cruci(fiction) Deedat vs. Douglas, brilliant-- Must watch!

[جوري]

making it easier as I think this is quite informative for Muslims:






















Brilliant wallhi.. Allah yer7mao .. every time I hear a lecture by him I am taken aback by his mannerism, his knowledge.. Masha'Allah.. may Allah swt bless us all with such profound knowledge and faith!

:w:

[IAmZamzam]

Isn't that one wherein Deedat argues for swoon theory, which goes strictly against what the Koran says?

[جوري]

Isn't that one wherein Deedat argues for swoon theory, which goes strictly against what the Koran says?

Is it? perhaps you should present the argument (from above) and your counter argument from the Quran and sunnah!

all the best

[IAmZamzam]

Well, I'm not certain if that's the one and I do not care to spend two whole hours just to find out, but swoon theory flatly contradits the Koran when it says that they did not crucify Jesus (P) at all (4:157, I believe).

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

[جوري]

Well, I'm not certain if that's the one and I do not care to spend two whole hours just to find out, but swoon theory flatly contradits the Koran when it says that they did not crucify Jesus (P) at all (4:157, I believe).

We know what the swoon theory is, there is no point in redundancy. (Further the swoon theory in and of itself indeed proposes that Jesus DIDN'T DIE on the cross) If you are going to implicate a respected Muslim scholar in an alleged contradiction the least you can do is your homework. If you are not invested, then why comment all together?

all the best

[IAmZamzam]

At least he did in one of his debates, maybe it was with Josh McDowell. What it means to me is that I now find it harder to respect what he says about anything. Whichever debate it was, the whole thing seemed to consist of him repeating himself and heresying.

[جوري]

At least he did in one of his debates, maybe it was with Josh McDowell. What it means to me is that I now find it harder to respect what he says about anything. Whichever debate it was, the whole thing seemed to consist of him repeating himself and heresying.

That is your personal opinion, and given your own admittance of not being invested in a two hour lecture let alone the hundred hour lecture, I hardly doubt you can substantiate your claims. In the beginning and end respect is earned! We can look at the fruits of his work to assess whether or not he was repetitive or thrived for as long as he did on hearsay!

all the best

[Predator]

Isn't that one wherein Deedat argues for swoon theory, which goes strictly against what the Koran says?

No, Deedat never actually went against what the Quran said

Did you actually read his book Crucifixion or Crucifiction ? If you had read it , then you would have seen the afterword on the last page

He writes

“Honestly, I do not expect anyone to ask me about my belief as a Muslim concerning the Crucifixion. My belief is the Quranic belief as categorically stated in Chapter IV, Verse 157.”

http://www.kalamullah.com/Books/Deed...Bdeedat%5D.pdf


So here we see Mr.Deedat is telling us his own belief of Crucifixion. His belief is what the Quran says in 4:157 and obviously verse 158 as well. Sheikh Ahmed Deedat quotes this verse in his talks on the Crucifixion of Christ (pbuh)

“That they said (in boast), "We killed Christ Jesus the son of Mary, the Messenger of Allah.;- but they killed him not, nor crucified him, but so it was made to appear to them, and those who differ therein are full of doubts, with no (certain) knowledge, but only conjecture to follow, for of a surety they killed him not:-“ (4:157)
The next verse reads
“Nay, Allah raised him up unto Himself; and Allah is Exalted in Power, Wise;-“ (Quran 4:158)

So we clearly see that Jesus Christ (pbuh) was raised up ALIVE and Mr.Deedat believes in that only. This is the view that the Muslims normally hold.

So, we see clearly that Sheikh Ahmed Deedat does NOT support the swoon theory . He only wrote this book to prove that Jesus (pbuh) was NOT crucified and this is sufficient to tumble the whole Christian faith since Crucifixion of Christ (pbuh) is the foundation of Christianity according to Paul and is the only way a person can achieve salvation and christianity is nothing but a pile of garbage (worthless) without crucifixion

If Christ is not risen from the dead, your faith is worthless (1 Cor 15:14).

Sheikh Deedat does NOT even consider the Bible to be the word of God. Refer to his book

Is the bible God's word ?

http://www.jamaat.net/bible/BibleIntro.html

[Al-manar]

I have always seen two approaches to be negative:

1- when we try to prove that a beloved scholar won't ever err even once.

2- when we open fire ,mocking the whole efforts of a schoar ,just cause he erred once !
and that is what I see here...

Deedat won't err even once ...Subhan Allah
on the other hand

Deedat isn't to be trusted about anything he say ,just cause he erred once .... Subhan Allah

that is exaggeration ...... just let's be moderate

yes Deedat argued for a swoon theory (just a simple reading to his book reveals that ),such theory I consider to be flawed .....but that by no means would degrade the other great works,efforts the man did.....

bro Yahya Sulaiman, though I agree with you regarding the error just noted, but I think we should show much appreciation and respect for the great scholars ,yet never believe them to be flawless or above criticism...

peace..

[Predator]

yes Deedat argued for a swoon theory (just a simple reading to his book reveals that ),such theory I consider to be flawed .....

Deeda's belief is verse no 4:157 , he has only shown that the Bible speaks a swoon theory , the same way Gospel of barnabas speaks of a substitution.Deedat does not beleive that the Bible is the word of God

The purpose of writing the book was to use the enemy's weapon (bible) against them and tumble their faith which just hinges on the event and believes that there is nothing that Christianity can offer mankind, other than the blood and gore of Jesus. If Jesus did NOT die, and he was NOT resurrected from the dead, then there can be NO salvation in Christianity!

[Al-manar]

peace

Deeda's belief is verse no 4:157 , he has only shown that the Bible speaks a swoon theory ,!

and that is why I said he erred ...... the bible doesn't speaks a swoon theory

Jesus died according to the bible ...

Mark 37And Jesus cried with a loud voice, and gave up the ghost.

Matthew 27:50
50Jesus, when he had cried again with a loud voice, yielded up the ghost.

Luke 23:46
46And when Jesus had cried with a loud voice, he said, Father, into thy hands I commend my spirit: and having said thus, he gave up the ghost.

John 19:30
30When Jesus therefore had received the vinegar, he said, It is finished: and he bowed his head, and gave up the ghost.

Luke 24:46. He(Jesus) told them, "This is what is written: The Christ will suffer and rise from the dead on the third day.

why wouldn't muslim believe in that? it is not cause christians misunderstood the bible that claims(according to the argument) for swoon theory , the reason if far serious and solid

readers may visit my thread to get more solid basis for denying the cliams of the bible that against Islam..

http://www.islamicboard.com/comparat...-items-10.html


MAy Allah bless the soul of Deedat and his huge efforts in the field of comparative religion........

though we questioned his approach to crucifiction, we would never forget him as the pioneer who pushed our ambition to learn something .....

without that man , you wouldn't ever find me here contribute to the section, as his books were the first for me ever in the field of christianity (I was 15 years old then)....

May God bless his soul always

[Predator]

and that is why I said he erred ...... the bible doesn't speaks a swoon theory

Jesus died according to the bible ...

Mark 37And Jesus cried with a loud voice, and gave up the ghost.

After his supposed "death" Jesus begins calming the disciples' fear for taking him to be a ghost.
He says:
"Behold (have a look at) my hands and my feet, that it is I myself(I am the same fellow, man!): handle me and see; for A SPIRIT has no flesh and bones, as you see me have. . . And he showed them his hands and his feet."
(HOLY BIBLE) Luke 24:39-40

IF he had died he is supposed to rise with a spiritual Body.

1 Corinthians 15:44
it is sown a natural body, it is raised a spiritual body. If there is a natural body, there is also a spiritual body.

That didnt happen and that proves he did not die just like the just hundreds of people who have come back from the "dead"? We read about them daily in our newspapers. Those persons who were certified dead, by medical men, and who subsequently came back to life; They were not really DEAD, in the sense of DEATH AND RESURRECTION. Our Doctors have erred and will continue to make mistakes.

Below is an example of a man who was "Dead"

http://www.qatarliving.com/node/89685

Did the man get resurrected after his supposed "death"?

Resurrection will happen on the Judgement. No resurrections till then and no one will die twice

[Al-manar]

Bro Airforce ....... I understand you...

just I'm afriad once your argue(biblical swoon theory) with a christian ...and find him providing texts of Jesus predicting his DEATH and text of Jesus after the crucifiction telling he came to life after DEATH , not only that but he affirmed that such process been written about in the old testament !!

Matthew 16:21 From that time forth began Jesus to shew unto his disciples, how that he must go unto Jerusalem, and suffer many things of the elders and chief priests and scribes, and be killed, and be raised again the third day.

Luke 24:46. He(Jesus) told them, "This is what is written: The Christ will suffer and rise from the dead on the third day.


so what makes me not to believe in such passages? there are more serious reasons to do so (explained in my thread)....
you know what is the best thing in our discussion till now? it is that we both appreciate Ahmed Deedat and we both respect each others....

peace be upon you...

[Predator]

Matthew 16:21 From that time forth began Jesus to shew unto his disciples, how that he must go unto Jerusalem, and suffer many things of the elders and chief priests and scribes, and be killed, and be raised again the third day.

Luke 24:46. He(Jesus) told them, "This is what is written: The Christ will suffer and rise from the dead on the third day.

Thats another contradiction of a self contradicting bible , he rose on the 2nd and not 3rd day

It can even be use it to prove the substitution theory

The Bible says

“For the LORD loves the just and will not forsake his faithful ones. They will be protected forever, but the offspring of the wicked will be cut off;” (Psalms 37:28)

Yet when Jesus Christ (pbuh) was put on the cross according to the Bible. He cried out

“About the ninth hour Jesus cried out in a loud voice, "Eloi, Eloi lama sabachthani?"—which means, "My God, my God, why have you forsaken me?" (Mathew 27:46)

How can Jesus be forsaken when God does not forsake his faithful ones?? There are only 4 options to chose from

1. The person put on the cross was not really Jesus.
2. Jesus (pbuh) was not faithful to God.
3. Jesus (pbuh) lied that God forsook him.
4. Bible is lying when it says that God does not forsake his beloved ones.

Also we notice the man on the cross drink vinegar

Now there was set a vessel full of vinegar: and they filled a spunge with vinegar, and put it upon hyssop, and put it to his mouth. When Jesus therefore had received the vinegar, he said, It is finished: and he bowed his head, and gave up the ghost. (John 19:29-30) .

But Jesus had said

But I say unto you, I will not drink henceforth of this fruit of the vine, until that day when I drink it new with you in my Father's kingdom. (Matthew 26:29)

For he will be great in the sight of the Lord; and he will drink no wine or liquor,(Luke 1:15)

[B_M]

So he implies Jesus was alive, alive, alive. How was he alive, when they pierced his side to make sure he was dead?


Also how was the Gospels hearsay when John was at the cross?


A valid point and very good argument however is the passage Deedat quotes in Luke. I don't know what to make of that.

But I can't believe Jesus was NOT crucified. They beat the hell (no pun inteneded) outta the man, why would God allow somebody else to endure that torture?

[جوري]

why would God allow somebody else to endure that torture?

you are well aware surely that folks were crucified, not just the so-called christian god?.. you should in fact direct that question to your god, why would others who weren't themselves god allowed to endure that torture..

honestly the logic or lack thereof that Christians part with around the clock is nothing short of hilarious..

all the best

[B_M]

Personally, the only way I could take that verse, is if it is not taken literal. It says 'but they killed him not, nor crucified him', because in essence, he's alive. Lol. 'but so it was made to appear to them', them meaning Jews?

The idea that Jesus just swooned on the cross and didn't die is medically impossible. Death by crucifixion occurred through exhaustion asphyxia - the victim eventually suffocated. The position of the body on the cross left the chest muscles used for breathing in a permanent inhalation position. In order to exhale, the victim would have to actively push his body up against the nails holding his feet to the cross. If Jesus had passed out on the cross, He would have died within 10 minutes by suffocation.

(In the other thread somebody complained, so.. Yes, I put it in quotes because it won't let me link the sites. I try and it tells me You are not allowed to post any kinds of links, images or videos until you post a few times.)


Deedat shouldn't have even wasted his time. I watched his other debates too, and he debates evangelicals. All they do is preach. You can't have a discussion with them. Here is Deedat prepared with a dialogue, and instead of presenting arguments back, they preach. That's what I got from it anyways. So in every debate, Deedat's conviction alone, makes the others look stupid. I don't know.

[B_M]

you are well aware surely that folks were crucified, not just the so-called christian god?.. you should in fact direct that question to your god, why would others who weren't themselves god allowed to endure that torture..

honestly the logic or lack thereof that Christians part with around the clock is nothing short of hilarious..

all the best

He's your God too, ain't he?

[جوري]

He's your God too, ain't he?

No, Jesus isn't my God- we don't worship men!

all the best

[جوري]

Deedat shouldn't have even wasted his time. I watched his other debates too, and he debates evangelicals. All they do is preach. You can't have a discussion with them. Here is Deedat prepared with a dialogue, and instead of presenting arguments back, they preach. That's what I got from it anyways. So in every debate, Deedat's conviction alone, makes the others look stupid. I don't know.

Really you found his direct quotes from the bible preachy? It is as if none of you have ever read your own book and reflect on its contents!

all the best

[B_M]

Really you found his direct quotes from the bible preachy? It is as if none of you have ever read your own book and reflect on its contents!

all the best

No. Both where quoting scripture.

But when did one of these evangelicals directly pose an argument back with Deedat? They were not defending themselves, look at Douglas talking about accepting Christ. What is that? Deedat said Jesus didn't die on the cross, and they couldn't come up with something like I have quoted below, like it's medically impossible. They didn't want to debate but evangelicalize. In a discussion you build off each other, and debate. It was like watching one of Deedat's lectures. Evangelicals are pointless in debates. On top of that, they where boring. Deedat clearly knew this.

[B_M]

why would others who weren't themselves god allowed to endure that torture..

Others who weren't themselves?

[Predator]

why would God allow somebody else to endure that torture?

And why would God allow Jesus to endure that Torture ? What kind of God would torture his own son unjustly ?

Judas had betrayed Jesus. He was a traitor to Jesus, and he was a traitor to God .Even though Judas knew full well that Jesus was a prophet of God, still, he conspired to kill him and God punishes severely those that betray him and God would punished him by making him look like Jesus. The Romans and Jews, who had long since been conspiring to kill Jesus, killed Judas, who looked like Jesus. , Jesus says "God, why have you forsaken me?" Jesus would never have said this if he was the son of God coming down to die for everybody's sin, as Christians believe. No, it was Judas who asked this question.

[جوري]

No. Both where quoting scripture.

But when did one of these evangelicals directly pose an argument back with Deedat? They were not defending themselves, look at Douglas talking about accepting Christ. What is that? Deedat said Jesus didn't die on the cross, and they couldn't come up with something like I have quoted below, like it's medically impossible. They didn't want to debate but evangelicalize. In a discussion you build off each other, and debate. It was like watching one of Deedat's lectures. Evangelicals are pointless in debates. On top of that, they where boring. Deedat clearly knew this.

What is medically impossible? I love to hear of those medical marvels -- Deedat took your book and broke it down so that even if you have blinders on, others can listen, superimpose on what is written and draw their own conclusion!

Others who weren't themselves?

? There are several theories on who was crucified, one being a martyr, and the other being Judas himself, whatever or whomever it is, they all make better sense than a god who forsook himself after a night of prayer to himself in the garden of Gethsemane.. and then happened upon his friends to ask them for food..

Doesn't sound very godlike to me, worse yet, how awful is this god to forsake his own self.. what makes you think he'll grant you salvation when he couldn't grant it to his person? Do get back to me when you can work some logic to this conundrum!

all the best

[B_M]

And why would God allow Jesus to endure that Torture ? What kind of God would torture his own son unjustly ?

Judas had betrayed Jesus. He was a traitor to Jesus, and he was a traitor to God .Even though Judas knew full well that Jesus was a prophet of God, still, he conspired to kill him and God punishes severely those that betray him and God would punished him by making him look like Jesus. The Romans and Jews, who had long since been conspiring to kill Jesus, killed Judas, who looked like Jesus. , Jesus says "God, why have you forsaken me?" Jesus would never have said this if he was the son of God coming down to die for everybody's sin, as Christians believe. No, it was Judas who asked this question.

Asking 'why has thou forsaken me' humanizes him. He was in human form. He's dying horribly, painfully, being unemotional, would not make him human, right? And 'Jesus' commanded a disciple the care of his mother, who would Judas be to tell Mary or another disciple what do to.

[B_M]

What is medically impossible? I love to hear of those medical marvels -- Deedat took your book and broke it down so that even if you have blinders on, others can listen, superimpose on what is written and draw their own conclusion!

Death by crucifixion occurred through exhaustion asphyxia - the victim eventually suffocated. The position of the body on the cross left the chest muscles used for breathing in a permanent inhalation position. In order to exhale, the victim would have to actively push his body up against the nails holding his feet to the cross. If Jesus had passed out on the cross, He would have died within 10 minutes by suffocation.

? There are several theories on who was crucified, one being a martyr, and the other being Judas himself, whatever or whomever it is, they all make better sense than a god who forsook himself after a night of prayer to himself in the garden of Gethsemane.. and then happened upon his friends to ask them for food..

Doesn't sound very godlike to me, worse yet, how awful is this god to forsake his own self.. what makes you think he'll grant you salvation when he couldn't grant it to his person? Do get back to me when you can work some logic to this conundrum!

all the best

Jesus himself said he has come to die. Are you saying he is a liar? He was a human. I'm sure he would pray. Who would want to die like that?

[جوري]

Jesus himself said he has come to die. Are you saying he is a liar? He was a human. I'm sure he would pray. Who would want to die like that?

I am saying you and your forefathers are liars and hypocrites.. and so he wasn't god is that what you are saying? gods don't pray least of which to themselves and then have a split personality a heckle and jeckel type ..I don't know who would want to die like that, but what kind of god would want to die like that?

btw you still haven't answered what is a medical impossibility?

So funny this endless nonsense!

[Predator]

Asking 'why has thou forsaken me' humanizes him. He was in human form. He's dying horribly, painfully, being unemotional, would not make him human, right?

When Abraham was ordered by God to sacrifice his Son ,he never questioned God and went ahead. So why would Jesus question God ?

Is the way Jesus prepares for suicide ??????

Is this the way Jesus prepares for sacrifice ?????

And 'Jesus' commanded a disciple the care of his mother, who would Judas be to tell Mary or another disciple what do to.

In that verse He calls his mother "WOMAN"

When Jesus saw his mother, and the disciple whom he loved standing near, he said to his mother, 'Woman, behold, your son!' (John 19:26-27).

and that he same manner in which he addresses a prostitute,

". . . WOMAN where are those thine accusers?" (John 8:10)

What kind of person would call his own mother "woman" ?

Jesus himself said he has come to die. Are you saying he is a liar?

Why did Jesus come to die . You would say " because he loves us " . Does that mean the Father does love us as much as the Son does being co-equal with the son ? Why doesnt the Father himself come himself . I dont shove my son in the path of a moving car to save somebody. I would go myself and protect my son. So the whole thing makes no sense

He was a human ?

Humans are mortal.God cant be Mortal and immortal at the same time . Its illogical

I'm sure he would pray ?

God does not pray to God. Its humans that worship God. The Creator does not pray to the Creator nor does he pray to his creation. The creation worships the creator

Who would want to die like that

Correct me if i am wrong but Jesus according to you is God . So, are you trying to say "God died " ?That would be blasphemy ! Because if God died,then WHO WOULD RUN THE WORLD ?

[B_M]

In Jesus's own words: I and my Father are one.

Philip says: Lord, show us the Father.

Jesus says: Have I been so long time with you, and yet hast thou not known me, Philip? he that hath seen me hath seen the Father; and how sayest thou then, Shew us the Father? Believest thou not that I am in the Father, and the Father in me? the words that I speak unto you I speak not of myself: but the Father that dwelleth in me, he doeth the works. Believe me that I am in the Father, and the Father in me: or else believe me for the very works' sake. Verily, verily, I say unto you, He that believeth on me, the works that I do shall he do also; and greater works than these shall he do; because I go unto my Father.

Again the high priest asked him, and said unto him, 'Art thou the Christ, the Son of the Blessed?' And Jesus said, 'I am'.



So either he is what he says he is, or a liar. And Jesus being only a prophet, what would be the purpose of a Virgin Birth?

[B_M]

btw you still haven't answered what is a medical impossibility?

In reference to the topic... Deedat claims Jesus is still alive in the tomb and timing is too far off for him to supposedly die on the cross. Seeing Douglas doesn't come up with arguments.. I'm sayin', from what I read medical impossible. Mortal, immortal, whatever, Jesus was man.

Death by crucifixion occurred through exhaustion asphyxia - the victim eventually suffocated. The position of the body on the cross left the chest muscles used for breathing in a permanent inhalation position. In order to exhale, the victim would have to actively push his body up against the nails holding his feet to the cross. If Jesus had passed out on the cross, He would have died within 10 minutes by suffocation.

en . wikipedia . org / wiki / Crucifixion_of_Jesus also talks of it.



Anyways from what I can see, you don't even agree with Deedat, that it was Jesus on the cross. So instead we are debating Jesus himself...:hmm:

[جوري]

what language did Jesus speak?
let's break it down to that firs before we talk about what Jesus said or didn't say..

as to what is the purpose of the virgin birth, I ask you, what is the purpose of renting the red sea asunder? what is the purpose of the golden calf, what is the purpose of the destruction of Sodom and Gomorrah, what is the purpose of the birth of Issac etc. etc. etc.

maybe your standards are just low? No one in this modern day and age can really make sense of christianity, unless you want to shut down the logical thinking portion of your brain!

all the best

[جوري]

[Woodrow]

In Jesus's own words: I and my Father are one.

Philip says: Lord, show us the Father.

Jesus says: Have I been so long time with you, and yet hast thou not known me, Philip? he that hath seen me hath seen the Father; and how sayest thou then, Shew us the Father? Believest thou not that I am in the Father, and the Father in me? the words that I speak unto you I speak not of myself: but the Father that dwelleth in me, he doeth the works. Believe me that I am in the Father, and the Father in me: or else believe me for the very works' sake. Verily, verily, I say unto you, He that believeth on me, the works that I do shall he do also; and greater works than these shall he do; because I go unto my Father.

Again the high priest asked him, and said unto him, 'Art thou the Christ, the Son of the Blessed?' And Jesus said, 'I am'.



So either he is what he says he is, or a liar. And Jesus being only a prophet, what would be the purpose of a Virgin Birth?

So either he is what he says he is, or a liar.

Since we do not have as much as one word Jesus(as) wrote himself, there is a third option. What people claimed about him is not true either an error or a deliberate falisy.

And Jesus being only a prophet, what would be the purpose of a Virgin Birth?

Possibly to show the non-Believers that he is the Messiah or perhaps to show he was a true Prophet(PBUH), living at a time when false Prophets were very common.. He was a very special Prophet(PBUH) and the Virgin Birth is an indication of how special. We do believe he is the Messiah, but we do not believe he is the Son of God or the Savior.

[Hugo]

Since we do not have as much as one word Jesus(as) wrote himself, there is a third option. What people claimed about him is not true either an error or a deliberate falisy.

It may be picky here but we don't have in the Qu'ran one word that God wrote himself - it came through a messenger and others wrote it down and of course there is only one witness to that so if what you say about Jesus is correct then the conclusion must also apply to the Qu'ran would you not agree?

[جوري]

here is only one witness

You need to go have your head and vision examined!

all the best

[Hugo]

Interesting talk which seems to destroys the notion that oral transmission is secure - so according to Ehrman at least the huge emphasis on an a faultless oral transmission, such as the Muslim one for the Qu'ran is a sure sign of corruption, it cannot be trusted.

[جوري]

Interesting talk which seems to destroys the notion that oral transmission is secure - so according to Ehrman at least the huge emphasis on an a faultless oral transmission, such as the Muslim one for the Qu'ran is a sure sign of corruption, it cannot be trusted.

ah-- oral tradition so many decades after the matter and in a language other than that which your god allegedly spoke is indeed a recipe for disaster.
Not the case in Islam, not only was the oral tradition the pride of Arabia given their poetry all over the cities, but every word of the Quran was recorded during the time of the prophet as well, in other words both oral and written existed side by side ALWAYS.. but you already knew that, not only do you have a book well referenced to that fact, it has in fact been discussed here before amply.

If you are going to have the attention span of a goldfish, please direct all your effort to the evangelical forums. Not only is under-education and incessant ignorance welcome but being utterly remiss is a requirement before they unleash their stupidity upon the world. if we are going to repeat everything for you with every subsequent post, perhaps you are all done here? You obviously have no interest in learning and simply enjoy emphasizing your ignorance, it is ok if you desire to waste your time, but it isn't OK to waste other people's time. I am going to have to report you for spamming!

all the best

[Hugo]

making it easier as I think this is quite informative for Muslims:
video=youtube;09yZAhJHyWU]http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=09yZAhJHyWU[/video]

Brilliant wallhi.. Allah yer7mao .. every time I hear a lecture by him I am taken aback by his mannerism, his knowledge.. Masha'Allah.. may Allah swt bless us all with such profound knowledge and faith!

There are so many points it will take many posts. If we take the notion of original sin it is obvious that Deedat has not got the slightest idea what it is. Sin is an infection and it dogs all of us and it leads to the most horrendous consequences as we all know. The point is that if we regard Adam as our ancestor then in a very real sense we were there in the Garden at the beginning and it is as if we also committed the same sin and we cannot escape our part in it. So acknowledging Adam's sin as also being ours is taking responsibility for stepping outside of God will and purpose for His creation.

Let me give an illustration, if I say the Crusades were nothing to do with Christianity would I be right or must I as a Christian accept that it was a blot and disgrace or can I just step aside and just dismiss it out of hand saying "it was unchristian and therefore nothing to do with me, I and MY religion are not to blamed or censured in any way?

[IAmZamzam]

Hugo: Calling sin an infection is like calling logical fallacies a genetic disorder. Making mistakes of any kind is an act, not a condition. And even if sin were a condition that we all have from birth, that would just mean that we're no more responsible for it than any other accident of birth, including skin color. And if there is any better sign of what absurdities Christian theology forces one to make oneself believe than saying it is our obligation to accept responsibility for the actions of another person who died eons before we were conceived, I don't know what it is. It's quicksand, though, because that very same Christian mindset, as a natural defense mechanism necessary for and inherent to its survival, automatically interprets common sense as a lack of theological sophistication or understanding. When it is contradictory and threatening to Christian thought, that is; never at any other time. Then again, I've seen precisely the same situation in much of philosophy.

vale's lily: I think you need this.

[جوري]

There are so many points it will take many posts. If we take the notion of original sin it is obvious that Deedat has not got the slightest idea what it is. Sin is an infection and it dogs all of us and it leads to the most horrendous consequences as we all know. The point is that if we regard Adam as our ancestor then in a very real sense we were there in the Garden at the beginning and it is as if we also committed the same sin and we cannot escape our part in it. So acknowledging Adam's sin as also being ours is taking responsibility for stepping outside of God will and purpose for His creation.

It appears from the above indeed that you are the one who has no clue what he is talking about:

“…No person earns any (sin) except against himself (only), and no bearer of burdens shall bear the burden of another…” (Quran 6:164)
“The fathers shall not be put to death for the children, neither shall the children be put to death for the fathers: every man shall be put to death for his own sin.” (Deuteronomy 24:16)

None can reject that in these two verses, the first from the Quran and the second from the Bible, is an allusion to the same meaning: that the Just God will never punish people for the sins of others.
Christianity alleges that God created humans to live eternally in Heaven, and that when Adam ate from the tree from which he had been forbidden, God punished him through death and banishment from Heaven. They further assert that as death was inherited by his progeny, so too was the sin of their father, which was a permanent stain on the hearts of humanity, never to be removed except through a sacrifice so great that it would oblige God to forgive humanity. This sacrifice would be nothing other than the sacrifice of God himself, incarnate in His “son” Jesus. Therefore Christianity deems all of humanity as ****ed to Hell for the sin of Adam from which they could never be cleansed, except through the belief that God became incarnate and died for Adam’s sin, ritualized as Baptism, through which Christians are ‘born again’ into the world, but this time free of sin.[1] So we see that the theory of ‘Original Sin’ forms the basis of various Christian beliefs, from the crucifixion of Jesus to the concept of salvation and savior from Hell. It forms the very basis for the mission of Jesus himself.
So the questions arise, is humanity guilty for the sin which Adam committed by eating from the tree he was forbidden? Must we all repent from that great sin? In what way is one to repent? And if so, what is the fate of those who did not?
Islam strictly promotes the notion that the punishment of sins will only be faced by those who commit them. Sin is not a hereditary trait or ‘stain’ passed to one’s progeny one generation to another. All people will be accountable to what only they themselves did in this life. Therefore, even though the Quran mentions the sin of Adam and how he was banished from the Garden, it places no responsibility on the shoulders of his progeny. None of the Prophets before Jesus were known to have preached this concept, nor were any other beliefs or rituals based upon this belief. Rather, salvation from Hell and attainment of Paradise was achieved through the belief in One God and obedience to His commandments, a message preached by all prophets, including Muhammad, may the mercy and blessings of God be upon him, as well.
The Oft-Forgiving, the Most Merciful

As for the sin of Adam, the Quran tells us that he repented for his sin. God revealed to him words with which to repent, which he then accepted from him.
“Then Adam received Words (of forgiveness) from his Lord, and he accepted his repentance. Verily, He is the One Who repeatedly accepts repentance, the Most Merciful.” (Quran 2:37)
Through God’s acceptance of Adam’s repentance, Adam was cleansed of the sin which he committed. God in the Quran repeatedly ascribes to Himself attribute of mercy and forgiveness. He also mentions that from His Names are The Oft-Forgiving, The Most Merciful, the Accepter of Repentance, and others, all of which emphasize the All-Encompassing Mercy of God. Even to those who have sinned much and may lose hope in the forgiveness of God, He says:
“Say: ‘O My slaves who have transgressed against themselves (by committing evil deeds and sins)! Despair not of the Mercy of God, indeed God forgives all sins. Truly, He is Oft-Forgiving, Most Merciful.’” (Quran 39:53)
If a person sins, all they need to do is truly repent from their heart, and they will find God Ever Merciful. Adam did sin, and the sin did stain his heart, but it was removed through his repentance. The Prophet Muhammad said:
“Indeed if a believer sins, a black spot covers his heart. If he repents, and stops from his sin, and seeks forgiveness for it, his heart becomes clean again. If he persists (instead of repenting), it increases until covers his heart…” (Ibn Maajah)
Even if we were to say that Adam did not repent, that stain is not passed on to further generations. Therefore, we see that God does not need any physical sacrifice in order to forgive sins, and that no sin is too great for His Mercy; to say so would be to ascribe deficiency to His Excellence and Perfection. The Prophet Muhammad relates to us that God said:
“O son of Adam, so long as you call upon Me and ask of Me, I shall forgive you for what you have done, and I shall not mind. O son of Adam, were your sins to reach the clouds of the sky and were you then to ask forgiveness of Me, I would forgive you. O son of Adam, were you to come to Me with sins nearly as great as the earth and were you then to face Me, ascribing no partner to Me, I would bring you forgiveness nearly as great at it.” (Al-Tirmidhi)
God says in the Quran in regards to sacrifice, that it is the intention of the person when offering the sacrifice which is of importance, and not the actual sacrifice itself.
“It is neither their meat nor their blood that reaches God, but it is piety from you that reaches Him...” (Quran 22:37)
If we were to implement this verse in regards to the original sin and God incarnate sacrificing himself in order to forgive all of humanity, we see that even without seeking repentance for Adam’s sin, God forgave human beings due to His Own Sacrifice. Could He not have forgiven them without such a sacrifice?
It is also mentioned in the bible:
“To what purpose (is) the multitude of your sacrifices unto me? Saith the LORD: I am full of the burnt offerings of rams and the fat of fed beasts; and I delight not in the blood of bullocks, or of lambs, or of he goats. When ye come to appear before me, who hath required this at your hand, to tread my courts? Bring no more vain oblations; incense is an abomination unto me; the new moons and Sabbaths, the calling of assemblies, I cannot away with; (it is) iniquity, even the solemn meeting. Your new moons and your appointed feasts my soul hateth: they are a trouble unto me; I am weary to bear (them). And when ye spread forth your hands, I will hide mine eyes from you: yea, when ye make many prayers, I will not hear: your hands are full of blood. Wash you, make you clean; put away the evil of your doings from before mine eyes; cease to do evil; Learn to do well; seek judgment, relieve the oppressed, judge the fatherless, plead for the widow. Come now, and let us reason together, saith the LORD: though your sins be as scarlet, they shall be as white as snow; though they be red like crimson, they shall be as wool.”[2]



The Divine Will of the Perfect God

So Adam sought forgiveness for His sin, and God accepted it from Him. Another crucial point which must be mentioned is that God created humans with a free will, and He knew that humanity would sin. For this reason, no human is expected to be perfect, but rather, God knows that they will sin. What is expected from humans is that they repent from their sin. The Prophet, may the mercy and blessings of God be upon him, said:
“All children of Adam repetitively make mistakes, but the best of those who make mistakes are those who repent.” (Ibn Maajah)
The Prophet also said:
“By Him in Whose Hand is My soul (i.e. God), if you did not commit sins, God would do away with you and come with a race which committed sins. They would seek forgiveness from God and He would forgive them. (Saheeh Muslim #4936)
So here we see that it was in the Great and Wise plan of God that Adam sin and that God forgive him for that sin, and to say that Adam went against the Universal Will of God by sinning is a blasphemy against the All Encompassing Knowledge, Power, and Will of God. Christianity goes so far as to say that God even repented from the creation of humans! May God be free from all defects people attribute to Him. In Genesis 6:6, it says to quote:
“And it repented the Lord that he had made man on the earth, and it grieved him at his heart”[1]
To agree to this would mean that Adam did something which was out of the Will, Power, and Knowledge of God, and that God regretted His creation of humans. God is All-Perfect and so are His deeds, and there is no defect or shortcoming in them; He does nothing except with total and complete perfection and wisdom. Islam in no way agrees to this belief and, as we mentioned, all of what occurred in the story of Adam was within the perfect plan of God. The Prophet said:
“Indeed God put everything into its proper measure fifty thousand years before the creation of the heavens and the earths.” (Al-Tirmidhi)
God mentions in the Quran what took place between the angels when He announced the creation of humans, and from this we see that it was known to God and part of His Great and Divine Plan that humans would sin. God says:
“And (remember) when your Lord said to the angels: ‘Verily, I am going to place (mankind) generations after generations on earth.’ They said: ‘Will You place therein those who will make mischief therein and shed blood, - while we glorify You with praises and thanks and sanctify You.’ He (God) said: ‘Indeed I know that which you do not know.’” (Quran 2:30)
It is also clear from these verses that God did not create humans as immortal, and that death was prescribed for them from the beginning of their creation. As for the consequences of the sin of Adam, which was his extradition from the Garden, this was felt by those to come after him and this is only natural. If one was to become drunk and have a car accident, and some of the passengers die, the sin of driver effects the passengers in their death, but that does not mean that the passengers are to be held to account for the sin of the driver.
The Innocent

Another question which must be dealt with is the fate of those who came before the claim that God became incarnate and sacrificed himself for the sins of humanity, as well as the fate of those who were not baptized, as baptism is the rite which all Christians must perform in order to be cleansed of Original Sin. In Christian belief, all humans previous to the incarnation of God, including the Prophets and infants usually regarded as sinless, are not free from the Original Sin of Adam, and therefore cannot enter the Kingdom of Heaven, As Augustine said: “Do not believe, nor say, nor teach, that infants who die before baptism can obtain the remission of original sin.”[2] Only until recently, non-baptized infants were not buried in consecrated ground because they were believed to have died in original sin.
Also, we know that the verse in the Apostles’ Creed, “… and (Jesus) descended into Hell”[3], is said to mean that Jesus descended to Hell to free the righteous souls who were there due to the sin of Adam. This leads us to believe that all those before the coming of Jesus are in Hell, even if they were from the righteous. Paul mentioned this himself in Galatians:
“… a man is not justified by the works of the law ... for by the works of the law shall no flesh be justified.” (Galatians 2:16)
Here it is clear that adherence to the commandments of God is not enough for salvation, even for those before Jesus. This also holds true to all those who have not received the message of Christianity. We must ask; why did not the Prophets before Jesus call to this notion of original sin? Did they lie when they said that it was enough to Worship One God and obey His commandments to achieve Paradise? Why did not God come and free humanity from sin at the time of Adam so that the righteous and others would not be in Hell due to his sin? Why are infants, humanity before Jesus, and others who have not heard about Christianity, held accountable for a sin they never committed, nor have knowledge about how to remit themselves from it? The truth of the matter is that the notion of “Original Sin”, as many others, was one introduced by Paul and later expounded on by Christian scholars and councils.
“The Old Testament says nothing about the transmission of hereditary sin to the entire human race… the main scriptural affirmation of the doctrine is found in the writings of St. Paul…”[4]
This concept though, was expounded by Augustine of Hippo, one of the most prominent Christian scholars in History. The basis of this concept is that “the deliberate sin of the first man (Adam) is the cause of original sin.”[5] The Second Council of Orange (529 C.E.) declared, “One man has transmitted to the whole human race not only the death of the body, which is the punishment of sin, but even sin itself, which is the death of the soul.”[6]
The concept of original sin is one which has no basis in previous scriptures regarded as divine by Christianity. None of the Prophets before Jesus were known to have preached this concept, nor were any other beliefs or rituals based upon them. Rather, salvation from Hell was achieved through the belief in One God and obedience to His commandments which was preached by all prophets, including the Prophet of Islam, Muhammad, may God praise them.
Summary

In Islam, the key to salvation is the belief in and worship of the One True, Unique and Perfect God and obedience to His commandments, the same message brought by all Prophets. Islam preaches that a person must work righteousness and avoid sin to attain Paradise, and that if one sins, that they seek repentance for it from their heart. Through this and the Mercy and Grace of God, they will enter Paradise. Islam does not deem that all those before the advent of Muhammad are doomed to Hell, but rather that each nation was sent a prophet by the same One God, and it was upon them to follow His commandments. Those who have not heard of the message are not held liable to follow Islam, and God will deal with them with His Perfect Justice on the Day of Judgment. Infants and children of both Muslims and disbelievers alike are in enjoyment in Paradise upon death. Due to the infinite Justice of God:
“No one laden with burdens can bear another’s burden. And We never punish (people) until We have sent (to them) a Messenger (to give warning).” (Quran 17:15)

Footnotes:

[1] King James Version.

[2] De Anima (III).

[3] The creed based on the Catechism of the Council of Trent.

[4] Merriam-Webster’s Encyclopedia of World Religions. P.830. 1999, Merriam Webster, inc.

[5] De Nuptiis et Concupiscentiâ, II, xxvi, 43

[6] Enchiridion Symbolorum, Heinrich Joseph Dominicus Denzinger. n. 175 (145)

. Source

[جوري]

vale's lily: I think you need this.

You need to concern yourself with the portions of interest if at all and put me on your ignore list- I don't interfere with your posts and likewise I don't want any comments from you with regards to my person/style or writing!

all the best!

[IAmZamzam]

All I'm saying, lily, is that you would probably feel a lot happier if you would let people like Hugo get to you less.

[جوري]

All I'm saying, lily, is that you would probably feel a lot happier if you would let people like Hugo get to you less.

Ok-- Thanks!

[IAmZamzam]

Incidentally, that article you posted is perhaps the best on the subject I've ever seen. I'm going to have a hard time attempting to meet or surpass it with the one I'm writing.

[Ramadhan]

This is a great article in articulating and giving evidence that sin is not inherited from Adam through all mankind, although I have NO SLIGHTEST DOUBT that Hugo is going to excuse himself from reading this.

Hugo, are you really not going to respond to the points made in this article?

It appears from the above indeed that you are the one who has no clue what he is talking about:

“…No person earns any (sin) except against himself (only), and no bearer of burdens shall bear the burden of another…” (Quran 6:164)
“The fathers shall not be put to death for the children, neither shall the children be put to death for the fathers: every man shall be put to death for his own sin.” (Deuteronomy 24:16)

None can reject that in these two verses, the first from the Quran and the second from the Bible, is an allusion to the same meaning: that the Just God will never punish people for the sins of others.
Christianity alleges that God created humans to live eternally in Heaven, and that when Adam ate from the tree from which he had been forbidden, God punished him through death and banishment from Heaven. They further assert that as death was inherited by his progeny, so too was the sin of their father, which was a permanent stain on the hearts of humanity, never to be removed except through a sacrifice so great that it would oblige God to forgive humanity. This sacrifice would be nothing other than the sacrifice of God himself, incarnate in His “son” Jesus. Therefore Christianity deems all of humanity as ****ed to Hell for the sin of Adam from which they could never be cleansed, except through the belief that God became incarnate and died for Adam’s sin, ritualized as Baptism, through which Christians are ‘born again’ into the world, but this time free of sin.[1] So we see that the theory of ‘Original Sin’ forms the basis of various Christian beliefs, from the crucifixion of Jesus to the concept of salvation and savior from Hell. It forms the very basis for the mission of Jesus himself.
So the questions arise, is humanity guilty for the sin which Adam committed by eating from the tree he was forbidden? Must we all repent from that great sin? In what way is one to repent? And if so, what is the fate of those who did not?
Islam strictly promotes the notion that the punishment of sins will only be faced by those who commit them. Sin is not a hereditary trait or ‘stain’ passed to one’s progeny one generation to another. All people will be accountable to what only they themselves did in this life. Therefore, even though the Quran mentions the sin of Adam and how he was banished from the Garden, it places no responsibility on the shoulders of his progeny. None of the Prophets before Jesus were known to have preached this concept, nor were any other beliefs or rituals based upon this belief. Rather, salvation from Hell and attainment of Paradise was achieved through the belief in One God and obedience to His commandments, a message preached by all prophets, including Muhammad, may the mercy and blessings of God be upon him, as well.
The Oft-Forgiving, the Most Merciful

As for the sin of Adam, the Quran tells us that he repented for his sin. God revealed to him words with which to repent, which he then accepted from him.
“Then Adam received Words (of forgiveness) from his Lord, and he accepted his repentance. Verily, He is the One Who repeatedly accepts repentance, the Most Merciful.” (Quran 2:37)
Through God’s acceptance of Adam’s repentance, Adam was cleansed of the sin which he committed. God in the Quran repeatedly ascribes to Himself attribute of mercy and forgiveness. He also mentions that from His Names are The Oft-Forgiving, The Most Merciful, the Accepter of Repentance, and others, all of which emphasize the All-Encompassing Mercy of God. Even to those who have sinned much and may lose hope in the forgiveness of God, He says:
“Say: ‘O My slaves who have transgressed against themselves (by committing evil deeds and sins)! Despair not of the Mercy of God, indeed God forgives all sins. Truly, He is Oft-Forgiving, Most Merciful.’” (Quran 39:53)
If a person sins, all they need to do is truly repent from their heart, and they will find God Ever Merciful. Adam did sin, and the sin did stain his heart, but it was removed through his repentance. The Prophet Muhammad said:
“Indeed if a believer sins, a black spot covers his heart. If he repents, and stops from his sin, and seeks forgiveness for it, his heart becomes clean again. If he persists (instead of repenting), it increases until covers his heart…” (Ibn Maajah)
Even if we were to say that Adam did not repent, that stain is not passed on to further generations. Therefore, we see that God does not need any physical sacrifice in order to forgive sins, and that no sin is too great for His Mercy; to say so would be to ascribe deficiency to His Excellence and Perfection. The Prophet Muhammad relates to us that God said:
“O son of Adam, so long as you call upon Me and ask of Me, I shall forgive you for what you have done, and I shall not mind. O son of Adam, were your sins to reach the clouds of the sky and were you then to ask forgiveness of Me, I would forgive you. O son of Adam, were you to come to Me with sins nearly as great as the earth and were you then to face Me, ascribing no partner to Me, I would bring you forgiveness nearly as great at it.” (Al-Tirmidhi)
God says in the Quran in regards to sacrifice, that it is the intention of the person when offering the sacrifice which is of importance, and not the actual sacrifice itself.
“It is neither their meat nor their blood that reaches God, but it is piety from you that reaches Him...” (Quran 22:37)
If we were to implement this verse in regards to the original sin and God incarnate sacrificing himself in order to forgive all of humanity, we see that even without seeking repentance for Adam’s sin, God forgave human beings due to His Own Sacrifice. Could He not have forgiven them without such a sacrifice?
It is also mentioned in the bible:
“To what purpose (is) the multitude of your sacrifices unto me? Saith the LORD: I am full of the burnt offerings of rams and the fat of fed beasts; and I delight not in the blood of bullocks, or of lambs, or of he goats. When ye come to appear before me, who hath required this at your hand, to tread my courts? Bring no more vain oblations; incense is an abomination unto me; the new moons and Sabbaths, the calling of assemblies, I cannot away with; (it is) iniquity, even the solemn meeting. Your new moons and your appointed feasts my soul hateth: they are a trouble unto me; I am weary to bear (them). And when ye spread forth your hands, I will hide mine eyes from you: yea, when ye make many prayers, I will not hear: your hands are full of blood. Wash you, make you clean; put away the evil of your doings from before mine eyes; cease to do evil; Learn to do well; seek judgment, relieve the oppressed, judge the fatherless, plead for the widow. Come now, and let us reason together, saith the LORD: though your sins be as scarlet, they shall be as white as snow; though they be red like crimson, they shall be as wool.”[2]



The Divine Will of the Perfect God

So Adam sought forgiveness for His sin, and God accepted it from Him. Another crucial point which must be mentioned is that God created humans with a free will, and He knew that humanity would sin. For this reason, no human is expected to be perfect, but rather, God knows that they will sin. What is expected from humans is that they repent from their sin. The Prophet, may the mercy and blessings of God be upon him, said:
“All children of Adam repetitively make mistakes, but the best of those who make mistakes are those who repent.” (Ibn Maajah)
The Prophet also said:
“By Him in Whose Hand is My soul (i.e. God), if you did not commit sins, God would do away with you and come with a race which committed sins. They would seek forgiveness from God and He would forgive them. (Saheeh Muslim #4936)
So here we see that it was in the Great and Wise plan of God that Adam sin and that God forgive him for that sin, and to say that Adam went against the Universal Will of God by sinning is a blasphemy against the All Encompassing Knowledge, Power, and Will of God. Christianity goes so far as to say that God even repented from the creation of humans! May God be free from all defects people attribute to Him. In Genesis 6:6, it says to quote:
“And it repented the Lord that he had made man on the earth, and it grieved him at his heart”[1]
To agree to this would mean that Adam did something which was out of the Will, Power, and Knowledge of God, and that God regretted His creation of humans. God is All-Perfect and so are His deeds, and there is no defect or shortcoming in them; He does nothing except with total and complete perfection and wisdom. Islam in no way agrees to this belief and, as we mentioned, all of what occurred in the story of Adam was within the perfect plan of God. The Prophet said:
“Indeed God put everything into its proper measure fifty thousand years before the creation of the heavens and the earths.” (Al-Tirmidhi)
God mentions in the Quran what took place between the angels when He announced the creation of humans, and from this we see that it was known to God and part of His Great and Divine Plan that humans would sin. God says:
“And (remember) when your Lord said to the angels: ‘Verily, I am going to place (mankind) generations after generations on earth.’ They said: ‘Will You place therein those who will make mischief therein and shed blood, - while we glorify You with praises and thanks and sanctify You.’ He (God) said: ‘Indeed I know that which you do not know.’” (Quran 2:30)
It is also clear from these verses that God did not create humans as immortal, and that death was prescribed for them from the beginning of their creation. As for the consequences of the sin of Adam, which was his extradition from the Garden, this was felt by those to come after him and this is only natural. If one was to become drunk and have a car accident, and some of the passengers die, the sin of driver effects the passengers in their death, but that does not mean that the passengers are to be held to account for the sin of the driver.
The Innocent

Another question which must be dealt with is the fate of those who came before the claim that God became incarnate and sacrificed himself for the sins of humanity, as well as the fate of those who were not baptized, as baptism is the rite which all Christians must perform in order to be cleansed of Original Sin. In Christian belief, all humans previous to the incarnation of God, including the Prophets and infants usually regarded as sinless, are not free from the Original Sin of Adam, and therefore cannot enter the Kingdom of Heaven, As Augustine said: “Do not believe, nor say, nor teach, that infants who die before baptism can obtain the remission of original sin.”[2] Only until recently, non-baptized infants were not buried in consecrated ground because they were believed to have died in original sin.
Also, we know that the verse in the Apostles’ Creed, “… and (Jesus) descended into Hell”[3], is said to mean that Jesus descended to Hell to free the righteous souls who were there due to the sin of Adam. This leads us to believe that all those before the coming of Jesus are in Hell, even if they were from the righteous. Paul mentioned this himself in Galatians:
“… a man is not justified by the works of the law ... for by the works of the law shall no flesh be justified.” (Galatians 2:16)
Here it is clear that adherence to the commandments of God is not enough for salvation, even for those before Jesus. This also holds true to all those who have not received the message of Christianity. We must ask; why did not the Prophets before Jesus call to this notion of original sin? Did they lie when they said that it was enough to Worship One God and obey His commandments to achieve Paradise? Why did not God come and free humanity from sin at the time of Adam so that the righteous and others would not be in Hell due to his sin? Why are infants, humanity before Jesus, and others who have not heard about Christianity, held accountable for a sin they never committed, nor have knowledge about how to remit themselves from it? The truth of the matter is that the notion of “Original Sin”, as many others, was one introduced by Paul and later expounded on by Christian scholars and councils.
“The Old Testament says nothing about the transmission of hereditary sin to the entire human race… the main scriptural affirmation of the doctrine is found in the writings of St. Paul…”[4]
This concept though, was expounded by Augustine of Hippo, one of the most prominent Christian scholars in History. The basis of this concept is that “the deliberate sin of the first man (Adam) is the cause of original sin.”[5] The Second Council of Orange (529 C.E.) declared, “One man has transmitted to the whole human race not only the death of the body, which is the punishment of sin, but even sin itself, which is the death of the soul.”[6]
The concept of original sin is one which has no basis in previous scriptures regarded as divine by Christianity. None of the Prophets before Jesus were known to have preached this concept, nor were any other beliefs or rituals based upon them. Rather, salvation from Hell was achieved through the belief in One God and obedience to His commandments which was preached by all prophets, including the Prophet of Islam, Muhammad, may God praise them.
Summary

In Islam, the key to salvation is the belief in and worship of the One True, Unique and Perfect God and obedience to His commandments, the same message brought by all Prophets. Islam preaches that a person must work righteousness and avoid sin to attain Paradise, and that if one sins, that they seek repentance for it from their heart. Through this and the Mercy and Grace of God, they will enter Paradise. Islam does not deem that all those before the advent of Muhammad are doomed to Hell, but rather that each nation was sent a prophet by the same One God, and it was upon them to follow His commandments. Those who have not heard of the message are not held liable to follow Islam, and God will deal with them with His Perfect Justice on the Day of Judgment. Infants and children of both Muslims and disbelievers alike are in enjoyment in Paradise upon death. Due to the infinite Justice of God:
“No one laden with burdens can bear another’s burden. And We never punish (people) until We have sent (to them) a Messenger (to give warning).” (Quran 17:15)

Footnotes:

[1] King James Version.

[2] De Anima (III).

[3] The creed based on the Catechism of the Council of Trent.

[4] Merriam-Webster’s Encyclopedia of World Religions. P.830. 1999, Merriam Webster, inc.

[5] De Nuptiis et Concupiscentiâ, II, xxvi, 43

[6] Enchiridion Symbolorum, Heinrich Joseph Dominicus Denzinger. n. 175 (145)

. Source

[Hugo]

Hugo: Calling sin an infection is like calling logical fallacies a genetic disorder. Making mistakes of any kind is an act, not a condition. And even if sin were a condition that we all have from birth, that would just mean that we're no more responsible for it than any other accident of birth, including skin color. And if there is any better sign of what absurdities Christian theology forces one to make oneself believe than saying it is our obligation to accept responsibility for the actions of another person who died eons before we were conceived, I don't know what it is. It's quicksand, though, because that very same Christian mindset, as a natural defense mechanism necessary for and inherent to its survival, automatically interprets common sense as a lack of theological sophistication or understanding. When it is contradictory and threatening to Christian thought, that is; never at any other time. Then again, I've seen precisely the same situation in much of philosophy.

Why is it absurd? Can Christianity escape censure just be declaring something unchristian, have we nothing to learn from the shame of the crusades - I know Muslim logic does this all the time when any thing bad happens, just say it was unislamic at that does the trick - so Muslim Armies invade and subjugate whole nations or a suicide bomber makes a video claiming he is doing God's will, quoting the Qu'ran and then blows up a Mosque in Iraq - does that not make you feel responsible, or even say what is there in Islam that caused this to happen, not even a hint that you might need to think again? I cannot feel that way.

You see the obligation for a Christian arises because God's way of salvation was costly and it was wrought for me as much as it was for Moses. The old spiritual asks the question "were you there when they crucified my Lord" but you I assume have no idea what that question means or any desire to say "yes". You can see no cost to God, no effort on God's part to redeem us, no way of salvation and the quicksand that brings is called self-righteousness.

[Hugo]

ah-- oral tradition so many decades after the matter and in a language other than that which your god allegedly spoke is indeed a recipe for disaster. Mot the case in Islam, not only was the oral tradition the pride of Arabia given their poetry all over the cities, but every word of the Quran was recorded during the time of the prophet as well, in other words both oral and written existed side by side ALWAYS.. but you already knew that, not only do you have a book well referenced to that fact, it has in fact been discussed here before amply.

I see so Ehrman is wrong but only when he speaks about Islam where oral transmission was perfect - so much for the Quality of Ehrman's scholarship if its all about cherry picking. If you look at http://www.islamic-awareness.org/Qur...Mss/vowel.html you will see that the earliest known Arabic papyrus PERF No. 558 [22 AH/642CE] originating from Egypt which is some 12 years after Mohammed's death so where is all this mass of writing down you speak of - I have seen various numbers of the scribes who did it and some even quote as many as 60 yet we seem to have no evidence for any of it, papyrus or anything else and as you know there are no Arabic inscriptions of any kind before about 3-4CE?

[IAmZamzam]

Why is it absurd? Can Christianity escape censure just be declaring something unchristian, have we nothing to learn from the shame of the crusades - I know Muslim logic does this all the time when any thing bad happens, just say it was unislamic at that does the trick - so Muslim Armies invade and subjugate whole nations or a suicide bomber makes a video claiming he is doing God's will, quoting the Qu'ran and then blows up a Mosque in Iraq - does that not make you feel responsible, or even say what is there in Islam that caused this to happen, not even a hint that you might need to think again? I cannot feel that way.

No, it doesn't make me feel responsible. Never a hint. And if a hint ever does come, I will know that I am becoming a fool. Every individual is responsible solely, purely, and exclusively for that one individual's own actons and no one else's. Case closed. I will not deign to debate such an inarguable point, especially with someone like you who debates just for the sake of it.

You see the obligation for a Christian arises because God's way of salvation was costly and it was wrought for me as much as it was for Moses. The old spiritual asks the question "were you there when they crucified my Lord" but you I assume have no idea what that question means or any desire to say "yes". You can see no cost to God, no effort on God's part to redeem us, no way of salvation and the quicksand that brings is called self-righteousness.

You are deliberately setting up a straw man and replacing cliche for relevant argument. What I speak of is not the size of a cost or anything about Moses (P) but the mere fact that no one should have to pay anyone else's debt for them: justice demands that either nothing has to be paid by anyone (because the debt is simply erased) or the one owed must pay it himself. There is no middle ground. The inevitable monetary analogy of Christians on this matter is slyly loaded, assuming what it’s trying to establish in its own premise (that they money must be paid by somebody). Forgiveness and punishment are not only mutually exclusive, they're opposites. The article said it all, but you intentionally choose not to see it.

[IAmZamzam]

This is a great article in articulating and giving evidence that sin is not inherited from Adam through all mankind, although I have NO SLIGHTEST DOUBT that Hugo is going to excuse himself from reading this.

Hugo, are you really not going to respond to the points made in this article?

Oh, he may respond eventually, but if so it will be a selective partial response in which he evades every single point he actually does address, probably by just bombarding us with ridiculous and mostly irrelevant questions. Remember that I said that.

[GreyKode]

If you look at http://www.islamic-awareness.org/Qur...Mss/vowel.html you will see that the earliest known Arabic papyrus PERF No. 558 [22 AH/642CE] originating from Egypt which is some 12 years after Mohammed's death so where is all this mass of writing down you speak of

Go check the "muallaqat" which is poetry that has been written by famous arab poets and hung on/in the kaaba, it was the pride of the pagans that they used them as blessings.

[جوري]

I see so Ehrman is wrong but only when he speaks about Islam where oral transmission was perfect - so much for the Quality of Ehrman's scholarship if its all about cherry picking. If you look at http://www.islamic-awareness.org/Qur...Mss/vowel.html you will see that the earliest known Arabic papyrus PERF No. 558 [22 AH/642CE] originating from Egypt which is some 12 years after Mohammed's death so where is all this mass of writing down you speak of - I have seen various numbers of the scribes who did it and some even quote as many as 60 yet we seem to have no evidence for any of it, papyrus or anything else and as you know there are no Arabic inscriptions of any kind before about 3-4CE?

Again, not only was the oral tradition in original tongue and memorized while the prophet was in their midst, but all was written as it was revealed on leather on bones on parchment, then unified into a text with loose fragments burnt and sent to four different Islamic regions. I am so sick and tired of your bull ****, and I am not sure who you are working to convince with it? like the time when you erroneously and deliberately misquote Azami's book to make your usual non-points counting on the fact that no one would check after you. If you want to fool yourself that your paganistic religion is so avant-garde and that your man worship is worthwhile please by all means don't let me stop you. But I do have a day job and other responsibilities on the side and can't sit all day to clean the coprolith you leave behind. Be happy in man worship and die upon it and buzz off!

cheers

[Hugo]

No, it doesn't make me feel responsible. Never a hint. And if a hint ever does come, I will know that I am becoming a fool. Every individual is responsible solely, purely, and exclusively for that one individual's own actons and no one else's. Case closed. I will not deign to debate such an inarguable point, especially with someone like you who debates just for the sake of it.

Well that is you position but I take the position simple stated by Herman Melville - "We cannot live only for ourselves. A thousand fibres connect us with our fellow men". But I suppose there is a kind of comfort and absolution in being told that none of your problems are of your own making, that you do not have to accept any responsibility for the ills besting your society. Its all the fault of the West, of infidels or anyone. I like to debate so I can see more than one side of an issue, you do it seems because you know you are right - case closed?

You are deliberately setting up a straw man and replacing cliche for relevant argument. What I speak of is not the size of a cost or anything about Moses (P) but the mere fact that no one should have to pay anyone else's debt for them: justice demands that either nothing has to be paid by anyone (because the debt is simply erased) or the one owed must pay it himself. There is no middle ground. The inevitable monetary analogy of Christians on this matter is slyly loaded, assuming what it’s trying to establish in its own premise (that they money must be paid by somebody). Forgiveness and punishment are not only mutually exclusive, they're opposites. The article said it all, but you intentionally choose not to see it.

I will reply to the tendentious article later but can you even conceive of a case where the debtor cannot pay no matter what they do so what happens then if justice is to be served? If God is Holy how can he let the guilty go free because to do so would be unjust and if God is unjust he is not Holy - do you see the difficulty?

[Hugo]

Go check the "muallaqat" which is poetry that has been written by famous arab poets and hung on/in the kaaba, it was the pride of the pagans that they used them as blessings.

Well don't argue with me tell Islamic-awareness that you know of earlier extant Arabic manuscripts that they do. These poems date from 530-570AD and possibly span a 100 years but as far as I know there are no existing copies earlier that the 8th century and it is tradition not history that suggest they were hung on the Kaaba though it sounds feasible to me - but if you can find more information that would be excellent.

[Hugo]

I am responding here to the almost 3,000 word post, copied of course from another Islamic site, which itself was copied from... dealing with the topic of original sin. The article does not discuss Christian doctrine except in a highly tendentious manner. I will begin by saying that ultimate mystery of the origin of evil is not open to explanation by man and we have no idea really from the Bible other than a few scattered hints as to why God allowed it in the first place and as a consequence He would have to find a way to forgive us. All we can say (and I think it is the same in Islam) is that God is not the author of sin, God does not need sin in order to enhance his glory, in no way is God party to repeated acts of sin and finally, the responsibility of mankind is not diminished or excused on the grounds that they had no part in its inception.

Revelation provides the explanation of what is unequivocally a matter of universal experience - the hereditary tendency to sin which sooner or later makes itself evident in everyone. The Bible say that the consequences of sin have descended upon all men, and particularly the inherent and persistent bias towards sin. One might note in this regard Genesis 8:21 (NIV) "The LORD smelled the pleasing aroma and said in his heart: "Never again will I curse the ground because of man, even though every inclination of his heart is evil from childhood. And never again will I destroy all living creatures, as I have done" and Psalm 51:5 (NIV) (NIV) "Surely I was sinful at birth, sinful from the time my mother conceived me."

So man finds himself as the reverse of the original righteousness and he has lost the power to become and habitually to remain righteous. This does not mean than man is as bad as he could possibly be but only that the evil principle has invaded each part of human nature.

I have no idea in the article where this idea of banishment from Heaven comes from and the writer seems to be confusing Satan with humanity. Christianity does not condemn all humanity to hell because of Adam for we know that all have sinned and come short of God's standard. This is further made plain because EACH man/woman must come to repentance and faith themselves and like Abraham that faith is counted as righteousness, that is Gods righteousness and like Abraham we still have to live in the body so still need daily forgiveness and a daily struggle after righteousness just as he did.

So no we are not punished for Adams sin but for our own. The issues is a simple one, if God is absolutely Holy he cannot simply even in mercy wipe the slate clean because then he would be unjust and if he is unjust he cannot be absolutely Holy so he has to provide a way of salvation that preserves who he is. Even in life there is always a cost to pay for sin by someone - if you kill my bother and I forgive you then it was not a free exchange of wrong for good was it, my brother is still dead?

The article quotes Isaiah chapter 1 though offered no explanation but oner notes the words found there which say "come let us reason together..." and this exactly mirrors what Abraham did with Isaac, he reasoned that God would provide a way out so again is not free, a price had to be paid. Later in the article we are told that God is perfect in every way so how can he be perfect is he lets the sinner go free, because sine is deserting of punishment. So I can look back and what God has done through the death and resurrection and Abraham could look forward and this who never heard any revelation have the revelation in nature and we can safely leave them to God.

[IAmZamzam]

Well that is you position but I take the position simple stated by Herman Melville - "We cannot live only for ourselves. A thousand fibres connect us with our fellow men". But I suppose there is a kind of comfort and absolution in being told that none of your problems are of your own making, that you do not have to accept any responsibility for the ills besting your society.

Anyone who is honest with themselves knows that they have a thousand problems of their own making consisting of their own personal failings. If I am responsible for any of the ills besetting society, it is only those ills that I personally have contributed to. If you’re not the one who did something, it’s not your fault. It’s the fault of the one who did it. I said that this is not debatable and I meant it. I will not sit here and seriously defend the position that people are responsible only for their own actions and not the actions of other people who are beyond their control and who died millennia and millennia before they were conceived.

Its all the fault of the West, of infidels or anyone. I like to debate so I can see more than one side of an issue, you do it seems because you know you are right - case closed?

Mudslinging and straw men. Are you actually putting any effort into anything you’re saying? Exactly who do you think is finding anything you say convincing?? That’s not rhetorical. I want an answer.

I will reply to the tendentious article later…

Tendentious? Is that the best you’ve got, even for the briefest of snubs? Calling an article from a pro-Islamic dawah site tendentious? I guess that means I can dismiss any pro-Christian source you ever cite the same way then.

But can you even conceive of a case where the debtor cannot pay no matter what they do so what happens then if justice is to be served? If God is Holy how can he let the guilty go free because to do so would be unjust and if God is unjust he is not Holy - do you see the difficulty?

If a person cannot pay a debt to someone who doesn’t need money (or anything), and they genuinely are penitent about what the debt is over, and the one to whom they are indebted loves them very much and knows whether or not their penitence is sincere, then the only possible just action is to erase the debt altogether. No one has to pay. The only difficulty is trying to make it sound like the one to whom the person is indebted is willing to clear the debt when all they’re doing is transferring it to an innocent person when there is no need or reason to do so.

I repeat: the entire "paying someone else's debt of money" analogy is loaded in the first place. It's begging the question, because it already assumes what it's supposed to demonstrate (that it is an automatic requirement that anyone need pay anything at all).

[IAmZamzam]

I am responding here to the almost 3,000 word post, copied of course from another Islamic site, which itself was copied from... dealing with the topic of original sin. The article does not discuss Christian doctrine except in a highly tendentious manner.

There’s that word again. Do you even know what it means? Your own article is tendentious, for crying out loud. Everything both of us are saying here is tendentious! There’s nothing necessarily wrong with being tendentious.

I will begin by saying that ultimate mystery of the origin of evil is not open to explanation by man and we have no idea really from the Bible other than a few scattered hints as to why God allowed it in the first place and as a consequence He would have to find a way to forgive us. All we can say (and I think it is the same in Islam) is that God is not the author of sin, God does not need sin in order to enhance his glory, in no way is God party to repeated acts of sin and finally, the responsibility of mankind is not diminished or excused on the grounds that they had no part in its inception.

I could just as easily say that you’re not excused on the grounds of having no part in the inception in the creation of the atomic bomb. You probably hadn’t been born yet, and if you had, I doubt very much there’s anything you could have done about it. Not contributing to an act of evil yourself? Check. Not able to prevent it from happening (especially since it’s already happened)? Check. Accountable for the act yourself? Big, frickin’ red X. This is, God willing, the last I will say on the matter to you, because it has never been any more debatable than it is now.

Revelation provides the explanation of what is unequivocally a matter of universal experience—the hereditary tendency to sin which sooner or later makes itself evident in everyone. The Bible say that the consequences of sin have descended upon all men, and particularly the inherent and persistent bias towards sin. One might note in this regard Genesis 8:21 (NIV) "The LORD smelled the pleasing aroma and said in his heart: "Never again will I curse the ground because of man, even though every inclination of his heart is evil from childhood. And never again will I destroy all living creatures, as I have done" and Psalm 51:5 (NIV) (NIV) "Surely I was sinful at birth, sinful from the time my mother conceived me."

Having a tendency to do something is not the same as doing it. Some people are born with homosexual tendencies yet refrain from the act. I myself seem to have been born with a lack of ability to empathize, yet I am capable of behaving compassionately. Inclination =/= action.

So man finds himself as the reverse of the original righteousness and he has lost the power to become and habitually to remain righteous. This does not mean than man is as bad as he could possibly be but only that the evil principle has invaded each part of human nature.

The only way evil can invade your nature is if you willingly let it in.

I have no idea in the article where this idea of banishment from Heaven comes from and the writer seems to be confusing Satan with humanity. Christianity does not condemn all humanity to hell because of Adam for we know that all have sinned and come short of God's standard. This is further made plain because EACH man/woman must come to repentance and faith themselves and like Abraham that faith is counted as righteousness, that is Gods righteousness and like Abraham we still have to live in the body so still need daily forgiveness and a daily struggle after righteousness just as he did.

You believe in free daily forgiveness for individual sins yet not in free forgiveness for anyone’s collective sins, because God can’t forgive without torturing and killing. You believe that our own struggle for righteousness is necessarily an individual thing, yet not that we should only be judged as individuals in terms of how it comes out. I don’t know which inconsistency is worse.

So no we are not punished for Adams sin but for our own.

But if our own sin is inevitable because of his own, it amounts to the same. X resulting directly from Z is tantamount to X resulting directly from Y which itself results directly from Z. This is basic transitive logic. If you need it in plain English, it’s like you’re saying, “I’m not blaming you because a genetic predisposition makes you a mouth-breather: I’m just saying that each individual breath you take that way is your own fault, and even though you inherited the condition from your father you’re not being blamed because of him.”

The issues is a simple one, if God is absolutely Holy he cannot simply even in mercy wipe the slate clean because then he would be unjust…

No he wouldn’t! Not unless forgiveness itself is inherently unjust.

And if he is unjust he cannot be absolutely Holy so he has to provide a way of salvation that preserves who he is. Even in life there is always a cost to pay for sin by someone—if you kill my bother and I forgive you then it was not a free exchange of wrong for good was it, my brother is still dead?

Of course he’s still dead. Nobody said that forgiving a murderer has to resurrect the dead. The fact that a wrong act has been forgiven does not mean that it wasn’t wrong, nor does it being wrong mean that it cannot be forgiven. What am I doing even bothering to respond to this argument???

The article quotes Isaiah chapter 1 though offered no explanation but oner notes the words found there which say "come let us reason together..." and this exactly mirrors what Abraham did with Isaac, he reasoned that God would provide a way out so again is not free, a price had to be paid.

What?

Later in the article we are told that God is perfect in every way so how can he be perfect is he lets the sinner go free, because sine is deserting of punishment.

So it’s better to punish an innocent person in the guilty one’s stead than to let the guilty one not be punished when you absolutely know that they are truly repentant?

So I can look back and what God has done through the death and resurrection and Abraham could look forward and this who never heard any revelation have the revelation in nature and we can safely leave them to God.

Again it’s hard to tell exactly what you’re saying, but I’m finding that I’m caring less and less. In any event, type more carefully next time.

[Hugo]

Tendentious? Is that the best you’ve got, even for the briefest of snubs? Calling an article from a pro-Islamic dawah site tendentious? I guess that means I can dismiss any pro-Christian source you ever cite the same way then.

Is a pro-Islamic dawah site infallible?

[Hugo]

There’s that word again. Do you even know what it means? Your own article is tendentious, for crying out loud. Everything both of us are saying here is tendentious! There’s nothing necessarily wrong with being tendentious.

Very possible but I guess you of course are entirely free of bias. There is everything wrong with being tendentious because it is partisan and its writers assert things without a solid basis in fact because they want to parade a particular message. If my post was tendentious then show that to be the case but all I have done is briefly outline the Christian position, you don't have to agree with it.



I could just as easily say that you’re not excused on the grounds of having no part in the inception in the creation of the atomic bomb. You probably hadn’t been born yet, and if you had, I doubt very much there’s anything you could have done about it. Not contributing to an act of evil yourself? Check. Not able to prevent it from happening (especially since it’s already happened)? Check. Accountable for the act yourself? Big, frickin’ red X. This is, God willing, the last I will say on the matter to you, because it has never been any more debatable than it is now.



Having a tendency to do something is not the same as doing it. Some people are born with homosexual tendencies yet refrain from the act. I myself seem to have been born with a lack of ability to empathize, yet I am capable of behaving compassionately. Inclination =/= action.



The only way evil can invade your nature is if you willingly let it in.



You believe in free daily forgiveness for individual sins yet not in free forgiveness for anyone’s collective sins, because God can’t forgive without torturing and killing. You believe that our own struggle for righteousness is necessarily an individual thing, yet not that we should only be judged as individuals in terms of how it comes out. I don’t know which inconsistency is worse.



But if our own sin is inevitable because of his own, it amounts to the same. X resulting directly from Z is tantamount to X resulting directly from Y which itself results directly from Z. This is basic transitive logic. If you need it in plain English, it’s like you’re saying, “I’m not blaming you because a genetic predisposition makes you a mouth-breather: I’m just saying that each individual breath you take that way is your own fault, and even though you inherited the condition from your father you’re not being blamed because of him.”



No he wouldn’t! Not unless forgiveness itself is inherently unjust.



Of course he’s still dead. Nobody said that forgiving a murderer has to resurrect the dead. The fact that a wrong act has been forgiven does not mean that it wasn’t wrong, nor does it being wrong mean that it cannot be forgiven. What am I doing even bothering to respond to this argument???



What?



So it’s better to punish an innocent person in the guilty one’s stead than to let the guilty one not be punished when you absolutely know that they are truly repentant?



Again it’s hard to tell exactly what you’re saying, but I’m finding that I’m caring less and less. In any event, type more carefully next time.[/QUOTE]

[IAmZamzam]

tendentious: having or showing a definite tendency, bias, or purpose: "a tendentious novel". -dictionary.com

[YusufNoor]

I see so Ehrman is wrong but only when he speaks about Islam where oral transmission was perfect - so much for the Quality of Ehrman's scholarship if its all about cherry picking. If you look at http://www.islamic-awareness.org/Qur...Mss/vowel.html you will see that the earliest known Arabic papyrus PERF No. 558 [22 AH/642CE] originating from Egypt which is some 12 years after Mohammed's death so where is all this mass of writing down you speak of - I have seen various numbers of the scribes who did it and some even quote as many as 60 yet we seem to have no evidence for any of it, papyrus or anything else and as you know there are no Arabic inscriptions of any kind before about 3-4CE?

can you show me where Professor Ehrman mentioned Islam? i would like to see that, please tell me EXACTLY where to find it.

regarding what Ehrman ACTUALLY says, he talks about the child's game where you "whisper in one's ear." is the Qur'an "whispered in one's ear?" go to a Sunni Masjid at either Fajr, Maghrib, Isha or at Taraweeh during Ramadhan and tell me what you hear! the Qur'an is recited ALOUD! IF the Imam makes a mistake, he is corrected and ANYONE may correct him!

to sum, portions of the Qur'an are recited ALOUD in CONGREGATIONAL PRAYER 3 times a day, EVERY DAY, for the last 1400 years and during Ramadhan the ENTIRE Qur'an is recited ALOUD in CONGREGATIONAL PRAYER over a period of 27-29 evenings and ALSO ALOUD in CONGREGATIONAL PRAYER in the mornings during the last 10 days of Ramadhan!

regarding crucifiction, are there any contemporaneous eyewitness accounts, and please furnish one that is less than 12 years from the date of the crucifiction because BY YOUR OWN STANDARDS it appears to be tradition and NOT history! [we shall use the same method you "accept" against the Qur'an and apply it to the alleged "murder" of Jesus, PBUH. that seems equal and fair, doesn't it?]

and let me ask the question, what is the EARLIEST "evidence" that you have for the "murder" of Jesus, PBUH? we shall then "evaluate" your "evidence," fair enough?

[B_M]

and let me ask the question, what is the EARLIEST "evidence" that you have for the "murder" of Jesus, PBUH? we shall then "evaluate" your "evidence," fair enough?

You could argue the earliest evidence was of the prophecies from The Nevi'im. i.e. The Book of Isaiah, written a century before Jesus.. which says... a son will be given who would be wounded for our transgressions, bruised for our iniquities, brought as a lamb to the slaughter, would make his soul an offering for sin, who would be numbered with the transgressors.. all imply a murder.. a murder of man who was to be born of a virgin.

I don't know, I still can't see why God would play us.

Thank you, Woodrow though, for answering a question.

[YusufNoor]

You could argue

why would i make this misguided argument? i would rather stick with the truth.

the earliest evidence was of the prophecies from The Nevi'im. i.e. The Book of Isaiah, written a century before Jesus.. which says... a son will be given who would be wounded for our transgressions, bruised for our iniquities, brought as a lamb to the slaughter, would make his soul an offering for sin, who would be numbered with the transgressors..

you must be imbibing some..."holy water," NO SON is mentioned in "the Nevi'iim" let's see:

5 But he was wounded because of our transgressions, he was crushed because of our iniquities: the chastisement of our welfare was upon him, and with his stripes we were healed.

http://www.mechon-mamre.org/p/pt/pt1053.htm

according to Jewish exegesis, the "he" is Israel and is showing the punishment from "Hashem" was deserved.

all imply a murder.. a murder of man who was to be born of a virgin.

NO virgin is mentioned either!

I don't know, I still can't see why God would play us.

if you seek misguidance, your prayers may be answered as well! so be careful what you ask for

Thank you, Woodrow though, for answering a question.

we are looking for evidence that fits the "Hugo model" as applied to the Qur'an. i'm pretty sure that eliminates rewriting Isaiah to suit your purposes.

chow

[B_M]

we are looking for evidence that fits the "Hugo model" as applied to the Qur'an. i'm pretty sure that eliminates rewriting Isaiah to suit your purposes.

chow

So you believe The Jews lied too? I even went and pulled those quotes from The Hebrew Bible, not The Old Testament. And I did that, so I could say that. Since we all know, Judaism didn't believe in Jesus.. why would they rewrite scripture for? If they had the chance, I'm sure it'd be to sway the prophecies far away from Jesus being the prophesied Messiah as possible...

[B_M]

Sorry I didn't see you respond inside the quote.


Thank you for the link.


Of course according to Jewish exegesis, the "he" is Israel..

He was despised, and forsaken of men, a man of pains, and acquainted with disease, and as one from whom men hide their face: he was despised, and we esteemed him not.

Surely our diseases he did bear, and our pains he carried; whereas we did esteem him stricken, smitten of God, and afflicted.

But he was wounded because of our transgressions, he was crushed because of our iniquities: the chastisement of our welfare was upon him, and with his stripes we were healed.

Therefore will I divide him a portion among the great, and he shall divide the spoil with the mighty; because he bared his soul unto death, and was numbered with the transgressors; yet he bore the sin of many, and made intercession for the transgressors.

Hmmm.



But wait you believe this translation? The Jews don't like Jesus, they are biased too.

[YusufNoor]

So you believe The Jews lied too? I even went and pulled those quotes from The Hebrew Bible, not The Old Testament.

i posted from the online Tanakh, and left a link. i have a room filled with MANY Jewish works containing Rashi and Rambam to name a few of the Jewish Sages. NONE are now waiting or were waiting for, as you wrote, "a son will be given who would be wounded for our transgressions, bruised for our iniquities, brought as a lamb to the slaughter, would make his soul an offering for sin, who would be numbered with the transgressors." NONE!


And I did that, so I could say that. Since we all know, Judaism didn't believe in Jesus.. why would they rewrite scripture for? If they had the chance, I'm sure it'd be to sway the prophecies far away from Jesus being the prophesied Messiah as possible...

the items i posted from Isaiah are PAST TENSE, ergo NOT PROPHECIES!

as i stated before, i want, "the "Hugo model" as applied to the Qur'an"

do you have:

the decree signed by Pilate authorizing the death of Jesus?

the body of Jesus?

the nails used to put him up?

the cross?

the sign put on the cross?

ANY CONTEMPORANEOUS EYEWITNESS DOCUMENTATION?

IF NOT, then according to Hugo, you have "tradition, NOT history!"

capiche?

[Woodrow]

So you believe The Jews lied too? I even went and pulled those quotes from The Hebrew Bible, not The Old Testament. And I did that, so I could say that. Since we all know, Judaism didn't believe in Jesus.. why would they rewrite scripture for? If they had the chance, I'm sure it'd be to sway the prophecies far away from Jesus being the prophesied Messiah as possible...

Which Hebrew Bible may I ask? I ask because I am unaware of any Hebrew Bible except for those translated into Hebrew from English.

[Ramadhan]

regarding what Ehrman ACTUALLY says, he talks about the child's game where you "whisper in one's ear." is the Qur'an "whispered in one's ear?" go to a Sunni Masjid at either Fajr, Maghrib, Isha or at Taraweeh during Ramadhan and tell me what you hear! the Qur'an is recited ALOUD! IF the Imam makes a mistake, he is corrected and ANYONE may correct him!

to sum, portions of the Qur'an are recited ALOUD in CONGREGATIONAL PRAYER 3 times a day, EVERY DAY, for the last 1400 years and during Ramadhan the ENTIRE Qur'an is recited ALOUD in CONGREGATIONAL PRAYER over a period of 27-29 evenings and ALSO ALOUD in CONGREGATIONAL PRAYER in the mornings during the last 10 days of Ramadhan!

Absolutely right.
Equating the preservation of the Qur'an to chinese whispers is so unbelievably dumb.

in chinese whispers, whenever the main/original line branches out to multiple lines, each of the end of the lines are guaranteed to convey different news/messages than the original.

Meanwhile, the qur'an recited or memorised by a person in beijing (china), birmingham (england), bandung (indonesia), Baghdad (oraq) is EXACTLY the same, and this is after 1400 years of the alleged "chinese whispers".

You just have to look at the fate of bible(s) to see which one is actually "preserved" through chinese whispers.

[Hugo]

Which Hebrew Bible may I ask? I ask because I am unaware of any Hebrew Bible except for those translated into Hebrew from English.

This is a rather odd thing to say as one must ask how it got to be in English in the first place? The term Hebrew bible is generally understood to mean the OT but of course Jews would never use that term.

[Woodrow]

This is a rather odd thing to say as one must ask how it got to be in English in the first place? The term Hebrew bible is generally understood to mean the OT but of course Jews would never use that term.

Not as odd as it seems. Beginning about in the mid 1800s Hebrew translations of the KJV began being published and continue being published. I have found more than a few people presenting them as being the Jewish Bible, and re-translate them back into English as proof of the original Hebrew and the KJV being the same.

If the person was referring to the OT as being the Jewish Bible, I understand that. However if they are using the KJV translated into Hebrew and especially if they call the NT as being in the Jewish Bible I do not see that as being the Jewish Bible

[Hugo]

Not as odd as it seems. Beginning about in the mid 1800s Hebrew translations of the KJV began being published and continue being published. I have found more than a few people presenting them as being the Jewish Bible, and re-translate them back into English as proof of the original Hebrew and the KJV being the same.
If the person was referring to the OT as being the Jewish Bible, I understand that. However if they are using the KJV translated into Hebrew and especially if they call the NT as being in the Jewish Bible I do not see that as being the Jewish Bible

I have no idea where you get this information from as I don't know of any such translations. Surely it is obvious that to do such work one would have to be a Hebrew scholar in which case the whole enterprise is entirely and obviously pointless. There is a kind of conspiracy theory that claims as many as a 1,000 translations have been made from the KJV but as far as I know it is a total fiction. If you contact authors who make these claims then I have not found one who can tell us the source of the information - unless you can evidence your claim?

[Woodrow]

I have no idea where you get this information from as I don't know of any such translations. Surely it is obvious that to do such work one would have to be a Hebrew scholar in which case the whole enterprise is entirely and obviously pointless. There is a kind of conspiracy theory that claims as many as a 1,000 translations have been made from the KJV but as far as I know it is a total fiction. If you contact authors who make these claims then I have not found one who can tell us the source of the information - unless you can evidence your claim?

Just one example:

The Hebrew New Testament

In order better to reach Jews with the whole Word of God, the Society is pleased to be producing with its Ginsburg Old Testament an edition of the Hebrew New Testament which is based upon the Greek Received Text.

Christians throughout the ages have sought to bring the Jews to a saving knowledge of Jesus Christ, and one major way of doing this has been through the production of the New Testament in Hebrew. The New Testament, unlike the Old Testament, was originally written in Greek. Therefore, for Jewish readers to have a New Testament in Hebrew, it would need to be translated from the Greek. This task was undertaken on various occasions. The first printed portion of the New Testament in Hebrew was an imperfect edition of Matthew's Gospel in 1537, with the first complete New Testament, translated by Hutter, being printed in 1599.

A variety of other editions of the Hebrew New Testament appeared in print through the next three centuries. In 1886 the Society published an edition of the Hebrew New Testament which was begun by Isaac Salkinson and completed by C. D. Ginsburg. This edition, in an idiomatic type of Hebrew and prepared from a critical form of Greek text, continued to be circulated by the Society until the 1960s.

The British and Foreign Bible Society in 1873 commissioned Franz Delitzsch to prepare a translation of the New Testament in Hebrew. This translation, completed in 1877, was in a more literal style and was also made from the critical text of the Greek New Testament. The next year, at the request of the BFBS, Delitzsch revised this translation in order to bring it into conformity to the Textus Receptus.

In the Society's desire to see the Scriptures produced in faithful and accurate editions, in 1963 the Rev. Terence Brown, then Secretary of the Society, advised the Committee of the Society that the currently-circulated Ginsburg-Salkinson Hebrew New Testament was still in conformity to the critical text, whereas the Delitzsch Hebrew was Textus Receptus based. Thus, it was decided that the Society would cease publication of the Ginsburg-Salkinson and begin publication of the Delitzsch. We continue to do so to this day, and it is this Delitzsch New Testament which will complete our Hebrew Bible.

SOURCE

[Hugo]

Just one example:

This one can accept so you original claim of translation from the KJB for the Hebrew bible was a fiction or you muddled up your facts as no one denies that one needs a Hebrew edition of the NT

[Woodrow]

This one can accept so you original claim of translation from the KJB for the Hebrew bible was a fiction or you muddled up your facts as no one denies that one needs a Hebrew edition of the NT

If I muddled it or was not clear. I was indicating that some people call these translations of the bible in Hebrew the Hebrew Bible. Which is why I asked which Hebrew Bible. I agreed with you that the OT was the Hebrew Bible, although no Jew would call it such.


While there are Hebrew speaking Christians I believe the primary purpose for translating the bible into Hebrew is for converting Jews. Apparently some Evangelical groups feel that there is a need for a Hebrew Language Bible.