Quran VS Bible , a thoroughly comparative study,arranged by items

[Al-manar]

Not to be intentionally contentious, but I'm not sure whether you are getting your overall view of Christians from this and other internet forums or from personal contact -- where I believe that people like Glo are the rule and not the exception.

such view I got from all what you mentioned... I believe that before the media attack against Islam and muslims ,people as glo etc.. weren't the exception.... but media proved itself a dangerous tool that seeded haterd ,intolerance and in few years the harvest took the form of wide spreading Islamophobia , general hostile attitude against muslims in the west ...... whenever there is a vote for intolerant laws, aggressive war against muslims ,you find that the majority of christians would immediately vote for it....

I say that because I find that forums frequently introduce us to people with entrenched positions (whatever the issue). I would hope that in the real world your experience with flesh and blood Christians would be better than what one finds here.

In my real life,I used from childhood to be in contact with the Arab Christians eg;neighbours ........
those christians used to co-exist in peace with muslims since almost the beginning of Islam .... without much trouble...

they used to respect and be respected ,even if there is hatred it would be hidden in the minds,hearts..... not till recently ,sadly the church media (TV channels & online activities) ,began the offense ..... the muslims have no choice but to try to counter that ....... and there is a real war in the media now between muslims and christians......history tells , weapon wars were a consequnce of word wars..... so I think unless this word war stop ,there won't be the least hope to evade the weapon wars ,which won't benefit none....

I know I have to keep reminding myself, that my first-hand experiences with Muslims are all much better than what I generally encounter online..

you are right, me for example ,Imagin once I meet you....... all what I will do to invite you home for a meal and be sure our discussion won't be religious at all, ... so there is no chance for a debate ...:smile:...

The good news is that I have learned a lot about Islam and on the whole understand Muslims better, and I have made some great friends here in this forum .

would I add,you have learned what is the Quranic problem with the bible ? I think you do....
as long as you read the thread etc...

and remember always we have problems with the bible not with peaceful christians etc....

[Hugo]

Quran honours prophet Jesus pbuh and even attributes miracles to him, not mentioned in the Bible. Made clay birds and breathed life into them:

This story is a copy from what is called The Infancy Gospel of Thomas and dates to the 2/3rd centuries. It was part of a popular genre of pseudo-biblical work, written to satisfy a hunger among early Christians for more miraculous and anecdotal stories of the childhood of Jesus than the Gospel of Luke provided.

The above was all kept out of the New Testament: Download and use keyword searches to include "Cradle" and "Birds" - Skeptics dismiss the banned books as fables. I'll let you decide for yourselves.

What puzzles me in all this kind of thing is that you leap to these obviously apocryphal books and others like the Gospel of Barnabas without having read them and ignore the four accepted and most well attested gospels. You speak of how careful and logical Islam is and how chains or narrators are needed buy when it suits your purpose you forget all that and blindly accept such nonsensical stories - why?

[Hugo]

damaging the reputation of the pious,prophets is something the Jews were famous for .....or you need to know what have they accused Jesus with?!

It is true that that the Jews persecuted and even killed the prophets but also preserved their message. If one studies the Biblical prophets then I don't think you can find one who claimed to be pious or perfect in any way and indeed it was a constant lament that they fell short, far short. Moses tried it in one place and was punished for it by not being allowed to enter the promised land. David in Psalm 51:3 said "For I acknowledge my transgressions: and my sin is ever before me". Job 42:4-8 (NIV) make it crystal clear, when we come before God we will have nothing to commend us:

"You said, 'Listen now, and I will speak; I will question you, and you shall answer me.' My ears had heard of you but now my eyes have seen you. Therefore I despise myself and repent in dust and ashes."

The idea that prophets are in some way perfect is an entirely Islamic invention and Job makes clear what our attitude should be - if you can, tell us where this Islamic dogma comes from.

though we both go in the opposite direction ,I find you wiser than lots of the christians I argued with before.... I wish Hugo would learn some of your wisdom...

I am not sure who said the above but Benjamin Franklin one said "The doorstep to the temple of wisdom is a knowledge of our own ignorance”. I am happy to confess to mine so what about you? Finally, it is an entirely silly and useless idea to suggest that those who oppose or ask question are any less sincere that those who do not and what on earth gives you the self-righteous authority to pronounce on who or who is not "nice" - go and look at what Job said. Scepticism is as much the result of knowledge, as knowledge is the result of scepticism. To be content with what we know is for the most part to shut our ears and stagnate.

[جوري]

It is true that that the Jews persecuted and even killed the prophets but also preserved their message.

How do you preserve the message when you don't like what the messengers have to say to the point of breaking the very foundation of religion. ( that of committing murder) and you are speaking of preservation of the supernumerary fundamentals!
do you ponder what you write before you hurl it out?

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

[Hugo]

such view I got from all what you mentioned... I believe that before the media attack against Islam and muslims ,people as glo etc.. weren't the exception.... but media proved itself a dangerous tool that seeded haterd ,intolerance and in few years the harvest took the form of wide spreading Islamophobia , general hostile attitude against muslims in the west ...... whenever there is a vote for intolerant laws, aggressive war against muslims ,you find that the majority of christians would immediately vote for it....

It is of course true that there is hatred of Islam in much the same way are there is hatred of Christianity and other faiths. The trouble with you analysis is that is cannot accept or even image in that it Islam is at fault. Just today we read of two Sunni suicide bombers killing dozens in a shia Mosque in Iran, if we go to Iraq its even worse with both the Christian and Sunni population being more or less driven out by extremist shia and mostly into Northern Iraq or into Syria or to the West. The list goes on with hardly a day going by without one Muslim killing another one. Go an read Deborah Amos' book "The Eclipse of the Sunnis: Exile and Upheaval in the Middle East"

In my real life,I used from childhood to be in contact with the Arab Christians eg;neighbours ........ those christians used to co-exist in peace with muslims since almost the beginning of Islam .... without much trouble...

Did you regard them as your equal in everything?

you are right, me for example ,Imagin once I meet you....... all what I will do to invite you home for a meal and be sure our discussion won't be religious at all, ... so there is no chance for a debate .

Here I agree with you, meeting face to face and really finding out who someone is lead to an entirely different expedience.

[Pygoscelis]

Personally, I would be very interesting in exploring the similitudes between Qu'ran and the Bible.

Although I would have little if anything to contribute to said thread I would love to read it. Make it happen guys :)

[Asiyah3]

****edit****

[Grace Seeker]

Well, I have already written a number of things, and stored them for posting later if this thread had ended up being of that nature. I'll be glad to post them as the start of a new thread, but first I have to find them. You see, I moved recently, and they are on a flash drive floating around in the bottom of an as yet unopened box.

[aadil77]

Although I would have little if anything to contribute to said thread I would love to read it. Make it happen guys :)

I think its happened plenty of times before, all it leads to is everyone sucking up to each other and continous acknowledgement of similarities - theres no fun in that

[Grace Seeker]

I think its happened plenty of times before, all it leads to is everyone sucking up to each other and continous acknowledgement of similarities - theres no fun in that

Please tell me that you are jesting with regard to the part in bold print.

[جوري]

he is right.. life is about contrast not similitude.. how would you appreciate daylight unless you had night, or a cool breeze unless you walked in the sweltering terrain, of satiation without hunger, quench without thirst.. in fact these are also the things that make us appreciate Islam so much, comparing it to the medieval and illogical convictions of others makes us all the more grateful for the gift Allah swt has bestowed upon mankind to drive them from the dark ages into the light..

all the best

[aadil77]

Please tell me that you are jesting with regard to the part in bold print.

well I'm sure you've watched some of these interfaith dialogues you get, all it is a repetative series of acknowledging similarities that members of each faith find in the others, it gets boring - people in the audience literally fall asleep

but I suppose they serve their purpose and can be useful

[Pygoscelis]

well I'm sure you've watched some of these interfaith dialogues you get, all it is a repetative series of acknowledging similarities that members of each faith find in the others, it gets boring - people in the audience literally fall asleep

but I suppose they serve their purpose and can be useful

Not all similarities, differences too. And even the similarities will not necesarily lead to love fests. Both Islam and Christianity hate on homosexuality, for example. One similarity that will not bring joy to anyone.

[Grace Seeker]

I respectfully disagree that life is about one as opposed to the other [referencing contrast and similitude here]. There is a time and a place for both in life. Just as one steers away from the darkness, one needs to move into the light. To only see differences and to have nothing in common means that there is no point of connection by which we may approach each other to share what truth we may have with one another. To live without that which we share in common, is to always see only the other in people. Indeed, it might be to even fail to recognize that the other is human and that we have at least that in common. Without a recognition of our common humanness, there is no motive to share the truth about the human condition, our common fallenness, our equal need for living in submission to God. It is to abandon the other who does not already share the same beliefs that you do, to a life in which those beliefs are never shared with him/her. Could one who lives in accordance with the will of Allah, ever live in such a way that he only saw people as others not even in need of coming to the same knowledge of Allah that he/she already has? I think not. To say that life is about contrast, and to leave out similitudes that which we have in common, such as our common need for Allah, seems to me antithetical to the Islamic way of life.

[جوري]

ideologies and beliefs aren't about appreciation of humanness-- one needs to recognize what philosophies and ideas fail and are frankly erroneous and move away from them. We only get one life, that shouldn't be squandered on frivolities..
Also it isn't about this being wrong and this being right.. everything has truth in it, it is a matter which truth will get me to my desired destination. Which truth is more truthful and in concert with man's fitrah.. Would you go back to taking 21 painful rabies vaccines to accomplish what you can in just three?

If we accept that religion is from God and in his wisdom he didn't reveal all at once but in intervals for what is suitable and at the end when man is wise enough to carry the message, to understand it and to live it preserved it free from error, from absurdity, why would anyone in their right mind go back to medieval practices which have been abrogated to that which is better..

It is imperative for threads like these to exist to have a detailed side by side comparison so one has no doubt to verity and accuracy.. and this is exactly the sort of message that will be held against us in the day of recompense, so take heed that all has been explained to you in every finite detail as it might in fact be a witness against you on that day!

all the best

[glo]

Well, I have already written a number of things, and stored them for posting later if this thread had ended up being of that nature. I'll be glad to post them as the start of a new thread, but first I have to find them. You see, I moved recently, and they are on a flash drive floating around in the bottom of an as yet unopened box.

Oh, those pesky unopened boxes ... and a flash drive is such a tiny thing too! :D
Looks like everybody is waiting for you to start that thread, Grace Seeker.

[Grace Seeker]

If we accept that religion is from God and in his wisdom he didn't reveal all at once but in intervals for what is suitable and at the end when man is wise enough to carry the message, to understand it and to live it preserved it free from error, from absurdity, why would anyone in their right mind go back to medieval practices which have been abrogated to that which is better..

And what of those who don't accept the premise you begin with. How does one share truth with that person? Doesn't one want to find that which they share in common so as to have a discussion? Then, if one is able to identify that both are at least seekers of truth, one can begin to compare and contrast what one's understanding of truth is. But until there is common ground, at least a common language -- and here I don't mean just a common spoken language but an agreement with regard to how one should attempt to communicate -- one cannot have a conversation in which one shares one's views of the truth with regard to God or anything else.

[جوري]

And what of those who don't accept the premise you begin with. How does one share truth with that person? Doesn't one want to find that which they share in common so as to have a discussion? Then, if one is able to identify that both are at least seekers of truth, one can begin to compare and contrast what one's understanding of truth is. But until there is common ground, at least a common language -- and here I don't mean just a common spoken language but an agreement with regard to how one should attempt to communicate -- one cannot have a conversation in which one shares one's views of the truth with regard to God or anything else.

The premise starts with contemplation, and cognitive content of said contemplation to be held as true.. you are right in that some premises are too convoluted for one to be able to accept them whatsoever, in such a case each soul is both responsible and held in pledge for its own deeds, and then there a zillion other things outside of religion in which one can 'amicably agree' with those who don't share the faith as Dr. idris put it best:

'' in Islam a distinction is made between beliefs and believers. As far as beliefs are concerned there is absolutely no compromise: any belief that contradicts Islam is false, and must be criticized. But those who adhere to such false beliefs are to be tolerated, nicely treated and invited to the truth in the best of ways. It is because of this that Jews and Christians found their safest haven in the Muslim world long before the West started to talk about human rights and freedom of religion. “Jews familiar with history might note that from Spain to Baghdad, it was the Islamic world that offered the Jews of the Middle Ages a fair degree of toleration -- not the Christian West’, so tells us Richard Cohen in an article in the Post.; non-Muslims continue to live peacefully among Muslims. Islamic teachings, corroborated by our historical experience, teach us that the best atmosphere for the spread of Islam is the peaceful atmosphere.''

all the best

[Zafran]

Not all similarities, differences too. And even the similarities will not necesarily lead to love fests. Both Islam and Christianity hate on homosexuality, for example. One similarity that will not bring joy to anyone.

Not fully true - there is a big debate in England about the church on making homosexuality ok.

[Pygoscelis]

Not fully true - there is a big debate in England about the church on making homosexuality ok.

Wow really? I would like to see how this particular sect tries to rectify that with the bible, and with all those other sects of Christianity (and Judaism and Islam as well) that hold homosexuality as abomination (in some sects punishable by death).

[Grace Seeker]

Wow really? I would like to see how this particular sect tries to rectify that with the bible, and with all those other sects of Christianity (and Judaism and Islam as well) that hold homosexuality as abomination (in some sects punishable by death).

Actually, there are a lot of Christian groups that seem to have no trouble with homosexuality. Recently the Lutheran Church (ELCA) denomination even approved openly homosexual persons serving as pastors in their churches, though each local church is free to endorse or not endorse that denominational decision as a matter of congregational policy. I'll not bore you with the thinking behind that, but you can find it discussed on numerous threads at christianforums.com.

That's probably a significant difference between the Qur'an and the Bible -- the manner in which those who accept them as authoritive texts utilize them.

[Zafran]

Wow really? I would like to see how this particular sect tries to rectify that with the bible, and with all those other sects of Christianity (and Judaism and Islam as well) that hold homosexuality as abomination (in some sects punishable by death).

Its not realy a sect - its the church of England. There could be split in the near future as some people in the church are unhappy with the archbishop.

[Ramadhan]

Wow really? I would like to see how this particular sect tries to rectify that with the bible, and with all those other sects of Christianity (and Judaism and Islam as well) that hold homosexuality as abomination (in some sects punishable by death).

Well, I am not sure if a survey has been conducted, but it seems majority christians have accepted that homosexuality are to be tolerated.
Argentina, a catholic country through and through (92% of population are catholics), has just passed laws legalizing GAY MARRIAGE a week ago.

[Ramadhan]

That's probably a significant difference between the Qur'an and the Bible -- the manner in which those who accept them as authoritive texts utilize them.

True.
the Qur'an is the definitive words from God, while the bible was written by unknown men who surrendered to their desires and personal interests while incorporating bits and pieces of what jesus pbuh taught.

[Pygoscelis]

I think that is a key difference between modern christians and modern muslims, the christians are more "interpretive" and will ignore certain parts of the bible that clash with modern sensibility whereas muslims don't do that too much with the quran. But if you trace christian history it used to be the same way muslims are today so maybe future muslims will be more "interpretive" like modern day christians and come to ignore certain parts of the quran that may clash with the societal values at the time.

[Al-manar]

It is true that that the Jews persecuted and even killed the prophets but also preserved their message.

Including some shameful details which weren't part of their message neither the truth...
your original argument was , just as they included such shameful details,then they must have told the truth.....

but we don't think that way,even some christians courageously deny that such shameful details should reflect God's message...

Grace seeker courageously noted that...

I hate that story(the story of the curse of Noah), too. And I agree that it reflects poorly on God as well. I have to confess that this is when it is important to realize that I am not a Biblical literalist and do not believe in a dictation theory with regard to the production of the biblical text. I tend to see the hand of the authors more than that of God in the projections that they put forth with regard to how God viewed these events.

some writers would project some imaginary details for a purpose: eg;

.
Some Biblical scholars see the "curse of Canaan" story as an early Hebrew rationalization for Israel's conquest and enslavement of the Canaanites, who were presumed to descend from Canaan.The "curse of Ham" had been used by some members of Abrahamic religions to justify racism and the enslavement of people of Black African ancestry, who were believed to be descendants of Ham.

The idea that prophets are in some way perfect is an entirely Islamic invention and Job makes clear what our attitude should be - if you can, tell us where this Islamic dogma comes from.

Islamic dogma?!

The majority of Islamic scholars believe the prophets were protected from commiting major sins, but were exposed to minor sins,mistakes...there is nothing in Quran or sunna that suggest (The prophet with zero mistakes),or (a pervert prophet) as well....


other posts I skipped to keep on topic...

[Al-manar]

Well, I have already written a number of things, and stored them for posting later if this thread had ended up being of that nature. .

And I invite you to post them right here, they are supposed similarities between Quran and Bible ,aren't they?

though I don't know what is the nature of such similarities ,but I feel that most of those that believed so, shouldn't be viewed as similarities.....

I personally found the field of similarities is so narrow and the field of differences far richer.....anyway , I promise you to share the discussion whether you post here or another thread...

[Ramadhan]

I think that is a key difference between modern christians and modern muslims, the christians are more "interpretive" and will ignore certain parts of the bible that clash with modern sensibility whereas muslims don't do that too much with the quran. But if you trace christian history it used to be the same way muslims are today so maybe future muslims will be more "interpretive" like modern day christians and come to ignore certain parts of the quran that may clash with the societal values at the time.

I don't think you really understand the history of christianity, otherwise you would have known that reinterpreting jesus' message has been done by christians since the early years right after jesus was raised to heaven. Modern day christians who you called "interpretive" merely continuation of christian tradition who have to keep reinterpreting and twist the bible to conform with society attitude of the day, from paul's attempt to make jesus teachings to be more palatable to the greeks to roman emperors sanctioning certain sects of christianity to medieval roman catholics to protestantism/reform all the way the present day christians who go bend over backwards to appease modern living including gay marriage etc.

And this all happened because jesus message was not properly and strictly preserved and recorded when he was alive, and then totally destroyed by paul, who never met jesus, who claimed that he received divine guidance in his dreams and totally abrograted jesus' teachings and raised him as god.
since then christians think that as long as they accept jesus as their savior, everything else does not matter and they will go to heaven, hence you will get mainstream christians who will try to fit christianity into society all the time.

Meanwhile, contrast that to muslims who believe that the Qur'an is the direct speech of God, which is 100% preserved and stays intact from the time of the prophet SAW until now where millions of muslims memorize completely the Qur'an, as well as the hadiths, collection of the prophet SAW sayings and actions which are preserved with 100% transmissions known along with the credibilities of the transmitters.
Since the time of Rasulullah saw, mainstream muslims (ahlusunnah al jamaah) hold fast to the Qur'an and hadiths without trying to "reinterpret" and/pr twist the meanings.
You will always have fractions and sects who will keep trying to do otherwise, however.

[Zafran]

salaam

this isnt about "interpretation" this is about changing christainity to suit ones desires. Plain and simple. On the homosexual issue.

peace.

[Grace Seeker]

True.
the Qur'an is the definitive words from God, while the bible was written by unknown men who surrendered to their desires and personal interests while incorporating bits and pieces of what jesus pbuh taught.

I understand that you believe this to be true. It also is different than what I said.

What I said can be true -- that manner in which Christians accept the Bible as an authoritative text varies from the manner in which Muslims accept the Qur'an as an authoritative text -- without the view you hold of the Bible needing to be true. For instance, I don't think that many Christians would agree that the Bible is the product of people who surrendered to their own desires and personal interests when writing the Bible any more than the Muslim would think the Qur'an the product of such writing.

Rather, what I said is that both groups view their own texts as authoritative. But though both groups view them their texts authoritatively, the way in which they use their respective texts, the process of interpretation, application, and others ways of approaching the text are very different.

[Ramadhan]

I understand that you believe this to be true. It also is different than what I said.

What I said can be true -- that manner in which Christians accept the Bible as an authoritative text varies from the manner in which Muslims accept the Qur'an as an authoritative text -- without the view you hold of the Bible needing to be true. For instance, I don't think that many Christians would agree that the Bible is the product of people who surrendered to their own desires and personal interests when writing the Bible any more than the Muslim would think the Qur'an the product of such writing.

Rather, what I said is that both groups view their own texts as authoritative. But though both groups view them their texts authoritatively, the way in which they use their respective texts, the process of interpretation, application, and others ways of approaching the text are very different.

Interestingly,
despite the blah blah blah... convoluted and vague explanations how christians view the bible,
the thundering fact is:
The faith, religious views, world views and practices of todays christians are COMPLETELY DIFFERENT and THE OPPOSITES of what Jesus' were.
If anything, based on christians texts alone, what jesus believed and praticed mirror what muslims are.

that's food for thought for those who are on honest journey for truth.

[Grace Seeker]

salaam

this isnt about "interpretation" this is about changing christainity to suit ones desires. Plain and simple. On the homosexual issue.

peace.

You will find Christians who agree with your analysis and who disagree with it. Those who would agree tend to think that the Bible spoke clearly against homosexuality and that any other reading that which they find is the product of people who want to re-interpret the text for their own purposes to such a degree that it is tantamount to tamper. Whereas, those who would disagree specifically point to the original terms and claim that they never should have been imbued with the meaning that people attribute to them today, for they hold they had an entirely differnt meaning than is presently given to them when originally written. As such they hold that the problem isn't with their re-interpretation of the text, but the original (as they would call it) misinterpretation that became accepted as if it were the standard when it wasn't correct in the first place.

[Grace Seeker]

The faith, religious views, world views and practices of todays christians are COMPLETELY DIFFERENT and THE OPPOSITES of what Jesus' were.

No. They aren't. And all the blah, blah, blah that tries to point to conspiracy theories, destruction of unauthorized texts, infiltration of pagan thought, and catering to Greek culture are misdirections that show how a little knowledge is dangerous. For despite there being some truth in what you say, the historical context of the Christian faith shows that the text we have received today is more credible than any other text of ancient history and the Bible we have inherited today properly represents the faith of the first generation of the church in which people were first-hand witnesses to Jesus, his life, his death, his resurrection, and his teachings.

[Ramadhan]

Jesus taught to rinse before Praying as Muslims do {John 13:10}

But now if you would see a man bowed down head on the floor praying for God, you would say, "look at that Muslim!"... Jesus bowed down in Submission on the Ground to God as Muslims do:

"And he went a little farther, and fell on his face, and prayed, saying, O my Father, if it be possible, let this cup pass from me: nevertheless not as I will, but as thou wilt"

{Matthew 26:39}

Moses(as):"And Moses bowed to the ground and worshiped" (Exodus 34:8)

Moses(as) & Aaron (as):"Then Moses and Aaron went away from the assembly to the entrance of the tent of meeting and fell on their faces..." (Numbers 20:6)

Abraham (as):"then Abram fell on his face" (Genesis 17:3)

Abraham's servant: "When Abraham's servant heard their words, he bowed himself to the ground before the Lord" (Genesis 24:52)

Joshua(as):"And Joshua fell on his face to the earth and worshiped." (Joshua 5:14)

Ezra and the people: "Then they bowed their heads and worshiped the lord with their faces to the ground." (Nehemiah 8:6)

Should i go on... hope you guys got the point...

And just to prove you guys that Islam is NOT A NEW RELIGION, I can go on showing you passages in the Bible were we clearly see Jesus (as) and other prophets doing ALL the acts of worship Muslims (submitters to God) do today:

-Not eating pork (leviticus 11:7, Deuteronomy 14:8)

-Praying from dawn to evening (Psalms 113:3)

-Supplicating with hands raised (1 Kings 8:54, Nehemiah 8:6)

-No alcohol (Luke 1:15)

-Fasting (Matthew 4:2 - 5:6 - 6-16)

-Greetings (all prophets greeted by "peace be upon you (pbuh)!" Translation: "al salamu aleikum" as all muslims of today great each other... John 20:19-21-26, Luke 24:36, Matthew 10:12-13)

-Muslim frequently use the phrase "Insha Allah" (James 4:14-15)

-Charity (Leviticus 27:30-33)

-No interest (psalms 15:5, Exodus 22:25)

-Circumcision (Luke 2:21)

-Woman with weil on her hair(1corinthians 11:6)

-Taking of shoes in holy worship places (exodus 3:5 - Joshua 5:15 - Acts 7-33)

-Abolution before praying (Exodus 40:31-32)

-Following the lunar calendar (Isaiah 66:23)

-Pilgrimage (deuteronomy 12:5-7)
If Christians love Jesus (as) as much as they do why don't they practice his teachings and habits? Name me ONLY 1 Christian, ANYBODY knows, which does ALL those things that JESUS (as) used to do and PRESCRIBE on us to do as well... only ONE !!! I know I do them all, and all true Muslims do! Now who is closer to the teachings and habits of Jesus (as)? Christians as we know them today? And I'm not trying to say we are better than Christians, all I'm saying is that Islam is the only religion who ever existed since it means "submitting to the will of God", the early Christians resembled Jesus (pbuh) and accepted his true message which, unfortunately, got distorted leading to the coming of Mohammad (pbuh) clarifying it and completing it (as Jesus said it wasn't complete) and not eliminate it!

Jesus (pbuh) said "all of You who Submit your will to God, are my true Brothers and Sisters" (Mark 3:31-35), as Muslims of today do...
(Matthew 7:21-23) "Not everyone who says to me, 'Lord, Lord,' will enter the kingdom of heaven, but only he who does the will of my Father who is in heaven. Many will say to me on that day, 'Lord, Lord, did we not prophesy in your name, and in your name drive out demons and perform many miracles? Then I will tell them plainly, 'I never knew you. Away from me, you evildoers!'"

He said the will of my father, not mine... I hope you guys are starting to understand the true message of Jesus and all the Prophets of God! Jesus (as) was great, but GOD is the Greatest!

Say (O Muslims!: ' We believe in God, and the revelation given to us, and to Abraham, and Ishmael, and Isaac, and Jacob, and the Tribes, and that given to Moses and Jesus, and that given to (all) Prophets from their Lord; we make no distinction between any of them; and we bow to God (in ISLAM)

Quran 2:13




From http://whyislam101.com/id9.html

[Ramadhan]

I guess christians believe in Paul a LOT MORE than they do in Jesus, for paul abrograted Jesus' teachings and rules.

Interestingly, whenever there is a challenge to and question about christian faith, fundamentals and tenets, it can never be answered in direct, simple and short sentences.
It always has to be in extremely long, convoluted, vague sentences designed to make the questioner lost in those.

[Zafran]

You will find Christians who agree with your analysis and who disagree with it. Those who would agree tend to think that the Bible spoke clearly against homosexuality and that any other reading that which they find is the product of people who want to re-interpret the text for their own purposes to such a degree that it is tantamount to tamper. Whereas, those who would disagree specifically point to the original terms and claim that they never should have been imbued with the meaning that people attribute to them today, for they hold they had an entirely differnt meaning than is presently given to them when originally written. As such they hold that the problem isn't with their re-interpretation of the text, but the original (as they would call it) misinterpretation that became accepted as if it were the standard when it wasn't correct in the first place.

what do you mean by original meaning?

[Grace Seeker]

If Christians love Jesus (as) as much as they do why don't they practice his teachings and habits?

There are many reasons, but I'll mention two that should suffice for all those who, as Jesus liked to say, have ears to hear:
1) Jesus didn't teach people do practice every thing that he did just because he did it. Mimicry and following Jesus are NOT the same thing.
2) Many of the things that Jesus did he did becaus they were commanded of the Jews, and Jesus was a Jew. Non-jews are NOT now nor ever were commanded to keep those same practices. Nor were people required to become Jews in order to be known as followers of Jesus. So, non-Jewish followers of Jesus were not then nor are they now expected to keep the Jewish laws and customs that Jesus himself kept because they aren't part of God's expectations in the covenant he made with us; they were only expectations placed on those persons who were part of the covenant he made with Jews.

Name me ONLY 1 Christian, ANYBODY knows, which does ALL those things that JESUS (as) used to do and PRESCRIBE on us to do as well... only ONE !!! I know I do them all, and all true Muslims do!

Really Muslims do ALL the things that Jesus used to do.

Do you remember the Sabbath, the 7th day of the week beginning at sunset Friday through sunset Saturday, set it aside to worship YWHW and do no work on that day.

Do you celebrate Passover?

Do you drink wine?

Do you refer to God as "my father"?

Do you bless and not curse those who persecute you?

Do you turn the other cheek, go the second mile?

Do you, before making any offering, go and first make reconcilation with those you may be at enmity with?

All of these are things that Jesus either did himself or taught others to do. I thought some of them, such as the drinking of wine or calling God "father", were specifically forbidden for Muslims to do, yet Jesus did them and you claim that Muslims do all that Jesus did. I don't think so. You only look at that part of the list Jesus did you do do and think it exhaustive; there is also much that Jesus did that as a Muslim you do not do.

[Grace Seeker]

I guess christians believe in Paul a LOT MORE than they do in Jesus, for paul abrograted Jesus' teachings and rules.

No, he didn't. Paul abrogated the law given to Moses. Jesus kept the Torah; he didn't teach the Torah. What Jesus taught was how one should live as a member of God's coming kingdom.

Interestingly, whenever there is a challenge to and question about christian faith, fundamentals and tenets, it can never be answered in direct, simple and short sentences.
It always has to be in extremely long, convoluted, vague sentences designed to make the questioner lost in those.

Really? Always?

[Grace Seeker]

what do you mean by original meaning?

I used the adjective "original" several times in my post. But never do I say "original meaning". Did you intend to ask what I meant by "original terms" or some other phrase?

[Zafran]

I used the adjective "original" several times in my post. But never do I say "original meaning". Did you intend to ask what I meant by "original terms" or some other phrase?

Yes i meant

Whereas, those who would disagree specifically point to the original terms and claim that they never should have been imbued with the meaning that people attribute to them today, for they hold they had an entirely differnt meaning than is presently given to them when originally written. As such they hold that the problem isn't with their re-interpretation of the text, but the original (as they would call it) misinterpretation that became accepted as if it were the standard when it wasn't correct in the first place.

different/original meaning.

[Ramadhan]

There are many reasons, but I'll mention two that should suffice for all those who, as Jesus liked to say, have ears to hear:
1) Jesus didn't teach people do practice every thing that he did just because he did it. Mimicry and following Jesus are NOT the same thing.

Jesus was a teacher, and he did not want his people to imitate him?

Interesting conclusion you have. Did you get this from the passages of the bible where Jesus clearly, UNAMBGIOUSLY say "You need not do what I do, You need not act how I act, you need not believe what I believe"?

More deviation from jesus real teachings? you betcha!

2) Many of the things that Jesus did he did becaus they were commanded of the Jews, and Jesus was a Jew. Non-jews are NOT now nor ever were commanded to keep those same practices. Nor were people required to become Jews in order to be known as followers of Jesus. So, non-Jewish followers of Jesus were not then nor are they now expected to keep the Jewish laws and customs that Jesus himself kept because they aren't part of God's expectations in the covenant he made with us; they were only expectations placed on those persons who were part of the covenant he made with Jews.

I agree, You are right that Jesus is sent for the lost sheep of israel, and not for the mankind.

Really Muslims do ALL the things that Jesus used to do.

I did not say ALL, but in the very basic he was like a muslim:
belief in one Absolute Undivided God, the way he prayed and worshiped, the way he fasted and give alms.

It is NOT muslims who followed Jesus, it IS CHRISTIANS, and yet NO CHRISTIANS are like him in the very basic.

Do you celebrate Passover?

it is sunnah that we fasted on that day.

Do you drink wine?

uh, jesus never drank wine.

Do you bless and not curse those who persecute you?

We are not prophets. All prophets did that anyway. not exclsuive to Jesus, because all prophets were sent to save their people, with the exception of the last prophet, Muhammad SAW who was sent as blessings for the mankind.

Do you turn the other cheek, go the second mile?

Do you, before making any offering, go and first make reconcilation with those you may be at enmity with?

All of these are things that Jesus either did himself or taught others to do. I thought some of them, such as the drinking of wine or calling God "father", were specifically forbidden for Muslims to do, yet Jesus did them and you claim that Muslims do all that Jesus did. I don't think so. You only look at that part of the list Jesus did you do do and think it exhaustive; there is also much that Jesus did that as a Muslim you do not do.

The BIG THUNDERING FACT still:

NO christian today are believing and acting the same ways Jesus did.
This despite the ubiquitous ridiculous wristbands, bumper stickers, buckles etc that say: WWJD - What Would Jesus Do?

[Ramadhan]

the Bible we have inherited today properly represents the faith of the first generation of the church in which people were first-hand witnesses to Jesus, his life, his death, his resurrection, and his teachings.

You keep saying that does not make it true.
How you can be sure that the bible you have today is the 100% true message of jesus When the bible was not even written centuries after Jesus was raised to heaven, and when the writers were unknown, and when the most influential figure is Paul who never met jesus and whom jesus hated, and when only in the 4th century the nicea council, under pressure from roman emperors formulated the trinity.

[Hugo]

the Qur'an is the definitive words from God, while the bible was written by unknown men who surrendered to their desires and personal interests while incorporating bits and pieces of what jesus pbuh taught.

Well of course you can believe this but is it true, how can it be shown to be true. The Qu'ran mostly recounts former stories and one might have thought that IF God had written it as you say it would have an entirely new content?

[Hugo]

You keep saying that does not make it true.
How you can be sure that the bible you have today is the 100% true message of jesus When the bible was not even written centuries after Jesus was raised to heaven, and when the writers were unknown, and when the most influential figure is Paul who never met jesus and whom jesus hated, and when only in the 4th century the nicea council, under pressure from roman emperors formulated the trinity.

We CANNOT know in any scientific sense and like any thing regarded as having a supernatural content it is down to personal faith. Would it make a difference to you IF the Bible authors were all known, would you then believe it and abandon Islam? Who is the author of the Qu'ran - I guess you will say Allah but how can that be shown to be true - I have no idea? Where do you get this nonsense about Jesus hating Paul and I think you are muddled over Pual's antagonism to early Christianity before his conversion? The Nicean council did not invent the trinity they confirmed it as the universal Christian belief. There are copies, complete copies of the OT that existed long before Jesus was even born. For the NT there are fragments as early as 70AD and many complete Bibles from the 3rd Century.

If we consider the Qu'ran how can you KNOW its from God, we cannot even prove that God exists so proving he sent a message, a book is a hopeless task unless you have some ideas?

[Hugo]

I guess christians believe in Paul a LOT MORE than they do in Jesus, for paul abrograted Jesus' teachings and rules. Interestingly, whenever there is a challenge to and question about christian faith, fundamentals and tenets, it can never be answered in direct, simple and short sentences. It always has to be in extremely long, convoluted, vague sentences designed to make the questioner lost in those.

I have no idea where you get these ideas from and no one who reads Paul's letters can be in ANY doubt that he saw Jesus as the one and only redeemer. Read for example Romans and there you will see what I mean.

[Hugo]

Jesus taught to rinse before Praying as Muslims do {John 13:10}But now if you would see a man bowed down head on the floor praying for God, you would say, "look at that Muslim!"... Jesus bowed down in Submission on the Ground to God as Muslims do: "And he went a little farther, and fell on his face, and prayed, saying, O my Father, if it be possible, let this cup pass from me: nevertheless not as I will, but as thou wilt"{Matthew 26:39} Moses(as):"And Moses bowed to the ground and worshiped" (Exodus 34:8) Moses(as) & Aaron (as):"Then Moses and Aaron went away from the assembly to the entrance of the tent of meeting and fell on their faces..." (Numbers 20:6) Abraham (as):"then Abram fell on his face" (Genesis 17:3)
Should i go on... hope you guys got the point...

So you believe the Bible and so what need of the Qu'ran? Can you also find in the Bible where walking round the a building is enjoined for example?

And just to prove you guys that Islam is NOT A NEW RELIGION, I can go on showing you passages in the Bible were we clearly see Jesus (as) and other prophets doing ALL the acts of worship Muslims (submitters to God) do today: Not eating pork (leviticus 11:7, Deuteronomy 14:8), Praying from dawn to evening (Psalms 113:3), Supplicating with hands raised (1 Kings 8:54, Nehemiah 8:6), No alcohol (Luke 1:15) etc.

I thought Muslims were very concerned about CONTEXT and here you have no concern whatever and just extract the bit that props up your point - just one example, no alcohol from Luke and ANY reading of its context will show it is not a wholesale prohibition.

ve Jesus (as) as much as they do why don't they practice his teachings and habits? Name me ONLY 1 Christian, ANYBODY knows, which does ALL those things that JESUS (as) used to do and PRESCRIBE on us to do as well... only ONE !!! I know I do them all, and all true Muslims do! Now who is closer to the teachings and habits of Jesus (as)? Christians as we know them today? And I'm not trying to say we are better than Christians, all I'm saying is that Islam is the only religion who ever existed since it means "submitting to the will of God", the early Christians resembled Jesus (pbuh) and accepted his true message which, unfortunately, got distorted leading to the coming of Mohammad (pbuh) clarifying it and completing it (as Jesus said it wasn't complete) and not eliminate it!

If you had bothered to read half of the scriptures you quoted you would easily see that mere observance, doing things is not enough. The Bible and Jesus demanded not mechanical obedience but a totally sacrificial life dedicated to his service and without that no amount of praying, hands in the air, washing will be anything more than a sham it is perhaps you that do not understand the message?.

[Hiroshi]

I thought some of them, such as the drinking of wine or calling God "father", were specifically forbidden for Muslims to do, yet Jesus did them and you claim that Muslims do all that Jesus did.

Can I jump in here for a second? The prohibition on drinking wine in the Qur'an was not immediately in force at the beginning. Soorah 5:90-91 put a legal ban on drinking alcohol completely. But earlier verses like Soorah 2:219 and Soorah 4:43 did not. This being so, there was no law yet in existence restricting the drinking of alcohol in the time of Jesus.

Hadiths mention Mohammed drinking wine before it became prohibited.

[جوري]

The prohibition of alcohol in Islam:

[Grace Seeker]

You keep saying that does not make it true.

You keep saying that the Bible is not true. That does not make it not true.

Here are some things that are not true:

the bible was not even written [until] centuries after Jesus was raised to heaven

the [biblical] writers were unknown

the most influential figure is Paul

[Paul] never met jesus

jesus hated [Paul]

[Zafran]

Hadiths mention Mohammed drinking wine before it became prohibited.

Realy where?

[Woodrow]

Can I jump in here for a second? The prohibition on drinking wine in the Qur'an was not immediately in force at the beginning. Soorah 5:90-91 put a legal ban on drinking alcohol completely. But earlier verses like Soorah 2:219 and Soorah 4:43 did not. This being so, there was no law yet in existence restricting the drinking of alcohol in the time of Jesus.

Interesting. I do know the full prohibition against alcohol took time to reveal and we were not immediately told of the prohibition

Hadiths mention Mohammed drinking wine before it became prohibited.

I am not familiar with any such Hadith. But, I admit I am not familiar with very many Ahadith. Would you be kind enough to give a source for that Hadith?

[جوري]

You keep saying that the Bible is not true. That does not make it not true.

Here are some things that are not true:

Actually these things are quite true, you loaning it a special meaning to them for instance paul meeting with jesus in spirit really doesn't count.. it falls under belief and to others that is what constitutes a 'false belief' stop being so twisted seeker-- perhaps all the smoke and mirror works on the bible thumpers you preach to, but not to any reasoning person outside of the confines you choose to preach falsehood!

all the best

[جوري]

Realy where?

In the Christian Encyclopedia of Islam, where we are also found to worship the 'moon god'

[Zafran]

There are people who would still stick with family culture even if told differently face-to-face by God. For myself I found Christianity to be true because I found my sin unforgivable and the message of Jesus irresistible and this came after many weeks of struggle and it had a tremendous impact on life..

with everything you said the above is your bottom line argument - the same argumnet that missionries use the same arguments that many christain would use - its not working - its ok for you but its just not a sound belief. Your a sinner so your trying to get rid of your sin by putting it on an innocent man - no muslim wants that. Another problem with it is that one time history there was a chance of salavtion - before that every body was doomed - its very pessimistic outlook. Lets not even go down the complicated theology of christainty. Either you agree or not there is too much inconsistency with the bible - thats why you have Jews saying one thing and the christains saying something totally different. You have the reformation where books actually get kicked out of the bible (oh my God to all the muslims) but hey its normal for the christians - just not good enough. just not good enough.

If you dont believe in the quran - then what are you doing on an islamic board? its a fallacy in its own right.

[Hiroshi]

Realy where?

Hope I'm not offending anybody.

في شرب النبيذ وتخمير الإناء الأشربة صحيح مسلم


حدثنا ‏ ‏أبو بكر بن أبي شيبة ‏ ‏وأبو كريب ‏ ‏واللفظ ‏ ‏لأبي كريب ‏ ‏قالا حدثنا ‏ ‏أبو معاوية ‏ ‏عن ‏ ‏الأعمش ‏ ‏عن ‏ ‏أبي صالح ‏ ‏عن ‏ ‏جابر بن عبد الله ‏ ‏قال ‏ ‏كنا مع رسول الله ‏ ‏صلى الله عليه وسلم ‏ ‏فاستسقى فقال رجل يا رسول الله ألا ‏ ‏نسقيك ‏ ‏نبيذا ‏ ‏فقال بلى قال فخرج الرجل ‏ ‏يسعى فجاء ‏ ‏بقدح ‏ ‏فيه ‏ ‏نبيذ ‏ ‏فقال رسول الله ‏ ‏صلى الله عليه وسلم ‏ ‏ألا ‏ ‏خمرته ‏ ‏ولو ‏ ‏تعرض عليه عودا ‏ ‏قال فشرب ‏

Sahih Muslim: "Drinks, Drinking wine and fermentation"
Narrated by Gaber bin Abdullah:
We were with the messenger of Allah, PBUH and he asked for a drink. One of his men said: "Oh Messenger of Allah, Can we offer you wine to drink?" He said Yes. He (Gaber) went out looking for the drink and came back with a cup of wine. The messenger (Peace Be Upon him) asked, “Have you covered it with a twig in a transverse manner” He (Gaber) said, “Yes” and he (Muhammad) drank.

Sahih Muslim - Hadith #3753

[جوري]

Did the Prophet Muhammad(s) Drink Wine?

Answered by Mufti Muhammad Zakariyya Panchbhaya
Question:
A friend of mine sent me an e-mail which I wanted to get feedback from you. Apparently it suggests that the Prophet Muhammad drank wine. Here is his email:

في شرب النبيذ وتخمير الإناء الأشربة صحيح مسلم حدثنا ‏ ‏أبو بكر بن أبي شيبة ‏ ‏وأبو كريب ‏ ‏واللفظ ‏ ‏لأبي كريب ‏ ‏قالا حدثنا ‏ ‏أبو معاوية ‏ ‏عن ‏ ‏الأعمش ‏ ‏عن ‏ ‏أبي صالح ‏ ‏عن ‏ ‏جابر بن عبد الله ‏ ‏قال ‏ ‏كنا مع رسول الله ‏ ‏صلى الله عليه وسلم ‏ ‏فاستسقى فقال رجل يا رسول الله ألا ‏ ‏نسقيك ‏ ‏نبيذا ‏ ‏فقال بلى قال فخرج الرجل ‏ ‏يسعى فجاء ‏ ‏بقدح ‏ ‏فيه ‏ ‏نبيذ ‏ ‏فقال رسول الله ‏ ‏صلى الله عليه وسلم ‏ ‏ألا ‏ ‏خمرته ‏ ‏ولو ‏ ‏تعرض عليه عودا ‏ ‏قال فشرب ‏

Sahih Muslim: "Drinks, Drinking wine and fermentation" Narrated by Gaber bin Abdullah: We were with the messenger of Allah, PBUH and he asked for a drink. One of his men said: "Oh Messenger of Allah, Can we offer you wine to drink?" He said Yes. He (Gaber) went out looking for the drink and came back with a cup of wine. The messenger (Peace Be Upon him) asked:”Have you fermented it, even with one piece of ferment?” He (Gaber) said "yes" and he (Muhammad) drank. Sahih Muslim - Hadith #3753,
Also

حدثنا ‏ ‏يحيى بن إسحاق ‏ ‏حدثنا ‏ ‏ابن لهيعة ‏ ‏عن ‏ ‏قيس بن الحجاج ‏ ‏عن ‏ ‏حنش الصنعاني ‏ ‏عن ‏ ‏ابن عباس ‏ ‏عن ‏ ‏عبد الله بن مسعود ‏ ‏رضي الله عنهما ‏ ‏أنه كان مع رسول الله ‏ ‏صلى الله عليه وسلم ‏ ‏ليلة الجن فقال له النبي ‏ ‏صلى الله عليه وسلم ‏ ‏يا ‏ ‏عبد الله ‏ ‏أمعك ماء قال معي ‏ ‏نبيذ ‏ ‏في ‏ ‏إداوة ‏ ‏فقال اصبب علي فتوضأ قال فقال النبي ‏ ‏صلى الله عليه وسلم ‏ ‏يا ‏ ‏عبد الله بن مسعود ‏ ‏شراب وطهور ‏

Narrated by Abdullah bin Masoud (May God be pleased with him): He was with the Messenger of Allah peace be upon him on the night of the jinn when he asked him if he had water. He answered that he had wine in a pot. Mohammed said: Pour me some to do ablution and he did. [The] Prophet peace be upon him [said]: "O Abdullah bin Masood it is a drink and a purifier." Musnad Ahmad - Hadith #3594,
Answer:

As-Salaamu 'Alaikum Wa Rahmatullaahi Wa Barakaatuhu

We acknowledge receipt of your query. Our answer is as follows:
On a precautionary note we would like to mention that it is extremely dangerous for one to translate the Ahadith of Rasulullah salallallahu alaihi wasallam without acquiring the required knowledge, one is in need of, as a prerequisite. The Quran and Hadith are the foundations of our religion and one needs to be diligent in their translation and explanation as small errors can sometimes have a dreadful affect.
The statement: “Prophet Muhammad(s) drank wine” is a rather abhorrent statement to make regarding the prophet Muhammad sallallahu alaihi wasallam. The messengers of Allah Ta’aala are sinless and can never act contrary to laws of Allah Ta’aala. Allah Ta’aala has emphatically declared wine to be haraam in the Holy Quran and the Prophet of Allah sallallahu alaihi wasallam voiced the same. How is it then possible that He sallallahu alaihi wasallam can consume wine? (See Holy Quran Surah Maidahverses 90-91)
Furthermore, it is written in the books of sirah (life biography of the Prophet) that on the occasion of m’iraaj (ascension to the heavens) the Prophet sallallahu alaihi wasallam was offered wine, water and milk as a drink by Jibreel alaihi salaam (the angel). The prophet sallallahu alaihi wasallam chose to drink milk upon which Jibreel alaihi salaam commented: you are rightly guided and your Ummah will be as well. (Seerat ibne Hishaam p: 158)
Even before wine was made unlawful and forbidden to consume, the Prophet of Allah sallallahu alaihi wasallam’s nature was so pure that he abstained from drinking wine.
Negligence and lack of sufficient knowledge sometimes leads a person to make such statements that are contrary to the truth and further yet propelling it to others.
It is incorrect to translate Nabeez as wine. The correct translation of nabeez is that drink which has been sweetened by putting dates, grapes or honey (flavoured water with these items) in it but has not reached the stage where it is fermented and becomes an intoxicant. (Al ta’reefaatul Fiqhiyah pg 225)
The correct format and translation of the two Ahadith is presented here:

3753 - حَدَّثَنَا أَبُو بَكْرِ بْنُ أَبِي شَيْبَةَ وَأَبُو كُرَيْبٍ وَاللَّفْظُ لِأَبِي كُرَيْبٍ قَالَا حَدَّثَنَا أَبُو مُعَاوِيَةَ عَنْ الْأَعْمَشِ عَنْ أَبِي صَالِحٍ عَنْ جَابِرِ بْنِ عَبْدِ اللَّهِ قَالَ

كُنَّا مَعَ رَسُولِ اللَّهِ صَلَّى اللَّهُ عَلَيْهِ وَسَلَّمَ فَاسْتَسْقَى فَقَالَ رَجُلٌ يَا رَسُولَ اللَّهِ أَلَا نَسْقِيكَ نَبِيذًا فَقَالَ بَلَى قَالَ فَخَرَجَ الرَّجُلُ يَسْعَى فَجَاءَ بِقَدَحٍ فِيهِ نَبِيذٌ فَقَالَ رَسُولُ اللَّهِ صَلَّى اللَّهُ عَلَيْهِ وَسَلَّمَ أَلَّا خَمَّرْتَهُ وَلَوْ تَعْرُضُ عَلَيْهِ عُودًا قَالَ فَشَرِبَ (مسلم)

Jabir ibn Abdullah radhiallahu anhu narrates, we were with the Prophet sallallahu alaihi wasallam. The Prophet sallallahu alaihi wasallam asked for something to drink. One of the companions asked: O Prophet of Allah, shall we not give you nabeez to drink? The Prophet sallallahu alaihi wasallam said yes, why not! This companion left quickly and came back with a cup of nabeez. The Prophet sallallahu alaihi wasallam said, why didn’t you cover the cup even though it may have been with a stick. Thereafter he drank from it.

3594 - حَدَّثَنَا يَحْيَى بْنُ إِسْحَاقَ حَدَّثَنَا ابْنُ لَهِيعَةَ عَنْ قَيْسِ بْنِ الْحَجَّاجِ عَنْ حَنَشٍ الصَّنْعَانِيِّ عَنِ ابْنِ عَبَّاسٍ عَنْ عَبْدِ اللَّهِ بْنِ مَسْعُودٍ رَضِيَ اللَّهُ عَنْهُمَا

أَنَّهُ كَانَ مَعَ رَسُولِ اللَّهِ صَلَّى اللَّهُ عَلَيْهِ وَسَلَّمَ لَيْلَةَ الْجِنِّ فَقَالَ لَهُ النَّبِيُّ صَلَّى اللَّهُ عَلَيْهِ وَسَلَّمَ يَا عَبْدَ اللَّهِ أَمَعَكَ مَاءٌ قَالَ مَعِي نَبِيذٌ فِي إِدَاوَةٍ فَقَالَ اصْبُبْ عَلَيَّ فَتَوَضَّأَ قَالَ فَقَالَ النَّبِيُّ صَلَّى اللَّهُ عَلَيْهِ وَسَلَّمَ يَا عَبْدَ اللَّهِ بْنَ مَسْعُودٍ شَرَابٌ وَطَهُورٌ (مسند أحمد)

Abdullah ibn Mas’ood radhiallahu anhu narrates, I was present with the Prophet sallallahu alaihi wasallam on the night of jinn (The messenger sallallahu alaihi wasallam visited them to convey the Deen of Allah and propagate the truth). The Prophet sallallahu alaihi wasallam asked me: O Abdullah do you have any water? I replied I have some Nabeez in a container. The Prophet sallallahu alaihi wasallam instructed me and said: pour the water and he performed ablution. Thereafter He sallallahu alaihi wasallam said, O Abdullah ibn Mas’ood, it is a purifier and a drink.
Once again, I advise one and all to acquire knowledge pertaining to the Deen but carefully and diligently. Muhammad ibn Sireen rahimahullah has said: "Knowledge is the basis of your Deen. So choose carefully who you acquire it from." (Muslim)
And Allah Knows Best


http://www.mathabah.org/General-Coun...rink-wine.html

that being said and the post properly closed on a note of where you should seek your knowledge.. It is always easy for the kaffirs to play with ahadith because no one has those memorized as they do the Noble Quran, so I'd urge everyone to purchase proper ahadith rather than get them from the kaffir's rumor-mill..

:w:

[Woodrow]

There are people who would still stick with family culture even if told differently face-to-face by God. For myself I found Christianity to be true because I found my sin unforgivable and the message of Jesus irresistible and this came after many weeks of struggle and it had a tremendous impact on life..

OOPs your quote is a little confusing. The first sentence I wrote in a post, the remainder seems to be a reply to what I wrote. By Hugo I believe

with everything you said the above is your bottom line argument - the same argumnet that missionries use the same arguments that many christain would use - its not working - its ok for you but its just not a sound belief. Your a sinner so your trying to get rid of your sin by putting it on an innocent man - no muslim wants that. Another problem with it is that one time history there was a chance of salavtion - before that every body was doomed - its very pessimistic outlook. Lets not even go down the complicated theology of christainty. Either you agree or not there is too much inconsistency with the bible - thats why you have Jews saying one thing and the christains saying something totally different. You have the reformation where books actually get kicked out of the bible (oh my God to all the muslims) but hey its normal for the christians - just not good enough. just not good enough.

If you dont believe in the quran - then what are you doing on an islamic board? its a fallacy in its own right.

I think you need to know Hugo like many members is not Muslim and he does not believe in the Qur'an. His user information under his avatar lists him as Christian.

We have quite a few non-Muslim members. They all come here for different reasons.

[Zafran]

Woodroow when Hugo says this

Since I am certain the Bible is true, I have no concern at all over the validity or fallacy of the Qu'ran because in the end truth well out. I see the Qu'ran as having no relationship to worship because for me worship is not in just outward mindless observances but in an inward conciousness of sin and a life devoted to God's service - the Qu'ran has nothing that is not recorded elsewhere and is of no value in understanding what God has to say to us.

When he has no concerns of the validity of the Quran then it is very confusing why he even is comming to a camparative Bibe vs Quran thread - If he realy has no concern with the Quran then whats the point of actually debating about it? Its a fallacy to even talk about the Quran when he has no concern about it?

[Grace Seeker]

Jesus was a teacher, and he did not want his people to imitate him?

Interesting conclusion you have. Did you get this from the passages of the bible where Jesus clearly, UNAMBGIOUSLY say "You need not do what I do, You need not act how I act, you need not believe what I believe"?

More deviation from jesus real teachings? you betcha!

Yes, that is exactly where I found my conclusion. You can read it too; you'll find that quote on the page opposite where Jesus said, "All you who are followers of mine, imitate everything I do exactly!"

I agree, You are right that Jesus is sent for the lost sheep of israel, and not for the mankind.

You are not agreeing to something I said. And you are mis-representing Jesus as well. Jesus does NOT say that he was sent FOR the lost sheep of Israel, but TO them. Prepositions are important here. As far as whom he came for:

For the Son of man came to save that which was lost. (Matthew 18:11)

There appears no limitation on this to just the lost of Israel.

Jesus parables of the lost sheep, lost coin, and lost son recorded in Luke 15 again are universal in their application. God is actively seeking those who are lost, even sometimes to the exclusion of watching over those who are already in the fold (i.e. perhaps a reference to the nation of Israel). Jesus' own response to the passage you reference "I was sent only to the lost sheep of Israel." (Matthew 15:24) was to recognize the woman's faith and grant her request, but notice she was NOT a member of the nation of Israel, but a Canaanite woman.

So, are we to do as Jesus did? If so, then that would tell me that we are to share his grace with more than just the nation of Israel. With whom then? A hint comes again from reading more scripture than just Matthew 15:24. We've examine Luke 19:10 in other threads, let's try John 3:17 in this one: "For God did not send his Son into the world to condemn the world, but to save the world through him." Jesus came to the lost sheep of Israel, but in doing so he came to save the world, not just one small part of it. And so, he sends us who are his followers out to that same world: "But you will receive power when the Holy Spirit comes on you; and you will be my witnesses in Jerusalem, and in all Judea and Samaria, and to the ends of the earth" (Acts 1:8). The Holy Spirit has come, and we who are filled with his power are now going where we have been sent, to the ends of the earth as witnesses for Jesus.

it is sunnah that we fasted on that day [Passover].

Interesting. I did not know that. I've had Muslims who lived in my house and they never practiced that. So, I learned something new today.

uh, jesus never drank wine.

Another difference between the Qur'an and the Bible then, for whatever the Muslim texts say in this regard the Bible clearly shows that Jesus did drink wine:

For John the Baptist came neither eating bread nor drinking wine, and you say, 'He has a demon.' The Son of Man came eating and drinking, and you say, 'Here is a glutton and a drunkard, a friend of tax collectors and "sinners." ' (Luke 7:33-34)

There is also a parallel passage in Matthew the promotes the same conclusion. And though Jesus not specifically mentioned as drinking wine, my conclusion is that he probably did and surely he must not have had anything against it based on his willingness to perform the miracle of turning water into wine (see John 2).

We are not prophets. All prophets did that anyway. not exclsuive to Jesus, because all prophets were sent to save their people, with the exception of the last prophet, Muhammad SAW who was sent as blessings for the mankind.

Are you drawing a distinction not only between who the earlier prophets were sent to vis-a-vis to whom Muhammad (pbuh) was sent, but also between what there missions were: "to save their people" vs. "as blessings for the mankind"? Or do you mean that their missions where the same (though their target audiences were different) and are just using different ways to express the same idea? I ask merely for edification.



As to that portion which you have excluded yourself from by saying, "we are not prophets", what you said in your previous post was:

Name me ONLY 1 Christian, ANYBODY knows, which does ALL those things that JESUS (as) used to do and PRESCRIBE on us to do as well... only ONE !!! I know I do them all, and all true Muslims do!

I then tested whether that was indeed a true statement. Do you know and do all "Jesus used to do and prescribed on us to do as well"? Saying "we are not prophets" does not excuse anyone from doing something that Jesus taught for all to do, and among those teachigns that I listed was to "turn the other cheek". That fact that we are not prophets is irrelevant to the measure of one's obedience.

I asked: "Really Muslims do ALL the things that Jesus used to do?" and you responded:

I did not say ALL

But in point of fact you did:

I know I do them all, and all true Muslims do!

in the very basic he was like a muslim:
belief in one Absolute Undivided God, the way he prayed and worshiped, the way he fasted and give alms.

Yes. With that I would agree. He was LIKE a Muslim. Jews are very much like Muslims. And Jesus was a Jew.

It is NOT muslims who followed Jesus, it IS CHRISTIANS, and yet NO CHRISTIANS are like him in the very basic.

The BIG THUNDERING FACT still:
NO christian today are believing and acting the same ways Jesus did.
This despite the ubiquitous ridiculous wristbands, bumper stickers, buckles etc that say: WWJD - What Would Jesus Do?

You are correct that NO Christian today acts the same way Jesus did. This despite the not so ridiculous WWJD slogans which abound. Why not? For multiple reasons. Some I've given above. Despite that you refuse to accept them, that doesn't lessen their validity. Another reason is that the slogan WWJD is not asking "What Was Jesus Did?", but "What Would Jesus Do?". if he were here in my shoes today. The answer to that question is not always going to be that Jesus would do the same thing today as what he did at some point in the past. And then others reasons for our not living up to the WWJD slogan speak of our imperfectness in doing what we know we should but don't do. Christians continue to be imperfect followers. Christian continue to still be in rebellion against God's will. This is not something we should condone. We still sin and that sin needs to be rooted out.

I doubt if you would even disagree with those last couple of statements. Where we disagree is in what practices of Jesus are expected of people today. The Muslim no longer drinks wine, though Jesus did. The (gentile) Christian may eat pork, though Jesus did not. We have both received revelation subsequent to the Torah which Jesus followed, and that subsequent revelation has changed the set of practices which we feel compelled to keep so that they are different from that which Jesus honored.

[Grace Seeker]

Yes i meant



different/original meaning.

With regard to what (I think the majority, but probably only slim majority of) Christians understand to be the prohibitions against homosexuality in the Bible, the question over interpretation arises from the uses of the terms which have been translated as referring to homosexuality:

Do a word search for the term "homosexual" or "homosexuality" in the Bible and you'll be hard pressed to actually find either of those terms. Indeed it doesn't occur at all in most translations: King James, American Standard, Revised Standard. But one can find it used in the NIV translation exactly one time:

1 Corinthians 6:9-10 (New International Version)


9Do you not know that the wicked will not inherit the kingdom of God? Do not be deceived: Neither the sexually immoral nor idolaters nor adulterers nor male prostitutes nor homosexual offenders 10nor thieves nor the greedy nor drunkards nor slanderers nor swindlers will inherit the kingdom of God.

That English phrase "homosexual offenders" is a translation of the single Greek word αρσενοκοιται [arsenokoitai]. The word itself is not found any other place in Greek literature, and appears to have been created by Paul, just like people coin words today. But, if a word is not found any other place in any other setting, then how does one know what it means? And so it has been translated many different ways by many different folks, each getting what help they can from the context, but the exact meaning for it that Paul had in mind is hard to discern absent any other usage anywhere.

What does "arsenokoitai" really mean?

Nobody knows for certain.
"Arsenokoitai" is made up of two parts: "arsen" means "man"; "koitai" means "beds."
Although the word in English Bibles is interpreted as referring to homosexuals, we can be fairly certain that this is not the meaning that Paul wanted to convey. If he had, he would have used the word "paiderasste." That was the standard Greek term at the time for sexual behavior between males. We can conclude that he probably meant something different than people who engaged in male-male adult sexual behavior.

Many sources have speculated about the meaning of "arsenokoitai:"

• "Homosexual offenders:" The NIV contains this phrase. Suppose for the moment that Paul had attacked "heterosexual offenders" or "heterosexual sexual offenders." We would not interpret this today as a general condemnation of heterosexuality. It would be seen as an attack only on those heterosexuals who commit sexual offences. Perhaps the appropriate interpretation of this verse is that it does not condemn all homosexuals. Rather it condemns only those homosexuals who engage in sexual offences (e.g. child sexual abuse).
• Male prostitutes in Pagan temples: One source states that the Septuagint (an ancient, pre-Christian translation of the Old Testament into Greek made between the 3rd and 1st century BCE) translated the Hebrew "quadesh" in I Kings 14:24, 15:12 and 22:46 into a Greek word somewhat similar to "arsenokoitai." This passage referred to "male temple prostitutes" - people who engaged in ritual sex in Pagan temples. 1 Some leaders in the early Christian church also thought 1 Corinthians was referring to temple prostitutes. Some authorities believe that it simply means male prostitutes with female customers - a practice which appears to have been a common practice in the Roman empire.
• Pimp: Another source refers to other writings, written later than 1 Corinthians, which containe the word "arsenokoitai:" This includes the Sibylline Oracles 2.70-77, Acts of John, and Theophilus of Antioch's Ad Autolycum. The source suggests that the term refers "to some kind of economic exploitation by means of sex (but not necessarily homosexual sex)." 2 Probably "pimp" or "man living off of the avails of prostitution" would be the closest English translations. It is worth noting that "Much Greek homosexual erotic literature has survived, none of it contains the word arsenokoitai." 3
• Masturbators. At the time of Martin Luther, "arsenokoitai" was universally interpreted as masturbator. But by the 20th century, masturbation had become a more generally accepted behavior. So, new translations abandoned references to masturbators and switched the attack to homosexuals. The last religious writing in English that interpreted 1 Corinthians 6:9 as referring to masturbation is believed to be the [Roman] Catholic Encyclopedia of 1967.

(source: Religious Tolerance.org)

[Zafran]

With regard to what (I think the majority, but probably only slim majority of) Christians understand to be the prohibitions against homosexuality in the Bible, the question over interpretation arises from the uses of the terms which have been translated as referring to homosexuality:

Do a word search for the term "homosexual" or "homosexuality" in the Bible and you'll be hard pressed to actually find either of those terms. Indeed it doesn't occur at all in most translations: King James, American Standard, Revised Standard. But one can find it used in the NIV translation exactly one time: That English phrase "homosexual offenders" is a translation of the single Greek word αρσενοκοιται [arsenokoitai]. The word itself is not found any other place in Greek literature, and appears to have been created by Paul, just like people coin words today. But, if a word is not found any other place in any other setting, then how does one know what it means? And so it has been translated many different ways by many different folks, each getting what help they can from the context, but the exact meaning for it that Paul had in mind is hard to discern absent any other usage anywhere.

what about sodamy?

[Grace Seeker]

Woodroow when Hugo says this

Since I am certain the Bible is true, I have no concern at all over the validity or fallacy of the Qu'ran because in the end truth well out.

When he has no concerns of the validity of the Quran then it is very confusing why he even is comming to a camparative Bibe vs Quran thread - If he realy has no concern with the Quran then whats the point of actually debating about it? Its a fallacy to even talk about the Quran when he has no concern about it?

Zafran, you understand that any critique you have of Hugo's views, is likewise a critique of Woodrow's. For all Hugo did was take what Woodrow wrote with regard to the Quran and Bible and reverse the terms so that it now reflects Hugo's view of the Bible and Quran. So, it was originally Woodrow expressing no concerns over the validity of the Bible, which, following your way of thinking would make it very confusing why Woodrow "even is comming to a camparative Bibe vs Quran thread - If he realy has no concern with the Bible then whats the point of actually debating about it? Its a fallacy to even talk about the Bible when he has no concern about it?" Is that really the critique you want to deliver here?

[Grace Seeker]

what about sodamy?

See the link to the website I quote from above. They already discuss this in much better depth than I have time to go into.

[Asiyah3]

Zafran, you understand that any critique you have of Hugo's views, is likewise a critique of Woodrow's. For all Hugo did was take what Woodrow wrote with regard to the Quran and Bible and reverse the terms so that it now reflects Hugo's view of the Bible and Quran. So, it was originally Woodrow expressing no concerns over the validity of the Bible, which, following your way of thinking would make it very confusing why Woodrow "even is comming to a camparative Bibe vs Quran thread - If he realy has no concern with the Bible then whats the point of actually debating about it? Its a fallacy to even talk about the Bible when he has no concern about it?" Is that really the critique you want to deliver here?

We believe in the Gospel which was revealed to Allah's messenger, prophet Jesus (peace be upon him). On the contrary, Hugo doesn't believe in the Qur'aan in any form. Your argument would be valid if we were debating a holy book which would have nothing to do with Islam.

[Grace Seeker]

We believe in the Gospel which was revealed to Allah's messenger, prophet Jesus (peace be upon him). On the contrary, Hugo doesn't believe in the Qur'aan in any form. Your argument would be valid if we were debating a holy book which would have nothing to do with Islam.

So you think that to critique Hugo's statement: "Since I am certain the Bible is true, I have no concern at all over the validity or fallacy of the Qu'ran because in the end truth well out." with: "When he [Hugo] has no concerns of the validity of the Quran then it is very confusing why he even is comming to a camparative Bibe vs Quran thread - If he realy has no concern with the Quran then whats the point of actually debating about it? Its a fallacy to even talk about the Quran when he has no concern about it?" is valid.

But at the same time you think that to critique Woodrow's statement: "Since I am certain the Quran is true, I have no concern at all over the validity or fallacy of the Bible because in the end truth well out." with "It is very confusing why Woodrow even is comming to a camparative Bibe vs Quran thread - If he realy has no concern with the Bible then whats the point of actually debating about it? Its a fallacy to even talk about the Bible when he has no concern about it?" Is that really the critique you want to deliver here?" to be invalid.

Is that really what you are saying?

[Asiyah3]

I was arguing this part "If he really has no concern with the Qur'aan then whats the point of actually debating about it?"

Therefore, I was telling the difference between Hugo and uncle Woodrow.

[جوري]

Zafran, you understand that any critique you have of Hugo's views, is likewise a critique of Woodrow's. For all Hugo did was take what Woodrow wrote with regard to the Quran and Bible and reverse the terms so that it now reflects Hugo's view of the Bible and Quran.?

When Hugo is at a loss of substance (which is often) he descends to word play-- unfortunately that can't avail him since he needs to provide support to his views for that style debate to be applicable and not come across as sheer moronity!

all the best

[Zafran]

So you think that to critique Hugo's statement: "Since I am certain the Bible is true, I have no concern at all over the validity or fallacy of the Qu'ran because in the end truth well out." with: "When he [Hugo] has no concerns of the validity of the Quran then it is very confusing why he even is comming to a camparative Bibe vs Quran thread - If he realy has no concern with the Quran then whats the point of actually debating about it? Its a fallacy to even talk about the Quran when he has no concern about it?" is valid.

But at the same time you think that to critique Woodrow's statement: "Since I am certain the Quran is true, I have no concern at all over the validity or fallacy of the Bible because in the end truth well out." with "It is very confusing why Woodrow even is comming to a camparative Bibe vs Quran thread - If he realy has no concern with the Bible then whats the point of actually debating about it? Its a fallacy to even talk about the Bible when he has no concern about it?" Is that really the critique you want to deliver here?" to be invalid.

Is that really what you are saying?

Not realy

whatever Hugo wrote is true to his beliefs - But at the same time he will critic other people that use the same mode of thinking that he does. Whats worse he does it in a mimicking fashion - which clearly shows what he thinks of woodrow, but has no clue that he is clearly showing hypocricy.

[Grace Seeker]

Therefore, I was telling the difference between Hugo and uncle Woodrow.

Well, if you were to believe their posts, that's apparent: Hugo has no concern for the Qur'an and Woodrow none for the Bible. Given their respective beliefs, that might even be reasonable, but I highly doubt either of them actually feel that way.

[Grace Seeker]

whatever Hugo wrote is true to his beliefs.

Since Woodrow posted first the passage that Hugo later parodied, don't you think that what Woodrow wrote is true to his beliefs.

But at the same time he will critic other people that use the same mode of thinking that he does. Whats worse he does it in a mimicking fashion - which clearly shows what he thinks of woodrow, but has no clue that he is clearly showing hypocricy.

Give that what Hugo wrote was a mirror to what Woodrow wrote, I don't understand how one can be critical of what Hugo wrote and applaude what Woodrow wrote.

Woodrow's own response was "Touche!", and I believe implied that Woodrow had been able to see himself in Hugo's reply. I don't see how using Woodrow's own words that he spoke in reference to the Bible and applying them to the Qur'an are hypocritical in the slightest. Christians don't view the Qur'an the same way that Muslims do. Nothing at all hypocritical in a non-Muslim applying the same words toward the Qur'an, as a Muslim applies to another's persons' holy text. If you think they speak dismissively, derisively, or otherwise inappropriately, then please understand that is just how such words might be heard by others when first used to describe one's views of the Bible.

[Woodrow]

Since Woodrow posted first the passage that Hugo later parodied, don't you think that what Woodrow wrote is true to his beliefs.

Give that what Hugo wrote was a mirror to what Woodrow wrote, I don't understand how one can be critical of what Hugo wrote and applaude what Woodrow wrote.

Woodrow's own response was "Touche!", and I believe implied that Woodrow had been able to see himself in Hugo's reply. I don't see how using Woodrow's own words that he spoke in reference to the Bible and applying them to the Qur'an are hypocritical in the slightest. Christians don't view the Qur'an the same way that Muslims do. Nothing at all hypocritical in a non-Muslim applying the same words toward the Qur'an, as a Muslim applies to another's persons' holy text. If you think they speak dismissively, derisively, or otherwise inappropriately, then please understand that is just how such words might be heard by others when first used to describe one's views of the Bible.

I am aware that my post instigated the Reply by Hugo. I have to accept the responsibility for Hugo's reply. When a person speaks in a manner that is offensive to others, they can only blame themselves if they get a mirror image thrown back at them. I am going to delete both posts, as both posts can be seen as inappropriate for peaceful dialog. but I am leaving all the referring posts untouched. I believe there is a subtle lesson we all can learn from this.

[Zafran]

Since Woodrow posted first the passage that Hugo later parodied, don't you think that what Woodrow wrote is true to his beliefs.

Give that what Hugo wrote was a mirror to what Woodrow wrote, I don't understand how one can be critical of what Hugo wrote and applaude what Woodrow wrote.

Woodrow's own response was "Touche!", and I believe implied that Woodrow had been able to see himself in Hugo's reply. I don't see how using Woodrow's own words that he spoke in reference to the Bible and applying them to the Qur'an are hypocritical in the slightest. Christians don't view the Qur'an the same way that Muslims do. Nothing at all hypocritical in a non-Muslim applying the same words toward the Qur'an, as a Muslim applies to another's persons' holy text. If you think they speak dismissively, derisively, or otherwise inappropriately, then please understand that is just how such words might be heard by others when first used to describe one's views of the Bible.

where did a i applaud Woodrow? The difference is that woodrow didnt critic the mode of thinking, Hugo did and then he applied the same mode of thinking to show his own beliefs - preety much hypocricy.

Since Woodrow posted first the passage that Hugo later parodied, don't you think that what Woodrow wrote is true to his beliefs.

ofcourse they are there real beliefs - or are they playing fun and games?

[Hiroshi]

Interesting. I do know the full prohibition against alcohol took time to reveal and we were not immediately told of the prohibition

Soorah 16:67 says: “And the fruits of the palm and the vine, from which you derive intoxicants and wholesome food. Surely in this there is a sign for men of understanding.” (Dawood)
This verse says nothing bad about alcohol.

However, a later verse, Soorah 2:219 states that there is more harm than good in alcoholic drinks. Evidently, drunkenness caused serious problems for the Muslims.

Bukhari Volume 4, Book 53, Number 324 says: “Allah's Apostle started rebuking Hamza for what he had done, but Hamza was drunk and his eyes were red. Hamza looked at Allah's Apostle and then he raised his eyes, looking at his knees, then he raised up his eyes looking at his umbilicus, and again he raised up his eyes look in at his face. Hamza then said, "Aren't you but the slaves of my father?" Allah's Apostle realized that he was drunk, so Allah's Apostle retreated, and we went out with him.”

It seems that on one occasion some were so drunk that they could not pray properly. So Soorah 4:43 directed them: “Believers, do not approach your prayers when you are drunk, but wait until you can grasp the meaning of your words.” (Dawood)

This still only forbids alcohol before prayers. It doesn’t ban alcohol completely.

But then a later passage in Soorah 5:90-91 finally made it law to abstain from alcohol altogether. So the disapproval of alcohol was expressed in gradual stages each time with a stronger admonition until finally alcohol was completely outlawed.

I am not familiar with any such Hadith. But, I admit I am not familiar with very many Ahadith. Would you be kind enough to give a source for that Hadith?

Please see my post number 305. By the way, I am not at all an expert in these matters. So I would be grateful if you could correct any mistakes that I might make.

[r1h22s]

I wish to point out that Injeel is not Gospel and Injeel can never be translated to "Gospel" just as Isa can never be translated to "Jesus" and those wno continue to insert names like "Jesus" and "Gospel" into the Quran and into Islam are certainly not on right guidance and misunderstand the Scripture.
When the Quran confirms that the Messiah was not crucified, the Quran confirms that there was a hoax in the crucifixion, and because Allah Speaks the Truth, the Bible agrees with the Quran and the Bible shows itself to be a party to the Hoax and it exposes the beautiful execution of the hoax in which two thieves were named "Jesus" for their unexpected crucifixion on the Sabbath. Please bring the Quran and Islam into the 21st. century?

[r1h22s]

TRUTH IN THE BIBLE IS:

• “Well Master, thou hast said the Truth: for there is ONE GOD, and there is None other but He.” Mark 12:32
• The Gospel of Christ was preached before any disciple was named. (See Matthew 4:23, 9:35, 11:4 – 5, and Mark 1:14 – 15)
• The Gospel of Christ was preached without any mention of physical violence to the Messiah. (See Matthew 4:23-25, Chapters 5 - 10, 11:4 – 5, and Mark 1:14 – 15)
• The Gospel of Christ was preached without as much as a whisper of any crucifixion of any sort. (See Matthew 4:23, 5:1 –27, 9:35, 11:4 – 5, and Mark 1:14 – 15)
• Christ sent out his disciples who successfully preached his Gospel without mention of any physical harm coming to the Christ and without a word of a crucifixion of any sort. (See Matthew 10:1 – 42, Mark 6:7 – 13, Luke 9:1 – 10)
• Roman Governor of Jerusalem, Pontius Pilate, declared Christ innocent of all false accusations that were brought against him, (See Luke 23:4,14, 15, 22, John 18:38, 19:46)
• Roman Governor, Herod of Galilee, declared Christ innocent (Luke23: 15) making Christ a free man under Roman Power and Authority (Luke 23:20, John19:12)
• Three Gospels give evidence that Christ bore no cross and made no physical contact with the trappings of crucifixion. (See Matthew 27:32, Mark 15:21, Luke 23:26)
• Three Gospels give evidence that one Simon of Cyrene, who was not the Christ, was made to bear a cross to Golgotha. (See Matthew 27:32-37, Mark 15:21-26, and Luke 23:26-38) and this indicates to us that there were three crosses on the way to Golgotha, none of which Christ carried.
• The Gospel of John alone gives evidence that the cross that was borne by Jesus carried the inscription, “JESUS OF NAZARETH THE KING OF THE JEWS” (John 19:16-22).
• Two of the four Gospels have given us two crosses out of three with the inscribed name of “JESUS”. (Matthew 27:37, John 19:19)
• Governor Pontius Pilate was the author of the inscription and title of “JESUS KING OF THE JEWS” and this was therefore the official title of the crucifixion of two thieves by Roman authority. (John 19:19-22)
• The “Jesus” of the Gospels is not the Christ but the thieves who were crucified. The Christ was not crucified nor is Jesus the Christ, as the Gospel of John would have us believe, “That ye might believe that Jesus is the Christ”. (John 20:31)
• The name “Jesus “is a Roman title and is not the name of the son of the virgin of Isaiah 7:14, and nowhere in the Gospels does the virgin name her child as Jesus.
• None of the four Gospels mention the presence of two thieves for crucifixion during the trials and the scourging, or before all three crosses arrive at Golgotha. (Matthew 27:38, Mark 15:27, Luke 23:33, John 19:18)
• It was only when the procession arrived at Golgotha that the Gospels came to realise that there were actually three crosses and that two thieves made the trip to Golgotha for crucifixion. (Matthew 27:38, Mark 15:27, Luke 23:33, John 19:18)
• "Jehu is King." (II Kings 9:13) Jehu means “He is Jah” and Jehu was anointed "King over Israel." (II Kings 9:12), making him Jehu Christ.
• There is no Jesus Christ in the Old Testament but there is a Jehu Christ, King over Israel (II Kings 9:2-3). Jehu translates He is Jah, but Jesus is a combination of Jah and Zeus and an attempt to make Zeus equal with Jah.
• Immanuel (Isaiah 7:14, Matthew 1:23) is the name that was commanded for the Messiah, the son of the virgin, by the Lord, God of the Children of Israel.
• The name “Immanuel” is Hebrew for “God with us” while the name “Jesus” is not of the Hebrew language and is neither Greek nor Latin for “God with us” but combines Jah (Hebrew) and Zeus (Greek) to unite Jah with Zeus.
• The name of “Jesus” was Pontius Pilate’s officially declared and written name of the crucified King of the Jews, (Matthew 27:37, Mark 15:26, John 19:19-22).
• Pilate overruled Jewish objections to the name of Jesus that was officially inscribed on all three crosses and he left the inscriptions as they were (John 19:21).
• Nowhere, in the Gospels of Matthew, Mark, Luke and John, does anyone make the claim, “I am Jesus” nor does anyone claim, “I am the Christ” nor does anyone claim, “I am Jesus Christ”.
• The name, “Jesus”, is used approximately 628 times in the four Gospels with 171 in Matthew, 95 in Mark, 100 in Luke and 250 in John.
• The title “Christ” is used 51 times in the four Gospels with 12 in Matthew, 8 in Mark, 12 in Luke and 19 in John.
• Jesus is therefore used just over 12 times as much as Christ in the four Gospels, with a ratio of 12.12 to 1. The number 12 is of great importance in the worship of Zeus the Sun God, with twelve months in the year being representative of the twelve disciples.
• Zeus is the Sky God that was worshipped by the Romans as the God of Gods and the Father of Gods and men, and it was among the priests and worshippers of Zeus that Paul and Barnabas performed their “miracles” and preached “the “Living God.” (Acts of the Apostles 14:12 –13)
• It was none other than Zeus the Sky God who is alleged to have spoken from the Midday Sun to Paul saying, “I am Jesus.” (See Acts of the Apostles 9:5, 22:8, and 26:15)
• Paul’s three accounts of his close encounter with Zeus in the midday Sun produced witnesses who saw and did not see the light, who heard yet did not hear the voice, and who stood yet fell to the earth. .” (See Acts of the Apostles 9:5, 22:8, and 26:15)
• The light of Paul’s Jesus from the midday Sun was “above the brightness of the Sun,” shone “round about” Paul and blinded him, yet he assumed that it came from the Heavens above, so Paul himself also saw yet did not see. .” (Acts of the Apostles 9:5, 22:8, and 26:15)
• Zeus the Sky God and Father God speaks in a voice from the Sky at the Baptism of Jesus, “my beloved son,” while the Holy Spirit descended “like a dove.” (Matthew 3:17, Mark 1:11, Luke 3:22)
• Jesus is described with the features of Zeus the Sky God at the Transfiguration as “his face did shine as the Sun, and his raiment as white as the light” (Matthew 17:2), “And his raiment became shining exceeding white as Snow (Mark 9:3) “And there was a cloud that overshadowed them”, (with the unmistakable voice of Zeus) “and a voice came out of the cloud saying, this is my beloved son” (Mark 9:7) “his countenance was altered and his raiment was white and glistering” (Luke 9:29), “and there came a cloud and overshadowed them” (Luke 9: 34) “and there came a voice out of the cloud” (Luke 9:35), and all of this is in a meeting with Elisha or Eliseus (Luke 4:27).
• The name, Jesus, is a combination of Jah and Zeus as the intention of Governor Pontius Pilate to match the false charges made by the Biblical Jews that he made himself a God and a Son of God.
• Jah is the God of Israel while Zeus is the God of pagan Rome.
• The Angel at the tomb is none other than Zeus, with the same features as Jesus (Jezeus) in the Transfiguration; “His countenance was like the lightening and his raiment white as snow.” (Matthew 28:3)
• “And if thy right eye offend thee, pluck it out, and cast it from thee: for it is profitable for thee that one of thy members should perish, and not that thy whole body should be cast into hell.” (Matthew 5:29), meaning, I can’t save you. You have got to save yourself by your own hands and your own effort.
• “And if thy right hand offend thee, cut it off, and cast it from thee: for it is profitable.” (Matthew 5:29), meaning, I can’t save you. You have got to save yourself by your own hands and your own effort.

[Hiroshi]

[*]The name, Jesus, is a combination of Jah and Zeus as the intention of Governor Pontius Pilate to match the false charges made by the Biblical Jews that he made himself a God and a Son of God.[*]Jah is the God of Israel while Zeus is the God of pagan Rome.

Hi r1h22s.

I agree that "Jah" (or "Jehovah") is the name of the God of Israel. But Jesus' name has nothing to do with Zeus. "Jesus" is the Greek form of the name "Yeshua". This is almost identical with "Joshua" which is a contraction of "Jehoshua" meaning: "Jehovah is Salvation".

[Woodrow]

Please see my post number 305. By the way, I am not at all an expert in these matters. So I would be grateful if you could correct any mistakes that I might make.

If you look back to immediatly after both your post and mine you will see an excellent explanation by Sister Lily.

[جوري]

Hi r1h22s.

I agree that "Jah" (or "Jehovah") is the name of the God of Israel. But Jesus' name has nothing to do with Zeus. "Jesus" is the Greek form of the name "Yeshua". This is almost identical with "Joshua" which is a contraction of "Jehoshua" meaning: "Jehovah is Salvation".

CHAPTER THREE - WHO IS JEHOVAH? (What is His Name - by Ahmed Deedat)COMMON ORIGIN
What is YHWH; and what is ELOHIM? Since the lews did not articulate the word YHWH for centuries, and since even the Chief Rabbis would not allow the ineffable to be heard, they have forfeited the right to claim dogmatically how the word is to be sounded. We have to seek the aid of the Arab to revive Hebrew, a language which had once died out. In every linguistic difficulty recourse has to be made to Arabic, a sister language, which has remained alive and viable. Racially and linguistically, the Arabs and the Jews have a common origin, going back to Father Abraham.1
Note the startling resemblance between the languages, very often the same sounding words carry identical meaning in both.

HEBREW ARABIC ENGLISH Elah Ilah god Ikhud Ahud one Yaum Yaum day Shaloam Salaam peace Yahuwa Ya Huwa oh he

YHWH or Yehova or Yahuwa all mean the very same thing. "Ya" is a vocative and an exclamatory particle in both Hebrew and Arabic, meaning Oh! And "Huwa" or "Hu" means He, again in both Hebrew and Arabic. Together they mean Oh He! So instead of YHWH ELOHIM, we now have Oh He! ELOHIM.

Yehova literally translates to 'Oh He' not 'salvation'
http://www.jamaat.net/name/name3.html

[Hugo]

I wish to point out that Injeel is not Gospel and Injeel can never be translated to "Gospel" just as Isa can never be translated to "Jesus" and those wno continue to insert names like "Jesus" and "Gospel" into the Quran and into Islam are certainly not on right guidance and misunderstand the Scripture. When the Quran confirms that the Messiah was not crucified, the Quran confirms that there was a hoax in the crucifixion, and because Allah Speaks the Truth, the Bible agrees with the Quran and the Bible shows itself to be a party to the Hoax and it exposes the beautiful execution of the hoax in which two thieves were named "Jesus" for their unexpected crucifixion on the Sabbath. Please bring the Quran and Islam into the 21st. century?

Then WHO or what is the Qu'ran talking about and one supposes you then believe in a man who we know practically nothing about and books as far as we know, no one has ever seen? Hard to see how one can get any guidance from what amounts to nothing?

[جوري]

Then WHO or what is the Qu'ran talking about and one supposes you then believe in a man who we know practically nothing about and books as far as we know, no one has ever seen? Hard to see how one can get any guidance from what amounts to nothing?

Indeed that is the remarkable thing about the Quran, an illiterate man has given us the amazing Quran with all that entails on subjects running the gamut, in a melodious tongue that no poet has been able to replicate and still have it be a spiritual guidance and complete way of life to be followed for millenniums, is enough of a testimony to its divine origin!

[Grace Seeker]

I am aware that my post instigated the Reply by Hugo. I have to accept the responsibility for Hugo's reply. When a person speaks in a manner that is offensive to others, they can only blame themselves if they get a mirror image thrown back at them. I am going to delete both posts, as both posts can be seen as inappropriate for peaceful dialog. but I am leaving all the referring posts untouched. I believe there is a subtle lesson we all can learn from this.

Woodrow, speaking for myself alone, and not all Christians, I didn't find either your post nor Hugo's offensive.

[Woodrow]

Hi r1h22s.

I agree that "Jah" (or "Jehovah") is the name of the God of Israel. But Jesus' name has nothing to do with Zeus. "Jesus" is the Greek form of the name "Yeshua". This is almost identical with "Joshua" which is a contraction of "Jehoshua" meaning: "Jehovah is Salvation".

The letter J was not known or used in Hebrew, Aramaic, Latin, Koine Greek, or even Old English. The name Jesus was never written in the Bible until recent times even in the original 1611 KJV Jesus was spelled Iesous. Using the name Jesus is a very recent innovation and is still unknown in theology except to modern English speaking Christians.

To some non-English speaking, non-Christians, It could easily appear to be an attempt to incorporate the name Zeus and change the worship of God to the worship of Zeus.

A study of the name Jesus from linguistic sources is a very interesting study. If you have the opportunity to do so look further into it, I believe you will find that what seems to be ancient is a very modern development.

[Hugo]

CHAPTER THREE - WHO IS JEHOVAH? (What is His Name - by Ahmed Deedat)What is YHWH]; and what is ELOHIM? Since the lews did not articulate the word YHWH for centuries, and since even the Chief Rabbis would not allow the ineffable to be heard, they have forfeited the right to claim dogmatically how the word is to be sounded. We have to seek the aid of the Arab to revive Hebrew, a language which had once died out. In every linguistic difficulty recourse has to be made to Arabic, a sister language, which has remained alive and viable. Racially and linguistically, the Arabs and the Jews have a common origin, going back to Father Abraham. Note the startling resemblance between the languages, very often the same sounding words carry identical meaning in both. YHWH or Yehova or Yahuwa all mean the very same thing. "Ya" is a vocative and an exclamatory particle in both Hebrew and Arabic, meaning Oh! And "Huwa" or "Hu" means He, again in both Hebrew and Arabic. Together they mean Oh He! So instead of YHWH ELOHIM, we now have Oh He!Yehova literally translates to 'Oh He' not 'salvation'

It is agreed that Yahweh is the personal name of God in the Hebrew Bible though in this form its a modern scholarly convention: Hebrew writes it as four consonants, rendered in Roman letters as YHWH, due to the fact that most alphabets (including Arabic), prior the Greek alphabet, did not display vowels, and so the vowels had to be mentally pronounced in the proper places and for most purposes Hebrew is printed without vowels. The most likely meaning of the name may be “He Brings Into Existence Whatever Exists," but there are many theories and none is regarded as conclusive.

Hebrew itself is a semitic language written from right to left and in its earliest form it was pictographic but this was ultimately abandoned in favour of the Aramaic alphabetic script. The story is much the same for Arabic and it is likely there that its script as we know it arose from the Aramaic alphabet and probably came into use via Christian cops at a very early date. Some recent discoveries relating to the famous Islamic translation movement from the 8th to the 10th centuries shows that Islamic philologists were able to do a partial reading of Egyptian hieroglyphics and they did it by linking Coptic writing, to Arabic script and looking for similarities in letter shapes to the hieroglyphics - astounding really that they got that far and as you probably know a full translation was not made of the hieroglyphics until about 1803 after the discovery of the Rosetta stone.

[Hiroshi]

[B]

CHAPTER THREE - WHO IS JEHOVAH? (What is His Name - by Ahmed Deedat)COMMON ORIGIN
What is YHWH; and what is ELOHIM? Since the lews did not articulate the word YHWH for centuries, and since even the Chief Rabbis would not allow the ineffable to be heard, they have forfeited the right to claim dogmatically how the word is to be sounded.

Very true.

Regardless of the exact way to pronounce the name, the meaning of the name is explained in Exodus 3:14 where God is asked what his name is. He replies: "Ehyeh asher ehyeh" meaning "I Will Prove To Be what I Will Prove To Be". Or as Rotheram translates it: "I Will Become Whatsoever I Please." "Ehyeh" appears to be in the first person (i.e. when God is speaking of himself) whereas "Jehovah" appears to be in the third person (i.e.when God is spoken of by others: "He Will Prove To Be").

[جوري]

It is agreed that Yahweh is the personal name of God in the Hebrew Bible though in this form its a modern scholarly convention: Hebrew writes it as four consonants, rendered in Roman letters as YHWH, due to the fact that most alphabets (including Arabic), prior the Greek alphabet, did not display vowels, and so the vowels had to be mentally pronounced in the proper places and for most purposes Hebrew is printed without vowels. The most likely meaning of the name may be “He Brings Into Existence Whatever Exists," but there are many theories and none is regarded as conclusive.

It doesn't matter what is 'agreed' what matters is the etymology of the word not its evolution to acquiesce to your personal beliefs!

Hebrew itself is a semitic language written from left to right and in its earliest form it was pictographic but this was ultimately abandoned in favour of the Aramaic alphabetic script.

Hebrew like other semitic languages is written from right to left.. you really should do some minimum research before you write?

The story is much the same for Arabic and it is likely there that its script as we know it arose from the Aramaic alphabet and probably came into use via Christian cops at a very early date. Some recent discoveries relating to the famous Islamic translation movement from the 8th to the 10th centuries shows that Islamic philologists were able to do a partial reading of Egyptian hieroglyphics and they did it by linking Coptic writing, to Arabic script and looking for similarities in letter shapes to the hieroglyphics - astounding really that they got that far and as you probably know a full translation was not made of the hieroglyphics until about 1803 after the discovery of the Rosetta stone.

Irrelevant, or did you have a point to tie with the previous?

[Hugo]

Indeed that is the remarkable thing about the Quran, an illiterate man has given us the amazing Quran with all that entails on subjects running the gamut, in a melodious tongue that no poet has been able to replicate and still have it be a spiritual guidance and complete way of life to be followed for millenniums, is enough of a testimony to its divine origin!

One wonders if what you say here borders on blasphemy - I though it was Allah who gave you the Qu'ran?

[جوري]

One wonders if what you say here borders on blasphemy -

Generally you lack good judgment, good common sense and are ignorant of subjects you wish to engage as I have just demonstrated above and previous (repeatedly) so your wonderment and puzzlement are yours to keep!

I though it was Allah who gave you the Qu'ran?

Indeed and by the means mentioned!

all the best

[Hiroshi]

The letter J was not known or used in Hebrew, Aramaic, Latin, Koine Greek, or even Old English. The name Jesus was never written in the Bible until recent times even in the original 1611 KJV Jesus was spelled Iesous. Using the name Jesus is a very recent innovation and is still unknown in theology except to modern English speaking Christians.

Yes. I should have said "Iesous" rather than "Jesus". My main point was that he would have been addressed as "Yeshua" by others.

To some non-English speaking, non-Christians, It could easily appear to be an attempt to incorporate the name Zeus and change the worship of God to the worship of Zeus.

A study of the name Jesus from linguistic sources is a very interesting study. If you have the opportunity to do so look further into it, I believe you will find that what seems to be ancient is a very modern development.

Really? Like later than 1611?

[Grace Seeker]

I think that not only 1611, but even 1517 would count as fairly modern development.

[Woodrow]

Yes. I should have said "Iesous" rather than "Jesus". My main point was that he would have been addressed as "Yeshua" by others.

Really? Like later than 1611?

If memory serves me correctly the spelling Jesus did not appear in the Bible until the mid 1700's it may have been later. While the letter J first appeared in the English language in the 14th Century, it was rarely used and was sort of a slang type letter.

It was not until the mid 1800s that the letter J was actually accepted as a letter.

So from the 17th Century onward, our alphabet contained the same 26 letters as we now use. But even then, many scholars still treated it as having only 24: they still considered U and V as one letter, and I and J as one letter. For example, Samuel Johnson's dictionary, published in the mid-18th Century, had all the I and J words mixed together. It was only in the mid-19th Century that scholars fully accepted that these were separate letters and that there are 26 letters in the alphabet.

SOURCE

[Al-manar]

Item :7

Biblical Errancy vs Quranic Inerrancy P.5


2 Peter 1:20-21 says, "Above all, you must understand that no prophecy of Scripture came about by the prophet's own interpretation. For prophecy never had its origin in the will of man, but men spoke from God as they were carried along by the Holy Spirit."

VS

Holy Quran[005:013] they change the words from their right times places.



both texts can't be true .... in one hand the writer of 2peter believes that prophecy of Scripture never had its origin in the will of man,but through God's inspiration ,on the other hand the Quran accuses those religious figures of a textual coruuption besides ,misusing,misapplying the text (which we will find out soon related to the realm of prophecies)....


though the issue of (textual changing )attracted me in the beginning ,but later after long time of reflection I found out the issue of (textual misapplication) is far greater of importance, and a golden key that opened for me the box that is full of answers to the most puzzling questions regarding christianity...

In order to get the whole story we will provide the following :


1- Historical reminder (great diversity in late Second Temple Judaism)

2- the high significance of the dead sea scrolls to our issue.

3- Quoting the New Testament directly, showing the huge amount of textual New Testament misapplication of the Old testament ...

4- Why the New Testament writers chose specifically such passages,what were their intentions?.

5- Were they pagan conspirators,seeking to destroy judaism or deviant Jews ,who(similar to the community of the dead sea scroll)imagined themselves living in the end of times and the imaginary Jewish dreams of the end of times is being fulfilled in them ,imposing the hearsays they got about Jesus on the old testament and vice versa, creating for him role and nature ,he wasn't supposed to have been?

6- How all that strengthen the case for the Quran?

7- Additional related information ,regarding the danger of esoteric interpretation (false t'awil),and example of its use in Islam...

to get satisfying answers to the previous question,was the most tiring intellectual thing I ever had in my life......

To be continued

[Hugo]

Holy Quran[005:013] they change the words from their right times places.

This is a rather shortened v13 and other translations give a different sense. For, example, Dawood implies that the words were taken out of context and applied and there is no sense of the text saying the words were changed. The whole section is in many ways odd as it starts out with the Israelites and abruptly begins talking to Muslims and with this very peculiar idea of giving God a loan. Just as abruptly it wanders back to the Jews and without warning Christians are added and even suggest that the Prophet of Islam can forgive Christians and Jews.

Well lets see what you have to offer

[جوري]

This is a rather shortened v13 and other translations give a different sense. For, example, Dawood implies that the words were taken out of context and applied and there is no sense of the text saying the words were changed. The whole section is in many ways odd as it starts out with the Israelites and abruptly begins talking to Muslims and with this very peculiar idea of giving God a loan. Just as abruptly it wanders back to the Jews and without warning Christians are added and even suggest that the Prophet of Islam can forgive Christians and Jews.

Well lets see what you have to offer

what the hell are you talking about a 'loan' and 'dawood's' out of context.. why don't you expound on your pearls, or are you afraid of something?

[r1h22s]

In the Quran Allah tells us that there was a trick to the supposed crucifixion of Isa and Allah never mentioned the name of Jesus in the Quran.
Allah also says that they do conjecture and we ought to know that all that come with the trick or the lie or the guesswork of the crucifixion are equally lies and conjecture and tricks and this includes Jesus and Bible and Gospels and Christianity.
Joshua or Jashua or Yeshua or Yashua translates "Jah is Salvation" and Jesus, from the King James Version/Translation of the BIble, was the name that Pontius Pilate gave to the two crucified thieves when he had this name inscribed above their heads on their crosses in his performance of the Hoax of the Crucifixion that Allah mentions in the Quran, and Allah Speaks The Truth.
The Gospels of Matthew and Luke were both written many years after the Trick of the Crucifixion that Allah speaks of in the Quran and they continue along with the trick and rename the trick of the crucifixion and clumsily pin tghe name on the child of the virgin and, in the process, they introduce a husband for the virgin and an Angel to "baptise" the child of Zeus, the Father of Gods, with the name of "Jesus". They add the confusion of the Holy Spirit as another candidate for fathering the child.
Jesus of the Gospels replaces Immanuel (Isaiah 7:14), which is referred to as Emmanuel (Matthew1: 23). This represents an annulment of the command of the Lord, by an angel of the Lord, after the child was conceived in the mother’s womb (Matthew 1:20-21).
Matthew attempts to justify this annulment of the command of the Lord as a fulfillment of the prophecy as “spoken” by the prophet (Matthew 1:22), but the prophecy is again altered, with the authority for naming the child being shifted from the virgin to “they,” whoever they may be.
The prophecy and command of the Lord, was one of conception without a father, “a virgin shall conceive” (Isaiah 7:14), which is repeated in Matthew’s reference, with what seems to be a slight twist to the original prophecy, becoming The prophecy and command of the Lord, was one of conception without a father, “a virgin shall conceive” (Isaiah 7:14), which is repeated in Matthew’s reference, with what seems to be a slight twist to the original prophecy, becoming, “a virgin shall be with child.” (Matthew 1: 23)
Luke reports that an Angel of God, Gabriel by name, appears to the virgin before conception (Luke 1:26-31), which would be before Matthew’s angel of the Lord appeared to Joseph “in a dream,” after conception. (Matthew1: 20)
Luke appears to be reading his command to the virgin from the prophecy of Isaiah (Isaiah 7:14) as he states, “And, behold, thou shalt conceive in thy womb, and bring forth a son, and shalt call his name JESUS.” (Luke 1:31) Here, Luke agrees with the earlier prophecy that the virgin shall name the son, with the exception and/or alteration of Immanuel, (Isaiah 7:14) and/or Emmanuel. (Matthew 1:23) with the insertion of JESUS.
Luke goes one step further and reports the naming of the child eight days after his birth, at his circumcision, at which time, “his name was called JESUS, which was so named of the angel before he was conceived in the womb.” (Luke 2:21)
Luke comes after the duplicated crucifixion of Jesus in the Gospels of Matthew and Mark, by which time Matthew has already named the child, who has twice gone through the crucifixion of Jesus King of the Jews.

Luke introduces a different chronological order of events that does not help to remove uncertainty and confusion, so that the breach of the command of the Lord God of Israel comes from what can be said to be:

• One or two different angels (the angel is not named in Matthew while Gabriel is the angel of Luke),
• In two different locations, (to Joseph, after he became conscious of her pregnancy, while he slept, in Matthew, and to Mary, before conception in Luke),
• On two separate occasions, (which is quite obvious, being before and after conception).

We are informed by Luke that the mother was aware that “that which was conceived in her is of the Holy Ghost” (Matthew 1: 20), before she conceived and after she “was espoused to a man named Joseph” (Luke 1: 27), and yet Joseph was not considered until after he contemplated putting her away for being unfaithful. This confusion and scandal must be viewed as no more than a sacrilegious distortion of Scripture.
We have Joseph being authorized to name the child Jesus in Matthew by the angel (Matthew 1:21) to which he complied (Matthew 1: 25). The mother is authorized to name the child Jesus in Luke (Luke 1:31), to which Luke offers no evidence that she did comply. Both Gospels therefore do agree that the virgin was in no way responsible for the alteration of the name of her child nor for the confusion in the naming of the child with an improper name.
Muslims and Christians conceal their misunderstanding in Yeshua and Joshua as Jesus when Yeshua or Joshua translates Yah or Jah is Salvation.
The four Gospels also carry the Hoax that far while it is left to the reader to bring the Hoax into the open by bringing the Gospels together into one story and bringing the jigs of the jig-saw puzzle in place to show the chronology of events and the truth of the beautiful planning and the execution of the plan and the two thieves named Jesus.

[Grace Seeker]

I just want to focus on one little bit of what you have posted:

Jesus, from the King James Version/Translation of the BIble, was the name that Pontius Pilate gave to the two crucified thieves when he had this name inscribed above their heads on their crosses

What is your source for this? I've never heard it before in any discussion -- not in a Christian, Muslim, nor secular context. Not even in dramatizations have I ever heard any names for the thieves that, according to the my underestanding of the Bible, were crucified alongside Jesus.

[Al-manar]

This is a rather shortened v13 and other translations give a different sense.

A sense other than the jews corrupted the word of God? for example?

For, example, Dawood implies that the words were taken out of context and applied and there is no sense of the text saying the words were changed.

let's read the context:

Holy Quran 5:12. Indeed Allâh took the covenant from the Children of Israel (Jews before Islam), and We appointed twelve leaders among them. And Allâh said: "I am with you if you perform prayer and give charity and believe in My Messengers; honour and assist them, and lend to Allâh a good loan. Verily, I will remit your sins and admit you to Gardens under which rivers flow (in Paradise). But if any of you after this, disbelieved, he has indeed gone astray from the Straight Path."
13. So because of their breach of their covenant, We cursed them, and made their hearts grow hard. They change the words from their (right) places and have abandoned a good part of the Message that was sent to them. And you will not cease to discover deceit in them, except a few of them. But forgive them, and overlook (their misdeeds). Verily, Allâh loves the good doers.

[Hugo]

A sense other than the jews corrupted the word of God? for example? let's read the context:

Holy Quran 5:12. Indeed Allâh took the covenant from the Children of Israel (Jews before Islam), and We appointed twelve leaders among them. And Allâh said: "I am with you if you perform prayer and give charity and believe in My Messengers; honour and assist them, and lend to Allâh a good loan. Verily, I will remit your sins and admit you to Gardens under which rivers flow (in Paradise). But if any of you after this, disbelieved, he has indeed gone astray from the Straight Path." 13. So because of their breach of their covenant, We cursed them, and made their hearts grow hard. They change the words from their (right) places and have abandoned a good part of the Message that was sent to them. And you will not cease to discover deceit in them, except a few of them. But forgive them, and overlook (their misdeeds). Verily, Allâh loves the good doers.

You miss the point and here you don't tell us who made this translation and I gave up after trying 6 different ones. Once I have that we can see what is the sense being conveyed or if this is a poor translation.

[جوري]

You miss the point and here you don't tell us who made this translation and I gave up after trying 6 different ones. Once I have that we can see what is the sense being conveyed or if this is a poor translation.

Do you speak Arabic? I am just wondering how you will decide on a good or bad translation? Oh I know.. a good translation is one that fits your agenda of course!

[Al-manar]

You miss the point and here you don't tell us who made this translation and I gave up after trying 6 different ones. Once I have that we can see what is the sense being conveyed or if this is a poor translation.

what is the sense being conveyed,according to your understanding? and why?

[Hiroshi]

If memory serves me correctly the spelling Jesus did not appear in the Bible until the mid 1700's it may have been later. While the letter J first appeared in the English language in the 14th Century, it was rarely used and was sort of a slang type letter.

It was not until the mid 1800s that the letter J was actually accepted as a letter.

I see. Interestingly, "Iesous" seems closer to the equivalent in the Qur'an: "Isa".

[Grace Seeker]

Some interesting discussion regarding how God is referred to in the Bible in this video: Hebrew Insights into "The Lord's Prayer", especially between the 9:00 and 15:00 minute marks of the video.

[Al-manar]

peace.....

some friend asked me(in PM) to elaborate the last point ,whether the Quran validates the Holy Bible fully,or partially...


In spite of the muslims belief in past and present of a biblical corruption, we are amazed by some christian input appeared recently,arguing that the Quran says that the bible is from cover to cover the truth,and never been tampered with, and that those verses that mention the corruption :

1- mention the jews living by the time of Islam.
2- don't mention christians.
3- attack the persons not the text itself.

let's investegate the verses :

the first time in the Quran ever mentions the issue was in

Sura 2:74 Then your hearts hardened after that, so that they were like rocks, rather worse in hardness; and surely there are some rocks from which streams burst forth, and surely there are some of them which split asunder so water issues out of them, and surely there are some of them which fall down for fear of Allah, and Allah is not at all heedless of what you do. 75 Do you then hope that they would believe in you, and a party from among them indeed used to hear the Word of Allah, then altered it after they had understood it, and they know (this).

the context before the verse is the story of the Jews and God's bless on them which they didn't appreciate ,continued to misbehave and their hearts hardened and were like rocks !!
immediately after such description of the nature of the Jews ,God would tell the believers don't get high expectations from the Jews you know who share the same nature of their forefathers who had hard hearts used to corrupt the word of God.....

another verse with the same idea .... their hearts are hard as rock ,corrupting the word of God

Holy Quran 005.012 : Allah did aforetime take a covenant from the Children of Israel, and we appointed twelve captains among them. And Allah said: "I am with you: if ye (but) establish regular prayers, practise regular charity, believe in my messengers, honour and assist them, and loan to Allah a beautiful loan, verily I will wipe out from you your evils, and admit you to gardens with rivers flowing beneath; but if any of you, after this, resisteth faith, he hath truly wandered from the path or rectitude."
But because of their breach of their covenant, We cursed them, and made their hearts grow hard; they change the words from their (right) places and forget a good part of the message that was sent them, nor wilt thou cease to find them- barring a few - ever bent on (new) deceits: but forgive them, and overlook (their misdeeds): for Allah loveth those who are kind.

have you any doubt that the Quran views the Jews before Islam as corrupting the word of God?

still anyone after reading the previous verse,claims that the criticism is levelled specifically towards the jews living the time of Mohamed peace be upon him ?

Hear or read?

Sura 2:74 tells the readers that they heared the word of God ,not they read the word of God ,it doesn't suggest them reading a text then making a textual corruption,but it could denote those Jews had heard the torah (could be from the prophets' mouths) then though they understood it ,they corrupted it ,and penned that as a true scripture...


Why would the quran repeat again and again the JEWISH corruption ?

the torah was corrupted by the Jews and the New testament as I said before is a Jewish production,that is why the focus ,is on the Jews.....


to be continued

[Woodrow]

I see. Interestingly, "Iesous" seems closer to the equivalent in the Qur'an: "Isa".

It does seem to be slightly different pronunciations of the same name.

[Al-manar]

let's visit the second verse related :

Holy Quran [003:078] And there is a sect of them twist their tongues with the Book, that you may suppose it part of the Book, yet it is not part of the Book; and they say, 'It is from God,' yet it is not from God, and they speak falsehood against God, and that wittingly.

2 suggested meanings

1- some of the Jews used to utter some passages in a way that they twist their tongues in order to change the pronounciation to convey another meaning non intended by the text , decieving the listeners (who never read the scriptures) ,thinking that what they uttered is real scripture from God ...

2- another understanding by Imam Mohamed Metwally Al Shaarawy in his tafsir:

the word (laye) means (twist) when we make rope we braid the fibres together to improve strength....
the same way the jews twisted,braided their tongues with words they claim to be from God,in order to gain strength in their position with the listeners...

" اللي " هو الفتل، فنحن عندما نفتل حبلا، ونحاول أن نجدل بين فرعين اثنين من الخيوط، ثم نفتلهم معا لنصنع حبلا، والهدف من الفتل هو أن نضع قوة من شعيرات الخيوط، فهذه الشعيرات لها قوة محدودة، وعندما نفتل هذه الخيوط فإننا نزيد من قوة الخيوط بجدلها معا.
إذن فالفتل المراد به الوصول إلى قوة، وهكذا نرى أنهم يلوون ألسنتهم بكلام يدعون أنه من المنهج المنزل من عند الله، وهذا الكلام ليس من المنهج ولم ينزل من عند الله إنّهم يفعلون ذلك لتقوية مركزهم والتنقيص من مكانة الإسلام



to be concluded next post...

[Hiroshi]

let's visit the second verse related :

Holy Quran [003:078] And there is a sect of them twist their tongues with the Book, that you may suppose it part of the Book, yet it is not part of the Book; and they say, 'It is from God,' yet it is not from God, and they speak falsehood against God, and that wittingly.

2 suggested meanings

1- some of the Jews used to utter some passages in a way that they twist their tongues in order to change the pronounciation to convey another meaning non intended by the text , decieving the listeners (who never read the scriptures) ,thinking that what they uttered is real scripture from God ...

2- another understanding by Imam Mohamed Metwally Al Shaarawy in his tafsir:

the word (laye) means (twist) when we make rope we braid the fibres together to improve strength....
the same way the jews twisted,braided their tongues with words they claim to be from God,in order to gain strength in their position with the listeners...

" اللي " هو الفتل، فنحن عندما نفتل حبلا، ونحاول أن نجدل بين فرعين اثنين من الخيوط، ثم نفتلهم معا لنصنع حبلا، والهدف من الفتل هو أن نضع قوة من شعيرات الخيوط، فهذه الشعيرات لها قوة محدودة، وعندما نفتل هذه الخيوط فإننا نزيد من قوة الخيوط بجدلها معا.
إذن فالفتل المراد به الوصول إلى قوة، وهكذا نرى أنهم يلوون ألسنتهم بكلام يدعون أنه من المنهج المنزل من عند الله، وهذا الكلام ليس من المنهج ولم ينزل من عند الله إنّهم يفعلون ذلك لتقوية مركزهم والتنقيص من مكانة الإسلام



to be concluded next post...

In “The Book of Monotheism,” which is part of his Ṣaḥīḥ, Imām Al-Bukhārī explains the meaning of the word “taḥrīf” as follows: “Taḥrīf means alteration. However, no one can alter any written character in a book of God. Taḥrīf was done to the text in the sense of twisting its meaning [misinterpreting it].”

In his commentary on Al-Nisā’ [4]:46, Imām Al-Fakhr Al-Rāzī says: “The meaning of corruption (taḥrīf) is the introduction of vain doubt and wrong explanations and changing the word from its true meaning to a baseless sense by means of verbal tricks, as heretics do presently with the verses which contravene their own sect. This is the view that is more true.”

In his commentary on Al-Mā’idah [5]:13, he says: “This corruption (taḥrīf) could be [1] false interpretation, and it could be [2] altering the written text. However, we have already shown that the first explanation is most probable, because it is impossible to alter the written text of a book that was handed down in unbroken and widespread succession.”

[Al-manar]

Our next verse is:

Holy Quran 4: 46 Of the Jews there are those who displace words from their (right) places, and say: "We hear and we disobey"; and "Hear what is not Heard"; and "Ra'ina"; with a twist of their tongues and a slander to Faith. If only they had said: "What hear and we obey"; and "Do hear"; and "Do look at us"; it would have been better for them, and more proper; but Allah hath cursed them for their Unbelief; and but few of them will believe.


let's check the other translations and judge them:

Muhammad Asad : Among those of the Jewish faith there are some who distort the meaning of the [revealed] words, taking them out of their context.
M. M. Pickthall Some of those who are Jews change words from their context.
Shakir Of those who are Jews (there are those who) alter words from their places
[Al-Muntakhab] Among those who are imbued with Judaism are some who translocation the words of the Sacred Scriptures to alter the intended sense of Allah's words.
[Progressive Muslims] From amongst the Jews there are those who take the words out of context,
Abdel Haleem Some Jews distort the meaning of [revealed] words:
Edward Henry Palmer And those who are Jews, and those who pervert the words from their places


what is the literal translation of the verse?


I think it is the one by Yusuf Ali,which I picked ......

to explain for you what exactly the beginning of the verse means, I need to tell imaginary story:

The just,great veteran Arab leader Muammar al-Gaddafi (in fact ,he is the only Arab leader I admire) ,once became an obstacle to the imperial plans of USA & UK , they decided to deal with such obstacle to fulfill their wicked plans ...... they prepared a plan to abduct him from his position in the realm of leaders ,afterwards they will either

1- put instead of him to rule the country,another puppet,corrupted,backwarded ruler(may be one from the Arabian peninsula) who has no dignity .

or to

2- after abducting him they excute him ,letting no trace of him.

or to

3- force him to do some dirty work,he is not supposed to do ,as a spy etc


this exact example is the one we should apply to the verse to understand the exact meaning

the phrase mentioned in the verse يحرفون الكلم عن مواضعه

means literaly to displace,abduct a word(words) from its position in the verse(s) ,passage(s).....

that is the literal translation......

they abduct the words from their place in the chapter, why? it is the same reason the imperialists abducted the great leader,just cause they don't desire it ... it is an obstacle to their genda...

so they either abduct the word putting another word instead ...or to delete the word making it vanish, or to take the word out of context ,infusing it in another writing misapplying its original meaning intended.....




the final verse is :


Holy Quran 2:49 Then woe to those who write the Book with their own hands, and then say:"This is from Allah," to traffic with it for miserable price!- Woe to them for what their hands do write, and for the gain they make thereby.


That verse refers to the Jews (just read the context from verse 47)

and is a direct,clear reference to the worst type of corruption (to write a text using your human ideas,yet claiming to be inspiration)......





in sum and substance


The Quran described The Jews as used to corrupt the word of God by all possible means

adding, deleting passages,misapplying passages by false interpretations, they even ,twist their tongues with falshoods trying to sell them as scripture,writing a text claiming it to be from God …..

In “The Book of Monotheism,” which is part of his Ṣaḥīḥ, Imām Al-Bukhārī explains the meaning of the word “taḥrīf” as follows: “Taḥrīf means alteration. However, no one can alter any written character in a book of God. Taḥrīf was done to the text in the sense of twisting its meaning [misinterpreting it].”* ”

In that quotation Albukhari first quoted Ibn Abbas as explaining the word (tahrif) as displacing....then immediately followed by( However, no one can alter any written character in a book of God. Taḥrīf was done to the text in the sense of twisting its meaning [misinterpreting it].”* )

that may give the impression that all that is the quotation of Ibn Abbas while the fact it can't be ,as Ibn Abbas said:
عن ابن عباس رضي الله عنهما قال يا معشر المسلمين كيف تسألون أهل الكتاب وكتابكم الذي انزل على نبيه صلى الله عليه وسلم أحدث الاخبار بالله تقرؤنه لم يشب وقد حدثكم الله ان أهل الكتاب بدلوا ما كتب الله وغيروا بأيديهم الكتاب فقالوا هو من عند الله ليشتروا به ثمنا قليلا أفلا ينهاكم ما جاءكم من العلم عن مسايلتهم ولا والله ما رأينا رجلا منهم قط يسألكم عن الذي انزل عليكم
*
“Ibn `Abbās (ra) said: ‘O company of Muslims! How can you ask the People of the Book when your book which was sent down on His Prophet (saws) is the most recent of the reports by Allāh. You recite and it has not been altered. Allah has reported to you that the People of the Book have altered what Allāh wrote and changed the Book in their possession. They said: ‘It is from Allāh’ in order to sell it for a small price. Does not the knowledge that has come to you spare you from asking them? No, by Allāh, we have not seen a man among them asking you about what was sent down on you!’”

In other words that was the understanding by Albukhari,which is by no means above criticism......


Imām Al-Fakhr Al-Rāzī says: “The meaning of corruption (taḥrīf) is the introduction of vain doubt and wrong explanations and changing the word from its true meaning to a baseless sense by means of verbal tricks, as heretics do presently with the verses which contravene their own sect. This is the view that is more true.”

and shows us the suggested reason:

because it is impossible to alter the written text of a book that was handed down in unbroken and widespread succession.”

but that note neglect that the problem is wider than that.....

it refers to the type of tahrif (modification)of an existing text, but what about the other tahrif (producing text from nothing) ..... that is affirmed in the Quran both directly and indirectly...

directly
Holy Quran 2:49 Then woe to those who write the Book with their own hands, and then say:"This is from Allah,"
indirectly
"but*they killed him*not,*nor crucified him,

that type of tahrif (modyfing existing text),though should be less in material than the other types ,yet has been proven,besides the other kinds of tahrif too.....(details later)

[Hugo]

Our next verse is:
Holy Quran 4: 46 Of the Jews there are those who displace words from their (right) places, and say: "We hear and we disobey"; and "Hear what is not Heard"; and "Ra'ina"; with a twist of their tongues and a slander to Faith. If only they had said: "What hear and we obey"; and "Do hear"; and "Do look at us"; it would have been better for them, and more proper; but Allah hath cursed them for their Unbelief; and but few of them will believe.
let's check the other translations and judge them:

Muhammad Asad : Among those of the Jewish faith there are some who distort the meaning of the [revealed] words, taking them out of their context.
M. M. Pickthall Some of those who are Jews change words from their context.
ShakirOf those who are Jews (there are those who) alter words from their places
[Al-Muntakhab] Among those who are imbued with Judaism are some who translocation the words of the Sacred Scriptures to alter the intended sense of Allah's words.
[Progressive Muslims] From amongst the Jews there are those who take the words out of context,
Abdel Haleem Some Jews distort the meaning of [revealed] words:
Edward Henry Palmer And those who are Jews, and those who pervert the words from their places

I am a little puzzled by this as the verse quoted at the start has 82 words and all 7 alternative versions of one supposes the same verse only amount to 109 words? Are we to take it that these are therefore fair translations?

[Al-manar]

I'm not sure what you mean here !!

[جوري]

I'm not sure what you mean here !!

I'll have to second that, when I read his objections to this from his all too frequent protests, I was wondering what got him riled up this time around? Perhaps he is upset that there are no English translators that can quite capture the Arabic.. who knows..

:w:

[Hugo]

I'm not sure what you mean here !!

It is simple really, how can one verses be 82 words long and then you say you are showing what other translations say but on average the number of words in each of these is just 16? Does not seem as if the verses can possibly be the same one.

[جوري]

It is simple really, how can one verses be 82 words long and then you say you are showing what other translations say but on average the number of words in each of these is just 16? Does not seem as if the verses can possibly be the same one.

your language is deficient, Allah swt is precise with the words, as we say in Arabic, khyer al-kalam ma qal wa dal- the best statements are those most descriptive with the fewest use of words!
maybe if your bibles weren't filled with so much verbal diarrhea, it too wouldn't contradict itself so often..

here in suret an-nazi3at we see a great effort of the translator to capture two or three words max by translating them into 7-8 words

وَالنَّازِعَاتِ غَرْقًا {1}
[Pickthal 79:1] By those who drag forth to destruction,
وَالنَّاشِطَاتِ نَشْطًا {2}
[Pickthal 79:2] By the meteors rushing,
وَالسَّابِحَاتِ سَبْحًا {3}
[Pickthal 79:3] By the lone stars floating,
فَالسَّابِقَاتِ سَبْقًا {4}
[Pickthal 79:4] By the angels hastening,
فَالْمُدَبِّرَاتِ أَمْرًا {5}
[Pickthal 79:5] And those who govern the event,
يَوْمَ تَرْجُفُ الرَّاجِفَةُ {6}
[Pickthal 79:6] On the day when the first trump resoundeth.

so it isn't uncommon that the translator uses many many words to capture the essence of Arabic but never fully doing it!

all the best

[Al-manar]

It is simple really, how can one verses be 82 words long and then you say you are showing what other translations say but on average the number of words in each of these is just 16? Does not seem as if the verses can possibly be the same one.

Come on Hugo,be serious...

Do you think the other translations but the first were for the full the verse or just the part under discussion (the word tahreef)?

I don't think one can miss that ! ......

I made the comparasion between the beginning of the verse ,as it is our focus, or you think quoting the rest of it in the other translations would add something to the argument? if so , what it would add to the argument?

[Hugo]

Come on Hugo,be serious...Do you think the other translations but the first were for the full the verse or just the part under discussion (the word tahreef)?
I don't think one can miss that ! ......

I made the comparasion between the beginning of the verse ,as it is our focus, or you think quoting the rest of it in the other translations would add something to the argument? if so , what it would add to the argument?

Come on Almanar, be serious...Do you think the other translations can be considered without seeing the context - I don't think one can miss that ! ......

Muslim's are always claiming Arabic words have all sort of shades of meaning and its obvious one can only extract those by knowing the context.

[Abu Zakariya]

Hugo,

Obviously the other translations are only of the first part of the verse whereas the first translation is a complete translation of the full verse.
But, as al-Manar has asked you repeatedly which you have ignored, what is your point? Are you suggesting that the full verse, in context, presents a different concept than the one he was conveying, i.e. corruption of the Bible?

[Hugo]

your language is deficient, Allah swt is precise with the words, as we say in Arabic, khyer al-kalam ma qal wa dal- the best statements are those most descriptive with the fewest use of words! Maybe if your bibles weren't filled with so much verbal diarrhea, it too wouldn't contradict itself so often.. here in suret an-nazi3at we see a great effort of the translator to capture two or three words max by translating them into 7-8 words

79:1 By those who drag forth to destruction,
79:2 By the meteors rushing,
79:3 By the lone stars floating,
79:4 By the angels hastening,
79:5 And those who govern the event,
79:6 On the day when the first trump resoundeth.
so it isn't uncommon that the translator uses many many words to capture the essence of Arabic but never fully doing it!

This does not quite seem to be the same case as we are not speaking of one translation but comparing several

[Hugo]

Hugo,Obviously the other translations are only of the first part of the verse whereas the first translation is a complete translation of the full verse.
But, as al-Manar has asked you repeatedly which you have ignored, what is your point? Are you suggesting that the full verse, in context, presents a different concept than the one he was conveying, i.e. corruption of the Bible?

It is simple - one cannot fully understand a word unless one has the context it which its was used so it may well be if we have the full verse and possibly those surrounding it that the sense may be different. Secondly, it is quite possible to force a particular meaning by being selective and this is particularly a concern when one shortens verses excessively - to use your term by doing any of the things I have suggested one may deliberately or inadvertently corrupt the meaning or do you suppose that the meaning of the Qu'ran cannot be corrupted?

[جوري]

This does not quite seem to be the same case as we are not speaking of one translation but comparing several

No translation is going to give you word for word the original, any person with basic understanding of language will come up with that conclusion and it isn't necessarily confined to Arabic.. I imagine amongst other things it is the reason your elders turned a man into a god-- one wonders how much of your religion was lost in the translation considering your god and the language of your god's alleged books aren't one in the same!

you seem to only desire to delude yourself for personal reasons, having to do with your belief system than anything else objective in nature!

all the best

[Abu Zakariya]

It is simple - one cannot fully understand a word unless one has the context it which its was used so it may well be if we have the full verse and possibly those surrounding it that the sense may be different. Secondly, it is quite possible to force a particular meaning by being selective and this is particularly a concern when one shortens verses excessively - to use your term by doing any of the things I have suggested one may deliberately or inadvertently corrupt the meaning or do you suppose that the meaning of the Qu'ran cannot be corrupted?

Of course it is possible that the meaning is twisted and taken out of context, but were you suggesting that this was the case with al-Manar and his quotation?

[Hugo]

Of course it is possible that the meaning is twisted and taken out of context, but were you suggesting that this was the case with al-Manar and his quotation?

No of course not but if we are to discuss things openly then we must be allowed to see how someone arrived at his conclusions and that means we need to see not only his 'data' but his 'methods'. Though I understand this is a discussion board so it is not always possible to say all that is needed and as long as it is clear that someone is just stating an opinion I have no issues though I may contest it. But at the same time everyone must be prepared to do more than just state an opinion - what do you think?

[Zafran]

No of course not but if we are to discuss things openly then we must be allowed to see how someone arrived at his conclusions and that means we need to see not only his 'data' but his 'methods'. Though I understand this is a discussion board so it is not always possible to say all that is needed and as long as it is clear that someone is just stating an opinion I have no issues though I may contest it. But at the same time everyone must be prepared to do more than just state an opinion - what do you think?

what else are they meant to do on a discussion board - and not any type but ISLAMIC discussion board.

[Abu Zakariya]

No of course not but if we are to discuss things openly then we must be allowed to see how someone arrived at his conclusions and that means we need to see not only his 'data' but his 'methods'. Though I understand this is a discussion board so it is not always possible to say all that is needed and as long as it is clear that someone is just stating an opinion I have no issues though I may contest it. But at the same time everyone must be prepared to do more than just state an opinion - what do you think?

I agree. It seemed to me that you were insinuating that the verse was taken out of context or something, but if you were merely trying to state the above, then I'm with you.

[Al-manar]

Peace be upon all


after such long time ,..I hope it was all fine with the dear friends who participate and visit the thread......

May Allah grant us all the patience,tolerance,open-mindedness needed ,while we continue our discussion....

let's resume the big issue we were discussing


Biblical Errancy vs Quranic Inerrancy ? P.6


Origin of christianity Aka when drowning men were clutching at straws



Introduction:


our context is? the Second Temple Period that ran from 520 B.C. - A.D. 70, ending with the destruction of the Temple in Jerusalem.):


The Jewish scene in second temple period

A- Timeline
1020-922 undivided monarchy
922 Solomon’s kingdom divided into Northern (Israel) and Southern (Judah)
721 Northern kingdom is defeated by the Assyrians
597-538 Babylonian exile; 587 Temple destroyed
538-332 Persian rule; 520 Temple rebuilt. Second Temple Judaism begins.
332-167 Hellenization under Alexander the Great and his successors from Egypt & Syria
167-63 Hundred years of independence under Maccabees
63 BC Roman conquest of Palestine. Independence lost till 20th c. AD!
.....Jesus mission
70 AD Second Temple destroyed.



B- A huge crisis and intense diversity :

Holy Quran 043:063

When Jesus came with Clear Signs, he said: "Now have I come to you with Wisdom, and in order to make clear to you some of the (points) on which ye dispute: therefore fear Allah and obey me.


That is noted by the scholars:

-The era of the "Second Temple (or: Second Commonwealth)" [c. 400 B.C.E.-70 C.E.] was one of the most complex and exciting eras in the development of the Jewish religion,and one that exerted a decisive influence on the shape of Judaism (and its offshoot,Christianity) for subsequent generations. This era was characterized by the division of the Jewish people into rival sects advocating differing approaches to the central religious questions of the day; such as:
• Scripture, its authority and interpretation.
• Models of religious leadership: Priests, scholars and pietists.
• Paths to holiness: Purity, worship, study and morality.
• Ideas about God, the afterlife, the Messiah, etc.
(Jewish Movements of the Second Temple. Dr. Eliezer Segal
,a Ph.D in Talmud from the Hebrew University of Jerusalem and a Professor of Religious Studies at the University of Calgary)

- Temple period, as well as the variety of scholarly methodologies applied to the field,must be considered among the major achievements of contemporary research. In the last fifty years we have seen the eclipse of the concept of normative Judaism and the emergence of a new world, populated by new characters: Sapiential Judaism, Mosaic Judaism, Enochic Judaism, Qumran Judaism, and the like.(the rediscovery of Jewish diversity in the Second,The Enoch seminar )


- Second Temple “Judaism… was not uniformly Torah centered, even among those who were familiar with the Torah and respected it as one source of wisdom among others” ((J.J. Collins, “How Distinctive Was Enochic Judaism,”in Meghillot: Studies in the Dead Sea Scrolls V-VI. A Festschrift for Devorah Dimant, ed.M. Bar-Asher and E. Tov, Haifa/Jerusalem: University of Haifa/Bialik Institute, 2007,
p.33).)


- The period in which the second jewish temple flourished (515 B.C.E to 70.CE) was one of the most prolific and creative in all of Israel's history .It was unparalleled literary and theological diversity . Rather than positing a rigid contrast between biblical Israel and post-exilic Judaism ,it is now recognized that numerous socio-religious communities during this era envisioned themselves as the sole legitimate expression of post-classical Israel.
Admittedly, the religion of Judaism experienced enormous transformations during this time .
One common characteristic of the second temple period is that radically diverse groups made very different determinations as to whether another socio-religious entity was or was not practicing Judaism.
(The Internal Diversification of Second Temple Judaism: An Introduction to the Second Temple Period,Jeff S. Anderson )

Jesus came ,according to the Quran , to make clear to the Jews some of the points on which they dispute..

examples of such points of dispute?
why clearing some of the points of dispute and not all?
was his mission merely to clear some points of disputes or more other goals ,according to the Quran?


till next post

peace...

[Hugo]

Biblical Errancy vs Quranic Inerrancy ? P.6 Origin of christianity when drowning men were clutching at straws[/B] our context is? the Second Temple Period that ran from 520 B.C. - A.D. 70, ending with the destruction of the Temple in Jerusalem.):

It is not easy to see what it is you are saying in this post and I note that some 40% is copied from henochjournal.com and aarweb.org. No one disputes that Jewish history is messy with kings and kingdoms being split and then a series of invasions and deportations right up until the Roman occupation. We can discuss details if you wish but its as you say complex so what is your focus? One might also note that early Islam was a messy affair with many disputes and splits resulting in many sects.

[جوري]

and splits resulting in many sects.

what many sects are those if 85-90% of Muslims are Sunna (traditional) Muslims..
how much can you offer when your knowledge of history is more of a personal opinion than actual facts?

all the best

[Al-manar]

Hugo's account disabled !

It is not easy to see what it is you are saying in this post and I note that some 40% is copied from henochjournal.com and aarweb.org.

I'll be missing your imaginary statistics, Hugo :)

No one disputes that Jewish history is messy with kings and kingdoms being split and then a series of invasions and deportations right up until the Roman occupation.

our focus is on the religious issues not necessarily the political...

One might also note that early Islam was a messy affair with many disputes and splits resulting in many sects.

I already intended addressing such point while answering my question,why clearing some of the points of dispute and not all?


God would send prophets to judge some differings of men

Quran 2:213

“Mankind were once one community. Then God sent forth prophets to give them good news and to warn them; and with these He sent down the Book with the truth, that it might judge the disputes of men.

but some differeings will be judged on day of judgment

Unto God you all must return; and then He will make you truly understand all that on which you were wont to differ. Quran - 5:48

And, in time, unto your Sustainer you all must return: and then He will make you. [truly] understand all that on which you were wont to differ.Quran - 6:164

what many sects are those if 85-90% of Muslims are Sunna (traditional) Muslims..

Exactly !

the majority of muslims are not divided into sects......

muslim sects for me and most muslims ,is nothing beyond the triangle of minority of 1- Shia 2-Qadianism 3-radical sufism.
few radical muslims would consider other sunnis(who disagree with them)as sect eg;Hanbali attitude towards Ash'ari (the school that dominated the muslim religeous academic world for centuries) and vice versa !... but that is ,indeed unwise judgment...
...................

back again to the Jewish scene in the second temple period(the period that witnessed the coming of jesus):

Indeed, they have disbelieved who have said, “God is the Messiah (Jesus), son of Mary.” The Messiah said, “Children of Israel, worship God, my Lord and your Lord. Whoever associates partners in worship with God, then God has forbidden Paradise for him, and his home is the Fire (Hell). For the wrongdoers,3 there will be no helpers.” (Quran, 5:72)


we knew from the verse that the trinitarians are misbelievers, but what made Jesus bring the issue of shirk on the Jewish scene?
why to warn them of the consequences of shirk?
what was wrong with the Jewish monotheism before the appearance of the christian trinity?

the answer that such verse refers to something few know ...

it is the fact that the Jewish monotheism in that period was not strict monotheism !!!

it was a stained monotheism (in Islamic terms).....

they believed in God as one ...but?

the scholary quotations in the next post would show how stained was the Jewish monotheism that era, which would convince the reader that no wonder some of the Jews would later believe in Jesus as God.....

till next post

peace and bless

[Al-manar]

Origin of christianity Aka when drowning men were clutching at straws P.2


I never Imagined one day that the idea of the taking Jesus as God, incarnation etc... could be a Jewish product (based on faulty Jewish Exegesis)... as I used to read the arguments (of the old school) is that the concept is based on Greek (or pagan) philosophy or mythology .....

till recently ,I was fortunate enough to get reading the work of the new school that re-investigate the issue of the origin of christianity......

It is true that :

In recent decades there has been an intensively renewed interest in the origins and development of ‘christology’, or, to use a broader term intended to take into account religious practices as well as ideas/beliefs, earliest ‘devotion’ to Jesus. In general, this newer work has emphasized the early period and Jewish religious setting in which this remarkable devotion to Jesus first emerged (e.g., Newman, Davila, Lewis 1999), and scholars have thus explored in what ways Jesus-devotion may have drawn upon Jewish tradition and how it may have represented something innovative. In particular, there are questions about the means by which early believers shaped by Jewish tradition with its concern for the uniqueness of God may have accommodated devotion to Jesus as in some way bearing divine significance.

Hurtado, Larry W Monotheism, Principal Angels, and the Background of Christology



There is a complex range of Jewish texts from different periods that speculate about the exaltation and the heavenly enthronement of a figure who may be either an angel or a human being. These speculations grow from meditation upon and discussion of certain key texts such as Ezekiel 1, in which the prophet receives a vision of YHWH's throne-chariot, and Daniel 7, where "one like a son of man" is presented to "the Ancient of Days" and shares his throne. . . .
How far these speculations were taken is a matter of continuing debate. But the point should be clear: things like this were thinkable; they were not obviously self-contradictory, nor were they regarded as necessarily a threat to what second-Temple Jews meant by "monotheism."
N. T. Wright. The Challenge of Jesus (Downers Grove: InterVarsity Press, 1999) p. 105.


Now let's go directly to the Jewish sources :



proofs of some Jewish shirk before Jesus?


1- were the Jews capable of thinking of of more than one divine figure along with God ?

a simple reading of the Jewish Book of 1 Enoch (dated before the mission of Jesus) will reveal that.
It is there where the figure "Son of man" is described as,judge of the world (xlvi. 2, xlviii. 2, lxx. 27); universal dominion and preexistence are predicated of him (xlviii. 2, lxvii. 6). He sits on God's throne (xlv. 3, li. 3), which is His own throne.
Bauckham comments:That he is seated on the divine throne,the symbol of the unique divine sovereignty, is sufficient to establish that he does receive a divine worship..


The Son of Man

Fragment of 1 Enoch (Scrolls of the Dead Sea)

And there I saw the One to Whom belongs the time before time, and His head was white like wool. With Him was another being, whose countenance had the appearance of a man, and his face was full of graciousness, like one of the holy angels. I asked the angel who went with me [...] concerning that son of and who he was, and whence he was, and why he went with the One to Whom belongs the time before time.
He answered and said to me: 'This is the son of man who has righteousness, with whom dwells righteousness, and who reveals all the treasures of that which is hidden, because the Lord of the spirits has chosen him, and whose lot has the pre-eminence before the Lord of the spirits in uprightness for ever. This son of man whom you have seen shall raise up the kings and the mighty from their seats and the strong from their thrones, and shall loosen the reins of the strong and break the teeth of the sinners.'

And at that hour that Son of Man was named in the presence of the Lord of the spirits, and his name before the the One to Whom belongs the time before time. Yes, before the sun and the signs were created, before the stars of the heaven were made, his name was named before the Lord of the spirits. He shall be a staff to the righteous whereon to stay themselves and not fall, and he shall be the light of the gentiles and the hope of those who are troubled of heart. All who dwell on earth shall fall down and worship before him, and will praise and bless and celebrate with song the Lord of the spirits. For this reason has he been chosen and hidden before Him, before the creation of the world and for ever more. The wisdom of the Lord of the spirits has revealed him to the holy and righteous; for he has preserved the lot of the righteous, because they have hated and despised this world of unrighteousness, and have hated all its works and ways in the name of the Lord of the spirits: for in his name they are saved, and according to his good pleasure has it been in regard to their life.
In these days downcast in countenance shall the kings of the earth have become, and the strong who possess the land because of the works of their hands, for on the day of their anguish and affliction they shall not be able to save themselves. And I will give them over into the hands of My elect: as straw in the fire so shall they burn before the face of the holy, as lead in the water shall they sink before the face of the righteous, and no trace of them shall any more be found.
And on the day of their affliction there shall be rest on the earth, and before them they shall fall and not rise again. There shall be no one to take them with his hands and raise them, for they have denied the Lord of the spirits and His Messiah. The name of the Lord of the spirits be blessed.
[1 Enoch 46.1-4;
1 Enoch 48.2-10]



Another form of Jewish shirk? (pleas for help at the tombs of dead saints and martyrs):

Jack Lightstone dedicated a chapter of 20 pages in his book (The Commerce of the Sacred: Mediation of the Divine Among Jews in the Greco-Roman World) dealing with that matter, that tombs are the site of veneration of the dead, and in which the earthly
remains of these saints constitute valued objects in the mediation of
the divine.:

some quotes from the chapter:

That tombs, local or national, may assume such a function has more to do with what has befallen the surviving spirit of the deceased and the possible services that the spirit may render, than (at least initially)
with any integral holiness adhering to the entombed bones. The spirit of the Patriarch (or of other Holy Men) seems in some fashion both in his tomb and in heaven. He or she is privy to the requests of
the supplicants and in turn has the ear of the deity. That the deceased constitutes an active intermediary, rather than a passive instrument of communication, seems evident. For prayer may be addressed to the deceased rather than to a divine being. More properly put, the deceased has become a "divine" being in some serious sense, and therefore, like God or an angel, may be efficaciously beseeched in prayer.
The Matriarch, Rachel, is a case in point, surviving even in rabbinic Judaism. It remains customary for barren women to visit the Tomb of Rachel to pray for progeny. The specific efficacy of this tomb
for countering barrenness has to do with the particular person (and biography) of the entombed, who herself, according to the biblical narrative, long remained barren. In short, the specificity of function
here alerts one to the active role played by the deceased; she above all ought to understand and sympathize with the problem. And supplicants usually address their prayers directly to her.
Pilgrimages to tombs of famous Holy Men were not limited to these few instances. The (alleged) tombs of David, Maimonides, and Rabbi Simeon bar Yohai (to name but a few obvious examples) have
all been objects over the centuries of such piety by rabbinic Jews,although the specific world-view that makes sense of these practices has been rigorously ignored (or suppressed) by the rabbis. Late
Antique rabbinic sources relate that persons visited the gravesite of the rabbinic Holy Man Rav in order to procure its earth for theurgic purposes.9 Rav functioned in life as an instrument of mediation(at least for those in third-century CE Babylonia who accorded such status to rabbinic figures). In death, therefore, his grave remained a gateway to heaven, not only for Rav but also for the downward flow of sacred power. But here even the material of the gravesite remains a locus of the sacred and of salutary efficacy. We have here a relic in the true sense.Early Rabbinic literature views these developments with considerable
ambivalence even when deceased rabbinic figures constitute the object of such cultic activity. To be sure, Rabbinism offered their (living) elite as more than equal to other Holy Men as regards theurgy.10
Still the early rabbinic literature of Palestine and Babylonia refrained from delivering their deceased masters for the same ends. The sources do not view positively the veneration of Rav's grave. The Talmud
enjoins that fences not be erected around graves, lest this aid in the identification (and use) of the sites as sacred territory.1 1 Presumably they feared that the dead, even the rabbinic dead, might wrest authority
from the living, ultimately undermining the rabbinic Holy Men. In any case, the survival of such rites in a hostile (or, minimally, ambivalent) rabbinic environment attests to their entrenchment among
Late Antique Jews and among their rabbinized descendants. With the denationalization of the cult of the dead, persons other than those who had accrued holy status in life might in death join the ranks of the elite. More precisely put, the manner of dying might win post mortem sacrality for the deceased and his or her tomb. By the beginning of the first century BCE evidence emerges pointing to the possible veneration of martyrs. II Maccabees 7 relates, with the requisite "detail" of Hellenistic historiography, the story of the
torture and martyrdom of the "women and her seven sons" at the command of Antiochus IV. N o doubt the narrative previously circulated on its own and enjoyed considerable popularity before either Jason of Cyrene or his (Alexandrian?) epitomist included the tale in their "histories." The story stands as a unit apart from its context, is entirely intelligible on its own and, indeed, interrupts the principal narrative of the book. Given, moreover, that the Palestinian editor of I Maccabees remained ignorant of the tradition in question, one may well locate its provenance in the Hellenistic diaspora. In sum, evidence for martyrology for Hellenistic Judaism dates to the beginning of the first and in all probability to the latter half of the second
century BCE.
Again what Late Antique Rabbinism attempted to suppress (or minimally reinterpret in other terms), medieval Rabbinism clearly evinces.Regular visits to the tombs of the family remain commonplace among
traditional, rabbinic Jews. There one customarily addresses the deceased,asking that he or she intercede with the divine powers on behalf of surviving relatives. The artifactual and archaeological evidence for Hellenistic Jewry indicates as well that the common tomb functioned as a portal to the realm of the divine2 2—initially, at least, for the deceased and, therefore, perhaps for the prayers of the living. Parallel to the new conception among Jews of Hellenistic and Roman times that the dead ascend to heaven, rather than descend to the nether world, one finds the development of new modes of burial and of a remarkably consistent vocabulary of funerary art.


Under “Star Worship” the Jewish Encyclopedia states:

The Israelites fell into this kind of idolatry and as early as the time of Amos they had the images of Siccuth and Chium, ‘the stars of their god’ (Amos 5:26); the latter name is generally supposed to denote the planet Saturn. That the Kingdom of Israel fell earlier than that of Judah is stated (II Kings 17:16) to have been due, among other causes, to its worshipping the host of heaven. But the Kingdom of Judah in its later period seems to have outdone the Northern Kingdom [Israel] in star-worship.” Of Manasseh it is related that he built altars to all the hosts of heaven in the two courts of the house of YHWY, and it seems it was the practice of even Kings before him to appoint priests who offered sacrifices to the Sun, the Moon, the planets, and all the hosts of heaven. Altars for star-worship were built on the roofs of the houses, and horses and chariots were dedicated to the worship of the Sun. (II Kings 21:5; 23:4-5, 11-12) Star-worship continued in Judah until the 18th year of Josiah’s reign (621 B.C.) when the King took measures to abolish all kinds of idolatry. But although star-worship was then abolished as a public cult, it was practiced privately by individuals who worshipped the heavenly bodies, and poured out libations to them on the roofs of their houses (Zephaniah 1:5; Jeremiah 8:2; 19:13) … Jeremiah, who prophesied in the sixth year of the captivity of Jehoiachin (591 B.C.) describes the worship of the Sun as practiced in the court of the Temple (Ezekiel 8:16) and that even after the destruction of the Temple the women insisted on continuing to worship the Queen of Heaven

To be continued .....

[Grace Seeker]

You see, this is what I keep saying, and Muslims keep denying. The idea that Jesus could be divine is NOT something that was transmitted to Christianity as a later corruption coming from outside paganism. Call it shirk if you so desire, but recognize that the nexus between Jewish monotheism and Christian trinitarianism is actually quite Jewish in origin.

[IAmZamzam]

You see, this is what I keep saying, and Muslims keep denying. The idea that Jesus could be divine is NOT something that was transmitted to Christianity as a later corruption coming from outside paganism.

I admit, Grace Seeker, that I haven't yet read the other posts in this thread, but not all of us Muslims believe that. People in the ancient world did not need any outside influence to deify their leaders against their will. It was a natural thing to do back then which any number of people did independently of each other. Frankly, anytime I hear anyone say that anything was a definite "historical influence" on anything, I immediately get suspicious. These things are unknowable and cannot prove anything.

I recently posted an article related to the topic on another board.

[Al-manar]

peace

You see, this is what I keep saying, and Muslims keep denying. .

Have you ever brought that issue to muslims in the board, and how you supported your arguments,which been denied by muslims ?

anytime I hear anyone say that anything was a definite "historical influence" on anything, I immediately get suspicious. .

That is, not only exaggeration,but irrelevant to my original arguments.....
my arguments wasn't basically (historical influence) it was the textual influence....
eg; the Jewish son of man of 1 Enoch (besides the son of man in Daniel) who sits on the divine throne influenced the later Jewish son of man of the New testament ( just a simple reading needed).
it is a process of faulty Exegesis ..and development in the wrong direction...
anyway welcome to the thread,and hope you read the previous posts ,may be you give some positive comments or learn something new ...

peace and bless

[GreyKode]

peace




Have you ever brought that issue to muslims in the board, and how you supported your arguments,which been denied by muslims ?




That is, not only exaggeration,but irrelevant to my original arguments.....
my arguments wasn't basically (historical influence) it was the textual influence....
eg; the Jewish son of man of 1 Enoch (besides the son of man in Daniel) who sits on the divine throne influenced the later Jewish son of man of the New testament .
it is a process of faulty Exegesis ..and development in the wrong direction...
anyway welcome to the thread,and hope you read the previous posts ,may be you give some positive comments or learn something new ...

peace and bless

Assalamu alaikum brother (essayak ya bahsa ;))

In the light of what you just mentioned, I have a few questions :

1) Is this information present only in the dead sea scrolls, or is it present also in the present scriptures that were before the discovery of the scrolls(I'm assuming the scrolls contain differences, correct me if i am wrong)

2) What does this say about the jews? Are they considerend this way mushrikeen?

more to come later...

[جوري]

monotheism and Christian trinitarianism is actually quite Jewish in origin.

You must make such a statement with confidence knowing that in the meanwhile there are no Jewish members on board to have a guffaw. I am yet to encounter a Jew and I know plenty who think Christianity is anything but a pagan farce!

all the best

[Grace Seeker]

You must make such a statement with confidence knowing that in the meanwhile there are no Jewish members on board to have a guffaw. I am yet to encounter a Jew and I know plenty who think Christianity is anything but a pagan farce!

all the best

There is a vast difference between Jewish thought today and Jewish thought 2000 years ago. So what you would hear from a Jew with regard to their beliefs today is not germane to the question being discussed.

[Grace Seeker]

Assalamu alaikum brother (essayak ya bahsa ;))

In the light of what you just mentioned, I have a few questions :

1) Is this information present only in the dead sea scrolls, or is it present also in the present scriptures that were before the discovery of the scrolls(I'm assuming the scrolls contain differences, correct me if i am wrong)

2) What does this say about the jews? Are they considerend this way mushrikeen?

more to come later...

You will find it in some of the Hebrew scriptures, but even more you find it in the Jewish apocyrpha and rabbinical midrash of the last couple of centuries BCE.

[جوري]

There is a vast difference between Jewish thought today and Jewish thought 2000 years ago. So what you would hear from a Jew with regard to their beliefs today is not germane to the question being discussed.

There is a vast difference between Christian thought today and Christian thought 2000 years ago. So what you would hear from a Christian with regard to their beliefs today is not germane to the question being discussed!

all the best

[Ramadhan]

There is a vast difference between Jewish thought today and Jewish thought 2000 years ago. So what you would hear from a Jew with regard to their beliefs today is not germane to the question being discussed.

I think you are onto something about the jews practicing shirk and paganism prior and in the time of jesus pbuh.

And that's why Jesus pbuh was sent to the lost sheep of israel because the bani israel got deviant and even practiced shirks, in order to make bani israel to go back to the straigth path, the path of Noah, Abraham and Moses to worship one God.
Ironically of the highest order, as soon as his departure, some wicked jews (led by saul) started to make him as god.

[Ramadhan]

There is a vast difference between Jewish thought today and Jewish thought 2000 years ago. So what you would hear from a Jew with regard to their beliefs today is not germane to the question being discussed.

I think you are onto something about the jews practicing shirk and paganism prior and in the time of jesus pbuh.

And that's why Jesus pbuh was sent to the lost sheep of israel because the bani israel got deviant and even practiced shirks, in order to make bani israel to go back to the straigth path, the path of Noah, Abraham and Moses to worship one God.
Ironically of the highest order, as soon as his departure, some wicked jews (led by saul) started to make him as god.

[Grace Seeker]

There is a vast difference between Christian thought today and Christian thought 2000 years ago. So what you would hear from a Christian with regard to their beliefs today is not germane to the question being discussed!

all the best

I can substantiate from still existing documents that have historical continuity back 2000 years the view I expressed. Can you do the same?

[جوري]

I can substantiate from still existing documents that have historical continuity back 2000 years the view I expressed. Can you do the same?

I doubt very much you can substantiate anything historically or religiously as pertains to events in the bible, without referencing to someone's dreams or sudden contrition or passages that are all together dubious in nature as they stand a contradiction to others citing the same event or are hearsay or written well after the fact of the matter . Which much like your words needs to be taken at face value.
Do you like wasting my time? I don't like having my time wasted!

all the best

[Grace Seeker]

Ironically of the highest order, as soon as his departure, some wicked jews (led by saul) started to make him as god.

Saul did see him that way, but he was not THE primary leader of the group. Rather, James and Peter were. And while it cannot be shown that James ever expressed a specific belief in the divinity of Jesus, Peter did on multiple occassions, and Peter also affirmed Paul's teaching, which as you say did include teaching regarding the divinity of Jesus. And after hearing Paul's report on his ministry and that of those who spoke against what he was doing, even James gave approval to Paul to continue to present the message he was presenting and that those who were trying to drag the church back into old Judaism were in the wrong. But, again, Peter not Saul (Paul) is the one who properly gets the credit for first introducing this concept.

[Grace Seeker]

Do you like wasting my time? I don't like having my time wasted!

all the best

If we were to agree to quit responding to each other's posts, then I wouldn't be wasting your time and you wouldn't be wasting mine. I'm happy to afford you that gift if you so desire.

[جوري]

If we were to agree to quit responding to each other's posts, then I wouldn't be wasting your time and you wouldn't be wasting mine. I'm happy to afford you that gift if you so desire.

Your time indeed is best invested directing your own exegesis of Jewish scriptures to the Jews and let's see how receptive they are to your renditions-- that is if you have any credibility at all!

all the best

[Al-manar]

Assalamu alaikum brother (essayak ya bahsa ;))

Alaikomosalaam ya prof.:sunny:

fine Alhamdulliah ...though had a bad cold lately...

I hope you are in the best health..

Is this information present only in the dead sea scrolls, or is it present also in the present scriptures that were before the discovery of the scrolls(I'm assuming the scrolls contain differences, correct me if i am wrong)

the texts which I believe the jews such time(who would become later christians) based their exegesis on ...is in the old testament, and the other Jewish writing outside the old testament.....
but as I said such faulty exegesis wasn't accepted by all Jews(more to say later regarding that point) .....

What does this say about the jews? Are they considerend this way mushrikeen?

If you mean the Jews in second temple period, then as Bro Naidamer said:
some jews had shirk concepts besides practicing forms of shirk prior and in the time of jesus pbuh.
the Jews then had trouble with pure monotheism such trouble been developed to the ultimate disaster of monotheism (trinity)....

and that is how Satan works ...he gets you to your destruction gradually....

that point will be concluded next post InshaAllah..

more to come later...

I hope InshaAllah

[GreyKode]

Alaikomosalaam ya prof.:sunny:

fine Alhamdulliah ...though had a bad cold lately...

I hope you are in the best health..

May ALLAH(swt) grant you the best of health and may u recover soon isa (:exhausted prof eh bass, lessa badriiii awy)



the texts which I believe the jews such time(who would become later christians) based their exegesis on ...is in the old testament, and the other Jewish writing outside the old testament.....
but as I said such faulty exegesis wasn't accepted by all Jews(more to say later regarding that point) .....



If you mean the Jews in second temple period, then as Bro Naidamer said:
some jews had shirk concepts besides practicing forms of shirk prior and in the time of jesus pbuh.
the Jews then had trouble with pure monotheism such trouble been developed to the ultimate disaster of monotheism (trinity)....

and that is how Satan works ...he gets you to your destruction gradually....

that point will be concluded next post InshaAllah..




I hope InshaAllah

I was reading a book called "Al yad al khafiyya-diraasat fil 7arakat el suhyooniyya al haddama wal sirriya" written by Dr. Abdul wahab el messery. It basically was talking about the conspiracy theories about the jews and the protocols of zion and how it was fake propaganda started by the russians. He was criticizing the common held beleif that the jews are one monolithic entity that throughout the ages have conspired to control the world by passing on their hidden teaching plans across generations. He, however, mentioned that there was a large role played by jewish apostates and psuedo-jews in spreadign many types of destructive beleifs, particularly a group that brought in beleifs of gnosticism and kabbala, and how those groups beleived in concepts such as "we7dat al wujood" similar to some sufis and particularly their gradual elimiation of all concepts of sin and 7aram etc etc.

"and that is how Satan works ...he gets you to your destruction gradually...."

In conclusion it did seem that the jews went through very different phases in their religion.

Looking forward to your comments.

[Al-manar]

I was reading a book called "Al yad al khafiyya-diraasat fil 7arakat el suhyooniyya al haddama wal sirriya" written by Dr. Abdul wahab el messery..

Dr. Abdul wahab el messery is a well known writer,but to be honest I never read any of his books...... wish I have time to read the book ...
may be it add something benefitable to my arguments....


thanx Bro for such information...

[Hiroshi]

Ironically of the highest order, as soon as his departure, some wicked jews (led by saul) started to make him as god.

Then why did Saul (or Paul) write in 1 Corinthians 8:6 "for us there is but one God, the Father"? He clearly did not identify Jesus with "the Father", this one and only God.

[Al-manar]

dear Hiroshi

as I said before the trinity proof text is controversal and could be rendered differently......
the words of Paul(as a whole) could be indeed understood as reference to divinity and could be understood otherwise...
( I can bring you such Pauline texts and we reflect together)
but that is not our problem as muslims ,as we should be out of such controversy

read my post again:
http://www.islamicboard.com/comparat...ml#post1329752

we are out of such textual controversy between christian trinitarians and unitarians,as we have a stronger basis for rejecting the trinity than a text that could mean this or otherwise that......
I know that muslims, commonly ,in one hand attacking Paul as a deceiver who deformed the true message of jesus (I agree),yet continuously negating the possibility that he indeed believed in jesus as God.
Paul was a true monotheist just his writings were misunderstood by christians !!!!!!!! ....

I criticised that approach before ,the fact that unlike the Jehovah testimony and other christian unitarians ,we muslims have a more profound problem with the trinity...which can't be resolved even if the new testament if filled with certain trinity proof text......

I'm not trying to criticise you......just trying to show you what our position should be as muslims towards the trinity....

all the best

[Al-manar]

peace

I am yet to encounter a Jew and I know plenty who think Christianity is anything but a
pagan farce!

that is true ...

Your time indeed is best invested directing your own exegesis of Jewish scriptures to the Jews and let's see how receptive they are to your renditions--

that is true too , no MODERN Jew would accept the christian exegesis of Jewish scriptures...

BUT

There is a vast difference between Jewish thought today and (some) Jewish thought 2000 years ago.

If we modify the post putting the word (some),I would say, its true, too....

I wouldn't say those SOME second temple Jews accepted the christian exegesis of Jewish scriptures....
as the fact, it was them who invented such exegesis (details later)....

peace

[Grace Seeker]

If we modify the post putting the word (some),I would say, its true, too....

I can accept that amendment, the insertion of the term "some", to my previous post.

As I wrote it, I was thinking about more than just the issue of the development of trinitarian thought. And when one considers the total corpus of Jewish writing at the time, I think that one can show that on the whole Jewish thought of that day and today are vastly different from a number of reasons, only one of which would be that some Jews of that day believed in a more relaxed form of monotheism in attributing personality to things such as God's wisdom, God's spirit, God's word that a Muslim reading those ancient texts today would consider those views shirk, though Jews of that day would have still considered themselves to be monotheists. It was from those personifications of aspects of the divine being that Christians then proceeded to find ground on which the concepts that became eventually known as the doctrine of the Trinity developed.

I don't think that those first century Jews/Christians (including, maybe especially, Paul) ever once thought of themselves as anything other than monotheists just like Jewish brothers who were not Christians. But, unlike their non-Christian Jewish brothers they found in this particular strain of Jewish thought that was dominant in their time, reason to accept the idea that Jesus might indeed be the very presence of this one God now making himself known in the flesh even as he still reigned in heaven and also simultaneously became a living presence in their lives via his Spirit.

I wouldn't say those SOME second temple Jews accepted the christian exegesis of Jewish scriptures....
as the fact, it was them who invented such exegesis (details later)....

Again, agreed. As I alluded to above, it was the presence of that sort of exegesis that those who followed Christ relied upon as they looked back upon their time with him and came to the conclusion that he was indeed God come among them. The question I would have of them, that I don't think we can clearly answer from the Christian scriptures, is when, in their mind did Jesus become divine? Had Jesus always been God? Certainly the birth narratives were written to make that point. Or was it only because of his complete and lifelong submission to the Father that he was elevated by the Father to that status? That position being more reflected in Paul's writings, which makes it all the more ironic how Muslims attack Paul.

One mistake that I think far too many people make, both those who try to defend and those who try to refute Christian doctrine today, is to think that Christian theology was fully formed from the beginning. The truth is that the disciples (and there were many more than 12) who had followed Jesus were lost and did not know what to think at first. That is one of the reasons they are reported as hiding in the Upper Room. And even when they emerged from their to proclaim Jesus' message, while I do think that we see in Peter's initial sermon recognition of the Lordship (and therefore divinity) of Christ, that message was initially a call simply an eschatological kerygma. By that I mean, they taught that Jesus was God's instrument for bringing to fulfillment the promise of the end times and the setting of everything right in the world. This primitive kerygma has as its focus the death and exaltation of Jesus and the proclamation of his Lordship. And by Lordship they meant so much more than a mere honorific title. It was indeed a challenge to the emperor who had given himself the title "Lord of the Universe," rejected by all Jews because such a claim was to usurp God's status. So, when Peter made such a claim with regard to Jesus he was very knowingly either claiming that Jesus was God come to make himself known and complete what God had promised he would do, or that Jesus was a usurper of God's throne. As the latter does not fit the rest of what Peter had to say about Jesus, it seems that Peter was making claims for Jesus divine nature from the very beginning. But much of what that meant and other ideas had not been thought through. I believe we see these develop in the scriptures not instantaneously, but over time. An example would be the use of the term "Christ". At first it was simply the Greek translation of Jesus' role as the Messiah, but in time it became to be used first as a title and then almost as a proper name. Even Jesus' own message of the kingdom of God would be fleshed out more over time.

Yet while, in a sense, all theology will continue to develop as people continue to reflect on it, it also seems to me that the essential substance of this new and specifically Christian (vis-a-vis Jewish) theology would reach completion before the passing of the first generation of the church. The books that were to become the corpus of the New Testament were all completed and in widespread distribution. The rituals for baptism, celebration of the eucharist, and other rituals connected with worship in the emergent church had been developed and disseminated through a manual such as the Didache. And the process of the transmission of authority from the apostles to the next generation of leaders had been established. But those future generations would continue the process of reflection on what had been established by Christ and asserted by the apostles and it would be those reflections that would provide the manner in which doctrines such as the Trinity would be articulated -- based on their understandings of what had been proclaimed by the first generation, which you and I (even if no one else does) seem to agree found fertile soil for germination in the way turn of the millenium Judiasm conceived of God.

[Al-manar]

some Jews of that day believed in a more relaxed form of monotheism in attributing personality to things such as God's wisdom, God's spirit, God's word that a Muslim reading those ancient texts today would consider those views shirk, though Jews of that day would have still considered themselves to be monotheists. It was from those personifications of aspects of the divine being that Christians then proceeded to find ground on which the concepts that became eventually known as the doctrine of the Trinity developed. .

I Agree...

I don't think that those first century Jews/Christians (including, maybe especially, Paul) ever once thought of themselves as anything other than monotheists .

I agree ...

Again, agreed. As I alluded to above, it was the presence of that sort of exegesis that those who followed Christ relied upon as they looked back upon their time with him and came to the conclusion that he was indeed God come among them. .

I have problem with accepting that those who followed Jesus ,known him in person ,would use such sort of exegesis ...

If peter ,John etc ..were truly disciples and used such sort of exegesis(which been proven to me to be highly misleading), then we can safely assume that Jesus was betrayed by his own disciples ,presenting his mission in a form that never been intended to be.....

but my believe in the Quran doesn't allow me to buy such concept......... the message of Jesus wasn't betrayed by his disciples (the Quran praised them twice)........
once the Quran proven to me false.... that won't convince me that the New Testament right ...

We have a group of people (call them disciples or whatever)contradict themselves, using flawed exegesis in numerous instances in their writings.......

If we continue calling them disciples then ok let's call them disciples?

disciples of deception.......

As I promised I will expose their exegesis ,and let the reader judge them himself .....

peace

[Grace Seeker]

I look forward to continued reading of your posts. And I can even understand why your belief in the Qur'an would preclude you from accepting some of the things that I do. And though we are going to differ with regard to more than just a few things, I appreciate that you have taken the time to be so thourough in your research and analysis.

[Hiroshi]

dear Hiroshi

as I said before the trinity proof text is controversal and could be rendered differently......
the words of Paul(as a whole) could be indeed understood as reference to divinity and could be understood otherwise...
( I can bring you such Pauline texts and we reflect together)
but that is not our problem as muslims ,as we should be out of such controversy

read my post again:
http://www.islamicboard.com/comparat...ml#post1329752

we are out of such textual controversy between christian trinitarians and unitarians,as we have a stronger basis for rejecting the trinity than a text that could mean this or otherwise that......
I know that muslims, commonly ,in one hand attacking Paul as a deceiver who deformed the true message of jesus (I agree),yet continuously negating the possibility that he indeed believed in jesus as God.
Paul was a true monotheist just his writings were misunderstood by christians !!!!!!!! ....

I criticised that approach before ,the fact that unlike the Jehovah testimony and other christian unitarians ,we muslims have a more profound problem with the trinity...which can't be resolved even if the new testament if filled with certain trinity proof text......

I'm not trying to criticise you......just trying to show you what our position should be as muslims towards the trinity....

all the best

Very interesting post. You mention there: "i Testimoni di Geova" which is, of course, Italian for: "Jehovah's Witnesses" (my religion). I didn't want Paul to be blamed for promoting the trinity doctrine. It was unknown in Bible times and isn't even mentioned in the Bible. But, by contrast, the trinity is mentioned in the Qur'an which came upon the scene centuries later.

[جوري]

the trinity is mentioned

يَا أَهْلَ الْكِتَابِ لَا تَغْلُوا فِي دِينِكُمْ وَلَا تَقُولُوا عَلَى اللَّهِ إِلَّا الْحَقَّ ۚ إِنَّمَا الْمَسِيحُ عِيسَى ابْنُ مَرْيَمَ رَسُولُ اللَّهِ وَكَلِمَتُهُ أَلْقَاهَا إِلَىٰ مَرْيَمَ وَرُوحٌ مِنْهُ ۖ فَآمِنُوا بِاللَّهِ وَرُسُلِهِ ۖ وَلَا تَقُولُوا ثَلَاثَةٌ ۚ انْتَهُوا خَيْرًا لَكُمْ ۚ إِنَّمَا اللَّهُ إِلَٰهٌ وَاحِدٌ ۖ سُبْحَانَهُ أَنْ يَكُونَ لَهُ وَلَدٌ ۘ لَهُ مَا فِي السَّمَاوَاتِ وَمَا فِي الْأَرْضِ ۗ وَكَفَىٰ بِاللَّهِ وَكِيلًا {171}
[Pickthal 4:171] O People of the Scripture! Do not exaggerate in your religion nor utter aught concerning Allah save the truth. The Messiah, Jesus son of Mary, was only a messenger of Allah, and His word which He conveyed unto Mary, and a spirit from Him. So believe in Allah and His messengers, and say not "Three" - Cease! (it is) better for you! - Allah is only One Allah. Far is it removed from His Transcendent Majesty that He should have a son. His is all that is in the heavens and all that is in the earth. And Allah is sufficient as Defender.
لَنْ يَسْتَنْكِفَ الْمَسِيحُ أَنْ يَكُونَ عَبْدًا لِلَّهِ وَلَا الْمَلَائِكَةُ الْمُقَرَّبُونَ ۚ وَمَنْ يَسْتَنْكِفْ عَنْ عِبَادَتِهِ وَيَسْتَكْبِرْ فَسَيَحْشُرُهُمْ إِلَيْهِ جَمِيعًا {172}
[Pickthal 4:172] The Messiah will never scorn to be a slave unto Allah, nor will the favoured angels. Whoso scorneth His service and is proud, all such will He assemble unto Him;


indeed mentioned in the negative.. the message couldn't be made more clear than this and at this stage you'll have no one but your own soul to blame on the day of recompense!



hope you reflect on those words and the gravity of the blasphemy you utter and put a spin on to suit your agenda!

all the best

[DancesWithChair]

[Pickthal 4:171]
So believe in Allah and His messengers, and say not "Three" - Cease! (it is) better for you! - Allah is only One Allah.

If you wish to make a point, do not quote from a book that many of us consider to be wrong.


It enhances my athiest-ism.


Have a nice evening and a peaceful tomorrow.
9

[جوري]

If you wish to make a point, do not quote from a book that many of us consider to be wrong. It enhances my athiest-ism. Have a nice evening and a peaceful tomorrow. 9

Did you get lost on your way out of shepard's pratt and make a wrong turn into an Islamic forum? Who gives a fig what this enhances for you? it could enhance your gynecomastia and klinefelter's for all we care.. go lick yourself and have a banana!

what a hoot!

[Hiroshi]

indeed mentioned in the negative..

We agree on that.

[Al-manar]

I look forward to continued reading of your posts. And I can even understand why your belief in the Qur'an would preclude you from accepting some of the things that I do. And though we are going to differ with regard to more than just a few things, I appreciate that you have taken the time to be so thourough in your research and analysis.

Thanx ,That is the true spirit of a civilized discussion with mutual respect , I was sure before initiating the thread ,that I will sometimes surprise the christians with words as (I agree with you..... you are right in that etc....)

but that is the way a discussion should be ...... why on earth I have to disgaree on everything ? why not to control my emotions ,knowing that it is just a peaceful discussion though disagreement?

Holy Quran 3:134 Those who spend (zakat), whether in prosperity, or in adversity; who restrain anger, and pardon men;- for Allah loves those who do good.

even if your opponent exceeded his limits and inflamed your anger .... never broaden the conflict just do it in moderate way ,otherwise?

Narrated 'Abdullah bin 'Amr:The Prophet said, "Whoever has the following four (characteristics) will be a pure hypocrite and whoever has one of the following four characteristics will have one characteristic of hypocrisy unless and until he gives it up. 1. Whenever he is entrusted, he betrays. 2. Whenever he speaks, he tells a lie. 3. Whenever he makes a covenant, he proves treacherous. 4. Whenever he quarrels , he behaves in a very imprudent, evil and insulting manner."
( Al- Bukhari 1.33)

everytime I read the posts of Bro Woodrow (and some other muslims and non-muslims) ,I remember that prophetic advice ...as he is not only the best in leading a civil discussion ,but he tried and posted again and again and again ,reminding muslims of the Quranic advice of restraining anger and be civil as much as possible....

May Allah reward him...

I didn't want Paul to be blamed for promoting the trinity doctrine..

I understand your belief as unitarian arguing that Paul & other writers of the NT ,were misunderstood by the majority of christians......
I respect your belief , though I consider it is exaggeration and bias to ignore the understanding ,that makes a possibe belief of NT writers of a divinity of Jesus (I won't say trinity) based on the text of the NT....
I consider being stuck to specific understanding of such texts , is like gambling.....

the trinity is mentioned in the Qur'an,in the negative

yes ,and the new testament (which you believe to be positive yet misunderstood) in positive and negative as well...
both items will be visited later ,InshaAllah...


all the best

[GreyKode]

Did you get lost on your way out of shepard's pratt and make a wrong turn into an Islamic forum?

LOL ........... I agree, he most definitely got lost.

[Hiroshi]

yes ,and the new testament (which you believe to be positive yet misunderstood) in positive and negative as well...
both items will be visited later ,InshaAllah...

I look forward to that.

[Hiroshi]

I look forward to continued reading of your posts. And I can even understand why your belief in the Qur'an would preclude you from accepting some of the things that I do. And though we are going to differ with regard to more than just a few things, I appreciate that you have taken the time to be so thourough in your research and analysis.

Grace Seeker, did you get a post deleted? I'm sure that you made some comment about me arguing against the trinity doctrine but I can't find your comment now.

[Grace Seeker]

Grace Seeker, did you get a post deleted? I'm sure that you made some comment about me arguing against the trinity doctrine but I can't find your comment now.

hmmm. There were a whole bunch of posts that got deleted in another thread "Christianity in 5 minutes", but I don't recall any posts from this thread being deleted.

It's no secret that you and I are on different sides with regard not just to belief in the Trinity, but even whether there is support for it to be found in the Bible. But I'm not sure how that would be relevant in this thread given the approach that Al-manar is taking. I did reply to Al-manar that I appreciated his post that showed support for my contention that the ideas that are behind NT writers speaking in a way that I believe supports the later developed idea of the doctrine of the Trinity had already formed within Judaism, even before the time of Jesus. And then I expanded on those ideas. Is that post gone?

No. Here it is, post #398. I don't think I've ever had cause to referece you in this thread though.

[Hiroshi]

hmmm. There were a whole bunch of posts that got deleted in another thread "Christianity in 5 minutes", but I don't recall any posts from this thread being deleted.

It's no secret that you and I are on different sides with regard not just to belief in the Trinity, but even whether there is support for it to be found in the Bible. But I'm not sure how that would be relevant in this thread given the approach that Al-manar is taking. I did reply to Al-manar that I appreciated his post that showed support for my contention that the ideas that are behind NT writers speaking in a way that I believe supports the later developed idea of the doctrine of the Trinity had already formed within Judaism, even before the time of Jesus. And then I expanded on those ideas. Is that post gone?

No. Here it is, post #398. I don't think I've ever had cause to referece you in this thread though.

Thanks Grace Seeker. Actually though, that wasn't the post that I thought I had seen. I must have just been mistaken.

Reading books on the history of the doctrines of early Christianity, I have noticed that a major factor that contributed to the development of the trinity doctrine was the title given to Jesus in the prologue to John's gospel: "the Word" (Greek: "Logos").

An earlier Jewish philosopher named Philo had an idea that there was an intermediary between God and the created world. And he called that intermediary the Logos. He believed that this Logos was co-eternal with God.

Apologists and theologians of the early centuries of Christianity began to identify the Logos of John's gospel with Philo's Logos. Also they began to explore ideas from Greek philosopy. "Logos" was a technical term in Neoplatonic Greek philosophy that meant "plan", "idea", "mind" "rationality". They reasoned that, since God always had his rationality, then the Logos must have always existed with God.

Gradually, more and more divine character was attributed to the Logos (same "substance" with God, same "essence" with God, etc.) until by the fourth century the church was teaching that the Logos was God, meaning one of three co-equal persons in a trinity.

While there are verses in the Bible that trinitarians appeal to to support their beliefs, the development of the doctrine of the trinity relied more heavily on worldly Greek philosophical ideas than the scriptures.

[Grace Seeker]

Good information provided above, Hiroshi. With regard to your final conclusion though:

While there are verses in the Bible that trinitarians appeal to to support their beliefs, the development of the doctrine of the trinity relied more heavily on worldly Greek philosophical ideas than the scriptures.

I think I would need to change it to read: "...the development of the doctrine of the trinity was also somewhat influenced by Greek philosophical ideas."

I don't wish to deny that those who ulltimately artculated the actual creeds had this Greek background, but I don't think it was the dominant cause for the development of the ideas behind the doctrine. To what degree do you wish for me to articulate why? This, I thought, was more a thread to be devoted to understanding and exploring JW beliefs than classical Christian theology or its origins.

[Hiroshi]

Good information provided above, Hiroshi. With regard to your final conclusion though:
I think I would need to change it to read: "...the development of the doctrine of the trinity was also somewhat influenced by Greek philosophical ideas."

I don't wish to deny that those who ulltimately artculated the actual creeds had this Greek background, but I don't think it was the dominant cause for the development of the ideas behind the doctrine. To what degree do you wish for me to articulate why? This, I thought, was more a thread to be devoted to understanding and exploring JW beliefs than classical Christian theology or its origins.

Well, judge for yourself.

In my book "Early Christian Doctrines" by the Canon J. N. D. Kelly on page 96 it states for example: "The Apologist's originality (their thought was more Philonic than Johannine) lay in drawing out the further implications of the Logos idea in order to make plausible the twofold fact of Christ's pre-temporal oneness with the Father and His manifestation in space and time. In so doing, while using such Old Testament texts as Ps. 33, 6 ("By the word of the Lord were the heavens made"), they did not hesitate to blend with them the Stoic technical distinctions between the immanent word and the word uttered or expressed." Emphasis mine.

The book gives pages and pages of explanations of doctrinal ideas based on philosophy but pecious little based on scripture.

[Grace Seeker]

I have no argument with your quote from Kelly. But note how that section from which you quoted begins on p. 95 (yes, I have the very same book on my shelf):

The Apologists were the first to try to frame an intellectually satisfying explanation of the relation of Christ to God the Father.

and then continuing higher up on p. 96, before what you quoted

Others had, of course, anticipated them. In the Fourth Gospel, for example, the Word is declared to have been with God in the beginning and to have become flesh in Christ, while for Ignatius Christ was the Father's Word issuing from silence. The Apologists originality....

I think this actually backs up what I said: "those who ultimately artculated the actual creeds had this Greek background, but I don't think it was the dominant cause for the development of the ideas behind the doctrine." They further developed them, and that was influenced we all agree by Greek thought. But before that influence came to bear they already had as their starting point these other OT texts, prior Jewish thought, and then eventually John's Gospel. Note how page 93 presents both Clement and Ignatius (100-200 years before the creeds were formulated) as already being trinitarian in essence. (No pun intended.)

[Al-manar]

I have noticed that a major factor that contributed to the development of the trinity doctrine was the title given to Jesus in the prologue to John's gospel: "the Word" (Greek: "Logos").

where such title came from? as a christian unitarian ,you would say ,it came from God ,just it was misunderstood,mis-interpreted by the majority of christians...

but I won't buy that ...I believe The process was like that:

1- Old testament parallels gives evidence of a biblical sapiential heritage to the idea of the word of God as personified and manifested ...

Then

2- Such Old testament parallels resulted in Jewish exegetical ,speculative Jewish work ,eg the JEWISH WRITER Philo,targumic and midrashic parallels... which led finally to the idea of the word of God aka God becoming flesh....

An earlier Jewish philosopher named Philo had an idea that there was an intermediary between God and the created world. And he called that intermediary the Logos. He believed that this Logos was co-eternal with God.Apologists and theologians of the early centuries of Christianity began to identify the Logos of John's gospel with Philo's Logos.

I think some readers of the thread may need to take a look at such parrallels :

Excerpt from Word and glory: on the exegetical and theological background of John's prologue
Di Craig A. Evans

the writer summarized the point then provides the parrallels between John and the JEWISH interpretations:
:

>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>

[Al-manar]

>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>

that point will be concluded in next post....

peace

[Grace Seeker]

Al-manar, given that you seem to have a different take on this than some of your brothers in Islam, enough so that you would quote a source that claims "the rabbinc writings is (sic) essentially the milieu in which many New Testament ideas would take shape," would you go so far as to suggest that perhaps not just John's prologue, but even Jesus' own message was influenced by these rabbinic writings?

[Hiroshi]

I think this actually backs up what I said: "those who ultimately artculated the actual creeds had this Greek background, but I don't think it was the dominant cause for the development of the ideas behind the doctrine."

It does seem evident though that fashionable Greek philosophy coloured the thinking of all the great minds and theologians of the early centuries. It was accepted without question and greatly admired.

I would compare it to the theory of evolution in modern times. I have found that if you tell people that you don't believe in evolution they are shocked. They think that you must either be a crank or extremely foolish and ignorant. Or both. A lot of people try to believe in evolution as well as the Bible. They think that God must have guided the natural process of evolution until man appeared. And they see the first few chapters of Genesis as some kind of allegory, not to be taken in a literal sense. Do you see how the idea of evolution permeates the thinking of almost everyone today? Well exactly the same was true of Neo-Platonic philosophy in the early centuries. But these worldly ideas carried people far away from the truth of the Bible.

[Hiroshi]

>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>

that point will be concluded in next post....

peace

Very good research Al-manar.

But the errors in this published reference work are as follows:

Philo's Logos was co-eternal with God. The Logos of John's gospel however was not. Proverbs 8:22, Colossians 1:15 and Revelation 3:14 all show Jesus as having a beginning. Also, John 1:1 does not identify the Logos as "God". Rather the verse states that the Logos was with God. This important observation is repeated in verse 2.

John 1:1 means that the Logos was a divine being of some kind but not the same God that the Logos was with. That is why Moffatt's translation of John 1:1 reads: "the Logos was divine" rather than "the Logos was God".

Jesus' statement "I am" in John 8:58 is often cited as a reference to Exodus 3:14 where in (bad) translations like the King James, God seems to call himself: "I Am". But there is no connection between these two verses. Jesus in John 8:58 uses a different expression ("ego eimi") to that found in the LXX Greek translations of Exodus ("Ho On"). Similarly, Hebrew translations of John's gospel use a different expression in Hebrew to that found in Exodus 3:14. This removes all basis for the claim that Jesus was quoting Exodus 3:14 at John 8:58.

[Grace Seeker]

It does seem evident though that fashionable Greek philosophy coloured the thinking of all the great minds and theologians of the early centuries. It was accepted without question and greatly admired.

I would compare it to the theory of evolution in modern times. I have found that if you tell people that you don't believe in evolution they are shocked. They think that you must either be a crank or extremely foolish and ignorant. Or both. A lot of people try to believe in evolution as well as the Bible. They think that God must have guided the natural process of evolution until man appeared. And they see the first few chapters of Genesis as some kind of allegory, not to be taken in a literal sense. Do you see how the idea of evolution permeates the thinking of almost everyone today? Well exactly the same was true of Neo-Platonic philosophy in the early centuries. But these worldly ideas carried people far away from the truth of the Bible.

I think you make a good analogy. Darwin's theory does seem to be everywhere and have permeated everything in our culture. Everything, that is, .... except what we actually think.

Consider the following:

On the eve of the 200th anniversary of Charles Darwin's birth, a new Gallup Poll shows that only 39% of Americans say they "believe in the theory of evolution," while a quarter say they do not believe in the theory, and another 36% don't have an opinion either way.

source: Gallup, February 11, 2009

Most Americans do not accept the theory of evolution. Instead, 51 percent of Americans say God created humans in their present form, and another three in 10 say that while humans evolved, God guided the process. Just 15 percent say humans evolved, and that God was not involved.

source: CBS poll, October 23, 2005

In the U.S., only 14 percent of adults thought that evolution was "definitely true," while about a third firmly rejected the idea.

source: National Geographic News, October 27, 2010

I'm suggesting that just as the actual thoughts of people of your own day are different than what you perceive them to be, so were they 2000 years ago different than what you suppose.

Gerald O'Collins states categorically: "A theology of the Trinity that ignores or plays down the OT can only be radically deficient."
(The Tripersonal God: Understanding and Interpreting the Trinity, p. 11)

Veli-Matti Karkkainen writes:

An intriguing recent proposal by Richard Bauckham, who is both exegete and theologian, maintains that the early Jewish definition of God could include the person of the son without a violation of monotheism. (Bauckham, God Crucified: Monotheism and Christology in the New Testament) What distinguished Yahwistic faith from polytheistic faith was not so much the desire to place Yahweh at the summit of a hierarchy of divinity, but rather to place Yahweh "in an absolutely unique category, beyond comparison with anything else" (Bauckham, p. 15).... However, as will be evident in what follows, distinctions within one Godhead, such as between God's Spirit and God's Word, were not necessarily understood as compromising divine unity. Consequently, Bauckham concludes--and this is highly significant for a New Testament incipient Trinitarian outlook: "The Second Jewish Temple understanding of the divine uniqueness . . . does not make distinctions within the divine identity inconceivable" (Bauckham, p. 22).

(source: The Trinity: Global Perspectives, Veli-Matti Karkkainen, c. 2007, p. 6)

Again, not denying the influence of Greek thought, but asserting that neither can one deny the existence of Jewish thought that predisposed the NT authors and subsequent generations of the Christians to be open to applying this Greek thought to ideas they had already been wrestling with. Here what no less of a figure than Wolfhart Pannenberg has to say on the subject:

Christian statements about the Son and Spirit take up questions which had already occupied Jewish thought concerning the essential transcendent reality of the one God and the modes of his manifestation.

(source: Pannenberg, Systematic Theology. 1:276-77)

O'Collins (The Tripersonal God) put it this way:

The vivid personifications of Wisdom/Word and Spirit, inasmuch as they were both identified with God and the divine activity and distinguished from God, opened up the way toward recognizing God to be tripersonal. The leap from mere personifications to distinct persons is always, to be sure, a giant one. Nevertheless, without these OT personifications[/b] (and the Father/Son languaged applied to God), [b]the acknowledgement of the Trinity would not have been so well and providentially prepared--by foreshadowings and by an already existing terminology.

italics original
(source: The Tripersonal God, O'Collins, p. 34)

Yes, the later Greek speaking and thinking Christians went beyond the OT, and were certainly influenced by Greek philosophy with regard to how they expressed things, but without the prior Jewish thinking and the development of the potential for plurality of thought even with regard to a monotheistic God already done by rabbinical Judaism, there would have been no prepared ground for these Greek philosophies to have taken root. They went beyond the OT expression of faith, but not against it. Not because of the works of Greek authors, but because of Jewish thought, "they could hold on to the Shema of Israel while talking about Father, Son, and Spirit as one God" (Systematic Theology, Pannenberg, 1:277).

[Grace Seeker]

Philo's Logos was co-eternal with God. The Logos of John's gospel however was not.

I strongly disagree. John 1:3 tells us that all things were made through him (i.e., the Logos). For the Logos to NOT be co-eternal, would mean that the Logos had a beginning and was a part of creation. But 1:3 declares the Logos to be the agent of creation, not the resultant. According to 1:1, he was there in the beginning. That means that when the beginning occurred that he was already there just as when Genesis 1:1 speaks of God being present in the beginning it does not mean that God has a beginning, but that God was present before the beginning. So, just as God is eternal (Genesis 1:1), so too the Logos is eternal (John 1:1).

Proverbs 8:22, Colossians 1:15 and Revelation 3:14 all show Jesus as having a beginning. Also, John 1:1 does not identify the Logos as "God". Rather the verse states that the Logos was with God. This important observation is repeated in verse 2.

John 1:1 means that the Logos was a divine being of some kind but not the same God that the Logos was with. That is why Moffatt's translation of John 1:1 reads: "the Logos was divine" rather than "the Logos was God".

You might guess that I disagree with most of your interpretation here as well. But even if one were to grant it, your original premise that John presents a Logos that is NOT co-eternal with God fails in the very first verse. And from that, I think you have to rethink the rest of what you propose in this other material as well.

[Hiroshi]

I strongly disagree. John 1:3 tells us that all things were made through him (i.e., the Logos).

John 1:3 KJV reads: "All things were made by him; and without him was not any thing made that was made." But the wording of this verse had been changed to combat Arianism. The last three words: "that was made" or "what was made" are really the beginning of a new sentence and properly belong to verse 4: "What was made by means of him was life, and the life was the light of men."

I once had a link to a whole article about this but I can't find it now.

[Al-manar]

would you go so far as to suggest that perhaps not just John's prologue, but even Jesus' own message was influenced by these rabbinic writings?

let's rewrite the Question :Was the New Testament influenced by some rabbinic writings? ?I think so (details coming soon)...

............................

I think the muslim readers got the posts of Hiroshi and Grace seeker ,and their arguments regarding John 1:1 .....

What should be the muslim position in such controversy?

it should be neutral ...... as the results of such controversy should by no means be taken by a muslim seriously ...

1- what if the understanding of Grace seeker proved convincing? well, that doesn't prove Jesus to be God ...just proves that John etc believed in Jesus as God hence including the writer(s) of John with the people mentioned in the following verse Holy Quran 4: 169.They misbelieve who say, "Verily God is the Messiah the son of Mary.


2- If the understanding of Hiroshi proved convincing? well, that doesn't prove Jesus to be such divine being eg, angelic figure that other than God and his first creature,that everything else was created by means of him ,as that is again against Islam's view of Jesus .....

in other words both of the two understandings proved to be against Islam , the fact that the whole prologue of John is un-Islamic from A to Z,and has to be excluded from Islam's Definition of the true message revealed to Jesus ,preached by him and his disciples.......


till next post...

[Grace Seeker]

John 1:3 KJV reads: "All things were made by him; and without him was not any thing made that was made." But the wording of this verse had been changed to combat Arianism. The last three words: "that was made" or "what was made" are really the beginning of a new sentence and properly belong to verse 4: "What was made by means of him was life, and the life was the light of men."

I once had a link to a whole article about this but I can't find it now.

That's hardly possible, as Koine Greek was written without the benefit of punctuation. So, where to put that period today is a reflection of one's exegesis of the passage as a whole, not something that can be based on textual evidence, even if one had the original autograph.

From Bruce Metzger's A Textual Commentary on the Greek New Testament:

A majority of the Committee was impressed by the consensus of ante-Nicene writers (orthodox and heretical alike) who took ho gegonen with what follows. When, however, in the fourth century Arians and the Macedonian heretics began to appeal to the passage to prove that the Holy Spirit is to be regarded as one of the created things, orthodox writers preferred to take ho gegonen with the preceding sentence, thus removing the possibility of heretical use of the passage.

That's basically what you are saying Hiroshi. I don't think it changes the point I was making however. We still have the verse saying: "All things were made by him; and without him was not any thing made."

[Grace Seeker]

let's rewrite the Question :Was the New Testament influenced by some rabbinic writings? ?I think so (details coming soon)...

............................

I think the muslim readers got the posts of Hiroshi and Grace seeker ,and their arguments regarding John 1:1 .....

What should be the muslim position in such controversy?

it should be neutral ...... as the results of such controversy should by no means be taken by a muslim seriously ...

... both of the two understandings proved to be against Islam , the fact that the whole prologue of John is un-Islamic from A to Z,and has to be excluded from Islam's Definition of the true message revealed to Jesus ,preached by him and his disciples.......


till next post...

I appreciate this approach. For you are letting the Bible speak for itself rather than trying to force an outside view upon it. The question should be, what does the Bible actually say. Only after we understand what it actually says is the person in a position to accept or reject it. If we reject a view before it even has the opportunity to be expressed, or read it in such a way that we set it up for being rejected, we aren't really even listening to what is being said. Such an action would be unbecoming a religion that is rationale, for it would be to read the book prejudicially. But, if after understanding what the Bible says, you then (because of another belief you also have) reject it, well, at least it got a fair hearing. And that is all that is being asked.

[FollowerOfChrist]

I thought you didn't want to start another debate about Christianity... hmmm Tilmeez

[جوري]

Where is Tilmeez in all of this? although admittedly I am amused to see two sects of christianity out to prove the other a heretic ..:popcorn::popcorn:

all the best

[IAmZamzam]

Bear in mind that the opening to John, whatever it says and means, is only a personal commentary and statement of belief from the author, and not a recording of any of these witnessed(?) events. To automatically trust it even if you think you have good reason to believe in the accounts of the supposedly humanly witnessed events is like automatically trusting a newscaster's introductory personal commentary on the story they're reporting because you trust the sources of that news corporation.

[Grace Seeker]

Bear in mind that the opening to John, whatever it says and means, is only a personal commentary and statement of belief from the author, and not a recording of any of these witnessed(?) events. To automatically trust it even if you think you have good reason to believe in the accounts of the supposedly humanly witnessed events is like automatically trusting a newscaster's introductory personal commentary on the story they're reporting because you trust the sources of that news corporation.

Yahya, you've hit on the BIGGEST difference between the Bible and the Qur'an. While parts of the Bible are presented as "God says....", the majority of it is reflection or editorial. If you believe the newscaster is particularly insightful (we might say "inspired") when he makes his comments, then there is value in them. If you believe that he wasn't, then there isn't. With the Qur'an it is a book that purports itself to be the very words of God. If you believe that the conduit of that message faithfully delivered that message, bearing witness (the truth, the whole truth, and nothing but the truth) then you've got a book you can trust as being God's literal word. And if you think that the conduit was imperfect, then there is room to question the message as well.

[Hiroshi]

That's hardly possible, as Koine Greek was written without the benefit of punctuation. So, where to put that period today is a reflection of one's exegesis of the passage as a whole, not something that can be based on textual evidence, even if one had the original autograph.

In the opening verses of his gospel John uses a kind of poetical device where the last word or thought of one phrase or sentence is repeated to make the opening word or thought of the next phrase or sentence:

1εν αρχη ην ο λογος και ο λογος ην προς τον θεον και θεος ην ο λογος 2ουτος ην εν αρχη προς τον θεον
3παντα δι αυτου εγενετο και χωρις αυτου εγενετο ουδε εν ο γεγονεν
4εν αυτω ζωη ην και η ζωη ην το φως των ανθρωπων
5και το φως εν τη σκοτια φαινει και η σκοτια αυτο ου κατελαβεν

This is why "ho gegonen" (ο γεγονεν) should not be moved to the preceding sentence. In the statement: "all things were made by him" the "all things" obviously excludes God himself and Jesus. But Jesus was made by God. However, if you add the words thus: "All things were made by him; and without him was not any thing made, that was made" then it follows that Jesus could not be a "made" or "created" being.

[Al-manar]

Bear in mind that the opening to John, whatever it says and means, is only a personal commentary and statement of belief from the author, and not a recording of any of these witnessed(?) events.

John's prologue is not to be trusted ,why?

cause the work proved to be flawed in areas of issues that can be verified

eg;comparing its accounts with other gospels'accounts and its flawed Exegesis to the old testament (details soon)...

once, we highlighted just one of these shortcomings right here.....
http://www.islamicboard.com/comparat...ml#post1343689

if the work can't be trusted in the resurrection account , prophecies claimed to be fulfilled (matters could be verified),how could it be trusted in his talking about word was with God and word was God(matters of the un-seen that couldn't be verified)?

If John (besides the other NT writers) erred regarding Jesus believing in him as the Old testament long awaited Jewish messiah(The Non-Metaphysical,easily to be verfied issue) , then it doesn't require great deal of wisdom to realize that he,they erred believing him as God ( The Metaphysical,where it cannot be tested).....



If the biblical record can be proved fallible in areas of fact that can be verified, then it is hardly to be trusted in areas where it cannot be tested. As a witness for God, the Bible would be discredited as untrustworthy. What solid truth it may contain would be left as a matter of mere conjecture, subject to the intuition or canons of likelihood of each individual. An attitude of sentimental attachment to traditional religion may incline one person to accept nearly all the substantive teachings of Scripture as probably true. But someone else with equal justification may pick and chose whatever teachings in the Bible happen to appeal to him and lay equal claim to legitimacy. One opinion is as good as another. All things are possible, but nothing is certain if indeed the Bible contains mistakes or errors of any kind (Gleason Archer ,Encyclopedia of Bible Difficulties pp. 23-24).

"... But how do you know Jesus except as he is presented to you in the Bible? If the Bible is not God's Word and does not present a picture of Jesus Christ that can be trusted, how do you know it is the true Christ you are following? You may be worshipping a Christ of your own imagination." (Does Errancy Matter by James Boice, page 24)


till next post

[Grace Seeker]

In the opening verses of his gospel John uses a kind of poetical device where the last word or thought of one phrase or sentence is repeated to make the opening word or thought of the next phrase or sentence:

1εν αρχη ην ο λογος και ο λογος ην προς τον θεον και θεος ην ο λογος 2ουτος ην εν αρχη προς τον θεον
3παντα δι αυτου εγενετο και χωρις αυτου εγενετο ουδε εν ο γεγονεν
4εν αυτω ζωη ην και η ζωη ην το φως των ανθρωπων
5και το φως εν τη σκοτια φαινει και η σκοτια αυτο ου κατελαβεν

I'll grant you the above to have been the way the NT church read this passage of scripture. And probably for the reason you cite. But I don't see how that leads you to the following conclusion:

This is why "ho gegonen" (ο γεγονεν) should not be moved to the preceding sentence. In the statement: "all things were made by him" the "all things" obviously excludes God himself and Jesus. But Jesus was made by God. However, if you add the words thus: "All things were made by him; and without him was not any thing made, that was made" then it follows that Jesus could not be a "made" or "created" being.

I think the verse means the same thing, namely that the LOGOS is the creator and not a part of creation, with or without the phrase "that was made" being part of the preceeding sentence.

[Hiroshi]

I think the verse means the same thing, namely that the LOGOS is the creator and not a part of creation, with or without the phrase "that was made" being part of the preceeding sentence.

In John 1:3 it says "All (Greek: "panta") [things] came into existence through him [Jesus]".

This same Greek word "panta" appears at 1 Corinthians 15:25 where it says (NIV): "For he "has put everything under his feet." Now when it says that "everything" has been put under him, it is clear that this does not include God himself, who put everything under Christ."

So this word meaning "all things" or "everything" can still allow for exceptions that are not to be included. In 1 Corinthians 15:25 it should be understood to exclude God and Jesus. And it can be understood the same way at John 1:3. Everything created, except for Jesus, came into existence through Jesus. No problem there.

But if the words "that was made" are added at the end of the sentence in John 1:3 then it gives the thought that there is nothing created that did not come into existence through Jesus. This would necessarily mean that Jesus was uncreated.

[Grace Seeker]

But if the words "that was made" are added at the end of the sentence in John 1:3 then it gives the thought that there is nothing created that did not come into existence through Jesus. This would necessarily mean that Jesus was uncreated.

It would indeed. But that doesn't mean that reading them as the beginning of the next sentence excludes that idea.

If we read the first 5 verses of John the way it was written, without any punctuation, I still think that it is referencing the Word as the creator:

in the beginning was the word and the word was with god and the word was god he was with god in the beginning through him all things were made without him nothing was made that has been made in him was life and that life was the light of men the light shines in the darkness but the darkness has not understood it

[Grace Seeker]

This same Greek word "panta" appears at 1 Corinthians 15:25 where it says (NIV): "For he "has put everything under his feet." Now when it says that "everything" has been put under him, it is clear that this does not include God himself, who put everything under Christ."

So this word meaning "all things" or "everything" can still allow for exceptions that are not to be included. In 1 Corinthians 15:25 it should be understood to exclude God and Jesus. And it can be understood the same way at John 1:3. Everything created, except for Jesus, came into existence through Jesus. No problem there.

I thought we were examining John's understanding of the Logos. If we are going to start referencing Pauline passages as well, I'm also prepared to dispute your understanding of Colossians 1.


A side note for the interested observer of this conversation between me and Hiroshi. I respect Hiroshi's willingness to wrestle with the Biblical text in looking for truth, and indeed find that he is often a very fine scholar. However, we obviously have different interpretations as to what that truth is in this particular passage. I'll let the observe decide whether we bring those interpretations to the text and read into them what we already each individually believe, or if we end up believing differently because on reading the text we have different interpretations of what it is in fact saying. Now often Christians will in fact have differences of opinions on the meaning of a particular text. But that is not what you have going on here. This difference is significant enough that while we respect each other as individuals, neither of us is prepared to use the term Christian to describe the other one. The differences in our beliefs are just that significant that if I am a Christian then Hiroshi is not, and if he is then I am not. I understand that Hiroshi considers my beliefs to be apostate. And he understands that I consider his to be heretical. Doesn't mean we hate each other, but it does mean that there is no more room for middle ground between the two of us than there is between Islam and Christianity. I imagine we would both prefer is the other one didn't self-identify as Christian on these forums, just like I am sure that there are some who have self-identified as Muslim on the forum that perhaps some of the Sunni brothers and sisters have (at least quietly in their own mind) questioned the authenticity of that self-identification based on some of their expressed beliefs.

[Hiroshi]

John's prologue is not to be trusted ,why?

cause the work proved to be flawed in areas of issues that can be verified

eg;comparing its accounts with other gospels'accounts and its flawed Exegesis to the old testament (details soon)...

once, we highlighted just one of these shortcomings right here.....
http://www.islamicboard.com/comparat...ml#post1343689

Matthew 28

1And on the eve of the sabbaths, at the dawn, toward the first of the sabbaths, came Mary the Magdalene, and the other Mary, to see the sepulchre, 2and lo, there came a great earthquake, for a messenger of the Lord, having come down out of heaven, having come, did roll away the stone from the door, and was sitting upon it, 3and his countenance was as lightning, and his clothing white as snow, 4and from the fear of him did the keepers shake, and they became as dead men. 5And the messenger answering said to the women, `Fear not ye, for I have known that Jesus, who hath been crucified, ye seek; 6he is not here, for he rose, as he said; come, see the place where the Lord was lying; 7and having gone quickly, say ye to his disciples, that he rose from the dead; and lo, he doth go before you to Galilee, there ye shall see him; lo, I have told you.' 8And having gone forth quickly from the tomb, with fear and great joy, they ran to tell to his disciples; 9and as they were going to tell to his disciples, then lo, Jesus met them, saying, `Hail!' and they having come near, laid hold of his feet, and did bow to him.



The narrative of Matthew is clear:
Sunday morning Mary Magdalena came to the tomb ,found the tomb empty, was informed that Jesus was risen ,then while going to tell the disciples she met Jesus ,talked to him,touched him .....

Now get a look at the narrative of John that throws the table on Matthew's narrative:


John 20

1And on the first of the sabbaths, Mary the Magdalene doth come early there being yet darkness to the tomb, and she seeth the stone having been taken away out of the tomb, 2she runneth, therefore, and cometh unto Simon Peter, and unto the other disciple whom Jesus was loving, and saith to them, `They took away the Lord out of the tomb, and we have not known where they laid him.'


Did you get the problem? I talk about the contradictory and you resort to the complementary!!!!
My English is not that perfect but I think I provided the problem in clear,direct terms....

I didn't say the problem ,is that Matthew says something that John decided to skip (which is another kind of problem) or vice versa.....

plainly put it, why Matthew says Mary was informed that jesus was risen and met him before going to the disciples ,contradicts John saying that she neither been informed nor met jesus before going to the disciples?

solution ??????

John's gospel records that Mary came to the tomb twice. The first time was at John 20:1 after which she went to John and Peter saying that she did not know where Jesus body had been taken. The second time was at John 20:11 when she returned after John and Peter had left the scene. It was at this time that she saw angels and met Jesus. And it was after this that she went back to report to Jesus' disciples that Jesus had risen from the dead (John 20:18) exactly as Matthew's gospel says (Matthew 28:10).

[Al-manar]

peace

let's re-visit that issue(resurrection narratives) again,for a while, before we continue our discussion....

John's gospel records that Mary came to the tomb twice. .

I'm afriad to tell you ,that such theory (Synoptic gospels skipping a first visit of Mary Magdalene) won't work either ....

In John's narrative, the stone was removed before Mary Magdalene's first visit.

John 20:1 Early on the first day of the week, while it was still dark, Mary Magdalene went to the tomb and saw that the stone had been removed from the entrance.

But have you read the other accounts?

Mark 16 :1 When the Sabbath was past, Mary Magdalene and Mary the mother of James and Salome bought spices, so that they might go and anoint him. 2And very early on the first day of the week, when the sun had risen, they went to the tomb. 3And they were saying to one another, "Who will roll away the stone for us from the entrance of the tomb?" !

if that was the first visit (John 1:2) ,then how on earth Mary which saw that the stone had been removed from the entrance,knew the body was missing,in her supposed first visit , would be worried about who will roll away the stone for them in the supposed second visit (Mark 16 :1) ?!!!!!!


Regards

[Hiroshi]

peace

let's re-visit that issue(resurrection narratives) again,for a while, before we continue our discussion....



I'm afriad to tell you ,that such theory (Synoptic gospels skipping a first visit of Mary Magdalene) won't work either ....

In John's narrative, the stone was removed before Mary Magdalene's first visit.

John 20:1 Early on the first day of the week, while it was still dark, Mary Magdalene went to the tomb and saw that the stone had been removed from the entrance.

But have you read the other accounts?

Mark 16 :1 When the Sabbath was past, Mary Magdalene and Mary the mother of James and Salome bought spices, so that they might go and anoint him. 2And very early on the first day of the week, when the sun had risen, they went to the tomb. 3And they were saying to one another, "Who will roll away the stone for us from the entrance of the tomb?" !

if that was the first visit (John 1:2) ,then how on earth Mary which saw that the stone had been removed from the entrance,knew the body was missing,in her supposed first visit , would be worried about who will roll away the stone for them in the supposed second visit (Mark 16 :1) ?!!!!!!


Regards

Well, okay. But the next verse in Mark's account (Mark 16:4) says that when the women looked they saw that the stone had already been moved. They were only worried about how the stone could be moved before they had seen this.

[Grace Seeker]

Al-manar, are you suggesting that because each of the 4 gospel recount the story of the discovery of the empty tomb and Jesus' resurrection differently that it there could not have happened? did not happen? or that we simply can't determine which of them is most accurate in telling the story?

[Al-manar]

Well, okay. But the next verse in Mark's account (Mark 16:4) says that when the women looked they saw that the stone had already been moved. They were only worried about how the stone could be moved before they had seen this.

They asked each others "Who will roll the stone away from the entrance of the tomb?"

A question reveals total ignorance of the questioners regarding what had happened(the stone removed) on the scene by the tomb ,yet Mary before (according to that theory) is said to have found the stone removed and the body missing and informed the disciples about that ..and that gets no hope for that theory to work.....

Mary in her first visit found the stone removed and the body missing and informed the disciples about that

John 20:1 Early on the first day of the week, while it was still dark, Mary Magdalene went to the tomb and saw that the stone had been removed from the entrance. 2So she came running to Simon Peter and the other disciple, the one Jesus loved, and said, "They have taken the Lord out of the tomb, and we don't know where they have put him!"

yet in her second visit with the women

Mark 16:1 they ( Mary Magdalene and Mary the mother of James and Salome ) were saying to one another, "Who will roll away the stone for us from the entrance of the tomb?" !

[Al-manar]

Al-manar, are you suggesting that because each of the 4 gospel recount the story of the discovery of the empty tomb and Jesus' resurrection differently that it there could not have happened? did not happen? or that we simply can't determine which of them is most accurate in telling the story?

I think that gets us back to the Question do errors in scripture matter? which I answered(in accordance with the opinion of all muslims and the vast majority of christians) before..

http://www.islamicboard.com/comparat...ml#post1341209

by the way ,

1- the problems with the crucifiction,resurrection is far bigger than the textual contradictions, contradictions is mere one aspect of the problem ,other aspects will be exposed eg; misapplication of prophecies etc , that shows Resurrection story was shaped by the theological aims of the evangelists.....in future posts...


2- Islam's problem with the issue crucifiction,resurrection is profound to the limit that I will once(in future posts) say ,what if the Quran says Jesus was crucified and resurrected ? showing how profound the problem which can't be resolved even if the Quran agree with the bible regarding the crucifiction,resurrection (details later)..

peace

[Grace Seeker]

Al-manar, are you suggesting that because each of the 4 gospel recount the story of the discovery of the empty tomb and Jesus' resurrection differently that it there could not have happened? did not happen? or that we simply can't determine which of them is most accurate in telling the story?

I think that gets us back to the Question do errors in scripture matter? which I answered(in accordance with the opinion of all muslims and the vast majority of christians) before..

http://www.islamicboard.com/comparat...ml#post1341209

And in that post you write:

Item :7

Biblical Errancy vs Quranic Inerrancy


while an error-free book won't alone prove it as divine, errancy from any kind should get the book under suspicion ..

This view is why I continue to seek a more definitive answer than I have yet to receive regarding the ahadith. I understand that most Muslims accept an authenticated hadith as being on par with the Qur'an in terms of its efficacy in providing guidance. Is that true?

[Woodrow]

This view is why I continue to seek a more definitive answer than I have yet to receive regarding the ahadith. I understand that most Muslims accept an authenticated hadith as being on par with the Qur'an in terms of its efficacy in providing guidance. Is that true?

Peace Gene,

I personally personally believe that is true for many of us. However, there is a somewhat qualifying condition. If something is ever found in any Hadith that contradicts the Qur'an, we are to follow the Qur'an and not the Hadith.

A quick summation We believe the Qur'an contains the actual words of Allaah(swt) exactly as He spoke them through the Angel Jibreel. The ahadith are the eye witness accounts of humans. We believe those are what the witnesses heard and saw. While we accept the authenticated and reliable accounts of what was witnessed, we must keep in mind a Witness can be in error. Which is why we place the highest reliability in the Ahadith that have the most witnesses reporting the same.

[Hiroshi]

They asked each others "Who will roll the stone away from the entrance of the tomb?"

A question reveals total ignorance of the questioners regarding what had happened(the stone removed) on the scene by the tomb ,yet Mary before (according to that theory) is said to have found the stone removed and the body missing and informed the disciples about that ..and that gets no hope for that theory to work.....

Mary in her first visit found the stone removed and the body missing and informed the disciples about that

John 20:1 Early on the first day of the week, while it was still dark, Mary Magdalene went to the tomb and saw that the stone had been removed from the entrance. 2So she came running to Simon Peter and the other disciple, the one Jesus loved, and said, "They have taken the Lord out of the tomb, and we don't know where they have put him!"

yet in her second visit with the women

Mark 16:1 they ( Mary Magdalene and Mary the mother of James and Salome ) were saying to one another, "Who will roll away the stone for us from the entrance of the tomb?" !

Obviously there is a whole chunk of narrative in John's account that the other gospel writers do not include. John included it perhaps partly to record his own experiences of what happened that day. The missing narrative covers the time from the women's question: " Who will roll away the stone for us from the entrance of the tomb?" before the first visit to the tomb up until the time of their second visit when they see angels and also the resurrected Jesus.

[Al-manar]

This view is why I continue to seek a more definitive answer than I have yet to receive regarding the ahadith. I understand that most Muslims accept an authenticated hadith as being on par with the Qur'an in terms of its efficacy in providing guidance. Is that true? .

I'm aware of your thread regarding Hadith, though I have sufficient knowledge in the science(the most complex Islamic science) to contribute to the thread , pardon me from not joining there.....

Obviously there is a whole chunk of narrative in John's account that the other gospel writers do not include. John included it perhaps partly to record his own experiences of what happened that day. The missing narrative covers the time from the women's question: " Who will roll away the stone for us from the entrance of the tomb?" before the first visit to the tomb up until the time of their second visit when they see angels and also the resurrected Jesus.

Hiroshi ,why you reset your argument again ?!

I understood you ,you argue for a supposed missing narrative (Mary visiting the tomb before revisiting it again with the women ) from Mark ....

and I told you , adding that missing narrative to Mark will get a basic problem of harmony, I showed twice that adding the supposed missing narrative of John to Mark wont make any sense...

Let's add the missing narrative! of John to Mark and let the reader judge:

JohMark 20:16 Early on the first day of the week, while it was still dark, Mary Magdalene went to the tomb and saw that the stone had been removed from the entrance. 2So she came running to Simon Peter and the other disciple, the one Jesus loved, and said, "They have taken the Lord out of the tomb, and we don't know where they have put him! Afterwards, Mary Magdalene, Mary the mother of James, and Salome , just after sunrise, they were on their way to the tomb 3 and they ( Mary Magdalene and Mary the mother of James and Salome ) asked each other, “Who will roll the stone away from the entrance of the tomb?” ...

Does that make sense? yes sometimes it does,as pure faith turns the impossible into possible ! ....

Regards

[Al-manar]

Just to add something...

while I said ( errancy from any kind should get the book under suspicion) ,but that doesnt mean the whole book has to be false from cover to cover.....

we dont have such concept in Islam (A bible fully false) ... just Just cause the gospels contain false stories of crucifiction,resurrection.... false prophecies etc.... doesnt mean there arent parts, we think are valid.

[Grace Seeker]

Just to add something...

while I said ( errancy from any kind should get the book under suspicion) ,but that doesnt mean the whole book has to be false from cover to cover.....

we dont have such concept in Islam (A bible fully false) ... just Just cause the gospels contain false stories of crucifiction,resurrection.... false prophecies etc.... doesnt mean there arent parts, we think are valid.

but how such process of filtering be made?

So, you really can't say that John is false. You agree that there could be truth in the Bible. It is just that you see Matthew and John being in disagreement and thus you hold that they can't both be true. AND, since without some other filter you have no independent way of verifying which is true, your disposition is to not trust either of them.

Is that a correct interpretation of your position and rationale for that position?

[Al-manar]

I dunno why the explorer keep crashing while editing my post !

So, you really can't say that John is false. You agree that there could be truth in the Bible. It is just that you see Matthew and John being in disagreement and thus you hold that they can't both be true. AND, since without some other filter you have no independent way of verifying which is true, your disposition is to not trust either of them.

Is that a correct interpretation of your position and rationale for that position?

1- the consistency of the accounts , I find the story to be contradictory based on hearsay testimony.

2- the extent to which the author's purpose may have influenced his reliability ,I find compelling proofs that the story was shaped by the theological aims of the evangelists

3- The rejection of the Quran (which been proven to me to be divine) of the story.

4- It is not a well-established historical event ,based on independent eyewitnesses..

those are the basic factors for me to deny the story .


but that again doesnt mean that I dont buy other stories in the New Testament.....

[Woodrow]

I'm aware of your thread regarding Hadith, though I have sufficient knowledge in the science(the most complex Islamic science) to contribute to the thread , pardon me from not joining there.....




Hiroshi ,why you reset your argument again ?!

I understood you ,you argue for a supposed missing narrative (Mary visiting the tomb before revisiting it again with the women ) from Mark ....

and I told you , adding that missing narrative to Mark will get a basic problem of harmony, I showed twice that adding the supposed missing narrative of John to Mark wont make any sense...

Let's add the missing narrative! of John to Mark and let the reader judge:

JohMark 20:16 Early on the first day of the week, while it was still dark, Mary Magdalene went to the tomb and saw that the stone had been removed from the entrance. 2So she came running to Simon Peter and the other disciple, the one Jesus loved, and said, "They have taken the Lord out of the tomb, and we don't know where they have put him! Afterwards, Mary Magdalene, Mary the mother of James, and Salome , just after sunrise, they were on their way to the tomb 3 and they ( Mary Magdalene and Mary the mother of James and Salome ) asked each other, “Who will roll the stone away from the entrance of the tomb?” ...

Does that make sense? yes sometimes it does,as pure faith turns the impossible into possible ! ....

Regards

:sl: Akhi Al-manar.

Quoting from above and putting high emphasis on the obvious:

SIZE="4"]JohMark 20:16 Early on the first day of the week, while it was still dark, Mary Magdalene went to the tomb and saw that the stone had been removed from the entrance. 2So she came running to Simon Peter and the other disciple, the one Jesus loved, and said, "They have taken the Lord out of the tomb, and we don't know where they have put him! Afterwards, Mary Magdalene, Mary the mother of James, and Salome , just after sunrise, they were on their way to the tomb 3 and they ( Mary Magdalene and Mary the mother of James and Salome ) asked each other, “Who will roll the stone away from the entrance of the tomb?” ...

If those 2 things I highlighted are true, can there be any other conclusion, except what you are showing?

[Al-manar]

:sl: Akhi Al-manar.

If those 2 things I highlighted are true, can there be any other conclusion, except what you are showing?

:sl: Akhi

The 2 things highlighted ,can't be true ,they are yet another problem (timing)

while it was still dark & just after sunrise , can't be the same ,that is just another contradiction .....

for example : one can create another theory claiming that as long as Matthew tells that the visit was at dawn , then he was talking about a visit preceded a Markan visit after the sun had risen...
but that is far fetched ,just comparing them reveals they were talking about one visit ,arguing otherwise needs a textual support ....

the same way with the case of John and Mark .... the theory that suggested Hiroshi ,in order to work needs to get the narratives consistent....

A simple reading to Mark reveals that the man was talking about only one visit ,that is impossible to be preceeded by another visit........ it is the visit that was preceded by the women(including Mary Magdalene) buying spices ,and due to their ignorance that the large stone been removed (which is a logical thing ,as long as they were absent from the scene,just they were on their way to visit it for the first time) ,they asked each other, “Who will roll the stone away from the entrance of the tomb?

the Markan text is clear enough to get us sure he was talking about a visit unpreceded by another by any of the women:

1- the women arranged TOGETHER :

1-bought spices to anoint him.
2-together walked the way to the tomb while asking themselves who is gonna move such heavy stone from the entrance of the tomb.
3- Only when they looked up, they saw that the stone, which was very large, had been rolled away.

Mark 16: 1 When the Sabbath was over, Mary Magdalene, Mary the mother of James, and Salome bought spices so that they might go to anoint Jesus’ body. 2 Very early on the first day of the week, just after sunrise, they were on their way to the tomb 3 and they asked each other, “Who will roll the stone away from the entrance of the tomb?” 4 But when they looked up, they saw that the stone, which was very large, had been rolled away.

the theory of a missing visit ,suggests that Mary who arranged to annoint jesus and bought spices with the help of the other women , suddenly decided to go while it was dark to the tomb ,but hasn't she already planned to annoint him with the women? ...!!!what is the sense of her going alone in the dark to the tomb?
and if she went , found out no corpse to annoint (John 20), why would she get back again with the women asking themselves who will help them moving the stone ,in order to get into the tomb annointing the corpse(Mark 16) ?!!!

It is logically for them not talking about rolling the stone away but instead talking about the bad news that the body had been stolen.....

to add more to the problem Matthew(28) had the angel descending to roll away the stone, whereas Mark (16)had the women been surprised, arriving to find that the stone had already been rolled away.



Akhi Woodrow any comment, note is welcome..

[Hiroshi]

:sl: Akhi Al-manar.

Quoting from above and putting high emphasis on the obvious:



If those 2 things I highlighted are true, can there be any other conclusion, except what you are showing?

Matthew 28:1 says that they came to the tomb "when it was growing light". Obviously John 20:1 doesn't mean that it was pitch black when Mary and the others reached the tomb. Rather it was just at sunrise when there was still some darkness. But the darkness was fading as it was growing light. All the gospel accounts agree that it was very early in the day.

[Woodrow]

Matthew 28:1 says that they came to the tomb "when it was growing light". Obviously John 20:1 doesn't mean that it was pitch black when Mary and the others reached the tomb. Rather it was just at sunrise when there was still some darkness. But the darkness was fading as it was growing light. All the gospel accounts agree that it was very early in the day.

JohMark 20:16 Early on the first day of the week, while it was still dark,

So still "dark" means "while it was growing light." I guess my English is poorer than I thought it was.

[جوري]

So still "dark" means "while it was growing light." I guess my English is poorer than I thought it was.

sometimes I come here for a chuckle and instead I receive a hearty guffaw...

lol sorry about this.. I assure you, your condition seems to plague me too..

[Hiroshi]

JohMark 20:16 Early on the first day of the week, while it was still dark,

So still "dark" means "while it was growing light." I guess my English is poorer than I thought it was.

I think everyone has got the picture that it was a completely cloudless sky. Nisan 16 would be the tail end of the rainy season in Palestine and there could well have been clouds darkening any light from the sunrise.

[Al-manar]

Going back to our discussion about the origin of christianity ..............................

we have exposed the problems with the concept that the Jews before the mission of Jesus were stict monotheist ,we have provided direct quotation from the Jewish writings (other writings are saved for future arguments) ,showing that the Jews not only venerated Angels,dead saints but also thought of a character called (son of man) as divine and be worshipped !!....

Satan fulfilled his work with them gradually , he knew that getting them to worship other gods than Yahweh is difficult ..... so he gradually convinced them to turn Yahwah himself into idol !! ....

he didn't tell them go worship krishna, tammuz ,osiris etc ...
Just go find out the physical aspect of Yahweh that been hidden from you, and it is high time to be revealed among you !!!

what a tragedy !!

.................................................. ..........................



Our next post is the discussion about the THIRD duty The Quranic Jesus was supoosed to do:

our discussion has a guide line ,it is the following verse:

Holy Quran 003.050 And (I come) confirming that which was before me of the Torah, and to make lawful some of that which was forbidden unto you. I come unto you with a sign from your Lord, so keep your duty to Allah and obey me.

till next post

peace

[IAmZamzam]

Al-manar, are you suggesting that because each of the 4 gospel recount the story of the discovery of the empty tomb and Jesus' resurrection differently that it there could not have happened? did not happen? or that we simply can't determine which of them is most accurate in telling the story?

I think the bigger issue here is not that there are contradictions, nor even how many there are, but the mere fact that up until the point of the crucifixion the four Gospels remain primarily consistent with each other (for the most part—sort of) about the majority of key issues, and then once you get into the passion the contradictions suddenly start piling up out of nowhere and just keep on increasing until the resurrection saga at the end where hardly anything is consistent. It seems to strongly support the notion, held by Muslims, Gnostics, and many secular writers, that this part is the least reliable and most mythically embellished section of the whole saga.

[Hiroshi]

Going back to our discussion about the origin of christianity ..............................

we have exposed the problems with the concept that the Jews before the mission of Jesus were stict monotheist ,we have provided direct quotation from the Jewish writings (other writings are saved for future arguments) ,showing that the Jews not only venerated Angels,dead saints but also thought of a character called (son of man) as divine and be worshipped !!....

Satan fulfilled his work with them gradually , he knew that getting them to worship other gods than Yahweh is difficult ..... so he gradually convinced them to turn Yahwah himself into idol !! ....

I think that I agree with you. Christianity became corrupted and Jesus began to be (wrongly) identified as the same God that Yahweh is.

[Hiroshi]

I think the bigger issue here is not that there are contradictions, nor even how many there are, but the mere fact that up until the point of the crucifixion the four Gospels remain primarily consistent with each other (for the most part—sort of) about the majority of key issues, and then once you get into the passion the contradictions suddenly start piling up out of nowhere and just keep on increasing until the resurrection saga at the end where hardly anything is consistent. It seems to strongly support the notion, held by Muslims, Gnostics, and many secular writers, that this part is the least reliable and most mythically embellished section of the whole saga.

We know from history that great numbers of early Christians perished in the Roman arenas rather than deny their faith. Christ's resurrection was a guarantee for them (Acts 17:31) They must have seen solid evidence of this, not false stories and myth.

[Woodrow]

We know from history that great numbers of early Christians perished in the Roman arenas rather than deny their faith. Christ's resurrection was a guarantee for them (Acts 17:31) They must have seen solid evidence of this, not false stories and myth.

I believe you already know that most if not all Muslims are willing to die than deny our faith. Many have throughout the centuries and do so today.

Based on what you just said I assume you you will accept this as solid evidence of the truth of our belief.

[Hugo]

I believe you already know that most if not all Muslims are willing to die than deny our faith. Many have throughout the centuries and do so today. Based on what you just said I assume you you will accept this as solid evidence of the truth of our belief.

Not quite sure what you mean here: truth in the sence that your faith is real or truth that Islam itself is truth?

[Hugo]

I think the bigger issue here is not that there are contradictions, nor even how many there are, but the mere fact that up until the point of the crucifixion the four Gospels remain primarily consistent with each other (for the most part—sort of) about the majority of key issues, and then once you get into the passion the contradictions suddenly start piling up out of nowhere and just keep on increasing until the resurrection saga at the end where hardly anything is consistent. It seems to strongly support the notion, held by Muslims, Gnostics, and many secular writers, that this part is the least reliable and most mythically embellished section of the whole saga.

This is not correct and you make it sound as if the stories of the crucifixion are all entirely different. That the are difficulties no one doubts but that does not mean that no reconciliation is possible. If you can be specific we can look at the accounts

[Woodrow]

Not quite sure what you mean here: truth in the sence that your faith is real or truth that Islam itself is truth?

In the context of Hiroshi'a post I am intending it to be evidence that Islam is true.

On a personal note I do not believe the numbers of people willing to die for any faith is proof of the truth of the religion, but it is strong evidence that the followers have strong faith it is true, Nearly if not all religions have had and still have followers who will gladly die before denying their faith.

My satiric form of saying Hiroshi's comment

Quote Originally Posted by Hiroshi View Post
We know from history that great numbers of early Christians perished in the Roman arenas rather than deny their faith. Christ's resurrection was a guarantee for them (Acts 17:31) They must have seen solid evidence of this, not false stories and myth.

is not solid evidence that Jesus(as)was resurrected.

[IAmZamzam]

People have died, very horribly, for a lot of different contradictory causes that they had no hard evidence for the truth of. Examples hardly seem necessary: we all know them.

[IAmZamzam]

This is not correct and you make it sound as if the stories of the crucifixion are all entirely different. That the are difficulties no one doubts but that does not mean that no reconciliation is possible. If you can be specific we can look at the accounts

I'm not biting this time, Hugo. Perhaps if someone else says that, but I'm not wasting my time with you again. And really, information on this is easily available and much of it has already been given even in this very thread. The only people--repeat, the only people--who do not see it for what it is are themselves Christian inerrantists who have blinded themselves with their so-called "reconciliations" of "difficulties". You have already seen the evidence in a hundred places, no doubt, put forth by people much more knowledgeable on the matter than myself, and if they did not persuade you to open your eyes then I cannot either, and even if I did you would still keep on arguing just for the sake of it as you always do.

[Hiroshi]

I believe you already know that most if not all Muslims are willing to die than deny our faith. Many have throughout the centuries and do so today.

Based on what you just said I assume you you will accept this as solid evidence of the truth of our belief.

There is more to it than that. There are many great deceivers who have misled people and made them willing to die for them. Let's take the case of Hitler in Nazi Germany during World War 2. In hindsight, I am sure that most would agree that his dictatorship was evil and brought about one of the greatest disasters of modern times.

But I have read in history that tens of thousands of Muslims were willing to fight and die for Hitler. By contrast, thousands of Jehovah's Witnesses in Germany were imprisoned and perished in the terrible Nazi concentration camps because they refused to support Hitler. They were a harmless, inoffensive group that showed unparalleled courage in the face of Nazi terror.

So who were the ones that really lived up to the truth?

[Zafran]

There is more to it than that. There are many great deceivers who have misled people and made them willing to die for them. Let's take the case of Hitler in Nazi Germany during World War 2. In hindsight, I am sure that most would agree that his dictatorship was evil and brought about one of the greatest disasters of modern times.

But I have read in history that tens of thousands of Muslims were willing to fight and die for Hitler. By contrast, thousands of Jehovah's Witnesses in Germany were imprisoned and perished in the terrible Nazi concentration camps because they refused to support Hitler. They were a harmless, inoffensive group that showed unparalleled courage in the face of Nazi terror.

So who were the ones that really lived up to the truth?

Terrible argument - lets say your right about the muslims but there were muslims from India fighting for the UK against Nazi Germany as well - You also have christians supporting the Nazis and fighting against the Nazis as well (same could be said about athiests) - you also have homosexuals and Gypsies dying in concentration camps as well - they must be right as well then.

You also have communists that refused to help Hitler as well - they died as well - they must be right as well.

If this is the best you got for missionery work your in trouble.

[IAmZamzam]

If this is the best you got for missionery work your in trouble.

It is, pretty much. Just ignore him.

[Hiroshi]

Terrible argument - lets say your right about the muslims but there were muslims from India fighting for the UK against Nazi Germany as well - You also have christians supporting the Nazis and fighting against the Nazis as well (same could be said about athiests) - you also have homosexuals and Gypsies dying in concentration camps as well - they must be right as well then.

You also have communists that refused to help Hitler as well - they died as well - they must be right as well.

If this is the best you got for missionery work your in trouble.

Sure, let's get things in perspective. Many people supported Hitler for different reasons. Hitler got Germany out of the recession and back on its feet. They began to see prosperity and a strong leadership that was having one great success after another. And the Vatican saw Nazi Gerrmany as a protection for them against the growing power of atheistic Russia. All the major churches in Germany finally agreed to support Hitler and encouraged their members to fight for him. But Jehovah's Witnesses were different. And they suffered accordingly.

[جوري]

But Jehovah's Witnesses were different. And they suffered accordingly.

as others stated many groups suffered.. homosexuals for instance.. do you want to be a homosexual because they suffered such cleansing under Hitler?
If I may say so myself you're losing all credibility & control of where this is going!

all the best!

[Hiroshi]

Terrible argument - lets say your right about the muslims but there were muslims from India fighting for the UK against Nazi Germany as well - You also have christians supporting the Nazis and fighting against the Nazis as well (same could be said about athiests) - you also have homosexuals and Gypsies dying in concentration camps as well - they must be right as well then.

You also have communists that refused to help Hitler as well - they died as well - they must be right as well.

If this is the best you got for missionery work your in trouble.

So in spite of the persecution of homosexuals and gypsies, not to mention Jews, there were Muslims who fought for Hitler and Muslims who fought against Hitler. Likewise Catholics on the German side fought and killed Catholics on the British side and Protestants fought and killed Protestants. Only Jehovah's Witnesses were united in their stand. Jesus said that his true followers would be known by their love among themselves (John 13:35). Where was the love of these other religious groups even for their fellow members?

[Hiroshi]

as others stated many groups suffered.. homosexuals for instance.. do you want to be a homosexual because they suffered such cleansing under Hitler?
If I may say so myself you're losing all credibility & control of where this is going!

all the best!

My point is this. If everyone in the world was a Jehovah's Witness then all wars would cease because nobody would fight. Even Hitler couldn't get us to fight for him. Even as I write this, Jehovah's Witnesses in great numbers around the world are suffering abuse, imprisonment and sometimes torture in the lands in which they live because they refuse to serve in the armed forces.

In my congregation in London there is a young lad from South Korea. Sometime soon he will have to return to his country and when he does he knows that he will have to go to prison for not joining the army. Everyone there is required to be conscripted into the armed forces when they reach a certain age. But we follow the example of the early Christians. No one of these early Christians would become a soldier. And no soldier, after becoming a Christian, remained in the army.

Outside the United Nations building there is an inscription taken from Isaiah 2:4 that says "they shall beat their swords into plowshares, and their spears into pruninghooks: nation shall not lift up sword against nation, neither shall they learn war any more". Jehovah's Witnesses have already succeeded in doing that although the rest of the world hasn't.

[جوري]

My point is this. If everyone in the world was a Jehovah's Witness then all wars would cease because nobody would fight. Even Hitler couldn't get us to fight for him. Even as I write this, Jehovah's Witnesses in great numbers around the world are suffering abuse, imprisonment and sometimes torture in the lands in which they live because they refuse to serve in the armed forces.

I believe Jw's suffer their own abuses, as I have seen many cases where they commit suicide, retract their ideology when the time comes or impose their homicidal ideologies on their children, thank God the Medical ethics committee doesn't loan itself to idiocy when it comes to emergencies in under-aged children. I mean you may think not joining an army is all good and well but imposing a no transfusion on an 8 year old who needs it is equally an act of war in my opinion!

Outside the United Nations building there is an inscription taken from Isaiah 2:4 that says "they shall beat their swords into plowshares, and their spears into pruninghooks: nation shall not lift up sword against nation, neither shall they learn war any more". Jehovah's Witnesses have already succeeded in doing that although the rest of the world hasn't.

That sentence is at odds with other passages from the same book, you can see why taking one one inscription and making it your religio-motto would leave many unsatisfied

a time to love and a time to hate, a time for war and a time for peace. Ecclesiastes 3:8

yes no?

all the best

[Zafran]

So in spite of the persecution of homosexuals and gypsies, not to mention Jews, there were Muslims who fought for Hitler and Muslims who fought against Hitler. Likewise Catholics on the German side fought and killed Catholics on the British side and Protestants fought and killed Protestants. Only Jehovah's Witnesses were united in their stand. Jesus said that his true followers would be known by their love among themselves (John 13:35). Where was the love of these other religious groups even for their fellow members?

How many of you actually are there - I mean someone form Bahi faith, Ahmadi or sikhism or Mormons could claim the same thing -

[Ramadhan]

Only Jehovah's Witnesses were united in their stand. Jesus said that his true followers would be known by their love among themselves (John 13:35). Where was the love of these other religious groups even for their fellow members?

As the others have said, is this the best you can do? then your missionary work is in deep deep trouble, especially in this forum LOL.
I believe christian scientists also have the love among themselves, and they are known for their suffering from the abuse of others, and they are united in their stand.
so are you going to join christian science now?

Also, there have been many many JWs who reverted to Islam? or converted to other religions. Not so united eh? and not so steadfast in their faith eh?

Although Kingdom hall should give you plenty of browny points for your "bravery" of going to an Islamic forum to proselytize, LOL.

[Hiroshi]

As the others have said, is this the best you can do? then your missionary work is in deep deep trouble, especially in this forum LOL.
I believe christian scientists also have the love among themselves, and they are known for their suffering from the abuse of others, and they are united in their stand.
so are you going to join christian science now?

But would Christian Scientists kill members of their own religion in wartime if coerced by the terror that existed in Nazi Germany?

The book "A History of Christianity" by Paul Johnson says this on pages 488-489:

The Gestapo carried out repression when necessary. It rarely had to be severe. Except for a few individuals, the clergy were hardly ever imprisoned for long. Of 17,000 Evangelical pastors, their were never more than fifty serving long terms at any one time. Of the Catholics, one bishop was expelled from his diocese, and another got a short term for currency offenses. There was no more resistance, despite the fact that, by summer 1939, all religious schools had been abolished. Only the free sects stuck to their principles enough to merit outright persecution. The bravest were the Jehovah's Witnesses, who proclaimed their outright doctrinal opposition from the beginning and suffered accordingly. They refused any cooperation with the Nazi state which they denounced as totally evil. The Nazis believed they were part of the international Jewish-Marxist conspiracy. Many were sentenced to death for refusing military service and inciting others to do likewise; or they ended up in Dachau or lunatic asylums. A third were actually killed: ninety-seven percent suffered persecution in one form or another.

[Ramadhan]

But would Christian Scientists kill members of their own religion in wartime if coerced by the terror that existed in Nazi Germany?

The book "A History of Christianity" by Paul Johnson says this on pages 488-489:

The Gestapo carried out repression when necessary. It rarely had to be severe. Except for a few individuals, the clergy were hardly ever imprisoned for long. Of 17,000 Evangelical pastors, their were never more than fifty serving long terms at any one time. Of the Catholics, one bishop was expelled from his diocese, and another got a short term for currency offenses. There was no more resistance, despite the fact that, by summer 1939, all religious schools had been abolished. Only the free sects stuck to their principles enough to merit outright persecution. The bravest were the Jehovah's Witnesses, who proclaimed their outright doctrinal opposition from the beginning and suffered accordingly. They refused any cooperation with the Nazi state which they denounced as totally evil. The Nazis believed they were part of the international Jewish-Marxist conspiracy. Many were sentenced to death for refusing military service and inciting others to do likewise; or they ended up in Dachau or lunatic asylums. A third were actually killed: ninety-seven percent suffered persecution in one form or another.

As others have _REPEATEDLY_ mentioned (and that you keep ignoring):

There have been many many people or groups of people of the same faith who died for holding on to their convictions/faith throughout history of mankind.

so, according to your standard, all of those groups have the truth.

Let me give you an example: Ahmadiyah.

Currently, Ahmadiyah is among the most persecuted groups, while JW enjoys freedom everywhere in the world to proselityze (including in this forum, by stealth), so should you now be joining the ahmadiyya, because those people are willing to die for their faith?

Don't be a hypocrite, Hiroshi.

[Grace Seeker]

But would Christian Scientists kill members of their own religion in wartime if coerced by the terror that existed in Nazi Germany?

Hiroshi, I'm not sure what you are trying to prove with this line of reasoning. Already we have both of us listing our religion as "Christian" and yet also both of us admitting publically that, because of certain beliefs held by the other, we don't recognize the validity of one another's claims to that label. There are plenty of Christian pacifists, who take that position as an itegral part of their faith. Just as we have excluded one another because of a certain set of beliefs, they might exclude all those as being genuinely Christian who don't hold to a set of pacifist beliefs. The Amish and the Quakers might be a couple of cases in point.

Ultimately, the question of love is not whether someone would refuse to kill a member of their own sect, but whether they would refuse to kill anyone else. My understanding of the JW reason for not participating in the military was related more to a refusal to be under the authority of any human government than it was from being pacifists.

As for the fact that JWs will go to prison rather than to be conscripted, I respect that they are willing to be true to their convictions. But, again, they aren't alone in this. Muhammad Ali you might remember did the same thing. And such allegiance to one's beliefs is testimony only of the depth of allegiance, not of the validity of that faith.

[Woodrow]

My point is this. If everyone in the world was a Jehovah's Witness then all wars would cease because nobody would fight. Even Hitler couldn't get us to fight for him. Even as I write this, Jehovah's Witnesses in great numbers around the world are suffering abuse, imprisonment and sometimes torture in the lands in which they live because they refuse to serve in the armed forces.

In my congregation in London there is a young lad from South Korea. Sometime soon he will have to return to his country and when he does he knows that he will have to go to prison for not joining the army. Everyone there is required to be conscripted into the armed forces when they reach a certain age. But we follow the example of the early Christians. No one of these early Christians would become a soldier. And no soldier, after becoming a Christian, remained in the army.

Outside the United Nations building there is an inscription taken from Isaiah 2:4 that says "they shall beat their swords into plowshares, and their spears into pruninghooks: nation shall not lift up sword against nation, neither shall they learn war any more". Jehovah's Witnesses have already succeeded in doing that although the rest of the world hasn't.

While this is an admirable quality and one I admit I have some admiration for those who refuse to engage in war at any price. The reality is being good and passive is not enough, one must always be prepared to fight evil by whatever means is necessary and at times this does require physical fighting. Will you remain passive and refuse to take up arms if your anticipated Battle of Armageddon begins today?

Just a thought. I know one of the basic tenets of the JWs is the battle of Armageddon. How do you know that this war has not been going on for the past 1000 years and JWs have refused to fight on the side of God(sw) ever since it began?

[Hiroshi]

As others have _REPEATEDLY_ mentioned (and that you keep ignoring):

There have been many many people or groups of people of the same faith who died for holding on to their convictions/faith throughout history of mankind.

so, according to your standard, all of those groups have the truth.

On 18 November 1978 a group of very religious people commited mass suicide in what came to be known as the Jonestown massacre. Does that prove that they had the truth? Surely not. It should be evident to all that what they did was wrong and stupid.

What I am trying to do is cite an example where we would all agree that having to die rather than compromise was the right thing to do. Hitler's reign of terror in Nazi Germany is surely universally seen as evil. But during WW2 Catholics, Protestants and Evangelical gave Hitler cowardly, fawning servility while he responded by closing their schools and confiscating their property. Anti-Christian literature was circulated among the German soldiers. But the churches rang the bells in celebration when Hitler gained victories. That was up until the time when the bells were taken away to be melted down to make more weapons.

When it really mattered the other churches acted disgracefully but Jehovah's Witnesses did not. That's all I'm saying.

Let me give you an example: Ahmadiyah.

Currently, Ahmadiyah is among the most persecuted groups, while JW enjoys freedom everywhere in the world to proselityze (including in this forum, by stealth), so should you now be joining the ahmadiyya, because those people are willing to die for their faith?

Don't be a hypocrite, Hiroshi.

As I said, it isn't enough to be willing to die. It has to be for the right reasons.

My original point was that Jesus' resurrection must have had many eye witnesses if the early Christians were willing to die for him. (Writing about 55 CE Paul, in 1 Corinthians 15:6, stated that more than 500 people saw him after his resurrection). I thought that that was a reasonable thing to say but everyone is arguing against it. Well then, please yourselves what you want to believe.

[Hiroshi]

Hiroshi, I'm not sure what you are trying to prove with this line of reasoning. Already we have both of us listing our religion as "Christian" and yet also both of us admitting publically that, because of certain beliefs held by the other, we don't recognize the validity of one another's claims to that label. There are plenty of Christian pacifists, who take that position as an itegral part of their faith. Just as we have excluded one another because of a certain set of beliefs, they might exclude all those as being genuinely Christian who don't hold to a set of pacifist beliefs. The Amish and the Quakers might be a couple of cases in point.

Ultimately, the question of love is not whether someone would refuse to kill a member of their own sect, but whether they would refuse to kill anyone else. My understanding of the JW reason for not participating in the military was related more to a refusal to be under the authority of any human government than it was from being pacifists.

As for the fact that JWs will go to prison rather than to be conscripted, I respect that they are willing to be true to their convictions. But, again, they aren't alone in this. Muhammad Ali you might remember did the same thing. And such allegiance to one's beliefs is testimony only of the depth of allegiance, not of the validity of that faith.

The stand that JWs take is not so much that we are pacifists but that we are politically neutral. We neither actively support nor actively oppose any worldly government. We keep the laws (if these do not conflict with God's laws) and pay our taxes but we do not vote or become involved in political affairs. And neither do we join the military. According to Daniel 2:44 all man-made governments will one day be destroyed by God's kingdom.

[Hiroshi]

While this is an admirable quality and one I admit I have some admiration for those who refuse to engage in war at any price. The reality is being good and passive is not enough, one must always be prepared to fight evil by whatever means is necessary and at times this does require physical fighting. Will you remain passive and refuse to take up arms if your anticipated Battle of Armageddon begins today?

Just a thought. I know one of the basic tenets of the JWs is the battle of Armageddon. How do you know that this war has not been going on for the past 1000 years and JWs have refused to fight on the side of God(sw) ever since it began?

What we are expecting is an unprecedented worldwide attack upon all religion by the United Nations. This is pictured in Revelation 17:16 by the attack on Babylon the Great by the wild beast. The political powers and the UN will succeed in wiping out all religions until Jehovah's Witnesses are the last one.

At that time there will be no middle ground. Everyone will be either with Jehovah's Witnesses or will be supporting those that are trying to destroy them. We will seem to have no protection or help. And our enemies will confidently move to the attack. But then Jehovah will intervene to save his people. That will be Armageddon. At no time in all of this will we be required to do physical fighting. Remember what happened with the Egyptians and the Israelites at the Red Sea?

[Grace Seeker]

On 18 November 1978 a group of very religious people commited mass suicide in what came to be known as the Jonestown massacre. Does that prove that they had the truth? Surely not. It should be evident to all that what they did was wrong and stupid.

What I am trying to do is cite an example where we would all agree that having to die rather than compromise was the right thing to do. Hitler's reign of terror in Nazi Germany is surely universally seen as evil. But during WW2 Catholics, Protestants and Evangelical gave Hitler cowardly, fawning servility while he responded by closing their schools and confiscating their property. Anti-Christian literature was circulated among the German soldiers. But the churches rang the bells in celebration when Hitler gained victories. That was up until the time when the bells were taken away to be melted down to make more weapons.

When it really mattered the other churches acted disgracefully but Jehovah's Witnesses did not. That's all I'm saying.

Hiroshi, you are saying much more than you imply. You have made very large categorical statements that seem to imply that no Jehovah's Witnesses acted disgracefully, and that all from other churches did. Now, perhaps that is not what you are meaning to say, but it is the message that is being received. And quite plainly, I don't know how you can know that it is true of all JWs and I can tell you that I know that there were many members of other churches that did NOT act, as you term it, disgracefully; surely you are familiar with the story of Dietrich Bonhoeffer?

[Woodrow]

What we are expecting is an unprecedented worldwide attack upon all religion by the United Nations. This is pictured in Revelation 17:16 by the attack on Babylon the Great by the wild beast. The political powers and the UN will succeed in wiping out all religions until Jehovah's Witnesses are the last one.

At that time there will be no middle ground. Everyone will be either with Jehovah's Witnesses or will be supporting those that are trying to destroy them. We will seem to have no protection or help. And our enemies will confidently move to the attack. But then Jehovah will intervene to save his people. That will be Armageddon. At no time in all of this will we be required to do physical fighting. Remember what happened with the Egyptians and the Israelites at the Red Sea?

The way I understand that is; while the UN is destroying all religions, no JW will take up arms to try to stop them. Or in other words it means the JWs will play a passive but complacent approval of the UN killing people. In other words JWs will be siding with the UN in the destruction of other religions. The JWs will indirectly be using the UN as a weapon to kill and destroy those who are not JWs.

[جوري]

couldn't have said it better myself-- only the army that raises up for God deserves God's kingdom! and we all know who the secularists and the misguided man/worshipers are fighting!

[Hiroshi]

Hiroshi, you are saying much more than you imply. You have made very large categorical statements that seem to imply that no Jehovah's Witnesses acted disgracefully, and that all from other churches did. Now, perhaps that is not what you are meaning to say, but it is the message that is being received. And quite plainly, I don't know how you can know that it is true of all JWs and I can tell you that I know that there were many members of other churches that did NOT act, as you term it, disgracefully; surely you are familiar with the story of Dietrich Bonhoeffer?

I believe that there were right minded people of all religions who could see that what Hitler was doing was wrong. I also know that some JWs compromised their faith during persecution and their were some who also did later when they were released from the concentration camps. But I think that overall, the record of the JWs in Nazi Germany was commendable. Also, for us, the persecution hasn't stopped. Since WW2 many countries continue to punish those who refuse military service or salute the flag. If everyone had followed our example then Hitler would have had no soldiers.

But I don't want to seem to sing my own praises any longer. Just look at the history books and decide for yourself.

[Hiroshi]

The way I understand that is; while the UN is destroying all religions, no JW will take up arms to try to stop them. Or in other words it means the JWs will play a passive but complacent approval of the UN killing people. In other words JWs will be siding with the UN in the destruction of other religions. The JWs will indirectly be using the UN as a weapon to kill and destroy those who are not JWs.

We don't want anyone to be destroyed. That's why we go out to preach. But Revelation 17:17 says that "God put it into their hearts [i.e. the hearts of those who attack Babylon the Great] to carry out his thought". So when the time comes, it will really be God himself that will act to destroy false religion. And no one can oppose God when he takes action. Isn't that what Muslims believe also? War with the Anti-Christ, and so on?

[Hiroshi]

couldn't have said it better myself-- only the army that raises up for God deserves God's kingdom! and we all know who the secularists and the misguided man/worshipers are fighting!

Perhaps we can hope that all of us see that kingdom, whatever our shortcomings.

[جوري]

Perhaps we can hope that all of us see that kingdom, whatever our shortcomings.

Those in whose heart there is good and come back aright to the path of the righteous shall see it indeed!

all the best

[IAmZamzam]

Isn't that what Muslims believe also? War with the Anti-Christ, and so on?

Well...something like that...sorta...but the Dajjal thing is argued over endlessly.

[Hiroshi]

Well...something like that...sorta...but the Dajjal thing is argued over endlessly.

It's based on writings in the hadith, right? I don't remember reading anything in the Qur'an about the Dajjal.

[IAmZamzam]

No, there's really nothing in the Koran about it at all, and the ahadith in question are quite controversial.

[Hiroshi]

No, there's really nothing in the Koran about it at all, and the ahadith in question are quite controversial.

The story that I have been told over and over is that Jesus will return, kill all the pigs and break all the crosses. Then he will fight with the Dajjal and die. But he will also afterwards be resurrected. Is this not well authenticated then?

[جوري]

The story that I have been told over and over is that Jesus will return, kill all the pigs and break all the crosses. Then he will fight with the Dajjal and die. But he will also afterwards be resurrected. Is this not well authenticated then?

Jesus didn't die to be resurrected! --
his return marks several things and the last thing on that list will be his death as is the lot of man. However he'll achieve several prophecies during his stay on earth and his stay is said to either be 70 years or until he is of the age of 70 where he'll rule with justice and Islamic law, abolish jizyah and kill the 'anti-christ'. I am pressed for time to populate such ahadith for you now however undoubtedly they are listed in several placed in this forum!

and here are some for now:

[Hadith about the Dajjal

Islam - The Signs Before the Day of Judgement Written by Administrator Monday, 07 February 2005 01:16 Hadith about the Dajjal


Abdullah Ibn 'Omar said, "'Omar Ibn al-Khattab went along with the Prophet and a group of people to Ibn Sayyad, and found him playing with some children near the battlement of Banu Maghalah. At that time Ibn Sayyad was on the threshold of adolescence; he did not realise that anybody was near until the Prophet struck him on the back. The Prophet said to him: 'Do you bear witness than I am the Messenger of Allah?' Ibn Sayyad looked at him and said, 'I bear witness that you are the Prophet of the unlettered.' Then Ibn Sayyad said to the Prophet, 'Do you bear witness that I am the Messenger of Allah? 'The Prophet dismissed this and said, 'I believe in Allah and His Messengers.' Then the Prophet asked him, 'What do you see?' Ibn Sayyad said, 'Sometimes a truthful person comes to me, and sometimes a liar.' The Prophet said to him, 'You are confused', then he said, 'I am hiding something from you.' Ibn Sayyad said, 'It is Dukh.' The Prophet said, 'Silence! You will not be able to go beyond your rank.' 'Omar Ibn al-Khattab said, 'O Messenger of Allah, shall I cut off his head?' The Prophet said, 'If he is (the Dajjal) you will not be able to overpower him, and if he is not, then killing will not do you any good.'"
Salim Ibn 'Abdullah said, "I heard 'Abdullah Ibn 'Omar say, 'After that, the Prophet and Ubayy Ibn Ka'b went along to the palm trees where Ibn Sayyad was. The Prophet started to hide behind a tree, with the intention of hearing something from Ibn Sayyad before Ibn Sayyad saw him. The Prophet saw him lying on a bed, murmuring beneath a blanket. Ibn Sayyad's mother saw the Prophet hiding behind a tree, and said to her son, "O Saf (Ibn Sayyad's first name), here is Mohammad!" Ibn Sayyad jumped up, and the Prophet said, "If you had left him alone, he would have explained himself.''
Salim said, "'Abdullah Ibn 'Omar said, The Prophet stood up to address the people. He praised Allah as He deserved to be praised, then he spoke about the Dajjal: 'I warn you against him; there is no Prophet who has not warned his people against him, even Noah warned his people against him. But I will tell you something which no other Prophet has told his people. You must know that the Dajjal is one-eyed, and Allah is not one-eyed.'"
Ibn Shihab said: "'Omar Ibn Thabit al-Ansari told me that some of the Companions of the Prophet told him that on the day when he warned the people about the Dajjal, the Prophet said: "There will be written between his eyes the word Kafir (unbeliever). Everyone who resents his bad deeds - or every believer- will be able to read it." He also said, "You must know that no one of you will be able to see his Lord until he dies.'" (Muslim, al-Bukhari). Ibn 'Omar said, "The Prophet mentioned the Dajjal to the people. He said, "Allah is not one-eyed, but the Dajjal is blind in his right eye, and his eye is like a floating grape.'" (Muslim) Anas Ibn Malik said, "The Prophet said, 'there has never been a Prophet who did not warn his people against that one-eyed liar. Verily he is one-eyed and your Lord is not one-eyed. On his forehead will be written the letter Kaf, Fa, Ra (Kafir).'" (Muslim, al-Bukhari)
Hudhayfah said, "The Prophet said, 'I know more about the powers which the Dajjal will have than he will know himself. He will have two flowing rivers: one will appear to be pure water, and the other will appear to be flaming fire. Whosoever lives to see that, let him choose the river which seems to be fire, then let him close his eyes, lower his head and drink from it, for it will be cold water. The Dajjal will be one-eyed; the place where one eye should be will be covered by a piece of skin. On his forehead will be written the word Kafir, and every believer, whether literate or illiterate, will be able to read it.'" (Muslim)
Abu Hurayrah said, "The Prophet said, 'Shall I tell you something about the Dajjal which no Prophet has ever told his people before me? The Dajjal is one-eyed and will bring with him something which will resemble Paradise and Hell; but that which he calls Paradise will in fact be Hell. I warn you against him as Noah warned his people against him.'" (al-Bukhari, Muslim)
Mohammad Ibn Munkadir said: "I saw Jabir Ibn 'Abdullah swearing by Allah that Ibn Sayyad was the Dajjal, so I asked him, 'Do you swear by Allah?' He said, 'I heard 'Omar swear to that effect in the presence of the Prophet, and the Prophet did not disapprove of it.'" Some 'ulama' (scholars) say that some of the Sahabah (Companions of the Prophet) believed Ibn Sayyad to be the greater Dajjal, but that is not the case: Ibn Sayyad was a lesser dajjal. Ibn Sayyad travelled between Makkah and Madina with Abu Sa'id, and complained to him about the way that people were saying that he was the Dajjal. Then he said to Abu Sa'id, "Did not the Prophet say that the Dajjal would not enter Madina? I was born there. Did not he say that he would not have any children? - I have children. Did not he say that he would be a Kafir? - I have embraced Islam. Of all the people, I know the most about him: I know where he is now. If I were given the opportunity to be in his place, I would not resent it.'" (al-Bukhari, Muslim)


< Prev Next >

http://islam.worldofislam.info/index...out-the-dajjal
all the best

[Hiroshi]

Jesus didn't die to be resurrected! --
his return marks several things and the last thing on that list will be his death as is the lot of man. However he'll achieve several prophecies during his stay on earth and his stay is said to either be 70 years or until he is of the age of 70 where he'll rule with justice and Islamic law, abolish jizyah and kill the 'anti-christ'. I am pressed for time to populate such ahadith for you now however undoubtedly they are listed in several placed in this forum!

and here are some for now:

My thanks to you, Vales Lily. Sorry that you were pressed for time.

[Grace Seeker]

I believe that there were right minded people of all religions who could see that what Hitler was doing was wrong. I also know that some JWs compromised their faith during persecution and their were some who also did later when they were released from the concentration camps. But I think that overall, the record of the JWs in Nazi Germany was commendable. Also, for us, the persecution hasn't stopped. Since WW2 many countries continue to punish those who refuse military service or salute the flag. If everyone had followed our example then Hitler would have had no soldiers.

But I don't want to seem to sing my own praises any longer. Just look at the history books and decide for yourself.

Based on your own testimony, if everyone had followed the JW example then:
1) overall, the record of everyone would have been commendable, but
2) some would have compromised their faith during persecution, and
3) some would also have done so later when they were released from the concentration camps.

I could say the same thing about the Confessing Church. Some of whom went beyond simply not supporting Hitler, to actually putting their lives on the line and actively opposting him. What record is their of JWs actually being a part of the resistance? Looking at the history books I haven't found that particular part of the story.

[Hiroshi]

I could say the same thing about the Confessing Church. Some of whom went beyond simply not supporting Hitler, to actually putting their lives on the line and actively opposting him. What record is their of JWs actually being a part of the resistance? Looking at the history books I haven't found that particular part of the story.

Hitler committed great evils in the earlier part of his time as a dictator but Britain and America did nothing. It was only when they saw themselves being threatened by the seemingly unstoppable expansion and conquests of Nazi Germany that they declared war. As I said before, JWs are politically neutral. They do not take up arms to overthrow kingdoms or governments. They know for a certainty that God himself will destroy and bring an end to all man made rulerships (Daniel 2:44). The time when God will do this is now very close. The urgent work that God has for us at this time is preaching about the kingdom before the end comes (Matthew 24:14); not fighting wars on battlefields.

[Grace Seeker]

Hitler committed great evils in the earlier part of his time as a dictator but Britain and America did nothing. It was only when they saw themselves being threatened by the seemingly unstoppable expansion and conquests of Nazi Germany that they declared war. As I said before, JWs are politically neutral. They do not take up arms to overthrow kingdoms or governments. They know for a certainty that God himself will destroy and bring an end to all man made rulerships (Daniel 2:44). The time when God will do this is now very close. The urgent work that God has for us at this time is preaching about the kingdom before the end comes (Matthew 24:14); not fighting wars on battlefields.

Two points.

1) This line of apology that you are offering regarding JWs seems to be one of trying to present them as being morally superior to other groups. I'll not say that you are wrong, but I'm not buying what you are selling. Initially (several posts ago) you seemed to lift up JWs as being superior because of their unwillingness to go along with Hitler while others did. I've pointed out how JWs were not unique in that attitude, nor were all JWs unwilling to go along. In other words, there was plenty of both noteworthy and dispicable behavior by both JWs and non-JWs. Secondly at one time you referenced them as being pacifists, in reality we see not that they are pacificsts, but merely non-involved. That gives the appearance of pacifism in some situation, but a commitment to pacifism is not what motivates their non-involvement. Third, you are not trying to denigrade others for sitting on the sidelines and watching, yet this is exactly what an JWs did by virtue of their non-involvement. That they as a result suffered for their actions is not an argument for great moral integrity. Fourth, Hitler was finally defeated by those who took a stand, but without the concerted help of JWs. Many of these people sacrificed their own lives to accomplish something that would bring a greater benefit to others than to themselves even if they had lived. In this case, that seems to me a far higher degree of moral integrity than being politically neutral. But that's just how it seems to me and why I'm not buying what you're selling, you're certainly free to see it differently.


2) "Very close" is a relative term. What might seem very close to one person might seem far, far away to another. The question that all must answer is really not when God will bring an end to manmade rulerships, but how shall we live until God does what God is ultimately going to do? I don't particularly care for the way that JWs have answered this over time. First, they have shown a lack of consistency by answering it differently in different generations. (Don't challenge me on this, I have indisputable proof in official Watchtower publications as my great-grandfather was a JW in 1917 and I have all of his old books.) But of course, there is nothing unique about groups restating their answer to this question over time. Every group represented on this board has answered that question differently to different generations which faced different issues. Second, JWs again are not alone in an expectation that the end is coming, nor even are they alone in expecting it to be a relatively imminent event. As a Christian (of the historic and not restorationists variety), my response is that we are to live a life worthy of the kingdom in the here and now, not waiting for its final consumation and the ultimately victory, but to practice kingdom ethics even in this world. Have all Christians done this? No. But that is what I understand our calling to be. So, preaching and bearing witness is one part of this, but in contrast to your position I do not believe it is the one and only thing.

[Hiroshi]

Two points.

1) This line of apology that you are offering regarding JWs seems to be one of trying to present them as being morally superior to other groups. I'll not say that you are wrong, but I'm not buying what you are selling. Initially (several posts ago) you seemed to lift up JWs as being superior because of their unwillingness to go along with Hitler while others did. I've pointed out how JWs were not unique in that attitude, nor were all JWs unwilling to go along. In other words, there was plenty of both noteworthy and dispicable behavior by both JWs and non-JWs. Secondly at one time you referenced them as being pacifists, in reality we see not that they are pacificsts, but merely non-involved. That gives the appearance of pacifism in some situation, but a commitment to pacifism is not what motivates their non-involvement. Third, you are not trying to denigrade others for sitting on the sidelines and watching, yet this is exactly what an JWs did by virtue of their non-involvement. That they as a result suffered for their actions is not an argument for great moral integrity. Fourth, Hitler was finally defeated by those who took a stand, but without the concerted help of JWs. Many of these people sacrificed their own lives to accomplish something that would bring a greater benefit to others than to themselves even if they had lived. In this case, that seems to me a far higher degree of moral integrity than being politically neutral. But that's just how it seems to me and why I'm not buying what you're selling, you're certainly free to see it differently.


2) "Very close" is a relative term. What might seem very close to one person might seem far, far away to another. The question that all must answer is really not when God will bring an end to manmade rulerships, but how shall we live until God does what God is ultimately going to do? I don't particularly care for the way that JWs have answered this over time. First, they have shown a lack of consistency by answering it differently in different generations. (Don't challenge me on this, I have indisputable proof in official Watchtower publications as my great-grandfather was a JW in 1917 and I have all of his old books.) But of course, there is nothing unique about groups restating their answer to this question over time. Every group represented on this board has answered that question differently to different generations which faced different issues. Second, JWs again are not alone in an expectation that the end is coming, nor even are they alone in expecting it to be a relatively imminent event. As a Christian (of the historic and not restorationists variety), my response is that we are to live a life worthy of the kingdom in the here and now, not waiting for its final consumation and the ultimately victory, but to practice kingdom ethics even in this world. Have all Christians done this? No. But that is what I understand our calling to be. So, preaching and bearing witness is one part of this, but in contrast to your position I do not believe it is the one and only thing.

2 Timothy 2:24 says that a slave of the Lord does not need to fight. We are at war, but the weapons of our warfare are not fleshly (2 Corinthians 10:4). The first century Christians did not take part in military service and neither do JWs. Jesus said that his kingdom was no part of this world. If it was then his disciples would have been fighters. But that was not the case. True Christianity was spread by preaching and love. Not by the sword.

[Grace Seeker]

True Christianity was spread by preaching and love. Not by the sword.

It's not always about spreading Christianity. Sometimes it just about defending the week and helpless and lifting the burden of the oppressed.

You do realize that those who abstain from the political world, whether it is their intent or not, have effectively cast their lot with prevailing said, be it for good or evil, they are saying they don't care. To not care is, in my book, not an acceptable response for one who is a follower of Christ. Be a pacifist if you genuinely feel that way with regard to war. I can respect that. But be an active pacifist, not simply a passive by standard, suffering whatever the result is, even when it ends up being a Hitler. There were many pacifist who resisted Hitler. But the JWs, if I am to believe what you have written, did nothing. That isn't Christ-like. It doesn't even show a thorough going understanding of the passive-aggressive meaning behind Jesus' words to turn the other cheek and go the second mile. These were not meek responses to the brutality of the Romans, but peaceful ways of protest and non-violent resistence that could, especially in the case of going the second mile, effectively end up with the Roman soldier being punished as a result of those actions.

[Woodrow]

The past few posts bring to mind:

"All that is necessary for evil to triumph is for good men to do nothing"
attributed to Edmund Burke-- circa:1790