As-salamu alaykum,
Sorry to bump this thread, but if we're talking about "Preferences given to a certain community from a religious perspective", I have a question regarding Christianity.
Why is it that god decided to come down on earth specifically for the Israel community? What makes that community more worthy of being in the presence of god than any other community in the history of mankind? Putting aside all the great Prophets of God, even Moses (PBUH) did not see God when he asked God to show himself.
Salam 3laikum.
From what we know in the Bible, God dealt with Abraham then through his offspring, specificallyformat_quote Originally Posted by Indian Bro
Isaac, then Jacob, then the 12 patriarchs. They were not better than another other people prior
to God choosing to work through that nation. He established his covenant with Abraham through
Isaac. He was the son of promise. God also blessed Ishmael.
Thanks,
Jim
Who had the covenant? Ishmael or Isaac?format_quote Originally Posted by theplains
The story of Abraham, Ishmael and Hagar (May the mercy and blessings of Allah be on them all) is found in the Bible, much skewed and corrupted from the pure Islamic version. The reason this is so is because the book of Genesis, undoubtedly written by some Jewish Rabbi of the past would certainly be biased in his understanding of history between the two forefathers. There would be in him, whoever he was, the desire to paint his own ancestry, that is the seed of Isaac, in the brightest of colors, whereby either purposely or inadvertently condemning the rival (I.e. Ishmael) as the negative end of the spectrum. In other words, a Jew most certainly wrote Genesis, so Isaac, the father of the Jews and Abraham’s son, is presented in this blessed light, and Ishmael, the father of the Arabs is whereby presented in somewhat dark euphemisms, and foisted on him is the subtle racism and condescending attitude of the author.
This being said, it is evident that my own assumptions are true, because of the many gaps and inconsistencies which are clues left to us by the True and Almighty God in the Biblical account, which point us in the direction of the truth (I.E. of the Islamic version.)
1. Abraham (saas) was told by God that a Great Nation would come from him. (Genesis 12:2-3)
2. Sarah, Abraham’s wife doesn’t bear children at first. (Genesis 16:1)
3. Sarah whereby allowed Abraham to MARRY Hagar (Genesis 16:3) -This defeats the evangelical claim that Ishmael was illegitamite. Hagar conceives Ishmael. (genesis 16:4)
4. Later Sarah has Isaac. (Genesis 21:2)
So far so good. The story here is quite clear. A Prophecy for a great nation was said to come from Abraham. After Sarah seemingly cannot conceive, Hagar becomes Abraham’s second wife and conceives Ishmael. Later Sarah actually does conceive and has Isaac.
Biblical points which hold true to the Islamic perception of Ishmael and the pure lineage of Muhammad (saas):
1. Ishmael was Abraham’s first son. (Genesis 16:4)
2. God said that Hagar’s seed would be multiplied exceedingly. (Genesis 16:10)
3. God said Ishmael was blessed! (Genesis 17:20)
4. Ishmael is clearly called ‘Abraham’s seed’ by God. (Genesis 21:13)
4. God repeats His promise to make Ishmael a great nation FIVE TIMES! (Genesis 15:4) (Genesis 16:10) (Genesis 17:20) (Genesis 21:13) (Genesis 21:18)
From here the Islamic version and the Biblical account part ways. The Muslim holds that it was in fact Ishmael who had the covenant and not Isaac, whereas the bible states the opposite. The Muslim holds that it was Ishmael who was to be sacrificed and not Isaac, and again, the Bible states the opposite. The Muslim version states that both Isaac and Ishmael were pure blameless children of Abraham, both revered, whereas in the Biblical account, Isaac is revered and Ishmael is seen as a mean-spirited outcast. Let us review the shameful and undoubtedly corrupted view of Ishmael in the Bible:
1. Ishmael is called a ‘wild donkey of a man’: (Genesis 16:12)
2. Ishmael and his descendants are going to be known as troublemakers (Genesis 16:12)
3. Ishmael is considered illegitamite (This is a Christian claim which no Bible verse supports.)
4. Ishmael makes fun of Isaac and teases him: (Genesis 21:9)
5. Ishmael and his mother are cast out from Abrahams’ family (Genesis 21:10)
Now let us lay these preposterous and slanderous claims to rest.
Ishmael a wild donkey of a man?
This is where it becomes evident that the prejudice of the author seeps through. The Christian must remember that the Islamic view of the Bible is that it is corrupted, and history attests this, especially that of the Old Testament. God himself attests this in the Old Testament, saying, "How can you say, 'We are wise, and the law of the LORD is with us'? But, behold, the false pen of the scribes has made it into a lie.” (From the RSV Bible, Jeremiah 8:8) -So it is admitted within the Bible itself, that the Old Testament is corrupted. No independent scholar accepts the preposterous view that the first 5 books of the Bible were written by Moses as evangelicals claim. This indeed would be quite impossible because otherwise Moses refers to himself in the third person and even writes about his own death and the month that follows it.
Therefore, if the Islamic view of the Bible is that it is corrupted (Not wrong, but not always right either) then it is very well possible, from this viewpoint that the entire story of Ishmael and Isaac is skewed, handled malisciously from the pen of some overzealous rabbi who could not ignore fully his own prejudice and wishes, but yet also could not ignore fully the facts of history, being that both Ishmael and Isaac were blessed, revered and of highly esteemed moral character. Starting from this point we can see through the authors slanders and see to the truth, and that is that this particular verse, that is the verse of Ishmael being a ‘wild donkey’ of a man is an overly obvious forgery, and opinion of whoever the mildly racist author of this book is. –And his intent is quite clear. He wants to prove that the lineage of the Jews is pure, and that no non-jew could ever partake in the pure lineage of Abraham. This is undoubtedly the authors intention, because he goes to great lengths to ‘prove’ it. Consider the ‘all-to-convenient’ verbiage of Sarah as interjected by the author: “Wherefore she said to Abraham, ‘Cast out this bondwoman and her son: For the son of a bondwoman shall not be heir with my son, even with Isaac.’” (21:10).
As to the authors intention to show that the blood and lineage of the Jewish people is untainted, consider the fact that according to the Bible, Abraham and Sarah were brother and Sister! (Genesis 20:12.) This same author is the one who insulted the Prophet Lot by saying he had an incestuous drunken relationship with his two daughters, (Genesis 19:36) And Jacob was married to two sisters at the same time: (Genesis 29:28). The intention is clear, that the author of Genesis is either a pervert obsessed with incest, or he slanders honorable prophets with false stories of Incest in order to show that the blood of Isaac and his descendants (The Jews) is pure. It is for this reason the author feels the need to slander Ishmael and foist on him the false story of being ‘cast out’ of the family of Abraham. –It is also clearly, based on the evidence, a big lie. Ishmael was not a wild donkey of a man, but the author of Genesis sure was!
Ishmael and his descendants will ‘be against all men?’
The Bible says of Ishmael: “…his hand will be against every man, and every man's hand against him; and he shall dwell in the presence of all his brethren.” (Genesis 16:12)
In recent times this is probably the most oft-repeated verse against Ishmael and the Muslims used by Christians to prove a plethora of points. All one needs to do is point to the news to see that seemingly Ishmael’s seed truly is ‘against all men’ and ‘all men are against him.’ It is, to them, proof positive that the Bible is the word of God.
But there is a problem with this theory, and that is quite simply that only recently could this be applied. It wasn’t until the decline of the Ottomon Empire in the 1700’s that the Islamic world experienced a regression leading to a downward spiral of corruption, hopelessness, and violence.
One need not point out the fact that the oldest and indeed one of the first colleges on earth was founded by Muslims and is still on the earth today (Al-Azhar.) It is evident that whilst Europe was sunk in the dark ages, the civilized Muslims revived the learning of Aristotle and Plato, who otherwise would have been forgotten. There was a time when Baghdad, for example, was called, ‘The greatest city on earth.’ -And this title was given it by European scholars. Was it because the Arabs of Baghdad were mindless killers against all men? Of course not! It was because they were civilized learners who enjoyed a thriving economy! In fact, it was the Muslims who saved the Christians in their lands from the conquests of invaders, and it was the Turkish Muslims who later protected the Jews who fled persecution from Spain. Was it not the Muslim Salahaddin who granted all Christians in Jerusalem amnesty despite that fact that when Muslims were run out of Jerusalem years earlier the Christians boiled Muslim children alive in pots?
So there is well over a thousand years of the Muslim empire (now known as the Golden age of Islam) in which this whimsical sentence in the Bible was utterly false, and any attempt to apply it to Muslims would be deemed laughable by even the Christians! So what is more logical? To say this verse is true, when it has only been true for the past 100 years at best, which represents not even a glimmer in the existence of Islam, or to say that this is the interjection of some ancient Jew who had, as seen above, his own wicked intentions?
Ishmael is considered illegitimite?
This one I really don’t get. The Bible clearly states that Hagar and Abraham were married. (Genesis 16:3) Abraham is also spoken of in highly respected terms in the Bible? How is it that this highly respected Prophet had a child with a woman whom he was married to, and by the logic of some evangelicals this = illigetamite?
Of course not! So how can this be deemed an instance with which to judge Ishmael and say he was therefore excluded from the covenant? Based on what we have seen so far, we need not even address the last two biblical accounts of Ishmael teasing Isaac and whereby being cast out, as this is another obvious forgery by the baised author, whoever he was.
The Bible Had Ishmael and Isaac Confused!
The most common question to be asked by the Christian then is, how can the Muslims believe that Ishmael was to be sacrificed and not Isaac, and that Ishmael got the covenant, when the Bible clearly states otherwise? Well, not to beat a dead horse, but the Muslim view of the Bible is that it is corrupted. So automatically, any story which contradicts Islamic teachings we view with skepticism. As seen already, the author of Genesis, where we find the account of Ishmael and Isaac, is also extremely baised. These facts alone are a red flag to the logical thinkers that just to accept this story as 100% authentic as it is presented in the Bible would be a great error.
With that being said, let us examine the story in the Bible again, and show that the author made some grave errors in his writing which proves that Ishmael and Isaac were confused:
The Bible states that Abraham was 99 years old when Ishmael was circumcised. Ishmael was 13 at the time. (Genesis 17:24-27)
Exactly one year later Isaac is born. (Genesis 21:4-5) So if Abraham was 99 when Ishmael was circumcised a year earlier, that would mean when Isaac is born, he is 100 years old, and Ishmael is 14.
Then comes the story of the sacrifice in the Bible: In Genesis 22, God tells Abraham to take ‘Thine ONLY son Isaac…’ -WHAT? Ishmael is 14 at the time? Why does the Bible refer to Isaac as Abrahams ONLY son? Many Christians will say that this is because God here is making it clear that Isaac is the only heir to the covenant, and that is why God refers to Isaac as ‘The ONLY son..’ but God clearly calls Ishmael the seed of Abraham according to Genesis 21:13, so such conclusions are impossible. The only conclusion is that the author of Genesis had Ishmael and Isaac confused.
Consider when Ishmael is cast out with Hagar into the desert in Genesis 21. What are the descriptions of Ishmael? Pay close attention to the following descriptions:
A. Ishmael is tucked under shrubs (Genesis 21:15)
B. He is called a ‘lad’ (Genesis 21:18, 20)
C. Hagar holds Ishmael in ONE HAND (Genesis 21:18)
Clearly the author is referring to an infant. But Ishmael is 14 at the time, how would he be tucked under shrubs and held in one hand of a weak woman who was dying of thirst? Why is he called a lad? Would this not more aptly apply to the infant Isaac who was only a year old and not to Ishmael who is a teenager?
Why would anyone have a problem with that? well, for a start it falls short of a human standard of basic decency, never mind divine grace. nowhere in the bible is it suggested that Ishmael was cast out and disinherited because he was evil or was deserving in any way of such harsh treatment - it was instigated by Sarah's petty jealousy on behalf of her son and portrayed as a kind of snobbishness that Ishmael, although a son of Abraham pbuh, was also a son of a slave and therefore inferior. the idea that God would condone this kind of thinking (which is implicit in the scriptures) is amazing.
Furthermore, according to Deuteronomy, the firstborn is owed a double portion of inheritance, no matter whether his mother is despised or not. 'For (the firstborn) is the beginning of his strength.' Elsewhere in the Torah Israel (the Israelites) are called by God 'my son, my firstborn son'. And when God punished the Egyptians he struck down their firstborn sons. To be the firstborn son is an honourable distinction elsewhere in the bible, so perhaps that is why Muslims feel it is worth mentioning.
as for the story of Ishmael, I'm afraid I don't have much time but I can tell you that he was brought as a baby to the valley of Mecca by Hagar and Abraham pbuh, who left them there to establish a settlement but returned regularly and when Ishmael was old enough they rebuilt the Ka'aba together (it had originally been built by Adam pbuh but evidently had disappeared). as stated in the bible, Ishmael was sufficiently close to his father's heart that he was informed of Abraham's pbuh final illness and together with his brother Isaac he buried him. Which fact jars a bit when you read it first because up till then the bible tell us a story of a son cast out and disinherited - I remember the first time I read it as a Christian I was startled and actually thought 'how did he get back into the story? I thought he was long gone!'. Did Abraham have a change of heart? How did he know where to find Ishmael? We are not told.
it is amazing to me the amount of lies and hatred and frank distortions Jews and their fundie christian counterparts will go through as if to twist God's arms.
Why is it that god decided to come down on earth specifically for the Israel community? What makes that community more worthy of being in the presence of god than any other community in the history of mankind? Putting aside all the great Prophets of God, even Moses (PBUH) did not see God when he asked God to show himself.format_quote Originally Posted by theplains
Salam 3laikum.
Hi Jim,
You didn't answer my question. Maybe I didn't phrase my question clear enough so I'll try again.
Why did Jesus (PBUH), the one you Christians call "God" chose to come down on earth for the Israel community? What makes that particular Israel community at the time of Jesus (PBUH) so special to witness God?
I'll ask you again in the point of a view of a Christian.
Why did God decide to come down on Earth specifically for the Israel community? What makes those people more special than the rest of mankind? Even Moses (PBUH) was not capable to see God and he was a Prophet! So what makes those Iraelites at the time of Jesus SO special?
I hope you understand my question more clearly now.
Salam 3laikum
1] He came to earth to save mankind from their sins. He was the fulfillment of theformat_quote Originally Posted by Indian Bro
prophecy given to Abraham (Act 3:25 - Ye are the children of the prophets, and of the
covenant which God made with our fathers, saying unto Abraham, And in thy seed
shall all the kindreds of the earth be blessed). It is not a matter of a particular Israel
community at a certain time, but Jesus came at a specific time (but this would involve
must more explanation because prophecy is involved - there is a lot of material on
the Internet for reference - google "jesus the fulfillment of the old testament prophecy"
and question "What is the difference between Christianity and Judaism?" at
gotquestions dot org
2] God decided to come down on Earth (not FOR) but TO specifically the Israel
community ... in fulfillment of the prophecies in the Old Testament. The Jews
are NOT more special than other people. Why did God choose the Jews in the
past to establish his covenant? I don't know. We just have the record that he
choose Isaac through Abraham, and then Jacob through Isaac, and then
their descendants went to Canaan.
The Israelites at the time of Jesus were NOT special. In fact, they had totally
degenerated from the Law that God gave to them.
The website gotquestions dot org has an excellent article called "Why did God
send Jesus when He did? Why not earlier? Why not later?" The webpage is
fullness-of-time dot html
This will give a more clearer explanation.
I hope this helps.
I posted the question to this Islamic forum because I thought the Quran could
share some insights on why sura 2:47 says what it says, and what specific
time frame it has in mind.
Thanks,
Jim
Peace be upon you Jim,format_quote Originally Posted by theplains
I'm sorry but I'm not totally satisfied by your answer. We all know that the Old Testament predicted the coming of a Messiah, we Muslims and Christians mutually agree that this Messiah was to be Jesus (PBUH). But it doesn't make sense why God would give such a huge preference to the Jews of the time of Jesus (PBUH) over his own Prophets (Peace be upon all of them). Moses (PBUH) asked God to show himself and God didn't do so. And if you observe the Old testament, New testament as well as the Qur'aan you'll find that God had always sent down a person to a community of a specific time to warn the people and give them good tidings. This is what Jesus (PBUH) did as well. And you'll also observe that these people chosen by God would often be abused and attempted to be killed, just like Jesus (PBUH). If you really think God is Just, it makes more sense to think that God chose to send Jesus (PBUH) to the Jews at that specific time (just like he send down Moses (PBUH) and all the other Prophets) instead of thinking God himself came down to that community and upon doing so gave such a huge preference to those Jews which is totally unjust towards all other communities and Prophets (entire mankind).
Why did God choose the Jews in the
past to establish his covenant? I don't know
It's sad you have to base your belief on a hunch. You need to ask yourself a question,
1. Would a Just, Merciful and All-Powerful God really need to come down to Earth and show such a big preference to a people who you claim had totally degenerated from the Law that God gave to them over the entire mankind (including Prophets and other saints)
ORGod sent down a person (in the form of Jesus (PBUH)) to the Jews at that particular time as the Messiah, a Messenger, a Prophet to warn the Jews and to give them good tidings just like all other Prophets
If you go for the second option, you believe, just like the Muslims, that God is the most Just, the most Merciful and the All-Powerful.
I have never heard a Christian comment that he or she felt that it was totally unjust thatformat_quote Originally Posted by Indian Bro
God came down in human form to the Jewish community instead of the Polish or Russian
community for instance.
Jesus was initially sent to the Jews, but his message of salvation extends to all nations.
The glad tidings that he came to bring was his gospel of his atoning sacrifice. When you
see the lambs being sacrificed in the Old Testament and the sacrifice of the Lamb of God
in the New Testament, it makes perfect sense. True, I can't explain all of it, but this is
what the Scriptures record. This shows how the seed of Abraham would be a blessing to
all the world. It's a matter of faith.
Jim
Peace be with you, Jim
I find that quite strange to be honest, since I love God more than anything in the world I would want to know what made him give more preference to a particular group of sinners over his own Prophets (Peace be upon all of them).format_quote Originally Posted by theplains
Can't really say his message extends to all nations as none of the Prophets (Peace be upon all of them) or the believing people prior to Jesus (PBUH) mentioned his name or anything related to a concept that belief in anything other than God will give you salvation. The only people who suggested this idea were the idol-worshipers who associated partners with God. Christianity, as I understand, is the concept of accepting that Jesus (PBUH) is the son of god and if you accept this your salvation is guaranteed. I don't think anyone spoke of this message prior to the time he was sent to the Jews.Jesus was initially sent to the Jews, but his message of salvation extends to all nations.
The glad tidings that he came to bring was his gospel of his atoning sacrifice.
Is it true that Christians compare God to a lamb?When you
see the lambs being sacrificed in the Old Testament and the sacrifice of the Lamb of God
in the New Testament, it makes perfect sense. True, I can't explain all of it, but this is
what the Scriptures record. This shows how the seed of Abraham would be a blessing to
all the world. It's a matter of faith.
Jim
Salam 3laikum
Jesus (as) did not have a message extending to all nations. There is just one story which proves this in the Bible, and it is the instance of a woman who asked Jesus (as) for something (can't remember), and he refuses because he was sent to the Jews, not to anyone else. So if his message extended to everyone, then he would not have said that. So it is completely and utterly false that Jesus was sent to everyone. If I were Christian, i would realize that Christianity was instead Judaism, and not some faith which extends to the whole world despite what the founder of the faith admitted himself.
Should anything be quoted from anyone besides Jesus that he said he is for the whole world, then I would not accept that. Jesus (as) should have said himself he was sent to the world. I have not found a shred of evidence which suggests this. he said he was sent to the lost sheep of Israel, not to the lost sheep of the world. What quote is used by Christians to prove against this? Jesus (as) would have had to have an interpretation of these words which says he was sent to the whole world. But last I checked, the whole world isn't Israel or Jewish. Therefore, Jesus was sent only to the Jews. I read the Bible. It is a complete fabrication to say that he was sent to the world.
As for sacrifice, in Islam, we sacrifice animals, but only to reflect on how we must endure sacrifices like these animals for the sake of Islam. So the sacrifice of a lamb of God only means that the believer must be sacrificing themselves like this in the way of Allah. So, in fact, the concept of sacrifice in Islam is much higher, since in Christianity only Jesus (as) sacrificed himself for the world, while everyone else reaps the benefits from it and he gets nothing but suffering. On the contrary, in Islam, we believe that we ourselves must be ready to sacrifice our very lives for the cause of Islam if need be. If someone kills us because we believe in Allah, we resign ourselves to it. If we must die, we die for Allah. If we live our lives, we live it for Allah. We give our wealth for Allah, we abstain from eating and drinking for the sake of Allah and we give our time for Allah. This is all part of the spirit of sacrifice. There is no loftier principle of sacrifice than what is given in Islam.
My point here is that Jesus (as) was merely considering himself to be worthy to be sacrificed for the sake of Allah, in the spirit of what i have mentioned. He bore the suffering that he was made to go through with the cross. He did not die from it, but he endured it for the sake of Allah. He did not endure it because what he does gets transferred to others. just where did he say that one's deeds can get transferred to another? The whole world waited for one crucifixion? I can't say I take such an idea seriously. If it is the truth, then Jesus (as) should have said it very clearly in the Bible, with no parable to explain it. He said on the cross: "My God, my God. Why have you forsaken me?" He was not saying that God put him there for a reason while he was on the cross, if his conviction in that matter was so pure and unadulterated, then why did he utter those words?
Everything about this matter is unarguable by Christians. Anyone who reads the Bible knows that Jesus (as) was sent as a reformer of Judaism. I have a Jewish friend who said the same thing. Yes, he does not accept Jesus (as) as a Prophet, which is not right, but he admits that Jesus (as) came to reform Judaism and to clarify the laws so that people could adapt to using them in a different age when things had become corrupt. But Jesus (as) was a Prophet of Allah and a Messenger, and Insha-Allah, we Muslims will be witnesses to his Prophethood on the Day of Judgment because Allah said so in the Holy Qur'an.
Feel free to say anything about what I have said above Jim. I'm not trying to bash Christian beliefs, I just have my own understanding of them based upon what I read in the Bible myself. I think most of what Christians say don't necessarily conform with their own text.
Indian Bro liked this post
On your first point, I can find no scriptural basis that God preferred a group offormat_quote Originally Posted by Indian Bro
sinners over his own Prophets. In regards to Jesus, he was the only sinless
person to have lived on earth. The Quran says, in 2:47, "O Children of Israel!
Remember My favour wherewith I favoured you and how I preferred you to (all)
creatures" (quranexplorer.com). No one on the forum has been able to explain
the why or the when of this (as to when, I'm asking for BCE to CE ... considering
that the Children of Israel are contemporary to the Children of Ishmael).
On the second point, I refer you to the Gospel of John. "The next day he saw Jesus
coming toward him, and said, "Behold, the Lamb of God, who takes away the sin
of the world! ... and he looked at Jesus as he walked by and said, "Behold, the
Lamb of God!"" (John 1:29,36). To understand this symbolism would involve a
study in the atonement.
Thanks,
Jim
Peace be with you Jim,format_quote Originally Posted by theplains
Thanks for sharing your insights regarding my question, firstly I just want to state that I do not possess the level of knowledge that can answer your initial question regarding the verse from the Qur'aan. I have a doubt regarding Christianity and unfortunately I still haven't been satisfied with your answer.
It can be observed in the scriptures that Moses [who, we mutually agree, is a Prophet] (PBUH) had asked God to show himself, but God did not do so. However, God showed himself in the form of a human to the Jews (who, as we mutually agree, were sinners). From this observation one can conclude that God showed the biggest form of "preference" imaginable, by coming down on Earth himself and revealing himself!format_quote Originally Posted by theplains
We Muslims believe Prophet Muhammad (PBUH) was ALSO a sinless person, do we worship him? What was the point of mentioning that?In regards to Jesus, he was the only sinless person to have lived on earth.
I find it strange if you chose to refer to "Lamb of God" as symbolic but when Jesus (PBUH) referred to Allah (s.w.t.) as "Father" you take it in a literal sense. Who decides what is symbolic and what should be taken in a literal sense?On the second point, I refer you to the Gospel of John. "The next day he saw Jesus
coming toward him, and said, "Behold, the Lamb of God, who takes away the sin
of the world! ... and he looked at Jesus as he walked by and said, "Behold, the
Lamb of God!"" (John 1:29,36). To understand this symbolism would involve a
study in the atonement.
Salam 3laikum
No problem. If the Quran does not teach this, then its better not to speculate. I had hopedformat_quote Originally Posted by Indian Bro
someone could give some timelines for 2:47 so I could seek more clarification.
I just wanted to mention that Jesus was the only sinless person, based on what isWe Muslims believe Prophet Muhammad (PBUH) was *ALSO *a sinless person, do we worship him? What was the point of mentioning that?
mentioned in the scriptures. This would make Christ the lamb without blemish.
Maybe I should clarify. John the Baptist referred to Christ as the Lamb of God because heI feel you are being a hypocrite if you chose to refer to "Lamb of God" as symbolic but when Jesus (PBUH) referred to Allah (s.w.t.) as "Father" you take it in a literal sense. Who decides what is symbolic and what should be taken in a literal sense?
represented/symbolized the lamb who would be literally sacrificed for the atonement. We
believe, as the scriptures teach, that Jesus is the Son of the Father, but not in a
procreated/sexual way. We don't attribute a son to God in this way. Mormons teach
that God has a wife and that Jesus was his first spirit child, but I don't believe this.
From history, I know that God did not specifically send any prophets to countries like France,However, God showed himself in the form of a human to the Jews (who, as we mutually agree, were sinners). From this observation one can conclude that God showed the biggest form of "preference" imaginable, by coming down on Earth himself and revealing himself!
Spain, and Portugal to warn them of pending destruction for disobeying the Mosaic Law or
other sayings of God but we do have the writings of some of the Christian evangelists that
eventually went to Europe to preach. They were commissioned to do so by Jesus. According
to the Bible, there is salvation in Christ's atoning work. The period of Law had become the
period of Grace For example, the teachings of Buddhism do not save me because Christ has
already saved me.
You see, when we hear that Jesus is referred to as the Messiah, there is not a scenario
where Jesus is a Jewish Messiah, and there another Messiah for Russia, and yet another
French Messiah (for examples) ... Jesus is the only one called Messiah in the scriptures.
Would you object to God's preference if the incarnation in Jesus was the method he chose
and in the lineage he chose? If yes, why? If no, then would you have preferred that he had
come in the lineage of Ishmael instead or some other nationality (like Japanese)? And why?
Thanks,
Jim
Sorry but I don't understand the correlation between a lamb and a person being sinless. My point was, if Jesus (PBUH) did commit a sin then Christianity wouldn't exist today because no one would regard him as a God, but we Muslims also believe that Muhammad (PBUH) was sinless, so does this mean, according to you, that Muslims should regard Muhammad (PBUH) as a God?format_quote Originally Posted by theplains
After reading this part, I find the relationship you define between Jesus (PBUH) and the Father very confusing. Can you please provide verses from the Bible that establish what relationship Jesus (PBUH) has with the Father?Maybe I should clarify. John the Baptist referred to Christ as the Lamb of God because he
represented/symbolized the lamb who would be literally sacrificed for the atonement. We
believe, as the scriptures teach, that Jesus is the Son of the Father, but not in a
procreated/sexual way. We don't attribute a son to God in this way. Mormons teach
that God has a wife and that Jesus was his first spirit child, but I don't believe this.
Can you provide evidence for this claim? Unless you think countries were having names such as France, Spain, Portugal since the days of Adam (PBUH) then there is no need to.From history, I know that God did not specifically send any prophets to countries like France,
Spain, and Portugal to warn them
I would never object to what God would ever do, I only ask questions for my doubts and if they go unanswered I'll continue to live without worries because God knows better than all of us, who am I to question the Almighty? I feel uncomfortable with the idea that God would come down to Earth for ONE PARTICULAR community of ONE PARTICULAR time, especially when that community is a group of sinners. I feel it's the biggest injustice imaginable to the entire mankind and especially to Prophets like Moses (PBUH) who asked God to show Himself, but God didn't do so.Would you object to God's preference if the incarnation in Jesus was the method he chose
and in the lineage he chose? If yes, why? If no, then would you have preferred that he had
come in the lineage of Ishmael instead or some other nationality (like Japanese)? And why?
Why did God appear specifically to the Hebrews? Because they invented the God and created the religion. Other Gods appeared to other cultures. Christians say God appeared to Jews simply because it is a spin off religion. Nothing more to it. No mystery to be solved.
Peace be with you Pygoscelis,format_quote Originally Posted by Pygoscelis
I'm sorry but you need to clarify your statement. Are you implying that no one worshiped the same God the Jews worshiped before "Judaism" was formed? Can you provide evidence for this.
Salam 3laikum
format_quote Originally Posted by theplainsGreetings Jim,format_quote Originally Posted by theplains
Did God come down or did he send Jesus(as)?
its because the jews were always clever.format_quote Originally Posted by Pygoscelis
...it was a joke btw.. but a good an answer as any.
wow such a racist and still present stereotype.
hehe.. tawba.
maybe its because they were always being persecuted? im just guessing, i have no knowledge of jewish history.
i mean its like saying why does such a country have the best scientists?
its usually because they have invested a lot into science.
and other factors.
i dont actually know why god chose the jews but i think as long as you base your answer on physical bodies, flesh and bone.
you fail to grasp the creator and the covenants made with him.
actually just re-read the thread title and realised it was a jesus AS topic.
you could have easily said why was moses AS sent to the pharaoh?
Last edited by M.I.A.; 02-03-2013 at 03:56 PM.
Hello again.format_quote Originally Posted by Indian Bro
It is a little complicated to explain if you don't understand the Old Testament sacrifices
of a lamb without blemish. Jesus is the Passover lamb, commemorating the passover feast
of the Old Testament in the exodus of the Israelites from Egypt.
In addition, there would be no Christianity without the resurrection. If the resurrection isMy point was, if Jesus (PBUH) did commit a sin then Christianity wouldn't exist today because no one would regard him as a God,
not true, Christianity falls.
What do you base your belief on?but we Muslims also believe that Muhammad (PBUH) was sinless,
Are you familiar with the software called ESword? It's very good at doingAfter reading this part, I find the relationship you define between Jesus (PBUH) and the Father very confusing. Can you please provide verses from the Bible that establish what relationship Jesus (PBUH) has with the Father?
searches. Another good website I use for questions is gotquestions dot org.
The Muslim-questions dot html page has many common questions that Muslims
ask.
I'll give a few verses that I found:
a) The Bible clearly teaches that it was “the Son” who created all things, thus strongly implying that Christ was the Son of God at the time of creation (Col. 1:13,16; Heb. 1:2).
b) The Bible teaches that the Son has eternally existed in the bosom of the Father. John 1:18 translated literally from the Greek says this: “No man hath seen God at any time; the only begotten Son, THE ONE EVER BEING (existing) IN THE BOSOM OF THE FATHER, He hath declared Him.”
c) The many passages which speak of the Father SENDING the Son all imply that Christ existed as the Son prior to His mission (1 John 4:10,14; John 20:21; Gal. 4:4; etc.).
d) The parable of the vineyard owner (Mark 12:1-12) points to Christ as being the Son prior to His coming into the world. In the parable, the son of the vineyard owner was the son long before he was sent on his mission.
e) God gave His Son (John 3:16), implying that Christ was God's Son before He was given. God the Father did not give One who would become His Son, but He gave One who already was His Son.
f) Christ had a relationship to the Father prior to the incarnation. John 16:28 teaches that Christ came forth from the Father, strongly implying that there was a Father/Son relationship before He came into this world. John 17:5,24 also indicates that there was a Father/Son relationship in the Godhead even before the creation of the world.
g) The One who existed as the Son of God became the Son of David at the time of the incarnation (Rom. 1:3-4). The incarnation is when God became a man, it is not when God became the Son. He was God's Son from all eternity.
h) Even in the Old Testament period we find evidence that God indeed had a Son, such as Proverbs 30:4 and Psalm 2:7-12 (compare also Daniel 3:25; Isaiah 9:6).
i) Melchisedec was a type of the Son of God because He was “without father, without mother, without descent, having neither beginning of days, nor end of life” (Heb. 7:3). As to His humanity Christ did have a mother, a genealogy, beginning of days, an end of His life (He died!), etc. His divine Sonship, however, has nothing to do with human parents, human lineage, human birth, or time measurements. It is an eternal Sonship.
I cannot. But I do not see records that God send prophets specifically to these countries.Can you provide evidence for this claim? Unless you think countries were having names such as France, Spain, Portugal since the days of Adam (PBUH) then there is no need to.
I suppose God being incarnated in a man could happen as many times as He wished, butI would never object to what God would ever do, I only ask questions for my doubts and if they go unanswered I'll continue to live without worries because God knows better than all of us, who am I to question the Almighty? I feel uncomfortable with the idea that God would come down to Earth for ONE PARTICULAR community of ONE PARTICULAR time, especially when that community is a group of sinners. I feel it's the biggest injustice imaginable to the entire mankind and especially to Prophets like Moses (PBUH) who asked God to show Himself, but God didn't do so.
we don't have a record that this happened to a man as evidenced by his life and miracles,
etc. We do have Greek and Roman mythology but they are long ago extinct (except for
some remnants in our naming of months and planets).
It is recorded, "But when Jesus heard that, he said unto them, They that be whole need
not a physician, but they that are sick ... When Jesus heard it, he saith unto them, They
that are whole have no need of the physician, but they that are sick: I came not to call
the righteous, but sinners to repentance".
To understand why Jesus came in the line of the Jews, you need to understand the
covenant God established in Abraham through Isaac. This is what the Bible speaks
about.
If God became incarnated in a man, would you expect him to come to a community
that are sinners or who are sinless?
Thanks,
Jim
So Jesus (PBUH) is the Father, the Son, the Holy Spirit and the Lamb?format_quote Originally Posted by theplains
How can God commit a sin? The resurrection is irrelevant if you're worshiping a God that sins.In addition, there would be no Christianity without the resurrection. If the resurrection is
not true, Christianity falls.
Read more here: http://www.islamqa.com/en/ref/1684What do you base your belief on?
So from all these quotes, a logical Christian can derive that the Father and the Son were separate and not one. Then why do Christians believe that the son and the father are both one?Are you familiar with the software called ESword? It's very good at doing
searches. Another good website I use for questions is gotquestions dot org.
The Muslim-questions dot html page has many common questions that Muslims
ask.
I'll give a few verses that I found:
a) The Bible clearly teaches that it was “the Son” who created all things, thus strongly implying that Christ was the Son of God at the time of creation (Col. 1:13,16; Heb. 1:2).
b) The Bible teaches that the Son has eternally existed in the bosom of the Father. John 1:18 translated literally from the Greek says this: “No man hath seen God at any time; the only begotten Son, THE ONE EVER BEING (existing) IN THE BOSOM OF THE FATHER, He hath declared Him.”
c) The many passages which speak of the Father SENDING the Son all imply that Christ existed as the Son prior to His mission (1 John 4:10,14; John 20:21; Gal. 4:4; etc.).
d) The parable of the vineyard owner (Mark 12:1-12) points to Christ as being the Son prior to His coming into the world. In the parable, the son of the vineyard owner was the son long before he was sent on his mission.
e) God gave His Son (John 3:16), implying that Christ was God's Son before He was given. God the Father did not give One who would become His Son, but He gave One who already was His Son.
f) Christ had a relationship to the Father prior to the incarnation. John 16:28 teaches that Christ came forth from the Father, strongly implying that there was a Father/Son relationship before He came into this world. John 17:5,24 also indicates that there was a Father/Son relationship in the Godhead even before the creation of the world.
g) The One who existed as the Son of God became the Son of David at the time of the incarnation (Rom. 1:3-4). The incarnation is when God became a man, it is not when God became the Son. He was God's Son from all eternity.
h) Even in the Old Testament period we find evidence that God indeed had a Son, such as Proverbs 30:4 and Psalm 2:7-12 (compare also Daniel 3:25; Isaiah 9:6).
i) Melchisedec was a type of the Son of God because He was “without father, without mother, without descent, having neither beginning of days, nor end of life” (Heb. 7:3). As to His humanity Christ did have a mother, a genealogy, beginning of days, an end of His life (He died!), etc. His divine Sonship, however, has nothing to do with human parents, human lineage, human birth, or time measurements. It is an eternal Sonship.
We're going really off-topic, let's stick to this particular part of the discussion. Why do you want to get to specifics, were these countries named as they are today since the creation of the Earth? I don't believe in incarnation of God, that's what the Hindus and others believe in and it's totally illogical to me, it defeats the purpose of life and doesn't make sense at ALL. The same way we agree that God CANNOT lie, I believe God CANNOT take the form of a human because human is a creation. I'm not here to discuss incarnation, you can make another thread about it and we'll discuss it there, I want to know why God chose one community of sinners over the rest of mankind and you still haven't answered my question. If you don't have the answer it's fine, I'm just curious.I cannot. But I do not see records that God send prophets specifically to these countries.
I suppose God being incarnated in a man could happen as many times as He wished, but
we don't have a record that this happened to a man as evidenced by his life and miracles,
etc. We do have Greek and Roman mythology but they are long ago extinct (except for
some remnants in our naming of months and planets).
It is recorded, "But when Jesus heard that, he said unto them, They that be whole need
not a physician, but they that are sick ... When Jesus heard it, he saith unto them, They
that are whole have no need of the physician, but they that are sick: I came not to call
the righteous, but sinners to repentance".
To understand why Jesus came in the line of the Jews, you need to understand the
covenant God established in Abraham through Isaac. This is what the Bible speaks
about.
If God became incarnated in a man, would you expect him to come to a community
that are sinners or who are sinless?
Thanks,
Jim
The answer to your question, I wouldn't expect God to incarnate at all. If God didn't show himself to Moses (PBUH) who was a saint, why would He show himself to sinners? Is God more Just to the sinner than to the doers of good?
I don't understand this question. Surely you could as easily ask, why was Muhammad sent specifically to another particular community (the Arabs)? Why do you find one logical but not the other?format_quote Originally Posted by Indian Bro
Hide
Looks like you're enjoying the discussion, but you're not signed up for an account.
Posting Permissions
Bookmarks