the message of prophets in christianity

[Malaikah]

Hi there,

I was just thinking, what did the prophets preach in the christain version of their stories? Did they ever say that God is in three parts and did they ever make mention of the father, son and holy spirit?

Also, are their stories derived from the OT, NT or both?

[Umar001]

Assalamu Aleykum Wa Rhametulah,
Am really sorry, I know you asking from a Christian prospective and I am a Muslim and I tend to jump in these threads, hope you dont get annoyed if you do say and I will keep away :)

Hi there,

I was just thinking, what did the prophets preach in the christain version of their stories? Did they ever say that God is in three parts and did they ever make mention of the father, son and holy spirit?

Also, are their stories derived from the OT, NT or both?

To be honest with you, I have heard many stories, and so forth based on 'interpretation' because there is no definate interpretation, i.e. in Islam you have a Tafsir which quotes the Prophet and Sahabi explaining verses and so on so you interpret it that way, in Christianity I have never come across such a thing.

Anyhow, so interpretations are more open, some conclude that whenever G-d is said to have appeard on earth it was 'the son' I,e, when the angels and the lord appeard to Abraham, that is supposed to mean that the lord was a part of the Trinity, the Son, in human form and so on, and other stories such as wen it speaks about the Spirit of G-d and so on.

Though, if you read some of the way some Jews understand the same verses you'd see a different view, which may or may not be more logical or probable.

Hope this thread brings up much more understanding and dialogue.

:)

Eesa.

[duskiness]

I was just thinking, what did the prophets preach in the christain version of their stories?

they preached a lot!! Bible is bigger (in text volume) than Quran and books about prophets are longer.

Did they ever say that God is in three parts and did they ever make mention of the father, son and holy spirit?

No, our understanding of God as Trinity -a we see it- came with God's revelation in Jesus. But we believe that there are prophecies and traces of it in OT.

side note:
we believe in God in three Person, not parts.

Also, are their stories derived from the OT, NT or both?

Stories are form OT (so they are the same for Jews and us). NT is about Jesus and His disciples

hehe i thought the old testament was the torah :S

Torah are first 5 books of OT/Tanakh(=Jewish term). So Tora is just a part of OT.

[Malaikah]

Am really sorry, I know you asking from a Christian prospective and I am a Muslim and I tend to jump in these threads, hope you dont get annoyed if you do say and I will keep away :)

:sl:

Its ok lol, feel free. Your post was interesting.

No, our understanding of God as Trinity -a we see it- came with God's revelation in Jesus. But we believe that there are prophecies and traces of it in OT.

Thanks for the reply. But... why would God conceal the trinity from all the prophets? isnt that kinda like 'deception', for lack of a better word? :? seems pretty odd that all these prophets would be preaching "God is one" etc and then all of a sudden God is in three persons? :?

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

[glo]

:sl:

Its ok lol, feel free. Your post was interesting.



Thanks for the reply. But... why would God conceal the trinity from all the prophets? isnt that kinda like 'deception', for lack of a better word? :? seems pretty odd that all these prophets would be preaching "God is one" etc and then all of a sudden God is in three persons? :?

Hi cheese

I am reading an article about this topic at the moment.
It is very interesting, but will take me lot of time to cross-reference and read up in the Bible.

If I find anything that's worth sharing, I'll bring it back here. :)

Peace

[dougmusr]

Hi cheese

I am reading an article about this topic at the moment.
It is very interesting, but will take me lot of time to cross-reference and read up in the Bible.

If I find anything that's worth sharing, I'll bring it back here. :)

Peace

I've posted this before but check out Isaiah 48:12-16.

The speaker is eternal.

48:12 "Listen to Me, O Jacob, And Israel, My called: I am He, I am the First, I am also the Last.

The speaker is the creator.

48:13 Indeed My hand has laid the foundation of the earth, And My right hand has stretched out the heavens; When I call to them, They stand up together.

The speaker who is the eternal creator was sent by the Lord GOD and His Spirit.

48:16 "Come near to Me, hear this: I have not spoken in secret from the beginning; From the time that it was, I was there. And now the Lord GOD and His Spirit Have sent Me."

[Grace Seeker]

:sl:

Thanks for the reply. But... why would God conceal the trinity from all the prophets? isnt that kinda like 'deception', for lack of a better word? :? seems pretty odd that all these prophets would be preaching "God is one" etc and then all of a sudden God is in three persons? :?

Duskiness didn't say that God concealed the trinity, what she said was that

our understanding of God as Trinity came with God's revelation in Jesus.

There is a difference. Christians don't think of God concealing things from people, rather Jesus is quoted as saying "let those who have ears to hear, hear". So it can be that people don't understand until their hearts and minds are prepared to receive.

Duskiness also did go on to say that there are traces of the concept of the Trinity in Old Testament -- for instance in the act of creation God says,

Genesis 1:26
Then God said, "Let us make man in our image, in our likeness..."

The Hebrew in this verse is plural. That is not just in the Christian bible either, that is in the Totah. And there are other examples.

[Grace Seeker]

:sl:

Thanks for the reply. But... why would God conceal the trinity from all the prophets? isnt that kinda like 'deception', for lack of a better word? :? seems pretty odd that all these prophets would be preaching "God is one" etc and then all of a sudden God is in three persons? :?

Cheese,
I hope you will forgive the long response, but you've asked several questions in one, perhaps without realizing it.
1) One question is about what was the message of the prophets?
2) Another, implied but unasked by the way you put it, is the message of the Christian and the Jewish prophets the same or different?
3) Was the concept of the Trinity delivered as a message of God through the prophets?

Behind all of that is an unasked question that one has to understand before one can talk about these individual questions, and that is what is the Christian understanding of prophecy?

Christians don't view prophecy as any and all speech uttered by a person recognized as a prophet. Prophecy is specifically speaking forth on God's behalf. Thus, it is possbile that even persons who are not prophets can speak prophetically. In fact, the speaker does not even have to be a person -- in Numbers 22 there is the story of a prophet Balaam who has been hired by an enemy of the nation of Israel to curse them, but God sends an angel to stand in his way and oppose him from doing so. Balaam does not seek the angel of God, but the donkey does and speaks of it to Balaam. Thus, anyone or anything speaking forth on God's behalf is speaking prophetically.



1) One question is about what was the message of the prophets?

You are aware that there are many prophets. They all spoke on God's behalf, but they spoke to different people facing different life situations and thus they have many different messages, not just one message. I believe this is a significant difference in understanding from the role of a prophet in Islam. Christians do not believe that each prophet was for just for one group of people and to that group of people delivered the sum total of a single message from God that each succeeding prophet repeated. Rather, Christians believe that each prophet added progressively more and more to God's own self-disclosing revelation of God's self till that self-revelation reached its zenith in Jesus as God manifesting God's self among humankind.

Before Moses, God revealed himself to people and asked them to commit themselves personally to live in relationship with him and made promises of blessings that would be passed on to their children and their children's children.

In Moses, God revealed himself as claiming a whole nation for himself. And he established some principles of how they were to live in order to carry out that relationship. Following Moses, most of the prophets' messages had to do with the people's ability (or lack thereof) to live a life that was truly submissive to God will and the concept of judgment that would come in "the day of the Lord."

Now there are several possible interpretations of the coming "day of the Lord." In some ways, the various exiles that the Jews suffered were seen as this "day of the Lord" in that it pronounced judgment on them for their unfaithfulness. And there was also the concept of a future, apocalyptic "day of the Lord" (many Christians share this view). But Jesus' birth, as the incarnate manifestion of God come in the flesh to dwell among us, is also an inbreaking "day of the Lord". And now subsequent to Jesus making God known by being God personally living among us, there is no need for any subsequent new revelation that does not have to do with Jesus. That doesn't mean that there are no more prophecies (though a few Christians think they have ceased) just that one that purports to speak forth on God's behalf and denying the revelation of Jesus would be understood to be a false prophet by Christians.



2) Another, implied but unasked by the way you put it, is the message of the Christian and the Jewish prophets the same or different?

Not being Jewish, I don't know that I cannot adequately address this question. My first thought is that both Christians and Jews would recognize the messages of those that Christians call the Old Testament prophets, but might have different interpreations as to how those messages are to be applied.



3) Was the concept of the Trinity delivered as a message of God through the prophets?

No.

The concept of the Trinity is not even mentioned by name any place in scripture. It is a concept, an understanding derived from not any single verse saying something akin to "The Lord your God is one, but exists in three persons." That statement, which Christians do affirm, is a very human statement. It comes as an expression of the understanding of the totality of God's self-revelation, not a singular expression.

Think of it as a label, and nothing more. It was, as I am sure you probably know, a formulaic expression developed by the church in places like Nicea and Chalcedon long after the completion of the Bible. It is not revelation. It is not even necessary to recite one of those creeds which make those statements to be Christian. Those creeds, indeed the formulaic expression of the three-in-one God was devised as a teaching tool. As a very wise Christians author, C.S. Lewis once wrote, it is an illustration of the faith, don't mistake the illustration or the explanation for the faith. If the illustration doesn't illuminate things for you, then don't use it, throw it away. Just don't throw away your faith and experience of God who does make himself known to us not only as creator, but who also comes to us in Jesus as redeemer and who sends his own spirit to infuse our lives with his intimate presence.

[Malaikah]

Grace Seeker,

Thank you for the reply.

So what you are saying is, not only did the Prophets not deliver a message about the trinity, neither did Jesus?

And if Jesus had no such message, and that the concept of the trinity was made by somehow 'connecting the dots' between some verses, how did he ever get elevated to the status of one of the persons of God? :uuh:

Those creeds, indeed the formulaic expression of the three-in-one God was devised as a teaching tool.

So the trinity is a teaching tool? For what exactly? Isnt that the same as inventing a lie about God? :rollseyes

[Skillganon]

Take a history lesson in the early christianity. Their is lot of information even in the existing scripture's that reveal if looked closely REVEALS startling things.

[Grace Seeker]

Grace Seeker,

Thank you for the reply.

Thank-you for seeking answers to your questions. I am sure there are those who could answer better than I, but I will gladly do my best.

So what you are saying is, not only did the Prophets not deliver a message about the trinity, neither did Jesus?

True.
Jesus' message was prinicipally about how one should live as an individual who belongs to the kingdom of God.

And if Jesus had no such message, and that the conpect of the trinity was made by somehow 'connecting the dots' between some verses,

I like the way you descirbe that.

how did he ever get elevated to the status of one of the persons of God? :uuh:

So the trinity is a teaching tool? For what exactly? Isnt that the same as inventing a lie about God? :rollseyes

Unless of course in connecting the dots we see better the picture God means for us to have of himself.

Remember the earliest Christians were all strict monotheistic Jews. And yet, they had experienced meeting God in Jesus. That was hard for them to reconcile, unless of course one believes that it was the very same one true God who they had always worship that one had somehow also encountered in the person of Jesus. Then, too, at the event known as Pentecost, they had another experience of God who came upon them with the indwelling of God's very own spirit. They knew it was a real experience of God, the one same God they knew already as Father (a term in common use by Jews of that day), and now they also knew this very same God manifested in Jesus and in this manifestation of God's spirit. Here they had an experience of God and no words to describe it. So, they "invented", as you say, a word to at least label this indescribable mystery of their experience. It wasn't a lie, it was putting into human words that which they had experienced of God in their own lives so that they might communicate it to others.

The word "Trinity" would not be coined to label that experience for many more years, but the actual experience and descriptions of that experience are recorded in the writings of the New Testament.


Now I did not address very fully how it is that Jesus came to be seen and understood as God. I just said that he was understood that way by even his original disciples. (By the way, I do think Jesus revealed to those who had ears to hear that he was God.) As you posted the original question for this thread I will attempt an answer here if you so desire, or I can do it in a thread dedicated to that subject?

[duskiness]

So the trinity is a teaching tool? For what exactly? Isnt that the same as
inventing a lie about God? :rollseyes

Cheese, every word you will speak about God is only a "teaching tool". Whether you will say, "just" or "all powerful" or "Trinity". i just think that some words describe Him better than others.
Why do you presume that "teaching tool" = "lie" ?

And if Jesus had no such message, and that the conpect of the trinity was made by somehow 'connecting the dots' between some verses, how did he ever get elevated to the status of one of the persons of God?

I think, that it was in Jesus teaching but for sure it wasn't that clear. I seems that He didn't make such a big deal about theology.
How was He elevated to status of God? Well, because of what He said and what He did. Cheese, all Christians agree that something very, very important happened 2000 years ago in Jerusalem. And since then we are trying to understand what and wrap it into words. Trinity is one of common ways of speaking about it. It is - as i believe - the most accurate way of speaking about Him.

[Malaikah]

Unless of course in connecting the dots we see better the picture God means for us to have of himself.

But why the lack of certainty? Surely if Jesus was the son of God and he claimed to be so, then it would have been probably the number one most imporant thing in christianity, and it should be very clear cut and not in need to putting things together by connecting verses?

So, they "invented", as you say, a word to at least label this indescribable mystery of their experience. It wasn't a lie, it was putting into human words that which they had experienced of God in their own lives so that they might communicate it to others.

So what you are saying is that, the idea that God is in three persons existed since the time of Jesus and those who knew him? But if thats the case where does the 'connecting the dots' thing fit in? :?

From my understanding of what you said, the idea of God being three persons came well after the bible was written, so how do you even know that Jesus's companions thought he was God?

Now I did not address very fully how it is that Jesus came to be seen and understood as God. I just said that he was understood that way by even his original disciples. (By the way, I do think Jesus revealed to those who had ears to hear that he was God.) As you posted the original question for this thread I will attempt an answer here if you so desire, or I can do it in a thread dedicated to that subject?

You may answer it here. Again, if Jesus was God then why did you qoute that person earlier who said that you dont need to believe in the trinity?:?

[Malaikah]

Cheese, every word you will speak about God is only a "teaching tool". Whether you will say, "just" or "all powerful" or "Trinity". i just think that some words describe Him better than others.
Why do you presume that "teaching tool" = "lie" ?

From what i had read in Grace Seekers post, i understood that the concept of the trinity was understood in order to help people understand the nature of God- i took this to mean that they were assigning a quality to God that He did not asign to Himself, which would be telling a lie. Unless I misunderstood?

I think, that it was in Jesus teaching but for sure it wasn't that clear. I seems that He didn't make such a big deal about theology.
How was He elevated to status of God? Well, because of what He said and what He did. Cheese, all Christians agree that something very, very important happened 2000 years ago in Jerusalem. And since then we are trying to understand what and wrap it into words. Trinity is one of common ways of speaking about it. It is - as i believe - the most accurate way of speaking about Him.

Like I said before- it would be a pretty big deal that God came down to earth in human form. Why does it seem that such an fundamental aspect of christianity- the trinity- is clouded by uncerainty?

For example- it is stressed so much in Islam and in the Quran and hadiths that God is One, so much so that there can be no uncertainty whatsoever that the Islamic teaching is that there is just one God. Its very, very explicit. And yet in christianty, the concept of the trinity cant be developed unless you connect concepts developed from verses here and there?

Also, my original questions hasnt been answers about why all the other prophets didnt know about the trinity?

[Eric H]

Greetings and peace be with you cheese;

it is stressed so much in Islam and in the Quran and hadiths that God is One,

Scriptures are to inspire people to do something; I believe that the Trinitarian Scriptures concerning God the Father and Christ are to do with relationships.

You might look on a marriage as two separate people coming together; if they have a good marriage they might be regarded as one through a perfect relationship.

In the same kind of way I look on the Father ( God ) being perfect and having a perfect relationship with his son Jesus, who is also perfect.

In the Bible it talks of Christ being one with the Father; one with the church, and it talks of a man and a woman becoming as one flesh when they marry. I feel that oneness refers to a perfect relationship between two parties.

We talk of God being the greatest source of love and mercy, and I wonder if the words of the two greatest commandments applied to God before he gave them to us.

God loves all that he is with all his heart, soul, mind and strength?
God loves each and everyone of us as he loves himself?

God loves Christ as he loves himself?
Christ loves the Father as he loves himself?

Could God love us more than he loves himself?

The third part of the Trinity the Holy Spirit is to do with the power that comes out of a perfect relationship with both God and our neighbour.

An example of the spirit at work might be to look at the disciples of Jesus, they seemed fairly timid people until they received the gift of the Holy Spirit. From the moment they received the Holy Spirit a tremendous courage and wisdom came to them to proclaim God’s word. The people who heard them were immediately inspired.

In the spirit of searching
Eric

[IbnAbdulHakim]

Peace Eric :),

Just out of curiosity, are you saying your understanding is that jesus and God are equal in perfection however there is only one God?

so, and forgive me if im understanding wrong, but the trinity states that God is in the spirit and jesus, therefore the spirit (gabriel) and jesus are equal to God?



Im sorry if i have misunderstoood.


Hope to understand more :)

[duskiness]

IbnAbdulHakim,
In know that you were asking Eric and i won't claim i know what he thinks...
but i know basics of Trinity:
we believe there is only ONE god.
The one God is a Trinity.There are 3 persons of Trinity. Father, Son and the Holy Spirit.
Gabriel is an angel and not God.

[IbnAbdulHakim]

^ Thanks.

[Eric H]

Greetings in peace IbnAbdulHakim;

I have just read my post again and please forgive me but I have left out the most important part. What I said is purely an interpretation that no church teaches, and I have no authority to say such a thing. But I know these words are challenging to people of all faiths, and so I offer these thoughts for people to meditate on and to challenge.

Just out of curiosity, are you saying your understanding is that jesus and God are equal in perfection however there is only one God?

so, and forgive me if im understanding wrong, but the trinity states that God is in the spirit and jesus, therefore the spirit (gabriel) and jesus are equal to God?

It is probably not the answer you want o hear to your question, but I feel that the only way for you to find answers is to read the Bible for yourself and seek a greatest good understanding that inspires you to do something.

The reason I suggest this approach is because you could ask a number of Christians and you might get a number of responses. The best understanding you could get is the one that has a greatest meaning for you, but you would have to search for this yourself.

Please forgive me if I seem evasive with my answer, but I think we often gain a greater understanding by searching for ourself.:)

In the spirit of searching for God

Eric

[IbnAbdulHakim]

Peace :)

if it wasnt for the hadith in which Muhammad saws said that if Musa AS was alive then he would have followed him after seeing Umar RA reading the torah then i most certainly would have read all the bibles.

I just feel that islam is too complete.

sorry for going off-topic, i was also wondering if christians think of jesus as a prophet at all? i understand you think his the son of God, but does that also make him a prophet? and also clearly you believe in jacob, joseph, jonah and the other prophets so according to your belief was jesus the last one?

Thanks for taking time to answer :)

:peace:

[dougmusr]

sorry for going off-topic, i was also wondering if christians think of jesus as a prophet at all? i understand you think his the son of God, but does that also make him a prophet? and also clearly you believe in jacob, joseph, jonah and the other prophets so according to your belief was jesus the last one?

Jeses here told his audience that He was more than a prophet, and that He would die, be buried, and rise from the dead.

Matthew 12:38 Then some of the scribes and Pharisees answered, saying, "Teacher, we want to see a sign from You." 39 But He answered and said to them, "An evil and adulterous generation seeks after a sign, and no sign will be given to it except the sign of the prophet Jonah. 40 "For as Jonah was three days and three nights in the belly of the great fish, so will the Son of Man be three days and three nights in the heart of the earth. 41 "The men of Nineveh will rise up in the judgment with this generation and condemn it, because they repented at the preaching of Jonah; and indeed a greater than Jonah is here.
42 "The queen of the South will rise up in the judgment with this generation and condemn it, for she came from the ends of the earth to hear the wisdom of Solomon; and indeed a greater than Solomon is here.

In this parable, Christ claims that He is the Son of God, and is the last prophet.

Mark 12:1 Then He began to speak to them in parables: "A man planted a vineyard and set a hedge around it, dug a place for the wine vat and built a tower. And he leased it to vinedressers and went into a far country.
2 "Now at vintage-time he sent a servant to the vinedressers, that he might receive some of the fruit of the vineyard from the vinedressers.
3 "And they took him and beat him and sent him away empty-handed.
4 "Again he sent them another servant, and at him they threw stones, wounded him in the head, and sent him away shamefully treated.
5 "And again he sent another, and him they killed; and many others, beating some and killing some. 6 "Therefore still having one son, his beloved, he also sent him to them last, saying, 'They will respect my son.' 7 "But those vinedressers said among themselves, 'This is the heir. Come, let us kill him, and the inheritance will be ours.' 8 "So they took him and killed him and cast him out of the vineyard. 9 "Therefore what will the owner of the vineyard do? He will come and destroy the vinedressers, and give the vineyard to others.

This is also taught in:

Hebrews 1: 1 God, who at various times and in various ways spoke in time past to the fathers by the prophets, 2 has in these last days spoken to us by His Son, whom He has appointed heir of all things, through whom also He made the worlds; 3 who being the brightness of His glory and the express image of His person, and upholding all things by the word of His power, when He had by Himself purged our sins, sat down at the right hand of the Majesty on high,
4 having become so much better than the angels, as He has by inheritance obtained a more excellent name than they.

[Skillganon]

Jeses here told his audience that He was more than a prophet, and that He would die, be buried, and rise from the dead.

Interesting to note that, every prophets believe they will die, be buried (naturaly) and be raise from the dead.

Actually we muslim believe it will happen to mankind. Everyon will die, buried and raised..

[duskiness]

sorry for going off-topic, i was also wondering if christians think of jesus as a prophet at all?

I'm quite tired so a quick answer: No, we don't think of Him as a prophet. :)

[Grace Seeker]

Peace Eric :),

Just out of curiosity, are you saying your understanding is that jesus and God are equal in perfection however there is only one God?

so, and forgive me if im understanding wrong, but the trinity states that God is in the spirit and jesus, therefore the spirit (gabriel) and jesus are equal to God?



Im sorry if i have misunderstoood.


Hope to understand more :)

Please forgive my slowness in responding to your questions. I have been busy with other things, and even now only have a moment, so will have to leave some things unaddressed till later.

I believe that duskiness has answered well. I am not sure I would have worded things the same as Eric has. But I must admit that even among the clergy of Christianity that there are those who seek what God is revealing regarding himself and come to similar but not identical understandings. Some might call that confusion (and it can be confusing when one asks a question and receives more than one answer), but I think the reason is actually simple: the mystery of God is so deep that no mere human can ever understand God fully in this life.


Rather than saying that God and Jesus were equal in perfect, would simply say that Jesus, being God incarnate, was indeed perfect. We do not think of Jesus and God as two distinct beings. While it might sound strange to a non-Christian, a Christian can read the Bible and every place that God is mentioned substitute in its place the name Jesus, and vice versa. Thus we would not find it wrong to understand that in the beginning Jesus created the heavens and the earth, or to say that God died on the cross.

As to the Holy Spirit, the Holy Spirit is also just another manifestation of the one, same God. The spirit is NOT Gabriel. Gabriel is Gabriel. Gabriel is an angel. The Spirit is not an angel, and angel is a created being. The Spirit is not a created being; the Spirit is God. And God is Spirit. So, if you are following me, you could even say that in the beginning the Spirit of God created the heavens and the earth.

Whether one is talking about God, Jesus, or the Spirit Christians are talking about one and only one being. God the Father is not more God than Jesus is, and the Spirit is not less God than Jesus is. They are all one and the same being. The one and only God who created the universe and through whom the universe continues to be held together.

So Jesus does not just give us words about God, Jesus is the living Word of God walking and breathing and living amongst us. I suspect, if a Muslim truly understood what Christians meant by this, they would have even more objections to the Christian understanding of Jesus (i.e. God dying on the cross as a sacrifice for all of humanity.

[dougmusr]

Interesting to note that, every prophets believe they will die, be buried (naturaly) and be raise from the dead.

Actually we muslim believe it will happen to mankind. Everyon will die, buried and raised..

In three days?

[Skillganon]

In three days?

Sign of Jonah? :rollseyes

[Malaikah]

Also, my original questions hasnt been answers about why all the other prophets didnt know about the trinity?

Still hoping for an answer... :?

[Grace Seeker]

Originally Posted by cheese
Also, my original questions hasnt been answers about why all the other prophets didnt know about the trinity?

Still hoping for an answer... :?

We don't know whether the other prophets might have known about the trinity and simply not shared it because that was not the message they were sent to deliver. Or if that was something that would be revealed only in the fullness of time. I tend to think the latter, but there are hints about the trinity that looing back as a Christian I can see were already there in the Old Testemant, though I don't know that I would have recognized them as such if I had been living in those days without the knowledge I have now from my reading of the New Testament.

Now, you seem to think that if God did not reveal it all that God was then hiding something. I disagree. In the sense that when my children ask me about where babies come from, I give them the answer that they are able to deal with, depending on their level of maturity. When they were very young, babies come from their mommy's tummy. As they got older, a little bit more, until they knew the whole truth. Was I hiding the truth from them. Well, some might say, yes, I was. You might even say that. Yet, even it that is your point of view, I hope you don't think that I was being deceptive.

Likewise with God. I tend to view God's revelation as being progressive, till it reached it culmination and perfection in Jesus Christ. (Sorry, this is why I might say that Muhammad (pbuh) was a prophet, but not THE prophet.)

Further, if people not having the entire revelation makes God guilty of hidding the truth and being a deciever, then we have the same problem in Islam, that you are suggesting is present in Christianity.

Muhammad (pbuh) was supposed sent to all mankind, but there was no way to accomplish that in his lifetime. So, those people who lived beyond the prophets influence were living without revelation.

Worse, according to Islam, God sent this same message all the previous prophets each to share with their own people. Yet, God who is almighty and gracious, allowed this message to be corrupted. And thus allowed for a false message to be presented. Islam believes the the message had to have been corrupted within the first generation of Christianity or it must accept the Bible Christians use today as containing the true revelation of Jesus Christ. So, either the Bible is right, or God allowed the first generation of Christians to corrupt the Bible and waited 700 more years before bothering to send a new messenger to correct the error all the while the corrupted message was being allowed to spread around the world.

I think your question is a good one. But the implications of it are not ones that I would think a follower of Islam would want to pursue. Rather, I think you might prefer to join me in my opinion: God is not a deceiver, and not revealing everything to everyone until they are ready for it does not make him one.

[snakelegs]

i am convinced that the trinity concept is comprehensible only to christians.
i don't even try.

[YusufNoor]

[QUOTE=dougmusr;561431]In three days?[/QUOTE]

:sl:

the "Christ" that most "Christians" believe in wasn't dead for 3 days and 3 nights, as Jesus is quoted as saying, either.

even though it was supposed to be the ONE "sign" (Matt 12:40) that he was to give...

while the NT DOES say that baptism is supposed to be in the name of the Father, and of the son, and of the Holy Spirit, ABSOLUTELY NOWHERE in the NT will you find "the name of the Father" as they where Jews who have "forgotten" it OR the name of of the Holy Spirit! (which, maybe they never had) but it's more like a "duo" than a trinity.

but no Prophet EVER preached anything but pure monotheism, including Jesus/Isa(as)...

we owe our current understanding of "Christianity" to the Council of Nicea 325AD; which was bought and paid for by a "pagan" Emperor. :offended:

i, for one, would love to see the "original" gospel/injeel!


:w:

[dougmusr]

but no Prophet EVER preached anything but pure monotheism, including Jesus/Isa(as)...

Christians are in agreement with this statement.

i, for one, would love to see the "original" gospel/injeel!

When I talk to Muslims, they always say they believe in the Gospel. If Muslims believe that the original Gospel is lost in antiquity, and therefore don't know what it contains, how can they say they believe it? Could you explain to me what you personally believe the Gospel message is?

Also, if you don't know what the original Gospel message is, how can you know that the Bible doesn't contain it?

[YusufNoor]

When I talk to Muslims, they always say they believe in the Gospel. If Muslims believe that the original Gospel is lost in antiquity, and therefore don't know what it contains, how can they say they believe it? Could you explain to me what you personally believe the Gospel message is?

Also, if you don't know what the original Gospel message is, how can you know that the Bible doesn't contain it?

:sl:

well if your referring to me, you might want to check some of my posts!
:giggling:

i can show you that you don't even believe what YOUR bible says. NOT because i'm a Muslim, that's a rather new developement, but because i've studied the issue for 3 decades.

btw, you AGREE that Jesus(as) preached monotheism, yet you've come to believe that in order to worship him, you now reject what he preached...

also, i "hear" the SAME message that Jesus(as) spoke in the teachings ,sayings and life of the Prophet Mohammed Salalahoo Alaihe Wa Salaam! and when i hear the Qur'an explained!

Could you explain to me what you personally believe the Gospel message is?

La Ilaha Illal Lahu

:w:

[Umar001]

Hi dougmusr,

When I talk to Muslims, they always say they believe in the Gospel. If Muslims believe that the original Gospel is lost in antiquity, and therefore don't know what it contains, how can they say they believe it? Could you explain to me what you personally believe the Gospel message is?

Also, if you don't know what the original Gospel message is, how can you know that the Bible doesn't contain it?

Just to takle one part at the time, inshaAllah:

• How do Muslim believe in something they have no knowledge of.

Simple, the authority of the Injil is given to us by God, God tells us that He sent a revelation to Jesus named the Injil, so thus we have no reason not to believe actually, since we believe in God it is essential we believe in it, since God vouches for it himself.

If God asks you to believe in something which you don't know about, never heard of, but He tells you 'I done this and I done that' would you not believe Him?

• What does the Injil contain

It is revelation from God to Jesus for Jesus to give to his people whom he was sent to. Other than that I don't think much is told about it, as it is not something neccesary.

• How do we know that the Bible does not contain the true Gospel since we don't know what the True Gospel is

From an Islamic point of view, we have been told that it has been changed by individuals, also, we are told that Jesus is not the Son of God or God, so it is in that sense Illogical to think that Jesus would have had a revelation stating the likes of what is in the Bible.

The above is all brief and to the point, hope it helps.

Eesa.

[dougmusr]

La Ilaha Illal Lahu

I haven't a clue what this means.

[YusufNoor]

I haven't a clue what this means.

:sl:

Salaam,

basically it means "there is no G-d (Allah(SWT)) worthy of worship except G-d (Allah(SWT))

the Jews had substituted ceremony for religion. Jesus(as) told them that they were already going to loose their temple and unless they return to proper worship that their very existance in Eratz Yisrael was at stake.

regarding what the bible says though, NO church goes by the bible 100%, i've checked.

at some point it always come to "OK, we see what it says, but we don't believe that."

it's very frustrating.

peace

:w:

[dougmusr]

the Jews had substituted ceremony for religion. Jesus(as) told them that they were already going to loose their temple and unless they return to proper worship that their very existance in Eratz Yisrael was at stake.

Is this stated in the Quran?

[YusufNoor]

Is this stated in the Quran?

:sl:

Salaam Doug,

alot of folks online get confused when talking to me. the vast majority of my thoughts about the time period of Jesus'(as) life come from non Muslim sources.

i try to use Jewish sources for Jewish stuff and Christian sources for Christian stuff. i can't honestly explain everything that Islam says about Isa/Jesus(as) cuz i don't know and/or understand it all. i've read all the Qur'an, but not all the Ahadith...

the Jews had substituted ceremony for religion.

that comes from both sources. why do you think Jesus(as) was calling them hypocites?

Jesus(as) told them that they were already going to loose their temple

that's my take on what he was saying. he frequently referred to the tearing down of the temple. "you're going to loose the temple, but you can still worship G-d (Allah(SWT)." so now the message will be based totally on the answer to the question "am i my brother's keeper" and obeying G-d (Allah(SWT)). which if you look at discussions amongst the Pharisees just before the the end of the 1st century BCE, that's exactly what the 2 different schools of thought(Hillel & Shimei) were debating. Jesus's(as) words mirror those of the Hillel school.

unless they return to proper worship that their very existance in Eratz Yisrael was at stake.

that's more of a deduction as Jesus(as) WAS a Prophet and that's what happened. he said don't listen to false prophets, they did. they got the boot.

but going to history, the Jew's WE'RE looking for their Messiah to come. when Jesus(as) was alive the Jews were POSITIVE that they were going to get independance from Rome with the coming of the Messiah. they were on pins and needles waiting for him. Jesus(as) warned them about those false prophets. the first series of false Messiah's led to the destruction of the temple. after that, there was another revolt, another "Messiah", Bar Kochba, iirc, and at that point Rome just said "enuff is enuff".

Prophets are warners, there words and deeds need to taken in context with what was happening at the time. of course we can't know exactly what Jesus(as) said unless Allah(SWT) tells us, or the Catholic Church reveals what documents still survived, if any, at the time of Nicea 325 CE.

btw, there were also Jews in Medina/Yathrib awaiting the "final prophet" at the time of the Prophet Mohammed(pbuh) as well! but that isn't covered in the Jewish stuff that i have/or had.

:w:

[Grace Seeker]

[QUOTE=YusufNoor;584747]

In three days?[/QUOTE]

:sl:

the "Christ" that most "Christians" believe in wasn't dead for 3 days and 3 nights, as Jesus is quoted as saying, either.

even though it was supposed to be the ONE "sign" (Matt 12:40) that he was to give...

while the NT DOES say that baptism is supposed to be in the name of the Father, and of the son, and of the Holy Spirit, ABSOLUTELY NOWHERE in the NT will you find "the name of the Father" as they where Jews who have "forgotten" it OR the name of of the Holy Spirit! (which, maybe they never had) but it's more like a "duo" than a trinity.

but no Prophet EVER preached anything but pure monotheism, including Jesus/Isa(as)...

we owe our current understanding of "Christianity" to the Council of Nicea 325AD; which was bought and paid for by a "pagan" Emperor. :offended:

i, for one, would love to see the "original" gospel/injeel!


:w:

I for one would also like to see the original documents, simply for the same reason I like to see the original copies of the Declaration of Independence in Jeffereson's own handwriting. But, as far as your supposition that what we have is not "original" in content, other than a few variant readings (ones that in my opinion do not effect the whole of the message) I believe we do have the original gospel. Those who believe otherwise have their beliefs, and out of respect for the originators of this forum, I will not here try to change them. But though you may make all sorts of claims otherwise, what you are stating is opinion based on your beliefs, not historical fact. Yes, the same charge could be levelled at me at the moment. But your idea that our current understanding of the Trinity is owed to Constantine and the Council of Nicea is at best a half-truth. The texts on which the ideas which were discussed at Nicea are articulated in both the Bible and in other Christian writings in the first century. The Council did not meet to invent (my word, not yours) the Trinity, but in response to the development of Arianism, a non-trinitarian heresy that was a new development in the Church. Nicea merely kept the party line of orthodox Christianity which had been taguht over the previous 200+ years.

[YusufNoor]

[QUOTE=Grace Seeker;587103]

I for one would also like to see the original documents, simply for the same reason I like to see the original copies of the Declaration of Independence in Jeffereson's own handwriting. But, as far as your supposition that what we have is not "original" in content, other than a few variant readings (ones that in my opinion do not effect the whole of the message) I believe we do have the original gospel. Those who believe otherwise have their beliefs, and out of respect for the originators of this forum, I will not here try to change them. But though you may make all sorts of claims otherwise, what you are stating is opinion based on your beliefs, not historical fact. Yes, the same charge could be levelled at me at the moment. But your idea that our current understanding of the Trinity is owed to Constantine and the Council of Nicea is at best a half-truth. The texts on which the ideas which were discussed at Nicea are articulated in both the Bible and in other Christian writings in the first century. The Council did not meet to invent (my word, not yours) the Trinity, but in response to the development of Arianism, a non-trinitarian heresy that was a new development in the Church. Nicea merely kept the party line of orthodox Christianity which had been taguht over the previous 200+ years.

:sl:

Salaam Brother!

no time to respond cuz just got home, but let me ask you a question, or 2.

1st of all, how are you?? :D

i'm not sure i used the word "invented" for the our current understanding of the Trinity cognifed and enforced byConstantine and the Council of Nicea. i'm sure i would have that word more to deal the current "holidays" the CC uses!

see the difference! ;)

over the years the church eliminated any Christians who held on to Jewish beliefs or even ideas that weren't the same as theirs.

i'd have to find the source, but it IS currently believed that the 3 synoptic gospels and the 1st half of Acts are ALL taken from a Hebrew/Aramaic source.
it's not JUST my belief. we have current non-Muslim sources, some,iirc, Christian, some Jewish that concur.

However, it's also in the Qur'an! Source of sources!

what translations of the bible do you use? i'll see if i can show you some of the changes.

when i have time i'll show you by web sites how Nicea formulated stuff that didn't exist before, cuz you're claiming it ALL did right?


btw, i only sat down to have a bowl of ice cream!

hope your well!

Peace,

:w:

[Keltoi]

http://www.newadvent.org/cathen/11044a.htm

This is a decent source for one who wants a basic overview of the First Council of Nicaea.

[YusufNoor]

The Council did not meet to invent (my word, not yours) the Trinity, but in response to the development of Arianism, a non-trinitarian heresy that was a new development in the Church. Nicea merely kept the party line of orthodox Christianity which had been taguht over the previous 200+ years.

:sl:

Salaam,

durn, i missed that little trick. that's what happens when you're in a hurry.

the council of Nicea was in 325, ALMOST THREE HUNDRED YEARS after the Prophet Jesus/Isa(as)!

why do you only want to reckon on 200??

are you admitting that during the FIRST HUNDRED YEARS there was SUBSTANTIAL CHANGE???? :happy:

twas a nice attempt though...:giggling:

Peace,

:w:

[KAding]

You know, I can't help but notice that Muslims seem a bit obsessive on the trinity thing ;) Why don't you just believe Christians when they say it's simply three aspects of the same God. What does it matter that they say it has three parts if Christians accept the oneness of God and they repeat over and over that they are monotheists? Even more important, do you think this 'three parts of one being' influences their actions? Do they become less moral because of it?

Do you really think God cares as long as they follow his revealed code of conduct and accept his existence?

[glo]

You know, I can't help but notice that Muslims seem a bit obsessive on the trinity thing ;) Why don't you just believe Christians when they say it's simply three aspects of the same God. What does it matter that they say it has three parts if Christians accept the oneness of God and they repeat over and over that they are monotheists? Even more important, do you think this 'three parts of one being' influences their actions? Do they become less moral because of it?

Do you really think God cares as long as they follow his revealed code of conduct and accept his existence?

Hi KAding

Perhaps I can offer my personal perspective. Hopefully others will post their own views.

I think the real issue is Jesus.
Believing him to be God incarnated into a human being has two important consequences:

1. Believing that Jesus paid for the sin of humanity with his own life and thereby restored God's relationship with us humans really makes Islam obsolete. Would God 'change his mind' and reinstate the old laws and rules again 700 years afterwards?
2. Believing that God would make such a sacrifice for us humans really changes completely how we view the nature of God. Instead of God saying 'if you do X you may gain my favour' he is suddenly saying 'Look how great my love is for you! What will you do for me in return?'

So, the concept of the trinity does make a big difference!

peace

[Chuck]

Here is 3rd:
3. If Jesus (pbuh) is not God then making him is violation of first and the most important commandment.

[Umar001]

Hi KAding

Perhaps I can offer my personal perspective. Hopefully others will post their own views.

I think the real issue is Jesus.
Believing him to be God incarnated into a human being has two important consequences:

1. Believing that Jesus paid for the sin of humanity with his own life and thereby restored God's relationship with us humans really makes Islam obsolete. Would God 'change his mind' and reinstate the old laws and rules again 700 years afterwards?
2. Believing that God would make such a sacrifice for us humans really changes completely how we view the nature of God. Instead of God saying 'if you do X you may gain my favour' he is suddenly saying 'Look how great my love is for you! What will you do for me in return?'

So, the concept of the trinity does make a big difference!

peace

I have a little difference in the view:

1. Even if God did die for us and so forth and re instated a reletionship between Man and God, it would still not mean that he would not want a society ruled by His laws on earth.
2. The nature of God:
   
   
   The view of God is the same, what changes is how God's nature is show, for example, the sacrafise some Christians speak of where God is saying 'I have given you so much, bestowed bounties upon you, then why would you deny me or what will you do in return' Christian says this is the nature of God, and this nature is shown when God manifested himself in the flesh and died for us, Muslims also hold this nature, but they say that God outreached to us by creating us and giving us the chance of eternal paradise and being a Just and Merciful God.
   
   With regards to doing x and gaining God's favour, again, in both Christianity and Islam there is a path to take, if a person takes this path then their name is in the book of Life. If a person choses to take a different path they are either thrown into the lake of burnin sulphur or hell fire.

Eesa

[glo]

Greetings, Chuck and Eesa

I wasn't trying to argue, just explaining why I feel the issue of the trinity will always separate Christianity and Islam - despite both religions believing in the ONE God of Abraham.

We may worship the same God, but our understanding and perception of him are very different.
The difference, essentially, lies with the person of Jesus Christ.

peace :)

[Umar001]

No arguement just different view that's all.

[Chuck]

Greetings, Chuck and Eesa

I wasn't trying to argue, just explaining why I feel the issue of the trinity will always separate Christianity and Islam - despite both religions believing in the ONE God of Abraham.

We may worship the same God, but our understanding and perception of him are very different.
The difference, essentially, lies with the person of Jesus Christ.

peace :)

I wasn't arguing... just stating one of the other important consequence.

[glo]

Greetings, Chuck and Eesa
I wasn't trying to argue, just explaining why I feel the issue of the trinity will always separate Christianity and Islam - despite both religions believing in the ONE God of Abraham.
peace :)

No arguement just different view that's all.

I wasn't arguing... just stating one of the other important consequence.

Cool! We are all in agreement then! :)

Peace

[Grace Seeker]

Cool! We are all in agreement then! :)

Peace

Nice try, glo. :happy:

Let's see how long that agreement lasts. If it sticks, I'm going to vote for you for Pope. :okay:

[Eric H]

Greetings and peace be with you Grace Seeker;

If it sticks, I'm going to vote for you for Pope. :okay:

Pope glo the first, sounds good to me, you have two votes now.:happy:

Eric

[Keltoi]

Greetings and peace be with you Grace Seeker;



Pope glo the first, sounds good to me, you have two votes now.:happy:

Eric

A female pope....that is almost worthy of a thread in itself. Will such a thing happen? Would the title still be Pope Glo I...or another word like...Popess? Sorry, I'm in a good mood tonight...must have been the Mountain Dew.

[glo]

Grace Seeker, Eric and Keltoi, you are so funny!
Your posts made me laugh.
Here I am sitting with my eyes still blearly, clutching my first coffee of the day - suddenly elevated to the potential status of Popess!!! ;D
What a thought! :giggling:

Will you be offended if I respectfully decline the generous offer?
I kinda don't have time to be the Pope, and I don't think my family would be too impressed ...

Thanks for bringing a smile to my face :)

[YusufNoor]

http://www.newadvent.org/cathen/11044a.htm

This is a decent source for one who wants a basic overview of the First Council of Nicaea.

:salamext:

Greetings Brothers,

um, just wanted to point out that "the decent source" is a Catholic source! :rollseyes

but, i didn't post it, so i can't be seen as using a anti-Catholic source. but there's a few interesting tidbits:

The emperor himself, in very respectful letters, begged the bishops of every country to come promptly to Nicaea. Several bishops from outside the Roman Empire (e.g., from Persia) came to the Council. It is not historically known whether the emperor in convoking the Council acted solely in his own name or in concert with the pope; however, it is probable that Constantine and Sylvester came to an agreement (see POPE ST. SYLVESTER I). In order to expedite the assembling of the Council, the emperor placed at the disposal of the bishops the public conveyances and posts of the empire; moreover, while the Council lasted he provided abundantly for the maintenance of the members.

:heated:

i'm just saying...

The emperor had by this time escaped from the influence of Eusebius of Nicomedia, and was under that of Hosius, to whom, as well as to St. Athanasius, may be attributed a preponderant influence in the formulation of the symbol of the First Ecumenical Council, of which the following is a literal translation:


We believe in one God the Father Almighty, Maker of all things visible and invisible; and in one Lord Jesus Christ, the only begotten of the Father, that is, of the substance [ek tes ousias] of the Father, God of God, light of light, true God of true God, begotten not made, of the same substance with the Father [homoousion to patri], through whom all things were made both in heaven and on earth; who for us men and our salvation descended, was incarnate, and was made man, suffered and rose again the third day, ascended into heaven and cometh to judge the living and the dead. And in the Holy Ghost. Those who say: There was a time when He was not, and He was not before He was begotten; and that He was made our of nothing (ex ouk onton); or who maintain that He is of another hypostasis or another substance [than the Father], or that the Son of God is created, or mutable, or subject to change, [them] the Catholic Church anathematizes.

and anathematize is...

"To understand the word anathema", says Vigouroux, "we should first go back to the real meaning of herem of which it is the equivalent. Herem comes from the word haram, to cut off, to separate, to curse, and indicates that which is cursed and condemned to be cut off or exterminated, whether a person or a thing, and in consequence, that which man is forbidden to make use of."

well, so long as folks could still talk about it...;D

so, the likelihood of the "oppositions" point of view would be??? :hiding:

but, hey, MAYBE they say...

The opponents were soon reduced to two, Theonas of Marmarica and Secundus of Ptolemais, who were exiled and anathematized. Arius and his writings were also branded with anathema, his books were cast into the fire, and he was exiled to Illyria

:uuh:

hmmm...books...into the fire....oh well, as long as nothing was destroyed! :omg:

let's see, any other goodies here...

regarding Easter:

In any case it must be admitted that while in the New Testament we have definite mention of the observance of the Sunday, or "Lord's Day", there is no conclusive evidence in the first century or more of the keeping of the Pasch as a festival. Some are inclined to think that the Christian Easter first appears as setting a term to the great paschal fast which, as we learn from Irenaeus, was very variously kept in the sub-Apostolic Age

well, except for:

KJV Acts 12:

4And when he had apprehended him, he put him in prison, and delivered him to four quaternions of soldiers to keep him; intending after Easter to bring him forth to the people.

5Peter therefore was kept in prison: but prayer was made without ceasing of the church unto God for him.

6And when Herod

durn, maybe i'm wrong...

i mean, they wouldn't change THAT!

or would they...:okay:

lets see a different version:

NIV

4After arresting him, he put him in prison, handing him over to be guarded by four squads of four soldiers each. Herod intended to bring him out for public trial after the Passover.

5So Peter was kept in prison, but the church was earnestly praying to God for him

oops, looks like a draw, one of each...

let's check another...

Amplified:

3And when he saw that it was pleasing to the Jews, he proceeded further and arrested Peter also. This was during the days of Unleavened Bread [the Passover week].

4And when he had seized [Peter], he put him in prison and delivered him to four squads of soldiers of four each to guard him, purposing after the Passover to bring him forth to the people.

5So Peter

wow, 2 to 1...

Young's literal:

3and having seen that it is pleasing to the Jews, he added to lay hold of Peter also -- and they were the days of the unleavened food --

4whom also having seized, he did put in prison, having delivered [him] to four quaternions of soldiers to guard him, intending after the passover to bring him forth to the people

3 to 1!

if you'll notice (i missed it the 1st time), the "feast of unleavened days" as well as Passover is used.

but why would "Christians" use THOSE terms...DO YOU THINK, that MAYBE they used those terms because THEY STILL KEPT THOSE FESTIVALS!!!

but that's OK, as long as there's:

there is no conclusive evidence in the first century or more of the keeping of the Pasch as a festival.

:blind:

what a tangled web we weave, when first we practice to deceive! :happy:

i'll let that stuff be digest for now...

Peace,

:wasalamex

Yusuf

[Keltoi]

You wanted to point out that the source was a Catholic source....who do you think has more knowledge of the Council of Nicaea? I'm sure the Vatican has access to many sources of information that you do not. The one thing I fail to understand by all of this, why exactly would the Catholic Church and the Christians during this time wish to completely alter the "truth" of Christianity? Where is the logic in that?

[YusufNoor]

You wanted to point out that the source was a Catholic source....who do you think has more knowledge of the Council of Nicaea? I'm sure the Vatican has access to many sources of information that you do not.

:salamext:

Peace,

well, my position IS that the Catholic Church corrupted/changed the practices of the "Original" Church. thus, though i wouldn't have picked the source myself, i'm content to use it for now!

that way, folks won't think that i used an anti-Catholic source or a "Muslim" source. these are long standing positions of mine, not new at all.

Peace,

:wasalamex

[Keltoi]

:salamext:

Peace,

well, my position IS that the Catholic Church corrupted/changed the practices of the "Original" Church. thus, though i wouldn't have picked the source myself, i'm content to use it for now!

that way, folks won't think that i used an anti-Catholic source or a "Muslim" source. these are long standing positions of mine, not new at all.

Peace,

:wasalamex

Why would they do that? That is my question.

[YusufNoor]

Why would they do that? That is my question.

:salamext:

well, i can't tell you why. i intend to show what, Insha' Allah...


edit: for instance, the Christian Bible DOES NOT SAY that Jesus "rose" on Sunday. NOR does it say he was killed on Friday. if they would lie about that...(it does say he was killed and rose, but NOT like they say)


:wasalamex

[Keltoi]

I don't quite understand your point about Easter. Pasch is just the Greek word for Passover. Many at the Council of Nicaea wanted to celebrate on Sunday, the day of Christ's resurrection, rather than follow the Jewish calender. I'm afraid I don't understand your point, but it is late and perhaps I'm missing it.

As for those deemed to be heretical by the Council, what evidence do you have that these people weren't heretics? I suppose I don't understand why these groups should be considered the "original" Church. This council was made up of bishops from all across Christendom, and they voted to adopt a theological structure to follow. There is no evidence that any group considered to be anathema had any more theological "truth" than the majority of the bishops who made up the council.

[YusufNoor]

I don't quite understand your point about Easter. Pasch is just the Greek word for Passover. Many at the Council of Nicaea wanted to celebrate on Sunday, the day of Christ's resurrection, rather than follow the Jewish calender. I'm afraid I don't understand your point, but it is late and perhaps I'm missing it.

As for those deemed to be heretical by the Council, what evidence do you have that these people weren't heretics? I suppose I don't understand why these groups should be considered the "original" Church. This council was made up of bishops from all across Christendom, and they voted to adopt a theological structure to follow. There is no evidence that any group considered to be anathema had any more theological "truth" than the majority of the bishops who made up the council.

:salamext:

Salaam,

i'm in the same boat mate, dead tired. but according to the bible, Christ couldn't have risen on sunday...

i guess i'll start a seperate thread...


Peace


:wasalamex

[YusufNoor]

Why would they do that? That is my question.

:salamext:

Salaam,

i think i'm changing my answer. :heated:

i believe that the reason for certain changes was to "invent" what is commonly referred to as "the Lord's Day". in other words, just as the northern tribes of Israel became to some extent "sun" worshippers, so has the majority of Christians.

the few subtle changes evident in what is now called the New Testament, were done so that people would believe that Sunday is the proper day for them to "go to church", when in fact, it is an invention. (cuz it didn't exist)

but for a Jew or Early Chrisitan, that Sabbath could only have been from sunset Friday until sunset Saturday. (Evening and then morning is how the days were reckoned).

:wasalamex

Yusuf

[Grace Seeker]

[/B]

posted by Grace Seeker
Nicea merely kept the party line of orthodox Christianity which had been taguht over the previous 200+ years.

the council of Nicea was in 325, ALMOST THREE HUNDRED YEARS after the Prophet Jesus/Isa(as)!

why do you only want to reckon on 200??

are you admitting that during the FIRST HUNDRED YEARS there was SUBSTANTIAL CHANGE???? :happy:

Well, I got lazy with my math and only felt like working in centuries. 325-300=25, and that would have been before the death of Christ. So, I just used the next increment of time. I'll revise my remarks to 292 years (plus or minus a few to adjust for the uncertainty of the actual year of Jesus' crucifixion and resurrection).

[Grace Seeker]

:salamext:

Salaam,

i think i'm changing my answer. :heated:

i believe that the reason for certain changes was to "invent" what is commonly referred to as "the Lord's Day". in other words, just as the northern tribes of Israel became to some extent "sun" worshippers, so has the majority of Christians.

the few subtle changes evident in what is now called the New Testament, were done so that people would believe that Sunday is the proper day for them to "go to church", when in fact, it is an invention. (cuz it didn't exist)

but for a Jew or Early Chrisitan, that Sabbath could only have been from sunset Friday until sunset Saturday. (Evening and then morning is how the days were reckoned).

:wasalamex

Yusuf

I think you're still missing Keltoi's question.

We all agree that the church eventually switched from worshipping on Saturday to Sunday. The reason that I have believed for all of these years is that they did it as a commeroration of the Lord's resurrection. You say that this is not the reason. Then, pray tell, what is? Why "invent" another day? What value would there be in that?

And for that matter, if Islam teaches the same 6 days of creation and day of rest that is in Gensis, and if you believe the Jews were correct in keeping the Sabbath on Saturday. Then, also pray tell, why do Muslims worship on Friday instead of Saturday? Or is it always after sundown, so it would actually still be on the Sabbath?

OK. Sorry, two questions. But the second one should be fairly easy.:happy:

[YusufNoor]

:salamext:


Greetings of Peace Brother Grace Seeker,

I'll revise my remarks to 292 years

OK, so we'll assume then that you believe that EVERYTHING in the NT is inspired word and there are no mistakes or changes. i lack a good study Bible that shows when the "Gospels & Acts were written", so i might use the site that Keltoi posted. i'll look around the net also.

We all agree that the church eventually switched from worshipping on Saturday to Sunday. The reason that I have believed for all of these years is that they did it as a commeroration of the Lord's resurrection. You say that this is not the reason. Then, pray tell, what is? Why "invent" another day? What value would there be in that?

well, according to your Bible, the resurrection COULD NOT have taken place on Sunday. so, why then would Sunday become the day of worship? good question. one answer is that Jesus was sent to the "Lost Sheep of Israel"; there is evidence that most of the "Christian nations of the west" are, in fact, those lost sheep. Sunday worship was installed after the 12/13 tribes split up, and is simply contunued. the "value" could only be that Shaytan did all he could to lead people astray...(that's one possibillity)

And for that matter, if Islam teaches the same 6 days of creation and day of rest that is in Gensis, and if you believe the Jews were correct in keeping the Sabbath on Saturday. Then, also pray tell, why do Muslims worship on Friday instead of Saturday? Or is it always after sundown, so it would actually still be on the Sabbath?

Islam, while a new covenant, is simply a return to the religion of Abraham. however, as a New Covenant, all that is entailed in said Covenant is contained in the Qur'an and in authentic Ahadith. in those we are commanded to have a special Friday prayer, Jumu'ah. the reason, iirc, is to celebrate the creation of man.

2 things, the first: Our, Islamic Covenant, is spelled out in depth, to the point where 85-90% of ALL Muslims share the same belief. Our Holy Book, the Qur'an, is guaranteed, by Allah(SWT), to be free of corrutption. there might be a hand full of places where "vowel points" may be disputed, but those weren't in the Qur'an to start with.

this is VERY DIFFERENT from Christianity where it seems like "anything goes" as there is no remaining "book" that spells out exactly what the "New Covenant" entails.

the second. AT FIRST GLANCE, it might seem as though Islam has no Sabbath. this was actually one of my biggest concerns with Islam.

one could ask, does not Islam put aside a single day to "worship" the Creator of All Things?? WAY EASIER to answer than i originally thought, and the answer is no. why? because Islam is a religion that demands the Worship of the Creator of All Things 7 days a week, 24 hours a day. our worship of Allah(SWT) must be a part of everything that we do. there is no time when the worship of Allah(SWT) is put aside for other things. all of our acts of living must be acts of worship. from arising out of bed, to eating, drinking. socializing and working do as commanded by Allah(SWT) must be the foremost thought in our mind. Jesus regularly critisized the people of Judea for standing on princible and ceremony rather that living up the spirit of the law. as i would see it, imho, Jesus' "spirit of the Law" is something that Muslims try to follow at all times, so MAYBE one could say "in Islam EVERDAY is the Sabbath!"

think of it this way: if you are aware of a time or a place that Allah(SWT) cannot be at or see, then there you may do whatever you like!

but as Allah(SWT) is closer to us than our own jugular veins, there is not a thing we do nor a thought we posses that Allah(SWT) isn't aware of...

Peace,

:wasalamex

yusuf

[Grace Seeker]

:salamext:


Greetings of Peace Brother Grace Seeker,

Thank-you. And peace to you as well.

Ok, so we'll assume then that you believe that EVERYTHING in the NT is inspired word and there are no mistakes or changes. i lack a good study Bible that shows when the "Gospels & Acts were written", so i might use the site that Keltoi posted. i'll look around the net also.

The traditon view is that all of the Bible, in the original autographs, is the inspired, inerrant Word of God. This verse is often cited as proof:

All Scripture is God-breathed and is useful for teaching, rebuking, correcting and training in righteousness, so that the man of God may be thoroughly equipped for every good work. (2 Timothy 3:16-17)

Of course, that only carries weight with people who already believe that this verse is the inspired, inerrant Word of God. It becomes sort of a circular argument. I think the same can be said of proving the integrity of the Qu'ran by citing passages from the Qu'ran.

I will gladly admit to you that we no longer have the original autographs and that the oldest documents we presently have some variant readings. My personal view is that for the most part these are minor (very minor) variants that do NOT change the meaning of the text. The three most glariing exceptions to this that I can think of are the inclusion of the story of the woman caught in adultery (John 7:53-8:11), the doxological ending to Matthe 6:13 ("for thine is the kingdom, and the power, and the glory, for ever. Amen."), and the longer ending of Mark -- and they do not present a different message than the rest of the New Testament, so I do trust the overall message. Do you deny that there are also variant readings for the Qur'an?

well, according to your Bible, the resurrection COULD NOT have taken place on Sunday. so, why then would Sunday become the day of worship? good question. one answer is that Jesus was sent to the "Lost Sheep of Israel"; there is evidence that most of the "Christian nations of the west" are, in fact, those lost sheep. Sunday worship was installed after the 12/13 tribes split up, and is simply contunued. the "value" could only be that Shaytan did all he could to lead people astray...(that's one possibillity)

This is at least the second time you have written that "the resurrection COULD NOT have taken palce on Sunday" and claim to base that on the Bible. I don't understand why you would say this. I could understand why you might have tried to argue a different day for the crucifixion than Friday (though I find those arguments weak), but I have never heard anyone suggest that the resurrection was not on Sunday. Here is Biblical testimony that it would have been on Sunday.

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

On the evening of that first day of the week, when the disciples were together, with the doors locked for fear of the Jews, Jesus came and stood among them (John 20:19)

On the first day of the week, very early in the morning, the women took the spices they had prepared and went to the tomb. They found the stone rolled away from the tomb, but when they entered, they did not find the body of the Lord Jesus. (Luke 24:1-3)


When the Sabbath was over, Mary Magdalene, Mary the mother of James, and Salome bought spices so that they might go to anoint Jesus' body. Very early on the first day of the week, just after sunrise, they were on their way to the tomb and they asked each other, "Who will roll the stone away from the entrance of the tomb?" But when they looked up, they saw that the stone, which was very large, had been rolled away. (Mark 16:1-4)


But perhaps putting it the most clearly is the Gospel of Matthew:
After the Sabbath, at dawn on the first day of the week, Mary Magdalene and the other Mary went to look at the tomb. There was a violent earthquake, for an angel of the Lord came down from heaven and, going to the tomb, rolled back the stone and sat on it. His appearance was like lightning, and his clothes were white as snow. The guards were so afraid of him that they shook and became like dead men. The angel said to the women, "Do not be afraid, for I know that you are looking for Jesus, who was crucified. He is not here; he has risen, just as he said. Come and see the place where he lay. Then go quickly and tell his disciples: 'He has risen from the dead and is going ahead of you into Galilee. There you will see him.' Now I have told you." So the women hurried away from the tomb, afraid yet filled with joy, and ran to tell his disciples. Suddenly Jesus met them. "Greetings," he said. They came to him, clasped his feet and worshiped him. Then Jesus said to them, "Do not be afraid. Go and tell my brothers to go to Galilee; there they will see me." (Matthew 28:1-10)

Islam, while a new covenant, is simply a return to the religion of Abraham. however, as a New Covenant, all that is entailed in said Covenant is contained in the Qur'an and in authentic Ahadith. in those we are commanded to have a special Friday prayer, Jumu'ah. the reason, iirc, is to celebrate the creation of man.

So what? You are telling me that your religion celebrates the creation of man and gives it higher priority than worshipping god? Now, I know you don't mean it, as you go on to clarify, but you see how easy it would be if I look at just one element of Islam to attack it. I ask you to look at Christianity the same way. If you seek only to attack it, you will never learn about it. That you perceive the Bible to teach that the Resurrection took place on a different day than the first day of the week -- which is Sunday -- is an utter mystery to me. It is as if you have either never seen, or completey ignored the passages about the resurrection that I just quoted above. And if you have, and you get something from them other than Sunday, then you are reading the passages differently than any Christian in all of our history.

2 things, the first: Our, Islamic Covenant, is spelled out in depth, to the point where 85-90% of ALL Muslims share the same belief. Our Holy Book, the Qur'an, is guaranteed, by Allah(SWT), to be free of corrutption. there might be a hand full of places where "vowel points" may be disputed, but those weren't in the Qur'an to start with.

So you have "corrupted" your own holy book by adding to it? Now, again, I don't really think of the vowel points as corrupting, but it is such small things that you see as casting doubt on the New Testament. In truth, I don't think it is those things at all that lead you to doubt it. I think you doubt it because you are taught by the Qur'an to doubt it, and then you look for things to back up that belief. Well, it works the other way too. That the Qur'an teaches that certain things the Bible says happened did not happen, are proof to me that the Qur'an is not a divine book from God, but a human invention filled with errors. Sorry, to say it so strongly. But to deny the divinity of Christ as the Qur'an does is to promote error, not truth. To deny the crucifixion and say that God fooled the people, is to make God in to a deciever, and God is not a deceiver, thus I see the Qur'an as promoting falsehood once again.

If 85-90% of all Muslims share the same belief, then 10-15% do not. Are they still truly Muslim. How can you be a Muslim and not share the same beliefs of other Muslims? This is a great mystery.

this is VERY DIFFERENT from Christianity where it seems like "anything goes" as there is no remaining "book" that spells out exactly what the "New Covenant" entails.

The Qur'an set forths laws to keep. Check this, "Yes". Check this, "No". Life is a test. At the end you get your grade. Score well enough and you're in. Christianity is different in that doesn't have a checklist like either Judaism or Islam. It has guiding princilples. They are more generically stated, and each individual has to work out what Loving God and Loving Neighbor look like in their particular life. But the guidelines are definitely present and all are held accountable to them; it is definitely not an "anything goes" type of faith. If you've never heard it distilled, allow me to share it with you here in Jesus' own words: "Then he took the cup, gave thanks and offered it to them, saying, 'Drink from it, all of you. This is my blood of the covenant, which is poured out for many for the forgiveness of sins'." (Matthew 26:27-28)


Jesus said that the New Covenant was one made in his blood for the forgiveness of sins, that is the whole point of the Cross. Reject it, and of course you are rejecting the Covenant that Jesus came to establish.

So the Gospels (Matthew, Mark, Luke, and John) tell us about this person Jesus, the Christ of God, who came to establish this covenant, and describe how he did it through his death and resurrection. The rest of the New Testament is not the Injil, the rest is a the story of how this New Covenant was fleshed out in the life of the early church. One of those who did much of that was Paul, so I turn to his writings (and my own commentary) to explain how this action of Jesus on the cross becomes appropriated into our lives:

Romans 3:23 "For all have sinned and fall short of the glory of God."

We all have sin in our hearts. We all were born with sin. We were born under the power of sin's control.

- Admit that you are a sinner.


Romans 6:23a "...The wages of sin is death..."

Sin has an ending. It results in death. We all face physical death, which is a result of sin. But a worse death is spiritual death that alienates us from God, and will last for all eternity. The Bible teaches that there is a place called the Lake of Fire where lost people will be in torment forever. It is the place where people who are spiritually dead will remain.

- Understand that you deserve death for your sin.


Romans 6:23b "...But the gift of God is eternal life through Jesus Christ our Lord."

Salvation is a free gift from God to you! You can't earn this gift, but you must reach out and receive it.

- Ask God to forgive you and save you.


Romans 5:8, "God demonstrates His own love for us, in that while we were yet sinners Christ died for us!"

When Jesus died on the cross He paid sin's penalty. He paid the price for all sin, and when He took all the sins of the world on Himself on the cross, He bought us out of slavery to sin and death! The only condition is that we believe in Him and what He has done for us, understanding that we are now joined with Him, and that He is our life. He did all this because He loved us and gave Himself for us!

- Give your life to God... His love poured out in Jesus on the cross is your only hope to have forgiveness and change. His love bought you out of being a slave to sin. His love is what saves you -- not religion, nor church membership, nor even doing the "right" thing. God loves you; it is his love, his mercy, his grace that saves you.


Romans 10:13 "Whoever will call on the name of the Lord will be saved!"

- Call out to God in the name of Jesus!


Romans 10:9,10 "...If you confess with your mouth Jesus as Lord, and believe in your heart that God raised Jesus from the dead, you shall be saved; for with the heart man believes, resulting in righteousness, and with the mouth he confesses, resulting in salvation."

- If you know that God is knocking on your heart's door, ask Him to come into your heart.

Again, in Jesus' own words, this time in a revelation received by his disciple John, many years after Jesus resurrection and ascencion to heaven, Jesus said: "Behold I stand at the door and knock, if anyone hears My voice and opens the door, I will come in to him..." (Revelation 3:20a)

- Is Jesus knocking on your heart's door?

the second. AT FIRST GLANCE, it might seem as though Islam has no Sabbath. this was actually one of my biggest concerns with Islam.

one could ask, does not Islam put aside a single day to "worship" the Creator of All Things?? WAY EASIER to answer than i originally thought, and the answer is no. why? because Islam is a religion that demands the Worship of the Creator of All Things 7 days a week, 24 hours a day. our worship of Allah(SWT) must be a part of everything that we do. there is no time when the worship of Allah(SWT) is put aside for other things. all of our acts of living must be acts of worship. from arising out of bed, to eating, drinking. socializing and working do as commanded by Allah(SWT) must be the foremost thought in our mind. Jesus regularly critisized the people of Judea for standing on princible and ceremony rather that living up the spirit of the law. as i would see it, imho, Jesus' "spirit of the Law" is something that Muslims try to follow at all times, so MAYBE one could say "in Islam EVERDAY is the Sabbath!"

think of it this way: if you are aware of a time or a place that Allah(SWT) cannot be at or see, then there you may do whatever you like!

but as Allah(SWT) is closer to us than our own jugular veins, there is not a thing we do nor a thought we posses that Allah(SWT) isn't aware of...

I have no problem with any of this. I would have worded it differently than you have, but we Christians basically think the same, please don't paint us as somehow different from you on this.

At my church we worship on both Saturday and Sunday. I have been at others that worshipped on Wednesday or Thursday. There is no day that is not a good day to worship God. We worship him in corporate services, and we worship him in private personal ways as well.

[glo]

Grace Seeker,

Your posts are such a blessing to me!
Just thought I'd stop by to tell you. :)

Peace to you.

[YusufNoor]

:salamext:

Peace Grace Seeker,

i'll go through your response when my eye clears up, but i try this one now:

This is at least the second time you have written that "the resurrection COULD NOT have taken palce on Sunday" and claim to base that on the Bible. I don't understand why you would say this. I could understand why you might have tried to argue a different day for the crucifixion than Friday (though I find those arguments weak), but I have never heard anyone suggest that the resurrection was not on Sunday. Here is Biblical testimony that it would have been on Sunday.

here's an online article:

Overview:
There is a near consensus among Christians that Jesus was executed on a Friday by the Roman Army, and resurrected on the following Sunday morning. However, there have always been alternate explanations for the timing of the various events associated with his execution and resurrection. One theory is that Jesus died on Wednesday afternoon, and was resurrected on Saturday evening. The empty tomb was discovered on Sunday morning, many hours after Jesus had left.



One Sabbath or two?:
An initial clue that might point to a Wednesday crucifixion is found in Matthew 28:1. This passage discusses Mary and "the other Mary" making a Sunday morning visit to the tomb where Jesus' body had been placed. This was after the weekly Sabbath which ran from Friday sunset to Saturday sunset. The following are translations according to the:

New English Bible: "The Sabbath was over,...."
New International Version: "After the Sabbath,..."
Jerusalem Bible: "After the Sabbath,..."
King James Version: "In the end of the Sabbath...came Mary Magdalene"
Living Bible: "Early on Sunday morning, Mary Magdalene..."
Philips Modern English: "When the Sabbath was over..."
Revised Standard Version: "Now after the sabbath...."
Today's English Version: "After the Sabbath,...

However, less commonly used translations of the Bible render Sabbath in plural form:

Young's Literal Translation: "And on the eve of the Sabbaths..." (Emphasis ours)

Alfred Marshall's Interlinear Greek-English New Testament, Green's Literal Translation, and Ferrar Fenton's Translation also render "Sabbaths" in plural form. To most Christians, the original Greek, Aramaic or Hebrew copies of the Bible are much more important than any English translation. The Greek in this passage also refers to Sabbaths (plural).

Many people do not realize that the Hebrew Scriptures (Old Testament) discusses two different kinds of Sabbaths:

One type occurs on a weekly basis, from Friday sunset to Saturday sunset.
The other type -- called "high days" consist of the seven annual Sabbath days listed in Leviticus 23. These could occur on any day of the week.
Unless the plural form of Sabbath in Matthew 28:1 was an error by the author of Matthew, or an error subsequently made by a copyist, then the week in which Jesus was executed must have contained two Sabbaths, not one.

The presence of the second Sabbath -- a High Sabbath -- is confirmed in John 19:31:

King James Version: "The Jews therefore, because it was the preparation, that the bodies should not remain upon the cross on the sabbath day, (for that sabbath day was an high day,) besought Pilate that their legs might be broken, and that they might be taken away."

It mentions that Jesus' body had to be quickly removed from the cross before sundown, to avoid polluting the land. This is based on Deuteronomy 21:22-23:

"And if a man have committed a sin worthy of death, and he be to be put to death, and thou hang him on a tree: His body shall not remain all night upon the tree, but thou shalt in any wise bury him that day; (for he that is hanged is accursed of God;) that thy land be not defiled...."

A second confirmation is found in Mark 16 and Luke 23:

Mark 16:1: And when the sabbath was past, Mary Magdalene, and Mary the mother of James, and Salome, had bought sweet spices, that they might come and anoint him.
Luke 23:55-56: And the women also, which came with him from Galilee, followed after, and beheld the sepulchre, and how his body was laid. And they returned, and prepared spices and ointments; and rested the sabbath day according to the commandment.

So, after the first Sabbath -- the high day -- had passed, three of Jesus' female followers bought spices in order to care for Jesus' body. Then they prepared the spices, and later rested on the second Sabbath day, Saturday.



How many days were between Jesus' execution and resurrection?
A number of passages in the Christian Scriptures (New Testament) mention that three days would pass between Jesus' death and resurrection. Yet traditional belief is that he died on Friday before sunset, and was resurrected on Sunday morning. That interval consists of only a few hours on Friday, Saturday which ran from Friday sunset to Saturday sunset, and part of Sunday morning -- a total of perhaps a day and a half, not three. This discrepancy is normally rationalized by counting each part of a day -- part of Friday and part of Sunday -- as a full day. But this conflicts with Matthew 12:39-40:

"But he [Jesus] answered and said unto them, An evil and adulterous generation seeketh after a sign; and there shall no sign be given to it, but the sign of the prophet Jonas: For as Jonas was three days and three nights in the whale's belly; so shall the Son of man be three days and three nights in the heart of the earth." (Emphasis ours)

If Jesus died on Friday afternoon before sunset then Friday counts as one day and one night. All day Saturday also counts as one day and one night. Sunday doesn't count because John 20:1 says:

"The first day of the week cometh Mary Magdalene early, when it was yet dark, unto the sepulchre, and seeth the stone taken away from the sepulchre."

That is, Mary came to the tomb while it was still night. So we end up with two days and two nights -- one day and one night short.



Possible explanations to the discrepancy:
Conservative Christians view the autograph -- original -- copies of the books in the Bible to be the Word of God. Its authors wrote text that is without error under God's inspiration. One approach to harmonize the conflicting passages described above would be to assume that Matthew 39:40 did not specify "three days and three nights." It actually referred to three "days" (or partial days), as in other biblical passages. The wording that we see in Matthew would then be the result of a copyist error.

Liberal Christians see no problem here. They interpret the Bible as a historical document, and not inerrant. They view the four gospels as written by individuals or groups who were not eyewitnesses to the events of Jesus' life. The authors relied on many oral traditions which varied from each other. When one compares passages from various gospels, one can anticipate errors and assume that they cannot be harmonized.

There is at least one more possibility: Jesus might have been crucified on a Wednesday afternoon, and resurrected on Saturday evening. The chronology would look something like this:
Tuesday: Jesus and his disciples ate an evening meal together, and was arrested.
Wednesday: This is the preparation day mentioned in John 19:31. i.e. the day before the high-day Sabbat. Jesus appears before Pilate, and is crucified; he dies about 2 PM in the afternoon, before sundown. His body is removed from the stake or cross and placed in the tomb.
Thursday: This is a high Sabbath day: the first day of Unleavened Bread, mentioned in Matthew 27:62.
Friday: Jesus' female followers purchased spices.
Saturday: This was a regular weekly Sabbath, different from the high Sabbath day on Thursday. All rested and did no work during the day. Jesus was resurrected sometime in the afternoon before sunset.
Sunday: Mary Magdalene (by herself according to the Gospel of John or with other women according to the synoptic gospels) went to the tomb and found it empty.

Adding up the days and nights:

Jesus died on Wednesday afternoon and is laid "in the heart of the earth" (Matthew 12:40) at or just before sunset.
The first night and first day passes: Wednesday sunset to Thursday sunset.
The second night and day passes: Thursday sunset to Friday sunset.
The third 12 hour night passes between Friday sunset and Saturday morning.
Part of the third 12 hour day passes on Saturday, and Jesus is resurrected before sunset.
The woman or women find the empty tomb very early on Sunday morning.

According to The Good News magazine:

"Several computer software programs exist that enable us to calculate when the Passover and God's other festivals fall in any given year. Those programs show that in A.D. 31, the year of these events, the Passover meal was eaten on Tuesday night and Wednesday sundown marked the beginning of the 'high day,' the first day of the Feast of Unleavened Bread."

This agrees well with the many theologians' estimate that Jesus was executed between the years 29 and 32 CE.

It is a neat theory, but has little chance of being accepted because of almost two millennia of church tradition supports a Good Friday execution and Easter Sunday resurrection. Also if Jesus actually was resurrected on Saturday afternoon, then the church's justification for moving the Sabbath from Saturday to Sunday would collapse, and the 35,000 or so Christian faith groups whose prime day for religious services is Sunday would have to admit that the Seventh-day Adventists and other Sabbatarian groups were right after all.


Reference used:
"Jesus wasn't crucified on Friday -- or Resurrected on Sunday!," The Good News magazine , United Church of God, 2006-MAR-APR, Pages 13 to 15

iirc, that mag was an Armstrong pub.

but at any rate, now you've heard it once. i'll explain it more if need be.

peace,

:wasalamex

Yusuf

[Grace Seeker]

:salamext:

here's an online article:

Overview:
There is a near consensus among Christians that Jesus was executed on a Friday by the Roman Army, and resurrected on the following Sunday morning. However, there have always been alternate explanations for the timing of the various events associated with his execution and resurrection. One theory is that Jesus died on Wednesday afternoon, and was resurrected on Saturday evening. The empty tomb was discovered on Sunday morning, many hours after Jesus had left.

If you have an online article, I would appreciate a link to it. Then I can read it for myself. I can also check the organization's scholarship. This is important for several reasons, but I'll just give you one. Above in the material you presented you talk about Matthew 39:40 -- no such verse exists in the Bible. Was that your mistake or theirs? A simple typo or just really bad scholarship? I don't know. In this case you ultimately cite as your source that it comes from

Reference used:
"Jesus wasn't crucified on Friday -- or Resurrected on Sunday!," The Good News magazine , United Church of God, 2006-MAR-APR, Pages 13 to 15

iirc, that mag was an Armstrong pub.

This group is not one that is noted for high quality scholarship. Indeed, they have even more of an agenda than you presume to impose upon the rest of Christian history. Except that of course you have charged that perhaps it was Satan who was the motivating factor in these "changes" that are uncovered by groups which emerge in the 1800s and later. Groups that first developed their peculiarly divergent theologies, and then after the fact sought to "find" scholarship to back them up.

You are, of course, entitled to your opinion, that it would be historic Christianity, versus those you have chosen to listen to, that was driven by Satan. As the Mexican proverb says: A man is permitted to make a kite of his own pants.

[Grace Seeker]

Well, I tracked down the original article that the online reference referred to. Did you get that they said that Jesus' would have still been in the tomb all day on Saturday until sunset? Thus begins the next day on the Jewish calendar, i.e. Sunday. Whether Jesus was resurrected just after sunset or just before sunrise is irrelevant in terms of saying that Jesus was resurrected on Sunday.

As far as the practice of early Christians, they honored the sabbath by resting on Saturday, and honored Jesus by worshipping him on Sunday, what they called kyriake, which is translated "the Lord's day."

If, therefore, those who were brought up in the ancient order of things have come to the possession of a new hope, no longer observing the Sabbath, but living in the observance of the Lord's Day, on which also our life has sprung up again by Him and by His death-whom some deny, by which mystery we have obtained faith, and therefore endure, that we may be found the disciples of Jesus Christ, our only Master-how shall we be able to live apart from Him, whose disciples the prophets themselves in the Spirit did wait for Him as their Teacher? And therefore He whom they rightly waited for, being come, raised them from the dead. (The Epistle of Ignatius to the Magnesians 9:1.)

You made one other comment above that I also want to very briefly respond to. You said:

Islam, while a new covenant, is simply a return to the religion of Abraham.

If you read Romans, chapter 4, you will see that Christianity also see itself as inheritors and in continuation of this Abrahamic covenant.

[snakelegs]

the second. AT FIRST GLANCE, it might seem as though Islam has no Sabbath. this was actually one of my biggest concerns with Islam.

one could ask, does not Islam put aside a single day to "worship" the Creator of All Things?? WAY EASIER to answer than i originally thought, and the answer is no. why? because Islam is a religion that demands the Worship of the Creator of All Things 7 days a week, 24 hours a day. our worship of Allah(SWT) must be a part of everything that we do. there is no time when the worship of Allah(SWT) is put aside for other things. all of our acts of living must be acts of worship. from arising out of bed, to eating, drinking. socializing and working do as commanded by Allah(SWT) must be the foremost thought in our mind. Jesus regularly critisized the people of Judea for standing on princible and ceremony rather that living up the spirit of the law. as i would see it, imho, Jesus' "spirit of the Law" is something that Muslims try to follow at all times, so MAYBE one could say "in Islam EVERDAY is the Sabbath!"

hi yusuf,
i have only skimmed this thread (which to me, seems like so many people picking nits) and this caught my eye. hope it hasn't been covered.
i don't know if any of the jewish members hang out here, but i think you misunderstand the jewish concept of the sabbath. i have some knowledge about judaism because i studied it when i was younger.
in judaism, worship of god is 24/7 too. it is similar to islam this way - awareness of god is constant. the sabbath doesn't mean that you get a day off from this at all. quite the opposite is the case.
on the sabbath you free yourself as much as possible from wordly cares in order to be able to concentrate on god alone. so while you worship god all thru the week, in every task you do in daily living - on the sabbath you can remove the distractions (work, handling money etc etc) and focus entirely on god. you are withdrawing from the worldly to focus on the spiritual.
i have also wondered why islam doesn't follow the sabbath, in this sense.

[Umar001]

Hi guys,

Theres many points I would like to tackle, maybe a new thread in particular for those.

I will ask, Grace Seeker, what is the context of the scripture of Timothy which you quoted. Please share that with us.

[YusufNoor]

If you have an online article, I would appreciate a link to it. Then I can read it for myself. I can also check the organization's scholarship. This is important for several reasons, but I'll just give you one. Above in the material you presented you talk about Matthew 39:40 -- no such verse exists in the Bible. Was that your mistake or theirs? A simple typo or just really bad scholarship? I don't know. In this case you ultimately cite as your source that it comes from



This group is not one that is noted for high quality scholarship. Indeed, they have even more of an agenda than you presume to impose upon the rest of Christian history. Except that of course you have charged that perhaps it was Satan who was the motivating factor in these "changes" that are uncovered by groups which emerge in the 1800s and later. Groups that first developed their peculiarly divergent theologies, and then after the fact sought to "find" scholarship to back them up.

You are, of course, entitled to your opinion, that it would be historic Christianity, versus those you have chosen to listen to, that was driven by Satan. As the Mexican proverb says: A man is permitted to make a kite of his own pants.

Assalamu 'alaykum,

A`udhu Billahi mina Shaytanir Rajeem,

Bismillahir Rahmanir Raheem,

Salaam Grace Seeker,

Astaghfirullah, for my tardy reply. i suffer from heart & blood disease and sometimes it's hard to read and concentrate...

as for links, i'm hesitant to post them. some visitors here take issus with Islamic sources on thses topics, so i choose to use sources that aren't Islamic. that being the case, eventually, somewhere on the link, if Islam is discussed it would, of course, be negative. this IS an Islamic board and i AM a Muslim so i'm not real keen on being the one adding links to non-Islamic sources. i'll try to save them an PM them to you to save you some work.

i put the source instead of taking it out as i don't want to give the opinion that i am the author or something, as well as to make it a little easier for you to see.

i don't think scholarship is the issue here. if it were, i would have NO business contributing to the topic. we, at least i, will simply be pointing out what is contained in the "New Testament".

you seem a little disturbed by my usage of Shaytan as one who would deny the truth. that kind of puzzles me. let me put a few quotes from the NT here:

Matthew 16:23
Jesus turned and said to Peter, "Get behind me, Satan! You are a stumbling block to me; you do not have in mind the things of God, but the things of men."

Mark 8:33
But when Jesus turned and looked at his disciples, he rebuked Peter. "Get behind me, Satan!" he said. "You do not have in mind the things of God, but the things of men."

Peter is commonly thought of a the first head of the church, am i right? so either Jesus, himself is saying that Peter is Satan, which i'm assuming we both will disagree with. OR when one substitutes the "things of men" for the "things of God", then we KNOW who the author is!

i'm in agreement with brother Al Habeshi that perhaps a new thread is warranted.

look for the topic "the sign of Jonah"...

in the meantime i will attempt to answer some of your other questions and thoughts in this thread as soon as i am able.

Peace,

:w:

Yusuf

[YusufNoor]

Well, I tracked down the original article that the online reference referred to. Did you get that they said that Jesus' would have still been in the tomb all day on Saturday until sunset? Thus begins the next day on the Jewish calendar, i.e. Sunday. Whether Jesus was resurrected just after sunset or just before sunrise is irrelevant in terms of saying that Jesus was resurrected on Sunday.

As far as the practice of early Christians, they honored the sabbath by resting on Saturday, and honored Jesus by worshipping him on Sunday, what they called kyriake, which is translated "the Lord's day."




You made one other comment above that I also want to very briefly respond to. You said: If you read Romans, chapter 4, you will see that Christianity also see itself as inheritors and in continuation of this Abrahamic covenant.

Assalamu 'alaykum,

A`udhu Billahi mina Shaytanir Rajeem,

Bismillahir Rahmanir Raheem

Salaam Grace Seeker,

i believe that statement to be false.

Peace,

:w:

Yusuf

[Grace Seeker]

Hi guys,

Theres many points I would like to tackle, maybe a new thread in particular for those.

I will ask, Grace Seeker, what is the context of the scripture of Timothy which you quoted. Please share that with us.

The verse is from Paul's second letter to Timothy as he is giving instructions to his protege on how to carry on in Paul's stead as a leader in the early church. The entire chapter can be read here 2 Timothy 3.

[Grace Seeker]

you seem a little disturbed by my usage of Shaytan as one who would deny the truth. that kind of puzzles me. let me put a few quotes from the NT here:

Matthew 16:23
Jesus turned and said to Peter, "Get behind me, Satan! You are a stumbling block to me; you do not have in mind the things of God, but the things of men."

Mark 8:33
But when Jesus turned and looked at his disciples, he rebuked Peter. "Get behind me, Satan!" he said. "You do not have in mind the things of God, but the things of men."

Peter is commonly thought of a the first head of the church, am i right? so either Jesus, himself is saying that Peter is Satan, which i'm assuming we both will disagree with. OR when one substitutes the "things of men" for the "things of God", then we KNOW who the author is!

Salaam Yusuf,

First, and most importantly, let me bid you good health. I have no major health problems, and sometimes I find it difficult to reply. May God grant you renewed health to be strong and well enough for all the tasks of your life.

If all you meant by saying that Satan might have misled the church was to say that IF the church is misled, then it might be Satan that has caused it to drift astray, then I over-reacted. I heard your above statements as an accusation that indeed Satan had done so. Pleae, forgive my overprotective nature.

As to my statement regarding the practices of early Christians in recognizing both the Sabbath and "the Lord's Day", I guess we have a difference of opinion.

From the book of Acts we can see that the early church was used to actually attending synagogue on the Sabbath.

From Perga they went on to Pisidian Antioch. On the Sabbath they entered the synagogue and sat down. After the reading from the Law and the Prophets, the synagogue rulers sent word to them, saying, "Brothers, if you have a message of encouragement for the people, please speak." (Acts 13:14-15)

Yet, from this same book, we can see that they also met on the first day of the week, i.e. Sunday.

On the first day of the week we came together to break bread. Paul spoke to the people and, because he intended to leave the next day, kept on talking until midnight. (Acts 20:7)

On more than one occassion Paul deals with the question of just how much of the Jewish origins of the church to be kept by the Church. Though the Sabbath is not mentioned specifically in the passage, I believe that this is behind his thought in Romans 14:5 & 6a -- "5One man considers one day more sacred than another; another man considers every day alike. Each one should be fully convinced in his own mind. 6He who regards one day as special, does so to the Lord." The point, as Paul would go on to make later in this chapter, is that the actual day of worship or any other ritual, is not as important as giving one's self wholly to God. We should stop putting impediments in the way between people and God, and instead seek to build one another up in God.

You know, Yusuf, I appreciate that you have this attitude whenever you address me. You always have a kind greetings. I would like to return it in kind, but I do not speak Arabic. While I know it is a greeting between brothers, I do not know its meaning or how to respond to it appropriately. Could you educate me on this?

Thank-you.

Peace be upon you.

[Umar001]

The verse is from Paul's second letter to Timothy as he is giving instructions to his protege on how to carry on in Paul's stead as a leader in the early church. The entire chapter can be read here 2 Timothy 3.

Yes but the passage you used was to indicate what some quote as proof that the 'All scripture' is from God, I am asking what scripture was Paul referring to.

[YusufNoor]

Assalamu 'alaykum,

A`udhu Billahi mina Shaytanir Rajeem,

Bismillahir Rahmanir Raheem

Salaam Gene,

i'm having a tougher time than i though i would. maybe heart attack #2 is nearby! :grumbling

i was holding back on the ONE spot that i could guarantee that the NT was changed until we hit some other points, but you posted:

Yet, from this same book, we can see that they also met on the first day of the week, i.e. Sunday.
Quote:
On the first day of the week we came together to break bread. Paul spoke to the people and, because he intended to leave the next day, kept on talking until midnight. (Acts 20:7)

THAT, IS a change! here's how it is in the Ferrar Fenton:

Acts 20:7 On the first of the Sabbaths, when we assembled to break bread, Paul, intending to leave on the following day, addressed them, and prolonged his speech until midnight.

the Sabbath was eventually changed to Sunday by the RCC. they didn't say "let's keep the Sabbath and "honor" Jesus by worshipping on sunday". they tried to perform a complete swap. We can use the website Keltoi posted to see when some of the changes were made. (of course, we can assume the site won't say "We did this for X or Y reason". we'll just be able to get an idea of when certain things were done).

don't forget, one of the motives for the inquisition was to eliminate Christians who were keeping the Jewish Sabbath.

i still would like to respond to your large post, but it's soo long...


Peace,
:w:

Yusuf

[Grace Seeker]

THAT, IS a change! here's how it is in the Ferrar Fenton:

Acts 20:7 On the first of the Sabbaths, when we assembled to break bread, Paul, intending to leave on the following day, addressed them, and prolonged his speech until midnight.

I'm absent any of my Bibles which would show alternate readings at the moment. I'll try to remember to check them later. However, I am not at all familiar with the Ferrar Fenton you mention. Can you fill me in?

[Grace Seeker]

Yes but the passage you used was to indicate what some quote as proof that the 'All scripture' is from God, I am asking what scripture was Paul referring to.

No, actually I wasn't using the text to prove that "All scripture is from God". I was merely illustrating that to use scripture to prove scripture is a circular argument.

I personally happen to think that Paul was referring to all the scripture that was available to Timothy at that time, namely the Old Testament. I concede it is a stretch when Christian use it to prove that the New Testament is from God, which is why I did not use it that way. (Nor do I even use it to prove that the Old Testament is, for then you would have to admit that Paul was speaking prophetically when he wrote that, and you are back to your circular argument.)

Of course, if we accept that Peter was an authority within the early church, then Paul's letters were considered synonymous with scripture:

Bear in mind that our Lord's patience means salvation, just as our dear brother Paul also wrote you with the wisdom that God gave him. He writes the same way in all his letters, speaking in them of these matters. His letters contain some things that are hard to understand, which ignorant and unstable people distort, as they do the other Scriptures, to their own destruction. (2 Peter 3:15 & 16)

Peter doesn't just say Scriptures, but "other" Scriptures, thus referring to Paul's letters as Scripture themselves.

Now, you can argue that this wasn't really the Apostle Peter, and throw up a whole host of other arguments. It eventually gets down not to what the scholars say, but what each of us, in our own heart, is willing to accept or not accept as an authoritative word from God. Maybe that's why we call it faith?

[Umar001]

Yes but the passage you used was to indicate what some quote as proof that the 'All scripture' is from God, I am asking what scripture was Paul referring to.

No, actually I wasn't using the text to prove that "All scripture is from God". I was merely illustrating that to use scripture to prove scripture is a circular argument.

I know that in the broader point you were showing that circular reasoning is what is done by some, I just wondered if you were of the people that 'often' cite the verse as proof.

The traditon view is that all of the Bible, in the original autographs, is the inspired, inerrant Word of God. This verse is often cited as proof:

All Scripture is God-breathed and is useful for teaching, rebuking, correcting and training in righteousness, so that the man of God may be thoroughly equipped for every good work. (2 Timothy 3:16-17)

Eesa.

[Grace Seeker]

I know that in the broader point you were showing that circular reasoning is what is done by some, I just wondered if you were of the people that 'often' cite the verse as proof.
Eesa.

I know that in the broader point you were showing that circular reasoning is what is done by some, I just wondered if you were of the people that 'often' cite the verse as proof.

Well, now you know. I'm not.


If you keep following the thread back, you'll find that others had quoted the Qu'ran to me in order to prove my views regarding Jesus to be in error -- as if it had an authority vs the authority of the Bible.

Basically, I'm saying that two can play that game if one wants to, but I don't think it proves anything for either of us.

I think the Qu'ran is authoritative in so far as it expresses beliefs held by those who adhere to its teachings. That's about it.

So, if someone tell me that they know the Bible is in error regarding the crucifixion of Christ or the sonship of Jesus because the Qu'ran says that such beliefs are erroneous, it is going to carry as much weight with me as if I told you that I know these things are true because the Bible told me so.

However, as I said, I do think the Qu'ran is authoritative in so far as it expresses beliefs held by followers of Islam. I would expect that thinking Muslims (and I'm sure most here are) would recognize the authority the Bible has regarding the beliefs of Christians. Without such mutual recognition any discussion becomes "debate" on the order of children in a playground simply saying "Is so." "Is not." Is too." "Na-hah." I don't think either of us has time for such ridiculousness.

[Umar001]

Yes, I understand that and what your point was, I was just curious as to whether you held that that verse was a proof for such a thing.

And as you have stated now I know you are not of those people.


Eesa :)

[YusufNoor]

I'm absent any of my Bibles which would show alternate readings at the moment. I'll try to remember to check them later. However, I am not at all familiar with the Ferrar Fenton you mention. Can you fill me in?

Assalamu 'alaykum,

A`udhu Billahi mina Shaytanir Rajeem,

Bismillahir Rahmanir Raheem

Salaam Gene,

the Holy Bible in Modern English translated direct from the original Hebrew, Chaldee and Greek languages by Ferrar Fenton

it was done in the 1800's, so don't expect the English to be TOO modern! :giggling:

the OT is laid out just like the Tanakh and NT is in different order.

http://www.artisanpublishers.com/bk_...ton_bible.html

i've used that company before for their Stephen M Collins stuff and other "Lost Tribes" stuff.

Collins is a "Where was Jesus" type, but interesting nonetheless. the work on Parthia, book 3 (out of 4) in a series on the Israeli Empire, is VERY interesting! form it's comparison of Parthia to Rome as superpower to setting the atmosphere for the birth of Jesus. the most unusual and original "hypothesis" for the "Magi" to boot!

for me, better than Dan Brown!

i found a download for the Ferrar Fenton...but it turned out to be a rascist site :offended:

Peace,
:w:

Yusuf

*realizes he gave more info on Collins than Fenton*:embarrass

[Daffodil]

i really dnt see the point in discussing the bible because even christians and catholics and protestants etc etc cant agree on it because theres like a new book every month. if u have an origional bible, aproved by jesus himself, then yea we got a debate!

if u ppl ever get a chance then listen to a bro called yusuf estes on his reversion story to islam from being a bible preacher.

[Grace Seeker]

i really dnt see the point in discussing the bible because even christians and catholics and protestants etc etc cant agree on it because theres like a new book every month.

If this is true, then please point me to the 11 new books that have come out or been "discovered" so far this year. If you cannot, then please refrain from unsubstantiated claims, even in the form of hypebole.

Or, if you prefer, you may withdraw your comment, as you don't see the point in discussing the bible but choose to do so anyway, presenting nothing but exaggerated claims and faulty information as if they were fact.

[Daffodil]

If this is true, then please point me to the 11 new books that have come out or been "discovered" so far this year. If you cannot, then please refrain from unsubstantiated claims, even in the form of hypebole.

Or, if you prefer, you may withdraw your comment, as you don't see the point in discussing the bible but choose to do so anyway, presenting nothing but exaggerated claims and faulty information as if they were fact.

u obviously took that personaly as u sound quite upset, islam forbids me to lie so why wud i make something up. yusuf estes is an ex minister and revert to islam n he sed so, and hes alot more knowledgeable then u so im gonna go with him on this one. not only that but other bible scholars have sed the same thing. its a big money making biz didnt u know? i thought it was common knowledge.

[Keltoi]

u obviously took that personaly as u sound quite upset, islam forbids me to lie so why wud i make something up. yusuf estes is an ex minister and revert to islam n he sed so, and hes alot more knowledgeable then u so im gonna go with him on this one. not only that but other bible scholars have sed the same thing. its a big money making because didnt u know? i thought it was common knowledge.

Bibles are printed, people buy them...is that what you mean by "big money making?" Also, could you give some evidence of all these supposedly "new" or different Bibles being printed? Yes, there are different versions of the Bible, King James, etc, etc. Is that what you are referring to?

[Daffodil]

im gonna point out the obvious and waste my time when priest/ministers/bible scholars etc etc have already discussed this issue.

[Keltoi]

im gonna point out the obvious and waste my time when priest/ministers/bible scholars etc etc have already discussed this issue.

In other words, you can't answer the question. Thanks

[Grace Seeker]

u obviously took that personaly as u sound quite upset, islam forbids me to lie so why wud i make something up. yusuf estes is an ex minister and revert to islam n he sed so, and hes alot more knowledgeable then u so im gonna go with him on this one. not only that but other bible scholars have sed the same thing. its a big money making biz didnt u know? i thought it was common knowledge.

Dear Daffodil,

You didn't direct anything to me personally before, so I didn't take it personally. Now here, in asserting that Yusuf Estes is a lot more knowledgable than I you have. That's fine. He may be more knowledgable than I. So, I am seeking to learn from your/his knowledge. You said "theres like a new book every month". If that is true, and we are 11 1/2 months into 2006, then there ought to be 11 new books this. I would like to know what they are.

If this is, as you have asserted "common knowledge", then it should not be too hard a thing to do. If you are unwilling/unable to do so, then it throws doubt on your credibility and the credibility of your source. As you are a Muslim and Islam forbids you to lie, then I am sure you believe your statement to be true. I don't. I think it was most likely hyperbole. Or perhaps, if you are not familiar witih it, you have used terminology to express one thing when you mean another. For instance: the Bible is not one book, but is composed of many books. Sometimes people think that there are other books that should be included besides the present 66 books. For instance some say that the deutero-canonical books of the apochrypha should be included, and they are published in Catholic editions of the bible. Some say that other books that as a group have been labeled the pseudopigraphia should have been included in the Bible. And very rarely, a new piece of ancient literature is "discovered" or made known to the general public, and then people in the general public think that this were books excluded from the Bible, though in truth they tend to be books that were just other writings of the day, and were never considered for inclusion. When you write, "there's a new book every month" this is what I think you are referring to as that is what it means to refer to a book when referencing the Bible. A book is a piece of independent literature that books part of the collection of books which compose the Bible. And I know that it simply isn't true that there is a new book every month, or even every year or every decade. Is someone is telling you that there is, then whether you wish to believe it or not is up to you, but I would think the person does not know whereof they speak.

Now, there are many new translations, versions, editions of the Bible published regularly. As Keltoi has suggested, maybe this is what you are refering to. I have no idea in how many new ways the Bible might be published in a year; however, if this is your meaning, then I would agree that your statement might be true. Of course these are not new books (the term you used which I challenged). They are new translations, new versions, new editions of existing publications. There really isn't anything new in the context of the way that either Al Habeshi, YusufNoor, or I were speaking of the Bible in this discussion.

[Daffodil]

In other words, you can't answer the question. Thanks

im not answering the questions because its already been answered by thousands of priests n ministers etc etc.

[Keltoi]

im not answering the questions because its already been answered by thousands of priests n ministers etc etc.

If this had "already been answered" by thousands of priests and ministers, it shouldn't be that hard to give some evidence of what you are trying to suggest.

[Grace Seeker]

im not answering the questions because its already been answered by thousands of priests n ministers etc etc.

Here is a question that has NOT been answered by thousands of priests, ministers, or anyone ever before. You are the first person this question has ever even been asked of in the entire world.


When you said

theres like a new book every month

What did you mean by "new book"? Did you mean that there is a new edition of the Bible published every month? Or did you mean that there is a discovery of a "new" book of ancient manuscript that some suggest would change one's understanding of the Bible if it were included?

I would like to know what you were referring to when you said "new book", but you have yet to answer the question, and no priest or minister, nor even Yusaf Estes can answer that question for us, only you can tell us what you actually meant when you wrote it.

[Malaikah]

Now, there are many new translations, versions, editions of the Bible published regularly. As Keltoi has suggested, maybe this is what you are refering to. I have no idea in how many new ways the Bible might be published in a year; however, if this is your meaning, then I would agree that your statement might be true. Of course these are not new books (the term you used which I challenged). They are new translations, new versions, new editions of existing publications. There really isn't anything new in the context of the way that either Al Habeshi, YusufNoor, or I were speaking of the Bible in this discussion.

Hi Grace seeker,

I listen to a debate yesterday that touched on this:

33. Is the Bible God's Word ?

A great debate between Sheikh Ahmed Deedat and Jimmy Swaggart and the topic was Is the Bible God's Word ?, it took place in U.S.A at the University of Louisiana, It's Worth seeing Don't miss it.

(VCD Quality/MPG) [952MB] http://www.archive.org/download/33_I...s_Word_VCD.mpg
(RealPlayer High Quality) [312MB] http://www.archive.org/download/33_I...ord_512KB.rmvb
(RealPlayer Medium Quality) [70MB] http://www.archive.org/download/33_I...ord_128KB.rmvb
(RealPlayer Low Quality) [37MB] http://www.archive.org/download/33_I...Word_64KB.rmvb

I think what daffodil said was meant to be an exaggeration and she didnt mean it literally but she might have so I'll leave it up to her to answer inshaallah.

Ahmed Deedat mentioned that the bible does have versions, like you have admitted, and some versions take some parts of the scriptures and leave out others. He mentions the king james version and how it was meant to be one of the best translations, but it isnt only a translation, it is a VERSION, which means there are different bibles, some versions of the bible leave things in and others leave them out.

Compared to the Quran, there are no versions, there is only one Quran, everything that is meant to be in it is there and there are not any questionable parts of it that are left out or not, it is just one. It has many translations but thats all they are, translations, not versions. Whereas the bible does ave questionable parts etc.

I know I didnt explain it properly, please what the debate to understand what I was trying to say, he explained it much better than I did. Although the debate could have been much better, it wasnt that good because of time limits.

[YusufNoor]

:salamext:

Assalamu 'alaykum,

A`udhu Billahi mina Shaytanir Rajeem,

Bismillahir Rahmanir Raheem

Salaam Gene,

I’m going to try to see if I can answer some of your questions this weekend. (While trying to avoid a humongous answer, so bits at a time)

First off, I hope you and yours are well.

here we go:

[QUOTE]Of course, that only carries weight with people who already believe that this verse is the inspired, inerrant Word of God. It becomes sort of a circular argument. I think the same can be said of proving the integrity of the Qu'ran by citing passages from the Qu'ran.

I will gladly admit to you that we no longer have the original autographs and that the oldest documents we presently have some variant readings. My personal view is that for the most part these are minor (very minor) variants that do NOT change the meaning of the text. The three most glariing exceptions to this that I can think of are the inclusion of the story of the woman caught in adultery (John 7:53-8:11), the doxological ending to Matthe 6:13 ("for thine is the kingdom, and the power, and the glory, for ever. Amen."), and the longer ending of Mark -- and they do not present a different message than the rest of the New Testament, so I do trust the overall message. Do you deny that there are also variant readings for the Qur'an? [QUOTE]

Absolutely! There is one and one only Qur’an. PERIOD. END of statement. Translations vary, however I recommend that neophytes (like me :okay: )only use translations with a lot of explanation.

I wrote this in another forum:



the Qur'an that brother Fi_Sibillilah recommended IS the one that our Imam recommends for non-Muslims.

it's done by a group of scholars and representsthe best "translation".

i'm a "revert" of 8 months an i normally recommend that caution be used with the Qur'an when not in Arabic. imho, Quraysh Arabic is WAY TOO sophisticated for ANY ONE translation to give you a complete sense of it's purpose. you will miss out on the many varieties of meaning as well as totally missing the "Beauty" of the Qur'an!

i'm currently reading The Message of the Quran : New 2004 Authorized Edition (Muhammad Asad) English and Arabic. while not as "correct" as the Sahih International Translation, it DOES give one a sense of the "Beauty" and "Wonder" and "Joy" of the Qur'an. Asad spent 6 years living with Bedouin tribes and offers a keen insight as to sentence structure and purpose of many words and Ayahs.

his work is WELL researched and footnoted and as the subtitle says, it is "Translated AND Explained".

there are things about which i don't like, as he uses G-d for Allah (SWT) and Apostle for Rasul, BUT, if you're familiar with the "Bible" it REALLY feels like the Third Testament! i doubt that was his intention, but it really does come off as a continuation (and correction ) of the older "Books".

there's alot of background and historical information as well as the viewpoints of early Muslim scholars.

the book also contains alot of beautiful calligraphy as well as the transliteration of the Arabic. you can actually learn Surah's Al Fatihah and Al Ikhlas from it!

i've given out Sahih International Translation and people were disappointed that it was paperback and small, this is HUGE and it weighs a ton! of course, it's way more expensive than Sahih International Translation, but it feels and looks like a "Holy" book, especially if you've seen "special edition" Bibles.

take a look at the photos of some of the pages:

http://islamicbookstore-com.stores.yahoo.net/b8257.html

then, believe it or not, you should read a third translation. yup, i'm not kidding. if you research the very first Surah, Al Fatihah, you'll be convinced of what i'm saying. i read just the note's Moulana Mohamed Ali's Al Fatihah and "my jaw hit the floor". the "Seven oft' repeated verses" ALONE could take thousands of pages to explain everything that they mean!

the 1st Qur'an i completed was The Meaning of The Holy Qur'an: Arabic/English with Commentary PB US Edition Full-size (A Y Ali Amana Edition), link:

http://islamicbookstore-com.stores.yahoo.net/b3924.html

it's NOT bad, but imho, the author was way too into shaekspear and philosophy, especially for a Muslim. there are however almost as many notes as there are Ayahs, so it's heavy on "info". others contend that there are alot of "mistakes" in it. BUT, you might be able to get a copy at your local bookstore.

just my opinions...

I’ll find a link to a “Tajweed” site to explain the “additions” questions.

Peace,

:wasalamex

Yusuf

[YusufNoor]

:salamext:

Assalamu 'alaykum,

A`udhu Billahi mina Shaytanir Rajeem,

Bismillahir Rahmanir Raheem

Salaam Gene,

I’m going to try to see if I can answer some of your questions this weekend. (While trying to avoid a humongous answer, so bits at a time)

First off, I hope you and yours are well.


(Cont.: )

So what? You are telling me that your religion celebrates the creation of man and gives it higher priority than worshipping god? Now, I know you don't mean it, as you go on to clarify, but you see how easy it would be if I look at just one element of Islam to attack it. I ask you to look at Christianity the same way. If you seek only to attack it, you will never learn about it. That you perceive the Bible to teach that the Resurrection took place on a different day than the first day of the week -- which is Sunday -- is an utter mystery to me. It is as if you have either never seen, or completely ignored the passages about the resurrection that I just quoted above. And if you have, and you get something from them other than Sunday, then you are reading the passages differently than any Christian in all of our history.

I reached a saturation point long ago with where “Christianity” is at variance with their own “Christian Bible”. I’m just trying to bring some of those points across to you.

As for “That you perceive the Bible to teach that the Resurrection took place on a different day than the first day of the week”, I’m saying that according to those Bibles, it wasn’t. As a Muslim, I reject the resurrection.

I AM sorry that my view DO come across as attacks sometimes, my English skills aren’t great so my emphatics can be a little strong. But I’m attacking erroneous positions that aren’t supported by the source of those who hold the views. I’m not attacking the people personally.

“You are telling me that your religion celebrates the creation of man and gives it higher priority than worshipping god?” by no means. Islam is to nothing other than exactly what Jibreel(as) revealed from Allah(SWT) to the Messenger(pbuh) and the Sunnah of the Prophet Mohammed(pbuh). Nothing more, nothing less. And as that is give complete priority to worshipping Allah(SWT)!

and "you are reading the passages differently than any Christian in all of our history"

as you'll come to see, i read most things differently!

Peace

:wasalamex


Yusuf

[YusufNoor]

:salamext:

Assalamu 'alaykum,

A`udhu Billahi mina Shaytanir Rajeem,

Bismillahir Rahmanir Raheem

Salaam Gene,

(cont.)

If 85-90% of all Muslims share the same belief, then 10-15% do not. Are they still truly Muslim. How can you be a Muslim and not share the same beliefs of other Muslims? This is a great mystery.

My bad, I mean same SECT! I.e., SUNNI!

But, “How can you be a Muslim and not share the same beliefs of other Muslims? This is a great mystery.” That ‘s almost funny coming from a Christian! Unless you are NOW saying that ALL Christians MUST have the EXACT SAME beliefs! If so, I will gladly work with you to see if we could accomplish this!

So you have "corrupted" your own holy book by adding to it? Now, again, I don't really think of the vowel points as corrupting, but it is such small things that you see as casting doubt on the New Testament. In truth, I don't think it is those things at all that lead you to doubt it.

Eeks, me!!?? I have done no such thing!

Here’s a history from:

http://www.usc.edu/dept/MSA/quran/compilationbrief.html


Brief History of Compilation of the Qur'an
Adapted from an article in Perspectives, Vol 3, No. 4, Aug/Sept 1997

During the life of the Prophet (saas) (570-632 CE)
· The Prophet (saas) used to recite the Qur'an before angel Jibreel (Gabriel) once every Ramadan, but he recited it twice (in the same order we have today) in the last Ramadan before his death. Jibreel also taught the Prophet (saas) the seven modes of recitation.

· Each verse received was recited by the Prophet, and its location relative to other verses and surahs was identified by him.

· The verses were written by scribes, selected by the Prophet, on any suitable object - the leaves of trees, pieces of wood, parchment or leather, flat stones, and shoulder blades. Scribes included Ali Ibn Abi Talib, Mu'awiyah Ibn Abi Sufyan, Ubey Ibn Ka'ab, Zayed Ibn Thabit.

· Some of the companions wrote the Qur'an for their own use.

· Several hundred companions memorized the Qur'an by heart.

During the caliphate of Abu Bakr (632-634 CE)

· Umar Ibn Al-Khattab urged Abu Bakr to preserve and compile the Qur'an. This was prompted after the battle of Yamamah, where heavy casualties were suffered among the reciters who memorized the Qur'an.

· Abu Bakr entrusted Zayed Ibn Thabit with the task of collecting the Qur'an. Zayed had been present during the last recitation of the Qur'an by the Prophet to Angel Jibreel (Gabriel).

· Zayed, with the help of the companions who memorized and wrote verses of the Qur'an, accomplished the task and handed Abu Bakr the first authenticated copy of the Qur'an. The copy was kept in the residence of Hafsah, daughter of Umar and wife of the Prophet.

During the caliphate of Uthman (644-656 CE)

· Uthman ordered Zayed Ibn Thabit, Abdullah Ibn Al Zubayr, Saeed Ibn Al-Aas, and Abdur-Rahman Ibn Harith Ibn Hisham to make perfect copies of the authenticated copy kept with Hafsa. This was due to the rapid expansion of the Islamic state and concern about differences in recitation.

· Copies were sent to various places in the Muslim world. The original copy was returned to Hafsa, and a copy was kept in Madinah.
Three stages of dotting and diacritization

· Dots were put as syntactical marks by Abu Al-Aswad Al Doaly, during the time of Mu'awiya Ibn Abi Sufian (661-680 CE).

· The letters were marked with different dotting by Nasr Ibn Asem and Hayy ibn Ya'amor, during the time of Abd Al-Malek Ibn Marawan (685-705 CE).

· A complete system of diacritical marks (damma, fataha, kasra) was invented by Al Khaleel Ibn Ahmad Al Faraheedy (d. 786 CE).
Sponsored by the MSA.

I think you doubt it because you are taught by the Qur'an to doubt it, and then you look for things to back up that belief. Well, it works the other way too.

As I try to point out, ad naseum, that is simply false. I began to believe in the falseness of Catholicism while attending Catechism, it just doesn’t jive with the 10 Commandments. Around 1980, I met with a Jehovah Witness. Then and there began my thirst and quest for finding out the “truth” about “Christianity. I was not at any time a Jehovah Witness, but I had great admiration for the gentleman I met and did study scripture with him for some time. It was one of the main reasons that my wife left me, which should indicate how serious I felt in the matter. Both before and after that time, I was a viewer of Herbert W. Armstrong, but really began an in depth study of his “teachings” around 1988 when my oldest son was nearly killed for the 3rd time. Since THAT time, I have held my beliefs on matters of the Sabbath and any other “Sunday” form of worship. The Christmas and Easter go back to the JW study days.

At NO TIME prior to the weeks before my “reversion” did I EVER even CONTEMPLATE that Islam was the true religion. My reversion was in April of, are you ready, 2006! I hadn’t even completed my first reading of the Qur’an until just prior to Ramadan this year.

That the Qur'an teaches that certain things the Bible says happened did not happen, are proof to me that the Qur'an is not a divine book from God, but a human invention filled with errors. Sorry, to say it so strongly. But to deny the divinity of Christ as the Qur'an does is to promote error, not truth.

I believe a review of Christianity will suffice to show that statement to be in error.

To deny the crucifixion and say that God fooled the people, is to make God in to a deceiver, and God is not a deceiver, thus I see the Qur'an as promoting falsehood once again.

I absolutely agree 100% with the statement "God is not a deceiver", but disagree with your conclusion. I’m sure we can find evidence that the Roman Catholic Church did all they could to destroy and writings that might disprove the crucifixion. I will admit, however, that my current belief in that regard is based on Islam!

Just trying to be honest!

That took longer than I thought it would.

Peace,

:wasalamex

Yusuf

[YusufNoor]

:salamext:
Assalamu 'alaykum,

A`udhu Billahi mina Shaytanir Rajeem,

Bismillahir Rahmanir Raheem

Salaam Gene,

(cont.)

My apologies that this is taking so long, I’m working with one eye and poor health.

The tradition view is that all of the Bible, in the original autographs, is the inspired, inerrant Word of God. This verse is often cited as proof:
Quote:
All Scripture is God-breathed and is useful for teaching, rebuking, correcting and training in righteousness, so that the man of God may be thoroughly equipped for every good work. (2 Timothy 3:16-17)

Inerrant Word of God, I believe THAT is what we should try to find and prove.

The Qur'an set forths laws to keep. Check this, "Yes". Check this, "No". Life is a test. At the end you get your grade. Score well enough and you're in. Christianity is different in that doesn't have a checklist like either Judaism or Islam. It has guiding principles. They are more generically stated, and each individual has to work out what Loving God and Loving Neighbor look like in their particular life. But the guidelines are definitely present and all are held accountable to them; it is definitely not an "anything goes" type of faith.

Was it? How would people know if they were wrong? If not "anything goes", then WHAT goes? Wouldn’t it be fair, just and reasonable for the all Powerful, All Knowing G-d of Creation to explain it to us, rather than leave it sort of “up in the air?”

Shouldn’t they be HIS guidelines that we follow if we are to worship and obey HIM? Do we want to substitute the "things of men" for the "things of God"? Should we not fear that completely? So should we not try to prohibit ourselves from doing such a thing?

If you've never heard it distilled, allow me to share it with you here in Jesus' own words: "Then he took the cup, gave thanks and offered it to them, saying, 'Drink from it, all of you. This is my blood of the covenant, which is poured out for many for the forgiveness of sins'." (Matthew 26:27-28)

You know, I’ve heard Christians say it, I see it is currently in the Bible, but in all honesty I have never understood it. To me, folks that say it or believe kind of sound like the pot smoking hippies of the 60’s. So I must assume that it wasn’t originally there or something was really lost in the translation. I DO think that Jesus/Isa(AS) did some kind of Passover meal with his disciples and that, as he was foretelling the destruction of the Temple, that must of course be a new way to celebrate PASSOVER, NOT Easter!

Jesus said that the New Covenant was one made in his blood for the forgiveness of sins. That is the whole point of the Cross. Reject it, and of course you are rejecting the Covenant that Jesus came to establish.

Again, I guess I DO reject that! I don’t think that was what he taught, AND I don’t think as a Messenger of Allah(SWT) that he had the ability, OR permission to say anything that is in opposition to HIM. Nor do I think that would be in agreement with any Abrahamic tradition.

Again, in Jesus' own words, this time in a revelation received by his disciple John, many years after Jesus resurrection and ascension to heaven, Jesus said: "Behold I stand at the door and knock, if anyone hears My voice and opens the door, I will come in to him..." (Revelation 3:20a)

Not really sure how to interpret that either…

Is Jesus knocking on your heart's door?

*Sniffs around for pungent aroma*

Ya, I don’t think so! As a matter of fact, I don’t understand the concept of “being saved”. It’s too transparent, like some kind of “get out of jail free card”. I figure, no matter what I do, I’m going to hell. That’s it, period, and end of statement…

I can pray for Jannah. I can do everything Islam says I’m supposed to do. But in the end, Allah(SWT) will probably dub me a hypocrite or arrogant and I’m doomed.

The ONLY way I’m getting in is by the mercy of Allah(SW), Al Rahman Ir Raheem. The ONLY way!

At my church we worship on both Saturday and Sunday. I have been at others that worshipped on Wednesday or Thursday. There is no day that is not a good day to worship God. We worship him in corporate services, and we worship him in private personal ways as well.

Again, my belief is that the RCC purposefully and with full knowledge and intent corrupted true Sabbath worship.

Peace,

:wasalamex

Yusuf

[Grace Seeker]

:salamext:

Assalamu 'alaykum,

A`udhu Billahi mina Shaytanir Rajeem,

Bismillahir Rahmanir Raheem

Salaam Gene,

(cont.)




My bad, I mean same SECT! I.e., SUNNI!

But, “How can you be a Muslim and not share the same beliefs of other Muslims? This is a great mystery.” That ‘s almost funny coming from a Christian! Unless you are NOW saying that ALL Christians MUST have the EXACT SAME beliefs! If so, I will gladly work with you to see if we could accomplish this!



Eeks, me!!?? I have done no such thing!

Here’s a history from:

http://www.usc.edu/dept/MSA/quran/compilationbrief.html


Brief History of Compilation of the Qur'an
Adapted from an article in Perspectives, Vol 3, No. 4, Aug/Sept 1997

During the life of the Prophet (saas) (570-632 CE)
· The Prophet (saas) used to recite the Qur'an before angel Jibreel (Gabriel) once every Ramadan, but he recited it twice (in the same order we have today) in the last Ramadan before his death. Jibreel also taught the Prophet (saas) the seven modes of recitation.

· Each verse received was recited by the Prophet, and its location relative to other verses and surahs was identified by him.

· The verses were written by scribes, selected by the Prophet, on any suitable object - the leaves of trees, pieces of wood, parchment or leather, flat stones, and shoulder blades. Scribes included Ali Ibn Abi Talib, Mu'awiyah Ibn Abi Sufyan, Ubey Ibn Ka'ab, Zayed Ibn Thabit.

· Some of the companions wrote the Qur'an for their own use.

· Several hundred companions memorized the Qur'an by heart.

During the caliphate of Abu Bakr (632-634 CE)

· Umar Ibn Al-Khattab urged Abu Bakr to preserve and compile the Qur'an. This was prompted after the battle of Yamamah, where heavy casualties were suffered among the reciters who memorized the Qur'an.

· Abu Bakr entrusted Zayed Ibn Thabit with the task of collecting the Qur'an. Zayed had been present during the last recitation of the Qur'an by the Prophet to Angel Jibreel (Gabriel).

· Zayed, with the help of the companions who memorized and wrote verses of the Qur'an, accomplished the task and handed Abu Bakr the first authenticated copy of the Qur'an. The copy was kept in the residence of Hafsah, daughter of Umar and wife of the Prophet.

During the caliphate of Uthman (644-656 CE)

· Uthman ordered Zayed Ibn Thabit, Abdullah Ibn Al Zubayr, Saeed Ibn Al-Aas, and Abdur-Rahman Ibn Harith Ibn Hisham to make perfect copies of the authenticated copy kept with Hafsa. This was due to the rapid expansion of the Islamic state and concern about differences in recitation.

· Copies were sent to various places in the Muslim world. The original copy was returned to Hafsa, and a copy was kept in Madinah.
Three stages of dotting and diacritization

· Dots were put as syntactical marks by Abu Al-Aswad Al Doaly, during the time of Mu'awiya Ibn Abi Sufian (661-680 CE).

· The letters were marked with different dotting by Nasr Ibn Asem and Hayy ibn Ya'amor, during the time of Abd Al-Malek Ibn Marawan (685-705 CE).

· A complete system of diacritical marks (damma, fataha, kasra) was invented by Al Khaleel Ibn Ahmad Al Faraheedy (d. 786 CE).
Sponsored by the MSA.




As I try to point out, ad naseum, that is simply false. I began to believe in the falseness of Catholicism while attending Catechism, it just doesn’t jive with the 10 Commandments. Around 1980, I met with a Jehovah Witness. Then and there began my thirst and quest for finding out the “truth” about “Christianity. I was not at any time a Jehovah Witness, but I had great admiration for the gentleman I met and did study scripture with him for some time. It was one of the main reasons that my wife left me, which should indicate how serious I felt in the matter. Both before and after that time, I was a viewer of Herbert W. Armstrong, but really began an in depth study of his “teachings” around 1988 when my oldest son was nearly killed for the 3rd time. Since THAT time, I have held my beliefs on matters of the Sabbath and any other “Sunday” form of worship. The Christmas and Easter go back to the JW study days.

At NO TIME prior to the weeks before my “reversion” did I EVER even CONTEMPLATE that Islam was the true religion. My reversion was in April of, are you ready, 2006! I hadn’t even completed my first reading of the Qur’an until just prior to Ramadan this year.




I believe a review of Christianity will suffice to show that statement to be in error.




I absolutely agree 100% with the statement "God is not a deceiver", but disagree with your conclusion. I’m sure we can find evidence that the Roman Catholic Church did all they could to destroy and writings that might disprove the crucifixion. I will admit, however, that my current belief in that regard is based on Islam!

Just trying to be honest!

That took longer than I thought it would.

Peace,

:wasalamex

Yusuf

I don't know if you will quite understand this, but as I read your faith journey, I mourn that the faith you knew as a Catholic Christian did not speak to your spirit in a way in which you would mature in it. And though I am not a Catholic, that you left it saddens me. Yet, as I read how you journeyed into and through the teachings of the Jehovah's Witness and Herbert Armstrong to arrive today within the community of Islam, I am glad for where you have landed.

Within your Ummah you will at least be pointed to the one true God, and worship him. I trust you will grow in faith and knowledge of him. While Christianity and Islam will always disagree on a number of key beliefs, chief among them having to do with the personhood and divine nature of Jesus, they need not be so antithetical to one another that we do not recognize each other as belonging to the same family of God -- if not as brothers, then at least as cousins.

I pray that you will find not only knowledge about God, but have a personal one-on-one encounter with the living God. May God be gracious, and make himself known to you in his word to enrich your mind with the knowledge of him, and by his spirit to strengthen your own spirit through his holy presence.

[Grace Seeker]

The ONLY way I’m getting in is by the mercy of Allah(SW), Al Rahman Ir Raheem. The ONLY way!



Peace,

:wasalamex

Yusuf

:salamext:
Assalamu 'alaykum,

On this we absolutely agree with one another. You almost sound like the Apostle Paul; imagine that!! :)

Peace,
Gene

[Umar001]

The conversation seems to have left me behind, I will just ask if it is possible please do post in one post, do not post after yourself, just edit your post and then insert things instead of posting then posting again and again one under the other from the same person, hopefully that'll help keep the conversation more managable.

Eesa. :)

[YusufNoor]

:salamext:

Assalamu 'alaykum,

A`udhu Billahi mina Shaytanir Rajeem,

Bismillahir Rahmanir Raheem

Astaghfirullah, Brother Al!

my bad! i simply cannot read large gargantuan posts on the pc. my eyes are burnt out. i'm down to 1 eye...imsad

i had to cut down one of Brother Grace Seekers posts just to reply, as i said i would. took me 3 hours...:embarrass

my writing skills don't enable me to write those large post either...

i just do what i can (and claim protection under the Amercians with Disabillities Act! ;) )

You almost sound like the Apostle Paul; imagine that!!

you know, at times, i really "get" Paul. at others, i have no clue...:D

oh and:

as I read how you journeyed into and through the teachings of the Jehovah's Witness and Herbert Armstrong to arrive today within the community of Islam, I am glad for where you have landed.

Jazakullah khair! and Alhumdulillah! me too!:beard:

Peace,

:wasalamex

Yusuf