PDA

View Full Version : Did Jesus die and rise from the dead?



Redeemed
04-08-2007, 10:06 PM
The Centurion at the final hour before the celebration of Passover was to break the legs of all that were hanging on a cross. He was an expert who can tell if one was unconscious or dead. He would break the legs of those still alive so that the condemned couldn't push themselves up for air hence speed up the death process for them. He broke the legs of the two that were next to Jesus, but when he saw that Jesus was already dead, he didn't break His legs as a fulfillment to prophecy. Jesus was seen by hundreds of people after his resurrection including His disciples. His disciples even witnessed is ascension.
Reply

Login/Register to hide ads. Scroll down for more posts
Redeemed
04-08-2007, 10:09 PM
When Jesus died, the Centurion said after the earthquake, "This was truly the Son of God." After His death, the temple was rent and people came out of their graves.
Reply

FBI
04-08-2007, 10:12 PM
:sl:

Simple answer No according to islam
Reply

siFilam
04-08-2007, 10:12 PM
Jesus (peace be upon him) didn't die therefore there was no resurrection. He was taken up by Allah, The True God.

wasalam
-SI-
Reply

Welcome, Guest!
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
mohammed farah
04-08-2007, 10:15 PM
There is a difference of opinion as to the exact interpretation of this verse. The words are: The Jews did not kill Jesus, but Allah raised him up (rafa'ahu...in Arabic) to Himself. Some people hold that Jesus did not die the usual human death, but still lives in the body in heaven, which is the generally accepted Muslim view. Another hold that he did die but not when he was supposed to be crucified, and that is being "raised up" unto Allah means that instead of being disgraced as a malefactor, as the Jews intended, he was on the contrary honoured by Allah Almighty as His Messenger. The same word (rafa'a) is used in association with honour in connection with Al Mustafa (Prophet Muhammad peace be upon him).
Reply

mohammed farah
04-08-2007, 10:15 PM
Here is what Noble Verse 19:33 states: "So peace is upon me [Jesus] the day I was born, the day that I die, and the day that I shall be raised up to life." Trinitarian Christians believe that Jesus was GOD Himself, or part of GOD, came to earth, was crucified on the cross to purify our sins and then raised from death back to life and went up to heaven until he will come back again to this earth. The Noble Quran does not in anyway support this theory!. We Muslims believe that Jesus was born from a Noble Virgin; Mary the Virgin, preached the word of GOD to the people of Israel, raised to Allah Almighty alive (even though he might have been put on the cross, but never actually died), will come back to earth again to fight the army of Satan and then die a natural death and then be raised again back to life from death as we all do in the Day of Judgement. Some Muslim scholars say that Jesus not being crucified in Noble Verse 4:157 means that he was put on the cross but didn't die, and others say that it means that he was not put on the cross itself and never died either. There are some Christian sects such as the Basilidans, the Docetate and the Marcionite do not believe that Jesus was put on the cross.

Either way, it doesn't really matter whether he was put on the cross or not. The more important point is that Jesus never died according to Islam. There is a similar Verse to 19:33 in the Noble Quran that was mentioned to another Messenger of GOD: "So peace on him [Yahya, or John the Baptist] the day he was born, the day that he dies, and the day that he will be raised up to life! (The Noble Quran, 19:15)" This Noble Verse (19:15) is similar to 19:33, where it does not at all state that any Messenger of GOD was crucified or will die twice!. The reason why no Messenger of GOD will ever die twice is because Allah Almighty said clearly in His Noble Book that every soul He creates (this includes all of His Messengers and Prophets even Jesus) shall taste death once; "Nor will they [all humans who end up in heaven] there taste death, except the first death; and He will preserve them from the penalty of the blazing fire. (The Noble Quran, 44:56)".
Reply

NoName55
04-08-2007, 10:21 PM
Did Jesus die and rise from the dead?
NO

WaSalaam
Originally Posted by alapiana1
When Jesus died, the Centurion said after the earthquake, "This was truly the Son of God." After His death, the temple was rent and people came out of their graves.
you should be made to give a refence for every claim you make
Reply

barney
04-08-2007, 10:39 PM
My problem with penal substitution boils down to (accepting Jesus is God) then:

After creating sinful man,Jesus contrived to get himself topped because only the spilling of his own blood could appease him from the wrath of Himself and cleanse the sin he had made.

Which obviously makes sense to hundreds of millions of peeps out there, but it dosnt automatically float my boat.
Reply

Keltoi
04-08-2007, 10:48 PM
This is sort of an odd question to pose. Of course Christians confidently believe this was the case, but Muslims will not see it this way. I would assume you already knew the answers you would get to this question, so if I may ask, what was the reason for asking this question?
Reply

barney
04-08-2007, 10:50 PM
Meh... Its a good debate. i'm up for it!
Reply

Keltoi
04-08-2007, 10:51 PM
Originally Posted by barney
Meh... Its a good debate. i'm up for it!
What exactly is there to debate though? Christians believe Christ died and rose again, and Muslims don't. The only "debate" you will get out of this is argument for the sake of argument.
Reply

Philosopher
04-08-2007, 10:53 PM
Originally Posted by Keltoi
What exactly is there to debate though? Christians believe Christ died and rose again, and Muslims don't. The only "debate" you will get out of this is argument for the sake of argument.
Yep. It's a battle of the dogmas :D
Reply

*Hana*
04-08-2007, 10:56 PM
Originally Posted by alapiana1
. Jesus was seen by hundreds of people after his resurrection including His disciples. His disciples even witnessed is ascension.
Actually, according to Jesus Himself, (as per Biblical text), he was NOT resurrected on Sunday morning. Remember He said to Mary Magdalene:, "Touch me not, for I have not yet ascended unto the father."

There are 2 types of resurrections: Spiritual and Physical. Lazareth being the example of a physical resurrection. He still needed to eat, breathe, etc., to be alive. A spiritual resurrection, as described by Jesus, pbuh, means you are like the angels and you die no more. Meaning you only die the once and you cannot die again. Like the angels...no need of food, water, etc., to sustain them.

According to Biblical text he was very much alive when he appeared before the apostles. And what did he say? He told them they should not be afraid because he was not a ghost, "A spirit does not have flesh and bone as you see me have." He told them to touch him and then asked for food. This to show them he was very much alive and not dead. So, we know he was not spiritually resurrected. We know Lazareth had to die again to be spiritually resurrected....so, when did Jesus die again so he could be spiritually resurrected?

Peace,
Hana
Reply

barney
04-08-2007, 10:56 PM
Weeell, If one of us can put up a convincing arguement that he diddnt. (which will be tricky because all the evidence for and against is 2007 years old) then We may be able to convert some christians over to the Church of Agnosticism. My roof needs repairs, and the extra alms cash would be really handy.
Reply

mohammed farah
04-08-2007, 11:04 PM
Originally Posted by Keltoi
What exactly is there to debate though? Christians believe Christ died and rose again, and Muslims don't. The only "debate" you will get out of this is argument for the sake of argument.
true............close the thread close the thread close thread..............just kiddin:D
Reply

snakelegs
04-09-2007, 12:25 AM
Originally Posted by Keltoi
What exactly is there to debate though? Christians believe Christ died and rose again, and Muslims don't. The only "debate" you will get out of this is argument for the sake of argument.
yep. stupid question.
Reply

Alexius
04-09-2007, 12:42 AM
Originally Posted by barney
My problem with penal substitution boils down to (accepting Jesus is God) then:

After creating sinful man,Jesus contrived to get himself topped because only the spilling of his own blood could appease him from the wrath of Himself and cleanse the sin he had made.

Which obviously makes sense to hundreds of millions of peeps out there, but it dosnt automatically float my boat.
Not all Christians believe in "Penal Substitution..."

By the way, God created man in His image and called man "good..." God does not create junk!!! God is not the source of evil.

Prayers and petitions,
Alexius:-[
Reply

Redeemed
04-09-2007, 12:51 AM
Originally Posted by NoName55
NO
a source
WaSalaamyou should be made to give a refence for every claim you make
You are right I should be made to give references. Is there any one in particular you want. It is a lot of work to find what i already know about what is written in the Bible; nevertheless, references will be given apon request. You have already asked me to cite the references on the deity of Jesus and His claims to being God, but you stop responding to that post after I gave the references. If Jesus didn't die and rise from the dead like all the eye witnesses claim, then us Christians are the most miserable people in the world. But if He did, there is going to be a great and terrible day of the Lord for the non-believer and those who don't believe He died and rose again or that he is the Son of God.
Reply

Redeemed
04-09-2007, 01:02 AM
Originally Posted by FBI
:sl:

Simple answer No according to islam
The Devil isn't really doing a very good job convincing people that Jesus never existed. It is written that even the devils believe and fear with trembling. If he didn't rise from the dead, how do you explain all the witnesses that saw Him after His resurrection? The greatest trick the devil ever pulled my friendwas to convince people that Jesus is not their only hope to glory!!!
Reply

NoName55
04-09-2007, 01:12 AM
Originally Posted by alapiana1
The Devil isn't really doing a very good job convincing people that Jesus never existed. It is written that even the devils believe and fear with trembling. If he didn't rise from the dead, how do you explain all the witnesses that saw Him after His resurrection? The greatest trick the devil ever pulled my friendwas to convince people that Jesus is not their only hope to glory!!!
it is back to preaching again! as well as accusing other faiths, who disagree with him, of following the devil :(
Reply

FBI
04-09-2007, 01:17 AM
Originally Posted by alapiana1
The Devil isn't really doing a very good job convincing people that Jesus never existed. It is written that even the devils believe and fear with trembling. If he didn't rise from the dead, how do you explain all the witnesses that saw Him after His resurrection? The greatest trick the devil ever pulled my friendwas to convince people that Jesus is not their only hope to glory!!!
But u see I can't get my head around that, And I'm a man of faith, why do we need Jesus as our only hope when god is their surely our salvation lies with the creator and not the creation?
Reply

barney
04-09-2007, 01:17 AM
Originally Posted by Alexius
Not all Christians believe in "Penal Substitution..."

By the way, God created man in His image and called man "good..." God does not create junk!!! God is not the source of evil.

Prayers and petitions,
Alexius:-[
He totally made us sinful. "Let those without sin..etc". Evry denomination I know of has Penal substitution as a core value. I know it was invented in the 12th century, but Catholics, Protestants and Baptists and every other one that I've heard of, all say that Jesus died on the cross to atone for our sins.

Without this as a framework, theres no reason why Jesus would have let himself be killed, if he was indeed God, and the scriptures, (heavily interpreted and changed as they are from century to century) would not have evolved that way.

The Idea of dying to save us is the core value of every Christian denomination I know of.
Reply

NoName55
04-09-2007, 01:21 AM
Originally Posted by alapiana1
Originally Posted by NoName55
NO

WaSalaam

you should be made to give a refence for every claim you make
You are right I should be made to give references. Is there any one in particular you want. It is a lot of work to find what i already know about what is written in the Bible; nevertheless, references will be given apon request. You have already asked me to cite the references on the deity of Jesus and His claims to being God, but you stop responding to that post after I gave the references. If Jesus didn't die and rise from the dead like all the eye witnesses claim, then us Christians are the most miserable people in the world. But if He did, there is going to be a great and terrible day of the Lord for the non-believer and those who don't believe He died and rose again or that he is the Son of God.
You know pefectly well which one I meant.

Besides I was trying to hint to site staff.

I have already admitted in past that you are far too crafty for me to talk to, for you are a master at confusing the issues as well as changing subjects at hand. And devlishly clever, If all else fails you start rambling and preaching or feigning hurt feelings :(

Wa-salaam
Reply

*Hana*
04-09-2007, 01:25 AM
Originally Posted by alapiana1
The Devil isn't really doing a very good job convincing people that Jesus never existed. It is written that even the devils believe and fear with trembling. If he didn't rise from the dead, how do you explain all the witnesses that saw Him after His resurrection? The greatest trick the devil ever pulled my friendwas to convince people that Jesus is not their only hope to glory!!!
Go back and read what I wrote a few posts ago. People saw him because he wasn't dead. Well, AFTER he removed his gardeners disguise, then they saw him. He was so well disguised as a gardener that even Mary didn't know it was him. Amazing. Which raises the question: If he was spiritually resurrected who exactly was he hiding from and why? :?

Peace,
Hana
Reply

snakelegs
04-09-2007, 01:25 AM
Originally Posted by alapiana1
The Devil isn't really doing a very good job convincing people that Jesus never existed. It is written that even the devils believe and fear with trembling. If he didn't rise from the dead, how do you explain all the witnesses that saw Him after His resurrection? The greatest trick the devil ever pulled my friendwas to convince people that Jesus is not their only hope to glory!!!
no need to explain it IF you are a christian and believe in the new testament.
if not, there is also no need to explain it because there is no need to believe it in the first place.
Reply

barney
04-09-2007, 01:42 AM
Originally Posted by alapiana1
The Devil isn't really doing a very good job convincing people that Jesus never existed. It is written that even the devils believe and fear with trembling. If he didn't rise from the dead, how do you explain all the witnesses that saw Him after His resurrection? The greatest trick the devil ever pulled my friendwas to convince people that Jesus is not their only hope to glory!!!
Of Course Jesus Existed! He was recorded in the history of the Roman Empire.
If the romans , who beleived in Mars (the god not the chocalate) wrote that he existed then thats good enough for me. They have no spatum to grind on the subject.

The question is ...did he rise from the dead? Well loads of people saw him die, thats fair enough and well recorded. rising from the dead? Not so much.

I'm sure that his -may i say- biased and zelotic diciples who's lives were pretty much stuffed after his death , needed a way to carry on the faith. And God dying kind of deflates the balloon a little. God wouldnt just die. that goes against the whole laws of godhead. (Although the Jap's and egyptians got on OK with their Gods repeatedly karking every 50 years or less), times change and gullibillity fades with mans proggression.

In 2001 there was a good many Muslims who reported emphatically that spiders the size of sofas had been sent by Allah, to fight alongside them to defend Kandahar from the Infidel. they had "hairy Legs and were filmed on TV". It's a Miracle. Despite Kandahar falling faster than a stunned duck, this beleif is still current amongst a proportion of those who heard the rumour.

Once a rumour hits critical mass, escpecially if it's unprovable, it can cement into History as fact. In 2300AD you can expect to see the Tsunami of '05 being historically recorded as caused by American nukes. It all depends on the demographics of the times and History is infinatly rewritable. Holocaust Denial anyone?
:rollseyes
Reply

akulion
04-09-2007, 02:15 AM
Well quite frankly I think the devil never really pulled any great tricks at all...in fact he is a down right daft idiot to have lived in heaven yet rebel against God.

The devil aside, its quite common to see people worshiping worldly stuff.

Like the Hindus started worshiping: Men, women, cows, snakes, rats, elephants

Idalators: Idols of all kinds and shapes

Then there are your average fire worshipers, sun worshipers etc etc.

To me, not saying it offensively, but to me Christians are just another class of those people and worship a Man.

I mean after all you can put great elaborate stories about any sort of worldly thing.

Like I could make up a story of the Holy cow who died for humanities sins and suffered on the farmyard...but at the end of the day we have to open our eyes and see the reality. That its a cow. It aint god, it aint the incarnation of god, it was just a cow

So Jesus was just a man. A prophet at the most. and really to say otherwise is just silly in my view because otherwise this guy who cliams to be God could very well be right too:


Ref: Sai Baba - http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Sathya_Sai_Baba

No offense to anyone, but this is how I see it really. Just man worship..nothing else


God or man...u decide...
|
Reply

dougmusr
04-09-2007, 02:43 AM
According to Biblical text he was very much alive when he appeared before the apostles. And what did he say? He told them they should not be afraid because he was not a ghost, "A spirit does not have flesh and bone as you see me have." He told them to touch him and then asked for food. This to show them he was very much alive and not dead. So, we know he was not spiritually resurrected. We know Lazareth had to die again to be spiritually resurrected....so, when did Jesus die again so he could be spiritually resurrected?
Does Islam believe that when Christ returns as Messiah, all those living at His return will first be killed, then be resurrected?
Reply

dougmusr
04-09-2007, 02:47 AM
To me, not saying it offensively, but to me Christians are just another class of those people and worship a Man.
What is the meaning of (pbuh)?
Reply

Redeemed
04-09-2007, 02:51 AM
Originally Posted by FBI
But u see I can't get my head around that, And I'm a man of faith, why do we need Jesus as our only hope when god is their surely our salvation lies with the creator and not the creation?

What makes you think that Jesus was created? It is written " In the beginning was the word. the word was with God, and the word was God." There was never a time God was without His word. The Word became flesh (God with us). His name will be called Immanuel (God with us)
Maybe your thinking of a verse that says He is the "beginning of the creation of God." If you do a lexical study on that in the original text. It renders that He is the beginner of the beginning of creation. It is written "Everything that was made was made by Him and for Him. (Notice "For Him") and everything is held together by the word of His power. It is written that Allah will judge no one only Jesus will; moreover, we must honor the Son the same as the Father (Allah) for he that honors not the Son honors not the Allah. That means if we don't honor Jesus in the same way as Allah we aren't honoring God. Jn 5: 22
Reply

akulion
04-09-2007, 02:55 AM
Originally Posted by dougmusr
What is the meaning of (pbuh)?
PBUH = Peace Be Upon Him
Reply

*Hana*
04-09-2007, 02:56 AM
Originally Posted by dougmusr
Does Islam believe that when Christ returns as Messiah, all those living at His return will first be killed, then be resurrected?
Peace to you, Doug:

I would be more than happy to respond to your questions but I would appreciate you or another christian, if you don't know the answer, to show me the same courtesy. :)

Jesus, pbuh IS the Messiah (it simply means the annointed/chosen one). When He returns, not everyone will be killed (there was a recent post about this for more detail), but He will live a normal life, marry, will die a natural death, be buried along side Prophet Muhammed, pbuh, and will be resurrected at the chosen time like everyone else.

ok, that was extremely brief, but you will find more information about that if you search the forum. :)

Peace,
Hana
Reply

dougmusr
04-09-2007, 02:59 AM
Originally Posted by FBI
But u see I can't get my head around that, And I'm a man of faith, why do we need Jesus as our only hope when god is their surely our salvation lies with the creator and not the creation?
Volume 9, Book 93, Number 600:

Narrated Anas:

I heard the Prophet saying, "On the Day of Resurrection I will intercede and say, "O my Lord! Admit into Paradise (even) those who have faith equal to a mustard seed in their hearts." Such people will enter Paradise, and then I will say, 'O (Allah) admit into Paradise (even) those who have the least amount of faith in their hearts." Anas then said: As if I were just now looking at the fingers of Allah's Apostle.

Is this quote from the Hadith not an indication that many will require the intercession of another to enter paradise? Is this prophet not part of the creation? Is he not in fact their implied only hope for salvation in that they require intercession?
Reply

dougmusr
04-09-2007, 03:04 AM
Originally Posted by akulion
PBUH = Peace Be Upon Him
What benefit does the prophet get when a Muslim follows their name with (pbuh)?
Reply

*Hana*
04-09-2007, 03:07 AM
Originally Posted by alapiana1
What makes you think that Jesus was created? It is written " In the beginning was the word. the word was with God, and the word was God." There was never a time God was without His word. The Word became flesh (God with us). His name will be called Immanuel (God with us)
Was Jesus, pbuh, born of a Virgin mother? Did God simply say "be" and He was? This means He was CREATED! The text I bolded was not found in the oldest manuscripts which means it was an interpolation that came much later. This is agreed by most prominent Biblical Scholars and the "correction" is noted in the footnotes of the most recent versions.

Maybe your thinking of a verse that says He is the "beginning of the creation of God." If you do a lexical study on that in the original text. It renders that He is the beginner of the beginning of creation. It is written "Everything that was made was made by Him and for Him. (Notice "For Him") and everything is held together by the word of His power. It is written that Allah will judge no one only Jesus will; moreover, we must honor the Son the same as the Father (Allah) for he that honors not the Son honors not the Allah. That means if we don't honor Jesus in the same way as Allah we aren't honoring God. Jn 5: 22
This really doesn't mean much, quite frankly. First, we've already dismissed the "in the beginning...." portion as we know it was not part of the oldest manuscripts. The rest is just your interpretation of text.

Still waiting for an answer to my 2 questions. :)

Peace,
Hana
Reply

Nσσя'υℓ Jαииαн
04-09-2007, 03:11 AM
Originally Posted by dougmusr
What benefit does the prophet get when a Muslim follows their name with (pbuh)?
Wouldnt u say something along the lines of "May God help you" or May God have mercy on your soul" out of respect for someone? Would u not send your blessings on someone dear to u or whom u look upto?
Reply

Redeemed
04-09-2007, 03:11 AM
[/QUOTE=Hana_Aku;708214]Go back and read what I wrote a few posts ago. People saw him because he wasn't dead. Well, AFTER he removed his gardeners disguise, then they saw him. He was so well disguised as a gardener that even Mary didn't know it was him. Amazing. Which raises the question: If he was spiritually resurrected who exactly was he hiding from and why? :?

Peace,
Hana[/QUOTE]

That is a very creative way of trying to do away with the death and ressurection of Jesus, but His death was witnessed and so was His resurrection and assencion. People are going throuh a lot of trouble to explain away His death and the taking back of His life. If He didn't rise from the dead, I would either be an agnostic or Muslim. I would just enjoy the pleasures of sin, but that is not the case. There will be a day of accountability. That is what people don't like to hear. John saw Jesus in a revelation. Jesus' hair was white as wool and His eyes a flame of fire. He said "Fear not, I am He who was dead and now I am alive forever more. I have the keys sto hell and death. I come to judge the living and the dead" Reference is in the book of Revelation.........
Reply

dougmusr
04-09-2007, 03:11 AM
According to Biblical text he was very much alive when he appeared before the apostles. And what did he say? He told them they should not be afraid because he was not a ghost, "A spirit does not have flesh and bone as you see me have." He told them to touch him and then asked for food. This to show them he was very much alive and not dead. So, we know he was not spiritually resurrected. We know Lazareth had to die again to be spiritually resurrected....so, when did Jesus die again so he could be spiritually resurrected?
I presume you were wanting me to answer your question about Jesus spiritual ressurection. Well, I believe that Jesus was physically resurrected for His appearances to many witnesses. But His spiritual resurrection was the same as those who are living on the last day will experience.

1 cor 15:51 Behold, I tell you a mystery: We shall not all sleep, but we shall all be changed-- 52 in a moment, in the twinkling of an eye, at the last trumpet. For the trumpet will sound, and the dead will be raised incorruptible, and we shall be changed.

The dead shall be raised, the living will be changed from physical to spiritual existance in the twinkling of an eye.
Reply

dougmusr
04-09-2007, 03:19 AM
Originally Posted by Jazzy
Wouldnt u say something along the lines of "May God help you" or May God have mercy on your soul" out of respect for someone? Would u not send your blessings on someone dear to u or whom u look upto?
Actually, I wouldn't say it unless I felt that it was an intercessory prayer for someone whose eternal destiny was undecided, and if I felt that it would alter the persons eternal destiny. As a Christian, I feel that one's eternal destiny is set prior to death, and nothing can be done to change it following death.

Jn 8:24 "Therefore I said to you that you will die in your sins; for if you do not believe that I am He, you will die in your sins."

Heb 9:26 He then would have had to suffer often since the foundation of the world; but now, once at the end of the ages, He has appeared to put away sin by the sacrifice of Himself. 27 And as it is appointed for men to die once, but after this the judgment, 28 so Christ was offered once to bear the sins of many. To those who eagerly wait for Him He will appear a second time, apart from sin, for salvation.
Reply

*Hana*
04-09-2007, 03:22 AM
alapiana1;708295][/QUOTE=Hana_Aku;708214]Go back and read what I wrote a few posts ago. People saw him because he wasn't dead. Well, AFTER he removed his gardeners disguise, then they saw him. He was so well disguised as a gardener that even Mary didn't know it was him. Amazing. Which raises the question: If he was spiritually resurrected who exactly was he hiding from and why? :?

Peace,
Hana

That is a very creative way of trying to do away with the death and ressurection of Jesus, but His death was witnessed and so was His resurrection and assencion. People are going throuh a lot of trouble to explain away His death and the taking back of His life. If He didn't rise from the dead, I would either be an agnostic or Muslim. I would just enjoy the pleasures of sin, but that is not the case. There will be a day of accountability. That is what people don't like to hear. John saw Jesus in a revelation. Jesus' hair was white as wool and His eyes a flame of fire. He said "Fear not, I am He who was dead and now I am alive forever more. I have the keys sto hell and death. I come to judge the living and the dead" Reference is in the book of Revelation.........
And you are trying to skirt the issue. :) It's no trouble at all to dismiss the resurrection. There is simply no proof. Can you provide ONE historical account from a non-Christian that discussed the resurrection? How about ONE person that talked about all the supposed dead bodies rising from the earth and walking through the streets? There are many non Christian writers that have written about Jesus, pbuh, and not ONE talks about this resurrection or rotting corpses walking the earth. What makes you think Muslims enjoy the pleasures of sin? We don't believe a man was unjustly tortured, brutalized, humiliated and slaughtered so we would have a free ticket to sin. No, not at all. We are held accountable for our sins and can't pawn them off on an innocent man. :)

And still you have not answered the question. I would appreciate it if you would. :)

Hana
Reply

Nσσя'υℓ Jαииαн
04-09-2007, 03:24 AM
Originally Posted by dougmusr
Actually, I wouldn't say it unless I felt that it was an intercessory prayer for someone whose eternal destiny was undecided, and if I felt that it would alter the persons eternal destiny. As a Christian, I feel that one's eternal destiny is set prior to death, and nothing can be done to change it following death.

Jn 8:24 "Therefore I said to you that you will die in your sins; for if you do not believe that I am He, you will die in your sins."

Heb 9:26 He then would have had to suffer often since the foundation of the world; but now, once at the end of the ages, He has appeared to put away sin by the sacrifice of Himself. 27 And as it is appointed for men to die once, but after this the judgment, 28 so Christ was offered once to bear the sins of many. To those who eagerly wait for Him He will appear a second time, apart from sin, for salvation.
So you wouldnt say it out of respect?
Ok then..well me off.
Later
Reply

dougmusr
04-09-2007, 03:25 AM
Originally Posted by Hana_Aku
Was Jesus, pbuh, born of a Virgin mother? Did God simply say "be" and He was? This means He was CREATED! The text I bolded was not found in the oldest manuscripts which means it was an interpolation that came much later. This is agreed by most prominent Biblical Scholars and the "correction" is noted in the footnotes of the most recent versions.



This really doesn't mean much, quite frankly. First, we've already dismissed the "in the beginning...." portion as we know it was not part of the oldest manuscripts. The rest is just your interpretation of text.

Still waiting for an answer to my 2 questions. :)

Peace,
Hana
The prophet Isaiah indicated that the creator in verse 13, who claimed to speak from the beginning in verse 16, was sent by the Lord God and His Spirit. So independent of John, the Bible teaches that Christ's existance preceeded His physical birth. That is why it is called an incarnation.

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

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

14 "All of you, assemble yourselves, and hear!
Who among them has declared these things?
The LORD loves him;
He shall do His pleasure on Babylon,
And His arm shall be against the Chaldeans.

15 I, even I, have spoken;
Yes, I have called him,
I have brought him, and his way will prosper.

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

*Hana*
04-09-2007, 03:27 AM
Originally Posted by dougmusr
I presume you were wanting me to answer your question about Jesus spiritual ressurection. Well, I believe that Jesus was physically resurrected for His appearances to many witnesses. But His spiritual resurrection was the same as those who are living on the last day will experience.

1 cor 15:51 Behold, I tell you a mystery: We shall not all sleep, but we shall all be changed-- 52 in a moment, in the twinkling of an eye, at the last trumpet. For the trumpet will sound, and the dead will be raised incorruptible, and we shall be changed.

The dead shall be raised, the living will be changed from physical to spiritual existance in the twinkling of an eye.
Peace Doug:

So my question still stands. When did Jesus, pbuh, die again so He could be physically resurrected. According to Jesus, pbuh, Himself, it IS necessary to die to be spiritually resurrected? Most Christians believe that happened on Easter Sunday, but we know now that is not correct. So, when exactly did He die for the last time so He could be resurrected in the spiritual form? (We also know the trumpet hasn't sounded yet) :)

Peace to you,
Hana
Reply

dougmusr
04-09-2007, 03:27 AM
Originally Posted by Jazzy
So you wouldnt say it out of respect?
Ok then..well me off.
Later
Thanks for your reply. We should show respect to those who are due it while they are alive. It might make the living feel better, but it has no effect on the dead in my opinion.
Reply

Woodrow
04-09-2007, 03:29 AM
Originally Posted by dougmusr
Volume 9, Book 93, Number 600:

Narrated Anas:

I heard the Prophet saying, "On the Day of Resurrection I will intercede and say, "O my Lord! Admit into Paradise (even) those who have faith equal to a mustard seed in their hearts." Such people will enter Paradise, and then I will say, 'O (Allah) admit into Paradise (even) those who have the least amount of faith in their hearts." Anas then said: As if I were just now looking at the fingers of Allah's Apostle.

Is this quote from the Hadith not an indication that many will require the intercession of another to enter paradise? Is this prophet not part of the creation? Is he not in fact their implied only hope for salvation in that they require intercession?
Greetings Doug,

Bear with me I am not a Scholar in the Ahadith and very much a novice in understanding it. But, as with all Arabic writings it is essential that nothing be taken out of context. You would not believe the difficulty it is to express Arabic thought into English words. I am not very fluent in Arabic, but I have learned to appreciate the richness of the language and how in depth the connotations of each word is.

But, here is a little bit of putting that Hadith into context withe what is said before and after it and what the implication is.

Volumn 009, Book 093, Hadith Number 599.
-----------------------------------------
Narated By Abu Said : The Prophet mentioned a man from the people of the past or those who preceded you. The Prophet said a sentence meaning: Allah had given him wealth and children. When his death approached, he said to his sons, "What kind of father have I been to you?" They replied, "You have been a good father." He told them that he had not presented any good deed before Allah, and if Allah should get hold of him He would punish him.' "So look!" he added, "When I die, burn me, and when I turn into coal, crush me, and when there comes a windy day, scatter my ashes in the wind." The Prophet added, "Then by Allah, he took a firm promise from his children to do so, and they did so. (They burnt him after his death) and threw his ashes on a windy day. Then Allah commanded to his ashes. "Be," and behold! He became a man standing! Allah said, "O My slave! What made you do what you did?" He replied, "For fear of You." Nothing saved him then but Allah's Mercy (So Allah forgave him).


Volumn 009, Book 093, Hadith Number 600.
-----------------------------------------
Narated By Anas : I heard the Prophet saying, "On the Day of Resurrection I will intercede and say, "O my Lord! Admit into Paradise (even) those who have faith equal to a mustard seed in their hearts." Such people will enter Paradise, and then I will say, 'O (Allah) admit into Paradise (even) those who have the least amount of faith in their hearts." Anas then said: As if I were just now looking at the fingers of Allah's Apostle.


Volumn 009, Book 093, Hadith Number 601.
-----------------------------------------
Narated By Ma'bad bin Hilal Al'Anzi : We, i.e., some people from Basra gathered and went to Anas bin Malik, and we went in company with Thabit Al-Bunnani so that he might ask him about the Hadith of Intercession on our behalf. Behold, Anas was in his palace, and our arrival coincided with his Duha prayer. We asked permission to enter and he admitted us while he was sitting on his bed. We said to Thabit, "Do not ask him about anything else first but the Hadith of Intercession." He said, "O Abu Hamza! There are your brethren from Basra coming to ask you about the Hadith of Intercession." Anas then said, "Muhammad talked to us saying, 'On the Day of Resurrection the people will surge with each other like waves, and then they will come to Adam and say, 'Please intercede for us with your Lord.' He will say, 'I am not fit for that but you'd better go to Abraham as he is the Khalil of the Beneficent.' They will go to Abraham and he will say, 'I am not fit for that, but you'd better go to Moses as he is the one to whom Allah spoke directly.' So they will go to Moses and he will say, 'I am not fit for that, but you'd better go to Jesus as he is a soul created by Allah and His Word.' (Be: And it was) they will go to Jesus and he will say, 'I am not fit for that, but you'd better go to Muhammad.'

They would come to me and I would say, 'I am for that.' Then I will ask for my Lord's permission, and it will be given, and then He will inspire me to praise Him with such praises as I do not know now. So I will praise Him with those praises and will fall down, prostrate before Him. Then it will be said, 'O Muhammad, raise your head and speak, for you will be listened to; and ask, for your will be granted (your request); and intercede, for your intercession will be accepted.' I will say, 'O Lord, my followers! My followers!' And then it will be said, 'Go and take out of Hell (Fire) all those who have faith in their hearts, equal to the weight of a barley grain.' I will go and do so and return to praise Him with the same praises, and fall down (prostrate) before Him. Then it will be said, 'O Muhammad, raise your head and speak, for you will be listened to, and ask, for you will be granted (your request); and intercede, for your intercession will be accepted.' I will say, 'O Lord, my followers! My followers!' It will be said, 'Go and take out of it all those who have faith in their hearts equal to the weight of a small ant or a mustard seed.' I will go and do so and return to praise Him with the same praises, and fall down in prostration before Him. It will be said, 'O, Muhammad, raise your head and speak, for you will be listened to, and ask, for you will be granted (your request); and intercede, for your intercession will be accepted.' I will say, 'O Lord, my followers!' Then He will say,
'Go and take out (all those) in whose hearts there is faith even to the lightest, lightest mustard seed. (Take them) out of the Fire.' I will go and do so."'
When we left Anas, I said to some of my companions, "Let's pass by Al-Hasan who is hiding himself in the house of Abi Khalifa and request him to tell us what Anas bin Malik has told us." So we went to him and we greeted him and he admitted us. We said to him, "O Abu Said! We came to you from your brother Anas Bin Malik and he related to us a Hadith about the intercession the like of which I have never heard." He said, "What is that?" Then we told him of the Hadith and said, "He stopped at this point (of the Hadith)." He said, "What then?" We said, "He did not add anything to that." He said, Anas related the Hadith to me twenty years ago when he was a young fellow. I don't know whether he forgot or if he did not like to let you depend on what he might have said." We said, "O Abu Said ! Let us know that." He smiled and said, "Man was created hasty. I did not mention that, but that I wanted to inform you of it.

What I see is that nobody is saved from Hellfire because of Muhammad's inter cessation, but they are saved because the have faith in Allah(swt) and that Muhammad(PBUH) interceded only to the extent that he spread the Qur'an.

Astragfirullah
Reply

dougmusr
04-09-2007, 03:29 AM
Originally Posted by Hana_Aku
Peace Doug:

So my question still stands. When did Jesus, pbuh, die again so He could be physically resurrected. According to Jesus, pbuh, Himself, it IS necessary to die to be spiritually resurrected? Most Christians believe that happened on Easter Sunday, but we know now that is not correct. So, when exactly did He die for the last time so He could be resurrected in the spiritual form? (We also know the trumpet hasn't sounded yet) :)

Peace to you,
Hana
My apologies. Did you provide a Bible verse reference where Jesus indicated this so I can look at it?
Reply

snakelegs
04-09-2007, 03:30 AM
Originally Posted by alapiana1
[/QUOTE=Hana_Aku;708214]Go back and read what I wrote a few posts ago. People saw him because he wasn't dead. Well, AFTER he removed his gardeners disguise, then they saw him. He was so well disguised as a gardener that even Mary didn't know it was him. Amazing. Which raises the question: If he was spiritually resurrected who exactly was he hiding from and why? :?

Peace,
Hana
That is a very creative way of trying to do away with the death and ressurection of Jesus, but His death was witnessed and so was His resurrection and assencion. People are going throuh a lot of trouble to explain away His death and the taking back of His life. If He didn't rise from the dead, I would either be an agnostic or Muslim. I would just enjoy the pleasures of sin, but that is not the case. There will be a day of accountability. That is what people don't like to hear. John saw Jesus in a revelation. Jesus' hair was white as wool and His eyes a flame of fire. He said "Fear not, I am He who was dead and now I am alive forever more. I have the keys sto hell and death. I come to judge the living and the dead" Reference is in the book of Revelation.........[/QUOTE]

correction: if you didn't believe he rose, etc etc
you seem to be implying that all who don't believe this are enjoying the pleasures of sin. i can assure you that some of us are leading quite unsinful, unexciting lives.
Reply

dougmusr
04-09-2007, 03:32 AM
you seem to be implying that all who don't believe this are enjoying the pleasures of sin. i can assure you that some of us are leading quite unsinful, unexciting lives.
As an agnostic, what would be your definition of sin?
Reply

barney
04-09-2007, 03:32 AM
Originally Posted by snakelegs
i can assure you that some of us are leading quite unsinful, unexciting lives.
Snakey, You can live a unsinful exciting life too y'know!
Reply

dougmusr
04-09-2007, 03:37 AM
'On the Day of Resurrection the people will surge with each other like waves, and then they will come to Adam and say, 'Please intercede for us with your Lord.' He will say, 'I am not fit for that but you'd better go to Abraham as he is the Khalil of the Beneficent.'
I would think that the Quran would have to be spread prior to the day of resurrection. In the Hadith you sited, this intercession occurs after resurrection and prior to entry into paradise.

Then it will be said, 'O Muhammad, raise your head and speak, for you will be listened to, and ask, for you will be granted (your request); and intercede, for your intercession will be accepted.' I will say, 'O Lord, my followers! My followers!'
In the above, the people needing intercession are "followers" so one would think they had already received and been taught from the Quran.
Reply

snakelegs
04-09-2007, 03:43 AM
Originally Posted by dougmusr
As an agnostic, what would be your definition of sin?
interesting question. i don't really think in terms of "sin".
basically, anything that causes suffering - anything you wouldn't want someone else to do to you.
Reply

*Hana*
04-09-2007, 04:01 AM
Originally Posted by dougmusr
The prophet Isaiah indicated that the creator in verse 13, who claimed to speak from the beginning in verse 16, was sent by the Lord God and His Spirit. So independent of John, the Bible teaches that Christ's existance preceeded His physical birth. That is why it is called an incarnation.

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

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

14 "All of you, assemble yourselves, and hear!
Who among them has declared these things?
The LORD loves him;
He shall do His pleasure on Babylon,
And His arm shall be against the Chaldeans.

15 I, even I, have spoken;
Yes, I have called him,
I have brought him, and his way will prosper.

16 "Come near to Me, hear this:
I have not spoken in secret from the beginning;
From the time that it was, I was there.
And now the Lord GOD and His Spirit
Have sent Me."
Not exactly sure what you're trying to get at here to be honest. This is God, The Father, speaking, not Jesus. If you had quoted from the beginning of Chapter 48, I think it would make more sense. God almighty is speaking to the house of Jacob (Israel).

If you are trying to say that God knew of Jesus, pbuh, before His physical birth, then I would agree with you. Just as He knew us all and just as he told Jeremiah. He knew us all before we were born, already had planned our birth and death and everything in between. He is the creator of all things, so of course he would know this.

So, really, I'm completely confused as to how these verses answer my questions.

Peace,
Hana
Reply

Redeemed
04-09-2007, 04:05 AM
Originally Posted by Hana_Aku
That is a very creative way of trying to do away with the death and ressurection of Jesus, but His death was witnessed and so was His resurrection and assencion. People are going throuh a lot of trouble to explain away His death and the taking back of His life. If He didn't rise from the dead, I would either be an agnostic or Muslim. I would just enjoy the pleasures of sin, but that is not the case. There will be a day of accountability. That is what people don't like to hear. John saw Jesus in a revelation. Jesus' hair was white as wool and His eyes a flame of fire. He said "Fear not, I am He who was dead and now I am alive forever more. I have the keys sto hell and death. I come to judge the living and the dead" Reference is in the book of Revelation.........
And you are trying to skirt the issue. :) It's no trouble at all to dismiss the resurrection. There is simply no proof. Can you provide ONE historical account from a non-Christian that discussed the resurrection? How about ONE person that talked about all the supposed dead bodies rising from the earth and walking through the streets? There are many non Christian writers that have written about Jesus, pbuh, and not ONE talks about this resurrection or rotting corpses walking the earth. What makes you think Muslims enjoy the pleasures of sin? We don't believe a man was unjustly tortured, brutalized, humiliated and slaughtered so we would have a free ticket to sin. No, not at all. We are held accountable for our sins and can't pawn them off on an innocent man. :)

And still you have not answered the question. I would appreciate it if you would. :)

Hana[/QUOTE]


Whenever I don't answer a question, please restate it, because it is hard to find it through all this dialogue. Next topic, you don't understand Christianity when you say that we can sin and just pawn it off on an innocent man. It is the goodness of the Lord that leads man to repentance. That means Christians are supposed to turn from sin and be perfect like their heavenly Father. God is not mocked; for whatsoever a man sows so shall he reap. We are all according to the Bible guilty of sin. It is written "There is none righteous, no not one... the penalty for that sin is death, but the gift of God is eternal life... even to those who believe on His name." It is like being guilty of a crime and going before the judge without an advocate and just the prosecuting attorney (the devil). We wouldn't stand a chance.
Reply

dougmusr
04-09-2007, 04:05 AM
Originally Posted by snakelegs
interesting question. i don't really think in terms of "sin".
basically, anything that causes suffering - anything you wouldn't want someone else to do to you.
I would expect that to be your answer. So when a religions person and an agnostic use the word sin, they are using very different definitions. So by your criteria, you may in fact be living a sinless life, but not by a religious persons criteria based on their scriptures.

The problem with the suffering definition of sin in my opinion is that it presumes we define suffering. Let me give an example. Women's rights groups would maintain that an abortion is often the preferred method of handling an unwanted pregnancy. So now we have to decide if a fetus experiences suffering, and if it does, we have to determine whose suffering is more important in the decision, the fetus, or the woman. We also have to determine if the financial hardship of supporting the child if brought to term is worse than the physical and/or psychological effects of the abortion. So I would maintain that a person can't possibly know what suffering may result in the future from today's decision.
Reply

Woodrow
04-09-2007, 04:06 AM
Originally Posted by dougmusr
I would think that the Quran would have to be spread prior to the day of resurrection. In the Hadith you sited, this intercession occurs after resurrection and prior to entry into paradise.



In the above, the people needing intercession are "followers" so one would think they had already received and been taught from the Quran.
To be honest we are getting into the Ahadith a bit too deep without having the presence of a scholar who has studied the Ahadith to help explain.

A rough analogy would be to say that the Qur'an is the actual word of Allah(swt) while the Ahadith is the legalistic message as to how we are to live it. I would not even want to begin to try to say what is meant as a metaphor and what is meant to be literal. I am certain that in accordance with that hadith, Muhammad actually did say those words. Now if they are meant to be in a literal or metaphorical sense I do not fully understand.

But, I do know that if we see a disagreement in thought or opinion between the Qur'an and the Authentic Ahadith, it means we are misunderstanding one or both. In the event of a misunderstanding on our part, it is best to follow what the Qur'an says and then try to understand how the Ahadith applies to that, not to make the Qur'an apply to our interpretation of the Ahadith. There will be no difference of truth between the Qur'an and the True Ahadith. If we see a difference, we are not understanding the Ahadith.

With that said the Qur'an does specificaly say we are not to ask for anyone to intercede on our behalf.

Surah 1


بِسْمِ اللهِ الرَّحْمنِ الرَّحِي
1:
Muhsin Khan: In the Name of Allah, the Most Beneficent, the Most Merciful.
Shakir: In the name of Allah, the Beneficent, the Merciful.
Transliteration: Bismi Allahi arrahmani arraheem
الْحَمْدُ للّهِ رَبِّ الْعَالَمِينَ
2:
Muhsin Khan: All the praises and thanks be to Allah, the Lord of the 'Alamin (mankind, jinns and all that exists).
Shakir: All praise is due to Allah, the Lord of the Worlds.
Transliteration: Alhamdu lillahi rabbi alAAalameen
الرَّحْمـنِ الرَّحِيمِ
3:
Muhsin Khan: The Most Beneficent, the Most Merciful.
Shakir: The Beneficent, the Merciful.
Transliteration: Arrahmani arraheem
مَالِكِ يَوْمِ الدِّينِ
4:
Muhsin Khan: The Only Owner (and the Only Ruling Judge) of the Day of Recompense (i.e. the Day of Resurrection)
Shakir: Master of the Day of Judgment.
Transliteration: Maliki yawmi addeen
إِيَّاكَ نَعْبُدُ وإِيَّاكَ نَسْتَعِينُ
5:
Muhsin Khan: You (Alone) we worship, and you (Alone) we ask for help (for each and everything).
Shakir: Thee do we serve and Thee do we beseech for help.
Transliteration: Iyyaka naAAbudu wa-iyyaka nastaAAeen
اهدِنَــــا الصِّرَاطَ المُستَقِيمَ
6:
Muhsin Khan: Guide us to the Straight Way
Shakir: Keep us on the right path.
Transliteration: Ihdina assirata almustaqeem
صِرَاطَ الَّذِينَ أَنعَمتَ عَلَيهِمْ غَيرِ المَغضُوبِ عَلَيهِمْ وَلاَ الضَّالِّينَ
7:
Muhsin Khan: The Way of those on whom You have bestowed Your Grace , not (the way) of those who earned Your Anger (such as the Jews), nor of those who went astray (such as the Christians).
Shakir: The path of those upon whom Thou hast bestowed favors. Not (the path) of those upon whom Thy wrath is brought down, nor of those who go astray.
Transliteration: Sirata allatheena anAAamta AAalayhim ghayri almaghdoobi AAalayhim wala addalleen

Copyright @ 2004-2005 Islamic Network, Inc. All rights reserved.
Reply

Redeemed
04-09-2007, 04:15 AM
Originally Posted by snakelegs
That is a very creative way of trying to do away with the death and ressurection of Jesus, but His death was witnessed and so was His resurrection and assencion. People are going throuh a lot of trouble to explain away His death and the taking back of His life. If He didn't rise from the dead, I would either be an agnostic or Muslim. I would just enjoy the pleasures of sin, but that is not the case. There will be a day of accountability. That is what people don't like to hear. John saw Jesus in a revelation. Jesus' hair was white as wool and His eyes a flame of fire. He said "Fear not, I am He who was dead and now I am alive forever more. I have the keys sto hell and death. I come to judge the living and the dead" Reference is in the book of Revelation.........

correction: if you didn't believe he rose, etc etc
you seem to be implying that all who don't believe this are enjoying the pleasures of sin. i can assure you that some of us are leading quite unsinful, unexciting lives.[/QUOTE]

It is all in the definition of sin. To a Christian, sin is anything that separates us from God. In light of this view, you would be in a constant state of sin being an agnostic.
Reply

dougmusr
04-09-2007, 04:16 AM
Originally Posted by Hana_Aku
Not exactly sure what you're trying to get at here to be honest. This is God, The Father, speaking, not Jesus. If you had quoted from the beginning of Chapter 48, I think it would make more sense. God almighty is speaking to the house of Jacob (Israel).

If you are trying to say that God knew of Jesus, pbuh, before His physical birth, then I would agree with you. Just as He knew us all and just as he told Jeremiah. He knew us all before we were born, already had planned our birth and death and everything in between. He is the creator of all things, so of course he would know this.

So, really, I'm completely confused as to how these verses answer my questions.

Peace,
Hana
I agree that it is God speaking, and according to verse 16, this God has a Lord God and a Spirit. So I am not saying God merely knew Jesus, but that Jesus prexisted His physical birth as the creator. The way I see it, these verses are quite clear.

Concerning Jesus resurrection, He was raised from the dead, appeared to many, and then was transformed and taken up to heaven. He did not need to die again to be resurrected. On the last day, there will be many people living I would guess. I don't feel that God will kill everyone to resurrect them. They will be changed in the twinkling of an eye as Paul says. Change does not imply to me that a resurrected person will leave behind a corpse as they are taken up. So if this does not answer your question, try restating it, maybe I don;t understand what you are asking.
Reply

snakelegs
04-09-2007, 04:20 AM
Originally Posted by dougmusr
I would expect that to be your answer. So when a religions person and an agnostic use the word sin, they are using very different definitions. So by your criteria, you may in fact be living a sinless life, but not by a religious persons criteria based on their scriptures.

The problem with the suffering definition of sin in my opinion is that it presumes we define suffering. Let me give an example. Women's rights groups would maintain that an abortion is often the preferred method of handling an unwanted pregnancy. So now we have to decide if a fetus experiences suffering, and if it does, we have to determine whose suffering is more important in the decision, the fetus, or the woman. We also have to determine if the financial hardship of supporting the child if brought to term is worse than the physical and/or psychological effects of the abortion. So I would maintain that a person can't possibly know what suffering may result in the future from today's decision.
as i said, i don't even think in terms of "sin", which is, itself a religious term.
"sin" doesn't really even belong in an agnostic style vocabulary.
Reply

barney
04-09-2007, 04:25 AM
Originally Posted by snakelegs
as i said, i don't even think in terms of "sin", which is, itself a religious term.
"sin" doesn't really even belong in an agnostic style vocabulary.
I think you can translate sin into breaking of moral bounderies set by the self or perhaps the state. yeah, i'll take that as sin.
Reply

dougmusr
04-09-2007, 04:29 AM
Originally Posted by snakelegs
as i said, i don't even think in terms of "sin", which is, itself a religious term.
"sin" doesn't really even belong in an agnostic style vocabulary.
I of course understand this, and so your claim to live a sinless life full of excitement is by an agnostics definition of sin and excitement, which would be very different than what a religious person would mean by the same statement.

The one thing I think we can agree on is that we probably both know when we have been sinned against. Have you heard the song with the line "Hey, won't you play me a somebody did somebody wrong song"?.
Reply

dougmusr
04-09-2007, 04:38 AM
But, I do know that if we see a disagreement in thought or opinion between the Qur'an and the Authentic Ahadith, it means we are misunderstanding one or both. In the event of a misunderstanding on our part, it is best to follow what the Qur'an says and then try to understand how the Ahadith applies to that, not to make the Qur'an apply to our interpretation of the Ahadith. There will be no difference of truth between the Qur'an and the True Ahadith. If we see a difference, we are not understanding the Ahadith.
I understand Muslims feel that Bible is full of errors and contradictions and I don't claim to be able to refute them all. I do think that when a Muslim claims that The Quran is God's final revelation to all mankind, it is a bit strange that God revealed it in such a way that it and the Hadith require a science in order to reconcile the inconsistancies, something that all mankind is apparently unable to do without a scientist in interpretation.
Reply

barney
04-09-2007, 04:42 AM
Originally Posted by dougmusr
I understand Muslims feel that Bible is full of errors and contradictions and I don't claim to be able to refute them all. I do think that when a Muslim claims that The Quran is God's final revelation to all mankind, it is a bit strange that God revealed it in such a way that it and the Hadith require a science in order to reconcile the inconsistancies, something that all mankind is apparently unable to do without a scientist in interpretation.
The "scientists" cant agree on whats abrogated. If they could then it would be terribly clear. Thats the whole problem!
Reply

Alexius
04-09-2007, 04:50 AM
Originally Posted by barney
He totally made us sinful. "Let those without sin..etc". Evry denomination I know of has Penal substitution as a core value. I know it was invented in the 12th century, but Catholics, Protestants and Baptists and every other one that I've heard of, all say that Jesus died on the cross to atone for our sins.

Without this as a framework, theres no reason why Jesus would have let himself be killed, if he was indeed God, and the scriptures, (heavily interpreted and changed as they are from century to century) would not have evolved that way.

The Idea of dying to save us is the core value of every Christian denomination I know of.
First of all, I have no clue what you are quoting from and second of all, not all "denominations" subscribe to this teaching. For instance, Eastern Orthodox do not accept the teaching of Penal Substitution. Instead, they subscribe to the ancient doctrine of Christus Victor, where Christ is a conqueror of sin and death. This is the view I accept. Christ still died to atone for our sins, just as in ancient Judaism, an animal sacrifice was necessary for the atonement of sins. That is no different. The concepts behind it, however, are.

Again, God created man "good." Scripture is clear about this point...

Prayers and petitions,
Alexius:thumbs_up
Reply

*Hana*
04-09-2007, 04:58 AM
alapiana1;708359
Whenever I don't answer a question, please restate it, because it is hard to find it through all this dialogue.
I think it's easier for you to scroll back than for me to ask repeatedly. :)


Next topic, you don't understand Christianity
Please don't assume to know the depth of my understanding about christianity simply because it doesn't agree with you. It is because of my education and understanding that I became a Muslim. So, perhaps it is you that does not yet understand???

when you say that we can sin and just pawn it off on an innocent man. It is the goodness of the Lord that leads man to repentance. That means Christians are supposed to turn from sin and be perfect like their heavenly Father.
We are creations not the creator. We can never be perfect and only an unjust God would expect us to be perfect. if that were the case...why repent? Why have a saviour? Why be concerned about salvation? God is the ONLY one worthy of worship and more than capable of forgiving sin on His own.

God is not mocked; for whatsoever a man sows so shall he reap. We are all according to the Bible guilty of sin.
How can you be guilty of sin when you just said you have to be perfect. How cruel?? A God that would create you imperfect and expect you to be perfect. Very cruel and totally unjust.

It is written "There is none righteous, no not one... the penalty for that sin is death, but the gift of God is eternal life... even to those who believe on His name." It is like being guilty of a crime and going before the judge without an advocate and just the prosecuting attorney (the devil). We wouldn't stand a chance.
Interesting that you choose to quote Paul rather than Jesus, pbuh. As you know Jesus, pbuh, said, "The disciple is not above the teacher..." (Luke 6:40)

Why don't you quote what Jesus, pbuh said? I'm sure you know the verse I am referring to.

I came not to call the righteous, but sinners to repentance” (Mark 2:16-17).

Are you really willing to tell Jesus, pbuh, that He is wrong and Paul is correct? Jesus, pbuh, clearly said he came only for the LOST sheep of Israel....not ALL the sheep. Obviously there were many that were righteous and did not need His teachings. Why would Jesus, pbuh, feel the need to reiterate here that he did not come to call the RIGHTEOUS, but ONLY sinners?

As the saying goes: You can follow Christ or you can follow Paul, but you cannot follow both at the same time.

Hana
Reply

Alexius
04-09-2007, 05:09 AM
Originally Posted by Hana_Aku


How can you be guilty of sin when you just said you have to be perfect. How cruel?? A God that would create you imperfect and expect you to be perfect. Very cruel and totally unjust.



Hana

I believe each person is responsible for his own personal sins...Those are what must be atoned for...So once a person sins, he is guilty of that sin.

Prayers and petitions,
Alexius:statisfie
Reply

*Hana*
04-09-2007, 05:18 AM
Originally Posted by Alexius
I believe each person is responsible for his own personal sins...Those are what must be atoned for...So once a person sins, he is guilty of that sin.

Prayers and petitions,
Alexius:statisfie
We agree :)

Hana

ps: Doug, I was trying to answer your post but it's after 2:00am and my eyes are burning out of my head. lol Inshallah (God willing), I will respond tomorrow, ok?

Take care,
Hana
Reply

snakelegs
04-09-2007, 05:18 AM
Originally Posted by dougmusr
I of course understand this, and so your claim to live a sinless life full of excitement is by an agnostics definition of sin and excitement, which would be very different than what a religious person would mean by the same statement.

The one thing I think we can agree on is that we probably both know when we have been sinned against. Have you heard the song with the line "Hey, won't you play me a somebody did somebody wrong song"?.
:confused:
did i say i live a sinless life full of excitement?
"sin" is not in my vocabulary. i have morals and ethics which guide the way i live, many of which are also promoted by religion.
when i used the word sin it was in reply to apiana who had used it.
:hiding:
Reply

Woodrow
04-09-2007, 05:28 AM
Originally Posted by dougmusr
I understand Muslims feel that Bible is full of errors and contradictions and I don't claim to be able to refute them all. I do think that when a Muslim claims that The Quran is God's final revelation to all mankind, it is a bit strange that God revealed it in such a way that it and the Hadith require a science in order to reconcile the inconsistancies, something that all mankind is apparently unable to do without a scientist in interpretation.
The difficulty is for a non-Muslim to understand the correlation between the Qur'an and the Ahadith.

Perhaps an analogy would help.

The Qur'an has nearly the same place to a Muslim as the Bible has to a Christian.

The Ahadith is a bit difficult to understand. In essence the Ahadith could be considered the legal and historical branch of Islam. It gives us the historical history of the early days of Islam from the time of Muhammad plus it contains all of the legalistic precedents for Shariah law. It is a very large collection of books and is an entire study in it's own right.

Islam goes much further then being a single focused religion, it is part of every aspect of a Muslim's life. We are directed to have every act and thought we do to be as an act of worship to Allah(swt). The Qur'an tells us why, and the Ahadith tells us how. No person could every live a perfect life and Allah(swt) only expects us to do to the best of our ability. For that the ahadith is our instructors.

Remember, Islam has no ordained clergy. The Ahadith is a portable seminary, historical and legalistic school we can all have at our finger tips. We each have access to learning the best means to practice our faith and we each have the information necessary to evaluate the teachings of all scholars.

We are each responsable for our own actions. If we are going to be responsable it only makes sense that we would be given adquate information to make informed decisions and to understand the implications of error.

Oddly, people can understand the need and justification to spend many years in school to grasp the fundamentals of a career. Yet, they fail to see that we all have one final career to become proficient in. Doesn't it make sense that we would also have the needed "text books" to achieve our credentials for that career? The wonder is Allah(swt) does not expect us to have the same criteria for a passing grade, the sincere desire and honest attempt to do the best we can is all that is needed to pass the final exam. But, we are responsible for using the right text books.
Reply

barney
04-09-2007, 05:33 AM
Originally Posted by Alexius
First of all, I have no clue what you are quoting from and second of all, not all "denominations" subscribe to this teaching. For instance, Eastern Orthodox do not accept the teaching of Penal Substitution. Instead, they subscribe to the ancient doctrine of Christus Victor, where Christ is a conqueror of sin and death. This is the view I accept. Christ still died to atone for our sins, just as in ancient Judaism, an animal sacrifice was necessary for the atonement of sins. That is no different. The concepts behind it, however, are.

Again, God created man "good." Scripture is clear about this point...

Prayers and petitions,
Alexius:thumbs_up
OK, i diddnt know about Eastern Ordhadoxy. Fair enough and thanks for that.

How does dying atone for our sins then? I've heard he "payed the price of sin for us", but i'm not actually getting that as a concept at all.
Reply

*Hana*
04-09-2007, 12:54 PM
Originally Posted by dougmusr
My apologies. Did you provide a Bible verse reference where Jesus indicated this so I can look at it?
Peace to you doug:

Remember how the Jews were always coming to Him with riddles to try to trick Jesus, pbuh. (ie: Matt. 22:17 asking about paying tribute to Ceasar, John 8:4, Mark 12:28, etc.). This was another one of those "riddles" for Jesus, pbuh.

Luke 20:27-36:

27 Then some of the Sadducees, who deny that there is a resurrection, came to Him and asked Him, 28 saying: “Teacher, Moses wrote to us that if a man’s brother dies, having a wife, and he dies without children, his brother should take his wife and raise up offspring for his brother. 29 Now there were seven brothers. And the first took a wife, and died without children. 30 And the second[a] took her as wife, and he died childless. 31 Then the third took her, and in like manner the seven also; and they left no children,[b] and died. 32 Last of all the woman died also. 33 Therefore, in the resurrection, whose wife does she become? For all seven had her as wife.”
34 Jesus answered and said to them, “The sons of this age marry and are given in marriage. 35 But those who are counted worthy to attain that age, and the resurrection from the dead, neither marry nor are given in marriage; 36 nor can they die anymore, for they are equal to the angels and are sons of God, being sons of the resurrection.

This is confirmed by simply looking at Lazareth's physical resurrection. He was not like the angels as he required food, drink, sleep, and I'm quite sure he is still not roaming the earth, which means he had to die again to be spiritually resurrected, which would be exactly the way Jesus, pbuh, said it would be.

Peace to you,
Hana
Reply

*Hana*
04-09-2007, 01:55 PM
Peace Doug:

With reference to Isiaha 48:16. This verse in no way says anything about Jesus, pbuh. You are assuming such things. This is known as eisegesis, (reading one's own ideas into a text) There is no specific reference to anyone except God. Granted when it become common practice for the prophets to speak in the first person, (many examples of this are in the bible) along with God speaking in the first person, it can become confusing.

However, this still in no way, shape or forum claims divinity for Jesus, pbuh or any other person.

Just this one chapter alone (48) from verse 1, is a definite contradiction to itself IF what you are attempting to say were accurate. So, this poses another problem. Which is correct? Chapter 48 Verses 1-11 or your idea/interpretation of verse 16?

With peace,
Hana
Reply

Alexius
04-09-2007, 04:29 PM
Originally Posted by barney
OK, i diddnt know about Eastern Ordhadoxy. Fair enough and thanks for that.

How does dying atone for our sins then? I've heard he "payed the price of sin for us", but i'm not actually getting that as a concept at all.
The penalty for sin is death. By dying on the cross, Christ payed that penalty for us. It was a ransom for our souls. What part of the concept don't you understand? I'll try to explain it better once I know...

Prayers and petitions,
Alexius :?
Reply

*Hana*
04-09-2007, 04:38 PM
Originally Posted by Alexius
The penalty for sin is death. By dying on the cross, Christ payed that penalty for us. It was a ransom for our souls. What part of the concept don't you understand? I'll try to explain it better once I know...

Prayers and petitions,
Alexius :?
Peace to you Alexius:

I think the question is why? What would be the purpose in so much humiliation, suffering, torture, etc., when God, the creator of ALL things can simply forgive? Christians say Christ died on the cross so their sins could be forgiven...why and how? Particularly when the Bible is clear that sin cannot be inherited. God said He was not the author of confusion, but your very salvation has no logical explanation, and quite frankly, was not mentioned anywhere in the older manuscripts.

As you can see, it's the entire concept that doesn't make sense not just one specific area.

Peace,
Hana
Reply

Woodrow
04-09-2007, 04:46 PM
Originally Posted by Alexius
The penalty for sin is death. By dying on the cross, Christ payed that penalty for us. It was a ransom for our souls. What part of the concept don't you understand? I'll try to explain it better once I know...

Prayers and petitions,
Alexius :?
Peace Alexius,

I can only find two flaws with that concept.

Flaw one is it removes people from accepting responsibility for their actions and places our just punishment upon an innocent person.

Flaw 2 is Isa(as) did not die on the cross.

4:156. That they rejected Faith; that they uttered against Mary a grave false charge; S P C
4:157. That they said (in boast), "We killed Christ Jesus the son of Mary, the Messenger of Allah";- but they killed him not, nor crucified him, but so it was made to appear to them, and those who differ therein are full of doubts, with no (certain) knowledge, but only conjecture to follow, for of a surety they killed him not:- S P C

4:158. Nay, Allah raised him up unto Himself; and Allah is Exalted in Power, Wise;- S P C
4:159. And there is none of the People of the Book but must believe in him before his death; and on the Day of Judgment he will be a witness against them;- S P C


Yusuf Ali's Quran Translation
Also Jesus(as) Himself will bear witness against those who spread that blasphemy about him.

4:159. And there is none of the People of the Book but must believe in him before his death; and on the Day of Judgment he will be a witness against them;- S P C
Reply

Redeemed
04-09-2007, 09:32 PM
Originally Posted by Woodrow
Peace Alexius,

I can only find two flaws with that concept.

Flaw one is it removes people from accepting responsibility for their actions and places our just punishment upon an innocent person.

Flaw 2 is Isa(as) did not die on the cross.



Also Jesus(as) Himself will bear witness against those who spread that blasphemy about him.

4:159. And there is none of the People of the Book but must believe in him before his death; and on the Day of Judgment he will be a witness against them;- S P C

That's what the Jews did before Jesus the Lamb of God came they would sacrifice an innocent lamb as a sin offering. God has set things up in such a way that without the shedding of blood there can be no remission of sins. Who am I to question the way He has ordained things to be. Jesus said you must be perfect even as your heavenly father is perfect. What I believe that means is we are to strive for perfection, but it is God who has begun a good work in us and will complete what He started in us. In the mean time all our past, present and future sins are atoned for making us the righteousness of God, because Jesus became sin for us and all the righteousness of Jesus is on us (Our sin on Him and His righteousness on us). It is written how can we escape the judgment of God if we neglect so great a salvation?
Reply

snakelegs
04-09-2007, 11:54 PM
Originally Posted by Hana_Aku
I think the question is why?
As you can see, it's the entire concept that doesn't make sense not just one specific area.
Peace,
Hana
i agree with this. it never made any sense to me either, though i must admit that i have never tried to understand it as it was never one of my interests.
Reply

*Hana*
04-10-2007, 12:20 AM
Originally Posted by snakelegs
i agree with this. it never made any sense to me either, though i must admit that i have never tried to understand it as it was never one of my interests.
Oh, I've tried desperately to understand it because prior to reverting, my salvation depended on it. :muddlehea

Alhamdulillah, I found Islam so that's not an issue for me anymore. :)

Peace to you,
Hana
Reply

YusufNoor
04-10-2007, 01:09 AM
Originally Posted by alapiana1
The Centurion at the final hour before the celebration of Passover was to break the legs of all that were hanging on a cross. He was an expert who can tell if one was unconscious or dead. He would break the legs of those still alive so that the condemned couldn't push themselves up for air hence speed up the death process for them. He broke the legs of the two that were next to Jesus, but when he saw that Jesus was already dead, he didn't break His legs as a fulfillment to prophecy. Jesus was seen by hundreds of people after his resurrection including His disciples. His disciples even witnessed is ascension.
A`udhu Billahi mina Shaytanir Rajeem,

Bismillahir Rahmanir Raheem

Assalamu alaykum wa'rahma-tullahi, wa'barakatahu,

Salaam,

what centurian? what is his name? on what date did this event take place? are there news stories from THAT day that confirm this?

if not, where does this story come from? who originally reported it? is there a chain of narrators leading back to the original source?

or is this one of those "according to" stories? and if so, according to who? can this person be identified?

in other words, what factual evidence is there to this myth?

:w:
Reply

dougmusr
04-10-2007, 02:44 AM
Originally Posted by Hana_Aku
Peace to you doug:

Remember how the Jews were always coming to Him with riddles to try to trick Jesus, pbuh. (ie: Matt. 22:17 asking about paying tribute to Ceasar, John 8:4, Mark 12:28, etc.). This was another one of those "riddles" for Jesus, pbuh.

Luke 20:27-36:

27 Then some of the Sadducees, who deny that there is a resurrection, came to Him and asked Him, 28 saying: “Teacher, Moses wrote to us that if a man’s brother dies, having a wife, and he dies without children, his brother should take his wife and raise up offspring for his brother. 29 Now there were seven brothers. And the first took a wife, and died without children. 30 And the second[a] took her as wife, and he died childless. 31 Then the third took her, and in like manner the seven also; and they left no children,[b] and died. 32 Last of all the woman died also. 33 Therefore, in the resurrection, whose wife does she become? For all seven had her as wife.”
34 Jesus answered and said to them, “The sons of this age marry and are given in marriage. 35 But those who are counted worthy to attain that age, and the resurrection from the dead, neither marry nor are given in marriage; 36 nor can they die anymore, for they are equal to the angels and are sons of God, being sons of the resurrection.

This is confirmed by simply looking at Lazareth's physical resurrection. He was not like the angels as he required food, drink, sleep, and I'm quite sure he is still not roaming the earth, which means he had to die again to be spiritually resurrected, which would be exactly the way Jesus, pbuh, said it would be.

Peace to you,
Hana
Thanks for your patience. Do you believe a person who is alive on the last day must die a physical death and be resurrected to enter heaven?
Reply

dougmusr
04-10-2007, 02:56 AM
Originally Posted by Hana_Aku
Peace Doug:

With reference to Isiaha 48:16. This verse in no way says anything about Jesus, pbuh. You are assuming such things. This is known as eisegesis, (reading one's own ideas into a text) There is no specific reference to anyone except God. Granted when it become common practice for the prophets to speak in the first person, (many examples of this are in the bible) along with God speaking in the first person, it can become confusing.

However, this still in no way, shape or forum claims divinity for Jesus, pbuh or any other person.

Just this one chapter alone (48) from verse 1, is a definite contradiction to itself IF what you are attempting to say were accurate. So, this poses another problem. Which is correct? Chapter 48 Verses 1-11 or your idea/interpretation of verse 16?

With peace,
Hana
Isaiah 48:16 16 "Come near to Me, hear this:
I have not spoken in secret from the beginning;
From the time that it was, I was there.
And now the Lord GOD and His Spirit
Have sent Me."
So who is the "I" referring to in this verse?
Reply

dougmusr
04-10-2007, 03:00 AM
Originally Posted by Hana_Aku
Peace to you Alexius:

I think the question is why? What would be the purpose in so much humiliation, suffering, torture, etc., when God, the creator of ALL things can simply forgive? Christians say Christ died on the cross so their sins could be forgiven...why and how? Particularly when the Bible is clear that sin cannot be inherited. God said He was not the author of confusion, but your very salvation has no logical explanation, and quite frankly, was not mentioned anywhere in the older manuscripts.

As you can see, it's the entire concept that doesn't make sense not just one specific area.

Peace,
Hana
Isn't this the same logical reason why our Agnostic forum members believe there is no Hell? Why is their logic flawed concerning Hell and yours is correct concerning the need for Christ's atonement for forgiveness?
Reply

Redeemed
04-10-2007, 03:11 AM
I wish that we could take all the books of the different faiths and put them in a vault locked up before the world where every one cries out to there creator saying show us Creator of the world which book is most closely aligned with your will? Then the world can witness the only book standing with the others burned or ripped to sheds. This should be possible to arrange.
Reply

Redeemed
04-10-2007, 03:17 AM
Originally Posted by YusufNoor
A`udhu Billahi mina Shaytanir Rajeem,

Bismillahir Rahmanir Raheem

Assalamu alaykum wa'rahma-tullahi, wa'barakatahu,

Salaam,

what centurian? what is his name? on what date did this event take place? are there news stories from THAT day that confirm this?

if not, where does this story come from? who originally reported it? is there a chain of narrators leading back to the original source?

or is this one of those "according to" stories? and if so, according to who? can this person be identified?

in other words, what factual evidence is there to this myth?

:w:
These testimonies are written in the Bible. I can not give you dates. I can't even tell you the date Jesus was born who knows. These are not fair questions. I can ask the same about the things written in the Qur'an.
Reply

NoName55
04-10-2007, 03:18 AM
book standing with the others burned or ripped to sheds. This should be possible to arrange.
I thought the idea of book burning had died with third reich.
  • Is there a forth reich on the way or the third reich transmigrated
  • did you escape from landover baptist church?
Reply

Umar001
04-10-2007, 11:55 AM
alapiana1 thinking of showing any reason why poeple should hold the book you quote as valid historical evidence?
Reply

YusufNoor
04-10-2007, 12:13 PM
Originally Posted by alapiana1
These testimonies are written in the Bible. I can not give you dates. I can't even tell you the date Jesus was born who knows. These are not fair questions. I can ask the same about the things written in the Qur'an.
A`udhu Billahi mina Shaytanir Rajeem,

Bismillahir Rahmanir Raheem

Assalamu alaykum wa'rahma-tullahi, wa'barakatahu

Salaam,

i did not start a thread called "Did Jesus die and rise from the dead?", YOU DID! then you posted a story:

Originally Posted by alapiana1
The Centurion at the final hour before the celebration of Passover was to break the legs of all that were hanging on a cross. He was an expert who can tell if one was unconscious or dead. He would break the legs of those still alive so that the condemned couldn't push themselves up for air hence speed up the death process for them. He broke the legs of the two that were next to Jesus, but when he saw that Jesus was already dead, he didn't break His legs as a fulfillment to prophecy. Jesus was seen by hundreds of people after his resurrection including His disciples. His disciples even witnessed is ascension.
you posted this of your own free will, NOW, i'm asking you for contemperaneous evidence for what you posted! is there any? i'm relatively certain that you'll post some "faith" issues other than facts or evidence, BUT, YOUR Bilbe says in 1 Thessalonians 5:21:

Prove all things; hold fast that which is good.

so, in order to be in agreement with YOUR Bible, please PROVE you statement. if you have no contemperaneous evidence, WHATSOEVER, then ACCORDING to YOUR BIBLE, we must dismiss the fable that you wrote!

do you understand this?

Edit:

I wish that we could take all the books of the different faiths and put them in a vault locked up before the world where every one cries out to there creator saying show us Creator of the world which book is most closely aligned with your will? Then the world can witness the only book standing with the others burned or ripped to sheds. This should be possible to arrange.

you can actually accomplish this. simply destroy ALL writen and computer/print evidence of all the "Holy" books. you can then gather 12 Muslim Hafiz's(who all have "different" mother tongues) and 12 Priest and Mininster of the Christian faith together. at the end of 2 days, the Hafiz's can reproduce the ENITRE QUR'AN and that can by verified by MILLIONS and MILLIONS of Muslims throughout the world! (the opening chapter of the Qur'an is recited by OVER A BILLION people 17 times a day, in it's original language!) as for those priests and minister, they will not even be able to decide what chapters and what verses should be contained in "their Bible"!!! that is one of the PROOFS that the Qur'an is the WORD of Allah(SWT)!
:w:
Reply

*Hana*
04-10-2007, 12:48 PM
Originally Posted by dougmusr
Thanks for your patience. Do you believe a person who is alive on the last day must die a physical death and be resurrected to enter heaven?
Peace to you Doug:

Yes, Doug, I do. As the Qur'an tells us:

Every soul shall have a taste of death: and We test you by evil and by good by way of trial. To Us must you return. (Qur’ân 21:35)

Peace,
Hana
Reply

*Hana*
04-10-2007, 01:17 PM
Originally Posted by dougmusr
So who is the "I" referring to in this verse?
Peace Doug:

As i mentioned, when the writers of books speak in the first person quoting God, Prophets and/or themselves, the message and words becomes distorted. That's why I said verses 1-11 were completely contradictory to the other verses that are from a questionable origin. One thing is for sure, is that at most the reference is to 2...not 3, (some try to use this verse as proof of a trinity). The "I" could be God in the royal pronoun which is the norm in scripture, or it could be the author quoting a prophet or, as has been questioned, it could have been added later by a different writer, (verses 40-64). So it's anyone's guess quite frankly.

But, really, the main thing is if you try to translate that verse to mean 2 (God and Jesus), then you have a serious problem with the first 11 verses of the chapter. If you apply it as a quote the writer added then you have man's word mixed with the word of God. If you take it to mean a prophet was speaking, then again, the entire chapter contradicts itself. So, I suspect it is for these reasons and more that this verse is not often used to try to prove the tri-union theory or divinity of Jesus.

Personally, reading this chapter, the writing style does change quite noticeably so I understand why there are questions raised as to the authorship of some of the verses. Also, although there have been more than one copy of the Isiaha manuscript found, none are exactly the same....so this also raises doubt about the authenticity of some verses.

Anyway, just my humble opinion based on researching from others with far more knowledge than me. I'm sure they have forgotten more than I know, so I can only give my opinion as I am not a scholar. However, I would recommend you seek the advice of a biblical scholar that is familiar with the writing styles of biblical text. It's dangerous waters when one tries to translate or give meaning to verses that are not clear or seem to contradict the verses before it. Just some advice, and I remind myself first. :)

Peace,
Hana
Reply

ACC
04-10-2007, 01:24 PM
Originally Posted by YusufNoor
A`udhu Billahi mina Shaytanir Rajeem,

Bismillahir Rahmanir Raheem

Assalamu alaykum wa'rahma-tullahi, wa'barakatahu

Salaam,

i did not start a thread called "Did Jesus die and rise from the dead?", YOU DID! then you posted a story:



you posted this of your own free will, NOW, i'm asking you for contemperaneous evidence for what you posted! is there any? i'm relatively certain that you'll post some "faith" issues other than facts or evidence, BUT, YOUR Bilbe says in 1 Thessalonians 5:21:

Prove all things; hold fast that which is good.

so, in order to be in agreement with YOUR Bible, please PROVE you statement. if you have no contemperaneous evidence, WHATSOEVER, then ACCORDING to YOUR BIBLE, we must dismiss the fable that you wrote!

do you understand this?

Edit:




you can actually accomplish this. simply destroy ALL writen and computer/print evidence of all the "Holy" books. you can then gather 12 Muslim Hafiz's(who all have "different" mother tongues) and 12 Priest and Mininster of the Christian faith together. at the end of 2 days, the Hafiz's can reproduce the ENITRE QUR'AN and that can by verified by MILLIONS and MILLIONS of Muslims throughout the world! (the opening chapter of the Qur'an is recited by OVER A BILLION people 17 times a day, in it's original language!) as for those priests and minister, they will not even be able to decide what chapters and what verses should be contained in "their Bible"!!! that is one of the PROOFS that the Qur'an is the WORD of Allah(SWT)!
:w:
Rather angry fellow, aren’t you? How do you know that everything in the quran was from mohamed? Because someone said so? I need a written testimony directly from mohamed, with DNA evidence to prove it was written by him. Please do not say that others listened and copied all that he said verbatim. I need his written testimony, and I don’t want to hear that he was illiterate. That is not a good enough excuse.

The fact that people can recite one book exactly the same is not astonishing. I believe some of our atheist friends in this forum have pointed out that there are MANY books MUCH older than the quran that have not changed. I guess we will have to call them ALL the word of God.
Reply

*Hana*
04-10-2007, 01:27 PM
Originally Posted by alapiana1
I wish that we could take all the books of the different faiths and put them in a vault locked up before the world where every one cries out to there creator saying show us Creator of the world which book is most closely aligned with your will? Then the world can witness the only book standing with the others burned or ripped to sheds. This should be possible to arrange.
Alapiana1:

In actuality, you can do this yourself. Guaranteed only ONE book will be able to stand alone if each book is read with an open mind and heart. To do this you must leave preconceived ideas behind and test each book, research, ask questions, use logic.

It takes time, but it's not hard, and we'll all be here waiting to hear you've said the Shahada :thumbs_up lol

Hana
Reply

*Hana*
04-10-2007, 01:30 PM
Originally Posted by ACC
Rather angry fellow, aren’t you? How do you know that everything in the quran was from mohamed? Because someone said so? I need a written testimony directly from mohamed, with DNA evidence to prove it was written by him. Please do not say that others listened and copied all that he said verbatim. I need his written testimony, and I don’t want to hear that he was illiterate. That is not a good enough excuse.
Peace ACC:

Actually, you are mistaken....nothing in the Qur'an was from Muhammed, pbuh. It was ALL from Allah, swt.

So, you will never find any claim by Muhammed, pbuh, that He wrote it because, He didn't. :) However, this thread is not about the origin of the Qur'an, although I do believe if you search the forum, you will find that exact thread. We should keep on topic. :)

Peace,
Hana
Reply

ACC
04-10-2007, 01:32 PM
Originally Posted by Hana_Aku
Peace ACC:

Actually, you are mistaken....nothing in the Qur'an was from Muhammed, pbuh. It was ALL from Allah, swt.

So, you will never find any claim by Muhammed, pbuh, that He wrote it because, He didn't. :)

Peace,
Hana
Well, I understand the philosophical difference with that. Admittedly, I was just trying to throw that guys argument back in his face because it has been proven in the past on this very forum to not be much of an argument. Plus, he just seemed very confrontational with others.
Reply

YusufNoor
04-10-2007, 02:10 PM
Originally Posted by ACC
Rather angry fellow, aren’t you? How do you know that everything in the quran was from mohamed? Because someone said so? I need a written testimony directly from mohamed, with DNA evidence to prove it was written by him. Please do not say that others listened and copied all that he said verbatim. I need his written testimony, and I don’t want to hear that he was illiterate. That is not a good enough excuse.

The fact that people can recite one book exactly the same is not astonishing. I believe some of our atheist friends in this forum have pointed out that there are MANY books MUCH older than the quran that have not changed. I guess we will have to call them ALL the word of God.
A`udhu Billahi mina Shaytanir Rajeem,

Bismillahir Rahmanir Raheem

Assalamu alaykum wa'rahma-tullahi, wa'barakatahu

Greetings of Peace Brother ACC,

i simply don't understand you claim of anger! is asking someone to prove the statement a sign of anger??:rollseyes

a Christian comes on an Islamic site and wants to make a claim, which we believe to be erroneous. all i'm asking for is contemperaneous information, if any exists, to back up her claim!

all the verses in the Qur'an were written down during the life of the Prophet Muhammad(pbuh), you may choose not to believe it, but there's evidence to support it! the Qur'an, was compiled under Zaid ibn Thaabit(ra), a Hafiz during the life of the Messenger of Allah(pbuh) of the Banu An-Najjaar clan, a task he undertook during the Caliphate of Abu Bakr As Siddeeq(ra).

i have asked the sister who began the thread if she could supply the name of the originator of her story and the date of the incident, can you provide it?

can ANYONE provide it?

Well, I understand the philosophical difference with that. Admittedly, I was just trying to throw that guys argument back in his face because it has been proven in the past on this very forum to not be much of an argument. Plus, he just seemed very confrontational with others.
you are definately entitled to your opinion. as for me, i ask that Allah(SWT) guide you to the truth and that He(SWT) bestow His(SWT) Blessings and Mercy upon you and your family! Ameen!

:w:
Reply

NoName55
04-10-2007, 02:14 PM
i have asked the sister who began the thread if she could....
I made that mistake too by looking at the name but later foud that its a brother

wa-salaam alaikum
Reply

YusufNoor
04-10-2007, 02:18 PM
Originally Posted by NoName55
I made that mistake too by looking at the name but later foud that its a brother

wa-salaam alaikum
A`udhu Billahi mina Shaytanir Rajeem,

Bismillahir Rahmanir Raheem

Assalamu alaykum wa'rahma-tullahi, wa'barakatahu,

:-[ :-[ :-[

Astaghfirullah!

Jazakullah khair for the correction! i will try, Insha' Allah, to remember this!

:w:
Reply

ACC
04-10-2007, 02:42 PM
Originally Posted by YusufNoor
A`udhu Billahi mina Shaytanir Rajeem,

Bismillahir Rahmanir Raheem

Assalamu alaykum wa'rahma-tullahi, wa'barakatahu

Greetings of Peace Brother ACC,

i simply don't understand you claim of anger! is asking someone to prove the statement a sign of anger??:rollseyes

a Christian comes on an Islamic site and wants to make a claim, which we believe to be erroneous. all i'm asking for is contemperaneous information, if any exists, to back up her claim!

all the verses in the Qur'an were written down during the life of the Prophet Muhammad(pbuh), you may choose not to believe it, but there's evidence to support it! the Qur'an, was compiled under Zaid ibn Thaabit(ra), a Hafiz during the life of the Messenger of Allah(pbuh) of the Banu An-Najjaar clan, a task he undertook during the Caliphate of Abu Bakr As Siddeeq(ra).

i have asked the sister who began the thread if she could supply the name of the originator of her story and the date of the incident, can you provide it?

can ANYONE provide it?



you are definately entitled to your opinion. as for me, i ask that Allah(SWT) guide you to the truth and that He(SWT) bestow His(SWT) Blessings and Mercy upon you and your family! Ameen!

:w:
I assume this person got it from the Bible? Wouldnt he just post the relevant book of the Bible?

I cant imagine it would be easy for this person to state the exact date that this event took place, as it was a couple of thousand years ago.

It is my understanding that the quran was not compiled until ~ 150 years after mohamed's death. Is this correct and why did they wait so long? I would think he would have wanted it documented if that was the intention. The hadith was not from him at all, it was a history of his life more than anything else if I understand correctly. Why was this eventually considered a holy text as well, and how has its authenticity been corroborated? These are just questions of clarification.

But I definitely stand by my argument that it is not a big deal for a book to be the same for a long time. There are many books like this, and they are not considered the word of God, as many of the atheists in this forum have pointed out before.

As for the anger, I guess I interpreted it wrong. Definitely cant read tone, so that is egg on my face.
Reply

- Qatada -
04-10-2007, 03:02 PM
Hey ACC.


I don't know where you got your claim from that the Qur'an was written 150years after the passing away of the Messenger of Allaah peace be upon him, how can that be when it was his own companions who writ it [compiled by Zayd ibn Thaabit, while Uthman ibn Affaan was Khalifah], and we still have a copy of that existing today in the Museum of Turkey?

http://www.islamic-awareness.org/Qur...s/topkapi.html


If you want to read over why we accept the Ahadith - sayings of the Messenger of Allaah, then you should refer to this link;
http://www.islamicboard.com/islamic-...m-hadeeth.html


Infact this is a whole science of its own, and our religion depends upon evidence and faith together, none of them is lacking and the praise is for Allaah who has preserved for us our religion.
Reply

ACC
04-10-2007, 03:22 PM
Originally Posted by Fi_Sabilillah
Hey ACC.


I don't know where you got your claim from that the Qur'an was written 150years after the passing away of the Messenger of Allaah peace be upon him, how can that be when it was his own companions who writ it [compiled by Zayd ibn Thaabit, while Uthman ibn Affaan was Khalifah], and we still have a copy of that existing today in the Museum of Turkey?

http://www.islamic-awareness.org/Qur...s/topkapi.html


If you want to read over why we accept the Ahadith - sayings of the Messenger of Allaah, then you should refer to this link;
http://www.islamicboard.com/islamic-...m-hadeeth.html


Infact this is a whole science of its own, and our religion depends upon evidence and faith together, none of them is lacking and the praise is for Allaah who has preserved for us our religion.

I thought it was passed for a generation or so before being fully put to paper.
Reply

YusufNoor
04-10-2007, 03:24 PM
Originally Posted by ACC
I assume this person got it from the Bible? Wouldnt he just post the relevant book of the Bible?

I cant imagine it would be easy for this person to state the exact date that this event took place, as it was a couple of thousand years ago.

It is my understanding that the quran was not compiled until ~ 150 years after mohamed's death. Is this correct and why did they wait so long? I would think he would have wanted it documented if that was the intention. The hadith was not from him at all, it was a history of his life more than anything else if I understand correctly. Why was this eventually considered a holy text as well, and how has its authenticity been corroborated? These are just questions of clarification.

But I definitely stand by my argument that it is not a big deal for a book to be the same for a long time. There are many books like this, and they are not considered the word of God, as many of the atheists in this forum have pointed out before.

As for the anger, I guess I interpreted it wrong. Definitely cant read tone, so that is egg on my face.
A`udhu Billahi mina Shaytanir Rajeem,

Bismillahir Rahmanir Raheem

Assalamu alaykum wa'rahma-tullahi, wa'barakatahu

Greetings of Peace Brother ACC,

there's no egg! i usualy don't get involved (ANYMORE) in these type of threads. as a Muslim, we know that guidance can only come from Allah(SWT), so unless someone is interested in a 2-way discussion, there's not much point in wasting the time.

however, if i went on a Christian site and posted something that i believe to be factual, i would hope to evidence to back up my claim(s). but, i don't do that. [especially if i was going to post something that NO ONE on the site is going to believe!]

regarding:

The fact that people can recite one book exactly the same is not astonishing. I believe some of our atheist friends in this forum have pointed out that there are MANY books MUCH older than the quran that have not changed. I guess we will have to call them ALL the word of God.
and i'm NOT trying to be agruementitive. i wrote:

you can actually accomplish this. simply destroy ALL writen and computer/print evidence of all the "Holy" books. you can then gather 12 Muslim Hafiz's(who all have "different" mother tongues) and 12 Priest and Mininster of the Christian faith together. at the end of 2 days, the Hafiz's can reproduce the ENITRE QUR'AN and that can by verified by MILLIONS and MILLIONS of Muslims throughout the world! (the opening chapter of the Qur'an is recited by OVER A BILLION people 17 times a day, in it's original language!) as for those priests and minister, they will not even be able to decide what chapters and what verses should be contained in "their Bible"!!! that is one of the PROOFS that the Qur'an is the WORD of Allah(SWT)!
but i changed the color! now let's look at the statement:

gather 12 Muslim Hafiz's(who all have "different" mother tongues) and 12 Priest and Mininster of the Christian faith together. at the end of 2 days, the Hafiz's can reproduce the ENITRE QUR'AN and that can by verified by MILLIONS and MILLIONS of Muslims throughout the world!
i'm stating that 12 Hafiz, who all have "different" mother tongues can can reproduce the ENITRE QUR'AN, in it's ORIGINAL language in 2 days! AND that: it can by verified by MILLIONS and MILLIONS of Muslims throughout the world!

name 1 book, over 1000 years old, that MILLIONS and MILLIONS of people throughout the world can verify in it's ORIGINAL language!

just one!

:w:
Reply

- Qatada -
04-10-2007, 03:28 PM
Originally Posted by ACC
I thought it was passed for a generation or so before being fully put to paper.

Nope, infact it was compiled within one year after the passing away of the Messenger of Allaah, peace be upon him. Then it was also compiled by Uthman ibn Affaan, a companion and successor of the Messenger of Allaah. Which is in the Museum of Turkey today, and you can see the pics if you click on the link i posted in the previous post. :)


By the way, totally agree with you bro yusuf. That's a good point to take into account. :)



Regards.
Reply

ACC
04-10-2007, 03:32 PM
Originally Posted by YusufNoor
A`udhu Billahi mina Shaytanir Rajeem,

Bismillahir Rahmanir Raheem

Assalamu alaykum wa'rahma-tullahi, wa'barakatahu

Greetings of Peace Brother ACC,

there's no egg! i usualy don't get involved (ANYMORE) in these type of threads. as a Muslim, we know that guidance can only come from Allah(SWT), so unless someone is interested in a 2-way discussion, there's not much point in wasting the time.

however, if i went on a Christian site and posted something that i believe to be factual, i would hope to evidence to back up my claim(s). but, i don't do that. [especially if i was going to post something that NO ONE on the site is going to believe!]

regarding:



and i'm NOT trying to be agruementitive. i wrote:



but i changed the color! now let's look at the statement:

gather 12 Muslim Hafiz's(who all have "different" mother tongues) and 12 Priest and Mininster of the Christian faith together. at the end of 2 days, the Hafiz's can reproduce the ENITRE QUR'AN and that can by verified by MILLIONS and MILLIONS of Muslims throughout the world!
i'm stating that 12 Hafiz, who all have "different" mother tongues can can reproduce the ENITRE QUR'AN, in it's ORIGINAL language in 2 days! AND that: it can by verified by MILLIONS and MILLIONS of Muslims throughout the world!

name 1 book, over 1000 years old, that MILLIONS and MILLIONS of people throughout the world can verify in it's ORIGINAL language!

just one!

:w:

I guess I dont see the correlation in the argument. Just because it was memorized and hasnt changed, that doesnt seem like a big deal to me. It only points to the fact that many others think it is important enoough to do this......although it is impressive to see someone memorize an entire book.
Reply

YusufNoor
04-10-2007, 03:38 PM
[QUOTE=ACC;709675]
Originally Posted by YusufNoor
A`udhu Billahi mina Shaytanir Rajeem,

Bismillahir Rahmanir Raheem

Assalamu alaykum wa'rahma-tullahi, wa'barakatahu

I guess I dont see the correlation in the argument. Just because it was memorized and hasnt changed, that doesnt seem like a big deal to me. It only points to the fact that many others think it is important enoough to do this......although it is impressive to see someone memorize an entire book.
A`udhu Billahi mina Shaytanir Rajeem,

Bismillahir Rahmanir Raheem

Assalamu alaykum wa'rahma-tullahi, wa'barakatahu

Greetings of Peace Brother ACC,

name 1 book, over 1000 years old, that MILLIONS and MILLIONS of people throughout the world can verify in it's ORIGINAL language!

just one!
no arguement here, and Insha' Allah, i'll let it drop with you.

BUT, just 1 book is all that i ask!:D

:w:
Reply

ACC
04-10-2007, 04:15 PM
[QUOTE=YusufNoor;709681]
Originally Posted by ACC

A`udhu Billahi mina Shaytanir Rajeem,

Bismillahir Rahmanir Raheem

Assalamu alaykum wa'rahma-tullahi, wa'barakatahu

Greetings of Peace Brother ACC,



no arguement here, and Insha' Allah, i'll let it drop with you.

BUT, just 1 book is all that i ask!:D

:w:
Sorry, never directly replied to the one book question. The answer is, I dont know. May have something to do with the amount of followers. I am sure there are people that have memorized entire books. Islam would have a larger following than most of these cases, so it would make sense that there are many people that have memorized the entire quran, although I doubt millions. I have never met a muslim that has in my travels, although that doesnt exactly constitute a scientific poll. I have known muslims from Suadi Arabia (when I was younger), different parts of Africa, Pakistan, Turkey, Egypt, Lebanon, etc.
Reply

FatimaAsSideqah
04-10-2007, 04:17 PM
:sl:

This is off-topic..we have to keep discussing about the title!

:w:
Reply

NoName55
04-10-2007, 04:28 PM
Originally Posted by ACC

Sorry, never directly replied to the one book question. The answer is, I dont know. May have something to do with the amount of followers. I am sure there are people that have memorized entire books. Islam would have a larger following than most of these cases, so it would make sense that there are many people that have memorized the entire quran, although I doubt millions. I have never met a muslim that has in my travels, although that doesnt exactly constitute a scientific poll. I have known muslims from Suadi Arabia (when I was younger), different parts of Africa, Pakistan, Turkey, Egypt, Lebanon, etc.


there are nearly twice as many Christians than Muslims worldwide
  1. Christianity: 2.1 billion
  2. Islam: 1.3 billion
  3. Secular/Nonreligious/Agnostic/Atheist: 1.1 billion
  4. Hinduism: 900 million
  5. Chinese traditional religion: 394 million
  6. Buddhism: 376 million
  7. primal-indigenous: 300 million
  8. African Traditional & Diasporic: 100 million
  9. Sikhism: 23 million
  10. Juche: 19 million
  11. Spiritism: 15 million
  12. Judaism: 14 million
  13. Baha'i: 7 million
  14. Jainism: 4.2 million
  15. Shinto: 4 million
  16. Cao Dai: 4 million
  17. Zoroastrianism: 2.6 million
  18. Tenrikyo: 2 million
  19. Neo-Paganism: 1 million
  20. Unitarian-Universalism: 800 thousand
  21. Rastafarianism: 600 thousand
  22. Scientology: 500 thousand
Reply

Woodrow
04-10-2007, 05:13 PM
Returning to the topic.

Did Jesus die and rise from the dead?
What is the basis for this belief? Does more than one source exist? Did the Jews or Romans in Judea at the time, show any surprise that Jesus(as) was walking the Earth?

This should have been a very noticable event. However, it seems we only have the alleged writings of 4 men who lay claim to having been eye witnesses. It seems there should have been hundreds of witnesses and This would have been passed down by word of mouth among many people from all walks of life. The Roman occupiers of Judea should have been conducting a massive campaign to squelch the stories or recanting and leaving Judea in droves. But, we know they stayed around long enough to destroy the Temple in AD 70. It does not seem that those Romans showed any fear of facing the wrath of a resureccted Jew. I can not find any evidence that anybody in Judea believed that Jesus(as) rose from the dead. Except for the few words alleged to belong the writers of the NT. There is plenty of Historical Evidence that Jesus(as) lived. There is even considerable agreement among Christian and Non-Christians that he was raised up to Heaven. But, I have yet to find any evidence from that time period that Jesus(as) died on the Cross, except for the NT.

Where is a single non-Christian Documentation that Jesus(as) rose from the Dead?
Reply

YusufNoor
04-10-2007, 05:29 PM
Originally Posted by RighteousLady
:sl:

This is off-topic..we have to keep discussing about the title!

:w:
A`udhu Billahi mina Shaytanir Rajeem,

Bismillahir Rahmanir Raheem

Assalamu alaykum wa'rahma-tullahi, wa'barakatahu

i would love for the Brother who started the thread to respond to my questions, regarding the original topic!

i think that he kind of did, and i, for one, would love to hear a more reasoned response!

Sorry, never directly replied to the one book question. The answer is, I dont know. May have something to do with the amount of followers. I am sure there are people that have memorized entire books. Islam would have a larger following than most of these cases, so it would make sense that there are many people that have memorized the entire quran, although I doubt millions. I have never met a muslim that has in my travels, although that doesnt exactly constitute a scientific poll. I have known muslims from Suadi Arabia (when I was younger), different parts of Africa, Pakistan, Turkey, Egypt, Lebanon, etc.
here's a link that says around 10 million!! [my guesstimate was around 8 million!]

http://islamtomorrow.com/articles/Bible_vs_Quran.asp

:D

i more or less agree with Uncle Woodrow, and would like to see something that was actually written within a year or so of the incident! with evidence to support...

:w:
Reply

don532
04-10-2007, 08:13 PM
Greetings.
But, I have yet to find any evidence from that time period that Jesus(as) died on the Cross, except for the NT.
Respectfully, I think there is some evidence. Here is an example.
Tacitus was a Roman historian. His 'Annals', written about 115 AD, mention the emperor Nero's persecution of the followers of Christ in Rome in AD 64. This was the year of the great fire of Rome. There were suspicions that the emperor himself had started the fire. This is what Tacitus says (Annals 15:44):
To dispel the rumor, Nero substituted as culprits, and treated with the most extreme punishments, some people, popularly known as Christians, whose disgraceful activities were notorious. The originator of that name, Christus, had been executed when Tiberius was emperor, by order of the procurator Pontius Pilatus. But the deadly cult, though checked for a time, was now breaking out again not only in Judea, the birthplace of this evil, but even throughout Rome, where all the nasty and disgusting ideas from all over the world pour in and find a ready following.

Notice the following points from Tacitus:

* Christ was executed while Tiberius was emperor (14-37 AD)
* He was executed by order of Pontius Pilate (procurator from 26-36 AD)
* His movement had its origins in Judea
* There were enough followers of Christ in Rome by AD 64 to be made scapegoats by the emperor Nero

This comes from an unsympathetic pagan writer.

Peace.
Reply

NoName55
04-10-2007, 08:24 PM
edit

Tacitus was a Roman historian. His 'Annals', written about 115 AD
Christ was executed while Tiberius was emperor (14-37 AD)

115 minu 37=around 30 years
Reply

Woodrow
04-10-2007, 08:34 PM
Originally Posted by don532
Greetings.


Respectfully, I think there is some evidence. Here is an example.
Tacitus was a Roman historian. His 'Annals', written about 115 AD, mention the emperor Nero's persecution of the followers of Christ in Rome in AD 64. This was the year of the great fire of Rome. There were suspicions that the emperor himself had started the fire. This is what Tacitus says (Annals 15:44):
To dispel the rumor, Nero substituted as culprits, and treated with the most extreme punishments, some people, popularly known as Christians, whose disgraceful activities were notorious. The originator of that name, Christus, had been executed when Tiberius was emperor, by order of the procurator Pontius Pilatus. But the deadly cult, though checked for a time, was now breaking out again not only in Judea, the birthplace of this evil, but even throughout Rome, where all the nasty and disgusting ideas from all over the world pour in and find a ready following.

Notice the following points from Tacitus:

* Christ was executed while Tiberius was emperor (14-37 AD)
* He was executed by order of Pontius Pilate (procurator from 26-36 AD)
* His movement had its origins in Judea
* There were enough followers of Christ in Rome by AD 64 to be made scapegoats by the emperor Nero

This comes from an unsympathetic pagan writer.

Peace.
Peace Don,

You are correct about that article. However please notice it was written roughly 30 years after the incident. also notice there is no mention that Jesus(as) had risen from the dead, nor even any mention it was rumored he had.
Reply

don532
04-10-2007, 09:16 PM
Peace Don,

You are correct about that article. However please notice it was written roughly 30 years after the incident. also notice there is no mention that Jesus(as) had risen from the dead, nor even any mention it was rumored he had.
Yes, I understand. It is however, one historical mention of his death outside of the NT in that time period, which is the question I was answering. Perhaps we disagree as to whether or not the time period of Tacitus' writing invalidates it historically.
Reply

don532
04-10-2007, 09:25 PM
Originally Posted by NoName55
  1. when did anno domini start (year zero)?
  2. 14-37 year before Christ's ascension? or
  3. did Chirst get executed 14-37 years after ascension?
  4. and got prosecuted by a fellow who got his position 26 A.D
okay!
Christ died in 33AD. I didn't think that would be an unknown to anyone here.
Reply

*Hana*
04-10-2007, 09:26 PM
If I'm reading this correctly, he wrote the Annals 115 AD? If this is the case, he was obviously not a witness to events but most likely wrote based on oral tradition. That being said, as Woodrow mentioned, there is no mention of a resurrection, no mention of all those corpses that were suppose to have risen and walked the earth, etc. Interestingly enough, it does seem to agree, for the most part, with the oldest manuscripts and the original apostles. And, definitely seems to be missing the Pauline doctrine of a resurrection. That may very well explain why Paul was never accepted by the original followers of Christ and why he was accused of preaching false doctrine. Very interesting though...I love history :)

Peace,
Hana
Reply

NoName55
04-10-2007, 09:33 PM
Originally Posted by don532
Originally Posted by NoName55
  1. when did anno domini start (year zero)?
  2. 14-37 year before Christ's ascension? or
  3. did Chirst get executed 14-37 years after ascension?
  4. and got prosecuted by a fellow who got his position 26 A.D
okay!
Christ died in 33AD. I didn't think that would be an unknown to anyone here.
I've changed my post after being reminded .

now it makes even less sense 115 - 33 = 30 years

thanks
Reply

don532
04-10-2007, 09:38 PM
I've changed my post after being reminded .

now it makes even more sense 115 - 33 = 30 years

thanks
I'll let you and Woodrow work that one out. Looks to me like 115AD is 82 years after Jesus' death.
Reply

Woodrow
04-10-2007, 09:39 PM
Originally Posted by don532
Peace Don,



Yes, I understand. It is however, one historical mention of his death outside of the NTin that time period, which is the question I was answering. Perhaps we disagree as to whether or not the time period of Tacitus' writing invalidates it historically.

I don't think that invalidates it historicaly. I definetly agree there is plenty of impartial evidence that Jesus(as) was walking the Earth at that time frame. The area where we are going to disagree is over it was Jesus(as) who died on the cross. And if Jesus(as) did arise from the dead.

I have no problem in seeing that some of the people believed Jesus(as) was crucified. To be honest I was unaware or had forgotten that it was mentioned anyplace except in the NT. I do thank you for pointing that out to me.


My belief is that while some body was crucified and many thought it was Jesus(as). Jesus (as) was not crucified nor killed.

Jesus did not rise from the grave as he was raised up to heaven, without facing the grave.

I just noticed a paradox the things that prove your view to you are the same things that prove my view to me.

We both agree that Jesus(as) was here. We both agree he is now in heaven and we both wait for his return.

We both agree nobody is going to find a "Body" of Jesus(as) in an earthly grave.

We have returned to point A. It all depends on which is the Truth. The Qur'an or the Bible.

I have seen sufficient evidence to prove to me that the Qur'an is the Truth. I am confident in my choice.
Reply

don532
04-10-2007, 09:42 PM
Originally Posted by Woodrow
I just noticed a paradox the things that prove your view to you are the same things that prove my view to me.

We both agree that Jesus(as) was here. We both agree he is now in heaven and we both wait for his return.

We both agree nobody is going to find a "Body" of Jesus(as) in an earthly grave.

We have returned to point A. It all depends on which is the Truth. The Qur'an or the Bible.

I have seen sufficient evidence to prove to me that the Qur'an is the Truth. I am confident in my choice.
I understand and respect your position. Peace.
Reply

Woodrow
04-10-2007, 09:48 PM
Peace Don. at least we can agree that we probably will not come to an agreement that will satisfy both the Qur'an and the Bible..


I know you believe in the Bible as strongly as I believe in the Qur'an. And so it is.
Reply

YusufNoor
04-10-2007, 10:18 PM
Originally Posted by don532
Christ died in 33AD. I didn't think that would be an unknown to anyone here.
:sl:

i don't think that 33AD "works". it is impossible to fit that into what the Bible says concerning Jesus' resurrection. there couldn't have been a "Saturday" resurrection that year! :omg:

unless you have some math to work it out! ^o)

:w:
Reply

Redeemed
04-10-2007, 10:35 PM
Originally Posted by NoName55
I thought the idea of book burning had died with third reich.
  • Is there a forth reich on the way or the third reich transmigrated
  • did you escape from landover baptist church?
Well, we agree, but I know this is not possible. If it were, am sure everyone would like to see something like that so we could all be united under one truth with one God. I am not talking about burning books. I am talking about a sign from the ALmighty. This thing of all the division of religions is terrible. I don't really see how there can ever be peace when the whole world is dancing to the beat of a different drummer. Do you know waht i mean? I am interested in learning more about the Qur'an. Do you know a way I can get one? I tried ordering one online, and its been a month, and I still didn't get it.
Reply

NoName55
04-10-2007, 10:49 PM
Originally Posted by alapiana1
Well, we agree, but I know this is not possible. If it were, am sure everyone would like to see something like that so we could all be united under one truth with one God. I am not talking about burning books. I am talking about a sign from the ALmighty. This thing of all the division of religions is terrible. I don't really see how there can ever be peace when the whole world is dancing to the beat of a different drummer. Do you know waht i mean? I am interested in learning more about the Qur'an. Do you know a way I can get one? I tried ordering one online, and its been a month, and I still didn't get it.
Do you know waht i mean?
yes
about the Qur'an. Do you know a way I can get one?
make do with an ebook for now
http://www.islamicboard.com/682557-post1.html

free to order
http://freequran.org/

some info
http://allahsquran.com/
Reply

YusufNoor
04-10-2007, 10:49 PM
Originally Posted by alapiana1
Well, we agree, but I know this is not possible. If it were, am sure everyone would like to see something like that so we could all be united under one truth with one God. I am not talking about burning books. I am talking about a sign from the ALmighty. This thing of all the division of religions is terrible. I don't really see how there can ever be peace when the whole world is dancing to the beat of a different drummer. Do you know waht i mean? I am interested in learning more about the Qur'an. Do you know a way I can get one? I tried ordering one online, and its been a month, and I still didn't get it.
:sl:

Islamic Bookstores sell Qur'ans. i can provide links.

however, you can find translations online easilly. i use this site for Hadeeths:

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

there are also a few hardcovers that i recommend.

also, take a visit to any mosque/masjid in your area, just take your shoes of before you go inside, and ask them if they will give an english translation. i try to caveat that a Qur'an without Tafseer will leave you puzzled; and without Seerah (life of the Prophet[pbuh]), it's not easy either.

i can provide links to both, if you wish.

May Allah(SWT) reward you for your interest and may He(SWT) grant you guidance. Ameen!

:w:
Reply

Woodrow
04-10-2007, 10:59 PM
Originally Posted by alapiana1
Well, we agree, but I know this is not possible. If it were, am sure everyone would like to see something like that so we could all be united under one truth with one God. I am not talking about burning books. I am talking about a sign from the ALmighty. This thing of all the division of religions is terrible. I don't really see how there can ever be peace when the whole world is dancing to the beat of a different drummer. Do you know waht i mean? I am interested in learning more about the Qur'an. Do you know a way I can get one? I tried ordering one online, and its been a month, and I still didn't get it.
there are a number of sites that offer them. Keep in mind though is most of the sites are owned by individuals and with no financial backing from any organized groups. As Muslims we are not permitted to sell a Qur'an for profit and if at all possible we are to give them away freely. This includes translations. Some operate on very low income and can only handle a few each month. But, if they accepted your request, you can be certain you will get it eventually.

You may also try a few more sites. It is always best to have several translations as by comparing the translations you will get a closer understanding of what the Arabic connontation is.

Here are a few more sites to try.

http://www.freequran.org/

http://islamtomorrow.com/everything/freequran.asp

This next link has several links about half way down the page. where you may obtain one
http://godlas.myweb.uga.edu/primsourcisl.html


This next one is a heavy hard bound edition that sells in Books stores for $55. CAIRN offers it for the shipping cost of $7.95
https://www.cair.com/explorethequran/request.asp
Reply

YusufNoor
04-10-2007, 11:03 PM
Originally Posted by Woodrow
there are a number of sites that offer them. Keep in mind though is most of the sites are owned by individuals and with no financial backing from any organized groups. As Muslims we are not permitted to sell a Qur'an for profit and if at all possible we are to give them away freely. This includes translations. Some operate on very low income and can only handle a few each month. But, if they accepted your request, you can be certain you will get it eventually.

You may also try a few more sites. It is always best to have several translations as by comparing the translations you will get a closer understanding of what the Arabic connontation is.

Here are a few more sites to try.

http://www.freequran.org/

http://islamtomorrow.com/everything/freequran.asp

This next link has several links about half way down the page. where you may obtain one
http://godlas.myweb.uga.edu/primsourcisl.html


This next one is a heavy hard bound edition that sells in Books stores for $55. CAIRN offers it for the shipping cost of $7.95
https://www.cair.com/explorethequran/request.asp
:sl:

i love that one and was going to recommend it! :thumbs_up

and maybe, Insha' Allah, i'll pass on that link to some people!!! :D
JazakAllah Khair, Unlce!

:w:
Reply

Redeemed
04-10-2007, 11:10 PM
Originally Posted by NoName55
yes
make do with an ebook for now
http://www.islamicboard.com/682557-post1.html

free to order
http://freequran.org/

some info
http://allahsquran.com/
Thanksthat helps for my research
Reply

Redeemed
04-10-2007, 11:59 PM
You said, "you posted this of your own free will, NOW, i'm asking you for contemperaneous evidence for what you posted! is there any? i'm relatively certain that you'll post some "faith" issues other than facts or evidence, BUT, YOUR Bilbe says in 1 Thessalonians 5:21:

Prove all things; hold fast that which is good.

so, in order to be in agreement with YOUR Bible, please PROVE you statement. if you have no contemperaneous evidence, WHATSOEVER, then ACCORDING to YOUR BIBLE, we must dismiss the fable that you wrote!

do you understand this?"

Do you realize what your saying here? You saying if I use the Bible as my source we must dismiss my comments as fables. That is saying that the Book that is sacred to us Christians is just a bunch of fables, but if I imply such a thing about the Qur'an you will have my head for it. I have a problem with that senario. Maybe we should show a little more respect for the books that have started to two greatest relighions in the world. When Jesus comes back, it will be one great religion, beause we will all know the truth. Am sure you will agree.
They told Jesus to prove himself, but He remained silent! SELAH
Jesus said, I am the way the truth and the life, No MAN COMES UNTO THE FATHER (Allah, GOD, THE Lord) BUT BY ME."
Reply

NoName55
04-11-2007, 12:37 AM
That is saying that the Book that is sacred to us Christians is just a bunch of fables, but if I imply such a thing about the Qur'an you will have my head for it.
o deary me! you have said it a umpteen times already!

now how many heads you got since you are here alive and well
Reply

YusufNoor
04-11-2007, 01:14 AM
Originally Posted by alapiana1
You said, "you posted this of your own free will, NOW, i'm asking you for contemperaneous evidence for what you posted! is there any? i'm relatively certain that you'll post some "faith" issues other than facts or evidence, BUT, YOUR Bilbe says in 1 Thessalonians 5:21:

Prove all things; hold fast that which is good.

so, in order to be in agreement with YOUR Bible, please PROVE you statement. if you have no contemperaneous evidence, WHATSOEVER, then ACCORDING to YOUR BIBLE, we must dismiss the fable that you wrote!

do you understand this?"

Do you realize what your saying here? You saying if I use the Bible as my source we must dismiss my comments as fables. That is saying that the Book that is sacred to us Christians is just a bunch of fables, but if I imply such a thing about the Qur'an you will have my head for it. I have a problem with that senario. Maybe we should show a little more respect for the books that have started to two greatest relighions in the world. When Jesus comes back, it will be one great religion, beause we will all know the truth. Am sure you will agree.
They told Jesus to prove himself, but He remained silent! SELAH
Jesus said, I am the way the truth and the life, No MAN COMES UNTO THE FATHER (Allah, GOD, THE Lord) BUT BY ME."
Salaam,

i'm just asking you to provide contemperaneous evidence for your story. that's all. and this is in regards to the Christian stories, i haven't asked anything about the Torah or Tanakh. besides there's some evidence that Moses(as) and Joshua wrote a good deal of the Torah! we have no such evidence with the "New" Testament.

you MAY make such remarks regarding the Qur'an, but not a single Ayat was included that was not written down in the prescence of the Rasulullah(pbuh)! so you might make the remark, but it would be false...

as far as being disrespectful, you should consider that from a Muslim perpective you are accusing Jesus/Isa(as) of LYING! of claiming that he(as) said that he(as) was God!! you did this on a Muslim website, so you've got know that we aren't going to buy it! if i was to go a Christian website and call you all liars and fools, THAT would be disrespectful; but you came here to preach YOUR religion! some of us, might consider THAT disrespectful. so, if you want to post something that is, in our opinion, blatantly false, you can see why we would ask you to prove it.

so, to recap: can you provide any evidence from eyewitnesses to the original post that you made?

VERY simple question. of course the logical answer isn't what you want to admit to, but i'm asking you to try.

if you can't, then we'll just have to assume that your original post was false as there is no contemperaneous evidence to back it up.

and yes, you can await the return of Jesus/Isa(as) for clarification; i'll wait along with you...

[but of course, you don't need to wait for his(as) return to become a Muslim. you can start with La Ilaha IllAllah; there is no God, but Allah!]

:w:
Reply

Woodrow
04-11-2007, 01:38 AM
Brother YusufNoor brought up a very good point.

as far as being disrespectful, you should consider that from a Muslim perpective you are accusing Jesus/Isa(as) of LYING! of claiming that he(as) said that he(as) was God!! you did this on a Muslim website, so you've got know that we aren't going to buy it! if i was to go a Christian website and call you all liars and fools, THAT would be disrespectful; but you came here to preach YOUR religion! some of us, might consider THAT disrespectful. so, if you want to post something that is, in our opinion, blatantly false, you can see why we would ask you to prove it
This is one reason it is difficult to keep a debate between Muslims and Christians from becoming an argument. those of us that are Reverts are usually aware of the Christian perspective and it does not come as a shock.

But, for Muslims who have had limited conversations with Christians the words of the NT come across as being very blasphemous and very degrading of the Prophet Isa(as). It is seen as calling Isa(as) a liar and accusing him of shirk in the highest level possible. also some of the statements that Christians say about Isa(as) are not only Blasphemous. They are vulgar to the point of being profanity.

So the immediate reaction a Muslim has when a Christian begins speaking about Isa(as)in the Christian context, is that the Christian is blaspheming Isa(as) Calling Isa(as) a liar and doing all of this with extreme profanity.

The Muslim connotation of hearing the NT is very repulsive and very insulting to Allah(swt) and to Isa(as). So, it is difficult for anger to be controlled.

I think many Christians would be upset if a Muslim went to a Christian site and suddenly began spouting obscenities about Isa(as). Of course a Muslim would never deliberately do that as we do love Isa(as) and he is a very beloved Prophet(PBUH)

But, in essence that is what a Muslim sees a Christian doing when a Christian begins quoting from the NT.
Reply

Keltoi
04-11-2007, 02:04 AM
Originally Posted by Woodrow
Brother YusufNoor brought up a very good point.



This is one reason it is difficult to keep a debate between Muslims and Christians from becoming an argument. those of us that are Reverts are usually aware of the Christian perspective and it does not come as a shock.

But, for Muslims who have had limited conversations with Christians the words of the NT come across as being very blasphemous and very degrading of the Prophet Isa(as). It is seen as calling Isa(as) a liar and accusing him of shirk in the highest level possible. also some of the statements that Christians say about Isa(as) are not only Blasphemous. They are vulgar to the point of being profanity.

So the immediate reaction a Muslim has when a Christian begins speaking about Isa(as)in the Christian context, is that the Christian is blaspheming Isa(as) Calling Isa(as) a liar and doing all of this with extreme profanity.

The Muslim connotation of hearing the NT is very repulsive and very insulting to Allah(swt) and to Isa(as). So, it is difficult for anger to be controlled.

I think many Christians would be upset if a Muslim went to a Christian site and suddenly began spouting obscenities about Isa(as). Of course a Muslim would never deliberately do that as we do love Isa(as) and he is a very beloved Prophet(PBUH)

But, in essence that is what a Muslim sees a Christian doing when a Christian begins quoting from the NT.
The reverse is also true. I find the Muslim perspective on Christ to be quite blasphemous, since it rejects His divinity and denies His suffering on the cross. However, I am able listen and explore Islam's version of Christ without being offended, because I know it is a sincere belief. While I may not accept it, neither do I attack it.
Reply

NoName55
04-11-2007, 02:09 AM
Originally Posted by Keltoi
The reverse is also true. I find the Muslim perspective on Christ to be quite blasphemous, since it rejects His divinity and denies His suffering on the cross. However, I am able listen and explore Islam's version of Christ without being offended, because I know it is a sincere belief. While I may not accept it, neither do I attack it.
beg to differ, If I may, for the reason highlighted in quote below
Originally Posted by Woodrow
......................

I think many Christians would be upset if a Muslim went to a Christian site and suddenly began spouting obscenities about Isa(as). Of course a Muslim would never deliberately do that as we do love Isa(as) and he is a very beloved Prophet(PBUH)
...................
:w:
Reply

Keltoi
04-11-2007, 03:57 AM
Originally Posted by NoName55
beg to differ, If I may, for the reason highlighted in quote below:w:
Are you suggesting that a Christian has come here spouting obscenities about Jesus Christ? The fact that your faith isn't my faith doesn't mean one is "spouting obscenities" about Christ. We as Christians hold Jesus Christ much higher in esteem than Muslims, as a consequence of our faith. Calling our beliefs "obscenities" might be your right, but is hardly constructive in the context of comparative religion.
Reply

Redeemed
04-11-2007, 04:26 AM
Originally Posted by NoName55
o deary me! you have said it a umpteen times already!

now how many heads you got since you are here alive and well
Yes, that is true, but my head is hanging by a thread right now.LOL
Good night
peace to you brother of humanity
Reply

Woodrow
04-11-2007, 04:32 AM
Originally Posted by Keltoi
The reverse is also true. I find the Muslim perspective on Christ to be quite blasphemous, since it rejects His divinity and denies His suffering on the cross. However, I am able listen and explore Islam's version of Christ without being offended, because I know it is a sincere belief. While I may not accept it, neither do I attack it.
And here in lies a difficulty that we all need to circumvent. Those of us who are Muslim need to recognize that Christians do not necessarily intend to offend us. Those who are Christian need to understand that we as Muslims do not intend to offend them.

But, the fact is each of us has beliefs that are alien to the other.

We need to be aware that because somebody says something we disagree with does not mean they are trying to start an argument.

We need to be aware that the things we say will touch sensitive spots in other people and what they say will touch sensitive spots in us.

This does not mean we should be afraid to speak what we believe, but it does mean we should be aware of how others will interpret it.

By making a small step to understand how our words affect others, we may learn to avoid personal attacks and what we see as wrong may not be a deliberate offence against us.


I should add that Keltoi has put forth effort to respect our differences peacefully.
Reply

NoName55
04-11-2007, 04:33 AM
Originally Posted by alapiana1
Yes, that is true, but my head is hanging by a thread right now.LOL
Good night
peace to you brother in humanity
ditto

wa-salaam
Reply

YusufNoor
04-11-2007, 02:47 PM
Originally Posted by Keltoi
This is sort of an odd question to pose. Of course Christians confidently believe this was the case, but Muslims will not see it this way. I would assume you already knew the answers you would get to this question, so if I may ask, what was the reason for asking this question?
A`udhu Billahi mina Shaytanir Rajeem,

Bismillahir Rahmanir Raheem

Assalamu alaykum wa'rahma-tullahi, wa'barakatahu

Greetings of Peace Brother Keltoi,

knowing that you began your involvement in this thread with this post, one can see that even you had concerns regarding it! one must assume that the Brother who started the thread is either proseletyzing or just insulting Muslims and/or Islam.

Are you suggesting that a Christian has come here spouting obscenities about Jesus Christ? The fact that your faith isn't my faith doesn't mean one is "spouting obscenities" about Christ.
yes, one could easily assume that to be the case. as Muslims are advised against the use of swear words, an obscenity would actually be ascribing lies to Allah(SWT) and His(SWT) Messengers(as). perhaps you overlooked Unlcle Woodrow's post:

But, for Muslims who have had limited conversations with Christians the words of the NT come across as being very blasphemous and very degrading of the Prophet Isa(as). It is seen as calling Isa(as) a liar and accusing him of shirk in the highest level possible. also some of the statements that Christians say about Isa(as) are not only Blasphemous. They are vulgar to the point of being profanity.

So the immediate reaction a Muslim has when a Christian begins speaking about Isa(as)in the Christian context, is that the Christian is blaspheming Isa(as) Calling Isa(as) a liar and doing all of this with extreme profanity.
now, let me take issue with this statement:

We as Christians hold Jesus Christ much higher in esteem than Muslims, as a consequence of our faith. Calling our beliefs "obscenities" might be your right, but is hardly constructive in the context of comparative religion
not from our point of view you don't. attributing lies to him(as), as is our belief that you do, is not a very good way of showing you esteem for someone!

i WOULD grant you that you give him(as) HIGHER RANK than we do, ie, status of God, but that in no way implies that you hold in higher esteem that we do. in fact, as i already pointed out, in our opinion, it actually insults him(as)!

you may have you beliefs and opinions, but that doesn't mean that they are facts.

i can't see inside your heart, but i get the feeling that you rather "jumped back in" in this thread to assist a fellow Christian and that you may have responded just a bit more emphatically than you really felt called for. BUT that is not fact, just my belief and opinion!

i know you to be one of the most fairminded folks that post here and i'm just giving you my point of view. if i have offended you, please accept my sincere apologies

:w:
Reply

Redeemed
04-14-2007, 03:30 AM
Originally Posted by YusufNoor
A`udhu Billahi mina Shaytanir Rajeem,

Bismillahir Rahmanir Raheem

Assalamu alaykum wa'rahma-tullahi, wa'barakatahu

Greetings of Peace Brother Keltoi,

knowing that you began your involvement in this thread with this post, one can see that even you had concerns regarding it! one must assume that the Brother who started the thread is either proseletyzing or just insulting Muslims and/or Islam.



yes, one could easily assume that to be the case. as Muslims are advised against the use of swear words, an obscenity would actually be ascribing lies to Allah(SWT) and His(SWT) Messengers(as). perhaps you overlooked Unlcle Woodrow's post:



now, let me take issue with this statement:



not from our point of view you don't. attributing lies to him(as), as is our belief that you do, is not a very good way of showing you esteem for someone!

i WOULD grant you that you give him(as) HIGHER RANK than we do, ie, status of God, but that in no way implies that you hold in higher esteem that we do. in fact, as i already pointed out, in our opinion, it actually insults him(as)!

you may have you beliefs and opinions, but that doesn't mean that they are facts.

i can't see inside your heart, but i get the feeling that you rather "jumped back in" in this thread to assist a fellow Christian and that you may have responded just a bit more emphatically than you really felt called for. BUT that is not fact, just my belief and opinion!

i know you to be one of the most fairminded folks that post here and i'm just giving you my point of view. if i have offended you, please accept my sincere apologies

:w:
If someone thought you were a god or God would you be insulted? People have thought that angels were gods and the apostles too, but they had just simply corrected them; they didn't get insulted. If you thought I was God I wouldn't get insulted; I would redirect you worship to the proper place. We Christians have been worshipping Jesus as God for a long time now and since Jesus is not dead and accordding to you He never died, why isn't he redirecting our focus? As I said, I have never mentioned the term trinity. It is not in the Bible. I believe that Jesus is the Word of God, which became flesh and that God is a Spirit and He is Holy; therefore, He is The Holy Spirit. We have one thing in common and that is we both believe there is only one God. How God chooses to manifest Himself is His business not mines or yours to judge. Even though we have monotheism in common, both of our religious beliefs are mutually exclusive and the adherents to one of them are going to fall into the hands of an angry God.
We write each other because we are both concerned for each other. You don't want me to fall into the hands of an angry God, and I don't want that to happen to you. Maybe you can agree with me on this prayer: I pray to you Lord of heaven and earth our Creator that you would expose the deception so that we can see the truth and all those that read this. You are our Creator the Creator of the Muslim and the Christian alike, and we know that one of these religions are an abomination to you. Almighty God we ask you to reveal light here, because we don't want to argue about who has the right theology. We just want to submit to your will in every area of our life.
Reply

Redeemed
04-14-2007, 03:36 AM
Now, I could see how thinking that Jesus is an angel or just a prophet can be an insult when He is according to Scripture in the very nature God!
Reply

Woodrow
04-14-2007, 03:48 AM
Originally Posted by alapiana1
If someone thought you were a god or God would you be insulted? People have thought that angels were gods and the apostles too, but they had just simply corrected them; they didn't get insulted. If you thought I was God I wouldn't get insulted; I would redirect you worship to the proper place. We Christians have been worshipping Jesus as God for a long time now and since Jesus is not dead and accordding to you He never died, why isn't he redirecting our focus? As I said, I have never mentioned the term trinity. It is not in the Bible. I believe that Jesus is the Word of God, which became flesh and that God is a Spirit and He is Holy; therefore, He is The Holy Spirit. We have one thing in common and that is we both believe there is only one God. How God chooses to manifest Himself is His business not mines or yours to judge. Even though we have monotheism in common, both of our religious beliefs are mutually exclusive and the adherents to one of them are going to fall into the hands of an angry God.
We write each other because we are both concerned for each other. You don't want me to fall into the hands of an angry God, and I don't want that to happen to you. Maybe you can agree with me on this prayer: I pray to you Lord of heaven and earth our Creator that you would expose the deception so that we can see the truth and all those that read this. You are our Creator the Creator of the Muslim and the Christian alike, and we know that one of these religions are an abomination to you. Almighty God we ask you to reveal light here, because we don't want to argue about who has the right theology. We just want to submit to your will in every area of our life.
Very good points. I feel you are very close to seeing the truth. You have come a long ways in the past few days and I believe you do have a strong desire to serve Allah(swt) and submit to His will.

I have no trouble in agreeing to your prayer.

I pray to you Lord of heaven and earth our Creator that you would expose the deception so that we can see the truth and all those that read this. You are our Creator the Creator of the Muslim and the Christian alike, and we know that one of these religions are an abomination to you. Almighty
God we ask you to reveal light here
, because we don't want to argue about who has the right theology. We just want to submit to your will in every area of our life.
Perhaps without even understanding why. You were attracted to this forum because as a moth is attracted to a candle, your own inner search has guided you to the light.

all that remains is for you to shed the shackles and chains that hold you captive, and come foreward to serve and submit to the will of Allah(swt) alone.

You have read and heard the truth, now the choice is yours alone.
Reply

Redeemed
04-14-2007, 03:59 AM
The topic of this thread was not to insult Muslims as you may suppose; it was for the purpose of discussion and study. If a Muslim or Christian gets insulted or offended with what I write that is the choice they make. Maybe there are some Muslims that would like to prove that Jesus didn't die and rise again or some Christians to prove He did. We should think the best of each other. However, am I interested in winning someone to Christ? You can bet one that. If it would cost my life, I would hope to God that I wouldn't change my mind about delivering my soul. I would like to know if there is a Muslims out there that is not interested in me or anyone else for that matter becoming a Muslim, or is there a Christian out there that is not interested in winning someone to Christ? I am interested in what is true and right altogether and share that regardless of the cost. You can judge me for it. I am not concerned about what people think of me. I am just concerned about what God thinks.
Reply

YusufNoor
04-14-2007, 04:03 AM
A`udhu Billahi mina Shaytanir Rajeem,

Bismillahir Rahmanir Raheem

Assalamu alaykum wa'rahma-tullahi, wa'barakatahu

we have a better prayer:

Qul Huwa Allāhu 'Aĥadun

translation:
Say (O Muhammad (Peace be upon him)): "He is Allāh, (the) One. (Al-Ikhlas 112:1)

Allāhu Aş-Şamadu

translation:
"Allāh-us-Samad (The Self-Sufficient Master, Whom all creatures need, He neither eats nor drinks). (Al-Ikhlas 112:2)

Lam Yalid Wa Lam Yūlad

translation:
"He begets not, nor was He begotten; (Al-Ikhlas 112:3)

Walam Yakun Lahu Kufūan 'Aĥadun

translation:
"And there is none co-equal or comparable unto Him." (Al-Ikhlas 112:4)

by the way, over 1,000,000,000 people know that prayer in it's original language! :thumbs_up

that being the case, that makes your post:
Now, I could see how thinking that Jesus is an angel or just a prophet can be an insult when He is according to Scripture in the very nature God!
an anethema to Muslims. also, you post is incorrect, we have Scriptures and no where in them do they relate to Jesus/Isa(as) being anything but a Prophet. so unless you say "according to the "Christian Scriptures[as they now exisit]", that statement will never be accepted here.

listen to Uncle Woodrow! nice post, btw! :D

Very good points. I feel you are very close to seeing the truth. You have come a long ways in the past few days and I believe you do have a strong desire to serve Allah(swt) and submit to His will.Perhaps without even understanding why. You were attracted to this forum because as a moth is attracted to a candle, your own inner search has guided you to the light.

all that remains is for you to shed the shackles and chains that hold you captive, and come foreward to serve and submit to the will of Allah(swt) alone.

You have read and heard the truth, now the choice is yours alone
:)

:w:
Reply

Woodrow
04-14-2007, 04:12 AM
Your sincerity is not doubted. I do not believe you came to insult Muslims. But, I do believe that you came with little knowledge as to what a Muslim believes and who it is we Worship.

Yes, I can understand why a Christian would have a strong desire to win somebody over to his/her beliefs. I do accept it is out of love.

Yes, as Muslims we do desire to see all people to earn the rewards of jannah. we do desire to see them serve Allah(swt) and to serve Allah(swt) alone.

However, I do not believe there are many Muslims that want to convert anybody. We know that as humans we can not convert a single person. That has to be though Allah(swt) alone. We have no desire to have any person to revert to Islam without knowledge of what Islam is and for them to revert only because in their heart they know it is the only way to serve Allah(swt) as he has commanded us to.

We also know that some people will always be deaf and blind to the word of Allah(swt) and we accept the fact that is all in accordance with the will of Allah(swt). We know that those who recognise they are Muslim will revert to what they were born as. Those that do not revert we know will be rewarded and or punished in accordance to the will of Allah(swt) Inshallah

These are my own opinions and come from my limited understanding. Astagfirullah
Reply

YusufNoor
04-14-2007, 04:14 AM
A`udhu Billahi mina Shaytanir Rajeem,

Bismillahir Rahmanir Raheem

Assalamu alaykum wa'rahma-tullahi, wa'barakatahu

here's the real bottom line:

Jews have a religion founded by Moses(as), yet hey don't follow the sunnah of him; they follow the sunnah of Ezra.

"Christians have a religion founded(allegedly) by Jesus/Isa(as), yet they don't follow the sunnah of him(as); the follow the sunnah of Saul/Paul of Tarsus.

Muslims have a religion "revived" by and perfected for us by Allah(SWT) and given to Muhammad ibn Abdullah(saws) AND they follow his(saws) Sunnah!

see the difference??

:w:
Reply

Redeemed
04-14-2007, 04:14 AM
Originally Posted by Woodrow
Very good points. I feel you are very close to seeing the truth. You have come a long ways in the past few days and I believe you do have a strong desire to serve Allah(swt) and submit to His will.

I have no trouble in agreeing to your prayer.



Perhaps without even understanding why. You were attracted to this forum because as a moth is attracted to a candle, your own inner search has guided you to the light.

all that remains is for you to shed the shackles and chains that hold you captive, and come foreward to serve and submit to the will of Allah(swt) alone.

You have read and heard the truth, now the choice is yours alone.
If that is the way God would have me go, I would have no problem with it, but I am rooted and grounded in Christ much deeper that you can probably ever imagine at this point in time. I am sure you can say the same about Islam; however, I do appreciate the encouragement you gave me about how I have come along in these past few days and especially that we have a prayer to agree on. I will hold fast to this prayer even try to do it on a daily basis, because no matter how deep the deception is, there is no hole we can fall into that is deeper than God's love for us. Personally, I have liked you from the day I place my first post.
Sincerely,
aj
Reply

Keltoi
04-14-2007, 04:16 AM
I have a major problem with some people stating that a Christian who describes his or her beliefs are "spouting obscenities". If you don't share my faith, that is your right and between you and God. Some of the things Muslims "spout" about Jesus Christ disturb me, as they aren't my beliefs, but I would never characterize them as "obscenities". I find that to be awfully disrespectful and fairly venomous in the context of having a worthwhile discussion.
Reply

NoName55
04-14-2007, 04:20 AM
These are my own opinions and come from my limited understanding
:sl:

You are doing it so beautifully, many a time I hang my head in shame that I am not quite like you yet despite the fact that I was born into a family who already believed in the concept of tawheed.

:w:
Reply

Woodrow
04-14-2007, 04:22 AM
Originally Posted by Keltoi
I have a major problem with some people stating that a Christian who describes his or her beliefs are "spouting obscenities". If you don't share my faith, that is your right and between you and God. Some of the things Muslims "spout" about Jesus Christ disturb me, as they aren't my beliefs, but I would never characterize them as "obscenities". I find that to be awfully disrespectful and fairly venomous in the context of having a worthwhile discussion.
I can understand that Keltoi and I understand it was my words that you saw. However. In Arabic to say "Son of God" is very obscene and considered profanity by many if not most Arabic Speaking people. I realise that most non- Arab speakers are unaware of what it's connontation is in Arabic. But, honeslty it is not very nice and nothing that would be said in mixed company.
Reply

NoName55
04-14-2007, 04:24 AM
Originally Posted by Keltoi
I have a major problem with some people stating that a Christian who describes his or her beliefs are "spouting obscenities". If you don't share my faith, that is your right and between you and God. Some of the things Muslims "spout" about Jesus Christ disturb me, as they aren't my beliefs, but I would never characterize them as "obscenities". I find that to be awfully disrespectful and fairly venomous in the context of having a worthwhile discussion.
i thought that was resolved, brother keltoi, that we were going to bury the hatchet and all that.:cry:
Reply

Redeemed
04-14-2007, 04:26 AM
Originally Posted by Woodrow
Your sincerity is not doubted. I do not believe you came to insult Muslims. But, I do believe that you came with little knowledge as to what a Muslim believes and who it is we Worship.

Yes, I can understand why a Christian would have a strong desire to win somebody over to his/her beliefs. I do accept it is out of love.

Yes, as Muslims we do desire to see all people to earn the rewards of jannah. we do desire to see them serve Allah(swt) and to serve Allah(swt) alone.

However, I do not believe there are many Muslims that want to convert anybody. We know that as humans we can not convert a single person. That has to be though Allah(swt) alone. We have no desire to have any person to revert to Islam without knowledge of what Islam is and for them to revert only because in their heart they know it is the only way to serve Allah(swt) as he has commanded us to.

We also know that some people will always be deaf and blind to the word of Allah(swt) and we accept the fact that is all in accordance with the will of Allah(swt). We know that those who recognise they are Muslim will revert to what they were born as. Those that do not revert we know will be rewarded and or punished in accordance to the will of Allah(swt) Inshallah

These are my own opinions and come from my limited understanding. Astagfirullah
I cannot believe that we so much in common. I believe the same that we cannot convert anyone. If you and I could, than that would beg the question: whose converts are they God’s or ours?? But maybe you can understand something about how Christianity is working in my life. Even though I know I cannot win someone to Christ as his or her Savior, it doesn't stop me from trying because that is what I believe that God wants me to do. It goes totally against my convictions not to try to share my faith with the hopes of God drawing that person to Christ. Woe unto me if I don't preach!!!! I have been asking God for wisdom on how I can share without hurting anyone; so, if there is anything good about me, it is the Lord's doing; if there is anything bad, it is my doing.
Peace
aj
Reply

Woodrow
04-14-2007, 04:29 AM
Originally Posted by NoName55
i thought that was resolved, brother keltoi, that we were going to bury the hatchet and all that.:cry:
Keltoi has a right to be upset. I did not explain clear enough to him as to what the connontation "Son of God" as when it is translated into Arabic.

Keltoi I do apologise for not making that clear. sadly many Christians do not understand Arabic connotations and how something that sounds harmless in English can be vulgar when it is translated into Arabic.
Reply

Keltoi
04-14-2007, 04:30 AM
Originally Posted by Woodrow
I can understand that Keltoi and I understand it was my words that you saw. However. In Arabic to say "Son of God" is very obscene and considered profanity by many if not most Arabic Speaking people. I realise that most non- Arab speakers are unaware of what it's connontation is in Arabic. But, honeslty it is not very nice and nothing that would be said in mixed company.
That is all well and good, but in the context of a religious discussion, which I hope is intended to foster more inter-faith understanding, is it really necessary to express that "outrage" at people who you know very well aren't using it in a negative way? The only thing one can take away from that is that you believe my faith is an obscenity. That is obviously your right, but hardly constructive. Perhaps I'm simply looking at things in the wrong way, but it struck me negatively.

*After Woodrow's more thorough explanation I understand more clearly the purpose of stating that, even if I do find it somewhat irrelevant for the purposes of discussion.
Reply

Woodrow
04-14-2007, 04:35 AM
Originally Posted by Keltoi
That is all well and good, but in the context of a religious discussion, which I hope is intended to foster more inter-faith understanding, is it really necessary to express that "outrage" at people who you know very well aren't using it in a negative way? The only thing one can take away from that is that you believe my faith is an obscenity. That is obviously your right, but hardly constructive. Perhaps I'm simply looking at things in the wrong way, but it struck me negatively.
Of course it struck you negatively. You have very deep convictions about you faith.

It was not my intent to come across that strong. I was trying to get a point across as to how an Evangelical often is perceived by us Muslims. Their intent may be good, but that is not what we perceive.
Reply

Keltoi
04-14-2007, 04:39 AM
Originally Posted by Woodrow
Of course it struck you negatively. You have very deep convictions about you faith.

It was not my intent to come across that strong. I was trying to get a point across as to how an Evangelical often is perceived by us Muslims. Their intent may be good, but that is not what we perceive.
Fair enough. I suppose when we get passed the polite back and forth, we are still miles apart in our faith. Both religions have deep convictions, and we both believe the other to be mistaken in their faith.

Just to clarify, I know Woodrow's intention wasn't to insult anyone. So I wasn't taking this as a personal attack or anything of the kind.
Reply

Woodrow
04-14-2007, 04:47 AM
Fair enough.

Now let us return to our regularly scheduled broadcast. ie: Let this thread return back to topic.
Reply

Redeemed
04-14-2007, 04:51 AM
Originally Posted by YusufNoor
A`udhu Billahi mina Shaytanir Rajeem,

Bismillahir Rahmanir Raheem

Assalamu alaykum wa'rahma-tullahi, wa'barakatahu

here's the real bottom line:

Jews have a religion founded by Moses(as), yet hey don't follow the sunnah of him; they follow the sunnah of Ezra.

"Christians have a religion founded(allegedly) by Jesus/Isa(as), yet they don't follow the sunnah of him(as); the follow the sunnah of Saul/Paul of Tarsus.

Muslims have a religion "revived" by and perfected for us by Allah(SWT) and given to Muhammad ibn Abdullah(saws) AND they follow his(saws) Sunnah!

see the difference??

:w:
Yes, I do. The difference is huge.
Reply

Keltoi
04-14-2007, 04:53 AM
So we all agree that Christ was crucified and rose again? :)

*That was an attempt at humor
Reply

Keltoi
04-14-2007, 05:03 AM
In all seriousness though, both Christians and Muslims should take heart in the fact that two major religions point to the life of Jesus. Whether one believes Jesus to be divine or only a prophet, both faiths have benefited from His Word.

If only our Jewish brothers and sisters could have that same benefit.
Reply

NoName55
04-14-2007, 05:03 AM
So we all agree that Christ was not crucified and rose to heaven and is coming back?

*That was an attempt at being serious :)

Not only a prophet but also a messenger, His Word and Mesih
Reply

Woodrow
04-14-2007, 05:12 AM
Originally Posted by alapiana1
Yes, I do. The difference is huge.
Yes, it is. Perhaps the only thing most of us can hope to accomplish is to co-exist. Our ways to serve Allah(swt) will always be our own choice and we will all live with the result of our own choice.

The differences between Christian and Muslim will not come to Mutual agreement of passages in both the Bible and the Qur'an. The fact is one is in error.

For a long time I believed the bible was the true word of Allah(swt) I did commit shirk and worshiped Jesus(as) as the Son of God. I did believe the bible and the bible did verify that belief.

I have no need to disprove the Bible. I finally came to the understanding that the Qur'an is the True word of Allah(swt) and the writings of any other book are of no concern. I firmly believe in the truth of the Qur'an and I am very much relaxed and pleased to know that when I leave this earth it will be as a Muslim.

When I said the Shahdah, I knew I was finally free of the errors I had been taught and accepted as truth. I knew the chains were broken and I have grasped a firm grip on the rope of Allah(swt) I know the rope of Allah(swt) is stronger than the chains of slavery were and it will not break. I pray that Allah(swt) will continue to grant me the strength to hold fast to that rope and keep me from loosening my grip. Yet, I also know that as long as I have faith, that even if I start to slip he will make my grip firm Inshallah.
Reply

Woodrow
04-14-2007, 05:17 AM
I posted before I finished.

With what I stated, I do not believe Christ(as) died on the Cross.
Reply

YusufNoor
04-14-2007, 05:36 AM
A`udhu Billahi mina Shaytanir Rajeem,

Bismillahir Rahmanir Raheem

Assalamu alaykum wa'rahma-tullahi, wa'barakatahu

Uncle Woodrow wrote:

I have no need to disprove the Bible. I finally came to the understanding that the Qur'an is the True word of Allah(swt) and the writings of any other book are of no concern. I firmly believe in the truth of the Qur'an and I am very much relaxed and pleased to know that when I leave this earth it will be as a Muslim.
we don't really need to, Christians do not worship the "Son of Man" described in parts of their own Scriptures!

re:

38Then some of the Pharisees and teachers of the law said to him, "Teacher, we want to see a miraculous sign from you."

39He answered, "A wicked and adulterous generation asks for a miraculous sign! But none will be given it except the sign of the prophet Jonah. 40For as Jonah was three days and three nights in the belly of a huge fish, so the Son of Man will be three days and three nights in the heart of the earth.
since "Christians" claim that Jesus/Isa(as) died on a Friday afternoon and was arisen before sunrise on Sunday, the person that they worship is OBVIOUSLY not the one discussed in their "current" text! :?

so either their Scripture missed the mark or their religion is missing the mark...
OR...BOTH!

the explanation can only be, oh so, enlightening!

:w:
Reply

Keltoi
04-14-2007, 03:28 PM
Originally Posted by YusufNoor
A`udhu Billahi mina Shaytanir Rajeem,

Bismillahir Rahmanir Raheem

Assalamu alaykum wa'rahma-tullahi, wa'barakatahu

Uncle Woodrow wrote:



we don't really need to, Christians do not worship the "Son of Man" described in parts of their own Scriptures!

re:



since "Christians" claim that Jesus/Isa(as) died on a Friday afternoon and was arisen before sunrise on Sunday, the person that they worship is OBVIOUSLY not the one discussed in their "current" text! :?

so either their Scripture missed the mark or their religion is missing the mark...
OR...BOTH!

the explanation can only be, oh so, enlightening!

:w:
You agree with Woodrow that it isn't necessary to try and disprove the Bible, yet you then throw in the sweeping attack that Christians don't worship the Son of Man in our own Scriptures. Make up your mind.

As for what day Christ was crucified, the Bible doesn't state exactly what day it was. The most widely held views have the crucifixion taking place on Wednesday or Friday. Some, using a synthesis of Wednesday and Friday say Thursday. Since in Mark 15:42 the scripture says Christ was crucified the "day before the Sabbath", and that was the weekly Sabbath, which is Saturday, that would point to Friday. The passages also state that Christ would rise "on" the third day, so He wouldn't need to be in the grave for the full three days to rise on the third day.
Reply

YusufNoor
04-14-2007, 04:41 PM
Originally Posted by Keltoi
You agree with Woodrow that it isn't necessary to try and disprove the Bible, yet you then throw in the sweeping attack that Christians don't worship the Son of Man in our own Scriptures. Make up your mind.

As for what day Christ was crucified, the Bible doesn't state exactly what day it was. The most widely held views have the crucifixion taking place on Wednesday or Friday. Some, using a synthesis of Wednesday and Friday say Thursday. Since in Mark 15:42 the scripture says Christ was crucified the "day before the Sabbath", and that was the weekly Sabbath, which is Saturday, that would point to Friday. The passages also state that Christ would rise "on" the third day, so He wouldn't need to be in the grave for the full three days to rise on the third day.
A`udhu Billahi mina Shaytanir Rajeem,

Bismillahir Rahmanir Raheem

Assalamu alaykum wa'rahma-tullahi, wa'barakatahu

Salaam,

i say it's NOT necessary because Christians say stuff like:

He wouldn't need to be in the grave for the full three days to rise on the third day
when the passage i quoted, clearly states:

39He answered, "A wicked and adulterous generation asks for a miraculous sign! But none will be given it except the sign of the prophet Jonah. 40For as Jonah was three days and three nights in the belly of a huge fish, so the Son of Man will be three days and three nights in the heart of the earth
so not only does it say three days and three nights, but it also says that it will be the ONLY sign!

as that is NOT the Jesus that you worship, i have 100% PROOF POSITIVE that your religion is FALSE! at least, according to YOUR Scriptures!

btw, that isn't a "sweeping attack", just pointing out the FACTS according to your Scriptures!

simple really!

unless you want to be like those Catholic priests who tell people that they don't need to read the Bible as they will read it for you and tell you what you need to know...:?

:w:
Reply

Keltoi
04-14-2007, 05:11 PM
Originally Posted by YusufNoor
A`udhu Billahi mina Shaytanir Rajeem,

Bismillahir Rahmanir Raheem

Assalamu alaykum wa'rahma-tullahi, wa'barakatahu

Salaam,

i say it's NOT necessary because Christians say stuff like:



when the passage i quoted, clearly states:



so not only does it say three days and three nights, but it also says that it will be the ONLY sign!

as that is NOT the Jesus that you worship, i have 100% PROOF POSITIVE that your religion is FALSE! at least, according to YOUR Scriptures!

btw, that isn't a "sweeping attack", just pointing out the FACTS according to your Scriptures!

simple really!

unless you want to be like those Catholic priests who tell people that they don't need to read the Bible as they will read it for you and tell you what you need to know...:?

:w:
100% proof positive huh? Let's not get too excited.

By Jewish reckoning time was inclusive. Another example of this occurs in Kings.

1 Ki 12:5 And he said unto them, Depart yet *for three days*, then come again to me. And the people departed.

1 Ki 12:12 So Jeroboam and all the people came to Rehoboam *the third day*, as the king had appointed, saying, Come to me again *the third day*.

The king tells the people to depart for three days, but they return ON the third day, not on the fourth. Why? Because the king did not mean to be gone for a full 72 hours. The counting of days was inclusive in nature. The same day that the king told them to leave was the first day. The second day they stayed away, and then they returned the third day, as the king had intended. This is the exactly the same manner of counting used for the resurrection. It is inclusive in nature, with whatever portion of the first and last days being counted as full days.

Just for good measure, this same story is told in 2 Chronicles-

2 Chr 10:5 And he said unto them, Come again unto me *after three days*. And the people departed.

2 Chr 10:12 So Jeroboam and all the people came to Rehoboam *on the third day*, as the king bade, saying, Come again to me *on the third day*.

Note the way this is worded compared to 1 Kings. Come again unto me after three days, depart yet for three days, and Come again to me on the third day, these all mean exactly the same thing, which is NOT a full three days or a full 72 hours.

Jesus Christ rose ON the third day.
Reply

back_to_faith
04-14-2007, 06:23 PM
Originally Posted by Keltoi
100% proof positive huh? Let's not get too excited.

By Jewish reckoning time was inclusive. Another example of this occurs in Kings.

1 Ki 12:5 And he said unto them, Depart yet *for three days*, then come again to me. And the people departed.

1 Ki 12:12 So Jeroboam and all the people came to Rehoboam *the third day*, as the king had appointed, saying, Come to me again *the third day*.

The king tells the people to depart for three days, but they return ON the third day, not on the fourth. Why? Because the king did not mean to be gone for a full 72 hours. The counting of days was inclusive in nature. The same day that the king told them to leave was the first day. The second day they stayed away, and then they returned the third day, as the king had intended. This is the exactly the same manner of counting used for the resurrection. It is inclusive in nature, with whatever portion of the first and last days being counted as full days.

Just for good measure, this same story is told in 2 Chronicles-

2 Chr 10:5 And he said unto them, Come again unto me *after three days*. And the people departed.

2 Chr 10:12 So Jeroboam and all the people came to Rehoboam *on the third day*, as the king bade, saying, Come again to me *on the third day*.

Note the way this is worded compared to 1 Kings. Come again unto me after three days, depart yet for three days, and Come again to me on the third day, these all mean exactly the same thing, which is NOT a full three days or a full 72 hours.

Jesus Christ rose ON the third day.




The best way to understand the Jewish way of reckoning ,to hear it from their mouth:

excert from Jewsforjudaism


While it is true that according to Jewish law part of the day is equivalent to a full day, Matthew's Jesus promised to be buried specifically for three days and three nights. By the use of the phrase "three days and three nights," Matthew's Jesus indicated that he expected to be buried for three consecutive periods between dawn and dark (day) and dark and dawn (night), or approximately seventy- two hours. The Scriptures employ the phrase "three days" in a more general sense than that expressed by "three days and three nights." For example, "three days" does not necessarily include the period of day or night at either the beginning or end of the total time to be indicated. Therefore, when the phrase "three days" is meant to specifically include three days and three nights, and this is not evident from the text, it must be stated as such: ". . . neither eat nor drink three days, night or day . . ." (Esther 4:16). However, when the phrase "three days and three nights" is stated, it includes either all three days and all three nights or can be deficient in only parts of a day or night at the beginning or end of the entire period, but never of a full segment of day or night out of twenty-four hours (1 Samuel 30:11-13). Although Jesus did not have to be buried exactly seventy-two hours, he did have to be buried at least on parts of three days and three nights. Jesus died on a Friday at the ninth hour, which corresponds to about 3 P.M. The claim is made that Jesus rose three days later, on a Sunday. This would mean that he was buried during the daylight hours of three different days. If this was true, he was buried for only two nights.

The Gospel of John indicates that Jesus' promise to rise after being buried three days and three nights was never fulfilled. According to Matthew, the women came to the tomb "as it began to dawn toward the first day of the week" (Matthew 28:1), Mark says "they came to the tomb when the sun had risen" (Mark 16:2), and Luke says it was "at early dawn that they came to the tomb" (Luke 24:1). But in John it clearly states that it was not yet dawn when the body of Jesus disappeared from the tomb: "On the first day of the week Mary Magdalene came early to the tomb, while it was still dark, and saw the stone already taken away from the tomb" (John 20:1). Thus, John says that Jesus, having risen before the dawn of Sunday morning, was buried for only two days and two nights, i.e., one full day (Saturday), part of another (Friday), and two nights (Friday and Saturday nights). This contradicts the assertion that in fulfillment of prophecy, Jesus was buried three days and three nights. The New Testament evidence simply does not add up to three days, i.e., daylight hours, and three nights, as specifically promised by Jesus. Therefore, Jesus did not fulfill his very own prediction.


you better think well Keltoi ,before you post me a rebuttal ....don't be in a hurry in order not to be surprised of what I still have in my pocket......

peace
Reply

don532
04-14-2007, 09:13 PM
The Bible nowhere says or implies that Jesus was crucified and died on Good Friday! It is said that Jesus was crucified on

"the day before the Sabbath", Mark 15:42; Luke 23:54; John 19:14, 31, 42.

As the Jewish weekly Sabbath came on Saturday, scholars have assumed Jesus was crucified on Good Friday. This is poor reasoning because the Bible bears abundant testimony that the Jews had other Sabbaths beside the weekly Sabbath which fell on Saturday.

The first day of the Passover week, no matter on what day of the week it came, was always an annual Sabbath.

"And on the fifteenth day of the same month is the feast of unleavened bread unto the LORD: seven days ye must eat unleavened bread. In the first day ye shall have an holy convocation: ye shall do no servile work therein" Leviticus 23:6, 7.

On the seventh day of this feast, the 21st of Nisan, was another annual Sabbath:

" . . . in the seventh day is an holy convocation: ye shall do no servile work therein" Leviticus 23:8.

The day of Pentecost was an annual Sabbath Numbers 28:26. This is the reason we read about Sabbaths in the plural number in the Old Testament Leviticus 26:2, 34, 35, 43.

The Bible makes it plain, Jesus was crucified and buried on:

" . . . the preparation, that is, the day before the sabbath" Mark 15:42.

John tells us:

"And it was the preparation of the Passover" John 19:14.

It was the preparation day on which the Passover Supper was made ready [editor's note: actually it was the preparation for the Holy Day, the Night to Be Much Remembered], the 14th of Nisan John 13:1, 29; 18:28. It was the preparation to keep the Passover Sabbath--the annual Sabbath which always came on the 15th day of the first ecclesiastical month. John 19:31 adds:

" . . . (for that sabbath day was an high day) . . . ."

Its greatness was due to the fact that it was the annual Sabbath of the Passover Festival.

Two Sabbaths that Week

Matthew makes it plain that two Sabbaths had passed since Jesus was crucified. The KJV has this rendering:

"In the end of the sabbath, as it began to dawn toward the first day of the week, came Mary Magdalene and the other Mary to see the sepulchre" Matthew 28:1.

On this verse nearly all translators have allowed tradition to control their translation. It is not "Sabbath" but "Sabbaths" in the Greek text (the genitive case and the plural number). The verse properly translated would read:

"In the end of the sabbaths . . . ."

This allows for an annual Sabbath on Thursday and a regular Sabbath on Saturday.

When Jesus was buried near sundown on the day of the Passover,

"Mary Magdalene, and the other Mary"

watched the burial Matthew 27:58-61. Immediately after the burial, Luke says:

"And that day was the preparation, and the sabbath drew on" Luke 3:54.

This Sabbath was an annual Sabbath on Thursday. The day after the annual Sabbath the women bought spices, Mark 16:1. Luke tells us that the women, after preparing the spices on Friday,

" . . . rested the sabbath day according to the commandment" Luke 23:56.

The traditional interpretation makes Mark and Luke contradict each other. In Mark 16:1 we are informed that the Sabbath was past when the spices were purchased. "Had" is inserted without any authority from the Greek text.

"No reason can be given for the variation--bought sweet spices. Not had bought" (An American Commentary on the New Testament, Vol. 11, p. 251).

In Luke 23:56 we are told that the women prepared the spices and ointments, and rested the Sabbath day. If Jesus lay in the grave on Sabbath only, Mark and Luke contradict each other. But if He lay there two Sabbaths having a work day between them, then Mark and Luke harmonize to perfection.

The Resurrection Late Saturday Evening

When does the Bible say that Jesus rose from the dead? The two Mary's came to the tomb:

"in the end of the sabbath" Matthew 28:1.

The Sabbath always ended at sunset:

"From even unto even, shall ye celebrate your sabbath" Leviticus 23:32.

Then they went to the tomb before sunset on Saturday. Jesus had risen from the dead before their arrival Matthew 28:1-8. According to the Bible, Jesus Christ arose before sunset on Saturday. Christ did not rise on Sunday morning, for the two Mary saw Him, heard Him speak, and held His feet just as the Sabbath ended and the first day of the week began.

"In the end of the sabbath, as it began to dawn toward the first day of the week . . ." (Matthew 28:1).

Mark 16:9 tells us Jesus first appeared to Mary Magdalene early the first day of the week, which was Saturday after sundown. The nearer after sunset this happened, the earlier in the first of the week it was. Mark does not say that she was alone at the time she first saw Jesus, and Matthew tells us that:

"the other Mary was with her" (Matthew 28:1).

The Date of the Crucifixion

Having shown from Matthew 28:1 that Jesus rose from the grave as the Sabbath ended at sunset and the first day of the week began, this would put the crucifixion on Wednesday at sunset just as the preparation day ended and the annual Sabbath commenced. According to the Gospel writers, Jesus died at the ninth hour (3:00 p.m. our time) and was buried about sunset that same day, Luke 23:44, 45, 50-54; Mark 15:33-38, 42-47.

If Jesus were buried at sunset on Wednesday and arose at sunset on Saturday, He fulfilled the sign of Jonah. He would have been in the grave Wednesday night, Thursday night, and Friday night--a full "three days". All together a full "three days and three nights." Thus we have a literal fulfillment of the words of Christ in Matthew 12:40. hence there is no need to follow Roman Catholic tradition which makes Jesus Christ a liar. Truly,

". . . He rose again the third day according to the scriptures" I Corinthians 15:4,

not the second day according to Roman Catholic tradition!

The Third Day

Some Scriptures speak of His resurrection

"after three days" (Mark 8:31; 9:31 R. V.; 10:34 R. V.; Matthew 27:63).

Other verses say

"three days" (Matthew 26:60, 61; 27:39, 40; Mark 14:58; 15:29, 30; John 2:19, 20).

Still others speak of

"the third day" (Matthew 16:21; 17:23; 20:19; 27:64; Luke 9:22; 18;33; 24:6, 7, 21, 46; Acts 10:40; I Corinthians 16:4).

Some make much over "the third day" in Luke 24:21, and they affirm that if the crucifixion took place on Wednesday, Sunday would be the fourth day since these things were done. But the answer is simple. These things were done just as Thursday was beginning at sunset on Wednesday. They were therefore completed on Thursday, and the first day since Thursday would be Friday, the second day since Thursday would be Saturday, and "the third day since" Thursday would be Sunday, the first day of the week.

So the supposed objection in reality supports the Wednesday crucifixion. But if the crucifixion took place on Friday, by no manner of reckoning could Sunday be made "the third day since" these things were done.

Unless we believe the Bible contains errors, we know that all passages must harmonize. Therefore, "after three days" must mean the same as "the third day" Matthew 16:21.

There is nothing in the Bible to favor the Good Friday crucifixion of Jesus Christ. The biblical record harmonizes with a Wednesday crucifixion and Saturday evening resurrection--a full 72 hours. This view allows for a literal interpretation of "three days and three nights." It allows for the word "after three days" to mean just that. It proves that Jesus Christ fulfilled the sign of Jonah and thus proved His Messiahship to the Jews.

Written By: Milburn Cockrell
Reply

don532
04-14-2007, 10:09 PM
'The Son of Man Will Be Three Days and Three Nights in the Heart of the Earth'
Jesus Christ plainly said He would be entombed for three days and three nights. Can this be reconciled with a "Good Friday" crucifixion and burial and an "Easter Sunday" resurrection, which allows for barely a day and a half in the tomb? Or do the Gospels spell out a surprising, simpler solution that fits perfectly with what Jesus foretold?
by Scott Ashley

In Matthew 12:38, some of the scribes and Pharisees asked Jesus for a sign to prove He was the Messiah. "Teacher, we want to see a miraculous sign from you," they told Him (New International Version).

But Jesus responded that the only sign He would give was that of the prophet Jonah: "For as Jonah was three days and three nights in the belly of a huge fish, so the Son of Man will be three days and three nights in the heart of the earth" (verse 40).

Traditional view doesn't fit

But how can we fit "three days and three nights" between a Friday afternoon crucifixion and entombment just before sundown and a Sunday morning resurrection at sunrise? This traditional view allows for Jesus to have been in the tomb for only a day and a half.

Some believe that Christ's statement that He would be "three days and three nights in the heart of the earth" does not require a literal span of 72 hours. They reason that any part of a day can be reckoned as a whole day.

Thus, since Jesus died in the afternoon and was entombed just before sunset, they think the closing few minutes of that Friday constituted the first day, Friday night was the first night, Saturday was the second day, Saturday night was the second night, and a few minutes at dawn on Sunday morning made up the third day.

But where, then, is the third night? Even if a few minutes of daylight late on Friday and another few on Sunday morning constitute "days," this interpretation fails to explain how only two nights—Friday night and Saturday night—can somehow be the three nights of which Jesus spoke.

In fact, Scripture is plain that Jesus had already risen before Mary Magdalene came to the tomb early Sunday morning, arriving "while it was still dark" (John 20:1-2). So in reality, no parts of Sunday could be counted as a day, as Jesus was already resurrected well before the break of dawn.

Jonah 1:17, to which Jesus referred, states specifically that "Jonah was in the belly of the fish three days and three nights." We have no biblical basis for thinking that Jesus meant only two nights and one day, plus part of another day. If Jesus were in the tomb only from late Friday afternoon to early Sunday morning, then the sign He gave that He was the prophesied Messiah was not fulfilled.

So which is it? Is something wrong with Christ's words, or is something wrong with the traditional view of when and how long He was in the tomb?

Let's carefully examine the details from the Gospels. When we do, we uncover the real story of how Jesus' words were fulfilled precisely.

Two Sabbaths mentioned

Notice the sequence of events outlined in Luke 23. Jesus' moment of death, as well as His hasty burial because of the oncoming Sabbath that began at sundown, is narrated in verses 46-53. Verse 54 then states, "That day was the Preparation, and the Sabbath drew near."

In Jewish society of that time, heavy cooking and housecleaning were done on the day before a Sabbath in preparation for it. Thus the day before the Sabbath came to be called "the preparation day" or simply "the preparation." The biblical Sabbath falls on Saturday, the seventh day of the week. According to Bible reckoning, days begin at sunset (Leviticus 23:32; compare Genesis 1:5, 8, 13), so all weekly Sabbaths start Friday evening at sundown.

Based on these facts, many people have assumed that it is the weekly Sabbath mentioned here, and that Jesus was therefore crucified on a Friday. But two types of "Sabbaths" are mentioned in the Scriptures—the regular weekly Sabbath day, which fell on the seventh day of the week, and seven annual Holy Days (listed in Leviticus 23), Sabbaths that could—and usually did—fall on days of the week other than the regular weekly Sabbath day.

Was the day after Jesus was crucified a weekly Sabbath, or one of these annual Holy Days?

John 19:31 clearly states that this approaching Sabbath "was a high day." This term does not refer to the weekly Sabbath (Friday sunset to Saturday sunset), but in this context to the first day of Unleavened Bread, one of God's annual Holy Days (Exodus 12:16-17; Leviticus 23:6-7). A number of Bible commentaries, encyclopedias and dictionaries will confirm that John is not referring to the weekly Sabbath here, but rather to one of the annual Sabbaths.

According to the biblical calendar, in that year this high-day Sabbath fell on a Thursday (meaning it began on Wednesday night at sunset). We can confirm this by looking at the details in the Gospel accounts—which show us that two separate Sabbath days are mentioned.

Luke 23:55-56 tells us that the women, after seeing Christ's body being laid in the tomb just before sundown, "returned and prepared spices and fragrant oils" for the final preparation of the body.

They would not have done such work on a Sabbath day, weekly or annual, since it would have been considered a Sabbath violation. This is verified by Mark's account, which states: "Now when the Sabbath was past, Mary Magdalene, Mary the mother of James, and Salome bought spices [which they could not have purchased on a Sabbath day], that they might come and anoint Him" (Mark 16:1).

The women had to wait until this Sabbath was over before they could buy and prepare the spices to be used for anointing Jesus' body. Then, Luke 23:56 tells us that, after purchasing and preparing the spices and oils on Friday, "they rested on the Sabbath according to the commandment"—which means they had to have acquired the spices before that Sabbath on which they rested. This second Sabbath mentioned in the Gospel accounts is the regular weekly Sabbath, observed from Friday sunset to Saturday sunset.

By comparing details in both Gospels —where Mark tells us the women bought spices after the Sabbath and Luke relates that they prepared the spices before resting on the Sabbath—we can clearly see that two different Sabbaths are being discussed here.

The first, as John 19:31 tells us, was a "high day"—the first day of the Feast of Unleavened Bread—which, in A.D. 31, fell on a Thursday. The second was the weekly seventh-day Sabbath. (To see these events spelled out day by day, see the chart.)

Sign of the Messiah

After the women rested on the regular weekly Sabbath, they went to Jesus' tomb early on the first day of the week (Sunday), "while it was still dark" (John 20:1), and found that He had already been resurrected (Matthew 28:1-6; Mark 16:2-6; Luke 24:1-3). Jesus was not resurrected at sunrise on Sunday morning. When Mary Magdalene arrived "while it was still dark" she found the stone rolled away and the tomb already empty!

When we consider the details in all four Gospel accounts, the picture is clear. Jesus was crucified and entombed late on Wednesday afternoon, just before a Sabbath began at sunset. However, that was a high-day Sabbath, lasting from Wednesday sunset to Thursday sunset that week, rather than the regular weekly Sabbath that lasted from Friday sunset to Saturday sunset.

Since Jesus was entombed in the late afternoon just before sundown, according to His own words He would have been resurrected at around the same time three days and nights later. He remained in the tomb from Wednesday at sunset until Saturday at sunset, when He rose from the dead. While no one witnessed His resurrection (which took place inside a sealed tomb), to fit His words and the biblical evidence it had to have happened three days and three nights later, near sunset on Saturday.

This time line perfectly accommodates three full nights (Wednesday night, Thursday night and Friday night) and three full daylight periods (Thursday, Friday and Saturday). This is the only time that fits Jesus' own prophecy of how long He would be in the tomb. And, as we have seen, it fits perfectly with all the details recorded in the Gospels.

We can be assured that the entombment period Jesus gave as proof He was the Messiah was exactly the duration He foretold. Because most people do not understand the biblical Holy Days Jesus Christ and His followers kept, they fail to understand the chronological details so accurately preserved for us in the Gospels. GN
Reply

YusufNoor
04-14-2007, 11:34 PM
A`udhu Billahi mina Shaytanir Rajeem,

Bismillahir Rahmanir Raheem

Assalamu alaykum wa'rahma-tullahi, wa'barakatahu

Greetings of Peace Don,

THAT IS the most plausable interpretation of the story, BUT no-one accepts THAT as proof that Jesus was the Messiah! they prefer a "son of God" thesis and it would also destroy the excuse for moving the Sabbath to Sunday, hence even "Christians" don't believe it!

looks like all evidence of the sunnah of Jesus/Isa(as) has been expunged from human memory. we could also mention that Peter NEVER ate the "unclean" food in his dream...

just like "Thou shalt have no other gods beside me" has been replaced.

looks like the Catholic Church went to a great deal of trouble to completely eradicate the Gospel "According to" Jesus/Isa(as) and replace it with others...

THIS is WHY another Messenger was required! one who's Message AND Sunnah HAS been preserved! (AND PERFECTED!) Allahu Akbar!

:w:
Reply

don532
04-15-2007, 01:27 AM
Greetings of Peace, YusufNoor. I agree the pieces I posted on the three days question do not address all the issues you have noted.

As to the question of Christians worshiping on Sunday as opposed to Saturday, it is true there is not 100% universal agreement on the subject even among Christians. A small percentage of Christians still meet on Saturday.

Here is an article from carm.org which pretty well explains why most Christians worship on Sunday.

In the Old Testament, God stated, "Remember the Sabbath day to keep it holy. Six days you shall labor and do all your work, but the seventh day is a Sabbath of the Lord your God; in it you shall not do any work, you or your son or your daughter your male or your female servant or your cattle or your sojourner who stays with you" (Exodus 20:8-10, NASB). It was the custom of the Jews to come together on the Sabbath, which is Saturday, cease work, and worship God. Jesus went to the synagogue on Saturday to teach (Matt. 12:9; John 18:20) as did the apostle Paul (Acts 17:2; 18:4). So, if in the Old Testament we are commanded to keep the Sabbath and in the New Testament we see Jews, Jesus, and the apostles doing the same thing, then why do we worship on Sunday?
First of all, of the 10 commandments listed in Exodus 20:1-17, only 9 of them were restated in the New Testament. (Six in Matt. 19:18, murder, adultery, stealing, false witness, honor parents, and worshiping God; Rom. 13:9, coveting. Worshiping God properly covers the first three commandments) The one that was not reaffirmed was the one about the Sabbath. Instead, Jesus said that He is the Lord of the Sabbath (Matt. 12:8).
In creation, God rested on the seventh day. But, since God is all powerful, He doesn’t get tired. He doesn’t need to take a break and rest. So, why did does it say that He rested? The reason is simple: Mark 2:27 says, "The Sabbath was made for man, and not man for the Sabbath." In other words, God established the Sabbath as a rest for His people, not because He needed a break, but because we are mortal and need a time of rest, of focus on God. In this, our spirits and bodies are both renewed.
The OT system of Law required keeping the Sabbath as part of the overall moral, legal, and sacrificial system by which the Jewish people satisfied God’s requirements for behavior, government, and forgiveness of sins. The Sabbath was part of the Law in that sense. In order to "remain" in favor with God, you had to also keep the Sabbath. If it was not kept, then the person was in sin and would often be punished (Ezek. 18:4; Rom. 6:23; Deut. 13:1-9; Num. 35:31; Lev. 20:2, etc.).
But with Jesus’ atonement, we no longer are required to keep the Law as a means for our justification. The requirements of the Law were fulfilled in Christ. We now have rest from the Law. We now have "Sabbath", continually.

Are we free to worship on Sunday?

Within the New Testament is ample evidence that the seventh day Sabbath is no longer a requirement.

* Rom. 14:5-6: "One man regards one day above another, another regards every day alike. Let each man be fully convinced in his own mind. 6 He who observes the day, observes it for the Lord, and he who eats, does so for the Lord, for he gives thanks to God; and he who eats not, for the Lord he does not eat, and gives thanks to God."

The entire section of Rom. 14:1-12 is worth careful study. The instructions here are that individuals must be convinced in their own minds about which day they observe for the Lord. If the seventh day Sabbath were a requirement, then the choice would not be mans’, but God’s. To me, this verse is sufficient to answer the question beyond doubt. Furthermore,

* Col. 2:16-17: "Therefore let no one act as your judge in regard to food or drink or in respect to a festival or a new moon or a Sabbath day— 17things which are a mere shadow of what is to come; but the substance belongs to Christ."

Notice the time sequence mentioned in Col. 2:16-17 above. A festival is yearly. A new moon is monthly. A Sabbath is weekly. No one is to judge in regard to this. The Sabbath is defined as a shadow, the reality is Jesus. Jesus is our Sabbath. So, if someone is judging you because you worship on the Sabbath, they are wrong. Likewise, if you regard Sunday above Saturday (Rom. 14:5-6), all you need to do is be convinced in your own mind that that is alright.

Is there any evidence in the NT that Christians met on Sunday?

* Acts 20:7: "And on the first day of the week, when we were gathered together to break bread, Paul began talking to them, intending to depart the next day, and he prolonged his message until midnight."

The first day of the week is Sunday and this is the day the people gathered. This passage can easily be seen as the church meeting on Sunday, though it does not necessitate it. It has two important church functions within it: breaking bread (communion) and a message (preaching/teaching). Additionally, Luke included the Roman system as well as the Jewish system of counting days. The Jewish system was sundown to sundown. But Luke also used the Roman system: midnight to midnight (Luke 11:5; Acts 16:25; 20:7; 27:27). This is a subtle point that shows the Jewish Sabbath system was not exclusively used by Luke. If the Sabbath was mandatory, why the use of the non-Jewish system?

* 1 Cor. 16:1-2: "Now concerning the collection for the saints, as I directed the churches of Galatia, so do you also. 2On the first day of every week let each one of you put aside and save, as he may prosper, that no collections be made when I come."

Notice here that Paul is directing the churches to meet on the first day of each week and put money aside. It would seem that this is tithing. So, the instructed time for the church to meet is Sunday, the first day of the week and it is that day the Galatians were to set money aside collections. Is this an official worship day set up by the church? You decide. Does this verse apply to Christians today? It most certainly does.

* Revelation 1:10-11, "I was in the Spirit on the Lord’s day, and I heard behind me a loud voice like the sound of a trumpet, 11saying, "Write in a book what you see, and send it to the seven churches: to Ephesus and to Smyrna and to Pergamum and to Thyatira and to Sardis and to Philadelphia and to Laodicea."

The New Bible Dictionary says regarding the term, ‘The Lord’s Day’ in Rev. 1:10: "This is the first extant occurrence in Christian literature of "te kuriake hemera." The adjectival construction suggests that it was a formal designation of the church’s worship day. As such it certainly appears early in the 2nd century" (Ignatius, Epistle to the Magnesians, 1. 67).
In many churches today, the term "The Lord’s Day" is used to designate Sunday, the same as it was in the second century.
I hope this is evidence enough to show you that the Bible does not require that we worship on Saturday. If anything, we have the freedom (Rom. 14:1-12) to worship on the day that we believe we should. And, no one should judge us in regard to the day we keep. We are free in Christ and not under law, (Rom. 6:14).

Conclusion

The Seventh Day Adventists have every right to worship on the Sabbath and they should if they are convinced that is the right thing to do. However, if any member of any church were to require a person to worship on the Sabbath as a sign of "true" Christianity or "true" redemption, then that is wrong. According to Rom. 14:1-12, we are free.
Additionally, Sunday is the day that the Lord Jesus rose from the dead. The Jewish people who had rejected Jesus continued to worship on Saturday, the Sabbath. But it was the Christians who celebrated Jesus' resurrection and this was most probably the driving force to gather on the first day of the week.
Reply

NoName55
04-15-2007, 01:33 AM
edit
Reply

back_to_faith
04-15-2007, 01:44 AM
Originally Posted by don532
'The Son of Man Will Be Three Days and Three Nights in the Heart of the Earth'


two types of "Sabbaths" are mentioned in the Scriptures—the regular weekly Sabbath day, which fell on the seventh day of the week, and seven annual Holy Days (listed in Leviticus 23), Sabbaths that could—and usually did—fall on days of the week other than the regular weekly Sabbath day.

Was the day after Jesus was crucified a weekly Sabbath, or one of these annual Holy Days?

John 19:31 clearly states that this approaching Sabbath "was a high day." This term does not refer to the weekly Sabbath (Friday sunset to Saturday sunset), but in this context to the first day of Unleavened Bread, one of God's annual Holy Days (Exodus 12:16-17; Leviticus 23:6-7).

According to the biblical calendar, in that year this high-day Sabbath fell on a Thursday (meaning it began on Wednesday night at sunset). We can confirm this by looking at the details in the Gospel accounts—which show us that two separate Sabbath days are mentioned.

Luke 23:55-56 tells us that the women, after seeing Christ's body being laid in the tomb just before sundown, "returned and prepared spices and fragrant oils" for the final preparation of the body.


By comparing details in both Gospels —where Mark tells us the women bought spices after the Sabbath and Luke relates that they prepared the spices before resting on the Sabbath—we can clearly see that two different Sabbaths are being discussed here.

The first, as John 19:31 tells us, was a "high day"—the first day of the Feast of Unleavened Bread—which, in A.D. 31, fell on a Thursday. The second was the weekly seventh-day Sabbath. (To see these events spelled out day by day, see the chart.)

. GN

The (2 sabbaths dodge) appeared as a hopeless try to solve the (3 days and 3 nights gospel flaw), If one examine such theory with objective mind,will find out that it is totally based on zero evidence:


1-In all the pages of biblical history, the preparation day has been Friday. Please read Mark 15:42, 43, "And now when the even was come, because it was the preparation, that is, the day before the sabbath, Joseph of Arimathaea ... went in boldly unto Pilate, and craved the body of Jesus."


2-He died on the preparation day, or the day before the weekly Sabbath. The next day is designated as "the sabbath according to the commandment." Since the commandment says, "The seventh day is the sabbath," we know that this had to be the day we call Saturday. Furthermore, after describing the events of the preparation day in verse 55 and the Sabbath day in verse 56, the very next verse says, "Now upon the first day of the week, very early in the morning, they came unto the sepulchre, bringing the spices which they had prepared." Luke 24:1.

3-It is true that the first day of unleavened bread was special to the Jew, but we deny that John’s phrase "that Sabbath was a high day" could possibly refer to the first day of unleavened bread.

A- No where in the Bible are the annual Jewish feast days like Passover or the days of unleavened bread called "HIGH SABBATHS" or "high days"! So the Bible itself, by its silence, refutes this concept completely. Every Jew would know that this was a High day,Every first day of unleavened bread was always a SPECIAL day,John tells us "that Sabbath was a high day", not "that day was a high Sabbath, it is obvious that John said a "that Sabbath was high" by the fact that it fell within Passover week.

B- The day of atonement is designated a compound expression "shabbath shabbathon", which means "a sabbath of solemn rest" (Lev 23:32; 16:31). But the Septuagint translates this phrase by the compound Greek expression "sabbata sabbaton," not the simple "sabbaton" used in the gospels. This proves that annual feast days like Passover are never designated simply as "sabbaton."



C- It was a special Sabbath, the one that fell within the feast of unleavened bread. More importantly, the Sabbath within "Passover week" was the one they used determine the Wave/ sheaf/ First fruits offering on the day after the Sabbath- always Sunday (Leviticus 23:11); AND to start counting down for the Feast of Weeks (Pentecost) Leviticus 23:15. Pentecost always fell on a Sunday. Even if the Sabbath of Lev 23:11&15 are not the weekly Sabbath, but a reference to the first day of unleavened bread, being the Sabbath, the Wave/sheaf offering AND Pentecost still fell on Sunday in 33 AD, the year Jesus was crucified!!!


4- The Jewish feast days were to be "Sabbaths", (The day of atonement: Lev 16:31; 23:32 "It is to be a sabbath of complete rest to you, and you shall humble your souls; on the ninth of the month at evening, from evening until evening you shall keep your sabbath." Sabbath year: Lev 25:4; 2 Chron 36:21 but during the seventh year the land shall have a sabbath rest, a sabbath to the Lord; you shall not sow your field nor prune your vineyard.) However, outside of the books of Moses, these feast days are never called "sabbaths" (with the exception of the year long land Sabbath which was not a festival: 2 Chron 36:21) Instead, they are referred to as "annual feasts, appointed feasts, appointed times, assemblies, solemn assembly, festal assemblies, Festival, fixed festivals, keeping years". When the Jews used the word Sabbath, it always referred to the weekly Sabbath.


5- another problem for the Wednesday crucifixion. The preceding scenario places the Last Supper and crucifixion before the Passover meal on Nisan 14. However, the Wednesday crucifixion could only occur astronomically on Nisan 15 after the Passover meal. For the Wednesday crucifixion to fall on Nisan 14 one must posit an intervening Ve-Adar and start the month late according to the Babylonian calendar, The Wednesday crucifixion is again a difficult choice.


6- The final nail in the coffin (mind the pun) of the Wednesday crucifixion ,is that The Bible offers incontestable proof that no one would have attempted such an anointing under those circumstances. When Lazarus had been dead four days, Jesus ordered the stone removed from his tomb. Martha, the sister of Lazarus, protested in these words, "Lord, by this time he stinketh: for he hath been dead four days." John 11:39.
These words of Martha reveal the fact that no woman of that day would have considered it possible to prepare a body for burial four days after death. To Martha it seemed an irrational act even to open the tomb of Lazarus. To the other women who prepared the spices it would have been equally unreasonable to enter Christ's sepulchre four days after He had been crucified.Since there was an intervening day when His body could have been anointed, the women would not have waited until the fourth day to anoint the body of Jesus with spices, They would have gone on the intervening Friday, the supposed day between the Sabbaths. This seems to eliminate the possibility of a Wednesday crucifixion.


That's why Christians celebrate Good Friday, not Good Wednesday, and that is why I found no difficulty to find such refutations from the mouths of infamous christian scholars such as Steve Rudd,and even church fathers ...such as
But Sunday is the day on which we hold our common assembly, because it is the first day of the week and Jesus our saviour on the same day rose from the dead. (First apology of Justin, Ch 68)

(Lord's Day as a festival, the resurrection-day, the queen and chief of all the days of the week. (Ignatius, Epistle to the Magnesians, chp 9) , (15:8f, The Epistle of Barnabas, 100 AD, Ante-Nicene Fathers , vol. 1, pg. 147)


The eight day, that is, the first day after the Sabbath, and the Lord's Day." (Epistle 58, Sec 4)

[The Ebionites] were accustomed to observe the Sabbath and other Jewish customs but on the Lord's days to celebrate the same practices as we in remembrance of the resurrection of the Savior. (Church History Ill.xxvii.5)
Reply

don532
04-15-2007, 03:02 AM
Oh I agree there are multiple schools of thought about the question at hand regarding the day of the crucifixion. In addition to the traditional Friday, there's also proponents of a Thursday crucifixion.

But with all these (Wednesday, Thursday, Friday), there's still the uncertainty of how the calendar was manipulated in the timeframe in question, whether Thursday was even on the calendar, and how one counts the days Jesus was in the tomb.

From loriswebs.com - Scott Lee's Calendars: "It is not clear when the current rule based calendar replaced the observation based calendar. According to the book 'Jewish Calendar Mystery Dispelled' by George Zinberg, the Patriarch Hillel II published the rules in 358 A.D. But, according to the Encyclopedia Judaica, Hillel II may have only published the 19 year rule for determining the occurrence of leap years." When asked if these calendar programs previous to 358 A.D are probably just good guesses, Lee responded, "Yes. And it is likely just an estimate for several years after 358 too." I then asked Lee if there is no proof, when this method was started, then why is the calendar being manipulated during those early years? Lee responded, "I am just extrapolating the current formula back in time. This provides an estimate of what the dates were, but is likely off a bit from time to time. Even as much as a month off if they placed a leap month in a different place."
Reply

Keltoi
04-15-2007, 04:50 AM
Originally Posted by back_to_faith
The best way to understand the Jewish way of reckoning ,to hear it from their mouth:

excert from Jewsforjudaism


While it is true that according to Jewish law part of the day is equivalent to a full day, Matthew's Jesus promised to be buried specifically for three days and three nights. By the use of the phrase "three days and three nights," Matthew's Jesus indicated that he expected to be buried for three consecutive periods between dawn and dark (day) and dark and dawn (night), or approximately seventy- two hours. The Scriptures employ the phrase "three days" in a more general sense than that expressed by "three days and three nights." For example, "three days" does not necessarily include the period of day or night at either the beginning or end of the total time to be indicated. Therefore, when the phrase "three days" is meant to specifically include three days and three nights, and this is not evident from the text, it must be stated as such: ". . . neither eat nor drink three days, night or day . . ." (Esther 4:16). However, when the phrase "three days and three nights" is stated, it includes either all three days and all three nights or can be deficient in only parts of a day or night at the beginning or end of the entire period, but never of a full segment of day or night out of twenty-four hours (1 Samuel 30:11-13). Although Jesus did not have to be buried exactly seventy-two hours, he did have to be buried at least on parts of three days and three nights. Jesus died on a Friday at the ninth hour, which corresponds to about 3 P.M. The claim is made that Jesus rose three days later, on a Sunday. This would mean that he was buried during the daylight hours of three different days. If this was true, he was buried for only two nights.

The Gospel of John indicates that Jesus' promise to rise after being buried three days and three nights was never fulfilled. According to Matthew, the women came to the tomb "as it began to dawn toward the first day of the week" (Matthew 28:1), Mark says "they came to the tomb when the sun had risen" (Mark 16:2), and Luke says it was "at early dawn that they came to the tomb" (Luke 24:1). But in John it clearly states that it was not yet dawn when the body of Jesus disappeared from the tomb: "On the first day of the week Mary Magdalene came early to the tomb, while it was still dark, and saw the stone already taken away from the tomb" (John 20:1). Thus, John says that Jesus, having risen before the dawn of Sunday morning, was buried for only two days and two nights, i.e., one full day (Saturday), part of another (Friday), and two nights (Friday and Saturday nights). This contradicts the assertion that in fulfillment of prophecy, Jesus was buried three days and three nights. The New Testament evidence simply does not add up to three days, i.e., daylight hours, and three nights, as specifically promised by Jesus. Therefore, Jesus did not fulfill his very own prediction.


you better think well Keltoi ,before you post me a rebuttal ....don't be in a hurry in order not to be surprised of what I still have in my pocket......

peace
The "Jewish Encyclopedia," Vol.4, pg.474, confirms this method of reckoning time. It reads, "A short time in the morning of the seventh day counted as the seventh day; circumcision takes place on the eighth day, even though, of the first day only a few minutes remained after the birth of the child, these being counted as one day."

Think of it this way. If we took the '3 days and 3 nights' literally, we could only assume it was a literal 72 hours. To say it was longer - even one second longer - would mean that you would have to say something like 'longer than 3 days and 3 nights' and if was shorter, then you would have to say something like 'less than 3 days and 3 nights.' I realize this argument seems to be pulling hairs, even being picky, but either you read it literally, or you read it figuratively. Think of being up in the morning - when does the night end and day start (without a watch)? I guess I'm saying even the phrase '3 days and 3 nights' in normal day interpretation has to be to a degree-interpreted figuratively already.
Reply

Redeemed
04-15-2007, 11:40 AM
Originally Posted by don532
Greetings of Peace, YusufNoor. I agree the pieces I posted on the three days question do not address all the issues you have noted.

As to the question of Christians worshiping on Sunday as opposed to Saturday, it is true there is not 100% universal agreement on the subject even among Christians. A small percentage of Christians still meet on Saturday.

Here is an article from carm.org which pretty well explains why most Christians worship on Sunday.
That is right. Jesus said, that the Sabbath was made for man not man for the Sabbath. It is true that we have freedom in this area because Christ is our rest. He said, "My yoke is easy and His burdent is light." He said, "you believe in God believe also in me." In His Father's house are many mansions he said He goes to prepare a place for us. I follow Jesus because I have never heard a message of love that is so powerful. He said, a man cannot have more love than to lay down his life for a friend. If I follow Christ who is honored even by the Muslims in there way, I find rest for my soul. Jesus just taught love. I can exhaust my life studying about his love message, but if surpasses my understanding. If Jesus is honored as a prophet of God and indeed He is, I shouldn't be going wrong if I obey His teachings exclusively.
Reply

Redeemed
04-15-2007, 11:42 AM
Don, I know you know these things but it doesn't hurt to be reminded.
Reply

back_to_faith
04-15-2007, 12:03 PM
Originally Posted by don532
Oh I agree there are multiple schools of thought about the question at hand regarding the day of the crucifixion. In addition to the traditional Friday, there's also proponents of a Thursday crucifixion.

But with all these (Wednesday, Thursday, Friday), there's still the uncertainty of how the calendar was manipulated in the timeframe in question, whether Thursday was even on the calendar, and how one counts the days Jesus was in the tomb.

From loriswebs.com - Scott Lee's Calendars: "It is not clear when the current rule based calendar replaced the observation based calendar. According to the book 'Jewish Calendar Mystery Dispelled' by George Zinberg, the Patriarch Hillel II published the rules in 358 A.D. But, according to the Encyclopedia Judaica, Hillel II may have only published the 19 year rule for determining the occurrence of leap years." When asked if these calendar programs previous to 358 A.D are probably just good guesses, Lee responded, "Yes. And it is likely just an estimate for several years after 358 too." I then asked Lee if there is no proof, when this method was started, then why is the calendar being manipulated during those early years? Lee responded, "I am just extrapolating the current formula back in time. This provides an estimate of what the dates were, but is likely off a bit from time to time. Even as much as a month off if they placed a leap month in a different place."




Oh I agree there are multiple schools of thought about the question at hand regarding the day of the crucifixion.
schools !!!! as a matter of, fact I proved in my last post that the claim that the crucifiction (according to gospel writers) anything but the good Friday,would be absured concept based on zero Biblical,historical evidence,that only appeared in a hopeless try to clear up (the 3 days,3 nights)problem .....
you could do better If you prove your point with Biblical,historical support,instead of talking a general talk with zero Biblical evidence,which holds no merit in serious, objective Biblical study.....

in other words to

1-provide chapter and verse for those who assert that there were two sabbaths that week,other than "that Sabbath was a high day"which I have refuted before?
2-How to explain that the women would have waited until the fourth day to anoint the body of Jesus with spices,IF When Lazarus had been dead four days, Jesus ordered the stone removed from his tomb. Martha, the sister of Lazarus, protested in these words, "Lord, by this time he stinketh: for he hath been dead four days." John 11:39.
These words of Martha reveal the fact that no woman of that day would have considered it possible to prepare a body for burial four days after death.

in sum and substance ,the (2 sabbaths theory) is as absured as:

the (2 visits of the women to the tomb of Jesusafter his resurrection)
,the (2 Elijah one spritual,john the baptist and another physical),
(the 2 comings of the messiah once to be crucified another to rule)

etc.......and so on ......the church deception is never-ending,and the tricks of interpretation to claer up the Gospel falshoods will continue till day of judgment.
pity on those christians who fail to recognize the subtle indoctrination by which they have been victimized.
Reply

Woodrow
04-15-2007, 12:49 PM
Originally Posted by alapiana1
That is right. Jesus said, that the Sabbath was made for man not man for the Sabbath. It is true that we have freedom in this area because Christ is our rest. He said, "My yoke is easy and His burdent is light." He said, "you believe in God believe also in me." In His Father's house are many mansions he said He goes to prepare a place for us. I follow Jesus because I have never heard a message of love that is so powerful. He said, a man cannot have more love than to lay down his life for a friend. If I follow Christ who is honored even by the Muslims in there way, I find rest for my soul. Jesus just taught love. I can exhaust my life studying about his love message, but if surpasses my understanding. If Jesus is honored as a prophet of God and indeed He is, I shouldn't be going wrong if I obey His teachings exclusively.
If Jesus is honored as a prophet of God and indeed He is, I shouldn't be going wrong if I obey His teachings exclusively.

That is true. The question is do his teachings still exist?

I know that the Qur'an is the exact Message as repeated by Muhammad(PBUH) There were numerous witnesses who copied his every word. We know that not one word has changed in the Qur'an in over 1400 years.

These writings were personally approved by Muhammad(PBUH) as being the exact words he said.

There is no doubt that, Those Arabic words were the words spoken to Muhammad(PBUH) and the very same words that are still read and spoken to this day.

This is verified by exact copies of the original, having been spread and copied in an unbroken chain.

In addition we have the Sunnah, which are eyewitnesses accounts written by the companions of Muhammad(PBUH).

Then we have the Ahadith, which are the words and teachings of Muhammad(PBUH) as witnessed. The Ahadith that are verified first person witness reports are all in agreement with each other. These are further supported by lesser Ahadith, which were not directly witnessed event, but as remembered by people who heard them from witnesses. Those are acknowledged to be hear say, yet they support the claim that the Witnesses actually did write what they saw and heard.

I have absolutely no doubt that the words we have today are the unchanged words of the Qur'an.

So that means the Qur'an is either:

The Ravings of a mad man.
Misleadings by Shaytan

or the True words of Allah(swt)

i believe most people have ruled out the possability that Muhammad(PBUH) was a mad man, although that belief does persist among some people, who are not familiar with the eye witness accounts of Muhammad(PBUH) as detailed in the Sunnah.

Now I believe the consideration that the words could have been misleading teachings by Shaytan, to be a very Valid question, to be examined by every potential revert to Islam. Islam, does encourage scrutiny of the words. Questioning is not only permitted it is demanded. A Muslim is essentially ordered to question, read and learn. This is a question every revert has faced and has had to independently investigate and come to no other conclusion that the Qur'an is the word of Allah(swt) and not a false teaching coming from Shaytan.

I doubt very much that many reverts woke up one morning and said "I believe I will revert to Islam" Reverts fight to become reverts. The hardest point is to come to the self knowledge that all prior teachings were false. It is not easy to just simply give up past beliefs and immediatly begin living a whole new life. Unless the person honestly recognizes that their past beliefs were merely stepping stones on the path that brought them to Islam. Christian reverts do not give up any love of Christ(as) nor cease to love God(swt). They come to the knowledge that Islam Fulfills them and while they learned of Christ(as) through Christianity, it is in Islam they learn to truly love Isa(as). the love of Jesus(as) increases when a Christian embraces Islam. Only now they know what genuine love is and they know how to truly be servents of Allah(swt) alone.

Many reverts have become reverts because they disbelieved the teachings of the Qur'an and they came to "save" Muslims from their errors. These people discovered that the Qur'an was the truth and that they were the ones who needed to be saved. In my experience and of people I have met, I believe that strong, true Christians, become strong true Muslims. Their heart is in the right place. They come to spread truth as they believe it and they have strong love for Allah(swt) Those become the very tools needed to accept the truth of Islam and for them to accept acknowledging they are Muslim. Because of their fierce love for Allah(swt) they soon recognize that Islam is the strongest expression of love for Allah(swt) humanly possible.
Reply

Fr0mHim
04-15-2007, 01:13 PM
(sorry guys let me jump in here. it might take me awhile to understand exactly what you are talking about)

But, man I believe in the resurrection because personally I love the idea that a God came down in human flesh and died to become my Lord and Savior. telling me that He is willing to deal with all my mess ups and bad mistakes and not just with the right stuff.
this prolly doesn't even belong here... like I said it might take me awhile to get aquainted with what you guys are talking about..

but, you ever been through a lot like chronic depression and you go to someone about it (one person solemly) and they well handle with you for a while and after a while its like they pray that prayer man Lord send down the 12 legions of angels cause I can't die for this person?
Reply

Fr0mHim
04-15-2007, 01:20 PM
wanted to add this:


to me its truth not because of what someone said about it in a 2000 year old book though I can give restate scripture that gives prophesy of someone dieing to save someone else but its not a quote but its a prophesy through action through more of an event. its truth to me because everything in this world testifies of him well I wont use the word everything... but some events testify of him... or could... like a person being able to SAVE someone else by dieing(metiphorically or actually) or someone willing to give up(agian either dieing for real or dieing mentally) their time to spend with someone who needs it. and to me thats what God did... now granted honestly sometimes myself thinks of worldly things and the thought of God coming down to save me isn't satifying to me. but hey thats just me...
Reply

Woodrow
04-15-2007, 01:22 PM
Originally Posted by Fr0mHim
(sorry guys let me jump in here. it might take me awhile to understand exactly what you are talking about)

But, man I believe in the resurrection because personally I love the idea that a God came down in human flesh and died to become my Lord and Savior. telling me that He is willing to deal with all my mess ups and bad mistakes and not just with the right stuff.
this prolly doesn't even belong here... like I said it might take me awhile to get aquainted with what you guys are talking about..

but, you ever been through a lot like chronic depression and you go to someone about it (one person solemly) and they well handle with you for a while and after a while its like they pray that prayer man Lord send down the 12 legions of angels cause I can't die for this person?
Greetings and welcome to the forum. Please take your time and read all of this thread.

There are considerable differences between Muslim and Christian beliefs. I am certain you will have differences of opinion as to what we believe. but, please read and if you can not understand why we believe as we do, become aware of what it is we believe and not the misguiding of the public media.
Reply

Fr0mHim
04-15-2007, 01:24 PM
please guide me in your teachings of what you believe man.
Reply

Woodrow
04-15-2007, 01:34 PM
Originally Posted by Fr0mHim
please guide me in your teachings of what you believe man.
Rather then hijacking this thread and getting it off topic. Let me direct you over to this section:


Click on the link: http://www.islamicboard.com/discover-islam/
Reply

Keltoi
04-15-2007, 03:45 PM
Originally Posted by Fr0mHim
wanted to add this:


to me its truth not because of what someone said about it in a 2000 year old book though I can give restate scripture that gives prophesy of someone dieing to save someone else but its not a quote but its a prophesy through action through more of an event. its truth to me because everything in this world testifies of him well I wont use the word everything... but some events testify of him... or could... like a person being able to SAVE someone else by dieing(metiphorically or actually) or someone willing to give up(agian either dieing for real or dieing mentally) their time to spend with someone who needs it. and to me thats what God did... now granted honestly sometimes myself thinks of worldly things and the thought of God coming down to save me isn't satifying to me. but hey thats just me...
Yes, most of this thread is bogged down with whether Christ died on a Friday, Thursday, or Wednesday. To those who take heart in Christ's forgiveness of sins the doctrinal arguments are just that, arguments. I'm glad that Christ's Word has given you comfort through dark times. Welcome to the forum.
Reply

Redeemed
04-15-2007, 03:57 PM
Originally Posted by Fr0mHim
wanted to add this:


to me its truth not because of what someone said about it in a 2000 year old book though I can give restate scripture that gives prophesy of someone dieing to save someone else but its not a quote but its a prophesy through action through more of an event. its truth to me because everything in this world testifies of him well I wont use the word everything... but some events testify of him... or could... like a person being able to SAVE someone else by dieing(metiphorically or actually) or someone willing to give up(agian either dieing for real or dieing mentally) their time to spend with someone who needs it. and to me thats what God did... now granted honestly sometimes myself thinks of worldly things and the thought of God coming down to save me isn't satifying to me. but hey thats just me...
Welcome here on this discussion panel. It sounds like you are a Christian. I am too, and I can tell you that it is a good idea to sit back and really listen or read as you pray about the dialiogue so you don't make the mistakes I did of just jumping in like an elephant in a jewerly shop. Not that you did anything wrong now, but I can tell you there are quite a few Christians on this forum that know more than I do. You will get the hang or it really soon.
Alapiana
Reply

back_to_faith
04-15-2007, 04:26 PM
Originally Posted by Keltoi
The "Jewish Encyclopedia," Vol.4, pg.474, confirms this method of reckoning time. It reads, "A short time in the morning of the seventh day counted as the seventh day

Think of it this way. If we took the '3 days and 3 nights' literally, we could only assume it was a literal 72 hours. To say it was longer - even one second longer - would mean that you would have to say something like 'longer than 3 days and 3 nights' and if was shorter, then you would have to say something like 'less than 3 days and 3 nights.' I realize this argument seems to be pulling hairs, even being picky, but either you read it literally, or you read it figuratively. .



1- One could search till the day of Judgment and never finds that there is such idiom in the Hebrew language :

(part of a day (as opposed to night) ,reckoned as a day _and_ a night)

only It is possibile that A part of a day was reckoned as a day and a part of a night was reckoned as a night .


2-There is no evidence that "three days and three nights" is an idiom. Just saying it doesn't make it so. There is no reason to believe that "three days and three nights" means anything other than "three days and three nights". An idiom is an expression whose meaning _cannot_ be derived from its constituent elements. The above expression shows no evidence of an idiomatic expression.


3- you wrote (If we took the '3 days and 3 nights' literally, we could only assume it was a literal 72 hours)..
Did you read anything in my post to you,that I thought , Jesus had to stay 72 hours in the tomb in order to fulfill what he said?!!!

again read what I wrote:

when the phrase "three days and three nights" is stated, it includes either all three days and all three nights or can be deficient in only parts of a day or night at the beginning or end of the entire period, but never of a full segment of day or night out of twenty-four hours (1 Samuel 30:11-13). Although Jesus did not have to be buried exactly seventy-two hours, he did have to be buried at least on parts of three days and three nights. Jesus died on a Friday at the ninth hour, which corresponds to about 3 P.M. The claim is made that Jesus rose three days later, on a Sunday. This would mean that he was buried during the daylight hours of three different days. If this was true, he was buried for only two nights.



What shoots the whole argument in the foot is the narrative of John :

"On the first day of the week Mary Magdalene came early to the tomb, while it was still dark, and saw the stone already taken away from the tomb" (John 20:1).

Thus, John says that Jesus, having risen before the dawn of Sunday morning, was buried for only two days and two nights, i.e., one full day (Saturday), part of another (Friday), and two nights (Friday and Saturday nights).
Reply

YusufNoor
04-15-2007, 05:36 PM
Originally Posted by don532
Greetings of Peace, YusufNoor. I agree the pieces I posted on the three days question do not address all the issues you have noted.

As to the question of Christians worshiping on Sunday as opposed to Saturday, it is true there is not 100% universal agreement on the subject even among Christians. A small percentage of Christians still meet on Saturday.

Here is an article from carm.org which pretty well explains why most Christians worship on Sunday.
In the Old Testament, God stated, "Remember the Sabbath day to keep it holy. Six days you shall labor and do all your work, but the seventh day is a Sabbath of the Lord your God; in it you shall not do any work, you or your son or your daughter your male or your female servant or your cattle or your sojourner who stays with you" (Exodus 20:8-10, NASB). It was the custom of the Jews to come together on the Sabbath, which is Saturday, cease work, and worship God. Jesus went to the synagogue on Saturday to teach (Matt. 12:9; John 18:20) as did the
apostle Paul (Acts 17:2; 18:4). So, if in the Old Testament we are commanded to keep the Sabbath and in the New Testament we see Jews, Jesus, and the apostles doing the same thing, then why do we worship on Sunday?
First of all, of the 10 commandments listed in Exodus 20:1-17, only 9 of them were restated in the New Testament. (Six in Matt. 19:18, murder, adultery,stealing, false witness, honor parents, and worshiping God; Rom. 13:9, coveting. Worshiping God properly covers the first three commandments) The one that was not reaffirmed was the one about the Sabbath. Instead, Jesus said that He is the Lord of the Sabbath (Matt. 12:8).
In creation, God rested on the seventh day. But, since God is all powerful, He doesn’t get tired. He doesn’t need to take a break and rest. So, why did does it say that He rested? The reason is simple: Mark 2:27 says, "The Sabbath was made for man, and not man for the Sabbath." In other words, God established the Sabbath as a rest for His people, not because He needed a break, but because we are mortal and need a time of rest, of focus on God. In this, our spirits and
bodies are both renewed.
The OT system of Law required keeping the Sabbath as part of the overall moral, legal, and sacrificial system by which the Jewish people satisfied God’s requirements for behavior, government, and forgiveness of sins. The Sabbath was part of the Law in that sense. In order to "remain" in favor with God, you had to also keep the Sabbath. If it was not kept, then the person was in sin and would often be punished (Ezek. 18:4; Rom. 6:23; Deut. 13:1-9; Num.
35:31; Lev. 20:2, etc.).
But with Jesus’ atonement, we no longer are required to keep the Law as a means for our justification. The requirements of the Law were fulfilled in Christ. We now have rest from the Law. We now have “Sabbath", continually.

Are we free to worship on Sunday?

Within the New Testament is ample evidence that the seventh day Sabbath is no longer a requirement.

* Rom. 14:5-6: "One man regards one day above another, another regards every day alike. Let each man be fully convinced in his own mind. 6 He who observes the day, observes it for the Lord, and he who eats, does so for the Lord, for he gives thanks to God; and he who eats not, for the Lord he does not eat, and gives thanks to God."

The entire section of Rom. 14:1-12 is worth careful study. The
instructions here are that individuals must be convinced in their own minds about which day they observe for the Lord. If the seventh day Sabbath were arequirement, then the choice would not be mans’, but God’s. To me, this verse is sufficient to answer the question beyond doubt. Furthermore,

* Col. 2:16-17: "Therefore let no one act as your judge in regard to food or drink or in respect to a festival or a new moon or a Sabbath day— 17things which are a mere shadow of what is to come; but the substance belongs to Christ."

Notice the time sequence mentioned in Col. 2:16-17 above. A festival is yearly. A new moon is monthly. A Sabbath is weekly. No one is to judge in regard to this. The Sabbath is defined as a shadow, the reality is Jesus. Jesus is our Sabbath. So, if someone is judging you because you worship on the Sabbath, they are wrong. Likewise, if you regard Sunday above Saturday (Rom. 14:5-6), all you need to do is be convinced in your own mind that that is alright.

Is there any evidence in the NT that Christians met on Sunday?

* Acts 20:7: "And on the first day of the week, when we were gathered together to break bread, Paul began talking to them, intending to depart the next day, and he prolonged his message until midnight."

The first day of the week is Sunday and this is the day the people
gathered. This passage can easily be seen as the church meeting on Sunday, though it does not necessitate it. It has two important church functions within it: breaking bread (communion) and a message (preaching/teaching). Additionally, Luke included the Roman system as well as the Jewish system of counting days. The Jewish system was sundown to sundown. But Luke also used the Roman system: midnight to midnight (Luke 11:5; Acts 16:25; 20:7; 27:27). This is a subtle
point that shows the Jewish Sabbath system was not exclusively used by Luke. If the Sabbath was mandatory, why the use of the non-Jewish system?

* 1 Cor. 16:1-2: "Now concerning the collection for the saints, as I directed the churches of Galatia, so do you also. 2On the first day of every week let each one of you put aside and save, as he may prosper, that nocollections be made when I come."

Notice here that Paul is directing the churches to meet on the first day of each week and put money aside. It would seem that this is tithing. So, the instructed time for the church to meet is Sunday, the first day of the week and it is that day the Galatians were to set money aside collections. Is this an official worship day set up by the church? You decide. Does this verse apply to Christians today? It most certainly does.

* Revelation 1:10-11, "I was in the Spirit on the Lord’s day, and I heard behind me a loud voice like the sound of a trumpet, 11saying, "Write in a book what you see, and send it to the seven churches: to Ephesus and to Smyrna and to Pergamum and to Thyatira and to Sardis and to Philadelphia and to Laodicea."

The New Bible Dictionary says regarding the term, ‘The Lord’s Day’ in Rev. 1:10: "This is the first extant occurrence in Christian literature of "tekuriake hemera." The adjectival construction suggests that it was a formal designation of the church’s worship day. As such it certainly appears early in the 2nd century" (Ignatius, Epistle to the Magnesians, 1. 67).
In many churches today, the term "The Lord’s Day" is used to designate
Sunday, the same as it was in the second century.
I hope this is evidence enough to show you that the Bible does not require that we worship on Saturday. If anything, we have the freedom (Rom. 14:1-12) to worship on the day that we believe we should. And, no one should judge us in regard to the day we keep. We are free in Christ and not under law, (Rom. 6:14).

Conclusion

The Seventh Day Adventists have every right to worship on the Sabbath and they should if they are convinced that is the right thing to do. However, if
any member of any church were to require a person to worship on the Sabbath as a sign of "true" Christianity or "true" redemption, then that is wrong. According to Rom. 14:1-12, we are free.
Additionally, Sunday is the day that the Lord Jesus rose from the dead. The Jewish people who had rejected Jesus continued to worship on Saturday, the Sabbath. But it was the Christians who celebrated Jesus' resurrection and this was most probably the driving force to gather on the first day of the week.
A`udhu Billahi mina Shaytanir Rajeem,

Bismillahir Rahmanir Raheem

Assalamu alaykum wa'rahma-tullahi, wa'barakatahu


Greetings of Peace Don,

Thank you for taking the time to post all of the information that you did over the last few days! I realize that it takes a lot of time and concern to do. May Allah(SWT) reward you for your diligent effort.

Not to refute what you wrote, but I try to point out that in my Pre-Islamic days. I clung pretty close to a lot of the teachings of Herbert W. Armstrong, hence the little tag of heretic on my title. It was to make it easier for “Christians” to understand my mindset and realize that I have some firm understandings of what I felt “must be” the message of the New Testament. You can check his (HWA) book What Day is the Christian Sabbath? Online if you choose. Not that I was ever a member, but I did feel that HWA did make sense of a lot of the New Testament.

Therein lines the problem though. We see here on this sight, a lot of discussion, arguing and bickering about “is the bible changed?” but we are, imho, missing the point! “Christians” will argue, “God can protect His Word!” and Muslims argue something else. Moses came down from Sinai with clear laws and rules and a message that was understandable. YET, with Jesus/Isa(as), no one is quite sure what the words were, what the message was and more importantly, “how do we follow Jesus/Isa(as)?” WHY NOT? What is part of Allah(SWT)’s plan to make religion a “shell game” with everyone trying to figure out the truth for himself? Does one take the side of the church that is easiest to follow or make the sense?

If the “Church” was guide by a separate entity of “God” called the Holy Spirit, the correct way of life and the true message should have been easy to ascertain! But it’s not! Did the Jesus of the bible command his followers to “take communion” OR celebrate Passover! Did the early church observe the Jewish Holy Days, as well as the Sabbath? ALL evidence from the NT is that they did! Of course, that more HWA! There are mistranslations in regard to Easter, the Sabbath and the “breaking of bread”! Search out a Ferrar Fenton translation to see for sure!

But that ultimately led me to the question, “couldn’t “one third of God(the Holy Spirit”) preserve the message of one-third of God(Jesus)” in regards to the correct way to follow the other third of God(Father)”? Well as there is no concretely established procedure, then the answer is no. YET if the question WAS accurate, it would be impossible for it not to be so! Therefore, the question must be in error!

We don’t have that problem in Islam. Yes, there are some that choose not to follow the straight path, BUT finding the straight path IS POSSIBLE! True Islam follows the Qur’an and the Sunnah of the Messenger of Allah(pbuh)! And as the Jews follow the “way” of Ezra as opposed to the way of Moses(as), that leaves Islam as the ONLY religion of the God of Abraham that one can be sure that we still have the “proper instructions” for!

Sorry to go off-topic, but it indirectly refutes the original question.

:w:
Reply

Rufaidah
04-15-2007, 05:59 PM
السلام عليكم ورحمة الله وبركاته
Allah says in his book (the holy quran)

157. And their saying: Surely we have killed the Messiah, Isa (jesus)
son of Marium, the apostle of Allah; and they did not kill him nor
did they crucify him, but it appeared to them so (like Isa - jesus) and most
surely those who differ therein are only in a doubt about it; they
have no knowledge respecting it, but only follow a conjecture, and
they killed him not for sure.

158. Nay! Allah took him up to Himself; and Allah is Mighty, Wise.

159. And there is not one of the followers of the Book but most
certainly believes in this before his death, and on the day of
resurrection he (Isa -jesus) shall be a witness against them.
Reply

Redeemed
04-15-2007, 06:55 PM
Originally Posted by Rufaidah
السلام عليكم ورحمة الله وبركاته
Allah says in his book (the holy quran)

157. And their saying: Surely we have killed the Messiah, Isa (jesus)
son of Marium, the apostle of Allah; and they did not kill him nor
did they crucify him, but it appeared to them so (like Isa - jesus) and most
surely those who differ therein are only in a doubt about it; they
have no knowledge respecting it, but only follow a conjecture, and
they killed him not for sure.

158. Nay! Allah took him up to Himself; and Allah is Mighty, Wise.

159. And there is not one of the followers of the Book but most
certainly believes in this before his death, and on the day of
resurrection he (Isa -jesus) shall be a witness against them.
I don’t see why there needs to be an issue about Jesus rising on the third day. Jesus’ death was witnessed in Acts and so was His resurrection on the third day. Why would sincere people want to lie about what they saw? Anyway there are so many things that cannot be proved and all we have is faith.
Things that take faith are who Jesus is in relationship to God. Nowhere in the Bible does Jesus say He is a part of the trinity or that He is the Father or the Holy Spirit. He does say, however, He is the Son of God. He himself alludes to being a part of God that is apart from any other great man of God from the past, present or future. Even the Bible is full of Scripture that show that Jesus is a part of God’s essence such as in the beginning was the word and the word was God and became flesh, and Jesus telling Phillip if you have seen me you have seen the Father. Even the names that were ascribed to Him such as Immanuel, Everlasting Father, Prince of Peace, Lilly of the Valley, Rose of Sharon, Lamb of God, Lion of the tribe of Judah and mighty God. When according to Scripture Jesus rose from the dead, He said He would judge the living and the dead. It is written that God won’t judge, but He has given the judgment to Christ. Jesus said all authority has been give to me. All trumps all other prophets who came before Him or after in my opinion. If Jesus is whom he said, we should believe Him. Even the Muslims recognize him as a great prophet of God and prophets don’t lie. If they do, they are false prophets that should be stoned according to Scripture. There is no way any one can prove that Jesus is in the very nature God according to the Bible. It takes faith to believe that God is a Spirit that can manifest Himself in whatever form He chooses. If you say that because of this, there is more than one God consider yourself rebuked where you stand.
I was called by God to submit to him and to trust and obey Him not to questions the elements of His essence. It is written: “Hear oh Israel, the Lord our God is One.” We are not ignorant concerning Isaac and Ishmael and the promises given to both of them. Jesus came from the seed of Isaac as the seed of promised and Muhammad came from the seed of Ishmael. Now both Isaac and Ishmael worshipped the same God who is one. There is no question about it. There is only one God. He is our Creator. There is no other. Now it is written that all things were made by Jesus and for Him. Even the angels were created by Him and for Him according to the Bible.
Now Jesus is the one who said, “I am the door, I am the true shepherd, all others are hirelings, I am the Way, Truth and the Life, No one comes unto the Father (Allah) but by me. These are not lies that Jesus spoke. These are words that the world is accountable for hearing. Many have come after Jesus trying to discredit Him. Some were even supernaturally inspired by Satan to do so. Satan is a liar and the Father of all lies. He comes to steal, kill and destroy. He can transform himself into an angle of light. Why should it amaze anyone that there are those who appear as ministers of truth but are sheep in wolves clothing? Was it God that said He is not a begetter nor is He begotten? Why would God contradict Himself? God said, to Peter on the mount of transfiguration, “This is my Son in whom I am well please; hear ye Him.” Jesus said it is written, ye are gods; and you want to stone me because I said am the Son of God. He said, you can’t hear me because you are of your father the devil. My sheep hear my voice and follow me. Jesus said, if you love me, follow me. Paul said follow me as I follow Christ. The whole Bible is written so that we might have life and life more abundantly. All the disciples including Paul were just trying there best to follow Christ, because according to Jesus, there is no other way to God. If Jesus is a prophet sent from God, how wrong can we go if we listen to Him instead of someone who came after Him telling us He is not who he said He is. Joseph Smith had a revelation of God (so he said) appearing before him saying that all religions were wrong. And he came up with some golden plates that teach that Jesus is Satan’s spiritual brother, and as man is God once was and as God is you may become. That is not to far from what Islam teaches don’t they say that Jesus is the angel Gabriel. This doesn’t make sense to me. How can Jesus be the spiritual brother of His own creation? When it says in the Bible that Jesus is the beginning of the creation of God, in the originally text, it reads that He is the beginner of the beginning of creation. Behold your Creator according to the Bible. Jesus himself said he would die and rise on the third day. If Jesus didn't die on the cross for the remission of our sin and rise in power, the whole of Christendom is a farce and a phony religion. Who then is the true prophet Jesus or Muhammad?
In my opinion, any religion that recognizes Jesus as a prophet makes a big problem saying that what He said would happen to him didn’t happen. The only way out of this mess is to say that the Bible is full of mistakes, lies and false testimonies or to try cheap semantic tricks by twisting the true meaning of what is written. If the Mormons got special warm feelings in the belly area when they pray to their Jesus that to them confirms they have the right religion. The JW’s believe that Jesus is the Son of God but they don’t believe that He is in the very nature God. According to the Bible Jesus is the Spiritual Sum of all things and all things are held together by the Word of His power.
Reply

NoName55
04-15-2007, 07:11 PM
edit.

I made a mistake and did not read properly due to huge red type and reported the post in error
Reply

Woodrow
04-15-2007, 07:16 PM
Peace,

i am only going to address part of this as i need to go lie dow for a while. But this caught my eye and I know I would never get any sleep with it on my mind.

what Islam teaches don’t they say that Jesus is the angel Gabriel. This doesn’t make sense to me. How can Jesus be the spiritual brother of His own creation? When it says in the Bible that Jesus is the beginning of the creation of God, in the originally text, it reads that He is the beginner of the beginning of creation. Behold your Creator according to the Bible. Jesus himself said he would die and rise on the third day. If Jesus didn't die on the cross for the remission of our sin and rise in power, the whole of Christendom is a farce and a phony religion. Who then is the true prophet Jesus or Muhammad?
In my opinion, any religion that recognizes Jesus as a prophet makes a big problem saying that what He said would happen to him didn’t happen. The only way out of this mess is to say that the Bible is full of mistakes, lies and false testimonies or to try cheap semantic tricks by twisting the true meaning of what is written. If the Mormons got special warm feelings in the belly area when they pray to their Jesus that to them confirms they have the right religion. The JW’s believe that Jesus is the Son of God but they don’t believe that He is in the very nature God. According to the Bible Jesus is the Spiritual Sum of all things and all things are held together by the Word of His power.
what Islam teaches don’t they say that Jesus is the angel Gabriel.
no, but the early Christians that came to Saudi Arabia taught that the Trinity was Jesus(as) Mary and Gabriel.


That is what causes confusion to some people first learning the belifs of Islam. they twist it and say Muslims believe Jesus(as) is Gabriel


The only way out of this mess is to say that the Bible is full of mistakes, lies and false testimonies.................
That is exactly what we believe.

But to be honest I am fully satisfied that the Qur'an is the word, I have no personal need to prove the Bible is false. The Qur'an is the Truth, the light and the way. Allah(swt) is the door to Allah(swt) and he sent us clear instructions on how to follow the path he has paved for us. The Glorious Qur'an is the true word of Allah(swt) and the true instructions on how to reach Jannah.

I escaped from the sin of shirk and count my blessings that I was led to the truth and am no longer a victim of mistaken beliefs.
Reply

Keltoi
04-15-2007, 07:20 PM
The truth, no pun intended, is that the Qu'ran doesn't represent the truth to me, and the Bible doesn't represent the truth to Muslims. We aren't going to change anyone's mind here. If the two faiths are ever going to be able to coexist, we will have to concentrate on what makes us similar and not different.
Reply

Ibn-Muktadir
04-15-2007, 07:24 PM
Do you think that God would shame his messenger by letting the Jews kill him? No rather he was saved and taken up so that he could complete his life afterwards. Think about it! Many phrophets have come and gone, they have all faced challenges and pain in the world, but do you think that God would allow Jesus to be shamed and murdered like this! Anyway i find christianity to be fillled with confusion and pagan ritiuals....any denials?
Reply

Woodrow
04-15-2007, 07:28 PM
Originally Posted by Keltoi
The truth, no pun intended, is that the Qu'ran doesn't represent the truth to me, and the Bible doesn't represent the truth to Muslims. We aren't going to change anyone's mind here. If the two faiths are ever going to be able to coexist, we will have to concentrate on what makes us similar and not different.
Very true. It is impossible for a Muslim to accept Christian beliefs and it is Impossible for a Christian to accept Muslim beliefs. The sooner we all accept that and decide that for the benefit of both we need to learn to co-exist.

Muslims, Christians and Jews lived in Peace in the Past, and so can we today. provided we all give up the idea of destroying what we don't agree with.
Reply

Ibn-Muktadir
04-15-2007, 07:30 PM
My advice to christians is listen to these two guys Ahmed Deedat and Zakir Naik. If you still think Christianity is perfect then god help you!
Reply

Keltoi
04-15-2007, 07:30 PM
Originally Posted by Ibn-Muktadir
Do you think that God would shame his messenger by letting the Jews kill him? No rather he was saved and taken up so that he could complete his life afterwards. Think about it! Many phrophets have come and gone, they have all faced challenges and pain in the world, but do you think that God would allow Jesus to be shamed and murdered like this! Anyway i find christianity to be fillled with confusion and pagan ritiuals....any denials?
Any denials? You have your beliefs. I have mine. Your beliefs about my religion mean absolutely nothing to me. I have enough faith to withstand a legion of accusations and insults. My advice, worry about your own faith.
Reply

Ibn-Muktadir
04-15-2007, 07:32 PM
Originally Posted by Keltoi
Any denials? You have your beliefs. I have mine. Your beliefs about my religion mean absolutely nothing to me. I have enough faith to withstand a legion of accusations and insults. My advice, worry about your own faith.
Answer me one question why does Christianity have pagan elements to eat? please someone tell.
Reply

NoName55
04-15-2007, 07:32 PM
I know rather I should say that I believe some people mean well but Allah did let people kill some of his Messengers (Not Eesa ibn Mariam/Jesus) Ma'asalaama
Reply

Keltoi
04-15-2007, 07:33 PM
Originally Posted by Ibn-Muktadir
Answer me one question why does Christianity have pagan elements to eat? please someone tell.
pagan elements to eat? Not sure I understand your question.
Reply

Ibn-Muktadir
04-15-2007, 07:34 PM
Originally Posted by NoName55
I know rather I should say that I believe some people mean well but Allah did let people kill some of his Messengers (Not Eesa ibn Mariam/Jesus) Ma'asalaama
Ok i take your point. But this is one of the greates messengers and he was not gonna be shamed in this way. Once he come back all confusion about him will disolve.
Reply

Ibn-Muktadir
04-15-2007, 07:35 PM
Sorry i meant In it....not eat lol
Reply

Keltoi
04-15-2007, 07:36 PM
Originally Posted by Ibn-Muktadir
Sorry i meant In it....not eat lol
What "pagan" rituals are you referring to?
Reply

Ibn-Muktadir
04-15-2007, 07:40 PM
The pagans use to celebrate the sun winnining over the datk about the time that easter is celebrated. Also what all this eggs and chiken and easter bunny? does this have christian roots?
Reply

NoName55
04-15-2007, 07:53 PM
The pagans use to celebrate the sun winnining over the dark
Thank You. I've learned some thing new today
and there was me thinking it was to do with feast of goddess of fertility (but both are true)

Origins of the name "Easter":
The name "Easter" originated with the names of an ancient Goddess and God. The Venerable Bede, (672-735 CE.) a Christian scholar, first asserted in his book De Ratione Temporum that Easter was named after Eostre (a.k.a. Eastre). She was the Great Mother Goddess of the Saxon people in Northern Europe. Similarly, the "Teutonic dawn goddess of fertility [was] known variously as Ostare, Ostara, Ostern, Eostra, Eostre, Eostur, Eastra, Eastur, Austron and Ausos." Her name was derived from the ancient word for spring: "eastre." Similar Goddesses were known by other names in ancient cultures around the Mediterranean, and were celebrated in the springtime. Some were:
  • Aphrodite from ancient Cyprus
  • Ashtoreth from ancient Israel
  • Astarté from ancient Greece
  • Demeter from Mycenae
  • Hathor from ancient Egypt
  • Ishtar from Assyria
  • Kali, from India
  • Ostara a Norse Goddess of fertility.
Easter Sunday
An alternative explanation has been suggested. The name given by the Frankish church to Jesus' resurrection festival included the Latin word "alba" which means "white." (This was a reference to the white robes that were worn during the festival.) "Alba" also has a second meaning: "sunrise." When the name of the festival was translated into German, the "sunrise" meaning was selected in error. This became "ostern" in German. Ostern has been proposed as the origin of the word "Easter". There are two popular beliefs about the origin of the English word "Sunday."
  • It is derived from the name of the Scandinavian sun Goddess Sunna (a.k.a. Sunne, Frau Sonne).
  • It is derived from "Sol," the Roman God of the Sun." Their phrase "Dies Solis" means "day of the Sun." The Christian saint Jerome (d. 420) commented "If it is called the day of the sun by the pagans, we willingly accept this name, for on this day the Light of the world arose, on this day the Sun of Justice shone forth."
Reply

Keltoi
04-15-2007, 08:05 PM
Originally Posted by Ibn-Muktadir
The pagans use to celebrate the sun winnining over the datk about the time that easter is celebrated. Also what all this eggs and chiken and easter bunny? does this have christian roots?
The Easter bunny and the colored eggs are remnants of the old Saxon holiday honoring their goddess Ostara. When Christianity became the dominant religion in Europe, these cultural practices were found difficult to stamp out completely, so they were incorporated into the larger celebration of Christ's resurrection. As a consequence, people are still hunting Easter eggs and talking about a large rabbit, even though it has nothing to do with the Christian holiday. Now it is simply a secular offshoot to the more traditional reasons for the holiday. My church has actually stopped calling the holiday Easter, and now refers to it as "Resurrection Day."
Reply

dougmusr
04-15-2007, 11:04 PM
Originally Posted by Ibn-Muktadir
The pagans use to celebrate the sun winnining over the datk about the time that easter is celebrated. Also what all this eggs and chiken and easter bunny? does this have christian roots?
I think this is an interesting reference related to the sun and darkness.

Volume 4, Book 54, Number 494:

Narrated Ibn Umar:

Allah's Apostle said, "When the (upper) edge of the sun appears (in the morning), don't perform a prayer till the sun appears in full, and when the lower edge of the sun sets, don't perform a prayer till it sets completely. And you should not seek to pray at sunrise or sunset for the sun rises between two sides of the head of the devil (or Satan)."
Reply

Redeemed
04-15-2007, 11:06 PM
Originally Posted by Woodrow
Peace,

i am only going to address part of this as i need to go lie dow for a while. But this caught my eye and I know I would never get any sleep with it on my mind.





no, but the early Christians that came to Saudi Arabia taught that the Trinity was Jesus(as) Mary and Gabriel.


That is what causes confusion to some people first learning the belifs of Islam. they twist it and say Muslims believe Jesus(as) is Gabriel




That is exactly what we believe.

But to be honest I am fully satisfied that the Qur'an is the word, I have no personal need to prove the Bible is false. The Qur'an is the Truth, the light and the way. Allah(swt) is the door to Allah(swt) and he sent us clear instructions on how to follow the path he has paved for us. The Glorious Qur'an is the true word of Allah(swt) and the true instructions on how to reach Jannah.

I escaped from the sin of shirk and count my blessings that I was led to the truth and am no longer a victim of mistaken beliefs.
Thanks for clearing that up for me. I thought they thought he was the angel Gabriel.
I understand your convictions as well. I will stay in prayer over the great unfortunate clash we have believing in one God of truth our only Creator but no unity, because we see Him differently through totally different glasses.
Reply

Redeemed
04-15-2007, 11:08 PM
Originally Posted by dougmusr
I think this is an interesting reference related to the sun and darkness.

Volume 4, Book 54, Number 494:

Narrated Ibn Umar:

Allah's Apostle said, "When the (upper) edge of the sun appears (in the morning), don't perform a prayer till the sun appears in full, and when the lower edge of the sun sets, don't perform a prayer till it sets completely. And you should not seek to pray at sunrise or sunset for the sun rises between two sides of the head of the devil (or Satan)."
Christians have the freedom to pray anytime anywhere. I Thank God for that.
Reply

NoName55
04-15-2007, 11:09 PM
we see Him differently through totally different glasses
You need to sue your optician

^ attempt at humor ^
Reply

Woodrow
04-16-2007, 12:00 AM
Originally Posted by alapiana1
Christians have the freedom to pray anytime anywhere. I Thank God for that.
That is a very valid question about our beliefs. I honestly can understand where you are coming from. After I reverted and began to get familiar about the prayer times it struck me as being very odd that there were times we we told not to pray.

I was quite confused about that. One second I'm told that we are to pray incessantly every thought and deed should be a prayer, all we do should be a prayer and then out of no where I get hit with that there are times we should not pray. That confused me.

As you may know we have 5 times per day when we are required to pray. each of those prayers are set for a specific time frame. There is a few minutes lee way in our saying those prayers. we are not pegged down to an exact minute. Those forbidden times are times that do not count as any of the required prayers. If we pray at those times it is not seen as filling our obligation for any of the required prayers.

A better way of explaining that would be to simply say any prayer said at those times does not count as a mandatory prayer. If we pray at that minute it does not count as one of the 5 obligatory prayers. If i were to say 6 prayers in a day and 2 of them were during those times I would be seen as having only said 4 prayers that day and I have missed a required prayer.




I probably confused you more with my long explanation.
Reply

Redeemed
04-16-2007, 12:36 AM
Originally Posted by NoName55
You need to sue your optician

^ attempt at humor ^
No need to do that. My optician has never made a mistake with my eyes. I would surely lose the case.
Reply

Redeemed
04-16-2007, 12:42 AM
Originally Posted by Woodrow
That is a very valid question about our beliefs. I honestly can understand where you are coming from. After I reverted and began to get familiar about the prayer times it struck me as being very odd that there were times we we told not to pray.

I was quite confused about that. One second I'm told that we are to pray incessantly every thought and deed should be a prayer, all we do should be a prayer and then out of no where I get hit with that there are times we should not pray. That confused me.

As you may know we have 5 times per day when we are required to pray. each of those prayers are set for a specific time frame. There is a few minutes lee way in our saying those prayers. we are not pegged down to an exact minute. Those forbidden times are times that do not count as any of the required prayers. If we pray at those times it is not seen as filling our obligation for any of the required prayers.

A better way of explaining that would be to simply say any prayer said at those times does not count as a mandatory prayer. If we pray at that minute it does not count as one of the 5 obligatory prayers. If i were to say 6 prayers in a day and 2 of them were during those times I would be seen as having only said 4 prayers that day and I have missed a required prayer.




I probably confused you more with my long explanation.
I knew about the 5 times a day, but I didn't know that it won't count as a mandatory pray if not done at the right time. What happens if you miss mandatory prayer on a regular basis? With us all prayer counts. I am ashamed to say that I don't pray as much as I should. I am hoping to change that.
Reply

Redeemed
04-16-2007, 01:09 AM
Originally Posted by Keltoi
The truth, no pun intended, is that the Qu'ran doesn't represent the truth to me, and the Bible doesn't represent the truth to Muslims. We aren't going to change anyone's mind here. If the two faiths are ever going to be able to coexist, we will have to concentrate on what makes us similar and not different.
It amazes me that Christians and Muslims can dialogue so much when there is so little in common. If we can't change anyone's mind about what the truth is, then what good does it do to concentrate on what we have in common? With man it is impossible, but with God all things are possible. I am not going to lie and say I don’t have intentions of winning someone to Christ with God’s help. I believe with all my heart that I have found a pearl of great price. To keep my mouth shut is to sin. I have forsaken all that I own to go out and be involved in missions. My family disowned me for giving away all my earthly possessions. God, however, has blessed me with a hundred fold. God has told me through His word to share the gospel. Jesus said, "So likewise who so ever he be of you that forsakes not all that he has he cannot be my disciple." I am confused as to why Muslims honor Christ as a prophet and do not believe what He says about Himself being the only way to heaven. He said, “No man comes to the Father except by me.” It is written that no one comes to Jesus unless the Father draws Him. I know you know these things; nevertheless, this part is for Muslim viewers.
Reply

Redeemed
04-16-2007, 01:11 AM
The truth is both faiths cannot coexist!
Reply

Woodrow
04-16-2007, 01:22 AM
Originally Posted by alapiana1
I knew about the 5 times a day, but I didn't know that it won't count as a mandatory pray if not done at the right time. What happens if you miss mandatory prayer on a regular basis? With us all prayer counts. I am ashamed to say that I don't pray as much as I should. I am hoping to change that.
Prayer is taken very serious. Off course there can be extenuating circumstances as to why a person can not pray at the specific time and we can make those missed prayers up, if we have a valid reason for having missed them.

Prayer is taken so seriously that a person known to miss prayers on a regular basis can be seen as not adhering to Islam and it can be questioned if the person is truly a Muslim. There are only very rare times that we can say that a person who once stated being a Muslim, can be called a Non-Muslim and one of those times is if there are reliable witnesses that can say the person does not follow the required prayers.

In to be a Muslim a person must adhere to the 5 Pillars of faith. Prayer is one of the pillars. Failure to comply with any of the pillars without just cause is sufficient to consider the person as not being a Muslim.

Here is an easy to understand explanation of what the 5 pillars are:

http://media.putfile.com/Pillars-of-Faith
Reply

Redeemed
04-16-2007, 03:15 AM
Originally Posted by Ibn-Muktadir
Do you think that God would shame his messenger by letting the Jews kill him? No rather he was saved and taken up so that he could complete his life afterwards. Think about it! Many phrophets have come and gone, they have all faced challenges and pain in the world, but do you think that God would allow Jesus to be shamed and murdered like this! Anyway i find christianity to be fillled with confusion and pagan ritiuals....any denials?
yes
Reply

dougmusr
04-16-2007, 03:30 AM
Originally Posted by Ibn-Muktadir
Do you think that God would shame his messenger by letting the Jews kill him? No rather he was saved and taken up so that he could complete his life afterwards. Think about it! Many phrophets have come and gone, they have all faced challenges and pain in the world, but do you think that God would allow Jesus to be shamed and murdered like this! Anyway i find christianity to be fillled with confusion and pagan ritiuals....any denials?
So am I to understand that devotion to God which leads to ones death is a shame? Why do you think God would permit killing of many of the prophets and protect Jesus? Was He special? If so how?
Reply

NoName55
04-16-2007, 03:52 AM
So am I to understand that devotion to God which leads to ones death is a shame?
So am I to understand that he was someone devoted to God thus willing to be killed
Reply

Woodrow
04-16-2007, 03:55 AM
Originally Posted by alapiana1
It amazes me that Christians and Muslims can dialogue so much when there is so little in common. If we can't change anyone's mind about what the truth is, then what good does it do to concentrate on what we have in common? With man it is impossible, but with God all things are possible. I am not going to lie and say I don’t have intentions of winning someone to Christ with God’s help. I believe with all my heart that I have found a pearl of great price. To keep my mouth shut is to sin. I have forsaken all that I own to go out and be involved in missions. My family disowned me for giving away all my earthly possessions. God, however, has blessed me with a hundred fold. God has told me through His word to share the gospel. Jesus said, "So likewise who so ever he be of you that forsakes not all that he has he cannot be my disciple." I am confused as to why Muslims honor Christ as a prophet and do not believe what He says about Himself being the only way to heaven. He said, “No man comes to the Father except by me.” It is written that no one comes to Jesus unless the Father draws Him. I know you know these things; nevertheless, this part is for Muslim viewers.
It amazes me that Christians and Muslims can dialogue so much when there is so little in common. If we can't change anyone's mind about what the truth is, then what good does it do to concentrate on what we have in common? With man it is impossible, but with God all things are possible.
The key is the willingness to agree to disagree with mutual dignity and tolerance. Peace does not require agreement of beliefs. But, it does require a desire not to infringe upon another person's beliefs without just cause.

Yes, we do both believe that the other person is in gross error and is at high risk of facing hellfire. The fact is both of our scriptures exclude the other. Although I believe you are in very grave error, I do respect your sincerity and believe your intentions are good. Like you I also become angered and frustrated. It is my desire that you would cast aside your errors and accept the truth. But, that is only my desires and I have no power to make you be what you have no desire to be. Like you I also believe I have found a Pearl of Great Price. Like you I also will not keep my mouth shut. However, I do accept that all that will be is the will of Allah(swt) and if a person chooses to truly be a servant of Allah(swt) that can only be his choice between him and Allah(swt)

I too have a strong need to Share the Gospel. However the Gospel as it was revealed to Isa(as) as the Injil no longer exists except in small scattered fragments and mixed with fallacies.

I am confused as to why Muslims honor Christ as a prophet and do not believe what He says about Himself being the only way to heaven. He said, “No man comes to the Father except by me.” It is written that no one comes to Jesus unless the Father draws Him. I know you know these things; nevertheless, this part is for Muslim viewers.
We honor Isa(as) as a much beloved Prophet. we do not honor the rest said about Him, because Isa(as) never said those things. Those are words from a book that we know that has been corrupted and is full of fallacies.

The simple fact is we believe the Qur'an is the true word of Allah(swt) and that the Bible is from other sources. We believe that any preachings that try to lead us from the Qur'an are the path to Hellfire if we follow them.

i know that you feel you are doing your best to spread the truth and that you sincerily believe what you say.

But, I believe you need to wake up cast away the fallacies and become a true servant of Allah(swt). It is far better to be a slave of Allah(swt) than to become a master of deceit.

As Muslims we do firmly believe that any who follow your words will be cast out as an unbeliever and Isa(as) will testify against them on judgement day and they shall be cast into the hellfire.

I know those are offensive words to a Christian and it is not my desire to offend you or anyone as a person. But, as Muslims that is what we genuinely know and we know that if we were to accept the myth you are attempting to spread we will be in hellfire.
Reply

i_m_tipu
04-16-2007, 04:58 AM
Originally Posted by Woodrow
The key is the willingness to agree to disagree with mutual dignity and tolerance. Peace does not require agreement of beliefs. But, it does require a desire not to infringe upon another person's beliefs without just cause..........
MasAllah..

Islam does not mean blind faith. But yes when u find and judge anything is pure and logical than u can follow blindly.

I can give u an example.
Suppose ur child is sick.
What you do?
Do you come to an engineer or a doctor?
Obviously u will go to a doctor and not only that u also search a better quality of doctor.

After you find and ur logic says the doctor is reliable than u gone a take that doctor’s given medicine blindly.

And it is not a blind faith.

You can call it logical blind faith.

Similarly everyone either he is a Christian or a Jews or a Hindu or a Muslim or wherever He/ She is coming from should know His/ Her Authentic religious scripture. Not depending blindly on the saying of peoples.

If u wants the truth you have to search for urself. If u sincere by heart for to know the truth.

InsAllah (God willing) HE (ur Creator) will guide the straight path of salvation.
Reply

SATalha
04-16-2007, 05:13 PM
Originally Posted by Keltoi
The Easter bunny and the colored eggs are remnants of the old Saxon holiday honoring their goddess Ostara. When Christianity became the dominant religion in Europe, these cultural practices were found difficult to stamp out completely, so they were incorporated into the larger celebration of Christ's resurrection. As a consequence, people are still hunting Easter eggs and talking about a large rabbit, even though it has nothing to do with the Christian holiday. Now it is simply a secular offshoot to the more traditional reasons for the holiday. My church has actually stopped calling the holiday Easter, and now refers to it as "Resurrection Day."

i think is what is confusing the brother. bcoz Islam is unique in the sense it does not incorporate any paganism, that is why the bro find it hard to believe that other elements would be accpeted by christians. this is a major sin in Islam and that is why its so hard to accept that Christians will alow other pagan ritiuals to be mixed in.
Reply

Keltoi
04-16-2007, 07:14 PM
Originally Posted by SATalha

i think is what is confusing the brother. bcoz Islam is unique in the sense it does not incorporate any paganism, that is why the bro find it hard to believe that other elements would be accpeted by christians. this is a major sin in Islam and that is why its so hard to accept that Christians will alow other pagan ritiuals to be mixed in.
Did not Muhammed incorporate the Kaba into Islam? The fact that Christians didn't eradicate the social custom of colored eggs and rabbits to celebrate the spring, although worship of pagan gods was denied, doesn't mean these customs were adopted as a Christian ritual, they are mainly a secular alternative to the Christian celebration. Do you think the kids who hunt the eggs and the parents who hide them are worshipping a pagan Anglo-Saxon goddess? Of course not. Like Santa Clause, these social customs have become a secular addition to a religious holiday.
Reply

AB517
04-16-2007, 07:22 PM
Originally Posted by alapiana1
The truth is both faiths cannot coexist!
Could you live next to a christain. I could live next to a muslem and treat him like I would any body else. He is equal in my eyes to me. Religions can co-exist. Maybe our leaders cant, buth I think the regular guy on the street can.

I pray to the God of Jesus Christ that all Moslems find the God of Mohamed (Peace Upon Him). There is only one God.

Fundamentalist: In The USA we use this term for people that take their religious text literally. They tend to be closed minded people that think their religion is the only one and all others are wrong. In the USA we deal with Christians Fundamentalist that say if you don’t believe in Jesus you can not be saved. This kind of thinking makes us rational people nervous because we see other religions around the world so a logical question becomes “Who is Right?” I as a Christian pray that I carry out Gods will and for others to do also. Gods will is independent of what rituals you follow. Some one has to be right. Muslems and christains may both be wrong. This you can not dispute.

Fundamentalist do not believe this; and that’s when the words like “persecution of others for self gain using religion” comes to mind. We Christians (Jews and Muslems also)have done it before and we do not want to do it again. We also do not want any other people to do it. I also, as a Christian, pray that all Moslems find what they are looking for and if it threw the teachings of Mohamed (Peace be upon him) and it spreads Love, reconciliation, healing, and peace I am all for it.

Fundamentalist want you act the way that they do. If you don’t … you are wrong. Could you imagine if an Eskimo (people that live in the artic) made a person from the desert to dress like the person from the artic? This kind of thinking is a fundamentalist. I don’t ask for much but I pray that God opens up our hearts and minds. I can treat people with respect and dignity and only hope others do too.
Reply

Woodrow
04-16-2007, 08:24 PM
Fundamentalist want you act the way that they do. If you don’t … you are wrong. Could you imagine if an Eskimo (people that live in the artic) made a person from the desert to dress like the person from the artic? This kind of thinking is a fundamentalist. I don’t ask for much but I pray that God opens up our hearts and minds. I can treat people with respect and dignity and only hope others do too.
I like those words. You are right, we can not make people live as us. There comes a point where it needs to be recognized that a religious debate has reached the point where it is obvious that it has come to an impasse.

Going beyond that point all that remains is anger and hurt feelings. I know for myself I said a few statements, that did not have to be said and I believe at least one non-Muslim in this debate has also done the same.

My conclusion is that the only thing that will come from this thread is a valid demonstration that we are fools for even arguing about it.

I will post no further responses on this thread. If I see that all that occurs is more arguments, I will consider the thread as being a disruptive factor and of no benefit.
Reply

Redeemed
04-16-2007, 08:47 PM
Originally Posted by dougmusr
So am I to understand that devotion to God which leads to ones death is a shame? Why do you think God would permit killing of many of the prophets and protect Jesus? Was He special? If so how?

Good question
Reply

SATalha
04-16-2007, 08:53 PM
Originally Posted by Keltoi
Did not Muhammed incorporate the Kaba into Islam? The fact that Christians didn't eradicate the social custom of colored eggs and rabbits to celebrate the spring, although worship of pagan gods was denied, doesn't mean these customs were adopted as a Christian ritual, they are mainly a secular alternative to the Christian celebration. Do you think the kids who hunt the eggs and the parents who hide them are worshipping a pagan Anglo-Saxon goddess? Of course not. Like Santa Clause, these social customs have become a secular addition to a religious holiday.
The reason that Muhammed (peace be upon him) incorporated the Khabba into Islam is bcoz it was part of our religion already tacing back to when it was first build by Abreham (peace be upon him). You see we see this as a logical progression and succession of all the phrophets messages and works rigt back to Adam. Paganism does not have no roots back to any of the phrophets and it certainly does not have any roots to Isa 9peace be upon him).
Reply

Keltoi
04-16-2007, 09:06 PM
Originally Posted by SATalha
The reason that Muhammed (peace be upon him) incorporated the Khabba into Islam is bcoz it was part of our religion already tacing back to when it was first build by Abreham (peace be upon him). You see we see this as a logical progression and succession of all the phrophets messages and works rigt back to Adam. Paganism does not have no roots back to any of the phrophets and it certainly does not have any roots to Isa 9peace be upon him).
Was not the Kaba during the time of Mohammed, before the Qu'ran, a place of worship for pagan gods? Regardless of who Islam insists built it, which would be a debate onto itself, does this not represent that some cultural norms will be incorporated into new faiths?
Reply

Redeemed
04-16-2007, 09:37 PM
Originally Posted by AB517
Could you live next to a christain. I could live next to a muslem and treat him like I would any body else. He is equal in my eyes to me. Religions can co-exist. Maybe our leaders cant, buth I think the regular guy on the street can.

I pray to the God of Jesus Christ that all Moslems find the God of Mohamed (Peace Upon Him). There is only one God.

Fundamentalist: In The USA we use this term for people that take their religious text literally. They tend to be closed minded people that think their religion is the only one and all others are wrong. In the USA we deal with Christians Fundamentalist that say if you don’t believe in Jesus you can not be saved. This kind of thinking makes us rational people nervous because we see other religions around the world so a logical question becomes “Who is Right?” I as a Christian pray that I carry out Gods will and for others to do also. Gods will is independent of what rituals you follow. Some one has to be right. Muslems and christains may both be wrong. This you can not dispute.

Fundamentalist do not believe this; and that’s when the words like “persecution of others for self gain using religion” comes to mind. We Christians (Jews and Muslems also)have done it before and we do not want to do it again. We also do not want any other people to do it. I also, as a Christian, pray that all Moslems find what they are looking for and if it threw the teachings of Mohamed (Peace be upon him) and it spreads Love, reconciliation, healing, and peace I am all for it.

Fundamentalist want you act the way that they do. If you don’t … you are wrong. Could you imagine if an Eskimo (people that live in the artic) made a person from the desert to dress like the person from the artic? This kind of thinking is a fundamentalist. I don’t ask for much but I pray that God opens up our hearts and minds. I can treat people with respect and dignity and only hope others do too.

Welcome to this Islamic forum and to the thread I posted. First of all, this post has been active for a pretty long time before you entered and is coming to its end. I can see that from your profile that you have a tendency to contradict yourself. You do not want to disclose that your way of life is a Christian and yet you have mentioned it several times on this thread. Any devote Christian or Muslim can tell you that these two great religions clash and cannot and never will be able to coexist, because they are emphatically diametrically opposed or mutually exclusive. However, that doesn't mean we can't love and respect one another. I could tell from your writings that you either lack knowledge of Scripture or you are a nominal Christian. In other words, you are not rooted and grounded in the knowledge of Jesus Christ. It is Christians like you that can easily end up being prey to Mormons, Jehova Witnesses or end up in some eastern religion or even becoming a Muslim. When someone knows the Lord, it shows in his or her writing. You say that Muslims and Christians could both be wrong and that can't be disputed. Again, I tell you Muslims will tell you are wrong and so will I. You appear to be double minded through out all your writing and I cannot identify with your type of Christianity. I would rather be a Muslim than follow your example of Christianity. A double minded man is unstable in all his ways and let not that man think that he shall receive anything of the Lord (so much for your prayers), but there is good news Jesus loves you very much and He wants you to study His word so that you could be a workman who needs not be ashamed rightly dividing the word of truth. Pray that God helps us both in those areas. By the way, the Inuit Indians don’t like to be called Eskimos; furthermore, your illustration does not apply to this situation.
Reply

Redeemed
04-16-2007, 10:03 PM
Originally Posted by Woodrow
The key is the willingness to agree to disagree with mutual dignity and tolerance. Peace does not require agreement of beliefs. But, it does require a desire not to infringe upon another person's beliefs without just cause.

Yes, we do both believe that the other person is in gross error and is at high risk of facing hellfire. The fact is both of our scriptures exclude the other. Although I believe you are in very grave error, I do respect your sincerity and believe your intentions are good. Like you I also become angered and frustrated. It is my desire that you would cast aside your errors and accept the truth. But, that is only my desires and I have no power to make you be what you have no desire to be. Like you I also believe I have found a Pearl of Great Price. Like you I also will not keep my mouth shut. However, I do accept that all that will be is the will of Allah(swt) and if a person chooses to truly be a servant of Allah(swt) that can only be his choice between him and Allah(swt)

I too have a strong need to Share the Gospel. However the Gospel as it was revealed to Isa(as) as the Injil no longer exists except in small scattered fragments and mixed with fallacies.



We honor Isa(as) as a much beloved Prophet. we do not honor the rest said about Him, because Isa(as) never said those things. Those are words from a book that we know that has been corrupted and is full of fallacies.

The simple fact is we believe the Qur'an is the true word of Allah(swt) and that the Bible is from other sources. We believe that any preachings that try to lead us from the Qur'an are the path to Hellfire if we follow them.

i know that you feel you are doing your best to spread the truth and that you sincerily believe what you say.

But, I believe you need to wake up cast away the fallacies and become a true servant of Allah(swt). It is far better to be a slave of Allah(swt) than to become a master of deceit.

As Muslims we do firmly believe that any who follow your words will be cast out as an unbeliever and Isa(as) will testify against them on judgement day and they shall be cast into the hellfire.

I know those are offensive words to a Christian and it is not my desire to offend you or anyone as a person. But, as Muslims that is what we genuinely know and we know that if we were to accept the myth you are attempting to spread we will be in hellfire.
OK, I hear you loud and clear. First of all, that question wasn't directed at you or any Muslim, (look where it was posted) and even if it were, it isn't or wasn't an attack on any one individuals character because of their religious belief. I didn’t even go so far as to say you are in grave error. Yes, these discussions do get a little heated, but as you said in a previous thread, that is to be expected. I fail to see the crime you a accusing me of. I like to call things the way I see them. I don't want to beat around the bush. I am not offended and hurt when someone cuts down my faith directly or indirectly. I might get hurt if my character is attacked, but am use to it and can get over it. Are you accusing me of grave errors, because I believe that Jesus said those things? Or are you offended that I am sharing what the Bible says Jesus said?
Reply

Redeemed
04-16-2007, 10:30 PM
By the way, thanks for sending me the 5 pillars. it was interesting and educational. I think I was misunderstood I will quote what I said: "If we can't change anyone's mind about what the truth is, then what good does it do to concentrate on what we have in common? With man it is impossible, but with God all things are possible." Someone said, that we can't change anyones mind about what truth is; so, my questions was just to show that I don't believe that is trure. That is all, and I aggree that we can agree to disagree. You are loved and respected.
Reply

Redeemed
04-16-2007, 11:03 PM
I am not sure was it this post you deleted or another. I don't understand why. You said, "The key is the willingness to agree to disagree with mutual dignity and tolerance. Peace does not require agreement of beliefs. But, it does require a desire not to infringe upon another person's beliefs without just cause." It is impossible for something like this to happen nearly very post infringes on the other in one form or another. Some are subtle and some are direct. This is to be expected. We just need to have respect and do it with dignity. I don't think we have done so badly. I don't see anything that has gotten too carried away for you to delete thsi post, but you are the Mod. and that is your call.
Reply

SATalha
04-17-2007, 02:03 PM
Originally Posted by Keltoi
Was not the Kaba during the time of Mohammed, before the Qu'ran, a place of worship for pagan gods? Regardless of who Islam insists built it, which would be a debate onto itself, does this not represent that some cultural norms will be incorporated into new faiths?
Yes but the origins of the Khabba and the costumes are from the Phrophet Abreham, so no thier are no pagan elements to it. Thier was before Islam came to Arabi, this is because the Arabians at that time where stuck in idolotery. Muhammed (peace be upon him) came and removed any confusion that existed before on who to worship and how to worship one God.
Reply

AB517
04-17-2007, 03:07 PM
Originally Posted by alapiana1
Welcome to this Islamic forum and to the thread I posted. First of all, this post has been active for a pretty long time before you entered and is coming to its end. I can see that from your profile that you have a tendency to contradict yourself. You do not want to disclose that your way of life is a Christian and yet you have mentioned it several times on this thread. Any devote Christian or Muslim can tell you that these two great religions clash and cannot and never will be able to coexist, because they are emphatically diametrically opposed or mutually exclusive. However, that doesn't mean we can't love and respect one another. I could tell from your writings that you either lack knowledge of Scripture or you are a nominal Christian. In other words, you are not rooted and grounded in the knowledge of Jesus Christ. It is Christians like you that can easily end up being prey to Mormons, Jehova Witnesses or end up in some eastern religion or even becoming a Muslim. When someone knows the Lord, it shows in his or her writing. You say that Muslims and Christians could both be wrong and that can't be disputed. Again, I tell you Muslims will tell you are wrong and so will I. You appear to be double minded through out all your writing and I cannot identify with your type of Christianity. I would rather be a Muslim than follow your example of Christianity. A double minded man is unstable in all his ways and let not that man think that he shall receive anything of the Lord (so much for your prayers), but there is good news Jesus loves you very much and He wants you to study His word so that you could be a workman who needs not be ashamed rightly dividing the word of truth. Pray that God helps us both in those areas. By the way, the Inuit Indians don’t like to be called Eskimos; furthermore, your illustration does not apply to this situation.

Dude, I am in no way here to offened.

Why do you miss quote me?
Why change what I said?

I didnt say some of things you said. And please ... if you attack and post all of my post ... do not change what was in the quotes this time.

I really should not reply but since you took time to read my post, I thank you.

The fearful man attacks.

Thanks again
AB517
Reply

Redeemed
04-17-2007, 08:47 PM
Originally Posted by AB517
Dude, I am in no way here to offened.

Why do you miss quote me?
Why change what I said?

I didnt say some of things you said. And please ... if you attack and post all of my post ... do not change what was in the quotes this time.

I really should not reply but since you took time to read my post, I thank you.

The fearful man attacks.

Thanks again
AB517
That is good that you are not offended. It was not my intention to offend you or to misquote you for that matter. Can you please show me where I have misquoted you, so I can repudiate my statement?
Thanks,
You are loved
Reply

AB517
04-17-2007, 09:08 PM
Originally Posted by alapiana1
That is good that you are not offended. It was not my intention to offend you or to misquote you for that matter. Can you please show me where I have misquoted you, so I can repudiate my statement?
Thanks,
You are loved

Hey

After rereading you got it ... This is over.
I have much to learn, I know that.

Thank You
Reply

- Qatada -
04-17-2007, 09:38 PM
Originally Posted by Keltoi
Was not the Kaba during the time of Mohammed, before the Qu'ran, a place of worship for pagan gods? Regardless of who Islam insists built it, which would be a debate onto itself, does this not represent that some cultural norms will be incorporated into new faiths?

The Ka'aba was built by Prophet Abraham, if you look in the bible you'll see that it was the place where Prophet Abraham left his wife Hagar in the desert, this would be the place where Makkah would begin. They found the well of zamzam there, and some arabs from Yemen settled there. When Prophet Ishmael grew up - he built the Ka'aba with his father Abraham as a house of worship.

Ishmael followed the religion of his father, Abraham. He grew up, got married and for many centuries the arabs worshipped the God of Abraham, and followed the religion of Abraham.


However, centuries passed by - a man from among the arabs [his name: Amr bin 'Amir bin Luhai Al-Khuzai] went to Greater Syria, and saw these people worshipping stone idols. He asked them why they did this, and they said that if they invoked them - they would recieve rain and have offspring etc. He brought these stone idols towards the Ka'aba and started associating these idols as 'intermediaries' between them and God. This would be the first form of idol worship among the arabs. This is when they first strayed away from the religion of Prophet Abraham.


Many centuries passed and Prophets were sent among the Children of Isra'eel within this time period. Prophet Abraham also followed Islaam since Islaam means submission to God. And that's exactly what Prophet Abraham did. He submitted to the will of God. The remenants of Prophet Abraham's religion still existed among the arabs, thats why they would still perform the pilgrimage of Hajj, they would give money to the poor, they would do many religious acts like Prophet Abraham - however, they would associate partners with God in worship, which is the total opposite of what Prophet Abraham called to.


At the time when Muhammad (peace be upon him) came, there were 360 idols surrounding the Ka'aba. Allaah sent His final Messenger, the direct descendant of Prophet Abraham - who would call his people back to the original religion of his forefather - Abraham. The religion of Prophet Abraham was Islaam [submission to God, and it is for all of mankind.] This is why many of the rights we see today (i.e. the Prayers, the fasting, the giving to the needy etc.) are all parts of the religion of Prophet Abraham, and we follow him in that.


Know that Islaam is nothing new, rather - it's the religion of all the Prophets of God. All the Prophets called to the worship of God alone, while shunning all false deities. God's final Messenger is Muhammad (peace be upon him), God Almighty says in His final revelation:

"Say: 'O mankind! ! I am sent unto you all, as the Messenger of Allah, to Whom belongeth the dominion of the heavens and the earth: there is no god but He: it is He That giveth both life and death. So believe in Allah and His Messenger, the Unlettered Prophet, who believeth in Allah and His words: follow him that (so) ye may be guided." (Qur'an 7:158)
And they have been commanded no more than this: To worship Allah, offering Him sincere devotion, being true (in faith); to establish regular prayer; and to practise regular charity; and that is the Religion Right and Straight. [Qur'an The Clear Evidence 98:5]

Regards. :)
Reply

Redeemed
04-17-2007, 09:55 PM
Originally Posted by AB517
Hey

After rereading you got it ... This is over.
I have much to learn, I know that.

Thank You
I am impressed with your attitude, and I appreciate the satisfaction you have given me. You will learn and grow quickly.
Sincerely,
aj
Reply

Redeemed
09-09-2012, 07:30 PM
If Jesus didn't die and rise from the dead then Christianity would be dead.
Reply

Insaanah
09-09-2012, 07:35 PM
Chinese whispers don't stop, they carry on and on and snowball, until they turn into something completely unrecognisable from what was originally said. The people at the end of the chain believe what they are hearing to be true, and to be the original truth, but it doesn't necessarily mean that it is.

Also, if we use your premise, atheism still exists, so according to that, do you accept that there is no God?

I'm not sure of the need to make this thread rise from the dead after five years...
Reply

جوري
09-09-2012, 08:29 PM
Originally Posted by alapiana1
If Jesus didn't die and rise from the dead then Christianity would be dead.
it is indeed amongst all who are able to reason!

best,
Reply

Redeemed
09-09-2012, 09:29 PM
Originally Posted by منوة الخيال

it is indeed amongst all who are able to reason!

best,
When it comes to the things of God, it is better to trust His word over human reason or logic. As high as the heavens are from the earth are His ways and his thoughts above ours. His ways are passed finding out! :D
Reply

Aprender
09-09-2012, 09:35 PM
Originally Posted by Redeemed
When it comes to the things of God, it is better to trust His word over human reason or logic.
Oh. I see our old friend burninglight is back from the banned. I remember you used this argument a lot to explain away the errors and contradictions in the Bible...yeah. I'm sorry you think this way.
Reply

جوري
09-09-2012, 10:55 PM
Originally Posted by Redeemed
When it comes to the things of God, it is better to trust His word over human reason or logic. As high as the heavens are from the earth are His ways and his thoughts above ours. His ways are passed finding out! :D
Indeed.. but what word to take?
Enjoy this fabulous christian quiz:

http://exchristian.net/3/

Doesn't seem like one can take this religion under any circumstance, logic or faith for it falters on both!

best,
Reply

YusufNoor
09-09-2012, 11:34 PM
Originally Posted by Redeemed
When it comes to the things of God, it is better to trust His word over human reason or logic. As high as the heavens are from the earth are His ways and his thoughts above ours. His ways are passed finding out! :D
absolutely agree! HOWEVER, one must be certain the something IS the word of God! the New Testament is the word of men, NOT the word of God! the only author in it that scholars agree on are 7 books attributed to Paul, who claims:

Galatians 1:11-12: 11 For I would have you know, brothers, that the gospel that was preached by me is not man's gospel.12 For I did not receive it from any man, nor was I taught it...

in others words, he is NOT teaching the Gospel that was preached by the disciples of Jesus!

good to know, eh?
Reply

Redeemed
09-10-2012, 02:54 AM
Originally Posted by YusufNoor
absolutely agree! HOWEVER, one must be certain the something IS the word of God! the New Testament is the word of men, NOT the word of God! the only author in it that scholars agree on are 7 books attributed to Paul, who claims:

Galatians 1:11-12: 11 For I would have you know, brothers, that the gospel that was preached by me is not man's gospel.12 For I did not receive it from any man, nor was I taught it...

in others words, he is NOT teaching the Gospel that was preached by the disciples of Jesus!

good to know, eh?
I'm glad you agree with me, but according to the Quran 4 171 Jesus is the word of God (Allah) not just His messenger. Of course the Bible doesn't consider Jesus to be God's messenger; it considers Him to be the message.
The Islamic recitation was suppose to confirm the Scripture that came before, and it does on this very significant point: Jesus is the word of God Look at Quran 4 171: Sahih International
O People of the Scripture, do not commit excess in your religion or say about Allah except the truth. The Messiah, Jesus, the son of Mary, was but a messenger of Allah and His word which He directed to Mary and a soul [created at a command] from Him. So believe in Allah and His messengers. And do not say, "Three"; desist - it is better for you. Indeed, Allah is but one God. Exalted is He above having a son. To Him belongs whatever is in the heavens and whatever is on the earth. And sufficient is Allah as Disposer of affairs.
Reply

جوري
09-10-2012, 02:58 AM
Originally Posted by Redeemed
I'm glad you agree with me, but according to the Quran 4 171 Jesus is the word of God (Allah) not just His messenger. Of course the Bible doesn't consider Jesus to be God's messenger; it considers Him to be the message. Thank you
The Islamic recitation was suppose to confirm the Scripture that came before, and it does on this very significant point: Jesus is the word of God Look at Quran 4 171: Sahih International
O People of the Scripture, do not commit excess in your religion or say about Allah except the truth. The Messiah, Jesus, the son of Mary, was but a messenger of Allah and His word which He directed to Mary and a soul [created at a command] from Him. So believe in Allah and His messengers. And do not say, "Three"; desist - it is better for you. Indeed, Allah is but one God. Exalted is He above having a son. To Him belongs whatever is in the heavens and whatever is on the earth. And sufficient is Allah as Disposer of affairs.
That's the way God conducts his affairs. He says 'Be' and it is!
Al-Baqara (The Cow) [2:117] [RECITE]
[top] [next match]

BadeeAAu alssamawati waalardi waitha qada amran fainnama yaqoolu lahu kun fayakoonu
2:117 To Him is due the primal origin of the heavens and the earth: When He decreeth a matter, He saith to it: "Be," and it is.

Al-Imran (The Family of Imran)[3:59] [RECITE]
[top] [next match]
Inna mathala AAeesa AAinda Allahi kamathali adama khalaqahu min turabin thumma qala lahu kun fayakoonu

That's how everything came to be including Adam whose being is even more miraculous than Jesus (P) in fact many 'Be' in the Quran are pretty miraculous!
Glad you're reading the Quran - it is a good start. Try to read it and discern it not from kaffir sites, that's if you're hoping to engage Muslims with it. If you desire to engage other kaffirs then by all means perpetuate all sorts of nonsense that you've convinced yourself of!

best,
Reply

جوري
09-10-2012, 04:44 AM
Originally Posted by *Hana*
Actually, according to Jesus Himself, (as per Biblical text), he was NOT resurrected on Sunday morning. Remember He said to Mary Magdalene:, "Touch me not, for I have not yet ascended unto the father."

There are 2 types of resurrections: Spiritual and Physical. Lazareth being the example of a physical resurrection. He still needed to eat, breathe, etc., to be alive. A spiritual resurrection, as described by Jesus, pbuh, means you are like the angels and you die no more. Meaning you only die the once and you cannot die again. Like the angels...no need of food, water, etc., to sustain them.

According to Biblical text he was very much alive when he appeared before the apostles. And what did he say? He told them they should not be afraid because he was not a ghost, "A spirit does not have flesh and bone as you see me have." He told them to touch him and then asked for food. This to show them he was very much alive and not dead. So, we know he was not spiritually resurrected. We know Lazareth had to die again to be spiritually resurrected....so, when did Jesus die again so he could be spiritually resurrected?

Peace,
Hana
We'd love to have you back Hana (I miss you)
but I don't think the poor sap read your excellent reply or any of the other ones that contradict his whims..

:w:
Reply

TG123
09-19-2012, 12:10 AM
Originally Posted by Redeemed
The Centurion at the final hour before the celebration of Passover was to break the legs of all that were hanging on a cross. He was an expert who can tell if one was unconscious or dead. He would break the legs of those still alive so that the condemned couldn't push themselves up for air hence speed up the death process for them. He broke the legs of the two that were next to Jesus, but when he saw that Jesus was already dead, he didn't break His legs as a fulfillment to prophecy. Jesus was seen by hundreds of people after his resurrection including His disciples. His disciples even witnessed is ascension.
Yes He did. Hallelujah!
Reply

UUSeeker
12-21-2012, 06:01 AM
In Socinian Unitarian theology, Jesus was a wise man, a sage if you would, and possibly a prophet. But he was not divine.
The first of the gospels to be written was that of Mark, who never mentioned anything about resurrection. His story ended with the death of Jesus.
It is believed the portions of the gospels that do discuss a resurrection were added after the fact.
While there may still be some Unitarians who believe Jesus rose from the dead, I would venture to say that the majority do not,

Peace,

Seeker
Reply

Hulk
12-21-2012, 06:56 AM
Why would anyone worship Jesus(pbuh) when he himself worshipped God. Please if you claim to believe that there is only one God then worship Him and Him alone. Do not ascribe any partners to Him. Don't give excuses for illogical thinking. God gave us intelligence to use, not to put aside.
Reply

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

Similar Threads

  1. Replies: 106
    Last Post: 03-24-2011, 04:11 AM
  2. Replies: 4
    Last Post: 11-07-2007, 10:21 PM
  3. Replies: 9
    Last Post: 06-21-2007, 02:18 PM
  4. Replies: 9
    Last Post: 11-15-2006, 12:16 AM
  5. Replies: 0
    Last Post: 01-01-2006, 02:51 PM

IslamicBoard

Experience a richer experience on our mobile app!