How much Christians know about Bible? What about Muslims?

[Muslim Woman]

Salaam/peace ,

99 names of God, not gods. ....

:thumbs_up


The Banishment

He is Allah ( God ) the Creator, the Maker, the Fashioner; His are the most excellent names;

whatever is in the heavens and the earth declares His glory; and He is the Mighty, the Wise.

[59.24]


when i will die , u will say that Muslim Woman died ; surely nobody will say that Muslim died but Woman is alive . But when Christians say son died , then they don't mean that father also died ( at least that what i understood ) .....because at that time , son & father are differeent .....they are NOT same god at that time.

Thus , they are referring to 2 different dieties ( if not 2 gods ).



when Muslims say Allah or God or Rahmanur Rahim , it's our Creator we are talking about who NEVER dies ....always one & only.......without any parnter --- more / less/ co-equal dieties

[Muslim Woman]

Salaam/peace ,

You just proved that God is one using the art of science, cool!


:thumbs_up

to get 1 , u have 2 choices .......simple path ....no need to multiply or add or go through art of sc ---so why choose the complicated way ????:blind:

[Grace Seeker]

http://www.islamicity.com/graphics/BLRR.gif

Salaam/peace ,





to get 1 , u have 2 choices .......simple path ....no need to multiply or add or go through art of sc ---so why choose the complicated way ????:blind:

The truth is that the math stuff is all nonsense either way. The Trinity is not expressed by any mathematical formula. It is not even a logical argument. It is merely a restatement of what is observed to be true with regard to the nature of God in scripture. When one goes beyond that it is primarily a philosophical discussion.

The only reason I presented the other mathematical sentence is that I know that 1+1+1=1 is not the idea that we are trying to communicate when we talk about the Trinity, even though some people (including some Christians) can't get beyond it.

The Trinity is really very simple:
First the Bible says that there is one and only one God.

Then the Bible calls God by the name Father.
But then, the Bible also calls Jesus God.
Lastly, the Bible also calls the Holy Spirit God.

So, if you understand all of these things to be true, then how does one reconcile that the Bible has said both that there are three persons who are God and yet that there is just one God?

Answer: We don't. We say it is a mystery, but true nonetheless. We believe it because God said it is true, but we can't really explain it, though we try all the time because we get asked about it all the time. It is still a mystery, even to the most theologically astute Christian. But our lack of understanding doesn't keep it from being true, when God himself told us that it was true. So, it is still a mystery, and the name we gave it, the label we slapped on that mystery is "Trinity = one God in three persons."

[glo]

Greetings all

I would like to ask Muslims in this thread to please humbly acklowledge the fact that Christians believe God to be one.
You can do so, because Christians in this forum have repeatedly told you so (I know, I've been around for a year ...)
GraceSeeker, Keltoi and alapiana1 (sorry, if I forgot anybody! :-[ ) have done a wonderful job in this thread trying to explain the Christian perception of the trinity - and that it still represents one God only.

Repeatedly denying it and arguing against it will not change the truth:
Christians believe that there is only one God. It is a belief shared by all three Abrahamic faiths.

With all due respect, please do not try to tell us what we do or do not believe ...

Peace

Hey there! Looks like you're enjoying the discussion, but you're not signed up for an account.

When you create an account, you can participate in the discussions and share your thoughts. You also get notifications, here and via email, whenever new posts are made. And you can like posts and make new friends.
Sign Up

[Muslim Knight]

Greetings all

GraceSeeker, Keltoi and alapiana1 (sorry, if I forgot anybody! :-[ ) have done a wonderful job in this thread trying to explain the Christian perception of the trinity - and that it still represents one God only.

Repeatedly denying it and arguing against it will not change the truth:
Christians believe that there is only one God. It is a belief shared by all three Abrahamic faiths.

With all due respect, please do not try to tell us what we do or do not believe ...

Peace

On that note, this is an interesting related article;

[Grace Seeker]

On that note, this is an interesting related article;

I will continue to do my best to explain the mystery as I understand it. If you don't understand it as I do, there is no great loss in that. But to say that we worship not one God but three gods is quite simply not true. What is true is that if you still understand it that way, then you simply do not yet understand what we really mean by Trinity. Once you understood what we really meant by it, you might still disagree that such is a true description of God, but you would know with certainty that we do not believe in three gods. Such a thing is just as anathema to us as it is to you.



With regard to some of the points in the article, again I feel there are several misunderstandings as to what we are actually saying we believe, and I would be happy to address them, but let's start yet another Trinity thread if you really seek a response to them. The Trinity is not the topic of this thread, which already has more tangents than a circle.

[Redeemed]

99 names of God, not gods. Those are the names by which God's creatures can know about His attributes.

Just like Grace Seeker, does this mean that there's two of you over there? Grace and Seeker? Of course not.

I am trying to upload something test

[Sunnih]

We feel the same way about the Qur'an that you do about the Bible, but that goes without saying.

Like I said before: To you your religion and to me my religion.:thumbs_up

[Sunnih]

You just proved that God is one using the art of science, cool!
:thumbs_up

Do not forget that and as I have said before implies + not x

[Sunnih]

Maybe this will help clarify it. We really don't need your advice about what we Christians believe. We don't tell you what you believe. We accept what you tell us you believe. Being on this Islamic forum for us non-Muslims (Christians) is like being in a Muslim state. Are you not going against the Qur'an by dishonoring us non-Muslims? You may ask how? Polytheism is idolatry and an abomination to God and Christian alike. If we say we believe in one true God, you have no right before God, man, Bible or the Qur'an to say otherwise. It is written, Judge not lest you be judged. Allah himself will judge and be against any Muslim who disrespects a non- Muslim in a Muslim state. Qur’an, 2:256. I find it disrespectful and dishonoring to keep coming against what we say we believe about God being ONE. You can believe that the Bible teaches there are three Gods, but you can’t tell us what we believe about God without being very disrespectful and very accountable to God for your words. :enough!:

As for your assumtions they are wrong indeed and the verse 2:256 is not about what you claim at all.

As for being in this forum for you is like being in an islamic state, then don't you see that your posts are not censured and removed but only debated? What is the point you try to meke?!

As for: "If we say we believe in one true God, you have no right before God, man, Bible or the Qur'an to say otherwise" then I will answer you from the bible:

Mathew 7:21-25

21"Not everyone who says to me, 'Lord, Lord,' will enter the kingdom of heaven, but only he who does the will of my Father who is in heaven. 22Many will say to me on that day, 'Lord, Lord, did we not prophesy in your name, and in your name drive out demons and perform many miracles?' 23Then I will tell them plainly, 'I never knew you. Away from me, you evildoers!'

As I have said before: You should let those who are more knowlegable than you in christianity speak.

[Sunnih]

Is that what those others you call polytheists say? Or do they actually say that they do have more than one God? Maybe I haven't listened to Hindu descriptions of God well enough. I haven't heard them say that there is only one God.

Of course, I found 99 names for God in the Qur'an, maybe you aren't really a monotheist either. Who are all those other gods besides Allah?

This is ridiculous indeed and you deffinitely know better than that. But as it is said: A drowning man will grasp anything to try to come out of the water. As for the Names and Attributes of God, this in no way implies polytheism and by the way a lot of these Names and Attributes are in the bible also. Surely you do not mean that bible also. I thought you was trying to show that bible does not endorse polytheism, by these words do you imply that it does? You know much better than that. These words of yours must have come either in a moment of anger or due to haste as I know that you know much better than that. Indeed in my view you are the one with more knowledge in christianity from all the christians in this forum.

[Sunnih]

I'm sure Grace Seeker was well aware of that. The point he was trying to make is that some people choose to believe what they want to believe. If you want Christians to be polytheists, or you get some satisfaction from saying that, you will believe it or pretend to believe it. Just as the Christians who participate in this sub-forum have explained in detail that the Trinity concept has nothing to do with three gods, but some people choose to believe what they wish to believe.

For a start, Grace seeker knows much better than that. Secondly, what we say is: The Christians believe to be monotheists while they are polytheists in our view. So as a Christian, you can believe what you want while as a muslim I view you as polytheists. Just like you view me as a dissbeliever in what you believe. So it is not an insult or anything like that and indeed you do not have to justify to me what you believe but to God when you will stand before Him. I will explain my position in front of God too.

[Sunnih]

Hey and when God is known as Father, Son, and Holy Spirit, how many gods are we talking about? Just one. Note I said "when God is known" --- that is all in the singular. Three names, three persons even, but not three beings -- just one God. Find any place in the Bible where it says that Christians believe in 3 gods. It can't be done.

Note that three persons is not correct in Christianity as an expression but you may say three entities instead. Also this is not the same as the case of Names in Islam as they do not imply entities but imply only different Names of one diety. When you say "and", immediately you are out of this context. Not to mention evidence from the bible to this effect. Like I said before: If you choose to say: Listen, according to the bible we believe in, we are monotheists, although you view us as polytheists. Then I say, fine. You will answer for your beliefs when you stand before God, just like I will answer for myself. As for verses about three Gods, even if we brought them you still will say that is figuratively and so on. So of what benefit would that be?! You will never accept your polytheism just like I will not accept your monotheism as you believe now. Even the Jews who believe in the Torah word for word will not believe you. So what is the point to quote verses?! In our view you are a polytheist. We only speak of how we see you. Just like you speak of how you view us.

[Sunnih]

OK. We'll do away with the Trinity. I don't need that descriptor. But be aware that while the Bible says there is just one God, that the Bible also does call the Father God, the Bible does call the Son God, and the Bible does call the Holy Spirit God.

So, as a Muslim you can just say the Bible is wrong if you want. Fine. Go ahead. But I'm not going to change my belief that Jesus is God. It wasn't Paul who came up with that. It was the disciples who first acknowledged.

If you think that Paul invented it, I guess that just shows how little you know about the Bible. He actually says relatively little about it compared to the rest of the New Testament.

It is true that we can not say that Paul was the first to imply such as the Romans implied that before him too (at least). So we do not say that Paul started the trinity doctrine. As for the bible, again we say it has truth in it and it contains falsehood also. Not what Jesus said, but the lying pen of the scribes. This is what we believe and to this we testify. It is not what you believe but I guess that is why I am a muslim and you are a christian.

[Sunnih]

The truth is that the math stuff is all nonsense either way. "

I completely agree. We do not use maths to prove our beliefs.

[Sunnih]

Greetings all

I would like to ask Muslims in this thread to please humbly acklowledge the fact that Christians believe God to be one.
You can do so, because Christians in this forum have repeatedly told you so (I know, I've been around for a year ...)
GraceSeeker, Keltoi and alapiana1 (sorry, if I forgot anybody! :-[ ) have done a wonderful job in this thread trying to explain the Christian perception of the trinity - and that it still represents one God only.

Repeatedly denying it and arguing against it will not change the truth:
Christians believe that there is only one God. It is a belief shared by all three Abrahamic faiths.

With all due respect, please do not try to tell us what we do or do not believe ...

Peace

Like I said before. We say that Christians say they are monotheists while we view them as polytheists.
When we say that you worship three Gods we say it based upon the Quranic verses so we are speaking of our belief not your belief. Just like you try to tell us that what we believe is wrong we do the same. Well, even the fact that you are telling us not to tell you, is proof against what you say.

[Keltoi]

Like I said before. We say that Christians say they are monotheists while we view them as polytheists.
When we say that you worship three Gods we say it based upon the Quranic verses so we are speaking of our belief not your belief. Just like you try to tell us that what we believe is wrong we do the same. Well, even the fact that you are telling us not to tell you, is proof against what you say.

Then why ask questions? If all you are concerned about is stating your beliefs, why bother posing questions in the first place? If you don't care about the answer, what is the point?

[Sunnih]

Then why ask questions? If all you are concerned about is stating your beliefs, why bother posing questions in the first place? If you don't care about the answer, what is the point?

First let me remind you that the thread we are posting in is: How much Christians know about Bible? What about Muslims?

It is not: Questions about Christianity, answered by Christians.

Second: We (at least me as you are pointing to my words) did not ask the Christians whether they are monotheists or polytheists.

Final: You are doing the same. :D

[Muslim Woman]

I seek refuge in Allah (The One God) from the Satan (devil) the cursed, the rejected

:sl:

On that note, this is an interesting related article;

thanks bro for sharing the link.....very interesting :statisfie


Saint Augustine was a Roman Catholic Bishop who wrote during the third century A.D., explaining the mystery of the Trinity.



It is said that he was troubled by the inexplicability of the concept.


He wrote a book to explain what was the Trinity but the book is more confusing than elucidating.

:omg:


For he fails to explain very pertinent questions such as how a son can be equal to his father

I saw another interesting article written by our revert bro in that site----


The Gospel of John

http://comparativereligion.islamicre...29,117,0,0,1,0

"In the beginning was the word and the word was with God; and the word was God. The same was in the beginning with God; things were made by him, and without him was not anything made that was made."

[John 1:1]


It is alleged that these words were written by a "John", who was a disciple of Prophet Jesus (peace be upon him).

Who was this John?


This article is extracted from the booklet "UBHaqa - The Instrument of Light" by a Former Catholic DAWOOD G. NGWANE who made his transition from Catholicism to Islam in 1995.

[Redeemed]

Like I said before: To you your religion and to me my religion.:thumbs_up

To you, your religion is right, and to me, it is my relationship not religion.

[Redeemed]

As for your assumtions they are wrong indeed and the verse 2:256 is not about what you claim at all.

As for being in this forum for you is like being in an islamic state, then don't you see that your posts are not censured and removed but only debated? What is the point you try to meke?!

As for: "If we say we believe in one true God, you have no right before God, man, Bible or the Qur'an to say otherwise" then I will answer you from the bible:

Mathew 7:21-25

21"Not everyone who says to me, 'Lord, Lord,' will enter the kingdom of heaven, but only he who does the will of my Father who is in heaven. 22Many will say to me on that day, 'Lord, Lord, did we not prophesy in your name, and in your name drive out demons and perform many miracles?' 23Then I will tell them plainly, 'I never knew you. Away from me, you evildoers!'

As I have said before: You should let those who are more knowlegable than you in christianity speak.

You said that the verse I quoted about the Muslim state is not in reference to what I spoke about then what is it speaking of if not respecting non-Muslims. It sounds like you are trying to add insult to injury, but I am not offended, because I know there are Christians that know more than I about the Bible and history maybe even some non-Christians as well. You, however, wouldn't be one of them.

[Keltoi]

First let me remind you that the thread we are posting in is: How much Christians know about Bible? What about Muslims?

It is not: Questions about Christianity, answered by Christians.

Second: We (at least me as you are pointing to my words) did not ask the Christians whether they are monotheists or polytheists.

Final: You are doing the same. :D

I wasn't referring to this thread alone, and to be honest the question was more rhetorical than anything. What turns me off most about this sub-forum, even though I'm addicted to it, is that many seem to feel the need to "prove" another faith wrong. Mainly from Muslims, to be honest about it. I mean, I could go around the forum calling Muslims "disbelievers" and followers of a false prophet, but that isn't in my nature. Plus, it wouldn't accomplish anything but annoying the heck out of people. Of course we are going to disagree, but I have no interest in bad mouthing the Muslim faith, because I am quite secure in my faith.

Just had to rant for a bit. None of this personal to you at all.

[Redeemed]

I will continue to do my best to explain the mystery as I understand it. If you don't understand it as I do, there is no great loss in that. But to say that we worship not one God but three gods is quite simply not true. What is true is that if you still understand it that way, then you simply do not yet understand what we really mean by Trinity. Once you understood what we really meant by it, you might still disagree that such is a true description of God, but you would know with certainty that we do not believe in three gods. Such a thing is just as anathema to us as it is to you.



With regard to some of the points in the article, again I feel there are several misunderstandings as to what we are actually saying we believe, and I would be happy to address them, but let's start yet another Trinity thread if you really seek a response to them. The Trinity is not the topic of this thread, which already has more tangents than a circle.

I did start a thread on the Trinity about a week ago, but I guess it didn't get approved.
Gods speed

[Grace Seeker]

First let me remind you that the thread we are posting in is: How much Christians know about Bible? What about Muslims?

It is not: Questions about Christianity, answered by Christians.

Second: We (at least me as you are pointing to my words) did not ask the Christians whether they are monotheists or polytheists.

Final: You are doing the same. :D

So, since this thread is "How much do Christians/Muslims know about the Bible?", let's discuss these issues based on the Bible. And based on the Bible that we have access to, not the one you think was once written, but cannot produce for anyone to actually see what it teaches, but you may use any extant version of the Bible including variant texts if you so desire.

I will accept that you see Christians as polythiests. It sounds like you are willing to accept that Christians see themselves as monotheists. Now, how does the Bible see Christians? I think we are going to end up with different conclusions still, but let us resolve to base those conclusions on what we find in the present (even if corrupted) Bible, not the Qur'an or Hadith and not later writings by early Church fathers like the folks at Nicea.

[Grace Seeker]

I wasn't referring to this thread alone, and to be honest the question was more rhetorical than anything. What turns me off most about this sub-forum, even though I'm addicted to it, is that many seem to feel the need to "prove" another faith wrong. Mainly from Muslims, to be honest about it. I mean, I could go around the forum calling Muslims "disbelievers" and followers of a false prophet, but that isn't in my nature. Plus, it wouldn't accomplish anything but annoying the heck out of people. Of course we are going to disagree, but I have no interest in bad mouthing the Muslim faith, because I am quite secure in my faith.

Just had to rant for a bit. None of this personal to you at all.

Keltoi, I'm going to put this out there in the public, not to speak against you, but as a reminder to us all and to do a bit of reflection. I do agree that there are those on these forums that seem to have a need to "prove" things to others. But I don't know that this attitude is dominated by one faith more than others. Yes, you and I run into more with Muslims than with Christians, but I think there are several reasons for this.
1) There simply are more Muslims than Christians or any other faith on this forum. No surpirse there. But if even a small percentage of Muslims have this personality, we are going to encounter if more frequently than the same attitude being expressed by Christians just by the sheer force of aggregate numbers.
2) Given that we are Christians, you and I are going to be more sensitive to Muslim comments and more oblivious to similar worded Christians comments.
3) I'm also on a Catholic Forum, and I find that Catholics there try to "prove" things to Protestants. In fact, I get the feeling there that Catholics hate Protestants, even though in real life I have wonderful relationships with a wide variety of Catholics, including all the Catholic priests and nuns in any community in which I have ever lived. So, it may be a function of the internet that produces these types of conversations.
4) Compared to some of the heat I get from my brothers and sisters in Christ on some predominately Christian forums, the "attacks" here are mild. It seems that the closer two people are to thinking similarly, the more important it is to get the "other" into final and complete agreement. Thus we argue over minutia with great passion, and allow glaring differences to pass with cursory politeness.

OK. End of anti-rant. And meant no more personally than the original rant was. :D

[Woodrow]

Arguments about religion do tend to become heated. The very nature of what we are debating is of such high importance to each of us, that we view any difference of opinion as a personal attack against that which we hold and cherish.

As Muslims and Christians we probably have it the most difficult as our beliefs are so similar. It is a simple fact of common knowledge that if either of us can prove to the other that our belief is correct, it is a statement that the other is false.

The biggest problem is we have no common basis of reference for out beliefs. Within Christianity there is a certain degree of validity in stating which denomination is correct as all of the denominations are based upon the same scripture, so it is simply a giving of verification as to what the scriptures say.

While with a debate between coming down to the validity of Islam or Christianity it becomes a question of which "Book" is the true scripture. Since we all place our belief to a very large degree in faith, it is nearly impossible to satisfactorily prove to the other that our individual acceptance of what is the "Word of God(swt) is the true word. In essence when I say that the Qur'an is the truth it is a normal connotation for a Christian to hear that as saying the Bible is false and vice versa. The connotation soon falls into the realm of being heard as a statement of "You are a liar." No body wants to be called a liar so the arguments fall into personal clashes rather than an exchange of facts.

It is very difficult for any of us to keep things on the path of trying to offer proof as to why we are correct, without it sounding like a statement of "You are wrong." We all tend to fall into the final argument of saying, "Prove it" Yet we have no common reference of proof.

Face to face debates are much less heated as often the person we debate with is a close friend or acquaintance. Over the internet we tend to loose sight of the other persons sincerity and any knowledge of the person's "goodness" we become very mechanical and try to place it into the realm of debating with a machine and forgetting, that on the other side of the monitor there is a live person who is probably a very decent, good person.

[Redeemed]

Arguments about religion do tend to become heated. The very nature of what we are debating is of such high importance to each of us, that we view any difference of opinion as a personal attack against that which we hold and cherish.

As Muslims and Christians we probably have it the most difficult as our beliefs are so similar. It is a simple fact of common knowledge that if either of us can prove to the other that our belief is correct, it is a statement that the other is false.

The biggest problem is we have no common basis of reference for out beliefs. Within Christianity there is a certain degree of validity in stating which denomination is correct as all of the denominations are based upon the same scripture, so it is simply a giving of verification as to what the scriptures say.

While with a debate between coming down to the validity of Islam or Christianity it becomes a question of which "Book" is the true scripture. Since we all place our belief to a very large degree in faith, it is nearly impossible to satisfactorily prove to the other that our individual acceptance of what is the "Word of God(swt) is the true word. In essence when I say that the Qur'an is the truth it is a normal connotation for a Christian to hear that as saying the Bible is false and vice versa. The connotation soon falls into the realm of being heard as a statement of "You are a liar." No body wants to be called a liar so the arguments fall into personal clashes rather than an exchange of facts.

It is very difficult for any of us to keep things on the path of trying to offer proof as to why we are correct, without it sounding like a statement of "You are wrong." We all tend to fall into the final argument of saying, "Prove it" Yet we have no common reference of proof.

Face to face debates are much less heated as often the person we debate with is a close friend or acquaintance. Over the internet we tend to loose sight of the other persons sincerity and any knowledge of the person's "goodness" we become very mechanical and try to place it into the realm of debating with a machine and forgetting, that on the other side of the monitor there is a live person who is probably a very decent, good person.

That is true. By the way, I had started a thread a while back on what is the trinity to the the Muslim and and Christian. Do you know what happened to it?

[MustafaMc]

That's a very broad - and unjustified - generalization. It is not true of the majority of either denomination.

You are right. I over generalized from my limited conversations with only a few Catholics and by from being raised a Baptist and becoming a member of the Church of Christ. I do have a limited perspective and, of course, I don't know what is in other people's heart.

[MustafaMc]

OK. Point well taken. We need to use brushes of the same size in both cases.

And except for a very few reactionary type personalities, disputes within Christianity between Orthodox, Protestant, and Catholic are not about who is and isn't going to heaven either. We may have differences on some of what we believe, but we all accept that there is one Lord, Jesus, who is Lord of and over all of us.

I think the following would be afrirmed by all Christians regardless of denominational background: a music video "Creed (Credo)" by Rich Mullins.

That was a nice video to explain the Christian set of beliefs. In contrast though we believe that Allah is Lord of the universe and Master of the Day of Judgement.

[Sunnih]

To you, your religion is right, and to me, it is my relationship not religion.

Whatever you might call it.:thumbs_up

[Sunnih]

You said that the verse I quoted about the Muslim state is not in reference to what I spoke about then what is it speaking of if not respecting non-Muslims. It sounds like you are trying to add insult to injury, but I am not offended, because I know there are Christians that know more than I about the Bible and history maybe even some non-Christians as well. You, however, wouldn't be one of them.

Whatever.

[Sunnih]

I wasn't referring to this thread alone, and to be honest the question was more rhetorical than anything. What turns me off most about this sub-forum, even though I'm addicted to it, is that many seem to feel the need to "prove" another faith wrong. Mainly from Muslims, to be honest about it. I mean, I could go around the forum calling Muslims "disbelievers" and followers of a false prophet, but that isn't in my nature. Plus, it wouldn't accomplish anything but annoying the heck out of people. Of course we are going to disagree, but I have no interest in bad mouthing the Muslim faith, because I am quite secure in my faith.

Just had to rant for a bit. None of this personal to you at all.

We do not need to prove our faith to no one. We only state our beliefs just like you state yours. That's all.

[MustafaMc]

Then you must also think that we worship a different God than do you. And I do not just mean those you call partners (Jesus and the Holy Spirit), based on what you said, even our understanding of God the Father is different than your understanding of Allah.

Yes, I would have to agree with you. To deviate from believing in the One God without father, mother, son, daughter, partner, or equal is to believe in a different God. We in no respect attribute divinity to Jesus. If you retranslated the term Father into Lord and left off the Jesus and the Holy Ghost part, then we would be seeing eye-to-eye. To say Father implies having offspring which all Muslims staunchly deny!

[Sunnih]

So, since this thread is "How much do Christians/Muslims know about the Bible?", let's discuss these issues based on the Bible. And based on the Bible that we have access to, not the one you think was once written, but cannot produce for anyone to actually see what it teaches, but you may use any extant version of the Bible including variant texts if you so desire.

I will accept that you see Christians as polythiests. It sounds like you are willing to accept that Christians see themselves as monotheists. Now, how does the Bible see Christians? I think we are going to end up with different conclusions still, but let us resolve to base those conclusions on what we find in the present (even if corrupted) Bible, not the Qur'an or Hadith and not later writings by early Church fathers like the folks at Nicea.

As for my quotations from the bible: You have seen that I quote only from the sources you accept and not from some obscure books. All my quotations are in the bible that you read. However this is not the point.

Yes I do accept that Christians consider themselves as monotheists and all muslims accept that. What we do not agree is what you uphold as monotheism. Just like you say, we will bring verses from the bible (any version you choose) and still disagree as to the meaning of such verses. So I think that such discussion would not come to an end.

[Sunnih]

Keltoi, I'm going to put this out there in the public, not to speak against you, but as a reminder to us all and to do a bit of reflection. I do agree that there are those on these forums that seem to have a need to "prove" things to others. But I don't know that this attitude is dominated by one faith more than others. Yes, you and I run into more with Muslims than with Christians, but I think there are several reasons for this.
1) There simply are more Muslims than Christians or any other faith on this forum. No surpirse there. But if even a small percentage of Muslims have this personality, we are going to encounter if more frequently than the same attitude being expressed by Christians just by the sheer force of aggregate numbers.
2) Given that we are Christians, you and I are going to be more sensitive to Muslim comments and more oblivious to similar worded Christians comments.
3) I'm also on a Catholic Forum, and I find that Catholics there try to "prove" things to Protestants. In fact, I get the feeling there that Catholics hate Protestants, even though in real life I have wonderful relationships with a wide variety of Catholics, including all the Catholic priests and nuns in any community in which I have ever lived. So, it may be a function of the internet that produces these types of conversations.
4) Compared to some of the heat I get from my brothers and sisters in Christ on some predominately Christian forums, the "attacks" here are mild. It seems that the closer two people are to thinking similarly, the more important it is to get the "other" into final and complete agreement. Thus we argue of minutia with great passion, and allow glaring differences to pass with cursory politeness.

OK. End of anti-rant. And meant no more personally than the original rant was. :D

I agree with your coments and wish to add that any member of a religion or way of thinking for that matter, will stick firmly to his/her beliefs and will speak from that position. It might seem to the others that he/she is trying to prove his/her beliefs or that he/she is right and so on but in fact it is only affirmation of one's beliefs. This will also be found within the same religion no exeption to any.

[MustafaMc]

Maybe this will help clarify it. We really don't need your advice about what we Christians believe. We don't tell you what you believe. We accept what you tell us you believe. Being on this Islamic forum for us non-Muslims (Christians) is like being in a Muslim state. Are you not going against the Qur'an by dishonoring us non-Muslims? You may ask how? Polytheism is idolatry and an abomination to God and Christian alike. If we say we believe in one true God, you have no right before God, man, Bible or the Qur'an to say otherwise. It is written, Judge not lest you be judged. Allah himself will judge and be against any Muslim who disrespects a non- Muslim in a Muslim state. Qur’an, 2:256. I find it disrespectful and dishonoring to keep coming against what we say we believe about God being ONE. You can believe that the Bible teaches there are three Gods, but you can’t tell us what we believe about God without being very disrespectful and very accountable to God for your words. :enough!:

If you will remember, we get what we say about Christian theology from the Quran which we accept as the inerrant Word of Allah. Therefore, we are in no way disrespecting or dishonoring you. We are trying to show you the errors of Christian belief and to show you the Truth of the Oneness of Allah.

[Sunnih]

Arguments about religion do tend to become heated. The very nature of what we are debating is of such high importance to each of us, that we view any difference of opinion as a personal attack against that which we hold and cherish.

As Muslims and Christians we probably have it the most difficult as our beliefs are so similar. It is a simple fact of common knowledge that if either of us can prove to the other that our belief is correct, it is a statement that the other is false.

The biggest problem is we have no common basis of reference for out beliefs. Within Christianity there is a certain degree of validity in stating which denomination is correct as all of the denominations are based upon the same scripture, so it is simply a giving of verification as to what the scriptures say.

While with a debate between coming down to the validity of Islam or Christianity it becomes a question of which "Book" is the true scripture. Since we all place our belief to a very large degree in faith, it is nearly impossible to satisfactorily prove to the other that our individual acceptance of what is the "Word of God(swt) is the true word. In essence when I say that the Qur'an is the truth it is a normal connotation for a Christian to hear that as saying the Bible is false and vice versa. The connotation soon falls into the realm of being heard as a statement of "You are a liar." No body wants to be called a liar so the arguments fall into personal clashes rather than an exchange of facts.

It is very difficult for any of us to keep things on the path of trying to offer proof as to why we are correct, without it sounding like a statement of "You are wrong." We all tend to fall into the final argument of saying, "Prove it" Yet we have no common reference of proof.

Face to face debates are much less heated as often the person we debate with is a close friend or acquaintance. Over the internet we tend to loose sight of the other persons sincerity and any knowledge of the person's "goodness" we become very mechanical and try to place it into the realm of debating with a machine and forgetting, that on the other side of the monitor there is a live person who is probably a very decent, good person.

Well said.

[MustafaMc]

Is that what those others you call polytheists say? Or do they actually say that they do have more than one God? Maybe I haven't listened to Hindu descriptions of God well enough. I haven't heard them say that there is only one God.

Of course, I found 99 names for God in the Qur'an, maybe you aren't really a monotheist either. Who are all those other gods besides Allah?

You clearly misunderstand. These 99 names or attributes of Allah are not 99 different Gods. These attributes are in the Quran whereby we will have some knowledge of Who it is that we worship. I have copied this list from an earlier post that I forgot to document.

ALLAH (The Name Of God)
الله

الذى لا اله الا هو

AR-RAHMAN (The Beneficent)
الرحمن

AR-RAHIM (The Mercifull)
الرحيم

AL-MALIK (The Sovereign Lord)
الملك


AL-QUDDUS (The Holy)

القدوس

AS-SALAM (The Source Of Peace)
السلام

AL-MU'MIN (The Guardian Of Faith)
المؤمن

AL-MUHAYMIN (The Protector)
المهيمن

AL-AZIZ (The Mighty)

العزيز



AL-JABBAR (The Compeller)

الجبار


AL-MUTAKABBIR (The Majestic)

المتكبر

AL-KHALIQ (The Creator)
الخالق

AL-BARI (The Evolver)
البارىء


AL-MUSAWWIR (The Fashioner)

المصور


AL-GHAFFAR (The Forgiver)

الغفار


AL-QAHHAR (The Subduer)

القهار


AL-WAHHAB (The Bestover)
الوهاب

AR-RAZZAQ (The Provider)
الرزاق

AL-FATTAH (The Opner)
الفتاح

AL-ALIM (The All Knowning)
العليم

AL-QABID(The Constrictor)
القابض

AL-BASIT (The Expender)
الباسط

AL-KHAFID (The Abaser)
الخافض

AR-RAFI (The Exalter)
الرافع

AL-MUIZZ (The Honourer)
المعز

AL-MUZILL (The Dishonourer)
المذل

AS-SAMIE (The All Hearing)
السميع

AL-BASIR (The All Seeing)
البصير

AL-HAKAM (The Judge)
الحكم

AL-ADL (The Just)
العدل

AL-LATIF (The Subtle One)
اللطيف

AL-KHABIR (The Aware)
الخبير

AL-HALIM (The Forbearing One)
الحليم

AL-AZIM (The Great One)
العظيم


AL-GHAFUR (The All-Forgiving)
الغفور

ASH-SHAKUR (The Appreciative)
الشكور

AL-ALI (The Most High)
العلى

AL-KABIR (The Most Great)
الكبير

AL-HAFIZ (The Preserver)
الحفيظ

AL-MUQIT (The Maintainer)

المقيت


AL-HASEEB (The Reckoner)

الحسيب


AL-JALIL (The Sublime One)

الجليل


AL-KARIM (The Generous One)

الكريم


AR-RAQIB (The Watchfull)
الرقيب

AL-MUJIB (The Responsive)

المجيب


AL-WASI (The All-Embracing)

الواسع


AL-HAKEEM (The Wise)

الحكيم


AL-WADUD (The Loving)

الودوود


AL-MAJEED (The Most Glorious One)
المجيد

AL-BA'ITH (The Resurrector)
الباعث

ASH-SHAHEED (The Witness)

الشهيد


AL-HAQQ (The Truth)
الحق

AL-WAKIL (The Trustee)

الوكيل


AL-QAWI (The Most Strong)
القوى

AL-MATEEN (The Firm One)

المتين


AL-WALI (The Protecting Friend)
الولى

AL-HAMEED (The Praiseworthy)
الحميد

AL-MUHSI (The Reckoner)

المحصى


AL-MUBDI (The Originator)

المبدىء


AL-MU'ID (The Restorer)

المعيد


AL-MUHYI (The Giver Of Life)
المحى

AL-MUMIT (The Creator Of Death)
المميت

AL-HAYEE (The Alive)
الحى

AL-QAYYUM (The Self-subsisting)
القيوم

AL-WAJID (The Finder)
الواجد


AL-MAJID (The Noble)

الماجد


AL-WAHID (The Unique)
الواحد

AL-SAMAD (The Eternal)

الصمد


AL-QADIR (The Able)

القادر


AL-MUQTADIR (The Powerful)
المقتدر

AL-MUQADDIM (The Expediter)
المقدم


AL-MU'AKHKHIR (The Delayer)
المؤخر

AL-AWWAL (The First)
الأول

AL-AAKHIR (The Last)
الآخر

AZ-ZAHIR (The Manifest)
الظاهر

AL-BATIN (The Hiddeen)
الباطن

AL-WALI (The Governor)
الوالى

AL-MUTA'ALI (The Most Exalted)
المتعالى

AL-BARR (The Source Of All Goodness)
البر

AL-TAWWAB (The Acceptor Of Repentance)
التواب

AL-MUNTAQIM (The Avenger)
المنتقم

AL-'AFUW (The Pardoner)
العفو

AR-RAOOF (The Compassionate)
الرؤوف

MALIK-UL-MULK (The Eternal Owner Of Sovereignty)
مالك الملك


ZUL-JALAL-E-WAL-IKRAM (The Lord Of Majesty and Bounty)
ذوالجلال والاكرام

AL-MUQSIT (The Equitable)
المقسط

AL-JAAMAY (The Gatherer)
الجامع

AL-GHANI (The Self-Sufficient)
الغنى

AL-MUGHNI (The Enricher)
المغنى

AL-MAANAY (The Preventer)
المانع

AD_DAARR (The Distresser)
الضار

AN-NAAFAY (The Propitious)
النافع

AN-NOOR (The Light)
النور

AL-HAADI (The Guide)
الهادى

AL-BADI (The Incomparable)
البديع

AL-BAQI (The Everlasting)
الباقى

AL-WARIS (The Supreme Inheritor)
الوارث

AR-RASHEED (The Guide To The Right Path)
الرشيد

AS-SABOOR (The Patient)
الصبور

[Grace Seeker]

Yes, I would have to agree with you. To deviate from believing in the One God without father, mother, son, daughter, partner, or equal is to believe in a different God. We in no respect attribute divinity to Jesus. If you retranslated the term Father into Lord and left off the Jesus and the Holy Ghost part, then we would be seeing eye-to-eye. To say Father implies having offspring which all Muslims staunchly deny!

Given your pre-Islamic faith, I would hope you can see the humor in your suggestion. Christians do use the word "Lord", but most frequently we use it with regard to Jesus. I have a feeling that a Muslim would have a hard time seeing eye-to-eye with a faith that would equate a divine/human being with Allah. (Though that is exactly what we do do and why the two faiths are incompatible.)

[MustafaMc]

OK. We'll do away with the Trinity. I don't need that descriptor. But be aware that while the Bible says there is just one God, that the Bible also does call the Father God, the Bible does call the Son God, and the Bible does call the Holy Spirit God.

So, as a Muslim you can just say the Bible is wrong if you want. Fine. Go ahead. But I'm not going to change my belief that Jesus is God. It wasn't Paul who came up with that. It was the disciples who first acknowledged.

If you think that Paul invented it, I guess that just shows how little you know about the Bible. He actually says relatively little about it compared to the rest of the New Testament.

Here we clearly differ to the nth degree. We Muslims in no manner, shape or form attribute divinity to Jesus or to any other human.

[MustafaMc]

Given your pre-Islamic faith, I would hope you can see the humor in your suggestion. Christians do use the word "Lord", but most frequently we use it with regard to Jesus. I have a feeling that a Muslim would have a hard time seeing eye-to-eye with a faith that would equate a divine/human being with Allah. (Though that is exactly what we do do and why the two faiths are incompatible.)

I see no humor in what I wrote. When I was a Christian, my faith was in Jesus and his death on the cross. Now my faith is simply in the One God without the Christian baggage of Son and Holy Spirit. In this sense, I believe that the One that Jesus prayed to in the Garden of Gethsemane is in fact Allah!

There is only one Lord according to Islam - Quran 1:2 Allah All praise is for Allah, the 'Rabb' (Lord) of the Worlds.
.

[Grace Seeker]

You clearly misunderstand. These 99 names or attributes of Allah are not 99 different Gods. These attributes are in the Quran whereby we will have some knowledge of Who it is that we worship.

No, you misunderstand the tongue-in-cheek nature of my previous post. I DO know that the 99 names are not different God, but many attributes of the one God. My point was that in ascribing Fatherhood, Sonship, and the character of the Spirit to God we Christians are doing much the same thing. We have not 99 different names for God, we have 3 because we have encountered God in these three different ways. Now, yes, it does get a bit more involved than that, but the essence of where the concept of the Trinity comes is more similar to your own views than you might realize.

[Muslim Woman]

Salaam/peace;

... We have not 99 different names for God, we have 3 .

do Christians call holy spirit as begotten son of God ? To my knowledge , NO. Do Chrisitans Call Jesus (p) as Father ? Again ans is No.

So , it's clear that Christians have different names for different dieties ( as God is only one , i want to use the word dieties ....i guess , it's ok ? )

[Grace Seeker]

Salaam/peace;




do Christians call holy spirit as begotten son of God ? To my knowledge , NO. Do Chrisitans Call Jesus (p) as Father ? Again ans is No.

So , it's clear that Christians have different names for different dieties ( as God is only one , i want to use the word dieties ....i guess , it's ok ? )

The word dieties is a perfectly accetable word. But the various persons you speak of all are one and the same diety (singular).

[MustafaMc]

No, you misunderstand the tongue-in-cheek nature of my previous post. I DO know that the 99 names are not different God, but many attributes of the one God. My point was that in ascribing Fatherhood, Sonship, and the character of the Spirit to God we Christians are doing much the same thing. We have not 99 different names for God, we have 3 because we have encountered God in these three different ways. Now, yes, it does get a bit more involved than that, but the essence of where the concept of the Trinity comes is more similar to your own views than you might realize.

I understand your point, but at no point has the Merciful ever prayed to the Holy and neither does the Majestic sit beside the Forgiver. When has the Great One descended in the form of a dove, lighting upon shoulder or head of the Judge?

I hope that you see the distinction that I am making between the Muslim and Christian point of view.

[Grace Seeker]

I understand your point, but at no point has the Merciful ever prayed to the Holy and neither does the Majestic sit beside the Forgiver. When has the Great One descended in the form of a dove, lighting upon shoulder or head of the Judge?

I hope that you see the distinction that I am making between the Muslim and Christian point of view.

Yes, which is one of the reasons I did not say that they concepts are identical.

[Muslim Woman]

Salaam/ peace;

But the various persons you speak of all are one and the same diety (singular).

ummm , confusing :blind:

so , holy Spirit is begotten son of God ?

[Grace Seeker]

Salaam/ peace;



ummm , confusing :blind:

so , holy Spirit is begotten son of God ?

No, the Holy Spirit proceeds from the Father and the Son. But now I am using technical terms. Even the concept of "begotten" as we think of it with respect to human "begottenness" is not appropriate for God. God the Son was not begotten in the same way that human sons are begotten.

But again, even in saying that we are not talking about three separate beings. It is just one being. The Holy Spirit has always, from before the beginning, existed as God.

Here, this will either help a bit, or make things incredibly more confusing:
When most humans think of a Father and Son, they think of it from the human persective. A person is born, grows to a certain age and then becomes a father or a son. So, we tend to think of the father as being before the son.

But look again. When does this individual become a Father? Not until the moment that the person has a Son (or daughter). So Fatherhood is actually dependent on Sonship.

Now, we in the Church (not Islam) talk about the eternal Fatherhood of God. That is that God has always been a Father, since, again, before the beginnig of time. What I mean before the beginnig of time, is that there was not a time when God was not. But if God is also the eternal Father, then that means that there was not a time when God was not a Father. And for that to be true, then it follows that there is also not a time in which there was not the Son, for God could not be a Father absence the presence of the Son. The are co-eternal together. And just as God has always been both Father and Son, so God has always been Spirit. This is who God is. One being who has always been all of this and all at the same time (or before time).

[MustafaMc]

Yes, which is one of the reasons I did not say that they concepts are identical.

Yes, and this difference clearly points out the reason why Muslims view Christians as polytheistic in their belief about God.

BTW I believe that the list of Names was originally posted by Muslim Woman.

[Keltoi]

Keltoi, I'm going to put this out there in the public, not to speak against you, but as a reminder to us all and to do a bit of reflection. I do agree that there are those on these forums that seem to have a need to "prove" things to others. But I don't know that this attitude is dominated by one faith more than others. Yes, you and I run into more with Muslims than with Christians, but I think there are several reasons for this.
1) There simply are more Muslims than Christians or any other faith on this forum. No surpirse there. But if even a small percentage of Muslims have this personality, we are going to encounter if more frequently than the same attitude being expressed by Christians just by the sheer force of aggregate numbers.
2) Given that we are Christians, you and I are going to be more sensitive to Muslim comments and more oblivious to similar worded Christians comments.
3) I'm also on a Catholic Forum, and I find that Catholics there try to "prove" things to Protestants. In fact, I get the feeling there that Catholics hate Protestants, even though in real life I have wonderful relationships with a wide variety of Catholics, including all the Catholic priests and nuns in any community in which I have ever lived. So, it may be a function of the internet that produces these types of conversations.
4) Compared to some of the heat I get from my brothers and sisters in Christ on some predominately Christian forums, the "attacks" here are mild. It seems that the closer two people are to thinking similarly, the more important it is to get the "other" into final and complete agreement. Thus we argue over minutia with great passion, and allow glaring differences to pass with cursory politeness.

OK. End of anti-rant. And meant no more personally than the original rant was. :D

I agree with you. I think I was becoming slightly annoyed. It would have been better just to leave the forum for awhile and come back with a smile. Sometimes rants are good for mental health..:D

I realize we are in a Muslim forum. I don't expect Muslims to accept the Christian faith or agree on the nature of God as Christians see Him. I'm sure when Muslims visit a Christian forum they too feel fairly uncomfortable with the way their faith is characterized there.

[Woodrow]

I agree with you. I think I was becoming slightly annoyed. It would have been better just to leave the forum for awhile and come back with a smile. Sometimes rants are good for mental health..:D

I realize we are in a Muslim forum. I don't expect Muslims to accept the Christian faith or agree on the nature of God as Christians see Him. I'm sure when Muslims visit a Christian forum they too feel fairly uncomfortable with the way their faith is characterized there.

Thanks for the reminder. We do have a tendancy to forget that non-Muslims do not share all of our beliefs. We do need to be more aware that you and other members may be made uncomfortable by some of the things we say. I know I have a very difficult time when I try to find information about Christian Beliefs on Christian sites.

[Balthasar21]

Thanks for the reminder. We do have a tendancy to forget that non-Muslims do not share all of our beliefs. We do need to be more aware that you and other members may be made uncomfortable by some of the things we say. I know I have a very difficult time when I try to find information about Christian Beliefs on Christian sites.

Just buy yourself a bible then your able to say this verse say this or that . same goes for christian . Its call leting the scriptures speak for The Most Hight , Because Man / Woman always trying to add their words to the scriptures , They learn this trick from their teacher .

[Muslim Woman]

Salaam/peace;

.... I'm sure when Muslims visit a Christian forum they too feel fairly uncomfortable with the way their faith is characterized there.

well , to by annoyed , we don't have to go any non-Muslim sites . Staying here is enough :enough!:


......specially in Q & A threads ....debate is not allowed there ..... few ( fortunately they are few ) non-Muslims freely bash Islam & the last Prophet (p) there .


Once i was soooooooo sad & annyoed that i almost thought of leaving this forum.


Surely u don't expect that u can do any publicity of ur religion here ; but as a Muslim at least i can expect that no one should be allowed here to mock Islam ; but that's not the case here always.

So , before u get upset next time , try to understand my/ our pain :cry:

take care.

[Keltoi]

Salaam/peace;







well , to by annoyed , we don't have to go any non-Muslim sites . Staying here is enough :enough!:


......specially in Q & A threads ....debate is not allowed there ..... few ( fortunately they are few ) non-Muslims freely bash Islam & the last Prophet (p) there .


Once i was soooooooo sad & annyoed that i almost thought of leaving this forum.


Surely u don't expect that u can do any publicity of ur religion here ; but as a Muslim at least i can expect that no one should be allowed here to mock Islam ; but that's not the case here always.

So , before u get upset next time , try to understand my/ our pain :cry:

take care.

The intention of the majority of Christians on this forum, and I'm referring to the long-time members, is not to attack Islam. I think that should be fairly evident. I respect Islam and Muslims a great deal. I believe Muslims worship the same God that I do. Why would I attack someone whom I believe to worship the same God as me? Obviously we are going to disagree on doctrine and other matters, but we don't have to be disagreeable. I'm slightly at a loss as to why you feel Islam is being attacked by non-Muslims on this forum....especially the Christian members.

[Grace Seeker]

The intention of the majority of Christians on this forum, and I'm referring to the long-time members, is not to attack Islam. I think that should be fairly evident. I respect Islam and Muslims a great deal. I believe Muslims worship the same God that I do. Why would I attack someone whom I believe to worship the same God as me? Obviously we are going to disagree on doctrine and other matters, but we don't have to be disagreeable. I'm slightly at a loss as to why you feel Islam is being attacked by non-Muslims on this forum....especially the Christian members.

Ditto.


Seriously, do you find me attacking Islam? I can't say that I agree with it when I don't. But I don't think I go around slamming it either. Indeed, I am offended by nonsense and illogical arguments whether presented by Muslims or Christians. And to me it appears that there are both reasoned and unreasoned arguments presented by people of all faiths. But the faith of Islam itself, I don't find offensive at all, and would hope you don't read that behind my posts.

[Redeemed]

Whatever you might call it.:thumbs_up

Why should I belive what the Qur'an says about Jesus when it has been written without eye witnesses of what Jesus said and did? We have the Bible and in it there are witnesses who have been with Jesus. I think under the circumstances, I am better off being a Christian, because the Bible is all the truth I know. According to the Qur'an, Allah may deceide to have Mercy on me for living a holy life, but according to the Bible, there is no salvation outside of confessing Jesus as :statisfie Lord.

[MustafaMc]

Why should I belive what the Qur'an says about Jesus when it has been written without eye witnesses of what Jesus said and did? We have the Bible and in it there are witnesses who have been with Jesus. I think under the circumstances, I am better off being a Christian, because the Bible is all the truth I know. According to the Qur'an, Allah may deceide to have Mercy on me for living a holy life, but according to the Bible, there is no salvation outside of confessing Jesus as :statisfie Lord.

Not quite as simple as that. Allah may (I believe will) punish you for saying Jesus is God and Son of God. That is according to my understanding of the Quran that I hold as the Word of Allah.

[Philosopher]

http://bs4a.blogspot.com/

[Redeemed]

Not quite as simple as that. Allah may (I believe will) punish you for saying Jesus is God and Son of God. That is according to my understanding of the Quran that I hold as the Word of Allah.

Yes, I understand and I can't even tell you that I'll take my chances, because there are no chances about it. I trust that the Holy Spirit will lead me into all truth. By the way, you didn't answer the question. :D

[Redeemed]

Salaam/peace;







well , to by annoyed , we don't have to go any non-Muslim sites . Staying here is enough :enough!:


......specially in Q & A threads ....debate is not allowed there ..... few ( fortunately they are few ) non-Muslims freely bash Islam & the last Prophet (p) there .


Once i was soooooooo sad & annyoed that i almost thought of leaving this forum.


Surely u don't expect that u can do any publicity of ur religion here ; but as a Muslim at least i can expect that no one should be allowed here to mock Islam ; but that's not the case here always.

So , before u get upset next time , try to understand my/ our pain :cry:

take care.

I haven't seen any Christians mocking Muslims on this forum, but I wish I could say the same the other way around.:omg:

[Grace Seeker]

I haven't seen any Christians mocking Muslims on this forum, but I wish I could say the same the other way around.:omg:

Then you just haven't seen it. I've seen it both ways.

[Woodrow]

Then you just haven't seen it. I've seen it both ways.

It does happen in both directions. However, I feel that in spite of our differences, they is a lot of mutual respect for all people and most of the time most of us really do try to keep our disagreements directed to the topic and not to a person.

[MustafaMc]

Why should I belive what the Qur'an says about Jesus when it has been written without eye witnesses of what Jesus said and did?

The issue is eye witness accounts vs. revelation from God - which would you trust?

Who was the eye witness for Jesus' temptation during his 40 day fast?

Who witnessed Jesus' trial before the Sanhedrin and Pilate?

[Redeemed]

Then you just haven't seen it. I've seen it both ways.

Well, if that is the case, I apologize on their behalf, and whoever they be, they will surely be accountable to G-d for doing that.:-[

[Philosopher]

Well, if that is the case, I apologize on their behalf, and whoever they be, they will surely be accountable to G-d for doing that.:-[

LMAO. Richard Dawkins was right....religion IS a virus of the mind :exhausted

[Redeemed]

Not quite as simple as that. Allah may (I believe will) punish you for saying Jesus is God and Son of God. That is according to my understanding of the Quran that I hold as the Word of Allah.

My question was about the eye witnesses of Jesus. You know I still think I am better off as I stand, because You are going by hear say on what Jesus said and did, but I am going by eye witnesses; moreover, you are going to be judge by your works as a Muslim, and I am not, because I cannot control what I believe, but I can control with God's help what I do. I am doing the spiritual math here: You will be judge by works, and I won't. My works might be just as good as yours. That is why you don't know if on the last day Allah will accept you. I know already, because Jesus has me covered with God. It is like we are going into a court room being guilty in front of the judge, but the difference between us is you are representing yourself, and I have the best advocate in the universe. We will see each other, if not in this life, on the judgment day, and then we won't need to have these forum discussion anymore, because it will be too late.
:phew

[Trumble]

Sorry.. despite responding to a post in this thread have moved it to the 'Trinity' thread, where it is more appropriate.

[Grace Seeker]

The issue is eye witness accounts vs. revelation from God - which would you trust?

Who was the eye witness for Jesus' temptation during his 40 day fast?

Who witnessed Jesus' trial before the Sanhedrin and Pilate?

If I had received the revelation, then I would trust the revelation from God. But what you are asking me to trust is Muhammad's (pbuh) word that he received a revelation from God. And I am asking you to trust Jesus' companions that these are the things they actually witnessed Jesus say and do and insights into his nature, character, and history which he revealed to them.

[MustafaMc]

If I had received the revelation, then I would trust the revelation from God. But what you are asking me to trust is Muhammad's (pbuh) word that he received a revelation from God. And I am asking you to trust Jesus' companions that these are the things they actually witnessed Jesus say and do and insights into his nature, character, and history which he revealed to them.

So are you saying that one or more disciples witnessed Jesus' temptation and trial?

[Muslim Woman]

Salaam/peace;

....you don't know if on the last day Allah will accept you. I know already, because Jesus has me covered with God.

do u believe ALL Chrisitians have reserved seats in heaven ? Pl. show me verse where Bible says so ?

[Muslim Woman]

Salaam/peace;

... I'm slightly at a loss as to why you feel Islam is being attacked by non-Muslims on this forum....especially the Christian members.

I did not say that ----especially the Christian members. :) :statisfie



I normally avoid those participants ---does not matter how interesting the thread is .

Religious discussion is a sensitive issue ...so , sometimes it hurts & i guess , it's better if we sometimes take a little break from the forum & come back with a fresh head & mind :D

[MustafaMc]

If I had received the revelation, then I would trust the revelation from God. But what you are asking me to trust is Muhammad's (pbuh) word that he received a revelation from God. And I am asking you to trust Jesus' companions that these are the things they actually witnessed Jesus say and do and insights into his nature, character, and history which he revealed to them.

"Revelations" after Jesus' accenssion that are put on equal footing with what Muslims claim regarding the Quran.

Revelation claimed by Paul:

Galations 1:12 For neither did I receive it from man, nor was I taught it, but [it came to me] through revelation of Jesus Christ.

Galations 1:15-16 But when it was the good pleasure of God, who separated me, [even] from my mother's womb, and called me through his grace, to reveal his Son in me, that I might preach him among the Gentiles; straightway I conferred not with flesh and blood:

Ephesians 3:1-5 For this cause I Paul, the prisoner of Christ Jesus in behalf of you Gentiles,--if so be that ye have heard of the dispensation of that grace of God which was given me to you-ward; how that by revelation was made known unto me the mystery, as I wrote before in few words, whereby, when ye read, ye can perceive my understanding in the mystery of Christ; which in other generation was not made known unto the sons of men, as it hath now been revealed unto his holy apostles and prophets in the Spirit;

Revelation claimed by John:

Revelations 1:1-2 The Revelation of Jesus Christ, which God gave him to show unto his servants, [even] the things which must shortly come to pass: and he sent and signified [it] by his angel unto his servant John; who bare witness of the word of God, and of the testimony of Jesus Christ, [even] of all things that he saw.

Sorry, GraceSeeker, but I do not accept Paul or John as one of "his holy apostles and prophets" nor these writings as legitimate Divine Revelations. My choice is to believe Muhammad (pbuh) and to accept him as the last Messenger of the One God, Who has no father, mother, sons, daughters, or equal. I believe that the Quran is the inerrant Word of Allah.

[Redeemed]

Salaam/peace;





do u believe ALL Chrisitians have reserved seats in heaven ? Pl. show me verse where Bible says so ?

Hi Muslim Woman:
Yes, the Bible is replete with assurance; for instance, John 6:40 Jesus said, "And this is the will of him that sent me, that every one which seeth the Son, and believeth on him, may have everlasting life: and I will raise him up at the last day." It is also witten in 1 John "These thing I write unto to you that you might know that you have eternal life and that life is in His Son." I hope this helps.
Sincerely

[Woodrow]

Hi Muslim Woman:
Yes, the Bible is replete with assurance; for instance, John 6:40 Jesus said, "And this is the will of him that sent me, that every one which seeth the Son, and believeth on him, may have everlasting life: and I will raise him up at the last day." It is also witten in 1 John "These thing I write unto to you that you might know that you have eternal life and that life is in His Son." I hope this helps.
Sincerely

I believe that both us Muslims and Christians are assured that we do have eternal life. I do not think that is much of a question as a given fact. The question is do we spend it in Heaven or Hell fire. Neither of those verses quoted above state positvely that the eternal life will be spent in Heaven, they just verify we all will be faced with eternal life.

[ummzayd]

Hi Muslim Woman:
Yes, the Bible is replete with assurance; for instance, John 6:40 Jesus said, "And this is the will of him that sent me, that every one which seeth the Son, and believeth on him, may have everlasting life: and I will raise him up at the last day." It is also witten in 1 John "These thing I write unto to you that you might know that you have eternal life and that life is in His Son." I hope this helps.
Sincerely

hmmm.....do you include catholics & Jehovah's Witnesses in that?

[Philosopher]

www.bs4a.blogspot.com

[Redeemed]

I believe that both us Muslims and Christians are assured that we do have eternal life. I do not think that is much of a question as a given fact. The question is do we spend it in Heaven or Hell fire. Neither of those verses quoted above state positvely that the eternal life will be spent in Heaven, they just verify we all will be faced with eternal life.

I understand your point. However, every time Jesus mentions eternal life it is in reference to heaven. He refers to the other as death, lake of fire everlasting judgment terms such as these, where the fire is not quench and worm dies not. He said apart from me you can do nothing not even live a good life. He said, "I am the vine you are the branches" the branch dies if not part of the vine.

[Sunnih]

Why should I belive what the Qur'an says about Jesus when it has been written without eye witnesses of what Jesus said and did? We have the Bible and in it there are witnesses who have been with Jesus. I think under the circumstances, I am better off being a Christian, because the Bible is all the truth I know. According to the Qur'an, Allah may deceide to have Mercy on me for living a holy life, but according to the Bible, there is no salvation outside of confessing Jesus as :statisfie Lord.

Again this is because your limited knowledge on islam. However I will not go into discussing this topic you have raised in detail or in part either. You can keep your beliefs and I will keep my beliefs. In the end we will see who is the victorious one.:statisfie

[Sunnih]

If I had received the revelation, then I would trust the revelation from God. But what you are asking me to trust is Muhammad's (pbuh) word that he received a revelation from God. And I am asking you to trust Jesus' companions that these are the things they actually witnessed Jesus say and do and insights into his nature, character, and history which he revealed to them.

But how should we understand when from one revision to another of the same bible (king James let's say) we find that what was Jesus' word before is not his word in the other and some time the whole verse/s dessapear?

[Grace Seeker]

So are you saying that one or more disciples witnessed Jesus' temptation and trial?

No. I am not saying that. Jesus' experience in the desert being tempted by Satan, his prayer to the Father in the Garden of Gethsemane, these (and others) would be among the things I was including in the last part of my statement: "and insights into his nature, character, and history which he [i.e. Jesus] revealed to them." The time between Jesus resurrection and his ascension seems to have been a time when Jesus filled his disciples in on many things that they did not fully understand (and perhaps were not able to fully receive) before it.

"Revelations" after Jesus' accenssion that are put on equal footing with what Muslims claim regarding the Quran.

Revelation claimed by Paul:

Galations 1:12 For neither did I receive it from man, nor was I taught it, but [it came to me] through revelation of Jesus Christ.

Galations 1:15-16 But when it was the good pleasure of God, who separated me, [even] from my mother's womb, and called me through his grace, to reveal his Son in me, that I might preach him among the Gentiles; straightway I conferred not with flesh and blood:

Ephesians 3:1-5 For this cause I Paul, the prisoner of Christ Jesus in behalf of you Gentiles,--if so be that ye have heard of the dispensation of that grace of God which was given me to you-ward; how that by revelation was made known unto me the mystery, as I wrote before in few words, whereby, when ye read, ye can perceive my understanding in the mystery of Christ; which in other generation was not made known unto the sons of men, as it hath now been revealed unto his holy apostles and prophets in the Spirit;

Revelation claimed by John:

Revelations 1:1-2 The Revelation of Jesus Christ, which God gave him to show unto his servants, [even] the things which must shortly come to pass: and he sent and signified [it] by his angel unto his servant John; who bare witness of the word of God, and of the testimony of Jesus Christ, [even] of all things that he saw.

I have no argument with you on that point. I almost said as much in my post myself. The revelation that Paul received on the road to Damascus, or any subesquent inspiration he received while writing his letters, the revelation that John received at Patmos which he records in the book of Revelation would be events that I would hold as equal in nature to what Muhammad claimed he experienced in receiving the Qur'an.

Sorry, GraceSeeker, but I do not accept Paul or John as one of "his holy apostles and prophets" nor these writings as legitimate Divine Revelations. My choice is to believe Muhammad (pbuh) and to accept him as the last Messenger of the One God, Who has no father, mother, sons, daughters, or equal. I believe that the Quran is the inerrant Word of Allah.

But on this point we differ considerably. Your choice is to believe Muhammad, mine is to believe Paul and John, servants of Jesus, the Christ, who is the One God, eternal not only in the heavens but who also came to dwell incarnate among us on earth in the person of Jesus and who today lives in the hearts of believers through the presence of his divine Holy Spirit. Further, I acknowledge that there is no longer any need for any future prophets specifically because of this divine presence of his Holy Spirit in the life of believers who continues to make God and God's will known to us on a daily basis. That by virtue of the Holy Spirits presence all persons who are in Christ are both prophet and priest for one another in accordance with God's will.

[Sunnih]

The revelation that Paul received on the road to Damascus, or any subesquent inspiration he received while writing his letters, the revelation that John received at Patmos which he records in the book of Revelation would be events that I would hold as equal in nature to what Muhammad claimed he experienced in receiving the Qur'an.

This is wrong as the Qur'an is not dreams but revelation from God through Gabriel. If this is doubted then it goes for the rest of people who spoke in the name of God including Jesus himself.

[Grace Seeker]

hmmm.....do you include catholics & Jehovah's Witnesses in that?

Answering for myself and no one else. I include Catholics, but not Jehovanh's Witness in that.




And, in case you are making a list:
I also do not include Mormons nor Christian Scientists nor Unitarians.

I do include Greek Orthodox, Coptic, Ethopian Orthodox, Russian Orthodox, Byzantine Catholic, Syrian Catholic, Old Catholic, Celtic Catholic, Seventh Day Adventist, Messianic Judaism, Moravians, Lutherans, Methodists, Baptists, Presbyterians, Independent Christians, Assemblies of God, Pentecostals, Christian Reformed, Congregational Churches, Mennonites, Christians Missionary Alliance, Apostolic, Amish, Quakers, Church of God, Church of God (Anderson), Church of God (Holiness), Missionary Church, Episcopalians, Anglican, Four Square Gospel, United Church of Christ, Wesleyan, Nazarene, Plymouth Brethern, New Life Churches, Open Bible Fellowships, Vineyard Fellowships, Abudant Life Tabernacles, United Church of Canada, Disciples of Christ, and most (but probably not all) non-denominational community churches.


Neither of these lists would be exclusive, just the ones I can think of off of the top of my head.

[Grace Seeker]

This is wrong as the Qur'an is not dreams but revelation from God through Gabriel. If this is doubted then it goes for the rest of people who spoke in the name of God including Jesus himself.

In my opinion, God speaking through the inspiration of the Holy Spirit or a vision of Christ is equal to what you report of Gabriel speaking to Muhammad. That is why I said, "would be events that I would hold as equal in nature to what Muhammad claimed." The statement was not wrong. It is a true statement. It is a statement of what my beliefs are. I believe I know my beliefs better than you. You just disagree with my beliefs. But you cannot say that I inaccurately stated my beliefs, unless you also wish to claim that you know what I hold for my beliefs better than I do myself.

[MustafaMc]

My question was about the eye witnesses of Jesus. You know I still think I am better off as I stand, because You are going by hear say on what Jesus said and did, but I am going by eye witnesses; moreover, you are going to be judge by your works as a Muslim, and I am not, because I cannot control what I believe, but I can control with God's help what I do. I am doing the spiritual math here: You will be judge by works, and I won't. My works might be just as good as yours. That is why you don't know if on the last day Allah will accept you. I know already, because Jesus has me covered with God. It is like we are going into a court room being guilty in front of the judge, but the difference between us is you are representing yourself, and I have the best advocate in the universe. We will see each other, if not in this life, on the judgment day, and then we won't need to have these forum discussion anymore, because it will be too late.
:phew

I don't count on my so called good works to earn me Heaven, I rather do them as I strive to be obedient to the Will of Allah.

Quran 5:116-118 After reminding him of these favors, Allah will say: "O Isa (Jesus) son of Maryam (Marry), Did you ever say to the people, "worship me and my mother as gods beside Allah?" He will answer: "Glory to You! How could I say what I had no right to say? If I had ever said so, you would have certainly known it. You know what is in my heart, but I know not what is in Yours; for You have full knowledge of all the unseen. I never said anything other than what You commanded me to say, that is to worship Allah, Who is my Rabb and your Rabb. I was a witness over them as long as I remained among them; but when You called me off, You were the Watcher over them and You are a Witness to everything. If You punish them, they surely are Your servants; and if You forgive them, You are Mighty, Wise."

We believe that on that Day it will be the opposite of what you claim. That Jesus will deny all that Christians claim about him and that rather than being an advocate for you he will be a witness against you.

Matthew 7:21-23 Not every one that saith unto me, Lord, Lord, shall enter into the kingdom of heaven; but he that doeth the will of my Father who is in heaven. Many will say to me in that day, Lord, Lord, did we not prophesy by thy name, and by thy name cast out demons, and by thy name do many mighty works? And then will I profess unto them, I never knew you: depart from me, ye that work iniquity.

Here Jesus states that those who do the will of his Father shall enter heaven. Note that Muslim means one who submits his will to Allah.

[Sunnih]

Answering for myself and no one else. I include Catholics, but not Jehovanh's Witness in that.




And, in case you are making a list:
I also do not include Mormons nor Christian Scientists nor Unitarians.

I do include Greek Orthodox, Coptic, Ethopian Orthodox, Russian Orthodox, Byzantine Catholic, Syrian Catholic, Old Catholic, Celtic Catholic, Seventh Day Adventist, Messianic Judaism, Moravians, Lutherans, Methodists, Baptists, Presbyterians, Independent Christians, Assemblies of God, Pentecostals, Christian Reformed, Congregational Churches, Mennonites, Christians Missionary Alliance, Apostolic, Amish, Quakers, Church of God, Church of God (Anderson), Church of God (Holiness), Missionary Church, Episcopalians, Anglican, Four Square Gospel, United Church of Christ, Wesleyan, Nazarene, Plymouth Brethern, New Life Churches, Open Bible Fellowships, Vineyard Fellowships, Abudant Life Tabernacles, United Church of Canada, Disciples of Christ, and most (but probably not all) non-denominational community churches.


Neither of these lists would be exclusive, just the ones I can think of off of the top of my head.

Not as a debate. On what bases do you discriminate as they all claim to believe in Jesus Christ? What is the criterion that decides you are right and they are not? Very interesting to know the reason. Thank you.

[Sunnih]

In my opinion, God speaking through the inspiration of the Holy Spirit or a vision of Christ is equal to what you report of Gabriel speaking to Muhammad. That is why I said, "would be events that I would hold as equal in nature to what Muhammad claimed." The statement was not wrong. It is a true statement. It is a statement of what my beliefs are. I believe I know my beliefs better than you. You just disagree with my beliefs. But you cannot say that I inaccurately stated my beliefs, unless you also wish to claim that you know what I hold for my beliefs better than I do myself.

No it is not an inspiration of the holy spirit. But Gabriel speaks to Muhamed and Muhamed takes it from him. Also every month of Ramadan, Gabriel used to come and rehearse the Qur'an with Muhamed. So you will see that it is not the same. I do not speak of your beliefs but regarding your wording.

[Grace Seeker]

But how should we understand when from one revision to another of the same bible (king James let's say) we find that what was Jesus' word before is not his word in the other and some time the whole verse/s dessapear?

If you find the version you have chosen to be at variance with another and you truly wish to find out why they are, the difference can be three-fold:

1) difference in choice of words preferred by one translator versus a different translator , just as there are differences in translations of the Qur'an.
2) difference in the choice of the most likely original text when dealing with a disputed passage that has a variant reading in the manuscript. Most likely this will be noted in a footnote. If that is not enough information, then you will need to read the original languages and the science of textual criticism.
3) difference in a basic theological assumption of what is and is not the canon with regard to the books of: Tobit, Judith, Ecclesiasticus, Baruch, The Book of Wisdom , 1 Maccabees, 2 Maccabees, and some additional verses in Esther and Daniel. These are collectively known as the Deuterocanon accepted by Catholics and Orthodox, but not Protestants. You can learn why the difference by reading church history and learning about the origins of the Septuagint (a Greek translation of the Tanakh by Jews before the time of Jesus).

The latter is the only difference that is significant in nature, has little impact on Christian theology, as it is pre-New Testament in development, and if you genuinely care as to how the difference developed you could simply learn the history and make a decision and the issue would be resolved for you.

[Grace Seeker]

Not as a debate. On what bases do you discriminate as they all claim to believe in Jesus Christ? What is the criterion that decides you are right and they are not? Very interesting to know the reason. Thank you.

First, not all of the groups that I excluded actually would claim that they believe in Jesus. But for those that do -- You will find that many Muslims on this board will state that they too believe in Jesus. Now we know that when a Muslim says this, they do not mean the same thing that a Christian does when they say it. Jehevoah's Witnessess, Christian Scientists, and Mormons mean it more like Muslims do and not like Christians do.

[Sunnih]

If you find the version you have chosen to be at variance with another and you truly wish to find out why they are, the difference can be three-fold:

1) difference in choice of words preferred by one translator versus a different translator , just as there are differences in translations of the Qur'an.
2) difference in the choice of the most likely original text when dealing with a disputed passage that has a variant reading in the manuscript. Most likely this will be noted in a footnote. If that is not enough information, then you will need to read the original languages and the science of textual criticism.
3) difference in a basic theological assumption of what is and is not the canon with regard to the books of: Tobit, Judith, Ecclesiasticus, Baruch, The Book of Wisdom , 1 Maccabees, 2 Maccabees, and some additional verses in Esther and Daniel. These are collectively known as the Deuterocanon accepted by Catholics and Orthodox, but not Protestants. You can learn why the difference by reading church history and learning about the origins of the Septuagint (a Greek translation of the Tanakh by Jews before the time of Jesus).

The latter is the only difference that is significant in nature, has little impact on Christian theology, as it is pre-New Testament in development, and if you genuinely care as to how the difference developed you could simply learn the history and make a decision and the issue would be resolved for you.

Sorry may be i did not express myself clearly. I mean in king James version, if you read the publication of a certain year, it will say that the words of Jesus are such and such. If you read the same verse some years later in new publication you will find that those are no more the words of Jesus or the verses might have been taken out altogether. That is what I meant.

[Sunnih]

First, not all of the groups that I excluded actually would claim that they believe in Jesus. But for those that do -- You will find that many Muslims on this board will state that they too believe in Jesus. Now we know that when a Muslim says this, they do not mean the same thing that a Christian does when they say it. Jehevoah's Witnessess, Christian Scientists, and Mormons mean it more like Muslims do and not like Christians do.

I see. So their belief in Jesus from the christian prospective is in vain and will not benefit them at all right?

[Grace Seeker]

No it is not an inspiration of the holy spirit. But Gabriel speaks to Muhamed and Muhamed takes it from him. Also every month of Ramadan, Gabriel used to come and rehearse the Qur'an with Muhamed. So you will see that it is not the same. I do not speak of your beliefs but regarding your wording.

I DO understand that. And in my opinion, the inspiration that Paul received from the Holy Spirit in writing his letters IS equal in nature to Gabriel speaking aloud to Muhammad, inclusive of the annual rehearsal. I wrote as I believe and worded it as I intended.

[Sunnih]

I DO understand that. And in my opinion, the inspiration that Paul received from the Holy Spirit in writing his letters IS equal in nature to Gabriel speaking aloud to Muhammad, inclusive of the annual rehearsal. I wrote as I believe and worded it as I intended.

So the book of revelations then it should be taken as correct by you, in all it's judgements and applications. But you did not take this position when we spoke together about the pig's meat and those not defiled by women. Also the vision of Peter. This is why I said what I said. I am only looking at your words in relation to your other words.

[Grace Seeker]

I see. So their belief in Jesus from the christian prospective is in vain and will not benefit them at all right?

Their belief is not even truly belief by the Christian definitation of belief. Belief for a Christian is not believing something about Jesus, but to believe in Jesus. There is a significant difference. It is not about knowledge, but about entering into a trust relationship.


Cavet: Mormonism is an interesting case. They seem to have an ever evolving theology. Joseph Smith, the founder of Mormonism, was definitely not a Christian and would have repudiated the idea that he believe the same as what he termed the "apostate" churches did. Brigham Young, the second "prophet" of Mormonism continued in the same line, but later ones have revised some of the "revelation" they claim to have received and now are much closer to expressing their faith in terms that are in accordance with the teachings of history Christianity. Mormons will dispute that they have changed their theology, but a study of the old lessons they used to teach and the newer verisions of their teachings are sufficient to give evidence of the change. So, perhaps, one day Mormonism will actually become Christian in its theology. The Reorganized Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-Day Saints (an offshoot of the Mormons after Smith's death) has repudiated the non-Christian aspects of their former theology and now are a group that I would recognize as Christian (despite their non-Christian origins).

[Grace Seeker]

So the book of revelations then it should be taken as correct by you, in all it's judgements and applications. But you did not take this position when we spoke together about the pig's meat and those not defiled by women. Also the vision of Peter. This is why I said what I said. I am only looking at your words in relation to your other words.

I appreciate that you are trying to find consistency in my answers. I really do.

The problem with the particular passages in Revelation that you alluded to were with the literalness in which you wanted to interpret and apply them. As I remember the context of the Acts passages and of the Revelation passages are different, and that makes the difference in how they need to be understood.

[Sunnih]

Their belief is not even truly belief by the Christian definitation of belief. Belief for a Christian is not believing something about Jesus, but to believe in Jesus. There is a significant difference. It is not about knowledge, but about entering into a trust relationship.


Cavet: Mormonism is an interesting case. They seem to have an ever evolving theology. Joseph Smith, the founder of Mormonism, was definitely not a Christian and would have repudiated the idea that he believe the same as what he termed the "apostate" churches did. Brigham Young, the second "prophet" of Mormonism continued in the same line, but later ones have revised some of the "revelation" they claim to have received and now are much closer to expressing their faith in terms that are in accordance with the teachings of history Christianity. Mormons will dispute that they have changed their theology, but a study of the old lessons they used to teach and the newer verisions of their teachings are sufficient to give evidence of the change. So, perhaps, one day Mormonism will actually become Christian in its theology. The Reorganized Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-Day Saints (an offshoot of the Mormons after Smith's death) has repudiated the non-Christian aspects of their former theology and now are a group that I would recognize as Christian (despite their non-Christian origins).

Ok. Thanks.

[Sunnih]

I appreciate that you are trying to find consistency in my answers. I really do.

The problem with the particular passages in Revelation that you alluded to were with the literalness in which you wanted to interpret and apply them.

I am glad you don't see it as an "attack" on your words. It is because I seek consistency in wording that all these questions of mine arise.

Thank you for being understanding.

[Grace Seeker]

Sorry may be i did not express myself clearly. I mean in king James version, if you read the publication of a certain year, it will say that the words of Jesus are such and such. If you read the same verse some years later in new publication you will find that those are no more the words of Jesus or the verses might have been taken out altogether. That is what I meant.

Yeah, I was surprised when I found that the publishers had done as much editing as they had. I knew that the original 1611 edition had been updated a couple of times, but the reasons are the same as those I have already outlined.

The publishers considered it a work in progress and subsequently updated the translation with a few modifications in the word choice. They also in more recent editions choose not to include the Deuter-Canon which was included in the original edition. This would have deleted not only the Deutero-canonical books, but a few verses in some of the Old Testament books. If you are finding other changes beyond that, I would suggest reading the preface at the front of the respective editions that you have which describe the process of how the translation was made. The original preface in the 1611 edition was included in many subsequent editions but I think has now been dropped. I can't really speak to the what or why of that as I've never been a big fan of the King James Version. (Not because of the quality of its translation, though some of that, as that it is written in Elizabethean English, which I don't speak.)

[Sunnih]

Yeah, I was surprised when I found that the publishers had done as much editing as they had. I knew that the original 1611 edition had been updated a couple of times, but the reasons are the same as those I have already outlined.

The publishers considered it a work in progress and subsequently updated the translation with a few modifications in the word choice. They also in more recent editions choose not to include the Deuter-Canon which was included in the original edition. This would have deleted not only the Deutero-canonical books, but a few verses in some of the Old Testament books. If you are finding other changes beyond that, I would suggest reading the preface at the front of the respective editions that you have which describe the process of how the translation was made. The original preface in the 1611 edition was included in many subsequent editions but I think has now been dropped. I can't really speak to the what or why of that as I've never been a big fan of the King James Version. (Not because of the quality of its translation, though some of that, as that it is written in Elizabethean English, which I don't speak.)

Is the investigation of apocrypha only in relation of king James or others also?! Did anything get removed from the bible from the other versions also? Lastly do you have any knowledge as to how the verifiers decide what is apocrypha and what is not? (any article you can point me to?). Thanks.

[Redeemed]

Again this is because your limited knowledge on islam. However I will not go into discussing this topic you have raised in detail or in part either. You can keep your beliefs and I will keep my beliefs. In the end we will see who is the victorious one.:statisfie

My knowledge might be limited, but you still didn't answer my original question. Now I have a new question: What is the limited knowledge on Islam I have? Instead of telling me I lack knowledge, why don't you tell me what it is I lack if you even know yourself?:D

[Sunnih]

My knowledge might be limited, but you still didn't answer my original question. Now I have a new question: What is the limited knowledge on Islam I have? Instead of telling me I lack knowledge, why don't you tell me what it is I lack if you even know yourself?:D

As for your limited knowledge in islam it is aparent from every post of yours and if I was to list what you do not know it would be very long indeed. It is easier to say what you do know about Islam. This would only take a few lines. (no offence ment). As for your question, first you are wrong in assuming that no eye witnesses were as it was writen in the lifetime of the prophet and while thousands of these people had it memorised just like today millions of people have it memorised as opposed to the witnesses of the bible. This is clear even from the bible as the accounts differ but this is all a diferent matter. Tell me which of those who wrote the bible were there when Jesus was "crucified" does not the bible say that: they all forsook him and fled? Take it easy now as I will not be harsh in asking you. I will be lenient in accordance with your knowledge.:omg:

[Redeemed]

This is wrong as the Qur'an is not dreams but revelation from God through Gabriel. If this is doubted then it goes for the rest of people who spoke in the name of God including Jesus himself.

Not everyone in the Bible heard through angels many heard directly from God himself. I would have a problem trusting my eternal soul to the doctrine coming from an angel or Gabriel only. There were times that God spoke directly to the people when Jesus was a around. They were direct witnesses of what they saw and heard. Many people have had contact with the supernatural attributing it to God. For example, Joseph Smith supposedly spoke to God and Jesus Christ telling him all religions were wrong. I realize that Satan can appear as an angel of light. Do you see what I am getting at?

[Woodrow]

Not everyone in the Bible heard through angels many heard directly from God himself. I would have a problem trusting my eternal soul to the doctrine coming from an angel or Gabriel only. There were times that God spoke directly to the people when Jesus was a around. They were direct witnesses of what they saw and heard. Many people have had contact with the supernatural attributing it to God. For example, Joseph Smith supposedly spoke to God and Jesus Christ telling him all religions were wrong. I realize that Satan can appear as an angel of light. Do you see what I am getting at?

I was under the assumption that the only Prophets the bible mentions God(swt) speaking personaly to are Moses,Abraham and Jesus (Peace Be Upon Them). I could be wrong. But, my curiosity is now aroused, can you state any specific passages where God(swt) spoke directly to others?

[Sunnih]

Not everyone in the Bible heard through angels many heard directly from God himself. I would have a problem trusting my eternal soul to the doctrine coming from an angel or Gabriel only. There were times that God spoke directly to the people when Jesus was a around. They were direct witnesses of what they saw and heard. Many people have had contact with the supernatural attributing it to God. For example, Joseph Smith supposedly spoke to God and Jesus Christ telling him all religions were wrong. I realize that Satan can appear as an angel of light. Do you see what I am getting at?

Your assumtion is wrong. In the bible it says that God is a spirit who no one has seen or heard. There are a lot of other points in this regard. As for these people having supernatural this is no more than halucinations. But what I am saying to you is if satan did tempt Jesus, what makes you sure that it did not deceive or at least tempt those who wrote the bible too? I do not attack your beliefs but what i say is that whatever doubts you try to raise about the writing of the Qur'an it is much more possible to raise them for the bible.

[Redeemed]

I don't count on my so called good works to earn me Heaven, I rather do them as I strive to be obedient to the Will of Allah.

Quran 5:116-118 After reminding him of these favors, Allah will say: "O Isa (Jesus) son of Maryam (Marry), Did you ever say to the people, "worship me and my mother as gods beside Allah?" He will answer: "Glory to You! How could I say what I had no right to say? If I had ever said so, you would have certainly known it. You know what is in my heart, but I know not what is in Yours; for You have full knowledge of all the unseen. I never said anything other than what You commanded me to say, that is to worship Allah, Who is my Rabb and your Rabb. I was a witness over them as long as I remained among them; but when You called me off, You were the Watcher over them and You are a Witness to everything. If You punish them, they surely are Your servants; and if You forgive them, You are Mighty, Wise."

We believe that on that Day it will be the opposite of what you claim. That Jesus will deny all that Christians claim about him and that rather than being an advocate for you he will be a witness against you.

Matthew 7:21-23 Not every one that saith unto me, Lord, Lord, shall enter into the kingdom of heaven; but he that doeth the will of my Father who is in heaven. Many will say to me in that day, Lord, Lord, did we not prophesy by thy name, and by thy name cast out demons, and by thy name do many mighty works? And then will I profess unto them, I never knew you: depart from me, ye that work iniquity.

Here Jesus states that those who do the will of his Father shall enter heaven. Note that Muslim means one who submits his will to Allah.

Those are Jesus' words in Mathew; however, in the Qur'an I do not believe those are His words. I think those words were addressed to those Catholics that look and pray to Mary as if she were their intercessor. We do not see Mary that way. To us she was just blessed among women. I do not believe that God will ever ask Jesus a question like that, because in the Bible even God called Jesus Lord. If God called Him Lord who do we think we are not to???:?

[Sunnih]

Those are Jesus' words in Mathew; however, in the Qur'an I do not believe those are His words. I think those words were addressed to those Catholics that look and pray to Mary as if she were their intercessor. We do not see Mary that way. To us she was just blessed among women. I do not believe that God will ever ask Jesus a question like that, because in the Bible even God called Jesus Lord. If God called Him Lord who do we think we are not to???:?

God called him Lord? Did he mean with it God? Any way can you tell us where did he call him such?

[Redeemed]

Your assumtion is wrong. In the bible it says that God is a spirit who no one has seen or heard. There are a lot of other points in this regard. As for these people having supernatural this is no more than halucinations. But what I am saying to you is if satan did tempt Jesus, what makes you sure that it did not deceive or at least tempt those who wrote the bible too? I do not attack your beliefs but what i say is that whatever doubts you try to raise about the writing of the Qur'an it is much more possible to raise them for the bible.

It is written that Moses spoke to God face to face. That sounds like seeing and hearing to me!:rollseyes

[Sunnih]

It is written that Moses spoke to God face to face. That sounds like seeing and hearing to me!:rollseyes

you are right but this is one of the contradictions in the bible. Don't be surprised.

[Redeemed]

As for your limited knowledge in islam it is aparent from every post of yours and if I was to list what you do not know it would be very long indeed. It is easier to say what you do know about Islam. This would only take a few lines. (no offence ment). As for your question, first you are wrong in assuming that no eye witnesses were as it was writen in the lifetime of the prophet and while thousands of these people had it memorised just like today millions of people have it memorised as opposed to the witnesses of the bible. This is clear even from the bible as the accounts differ but this is all a diferent matter. Tell me which of those who wrote the bible were there when Jesus was "crucified" does not the bible say that: they all forsook him and fled? Take it easy now as I will not be harsh in asking you. I will be lenient in accordance with your knowledge.:omg:

Thank you for you gentleness, but let me say i am a fast learner!

[Sunnih]

Thank you for you gentleness, but let me say i am a fast learner!

I hope so. :thumbs_up

[Redeemed]

you are right but this is one of the contradictions in the bible. Don't be surprised.

The Bible states that no one has seen God and lived. Look what happened to Moses after seeing just the hind part of God. He aged and died some time shortly after. I don't think it is a condraction because it even says that Jacob wrestled with God and over came but; it was really an angel, but in a sense it was God too. This will not cause me to doubt the Bible. Neverthess, it is a good point. I will look into it for clarification purposes.:thumbs_up

[MustafaMc]

I DO understand that. And in my opinion, the inspiration that Paul received from the Holy Spirit in writing his letters IS equal in nature to Gabriel speaking aloud to Muhammad, inclusive of the annual rehearsal. I wrote as I believe and worded it as I intended.

Yes, I agree that Prophet Muhammad's (pbuh) claim to Divine revelation is "equal in nature" to that of "Prophet" Paul. Our faith depends on who we choose to believe.

A distinction between Muslims, Christians, and Jews is that:

1) Muslims accept both Jesus and Muhammad (pbut) as prophets of the One God, but they outright reject Paul and the other NT authors as legitimate prophets with Divine revelations.

2) Christians accept Jesus (pbuh) as the only begotten Son of God and at the same time God, Paul and the other NT authors are accepted as de facto prophets with Divine revelation from God/Jesus, but they outright reject Muhammad (pbuh).

3) Jews reject Jesus as Son of God while Jesus, NT authors and Muhammad are rejected as prophets with Divine revelation. They are held as no more than ordinary men, or something less.

Do others see it different than I do?

[Redeemed]

I was under the assumption that the only Prophets the bible mentions God(swt) speaking personaly to are Moses,Abraham and Jesus (Peace Be Upon Them). I could be wrong. But, my curiosity is now aroused, can you state any specific passages where God(swt) spoke directly to others?

At the mount of transfiguration God said of Jesus and Peter, James and John were there: "This is my beloved Son in whom I am well pleased hear ye Him" Also, God spoke to Samuel concerning or because of Eli's negligence to come down on evil in the site of the Lord. He also spoke to Adam in the garden of Eden.

[Redeemed]

God called him Lord? Did he mean with it God? Any way can you tell us where did he call him such?

Absolutely, in fact He did call Him God! You know I don't say things I can't back up! I have been a truthful witness to you and I have no intention of lying. That would be self defeating. I am so excited because my name is written in God's book of life.

[Muslim Woman]

Salaam/peace;

Hi Muslim Woman:
Yes, the Bible is replete with assurance; for instance, John 6:40 Jesus said, "And this is the will of him that sent me, that every one which seeth the Son, and believeth on him, may have everlasting life: and I will raise him up at the last day." It is also witten in 1 John "These thing I write unto to you that you might know that you have eternal life and that life is in His Son." I hope this helps.
Sincerely

I wanted to know where Bible says ALL Christians have reserved seats in heaven ?

If there is a clear verse that says so , then how come so many non-Catholics are sending Mother Teresa to a very hot place ? ooooppppsss +o( :omg:


Also Jesus (p) warned u that just uttering the word foolish ----- u will be thrown in to fire ......so , Christians must not sing & dance with joy that they surely have reserved seats in the garden.

I don't know why so many Chrsitians ( don't take anything personally pl. ) are fearless & took it as for granted that heaven is surely created for them only----does not matter what they do in this world.

[Muslim Woman]

Salaam/peace;

You will find that many Muslims on this board will state that they too believe in Jesus.

it's a must for ALL Muslims to believe in Jesus (p).

Now we know that when a Muslim says this, they do not mean the same thing that a Christian does when they say it. Jehevoah's Witnessess, Christian Scientists, and Mormons mean it more like Muslims do and not like Christians do.

Muslims don't believe that Jesus (p) is Saviour but what about JW , CS & Mormons ......don't they believe Jesus (p) as Saviour ?

[Redeemed]

God called him Lord? Did he mean with it God? Any way can you tell us where did he call him such?

No he did not mean with God. By the way, the Qur'an misrepresents Biblical Christianity. It bases its assumptions on Catholicism, because no where in the Bible does it state that followers of Christ are to include Mary as deity or part of the trinity. Remember, we do not see God as one in three gods. We see Him as one substance yet three persons, and contrary to the Qur'an Mary is not part of it.

[Redeemed]

Salaam/peace;




it's a must for ALL Muslims to believe in Jesus (p).






Muslims don't believe that Jesus (p) is Saviour but what about JW , CS & Mormons ......don't they believe Jesus (p) as Saviour ?

Mormons and Jw's are cults they have no place in Biblical Christianity!

[Grace Seeker]

Yes, I agree that Prophet Muhammad's (pbuh) claim to Divine revelation is "equal in nature" to that of "Prophet" Paul. Our faith depends on who we choose to believe.

A distinction between Muslims, Christians, and Jews is that:

1) Muslims accept both Jesus and Muhammad (pbut) as prophets of the One God, but they outright reject Paul and the other NT authors as legitimate prophets with Divine revelations.

2) Christians accept Jesus (pbuh) as the only begotten Son of God and at the same time God, Paul and the other NT authors are accepted as de facto prophets with Divine revelation from God/Jesus, but they outright reject Muhammad (pbuh).

3) Jews reject Jesus as Son of God while Jesus, NT authors and Muhammad are rejected as prophets with Divine revelation. They are held as no more than ordinary men, or something less.

Do others see it different than I do?

I concur with your capsulization.

[Redeemed]

Salaam/peace;





I wanted to know where Bible says ALL Christians have reserved seats in heaven ?

If there is a clear verse that says so , then how come so many non-Catholics are sending Mother Teresa to a very hot place ? ooooppppsss +o( :omg:


Also Jesus (p) warned u that just uttering the word foolish ----- u will be thrown in to fire ......so , Christians must not sing & dance with joy that they surely have reserved seats in the garden.

I don't know why so many Chrsitians ( don't take anything personally pl. ) are fearless & took it as for granted that heaven is surely created for them only----does not matter what they do in this world.

You error not knowing the Scriptures. THE FEAR OF GOD IS THE BEGINNING OF WISDOM AND KNOWLEGE. Our names are written in the book of life because we have accepted Christ's atonement for our sin and so has God. Unfortunately, however, Muslims don't have this security. There salvation is based on what God wills even if they have lived a life full of good works they are not sure of their eternal destiny. For you to say you are sure of it would be presumptuous according to Islam, but not so for the Christians we have boldness and a security that we enjoy; moreover, the fruit of it will be eternal life in paradise where God has prepared a mansion for us. That doesn't mean we could live in sin. God is not mocked whatever a man sows so shall he reap. But we are free to serve God in a close relationship where He is close to us even closer than the air we breathe.

:statisfie

[Grace Seeker]

Salaam/peace;





I wanted to know where Bible says ALL Christians have reserved seats in heaven ?

Mine is Section B, row DD, seat 25.

If there is a clear verse that says so , then how come so many non-Catholics are sending Mother Teresa to a very hot place ? ooooppppsss +o( :omg:

Because even among Christians there are some who are prejudicial idiots.

Also Jesus (p) warned u that just uttering the word foolish ----- u will be thrown in to fire ......so , Christians must not sing & dance with joy that they surely have reserved seats in the garden.

I don't know what you are getting at here.

I don't know why so many Chrsitians ( don't take anything personally pl. ) are fearless & took it as for granted that heaven is surely created for them only----does not matter what they do in this world.

I don't know why either. Paul cleary preaches against the idea that Christians are given a license to do whatever they choose:

"Everything is permissible for me"—but not everything is beneficial. "Everything is permissible for me"—but I will not be mastered by anything. "Food for the stomach and the stomach for food"—but God will destroy them both. The body is not meant for sexual immorality, but for the Lord, and the Lord for the body. (1 Corinthians 6:12-13)

and

"Everything is permissible"—but not everything is beneficial. "Everything is permissible"—but not everything is constructive. Nobody should seek his own good, but the good of others. (1 Corinthians 10:23-24)

and

What shall we say, then? Shall we go on sinning so that grace may increase? By no means! We died to sin; how can we live in it any longer? (Romans 6:1-2)

And in Jude it is stated:

They are godless men, who change the grace of our God into a license for immorality and deny Jesus Christ our only Sovereign and Lord. (Jude 1:4b)

[Grace Seeker]

You error not knowing the Scriptures. THE FEAR OF GOD IS THE BEGINNING OF WISDOM AND KNOWLEGE. Our names are written in the book of life because we have accepted Christ's atonement for our sin and so has God. Unfortunately, however, Muslims don't have this security. There salvation is based on what God wills even if they have lived a life full of good works they are not sure of their eternal destiny. For you to say you are sure of it would be presumptuous according to Islam, but not so for the Christians we have boldness and a security that we enjoy; moreover, the fruit of it will be eternal life in paradise where God has prepared a mansion for us. That doesn't mean we could live in sin. God is not mocked whatever a man sows so shall he reap. But we are free to serve God in a close relationship where He is close to us even closer than the air we breathe.

:statisfie

If I may, one small correction to what you have said, I'm sure you actually mean this and it is so much a part of what you just assume as a given you didn't even think to mention it. Our names are written in the book of life NOT because we have accepted Christ's atonement for sin, but because God has graciously accepted our willingness to trust in Christ's atonement for our sin.

[Philosopher]

www.bs4a.blogspot.com

[Grace Seeker]

Is the investigation of apocrypha only in relation of king James or others also?! Did anything get removed from the bible from the other versions also? Lastly do you have any knowledge as to how the verifiers decide what is apocrypha and what is not? (any article you can point me to?). Thanks.

The early Church did not have a Bible in a bound book as we have today. Bound books were not yet invented. The word Bible is actually a word meaning library, which is what the early bibles were, collections of scrolls in a library. Thus were added and taken out many different books, some of them were considered canonical -- canon being a word which met "rule" and was also used of that one would use as a standard by which one would measure other things. These books that made up the canon were considered the rule or standard by which one measured the rightness of one's faith. In fairly short order, by the middle of the 2nd century the New Testament canon was pretty much in place, though it would not be codified as such till the council of Nicea in 325 AD. The Old Testament canon was something that the early church did not feel they needed to establish. They just worked off of that which the Jews had used as their scriptures. At that point in time, as most Christians were Greek-speakers and not Hebrew-speakers, they used the a Greek translation of the Hebrew Tanakh that was called the Septuagint. This work contained those books that I previously listed as Deuterocanonical. And thus the entire church accepted them. However, in time, the Jews themselves decided to come up with an official list of books that they considered to be scripture, which they had not previously done. In that listing they did not include those books in their official Hebrew listing of the Tanakh that I have mentioned now repeatedly. When Luther rebelled against the Pope saying that he had led the Church astray from its roots, among the many things that he did was to translate the Bible in German for the common people to have access to it. But he decided to use the Jewish list of books of the Tanakh for the Old Testament rather than those listed in the Septuagint. And Catholics and Protestants have been split over that ever since as one of the fall-outs of the Reformation. Thus this decision effects every Bible translation. One must decide which list of canonical books one is going to accept as correct.

For much more depth on this and from a Catholic view of this issue, go to:

Canon of the Old Testament, Canon of the New Testament, Manuscripts of the Bible, Versions of the Bible, Apocrypha, (I do suggest reading them in the order I listed them in.)

[Redeemed]

If I may, one small correction to what you have said, I'm sure you actually mean this and it is so much a part of what you just assume as a given you didn't even think to mention it. Our names are written in the book of life NOT because we have accepted Christ's atonement for sin, but because God has graciously accepted our willingness to trust in Christ's atonement for our sin.

I didn't think any Christians were reading what I wrote. I have mentioned many times and in many different ways that we are saved because of what Christ did not any righteousness of our own. i HAVE MENTIONED THAT IT WAS BECAUSE OF HIS SHED BLOOD FOR WITHOUT THE SHEDDING OF BLOOD THERE IS NO REMISSION FOR SIN. OOPS, I accidentally hit the caps button, but i don't want to retype. Muslims don't accept Christ as their personal Lord and Savior; therefore, they are facing a Christless eternity. The path to salvation is clear: for all have sinned and come short of the glory of God, and the wages of sin is death (eternity without Jesus), but the gift of God is eternal life only through Jesus. It is written, "If thou shalt confess with thy mouth the Lord Jesus and believe in thy heart that God raised him from the dead thou shalt be saved. For with the heart man believes unto righteousness and with the mouth confession is made unto salvation." I think that about covers it. Ro.10:9-10.
Godbless you Bro.

[Muslim Woman]

Salaam/peace;

Mine is Section B, row DD, seat 25.

and my hot seat no : is ......???

Because even among Christians there are some who are prejudicial idiots.

But if there is a clear verse that says anybody takes Jesus (p) as Saviour will surely go to heaven , then why the question arised about Mother Teresa ?



I heard that many debates took place among Church members if women have souls or not , if women will go to heaven or not etc . Why they had such debates ?



I found it quite surprising & also scary that so many Christians believe they don't have to be good / stay away from sins to go heaven.

They think , just because they believe --our Lord is Christ (p) , they won't taste hell fire. From where they got that idea that they will surely go to heaven ?

What role Church is playing to remove this wrong concept ( if it's wrong ) ?

[MustafaMc]

You error not knowing the Scriptures. THE FEAR OF GOD IS THE BEGINNING OF WISDOM AND KNOWLEGE. Our names are written in the book of life because we have accepted Christ's atonement for our sin and so has God. Unfortunately, however, Muslims don't have this security. There salvation is based on what God wills even if they have lived a life full of good works they are not sure of their eternal destiny. For you to say you are sure of it would be presumptuous according to Islam, but not so for the Christians we have boldness and a security that we enjoy; moreover, the fruit of it will be eternal life in paradise where God has prepared a mansion for us. That doesn't mean we could live in sin. God is not mocked whatever a man sows so shall he reap. But we are free to serve God in a close relationship where He is close to us even closer than the air we breathe.

:statisfie

The Christian "assurance of salvation" is true ONLY if their doctrine is true. Although they sincerely BELIEVE that the Christian doctrine is true that salvation is assured for those who accept Jesus as their Savior and believe that Jesus was the Son of God and at the same time God, that he died on the cross for their sins, and that he was raised from the dead after 3 days, there is absolutely no way for them to KNOW that it is true on this side of death and Judgment Day. The deception comes in to play when they say they KNOW they are saved.

To be assured of salvation is a great temptation to mislead Muslims from Islam. I hope that all Muslims can see the deception.

[Redeemed]

Yes, I agree that Prophet Muhammad's (pbuh) claim to Divine revelation is "equal in nature" to that of "Prophet" Paul. Our faith depends on who we choose to believe.

A distinction between Muslims, Christians, and Jews is that:

1) Muslims accept both Jesus and Muhammad (pbut) as prophets of the One God, but they outright reject Paul and the other NT authors as legitimate prophets with Divine revelations.

2) Christians accept Jesus (pbuh) as the only begotten Son of God and at the same time God, Paul and the other NT authors are accepted as de facto prophets with Divine revelation from God/Jesus, but they outright reject Muhammad (pbuh).

3) Jews reject Jesus as Son of God while Jesus, NT authors and Muhammad are rejected as prophets with Divine revelation. They are held as no more than ordinary men, or something less.

Do others see it different than I do?

That is about right.

[Redeemed]

The Christian "assurance of salvation" is true ONLY if their doctrine is true. Although they sincerely BELIEVE that the Christian doctrine is true that salvation is assured for those who accept Jesus as their Savior and believe that Jesus was the Son of God and at the same time God, that he died on the cross for their sins, and that he was raised from the dead after 3 days, there is absolutely no way for them to KNOW that it is true on this side of death and Judgment Day. The deception comes in to play when they say they KNOW they are saved.

To be assured of salvation is a great temptation to mislead Muslims from Islam. I hope that all Muslims can see the deception.

That is not true. You have not been born again to know that the Spirit of God bears witness with our spirit that we are His and no one can snatch us away from Him. There is a spiritual strength in Christianity that is not match in other faiths in the world. I can see this clearly. There is no question to us that the Christian doctrine is true. I only wish and pray that you could see it the way I do for one minute.

[Redeemed]

Jesus prayed that we may be one even as He and his Father are one. I have experienced that oneness. That is my strength.

[vpb]

Jesus prayed that we may be one even as He and his Father are one.

how can a son and father be one? I can't percept how can God pray? humans pray to God but God praying?? God having a son?? Hellooooooooooo :p

[Redeemed]

how can a son and father be one? I can't percept how can God pray? humans pray to God but God praying?? God having a son?? Hellooooooooooo :p

For one, they could be one in purpose couldn't they? In this case they are (the FATHER and the Son) one not only in purpose but in essence. You find it impossible. Why?:? It is also impossible that God had no begining, end or creator. I don't find it anymore difficult to believe that than they are one in substance! I understand why you oppose this so strongly. It is bcause if God is one as we say, it threatens the foundations of what you believe even though you too believe God is one.:)

[Muslim Woman]

Salaam/peace;

I heard Dr. Zakir Naik's lecture that Christians are not supposed to drink alcohol. He gave 2 references :



Prohibition of alcohol in the Bible

The Bible prohibits the consumption of alcohol in the following verses:

a. Wine is a mocker, strong drink is raging; and whosoever is deceived thereby is not wise. [Proverbs, 20:1]

b. And be not drunk with wine. [Ephesians 5 :18]

what do u think of it ?

http://www.islamicvoice.com/march.99/zakir.htm

[MustafaMc]

I understand why you oppose this so strongly. It is bcause if God is one as we say, it threatens the foundations of what you believe even though you too believe God is one.:)

No, we oppose you so strongly because you are twisting words around to say that God (Father to you), Jesus (Son of God to you) and the Angel Gabriel (Holy Spirit to you my interpretation) are three "persons" or "manifestations" of the One God. Just say God and lay all the other stuff aside and we would see eye-to-eye.

[Woodrow]

That is not true. You have not been born again to know that the Spirit of God bears witness with our spirit that we are His and no one can snatch us away from Him. There is a spiritual strength in Christianity that is not match in other faiths in the world. I can see this clearly. There is no question to us that the Christian doctrine is true. I only wish and pray that you could see it the way I do for one minute.

Have you noticed is that both of us feel virtually the very same way about our beliefs? Your statement is equally valid for a Muslim if writen as such:

"You have not been born again to know that the Spirit of God bears witness with our spirit that we are His and no one can snatch us away from Him. There is a spiritual strength in Islam that is no match in other faiths in the world. I can see this clearly. There is no question to us that the Muslim doctrine is true. I only wish and pray that you could see it the way I do for one minute."

We do feel that We can depend on the "Rope of Allah(swt)" (Faith) to be strong enough to keep us from being snatched away from Allah(swt). We do know that Allah(swt) guides us in all things.

[Grace Seeker]

and my hot seat no : is ......???

Sorry, can't answer that. I don't know that you even have a reservation, let alone a ticket.

But if there is a clear verse that says anybody takes Jesus (p) as Saviour will surely go to heaven , then why the question arised about Mother Teresa ?

I've told you. There are some Christians that are stupid idiotic prejudicial bigots. There are some that don't bother to ever even read the Bible, so they don't know what it teaches. They only know what the other stupid idiotic prejudicial bigots they hang around with say. And according to them you have to be just like them to get into heaven. So, based on that view only stupid idiotic prejudicial bigots will get into heaven. Now, of course the Bible doesn't say that, but if you're just listening to whoever you want to listen to, and believing whatever you want to believe, you can arrive at pretty much any belief in the world that you want to. Some people have done just that. And because they only talk to people they already know are going to agree with them, they never hear anything different. But they will get on the internet or answer an opinion poll to tell everyone else what they think. Probably less than 1 in 100,000 Christians really think this way (at least I hope it is less than that), but there are a few out there and they have big mouths. It's your choice whether you listen to them or not, but I can't really explain why they think the way they do to you, as I don't happen to think that way myself. In their mind, I'm sure that Mother Theresa and I are bound for the same place.

I heard that many debates took place among Church members if women have souls or not , if women will go to heaven or not etc . Why they had such debates ?



I found it quite surprising & also scary that so many Christians believe they don't have to be good / stay away from sins to go heaven.

They think , just because they believe --our Lord is Christ (p) , they won't taste hell fire. From where they got that idea that they will surely go to heaven ?

What role Church is playing to remove this wrong concept ( if it's wrong ) ?

You seem to hear all sorts of crazy things that I don't hear. I wonder if maybe you've got a special line by which you tap into the few crazies that do exist? Seriously, I am 50 years old and was raised in the church. I have been a pastor for 25 years. I attended a Christian university. And I have Christian friends in many different denominations and some scattered around the world. And I listen to some Christian radio. But I have never heard some of the things that you claim to have heard with regard to Christianity.

Now, I don't know it all. But if it is a common belief held by more than an isolated few I am sure I would have heard of it. But the idea that women don't have souls????? That is just ridiculous.

As far as what role the Church is playing to remove wrong concepts.

One such as the one about women having no souls, as far as I am aware the church is doing nothing, because it is not something that the church has ever even heard of. If you have, it must be a very localized idea. It isn't Christian in its origins, even if it is an idea being held by some Christians someplace.

For other wrong concepts. The church generally tries to counter wrong concepts by teaching what are the right concepts. When an issue gets out of hand and becomes a societal problem for many, then the church will also address it as a sin that needs to be dealt with in society by being confessed and repented of. Sometimes, local congregations will mobilize a task force of people to try to address the situation through hands on ministries. Those are the general ways that I am aware of the church trying to counter and remove wrong concepts.

[Grace Seeker]

The Christian "assurance of salvation" is true ONLY if their doctrine is true. Although they sincerely BELIEVE that the Christian doctrine is true that salvation is assured for those who accept Jesus as their Savior and believe that Jesus was the Son of God and at the same time God, that he died on the cross for their sins, and that he was raised from the dead after 3 days, there is absolutely no way for them to KNOW that it is true on this side of death and Judgment Day. The deception comes in to play when they say they KNOW they are saved.

To be assured of salvation is a great temptation to mislead Muslims from Islam. I hope that all Muslims can see the deception.

But the same thing is also true in reverse. To say that one knows that Muhammad is a prophet of God and that his message is true is a doctrinal statement this is true only if the doctrine is itself true. There is no way for a Muslim to KNOW that it is true on this side of death and Judgment Day any more than (and also no less than) for a Christian to KNOW his beliefs to be true.

[Balthasar21]

Am I Allow To Write What I Know About The Bible ?

[Grace Seeker]

Salaam/peace;

I heard Dr. Zakir Naik's lecture that Christians are not supposed to drink alcohol. He gave 2 references :



Prohibition of alcohol in the Bible

The Bible prohibits the consumption of alcohol in the following verses:

a. Wine is a mocker, strong drink is raging; and whosoever is deceived thereby is not wise. [Proverbs, 20:1]

b. And be not drunk with wine. [Ephesians 5 :18]

what do u think of it ?

http://www.islamicvoice.com/march.99/zakir.htm

The Bible does say not to be drunk. It doesn't say not to drink. Proverbs is filled with all sorts of pithy little sayings. I would say that to be deceived by anything is not wise. And certainly, some people when they drink, drink to excess. When they do they make all sorts of silly and unwise decision, because their mental faculties are impaired. In that way alcohol is a deceiver. But taken in moderation it does not have the same effect. Even though I myself do not drink, I cannot say that I am so commanded by the scriptures. The scriptures are against drunkenness, not against drinking. If Dr. Naik was saying more than this, then he was mistaken.

[Woodrow]

Am I Allow To Write What I Know About The Bible ?

as long as it not for the purpose of insulting or bashing any members or a deliberate blatant attempt to promote a religion other than Islam You may.

[ummzayd]

For one, they could be one in purpose couldn't they? In this case they are (the FATHER and the Son) one not only in purpose but in essence. You find it impossible. Why?:? It is also impossible that God had no begining, end or creator. I don't find it anymore difficult to believe that than they are one in substance! I understand why you oppose this so strongly. It is bcause if God is one as we say, it threatens the foundations of what you believe even though you too believe God is one.:)

I can be 'one in purpose' with my mother, but that doesn't MAKE us 'one in essence'. if that is an attempt to make sense of the trinity it's very poor.

If you truly said 'God is One' there would be no argument from us. It's because you say 'God is One and also Three' that we disagree. but be assured, your muddled theology is no threat at all to us.

God is eternal and had no creator. check.

God divided himself up & came down to earth at the same time as He was in heaven, and His earth-self prayed to Himself in heaven, and His earth-self was ignorant of something that his Heaven-self knew - but this doesn't negate the idea of Him being One - nope it's nonsense.

I would have more respect if you just admitted that 'God is Three' is not the same as 'God is One'.

[Balthasar21]

Most christians believe in and have heard the story about how The Angelic Being Gabriel appeared to a virgin name mary 2,000 years ago to bring her news . In the form of The Holy Ghost , Mary would miraculously become Impregnated by God himself , Because she was

'' Full Of Grace '' , They never really explained exactly how this would happen . The just say , By the '' Will Of God '' , It happened . The child she bore was The '' Son Of God '' , Who Later Grew Up To Be God Himself . They Say God The Father , God The Son And God The Holy Ghost , Are One In The Same .


What makes maith so special ?

1 plus - 1 plus - 1 plus =
God the father
God the son
God the holy ghost

3
cannot
go into
One

This is the popular story that christians teach around Christmas and Easter to explain what they understand about the birth of The Messiah Jesus of 2,000 years ago . It sounds nice and its '' Clean '' Enough to tell children
( But It's Just Not True ).

The real truth is , The holy ghost who appeared to Mary is the same Angel named Gabriel of which Jesus was born . Thus making The Angel Gabriel The Father Of The Child Named Jesus . Refer to ; Luke 1 ; 29 ; 35 , Luke 4 ; 18 , And Koran 2 ; 253 , 3 ; 45 , 4 ; 171 and 19 ; 17 - 22 .


How did they get fooled so easy ?
The Christian preachers preach the bible don't teach , know , understand nor can translate the holy scriptures in their languages .


What were the scriptures original languages ?
The old testament called the torah was revealed in Ancient Aramic ( Hebrew )
, The new testament was reavealed in the greek language , And recorded many years after the actual incidents took place .

What does that mean ?
The recorders who recorder it in the greek language were recording incidents that were being spoken in Aramic ( Hebrew ) and Syretic ( Arabic ) .

Am I saying there is no Greek Bible ?
No , That's not what I'm saying . There are many Greek bibles ; Today's New Jehovah's Witnesses are a christian group with their own greek version , None of the christian churches are translating from the original Manuscripts because they don't have access to them

And even if they did have access to these manuscripts , They can't read them because they don't know the language . Ask the head of these churches does He / She read '' Ancient '' Greek or '' Ancient '' Aramic . If they are HONEST they would have to say '' No '' . But it is clear from the Book of Acts , Chapter 2 Verse 1 - 13 that these language were there at the day of Pentecost .

Its important to use that which was translate word for word from the Greek and The Aramic ( Hebrew ) and The Ashuric / Syriac ( Arabic ) so you can check it yourself . Seek Out A Book Entitled '' The Greek Key Study Bible World Bible Publishers Inc . To Check The Translation .

[Redeemed]

:sl:

The Bible does say not to be drunk. It doesn't say not to drink. Proverbs is filled with all sorts of pithy little sayings. I would say that to be deceived by anything is not wise. And certainly, some people when they drink, drink to excess. When they do they make all sorts of silly and unwise decision, because their mental faculties are impaired. In that way alcohol is a deceiver. But taken in moderation it does not have the same effect. Even though I myself do not drink, I cannot say that I am so commanded by the scriptures. The scriptures are against drunkenness, not against drinking. If Dr. Naik was saying more than this, then he was mistaken.

That is correct, however, the Bible also states that we should keep it to ourselves what we believe about this to avoid stumbling people. Most Christians are weak in this area.

[Grace Seeker]

I can be 'one in purpose' with my mother, but that doesn't MAKE us 'one in essence'. if that is an attempt to make sense of the trinity it's very poor.

If you truly said 'God is One' there would be no argument from us. It's because you say 'God is One and also Three' that we disagree. but be assured, your muddled theology is no threat at all to us.

God is eternal and had no creator. check.

God divided himself up & came down to earth at the same time as He was in heaven, and His earth-self prayed to Himself in heaven, and His earth-self was ignorant of something that his Heaven-self knew - but this doesn't negate the idea of Him being One - nope it's nonsense.

I would have more respect if you just admitted that 'God is Three' is not the same as 'God is One'.

God is One. God is not Three. And I will admit that saying that 'God is Three' is not the same as 'God is One'. No problem with that.

Now to where the problem lays:
If, when we Christians say that God exists in Trinity, what you hear is 'God is Three', then either we are not communicating what we believe very clearly, or you are misunderstanding what we are trying to say. For we are infact trying to say 'God is One' by such a statement.

We are saying that though the Bible describes God as Father, and God as Son, and God as Holy Spirit, that God is nonetheless NOT Three. God is only One. We refuse to ascribe partners to God. Jesus is not the partner of God. Jesus is the ONE God incarnate. Now you can disagree with that too; I understand that. But, please, understand that the doctrine of the Trinity is a way of saying that there really is just One God, no matter what it might look like from the outside looking in.

[Grace Seeker]

The real truth is , The holy ghost who appeared to Mary is the same Angel named Gabriel of which Jesus was born . Thus making The Angel Gabriel The Father Of The Child Named Jesus . Refer to ; Luke 1 ; 29 ; 35 , Luke 4 ; 18 , And Koran 2 ; 253 , 3 ; 45 , 4 ; 171 and 19 ; 17 - 22 .


How did they get fooled so easy ?
The Christian preachers preach the bible don't teach , know , understand nor can translate the holy scriptures in their languages .


What were the scriptures original languages ?
The old testament called the torah was revealed in Ancient Aramic ( Hebrew )
, The new testament was reavealed in the greek language , And recorded many years after the actual incidents took place .

What does that mean ?
The recorders who recorder it in the greek language were recording incidents that were being spoken in Aramic ( Hebrew ) and Syretic ( Arabic ) .

Am I saying there is no Greek Bible ?
No , That's not what I'm saying . There are many Greek bibles ; Today's New Jehovah's Witnesses are a christian group with their own greek version , None of the christian churches are translating from the original Manuscripts because they don't have access to them

And even if they did have access to these manuscripts , They can't read them because they don't know the language . Ask the head of these churches does He / She read '' Ancient '' Greek or '' Ancient '' Aramic . If they are HONEST they would have to say '' No '' . But it is clear from the Book of Acts , Chapter 2 Verse 1 - 13 that these language were there at the day of Pentecost .

Its important to use that which was translate word for word from the Greek and The Aramic ( Hebrew ) and The Ashuric / Syriac ( Arabic ) so you can check it yourself . Seek Out A Book Entitled '' The Greek Key Study Bible World Bible Publishers Inc . To Check The Translation .

What are you talking about?

Perhaps in the Qur'an one identifies the angel Gabriel with the Holy Spirit. But in the Bible they are NOT one and the same. This can be seen by the very verses from Luke which you cited:

και αποκριθεις ο αγγελος ειπεν αυτη πνευμα αγιον επελευσεται επι σε και δυναμις υψιστου επισκιασει σοι διο και το γεννωμενον αγιον κληθησεται υιος θεου

Who is speaking? Answer: ο αγγελος .
To whom is the angel speaking? Answer: αυτη, the pronoun refering back to its antecedent in verse 30 -- μαριαμ
And what is the subject of the conversation between the angel and Mary? Answer: πνευμα αγιον
So the angel and the Holy Spirit are not one and the same.


Also, take a look at επισκιασει. It carries the sense of the holy, powerful presence of God himself, not just that of a messenger. So when Mary is overshadowed by the power of the Most High it is as in the description of the cloud "covered" (in the Hebrew sakan ) the tabernacle when the tent was filled with the glory of God (cf. Exodus 40:35 -- וּמָשַׁחְתָּ֣ אֹתָ֗ם כַּאֲשֶׁ֤ר מָשַׁ֙חְתָּ֙ אֶת־אֲבִיהֶ֔ם וְכִהֲנ֖וּ לִ֑י וְ֠הָיְתָה לִהְיֹ֨ת לָהֶ֧ם מָשְׁחָתָ֛ם לִכְהֻנַּ֥ת עֹולָ֖ם לְדֹרֹתָֽם ׃ ).

Also compare with

Matthew 17:5 -- ετι αυτου λαλουντος ιδου νεφελη φωτεινη επεσκιασεν αυτους και ιδου φωνη εκ της νεφελης λεγουσα ουτος εστιν ο υιος μου ο αγαπητος εν ω ευδοκησα ακουετε αυτου.

Mark 9:7 -- και εγενετο νεφελη επισκιαζουσα αυτοις και εγενετο φωνη εκ της νεφελης ουτος εστιν ο υιος μου ο αγαπητος ακουετε αυτου.

and
Luke 9:34 -- ταυτα δε αυτου λεγοντος εγενετο νεφελη και επεσκιαζεν αυτους εφοβηθησαν δε εν τω εισελθειν αυτους εις την νεφελην.

Note how we have the same word, that I have highlighted for you, in those texts which recount the Transfiguration of Jesus when they describe the overshadowing cloud. And likewise, in each account the voice comes out of the cloud identifying Jesus as God's son (not Gabriel's son), a striking reminder of Luke 1:35 where the life that results from the enveloping cloud is identified as the Son of God.


Oh, and just as a point of information, the New Testament was written in Koine Greek, not ancient Greek; and while Hebrew and Aramaic are related languages, they are not the same as you seem to have implied above -- "recording incidents that were being spoken in Aramic ( Hebrew )". Indeed, there were people who could read Aramaic who could not read Hebrew.

And lastly you don't translate word-for-word between any two langauges if you want to get an understanding of the message. Again, let's look at one phrase from the verse above: το γεννωμενον αγιον κληθησεται υιος θεου. Literally that translates into English as follows: "the thing being born holy will be called son of God". Of course, Jesus is not a thing, Jesus is a person. Also, is αγιον to be understood as a predicate adjective or a modifer of the subject? Personally, I prefer to render it "the holy one to be born will be called (the) son of God", in which I have added the English article "the" which I believe is also implied by the syntax.

[Redeemed]

God is One. God is not Three. And I will admit that saying that 'God is Three' is not the same as 'God is One'. No problem with that.

Now to where the problem lays:
If, when we Christians say that God exists in Trinity, what you hear is 'God is Three', then either we are not communicating what we believe very clearly, or you are misunderstanding what we are trying to say. For we are infact trying to say 'God is One' by such a statement.

We are saying that though the Bible describes God as Father, and God as Son, and God as Holy Spirit, that God is nonetheless NOT Three. God is only One. We refuse to ascribe partners to God. Jesus is not the partner of God. Jesus is the ONE God incarnate. Now you can disagree with that too; I understand that. But, please, understand that the doctrine of the Trinity is a way of saying that there really is just One God, no matter what it might look like from the outside looking in.

Sounds good to me:thumbs_up

[Muslim Woman]

Salaam/peace;

... You seem to hear all sorts of crazy things that I don't hear.

:giggling:

hehe i heard of it about 2 / 3 yrs back .

In a Christian -Musim dialogue forum , a Muslim asked about a Christian site where a discussion took place over this issue. Don't remember now what was the ans.


Also 3/4 days back , i was listening to Peace TV channel . A revert bro ( westeren ex-Chrsitian )---forgot his name , [ ok , just remember , Abdur Rahim Green ]

his lecture is available here .

http://peacetv.in/sp-abdurraheem_green.php



Insha Allah will try to watch his lecture again if they repeat----mentioned that Church had debate over this issue.


I just got it from another site .....did not read the whole article



fifty years before the birth of the prophet Muhammad (sallallaahu `alayhi wa sallam) who was born around 560 CE
we find that there was a gathering of bishops in France to discuss whether women possessed souls or not, and that, if they do possess souls, what would be their purpose on earth?



Was it to worship God? And if they worshipped God, would they go to paradise?


In the end it was decided that, yes, women do possess souls - which was a break from previous tradition - but that their purpose was not just to worship God, but also to serve men

http://www.islamfortoday.com/womensstatus.htm

The church generally tries to counter wrong concepts by teaching what are the right concepts.

i have an impression that some or many Christians beleive they will surely go to heaven because of faith in Jesus (p) & they don't have to keep away from major sins like adultery , gayism etc . Their concept is correct ? If not , what Church is doing to remove this wrong idea ?

To be a good Muslim , it's a must to keep away & forbid evil things & do & encourage good things.

Do Chrsitians have any such command / criteria in Bible to be a good Christian ?

[Balthasar21]

What are you talking about?

Perhaps in the Qur'an one identifies the angel Gabriel with the Holy Spirit. But in the Bible they are NOT one and the same. This can be seen by the very verses from Luke which you cited:


Who is speaking? Answer: ο αγγελος .
To whom is the angel speaking? Answer: αυτη, the pronoun refering back to its antecedent in verse 30 -- μαριαμ
And what is the subject of the conversation between the angel and Mary? Answer: πνευμα αγιον
So the angel and the Holy Spirit are not one and the same.


Also, take a look at επισκιασει. It carries the sense of the holy, powerful presence of God himself, not just that of a messenger. So when Mary is overshadowed by the power of the Most High it is as in the description of the cloud "covered" (in the Hebrew sakan ) the tabernacle when the tent was filled with the glory of God (cf. Exodus 40:35 -- וּמָשַׁחְתָּ֣ אֹתָ֗ם כַּאֲשֶׁ֤ר מָשַׁ֙חְתָּ֙ אֶת־אֲבִיהֶ֔ם וְכִהֲנ֖וּ לִ֑י וְ֠הָיְתָה לִהְיֹ֨ת לָהֶ֧ם מָשְׁחָתָ֛ם לִכְהֻנַּ֥ת עֹולָ֖ם לְדֹרֹתָֽם ׃ ).

Also compare with

Matthew 17:5 -- ετι αυτου λαλουντος ιδου νεφελη φωτεινη επεσκιασεν αυτους και ιδου φωνη εκ της νεφελης λεγουσα ουτος εστιν ο υιος μου ο αγαπητος εν ω ευδοκησα ακουετε αυτου.

Mark 9:7 -- και εγενετο νεφελη επισκιαζουσα αυτοις και εγενετο φωνη εκ της νεφελης ουτος εστιν ο υιος μου ο αγαπητος ακουετε αυτου.

and
Luke 9:34 -- ταυτα δε αυτου λεγοντος εγενετο νεφελη και επεσκιαζεν αυτους εφοβηθησαν δε εν τω εισελθειν αυτους εις την νεφελην.

Note how we have the same word, that I have highlighted for you, in those texts which recount the Transfiguration of Jesus when they describe the overshadowing cloud. And likewise, in each account the voice comes out of the cloud identifying Jesus as God's son (not Gabriel's son), a striking reminder of Luke 1:35 where the life that results from the enveloping cloud is identified as the Son of God.


Oh, and just as a point of information, the New Testament was written in Koine Greek, not ancient Greek; and while Hebrew and Aramaic are related languages, they are not the same as you seem to have implied above -- "recording incidents that were being spoken in Aramic ( Hebrew )". Indeed, there were people who could read Aramaic who could not read Hebrew.

And lastly you don't translate word-for-word between any two langauges if you want to get an understanding of the message. Again, let's look at one phrase from the verse above: το γεννωμενον αγιον κληθησεται υιος θεου. Literally that translates into English as follows: "the thing being born holy will be called son of God". Of course, Jesus is not a thing, Jesus is a person. Also, is αγιον to be understood as a predicate adjective or a modifer of the subject? Personally, I prefer to render it "the holy one to be born will be called (the) son of God", in which I have added the English article "the" which I believe is also implied by the syntax.

Are you says their TWO DIFFRENT Gabriel YES OR NO LOLOLOLOLOL

[Muslim Woman]

Salaam/peace;

Are you says their TWO DIFFRENT Gabriel YES OR NO LOLOLOLOLOL

i did not read the ans ......to my knowledge , Christians do believe that Angel Gabriel is one.

[Grace Seeker]

Are you says their TWO DIFFRENT Gabriel YES OR NO LOLOLOLOLOL

What?

I'm sorry, I thought that English was your first language and that perhaps you also spoke the original languages the scriptures were written in based on your previous post.

What is it that you did not understand in my previous post?

[Grace Seeker]

Salaam/peace;




i did not read the ans ......to my knowledge , Christians do believe that Angel Gabriel is one.

Christians believe that there are many angels. The name of one of those angels is Gabriel. Christians believe that it was this angel, Gabriel, who made the announcement to Mary that she would conceive Jesus by the power of the Holy Spirit. Christians do NOT believe that the Angel Gabriel is himself the Holy Spirit; in fact we would vehemently deny it to be true. Christians do not believe that the Holy Spirit is anyone other than God himself. Like Muslims, Christians believe that angels are messengers of Gods. Jesus was not conceived in Mary by some divine messenger, Jesus was conceived by God's power -- a view considerably different than that held by Muslims.

[Grace Seeker]

i have an impression that some or many Christians beleive they will surely go to heaven because of faith in Jesus (p) & they don't have to keep away from major sins like adultery , gayism etc . Their concept is correct ? If not , what Church is doing to remove this wrong idea ?

To be a good Muslim , it's a must to keep away & forbid evil things & do & encourage good things.
Do Chrsitians have any such command / criteria in Bible to be a good Christian ?

Certainly there are people who are Christian in name only. Just as there are people who are Muslim in name only. These people of both faiths have all sorts of ideas, some correct, some incorrect. Oft times they will focus on just one small part of their sacred texts and base their beliefs on that, when what they have really done is take it out of context so much that they have virtually created a new religion unto themselves, though they are still at least nominally members of the faith.

What does the church do with them? We tell them to get back to church where they can get some good teaching and to quit getting their religion from either Hollywood movies or TV evangelists. I don't have a high degree of confidence in either of them for helping some one to grow in their faith as a fully rounded Christian.

To be a good Christian? There is no such thing. No Christian is truly good. The essence of the Christian faith is realizing just how bad you really are, and then turning to Christ to help you become not a better person than anyone else, but a better person than you yourself would be outside of Christ. The only person we are to compare ourselves with is Jesus. When we get that good we can relax. (In other words we can never consider ourselves as having it made.) Yet, we do have the assurance that all those who put their faith and trust in Jesus for salvation will be saved. Any person who trusts in their own goodness will get exactly what their own goodness earns for them, which is nothing. On the other hand, anyone who trusts in Christ as Savior, must also submit to Christ as Lord. And as Lord Christ commands us to do many things. Do good, keep away from evil, love one another. Those are the big overarching themes. For the specifics go to these verses (among others):
Matthew 5:13-7:14
Matthew 25:31-46
Matthew 28:19-20
Mark 7:9-23
Mark 9:42-50
Luke 10:25-37
Luke 18:18-27
John 13:14
John 13:34
John 15:1-17
Romans 6:11-14
Romans 12:1-2
Romans 12:9-21
Romans 13:8-14
Galatians 5:16-25 & 6:1
Ephesians 5:1-21
Philippians 4:8
Colossians 3:17


Now, let me caution you. There is NO permission for sinning in Christ Jesus. But it isn't these individual sins that are the problem for Christians. It is something bigger, the SIN nature that produces a desire to do these individual sins is the real problem. We believe that in Jesus Christ we are cleansed of that sin nature and receive the spirit of God to rule in our lives instead. Sadly, not all Christians give evidence of this. It may even be that they really haven't given themselves over to Christ and are Christians in name only. Or it may be that they have, but are growing slowing in the grace in which they now live. Only God can really know the heart of an individual so we leave that for him to judge.

So the best advice is just as this passage from Colossians says: "Since, then, you have been raised with Christ, set your hearts on things above, where Christ is seated at the right hand of God. Set your minds on things above, not on earthly things."

[Muslim Woman]

Salaam/ peace ;

Jesus was not conceived in Mary by some divine messenger,

Jesus was conceived by God's power -- a view considerably different than that held by Muslims.

when u have time , pl. explain more about ur comments i underlined. Thanks

Christians do NOT believe that the Angel Gabriel is himself the Holy Spirit; in fact we would vehemently deny it to be true.

I read a book long ago......Christian - Muslim Dialogue
by H. M. Baagil, M.D.

the author gave 2 ref & said that Holy Spirit & Angel Gabriel is same. He talked to another Christian here .

M=Muslim , C=Chrisitan.



What is the Holy Spirit?

C. The Holy Spirit is the Holy Ghost and is also God. We are taught that the Father is God, the Son is God, the Holy Ghost is God. We are not allowed to say Three Gods, but One God.

M. Read Matthew 1:18.

C. "Now the birth of Jesus Christ was in this way: When as his mother Mary was espoused to Joseph, before they came together, she was found with child of the Holy Ghost."

M. Compare this with Luke 1:26-27.

C. "And in the sixth month the angel Gabriel was sent from God unto a city of Galilee, named Nazareth, to a virgin espoused to a man whose name was Joseph, of the house of David; and the virgin's name was Mary."

M. In Jesus' miraculous birth Matthew mentioned the Holy Ghost and Luke mentioned the angel Gabriel. What is the Holy Ghost?

C. That being the case, the Holy Ghost is the angel Gabriel


http://www.cambridgemuslims.info/Islam/CMD.htm

[Trumble]

M. Read Matthew 1:18.

C. "Now the birth of Jesus Christ was in this way: When as his mother Mary was espoused to Joseph, before they came together, she was found with child of the Holy Ghost."

M. Compare this with Luke 1:26-27.

C. "And in the sixth month the angel Gabriel was sent from God unto a city of Galilee, named Nazareth, to a virgin espoused to a man whose name was Joseph, of the house of David; and the virgin's name was Mary."

M. In Jesus' miraculous birth Matthew mentioned the Holy Ghost and Luke mentioned the angel Gabriel. What is the Holy Ghost?

C. That being the case, the Holy Ghost is the angel Gabriel

Perhaps Baagil should have taken the trouble to read 28-35. As should 'C' apparently! If there ever was a 'C', anyway, which such blatant tosh leads me to doubt.

28) The angel went to her and said, "Greetings, you who are highly favored! The Lord is with you."

29) Mary was greatly troubled at his words and wondered what kind of greeting this might be. 30) But the angel said to her, "Do not be afraid, Mary, you have found favor with God. 31) You will be with child and give birth to a son, and you are to give him the name Jesus. 32) He will be great and will be called the Son of the Most High. The Lord God will give him the throne of his father David, 33) and he will reign over the house of Jacob forever; his kingdom will never end.

34) "How will this be," Mary asked the angel, "since I am a virgin?"

35) The angel answered, "The Holy Spirit will come upon you, and the power of the Most High will overshadow you. So the holy one to be born will be called the Son of God."

[MustafaMc]

God is One. God is not Three. And I will admit that saying that 'God is Three' is not the same as 'God is One'. No problem with that.

Now to where the problem lays:
If, when we Christians say that God exists in Trinity, what you hear is 'God is Three', then either we are not communicating what we believe very clearly, or you are misunderstanding what we are trying to say. For we are infact trying to say 'God is One' by such a statement.

We are saying that though the Bible describes God as Father, and God as Son, and God as Holy Spirit, that God is nonetheless NOT Three. God is only One. We refuse to ascribe partners to God. Jesus is not the partner of God. Jesus is the ONE God incarnate. Now you can disagree with that too; I understand that. But, please, understand that the doctrine of the Trinity is a way of saying that there really is just One God, no matter what it might look like from the outside looking in.

What concept of God does the Bible indicate that Adam, Noah, Abraham, moses, David, Solomon and Jonah had? Where else other than in a few NT verses does the concept of (not word) Trinity exist?

[MustafaMc]

Originally Posted by MustafaMc
The Christian "assurance of salvation" is true ONLY if their doctrine is true. Although they sincerely BELIEVE that the Christian doctrine is true that salvation is assured for those who accept Jesus as their Savior and believe that Jesus was the Son of God and at the same time God, that he died on the cross for their sins, and that he was raised from the dead after 3 days, there is absolutely no way for them to KNOW that it is true on this side of death and Judgment Day. The deception comes in to play when they say they KNOW they are saved.

To be assured of salvation is a great temptation to mislead Muslims from Islam. I hope that all Muslims can see the deception.

But the same thing is also true in reverse. To say that one knows that Muhammad is a prophet of God and that his message is true is a doctrinal statement this is true only if the doctrine is itself true. There is no way for a Muslim to KNOW that it is true on this side of death and Judgment Day any more than (and also no less than) for a Christian to KNOW his beliefs to be true.

I am surprised by your response, you ususally address the post and not side-step the issue. I was clearly talking about salvation.

I don't believe that I have ever said or ever heard a Muslim say that they KNOW Muhammad (pbuh) was a prophet, or that they KNOW the Quran is the Word of God. (That was not my point, though.) Neither have I heard any Muslim say "I know that I am saved" or answer the question, "If you were to die tonight, where would you go - Heaven or Hell?" with, "Heaven." However, I often hear this type of statement from Christians, with the most recent example from Alapiana. How can anyone today KNOW that they are saved? For that matter how can anyone KNOW there is life after death and a Heaven or Hell? These matters clearly fall in the arena of faith.

[vpb]

with, "Heaven." However, I often hear this type of statement from Christians, with the most recent example from Alapiana. How can anyone today KNOW that they are saved? For that matter how can anyone KNOW there is life after death and a Heaven or Hell? These matters clearly fall in the arena of faith.

they claim that they have day of judgement, so if they know if they are saved or not why have a day of judgement?? or vice-versa. lollll

[vpb]

What concept of God does the Bible indicate that Adam, Noah, Abraham, moses, David, Solomon and Jonah had? Where else other than in a few NT verses does the concept of (not word) Trinity exist?

they should have preached the concept of trinity or that God consists of The Father , The Holy ....... or otherwise someone's wrong here. :p

[Keltoi]

Neither the Old Testament nor the New Testament coined the word Trinity. The OT and NT does speak of God, the Son, and the Holy Spirit. The OT and NT does state that these entities come from God. Knowing that these entities are from and part of God, the word Trinity was coined to describe the nature of God and His interaction with mankind. Christians understand that the word Trinity isn't found in the Bible or the NT. It isn't the word that is important but the concept.

[Goku]

Neither the Old Testament nor the New Testament coined the word Trinity. The OT and NT does speak of God, the Son, and the Holy Spirit. The OT and NT does state that these entities come from God. Knowing that these entities are from and part of God, the word Trinity was coined to describe the nature of God and His interaction with mankind. Christians understand that the word Trinity isn't found in the Bible or the NT. It isn't the word that is important but the concept.

I havent seen any reference to the concept of Trinity in the OT, it does say:


Deuteronomy Chapter 6

4:Hear, O Israel: the LORD our God, the LORD is one.

[Balthasar21]

What are you talking about?

Perhaps in the Qur'an one identifies the angel Gabriel with the Holy Spirit. But in the Bible they are NOT one and the same. This can be seen by the very verses from Luke which you cited:


Who is speaking? Answer: ο αγγελος .
To whom is the angel speaking? Answer: αυτη, the pronoun refering back to its antecedent in verse 30 -- μαριαμ
And what is the subject of the conversation between the angel and Mary? Answer: πνευμα αγιον
So the angel and the Holy Spirit are not one and the same.


Also, take a look at επισκιασει. It carries the sense of the holy, powerful presence of God himself, not just that of a messenger. So when Mary is overshadowed by the power of the Most High it is as in the description of the cloud "covered" (in the Hebrew sakan ) the tabernacle when the tent was filled with the glory of God (cf. Exodus 40:35 -- וּמָשַׁחְתָּ֣ אֹתָ֗ם כַּאֲשֶׁ֤ר מָשַׁ֙חְתָּ֙ אֶת־אֲבִיהֶ֔ם וְכִהֲנ֖וּ לִ֑י וְ֠הָיְתָה לִהְיֹ֨ת לָהֶ֧ם מָשְׁחָתָ֛ם לִכְהֻנַּ֥ת עֹולָ֖ם לְדֹרֹתָֽם ׃ ).

Also compare with

Matthew 17:5 -- ετι αυτου λαλουντος ιδου νεφελη φωτεινη επεσκιασεν αυτους και ιδου φωνη εκ της νεφελης λεγουσα ουτος εστιν ο υιος μου ο αγαπητος εν ω ευδοκησα ακουετε αυτου.

Mark 9:7 -- και εγενετο νεφελη επισκιαζουσα αυτοις και εγενετο φωνη εκ της νεφελης ουτος εστιν ο υιος μου ο αγαπητος ακουετε αυτου.

and
Luke 9:34 -- ταυτα δε αυτου λεγοντος εγενετο νεφελη και επεσκιαζεν αυτους εφοβηθησαν δε εν τω εισελθειν αυτους εις την νεφελην.

Note how we have the same word, that I have highlighted for you, in those texts which recount the Transfiguration of Jesus when they describe the overshadowing cloud. And likewise, in each account the voice comes out of the cloud identifying Jesus as God's son (not Gabriel's son), a striking reminder of Luke 1:35 where the life that results from the enveloping cloud is identified as the Son of God.


Oh, and just as a point of information, the New Testament was written in Koine Greek, not ancient Greek; and while Hebrew and Aramaic are related languages, they are not the same as you seem to have implied above -- "recording incidents that were being spoken in Aramic ( Hebrew )". Indeed, there were people who could read Aramaic who could not read Hebrew.

And lastly you don't translate word-for-word between any two langauges if you want to get an understanding of the message. Again, let's look at one phrase from the verse above: το γεννωμενον αγιον κληθησεται υιος θεου. Literally that translates into English as follows: "the thing being born holy will be called son of God". Of course, Jesus is not a thing, Jesus is a person. Also, is αγιον to be understood as a predicate adjective or a modifer of the subject? Personally, I prefer to render it "the holy one to be born will be called (the) son of God", in which I have added the English article "the" which I believe is also implied by the syntax.

This is funny LOLOLOLOLOL
Let's get something Straight from the door ok , Yashu'a never spoke GREEK / LATIN nor English . And any Christian THEOLOGIAN or Religious Scholar / MINISTER'ssss etc will tell you this . And anytime you change one language to another you lost the true meaning of word , With all your diffrent Version / Translation of The By - Bill None of you Christians Have the true teaching Of Yashu'a , Not counting the many diffrent Denomination who have their own teaching as the J.W. etc etc . So let's not play games here ok . You can play this game with SOME muslims who feel they shouldn't read the by - bill = Bible ... Which is one of their mistake .

Thank you for your answer any way

[Grace Seeker]

What concept of God does the Bible indicate that Adam, Noah, Abraham, moses, David, Solomon and Jonah had? Where else other than in a few NT verses does the concept of (not word) Trinity exist?

In scripture it doesn't, though as others such as alapiana1 have expressed on this forum before, there are hints of it in some Old Testament passages. But I would go so far as to even say that the companions of Jesus did not understand this either until toward the end of Jesus' ministry. And it wasn't a message that Jesus came to bring either. We aren't trying to prove anything with it. But it was an awareness that dawned on them from their experience of knowing Jesus. And because of finally coming to that awareness they proclaimed it, and to deny its reality would be tell less than the whole truth with regard to God.

[Balthasar21]

What?

I'm sorry, I thought that English was your first language and that perhaps you also spoke the original languages the scriptures were written in based on your previous post.

What is it that you did not understand in my previous post?

Are you says their TWO DIFFRENT Gabriel YES OR NO LOLOLOLOLOL

[Balthasar21]

Jesus prayed that we may be one even as He and his Father are one. I have experienced that oneness. That is my strength.

alapiana1 < says > prayed that we may be one even as He and his Father are one.



Are you saying Jesus was praying to himself .
And if Jesus was god then why would he have a need to pray .

[Grace Seeker]

Salaam/ peace ;




when u have time , pl. explain more about ur comments i underlined. Thanks




I read a book long ago......Christian - Muslim Dialogue
by H. M. Baagil, M.D.

the author gave 2 ref & said that Holy Spirit & Angel Gabriel is same. He talked to another Christian here .

M=Muslim , C=Chrisitan.



What is the Holy Spirit?

C. The Holy Spirit is the Holy Ghost and is also God. We are taught that the Father is God, the Son is God, the Holy Ghost is God. We are not allowed to say Three Gods, but One God.

M. Read Matthew 1:18.

C. "Now the birth of Jesus Christ was in this way: When as his mother Mary was espoused to Joseph, before they came together, she was found with child of the Holy Ghost."

M. Compare this with Luke 1:26-27.

C. "And in the sixth month the angel Gabriel was sent from God unto a city of Galilee, named Nazareth, to a virgin espoused to a man whose name was Joseph, of the house of David; and the virgin's name was Mary."

M. In Jesus' miraculous birth Matthew mentioned the Holy Ghost and Luke mentioned the angel Gabriel. What is the Holy Ghost?

C. That being the case, the Holy Ghost is the angel Gabriel


http://www.cambridgemuslims.info/Islam/CMD.htm

I appreciate what you are trying to show here; however, are you aware that there really is NOT a Muslim/Christian dialogue in what your referred me to. It may have that title, but it is a former Christian, reverted to a Muslim having a conversation with himself. Thus the whole thing is a Muslim work.

I started reading it thinking it was indeed a dialogue, and I couldn't believe some of the things presented in the supposedly "Christian" point of view. I have never heard Christians say those sorts of things. So, I wanted to read who the Christian representative was. And when I checked it out, behold the Christian view was from a person who had announced his shahadah, and then the miscellaneous and anonymous "dialogues that I had with members of the Christian clergy and laity". These are presented only in the form of a strawman argument, of the type I don't believe ever actually took place. Notice how quickly and easily the supposed Christian converts to Islam in the "dialogue". It is like he could hardly wait. Just reading them, they have been editted down to a smooth seamless flow in order to present the theological suppositions of Islam in the form of a covnersation. If you think that these are really Christian arguments and responses that you are finding in this book, then you have been misled.

[Grace Seeker]

I am surprised by your response, you ususally address the post and not side-step the issue. I was clearly talking about salvation.

I don't believe that I have ever said or ever heard a Muslim say that they KNOW Muhammad (pbuh) was a prophet, or that they KNOW the Quran is the Word of God. (That was not my point, though.) Neither have I heard any Muslim say "I know that I am saved" or answer the question, "If you were to die tonight, where would you go - Heaven or Hell?" with, "Heaven." However, I often hear this type of statement from Christians, with the most recent example from Alapiana. How can anyone today KNOW that they are saved? For that matter how can anyone KNOW there is life after death and a Heaven or Hell? These matters clearly fall in the arena of faith.

Ah, so your argument was with the whole concept of assurance and that it is available for anyone. I didn't get that from it the first time.

Well, the assurance comes by faith. Without faith there is not assurance. With faith, there is. But as you and I appear to agree, it is faith not knowledge.

I would illustrate it this way, does a child know that he can depend on his parents to protect him. Ask the child that question, and they will say "yes". Yet, we know that terrible things happen to children because parents aren't always able to protect them. This doesn't make the child's statement any less true, it is a statement of faith, of the confidence and trust they put in their parents.

I have worked at Christian camps for teenagers, and one of the teaching tools we use is something called a "Trust Fall". One individual climbs up on something off the ground while others stand behind them. Then the first individual cross his arms across his chest, leans his body backwards and falls into the arms of the group waiting to catch him. There is just a moment in doing it when the one falling feels the sense of it and panics, yet before the have time to respond to that panic they are cradled in the arms of their companions who have caught them. It really is a cool feeling. We use that as a teaching moment to talk about trust. Sometimes a person will panic and get nervous before they actually start to fall, the put their hands back as if to catch themselves or do other things. This is when it gets dangerous. For the only way to get hurt in this scenario is to NOT trust. If one really does trust, one will always be safe. (Now, mind you, don't go out and do this based only on the little bit I have described here, I have done this many times and there are a few other precautions we take in the process to assure people's safety even if they do mess up and don't trust. You could get injured if performed improperly.) But in many ways this is a parallel to what Chrstiains mean by faith in Jesus. Because we know (as in through a personal relationship) Jesus, we know that he will catch us and save us. That's the type of knowing that we experience in the Christian faith. And it does give us a calm assurance. Now, if we are wrong about him and he is unable, then just like Paul spoke of in 1 Corinthians 15 our faith is useless and our hope is in vain. That's the risk we take. But because of the confidence we have in Jesus Christ, it doesn't seem like a risk at all. In fact, not trusting him, would be what would seem to be so risky.

[Grace Seeker]

Are you says their TWO DIFFRENT Gabriel YES OR NO LOLOLOLOLOL

I don't understand this sentence. It doesn't make any grammatical sense in English.

[Muslim Woman]

Salaam/ peace ;

they claim that they have day of judgement, so if they know if they are saved or not why have a day of judgement?? or vice-versa. lollll

may be , for Muslims , Hindus , Atheists , pagans & others.

[Grace Seeker]

Salaam/ peace ;

with, "Heaven." However, I often hear this type of statement from Christians, with the most recent example from Alapiana. How can anyone today KNOW that they are saved? For that matter how can anyone KNOW there is life after death and a Heaven or Hell? These matters clearly fall in the arena of faith.

they claim that they have day of judgement, so if they know if they are saved or not why have a day of judgement?? or vice-versa. lollll

may be , for Muslims , Hindus , Atheists , pagans & others.

There are repeated references to a final judgment in both the Old and the New Testaments. This is visualized with different metaphors of a refiner's fire, a harverster in the fields, a courtroom judgment seat, etc.

The key idea is that everyone (Christians too) is tried for one's life, and if we faced this judgment all on our own we would fail. The Christian has one who comes alongside him/her as an advocate with God and that is none other than Jesus himself who pleads our defense. The accuser is Satan, and God must decide whether to accept the testimony of Satan or of Jesus with regard to our lives. Faith is believing that having Jesus as our advocate will make a difference.

As to when this final judgment of the individual takes place, at the moment of death or at a final resurrection of all people on the last day, there are verses that lean both ways.

[Balthasar21]

I don't understand this sentence. It doesn't make any grammatical sense in English.

With the many culture's and the diffrent Language / Dialect here in the U.S. No one person speak's English , Pick any five people who live's in your Area and listen to the way they talk , Meaning the
Sound's / Tone's . No one here speaking english . So your above grammatical doesn't make Sense , Nor are you saying something slick .

[Woodrow]

There are repeated references to a final judgment in both the Old and the New Testaments. This is visualized with different metaphors of a refiner's fire, a harverster in the fields, a courtroom judgment seat, etc.

The key idea is that everyone (Christians too) is tried for one's life, and if we faced this judgment all on our own we would fail. The Christian has one who comes alongside him/her as an advocate with God and that is none other than Jesus himself who pleads our defense. The accuser is Satan, and God must decide whether to accept the testimony of Satan or of Jesus with regard to our lives. Faith is believing that having Jesus as our advocate will make a difference.

As to when this final judgment of the individual takes place, at the moment of death or at a final resurrection of all people on the last day, there are verses that lean both ways.

These are some of the points that confused me about Christianity. I'll try to explain how they confuse me.

The key idea is that everyone (Christians too) is tried for one's life, and if we faced this judgment all on our own we would fail.

That I do not actually disagree with. But I would say that that knowing that God(swt) is all merciful and will judge each of us as individuals and only in accordance to our abilities tells me I can trust God's(swt) judgment and I will be judged fairly if I stand alone or have a million advocates intervening for me. The final out come will be the same no matter who represents me or if I stand alone. If there was a difference based upon who I have as an advocate seems to say that God(swt) is powerless to judge on his own. But, I do know that I have God's(swt) mercy and justice to understand my side and that understanding is all the advocate I need. I will not be standing alone God(swt) Himself will be there to judge me in the fairest and most merciful way possible.

The Christian has one who comes alongside him/her as an advocate with God and that is none other than Jesus himself who pleads our defense.

Since God(swt) is a fair judge, what need is there for an advocate? Will God(swt) be more fair or show more mercy if we bring forth a strong advocate to plead for us? If that is true, aren't we placing a limitation on God's(swt) ability to be fair and merciful?

The accuser is Satan, and God must decide whether to accept the testimony of Satan or of Jesus with regard to our lives.

Doesn't God(swt) already know what is in our hearts and what sins we are truly guilty of? Is God(swt) going to listen to the words of Satan over what He has knowledge of?

Faith is believing that having Jesus as our advocate will make a difference.

If God(swt) is truly just, and all knowing what need is there for an advocate? I have absolute faith that God(swt) will judge me fairly and that He knows my sins better than I do.

This sounds like a Non-Christian is already convicted because he did not hire a good lawyer.

[Grace Seeker]

This sounds like a Non-Christian is already convicted because he did not hire a good lawyer.

It does, doesn't it.


If God is fair, i.e only just, then we will most certianly be sentenced to hell, not just non-Christians, but Christians too. Jesus calls God to be more than fair as he advocates for us.

Remember, these are metaphors. Even the terms judge, advocate, etc are terms that are metaphors to speak of the process; they are not the same as the process. But they are part of the biblical language, which is why I used them. I think we also must be careful to not transpose our 21st century concepts of the way courtrooms work to a 1st century document. To those to whom the Bible was written, facing a Roman or some other judge in a courtroom was a rather capricious experience. This is not to say that God is capricious, but as they used illustrations which would have been known to them, the addition of an advocate to make an appeal on your behalf would have been an important element in receiving lieniency in that day. For that reason the metaphor may not work on the same level for us today that it would have for them. I don't think that anyone in Jesus' or Paul's day would have questioned the metaphor on the same grounds that you have, such expectations and therefore such questions would have been outside their experience.

[Woodrow]

It does, doesn't it.



Remember, these are metaphors. Even the terms judge, advocate, etc are terms that are metaphors to speak of the process; they are not the same as the process. But they are part of the biblical language, which is why I used them.

Sometimes I get the feeling that if we all understood each others metaphors there would be much less confusion in life.

I do appreciate your saying those are metaphors. Gives me a better understanding of where you are speaking from.

Like always your tolerance and willingness to share is appreciated.

[Sunnih]

The Bible states that no one has seen God and lived. Look what happened to Moses after seeing just the hind part of God. He aged and died some time shortly after. I don't think it is a condraction because it even says that Jacob wrestled with God and over came but; it was really an angel, but in a sense it was God too. This will not cause me to doubt the Bible. Neverthess, it is a good point. I will look into it for clarification purposes.:thumbs_up

John1: 18 No one has ever seen God, but God the One and Only,[a][b]who is at the Father's side, has made him known.

1 Timothy 6:16 who alone is immortal and who lives in unapproachable light, whom no one has seen or can see. To him be honor and might forever. Amen.

Again you can choose to believe what you want. I only quote you the verses as I see them. You can agree or disagree of course.:thumbs_up

[Sunnih]

Absolutely, in fact He did call Him God! You know I don't say things I can't back up! I have been a truthful witness to you and I have no intention of lying. That would be self defeating. I am so excited because my name is written in God's book of life.

Can you please show me one verse in the bible where God said toward Jesus: God?

Not Lord as this can be claimed also by other than Jesus but God? By the way, not god but God as this is yet another "distinction" in the bible.

In no way I accuse you of lying about what you believe, I think that in this point you are confused, but not not lying.:thumbs_up

[Grace Seeker]

John1: 18 No one has ever seen God, but God the One and Only, who is at the Father's side, has made him known.

1 Timothy 6:16 who alone is immortal and who lives in unapproachable light, whom no one has seen or can see. To him be honor and might forever. Amen.

Again you can choose to believe what you want. I only quote you the verses as I see them. You can agree or disagree of course.:thumbs_up

Good verses.

Could you please explain to me what John met by the portion I have highlighted? Who was it that was at the Father's side? Does he really mean to say that God was at the Father's side? How does that work?

[Sunnih]

No he did not mean with God. By the way, the Qur'an misrepresents Biblical Christianity. It bases its assumptions on Catholicism, because no where in the Bible does it state that followers of Christ are to include Mary as deity or part of the trinity. Remember, we do not see God as one in three gods. We see Him as one substance yet three persons, and contrary to the Qur'an Mary is not part of it.

Thank you for affirming that it is not with meaning-God.

As for the representation of christianity by the Qur'an, remember that at the time there where all types of Christians around and no one objected to that. Do not forget that the bible has been transformed a lot in time and for this you can see writings from your own schoolars and also I suggest you read about the apocrypha and matters related to that. Remember that Qur'an mentions the main points of divergence between Islam and Christianity just like the words of Jesus where all comprehending regarding the children of Israel and the attitude that todays Jews might take on his words do not prove that his words missrepresent Jewdaism. This is the point. The universality of the message.

[Grace Seeker]

Can you please show me one verse in the bible where God said toward Jesus: God?

Not Lord as this can be claimed also by other than Jesus but God? By the way, not god but God as this is yet another "distinction" in the bible.

In no way I accuse you of lying about what you believe, I think that in this point you are confused, but not not lying.:thumbs_up

Hebrews 1:8 -- "But about the Son he says,
'Your throne, O God, will last for ever and ever,
and righteousness will be the scepter of your kingdom.' "

God is speaking with regard to the Son and God addresses the Son as God, not as Lord, but as God and not as a god but as God. Read it in context and you will find that this point does not change. In fact, it gets stronger, for immediately preceeding this verse that you asked for God says in reference to the Son: "Let all God's angels worship him." (vs. 6).

There are many other things in this passage that are contrary to the teachings of the Qur'an. What does that mean? What we both already knew, one cannot accept both the Qur'an and the Bible as being equal in authority. For they contradict each other far too much to try to make them harmonize. But it also means that when Christians say that this is our faith, that we are not making it up later at someplace like Nicea. These concepts really are in the scriptures and the folks at Nicea just put a label on them is all they did.

[Sunnih]

Hebrews 1:8 -- "But about the Son he says,
'Your throne, O God, will last for ever and ever,
and righteousness will be the scepter of your kingdom.' "

God is speaking with regard to the Son and God addresses the Son as God, not as Lord, but as God and not as a god but as God. Read it in context and you will find that this point does not change. In fact, it gets stronger, for immediately preceeding this verse that you asked for God says in reference to the Son: "Let all God's angels worship him." (vs. 6).

There are many other things in this passage that are contrary to the teachings of the Qur'an. What does that mean? What we both already knew, one cannot accept both the Qur'an and the Bible as being equal in authority. For they contradict each other far too much to try to make them harmonize. But it also means that when Christians say that this is our faith, that we are not making it up later at someplace like Nicea. These concepts really are in the scriptures and the folks at Nicea just put a label on them is all they did.

First of all the verse you brought are not the words of God but attributed to Him. Any way I will accept what you say so as not to turn it into a debate at this point. But following that verse also says:

9You have loved righteousness and hated wickedness;
therefore God, your God, has set you above your companions
by anointing you with the oil of joy."

So God is saying to Jesus that was described as God, He says to him Your God.

I am only reading in context as you have advised me.

[Sunnih]

The early Church did not have a Bible in a bound book as we have today. Bound books were not yet invented. The word Bible is actually a word meaning library, which is what the early bibles were, collections of scrolls in a library. Thus were added and taken out many different books, some of them were considered canonical -- canon being a word which met "rule" and was also used of that one would use as a standard by which one would measure other things. These books that made up the canon were considered the rule or standard by which one measured the rightness of one's faith. In fairly short order, by the middle of the 2nd century the New Testament canon was pretty much in place, though it would not be codified as such till the council of Nicea in 325 AD. The Old Testament canon was something that the early church did not feel they needed to establish. They just worked off of that which the Jews had used as their scriptures. At that point in time, as most Christians were Greek-speakers and not Hebrew-speakers, they used the a Greek translation of the Hebrew Tanakh that was called the Septuagint. This work contained those books that I previously listed as Deuterocanonical. And thus the entire church accepted them. However, in time, the Jews themselves decided to come up with an official list of books that they considered to be scripture, which they had not previously done. In that listing they did not include those books in their official Hebrew listing of the Tanakh that I have mentioned now repeatedly. When Luther rebelled against the Pope saying that he had led the Church astray from its roots, among the many things that he did was to translate the Bible in German for the common people to have access to it. But he decided to use the Jewish list of books of the Tanakh for the Old Testament rather than those listed in the Septuagint. And Catholics and Protestants have been split over that ever since as one of the fall-outs of the Reformation. Thus this decision effects every Bible translation. One must decide which list of canonical books one is going to accept as correct.

For much more depth on this and from a Catholic view of this issue, go to:

Canon of the Old Testament, Canon of the New Testament, Manuscripts of the Bible, Versions of the Bible, Apocrypha, (I do suggest reading them in the order I listed them in.)

I will read that and if I have questions about it I will let you know. Thank you.

[Sunnih]

There are many other things in this passage that are contrary to the teachings of the Qur'an. What does that mean? What we both already knew, one cannot accept both the Qur'an and the Bible as being equal in authority. For they contradict each other far too much to try to make them harmonize. But it also means that when Christians say that this is our faith, that we are not making it up later at someplace like Nicea. These concepts really are in the scriptures and the folks at Nicea just put a label on them is all they did.

Like I have said before. I accept from the Christians their words that: This is what I believe in and that is it.

Likewise Muslims too do not make up beliefs or modify them. So on this matter we both state what we believe based upon our understanding of our scriptures. I am fine with that as you know that I always state: To you your religion and to me mine. Just like I testify that you are indeed a Christian and I ask you to testify that I am a Muslim. In this I know for sure that we agree. :D

[Grace Seeker]

First of all the verse you brought are not the words of God but attributed to Him. Any way I will accept what you say so as not to turn it into a debate at this point. But following that verse also says:

9You have loved righteousness and hated wickedness;
therefore God, your God, has set you above your companions
by anointing you with the oil of joy."

So God is saying to Jesus that was described as God, He says to him Your God.

I am only reading in context as you have advised me.

Then you and I read the context for this verse differently.

Shall we drop it at that, agreeing to disagree? Or do you want me to write some type of expository commentary on the passage (not just the verse)? I will do this if you seriously care to see it, but I have no intention of doing it just to "hear myself talk" -- if you understand what I mean by that phrase. there is far too much of that on these board by all of us; and I have probably already done more than my fair share of that.


edit: You know I take back the part about seeing the context differently. What I should have said was that within the context we understand the relationships between verse 8 and 9 differently.

[Sunnih]

Then you and I read the context for this verse differently.

Shall we drop it at that, agreeing to disagree? Or do you want me to write some type of expository commentary on the passage (not just the verse)? I will do this if you seriously care to see it, but I have no intention of doing it just to "hear myself talk" -- if you understand what I mean by that phrase. there is far too much of that on these board by all of us; and I have probably already done more than my fair share of that.


edit: You know I take back the part about seeing the context differently. What I should have said was that within the context we understand the relationships between verse 8 and 9 differently.

If you were to elaborate on that, I too would elaborate on the same and this will not stop so I agree that we disagree just like I agree to leave it at that.:thumbs_up

[Muslim Woman]

Salaam/ peace ;

.....is NOT a Muslim/Christian dialogue in what your referred me to. It may have that title, but it is a former Christian, reverted to a Muslim having a conversation with himself.

well , the author claimed that conversation took place when the person was a Christian . Later he embraced Islam.

...... I have never heard Christians say those sorts of things.

what are those things ?


&&&&

verse of the Day :



"Surely God will not forgive the association of partners (shirk) with Him, but He forgives (sins) less then that to whomever He wishes"

(Surah An-Nisa 4:48)

[Redeemed]

they claim that they have day of judgement, so if they know if they are saved or not why have a day of judgement?? or vice-versa. lollll

You error not knowing the Scriptures or the power of the word. When we say we know we are saved, it is because we know due to the close relationship we have with God. Yes, it is possible. It sounds like we are boasting that is because we are boasting. Our boasting is in the Lord who is our strength. Why a judgment if we know we're saved you ask? The judgment is not for our sins; it is for our rewards!!!!:omg:

[Grace Seeker]

they claim that they have day of judgement, so if they know if they are saved or not why have a day of judgement?? or vice-versa. lollll

To add to what alapiana1 said. In truth we are not saved in the present tense, it is as you suspect more like we are awaiting our salvation. We were saved on the cross 2000 years ago. And we will be saved in the future at the final judgment. But the reason we speak of it ins the present tense is because we've cheated and peeked ahead to read the end of the book and we already know what the outcome is.

[MustafaMc]

Good verses.

Could you please explain to me what John met by the portion I have highlighted? Who was it that was at the Father's side? Does he really mean to say that God was at the Father's side? How does that work?

NIV No one has ever seen God, but God the only Son, who is at the Father's side, has made him known. Exactly my point in another post - how can God the only Son, who is at the Father's side, "see" God and both of them at one and the same time be ONE?

[MustafaMc]

To add to what alapiana1 said. In truth we are not saved in the present tense, it is as you suspect more like we are awaiting our salvation. We were saved on the cross 2000 years ago. And we will be saved in the future at the final judgment. But the reason we speak of it ins the present tense is because we've cheated and peeked ahead to read the end of the book and we already know what the outcome is.

But the error is that you "know" the Bible is the inerrant Word of God in order for you to "know" that you are saved. Substitute "believe" for "know" and I could agree with you to a point. You believe the book you peeked ahead is the Word of God - perhaps, you strongly believe it, but I contend there is no way for you to KNOW it is the Truth this side of Judgement Day.

[Grace Seeker]

But the error is that you "know" the Bible is the inerrant Word of God in order for you to "know" that you are saved. Substitute "believe" for "know" and I could agree with you to a point. You believe the book you peeked ahead is the Word of God - perhaps, you strongly believe it, but I contend there is no way for you to KNOW it is the Truth this side of Judgement Day.

I don't mind you substituting the word "believe" for "know".


I am not aware of how many different languages you may speak, but I find it interesting when using other langauges the various connotations to the word "know":

• to comprehend
• to understand
• to be aware
• to believe
• to catch the point
• to get it
• to be acquainted with
• to be in relationship with
• to be intitmate with
• to have general knowledge of

Perhaps reading one of these other connotations into my post will help you some--
"We have peeked ahead to the end of the book and are already 'aware of'/'acquainted with' what [the Bible says] the outcome is."

[Grace Seeker]

NIV No one has ever seen God, but God the only Son, who is at the Father's side, has made him known. Exactly my point in another post - how can God the only Son, who is at the Father's side, "see" God and both of them at one and the same time be ONE?

Again, the problem of human language used to describe God and things associated with God. We forget that even our simplest langauge is filled with metaphor.

Not only how can one see God, but how can God himself see anything? If God is spirit, how can he be seen? If God is spirit and has no eyes, how can he do any seeing?

How about other problems that arise from our anthropomorphizing attributes to God? The idea that we should "hide" things from an omniscient God. That we could have an effect on the emotions of an omnipotent God. The idea that God makes any decision based on us oe reacts to us at all. Yet these paradoxes are present in both Christianity and Islam (and most other religions that have a personal God. And that they are a paradox does not mean they do not speak the truth, it just means that we have no way of adequately expressing the truth that does not leave us with a paradox.

[MustafaMc]

I don't mind you substituting the word "believe" for "know".


I am not aware of how many different languages you may speak, but I find it interesting when using other langauges the various connotations to the word "know":

• to comprehend
• to understand
• to be aware
• to believe
• to catch the point
• to get it
• to be acquainted with
• to be in relationship with
• to be intitmate with
• to have general knowledge of

Perhaps reading one of these other connotations into my post will help you some--
"We have peeked ahead to the end of the book and are already 'aware of'/'acquainted with' what [the Bible says] the outcome is."

I understand what you are saying, but to me to "know" something is to remove any possibility of a different outcome. This is quite different from believing and/or hoping something will turn out in a certain favorable way.

[Grace Seeker]

I understand what you are saying, but to me to "know" something is to remove any possibility of a different outcome. This is quite different from believing and/or hoping something will turn out in a certain favorable way.

And in reading the end of the book and believing the book itself to be true in what it reports, I have removed any doubt in my own mind as to the outcome. See, I am acquainted with the author of the book and know him personally. I trust him to be telling me the truth. So, when he tells me that in the end he is going to save all those who belong to Christ Jesus, and I am aware that I have given my life over to Jesus, my belief comes without any doubts. That's why I originally used the term "to know", but I can respect that for you, you doubt the very facts that I have presented -- that I can know the author of the book, that the book is telling the truth, perhaps even that it's possible to have belief without doubts -- so, if instead of the word "to know" you want to call it "believing", well, I will not argue with you over it.

[Grace Seeker]

I understand what you are saying, but to me to "know" something is to remove any possibility of a different outcome. This is quite different from believing and/or hoping something will turn out in a certain favorable way.

If I may add a postscript -- I like the way Nicole Mullen says "I know that I know that I know that I know..." in this music video: "Redeemer" by Nicole Mullen.


(Beware, it includes haraam instrumentation, and images that some may find offensive.)

[MustafaMc]

Again, the problem of human language used to describe God and things associated with God. We forget that even our simplest langauge is filled with metaphor.

Not only how can one see God, but how can God himself see anything? If God is spirit, how can he be seen? If God is spirit and has no eyes, how can he do any seeing?

How about other problems that arise from our anthropomorphizing attributes to God? The idea that we should "hide" things from an omniscient God. That we could have an effect on the emotions of an omnipotent God. The idea that God makes any decision based on us oe reacts to us at all. Yet these paradoxes are present in both Christianity and Islam (and most other religions that have a personal God. And that they are a paradox does not mean they do not speak the truth, it just means that we have no way of adequately expressing the truth that does not leave us with a paradox.

Yes, I agree with the limitations of language, but this also points to our extremely limited understanding God. Funny, but that is what we disagree about so much - the nature of the Supreme Being and our relationship to Him.

[MustafaMc]

If I may add a postscript -- I like the way Nicole Mullen says "I know that I know that I know that I know..." in this music video: "Redeemer" by Nicole Mullen.


(Beware, it includes haraam instrumentation, and images that some may find offensive.)

That was a nice video. It reminded me of emotions I experienced when I was a Christian. However, as I get older, I learn there is less that I really know than I thought I did when I was younger.

[Redeemed]

Can you please show me one verse in the bible where God said toward Jesus: God?

Not Lord as this can be claimed also by other than Jesus but God? By the way, not god but God as this is yet another "distinction" in the bible.

In no way I accuse you of lying about what you believe, I think that in this point you are confused, but not not lying.:thumbs_up

I am not confused about these things. And I can and will back up my statement Look at Heb 1:8 But unto the Son he saith, "Thy throne, Oh God, is for ever and ever...." I do believe that is a capital G, but this will not convince you of anything because you believe the Bible is corrupt. You are only trying to use it against me. Nevertheless, I can appreciate the question.

you are loved:thumbs_up

[Woodrow]

I am not confused about these things. And I can and will back up my statement Look at Heb 1:8 But unto the Son he saith, "Thy throne, Oh God, is for ever and ever...." I do believe that is a capital G, but this will not convince you of anything because you believe the Bible is corrupt. You are only trying to use it against me. Nevertheless, I can appreciate the question.

you are loved:thumbs_up

Heb 1.8 is quite interesting. Heb 1 itself is interesting. In fact the entire book of Hebrews is interesting.

Who wrote it?

Who decided it should be part of the NT?


Just my opinion it bears a very strong resemblance to the Book of Psalms in the OT. I personaly believe that it is made up of quotes from the Book of Psalms that have been taken out of context and paraphrased to support modern Christian believes I do not find any evidence that either Jesus(as) or any of His apostles ever saw the Book of Hebrews. I have never heard a logical explanation as to how and when it became part of the NT.

[Woodrow]

Just to go further into depth here is the Hebrews 1 as written in todays KJV.

Hebrews 1 (King James Version)
King James Version (KJV)

Public Domain
[A Public Domain Bible] [KJV at Zondervan] [Zondervan]

Hebrews 1

1God, who at sundry times and in divers manners spake in time past unto the fathers by the prophets,

2Hath in these last days spoken unto us by his Son, whom he hath appointed heir of all things, by whom also he made the worlds;

3Who 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 on the right hand of the Majesty on high:

4Being made so much better than the angels, as he hath by inheritance obtained a more excellent name than they.

5For unto which of the angels said he at any time, Thou art my Son, this day have I begotten thee? And again, I will be to him a Father, and he shall be to me a Son?

6And again, when he bringeth in the firstbegotten into the world, he saith, And let all the angels of God worship him.

7And of the angels he saith, Who maketh his angels spirits, and his ministers a flame of fire.

8 But unto the Son he saith, Thy throne, O God, is for ever and ever: a sceptre of righteousness is the sceptre of thy kingdom.

9Thou hast loved righteousness, and hated iniquity; therefore God, even thy God, hath anointed thee with the oil of gladness above thy fellows.

10And, Thou, Lord, in the beginning hast laid the foundation of the earth; and the heavens are the works of thine hands:

11They shall perish; but thou remainest; and they all shall wax old as doth a garment;

12And as a vesture shalt thou fold them up, and they shall be changed: but thou art the same, and thy years shall not fail.

13But to which of the angels said he at any time, Sit on my right hand, until I make thine enemies thy footstool?

14Are they not all ministering spirits, sent forth to minister for them who shall be heirs of salvation?

Source: http://www.biblegateway.com/passage/...er=1&version=9

Now reading through it, it appears to be very much in the style of the Pslams and like the Psalms is basicaly metaphorical.

It appears that all of the verses are actually related to the Prophets(PBUT) and not just to Isa(as) It is only by taken it our of context and removing it from Psalms that makes it seem to be directed about Isa(as)

Now let's look at Psalm 45

Psalm 45 (King James Version)
King James Version (KJV)

Public Domain
[A Public Domain Bible] [KJV at Zondervan] [Zondervan]

Psalm 45

1My heart is inditing a good matter: I speak of the things which I have made touching the king: my tongue is the pen of a ready writer.

2Thou art fairer than the children of men: grace is poured into thy lips: therefore God hath blessed thee for ever.

3Gird thy sword upon thy thigh, O most mighty, with thy glory and thy majesty.

4And in thy majesty ride prosperously because of truth and meekness and righteousness; and thy right hand shall teach thee terrible things.

5Thine arrows are sharp in the heart of the king's enemies; whereby the people fall under thee.

6Thy throne, O God, is for ever and ever: the sceptre of thy kingdom is a right sceptre.

7Thou lovest righteousness, and hatest wickedness: therefore God, thy God, hath anointed thee with the oil of gladness above thy fellows.

8All thy garments smell of myrrh, and aloes, and cassia, out of the ivory palaces, whereby they have made thee glad.

9Kings' daughters were among thy honourable women: upon thy right hand did stand the queen in gold of Ophir.

10Hearken, O daughter, and consider, and incline thine ear; forget also thine own people, and thy father's house;

11So shall the king greatly desire thy beauty: for he is thy Lord; and worship thou him.

12And the daughter of Tyre shall be there with a gift; even the rich among the people shall intreat thy favour.

13The king's daughter is all glorious within: her clothing is of wrought gold.

14She shall be brought unto the king in raiment of needlework: the virgins her companions that follow her shall be brought unto thee.

15With gladness and rejoicing shall they be brought: they shall enter into the king's palace.

16Instead of thy fathers shall be thy children, whom thou mayest make princes in all the earth.

17I will make thy name to be remembered in all generations: therefore shall the people praise thee for ever and ever.

Source: http://www.biblegateway.com/passage/...r=45&version=9

Sort of looks like Psalm 45 was specificaly a song of Praise to God(as) and that particular line was plagarized and rewritten into the Book of Hebrews.


Looks to me that the Book of Hebrews was a rewritten version of the Psalms Paraphrased in a manner to support the Form of Christianity Paul spread.

[Sunnih]

Jesus was not conceived in Mary by some divine messenger, Jesus was conceived by God's power -- a view considerably different than that held by Muslims.

It seems that you might have a wrong perception of how muslims see this matter. Can you please explain more clearly what you mean by these words? Thanks.

[Sunnih]

Neither the Old Testament nor the New Testament coined the word Trinity. The OT and NT does speak of God, the Son, and the Holy Spirit. The OT and NT does state that these entities come from God. Knowing that these entities are from and part of God, the word Trinity was coined to describe the nature of God and His interaction with mankind. Christians understand that the word Trinity isn't found in the Bible or the NT. It isn't the word that is important but the concept.

I appreciate the honesty of your answer. However, if the concept of trinity was to be foung in OT, how comes the Jews do not recognize it and instead call the Christians polytheists?!

[Sunnih]

Good verses.

Could you please explain to me what John met by the portion I have highlighted? Who was it that was at the Father's side? Does he really mean to say that God was at the Father's side? How does that work?

Well, acording to trinity concept this would be quite ok. However in the eyes of muslims and Jews, this is wrong and one of those verses that we believe that the pen of the lying scribes has altered. No doubt your question is a good one as it shows that at least the son and the father are two different entities. Thank you for pointing that out.

[Grace Seeker]

It seems that you might have a wrong perception of how muslims see this matter. Can you please explain more clearly what you mean by these words? Thanks.

I misspoke. For a moment I was thinking that you (or someone, I haven't gone back to re-read) was talking about Gabriel "causing" not just announcing that Mary(am) would get pregnant with Jesus.

[Sunnih]

I misspoke. For a moment I was thinking that you (or someone, I haven't gone back to re-read) was talking about Gabriel "causing" not just announcing that Mary(am) would get pregnant with Jesus.

Thank you for the clarification. No muslim would believe anything but: Isa (Jesus) was born miraculously without a father and he was a word from God, be! and he was. And as you mentioned, Gabriel only anounced.

[Grace Seeker]

Well, acording to trinity concept this would be quite ok. However in the eyes of muslims and Jews, this is wrong and one of those verses that we believe that the pen of the lying scribes has altered. No doubt your question is a good one as it shows that at least the son and the father are two different entities. Thank you for pointing that out.

hahahah

Turn about is fair play, I should give you rep points for that. (well, I did, but I gave them for the wrong post, and now can't given them for the right one. Sorry.)


Of course, you are now accepting that God the father has a side. Not exactly a Islamic concept with regard to God. Perhaps the allusion was metaphorical. Then we are no longer working with separate entities, but once again one being who is one in essence, yet has separate personas.

[Grace Seeker]

Just to go further into depth here is the Hebrews 1 as written in todays KJV.




Source: http://www.biblegateway.com/passage/...er=1&version=9

Now reading through it, it appears to be very much in the style of the Pslams and like the Psalms is basicaly metaphorical.

It appears that all of the verses are actually related to the Prophets(PBUT) and not just to Isa(as) It is only by taken it our of context and removing it from Psalms that makes it seem to be directed about Isa(as)

Now let's look at Psalm 45

Psalm 45 (King James Version)
King James Version (KJV)

Public Domain
[A Public Domain Bible] [KJV at Zondervan] [Zondervan]

Psalm 45

1My heart is inditing a good matter: I speak of the things which I have made touching the king: my tongue is the pen of a ready writer.

2Thou art fairer than the children of men: grace is poured into thy lips: therefore God hath blessed thee for ever.

3Gird thy sword upon thy thigh, O most mighty, with thy glory and thy majesty.

4And in thy majesty ride prosperously because of truth and meekness and righteousness; and thy right hand shall teach thee terrible things.

5Thine arrows are sharp in the heart of the king's enemies; whereby the people fall under thee.

6Thy throne, O God, is for ever and ever: the sceptre of thy kingdom is a right sceptre.

7Thou lovest righteousness, and hatest wickedness: therefore God, thy God, hath anointed thee with the oil of gladness above thy fellows.

8All thy garments smell of myrrh, and aloes, and cassia, out of the ivory palaces, whereby they have made thee glad.

9Kings' daughters were among thy honourable women: upon thy right hand did stand the queen in gold of Ophir.

10Hearken, O daughter, and consider, and incline thine ear; forget also thine own people, and thy father's house;

11So shall the king greatly desire thy beauty: for he is thy Lord; and worship thou him.

12And the daughter of Tyre shall be there with a gift; even the rich among the people shall intreat thy favour.

13The king's daughter is all glorious within: her clothing is of wrought gold.

14She shall be brought unto the king in raiment of needlework: the virgins her companions that follow her shall be brought unto thee.

15With gladness and rejoicing shall they be brought: they shall enter into the king's palace.

16Instead of thy fathers shall be thy children, whom thou mayest make princes in all the earth.

17I will make thy name to be remembered in all generations: therefore shall the people praise thee for ever and ever.

Source: http://www.biblegateway.com/passage/...r=45&version=9

Sort of looks like Psalm 45 was specificaly a song of Praise to God(as) and that particular line was plagarized and rewritten into the Book of Hebrews.


Looks to me that the Book of Hebrews was a rewritten version of the Psalms Paraphrased in a manner to support the Form of Christianity Paul spread.

Indeed, much of Hebrews quotes from the Old Testament. But it isn't just a rewrite. What the unknown author does is to interpret the Psalms you referenced in light of Christ. He is saying that these passages, while perhaps originally written for some other purpose, can now be understood to apply to Christ. Thus, if this book is accepted as inspired so would the author's reinterpretation of Pslams be inspired, and they are still valid for the points that they have been used for in this discussion.

[Sunnih]

hahahah

Turn about is fair play, I should give you rep points for that. (well, I did, but I gave them for the wrong post, and now can't given them for the right one. Sorry.)


Of course, you are now accepting that God the father has a side. Not exactly a Islamic concept with regard to God. Perhaps the allusion was metaphorical. Then we are no longer working with separate entities, but once again one being who is one in essence, yet has separate personas.

Thank you for your rep points, although I do know that even if you did not give them to me, you do appreciate a good discussion and likewise.

As for the "side" in the text: I am only talking in the context of the verse we mentioned.

[Grace Seeker]

Thank you for your rep points, although I do know that even if you did not give them to me, you do appreciate a good discussion and likewise.

Yes, I do. And I hate a meaningless debate. Thank-you even more for not being one of those.

As for the "side" in the text: I am only talking in the context of the verse we mentioned.

Right. I understood that. What I am saying that in the context of the verse the word "side" is used metaphorically. So, therefore one cannot infer from the passage that it is saying that there are two separate entities, for if one does, then it requires one to no longer take it metaphorically, and thus then one is saying that God literally has a side.

It's one of those verses that won't quite let us have our cake and eat it too.

[Woodrow]

Indeed, much of Hebrews quotes from the Old Testament. But it isn't just a rewrite. What the unknown author does is to interpret the Psalms you referenced in light of Christ. He is saying that these passages, while perhaps originally written for some other purpose, can now be understood to apply to Christ. Thus, if this book is accepted as inspired so would the author's reinterpretation of Pslams be inspired, and they are still valid for the points that they have been used for in this discussion.

Peace and many thanks for the answer. It is an area of Christianity I always had a problem with and never could understand how people could reconcile it. I still don't agree, but I can at least see that you believe you have a valid reason not to doubt it.

[Sunnih]

What I am saying that in the context of the verse the word "side" is used metaphorically. So, therefore one cannot infer from the passage that it is saying that there are two separate entities, for if one does, then it requires one to no longer take it metaphorically, and thus then one is saying that God literally has a side.

It's one of those verses that won't quite let us have our cake and eat it too.

To say that God has a side and to say by the side of God, is not the same thing. Even if christians were to take this verse literally this does in no way say that they are side by side as it is common in the language to say to someone wanting to go south: keep going while keeping the sun on your left. In this regard, and in relation to the names and attributes and indeed verses that seem to be in the same position as this verse, I would honestly recommend to you to read comments from muslim schoolars and see their explanation as it would indeed take away the confusion that might arise from such verses. (I do not mean the verses that justify or are against your beliefs in trinity as I do not mean it as a debate. I mean those general verses that might be missunderstood or the point about the literal and metaforical and so on). I am sure that even christians can benefit from such. One such book would be the book of Muhamed Ibn Salih al-Uthaymeen titled: "Exemplary foundations concerning the beautiful Names and Attributes of Allah", translated and published by T.R.O.I.D publications. ISBN: 0-9689058-6-2

Of course I mean by this book, those points that we both agree.

[Grace Seeker]

Let me change the verse reference:

Acts 5
55But Stephen, full of the Holy Spirit, looked up to heaven and saw the glory of God, and Jesus standing at the right hand of God. 56"Look," he said, "I see heaven open and the Son of Man standing at the right hand of God."

Now after this verse you could have said, just as you said before,

it shows that at least the son and the father are two different entities. Thank you for pointing that out.

But what I am saying, is how does it show the (in this case) the Son of Man and God are two different entities? It does it by saying that they are visible. Problem: God is Spirit and therefore is not visible. So in order to make the connection that it proves two entities, one must also accept that one can visibily see God. Unless one can visibly see God, one cannot use this verse to prove two entities because it is on the basis of a visual clue that one makes the observation.

So also, in the passage we are discussing,"No one has ever seen God, but God the One and Only, who is at the Father's side, has made him known." (John 1:18), to say that this proves two entities, requires that we see a distinction between the Father and God. How is this achieved if not by saying that because he is literally at the side of the Father he cannot also be the Father. Whereas if this is understood metaphorically, we could still have a distinction of persons without having to have a distinction of beings?

[MustafaMc]

hahahah

Turn about is fair play, I should give you rep points for that. (well, I did, but I gave them for the wrong post, and now can't given them for the right one. Sorry.)


Of course, you are now accepting that God the father has a side. Not exactly a Islamic concept with regard to God. Perhaps the allusion was metaphorical. Then we are no longer working with separate entities, but once again one being who is one in essence, yet has separate personas.

I believe I am correct in saying that we Muslims don't accept that Allah has a "side", a "front", or a "back" for someone to sit beside. Our concept is that Jesus (pbuh) is one of those extraordinary humans who will be "brought near to Allah".

[Sunnih]

Let me change the verse reference:

Now after this verse you could have said, just as you said before, But what I am saying, is how does it show the (in this case) the Son of Man and God are two different entities? It does it by saying that they are visible. Problem: God is Spirit and therefore is not visible. So in order to make the connection that it proves two entities, one must also accept that one can visibily see God. Unless one can visibly see God, one cannot use this verse to prove two entities because it is on the basis of a visual clue that one makes the observation.

So also, in the passage we are discussing,"No one has ever seen God, but God the One and Only, who is at the Father's side, has made him known." (John 1:18), to say that this proves two entities, requires that we see a distinction between the Father and God. How is this achieved if not by saying that because he is literally at the side of the Father he cannot also be the Father. Whereas if this is understood metaphorically, we could still have a distinction of persons without having to have a distinction of beings?

Not neccessary. Just because the verse mentions side by side it does not mean that it has to be visible as this is information and in your view by God Himself. Being told about something true does not require neccessary vision of that thing. A bling man can be side by side with a seeing one and although he does not see this does not mean that he can not diffrentiate between the two. So what I am saying is that confirmation of vision is not neccessary in and of itself to prove difference in entities.

Remember that one of the things that Jesus said after his resurrection (according to the bible) was that he said to his desciples: Handle me and see for a spirit hath no flesh and bones. Now according to the bible understanding, resurrection is only in the spirit form. So do we understand by this that since they were able to see him and even touch him and give him to eat that he was not resurrected? Or this was metaphoric?

So all the talk about spiritual form and literal and metaphorical is vast in the bible and affirming one meaning of one verse means denying another verse with the same meaning. Of course if you look for consistencies. The other way is to subject every meaning to the doctrinal belief one follows. In this case although there will be no apparent contradiction, the danger of such is that whoever does not agree with you can prove exactly the same and even using the same verses. So I guess it comes back at your beliefs again.

[Grace Seeker]

Remember that one of the things that Jesus said after his resurrection (according to the bible) was that he said to his desciples: Handle me and see for a spirit hath no flesh and bones. Now according to the bible understanding, resurrection is only in the spirit form. So do we understand by this that since they were able to see him and even touch him and give him to eat that he was not resurrected? Or this was metaphoric?

I moved this up, because I want to correct a misunderstanding. It is not true that according to the Bible that resurrection is only in the spirit form. Paul says that we are raised with a spiritual body. But that is not the same as saying "only in the spirit form". In fact he takes great pains in 1 Corinthians 15 to say that he doesn't really know exactly what that will be like for any of us. And Jesus is making the point with his disciples that he is not just a phantom, that he can be touched and handled (even as he strangely appears to be able to enter and leave locked rooms without opening the door). He eats with them and does all the other physical things. So it is that Christians believe in the bodily resurrection of Jesus. And in the last days, we also believe in a physical resurrection of us humans, though the nature of that body has yet to be disclosed to us.

Not neccessary. Just because the verse mentions side by side it does not mean that it has to be visible as this is information and in your view by God Himself. Being told about something true does not require neccessary vision of that thing. A bling man can be side by side with a seeing one and although he does not see this does not mean that he can not diffrentiate between the two. So what I am saying is that confirmation of vision is not neccessary in and of itself to prove difference in entities.

OK. That is my point, you are saying that there are two entities. And again, your blind man does the same. How? Not by sight, but by physical observation. So, if you are making a parallel with God in this instance in order to establish that there are two entities, it would seem that you are also saying that God has a physical body to be observed?

Now, I know that Muslims don't believe that to be true. And if that is not true, then your interpretation of the passage is not true. The interpretation must allow for it to be a metaphor. Once the passage is a metaphor, we can no longer assert from it that we actually have two completely separate beings, only that we have separate persons. And, yes, I draw a distinction between the two concepts.

So all the talk about spiritual form and literal and metaphorical is vast in the bible and affirming one meaning of one verse means denying another verse with the same meaning. Of course if you look for consistencies. The other way is to subject every meaning to the doctrinal belief one follows. In this case although there will be no apparent contradiction, the danger of such is that whoever does not agree with you can prove exactly the same and even using the same verses. So I guess it comes back at your beliefs again.

As happens frequently when having discussions with regard to religion.

[Redeemed]

Heb 1.8 is quite interesting. Heb 1 itself is interesting. In fact the entire book of Hebrews is interesting.

Who wrote it?

Who decided it should be part of the NT?


Just my opinion it bears a very strong resemblance to the Book of Psalms in the OT. I personaly believe that it is made up of quotes from the Book of Psalms that have been taken out of context and paraphrased to support modern Christian believes I do not find any evidence that either Jesus(as) or any of His apostles ever saw the Book of Hebrews. I have never heard a logical explanation as to how and when it became part of the NT.

I wasn't really expecting to get a response about this verse. I was asked to back up my statement and I did. I even mentioned what his response would probably be to it, but you answered this post with what I expected. I accept Heb 1:8 because there are many verses in the BIBLE that allude to Jesus' deity including himself. I understand your denial of this too. If you didn't, you would be compel to return home.
you are loved
aj:)

[Sunnih]

I moved this up, because I want to correct a misunderstanding. It is not true that according to the Bible that resurrection is only in the spirit form. Paul says that we are raised with a spiritual body. But that is not the same as saying "only in the spirit form". In fact he takes great pains in 1 Corinthians 15 to say that he doesn't really know exactly what that will be like for any of us. And Jesus is making the point with his disciples that he is not just a phantom, that he can be touched and handled (even as he strangely appears to be able to enter and leave locked rooms without opening the door). He eats with them and does all the other physical things. So it is that Christians believe in the bodily resurrection of Jesus. And in the last days, we also believe in a physical resurrection of us humans, though the nature of that body has yet to be disclosed to us.



OK. That is my point, you are saying that there are two entities. And again, your blind man does the same. How? Not by sight, but by physical observation. So, if you are making a parallel with God in this instance in order to establish that there are two entities, it would seem that you are also saying that God has a physical body to be observed?

Now, I know that Muslims don't believe that to be true. And if that is not true, then your interpretation of the passage is not true. The interpretation must allow for it to be a metaphor. Once the passage is a metaphor, we can no longer assert from it that we actually have two completely separate beings, only that we have separate persons. And, yes, I draw a distinction between the two concepts.


As happens frequently when having discussions with regard to religion.

As for the spiritual bodies, Jesus himself stated in his answer about the woman who had 7 husbands and dies and which of them she would marry in the afterlife and the answer was that there they will be "like angels" and that they do not marry..... So it states that they will be like angels, also as you mention will be spiritual bodies. With this in mind, angels do not eat or drink and Jesus did eat and drink.

As for the blind man, can you explain how does he do it by physical observation?! The verse does not mean that they are close and touching. Your argument before was that what I hinted at was vision and that is why I said what I said about the blind man. We too (in this world) do not see God or are not near God yet we do know that we and God are not one and the same. So the distinction is clear and not in need of visual or physical confirmation. As for the text of the verse, it should be seen also from the language prospective as it was revealed in the language of people to make clear things to people and not confuse as God does not confuse but makes clear. Much more so in matters of creed.

As for saying that God has a physical body to be observed that you mention, this does not come from my words at all. This is only what you are assuming and rather this is what you raise when you mention vision and physical observance. Remember that we are talking about a verse in the bible and all my refutation is taking place by me only quoting from the bible so what I believe as a muslim does not enter at all into this discussion. If I was to mention what I believe, I would quote from the Qur'an but you will not find me in doing so in any biblical discussion with you or any other Christian.

The rule of metaphore and what is and what is not such, can not be such a loose one as in this case many verses you uphold as true in meaning and letter can easily be claimed to be metaphorical too. But as I said, if you say this must be metaphorical because if it was not it would be in contradiction with the Christian beliefs, I would be fine with that and that would be the end of the discussion. I am not here to attack or offend but to raise awareness from the other prospective and whether you take it or leave it this is up to you and your right to choose. In our case, you have chosen Christianity and I have chosen Islam. Again we agree that we do disagree.

[Sunnih]

====

[Grace Seeker]

As for the spiritual bodies, Jesus himself stated in his answer about the woman who had 7 husbands and dies and which of them she would marry in the afterlife and the answer was that there they will be "like angels" and that they do not marry..... So it states that they will be like angels, also as you mention will be spiritual bodies. With this in mind, angels do not eat or drink and Jesus did eat and drink.

As for the blind man, can you explain how does he do it by physical observation?! The verse does not mean that they are close and touching. Your argument before was that what I hinted at was vision and that is why I said what I said about the blind man. We too (in this world) do not see God or are not near God yet we do know that we and God are not one and the same. So the distinction is clear and not in need of visual or physical confirmation. As for the text of the verse, it should be seen also from the language prospective as it was revealed in the language of people to make clear things to people and not confuse as God does not confuse but makes clear. Much more so in matters of creed.

As for saying that God has a physical body to be observed that you mention, this does not come from my words at all. This is only what you are assuming and rather this is what you raise when you mention vision and physical observance. Remember that we are talking about a verse in the bible and all my refutation is taking place by me only quoting from the bible so what I believe as a muslim does not enter at all into this discussion. If I was to mention what I believe, I would quote from the Qur'an but you will not find me in doing so in any biblical discussion with you or any other Christian.

The rule of metaphore and what is and what is not such, can not be such a loose one as in this case many verses you uphold as true in meaning and letter can easily be claimed to be metaphorical too. But as I said, if you say this must be metaphorical because if it was not it would be in contradiction with the Christian beliefs, I would be fine with that and that would be the end of the discussion. I am not here to attack or offend but to raise awareness from the other prospective and whether you take it or leave it this is up to you and your right to choose. In our case, you have chosen Christianity and I have chosen Islam. Again we agree that we do disagree.

ARGGHHH!!

I am saying that if you conclude that this passage is to be taken as two entities, then to me it seems that YOU are interpreting this literally rather than as a metaphor. Are you not?

[Sunnih]

ARGGHHH!!

I am saying that if you conclude that this passage is to be taken as two entities, then to me it seems that YOU are interpreting this literally rather than as a metaphor. Are you not?

I am reading it in conjunction with the same verse in psalms. If I see this as a metaphor then I see the whole verse as such including the insinuation of Jesus as "God", just like the meaning of Moses like a "God" to pharaoh.

[tears4husain]

:sl: I honestly believe it, I mean its just christians who are not profound with their belief and it hurts to say it, there was this "muslimah" who was born into islam and couldn't resite the Fatiha something repeated no less then 17 times a day and it hurt because ahe was suppose to marry my friend, but come on the Al-Fatiha?:-[

[Grace Seeker]

I am reading it in conjunction with the same verse in psalms. If I see this as a metaphor then I see the whole verse as such including the insinuation of Jesus as "God", just like the meaning of Moses like a "God" to pharaoh.

You'll have to educate me on how you see John 1:18 to have any connection to Exodus 7:1.

[Grace Seeker]

:sl: I honestly believe it, I mean its just christians who are not profound with their belief and it hurts to say it, there was this "muslimah" who was born into islam and couldn't resite the Fatiha something repeated no less then 17 times a day and it hurt because ahe was suppose to marry my friend, but come on the Al-Fatiha?:-[

"its just christians"?????

Is that what your really meant to say?
Or did you mean to say: It is not just Christians who are not profound...?
I'm guessing the second from the rest of your post, but not wanting to assume things, so asking to be sure.

[Sunnih]

You'll have to educate me on how you see John 1:18 to have any connection to Exodus 7:1.

Consistency. You know what I look for.