/* */

PDA

View Full Version : Muslims, what do you think of Catholicism?



Zundrah
03-27-2010, 08:26 PM
Okay, I am Roman Catholic and I have about three great muslim friends at work and we chat non-stop about God and all kinds of religious things all day long!

Is there anything you want to know about Christianity or specifically Rome/ Catholicism? I'd love to talk about it. Ask me anything you wish to. I not going to be offended .

Jesus Christ is a good topic to start on or maybe the Eucharist?
Reply

Login/Register to hide ads. Scroll down for more posts
Predator
03-27-2010, 09:54 PM
format_quote Originally Posted by Zundrah
Is there anything you want to know about Christianity or specifically Rome/ Catholicism?

Jesus Christ is a good topic to start on or maybe the Eucharist?
When Jesus came down and allegedly sacrificed himself for the sins of those who believe in him, what about those who lived before Jesus , what would be their fate?
Reply

Amadeus85
03-27-2010, 10:46 PM
We already have topic about catholicism, so maybe mods could move this topic there?
Reply

Grace Seeker
03-27-2010, 11:49 PM
format_quote Originally Posted by Airforce
When Jesus came down and allegedly sacrificed himself for the sins of those who believe in him, what about those who lived before Jesus , what would be their fate?
They placed their faith in God's promised Messiah. And as with all of the rest of us, God counted their faith as righteousness, indeed they are the model for how we are to have faith. So, no problem, they are saved too.
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
Muslim Woman
03-28-2010, 02:00 AM
Salaam/Peace

format_quote Originally Posted by Zundrah
... maybe the Eucharist?

Welcome to the forum :)

I read a real life joke about Eucharist . A non-Catholic boy was going to marry a Catholic girl . Pastor said , as u are not a Catholic , we will have the marraige ceremony without Eucharist .

The poor chap heard : we will have the ceremony without u , Chris. He got really upset lol ;D

U can tell me more about Eucharist . How does it play role in a Catholic marriage ?
Reply

Predator
03-28-2010, 08:21 AM
format_quote Originally Posted by Grace Seeker
They placed their faith in God's promised Messiah. And as with all of the rest of us, God counted their faith as righteousness, indeed they are the model for how we are to have faith. So, no problem, they are saved too.
Could you show me any such verse from the bible where God told the people of Noah where he would come down as a messiah and die for them ?
Reply

marwen
03-28-2010, 11:22 AM
Welcome to the forum Zundrah :welcome:
This topic shows that you are a very open minded christian.

I have one question just to understand : Has Jesus told people he is a God ? or they just guessed that he is a God based on his miracles ?
Reply

Grace Seeker
03-29-2010, 09:27 PM
format_quote Originally Posted by Airforce
Could you show me any such verse from the bible where God told the people of Noah where he would come down as a messiah and die for them ?
Hebrews 11 lists a number of Old Testament saints (including Noah) and declares that they had faith:
1Now faith is being sure of what we hope for and certain of what we do not see. 2This is what the ancients were commended for.... 13All these people were still living by faith when they died. They did not receive the things promised; they only saw them and welcomed them from a distance.... 39These were all commended for their faith, yet none of them received what had been promised. 40God had planned something better for us so that only together with us [who are in Christ (implied)] would they be made perfect.
Reply

Zundrah
04-06-2010, 07:01 PM
format_quote Originally Posted by marwen
Welcome to the forum Zundrah :welcome:
This topic shows that you are a very open minded christian.
That's sweet of you. I have a muslim friend called Hasan, we get along really well.

I have one question just to understand : Has Jesus told people he is a God ? or they just guessed that he is a God based on his miracles ?
Jesus told His people that He was God. Here is the biblical verse where He said it;

John 8:58 (New International Version)


58"I tell you the truth," Jesus answered, "before Abraham was born, I am!"


format_quote Originally Posted by Airforce
Could you show me any such verse from the bible where God told the people of Noah where he would come down as a messiah and die for them ?
Just before the New Testament, Gods people were promised another prophet (this is exactly where it says that he would come from a virgin). But the Jews never expected that this prophet would claim to be God. This is why they killed Him. His death is because of the passover. I can explain but it would take ages!

format_quote Originally Posted by Muslim Woman
Salaam/Peace




Welcome to the forum :)

I read a real life joke about Eucharist . A non-Catholic boy was going to marry a Catholic girl . Pastor said , as u are not a Catholic , we will have the marraige ceremony without Eucharist .

The poor chap heard : we will have the ceremony without u , Chris. He got really upset lol ;D
:skeleton:

U can tell me more about Eucharist . How does it play role in a Catholic marriage ?
The Eucharist has nothing to do with marriage. If you want to marry a Catholic, you must become Catholic yourself also. No priest would ever allow a marriage with a person who is not Catholic.
Reply

Zundrah
04-06-2010, 07:05 PM
format_quote Originally Posted by Airforce
When Jesus came down and allegedly sacrificed himself
......allegedly!?

for the sins of those who believe in him, what about those who lived before Jesus , what would be their fate?
They followed the laws and commandments of the Lord God, they are fine.
Reply

Muslim Woman
04-07-2010, 11:54 AM
Salaam/Peace


.
No priest would ever allow a marriage with a person who is not Catholic.

but in the Catholic forum , I met some Catholics who are married to non-Catholics , even with Muslims. Well , I did not ask them where they got married .
Reply

freethinking
04-07-2010, 12:54 PM
format_quote Originally Posted by Airforce
Could you show me any such verse from the bible where God told the people of Noah where he would come down as a messiah and die for them ?
There are prohecies in several books of ther old testament such as: Psalms 2:7 (NIV) I will proclaim the decree of the LORD: He said to me, "You are my Son ; today I have become your Father.

Psalms 2:6 (NIV) "I have installed my King on Zion, my holy hill."

Psalms 2:1-2 (NIV) Why do the nations conspire and the peoples plot in vain? 2 The kings of the earth take their stand and the rulers gather together against the LORD and against his Anointed One.

Psalm 22:7-8 (NIV) All who see me mock me; they hurl insults, shaking their heads: 8 "He trusts in the LORD; let the LORD rescue him. Let him deliver him, since he delights in him."
Psalms 41:9 (NIV) Even my close friend, whom I trusted, he who shared my bread, has lifted up his heel against me. - Judus!
ALSO -
Zechariah 11:12-13 (NIV) I told them, "If you think it best, give me my pay; but if not, keep it." So they paid me thirty pieces of silver. 13 And the LORD said to me, "Throw it to the potter"--the handsome price at which they priced me! So I took the thirty pieces of silver and threw them into the house of the LORD to the potter.

Psalms 110:1 (NIV) Of David. A psalm. The LORD says to my Lord: "Sit at my right hand until I make your enemies a footstool for your feet."

Psalms 78:2 (NIV) I will open my mouth in parables, I will utter hidden things, things from of old"


Psalms 69:9-10 (NIV) for zeal for your house consumes me, and the insults of those who insult you fall on me. 10 When I weep and fast, I must endure scorn;

Psalms 69:4 (NIV) Those who hate me without reason outnumber the hairs of my head; many are my enemies without cause, those who seek to destroy me. I am forced to restore what I did not steal.

Deuteronomy 18:15 (NIV) The LORD your God will raise up for you a prophet like me from among your own brothers. You must listen to him.


Isaiah 7:14 (NIV) Therefore the Lord himself will give you a sign: The virgin will be with child and will give birth to a son, and will call him Immanuel.

Isaiah 9:6-7 (NIV) For to us a child is born, to us a son is given, and the government will be on his shoulders. And he will be called Wonderful Counselor, Mighty God, Everlasting Father, Prince of Peace. 7 Of the increase of his government and peace there will be no end. He will reign on David's throne and over his kingdom, establishing and upholding it with justice and righteousness from that time on and forever. The zeal of the LORD Almighty will accomplish this.

Isaiah 50:6 (NIV) I offered my back to those who beat me, my cheeks to those who pulled out my beard; I did not hide my face from mocking and spitting.

Isaiah 62:11 (NIV) The LORD has made proclamation to the ends of the earth: "Say to the Daughter of Zion, 'See, your Savior comes! See, his reward is with him, and his recompense accompanies him.'"

Isaiah 61:1-2 (NIV) The Spirit of the Sovereign LORD is on me, because the LORD has anointed me to preach good news to the poor. He has sent me to bind up the brokenhearted, to proclaim freedom for the captives and release from darkness for the prisoners, 2 to proclaim the year of the Lord's favor and the day of vengeance of our God, to comfort all who mourn"

Isaiah 53:9 (NIV) He was assigned a grave with the wicked, and with the rich in his death, though he had done no violence, nor was any deceit in his mouth.

Isaiah 53:12 (NIV) Therefore I will give him a portion among the great, and he will divide the spoils with the strong, because he poured out his life unto death, and was numbered with the transgressors. For he bore the sin of many, and made intercession for the transgressors.

ON the Crucifixion:
Zechariah 12:10 (NIV) "And I will pour out on the house of David and the inhabitants of Jerusalem a spirit of grace and supplication. They will look on me, the one they have pierced, and they will mourn for him as one mourns for an only child, and grieve bitterly for him as one grieves for a firstborn son.
Psalms 22:16 (NIV) Dogs have surrounded me; a band of evil men has encircled me, they have pierced my hands and my feet.
Psalms 69:21 (NIV) They put gall in my food and gave me vinegar for my thirst.
Psalms 34:20 (NIV) he protects all his bones, not one of them will be broken.
Isaiah 53:9-12 (NIV) He was assigned a grave with the wicked, and with the rich in his death, though he had done no violence, nor was any deceit in his mouth. 10 Yet it was the Lord's will to crush him and cause him to suffer, and though the LORD makes his life a guilt offering, he will see his offspring and prolong his days, and the will of the LORD will prosper in his hand. 11 After the suffering of his soul, he will see the light of life and be satisfied ; by his knowledge my righteous servant will justify many, and he will bear their iniquities. 12 Therefore I will give him a portion among the great, and he will divide the spoils with the strong, because he poured out his life unto death, and was numbered with the transgressors. For he bore the sin of many, and made intercession for the transgressors.
Matthew 27:38 (NIV) Two robbers were crucified with him, one on his right and one on his left.
Luke 22:37 (NIV) It is written: 'And he was numbered with the transgressors' ; and I tell you that this must be fulfilled in me. Yes, what is written about me is reaching its fulfillment."
Isaiah 53:5-7 (NIV) 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. 6 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. 7 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.
there are many more and the NT confirms enourmous amouts of Jesus life. Jeus himself as a man used the OT in the wilderness when he was being tempted by Satan all three quotes from the book of dueteronony
Peace and Blessings to you
Reply

غزالی
04-07-2010, 12:59 PM
you says juses died for your sins. have you any sense like things... A Person committ murder and we give punishment to a non associated person..
what the childish and fantasy stories you have. you have made fun with the religion that only belief on juses is required for salvation.
You have no proof for juses crucifixion. it is cruici fiction.. you can read the story of johna miracles when he save after 3 days and 3 night. The juses had told that he will resemmbles with him and your 3 days of easter also due to this. but when you investigate the juses 3 days you will find the reality that he had no likeness with the Prophet Johna.
you have more than 73 version of Bible and no two of them are identical.You people just have belief on fantasy stories and fabrications..

if you are an open minded person and want to seriously learned reality. i suggest you to see the vedio and books of ahmed deedat . they are freely available on the net and all vedios are available on the youtube.
i am not praising him because he was muslim but actually He was the legend. When you start seeing with non biasly his debates with your main scholars like jimmy swagart etc and speeches on your all topics, you will inclined to accept the facts he presents.., He was more learned and intresting man..
Reply

Zundrah
04-07-2010, 01:20 PM
format_quote Originally Posted by Muslim Woman
Salaam/Peace


.


but in the Catholic forum , I met some Catholics who are married to non-Catholics , even with Muslims. Well , I did not ask them where they got married .
Their husband/ wife must have lied to the priest when they made their vows. They have pretended to go along with it just for the marriage.
Reply

Zundrah
04-07-2010, 01:34 PM
format_quote Originally Posted by hafizsaad
you says juses died for your sins...
We believe that Jesus was God, and that He took the place of the animal that usually would be sacrificed to pay for sins. Jesus, being God, was enough to pay for all sins until the end of the world/ His second coming.

have you any sense like things.A Person committ murder and we give punishment to a non associated person..
We must obey the laws of the country we live in. If they must go to jail or be hung, then we must allow that.

what the childish and fantasy stories you have. you have made fun with the religion that only belief on juses is required for salvation.
Of course, Jesus (being God) will forgive our sins no matter what we do, becuase when he sacrificed Himself on the cross no sin was ever too much for Him to pardon. The same goes for any sin commited today or tomorrow.

You have no proof for juses crucifixion. it is cruici fiction..
Crucifixion, was a very common way to execute a criminal back in Rome. Jesus commited a crime by saying that He was God, so He was executed for it. It is only logical to believe that He was crucified.

you can read the story of johna miracles when he save after 3 days and 3 night. The juses had told that he will resemmbles with him and your 3 days of easter also due to this. but when you investigate the juses 3 days you will find the reality that he had no likeness with the Prophet Johna.
Elaborate some more.

you have more than 73 version of Bible and no two of them are identical.You people just have belief on fantasy stories and fabrications..
There are protestant bibles that were deliberately written in a corrupt manner.

if you are an open minded person and want to seriously learned reality. i suggest you to see the vedio and books of ahmed deedat . they are freely available on the net and all vedios are available on the youtube.

I did once watch a DVD on a sermon about Islam. The teacher was a muslim of course.


i am not praising him because he was muslim but actually He was the legend. When you start seeing with non biasly his debates with your main scholars like jimmy swagart etc and speeches on your all topics, you will inclined to accept the facts he presents.., He was more learned and intresting man
I am sure he is very well educated. I will keep an open mind.
Reply

crackz
04-07-2010, 03:37 PM
why paul said this, "IF JESUS was not resurrected our preaching is vain and our faith is vain". I ask you why he has to say this. Why? Is there any doubt? Why Mary Macdelin was overjoyed when she saw a live Jesus whereas his disciples were all afraid. What is the reason behind two sharply contradicting reaction on seeing a live Jesus. Open you mind I hope you would agree crucifixion is a hoax. Jesus is god is also a Hoax.


Before Abraham was born, I am! does not mean anything. It should be "Before Abraham was born, I was (in their books)".before John the bapptist and Jesus was born, Prophet Muhammad (PBUH) was (in their books). Read prophecy of Prophet Muhammad in the book of Moses (PBUH) in the orld testimony. NOTE THAT PAST, FUTURE, AND PRESENT are identical to the creator of time.
Reply

crackz
04-07-2010, 03:50 PM
John 8:58 (New International Version)

Before Abraham was born (i.e., preAbrahamic faiths), I am (prophesied in their books).

This verse clearly indicate preabrahamic faiths contained prophecies of coming prophets. This is true because ALLAH (SWT) said in the KORAN," We have send every nations prophets and messengers to warn them". Prophet Muhammad (PBUH) was also prophesied before christian faith was born in their books. Therefore I can say
John 8:58 (New International Version)
Before JESUS was born (i.e., prechristian faiths), I am (prophesied in their books).

AND THIS IS ABSOLUTELY TURE. READ the prophecy of Prophet Muhammad in http://unveiling-christianity.com, www.islamreligion.com, www.jews-for-allah.com
Reply

crackz
04-07-2010, 03:51 PM
John 8:58 (New International Version)

Before Abraham was born (i.e., in preAbrahamic faiths), I am (prophesied in their books).

This verse clearly indicate preabrahamic faiths contained prophecies of coming prophets. This is true because ALLAH (SWT) said in the KORAN," We have send every nations prophets and messengers to warn them". Prophet Muhammad (PBUH) was also prophesied before christian faith was born in their books. Therefore I can say
John 8:58 (New International Version)
Before JESUS was born (i.e., in prechristian faiths), I am (prophesied in their books).

AND THIS IS ABSOLUTELY TURE. READ the prophecy of Prophet Muhammad in http://unveiling-christianity.com, www.islamreligion.com, www.jews-for-allah.com
Reply

Zundrah
04-07-2010, 04:29 PM
format_quote Originally Posted by crackz
why paul said this, "IF JESUS was not resurrected our preaching is vain and our faith is vain". I ask you why he has to say this. Why? Is there any doubt?
Paul said this because some people doubted the fact that at the end of the age, there will be a ressurrection.

Why Mary Macdelin was overjoyed when she saw a live Jesus whereas his disciples were all afraid. What is the reason behind two sharply contradicting reaction on seeing a live Jesus.
She adored Him. I do also. Her faith was obviously greater than that of the apostels.

Before Abraham was born, I am! does not mean anything. It should be "Before Abraham was born, I was (in their books)".before John the bapptist and Jesus was born, Prophet Muhammad (PBUH) was (in their books). Read prophecy of Prophet Muhammad in the book of Moses (PBUH) in the orld testimony. NOTE THAT PAST, FUTURE, AND PRESENT are identical to the creator of time
Yahweh revealed His name to Moses. Jesus used the formula "I am" because that was Gods name revealed to Moses.

format_quote Originally Posted by crackz
John 8:58 (New International Version)

Before Abraham was born (i.e., preAbrahamic faiths), I am (prophesied in their books).

This verse clearly indicate preabrahamic faiths contained prophecies of coming prophets. This is true because ALLAH (SWT) said in the KORAN," We have send every nations prophets and messengers to warn them". Prophet Muhammad (PBUH) was also prophesied before christian faith was born in their books. Therefore I can say
John 8:58 (New International Version)
Before JESUS was born (i.e., prechristian faiths), I am (prophesied in their books).

AND THIS IS ABSOLUTELY TURE. READ the prophecy of Prophet Muhammad in http://unveiling-christianity.com, www.islamreligion.com, www.jews-for-allah.com
....there is a problem here. You are quoting from the Koran to tell me what is wrong with my faith in Christ.

We have send every nations prophets and messengers to warn them".
I know that you believed Christ to be one of those prophets that were to convert all nations they went to.
John 8:58 (New International Version)
Before JESUS was born (i.e., prechristian faiths), I am (prophesied in their books).


Christians are the advancement of the Jews. The Jews knew that "I am" was the name of God. When Jesus said to the Jews "before Abraham was I am" they threw stones at Him only because "I am" was the name of God, they knew He was claiming to be God.
Reply

غزالی
04-07-2010, 06:06 PM
format_quote Originally Posted by Zundrah
We believe that Jesus was God, and that He took the place of the animal that usually would be sacrificed to pay for sins. Jesus, being God, was enough to pay for all sins until the end of the world/ His second coming.



We must obey the laws of the country we live in. If they must go to jail or be hung, then we must allow that.



Of course, Jesus (being God) will forgive our sins no matter what we do, becuase when he sacrificed Himself on the cross no sin was ever too much for Him to pardon. The same goes for any sin commited today or tomorrow.



Crucifixion, was a very common way to execute a criminal back in Rome. Jesus commited a crime by saying that He was God, so He was executed for it. It is only logical to believe that He was crucified.

Brother you have to prove what you are saying on the basis of those fabricated statements of bibles, many of which has been thrownout in modern king james version and revised standard version.
here i am posting from your bible, your open required to understand these.

IS JESUS GOD: WHAT BIBLE SAYS ABOUT ITS REALITY ? (SEE DETAIL)
1. Bible says that God is not Man
The Bible says:
Numbers 23:19 “God is not a man…”
Hosea 11:9 “...For I am God, and not man...”
Jesus is called a man many times in the Bible:
John 8:40 “…a man who has told you the truth…”
Acts 2:22 “Jesus the Nazarene, a man attested to you by God with miracles and wonders and signs which God performed through Him in your midst, just as you yourselves know.”
Acts 17:31 “He will judge the world in righteousness through a man whom He has appointed”
1. Tim. 2:5 “…the man Christ Jesus.”
God is not a man, but Jesus, may the blessing and mercy of God be upon him, was a man, therefore, Jesus was not God.

2. The Bible Says that God Is Not a Son of Man
Numbers 23:19 “God is not a man...nor a son of man…”
The Bible often calls Jesus “a son of man” or “the son of man.”
Matthew 12:40 “…so will the son of man be…”
Matthew 16:27 “For the son of man is going to come…”
Matthew 28 “…until they see the son of man coming in His kingdom.”
Mark 2:10 “But so that you may know that the Son of Man has authori-ty…”
John 5:27 “…because He is the son of man.”
In the Hebrew Scriptures, the “son of man” is also used many times speak-ing of people (Job 25:6; Psalm 80:17; 144:3; Ezekiel 2:1; 2:3; 2:6; 2:8; 3:1; 3:3; 3:4; 3:10; 3:17; 3:25).
Since God would not contradict Himself by first saying He is not the son of a man, then becoming a human being who was called “the son of man”, he would not have done so. Remember God is not the author of confusion. Also, human beings, including Jesus, are called “son of man” specifically to distinguish them from God, who is not a “son of man” according to the Bible.

3. The Bible says that Jesus Denied He is God
Luke 18:19 Jesus spoke to a man who had called him “good,” asking him, “Why do you call me good? No one is good except God alone.”
Matthew 19:17 and he said to him, “Why are you asking me about what is good? There is only One who is good; but if you wish to enter into life, keep the commandments.”
Jesus did not teach people that he was God. If Jesus had been telling people that he was God, he would have complimented the man. Instead, Jesus rebuked him, denying he was good, that is, Jesus denied he was God.

4. The Bible says that God is Greater than Jesus

John 14:28 “My Father is greater than I.”
John 10:29 “My father is greater than all.”
Jesus can not be God if God is greater than him. The Christian belief that the Father and son are equal is in direct contrast to the clear words from Jesus.

5. Jesus Never Instructed His Disciples to Worship Himself or the Holy Ghost, but God and God Only

Luke 11:2 “When you pray, say Our Father which art in heaven.”
John 16:23 “In that day, you shall ask me nothing. Whatsoever you ask of the Father in my name.”
John 4:23 “The hour cometh and now is, when the true worshippers shall worship the Father in spirit and in truth; for the Father seeketh such to worship him.”
If Jesus was God, he would have sought worship for himself. Since he didn’t, instead he sought worship for God in the heavens, therefore, he was not God.

6. The Bible Says that Jesus Recognized, Prayed, & Worshipped the Only True God
Jesus prayed to God with the words:
John 17:3 “…that they might know you, the only true God, and Jesus Chr-ist whom you have sent.”
Jesus prayed to God all night:
Luke 6:12 “he continued all night in prayer to God.”
…because:
Matthew 20:28: Just as the son of man did not come to be served, but to serve.
How did Jesus pray to God?
Matthew 26:39 ‘…he fell with his face to the ground and prayed, How did Jesus pray to God?‘

WAS HE SAY "My Father…” ?
Even Paul said:
Hebrews 5:7 “During the days of Jesus’ life on earth, he offered up prayers and petitions with loud cries and tears to the one who could save him from death, and he was heard because of his reverent submission.”
Who was Jesus praying to when he fell on his face with loud cries and petitions? Was it himself? Was Jesus crying in tears to himself pleading to be saved from death? No man, sane or insane, prays to himself! Surely the answer must be a resounding ‘No.’ Jesus was praying to “the only true God.” Jesus was the servant of the One Who sent him. Can there be a clearer proof that Jesus was not God?
The Quran confirms that Jesus called for the worship of the Only True God:
“Truly, God is my Lord and your Lord, so worship Him (alone). This is the straight path.” (Quran 3:51)

7. The Bible says that the disciples did not believe Jesus was God.

The Acts of the Apostles in the Bible details the activity of the disciples over a period of thirty years after Jesus, may God praise him, was raised to heaven. Throughout this period, they never referred to Jesus as God. For instance Peter stood up with the eleven disciples and addressed a crowd saying:
Acts 2:22 “Men of Israel, listen to this: Jesus of Nazareth was a man ac-credited by God to you by miracles, wonders and signs, which God did among you through him, as you yourselves know.”
For Peter, Jesus was a servant of God (confirmed in Matthew 12:18):
Acts 3:13 “The God of Abraham, Isaac and Jacob, the God of our fathers, has glorified his servant Jesus.”
Acts 3:26 “God raised up his servant...”
When faced by opposition from the authorities, Peter said:
Acts 5:29-30 “We must obey God rather than men! The God of our fathers raised Jesus...”
The disciples prayed to God just as they were commanded by Jesus in Luke 11:2, and considered Jesus to be God’s servant,
Acts 4:24 “...they raised their voices together in prayer to God. ‘Sovereign Lord,’ they said, ‘you made the heaven and the earth and the sea, and eve-rything in them.’”
Acts 4:27 “...your holy servant Jesus, whom you anointed.”
Acts 4:30 “…of Your holy servant Jesus.”
This is exactly what the Quran states of Jesus:
Quran 19: 30 “…I am indeed a servant of God.”

8. The Bible says that Jesus was God’s servant, chosen one, and beloved.

Matt. 12:18 “Behold, My servant, whom I have chosen, in whom My soul is well pleased.”
Since Jesus is God’s servant, Jesus can not be God.

9. The Bible says that Jesus could not Do Anything by Himself.
John 5:19 “The son can do nothing by himself; he can only do what he sees his Father doing.”
John 5:30 “I can of mine own self do nothing.”
Jesus did not consider himself equal with God; rather he denied doing anything by himself.

10. The Bible says that God performed miracles through Jesus & Jesus was limited in what he could do.

Matt. 9:8 “But when the crowds saw this, they were awestruck, and glori-fied God, who had given such authority to men.”
Acts 2:22 “a man attested to you by God with miracles and wonders and signs which God performed through Him in your midst.”
Acts 10:38 “…he went about doing good and healing all who were op-pressed by the devil, for God was with Him.”
If Christ was God, the Bible would simply say that Jesus did the miracles himself without making reference to God. The fact that it was God supply-ing the power for the miracles shows that God is greater than Jesus.
Also, Jesus was limited in performing miracles. One time when Jesus tried to heal a blind man, the man was not healed after the first attempt, and Jesus had to try a second time (Mark 8:22-26). Once a woman was healed of her incurable bleeding. The woman came up behind him and touched his cloak, and she was immediately healed. But Jesus had no idea who touched him:
Mark 5:30 “At once Jesus realized that power had gone out from him. He turned around in the crowd and asked, ‘Who touched my clothes?’”
Mark 6:5 “He could not do any miracles there, except lay his hands on a few sick people and heal them.”
Quite obviously, someone with such limitations can not be God. The pow-er of miracles was not within Jesus.

11. The Bible says that at times of weakness angels strengthened Jesus; God, however, does not need to be strengthened.
Luke 22:43 “An angel from heaven appeared to him and strengthened him [in the garden of Gethsemane].”
Mk. 1:13 “Then the devil left him; and behold, angels came and began to minister to Him.”
Mark 1:13 “And he was in the wilderness forty days being tempted by Satan; and he was with the wild beasts, and the angels were ministering to him.”
Men need to be strengthened; God does not because God is All-Powerful. If Jesus had to be strengthened, he must not be God.

12. The Bible says that Jesus wanted God’s will to be done, not his own.
Luke 22:42: “not my will but Yours be done.”
John 5:30 “I do not seek my own will, but the will of Him who sent me.”
John 6:38 “For I came down from heaven, not to do mine own will, but the will of Him that sent me.”
Are some members of the coequal Trinity subservient, and less than equal, to other members? Even though they have different wills (“I do not seek my own will”), do they obey without question the others’ commands (“the will of Him who sent me”)? Jesus admits to subordinating his own distinct will, yet according to the Trinitarian doctrine they should all have the same will. Should one of the triune partners have to forgo his own will in favor of the will of another member of the Trinity? Should not they all have the exact same will?

13. The Bible says Jesus regarded God’s testimony as separate from his own.

Jesus regarded himself and God as two, not “one.”
John 8:17 and 18: “I am one who testifies for myself; my other witness is the Father.”
John 14:1 “Do not let your hearts be troubled. Trust in God; trust also in me.”
If Jesus was God, He would have not have regarded God’s testimony as separate from his own.

14. Bible says that Jesus had limited knowledge, but god’s knowledge is infinite

Mark 13:32 “No one knows about that day or hour, not even the angels in heaven, nor the son, but only the Father.”
Since Jesus, may the blessing and mercy of God be upon him, did not know, he was not all-knowing, and therefore, he cannot be the God whose knowledge is all-encompassing.

15. Bible says that Jesus was tempted, but God cannot be tempted
Heb. 4:15 “tempted in every way—just as we are”
James 1:13 “for God cannot be tempted by evil”
Since God can not be tempted, but Jesus was, therefore, Jesus was not God.

16. Bible says that Jesus died, but God cannot die
The Bible teaches that Jesus died. God cannot die. Romans 1:23 and other verses say that God is immortal. Immortal means, “not subject to death.” This term applies only to God.
20. Bible says that Jesus lived because of God
John 6:57 “I live because of the Father.”
Jesus cannot be God because he depended on God for his own existence.

17. Bible says that Jesus was lower than angels
Hebrews 2:9 “But we do see him who was made for a little while lower than the angels, namely, Jesus.”
God, the Creator of angels, can not be lower than His own creation, but Jesus was. Therefore, Jesus was not God.

18. Bible says that Jesus called the GOD “my God”
Matt. 27:46 “My God, My God, why have You forsaken me?”
John 20:17 “I ascend to my Father and your Father, and my God and your God.”
Rev. 3:12 “… the temple of my God… the name of my God… the city of my God… comes down out of heaven from my God.”
Jesus did not think of himself as God, instead Jesus’ God is the same as ours.
26. Bible says that God cannot be seen, but Jesus was
John 1:18 “no man has seen God at any time.”






[/QUOTE]
Reply

غزالی
04-07-2010, 07:02 PM
format_quote Originally Posted by Zundrah


We must obey the laws of the country we live in. If they must go to jail or be hung, then we must allow that.



Of course, Jesus (being God) will forgive our sins no matter what we do, becuase when he sacrificed Himself on the cross no sin was ever too much for Him to pardon. The same goes for any sin commited today or tomorrow.



Crucifixion, was a very common way to execute a criminal back in Rome. Jesus commited a crime by saying that He was God, so He was executed for it. It is only logical to believe that He was crucified.



Elaborate some more.


WHAT WAS THE SIGN OF JONAH ? WAS PROPHET JUSES REALY CRUCIFIED (INVESTIGATION)

page 01


page 02


page 03


page 04


page 05

Reply

غزالی
04-07-2010, 07:08 PM
Fee Books by ahmed Deedat on the subjects

Crucifixion Or Cruci-fiction (A complete, rational & logical detail)

Was Jesus Crucified

Resurrection Or Resuscitation
Reply

Zundrah
04-07-2010, 09:44 PM
format_quote Originally Posted by hafizsaad
Brother you have to prove what you are saying on the basis of those fabricated statements of bibles, many of which has been thrownout in modern king james version and revised standard version.
here i am posting from your bible, your open required to understand these.

IS JESUS GOD: WHAT BIBLE SAYS ABOUT ITS REALITY ? (SEE DETAIL)
1. Bible says that God is not Man
The Bible says:
Numbers 23:19 “God is not a man…”
Hosea 11:9 “...For I am God, and not man...”
Jesus is called a man many times in the Bible:
John 8:40 “…a man who has told you the truth…”
Acts 2:22 “Jesus the Nazarene, a man attested to you by God with miracles and wonders and signs which God performed through Him in your midst, just as you yourselves know.”
Acts 17:31 “He will judge the world in righteousness through a man whom He has appointed”
1. Tim. 2:5 “…the man Christ Jesus.”
God is not a man, but Jesus, may the blessing and mercy of God be upon him, was a man, therefore, Jesus was not God.

2. The Bible Says that God Is Not a Son of Man
Numbers 23:19 “God is not a man...nor a son of man…”
The Bible often calls Jesus “a son of man” or “the son of man.”
Matthew 12:40 “…so will the son of man be…”
Matthew 16:27 “For the son of man is going to come…”
Matthew 28 “…until they see the son of man coming in His kingdom.”
Mark 2:10 “But so that you may know that the Son of Man has authori-ty…”
John 5:27 “…because He is the son of man.”
In the Hebrew Scriptures, the “son of man” is also used many times speak-ing of people (Job 25:6; Psalm 80:17; 144:3; Ezekiel 2:1; 2:3; 2:6; 2:8; 3:1; 3:3; 3:4; 3:10; 3:17; 3:25).
Since God would not contradict Himself by first saying He is not the son of a man, then becoming a human being who was called “the son of man”, he would not have done so. Remember God is not the author of confusion. Also, human beings, including Jesus, are called “son of man” specifically to distinguish them from God, who is not a “son of man” according to the Bible.

3. The Bible says that Jesus Denied He is God
Luke 18:19 Jesus spoke to a man who had called him “good,” asking him, “Why do you call me good? No one is good except God alone.”
Matthew 19:17 and he said to him, “Why are you asking me about what is good? There is only One who is good; but if you wish to enter into life, keep the commandments.”
Jesus did not teach people that he was God. If Jesus had been telling people that he was God, he would have complimented the man. Instead, Jesus rebuked him, denying he was good, that is, Jesus denied he was God.

4. The Bible says that God is Greater than Jesus

John 14:28 “My Father is greater than I.”
John 10:29 “My father is greater than all.”
Jesus can not be God if God is greater than him. The Christian belief that the Father and son are equal is in direct contrast to the clear words from Jesus.

5. Jesus Never Instructed His Disciples to Worship Himself or the Holy Ghost, but God and God Only

Luke 11:2 “When you pray, say Our Father which art in heaven.”
John 16:23 “In that day, you shall ask me nothing. Whatsoever you ask of the Father in my name.”
John 4:23 “The hour cometh and now is, when the true worshippers shall worship the Father in spirit and in truth; for the Father seeketh such to worship him.”
If Jesus was God, he would have sought worship for himself. Since he didn’t, instead he sought worship for God in the heavens, therefore, he was not God.

6. The Bible Says that Jesus Recognized, Prayed, & Worshipped the Only True God
Jesus prayed to God with the words:
John 17:3 “…that they might know you, the only true God, and Jesus Chr-ist whom you have sent.”
Jesus prayed to God all night:
Luke 6:12 “he continued all night in prayer to God.”
…because:
Matthew 20:28: Just as the son of man did not come to be served, but to serve.
How did Jesus pray to God?
Matthew 26:39 ‘…he fell with his face to the ground and prayed, How did Jesus pray to God?‘

WAS HE SAY "My Father…” ?
Even Paul said:
Hebrews 5:7 “During the days of Jesus’ life on earth, he offered up prayers and petitions with loud cries and tears to the one who could save him from death, and he was heard because of his reverent submission.”
Who was Jesus praying to when he fell on his face with loud cries and petitions? Was it himself? Was Jesus crying in tears to himself pleading to be saved from death? No man, sane or insane, prays to himself! Surely the answer must be a resounding ‘No.’ Jesus was praying to “the only true God.” Jesus was the servant of the One Who sent him. Can there be a clearer proof that Jesus was not God?
The Quran confirms that Jesus called for the worship of the Only True God:
“Truly, God is my Lord and your Lord, so worship Him (alone). This is the straight path.” (Quran 3:51)

7. The Bible says that the disciples did not believe Jesus was God.

The Acts of the Apostles in the Bible details the activity of the disciples over a period of thirty years after Jesus, may God praise him, was raised to heaven. Throughout this period, they never referred to Jesus as God. For instance Peter stood up with the eleven disciples and addressed a crowd saying:
Acts 2:22 “Men of Israel, listen to this: Jesus of Nazareth was a man ac-credited by God to you by miracles, wonders and signs, which God did among you through him, as you yourselves know.”
For Peter, Jesus was a servant of God (confirmed in Matthew 12:18):
Acts 3:13 “The God of Abraham, Isaac and Jacob, the God of our fathers, has glorified his servant Jesus.”
Acts 3:26 “God raised up his servant...”
When faced by opposition from the authorities, Peter said:
Acts 5:29-30 “We must obey God rather than men! The God of our fathers raised Jesus...”
The disciples prayed to God just as they were commanded by Jesus in Luke 11:2, and considered Jesus to be God’s servant,
Acts 4:24 “...they raised their voices together in prayer to God. ‘Sovereign Lord,’ they said, ‘you made the heaven and the earth and the sea, and eve-rything in them.’”
Acts 4:27 “...your holy servant Jesus, whom you anointed.”
Acts 4:30 “…of Your holy servant Jesus.”
This is exactly what the Quran states of Jesus:
Quran 19: 30 “…I am indeed a servant of God.”

8. The Bible says that Jesus was God’s servant, chosen one, and beloved.

Matt. 12:18 “Behold, My servant, whom I have chosen, in whom My soul is well pleased.”
Since Jesus is God’s servant, Jesus can not be God.

9. The Bible says that Jesus could not Do Anything by Himself.
John 5:19 “The son can do nothing by himself; he can only do what he sees his Father doing.”
John 5:30 “I can of mine own self do nothing.”
Jesus did not consider himself equal with God; rather he denied doing anything by himself.

10. The Bible says that God performed miracles through Jesus & Jesus was limited in what he could do.

Matt. 9:8 “But when the crowds saw this, they were awestruck, and glori-fied God, who had given such authority to men.”
Acts 2:22 “a man attested to you by God with miracles and wonders and signs which God performed through Him in your midst.”
Acts 10:38 “…he went about doing good and healing all who were op-pressed by the devil, for God was with Him.”
If Christ was God, the Bible would simply say that Jesus did the miracles himself without making reference to God. The fact that it was God supply-ing the power for the miracles shows that God is greater than Jesus.
Also, Jesus was limited in performing miracles. One time when Jesus tried to heal a blind man, the man was not healed after the first attempt, and Jesus had to try a second time (Mark 8:22-26). Once a woman was healed of her incurable bleeding. The woman came up behind him and touched his cloak, and she was immediately healed. But Jesus had no idea who touched him:
Mark 5:30 “At once Jesus realized that power had gone out from him. He turned around in the crowd and asked, ‘Who touched my clothes?’”
Mark 6:5 “He could not do any miracles there, except lay his hands on a few sick people and heal them.”
Quite obviously, someone with such limitations can not be God. The pow-er of miracles was not within Jesus.

11. The Bible says that at times of weakness angels strengthened Jesus; God, however, does not need to be strengthened.
Luke 22:43 “An angel from heaven appeared to him and strengthened him [in the garden of Gethsemane].”
Mk. 1:13 “Then the devil left him; and behold, angels came and began to minister to Him.”
Mark 1:13 “And he was in the wilderness forty days being tempted by Satan; and he was with the wild beasts, and the angels were ministering to him.”
Men need to be strengthened; God does not because God is All-Powerful. If Jesus had to be strengthened, he must not be God.

12. The Bible says that Jesus wanted God’s will to be done, not his own.
Luke 22:42: “not my will but Yours be done.”
John 5:30 “I do not seek my own will, but the will of Him who sent me.”
John 6:38 “For I came down from heaven, not to do mine own will, but the will of Him that sent me.”
Are some members of the coequal Trinity subservient, and less than equal, to other members? Even though they have different wills (“I do not seek my own will”), do they obey without question the others’ commands (“the will of Him who sent me”)? Jesus admits to subordinating his own distinct will, yet according to the Trinitarian doctrine they should all have the same will. Should one of the triune partners have to forgo his own will in favor of the will of another member of the Trinity? Should not they all have the exact same will?

13. The Bible says Jesus regarded God’s testimony as separate from his own.

Jesus regarded himself and God as two, not “one.”
John 8:17 and 18: “I am one who testifies for myself; my other witness is the Father.”
John 14:1 “Do not let your hearts be troubled. Trust in God; trust also in me.”
If Jesus was God, He would have not have regarded God’s testimony as separate from his own.

14. Bible says that Jesus had limited knowledge, but god’s knowledge is infinite

Mark 13:32 “No one knows about that day or hour, not even the angels in heaven, nor the son, but only the Father.”
Since Jesus, may the blessing and mercy of God be upon him, did not know, he was not all-knowing, and therefore, he cannot be the God whose knowledge is all-encompassing.

15. Bible says that Jesus was tempted, but God cannot be tempted
Heb. 4:15 “tempted in every way—just as we are”
James 1:13 “for God cannot be tempted by evil”
Since God can not be tempted, but Jesus was, therefore, Jesus was not God.

16. Bible says that Jesus died, but God cannot die
The Bible teaches that Jesus died. God cannot die. Romans 1:23 and other verses say that God is immortal. Immortal means, “not subject to death.” This term applies only to God.
20. Bible says that Jesus lived because of God
John 6:57 “I live because of the Father.”
Jesus cannot be God because he depended on God for his own existence.

17. Bible says that Jesus was lower than angels
Hebrews 2:9 “But we do see him who was made for a little while lower than the angels, namely, Jesus.”
God, the Creator of angels, can not be lower than His own creation, but Jesus was. Therefore, Jesus was not God.

18. Bible says that Jesus called the GOD “my God”
Matt. 27:46 “My God, My God, why have You forsaken me?”
John 20:17 “I ascend to my Father and your Father, and my God and your God.”
Rev. 3:12 “… the temple of my God… the name of my God… the city of my God… comes down out of heaven from my God.”
Jesus did not think of himself as God, instead Jesus’ God is the same as ours.
26. Bible says that God cannot be seen, but Jesus was
John 1:18 “no man has seen God at any time.”





[/QUOTE]

Protestant bibles are corrupt.
Reply

Zundrah
04-07-2010, 09:47 PM
format_quote Originally Posted by hafizsaad
Brother you have to prove what you are saying on the basis of those fabricated statements of bibles,
My bible is the same as your Koran; it is only words and neither can be backed up with scientific evidence.
Reply

Zundrah
04-07-2010, 09:48 PM
format_quote Originally Posted by hafizsaad
WHAT WAS THE SIGN OF JONAH ? WAS PROPHET JUSES REALY CRUCIFIED (INVESTIGATION)

page 01


page 02


page 03


page 04


page 05

History is history.
Reply

غزالی
04-08-2010, 05:36 AM
format_quote Originally Posted by Zundrah
Protestant bibles are corrupt.
Either your knowledge is very innocent or you want to be innocent.. have you not seen the references. if you are open minded person then why not open your bible and match what i have given instead of posting lazy arguments. what i have posted is all from your bible.

format_quote Originally Posted by Zundrah
History is history.
your bible is also the part of that history..story of johna was not taken from Quran but from your bible. problem is you dont want to accept the facts.
Dont Become idealistic but realistic.

format_quote Originally Posted by Zundrah
My bible is the same as your Koran;
you can search. your bible is no where match with the quran, Neither a sigle area..
i am not saying bias and irrationaly but it is reality..i am giving just one fact to realize. Quran is same as revealed in arabic more than 1400 year before. not a single verse & sentense changed..you can search. you will found the same quran in the whole word.
There is no God Original word in the bible as it is not in its original language. it is available in translations, version. i don't say bible was not from God. Actually, original bible which revealed to the prophet Juses was from God. But now it has mixed with your priest and authority people's words and self concepts . so you see the a new bible after every 5 decade, there are 24000 thousand version of bibles but no two are matched, there are contradictions, manipulations, confusion in the bible. you have said before protestant bible has these things, our bible is pure... i don't know why you are lying and saying this.. Brother don't think the people are so ignorant, innocent and foolish, there all your books and information available on the net...i have given the reference from your all main books that are accepted by catholics.
Reply

Zundrah
04-08-2010, 05:40 PM
format_quote Originally Posted by hafizsaad
Either your knowledge is very innocent or you want to be innocent.. have you not seen the references. if you are open minded person then why not open your bible and match what i have given instead of posting lazy arguments. what i have posted is all from your bible.



your bible is also the part of that history..story of johna was not taken from Quran but from your bible. problem is you dont want to accept the facts.
Dont Become idealistic but realistic.



you can search. your bible is no where match with the quran, Neither a sigle area..
i am not saying bias and irrationaly but it is reality..i am giving just one fact to realize. Quran is same as revealed in arabic more than 1400 year before. not a single verse & sentense changed..you can search. you will found the same quran in the whole word.
There is no God Original word in the bible as it is not in its original language. it is available in translations, version. i don't say bible was not from God. Actually, original bible which revealed to the prophet Juses was from God. But now it has mixed with your priest and authority people's words and self concepts . so you see the a new bible after every 5 decade, there are 24000 thousand version of bibles but no two are matched, there are contradictions, manipulations, confusion in the bible. you have said before protestant bible has these things, our bible is pure... i don't know why you are lying and saying this.. Brother don't think the people are so ignorant, innocent and foolish, there all your books and information available on the net...i have given the reference from your all main books that are accepted by catholics.
God knew His scriptures would be translated. He guides His word through translation. There is nothing lost by translation.

The bible does not contradict itself. It fulfills itself.
Reply

Grace Seeker
04-08-2010, 05:42 PM
format_quote Originally Posted by hafizsaad
There is no God Original word in the bible as it is not in its original language. it is available in translations, version. i don't say bible was not from God.
I suggest you do some more research. The Bible was written in the following languages: the OT was mostly written in Hebrew with a few small sections written in Babylonian Aramaic; the NT was written in Greek, though some (a minority among scholars) suggest that the Gospel of Matthew may also have been orginally written in Aramaic before being re-written in Greek. While we don't have the original documents, we do have ancient copies of the original documents in the original Hebrew and Greek languages. So, it simply isn't true that Bible is not in its original language. To learn more about how the present translations were made by consulting the text of the Bible in its original languages I encourage you to read some scholarly articles on the matter. This one is not too weighty and provides a good beginning on the subject: The NIV: The Making of a Contemporary Translation, chapter 3.


Actually, original bible which revealed to the prophet Juses was from God.
I'm assuming that's a typo and you meant "Jesus". The view you present is not fact, it is an element of Islamic faith. Outside of Islam there is no substantiation for this view. Personally, I don't think that Jesus ever produced a Bible. Indeed, the whole concept of a Bible (a collection of various texts of scriptures collated into a single book) was not even known at the time of Jesus. We also have no indiciation in the historical record that Jesus ever wrote anything.

But now it has mixed with your priest and authority people's words and self concepts.
Pure poppycock!

so you see the a new bible after every 5 decade
They come much more quickly than that. In the last 5 decades I can name a lot more than just one new Bible that's on the market. But even though they have new covers, and the publishers market them with different names, the original texts that these Bibles are translated from are still the same set of texts. They are no more productions of new Bibles than the Yusuf Ali, Shakir, Pickthal, and Moshin Khan translations of the Qur'an represent different Qur'ans.

there are 24000 thousand version of bibles
Now, do you mean versions or translations? Either way, I believe your numbers are off. 24000 thousand would be 24,000,000. I don't believe there are anything close to that number. In another thread you gave 73 as the number of versions. Please get your numbers straight. I would not be surprised to find the number of the different translations numbering in the thousands. But as for the number of different versions, well, we need to define what you mean by version first.


Brother don't think the people are so ignorant, innocent and foolish, there all your books and information available on the net...i have given the reference from your all main books that are accepted by catholics.
Hafizsaad, why should we not think that people are ignorant, innocent, and foolish? How else can one explain a person holding the view that you have put forth here?
Reply

غزالی
04-08-2010, 07:17 PM
format_quote Originally Posted by Grace Seeker
I suggest you do some more research. The Bible was written in the following languages: the OT was mostly written in Hebrew with a few small sections written in Babylonian Aramaic; the NT was written in Greek, though some (a minority among scholars) suggest that the Gospel of Matthew may also have been orginally written in Aramaic before being re-written in Greek. While we don't have the original documents, we do have ancient copies of the original documents in the original Hebrew and Greek languages. So, it simply isn't true that Bible is not in its original language. To learn more about how the present translations were made by consulting the text of the Bible in its original languages I encourage you to read some scholarly articles on the matter. This one is not too weighty and provides a good beginning on the subject: The NIV: The Making of a Contemporary Translation, chapter 3.

The God says in Qur'an these things:

"Then woe to those who write the book (of Allah/God) with their own hands and then say: 'This is from Allah', to traffic with it for a miserable price. Woe to them for what their hands do write and for the gain they make thereby"

The noble Qur'an Al-Bakarah(2):79
I'm assuming that's a typo and you meant "Jesus". The view you present is not fact, it is an element of Islamic faith. Outside of Islam there is no substantiation for this view. Personally, I don't think that Jesus ever produced a Bible. Indeed, the whole concept of a Bible (a collection of various texts of scriptures collated into a single book) was not even known at the time of Jesus. We also have no indiciation in the historical record that Jesus ever wrote anything.

Pure poppycock!

They come much more quickly than that. In the last 5 decades I can name a lot more than just one new Bible that's on the market. But even though they have new covers, and the publishers market them with different names, the original texts that these Bibles are translated from are still the same set of texts. They are no more productions of new Bibles than the Yusuf Ali, Shakir, Pickthal, and Moshin Khan translations of the Qur'an represent different Qur'ans.
Brother, you still insisting on the Pure bible, Bible original words of God and giving example the Translation of Quran. The Quran has its original words in which it revealed to Prophet Muhammad . The name of translation by persons you have posted are not version but that are translation to that original world of Quran for the People who feel difficult to understand Arabic Quran.

you can see Bible is written in human language (3rd person view and word choosing). Your own great scholars have not claimed that Bible is originally God's words. They have accepted it interpreted, manipulated and contain personal viewpoints mean human words and there are still many contradiction between them.
We will note that every Gospel begins with the introduction "According to....." such as "The Gospel according to Saint Matthew," "The Gospel according to Saint Luke," "The Gospel according to Saint Mark," "The Gospel according to Saint John." The obvious conclusion for the average man on the street is that these people are known to be the authors of the books attributed to them. This, however is not the case. Why? Because not one of the vaunted four thousand copies existent carries it's author's signature. It has just been assumed that they were the authors. Recent discoveries, however, refute this belief. Even the internal evidence proves that, for instance, Matthew did not write the Gospel attributed to him:

"...And as Jesus passed forth thence, HE (Jesus) saw a man, named Matthew, sitting at the receipt of custom: and HE (Jesus) saith unto HIM (Matthew), follow ME (Jesus) and HE (Matthew) arose, and followed HIM (Jesus)."
Matthew 9:9

It does not take a rocket scientist to see that neither Jesus nor Matthew wrote this verse of "Matthew." Such evidence can be found in many places throughout the New Testament. Although many people have hypothesized that it is possible that an author sometimes may write in the third person, still, in light of the rest of the evidence that we shall see throughout this book, there is simply too much evidence against this hypothesis.

it had been changed and still changing according to the need of the period of Peoples, i can give you the viewpoint of your great scholars of bible.

Christian scholar, Kenneth Cragg, the Anglican Bishop of Jerusalem, says:

"...Not so the New testament...There is condensation and editing; there is choice reproduction and witness. The Gospels have come through the mind of the church behind the authors. They represent experience and history..."

Encyclopaedia Brittanica, 12th Ed. Vol. 3, p. 643

Dr. Lobegott Friedrich Konstantin Von Tischendorf,
one of the most adamant conservative Christian defenders of the Trinity was himself driven to admit that:

"[the New Testament had] in many passages undergone such serious modification of meaning as to leave us in painful uncertainty as to what the Apostles had actually written"

Our Bible and the Ancient Manuscripts, Dr. Frederic Kenyon, Eyre and Spottiswoode, p. 3

Throughout this book you will find countless other similar quotations from some of Christendom's leading scholars. Let us suffice with these for now.

the Revised Standard Version (RSV) 1952 :

All biblical "versions" of the Bible prior to the revised version of 1881 were dependent upon the "Ancient Copies" (those dating between five to six hundred years after Jesus). The revisers of the Revised Standard Version (RSV) 1952 were the first biblical scholars to have access to the "MOST ancient copies" which date fully three to four hundred years after Christ. It is only logical for us to concur that the closer a document is to the source the more authentic it is. Let us see what is the opinion of Christendom with regard to the most revised version of the Bible (revised in 1952 and then again in 1971):


"A completely fresh translation by scholars of the highest eminence" - (Times literary supplement)

"The well loved characteristics of the authorized version combined with a new accuracy of translation" - (Life and Work)

"The most accurate and close rendering of the original" - (The Times)

The publishers themselves (Collins) mention on page 10 of their notes:

"This Bible (RSV) is the product of thirty two scholars assisted by an advisory committee representing fifty cooperating denominations"

Let us see what these thirty two Christian scholars of the highest eminence backed by fifty cooperating Christian denominations have to say about the Authorized Version (AV), or as it is better known, the King James Version (KJV). In the preface of the RSV 1971 we find the following:

"...Yet the King James Version has GRAVE DEFECTS.."

They go on to caution us that:

"...That these defects are SO MANY AND SO SERIOUS as to call for revision"

The Jehovah's Witnesses in their "AWAKE" Magazine dated 8th September 1957 published the following headline: "50,000 Errors in the Bible" wherein they say "..there are probably 50,000 errors in the Bible...errors which have crept into the Bible text...50,000 such serious errors..." After all of this, however, they go on to say: " Let us have a look at only a very few of these errors.

In John 3:16 - AV(KJV) we read:

"For God so loved the world, that he gave his only begotten son, that whosoever believeth in him should not perish, but have everlasting life.."

But as seen in section 1.2.3.10, this fabrication "begotten" has now been unceremoniously excised by these most eminent of Bible revisers. However, humanity did not have to wait 2000 years for this revelation.

In 1st Epistle of John 5:7 (King James Version) we find:

"For there are three that bear record in heaven, the Father, the Word, and the Holy Ghost, and these three are one."

As we have already seen in section 1.2.2.5, this verse is the closest approximation to what the Church calls the holy Trinity. However, as seen in that section, this cornerstone of the Christian faith has also been scrapped from the RSV by the same thirty two Christian scholars of the highest eminence backed by fifty cooperating Christian denominations, once again all according to the "most ancient manuscripts."

In the latter part of the second century, Dionysius, Bishop of Corinth says:

"As the brethren desired me to write epistles(letters), I did so, and these the apostles of the devil have filled with tares (undesirable elements), exchanging some things and adding others, for whom there is a woe reserved. It is not therefore, a matter of wonder if some have also attempted to adulterate the sacred writings of the Lord, since they have attempted the same in other works that are not to be compared with these."

St. Augustine himself, a man acknowledged and looked up to by both Protestants and Catholics alike, professed that there were secret doctrines in the Christian religion and that "there were many things true in the Christian religion which it was not convenient for the vulgar to know, and that some things were false, but convenient for the vulgar to believe in them."

There are countless examples in the Bible where verses of a questionable nature are included in the text without any disclaimer telling the reader that many scholars and translators have serious reservations as to their authenticity. The King James Version of the Bible (Also known as the "Authorized Version"), the one in the hands of the majority of Christendom today, is one of the most notorious in this regard. It gives the reader absolutely no clue as to the questionable nature of such verses. However, more recent translations of the Bible are now beginning to be a little more honest and forthcoming in this regard. For example, the New Revised Standard Version of the Bible, by Oxford Press, has adopted an extremely subtle system of bracketing the most glaring examples of such questionable verses with double square brackets ([[ ]]). It is highly unlikely that the casual reader will realize the true function these brackets serve. They are there to tell the informed reader that the enclosed verses are of a highly questionable nature. Examples of this are the story of the "woman taken in adultery" in John 8:1-11, as well as Mark 16:9-20 (Jesus' resurrection and return), and Luke 23:34 (which, interestingly enough, is there to confirm the prophesy of Isaiah 53:12).....and so forth.

christian sect are not even agreed on the definition of what exactly is an "inspired" book of God. The Protestants are taught that there are 66 truly "inspired" books in the Bible, while the Catholics have been taught that there are 73 truly "inspired" books, not to mention the many other sects and their "newer" books, such as the Mormons, etc. As we shall see shortly, the very first Christians, for many generations, did not follow either the 66 books of the Protestants, nor the 73 books of the Catholics. Quite the opposite, they believed in books that were, many generations later, "recognized" to be fabrications and apocrypha by a more enlightened age than that of the apostles.

Well, where do all of these Bibles come from and why the difficulty in defining what is a truly "inspired" word of God? They come from the "ancient manuscripts" (also known as MSS). The Christian world today boasts of an excess of 24,000 "ancient manuscripts" of the Bible dating all the way back to the fourth century after Christ (But not back to Christ or the apostles themselves). In other words, we have with us gospels which date back to the century when the Trinitarians took over the Christian Church. All manuscripts from before this period have strangely perished. All Bibles in existence today are compiled from these "ancient manuscripts." Any scholar of the Bible will tell us that no two ancient manuscripts are exactly identical.

People today generally believe that there is only ONE Bible, and ONE version of any given verse of the Bible. This is far from true. All Bibles in our possession today (Such as the KJV, the NRSV, the NAB, NIV,...etc.) are the result of extensive cutting and pasting from these various manuscripts with no single one being the definitive reference. There are countless cases where a paragraph shows up in one "ancient manuscript" but is totally missing from many others. For instance, Mark 16:8-20 (twelve whole verses) is completely missing from the most ancient manuscripts available today (such as the Sinaitic Manuscript, the Vatican #1209 and the Armenian version) but shows up in more recent "ancient manuscripts." There are also many documented cases where even geographical locations are completely different from one ancient manuscript to the next. For instance, in the "Samaritan Pentateuch manuscript," Deuteronomy 27:4 speaks of "mount Gerizim," while in the "Hebrew manuscript" the exact same verse speaks of "mount Ebal." From Deuteronomy 27:12-13 we can see that these are two distinctly different locations. Similarly, Luke 4:44 in some "ancient manuscripts" mentions "Synagogues of Judea," others mention "Synagogues of Galilee." This is only a sampling, a comprehensive listing would require a book of it's own.
Reply

Muslim Woman
04-09-2010, 01:43 AM
Salaam/Peace

format_quote Originally Posted by Zundrah
,,,. When Jesus said to the Jews "before Abraham was I am" they threw stones at Him only because "I am" was the name of God, they knew He was claiming to be God.

Is Jesus God? Ahmed Deedat vs Anis Sorrosh

The Bible presents Jeremiah as being a prophet before he was conceived in his mother’s womb; “Before I formed you in the womb I knew you, before you were born I set you apart; I appointed you as a prophet to the nations. (From the NIV Bible, Jeremiah 1:5)”


Yet no one says that his pre-human existence qualifies him for deity.



In Exodus chapter 3, God allegedly says: “I am what I am.” Long before the time of Jesus, there existed a Greek translation of the Old Testament called the Septuagint.


The key word, “I am,” in Exodus which is used by Christians to prove the deity of Jesus is translated as “HO ON.” However, when Jesus uses the word in John 8:58 the Greek of the “I am,” is EGO EIMI. If Jesus wanted to tell the Jews that he was claiming to be God he should have at least remained consistent in the use of words or the whole point is lost.

http://truereligiondebate.wordpress....-anis-sorrosh/
Reply

Grace Seeker
04-09-2010, 01:30 PM
Hafizsaad, have you ever heard the phrase, "just enough knowledge to be dangerous"? This is what I think is happening in your case. For instance, you refer to:
format_quote Originally Posted by hafizsaad
an excess of 24,000 "ancient manuscripts" of the Bible
And you have in other posts made this equal to there being 24,000 versions of the Bible. But that is pure fallacy. I used to work in a Christian bookstore. We had hundreds of Bibles on our shelves to sell. But we did not have hundreds of versions. Multiple copies of a manuscript, even of different ages, is NOT the same as mutlipe versions. When you use the term "version" do you know what you mean by it?

As you said above: "The name of translation by persons you have posted are not version but that are translation to that original world of Quran for the People who feel difficult to understand Arabic Quran." I don't disagree with that. It was in fact my point. The production of the KJV, NIV, RSV, etc. are (despite the word "version" appearing in their titles) what you mean by version. They are translations from the original languages into English for those who would not be able to understand it in biblical Greek and Hebrew.

Now, if you want to talk about textual criticism, the process by which a particular text is chosen for translation into English, then we can. But in doing so, the listing of all the different English versions becomes irrelevant.
Reply

غزالی
04-09-2010, 06:03 PM
format_quote Originally Posted by Grace Seeker
Hafizsaad, have you ever heard the phrase, "just enough knowledge to be dangerous"? This is what I think is happening in your case. For instance, you refer to:
And you have in other posts made this equal to there being 24,000 versions of the Bible. But that is pure fallacy. I used to work in a Christian bookstore. We had hundreds of Bibles on our shelves to sell. But we did not have hundreds of versions. Multiple copies of a manuscript, even of different ages, is NOT the same as mutlipe versions. When you use the term "version" do you know what you mean by it?
that was my written mistake only, i know the whole situation. what's about my other post on the bible. You are just selecting what match with your interest.
As you said above: "The name of translation by persons you have posted are not version but that are translation to that original world of Quran for the People who feel difficult to understand Arabic Quran." I don't disagree with that. It was in fact my point. The production of the KJV, NIV, RSV, etc. are (despite the word "version" appearing in their titles) what you mean by version. They are translations from the original languages into English for those who would not be able to understand it in biblical Greek and Hebrew.

Now, if you want to talk about textual criticism, the process by which a particular text is chosen for translation into English, then we can. But in doing so, the listing of all the different English versions becomes irrelevant.[/QUOTE]
lol. again comparing with Quran.Brother i have given a detail post on this topic that your bible is now the wordly description of human being not God (translation). your scripture are written in 3rd person language, "according to Mathew", "According to..." etc. I dont want to repeat my whole post again. Brother we have not just translation of Quran but original arabic scripture that revealed to prophet Muhammad also, not in scriptures only but also remembered in Mind. Thanks to God, not for pride just for telling you, i am also one of them who have remembered the whole Quran, i can recite the whole quran without seeing its arabic scriptures.
Brother don't take this as a debate, it's just sharing of Knowledge. Debate are no where beneficial Because debates like this are always a challenge like "I am better than you." and thats it.
Reply

غزالی
04-10-2010, 05:45 AM
format_quote Originally Posted by Grace Seeker
Hafizsaad, have you ever heard the phrase, "just enough knowledge to be dangerous"? This is what I think is happening in your case. For instance, you refer to:
And you have in other posts made this equal to there being 24,000 versions of the Bible. But that is pure fallacy. I used to work in a Christian bookstore. We had hundreds of Bibles on our shelves to sell. But we did not have hundreds of versions. Multiple copies of a manuscript, even of different ages, is NOT the same as mutlipe versions. When you use the term "version" do you know what you mean by it?
that was my written mistake only, i know the whole situation. what's about my other post on the bible. You are just selecting what match with your interest.

As you said above: "The name of translation by persons you have posted are not version but that are translation to that original world of Quran for the People who feel difficult to understand Arabic Quran." I don't disagree with that. It was in fact my point. The production of the KJV, NIV, RSV, etc. are (despite the word "version" appearing in their titles) what you mean by version. They are translations from the original languages into English for those who would not be able to understand it in biblical Greek and Hebrew.

Now, if you want to talk about textual criticism, the process by which a particular text is chosen for translation into English, then we can. But in doing so, the listing of all the different English versions becomes irrelevant.
lol. again you are comparing with Quran.Brother i have given a detail post on this topic that your bible is now the wordly description of human being only, not God's original revealed words completly. your scripture are written in 3rd person language, "according to Mathew", "According to..." etc. I dont want to repeat my whole post again. Brother we have not just translation of Quran but original arabic scripture that revealed to prophet Muhammad also, not in scriptures only but remembered and stored in uman Mind also. Thanks to God, not for pride just for telling you, i am also one of them who have remembered the whole Quran, i can recite the whole quran without seeing its arabic scriptures.
Brother don't take this as a debate, it's just sharing of Knowledge, i am not bias, you can check yourself what i have said.. Debate are no where beneficial Because debates like this are always a challenge like "I am better than you." .
Reply

crackz
04-16-2010, 02:42 AM
format_quote Originally Posted by Zundrah
Paul said this because some people doubted the fact that at the end of the age, there will be a ressurrection.



She adored Him. I do also. Her faith was obviously greater than that of the apostels.



Yahweh revealed His name to Moses. Jesus used the formula "I am" because that was Gods name revealed to Moses.



....there is a problem here. You are quoting from the Koran to tell me what is wrong with my faith in Christ.



I know that you believed Christ to be one of those prophets that were to convert all nations they went to.


Christians are the advancement of the Jews. The Jews knew that "I am" was the name of God. When Jesus said to the Jews "before Abraham was I am" they threw stones at Him only because "I am" was the name of God, they knew He was claiming to be God.
Read the previous verses and find out the context. It clearly says about prophecy and nothing else.

Read again:

56 Your father Abraham rejoiced at the thought of seeing my day; he saw it and was glad."


57 "You are not yet fifty years old," the Jews said to him, "and you have seen Abraham!"

58 "I tell you the truth," Jesus answered,"Before Abraham was born, I am"

Since the jews were throwing stones he coundn't finish the senctence. It is clear from the context [V. 56] that He was talking about prophecy of coming of Jesus which Abraham knew. Note see also means know. In Verse. 58, he further stress that issue that even in pre-abrahamic faiths I am prophesied. THis makes perfect sense.

Misinterpreting 'I am' and using it as a name of god to justify divinity of Jesus is very weak. It does not make any sense as many Jewish prophets name were actually the name of God. Learn at unveiling-christanity.com

IN addition the correct translation of V. 58 should be as follows
58 "I tell you the truth," Jesus answered, "Before Abraham was born, I have been (prophesied)". The same greek word was translated as "was, have, have been, am".

Go to answering christanity.com to read the translation. There is no evidence that Mary was stronger in faith than disciples. SHe was overjoyed because she was deeply expecting that Jesus was alive and naturaly when ones expectation is fullfilled he/she would be overjoyed. Never forget she give the news to the disciple she didn't say to them Jesus was resurrected but Jesus was alive.
Reply

Grace Seeker
04-23-2010, 01:47 AM
format_quote Originally Posted by crackz
Go to answering christanity.com to read the translation. There is no evidence that Mary was stronger in faith than disciples. SHe was overjoyed because she was deeply expecting that Jesus was alive and naturaly when ones expectation is fullfilled he/she would be overjoyed. Never forget she give the news to the disciple she didn't say to them Jesus was resurrected but Jesus was alive.
Which leaves us only to ask the question that was asked of Mary and the other women, one they never answered: "Why do you look for the living among the dead?" One also wonders why, when the women told the disciples about there experience at the tomb that the disciples didn't believe them? Why, if they all expected Jesus to be alive did the information that he was among the living seem like nonsense to them? I suggest it was precisely because they thought he was dead and, like all the general experiencesof people dying that they new about they expected that once dead Jesus would stay dead. That he was alive is what made the women's message sound like nonsense.
Reply

tango92
04-28-2010, 02:44 AM
no disrespect to any christians, but you would imagine god would leave you a sign, some empirical evidence you could go back and rely on. what you have is a book, containing many errors, of whom most (i believe) of the original authors are not known, nor is there any complete original version. this means even i personally could add or subtract some verses and the book remains "sufficient" for guidance. because noone is checking which copies of he bible are "most" true.

you simply dont know who has added or subtracted or changed passages from the bible. everything im saying i learnt from prominent christian scholars. you cant first hand judge the motives of the authors nor is there any proof regarding your religion or concept of god. infact there is heavy proof otherwise.

put it this way, if you want me to believe god is perfect. then at least show to me the guidance he has given is perfect.
Reply

Grace Seeker
04-28-2010, 01:44 PM
format_quote Originally Posted by tango92
no disrespect to any christians.
I appreciate that you do not intend to disrespect Christians. I wonder if you would have considered it disrespectful for a person to categorize Islam as based on a book that was allegedly given to an illiterate man who claimed to have received it from an angel, but an angel and a revelation that no one else was privildeged to have heard or seen? I wonder if you would have considered it disrespectful for a person to challenge the integrity of that person who allegedly received this revelation or of the alleged revelation itself? I wondered if you would have seen it as disrespectful to argue that the revelation received by Islam must be false simply because it disagrees with a revelation that I as a Christian prefer to accept over and against any other revelation? I wonder if you would have considered it disrespectful to debate the authenticity of the present Qur'an based on Islam's only historical narrative regarding how the Qur'an was compiled over time and that it choose to burn any copies that were alleged by a select few to be in error, and thus actually set themselves up as the standard of what was and was not truth, though they were not the people to whom the alleged revelation actually came?

I wonder if one were to ask the same questions of your faith that you do of others if you would have considered it disrespectful to Islam? And I wonder if you see now that even bigger than the disrepect that comes from questioning a person's faith is to say to that person that you are allowed to question other's faith, but you take offense when anyone tries to question yours?
Reply

aadil77
04-28-2010, 04:32 PM
Grace seeker - you say that the different versions are not versions but translations like in the case of the Quran, so what text are these translations based upon?
Reply

Grace Seeker
04-28-2010, 05:27 PM
format_quote Originally Posted by aadil77
Grace seeker - you say that the different versions are not versions but translations like in the case of the Quran, so what text are these translations based upon?
A very good question. And the answer is, it depends.

The publishers of the various modern language translations (English, Spanish, Russian, Chinese, Arabic, etc.) have a difficult task in first selecting what they feel is the best text from which to translate. Unlike the Qur'an, we don't have a single document that we refer back to (as also unlike the Qur'an we didn't destory all copies that didn't agree with one another), but many. Some translations like the KVJ and the NKJV used the textus receptus as their text (at least for the New Testament, I don't know the sources for the OT). The textus receptus is a compiled Greek text of the NT that was arrived at by comparing various existing source documents, noting their similarities and differences and then through a process that I call educated guessing (but sounds vaguely familiar to the process that Muslims use to determine the veracity of various hadiths) making selection of that which they believe most accuratley represents the original. Others in translating other Bibles have, in differing from those who produced the textus receptus, used the same process but preferred other source documents as the text from which they have made their transaltion. Two of the standard Greek texts in use today are texts of the United Bible Societies and Nestle-Aland Novum Testamentum Graece which is I think used by the NASB. Some publishers, rather than using one of the standard texts, may prefer to produce their own text from among the source documents, but to know the specific answer to your question you'll need to read the introductory material of each translation. Similar processes are involved in selecting a text from which to translate the OT, but I wouldn't be versed in the names of any of those texts.
Reply

Ramadhan
04-30-2010, 03:36 AM
format_quote Originally Posted by Grace Seeker
Unlike the Qur'an, we don't have a single document that we refer back to (as also unlike the Qur'an we didn't destory all copies that didn't agree with one another),
You have accused that there were other contradicting versions of the Qur'an. Please give evidence.


but many. Some translations like the KVJ and the NKJV used the textus receptus as their text (at least for the New Testament, I don't know the sources for the OT). The textus receptus is a compiled Greek text of the NT that was arrived at by comparing various existing source documents, noting their similarities and differences and then through a process that I call educated guessing (but sounds vaguely familiar to the process that Muslims use to determine the veracity of various hadiths) making selection of that which they believe most accuratley represents the original.
Vaguely familiar is such an understatement.
The difference is, in the shahih hadiths, the sources lived with the prophet SAW and were close to him, who said what are known, their characters are examined and known, there is unbroken transmission, the characters of people who tranmitted are examined and known.
Meanwhile most sources of the NT is Paul who didnt even meet Jesus a.s., most of bible authors are unknown.

nice comparison, eh?
Reply

Ramadhan
04-30-2010, 03:38 AM
format_quote Originally Posted by Grace Seeker
A very good question. And the answer is, it depends.

The publishers of the various modern language translations (English, Spanish, Russian, Chinese, Arabic, etc.) have a difficult task in first selecting what they feel is the best text from which to translate. Unlike the Qur'an, we don't have a single document that we refer back to (as also unlike the Qur'an we didn't destory all copies that didn't agree with one another), but many. Some translations like the KVJ and the NKJV used the textus receptus as their text (at least for the New Testament, I don't know the sources for the OT). The textus receptus is a compiled Greek text of the NT that was arrived at by comparing various existing source documents, noting their similarities and differences and then through a process that I call educated guessing (but sounds vaguely familiar to the process that Muslims use to determine the veracity of various hadiths) making selection of that which they believe most accuratley represents the original. Others in translating other Bibles have, in differing from those who produced the textus receptus, used the same process but preferred other source documents as the text from which they have made their transaltion. Two of the standard Greek texts in use today are texts of the United Bible Societies and Nestle-Aland Novum Testamentum Graece which is I think used by the NASB. Some publishers, rather than using one of the standard texts, may prefer to produce their own text from among the source documents, but to know the specific answer to your question you'll need to read the introductory material of each translation. Similar processes are involved in selecting a text from which to translate the OT, but I wouldn't be versed in the names of any of those texts.

Per usual, all this long winded sentences just to say: we don't even know if there was an original bible. various people made up stories along the way.
Reply

tango92
04-30-2010, 04:46 AM
if answering these questions would allow you to come to a greater understanding of islam i would feel no disrespect at all, in any case the 'issues' you have raised are all minor and once youve realised quran is the VERBATIM word of god then these questions become non issues. and anyway i know there are not satisfactory anwers to the questions in my above post.

most christians think that they are no different from muslims, you couldnt be further from the truth. picking a faith and hoping its the right one is a pretty unintelligent route.

may Allah give you sincerity
Reply

Grace Seeker
04-30-2010, 04:53 AM
format_quote Originally Posted by tango92
most christians think that they are no different from muslims, you couldnt be further from the truth. picking a faith and hoping its the right one is a pretty unintelligent route.
And I'm sure that is meant with the same respect toward Christians that your previous post carried with it.

may Allah give you sincerity
I wish you the same.
Reply

tango92
04-30-2010, 05:00 AM
nope it wasnt,

sometimes you need to be harsh to be honest
Reply

Grace Seeker
04-30-2010, 08:03 AM
format_quote Originally Posted by naidamar
You have accused that there were other contradicting versions of the Qur'an. Please give evidence.
Surely you know your own history better than I do. All I recall without going back to look stuff up is that the Qur'an was compiled at a later date, after the death of the prophet. At that time one of those who knew the prophet had all of the existing copies of the Qur'an brought together and they were read. That that were judged to be in err were desstoryed. Now, if they were truly known to be in err that makes sense. But that means one is placing confidence not in the Prophet, but in one of the Prophet's companions and his ability to perfectly know what it was that had been revealed to the Prophet. That's called faith. I don't blame you for having faith. Unlike Tango, I don't even consider picking a faith and hoping its right to be an unintelligent route. But that they had to destory some for being wrong, means that just as there are variant readings of the original copies of the writings of the Bible, so also there were variant readings of the Qur'an at some point in the history of Islam. Islam destroyed its variants -- I'll not question the motives, I'll assume for perfectly good reason -- but it did have variants, just like there are variant readings of the Bible which we chose not to destroy. (Though in some Christian communities that happened as well.)


Meanwhile most sources of the NT is Paul who didnt even meet Jesus a.s., most of bible authors are unknown.

nice comparison, eh?
I'm not sure that all of the hadiths are witnessed to by people who were companions of the prophets. No doubt most of those that are most strongly attested are, but I believe there are others that have less support and for which the attestation is a longer chain with someone reporting that some said that some said that a companion of the prophet heard ________________. I don't call that a contemporaneous source. And even those who cite the dependability of hadiths give less credence to some than to others for exactly such reasons.

As to the sources of the N.T., you don't have your facts straight. Most of the sources of the NT is not Paul. He may have been the biggest single contributor, but the contributions by other authors totals more than the work of Paul: 13 books by Paul, 14 books by those other than Paul; 87 chapters by Paul, 173 chapters by those other tahn Paul; Neither by number of books, this is so with any other standard I can think of measuring the relative size of the Pauline vs non-Pauline contributions to the New Testament -- for instance on my hard drive the non-Pauline works of the New Testament take up 1.4 MB, while the Pauline works of the New Testament take up only 514 KB.

And as far as who the various authors of the Bible are:
Genesis -- tradition is Moses, most likely he compiled the stories of oral tradition and it was edited by unknown others
Exodus -- tradition is Moses, most likely he recorded the major part and it was edited by unknown others
Leviticus -- tradition is Moses, most likely he recorded the major part and it was edited by unknown others
Numbers -- tradition is Moses, most likely he recorded the major part and it was edited by unknown others
Deuteronomy -- tradition is Moses, most likely he recorded the major part and it was edited by unknown others
Joshua -- unidentified, though Joshua specifically known to have written portions of it according to the testimony of the book itself, Eleazar most likely wrote other parts
Judges -- written and compiled by an unnamed prophet, traditionally authorship assigned to Samuel
Ruth -- unknown
1 Samuel -- unknown, likely authors include: Abiathar, Nathan, Gad, and pupils from Samuel's school of prophets
2 Samuel -- ditto
1 Kings -- unknown Jewish captive in Babylon
2 Kings -- ditto
1 Chronicles -- most likely Ezra
2 Chronicles -- ditto
Ezra -- Ezra
Nehemiah -- Nehemiah (at least mostly, possible editing by redactors who borrowed from Ezra)
Esther -- unknown, some have suggested Ezra or Nehemian, but most likely a Jew living in Persia in the latter half of the 5th century BC
Job -- anonymous, many suggested authors such as Moses, Solomon, a contemporary of Solomon, Isaiah, Jereamiah, Baruch, and even Job himself
Psalms -- 73 of the 150 specfically ascribed to David; 10 to the sons of Korah; 12 to Asaph; 2 to Solomon; 1 to Ethan; 1 to Heman; 1 to Moses; 50 are anonymous though 4 of these are reported in other places in scripture as having been written by David and many others are suspected of having been
Proverbs -- most of this material originated with Solomon; chapters 30 and 31 are assigned to Agur and Lemuel, respectively; chapters 25-29 were written by Solomon but edited by a committee appointed by King Hezekiah some 200 years later
Ecclesiastes -- actually unnamed, but vs. 1:1 identifies the author as "the son of David, king of Jerusalem" several people fit that description traditional authorship is assigned to Solomon (though some commentators think the author was an anonymous impersonator of Solomon)
Song of Solomon -- Solomon
Isaiah -- Isaiah and Isaiah's disciples
Jeremiah -- Jeremiah
Lamentations -- Jeremiah
Ezekiel -- Ezekiel
Daniel -- Daniel (though many liberal "scholars" disagree arguing that the description of the various miracles are fiction and therefore must not be by the prophet)
Hosea -- Hosea
Joel -- Joel
Amos -- Amos
Obadiah -- Obadiah
Jonah -- traditional view is Jonah (again liberal "scholars" dispute any identification of the book's author)
Micah -- Micah
Nahum -- Nahum
Habakkuk -- Habakkuk
Zephaniah -- Zephaniah
Haggai -- Haggai
Zechariah -- Zechariah (a prophet from around 520 BC, and not to be confused with several other Zechariahs mentioned in the Bible)
Malachi -- Malachiah
Matthew -- not specified in the book, the best evidence supports the unanimous traditional assignment of this book to Jesus' disciple Matthew, son of Alphaeus
Mark -- not specificed in the book, the early church Fathers testified that the book was the work of John Mark
Luke -- not specified in the book, the oldest manuscript of the gospel and all the early church fathers attribute it to Luke
John -- not specified in the book, the testimony of John's own disciple is that John said he wrote the book
Acts -- not specified in the book, but it was definitely written by the same person who wrote Luke
Romans -- Paul
1 Corinthians -- Paul
2 Corinthians -- Paul
Galatians -- Paul
Ephesians -- Paul, though his authorship is disputed by some
Philippians -- Paul
Colossians -- Paul, though his authorship is disputed by some
1 Thessalonians -- Paul
2 Thessalonians -- Paul, though his authorship is disputed by some
1 Timothy -- Paul, though his authorship is disputed by some
2 Timothy -- Paul, though his authorship is disputed by some
Titus -- Paul, though his authorship is disputed by some
Philemon -- Paul
Hebrews -- unknown (at one time thought to have been by Paul, but it never had the testimony of all of the church Fathers, indeed some think it might have been written by Clement of Rome)
James -- James (I believe James the half-brother of Jesus, others would claim another James with the second most likely being the Apostle James, brother of John)
1 Peter -- Peter
2 Peter -- internally it claims to be the work of Peter, many scholars think it was written too late to have been written by the real Peter, the earliest recorded doubt of its authenticity was from Origen (c. 185 - 254 AD) who also accepts it in another source
1 John -- John the apostle and author of the Gospel (I'm aware of those who dispute all Johanine literature as authentically John, I just vehemently disagree with them)
2 John -- same author as 1 John
3 John -- same author as 1 John
Jude -- Jude, brother of James (the half-brother of Jesus)
Revelation -- John
Reply

aadil77
04-30-2010, 08:12 AM
format_quote Originally Posted by Grace Seeker
A very good question. And the answer is, it depends.

The publishers of the various modern language translations (English, Spanish, Russian, Chinese, Arabic, etc.) have a difficult task in first selecting what they feel is the best text from which to translate. Unlike the Qur'an, we don't have a single document that we refer back to (as also unlike the Qur'an we didn't destory all copies that didn't agree with one another), but many. Some translations like the KVJ and the NKJV used the textus receptus as their text (at least for the New Testament, I don't know the sources for the OT). The textus receptus is a compiled Greek text of the NT that was arrived at by comparing various existing source documents, noting their similarities and differences and then through a process that I call educated guessing (but sounds vaguely familiar to the process that Muslims use to determine the veracity of various hadiths) making selection of that which they believe most accuratley represents the original. Others in translating other Bibles have, in differing from those who produced the textus receptus, used the same process but preferred other source documents as the text from which they have made their transaltion. Two of the standard Greek texts in use today are texts of the United Bible Societies and Nestle-Aland Novum Testamentum Graece which is I think used by the NASB. Some publishers, rather than using one of the standard texts, may prefer to produce their own text from among the source documents, but to know the specific answer to your question you'll need to read the introductory material of each translation. Similar processes are involved in selecting a text from which to translate the OT, but I wouldn't be versed in the names of any of those texts.
There were never any contradicting versions of the quran before its compilation

You say they were based upon greek texts, so was the bible revealed in greece? Or is the greek text a translation of another text?

You've made it clear that you don't have a single text to translate from and that different texts did contradict with each other, thats means their are different versions of the bible and not simply translations
Reply

Grace Seeker
04-30-2010, 08:41 AM
format_quote Originally Posted by aadil77
There were never any contradicting versions of the quran before its compilation
That's not the story I understood it from other Islamic sources. But my memory sometimes does fail me. Right now it fails me on where I first learned that. Or perhaps it is failing me because I was confused at the time and am remembering it wrong.


You say they were based upon greek texts, so was the bible revealed in greece? Or is the greek text a translation of another text?

You've made it clear that you don't have a single text to translate from and that different texts did contradict with each other, thats means their are different versions of the bible and not simply translations
Most of the OT was written in Hebrew. Most (if not all) of the NT was written in Greek.

The Bible is not, and never was, a single book. It is a collection of many different books. Those books circulated as independent scrolls and parchments. These independent documents were the originals. They were copied and recopied -- with respect to the OT over many centuries, and even with the NT it was in the 300s before the scrolls were bound together into codexes the first immediate precursors of our modern book format that one finds the Bible published in today. So, even the search for a single text is misplaced, you need to search for single texts. A single text for each of the separate books of the Bible. One doesn't ask about the original Bible, but about the original Matthew or the original John. And yes, at one time, there would have been a single original text for each book.

But, of course, they made copies of those original texts -- originals which have been lost to the ravages of time and mostly reverted to dust. And, in copying, multiple copies, not just single copies were made. And over time there were errors made in the copying process. There were even occassions when redactors intentionally tried their hand at re-writing parts of the text. Does this impact our ability to produce an original Bible? You bet it does. But not as much as you might think. Now, if you want to know why it is that this is so, I'll be glad to explain why in a thread devoted to the Bible. Long ago we hijacked this thread away from its original purpose, but a thorough explanation of Biblical source documentation probably belongs some place other than in a thread asking Muslims what they think of Catholicism.
Reply

aadil77
04-30-2010, 08:57 AM
Why was the new testament written in greek? I thought the whole of the bible was revealed in aramaic, isn't that the language Jesus (pbuh) spoke? I'd ask these questions in the 'answers from christians' thread, but it doesn't exist
Reply

Grace Seeker
04-30-2010, 09:28 AM
format_quote Originally Posted by aadil77
Why was the new testament written in greek? I thought the whole of the bible was revealed in aramaic, isn't that the language Jesus (pbuh) spoke? I'd ask these questions in the 'answers from christians' thread, but it doesn't exist
No. Only a very small portion of the Bible is written in Aramaic. Aramaic wasn't even spoken by the Jews until they returned from the Babylonian exile, most of the OT was completed in Hebrew long before then.

As for the NT, there are multiple reasons that it is mostly in Greek. But primarily it was written in Greek for the same reason that this forum is written in English. Both happen to be the common langauge of international social discourse of their respective times. Once Christianity left the confines of Palestine, and especially after it became popular among gentiles as much or more so than it was among those of Jewish background, Greek was the principle language of the churches. So steeped were the first century Christian churches in the use of Greek, even when they read from the OT they chose to use the Greek translation of the Jewish scriptures rather than the original Hebrew versions of them.

The first Christian writings that became part of the NT were not the Gospels telling of the life of Jesus, but letters written to Greek-speaking churches. The first of the Gospels that were written (Mark), was written by a non-Palestinian, diaspora-Greek-speaking Jew. The second (Luke), by a Greek-speaking gentile. The third (Matthew), which might have been originally written in Aramaic, but the oldest copies we have are in Greek with the closest we have to an extant Aramaic version of it actually being in Syriac and a copy a whole century older. The fourth Gospel (John), being written by an Aramaic-speaking palestinian Jew who had lived the last 30 years of his life exiled onto a Greek-speaking island in the middle of the Greek world and stylistically written so as to make an appeal to that audience.

It's also actually very likely that Jesus spoke Greek as fluently as he spoke Aramaic. I'm not saying that Aramaic was not his first tongue, but it is most likely that he was tri-lingual, as were most who indulged in commerce in the region of Galilee where Jesus was from. Aramaic for home life. Greek in the marketplace. And Latin when dealing with the ruling Romans. Even the sign which gave the reason for his execution above Jesus' head was written in all three languages.
Reply

aadil77
04-30-2010, 09:38 AM
Wait I thought the bible was god's words revealed through prophet Jesus then written down by some people, why do different languages come into it and 'letters to churches'? Doesn't that make parts of the bible man made and therefore not meant to be part of bible?
Reply

Grace Seeker
04-30-2010, 02:21 PM
format_quote Originally Posted by aadil77
Wait I thought the bible was god's words revealed through prophet Jesus then written down by some people
Then someone informed you wrong. None of it fits that description, not even the Gospels which tell in narrative form what God did in and through Jesus' life. In telling that story, the Gospels report some of Jesus' words; but what God was doing, not Jesus' words, is what we mean when we speak of the gospel message.


Doesn't that make parts of the bible man made and therefore not meant to be part of bible?
The Bible is very much a product of both God and human authors combined. The biblical authors are not merely pens in the hand of God; they do indeed influence the style (and probably even the content) of what is written. The Bible is a completely different sort of book than the Qur'an in that regard. There is no comparison, and one misunderstands the Bible when one tries to judge it is if it were penned by God.


Again, I think we are doing injustice to this thread. I would start a new thread with an exposition on the Bible, but fear it would not be acceptable because it would be seen a promoting something other than Islam. I do wonder what happened to that thread Woodrow designed for asking questions of Christians?
Reply

aadil77
04-30-2010, 04:07 PM
yh lets leave it here then, the other thread was best for this
Reply

جوري
04-30-2010, 04:19 PM
To the OP.. I think very poorly of Christianity in general, and catholics are probably the most corrupt of the bunch.. although I don't know that you can stratify paganism, does it matter if you take one idol vs. several that is as an object of your adoration, if the very core of your religion is in error and extremely convoluted .. bottoms line without huge excerpts.. the basic tenet of your religion upon which all else stands is illogical.. as such, it doesn't matter to me the volumes of people you quote or their personal experience to support such corruption.

Catholicism has had a very dark history especially contentious when it came to Muslims and even christians that weren't catholic (do read some about pope urban II) amongst others all together makes for a very unattractive mix..

In general I think Christianity is obsolete as a religion except for some patriotic few, and I rather believe they are simply hyper-vigilant.. I don't know that anyone in this day and age still believes in self-immolating gods that pray unto themselves and then concede to provincial conspirators the next day.. mere fact that a god would be born or die or suckle or cry etc. already tells me the universe can function without such a god as it did in his absence and his death!

all the best
Reply

gmcbroom
01-05-2011, 02:17 AM
The Vale's Lily. As a Maronite Catholic, I'm a little saddened that you think Catholics are corrupt. Still, you are entitled to your opinion. I don't deny that there have been bad people that have done things in the name of the Catholic Church. However, not all are corrupt. Try not to blanket judge that which you know nothing about.
We don't worship idols. We ask the saints to intercede to God for us. A saint isn't a God or even equal with God. A saint is someone who's died who we believe is close to God. Thus we ask for them to intercede to God on our behalf. I realize it can be a touchy subject as their are even christians that don't believe saints exist. Still it is a Catholic belief since the earliest days of the church.
As for the self immolating God reference Jesus wasn't burned to death, he was crucified. Jesus was the perfect sacrifice. Remember in the Old Testament the Jews had to sacrifice unblemished animals sometimes they could and sometimes they made do with what they could find. This didn't please God when they did that but in his infinte compassion he sent his Word to dwell among us and become the perfect sacrifice thus enabling us to reach the Father through the Son.
Reply

Ramadhan
01-05-2011, 09:37 AM
format_quote Originally Posted by gmcbroom
We don't worship idols. We ask the saints to intercede to God for us
How do the saints intercede to God if they are already dead?

format_quote Originally Posted by gmcbroom
I realize it can be a touchy subject as their are even christians that don't believe saints exist.
How do you determine if someone is a saint?
How come paul johannes paulus approved more saints than all sainst approved by all his predecessors combined?

format_quote Originally Posted by gmcbroom
As for the self immolating God reference Jesus wasn't burned to death, he was crucified. Jesus was the perfect sacrifice.
OK so he was not self-immolating technically. But based on current christianity, he committed suicide. Does this mean that committing suicide is a way to attain paradise? Did jesus set example for suicide?
Is this why there are plenty of christian cults who committed mass-suicide?

format_quote Originally Posted by gmcbroom
Remember in the Old Testament the Jews had to sacrifice unblemished animals sometimes they could and sometimes they made do with what they could find. This didn't please God when they did that but in his infinte compassion he sent his Word to dwell among us and become the perfect sacrifice thus enabling us to reach the Father through the Son.
Did God tell you this?
Did Jesus tell you this?
I thought Jesus said that he was ONLY sent to the lost sheep of Israel?
Reply

gmcbroom
01-05-2011, 09:15 PM
Naidamar, You raise good questions.
I don't know how saints are designated except that if a specific amount of miracles are attributed to to them and they lived a certain way then they can be nominated for sainthood. For more information feel free to google it. . As for how a saint can intercede on our behalf i believe through God they can hear our prayers for nothing is beyond him.
As for Jesus commiting suicide you could view it as that but the Christian tradition doesn't hold that view. To us he sacrificed himself to save us all. Could he have walked away? Of course. But he didn't. Jesus was the perfect sacrifice. He enabled us to once again approach the Father. For he said the only way to the Father was through him. To Christians at least Catholics, Jesus is both God and man. He is God made manifest. That's why Demons fear him and obey.
Your right he was sent to the Jews, he said as much. However, he opened the way so that we all may approach the Father. As he said All are welcome at his Father's Table. After all in the Bible's New Testament, you can read many books where he healed the Gentiles. He could have brushed them off and he did to a few. But he also embraced them too. Why did he do it? Because he loves us.
As for the Christian cults that commit suicide they may not be following God. There is a difference between suicide and sacrifice. Suicides are often out of despair. Sacrifice is often out of love. Agape is the Greek word for love you'll find in the oldest known new testament. It means sacrificial love. Do people still sacrifice themselves today? You bet. Anytime your willing to die to save another. That's sacrifice. Jesus also said that those who are willing to lose their life for my sake will save it. That's why martyer's are embraced. Even in Islam.
Reply

YusufNoor
01-05-2011, 10:04 PM
hey, i didn't bump the thread, BUT i see Catholicism as the MOST SATANIC of all forms of Christianity, just edging out Mormonism!

I don't know how saints are designated except that if a specific amount of miracles are attributed to to them and they lived a certain way then they can be nominated for sainthood.
these "miracles" are miracles that are allegedly performed AFTER they are dead! i mean WTF!? once Constantine became Christian, it was soon "passe" to kill Christians in the arena. one should also point out that historians as well as theologians are figuring out that the number of Christian martyrs has been greatly exaggerated.

add to this that most Christians didn't study Christianity, they were just trying to avoid hellfire. SOME clergy, but NOT a majority by any means, did study, but the most pious and learned were monks. the best of them were held in VERY high esteem, some even rose in rank in the Church.

so if there were some great calamity, that is, a flood or epidemic, people would dig up the bones of such monks and PRAY TO THEM! they would pray to them until the calamity ended. when said calamity ended, they would rationalize that God finally heard the prayers of the dead guy that they prayed to [THEY prayed to him, HE prayed to God (for them) and God answered HIS prayer!], that a miracle had happened!

2 of such "miracles" and you can get nominated for SAINTHOOD!^o)

makes TOTAL sense...NOT!!:hmm:

PEACE
Reply

Perseveranze
01-05-2011, 10:35 PM
format_quote Originally Posted by gmcbroom
Naidamar, You raise good questions.
I don't know how saints are designated except that if a specific amount of miracles are attributed to to them and they lived a certain way then they can be nominated for sainthood. For more information feel free to google it. . As for how a saint can intercede on our behalf i believe through God they can hear our prayers for nothing is beyond him.
As for Jesus commiting suicide you could view it as that but the Christian tradition doesn't hold that view. To us he sacrificed himself to save us all. Could he have walked away? Of course. But he didn't. Jesus was the perfect sacrifice. He enabled us to once again approach the Father. For he said the only way to the Father was through him. To Christians at least Catholics, Jesus is both God and man. He is God made manifest. That's why Demons fear him and obey.
Your right he was sent to the Jews, he said as much. However, he opened the way so that we all may approach the Father. As he said All are welcome at his Father's Table. After all in the Bible's New Testament, you can read many books where he healed the Gentiles. He could have brushed them off and he did to a few. But he also embraced them too. Why did he do it? Because he loves us.
As for the Christian cults that commit suicide they may not be following God. There is a difference between suicide and sacrifice. Suicides are often out of despair. Sacrifice is often out of love. Agape is the Greek word for love you'll find in the oldest known new testament. It means sacrificial love. Do people still sacrifice themselves today? You bet. Anytime your willing to die to save another. That's sacrifice. Jesus also said that those who are willing to lose their life for my sake will save it. That's why martyer's are embraced. Even in Islam.
Asalaamu Alaikum,

Do you think it's really right for someone else to die for your sins? Hey, I wish that was true, I wish I could go into any court in the world, even the one in the afterlife and say "this man can take all my blame", but really, who's that stupid?

It's almost insulting God if you think he can be that easily fooled. You do bad, your going to get your punishment, if you do good, your going to get your earned reward. And if there's anyone who can "forgive" you, then it's your Creator, no one else. Get away with murder in this world sure, but in the next world you will be asked about it, and the answer such as "he died for my sins" won't help you a single bit.

That is in my book, a God who see's all his Creation as equal (except in Peity/Good deeds) and judges them equally aswell.
Reply

IAmZamzam
01-06-2011, 12:10 AM
You want to know if we have any questions about Catholicism? All right, here's one of mine that I've never heard any Catholic give a real answer to before and I don't expect them to this time either, so give me a pleasant surprise: if the cardinals' election of the new Pope is really God's decision and they're not truly making it themselves then why do they bother talking it over at all? Why not just cast lots like the apostles were said to in the book of Acts when they had to replace one of their own number? Aren't Christians supposed to emulate the apostles?
Reply

Ramadhan
01-06-2011, 04:31 AM
format_quote Originally Posted by gmcbroom
I don't know how saints are designated except that if a specific amount of miracles are attributed to to them and they lived a certain way then they can be nominated for sainthood.
You haven't explained why Paus Johannes Paulus created more saints than ALL the numbers of saints created by ALL previous popes COMBINED.
Whats with the inflation?
How much money does each saint bring to the coffers of the Vatican?


format_quote Originally Posted by gmcbroom
As for how a saint can intercede on our behalf i believe through God they can hear our prayers for nothing is beyond him.
This doesn't make sense at all, and is illogical.
let me get this straight in simple steps:
1. Catholics pray to saints.
2. Oops. The saints are dead and so cannot hear the prayer.
3. But God is all hearing, so He can hear the prayer, so what does He do? Acting like a clerk/admin assistant, God relays the prayer to the dead saints
4. The saints received the relayed prayer from God
5. The saints OK the prayer and ask God to approve the prayer

Catholics are really something.
First, they claim God died to erase their sins, and then now they charge that God acts like a postal worker relaying messages and prayers from catholics to the dead saints.
In the first instance, God cannot forgive and erase sins by His will, but He must die.
In the second, God cannot accept prayers but through saints or maybe god only prioritize relayed prayers from dead saints.

How much more pagan can you get?



format_quote Originally Posted by gmcbroom
As for Jesus commiting suicide you could view it as that but the Christian tradition doesn't hold that view. To us he sacrificed himself to save us all. Could he have walked away? Of course. But he didn't. Jesus was the perfect sacrifice. He enabled us to once again approach the Father. For he said the only way to the Father was through him. To Christians at least Catholics, Jesus is both God and man. He is God made manifest. That's why Demons fear him and obey.
So God, who created the whole universe with ease, had to humiliate himself as human and had to go to the toilets/bushes to relieve himself, committed suicide because he cannot forgive human sins any other way. He also killed himself to enable human to approach him.

ummmmm'kay...
Reply

siam
01-06-2011, 04:59 AM
Catechism of the catholic Church
841 The Church's relationship with the Muslims. "The plan of salvation also includes those who acknowledge the Creator, in the first place amongst whom are the Muslims; these profess to hold the faith of Abraham, and together with us they adore the one, merciful God, mankind's judge on the last day."

What does "the plan of salvation" mean?
Reply

ardianto
01-06-2011, 06:50 AM
format_quote Originally Posted by naidamar
You haven't explained why Paus Johannes Paulus created more saints than ALL the numbers of saints created by ALL previous popes COMBINED.
Naidamar means : Pope John Paul II
Reply

Hiroshi
01-06-2011, 08:14 AM
format_quote Originally Posted by gmcbroom

To Christians at least Catholics, Jesus is both God and man. He is God made manifest.
Hi gmcbroom.

One of the hardest things for Muslim's to accept is the teaching that Jesus is God. But 1 Timothy 2:5 says: "For there is only one God, and there is only one mediator between God and mankind, himself a man, Christ Jesus" (Jerusalem Bible).

Now a mediator is a "go-between" for two parties. But, by definition the mediator is not either one of those parties. This would seem to exclude Jesus from being that "only one God" mentioned in the verse. Doesn't this raise the possibility in your mind that Jesus might not actually be God?

Another thought: the verse goes on to say that Jesus "sacrificed himself". Is God able to die? And if Jesus did not die why would he need a resurrection?
Reply

gmcbroom
01-06-2011, 08:35 AM
I'm off to work but at it's conclusion i'll explain my position. Have faith.
Reply

Hiroshi
01-06-2011, 08:51 AM
format_quote Originally Posted by gmcbroom
I'm off to work but at it's conclusion i'll explain my position. Have faith.
Thanks my friend. Talk to you later.
Reply

gmcbroom
01-06-2011, 08:52 PM
Hiroshi, i'll break this into parts, because tonight is Holy Thursday Theophony or Epiphany; and I need to get ready for it. In the Catholic Church this night celebrates when Jesus was found in the Temple.

When you bring up 1 Timothy 2.5 you being up the no mediator between God and man. It seems like your discussing the saints and their intercessation. But, that reference is actually about CONFESSION otherwise known as the sacrament of reconciliation.


In fact the 4 paragraphs preceding 1 Timothy 2.5 actually encourage intercession. Read it.
Reply

Perseveranze
01-06-2011, 09:23 PM
Asalaamu Alaikum (peace everyone),

Check this link out, the "forgotten" sayings of our beloved Jesus(pbuh) -

http://www.beconvinced.com/archive/e...20Christianityr
Reply

Hiroshi
01-07-2011, 12:57 AM
format_quote Originally Posted by gmcbroom
Hiroshi, i'll break this into parts, because tonight is Holy Thursday Theophony or Epiphany; and I need to get ready for it. In the Catholic Church this night celebrates when Jesus was found in the Temple.

When you bring up 1 Timothy 2.5 you being up the no mediator between God and man. It seems like your discussing the saints and their intercessation. But, that reference is actually about CONFESSION otherwise known as the sacrament of reconciliation.


In fact the 4 paragraphs preceding 1 Timothy 2.5 actually encourage intercession. Read it.
I must mention btw that I am a Jehovah's Witness. The early Christians would confess sins to one another, sure. And prayer was encouraged to help in serious cases. James 5:15-16 NIV says: "If they have sinned, they will be forgiven. Therefore confess your sins to each other and pray for each other so that you may be healed." Surely though, these prayers were made to God, not to saints.

But actually, my post was really intended to be about the identification of Jesus with Almighty God.
Reply

gmcbroom
01-07-2011, 03:11 AM
First I must humbly apologize. Tonight is the Theophany or Epiphany but that's not where Jesus is found in the Temple. No, it"s actually where Jesus is Baptized by John the Foreruner. We sang and chanted as the priest took a burning coal and plunged it into the water sanctifying it and praying. This is to symbolize Jesus as he acknowledged by his Father and the Holy Spirit which hovers over him as a dove at his baptism. I realize this might not be as you read it in the Watch Tower Bible my friend. I know as a Jehova's Witness you're a Unitarian.
I'm a trinitarian. So our views will be a little different. The priest even briefly touched on the trinity by talking about the Book of Genesis chapter 18, where Abraham met 3 mysterious strangers. One was God the Father. The other 2 were actually the Son (Jesus) and the Holy Spirit. It just wasn't their time yet to be revealed.

Now onward to intercession. Read Romans 8:38-39, 1 Corinthians 12:26, Mark 12:26-27, Matthew 17:1-3, Revelations 5:7-8, and 8:3. Now I know the Watch Tower Bible may or may not have things translated the way the NAB or New American Bible is. So to keep this impartial I recommend going to the library and looking up those references in 3 different Bibles there are many versions so you should just pick 3 and compare the passages to the ones you'll find in the Watch Tower version.

I'm going to bed my friends, i'll continue tomorrow. Peace be with you.
Reply

MustafaMc
01-07-2011, 03:44 AM
format_quote Originally Posted by gmcbroom
The priest even briefly touched on the trinity by talking about the Book of Genesis chapter 18, where Abraham met 3 mysterious strangers. One was God the Father. The other 2 were actually the Son (Jesus) and the Holy Spirit. It just wasn't their time yet to be revealed.
No, the 3 appeared as men to Abraham and were clearly distinct from the 'LORD' as illustrated by Genesis 18:22 "The men turned away and went toward Sodom, but Abraham remained standing before the LORD."

In Islam, angels make themselves manifest to men in the form of other men, for example to Abraham as you noted above (Quran 51:24), to Mary to tell of the birth of Jesus (3:42) and to Muhammad before his companions to question Muhammad about faith, Islam and the Last Day (Bukhari hadith 2:47).
Reply

MustafaMc
01-07-2011, 03:54 AM
format_quote Originally Posted by Hiroshi
One of the hardest things for Muslim's to accept is the teaching that Jesus is God. But 1 Timothy 2:5 says: "For there is only one God, and there is only one mediator between God and mankind, himself a man, Christ Jesus" (Jerusalem Bible).

Now a mediator is a "go-between" for two parties. But, by definition the mediator is not either one of those parties. This would seem to exclude Jesus from being that "only one God" mentioned in the verse. Doesn't this raise the possibility in your mind that Jesus might not actually be God?
Well, actually if a Muslim were to accept that 'Jesus is God', then by definition he would no longer be a Muslim and become a disbeliever as shown by the Quran 5:72 "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."

I agree with you that the verse you quoted shows that a mediator between man and God cannot be God anymore than he can be the man he is mediating for.
Reply

Hiroshi
01-07-2011, 08:04 AM
format_quote Originally Posted by MustafaMc
Well, actually if a Muslim were to accept that 'Jesus is God', then by definition he would no longer be a Muslim and become a disbeliever as shown by the Quran 5:72 "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."
Exactly. No Trinity believers would remain genuine Muslims.

format_quote Originally Posted by MustafaMc

I agree with you that the verse you quoted shows that a mediator between man and God cannot be God anymore than he can be the man he is mediating for.
Yes. And if Jesus is God and a mediator is required -- why is there then no mediator between Jesus and mankind? It wouldn't make sense.
Reply

gmcbroom
01-07-2011, 09:06 AM
Actually, the reason there is no mediator between Jesus and mankind at that time was he was actually walking among us. That's why we didn't need one. Matthew 9:1-8.

Then in James 5:14-15, this happens.

I'm off to work will continue later.
Reply

Hiroshi
01-07-2011, 09:32 AM
format_quote Originally Posted by MustafaMc
No, the 3 appeared as men to Abraham and were clearly distinct from the 'LORD' as illustrated by Genesis 18:22 "The men turned away and went toward Sodom, but Abraham remained standing before the LORD."

In Islam, angels make themselves manifest to men in the form of other men, for example to Abraham as you noted above (Quran 51:24), to Mary to tell of the birth of Jesus (3:42) and to Muhammad before his companions to question Muhammad about faith, Islam and the Last Day (Bukhari hadith 2:47).
Yes. Genesis 18:22 refers to them as "men" when they start out to head towards Sodom. But when they arrive there they are referred to as "angels" in Genesis 19:1.
Reply

MustafaMc
01-07-2011, 11:39 AM
Yes, you caught my point. This same confusion in the Bible between God, man and angel also occurs when Jacob supposedly wrestles with God and wins in Genesis 22:25-28 When the man saw that he could not overpower him, he touched the socket of Jacob’s hip so that his hip was wrenched as he wrestled with the man. Then the man said, “Let me go, for it is daybreak.” But Jacob replied, “I will not let you go unless you bless me.” The man asked him, “What is your name?” “Jacob,” he answered. Then the man said, “Your name will no longer be Jacob, but Israel, because you have struggled with God and with humans and have overcome.” It absolutely and irrefutably inconceivable for a man to have wrestled with God and for this man to get the upper hand on God.

What do Catholics understand from this passage?
Reply

Hiroshi
01-07-2011, 12:27 PM
format_quote Originally Posted by MustafaMc
Yes, you caught my point. This same confusion in the Bible between God, man and angel also occurs when Jacob supposedly wrestles with God and wins in Genesis 22:25-28 When the man saw that he could not overpower him, he touched the socket of Jacob’s hip so that his hip was wrenched as he wrestled with the man. Then the man said, “Let me go, for it is daybreak.” But Jacob replied, “I will not let you go unless you bless me.” The man asked him, “What is your name?” “Jacob,” he answered. Then the man said, “Your name will no longer be Jacob, but Israel, because you have struggled with God and with humans and have overcome.” It absolutely and irrefutably inconceivable for a man to have wrestled with God and for this man to get the upper hand on God.

What do Catholics understand from this passage?
The account in Genesis 32:24 says that this was a man that Jacob wrestled with but Hosea 12:4 tells us that it was an angel.

Jacob made it his concern to seek God and to receive blessings thereby. But his life was not easy and there was much struggling with problems and circumstances. I believe that God was pleased with his persistence to gain divine favour and that in some way this was allowed to be expressed by his refusal to let the angel go until the blessing came. So it was a kind of test of Jacob's appreciation and desire for God's blessing.
Reply

YusufNoor
01-07-2011, 01:31 PM
format_quote Originally Posted by Hiroshi
Hi gmcbroom.

One of the hardest things for Muslim's to accept is the teaching that Jesus is God. But 1 Timothy 2:5 says: "For there is only one God, and there is only one mediator between God and mankind, himself a man, Christ Jesus" (Jerusalem Bible).

Now a mediator is a "go-between" for two parties. But, by definition the mediator is not either one of those parties. This would seem to exclude Jesus from being that "only one God" mentioned in the verse. Doesn't this raise the possibility in your mind that Jesus might not actually be God?

Another thought: the verse goes on to say that Jesus "sacrificed himself". Is God able to die? And if Jesus did not die why would he need a resurrection?

Alhumdulillah, how delightful that Allah led you to chose THAT PARTICULAR VERSE when describing the "one of the hardest things for Muslims to accept!"

As Muslims we DO reject THAT PARTICULAR VERSE along with it's teaching, but did you know when it comes to THAT PARTICULAR VERSE, MANY Christians ALSO reject it as authentic?

you see, 1 and 2 Timothy and Titus are called the Pastoral Letters and the majority of Biblical Scholars reject them as being written by Paul! only conservative Christians, Evangelicals and Fundies still cling to Pauline authorship. while it's not my source, Professor Bart D Ehrman being one of my chief sources, this website can elaborate on the dispute:

http://www.religioustolerance.org/chr_ntb3.htm

i think this quote from the site adequately portrays the issue:

Fr. Raymond E. Brown, is a member of the Vatican's Roman Pontifical Biblical Commission, and was described by Time magazine as "probably the premier Catholic scripture scholar in the U.S." 6 He has expressed his beliefs concerning the authorship of these epistles:
In his opinion, of the thirteen epistles which say that they were written by Paul, critical scholars have reached a near consensus that seven are Paul's: 1 Thessalonians, Galatians, 1 & 2 Corinthians, Philippians, Philemon and Romans.
Agreement that he did not write:
1 & 2 Timothy and Titus is about 90%

Ephesians is about 80%
Colossians is about 60%
2 Thessalonians is a slight majority.
i'm not saying this is a preferred website by any means, i'm just using it for simplicity's sake to show the current Scholarly view on "YOUR BEST EXAMPLE" of a rejected concept.

we can now learn that:
1) Paul claims to be a Prophet and teaches a NEW Gospel NT taught by Jesus, PBUH, in his "Earthly" ministry [see other of my posts]

2) EVEN Paul's corrupted teachings are further corrupted "35 to 85 years after Paul's death" to quote the site.

we invite you to accept a Teaching that remains True that There is nothing worthy of worship except the One Who is Worthy of ALL Worship, Allah and to accept the Teachings of His Final Messenger, Muhammad, PBUH, and to reject the teachings of the false prophet, Saul of Tarsus.

Peace
Reply

gmcbroom
01-07-2011, 08:30 PM
It wasn't uncommon for someone to,"Ghost write," in the name of another (in this case a revered elder) in the early church. Since it didn't conflict with faith and morals it was left in. Having said that; while an emminent scholar may think some one else wrote it due to a different writing style than Paul, There is still some debate about it among scholars. Some say yes its was a secretary to Paul who wrote what he said, others still, that someone else compiled it all into those Epistles . In the end, we have to either accept it or reject it. It's a matter of faith and the canon.
Reply

Mohamed Issa
01-08-2011, 05:48 AM
Worships of the Evil Pope, catholics worship a new god/devil the Pope who lies about god saying he has a son which he has no right to say. The Pope follows another devil called Paul May Allah curse him. May Paul & the Popes enjoy the Hell Fire forever. I hope the catholics wake up to start worshiping the One & Only god Allah (SWT). Lets all pray that the conquest of Rome will happen in our life time so that we may see truth (Islam) destroy falsehood (Christianity) like how it was done in Constantinople. Both are in hadiths says of the Holy Prophet Muhammad (PBUH) its just a matter of time when Rome falls. 19:34 Such (was) Jesus the son of Mary: (it is) a statement of truth, about which they (vainly) dispute. 19:35 It is not befitting to (the majesty of) Allah that He should beget a son. Glory be to Him! when He determines a matter, He only says to it, "Be", and it is. 19:36 Verily Allah is my Lord and your Lord: Him therefore serve ye: this is a Way that is straight. 19:37 But the sects differ among themselves: and woe to the unbelievers because of the (coming) Judgment of a Momentous Day! (The Holy Quran Surah 19 Mary) 5:116 And behold! Allah will say: "O Jesus the son of Mary! Didst thou say unto men, worship me and my mother as gods in derogation of Allah.?" He will say: "Glory to Thee! never could I say what I had no right (to say). Had I said such a thing, thou wouldst indeed have known it. Thou knowest what is in my heart, Thou I know not what is in Thine. For Thou knowest in full all that is hidden. 5:117 "Never said I to them aught except what Thou didst command me to say, to wit, 'worship Allah, my Lord and your Lord'; and I was a witness over them whilst I dwelt amongst them; when Thou didst take me up Thou wast the Watcher over them, and Thou art a witness to all things. (The Holy Quran Surah 5 Al Mâ'idah) 4:157 That they said (in boast), "We killed Christ Jesus the son of Mary, the Apostle of Allah";- but they killed him not, nor crucified him, but so it was made to appear to them, and those who differ therein are full of doubts, with no (certain) knowledge, but only conjecture to follow, for of a surety they killed him not:- 4:158 Nay, Allah raised him up unto Himself; and Allah is Exalted in Power, Wise;- 4:159 And there is none of the People of the Book but must believe in him before his death; and on the Day of Judgment he will be a witness against them;- (The Holy Quran Surah 4 An Nisâ') Read the Real Book of God The Holy Quran not the man-made bible.
Reply

MustafaMc
01-08-2011, 09:35 AM
format_quote Originally Posted by Hiroshi
The account in Genesis 32:24 says that this was a man that Jacob wrestled with but Hosea 12:4 tells us that it was an angel.
Actually I made a mistake in the the verse I quoted earlier was from chapter 32 not 22.

Now in 32:30-32 it says, So Jacob called the place Peniel, saying, “It is because I saw God face to face, and yet my life was spared.” The sun rose above him as he passed Peniel, and he was limping because of his hip. Therefore to this day the Israelites do not eat the tendon attached to the socket of the hip, because the socket of Jacob’s hip was touched near the tendon. Why would the 'Israelites' not eat the tendom of the hip if it was a man or even an angel that had touched his hip. It is clear to me that this passage insinuates that Jacod wrestled with god as also note as the header at this site http://www.biblegateway.com/passage/...32&version=NIV
Reply

MustafaMc
01-08-2011, 10:15 AM
format_quote Originally Posted by YusufNoor
Professor Bart D Ehrman being one of my chief sources,
Assalamu alaikum Brother Yusuf, I am presently reading his book 'Lost Christianities' and I am amazed at the level of his research and scholarship.
we can now learn that:
1) Paul claims to be a Prophet and teaches a NEW Gospel NT taught by Jesus, PBUH, in his "Earthly" ministry [see other of my posts]

2) EVEN Paul's corrupted teachings are further corrupted "35 to 85 years after Paul's death" to quote the site.
The book of Galatians was very revealing to me about Paul's claim to be a Messenger of God as in 1:11-12 I want you to know, brothers and sisters, that the gospel I preached is not of human origin. I did not receive it from any man, nor was I taught it; rather, I received it by revelation from Jesus Christ. This is a claim not to be taken lightly and accepted out of hand as it is the basis for all that Paul wrote. This very point was apparently a point that the unbelievers of Mecca challenged Prophet Muhammad (sal alahu alayhi wa salam) on because the Quran itself defends him and addresses it with statements establishing his Messengership such as Quran 68:2-6 You (O Muhammad), by the Grace of your Lord, are not mad. And verily, for you will be an endless reward. And verily, you are on an exalted (standard of) character. You will see, and they will see, which of you is afflicted with madness.

Christians gloss over the fact that Paul never even met Jesus while he was on earth and yet he claims to know the 'Gospel' better than those disciples who did follow and listen to his Message while he walked among them. Your last point is also interesting in that not only did Paul not follow Jesus, other people took liberty with writing their own epistles or letters in Paul's name as one of authority. The key question for Christians is, "Where is proof for God's 'inspiration' in any of the writings of the Bible?"
Reply

Hiroshi
01-08-2011, 11:45 AM
format_quote Originally Posted by YusufNoor
Alhumdulillah, how delightful that Allah led you to chose THAT PARTICULAR VERSE when describing the "one of the hardest things for Muslims to accept!"

As Muslims we DO reject THAT PARTICULAR VERSE along with it's teaching, but did you know when it comes to THAT PARTICULAR VERSE, MANY Christians ALSO reject it as authentic?

you see, 1 and 2 Timothy and Titus are called the Pastoral Letters and the majority of Biblical Scholars reject them as being written by Paul! only conservative Christians, Evangelicals and Fundies still cling to Pauline authorship. while it's not my source, Professor Bart D Ehrman being one of my chief sources, this website can elaborate on the dispute:

http://www.religioustolerance.org/chr_ntb3.htm

i think this quote from the site adequately portrays the issue:



i'm not saying this is a preferred website by any means, i'm just using it for simplicity's sake to show the current Scholarly view on "YOUR BEST EXAMPLE" of a rejected concept.

we can now learn that:
1) Paul claims to be a Prophet and teaches a NEW Gospel NT taught by Jesus, PBUH, in his "Earthly" ministry [see other of my posts]

2) EVEN Paul's corrupted teachings are further corrupted "35 to 85 years after Paul's death" to quote the site.

we invite you to accept a Teaching that remains True that There is nothing worthy of worship except the One Who is Worthy of ALL Worship, Allah and to accept the Teachings of His Final Messenger, Muhammad, PBUH, and to reject the teachings of the false prophet, Saul of Tarsus.

Peace
I chose to quote 1 Timothy 2:5 because it carries the thought that Jesus isn't God. I did not realize that you would find it so objectionable. I have never met a Christian who rejected 1 and 2 Timothy. But I think that any critics of the Bible would be more critical of the Qur'an.

I am in agreement with you that Almighty God is the one to be worshipped, not Jesus.
Reply

MustafaMc
01-09-2011, 02:18 AM
format_quote Originally Posted by Hiroshi
I am in agreement with you that Almighty God is the one to be worshipped, not Jesus.
I am glad that we both believe in One God without son, father or equal. What is your concept of God? Do you have a mental image of Him?
Reply

Hiroshi
01-09-2011, 03:18 AM
format_quote Originally Posted by MustafaMc
I am glad that we both believe in One God without son, father or equal. What is your concept of God? Do you have a mental image of Him?
Not really an image. God has a name: usually written as "Jehovah" in English. And Jehovah's principle attributes are love, justice, wisdom and power. And to me the power that created the awesome universe is so great as to be quite unimaginable.

Where the Bible refers to Jesus as God's "Son" my understanding is that Jesus is the first being that God created and gave life to. Being the first makes Jesus unique. Revelation 3:14 calls Jesus "the beginning ["arkhe"] of the creation of God".
Reply

جوري
01-09-2011, 03:51 AM
format_quote Originally Posted by MustafaMc
The book of Galatians was very revealing to me about Paul's claim to be a Messenger of God as in 1:11-12 I want you to know, brothers and sisters, that the gospel I preached is not of human origin. I did not receive it from any man, nor was I taught it; rather, I received it by revelation from Jesus Christ. This is a claim not to be taken lightly and accepted out of hand as it is the basis for all that Paul wrote. This very point was apparently a point that the unbelievers of Mecca challenged Prophet Muhammad (sal alahu alayhi wa salam) on because the Quran itself defends him and addresses it with statements establishing his Messengership such as Quran 68:2-6 You (O Muhammad), by the Grace of your Lord, are not mad. And verily, for you will be an endless reward. And verily, you are on an exalted (standard of) character. You will see, and they will see, which of you is afflicted with madness.
I am subscribing because of this, I initially had no interest in this thread. .. It is interesting how often the Christians preach against 'false prophets' yet are completely oblivious to the most false prophet of all 'Saul'

:w:
Reply

MustafaMc
01-09-2011, 01:06 PM
format_quote Originally Posted by τhε ṿαlε'ṡ lïlÿ
It is interesting how often the Christians preach against 'false prophets' yet are completely oblivious to the most false prophet of all 'Saul'
Assalamu alaikum, Ukhti. You are exactly correct that Christians miss this critical point of establishing the vailidty of Paul's calim of receiving a revelation. The actual revelation came to Prophet Jesus (alayhi salaam), but I have read from other Christians that what Jesus actually taught the disciples and his other followers is of secondary importance to what he supposedly did on the cross. As you noted, Christians should take heed to Matthew 7:15 “Watch out for false prophets. They come to you in sheep’s clothing, but inwardly they are ferocious wolves."

The disciples recognized the importance of Jesus' life and teachings which is demonstrated in their criteria for choosing a replacement for Judas in Acts 1:21-22 "Therefore it is necessary to choose one of the men who have been with us the whole time the Lord Jesus was living among us, beginning from John’s baptism to the time when Jesus was taken up from us. ...” " Note how this contrasts with Galatians 1:12 "I did not receive it from any man, nor was I taught it; rather, I received it by revelation from Jesus Christ." Note also that Paul never met Jesus before his assenscion and he did not learn from his disciples what Jesus had actually taught Galatians 1:17-18 "I did not go up to Jerusalem to see those who were apostles before I was, but I went into Arabia. Later I returned to Damascus. Then after three years, I went up to Jerusalem to get acquainted with Peter and stayed with him fifteen days. From the very beginning Christianity started going astray with Paul and reached a critical point with the fall of Jerusalem in 70AD.
Reply

MustafaMc
01-09-2011, 01:41 PM
I grew up in a Protestant environment and only recently learned much of anything about Catholicism from my co-workers and the internet. From what I know, Catholics don't rely strictly on Jesus' supposed sacrifice on the cross for their salvation for they also emphasize observing the Church sacraments. Emphasis on observing the sacraments (baptism, eucharist, reconcilliation, confirmation, marriage, holy orders and annointing of the sick) indicates there is no salvation outside of the Catholic Church. From my perspective the Catholic Church itself is critical for their salvation; whereas, in the various Protestant denominations accepting the free-gift of Jesus' ultimate sacrifice on the cross is critical.

Catholics often have statues of Mary (in hijab mind you) and of Jesus on the cross in their homes and in church. They refer to Mary as the Mother of God and pray to her, "Holy Mary, Mother of God, pray for us sinners, now and at the hour of our death." We Muslims recognize that praying to the dead is ascribing partners to God. Along with believing that Jesus is the Son of God, believing that Mary is the Mother of God, denies the central tenet of Islamic faith, Tawheed.
Reply

FollowerOfChrist
01-09-2011, 09:15 PM
You can communicate with people who are in Heaven(Saints). They're alive in Heaven. Also, when the OT is speaking on God not being a man, that's past tense. Meaning he wasn't. YET.
Reply

Pygoscelis
01-10-2011, 01:59 AM
1. The materialism of the Vatican sharply contrasts Jesus as potrayed in the bible, as being about giving all your stuff away to the poor. The church is the opposite, taking tithes and building incredibly expensive cathedrals.

2. The Eucharist doctrine..... The official line is that the cracker you eat magically transforms into Jesus' body and the wine into his blood. I thought this was disturbing when I thought it was symbolic, but the doctrine is LITERAL. How is this not canibalism?

3. The major and most recurring feature of all three Abrahamic religions is authoritarianism and obedience to power. Unlike Islam (and kudos to Islam for this) and unlike some other Christian denominations (kudos to them too) the Catholic church exploits this to the fullest extent possible, claiming to be the authority of God and assigns a "Pope" who is claimed to be "infallible".
Reply

IAmZamzam
01-10-2011, 04:53 PM
format_quote Originally Posted by Pygoscelis
2. The Eucharist doctrine..... The official line is that the cracker you eat magically transforms into Jesus' body and the wine into his blood. I thought this was disturbing when I thought it was symbolic, but the doctrine is LITERAL. How is this not canibalism?
By the power of semantics, of course. Was there ever any doubt in your mind? The early church fathers pondered the nonsense, found some idiotic mess of words in Greek philosophy about "substance" and "accidents", gladly latched onto that so they could obscure the light of reason in their own minds with the power of words (the thing we human beings are best at out of all our many wondrous talents), and merrily continued on their way knowing that they were eating only the "host".
Reply

gmcbroom
01-10-2011, 09:47 PM
Pygoscelis,
You do bring up valid points. First, I can understand why it would seem contradictory that the church with such a strong inclination towards the poor would seem to embrace materialism with construction of cathedrals and tithing. But truth be told we have to meet somewhere, and that's why the structures were built. As for tithing, that helps feed the priest, not to mention pay any taxes on the building and run programs.

As for the second, the Eucharist Doctrine. This comes down to faith. It's not easy, and Jesus knew it when he said it. When he spoke these words some left for they that as many here do that it's canniablism. Think of the Eucharist as a way to participate in the sacrifice Jesus made for us all upon the cross. That's why it's so important. To many it's either canniablism or symbolic act of remembrance. However, to those that believe this is way more important they even give it a name transubstanciation. It's a way to salvation. Think of it like this, Jesus described as a high priest. Now a highpriest has to offer something. The Eucharist is that something. For those with a Bible please review Hebrews 9 and 10.

Now for the Infallibility Doctrine. Matthew 16.16-19, Acts 15.28, Then there's John 14.16-17, and 26. It discusses the Trinity and to an extent Infallibilty. These may not be the best scriptural references but they'll do. For more information I suggest you speak to a Catholic priest.

Ultimately, it all comes down to faith. It's not just Sacred Tradition or Sacred Scripture that guides the Catholic Church, it's the Holy Spirit. If your Catholic you believe this if your not chances are you don't.
Reply

MustafaMc
01-10-2011, 10:09 PM
Speaking of Hebrews, how do Catholics understand Hebrews 7:3?
Reply

gmcbroom
01-10-2011, 11:05 PM
To be fair I don't know much about it. So i'll just quote what I found in the New American Bible, from World Catholic Press, 1987.

"7.3 Without father, mother, or ancestry, without beginning of days or end of life: this is perhaps a quotation from a hymn about Melchizedek, the rabbis maintained that anything not mentioned in the Torah does not exist. Consequently, since the Old Testament nowhere mentions Melchizedek's ancestry, birth or death, the conclusion can be drawn that he remains ....forever."

Opinions anyone?
Reply

gmcbroom
01-10-2011, 11:20 PM
Actually I stand corrected. I read a little further down. Specifically Hebrews 7.22-28. It's a little long so I won't quote it here. Yet for those that read it you'll see because Jesus remains forever, he is always able to save those who approach God through him. He has no need to make a sacrificeday after day as he did that once for all when he offered himself.

Overall, it's pretty deep stuff. What do you think? opinions?
Reply

MustafaMc
01-11-2011, 02:13 AM
The part that has puzzled me is the part underlined, because the only Being that I know of that fits that description is God alone.

Without father or mother, without genealogy, without beginning of days or end of life, resembling the Son of God, he remains a priest forever.

Yet this verse is in reference to Melchizedek a king during the time of Abraham. Now Abraham is the patriarch for 3 major religions. Does Hebrews insinuate that Melchizedek is a priest for a religion different from what we know as the Abrahamic faith of monotheism? Verse 11 indicates that Jesus was "another priest to come, one in the order of Melchizedek, not in the order of Aaron? " The book of Hebrews is almost as puzzling as the book of Revelations.
Reply

gmcbroom
01-11-2011, 02:36 AM
I believe that Hebrews is showing how Jesus is both high priest and king. Something beyond the traditional vision of jewish highpriest as the Levites hold the priesthood, and the House of David is where kings come from. Jesus is both highpriest and king.
Reply

Hiroshi
01-11-2011, 05:13 AM
format_quote Originally Posted by MustafaMc

The disciples recognized the importance of Jesus' life and teachings which is demonstrated in their criteria for choosing a replacement for Judas in Acts 1:21-22 "Therefore it is necessary to choose one of the men who have been with us the whole time the Lord Jesus was living among us, beginning from John’s baptism to the time when Jesus was taken up from us. ...” " Note how this contrasts with Galatians 1:12 "I did not receive it from any man, nor was I taught it; rather, I received it by revelation from Jesus Christ." Note also that Paul never met Jesus before his assenscion and he did not learn from his disciples what Jesus had actually taught Galatians 1:17-18 "I did not go up to Jerusalem to see those who were apostles before I was, but I went into Arabia. Later I returned to Damascus. Then after three years, I went up to Jerusalem to get acquainted with Peter and stayed with him fifteen days.
Jesus continued to give teaching and revelation after his death and resurrection. For example the book of Revelation was a vision from God given by Jesus to John (Revelation 1:1). In Galatians 1:12 Paul is contrasting the teachings that he received from human instruction under Judaism as a Pharisee with the revelation that he had when he beheld a miracle from God (as many of the disciples did) proving to him the truth about Jesus (Galatians 1:14-16).

format_quote Originally Posted by MustafaMc

From the very beginning Christianity started going astray with Paul and reached a critical point with the fall of Jerusalem in 70AD.
Christianity was vindicated in 70AD because the Christians at that time escaped the destruction by the Romans having been forewarned about it by Jesus (Luke 19:43-44; Luke 21:20-22). Why do you say this was a critical point for them as if it was something bad?
Reply

Hiroshi
01-11-2011, 05:31 AM
format_quote Originally Posted by MustafaMc
The part that has puzzled me is the part underlined, because the only Being that I know of that fits that description is God alone.

Without father or mother, without genealogy, without beginning of days or end of life, resembling the Son of God, he remains a priest forever.
Jewish tradition holds, I believe, that Melchizedek may be Shem, one of the sons of Noah. Given Shem's long life span (Genesis 10:10-11) this seems at least possible. But the fact is that we just don't know his identity. He suddenly appears in the Bible narrative without genealogy or with any details of his past or the length of his life. This is all that the verse means although is it worded in this curious way.

Since there is no mention of there being any limit to Melchizedek's time as high priest of God, so likewise, Paul reasons, Jesus is also high priest for an unlimited time: forever.
Reply

Hiroshi
01-11-2011, 05:47 AM
format_quote Originally Posted by FollowerOfChrist

You can communicate with people who are in Heaven(Saints).
Hi FollowerOfChrist.

But doesn't Deuteronomy 18:11 forbid you from communicating with those who have died? See also 1 Chronicles 10:13.
Reply

Hiroshi
01-11-2011, 06:11 AM
format_quote Originally Posted by MustafaMc
Actually I made a mistake in the the verse I quoted earlier was from chapter 32 not 22.

Now in 32:30-32 it says, So Jacob called the place Peniel, saying, “It is because I saw God face to face, and yet my life was spared.” The sun rose above him as he passed Peniel, and he was limping because of his hip. Therefore to this day the Israelites do not eat the tendon attached to the socket of the hip, because the socket of Jacob’s hip was touched near the tendon. Why would the 'Israelites' not eat the tendom of the hip if it was a man or even an angel that had touched his hip. It is clear to me that this passage insinuates that Jacod wrestled with god as also note as the header at this site http://www.biblegateway.com/passage/...32&version=NIV
Hosea 12:4 confirms that it was an angel. I would not expect that any Jew or Israelite seriously believed that Jacob beat God in a wrestling match. Perhaps you could ask a Jew and find out their thoughts on this. Nevertheless, this angel, who would not give his name when asked, was a direct representative from God as is shown by the blessing that he gave resulting in a completely new name for Jacob and all his descendants. So all the things that the angel did and said, including evidently injuring Jacob's hip socket, were given great importance by Jacob's sons. Many times in the Bible an angel is spoken of, and is even addressed and speaks, as if that angellic representative was God himself as, for example, on the occasion with Moses and the burning bush (Exodus 3:2-6).
Reply

gmcbroom
01-11-2011, 09:12 AM
Hiroshi, your right of course it does.
However, James 5.16, then theres 1 Timothy 2 (1-5), Ephesians 6.18, Romans 8 (38-39), and Luke 20.38 would seem to imply otherwise. Either way it all comes down to faith. You say we can't. I say we can.
Peace be with you.
gmcbroom
Reply

Hiroshi
01-11-2011, 11:32 AM
format_quote Originally Posted by FollowerOfChrist

Also, when the OT is speaking on God not being a man, that's past tense. Meaning he wasn't. YET.
Well, the OT definitely speaks about Jesus being a man. At Psalms 8:4 The Revised English Bible reads: "what is a frail mortal, that you should be mindful of him, a human being, that you should take notice of him?" These words are explained as applying to Jesus in Hebrews 2:6.

The Hebrew word for "frail mortal" used there is "enosh" and this word does indeed mean: "mortal man" i.e. man subject to death (Isaiah 51:12).

Here is the problem. God does not die because he is immortal. (I can quote scriptures to prove that but I am sure that we are all agreed on this and that I don't have to). Jesus, however was not immortal. He could become a mortal man and be subject to death. But immortal God could not become mortal man.

Quoting The Revised English Bible again, it says this in Romans 6:9: "Christ, once raised from the dead, is never to die again: he is no longer under the dominion of death."

So Christ does have immortality now (1 Timothy 6:16; Hebrews 7:16) as a reward from God for his faithful obedience (Philippians 2:8-9; Hebrews 5:8) but he didn't ever have it before his resurrection.

So Jesus and God are different. God has always been immortal. But Jesus was not immortal until after his death and resurrection. Otherwise he could not have provided the ransom sacrifice.
Reply

Hiroshi
01-11-2011, 12:01 PM
format_quote Originally Posted by gmcbroom
Hiroshi, your right of course it does.
However, James 5.16, then theres 1 Timothy 2 (1-5), Ephesians 6.18, Romans 8 (38-39), and Luke 20.38 would seem to imply otherwise. Either way it all comes down to faith. You say we can't. I say we can.
Peace be with you.
gmcbroom
Well, Luke 20:38 refers to the resurrection of the dead as you can see if you read from verses 27-37. The Sadducees did not believe in the resurrection and had a clever argument to try to disprove it. But in this passage Jesus was able to show that they were wrong.

When though, does the resurrection take place? It doesn't happen immediately after a person dies. John 11:24 shows that the general resurrection of the dead of mankind would take place "on the last day". It is a future event. It takes place at Christ's second coming (1 Corinthians 15:22-23). And the dead are able to do nothing until they are resurrected (Ecclesiastes 9:10). So why try to communicate with them?
Reply

gmcbroom
01-11-2011, 08:45 PM
Now in one of the passages I mentioned above it's stated that those alive in Christ should pray for each other. It made no distinction between physically alive or dead. So asking saints to pray for you isn't forbidden. As it's approved in scripture through that passage. Does it mention saints specifically no. However it does mention all those alive in Christ.So in the end it's a matter of faith.

As for The Nature of Jesus. For Catholics and Orthodox and many others, he is both True God and True man. Jesus is the Word made flesh. Hence he existed since the beginning but only dwelt among us when the time was right. Anything less would be a heresy. That's why we're to test spirits. If they say Jesus wasn't born of the flesh then it's a false prophet and sent from the Evil one. Jesus also said by their fruits you will know them.

Peace by with you.
gmcbroom
Reply

MustafaMc
01-12-2011, 04:30 AM
format_quote Originally Posted by Hiroshi
Why do you say this was a critical point for them as if it was something bad?
It was critical in that the rest of Galatians illustrates the conflict that Paul had with Jesus' disciples who adhered to the Judaic Law. With the destruction of Jerusalem came also the shift in 'power' from these disciples over to Paul and the new gentile religion we know as Christianity replaced the 'enlightened Judaic' one practiced by Jesus' followers.
Reply

MustafaMc
01-12-2011, 04:38 AM
format_quote Originally Posted by Hiroshi
Perhaps you could ask a Jew and find out their thoughts on this.
Well, you are most welcome to read from this site illustrating the cofusion between an angel and God. http://www.mishpacha.org/wrestling.shtml
Among the understandings of the name Israel are:
One who wrestles with God.
One who is straight (direct, honest) with God.
This quality of confrontation and engagement with God, as opposed to pure submission, remains a distinguishing characteristic of Judaism. This quality of confrontation and engagement with God, as opposed to pure submission, remains a distinguishing characteristic of Judaism.
Reply

gmcbroom
01-12-2011, 08:34 AM
I'd go further and say ask a rabbi. I went to the site it's very interesting.
Peace be with you.
gmcbroom
Reply

MustafaMc
01-12-2011, 12:26 PM
format_quote Originally Posted by gmcbroom
I'd go further and say ask a rabbi. I went to the site it's very interesting.
Peace be with you.
gmcbroom
That is a good suggestion, perhaps I will try to contact one here in Mississippi.

If there can be confusion between an angel and God such as this and what you said about the angels visiting Abraham, then isn't there a possibility of a similar confusion in the Divinity/Humanity of a man (son of a woman) who walked on water, calmed the seas, healed the sick, raised the dead, and fed the multitudes?
Reply

gmcbroom
01-12-2011, 07:32 PM
I have another question you can ask the rabbi. If it's not too much trouble.

Ask him if burying the dead is a valid excuse for being unable to attend synagogue worship?

This isn't a trick question. The reason i'm curious what the rabbi would say is because Jesus was confronted with this situation by one of his followers. His response was,"Let the dead bury the dead, follow me."

For some it is hard to believe that Jesus walked on water, calmed the seas, healed the sick, raised the dead, and fed the multitudes. However, for me that is no longer the case. I absolutely believe he did.
Peace be with you.
gmcbroom
Reply

MustafaMc
01-13-2011, 01:35 AM
format_quote Originally Posted by gmcbroom
Ask him if burying the dead is a valid excuse for being unable to attend synagogue worship?
God willing, I will contact a synagogue to try to make contact with a rabbi to ask about who Jacob wrestled and about burying the dead.
For some it is hard to believe that Jesus walked on water, calmed the seas, healed the sick, raised the dead, and fed the multitudes. However, for me that is no longer the case. I absolutely believe he did.
I don't deny the miracles of Jesus, but neither do I accept all that is written in the gospels as actually having occurred. With that said, I don't doubt that Jesus (as) was capable of performing the stated miracles through the help of God. The similitude is as the miracles of Moses with turning a staff in to a snake, or parting of the sea. Moses himself did not do this, but God did through the agency of His prophets, Moses and Jesus. A pertinent verse is John 5:30 where Jesus is quoted as saying, "I can do nothing on My own initiative As I hear, I judge; and My judgment is just, because I do not seek My own will, but the will of Him who sent Me."
Reply

gmcbroom
01-13-2011, 02:14 AM
MustafaMc,
Your so close to the truth, for your answer is in John Chapter 14:9.
Peace be with you.
gmcbroom
Reply

MustafaMc
01-13-2011, 02:46 AM
The point was that Jesus does only God's will as he also acknowledged in the Garden of Gethsemane. This demonstrates subordination of Jesus to God.
Reply

Hiroshi
01-13-2011, 09:20 AM
format_quote Originally Posted by MustafaMc
It was critical in that the rest of Galatians illustrates the conflict that Paul had with Jesus' disciples who adhered to the Judaic Law. With the destruction of Jerusalem came also the shift in 'power' from these disciples over to Paul and the new gentile religion we know as Christianity replaced the 'enlightened Judaic' one practiced by Jesus' followers.
Does Islam try to follow all of the Law of Moses?

Jerusalem's destruction was foretold in Daniel and explained with added details by Jesus. After the city's destruction genealogical records were destroyed and following that, no Jew could trace his line to the priestly tribe. Without priests and animal sacrifices the Law forcibly came to an end. But surely this development was allowed by God?
Reply

جوري
01-13-2011, 10:37 AM
format_quote Originally Posted by Hiroshi
Does Islam try to follow all of the Law of Moses?
That is an expansive discussion for the most part the basics haven't changed.. the point which you're missing is that Jesus came to:

Matthew 15:24 He answered, "I was sent only to the lost sheep of Israel."
and his job was to reinforce the Jewish law not twist it into Greek Mythology.
You'll indeed find that Judaism is closer to Islam than Christianity, but Jesus was sent to the Jews. prophet Mohamed PBUH was sent to mankind!

all the best
Reply

Hiroshi
01-13-2011, 04:39 PM
format_quote Originally Posted by τhε ṿαlε'ṡ lïlÿ

That is an expansive discussion for the most part the basics haven't changed.. the point which you're missing is that Jesus came to:

Matthew 15:24 He answered, "I was sent only to the lost sheep of Israel."
and his job was to reinforce the Jewish law not twist it into Greek Mythology.
You'll indeed find that Judaism is closer to Islam than Christianity, but Jesus was sent to the Jews. prophet Mohamed PBUH was sent to mankind!

all the best
Luke 16:16 "The Law and the Prophets were proclaimed until John. Since that time, the good news of the kingdom of God is being preached, and everyone is forcing their way into it."

And in Matthew 5:17 Jesus says: "Do not think that I have come to abolish the Law or the Prophets; I have not come to abolish them but to fulfill them."

Jesus completely satisfied every requirement of the Law by fulfilling it when he provided the ransom sacrifice. The Law promised everlasting life to those who could keep it but condemned and cursed those who could not. Jesus was the only one without sin (as the Qur'an agrees, right?) So he was the only one who could perfectly keep the Law. All others were condemned and cursed. But by the manner of his death, Jesus removed the curse and brought the Law to an end by fulfilling it completely.
Reply

جوري
01-13-2011, 05:18 PM
format_quote Originally Posted by Hiroshi
Luke 16:16 "The Law and the Prophets were proclaimed until John. Since that time, the good news of the kingdom of God is being preached, and everyone is forcing their way into it."
That is what we call a pious forgery, and if it weren't a forgery then such a shame that your bible would be so filled with contradictions!
And in Matthew 5:17 Jesus says: "Do not think that I have come to abolish the Law or the Prophets; I have not come to abolish them but to fulfill them."

Jesus completely satisfied every requirement of the Law by fulfilling it when he provided the ransom sacrifice. The Law promised everlasting life to those who could keep it but condemned and cursed those who could not. Jesus was the only one without sin (as the Qur'an agrees, right?) So he was the only one who could perfectly keep the Law. All others were condemned and cursed. But by the manner of his death, Jesus removed the curse and brought the Law to an end by fulfilling it completely.
How was the law fulfilled? Surely there is more to it than your mere assertion? You don't keep with any of the OT laws.
You don't keep the sabbath
no Male circumcision
you eat pigs
laws on apostasy and divorce etc etc.

all the best
Reply

gmcbroom
01-13-2011, 08:56 PM
The Vale's Lily,
So you don't believe in the Holy Spirit do you? I would hope that you did as that is how the Old and the New Testament came into being. But it was written by men may be your response. I'd say exactly, men inspired by the Holy Spirit. As to the contradictions with in it. Those weren't contradictions they were likely prophecies pointing to the messiah. Now, just because Jesus didn't meet some jews expectations (a conquering king) doesn't mean he wasn't the messiah. He simply presented himself in a humble way and called the faithful to him through his preaching and miracles. Those that have ears should hear. As for those OT laws we no longer follow them because those are the Laws of Moses. When Jesus came he established a better way to reach the Father. Why you ask. Simple the Old Testament Laws were like a check list accomplish those things within it and you were saved. But, they could be cold and dispassionate ie little love. Apparently, God prefers Love. So he sent his Son to fufill the Law and institute something both simple yet extremely difficult. Simple because the whole of the Law can be condensed down to 2 (keep in mind the OT Laws actually numbered over 600) This is what the Gospel of Matthew says: “Jesus said, ‘You must love the Lord our God with all your heart, with all your soul, and with all your mind. This is the greatest and first commandment. The second resembles it: You must love your neighbor as yourself. On these two commandments hang the whole Law, and the Prophets also.’”
Sounds simple yet it's not. First Law of Loving God as instituded by Jesus, is easier than the second. Afterall, not many can easily turn the other check after being offended by someone yet we must if we are to follow the New Law.
Peace be with you.
gmcbroom
Reply

جوري
01-13-2011, 09:23 PM
format_quote Originally Posted by gmcbroom
The Vale's Lily,
So you don't believe in the Holy Spirit do you? I would hope that you did as that is how the Old and the New Testament came into being. But it was written by men may be your response. I'd say exactly, men inspired by the Holy Spirit. As to the contradictions with in it. Those weren't contradictions they were likely prophecies pointing to the messiah. Now, just because Jesus didn't meet some jews expectations (a conquering king) doesn't mean he wasn't the messiah. He simply presented himself in a humble way and called the faithful to him through his preaching and miracles. Those that have ears should hear. As for those OT laws we no longer follow them because those are the Laws of Moses. When Jesus came he established a better way to reach the Father. Why you ask. Simple the Old Testament Laws were like a check list accomplish those things within it and you were saved. But, they could be cold and dispassionate ie little love. Apparently, God prefers Love. So he sent his Son to fufill the Law and institute something both simple yet extremely difficult. Simple because the whole of the Law can be condensed down to 2 (keep in mind the OT Laws actually numbered over 600) This is what the Gospel of Matthew says: “Jesus said, ‘You must love the Lord our God with all your heart, with all your soul, and with all your mind. This is the greatest and first commandment. The second resembles it: You must love your neighbor as yourself. On these two commandments hang the whole Law, and the Prophets also.’”
Sounds simple yet it's not. First Law of Loving God as instituded by Jesus, is easier than the second. Afterall, not many can easily turn the other check after being offended by someone yet we must if we are to follow the New Law.
Peace be with you.
gmcbroom
I don't know what your definition of the 'holy spirit' is and have to assume him the third god of the three headed god you worship.. however in Islam the 'holy spirit' is the arch angel Gabriel!
A contradiction means a statement that is necessarily false with another. It is a logic thing and you can't convince someone that something is the unadulterated word of God when there is a contradiction here and a contradiction there!
I also never said that Jesus wasn't the Messiah, simply that your rendition of Messiah is obviously different than that which is even mentioned in the bible
see here:

CHRIST NOT A NAME

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.
Whilst the good news was being announded (verse 45 above) Mary was told that her unborn child will be called Jesus, that he would be the Christ, a "Word" from God, and that.....
"HE SHALL SPEAK TO THE PEOPLE IN CHILDHOOD* AND IN MATURITY. AND HE SHALL BE (OF THE COMPANY) OF THE RIGHTEOUS."
Holy Quran 3:46
* This prophecy found fulfilment within a very short time. We find this in Sura Maryam below:
"AT LENGTH SHE BROUGHT HIM (THE BABE) TO HER PEOPLE, CARRYING HIM (IN HER ARMS). THEY SAID:"O MARY! TRULY AN-AMAZING THING HAST THOU BROUGHT! O SISTER OF AARON THY FATHER WAS NOT A MAN OF EVIL NOR THY MOTHER A WOMAN UNCHASTE!"
Holy Quran 19:27-28
JEWS AMAZED

There is no Joseph the carpenter here. The circumstances being peculiar, Mary the mother of Jesus had retired herself to some remote place in the East (H.Q.19:16). After the birth of the child she returns.
"The amazement of the people knew no bounds. In any case they were prepared to think the worst of her, as she had disappeared from her kin for some time. But now she comes, shamelessly parading a babe in her arms! How she had disgraced the house of Aaron, the fountain of priesthood! "SISTER OF AARON: Mary is reminded of her high lineage and the unexceptionable morals of her father and mother. How, they said, she had fallen and disgraced the name of her progenitors!
"What could Mary do? How could she explain? Would they, in their censorious mood accept her explanation? All she could do was to point to the child, who, she knew, was no ordinary child. And the child came to her rescue. By a miracle he spoke, defended his mother, and preached -to an unbelieving audience."
A.Yusuf Ali, comments in his notes 2480-2482 on page 773 of his translation.
"BUT SHE POINTED TO THE BABE. THEY SAID: 'HOW CAN WE TALK TO ONE WHO IS A CHILD IN THE CRADLE?'"
HOLY QURAN 19:23
And by a miracle he spoke: HE SAID: "I AM INDEED A SERVANT OF GOD: HE HATH GIVEN ME REVELATION AND MADE ME A PROPHET; "AND HE HATH MADE ME BLESSED WHERESOEVER I BE, AND HE HATH ENJOINED ON ME PRAYER AND CHARITY AS LONG AS I LIVE "(HE) HATH MADE ME KIND TO MY MOTHER, AND NOT OVERBEARING OR MISERABLE; "SO PEACE IS ON ME THE DAY I WAS BORN, THE DAY THAT I DIE, AND THE DAY THAT I SHALL BE RAISED UP TO LIFE (AGAIN)!"
Holy Quran 19:24-33
http://islam101.net/islamic-history-...t.html?start=3

Now you're losing me at a better way to reach the father, isn't Jesus the father? why didn't he think of this before? Why all of a sudden he wants to leave the universe behind, have a period of oblivion in infancy where he suckles poops and voila one day he is god although he never actually states that he is, he prays to himself, he chooses ineffectual apostles one of them the 'Rock' forsook him three times, these look to you like the sort of people who can shoulder a message of God? further to throw the masses into confusion he abrogates his commandments through a charlatan who was his enemy while he was alive? Does that make sense? If it does to you more power to you, but you can see where most of us would see this as absurd!
That whole 'Love' shenanigan is cute, but it doesn't hold water, it is meaningless words, If love were the name of the game then said God would simply do away with hell? and punishment and become a little forgiving toward those who don't buy into the self-immolating fiasco if they lived righteous lives over those who bang their way through life yet are bought forgiveness simply for uttering such meaningless words!

all the best
Reply

gmcbroom
01-13-2011, 10:02 PM
The Vale's Lily, Clearly my arguments haven't convinced you since your a Unitarian and I'm a Trinitarian. I'm saddened by this but it's not unexpected. Afterall, I'm a Catholic guest on a Muslim forum. I consider it a priviledge to be here. I know my faith is strange to you. I'm here out of curiousity and to answer any questions about the catholic faith if I can. Thus I like to go to the comparative religions section of this forum. You'll not likely find me in other sections unless it's by accident or a topic piques my curiousity.
Peace be with you
gmcbroom
Reply

جوري
01-13-2011, 10:45 PM
format_quote Originally Posted by gmcbroom
The Vale's Lily, Clearly my arguments haven't convinced you since your a Unitarian and I'm a Trinitarian. I'm saddened by this but it's not unexpected. Afterall, I'm a Catholic guest on a Muslim forum. I consider it a priviledge to be here. I know my faith is strange to you. I'm here out of curiousity and to answer any questions about the catholic faith if I can. Thus I like to go to the comparative religions section of this forum. You'll not likely find me in other sections unless it's by accident or a topic piques my curiousity. Peace be with you gmcbroom
Broom you haven't made arguments, you've made assertions that aren't supported by text nor logic.. it has nothing to do with your guest status or my lack of knowledge of Christianity. I did attend a catholic school for a number of years.. it wasn't convincing to me as a student and it isn't as a reflecting adult..

all the best
Reply

gmcbroom
01-13-2011, 11:05 PM
The Vale's Lily,
My mistake. I actually had to go read what the definition of argument and assertions were before I could understand you. So what you need is some sort of scriptural evidence or proof to back up my claim. I think I see the barrier between us. Tell me what what New Testament Biblical references will you accept as valid?
Peace be with you
gmcbroom
Reply

MustafaMc
01-14-2011, 03:14 AM
format_quote Originally Posted by Hiroshi
Does Islam try to follow all of the Law of Moses?
I don't consider that Islam is following the 'Law of Moses'; however' as The Vale's Lily said, Islam is much more similar to Judaism than it is to Christianity.
Jerusalem's destruction was foretold in Daniel and explained with added details by Jesus. After the city's destruction genealogical records were destroyed and following that, no Jew could trace his line to the priestly tribe. Without priests and animal sacrifices the Law forcibly came to an end. But surely this development was allowed by God?
Yes, that is true, but I was talking about the shift in leadership of the 'Christian' movement from Jerusalem and Jesus' disciples to Rome and Paul with the destruction of Jerusalem.
Reply

MustafaMc
01-14-2011, 03:19 AM
format_quote Originally Posted by Hiroshi
But by the manner of his death, Jesus removed the curse and brought the Law to an end by fulfilling it completely.
That is why I am almost reluctant to call Christianity a religion at all. There are no guidelines for how to live one's life or how to worship God. It's so easy, just believe that Jesus died on the cross for your sins and you're issued a 'Get out of Hell Free' card.
Reply

MustafaMc
01-14-2011, 03:21 AM
format_quote Originally Posted by τhε ṿαlε'ṡ lïlÿ
You don't keep with any of the OT laws.
You don't keep the sabbath
no Male circumcision
you eat pigs
laws on apostasy and divorce etc etc.

all the best
You hit upon my point exactly. Neither do they have prescribed prayer, fasting or charity.
Reply

Hiroshi
01-14-2011, 10:02 AM
format_quote Originally Posted by MustafaMc
That is why I am almost reluctant to call Christianity a religion at all. There are no guidelines for how to live one's life or how to worship God. It's so easy, just believe that Jesus died on the cross for your sins and you're issued a 'Get out of Hell Free' card.
There are many requirements to live as a Christian. Fornication, dishonesty, idolatry, and all manner of evils are forbidden in the NT. And a careful study of the Bible is needed to understand how we are to worship God acceptably and to live as God wants us to live. Living as a Christian also sometimes brings hardships, opposition and persecution. Jesus said that it would be a struggle (Matthew 7:14; Luke 13:24). Love of God and love of one's fellow man are paramount.
Reply

Hiroshi
01-14-2011, 10:45 AM
format_quote Originally Posted by τhε ṿαlε'ṡ lïlÿ
That is what we call a pious forgery, and if it weren't a forgery then such a shame that your bible would be so filled with contradictions!


How was the law fulfilled? Surely there is more to it than your mere assertion? You don't keep with any of the OT laws.
You don't keep the sabbath
no Male circumcision
you eat pigs
laws on apostasy and divorce etc etc.

all the best
Leviticus 18:5 says: "Keep my decrees and laws, for the person who obeys them will live by them. I am the LORD." This states that a person who obeys the whole Mosaic Law would get life. However, Deuteronomy 27:26 says also: "Cursed is anyone who does not uphold the words of this law by carrying them out."

No one was able to keep the Law perfectly so instead of getting life they came under God's curse. But the manner of Jesus' death removed that curse (Deuteronomy 21:23).

The Qur'an says that Abraham's son was ransomed with a great sacrifice (Surah 37:107). It also says: "Life for life" (Surah 5:45). Why is it hard for Muslims to accept the idea of the ransom sacrifice?
Reply

جوري
01-14-2011, 01:17 PM
format_quote Originally Posted by Hiroshi
Leviticus 18:5 says: "Keep my decrees and laws, for the person who obeys them will live by them. I am the LORD." This states that a person who obeys the whole Mosaic Law would get life. However, Deuteronomy 27:26 says also: "Cursed is anyone who does not uphold the words of this law by carrying them out." No one was able to keep the Law perfectly so instead of getting life they came under God's curse. But the manner of Jesus' death removed that curse (Deuteronomy 21:23). The Qur'an says that Abraham's son was ransomed with a great sacrifice (Surah 37:107). It also says: "Life for life" (Surah 5:45). Why is it hard for Muslims to accept the idea of the ransom sacrifice?
That was a test of faith and devotion to God not a 'ransom' It is so bizarre the way you speak of God, like he is some blood thirsty harvest god that you need to appease with virgins and blood to survive.. What a grievous thing you utter.. at least keep it as far as your beliefs are concerned, that isn't the Islamic belief on the test of Abraham!

all the best
Reply

MustafaMc
01-14-2011, 01:30 PM
format_quote Originally Posted by Hiroshi
There are many requirements to live as a Christian. Fornication, dishonesty, idolatry, and all manner of evils are forbidden in the NT.
What happens when a Christian does one of those things? Does he go to a priest addressing him "Father (priest) forgive me for I have sinned", confess his sin, and receive direction for what to do in penance?
And a careful study of the Bible is needed to understand how we are to worship God acceptably and to live as God wants us to live. Living as a Christian also sometimes brings hardships, opposition and persecution. Jesus said that it would be a struggle (Matthew 7:14; Luke 13:24). Love of God and love of one's fellow man are paramount.
I agree that love of God and fellow human beings is a very good thing and without it we may be prone toward self-righteousness with performance of our religious duties.

What religious duties do you and gmcbroom follow and to whom do they trace back to?
Reply

MustafaMc
01-14-2011, 01:43 PM
format_quote Originally Posted by τhε ṿαlε'ṡ lïlÿ
That was a test of faith and devotion to God not a 'ransom' It is so bizarre the way you speak of God, like he is some blood thirsty harvest god that you need to appease with virgins and blood to survive.. What a grievous thing you utter.. at least keep it as far as your beliefs are concerned, that isn't the Islamic belief on the test of Abraham!
Yes, Abraham's willingness to sacrifice his ONLY son (Ishmael) was not as an act of penance to wash away some sin, but, as you said, it was a test of faith in God. I am a father and I love my son. I imagine that Abraham loved his son even more than I do mine because he went so many years of his life without one. God had made a promise to Abraham and having a son was important for its fulfillment. Is not Abraham's willingness to sacrifice his son a model for us to follow in being willing to sacrifice what we love most in obedience to God?

I just returned from pilgrimage a few months ago and part of the ritual was stoning of the pillars as being symbolic of Abraham's struggle with Satan who tempted him to disobey God. Another ritual was sacrificing a sheep commemorating Abraham's sacrifice. In Islam, we have no concept of a 'blood atonement' sacrifice for sin, rather we repent to God and plead for His forgiveness - most often we do that in prostration during prayer.
Reply

gmcbroom
01-14-2011, 09:29 PM
MustafaMC,
If your Catholic part of your religious duties is to attend Divine Liturgy once a week on either Saturday or Sunday, and you must attend the days of Obligation (Personally, I don't really call a day of obligation a religious duty because that almost imply's your forced to do it when in fact it's a great celebration for Christians we are honoring Our Lord by participating at each DL or DoO.).

I can't speak for anyone else but I attend Divine Liturgy(Mass) at least twice a week. If I'm sick I'll go at least once, unless I'm to ill or contagious to move. I also pray usually between 3 to 5 times a day you know the routine: morning, at meal times, and in the evening. Sometimes, i'll read Sacred Scripture and pray at an Adoration Chapel as well as pray the Rosary. As for to whom do they trace back too. The Last Supper was instituded by Jesus my Lord. All the others were begun by various Catholic Leaders of the Church over the span of the Church.
Peace be with you
gmcbroom
Reply

MustafaMc
01-15-2011, 03:56 AM
format_quote Originally Posted by gmcbroom
All the others were begun by various Catholic Leaders of the Church over the span of the Church.
I assume that your religious rituals are meant as worship of God. On what basis have these rituals been shown to have been ordained by God and therefore are acceptable to Him as forms of worship.

In Islam, our rituals were established directly through Prophet Muhammad (peace be upon him) and all new acts of worship instigated after him are considered as heretical innovations of bidah in Arabic. For example, I believe that I pray very closely to how Muslims prayed behind Muhammad (saaws) as indicated by very few differences among Muslims the world over in how we pray even 1400 years later.
Reply

Hiroshi
01-15-2011, 11:57 AM
format_quote Originally Posted by τhε ṿαlε'ṡ lïlÿ

That was a test of faith and devotion to God not a 'ransom' It is so bizarre the way you speak of God, like he is some blood thirsty harvest god that you need to appease with virgins and blood to survive.. What a grievous thing you utter.. at least keep it as far as your beliefs are concerned, that isn't the Islamic belief on the test of Abraham!

all the best
God is a God of justice and the penalty for sin is death. We all die. No one continues living. That is a fact. But a man without sin could die in our place and pay for our sins. This could be seen illustrated in Surah 2:71-72 where there is a crime by an unknown murderer an animal is sacrificed in order to remove the bloodguilt in accordance with the Law of Moses (Deuteronomy 21:1-9).
Reply

Hiroshi
01-15-2011, 12:08 PM
format_quote Originally Posted by gmcbroom
MustafaMc,
Your so close to the truth, for your answer is in John Chapter 14:9.
Peace be with you.
gmcbroom
In John 14:9 Jesus says: "He that has seen me has seen the Father."

But Jesus is not claiming here to be God the Father. Indeed, the Trinity doctrine emphatically states that Jesus is the Son but not the Father. Rather Jesus means here that he reflects his Father's qualities and personality.
Reply

MustafaMc
01-15-2011, 01:00 PM
format_quote Originally Posted by Hiroshi
God is a God of justice and the penalty for sin is death. We all die. No one continues living. That is a fact. But a man without sin could die in our place and pay for our sins.
However, even you will die and reap 'the penalty of sin'; therefore, your perfect sacrifice did not protect you from that death. What verse in the Bible can you quote that shows that this death is a spiritual death and not a physical one?
This could be seen illustrated in Surah 2:71-72 where there is a crime by an unknown murderer an animal is sacrificed in order to remove the bloodguilt in accordance with the Law of Moses (Deuteronomy 21:1-9).
No where in Surah Al-Baqarah is the purpose for this sacrifice stated or even insinuated. We know that the people of Moses had made an idol in the shape of a cow and perhaps (my speculation) it could have been that these people were worshiping this very cow. We know that it was an act of obedience as opposed to a blood atonement for sin. (See post #143 for clarification)
Reply

جوري
01-15-2011, 03:29 PM
format_quote Originally Posted by Hiroshi
God is a God of justice and the penalty for sin is death. We all die. No one continues living. That is a fact. But a man without sin could die in our place and pay for our sins. This could be seen illustrated in Surah 2:71-72 where there is a crime by an unknown murderer an animal is sacrificed in order to remove the bloodguilt in accordance with the Law of Moses (Deuteronomy 21:1-9).

see what br. Mustafa wrote and quit with your own renditions to Quranic verses!
Reply

MustafaMc
01-16-2011, 06:25 AM
format_quote Originally Posted by τhε ṿαlε'ṡ lïlÿ
see what br. Mustafa wrote and quit with your own renditions to Quranic verses!
You had brought out a similar point regarding Abraham's sacrifice as a test of faith and devotion to God as opposed to a ransom or atonement for some sin he had committed. I suppose that a Christian reading the Quran would tend to interpret it according to his own beliefs rather that what is drawn logically from the text. We have no concept of a blood sacrifice for atonement; however, we often will offer extra prayers, fasting, charity or other good deeds to offset some sin or bad deed that we have done. Please, correct me if I am wrong.
Reply

MustafaMc
01-16-2011, 06:29 AM
How can God have a Father (who Jesus prayed to), a Son (Jesus) and a Mother (Mary mother of Jesus) and yet remain one entity?

Does it not make more sense that God is simply 'the Father' and just leave it at that?
Reply

Hiroshi
01-16-2011, 08:48 AM
format_quote Originally Posted by MustafaMc
How can God have a Father (who Jesus prayed to), a Son (Jesus) and a Mother (Mary mother of Jesus) and yet remain one entity?

Does it not make more sense that God is simply 'the Father' and just leave it at that?
Yes. Although Mary isn't considered part of the Trinity of course.
Reply

Hiroshi
01-16-2011, 09:04 AM
format_quote Originally Posted by MustafaMc
No where in Surah Al-Baqarah is the purpose for this sacrifice stated or even insinuated. We know that the people of Moses had made an idol in the shape of a cow and perhaps (my speculation) it could have been that these people were worshiping this very cow. We know that it was an act of obedience as opposed to a blood atonement for sin.
Surah 2:72 explains that here is a case of an unsolved murder. And Deuteronomy 21:1-9 shows what was needed to be done in such circumstances with an animal sacrifice. It is all explained there.

format_quote Originally Posted by MustafaMc
However, even you will die and reap 'the penalty of sin'; therefore, your perfect sacrifice did not protect you from that death. What verse in the Bible can you quote that shows that this death is a spiritual death and not a physical one?
Ezekiel 18:4 "The soul that sins shall die." Romans 6:23 "The wages of sin is death." Romans 5:12 "through one man sin entered into the world and death through sin, and thus death spread to all men bacause they had all sinned".

Yes, I expect to die but I can hope for the resurrection from the dead which I believe is God's arrangement through Jesus.
Reply

Ramadhan
01-16-2011, 09:11 AM
format_quote Originally Posted by Hiroshi
Yes. Although Mary isn't considered part of the Trinity of course.
the operative word in your sentence is "isn't" which indicates current tense.
Reply

Hiroshi
01-16-2011, 09:27 AM
format_quote Originally Posted by MustafaMc
You had brought out a similar point regarding Abraham's sacrifice as a test of faith and devotion to God as opposed to a ransom or atonement for some sin he had committed. I suppose that a Christian reading the Quran would tend to interpret it according to his own beliefs rather that what is drawn logically from the text. We have no concept of a blood sacrifice for atonement; however, we often will offer extra prayers, fasting, charity or other good deeds to offset some sin or bad deed that we have done. Please, correct me if I am wrong.
It is the sacrificed life and blood of the animal that makes atonement for sins according to the Bible. This is also the reason given as to why blood is prohibited for food.

Leviticus 17:11-12 "For the life of a creature is in the blood, and I have given it to you to make atonement for yourselves on the altar; it is the blood that makes atonement for one’s life. Therefore I say to the Israelites, “None of you may eat blood"."

Hebrews 9:22 " In fact, the law requires that nearly everything be cleansed with blood, and without the shedding of blood there is no forgiveness."
Reply

Hiroshi
01-16-2011, 09:31 AM
format_quote Originally Posted by naidamar
the operative word in your sentence is "isn't" which indicates current tense.
I have read that there were some Christian groups that included Mary as part of the Trinity centuries ago.
Reply

MustafaMc
01-16-2011, 01:55 PM
format_quote Originally Posted by Hiroshi
Surah 2:72 explains that here is a case of an unsolved murder. And Deuteronomy 21:1-9 shows what was needed to be done in such circumstances with an animal sacrifice. It is all explained there.
Again, you are interpreting a single verse in light of your Christian faith and understanding of the Bible. To quote the passage 2:71-74 "(Moses) answered: 'Lo!' He said: 'Verily she is a cow unyoked; she plows not the soil nor waters the tilth; whole and without mark.' They said: 'Now you bring the truth.' So they sacrificed her, though almost they did not. And (remember) when you slew a man and disagreed concerning it and Allah brought forth that which you were hiding. And We said: Smite him with some of it. Thus Allah brings the dead to life and shows you His portents so that you may understand. Then, even after that, your hearts were hardened and became as rocks..."

To quote the commentary on this passage in Yusuf Ali's translation, "In Deut. 21:1-9 it is ordained that if the body of a slain man be found in a field and the slayer is not known, a heifer shall be beheaded, and the elders of the city next to the slain man's domicile shall wash their hands over the heifer and say that they neither did the deed nor saw it done, thus clearing themselves from the blood-guilt. The Jewish story based on this was that in a certain case of this kind, every one tried to clear himself of guilt and lay the blame at the door of others. In the first place they tried to prevaricate (speak evasively) and prevent a heifer from being slain as in the last parable. When she was slain, Allah by a miracle disclosed the real person. A portion of the sacrificed heifer was ordered to be placed on the corpse, which came to life and disclosed the whole story of the crime."

This explanation shows that the sacrifice has absolutely nothing, zero, nada, zilch to do with forgiveness for the sin of murder, but rather for the murderer's exposure so he can be punished.

Ezekiel 18:4 "The soul that sins shall die." Romans 6:23 "The wages of sin is death." Romans 5:12 "through one man sin entered into the world and death through sin, and thus death spread to all men bacause they had all sinned".

Yes, I expect to die but I can hope for the resurrection from the dead which I believe is God's arrangement through Jesus.
And I, too, believe in the resurrection and hope in the mercy of Allah for the forgiveness of my sins such that I may attain Paradise and be protected from the Hellfire. I stand on the promises that Allah made over and over again in the Quran for those who believe in the Oneness of Allah and do good deeds.

The unforgivable sin, if one dies in that state, is to ascribe partners to Allah. For example, saying that Jesus is the Son of God is clearly and irrefutably unbelief in Allah's Oneness and puts Christians in the category of mushrikeen, or polytheists. Verily, their fate is as Jesus says in the Quran 5:118 "If You punish them, lo! they are Your slaves, and if You forgive them (lo! they are Your slaves). Lo! You, only You, are the Mighty, the Wise."
Reply

Hiroshi
01-16-2011, 04:10 PM
format_quote Originally Posted by MustafaMc
Again, you are interpreting a single verse in light of your Christian faith and understanding of the Bible. To quote the passage 2:71-74 "(Moses) answered: 'Lo!' He said: 'Verily she is a cow unyoked; she plows not the soil nor waters the tilth; whole and without mark.' They said: 'Now you bring the truth.' So they sacrificed her, though almost they did not. And (remember) when you slew a man and disagreed concerning it and Allah brought forth that which you were hiding. And We said: Smite him with some of it. Thus Allah brings the dead to life and shows you His portents so that you may understand. Then, even after that, your hearts were hardened and became as rocks..."

To quote the commentary on this passage in Yusuf Ali's translation, "In Deut. 21:1-9 it is ordained that if the body of a slain man be found in a field and the slayer is not known, a heifer shall be beheaded, and the elders of the city next to the slain man's domicile shall wash their hands over the heifer and say that they neither did the deed nor saw it done, thus clearing themselves from the blood-guilt. The Jewish story based on this was that in a certain case of this kind, every one tried to clear himself of guilt and lay the blame at the door of others. In the first place they tried to prevaricate (speak evasively) and prevent a heifer from being slain as in the last parable. When she was slain, Allah by a miracle disclosed the real person. A portion of the sacrificed heifer was ordered to be placed on the corpse, which came to life and disclosed the whole story of the crime."

This explanation shows that the sacrifice has absolutely nothing, zero, nada, zilch to do with forgiveness for the sin of murder, but rather for the murderer's exposure so he can be punished.
I agree that the sacrifice of the cow does not result in the forgivenss of the murderer. But I thought that the death of the animal was required on account of the bloodguilt that would otherwise fall upon the community if nothing was done. I might be wrong. I will look into this further.
Reply

gmcbroom
01-17-2011, 08:40 PM
it all ends with the Blood. Atleast in the Old Testament and New Testament.
Peace be with you.
gmcbroom
Reply

Pygoscelis
01-20-2011, 03:49 AM
The Trinity Doctrine: God sacrificed himself to himself so he could change his own mind about what to do with man.
Reply

gmcbroom
01-20-2011, 08:14 PM
Seems to be the case. It is a mystery and God is truly unscrutable. I think it's out of love though.
peace be with you
gmcbroom
Reply

Ramadhan
01-21-2011, 12:13 AM
format_quote Originally Posted by gmcbroom
Seems to be the case. It is a mystery and God is truly unscrutable. I think it's out of love though.

so God didnt love humans before he decided to morph into jesus?
Reply

gmcbroom
01-21-2011, 02:02 AM
Naidamar,
Of course he did. When Jesus died on the cross his death was the perfect offering as he is the lamb of God, he redeemed us all.
Peace be with you
gmcbroom
Reply

MustafaMc
01-21-2011, 03:23 AM
format_quote Originally Posted by gmcbroom
Naidamar,
Of course he did. When Jesus died on the cross his death was the perfect offering as he is the lamb of God, he redeemed us all.
Peace be with you
gmcbroom
Why does God need a 'payment' for sin? According to Catholic belief, is God incapable of forgiving the repentant sinner? Forgiveness is implied in the NT with: 1) the father of the 'prodigal son' upon his return seeking only to be treated as a servant in Luke 15:11-31, 2) the adulteress brought forward by the Pharisees in John 8:3-11, and 3) the paralytic in Matt. 9:4-6?

Where is the mercy if God if a sin debt cannot be forgiven straight away? Does not the Lord's Prayer include 'forgive us our sins as we forgive everyone who sins against us' in Luke 11:4?
Reply

Ramadhan
01-21-2011, 07:06 AM
format_quote Originally Posted by gmcbroom
Of course he did. When Jesus died on the cross his death was the perfect offering as he is the lamb of God, he redeemed us all.
Peace be with you
How come?
I thought christians (or in your case, catholics) teach that unless you believe in Jesus, you will not be saved.
Well, the followers of Abraham (pbuh) certainly did not believe in jesus. Heck, even Abraham (pbuh) himself did NOT believe in jesus.

Explain please.

I find it amusing that christians keep shifting stance on the same argument.
Reply

gmcbroom
01-21-2011, 08:39 AM
Naidamar,
That's true. However, and this is the interesting part, God does seem to want those of faith. That goes to back to the didache 16:12 actually. {They that endure} by their faith {shall be saved} by the curse himself. I forgot which but I know one man who was a relative of Mohammed's and even though Mohammed pled with him to embrace Islam he chose to die a pagan. The man was responsible for translating Old Testament and New Testament scripture. He would know that passage and find hope in it.
Peace be with you
gmcbroom
Reply

Ramadhan
01-21-2011, 09:13 AM
format_quote Originally Posted by gmcbroom
Naidamar,
That's true. However, and this is the interesting part, God does seem to want those of faith. That goes to back to the didache 16:12 actually. {They that endure} by their faith {shall be saved} by the curse himself. I forgot which but I know one man who was a relative of Mohammed's and even though Mohammed pled with him to embrace Islam he chose to die a pagan. The man was responsible for translating Old Testament and New Testament scripture. He would know that passage and find hope in it.
More words, but, again, do not really answer or explain the problem that I presented. Let me simplified for you again:

Abraham (pbuh) followed the one true god (pure monotheism), he never believed in jesus (pbuh) or holy spirit.
And jesus only redeemed humans sins when he died on a cross.
christians say only those who believe in jesus (pbuh) will be saved, because those who dont believe in him will still retain the sins that prevent them from going to heaven (ie. they will all go to hell)
so, does this mean that the prophets of God (pbut) and their followers prior to jesus (pbuh) will be condemned to hell since they all never believed in anything being partnered to god, and never believed in god who came down to earth?
Reply

YusufNoor
01-21-2011, 11:58 AM
format_quote Originally Posted by gmcbroom
Naidamar,
That's true. However, and this is the interesting part, God does seem to want those of faith. That goes to back to the didache 16:12 actually. {They that endure} by their faith {shall be saved} by the curse himself. I forgot which but I know one man who was a relative of Mohammed's and even though Mohammed pled with him to embrace Islam he chose to die a pagan. The man was responsible for translating Old Testament and New Testament scripture. He would know that passage and find hope in it.
Peace be with you
gmcbroom
you know a man? i don't think so sparky! you show your ignorance of Islam and Islamic history by insinuating that you hold some knowledge [that you don't have]! perhaps you spend too much time on anti-Islamic sites.

you are mixing Waraka ibn Nawfal, Khadija's, RadiAllahu Anha, uncle with the Prophet's, Salla Allahu Alayhe wa Salaam, Uncle Abu Taalib. it's is Waraka whom you speak when you say he was "responsible for translating Old Testament and New Testament scripture" and he IS considered a Muslim as he told RasoolAllah that he wished he would still be alive when he was ordered to spread the Faith. the first you mention, who did not accept Islam was Abu Taalib, who the Prophet loved dearly. 2 different people.

as for the Didache, is this now considered "canon?" why don't you explain to the folks that you are trying to BS here that the Didache is NOT accepted by Christians as having divine origin. it MAY have been at some point by SOME Christians. but it is NOT included in any western Bibles as authentic. Please tell us which "translation" of the Bible you use that has the Didache as part of the "canon."

as you seem to enjoy it as a source, why don't you tell us who wrote it and when it was written? and please use Scholarly sources.

and PLEASE, quit writing lies about Islam and it's history. you are not deserving of peace...

ciao
Reply

MustafaMc
01-21-2011, 01:07 PM
format_quote Originally Posted by MustafaMc
Why does God need a 'payment' for sin? According to Catholic belief, is God incapable of forgiving the repentant sinner? Forgiveness is implied in the NT with: 1) the father of the 'prodigal son' upon his return seeking only to be treated as a servant in Luke 15:11-31, 2) the adulteress brought forward by the Pharisees in John 8:3-11, and 3) the paralytic in Matt. 9:4-6?

Where is the mercy if God if a sin debt cannot be forgiven straight away? Does not the Lord's Prayer include 'forgive us our sins as we forgive everyone who sins against us' in Luke 11:4?
gmcbroom, perhaps you did not see my post. Can you and/or Hiroshi reply with your answers to my questions?
Reply

gmcbroom
01-21-2011, 08:31 PM
Naidamar,
No, they may be saved through Invincible Ignorance atleast according to the catechism of the catholic church. For those that know of Jesus and deny him though........

YusufNoor,
Your right the Didache isn't canon. The web version of the Didache is found at Early Christian Writings.com MLA Kirby,Peter, 2001-2006 copyright. So why would I use it? Simple, It's the one piece of christian Sacred Scripture I see on this site that's talked about most here; so since the muslim view is that Sacred Scripture is corrupted I felt one of the earliest New Testament writings would be exempt from that viewpoint as it's written between 50A.D. to 120A.D. Plus, its one of the earliest New Testament texts So I believed the scribe would be familiar with it.

Could I be wrong? Sure. But, then again I could be right.

MustafaMC,
That answer really depends on how one views God. Why is that important? Simple the Christian view is different than the muslim view. To Christians he is the Heavenly Father and we approach him in that light a family relationship through baptism. I may be mistaken but I thought the muslim community view is more of a Master/Slave relationship concerning God. So there is a point where we have different views that can only be understood though not agreed upon between us both. Take Original Sin. Original Sin explains Jesus's sacrifice. The mercy of God is through Jesus his Son, this is the Christian understanding. I don't think that view is shared by the muslim community though. Maybe I'm mistaken but I thought muslims believed christians are ascribing partners to God which of course is blaphemous. The christian view at least according to St. John of Damascus writings The Fathers of the Church vol. 37 translated by Frederic H. Chase, Jr. Catholic University of America Press, is that you are mutilating God by ripping Jesus from him. That's not good either.
As for The Lord's Prayer it is both prayer and an oath to the death. Why oath? Because, in it we're asking God to forgive us our tresspasses as we forgive those who tresspass against us. There is no easy answer to the questions posted concerning God's mercy as the answer is as different as our perspectives on God.

Peace be with you.
gmcbroom
Reply

MustafaMc
01-21-2011, 11:40 PM
format_quote Originally Posted by gmcbroom
As for The Lord's Prayer it is both prayer and an oath to the death. Why oath? Because, in it we're asking God to forgive us our tresspasses as we forgive those who tresspass against us. There is no easy answer to the questions posted concerning God's mercy as the answer is as different as our perspectives on God.
So, technically Jesus did not really mean it when he said 'forgive us our sins as we forgive everyone who sins against us', because what really matters is Jesus' sacrifice on the cross as the only acceptable atonement for that sin and then only to those who accept the free gift of Jesus blood for salvation. Is this not an example of what Jesus said doesn't really matter, but rather what he supposedly did on the cross?
Reply

Ramadhan
01-22-2011, 12:02 AM
format_quote Originally Posted by gmcbroom
No, they may be saved through Invincible Ignorance atleast according to the catechism of the catholic church. For those that know of Jesus and deny him though........
You missed my point.

All the prophets (pbut) told their followers to follow The one true God, They rejected any belief that God can come in the form of human, they even destroyed ANYTHING (likenesses, images, statues, idols) that people revered or worship.
If what christians say were true (ie. jesus is god) why is it that this most important knowledge NOT given to the previous prophets (pbut)? And why were the previous prophets (pbut) never taught that sins were inherited from Adam (pbut)?

you may provide your explanation backed up by using bible.
Reply

YusufNoor
01-22-2011, 04:02 AM
format_quote Originally Posted by gmcbroom
YusufNoor,
Your right the Didache isn't canon. The web version of the Didache is found at Early Christian Writings.com MLA Kirby,Peter, 2001-2006 copyright. So why would I use it? Simple, It's the one piece of christian Sacred Scripture I see on this site that's talked about most here; so since the muslim view is that Sacred Scripture is corrupted I felt one of the earliest New Testament writings would be exempt from that viewpoint as it's written between 50A.D. to 120A.D. Plus, its one of the earliest New Testament texts So I believed the scribe would be familiar with it.

Could I be wrong? Sure. But, then again I could be right.

gmcbroom
i asked you, "who wrote it?" you DID NOT provide an answer. in other words, you don't even KNOW what century it was written in and you don't know who wrote it! that DOES NOT qualify for any kind of an exemption as a corrupt text. WHY WOULD IT?

as it is NOT a part of any canon, it is amusing that you call it a "sacred scripture," when canon usually denotes what Christians DO consider sacred. i reckon you consider it BOTH sacred and NOT sacred at the same time.

interestingly...

in Acts 11:

25 Then Barnabas went to Tarsus to look for Saul, 26 and when he found him, he brought him to Antioch. So for a whole year Barnabas and Saul met with the church and taught great numbers of people. The disciples were called Christians first at Antioch.
and in the Didache 11:

11:3 But concerning the apostles and prophets, thus do ye according to the doctrine of the Gospel.

11:4 Let every apostle who cometh unto you be received as the Lord.

11:5 He will remain one day, and if it be necessary, a second; but if he remain three days, he is a false prophet.

11:6 And let the apostle when departing take nothing but bread until he arrive at his resting-place; but if he ask for money, he is a false prophet.
according to the Didache, Paul would be a false prophet.

as far as dating the Didache:

Little is known about the author or date of the Didache. The work is anonymous and the text makes no reference to a date or to any external event that can be dated.
Although several scholars have assigned the Didache to the first century, and others have dated it to the third or even fourth century, most prefer a date in the first half of the second century
http://www.religionfacts.com/christi...ts/didache.htm

[QUOTE]Didache (Teaching of the Lord through the Apostles): Eleventh century MS discovered by Philotheus Bryennios. The Didache consists of various parts, starting with the "Two Ways" ethical instruction (see Barn 18-21) and including community rules for liturgical practices and leadership conduct, before ending with a short apocalyptic section. While some of the material might go back before the year 100, the current form of the document is probably mid-second century at earliest[/QUOTE]

http://www.iclnet.org/pub/resources/...n-history.html

in other words, no one knows...

and a response or retraction of your lie:

I forgot which but I know one man who was a relative of Mohammed's and even though Mohammed pled with him to embrace Islam he chose to die a pagan.
i simply don't see it

ciao
Reply

gmcbroom
01-22-2011, 09:11 AM
MustafaMC,
Oh Jesus meant what he said and his sacrifice does indeed matter.

Naidamar,
It is because they were following the Law as handed down by the Prophets. When Jesus walked among us he fufilled the law.
I'd love to give scriptural references but the problem with that is that you can't accept them for to you the Bible is corrupted. This saddens me because it exposes that we can only go so far to justify our beliefs. In the end you'll have to deny them and i'll have to disagree. I thought Genesis 3 was clear on it may not reference the word sin yet clearly shows the first one.

YusufNoor,
I didn't think you'd accept the answer but here goes. At one point in time (clearly not now in the present) it was Sacred Scripture to the group who wrote it. As for the actually person who phyically first wrote it all I can tell you is that who ever he was, was inspired by the Holy Spirit. I doubt if you'd accept God wrote it, but he did inspire it.

Peace be with you
gmcbroom
Reply

MustafaMc
01-22-2011, 12:55 PM
format_quote Originally Posted by gmcbroom
MustafaMC,
Oh Jesus meant what he said and his sacrifice does indeed matter.
...however, how can both be true when they are contradictory? With what words did Jesus answer the question by the rich young man (Matt. 19:16-21), 'What must I do to get eternal life?' Now, how would you answer the same question? Are the two answers in agreement?
Reply

yazan
01-23-2011, 02:23 PM
{
And they say: The Beneficent hath taken unto Himself a son. (88) Assuredly ye utter a disastrous thing (89) Whereby almost the heavens are torn, and the earth is split asunder and the mountains fall in ruins, (90) That ye ascribe unto the Beneficent a son, (91) When it is not meet for (the Majesty of) the Beneficent that He should choose a son. (92) There is none in the heavens and the earth but cometh unto the Beneficent as a slave. (93) Verily He knoweth them and numbereth them with (right) numbering. (94) And each one of them will come unto Him on the Day of Resurrection, alone. (95)} (maryam)



{Say: O People of the Scripture! Come to an agreement between us and you: that we shall worship none but Allah, and that we shall ascribe no partner unto Him, and that none of us shall take others for lords beside Allah. And if they turn away, then say: Bear witness that we are they who have surrendered (unto Him).} (64)(al e-imran))


{ O People of the Scripture! Why disbelieve ye in the revelations of Allah, when ye (yourselves) bear witness (to their truth)? (70) O People of the Scripture! Why confound ye truth with falsehood and knowingly conceal the truth?} (71)


{Say: O People of the Scripture! Why disbelieve ye in the revelations of Allah, when Allah (Himself) is Witness of what ye do? (98) Say: O People of the Scripture! Why drive ye back believers from the way of Allah, seeking to make it crooked, when ye are witnesses (to Allah's guidance)? Allah is not unaware of what ye do.}


{it is not (possible) for any human being unto whom Allah had given the Scripture and wisdom and the prophethood that he should afterwards have said unto mankind: Be slaves of me instead of Allah; but (what he said was): Be ye faithful servants of the Lord by virtue of your constant teaching of the Scripture and of your constant study thereof. (79) And he commanded you not that ye should take the angels and the prophets for lords. Would he command you to disbelieve after ye had surrendered (to Allah)? (80) When Allah made (His) covenant with the prophets, (He said): Behold that which I have given you of the Scripture and knowledge. And afterward there will come unto you a messenger, confirming that which ye possess. Ye shall believe in him and ye shall help him. He said: Do ye agree, and will ye take up My burden (which I lay upon you) in this (matter)? They answered: We agree. He said: Then bear ye witness. I will be a witness with you. (81) Then whosoever after this shall turn away: they will be miscreants. (82) Seek they other than the religion of Allah, when unto Him submitteth whosoever is in the heavens and the earth, willingly or unwillingly, and unto Him they will be returned. (83) Say (O Muhammad): We believe in Allah and that which is revealed unto us and that which was revealed unto Abraham and Ishmael and Isaac and Jacob and the tribes, and that which was vouchsafed unto Moses and Jesus and the prophets from their Lord. We make no distinction between any of them, and unto Him we have surrendered. (84) And whoso seeketh as religion other than the Surrender (to Allah) it will not be accepted from him, and he will be a loser in the Hereafter. (85)} al e-imran
Reply

YusufNoor
01-24-2011, 02:04 AM
format_quote Originally Posted by gmcbroom
YusufNoor,
I didn't think you'd accept the answer but here goes. At one point in time (clearly not now in the present) it was Sacred Scripture to the group who wrote it. As for the actually person who phyically first wrote it all I can tell you is that who ever he was, was inspired by the Holy Spirit. I doubt if you'd accept God wrote it, but he did inspire it.

Peace be with you
gmcbroom
so who actually wrote it, you have no idea, eh?

IF it was considered "inspired by the Holy Spirit," wouldn't it be part of canon?

i see no response, again, to:

I forgot which but I know one man who was a relative of Mohammed's and even though Mohammed pled with him to embrace Islam he chose to die a pagan. The man was responsible for translating Old Testament and New Testament scripture.
what gives?

and no answer to:

11:3 But concerning the apostles and prophets, thus do ye according to the doctrine of the Gospel.

11:4 Let every apostle who cometh unto you be received as the Lord.

11:5 He will remain one day, and if it be necessary, a second; but if he remain three days, he is a false prophet.

11:6 And let the apostle when departing take nothing but bread until he arrive at his resting-place; but if he ask for money, he is a false prophet.
according to the Didache, Paul would be a false prophet.
ciao
Reply

M.I.A.
01-24-2011, 02:43 AM
format_quote Originally Posted by naidamar
How come?
I thought christians (or in your case, catholics) teach that unless you believe in Jesus, you will not be saved.
Well, the followers of Abraham (pbuh) certainly did not believe in jesus. Heck, even Abraham (pbuh) himself did NOT believe in jesus.

Explain please.

I find it amusing that christians keep shifting stance on the same argument.
wow talk about gaps in knowledge, i had no idea.
where is a good place to read up?

also i dont think that writing peace and blessings be upon them besides a prophets name and then missing it out from the next prophets name is appropriate, maybe an oversight on this occasion so just pointing out.
Reply

Ramadhan
01-24-2011, 03:30 AM
format_quote Originally Posted by M.I.A.
wow talk about gaps in knowledge, i had no idea.
where is a good place to read up?
what do you mean?
of course the prophets (pbut) prior to jesus (as) did not believe in him, as jesus (as) had not been born yet. The prophets (pbut) believed in One True God (tawheed)
it's doesnt require special knowledge at all.

You've asked me before where's a good place to learn Islam, and I pointed out you to this place:
http://quran.com

Have finished reading it?
If you had, you certainly did not have to ask the above question about the prophets (pbut) not believing in Jesus (as)

If yes, maybe this:
http://www.beconvinced.com/archive/en/main.php

Let me know if you've done with them and if you have any questions that's not answered in them.



format_quote Originally Posted by M.I.A.
also i dont think that writing peace and blessings be upon them besides a prophets name and then missing it out from the next prophets name is appropriate, maybe an oversight on this occasion so just pointing out.
Thank you for the reminder, it was just an oversight. if you look at my previous posts, I always wrote either (as) or pbuh after every prophet's name, unless there was an oversight.

However, I also would like to remind you as my brother in Islam that you should also write (SWT) after Allah (swt). I have noticed that you never do this.
Here's some of your past posts:

format_quote Originally Posted by M.I.A.
hat that path is and what allah has planned for us...
format_quote Originally Posted by M.I.A.
i know that there is a night when every living thing prostrates to allah...
format_quote Originally Posted by M.I.A.
allah is the founder of christianity.
I think you need to pay more attention and respect to the dzat that created all of us, rather than His creation, do you not think so?

Anyway, I do not want to stray off topic, but you get the gist.
Reply

M.I.A.
01-24-2011, 03:42 AM
format_quote Originally Posted by naidamar
what do you mean?
of course the prophets (pbut) prior to jesus (as) did not believe in him, as jesus (as) had not been born yet. The prophets (pbut) believed in One True God (tawheed)
it's doesnt require special knowledge at all.

You've asked me before where's a good place to learn Islam, and I pointed out you to this place:
http://quran.com

Have finished reading it?
If you had, you certainly did not have to ask the above question about the prophets (pbut) not believing in Jesus (as)

If yes, maybe this:
http://www.beconvinced.com/archive/en/main.php

Let me know if you've done with them and if you have any questions that's not answered in them.





Thank you for the reminder, it was just an oversight. if you look at my previous posts, I always wrote either (as) or pbuh after every prophet's name, unless there was an oversight.

However, I also would like to remind you as my brother in Islam that you should also write (SWT) after Allah (swt). I have noticed that you never do this.
Here's some of your past posts:





I think you need to pay more attention and respect to the dzat that created all of us, rather than His creation, do you not think so?

Anyway, I do not want to stray off topic, but you get the gist.
cool, i totally misunderstood what you were saying. im glad thats sorted out anyway. and you are correct allah swt deserves all praise.. my mistake.
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
British Wholesales - Certified Wholesale Linen & Towels | Holiday in the Maldives

IslamicBoard

Experience a richer experience on our mobile app!