He will fight the people for the cause of Islam. He will break the cross, kill swine, and abolish jizyah. Allah will perish all religions except Islam. He will destroy the Antichrist and will live on the earth for forty years and then he will die. The Muslims will pray over him.
(HR.Abu Daud (4324), Qishshah Ad Dajjal, Ash Shahihah (2182)


Assalamu manit taba'al huda (May peace be upon who follow the guidance) for Kafir

Assalamu'alaikum wa rahmatullahi wa barakaatuh.
Reply

Keltoi
01-13-2009, 02:30 PM
format_quote Originally Posted by Woodrow
I would like to reply just in reference to the last sentence:



I believed that to be true during much of my Christian years, but now I find it to be an impossible concept, if Jesus(as) was God(swt). It makes no sense to have God(swt) seperated from God(swt)

Just a rambling thought, I doubt if this has anything to do with the point Bro. Dawud is trying to make.
Actually, to the majority of Protestant theologians, which is the source I look to, it was a case of God forsaking God, as mind boggling as that concept might seem.

No Christian would suggest they know the full story of what happened between God the Father and God the Son on that day. That bit of info was not revealed through Scripture. However, those that believe Christ did experience separation from God on the cross will point to the statement itself. "My God, My God, why have you forsaken me?" This sentence was the first time Christ is recorded as saying "God". Before He had always referred to Him as the Father. This is thought to possibly mean God the Father had momentarily left the Son.

Then there are those that suggest God the Father never left the Son, and that Christ was quoting from the OT.

My God, my God, why hast thou forsaken me? Why art thou so far from helping me, and from the words of my groaning? Psalm 22:1

This Psalm of David is about rejoicing in the fact that God will never abandon His people.

However, most take the statement at face value. Christ did feel abandoned by God. The questions of why, how, for how long, etc are not answered for us.
Reply

AntiKarateKid
01-13-2009, 03:21 PM
format_quote Originally Posted by Keltoi
Actually, to the majority of Protestant theologians, which is the source I look to, it was a case of God forsaking God, as mind boggling as that concept might seem.

No Christian would suggest they know the full story of what happened between God the Father and God the Son on that day. That bit of info was not revealed through Scripture. However, those that believe Christ did experience separation from God on the cross will point to the statement itself. "My God, My God, why have you forsaken me?" This sentence was the first time Christ is recorded as saying "God". Before He had always referred to Him as the Father. This is thought to possibly mean God the Father had momentarily left the Son.

Then there are those that suggest God the Father never left the Son, and that Christ was quoting from the OT.

My God, my God, why hast thou forsaken me? Why art thou so far from helping me, and from the words of my groaning? Psalm 22:1

This Psalm of David is about rejoicing in the fact that God will never abandon His people.

However, most take the statement at face value. Christ did feel abandoned by God. The questions of why, how, for how long, etc are not answered for us.
If God the father forsook god the son, then at that moment werent there two gods? When you separate your three in one godhead you get two entities.

You do not think that is polytheistic to say that god the father forsook the son when that is himself? Makes mores sense if you said they were two gods.
Reply

AntiKarateKid
01-13-2009, 03:33 PM
format_quote Originally Posted by glo
What you call 'mental gymnastics' I call 'actively engaging with the Word of God'.
The Bible is so alive and can be read on so many different levels, I don't think I will ever tire of reading, studying, pondering and applying it.

Salaam :)
A famous quote by a bible scholar goes: There are more variations between Biblical manuscripts than there are words in the Bible.

So which Bible are you enjoying?
Reply

Keltoi
01-13-2009, 04:31 PM
format_quote Originally Posted by AntiKarateKid
If God the father forsook god the son, then at that moment werent there two gods? When you separate your three in one godhead you get two entities.

You do not think that is polytheistic to say that god the father forsook the son when that is himself? Makes mores sense if you said they were two gods.
It might "make more sense", but it would be false. Again, I think you are putting limitations on God's divinity by placing Him in a box He cannot escape from. God is not of the flesh. Christ had a full human nature. The Son did not become the Son as a result of His birth. He was always the Son. However, upon accepting the limitations of the flesh, Christ was submissive and depended upon the Will of the Father. The Tri-unity is and always was God.

Having said that, as I mentioned, there are many who believe this separation never took place. That Christ was merely quoting a Psalm to voice the fulfillment of Messianic prophecy.

It is almost pointless to guess given that there is no Scriptural description of what Christ meant or whether any separation occurred at all.
Reply

glo
01-13-2009, 05:26 PM
format_quote Originally Posted by AntiKarateKid
A famous quote by a bible scholar goes: There are more variations between Biblical manuscripts than there are words in the Bible.

So which Bible are you enjoying?
I don't expect you really want an answer to your question ... do you?? :D

To answer it anyway, I used to read the NIV only, but recently I have begun reading other Bible versions too.
Once a week I meet with other people from our church for Bible study. Between us we use several different Bible versions - and it is always interesting to read the differences in translation, and to use those for discussion and debate.
Those discussions alone are another way of getting to know and understand God's word better. :)

There are some Christians who will insist on one particular Bible version, and disregard all others.
Personally speaking, I don't have those concerns.
Reputable Bible versions are not just pulled out of thin air. They are written after careful study, consultation and discussion of Bible scholars and those who have knowledge and understanding of the oldest manuscripts.

I understand how important it is for Muslims to preserve the Qu'ran as closely to its original as possible (I have heard that some changes were made to the Qu'ran, but I have neither specific knowledge of this, nor do I want to take this thread too far off topic).

Christians, on the other hand, are ensured that God's Word and message will be preserved (even through different Bible version). Ever since the books of the Bible were put together in it's final form, people have trusted that God's hand and protection was in that process, and that those in charge of the process were guided by God.

Different Bible versions alike describe how God's relationship with his people developed.
They all contain God's message to us.
They all describe Jesus' life, teaching and purpose to us.
They all call us to seek to know God more through Jesus Christ, to take up our cross and follow him.

Peace :)
Reply

Keltoi
01-13-2009, 05:31 PM
To add to Glo's post, the different versions of the Bible are primarily different translations. The King James will read much differently than the NIV because of the different language and different English words used to convey the original Greek or Hebrew.
Reply

Q8sobieski
01-13-2009, 05:37 PM
format_quote Originally Posted by AntiKarateKid
During the celebration of Eid al-Adha, Muslims commemorate and remember Abraham's trials, by themselves slaughtering an animal such as a sheep, camel, or goat. This action is very often misunderstood by those outside the faith.
Exactly, it was a "sacrifice" and a recreation of the Abrahamic event. Abraham was attempting to sacrifice his son to God based on God's command. Much of religion is based on re-enactment rituals. Muslims re-enact Abraham's sacrifice and Christians re-enact Jesus' Passion (his last days) every Sunday. It is nice that the meat is donated to the poor. But wouldn't it be better if we were all vegetarians and thus left a lighter carbon footprint.

format_quote Originally Posted by AntiKarateKid
You have brought up nothing to support your worldview bubble of Islam being literal and not metaphorical.
This is common knowledge and I don't need to reference 100 examples of Muslim literalism. But I will give you this example. Muslims often bost that their book is read in the original language and claim that it has never been altered. If this were actually important to Christians; there would not be 1.3 billion Christians existing still 1400 years into Mohammed's mission. The claim falls on deaf ears reading Dostoyevski in Russian, Goethe in German, and Shakespeare in English are all nice but certainly not mandatory. Islam is legalistic whereas Christianity is more literary. Case in point: Islam has the Shariah and Christians are general content with the Ten Commandments and the Sermon on the Mount.

format_quote Originally Posted by AntiKarateKid
Guess how I atone for my sins? I ask God for forgiveness and change myself for the better. No blood required.
Same with Protestants. Catholics have to "confess" to another person.
Reply

AntiKarateKid
01-13-2009, 05:43 PM
format_quote Originally Posted by Keltoi
It might "make more sense", but it would be false. Again, I think you are putting limitations on God's divinity by placing Him in a box He cannot escape from. God is not of the flesh. Christ had a full human nature. The Son did not become the Son as a result of His birth. He was always the Son. However, upon accepting the limitations of the flesh, Christ was submissive and depended upon the Will of the Father. The Tri-unity is and always was God.

Having said that, as I mentioned, there are many who believe this separation never took place. That Christ was merely quoting a Psalm to voice the fulfillment of Messianic prophecy.

It is almost pointless to guess given that there is no Scriptural description of what Christ meant or whether any separation occurred at all.
I hope you would pay more attention to the parts bolded. One step closer to Islam.

Anywhoo, I was waiting for the "you are limiting God" comment...really I was.I am not limiting anything. God has said he is one. You have just admitted that your explaination of God would make more sense if you admitted to being polytheistic.

If you want to play the "limiting God" game then I say Hindus who say that the many different gods are part of one whole, have a BETTER god than you.

Why limit God to a trinity? Why not 20 different Gods then? Vishnu, Shiva, Brahman, Ganesh? Why are you limiting God with your trinity?


You tried to give an explanation. Admitted that Christian theology would make more sense if you worshipped more than one god. Then backed up and tried to give an explanation but added that noone really knows and that the answer cannot EVEN BE FOUND IN SCRIPTURE!:enough!:
Reply

glo
01-13-2009, 05:46 PM
format_quote Originally Posted by Dawud_uk
glo, how do you deal with the many contradictions in what you consider to be the word of God such as the one i have pointed out here?
I don't consider the point reaised in your OP to be a contradiction at all for reasons I gave in post 15. Did you read it?

Peace :)
Reply

AntiKarateKid
01-13-2009, 05:50 PM
format_quote Originally Posted by Q8sobieski
Exactly, it was a "sacrifice" and a recreation of the Abrahamic event. Abraham was attempting to sacrifice his son to God based on God's command. Much of religion is based on re-enactment rituals. Muslims re-enact Abraham's sacrifice and Christians re-enact Jesus' Passion (his last days) every Sunday. It is nice that the meat is donated to the poor. But wouldn't it be better if we were all vegetarians and thus left a lighter carbon footprint.



This is common knowledge and I don't need to reference 100 examples of Muslim literalism. But I will give you this example. Muslims often bost that their book is read in the original language and claim that it has never been altered. If this were actually important to Christians; there would not be 1.3 billion Christians existing still 1400 years into Mohammed's mission. The claim falls on deaf ears reading Dostoyevski in Russian, Goethe in German, and Shakespeare in English are all nice but certainly not mandatory. Islam is legalistic whereas Christianity is more literary. Case in point: Islam has the Shariah and Christians are general content with the Ten Commandments and the Sermon on the Mount.



Same with Protestants. Catholics have to "confess" to another person.
There is no use talking with you or arguing with you. You completely ignore the facts I tell you and the links I give you and maintain that the goat sacrifice ( reenacting Abraham's trial which had nothing to do with sin) is comparable to blood atonement.

You ignore the literal example I gave of Christian theology, and how it rests upon those examples BUT still maintain your silly notions about Islam and CHristianity.

1.3 Billion Christians in Muhammad's (pbuh) time? Thats news to historians. I'll tell you what, your idolatrous views masquerading as monotheism fall on deaf ears when told to the billions of Muslims and millions of Jews who ALL view you as polytheistic. Let's not even get into the fact that most converts to Islam are CHristians. I guess not all ears are so deaf huh?:)

In conclusion try going back and grasping the immense problems that arise when your Biblical scripture isnt even consistent with itself.
Reply

AntiKarateKid
01-13-2009, 05:54 PM
format_quote Originally Posted by glo
I don't expect you really want an answer to your question ... do you?? :D

To answer it anyway, I used to read the NIV only, but recently I have begun reading other Bible versions too.
Once a week I meet with other people from our church for Bible study. Between us we use several different Bible versions - and it is always interesting to read the differences in translation, and to use those for discussion and debate.
Those discussions alone are another way of getting to know and understand God's word better. :)

There are some Christians who will insist on one particular Bible version, and disregard all others.
Personally speaking, I don't have those concerns.
Reputable Bible versions are not just pulled out of thin air. They are written after careful study, consultation and discussion of Bible scholars and those who have knowledge and understanding of the oldest manuscripts.

I understand how important it is for Muslims to preserve the Qu'ran as closely to its original as possible (I have heard that some changes were made to the Qu'ran, but I have neither specific knowledge of this, nor do I want to take this thread too far off topic).

Christians, on the other hand, are ensured that God's Word and message will be preserved (even through different Bible version). Ever since the books of the Bible were put together in it's final form, people have trusted that God's hand and protection was in that process, and that those in charge of the process were guided by God.

Different Bible versions alike describe how God's relationship with his people developed.
They all contain God's message to us.
They all describe Jesus' life, teaching and purpose to us.
They all call us to seek to know God more through Jesus Christ, to take up our cross and follow him.

Peace :)

True I don't want to go off topic much really but your Bibles right now have tenuously similar messages simply because opposing schools were wiped out in the early years of CHristianity and many other "Christians" were killed as heretics while having their books burned as blasphemy after a debate that raged for hundreds of years.

History is written by the victors. Yet we should all wonder what the losers had to say.
Reply

Keltoi
01-13-2009, 07:04 PM
format_quote Originally Posted by AntiKarateKid
True I don't want to go off topic much really but your Bibles right now have tenuously similar messages simply because opposing schools were wiped out in the early years of CHristianity and many other "Christians" were killed as heretics while having their books burned as blasphemy after a debate that raged for hundreds of years.

History is written by the victors. Yet we should all wonder what the losers had to say.
We do know what the losers had to say. The views of Arianism and the various other sects are easily found. Arianism even sent missionaries to the Visigoths and converted many of them. However, in terms of mainstream Christianity their views were considered heretical. They didn't use different books, they proposed different beliefs about known Scripture.
Reply

Keltoi
01-13-2009, 07:14 PM
format_quote Originally Posted by AntiKarateKid
I hope you would pay more attention to the parts bolded. One step closer to Islam.

Anywhoo, I was waiting for the "you are limiting God" comment...really I was.I am not limiting anything. God has said he is one. You have just admitted that your explaination of God would make more sense if you admitted to being polytheistic.
No, I didn't say that, but nice try. I stated that when it comes to contemplating the issues surrounding God the Father and God the Son it might make more "sense" to call them two "gods", but of course that is not our belief, regardless of what "sense" it makes to you.

format_quote Originally Posted by AntiKarateKid
If you want to play the "limiting God" game then I say Hindus who say that the many different gods are part of one whole, have a BETTER god than you.
Okay, if that makes you feel better.

format_quote Originally Posted by AntiKarateKid
Why limit God to a trinity? Why not 20 different Gods then? Vishnu, Shiva, Brahman, Ganesh? Why are you limiting God with your trinity?
I'm not limiting anything. I just accept the descriptions of a Triune God as laid out in Bible. That is why I'm a Christian.


format_quote Originally Posted by AntiKarateKid
You tried to give an explanation. Admitted that Christian theology would make more sense if you worshipped more than one god. Then backed up and tried to give an explanation but added that noone really knows and that the answer cannot EVEN BE FOUND IN SCRIPTURE!:enough!:
Here we go again. I didn't say that Christian theology would make more sense...we were discussing the issue of God the Father possibly forsaking Christ the Son. I stated that it might "make more sense" to you, which is what you stated, but that it wasn't Christian belief.

As for the explanation, of course. It is a theological debate even to this day. No explanation was given to us for the meaning of Christ's last words on the cross and what the significance was. It becomes another mystery of God.
Reply

جوري
01-13-2009, 07:24 PM
actually Christianity is but a revival of paganism nothing Abrahamic about it

from Brother Mcpherson, who no longer participates because he is sick of all the bull

The Greeks and Romans converted to Christianity because it resembled their previous beliefs!

Paul produced a religion which encompassed different contradictory elements. He took the Unitarianism of the Jews and added to it the philosophy of the pagans”.

Paul abolished the Law, which was followed and preached by Jesus (pbuh), and corrupted the whole religion, giving it a new form. The main ambition behind all this was, in his own words, “to win a larger number” of followers; the followers of a new religion “the Pauline Christianity”.

I was unaware of the claim that the Devil plagiarized Christianity in advance of Jesus’ life. Of course, they don’t see that the Devil (Shaytan) is not All-Knowing but rather only Allah knows the future.

The early Christians were painfully aware of such criticisms. How could Pagan myths which predated Christianity by hundreds of years have so much in common with the biography of the one and only savior Jesus? Desperate to come up with an explanation, the Church fathers resorted to one of the most absurd theories ever advanced. From the time of Justin Martyr in the second century onward, they declared that the Devil had plagiarized Christianity by anticipation in order to lead people astray! Knowing that the true Son of God was literally to come and walk the Earth, the Devil had copied the story of his life in advance of it happening and created the myths of Osiris-Dionysus.

The article illustrates just how pagan the Christian religion really is and that despite their good intentions they may be the biggest losers on that Day. And Allah knows best. This brings to mind a quote that Jesus supposedly made in Matthew 7:21-28 Not every one that says to me, ‘Lord, Lord,’ will enter into the kingdom of heaven; but he who does the will of my Father who is in heaven will enter. Many will say to me on that day, ‘Lord, Lord, did we not prophesy in your name, and in your name cast out demons, and in your name perform many miracles?’ And then I will I declare to them, ‘I never knew you: depart from me, you who practice lawlessness.’ Therefore everyone who that hears these words of mine and acts on them, may be compared to a wise man who built his house on the rock: and the rain fell, and floods came, and the winds blew, and slammed against that house; and yet it did not fall, for it had been founded on the rock. Everyone who hears these words of mine, and does not act on them not, will be like a foolish man who built his house on the sand. The rain fell, and the floods came, and the winds blew, and slammed against that house; and it fell - and great was its fall.

It seems to me that the Christians build their elaborate house of religion on sinking sand (myth) that will come tumbling down on that Great Day. Christians will admit that Jesus’ life and teaching is not what is important to them but rather his death and resurrection are the focus of their worship and the foundation on their religion. If Jesus never died on the cross, as we believe, then their religion is clearly just a myth. Note the quote that I underlined about practicing lawlessness. Paul has repeatedly stated that Christians aren’t under the yoke of the Law, hence no circumcision, no ritual prayer, no fasting, and eating of pork among Christians. It is interesting how their own book condemns the Christians. In contrast don’t we Muslims at least claim to submit our wills to Allah and do as He commands us to do through the example of Prophet Muhammad saaws.
Reply

جوري
01-13-2009, 07:26 PM
on the Pagan not Abrahamic origins of the cross

The Pagan Origins of the Cross

By Abdullah Kareem
In reading the New Testament we must cease to think of the man Jesus, and even of the “Son of God”, and think of him rather of the sun of god, for this is a solar myth, and its dying hero, a dying sun. [1]

The cross is a pagan symbol that was adored in Egypt thousands of years before Jesus was born. The Roman Catholic Church adopted the cross symbol at least 600 years after Jesus was supposedly crucified. Even the early Christians of North Africa rejected the wooden cross after Tertullian condemned it.

Tertullian confessed that pagans worshipped crucified saviors hanging on a cross.
"Crosses, moreover, we Christians neither venerate nor wish for. You indeed who consecrate gods of wood venerate wooden crosses, perhaps as parts of your gods. For your very standards, as well as your banners, and flags of your camps, what are they but crosses gilded and adorned? Your victorious trophies not only imitate the appearance of a simple cross, but also that of a man affixed to it." [1]
The pagan roots of Christianity are clearly indicated by this confession. Tertullian was a Christian who later became a Gnostic. He implies that Christians borrowed the sun-god myth.




(Wilkinson's Egyptians, Sir John Gardner Wilkinson 1837-41)

The Pagan philosopher and satirist Celsus criticized Christians for trying to pass off the Jesus story as a new revelation when it was actually an inferior imitation of pagan myths. He asks:

Are these distinctive happenings unique to the Christians-and if so, how are they unique? Or are ours to be accounted myths and theirs believed? What reasons do the Christians give for the distinctiveness of their beliefs? In truth there is nothing at all unusual about what the Christians believe, except that they believe it to the exclusion of more comprehensive truths about God.

The early Christians were painfully aware of such criticisms. How could Pagan myths which predated Christianity by hundreds of years have so much in common with the biography of the one and only savior Jesus? Desperate to come up with an explanation, the Church fathers resorted to one of the most absurd theories ever advanced. From the time of Justin Martyr in the second century onward, they declared that the Devil had plagiarized Christianity by anticipation in order to lead people astray! Knowing that the true Son of God was literally to come and walk the Earth, the Devil had copied the story of his life in advance of it happening and created the myths of Osiris-Dionysus.

The Church father Tertullian writes of the Devil's diabolical mimicry in creating the Mysteries of Mithras:

The devil, whose business is to pervert the truth, mimics the exact circumstances of the Divine Sacraments. He baptizes his believers and promises forgiveness of sins from the Sacred Fount, and thereby initiates them into the religion of Mithras. Thus he celebrates the oblation of bread, and brings in the symbol of the resurrection. Let us therefore acknowledge the craftiness of the devil, who copies certain things of those that be Divine.

Studying the myths of the Mysteries it becomes obvious why these early Christians resorted to such a desperate explanation. (The Jesus Mysteries, pp. 26-27)
The scholar Timothy Freke says:

The Vatican was constructed upon the site of an ancient Pagan sanctuary because the new is always built upon the old. In the same way Christianity itself has as its foundations the Pagan spirituality that preceded it. (ibid, p. 12)


Amazingly, the bishop Tertullian believed Jesus was crucified, but he rejected the cross as pagan. This probably means the Church of Carthage also believed what Tertullian believed: The wooden cross is pagan.

Tertullian used to mark the forehead with a cross:

"In all our travels and movements", says Tertullian (De cor. Mil., iii), "in all our coming in and going out, in putting of our shoes, at the bath, at the table, in lighting our candles, in lying down, in sitting down, whatever employment occupieth us, we mark our foreheads with the sign of the cross" [2]


It seems Tertullian acknowledged Jesus died on a cross, but rejected wooden crosses. Nevertheless, he unambiguously said that Christianity borrowed the cross and the concept of “dying for the sins of mankind”. Therefore, Christianity is rehashed paganism and the New Testament is recycled pagan myth!


The followers of Tammuz also marked the forehead with a cross!

A pagan sign of the mystic Tau of the Chaldeans and the Egyptians, this cross was a symbol of the Roman god Mithras and the Greek Attis, and their forerunner Tammuz, the Sumerian solar god, consort of the goddess Ishtar. Conveniently, the original form of the letter 'T' was the initial letter of the god of Tammuz. During baptism ceremonies, this cross was marked on the foreheads by the pagan priest. [3]

The cross symbol (T) was the original cross of Jesus:

The cross of Christ, as experts seem to agree, was actually a bar placed across the top of an upright, so it was not a cross at all. It was a “Tee” (T), called “Taw” in Hebrew and “Tau” in Greek. So the cross that the victim was suspended from was actually a crossbar, and perhaps in those days this was called the cross. The “Taw” sign was the symbol of the dying and rising god, Tammuz, and “Taw” was the sign that was made on the heads of those marked for salvation by the god. So, crucifixion images might not be as conventional as the ones based on the Catholic crucifix. [1]

After the Egyptian/Greek/Roman pagans converted to Christianity, “these different signs of the cross were united in one large sign such as we now make. In the Western Church the hand was carried from the left to the right shoulder; in the Eastern Church, on the contrary, it was brought from the right shoulder to the left, the sign being made with three fingers. This apparently slight difference was one of the (remote) causes of the fatal Eastern Schism. [2]

The early Christians of Egypt were accused of sun-worship:

A letter ascribed in the Augustan History to the Emperor Hadrian refers to the worship of Serapis by residents of Egypt who described themselves as Christians, and Christian worship by those claiming to worship Serapis:

The land of Egypt, the praises of which you have been recounting to me, my dear Servianus, I have found to be wholly light-minded, unstable, and blown about by every breath of rumour. There those who worship Serapis are, in fact, Christians, and those who call themselves bishops of Christ are, in fact, devotees of Serapis. (Augustan History, Firmus et al. 8) [1]

The cross was adopted six hundred years after Jesus’ departure.

It will come as a surprise to many that the first known figure of a god on a cross is a likeness of the sun god Orpheus from some three centuries B.C.E. The crucifix on the amulet on the cover of The Jesus Mysteries, by Freke and Gandy, clearly depicts this image. (Tom Harper, The Pagan Christ, pp. 45-46)

"That which is now called the Christian cross was originally no Christian emblem at all, but was the mystic Tau of the Chaldeans and Egyptians -- the true original form of the letter T -- the initial of the name of Tammuz [...] That mystic Tau was marked in baptism on the foreheads of those initiated in the Mysteries, and was used in every variety of way as a most sacred symbol. [...] The Vestal virgins of Pagan Rome wore it suspended from their necklaces, as the nuns do now. The Egyptians did the same [...] There is hardly a Pagan tribe where the cross has not been found. The cross was worshipped by the Pagan Celts long before the incarnation and death of Christ."

"The ancient Egyptian hieroglyphic symbol of life -- the ankh, a tau cross surmounted by a loop and known as crux ansata -- was adopted and extensively used on Coptic Christian monuments." (The New Encyclopedia Britannica, 15th edition, 1995, volume 3, page 753)
"A still more curious fact may be mentioned respecting this hieroglyphical character [the Tau], that the early Christians of Egypt adopted it [...] numerous inscriptions, headed by the Tau, are preserved to the present day on early Christian monuments." (Wilkinson's Egyptians, by Sir J. G. Wilkinson, volume 5, page 283-284)
The use of the cross as a religious symbol in pre-Christian times, and among non-Christian peoples, may probably be regarded as almost universal, and in very many cases it was connected with some form of nature worship."
(The Encyclopedia Britannica, 11th edition, 1910, volume 7, page 506)


Here is an excerpt from Misha'al ibn `Abdullah Al-Kadhi

The ancient Egyptians also adopted the cross as a religious symbol of their pagan gods. Countless Egyptian drawings depict themselves holding crosses in their hands. Among them, the Egyptian savior Horus is depicted holding a cross in his hand. He is also depicted as an infant sitting on his mother's knee with a cross on the seat they occupy. The most common of the crosses used by these pagan Egyptians, the CRUX ANSATA, was later adopted by the Christians.
The Egyptian savior, Osiris, the Egyptian god of the dead and the underworld, is sometimes represented holding out this cross to mortals signifying that this person has discarded mortality for the life to come.
Another cross has been unearthed in Ireland. It belongs to the cult of the Persian god of the sun "Mithra" and bears a crucified effigy. The Greeks and Romans too adopted the cross as their religious symbol many centuries before Christianity did the same. An ancient inscription in Tessaly is accompanied by a Calvary cross. More crosses can be found to adorn the tomb of king Midas in Phrygia. The above references may be referred to for many more examples. [1]





(Orpheus crucified)


The legendary stories of ‘man-god’ saviors dying for the sins of their people (and rising three days later) were very common. Christianity is based on the sun-god myth. In fact the whole religion was fabricated after the departure of Jesus. None of these saviors are historical, but only personifications of the sun.

Here is an excerpt from Mather Walker’s essays:

Orpheus (from whom the Orphics received their name) and Dionysus went to Hades and returned. The Christians created the tradition that during the three days while Jesus was dead before his resurrection He went to hell and preached to the souls in prison.

Significantly, Plato, who follows the Orphic and mystery teachings throughout his dialogues, has the following to say, in the Republic II (362e), referring to the just man:
"What they will say is this, that such being his
disposition the just man will have to endure the lash,
the rack, chains, the branding iron in his eyes, and
finally, after every extremity of suffering, he will
be crucified."
The Orphics had a number of books which contained the details of their theology.These books have been lost, but I have no doubt this little jewel from Plato came straight from one of these. Dionysus was known by the name "Pentheus", i.e. "man of suffering." [1]
The Babylonian god Tammuz also died and resurrected.

Tammuz was a god of Assyria, Babylonia and Sumeria where he was known as Dumuzi. He is commemorated in the name of the month of June, Du’uzu, the fourth month of a year which begins at the spring equinox. The fullest history extant of this saviour is probably that of Ctesias (400 BC), author of Persika. The poet has perpetuated his memory in rhyme.
Trust, ye saints, your Lord restored,
Trust ye in your risen Lord;
For the pains which Tammuz endured
Our salvation have procured.


Tammuz was crucified as an atonement offering: “Trust ye in God, for out of his loins salvation has come unto us.” Julius Firmicus speaks of this God rising from the dead for the salvation of the world. This saviour which long preceded the advent of Christ, filled the same role in sacred history. (Warning: atheist website [2]

Christianity is based on the sun-god myth.











Source: [1] [2]


The doctrine of salvation by crucifixion had, like many of the ancient forms of religious faith, an astronomical origin. The sun is hung on a cross or crucified when it passes through the equinoxes. People in northern climates were saved by the sun’s crucifixion when it crossed over the equatorial line into the season of spring, at the vernal equinox at Easter, and thereby gave out a saving heat and light to the world and stimulated the generative organs of animal and vegetable life. (*)


This pagan festival is actually a combination of both Astoria (from which the word Easter is derived from), the female goddess of fertility of the northern European Saxons and the Isis-Osiris cult. The lover of Astoria, Attis, dies and is reborn annually, in conjunction with the summer solactice (spring time), the time of the year of the Easter celebrations. The theology of Attis was incorporated into the events of Prophet Jesus (as), according to the Christian church that is. The symbol of Astoria is the EGG, which is part of the Easter celebration (Easter Egg). In the Isis-Osiris cult of ancient Egypt, crucifixion was often a required means of sacrificing the King as the INCARNATION OF GOD for the SALVATION of man. Such bloody sacrifices were accompanied by the belief that the saviour’s flesh and blood had to be eaten and drank in a cannibalistic sacrament. This is currently practiced by the Catholic church, metaphorically, in all their masses. Yet, one cannot ignore the pagan roots of this act. The Catholic church actually believes in the transubstantiation of this ceremony, instituted by St. Thomas Aquinas in the 12th century, meaning, the Catholics believe that the bread and wine used turns into the actual flesh and blood of Prophet Jesus(as), exactly in line with the ceremony of the Isis-Osiris cult, which dates back to 1700 BC. The notion that Prophet Jesus(as) had to be sacrificed for the salvation of all mankind traces back to this older barbarism. [1]


The scholar Tom Harper states:

“The divine teacher is called, is tested by the “adversary”, gathers disciples, heals the sick, preaches the Good News about God’s kingdom, finally runs afoul of his bitter enemies, suffers, dies, and is resurrected after three days. This is the total pattern of the sun god in all the ancient dramas”. (The Pagan Christ, p. 145)


When the Council of Nicea took place, the Emperor Constantine


- Declared the Roman Sun-day to be the Christian Sabbath.


- Adopted the traditional birthday of the Sun-god, and the twenty-fifth of December, as the birthday of Jesus;


- Borrowed the emblem of the Sun-god, the cross of light, to be the emblem of Christianity;
- And, although the statue of Jesus replaced the idol of the Sun-god, decided to incorporate all the ceremonies which were performed at the Sub-gods birthday celebrations into their own ceremonies.

Christianity betrays the True Jesus as portrayed in the Quran, and there is no other alternative but to accept the True Jesus. The only Revelation of God that does not degrade Jesus is the Quran. All other Scriptures must be abrogated in favor of the Quran alone.

Here is the evidence for my assertions.
The fertilizing winter sun having been crucified, and the summer sun risen into the heavens in resurrection, the blood of the grape, ripened by its the heat, was symbolically “the blood of the cross,” or “the blood of the Lamb.” Jesus is not the true vine for no reason.

Because of our Christian culture and its imagery, the cross is necessarily the instrument of the saviour god’s torture. However, because the celestial origin of crucifixion in solar myths is that the sun crosses over the celestial equator, the heavenly sign of the equinoxes, the image of a crossover in the sky would be a cross like the Greek letter Chi (X) not a Plus (+). (Warning:Atheist website [1])

The evidence that Christianity was in its beginnings firmly rooted in an Egyptian-style, equinoctial mode of thinking still abounds today. The birthday of Jesus Christ was first celebrated by the earliest Church in the spring of the year. But in 345, Pope Julius decreed that the birthday (nobody knew any precise date for it, suggesting again that the entire thing was pure myth) should thenceforth be held on December 25, three days after the “death” of the winter solstice and the same day on which the births of Mithras, Dionysus, the Sol Invictus (unconquerable sun), and several other gods were traditionally celebrated. (Tom Harper, The Pagan Christ, p. 82).

The sun is born on the 25th of December, the birthday of Jesus Christ. The first and greatest of the labors of Jesus Christ is his victory over the serpent, the evil principle, or the devil. In his first labor Hercules strangled the serpent, as did Krishna, Bacchus, etc. his is the sun triumphing over the powers of hell and darkness; and, as he increases, he prevails, till he is crucified in the heavens, or is decussated in the form of a cross (according to Justin Martyr) when he passes the equator at the vernal equinox. (Lloyd Graham, Myths and Deceptions of the Bible, p. 208)

"Although surprising to us now, to writers of the first few centuries CE these similarities between the new Christian religion and the ancient Mysteries were extremely obvious. Pagan critics of Christianity, such as the satirist Celsus, complained that this recent religion was nothing more than a pale reflection of their own ancient teachings. Early 'Church Fathers,' such as Justin Martyr, Tertullian, and Irenaeus, were understandably disturbed and resorted to the desperate claim that these similarities were the result of diabolical mimicry. Using one of the most absurd arguments ever advanced, they accused the Devil of "plagiarism by anticipation," of deviously copying the true story of Jesus before it had actually happened in an attempt to mislead the gullible!" Timothy Freke & Peter Gandy (1999).

Julius Firmicus was a Christian author of the fourth century. He wrote a book called "The Errors of the Profane Religions." He found that many of these pagan religions of the Roman world had Saviors or Redeemers. He learned that every year the birth of these gods was celebrated, often in mid-winter, and every year, often about the time of our Easter, the death and resurrection of the gods were celebrated. He discovered that in some of these religions bread and wine were used at the altar, and candles and incense and sacred water were part of the ritual. (Joseph McCabe (1867-1955) The Story of Religious Controversy. Chapter 2)

“The Christian religion is a parody on the worship of the Sun, in which they put a man whom they call Christ, in the place of the Sun, and pay him the same adoration which was originally paid to the Sun.” Thomas Paine, The Age of Reason
The desperate response by Christians to solve these parallels is weak because the Gospel story doesn’t have to be
100% plagiarized! For example, Osiris was ripped to pieces and restored to life, but Jesus was never “ripped to pieces and restored to life”.
The cult of Osiris had a particularly strong interest towards the concept of immortality. According to the myth surrounding the cult, Set (Osiris's evil brother) fooled Osiris into getting into a coffin, which he then shut and threw into the Nile. Osiris's wife searched for his remains until she finally found them and brought them back to Egypt. Once Osiris's evil brother found out, he cut the body into pieces, and again threw them into the Nile. The faithful companion of Osiris, Isis, gathered up all the parts of the body and bandaged them together for a proper burial. The Gods were impressed by the devotion of Isis and thus restored Osiris to life in the form of a different kind of existence as the god of the underworld. [1]
Okay, we know Osiris died and resurrected differently from Jesus, but the story is the same: A “man-god” who dies and resurrects. The idea was borrowed by the Church, not the story itself. (*)

The website Tektonics confesses that Tammuz ‘resurrected’, but it has “no parallel to the Christian religion” which is nonsense. The early Church borrowed the idea.

The death and "raising" of Tammuz occurs every year and corresponds with the natural cycle of vegetation. This provides no parallel at all for the Christian religion, expect by redefining terms into meaninglessness (i.e., "resurrection" meaning not just a specific Jewish concept, but any dead-alive transition!) and ignoring vast differences in meaning. [2]


Nobody worships Tammuz today, but millions of Christians worship Jesus as the “crucified savior who rose again”. The writer desperately says “this provides no parallel at all to the Christian religion”. But the parallels are very striking and evident. The Greeks and Romans converted to Christianity because it resembled their previous beliefs!

A true Jew would have immediately recognized the teaching of Jesus as a reaffirmation of what Moses had taught. But to many a pagan, it must have seemed new and strange and perhaps a little complicated. Most of the pagans still believed in a multitude of gods who, it was thought, mixed freely with human beings, mated with them, and took part in every sphere of human life. To the common people of Greece, any description of Jesus must have seemed like a description of one of their gods, and they were probably quite ready to accept Jesus in this capacity. There was always room for one more god. However, the actual teaching of Jesus negated all their gods, since it affirmed the Divine Unity”. (Muhammad Ataur-Raheem, Jesus Prophet of Islam, p. 62)

Whatever else one may believe about Jesus, it is clear both from the New Testament documents and from the creeds of the early Church that he was a fully human being. He knew hunger, thirst, weariness; he endured pain, grief, and the agony of doubt; he experienced birth and death. His appearance must have been ordinary, for on several occasions when trouble was brewing he was able to simply lose himself in the crowds. The Church of the first few centuries had little trouble selling the idea of God-in-human form to a non-Jewish audience: this kind of myth was commonplace at this time. (Tom Harper, For Christ’s Sake, p. 32)

Paul produced a religion which encompassed different contradictory elements. He took the Unitarianism of the Jews and added to it the philosophy of the pagans”. (Jesus Prophet of Islam, p. 71)

This shift of emphasis from Jesus as a man to the new image of Christ, who wasdivine, enabled the intellectuals in Greece and Rome to assimilate into their own philosophy what Paul and those who followed him were preaching. (ibid, p. 70)

“…By using material familiar to these congregations, even while reshaping it for his own purposes, Paul was performing as an accomplished rhetor. That would not have been unusual for the times. (Mack Burton, Who Wrote the New Testament? p. 77)

Paul abolished the Law, which was followed and preached by Jesus (pbuh), and corrupted the whole religion, giving it a new form. The main ambition behind all this was, in his own words, “to win a larger number” of followers; the followers of a new religion “the Pauline Christianity”. (Roshen Enam, Follow Jesus or Follow Paul p. 69)


The following is a list of dying-rising gods.









The above crucified saviors are personifications of the sun, or symbolizing the birth and death of vegetation. The Gospel story of Jesus is plagiarized from the pagan myths.
According to the Bible, Jesus died on a tree

The God of our fathers raised up Jesus, whom ye slew and hanged on a tree. (Acts 5:30, 10:39)

Christ hath redeemed us from the curse of the law, being made a curse for us: for it is written, Cursed [is] every one that hangeth on a tree: (Galatians 3:13)

Who his own self bare our sins in his own body on the tree, that we, being dead to sins, should live unto righteousness: by whose stripes ye were healed. (1 Peter 2:24)

The scholar Arthur Weigall describes that Osiris was crucified upon a tree, like many previous ‘man-gods’, the cross was not unique, its pagan symbol. The Jehovah Witnesses believe that Jesus was crucified upon a ‘stake’.

The ‘tree story’ was indeed plagiarized from the story of Osiris and Isis.

The Popular and widespread religion of Osiris and Isis exercised considerable influence upon early Christianity, for these two great Egyptian deities, whose worship had passed into Europe were revered in Rome and in several other centres, where Christian communities were growing up. Osiris and Isis, so runs the legend, were brother and sister and also husband and wife; but Osiris was murdered, his coffined body being thrown into the Nile, and shortly afterwards the widowed and exiled Isis gave birth to a son, Horus. The coffin, meanwhile, was washed up on the Syrian coast, and became miraculously lodged in the trunk of a tree, so that Osiris, like other sacrificed gods, could be described as having been.' slain and hanged on a tree.' (The Paganism in Our Christianity, Arthur Weigall, 1928, p118)


Islam has destroyed the false charges against Jesus.

Christ the son of Mary was no more than an apostle; many were the apostles that passed away before him. His mother was a woman of truth. They had both to eat their (daily) food. See how Allah doth make His signs clear to them; yet see in what ways they are deluded away from the truth! (Al-Quran 5:75)

O people of the Book! There hath come to you our Messenger, revealing to you much that ye used to hide in the Book, and passing over much (that is now unnecessary). There hath come to you from Allah a (new) light and a perspicuous Book, Wherewith Allah guideth all who seek His good pleasure to ways of peace and safety, and leadeth them out of darkness, by His will, unto the light,- guideth them to a path that is straight. (Al-Quran 5:15-16)


[1] (Lloyd Graham, Deceptions and Myths of the Bible, p. 361)
Reply

Keltoi
01-13-2009, 07:30 PM
Thanks for the effort
Reply

جوري
01-13-2009, 07:31 PM
always a pleasure to present the obvious to those who prefer to bury their head in the sand!

cheers
Reply

Keltoi
01-13-2009, 07:33 PM
format_quote Originally Posted by Argon Gossamer
always a pleasure to present the obvious to those who prefer to bury their head in the sand!

cheers
Yes, my faith is shaken tremendously. :D
Reply

جوري
01-13-2009, 07:35 PM
'your faith' is of no concern to me..
This is an Islamic forum and I post for enlightenment!

cheers
Reply

Keltoi
01-13-2009, 07:37 PM
format_quote Originally Posted by Argon Gossamer
'your faith' is of no concern to me..
This is an Islamic forum and I post for the Muslims!

cheers
Sure
Reply

جوري
01-13-2009, 07:44 PM
for someone who isn't 'shook by all this' you seem to be persistent in contributing indecipherable nonsense that has nothing to do with the topic.. why is that?

My posts are a clear answer to the one who thinks the 'blood sacrifice and the cross' is Abrahamic in origin.. I have clearly posted evidence to the contrary and well sourced where from the pagan roots of Christianity and the foundation of the cross -- 'faith' as strong as ever doesn't loan itself to puerile comments when it is at a loss for logic!

Perhaps you should concede as your church elders, that it is the devil at play, than have to search your mind for an answer to all of this!

cheers
Reply

Keltoi
01-13-2009, 07:56 PM
format_quote Originally Posted by Argon Gossamer
for someone who isn't 'shook by all this' you seem to be persistent in contributing indecipherable nonsense that has nothing to do with the topic.. why is that?

My posts are a clear answer to the one who thinks the 'blood sacrifice and the cross' is Abrahamic in origin.. I have clearly posted evidence to the contrary and well sourced where from the pagan roots of Christianity and the foundation of the cross -- 'faith' as strong as ever doesn't loan itself to puerile comments when it is at a loss for logic!
Wait, I thought you posted it for Muslims...you're asking me to respond? Well, you are mixing two separate and unrelated issues. On the issue of blood sacrifice, of course that is Abrahamic in origin. It is all over the Old Testament.

When you mention the cross and blood sacrifice, you are mixing two unrelated issues. Sacrifical atonement is Abrahamic and is a large part of Mosaic Law. The cross is a symbol. Like other symbols of Christianity, such as the fish. Most now believe Christ wasn't crucified on a cross, but on a stake...meaning one pole. The cross itself has no real significance other than as a religious symbol.

As for the rest, I find it amusing that you cite a pagan philosopher for your "evidence." I realize you just copied and pasted this, but it is full of holes. Modern scholarship recognizes that there was a competition of sorts between Christianity and the pagan cults of Rome during that period. However, there is more evidence that many cults were copying elements of Christianity, not the other way around. Christianity was growing and the pagan cults were not.

As for Constantine, we are all well aware of the origin of some of the observed holidays within Christianity. It is really a non issue. Christ never stated we were to observe the day of His birth or His death. That is something we do as an act of praise. The bulk of your post is old news as far as Christians are concerned, and is nothing that threatens the validity of our faith.

I could copy and paste a large page of text to counter every issue on there, but I doubt anyone would actually read it. Not that I would necessarily expect them to. :D
Reply

جوري
01-13-2009, 08:10 PM
format_quote Originally Posted by Keltoi
Wait, I thought you posted it for Muslims
I post for enlightenment and for the Muslims on board.. do you have a problem with that?

...you're asking me to respond?
I am not sure where in my posts I have asked you to respond?

Well, you are mixing two separate and unrelated issues.
If you read before you write (and I know it takes a little more than three minutes to read all I have posted as I myself am still on Sumaria whose Gods were men) your posts might be a bit more thoughtful than Jejune at best!

On the issue of blood sacrifice, of course that is Abrahamic in origin. It is all over the Old Testament.
The sacrifice of Ishmael has nothing to do with Jesus' alleged crucifixion.. in the first God was testing Abraham, in the latter as you allege God is testing himself? does that make any sense?

When you mention the cross and blood sacrifice, you are mixing two unrelated issues. Sacrifical atonement is Abrahamic and is a large part of Mosaic Law
see above comment

. The cross is a symbol. Like other symbols of Christianity, such as the fish. Most now believe Christ wasn't crucified on a cross, but on a stake...meaning one pole. The cross itself has no real significance other than as a religious symbol.
Your religion rests on Jesus' alleged crucifixion -- if there is no crucifixion there really is no Christianity.. what otherwise are you basing your religion on-- it doesn't come down to the moment where God eats your sins so that you are free to sin? What rituals or commandments have you upheld that are Abrahamic in origin? Did Abraham or even Jesus, play the organ and clapped happy, ate pickled pork feet or did away with the covenant of circumcision? Saul was very successful doing away the commandments see the first post on Paulian Christianity!
As for the rest, I find it amusing that you cite a pagan philosopher for your "evidence." I realize you just copied and pasted this, but it is full of holes. Modern scholarship recognizes that there was a competition of sorts between Christianity and the pagan cults of Rome during that period. However, there is more evidence that many cults were copying elements of Christianity, not the other way around. Christianity was growing and the pagan cults were not.
Actually according to your church scholars and I quote again (because I know I may have copied but at least I have have read it before I wrote like an ignoramus:

The early Christians were painfully aware of such criticisms. How could Pagan myths which predated Christianity by hundreds of years have so much in common with the biography of the one and only savior Jesus? Desperate to come up with an explanation, the Church fathers resorted to one of the most absurd theories ever advanced. From the time of Justin Martyr in the second century onward, they declared that the Devil had plagiarized Christianity by anticipation in order to lead people astray! Knowing that the true Son of God was literally to come and walk the Earth, the Devil had copied the story of his life in advance of it happening and created the myths of Osiris-Dionysus.

The Church father Tertullian writes of the Devil's diabolical mimicry in creating the Mysteries of Mithras:

The devil, whose business is to pervert the truth, mimics the exact circumstances of the Divine Sacraments. He baptizes his believers and promises forgiveness of sins from the Sacred Fount, and thereby initiates them into the religion of Mithras. Thus he celebrates the oblation of bread, and brings in the symbol of the resurrection. Let us therefore acknowledge the craftiness of the devil, who copies certain things of those that be Divine.


As for Constantine, we are all well aware of the origin of some of the observed holidays within Christianity. It is really a non issue. Christ never stated we were to observe the day of His birth or His death. That is something we do as an act of praise. The bulk of your post is old news as far as Christians are concerned, and is nothing that threatens the validity of our faith.
I know that this is a non-issue and that is a non-issue, you need not state the obvious to me-- an entire faith on non-issues the fact of the matter is that the bulk of your religion is little snippets of paganism and/or mythology and some elements although I have my reservations (from monotheism) -- as far as christians are concerned they are dance and clap happy, then this doesn't concern them.. I am not sure really why you are writing much ado about nothing? you are entitled to your beliefs.. I am at a duty to put forward to people the roots of those beliefs!

I could copy and paste a large page of text to counter every issue on there, but I doubt anyone would actually read it. Not that I would necessarily expect them to. :D
You do what you have to do.. every thread above is linked to an article ( too numerous to counteract) with the 'devil did it' and folks are free to make up their minds...


cheers
Reply

Keltoi
01-13-2009, 08:52 PM
format_quote Originally Posted by Argon Gossamer
I post for enlightenment and for the Muslims on board.. do you have a problem with that?
Nope

format_quote Originally Posted by Argon Gossamer
I am not sure where in my posts I have asked you to respond?
Well, I did anyway.


format_quote Originally Posted by Argon Gossamer
If you read before you write (and I know it takes a little more than three minutes to read all I have posted as I myself am still on Sumaria whose Gods were men) your posts might be a bit more thoughtful than Jejune at best!
I didn't have to read all of it. Just skimming the topics and those cited for their opinion leads me to believe I've seen it all before. I was right.

format_quote Originally Posted by Argon Gossamer
The sacrifice of Ishmael has nothing to do with Jesus' alleged crucifixion.. in the first God was testing Abraham, in the latter as you allege God is testing himself? does that make any sense?
The issue when it comes to Christ is sacrificial atonement. Which is displayed throughout the OT, meaning Mosaic Law. The death of Christ had nothing to do with "testing."


format_quote Originally Posted by Argon Gossamer
Your religion rests on Jesus' alleged crucifixion -- if there is no crucifixion there really is no Christianity.. what otherwise are you basing your religion on-- it doesn't come down to the moment where God eats your sins so that you are free to sin? What rituals or commandments have you upheld that are Abrahamic in origin? Did Abraham or even Jesus, play the organ and clapped happy, ate pickled pork feet or did away with the covenant of circumcision? Saul was very successful doing away the commandments see the first post on Paulian Christianity!
Actually according to your church scholars and I quote again (because I know I may have copied but at least I have have read it before I wrote like an ignoramus:
That isn't correct. The religion of Christianity is based on Christ's atonement for sin and His triumph over death. As for eating sins, I have no idea what you're talking about, besides the obvious insulting sarcasm, which you display with every post you make. Perhaps if you learned what Christianity actually was instead of looking to copy and paste jobs to do your learning for you we wouldn't be having this conversation.

format_quote Originally Posted by Argon Gossamer
The early Christians were painfully aware of such criticisms. How could Pagan myths which predated Christianity by hundreds of years have so much in common with the biography of the one and only savior Jesus? Desperate to come up with an explanation, the Church fathers resorted to one of the most absurd theories ever advanced. From the time of Justin Martyr in the second century onward, they declared that the Devil had plagiarized Christianity by anticipation in order to lead people astray! Knowing that the true Son of God was literally to come and walk the Earth, the Devil had copied the story of his life in advance of it happening and created the myths of Osiris-Dionysus.
The myths of Osiris and Dionysus have very little similarity when one gets past the wordplay. Of course all religions with a divine Creator will share some similarity, but Osiris and Dionysus have very little in common with Jesus Christ.

As for the words of Justin Martyr and Tertullian, and the issue of religious plagiarism, I'm sure that was a belief of the time. Regardless of how the article presents it, the cult of Mithra was a contemporary of Christianity. The cult of Mithra did indeed "borrow" many Christian elements in its design. Whether that was the Devil in action or simply good marketing, who can say.


format_quote Originally Posted by Argon Gossamer
I know that this is a non-issue and that is a non-issue, you need not state the obvious to me-- an entire faith on non-issues the fact of the matter is that the bulk of your religion is little snippets of paganism and/or mythology and some elements although I have my reservations (from monotheism) -- as far as christians are concerned they are dance and clap happy, then this doesn't concern them.. I am not sure really why you are writing much ado about nothing? you are entitled to your beliefs.. I am at a duty to put forward to people the roots of those beliefs!
No, you are putting forward the Islamic and/or athiest propoganda on the topic. That is fine. You are a Muslim and it doesn't surprise or bother me.

You speak of being "dance and clap happy"...well that is a Christian form of praise. It is not an issue because that is a form of praise described in the New Testament. As for you opinion of my religion...think what you will.

format_quote Originally Posted by Argon Gossamer
You do what you have to do.. every thread above is linked to an article ( too numerous to counteract) with the 'devil did it' and folks are free to make up their minds...
cheers
Indeed they are.
Reply

جوري
01-13-2009, 09:29 PM
format_quote Originally Posted by Keltoi
Nope
Great!



Well, I did anyway.
I am glad you are admitting to insinuating yourself with a topic not directed at you!



I didn't have to read all of it. Just skimming the topics and those cited for their opinion leads me to believe I've seen it all before. I was right.
That doesn't address the subject matter or rebuts contents-- you merely stating your belief has no impact on the validity of what is written!


The issue when it comes to Christ is sacrificial atonement. Which is displayed throughout the OT, meaning Mosaic Law. The death of Christ had nothing to do with "testing."
The death of God has nothing to do with Mosaic Law, from the lowest common denominator if the 'death of God' had roots in the OT, they would have been all over Christianity, instead they chose their OT in lieu of Paul's version of it!



That isn't correct. The religion of Christianity is based on Christ's atonement for sin and His triumph over death. As for eating sins, I have no idea what you're talking about, besides the obvious insulting sarcasm, which you display with every post you make. Perhaps if you learned what Christianity actually was instead of looking to copy and paste jobs to do your learning for you we wouldn't be having this conversation.
Atonement for whom? Does God atone for his own self? I wasn't aware God needed to do that? you mistake my honesty for sarcasm.. that is actually the bottom line of your religion.. God comes and dies so you can go to heaven.. there is no need for major adjectives where none is needed!


The myths of Osiris and Dionysus have very little similarity when one gets past the wordplay. Of course all religions with a divine Creator will share some similarity, but Osiris and Dionysus have very little in common with Jesus Christ.
Egyptian god of the underworld and of vegetation. Son of Nut and Geb. His birthplace was said to be Rosetau in the necropolis west of Memphis. Brother of Nephthys and Seth, and the brother and husband of Isis. Isis gave birth to Horus after his death, having impregnated herself with semen from his corpse. Osiris was depicted in human form wrapped up as a mummy, holding the crook and flail. He was often depicted with green skin, alluding to his role as a god of vegetation. He wore a crown known as the 'atef', composed of the tall conical white crown of Upper Egypt with red plumes on each side. Osiris had many cult centers, but the most important were at Abydos (Ibdju) in Upper Egypt, where the god's legend was reenacted in an annual festival, and at Busiris (Djedu) in the Nile delta.
One of the so-called "dying gods", he was the focus of a famous legend in which he was killed by the rival god Seth. At a banquet of the gods, Seth fooled Osiris into stepping into a coffin, which he promptly slammed shut and cast into the Nile. The coffin was born by the Nile to the delta town of Byblos, where it became enclosed in a tamarisk tree. Isis, the wife of Osiris, discovered the coffin and brought it back. (The story to this point is attested only by the Greek writer Plutarch, although Seth was identified as his murderer as early as the Pyramid era of the Old Kingdom.)
So I guess I'll leave that to the discerning reader to decide! and by the way that was your mere attempt at one story, not the lot! Ancient Egyptian religion was Paganistic, hence the pharoh was angry with what Moses brought!

As for the words of Justin Martyr and Tertullian, and the issue of religious plagiarism, I'm sure that was a belief of the time. Regardless of how the article presents it, the cult of Mithra was a contemporary of Christianity. The cult of Mithra did indeed "borrow" many Christian elements in its design. Whether that was the Devil in action or simply good marketing, who can say.
lol.. the question is of dates really.. who is borrowing from whom?!


No, you are putting forward the Islamic and/or athiest propoganda on the topic. That is fine. You are a Muslim and it doesn't surprise or bother me.
It doesn't bother you, yet you keep replying.. I have no agenda or propaganda on an Islamic forum, I assure you if I did, christian forums would be the first place I frequent.. I never thought of Christianity as a contender-- it is so silly to me on all levels.. and I believe that is why you have cults of Dawkin following in his own words:


In GD, Dawkins quotes Einstein as saying that he prefers not to call himself religious, because that implies “supernatural”. But Einstein acknowledged that behind everything “there is a something that our mind cannot grasp and whose beauty and sublimity reaches us only indirectly”.
Dawkins admits: “If that’s what you call religion then I’m religious.” But when I suggest that, in this case, he is in touch with the transcendent, he accuses me of “playing with words”. He says: “If by transcendent you mean what Einstein believed then yes, but what I think, to come back on your statement that more intelligent and sophisticated religious people believe something close to what Einstein and I believe, that may be true, but they are a tiny minority of religious people in the world. It’s the majority of religious people in the world that we have to worry about.”





Once you make small Gods of men, and you advance and outgrow them you can only have atheism, or something 'bigger than God' when all Christians wake up to see is a meek God who dies after forsaking himself-- yet expects of people to believe that he'll save them through his 'atonement'

Youspeak of being "dance and clap happy"...well that is a Christian form of praise. It is not an issue because that is a form of praise described in the New Testament. As for you opinion of my religion...think what you will.
I agree.. it is your belief and 'praise' in the form of dance and clap and organs wasn't subscribed to you as part of the commandments-- there is nothing to think about it, other than laying for folks the obvious!
Indeed they are.
Then I hope with that we are done.. unless you want to purge yourself some more?


cheers
Reply

Keltoi
01-13-2009, 09:37 PM
No, I have responded to the article. If I wish to seriously debate a religious topic I will wait for someone with a little more maturity and intellectual honesty.
Reply

Zico
01-13-2009, 09:39 PM
^ Now now lets not start losing our temper here pls.
Reply

Keltoi
01-13-2009, 09:40 PM
format_quote Originally Posted by Zico
^ Now now lets not start losing our temper here pls.
No lost temper here....:D
Reply

جوري
01-13-2009, 09:43 PM
format_quote Originally Posted by Keltoi
No, I have responded to the article. If I wish to seriously debate a religious topic I will wait for someone with a little more maturity and intellectual honesty.
You have NOT responded to the article or even what Dr. Mchphearson wrote with anything of substance or logic or even systematic.. and I expected as much, when things get heated, Christians bolt and that is only after insinuating themselves where they were not addressed to begin with and in the very form of projection they criminate others with!

cheers
Reply

Keltoi
01-13-2009, 10:28 PM
Okay, Dr. Mcpherson....
format_quote Originally Posted by Argon Gossamer
actually Christianity is but a revival of paganism nothing Abrahamic about it

from Brother Mcpherson, who no longer participates because he is sick of all the bull

The Greeks and Romans converted to Christianity because it resembled their previous beliefs!

Paul produced a religion which encompassed different contradictory elements. He took the Unitarianism of the Jews and added to it the philosophy of the pagans”.

Paul abolished the Law, which was followed and preached by Jesus (pbuh), and corrupted the whole religion, giving it a new form. The main ambition behind all this was, in his own words, “to win a larger number” of followers; the followers of a new religion “the Pauline Christianity”.

I was unaware of the claim that the Devil plagiarized Christianity in advance of Jesus’ life. Of course, they don’t see that the Devil (Shaytan) is not All-Knowing but rather only Allah knows the future.

The early Christians were painfully aware of such criticisms. How could Pagan myths which predated Christianity by hundreds of years have so much in common with the biography of the one and only savior Jesus? Desperate to come up with an explanation, the Church fathers resorted to one of the most absurd theories ever advanced. From the time of Justin Martyr in the second century onward, they declared that the Devil had plagiarized Christianity by anticipation in order to lead people astray! Knowing that the true Son of God was literally to come and walk the Earth, the Devil had copied the story of his life in advance of it happening and created the myths of Osiris-Dionysus.

The article illustrates just how pagan the Christian religion really is and that despite their good intentions they may be the biggest losers on that Day. And Allah knows best. This brings to mind a quote that Jesus supposedly made in Matthew 7:21-28 Not every one that says to me, ‘Lord, Lord,’ will enter into the kingdom of heaven; but he who does the will of my Father who is in heaven will enter. Many will say to me on that day, ‘Lord, Lord, did we not prophesy in your name, and in your name cast out demons, and in your name perform many miracles?’ And then I will I declare to them, ‘I never knew you: depart from me, you who practice lawlessness.’ Therefore everyone who that hears these words of mine and acts on them, may be compared to a wise man who built his house on the rock: and the rain fell, and floods came, and the winds blew, and slammed against that house; and yet it did not fall, for it had been founded on the rock. Everyone who hears these words of mine, and does not act on them not, will be like a foolish man who built his house on the sand. The rain fell, and the floods came, and the winds blew, and slammed against that house; and it fell - and great was its fall.

It seems to me that the Christians build their elaborate house of religion on sinking sand (myth) that will come tumbling down on that Great Day. Christians will admit that Jesus’ life and teaching is not what is important to them but rather his death and resurrection are the focus of their worship and the foundation on their religion. If Jesus never died on the cross, as we believe, then their religion is clearly just a myth. Note the quote that I underlined about practicing lawlessness. Paul has repeatedly stated that Christians aren’t under the yoke of the Law, hence no circumcision, no ritual prayer, no fasting, and eating of pork among Christians. It is interesting how their own book condemns the Christians. In contrast don’t we Muslims at least claim to submit our wills to Allah and do as He commands us to do through the example of Prophet Muhammad saaws.
What exactly are you attributing to this Dr. McPherson? If it is the issue of supposed "pagan" influences on Christianity it has been addressed. The mystery cults of Rome were in competition with Christianity. It wasn't a matter of Romans somehow converting to Christianity because of supposed pagan similarities to supposed "past pagan religions." Romans worshipped their pagan gods. They didn't need to convert simply because it was "similar" to their pagan religions. If they wanted pagan religions they had pagan religions.

On the issue of Mithra, the time is all wrong. No monuments to the Mithra cult can be dated earlier than 90-100 A.D., much too late as the New Testament canon had already been established at this time. That is why that Roman mystery cult is thought to have borrowed from Christianity, not the other way around.

As for Paul, there is no evidence he was influenced by anything other than the initial brand of Judaism from which he came. In fact, Paul himself warned the Colossians not to let their minds be captured by alien speculations. (Col. 2:8).
Reply

Triumphant
01-13-2009, 10:51 PM
Argon Gossamer, I'm proud to have you as sister! so intelligent mash'Allah
Reply

جوري
01-13-2009, 10:56 PM
format_quote Originally Posted by Keltoi
Okay, Dr. Mcpherson....
He isn't here to answer you, I am afraid your own brand of self satisfactory sarcasm falls deaf ears and blind eyes..
The point is and was paganism in Christianity is obvious to the better educated and pragmatic former Christians!


What exactly are you attributing to this Dr. McPherson? If it is the issue of supposed "pagan" influences on Christianity it has been addressed. The mystery cults of Rome were in competition with Christianity. It wasn't a matter of Romans somehow converting to Christianity because of supposed pagan similarities to supposed "past pagan religions." Romans worshipped their pagan gods. They didn't need to convert simply because it was "similar" to their pagan religions. If they wanted pagan religions they had pagan religions.
It hasn't been addressed actually, other than your constant assertion that it 'doesn't bother you' or 'shake your faith' and then crying about it in a subsequent posts, taking an isolated topic or two doesn't cover the entirety of similarities, although as it so appears, it appeases your wounded ego.
Similarities are indeed easier to accept when peddling a new regime than a diametrical opposite, Hercules /Zeus/Alcmene and others doesn't sway much from God/Jesus/Mary with the exception of course that Hercules wasn't three people in one.. hence the dark ages of Christianity, as formerly bright Greeks/and Romans had to let go of even more reason to accept that conundrum!
On the issue of Mithra, the time is all wrong. No monuments to the Mithra cult can be dated earlier than 90-100 A.D., much too late as the New Testament canon had already been established at this time. That is why that Roman mystery cult is thought to have borrowed from Christianity, not the other way around.
lol.. ok whatever makes you feel better
what about the rest of the dying and rising Gods? They borrowed from Christianity too as the work of the devil?












As for Paul, there is no evidence he was influenced by anything other than the initial brand of Judaism from which he came. In fact, Paul himself warned the Colossians not to let their minds be captured by alien speculations. (Col. 2:8).
Just his speculations are best I suppose especially when they completely contradict monotheism?
There is no Judaism or monotheism in Paul's brand of Christianity, he was a Jew to the Jews and a roman to the romans again simply evidenced if what he were preaching was monotheism Jews would have been all over it but alas their 'Moschiach' is no God!
Reply

جوري
01-13-2009, 11:06 PM
format_quote Originally Posted by Triumphant
Argon Gossamer, I'm proud to have you as sister! so intelligent mash'Allah
:sl:
Jazaka Allah khyran..

there is no intelligence needed when it comes to Christianity-- it is fitrah and Paganism goes against fitrah so it becomes natural to point out what is wrong with this picture..


and Allah swt knows best
:w:
Reply

Q8sobieski
01-14-2009, 05:55 AM
format_quote Originally Posted by Keltoi
No, I have responded to the article. If I wish to seriously debate a religious topic I will wait for someone with a little more maturity and intellectual honesty.
You have done a good job defending yourself, Keltoi. You have been on-target and on-message.
Reply

Q8sobieski
01-14-2009, 06:16 AM
format_quote Originally Posted by AntiKarateKid
There is no use talking with you or arguing with you. You completely ignore the facts I tell you and the links I give you and maintain that the goat sacrifice ( reenacting Abraham's trial which had nothing to do with sin) is comparable to blood atonement.
It is a blood sacrifice. In the specific case of Muslims, the sacrifice is meant to show obedience to God and demonstrate man's dominance over animals which is obviously meant to parallel God's dominance over humans. I get it. Crystal clear. Not need to patronize. The point it, IT IS A BLOOD SACRIFICE. And blood sacrifices of any sort were done away with by Christians nearly 2000 years ago.

format_quote Originally Posted by AntiKarateKid
1.3 Billion Christians in Muhammad's (pbuh) time? Thats news to historians.
Sorry to confuse you. I meant to convey the sentiment that there are still 1.3 billion Christians worldwide GIVEN THAT Mohmammed's message has been extant for 1400 years. In the year AD 650, there were at best only a couple hundred million people on the planet.

format_quote Originally Posted by AntiKarateKid
I'll tell you what, your idolatrous views masquerading as monotheism fall on deaf ears when told to the billions of Muslims and millions of Jews who ALL view you as polytheistic. Let's not even get into the fact that most converts to Islam are CHristians. I guess not all ears are so deaf huh?:)
This is amusing to me. Really, I am an Agnostic. An Agnostic is like an Atheist who doesn't even have faith in the absence of God. But you have branded me to "polytheist" which maybe is like a promotion. Should I be honoured? Yesterday I didn't really believe in God but according to you, today I believe in 2 or more. :D

format_quote Originally Posted by AntiKarateKid
In conclusion try going back and grasping the immense problems that arise when your Biblical scripture isnt even consistent with itself.
I don't care if it isn't 100% consistent. I have always viewed it as literature. I don't get my knickers in a bunch over these things. I like to discuss religion as an academic subject.
Reply

AntiKarateKid
01-14-2009, 06:54 AM
format_quote Originally Posted by Q8sobieski
It is a blood sacrifice. In the specific case of Muslims, the sacrifice is meant to show obedience to God and demonstrate man's dominance over animals which is obviously meant to parallel God's dominance over humans. I get it. Crystal clear. Not need to patronize. The point it, IT IS A BLOOD SACRIFICE. And blood sacrifices of any sort were done away with by Christians nearly 2000 years ago.



Sorry to confuse you. I meant to convey the sentiment that there are still 1.3 billion Christians worldwide GIVEN THAT Mohmammed's message has been extant for 1400 years. In the year AD 650, there were at best only a couple hundred million people on the planet.



This is amusing to me. Really, I am an Agnostic. An Agnostic is like an Atheist who doesn't even have faith in the absence of God. But you have branded me to "polytheist" which maybe is like a promotion. Should I be honoured? Yesterday I didn't really believe in God but according to you, today I believe in 2 or more. :D



I don't care if it isn't 100% consistent. I have always viewed it as literature. I don't get my knickers in a bunch over these things. I like to discuss religion as an academic subject.
No you do not get it. You still do not understand the concept of the sacrifice at Eid.

As for my polytheistic quip, my mistake. It is hard to judge your views when your profile lists you as "Jedi".

Anyways, you are entitled to your views of the sacrifice but you should know that you are mistaken.

Not caring about such basic things as the authenticity of scripture and revelation will not further you down the path of guidance.

Peace.
Reply

Dawud_uk
01-14-2009, 08:49 AM
format_quote Originally Posted by glo
I don't consider the point reaised in your OP to be a contradiction at all for reasons I gave in post 15. Did you read it?

Peace :)
i did glo but that doesnt work, you see if this is the word of God then why would he inspire people to write different things? it is not the same as describing things differently as some people say, that would be small differences but as everyone knows there are major differences all over the bible.

now as muslims and christians can we all agree that God does not lie or make mistakes?
Reply

Dawud_uk
01-14-2009, 08:58 AM
format_quote Originally Posted by Keltoi
We do know what the losers had to say. The views of Arianism and the various other sects are easily found. Arianism even sent missionaries to the Visigoths and converted many of them. However, in terms of mainstream Christianity their views were considered heretical. They didn't use different books, they proposed different beliefs about known Scripture.
that is completely bogus and untrue, a 3rd of the church scholars who attended the council of nicsea objected and left due to the fact of which books were included and which not, many of these objectors were arians.
Reply

glo
01-14-2009, 03:42 PM
format_quote Originally Posted by Dawud_uk
i did glo but that doesnt work, you see if this is the word of God then why would he inspire people to write different things? it is not the same as describing things differently as some people say, that would be small differences but as everyone knows there are major differences all over the bible.

now as muslims and christians can we all agree that God does not lie or make mistakes?
Greetings, Dawud

Your reply highlights how differently we are thinking.
Something that is obviously a great stumbling block to you isn’t a problem for me at all.

Perhaps it helps to remind yourself that most Christians do not consider the Bible to be God’s dictated word.
Some discrepancies may be due to people describing the same events to different audiences with a different emphasis on certain things (As I tried to explain previously with regards to your comments about the different Bible accounts. I see the different accounts complementing each other, rather than contradicting each other.)
There are other discrepancies in the Bible, which I personally would put down to human error. (I don’t consider the points you made in your OP to be among those)

Some Christians believe that the Bible is indeed God’s directly translated word and to be taken completely literally.
I am not one of those Christians, so I cannot explain to you how those people would explain or accommodate certain discrepancies. You would have to ask them yourself … :)

This conversation in touching the topic of how we read and interpret scripture. (A very interesting topic, which may be worth starting a whole new conversation thread on)

Does not even the Qu’ran, which Muslims believe to be Allah’s directly translated word, require a certain amount of interpretation and discernment?
What I mean is, the reader needs to be aware of when certain passages where passed down to Muhammed, what the political/social circumstance was at the time, how the order of the books in the Qu’ran were decided on, and by whom.
During Ramadan I took the time to read the Qu’ran for myself, and I have come to realise that it is not as clear and directive as I had believed (or perhaps been led to believe by many threads I have read here in this forum).
For example, instructions on how to relate to non-believers differ according to the situations and times Muhammed found himself in at the time of the revelations.
The reader needs to be aware of those circumstances and take them into consideration when reading and interpreting those passages.

(Would you agree? I hope I am making sense! :))

Even more so then with many parts of the Bible and the Hadiths, both of which are much more narrative in nature.
When you read Hadiths, do you not need to ask yourself in what circumstance Muhammed found himself at the time of the event? Who he was addressing in his teaching? Whether his instructions where intended to a particular audience at that particular time, or whether it is relevant to Muslims even now?
Do you look what scholars say about certain Hadiths? How they interpret them? What relevance they give them?
If you do, then it is not much different for me, when I read the Bible.

Of course God doesn’t lie or make mistakes. I am sure we can agree on that.
But if he allows certainly discrepancies and human errors, then he must have his reasons for it. I could hazard a guess as to why, but there is probably not much point in doing that.
Better to trust that God knows best! :)

Salaam
Reply

Q8sobieski
01-14-2009, 04:46 PM
format_quote Originally Posted by Dawud_uk
that is completely bogus and untrue, a 3rd of the church scholars who attended the council of nicsea objected and left due to the fact of which books were included and which not, many of these objectors were arians.
The core books were always the same for Arians and Trinitarians. There were other gospels around at the time of the Council of Nicea but their rejection, I believe, was based more on their literary content rather than their theological qualities. Having read many of these Gnostic Gospels, I find their literary quality simply rather poor.
Reply

Q8sobieski
01-14-2009, 07:53 PM
format_quote Originally Posted by AntiKarateKid
No you do not get it. You still do not understand the concept of the sacrifice at Eid.
I read the link that you provided. Perhaps the link was unclear. The link indicated to me the the sacrifice was one of submission. As a ritual it is intended to re-create or commemorate the Abrahamic event.

format_quote Originally Posted by AntiKarateKid
As for my polytheistic quip, my mistake. It is hard to judge your views when your profile lists you as "Jedi".
Judge me by MY WORDS not your conception of what a Christian is, and Agnostic is, or what a Jedi might be. Really, I found it interesting that Jedi was even given as an option. That's why I picked it. I am an Agnostic-Catholic (culturally Christian but intellectually agnostic). I do, however think the teachings of Yoda and Obi-wan Kenobi are perfectly valuable.

format_quote Originally Posted by AntiKarateKid
Anyways, you are entitled to your views of the sacrifice but you should know that you are mistaken.
Then, in reality, I AM NOT entitled to my views because you have told me that I am wrong. This is an invalidation of my view.

format_quote Originally Posted by AntiKarateKid
Not caring about such basic things as the authenticity of scripture and revelation will not further you down the path of guidance.
I am not sure why that is.
Reply

Zamtsa
01-14-2009, 08:17 PM
Al Qur'an(Kalamullah) has stated that Allahu Jalla Jalaaluhu:


Thaha(20):5 (Allah) Most Gracious is firmly established on the throne .


His creation is everywhere:

6 To Him belongs what is in the heavens and on earth and all between them and all beneath the soil.


His hearing and knowledge are everywhere:

Tha Ha(20):7 If thou pronounce the word aloud (it is no matter): for verily He knoweth what is secret and what is yet more hidden.


He has more than 99 beautiful names.
8 Allah! there is no god but He! To Him belong the Most Beautiful Names.


He will not only give safety and salvation on the earth, but will also give the eternal reward in the Paradise. And His seeing is everywhere:


An Nisa(4):134 Whoso desireth the reward of the world, (let him know that) with Allah is the reward of the world and the Hereafter. Allah is ever Hearer, Seer.


And His angels are everywhere to note what every people doing.

Qaf (50):16 It was We who created man and We know what dark suggestions his soul makes to him: for We are nearer to him than (his) jugular
17 When two (guardian angels) appointed to learn (his doings) learn (and note them) one sitting on the right and one on the left.
18 Not a word does he utter but there is a sentinel by him ready (to note it).

Every Monday and Thursday, the note of everybody are shown.


That's about everywhere.
Reply

Imam
01-14-2009, 10:33 PM
Peace

I will try to resume the original issue of the thread



format_quote Originally Posted by Keltoi
Here is Martin Luther:

[B]Christ was and remains just and did not commit any sins ....But at the moment in which he suffered, he took upon himself everything that is ours as if it were truly his, suffering even for that which we should have borne because of our sins and which the ****ed already suffer....etc
John Calvin:
[B]And about the ninth hour Jesus cried. Though in the cry which Christ uttered a power more than human was manifested, yet it was unquestionably drawn from him by intensity of sorrow. And certainly this was his chief conflict, and harder than all the other tortures, that in his anguish he was so far from being soothed by the assistance or favor of his Father, that he felt himself to be in some measure estranged from him. etc
John Gill:The whole of it evinces the truth of Christ's human nature, that he was in all things made like unto his brethren; that he had an human soul, and endured sorrows and sufferings in it [6] etc


.
Such Quotes don't answer the big question......


let's redirect to the Question:

as a matter of fact, both Mark and Matthew's use of (Psa 22:1 ) proved to be disastrous not only to the lines of their passion but also to the those who argue for a trinity....

both the writers of Mark and Mathew fused allusions to Jesus' death in their hearsay passion story with a range of texts from the Old Testament

they tried to make their passion story with Old Testament flavor .... not only they quoted the Old Testament for a claim of prophecy fulfillment but used the Old Testament language

such as (Psa 22:1 ) My God, my God, why have you forsaken me?

their obsession with the Old Testament language proved damaging to their story line and that is the case of


Mark 15:34
And at the ninth hour, Jesus shouted in a loud voice, "Eloi Eloi lema sabachthani?" which is translated, "My God, my God, why have you forsaken me?"

and

Matthew 27:46
Around the ninth hour, Jesus shouted in a loud voice, saying "Eli Eli lama sabachthani?" which is, "My God, my God, why have you forsaken me?"



what is the context ?


the context mentions a well planned mission of salvation which the man-God was not only aware and expected its details but also he affirmed it :

And while they abode in Galilee, Jesus said unto them, The Son of man shall be delivered up into the hands of men; and they shall kill him(Matt. 17:22-23).

And as Jesus was going up to Jerusalem, he took the twelve disciples apart, and on the way he said unto them, Behold, we go up to Jerusalem; and the Son of man shall be delivered unto the chief priests and scribes; and they shall condemn him to death, and shall deliver him unto the Gentiles to mock, and to scourge, and to crucify (Matt. 20:17-19).

Thus it is written, and thus it was necessary for the Christ to suffer and to rise from the dead *the third day.(Luke 24:46).


He even was angry at Peter and called him a Satan when he showed his care for the fate of his teacher ,asking God to protect him from any hurt ..

From that time on Jesus began to explain to his disciples that he must go to Jerusalem and suffer many things at the hands of the elders, chief priests and teachers of the law, and that he must be killed and on the third day be raised to life. 22Peter took him aside and began to rebuke him. "Never, Lord!" he said. "This shall never happen to you!" 23Jesus turned and said to Peter, "Get behind me, Satan! You are a stumbling block to me; you do not have in mind the things of God, but the things of men." Matthew 16 :21


He further ,expressed his own readiness to suffer, asking Juda to hurry up his betrayal.

After the piece of bread, then Satan entered into him. Then Jesus said to him(Juda), "What you do, do quickly." John 13:27 |!!!



In spite of all that we are told that such zealous incarnated God ,cried hopelessly as if he was taken by surprise and been forsaken by God (who is said to be the same of his material)


Is there anything more absurd than that?!!

we have only two choices:

Either what he had on the cross was something he willed or not,there is no in between....

If he willed it, then logically he was aware of the consequences and the pain,and it would be shameful for him,whatever degree of pain he may felt, to accuse God of forsaken him

what he was expecting God to do,otherwise?!! to save him from the cross and damage the plan of salvation?!!!
What was he looking for?!!!


If what happened on the cross was against his will , then we have to go again to the blue yonder ,investigating the miasma of the trinity:
How Jesus and God as said to be one substance have two wills? ONE substance must only have ONE will.
If Jesus and God are one substance then how can ONE substance forsake itself?

It is absurd if God wanted and didn't want the plan of salvation at the same time....


No wonder Dennis McKinsey wrote:

These aren't the words of a man who went to the Cross willingly to die for our sins. These are the words of a man who can think of a hundred places he would rather be. They certainly aren't the words of someone who has the situation under control.
How could Jesus be our Savior when he couldn't even save himself?


Tom Harpur says:
"The idea of the Second Person of a Holy Trinity knowing what it is to be God-forsaken has only to be stated to be recognized as absurd"
For Christ's Sake, pp. 45.
Reply

Keltoi
01-15-2009, 12:14 AM
format_quote Originally Posted by Imam
Peace

I will try to resume the original issue of the thread
Okay





format_quote Originally Posted by Imam
Such Quotes don't answer the big question......


let's redirect to the Question:

as a matter of fact, both Mark and Matthew's use of (Psa 22:1 ) proved to be disastrous not only to the lines of their passion but also to the those who argue for a trinity....

both the writers of Mark and Mathew fused allusions to Jesus' death in their hearsay passion story with a range of texts from the Old Testament

they tried to make their passion story with Old Testament flavor .... not only they quoted the Old Testament for a claim of prophecy fulfillment but used the Old Testament language

such as (Psa 22:1 ) My God, my God, why have you forsaken me?

their obsession with the Old Testament language proved damaging to their story line and that is the case of
Talk about hearsay. Whoever wrote this should be writing fantasy fiction. The authors of Mark and Matthew give no explanation for Christ's last words on the cross. Which is why we are having this conversation. It is the height of absurdity for someone to write a little article attempting to explain what their thought processes were in writing the Gospel account, outside of what we do know, which is that they believed Christ was the Messiah who died and rose again.


format_quote Originally Posted by Imam
Mark 15:34
And at the ninth hour, Jesus shouted in a loud voice, "Eloi Eloi lema sabachthani?" which is translated, "My God, my God, why have you forsaken me?"

and

Matthew 27:46
Around the ninth hour, Jesus shouted in a loud voice, saying "Eli Eli lama sabachthani?" which is, "My God, my God, why have you forsaken me?"



what is the context ?


the context mentions a well planned mission of salvation which the man-God was not only aware and expected its details but also he affirmed it :

And while they abode in Galilee, Jesus said unto them, The Son of man shall be delivered up into the hands of men; and they shall kill him(Matt. 17:22-23).

And as Jesus was going up to Jerusalem, he took the twelve disciples apart, and on the way he said unto them, Behold, we go up to Jerusalem; and the Son of man shall be delivered unto the chief priests and scribes; and they shall condemn him to death, and shall deliver him unto the Gentiles to mock, and to scourge, and to crucify (Matt. 20:17-19).

Thus it is written, and thus it was necessary for the Christ to suffer and to rise from the dead *the third day.(Luke 24:46).


He even was angry at Peter and called him a Satan when he showed his care for the fate of his teacher ,asking God to protect him from any hurt ..

From that time on Jesus began to explain to his disciples that he must go to Jerusalem and suffer many things at the hands of the elders, chief priests and teachers of the law, and that he must be killed and on the third day be raised to life. 22Peter took him aside and began to rebuke him. "Never, Lord!" he said. "This shall never happen to you!" 23Jesus turned and said to Peter, "Get behind me, Satan! You are a stumbling block to me; you do not have in mind the things of God, but the things of men." Matthew 16 :21


He further ,expressed his own readiness to suffer, asking Juda to hurry up his betrayal.

After the piece of bread, then Satan entered into him. Then Jesus said to him(Juda), "What you do, do quickly." John 13:27 |!!!



In spite of all that we are told that such zealous incarnated God ,cried hopelessly as if he was taken by surprise and been forsaken by God (who is said to be the same of his material)


Is there anything more absurd than that?!!
This simply shows a mistaken understanding of what Christ, as the Son of God, actually was. When we say that Christ was of the flesh, experienced pain, thirst, fear, cold, etc, that is exactly what we mean. He was fully divine and fully human. That is the area in which non-Christians have a hard time coming to terms with. In fact, Christians have a hard time coming to terms with this. Nevertheless, that is what Christ is believe to be in Christianity.

As for the statement "Why hast though forsaken me?", we are given no explanation for it. We are left to wonder whether it was a literal cry of despair when a theorized moment of separation occurred, or it was a quote from the OT showing that Christ knew God had not and would not abandon Him. In any event, it hardly makes the event "absurd", as Christ in human form would feel fear, pain, and weakness. Otherwise it would be no perfect sacrifice achieving redemption for all time.

format_quote Originally Posted by Imam
we have only two choices:

Either what he had on the cross was something he willed or not,there is no in between....

If he willed it, then logically he was aware of the consequences and the pain,and it would be shameful for him to accuses God of forsaken him
Being aware of God's plan for Him does not equal lack of despair. Jesus was a human being, regardless of the divine nature He emptied Himself of. But again, any conclusion about what Christ actually meant by this statement is conjecture by anyone.

format_quote Originally Posted by Imam
what he was expecting God to do,otherwise?!! to save him from the cross and damage the plan of salvation?!!!
What was he looking for?!!!
No, there is enough evidence from Christ's statements that He knew He would not be saved from the cross. This why the theory of separation was formed in the first place, and also why the other theory was developed. This moment in time was God's alone, and we were not given a script for it.


format_quote Originally Posted by Imam
If what happened on the cross was against his will then we have to go again to the blue yonder ,investigating the miasma of the trinity:
How Jesus and God as said to be one substance have two wills? ONE substance must only have ONE will.
If Jesus and God are one substance then how can ONE substance forsake itself?
Christ stated that His will was His Father's. However, there were two wills at play here. How could this be? I don't claim to know. But the fact remains that Christ was tempted, which God could not be. Why would Satan attempt to tempt Christ if it was fruitless? Perhaps because Christ's human will was at play. To achieve human perfection, Christ depended upon the Will of God. However, He was a human being, and we must assume that the possibility of failure was there, as evidenced by Christ's Temptation and Christ's reaction to Peter when he stated that God would not allow Christ to be taken and killed.

format_quote Originally Posted by Imam
It is absurd if God wanted the plan of salvation and didn't want it at the same time....
That would be absurd, and isn't the case.


format_quote Originally Posted by Imam
No wonder Dennis McKinsey wrote:

These aren't the words of a man who went to the Cross willingly to die for our sins. These are the words of a man who can think of a hundred places he would rather be. They certainly aren't the words of someone who has the situation under control.
How could Jesus be our Savior when he couldn't even save himself?
Who said Christ had the "situation under control?" That is a very odd statement, and a statement that shows a distinct lack of understanding of Christ's purpose and the goal of salvation.


format_quote Originally Posted by Imam
Tom Harpur says:
"The idea of the Second Person of a Holy Trinity knowing what it is to be God-forsaken has only to be stated to be recognized as absurd"
For Christ's Sake, pp. 45.
Does it? Or does it show a mistaken understanding of what Christ as God and Christ as Man actually means?
Reply

Imam
01-15-2009, 02:17 AM
format_quote Originally Posted by Keltoi
It is the height of absurdity for someone to write a little article attempting to explain what their thought processes were in writing the Gospel account, outside of what we do know
I didn't go outside their writing nor played the guessing game. If you have a difficulty believing that their passion was inspired by the Old Testament esp, Isaiah 53 and even the psalm ( which contains the passage under discussion) then go visit me there
http://www.islamicboard.com/comparat...e-jesus-2.html

I'm a person who knows well how to support my thoughts with academic work and documentations......


format_quote Originally Posted by Keltoi
In fact, Christians have a hard time coming to terms with this. Nevertheless, that is what Christ is believe to be in Christianity.
no wonder for me here,I have met dozens of those who used to swallow anything in the Bible even if it doesn't make sense or contradictory....
you are not the first and will not be the last.


format_quote Originally Posted by Keltoi
As for the statement "Why hast though forsaken me?", we are given no explanation for it. We are left to wonder whether it was a literal cry of despair when a theorized moment of separation occurred, or it was a quote from the OT showing that Christ knew God had not and would not abandon Him. In any event, it hardly makes the event "absurd", as Christ in human form would feel fear, pain, and weakness. Otherwise it would be no perfect sacrifice achieving redemption for all time.

in other words ,your guessing that it could means something or its opposite,

well let's address the two of your guessing (was cry for despair) or (was cry for hope):

format_quote Originally Posted by Keltoi
it was a literal cry of despair when a theorized moment of separation occurred, Being aware of God's plan for Him does not equal lack of despair
He wasn't taken by surprise in order to feel despair ,he not only knew that he is going to have such experience but more important he knew that the difficulty would only last for few time and then he will be resurrected again....

It would be shame on him distrusting and accusing his substance of forsaken him if he already read the bible:

Psalm 9:10 Those who know your name will trust in you,
for you, LORD, have never forsaken those who seek you.

format_quote Originally Posted by Keltoi
a quote from the OT showing that Christ knew God had not and would not abandon Him.
That is a muddle !

Jesus says (My God My God why have you forsaken me) and you say (God had not and would not abandon Him)

Just why don't you believe jesus?

which to believe his words or your guessing?


Now let's see Keltoi versus Keltoi


format_quote Originally Posted by Keltoi
He was fully divine and fully human.
versus

format_quote Originally Posted by Keltoi
Jesus was a human being, regardless of the divine nature He emptied Himself of.

format_quote Originally Posted by Keltoi
any conclusion about what Christ actually meant by this statement is conjecture by anyone.
and I would say any conclusion about what Christ actually meant by this statement other than what he really said , words of a man who can think of a hundred places he would rather be,is conjecture by anyone

simply nothing in the passage would makes us think something other than ,that he means what he says and he says what he means....


format_quote Originally Posted by Keltoi
there is enough evidence from Christ's statements that He knew He would not be saved from the cross
so why he cried for help?


format_quote Originally Posted by Keltoi
But the fact remains that Christ was tempted, which God could not be. Why would Satan attempt to tempt Christ if it was fruitless? Perhaps because Christ's human will was at play.
If he is the man-God then logically his divinity was at play too...

I have better answer than yours to the question:

Christ was tempted, which God could not be. Why would Satan attempt to tempt Christ if it was fruitless?

the answer in a word :because Jesus is not God.


format_quote Originally Posted by Keltoi
He was a human being, and we must assume that the possibility of failure was there..
There is a possibility that a human fail ,but it is impossible for a man claimed to be fully God to even imagine the failure..

you ask why?
the normal man can choose either the right path or the left path
while the fully-man fully-God has only one choice ,the right path and only the right path ...
Jesus according to you is God in the flesh and you claim that there was possibility for failure...
so would it be sane to say:

the God that failed ?!!

either Jesus is God (so logically he can't fail nor be tempted), or he isn't,there is no in between.....
Reply

Dawud_uk
01-15-2009, 07:28 AM
format_quote Originally Posted by glo
Greetings, Dawud

Your reply highlights how differently we are thinking.
Something that is obviously a great stumbling block to you isn’t a problem for me at all.

Perhaps it helps to remind yourself that most Christians do not consider the Bible to be God’s dictated word.
Some discrepancies may be due to people describing the same events to different audiences with a different emphasis on certain things (As I tried to explain previously with regards to your comments about the different Bible accounts. I see the different accounts complementing each other, rather than contradicting each other.)
There are other discrepancies in the Bible, which I personally would put down to human error. (I don’t consider the points you made in your OP to be among those)

Some Christians believe that the Bible is indeed God’s directly translated word and to be taken completely literally.
I am not one of those Christians, so I cannot explain to you how those people would explain or accommodate certain discrepancies. You would have to ask them yourself … :)

This conversation in touching the topic of how we read and interpret scripture. (A very interesting topic, which may be worth starting a whole new conversation thread on)

Does not even the Qu’ran, which Muslims believe to be Allah’s directly translated word, require a certain amount of interpretation and discernment?
What I mean is, the reader needs to be aware of when certain passages where passed down to Muhammed, what the political/social circumstance was at the time, how the order of the books in the Qu’ran were decided on, and by whom.
During Ramadan I took the time to read the Qu’ran for myself, and I have come to realise that it is not as clear and directive as I had believed (or perhaps been led to believe by many threads I have read here in this forum).
For example, instructions on how to relate to non-believers differ according to the situations and times Muhammed found himself in at the time of the revelations.
The reader needs to be aware of those circumstances and take them into consideration when reading and interpreting those passages.

(Would you agree? I hope I am making sense! :))

Even more so then with many parts of the Bible and the Hadiths, both of which are much more narrative in nature.
When you read Hadiths, do you not need to ask yourself in what circumstance Muhammed found himself at the time of the event? Who he was addressing in his teaching? Whether his instructions where intended to a particular audience at that particular time, or whether it is relevant to Muslims even now?
Do you look what scholars say about certain Hadiths? How they interpret them? What relevance they give them?
If you do, then it is not much different for me, when I read the Bible.

Of course God doesn’t lie or make mistakes. I am sure we can agree on that.
But if he allows certainly discrepancies and human errors, then he must have his reasons for it. I could hazard a guess as to why, but there is probably not much point in doing that.
Better to trust that God knows best! :)

Salaam
this is taking me back to the confusing part of my life where i became a believer in a Creator but just couldnt accept christianity as true.

you see to me this is all confusing, you are supposed to have God 'inspiring' people to write different contradictory things deliberately...

or he has make mistakes.

so either God is lying or God is making mistakes, neither works for me. my God is not a liar, my God does not make mistakes.


regarding the Quran and sunnah and the need for context, exactly, that is very important but that context is almost totally lacking from the bible, it has been written down many years after the events, most bible scholars accept it was written by people who never met jesus christ (as) and the context is rarely there.

with almost every ayat and every hadith we know when it was revealed / spoken / acted upon, what was the context around it etc.
Reply

Dawud_uk
01-15-2009, 07:31 AM
format_quote Originally Posted by Q8sobieski
The core books were always the same for Arians and Trinitarians. There were other gospels around at the time of the Council of Nicea but their rejection, I believe, was based more on their literary content rather than their theological qualities. Having read many of these Gnostic Gospels, I find their literary quality simply rather poor.
then you are poorly informed, there was over 300 different gospels brought to the council of nicsea, plus many other books and letters etc.

that is not a few minor differences.

plus, many of these works do not survive simply because it was declared illegal to hold a copy, if you were caught you were declared outlaw, i.e outside the law and anyone could do what they pleased with you with no roman law coming down on them.
Reply

Keltoi
01-15-2009, 07:32 AM
format_quote Originally Posted by Imam
I didn't go outside their writing nor played the guessing game. If you have a difficulty believing that their passion was inspired by the Old Testament esp, Isaiah 53 and even the psalm ( which contains the passage under discussion) then go visit me there
http://www.islamicboard.com/comparat...e-jesus-2.html

I'm a person who knows well how to support my thoughts with academic work and documentations......
It depends upon what you mean by "inspired". Of course they were inspired by the OT...that was their religion. If you mean "inspired" in the sense that they made a work of fiction based on their beliefs....that is the basic thought process of a non-Christian...or a non-Muslim, who might say Muhammed was inspired by the religions that pre-dated him.




format_quote Originally Posted by Imam
no wonder for me here,I have met dozens of those who used to swallow anything in the Bible even if it doesn't make sense or contradictory....
you are not the first and will not be the last.
Nice of you to assume so much. I'm very comfortable with my faith and the Scripture from which it comes. Strangely enough I've met many, many dozens who feel the same.





format_quote Originally Posted by Imam
in other words ,your guessing that it could means something or its opposite,

well let's address the two of your guessing (was cry for despair) or (was cry for hope):
It's not me guessing. There is no Scriptural explanation of what Christ's statement meant. We are all guessing when we attempt to enter His mind.



format_quote Originally Posted by Imam
He wasn't taken by surprise in order to feel despair ,he not only knew that he is going to have such experience but more important he knew that the difficulty would only last for few time and then he will be resurrected again....
Yes, which is where the theory of separation comes from.

format_quote Originally Posted by Imam
It would be shame on him distrusting and accusing his substance of forsaken him if he already read the bible:

Psalm 9:10 Those who know your name will trust in you,
for you, LORD, have never forsaken those who seek you.
Yes, which is where the theory of Christ quoting from the Psalm of David comes from.



format_quote Originally Posted by Imam
That is a muddle !
Or a mystery...

format_quote Originally Posted by Imam
Jesus says (My God My God why have you forsaken me) and you say (God had not and would not abandon Him)

Just why don't you believe jesus?

which to believe his words or your guessing?
I believe Christ's words to the letter. All of them, not just this sentence.

format_quote Originally Posted by Imam
and I would say any conclusion about what Christ actually meant by this statement other than what he really said , words of a man who can think of a hundred places he would rather be,is conjecture by anyone

simply nothing in the passage would makes us think something other than ,that he means what he says and he says what he means....
Actually that is a rather odd statement, since Christ often spoke in parables. Christ often quoted from the OT to make a point. It could be the case here, or it could be a literal cry of despair. As we have established already, nobody knows.



format_quote Originally Posted by Imam
If he is the man-God then logically his divinity was at play too...

I have better answer than yours to the question:

Christ was tempted, which God could not be. Why would Satan attempt to tempt Christ if it was fruitless?

the answer in a word :because Jesus is not God.
Again, this shows confusion about what Christians believe Christ to be. There was only one thing that separated Jesus from the rest of humanity, and that was his sinless nature. Where did that sinless nature come from? God. Where did Jesus's humanity come from? His human nature. These two natures were in union in the body of Jesus Christ.




format_quote Originally Posted by Imam
There is a possibility that a human fail ,but it is impossible for a man claimed to be fully God to even imagine the failure..

you ask why?
the normal man can choose either the right path or the left path
while the fully-man fully-God has only one choice ,the right path and only the right path ...
Jesus according to you is God in the flesh and you claim that there was possibility for failure...
so would it be sane to say:

the God that failed ?!!

either Jesus is God (so logically he can't fail nor be tempted), or he isn't,there is no in between.....
See above. But I should have been more descriptive about what I meant. Was the possibility for failure there? No. Was the capacity for failure there? Yes. In other words, he had the choice but not the ability. He did not have the sinful nature to fall into temptation. Why did the Enemy struggle so much to tempt Christ? Because the capacity was there. However, as the Son of God, the living Will of God, Christ would not and could not be tempted.
Reply

glo
01-15-2009, 07:48 AM
format_quote Originally Posted by Dawud_uk
this is taking me back to the confusing part of my life where i became a believer in a Creator but just couldnt accept christianity as true.

you see to me this is all confusing, you are supposed to have God 'inspiring' people to write different contradictory things deliberately...

or he has make mistakes.

so either God is lying or God is making mistakes, neither works for me. my God is not a liar, my God does not make mistakes.


regarding the Quran and sunnah and the need for context, exactly, that is very important but that context is almost totally lacking from the bible, it has been written down many years after the events, most bible scholars accept it was written by people who never met jesus christ (as) and the context is rarely there.

with almost every ayat and every hadith we know when it was revealed / spoken / acted upon, what was the context around it etc.
I guess that's where all of us need to follow our own conviction.
Clearly what was a stumbling block to your faith when reading the Bible has not been one to mine.

Reading the Qu'ran has been a convicting experience for you, but it hasn't for me.

My husband, who is an atheist, has read both books and hasn't been convinced by either.

So we all make out choices in how we walk through life and how we walk with God.
If my husband is right, then none of this will matter.
If you and I are right, then we will give account for our choices to God Himself one day.
And may God show grace and mercy for all the wrong we committed, believing it to be the right thing to do. May He show compassion for our human lack of understanding, and for the mistakes we made as a consequence.

May God keep you and your family always, Dawud.

Peace :)
Reply

Imam
01-16-2009, 11:17 AM
format_quote Originally Posted by Keltoi
If you mean "inspired" in the sense that they made a work of fiction based on their beliefs....that is the basic thought process of a non-Christian...
Yes that is my thought which I supported by documentations in the previous link......


format_quote Originally Posted by Keltoi
It's not me guessing. There is no Scriptural explanation of what Christ's statement meant. We are all guessing when we attempt to enter His mind. ..

Just be factual...

who's playing the guessing game?
It is Christians

Are we ,as objective readers, supposed to play this game too?

The honest,objective readers are not obliged to enter his mind .......

all what they need his words ,what he uttered ,not what he ever might have thought

why?

Job 15:6
"Your own mouth condemns you, and not I; And your own lips testify against you.


As obviously what he uttered condemns him ,that is why Christians let his words and try to enter his mind.........

having entered his perfect mind and found the plan of salvation and his readiness to suffer without any trace for any ideas that might makes him desperate, they rushed outside his mind ,letting him all ,instead seeking the help of Psalm in order defend the absurd:


Let's see if Psalm might help their case:

In previous discussion Grace-seeker claimed the same:

format_quote Originally Posted by Grace-seeker
I said that Jesus was referring to this Psalm. That he saw himself in that same situation as the psalmist,I see Jesus as making a life application of that psalm to his own life..
I posted

format_quote Originally Posted by Imam
In fact Jesus saw himself in the wrong time and place .....

Jesus is free to quote the Psalm or any other books from the Old Testament ,as long as his quotes makes sense to his claims and could be applied to his case...


1- The Jesus who cried "my God, my God why hast thou forsaken me?
needed to know
“For the LORD loves the just and will not forsake his faithful ones. They will be protected forever, but the offspring of the wicked will be cut off;” (Psalms 37:28)
Psalm 46:1 "God is our refuge and strength, a very present help in trouble."

2- The Jesus who cried "my God, my God why hast thou forsaken me? needed to know,and supposed to be God incarnate, he can't speak of being forsaken by himself at all, let alone at the culmination of his plan for human salvation.Why was Jesus afraid, since events were allegedly moving as he desired?

3- "Be not far from me; for trouble is near; for there is none to help" (Psalm 22:11). This indicates that if there were someone to help, he (Jesus) would gladly agree to be saved, which would have meant his death occurred against his will. How then can Christians say he willed it?

4- The The afflicted one in Psalm, God has listened to his cry for help,whereas
Jesus is not..

Psalm24 but has listened to his cry for help.

Matthew34At the ninth hour Jesus cried out with a loud voice, "ELOI, ELOI, LAMA SABACHTHANI?" which is translated, "MY GOD, MY GOD, WHY HAVE YOU FORSAKEN ME?" 35When some of the bystanders heard it, they began saying, "Behold, He is calling for Elijah." Someone ran and filled a sponge with sour wine, put it on a reed, and gave Him a drink, saying, "Let us see whether Elijah will come to take Him down." (AC)And Jesus uttered a loud cry, and breathed His last.

More on the the Psalm here:

http://www.islamicboard.com/comparat...tml#post869495







format_quote Originally Posted by Keltoi
Christ would not and could not be tempted.
Mark 1:13 And he was in the wilderness forty days, being tempted by Satan.



format_quote Originally Posted by Keltoi
There was only one thing that separated Jesus from the rest of humanity, and that was his sinless nature. .

The claim that he never sinned is a myth

A sample from the NT proved himself sinful :

while he advised "...But anyone who says 'You fool' will be in danger of the hell fire" (NIV)

yet,He refers to the Pharisees as "you fools,"In Matthew 23:13-36, "blind fools," extortionists, sons of serpents, a brood of vipers


also

His Transferring demons into about 2,000 pigs: Mark 5:8-14, Matthew 8:28-34 and Luke 8:27-39 describe an incident in which Jesus exorcised a man who had been tormented by about 2,000 demons. Jesus sent the demons into a nearby herd of pigs. Mark 5:13 states: "...And the unclean spirits went out, and entered into the swine: and the herd ran violently down a steep place into the sea, (they were about two thousand;) and were choked in the sea.

In this case, the sin was to destroy intentionally the livelihood of the farmers who owned the pigs.


for the sake of argument, even if Jesus was sinless


we have just known that his flesh was under the control of another being (the father)

His power to do miracles came from the Father.

His knowledge came to him as revealed from the Father.

his morality and how he should act and to avoid sin (if true)revealed to him from the Father too .

WE EXPECT INCARNATED GOD TO BE SINLESS BUT WE EXPECT HIM NOT TO LACK THE OTHER ATTRIBUTES OF HIS DIVINITY AS WELL..

in other words, What he gains by being sinless,he loses for his lack of omniscience.!
Reply

Keltoi
01-16-2009, 05:18 PM
format_quote Originally Posted by Imam
Yes that is my thought which I supported by documentations in the previous link......
You may have "supported" it, but you didn't prove anything. So you are guessing and theorizing in an effort to discredit the Gospel account.





format_quote Originally Posted by Imam
Just be factual...
That is what I'm attempting to do

format_quote Originally Posted by Imam
who's playing the guessing game?
It is Christians
I think there are alot of guessing games going on in this thread

format_quote Originally Posted by Imam
Are we ,as objective readers, supposed to play this game too?
When it comes to understanding the "mind" of God there are very few instances where that mystery is spelled out for us. There are many things contained in the Bible and the Qu'ran that are not explained when it comes to the actions of God. Isn't that why Muslims say "Allah know best"?

format_quote Originally Posted by Imam
The honest,objective readers are not obliged to enter his mind .......
I agree

format_quote Originally Posted by Imam
all what they need his words ,what he uttered ,not what he ever might have thought
In many instances, Christ taught with parables. If all you needed was His words, you miss the point of His sermons. To come to terms with faith and spirituality it takes introspection and study. That is why God gave us a brain capable of doing it. I agree that there are no concrete answers to Christ's thought process on the cross, and nobody has suggested that there is.


format_quote Originally Posted by Imam
Job 15:6
"Your own mouth condemns you, and not I; And your own lips testify against you.


As obviously what he uttered condemns him ,that is why Christians let his words and try to enter his mind.........
You're whole premise is nonsensical. If the the authors of Matthew and Luke thought Christ's statements on the cross "condemned" Him, and according to you they were writing a work of fiction, why would they put the statement in the Gospel account to begin with? You are attempting to discredit the Gospel authors and Christ at the same time, and it doesn't create a very coherent argument...other than to simply be argumentative.

format_quote Originally Posted by Imam
having entered his perfect mind and found the plan of salvation and his readiness to suffer without any trace for any ideas that might makes him desperate, they rushed outside his mind ,letting him all ,instead seeking the help of Psalm in order defend the absurd:
Not sure I can make sense of that. But I believe I addressed that above.


format_quote Originally Posted by Imam
Let's see if Psalm might help their case:

In previous discussion Grace-seeker claimed the same:

I posted

Mark 1:13 And he was in the wilderness forty days, being tempted by Satan.
Which is why I stated that Christ had the capacity to be tempted. Christ did not fall into temptation because He was sinless and only followed the Will of God.



format_quote Originally Posted by Imam
The claim that he never sinned is a myth

A sample from the NT proved himself sinful :

while he advised "...But anyone who says 'You fool' will be in danger of the hell fire" (NIV)

yet,He refers to the Pharisees as "you fools,"In Matthew 23:13-36, "blind fools," extortionists, sons of serpents, a brood of vipers
In the first verse from Matthew 5:22, Christ is referring to unrighteous anger. In other verses, such as Eph 4:26, Christ makes mention of righteous anger. In James 1:20, Christ makes mention of unrighteous anger. That is even more apparent if one looks at Psalm 14:1, which says "The fool has said in his heart, "there is no God." So Christ's treatment of the hypocritical Pharisees was out of righteous anger, the righteous anger of God.



format_quote Originally Posted by Imam
His Transferring demons into about 2,000 pigs: Mark 5:8-14, Matthew 8:28-34 and Luke 8:27-39 describe an incident in which Jesus exorcised a man who had been tormented by about 2,000 demons. Jesus sent the demons into a nearby herd of pigs. Mark 5:13 states: "...And the unclean spirits went out, and entered into the swine: and the herd ran violently down a steep place into the sea, (they were about two thousand;) and were choked in the sea.

In this case, the sin was to destroy intentionally the livelihood of the farmers who owned the pigs.
If you read the totality, it is apparent that the demons killed the pigs.
27
When he came ashore a man from the town who was possessed by demons met him. For a long time he had not worn clothes; he did not live in a house, but lived among the tombs.
28
When he saw Jesus, he cried out and fell down before him; in a loud voice he shouted, "What have you to do with me, Jesus, son of the Most High God? I beg you, do not torment me!"
29
For he had ordered the unclean spirit to come out of the man. (It had taken hold of him many times, and he used to be bound with chains and shackles as a restraint, but he would break his bonds and be driven by the demon into deserted places.)
30
Then Jesus asked him, "What is your name?" 10 He replied, "Legion," because many demons had entered him.
31
And they pleaded with him not to order them to depart to the abyss. 11
32
A herd of many swine was feeding there on the hillside, and they pleaded with him to allow them to enter those swine; and he let them.
33
The demons came out of the man and entered the swine, and the herd rushed down the steep bank into the lake and was drowned.
34
When the swineherds saw what had happened, they ran away and reported the incident in the town and throughout the countryside.


I don't see a sin here, only demons causing havok.


format_quote Originally Posted by Imam
for the sake of argument, even if Jesus was sinless


we have just known that his flesh was under the control of another being (the father)
No, His flesh was not under "control", He simply adhered to the Will of the Father.

format_quote Originally Posted by Imam
His power to do miracles came from the Father.
That is true

format_quote Originally Posted by Imam
His knowledge came to him as revealed from the Father.
Agreed

format_quote Originally Posted by Imam
his morality and how he should act and to avoid sin (if true)revealed to him from the Father too .
Yes

format_quote Originally Posted by Imam
WE EXPECT INCARNATED GOD TO BE SINLESS BUT WE EXPECT HIM NOT TO LACK THE OTHER ATTRIBUTES OF HIS DIVINITY AS WELL..
That may be what you "expect", but it isn't the reality of what Christians believe Christ to be. Without a full humanity, Christ's sacrifice would have been less than perfect. Atonement would not have been achieved. Christ's other "attributes" were emptied or set aside in light of his goal of redemption between God and man.

format_quote Originally Posted by Imam
in other words, What he gains by being sinless,he loses for his lack of omniscience.!
Christ wasn't out to "gain" anything, only the Will of God and atonement for sin.
Reply

Imam
01-16-2009, 09:58 PM
format_quote Originally Posted by Keltoi
When it comes to understanding the "mind" of God there are very few instances where that mystery is spelled out for us.
there you go again !

It is not understanding the "mind" of God,but the word of God


format_quote Originally Posted by Keltoi
In many instances, Christ taught with parables.
but in that instance and situation he was neither teaching nor his words
(my God my God why have you forsaken me) could be a parables of anything......

what he was teaching or highlighting by (my God my God why have you forsaken me)?

was he bringing our attention that his death is prophesied in the Old Testament?

how many times he taught that before?

And while they abode in Galilee, Jesus said unto them, The Son of man shall be delivered up into the hands of men; and they shall kill him(Matt. 17:22-23).the same (Matt. 20:17-19). and .(Luke 24:46). etc........

What was he looking for?!!!

A coward,desperate cry for help teaches nothing......


format_quote Originally Posted by Keltoi

You're whole premise is nonsensical. If the the authors of Matthew and Luke thought Christ's statements on the cross "condemned" Him, and according to you they were writing a work of fiction, why would they put the statement in the Gospel account to begin with?

you ask why the writers would put inappropriate statements in their narratives?


the answer: because

1-they weren't inspired from God the almighty .

2-They tried by all means giving some Old Testament flavor to their narratives,and their zeal had blinded their eyes , resulted in unbelievable number of Old Testament misquoted,twisted,perverted passages in their narratives.


format_quote Originally Posted by Keltoi
You are attempting to discredit the Gospel authors and Christ at the same time

If the gospel authors proved themselves to be un-trustworthy ,would turn the christ you are worshiping ,as introduced by them , to be a Christ of their own imagination. ...



format_quote Originally Posted by Keltoi
If you read the totality, it is apparent that the demons killed the pigs..
and who allowed them to go there causing the damage?

Mark 11A large herd of pigs was feeding on the nearby hillside. 12The demons begged Jesus, "Send us among the pigs; allow us to go into them." 13He gave them permission, and the evil spirits came out and went into the pigs....


you argue exactly as someone set a house on fire and burned it all and when be accused he would answer:

I didn't burn it ,it was the fire.


format_quote Originally Posted by Keltoi
In the first verse from Matthew 5:22, Christ is referring to unrighteous anger. In other verses, such as Eph 4:26, Christ makes mention of righteous anger.

Righteous anger?

let's see what is the biblical righteous and unrighteous anger and apply it to the behaviour of Jesus(according to the NT)

the writer of James adviced

James 1:20 for man’s anger does not bring about the righteous life that God desires


but as there is no way but to feel angry sometimes , so

Ephesians 4:26-27."Be angry, and yet do not sin.


how to be sinful while angry?

Ephesians 4:29 Do not let any unwholesome talk come out of your mouths, but only what is helpful for building others up according to their needs, that it may benefit those who listen.

The anger that leads to calling others sons of serpents(the case of jesus in Mt 23:13-36),by no mean be called righteous anger .....


format_quote Originally Posted by Keltoi
Which is why I stated that Christ had the capacity to be tempted.
you are playing with words!

you should say:Christ had the capacity to resist temptation.

resisting temptation is something and be tempted is another.....


format_quote Originally Posted by Keltoi
Christ did not fall into temptation because He was sinless

that is false assumption, resisting temptation has nothing to do with being sinless If resisting temptation in some occasion makes one to be called sinless then Joseph was sinless


Genesis 39:7-12; Joseph Tempted by Potiphars

7 And it came to pass after these things, that his master’s wife cast her eyes upon Joseph; and she said, Lie with me. 8 But he refused, and said unto his master’s wife, Behold, my master wotteth not what is with me in the house, and he hath committed all that he hath to my hand; 9 There is none greater in this house than I; neither hath he kept back any thing from me but thee, because thou art his wife: how then can I do this great wickedness, and sin against God?
Reply

Keltoi
01-16-2009, 11:28 PM
format_quote Originally Posted by Imam
there you go again !

It is not understanding the "mind" of God,but the word of God
What would you consider to be the Word of God? Every sentence that Christ uttered? Or the Word that Christ taught, as the Sermon on the Mount?




format_quote Originally Posted by Imam
but in that instance and situation he was neither teaching nor his words
(my God my God why have you forsaken me) could be a parables of anything......
I didn't say the particular words "Why have you forsaken me" were part of a parable, I was responding to your assertion that to understand Christ only required a literal reading of His words. In some cases that was true, but in others it requires more thought and understanding of Scripture.

format_quote Originally Posted by Imam
what he was teaching or highlighting by (my God my God why have you forsaken me)?
Perhaps He wasn't teaching anything, and this was a literal cry of despair. Or perhaps He was still teaching, with use of an OT Psalm. As we have established, it is unknown.

format_quote Originally Posted by Imam
was he bringing our attention that his death is prophesied in the Old Testament?
Possibly

format_quote Originally Posted by Imam
how many times he taught that before?

And while they abode in Galilee, Jesus said unto them, The Son of man shall be delivered up into the hands of men; and they shall kill him(Matt. 17:22-23).the same (Matt. 20:17-19). and .(Luke 24:46). etc........

What was he looking for?!!!

A coward,desperate cry for help teaches nothing......
Christ's time on the cross wasn't about looking for anything or teaching anything. It was suffering. During this time of suffering, Christ is said to have uttered seven statements. Some of them profound, some of them as simple as "I am thirsty." Christ's cries of pain and despair are a reminder of what He was going through. As for the particular sentence in question, we have established there is no proveable evidence as to what it meant or its significance.





format_quote Originally Posted by Imam
you ask why the writers would put inappropriate statements in their narratives?


the answer: because

1-they weren't inspired from God the almighty .

2-They tried by all means giving some Old Testament flavor to their narratives,and their zeal had blinded their eyes , resulted in unbelievable number of Old Testament misquoted,twisted,perverted passages in their narratives.
Such as?





format_quote Originally Posted by Imam
If the gospel authors proved themselves to be un-trustworthy ,would turn the christ you are worshiping ,as introduced by them , to be a Christ of their own imagination. ...
Do you have any evidence that they were untrustworthy?





format_quote Originally Posted by Imam
and who allowed them to go there causing the damage?

Mark 11A large herd of pigs was feeding on the nearby hillside. 12The demons begged Jesus, "Send us among the pigs; allow us to go into them." 13He gave them permission, and the evil spirits came out and went into the pigs....


you argue exactly as someone set a house on fire and burned it all and when be accused he would answer:

I didn't burn it ,it was the fire.
The demons who entered the pigs led to their destruction. Christ simply removed them from the individual and allowed them to enter the pigs. Why? Who knows. It was obvious from the verse that Christ could have sent them to the "abyss". He did not.





format_quote Originally Posted by Imam
Righteous anger?

let's see what is the biblical righteous and unrighteous anger and apply it to the behaviour of Jesus(according to the NT)

the writer of James adviced

James 1:20 for man’s anger does not bring about the righteous life that God desires


but as there is no way but to feel angry sometimes , so

Ephesians 4:26-27."Be angry, and yet do not sin.


how to be sinful while angry?

Ephesians 4:29 Do not let any unwholesome talk come out of your mouths, but only what is helpful for building others up according to their needs, that it may benefit those who listen.

The anger that leads to calling others sons of serpents(the case of jesus in Mt 23:13-36),by no mean be called righteous anger .....
And you are ignoring the verses I cited for you. There is righteous anger, which is not anger about what one has said about you, but about what one is doing to others. Should God not be angry with those who hurt the innocent? Unrighteous anger, as outlined in Matthew 5:22, is destructive anger and unnecessarily demeaning. Of course Christ was angered by the acts of the Pharisees.




format_quote Originally Posted by Imam
you are playing with words!

you should say:Christ had the capacity to resist temptation.

resisting temptation is something and be tempted is another.....
Talk about playing with words. Okay, Christ, as a human being, could have fallen into temptation. All it would have taken was Christ ignoring the Will of God. However, Christ could not be tempted into doing that. He endured many days of Satan's temptations, and was not swayed by those temptations.





format_quote Originally Posted by Imam
that is false assumption, resisting temptation has nothing to do with being sinless If resisting temptation in some occasion makes one to be called sinless then Joseph was sinless
I didn't say resisting temptation makes one sinless. I stated that Christ, who did not have a sinful nature, could not be tempted.
Reply

جوري
01-17-2009, 10:51 PM
format_quote Originally Posted by glo

Reading the Qu'ran has been a convicting experience for you, but it hasn't for me.

My husband, who is an atheist, has read both books and hasn't been convinced by either.
You'll forgive me for hijacking the thread to point out.. you have not read the Quran!.. I direct your attention of course to your own thread
http://www.islamicboard.com/discover...practices.html

where you allege that, there is no mention of pilgrimage in the Quran, forgoing amongst all verses the very chapter so entitled that it is a 'Mohammad practice'
So how can you speak of conviction based on reading?
It is your desire to be christian which is fine, but there you've done no comparative analysis-- again (to which you are so entitled) but I'd really refrain from making such statements as if this were an intelligent decision on your part, it isn't, it is not even intuitive as is Christianity is very counter intuitive.. it is merely an endogenous call you have answered as is in all of us, which is the desire to worship.. no different in some than the desire to worship money as well with like conviction.


Good luck with your chosen faith

cheers
Reply

Imam
01-19-2009, 11:16 AM
you repeat yourself !

format_quote Originally Posted by Keltoi
Unrighteous anger, as outlined in Matthew 5:22,
keltoi ,keltoi ..........


Why don't you practice some of this so called righteous anger in your next post ,calling Imam ,who is opposing your views, son of serpents ...

would you? and why



format_quote Originally Posted by Keltoi
Talk about playing with words. Okay, Christ, as a human being, could have fallen into temptation.
and Christ as a full God could not only have never fallen into temptation,but also he could have never ever experienced the temptation itself

James 1:13 God cannot be tempted with evil.


format_quote Originally Posted by Keltoi

2-They tried by all means giving some Old Testament flavor to their narratives,and their zeal had blinded their eyes , resulted in unbelievable number of Old Testament misquoted,twisted,perverted passages in their narratives.

Such as?


Isaiah 7:14Matthew 2:15,Luke 24:46.Matthew (27:9-10).
Matthew (2:23).Matthew(21:1-7, ).(John 19:23-24)Matthew (27:34)
and other dozens .....

Just pick any, and you know the proper place(which I will resume discussion there soon inshaAllah) to discuss it ...

http://www.islamicboard.com/comparat...e-jesus-2.html
Reply

Keltoi
01-19-2009, 01:59 PM
format_quote Originally Posted by Imam
you repeat yourself !



keltoi ,keltoi ..........


Why don't you practice some of this so called righteous anger in your next post ,calling Imam ,who is opposing your views, son of serpents ...

would you? and why
You obviously didn't read or comprehend my post if this is your response. So I will repeat it. As described in the NT, righteous anger is that which comes from the suffering of innocents, or what someone does to others. Unrighteous anger would be that which is unneccessarily destructive. Anger that someone called you a name would be in that list.

When Christ showed anger in the temple it was due to the acts of the Pharisees, who were ignoring the plight of the suffering and were practicing hypocrisy in the name of God.





format_quote Originally Posted by Imam
and Christ as a full God could not only have never fallen into temptation,but also he could have never ever experienced the temptation itself

James 1:13 God cannot be tempted with evil.
Quite simply, that is not the case.


For since He Himself was tempted in that which He has suffered, He is able to come to the aid of those who are tempted
. (NASB) Heb 2:18

... but One who has been tempted in all things as we are, yet without sin.
(NASB) Hebrews 4:15


You cited the passage from James, which is of course true. God cannot be tempted with evil. God is Spirit. God is Holy. However, Christ, who was also of the flesh, experienced all the temptations of the flesh that we do. It wasn't Christ's divinity, or Spirit, that was tempted, but His flesh.







format_quote Originally Posted by Imam
Isaiah 7:14Matthew 2:15,Luke 24:46.Matthew (27:9-10).
Matthew (2:23).Matthew(21:1-7, ).(John 19:23-24)Matthew (27:34)
and other dozens .....

Just pick any, and you know the proper place(which I will resume discussion there soon inshaAllah) to discuss it ...

http://www.islamicboard.com/comparat...e-jesus-2.html
I will go over them when I can
Reply

جوري
01-19-2009, 04:08 PM
format_quote Originally Posted by Imam
you repeat yourself !



keltoi ,keltoi ..........


Why don't you practice some of this so called righteous anger in your next post ,calling Imam ,who is opposing your views, son of serpents ...

would you? and why
It is called being a sanctimonious Tartuffe--- rather rampant in the fundie community, they are all molded from the same plate as Pat Robertson, Franklin Graham, and Jimmy Swaggert etc... especially when you go after the very marrow of their beliefs.. God impregnating women with himself is a little sinister and seems to breed sinister personalities.. How else can you defend that in the 21st century save not for anger followed by attacks?

:w:
Reply

Keltoi
01-19-2009, 07:12 PM
format_quote Originally Posted by Argon Gossamer
It is called being a sanctimonious Tartuffe--- rather rampant in the fundie community, they are all molded from the same plate as Pat Robertson, Franklin Graham, and Jimmy Swaggert etc... especially when you go after the very marrow of their beliefs.. God impregnating women with himself is a little sinister and seems to breed sinister personalities.. How else can you defend that in the 21st century save not for anger followed by attacks?

:w:
I don't see where I have attacked Imam at all. As for the rest of that post, I'll let the irony speak for itself.
Reply

جوري
01-19-2009, 07:45 PM
format_quote Originally Posted by Keltoi
I don't see where I have attacked Imam at all. As for the rest of that post, I'll let the irony speak for itself.
Was my post addressing you? There is no irony in my post at all.. I haven't adjectives to describe Christianity and its reps. for other than what it actually is!
Reply

Imam
01-19-2009, 09:54 PM
:sl:


peace

as my last post is the last one in my discussion with keltoi ...

I would like to back again to the thread title

what are the last words of Jesus (as)?

and would rather ask :

Where the last words were put in the mouth of Jesus(peace be upon him) by the New testament writers ,came from?

The answer:

As for Matthew:

one doesn't need a great deal of wisdom to realize that the (obsessed with quoting the old testament ) writer of Matthew put such words in his passion
Matthew 27:46 “My God, my God, why have you forsaken me?”


due to his wish of a passion with old testament flavor.....

but we have already seen with proof text how he exposed himself ,damaged the context of his narrative,gave us one of the clues for his dishonesty which is a normal result of him being zealous for selling his own agenda and his sect...


As for Luke:


luke on the other hand was not such person who was obsessed by the Old Testament language ,one shouldn't wonder why he while finishing writing his passion,unlike the desperate words of the writer of Matthew ,chose such words of trust

“Father, into Your hands I commit my spirit” (Luke 23:46)

In other words their words are not based on a hearsay accounts but mere their own fantasies...

Peace



:w:
Reply

Keltoi
01-19-2009, 11:05 PM
format_quote Originally Posted by Imam
:sl:


peace

as my last post is the last one in my discussion with keltoi ...

I would like to back again to the thread title

what are the last words of Jesus (as)?

and would rather ask :

Where the last words were put in the mouth of Jesus(peace be upon him) by the New testament writers ,came from?

The answer:

As for Matthew:

one doesn't need a great deal of wisdom to realize that the (obsessed with quoting the old testament ) writer of Matthew put such words in his passion
Matthew 27:46 “My God, my God, why have you forsaken me?”


due to his wish of a passion with old testament flavor.....

but we have already seen with proof text how he exposed himself ,damaged the context of his narrative,gave us one of the clues for his dishonesty which is a normal result of him being zealous for selling his own agenda and his sect...


As for Luke:


luke on the other hand was not such person who was obsessed by the Old Testament language ,one shouldn't wonder why he while finishing writing his passion,unlike the desperate words of the writer of Matthew ,chose such words of trust

“Father, into Your hands I commit my spirit” (Luke 23:46)

In other words their words are not based on a hearsay accounts but mere their own fantasies...

Peace



:w:
The Gospel writers give different accounts of the same event. They are not identical, and aren't meant to be identical. Matthew, because he was writing to the Jews, included the Old Testament prophecies. Mark, writing to the Greeks, did not include many prophecies but writes mostly on the actions of Christ's life.

The same situation occurs when it comes to the angels at the tomb. Matthew records one, while Luke and John record two. They are recording particular events from a particular perspective. Matthew focused on the angel that talked to Mary, while Luke and John speak of the event in more general terms.
Reply

Dawud_uk
01-20-2009, 07:08 AM
format_quote Originally Posted by Keltoi
The Gospel writers give different accounts of the same event. They are not identical, and aren't meant to be identical. Matthew, because he was writing to the Jews, included the Old Testament prophecies. Mark, writing to the Greeks, did not include many prophecies but writes mostly on the actions of Christ's life.

The same situation occurs when it comes to the angels at the tomb. Matthew records one, while Luke and John record two. They are recording particular events from a particular perspective. Matthew focused on the angel that talked to Mary, while Luke and John speak of the event in more general terms.
but it is not that straight forward is it as this is supposed to be inspired by the holy spirit, the 3rd of your trinity.

so either God to you was not capable of writing things the same way, i.e he made mistakes or he was capable in which case the mistakes are deliberate and meant to be lies and confusing.

my Allah does not lie and my Allah does not make mistakes.
Reply

Keltoi
01-20-2009, 01:44 PM
format_quote Originally Posted by Dawud_uk
but it is not that straight forward is it as this is supposed to be inspired by the holy spirit, the 3rd of your trinity.

so either God to you was not capable of writing things the same way, i.e he made mistakes or he was capable in which case the mistakes are deliberate and meant to be lies and confusing.

my Allah does not lie and my Allah does not make mistakes.
Christians do not believe God writes books. We do believe in inspired writings, but not some identical work of literature that God is the "author" of. So writing identical works is not a sign of inspiration from the Christian point of view. The Gospel writers each give a different perspective of the same event. They are not identical.
Reply

جوري
01-20-2009, 06:43 PM
inspired by the imagination? by air? by the devil? by the whims of men? by someone's fancy?
Does anyone else see a problem with 'inspired writing that contradicts itself' that is meant to be followed by the herds? :hmm:
Reply

Dawud_uk
01-21-2009, 07:19 AM
format_quote Originally Posted by Keltoi
Christians do not believe God writes books. We do believe in inspired writings, but not some identical work of literature that God is the "author" of. So writing identical works is not a sign of inspiration from the Christian point of view. The Gospel writers each give a different perspective of the same event. They are not identical.
so you admit you follow a flawed set of documents that you cannot tell whether one thing is a fact or another?
Reply

Eric H
01-21-2009, 08:21 AM
Greetings and peace be with you Dawud_uk;

but it is not that straight forward is it as this is supposed to be inspired by the holy spirit, the 3rd of your trinity.

so either God to you was not capable of writing things the same way, i.e he made mistakes or he was capable in which case the mistakes are deliberate and meant to be lies and confusing.
If God has the power to create the universe and life, then he also has the power to inspire and edit the Bible in the way God desires. No man is more powerful than God, and I see the work of God in the Holy Bible, it speaks with truth, power and authority.

my Allah does not lie and my Allah does not make mistakes.
Your Allah who created you also created me, the same God hears all our prayers, I believe we can learn from each other.

In the spirit of praying for justice, peace and reconciliation between all people.

Eric
Reply

Dawud_uk
01-21-2009, 08:25 AM
format_quote Originally Posted by Eric H
Greetings and peace be with you Dawud_uk;



If God has the power to create the universe and life, then he also has the power to inspire and edit the Bible in the way God desires. No man is more powerful than God, and I see the work of God in the Holy Bible, it speaks with truth, power and authority.



Your Allah who created you also created me, the same God hears all our prayers, I believe we can learn from each other.

In the spirit of praying for justice, peace and reconciliation between all people.

Eric
eric, thanks for the kind words but you didnt answer any of the questions really,

yes God can create the bible as he chooses, but why then did he choose to have mistakes if this was meant to be a book of guidance for mankind?
Reply

Eric H
01-21-2009, 11:51 AM
Greetings and peace be with you Dawud_uk;
eric, thanks for the kind words
And thank you too.
but you didnt answer any of the questions really

yes God can create the bible as he chooses, but why then did he choose to have mistakes if this was meant to be a book of guidance for mankind
When you guys post exerts from the Qu’ran, I read them to try and learn from them, and to search for a best interpretation. Surprisingly it helps me to understand Christianity in a greater way.

I do not understand God, I feel deeply inspired by the Bible, yet the same God has inspired you through the Qua’ran. Maybe we need a certain amount of care in how we talk about other scriptures, somehow it is all down to the same God, but why?

If you read the Bible with the thought of picking out all the ‘contradictions or mistakes’ you will not find any good meaning. Holy Books are intended to inspire each and everyone of us to do something today, they are not a history lesson. If I perceive something as a mistake or a contradiction in the Bible, it causes me to search for meaning, why was it written in this way. After all I trust that God had it written in this way. So if at first it does not seem right it is me, that is at fault and not God. I feel that the Bible has such a great depth that it will keep me inspired for a lifetime, and it still keeps me searching.

Scholars have recently gone through the Bible and highlighted over 2,000 verses that spell out God’s attitude to poverty and justice. They have called it the Poverty and Justice Bible, surely this on its own is worth searching for.

In the spirit of praying for justice for the poor.

Eric
Reply

Dawud_uk
01-21-2009, 12:36 PM
format_quote Originally Posted by Eric H
Greetings and peace be with you Dawud_uk;

And thank you too.


When you guys post exerts from the Qu’ran, I read them to try and learn from them, and to search for a best interpretation. Surprisingly it helps me to understand Christianity in a greater way.

I do not understand God, I feel deeply inspired by the Bible, yet the same God has inspired you through the Qua’ran. Maybe we need a certain amount of care in how we talk about other scriptures, somehow it is all down to the same God, but why?

If you read the Bible with the thought of picking out all the ‘contradictions or mistakes’ you will not find any good meaning. Holy Books are intended to inspire each and everyone of us to do something today, they are not a history lesson. If I perceive something as a mistake or a contradiction in the Bible, it causes me to search for meaning, why was it written in this way. After all I trust that God had it written in this way. So if at first it does not seem right it is me, that is at fault and not God. I feel that the Bible has such a great depth that it will keep me inspired for a lifetime, and it still keeps me searching.

Scholars have recently gone through the Bible and highlighted over 2,000 verses that spell out God’s attitude to poverty and justice. They have called it the Poverty and Justice Bible, surely this on its own is worth searching for.

In the spirit of praying for justice for the poor.

Eric

eric, i was never a christian even though i was brought up in a british family in the UK, my dad was atheist, mum vaguely christian but that was it and we were never christened due to a family argument with the local vicar.

But when i came to a belief in a creator i did pick up a bible, i did try to read it and i saw good moral guidance there and tried to follow it.

but i could never accept that this was the true word of God as i saw it because of the problems i saw in it, and this was very upsetting as no matter how many different vicars, priests, lay preachers i contacted none could explain the problems to my satisfaction.

The Quran however is the book i wanted the bible to be, as so many former christians say, it has the moral code and guidance but without the problems precisely because it is not changed or has the contradiction problems i saw in the bible.
Reply

glo
01-21-2009, 12:52 PM
I agree with Eric.

Perhaps we just have to come to accept that different people react differently to different 'holy books'.
Perhaps this is to do with our personalities or how we were brought up or God chooses to speak to us individually.

This thread seems to have gone round in circles for a while.

Some people seem to look for clear instructions, for a 'do's-and-don'ts-manual'. The Bible probably isn't that kind of book.
Whilst it does contain some instructions, it also contains poetry and prayer and accounts of historic events.

It is the very process of reading and pondering, of questioning and searching, which makes my faith in God grow. I am forever trying to get to know him better and understand his will for me better. I find it very exciting really!

All the while he is guiding me through scripture, but also through prompting me directly.
The other night I felt a deep need to repent of something I have done wrong. Prompted in such a way I picked up the Bible and read Psalm 51 - which had me in tears on my knees on the sitting room floor in the middle of the night.

I am aware that many people fail to see the divine in the Bible. I for one cannot comprehend how anyone can miss it.

I pray that wherever we are in our journey with God we will continue to listen to him, to put aside our own pride, to come to God with humility.
As Psalm 139 says:
Search me, O God, and know my heart;
test me and know my anxious thoughts.
See if there is any offensive way in me,
and lead me in the way everlasting.
peace
Reply

Keltoi
01-21-2009, 03:21 PM
format_quote Originally Posted by Dawud_uk
so you admit you follow a flawed set of documents that you cannot tell whether one thing is a fact or another?
I didn't say anything about a flaw. As Glo mentioned, this boils down to how we look at our holy book as compared to how Muslims look at the Qu'ran. When it comes to the Gospel accounts, we understand that they are a record of events from individual human perspectives. Humanity is the conduit for the Word of God, as God does not write or publish books. As in all matters of faith, it comes down to what one accepts as the Word of God and what are divinely inspired writings.
Reply

Dawud_uk
01-22-2009, 06:56 AM
format_quote Originally Posted by Keltoi
I didn't say anything about a flaw. As Glo mentioned, this boils down to how we look at our holy book as compared to how Muslims look at the Qu'ran. When it comes to the Gospel accounts, we understand that they are a record of events from individual human perspectives. Humanity is the conduit for the Word of God, as God does not write or publish books. As in all matters of faith, it comes down to what one accepts as the Word of God and what are divinely inspired writings.
do you not accept that the ten commandmants were written by our creator?
Reply

Keltoi
01-22-2009, 09:09 AM
format_quote Originally Posted by Dawud_uk
do you not accept that the ten commandmants were written by our creator?
I accept that the tablets Moses brought down from the mountain were indeed the Word of God, yes.
Reply

Dawud_uk
01-22-2009, 12:30 PM
format_quote Originally Posted by Keltoi
I accept that the tablets Moses brought down from the mountain were indeed the Word of God, yes.
then you have just contradicted your previous post.
Reply

Keltoi
01-22-2009, 03:31 PM
format_quote Originally Posted by Dawud_uk
then you have just contradicted your previous post.
No, I don't believe I did. I said that God does not write or publish books. I said that in the context of the Gospel accounts and the Old Testament. Of course the tablets that Moses brought down were the work of God, but when we are referring to the Bible or the Qu'ran, neither Christians nor Muslims believe God zapped them into existence. They are written by the hands of men. Yes, I understand that Muslims believe the Qu'ran is the direct uncorrupted work of God, but most Christians wouldn't make that claim about the Bible. We believe it to be a record of God's interaction with mankind. Written by the hands of men, divinely inspired, to tell the good news of salvation through Jesus Christ.
Reply

Dawud_uk
01-22-2009, 03:49 PM
format_quote Originally Posted by Keltoi
No, I don't believe I did. I said that God does not write or publish books. I said that in the context of the Gospel accounts and the Old Testament. Of course the tablets that Moses brought down were the work of God, but when we are referring to the Bible or the Qu'ran, neither Christians nor Muslims believe God zapped them into existence. They are written by the hands of men. Yes, I understand that Muslims believe the Qu'ran is the direct uncorrupted work of God, but most Christians wouldn't make that claim about the Bible. We believe it to be a record of God's interaction with mankind. Written by the hands of men, divinely inspired, to tell the good news of salvation through Jesus Christ.
then we are back to the old point i made, did God inspire mistakes? why didnt he inspire true accounts without contradictions? was he deliberately trying to confuse people?
Reply

Banu_Hashim
01-22-2009, 04:13 PM
format_quote Originally Posted by Keltoi
No, I don't believe I did. I said that God does not write or publish books. I said that in the context of the Gospel accounts and the Old Testament. Of course the tablets that Moses brought down were the work of God, but when we are referring to the Bible or the Qu'ran, neither Christians nor Muslims believe God zapped them into existence. They are written by the hands of men. Yes, I understand that Muslims believe the Qu'ran is the direct uncorrupted work of God, but most Christians wouldn't make that claim about the Bible. We believe it to be a record of God's interaction with mankind. Written by the hands of men, divinely inspired, to tell the good news of salvation through Jesus Christ.
We, as Muslims say that Allah instructed Muhammad (SAWS) directly via the Angel Jibraeel (AS) (Gabriel). In this sense, the Qur'an is directly the word of God. At the time of the prophet, the primary method of transmission was orally, hence "Al-Qur'an" the literal meaning of which is "the recitation". It was during the Khalifat of Uthman (RA), that Al-Qur'an was standardised as a book to protect the sanctity of the word of God.

But the Qur'an is reffered to as kitaab. As are the other Books of Allah: Taurah (Torah), Injeel (Bible), Zabur (Pslams).
Reply

Keltoi
01-22-2009, 04:14 PM
format_quote Originally Posted by Dawud_uk
then we are back to the old point i made, did God inspire mistakes? why didnt he inspire true accounts without contradictions? was he deliberately trying to confuse people?
I'm not exactly sure what contradictions you are referring to, but in terms of the Gospel account it is a matter of perspective. The individual authors of the Gospel wrote their summations of Christ's life through the lens of their own perspective and through the lens of those they were summarizing to. That doesn't mean they weren't inspired by truth, it simply means they had different elements they focused on depending upon the audience they were addressing. We take the Gospel accounts as a whole and put them together to produce what we know of Christ's work on Earth and His gift of salvation. The New Testament is not about reciting sentences, it is intended to tell people of a miraculous event and the salvation offered through the actions of Jesus Christ.
Reply

Keltoi
01-22-2009, 04:16 PM
format_quote Originally Posted by Banu_Hashim
We, as Muslims say that Allah instructed Muhammad (SAWS) directly via the Angel Jibraeel (AS) (Gabriel). In this sense, the Qur'an is directly the word of God. At the time of the prophet, the primary method of transmission was orally, hence "Al-Qur'an" the literal meaning of which is "the recitation". It was during the Khalifat of Uthman (RA), that Al-Qur'an was standardised as a book to protect the sanctity of the word of God.
Yes, I'm aware of that. That is not how Christians view the Bible however, which is the point I was trying to make.
Reply

Dawud_uk
01-22-2009, 04:19 PM
format_quote Originally Posted by Keltoi
I'm not exactly sure what contradictions you are referring to, but in terms of the Gospel account it is a matter of perspective. The individual authors of the Gospel wrote their summations of Christ's life through the lens of their own perspective and through the lens of those they were summarizing to. That doesn't mean they weren't inspired by truth, it simply means they had different elements they focused on depending upon the audience they were addressing. We take the Gospel accounts as a whole and put them together to produce what we know of Christ's work on Earth and His gift of salvation. The New Testament is not about reciting sentences, it is intended to tell people of a miraculous event and the salvation offered through the actions of Jesus Christ.
the title of the thread is kinda what i was referring to as only one of the many contradictions or where did jesus first meet peter or how did judus die? there are many contradictions.
Reply

Banu_Hashim
01-22-2009, 04:19 PM
format_quote Originally Posted by Keltoi
Yes, I'm aware of that. That is not how Christians view the Bible however, which is the point I was trying to make.
Do Christians not view the Bible as historically accurate, i.e. the Word of God? Such as the the great flood at the time of Noah (AS). Or is that regarded as the "Old Testament". What exactly do poeple mean when they refer to "the Bible"? Is it just the gospels?
Reply

Keltoi
01-22-2009, 05:39 PM
format_quote Originally Posted by Banu_Hashim
Do Christians not view the Bible as historically accurate, i.e. the Word of God? Such as the the great flood at the time of Noah (AS). Or is that regarded as the "Old Testament". What exactly do poeple mean when they refer to "the Bible"? Is it just the gospels?
I think you are mixing two issues, meaning "historically accurate" and the "Word of God." Of course when it comes to events such as the Great Flood we do consider that to be an historical event. However, when it comes to every word and letter in the Bible as the direct dictated words of the Creator...no, that isn't what we claim. The Bible is written by men, inspired by the work of God in their lives and the lives of their people.

When we say Bible, we are referring to the OT and the NT. The Gospel is contained within the NT.
Reply

Banu_Hashim
01-22-2009, 06:50 PM
format_quote Originally Posted by Keltoi
I think you are mixing two issues, meaning "historically accurate" and the "Word of God." Of course when it comes to events such as the Great Flood we do consider that to be an historical event. However, when it comes to every word and letter in the Bible as the direct dictated words of the Creator...no, that isn't what we claim. The Bible is written by men, inspired by the work of God in their lives and the lives of their people.

When we say Bible, we are referring to the OT and the NT. The Gospel is contained within the NT.
Right, OK. Thanks for clearing that up for me. :)
Reply

Dawud_uk
01-23-2009, 12:01 PM
keltoi,

ok let me put it another way for you...

why did God choose to place his message to mankind, belief in which lays salvation according to you, within a book that has flaws and contradictions?
Reply

Umar001
01-23-2009, 12:48 PM
Bismillahir Rahmanir Raheem,

Just as a quick comment, if one already believes a book to be from God then no matter the contradictions one can always resort to saying that they are placed in there by God to highlight a deeper truth.

The point of the thread, I assume, is to go beyond that, starting from a more neutral point, not starting by saying 'This is the word of God thus...' but rather saying, 'Can this be the word of God if it has such discrepencies?'

Br.al-Habeshi
Reply

Keltoi
01-23-2009, 04:28 PM
It must be understood that the Bible was written by approximately 40 different authors over a period of 1500 years. Each individual author wrote with a different style, a different perspective, to a different audience, and for a different purpose. There will obviously be differences. There are a few instances where verses seem to contradict another, but most if not all can be reconciled by reading them in context.

It might be an issue if Christ had made contradictory statements about the path to salvation or the nature of God and what He expects of us.
Reply

glo
01-23-2009, 08:51 PM
format_quote Originally Posted by Dawud_uk
.
why did God choose to place his message to mankind, belief in which lays salvation according to you, within a book that has flaws and contradictions?
format_quote Originally Posted by Al Habeshi
'Can this be the word of God if it has such discrepencies?'
Why should God choose flawed humans to write a book about him?

The true answer is, I don't know.
It is always a risky business to make assumptions about God's will and purpose, but perhaps he "chose the foolish things of the world to shame the wise; [and] chose the weak things of the world to shame the strong" (1 Corinthians 1:27)
Perhaps he did so, so people like you and I can still sit here, 2000 years later, feeling challenged, wanting answers, searching, studying, debating ... and ever getting closer to the truth. :)

This thread continues to go round in circles because you are trying to compare two books which are very different in nature.
It doesn't make sense to expect the Bible to be like the Qu'ran - and then to criticise it for it's shortcomings, just as it wouldn't make sense to do so vice versa.


Muslims believe the Qu'ran to be God's direct revelation to mankind.
Christians don't make the same claim of the Bible.
Of course, God does reveal himself in his Word. There is much we can learn and understand about God by studying his Word - his history with us humans, his nature and his intentions.
But God's true and final revelation comes with his Son Jesus Christ himself!

And by that I don't just mean what the gospels and the other books of the New Testament say about Jesus, his life, his teachings, his death and his resurrection.

Jesus said this about himself:
"I am the way and the truth and the life. No one comes to the Father except through me. If you really knew me, you would know my Father as well. From now on, you do know him and have seen him." (John 14:6-7)
Jesus reveals himself directly to us today - if we are willing to let him.
Millions of Christians across the world bear witness to the changes which occur when people accept Jesus Christ as their personal Saviour. That is the revelation of God in us.


Of course, for Muslims that seems impossible to accept. It is foolish perhaps, even blasphemous ...
But if you want to know what Christians believe about God revealing himself in their lives - there is your answer.

Salaam :)
Reply

Grace Seeker
01-23-2009, 10:50 PM
format_quote Originally Posted by Dawud_uk
keltoi,

ok let me put it another way for you...

why did God choose to place his message to mankind, belief in which lays salvation according to you, within a book that has flaws and contradictions?
Let me correct you. God did NOT place his message to mankind within a book at all. Oh sure, there is a book and we value it. But the book (or more appropriately, the collection of books) is just an instrument used to connect us to what God has done and is doing in this world. He came as the incarnate WORD and dwelled among us. His life, his death, his resurrection -- these events are the message. The rest of the stuff, the words of Jesus that Muslims seem to focus on so much, to a Christian who knows Jesus personally, these are just frosting on the cake. We are glad to have what we have, but we don't need his words to find either God or salvation; we need him.
Reply

Dawud_uk
01-24-2009, 07:05 AM
format_quote Originally Posted by Grace Seeker
Let me correct you. God did NOT place his message to mankind within a book at all. Oh sure, there is a book and we value it. But the book (or more appropriately, the collection of books) is just an instrument used to connect us to what God has done and is doing in this world. He came as the incarnate WORD and dwelled among us. His life, his death, his resurrection -- these events are the message. The rest of the stuff, the words of Jesus that Muslims seem to focus on so much, to a Christian who knows Jesus personally, these are just frosting on the cake. We are glad to have what we have, but we don't need his words to find either God or salvation; we need him.
did you ever hear jesus preach to the masses? no you didnt, so you are arguing over terms of reference, the method of getting that message to you is the bible isnt it?

so answer the question, why is this message contained within a book containing flaws and contradictions.

your answer it doesnt matter as you have some sort of spiritual connection with jesus is not correct and not evidence and i will explain as best i can.

i have spoken to people of lots of different faiths, most of them claim simular spiritual experiences. so when i have spoken to a hindu and he has told me he has been visited by his gods and goddesses and personally spoken to them and personally feels their presense as many hindus claim then you as a christian and me as a muslim can at least on this point both agree either he is lying, he is mad or he has experienced the devil who has decieved him.

now how am i to take your own experiences any different when your faith to me is also false just like his?
Reply

Dawud_uk
01-24-2009, 07:09 AM
peace be upon those who follow righteous guidance,

i have been reading with interest all the responses and it seems to come down to this...

it is true because the book says it is true, and the book is true because the book says so.

what independent proof do you have?

otherwise your proof is not better than the proof the sikhs and hindus offer as proof of their books being true.

for example, i can prove to non muslims the Quran is the word of God by various means that dont just involve the referring to the Quran itself.
Reply

Grace Seeker
01-24-2009, 07:39 AM
format_quote Originally Posted by Dawud_uk
now how am i to take your own experiences any different when your faith to me is also false just like his?
You won't. But you put the question to me as a Christian, and I still tell you that for me the message is not in the book, but in the life of Jesus. That life was testified to and leading people to Jesus long before the book was ever written. The book is just a means by which we pass testimony of that life on from one generation to the next, but you make a mistake if you think that the book is the message, it merely points to the one who is himself the message.
Reply

Dawud_uk
01-24-2009, 08:02 AM
format_quote Originally Posted by Grace Seeker
You won't. But you put the question to me as a Christian, and I still tell you that for me the message is not in the book, but in the life of Jesus. That life was testified to and leading people to Jesus long before the book was ever written. The book is just a means by which we pass testimony of that life on from one generation to the next, but you make a mistake if you think that the book is the message, it merely points to the one who is himself the message.
yes i got that point, to avoid arguing over a minor point let me rephrase my previous question just for you.

why would God choose to place the means of learning about the message in a document that is flawed and contradictory?
Reply

glo
01-24-2009, 12:06 PM
format_quote Originally Posted by Dawud_uk
why would God choose to place the means of learning about the message in a document that is flawed and contradictory?
Dawud, why do you keep repeating the same question over and over?

Being a mother that's a strategy I sometimes recognise in my own children - usually when they have asked me a question to which I have given an answer contrary to the one they were hoping for ... :giggling:

So, I wonder what answer it is you may be hoping to hear?
Perhaps something like "O goodness, Dawud is right ... how could I have been so mistaken all those years??!"
(Apologies for being in a slightly mischievious mood today ... :D)

Joking aside, all Christians who seriously read and study the Bible have to sooner or later consider the question you have asked in this thread.
I think Keltoi, Grace Seeker and I have given very clear reasons as to why the 'imperfections' of the Bible do not affect our faith.
If you read our replies carefully, you will find the answer to your question - and hopefully you will be able to respect that this is what we believe and hold dear.

The immediate relationship with God through Jesus, which Grace Seeker speaks about, is something I know myself and can relate to very well.
I believe that it is that relationship, which makes me a Christian. Knowing and studying the Bible just helps me to put it into context.
Those, who do not know this relationship with God probably find it impossible to comprehend.

I feel I have explained my answers to you as best as I possibly can.
I can see that you cannot agree with our Christian view. Since you have chosen Islam as your path I can understand that. I wouldn't expect you to agree. But I would kindly ask you to try to respect those views as our faith - even if you cannot agree with them.

I don't feel there is anything else I can contribute to this thread.

Dawud, I wish you well on your journey with God. May he soften your heart and grant you a spirit of peace.

Salaam :)
Reply

Umar001
01-24-2009, 12:37 PM
Bismillahir Rahmanir Raheem,

It is not just about comparing Qur'an and Bible, that sometimes happens and it can be wrong, but it is beyond that.

Trusting a source of unknown origins which may contradict itself and shows signs of having being changed is not how the Qur'an is revealed.

It is a principle which can be applied to different things, court cases, Biblical or Qur'anic testimony, historical research etc.

For example, your statement:

Jesus said this about himself:


Followed by a quote from the Gospel according to John is something which should be looked into, if I said so and so said "you idiot" one would only do well to first verify that.

When a Muslim or a Christian says the Bible says or the Qur'an says, the receieving party if sensible enough will ask, ''what's the reference''.

This is the point I am making.

Br.'Eesa
Reply

ninetrey
01-24-2009, 10:45 PM
esselamu aleikum

i think, not know, that Isas (Jesus) last words were Allahu Akbar either
in arabic or in aramaic.
Reply

Grace Seeker
01-25-2009, 05:38 AM
format_quote Originally Posted by Dawud_uk
yes i got that point, to avoid arguing over a minor point let me rephrase my previous question just for you.

why would God choose to place the means of learning about the message in a document that is flawed and contradictory?
God didn't. People did. God lived out the message by actually dwelling among us, and then entrusted the disemination of that message to faithful men who first verbally told the story to those they knew, later travelled to share it with those they didn't know, and then finally wrote about it to preserve the story of their own experience for future generations. But God still uses the direct approach, as his Holy Spirit continues to convict people with regard to sin, to direct people into the knowledge of truth and into righteousness.
Reply

Dawud_uk
01-25-2009, 06:04 AM
format_quote Originally Posted by Grace Seeker
God didn't. People did. God lived out the message by actually dwelling among us, and then entrusted the disemination of that message to faithful men who first verbally told the story to those they knew, later travelled to share it with those they didn't know, and then finally wrote about it to preserve the story of their own experience for future generations. But God still uses the direct approach, as his Holy Spirit continues to convict people with regard to sin, to direct people into the knowledge of truth and into righteousness.
then by that definition your God is less powerful, Allah determines all things, the good and the bad and you are by your own and others admission on here following a book that has flaws and contradictions.

however many words you attempt to use you cannot get away from the fact that the basis of christian docterine is this book, the bible.
Reply

Grace Seeker
01-26-2009, 03:30 AM
format_quote Originally Posted by Dawud_uk
then by that definition your God is less powerful, Allah determines all things, the good and the bad and you are by your own and others admission on here following a book that has flaws and contradictions.

however many words you attempt to use you cannot get away from the fact that the basis of christian docterine is this book, the bible.
I'm not sure why that makes "my God" less powerful. After all what God can do and what God does do are two different things. Additionally, if Allah determines all things, and I am, by your definition, following a book that is flawed, is that not something that Allah has determined? Who am I to differ with his deterimination?

Now, as to the part of your post that made sense: "the basis of christian docterine is this book, the bible." On that you are correct. But the Christian message and Christian doctrine, though similar, are not identical. Maybe doctrine and message are identical in Islam, but they are not in Christianity. Let me illustrate with a comment made on a Christian forum between two Christians.

Christian #1: How do does one defend Arminianism?

(Note: for those who may not be familiar with Christian theology and doctrine, there are two great camps in Christian theology, essentially debated endlessly.
(1) Calvinism which says that God because of the ultimate sovereignty of God, that this means God predetermines who will and who will not be saved and that Christ's atoning work only applies to those who God has elected for salvation. And that if you are chosen, God's grace is irresistable; and that if not chosen, it is unattainable.
(2) Arminianism which says that because humans have free will that they are free agents with regard to accepting or rejecting God's offering of grace. That such grace is offered freely to all, and therefore that Christ's atoning sacrifice was made on behalf of all, but that it is only effective in the lives of those who willingly receive it.
Both groups have strong biblical verses to support that contending views.)

Christian #2: Predestination versus Free will? This may sound horrible, but personally I don't care. It doesn't effect my spiritual walk at all. An elder once told me. Pray to God like it's all up to God. But let your actions and decisions be made like its all up to you. So, suppose I did know the answer, it wouldn't effect my life either way. I'd still follow the same guidelines. It's doctrine that doesn't have any practical life applications.



So you see, there is lots of room to debate Christian doctrine, and with or without the book some of it is going to be right and some of it is going to be wrong. But important as doctrine is, right doctrine isn't the key for Christian living, putting God's message of love and salvation made available to us in Jesus Christ to work in one's life is. Ultimately Christian praxis trumphs Christian beliefs. (See Mattew 25 and James 2 for biblical support of that worldview, but be warned doing so returns us to a discussion of doctrine.)
Reply

Eric H
01-26-2009, 05:24 AM
Greetings and peace be with you Dawud_uk;
for example, i can prove to non muslims the Quran is the word of God by various means that dont just involve the referring to the Quran itself
What you claim as proof may be full of flaws and contradictions, because I have not seen your proof, and I am a non- Muslim.

I do believe we have to be very careful in how we use our proof against others.

In the spirit of praying to the One God who hears all our prayers.

Eric
Reply

Dawud_uk
01-26-2009, 06:28 AM
format_quote Originally Posted by Eric H
Greetings and peace be with you Dawud_uk;

What you claim as proof may be full of flaws and contradictions, because I have not seen your proof, and I am a non- Muslim.

I do believe we have to be very careful in how we use our proof against others.

In the spirit of praying to the One God who hears all our prayers.

Eric
peace eric,

just about every former christian who becomes muslim says the Quran is the book they wanted the bible to be, now you are on a muslim messageboard so will be easy if you want someone to send one to you so you can at least check out the evidence.

i keep a stock of them myself if you want me to post you one.

i agree we have to use proof carefully so as not to say something about Allah he has not said himself which would be blasphemy which is why i was always taught if i dont know the answer to say i dont know.
Reply

Zamtsa
01-31-2009, 11:01 AM
format_quote Originally Posted by Keltoi
What would you consider to be the Word of God? Every sentence that Christ uttered? Or the Word that Christ taught, as the Sermon on the Mount?

I didn't say the particular words "Why have you forsaken me" were part of a parable, I was responding to your assertion that to understand Christ only required a literal reading of His words. In some cases that was true, but in others it requires more thought and understanding of Scripture.

Perhaps He wasn't teaching anything, and this was a literal cry of despair. Or perhaps He was still teaching, with use of an OT Psalm. As we have established, it is unknown.


Christ's time on the cross wasn't about looking for anything or teaching anything. It was suffering. During this time of suffering, Christ is said to have uttered seven statements. Some of them profound, some of them as simple as "I am thirsty." Christ's cries of pain and despair are a reminder of what He was going through. As for the particular sentence in question, we have established there is no proveable evidence as to what it meant or its significance.


The demons who entered the pigs led to their destruction. Christ simply removed them from the individual and allowed them to enter the pigs. Why? Who knows. It was obvious from the verse that Christ could have sent them to the "abyss". He did not.

And you are ignoring the verses I cited for you. There is righteous anger, which is not anger about what one has said about you, but about what one is doing to others. Should God not be angry with those who hurt the innocent? Unrighteous anger, as outlined in Matthew 5:22, is destructive anger and unnecessarily demeaning. Of course Christ was angered by the acts of the Pharisees.

Talk about playing with words. Okay, Christ, as a human being, could have fallen into temptation. All it would have taken was Christ ignoring the Will of God. However, Christ could not be tempted into doing that. He endured many days of Satan's temptations, and was not swayed by those temptations.


I didn't say resisting temptation makes one sinless. I stated that Christ, who did not have a sinful nature, could not be tempted.
The Jesus in the Bible shouted "Eli, Eli lama sabachtani." Eli means my God.

Why didn't the crucified man said "Aba, Aba lama sabachtani." Aba means father.

Why did Jesus in the Bible never said that he was going to sacrifice himself to human kind with "his blood,"?

Why did 'son of God'(in inverted comas) eaten and eat food? If God had/has a son wouldn't that man not as simbolically a food and wouldn't he be a non eating being?

In the Dead Sea Scrolls even written that he did Polygyny. He was married with more than 1 wife(Polygyny).

The Dead Sea Scrolls was not only about the written things prior to Jesus. Because the excavation was stop for the reason that it was found a source in there which wrote that Almasih Jesus Ibn Maryam Rasulullah 'alaihi Shalawatu wa Salaam was doing Polygyny.


May peace, development and save from guile be upon who follow the guidance.
Reply

Eric H
02-02-2009, 05:23 AM
Greetings and peace be with you Dawud_uk;

just about every former christian who becomes muslim says the Quran is the book they wanted the bible to be, now you are on a muslim messageboard so will be easy if you want someone to send one to you so you can at least check out the evidence.
I am at peace with my faith, I know you have good intentions and mean well, but I came to this forum in the hope of fostering interfaith friendship. We are all created by the same God, my beliefs hang on the greatest commandments and justice for all people.

If we are to use Holy Scriptures to compete against each other, then it should be in doing good deeds to bring glory to God and justice and peace for the oppressed, marginalised and poor.

In the spirit of praying for justice for all the poor and oppressed people.

Eric
Reply

Grace Seeker
02-02-2009, 06:44 AM
format_quote Originally Posted by Abdul Thayyib
In the Dead Sea Scrolls even written that he did Polygyny. He was married with more than 1 wife(Polygyny).

The Dead Sea Scrolls was not only about the written things prior to Jesus. Because the excavation was stop for the reason that it was found a source in there which wrote that Almasih Jesus Ibn Maryam Rasulullah 'alaihi Shalawatu wa Salaam was doing Polygyny.
You posted this 5 days ago in another thread, I asked you for a source and you provided none. So, I offer these sources:
Although the Qumran community existed during the time of the ministry of Jesus, none of the Scrolls refer to Him, nor do they mention any of His follower's described in the New Testament.
Source: 25 Fascinating Facts About the Dead Sea Scrolls


And in terms of the quest for the historical Jesus, what does the story of the Essenes tell us? What light does it cast on his life and times?

The discovery of the Dead Sea Scrolls, and our growing knowledge of the Essene community that produced them, gives us one of the most important pieces of evidence for the diversity of Jewish life and thought in the time of Jesus. Now, it has sometimes been suggested that Jesus, himself, or maybe even John the Baptist, were members of this group. And that can't be proven at all. But what the Essenes and the Qumran scrolls do show us is the kind of challenges that could be brought against some of the traditional lines of Jewish thought, and even the operation of the Temple itself. So if one of our perspectives is that there is this growing tension in Jerusalem, the Essenes are probably the best example of how radical that questioning of Temple life might become.
Source: FRONTLINE: The Essenes and the Dead Sea Scrolls


Now the DSS are continuing to be researched to this day, and perhaps you have something new that the above websites did not have. If Jesus is mentioned at all in the DSS, be it referring to a marriage or something else, I would like to have the manuscript reference, as there are some who want to suggest that Jesus wasn't even a real person because they insist that he is never mentioned in contemporaneous writings of his day.
Reply

Follower
02-04-2009, 03:27 PM
Hadith are not the Word of GOD, the Gospel is the Word of GOD.
Reply

Follower
02-04-2009, 03:50 PM
Are you asking about Jesus last words on the cross, before His assenscion, our last day of Judgement?

You must go to the Aramaic reading of the Bible to receive the full message of Jesus' last words on the cross-

Matthew 27
46 And about the ninth hour, Yeshua cried out with a load voice and said, My God! My God! Why have you spared me?

50 Then again Yeshua cried out with a loud voice and gave up his spirit. [go to Luke and John to read the actual words]

Mark 15
34 And in the ninth hour, Yeshua cried out in a load voice and said, Eil! Eil! lmana shwaqthani, that is “My God! My God! Why have you spared me?

Luke 23
46 And Yeshua cried out with a load voice and said, My Father, Into your hands I place my spirit! He said this and it was finished

John 19
30 And when he had taken that vinegar Yeshua said, Behold, it is finished! And he bowed his head and gave up his spirit.

then later:
Matthew 28
16Then the eleven disciples went to Galilee, to the mountain where Jesus had told them to go. 17When they saw him, they worshiped him; but some doubted. 18Then Jesus came to them and said, "All authority in heaven and on earth has been given to me. 19Therefore go and make disciples of all nations, baptizing them in the name of the Father and of the Son and of the Holy Spirit, 20and teaching them to obey everything I have commanded you. And surely I am with you always, to the very end of the age."
Reply

Dawud_uk
02-05-2009, 09:12 AM
format_quote Originally Posted by Follower
Are you asking about Jesus last words on the cross, before His assenscion, our last day of Judgement?

You must go to the Aramaic reading of the Bible to receive the full message of Jesus' last words on the cross-

Matthew 27
46 And about the ninth hour, Yeshua cried out with a load voice and said, My God! My God! Why have you spared me?

50 Then again Yeshua cried out with a loud voice and gave up his spirit. [go to Luke and John to read the actual words]

Mark 15
34 And in the ninth hour, Yeshua cried out in a load voice and said, Eil! Eil! lmana shwaqthani, that is “My God! My God! Why have you spared me?

Luke 23
46 And Yeshua cried out with a load voice and said, My Father, Into your hands I place my spirit! He said this and it was finished

John 19
30 And when he had taken that vinegar Yeshua said, Behold, it is finished! And he bowed his head and gave up his spirit.

then later:
Matthew 28
16Then the eleven disciples went to Galilee, to the mountain where Jesus had told them to go. 17When they saw him, they worshiped him; but some doubted. 18Then Jesus came to them and said, "All authority in heaven and on earth has been given to me. 19Therefore go and make disciples of all nations, baptizing them in the name of the Father and of the Son and of the Holy Spirit, 20and teaching them to obey everything I have commanded you. And surely I am with you always, to the very end of the age."
i understood there were very few of the original aramaic parchments that survived due to the early church burning so many once they translated them into greek.

and thanks for the extra contradiction in matthew, now we have three different accounts.
Reply

Eric H
02-05-2009, 11:57 AM
Greetings and peace be with you Dawud_uk;
and thanks for the extra contradiction in matthew, now we have three different accounts
Follower asked you a question, do you want the last words of Jesus on the cross, or the last words before he ascended into heaven. The passages he gave covered these two separate events in time, this is not a contradiction.

Mathew 28
Jesus came to them and said, "All authority in heaven and on earth has been given to me.

And surely I am with you always, to the very end of the age."
You might reflect on these great claims, as I understand Islam recognises the authority of Jesus.
I believe we have to be very careful about our views on other faiths, we answer to the same God.

In the spirit of praying for a greater interfaith friendship

Eric
Reply

Follower
02-05-2009, 01:40 PM
LOL!! That is not a contradiction. Matthew did not record the words that Jesus used when He cried out. It is not denying it. It is possible he did not hear the words- maybe he was further away from the cross then the other eyewitnesses.

But really which last words do you want?

Are you asking about Jesus last words on the cross, before His assenscion, our last day of Judgement?

What are Jesus' last words according to the Quran?

Somone asked - Why should God choose flawed humans to write a book about him?

That is all there is- flawed humans. Even according to your Quran the only one not flawed is Jesus, who is recorded as being pure and faultless.
Reply

Dawud_uk
02-06-2009, 06:10 PM
format_quote Originally Posted by Follower
LOL!! That is not a contradiction. Matthew did not record the words that Jesus used when He cried out. It is not denying it. It is possible he did not hear the words- maybe he was further away from the cross then the other eyewitnesses.

But really which last words do you want?

Are you asking about Jesus last words on the cross, before His assenscion, our last day of Judgement?

What are Jesus' last words according to the Quran?

Somone asked - Why should God choose flawed humans to write a book about him?

That is all there is- flawed humans. Even according to your Quran the only one not flawed is Jesus, who is recorded as being pure and faultless.
your book is flawed and faulty, hence all the problems with it and why i dont follow it. it is a test that you can subject the Quran to as well, it is a challenge by God in his last and final testament to mankind, if this is a book not from Allah then in it you would find many flaws and contradictions.

as you say humans are flawed then if this was a book not from God and written by man then it would be flawed.

so put it to the test.
Reply

Follower
02-07-2009, 12:25 AM
So quick to call flawed that your Quran validates!!

http://www.gotquestions.org/Bible-inspired.html
God divinely influenced the human authors of the Scriptures in such a way that what they wrote was the very Word of God

Too many humans in this mix:
Allah spoke to the angel, who spoke to Mohammad, who spoke to the scribes!!
Reply

Grace Seeker
02-08-2009, 01:27 AM
format_quote Originally Posted by Dawud_uk
i understood there were very few of the original aramaic parchments that survived due to the early church burning so many once they translated them into greek.
If you are saying that the original writings for the New Testament were all written first in Aramaic and then translated into Greek, with the subsequent burning of those originals, I'm afraid you have been seriously misinformed. Consider simply how much of the New Testament consists of letters written to churches in Greece and Greek-speaking Asia minor. Why would any of these have ever been written in anything but Greek to begin with?

Consider that the Gospel of Luke was written by a Greek-speaking gentile and to other Greek-speaking gentiles. Why would it have been written in Aramaic?

Consider that the Gospel of John was written by the apostle after he had been living in the Greek-speaking world for many years and was also intended primarily for a Greek-speaking audience. Why would it have been written in Aramaic?

I'll give you that there is a possiblity that the Gospel of Matthew might have been originally composed in Hebrew (or perhaps Aramaic) before being re-written in Greek, but that cannot be shown to be true, only speculated about.

And, if the church made the effort, as it can be shown that it did, to translate the scriptures out of Greek into other languages, why would they have burned the original copies if they had them?

I suspect you need to find better sources if you are trying to educate yourself on the origin of the Christian scriptures, for what you have shared just doesn't make logical sense, let alone have any basis in actual fact.
Reply

Follower
02-08-2009, 03:10 AM
graceseeker- Dawud_uk was replying to my statement - "You must go to the Aramaic reading of the Bible to receive the full message of Jesus' last words on the cross-"

Matthew 27
46 And about the ninth hour, Yeshua cried out with a load voice and said, My God! My God! Why have you spared me?

46About the ninth hour Jesus cried out in a loud voice, "Eloi, Eloi, lama sabachthani?"—which means, "My God, my God, why have you forsaken me?"

another aramaic translation I have found for sabachthani is- "for this I was kept"

Yntqb4
forgive, allow
Reply

safallah
02-08-2009, 03:16 AM
can we please talk about is jesus god, i would love to show our christian friends the statements jesus made proving he is not god........................ mark 13/32
Reply

Keltoi
02-08-2009, 04:25 AM
format_quote Originally Posted by safallah
can we please talk about is jesus god, i would love to show our christian friends the statements jesus made proving he is not god........................ mark 13/32
There already is a thread devoted to that. I'm sure the statement you are referring to is addressed there.
Reply

Dawud_uk
02-08-2009, 06:51 AM
format_quote Originally Posted by Grace Seeker
If you are saying that the original writings for the New Testament were all written first in Aramaic and then translated into Greek, with the subsequent burning of those originals, I'm afraid you have been seriously misinformed. Consider simply how much of the New Testament consists of letters written to churches in Greece and Greek-speaking Asia minor. Why would any of these have ever been written in anything but Greek to begin with?

Consider that the Gospel of Luke was written by a Greek-speaking gentile and to other Greek-speaking gentiles. Why would it have been written in Aramaic?

Consider that the Gospel of John was written by the apostle after he had been living in the Greek-speaking world for many years and was also intended primarily for a Greek-speaking audience. Why would it have been written in Aramaic?

I'll give you that there is a possiblity that the Gospel of Matthew might have been originally composed in Hebrew (or perhaps Aramaic) before being re-written in Greek, but that cannot be shown to be true, only speculated about.

And, if the church made the effort, as it can be shown that it did, to translate the scriptures out of Greek into other languages, why would they have burned the original copies if they had them?

I suspect you need to find better sources if you are trying to educate yourself on the origin of the Christian scriptures, for what you have shared just doesn't make logical sense, let alone have any basis in actual fact.
the language spoken by jesus christ, peace be upon him was aramaic, the language spoken by his followers was aramaic. the language they wrote in was aramaic, the confusion when some christians claim that they wrote in hebrew was because aramaic is a spoken not a written language so even to this day it is either written down in arabic or hebrew script.

so any of the original sayings of jesus christ would have been in aramaic, not greek.

i admit many of the letters were written in greek, but these are the bits that were included by a greek speaking emperor in the bible, the rest was destroyed. there were many different gospels, different letters not included, to hold one of these documents meant you were declared outlaw, literally outside the law and anyone could do as they pleased with you and you couldnt complain to the courts or seek help and the manuscipts when found were burned as were many older aramaic documents.

this is church history, it is not contraversial, you can find it in your own histories if you look hard enough.
Reply

Muslim Woman
02-08-2009, 09:31 AM
Salaam/peace

format_quote Originally Posted by glo
..I believe the Gospels are much more akin to the Hadiths in their narrative nature...
Peace :)
hey , that's an interesting comment . Pl. explain more . Christians believe Bible is words of God / writers are inspired by God . But I don't think Muslims believe Hadith are inspired by God ( unless Hadith Qursi ).
Reply

glo
02-08-2009, 10:06 AM
format_quote Originally Posted by Muslim Woman
Salaam/peace
..I believe the Gospels are much more akin to the Hadiths in their narrative nature...
Peace
hey , that's an interesting comment . Pl. explain more . Christians believe Bible is words of God / writers are inspired by God . But I don't think Muslims believe Hadith are inspired by God ( unless Hadith Qursi ).
Yes, Christians believe that the Bible writers were inspired by God.
(I think we have explored that to excess in this thread ... so I won't go into that again. I think if you read the whole thread you will get a good picture of how Christians view the Bible :))

I am speaking about the narrative writing style of the gospels. It reads like a story, an eye witness account.
As I understand the hadiths are very similar.

Peace :)
Reply

Grace Seeker
02-08-2009, 08:12 PM
format_quote Originally Posted by Dawud_uk
the language spoken by jesus christ, peace be upon him was aramaic, the language spoken by his followers was aramaic. the language they wrote in was aramaic, the confusion when some christians claim that they wrote in hebrew was because aramaic is a spoken not a written language so even to this day it is either written down in arabic or hebrew script.

so any of the original sayings of jesus christ would have been in aramaic, not greek.
True enough that Jesus spoke Aramaic. But this has nothing to do with what language the Bible would have been written in. While Jesus' words would have been originally spoken in Aramaic, if writing to tell a Greek-speakind world about Jesus, the stories would have been written not in the language Jesus spoke, but the language of those who would have been doing the reading. And it just so happens that the predominant language of the Roman Empire was not Aramaic, it wasn't even Latin; the lingua franca of the Roman world was Greek. So pervasive was Greek that it was the langauge of the commoner even in the city of Rome, and the language of daily commerce on the streets of Jerusalem. The common every day language is called Koine Greek, and it is the language that was used to write an order for groceries and that the writers of the documents which became the New Testament used to tell their story as well. BTW, most likely, as an educated man, and he was since he could read, Jesus would have spoken Greek as easily as he did Aramaic, for it was more universal iin his day than English is on this board.
Reply

Dawud_uk
02-08-2009, 10:17 PM
format_quote Originally Posted by Grace Seeker
True enough that Jesus spoke Aramaic. But this has nothing to do with what language the Bible would have been written in. While Jesus' words would have been originally spoken in Aramaic, if writing to tell a Greek-speakind world about Jesus, the stories would have been written not in the language Jesus spoke, but the language of those who would have been doing the reading. And it just so happens that the predominant language of the Roman Empire was not Aramaic, it wasn't even Latin; the lingua franca of the Roman world was Greek. So pervasive was Greek that it was the langauge of the commoner even in the city of Rome, and the language of daily commerce on the streets of Jerusalem. The common every day language is called Koine Greek, and it is the language that was used to write an order for groceries and that the writers of the documents which became the New Testament used to tell their story as well. BTW, most likely, as an educated man, and he was since he could read, Jesus would have spoken Greek as easily as he did Aramaic, for it was more universal iin his day than English is on this board.
i understand what you are saying, the parts of the bible which we have today come from greek manuscripts but this ignores two important points i am trying to put across.

1. many other documents existed which were also claimed to be part of the gospel, these were destroyed in the west by the church authorities and state after the councils of niscea where the greek pagan roman emperor precided over the council decided which documents were going to go into the bible.

2. even these greek manuscripts were not the original teachings, someone who spoke aramaic taught it, it was written down, someone else taught it to someone else in greek, so it was translated. often the chain of transmission would be quite long before it was written down. but these originals where they existed were destroyed after translation, this is a matter of church policy at the time and is not hidden by the christian historians.

neither of the two points are considered contraversial or unusual, indeed many protestant historians use them precisely to show the corruption of the texts by the offical church going back through the history of christianity.
Reply

Eric H
02-09-2009, 05:15 AM
Greetings and peace be with you Dawud_uk;

If you continually keep saying the Bible is full of flaws and contradictions, I might renounce Christianity and become an atheist.

You are not convincing me why Islam is any better.

If you are giving Dawah you might fare better, by keeping to the positive aspects of your faith

In the spirit of searching for God.

Eric
Reply

Muslim Woman
02-09-2009, 05:29 AM
Salaam/ Peace


format_quote Originally Posted by Eric H
.....If you continually keep saying the Bible is full of flaws and contradictions, I might renounce Christianity and become an atheist.
haha . Dr Zakir will say , it's not that bad ; after all then u believe in Muslim's first testimony ; there is no god ....not bad :D
Reply

Eric H
02-09-2009, 09:15 AM
Greetings and peace be with you Muslim Woman;

I know you mean well, but Dr. Zakir’s wisecracks will only leave me with atheism.

In the spirit of searching for God

Eric
Reply

Dawud_uk
02-09-2009, 09:36 AM
format_quote Originally Posted by Eric H
Greetings and peace be with you Dawud_uk;

If you continually keep saying the Bible is full of flaws and contradictions, I might renounce Christianity and become an atheist.

You are not convincing me why Islam is any better.

If you are giving Dawah you might fare better, by keeping to the positive aspects of your faith

In the spirit of searching for God.

Eric
if the house is no good, offering no shelter or protection, then sometimes you must raze it right down to the foundations to start building again in the correct way.
Reply

Eric H
02-09-2009, 07:11 PM
Greetings and peace be with you Dawud_uk;
if the house is no good, offering no shelter or protection, then sometimes you must raze it right down to the foundations to start building again in the correct way
You might want to demolish my house, but I would not trust you as a builder, you have done nothing to convince me your ways are best. You now want me to be an atheist without a house.

If you really want to turn people towards Islam, then please continue to talk about the good in Islam, and resist the temptation to criticise other faiths.

In the spirit of praying to one God

Eric
Reply

Follower
02-10-2009, 02:58 AM
The Holy Bible has been torn down to the very foundation over years of analysis and critique, it has withstood to this day. To be fair the same test must be applied to the Quran.
Reply

rpwelton
02-10-2009, 03:08 AM
format_quote Originally Posted by Eric H
Greetings and peace be with you Dawud_uk;

You might want to demolish my house, but I would not trust you as a builder, you have done nothing to convince me your ways are best. You now want me to be an atheist without a house.

If you really want to turn people towards Islam, then please continue to talk about the good in Islam, and resist the temptation to criticise other faiths.

In the spirit of praying to one God

Eric
I agree. We really must strike a balance when giving dawah to people of other faiths. We cannot focus solely on Islam, for that would not take into account what the other person believes. Likewise, we cannot focus solely on criticizing the other person's religion, because that might drive them away from God all together instead of bringing them closer to Islam.

It's a fine line to walk, but ultimately we just have to approach the conversation respectfully from both sides and treat it as a discussion, not as one person trying to ram one set of beliefs down another's throat.
Reply

rpwelton
02-10-2009, 03:14 AM
format_quote Originally Posted by Follower
The Holy Bible has been torn down to the very foundation over years of analysis and critique, it has withstood to this day. To be fair the same test must be applied to the Quran.
Well, the Bible has been torn apart over the centuries, and the reason it continues to "stand" is because many people are willing to overlook various issues of the Bible because they believe in the strength of its central message (well, the message of the New Testament anyways). It's a very powerful message, and it seems to transcend the very text that it is apparently based from. That's why the critique on the Bible doesn't really matter to most Christians; they don't really study the Bible as a "book" per say, but more for inspiration in their spiritual life.

People have tried to apply similar critiques to the Qur'an as they have to the Bible, but it has never succeeded. They have instead decided to attack the character of Muhammad because they don't find the same faults with the Qur'an as they do with the Bible.
Reply

Keltoi
02-10-2009, 04:43 AM
format_quote Originally Posted by rpwelton
Well, the Bible has been torn apart over the centuries, and the reason it continues to "stand" is because many people are willing to overlook various issues of the Bible because they believe in the strength of its central message (well, the message of the New Testament anyways). It's a very powerful message, and it seems to transcend the very text that it is apparently based from. That's why the critique on the Bible doesn't really matter to most Christians; they don't really study the Bible as a "book" per say, but more for inspiration in their spiritual life.

People have tried to apply similar critiques to the Qur'an as they have to the Bible, but it has never succeeded. They have instead decided to attack the character of Muhammad because they don't find the same faults with the Qur'an as they do with the Bible.
When comparing the Bible to the Qu'ran it must be noted that the Bible was written by quite a few people over a long period of time. If the Qu'ran seems more focused in certain aspects that is largely due to the fact it was written in a short period of time, in comparison, and with only one author. (We won't debate who that author was here).

Yes, Christians have a different view of, and different expectations, of the Bible than Muslims do the Qu'ran. Christianity is about a personal spiritual connection with Christ. An internalized and personal spirituality.
Reply

Dawud_uk
02-10-2009, 07:13 AM
format_quote Originally Posted by rpwelton
I agree. We really must strike a balance when giving dawah to people of other faiths. We cannot focus solely on Islam, for that would not take into account what the other person believes. Likewise, we cannot focus solely on criticizing the other person's religion, because that might drive them away from God all together instead of bringing them closer to Islam.

It's a fine line to walk, but ultimately we just have to approach the conversation respectfully from both sides and treat it as a discussion, not as one person trying to ram one set of beliefs down another's throat.
i think if you look at my other posts you will see i do that, but this is a thread to discuss a specific contradiction in the bible and the contradictions in general which show it as a flawed and false faith.
Reply

Muslim Woman
02-10-2009, 10:07 AM
Salaam/peace

format_quote Originally Posted by Eric H
....resist the temptation to criticise other faiths.
It's a good point. Religion is a sensative issue & we must be careful not to hurt others feelings.

In other forum , some Christians abuse our beloved Prophet (pbuh) on a daily basis . When we ( Muslims ) request them not to use nasty language , their answers are like these : but this is the truth ; I have no doubt in my mind, that there's nothing abusing him anywhere on this earth today like where he is right now - in hell etc etc.

May be , they are thinking they are doing a good job , they are telling Muslims the truth but to us - these are just hateful posts , they are spreading hatred . After telling us the " truth " about Muhammed (pbuh ) , when they tell me about their faith that Jesus (p) taught them to love all , then I just laugh.

I request all Muslims participants here not to hurt feelings of the minority participants. After going through the pain as a minority participants in other forums , I think I can feel the pain of others in this forum .
Reply

Hafswa
02-10-2009, 11:32 AM
format_quote Originally Posted by Argon Gossamer
Great!



I am glad you are admitting to insinuating yourself with a topic not directed at you!



That doesn't address the subject matter or rebuts contents-- you merely stating your belief has no impact on the validity of what is written!


The death of God has nothing to do with Mosaic Law, from the lowest common denominator if the 'death of God' had roots in the OT, they would have been all over Christianity, instead they chose their OT in lieu of Paul's version of it!



Atonement for whom? Does God atone for his own self? I wasn't aware God needed to do that? you mistake my honesty for sarcasm.. that is actually the bottom line of your religion.. God comes and dies so you can go to heaven.. there is no need for major adjectives where none is needed!



Egyptian god of the underworld and of vegetation. Son of Nut and Geb. His birthplace was said to be Rosetau in the necropolis west of Memphis. Brother of Nephthys and Seth, and the brother and husband of Isis. Isis gave birth to Horus after his death, having impregnated herself with semen from his corpse. Osiris was depicted in human form wrapped up as a mummy, holding the crook and flail. He was often depicted with green skin, alluding to his role as a god of vegetation. He wore a crown known as the 'atef', composed of the tall conical white crown of Upper Egypt with red plumes on each side. Osiris had many cult centers, but the most important were at Abydos (Ibdju) in Upper Egypt, where the god's legend was reenacted in an annual festival, and at Busiris (Djedu) in the Nile delta.
One of the so-called "dying gods", he was the focus of a famous legend in which he was killed by the rival god Seth. At a banquet of the gods, Seth fooled Osiris into stepping into a coffin, which he promptly slammed shut and cast into the Nile. The coffin was born by the Nile to the delta town of Byblos, where it became enclosed in a tamarisk tree. Isis, the wife of Osiris, discovered the coffin and brought it back. (The story to this point is attested only by the Greek writer Plutarch, although Seth was identified as his murderer as early as the Pyramid era of the Old Kingdom.)
So I guess I'll leave that to the discerning reader to decide! and by the way that was your mere attempt at one story, not the lot! Ancient Egyptian religion was Paganistic, hence the pharoh was angry with what Moses brought!

lol.. the question is of dates really.. who is borrowing from whom?!


It doesn't bother you, yet you keep replying.. I have no agenda or propaganda on an Islamic forum, I assure you if I did, christian forums would be the first place I frequent.. I never thought of Christianity as a contender-- it is so silly to me on all levels.. and I believe that is why you have cults of Dawkin following in his own words:


In GD, Dawkins quotes Einstein as saying that he prefers not to call himself religious, because that implies “supernatural”. But Einstein acknowledged that behind everything “there is a something that our mind cannot grasp and whose beauty and sublimity reaches us only indirectly”.
Dawkins admits: “If that’s what you call religion then I’m religious.” But when I suggest that, in this case, he is in touch with the transcendent, he accuses me of “playing with words”. He says: “If by transcendent you mean what Einstein believed then yes, but what I think, to come back on your statement that more intelligent and sophisticated religious people believe something close to what Einstein and I believe, that may be true, but they are a tiny minority of religious people in the world. It’s the majority of religious people in the world that we have to worry about.”





Once you make small Gods of men, and you advance and outgrow them you can only have atheism, or something 'bigger than God' when all Christians wake up to see is a meek God who dies after forsaking himself-- yet expects of people to believe that he'll save them through his 'atonement'

I agree.. it is your belief and 'praise' in the form of dance and clap and organs wasn't subscribed to you as part of the commandments-- there is nothing to think about it, other than laying for folks the obvious!
Then I hope with that we are done.. unless you want to purge yourself some more?


cheers
This might end up being my last post here but I have to say this:
I joined this forum to get enlightened about Islam and as told to MZ then, to seek if Islam was a way of life, a faith I could follow and if Muslimahs would really care about me as an individual or just the fact that I had become one of them.

This thread was started with a simple question, What were Jesus' last word. I have read through it so far and noted the accusations, quoations of individuals who do not even share either failth, the comparissons between one faith against the other ,tempers flaring and names given to the others religion and so on. None of us is conveying conviction about what we believe in. Its just a debate about what I believe in is the truth and yours is not. Quite childish I might say.
To both Christians-like me and Muslims, none of us here have displayed that attraction to ones belief. We all were on the same level. We are so busy defending our faiths rather than give accounts of why we believe in what we believe in like Woodrow did. If asked" if you were not born into the religons you are in would you be still in your religion ?" what would our answer be?

The rules of this forum stated that we are not here to push one into believeing any particular faith but in respect to each other, offer our opinions. Now when someone comes short of saying you are not welcome here, it makes me wonder why the creators of this forum have a section for comparative religion or even allow the users have questions addressed to Christians.
Reply

rpwelton
02-10-2009, 01:21 PM
format_quote Originally Posted by Dawud_uk
i think if you look at my other posts you will see i do that, but this is a thread to discuss a specific contradiction in the bible and the contradictions in general which show it as a flawed and false faith.
Fair enough. I wasn't necessarily speaking about you or anyone in particular, it was just a general observation that I had.
Reply

Grace Seeker
02-10-2009, 07:02 PM
format_quote Originally Posted by Dawud_uk
neither of the two points are considered contraversial or unusual, indeed many protestant historians use them precisely to show the corruption of the texts by the offical church going back through the history of christianity.
I disagree with this statement. What you list most definitley NOT generally accepted teaching. It is not accepted among protestant historians. It is not accepted among other Christian historians. It is not the main accepted teaching among secular historians. It is not accepted teaching. It may be a teaching that you can find, you may even find it to be the predominant teaching among certain select groups. But I repeat that it is not generally accepted teaching. And that lack of acceptance would make it first disputed, second unusual to find it suggested, and third controversial if it were to be suggested.


The only part of what you have written that I can accept as true are the following editted points:
the parts of the bible which we have today come from greek manuscripts
many other documents existed
[some of] these were destroyed in the west by the church authorities [or the] state
greek manuscripts were not the original teachings, someone who spoke aramaic taught it [first]
And when they spoke, they spoke in the language of their audience (we see that become normative in the life of the church as early as Pentecost, Acts 2). It follows that they would have also written in the language of their audience. As I have already said, the dominant language of the Roman Empire was Greek. You have to provide some convincing evidence (which you so far have not done) that the audience for the first written documents was more likely to be a Aramaic-reading audience, than a Greek-reading audience.


Your final statement: "but these originals where they existed were destroyed after translation, this is a matter of church policy at the time and is not hidden by the christian historians" is I believe more fiction than fact. Even the heretical (in my opinion) Nag Hammadi texts show that the first writings of the church were primarily Greek writings:
The contents of the Coptic-bound codices were written in Coptic, though the works were probably all translations from Greek. Most famous of these works must be the Gospel of Thomas, of which the Nag Hammadi codices contain the only complete copy.

source wikipedia
Reply

Grace Seeker
02-10-2009, 07:09 PM
format_quote Originally Posted by Muslim Woman
Salaam/peace



It's a good point. Religion is a sensative issue & we must be careful not to hurt others feelings.

In other forum , some Christians abuse our beloved Prophet (pbuh) on a daily basis . When we ( Muslims ) request them not to use nasty language , their answers are like these : but this is the truth ; I have no doubt in my mind, that there's nothing abusing him anywhere on this earth today like where he is right now - in hell etc etc.

May be , they are thinking they are doing a good job , they are telling Muslims the truth but to us - these are just hateful posts , they are spreading hatred . After telling us the " truth " about Muhammed (pbuh ) , when they tell me about their faith that Jesus (p) taught them to love all , then I just laugh.

I request all Muslims participants here not to hurt feelings of the minority participants. After going through the pain as a minority participants in other forums , I think I can feel the pain of others in this forum .
I don't know which particular other forums you are referring to; but, with some saddness, I will agree that with respect to LI many Muslims here seem to be more "Christian" than supposed Christians on some other forums I have visited in the way they relate to people who believe differently than themselves.
Reply

Grace Seeker
02-10-2009, 07:21 PM
format_quote Originally Posted by Dawud_uk
peace be upon those who follow righteous guidance,

a question to the christians, what are the last words of jesus christ (upon him be peace)?

peace be upon those who follow righteous guidance,
Accepting, as I do, the written record found in the New Testament to be the closest thing we have to an authoritative source in this regard, it appears we have a choice between two accounts:

Matthew 28

16Then the eleven disciples went to Galilee, to the mountain where Jesus had told them to go. 17When they saw him, they worshiped him; but some doubted. 18Then Jesus came to them and said, "All authority in heaven and on earth has been given to me. 19Therefore go and make disciples of all nations, baptizing them in the name of the Father and of the Son and of the Holy Spirit, 20and teaching them to obey everything I have commanded you. And surely I am with you always, to the very end of the age."


Acts 1

4On one occasion, while he [Jesus] was eating with them [his disciples], he gave them this command: "Do not leave Jerusalem, but wait for the gift my Father promised, which you have heard me speak about. 5For John baptized with[a] water, but in a few days you will be baptized with the Holy Spirit."
6So when they met together, they asked him, "Lord, are you at this time going to restore the kingdom to Israel?"

7He said to them: "It is not for you to know the times or dates the Father has set by his own authority. 8But you will receive power when the Holy Spirit comes on you; and you will be my witnesses in Jerusalem, and in all Judea and Samaria, and to the ends of the earth."

9After he said this, he was taken up before their very eyes, and a cloud hid him from their sight.

But since then, Jesus has continued to speak:
1. To Paul on the road to Damascus.
2. To John giving him the book of Revelation.
3. To Christians (and I suspect even to non-Christians) till this day, through the indwelling presence of the Holy Spirit.
Reply

rpwelton
02-10-2009, 07:26 PM
format_quote Originally Posted by Grace Seeker

But since then, Jesus has continued to speak:
1. To Paul on the road to Damascus.
2. To John giving him the book of Revelation.
3. To Christians (and I suspect even to non-Christians) till this day, through the indwelling presence of the Holy Spirit.
In regards to those 3 points, is it possible for someone now to claim they received revelation from Jesus? If not, why was the testimony of Paul accepted?
Reply

Grace Seeker
02-10-2009, 07:42 PM
format_quote Originally Posted by rpwelton
In regards to those 3 points, is it possible for someone now to claim they received revelation from Jesus? If not, why was the testimony of Paul accepted?

You want the long or short answer?

Short answer: Yes, it is possible for some now to claim that they received revelation from Jesus. In fact, people do it all of the time. Whether they would be accepted or not is a completely different issue.


Expanding on that: Most generally people speak of some sort of specific revelation that they have. "God told me to go see my neighbor, that he needed my help, and when I got there I found him laying on the floor unable to get up." Others, such as us pastors, look for God's general guidance in preparinig a message and often speak of receiving some sort of revelation from God regarding that message, but again it is specific to a particular congregation at a particular place and time.

The early church found the writings of the Apostle Paul spoke not only to those churches to which he directed his letters, but to others as well. And so they saved, copied, and circulated them. And over time we found that they still spoke to succeeding generations. In this context they became a part of the corpus of writings that churches universally collected, as they did the gospels supposedly authored by Matthew, Mark, Luke, John. Of course there was more than just these writing that made their way into the collection of writings that were valued by churches. There were also letters by Peter, Jude, John, James, Clement, Barnabas (btw, the letters of Barnabas are not the same as what is called the Gospel of Barnabas), the Didache, the Gospel of Peter, the story the Shepherd of Hermas, etc. Eventually, the Church felt a need to codify that while all of these writings might have some value, that certain writings were perceived to be useful for church law (i.e. canon, for "canon" means "law" or "standard") as a standard for faith and practice. Rather quickly actually, long before Nicea or the council of Constantinople, the church came into agreement to accept the 27 books we currently do as canonical and then this consensus was ratified at these ecumenical councils. Of course other writings continued to be read, even in the worship services of the church -- which is why I laugh when people suggest that the church tried to exclude everything else, we only excluded that which was in fact not accepted as truly representative of the faith of the existing church. And many books and individuals are still used by God to speak to us today, but unless there is some sort of groundswell movement within the Church as a whole the canon of scripture is closed.

Hope that helps some. If it doesn't answer your actual question, pose it in some different way and I'll try again.
Reply

AntiKarateKid
02-10-2009, 10:43 PM
format_quote Originally Posted by Eric H
Greetings and peace be with you Muslim Woman;

I know you mean well, but Dr. Zakir’s wisecracks will only leave me with atheism.

In the spirit of searching for God

Eric
I am surprised.

This comment makes you sound, not like one who is seeking the truth, but as one who is desperate to hold onto his current life no matter what.

What will you tell God?
Reply

Dawud_uk
02-11-2009, 06:59 AM
format_quote Originally Posted by Grace Seeker
I disagree with this statement. What you list most definitley NOT generally accepted teaching. It is not accepted among protestant historians. It is not accepted among other Christian historians. It is not the main accepted teaching among secular historians. It is not accepted teaching. It may be a teaching that you can find, you may even find it to be the predominant teaching among certain select groups. But I repeat that it is not generally accepted teaching. And that lack of acceptance would make it first disputed, second unusual to find it suggested, and third controversial if it were to be suggested.


The only part of what you have written that I can accept as true are the following editted points:





And when they spoke, they spoke in the language of their audience (we see that become normative in the life of the church as early as Pentecost, Acts 2). It follows that they would have also written in the language of their audience. As I have already said, the dominant language of the Roman Empire was Greek. You have to provide some convincing evidence (which you so far have not done) that the audience for the first written documents was more likely to be a Aramaic-reading audience, than a Greek-reading audience.


Your final statement: "but these originals where they existed were destroyed after translation, this is a matter of church policy at the time and is not hidden by the christian historians" is I believe more fiction than fact. Even the heretical (in my opinion) Nag Hammadi texts show that the first writings of the church were primarily Greek writings:
jesus christ, the man you believe to be God is reported to have said, in the book you believe in be the true acount and true book of God.

"I was not sent except to the lost sheep of the house of Israel"
Matthew 15:24

jesus christ (peace be upon him) was preaching to jews, the language they all spoke was aramaic not greek.

for the first 50 years or so of christianity it was centred upon the jews, all but one of the disciples of jesus having nothing to do with saul of tarsus (paul), only barnabus having any time for him at all.

the rest followed the reported commands of jesus, that when he was gone to follow his disciple james who indeed led a jewish christian church in the holy lands.

they did accept converts but insisted they stick to the laws of moses (peace be upon him), such as being circumcised, the laws that had not been abrogated by the new prophet from God, Jesus Christ.

paul went his own way, and the rest is history. but the original language of the christians was not greek.

RE the coptic christians, well the language of alexandria was greek at this time, but you have to look at the bloody battles between the trinitarian and unitarian chrisitans in north africa to see the full history there.
Reply

Eric H
02-11-2009, 09:49 AM
Greetings and peace be with you Hafswa;
This might end up being my last post here but I have to say this:
I joined this forum to get enlightened about Islam and as told to MZ then, to seek if Islam was a way of life, a faith I could follow and if Muslimahs would really care about me as an individual or just the fact that I had become one of them.

This thread was started with a simple question, What were Jesus' last word. I have read through it so far and noted the accusations, quoations of individuals who do not even share either failth, the comparissons between one faith against the other ,tempers flaring and names given to the others religion and so on. None of us is conveying conviction about what we believe in. Its just a debate about what I believe in is the truth and yours is not. Quite childish I might say.
To both Christians-like me and Muslims, none of us here have displayed that attraction to ones belief. We all were on the same level. We are so busy defending our faiths rather than give accounts of why we believe in what we believe in like Woodrow did. If asked" if you were not born into the religons you are in would you be still in your religion ?" what would our answer be?

The rules of this forum stated that we are not here to push one into believeing any particular faith but in respect to each other, offer our opinions. Now when someone comes short of saying you are not welcome here, it makes me wonder why the creators of this forum have a section for comparative religion or even allow the users have questions addressed to Christians
You are in my prayers.

In the spirit of praying for a greater interfaith understanding and friendship.

Eric
Reply

Eric H
02-11-2009, 09:53 AM
Greetings and peace be with you AntiKarateKid;
I am surprised.

This comment makes you sound, not like one who is seeking the truth, but as one who is desperate to hold onto his current life no matter what.

What will you tell God?
We will both struggle when we stand before God, there is a need to pray for each other.

In the spirit of praying to One God.

Eric
Reply

glo
02-11-2009, 10:04 AM
format_quote Originally Posted by Hafswa
This thread was started with a simple question, What were Jesus' last word. I have read through it so far and noted the accusations, quoations of individuals who do not even share either failth, the comparissons between one faith against the other ,tempers flaring and names given to the others religion and so on. None of us is conveying conviction about what we believe in. Its just a debate about what I believe in is the truth and yours is not. Quite childish I might say.
To both Christians-like me and Muslims, none of us here have displayed that attraction to ones belief. We all were on the same level. We are so busy defending our faiths rather than give accounts of why we believe in what we believe in like Woodrow did. If asked" if you were not born into the religons you are in would you be still in your religion ?" what would our answer be?

The rules of this forum stated that we are not here to push one into believeing any particular faith but in respect to each other, offer our opinions. Now when someone comes short of saying you are not welcome here, it makes me wonder why the creators of this forum have a section for comparative religion or even allow the users have questions addressed to Christians.
Greetings, Hafswa

Like you, I dislike those threads which lead to endless debates, and I avoid them whenever I can.

I think the problem with this thread is that the 'simple question' at the beginning was never meant to be a question at all.
It was really meant to be 'a trap' to lead into criticising and degrading the faith of others. That, in turn, lead to people defending their own beliefs and views ... and so the cycle continues.

I am very happy to answer any questions about my faith, as long as they are genuine. I don't think this one was a genuine question ...

I often find that I have more peaceful and informative conversations via PMs, rather than in the public forums, where things can get unfriendly quite easily.

Hope you are doing okay.

Peace :)
Reply

Muslim Woman
02-11-2009, 01:21 PM
In the name of Allah , the Most Gracious , Ever Merciful

Salaam/ Peace

format_quote Originally Posted by Hafswa
This might end up being my last post here...
imsad

I hope , u mean last post in this thread but not in the forum . If u mean u are leaving us :cry: , then my request is take a short leave & do come back :statisfie
Reply

Grace Seeker
02-11-2009, 05:08 PM
format_quote Originally Posted by Dawud_uk
jesus christ, the man you believe to be God is reported to have said, in the book you believe in be the true acount and true book of God.

"I was not sent except to the lost sheep of the house of Israel"
Matthew 15:24

jesus christ (peace be upon him) was preaching to jews, the language they all spoke was aramaic not greek.
I'm amazed at how you continue to think that is relevant. It is not. Look at how many on this board speak something else as their native language, yet everyone posts in English. Why? Becuase that is our mutually shared language. In the time of the composition of the New Testament, the mutually shared language was not Aramaic, but Greek. It was the language of every day commerce, and of any sort of writing meant to be read by people outside of your own immediate group.

format_quote Originally Posted by Dawud_uk
for the first 50 years or so of christianity it was centred upon the jews, all but one of the disciples of jesus having nothing to do with saul of tarsus (paul), only barnabus having any time for him at all.

the rest followed the reported commands of jesus, that when he was gone to follow his disciple james who indeed led a jewish christian church in the holy lands.

they did accept converts but insisted they stick to the laws of moses (peace be upon him), such as being circumcised, the laws that had not been abrogated by the new prophet from God, Jesus Christ.
Again, not true. The book of acts shows that they did not require circumcision:

Acts 15

1Some men came down from Judea to Antioch and were teaching the brothers: "Unless you are circumcised, according to the custom taught by Moses, you cannot be saved." 2This brought Paul and Barnabas into sharp dispute and debate with them. So Paul and Barnabas were appointed, along with some other believers, to go up to Jerusalem to see the apostles and elders about this question.

6The apostles and elders met to consider this question. 7After much discussion, Peter got up and addressed them: "Brothers, you know that some time ago God made a choice among you that the Gentiles might hear from my lips the message of the gospel and believe. 8God, who knows the heart, showed that he accepted them by giving the Holy Spirit to them, just as he did to us. 9He made no distinction between us and them, for he purified their hearts by faith. 10Now then, why do you try to test God by putting on the necks of the disciples a yoke that neither we nor our fathers have been able to bear? 11No! We believe it is through the grace of our Lord Jesus that we are saved, just as they are."

13When they finished, James spoke up:
19"It is my judgment, therefore, that we should not make it difficult for the Gentiles who are turning to God. 20Instead we should write to them, telling them to abstain from food polluted by idols, from sexual immorality, from the meat of strangled animals and from blood."

22Then the apostles and elders, with the whole church, decided to choose some of their own men and send them to Antioch with Paul and Barnabas. They chose Judas (called Barsabbas) and Silas, two men who were leaders among the brothers. 23With them they sent the following letter:
The apostles and elders, your brothers, To the Gentile believers in Antioch, Syria and Cilicia: Greetings. 24We have heard that some went out from us without our authorization and disturbed you, troubling your minds by what they said. 25So we all agreed to choose some men and send them to you with our dear friends Barnabas and Paul— 26men who have risked their lives for the name of our Lord Jesus Christ. 27Therefore we are sending Judas and Silas to confirm by word of mouth what we are writing. 28It seemed good to the Holy Spirit and to us not to burden you with anything beyond the following requirements: 29You are to abstain from food sacrificed to idols, from blood, from the meat of strangled animals and from sexual immorality. You will do well to avoid these things. Farewell.
These events, and the establishment of churches in Asia minor, Greece, and Rome, are well within the first 50 years of Christianity. What you propose as facts simply do not stand up to historical scrutiny.
Reply

Dawud_uk
02-12-2009, 06:54 AM
format_quote Originally Posted by Grace Seeker
I'm amazed at how you continue to think that is relevant. It is not. Look at how many on this board speak something else as their native language, yet everyone posts in English. Why? Becuase that is our mutually shared language. In the time of the composition of the New Testament, the mutually shared language was not Aramaic, but Greek. It was the language of every day commerce, and of any sort of writing meant to be read by people outside of your own immediate group.



Again, not true. The book of acts shows that they did not require circumcision:



These events, and the establishment of churches in Asia minor, Greece, and Rome, are well within the first 50 years of Christianity. What you propose as facts simply do not stand up to historical scrutiny.
this is getting to be a very interesting discussion but it is going way off topic! could i suggest you start another thread on this and we continue there?
Reply

Grace Seeker
02-12-2009, 09:48 AM
format_quote Originally Posted by Dawud_uk
this is getting to be a very interesting discussion but it is going way off topic!
True enough. You will note that I tried to get us back on topic with my post #168 above. rpwelton choose to respond to it, you could have as well.

But hey, it's your thread. I figure if you want to go off on these other tangents that's up to you. I'm only responding to the points you've made, don't make them and I'll have nothing to respond to.
Reply

Hafswa
02-12-2009, 10:54 AM
format_quote Originally Posted by glo
Greetings, Hafswa

Like you, I dislike those threads which lead to endless debates, and I avoid them whenever I can.

I think the problem with this thread is that the 'simple question' at the beginning was never meant to be a question at all.
It was really meant to be 'a trap' to lead into criticising and degrading the faith of others. That, in turn, lead to people defending their own beliefs and views ... and so the cycle continues.

I am very happy to answer any questions about my faith, as long as they are genuine. I don't think this one was a genuine question ...

I often find that I have more peaceful and informative conversations via PMs, rather than in the public forums, where things can get unfriendly quite easily.

Hope you are doing okay.

Peace :)
Glo, Thank you for the advice. I agree, the trap seemed to unfold later as the thread continued to grow. Later on I realised that such debates as much as they are geared at trying to shake our faith, make us raise up and state like Paul in Romans 1:16" I am not ashamed of the Gospel beacaue it is the power of God for the salvation of everyone who believes, first to the Jew then to the Gentile" . I am doing fine now :) Even managed to comment on some posts later on .
Thank you again and Bless you.
Reply

Hafswa
02-12-2009, 10:57 AM
format_quote Originally Posted by Muslim Woman
In the name of Allah , the Most Gracious , Ever Merciful

Salaam/ Peace



imsad

I hope , u mean last post in this thread but not in the forum . If u mean u are leaving us :cry: , then my request is take a short leave & do come back :statisfie
Muslim Woman,
I couldn't bring myself to leave the forum....got a bit carried away there....guess that always happens when a cause you are passionate about is criticized a tee bit too much on the extreme.
Thanks
Reply

Follower
02-12-2009, 03:05 PM
Matthew 15
24He answered, "I was sent only to the lost sheep of Israel."

At this time Israel was full of itself, pride was Jesus mirroring this as a negative example to them.

Look at the humility of the woman:

25The woman came and knelt before him. "Lord, help me!" she said.

26He replied, "It is not right to take the children's bread and toss it to their dogs."

27"Yes, Lord," she said, "but even the dogs eat the crumbs that fall from their masters' table."

28Then Jesus answered, "Woman, you have great faith! Your request is granted." And her daughter was healed from that very hour.

Jesus immediately accepts the woman when she shows her humility and neddiness. Israel was not ready, they were not hunble, needy, see earlier in the verse:

16"Are you still so dull?" Jesus asked them. 17"Don't you see that whatever enters the mouth goes into the stomach and then out of the body? 18But the things that come out of the mouth come from the heart, and these make a man 'unclean.' 19For out of the heart come evil thoughts, murder, adultery, sexual immorality, theft, false testimony, slander. 20These are what make a man 'unclean'; but eating with unwashed hands does not make him 'unclean.' "

The time had not come for all nations to be saved Jesus was still teaching Israel, until later- notice the all nations.

Matthew 28
16Then the eleven disciples went to Galilee, to the mountain where Jesus had told them to go. 17When they saw him, they worshiped him; but some doubted. 18Then Jesus came to them and said, "All authority in heaven and on earth has been given to me. 19Therefore go and make disciples of all nations, baptizing them in the name of the Father and of the Son and of the Holy Spirit, 20and teaching them to obey everything I have commanded you. And surely I am with you always, to the very end of the age."

How do you explain the command to Paul? Please read: Acts 9

i think if you look at my other posts you will see i do that, but this is a thread to discuss a specific contradiction in the bible and the contradictions in general which show it as a flawed and false faith.

Again the so called contradictions actually bring a fuller message.

LOL!! Why would the early church fathers have included contradicting stories in the Holy Bible? Do you think that the people that brought the Bilbe together couldn't see the supposed contradictions? GOD guided todays Bible to be as it is. You are questioning GOD?

LOL!! In a court very seldom do eyewitnesses have exactly the same story. if they do than I would question if they hadn't gotten together to figure out what they were going to say.

Did we ever decide?

Are you asking about Jesus last words on the cross, before His assenscion, our last day of Judgement?
Reply

AntiKarateKid
02-12-2009, 04:10 PM
format_quote Originally Posted by Hafswa
Glo, Thank you for the advice. I agree, the trap seemed to unfold later as the thread continued to grow. Later on I realised that such debates as much as they are geared at trying to shake our faith, make us raise up and state like Paul in Romans 1:16" I am not ashamed of the Gospel beacaue it is the power of God for the salvation of everyone who believes, first to the Jew then to the Gentile" . I am doing fine now :) Even managed to comment on some posts later on .
Thank you again and Bless you.
Sounds like you are exhorting blind faith?

Basically what you said equates to...

"I realized that the points the debates brought up could shake my faith, nevertheless I covered my ears and continued believing"

I believe that Allah loves informed faith as opposed to blind faith.

"That person who shall pursue the path of knowledge, God will direct him to the path of Paradise; and verily the superiority of a learned man over an ignorant worshipper is like that of the full moon over all the stars "
Reply

Hafswa
02-13-2009, 05:30 AM
format_quote Originally Posted by AntiKarateKid
Sounds like you are exhorting blind faith?

Basically what you said equates to...

"I realized that the points the debates brought up could shake my faith, nevertheless I covered my ears and continued believing"

I believe that Allah loves informed faith as opposed to blind faith.

"That person who shall pursue the path of knowledge, God will direct him to the path of Paradise; and verily the superiority of a learned man over an ignorant worshipper is like that of the full moon over all the stars "
You can translate my post in any way after all we are all entitiled to express your opinion. I am a Christian and choose to remain so irrespective of what Muslims, Buddhists or Aethists may think. It's between me and God not us.
Reply

Eric H
02-13-2009, 11:33 AM
Greetings and peace be with you AntiKarateKid;

Sounds like you are exhorting blind faith?
I believe that Allah loves informed faith as opposed to blind faith.
You start of by saying I believe, so why is it necessary for us to believe as you believe?

And you give yourself the credit that your beliefs are informed, but people who believe differently use blind faith, that seems a tad unfair.

We are all created by the same God, the same God hears all our prayers, and it is for God to judge the sincerity of both our beliefs and faith.

In the spirit of praying for a greater interfaith understanding

Eric
Reply

Dawud_uk
02-14-2009, 07:26 AM
format_quote Originally Posted by Eric H
Greetings and peace be with you AntiKarateKid;





You start of by saying I believe, so why is it necessary for us to believe as you believe?

And you give yourself the credit that your beliefs are informed, but people who believe differently use blind faith, that seems a tad unfair.

We are all created by the same God, the same God hears all our prayers, and it is for God to judge the sincerity of both our beliefs and faith.

In the spirit of praying for a greater interfaith understanding

Eric
eric, i dont think anyone here doubts your sincerity, you come across as a very sincere person.

however, the hindus i meet when doing my islam information table seem just as sincere as the christians, some of the more educated amongst them even say there is only one creator.

however they worship this creator through different aspects or intermediaries, this is the same as the trinity and the saints that catholics and other christians worship.

now should we leave them also to their faith and to believe blindly? or should we question them, point out the follies of their belief.

even the devil believes in one creator, one maker, one we all answer to but he is still a disbeliever as he doesnt submit.

believing in a creator we all answer to doesnt mean we leave people alone, it puts a person one up from an atheist, it means we have a shared common understanding we can build on but such people can still enter hellfire for their disbelief.

as such, you as a christian, and me as a muslim, both wanting the best should try to guide those we see as misguided should we not? not just leave it to God on the day of judgement.
Reply

Grace Seeker
02-14-2009, 07:56 AM
This isn't what this thread is about, so I hope Dawud will forgive me for going off on a tangent, but the comment below highlights one of the signficant differences between Christians and Muslims with regard to our respective understandings of what faith is and what it is not.

format_quote Originally Posted by Dawud_uk
even the devil believes in one creator, one maker, one we all answer to but he is still a disbeliever as he doesnt submit.

Now, I completely agree that the devil believes in one creator, one maker, etc. The devil believes because he knows. He has absolute knowledge, even better than you or I have.

However, Dawud says that the devil believes but is still a disbeliever because he doesn't submit. Now, for me it is illogical to say that one both believes and is a disbeliever. But there are plenty of logical inconsistencies within Christianity, so that isn't really my point.

Rather while the Muslim focuses on the importance of belief evidence by submission, the Christian has a different focus.

The Christian agrees that the devil believes, but the problem is that the devil does not trust. The devil believes because he knows certain facts, but because he doesn't trust in God and accept him in authority over himself, the devil cannot have actual faith in God. It is all head knowledge and no heart knowledge.

I suppose that type of discrimination may not make much sense to a non-Christian. But for a Christian that is the essential element. Does one put their trust in what God has done/is doing? Submission for the Christian comes out of this personal relationship, not out of acknowledging certain facts with regard to God or acquiessing to a certain set of rules that God has provided. Christian faith is not in believing certain things about God, but rather it is believing in God himself. Faith is nothing more than trusting in God as the one best suited to be ruler of the universe rather than one's self, and then just trying to live a life that reflects that sort of trust and relationship.



I now return you the last words of Jesus....

...which (if we are talking about from the Cross) I accept as including the phrase: "Father, into your hands I commit my spirit." It is an example of the type of trust that I just referred to when talking about the Christian understanding of what it means to have faith in God rather than in a set of beliefs about God.
Reply

Eric H
02-14-2009, 10:31 AM
Greetings and peace be with you Dawud_uk;
you as a christian, and me as a muslim, both wanting the best should try to guide those we see as misguided should we not?
But if I were to follow your advice, then I should guide you towards Christianity, which is the one true faith.

But.

You would not be happy with my persistent preaching. However I feel scriptures are intended more to inspire us to change ourselves, than they are for us to try and change other people.

When we try and find the last words of Jesus, it seems more important that we search for meaning and what they inspire me to do, rather than debate what the words are.

In the spirit of praying to one God

Eric
Reply

Eric H
02-14-2009, 10:37 AM
Greetings and peace be with you Dawud_uk;

you as a christian, and me as a muslim, both wanting the best.
The best comes down to moral values, justice for all people, justice for the poor and oppressed, family values, building caring communities, seeking peace on Earth.

Muslims, Christians, Hindu and atheist can walk side be side and strive for these values together.

If we could do these things together we could indeed bring glory to God

In the spirit of praying to one God.

Eric
Reply

AntiKarateKid
02-17-2009, 05:09 AM
format_quote Originally Posted by Eric H
Greetings and peace be with you AntiKarateKid;





You start of by saying I believe, so why is it necessary for us to believe as you believe?

And you give yourself the credit that your beliefs are informed, but people who believe differently use blind faith, that seems a tad unfair.

We are all created by the same God, the same God hears all our prayers, and it is for God to judge the sincerity of both our beliefs and faith.

In the spirit of praying for a greater interfaith understanding

Eric

You bring up a moot point.

If you don't believe that God prefers informed faith as opposed to blind faith, then we are talking about two different gods and all our talk is in vain.
Reply

Hafswa
02-17-2009, 12:22 PM
format_quote Originally Posted by AntiKarateKid
You bring up a moot point.

If you don't believe that God prefers informed faith as opposed to blind faith, then we are talking about two different gods and all our talk is in vain.
All faith has to be informed....the assurance in your heart that beyond a shadow of a doubt that your conviction is sure based on the truths that are taught and that you yourself have confirmed from the holy book (each religion with its own),communication with God in prayer and fasting revealing more aspects of God's nature etc.
All these lead to ultimately prove that your religions conviction is not be a simply following of heresay or a birth right. It has been tested, tried and conclusively formed your belief.

Question: We all believe that new leaders will bring something new into the world.I'd say because we have faith and hope that they will not carryon like those before them. What is the basis of this faith?
Reply

Eric H
02-17-2009, 02:11 PM
Greetings and peace be with you AntiKarateKid;

I guess I have informed faith because I did a lot of searching before I came to Christianity.

But I also have blind faith, if I can just give an example of what I think blind faith is…

About a year ago I become a Street Pastor and this does not involve preaching. We go out in groups of two into the community late on a Friday night where gangs, drunks, drugs, violence, vandals and troubled people are. We go in the hope of bringing about some kind of care and peace at night. We have no power or authority to do anything, we have no agenda or targets to meet, we are just volunteers, a member of the public wearing a jacket with Street Pastors written in fluorescent letters.

I am 59 and my partner is 65, we put our trust in prayer and in God. Late one night we came across a car full of youths parked near the centre of the road, and about a dozen of their mates were fooling around in the road by the car, most of them were drinking. We walked up to the driver and asked if he could park in a safer place, he started up the car and moved it safely. We said a few words to the guys fooling around in the road, and they moved onto the pavement.

There were a couple of intimidating guys right in our face, and my little lady partner looked up to them and said, I am not afraid, strangely they backed off and seemed to become more friendly. It was only as we were able to talk with them and listen to their stories we found out they were really a good bunch. I can only say that at times when I should be feeling fear and anxiety, I experience an inner peace that surpasses all understanding. Our confidence comes from knowing there is a prayer team at the church praying for our needs and the needs of the community.

Although people are praying for me back at the church, how can I trust that God is answering these prayers, I have no proof. I would call this blind faith.

In the spirit of praying to One God

Eric
Reply

جوري
02-26-2009, 01:58 AM
format_quote Originally Posted by Hafswa
This might end up being my last post here but I have to say this:
I joined this forum to get enlightened about Islam and as told to MZ then, to seek if Islam was a way of life, a faith I could follow and if Muslimahs would really care about me as an individual or just the fact that I had become one of them.
Ok

This thread was started with a simple question, What were Jesus' last word.
Indeed... it is an open discussion no, would you prefer a uni-directionality to the discussion so that it handles your beliefs with kid gloves?

I have read through it so far and noted the accusations, quoations of individuals who do not even share either failth, the comparissons between one faith against the other ,tempers flaring and names given to the others religion and so on. None of us is conveying conviction about what we believe in. Its just a debate about what I believe in is the truth and yours is not. Quite childish I might say.
This statement is very weighty in the mature scale--
If tempers flare, then I reckon it is your own given that I requested an indefinite ban to attend to more pressing affairs,, why or why not Christianity is the last thing on my mind unless opportunity presents itself. I suggest otherwise not investing your emotions too heavily in the opinions of others or skipping topics that shake your comfort zone all together?.

To both Christians-like me and Muslims, none of us here have displayed that attraction to ones belief.
indeed

We all were on the same level.
I doubt that. A belief is as good as its components and tenets, otherwise why invest with a life long commitment to something shady at best?
To me and the majority of non-Christians, Christianity is counter intuitive to logic and reason!
We are so busy defending our faiths rather than give accounts of why we believe in what we believe in like Woodrow did.
There is nothing to defend as far as Islam is concerned, I am not aggrieved by who believes and who doesn't, I have said as much in every post that required it, it isn't a communal effort ...

As to the account of why not Christianity, then I believe I summed it up systematically?
1-God leaving the cosmos behind to show up in Nazareth
2-God nunciates himself to a woman he is about to impregnate with himself.
3- God curses the earth he allegedly created for not bearing him fruit
4- God having human bodily functions, and for the most part ineffectual and helpless against his rivals.
5- God praying to himself in the Garden of Gethsemane the night before he allows himself to be crucified, not only abrogating his own commandments, forsaking himself, abandoning the universe but for something again so very counter intuitive as to 'eating sins' or atoning for them, thus giving all a carte Blanche to sin as they please, and it defines logic as how can God have such bizarre opposing personalities and still be considered 'one'?
6- God abrogating his commandments through his nemesis, from the dreams of Thomas to the alleged conversion of Paul.. is rather strange. Why can't God take care of everything whilst in our midst?
7- God is one and then three yet still one?

Does any of the above offend you? why should it, is this not the truth?

If asked" if you were not born into the religons you are in would you be still in your religion ?" what would our answer be?
See my above reply, further if you have followed my posts for a while, you'd have known I wasn't a practicing Muslim until very recently, in my mid twenties!
The rules of this forum stated that we are not here to push one into believeing any particular faith but in respect to each other, offer our opinions. Now when someone comes short of saying you are not welcome here, it makes me wonder why the creators of this forum have a section for comparative religion or even allow the users have questions addressed to Christians.
Where have I pushed my beliefs on you and actually stuck around to see them take hold? please I implore you to point it out!
If my candidness offends you, then I suggest you deal with what it is that you find offensive of what I wrote? If I strip Christianity of florid words you'll find that at the fulcrum upon which all else stands is exactly what I have summed up for you above and that is the bottom line of it!

all the best

cheers
Reply

Grace Seeker
02-26-2009, 02:46 AM
format_quote Originally Posted by Argon Gossamer
As to the account of why not Christianity, then I believe I summed it up systematically?
1-God leaving the cosmos behind to show up in Nazareth
2-God nunciates himself to a woman he is about to impregnate with himself.
3- God curses the earth he allegedly created for not bearing him fruit
4- God having human bodily functions, and for the most part ineffectual and helpless against his rivals.
5- God praying to himself in the Garden of Gethsemane the night before he allows himself to be crucified, not only abrogating his own commandments, forsaking himself, abandoning the universe but for something again so very counter intuitive as to 'eating sins' or atoning for them, thus giving all a carte Blanche to sin as they please, and it defines logic as how can God have such bizarre opposing personalities and still be considered 'one'?
6- God abrogating his commandments through his nemesis, from the dreams of Thomas to the alleged conversion of Paul.. is rather strange. Why can't God take care of everything whilst in our midst?
7- God is one and then three yet still one?

Does any of the above offend you? why should it, is this not the truth?
Not all of it is the truth. For instance your creation of systematic theology suggests that God leaves the comos behind during his incarnation. The Christian view is different in that God is able to be incarnate (as the son) and omnipresent (as the Father and as the Spirit) both at the same time. This is just one place where your systematic representation of Christian theology differs from what Christians actually believe.

But you are correct in saying that God is one and then three yet still one. I know and accept that this seems to be illogical to many. So be it. It is how I understand God to describe himself in the Christian scriptures, and as I accept them as authoritative it makes perfect logic to believe them to speak truth, even if I don't understand how that truth comes into being.
Reply

جوري
02-26-2009, 03:05 AM
format_quote Originally Posted by Grace Seeker
Not all of it is the truth. For instance your creation of systematic theology suggests that God leaves the comos behind during his incarnation.
Reincarnation and Monotheism are at odds and more in concert with Hindu or Buddhist doctrine, except even there, they won't sell you 1/3 of the being left behind to govern the cosmos and a third hovers like a spirit to nunciate to women that she is about to be gravid with him and one third as a suckling, helpless, and sometimes angry infant!
Astghfor Allah, whenever I think a little of your beliefs it makes me so angry how you adulterate every thing from prophets to the most supreme.. meh each is to his own!
The Christian view is different in that God is able to be incarnate (as the son)
Yes, one of numerous major flaws as far as I am concerned in your ability to sell your religion!
and omnipresent (as the Father and as the Spirit) both at the same time. This is just one place where your systematic representation of Christian theology differs from what Christians actually believe.
I have reiterated above the logical flaws of Christianity, you re-telling it in windy terms doesn't make it any more appealing or logical for that matter!
I don't see how your belief system is better than Hinduism or Shintoism. It is just another pagan system under some guise of monotheism.
But you are correct in saying that God is one and then three yet still one. I know and accept that this seems to be illogical to many. So be it.

It is how I understand God to describe himself in the Christian scriptures, and as I accept them as authoritative it makes perfect logic to believe them to speak truth, even if I don't understand how that truth comes into being.
and that is where we part ways!

all the best!
Reply

AntiKarateKid
02-26-2009, 03:17 AM
format_quote Originally Posted by Eric H
Greetings and peace be with you AntiKarateKid;

I guess I have informed faith because I did a lot of searching before I came to Christianity.

But I also have blind faith, if I can just give an example of what I think blind faith is…

About a year ago I become a Street Pastor and this does not involve preaching. We go out in groups of two into the community late on a Friday night where gangs, drunks, drugs, violence, vandals and troubled people are. We go in the hope of bringing about some kind of care and peace at night. We have no power or authority to do anything, we have no agenda or targets to meet, we are just volunteers, a member of the public wearing a jacket with Street Pastors written in fluorescent letters.

I am 59 and my partner is 65, we put our trust in prayer and in God. Late one night we came across a car full of youths parked near the centre of the road, and about a dozen of their mates were fooling around in the road by the car, most of them were drinking. We walked up to the driver and asked if he could park in a safer place, he started up the car and moved it safely. We said a few words to the guys fooling around in the road, and they moved onto the pavement.

There were a couple of intimidating guys right in our face, and my little lady partner looked up to them and said, I am not afraid, strangely they backed off and seemed to become more friendly. It was only as we were able to talk with them and listen to their stories we found out they were really a good bunch. I can only say that at times when I should be feeling fear and anxiety, I experience an inner peace that surpasses all understanding. Our confidence comes from knowing there is a prayer team at the church praying for our needs and the needs of the community.

Although people are praying for me back at the church, how can I trust that God is answering these prayers, I have no proof. I would call this blind faith.

In the spirit of praying to One God

Eric
Do you think that Allah does not provide for everyone? The atheists on this forum breath freely because Allah keeps them alive. You are kept safe by Allah's will.

There is more to religion than just "feeling" like Allah is granting you peace. The rich man who doesnt give to the poor may "feel" like Allah loves him because he looks around at his life of comfort and smiles.

A man may feel anything but only a feeling that is backed up by knowledge is a true blessing from Allah, all other feelings are illusions.
Reply

AntiKarateKid
02-26-2009, 03:24 AM
format_quote Originally Posted by Eric H
Greetings and peace be with you Dawud_uk;


But if I were to follow your advice, then I should guide you towards Christianity, which is the one true faith.

But.

You would not be happy with my persistent preaching. However I feel scriptures are intended more to inspire us to change ourselves, than they are for us to try and change other people.

When we try and find the last words of Jesus, it seems more important that we search for meaning and what they inspire me to do, rather than debate what the words are.

In the spirit of praying to one God

Eric

Then try and do so. I will try and guide you to Islam. May the truth banish the falsehood.

One problem though, you said yourself that you arent even interested in debates and without Christianity you would be left with only atheism.

You seem like a live and let live type of person.

I am a live and try and show others how to live person.

Are both are equally good?

Not too sure seeing as how God has entrusted us with truth and you would rather keep it to yourself.


Truth puts a greater burden on you Eric. It requires you to spread it. Were you not to spread it, you would be selfishly hoarding knowledge for yourself.
Reply

Grace Seeker
02-26-2009, 04:01 PM
format_quote Originally Posted by Argon Gossamer
I have reiterated above the logical flaws of Christianity, you re-telling it in windy terms doesn't make it any more appealing or logical for that matter!
No you haven't. You have reiterated things which you assert are Christian beliefs and then declared that you disagree with them being true. I accept that. What I don't accept is that all the things which you stated that Christians believe are in fact beliefs actually held by Christians.

Given that you are mistaken in ascribing them to be Christian beliefs when some of them most definitely are not Christian beliefs makes the determination of whether or not they are logical or illogical completely irrelevant.


I don't see how your belief system is better than Hinduism or Shintoism. It is just another pagan system under some guise of monotheism.
And I accept that as your view on the subject. I just don't accept your proposed systematic theology as being a correct description of actual Christian theology.
Reply

جوري
02-26-2009, 07:07 PM
format_quote Originally Posted by Grace Seeker
No you haven't. You have reiterated things which you assert are Christian beliefs and then declared that you disagree with them being true. I accept that. What I don't accept is that all the things which you stated that Christians believe are in fact beliefs actually held by Christians.
oh.. which one of the former listed is flawed in your opinion?

Given that you are mistaken in ascribing them to be Christian beliefs when some of them most definitely are not Christian beliefs makes the determination of whether or not they are logical or illogical completely irrelevant.
You haven't established to me why they are not of christian belief in order to step it up the extra notch.


And I accept that as your view on the subject. I just don't accept your proposed systematic theology as being a correct description of actual Christian theology.
I understand you like flowery language to hide incongruous fanciful tales, until such a time you prove me wrong. They are the correct denuded truth of Christianity upon which all else stands!

all the best
Reply

Grace Seeker
02-26-2009, 08:57 PM
format_quote Originally Posted by Argon Gossamer
oh.. which one of the former listed is flawed in your opinion?
Read what I already posted. You assert that Christians believe that God left the cosmos behind to show up in Nazareth. We don't. We never assert anything even close to that. Quite the contrary, we assert that God was present in heaven as always AND in Jesus of Nazareth both at the same time. And there is no fancy language in that assertion, just fancy footwork on your part to ignore what Christians actually teach and to then transplant your own misinformed views in their place. Now, you may also contend that this view is illogical, fine. Just, please, get our views right before trying to discredit them. It does no one any good to reject Christianity as illogical when the views one is rejecting aren't even actually held by Christians.
Reply

جوري
02-26-2009, 09:05 PM
format_quote Originally Posted by Grace Seeker
Read what I already posted.
I have indeed

You assert that Christians believe that God left the cosmos behind to show up in Nazareth. We don't. We never assert anything even close to that. Quite the contrary, we assert that God was present in heaven as always AND in Jesus of Nazareth both at the same time.
I was trying to make your religion remotely resemble 'Monotheism' If you have two beings of different nature in two separate places one suckling angry, weak infant, an ineffectual being and the other a mighty being who forsake the first, logic would dictate that they can't be one in the same, even if you really want it to be so!
And there is no fancy language in that assertion, just fancy footwork on your part to ignore what Christians actually teach and to then transplant your own misinformed views in their place.
Again, I don't see how any thinking logical person can buy into the three gods and still have it be labeled under 'Monotheism'
Yours is a form of paganism further evidenced by all the idols in your churches!


Now, you may also contend that this view is illogical, fine. Just, please, get our views right before trying to discredit them. It does no one any good to reject Christianity as illogical when the views one is rejecting aren't even actually held by Christians.
The view held by Christians according to what you have just written is even more ludicrous than what we make of it for reasons formerly posted!

all the best
Reply

Grace Seeker
02-26-2009, 09:17 PM
format_quote Originally Posted by Argon Gossamer
I have indeed

I was trying to make your religion remotely resemble 'Monotheism' If you have two beings of different nature in two separate places one suckling angry, weak infant, an ineffectual being and the other a mighty being who forsake the first, logic would dictate that they can't be one in the same, even if you really want it to be so!
Fine, then that is what you find illogical in Christianity. I don't contend that every person will find Christianity logical. I only contend that it is true.
Again, I don't see how any thinking logical person can buy into the three gods and still have it be labeled under 'Monotheism'
Except you mis-state what Christians believe once again. We don't believe that Jesus is one god and the Father in heaven is another god and that the Spirit is a third god. We believe that these three are but still one being. And we base that on the fact that scripture declares them each to be divine; but that same scripture also declares there to be only one God. We believe that both sets of statements are true, despite their apparent incongruity with each other. You may likewise call that illogical; we call it revealed truth.

Yours is a form of paganism further evidenced by all the idols in your churches!
Some churches do indeed have icons in them to remind them of past saints. It is sad whenever a person mistakenly begins to venerate the image made by human hands rather than the God who those saints themselves worshipped. But I don't label Christianity a form of paganism because some people make this mistake. It is a failing of individual Christians, not a tenet of the Christian faith.


The view held by Christians according to what you have just written is even more ludicrous than what we make of it for reasons formerly posted!
It may be, but at least now you have a more correctly understood reason for rejecting it than you presented before.
Reply

جوري
02-26-2009, 09:26 PM
format_quote Originally Posted by Grace Seeker
Fine, then that is what you find illogical in Christianity. I don't contend that every person will find Christianity logical. I only contend that it is true.
"truth' has to be consistent with fact and reality-- you confuse man made delusions for truth!

Except you mis-state what Christians believe once again. We don't believe that Jesus is one god and the Father in heaven is another god and that the Spirit is a third god. We believe that these three are but still one being. And we base that on the fact that scripture declares them each to be divine but that scripture also declares there to be only one God. We believe that both sets of statements are true, despite their apparent incongruity with each other. You may likewise call that illogical, we call it revealed truth.
Yes.. the young lady on the previous page stated, why not Christianity and we have listed why not --what you believe to be truth is irrelevant to the actual truth-- monotheism is defined as belief in a single God-- when you have a God of the cosmos, an ineffectual God in Nazareth and a hovering God whose Job is enunciate his wishes to women, you'll be making a statement that is necessarily false by virtue of simple definition!

Some churches do indeed have icons in them to remind them of past saints. It is sad whenever a person mistakenly begins to venerate the image made by human hands rather than the God who those saints themselves worshipped. But I don't label Christianity a form of paganism because some people make this mistake. It is a failing of individual Christians, not a tenet of the Christian faith.
Idols are material effigies that are worshipped-- given that you do both, that is worship Jesus and have statues of him in Churches, I don't see how one Christian is better than another.. it is all the same!

It may be, but at least now you have a more correctly understood reason for rejecting it than you presented before.
No not at all. You'll always be around the bend with this one, as the multitudes of ways to explain it are all nothing short of hilarious..

all the best
Reply

Grace Seeker
02-26-2009, 09:33 PM
format_quote Originally Posted by Argon Gossamer
monotheism is defined as belief in a single God-- when you have a God of the cosmos, an ineffectual God in Nazareth and a hovering God whose Job is enunciate his wishes to women, you'll be making a statement that is necessarily false by virtue of simple definition!
And I continue to say that we have not three seperate gods as you have listed them, but one God who has made himself known to us in these three seperate persons. You say it is not logical. I say it is revelation. We can go round on this part which we disagree about forever; but as long as you do not declare something to be a Christian belief which is not an actual belief of ours, I will let the disagreement be between you and God, rather than you and me, and just wish you well.

Peace.
Reply

Follower
02-26-2009, 10:23 PM
Here is a problem - the Quran says that Christians say that the One True GOD is actually 1 of 3 gods:

Does Allah not understand that Christians know He is one Allah?

4:171
Literal:You The Book's people, do not exaggerate/exceed the limit in your religion, and do not say on God except the truth , but the Messiah, Jesus, Mary's son God's messenger and His word/expression He threw it away to Mary, and a Soul/Spirit from Him; so believe with God, and His messengers, and do not say: "Three." Stop best for you, but God one God, His praise/glory that to be for him a child; for Him what in the skies/space and what in the earth/Planet Earth, enough/sufficient with God guardian/protector.

And yet Jesus is the only messanger in the Quran called
Kalimatuhu: God's Word (Ali Imran 3:45, Al Nesa 4:171)
Ruhunminhu: Spirit proceeding from Him (Al Nesa 4:171 )
Al-Masih: The Messiah (Al -Nesa 4:157, 171 )
Rahma: Mercy from God to mankind (Maryam 19:21)
Zakiyyan: Gift of a holy or sinless son (Maryam 19:19)
Salam: Peace on him (Maryam 19:33 )
Mina al-Saliheen: Upright or righteous shall he be
Nabiyy: Prophet (Al-Ankaboot 29:30 )
Rasul: Envoy, messenger (Al - Nesa 4:157, Al-Ma’-edah 5:75 )
Ibn Maryam : son of Mary , Jesus son of Mary (Ali-Imran 3:45)
Min al-muqareeab: Those who are close to God ( Ali Imran 3:45 )
Wadjih: worthy of esteem in this world and the next (Ali Imran 3:45)
Mubarak: Blessed ,a source of benefit for others ( Maryam 19:31)
Qawl al-haqq: Sure word ( Maryam 19:34.)
Abd Allah: Servant of God (Maryam 19.30)
Aya: A sign unto mankind (Maryam 19:21 ;3:50 ;43:61)
Shahid: A witness on Judgement day ( Al-Nesa 4:159)
Mathal: A Parable or example (Al-Zukhruf 43:57)
IIm: Knowledge of the hour (Al-Zukhruf 43:61)
Hikmah: Bearer of wisdom ( Al-Zukhruf 43:63)
Reply

AntiKarateKid
02-26-2009, 10:29 PM
format_quote Originally Posted by Follower
Here is a problem - the Quran says that Christians say that the One True GOD is actually 1 of 3 gods:

Does Allah not understand that Christians know He is one Allah?

4:171
Literal:You The Book's people, do not exaggerate/exceed the limit in your religion, and do not say on God except the truth , but the Messiah, Jesus, Mary's son God's messenger and His word/expression He threw it away to Mary, and a Soul/Spirit from Him; so believe with God, and His messengers, and do not say: "Three." Stop best for you, but God one God, His praise/glory that to be for him a child; for Him what in the skies/space and what in the earth/Planet Earth, enough/sufficient with God guardian/protector.

And yet Jesus is the only messanger in the Quran called
Kalimatuhu: God's Word (Ali Imran 3:45, Al Nesa 4:171)
Ruhunminhu: Spirit proceeding from Him (Al Nesa 4:171 )
Al-Masih: The Messiah (Al -Nesa 4:157, 171 )
Rahma: Mercy from God to mankind (Maryam 19:21)
Zakiyyan: Gift of a holy or sinless son (Maryam 19:19)
Salam: Peace on him (Maryam 19:33 )
Mina al-Saliheen: Upright or righteous shall he be
Nabiyy: Prophet (Al-Ankaboot 29:30 )
Rasul: Envoy, messenger (Al - Nesa 4:157, Al-Ma’-edah 5:75 )
Ibn Maryam : son of Mary , Jesus son of Mary (Ali-Imran 3:45)
Min al-muqareeab: Those who are close to God ( Ali Imran 3:45 )
Wadjih: worthy of esteem in this world and the next (Ali Imran 3:45)
Mubarak: Blessed ,a source of benefit for others ( Maryam 19:31)
Qawl al-haqq: Sure word ( Maryam 19:34.)
Abd Allah: Servant of God (Maryam 19.30)
Aya: A sign unto mankind (Maryam 19:21 ;3:50 ;43:61)
Shahid: A witness on Judgement day ( Al-Nesa 4:159)
Mathal: A Parable or example (Al-Zukhruf 43:57)
IIm: Knowledge of the hour (Al-Zukhruf 43:61)
Hikmah: Bearer of wisdom ( Al-Zukhruf 43:63)
Are you at that again? You had already been refuted in another thread and yet you insist on maintaining this delusion that you can portray Jesus pbuh as God in the Quran.

Have you ever thought that if the Quran was being addressed towards Christians and Jews in addition to the world that Allah wouldn't have felt like clarifying all the misconceptions about Jesus pbuh?


If you thought Moses pbuh was God, Allah would have made mention of HIM more than Jesus pbuh because of the fact that it is more of a point of conention.


On top of that, if you ask Hindu scholars if they belive in 1 God or many, they will answer 1 but that they view all the other gods as merely different parts of the same whole, as when you split white light into different colors.

Though, as eloquent as their explaination may be, it is not monotheism.


Even if you close your ears and drone on and on that "Christians are monotheists", you will never be right.



On an interesting sidenote: Some Jews today and many early Jews believe that when selling goods like wine, you can't sell it of a polytheist or pagan comes and touches it because it is not contaminated.


If a Muslim touched their drink, they believed they could still sell it, yet when a Christian touched it, they threw it out.


Makes you think? No?
Reply

Grace Seeker
02-26-2009, 10:36 PM
format_quote Originally Posted by AntiKarateKid
On an interesting sidenote: Some Jews today and many early Jews believe that when selling goods like wine, you can't sell it of a polytheist or pagan comes and touches it because it is not contaminated.


If a Muslim touched their drink, they believed they could still sell it, yet when a Christian touched it, they threw it out.


Makes you think? No?
Yep, makes me think that the diety of Christ was a stumbling block to Jews, just like the New Testament records. From a Christian perspective, those Jews that failed to recognize this were apostates to their own faith. But I'm sure both Jews and Muslims would disagree with that assessment and say that we were the misguided ones.

Were not going to settle this debate here, because eventually it gets back to whether we consider the New Testament writings on the matter to be authoritative or not. And if someone did, then I suspect they would already be a Christian.

I understand your scriptures reject this point of view as being valid. But that just is another reason for me to reject your scriptures as truly being from God. (Though, of course, you could say the same to me.) And round we go again. As I said, I don't think we are going to settle the debate here.
Reply

جوري
02-26-2009, 11:30 PM
format_quote Originally Posted by Follower

Kalimatuhu: God's Word (Ali Imran 3:45, Al Nesa 4:171)
إِذْ قَالَتِ الْمَلآئِكَةُ يَا مَرْيَمُ إِنَّ اللّهَ يُبَشِّرُكِ بِكَلِمَةٍ مِّنْهُ اسْمُهُ الْمَسِيحُ عِيسَى ابْنُ مَرْيَمَ وَجِيهًا فِي الدُّنْيَا وَالآخِرَةِ وَمِنَ الْمُقَرَّبِينَ {45}
[Pickthal 3:45] (And remember) when the angels said: O Mary! Lo! Allah giveth thee glad tidings of a word from him, whose name is the Messiah, Jesus, son of Mary, illustrious in the world and the Hereafter, and one of those brought near (unto Allah).


Ruhunminhu: Spirit proceeding from Him (Al Nesa 4:171 )
I am especially glad you brought this one to light.. if only you'd do more than cut and paste

يَا أَهْلَ الْكِتَابِ لاَ تَغْلُواْ فِي دِينِكُمْ وَلاَ تَقُولُواْ عَلَى اللّهِ إِلاَّ الْحَقِّ إِنَّمَا الْمَسِيحُ عِيسَى ابْنُ مَرْيَمَ رَسُولُ اللّهِ وَكَلِمَتُهُ أَلْقَاهَا إِلَى مَرْيَمَ وَرُوحٌ مِّنْهُ فَآمِنُواْ بِاللّهِ وَرُسُلِهِ وَلاَ تَقُولُواْ ثَلاَثَةٌ انتَهُواْ خَيْرًا لَّكُمْ إِنَّمَا اللّهُ إِلَـهٌ وَاحِدٌ سُبْحَانَهُ أَن يَكُونَ لَهُ وَلَدٌ لَّهُ مَا فِي السَّمَاوَات وَمَا فِي الأَرْضِ وَكَفَى بِاللّهِ وَكِيلاً {171}
[Pickthal 4:171] O People of the Scripture! Do not exaggerate in your religion nor utter aught concerning Allah save the truth. The Messiah, Jesus son of Mary, was only a messenger of Allah, and His word which He conveyed unto Mary, and a spirit from Him. So believe in Allah and His messengers, and say not "Three" - Cease! (it is) better for you! - Allah is only One Allah. Far is it removed from His Transcendent Majesty that He should have a son. His is all that is in the heavens and all that is in the earth. And Allah is sufficient as Defender.


Al-Masih: The Messiah (Al -Nesa 4:157, 171 )
وَقَوْلِهِمْ إِنَّا قَتَلْنَا الْمَسِيحَ عِيسَى ابْنَ مَرْيَمَ رَسُولَ اللّهِ وَمَا قَتَلُوهُ وَمَا صَلَبُوهُ وَلَـكِن شُبِّهَ لَهُمْ وَإِنَّ الَّذِينَ اخْتَلَفُواْ فِيهِ لَفِي شَكٍّ مِّنْهُ مَا لَهُم بِهِ مِنْ عِلْمٍ إِلاَّ اتِّبَاعَ الظَّنِّ وَمَا قَتَلُوهُ يَقِينًا {157}
[Pickthal 4:157] And because of their saying: We slew the Messiah, Jesus son of Mary, Allah's messenger - they slew him not nor crucified him, but it appeared so unto them; and lo! those who disagree concerning it are in doubt thereof; they have no knowledge thereof save pursuit of a conjecture; they slew him not for certain.


and the meaning and significance of being anointed:
by Ahmad Deedat

The word CHRIST is derived from the Hebrew word Messiah, Arabic-Masih. Root word m-a-s-a-h-a, meaning to rub, to massage, to anoint. Priests and kings were anointed when being consecrated to their offices. But in its translated, Grecian form "CHRIST", it seems unique:befitting Jesus only. The Christian has a knack of transmuting baser metals into shining gold. What he is wont to do is to translate names into his own language like "cephas" to Peter, "messiah" to Christ. How does he do that? Very easily MESSIAH in Hebrew means anointed. The Greek word for anointed is "christos". Just lop off the 'os' from christos and you are left with christ. Now change the little 'c' to a capital 'C', and "hey, presto!" he has created a unique (?) name! Christos means ANOINTED, and anointed means APPOINTED in its religious connotation. Jesus (pbuh) was appointed (anointed) at his baptism by John the Baptist, as God's Messenger.Every Prophet of God is so anointed or appointed. The Holy Bible is replete with the "anointed" ones. In the original Hebrew - made a "messiah". Let us keep to the English translation - "anointed." Not only were prophets and priests and kings anointed (christos-ed), but borns, and cherubs and lamp-posts also.
I am the God of Beth-el, where you ANOINTED a pillar.....
Genesis 31:13
If the priest that is ANOINTED do sin....
Leviticus 4:3
And Moses....ANOINTED the tabernacle and all things that was therein...
Leviticus 8:10
...THE LORD SHALL....EXALT THE HORN OF HIS ANOINTED
1 Samuel 2:10
Thus saith the Lord to his ANOINTED to Cyrus....
Isaiah 45:1
Thou art the ANOINTED cherub....
Ezekiel 28:14

There are a hundred more such references in the Holy Bible. Everytime you come across the word ANOINTED in your English Bible, you can take it that that word would be christos in the Greek translations, and if you take the same liberty with the word that the Christians have done, you will have - Christ Cherub, Christ Cyrus, Christ Priest and Christ Pillar, etc.
SOME TITLES EXCLUSIVE

Although, every prophet of God is an ANOINTED one of God - a Messiah, the title "Masih" or "Messiah" or its translation "CHRIST" is exclusively reserved for Jesus, the son of Mary, in both Islam and in Christianity. This is not unusual in religion. There are certain other honorific title which may be applied to more than one prophet, yet being made exclusive to one by usage: like "Rasul-lullah", meaning Messenger of God, which title is applied to both Moses (19:51) and Jesus (61:6) in the Holy Quran. Yet "Rasul-lullah" has become synonymous only with the Prophet of Islam among Muslims.
Every prophet is indeed a FRIEND OF GOD, but its Arabic equivalent "Kha- lil-lullah" is exclusively associated with Father Abraham. This does not mean that the others are not God's friends. "Kalimul-lah" (One who spoke with God) is never used for anyone other than Moses, yet we believe that God spoke with all His Messengers, including Jesus and Muhummed (May the Peace and Blessings of God be upon all His servants). Associating certain titles with certain personages only, does not make them exclusive or unique in any way. We honour all in varying terms.







Rahma: Mercy from God to mankind (Maryam 19:21)
قَالَ كَذَلِكِ قَالَ رَبُّكِ هُوَ عَلَيَّ هَيِّنٌ وَلِنَجْعَلَهُ آيَةً لِلنَّاسِ وَرَحْمَةً مِّنَّا وَكَانَ أَمْرًا مَّقْضِيًّا {21}
[Pickthal 19:21] He said: So (it will be). Thy Lord saith: It is easy for Me. And (it will be) that We may make of him a revelation for mankind and a mercy from Us, and it is a thing ordained.


Zakiyyan: Gift of a holy or sinless son (Maryam 19:19)
قَالَ إِنَّمَا أَنَا رَسُولُ رَبِّكِ لِأَهَبَ لَكِ غُلَامًا زَكِيًّا {19}
[Pickthal 19:19] He said: I am only a messenger of thy Lord, that I may bestow on thee a faultless son.

should take care of the 'holy spirit' being another God too if you'll bother read!

I suggest you do the same for the rest, you'll find out what a complete fool the moron who gave you snippets out of context, and you graciously enough letting the world know you are indeed a follower never bothered investigate what you cut and paste.

Every verse thus far has given you the picture that Jesus (P) is but a messenger of God!

all the best
Reply

AntiKarateKid
02-27-2009, 01:55 PM
Don't bother sister, I have already refuted Follower before and he seems to have complete amnesia when it comes to rebuttals.
Reply

Follower
02-27-2009, 02:12 PM
We are talking about the Quran here not the Bible. Tell me are there any other messangers in the Quran mentioned in such a light?

Why use just Picthal? Read the literal meaning of those verses too.

3:45
Literal:When the angels said: "You Mary, that God announces good news to you, with a word/expression from Him, his name the Messiah Jesus Mary's son, noble in the present world/near and the end, and from the neared/closer."

4:171
Literal:You The Book's people, do not exaggerate/exceed the limit in your religion, and do not say on God except the truth , but the Messiah, Jesus, Mary's son God's messenger and His word/expression He threw it away to Mary, and a Soul/Spirit from Him; so believe with God, and His messengers, and do not say: "Three." Stop best for you, but God one God, His praise/glory that to be for him a child; for Him what in the skies/space and what in the earth/Planet Earth, enough/sufficient with God guardian/protector.

GOD threw His WORD and soul away to Mary

4:157
Literal:And their saying: "We have killed the Messiah, Jesus, Mary's son, God's messenger, and they have not killed him, and they have not crucified him/placed him on a cross, and but resembled/was vague/was doubtful to them, and that those who disagreed/disputed in him in doubt/suspicion from him, no knowledge for them with him, except following the assumption , and they have not killed him surely/certainly.

All we know from this verse is that the Jews did not crucify Jesus.

19:21
Literal:He said: "'Like that,' said your Lord, it is on Me easy/light , and to make/put him a sign/evidence to the people, and mercy from Us, and a matter/command accomplished/ executed .'"

How was Jesus a mercy to Muslims- you have to go back to the Holy Bible to find out.
10:45
Literal:So if you were in doubt/suspicion from what We descended to you, so ask/question those who read The Book from before you, the truth had come to you from your Lord, so do not be from the doubting/arguing.

19:19
Literal:He said: "Truly I am your Lord's messenger to grant/present for you a pure/righteous boy ."

It is the angel saying I am only a messenger- it is Jesus that is faultless here and no other is mentioned as faultless in the Quran!!
Reply

doorster
02-27-2009, 02:30 PM
.....
Reply

AntiKarateKid
02-27-2009, 03:59 PM
...... lol?

Here Follower, remember this?

1. JESUS (PBUH) "IS A WORD FROM ALLAH" NOT "THE WORD OF ALLAH"

The Qur’an mentions in Surah Ali ‘Imran Chapter 3 verse 45

"Behold! The angels said: O Mary! Allah giveth thee glad tidings of a Word from Him: his name will be Christ Jesus. The son of Mary, held in honour in this world and the Hereafter and of (the company of) those Nearest to Allah.
[Al-Qur’an 3:45]

Jesus (pbuh) is referred in the Qur’an as a word from Allah and not as ‘the word of Allah’.

"A word" of Allah means a message of Allah. If a person is referred to as "a word" from Allah, it means that he is a Messenger or a Prophet of Allah.

2. THE TITLE OF A PROPHET (PBUH) DOES NOT MEAN THAT IT EXCLUSIVELY BELONGS TO THAT PROPHET (PBUH)

Different titles are given to different prophets (pbut). Whenever a title is given to a prophet (pbuh), it does not necessarily mean that the other prophets do not have the same characteristic or quality. For e.g. Prophet Abraham (pbuh) is referred to in the Qur’an as Khaleelullah, a friend of Allah. This does not indicate that all the other Prophets (pbuh) were not the friends of Allah. Prophet Moses (pbuh) is referred to in the Qur’an as Kaleemullah, indicating that God spoke to him. This does not mean that God did not speak to others. Similarly when Jesus (pbuh) is referred to in the Qur’an as Kalimatullah, "a word from Allah", it does not mean that the other Prophets were not "the word," of Allah.

3. JOHN THE BAPTIST (PBUH) IS ALSO CALLED "A WORD" OF ALLAH

Yahya (pbuh) i.e. John the Baptist (pbuh) is also referred to in the Qur’an as Kalimatullah i.e. a word of Allah in Surah Ali ‘Imran, Chapter 3, verses 38-39

"There did Zakariya Pray to his Lord, saying: "O my Lord! Grant unto me from Thee a progeny that is pure: for Thou art He that heareth prayer!

While he was standing in prayer in the chamber, the angels called unto him: "Allah doth give thee glad tidings of Yahya, witnessing the truth of a Word from Allah, and (be besides) noble, chaste, and a Prophet – of the (goodly) company of the righteous."
[Al-Qur’an 3:39]

4. JESUS (PBUH) REFERRED AS RUHULLAH – A SPIRIT OF ALLAH

Jesus (pbuh) also never referred to as Ruhullah "a spirit of Allah" but as a spirit from Allah in Surah Nisa Chapter 4 verse 171

"O People of the Book! Commit no excesses in your religion: nor say of Allah aught but the truth. Jesus Christ the son of Mary was (no more than) a Messenger of Allah, And His Word, which He bestowed on Mary, and a Spirit proceeding from Him: so believe in Allah and His Messengers. Say not ‘Trinity’: desist: it will be better for you: for Allah is One God: glory be to Him: (Far Exalted is He) above having a son. To Him belong all things in the heavens and on earth. And enough is Allah as a Disposer of affairs."
[Al-Qur’an 4:171]

5. SPIRIT OF ALLAH IS BREATHED IN EVERY HUMAN BEING

A spirit from Allah does not indicate that Jesus (pbuh) is God. The Qur’an mentions in several places that Allah breathed into the human beings "His Spirit" in Surah Al-Hijr, chapter 15 verse 29 in Surah Sajdah, chapter 32 verse 9

Surah Al Hijr Chapter 15 verse 29

"When I have fashioned him (in due proportion) and breathed into him of My spirit, fall ye down in obeisance unto him."
[Al-Qur’an 15:29]

Surah Sajdah Chapter 32 verse 9

"But He fashioned him in due proportion, and breathed into him something of His spirit. And He gave you (the faculties of) hearing and sight and feeling (and understanding): little thanks do ye give!"
[Al-Qur’an 32:9]
Reply

Grace Seeker
02-27-2009, 04:00 PM
format_quote Originally Posted by Argon Gossamer;1104559The word CHRIST is derived from [better to say that it is a translation of
the Hebrew word Messiah, Arabic-Masih. Root word m-a-s-a-h-a, meaning to rub, to massage, to anoint. Priests and kings were anointed when being consecrated to their offices. But in its translated, Grecian form "CHRIST", it seems unique:befitting Jesus only. The Christian has a knack of transmuting baser metals into shining gold. What he is wont to do is to translate names into his own language like "cephas" to Peter, "messiah" to Christ. How does he do that? Very easily MESSIAH in Hebrew means anointed. The Greek word for anointed is "christos". Just lop off the 'os' from christos and you are left with christ. Now change the little 'c' to a capital 'C', and "hey, presto!" he has created a unique (?) name! Christos means ANOINTED, and anointed means APPOINTED in its religious connotation. Jesus (pbuh) was appointed (anointed) at his baptism by John the Baptist, as God's Messenger.Every Prophet of God is so anointed or appointed. The Holy Bible is replete with the "anointed" ones. In the original Hebrew - made a "messiah". Let us keep to the English translation - "anointed." Not only were prophets and priests and kings anointed (christos-ed), but borns, and cherubs and lamp-posts also....

There are a hundred more such references in the Holy Bible. Everytime you come across the word ANOINTED in your English Bible, you can take it that that word would be christos in the Greek translations, and if you take the same liberty with the word that the Christians have done, you will have - Christ Cherub, Christ Cyrus, Christ Priest and Christ Pillar, etc.
You are partly correct. If one were to translate the English word "anointed" into Greek it would indeed sometimes be χριστοσ or χριστου, but you are incorrect to say "everytime".

Here are some examples of times when it is not:
Mark 6:13 They drove out many demons and anointed many sick people with oil and healed them. -- ηλειφον

Luke 4:18
"The Spirit of the Lord is on me, because he has anointed me to preach good news to the poor. He has sent me to proclaim freedom for the prisoners and recovery of sight for the blind, to release the oppressed, -- εχρισεν

Acts 4:27
Indeed Herod and Pontius Pilate met together with the Gentiles and the people of Israel in this city to conspire against your holy servant Jesus, whom you anointed. -- εχρισας

Acts 10:38
how God anointed Jesus of Nazareth with the Holy Spirit and power, and how he went around doing good and healing all who were under the power of the devil, because God was with him. -- εχρισεν

In fact, these represent a majority of the times the English word "anointed" is used in the New Testament. But you are most certainly correct regarding the larger point of the meaning of the word χρισας, which is directly related to the word χριστον which when translated into English is the word Christ. It does mean to anoint. And the Hebrew form of it is the basis for our English word Messiah.

But what is your point? Yes, there were many thing, both inanimate objects and people, that were anointed by God, set aside for special sanctified purposes or use according to Gods directions. These could be prophets, priests, kings, bowls, and lampstands. But in neither the New Testament nor the Greek version of the Hebrew Bible (what Christians call the Old Testament, but written by Jews, not Christians) none of them, I repeat, NONE of them are ever accorded the title with the definite article "ho christos" meaning "THE Annointed One". None,that is, except Jesus who Christians call THE CHRIST. That definite article is where the uniqueness that you reject comes from. But it is applied to Jesus and no one else.

Of course, I recognize that is a circular argument, because the New Testament, where that title is accorded Jesus, was written by Christians. And Christians, simply by virtue of being Christians, see Jesus as unique.

So,all that we can say is that what we have record of is that people like John and Peter, Jesus' own disciples, saw him as uniquely anointed by God in a way that they did not understand any prior individual anointed or appointed by God to have been. That is what they said, and that is what we who still call him The Christ and no one else by that title still mean by it today. We don't mean that others were not also anointed messengers of God, for they were. We only mean that among all those that God anointed that Jesus was unique.
Reply

جوري
02-27-2009, 07:35 PM
I skipped all that and read your last line.. of course Jesus was unique, he wasn't a tabernacle anointed or a cherub for that matter but it doesn't make him God!

all the best
Reply

Grace Seeker
02-27-2009, 07:41 PM
format_quote Originally Posted by Argon Gossamer
I skipped all that
So, then what is the point in attempting to engage in conversation with you?
Reply

جوري
02-27-2009, 07:43 PM
format_quote Originally Posted by Grace Seeker
So, then what is the point in attempting to engage in conversation with you?
Who said I was looking for conversation?
pls from now on just spare me the sermons and leave them for your congregation. what you need to do is give bold facts, and if you did really you wouldn't need to drown it all in this much verbosity!

all the best
Reply

Grace Seeker
02-27-2009, 08:05 PM
format_quote Originally Posted by Argon Gossamer
Who said I was looking for conversation?
Then why are you here? Why do you post? Why do you engage people and respond to our posts?
Reply

جوري
02-27-2009, 08:10 PM
format_quote Originally Posted by Grace Seeker
Then why are you here? Why do you post? Why do you engage people and respond to our posts?
Your pal follower posted wrong info. using the Quran, it is my duty as a Muslim to correct it. The other lady asked me directly why not Christianity? to which I felt a duty to answer. That isn't called gauging or interest in the other party's point of view. It is called correcting misinformation.

all the best
Reply

Grace Seeker
02-28-2009, 08:52 AM
format_quote Originally Posted by Gossamer skye
Your pal follower posted wrong info. using the Quran, it is my duty as a Muslim to correct it. The other lady asked me directly why not Christianity? to which I felt a duty to answer. That isn't called gauging or interest in the other party's point of view. It is called correcting misinformation.

all the best
And you have also posted wrong info. with regard both to Christian beliefs and the Bible. And so I post to correct it.


format_quote Originally Posted by Gossamer skye
As to the account of why not Christianity, then I believe I summed it up systematically?
1-God leaving the cosmos behind to show up in Nazareth
This is not what Christians say that God did. It is not a part of our theology. The fact is that we say just the opposite.

format_quote Originally Posted by Gossamer skye
Everytime you come across the word ANOINTED in your English Bible, you can take it that that word would be christos in the Greek translations,
This is also an untrue statement. And I took the time to give you specific examples where the word ANOINTED appeared in the English Bible and was NOT christos in the Greek translations. But you chose to skip that.


When your premises are faulty, as they are in these two posts, your conclusions are likely to faulty as well. And btw, it is not a sermon, but as you said, "it is called correcting misinformation."
Reply

جوري
02-28-2009, 05:56 PM
format_quote Originally Posted by Grace Seeker
And you have also posted wrong info. with regard both to Christian beliefs and the Bible. And so I post to correct it.
in fact I haven't.. they were simply put stripped of flowery words and as I understand some people don't like the naked truth of their core beliefs!


This is not what Christians say that God did. It is not a part of our theology. The fact is that we say just the opposite.
What you interpret God did and the actual events that took place seem to be at odds. This isn't brain surgery.. It is rather plain for everyone to see-- I am not really sure what is difficult here to understand?

This is also an untrue statement. And I took the time to give you specific examples where the word ANOINTED appeared in the English Bible and was NOT christos in the Greek translations. But you chose to skip that.
The bottom line is there is nothing particularly 'divine' about anointment-- since I myself anointed my body after my shower this morning. an anointment of a king or messenger is certainly more impressive than the anointment of a person after a shower or even a tabernacle, but it still doesn't make gods of men!

When your premises are faulty, as they are in these two posts, your conclusions are likely to faulty as well. And btw, it is not a sermon, but as you said, "it is called correcting misinformation."
You tell yourself whatever you have to, to feel comfortable about your beliefs.. but repeating yourself ad nauseam with every thread isn't going to make the facts of the matter any less so.. although they might make one give up from the sheer redundancy..

all the best
Reply

Follower
03-01-2009, 04:22 PM
Yes these verses do speak of breathing soul into:
15:29
Literal:So when/if I straightened him, and I blew in him from My Soul/Sprit , so fall/land/come to him prostrating.
32:9
Literal:Then He straightened Him, and He blew in Him from His Soul/Spirit, and He made/put for you the hearing/listening, and the eye sights/knowledge, and the hearts, little what you thank/be grateful.
38:72
Literal:So if I straightened him, and I blew in him from My Soul/Spirit, so fall/come to him prostrating.

When you study the Bible you must build verse upon verse to get to the full menaing. You must also take all of the Quran together and not just cherry pick verses- add to that the clarificaton that Allah threw His word and soul away to Mary from verse 4:171

Yes, Jesus was the message of the Gospel.

Yes, there have been many prophets and yes Jesus was also a prophet.

I am saying that whether you believe that Jesus is GOD or not, Jesus is the only "man" according to the Quran that has received ALL of these titles.

John the Baptist - He was not pure - but righteous. He was given the purification tool for man- baptism.
19:13
Literal:And compassion/kindness from at Us, and purification/correction and he was fearing and obeying.

Jesus was:

19:19
Literal:He said: "Truly I am your Lord's messenger to grant/present for you a pure/righteous boy ."
Reply

جوري
03-01-2009, 06:04 PM
It has come to my attention that no Christian posted these forth:
Matthew 28:18-20, Mark 16:15-18, or Luke 24:44-49 as the last words of Jesus before his ascension? All of the quotes conveyed on this thread were clearly not his last words. What about Acts 1:7-9

He (Jesus) said to them, "It is not for you to know times or epochs which the Father has fixed by His own authority, but you will receive power when the Holy Spirit has come upon you; and you shall be my witnesses both in Jerusalem, and in all Judea and Samaria, and even to the remotest part of the earth." And after he had said these things, he was lifted up while they were looking on, and a cloud received him out of their sight.
Reply

Follower
03-01-2009, 06:41 PM
I asked back on page 10 which last words they were looking for.

format_quote Originally Posted by Follower
Are you asking about Jesus last words on the cross, before His assenscion, our last day of Judgement?

You must go to the Aramaic reading of the Bible to receive the full message of Jesus' last words on the cross-

Matthew 27
46 And about the ninth hour, Yeshua cried out with a load voice and said, My God! My God! Why have you spared me?

50 Then again Yeshua cried out with a loud voice and gave up his spirit. [go to Luke and John to read the actual words]

Mark 15
34 And in the ninth hour, Yeshua cried out in a load voice and said, Eil! Eil! lmana shwaqthani, that is “My God! My God! Why have you spared me?

Luke 23
46 And Yeshua cried out with a load voice and said, My Father, Into your hands I place my spirit! He said this and it was finished

John 19
30 And when he had taken that vinegar Yeshua said, Behold, it is finished! And he bowed his head and gave up his spirit.

then later:
Matthew 28
16Then the eleven disciples went to Galilee, to the mountain where Jesus had told them to go. 17When they saw him, they worshiped him; but some doubted. 18Then Jesus came to them and said, "All authority in heaven and on earth has been given to me. 19Therefore go and make disciples of all nations, baptizing them in the name of the Father and of the Son and of the Holy Spirit, 20and teaching them to obey everything I have commanded you. And surely I am with you always, to the very end of the age."
Reply

جوري
03-01-2009, 06:55 PM
You have a bizarre way of never addressing the topic and then giving none answers.. I guess one has to have your style thinking to be Christian!

all the best
Reply

Grace Seeker
03-02-2009, 01:08 AM
format_quote Originally Posted by Gossamer skye
It has come to my attention that no Christian posted these forth:
Matthew 28:18-20, Mark 16:15-18, or Luke 24:44-49 as the last words of Jesus before his ascension? All of the quotes conveyed on this thread were clearly not his last words. What about Acts 1:7-9

He (Jesus) said to them, "It is not for you to know times or epochs which the Father has fixed by His own authority, but you will receive power when the Holy Spirit has come upon you; and you shall be my witnesses both in Jerusalem, and in all Judea and Samaria, and even to the remotest part of the earth." And after he had said these things, he was lifted up while they were looking on, and a cloud received him out of their sight.
We (Christians) have already provided this information. But you see only what you wish to see. Just like above. You used the word "everytiime", but when I corrected you in your error, you fail to see that it was your mistake and assert that "The bottom line is there is nothing particularly 'divine' about anointment", something that no Christian has ever asserted that there is, for we recognize that there are all manner of anointments.

But I see that one poster on this thread has captured the problem you are dealing with better than anyone else. Here are her words, I hope you heed them:
You tell yourself whatever you have to, to feel comfortable about your beliefs.. but repeating yourself ad nauseam with every thread isn't going to make the facts of the matter any less so.. although they might make one give up from the sheer redundancy..
Reply

جوري
03-02-2009, 01:13 AM
format_quote Originally Posted by Grace Seeker
We (Christians) have already provided this information. But you see only what you wish to see. Just like above. You used the word "everytiime",
You are too late I have already seen 'follower's post' on the matter, it is hard to weed out through the barrage of unnecessary quotes.

but when I corrected you in your error, you fail to see that it was your mistake and assert that "The bottom line is there is nothing particularly 'divine' about anointment", something that no Christian has ever asserted that there is, for we recognize that there are all manner of anointments.
You need to correct your pals in error since the majority of them seem to think that Jesus' anointment carries a divine value. If you yourself will scroll a few pages back.. since you are big on not using definitive terms..


all the best
Reply

Grace Seeker
03-02-2009, 01:18 AM
format_quote Originally Posted by Gossamer skye
You are too late I have already seen 'follower's post' on the matter, it is hard to weed out through the barrage of unnecessary quotes.

You need to correct your pals in error since the majority of them seem to think that Jesus' anointment carries a divine value. If you yourself will scroll a few pages back.. since you are big on not using definitive terms..


all the best
There are all manner of anointments. Which also implies that not all anoinments are the same. Jesus is THE anointed one. That is the clear declaration of the scriptures which Christians use. So, being anointed in and of itself does not make for divinity, but that doesn't mean that the Divine Being cannot declare a particular person to be anointed in a unique way. Jesus is not Divine because he is THE Messiah, but because he is Divine he was indeed unquie in his Messiahship.
Reply

جوري
03-02-2009, 01:21 AM
format_quote Originally Posted by Grace Seeker
---- but that doesn't mean that the Divine Being cannot declare a particular person to be anointed in a unique way. Jesus is not Divine because he is THE Messiah, but because he is Divine he was indeed unquie in his Messiahship.
So a 'divine being', anointed a 'particular' person as you declare above, thus making him divine as well and then deciding that this particular person should be a god? and still have it be monotheism? :rolleyes:

what about THE anointed tabernacle and The anointed Cherubs.. are they Gods too?
Reply

Grace Seeker
03-04-2009, 03:48 AM
format_quote Originally Posted by Gossamer skye
So a 'divine being', anointed a 'particular' person as you declare above, thus making him divine as well and then deciding that this particular person should be a god? and still have it be monotheism? :rolleyes:
No. That is NOT what I said.
Reply

جوري
03-04-2009, 04:07 AM
You don't have to say it... it is inferred by the same token!

all the best
Reply

Hey there! Looks like you're enjoying the discussion, but you're not signed up for an account.

When you create an account, you can participate in the discussions and share your thoughts. You also get notifications, here and via email, whenever new posts are made. And you can like posts and make new friends.
Sign Up

Similar Threads

  1. Replies: 379
    Last Post: 11-02-2008, 01:52 PM
  2. Replies: 35
    Last Post: 05-19-2006, 08:33 PM
British Wholesales - Certified Wholesale Linen & Towels | Holiday in the Maldives

IslamicBoard

Experience a richer experience on our mobile app!