/* */

PDA

View Full Version : First Corrupted Verse



Pages : [1] 2

Shoes
07-01-2009, 12:23 AM
Hello everyone :) I've put this thread into Clarifications as I don't want it to be a debate - more a discussion on everyone's opinions.

So my questions are:

  • What is the first corrupted verse in the Bible?
  • How does it contradict Islamic teaching? (If it does.)


And more general questions to consider as we go along: What is a corruption of a text? And how can we tell which verses are/aren't corrupted?

To reiterate: this isn't a debate!

OK, fire away! :)

Salam,
Shoes
Reply

Login/Register to hide ads. Scroll down for more posts
جوري
07-01-2009, 12:34 AM
this doesn't really belong to clarifications about Islam, see if a mod can move it to comparative..

all the best
Reply

Shoes
07-01-2009, 12:35 AM
OK, whatever's best. :)
Reply

YusufNoor
07-01-2009, 01:14 PM
format_quote Originally Posted by Shoes
Hello everyone :) I've put this thread into Clarifications as I don't want it to be a debate - more a discussion on everyone's opinions.

So my questions are:

  • What is the first corrupted verse in the Bible?

    Genesis 1:1

    in the NT, "the Gospel According to Matthew"
  • How does it contradict Islamic teaching? (If it does.)


the words of man have replaced the words of Allah, thus they are unreliable

And more general questions to consider as we go along: What is a corruption of a text? And how can we tell which verses are/aren't corrupted?

determine which verses are the oldest [though still maybe not authentic] and then you can see changes in later verses.

To reiterate: this isn't a debate!

OK, fire away! :)

Salam,
Shoes
there are MANY forms of corruption in the NT, the MOST important would be Paul [or whoever Paul learned from] is no longer preaching the Gospel that Jesus preached, but rather he is preaching a gospel ABOUT Jesus. by this time, Jesus' message is already lost.

there a about 5,700 ancient manuscripts of the New Testament. of them, NO TWO are the same. maybe someone could show us which verses AREN'T corrupted!

as an example, perhaps you can tell what day that Jesus allegedly died on? i ask, because according to the "Gospels," he died on 2 different days!

there is more but let's start there, eh?
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
Zafran
07-01-2009, 01:23 PM
The Burial of Moses pbuh in the OT

Deutronomy 34:5-6 "5Then Moses, the servant of the Lord, died there in the land of Moab, at the Lord’s command. 6He was buried in a valley in the land of Moab, opposite Beth-peor, but no one knows his burial place to this day. "

The Quran says that the Torah was given to Moses pbuh yet here we have the Torah talking about Moses death??
Reply

Brasco
07-01-2009, 01:47 PM
The biggest corruption of the Bible is, that Paul himself added around 15 books to the Bible! Did he ever meet Jesus (pbuh)? Did he ever talk to him? Did he ever walk with him? Did he ever pray with him? Before he was an apostel, he was a bounty hunter: Killing Christians. It is the same as Hitler killed millions of Jews, he saw him with Moses (pbuh) in a dream, and then start to write 15 books and add those books to the Torah to be saved. Would the Jews accept that?!
Reply

rpwelton
07-01-2009, 01:50 PM
If you mean the Bible as a whole, then it's probably somewhere in the Old Testament.

Perhaps in Genesis where it says God "rested" on the 7th day? This would go against Islam because we say that God is not in need of rest or sleep (see Ayat al-Kursi below), and He is free of all needs (obviously rest is a need for humans).

Ayat Al-Kursi:

"God! There is no god but He, - the Living, the Self-subsisting, Eternal. No slumber can seize Him no sleep. His are all things in the heavens and on earth. Who is there can intercede in His presence except as He permits? He knows what (appears to His creatures as) before or after or behind them. Nor shall they compass anything of His knowledge except as He wills. His Throne extends over the heavens and the earth, and He feels no fatigue in guarding and preserving them for He is the Most High, the Supreme (in glory)." (2:255)
Reply

AntiKarateKid
07-01-2009, 01:54 PM
format_quote Originally Posted by Shoes
Hello everyone :) I've put this thread into Clarifications as I don't want it to be a debate - more a discussion on everyone's opinions.

So my questions are:

  • What is the first corrupted verse in the Bible?
  • How does it contradict Islamic teaching? (If it does.)


And more general questions to consider as we go along: What is a corruption of a text? And how can we tell which verses are/aren't corrupted?

To reiterate: this isn't a debate!

OK, fire away! :)

Salam,
Shoes

As I recall, Biblical scholars admit tothere being errors in the Bible along with many many manuscript variants.

In the words of a famous Biblical scholar "There are more variants of the Bible than there are words in it." So I guess you could say that when a scripture falls into that kind of ambiguity, it is corrupted. Moreover any contradicting verses or mistakes are corrupt. The reason for this being that, God states in the Bible that he isn't the author of confusion, and moreover, that inspired scripture cannot be contradictory or be flawed.

Also, from a pure Quranic view, any parts of the Bible that are in disharmony with the Quran, are corrupted. The reason for this being that the Quran is the exact word of God, his own speech. Thereforce, anything that goes against him is false.
Reply

Zafran
07-01-2009, 02:34 PM
Salaam

Yeah thats true many Biblical scholars themselves agree that the bible is corrupted.

peace
Reply

Grace Seeker
07-01-2009, 04:43 PM
format_quote Originally Posted by Zafran
Salaam

Yeah thats true many Biblical scholars themselves agree that the bible is corrupted.

peace

Agreed. But do you understand that the connotation you have of "corrupted" as a Muslim is considerably different than what a textual critic means by that same term?
Reply

AntiKarateKid
07-01-2009, 04:59 PM
format_quote Originally Posted by Grace Seeker
Agreed. But do you understand that the connotation you have of "corrupted" as a Muslim is considerably different than what a textual critic means by that same term?
What is your definition of corrupted?

Dictionary says: to destroy the integrity of; cause to be dishonest, disloyal,
Reply

Grace Seeker
07-01-2009, 05:11 PM
format_quote Originally Posted by AntiKarateKid
Also, from a pure Quranic view, any parts of the Bible that are in disharmony with the Quran, are corrupted. The reason for this being that the Quran is the exact word of God, his own speech. Thereforce, anything that goes against him is false.
Or, from a Christian perspective it could be just the opposite -- places where the Qur'an is not in harmony with the Bible would be evidence that God didn't actually speak those words to Muhammed, as anything that contradicts the Bible can be assumed to be in error.
Reply

AntiKarateKid
07-01-2009, 05:16 PM
format_quote Originally Posted by Grace Seeker
Agreed. But do you understand that the connotation you have of "corrupted" as a Muslim is considerably different than what a textual critic means by that same term?
Or, you have already agreed that the Bible has been corrupted.
Reply

Grace Seeker
07-01-2009, 05:18 PM
format_quote Originally Posted by AntiKarateKid
What is your definition of corrupted?

Dictionary says: to destroy the integrity of; cause to be dishonest, disloyal,
If that is the definition we are going to use, then I withdraw my above statement and would not agree that the Bible is corrupted. I recognize that there are variants in the various extant copies of the Biblical text that we have available to us today, and in that sense I am willing to grant that there have been changes made by someone at sometime. However, I don't believe that they destory the integrity of the text. And as a general statement (with a few notable exceptions) they were also not attempts to be either dishonest or disloyal.

I have written about the authenticity of the Bible before and will again if someone feels it necessary for me to do so. However, I don't think that is the purpose of this thread, so I'll spare everyone the lengthy posts that such a presentation would require.
Reply

rpwelton
07-01-2009, 05:47 PM
Honestly I think getting into a discussion with Christians on the integrity of scripture is a waste of time. The reason for that is Muslims and Christians both view the integrity of texts in two completely different lights.

Muslims see the Qur'an as a perfect miracle from God and thus its incorruptibility lends credence to the belief that everything contained within those pages is absolute truth and must be followed.

Christians on the other hand, view the Bible as more of an "inspiration". They focus on the core message and are (mostly) unconcerned with the notion that the hands of man has altered the Books of God. They view the Old Testament largely as one big history book, as they rarely derive rulings and guidance from it. The New Testament is more about what Jesus (supposedly) did than what he said, so there again it doesn't really matter how much the text has changed as long as the core ideas are still there.

There really isn't a need to get into a debate here because neither side will fully understand the logic behind the other party's reasoning.
Reply

Shoes
07-01-2009, 07:14 PM
YusufNoor, I find it really interesting that consider Gen 1:1 corrupted - may I ask what you mean by corrupted in this case?



format_quote Originally Posted by rpwelton
If you mean the Bible as a whole, then it's probably somewhere in the Old Testament.

Perhaps in Genesis where it says God "rested" on the 7th day? This would go against Islam because we say that God is not in need of rest or sleep (see Ayat al-Kursi below), and He is free of all needs (obviously rest is a need for humans).
Though may I point out that the word Hebrew word translated "rest" is better translated as cease - Yahweh doesn't snooze. :) (e.g. see Everett Fox's (in my opinion) amazing translation of the Torah)



May I ask (politely!) that we stay on topic and not start ranting about Paul (unless you think that his writings were the first corrupted of course!). This isn't a debate about whether the bible is corrupted; rather a discussion, with the example of the "first corrupted verse" as a hopefully useful one. I think everyone (especially me!) could benefit from gaining an understanding of the different ways we use the word corruption - I don't think this is a waste of time at all, far from it: we can actually have nice reasonable discussions about this issue if we understand the way others think about this issue.

Salam,
Shoes
Reply

rpwelton
07-01-2009, 07:36 PM
format_quote Originally Posted by Shoes
Though may I point out that the word Hebrew word translated "rest" is better translated as cease - Yahweh doesn't snooze. :) (e.g. see Everett Fox's (in my opinion) amazing translation of the Torah)

That may be the case. If it is, however, then why do Bible translations always use "rested"? Clearly there is a huge difference between what each word implies in regards to God's nature and being.

I'm not disputing with you, but I am wondering: do Christians generally not have a problem with the idea that God "rested"?
Reply

Shoes
07-01-2009, 08:14 PM
format_quote Originally Posted by rpwelton
That may be the case. If it is, however, then why do Bible translations always use "rested"? Clearly there is a huge difference between what each word implies in regards to God's nature and being.

I'm not disputing with you, but I am wondering: do Christians generally not have a problem with the idea that God "rested"?
Christians will certainly have a problem, in general, if you say Yahweh rested because he was tired or fatigued. But that Yahweh rested/ceased from creating so that he could admire the good creation he had made is very important - not only does it tell us that Yahweh wants to enjoy his creation with us, but it also gives a mandate for the teaching of the Sabbath - which says that we should rest/cease the business of our daily lives to enjoy creation with Him. Indeed, this Sabbath teaching is actually (I would argue) the primary purpose of Gen 1:1 - 2:4.

Salam,
Shoes
Reply

Grace Seeker
07-01-2009, 08:56 PM
format_quote Originally Posted by rpwelton
That may be the case. If it is, however, then why do Bible translations always use "rested"? Clearly there is a huge difference between what each word implies in regards to God's nature and being.

I'm not disputing with you, but I am wondering: do Christians generally not have a problem with the idea that God "rested"?
No, we don't because we don't think of God has having to expend effort in the act of creating. Therefore, to us it is clear that resting is simply about ceasing an activity, not about being tired.
Reply

rpwelton
07-01-2009, 09:02 PM
format_quote Originally Posted by Grace Seeker
No, we don't because we don't think of God has having to expend effort in the act of creating. Therefore, to us it is clear that resting is simply about ceasing an activity, not about being tired.
OK, fair enough then.
Reply

Brasco
07-01-2009, 09:45 PM
:sl:


God is afraid: (May Allah ta'ala forgive me)

Genesis 11:1-9
The Tower of Babel
1 Now the whole world had one language and a common speech.
2 As men moved eastward, they found a plain in Shinar and settled there.
3 They said to each other, "Come, let's make bricks and bake them thoroughly." They used brick instead of stone, and tar for mortar.
4 Then they said, "Come, let us build ourselves a city, with a tower that reaches to the heavens, so that we may make a name for ourselves and not be scattered over the face of the whole earth."
5 But the LORD came down to see the city and the tower that the men were building.
6 The LORD said, "If as one people speaking the same language they have begun to do this, then nothing they plan to do will be impossible for them.
7 Come, let us go down and confuse their language so they will not understand each other."
8 So the LORD scattered them from there over all the earth, and they stopped building the city.
9 That is why it was called Babel —because there the LORD confused the language of the whole world. From there the LORD scattered them over the face of the whole earth.
Reply

Shoes
07-01-2009, 09:53 PM
So given what Graceseeker and I have said, do you still think the resting verse is corrupted/contradicts the Qur'an?

Salam,
Shoes
Reply

Shoes
07-01-2009, 09:55 PM
format_quote Originally Posted by Brasco
:sl:


God is afraid: (May Allah ta'ala forgive me)

Genesis 11:1-9
The Tower of Babel
1 Now the whole world had one language and a common speech.
2 As men moved eastward, they found a plain in Shinar and settled there.
3 They said to each other, "Come, let's make bricks and bake them thoroughly." They used brick instead of stone, and tar for mortar.
4 Then they said, "Come, let us build ourselves a city, with a tower that reaches to the heavens, so that we may make a name for ourselves and not be scattered over the face of the whole earth."
5 But the LORD came down to see the city and the tower that the men were building.
6 The LORD said, "If as one people speaking the same language they have begun to do this, then nothing they plan to do will be impossible for them.
7 Come, let us go down and confuse their language so they will not understand each other."
8 So the LORD scattered them from there over all the earth, and they stopped building the city.
9 That is why it was called Babel —because there the LORD confused the language of the whole world. From there the LORD scattered them over the face of the whole earth.
Why do you think this shows God is afraid?

Also, is this the first corruption? Why/why not?

Salam,
Shoes
Reply

Brasco
07-01-2009, 09:56 PM
:sl:

Do you want to have verse that contradicts the Qur'an? Sorry for not having understood you!


masalam!
Reply

Shoes
07-01-2009, 09:57 PM
Sorry, I was referring to rpwelton's previous post, but you snuck in there first! :p
Reply

rpwelton
07-01-2009, 11:18 PM
format_quote Originally Posted by Shoes
So given what Graceseeker and I have said, do you still think the resting verse is corrupted/contradicts the Qur'an?

Salam,
Shoes
EDIT: In light of Skye's post below, I will continue to uphold that this is indeed a corrupt verse. While I can see how a Christian may come to a particular conclusion and not think of God as resting by interpreting that verse a particular way, as Muslims we believe that everything is held in place perfectly by Allah, therefore His job is never "done". Therefor, such a verse makes no sense for an all-powerful God.

In the Qur'an it describes the heavens as steadily expanding, thus creation is never complete.

I'd also like to point out a few verses before the "resting" verse in Genesis, it describes God as (a'udhubillah) creating man in His image. This is another false concept leading to the idea of the anthropomorphic god which is present in Christianity.
Reply

جوري
07-01-2009, 11:26 PM
Do you honestly think that God would cease or rest?
don't you think that once you have created something, you'd need to maintain it?

[2:255] Allah! There is no god but He, the Living, the Self-subsisting, Eternal. No slumber can seize Him nor sleep. His are all things in the heavens and on earth. Who is there can intercede in His presence except as He permitteth? He knoweth what (appeareth to His creatures as) Before or After or Behind them. Nor shall they compass aught of His knowledge except as He willeth. His Throne doth extend over the heavens and the earth, and He feeleth no fatigue in guarding and preserving them for He is the Most High, the Supreme (in glory).


1-two points indeed, one Islam can't borrow from Christianity and stand opposing it.. that would make it another sect of Christianity and not Islam.
2- A God that pauses, rests, ceases or admires or lives in men isn't God by definition, as it would attribute to him qualities of created rather than creator!

all the best
Reply

Shoes
07-01-2009, 11:43 PM
Yahweh ceased from creating not ceasing from doing anything whatsoever.

By the seventh day God had finished the work he had been doing; so on the seventh day he rested/ceased from all his work.
(The dreaded NIV, italics mine.)

Salam,
Shoes

P.S. I don't think Yahweh needs to do anything.
Reply

AntiKarateKid
07-01-2009, 11:47 PM
“Then the Lord awoke as from sleep, as a man wakes from the stupor of wine.” (Psalm 78:65)

This verse sure makes him look human.
Reply

جوري
07-01-2009, 11:48 PM
If Yahweh doesn't need to do anything then I guess life is as good without him as it with him.. what is the point of a 'sustainer' if all he needed to do took 7 days and then eternal rest?

all the best
Reply

rpwelton
07-01-2009, 11:50 PM
By the way, Shoes, I think you've opened up a can of worms with this thread.
Reply

Grace Seeker
07-01-2009, 11:54 PM
format_quote Originally Posted by rpwelton
EDIT: In light of Skye's post below, I will continue to uphold that this is indeed a corrupt verse. While I can see how a Christian may come to a particular conclusion and not think of God as resting by interpreting that verse a particular way, as Muslims we believe that everything is held in place perfectly by Allah, therefore His job is never "done". Therefor, such a verse makes no sense for an all-powerful God.

In the Qur'an it describes the heavens as steadily expanding, thus creation is never complete.

I'd also like to point out a few verses before the "resting" verse in Genesis, it describes God as (a'udhubillah) creating man in His image. This is another false concept leading to the idea of the anthropomorphic god which is present in Christianity.
We too believe that God continues to hold things together. The Genesis account only explains that he created past tense. As I've alluded to elsewhere, the Jews then go on in their Midrash to understand that there is an eighth day of creation.

I agree that the passage does lead to anthropomorphic ideas. If it didn't no one would assert that it teaches that God grew tired. That doesn't make that interpretation correct, at least not according to Christian understanding of the passage.

The concept of God creating man in his image is even worse in the way that people develop anthropomorphic ideas about God. They think that because they look into a mirror and see what they call their image that this is what the verse is referring to. And then they work backwards to say that God looks like a human being. Again, I say NO to this way of thinking. Just as surely as God does not need to rest like we might, God also does not look like us.

(Caution, the below is not intended to take this thread off topic, just a longer answer to the above question, but it may. If it does, mods, please edit my post at this point and delete all that is below.)


There are many different types of images.
  • an iconic mental representation; "her imagination forced images upon her too awful to contemplate"
  • persona: (Jungian psychology) a personal facade that one presents to the world; "a public image is as fragile as Humpty Dumpty"
  • picture: a visual representation (of an object or scene or person or abstraction) produced on a surface; "they showed us the pictures of their wedding"; "a movie is a series of images projected so rapidly that the eye integrates them"
  • prototype: a standard or typical example; "he is the prototype of good breeding"; "he provided America with an image of the good father"
  • trope: language used in a figurative or nonliteral sense
  • double: someone who closely resembles a famous person (especially an actor); "he could be Gingrich's double"; "she's the very image of her mother"
  • (mathematics) the set of values of the dependent variable for which a function is defined; "the image of f(x) = x^2 is the set of all non-negative real numbers if the domain of the function is the set of all real numbers"
  • render visible, as by means of MRI
  • the general impression that something (a person or organization or product) presents to the public; "although her popular image was contrived it served to inspire music and pageantry"; "the company tried to project an altruistic image"
  • visualize: imagine; conceive of; see in one's mind; "I can't see him on horseback!"; "I can see what will happen"; "I can see a risk in this strategy"
  • effigy: a representation of a person (especially in the form of sculpture); "the coin bears an effigy of Lincoln"; "the emperor's tomb had his image carved in stone"

To be an image of something may often, but does not necessarily have to imply looking like. Hence to say "image" is not to make us God's Doppelgänger. The Hebrew and Greek words behind the English term "image" are more about being a representation of something. So, what is it of God that is within us that we might be a representation of God. I suggest that it is that God didn't just give us life by speaking and we came into being, as did the rest of creation. In the creating of humankind, we are told the God breathed into us his own ruach (breath, spirit).

I think this is the way in which the scriptures mean that we are created in God's image, that God has put something of himself within us, something that I believe causes us to be incomplete unless we are joined with him in fellowship. And something that without that fellowship causes us to be spiritually dead. The very death that Adam and Eve experienced when they were kicked out of the Garden.

So, most people that you meet today, though they are descendants of people who were indeed created in God's image live a live in which that image has been seriously marred and the only way to restore it is to be reconciled to God again, and experience his Spirit once again dwelling within you.
Reply

Grace Seeker
07-02-2009, 12:01 AM
format_quote Originally Posted by Gossamer skye
If Yahweh doesn't need to do anything then I guess life is as good without him as it with him.. what is the point of a 'sustainer' if all he needed to do took 7 days and then eternal rest?

all the best
The truth is that all he needed to do took even less than 7 days. Less than even 6 days. Less than even 1 day. To say that God didn't need to do anything is to say that he didn't even need to create. Why? Because God is entirely sufficient within himself without the need of any creation. But that doesn't mean that he doesn't desire to create. And certainly what he creates he does sustain. I don't see how there is any difference between Christianity, Judaism, and Islam on these major ideas.
Reply

جوري
07-02-2009, 12:06 AM
format_quote Originally Posted by Grace Seeker
The truth is that all he needed to do took even less than 7 days. Less than even 6 days. Less than even 1 day. To say that God didn't need to do anything is to say that he didn't even need to create. Why? Because God is entirely sufficient within himself without the need of any creation. But that doesn't mean that he doesn't desire to create. And certainly what he creates he does sustain. I don't see how there is any difference between Christianity, Judaism, and Islam on these major ideas.
God didn't need to do anything, differs from God did something then rested after having done it... being self-sufficient doesn't extend itself to the creation.. having a 'desire to create' again loans him some human characteristics.. we aren't the outcome of desire, we are the outcome of truth!

all the best
Reply

Shoes
07-02-2009, 12:09 AM
Well worms are God's creatures too. :p

AntiKarateKid, yes anthropomorphisms are used to describe God - simply due to the limitation of language and the description of the infinite. Does it say that Yahweh was asleep? Or it was as if he was?

Gossamer Skye, all I was saying is that Yahweh's decision to sustain his creation is not one of necessity but of his will. Clearly creation needs Yahweh to sustain it, but Yahweh doesn't need creation to be sustained.

Salam,
Shoes
Reply

جوري
07-02-2009, 12:16 AM
this is what you initially wrote:
format_quote Originally Posted by Shoes

P.S. I don't think Yahweh needs to do anything.
so there is no retracting it, indeed what would become of the world if Yahweh took a rest? and his rest isn't measured by our laws of physics...
can't subject the originator to the human condition and expect that others would see that as Godly or uncorrupted...

all the best
Reply

Shoes
07-02-2009, 12:41 AM
My previous post makes it perfectly clear what I meant by the comment you quoted. As noted before, Yahweh rested from creating, not from sustaining.
Reply

Grace Seeker
07-02-2009, 12:43 AM
If God took a rest from what? From creating? From sustaining?


There are many who hold that God did indeed take a rest from everything. That he created the world and then, having finished it, simply left it to continue on its own. I don't happen to be one of those, but those who hold that view would say that nothing would happen except that the world and the universe would go on their merry way, just as they have for the last several billion years.

For my view, God has continued to sustain the world: "The Son is the radiance of God's glory and the exact representation of his being, sustaining all things by his powerful word" (Hebrews 1:3). Just as the world was created by his Word, so it continues by viture of his Word. Were he to quit doing so, the world itself would cease to be.

But goes God need us? Does he need to sustain us? No. He does not.

I see no disagreement between Shoes' first statement: "I don't think Yahweh needs to do anything," and his subsequent explanation of it: "all I was saying is that Yahweh's decision to sustain his creation is not one of necessity but of his will."


God could quit sustaining us, let us disappear into oblivion and nothingness and God would be unchanged by that fact and we would never even know that it had happened or that we had ever been. Indeed God may have actually done this a million or a billion times already and we would be oblivous to it unless God were to reveal it to us, for such acts of God happen so far outside of us we have no way to even perceive it. That we are he is not because he needs us, but because he wills us to be here.
Reply

جوري
07-02-2009, 12:49 AM
I see no concordance between this:

format_quote Originally Posted by Grace Seeker

But goes God need us? Does he need to sustain us? No. He does not.

.
and this:


format_quote Originally Posted by Grace Seeker
(Hebrews 1:3). Just as the world was created by his Word, so it continues by viture of his Word. Were he to quit doing so, the world itself would cease to be.
.
also, I am sure you have a good grip on English given your verbose and sometimes extremely ineffective debates, that you can tell the difference between needing us and needing to sustain us.
the things that work on their 'own volition' as in everything in creation, isn't really on its own volition sustained.

all the best
Reply

جوري
07-02-2009, 12:52 AM
format_quote Originally Posted by Shoes
My previous post makes it perfectly clear what I meant by the comment you quoted. As noted before, Yahweh rested from creating, not from sustaining.
Does it say that in your bible or should I go by your words?
and God rested on the sabbath but continued his sustainment of what he created or he simply took the day off?

all the best
Reply

Grace Seeker
07-02-2009, 12:57 AM
format_quote Originally Posted by Gossamer skye
I see no concordance between this:
If you assume that having created us that God has a responsibility or obligation to sustain us you would not. But I do not see such a condition being placed on God. Thus he does sustain us. But he does so not because he needs to but because he wills to. This does not mean that we don't need him to sustain us, we do. But a need on our part is not necessarily a need on God's part.
Reply

جوري
07-02-2009, 01:03 AM
format_quote Originally Posted by Grace Seeker
If you assume that having created us that God has a responsibility or obligation to sustain us you would not.
I don't understand this?

But I do not see such a condition being placed on God.
Then how does the world run without him? that is the atheist position.

Thus he does sustain us.
You are confusing me, he does or doesn't?

But he does so not because he needs to but because he wills to.
No one said anything about God with a need..
This does not mean that we don't need him to sustain us, we do. But a need on our part is not necessarily a need on God's part.
a complete non sequitur, and that is your own conclusion to try to salvage a failing example..

all the best
Reply

Shoes
07-02-2009, 01:03 AM
Gossamer Skye, do you think that these two statements contradict?

1. I didn't need to play the piano.
2. I played the piano.

Then how about these:

1. Yahweh doesn't need to sustain creation.
2. Yahweh sustains creation.

These are the only two things I'm really saying...I'm rather baffled why you think this is an issue.

As for what the Bible says, I quoted Genesis earlier on what Yahweh rested from, and Grace Seeker's quote shows that Yahweh sustains creation (and has the ability to not sustain it) quite nicely.

Salam,
Shoes
Reply

جوري
07-02-2009, 01:07 AM
format_quote Originally Posted by Shoes
Gossamer Skye, do you think that these two statements contradict?

1. I didn't need to play the piano.
2. I played the piano.

Then how about these:

1. Yahweh doesn't need to sustain creation.
2. Yahweh sustains creation.

These are the only two things I'm really saying...I'm rather baffled why you think this is an issue.

As for what the Bible says, I quoted Genesis earlier on what Yahweh rested from, and Grace Seeker's quote shows that Yahweh sustains creation (and has the ability to not sustain it) quite nicely.

Salam,
Shoes
Go back and read all the posts.. There is no point starting a new post after having failed completely to support your understanding on the former.


all the best
Reply

AntiKarateKid
07-02-2009, 01:08 AM
format_quote Originally Posted by Shoes
Well worms are God's creatures too. :p

AntiKarateKid, yes anthropomorphisms are used to describe God - simply due to the limitation of language and the description of the infinite. Does it say that Yahweh was asleep? Or it was as if he was?

Gossamer Skye, all I was saying is that Yahweh's decision to sustain his creation is not one of necessity but of his will. Clearly creation needs Yahweh to sustain it, but Yahweh doesn't need creation to be sustained.

Salam,
Shoes
I understand your point but I feel like it was unnecessary to compare God to a drunk guy. I mean, there are certain things which undermine his glory.
Reply

Joe98
07-02-2009, 01:14 AM
format_quote Originally Posted by rpwelton
…..because neither side will fully understand the logic behind the other party's reasoning.

You will after you read this.

In the time of Christ the janitor had a very low social status.

In one bible passage Christ entered a temple to clean it. He was trying to show that everybody is equal and there should not be a “social status”.

The gospels reported it because it was so important.

Christian response: Wonderful!


Muslim response: One gospel has him entering the temple on a Tuesday night and another says he entered the temple on a Wednesday morning – therefore the bible is corrupted and therefore there is nothing to learn here!

-
Reply

جوري
07-02-2009, 01:22 AM
format_quote Originally Posted by Joe98
You will after you read this.

In the time of Christ the janitor had a very low social status.

In one bible passage Christ entered a temple to clean it. He was trying to show that everybody is equal and there should not be a “social status”.

The gospels reported it because it was so important.

Christian response: Wonderful!


Muslim response: One gospel has him entering the temple on a Tuesday night and another says he entered the temple on a Wednesday morning – therefore the bible is corrupted and therefore there is nothing to learn here!

-
you are such a scholar with profound analysis of exegesis especially from the Islamic perspective. I am wondering why no one awarded you the Pulitzer until today? You are a wasted talent..
perhaps we can go back to the original topic now, that you've shared with us those pearls.
Reply

Grace Seeker
07-02-2009, 01:24 AM
format_quote Originally Posted by Joe98
In the time of Christ the janitor had a very low social status.

In one bible passage Christ entered a temple to clean it. He was trying to show that everybody is equal and there should not be a “social status”.
Joe, I appreciate your effort here, only in fairness I think that we Christians have to admit that Jesus didn't really clean the temple in the same way a janitor would. He really probably left more of a mess than when he started, dumped over tables and things scattered on the floor and all. He was more about chasing people out who were doing temporal business in it than cleaning up the place for Saturday services.
Reply

Grace Seeker
07-02-2009, 01:33 AM
format_quote Originally Posted by Gossamer skye
Go back and read all the posts.. There is no point starting a new post after having failed completely to support your understanding on the former.


all the best
Skye, no one is presenting any new ideas. Shoes and I are both saying the same thing. If you don't get it, then you don't get it. The only thing we've failed at is opening your eyes to what we've been saying all along. But our posts are not so obtuse. So, I suspect the problem is neither in our writing nor our logic.
Reply

YusufNoor
07-02-2009, 01:39 AM
format_quote Originally Posted by Shoes
YusufNoor, I find it really interesting that consider Gen 1:1 corrupted - may I ask what you mean by corrupted in this case?

Salam,
Shoes
Most Biblical scholars (which would exclude Rabbis and Ministers, were talking SCHOLARS [and this leaves out atheist joey as well]) agree that the beginning doublets in the Torah are additions of the author(s) known as P and originate somewhere between 600 and 400 BCE. besides it would be INCREDIBLY foolish to claim the the Torah, also called the Pentateuch, is the same as the "Torah" given to Moses on Mt Sinai.

i'm still awaiting a response to "perhaps you can tell what day that Jesus allegedly died on? i ask, because according to the "Gospels," he died on 2 different days!"

or comments on "The Gospel according to Matthew"

:w:
Reply

Shoes
07-02-2009, 01:47 AM
format_quote Originally Posted by AntiKarateKid
I understand your point but I feel like it was unnecessary to compare God to a drunk guy. I mean, there are certain things which undermine his glory.
I think the psalmist is making a rather wonderful and glorious point about the nature of Yahweh, having just reflected a bit on the Psalm. It all depends on what sleep and wine refer to in the simile.

Remember that in Christian theology, Yahweh is willing to limit Himself and become a human being in order to reveal Himself, even willing to enter into death to reconcile creation to Himself. A crucified body is a horrible image on the surface, but for the Christian it is the most incredible display of His wisdom, power and glory.

So with this as a paradigm, one can approach an "unnecessary" comparison with the expectation that it will actually reveal new, deep truth about Yahweh.

Salam,
Shoes
Reply

جوري
07-02-2009, 01:51 AM
format_quote Originally Posted by Grace Seeker
Skye, no one is presenting any new ideas. Shoes and I are both saying the same thing. If you don't get it, then you don't get it. The only thing we've failed at is opening your eyes to what we've been saying all along. But our posts are not so obtuse. So, I suspect the problem is neither in our writing nor our logic.
really?
let's leave your words unadulterated by my response for all to see, and let others judge the sense of what you are saying:

format_quote Originally Posted by Grace Seeker
If you assume that having created us that God has a responsibility or obligation to sustain us you would not.

But I do not see such a condition being placed on God.
Thus he does sustain us.
But he does so not because he needs to but because he wills to.
This does not mean that we don't need him to sustain us, we do. But a need on our part is not necessarily a need on God's part.
Reply

Shoes
07-02-2009, 02:04 AM
format_quote Originally Posted by YusufNoor
Most Biblical scholars (which would exclude Rabbis and Ministers, were talking SCHOLARS [and this leaves out atheist joey as well]) agree that the beginning doublets in the Torah are additions of the author(s) known as P and originate somewhere between 600 and 400 BCE. besides it would be INCREDIBLY foolish to claim the the Torah, also called the Pentateuch, is the same as the "Torah" given to Moses on Mt Sinai.
Indeed it would. But then the Judeo-Christian concepts of revelation and scripture are rather different to their Islamic counterparts, so no Jew or Christian would ever make such a claim. This is why the way the two groups use the word "corruption" is so important. What Jews and Christians will generally claim is that the Torah as we have it now is the same as the "first edition", excepting perhaps a few trivial scribal errors.

i'm still awaiting a response to "perhaps you can tell what day that Jesus allegedly died on? i ask, because according to the "Gospels," he died on 2 different days!"

or comments on "The Gospel according to Matthew"
I suspect no one's responded because it's got nothing to do with the thread (as you're not claiming that the Tanakh is uncorrupted).

Salam,
Shoes
Reply

جوري
07-02-2009, 02:08 AM
format_quote Originally Posted by Shoes


I suspect no one's responded because it's got nothing to do with the thread (as you're not claiming that the Tanakh is uncorrupted).

Salam,
Shoes
I thought the thread title is 'corrupted verses'.. if Jesus had two different death dates, I think you'd need to reconcile that with the integrity of your bible?

all the best
Reply

Shoes
07-02-2009, 02:15 AM
format_quote Originally Posted by Gossamer skye
I thought the thread title is 'corrupted verses'.. if Jesus had two different death dates, I think you'd need to reconcile that with the integrity of your bible?

all the best
No, it's "First Corrupted Verse"...the aim of the thread being to apply different criteria of what it means for a verse to be corrupted to the Bible in order to find the first corrupted verse. I (and others I'm sure) will be quite happy to discuss the points YusufNoor raised in separate threads should he or anyone else wish to create them.

Salam,
Shoes
Reply

YusufNoor
07-02-2009, 02:22 AM
format_quote Originally Posted by Shoes
Indeed it would. But then the Judeo-Christian concepts of revelation and scripture are rather different to their Islamic counterparts, so no Jew or Christian would ever make such a claim. This is why the way the two groups use the word "corruption" is so important. What Jews and Christians will generally claim is that the Torah as we have it now is the same as the "first edition", excepting perhaps a few trivial scribal errors.

that's incorrect, layman may make that claim but scholars like Richard Elliott Friedman, Professor of Hebrew and to quote wiki: is a biblical scholar and the Ann and Jay Davis Professor of Jewish Studies at the University of Georgia. He joined the faculty of the UGA Religion Department in 2006. Prior to his appointment there, he was the Katzin Professor of Jewish Civilization: Hebrew Bible; Near Eastern Languages and Literature at UCSD from 1984 until 2006. Dr. Friedman received his Th.D. in Hebrew Bible and Near Eastern Languages and Civilizations from Harvard University in 1978; Th.M.in Hebrew Bible from Harvard University in 1974; M.H.L., Jewish Theological Seminary in 1971, and B.A., University of Miami in 1968. He is a winner of numerous awards and honors, including American Council of Learned Societies Fellow. He was a Visiting Fellow at the University of Cambridge and the University of Oxford; and a Senior Fellow of the American Schools of Oriental Research in Jerusalem. He participated in the City of David Project archaeological excavations of biblical Jerusalem.

I suspect no one's responded because it's got nothing to do with the thread (as you're not claiming that the Tanakh is uncorrupted).

how is claiming that from the very title [and then some] that the very 1st book of the NT is corrupted, not relevant to a thread on the corruption of the bible?

Salam,
Shoes
also agreeing with Friedman on this:

Luke Timothy Johnson (born November 20, 1943) is the R. W. Woodruff Professor of New Testament and Christian Origins at Candler School of Theology and a Senior Fellow at the Center for the Study of Law and Religion at Emory University. Professor Johnson's research interests encompass the Jewish and Greco-Roman contexts of early Christianity (particularly moral discourse), Luke-Acts, the Pastoral Letters, and the Letter of James. [wiki]

Prof Johnson relates his opinion in his The Story of the Bible 2part lecture series put out by The Teaching Company [i saw him say it just yesterday!]

:w:
Reply

Shoes
07-02-2009, 02:30 AM
I mean that, generally, Jewish and Christian scholars (i.e. scholars who actually profess a Judeo-Christian faith) hold this position.

I hope my previous post makes clear the intentions of the thread. If you have an urge to talk about the first corrupted verse in the New Testament then I suppose that could be a useful example too - but the "first corrupted verse" is an important part of the discussion as it gives us a way of judging between different sets of criteria. Otherwise it'll just become a "Let's find a corruption in the Bible" festival which wasn't quite the intention I had for the direction of the thread! :p

Salam,
Shoes
Reply

Joe98
07-02-2009, 02:34 AM
format_quote Originally Posted by YusufNoor;
i'm still awaiting a response to "perhaps you can tell what day that Jesus allegedly died on?

i ask, because according to the "Gospels," he died on 2 different days!"

To continue with my scholarly knowledge:

Both gospels say he died.

Christians response: He died !

Muslims response: 2 people both said he died but because they got their days mixed up he never died!

-
Reply

جوري
07-02-2009, 02:35 AM
format_quote Originally Posted by Joe98
To continue with my scholarly knowledge:

Both gospels say he died.

Christians response: He died !

Muslims response: 2 people both said he died but because they got their days mixed up he never died!

-

The Muslim response is rather, why would God die?.. so how about you leave the Muslim response to Muslims and get back to your steakhouse forum?
Reply

جوري
07-02-2009, 02:37 AM
format_quote Originally Posted by Shoes
No, it's "First Corrupted Verse"...the aim of the thread being to apply different criteria of what it means for a verse to be corrupted to the Bible in order to find the first corrupted verse. I (and others I'm sure) will be quite happy to discuss the points YusufNoor raised in separate threads should he or anyone else wish to create them.

Salam,
Shoes
I just love semantics.. so you are looking for just one verse not a whole bunch of corrupt verses and you'd like for us to bestow on it the feature of first corrupted? :rollseyes
Reply

YusufNoor
07-02-2009, 02:51 AM
format_quote Originally Posted by Joe98
To continue with my scholarly knowledge:

Both gospels say he died.


if your scholarly knowledge is that there are 2 Gospels in the NT, i suggest you find another part of the forum to frequent!

Christians response: He died !

Muslims response: 2 people both said he died but because they got their days mixed up he never died!

PLEASE respond to the question!

-
the days ARE NOT mixed up! 1 author DELIBERATELY changes it! he's making a point!

and btw, while Friedman is my guru on OT stuff, Bart D Ehrman is my NT "go to" guy.

there are corruptions in the Gospels, they come 1st, but the letters have them as well.

and while NOT the 1st [the Gospels come 1st, so lets go with those], most scholars agree that "Mark" was written 1st, around 70 - 75 CE. EDIT: OK, 65 - 75 CE!

Mark ORIGINALLY ended with

Mark 16
The Resurrection
1When the Sabbath was over, Mary Magdalene, Mary the mother of James, and Salome bought spices so that they might go to anoint Jesus' body. 2Very early on the first day of the week, just after sunrise, they were on their way to the tomb 3and they asked each other, "Who will roll the stone away from the entrance of the tomb?"

4But when they looked up, they saw that the stone, which was very large, had been rolled away. 5As they entered the tomb, they saw a young man dressed in a white robe sitting on the right side, and they were alarmed.

6"Don't be alarmed," he said. "You are looking for Jesus the Nazarene, who was crucified. He has risen! He is not here. See the place where they laid him. 7But go, tell his disciples and Peter, 'He is going ahead of you into Galilee. There you will see him, just as he told you.' "

8Trembling and bewildered, the women went out and fled from the tomb. They said nothing to anyone, because they were afraid.
so, NO Jesus sightings at all! in fact, is says the women "said nothing to anyone!"

and yet, YEARS later, someone adds:


9When Jesus rose early on the first day of the week, he appeared first to Mary Magdalene, out of whom he had driven seven demons. 10She went and told those who had been with him and who were mourning and weeping. 11When they heard that Jesus was alive and that she had seen him, they did not believe it.

12Afterward Jesus appeared in a different form to two of them while they were walking in the country. 13These returned and reported it to the rest; but they did not believe them either.

14Later Jesus appeared to the Eleven as they were eating; he rebuked them for their lack of faith and their stubborn refusal to believe those who had seen him after he had risen.

15He said to them, "Go into all the world and preach the good news to all creation. 16Whoever believes and is baptized will be saved, but whoever does not believe will be condemned. 17And these signs will accompany those who believe: In my name they will drive out demons; they will speak in new tongues; 18they will pick up snakes with their hands; and when they drink deadly poison, it will not hurt them at all; they will place their hands on sick people, and they will get well."

19After the Lord Jesus had spoken to them, he was taken up into heaven and he sat at the right hand of God. 20Then the disciples went out and preached everywhere, and the Lord worked with them and confirmed his word by the signs that accompanied it.

and we know this because study bibles will tell you:

((The most reliable early manuscripts and other ancient witnesses do not have Mark 16:9-20.))

THAT, is a corruption!

:w:
Reply

Grace Seeker
07-02-2009, 03:39 AM
format_quote Originally Posted by Gossamer skye
Originally Posted by Grace Seeker
Skye, no one is presenting any new ideas. Shoes and I are both saying the same thing. If you don't get it, then you don't get it. The only thing we've failed at is opening your eyes to what we've been saying all along. But our posts are not so obtuse. So, I suspect the problem is neither in our writing nor our logic.
really?
let's leave your words unadulterated by my response for all to see, and let others judge the sense of what you are saying:

That's fair. Though you did leave out the context of your own comment that I was replying to. So to set the context you need the following to preceed my comment:

format_quote Originally Posted by Gossamer skye
I see no concordance between this:
format_quote Originally Posted by Grace Seeker
But goes God need us? Does he need to sustain us? No. He does not.
and this:

format_quote Originally Posted by Grace Seeker
Just as the world was created by his Word, so it continues by viture of his Word. Were he to quit doing so, the world itself would cease to be.

And then in that context we'll leave it for others to see whether or not they understand the following comment I made:
format_quote Originally Posted by Grace Seeker
If you assume that having created us that God has a responsibility or obligation to sustain us you would not [see any concordance, as per your comment above]. But I do not see such a condition being placed on God. Thus he does sustain us. But he does so not because he needs to but because he wills to. This does not mean that we don't need him to sustain us, we do. But a need on our part is not necessarily a need on God's part.
Reply

Grace Seeker
07-02-2009, 03:57 AM
format_quote Originally Posted by YusufNoor
there are corruptions in the Gospels, they come 1st, but the letters have them as well.

and while NOT the 1st [the Gospels come 1st, so lets go with those], most scholars agree that "Mark" was written 1st, around 70 - 75 CE. EDIT: OK, 65 - 75 CE!

Mark ORIGINALLY ended with



so, NO Jesus sightings at all! in fact, is says the women "said nothing to anyone!"

and yet, YEARS later, someone adds:


9When Jesus rose early on the first day of the week, he appeared first to Mary Magdalene, out of whom he had driven seven demons. 10She went and told those who had been with him and who were mourning and weeping. 11When they heard that Jesus was alive and that she had seen him, they did not believe it.

12Afterward Jesus appeared in a different form to two of them while they were walking in the country. 13These returned and reported it to the rest; but they did not believe them either.

14Later Jesus appeared to the Eleven as they were eating; he rebuked them for their lack of faith and their stubborn refusal to believe those who had seen him after he had risen.

15He said to them, "Go into all the world and preach the good news to all creation. 16Whoever believes and is baptized will be saved, but whoever does not believe will be condemned. 17And these signs will accompany those who believe: In my name they will drive out demons; they will speak in new tongues; 18they will pick up snakes with their hands; and when they drink deadly poison, it will not hurt them at all; they will place their hands on sick people, and they will get well."

19After the Lord Jesus had spoken to them, he was taken up into heaven and he sat at the right hand of God. 20Then the disciples went out and preached everywhere, and the Lord worked with them and confirmed his word by the signs that accompanied it.

and we know this because study bibles will tell you:

((The most reliable early manuscripts and other ancient witnesses do not have Mark 16:9-20.))

THAT, is a corruption!

:w:

I just want to be clear on this. Are you saying that if you have a set revealed text of scripture and then later God reveals that it is not complete and more needs to be added to it, that all of the added text is a corruption?

Mind you I'm not disagreeing with you, I just want to be sure I understand the rationale (the standarda) by which you determined that the longer ending, which admittedly is not found as part of the earliest extant copies of Mark) is a corruption.
Reply

جوري
07-02-2009, 04:10 AM
format_quote Originally Posted by Grace Seeker
That's fair. Though you did leave out the context of your own comment that I was replying to. So to set the context you need the following to preceed my comment:

And then in that context we'll leave it for others to see whether or not they understand the following comment I made:
Greetings,

with or without full text (i.e including my responses) it is nonsensical especially in relation to all I have written..

all the best
Reply

Grace Seeker
07-02-2009, 04:43 AM
format_quote Originally Posted by Gossamer skye
Greetings,

with or without full text (i.e including my responses) it is nonsensical especially in relation to all I have written..

all the best
Well, that's fine if you think so, but I highly doubt that you will find any of your brothers or sisters in Islam who will think that it is nonsense to say that God is self-sufficient. I fully expect those who actually think and don't just automatically respond in the negative to anything a Christian says to agree with us Christians who contend that God/Yahweh/Allah does not need us nor does he need anything else either. If he does anything, it is not because he needs to, for being self-sufficient and the creator of all he has no needs, but he does what he does because he wills to do so and for no other reason. That would include both creating and sustaining the world and all that is in it.
Reply

Joe98
07-02-2009, 04:45 AM
format_quote Originally Posted by YusufNoor

Mark ORIGINALLY ended with ;

1. When the Sabbath was over, Mary Magdalene, Mary the mother of James, and Salome bought spices so that they might go to anoint Jesus' body.

2. Very early on the first day of the week, just after sunrise, they were on their way to the tomb

3. and they asked each other, "Who will roll the stone away from the entrance of the tomb?"

When Jesus's body was placed in the tomb, how come, nobody, including his mother, noticed it was actually somebody else.

This is one of the great weaknesses of Islam. You cannot explain how his mother did not recognise him.


-
Reply

جوري
07-02-2009, 04:51 AM
format_quote Originally Posted by Grace Seeker
Well, that's fine if you think so, but I highly doubt that you will find any of your brothers or sisters in Islam who will think that it is nonsense to say that God is self-sufficient. I fully expect those who actually think and don't just automatically respond in the negative to anything a Christian says to agree with us Christians who contend that God/Yahweh/Allah does not need us nor does he need anything else either. If he does anything, it is not because he needs to, for being self-sufficient and the creator of all he has no needs, but he does what he does because he wills to do so and for no other reason. That would include both creating and sustaining the world and all that is in it.

pls tell me do you read what you write? do you understand how your words are understood in the posts I have quoted? It almost becomes a tedium to respond to you when you evade, put a spin on meaning, misconstrue or unhappy with replies given you so you concoct some cockamamie story to drown us in that has no relation at all to what is written but your desired whims, a person almost has to give up just because of how much you wear them and of time wasted in vain discourse.. have a look at one of your earlier posts again:
I see no concordance between this:

format_quote Originally Posted by Grace Seeker

But goes God need us? Does he need to sustain us? No. He does not.

.
and this:


format_quote Originally Posted by Grace Seeker
(Hebrews 1:3). Just as the world was created by his Word, so it continues by viture of his Word. Were he to quit doing so, the world itself would cease to be.
.
also, I am sure you have a good grip on English given your verbose and sometimes extremely ineffective debates, that you can tell the difference between needing us and sustaining us.
the things that work on their 'own volition' as in everything in creation, isn't really on its own volition sustained.

all the best
Reply

جوري
07-02-2009, 04:53 AM
format_quote Originally Posted by Joe98
When Jesus's body was placed in the tomb, how come, nobody, including his mother, noticed it was actually somebody else.

This is one of the great weaknesses of Islam. You cannot explain how his mother did not recognise him.


-
rofl.. show me where in Islam it says his mother went to look into his tomb didn't recognize him..

why not stick with the atheist debates you are doing very poorly on this thread!
Reply

YusufNoor
07-02-2009, 04:58 AM
format_quote Originally Posted by Grace Seeker
I just want to be clear on this. Are you saying that if you have a set revealed text of scripture and then later God reveals that it is not complete and more needs to be added to it, that all of the added text is a corruption?

i don't see where i said that!

Mind you I'm not disagreeing with you, I just want to be sure I understand the rationale (the standarda) by which you determined that the longer ending, which admittedly is not found as part of the earliest extant copies of Mark) is a corruption.

well, i don't think that you understand my rationale.
are you saying God forgot to reveal something?

are you saying that "Mark" added the text?

what are you saying?

:w:
Reply

Grace Seeker
07-02-2009, 05:01 AM
format_quote Originally Posted by YusufNoor
are you saying God forgot to reveal something?

are you saying that "Mark" added the text?

what are you saying?

:w:
I am not SAYING anything, other than agreeing that the earliest extant copies of Mark do not include the longer ending.

I am ASKING by what rational you determine that this makes for a corruption?
Reply

YusufNoor
07-02-2009, 05:03 AM
format_quote Originally Posted by Joe98
When Jesus's body was placed in the tomb, how come, nobody, including his mother, noticed it was actually somebody else.

This is one of the great weaknesses of Islam. You cannot explain how his mother did not recognise him.

have you ever seen the way they wrapped those bodies up? :blind:
-
by the way Mr Scholar, are you going to tell me on what day Jesus died?

is it too difficult a question?

are you stumped?

do you need help?

i'll let you use 1lifeline!
:D
Reply

Grace Seeker
07-02-2009, 05:03 AM
format_quote Originally Posted by Gossamer skye
I see no concordance between this:
You're going to have to be specific, because I don't see any discordance between those two remarks.
Reply

جوري
07-02-2009, 05:04 AM
Adjective: corrupted
1-Containing errors or alterations
2-Ruined in character or quality
3-Place under suspicion or cast doubt upon
4-Alter from the original


do you have a different definition for the term corruption than the rest of us?
Reply

YusufNoor
07-02-2009, 05:06 AM
format_quote Originally Posted by Grace Seeker
I am not SAYING anything, other than agreeing that the earliest extant copies of Mark do not include the longer ending.

I am ASKING by what rational you determine that this makes for a corruption?
tell me when the extra verses were added and by whom, and who wrote them and i'll answer your question, In Sha'a Allah!
Reply

Grace Seeker
07-02-2009, 05:06 AM
format_quote Originally Posted by Gossamer skye
Adjective: corrupted
1-Containing errors or alterations
2-Ruined in character or quality
3-Place under suspicion or cast doubt upon
4-Alter from the original


do you have a different definition for the term corruption than the rest of us?

True, but still doesn't answer the question.

What are you suggesting is the nature of the corruption?
Reply

Grace Seeker
07-02-2009, 05:07 AM
format_quote Originally Posted by YusufNoor
tell me when the extra verses were added and by whom, and who wrote them and i'll answer your question, In Sha'a Allah!
So, you are saying that they are extra verses. Does that in and of itself make them a corruption?
Reply

YusufNoor
07-02-2009, 05:13 AM
format_quote Originally Posted by Gossamer skye
Adjective: corrupted
1-Containing errors or alterations
2-Ruined in character or quality
3-Place under suspicion or cast doubt upon
4-Alter from the original


do you have a different definition for the term corruption than the rest of us?
:sl:

i think we can agree on those definitions, but i think our triunists might not like them!

they might reply:

1) what's wrong with alterations? and why do they mean errors?

2) they STILL like the quality

3) change it a zillion times, i still believe it!

4) it's original each time that you change it! just different!
:D
:w:
Reply

جوري
07-02-2009, 05:14 AM
format_quote Originally Posted by Grace Seeker
True, but still doesn't answer the question.

What are you suggesting is the nature of the corruption?
you are very funny man.. altered from original for starters fits the definition of corruption!

all the best
Reply

YusufNoor
07-02-2009, 05:16 AM
format_quote Originally Posted by Grace Seeker
So, you are saying that they are extra verses. Does that in and of itself make them a corruption?

i rest my case
wouldn't that depend on:

when the extra verses were added and by whom, and who wrote them?

methinks so!

so please kind sir please tell us the answer!

:w:
Reply

جوري
07-02-2009, 05:17 AM
format_quote Originally Posted by YusufNoor
:sl:

i think we can agree on those definitions, but i think our triunists might not like them!

they might reply:

1) what's wrong with alterations? and why do they mean errors?

2) they STILL like the quality

3) change it a zillion times, i still believe it!

4) it's original each time that you change it! just different!
:D
:w:
rofl, I got them from the dictionary.. will probably ask me for references of the linguist who came up with those definitions..
it is dreadfully wearisome.. can't make the distillate some other product than what it actually is.

:w:
Reply

جوري
07-02-2009, 05:19 AM
format_quote Originally Posted by YusufNoor
wouldn't that depend on:

when the extra verses were added and by whom, and who wrote them?

methinks so!

so please kind sir please tell us the answer!

:w:

the criteria is that you undo all the commandments of the OT whilst maintaining you are getting a direct vision from God, vision 'god himself' couldn't uphold whilst alive and voila write ad lib and it becomes holy..
Reply

Grace Seeker
07-02-2009, 05:23 AM
format_quote Originally Posted by YusufNoor
wouldn't that depend on:

when the extra verses were added and by whom, and who wrote them?

methinks so!

so please kind sir please tell us the answer!

:w:
I don't know that they are extra verses at all. Might it not be that the oldest copies originally had those verses on the last page of the codice, but that page got detached from the rest of the book, just like the last pages of books often are lost today?

And again, I'm also not disputing that they might be a corruption. I'm just trying to be sure that you state what it is that since you have identified them as a corruption that I understand the reasoning behind that statement.

Thus far, what I understand is that you believe that Mark ended at 16:8 and that 16:9-20 where then added later.

And you also think that regardless of how, who, why, or on what authority they were added that simply the fact that it alters the original version that it makes it a corruption.

Do I understand you correctly?
Reply

Trumble
07-02-2009, 06:37 AM
format_quote Originally Posted by Grace Seeker
I don't know that they are extra verses at all. Might it not be that the oldest copies originally had those verses on the last page of the codice, but that page got detached from the rest of the book, just like the last pages of books often are lost today?
I think the most likely explanation is that the final verses (which are clearly needed) of the original were lost, and what is there now were added later, although it isn't universally agreed that they aren't 'original'.

Whether that represents 'corruption' or not depends on how you would normally use the word. I suggest that, should the same thing have have happened to just about any other text, few would consider it appropriate, at least in the absence of any further information. 'Corruption' is such a dramatic word, though, isn't it?
Reply

YusufNoor
07-02-2009, 10:26 AM
format_quote Originally Posted by Grace Seeker
So, you are saying that they are extra verses. Does that in and of itself make them a corruption?
i'll quote what the Christian website says and you and your allies can continue whatever it is you are doing...

((The most reliable early manuscripts and other ancient witnesses do not have Mark 16:9-20.))

this pretty much seems to imply that the mere inclusion of, and i repeat, Mark 16:9-20 renders those codices unreliable! and that "other ancient witnesses agree with that statement.

but lets, leave that as the Christians here seem incapable of addressing the matter in an honest manner.

let's return to the issue of what day Jesus [allegedly] died on. if there is not 1 single Christian [or Joey] that can determine whether or not Jesus had the passover meal with his disciples before he died or can even tell on what day he died, using the 4 Gospels [or Joey's 2], can we safely assume that:

1) Jesus NEVER ate the last passover meal with his disciples and that there is NO BASIS in the 4 Gospels [or Joey's 2] for what is now [and earlier] referred to as "the Lord's Supper?"
IF you disagree, please give your evidence.

and

2) Jesus NEVER died. if you believe that he did die, then please back up your answer by telling us on what day he died. if you CANNOT tell us or are incapable of telling us or are unwilling to tell us on what day he died, then we must conclude that he didn't.

IF you cannot respond to those questions, can we assume that any mention of those issues in the 4 gospels [or Joey's 2] is just corrupted text?

La Hawla wa La Quwata Illa Billah!

Subhanallah, getting a straight answer around here seems impossible!

:w:
Reply

Grace Seeker
07-02-2009, 03:02 PM
Skye, you objected with Shoes wrote:
format_quote Originally Posted by Shoes
P.S. I don't think Yahweh needs to do anything.
format_quote Originally Posted by Gossamer skye
If Yahweh doesn't need to do anything then I guess life is as good without him as it with him.. what is the point of a 'sustainer' if all he needed to do took 7 days and then eternal rest?

all the best
You objected when I wrote:
format_quote Originally Posted by Grace Seeker
God is entirely sufficient within himself without the need of any creation.
And yet you write elsewhere:
format_quote Originally Posted by Gossamer skye
God has no needs.. we need God.. everything that functions on its 'own volition' functions through the will of God.. He is the sustainer of life
Talk about a lack of concordance!!


But I do agree with your above statement. And, since I don't see anything different in that statement and what Shoes and I have been saying that you keep objecting to, I am left to wonder why it is that you object to our posts? Are you just being contentious? Or do you really not understand them?
Reply

جوري
07-02-2009, 04:58 PM
format_quote Originally Posted by Grace Seeker
Skye, you objected with Shoes wrote:



You objected when I wrote:


And yet you write elsewhere:

Talk about a lack of concordance!!
you say I objected, yet you fail to show me my quote with the objection. go ahead, quote me pls show me my lack of concordance-- seeing how you managed one quote of mine surely you can manage the other!



But I do agree with your above statement. And, since I don't see anything different in that statement and what Shoes and I have been saying that you keep objecting to, I am left to wonder why it is that you object to our posts? Are you just being contentious? Or do you really not understand them?
Re-read all that you've written in lieu of having me quote you again and then come ask this Q. If there is one thing I detest more than prevarications is finding a loop hole for them when a foot lands in your mouth!

all the best
Reply

جوري
07-02-2009, 05:07 PM
btw I noticed that Br. Yusuf's post was written 6 hrs ago, yours an incomplete reply to mine 2 hrs ago..
why didn't you bother addressing his points in favor of an ancillary hangup?

all the best
Reply

Grace Seeker
07-02-2009, 05:29 PM
format_quote Originally Posted by Gossamer skye
you say I objected, yet you fail to show me my quote with the objection.
Not true. Just look above and you will see it. I consider the following to be an objection
Originally Posted by Gossamer skye
If Yahweh doesn't need to do anything then I guess life is as good without him as it with him.. what is the point of a 'sustainer' if all he needed to do took 7 days and then eternal rest?

go ahead, quote me pls show me my lack of concordance-- seeing how you managed one quote of mine surely you can manage the other!
There are two of your quotes posted above.


format_quote Originally Posted by Gossamer skye
If there is one thing I detest more than prevarications is finding a loop hole for them when a foot lands in your mouth!
Then I have no idea how you manage to live with yourself.
Reply

Grace Seeker
07-02-2009, 05:35 PM
format_quote Originally Posted by YusufNoor
i'll quote what the Christian website says and you and your allies can continue whatever it is you are doing...

((The most reliable early manuscripts and other ancient witnesses do not have Mark 16:9-20.))

this pretty much seems to imply that the mere inclusion of, and i repeat, Mark 16:9-20 renders those codices unreliable! and that "other ancient witnesses agree with that statement.
TBDAQ -- True, but doesn't answer the question.
Does the additional material in and of itself make it a corruption?

Can't you conceive of scenarios in which you could have a text, and then later add more material to the text and yet determine that the new document produced by that addition was not a corruption?
Reply

جوري
07-02-2009, 05:50 PM
format_quote Originally Posted by Grace Seeker
Not true. Just look above and you will see it. I consider the following to be an objection


There are two of your quotes posted above.
Perhaps you'd be so kind as to point out the lack of concordance?

Then I have no idea how you manage to live with yourself.
deflection really isn't your strong suit?

all the best
Reply

Follower
07-02-2009, 05:51 PM
Thank you Joe- you have pointed out the crux of this whole contradiction nonsense-
'Both gospels say he died. Christians response: He died !

Muslims response: 2 people both said he died but because they got their days mixed up he never died!'
Reply

جوري
07-02-2009, 05:53 PM
God has died, yet life managed to go on.. it is a wonder..
Reply

Follower
07-02-2009, 06:04 PM
I understand that the thread was asking for the first verses corrupted in the Holy Bible.

Are you asking when? I tried to point that out on another thread and it was closed.

LOL!! I imagine every Bible verse that does not agree with the quran is considered corrupt by muslims. There are quite a few.

LOL! We Christians just don't get it- GOD only spared the quran from corruption!!

Sorry to repeat myself but, the problem I see is that -your quran confirms the Gospel -if the Gospel is corrupt then the quran is a lie.

Why don't muslims see this as a problem? Please help me understand!

I may be leaving soon- just got my final warning.
Reply

Follower
07-02-2009, 06:04 PM
The human form that GOD took died.
Reply

جوري
07-02-2009, 06:09 PM
LOLOLOLOLOLOLOLOLOLOLOLOLOLOLOLOL

your posts are always worthy of the minute glance..
thank you for taking up webspace
LOLOLOLOLOLOLOLOLOLOLOLOLOLOLOLOLOLOLOL
Reply

Grace Seeker
07-02-2009, 06:16 PM
format_quote Originally Posted by Gossamer skye
Perhaps you'd be so kind as to point out the lack of concordance?

In saying: "If Yahweh doesn't need to do anything then I guess life is as good without him as it with him.. what is the point of a 'sustainer' if all he needed to do took 7 days and then eternal rest?" it comes across as a rhetorical question in which you imply that Yahweh does in fact need to do something.


And that statement of yours which implies that Yahweh does need to do something is NOT in accord with your statement from the other thread in which you categorically state, "God has no needs."

As this statement that you made in the other thread "God has no needs" is what both Shoes and I have said repeatedly and in many different ways in this thread:
I don't think Yahweh needs to do anything.
God is entirely sufficient within himself...
for you to raise any objection at all to what we have said shows that you either don't understand what we have written or that you have become so contentious as to challenge everything written by a Christian even when it is in accord with your Islamic beliefs.

Now, if you really don't understand how what Shoes and I were saying is and has from the beginning of this conversation been in full concord with your second statement that "God has no needs" I am willing to try to and explain it. I know that English isn't your first language, and while I think that you are generally a smart person and should be able to get it, there is probably something in our grammatical construction that has thrown you off. But though you are capable of understanding, I wonder if you care to understand?

As I said, if you do, I will try to make our prior statements more clear. But I ask that before we do we each take a break, take a breath, and return with lowered levels of hostility. I'm not here looking for a fight, and I apologize that I let this become one.
Reply

جوري
07-02-2009, 06:37 PM
format_quote Originally Posted by Grace Seeker
In saying: "If Yahweh doesn't need to do anything then I guess life is as good without him as it with him.. what is the point of a 'sustainer' if all he needed to do took 7 days and then eternal rest?" it comes across as a rhetorical question in which you imply that Yahweh does in fact need to do something.
if Yahweh doesn't need to do anything then life is as good with him as without him is indeed a response to 'shoes' allegations that Yahweh can do his work of creation and takes a rest.. if he rested, then the atheist theories of even if there were a God, we're mere petri dishes to him, he creates and forgets.. that is in fact a contradiction with Islamic teaching and on the other thread I have quoted you verses where God doesn't only create but sustains!

And that statement of yours which implies that Yahweh does need to do something is NOT in accord with your statement from the other thread in which you categorically state, "God has no needs."
Indeed God has no needs, I don't see how sustaining us denotes he has a need? it denotes we have needs and since he is the sustainer he has to keep up with our needs!

As this statement that you made in the other thread "God has no needs" is what both Shoes and I have said repeatedly and in many different ways in this thread:
I don't think Yahweh needs to do anything.
God is entirely sufficient within himself...
indeed again, I fail to see your point..
for you to raise any objection at all to what we have said shows that you either don't understand what we have written or that you have become so contentious as to challenge everything written by a Christian even when it is in accord with your Islamic beliefs.
I think you are the one with poor understanding. us having needs doesn't equate to God having needs!

Now, if you really don't understand how what Shoes and I were saying is and has from the beginning of this conversation been in full concord with your second statement that "God has no needs" I am willing to try to and explain it. I know that English isn't your first language, and while I think that you are generally a smart person and should be able to get it, there is probably something in our grammatical construction that has thrown you off. But though you are capable of understanding, I wonder if you care to understand?
Yeah you can start with this,

format_quote Originally Posted by Grace Seeker
If you assume that having created us that God has a responsibility or obligation to sustain us you would not.

But I do not see such a condition being placed on God.
Thus he does sustain us.
But he does so not because he needs to but because he wills to.
This does not mean that we don't need him to sustain us, we do. But a need on our part is not necessarily a need on God's part.
As I said, if you do, I will try to make our prior statements more clear. But I ask that before we do we each take a break, take a breath, and return with lowered levels of hostility. I'm not here looking for a fight, and I apologize that I let this become one.
I don't see it as a fight, I see it as a continued foot in your mouth :D


all the best
Reply

Grace Seeker
07-02-2009, 06:45 PM
OK. I take you at your word that you want to understand. I accept that I was getting testy in my responses. And I will try to do better (by being less testy) in the future.

M, I really do think that we are trying to say the same thing on this. So, I'm going to take my own advice. I'm going to take a break, breathe, (maybe even lick a few of my toes since you insist that they are still in my mouth) and when I return to this hopefully I will speak more clearly.
Reply

Muezzin
07-02-2009, 07:06 PM
format_quote Originally Posted by YusufNoor
there are MANY forms of corruption in the NT, the MOST important would be Paul [or whoever Paul learned from] is no longer preaching the Gospel that Jesus preached, but rather he is preaching a gospel ABOUT Jesus. by this time, Jesus' message is already lost.

there a about 5,700 ancient manuscripts of the New Testament. of them, NO TWO are the same. maybe someone could show us which verses AREN'T corrupted!

as an example, perhaps you can tell what day that Jesus allegedly died on? i ask, because according to the "Gospels," he died on 2 different days!

there is more but let's start there, eh?
My emphasis on penultimate paragraph.

The point is that such contradictions show that the Bible has been corrupted in response to thread starter's question. This sort of logic is in accordance with the majority of Muslim thought on the matter - which is contradictions in the Bible call into question its authenticity. That is all.

format_quote Originally Posted by Joe98
You will after you read this.

In the time of Christ the janitor had a very low social status.

In one bible passage Christ entered a temple to clean it. He was trying to show that everybody is equal and there should not be a “social status”.

The gospels reported it because it was so important.

Christian response: Wonderful!

Muslim response: One gospel has him entering the temple on a Tuesday night and another says he entered the temple on a Wednesday morning – therefore the bible is corrupted and therefore there is nothing to learn here!

-
Funny. I've never heard or seen a Muslim arguing that point. The point Muslims make is that contradictions weaken the authenticity of the text. I've never heard or seen a Muslim arguing that because Jesus is reported as doing such and such good deed on different days, he therefore never performed that good deed, nor is there anything to learn.

Maybe you have seen or heard Muslims arguing that point, in which case you should tell us all about them.

format_quote Originally Posted by Joe98
To continue with my scholarly knowledge:
Hmm.

Both gospels say he died.

Christians response: He died !

Muslims response: 2 people both said he died but because they got their days mixed up he never died!

-
Again, from a Muslim point of view the contradictions call into question the authenticity of the text.

Muslims' belief that Jesus did not die comes from Islamic teachings, rather than by picking holes in the Bible.

format_quote Originally Posted by Shoes
Hello everyone I've put this thread into Clarifications as I don't want it to be a debate - more a discussion on everyone's opinions.

So my questions are:

* What is the first corrupted verse in the Bible?
* How does it contradict Islamic teaching? (If it does.)


And more general questions to consider as we go along: What is a corruption of a text? And how can we tell which verses are/aren't corrupted?

To reiterate: this isn't a debate!

OK, fire away!

Salam,
Shoes
You've said this isn't a debate. Do you feel the thread has become such? If so, would you like myself or another moderator to either delete debating posts or moving such posts into their own separate thread? Or are you happy with them to exist in this one?
Reply

'Abd-al Latif
07-02-2009, 07:14 PM
format_quote Originally Posted by Joe98
When Jesus's body was placed in the tomb, how come, nobody, including his mother, noticed it was actually somebody else.

This is one of the great weaknesses of Islam. You cannot explain how his mother did not recognise him.


-
Probably because some of us didn't even know Jesus was burried seeing as god dieing is a whole new concept in and of it self. Greatest weaknesses of Islam? Greatest loss of common senses rather of the death of god. I wonder who took his soul and whom it was taken to...
Reply

'Abd-al Latif
07-02-2009, 07:24 PM
Shoes, these are my alleged corrupted verses. I will start one by one to avoid confusion. So here is the first verse:
"The sun was rising as Lot reached the village. Then the Lord rained down fire and burning sulfur from the heavens on Sodom and Gomorrah. He utterly destroyed them, along with the other cities and villages of the plain, eliminating all life—people, plants, and animals alike . . . Afterward Lot left Zoar because he was afraid of the people there, and he went to live in a cave in the mountains with his two daughters.
"One day the older daughter said to her sister, "There isn't a man anywhere in this entire area for us to marry. And our father will soon be too old to have children. Come, let’s get him drunk with wine, and then we will sleep with him. That way we will preserve our family line through our father." So that night they got him drunk, and the older daughter went in and slept with her father. He was unaware of her lying down or getting up again.
"The next morning the older daughter said to her younger sister, "I slept with our father last night. Let’s get him drunk with wine again tonight, and you go in and sleep with him. That way our family line will be preserved." So that night they got him drunk again, and the younger daughter went in and slept with him. As before, he was unaware of her lying down or getting up again. So both of Lot’s daughters became pregnant by their father." (Genesis 19:23-25, 30-36 , NLT)
From these verses it's clear that the daughters slept with their own father. Can a man who god Himself, specifically and deliberately chose as a Prophet to guide mankind out of the darkness into the light, allow the daughters to do such a sick a perverted act? And God allowed a Prophet to get drunk, twice? Any human being who does this act today can be taken to course but in the bible it's a religous fact.
Reply

'Abd-al Latif
07-02-2009, 07:35 PM
format_quote Originally Posted by Follower
I understand that the thread was asking for the first verses corrupted in the Holy Bible.

Are you asking when? I tried to point that out on another thread and it was closed.

LOL!! I imagine every Bible verse that does not agree with the quran is considered corrupt by muslims. There are quite a few.
Well...perhaps to an extent, yes.

LOL! We Christians just don't get it- GOD only spared the quran from corruption!!
Congrats, you finally got the point.

Sorry to repeat myself but, the problem I see is that -your quran confirms the Gospel -if the Gospel is corrupt then the quran is a lie.

Why don't muslims see this as a problem? Please help me understand!

I may be leaving soon- just got my final warning.
Yes of course, Qur'an confirms the gospel. Do you see any muslims or even Islam itself denying that? It's an integeral pillar of faith to believe in it...but not as the last testament of God nor as guidance for mankind. Let me ask you this: If someone claims that the Torah wasn't corrupted, why did god reveal the Gospel? Simple. Because what happened to the Torah happened the Gospel, but will not happen to the Qur'an. 1400 years, same ol' text, same ol' arabic. What Prophet Muhammad (saaws) recited with his own blessed mouth sits in the rooms and mosques of the Muslims over the world.
Reply

Grace Seeker
07-02-2009, 07:40 PM
format_quote Originally Posted by 'Abd-al Latif
Yes of course, Qur'an confirms the gospel. Do you see any muslims or even Islam itself denying that? It's an integeral pillar of faith to believe in it...but not as the last testimate of God nor as guidance for mankind. Let me ask you this: If someone claims that the Torah wasn't corrupted, why did god reveal the Gosple? Simple. Because what happened to the Torah happened the Gospel, but will not happen to the Qur'an. 1400 years, same ol' text, same ol' arabic. What Prophet Muhammad (saaws) recited with his own blessed mouth sitting in the living rooms of the Muslims over the world.
This is a tangent from this thread, so I'll not pursue it beyond this post. But your statement that what happened to the Torah vis-a-vis the Gospel is what happend to the Gospel vis-a-vis the Qur'an shows just how different Muslims think about the purpose of scripture than do Christians. If I understand Islam correctly, the Qur'an supercedes the Gospel -- not just the corrupt Christain gospel, but even the original uncorrupt Injil of Isa. But that is not how Christians view the relationship between the Old Testament and the New Testament.
Reply

'Abd-al Latif
07-02-2009, 07:43 PM
^

I wasn't trying to start a debate over it. And yes you've understood it correctly. But this discussion can be started in another thread. I do not wish to disrupt the thread with outside issues from the original topic.
Reply

Follower
07-02-2009, 07:44 PM
Was Lot a prophet? What message did Lot leave?

Prophets are mere men so in fact can sin. Did Lot allow it to happen or was he a victim? He did get drunk. Bible histories show us that evil is a every turn- even in your own family.
Reply

Follower
07-02-2009, 07:45 PM
Are muslims saying that allah is only capable of saving one book from corruption?
Reply

'Abd-al Latif
07-02-2009, 07:48 PM
format_quote Originally Posted by Follower
Are muslims saying that allah is only capable of saving one book from corruption?
Were the other books promised to be saved from corruption like the Qur'an was promised?

We have, without doubt, sent down the Message; and We will assuredly guard it (from corruption). [Quran 15:9]
Reply

'Abd-al Latif
07-02-2009, 07:57 PM
format_quote Originally Posted by Follower
Was Lot a prophet? What message did Lot leave?

Prophets are mere men so in fact can sin. Did Lot allow it to happen or was he a victim? He did get drunk. Bible histories show us that evil is a every turn- even in your own family.
Yes Lot was a Prophet. He left the same Message that was given to Adam all the up to Muhammad: Worship your One True Lord and avoid all false deities.

Here's a parable: You elect Presidents because you feel so-and-so person is the most fit who will make the least mistakes concerning the affairs of his entire nation. So what about god who specifically hand picks and choses these people to correct the worldly and religious affairs of the whole of mankind, you're telling me God makes them make mistakes in religion and otherwise? What asurity does this leave in the mind of a servant of god that god will take care of him?

Is god doubtful that His specifically chosen Prophet will be unable to carry out His message, why doesn't he chose someone who will be the perfect example in his private life as well as his public life? Is he incapable of sending a dignified man who excels greatly in dignity and honour?

Indeed He is, and all the Prophets and Messengers of god were the most dignified and honourable of people. This is the corruption I see in the bible.
Reply

Azy
07-06-2009, 02:35 PM
format_quote Originally Posted by 'Abd-al Latif
Were the other books promised to be saved from corruption like the Qur'an was promised?
If the books have been corrupted how will we ever know?
Reply

Zafran
07-06-2009, 02:42 PM
format_quote Originally Posted by Azy
If the books have been corrupted how will we ever know?

Preety simple - like the Torah - its was traditionally meant to be given to Moses pbuh - But in deutoronmy we find that Moses pbuh is Buried in a unmarked grave!
Reply

Basit
07-06-2009, 04:37 PM
Assalam Alaykum brothers and sisters in Islam,

im new here on this thread. im also a new muslim, i turned-back to islam just last november. please dont be confused with the word turned-back, filipinos are called turned back to islam when they convert because we believe the religion of our ancestors is islam.

i have one question, please dont angry with me, Why was the injeel or bible of christians corrupted or it was no longer the original injeel? why was the content changed as some books says the christian bible is no longer the exact content it has before. because there are discrepancies in what is written in the christian bible and the qur'an. for example the crucifixion of jesus(as) in the christian bible, it says there that he was crucified, died, buried and then rose up on the third day. which is why the christians are kneeling for the cross in their sallah (may allah(swt) forgive me for doing that for more than 20 years).while in the holy qur'an it didnt say that jesus(as) was crucified, rather he is lifted by allah(swt) in the heavens before the romans could have got him.
Reply

Azy
07-07-2009, 10:39 PM
format_quote Originally Posted by Zafran
Preety simple - like the Torah - its was traditionally meant to be given to Moses pbuh - But in deutoronmy we find that Moses pbuh is Buried in a unmarked grave!
I wasn't really talking about corruption in general, just the specific point that 'Abd-al Latif raised.
Reply

'Abd-al Latif
07-07-2009, 10:53 PM
format_quote Originally Posted by Azy
If the books have been corrupted how will we ever know?
Are you talking about my earlier post about Prophet Lot?

If it is then the ones who bring the message of god to humanity are the Prophets and Messengers. If there is any claim against them which, at the very least, goes against moral and ethical behaviour then this is corruption in the information that has been convayed to us, because no such thing can ever be proved against them as they are the best of mankind.

If such a thing is considered a religious fact then this is corruption in the message and this would point to one obvious conclusion: the message was edited/altered to suit the needs of men for worldly purposes.
Reply

Follower
07-08-2009, 01:26 PM
Where is Lot's message written and preserved?

Zaphran but the Torah is also confirmed in the quran or is there a different Torah too?!
Should the person writing that last bit of information about Moses take the credit for writing that whole thing and take it away from Moses?


014.004
YUSUFALI: We sent not a messenger except in the language of his people, in order to make clear to them. Now Allah leaves straying those whom He pleases and guides whom He pleases: and He is Exalted in power, full of Wisdom.

Are muslims saying that by allah allowing the Gospel to be corrupted, allah is allowing those whom he wants to to be mislead?

005.047
YUSUFALI: Let the people of the Gospel judge by what Allah hath revealed therein. If any do fail to judge by what Allah hath revealed, they are those who rebel.

In fact encouraging us to judge by the Gospel so that we will be mislead?
Reply

TestData
07-08-2009, 02:38 PM
format_quote Originally Posted by Shoes
Hello everyone :) I've put this thread into Clarifications as I don't want it to be a debate - more a discussion on everyone's opinions.

So my questions are:

  • What is the first corrupted verse in the Bible?
  • How does it contradict Islamic teaching? (If it does.)


And more general questions to consider as we go along: What is a corruption of a text? And how can we tell which verses are/aren't corrupted?

To reiterate: this isn't a debate!

OK, fire away! :)

Salam,
Shoes
Hi,

My second attempt at replying, this is just my own opinion, but to answer your main question:
[*]What is the first corrupted verse in the Bible?

If you open the Bible/Injeel given to Jesus(pbuh) and then open the Bible in your possession and compare the two, you will easily find your answer.
Reply

جوري
07-08-2009, 02:50 PM
format_quote Originally Posted by Follower
Where is Lot's message written and preserved?

Zaphran but the Torah is also confirmed in the quran or is there a different Torah too?!
Should the person writing that last bit of information about Moses take the credit for writing that whole thing and take it away from Moses?


014.004
YUSUFALI: We sent not a messenger except in the language of his people, in order to make clear to them. Now Allah leaves straying those whom He pleases and guides whom He pleases: and He is Exalted in power, full of Wisdom.

Are muslims saying that by allah allowing the Gospel to be corrupted, allah is allowing those whom he wants to to be mislead?

005.047
YUSUFALI: Let the people of the Gospel judge by what Allah hath revealed therein. If any do fail to judge by what Allah hath revealed, they are those who rebel.

In fact encouraging us to judge by the Gospel so that we will be mislead?
I am not sure why you are quoting passages from the Quran, firstly you don't believe in the book, and secondly, surely you must know that there is a tafsir that accompanies it and that takes scholarship not frank stupidity and whim, and thirdly, you should also take it as a package deal..

you should read such verses as:


From those, too, who call themselves Christians, We did take a Covenant, but they forgot a good part of the Message that was sent them: so We estranged them, with enmity and hatred between the one and the other, to the Day of Judgment. And soon will Allah show them what it is they have done.(5:14)


or


(Both) the Jews and the Christians say: "We are sons of Allah, and His beloved." Say: "Why then doth He punish you for your sins? Nay, ye are but men, of the men He hath created: He forgiveth whom He pleaseth, and He punisheth whom He pleaseth: and to Allah belongeth the dominion of the heavens and the earth, and all that is between: and unto Him is the final goal (of all)."(5:18)


or


The Jews call 'Uzair a son of Allah, and the Christians call Al-Masih the son of Allah. That is a saying from their mouth; (in this) they but imitate what the Unbelievers of old used to say. Allah's curse be on them: how they are deluded away from the Truth!(9:30)


or


The Jews say: "The Christians have naught (to stand) upon"; and the Christians say: "The Jews have naught (to stand) upon." Yet they (profess to) study the (same) Book. Like unto their word is what those say who know not; but Allah will judge between them in their quarrel on the Day of Judgment.(2:113)


______________


fellow, I suggest you not quote the Quran, since you have no knowledge of it, or what is therein.. just go on worshiping a man read some lies and disseminate them to like minded individuals, away from us!



Reply

'Abd-al Latif
07-08-2009, 02:50 PM
format_quote Originally Posted by Follower
Where is Lot's message written and preserved?

Zaphran but the Torah is also confirmed in the quran or is there a different Torah too?!
Should the person writing that last bit of information about Moses take the credit for writing that whole thing and take it away from Moses?


014.004
YUSUFALI: We sent not a messenger except in the language of his people, in order to make clear to them. Now Allah leaves straying those whom He pleases and guides whom He pleases: and He is Exalted in power, full of Wisdom.

Are muslims saying that by allah allowing the Gospel to be corrupted, allah is allowing those whom he wants to to be mislead?

005.047
YUSUFALI: Let the people of the Gospel judge by what Allah hath revealed therein. If any do fail to judge by what Allah hath revealed, they are those who rebel.

In fact encouraging us to judge by the Gospel so that we will be mislead?
The message of Lot is preserved at least in the Qur'an though I am sure there are references of him in the bible as well. Look up the story of Lot in the Book of Genesis mentioned in chapters 11-14 and 19. I think there are probably more references of him then that thought I am not sure.

You can find out what the Qur'an had to say about him here: http://www.islamicboard.com/prophets...t-lut-lot.html
Reply

rpwelton
07-08-2009, 02:56 PM
format_quote Originally Posted by Azy
If the books have been corrupted how will we ever know?
An atheist won't understand this, but basically it's because if Allah promised to preserve the other texts, then He didn't fulfill His promise (a'udhubillah) because they show evident corruption.

And since God is perfect and never breaks a promise, He could never have made one in the first place about preserving the other scriptures.
Reply

Grace Seeker
07-08-2009, 04:02 PM
format_quote Originally Posted by TestData
Hi,

My second attempt at replying, this is just my own opinion, but to answer your main question:
[*]What is the first corrupted verse in the Bible?

If you open the Bible/Injeel given to Jesus(pbuh) and then open the Bible in your possession and compare the two, you will easily find your answer.
I didn't know that Muslims believed anyone actually possessed a copy of the Bible/Injeel given to Jesus to open. Where might I find one to make this comparison you suggest?
Reply

Follower
07-08-2009, 09:02 PM
Abd-al Latif- but you as a muslim believe the Holy Bible to be corrupt- so why would you suggest that one look to the Holy Bible for the story- it is different I am sure then the one in the quran.

Gossamer skye-
The problem with the verse here:

005.014
YUSUFALI: From those, too, who call themselves Christians, We did take a covenant, but they forgot a good part of the message that was sent them: so we estranged them, with enmity and hatred between the one and the other, to the day of judgment. And soon will Allah show them what it is they have done.

Christians are at peace with one another- there is no enmity to judgement day. This is saying nothing about written scripture.

There is also a problem with this verse:

002.113
YUSUFALI: The Jews say: "The Christians have naught upon; and the Christians say: "The Jews have naught upon." Yet they study the Book. Like unto their word is what those say who know not; but Allah will judge between them in their quarrel on the Day of Judgment.

When did Jews ever study the Gospel?
Reply

Follower
07-08-2009, 09:08 PM
'Is god doubtful that His specifically chosen Prophet will be unable to carry out His message, why doesn't he chose someone who will be the perfect example in his private life as well as his public life? Is he incapable of sending a dignified man who excels greatly in dignity and honour?'

If GOD goes to all the trouble to find the perfect messenger then why not preserve the message?
Reply

Zafran
07-08-2009, 09:09 PM
Zaphran but the Torah is also confirmed in the quran or is there a different Torah too?!
Should the person writing that last bit of information about Moses take the credit for writing that whole thing and take it away from Moses?
This is seriously a joke - so you admit the last part of what you call the "torah" has been written by someone else and not Moses pbuh - subhan Allah - how many authors does it have???
Reply

AntiKarateKid
07-08-2009, 09:11 PM
format_quote Originally Posted by Follower
'Is god doubtful that His specifically chosen Prophet will be unable to carry out His message, why doesn't he chose someone who will be the perfect example in his private life as well as his public life? Is he incapable of sending a dignified man who excels greatly in dignity and honour?'

If GOD goes to all the trouble to find the perfect messenger then why not preserve the message?
If God goes through all the trouble to save the Israelites then why aren't they still a good people? They rejected Jesus and constantly got punished by God.
Reply

جوري
07-08-2009, 09:11 PM
format_quote Originally Posted by Follower
.

Gossamer skye-
The problem with the verse here:

005.014
YUSUFALI: From those, too, who call themselves Christians, We did take a covenant, but they forgot a good part of the message that was sent them: so we estranged them, with enmity and hatred between the one and the other, to the day of judgment. And soon will Allah show them what it is they have done.

Christians are at peace with one another- there is no enmity to judgement day. This is saying nothing about written scripture.

There is also a problem with this verse:

002.113
YUSUFALI: The Jews say: "The Christians have naught upon; and the Christians say: "The Jews have naught upon." Yet they study the Book. Like unto their word is what those say who know not; but Allah will judge between them in their quarrel on the Day of Judgment.

When did Jews ever study the Gospel?
really?

I should have to ignore this in such a case, as always you seem to know better than everyone including tale telling history:

The Catholic Church was obviously corrupt throughout the middle ages - and this corruption resulted in regular calls for reform and improvement. Pope John XII had open love affairs. Urban VI tortured and murdered some of his cardinals. Innocent VIII proudly acknowledged his illegitimate children and heaped church riches upon them. Simony and nepotism were rampant. Most efforts ended in the reformers being called heretics and dying for their trouble.
In the 1100s, Arnold of Brescia was excommunicated, hanged and then burned. John Wycliffe of England translated the bible into English, and his followers were later hunted down and killed. John Hus from Prague was excommunicated then in 1415 he was captured and burned, despite the fact that he had a letter of safe passage from the Emperor.
But eventually the weight of the reformers grew strong enough to survive, but only at the cost of millions of lives as the Protestant Reformation battled the Catholic Counter Reformation in towns and fields throughout Europe. Martin Luther's 95 theses, nailed to a church door, set off a fire storm of violence and blood. German princes managed to fight Catholic armies to standstill by 1555, which resulted in the Peace of Augsburg. Protestant "heretics" were allowed to live in Germany, but that level of tolerance was not extended to other countries.
Unfortunately, that "peace" didn't last - from 1618 to 1648 Europe experienced The Thirty Years' War which left Germany a wasteland after millions and millions were slaughtered. Catholic armies under the leadership of Catholic Emperor Ferdinand II kept defeating Protestant armies, but then made the mistake of trying to eliminate Protestantism completely, engaging in terrible repression and persecution.
This caused new Protestant armies in foreign lands like Denmark and Sweden to be called up to oppose him. The result of all this was a victory for no one, and an estimated drop of Germany's population from 18 million to 4 million. With too few people left to work the field and trade for goods, starvation and disease ravaged the miserable survivors. Such are the fruits of European Christianity.

Catholics Killing Protestants
In France, the largest Protestant group was known as the Huguenots. They were mercilessly persecuted, and King Henry created a heresy court known infamously as The Burning Chamber because that was the standard punishment for heretics. On the night of August 24, 1572 - known as St. Bartholomew's Day - Catholic soldiers swept through Huguenot neighborhoods of Paris in a foreshadowing of what would happen to the Jews under Nazi rule.
Thousands were slaughtered in their homes and other massacres timed for the same night occurred in cities across France. In response to this, Pope Gregory XIII wrote to France's King Charles IX: "We rejoice with you that with the help of God you have relieved the world of these wretched heretics."
Pope Pius sent Catholic troops into France to aid in the repression efforts, ordering the army commander to kill all prisoners. Pius, unsurprisingly, was later canonized as a saint. In the Catholic Church, sainthood is an honor which goes not to the nicest person or to someone who has aided humanity, but to those Catholics who have done great deeds to advance the cause of Catholicism. As a result of such treatment, Huguenots fled France in large numbers. One group reached what would later become Florida - and when they were discovered by a Spanish expedition, all were killed.
In Flanders, all heretical Protestants were ordered executed and thousands were burned at the stake. But queen Mary was merciful to Protestants who recanted - instead of burning, the men would be killed by a sword and women buried alive. Philip II, Spanish king and also ruler of Holland and Belgium, was positively obsessed with eliminating Protestantism and ordered that all prisoners be killed so that there would be no chance that they might escape through neglect or mistakes. The Duke of Alva was sent in and began what became known as the "Spanish Fury" in which thousands of Antwerp Protestants were killed and almost all "heretics" in Haarlem were massacred.

Protestants Killing Catholics
Of course, Protestants should not be imagined as innocents in all of this. Attempting to abandon several centuries of developed church tradition, Protestant theology focused instead upon stricter adherence to scriptures. As an example, the harsher laws of the Old Testament developed greater prominence in Protestant lands than they did in Catholic lands. Protestant leaders also embraced some of the nastier doctrines of a few Catholic theologians, like Augustine's ideas about free will and predestination. Luther wrote in 1518: "Free will after the Fall is nothing but a word. Even doing what in him lies, man sins mortally."
In Switzerland, John Calvin created a vicious theocracy in which morality police were employed to control people's behavior. Citizens were harshly punished for a wide variety of moral infractions, including dancing, drinking, and generally being entertained. Theological dissidents were summarily executed, like Michael Servetus who was burned for doubting the Trinity. It isn't surprising that some of the nastiest Christians in America today, like Christian Reconstructionists, are unabashed Calvinists
During the many Huguenot wars ravaging France, Huguenot soldiers hunted priests like animals and one captain is reported to have worn a necklace of priests' ears. In England, after King Henry VIII created the Anglican Church, he went after both Catholics and Protestants. Catholic loyalists like Sir Thomas More were quickly executed, but Lutherans who doubted retained doctrines like transubstantiation were also not spared. When his daughter Mary reached the throne in 1553 she became known as "Bloody Mary" because she attempted to reinstitute Catholicism through violence - but she only managed to make the country even more Protestant.
Unsurprisingly, not all Protestants were created equal - some wretched groups were uniformly hated by all parties. One example of this is the Anabaptists, who were martyred for their faith in huge numbers. Anabaptists briefly took the German city of Munster, but Catholic armies regained control, torturing to death Anabaptist leaders with red-hot pincers. Their bodies were hung in cages from a church steeple where they remained for many years as a visible reminder of what happens to those who dare to oppose church authority.
Once again, there is quite a lot more to cover on the topic of religious violence, but I think that we've seen even more now which should lead reasonable people to conclude that religion in general, and Christianity in particular, doesn't do a very good job at all in preventing human violence. At a minimum, it does a wonderful job at serving as a justification for violence. In many cases, however, religious beliefs and attitudes appear to form the basis for violent acts or movements. In these instances, the violence would not have occurred if it had not been for religion.

Sources

  • Helen Ellerbe, The Dark Side of Christian History.
  • James A. Haught, Holy Horrors.
  • J.N. Hillgarth, Christianity and Paganism, 350-750.
  • Malcolm Lambert, Medieval Heresy.
  • Edward Peters, Heresy and Authority in Medieval Europe.
  • R. Dean Peterson, A Concise History of Christianity.

-->

I assume most Jews are more familiar with your bible than you are with it, and it is a learned decision that they'd stick with the God of the OT than a self-immolating man God of the NT?

all the best
Reply

Zafran
07-08-2009, 09:15 PM
Its true there is hatred of certain christains against other christains. Just as some right wing evengelicals hate the catholics -
Reply

'Abd-al Latif
07-08-2009, 09:38 PM
format_quote Originally Posted by Follower
Abd-al Latif- but you as a muslim believe the Holy Bible to be corrupt- so why would you suggest that one look to the Holy Bible for the story- it is different I am sure then the one in the quran.

Gossamer skye-
The problem with the verse here:

005.014
YUSUFALI: From those, too, who call themselves Christians, We did take a covenant, but they forgot a good part of the message that was sent them: so we estranged them, with enmity and hatred between the one and the other, to the day of judgment. And soon will Allah show them what it is they have done.

Christians are at peace with one another- there is no enmity to judgement day. This is saying nothing about written scripture.

There is also a problem with this verse:

002.113
YUSUFALI: The Jews say: "The Christians have naught upon; and the Christians say: "The Jews have naught upon." Yet they study the Book. Like unto their word is what those say who know not; but Allah will judge between them in their quarrel on the Day of Judgment.

When did Jews ever study the Gospel?
Because there is still some reminiscence of truth in the bible that hasn't been completey altered, though most of the bible has been corrupted. The truth that still remains are things like the emergance of Muhammad (saaws) in Arabia (it's why there were jews and christians who moved to the city of Madinah in Arabia at the time when they were expecting the emergence of a new Prophet), in some verses jesus preached the oneness of God which in arabic is referred to as Tawheed which means to unify divinity to one diety. And there are other similar verses but I can't think of anything else from the top of my head.

I'm only referring you to Lot in the bible because if you compared the view of Lot in the bible to the Qur'an you will asuredly come a conclusion that the Qur'an is closer to the truth.
Reply

Zafran
07-08-2009, 09:41 PM
When did Jews ever study the Gospel?
Is that the book the Jews and the christains have in common???? there is a book that both Jews and christains claim to posses yet see it in radically different ways. Historically the christains and the jews didnt see eye to eye - thats well known and heavily documented.

002.113
YUSUFALI: The Jews say: "The Christians have naught upon; and the Christians say: "The Jews have naught upon." Yet they study the Book. Like unto their word is what those say who know not; but Allah will judge between them in their quarrel on the Day of Judgment.
Reply

Grace Seeker
07-11-2009, 11:58 PM
format_quote Originally Posted by Zafran
This is seriously a joke - so you admit the last part of what you call the "torah" has been written by someone else and not Moses pbuh - subhan Allah - how many authors does it have???

Is this a serious question?

There is no Jew or Christian who seriously claims that Moses wrote the story of his own death. Of course there was an editor or redactor that attached that to finish the story. For those that hold that Moses wrote the Torah, they don't mean to imply that no other hand has touched it and the addition of Moses' death to it would not be understood as proof of corruption.

Others, more liberal in their thinking and who believe that the story of Moses writing the Torah is at best legend and at worst mythological, would say it was compiled over time by a serious of priest and scribes who edit together sources from a variety of sources. They would not call these people authors, for the stories did not originate with them but with the community. So, your question simply doesn't make sense in either context.


format_quote Originally Posted by Zafran
Is that [the Gospel, at least according to what you were discussing above] the book the Jews and the christains have in common????
Simple answer, NO. The Gospel is not a book that the Jews and the Christians have in common. (See this linked post if you are seriously looking for more information.)


format_quote Originally Posted by Zafran
Its true there is hatred of certain christains against other christains. Just as some right wing evengelicals hate the catholics -
Sadly this appears to be true. Though one might wonder how those who claim to follow the teachings of one who called us to love our enemies could hate anyone and still dare to use the name Christian? Either way, I can't figure out what this has to do with the price of tea in China?
Reply

Basit
07-13-2009, 03:38 PM
i have one point of view regarding this misunderstanding or rather disunity between christians. i like to quote also this passage from replies before.

005.014
YUSUFALI: From those, too, who call themselves Christians, We did take a covenant, but they forgot a good part of the message that was sent them: so we estranged them, with enmity and hatred between the one and the other, to the day of judgment. And soon will Allah show them what it is they have done.

as of today, there had been a lot of christian organizations and not to forget about different versions of the bible which was used by the christians too. why would there be different version of the bible? the last of which i remember was title "new international version". why would they change the bible?

notably as of today, there is no unity within the different christian organizations, the reason of which i dont know why. or was this their punishment???

Allah(swt) is the only one god, to him only is all glory and praise. we should have no other god than him. he is the sole provider, all our prayers should be offered to him only. he never told us that we should praise and glorify other people also.

Assalam Alaykum.
Reply

Walter
07-13-2009, 04:39 PM
format_quote Originally Posted by Gossamer skye
I assume most Jews are more familiar with your bible than you are with it, and it is a learned decision that they'd stick with the God of the OT than a self-immolating man God of the NT?
Dear Gossamer:

You are aware that both the Bible and the Qur'an teach that Jesus is the Messiah. Please do not reject or deny Him because of the error of others.

Regards,
Grenville
Reply

جوري
07-13-2009, 04:42 PM
format_quote Originally Posted by Grenville
Dear Gossamer:

You are aware that both the Bible and the Qur'an teach that Jesus is the Messiah. Please do not reject or deny Him because of the error of others.

Regards,
Grenville
I beg your pardon? I most certainly will not accept Jesus as a god.. I give him his due respect as a messenger of God.. it isn't Muslims that are selling a Jesus doll at borders or in walmart next to bratz dolls!

all the best
Reply

rpwelton
07-13-2009, 04:57 PM
format_quote Originally Posted by Grenville
Dear Gossamer:

You are aware that both the Bible and the Qur'an teach that Jesus is the Messiah. Please do not reject or deny Him because of the error of others.

Regards,
Grenville
Yes, Muslims and Christians both agree Jesus is the Messiah, but we have very different interpretations as to what Messiah actually means (ie, we wouldn't capitalize the pronoun 'him' when referring to Jesus).
Reply

Walter
07-13-2009, 05:37 PM
format_quote Originally Posted by Gossamer skye
I beg your pardon? I most certainly will not accept Jesus as a god.. I give him his due respect as a messenger of God.. it isn't Muslims that are selling a Jesus doll at borders or in walmart next to bratz dolls!

all the best
Dear Gossamer:

Who said anything about accepting Jesus as a God? The Biblical support for that teaching is quite weak. Apparently, you have not been following the thread “Is there any Biblical evidence that describes Jesus as God?”

With that barrier out of the way, do you accept Jesus as the Messiah as described in the Bible and the Qur’an?

Regards,
Grenville
Reply

Walter
07-13-2009, 05:41 PM
format_quote Originally Posted by rpwelton
Yes, Muslims and Christians both agree Jesus is the Messiah, but we have very different interpretations as to what Messiah actually means (ie, we wouldn't capitalize the pronoun 'him' when referring to Jesus).
Well Rpwelton, what does the Messiah actually mean to you?

Regards,
Grenville
Reply

rpwelton
07-13-2009, 05:48 PM
format_quote Originally Posted by Grenville
Well Rpwelton, what does the Messiah actually mean to you?

Regards,
Grenville
Well, let's go back to Biblical sources, shall we?

Messiah simply means "anointed one". There were many such Prophets called Messiah in the Old Testament. It's simply a title given to a Prophet. See this site:

http://www.worldofthebible.com/Bible...0Testament.pdf

So Messiah is simply a person specially chosen by God. Jesus is not unique in this sense, as there were others before him given that title (if we're going by the Bible).

I must say, however, that I can't figure out your theology Grenville. You don't believe Jesus is God, yet you capitalize 'him' when referring to Jesus. What exactly do you believe and how does it differ from mainline Christianity?
Reply

Walter
07-13-2009, 06:10 PM
format_quote Originally Posted by rpwelton
Well, let's go back to Biblical sources, shall we?

Messiah simply means "anointed one". There were many such Prophets called Messiah in the Old Testament. It's simply a title given to a Prophet. See this site:

http://www.worldofthebible.com/Bible...0Testament.pdf

So Messiah is simply a person specially chosen by God. Jesus is not unique in this sense, as there were others before him given that title (if we're going by the Bible).

I must say, however, that I can't figure out your theology Grenville. You don't believe Jesus is God, yet you capitalize his name. What exactly do you believe and how does it differ from mainline Christianity?
Hi Rpwelton:

1. There is no dispute that the Bible and the Qur’an teach that Jesus is a Messenger. But they both teach that He is more than a Messenger. He was born of a Virgin, performed many miracles, including rising the dead, and He is the Messiah. He is quite unique.

2. I use capitals as a mark of respect. If you noticed, I capitalised the first letter of your username.

3. I believe what is explicitly stated in the Bible. I have found that a common-sense reading of the Bible and the Qur’an reveals harmony between their principal teachings, without compromising any teaching or damaging the integrity of any verse in the Bible or the Qur’an. You can read the thread “Harmony between the Bible and the Qur’an” for the evidence.

4. There are Christian and Islamic religious traditions which are not supported by the Bible and the Qur’an respectively. However, those traditions that actually conflict with the Bible and the Qur’an have become unnecessary barriers dividing Christians and Muslims. Worse still, those traditions about the nature of Jesus have led Islamic religious tradition to minimize the role of the Messiah and the Gospel.

Regards,
Grenville
Reply

rpwelton
07-13-2009, 06:14 PM
format_quote Originally Posted by Grenville
Hi Rpwelton:

1. There is no dispute that the Bible and the Qur’an teach that Jesus is a Messenger. But they both teach that He is more than a Messenger. He was born of a Virgin, performed many miracles, including rising the dead, and He is the Messiah. He is quite unique.

2. I use capitals as a mark of respect. If you noticed, I capitalised the first letter of your username.

3. I believe what is explicitly stated in the Bible. I have found that a common-sense reading of the Bible and the Qur’an reveals harmony between their principal teachings, without compromising any teaching or damaging the integrity of any verse in the Bible or the Qur’an. You can read the thread “Harmony between the Bible and the Qur’an” for the evidence.

4. There are Christian and Islamic religious traditions which are not supported by the Bible and the Qur’an respectively. However, those traditions that actually conflict with the Bible and the Qur’an have become unnecessary barriers dividing Christians and Muslims. Worse still, those traditions about the nature of Jesus have led Islamic religious tradition to minimize the role of the Messiah and the Gospel.

Regards,
Grenville
I am not saying Jesus is not unique (indeed he is in many aspects), I am simply saying that the title of Messiah is not unique to Jesus.

I'm not sure what you mean by saying that Jesus is "more than a Messenger". Can you elaborate?

As per GreyKode's post below, Jesus was no more than a Messenger. He performed miracles through the power of God, but he could of himself do nothing.
Reply

GreyKode
07-13-2009, 06:26 PM
1. There is no dispute that the Bible and the Qur’an teach that Jesus is a Messenger. But they both teach that He is more than a Messenger. He was born of a Virgin, performed many miracles, including rising the dead, and He is the Messiah. He is quite unique.

All prophets had miracles, this argument of miracles proves nothing about any special status given to prophet jesus(pbuh).Moses split the sea, Adam was born from neither father nor mother etc etc..

The Qur'an clearly ststea that Jesus(pbuh) is no more than a messenger "And other messengers have passed before him".

And what about the agreement of both the Qur'an and the bible of prophet muhammad (pbuh)'s prophecy.

And suppose Jesus(pbuh) did have special status as you claim, what now, should we worship him??

In the "Harmony between bible and Quran" thread, one time you say Jesus(pbuh) is not God only a slave and messenger, the other time you say he is son of GOD.

NOW please explain, how can he be a son of GOD according to the Qur'an when the Quran clearly negates this point? How can this be considered a point of harmony or agreement?

And if so, care to explain to us how can one become a son of GOD?
Reply

Walter
07-13-2009, 06:31 PM
format_quote Originally Posted by rpwelton
I am not saying Jesus is not unique (indeed he is in many aspects), I am simply saying that the title of Messiah is not unique to Jesus.

I'm not sure what you mean by saying that Jesus is "more than a Messenger". Can you elaborate?

As per GreyKode's post below, Jesus was no more than a Messenger. He performed miracles through the power of God, but he could of himself do nothing.
Hi Rpwelton:

The Qur’an describes Jesus as the Messiah, and directs the reader to believe the revelation sent to the prophets who came before Mohammed. Perhaps the most authenticated book in the Bible is the work of prophet Isaiah, who said:

But he was pierced for our transgressions,
he was crushed for our iniquities;
the punishment that brought us peace was upon him,
and by his wounds we are healed.

We all, like sheep, have gone astray,
each of us has turned to his own way;
and the LORD has laid on him
the iniquity of us all.

He was oppressed and afflicted,
yet he did not open his mouth;
he was led like a lamb to the slaughter,
and as a sheep before her shearers is silent,
so he did not open his mouth. (Isaiah 53:5-7)


I am painfully aware that the Christian religious traditions of the trinity has resulted in the reaction of Islamic religious tradition to limit Jesus to “just a messenger”. Even though the Qur’an clearly teaches that He is the Messiah, and instructs believers to believe the revelation sent before, including the Gospel, in order to better understand these concepts.

I would urge you not to reject or deny the Messiah because of other people’s speculative opinions about the nature of Jesus, for it is He before whom we must all stand and give an account at the end of the age. May you also stand confidently Rpwelton.

Regards,
Grenville
Reply

rpwelton
07-13-2009, 06:34 PM
format_quote Originally Posted by Grenville
Hi Rpwelton:

The Qur’an describes Jesus as the Messiah, and directs the reader to believe the revelation sent to the prophets who came before Mohammed. Perhaps the most authenticated book in the Bible is the work of prophet Isaiah, who said:

But he was pierced for our transgressions,
he was crushed for our iniquities;
the punishment that brought us peace was upon him,
and by his wounds we are healed.

We all, like sheep, have gone astray,
each of us has turned to his own way;
and the LORD has laid on him
the iniquity of us all.

He was oppressed and afflicted,
yet he did not open his mouth;
he was led like a lamb to the slaughter,
and as a sheep before her shearers is silent,
so he did not open his mouth. (Isaiah 53:5-7)


I am painfully aware that the Christian religious traditions of the trinity has resulted in the reaction of Islamic religious tradition to limit Jesus to “just a messenger”. Even though the Qur’an clearly teaches that He is the Messiah, and instructs believers to believe the revelation sent before, including the Gospel, in order to better understand these concepts.

I would urge you not to reject or deny the Messiah because of other people’s speculative opinions about the nature of Jesus, for it is He before whom we must all stand and give an account at the end of the age. May you also stand confidently Rpwelton.

Regards,
Grenville
What does "Messiah" mean to you? Please answer that first.
Reply

Walter
07-13-2009, 06:52 PM
format_quote Originally Posted by rpwelton
What does "Messiah" mean to you? Please answer that first.
Hi Rpwelton:

The Bible teaches that the Messiah was sent to reconcile us to God. Having been so reconciled, we can know Him as a Father, and it becomes the responsibility of every believer who is so reconciled to encourage others.

Man was once reconciled to God in the beginning, with Adam. However, Adam’s sin destroyed that 'covenant'.

In the next covenant that God had with mankind, sinful men could not approach such a Holy God, so their sin had to be atoned. God stated that blood had to be shed in order that sin could be atoned. It was the blood of sheep and other animals that was shed. The individual actually had to kill the animal himself, which should have made him appreciate the value of the sacrifice and the damaging consequences of his sin. Unfortunately, it simply became a ritual which appeared to have little long-term effect on their behaviour.

In the new covenant that God has with mankind, Jesus was the one anointed to atoned for the sins of all men through His death. In this new covenant that mankind now has with God, we can approach God directly and ask for forgiveness. We can never earn this forgiveness, but he can graciously grant it. Once forgiven, we can become his adopted children, and cultivate a friendship with God.

Who can be better in religion than one who submits his whole self to God, does good, and follows the way of Abraham the true in Faith? For God did take Abraham for a friend. (4:125)


God has given Jesus the right to judge the world at the end of the age. At this time, those who rejected the Messiah will be turned away to everlasting punishment, while others will receive rewards for their good deeds done while on the Earth.

Regards,
Grenville
Reply

rpwelton
07-13-2009, 06:57 PM
format_quote Originally Posted by Grenville
Hi Rpwelton:

The Bible teaches that the Messiah was sent to reconcile us to God. Having been so reconciled, we can know Him as a Father, and it becomes the responsibility of every believer who is so reconciled to encourage others.

Man was once reconciled to God in the beginning, with Adam. However, Adam’s sin destroyed that 'covenant'.

In the next covenant that God had with mankind, sinful men could not approach such a Holy God, so their sin had to be atoned. God stated that blood had to be shed in order that sin could be atoned. It was the blood of sheep and other animals that was shed. The individual actually had to kill the animal himself, which should have made him appreciate the value of the sacrifice and the damaging consequences of his sin. Unfortunately, it simply became a ritual which appeared to have little long-term effect on their behaviour.

In the new covenant that God has with mankind, Jesus was the one anointed to atoned for the sins of all men through His death. In this new covenant that mankind now has with God, we can approach God directly and ask for forgiveness. We can never earn this forgiveness, but he can graciously grant it. Once forgiven, we can become his adopted children, and cultivate a friendship with God.

Who can be better in religion than one who submits his whole self to God, does good, and follows the way of Abraham the true in Faith? For God did take Abraham for a friend. (4:125)


God has given Jesus the right to judge the world at the end of the age. At this time, those who rejected the Messiah will be turned away to everlasting punishment, while others will receive rewards for their good deeds done while on the Earth.

Regards,
Grenville
Your version sounds like a strange hybrid of Christianity and Islam. Neither Jesus nor Muhammad ever taught this concept. How can you claim to get this from the Bible and the Qur'an?

Is there a name for your particular belief?
Reply

Walter
07-13-2009, 07:02 PM
format_quote Originally Posted by GreyKode
In the "Harmony between bible and Quran" thread, one time you say Jesus(pbuh) is not God only a slave and messenger, the other time you say he is son of GOD.

NOW please explain, how can he be a son of GOD according to the Qur'an when the Quran clearly negates this point? How can this be considered a point of harmony or agreement?

And if so, care to explain to us how can one become a son of GOD?
Dear GreyKode:

The Qur’an does not address the Biblical concept of ‘Son of God’. Rather, the Qur’an rejects the idea of God having children by having a wife. The offensive idea appears to be of God having sexual intercourse with other gods, thereby compounding like the Greek and Roman gods. We must remember that Mohammed preached a departure from the polytheistic religions of the region, and a return to submitting to the One God of Abraham.

Yet they make the Jinns equals with God, though God did create the Jinns; and they falsely, having no knowledge, attribute to Him sons and daughters. Praise and glory be to Him! (He is) above what they attribute to Him! To Him is due the primal origin of the heavens and the earth: How can He have a son when He hath no consort? He created all things, and He hath full knowledge of all things. (6:100–101)

They do blaspheme who say: God is one of three in a Trinity: for there is no god except One God. If they desist not from their word, verily a grievous penalty will befall the blasphemers among them. (5:73)


To corroborate this, it is useful to see the Islamic commentaries description of the Trinity. The elaboration of 4:171 in the Tafsir al-Jalalayn notes that the Trinity referred to “God, Jesus and Jesus’ mother”. The Sunni Tanwîr al-Miqbâs min Tafsîr Ibn ‘Abbâs notes that the Trinity is “God, Jesus and God’s wife”. The elaboration of 5:73 in the Tafsir al-Jalalayn notes that the Trinity referred to “God, Jesus and Jesus’ mother”.

Both the Bible and the Qur’an, and Christians and Muslims, reject this concept.

Regards,
Grenville
Reply

Walter
07-13-2009, 07:06 PM
format_quote Originally Posted by rpwelton
Your version sounds like a strange hybrid of Christianity and Islam. Neither Jesus nor Muhammad ever taught this concept. How can you claim to get this from the Bible and the Qur'an?

Is there a name for your particular belief?
Strange hybrid Rpwelton? This is what is taught in every Christian church and explicitly stated in the Bible? Even Grace Seeker and Follower believe this. It is main-line Christianity, and it is in harmony with the principal teachings of the Qur'an.

Regards,
Grenville
Reply

Brasco
07-13-2009, 07:10 PM
Consider that:
They surely disbelieve who say: Lo! Allah is the Messiah, son of Mary. The Messiah (himself) said: O Children of Israel, worship Allah, my Lord and your Lord. Lo! whoso ascribeth partners unto Allah, for him Allah hath forbidden paradise. His abode is the Fire. For evil-doers there will be no helpers.
05/072

And when Allah saith: O Jesus, son of Mary! Didst thou say unto mankind: Take me and my mother for two gods beside Allah? he saith: Be glorified! It was not mine to utter that to which I had no right. If I used to say it, then Thou knewest it. Thou knowest what is in my mind, and I know not what is in Thy Mind. Lo! Thou, only Thou, art the Knower of Things Hidden?
05/116

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
04/171

masalam!
Reply

rpwelton
07-13-2009, 07:13 PM
format_quote Originally Posted by Grenville
Strange hybrid Rpwelton? This is what is taught in every Christian church and explicitly stated in the Bible? This is Christianity, and it is in harmony with the principal teachings of the Qur'an.

Regards,
Grenville
Here is what I gather your beliefs are:

Jesus is not God nor part of a trinity- As far as I know, this is NOT taught in every church

Jesus is a blood sacrifice for all sins, but this is so we can approach God. We still need to ask for forgiveness and good deeds factor into our salvation (ie, there is no golden ticket) - I don't understand this one in light of you not believing Jesus is God. How can God send an innocent man to his death because humanity is so sinful? This kind of injustice is not in accordance with the Qur'an.

Jesus will judge the world - I believe the mainstream view is that he is seen as an "intercessor", thus the description of him being "at the right hand of God"

How is any of this in agreement with the Qur'an? Because the Qur'an uses the title Messiah? Please, the Old Testament uses this title for many prophets before Jesus.
Reply

Brasco
07-13-2009, 07:19 PM
There is no trinity in the bible:

- Mark 10:18 Jesus said “And Jesus said to him, ‘Why do you call me good? No one is good but God alone.”

- John 14:28 Jesus said "My Father (GOD) is greater than I"

- John 8:28 Jesus said "I do nothing of myself"

- Matthew 24:36 Jesus said "No one knows about that day or hour, not even the angels in heaven, nor the Son, but only the Father."
Reply

GreyKode
07-13-2009, 07:38 PM
format_quote Originally Posted by Grenville
Strange hybrid Rpwelton? This is what is taught in every Christian church and explicitly stated in the Bible? Even Grace Seeker and Follower believe this. It is main-line Christianity, and it is in harmony with the principal teachings of the Qur'an.

Regards,
Grenville
Dear Grenville, I am very hardly trying to assume good intentions in your posts, but youre just not being consistent and kind of deceptive.

I've seen both Grace's and Follower's posts and anyone can tell that they disagree with you on:
1)Jesus not being God.
2)Non-biblicality of the trinity.
Reply

Basit
07-13-2009, 07:44 PM
Salam!

please lets not belittle the prophethood of Eisa(puh). as i read from previous posts we are not paying him his due respect. jesus as i understood from teachings is no different from Adam(puh). they were created in the likeness of God when he said "Be" and so they became. He created Adam(puh) from dust and he created Eisa(puh) by his will that Mariam(puh) will bear him in her womb. he is a creation of God sent to his followers to relay the messages of God.

We should be brothers here as we have all same roots. we are all created by the one God which is Allah(swt) and so all our praises should be offered to Him only. if i am not mistaken, Jesus(puh) never told even in the bible that he is god. instead, he spoke and taught the people in his time the teachings and message of God.

Please relate on this one situation:

in one office there is one boss and he people to work for him. then you tell that one of his people is the boss here. what would you think the boss will feel? also, what will that person(the one u told to be the boss) will feel? will they be happy of what u told?


we are all creation of God, we have been sent message from God which we should follow. as a slave for God we should follow all his orders as any disobedience to what he wills, punishment shall follow. you are saying "peace be with you" when ur prayers end, same as us we are also saying "assalam alaykum wa rahmat ullah" when our sallah ends. why dont we live by what we say? peace.

have fear for the day of judgment. we are all lucky we received the scriptures through the prophets so that we will be guided as how to pass on that day. compared to other religion who are praying to false gods and barely knew of this plan of God. read the scriptures, understand it and live by it.

There is only one God. La ilaha illallah!


p.s. i think this thread is going away from the topic????? hehe
Reply

rpwelton
07-13-2009, 07:48 PM
format_quote Originally Posted by Basit
Salam!

please lets not belittle the prophethood of Eisa(puh). as i read from previous posts we are not paying him his due respect. jesus as i understood from teachings is no different from Adam(puh). they were created in the likeness of God when he said "Be" and so they became. He created Adam(puh) from dust and he created Eisa(puh) by his will that Mariam(puh) will bear him in her womb. he is a creation of God sent to his followers to relay the messages of God.
Brother, I have not noticed any Muslims disrespecting Jesus in this thread. What we are trying to ensure is that we represent him as a mighty messenger, but no more than that. We cannot take Jesus as being above all creation (as certain Christian members claim). He certainly is amongst the best of the creation (the prophets), but he is still part of the creation.
Reply

GreyKode
07-13-2009, 07:54 PM
format_quote Originally Posted by Basit
Salam!

please lets not belittle the prophethood of Eisa(puh). as i read from previous posts we are not paying him his due respect. jesus as i understood from teachings is no different from Adam(puh). they were created in the likeness of God when he said "Be" and so they became. He created Adam(puh) from dust and he created Eisa(puh) by his will that Mariam(puh) will bear him in her womb. he is a creation of God sent to his followers to relay the messages of God.

We should be brothers here as we have all same roots. we are all created by the one God which is Allah(swt) and so all our praises should be offered to Him only. if i am not mistaken, Jesus(puh) never told even in the bible that he is god. instead, he spoke and taught the people in his time the teachings and message of God.

Please relate on this one situation:

in one office there is one boss and he people to work for him. then you tell that one of his people is the boss here. what would you think the boss will feel? also, what will that person(the one u told to be the boss) will feel? will they be happy of what u told?


we are all creation of God, we have been sent message from God which we should follow. as a slave for God we should follow all his orders as any disobedience to what he wills, punishment shall follow. you are saying "peace be with you" when ur prayers end, same as us we are also saying "assalam alaykum wa rahmat ullah" when our sallah ends. why dont we live by what we say? peace.

have fear for the day of judgment. we are all lucky we received the scriptures through the prophets so that we will be guided as how to pass on that day. compared to other religion who are praying to false gods and barely knew of this plan of God. read the scriptures, understand it and live by it.

There is only one God. La ilaha illallah!


p.s. i think this thread is going away from the topic????? hehe
Jazak ALLAH kheir brother basit, I couldn't agree more, I was thinking exactly the same thing, prophet Isa(pbuh) is among the best of ALLAH's creatures as all the messengers are, we must give them their due respect.

But we must no forget that we are ummah wasat we do not exceed in such matters, ALLAH(swt) is the most exalted and the only one worthy of worship.
Reply

Walter
07-13-2009, 08:01 PM
format_quote Originally Posted by Brasco
Consider that: 05/072, 05/116, 04/171

masalam!
Hi Brasco:

We are in agreement. Stop pushing against an open door.

Regards,
Grenville
Reply

Walter
07-13-2009, 08:23 PM
format_quote Originally Posted by GreyKode
Dear Grenville, I am very hardly trying to assume good intentions in your posts, but youre just not being consistent and kind of deceptive.

I've seen both Grace's and Follower's posts and anyone can tell that they disagree with you on:
1)Jesus not being God.
2)Non-biblicality of the trinity.
Dear GreyKode:

That is a slanderous and untrue accusation. Please examine the post to which you were referring (posts 141 and your reply 142). That post did not mention the trinity, nor the contentious issue of the nature of Jesus’, and it was that post which I clearly (not deceptively) stated was ‘main-line’ Christianity.

Regards,
Grenville
Reply

Basit
07-13-2009, 08:27 PM
Just one mesagge:

We can say right now, I am right, you are wrong! then poeple may believe you may be right, others might say you are wrong. Then again you will accept what you told to be the right one. But in the end, it is God who will judge between the words we speak. Between the actions we intend and the actions we actually did.



p.s.: the messengers of God should not be addressed as messengers only, they messengers of God. they are chosen ones among all the people in their time by God himself. The words they taught are not products of their own intellect but the message of God. Jesus(puh) did not die on the cross, God lifted him up in the heavens before they could have arrested him. He, together with all the chosen ones shall come again on the day of judgment when God will judge between the living and the dead.
Reply

Basit
07-13-2009, 08:45 PM
format_quote Originally Posted by rpwelton
Brother, I have not noticed any Muslims disrespecting Jesus in this thread. What we are trying to ensure is that we represent him as a mighty messenger, but no more than that. We cannot take Jesus as being above all creation (as certain Christian members claim). He certainly is amongst the best of the creation (the prophets), but he is still part of the creation.
salam!

sorry if i am mistaken, it is my own mistake.imsad its just that they taught us before we should give our respects everytime we speak the names of the chosen people of Allah(swt). sorry.

salam alaykum wa rahmat ullah!
Reply

GreyKode
07-13-2009, 08:52 PM
format_quote Originally Posted by Grenville
Dear GreyKode:

That is a slanderous and untrue accusation. Please examine the post to which you were referring (posts 141 and your reply 142). That post did not mention the trinity, nor the contentious issue of the nature of Jesus’, and it was that post which I clearly (not deceptively) stated was ‘main-line’ Christianity.

Regards,
Grenville
My dear friend Grenville, I sincerely didn't mean any offense, indeed you didn't mention those issues in your discussion with rpwelton, nevertheless both Follower and Grace DO disagree with you on the two points that i mentioned that ARE "Main-stream" christianity.
Besides, you didn't answer the questions my previous post(all of them).
Peace.
Reply

Brasco
07-13-2009, 08:54 PM
To sum this up, the whole christianity is corrupted! how can they call themselves Christians!! They gotta be Christ-like!! :S
Reply

Walter
07-13-2009, 08:55 PM
Hi Rpwelton:

Let me respond to each of your claims.

format_quote Originally Posted by rpwelton
Here is what I gather your beliefs are:
Jesus is not God nor part of a trinity- As far as I know, this is NOT taught in every church
Like GreyKode, you are mixing up posts, responding to the wrong ones, and appending what I have written to something that you have written. That is not the way Rpwelton. Please desist.

I do not believe that there is sufficient evidence in the Bible for Christian religious tradition to make a Doctrine (or a mandatory belief) that Jesus is God. Therefore, I believe what the Bible explicitly states.

“but these are written that you may believe that Jesus is the Christ, the Son of God, and that believing you may have life in His name.” (John 20:31)


format_quote Originally Posted by rpwelton
Jesus is a blood sacrifice for all sins, but this is so we can approach God. We still need to ask for forgiveness and good deeds factor into our salvation (ie, there is no golden ticket) - I don't understand this one in light of you not believing Jesus is God. How can God send an innocent man to his death because humanity is so sinful? This kind of injustice is not in accordance with the Qur'an.
No. Good deeds do not factor into our salvation. We are saved by God’s grace, and God’s grace alone. The Bible is clear.

For by grace you have been saved through faith, and that not of yourselves; it is the gift of God, not of works, lest anyone should boast. (Ephesians 2:8-9)


Both the Bible and the Qur’an teach that forgiveness is offered to those who believe, repent, and ask God to be forgiven. No good deeds are necessary for salvation.

Bible: If we confess our sins, He is faithful and just to forgive us our sins and to cleanse us from all unrighteousness. (1 John 1:9)

Qur’an: But ask forgiveness of your Lord, and turn unto Him: For my Lord is indeed full of mercy and loving-kindness. (11:90; See also 4:17; 25:71; 42:25; 7:153; 19:60; 20:82)


However, once we have believed, then both the Bible and the Qur’an teach that rewards are for those who do good deeds.

Bible: For no other foundation can anyone lay than that which is laid, which is Jesus Christ. Now if anyone builds on this foundation with gold, silver, precious stones, wood, hay, straw, each one’s work will become clear; for the Day will declare it, because it will be revealed by fire; and the fire will test each one’s work, of what sort it is. If anyone’s work which he has built on it endures, he will receive a reward. If anyone’s work is burned, he will suffer loss; but he himself will be saved, yet so as through fire. (1 Corinthians 3:11–15)

Qur’an: To those who believe and do deeds of righteousness hath God promised forgiveness and a great reward. (5:9)


You do not understand the details of how God could cause the innocent to die for the guilty. Neither do I. It is one of the mysteries that will be revealed at the end of the age. If you require to know all things before you believe, then you will never believe, for only God knows all things. However, He has revealed some things to us.

We all, like sheep, have gone astray,
each of us has turned to his own way;
and the LORD has laid on him
the iniquity of us all. (Isaiah 53:6)


format_quote Originally Posted by rpwelton
Jesus will judge the world - I believe the mainstream view is that he is seen as an "intercessor", thus the description of him being "at the right hand of God"
No Rpwelton. The scriptures are clear.

For the Father judges no one, but has committed all judgment to the Son (John 5:22)


format_quote Originally Posted by rpwelton
How is any of this in agreement with the Qur'an? Because the Qur'an uses the title Messiah? Please, the Old Testament uses this title for many prophets before Jesus.
Both the Bible and the Qur’an identify Jesus as the Messiah.

Bible: The woman said, "I know that Messiah" (called Christ) "is coming. When he comes, he will explain everything to us." Then Jesus declared, "I who speak to you am he." (John 4:25–26)

Qur’an: When the angels said: O Mary! Lo! God 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 (to God). (3:45)


To understand such Biblical concepts, the reader of the Qur’an is directed to the revelation sent before. Here it is again.

We all, like sheep, have gone astray,
each of us has turned to his own way;
and the LORD has laid on him
the iniquity of us all. (Isaiah 53:6)


Regards,
Grenville
Reply

Brasco
07-13-2009, 08:59 PM
Why do you quote Paul? He never met Jesus (pbuh)!! nor did he ever talk to a disciple!!
Reply

Walter
07-13-2009, 09:04 PM
format_quote Originally Posted by GreyKode
My dear friend Grenville, I sincerely didn't mean any offense, indeed you didn't mention those issues in your discussion with rpwelton, nevertheless both Follower and Grace DO disagree with you on the two points that i mentioned that ARE "Main-stream" christianity.
Besides, you didn't answer the questions my previous post(all of them).
Peace.
Hi GreyKode:

Yes, Follower and Grace Seeker believe that Jesus is God and the concept of the trinity. However, the Biblical evidence for these concepts is weak. As you have admitted, I was not referring to these two issues in the context of 'main-line' Christianity.

What other questions were you referring to?

Regards,
Grenville
Reply

Walter
07-13-2009, 09:12 PM
format_quote Originally Posted by Brasco
Why do you quote Paul? He never met Jesus (pbuh)!! nor did he ever talk to a disciple!!
Dear Brasco:

For your information, Paul claimed to have seen and talked to Jesus, and he certainly spoke with many of Jesus’ original Disciples.

Brasco, trying to convince a Christian or a Muslim that their principal text is not authentic is really a waste of time. Regardless of the evidence that I can present to you, you will never reject the Qur’an as being authentic, and similarly with me. So why bother playing that game.

Let us, as long as we are corresponding, assume that both Books are authentic. If we happen to find any conflicting verses, then let us examine them honestly and see whether any conflict actually exists. Let me suggest that you read the thread “Harmony between the Bible and the Qur’an”.

Regards,
Grenville
Reply

Brasco
07-13-2009, 09:15 PM
one god in 3 persons:

"For there are three who bear witness in heaven: the Father, the Word, and the Holy Spirit; and these three are one." (1 John 5:7)


Jesus (pbuh) devine:

"In the beginning was the Word, and the Word was with God, and the Word was God. He was in the beginning with God." (John 1:1)

"And the Word became flesh and dwelt among us, and we beheld His glory, the glory as of the only begotten of the Father, full of grace and truth." (John 1:14)

"Therefore the Lord Himself will give you a sign: behold, the virgin shall conceive and bear a Son, and shall call His name Immanuel." (Isaiah 7:14)

"For unto us a Child is born, unto us a Son is given; and the government will be upon His shoulder. And His name will be called Wonderful, Counselor, Mighty God, Everlasting Father, Prince of Peace." (Isaiah 9:6)

"To those who have obtained like precious faith with us by the righteousness of our God and Savior Jesus Christ." (2 Peter 1:1)

"And we know that the Son of God has come and has given us an understanding, that we may know Him who is true; and we are in Him who is true, in His Son Jesus Christ. This is the true God and eternal life." (1 John 5:20)
Reply

GreyKode
07-13-2009, 09:17 PM
format_quote Originally Posted by Grenville
Hi GreyKode:

Yes, Follower and Grace Seeker believe that Jesus is God and the concept of the trinity. However, the Biblical evidence for these concepts is weak. As you have admitted, I was not referring to these two issues in the context of 'main-line' Christianity.

What other questions were you referring to?

Regards,
Grenville
For instance, How should this son of GOD differ in any way from other prophets/messengers? Should he be worshipped?
Reply

Brasco
07-13-2009, 09:17 PM
format_quote Originally Posted by Grenville
Dear Brasco:

For your information, Paul claimed to have seen and talked to Jesus, and he certainly spoke with many of Jesus’ original Disciples.

Brasco, trying to convince a Christian or a Muslim that their principal text is not authentic is really a waste of time. Regardless of the evidence that I can present to you, you will never reject the Qur’an as being authentic, and similarly with me. So why bother playing that game.

Let us, as long as we are corresponding, assume that both Books are authentic. If we happen to find any conflicting verses, then let us examine them honestly and see whether any conflict actually exists. Let me suggest that you read the thread “Harmony between the Bible and the Qur’an”.

Regards,
Grenville

He saw himself in a vision with Jesus (pbuh)!! (after killing a thousands of christians) and he never talked to the 12 disciples :)

On the way to berlin hitler saw himself in a vision with moses (pbuh), all jews are following him :)
Reply

Walter
07-13-2009, 09:19 PM
format_quote Originally Posted by Brasco
one god in 3 persons:

"For there are three who bear witness in heaven: the Father, the Word, and the Holy Spirit; and these three are one." (1 John 5:7)


Jesus (pbuh) devine:

"In the beginning was the Word, and the Word was with God, and the Word was God. He was in the beginning with God." (John 1:1)

"And the Word became flesh and dwelt among us, and we beheld His glory, the glory as of the only begotten of the Father, full of grace and truth." (John 1:14)

"Therefore the Lord Himself will give you a sign: behold, the virgin shall conceive and bear a Son, and shall call His name Immanuel." (Isaiah 7:14)

"For unto us a Child is born, unto us a Son is given; and the government will be upon His shoulder. And His name will be called Wonderful, Counselor, Mighty God, Everlasting Father, Prince of Peace." (Isaiah 9:6)

"To those who have obtained like precious faith with us by the righteousness of our God and Savior Jesus Christ." (2 Peter 1:1)

"And we know that the Son of God has come and has given us an understanding, that we may know Him who is true; and we are in Him who is true, in His Son Jesus Christ. This is the true God and eternal life." (1 John 5:20)
Hi Brasco:

Most of these are dealt with in the thread "Is there any Biblical evidence that describes Jesus as God?" Please review the answers there.

Regards,
Grenville
Reply

Brasco
07-13-2009, 09:21 PM
format_quote Originally Posted by Grenville
Hi Brasco:

Most of these are dealt with in the thread "Is there any Biblical evidence that describes Jesus as God?" Please review the answers there.

Regards,
Grenville
This means, you accept that the bible is corrupted?? Did jesus (pbuh) call himself a christian?
Reply

Walter
07-13-2009, 09:23 PM
format_quote Originally Posted by Brasco
He saw himself in a vision with Jesus (pbuh)!! (after killing a thousands of christians) and he never talked to the 12 disciples :)
OK Brasco:

Here is the evidence.

1And certain men which came down from Judaea taught the brethren, and said, Except ye be circumcised after the manner of Moses, ye cannot be saved.

2When therefore Paul and Barnabas had no small dissension and disputation with them, they determined that Paul and Barnabas, and certain other of them, should go up to Jerusalem unto the apostles and elders about this question.

3And being brought on their way by the church, they passed through Phenice and Samaria, declaring the conversion of the Gentiles: and they caused great joy unto all the brethren.

4And when they were come to Jerusalem, they were received of the church, and of the apostles and elders, and they declared all things that God had done with them. (Acts 15:1-5)


Regards,
Grenville
Reply

Brasco
07-13-2009, 09:26 PM
These are books written by paul, of course he would say that!! :bump1:
Reply

Walter
07-13-2009, 09:29 PM
format_quote Originally Posted by Brasco
This means, you accept that the bible is corrupted?? Did jesus (pbuh) call himself a christian?
No Brasco. The Bible is not corrupted. Neither is the Qur'an. It is our Christian and Islamic religious traditions, which are in conflict with the Bible and the Qur'an respectively, that are corrupted.

Also, no, Jesus did not call Himself a Christian.

And the disciples were called Christians first in Antioch. (Acts 11:26b)


Brasco. Clearly you have never read the Bible. Perhaps you should read it before commenting, so confidently, about what it contains.

Also, Paul did not write the book of Acts. Good grief.

Regards,
Grenville
Reply

Brasco
07-13-2009, 09:31 PM
format_quote Originally Posted by Grenville
No Brasco. The Bible is not corrupted. Neither is the Qur'an. It is our Christian and Islamic religious traditions, which are in conflict with the Bible and the Qur'an respectively, that are corrupted.

Also, no, Jesus did not call Himself a Christian.

And the disciples were called Christians first in Antioch. (Acts 11:26b)


Brasco. Clearly you have never read the Bible. Perhaps you should read it before commenting, so confidently, about what it contains.

Also, Paul did not write the book of Acts. Good grief.

Regards,
Grenville

I read it!! but I do not accept what paul wrote :D
Reply

Brasco
07-13-2009, 09:34 PM
when did luke write the book? before or after paul?
Reply

rpwelton
07-13-2009, 09:38 PM
Grenville, if the Qur'an and the Bible are so in tuned with each other, then why aren't you a Muslim? Surely you recognize the Prophethood of Muhammad, so why stop short at Christianity?
Reply

Brasco
07-13-2009, 09:41 PM
Jesus (pbuh) never knew paul the two men never once met. The disciples who knew Jesus best have left no writings behind them explaining how Jesus (pbuh) seemed to them or what they considered his mission to have been.


The apostle paul founder of christianity
Reply

BlackMamba
07-13-2009, 10:15 PM
format_quote Originally Posted by rpwelton
Grenville, if the Qur'an and the Bible are so in tuned with each other, then why aren't you a Muslim? Surely you recognize the Prophethood of Muhammad, so why stop short at Christianity?
Yes, after talking with Grenville on his thread about Quran/Bible harmony, I wonder why he is not Muslim. If you believe that the bible supports Muhammad (saw), then why not accept it and become Muslim. If you think the Quran and Bible say the same thing, then the Quran says the only religion worthy in front of Allah is Islam in surah Ali-Imran.

Surely the (true) religion with Allah is Islam, and those to whom the Book had been given did not show opposition but after knowledge had come to them, out of envy among themselves; and whoever disbelieves in the communications of Allah then surely Allah is quick in reckoning. (3:19)

I know we're putting you on the spot, but I want to hear what you say about that
Reply

جوري
07-14-2009, 02:53 AM
format_quote Originally Posted by Grenville
Dear Gossamer:

Who said anything about accepting Jesus as a God? The Biblical support for that teaching is quite weak. Apparently, you have not been following the thread “Is there any Biblical evidence that describes Jesus as God?”

With that barrier out of the way, do you accept Jesus as the Messiah as described in the Bible and the Qur’an?

Regards,
Grenville
No, I am not following, however you must have missed my post on the meaning of the messiah :
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.

Reference: http://www.islam101.com/religions/de..._in_islam4.htm




_______________________

there is no going back to christian understanding and references when one has embraced Islam.. I can't claim to understand what it is you are hoping to gain as most of these are exercises in futility in my opinion, we can simply agree that our religions are at odds, and try to co-exist peacefully knowing that fact!
Reply

Walter
07-14-2009, 02:05 PM
format_quote Originally Posted by rpwelton
Grenville, if the Qur'an and the Bible are so in tuned with each other, then why aren't you a Muslim? Surely you recognize the Prophethood of Muhammad, so why stop short at Christianity?
format_quote Originally Posted by Shakoor15
Yes, after talking with Grenville on his thread about Quran/Bible harmony, I wonder why he is not Muslim. If you believe that the bible supports Muhammad (saw), then why not accept it and become Muslim. If you think the Quran and Bible say the same thing, then the Quran says the only religion worthy in front of Allah is Islam in surah Ali-Imran.

Surely the (true) religion with Allah is Islam, and those to whom the Book had been given did not show opposition but after knowledge had come to them, out of envy among themselves; and whoever disbelieves in the communications of Allah then surely Allah is quick in reckoning. (3:19)

I know we're putting you on the spot, but I want to hear what you say about that
Dear Rpwelton and Shakoor:

If we understand Islam to be ‘submission to God’, and Muslims to be ‘those who submit to God’, then all who submit to God are Muslims who follow Islam. Of course there is only One God. The Qur’an makes it clear that Islam did not start with Mohammed.

When Jesus found Unbelief on their part He said: "Who will be My helpers to (the work of) God?" Said the disciples: "We are God's helpers: We believe in God, and do thou bear witness that we are Muslims. (3:52)


The problem is: what do you understand Islam to be? We can either submit to God, or we can submit to our religious traditions. Jesus was angry with the religious leaders of His day for misleading people into submitting to Jewish religious traditions which conflicted with God’s commands.

“He [Jesus] answered and said to them, “Why do you also transgress the commandment of God because of your tradition? For God commanded, saying, ‘Honor your father and your mother’; and, ‘He who curses father or mother, let him be put to death.’ But you say, ‘Whoever says to his father or mother, “Whatever profit you might have received from me is a gift to God”— then he need not honor his father or mother.’ Thus you have made the commandment of God of no effect by your tradition.

Hypocrites! Well did Isaiah prophesy about you, saying:
‘These people draw near to Me with their mouth,
And honor Me with their lips,
But their heart is far from Me.
And in vain they worship Me,
Teaching as doctrines the commandments of men.’”
(Matthew 15:3-9)


Therefore:
  • Do I submit to God? Yes.
  • Do I submit to Christian religious tradition? Only when it is consistent with the explicit teachings of the Bible. Please note that I have found that these teachings are in harmony with the principal teachings of the Qur’an.
  • Do I submit to Islamic religious tradition? No.


You must also decide whether you will submit to God or to Islamic religious tradition. Please note that the Jewish people were blind to the fact that their religious leaders were misleading them. That is why it is so important to examine your religious traditions to see whether they are actually true and supported by the Qur'an, for Truth should be able to withstand rigorous scrutiny.

Regards,
Grenville
Reply

rpwelton
07-14-2009, 02:25 PM
Yes, Islam means to submit to the Will of God. But what does that mean?

It means you follow all of His prophets and the Message that he sent with them. This of course means you have to follow Prophet Muhammad (peace and blessings be upon him) in addition to the ones that came before him.

If we follow Muhammad, then we know he never taught anything about atonement, nor Jesus judging the world, nor Jesus being crucified. In fact, the Qur'an tells us the exact opposite is true:

""That they rejected Faith; That they uttered against Mary A grave false charge; That they said (in boast): 'We killed Christ Jesus The son of Mary, The Messenger 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. Nay, Allah raised him up Unto Himself; and Allah Is Exalted in Power, Wise. And there is none of the people of the book (Jews and Christians) But must believe in him (Jesus) Before his death; And on the Day of Judgment He (Jesus) will be a witness Against them." (4: 156-159)

So clearly to be a Muslim you cannot believe Jesus (peace be upon him) died on the cross, and he certainly did not die for anyone's sins.

This not just a matter of "Islamic tradition". If you read the Qur'an, you will find none of these Christian beliefs!

The Qur'an also does not confirm the Bible in entirety; in fact it talks about how the people given charge of the Torah and Injeel (Law and Gospel) changed it with their own hands. Therefor the entire Bible is not scripture, as it has been altered by man.

Islam is not a new religion; it is the religion of all the prophets and has existed since the time of Adam. However, you cannot take the Qur'an as a whole, believe it is true, and still be a Christian. This is a grave contradiction.
Reply

Walter
07-14-2009, 03:07 PM
Dear Rpwelton:

Let me respond to each of your claims.

format_quote Originally Posted by rpwelton
Yes, Islam means to submit to the Will of God. But what does that mean?

It means you follow all of His prophets and the Message that he sent with them. This of course means you have to follow Prophet Muhammad (peace and blessings be upon him) in addition to the ones that came before him.
We must use a fair degree of common sense, but yes, we should follow them when they claimed to speak for God and their words are relevant to us.

format_quote Originally Posted by rpwelton
If we follow Muhammad, then we know he never taught anything about atonement, nor Jesus judging the world, nor Jesus being crucified.
Mohammed did refer his followers to believe the Gospel and the Prophets who came before. Therefore, Mohammed taught them indirectly.

format_quote Originally Posted by rpwelton
In fact, the Qur'an tells us the exact opposite is true:

""That they rejected Faith; That they uttered against Mary A grave false charge; That they said (in boast): 'We killed Christ Jesus The son of Mary, The Messenger 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. Nay, Allah raised him up Unto Himself; and Allah Is Exalted in Power, Wise. And there is none of the people of the book (Jews and Christians) But must believe in him (Jesus) Before his death; And on the Day of Judgment He (Jesus) will be a witness Against them." (4: 156-159)

So clearly to be a Muslim you cannot believe Jesus (peace be upon him) died on the cross, and he certainly did not die for anyone's sins.
Please read “Harmony between the Bible and the Qur’an”. The verse explicitly states that Jesus was not crucified by the Jews. Both the Bible and the historical record agree.

format_quote Originally Posted by rpwelton
This not just a matter of "Islamic tradition". If you read the Qur'an, you will find none of these Christian beliefs!
Please read “Brothers Kept Apart”. The teachings are detailed.

format_quote Originally Posted by rpwelton
The Qur'an also does not confirm the Bible in entirety; in fact it talks about how the people given charge of the Torah and Injeel (Law and Gospel) changed it with their own hands. Therefore the entire Bible is not scripture, as it has been altered by man.
Please provide a verse in the Qur’an which shows that the Bible has been corrupted or changed. I have found several verses which showed that the religious leaders’ behaviour was corrupt, not the manuscripts themselves.

format_quote Originally Posted by rpwelton
Islam is not a new religion; it is the religion of all the prophets and has existed since the time of Adam. However, you cannot take the Qur'an as a whole, believe it is true, and still be a Christian. This is a grave contradiction.
That is classic Islamic religious tradition completely unsupported by the Qur’an. It is promoted by Islamic religious leaders and blindly believed by adherents, but it is entirely wrong since it conflicts with the Qur’an.

Lo! Those who believe, and those who are Jews, and Christians, and Sabians—whoever believeth in God and the Last Day and doeth right—surely their reward is with their Lord, and there shall no fear come upon them neither shall they grieve. (2:62)


Rpwelton, the choice is yours. You can believe the Qur’an, or you can believe your religious traditions which conflict with the Qur’an. You decide.

Regards,
Grenville
Reply

Basit
07-14-2009, 03:33 PM
Just a comment Mr. Grenville :X

Submission to Allah(swt) means to follow all that he wills and all that he wants us to do. He has sent the prophets to guide us on how to follow what he wants. In submission to Him we should not be selective on which law, commandment or prophet we should believe into. We are just but slaves of Allah(swt) therefore we should believe and follow all that he commands, which was relayed to us through all his chosen ones(peace and blessings be upon them all).Now, i.e. as a Jew, you would follow Moses'(puh) and his Torah only and would reject Jesus and Muhammad(peace and blessings be upon them). This would not be called submission because you will follow only some of what he wants you to do and rejects the other orders. In Islam, we are taught on how to do things, all things, in every aspects of living. how to take a bath, how to eat, how to pray........and so on. and this is how Allah(swt) want us to do things in life, an order from him through the prophet Muhammad(pbuh)



Daw'ah: Please pray on time of Sallah brothers. Dont delay your prayers because of other matters like playing, chatting, net surfing or even with the forums. We can only delay our prayers when we are hungry or when our mother needs us. Dont let shaytan stop you from praying on time.

Assalam Alaykum!
Reply

Hugo
07-14-2009, 03:42 PM
format_quote Originally Posted by rpwelton
Yes, Islam means to submit to the Will of God. But what does that mean? It means you follow all of His prophets and the Message that he sent with them. This of course means you have to follow Prophet Muhammad (peace and blessings be upon him) in addition to the ones that came before him.

If we follow Muhammad, then we know he never taught anything about atonement, nor Jesus judging the world, nor Jesus being crucified. In fact, the Qur'an tells us the exact opposite is true:

Islam is not a new religion; it is the religion of all the prophets and has existed since the time of Adam. However, you cannot take the Qur'an as a whole, believe it is true, and still be a Christian. This is a grave contradiction.
I have difficulty following your logic here. Jesus was a prophet according to Islamic teaching, he came before prophet Mohammed and he taught in the gospels about atonement so is the Gospel New Testament Jesus the one you are talking about?
Reply

rpwelton
07-14-2009, 03:46 PM
format_quote Originally Posted by Hugo
I have difficulty following your logic here. Jesus was a prophet according to Islamic teaching, he came before prophet Mohammed and he taught in the gospels about atonement so is the Gospel New Testament Jesus the one you are talking about?
Those are Paul's teachings. The fact that you consider him a "super-apostle" or "prophet" is your own belief. We are discussing what Jesus actually taught himself, as Muslims we can believe Jesus, but we will not believe Paul. Please quote me what Jesus said about dying for the sins of humanity.

Jesus did not bring "The Gospels", he brought the Gospel, which we do not have today.
Reply

Brasco
07-14-2009, 04:04 PM
Those four writers were just historians. They never met jesus (pbuh). The writers didn't seem to know their last names :) how can one trust their fate on that book?!
Reply

rpwelton
07-14-2009, 04:07 PM
^^ True. Although the last names argument is actually somewhat of a weak one, because surnames were not common practice back then.

However, the Gospels were written by unknown authors, with the earliest one being about 40 years after the death of Jesus, and then decades later they were attributed to some of the disciples. For instance, Matthew wasn't written by Matthew, but was actually attributed to him later.
Reply

Brasco
07-14-2009, 04:09 PM
That's why it reads like that: "According to..." :D
Reply

Hugo
07-14-2009, 04:11 PM
format_quote Originally Posted by rpwelton
Those are Paul's teachings. The fact that you consider him a "super-apostle" or "prophet" is your own belief. We are discussing what Jesus actually taught himself, as Muslims we can believe Jesus, but we will not believe Paul. Please quote me what Jesus said about dying for the sins of humanity.

Jesus did not bring "The Gospels", he brought the Gospel, which we do not have today.
I will get back to you on your first point later but tell me how do you know Jesus brought the Gospel if we don't have it because logically if we don't have it we don't know what it contained do we?
Reply

Brasco
07-14-2009, 04:18 PM
The faith of Jesus (pbuh) got changed: when many jews start to follow this faith, people like paul began to corrupt this faith of jesus (pbuh), they wanted to misguide jews. He did not see jesus (pbuh) in a vision, it was rather the devil he saw.
Reply

rpwelton
07-14-2009, 04:23 PM
format_quote Originally Posted by Hugo
I will get back to you on your first point later but tell me how do you know Jesus brought the Gospel if we don't have it because logically if we don't have it we don't know what it contained do we?
Look, I'm a Muslim because I believe the Qur'an to be the Word of God. It tells us that Jesus brought a book called the Gospel. Now, there are several reasons to believe this "Gospel" is not the 4 Gospels we have today:

1) The 4 Gospels give differing accounts of the same event. To Christians, it's not a big deal, but as Muslims we believe that God would not reveal a book that contradicts itself. Therefor the 4 Gospels cannot be the True Word of God in entirety

2) 3 of the 4 Gospels describe the crucifixion of Jesus. How can Jesus receive revelation of his own crucifixion while he's on the cross and the events to come afterwards? Especially since none of the disciples were present (according to the 4 Gospels). This is similar to the Torah in the Old Testament being claimed to be written entirely by Moses; clearly if it describes his death it cannot be written entirely by him.

3) The 4 Gospels have changed over time. Even though today's more recent Bible editions go back to the earliest manuscripts, we don't even know if what we have today are the texts that were originally penned by the so-called authors.

So in short, the 4 Gospels do not hold up to the qualifications that would make them a book from God. Therefor, we believe what is confirmed by the Qur'an and authentic hadith, but we have to reject all that goes against it, because these are seen as changes made by man, and not the Words of God.

I hope that clears things up.
Reply

جوري
07-14-2009, 04:42 PM
Jesus came in for the lost sheep of the house of Israel.. actually mentioned in the bible, how many times must we quote it?
Paul/Saul was no friend to Jesus, in fact he was engaged to Poppea you know the chick who whispered to Nero to burn down Rome...All of a sudden he has humanities best interest at heart? eating pigs which by the way Jesus himself was said to have exorcised a possessed woman demons into them and compelled the pigs to walk off a cliff to their death, all of a sudden they are edible, all of a sudden the sabbath is on a sunday, all of a sudden no more circumcisions for males, basically Jesus abrogates all the commandments of the OT through his nemesis a man according to (Gene) he has never met!
why doesn't 'god' choose more wisely? Even his own apostles (peter) forsake him thrice the night before his alleged crucifixion... don't you think a god would know better?

I can't believe that grown adult would take a man for a God.. even the santa fairy tales and easter bunnies stop at age 6 or so.. how can folks go into their adulthood taking a man who was sent to a select few for a God.. how absurd is this?
Reply

Walter
07-14-2009, 04:44 PM
format_quote Originally Posted by Basit
Just a comment Mr. Grenville :X

Submission to Allah(swt) means to follow all that he wills and all that he wants us to do. He has sent the prophets to guide us on how to follow what he wants. In submission to Him we should not be selective on which law, commandment or prophet we should believe into. We are just but slaves of Allah(swt) therefore we should believe and follow all that he commands, which was relayed to us through all his chosen ones(peace and blessings be upon them all).Now, i.e. as a Jew, you would follow Moses'(puh) and his Torah only and would reject Jesus and Muhammad(peace and blessings be upon them). This would not be called submission because you will follow only some of what he wants you to do and rejects the other orders. In Islam, we are taught on how to do things, all things, in every aspects of living. how to take a bath, how to eat, how to pray........and so on. and this is how Allah(swt) want us to do things in life, an order from him through the prophet Muhammad(pbuh)
Dear Basit:

You have correctly repeated your Islamic religious tradition. However, you should examine it in order to confirm that it does not contradict the teachings of the Qur’an. Please note that Jesus was a Jew and so were all of His disciples and early followers.

The Messiah was sent to reconcile us to God so that we can cultivate a friendship with God. Juveniles should be taught to follow the religious traditions and rituals until they are mature enough to choose a relationship with God.

Is the law then against the promises of God? Certainly not! For if there had been a law given which could have given life, truly righteousness would have been by the law. But the Scripture has confined all under sin, that the promise by faith in Jesus Christ might be given to those who believe. But before faith came, we were kept under guard by the law, kept for the faith which would afterward be revealed.

Therefore the law was our tutor to bring us to Christ, that we might be justified by faith. But after faith has come, we are no longer under a tutor. For you are all sons of God through faith in Christ Jesus. (Galatians 3:21-26)


Basit, you have described the end of those who choose to submit to Islamic religious tradition. However, the Qur’an provides a different path for those who will submit to God.

Who can be better in religion than one who submits his whole self to God, does good, and follows the way of Abraham the true in Faith? For God did take Abraham for a friend. (4:125)

Basit, the choice is yours. You can choose friendship with God by trusting the work of the Messiah, Jesus, or you can choose to follow your religious traditions which conflict with the truth of the Qur’an. You decide.

Regards,
Grenville
Reply

rpwelton
07-14-2009, 04:51 PM
Grenville, what you are proposing is a dangerous path.

If one just takes the path of "friendship" with God without taking into account any laws or rituals, then people will start making up their own "paths". Is this not how religions such as modern day Christianity and Hinduism etc started? They have "love" but do not have any knowledge. In Islam we have love of Allah, but we also have knowledge of Allah. You need a balance of the two.

If you actually read the Qur'an it continually talks about praying, fasting, following the example of Muhammad, etc. Are you blind to all this?
Reply

جوري
07-14-2009, 04:52 PM
You are very ill informed of the Quran.. and I think the choice is clear

13:16
Say: "Who is the Lord and Sustainer of the heavens and the earth?" Say: "(It is) Allah." Say: "Do ye then take (for worship) protectors other than Him, such as have no power either for good or for harm to themselves?" Say: "Are the blind equal with those who see? Or the depths of darkness equal with Light?" Or do they assign to Allah partners who have created (anything) as He has created, so that the creation seemed to them similar? Say: "Allah is the Creator of all things: He is the One, the Supreme and Irresistible."
Reply

Muhseen
07-14-2009, 04:53 PM
The thread is really fascinating. It uncovers many lies in the bible. I like it.
Reply

Oleander
07-14-2009, 05:02 PM
Galatians 3:1 You foolish Galatians, who has bewitched you, before whose eyes Jesus Christ was publicly portrayed as crucified?



Matt,5:22"But I say to you that everyone who is angry with his brother shall be guilty before the court; and whoever says to his brother, 'You good-for-nothing,' shall be guilty before the supreme court; and whoever says, 'You fool,' shall be guilty enough to go into the fiery hell.



>>>Paul, according to Jesus, is roasted right now on hellfire.

Tha's the one who wrote more than 50% of the Christians scripture!!
Reply

Oleander
07-14-2009, 05:08 PM
" JESUS said to them " I SAW SATAN FALL, LIKE LIGHTNING, FROM HEAVEN"
(Luke 10:18)



60 years later:


" As SAUL journeyed he came near Damascus and suddenly A LIGHT FROM HEAVEN (LIGHTNING) shone around him and he fell to the ground"
(Acts 9:3,4)
Reply

Hugo
07-14-2009, 05:10 PM
format_quote Originally Posted by Brasco
The faith of Jesus (pbuh) got changed: when many jews start to follow this faith, people like paul began to corrupt this faith of jesus (pbuh), they wanted to misguide jews. He did not see jesus (pbuh) in a vision, it was rather the devil he saw.
You might be right but how do you know this? You certainly did not get it from the Bible so where does this unattributed information come from?
Reply

Hugo
07-14-2009, 05:22 PM
format_quote Originally Posted by Brasco
The faith of Jesus (pbuh) got changed: when many jews start to follow this faith, people like paul began to corrupt this faith of jesus (pbuh), they wanted to misguide jews. He did not see jesus (pbuh) in a vision, it was rather the devil he saw.
format_quote Originally Posted by Oleander
" JESUS said to them " I SAW SATAN FALL, LIKE LIGHTNING, FROM HEAVEN" (Luke 10:18) 60 years later:

" As SAUL journeyed he came near Damascus and suddenly A LIGHT FROM HEAVEN (LIGHTNING) shone around him and he fell to the ground"
(Acts 9:3,4)
One assumes that "falling like lightening" means it was instant whereas in the second case it was just a light so how you can connect the two and I suppose argue that Paul was Satan seems to be stretching it a bit don't you think? On this kind of logic if I found and elephant in a garage I would have to conclude it was a car.
Reply

rpwelton
07-14-2009, 05:23 PM
format_quote Originally Posted by Hugo
One assumes that "falling like lightening" means it was instant whereas in the second case it was just a light so how you can connect the two and I suppose argue that Paul was Satan seems to be stretching it a bit don't you think? On this kind of logic if I found and elephant in a garage I would have to conclude it was a car.
He is not concluding that Paul is Satan, but rather that the being which Paul saw descend sounds rather familiar to how Jesus describes Satan. Therefore, the being appearing to Paul could have been Satan.

I've never seen that reference before, but the similarity in description is remarkable.
Reply

Oleander
07-14-2009, 05:29 PM
format_quote Originally Posted by Hugo
One assumes that "falling like lightening" means it was instant whereas in the second case it was just a light so how you can connect the two and I suppose argue that Paul was Satan seems to be stretching it a bit don't you think? On this kind of logic if I found and elephant in a garage I would have to conclude it was a car.

>>>Do you think Jesus saw satan falling down?
Reply

Hugo
07-14-2009, 05:33 PM
format_quote Originally Posted by Muhseen
The thread is really fascinating. It uncovers many lies in the bible. I like it.
format_quote Originally Posted by rpwelton
He is not concluding that Paul is Satan, but rather that the being which Paul saw descend sounds rather familiar to how Jesus describes Satan. Therefore, the being appearing to Paul could have been Satan.

I've never seen that reference before, but the similarity in description is remarkable.
He must say what he concludes. However, there is nothing in the passage that even hints it being anything to do with Satan and just looking at supposed similarities is hardly rational is it and looks more like spin that anything else. Arguments that hang on "..could have been" are almost always fallacies because it could have been anything from little green men to Lord Lucan but that is not what the passage says is it?
Reply

Walter
07-14-2009, 05:38 PM
format_quote Originally Posted by rpwelton
Grenville, what you are proposing is a dangerous path.

If one just takes the path of "friendship" with God without taking into account any laws or rituals, then people will start making up their own "paths". Is this not how religions such as modern day Christianity and Hinduism etc started? They have "love" but do not have any knowledge. In Islam we have love of Allah, but we also have knowledge of Allah. You need a balance of the two.

If you actually read the Qur'an it continually talks about praying, fasting, following the example of Muhammad, etc. Are you blind to all this?
Dear Rpwelton:

You seem to have misunderstood. I agree that a combination of love and knowledge is important. Of course, the knowledge must investigated.

Be diligent to present yourself approved to God, a worker who does not need to be ashamed, rightly dividing the word of truth. (2 Timothy 2:15)


Perhaps an analogy can help to explain what I mean.

When I was younger, I obeyed my father out of a fear of the consequences of disobedience. However, as I grew older, the fear and respect that I had for my father developed into a combination of love and respect. My interaction with him is not now motivated by any fear, but by love and friendship and respect.

A distant observer may see me serving my father, and may think that I am motivated by fear. However, if the observer will come near, he would realize that I honor my father, not because I have to, but because I want to, and my motive is love.

Similarly, as a youth, I obeyed God out of fear. When I was reconciled to Him through the work of the Messiah, then that relationship changed. I still obey, but out of love. The differing types of relationship appear to be:
  1. the obedience as of a slave to the predictable words of a messenger of God; and
  2. the obedience as of a son to the voice of God.

I choose the path of an obedient son, who keeps His commandments, but is also directed by God.

“The wind blows where it wishes, and you hear the sound of it, but cannot tell where it comes from and where it goes. So is everyone who is born of the Spirit.” (John 3:8)


Regards,
Grenville
Reply

Hugo
07-14-2009, 05:39 PM
format_quote Originally Posted by Oleander
>>>Do you think Jesus saw satan falling down?
That is what the words say but it most likely is an illusion to what happens to Satan now that redemption is near. Let me ask you do you think that Prophet Mohammed's heart was literally removed and washed with snow from a Golden bowl?

There is always this difficulty of knowing whether something is to be taken literally or not don't you agree?
Reply

Oleander
07-14-2009, 05:39 PM
Does any Christians believe Ussama Bin Ladin, if he claim what Paul claim without a single wittness?

Paul at his time was as Bin Ladin nowdays, right?

So, why you believe God will put his trust, with a killer, who never repent?

I understand if Paul walk to James, Peter and ask for forgivness, but the man (for God sake), was on his way with some killers to kill God's people!!

Please, wake up.
Reply

Walter
07-14-2009, 05:40 PM
format_quote Originally Posted by Gossamer skye
.. and I think the choice is clear

13:16
Say: "Who is the Lord and Sustainer of the heavens and the earth?" Say: "(It is) Allah." Say: "Do ye then take (for worship) protectors other than Him, such as have no power either for good or for harm to themselves?" Say: "Are the blind equal with those who see? Or the depths of darkness equal with Light?" Or do they assign to Allah partners who have created (anything) as He has created, so that the creation seemed to them similar? Say: "Allah is the Creator of all things: He is the One, the Supreme and Irresistible."
Hi Gossamer:

We are in agreement.

Regards,
Grenville
Reply

rpwelton
07-14-2009, 05:44 PM
format_quote Originally Posted by Grenville
Dear Rpwelton:

You seem to have misunderstood. I agree that a combination of love and knowledge is important. Of course, the knowledge must investigated.

Be diligent to present yourself approved to God, a worker who does not need to be ashamed, rightly dividing the word of truth. (2 Timothy 2:15)


Perhaps an analogy can help to explain what I mean.

When I was younger, I obeyed my father out of a fear of the consequences of disobedience. However, as I grew older, the fear and respect that I had for my father developed into a combination of love and respect. My interaction with him is not now motivated by any fear, but by love and friendship and respect.

A distant observer may see me serving my father, and may think that I am motivated by fear. However, if the observer will come near, he would realize that I honor my father, not because I have to, but because I want to, and my motive is love.

Similarly, as a youth, I obeyed God out of fear. When I was reconciled to Him through the work of the Messiah, then that relationship changed. I still obey, but out of love. The differing types of relationship appear to be:
  1. the obedience as of a slave to the predictable words of a messenger of God; and
  2. the obedience as of a son to the voice of God.

I choose the path of an obedient son, who keeps His commandments, but is also directed by God.

“The wind blows where it wishes, and you hear the sound of it, but cannot tell where it comes from and where it goes. So is everyone who is born of the Spirit.” (John 3:8)


Regards,
Grenville
Your analogy is irrelevant. Once you're beyond 18 (or whatever age adulthood is in your country), your father can't do anything to you, therefor you have no reason to fear him.

God, on the other hand, is the ONLY one that can harm or help you. You have plenty of reasons to fear Him, as well as Love Him.
Reply

Hugo
07-14-2009, 05:47 PM
format_quote Originally Posted by rpwelton
^^ True. Although the last names argument is actually somewhat of a weak one, because surnames were not common practice back then.

However, the Gospels were written by unknown authors, with the earliest one being about 40 years after the death of Jesus, and then decades later they were attributed to some of the disciples. For instance, Matthew wasn't written by Matthew, but was actually attributed to him later.
Let us suppose you are right (though how you can know this I cannot say). Does that mean that everything in the Gospel of Matthew is valueless? What is your point?
Reply

GreyKode
07-14-2009, 05:50 PM
format_quote Originally Posted by Grenville
Hi Gossamer:

We are in agreement.

Regards,
Grenville
You are simply following your desires, interpreting everything as you wish, with absolutely no evidence to back it up.
Reply

Oleander
07-14-2009, 05:51 PM
format_quote Originally Posted by Hugo
He must say what he concludes. However, there is nothing in the passage that even hints it being anything to do with Satan and just looking at supposed similarities is hardly rational is it and looks more like spin that anything else. Arguments that hang on "..could have been" are almost always fallacies because it could have been anything from little green men to Lord Lucan but that is not what the passage says is it?

>>>Hugo, can you name one sigle verse in the OT (what do you call prophecy), which rxactly apply to Jesus without twisting , changing and blown up the whole chapter?
Reply

rpwelton
07-14-2009, 05:52 PM
format_quote Originally Posted by Hugo
Let us suppose you are right (though how you can know this I cannot say). Does that mean that everything in the Gospel of Matthew is valueless? What is your point?
Of course not. We believe that the 4 Gospels do contain truth, because many of Jesus' sayings correspond to Islamic teachings. However, we cannot claim that they are 100% the Word of God because of the issues I mentioned in an earlier post.

As far as the unknown authorship of the Gospels is concerned, this is not something claimed by Muslim scholars, but rather by Christian and Biblical historians and scholars.
Reply

Hugo
07-14-2009, 05:53 PM
format_quote Originally Posted by rpwelton
Grenville, what you are proposing is a dangerous path.

If one just takes the path of "friendship" with God without taking into account any laws or rituals, then people will start making up their own "paths". Is this not how religions such as modern day Christianity and Hinduism etc started? They have "love" but do not have any knowledge. In Islam we have love of Allah, but we also have knowledge of Allah. You need a balance of the two.

If you actually read the Qur'an it continually talks about praying, fasting, following the example of Muhammad, etc. Are you blind to all this?
You have a point but at the start, during the first revelations with regard to Islam there was no body knowledge, no qu'ran to read was there? It was the same with the Bible, it started with Abraham coming out of the civilisations that existed at that time. So I don't think this is in any way a sound argument.
Reply

Hugo
07-14-2009, 06:00 PM
format_quote Originally Posted by rpwelton
Of course not. We do not disregard anything in the Bible entirely as long as there is still some truth in it. We believe that the 4 Gospels do contain truth, because many of Jesus' sayings correspond to Islamic teachings.

As far as the unknown authorship of the Gospels is concerned, this is not something claimed by Muslim scholars, but rather by Christian and Biblical historians and scholars.
I am glad we agree that the Gospels have value. My problem is that they are all we have and they pre-date the written Qu'ran by a few several centuries. In the normal course of things I think you would agree that the earliest copy is the one that take precedence and hence if the Qu'ran differs from the Gospels the Qu'ran must be in error - in other words I can repeat what you say but with perhaps more credibility "We do not disregard anything in the Qu'ran entirely as long as there is still some truth in it. We believe that the Qu'ran contains truth, because many of its sayings correspond to Biblical teachings" - your comment?

Let me say, I have no concerns here as long as we don't bash each other but rather share our common values.
Reply

Walter
07-14-2009, 06:01 PM
format_quote Originally Posted by rpwelton
Your analogy is irrelevant. Once you're beyond 18 (or whatever age adulthood is in your country), your father can't do anything to you, therefor you have no reason to fear him.

God, on the other hand, is the ONLY one that can harm or help you. You have plenty of reasons to fear Him, as well as Love Him.
Ok Rpwelton:

Let us simply agree to disagree.

Remind them of these things, charging them before the Lord not to strive about words to no profit, to the ruin of the hearers. Be diligent to present yourself approved to God, a worker who does not need to be ashamed, rightly dividing the word of truth. But shun profane and idle babblings, for they will increase to more ungodliness. And their message will spread like cancer. (2 Timothy 2:14-17)
Farewell,
Grenville
Reply

GreyKode
07-14-2009, 06:01 PM
Grenville these are you're own words.

The Qur’an makes it clear that Islam did not start with Mohammed.
Originally Posted by rpwelton View Post
Islam is not a new religion; it is the religion of all the prophets and has existed since the time of Adam. However, you cannot take the Qur'an as a whole, believe it is true, and still be a Christian. This is a grave contradiction.
That is classic Islamic religious tradition completely unsupported by the Qur’an. It is promoted by Islamic religious leaders and blindly believed by adherents, but it is entirely wrong since it conflicts with the Qur’an.
Reply

GreyKode
07-14-2009, 06:07 PM
format_quote Originally Posted by Hugo
I am glad we agree that the Gospels have value. My problem is that they are all we have and they pre-date the written Qu'ran by a few several centuries. In the normal course of things I think you would agree that the earliest copy is the one that take precedence and hence if the Qu'ran differs from the Gospels the Qu'ran must be in error - can you coimment?
The OT predates the NT, applying you're same logic we would find most of the NT in error...
Reply

Hugo
07-14-2009, 06:47 PM
format_quote Originally Posted by GreyKode
The OT predates the NT, applying you're same logic we would find most of the NT in error...
So you agree that the logic is correct is that what you are saying that by the time we get to the Qu'ran nothing can be trusted?
Reply

جوري
07-14-2009, 06:59 PM
I believe the Brother told you, that, that which is in agreement with Islamic teaching can be taken as correct and that which contradicts it can be thrown out. Either way Christianity is obsolete given that Jesus was sent to the lost sheep of the house of Israel, and later most if not all the OT commandments were abrogated through some third party character who wasn't even chosen as an apostle!
What is left exactly for one to practice? I mean what are your religious tenets, short of listening to the organ and clapping your hands in churches?

Certainly if I had an organic Chemistry book that was filled with errors, I wouldn't dismiss it as a whole, but have no reason to refer to it if I had a major final exam coming up, if a revised and improved edition is out logic would dictate that it would be what I'd use to ace my finals.
else why are you not practicing old testament laws and adhering to their religious obligations?
Reply

Zafran
07-14-2009, 06:59 PM
the gospels (that they have today) are like hadiths - without the hadith science.
Reply

جوري
07-14-2009, 07:02 PM
indeed, you have a point Br. Zafran.. even hadiths come with a long chain of Isnad, something one can't claim of the bible, and it certainly leaves no room for comparison between the Quran and the bible...
the bible is a collection of parables most written by Saul..
the Quran is the literal word of Allah swt.

:w:
Reply

GreyKode
07-14-2009, 07:18 PM
format_quote Originally Posted by Hugo
So you agree that the logic is correct is that what you are saying that by the time we get to the Qu'ran nothing can be trusted?
Not quiet, why do you accept the NT to abrogate things in the OT and to be more authoritative?, because you believe that it came from the same source GOD although it came later.
So your logic cannot apply here because the source (as we muslims believe) is non other than GOD.
Reply

Basit
07-14-2009, 07:21 PM
The Qur'an we are studying today contains the same words as before it was first written. Every word and every letter in the arabic Qur'an was the same as before. Before it was written, it was first memorized by the prophet Muhammad(pbuh) and once every year, he recites it to Jibreel(puh) to confirm its accurateness. he teached the Qur'an to his followers from which they memorized as well and then into writing.

i dont know yet about the christian new testament bible as i didnt fully read it yet. what i knew is that Jesus(puh) has the very popular teaching which goes "love God with all your heart and honor your father and your mother". but i still dint read any passge that goes, i.e. worship me also, which makes me think the christian belief might be wrong when they do praise and worship for the cross because under the roof of Islam, there is only one God, all praise and worship shall be offered to Him and Him only.

assalam alaykum!
Reply

Hugo
07-14-2009, 07:24 PM
format_quote Originally Posted by Gossamer skye
I believe the Brother told you, that, that which is in agreement with Islamic teaching can be taken as correct and that which contradicts it can be thrown out. Either way Christianity is obsolete given that Jesus was sent to the lost sheep of the house of Israel, and later most if not all the OT commandments were abrogated through some third party character who wasn't even chosen as an apostle!
What is left exactly for one to practice? I mean what are your religious tenets, short of listening to the organ and clapping your hands in churches?

Certainly if I had an organic Chemistry book that was filled with errors, I wouldn't dismiss it as a whole, but have no reason to refer to it if I had a major final exam coming up, if a revised and improved edition is out logic would dictate that it would be what I'd use to ace my finals.
else why are you not practicing old testament laws and adhering to their religious obligations?
How would you know that your chemistry book was filled with errors whether its a later one or not? It is also crystal clear that one cannot ace your finals just because you have a book.

Which laws are you talking about may I ask, just give a few examples.
Reply

Zafran
07-14-2009, 07:30 PM
Which laws are you talking about may I ask, just give a few examples.
Like the rape law or killing someone for not keeping the sabbath - etc.
Reply

Hugo
07-14-2009, 07:33 PM
format_quote Originally Posted by Basit
The Qur'an we are studying today contains the same words as before it was first written. Every word and every letter in the arabic Qur'an was the same as before. Before it was written, it was first memorized by the prophet Muhammad(pbuh) and once every year, he recites it to Jibreel(puh) to confirm its accurateness. he teached the Qur'an to his followers from which they memorized as well and then into writing.
How can you know this for certain or even 50% certain. You can believe it of course and that is matter for you.
Reply

Zafran
07-14-2009, 07:42 PM
How can you know this for certain or even 50% certain. You can believe it of course and that is matter for you.
First of all the Quran is Muttawatir meaning that it is multiply transmitted down to us with scholars who have memorized the Quran and have written it down - from the prophet pbuh all the way down to us.

second - the Quran has a rythem and rhyme and isnt that hard to memorize (you just need a lot of time and effort).


Its like the first surah - every Muslims knows it (by memory on earth) because you need it for salat.

with the bible (NT) you dont have that - simply becasue the core of christainity is about the death of christ and what happend afterwards according to the writers - then a theolgy is made out of it - all comes after christs death - which is the main thing about christainty.
Reply

rpwelton
07-14-2009, 07:44 PM
Read the numerous threads on this forum describing the miracles of the Qur'an. Read its history in how nobody has been able to compete with it, how it was miraculously preserved and the numerous prophecies it fulfilled. There are also historical and scientific miracles, as well as the sheer literary miracle. It challenges the reader, makes him or her think, and presents clear and sound guidance. It provides a solution for humanity's problems.

These are some of the reasons why I believe the Qur'an to be the True Word of God.

Why do you believe the Bible to be the Word of God?
Reply

Hugo
07-14-2009, 07:57 PM
format_quote Originally Posted by Zafran
Like the rape law or killing someone for not keeping the sabbath - etc.
Well this is not particularly precise but I will try to answer and leave you with a question. I will begin by saying that we can exceed the laws demands, we can go beyond that. No one would regard that as in any way reprehensible would they?

May I suggest we look at the 10 commandments as found in Exodus 20:3-17. If you do that you will find that the commandments are in two sections. Commandments 1 to 4 are about our relationship and attitude to God in faith and commandments 5 to 10 are about our action, about how we live and therefore are about the evidence in our daily lives of obedience and service to God. Now if we move to the words of Jesus he said

Matthew 22:37-40 (NIV) – 37. Jesus replied: ‘Love the Lord your God with all your heart and with all your soul and with all your mind.' 38. This is the first and greatest commandment. 39. And the second is like it: 'Love your neighbour as yourself.' 40. All the Law and the Prophets hang on these two commandments.

You will notice that this is also in two parts: one about our motivation towards God and the other about our motivation towards our neighbour. If you take the trouble, and I urge you to do it, you will see that in Exodus we just have commands to do or not do something but here Jesus goes far, far beyond just keeping laws and insists that we do it out of love for God and love for our neighbour.

Do you know what it means to love your neighbour; do you understand the full implications of these words? If you don’t go and read Luke 10:25-37 and you might also like to consider the absolutely startling words of Jesus in Matthew 5:44 - But I say unto you, Love your enemies, bless them that curse you, do good to them that hate you, and pray for them which despitefully use you, and persecute you."

So in perhaps simple terms and example is that we would follow God's command and not covert our neighbours possessions but it is better if we do that out of love for our neighbour rather that as a strict duty towards the law. I don't know for sure but I think Islam and Christiqanity would agree here.

When it comes to killing people which I guess you refer to we step back from that because in the famous words of Jesus "let him that is without sin cast the first stone". This does not mean I don't believe in sin or punishment because I do and there are always consequences of sin and so our national laws must take care of that short of killing. Muslims do exactly the same, for example, I don't see them advocating slavery and concubinage and masters having sexual relations with their slave girls yet it is clearly in the law - so why don't you do it?

Another very simple example: Al-Baqara 2:187 states how God ordained that you mark the distinction between day and night during Ramadan? It is quite plain, it is unmistakable, the method is simple but you do not follow it do you?
Reply

Hugo
07-14-2009, 08:18 PM
format_quote Originally Posted by rpwelton
Read the numerous threads on this forum describing the miracles of the Qur'an. Read its history in how nobody has been able to compete with it, how it was miraculously preserved and the numerous prophecies it fulfilled. There are also historical and scientific miracles, as well as the sheer literary miracle. It challenges the reader, makes him or her think, and presents clear and sound guidance. It provides a solution for humanity's problems.

These are some of the reasons why I believe the Qur'an to be the True Word of God. Why do you believe the Bible to be the Word of God?
Good post and question at the end.

But of course the Bible has miracles and prophesies more numerous that those of the Qu'ran and the Qu'ran contains a good deal of essentially Biblical material. The Bible is also challenging, just read the Sermon on the Mount and it also provide through faith solutions.

With regard to preservation of the Qu'ran there are easily as many arguments against it as there are for it and its literary merit has been question many times even in this board the challenge to pit the Bible against the Qu'ran has been posed many times but never taken up. But I don't know if you would agree but faith is more than proofs. If the proofs were like proofs for gravity then we would have no choice but to believe but God has ordained that we find him through faith.

I believe the Bible is the word of God because the example and teaching of Jesus which I regard as priceless. I have read and studied it all the way through many times and to me it has an unquestionable unity although it was compiled over perhaps as much as 1,600 years by as many as 40 authors of all kinds from rough fishermen to highly educated kings and priests. So for me its not a matter of assembling proofs as such but its about knowing God through that continuous revelation from Genesis to Revelation.
Reply

Hugo
07-14-2009, 08:32 PM
format_quote Originally Posted by Zafran
First of all the Quran is Muttawatir meaning that it is multiply transmitted down to us with scholars who have memorized the Quran and have written it down - from the prophet pbuh all the way down to us.

second - the Quran has a rythem and rhyme and isnt that hard to memorize (you just need a lot of time and effort).

Its like the first surah - every Muslims knows it (by memory on earth) because you need it for salat.

with the bible (NT) you dont have that - simply becasue the core of Christianity is about the death of christ and what happend afterwards according to the writers - then a theolgy is made out of it - all comes after christ's death - which is the main thing about christainty.
Every religion has its core. Islam did not come in one big bang on day one, ready formed did it? the theology had to be developed by men over centuries and many, many thousands of hadeeth - this is irrefutable.

Christian theology is a whole Bible theology and anyone who has read the New Testament will tell you that it cannot be understood or made sense of without knowing the Old Testament because there are quotations or references to it everywhere you look.
Reply

Hugo
07-14-2009, 08:36 PM
format_quote Originally Posted by GreyKode
Not quiet, why do you accept the NT to abrogate things in the OT and to be more authoritative?, because you believe that it came from the same source GOD although it came later.
So your logic cannot apply here because the source (as we muslims believe) is non other than GOD.
As long as we can agree this is about belief then we can get along fine as one cannot prove in any sense that I know, that God exists or did this or that.
Reply

Basit
07-14-2009, 09:04 PM
format_quote Originally Posted by Hugo
As long as we can agree this is about belief then we can get along fine as one cannot prove in any sense that I know, that God exists or did this or that.
Salam! The existence of God is already prooved many times before. From the miracles of God through his messengers, God has proved he is there and he is powerful. when he drowned the army of pharaoh, when he healed the sick through Jesus(puh), when he splitted the moon assunder, everytime you wake up each morning after you sleep, the air that you breathe, the light that you see, these are all things done by God. what proof more is required so as one cannot believe his existence. God is everywhere, he sees everything, he knows everything, and he knew all that is happening and is to happen.
Reply

AntiKarateKid
07-14-2009, 09:21 PM
format_quote Originally Posted by Hugo
As long as we can agree this is about belief then we can get along fine as one cannot prove in any sense that I know, that God exists or did this or that.
You should look harder then. I understand that Christians have a hard time figuring out what God did, with the thousands of sects and manuscripts, but it is easy in Islam.
Reply

Zafran
07-14-2009, 09:31 PM
format_quote Originally Posted by Hugo
Every religion has its core. Islam did not come in one big bang on day one, ready formed did it? the theology had to be developed by men over centuries and many, many thousands of hadeeth - this is irrefutable.

Christian theology is a whole Bible theology and anyone who has read the New Testament will tell you that it cannot be understood or made sense of without knowing the Old Testament because there are quotations or references to it everywhere you look.
The NT its all about Christ and his death - backed by Paul and Johns theology -

In Islam the prophet Muhammad pbuh finished the religion - the Quran is sufficent and so are the hadiths of prophet muhammad pbuh life - which are sayings of the prophet pbuh.

Christainty came about after christ died - then you have men walking around trying make sense of the death of chirst and making a religion on and showing there own points of view.

Thats like Muslims trying to make a religion out of the death of prophet Muhammad pbuh and writing about there own points of views!

Thats the difference.

Just to add in Islam you need prophets to authorize a messege from God - not normal men - thats also a major difference.
Reply

AntiKarateKid
07-14-2009, 09:35 PM
format_quote Originally Posted by Hugo
Every religion has its core. Islam did not come in one big bang on day one, ready formed did it? the theology had to be developed by men over centuries and many, many thousands of hadeeth - this is irrefutable.

Christian theology is a whole Bible theology and anyone who has read the New Testament will tell you that it cannot be understood or made sense of without knowing the Old Testament because there are quotations or references to it everywhere you look.
Hardly. The Quran was completed before his death. Done. No evolution. No nothing. Our theology never changed. Our book was never altered. It was all based on the Quran we had in our hands and the actions of the Prophet which clearly showed us how to act. Every Muslim knows that the best Muslims were the first ones and this has always been our standard.

Christianity has thousands of sects, not one of which forms anything close to a majority. Islam is 85% Sunni. 15% are shia, based mostly in the Iran area. Isn't this a sign for you?
Reply

جوري
07-14-2009, 09:41 PM
format_quote Originally Posted by Hugo
How would you know that your chemistry book was filled with errors whether its a later one or not? It is also crystal clear that one cannot ace your finals just because you have a book.

Which laws are you talking about may I ask, just give a few examples.
You'd have to know something about science in order to understand that.. from a very basic point if your reactions aren't giving you a proper yield because your method was wrong, and later corrected with positive result, should alert you not to keep going about it incorrectly.

Now, I have given plenty of example of where you've forgo God's commandments.

1- do you keep up with the sabbath?
2- is circumcision prescribed you
3- do you pray the proper way as in not treating god as your genie amen
4- are your women modest as per god's laws
5- do you eat kosher meat and refrain from pigs?
6- do you give a mandatory portion of your earnings to charity and not just twice a year?
7- do you fast?
8- do you worship the Lord of the universe or a man he sent?


it really comes down to believability and frankly I have a hard time believing that the creator of the endless biochemical and physiological reaction in the body, the God who gave us the universe and its cosmos, the God who gave us a billion species, and seasons, life and death, children and families, sustenance and emotions.. is the same one who forsake himself, after praying to himself, after selecting a few ineffectual apostles to carry his message, and abrogating his OT commandments through his nemesis, and ****ing the earth for not bearing him fruit, and impregnating women with himself after annunciating himself to them, suckling, using bathrooms, and if I am to go further and be so bold as Martin Luther, had affairs with three different women... It makes for a nice Narnia story but not as a viable way of life..


so in closure, your bible on its own accord doesn't cut it for me, let alone in comparison with other scriptures... frankly there is nothing to compare so I am not certain as to why you try so hard to hammer in moot points?


I am done with this..

all the best
Reply

جوري
07-14-2009, 09:51 PM
format_quote Originally Posted by AntiKarateKid
Hardly. Please do some research. The Quran was completed before his death. Done. No evolution. No nothing. Our theology never changed. Our book was never altered. It was all based on the Quran we had in our hands and the actions of the Prophet which clearly showed us how to act. Every Muslim knows that the best Muslims were the first ones and this has always been our standard.

Christianity has thousands of sects, not one of which forms anything close to a majority. Islam is 85% Sunni. 15% are shia, based mostly in the Iran area. Isn't this a sign for you?

amazingly enough if there was a new t to the old t, don't you think the Jews would have been the first to jump at it?...

there is more to 'irrefutable' truth than just hammering it in with empty assertions, and no I don't have to read about influential speech from his 'research methods' to say that with any conviction.

the Quran stands on its own accord.. else I challenge him to bring in the names of the historians that whispered the Quran in a lyrical style years apart to the prophet?

Media Tags are no longer supported


1 CONSIDER this unfolding [of God's message], as it comes down from on high!1 2 This fellow-man of yours has not gone astray, nor is he deluded,2 3 and neither does he speak out of his own desire: 4 that [which he conveys to you] is but [a divine] inspiration with which he is being inspired - 5 something that a very mighty one3 has imparted to him: 6 [an angel] endowed with surpassing power, who in time manifested himself in his true shape and nature, 7 appearing in the horizon's loftiest part,4 8 and then drew near, and came close, 9 until he was but two bow-lengths away, or even nearer.5 10 And thus did [God] reveal unto His servant whatever He deemed right to reveal.6 11 The [servant's] heart did not give the lie to what he saw:7 12 will you, then, contend with him as to what he saw?8 13 And, indeed, he saw him9 a second time 14 by the lote-tree of the farthest limit,10 15 near unto the garden of promise, 16 with the lote-tree veiled in a veil of nameless splendour....11 17 [And withal,] the eye did not waver, nor yet did it stray: 18 truly did he see some of the most profound of his Sustainer's symbols.12 19 HAVE YOU, then, ever considered [what you are worshipping in] Al-Lat and Al-'Uzza, 20 as well as [in] Manat, the third and last [of this triad]?13 21 Why - for yourselves [you would choose only] male offspring, whereas to Him [you assign] female:14 22 that, lo and behold, is an unfair division! 23 These [allegedly divine beings] are nothing but empty names which you have invented - you and your forefathers - [and] for which God has bestowed no warrant from on high.15 They [who worship them] follow nothing but surmise and their own wishful thinking16 - although right guidance has now indeed come unto them from their Sustainer. 24 Does man imagine that it is his due to have17 all that he might wish for, 25 despite the fact that [both] the life to come and this present [one] belong to God [alone]?18 26 For, however many angels there be in the heavens, their intercession can be of no least avail [to anyone] - except after God has given leave [to intercede] for whomever He wills and with whom He is well-pleased.19 27 Behold, it is [only] such as do not [really] believe in the life to come that regard the angels as female beings;20 28 and [since] they have no knowledge whatever thereof,21 they follow nothing but surmise: yet, behold, never can surmise take the place of truth. 29 Avoid thou, therefore, those who turn away from all remembrance of Us and care for no more than the life of this world, 30 which, to them, is the only thing worth knowing.22 Behold, thy Sustainer is fully aware as to who has strayed from His path, and fully aware is He as to who follows His guidance. 31 Indeed, unto God belongs all that is in the heavens and all that is on earth: and so He will reward those who do evil in accordance with what they did, and will reward those who do good with ultimate good.23 32 As for those who avoid the [truly] grave sins and shameful deeds - even though they may sometimes stumble24 - behold, thy Sustainer is abounding in forgiveness. He is fully aware of you25 when He brings you in to being out of dust,26 and when you are still hidden in your mothers' wombs: do not, then, consider yourselves pure - [for] He knows best as to who is conscious of Him.27 33 HAST THOU, then, ever considered him who turns away [from remembering Us, and cares for no more than the life of this world], 34 and gives so little [of himself for the good of his soul], and so grudgingly?28 35 Does he [claim to] have knowledge of something that is beyond the reach of human perception, so that he can see [it clearly]?29 36 Or has he never yet been told of what was [said] in the revelations of Moses, 37 and of Abraham, who to his trust was true:30 38 that no bearer of burdens shall be made to bear another's burden;31 39 and that nought shall be accounted unto man but what he is striving for;32 40 and that in time [the nature of] all his striving will be shown [to him in its true light],33 41 whereupon he shall be requited for it with the fullest requital; 42 and that with thy Sustainer is the beginning and the end [of all that exits];34 43 and that it is He alone who causes [you] to laugh and to weep; 44 and that it is He alone who deals death and grants life; 45 and that it is He who creates the two kinds - the male and the female - 46 out of a [mere] drop of sperm as it is poured forth, 47 and that [therefore] it is within His power to bring about a second life;35 48 and that it is He alone who frees from want and causes to possess; 49 and that it is He alone who sustains the brightest star;36 50 and that it is He who destroyed the ancient [tribes of] 'Ad 51 and Thamud, leaving no trace [of them],37 52 as well as the people of Noah before them - [since,] verily, they all had been most wilful in their evildoing and most overweening - 53 just as He thrust into perdition those cities that were overthrown 54 and then covered them from sight forever.38 55 About which, then, of thy Sustainer's powers canst thou [still] remain in doubt?39 56 HIS IS a warning like those warnings of old:40 57 that [Last Hour] which is so near draws ever nearer, 58 [although] none but God can unveil it.... 59 Do you, perchance, find this tiding strange? 60 And do you laugh instead of weeping, 61 and divert yourselves all the while? 62 [Nay,] but prostrate yourselves before God, and worship [Him alone]! 1 Or: "Consider the star when it sets" - an interpretation which for some reason has the preference of the majority of the commentators. However, almost all of them admit that the term najm - derived from the verb najama, "it appeared", "began", "ensued", or "proceeded" denotes also the "unfolding" of something that comes or appears gradually, as if by instalments. Hence, this term has from the very beginning been applied to each of the gradually-revealed parts (nujum) of the Qur'an and, thus, to the process of its gradual revelation, or its "unfolding", as such. This was, in fact, the interpretation of the above verse given by 'Abd Allah ibn'Abbas (as quoted by Tabari); in view of the sequence, this interpretation is regarded as fully justified by Raghib, Zamakhshari, Razi, Baydawi, Ibn Kathir and other authorities. Raghib and Ibn Kathir, in particular, point to the phrase mawaqi' an-nujum in 56:75, which undoubtedly refers to the step-by-step revelation of the Qur'an. - As regards my rendering of the adjective particle wa as "Consider", see surah {74}, note [23]. 2 See note [150] on 7:184. 3 I.e., the Angel of Revelation, Gabriel. 4 Cf. 81:23 and the corresponding note [8]. According to the Qur'an and the testimony of authentic Traditions, the Prophet had no more than twice in his lifetime a vision of this angelic force "manifested in its true shape and nature" (which, as pointed out by Zamakhshari, is the meaning of the expression istawa in this context): once after the period called fatrat al-wahy (see introductory note to surah {74}), and another time, as alluded to in verses {13-18}, in the course of his mystic vision known as the "Ascension" (see Appendix IV). 5 This graphic "description" of the angel's approach, based on an Arabian figure of speech, is meant to convey the idea that the Angel of Revelation became a clearly perceptible, almost tangible, presence. 6 Lit., "whatever He revealed": an allusion to the exceptional manifestation of the angel "in his true shape and nature" as well as to the contents of divine revelation as such. In its deeper sense the above phrase implies that even to His chosen prophets God does not entirely unveil the ultimate mysteries of existence, of life and death, of the purpose for which He has created the universe, or of the nature of the universe itself. 7 Inasmuch as the Prophet was fully aware of the spiritual character of his experience, there was no conflict between his conscious mind and his intuitive perception (the "vision of the heart") of what is normally not perceptible. 8 Thus the Qur'an makes it clear that the Prophet's vision of the angel was not a delusion but a true spiritual experience: but precisely because it was purely spiritual in nature, it could be conveyed to others only by means of symbols and allegories, which sceptics all too readily dismiss as fancies, "contending with him as to what he saw". 9 I.e., he saw the angel "manifested in his true shape and nature". 10 I.e., on the occasion of his mystic experience of the "Ascension" (mi'raj). Explaining the vision conveyed in the expression sidrat al-muntaha, Raghib suggests that owing to the abundance of its leafy shade, the sidr or sidrah (the Arabian lote-tree) appears in the Qur'an as well as in the Traditions relating to the Ascension as a symbol of the "shade - i.e., the spiritual peace and fulfilment - of paradise. One may assume that the qualifying term al-muntaha ("of the utmost [or "farthest"] limit") is indicative of the fact that God has set a definite limit to all knowledge accessible to created beings, as pointed out in the Nihayah: implying, in particular, that human knowledge, though potentially vast and penetrating, can never - not even in paradise (the "garden of promise" mentioned in the next verse) - attain to an understanding of the ultimate reality, which the Creator has reserved for Himself (cf. note [6] above). 11 Lit., "when the lote-tree was veiled with whatever veiled [it]": a phrase deliberately vague (mubham), indicative of the inconceivable majesty and splendour attaching to this symbol of paradise "which no description can picture and no definition can embrace" (Zamakhshari). 12 Lit., "[some] of the greatest of his Sustainer's symbols (ayat)" For this specific rendering of the term ayah, see note [2] on 17:1, which refers to the same mystic experience, namely, the Ascension. In both these Qur'anic allusions the Prophet is said to have been "made to see" (i.e., given to understand) some, but not all, of the ultimate truths (cf. also {7:187-188}); and this, too, serves to explain the idea expressed in verse {10} above. 13 After pointing out that the Prophet was granted true insight into some of the most profound verities, the Our'an draws our attention to the "false symbols" which men so often choose to invest with divine qualities or powers: in this instance - by way of example - to the blasphemous imagery of the Prophet's pagan contemporaries epitomized in the triad of Al-Lat, Manat and Al-Uzza. These three goddesses - regarded by the pagan Arabs as "God's daughters" side by side with the angels (who, too, were conceived of as females) - were worshipped in most of pre-Islamic Arabia, and had several shrines in the Hijaz and in Najd. The worship of Al-Lat was particularly ancient and almost certainly of South-Arabian origin; she may have been the prototype of the Greek semi-goddess Leto, one of the wives of Zeus and mother of Apollo and Artemis. 14 In view of the contempt which the pagan Arabs felt for their female offspring (cf. {16: 57-59} and {62}, as well as the corresponding notes), their attribution of "daughters" to God was particularly absurd and self-contradictory: for, quite apart from the blasphemous belief in God's having "offspring" of any kind, their ascribing to Him what they themselves despised gave the lie to their alleged "reverence" for Him whom they, too, regarded as the Supreme Being - a point which is stressed with irony in the next sentence. 15 Cf. 12:40. 16 An allusion to the pagan idea that those goddesses, as well as the angels, would act as "mediators" between their worshippers and God: a wishful idea which lingers on even among adherents of higher religions in the guise of a veneration of saints and deified persons. 17 Lit., "Is it for man to have . ..", etc. 18 I.e., despite the fact (which is the meaning of the particle fa in this context) that God is omnipotent and omniscient and does not, therefore, require any "mediator" between Himself and His creatures. 19 For an explanation of the Qur'anic concept of "intercession", see note [7] on 10:3, as well as notes [26] and [27] on 10:18. 20 Lit., "that name the angels with a female name" - i.e., think of them as being endowed with sex and/or as being "God's daughters". As the Qur'an points out in many places, the people spoken of in this context do believe in life after death, inasmuch as they express the hope that the angels and the imaginary deities which they worship will "mediate" between them and God, and will "intercede" for them. However, their belief is far too vague to make them realize that the quality of man's life in the hereafter does not depend on such outside factors but is causally, and directly, connected with the manner of his life in this world: and so the Qur'an declares that their attitude is, for all practical purposes, not much different from the attitude of people who reject the idea of a hereafter altogether. 21 Namely, of the real nature and function of the category of beings spoken of in the Qur'an as angels, inasmuch as they belong to the realm of al-ghayb, "that which is beyond the reach of human perception". Alternatively, the pronoun in bihi may relate to God, in which case the phrase could be rendered as "they have no knowledge whatever of Him" - implying that both the attribution of "progeny" to Him and the belief that His judgment depends on, or could be influenced by, "mediation" or "intercession" is the result of an anthropomorphic concept of God and, therefore, far removed from the truth. 22 Lit., "that is their sum-total [or "goal"] of knowledge". 23 I.e., whereas good deeds will be rewarded with far more than their merits may warrant, evil will be recompensed with no more than its equivalent (cf. 6:160); and either will be decided by the Almighty without the need of "mediation" or "intercession". 24 Lit., "save for a touch [thereof]": a phrase which may be taken to mean "an occasional stumbling into sin" - i.e., not deliberately-followed by sincere repentance (Baghawi, Razi, Ibn Kathir). 25 Sc., "and of your inborn weakness" - an implied echo of the statement that "man has been created weak" (4:28) and, therefore, liable to stumble into sinning. 26 Lit., "out of the earth": see second half of note [47] on 3:59, as well as note [4] on 23:12. 27 I.e., "never boast about your own purity", but remain humble and remember that "it is God who causes whomever He wills to remain pure" (4:49). 28 My rendering of the above two verses (together with the two interpolations between brackets) is based on Razi's convincing interpretation of this passage as a return to the theme touched upon in verses 29-30. 29 I.e., "How can he be so sure that there is no life in the hereafter, and no judgment?" 30 Cf. 2:124 and the corresponding note [100]. It is obvious that the names of Abraham and Moses are cited here only by way of example, drawing attention to the fact that all through human history God has entrusted His elect, the prophets, with the task of conveying certain unchangeable ethical truths to man. 31 This basic ethical law appears in the Qur'an five times - in 6:164, 17:15, 35:18, 39:7, as well as in the above instance, which is the oldest in the chronology of revelation. Its implication is threefold: firstly, it expresses a categorical rejection of the Christian doctrine of the "original sin" with which every human being is allegedly burdened from birth; secondly, it refutes the idea that a person's sins could be "atoned for" by a saint's or a prophet's redemptive sacrifice (as evidenced, for instance, in the Christian doctrine of Jesus' vicarious atonement for mankind's sinfulness, or in the earlier, Persian doctrine of man's vicarious redemption by Mithras); and, thirdly, it denies, by implication, the possibility of any "mediation" between the sinner and God. 32 Cf. the basic, extremely well-authenticated saying of the Prophet, "Actions will be [judged] only according to the conscious intentions [which prompted them]; and unto everyone will be accounted only what he consciously intended", i.e., while doing whatever he did. This Tradition is quoted by Bukhari in seven places - the first one as a kind of introduction to his Sahih - as well as by Muslim, Tirmidhi, Abu Da'ud, Nasa'i (in four places), Ibn Majah, Ibn Hanbal, and several other compilations. In this connection it is to be noted that in the ethics of the Qur'an, the term "action" ('amal) comprises also a deliberate omission of actions, whether good or bad, as well as a deliberate voicing of beliefs, both righteous and sinful: in short, everything that man consciously aims at and expresses by word or deed. 33 Lit., "his striving will be seen", i.e., on the Day of Judgment, when - as the Qur'an states in many places - God "will make you [truly] understand all that you were doing [in life]". 34 Lit., "the utmost limit" or "goal", circumscribing the beginning and the end of the universe both in time and in space, as well as the source from which everything proceeds and to which everything must return. 35 Lit., "that upon Him rests the other [or "second"] coming to life (nash'ah)", i.e., resurection. 36 Lit., "who is the Sustainer of Sirius (ash-shi'ra)", a star of the first magnitude, belonging to the constellation Canis Major. Because it is the brightest star in the heavens, it was widely worshipped in pre-Islamic Arabia. Idiomatically, the phrase rabb ash-shi'ra is used as a metonym for the Creator and Upholder of the universe. 37 For the story of the tribe of 'Ad, see second half of note [48] on 7:65; for that of the Thamud, note [56] on 7:73. 38 Lit., "so that there covered them that which covered": a reference to Sodom and Gomorrah, the cities of "Lot's people" (see, in particular, {11:77-83}). 39 This rhetorical question is evidently addressed to the type of man spoken of in verses {33-35}. - For the reason of my rendering of ala' (lit., "blessings" or "bounties") as "powers", see second half of note [4] on 55:13. 40 Lit., "a warning of [or "from among"] the warnings of old" - implying that the revelation granted to Muhammad does not aim at establishing a "new" religion but, on the contrary, continues and confirms the basic message entrusted to the earlier prophets - in this particular instance alluding to the certainty of the coming of the Last Hour and of God's ultimate judgment.
Nothing out there compares to the Quran!
Reply

Grace Seeker
07-14-2009, 11:00 PM
format_quote Originally Posted by Brasco
Why do you quote Paul? He never met Jesus (pbuh)!! nor did he ever talk to a disciple!!
As one who accepts the integrity of the book of Acts, I don't believe this to be a true statement of fact.

Acts 9

1Meanwhile, Saul [aka, Paul] was still breathing out murderous threats against the Lord's disciples. He went to the high priest 2and asked him for letters to the synagogues in Damascus, so that if he found any there who belonged to the Way, whether men or women, he might take them as prisoners to Jerusalem. 3As he neared Damascus on his journey, suddenly a light from heaven flashed around him. 4He fell to the ground and heard a voice say to him, "Saul, Saul, why do you persecute me?"
5"Who are you, Lord?" Saul asked.

"I am Jesus, whom you are persecuting," he replied. 6"Now get up and go into the city, and you will be told what you must do."
So, Paul did meet Jesus.


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. 3The church sent them on their way, and as they traveled through Phoenicia and Samaria, they told how the Gentiles had been converted. This news made all the brothers very glad. 4When they came to Jerusalem, they were welcomed by the church and the apostles [aka, Jesus' disciples] and elders, to whom they reported everything God had done through them.
5Then some of the believers who belonged to the party of the Pharisees stood up and said, "The Gentiles must be circumcised and required to obey the law of Moses."

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."

12The whole assembly became silent as they listened to Barnabas and Paul telling about the miraculous signs and wonders God had done among the Gentiles through them. 13When they finished, James spoke up: "Brothers, listen to me. 14Simon has described to us how God at first showed his concern by taking from the Gentiles a people for himself. 15The words of the prophets are in agreement with this, as it is written:
16" 'After this I will return
and rebuild David's fallen tent.
Its ruins I will rebuild,
and I will restore it,
17that the remnant of men may seek the Lord,
and all the Gentiles who bear my name,
says the Lord, who does these things'
18that have been known for ages.

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. 21For Moses has been preached in every city from the earliest times and is read in the synagogues on every Sabbath."

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.
So, Paul not only talked with the disciples, but met with them in a council to determine the future direction of the church. Further at the conclusion of that conference Paul was actually sent out by the disciples to continue doing the very work he had already been doing in the taking the Gospel message to non-Jews and receiving them into the life of the Church without regard to these non-Jews having to become Jews and abide by all of the Jewish Law themselves.


And the book of Acts was NOT written by Paul.
Reply

جوري
07-14-2009, 11:05 PM
format_quote Originally Posted by Grace Seeker
As one who accepts the integrity of the book of Acts, I don't believe this to be a true statement of fact.

So, Paul did meet Jesus.

.

Isn't it amazing how in the not so distant past on a thread I can't be bothered to look for at the moment you admitted to me, that Paul NEVER met Jesus..
why the hypocrisy Gene?
Do you see why folks can't be trusting of anything you write..
stop being so loopy!
Reply

Grace Seeker
07-14-2009, 11:12 PM
format_quote Originally Posted by rpwelton
Yes, Islam means to submit to the Will of God. But what does that mean?

It means you follow all of His prophets and the Message that he sent with them. This of course means you have to follow Prophet Muhammad (peace and blessings be upon him) in addition to the ones that came before him.

If we follow Muhammad, then we know he never taught anything about atonement, nor Jesus judging the world, nor Jesus being crucified. In fact, the Qur'an tells us the exact opposite is true:

And while I actually agree with you on this point, what I understand Grenville to be saying is that your interpretation of the Qur'an -- teaching that Jesus was never crucified -- is just as incorrect as my interpretation of the Bible -- teaching that Jesus was God incarnate. Grenville would hold that neither of these things are actually taught in either of our books and that it is only because we read them through the inherited misinterpretations of our religious traditions that we see them saying any such thing. If, instead, we could see them with the clear eyes that Grenville has we would see them being in harmony with each other and never in disagreement.


(Now, how did this discussion get moved from the "Harmony" thread to this one?)
Reply

Grace Seeker
07-14-2009, 11:20 PM
format_quote Originally Posted by Gossamer skye
Isn't it amazing how in the not so distant past on a thread I can't be bothered to look for at the moment you admitted to me, that Paul NEVER met Jesus..
why the hypocrisy Gene?
Do you see why folks can't be trusting of anything you write..
stop being so loopy!
You're going to have to show me. I've seen you read things into my comments before. I believe I said that Paul and never met Jesus during Jesus' earthly life. That doesn't mean they never met at all.
Reply

جوري
07-14-2009, 11:23 PM
format_quote Originally Posted by Grace Seeker
You're going to have to show me. I've seen you read things into my comments before. I believe I said that Paul and never met Jesus during Jesus' earthly life. That doesn't mean they never met at all.
Indeed.. 'not earthly life' the later addendum is a matter of faith in paul's intentions that are frankly questionable to the rest of humanity-- he wasn't even a chosen apostle.

Thanks for being forthcoming..

all the best
Reply

Grace Seeker
07-14-2009, 11:23 PM
format_quote Originally Posted by rpwelton
Those are Paul's teachings. The fact that you consider him a "super-apostle" or "prophet" is your own belief. We are discussing what Jesus actually taught himself, as Muslims we can believe Jesus, but we will not believe Paul. Please quote me what Jesus said about dying for the sins of humanity.

Jesus did not bring "The Gospels", he brought the Gospel, which we do not have today.
So, you don't actually know what it is that Jesus taught. Rather you accept second hand information regarding Jesus' teaching, just as you accuse us Christians of doing.
Reply

جوري
07-14-2009, 11:26 PM
format_quote Originally Posted by Grace Seeker
So, you don't actually know what it is that Jesus taught. Rather you accept second hand information regarding Jesus' teaching, just as you accuse us Christians of doing.

Allah swt on whose sole word exonerates Jesus isn't an enemy to Jesus or to mankind.. but Paul was a known enemy to Jesus and I reference you, to your own quote above...

I can easily say.. I can't stand Gene, and then after you are dead feign friendship if there is something to be gained, and win sympathy of the foolish and propagate whatever message suits my fancy.. will you come of the dead to persecute me?

You are yet to prove that the Quran isn't the literal word of God, until such a time you do, it is the primary authority on Jesus. Not saul!

all the best
Reply

Zafran
07-14-2009, 11:27 PM
format_quote Originally Posted by Grace Seeker
So, you don't actually know what it is that Jesus taught. Rather you accept second hand information regarding Jesus' teaching, just as you accuse us Christians of doing.
we accuse christians of worshipping the messenger. The the 4 gospels are based around the death of christ.
Reply

Grace Seeker
07-14-2009, 11:28 PM
format_quote Originally Posted by Brasco
Those four writers were just historians. They never met jesus (pbuh). The writers didn't seem to know their last names :) how can one trust their fate on that book?!
format_quote Originally Posted by rpwelton
^^ True. Although the last names argument is actually somewhat of a weak one, because surnames were not common practice back then.

However, the Gospels were written by unknown authors, with the earliest one being about 40 years after the death of Jesus, and then decades later they were attributed to some of the disciples. For instance, Matthew wasn't written by Matthew, but was actually attributed to him later.

Actually, as I have posted before that we do know Mark's last name.

But more to the point, that the Gospel we call "the Gospel according to Matthew" was attributed Matthew does not mean that Matthew did not write it. Personally, I accept that though tradition has long held it was written by Matthew that we can't conclusively "prove". On the other hand, I think the support for the disciple John being the actually writer of the Gospel which bears his name to be rather strong. For we have it from John's own disciple that John testified that he wrote the Gospel.
Reply

Grace Seeker
07-14-2009, 11:30 PM
format_quote Originally Posted by rpwelton
Look, I'm a Muslim because I believe the Qur'an to be the Word of God. It tells us that Jesus brought a book called the Gospel. Now, there are several reasons to believe this "Gospel" is not the 4 Gospels we have today:

1) The 4 Gospels give differing accounts of the same event. To Christians, it's not a big deal, but as Muslims we believe that God would not reveal a book that contradicts itself. Therefor the 4 Gospels cannot be the True Word of God in entirety

2) 3 of the 4 Gospels describe the crucifixion of Jesus. How can Jesus receive revelation of his own crucifixion while he's on the cross and the events to come afterwards? Especially since none of the disciples were present (according to the 4 Gospels). This is similar to the Torah in the Old Testament being claimed to be written entirely by Moses; clearly if it describes his death it cannot be written entirely by him.

3) The 4 Gospels have changed over time. Even though today's more recent Bible editions go back to the earliest manuscripts, we don't even know if what we have today are the texts that were originally penned by the so-called authors.

So in short, the 4 Gospels do not hold up to the qualifications that would make them a book from God. Therefor, we believe what is confirmed by the Qur'an and authentic hadith, but we have to reject all that goes against it, because these are seen as changes made by man, and not the Words of God.

I hope that clears things up.
Yes, it clears it up that it is a point of faith. Which is all well and good. Just don't expect us to accept your book when it contradicts ours anymore than you're likely to accept our book when it contradicts yours. :bump1:
Reply

AntiKarateKid
07-15-2009, 04:21 AM
format_quote Originally Posted by Grace Seeker
Yes, it clears it up that it is a point of faith. Which is all well and good. Just don't expect us to accept your book when it contradicts ours anymore than you're likely to accept our book when it contradicts yours. :bump1:
The question is, of course, which is contradicting Allah?

Consider this for a moment Grace Seeker. Pretend that we both are without a religion and are contemplating what the perfect holy book would be like. Ill give 2 examples.

Book A
1. Variants in its manuscripts
2. Authors in some cases are unknown.
3. Was compiled in its present day form years after its respective revelation, without input from its messenger.
4. If some madman burned every existing copy of book A, most of it would be lost forever, a crippling blow to the religion

Book B has
1. No variants in manuscript.
2. Author is known.
3. Was compiled and completed during the process of revelation by its messenger.
4. If some madman burned every existing copy of book B, its adherents who have memorized it would write it anew, thus ensuring the survival of said religion until every single adherent was killed.



Now, I tried putting in points which you can agree to without controversy. Now in your honest opinion, which book seems more likely to be from God and credible?
Reply

Hugo
07-15-2009, 02:27 PM
format_quote Originally Posted by AntiKarateKid
The question is, of course, which is contradicting Allah? Consider this for a moment Grace Seeker. Pretend that we both are without a religion and are contemplating what the perfect holy book would be like. Ill give 2 examples.

Book A
1. Variants in its manuscripts
2. Authors in some cases are unknown.
3. Was compiled in its present day form years after its respective revelation, without input from its messenger.
4. If some madman burned every existing copy of book A, most of it would be lost forever, a crippling blow to the religion

Book B has
1. No variants in manuscript.
2. Author is known.
3. Was compiled and completed during the process of revelation by its messenger.
4. If some madman burned every existing copy of book B, its adherents who have memorized it would write it anew, thus ensuring the survival of said religion until every single adherent was killed.

Now, I tried putting in points which you can agree to without controversy. Now in your honest opinion, which book seems more likely to be from God and credible?
Now it is fair enough to build a case with criteria as you have done but if oner is not careful one does it to support your own case and not in an open ended way that allows tests to take place. Using you criteria one might come to a decision about book A or B but if I may say so there are many other criteria so your argument is a fallacy because you have in effect introduced bias.

Here for example your criteria have a major and perhaps fatal weakness, you have ignored what the book actually says and you would be a madman to accept any book with just the basis you claim. The book or Mormon (and likely many others) for example meets ALL your requirements. You also ignore manuscript evidence. In the case of the Bible there is a huge collection available. In the case of the Qu'ran there is almost nothing. There are of course many other possible criteria.

May I ask some questions:

Are you implying here that the author of the Qu'ran was prophet Mohamed because if you say it was God then that can only be believed and never shown to be fact.

You talk about variants in manuscripts but what do you mean: manuscripts were deliberately altered, added to or perhaps verses were deleted or do you mean there were scribal errors or defective scripts were used perhaps all of these?
Reply

Zafran
07-15-2009, 02:39 PM
The book or Mormon (and likely many others) for example meets ALL your requirements
Including the last one with unbroken multiply transmitted oral tradition?

4. If some madman burned every existing copy of book B, its adherents who have memorized it would write it anew, thus ensuring the survival of said religion until every single adherent was killed.
In the case of the Bible there is a huge collection available. In the case of the Qu'ran there is almost nothing.
???? You realy havent seen Islamic awraness (dot) org have you -

all the manuscripts dont match well togather in christainty anyway. You can have as many has you want - means little if they dont match. Good start is the famous stoning story and lets not forget about translation issues such as Barabus. Ofcourse the famous Bart Ehrman.
Reply

rpwelton
07-15-2009, 02:44 PM
format_quote Originally Posted by Grace Seeker
So, you don't actually know what it is that Jesus taught. Rather you accept second hand information regarding Jesus' teaching, just as you accuse us Christians of doing.
All we can do is go by the information the Qur'an gives us about Jesus and the parts of the Gospels that are validated by the Qur'an.

While we believe in Jesus as a Mighty Messenger and believe he brought the same message as those before him (worship only God and nothing besides Him and to be compassionate towards our fellow humans and follow the law in letter and spirit) , we simply don't know a whole lot about him beyond that. This goes for Christianity and Islam (if we only go by what Jesus actually said and did, not what others that came later said).

However, as Muslims we don't stake all of our practices on the teachings of Jesus; we have the teachings of Muhammad as he was the last of all Messengers and his life is the most documented life in history, so we know exactly what he taught.

So the fact that we have (outside of the information provided in the Qur'an) essentially what are weak hadith about Jesus (the 4 Gospels), that doesn't really affect us because we don't derive rulings from the teachings of his that we find in the Bible.

However, the reason that Muslims focus so much on Jesus is because we want to explain to the Christians how Jesus as he is depicted in the Bible did not teach the kinds of things Christians are preaching today. When referencing the Gospels, we are not saying this is what he definitely taught (if it is not backed up by the Qur'an), but rather we can only say what he taught according to Christians. And this is sufficient because if we both use the same source (the Gospels) to observe the teachings of Jesus, then we can both come to common terms about him without the Christian needing to believe the Qur'an.

Now of course not every Christian will be willing to believe that, but that is their choice.
Reply

Hugo
07-15-2009, 03:02 PM
format_quote Originally Posted by Zafran
Including the last one with unbroken multiply transmitted oral tradition?

???? You realy havent seen Islamic awraness (dot) org have you -

all the manuscripts dont match well togather in christainty anyway. You can have as many has you wont - means little if they dont match. Good start is the famous stoning story and lets not forget about translation issues such as Barabus. Ofcourse the famous Bart Ehrman.
I think you are missing my point, that selection of criteria to prove something is fraught with difficulty and you must agree with that surely?

You have no manuscript evidence to speak of for the Qu'ran, why is that do you think?

I have Ehrman's book do you have Ibn Warraq's book "Which Koran"? This really is my point, the criteria suggested in the earlier post is clearly designed to support the Islamic position, you use Ehrman (have you actually read it?) but don't read I assume Warraq?
Reply

rpwelton
07-15-2009, 03:11 PM
format_quote Originally Posted by Hugo
I think you are missing my point, that selection of criteria to prove something is fraught with difficulty and you must agree with that surely?

You have no manuscript evidence to speak of for the Qu'ran, why is that do you think?

I have Ehrman's book do you have Ibn Warraq's book "Which Koran"? This really is my point, the criteria suggested in the earlier post is clearly designed to support the Islamic position, you use Ehrman (have you actually read it?) but don't read I assume Warraq?
Bart Ehrman is a Biblical scholar; educated through Princeton's Divinity School and learned in the field of Biblical history and textual criticism (and is a professor).

What credentials does Ibn Warraq have? Did he attend university at a renowned Islamic university and dedicate his life to research in this field? I'm asking because I honestly don't know. His bio is sketchy at best in terms of credentials; all I can gather is that he garnered fame because he spoke out against Islam and became a prolific author. But this doesn't mean he's qualified.
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: 2
    Last Post: 03-24-2023, 09:04 PM
  2. Replies: 7
    Last Post: 03-12-2011, 10:09 PM
  3. Replies: 4
    Last Post: 07-08-2008, 03:00 PM
  4. Replies: 298
    Last Post: 09-11-2007, 07:31 AM
British Wholesales - Certified Wholesale Linen & Towels | Holiday in the Maldives

IslamicBoard

Experience a richer experience on our mobile app!