Islam has copied (say the Christians and the Jews)

[جوري]

Not yet. I thought you were still talking about Paradise.

My point was that Surah 39:42 seems to use the plural form of "nafs" in the same way that that "rooh" might be used.

The Hebrew equivalents of these words (correct me if I am wrong) are nephesh and ruah respectively. Nephesh means "soul" in the sense of a person, an animal, or the life that that person or animal has. Ruah means "spirit" and has a variety of different meanings. In the case of the spirit leaving the body at death, it means the life force: that which animates the body. But this does not imply that it continues conscious existence without the body after death. I say this just to explain my own viewpoint on "soul" and "spirit".

nafs isn't the plural for rooh, I have no idea what you are going on about?
here read a little!

http://www.ezsoftech.com/akram/nafs.asp

.. like stated before, if you have a desire to your own rendition, do it as far as your own private scriptures are concerned, but don't teach us Muslims, Arabic or worse yet about your own interpretation of Islam!

funny stuff though..

 

[M.I.A.]

First, there is a difference between knowledge (what one has to know) and faith (what one believes). There is also a difference between knowledge and understanding.

To say that one has to UNDERSTAND the trinity is simply not true. I can know what the essence of the Trinity is, I can even believe it to be true, but that doesn't mean that I understand it. That is why I said that your interpretation of Christianity above was inaccurate.


Second to ask what one needs to know to be a good Christian is going to be different and more demanding than what one needs to know to be a Christian.

Recently I asked different groups of people who all identified themselves as Christians to simply define the term "Christian". I'm still accumulating their responses, but they vary widely. The reason for that variance can, in part, be explained by what one wrote:



And what we find is that what one person considers necessary another does not. Many would accept the Nicene Creed as definitive, but some ask for a little more and some don't need all that is contained therein. But more than a few linked the definition of being a Christian to baptism irregardless of what one actually believed. Hence the list of all that is necessary so as to be sufficient to say this person is a Christian and that person is not is impossible to be agreed upon.

My own list would include the following statements.

A Christian....

...belongs to Christ.
...has placed his/her trust in the work of Christ to effect the restoration of one's spiritual fellowship with God.
...acknowledges Jesus to be BOTH one's Lord AND Savior.
...acknowledges Jesus to be the incarnation of the one and only God come to dwell among us and reconcile we who are separated from him by sin back to himself.
...is a follower of Christ to the extent that the teachings of Jesus and one's ongoing relationship with God are patterned after Jesus' example and this forms one spiritual and moral core.
...is a follower of Jesus to the exclusion of everything and everyone else.
​

i think that making jesus peace and blessings be upon him into the incarnation of god is not a prerequisite to belief, after all jesus peace and blessings be upon him was heart moreso than anything and god is just moreso than anything....i could almost see them being at odds with each other really so i cant take jesus peace and blessings be upon him being the incarnation of god, although he was the will of god personified.

also as a follower of jesus peace and blessings be upon him you have to understand where
he drew revelation from and what he came to reinforce upon the people.
im sure he would not exclude anbody unless they excluded themselves.

So, NOT understanding who you worship is OK in christianity?
I am baffled, frankly. It seems that christianity is stripped off more and more.
At first i thought that following Jesus pbuh teachings was NOT necessary in being saved and attain paradise, but now it seems that even NOT understanding the MOST fundamental of all (ie. who you worship and pray to) is also OK.

YES i would say its A OK in any religion. ours is only to accept wholely and then its up to god to accept.


[/QUOTE]
This is also staggering.
So, NOT accepting god, or parts of god (according to christians) is also OK and still gets you to paradise?[/QUOTE]

 

[Hiroshi]

Al-Bukhaari narrated from Abu Sa’eed al-Khudri (may Allaah be pleased with him) that this man whom the Dajjaal will kill will be one of the best people, who will go out to the Dajjaal from the city of the Messenger of Allaah (peace and blessings of Allaah be upon him), and will say to the Dajjaal, “I bear witness that you are the Dajjaal of whom the Messenger of Allaah (peace and blessings of Allaah be upon him) told us.” The Dajjaal will say (to the people): “What do you think – if I kill this man then bring him back to life, will you have any doubts?” They will say, “No.” So he will kill him, then bring him back to life. Then he (the believing man) will say, “By Allaah, I have never been more sure about you than I am today.” The Dajjaal will want to kill him but will not be permitted to. (al-Bukhaari, no. 6599)

Ok, so you don't believe that enemy of god will be able to bring back the dead to life.
But let's say hypothetically, there will come a person who have that ability, will you worship him as god?

Many thanks for the hadith reference.

I only worship the Creator who is invisible to human eyes. I guess "Dajjaal" must mean anti-Christ.

 

[Hiroshi]

nafs isn't the plural for rooh, I have no idea what you are going on about?
here read a little!

Thank you for the language lesson. I will repeat this one last time. Surah 39:42 speaks of "anfus" that leaves the body at death. It was argued that this word only meant "persons" (that can die). But in that verse it is used in a different way.

 

[Grace Seeker]

That's your scripture.
I am sorry that it can't explain such fundamental point (if not the most fundamental) in the terms that can be understood.

Actually, while the term "begotten" is found in some of the older English translations of the Bible, it is generally not used in more contemporary translations. I would suppose this is because language changes over time and thus connotations associated with the term "begotten" have changed and today it no longer is understood in the same way it originally was. However, to your point -- "That's your scripture." -- the passage I quoted in which the term "begotten" was used is NOT scripture. It was a translation of the Nicene Creed used by the Greek Orthodox Church.

As far as it being explained, they did explain it. When they used the term they specifically said, "begotten, not made". They wanted to emphasize that the Son was not created. All humans are created. But the Son was not created by the Father. And not just was not created, but was "eternally begotten". In other words, there never was a point in time in which the Son did not exist. This is different than the dictionary understanding of "begotten" that you cited.

As far as understanding the above goes, these ideas aren't that difficult, unless you insist on accepting some other particular understanding of the nature of God that you mind has already acceded to. Then your assent to one specific way of thinking may serve to keep you from being able to perceive any other options. I would contend that such a resultant is not a problem of logic, but rather is because of holding to certain apriori assumptions of what God can and cannot do or be. (E.g. "belief in god is a matter of tawheed." That may be a matter of faith within Islam, but if we let God reveal himself we may find that there is more than exactly one way in which unity may be expressed.)

 

[Ğħαrєєвαħ]

I agree. God can resurrect the dead and restore them to life.

Restore life but not in this world but the hereafter!

 

[Ramadhan]

They wanted to emphasize that the Son was not created.

Jesus pbuh was born of Maryam as, wasnt he?

Sounds as created as anything else in this universe to me.

 

[Ramadhan]

As far as understanding the above goes, these ideas aren't that difficult, unless you insist on accepting some other particular understanding of the nature of God that you mind has already acceded to.

Not really, I am only using normal logic that we all have. You yourself previously admitted that it requires complete faith to accept 3-in-1 god, so why do christians get so defensive in insisting that it is normal to accept 3=1?

I would contend that such a resultant is not a problem of logic, but rather is because of holding to certain apriori assumptions of what God can and cannot do or be. (E.g. "belief in god is a matter of tawheed." That may be a matter of faith within Islam, but if we let God reveal himself we may find that there is more than exactly one way in which unity may be expressed.)

Actually, it is you christians who define god as 3-in-1 (although many early christians did not share this view) and it is you christian who defined god in such limited and indignant way as not capable of forgiving human sins but need to split himself into two (or three?) and had to incarnate and created avatar to come down to earth and suffered from his own creation (paganism anyone?).
It is christians who attempted to limit the power of god.
Thanks to paul by the way.


jesus pbuh never said, I am your god
Jesus pbuh never said holy spirit is your god
jesus pbuh never said worship me.

And you will have a lot to answer to God in the hereafter.

 

[ardianto]

Thank you for the language lesson. I will repeat this one last time. Surah 39:42 speaks of "anfus" that leaves the body at death. It was argued that this word only meant "persons" (that can die). But in that verse it is used in a different way.

Al-Abdan wa al-Anfus = The body and soul.

 

[جوري]

Thank you for the language lesson. I will repeat this one last time. Surah 39:42 speaks of "anfus" that leaves the body at death. It was argued that this word only meant "persons" (that can die). But in that verse it is used in a different way.

Do you repeat because you have no desire to read or understand what others are teaching you?
anfus is plural of nafs, be that as it may, how exactly does the 'nafs' die when the body dies? you contradict yourself in fact if I am to forgo the obvious, you have failed to establish the death of the soul, with the death of the body-- so we'll be waiting!

 

[Grace Seeker]

Not really, I am only using normal logic that we all have. You yourself previously admitted that it requires complete faith to accept 3-in-1 god, so why do christians get so defensive in insisting that it is normal to accept 3=1?



Actually, it is you christians who define god as 3-in-1 (although many early christians did not share this view) and it is you christian who defined god in such limited and indignant way as not capable of forgiving human sins but need to split himself into two (or three?) and had to incarnate and created avatar to come down to earth and suffered from his own creation (paganism anyone?).
It is christians who attempted to limit the power of god.
Thanks to paul by the way.


jesus pbuh never said, I am your god
Jesus pbuh never said holy spirit is your god
jesus pbuh never said worship me.

And you will have a lot to answer to God in the hereafter.

It appears that we have gone from discussion to you providing a lecture for me on Christian beliefs and the teachings found in the Bible.

 

[Grace Seeker]

Jesus pbuh was born of Maryam as, wasnt he?

Sounds as created as anything else in this universe to me.

Jesus, yes. But the person of the Son was pre-existant.

 

[tango92]

^ where does the idea of begotten come in then. if jesus is begotten of god, it clearly cant be because he was begotten of mary.

if the son was begotten you contradict "the son was pre-existant" (and many times i hear the christians say the son existed eternally with the father)

 

[Insaanah]

Sorry if I've repeated anything in the thread, but I just thought a comparison here was interesting.

I think you misunderstand me here. In saying, "I know many Christians who would argue that not even acceptance of the Trinity is necessary for salvation." I did not mean to imply that they do not accept God. I was refer to the fact that there are some people who accept that Christ is God and put their faith in him, but they do not accept the theological dogma known as the doctrine of the Trinity as being an accurate description of the nature of God. And it is only some who would argue that idea. Most Christians would expect that to be a Christian involves a statement of faith which includes a credo statement along the lines of:

I believe in one God the Father almighty, Maker of heaven and earth, and of all things visible and invisible.
And in one Lord Jesus Christ, the Son of God, the only-begotten, begotten of the Father before all ages; Light of Light, true God of true God, begotten, not made, of one essence with the Father, by whom all things were made. Who for us men and for our salvation came down from heaven, and was incarnate of the Holy Spirit and the Virgin Mary, and became man; and was crucified also for us under Pontius Pilate, and suffered and was buried; and the third day He rose again according to the Scriptures; and ascended into heaven and sitteth at the right hand of the Father. And He shall come again with glory to judge the living and the dead; of His kingdom there shall be no end. And in the Holy Spirit, the Lord, the Giver of life, Who proceedeth from the Father, Who with the Father and the Son together is worshipped and glorified, Who spake by the prophets. In one Holy Catholic and Apostolic Church; I confess one baptism for the forgiveness of sins; I look for the resurrection of the dead and the life of the age to come. Amen.

If we were to take the above statement of faith, and the Muslim shahaadah, "I bear witness that there is none worthy of worship except Allah, and Muhammad (peace be upon him) is His servant and Messenger" and to add to it that:

• We believe in One God, other than Whom there is none worthy of worship.
  [*]He has no sons, daughters, brothers, grandparents or relatives of any kind. He does not beget, not is He begotten.
  [*]He is not composed of any number of persons, godheads or essences or anything else.
  [*]He is Eternal, Immortal, indivisible.
  [*]He sent messengers and scriptures to guide & warn mankind. We believe in all of those messengers (including Jesus peace be upon him) and the scriptures He gave them

and we gave both of them (as highlighted in purple), to a child or adult (with no prior knowledge of either religion) right now, what would be easier for them to understand? What is simple, logical, and makes sense? What is digestible and easier on the mind?

The beauty of Islam is that we don't have to separate our spiritual selves from our logical selves when it comes to the main beliefs; the concepts make sense.

Why would God give you a concept that people don't understand, can't explain, doesn't make sense, and then tell you that your salvation depends on this concept?

We so wish for you to think outside of the box, with regards to the Christian concept of God, to look at things objectively and with an open mind, and to seriously consider the possibility that God didn't suddenly change the message when it came to Jesus (peace be upon him), with a trinity, but that the message is and was what it always has been since the time of Adam (peace be upon him), the same message given to all the Prophets, culminating in the final Prophet, Muhammad (peace be upon him), which is to worship One God, with no added extraneous complications.

Peace.

 

[Grace Seeker]

^ where does the idea of begotten come in then. if jesus is begotten of god, it clearly cant be because he was begotten of mary.

if the son was begotten you contradict "the son was pre-existant" (and many times i hear the christians say the son existed eternally with the father)

To understand we are going to have to think Greek rather than English. I know that sounds like a difficulty, but surely it is no more out of line to suggest that someone think Greek than to suggest that the only way to understand the Qur'an is to think Arabic.

Our English phrase "only begotten" is a translation of the Greek word monogenes, that literally means "of a single kind," and could even be used in this sense of the Phoenix (as Clement did in his letter, 1 Clement 25:2). And it is also in this sense that it is used in Hebrews 11:17 to refer to Isaac as the monogenes son of Abraham, even though it is well known that Abraham had two sons. That is why to insist on it being a biological reference misses the proper understanding of the term, which is really refering to the uniqueness of the noun to which it is applied.

monogenes is related to the Greek word mono meaning "one", "unique" or "only", and distantly related to gennao meaning "to beget". The present idea of "only begotten" can be traced back to Jerome, who translated the Bible into Latin and used unigenitus for theological rather than proper linguistic reasons. (You will recall I never argue that there is no corruption of the translations we have today, only that they prevent us from getting back to the original meaning.) Such language became embedded in centuries of Catholic tradition, and when the King James was translated, its translators depended on Jerome's work as well, and the term, which is found in the most famous verse of the Bible, John 3:16, became a fixture in English thought as well.

What it truly means, and modern translations try to convey this, is reflectd by theHebrew term yahid used in reference to Isaac in Genesis 22:2, 12, and 16. The meaning of monogenes is centered in the personal existence of the Son, and not in the generation of the Son. Jesus, as the monogenes is the One (and only one) who can say "I and the Father are one [hen esmen]" (John 10:30). monogenes tells us that the Son is included in (not distinct from) the uniquess of God of whom there is none other like him.

Indeed, interestingly, John 1:18 speaks of Christ saying, "No one has ever seen God, but God the only monogenes Son, who is at the Father's side, has made him known." The oldest manuscripts don't read ho monogenes huios (the only Son), but monogenes theos (only God).

So it is that when the Greeks wrote their formulaic understandings of the Christian faith, they asserted the diety of Christ with multiple declarations:

the Son of God,
begotten of the Father [the only-begotten; that is, of the essence of the Father, God of God],
Light of Light,
very God of very God,
begotten, not made,
being of one substance with the Father.
​

And while Muslims today may think that the statement "begotten" implies some sort of creatureliness, that is exactly why they immediate made clear that it didn't with the phrase "not made". Rather, it communicates that Father and Son share one essence, or, in the words of the creed, are "of one substance". The whole creed is focused on the unity and oneness of God.

 

[Yanal]

If Islam has copied,then why do Christians defy it(and people supporting Pastors campaign burn the Quran)?

 

[Hiroshi]

If Islam has copied,then why do Christians defy it(and people supporting Pastors campaign burn the Quran)?

Hi Yanal. Peace.

I would want to distance myself from the idiot Pastor campaigning to burn the Qur'an. But to answer to your question, the charge against the Qur'an is that it has copied accounts from the Bible but sometimes with errors. And also that it has copied things from false legends that are not part of the Bible at all.

 

[Ramadhan]

I would want to distance myself from the idiot Pastor campaigning to burn the Qur'an. But to answer to your question, the charge against the Qur'an is that it has copied accounts from the Bible but sometimes with errors. And also that it has copied things from false legends that are not part of the Bible at all.

the jewish rabbis and priests distorted the true teachings of Ibrahim, Musa and Daud and they changed many accounts in the scriptures, that's why Jesus pbuh was sent to the "lost sheep" of Israel to correct the teachings, and bring back to the real truth, which ruffled the feathers of jewish rabbis/priests/establishments, toi say the least.

Then as soon as after jesus pbuh was raised, the true gospel of Jesus was distorted again by the scribes and priest, especially paul.
Hence the bible consists only third person view of the events of jesus pbuh, not his direct words, and the authors of most books in the bible are unkown and the new testatements were written more than 100 years after jesus pbuh left.
Hence the books in the bible contain so much errors, so many contradictions that even all scholars of bible admit so.
This created confusion regarding creed, and the opinions of the priests who like the idea of god incarnate coming down to earth to pay for human sins very appealing to the masses and they won the day when they forced the idea upon all christians at nicea council hundreds of years after jesus pbuh left, and destroyed other books that truly affirm the absolute oneness of God and make followers of true monotheism in christian heretics.

And after countless of translations, mistranslations that were influenced by the politics of the day, you currently have thousands of versions of bibles each contradicts the others and itself.
Each new set of bible tries to "correct" previous version, resulting in current state christianity creed and practices whic are FAR FAR from those taught by jesus and lead by his examples.

 

[Amat Allah]

the charge against the Qur'an is that it has copied accounts from the Bible but sometimes with errors. And also that it has copied things from false legends that are not part of the Bible at all.

Bible Compared to Quran

 

[Hiroshi]

the jewish rabbis and priests distorted the true teachings of Ibrahim, Musa and Daud and they changed many accounts in the scriptures, that's why Jesus pbuh was sent to the "lost sheep" of Israel to correct the teachings, and bring back to the real truth, which ruffled the feathers of jewish rabbis/priests/establishments, toi say the least.

Then as soon as after jesus pbuh was raised, the true gospel of Jesus was distorted again by the scribes and priest, especially paul.
Hence the bible consists only third person view of the events of jesus pbuh, not his direct words, and the authors of most books in the bible are unkown and the new testatements were written more than 100 years after jesus pbuh left.
Hence the books in the bible contain so much errors, so many contradictions that even all scholars of bible admit so.
This created confusion regarding creed, and the opinions of the priests who like the idea of god incarnate coming down to earth to pay for human sins very appealing to the masses and they won the day when they forced the idea upon all christians at nicea council hundreds of years after jesus pbuh left, and destroyed other books that truly affirm the absolute oneness of God and make followers of true monotheism in christian heretics.

And after countless of translations, mistranslations that were influenced by the politics of the day, you currently have thousands of versions of bibles each contradicts the others and itself.
Each new set of bible tries to "correct" previous version, resulting in current state christianity creed and practices whic are FAR FAR from those taught by jesus and lead by his examples.

This is basically the problem. Clearly, the Bible and the Qur'an are not in agreement. The Christians and Jews say that the Qur'an has copied the Bible but with errors. And the Muslims argue that the Bible is the book with the errors (corrupted over time) whereas the Qur'an is the pure truth sent to correct the Bible.

How can we know who is right?