Islam has copied (say the Christians and the Jews)

[جوري]

Any who disregard the OT as a book from which to take guidance aren't listening to the Church's teaching regarding the OT.

Then why aren't you living like Jews and following Jewish laws?

 

[Ğħαrєєвαħ]

Well, I guess that I still don't understand the point you are trying to make then. How does throwing all Bibles and Qur'ans into the ocean help us to evaluate which one is (or, for that matter, isn't) guarded?

Does "not" exist ring a bell?

When they are thrown or burnt they dont "exist" unless you have them memorised!

It helps a lot, the word will still be re written and passed onto the next generation whereas if theres nothing memorise then that message will not be passed on. So if its not memorised, how would you expect the message to go on.

Do you understand now? :-\

If you still do not understand, feel free to ignore :-\

 

[YusufNoor]

Asked and answered. This point is meaningless.
First, no true prophet would ever have to testify regarding himself that he was a prophet: Jesus said, "If I testify about myself, my testimony is not valid" (John531). So, if you think that Jesus sounds like a prophet, understand that the words of Jesus basically mean that Muhammad could not be a prophet for he testified with regard to himself.

Second, there are many who testified with regard to Jesus. Among them John the Baptist, Thomas, Peter, Paul, and even God himself.

Third, when people treated any of the disciples like God, they all refused such treatment. When people treated Jesus this way, he accepted it. If he was just a prophet, he was a poor one for accepting such acts.

Fourth, whether Jesus ever used the words "I am God" or not we will never actually know. He may have, for not all of his words are recorded in the scriptures. But even if he didn't (and I expect that if he had they would have been recorded), his actions and the things he did say were understand by those around him to be equivalent to him to have made divine claims for himself. He claimed to forgive sins. He referred to himself as being one with the Father. He declared, "before Abraham was, I am." These things led others to accuse him of blasphemy for equating himself with God. When asked to recant such accusations, he did not, but accepted them.

Fifth, Jesus pointedly asked people to receive from him what only God has the ability to offer -- life.


Sixth, Jesus claims to possess a position alongside God in a way that no Muslim would ever be able to either acknowledge of any human, and that no one who was a true prophet and only a prophet would ever claim:

Seventh, Jesus never says that he is NOT God. And though Jesus may not have said "I am God" in so many words, others did say that of him (see Thomas' confession in John 20:28), and Jesus praised them for it.

Also, the scriptures record God saying that Jesus is God, see Hebrews 1:8.


You can argue all you want from an Islamic perspective that Jesus is not God, that God has no partners. But you have to stay with the Islamic scriptures to maintain that point. The Christian scriptures say otherwise. And if you try to twist them into saying that Jesus was only a prophet of Islam, then he is the most intersting prophet of Islam claiming that God was a Father, that God has a Son, and that somehow not only was he a partner of God, but that he invited his disciples (who are clearly human) to become partners of God as well and to one day not just join him in paradise, but to even share in God's glory.

First, no true prophet would ever have to testify regarding himself that he was a prophet: Jesus said, "If I testify about myself, my testimony is not valid" (John531). So, if you think that Jesus sounds like a prophet, understand that the words of Jesus basically mean that Muhammad could not be a prophet for he testified with regard to himself.

would EVER...

22Then came the Feast of Dedication at Jerusalem. It was winter, 23and Jesus was in the temple area walking in Solomon's Colonnade. 24The Jews gathered around him, saying, "How long will you keep us in suspense? If you are the Christ,[c] tell us plainly."

25Jesus answered, "I did tell you, but you do not believe. The miracles I do in my Father's name speak for me, 26but you do not believe because you are not my sheep. 27My sheep listen to my voice; I know them, and they follow me. 28I give them eternal life, and they shall never perish; no one can snatch them out of my hand. 29My Father, who has given them to me, is greater than all[d]; no one can snatch them out of my Father's hand. 30I and the Father are one.

so, in your "professional" opinion, when the author of John wrote that Jesus DID, in fact testify about himself, "i did tell you [that i am the Christ]",who is lying, the author of John or Jesus?

furthermore, when Jesus says, according to the author of John, "I and the Father are one" then according to you, his testimony is not valid? who is wrong, the author of John, Jesus, or you?

and in John 8:51, a verse that YOU use to claim divinity for Jesus, he says, according to the author of John, "58"I tell you the truth," Jesus answered, "before Abraham was born, I am!" 59At this, they picked up stones to stone him, but Jesus hid himself, slipping away from the temple grounds."

here, where, according to Preachers like you, Jesus is testifying that he IS god, we must "in your professional opinion," dismiss either him or the author of John as there is NO WAY according to you and the same author of John that Jesus would EVER testify about himself!

dang, you have a very confusing religion!

chow baby

 

[جوري]

. so, in your "professional" opinion, when the author of John wrote that Jesus DID, in fact testify about himself, "i did tell you [that i am the Christ]",who is lying, the author of John or Jesus?

It would be so nice if our dear forum falwell/err grace and perhaps his chia pet Hugo would answer directly, I am tired of the nitwitted mazes they take us through when at a loss for something sensible or sensical to write!

 

[Grace Seeker]

would EVER...



so, in your "professional" opinion, when the author of John wrote that Jesus DID, in fact testify about himself, "i did tell you [that i am the Christ]",who is lying, the author of John or Jesus?

Good catch. It appears that I was probably too hasty in my interpretation and application of John 5:31. I regret the error.

 

[titus]

Then why aren't you living like Jews and following Jewish laws?

Even as someone who is not a Christian I know the answer to that question. It is an involved answer so I would recommend researching it for yourself. It is too complicated to answer in a short message board post.

But then I don't believe your reason for asking the question was for the correct answer anyway, and you wouldn't accept it if it was offered to you.

 

[جوري]

Even as someone who is not a Christian I know the answer to that question. It is an involved answer so I would recommend researching it for yourself. It is too complicated to answer in a short message board post. But then I don't believe your reason for asking the question was for the correct answer anyway, and you wouldn't accept it if it was offered to you.

is there more than one correct answer to the question? or a set of 'intentions' these books supposedly aren't sent down in idle play, if they are the 'word of god' or 'inspired' by god, and we are speaking of the same god, then that same god shouldn't have a complete change of heart, one day I am ruthless and the next I am self-immolating.. if you truly want to consider a 'lump sum' then be prepared to take it in totality and not discard when suits you and add it when suits you!

all the best

 

[aadil77]

Every church that I have visited used the OT extensively. Whether it be to teach the stories of creation, Noah, Moses, Abraham, David, etc or to get inspiration from Psalms. The OT is very much an important and essential part of Christian belief.

some christians dismiss those stories as 'fairy tales', they dismiss the laws of the OT as 'barbaric'

most will disregard the laws of the OT as only applicable to 'jews'

 

[Grace Seeker]

is there more than one correct answer to the question? or a set of 'intentions' these books supposedly aren't sent down in idle play, if they are the 'word of god' or 'inspired' by god, and we are speaking of the same god, then that same god shouldn't have a complete change of heart, one day I am ruthless and the next I am self-immolating.. if you truly want to consider a 'lump sum' then be prepared to take it in totality and not discard when suits you and add it when suits you!

all the best

Actually I think that in one sense we do see a change in the way God chose to relate to the world. I'm sure that there are even some Christians who will be appalled by that, but there is more than one case in scriptures of God relenting of his plans and changing them to fit changing circumstances.

Originally God desired to live in fellowship and communion with mankind. But things changed. Adam and Eve sinner and their sin prevented them from having the relationship with God that he desired to have with them. So, given a changed situation regarding humanity, God also changed the manner in which he connected with humanity. He chose and focused on Abraham and his progeny.

The children of Israel (Israel being the grandson of Abraham) were called to be a light to the nations, and he made covenant with them that he would be their God and they would be his people. That covenant never applied to all people, but only to the Jews. In time God would lift up from this nation that was to be a light to all nations, a single light who would be the light for the entire world, not just one small part of it. That light is Jesus.

God would not ask all others to become identified as Jews in order to receive this light. And so he made a covenant, one that is not through the nation Israel or through the regulations written for Jews, but one that is for all who might be reconciled in their relationship with God through Jesus. Those who experience this reconciliation are made fully heirs of God's spiritual promise without having to be biological heirs of Abraham.

So the old covenant is neither made null and void nor abrogated, rather it is found to no longer be exclusive. There is a new covenant, and in that new way of relating to God through Christ knowledge of God's long history of interacting with the people of the old covenant continues to serve to provide guidance, but it is not binding upon those who were never a part of that covenant to begin with and who connect with God through a completely different covenant of their own.

 

[جوري]

Actually I think that in one sense we do see a change in the way God chose to relate to the world. I'm sure that there are even some Christians who will be appalled by that, but there is more than one case in scriptures of God relenting of his plans and changing them to fit changing circumstances.

Originally God desired to live in fellowship and communion with mankind. But things changed. Adam and Eve sinner and their sin prevented them from having the relationship with God that he desired to have with them. So, given a changed situation regarding humanity, God also changed the manner in which he connected with humanity. He chose and focused on Abraham and his progeny.

The children of Israel (Israel being the grandson of Abraham) were called to be a light to the nations, and he made covenant with them that he would be their God and they would be his people. That covenant never applied to all people, but only to the Jews. In time God would lift up from this nation that was to be a light to all nations, a single light who would be the light for the entire world, not just one small part of it. That light is Jesus.

God would not ask all others to become identified as Jews in order to receive this light. And so he made a covenant, one that is not through the nation Israel or through the regulations written for Jews, but one that is for all who might be reconciled in their relationship with God through Jesus. Those who experience this reconciliation are made fully heirs of God's spiritual promise without having to be biological heirs of Abraham.

So the old covenant is neither made null and void nor abrogated, rather it is found to no longer be exclusive. There is a new covenant, and in that new way of relating to God through Christ knowledge of God's long history of interacting with the people of the old covenant continues to serve to provide guidance, but it is not binding upon those who were never a part of that covenant to begin with and who connect with God through a completely different covenant of their own.

again, considering your god was only sent to the lost sheep of Israel as per your bible Matthew 15:24
http://bible.cc/matthew/15-24.htm
I am at a loss as to why any other addendum would be construed as anything but a contradiction to these alleged words of that same god.. and if that is the case, then there is no new or old covenant, there is only one, now discarded in favor of laws that are pretty similar to those practiced by the pagans.. That is just what is visible to the naked eye.. Again, if you are not practicing the 'old covenant' and it is exclusive to that nation, then you can't really call them one in the same, they are mutually exclusive. And mutually exclusive don't belong in the same set for padding.. I don't for instance use ibn sina's books on anatomy when we have netter's and call them one big book simply because the word anatomy is shared. They are mutually exclusive books that target different audience!

all the best

 

[Grace Seeker]

again, considering your god was only sent to the lost sheep of Israel as per your bible Matthew 15:24
http://bible.cc/matthew/15-24.htm

You've accepted a fallacious understanding of the application of that passage.

I am at a loss as to why any other addendum would be construed as anything but a contradiction to these alleged words of that same god.. and if that is the case, then there is no new or old covenant, there is only one, now discarded in favor of laws that are pretty similar to those practiced by the pagans.. That is just what is visible to the naked eye.. Again, if you are not practicing the 'old covenant' and it is exclusive to that nation, then you can't really call them one in the same, they are mutually exclusive. And mutually exclusive don't belong in the same set for padding.. I don't for instance use ibn sina's books on anatomy when we have netter's and call them one big book simply because the word anatomy is shared. They are mutually exclusive books that target different audience!

all the best

Irrelevant.

aadil had made the statement that Christians disregard the OT as a book to take guidance from, and asserted that they only refer to the NT. No one is denying that some behave that way. But I (and even titus who does not identify himself as a Christian) noted that such behavior is contrary to the general teaching and practices of the church. That you consider such a practice an internal contradiction vis-a-vis the practices and theology of the church, or even if the OT and the NT can somehow be shown to be completely and totally mutually exclusive, it doesn't change the reality that Christians don't disregard the OT and do take (at least some) guidance from it. Indeed, the character of Christianity (in both the first century and the 21st century) would be radically changed without the many significant influences exercised by the OT upon one's understanding and the practice of our common Christian faith.

 

[جوري]

You've accepted a fallacious understanding of the application of that passage.

That is what your scriptures offer, and it is unfortunate to cherry pick which parts are fallacious, which are literal, and which are essential, given that at the end of the day, the most fallacious farce of all is the very fulcrum of your beliefs.. a triple headed mangod who died!

Irrelevant.

aadil had made the statement that Christians disregard the OT as a book to take guidance from, and asserted that they only refer to the NT. No one is denying that some behave that way. But I (and even titus who does not identify himself as a Christian) noted that such behavior is contrary to the general teaching and practices of the church. That you consider such a practice an internal contradiction vis-a-vis the practices and theology of the church, or even if the OT and the NT can somehow be shown to be completely and totally mutually exclusive, it doesn't change the reality that Christians don't disregard the OT and do take (at least some) guidance from it. Indeed, the character of Christianity (in both the first century and the 21st century) would be radically changed without the many significant influences exercised by the OT upon one's understanding and the practice of our common Christian faith.

Br. Yusuf I believe offered you quite an extensive piece on OT beliefs and laws, none which you are in keeping with, your understanding of the God of the OT isn't the same as those who in fact follow it, nor is your understanding or religious practices anything at all to do with the OT..Sadly you are only deluding yourself and for all the wrong reasons..

all the best

 

[FS123]

I recommend Dr Lang's book even angels ask. He goes in detail over comparison of same things mentioned in Bible and Quran. On the surface, they look same but on close inspection there are subtle differences, but those are important -- and as one goes through them it becomes more apparent they are copied or they have same original source "God."

 

[titus]

That is what your scriptures offer, and it is unfortunate to cherry pick which parts are fallacious, which are literal, and which are essential

It's not any more unfortunate or ridiculous, to someone who is not Christian or Muslim, than cherry picking which Hadith are real and having to become a scholar to understand them (and then having those scholars disagree). Many religions have such ambiguities and differences in interpretation, including Christianity and Islam.

After all, if Islam was so clear then there would be sects, and if Christianity were so clear then there would be no denominations.

 

[جوري]

It's not any more unfortunate or ridiculous, to someone who is not Christian or Muslim, than cherry picking which Hadith are real and having to become a scholar to understand them (and then having those scholars disagree). Many religions have such ambiguities and differences in interpretation, including Christianity and Islam.

After all, if Islam was so clear then there would be sects, and if Christianity were so clear then there would be no denominations.

85~90% of muslims are sunnis (traditional) Islam is very clear, there are no ambiguities, except for those who desire for whatever reason to be shiites (factions) it is their problem and not a problem with the religion of Islam given that we all have the same Quran and the scholars have had the painstaking task to preserve the tradition!

Now, I am a little confused, do you follow any religion to be so emotionally invested in what is written or just hate to be wrong about the OT/NT fiasco? after all if they were one in the same, the it wouldn't be called OT/NT it would simply be called under one title the Pentateuch or whatever, and uniformly followed. God would be a monotheistic god, and would have no need to descend into the middle east to self-immolate and then figure he had a lapse of judgment so voila he'll fix it by appearing to paul, not a chosen apostle no, but a self-proclaimed one and then abrogate his commandments.. That doesn't sound to the rest of the world as the same god, nor do they follow the same traditions, nor do they keep the same laws.. basically what it is, is a book to tally up the count of pages so that you don't come across as well wrong!

all the best

 

[Grace Seeker]

That is what your scriptures offer, and it is unfortunate to cherry pick which parts are fallacious, which are literal, and which are essential, given that at the end of the day, the most fallacious farce of all is the very fulcrum of your beliefs.. a triple headed mangod who died!

I didn't say that the text was fallacious. I said your particular interpretation and application of the text was.


You've many times argued that Christians shouldn't try to interpret Islamic texts because we don't understand them well enough to arrive at the proper understanding of what they mean. Perhaps you might consider applying that same logic that you claim Islam is so famous for in reverse.

 

[GreyKode]

After all, if Islam was so clear then there would be sects, and if Christianity were so clear then there would be no denominations.

This statement truly shows your ignorance, christians differ on whether jesus(pbuh) is god / son of god / eternal/ not eternal / was-is God etc, which seem to be fundamental differences.

Do you even know what sunni and shia muslims differ about?

Anywaaaaay,

Since you claim to be knowledgeable in both the Qur'an and the bible, why don't you directly address the issue of jesus(pbuh)'s prophethood and explain to us the discrepancy?
What does the verse under discussion mean to you? Does it say he was sent to the lost sheep of Israel or not?

And I agree with sister gossamer, why don't you identify your religion to all of us?

 

[جوري]

I didn't say that the text was fallacious. I said your particular interpretation and application of the text was.


You've many times argued that Christians shouldn't try to interpret Islamic texts because we don't understand them well enough to arrive at the proper understanding of what they mean. Perhaps you might consider applying that same logic that you claim Islam is so famous for in reverse.

There is nothing left to interpret or spin with such definite adverbs like 'Only'

all the best

 

[Grace Seeker]

This statement truly shows your ignorance, christians differ on whether jesus(pbuh) is god / son of god / eternal/ not eternal / was-is God etc, which seem to be fundamental differences.

No. Christians don't disagree on this. It would be more correct to say that some of those who identify themselves as Christians disagree on this. For instance, the only person on this board to identify him/herself as a Christian but who differs from all the rest of us as to whether or not Jesus is God is Hiroshi. And, in his opinion, none of the rest of us who identify ourselves as Christian are in fact Christian. So, pick a group that you consider to be Christian (either Hiroshi or the rest of us, but not both at the same time) and you will see that Christians do not disagree with one another with regard to whether or not Jesus was God. That belief is part of what identifies a person as a Christian.

Do you even know what sunni and shia muslims differ about?

You do realize that there are others who call themselves Muslims that are neither sunni nor shia. So, what is the non-Muslim to make of them?

 

[جوري]

So, what is the non-Muslim to make of them?

Take 'em under their wings and hype them for political purposes of course.. I mean isn't it obvious?