What's Allah's part in our salvation?

[Redeemed]

If it is up to us and our good works, what part does Allah have saving us especially since we have a supernatural being (Satan) tempting us to evil so we can go to hell?

[MuhammadRizan]

Islam.

[- Qatada -]

Once, the Prophet (peace be upon him) was with his companion.

The Prophet said, "O Mu'adh! Do you know what Allah's Right upon His slaves is?" I said, "Allah and His Messenger know best."

The Prophet said, "To worship Him (Allah) Alone and to join none in worship with Him (Allah). Do you know what their right upon Him is?" I replied, "Allah and His Apostle know best." The Prophet said, "Not to punish them (if they do so)."

[Sahih Al Bukhari 93/471]

[Woodrow]

The answer to that is no different than the Christian view. Allah(swt) alone is our Salvation. To worship Allah(swt) is the path to salvation.

As a Christian your view is no different. What is God's(swt) role in your salvation? Is it not to provide a path for you to follow and obey to gain salvation? You do belief Jesus(as) is God(swt) and that the only way to gain salvation is to follow Jesus(as) aka God(swt) in the Christian view.

The only difference is we choose to follow God(swt) directly, with no intermediary between us. Allah(swt) has sufficient ability to forgive the sins of those who worship him, with no need to confuse the issue and present us with a man who we are to believe is Him and to follow the man who we are to believe is God(swt) and not worship God(swt) in his own divine self. To me it makes no sense to worship God(swt) in any manner except directly to Him. God(swt) is God(swt) is God(swt), why look for a need to humanize Him and seek to worship him as a man? Is there some problem with accepting God(swt) as the Divine creator of all and the only one worthy of worship?

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

[khairullah]

Once, the Prophet (peace be upon him) was with his companion.


The Prophet said, "O Mu'adh! Do you know what Allah's Right upon His slaves is?" I said, "Allah and His Messenger know best."

The Prophet said, "To worship Him (Allah) Alone and to join none in worship with Him (Allah). Do you know what their right upon Him is?" I replied, "Allah and His Apostle know best." The Prophet said, "Not to punish them (if they do so)."

[Sahih Al Bukhari 93/471]

Masha Allah very good answer.

[Slamdunk]

The answer to that is no different than the Christian view. Allah(swt) alone is our Salvation. To worship Allah(swt) is the path to salvation.

God(swt) is God(swt) is God(swt), why look for a need to humanize Him and seek to worship him as a man? Is there some problem with accepting God(swt) as the Divine creator of all and the only one worthy of worship?

[Slamdunk] Hello Woodrow. The Scriptures say that Jesus is the Creator (John 1:3, Col. 1:16). The Quran says many times to revere Jesus and "the Book," which means the Scriptures (Bible). But the problem I see is that muslims will only accept what agrees with the Quran.

For example, Jesus said, "Blessed are the pure in heart for they shall see God."(Matt. 5:8). He also said, "For whoever exalts himself will be humbled and he who humbles himself will be exalted." (Luke 14:11) Now muslims will readily accept these as accurate recordings of what Jesus said. But the same Bible that records the Jesus saying those things also records him saying, "I am the Son of God." (John 10:36). This same Jesus is also recorded as saying, "The Son of Man must be delivered into the hands of sinful men, and be crucified, and the third day rise again." (Luke 24:7) He said this after he was crucified.

But muslims arbitrarily strike these two verses, and the many others which deal with his Deity, Sonship, crucifixion and resurrection, because they disagree with the Quran. Muslims believe that Jesus didn't really say those things and that they were added for whatever reason, corrupting the original gospel. But there are also historical writings which confirm Jesus was crucified:

Tacitus, a Roman historian, in his Annals, c. AD 115, describes the Roman
Emperor Nero's actions after the great fire of Rome, c. AD 64.

"Consequently, to get rid of the report, Nero fastened the guilt and inflicted the most exquisite tortures on a class hated for their abominations, called Christians by the populace. Christus, from whom the name had its origin, suffered the extreme penalty during the reign of Tiberius at the hands of one of our procurators, Pontius Pilatus, and a most mischievous superstition, thus checked for the moment, again broke out not only in Judæa, the first source of the evil, but even in Rome, where all things hideous and shameful from every part of the world find their centre and become popular."
Annals 15 -44

The Bible records that Tiberius and Pontius Pilate reigned during the time of Jesus (Luke 3:1)

Also, the Jewish Talmud records Jesus being crucified:

"On the eve of Passover they hanged Yeshu (of Nazareth) and the herald went before him for forty days saying (Yeshu of Nazareth) is going to be stoned in that he hath practiced sorcery and beguiled and led astray Israel. Let everyone knowing aught in his defense come and plead for him. But they found naught in his defense and hanged him on the eve of Passover. (Sanhedrin 43a)

Finally, Gabriel, who muslims accept as an Archangel, told Daniel that Messiah would be "cut off."(Dan. 9:26)

All these are powerful non-gospel/new testament affirmations of Jesus being crucified. Is it possible that Muhammed recorded false information?

I realize the Quran says it only appeared that Jesus was crucified and that muslims believe someone else was crucified in his place. But the Quran doesn't say that. So the big issue is, does one verse in the Quran cancel out all the historical, prophetical and New Testament evidence of Jesus' crucifixion?

Peace

[Woodrow]

[Slamdunk] Hello Woodrow. The Scriptures say that Jesus is the Creator (John 1:3, Col. 1:16). The Quran says many times to revere Jesus and "the Book," which means the Scriptures (Bible). But the problem I see is that muslims will only accept what agrees with the Quran.

Naturally we will only accept what agrees with the Qur'an. We know that to be true. It does not make any sense to accept anything we do not know to be true or have seen to be false.

For example, Jesus said, "Blessed are the pure in heart for they shall see God."(Matt. 5:8). He also said, "For whoever exalts himself will be humbled and he who humbles himself will be exalted." (Luke 14:11) Now muslims will readily accept these as accurate recordings of what Jesus said. But the same Bible that records the Jesus saying those things also records him saying, "I am the Son of God." (John 10:36). This same Jesus is also recorded as saying, "The Son of Man must be delivered into the hands of sinful men, and be crucified, and the third day rise again." (Luke 24:7) He said this after he was crucified.

Sounds like there is an error or a mistranslation since it is obvious that the second part is in conflict with the Qur'an.

But muslims arbitrarily strike these two verses, and the many others which deal with his Deity, Sonship, crucifixion and resurrection, because they disagree with the Quran. Muslims believe that Jesus didn't really say those things and that they were added for whatever reason, corrupting the original gospel. But there are also historical writings which confirm Jesus was crucified:

Historical writing do not always = True. The book of gilgamish is a historical writing yet few people today would say it is true in all aspects.

Tacitus, a Roman historian, in his Annals, c. AD 115, describes the Roman
Emperor Nero's actions after the great fire of Rome, c. AD 64.

"Consequently, to get rid of the report, Nero fastened the guilt and inflicted the most exquisite tortures on a class hated for their abominations, called Christians by the populace. Christus, from whom the name had its origin, suffered the extreme penalty during the reign of Tiberius at the hands of one of our procurators, Pontius Pilatus, and a most mischievous superstition, thus checked for the moment, again broke out not only in Judæa, the first source of the evil, but even in Rome, where all things hideous and shameful from every part of the world find their centre and become popular."
Annals 15 -44

The Bible records that Tiberius and Pontius Pilate reigned during the time of Jesus (Luke 3:1)

Also, the Jewish Talmud records Jesus being crucified:

"On the eve of Passover they hanged Yeshu (of Nazareth) and the herald went before him for forty days saying (Yeshu of Nazareth) is going to be stoned in that he hath practiced sorcery and beguiled and led astray Israel. Let everyone knowing aught in his defense come and plead for him. But they found naught in his defense and hanged him on the eve of Passover. (Sanhedrin 43a)

Finally, Gabriel, who muslims accept as an Archangel, told Daniel that Messiah would be "cut off."(Dan. 9:26)

All these are powerful non-gospel/new testament affirmations of Jesus being crucified. Is it possible that Muhammed recorded false information?

I realize the Quran says it only appeared that Jesus was crucified and that muslims believe someone else was crucified in his place. But the Quran doesn't say that. So the big issue is, does one verse in the Quran cancel out all the historical, prophetical and New Testament evidence of Jesus' crucifixion?

Peace

There is no doubt that many people did and do believe it was Jesus(as) who was crucified. It only makes sense that most recordings of it would say it was Jesus(as) who was crucified. Because so many people were convinced it was Jesus(as) does not prove it was Jesus(as).

[Slamdunk]

Naturally we will only accept what agrees with the Qur'an. We know that to be true. It does not make any sense to accept anything we do not know to be true or have seen to be false.

Sounds like there is an error or a mistranslation since it is obvious that the second part is in conflict with the Qur'an.

Hello Woodrow. I realize and respect the faith of muslims that the Quran is not in error on anything. But I think it is reasonable to consider the following:

Over the centuries, far more people have believed and accepted that Jesus was the crucified Son of God, than muslims who have not.

One man, Muhammed, recorded only one statement asserting that Jesus was not crucified.

OT prophets, whom muslims say they believe, foretold the crucifixion.

Secular historians recorded the crucifixion (Josephus, Tacitus, among others).

It is likely that the image on the Shroud of Turin is Jesus.

From a neutral standpoint, one would conclude that the evidence supports the crucifixion.

Muhammed may have gotten most things right, but how can you be sure that he got it right when he recorded Jesus was not crucified? Muslims say that the Bible prophets and authors made errors, so why couldn't Muhammed?

WE both agree that Gabriel was God's archangel. But it's interesting to note that the Bible and Quran have him saying opposite things about the crucifixion. We also agree that faith is a powerful thing:-)

Peace

[Joe98]

If it is up to us and our good works, what part does Allah have saving us

Why do you NEED to be saved? Are you bad or something?

-

[Woodrow]

Hello Woodrow. I realize and respect the faith of muslims that the Quran is not in error on anything. But I think it is reasonable to consider the following:

I thank you for starting off on a peaceful note

Over the centuries, far more people have believed and accepted that Jesus was the crucified Son of God, than muslims who have not.

Over the Centuries far more people have followed polytheism than both of us combined. does that make them right?

One man, Muhammed, recorded only one statement asserting that Jesus was not crucified.

You believe one man said it, we believe it was revealed by God(swt)

OT prophets, whom muslims say they believe, foretold the crucifixion.

If you read the Jewish thread, (Questions about Judaism answered by a Jew) You will find that the Jews disagree with those translations.

Secular historians recorded the crucifixion (Josephus, Tacitus, among others).

that is as it should be. The people did believe it was Jesus(as)

It is likely that the image on the Shroud of Turin is Jesus.

When I was a seminarian to be a Catholic Priest, I too believed that. However, as a seminarian I soon found that was not the view of the Vatican.

The first documented evidence of the Shroud dates back to 1357, when it surfaced at a church at Lirey, near the eastern French town of Troyes. In 1390, Pope Clement VII declared that it was not the true shroud but could be used as a representation of it, provided the faithful be told that it was not genuine.

The Vatican still does not make any official claim that the image is of Jesus(as) Scientific evidence seems to indicate it is a Middle ages produced art work.

PARIS, June 21 (AFP) - A French magazine said on Tuesday it had carried out experiments that proved the Shroud of Turin, believed by some Christians to be their religion's holiest relic, was a fake.
"A mediaeval technique helped us to make a Shroud," Science & Vie (Science and Life) said in its July issue. The Shroud is claimed by its defenders to be the cloth in which the body of
Jesus Christ was wrapped after his crucifixion.

Source: http://www.physorg.com/news4652.html

From a neutral standpoint, one would conclude that the evidence supports the crucifixion

.

there is no question that somebody was crucified and those present did believe it was Jesus(as)

Muhammed may have gotten most things right, but how can you be sure that he got it right when he recorded Jesus was not crucified? Muslims say that the Bible prophets and authors made errors, so why couldn't Muhammed?

The errors made by the prophets were minor personal errors and not related to any revelations from God(swt)

WE both agree that Gabriel was God's archangel. But it's interesting to note that the Bible and Quran have him saying opposite things about the crucifixion. We also agree that faith is a powerful thing:-)

We agree on that

Peace

And peace to you also

[Slamdunk]

I thank you for starting off on a peaceful note

Hello Woodrow, and thank you likewise. May I ask where you live?

Over the Centuries far more people have followed polytheism than both of us combined. does that make them right?

We don't believe so because the combined religions and all the denominations therein of Islam, Judaism and Christianity have never believed in more than one God and, in our view, makes them right. Regardless how many religions are involved, it is a faith issue in all.

You believe one man said it, we believe it was revealed by God(swt)

Yes, I accept that.

If you read the Jewish thread, (Questions about Judaism answered by a Jew) You will find that the Jews disagree with those translations.

Yes, I am also aware of that. Isa. 53 is the key chapter over which Christians and Jews differ. They believe Isaiah is talking about God's servant Israel, while Christians believe it speaks of a human suffering servant, or Messiah. While it is true there are verses identifying Israel as God's servant, there are certain verses in chap. 53 that seem awkward towards that position. One example is 53:12 where it says, "He (the servant) poured out his soul unto death...and he bore the sin of many." I just don't find anywhere in the scriptures where Israel poured out its soul unto death and bore the sin of many. Whose sin did Israel bear and how did she do it? I realize that the Jews have a traditional response, but, in my view, none that can be related to scripture.

Another verse is Dan. 9:26 where the Prophet said Messiah would enter Jerusalem exactly 173,880 days from the issuing of the decree to rebuild Jerusalem (Nehemiah. 2:5-8). That decree was issued in Mar. 444 BC and 173,880 days later Jesus rode into Jerusalem on a donkey, as prophesied (Zech. 9:9), claiming to be the Messiah (John 4:26). And I realize that our Jewish also have a response to that. But all a person can do is read what is written and figure it out for themselves.

[QUOTE]When I was a seminarian to be a Catholic Priest, I too believed that. However, as a seminarian I soon found that was not the view of the Vatican.
The Vatican still does not make any official claim that the image is of Jesus(as) Scientific evidence seems to indicate it is a Middle ages produced art work. Source: [URL="http://www.physorg.com/news4652.html"[/QUOTE]

I checked this and found other sources that are saying the carbon dates show the shroud to be much older.

http://www.uthscsa.edu/mission/spring96/shroud.htm
http://www.shroud2000.com/CarbonDatingNews.html

there is no question that somebody was crucified and those present did believe it was Jesus(as)

I would think that Mary, above anyone else, would have known if it were not her son who was on that cross.

The errors made by the prophets were minor personal errors and not related to any revelations from God(swt)

I don't think a prophet of God would make "any" flaws. What I think happened is that there are some passages that may have experienced inconsequential transcription errors. There are other passages that appear to be contradictory, but I believe they are in the realm of difficulty, not error.

Where does the Quran says that Jesus was not crucified. I used to know where it was but have forgotten. Thanks

God bless

[Woodrow]

Hello Woodrow, and thank you likewise. May I ask where you live?

A strong hint for that can be seen in my signature at the bottom of this post just above the (Is Islam Respectful of.....) and another spot is in my profile, over there <--- just under my Avatar. Another hint would be to check this thread.

http://www.islamicboard.com/halal-fu...anna-know.html

Where does the Quran says that Jesus was not crucified. I used to know where it was but have forgotten. Thanks

It is actually mentioned in several Surahs. I just happen to remember these ayyats off hand.


4:154. And We lifted the mountain (Sainai) over them at (the li taking of the covenant) and We said to them: Enter the door making obeisance; and We said to them: Do not exceed the limits of the Sabbath, and We made with them a firm covenant. P Y C
4:155. Therefore, for their breaking their covenant and their disbelief in the communications of Allah and their killing the prophets wrongfully and their saying: Our hearts are covered; nay! Allah set a seal upon them owing to their unbelief, so they shall not believe except a few. P Y C

4:156. And for their unbelief and for their having uttered against Marium a grievous calumny. P Y C
4:157. And their saying: Surely we have killed the Messiah, Isa son of Marium, the messenger of Allah; and they did not kill him nor did they crucify him, but it appeared to them so (like Isa) 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. P Y C

4:158. Nay! Allah took him up to Himself; and Allah is Mighty, Wise. P Y C


Shakir's Quran Translation

God bless

And Peace to You

I will come back later Inshallah, to respond to the other questions. At the moment, I'm a bit tied up chasing Grand Kids.

[Slamdunk]

4:157. And their saying: Surely we have killed the Messiah, Isa son of Marium, the messenger of Allah; and they did not kill him nor did they crucify him, but it appeared to them so (like Isa) 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. P Y C
4:158. Nay! Allah took him up to Himself; and Allah is Mighty, Wise.

Thanks, Woodrow. I have written this down so I won't forget it. Let me ask this question. Where it says, "And their saying: Surely we have killed the Messiah? I assume "their" means the Jews. If so, when did they ever say they killed the Messiah, or even thought they killed him? Is this verse saying that the Jews thought they put Jesus on the cross and killed him, but it was actually someone else? And in the meantime, Allah took Jesus up wherever he may have been? But the verse doesn't really say that someone else was substituted for Jesus. Please help me out on this.

I will come back later Inshallah, to respond to the other questions. At the moment, I'm a bit tied up chasing Grand Kids.

A very worthy pursuit:-) Thanks

[Woodrow]

Thanks, Woodrow. I have written this down so I won't forget it. Let me ask this question. Where it says, "And their saying: Surely we have killed the Messiah? I assume "their" means the Jews. If so, when did they ever say they killed the Messiah, or even thought they killed him? Is this verse saying that the Jews thought they put Jesus on the cross and killed him, but it was actually someone else? And in the meantime, Allah took Jesus up wherever he may have been? But the verse doesn't really say that someone else was substituted for Jesus. Please help me out on this.



A very worthy pursuit:-) Thanks

Peace Slamdunk,

Here is an area where there is better explanations then I can give. However, I suspect you are more interested in my own reasons and what I have personally read.

Keep in mind the Qur'an is the word of Allah(swt) and not the word of Muhammad(PBUH). Many things were already known. It was known at the time that people believed Jesus(as) had been crucified.

But the verse doesn't really say that someone else was substituted for Jesus. Please help me out on this

.

That is true. But so far I have seen no other explanation that could explain those ayyats.

Now since Allah(as) told Muhammad(PBUH) that Jesus(as) was not crucified and that he was brought up to heaven, the only conclusion is the people crucified somebody else that they believed to be Jesus(as) it is apparent that even those close to him believed it was Jesus(as) the only way this can happen is that for some reason Allah(swt) caused another person to appear to be Jesus(as)

Much of this comes from faith that the Qur'an is the true word of Allah(as). The only way this is plausible is because Allah(swt) himself said those words.

I would say that many Muslims especialy us reverts have different reasons why we believe the Qur'an is the true word of Allah(swt). For myself, it is based upon the linguistics of the Qur'an. The Qur'an is the only book written in Qur'anic Arabic and so far nobody has been able to compose as much as one sentence in it, much less 114 Surahs. I was/am fascinated in linguistics and the Semetic languages are my favorites. I love Arabic for it's richness and the structure. But, the spoken or colloquial Arabic really is not all that pleasent sounding, but the Qur'an is like the ultimate song. I am near deaf and can not hear most tones, yet I have no trouble listening to the Qur'an and it is as clear as if I have no hearing loss. Another oddity about it. there are very many dialects of Arabic and it is difficult for a person of one dialect to understand a person speaking in another dialect, but all Arabic speaking people have no trouble understanding the Qur'an even though true Qur'anic Arabic is not spoken colloquially. I am satisfied that the Qur'an could not have been written by a human, especially an illiterate human who could neither read nor right.

Of course since I reverted I have discovered many more things to solidify my belief that the Qur'an is the word of Allah(swt), but I wont side track this thread as those things are discussed in many other threads.

[Joe98]

Much of this comes from faith that the Qur'an is the true word of Allah.

I thought the words came from an angel.

As I understand it Muhammad did not hear the words direct from God.

-

[Woodrow]

I checked this and found other sources that are saying the carbon dates show the shroud to be much older.

http://www.uthscsa.edu/mission/spring96/shroud.htm
http://www.shroud2000.com/CarbonDatingNews.html

Greetings slamdunk

One of the strongest bits of evidence I find is that when the shroud was first discovered. Pope Clement VII declared that it was not authentic. That immediately leaves a problem. If it truly was authentic, the Catholic concept of Papal infallibility went out the window. There had to have been legitimate reason for it to believed not to be authentic, for a Pope to risk making that declaration. Another problem is it was unknown and not seen until 1357. Oddly it pops up in the possession of an Italian Nobleman and Merchant. How come nobody ever heard of it until 1357?

I would think that Mary, above anyone else, would have known if it were not her son who was on that cross.

True, and that is very strong evidence that the people did believe they crucified Jesus.

I don't think a prophet of God would make "any" flaws. What I think happened is that there are some passages that may have experienced inconsequential transcription errors. There are other passages that appear to be contradictory, but I believe they are in the realm of difficulty, not error

.

Yes, it is true that translation of the Qur'an do have errors. However, a translation is not the Qur'an, the Qur'an can only be written in Arabic, more specifically in Qur'anic Arabic and that has remained unchanged. The written Qur'an is the same world wide and unchanged throughout the centuries. An Indonesian Hafiz who does not speak Arabic has memorized the exact same words as a British Hafiz who does not speak Arabic, both of them will recite the exact same words. A memory storage system that has existed unchanged since the first day the Qur'an was heard.

God Bless

Peace

[Slamdunk]

Peace Slamdunk,
Now since Allah(as) told Muhammad(PBUH) that Jesus(as) was not crucified and that he was brought up to heaven, the only conclusion is the people crucified somebody else that they believed to be Jesus(as) it is apparent that even those close to him believed it was Jesus(as) the only way this can happen is that for some reason Allah(swt) caused another person to appear to be Jesus(as)

[Day] Hello Woodrow. I guess this would be the only logical conclusion from a muslim perspective. IOW, Allah supernaturally changed someone to look like Jesus. As I mentioned before, surely Mary would have known who was on the cross, but if Allah changed the appearance of another person, than she too was would not have known the difference. It's just that, to me, it seems like a scenario that sounds so surreal and inconsistent with the way God does things.

If what muslims believe happened, from the Christian perspective, it would be devastating to Christianity, which has as its foundational doctrine, the death of Jesus for sin. If he didn't die on that cross, then we are all (including muslims) dead in our sins. Jesus said, "Unless you believe I AM, you will die in your sins." (John 8:24). Unless we believe that Jesus was who he claimed to be (Savior and Lord), we have no hope of heaven because our sins cannot be forgiven by someone who died on the cross that was not Jesus. I realize this is doctrine that is not accepted by muslims, but I only say that to show what it would mean if it wasn't Jesus on the cross.

Much of this comes from faith that the Qur'an is the true word of Allah(as). The only way this is plausible is because Allah(swt) himself said those words.

Right, just as we say the Bible is the Word of God. I have to believe that before Muhammed was given the Quran, he at least had heard that Jesus was crucified and had risen. Before 600AD, and after, that message was spreading around the world. Many people have believed and many others haven't. Why we choose to believe what we believe is interesting. It certainly makes for diverse points of view. We both realize that our last breath will reveal the truth. So this basically leaves us tugging on a similar oar, only in different boats.

I would say that many Muslims especialy us reverts

Were you muslim at first, then went to the catholic priesthood and then reverted back to Islam?

Peace

[Slamdunk]

Greetings slamdunk

One of the strongest bits of evidence I find is that when the shroud was first discovered. Pope Clement VII declared that it was not authentic. That immediately leaves a problem. If it truly was authentic, the Catholic concept of Papal infallibility went out the window. There had to have been legitimate reason for it to believed not to be authentic, for a Pope to risk making that declaration.

I think papal infallibility relates more to doctrine then peripheral matters. But I wonder why Clement said the shroud was not Jesus' I guess we don't know why. But I did find this at:
http://www.religionfacts.com/christi...d_of_turin.htm

c.1390
"Antipope Clement VII (r. 1378–94) declared the shroud to be an appropriate object of devotion, so long as it was not regarded as the true shroud. But Julius II and subsequent popes took its authenticity for granted."

This is an interesting cite because it provides a time line for the shroud.

Another problem is it was unknown and not seen until 1357. Oddly it pops up in the possession of an Italian Nobleman and Merchant. How come nobody ever heard of it until 1357?

This same cite has the shroud seen well before 1357. Why nothing was mentioned about it before the sixth century is anyone's guess. The shroud is indeed a mytery, especially the image on it. No one knows how it got there. Could it have been put there when he rose from the dead? I don't know.

True, and that is very strong evidence that the people did believe they crucified Jesus.

I think another strong argument that Jesus was crucified is that most of His Apostles were martyred for spreading the message of His death and resurrection. Here's something to think about. If Allah changed the man on the cross to look like Jesus, then the Apostle's were sent on a false mission because the Jesus they were preaching didn't really die. It seems to me that God would not do something like that. Why would he let sincere men spread a false message and die in vain because he did something that they didn't know about?

Peace

[Woodrow]

I think papal infallibility relates more to doctrine then peripheral matters. But I wonder why Clement said the shroud was not Jesus' I guess we don't know why. But I did find this at:
http://www.religionfacts.com/christi...d_of_turin.htm

c.1390
"Antipope Clement VII (r. 1378–94) declared the shroud to be an appropriate object of devotion, so long as it was not regarded as the true shroud. But Julius II and subsequent popes took its authenticity for granted."

This is an interesting cite because it provides a time line for the shroud.



This same cite has the shroud seen well before 1357. Why nothing was mentioned about it before the sixth century is anyone's guess. The shroud is indeed a mytery, especially the image on it. No one knows how it got there. Could it have been put there when he rose from the dead? I don't know.

Peace Slamdunk,

Not trying to avoid discussion about the shroud. But, I just realised this will be a topic of it's own. I think it would be best for that to be in a seperate thread as it can easily become a long discussion by itself.i

I think another strong argument that Jesus was crucified is that most of His Apostles were martyred for spreading the message of His death and resurrection. Here's something to think about. If Allah changed the man on the cross to look like Jesus, then the Apostle's were sent on a false mission because the Jesus they were preaching didn't really die. It seems to me that God would not do something like that. Why would he let sincere men spread a false message and die in vain because he did something that they didn't know about?

We have no doubt that the early apostles were sincere and that they were spreading a true message. We do believe Jesus(as) was given the Injeel and that Jesus(as) and his followers had submitted to the Will of Allah(swt).

However, that which is repeated as being the words of the Apostles does not seem to be accurate. It came after the deaths of the apostles and seems to be flavored strongly with Roman influence. It is most likely that the Apostles did travel and established churches in other parts of the world. Such as Mark went to Alexandria and was the beginning of the Coptic church. We know that the message Mark gave was different than what Rome was spreading, until after strong influence from Rome. Just one example, the Coptics did not accept the trinity, nor the alleged divinity of Jesus(as) until some time after or during the Nicene Council.

Peace

Peace

[Woodrow]

[Day] Hello Woodrow. I guess this would be the only logical conclusion from a muslim perspective. IOW, Allah supernaturally changed someone to look like Jesus. As I mentioned before, surely Mary would have known who was on the cross, but if Allah changed the appearance of another person, than she too was would not have known the difference. It's just that, to me, it seems like a scenario that sounds so surreal and inconsistent with the way God does things.

It is not so surreal if the existing accounts as promoted by Paul and Rome are not the true accounts of what Jesus(as) and His apostles had really said.

If what muslims believe happened, from the Christian perspective, it would be devastating to Christianity, which has as its foundational doctrine, the death of Jesus for sin. If he didn't die on that cross, then we are all (including muslims) dead in our sins. Jesus said, "Unless you believe I AM, you will die in your sins." (John 8:24). Unless we believe that Jesus was who he claimed to be (Savior and Lord), we have no hope of heaven because our sins cannot be forgiven by someone who died on the cross that was not Jesus. I realize this is doctrine that is not accepted by muslims, but I only say that to show what it would mean if it wasn't Jesus on the cross.

To say that man can only be saved by the Death of Jesus(as) on the cross, places a very strong limitation on an all powerful God(swt).

This also is a statement that Jesus(as) is more powerful than God(swt) as it means God(swt) can not forgive sins.

Allah(swt) needs only to think it and it is done. Allah(swt) is the only judge and only forgiver of sins. He need only think it and a man's sins are forgiven.

Right, just as we say the Bible is the Word of God. I have to believe that before Muhammed was given the Quran, he at least had heard that Jesus was crucified and had risen. Before 600AD, and after, that message was spreading around the world. Many people have believed and many others haven't. Why we choose to believe what we believe is interesting. It certainly makes for diverse points of view. We both realize that our last breath will reveal the truth. So this basically leaves us tugging on a similar oar, only in different boats.

I agree with that

Were you muslim at first, then went to the catholic priesthood and then reverted back to Islam?

We believe that all people are born Muslim. We only get raised in other faiths. So I was born Muslim, but grew up only knowing Catholicism. After a long journey and many side trips I finally reverted to Islam when I was 65 years old. I say reverted because accepting Islam I KNEW and felt I had returned home to what I had when I was first born. It was like a second birth and I was given the chance to live my life over and this time live it as a Muslim.

Peace

Peace

[Slamdunk]

Peace Slamdunk,

However, that which is repeated as being the words of the Apostles does not seem to be accurate. It came after the deaths of the apostles and seems to be flavored strongly with Roman influence.

Yet there is no documentation that shows what the Apostles said was false. I try hard to find such documentation, but I have not come across any inspite of all the claims that there is.

It is most likely that the Apostles did travel and established churches in other parts of the world. Such as Mark went to Alexandria and was the beginning of the Coptic church. We know that the message Mark gave was different than what Rome was spreading, until after strong influence from Rome.

What was Rome spreading that was different then what Mark said? Who should we believe? Mark or Rome?

Just one example, the Coptics did not accept the trinity, nor the alleged divinity of Jesus(as) until some time after or during the Nicene Council.

The scriptures were available long before Nicene. Could none of them read what they clearly said? It's hard to figure where such passages as John 10:33, Col. 2:9, Heb. 1:8 and 2 Pet. 1:1, which record the deity of Jesus, that these people did not understand them.

But I'm particularly concerned about what Allah allowed to happen. Why would he change a man's appearance to look like Jesus, let him be crucified and then allow sincere men to spread the message that it was Jesus who was crucified? In my view, that would be way out of character for God.

Peace

[Woodrow]

Yet there is no documentation that shows what the Apostles said was false. I try hard to find such documentation, but I have not come across any inspite of all the claims that there is.

Here the problem is there is no way to prove a negative. I am quite certain that no Apostle ever said that "Pontius Pilate drove a pink 1957 Cadillac." I will never find any documentation to prove they did not say that. the burden of prove is for some one to present acceptable proof that the words we have today are the true words of the Apostles.

What was Rome spreading that was different then what Mark said? Who should we believe? Mark or Rome?

One bit of evidence was the early refusal of the Coptics to accept the concept of the Trinity. This was not accepted by them until after the Nicene council.

The scriptures were available long before Nicene. Could none of them read what they clearly said? It's hard to figure where such passages as John 10:33, Col. 2:9, Heb. 1:8 and 2 Pet. 1:1, which record the deity of Jesus, that these people did not understand them.

But, where those the actual words used by them?

But I'm particularly concerned about what Allah allowed to happen. Why would he change a man's appearance to look like Jesus, let him be crucified and then allow sincere men to spread the message that it was Jesus who was crucified? In my view, that would be way out of character for God.

Looking at it from a Human perspective and in terms of todays conditions, I doubt if we are capable of fully understanding. We were not there and we do not know the full story.

Peace

Peace

[Slamdunk]

Here the problem is there is no way to prove a negative. I am quite certain that no Apostle ever said that "Pontius Pilate drove a pink 1957 Cadillac."

Hello Woodrow. Until we have reasons to suspect that what we have in the Bible today is not true, it stands as written and acceptable.

I will never find any documentation to prove they did not say that. the burden of prove is for some one to present acceptable proof that the words we have today are the true words of the Apostles.

The best proof iwe have is the "thousands" of greek manuscripts that have been found and which support what the Bible says today.

One bit of evidence was the early refusal of the Coptics to accept the concept of the Trinity. This was not accepted by them until after the Nicene council.

The Coptics have been shown to be wrong. They were not the final arbiters of the canon.

Looking at it from a Human perspective and in terms of todays conditions, I doubt if we are capable of fully understanding. We were not there and we do not know the full story.

If there were inconsistencies and contradictions among all these manuscripts, there would be a reason to doubt what we have today is flawed.

Peace

[Slamdunk]

[QUOTE=Woodrow;810735]Here the problem is there is no way to prove a

Looking at it from a Human perspective and in terms of todays conditions, I doubt if we are capable of fully understanding. We were not there and we do not know the full story.

Greetings again, Woodrow:-) Based on what you know about Allah, do you think it would be acceptable to him to change the appearance of a man to look like Jesus and then watch sincere men spread a message he knew was wrong?

As you can see, I'm having a problem believing that God would allow such a thing to happen. It doesn't seem, to me, that he would ever do such a thing.
Since the Quran doesn't say that Allah changed the appearance of a man to look like Jesus, then perhaps an alternative theory should be considered.

Peace

[Woodrow]

Hello Woodrow.

Hello and Peace Slamdunk. one of the most difficult task a person can face is to discuss Religion and to remain civil. You have been doing a good job at remaining civil. Thank you. In debating our beliefs we will face considerable differences. Debate is good as long as we can all remember to agree to disagree with respect. If I slip and you view any of my replies as disrespectful I apologize in advance, as that is not my intent.

Until we have reasons to suspect that what we have in the Bible today is not true, it stands as written and acceptable.

This is in an area in which I firmly believe there is much reason to suspect. Two immediate reasons come to mind. It often contradicts what Allah(swt) has revealed in the Qur'an and the other is that the oldest known versions of the NT are written in classical Greek, although with the exception of Paul the Apostles most likly spoke Aramaic.

The best proof iwe have is the "thousands" of greek manuscripts that have been found and which support what the Bible says today.

That is something that causes me to doubt the NT. What were the original Aramaic words an why were they not preserved?

The Coptics have been shown to be wrong. They were not the final arbiters of the canon.

True, but why were the Romans and Greeks the final arbiters?

If there were inconsistencies and contradictions among all these manuscripts, there would be a reason to doubt what we have today is flawed.

Here we will probably differ over what is considered as inconsistencies and contradictions. What I see as consistencies you may see as simply variations in translation. A very hard area for either of us to validate to the others satisfaction.

Peace

Peace

[Slamdunk]

Hello and Peace Slamdunk. one of the most difficult task a person can face is to discuss Religion and to remain civil. You have been doing a good job at remaining civil. Thank you. In debating our beliefs we will face considerable differences. Debate is good as long as we can all remember to agree to disagree with respect. If I slip and you view any of my replies as disrespectful I apologize in advance, as that is not my intent.

Good morning,Woodrow. I appreciate your civility and gentlemanly manner. You are right. We do disagree, but we have disagreed with good manners. And you're right. Discussions of religion can and do become emotional, and downright hostile.

[QUOTE]This is in an area in which I firmly believe there is much reason to suspect. Two immediate reasons come to mind. It often contradicts what Allah(swt) has revealed in the Qur'an[QUOTE]

Yes, and the major differences are the Sonship, Deity, crucifixion and resurrection of Jesus. And it is these four things where there is the sharpest disagreement. Both religions are steadfast in their doctrines.

and the other is that the oldest known versions of the NT are written in classical Greek, although with the exception of Paul the Apostles most likely spoke Aramaic.

That could very well be, but I don't think we can conclude that these reasons are sufficient to establish grounds of corrupted manuscripts.

That is something that causes me to doubt the NT. What were the original Aramaic words and why were they not preserved?

Since the originals are long gone, it is impossible to compare what we have today along side them. I have to believe that if they could ever be compared, we would see that there really are no consequential differences. But as noted before, we do have thousands of NT manuscripts which are all in agreement and from which the canon was formed.

True, but why were the Romans and Greeks the final arbiters?

Christians believe that God involves himself in the affairs of men. I assume muslims also believe that. Being involved, we believe that God was able to influence certain men to record and others assemble into we call the Bible. I don't think "who" the final arbiters were is what's important, rather "what" they recorded and assembled under the inspiration of God. Paul and Peter address this in the following verses:

2 TIM. 3:16
All Scripture is God-breathed and is useful for teaching, rebuking, correcting and training in righteousness,

2 PETER 1:20,21
Above all, you must understand that no prophecy of Scripture came about by the prophet's own interpretation. 21 For prophecy never had its origin in the will of man, but men spoke from God as they were carried along by the Holy Spirit.

I realize muslims believe that somewhere along the line some of these men "goofed." Or they believe that other men did not accurately record what the inspired authors recorded. I think we would agree that God does not make mistakes, and he would have made a big mistake if he allowed the men he chose to record scripture inaccurately, and the other men to interpret and transcribe them likewise. Having said that, I realize there are some inconsequential transcription errors that can't be explained. But I don't think such errors influence the major doctrines over which our religions disagree. Are such minor errors to be perceived as legitimate grounds to make all other scriptures suspect? I don't think so.

Here we will probably differ over what is considered as inconsistencies and contradictions. What I see as consistencies you may see as simply variations in translation. A very hard area for either of us to validate to the others satisfaction.

With such, I cannot disagree. I am still interested, if you are inclined, to continue with this matter of Allah allegedly changing the appearance of a man to look like Jesus on the cross. If it makes sense that Allah did this and knew that sincere men would spread a false message, then would it be unreasonable to question why Allah would allow that to happen?

In an attempt to prompt muslims to consider that Jesus really was crucified, I think it's important to consider all angles in this matter. Like I said before, faith moves mountains and God only has to say something once for it to be truth. From muslim's perspective, the entire matter of the crucifixion of Jesus hangs on one verse in the Quran where there are scores of verses that affirm it in the NT. This is buttressed by key prophecies in the OT which point to the cross. Then there are the statements of secular historians and the Jewish Talmud. Finally, history records many martyrs who were willing to die for what they believed to be true. Nobody was more familiar with what happened than the Apostles who recorded it and gave their lives for it. I think when you put all these things together, they build an air tight case for the crucifixion of Jesus. So the big question is, does the single statement in the Quran disqualify all this? Can there be "two" inspired accounts of what happened? It would be hard to say so.

Peace

[Woodrow]

Good morning,Woodrow. I appreciate your civility and gentlemanly manner. You are right. We do disagree, but we have disagreed with good manners. And you're right. Discussions of religion can and do become emotional, and downright hostile.

Thank You. Again I will just hit on some of your points and try to come back to the others later. Keep in mind that I am writting from my own impressions and experiences. I do not speak for all Muslims. Although I do my best to keep things consistent with the teachings of Islam I am subject to error and my own biased opinions. Astagfirullah(May Allah(swt) forgive me if I am in error)

With such, I cannot disagree. I am still interested, if you are inclined, to continue with this matter of Allah allegedly changing the appearance of a man to look like Jesus on the cross. If it makes sense that Allah did this and knew that sincere men would spread a false message, then would it be unreasonable to question why Allah would allow that to happen?

I can understand why it would look like that. I do not know fully as to how or what was done. i tend to doubt that sincere knowing men would have been led to spread a deception, so my conclusion is they didn't and we do not have the actual words of what they did preach.

In an attempt to prompt muslims to consider that Jesus really was crucified, I think it's important to consider all angles in this matter. Like I said before, faith moves mountains and God only has to say something once for it to be truth. From muslim's perspective, the entire matter of the crucifixion of Jesus hangs on one verse in the Quran where there are scores of verses that affirm it in the NT.

True, but were those the actual words of the apostles? In my opinion the Qur'an is the word of Allah(swt) and the words in the NT were not the actual words spoken, but writings that came after their deaths.

This is buttressed by key prophecies in the OT which point to the cross. Then there are the statements of secular historians and the Jewish Talmud. Finally, history records many martyrs who were willing to die for what they believed to be true.

Here we have the problem of Hebrew translated to Greek, then to Latin then to English. I doubt you will find a Jew that can read Hebrew, that would agree anything in the Torah or Talmud actually prophecises the cross. History is full of maryers that died for what they believed to be true. The Kamakaze pilots of WWll gladly gave their lives for Hirohito who they believed to be the Son of God.

Nobody was more familiar with what happened than the Apostles who recorded it and gave their lives for it. I think when you put all these things together, they build an air tight case for the crucifixion of Jesus. So the big question is, does the single statement in the Quran disqualify all this? Can there be "two" inspired accounts of what happened? It would be hard to say so.

I strongly doubt, the existing words were the true words of the apostles. Particulary the words of Mark, John, Luke and Matthew. Reading and rereading them, I do not see them as the type of things that would be said by a Mideasterner. The writing style is more in line with translations from Classical Greek and the events correspond very closely with Greek mythology. I suspect a very strong Paulistic influence and in my opinion Christianity had been replaced with Paulism.

Peace

Peace also to you

[barney]

The angel (gabriel) diddnt appear to mohammed as depicted in other "visions" of other religions.
He "Pressed hard" on mohammed causing him to be frightened. It was when he got home that his Uncle said that the event must have been Gabriel.

Assuming that Judo-Christianity is based in actual supernatural phenomena and Gabriel is a reoccuring and immortal being, he is relating Gods word because he says so, and personally, i wouldnt argue with a angel. (especially one that attacked me).

The strange thing is, Gabriel is incredibly inconsistant in his messages. it's almost as if "His word" is being used for socio-political-religeious ends by each person who sees him.

[Slamdunk]

I can understand why it would look like that. I do not know fully as to how or what was done. i tend to doubt that sincere knowing men would have been led to spread a deception, so my conclusion is they didn't and we do not have the actual words of what they did preach.

Hello Woodrow. But wouldn't it have been a deception if Allah changed someone whom the Apostles believed was Jesus and wasn't, and then they went around telling people it was Jesus on the cross? Surely the Apostles believed it was him and John is recorded to have been at calvary when it happened.

True, but were those the actual words of the apostles? In my opinion the Qur'an is the word of Allah(swt) and the words in the NT were not the actual words spoken, but writings that came after their deaths.

I do understand that muslims believe the Quran corrects whatever doesn't agree with scripture.

Here we have the problem of Hebrew translated to Greek, then to Latin then to English. I doubt you will find a Jew that can read Hebrew, that would agree anything in the Torah or Talmud actually prophecises the cross.

The Talmud is not about prophecy, rather an interpretation of the Torah. It simple records that Jesus was crucified. Here is what it says:

"On the eve of Passover they hanged Yeshu (of Nazareth) and the herald went before him for forty days saying (Yeshu of Nazareth) is going to be stoned in that he hath practiced sorcery and beguiled and led astray Israel. Let everyone knowing aught in his defense come and plead for him. But they found naught in his defense and hanged him on the eve of Passover." (Sandhedrin 43a)

History is full of martyrs that died for what they believed to be true. The Kamakaze pilots of WWll gladly gave their lives for Hirohito who they believed to be the Son of God.

Yes, it is true that many have died as martyrs for the cause of what they died for. I only included that along with the other evidences for the crucifixion of Jesus.

I suspect a very strong Paulistic influence and in my opinion Christianity had been replaced with Paulism.

Can you think where Paul disagreed with Jesus on anything?

Peace

[Woodrow]

Hello Woodrow. But wouldn't it have been a deception if Allah changed someone whom the Apostles believed was Jesus and wasn't, and then they went around telling people it was Jesus on the cross? Surely the Apostles believed it was him and John is recorded to have been at calvary when it happened.

It is true John is recorded in the Gospel attributed to him, to have been at Calvary. But, is that the truth? Was he really there?

I do understand that muslims believe the Quran corrects whatever doesn't agree with scripture.

True

The Talmud is not about prophecy, rather an interpretation of the Torah. It simple records that Jesus was crucified. Here is what it says:

"On the eve of Passover they hanged Yeshu (of Nazareth) and the herald went before him for forty days saying (Yeshu of Nazareth) is going to be stoned in that he hath practiced sorcery and beguiled and led astray Israel. Let everyone knowing aught in his defense come and plead for him. But they found naught in his defense and hanged him on the eve of Passover." (Sandhedrin 43a)

Slip of the tongue on my part. although I am not versed in the Talmud, I should not have made that error. It is separate from the Tauret. I am not familar enough with the Talmud to agree or disagree as to that.

But a google search found this:

Passage #4: Execution

Talmud Sanhedrin 43a

It is taught: On the eve of Passover they hung Yeshu and the crier went forth for forty days beforehand declaring that "[Yeshu] is going to be stoned for practicing witchcraft, for enticing and leading Israel astray. Anyone who knows something to clear him should come forth and exonerate him." But no one had anything exonerating for him and they hung him on the eve of Passover.

Ulla said: Would one think that we should look for exonerating evidence for him? He was an enticer and G-d said (Deuteronomy 13:9) "Show him no pity or compassion, and do not shield him."

Yeshu was different because he was close to the government.

Summary
Here we have the story of the execution of Yeshu. Like Ben Stada, he was also executed on the eve of Passover. Before executing him, the court searched for any witnesses who could clear his name, as was normally done before any execution. Ulla, however, questioned this practice. An enticer, due to the biblical mandate not to be merciful, should not be afforded this normal consideration. The Talmud answers that Yeshu was different. Because of his government connections, the court tried to search for any reason not to execute him and upset the government.

Proof
Again we see Yeshu. All of the proofs from above connecting Yeshu to Jesus apply here as well. Additionally, the execution on the eve of Passover is another connection to Jesus as above with Ben Stada.

Problems
1. As mentioned above with Ben Stada, the Synoptic Gospels have Jesus being executed on Passover itself and not the eve of Passover.
2. As above, Yeshu lived a century before Jesus.
3. Yeshu was executed by a Jewish court and not by the Romans. During Yeshu's time, the reign of Alexander Janneus, the Jewish courts had the power to execute but had to be careful because the courts were ruled by the Pharisees while the king was a Sadducee. It seems clear why the courts would not want to unneccesarily upset the monarch by executing a friend of his. During the Roman occupation of Jesus' time, there is no indication that the Jewish courts had the right to execute criminals.
3. There is no indication from the New Testament that Jesus had friends in the government.

Passage #5: Disciples

Talmud Sanhedrin 43a

It is taught: Yeshu had five disciples - Matai, Nekai, Netzer, Buni, and Todah.

They brought Matai [before the judges]. He said to them: Will Matai be killed? It is written (Psalm 42:2) "When [=Matai] shall (I) come and appear before G-d."
They said to him: Yes, Matai will be killed as it is written (Psalm 41:5) "When [=Matai] shall (he) die and his name perish."

They brought Nekai. He said to them: Will Nekai be killed? It is written (Exodus 23:7) "The innocent [=Naki] and the righteous you shall not slay."
They said to him: Yes, Nekai will be killed as it is written (Psalm 10:8) "In secret places he slay the innocent [=Naki]."

They brought Netzer. He said to them: Will Netzer be killed? It is written (Isaiah 11:1) "A branch [=Netzer] shall spring up from his roots."
They said to him: Yes, Netzer will be killed as it is written (Isaiah 14:19) "You are cast forth out of your grave like an abominable branch [=Netzer]."

They brought Buni. He said to them: Will Buni be killed? It is written (Exodus 4:22) "My son [=Beni], my firstborn, Israel."
They said to him: Yes, Buni will be killed as it is written (Exodus 4:23) "Behold, I slay your son [=Bincha] your firstborn."

They brought Todah. He said to them: Will Todah be killed? It is written (Psalm 100:1) "A Psalm for thanksgiving [=Todah]."
They said to him: Yes, Todah will be killed as it is written (Psalm 50:23) "Whoever sacrifices thanksgiving [=Todah] honors me."

Summary
Five of Yeshu's disciples were brought before a court, tried for the crime against G-d and society of idolatry, and executed according to biblical law. This passages presents each disciple cleverly bringing a biblical verse in an attempt to exonerate himself and the court responding likewise.

Proof
The name Yeshu is used as above. The additional proof this passage provides is that Matai is the Hebrew equivalent of Matthew, one of Jesus' disciples.

Problems
1. The same problems above connecting Yeshu to Jesus apply here.
2. Of the five disciples, only one is recognized. What of the other four?
3. The name Matai seems like a nickname or Aramaic equivalent of Matityahu, which was a known Jewish name in that time period. It was probably a common name, considering the high esteem in which the patriarch of the Hasmonean dynasty, Matityahu, was held by the common people. Some manuscripts have the name of R. Yehoshua Ben Perachiah's famous colleague as Matai from Arbel [cf. R. Shimon Ben Tzemach Duran, Magen Avot, ed. Zeini (Jerusalem:2000) p. 31].

Source: http://www.angelfire.com/mt/talmud/jesusnarr.html

Yes, it is true that many have died as martyrs for the cause of what they died for. I only included that along with the other evidences for the crucifixion of Jesus.

Understandable

Can you think where Paul disagreed with Jesus on anything?

We have no basis other than the words of Paul as to what he says Jesus(as) said.

The scenario I see is the original words of Jesus(as) were true. However, at about the time of Paul, Christianity was rewritten and all reformed to verify the beliefs or disbeliefs of Paul. Some say He did a deliberate deception. I tend to think it was an error of judgment and misunderstanding. I can accept Paul was sincere and was under the belief he was spreading the truth, but that is just my opinion. In either case somewhere along the line the Aramaic words were either changed or misunderstood. I can see that happening very easily. Aramaic is very similar to Arabic and for most words there are no equivalent translations except possibly into Arabic or Hebrew. The semitic languages are very difficult until one fully comprehends that the words are written without vowels and the only true way to understand them is to hear them as they were actually spoken. Among the Semitic languages, oral memory and recitation is a vital part to keep the true meaning. Without hearing somebody speaking the original words it is difficult to understand what was written. Unless the Greek translators had oral recitations to verify the writings they may have had, I believe it would have been impossible to get even a close approximation of a translation. My round about way of saying is that the Gospels were written to agree with the conclusions of Paul.

Peace

Peace

[Slamdunk]

[QUOTE=Woodrow;812065]It is true John is recorded in the Gospel attributed to him, to have been at Calvary. But, is that the truth? Was he really there?

Source: http://www.angelfire.com/mt/talmud/jesusnarr.html

Hello Woodrow. This site obviously casts doubt on the version of Sanhedrin 43a I submitted, but by no means the crucifixion of Jesus as prophesied in Isa. 53, recorded by secular historians, the four gospels and the testimony of billions over the centuries. I don't think just by the wave of a hand muslims can summarily dismiss it by claiming the Quran corrects the Bible with just one verse. That is an argument supported only be faith, which I can understand. After the dust settles, the truth will be known. We still have the matter of the Shroud where the jury is still out, but the most remarkable thing about it is that image on the cloth. How did it get there? It appears its origin is supernatural.

The scenario I see is the original words of Jesus(as) were true.

Other than saying the Quran corrects the Bible, can you site some documentation or other evidence that shows what Jesus said in the originals is any different than what is recorded today?

However, at about the time of Paul, Christianity was rewritten and all reformed to verify the beliefs or disbeliefs of Paul.

How did Paul change anything about the Christianity that existed before him?

Some say He did a deliberate deception. I tend to think it was an error of judgment and misunderstanding.

Can you site just one thing where Paul misunderstood anything?

I can accept Paul was sincere and was under the belief he was spreading the truth, but that is just my opinion. In either case somewhere along the line the Aramaic words were either changed or misunderstood.

I'm open to anything you can site as factual.

I can see that happening very easily.

Yes, many say they can see it happening easily. But what did they actually see?

Aramaic is very similar to Arabic and for most words there are no equivalent translations except possibly into Arabic or Hebrew. The semitic languages are very difficult until one fully comprehends that the words are written without vowels and the only true way to understand them is to hear them as they were actually spoken. Among the Semitic languages, oral memory and recitation is a vital part to keep the true meaning. Without hearing somebody speaking the original words it is difficult to understand what was written.

Again, I ask for even one passage recorded in today's Bible that is different or inconsistent with the originals? How could anyone possibly know they are different since we don't have the originals against which to compare them? Let me ask you this. Don't you believe that God oversaw the inspiration and formation of the Quran? Yes, I know you do. But why won't you grant the same thing to God overseeing the inspiration and formation of the canon? (I know where this will lead:-)

Unless the Greek translators had oral recitations to verify the writings they may have had, I believe it would have been impossible to get even a close approximation of a translation.

How do you know they didn't?

My round about way of saying is that the Gospels were written to agree with the conclusions of Paul.

You have made several speculations about which you think may have happened and I have asked you several times to support your claims with some kind of evidence. I will accept your belief that QCB (Quran Corrects Bible) and I think that is the best argument for muslims, albeit a faith argument.

Peace

[Woodrow]

[QUOTE=Slamdunk;812978]

It is true John is recorded in the Gospel attributed to him, to have been at Calvary. But, is that the truth? Was he really there?

Source: http://www.angelfire.com/mt/talmud/jesusnarr.html

Hello Woodrow. This site obviously casts doubt on the version of Sanhedrin 43a I submitted, but by no means the crucifixion of Jesus as prophesied in Isa. 53, recorded by secular historians, the four gospels and the testimony of billions over the centuries. I don't think just by the wave of a hand muslims can summarily dismiss it by claiming the Quran corrects the Bible with just one verse. That is an argument supported only be faith, which I can understand. After the dust settles, the truth will be known. We still have the matter of the Shroud where the jury is still out, but the most remarkable thing about it is that image on the cloth. How did it get there? It appears its origin is supernatural.



Other than saying the Quran corrects the Bible, can you site some documentation or other evidence that shows what Jesus said in the originals is any different than what is recorded today?



How did Paul change anything about the Christianity that existed before him?



Can you site just one thing where Paul misunderstood anything?



I'm open to anything you can site as factual.



Yes, many say they can see it happening easily. But what did they actually see?



Again, I ask for even one passage recorded in today's Bible that is different or inconsistent with the originals? How could anyone possibly know they are different since we don't have the originals against which to compare them? Let me ask you this. Don't you believe that God oversaw the inspiration and formation of the Quran? Yes, I know you do. But why won't you grant the same thing to God overseeing the inspiration and formation of the canon? (I know where this will lead:-)



How do you know they didn't?



You have made several speculations about which you think may have happened and I have asked you several times to support your claims with some kind of evidence. I will accept your belief that QCB (Quran Corrects Bible) and I think that is the best argument for muslims, albeit a faith argument.

Peace

Greetings Slamdunk,

It is quite obvious we are getting into a cycler argument.

I say "XYZ" is true because it tells me so in the Qur'an.

You say "ABC" is correct because it tells you so in the Bible.

I say "ABC" is false because XYZ" is true. You say "XYZ" is false because "ABC" is true.

ad infinteum, ad nauseum

We quite simply are both working from what the other does not accept as a valid source of proof.

My only conclusion is:

Our best choice is to accept the others right to disagree. I believe the Qur'an is the Truth, You believe the Bible is the Truth. Neither supports the other.

Your last paragraph is an excellent summation.

You have made several speculations about which you think may have happened and I have asked you several times to support your claims with some kind of evidence. I will accept your belief that QCB (Quran Corrects Bible) and I think that is the best argument for muslims, albeit a faith argument.

True.

To me the word of the Qur'an makes the speculations self evident. To you the word of the Bible makes counterclaims self evident.

What I see as fact, you see as speculation and vice versa what you see as fact i see as speculation.

We do not see the same things as the source of proof. Oddly we both will immediately agree that only God(swt) is the source of the Truth. We can not agree upon which is his word.

It is all a matter of faith.

Peace

[Slamdunk]

We do not see the same things as the source of proof. Oddly we both will immediately agree that only God(swt) is the source of the Truth. We can not agree upon which is his word.

It is all a matter of faith.

Hello Woodrow. All that you said above is true. We disagree and hold fast to our respective books. But I'm grateful that we haven't allowed our discussions to get disrespectful.

I want to share one thing that you might want to consider because it respects the credibility of the Bible. It says the time is coming, and I don't think it's far off, when billions of people all around the world will vanish from the face of the earth in a split second (1 Cor. 15:51). You've probably heard about it and it's called the catching away of saints, or the "rapture." Here are the verses that speak ot it:

JOHN 14:1-3 (Jesus speaking)
Do not let your hearts be troubled. Trust in God; trust also in me. 2 In my Father's house are many rooms; if it were not so, I would have told you. I am going there to prepare a place for you. 3 And if I go and prepare a place for you, I will come back and take you to be with me that you also may be where I am."

1 Thes. 4:16-18
For the Lord (Jesus) himself will come down from heaven, with a loud command, with the voice of the archangel and with the trumpet call of God, and the dead in Christ will rise first. 17 After that, we who are still alive and are left will be caught up together with them in the clouds to meet the Lord in the air. And so we will be with the Lord forever. 18 Therefore encourage each other with these words.

1 COR. 15:51-53
Listen, I tell you a mystery: We will not all sleep, but we will all be changed— 52in a flash, in the twinkling of an eye, at the last trumpet. For the trumpet will sound, the dead will be raised imperishable, and we will be changed. 53For the perishable must clothe itself with the imperishable, and the mortal with immortality.

Phil. 3:20,21 (This is my favorite)
But our citizenship is in heaven. And we eagerly await a Savior from there, the Lord Jesus Christ, 21 who, by the power that enables him to bring everything under his control, will transform our lowly bodies so that they will be like his glorious body.

The Bible says that flesh and blood cannot inherit the kingdom of heaven. Here's the idea. When a person is born again (John 3:3), his body is prepared to be changed into a body that can enter heaven. That's what Paul ment when he said our lowly bodies "will be transformed" in the above verse.

I know this probably sounds like "beam me up Scotty" science fiction, but at least you know where to go in the Bible if the rapture should happen in our lifetime. You may choose to believe a different scenario to explain this massive global disappearance. Personally, I think this event will turn many to the Bible because friends and relatives of Christians have been told about it in advance and when they no longer see them around, they will remember what they were told. How do you explain the instant disappearance of that many people?

Peace

[Woodrow]

Peace slamdunk,

To be honest my concept of the Christian belief of the "Rapture" is still very much influenced by what I was taught as a Catholic.

Origins of the Rapture

The Rapture seems to have been invented by a British religious figure named John Nelson Darby (1800-1882). He was ordained in the Church of Ireland and worked there to convert Catholics away from their folly. He was extremely pessimistic about what he saw as the state of the world and the state of the Church. He eventually left it, joining a dissident group called the Plymouth Brethren of which he soon became a prominent leader.

About 1830, he began teaching that Jesus’ coming at the end of time would be preceded by a “rapture of the saints.” Some members of his own Brethren community objected that this was not biblically founded, but Darby dismissed any criticism. It had, he claimed, been revealed to him by God.

Source: http://www.americancatholic.org/News.../CU/ac1005.asp

[Slamdunk]

Peace slamdunk,

To be honest my concept of the Christian belief of the "Rapture" is still very much influenced by what I was taught as a Catholic.



Source: http://www.americancatholic.org/News.../CU/ac1005.asp

Hello Woodrow. I think the idea is to read these verses and let them speak to you as to what they mean. What Darby says doesn't matter. But if he is right and this event happens, then it ought to be something people should know about. I realize the Catholic Church doesn't teach the "rapture," but it would be interesting to learn how they interpret these scriptures.

Peace

[Woodrow]

Hello Woodrow. I think the idea is to read these verses and let them speak to you as to what they mean. What Darby says doesn't matter. But if he is right and this event happens, then it ought to be something people should know about. I realize the Catholic Church doesn't teach the "rapture," but it would be interesting to learn how they interpret these scriptures.

Peace

For me it is a moot point as I had Catholicism many years ago. However, like with most people, every event in and every experience I have had was one of the stepping stones on the path that lead me to today.

With that said I am in full agreement with this:

I realize the Catholic Church doesn't teach the "rapture," but it would be interesting to learn how they interpret these scriptures.

To be honest, I have no real concern about the mechanics of the last days. It is sufficient for me to only know that they will come. I strongly suspect that my own personal "Last days" will occur before the final days for the population at large. None of us know if we will live to the absolute final days, but we all can be certain we will each face out own last days. For each of us that begins the moment we are born.