Why did "God" come down to earth/appear specifically to the Jews?

[Indian Bro]

As-salamu alaykum,

Sorry to bump this thread, but if we're talking about "Preferences given to a certain community from a religious perspective", I have a question regarding Christianity.

Why is it that god decided to come down on earth specifically for the Israel community? What makes that community more worthy of being in the presence of god than any other community in the history of mankind? Putting aside all the great Prophets of God, even Moses (PBUH) did not see God when he asked God to show himself.

Salam 3laikum.

[theplains]

Why is it that god decided to come down on earth specifically for the Israel community? What makes that community more worthy of being in the presence of god than any other community in the history of mankind? Putting aside all the great Prophets of God, even Moses (PBUH) did not see God when he asked God to show himself.

Salam 3laikum.

From what we know in the Bible, God dealt with Abraham then through his offspring, specifically
Isaac, then Jacob, then the 12 patriarchs. They were not better than another other people prior
to God choosing to work through that nation. He established his covenant with Abraham through
Isaac. He was the son of promise. God also blessed Ishmael.

Thanks,
Jim

[جوري]

his covenant with Abraham through
Isaac. He was the son of promise

Who had the covenant? Ishmael or Isaac?

---

The story of Abraham, Ishmael and Hagar (May the mercy and blessings of Allah be on them all) is found in the Bible, much skewed and corrupted from the pure Islamic version. The reason this is so is because the book of Genesis, undoubtedly written by some Jewish Rabbi of the past would certainly be biased in his understanding of history between the two forefathers. There would be in him, whoever he was, the desire to paint his own ancestry, that is the seed of Isaac, in the brightest of colors, whereby either purposely or inadvertently condemning the rival (I.e. Ishmael) as the negative end of the spectrum. In other words, a Jew most certainly wrote Genesis, so Isaac, the father of the Jews and Abraham’s son, is presented in this blessed light, and Ishmael, the father of the Arabs is whereby presented in somewhat dark euphemisms, and foisted on him is the subtle racism and condescending attitude of the author.
This being said, it is evident that my own assumptions are true, because of the many gaps and inconsistencies which are clues left to us by the True and Almighty God in the Biblical account, which point us in the direction of the truth (I.E. of the Islamic version.)

1. Abraham (saas) was told by God that a Great Nation would come from him. (Genesis 12:2-3)

2. Sarah, Abraham’s wife doesn’t bear children at first. (Genesis 16:1)

3. Sarah whereby allowed Abraham to MARRY Hagar (Genesis 16:3) -This defeats the evangelical claim that Ishmael was illegitamite. Hagar conceives Ishmael. (genesis 16:4)

4. Later Sarah has Isaac. (Genesis 21:2)

So far so good. The story here is quite clear. A Prophecy for a great nation was said to come from Abraham. After Sarah seemingly cannot conceive, Hagar becomes Abraham’s second wife and conceives Ishmael. Later Sarah actually does conceive and has Isaac.

Biblical points which hold true to the Islamic perception of Ishmael and the pure lineage of Muhammad (saas):

1. Ishmael was Abraham’s first son. (Genesis 16:4)

2. God said that Hagar’s seed would be multiplied exceedingly. (Genesis 16:10)

3. God said Ishmael was blessed! (Genesis 17:20)

4. Ishmael is clearly called ‘Abraham’s seed’ by God. (Genesis 21:13)

4. God repeats His promise to make Ishmael a great nation FIVE TIMES! (Genesis 15:4) (Genesis 16:10) (Genesis 17:20) (Genesis 21:13) (Genesis 21:18)


From here the Islamic version and the Biblical account part ways. The Muslim holds that it was in fact Ishmael who had the covenant and not Isaac, whereas the bible states the opposite. The Muslim holds that it was Ishmael who was to be sacrificed and not Isaac, and again, the Bible states the opposite. The Muslim version states that both Isaac and Ishmael were pure blameless children of Abraham, both revered, whereas in the Biblical account, Isaac is revered and Ishmael is seen as a mean-spirited outcast. Let us review the shameful and undoubtedly corrupted view of Ishmael in the Bible:

1. Ishmael is called a ‘wild donkey of a man’: (Genesis 16:12)
2. Ishmael and his descendants are going to be known as troublemakers (Genesis 16:12)
3. Ishmael is considered illegitamite (This is a Christian claim which no Bible verse supports.)
4. Ishmael makes fun of Isaac and teases him: (Genesis 21:9)
5. Ishmael and his mother are cast out from Abrahams’ family (Genesis 21:10)

Now let us lay these preposterous and slanderous claims to rest.

Ishmael a wild donkey of a man?

This is where it becomes evident that the prejudice of the author seeps through. The Christian must remember that the Islamic view of the Bible is that it is corrupted, and history attests this, especially that of the Old Testament. God himself attests this in the Old Testament, saying, "How can you say, 'We are wise, and the law of the LORD is with us'? But, behold, the false pen of the scribes has made it into a lie.” (From the RSV Bible, Jeremiah 8:8) -So it is admitted within the Bible itself, that the Old Testament is corrupted. No independent scholar accepts the preposterous view that the first 5 books of the Bible were written by Moses as evangelicals claim. This indeed would be quite impossible because otherwise Moses refers to himself in the third person and even writes about his own death and the month that follows it.
Therefore, if the Islamic view of the Bible is that it is corrupted (Not wrong, but not always right either) then it is very well possible, from this viewpoint that the entire story of Ishmael and Isaac is skewed, handled malisciously from the pen of some overzealous rabbi who could not ignore fully his own prejudice and wishes, but yet also could not ignore fully the facts of history, being that both Ishmael and Isaac were blessed, revered and of highly esteemed moral character. Starting from this point we can see through the authors slanders and see to the truth, and that is that this particular verse, that is the verse of Ishmael being a ‘wild donkey’ of a man is an overly obvious forgery, and opinion of whoever the mildly racist author of this book is. –And his intent is quite clear. He wants to prove that the lineage of the Jews is pure, and that no non-jew could ever partake in the pure lineage of Abraham. This is undoubtedly the authors intention, because he goes to great lengths to ‘prove’ it. Consider the ‘all-to-convenient’ verbiage of Sarah as interjected by the author: “Wherefore she said to Abraham, ‘Cast out this bondwoman and her son: For the son of a bondwoman shall not be heir with my son, even with Isaac.’” (21:10).
As to the authors intention to show that the blood and lineage of the Jewish people is untainted, consider the fact that according to the Bible, Abraham and Sarah were brother and Sister! (Genesis 20:12.) This same author is the one who insulted the Prophet Lot by saying he had an incestuous drunken relationship with his two daughters, (Genesis 19:36) And Jacob was married to two sisters at the same time: (Genesis 29:28). The intention is clear, that the author of Genesis is either a pervert obsessed with incest, or he slanders honorable prophets with false stories of Incest in order to show that the blood of Isaac and his descendants (The Jews) is pure. It is for this reason the author feels the need to slander Ishmael and foist on him the false story of being ‘cast out’ of the family of Abraham. –It is also clearly, based on the evidence, a big lie. Ishmael was not a wild donkey of a man, but the author of Genesis sure was!

Ishmael and his descendants will ‘be against all men?’

The Bible says of Ishmael: “…his hand will be against every man, and every man's hand against him; and he shall dwell in the presence of all his brethren.” (Genesis 16:12)

In recent times this is probably the most oft-repeated verse against Ishmael and the Muslims used by Christians to prove a plethora of points. All one needs to do is point to the news to see that seemingly Ishmael’s seed truly is ‘against all men’ and ‘all men are against him.’ It is, to them, proof positive that the Bible is the word of God.
But there is a problem with this theory, and that is quite simply that only recently could this be applied. It wasn’t until the decline of the Ottomon Empire in the 1700’s that the Islamic world experienced a regression leading to a downward spiral of corruption, hopelessness, and violence.
One need not point out the fact that the oldest and indeed one of the first colleges on earth was founded by Muslims and is still on the earth today (Al-Azhar.) It is evident that whilst Europe was sunk in the dark ages, the civilized Muslims revived the learning of Aristotle and Plato, who otherwise would have been forgotten. There was a time when Baghdad, for example, was called, ‘The greatest city on earth.’ -And this title was given it by European scholars. Was it because the Arabs of Baghdad were mindless killers against all men? Of course not! It was because they were civilized learners who enjoyed a thriving economy! In fact, it was the Muslims who saved the Christians in their lands from the conquests of invaders, and it was the Turkish Muslims who later protected the Jews who fled persecution from Spain. Was it not the Muslim Salahaddin who granted all Christians in Jerusalem amnesty despite that fact that when Muslims were run out of Jerusalem years earlier the Christians boiled Muslim children alive in pots?
So there is well over a thousand years of the Muslim empire (now known as the Golden age of Islam) in which this whimsical sentence in the Bible was utterly false, and any attempt to apply it to Muslims would be deemed laughable by even the Christians! So what is more logical? To say this verse is true, when it has only been true for the past 100 years at best, which represents not even a glimmer in the existence of Islam, or to say that this is the interjection of some ancient Jew who had, as seen above, his own wicked intentions?

Ishmael is considered illegitimite?

This one I really don’t get. The Bible clearly states that Hagar and Abraham were married. (Genesis 16:3) Abraham is also spoken of in highly respected terms in the Bible? How is it that this highly respected Prophet had a child with a woman whom he was married to, and by the logic of some evangelicals this = illigetamite?
Of course not! So how can this be deemed an instance with which to judge Ishmael and say he was therefore excluded from the covenant? Based on what we have seen so far, we need not even address the last two biblical accounts of Ishmael teasing Isaac and whereby being cast out, as this is another obvious forgery by the baised author, whoever he was.

The Bible Had Ishmael and Isaac Confused!

The most common question to be asked by the Christian then is, how can the Muslims believe that Ishmael was to be sacrificed and not Isaac, and that Ishmael got the covenant, when the Bible clearly states otherwise? Well, not to beat a dead horse, but the Muslim view of the Bible is that it is corrupted. So automatically, any story which contradicts Islamic teachings we view with skepticism. As seen already, the author of Genesis, where we find the account of Ishmael and Isaac, is also extremely baised. These facts alone are a red flag to the logical thinkers that just to accept this story as 100% authentic as it is presented in the Bible would be a great error.
With that being said, let us examine the story in the Bible again, and show that the author made some grave errors in his writing which proves that Ishmael and Isaac were confused:

The Bible states that Abraham was 99 years old when Ishmael was circumcised. Ishmael was 13 at the time. (Genesis 17:24-27)

Exactly one year later Isaac is born. (Genesis 21:4-5) So if Abraham was 99 when Ishmael was circumcised a year earlier, that would mean when Isaac is born, he is 100 years old, and Ishmael is 14.

Then comes the story of the sacrifice in the Bible: In Genesis 22, God tells Abraham to take ‘Thine ONLY son Isaac…’ -WHAT? Ishmael is 14 at the time? Why does the Bible refer to Isaac as Abrahams ONLY son? Many Christians will say that this is because God here is making it clear that Isaac is the only heir to the covenant, and that is why God refers to Isaac as ‘The ONLY son..’ but God clearly calls Ishmael the seed of Abraham according to Genesis 21:13, so such conclusions are impossible. The only conclusion is that the author of Genesis had Ishmael and Isaac confused.

Consider when Ishmael is cast out with Hagar into the desert in Genesis 21. What are the descriptions of Ishmael? Pay close attention to the following descriptions:

A. Ishmael is tucked under shrubs (Genesis 21:15)
B. He is called a ‘lad’ (Genesis 21:18, 20)
C. Hagar holds Ishmael in ONE HAND (Genesis 21:18)

Clearly the author is referring to an infant. But Ishmael is 14 at the time, how would he be tucked under shrubs and held in one hand of a weak woman who was dying of thirst? Why is he called a lad? Would this not more aptly apply to the infant Isaac who was only a year old and not to Ishmael who is a teenager?



Why would anyone have a problem with that? well, for a start it falls short of a human standard of basic decency, never mind divine grace. nowhere in the bible is it suggested that Ishmael was cast out and disinherited because he was evil or was deserving in any way of such harsh treatment - it was instigated by Sarah's petty jealousy on behalf of her son and portrayed as a kind of snobbishness that Ishmael, although a son of Abraham pbuh, was also a son of a slave and therefore inferior. the idea that God would condone this kind of thinking (which is implicit in the scriptures) is amazing.

Furthermore, according to Deuteronomy, the firstborn is owed a double portion of inheritance, no matter whether his mother is despised or not. 'For (the firstborn) is the beginning of his strength.' Elsewhere in the Torah Israel (the Israelites) are called by God 'my son, my firstborn son'. And when God punished the Egyptians he struck down their firstborn sons. To be the firstborn son is an honourable distinction elsewhere in the bible, so perhaps that is why Muslims feel it is worth mentioning.

as for the story of Ishmael, I'm afraid I don't have much time but I can tell you that he was brought as a baby to the valley of Mecca by Hagar and Abraham pbuh, who left them there to establish a settlement but returned regularly and when Ishmael was old enough they rebuilt the Ka'aba together (it had originally been built by Adam pbuh but evidently had disappeared). as stated in the bible, Ishmael was sufficiently close to his father's heart that he was informed of Abraham's pbuh final illness and together with his brother Isaac he buried him. Which fact jars a bit when you read it first because up till then the bible tell us a story of a son cast out and disinherited - I remember the first time I read it as a Christian I was startled and actually thought 'how did he get back into the story? I thought he was long gone!'. Did Abraham have a change of heart? How did he know where to find Ishmael? We are not told.


it is amazing to me the amount of lies and hatred and frank distortions Jews and their fundie christian counterparts will go through as if to twist God's arms.

[Indian Bro]

From what we know in the Bible, God dealt with Abraham then through his offspring, specifically
Isaac, then Jacob, then the 12 patriarchs. They were not better than another other people prior
to God choosing to work through that nation. He established his covenant with Abraham through
Isaac. He was the son of promise. God also blessed Ishmael.

Thanks,
Jim

Why is it that god decided to come down on earth specifically for the Israel community? What makes that community more worthy of being in the presence of god than any other community in the history of mankind? Putting aside all the great Prophets of God, even Moses (PBUH) did not see God when he asked God to show himself.

Salam 3laikum.

Hi Jim,

You didn't answer my question. Maybe I didn't phrase my question clear enough so I'll try again.

Why did Jesus (PBUH), the one you Christians call "God" chose to come down on earth for the Israel community? What makes that particular Israel community at the time of Jesus (PBUH) so special to witness God?

I'll ask you again in the point of a view of a Christian.

Why did God decide to come down on Earth specifically for the Israel community? What makes those people more special than the rest of mankind? Even Moses (PBUH) was not capable to see God and he was a Prophet! So what makes those Iraelites at the time of Jesus SO special?

I hope you understand my question more clearly now.

Salam 3laikum

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

[theplains]

Hi Jim,

You didn't answer my question. Maybe I didn't phrase my question clear enough so I'll try again.

1] Why did Jesus (PBUH), the one you Christians call "God" chose to come down on earth for the Israel community? What makes that particular Israel community at the time of Jesus (PBUH) so special to witness God?

I'll ask you again in the point of a view of a Christian.

2] Why did God decide to come down on Earth specifically for the Israel community? What makes those people more special than the rest of mankind? Even Moses (PBUH) was not capable to see God and he was a Prophet! So what makes those Iraelites at the time of Jesus SO special?

I hope you understand my question more clearly now.

Salam 3laikum

1] He came to earth to save mankind from their sins. He was the fulfillment of the
prophecy given to Abraham (Act 3:25 - Ye are the children of the prophets, and of the
covenant which God made with our fathers, saying unto Abraham, And in thy seed
shall all the kindreds of the earth be blessed). It is not a matter of a particular Israel
community at a certain time, but Jesus came at a specific time (but this would involve
must more explanation because prophecy is involved - there is a lot of material on
the Internet for reference - google "jesus the fulfillment of the old testament prophecy"
and question "What is the difference between Christianity and Judaism?" at
gotquestions dot org

2] God decided to come down on Earth (not FOR) but TO specifically the Israel
community ... in fulfillment of the prophecies in the Old Testament. The Jews
are NOT more special than other people. Why did God choose the Jews in the
past to establish his covenant? I don't know. We just have the record that he
choose Isaac through Abraham, and then Jacob through Isaac, and then
their descendants went to Canaan.

The Israelites at the time of Jesus were NOT special. In fact, they had totally
degenerated from the Law that God gave to them.

The website gotquestions dot org has an excellent article called "Why did God
send Jesus when He did? Why not earlier? Why not later?" The webpage is
fullness-of-time dot html

This will give a more clearer explanation.

I hope this helps.

I posted the question to this Islamic forum because I thought the Quran could
share some insights on why sura 2:47 says what it says, and what specific
time frame it has in mind.

Thanks,
Jim

[Indian Bro]

1] He came to earth to save mankind from their sins. He was the fulfillment of the
prophecy given to Abraham (Act 3:25 - Ye are the children of the prophets, and of the
covenant which God made with our fathers, saying unto Abraham, And in thy seed
shall all the kindreds of the earth be blessed). It is not a matter of a particular Israel
community at a certain time, but Jesus came at a specific time (but this would involve
must more explanation because prophecy is involved - there is a lot of material on
the Internet for reference - google "jesus the fulfillment of the old testament prophecy"
and question "What is the difference between Christianity and Judaism?" at
gotquestions dot org

2] God decided to come down on Earth (not FOR) but TO specifically the Israel
community ... in fulfillment of the prophecies in the Old Testament. The Jews
are NOT more special than other people. Why did God choose the Jews in the
past to establish his covenant? I don't know. We just have the record that he
choose Isaac through Abraham, and then Jacob through Isaac, and then
their descendants went to Canaan.

The Israelites at the time of Jesus were NOT special. In fact, they had totally
degenerated from the Law that God gave to them.

The website gotquestions dot org has an excellent article called "Why did God
send Jesus when He did? Why not earlier? Why not later?" The webpage is
fullness-of-time dot html

This will give a more clearer explanation.

I hope this helps.

I posted the question to this Islamic forum because I thought the Quran could
share some insights on why sura 2:47 says what it says, and what specific
time frame it has in mind.

Thanks,
Jim

Peace be upon you Jim,

I'm sorry but I'm not totally satisfied by your answer. We all know that the Old Testament predicted the coming of a Messiah, we Muslims and Christians mutually agree that this Messiah was to be Jesus (PBUH). But it doesn't make sense why God would give such a huge preference to the Jews of the time of Jesus (PBUH) over his own Prophets (Peace be upon all of them). Moses (PBUH) asked God to show himself and God didn't do so. And if you observe the Old testament, New testament as well as the Qur'aan you'll find that God had always sent down a person to a community of a specific time to warn the people and give them good tidings. This is what Jesus (PBUH) did as well. And you'll also observe that these people chosen by God would often be abused and attempted to be killed, just like Jesus (PBUH). If you really think God is Just, it makes more sense to think that God chose to send Jesus (PBUH) to the Jews at that specific time (just like he send down Moses (PBUH) and all the other Prophets) instead of thinking God himself came down to that community and upon doing so gave such a huge preference to those Jews which is totally unjust towards all other communities and Prophets (entire mankind).

Why did God choose the Jews in the
past to establish his covenant? I don't know

It's sad you have to base your belief on a hunch. You need to ask yourself a question,
1. Would a Just, Merciful and All-Powerful God really need to come down to Earth and show such a big preference to a people who you claim had totally degenerated from the Law that God gave to them over the entire mankind (including Prophets and other saints)

OR

God sent down a person (in the form of Jesus (PBUH)) to the Jews at that particular time as the Messiah, a Messenger, a Prophet to warn the Jews and to give them good tidings just like all other Prophets

If you go for the second option, you believe, just like the Muslims, that God is the most Just, the most Merciful and the All-Powerful.

[theplains]

Peace be upon you Jim,
If you really think God is Just, it makes more sense to think that God chose to send Jesus (PBUH) to the Jews at that specific time (just like he send down Moses (PBUH) and all the other Prophets) instead of thinking God himself came down to that community and upon doing so gave such a huge preference to those Jews which is totally unjust towards all other communities and Prophets (entire mankind).

1. Would a Just, Merciful and All-Powerful God really need to come down to Earth and show such a big preference to a people who you claim had totally degenerated from the Law that God gave to them over the entire mankind (including Prophets and other saints)

OR

God sent down a person (in the form of Jesus (PBUH)) to the Jews at that particular time as the Messiah, a Messenger, a Prophet to warn the Jews and to give them good tidings just like all other Prophets

If you go for the second option, you believe, just like the Muslims, that God is the most Just, the most Merciful and the All-Powerful.

I have never heard a Christian comment that he or she felt that it was totally unjust that
God came down in human form to the Jewish community instead of the Polish or Russian
community for instance.

Jesus was initially sent to the Jews, but his message of salvation extends to all nations.
The glad tidings that he came to bring was his gospel of his atoning sacrifice. When you
see the lambs being sacrificed in the Old Testament and the sacrifice of the Lamb of God
in the New Testament, it makes perfect sense. True, I can't explain all of it, but this is
what the Scriptures record. This shows how the seed of Abraham would be a blessing to
all the world. It's a matter of faith.

Jim

[Indian Bro]

Peace be with you, Jim

I have never heard a Christian comment that he or she felt that it was totally unjust that
God came down in human form to the Jewish community instead of the Polish or Russian
community for instance.

I find that quite strange to be honest, since I love God more than anything in the world I would want to know what made him give more preference to a particular group of sinners over his own Prophets (Peace be upon all of them).

Jesus was initially sent to the Jews, but his message of salvation extends to all nations.
The glad tidings that he came to bring was his gospel of his atoning sacrifice.

Can't really say his message extends to all nations as none of the Prophets (Peace be upon all of them) or the believing people prior to Jesus (PBUH) mentioned his name or anything related to a concept that belief in anything other than God will give you salvation. The only people who suggested this idea were the idol-worshipers who associated partners with God. Christianity, as I understand, is the concept of accepting that Jesus (PBUH) is the son of god and if you accept this your salvation is guaranteed. I don't think anyone spoke of this message prior to the time he was sent to the Jews.

When you
see the lambs being sacrificed in the Old Testament and the sacrifice of the Lamb of God
in the New Testament, it makes perfect sense. True, I can't explain all of it, but this is
what the Scriptures record. This shows how the seed of Abraham would be a blessing to
all the world. It's a matter of faith.

Jim

Is it true that Christians compare God to a lamb?

Salam 3laikum

[Ahmad H]

Jesus (as) did not have a message extending to all nations. There is just one story which proves this in the Bible, and it is the instance of a woman who asked Jesus (as) for something (can't remember), and he refuses because he was sent to the Jews, not to anyone else. So if his message extended to everyone, then he would not have said that. So it is completely and utterly false that Jesus was sent to everyone. If I were Christian, i would realize that Christianity was instead Judaism, and not some faith which extends to the whole world despite what the founder of the faith admitted himself.

Should anything be quoted from anyone besides Jesus that he said he is for the whole world, then I would not accept that. Jesus (as) should have said himself he was sent to the world. I have not found a shred of evidence which suggests this. he said he was sent to the lost sheep of Israel, not to the lost sheep of the world. What quote is used by Christians to prove against this? Jesus (as) would have had to have an interpretation of these words which says he was sent to the whole world. But last I checked, the whole world isn't Israel or Jewish. Therefore, Jesus was sent only to the Jews. I read the Bible. It is a complete fabrication to say that he was sent to the world.

As for sacrifice, in Islam, we sacrifice animals, but only to reflect on how we must endure sacrifices like these animals for the sake of Islam. So the sacrifice of a lamb of God only means that the believer must be sacrificing themselves like this in the way of Allah. So, in fact, the concept of sacrifice in Islam is much higher, since in Christianity only Jesus (as) sacrificed himself for the world, while everyone else reaps the benefits from it and he gets nothing but suffering. On the contrary, in Islam, we believe that we ourselves must be ready to sacrifice our very lives for the cause of Islam if need be. If someone kills us because we believe in Allah, we resign ourselves to it. If we must die, we die for Allah. If we live our lives, we live it for Allah. We give our wealth for Allah, we abstain from eating and drinking for the sake of Allah and we give our time for Allah. This is all part of the spirit of sacrifice. There is no loftier principle of sacrifice than what is given in Islam.
My point here is that Jesus (as) was merely considering himself to be worthy to be sacrificed for the sake of Allah, in the spirit of what i have mentioned. He bore the suffering that he was made to go through with the cross. He did not die from it, but he endured it for the sake of Allah. He did not endure it because what he does gets transferred to others. just where did he say that one's deeds can get transferred to another? The whole world waited for one crucifixion? I can't say I take such an idea seriously. If it is the truth, then Jesus (as) should have said it very clearly in the Bible, with no parable to explain it. He said on the cross: "My God, my God. Why have you forsaken me?" He was not saying that God put him there for a reason while he was on the cross, if his conviction in that matter was so pure and unadulterated, then why did he utter those words?

Everything about this matter is unarguable by Christians. Anyone who reads the Bible knows that Jesus (as) was sent as a reformer of Judaism. I have a Jewish friend who said the same thing. Yes, he does not accept Jesus (as) as a Prophet, which is not right, but he admits that Jesus (as) came to reform Judaism and to clarify the laws so that people could adapt to using them in a different age when things had become corrupt. But Jesus (as) was a Prophet of Allah and a Messenger, and Insha-Allah, we Muslims will be witnesses to his Prophethood on the Day of Judgment because Allah said so in the Holy Qur'an.

Feel free to say anything about what I have said above Jim. I'm not trying to bash Christian beliefs, I just have my own understanding of them based upon what I read in the Bible myself. I think most of what Christians say don't necessarily conform with their own text.

[theplains]

Peace be with you, Jim

I find that quite strange to be honest, since I love God more than anything in the world I would want to know what made him give more preference to a particular group of sinners over his own Prophets (Peace be upon all of them).

Is it true that Christians compare God to a lamb?

Salam 3laikum

On your first point, I can find no scriptural basis that God preferred a group of
sinners over his own Prophets. In regards to Jesus, he was the only sinless
person to have lived on earth. The Quran says, in 2:47, "O Children of Israel!
Remember My favour wherewith I favoured you and how I preferred you to (all)
creatures" (quranexplorer.com). No one on the forum has been able to explain
the why or the when of this (as to when, I'm asking for BCE to CE ... considering
that the Children of Israel are contemporary to the Children of Ishmael).

On the second point, I refer you to the Gospel of John. "The next day he saw Jesus
coming toward him, and said, "Behold, the Lamb of God, who takes away the sin
of the world! ... and he looked at Jesus as he walked by and said, "Behold, the
Lamb of God!"" (John 1:29,36). To understand this symbolism would involve a
study in the atonement.

Thanks,
Jim

[Indian Bro]

On your first point, I can find no scriptural basis that God preferred a group of
sinners over his own Prophets. In regards to Jesus, he was the only sinless
person to have lived on earth. The Quran says, in 2:47, "O Children of Israel!
Remember My favour wherewith I favoured you and how I preferred you to (all)
creatures" (quranexplorer.com). No one on the forum has been able to explain
the why or the when of this (as to when, I'm asking for BCE to CE ... considering
that the Children of Israel are contemporary to the Children of Ishmael).

On the second point, I refer you to the Gospel of John. "The next day he saw Jesus
coming toward him, and said, "Behold, the Lamb of God, who takes away the sin
of the world! ... and he looked at Jesus as he walked by and said, "Behold, the
Lamb of God!"" (John 1:29,36). To understand this symbolism would involve a
study in the atonement.

Thanks,
Jim

Peace be with you Jim,

Thanks for sharing your insights regarding my question, firstly I just want to state that I do not possess the level of knowledge that can answer your initial question regarding the verse from the Qur'aan. I have a doubt regarding Christianity and unfortunately I still haven't been satisfied with your answer.

On your first point, I can find no scriptural basis that God preferred a group of
sinners over his own Prophets.

It can be observed in the scriptures that Moses [who, we mutually agree, is a Prophet] (PBUH) had asked God to show himself, but God did not do so. However, God showed himself in the form of a human to the Jews (who, as we mutually agree, were sinners). From this observation one can conclude that God showed the biggest form of "preference" imaginable, by coming down on Earth himself and revealing himself!

In regards to Jesus, he was the only sinless person to have lived on earth.

We Muslims believe Prophet Muhammad (PBUH) was ALSO a sinless person, do we worship him? What was the point of mentioning that?

On the second point, I refer you to the Gospel of John. "The next day he saw Jesus
coming toward him, and said, "Behold, the Lamb of God, who takes away the sin
of the world! ... and he looked at Jesus as he walked by and said, "Behold, the
Lamb of God!"" (John 1:29,36). To understand this symbolism would involve a
study in the atonement.

I find it strange if you chose to refer to "Lamb of God" as symbolic but when Jesus (PBUH) referred to Allah (s.w.t.) as "Father" you take it in a literal sense. Who decides what is symbolic and what should be taken in a literal sense?

Salam 3laikum

[theplains]

Thanks for sharing your insights regarding my question, firstly I just want to state that I do not possess the level of knowledge that can answer your initial question regarding the verse from the Qur'aan.

No problem. If the Quran does not teach this, then its better not to speculate. I had hoped
someone could give some timelines for 2:47 so I could seek more clarification.

We Muslims believe Prophet Muhammad (PBUH) was *ALSO *a sinless person, do we worship him? What was the point of mentioning that?

I just wanted to mention that Jesus was the only sinless person, based on what is
mentioned in the scriptures. This would make Christ the lamb without blemish.

I feel you are being a hypocrite if you chose to refer to "Lamb of God" as symbolic but when Jesus (PBUH) referred to Allah (s.w.t.) as "Father" you take it in a literal sense. Who decides what is symbolic and what should be taken in a literal sense?

Maybe I should clarify. John the Baptist referred to Christ as the Lamb of God because he
represented/symbolized the lamb who would be literally sacrificed for the atonement. We
believe, as the scriptures teach, that Jesus is the Son of the Father, but not in a
procreated/sexual way. We don't attribute a son to God in this way. Mormons teach
that God has a wife and that Jesus was his first spirit child, but I don't believe this.

However, God showed himself in the form of a human to the Jews (who, as we mutually agree, were sinners). From this observation one can conclude that God showed the biggest form of "preference" imaginable, by coming down on Earth himself and revealing himself!

From history, I know that God did not specifically send any prophets to countries like France,
Spain, and Portugal to warn them of pending destruction for disobeying the Mosaic Law or
other sayings of God but we do have the writings of some of the Christian evangelists that
eventually went to Europe to preach. They were commissioned to do so by Jesus. According
to the Bible, there is salvation in Christ's atoning work. The period of Law had become the
period of Grace For example, the teachings of Buddhism do not save me because Christ has
already saved me.

You see, when we hear that Jesus is referred to as the Messiah, there is not a scenario
where Jesus is a Jewish Messiah, and there another Messiah for Russia, and yet another
French Messiah (for examples) ... Jesus is the only one called Messiah in the scriptures.

Would you object to God's preference if the incarnation in Jesus was the method he chose
and in the lineage he chose? If yes, why? If no, then would you have preferred that he had
come in the lineage of Ishmael instead or some other nationality (like Japanese)? And why?

Thanks,
Jim

[Indian Bro]

I just wanted to mention that Jesus was the only sinless person, based on what is
mentioned in the scriptures. This would make Christ the lamb without blemish.

Sorry but I don't understand the correlation between a lamb and a person being sinless. My point was, if Jesus (PBUH) did commit a sin then Christianity wouldn't exist today because no one would regard him as a God, but we Muslims also believe that Muhammad (PBUH) was sinless, so does this mean, according to you, that Muslims should regard Muhammad (PBUH) as a God?

Maybe I should clarify. John the Baptist referred to Christ as the Lamb of God because he
represented/symbolized the lamb who would be literally sacrificed for the atonement. We
believe, as the scriptures teach, that Jesus is the Son of the Father, but not in a
procreated/sexual way. We don't attribute a son to God in this way. Mormons teach
that God has a wife and that Jesus was his first spirit child, but I don't believe this.

After reading this part, I find the relationship you define between Jesus (PBUH) and the Father very confusing. Can you please provide verses from the Bible that establish what relationship Jesus (PBUH) has with the Father?

From history, I know that God did not specifically send any prophets to countries like France,
Spain, and Portugal to warn them

Can you provide evidence for this claim? Unless you think countries were having names such as France, Spain, Portugal since the days of Adam (PBUH) then there is no need to.

Would you object to God's preference if the incarnation in Jesus was the method he chose
and in the lineage he chose? If yes, why? If no, then would you have preferred that he had
come in the lineage of Ishmael instead or some other nationality (like Japanese)? And why?

I would never object to what God would ever do, I only ask questions for my doubts and if they go unanswered I'll continue to live without worries because God knows better than all of us, who am I to question the Almighty? I feel uncomfortable with the idea that God would come down to Earth for ONE PARTICULAR community of ONE PARTICULAR time, especially when that community is a group of sinners. I feel it's the biggest injustice imaginable to the entire mankind and especially to Prophets like Moses (PBUH) who asked God to show Himself, but God didn't do so.

[Pygoscelis]

Why did God appear specifically to the Hebrews? Because they invented the God and created the religion. Other Gods appeared to other cultures. Christians say God appeared to Jews simply because it is a spin off religion. Nothing more to it. No mystery to be solved.

[Indian Bro]

Why did God appear specifically to the Hebrews? Because they invented the God and created the religion. Other Gods appeared to other cultures. Christians say God appeared to Jews simply because it is a spin off religion. Nothing more to it. No mystery to be solved.

Peace be with you Pygoscelis,

I'm sorry but you need to clarify your statement. Are you implying that no one worshiped the same God the Jews worshiped before "Judaism" was formed? Can you provide evidence for this.

Salam 3laikum

[Al-Mufarridun]

2] God decided to come down on Earth
Thanks,
Jim

Jesus was initially sent to the Jews,
Jim

Greetings Jim,

Did God come down or did he send Jesus(as)?

[M.I.A.]

Why did God appear specifically to the Hebrews? Because they invented the God and created the religion. Other Gods appeared to other cultures. Christians say God appeared to Jews simply because it is a spin off religion. Nothing more to it. No mystery to be solved.

its because the jews were always clever.




...it was a joke btw.. but a good an answer as any.

wow such a racist and still present stereotype.

hehe.. tawba.


maybe its because they were always being persecuted? im just guessing, i have no knowledge of jewish history.


i mean its like saying why does such a country have the best scientists?
its usually because they have invested a lot into science.

and other factors.


i dont actually know why god chose the jews but i think as long as you base your answer on physical bodies, flesh and bone.
you fail to grasp the creator and the covenants made with him.



actually just re-read the thread title and realised it was a jesus AS topic.

you could have easily said why was moses AS sent to the pharaoh?

[theplains]

Sorry but I don't understand the correlation between a lamb and a person being sinless.

Hello again.

It is a little complicated to explain if you don't understand the Old Testament sacrifices
of a lamb without blemish. Jesus is the Passover lamb, commemorating the passover feast
of the Old Testament in the exodus of the Israelites from Egypt.

My point was, if Jesus (PBUH) did commit a sin then Christianity wouldn't exist today because no one would regard him as a God,

In addition, there would be no Christianity without the resurrection. If the resurrection is
not true, Christianity falls.

but we Muslims also believe that Muhammad (PBUH) was sinless,

What do you base your belief on?

After reading this part, I find the relationship you define between Jesus (PBUH) and the Father very confusing. Can you please provide verses from the Bible that establish what relationship Jesus (PBUH) has with the Father?

Are you familiar with the software called ESword? It's very good at doing
searches. Another good website I use for questions is gotquestions dot org.

The Muslim-questions dot html page has many common questions that Muslims
ask.

I'll give a few verses that I found:

a) The Bible clearly teaches that it was “the Son” who created all things, thus strongly implying that Christ was the Son of God at the time of creation (Col. 1:13,16; Heb. 1:2).

b) The Bible teaches that the Son has eternally existed in the bosom of the Father. John 1:18 translated literally from the Greek says this: “No man hath seen God at any time; the only begotten Son, THE ONE EVER BEING (existing) IN THE BOSOM OF THE FATHER, He hath declared Him.”

c) The many passages which speak of the Father SENDING the Son all imply that Christ existed as the Son prior to His mission (1 John 4:10,14; John 20:21; Gal. 4:4; etc.).

d) The parable of the vineyard owner (Mark 12:1-12) points to Christ as being the Son prior to His coming into the world. In the parable, the son of the vineyard owner was the son long before he was sent on his mission.

e) God gave His Son (John 3:16), implying that Christ was God's Son before He was given. God the Father did not give One who would become His Son, but He gave One who already was His Son.

f) Christ had a relationship to the Father prior to the incarnation. John 16:28 teaches that Christ came forth from the Father, strongly implying that there was a Father/Son relationship before He came into this world. John 17:5,24 also indicates that there was a Father/Son relationship in the Godhead even before the creation of the world.

g) The One who existed as the Son of God became the Son of David at the time of the incarnation (Rom. 1:3-4). The incarnation is when God became a man, it is not when God became the Son. He was God's Son from all eternity.
h) Even in the Old Testament period we find evidence that God indeed had a Son, such as Proverbs 30:4 and Psalm 2:7-12 (compare also Daniel 3:25; Isaiah 9:6).

i) Melchisedec was a type of the Son of God because He was “without father, without mother, without descent, having neither beginning of days, nor end of life” (Heb. 7:3). As to His humanity Christ did have a mother, a genealogy, beginning of days, an end of His life (He died!), etc. His divine Sonship, however, has nothing to do with human parents, human lineage, human birth, or time measurements. It is an eternal Sonship.

Can you provide evidence for this claim? Unless you think countries were having names such as France, Spain, Portugal since the days of Adam (PBUH) then there is no need to.

I cannot. But I do not see records that God send prophets specifically to these countries.

I would never object to what God would ever do, I only ask questions for my doubts and if they go unanswered I'll continue to live without worries because God knows better than all of us, who am I to question the Almighty? I feel uncomfortable with the idea that God would come down to Earth for ONE PARTICULAR community of ONE PARTICULAR time, especially when that community is a group of sinners. I feel it's the biggest injustice imaginable to the entire mankind and especially to Prophets like Moses (PBUH) who asked God to show Himself, but God didn't do so.

I suppose God being incarnated in a man could happen as many times as He wished, but
we don't have a record that this happened to a man as evidenced by his life and miracles,
etc. We do have Greek and Roman mythology but they are long ago extinct (except for
some remnants in our naming of months and planets).

It is recorded, "But when Jesus heard that, he said unto them, They that be whole need
not a physician, but they that are sick ... When Jesus heard it, he saith unto them, They
that are whole have no need of the physician, but they that are sick: I came not to call
the righteous, but sinners to repentance".

To understand why Jesus came in the line of the Jews, you need to understand the
covenant God established in Abraham through Isaac. This is what the Bible speaks
about.

If God became incarnated in a man, would you expect him to come to a community
that are sinners or who are sinless?

Thanks,
Jim

[Indian Bro]

Hello again.

It is a little complicated to explain if you don't understand the Old Testament sacrifices
of a lamb without blemish. Jesus is the Passover lamb, commemorating the passover feast
of the Old Testament in the exodus of the Israelites from Egypt.

So Jesus (PBUH) is the Father, the Son, the Holy Spirit and the Lamb?

In addition, there would be no Christianity without the resurrection. If the resurrection is
not true, Christianity falls.

How can God commit a sin? The resurrection is irrelevant if you're worshiping a God that sins.

What do you base your belief on?

Read more here: http://www.islamqa.com/en/ref/1684

Are you familiar with the software called ESword? It's very good at doing
searches. Another good website I use for questions is gotquestions dot org.

The Muslim-questions dot html page has many common questions that Muslims
ask.

I'll give a few verses that I found:

a) The Bible clearly teaches that it was “the Son” who created all things, thus strongly implying that Christ was the Son of God at the time of creation (Col. 1:13,16; Heb. 1:2).

b) The Bible teaches that the Son has eternally existed in the bosom of the Father. John 1:18 translated literally from the Greek says this: “No man hath seen God at any time; the only begotten Son, THE ONE EVER BEING (existing) IN THE BOSOM OF THE FATHER, He hath declared Him.”

c) The many passages which speak of the Father SENDING the Son all imply that Christ existed as the Son prior to His mission (1 John 4:10,14; John 20:21; Gal. 4:4; etc.).

d) The parable of the vineyard owner (Mark 12:1-12) points to Christ as being the Son prior to His coming into the world. In the parable, the son of the vineyard owner was the son long before he was sent on his mission.

e) God gave His Son (John 3:16), implying that Christ was God's Son before He was given. God the Father did not give One who would become His Son, but He gave One who already was His Son.

f) Christ had a relationship to the Father prior to the incarnation. John 16:28 teaches that Christ came forth from the Father, strongly implying that there was a Father/Son relationship before He came into this world. John 17:5,24 also indicates that there was a Father/Son relationship in the Godhead even before the creation of the world.

g) The One who existed as the Son of God became the Son of David at the time of the incarnation (Rom. 1:3-4). The incarnation is when God became a man, it is not when God became the Son. He was God's Son from all eternity.
h) Even in the Old Testament period we find evidence that God indeed had a Son, such as Proverbs 30:4 and Psalm 2:7-12 (compare also Daniel 3:25; Isaiah 9:6).

i) Melchisedec was a type of the Son of God because He was “without father, without mother, without descent, having neither beginning of days, nor end of life” (Heb. 7:3). As to His humanity Christ did have a mother, a genealogy, beginning of days, an end of His life (He died!), etc. His divine Sonship, however, has nothing to do with human parents, human lineage, human birth, or time measurements. It is an eternal Sonship.

So from all these quotes, a logical Christian can derive that the Father and the Son were separate and not one. Then why do Christians believe that the son and the father are both one?

I cannot. But I do not see records that God send prophets specifically to these countries.


I suppose God being incarnated in a man could happen as many times as He wished, but
we don't have a record that this happened to a man as evidenced by his life and miracles,
etc. We do have Greek and Roman mythology but they are long ago extinct (except for
some remnants in our naming of months and planets).

It is recorded, "But when Jesus heard that, he said unto them, They that be whole need
not a physician, but they that are sick ... When Jesus heard it, he saith unto them, They
that are whole have no need of the physician, but they that are sick: I came not to call
the righteous, but sinners to repentance".

To understand why Jesus came in the line of the Jews, you need to understand the
covenant God established in Abraham through Isaac. This is what the Bible speaks
about.

If God became incarnated in a man, would you expect him to come to a community
that are sinners or who are sinless?

Thanks,
Jim

We're going really off-topic, let's stick to this particular part of the discussion. Why do you want to get to specifics, were these countries named as they are today since the creation of the Earth? I don't believe in incarnation of God, that's what the Hindus and others believe in and it's totally illogical to me, it defeats the purpose of life and doesn't make sense at ALL. The same way we agree that God CANNOT lie, I believe God CANNOT take the form of a human because human is a creation. I'm not here to discuss incarnation, you can make another thread about it and we'll discuss it there, I want to know why God chose one community of sinners over the rest of mankind and you still haven't answered my question. If you don't have the answer it's fine, I'm just curious.

The answer to your question, I wouldn't expect God to incarnate at all. If God didn't show himself to Moses (PBUH) who was a saint, why would He show himself to sinners? Is God more Just to the sinner than to the doers of good?

[Independent]

Why is it that god decided to come down on earth specifically for the Israel community? What makes that community more worthy of being in the presence of god than any other community in the history of mankind?

I don't understand this question. Surely you could as easily ask, why was Muhammad sent specifically to another particular community (the Arabs)? Why do you find one logical but not the other?

[Indian Bro]

I don't understand this question. Surely you could as easily ask, why was Muhammad sent specifically to another particular community (the Arabs)? Why do you find one logical but not the other?

As-salamu alaykum,

Please re-read the title of the topic and read your question again. You are comparing God to a Prophet, isn't YOUR question illogical? And besides, Prophet Muhammad (PBUH) was not sent for the Arabs, this is a common misconception backed without any evidence or proof, he was in fact sent for the entire mankind till the Last Day. http://www.answering-christianity.co...to_mankind.htm

Whereas I don't think the Bible mentions anywhere that Jesus (PBUH) was sent for mankind but rather for the Jews. Can you show me any evidence which says Muhammad (PBUH) was sent only for the Arabs?

Salam 3laikum

[Independent]

Prophet Muhammad (PBUH) was not sent for the Arabs, this is a common misconception backed without any evidence or proof, he was in fact sent for the entire mankind till the Last Day

Indian Bro, I am genuinely surprised by your question. I would have expected a Muslim to have no problem with the principle of a crucial message being delivered specifically to a certain people - as a matter of fact this is more like the kind of question atheists ask.

I was taught in school that Jesus was sent to one particular community, but with a message for all mankind. As i understand it, Muslims believe that Muhammad was also sent to a particular community, also with a message for all mankind.

Aside from theology or scriptural references (which I"m in no way qualified to give) I don't see why one notion is logical but not the other?

[Indian Bro]

Indian Bro, I am genuinely surprised by your question. I would have expected a Muslim to have no problem with the principle of a crucial message being delivered specifically to a certain people - as a matter of fact this is more like the kind of question atheists ask.

I was taught in school that Jesus was sent to one particular community, but with a message for all mankind. As i understand it, Muslims believe that Muhammad was also sent to a particular community, also with a message for all mankind.

Aside from theology or scriptural references (which I"m in no way qualified to give) I don't see why one notion is logical but not the other?

As-salamu alaykum,

I don't want to know what you were taught in school or university or at home, all I'm asking you is to show me evidence for your claims. And you're failing to understand that you cannot compare God to a Prophet. God sending a Prophet to a community as a messenger is totally incomparable to God coming down to a community Himself! If you still fail to understand my question, please let me know and I shall do all I can to explain in more detail.

Salam 3laikum

[Independent]

I don't want to know what you were taught in school or university or at home, all I'm asking you is to show me evidence for your claims.

I'm not claiming anything. I'm curious because the question you asked is the kind of question an atheist would ask, which suggests to me I must be missing something!

God sending a Prophet to a community as a messenger is totally incomparable to God coming down to a community Himself!

This looks like what I'm missing. However, i don't see it as relevant to this question.

It doesn't make any difference whether the messenger concerned is a man, a God, an aspect of God, or anything else in between. The question about 'favouritism' isn't to do with the messenger, it's the fact that one tiny community has been preferred before all others on earth, in all other times, to receive this message. I understand there are reasons that have been given for this, but I don't see why they make sense for one religion but not another.

This issue is surely no more a 'logical' problem for Christianity than it is for Islam so I wouldn't have expected it to be a source of difference.

[Indian Bro]

I'm not claiming anything. I'm curious because the question you asked is the kind of question an atheist would ask, which suggests to me I must be missing something!


This looks like what I'm missing. However, i don't see it as relevant to this question.

It doesn't make any difference whether the messenger concerned is a man, a God, an aspect of God, or anything else in between. The question about 'favouritism' isn't to do with the messenger, it's the fact that one tiny community has been preferred before all others on earth, in all other times, to receive this message. I understand there are reasons that have been given for this, but I don't see why they make sense for one religion but not another.

This issue is surely no more a 'logical' problem for Christianity than it is for Islam so I wouldn't have expected it to be a source of difference.

As-salamu alaykum,

I'm not sure if the Old Testament or New Testament has mentioned this, but the Qur'aan mentions that God Almighty had sent a messenger (a person who warns people and gives them news of good tidings) to every nation. God hasn't mentioned in scriptures whether these nations were France or Spain or Trinidad & Tobago and God doesn't NEED to, if you want to know why then I'll explain this as well. Therefore God has never showed injustice when it came to delivering messengers to communities. However, as far as we all know, God has NEVER come down to any community before and this is evident in all scriptures, but according to Christian belief, God came down to the lost sheep of Israel, which is one particular tiny community as you have mentioned. I want to know if there is any particular reason behind God showing this kind of preference because according to me, this is the biggest preference that has ever existed since the creation of mankind and I am surprised no one has brought this up before, lol.

Salam 3laikum

[theplains]

So Jesus (PBUH) is the Father, the Son, the Holy Spirit and the Lamb?

Jesus is symbolized as the Passover lamb in the New Testament. He is also Saviour and
Lord. Never heard someone call him the Father or the Holy Spirit.

How can God commit a sin? The resurrection is irrelevant if you're worshiping a God that sins.

I was never taught by the scriptures that God sinned.

Read more here: http://www.islamqa.com/en/ref/1684

I read that. It says that while Muhammad did not commit major sins, he committed minor
sins (48:2). I also saw extra verses 40:55, 47:19 at quran.com.

So from all these quotes, a logical Christian can derive that the Father and the Son
were separate and not one. Then why do Christians believe that the son and the father
are both one?

What do you mean by "one"?

The answer to your question, I wouldn't expect God to incarnate at all. If God didn't show himself to Moses (PBUH) who was a saint, why would He show himself to sinners? Is God more Just to the sinner than to the doers of good?

I was trying to explain that a doctor is only for people who are sick. That is why
I quoted what Jesus said in my last post.

What do you mean that Moses was a saint?

I believe God CANNOT take the form of a human because human is a creation.

Is it too difficult for God to transfer his spirit to a human creation? After all, Jesus walked
on water. The incarnation shouldn't be difficult at all. There's a difference between saying
"I cannot believe God did that" and "I will not believe God did that".

Do you believe the words of God became the Quran or is the Quran uncreated?

Hypothetical question: if God were to become born into the human family and then grow
up as man, what would that man be like?

Thanks,
Jim

[theplains]

Greetings Jim,

Did God come down or did he send Jesus(as)?

Hello. The incarnation is the way God became a man ... according to the teachings of
John for example. This is how I view the term "sent" in Jesus' case.

Thanks,
Jim

[Indian Bro]

As-salamu alaykum,

Jesus is symbolized as the Passover lamb in the New Testament. He is also Saviour and
Lord. Never heard someone call him the Father or the Holy Spirit.

I always assumed that the Christians believe the trinity to be 1 + 1 + 1 = 1, all three are the same, or do you believe in three different Gods?

I was never taught by the scriptures that God sinned.

Indeed, it is impossible for God to sin, therefore if Jesus (PBUH) did commit a sin he wouldn't qualify to be labelled a "God", therefore any other event such as the resurrection is irrelevant because the foundations don't support what Christians claim Jesus (PBUH) to be.

I read that. It says that while Muhammad did not commit major sins, he committed minor
sins (48:2). I also saw extra verses 40:55, 47:19 at quran.com.

I'm sorry for the confusion I caused with calling Muhammad (PBUH) as sinless. I meant he never committed any sin with the intention to disobey God, nor did he commit any major sin, all his sins were minor sins and were unintentional as he was just a human-being. Previous Prophets have also committed minor sins and all these Prophets have been forgiven by God after they repented, even Jesus (PBUH). Prophets wont commit sins such as telling lies, getting intoxicated or zina which are termed as major sins.

What do you mean by "one"?

The Father, the Holy Spirit and the Son are one according to the trinity, just like an egg. Therefore they are one.

I was trying to explain that a doctor is only for people who are sick. That is why
I quoted what Jesus said in my last post.

Does a doctor enter a hospital, see's 10 patients waiting to be checked-up and decides only to check-up 1 patient and goes back home? Isn't it injustice for the other 9 patients when the doctor was more than capable to look at them as well?

What do you mean that Moses was a saint?

Moses (PBUH) was a holy person who devoted his life to God, a pious individual who tried all he could not to sin.

Is it too difficult for God to transfer his spirit to a human creation? After all, Jesus walked
on water. The incarnation shouldn't be difficult at all. There's a difference between saying
"I cannot believe God did that" and "I will not believe God did that".

Do you believe the words of God became the Quran or is the Quran uncreated?

Hypothetical question: if God were to become born into the human family and then grow
up as man, what would that man be like?

Thanks,
Jim

Nothing is "difficult" for God. But this doesn't mean you can say "God can lie" or "God can be unjust" or "God can commit sin". And Jesus (PBUH) walking on water isn't so special when you take into consideration that Moses (PBUH) split a sea. These were miracles given to them by God.

Exodus 33:20-23Thou canst not see my face: for there shall no man see me, and live. And the LORD said, Behold, there is a place by me, and thou shalt stand upon a rock: And it shall come to pass, while my glory passeth by, that I will put theein a clift of the rock, and will cover thee with my hand while I pass by: And I will take away mine hand, and thou shalt see my back parts: but my face shall not be seen.


So did God contradict himself by coming down to the lost sheep of Israel and showing his face OR did he show injustice to the entire mankind, especially Moses (PBUH)?

Salam 3laikum

[theplains]

As-salamu alaykum,
I always assumed that the Christians believe the trinity to be 1 + 1 + 1 = 1, all three are the same, or do you believe in three different Gods?

I don't fully understand it myself, but I believe that somehow God exists as three
persons but not three Gods (something like 1x1x1=1).

Indeed, it is impossible for God to sin, therefore if Jesus (PBUH) did commit a sin he wouldn't qualify to be labelled a "God", therefore any other event such as the resurrection is irrelevant because the foundations don't support what Christians
claim Jesus (PBUH) to be.

Correct. If Jesus was a sinner, then the Atonement / Resurrection never happened. If
he was a sinner then he could not be the Passover Lamb. To understand the concept
of Passover, you need to know what this feast is about. Everything that Jesus did proves
his identity. The Jews viewed some of his statements as blasphemy so they wanted to
kill him.

I'm sorry for the confusion I caused with calling Muhammad (PBUH) as sinless. I meant
he never committed any sin with the intention to disobey God, nor did he commit any major
sin, all his sins were minor sins and were unintentional as he was just a human-being.

I understand. Naturally we never want to disobey God but his high standard
(The Ten Commandments) shows that those who fail to keep the law intentionally
disobey God. The apostle James said, "So whoever knows the right thing to do and
fails to do it, for him it is sin".

Previous Prophets have also committed minor sins and all these Prophets have been forgiven
by God after they repented, even Jesus (PBUH). Prophets wont commit sins such as telling lies,
getting intoxicated or zina which are termed as major sins.

I don't think God has a category of minor sins and major sins. All sin is repugnant to a
holy God.

The Father, the Holy Spirit and the Son are one according to the trinity, just like an egg. Therefore they are one.

The Trinity is difficult to understand so I don't bother trying to explain it. Some have
tried to teach it with a triangle where all the angles are 60 degrees but it still pales
in an explanation.

Does a doctor enter a hospital, see's 10 patients waiting to be checked-up and decides only
to check-up 1 patient and goes back home? Isn't it injustice for the other 9 patients when the
doctor was more than capable to look at them as well?

All mankind is sick with sin. Jesus came and provided the atonement once for all time.
It does not have to be repeated. It is similar to today's world. When the doctor creates
a cure for the common cold, he does not have to visit all the millions of people around
the world who have the cold to cure them. Jesus commissioned his apostles to preach
the gospel. It is faith in the death, burial, and resurrection of Christ for the atonement of
sins that saves people. Jesus does not have to visit everyone personally.

So did God contradict himself after coming down to the lost sheep of Israel OR did he show injustice to the entire mankind, especially Moses (PBUH)?

My parents came from the former Yugoslavia and then I was born in Canada. My
people don't view it as injustice that God only came down in human form to Israel.
I have never experienced this in my church also which is made up from people from
all over the world. So your comment puzzles me ... is this feeling of injustice only
possessed by Muslims?

Thanks,
Jim

[Indian Bro]

I don't think God has a category of minor sins and major sins. All sin is repugnant to a
holy God.

I guess it's because Christians don't believe God will punish them for any sin, so it doesn't really make sense to categorize sins.

All mankind is sick with sin. Jesus came and provided the atonement once for all time.
It does not have to be repeated. It is similar to today's world. When the doctor creates
a cure for the common cold, he does not have to visit all the millions of people around
the world who have the cold to cure them. Jesus commissioned his apostles to preach
the gospel. It is faith in the death, burial, and resurrection of Christ for the atonement of
sins that saves people. Jesus does not have to visit everyone personally.

Let's stick to my previous example and use your example too, if you don't mind :p . 10 patients suffering from the common cold, each patient living in a different part of the world, wouldn't the doctor bring the cure to all 10 of them if he is more than capable of doing so? Why did he go to only one patient and ignore the other 9? Either the doctor is unjust to the other 9 OR he didn't have the time, financial means or capability of doing so. I find it difficult to compare a God to a doctor anyway, a doctor has many limitations as he is human, whereas God has no limitations, so it becomes difficult to compare the two. When you say "God didn't need to go see everyone personally", I will counter your argument and say "God doesn't need to see anyone personally, because

Exodus 33:20-23
Thou canst not see my face: for there shall no man see me, and live.

If Jesus (PBUH) was truly a god, surely he was a very unjust god or a god that contradicted Himself.

My parents came from the former Yugoslavia and then I was born in Canada. My
people don't view it as injustice that God only came down in human form to Israel.
I have never experienced this in my church also which is made up from people from
all over the world. So your comment puzzles me ... is this feeling of injustice only
possessed by Muslims?

Thanks,
Jim

As-salamu alaykum

I have not heard any person or Muslim bring up this matter, which I found quite bemusing to be honest, considering God is The Greatest and so a believer of God might wonder why God gave such a big preference to a bunch of sinners than to his own Prophets (Peace be upon them all).

Salam 3laikum

[theplains]

I guess it's because Christians don't believe God will punish them for any sin, so it doesn't really make sense to categorize sins.

You may be referring to atheists or ignorant Christians. I think it is humans who categorize
sins so they can compare themselves to people who think they are worse in order to make
them feel like they appear better in God's eyes. I have heard the expression, "I haven't
killed anyone like Hitler so I don't deserve hell".

Let's stick to my previous example and use your example too, if you don't mind :p . 10 patients suffering from the common cold, each patient living in a different part of the world, wouldn't the doctor bring the cure to all 10 of them if he is more than capable of doing so? Why did he go to only one patient and ignore the other 9? Either the doctor is unjust to the other 9 OR he didn't have the time, financial means or capability of doing so.

You may be referring to a walk-in-clinic type of doctor. He needs to examine everyone that
comes to the clinic that day. In the case of Jesus, his atonement is universal. His coming to
earth to provide this atonement does not need to be repeated. He can heal you right where
you are.

I find it difficult to compare a God to a doctor anyway, a doctor has many limitations as he is human, whereas God has no limitations, so it becomes difficult to compare the two.

I agree but it helps to explain some things in terms we'll understand.

When you say "God didn't need to go see everyone personally", I will counter your argument and say "God doesn't need to see anyone personally, because

Exodus 33:20-23
Thou canst not see my face: for there shall no man see me, and live.

If Jesus (PBUH) was truly a god, surely he was a very unjust god or a god that contradicted Himself.

I think this means seeing God in his full glory.

Thanks,
Jim

[Indian Bro]

As-salamu alaykum,

You may be referring to atheists or ignorant Christians. I think it is humans who categorize
sins so they can compare themselves to people who think they are worse in order to make
them feel like they appear better in God's eyes. I have heard the expression, "I haven't
killed anyone like Hitler so I don't deserve hell".

So you're saying that a person who killed 1 person should receive the same punishment from God as a person who killed as many as Hitler?

You may be referring to a walk-in-clinic type of doctor. He needs to examine everyone that
comes to the clinic that day. In the case of Jesus, his atonement is universal. His coming to
earth to provide this atonement does not need to be repeated. He can heal you right where
you are.

No, I'm referring to a doctor who has a "universal" cure for something. And your argument isn't supported by the New Testament as Jesus (PBUH) said he was sent for the Lost sheep of Israel, therefore it can't be "universal".

I agree but it helps to explain some things in terms we'll understand.

Clearly it hasn't helped at all.

I think this means seeing God in his full glory.

Thanks,
Jim

Whichever way you look at it, if Christians believe Jesus (PBUH) existed throughout time, why couldn't he descend upon Moses (PBUH) if Jesus (PBUH) was truly a God? Or are you implying that Moses (PBUH) was speaking to the Father and NOT to the son?

Peace be with you.

[Amigo]

As-salamu alaykum,

Sorry to bump this thread, but if we're talking about "Preferences given to a certain community from a religious perspective", I have a question regarding Christianity.

Why is it that god decided to come down on earth specifically for the Israel community? What makes that community more worthy of being in the presence of god than any other community in the history of mankind? Putting aside all the great Prophets of God, even Moses (PBUH) did not see God when he asked God to show himself.

Salam 3laikum.

God comes to all men, but we men receive God differently, those who receive him better, He commune with them deeper.
God does not force himself on anyone, so He works with those who are most friendly to Him.
It is like friendship, we pick our friends according to how approchable they are to us.
From Adam to our time, it is the same Law of love.

[Indian Bro]

God comes to all men, but we men receive God differently, those who receive him better, He commune with them deeper.
God does not force himself on anyone, so He works with those who are most friendly to Him.
It is like friendship, we pick our friends according to how approchable they are to us.
From Adam to our time, it is the same Law of love.

Peace be with you Amigo,

Sorry, but your answer doesn't justify God showing more preference to sinners than his own Prophets and mankind.

[Muslim sister.]

very crucial question since its pertaining to an important topic. The truth is Faith is seeing God by your heart, its knowig God by heart , witnessing His attributes. in this world God wants us to see Him this way, and this is the reason why He gifted us with a mind - to reflecton on His creation and thus come to know Him. If God reveals Himselfs to us Physical form we will be deviated fro the aim of embracing God geniunely and seeing Him with our hearts, our belief will become superficial and we will miss the whole point if we confine God who is Incomparable and Infinite into a body form, this is considered blamespheous , because you cannot confine God in a matterialistic/physical form,, Allah is unique, He is above the matter which we see with our eyes, He is high exalted and this does not suite His magesty. now lets get back to basis because God and infact wants us to see Him with our hearts and when we talk about seeing God physically then we are altering from the real aim and getting off the point and infact missing out the whole lesson on why we have been created and put in this temporary life. Now God is telling us that the big point is that we see Him by our hearts and embrace His lights which gives us insight, and enlightment in life, this is the big point, not just seeing God physically. Gladtidings are for those who see God with our hearts then in the hereafter this will be our addmission to manifesting Him as He would reveal His Gloriousness. But lets make a truthful and good effort not to miss the bigger point. Praise be to God who is Full of Wisdom may Allah enlighten us

[theplains]

The truth is Faith is seeing God by your heart, its knowig God by heart , witnessing His attributes. in this world God wants us to see Him this way, and this is the reason why He gifted us with a mind - to reflecton on His creation and thus come to know Him. If God reveals Himselfs to us Physical form we will be deviated fro the aim of embracing God geniunely and seeing Him with our hearts, our belief will become superficial and we will miss the whole point if we confine God who is Incomparable and Infinite into a body form, this is considered blamespheous , because you cannot confine God in a matterialistic/physical form,,

Why do you think God is too exalted to reveal himself in human form if he chose to
do so?

Thanks,
Jim

[جوري]

Why do you think God is too exalted to reveal himself in human form if he chose to
do so?

No one wants to worship another human beings for starters, let alone a weak ineffectual human being, who
1- couldn't choose appropriate apostles (peter) forsook him thrice before this god allegedly self-immolated
2- This god also decided that his hand appointed apostles weren't good enough so he appeared to a charlatan (saul) to give the message said god couldn't give during his lifetime and the message was no longer about monotheism rather worshiping the messenger
3- this same god couldn't ward off a couple of conspirators even after a night of prayer to himself in Gethsemane, and yet he promises to save all of mankind.. shouldn't a promise to self set the precedents to the promise to mankind?

hope you don't mind me stealing her thunder but just a couple of reasons christianity comes across as a big farce!

best,

[Muslim sister.]

Why do you think God is too exalted to reveal himself in human form if he chose to
do so?

Thanks,


Jim

It's not merely because of being exalted than the fact that Allah wants us to emphasise on our faith in our hearts, if God reviels Himself physically this might alter that purpose and belief may become emphasising o the superficial side,Allah wants us to embrace Him wholeheartedly and spiritually/geniunely, this is the big point, after that seeing Him with our eyes will be easy insha'Allah. But lets not get deviated from the big point, and that is seeing Him with our hearts, this is tbe profound and geniune faitj

[Abu Loren]

Why do you think God is too exalted to reveal himself in human form if he chose to
do so?

If I could jump in...

Human beings are the creation of God Almighty. God is holy, human beings sin even innocently as a child. This is the whole reason that the Christian concept of the holy spirit could never 'in-dwell' the human body. Do you really think that God who became a man would do the filthy things that a human does like going to the toilet etc?

Anothe fact that the Christians conveniently ignore is that God told us that no human being has ever seen Him. He was always outside of His creation.

It just amazes me how many things are wrong with Christianity yet they beat the same old drum over and over again.

[Insaanah]

Why do you think God is too exalted to reveal himself in human form if he chose to
do so?

Allah the Great and Glorious, only chooses to do things that befit His Trancendent Majesty, Glorified and Exalted be He, above what people attribute to Him.

Being mixed up in His creation, begetting a son etc, do not befit His Majesty.

Christians believe that Jesus (peace be upon him) is God incarnate, as Hindus believe in human incarnations of god, (though they also believe in some animal incarnations too).

A god who lives as a baby, needs to be suckled and weaned, cries and is helpless, has to perform all bodily functions such as defaecating, being ill, in Islam all these things are incompatible with being God.

I'll list some of the main points about the Islamic concept of God below, then you'll be able to see where we're coming from:

There is only One God. He alone should be worshipped. He is our Creator, Sustainer, Cherisher, and Lord. No being, no object, nothing other than Him, is worthy of prayer/worship.

He does not beget, nor is He begotten. He has no sons, daughters, siblings, parents, cousins, or relatives of any sort.

He is eternal and does not die.

He does not depend on anyone/anything yet we all depend on Him. He is free of all want and need.

There is nothing like Him. He is all Hearing, all Seeing, all Knowing, all Powerful, the Creator of the Universe.

He did not and does not, dwell in human or animal bodies, nor are there any incarnations of Him. He is not mixed up in His creation in any way.

He is not composed of persons, nor a trinity. There are no secondary, lesser, greater, equal, or multiple gods, no intermediaries, and no denying of God's existence either.

There are no sharers or associates or parts whatsoever in His exclusive Divinity. Simply, He is One, in every sense.

Jesus (peace be upon him) is one of the greatest messengers of God, and the Messiah, born miraculously of the noble lady virgin Mary, peace be upon her. Jesus (peace be upon him) is one of the most noble men to ever walk the face of the earth, but not divine in any way.

[Ahmad H]

Why do you think God is too exalted to reveal himself in human form if he chose to
do so?

Thanks,
Jim

The answer lies in the Holy Qur'an and the Ahadith:

42:11 "There is nothing whatever like unto Him"

Nothing is like Him. Therefore, no human form can take the shape of Allah Himself.

Should Allah reveal Himself, it would be too much for this universe:

Abu Musa reported: The Messenger of Allah (may peace be upon him) was standing amongst us and he told us five things. He said: Verily the Exalted and Mighty God does not sleep, and it does not befit Him to sleep. He lowers the scale and lifts it. The deeds in the night are taken up to Him before the deeds of the day. and the deeds of the day before the deeds of the night. His veil is the light. In the hadith narrated by Abu Bakr (instead of the word" light" ) it is fire. If he withdraws it (the veil), the splendor of His countenance would consume His creation so far as His sight reaches. (Book 1, Hadith 343)
(Sahih Muslim)

Let's not forget the story of Hazrat Musa (as). He asked Allah to show Himself to him, but when Allah showed just a tiny glimpse, the width of the tip of one's finger (according to the explanation by Ibn Kathir), then the mountain shattered in front of Musa (as), and he fell unconscious as a result of that. (Read Ibn Kathir tafsir on verse 7:143) No one has the power to withstand seeing Allah in this life. It is too much for us.

This verse is also saying that we cannot see Allah in this life, because it is possible. But, if a mountain shattered at only the amount of a fingertip of the glimpse of Allah, then what of a human being who wants to see Him? It is not possible to behold Allah. We are not made to withstand it. That is the answer from the Holy Qur'an. The Ahadith of Rasul-e-Karim (saw) also corroborates this fact. There is no way to get around it.

A weak human being cannot encompass the glory of Allah. Jesus (as) was a humble man and a Prophet as well as Messenger of Allah. He was extremely close to Allah and the closest to Rasul-e-Karim (saw) because of his high spiritual standing with Allah. However, no human being, and in fact, no human form can withstand the force behind the lifting of the veil of Allah. If He showed Himself, then nothing could withstand that power. Therefore, it is impossible that Allah ever would or ever did reveal Himself in human form.

No one can see Allah in this life, and no one can speak with Allah except by revelation, behind a veil, or by sending a messenger. Therefore, if Allah only speaks to us in these ways, then the only way that Allah would reveal Himself is through some sort of vision or dream, and not in a form which our eyes see things in everyday life, because obviously Musa (as) could not see him in that manner.

Adding to that, the Dajjal will claim to be Allah Himself, and the Holy Prophet (saw) said that no one will be able to see Allah until they die. Therefore, there is no possibility that Allah would come in human form to mankind. In fact, should this ever happen, it would be the Dajjal himself who would be this human deceiving mankind into worshiping him. So considering this expectation amongst Muslims about the Dajjal, this literal interpretation (which I instead take in a metaphorical manner) is the very reason why your argument could never prove fruitful since Muslims only expect a deceiver to try this, and not Allah Himself.

To add more to my argument, if Allah were to come in human form, it would imply that He had to have been born of a mother. Otherwise, who would believe that a human being is God? Yes, He could show signs of this, but many people would disbelieve in it thinking it to be magic. Not everyone believes in miracles, especially with the rise of Atheism these days. Miracles are so frowned upon, that they are considered a joke amongst many people in the world now. Sad to say. With that in mind, and Christianity being a joke in the eyes of Atheists, how would they ever accept someone who claims the same thing Jesus did, and says they are God Himself? People would call Him names and joke about Him. Is that part of the majesty of God to have people spit in His face? Astaghfirullah!

Allah is not subject to birth or death. "He begets not, nor is He begotten. And there is none like unto Him." (112:3-4) How can He be subject to birth when He is the First before anyone and everything, no matter how far back you try to go? Allah is always present, witness to everything. A human is limited, while Allah is not. How can He confine Himself when He is not confined? Allah is the Last after everything, no matter how far into the future you go, so how can you say He has an end when He can have no end?

The argument is very clear from the Holy Qur'an (which is based upon reason and wisdom), that it is beneath Allah to have to manifest Himself as a human being. Holy is He! Far above everything! After everything perishes, His face will remain. Can you say the same about Jesus (as)? No. Everything will perish except Him. Allah is far above having to need to resort to coming in the form of a human being.

[Muslim sister.]

Masha'Allah, very good point, Allah's light would overwhelm us all

[Muslim sister.]

In addition, lets ponder on it, would it be of Allah's wisdom to reveal himself physically? if so, why??, isn't His whole creation supposed to lead us to manifest Him and believe in His existence? Isn't that the purpose of our minds and hearts?
Faith supposed to be profoundly emphasised in our hearts. The truth is, its a trick of satan to want humanbeings to have a superficial prespective on everything in life, especially when it comes to faith. May Allah Subhanah protect us, have mercy on us, guide us, make us sucessful, make it easy for us, fulfil us, forgive us, and make us geniune in belief, Ameen

[theplains]

He does not beget, nor is He begotten. He has no sons, daughters, siblings, parents, cousins, or relatives of any sort.

How do you define beget/begotten?

Thanks,
Jim

[theplains]

In addition, lets ponder on it, would it be of Allah's wisdom to reveal himself physically? if so, why??, isn't His whole creation supposed to lead us to manifest Him and believe in His existence? Isn't that the purpose of our minds and hearts?

May I ask hypothetical questions of you ...

If God were to come down to earth in the form of Jesus, why do you think he would do so?
And could you use only the Quran and Hadiths to explain your answer?

Thanks,
Jim

[جوري]

How do you define beget/begotten?

Thanks,
Jim

To engender, be born of a woman to descend upon a woman impregnate her with self and go through her birthing canal!
albeit it the process here would need different 'gods' not one god, for who will look after the world if a monotheistic god is a zygote or suckling?

best,

[Abu Loren]

How do you define beget/begotten?

be·get
/bɪˈgɛt/ Spelled [bih-get]
verb (used with object), be·got or ( Archaic ) be·gat; be·got·ten or be·got; be·get·ting.
1.
(especially of a male parent) to procreate or generate(offspring).
2.
to cause; produce as an effect: a belief that powerbegets power.

http://dictionary.reference.com/browse/begotten?s=t

In the Apostles Creed it clearly states that Jesus (Alayhi Salaam) is begotten not made. Begetting is an aninal act of sexual procreation which only animals and human beings are capable of.

[Ahmad H]

How do you define beget/begotten?

Thanks,
Jim

I am going to quote the Tafsirs for you in this case, because I do not want to say what these verses mean specifically by mentioning my own opinion on the matter.

Tafsir Al-Jalalayn:
He neither begot, for no likeness of Him can exist, nor was begotten, since createdness is precluded in His case.

Tanwir al-Miqbas min Tafsir Ibn Abbas:
And it is also said that al-Samad means He begetteth not nor was begotten) He says: He did not inherit and will not be inherited; and it is also said this means: He does not have a son who will inherit His dominion and He was not begotten, which means that He did not inherit His dominion.

Ibn Kathir:
(As-Samad) is One Who does not give birth, nor was He born, because there is nothing that is born except that it will die, and there is nothing that dies except that it leaves behind inheritance, and indeed Allah does not die and He does not leave behind any inheritance.

Asbab An-Nuzul by Al-Wahidi (this is a full explanation of the short Surah 112, Surah Al-Ikhlas):
(Say: He is Allah, the One! Allah, the eternally Besought of all…) [112:1-4]. Qatadah, al-Dahhak and Muqatil said: “A group of Jewish people went to the Prophet, Allah bless him and give him peace, and said to him: 'Describe to us your Lord, for He has revealed His description in the Torah. Tell us: what is He made of? And to which species does He belong? Is He made of gold, copper or silver? Does He eat and drink? Who did He inherit this world from? And to whom will He bequeath it?' And so Allah, gloried and exalted is He, revealed this Surah. It is Allah's specific lineage. Abu Nasr Ahmad ibn Ibrahim al-Mihrajani informed us> 'Ubayd Allah ibn Muhammad al-Zahid> Abu'l-Qasim ibn Bint Mani'> his grandfather Ahmad ibn Mani'> Abu Sa'd al-Saghghani> Abu Ja'far al-Razi> al-Rabi' ibn Anas> Abu'l-'Aliyah> Ubayy ibn Ka'b who related that the idolaters said to the Messenger of Allah, Allah bless him and give him peace: “What is the lineage of your Lord?” and so Allah, exalted is He, revealed (Say: He is Allah, the One! Allah, the eternally Besought of all). The eternally Besought of all (al-Samad) is Him Who (begetteth not nor was begotten) for anyone who is begotten will certainly die and whoever dies will be inherited. Allah does not die nor is He inherited. (And there is none comparable unto Him), He does not have anyone who resembles Him or is like Him (Naught is as His likeness…) [42:11]. Abu Mansur al-Baghdadi informed us> Abu'l-Hasan al-Sarraj> Muhammad ibn 'Abd Allah al-Hadrami> Surayj ibn Yunus> Isma'il ibn Mujalid> Mujalid> al-Sha'bi> Jabir who said: “The Prophet, Allah bless him and give him peace, was asked: 'O Messenger of Allah, tell us about the lineage of your Lord!' And so this Surah (Say: He is Allah, the One!...) was revealed”.

Tafsir Al-Tustari:
He neither begot,such that He appoints heirs, nor was begotten, for in that case His sovereignty (mulk) would be something temporal (muḥdath). It is also a confirmation of His unicity (waḥdāniyya), and a disavowal of His dependence on causes (asbāb), and a refutation (radd) of the disbelievers.

I hope that helps. It essentially means, from what all of these say, that Allah was not given birth to by anyone at any point in time, nor does he give birth to anyone from Himself so that He has a son, or any heir of any sort. Thus, this is why the Tafsirs say Allah does not inherit, nor does anyone inherit from Him.

Let me know if anything else requires clarification.

[theplains]

In the Apostles Creed it clearly states that Jesus (Alayhi Salaam) is begotten not made. Begetting is an aninal act of sexual procreation which only animals and human beings are capable of.

Did Muhammad believe Jesus was born through sexual procreation or that he was born
without a father?

Peace,
Jim

[theplains]

I hope that helps. It essentially means, from what all of these say, that Allah was not given birth to by anyone at any point in time, nor does he give birth to anyone from Himself so that He has a son, or any heir of any sort. Thus, this is why the Tafsirs say Allah does not inherit, nor does anyone inherit from Him.

Let me know if anything else requires clarification.

Do you mean Allah birthing with a consort? ... because this is not what I believe.

Peace,
Jim

[Abu Loren]

Did Muhammad believe Jesus was born through sexual procreation or that he was born
without a father?

Peace,
Jim

Why don't you go and read the Holy Qur'an instead of asking stupid questions?

Muhammad (SalAllahu Alayhi Sallam) believes that the birth of Jesus (Alayhi Salaam) was a miracle in the sense that he was 'made' through the virgin Mary without a father.

[جوري]

Abu Loren I can't see your post because there's something wrong with the forum except on Safari but wish to rep. you positively for it :ia:

here's the answer to our pal:

Al-Imran (The Family of Imran)[3:59]

[RECITE]

[top] [next match]

Inna mathala AAeesa AAinda Allahi kamathali adama khalaqahu min turabin thumma qala lahu kun fayakoonu

3:59 The similitude of Jesus before Allah is as that of Adam; He created him from dust, then said to him: "Be". And he was.

[theplains]

Muhammad (SalAllahu Alayhi Sallam) believes that the birth of Jesus (Alayhi Salaam) was a miracle in the sense that he was 'made' through the virgin Mary without a father.

Thanks.

I was thinking about the statements made in the Quran about God having a son or
being too exalted for what they ascribe to him (2.116, 4:171, 6:100, 10:18, 10:68,
17:111, 19:91-92, 21:26, 23:91).

So it seems like someone was trying to influence people into believing Jesus was
born in some biological sense of God having a son in a procreative manner.

Personally I would not see it as blasphemy or beyond God to come down to
mankind in the form of a man (while not losing his Deity). I can't grasp this
concept 100% but it is what the Gospel of John mentions.

Peace,
Jim

[Abu Loren]

I can't grasp this
concept 100% but it is what the Gospel of John mentions.

I don't know if you are aware but the Bible has been tampered with. No wonder the confusion.

[Ahmad H]

Thanks.

I was thinking about the statements made in the Quran about God having a son or
being too exalted for what they ascribe to him (2.116, 4:171, 6:100, 10:18, 10:68,
17:111, 19:91-92, 21:26, 23:91).

So it seems like someone was trying to influence people into believing Jesus was
born in some biological sense of God having a son in a procreative manner.

Personally I would not see it as blasphemy or beyond God to come down to
mankind in the form of a man (while not losing his Deity). I can't grasp this
concept 100% but it is what the Gospel of John mentions.

Peace,
Jim

Again, why would the Lord of the Universe need to come down as a man when He could send men to do His bidding? Allah is the King of the universe (naturally). So does a king go out to each and every one of his subjects and tell them to pay homage to him? No. A King delegates and sends emissaries and messengers to spread the message of his rule. Allah does not need these messengers, but He sends them anyways.

Then again, if you have ideas about God implanted into you from the Bible, it is hard to get rid of them unless you read the Qur'an and learn the true words of Allah which emanated from Him, not a man named John who had ideas and wrote them down about God. Just remember, the Bible has been tampered with.

[جوري]

Fact is if :Allah: :swt: reveals himself the matter would already be done and that's addressed on suret al baqara I believe verse numer 210 but can't double check now since I am using my phone!

There's no point in the professor handing out the answers to the exam then what will we've learned?
We're not in paradise and life isn't a rehearsal - this is pretty much it and we should be ready as it can be over in an instant!

:w:

[Ahmad H]

Fact is if :Allah: :swt: reveals himself the matter would already be done and that's addressed on suret al baqara I believe verse numer 210 but can't double check now since I am using my phone!

There's no point in the professor handing out the answers to the exam then what will we've learned?
We're not in paradise and life isn't a rehearsal - this is pretty much it and we should be ready as it can be over in an instant!

:w:

You're right. I forgot to look at that verse on this matter. That same verse is mentioned in Surah Al-An'am as well.

[Insaanah]

Personally I would not see it as blasphemy or beyond God to come down to
mankind in the form of a man (while not losing his Deity).

You may not have a problem with god emerging from the womb of a woman, crying, being helpless, having to defaecate, being killed, which as I said before, does strike me as being similar in some ways to the Hindu stories about god.

Think. Open your eyes Jim. Whether it's a belief you've been brought up with all your life, or you embraced it recently, doesn't mean it's correct. It may be disturbing and uncomfortable to acknowledge that fact, but you owe it to yourself.

I can't grasp this
concept 100% but it is what the Gospel of John mentions.

Do you think there might be a reason that you can't grasp the concept? The reason being that it's not true? That it's not what God said? Have you ever wondered why God would give you a concept you don't understand, can't explain, doesn't make sense, and then tell you that your salvation depends upon that confusing belief?

Would you agree that the concept of God in Islam (re-quoted below) is clear, simple, logical, makes sense, and is actually befitting of the Majesty of God?

There is only One God. He alone should be worshipped. He is our Creator, Sustainer, Cherisher, and Lord. No being, no object, nothing other than Him, is worthy of prayer/worship.

He does not beget, nor is He begotten. He has no sons, daughters, siblings, parents, cousins, or relatives of any sort.

He is eternal and does not die.

He does not depend on anyone/anything yet we all depend on Him. He is free of all want and need.

There is nothing like Him. He is all Hearing, all Seeing, all Knowing, all Powerful, the Creator of the Universe.

He did not and does not, dwell in human or animal bodies, nor are there any incarnations of Him. He is not mixed up in His creation in any way.

He is not composed of persons, nor a trinity. There are no secondary, lesser, greater, equal, or multiple gods, no intermediaries, and no denying of God's existence either.

There are no sharers or associates or parts whatsoever in His exclusive Divinity. Simply, He is One, in every sense.

Out of the above, which would you have a problem with, and why? If you can accept the above, but it's the issue of salvation or atonement of sins, that can be addressed.

Regarding God being in the form of a man, Allah says that He does not compare in any way to any part of His creation, or anything else (112:4). The minute you say He dwells in a man or is a man, that being cannot be God because there is nothing like Him and He is not mixed up in His creation in any way.

Also, nobody can see God, but God is the one who sees all:

Vision perceives Him not, but He perceives [all] vision; and He is the Subtle, the Acquainted. (6:103)

Peace.

[Ahmad H]

Very well put. No one can see Allah in this life, and He is beyond everyone's grasp. Were he to come into this world and show Himself, the world would not survive because of His power.

[Abu Loren]

The thing is the Christians, especially, do not understand the majesty of Allah Subhana Wa Ta'ala. What do you expect from a people who believe that one can get drunk and do all sorts of unimaginable sins and go confess to a priest and then god, a white bearded fluffy father christmas type of figure will forgive them.

In a nutshell they do not FEAR God Almighty.

[theplains]

Very well put. No one can see Allah in this life, and He is beyond everyone's grasp. Were he to come into this world and show Himself, the world would not survive because of His power.

The Quran seems to talk a lot about paradise - its gardens, rivers, etc. Is there anything
about seeing, living with, or worshipping God after death?

You said that if God were to come into the world and show Himself, we would not survive
because of His power. That makes sense. I see this event occurring with the non-
believers at the Second Coming.

But what if God came temporarily in a form where His glory was veiled?

Peace,
Jim

[جوري]

The Quran seems to talk a lot about paradise - its gardens, rivers, etc. Is there anything
about seeing, living with, or worshipping God after death?

Only the righteous see :Allah::swt: in paradise.

You said that if God were to come into the world and show Himself, we would not survive
because of His power. That makes sense. I see this event occurring with the non-
believers at the Second Coming.

That's not the only reason but certainly try to picture the world

The earth here is so negligent it can't even be seen, smaller than an atom, and you're trying to place the one who created all of this into a tiny town in Beit Lehm and reduce him further to a meek ineffectual God who can't even keep his promise to self and not forsake self in a face of a couple of lousy humans?

But what if God came temporarily in a form where His glory was veiled?

& what would be the point to that?

[ccc]

I will try to put together some passages from the early centuries Christian saints Gregory of Nyssa and(IV century) and Saint John Damascene (VIII century, an Arab saint who lived in the first century of Islam). You can see the respect with which they speak about God and about his incomprehensibility, but also you can say that God does not remain a distant unknown God:
We, therefore, both know and confess that God is without beginning, without end, eternal and everlasting, uncreate, unchangeable, invariable, simple, uncompound, incorporeal, invisible, impalpable, uncircumscribed, infinite, incognisable, indefinable, incomprehensible, good, just, maker of all things created, almighty, all-ruling, all-surveying, of all overseer, sovereign, judge; and that God is One, that is to say, one essences (Saint John)

The Deity cannot be expressed in words. And this is proved to us, not only by argument, but by the wisest and most ancient of the Hebrews, so far as they have given us reason for conjecture. For they appropriated certain characters to the honour of the Deity, and would not even allow the name of anything inferior to God to be written with the same letters as that of God, because to their minds it was improper that the Deity should even to that extent admit any of His creatures to a share with Himself. How then could they have admitted that the invisible and separate Nature can be explained by divisible words? For neither has any one yet breathed the whole air, nor has any mind entirely comprehended, or speech exhaustively contained the Being of God. But we sketch Him by His Attributes, and so obtain a certain faint and feeble and partial idea concerning Him, and our best Theologian is he who has, not indeed discovered the whole, for our present chain does not allow of our seeing the whole, but conceived of Him to a greater extent than another, and gathered in himself more of the Likeness or adumbration of the Truth, or whatever we may call it. (Or 30.17)

The language of blending would later be condemned at Chalcedon, on the prompting of the Antiochenes, for seeming to compromise the transcendence of the Son’s divine nature. In Gregory’s usage, however, it helpfully conveys both the narrative movement of the incarnation and also the mysterious union between God and humanity in Jesus: first there was the eternal Son of God, and then he took on the full reality of a human being, mixing it with himself to make one incarnate Lord. In Gregory’s view, the real danger lies not in compromising the integrity of these two realities, as the Antiochenes would argue, but rather in the opposite direction: the blending should not be misunderstood as being anything less than a real union. If our humanity is not fully united to God in Christ, then he is in fact two different sons and we have not been divinized in the incarnation. (p. 131) (Saint Gregory)

[جوري]

I will try to put together some passages from the early centuries Christian saints Gregory of Nyssa

Adjectives & adverbs and convoluted words don't do a good job dodging the difficult questions nor detract from the absurdity of the claims.


best,

[Amigo]

The earth here is so negligent it can't even be seen, smaller than an atom, and you're trying to place the one who created all of this into a tiny town in Beit Lehm and reduce him further to a meek ineffectual God who can't even keep his promise to self and not forsake self in a face of a couple of lousy humans?

God is beyond human arrogance and fears.
As a Christian, I see incarnation as God assuming human natue out of love for all humans; there is a desire to communicate with them perfectly. God's Word in human nature means that God speaks my human language and I am able to 'hear' him... that God would care to communicate with tiny me, is great love. In this I see the power of his infinite love through my finite human nature. I also see God's infinite justice, for no human can claim that he did not understand God for God delivered his Word in the very human nature. So God does not judge humans using a different language other than human nature itself. And this for me is perfectly just...worthy of God.

Last, when I see the pictures below, I don't see 'lowered' adults, I see great parents/uncles/aunts...

[جوري]

that is nice dear but how is your post relevant to the topic?

[ccc]

It would be maybe relevant in understanding that God could not show himself to his jewish club, that the jewish were prepared not for a Mesiah only for them. God tried to teach them exactly the contrary, the entire jewish history was a fight between God and his loved jews in order to prepare them for accepting to be open to God and to the others, their law tried to open them, not to make them a sect. Everything was an explosion in the history of Israel, and the prophets announced the day in which the law will be replaced by the communion in spirit.

[جوري]

The Messiah was indeed only sent to the Jews who had gone astray, so tells us your bible & the Quran. The world wasn't globalized and individual folks were sent indivudual prophets whom they denied anyway and their message lost. Until the people were ready :Allah::swt: sent a message that is universal and transcendent in the only living miracle we've with us today which is the noble Quran.
All other 'miracles' so to speak died with their messengers. And only one remained and one that speaks to man's logic and his soul at the same time.
Also the message whether with Enoch, Job, Joseph, Moses, Aaron etc etc. has always been the same worship the creator not the man who brought the message, all of a sudden we've this monolithic and very pagan religion that stands apart in Christianity in order to appeal to an already pagan public that didn't feel like making the paradigm shift so decided to change the names and keep the theme.
If you're convinced of what you write more power to you. I don't need a subjective religion based on whims, that path leads to nowhere.

best,

[ccc]

of course the law tried to help them to avoid the things that their weakness could not bear, but the final purpose, the real purpose and meaning of the divine laws must be fulfilled, and it can not be fulfilled only trough running of your weakness and lack of power, the man was meant to become powerful and able to spread, to radiate his spiritual gifts to the others, not only to run of the waves of the evil without any interior power .

[جوري]

What does this mean exactly? Jews have already missed the first boat so to speak but at least the boat they remained boarded was still somewhat in keeping with the universal message of monotheism. Christianity is more akin to Hinduism or some paganstic Hellenistic ideology than the universal message brought by all the messengers. Can't really blame them for sticking to what they know although I'll give them credit for ruining pure Christianity as brought by Isa/Jesus :saws:

best,

[ccc]

i mean the need to prepare the man must contain in itself the purpose, and the preparing in fact tries to put the roots of the love, faith, self sacrifice, joy, truth, life, holiness. People can't and don't want to understand totally what the meaning of God's act are, but, at their level, they sti8ll accept and somehow feel what they are doing, and so they can choose, as much as they can, to follow God's guidance. They can revolt and they might say after that actually what happen because of their weakness and lack of desire was what God told them to do, that this was the law and prophecies, but in that moment they are laying.

[جوري]

God's guidance is perfectly preserved and the message is clear, we're certainly grateful for the gift of Islam and the noble Quran which lay to rest all the dark ages of confusion, bizarre practices and worships. We're grateful that the straight path is illuminated and there are no byways save for those who wish to find themselves astray and still if one should seek God then he'll find as stated in the Hadith Qudsi:

“Allah the Most High said, ‘I am as My servant thinks (expects) I am. I am with him when he mentions Me. If he mentions Me to himself, I mention him to Myself; and if he mentions Me in an assembly, I mention him in an assembly greater than it. If he draws near to Me a hand’s length, I draw near to him an arm’s length. And if he comes to Me walking, I go to him at speed.’” [Sahih Al-Bukhari]

people don't understand and are astray by choice. Islam is indeed our fitrah!

best,

[ccc]

if you refer at the Trinity, this is another discussion. But you can see from the beginnings, the apostles message was incorrigible, but open to all, they were messengers (this is the meaning of the world "apostle") they were telling to all that now the world has changed, now the fight is possible, no everything returns to the Creator. They were living their lives exclusevely for the joy of telling to all and bringing all to their loved Christ, the savior of all and everything.

[جوري]

Jesus per your bible couldn't even pick his apostles, Peter forsook him thrice in the day before Jesus was to self-immolated and he had to appear upon a charlatan to change the message. He had to do upon his death what he couldn't do in life including a different self-appointed apostle.. so you can see the dilemma here. Problem is you're not convinced of your own religion and at the end of the day it comes down to your personal spin on what it means.
God should be clear with his creation.

best,

[ccc]

in this world of fight and choice, we are not yet free of the imperfection, we do not know anything. And even when we will, nothing will ever finish, God will always astonish us and joy us. We are not meant to leave the eternity in having the same pleasant spiritual or material joy, our joy can be real only when it will become the continuous share of something that will become continuously new. Our joy will never stop growing.

[جوري]

Again, no idea what you're driving at. We should indeed feel joy and peace but religion should appeal to both the heart and mind and be with man's fitrah.
So good luck with what you subscribe to.

best,

[ccc]

I will answe to this with the words of saint Gregory:
" But in as much as He strips Himself for us, in as much as He comes down (and speak of an exinanition, as it were, a laying aside and a diminution of His glory), He becomes by this comprehensible"
"And great multitudes followed Him, and He healed them there, where the multitude was greater. If He had abode upon His own eminence, if He had not condescended to infirmity, if He had remained what He was, keeping Himself unapproachable and incomprehensible, a few perhaps would have followed Him"

[جوري]

a few perhaps would have followed Him"

A few indeed have and they're not the herd of modern Christianity. They're called Muslims!

best,

[ccc]

The great difficulty in trying to make a triumphalist model of Mesiah is that it does not have any chance to succeed without crashing the free will. God, who gave us the free will, will not make anything to force us to follow him, he does not even give a material proof of his existence. But how can God still do something for his creation? How can fight against the rebellion that he himself permits? He become man and suffered like us all the consequences of sin,all of them including death, desperation, all. And in this he showed his power, that he could not be defeated by death, that the laws, the body in he diluted himself could not keep his infinity bound. Without cheating, he defeated death and the consequences of the sin and because he become one of us (but without loosing or combining his divine nature what what is mortal) now we all can by believing in him and tryin to follow him to win through his victory and power the fight with the evil and sin.

[جوري]

I am not big on mindless drivel myself- is there a point to this? We've already established that Jesus was sent ONLY to the Jews per your bible and the Quran. I am not big on superfluous subjective nonsense!

best,

[جوري]

Not really, for even per your own 'saints' few have followed him- and let's face it christians who are clueless are a dime a dozen. The true message of Jesus was that of Pure monotheistic Islam and pure unadulterated Judaism, mandean, sabeans before that. There was no self immolating man God worship involved & it certainly wasn't a voted on pagan religion decided by the nicene council or saul the charlatan.
Not sure what you're hoping to accomplish here but do hope you see the gross errors of your ways before it is too late. God doesn't eat sins... you earn the bed you find yourself in.

As for Islam God is never distant. I have already quoted you the hadith Qudsi above. Nothing is comprable to that in Christianity. Nothing but a god who couldn't save himself.
best,

[ccc]

i must say that the christian faith was not invented, at nyceea, if you read the didache or other writings you can sea that. Christians do believe in one god. Our symbol of faith starts with the words: I believe in one God. The councils didn' t make dogmas, they only expressed as good as they could the faith of the christians, the faith for which martyrs died since the first century. Read what the martyrs said when they were tortured, what they died for, what they loved more than their lifes.

[جوري]

and you're entitled to your beliefs but that is all they're subjective beliefs with nothing at all to do with logic, common sense or reality.

best,

[جوري]

I went to a christian high school and was pretty much an atheist for most of my teenage early twenties.. so indeed I gave this much study.
If you're looking to contradict the Quran then do so. Create a separate thread and start fresh I don't think you were quite successful with this one. And I assure you we've already seen all the crap Christians dish out so if you're hoping to be so avant-garde, use the search feature, for once I'd like to be surprised and not stifle a yawn when presented by Christian rhetoric.

best,

[Abu Loren]

Questions for ccc


Who made the two people you mentioned 'saints'?

Did they have divine revelation?

What does the word Messiah mean to you?

Do you believe Jesus (Alayhi Salaam) when he says that he came for the 'lost sheep of Israel'?

Have you read the Holy Qur'an, all 114 chapters?

[جوري]

Oh yes.. 'Messiah' if they only knew how many anointed ones there are in their books.

by Ahmad Deedat

The word CHRIST is derived from the Hebrew word Messiah, Arabic-Masih. Root word m-a-s-a-h-a, meaning to rub, to massage, to anoint. Priests and kings were anointed when being consecrated to their offices. But in its translated, Grecian form "CHRIST", it seems unique:befitting Jesus only. The Christian has a knack of transmuting baser metals into shining gold. What he is wont to do is to translate names into his own language like "cephas" to Peter, "messiah" to Christ. How does he do that? Very easily MESSIAH in Hebrew means anointed. The Greek word for anointed is "christos". Just lop off the 'os' from christos and you are left with christ. Now change the little 'c' to a capital 'C', and "hey, presto!" he has created a unique (?) name! Christos means ANOINTED, and anointed means APPOINTED in its religious connotation. Jesus (pbuh) was appointed (anointed) at his baptism by John the Baptist, as God's Messenger.Every Prophet of God is so anointed or appointed. The Holy Bible is replete with the "anointed" ones. In the original Hebrew - made a "messiah". Let us keep to the English translation - "anointed." Not only were prophets and priests and kings anointed (christos-ed), but borns, and cherubs and lamp-posts also.

I am the God of Beth-el, where you ANOINTED a pillar.....

Genesis 31:13

If the priest that is ANOINTED do sin....

Leviticus 4:3

And Moses....ANOINTED the tabernacle and all things that was therein...

Leviticus 8:10

...THE LORD SHALL....EXALT THE HORN OF HIS ANOINTED

1 Samuel 2:10

Thus saith the Lord to his ANOINTED to Cyrus....

Isaiah 45:1

Thou art the ANOINTED cherub....

Ezekiel 28:14

There are a hundred more such references in the Holy Bible. Everytime you come across the word ANOINTED in your English Bible, you can take it that that word would be christos in the Greek translations, and if you take the same liberty with the word that the Christians have done, you will have - Christ Cherub, Christ Cyrus, Christ Priest and Christ Pillar, etc.
SOME TITLES EXCLUSIVE

Although, every prophet of God is an ANOINTED one of God - a Messiah, the title "Masih" or "Messiah" or its translation "CHRIST" is exclusively reserved for Jesus, the son of Mary, in both Islam and in Christianity. This is not unusual in religion. There are certain other honorific title which may be applied to more than one prophet, yet being made exclusive to one by usage: like "Rasul-lullah", meaning Messenger of God, which title is applied to both Moses (19:51) and Jesus (61:6) in the Holy Quran. Yet "Rasul-lullah" has become synonymous only with the Prophet of Islam among Muslims.
Every prophet is indeed a FRIEND OF GOD, but its Arabic equivalent "Kha- lil-lullah" is exclusively associated with Father Abraham. This does not mean that the others are not God's friends. "Kalimul-lah" (One who spoke with God) is never used for anyone other than Moses, yet we believe that God spoke with all His Messengers, including Jesus and Muhummed (May the Peace and Blessings of God be upon all His servants). Associating certain titles with certain personages only, does not make them exclusive or unique in any way. We honour all in varying terms.

[Abu Loren]

Debating with Christians brings up a lot of questions, so I have another one.

When Prophet Musa (Alayhi Salaam) wanted to see Allah Subhana Wa Ta'ala His Majesty and His Might crumbled the mountains and Prophet Musa (Alayhi Salaam) fell into a coma. Now the question is

Did Allah Subhana Wa Ta'ala turn into Jesus (Alayhi Salaam) in order that this would not happen?

If Yes, then was there another god in heaven looking after the affairs of heaven?

[Insaanah]

The Quran seems to talk a lot about paradise - its gardens, rivers, etc. Is there anything
about seeing, living with, or worshipping God after death?

Say: Shall I give you glad tidings of things Far better than those? For the righteous are Gardens in the presence of their Lord, with rivers flowing beneath; therein is their eternal home; with companions pure (and holy); and the good pleasure of Allah. And Allah is Seeing of [His] servants - (3:15)

You said that if God were to come into the world and show Himself, we would not survive
because of His power. That makes sense. I see this event occurring with the non-
believers at the Second Coming.

As Muslims, we believe Jesus (not God) was sent to the Children of Israel, and that Jesus (not God) will return once again towards the end of times.

But what if God came temporarily in a form where His glory was veiled?

As explained before:

god + form = not God.

god + temporary = not God.

In Gregory’s view, the real danger lies not in compromising the integrity of these two realities, as the Antiochenes would argue, but rather in the opposite direction: the blending should not be misunderstood as being anything less than a real union. If our humanity is not fully united to God in Christ, then he is in fact two different sons and we have not been divinized in the incarnation. (p. 131) (Saint Gregory)

I didn't know Christians believed everybody was god. Thank you for that. I learned something new today.

As a Christian, I see incarnation as God assuming human natue out of love for all humans; there is a desire to communicate with them perfectly.

This seems to suggest that God did not have the power give His message to the humans He created, without becoming one of them Himself. But, if we take the Christian position that He became a human, and that (contrary to the verse in the Bible), he wasn't just sent (by Himself) to the lost sheep of the house of Israel, but to all the world for all time, and we take a well known piece of the Bible such as the Lord's prayer - The very fact, that only two words out of the whole two different versions of it, might be attributed to Jesus* (peace be upon him), tells us that that method of communication wasn't so perfect after all, if the message is indeed for all time to come. It tells us, that something, in that case, is very wrong. That is just one passage, what of the rest of the message?

In the Qur'an we have 100% God's word. His message and communication, His guidance, glad tidings and warnings, preserved in letter and spirit, for all time to come.

* O Lord, Who Wrote Thy Prayer? Newsweek October 31, 1988, p. 44.

I will answe to this with the words of saint Gregory:
" But in as much as He strips Himself for us, in as much as He comes down (and speak of an exinanition, as it were, a laying aside and a diminution of His glory), He becomes by this comprehensible"
"And great multitudes followed Him, and He healed them there, where the multitude was greater. If He had abode upon His own eminence, if He had not condescended to infirmity, if He had remained what He was, keeping Himself unapproachable and incomprehensible, a few perhaps would have followed Him"

Again, this denigrates the Power and Majesty of God, that God was incapable of effectively sending His message without having to go and live in the messengers body. It is also denigrating to the messenger (Jesus, peace be upon him).

This quote from Gregory shows exactly what was done. In order to get more people to follow Christianity and as the Romans were accustomed to half men/half God and sons of God, which they weren't about to give up, the religion was changed to get the masses to follow it.

is muslims would follow Christ, they would follow him like their savior not only like their prophet. They would have followed The One who become man and revealed himself to them in his mercy, not the distant God they are following, the one who is far from the man in his power.

Don't worry, we are far closer to the true teachings of Christ (peace be upon him). And we worship the same God he did. Christians like to make out Allah is a distant unknown God. We believe in Him, as He told us He is, not as other humans might say, and He is closer to us by His knowledge than our own jugular vein (50:16). He is Loving, Forgiving, Kind and Merciful and stern in punishment.

You should know that rather the Quran is questionable, and that it's pretended unchanged form is a myth, which is not at all sustained by history.Do you have the courage to look at history and be not partisan?

You'll find it's the Bible that's questionable, not the Qur'an. Talking of history and being non-partisan, here we go, from non-Muslim sources:

Dr. J.K. Elliott, of the Department of Theology and Religious Studies at Leeds University, wrote an article published in The Times, London (10th Sept., 1987) entitled “Checking the Bible’s Roots”. In it, he stated that: “More than 5,000 manuscripts contain all or part of the New Testament in its original language. These range in date from the second century up to the invention of printing. It has been estimated that no two agree in all particulars. Inevitably, all handwritten documents are liable to contain accidental errors in copying. However, in living theological works it is not surprising that deliberate changes were introduced to avoid or alter statements that the copyist found unsound. There was also a tendency for copyists to add explanatory glosses[9]. Deliberate changes are more likely to have been introduced at an early stage before the canonical status of the New Testament was established.”

The author went on to explain that “no one manuscript contains the original, unaltered text in its entirety,” and that, “one cannot select any one of these manuscripts and rely exclusively on its text as if it contained the monopoly the original words of the original authors.”

The same principles of analysis which were applied to Bible manuscripts by Bible scholars and which exposed the flaws and changes, have been applied to Qur’aanic manuscripts gathered from around the world. Ancient manuscripts found in the Library of Congress in Washington, the Chester Beatty Museum in Dublin, Ireland, the London Museum, as well as Museums in Tashkent, Turkey and Egypt, from all periods of Islamic history, have been compared. The result of all such studies confirm that there has not been any change in the text from its original writing. For example, the “Institute fur Koranforschung” of the University of Munich, Germany, collected and collated over 42,000 complete or incomplete copies of the Qur’aan. After some fifty years of study, they reported that in terms of differences between the various copies, there were no variants, except occasional mistakes of copyists, which could easily be ascertained. The institute was destroyed by American bombs during the Second World War.[54]

Quoted in: The True Message of Jesus Christ by Dr Bilal Philips © Copyright 1996 Dar Al Fatah

So, 5,000 manuscripts of the Bible, and no two of them agree, 42,000 manuscripts of the Qur'an and they are all the same. Glory be to Allah!

[Ahmad H]

Debating with Christians brings up a lot of questions, so I have another one.

When Prophet Musa (Alayhi Salaam) wanted to see Allah Subhana Wa Ta'ala His Majesty and His Might crumbled the mountains and Prophet Musa (Alayhi Salaam) fell into a coma. Now the question is

Did Allah Subhana Wa Ta'ala turn into Jesus (Alayhi Salaam) in order that this would not happen?

If Yes, then was there another god in heaven looking after the affairs of heaven?

Your question makes sense since if Allah came in the form of a human figure, then that would severely limit His infinite sight capabilities. But your question is a bit off the mark, since Jesus (as) was not born yet. He had to be born later in Christian theological terms since he would be born to eventually save mankind from their sin and be their source of redemption. I may not have that right, but if my memory from past conversations with Christians is correct, then this is the case and they would ignore this question by going around it.

It is a very pertinent question because in that situation, it could not be that Allah be in human form since in the first place, only the span of a fingertip of His power touched that mountain and it shattered. In a human form the world, no, i think a large portion of the galaxy would have easily been wiped out in an instant. I don't know the math, but it would be severely catastrophic. Read Tafsir Ibn Kathir, you'll see the fingertip point mentioned there. It's also why your question is a very good one.

[ccc]

1-2.While the glorification of saints in the Church has been taking
place for nearly 2000 years, few people today are certain about how
this really happens.
Does the Church "make" a saint? Are there special
panels which decide who can be considered for sainthood? Are saints
"elected" by a majority vote? Does a person have to perform a certain
number of miracles in order to quality as a saint? The answers to these
questions may be surprising to some.
We know that there are several categories of saints: prophets,
evangelists, martyrs, ascetics, holy bishops and priests, and those who
live a righteous life "in the world." What they all have in common is
holiness of life. Three times in the Book of Leviticus (Ch 11, 19 and
20) God tells us to be holy, because He is holy. We must consecrate
ourselves, for we are His people. Saint Peter reiterates this
commandment in the new testament, challenging us to obey God’s
commandments and submit our will to His will (1 Pet 1:16). Everyone is
challenged to manifest holiness in their lives, for we all must become
saints! This is our special -* and common -* calling from God. It is not
something reserved for the clergy, monastics, or those who are "more
pious." Everyone who has been baptized into Christ must live in such a
way that Christ lives within us. "Do you not know," Saint Paul asks,
"that you are God’s temple and that God’s Spirit dwells in you?" (1 Cor 3:16).

The glorification of saints in the Orthodox Church is a recognition
that God’s holiness is manifested in the Church through these
grace-filled men and women whose lives were pleasing to God. Very early
on, the Church recognized the righteous ancestors of Christ (Forefathers), those who predicted His coming (Prophets), and those who proclaimed the Gospel (Apostles and Evangelists). Then those who risked their lives and shed their blood to bear witness to Christ (Martyrs and Confessors) were also recognized by the Church as saints. There was no special
canonization process, but their relics were treasured and the annual
anniversaries of their martyrdoms were celebrated. Later, the ascetics&lt, who followed Christ through self denial, were numbered among the saints. Bishops and priests who proclaimed the True Faith and fought against heresy were added to the list. Finally, those in other walks of life who manifested holiness were recognized as saints.
While the glorification of a saint may be initiated because of miracles,
it is not an absolute necessity for canonization. The Roman Catholic
Church requires three verified miracles in order to recognize someone as
a saint; the Orthodox Church does not require this. There are some
saints, including Saint Nicodemos of the Holy Mountain (July 14) and
Saint Innocent of Moscow (commemorated March 31), who have not performed
any miracles, as far as we know. What is required is a virtuous life of
obvious holiness. And a saint’s writings and preaching must be "fully
Orthodox," in agreement with the pure faith that we have received from
Christ and the Apostles and taught by the Fathers and the Ecumenical
Councils.
Can the Church "make" a saint? The answer is no. Only God can do that.
We glorify those whom God Himself has glorified, seeing in their lives
true love for God and their neighbors. The Church merely recognizes that
such a person has cooperated with God’s grace to the extent that his or
her holiness is beyond doubt.

It is not so much a "canonisation" process, as a proclamation process.Humans
do not canonise Saints. Humans can't "make" someone a Saint simply
because we are not God and man does not gain Theosis apart from God! God
reveals the Saints to us and the Church proclaims the revelation of
God's Saints on earth. There is a subtle yet important distinction.
a person to be truly a saint they must have found favour with God and
that favour is revealed to humanity via wonderous signs. It is not
uncommon for Saints (and their relics) to be revealed to the Church
years and years after they have departed this earth. So, in some
instances we might have scant record of the particular saint's life but
in accordance with Divine Providence, the Saint is revealed to us
through wonderous signs and their relics.Unlike the Catholic Church which applies a human "science" to the canonisation of its saints
requires that the final beatification/canonisation process receives the
direct imprimatur of the pope, Saints within the Orthodox Church are
proclaimed by the Synod of Bishops after many prayers, litanies and all
night vigils.In all instances, the miracles of the Saint are so
many and the wonderous signs so common, that the Church merely
acknowledges that the person truly is a Saint proclaims them as such.
Thus it is not so much a human endeavour, as it is the work of God who
Providentially wishes to reveal His Saints to us. Note, that not
all Saints are proclaimed as not all of God's saints are revealed to us
by God. There are an incredible number of "hidden" Saints who have not
been procaimed and are known only to God. Just because these people
remain hidden and unknown to man, does not detract from their holiness,
as more importantly they are known to God.

Saints had many divine revelation. You can read the live of any saint to see that. Examples from the first century to present: (Silouan the Athonite, who received the grace of unceasing prayer and saw Christ in a vision, saint Serafim de Sarov, Saint Symeon the New Theologian, Saint Stephen the first Martyr, Blessed Andrew, Fool for Christ, Saint Arsen the Great)
3.
"Jesus" is a transliteration, occurring in a number of languages and based on the Latin Iesus, of the Greek Ιησους (Iēsoûs), itself a Hellenisation of the Hebrew יהושע (Yehoshua) or Hebrew-Aramaic ישוע (Yeshua ), (Joshua), meaning "the Lord saves".
"Christ" is His title derived from the Greek Χριστος (Christós), meaning the "Anointed One", a translation of the Hebrew-derived Mashiach ("Messiah").
4. If you read the context in which Jesus says that, you can see that he said that he speaks like that in the middle of the pharisees to the Canaanean (non jewish) woman who asked for mercy for her daughter and finally save her daughter. Through this, Jesus makes the woman to recognize him as Lord and shows to the pharisees how the relation with God must be and that God answers and comes to all not only for them. The real conclusion is that the entire mankind is the lost sheep of Israel.
5. I do not read holly books like novels, i read parts and i try to understand. However i think i read more than half. I have the same principle regarding the Bible.

[Ahmad H]

What you said about saints in Christianity sounds the same as with saints in Islam. The saints in Islam stand out for their great piety and their visions and revelations from God Himself. They perform miracles and they give speeches which give life to the spiritually dead. In this I find no difference between the Christian perspective of saint and the Islamic perspective of saint.

However, Islam objects to some of the principles Christians hold towards sainthood. One, is that there are many Christians who worship saints. Why do they do this when God is always there and All-Present?

Two, they build churches over their graves. I understand this could be out of respect for them, but this is against the rules in Islam.

My only query here is why do Christians worship saints? I know not all of them do, but why do groups of them worship some of these men when they worshiped God and did what they had to do in life to please Him?

[ccc]

I will give you a fragment from two acceptable article on internet (i mention that worshipping saints is not a good word, better said is veneration of the saints, because worshipping is only for God, and that there are many examples of people who prayed for others to God, so the saints are a good hope for us, because they entered in heaven, they now are purified and God's listen to them):Veneration of Saints and Worship of God.


“In the Orthodox Church the worship (latreia) given to God is completely different from the honor (tim) of love (agape) and respect, or even veneration (proskynesis), “paid to all those endowed with some dignity” (St. John Chrysostom, Hom. III, 40).

The Orthodox honor the saints to express their love and gratitude to God, who has “perfected” the saints. As St. Symeon the New Theologian writes, “God is the teacher of the Prophets, the co-traveller with the Apostles, the power of the Martyrs, the inspiration of the Fathers and Teachers, the perfection of all Saints … ”

Throughout early Christianity, Christians customarily met in the places where the martyrs had died, to build churches in their honor, venerate their relics and memory, and present their example for imitation by others.
Interesting information on this subject derives from the Martyrdom of St. Polycarp (ch. 17-18), according to which the early Christians reverently collected the remains of the saints and honored them “more than precious stones.” They also met on the day of their death to commemorate “their new birthday, the day they entered into their new life, in Heaven.”
To this day the Orthodox have maintained the liturgical custom of meeting on the day of the saint’s death, of building churches honoring their names, and of paying special respect to their relics and icons. The Seventh Ecumenical Council (787 A.D.), in summarizing this practice of the Church, declares that “we adore and respect God our Lord; and those who have been genuine servants of our common Lord we honor and venerate because they have the power to make us friends with God the King of all.”
The earliest christian churches(from first century Ad itself) were built atop the tombs of the martyrs and saints. By third century AD(ie 200-300 AD) the feasts of saints started to be observed.
What does “prayer to the saints” mean?


I. What does “prayer” mean? Generally six Greek words for prayer as translated in different versions, fall into 5 general categories:
a. supplications/intercessions, James 5:5 Prayer of faith will save the sick. I Thess. 5:25 Pray for us, 2 Cor. 9:14 prayer on behalf of the Corinthians, etc.
b. beseeching, Lk. 1:13, 2:37 “fasting and prayer night and day”, Rom. 10:1 “heart’s desire”
James 5:6 effectual fervent prayer.
c. petitions, requests/desires Matt. 21:22 Ask in prayer, believing.
d. worship, Matt 21:13 “house of prayer”, Acts 2:42 “continuing in THE prayers and breaking of bread”, Acts 3:1 “hour of prayer in the temple”, I Cor. 7:5 “fasting and prayer”
“Prayer” is JUST ASKING: Luke 14:18 “I pray thee excuse me”, Acts 10:48 Cornelius prayed Peter to tarry, Acts 16:9 Macedonian call “Praying to Paul saying, “Come!”, Acts 24:4. Paul to Felix: I pray you give us a brief hearing”. The King James translates this word accurately. Most modern translations “fudge” it, but this is technically correct. “Pray” merely means to “ask”or request something of someone.
What do Orthodox Christians mean when we say “Prayer to the saints”?
WE DO NOT MEAN WORSHIP! “Praying to the saints” is merely requesting/asking them to intercede for us, pray for us. THIS IS BIBLICAL LANGUAGE! BUT…if it offends, we can use non-biblical language and just say we are asking the saints for their prayers. (We will deal with whether THAT is Biblical later….)
The hymnology of the Church expresses our relationship to the saints: The hymns about the saints almost always end with “Intercede for us to Christ our God to save our souls”. Note that we do not worship them, or equate them to Christ or God, but merely ask that they intercede for us TO CHRIST, or in modern language, we ask them to pray for us just as we ask any other good Christian friend or pastor to pray for us.


Intercession of Archangel Raphael
“I can now tell you that when you, Tobit, and Sarah prayed, it was I who presented and read the record of your prayer before the Glory of the Lord; and I did the same thing when you used to bury the dead.
When you did not hesitate to get up and leave your dinner in order to go and bury the dead,
I was sent to put you to the test. At the same time, however, God commissioned me to heal you and your daughter-in-law Sarah.
I am Raphael, one of the seven angels who enter and serve before the Glory of the Lord.”—Tobit 12: 12-15
Intercession in the Old Testament.
The Prophet Jeremiah prays for the people of Israel(many years after he had died the physical death and departed from material life):-
“What he saw was this: Onias, the former high priest, a good and virtuous man, modest in appearance, gentle in manners, distinguished in speech, and trained from childhood in every virtuous practice, was praying with outstretched arms for the whole Jewish community.
Then in the same way another man appeared, distinguished by his white hair and dignity, and with an air about him of extraordinary, majestic authority.
Onias then said of him, “This is God’s prophet Jeremiah, who loves his brethren and fervently prays for his people and their holy city.”—-2 Maccabees 15: 12-14

“Worship” is one thing, “Veneration” is another

We need to distinguish between these two different words, from the very beginning.
“Veneration” does not always imply “Worship”! It could imply worship, but it could also refer to an honorific bow. When a hotel porter bows to a guest, surely he isn’t actually worshipping the guest! He is merely honoring him, with a respectful bow. In the case of God, however, this respectful bow is also a gesture of worship.
When a Christian bows before one of God’s (sanctified) people, he is not worshipping that person; he is merely honoring that person as a person of God. In the same way, when he bows before the icon of a Saint, he is not worshipping the icon; he is paying homage to the person portrayed on it.
But : if the icon portrays the Lord Jesus Christ, then only is the portrayed person worshipped; not the image, but the actual person that it portrays.

[theplains]

& what would be the point to that?

It would explain why Jesus is called the Messiah.

Jim

[جوري]

It would explain why Jesus is called the Messiah.

Jim

No it doesn't. I have already explained what it means to be called 'the Messiah' and anointed heck even your tabernacles have been .. I am wondering if you the three of you read anything or just copy paste nonsensical rhetoric in hopes it will stick?

best,

[Iceee]

I am wondering if you the three of you read anything or just copy paste nonsensical rhetoric in hopes it will stick?

Lol. ;D

[Abu Loren]

Many millions of Christians believe that Messiah = god.