Misconceptions

[Sojourn]

Peace be with you all,

I hope you don't mind me chimming in here, as I was glancing through the pages to see what folks were writing, and let begin by saying that it's important for all of us to posses a proper and correct understanding of eachother. Westerners have many unfortunate misconceptions about Islam, and those need to be corrected, but it's equally true that Muslims have many misconceptions about Christianity, that that also needs to be corrected. Sometimes people on both sides can be find promoting falsehoods of eachother because the strengthen the originators cause, but this is innappropriate, and even though I am not Muslim I agree with the true verse in the Quran that correctly says Truth stands free from error. It's injust and illogical to promote falsehoods of eachother.

With that said, there are many historically inaccurate statements in this thread, so much so that I don't know where to begin. Let's begin with the office of Pope which one poster commented as a later invention. First the nature of the office, which unlike a Bishop guiding his local province, the Pope has universal jurisdiction which is just a fancy way of saying he has governing and teaching authority all over Christendom. Catholics didn't just invent this idea one day, it goes back to at least two fundemental and clear teachings of the Blessed Lord, who on separate occasions gave St Peter the keys of authority, which are Rabbinical symbols of governance an teaching, recorded in Matthew 11:18, and toward the end of the Lord's earthly mission when he transferred his entire flock under St Peter's care, recorded by John in the 21st chapter of his Gospel account. St Peter alone was given the authority the guide and teach, and the other Apostles shared in that authority through him, and the extent of his authority was over all of Jesus' disciples, which is why you hear the Pope referred to as the "Vicar" of Christ. A vicar is one who governs in place of another, and in this case, it's St Peter and his successors acting as representatives of Christ on Earth, charged with the responsibility of protecting all that the Lord taught and teaching it to all generations. The earliest recorded instance of a successor of Peter exercising universal authority was Pope St Clement of Rome, he was the third Pope of Rome after St Peter and is noted for a letter he wrote to the Corinthians in 96 AD. The Corinthians at the time had rebelled against their bishops, and Clement was writing to them under the inspiriation of God, commanding them to return to order. There are many other examples after this, probably the greatest being Pope St Leo the Great, renowned as a defender of Orthodoxy and the rights of the Papacy. His letters contain some of the clearest and most profound expositions of Papal authority, and his letters were confirmed by Eastern Bishops as well, in fact the East also considers him a Saint! The division in Christendom and rejection of Papal authority began in the newly created See of Constantinople and the ambition of it's so called 'Ecumenical Patriarch' although to review the history of this would force me to go beyond this already lengthy post. Suffice to say that the office of Pope is in fact of Divine institution, and all those who hear the Lord hear his representative.

Peace and blessings

 

[Sojourn]

Re: Ephesians 1:3

And if I make an addendum, to "reverts" and those considering embracing Islam I always have the following questions:

(1) The Quran contains material about Jesus that is only to be found in legendary accounts of his life, circulating centuries after he lived. How did these verses affect your initial view of the Quran as a genuine source about Jesus' life?

(2) The Quran doesn't address the fundamental points of Christianity, Christ' as savior, the crucifixion as atonement, His resurrection, etc, and in other places seems to contain misunderstandings about Christianity, e.g. Mary being part of the trinity. How did these points relate to your own views as a Christian at the time?

(3) The Quran at times explicitly contradicts even what historians have a consensus about, namely that Jesus was executed by crucifixion under Pontius Pilate. Furthermore Islam permits polygamous marriages and divorce, while Jesus taught monagamous marriages that can only be broken by death. Where these points of challenge and how did you overcome them?

(4) Lastly and perhaps crucially Christianity and Islam have different perspectives on our relationship with God. The New Testament is full of references to God's infinite and unconditional love towards his creation, and believers are referred to as adopted children of God. The Quran presents a conditional love, Allah will love you if you love Allah, and the Quranic analogy between God an man is that of master and slave. Did this have any affect on your conversion?


Peace and blessings

 

[Sojourn]

Re: Ephesians 1:3

Btw, I really wish the comparative religion section was open so that we all may have a civil but engaging discussion of such topics!

 

[Scimitar]

Re: Ephesians 1:3

And if I make an addendum, to "reverts" and those considering embracing Islam I always have the following questions:

(1) The Quran contains material about Jesus that is only to be found in legendary accounts of his life, circulating centuries after he lived. How did these verses affect your initial view of the Quran as a genuine source about Jesus' life?

There is material not included in the canon which is strikingly in agreement with the Quranic narrative of Jesus pbuh. If you would like to know what that material is, I can post it here!

You quite trickily mentioned that accounts of Jesus pbuh life post his alleged crucifixion - with a smirk, I respond with, "I had no idea Jesus pbuh had a biographer following him around while he was alive - publishing his life as in daily reports" - see my point? You quickly fall from that premise due to the absurdity of your questioning.

(2) The Quran doesn't address the fundamental points of Christianity, Christ' as savior, the crucifixion as atonement, His resurrection, etc, and in other places seems to contain misunderstandings about Christianity, e.g. Mary being part of the trinity. How did these points relate to your own views as a Christian at the time?

The Quran makes it very clear that Jesus pbuh is not a son of God, and that there is no trinity - except for it being a blasphemy of idolatry. As for Mary being a part of the trinity - that's as much news to me as a Muslim as it is to you as a Christian So no, if anyone is confused, it would be you - I would ask you to bring out the verses from the bible and the Quran to show us exactly where you are finding the problem

(3) The Quran at times explicitly contradicts even what historians have a consensus about, namely that Jesus was executed by crucifixion under Pontius Pilate. Furthermore Islam permits polygamous marriages and divorce, while Jesus taught monagamous marriages that can only be broken by death. Where these points of challenge and how did you overcome them?

Wait - you know how Romans were meticulously known for how they recorded absolutely everything, right? Well - they never recorded the crucifixion of Jesus pbuh, even though Pontius Pilates was integral to the event... but let me humour you anyway,

When Pontius Pilates, the Roman general in charge of Jerusalem, presented Jesus the son of Mary and a notorious criminal names Barabbas to the Jews - he asked them "which of these two criminals shall I set free?" -the Jews chose Barabbas to be set free, and so - apparently, Jesus - was to be crucified - that's the story, right?

Well, if that's the case - why is there no mention of the event in the annals of the Roman general Pontius Pilates - the Romans were known to be meticulous record keepers of absolutely anything and everything - why was this incident not recorded? If any incident deserves to be recorded - then the freeing of barabbas and condemnation of Jesus would have been a prime reason for recording it - where is the historical Jesus here? NOWHERE...

...further... let me humour this anyway and let's assume this event actually did happen... so what's next? right?

let's investigate the name "Barabbas"... in Hebrew, the word Bar - means "Son of" and the word "Abbas" means "father".... so the name Barabbas, means son of the father.

But it gets better - Barabbas was his last name - his first name was "Yehshua" - so in full it would be "Yehshua, Son of the Father"....

...now imagine how it went down.

"Royal Jewry, Ladies and GentleJews (who am In kidding, this was a lynch mob) - In the Blue corner, Jesus the son of God... and in the red corner - Jesus the Son of the Father"....

They claimed they crucified Jesus - but which one really? they themselves don't know it. And were too embarrassed to actually record it as an historical event... why didn't the Jews record it? I mean forget the Romans not recording it - the Jews would have an even better reason to record the crucifixion - but they didn't... all they did was taunt and tease and persecute the early Christians.

In the Quran, surah An Nisaa (the women) verse 157:

"And because of their saying: We slew the Messiah, Jesus son of Mary, Allah's messenger - they slew him not nor crucified him, but it appeared so unto them; and lo! those who disagree concerning it are in doubt thereof; they have no knowledge thereof save pursuit of a conjecture; they slew him not for certain". Pickthall translation

And [for] their saying, "Indeed, we have killed the Messiah, Jesus, the son of Mary, the messenger of Allah ." And they did not kill him, nor did they crucify him; but [another] was made to resemble him to them. And indeed, those who differ over it are in doubt about it. They have no knowledge of it except the following of assumption. And they did not kill him, for certain. - sahih int translation

This is why I love Islam, it is the only thing in this world which has prepared me to find truths... and I am not speaking from bias - I am speaking from the critical approach I have taken towards it.

(4) Lastly and perhaps crucially Christianity and Islam have different perspectives on our relationship with God. The New Testament is full of references to God's infinite and unconditional love towards his creation, and believers are referred to as adopted children of God. The Quran presents a conditional love, Allah will love you if you love Allah, and the Quranic analogy between God an man is that of master and slave. Did this have any affect on your conversion?


Peace and blessings

Well, truth be told, from the reverts I have spoken with - it wasn't an issue because they understood what "unconditional mercy" means and further, know it outperforms "unconditional love" because love is an emotion, whereas "mercy" is the act borne from the emotion of love... and champions it out of its metaphysical state into the physical world - where it has a practical role and not some pent up emotional one.

Muslims are theologically smarter, logically more prepared and ultimately more in tune with the divine Law of God.

As a Christian, I ask you - is God a whimsical God? Because, according to your theology, God was 1 until he decided to give birth to Jesus pbuh through Virgin Mary (RA) - a first in biblical history according to Christians... my question is - why would God, whose Modus Operandi and Prime Motive is to teach mankind that HE IS ONE - the first commandment - throughout history, then change it because some Jews were being silly? The trials of the Jews during the time of Jesus pbuh wasn't so unique that a whole theology had to be re-written, NO... it was human hands which did it in the courts of Constantine the Pagan Pragmatist - and her you are, just accepting without a care or doubt that what you read is "WORD OF GOD" when the reality is, you don't even know who Matthew, Mark, Luke and John - the authors of the NT, were...

...would you trust a book written by an anonymous author? One who didn't leave his or her last name? Further, would you really be so illogical that you'd follow such an author(s) as if they were the be all and all of your religion? Because you are - and that my friend, is what I find quite interesting, how you will keep coming back and insist that Muslim reverts may not have considered such and such a premise, when the reality is, if you as a Christian was considering Islam, you'd have to absolutely sure that the religion of Islam is the right one, and would do absolutely everything in your ability to make sure of it... it's very presumptuous of you to assume that reverts haven't undergone this process.

Look forward to reading you soon

Scimi

 

[Sojourn]

Re: Ephesians 1:3

Peace be with you Scimitar,

There is material not included in the canon which is strikingly in agreement with the Quranic narrative of Jesus pbuh. If you would like to know what that material is, I can post it here!

You quite trickily mentioned that accounts of Jesus pbuh life post his alleged crucifixion - with a smirk, I respond with, "I had no idea Jesus pbuh had a biographer following him around while he was alive - publishing his life as in daily reports" - see my point? You quickly fall from that premise due to the absurdity of your questioning.

I am not sure whether you are a convert to Islam or not but you are welcome to answer anyway. I have to emphasize that I am a Christian, and when reading a book claimed to be a message from a prophet who himself claims to suceed Jesus, it doesn't promote my confidence in his prophethood if the message he bears is full of legendary tales and presents them as history, just as for example you wouldn't take much stock in a biography of Muhammad based on daif hadith.

I'm not quite sure what the second part of your statement means.

The Quran makes it very clear that Jesus pbuh is not a son of God, and that there is no trinity - except for it being a blasphemy of idolatry. As for Mary being a part of the trinity - that's as much news to me as a Muslim as it is to you as a Christian So no, if anyone is confused, it would be you - I would ask you to bring out the verses from the bible and the Quran to show us exactly where you are finding the problem

Chapter 5 verse 116 in the Quran reads very much like including Mary in the Trinity.

Wait - you know how Romans were meticulously known for how they recorded absolutely everything, right? Well - they never recorded the crucifixion of Jesus pbuh, even though Pontius Pilates was integral to the event... but let me humour you anyway,

Whether the Romans were meticulous about there record keeping is one thing, whether the record survived two thousand years later is another. The life expectancy of a piece of paper made in that time period is maybe a century, so the fact that he records are not available does not mean they never existed, just that they did not survive. With that said many Roman historians did briefly record Jesus being executed, and the fact that Jesus was crucified is not even a contention of secular scholars. This really only possess an issue for Muslims because the Quran in *some* places says Jesus was not killed or crucified, but was only "made to appear" to be so. A vague verse if there is one, and many Muslims are in disagreement over what that exactly means. What is your understanding if you don't mind me asking you?

When Pontius Pilates, the Roman general in charge of Jerusalem, presented Jesus the son of Mary and a notorious criminal names Barabbas to the Jews - he asked them "which of these two criminals shall I set free?" -the Jews chose Barabbas to be set free, and so - apparently, Jesus - was to be crucified - that's the story, right?

Well, if that's the case - why is there no mention of the event in the annals of the Roman general Pontius Pilates - the Romans were known to be meticulous record keepers of absolutely anything and everything - why was this incident not recorded? If any incident deserves to be recorded - then the freeing of barabbas and condemnation of Jesus would have been a prime reason for recording it - where is the historical Jesus here? NOWHERE...

Again you seem to be under some mistaken impression that virtually all Roman documents from Judea two-thousand years ago have survived, they have not! In fact, virtually nothing original has survived, so again, arguing that no record existed because nothing has survived is a very weak argument. Even you as a Muslim have to agree that some sort of crucifixion took place, even Ibn Kathir's tafsir on the mysterious passage of Jesus' apparent crucifixion has an apostle of Jesus made to look like him so he could be crucified instead!

Tacitus was a Roman historian writing in the early second century, this is what he had to say in his Annals. Most scholars regard this quote as authentic:

"Consequently, to get rid of the report, Nero fastened the guilt and inflicted the most exquisite tortures on a class hated for their abominations, called Christians by the populace. Christus, from whom the name had its origin, suffered the extreme penalty during the reign of Tiberius at the hands of one of our procurators, Pontius Pilatus, and a most mischievous superstition, thus checked for the moment, again broke out not only in Judæa, the first source of the evil, but even in Rome, where all things hideous and shameful from every part of the world find their centre and become popular. Accordingly, an arrest was first made of all who pleaded guilty; then, upon their information, an immense multitude was convicted, not so much of the crime of firing the city, as of hatred against mankind".

...further... let me humour this anyway and let's assume this event actually did happen... so what's next? right?

It did happen, and unfortunately Muslims are forced to reject it occurring because of a Quranic verse, although I have seen some Muslims attempt to interpret it in a way that allows for Jesus' crucifixion. Again, I am hoping you will offer your own opinion on the cryptic verse in the Quran. Obviously at least an interpretation of the Quran acknowledging Jesus' crucifixion would have to be supported, otherwise the verse would have to be rejected which is of course impossible from a Muslim standpoint.

let's investigate the name "Barabbas"... in Hebrew, the word Bar - means "Son of" and the word "Abbas" means "father".... so the name Barabbas, means son of the father.

But it gets better - Barabbas was his last name - his first name was "Yehshua" - so in full it would be "Yehshua, Son of the Father"....

...now imagine how it went down.

"Royal Jewry, Ladies and GentleJews (who am In kidding, this was a lynch mob) - In the Blue corner, Jesus the son of God... and in the red corner - Jesus the Son of the Father"....

They claimed they crucified Jesus - but which one really? they themselves don't know it. And were too embarrassed to actually record it as an historical event... why didn't the Jews record it? I mean forget the Romans not recording it - the Jews would have an even better reason to record the crucifixion - but they didn't... all they did was taunt and tease and persecute the early Christians.

Are you actually proposing that Barabbas was crucified in Jesus' place as a mixup? That then, for some reason, his followers invented the idea of his crucifixion anyway? And furthermore, the resurrection? And the Romans and Jews didn't notice? This requires extraordinary mental gymnastics of a kind more spectacular than even Ibn Kathir had to employ. If you weren't theologically biased by the Quranic verse that rejects Jesus crucifixion, you would likely follow with most historians and scholars in accepting the obvious, Jesus was crucified.

In the Quran, surah An Nisaa (the women) verse 157:

"And because of their saying: We slew the Messiah, Jesus son of Mary, Allah's messenger - they slew him not nor crucified him, but it appeared so unto them; and lo! those who disagree concerning it are in doubt thereof; they have no knowledge thereof save pursuit of a conjecture; they slew him not for certain". Pickthall translation

And [for] their saying, "Indeed, we have killed the Messiah, Jesus, the son of Mary, the messenger of Allah ." And they did not kill him, nor did they crucify him; but [another] was made to resemble him to them. And indeed, those who differ over it are in doubt about it. They have no knowledge of it except the following of assumption. And they did not kill him, for certain. - sahih int translation

This is why I love Islam, it is the only thing in this world which has prepared me to find truths... and I am not speaking from bias - I am speaking from the critical approach I have taken towards it.

But what truth has been revealed to you about this matter? The great irony of that verse is that Christians unanimously accept Jesus' crucifixion while the Muslims are uncertain of what happened. You yourself introduced another hypothesis, perhaps Barabbas was crucified in his place! I've also heard Muslim apologists claim Jesus was crucified but did not die, that an apostle was made to look him and crucified in his place, that it was a mirage. All sorts of wild speculations have been thrown around, and my question as a Christian to you folks is, why is there no clarity here? Why has the Quran which is a clear book left us with a vague and mysterious verse about what happened to Jesus, one which even Muslim scholars can't agree on?

Well, truth be told, from the reverts I have spoken with - it wasn't an issue because they understood what "unconditional mercy" means and further, know it outperforms "unconditional love" because love is an emotion, whereas "mercy" is the act borne from the emotion of love... and champions it out of its metaphysical state into the physical world - where it has a practical role and not some pent up emotional one.

Love is not just an emotion, and Christ proves this by his suffering atonement. On the other hand, a god that reminds that I am just a slave and that he can render me non existent if I don't follow him, well, let's say it's not as inspiring.

Muslims are theologically smarter, logically more prepared and ultimately more in tune with the divine Law of God.

How are you theologically smarter? Some of the interpretations I read of Allah's foot stool and him ascending heaven don't particularly come across as profound.

As a Christian, I ask you - is God a whimsical God? Because, according to your theology, God was 1 until he decided to give birth to Jesus pbuh through Virgin Mary (RA) - a first in biblical history according to Christians... my question is - why would God, whose Modus Operandi and Prime Motive is to teach mankind that HE IS ONE - the first commandment - throughout history, then change it because some Jews were being silly? The trials of the Jews during the time of Jesus pbuh wasn't so unique that a whole theology had to be re-written, NO... it was human hands which did it in the courts of Constantine the Pagan Pragmatist - and her you are, just accepting without a care or doubt that what you read is "WORD OF GOD" when the reality is, you don't even know who Matthew, Mark, Luke and John - the authors of the NT, were...

I tell you, as a Christian, that you are ignorant of Christian theology. I don't expect a Muslim to know Christianity, obviously, but understand that if you want to level attacks at another religion you have to first know what that religion teaches, and it's never been taught that God was one and then became three. Rather God is one being in three persons, a reality partially revealed in the Old Testament and fully revealed in the New. And the Son wasn't born in time, as if there was a period when only the Father existed, but rather eternally generates from the Father. And this reality is not a piece of philosophy, it's not something someone thought up one day under a lotus flower, it's something that has been revealed to us. If you want to understand what the basis is for our belief I am welcome to share that with you, and I can assure you, it originates with Jesus and not Constantine.

...would you trust a book written by an anonymous author? One who didn't leave his or her last name? Further, would you really be so illogical that you'd follow such an author(s) as if they were the be all and all of your religion? Because you are - and that my friend, is what I find quite interesting, how you will keep coming back and insist that Muslim reverts may not have considered such and such a premise, when the reality is, if you as a Christian was considering Islam, you'd have to absolutely sure that the religion of Islam is the right one, and would do absolutely everything in your ability to make sure of it... it's very presumptuous of you to assume that reverts haven't undergone this process.

You are mistaken, I have assumed that "reverts" have considered the questions I posed, which is why I ask them. These were the very same questions I had after I read the Quran.

Now to return the first point in your paragraph, the answer of course is that the books are not anonymous. The same names have been attached to the same gospels since the beginning, but it would be rather rash to judge an ancient text simply it does not follow modern publishing standards. It's not at all unusual for an ancient text to not include the author and title on a separate page, rather sometimes this was written on a container bearing the scroll or if it was a codex on the side itself. The New Testament was written in living memory of Jesus, witnesses who learned from him and saw him perform miracles were abundant, and we're very fortunate to have a group of writings from this time period. What I personally find interesting, is how some will reject these writings and instead believe that Jesus turned clay birds into living ones because a book appeared five centuries later by a man disassociated from Jesus time and geography said so.


Peace and blessings

 

[Scimitar]

Re: Ephesians 1:3

If the only premise you are relying upon is that a crucifixion took place - then I am not in disagreement with you Sojourn, what I am in disagreement about is "who was crucified".... you say Jesus pbuh, I say No...

...it is historical fact that romans crucified their criminals - that is hardly a bone of contention here - so historically, you are muddled when you claim that you know for sure it was Jesus pbuh - I'm asking "which one?" because Yehshua Bar Abbas has a name which sounds just like your man-god dude... you understand what I am saying here?

Look here Sojourn, I think all this is moving way past your head space - let me simplify it for you, if I may.

Your claim is that the crucifxion of Jesus pbuh is an historical fact - by the very rules you've adopted - I am asking you why you've ignored the idea that a man named Jesus Son of the Father (not son of God) was also present at the sentencing and could very well have been the man who was crucified instead of Jesus pbuh... you mentioned Ibn Kathir (RA) his opinion was that a likeness of Jesus pbuh was put upon another and it was that other who was crucified... leaves you hanging by a thread doesn't it?

You know theology?

Let's test it.

In biblical theology, how does God treat HIS favoured when the odds are stacked against them? Does HE punish them? Does HE leave them to rot and die? No... they (the Prophets pbut) suffered greatly at the hands of the tyrants. Let's think about this brother Sojourn...

...Abraham pbuh got lynched by his own people for preaching 1 GOD, they even tried to burn him alive - yet God saved him - so why then, the double standard for Jesus pbuh? Is your idea of God hypocritical? You don't have even a faintest grasp of theology here do you my friend?

Solomon, was accused of sorcery by his own people, yet God cleared him of the accusations and restored to him his kingdom - he dies a believing man, God saved him. God didn't let his own kith and kin kill him now did he?

Who did kill the prophets though? because we know that many were killed, exiled etc... you know very well who - it was the Jews, who have broken the covenant with God by killing the prophets and messengers sent to them, amongst other things... yet you will excuse the joint bigotry of the Romans and the Jews and instead rant on about how God sacrificed Jesus pbuh?

God does not operate on a double standard, God is not an hypocrite!!! Your claim that HE sacrificed Jesus pbuh by letting the romans and jews crucify him, is also claiming that God is an hypocrite - that itself is blasphemy - so now you see why i feel you are very green around your ears when it comes to true theology? You haven't even begun to explore the deeper connotations of your belief system - and yet you think you can waltz in here and try to understand why ex Christians have chosen Islam? really? You still have a journey ahead of you, bu decide to take a short cut here? Since you're here, let me give you something else to think about.

Tell me, where in the history of monotheism has God ever taken a son, or sacrificed a human being for the betterment of mankind? You know, theologically speaking, your premise for "Jesus was sacrificed by God for our sins" sounds very much like the pagan doctrines of Sol Invictus (romans beliefs) and ancient egyptian myths the likes of which belong in 1001 knights stories... which leads me to my next point - you made a big deal about "sources" claiming that circa C.E. there wasn't much material which has survived until modern day - so why ask me to produce evidence from that time period if you don't believe it exists? I know it does, and can produce it for you, in spades and buckets if you so wish...

Speaking of Sol Invictus (sun worship) you realise there are oft repeated stories throughout history which are not monotheistic in origin and are remarkably very VERY similar to the whole crucifixion myth you keep going on about - you see, Christianity is quite the anti-Christian religion, strictly speaking.

You require an explanation, I understand. Here you go.

The word Christian, comes from Christ, which in turn comes from the greek Christos, which in turn is a translation of the word "Messiah" - which means the following in it's original unmolested context (molested context will follow)

Messiah: The term "messiah" is the translation of the Hebrew term masiah [jyiv'm], which is derived from the verb masah, meaning to smear or anoint. When objects such as wafers and shields were smeared with grease or oil they were said to be anointed; hence the commonly used term was "anoint" when grease or oil was applied to objects by Israelites and non-Israelites. The term "messiah" is not used to refer to "anointed" objects that were designated and consecrated for specific cultic purposes but to persons only. Persons who were anointed had been elected, designated, appointed, given authority, qualified, and equipped for specific offices and tasks related to these. - end!

In Arabic (which is the sister language of Aramaic) the word Masah holds the same meaning - unlike the Greco-Roman *******isation of it.

NOw for the molested context: Christians have an altoghether different meaning for the word Masah (Messiah) to Christians it means "son of God" when the truth is, it means no such thing. This interpolated meaning was added to the term during the canonisation process circa 300 AD - 3 centuries later...

...Your whole premise has holes in it the likes of which make swiss cheese pale in comparison, so next time you try to figure out why ex Christians chose Islam over their inherited faith, just take another look into how your bible was compiled and who were behind it, and where they ended up - and you will have your answer.

Ex Christians have found verses in the bible and the torah the likes of which they agree with, and do not need to question because the theology of those verses is sound and not contradictory. Those Christians read the Quran and found that the very same they agreed with in the OT and NT was also in the Quran and much more that they found agreeable and sound in theology... they also rejected nonsensical theology such as trinity and found the Quran did the same, and it eased their hearts and souls - they then asked God for guidance and HE answered them by instilling a firm faith within their hearts and guiding them to the truth, Islam... I hope that answers your curiosity as to why they chose Islam.


As Muslims, we have a keen radar for nonsense, which is why we reject the illogical, unsound and blasphemical nature of trinity and attract towards the pure monotheism of Abraham, which is alive and well today and known around the world as Islam!!!

Peace be unto you brother Sojourn, come to truth. You're already half way here - you're not here by accident!

Scimi

EDIT: you claim that the sources of the bible checkout sorry that got me chuckling, no offence - please tell me:

Which Matthew

Which Mark

Which Luke

Which John

wrote the NT? because even the top bible scholars are still in argument over that one, preferring to dodge around it instead of tackle it head on.

Want me to post documentaries which expose the fallacy in the bible authorship? I don't want to offend you, but if you make such heinous claims again, I will have to post those videos.

 

[Sojourn]

Re: Ephesians 1:3

Peace be with you,

If the only premise you are relying upon is that a crucifixion took place - then I am not in disagreement with you Sojourn, what I am in disagreement about is "who was crucified".... you say Jesus pbuh, I say No...

...it is historical fact that romans crucified their criminals - that is hardly a bone of contention here - so historically, you are muddled when you claim that you know for sure it was Jesus pbuh - I'm asking "which one?" because Yehshua Bar Abbas has a name which sounds just like your man-god dude... you understand what I am saying here?

Look here Sojourn, I think all this is moving way past your head space - let me simplify it for you, if I may.

Your claim is that the crucifxion of Jesus pbuh is an historical fact - by the very rules you've adopted - I am asking you why you've ignored the idea that a man named Jesus Son of the Father (not son of God) was also present at the sentencing and could very well have been the man who was crucified instead of Jesus pbuh... you mentioned Ibn Kathir (RA) his opinion was that a likeness of Jesus pbuh was put upon another and it was that other who was crucified... leaves you hanging by a thread doesn't it?

You're proposing that perhaps a man was killed in another man's place simply because they shared the first name, sort of like one John Smith going to the electric chair by accident for another, and you actually want me to explain why I never considered this a possibility (?!) Well, ok, I'll help you out. Such a hypothesis is not even scantly possible because Jesus' eyewitness and accusers were present during Pilate's appeal. His witnesses, both ally and enemy, were present during his bearing of the cross to golgotha. They were also present as he hung slowly dying, both crying and cheering his death. They were also present when they took his body down from the tomb, washed it, and prepared it for burial. Does it not seem that at any time, a Roman or Jew would have realized that they executed the wrong John Smith?

The simplest explanation is the easiest, Jesus was crucified, the same Jesus that was scene teaching in the temples, healing the sick, and teaching parables. The *only* reason you reject this reality and have to propose ridiculous theories is because you believe Muhammad to be a prophet, and therefore must accept that a crucifixion did not occur, and that clay birds were made into living ones.

What I ask you, Scimitar, is how you explain the numerous Old Testament prophecies of a Suffering Messiah? One who would *have* to die. Isaiah 53 and Psalm 22 are very powerful witnesses to this reality.

You know theology?

Let's test it.

In biblical theology, how does God treat HIS favoured when the odds are stacked against them? Does HE punish them? Does HE leave them to rot and die? No... they (the Prophets pbut) suffered greatly at the hands of the tyrants. Let's think about this brother Sojourn...

...Abraham pbuh got lynched by his own people for preaching 1 GOD, they even tried to burn him alive - yet God saved him - so why then, the double standard for Jesus pbuh? Is your idea of God hypocritical? You don't have even a faintest grasp of theology here do you my friend?

Solomon, was accused of sorcery by his own people, yet God cleared him of the accusations and restored to him his kingdom - he dies a believing man, God saved him. God didn't let his own kith and kin kill him now did he?

Who did kill the prophets though? because we know that many were killed, exiled etc... you know very well who - it was the Jews, who have broken the covenant with God by killing the prophets and messengers sent to them, amongst other things... yet you will excuse the joint bigotry of the Romans and the Jews and instead rant on about how God sacrificed Jesus pbuh?

It seems like the point you're trying to make is that God would save a prophet's life, and that since in your view Jesus was just a prophet, God would have spared him by preventing him from getting crucified? It's hard to tell what your point is because you contradict yourself, as you are aware some prophets were *killed.* Does that mean God forsook them? Of course not, as you and I know both know life with God in heaven is preferable to a continued life on earth. So it's not at all true that a prophet *must* be spared. In the case of Jesus Christ though, you overlook the fundamental point, although he died he also *rose*.

And again, you have to address why numerous places in the Old Testament a suffering Messiah is revealed.

God does not operate on a double standard, God is not an hypocrite!!! Your claim that HE sacrificed Jesus pbuh by letting the romans and jews crucify him, is also claiming that God is an hypocrite - that itself is blasphemy - so now you see why i feel you are very green around your ears when it comes to true theology? You haven't even begun to explore the deeper connotations of your belief system - and yet you think you can waltz in here and try to understand why ex Christians have chosen Islam? really? You still have a journey ahead of you, bu decide to take a short cut here? Since you're here, let me give you something else to think about.

As mentioned above, the Old Testament prophecies a suffering Messiah. Jesus himself knew of his death and prophecies it many times. So from the standpoint of revelation, there is not contradiction here.

Tell me, where in the history of monotheism has God ever taken a son, or sacrificed a human being for the betterment of mankind? You know, theologically speaking, your premise for "Jesus was sacrificed by God for our sins" sounds very much like the pagan doctrines of Sol Invictus (romans beliefs) and ancient egyptian myths the likes of which belong in 1001 knights stories... which leads me to my next point - you made a big deal about "sources" claiming that circa C.E. there wasn't much material which has survived until modern day - so why ask me to produce evidence from that time period if you don't believe it exists? I know it does, and can produce it for you, in spades and buckets if you so wish...

Again, it's prophecied in the Old Testament. The whole rite of animal sacrifice in the Old Testament is a prefiguration of that one perfect and eternal sacrifice Jesus offered.

Speaking of Sol Invictus (sun worship) you realise there are oft repeated stories throughout history which are not monotheistic in origin and are remarkably very VERY similar to the whole crucifixion myth you keep going on about - you see, Christianity is quite the anti-Christian religion, strictly speaking.

I was hoping you would attempt to explain how Sol Invictus was the source of our belief that Jesus died for our sins, because you obviously would not be able to do so. Is it ok for Muslims to lie and fabricate as long as it attempts to undermine another religion?

You require an explanation, I understand. Here you go.

The word Christian, comes from Christ, which in turn comes from the greek Christos, which in turn is a translation of the word "Messiah" - which means the following in it's original unmolested context (molested context will follow)

Messiah: The term "messiah" is the translation of the Hebrew term masiah [jyiv'm], which is derived from the verb masah, meaning to smear or anoint. When objects such as wafers and shields were smeared with grease or oil they were said to be anointed; hence the commonly used term was "anoint" when grease or oil was applied to objects by Israelites and non-Israelites. The term "messiah" is not used to refer to "anointed" objects that were designated and consecrated for specific cultic purposes but to persons only. Persons who were anointed had been elected, designated, appointed, given authority, qualified, and equipped for specific offices and tasks related to these. - end!

You bore me friend, most non-Christians know what Messiah means, what you miss of course is the significance. Three types of people were annointed in Israel, (1) kings, (2) prophets and (3) priests. The Messiah would be all three. And again, perhaps a fifth time, I refer you to Messianic verses that speaking of a suffering Messiah.

In Arabic (which is the sister language of Aramaic) the word Masah holds the same meaning - unlike the Greco-Roman *******isation of it.

Muslims may have borrowed the word, but certainly not the implications.

NOw for the molested context: Christians have an altoghether different meaning for the word Masah (Messiah) to Christians it means "son of God" when the truth is, it means no such thing. This interpolated meaning was added to the term during the canonisation process circa 300 AD - 3 centuries later...

Son of God and Messiah are two different titles, but there are Old Testament prophecies that reveal the Messiah would be Divine (Isaiah 9:6), the Messiah would be called Mighty God (El Gibor, in Hebrew).

...Your whole premise has holes in it the likes of which make swiss cheese pale in comparison, so next time you try to figure out why ex Christians chose Islam over their inherited faith, just take another look into how your bible was compiled and who were behind it, and where they ended up - and you will have your answer.

Yea, I'm sinking alright *tongue-in-cheek*.

Ex Christians have found verses in the bible and the torah the likes of which they agree with, and do not need to question because the theology of those verses is sound and not contradictory. Those Christians read the Quran and found that the very same they agreed with in the OT and NT was also in the Quran and much more that they found agreeable and sound in theology... they also rejected nonsensical theology such as trinity and found the Quran did the same, and it eased their hearts and souls - they then asked God for guidance and HE answered them by instilling a firm faith within their hearts and guiding them to the truth, Islam... I hope that answers your curiosity as to why they chose Islam.

Agreement like Jesus' mother being Moses' sister?

As Muslims, we have a keen radar for nonsense, which is why we reject the illogical, unsound and blasphemical nature of trinity and attract towards the pure monotheism of Abraham, which is alive and well today and known around the world as Islam!!!

Yawn. Go into detail my friend, defend your point, try to explain a little.

Peace be unto you brother Sojourn, come to truth. You're already half way here - you're not here by accident!

Peace be with you too

EDIT: you claim that the sources of the bible checkout sorry that got me chuckling, no offence - please tell me:

Which Matthew

Which Mark

Which Luke

Which John

Matthew and John were apostles, Mark and Luke were disciples of Apostles.

wrote the NT? because even the top bible scholars are still in argument over that one, preferring to dodge around it instead of tackle it head on.

The bible is the most analyzed book in history, by both Christian and non-Christian, virtually any interpretation you want can be found. What doesn't change is that the same names were attached to the same Gospels and this has *never* been a dispute.

Want me to post documentaries which expose the fallacy in the bible authorship? I don't want to offend you, but if you make such heinous claims again, I will have to post those videos.

I've studied textual criticism, and not just popular works by Bart Ehrman, who btw believes Jesus was crucified and claimed to be Divine. I'd be more interested in you posting documents supporting the Islamic view of Jesus' non-crucifixion, or perhaps a scholarly article explaining how Jesus really did turn clay birds into living ones.

Oh, and good luck.

 

[greenhill]

Re: Ephesians 1:3

Just a note on your last para, Sojourn, (the second half). What we know of Jesus is in the Quran. That he did fashion a bird out of clay and. . . . etc. We believe in the miracles and do not require scientific backing just like Noah's flood even if it was not proven.

 

[YusufNoor]

Re: Ephesians 1:3

Peace be with you,

The bible is the most analyzed book in history, by both Christian and non-Christian, virtually any interpretation you want can be found. What doesn't change is that the same names were attached to the same Gospels and this has *never* been a dispute.


I've studied textual criticism, and not just popular works by Bart Ehrman, who btw believes Jesus was crucified and claimed to be Divine. I'd be more interested in you posting documents supporting the Islamic view of Jesus' non-crucifixion, or perhaps a scholarly article explaining how Jesus really did turn clay birds into living ones.

Oh, and good luck.

*yawns*

oh great, a fundie in our midst...

just to point out a few errors, the "Gospels" were never "named", until the 2nd century CE. the authorship, being a guess, or more correctly, just propaganda to get a book held as "canon". thus, authorship is still in dispute. it's only accepted by brainwashed Christians.

the Qur'an is our proof about the non-crucifiction. we need no other. it isn't our task to convince you, just to tell you the truth. what actually happened? we don't know. it's that simple. we don't need to know or we would have been told.

 

[Sojourn]

Re: Ephesians 1:3

Peace be with you,

Just a note on your last para, Sojourn, (the second half). What we know of Jesus is in the Quran. That he did fashion a bird out of clay and. . . . etc. We believe in the miracles and do not require scientific backing just like Noah's flood even if it was not proven.

This is a faith based argument and it might work for some Muslims but not for people looking into the Quran. To a non Muslim this is positive evidence for Muhammad not being a prophet, and the response you proposed circular reasoning.

 

[Sojourn]

Re: Ephesians 1:3

Yusuf, I'm actually not a fundamentalist, I simply go with the best evidence. Now you propose that the gospels floated anonymously before being named a century later, and I wonder what your basis is for the second century, is it St irenaus' list of the Canon? If so, that's only proof that the Canon was known very early on.

As for the idea of anonymous gospels it would virtually be impossible, and I'll explain why. Unless a person was very wealthy, the ordinary means of publishing was writing a book and then giving it to some to copy, or having an interested person copy it from you. So when in the beginning of Luke's gospel it's written to a Theophilus, he would have know who sent him the book! So a name, whether verbal or written, would be attached to a text. If the gospels floated without a name for about a century as you propose, how is it we have unanimous agreement who wrote them? How is it there is no dispute over authorship? And who would have proposed the writer and why? Why choose obscure disciples like Mark or Luke, why not like the fabricated Gnostic gospels of the second century chooses ostentatious titles of prominent apostles like Gospel of Peter, Gospel of Mary, Gospel of Truth? And lastly how did this person convince everyone of who the authors were? I assure you, this would not be as ny easy task. You can't even name who you would speculate invented the authors! Instead, the simplest opinion is the one of ancient recognition, the authors are the same authors always attached to the same gospels from the beginning. If you believe different, bring your evidence, don't quote an authority but share why you believe it not to be so.

Peace

 

[YusufNoor]

Re: Ephesians 1:3

Yusuf, I'm actually not a fundamentalist, I simply go with the best evidence. Now you propose that the gospels floated anonymously before being named a century later, and I wonder what your basis is for the second century, is it St irenaus' list of the Canon? If so, that's only proof that the Canon was known very early on.

As for the idea of anonymous gospels it would virtually be impossible, and I'll explain why. Unless a person was very wealthy, the ordinary means of publishing was writing a book and then giving it to some to copy, or having an interested person copy it from you. So when in the beginning of Luke's gospel it's written to a Theophilus, he would have know who sent him the book! So a name, whether verbal or written, would be attached to a text. If the gospels floated without a name for about a century as you propose, how is it we have unanimous agreement who wrote them? How is it there is no dispute over authorship? And who would have proposed the writer and why? Why choose obscure disciples like Mark or Luke, why not like the fabricated Gnostic gospels of the second century chooses ostentatious titles of prominent apostles like Gospel of Peter, Gospel of Mary, Gospel of Truth? And lastly how did this person convince everyone of who the authors were? I assure you, this would not be as ny easy task. You can't even name who you would speculate invented the authors! Instead, the simplest opinion is the one of ancient recognition, the authors are the same authors always attached to the same gospels from the beginning. If you believe different, bring your evidence, don't quote an authority but share why you believe it not to be so.

Peace

the gospels were written anonymously. it's simply a fact accepted by the majority of biblical scholars. we don't know who wrote any of them. i can't change that and you can't make it happen.

why would i bother trying to "guess" who did anything? it isn't my task to "prove" anything to you. understanding church history, and esp, contradictions in history are, for me, the key here. i was raised Catholic. there's the distinct possibility that i was just looking for things that confirmed my beliefs that "something was hinky".

i was on that path well before bart ehrman, but i agree with his perspectives on why changes were made. some of his books are fascinating. but any decent Study Bible will give you the discussions over authorship. Westerners are taught that the Bible is what is and always has been. that simply isn't true.

research your "unanimity" of titles and you will see.

Christians don't even have "unanimity" over what books and verses belong in the Bible! 2000 years isn't even enough time for that! how long will that take?

ma salama

 

[Sojourn]

Re: Ephesians 1:3

Peace be with you Yusuf,

Except that they can't be anonymous for the reasons mentioned above. There has never been a dispute over who wrote the four gospels, at least not until modern times. The fact that there was no dispute over the authorship and the attributions are ancient does prove we've always had the right names. This is my perspective, I personally have no reason to doubt the authorship, and so far your responses have only been dogmatic (who's the fundie now )

You do have a very critical view, which is why I find it interesting that you so quickly appealed to blind faith and circular reasoning when asked about the clay bird story. Clearly you didn't have that same conviction as a Christian.

Wa salaam

 

[Scimitar]

Re: Ephesians 1:3

Peace be with you,

You're proposing that perhaps a man was killed in another man's place simply because they shared the first name, sort of like one John Smith going to the electric chair by accident for another, and you actually want me to explain why I never considered this a possibility (?!) Well, ok, I'll help you out. Such a hypothesis is not even scantly possible because Jesus' eyewitness and accusers were present during Pilate's appeal. His witnesses, both ally and enemy, were present during his bearing of the cross to golgotha. They were also present as he hung slowly dying, both crying and cheering his death. They were also present when they took his body down from the tomb, washed it, and prepared it for burial. Does it not seem that at any time, a Roman or Jew would have realized that they executed the wrong John Smith?

Yet, you are ignoring the very fact that if Allah wishes to decieve the eyes of the onlookers - it would be easy for HIM to do so - and this is exactly what happened according to Quran, and history, as per the example I cited regarding Yehshua Bar Abbas... there are doubts amongst Christians regarding the crufixion and there are Unitarian Christians who do not follow the idea of trinity nor crucifxion... why ignore these? If proponents from your own faith are in disagreement regarding the crucifixion and more, what makes you think you can prove your premise here when you cannot even do it on home ground? A bit ambitious of you don't you think?

The simplest explanation is the easiest, Jesus was crucified, the same Jesus that was scene teaching in the temples, healing the sick, and teaching parables. The *only* reason you reject this reality and have to propose ridiculous theories is because you believe Muhammad to be a prophet, and therefore must accept that a crucifixion did not occur, and that clay birds were made into living ones.

What I ask you, Scimitar, is how you explain the numerous Old Testament prophecies of a Suffering Messiah? One who would *have* to die. Isaiah 53 and Psalm 22 are very powerful witnesses to this reality.

This is a piece of cake brother Sojourn,

You claim that the OT describes a suffering Messiah. Ok. Let's examine the premise in detail shall we?

Isaiah 53:

53 Who hath believed our report? and to whom is the arm of the Lordrevealed?
2 For he shall grow up before him as a tender plant, and as a root out of a dry ground: he hath no form nor comeliness; and when we shall see him, there is no beauty that we should desire him.
3 He is despised and rejected of men; a man of sorrows, and acquainted with grief: and we hid as it were our faces from him; he was despised, and we esteemed him not. (i thought the Christian Jesus pbuh was acquainted with Love, not Grief)
4 Surely he hath borne our griefs, and carried our sorrows: yet we did esteem him stricken, smitten of God, and afflicted. (afflicted like a leper? surely not)

Up til this point, the verses flow from the first person - ie God is apparently speaking, but from here on the narrative shifts to human form and in the third person - this is clear evidence of human tampering - just read on:
5 But he was wounded for our transgressions, (wounded for the transgressions of humanity, a human being is claiming this - not God) he was bruised for our iniquities: (again, human third person) the chastisement of our peace was upon him; and with his stripes we are healed. (not exactly sound context is it? Nope, see I used to be an editor for global B2B publication, not much gets past my eyes bud)
6 All we like sheep have gone astray; we have turned every one to his own way; and the Lord hath laid on him the iniquity of us all. (still third person human narrative here)

From here on we see the appeal to emotion, not logic nor reason... so here we go, down the rabbit hole
7 He was oppressed, and he was afflicted, yet he opened not his mouth: he is brought as a lamb to the slaughter, and as a sheep before her shearers is dumb, so he openeth not his mouth.
8 He was taken from prison and from judgment: and who shall declare his generation? for he was cut off out of the land of the living: for the transgression of my people was he stricken. (here we've somehow managed to get back in the first person God view point - this shifting of contextual narrative is a complete deception to anyone who follow it)
9 And he made his grave with the wicked, and with the rich in his death; because he had done no violence, neither was any deceit in his mouth. (wow, is God now saying that Jesus pbuh made his grave with the wicked and with the rich his death - as a prophecy, this doesn't even align with your narrative of the crucifxion, so how can you cite Isaiah 53 as an evidence when it is so easy to pick apart?)
10 Yet it pleased the Lord to bruise him; he hath put him to grief: when thou shalt make his soul an offering for sin, he shall see his seed, he shall prolong his days, and the pleasure of the Lord shall prosper in his hand. (your Chrstian idea of God is apparently of one who enjoys harming his rightly guided according to your theology. According to your theology, God is not loving, but very unrationally vengeful, he would kill his own so called son because others were committing evil? Ok, lets punish the raped person because the rapist should be forgiven - yes? Make sense? Ofcourse not)
11 He shall see of the travail of his soul, and shall be satisfied: by his knowledge shall my righteous servant justify many; for he shall bear their iniquities. (see, this Christian idea of inherited sin, is ridiculous. Imagine you found out your father was a nazi war criminal and because he was dead, you have to now bear his sin in court and suffer accordingly, although you wasn't even born during WW2??? how would that go down for justice? simply put, it would not, and this is something you as a Christian ignore - all I see Christians do on forums is appeal to emotion, when the reality is, we are thinking people, who follow that which makes sense and is just! Not some falsified pragmatic pagan idea of inherited sin and crucifixion as a means to forgive those who would transgress Gods laws... sheesh! )
12 Therefore will I divide him a portion with the great, and he shall divide the spoil with the strong; because he hath poured out his soul unto death: and he was numbered with the transgressors; and he bare the sin of many, and made intercession for the transgressors. (again, the appeal to emotion so the sinner will think "hey you know what? it's ok, Jesus already died for our sins" - very very escapist and illogical to anyone who has an ounce of intellect and humanity within them.)

I was hoping you would attempt to explain how Sol Invictus was the source of our belief that Jesus died for our sins, because you obviously would not be able to do so. Is it ok for Muslims to lie and fabricate as long as it attempts to undermine another religion?

This is too easy, and I am surprised you remain ignorant of the prime theology of RCC Christianity. Pagan in origin, and proven here:

This video makes a solid case for Constantines pragmatic decision to adopt Christianity and turn it into a reflection of the old Roman pantheon religion of Mithraism. Can you refute it? No. Has anyone been able to refute it to date? No. So please, do not make such assumptions that I am fabricating when it is non Muslims (actually Christians) who are telling you the same thing here.

You see Sojourn, I gave you two posts where I told that I can post evidence if need be - this is just the tip of the ice berg, and I have so much more I can inundate you with that you will seriously have to question your faith - if you are really seeking truth. If not, you will wrap your purple cloak around your self and try to warm your emotions in lieu of having your faith questioned by relevant authority.

I challenge you, Sojourn here, on this open platform, to debate me with everything you have, bring your friends, bring your priests and pastors, and whoever else you feel necessary to this platform here and now, and let's see what happens shall we? You can't get fairer than this.

You bore me friend, most non-Christians know what Messiah means, what you miss of course is the significance. Three types of people were annointed in Israel, (1) kings, (2) prophets and (3) priests. The Messiah would be all three. And again, perhaps a fifth time, I refer you to Messianic verses that speaking of a suffering Messiah.

Muslims may have borrowed the word, but certainly not the implications.

You're actually very ignorant of the old languages aren't you Sojourn - what an embarrassing mistake of your I am having to expose here. You see, the Hebrew Aramaic and the Arabic are sister languages, you speak one, you speak the other and both languages share the same tri-lateral rooting systems, so the word Masah cannot be borrowed - for an Arab who has never heard the word Masah before, it is easy for him to know what that word means simply by referring to the tri-lateral root of the word to determine its meaning in context. It's really as simple as that.

So for you to claim that Masah was a borrowed word, you cannot prove this either etymologically, morphologically or even philologically - and I would know, I study the nuances within languages as part of my studies into ancient myth and lore.

Your ridiculous claim is also overturned on one more point - namely that the word Masah, in Arabic, means "ritual cleansing" and has been existence within Arabia since time immemorial. So please do not lie on this forum as I will expose your lies easily. In case you are wondering how i know all this stuff? well, type in my screen name into google followed by "debating Christianity" or even "the subject of jesus" and see what turns up in your feed. It is better for you to know who you are dealing with so you can better prepare yourself for this level of debate, which you are clearly not ready for.

Son of God and Messiah are two different titles, but there are Old Testament prophecies that reveal the Messiah would be Divine (Isaiah 9:6), the Messiah would be called Mighty God (El Gibor, in Hebrew).

Cyrus the Persian was hailed as the messiah by the Jews also, since he fulfilled every rite required within the confines of the biblical term "Messiah" - why do you remain ignorant of this? I can easily refer every verse you have posted here to refer to cyrus for that matter and the descriptions would fit better with cyrus for messiah than it would for Jesus according to your ideas of messianic understanding.

As for your whole El Ghibor is Messiah nonsense - you know that's exactly describing the Anti-Christ, who will claim to be God - and according to us Muslims, Jesus pbuh will return at this time and kill this fake imposter who claims he is the divine messiah and great god in one. Not to mention that the context of those verses are so spangled that anyone would think he'd already some in the form of Superman, son of Jarel.

As for us Muslims, we believe that Jesus pbuh is the messiah but his term to fulfil the role of Messiah is still yet to come...


Now for the mysterious authors of the NT

Matthew and John were apostles, Mark and Luke were disciples of Apostles.

The bible is the most analyzed book in history, by both Christian and non-Christian, virtually any interpretation you want can be found. What doesn't change is that the same names were attached to the same Gospels and this has *never* been a dispute.

I've studied textual criticism, and not just popular works by Bart Ehrman, who btw believes Jesus was crucified and claimed to be Divine. I'd be more interested in you posting documents supporting the Islamic view of Jesus' non-crucifixion, or perhaps a scholarly article explaining how Jesus really did turn clay birds into living ones.

Oh, and good luck.

First of all, the Quran mentions that Jesus pbuh made birds out of clay and then asked God to bring them to life and HE did, so the miracle is not disputed in Islam at all - I'm surprised you remain so ignorant of the Quran when we are so up to date with the various versions of your NT seems Muslims are way more prepared to tackle Christians than the other way round.

You want evidence - I will give you something easy to swallow, in video form, made by an ex Christian who is a professor of religion, fair? ofcourse - I am only debating you with information you will be comfortable with, coming from your own wing of Christianity, to prove your premise wrong. Hows that for method?

You claim that Matthew and John were apostles, Mark and Luke were disciples of Apostles. Yet, modern biblical scholars cannot be absolutely sure who actually wrote them - the very fact that names such as Matthew, Mark, Luke and John were popular during the time frame doesn't exactly lend your ideas any weight either.

Further the very idea that these men didn't leave a last name begs for anyone with an ounce of literary logic to conclude that these books should be left on the shelf as they cannot be legitimised in literary circles - this is a fact you cannot refute - and proves once again how I claim that Christians place too much emphasis on the appeal to emotion, instead of understanding method and sifting through the lies from the truth.

The very fact remains, your NT bibles have more versions than I can shake a stick at - each one faltering on key theological points which differs them into sects, each with its own ideas about what Christian theology is... compare this to islam - ONE QURAN, 5 FUNDAMENTALS OF FAITH WHICH EVERY MUSLIM AGREES WITH. And you quickly find the old adage comes to mind - TRUTH PREVAILS AND FALSEHOOD PERISHES... the persihing of the gospel is a slow and steady process as more and more "VERSIONS" of the bible get printed in the modern day, and the original never existed in the first place - except for a collection of papers randomly selected out of a plethora of papers, in the court of infamous pragmatic pagan Constantine!

You're clearly out of you depth, and I haven't even gotten started.

For your information, I think you will find the following interesting:

the speaker is an ex Christian who reverted to Islam, after he systematically studied the bible and its historicity. His name is "Shaikh Khalid Yaseen"

please don't run off like the others have, I have only just gotten started and investing this time and energy into replying to you will be a waste if you don't come back.

Scimi

 

[YusufNoor]

Re: Ephesians 1:3

Peace be with you Yusuf,

Except that they can't be anonymous for the reasons mentioned above. There has never been a dispute over who wrote the four gospels, at least not until modern times. The fact that there was no dispute over the authorship and the attributions are ancient does prove we've always had the right names. This is my perspective, I personally have no reason to doubt the authorship, and so far your responses have only been dogmatic (who's the fundie now )

You do have a very critical view, which is why I find it interesting that you so quickly appealed to blind faith and circular reasoning when asked about the clay bird story. Clearly you didn't have that same conviction as a Christian.

Wa salaam

i never made any claim about the clay birds. :embarrass

i'm only stating what most Christian clergy know to be true. they just don't tell their sheep! they know you can't handle it.

you are the one who is not aware of the controversies over the gospels, not i.

i can offer you websites, Christian websites, that will inform you about the situation. almost anything i say would be "bart ehrman", so you can just read him.

regarding Matthew. Matthew is know to have written, what we would call "ahadeeth" about Jesus in Aramaic. Matthew was written in Greek and is not soley ahadeeth, therefore Matthew is not the author of the gospel later attributed to him. pretty simple.

this is one of the sites i use:

http://www.earlychristianwritings.com/papias.html

here are the discussions on Matthew:

http://www.earlychristianwritings.com/matthew.html

please note: Matthew, allegedly a follower of Jesus, is seen to have "copied" Mark, not an apostle! mg:

please explain!

my approach to Christian writing is to use their own sites. bart counts, because he was a fundie.

you're probably just wasting your time here. it appears that you have little knowledge in this area. i'll just be spinning my wheels. if you ever take up the study, then it might be beneficial.

ma salama

 

[greenhill]

Hi Sojourn,

I learnt from young as kiddies stories about the lives of the prophets.

It started with Adam (pbuh) and progressed through each prophet, one by one. Each calling their people to the path of Allah.

I was of course introduced to the relevant verses on it but in passing. (I learnt to read the Quran much later).

When I finally got to prophet Muhammad the core message of one God (as in the God of Abraham) remained unchanged. I had my favourites, Solomon, Abraham and Jesus, to name a few.

From there it was natural to accept the final message of the Quran.

Without understanding the progression it would be easy to get stuck to a message for a 'time' it was given. I'm not sure how Christianity is taught. Do they refer to messages of previous prophets and messengers?

eace:

 

[Scimitar]

No they don't brother Greenhill, they can't get past the Jesus pbuh narratives, nothing in the NT aboout the other prophets - just more pragmatic pagan influences from the courts of constantine brother... the stories of the prophets are in the OT, the NT is jujst a book of weak and fabricated ahadeeth which are attributed (flagrantly lol) to dubious individuals

Scimi

 

[YusufNoor]

Brothers Scimi and Greenhill,

there is no tawhid in Christianity. you can't have a trinity AND tawhid. the OT is not much more reliable than the NT. non human forces in the OT are referred to as gods. that language alone, creates problems. look up the "documentary hypothesis" and esp the book, who wrote the bible, by richard elliott freidman:
http://www.amazon.com/Wrote-Bible-Richard-Elliott-Friedman/dp/0060630353/ref=sr_1_1?s=books&ie=UTF8&qid=1419906279&sr=1-1&keywords=who+wrote+the+bible+richard+elliott+friedman

it's a fascinating read and helps you to understand more about all the different pieces came together. anything on the NT by bart ehrman will explain all you need to know.

but...our job is to explain tawhid. that's kind of why we don't have a comparative religion section. there's no point. if someone wants to hold to books that he believes are authentic, then there is nothing to discuss. thus, we explain tawhid.

let me show you:

from the website, i linked, a Christian website:

It is the near-universal position of scholarship that the Gospel of Matthew is dependent upon the Gospel of Mark. This position is accepted whether one subscribes to the dominant Two-Source Hypothesis or instead prefers the Farrer-Goulder hypothesis.

it say "near-universal". that means that the vast majority of Bible scholars believe that "matthew copied "mark." and continues to say that:

It is also the consensus position that the evangelist was not the apostle Matthew.

not as "universal" there, but it says the "consensus". that means that majority of Bible scholars all agree that the "matthew" referred to is NOT the author of the book!
you can find the quotes here, after the outline, where the text begins:

http://www.earlychristianwritings.com/matthew.html

thus, is there any point getting into specifics? only where tawhid can be applied. we'd just be wasting time otherwise. christians are NOT raised to understand theology or their Bible. it's all called a "mystery" if something doesn't make sense. and mysteries abound! how can they be refuted? tawhid!

everything brother khalid said is right, but it is also wrong! we know it as fact, therefore, it is correct. but we know that anything that contradicts the qur'an or the prophet, pbuh, is wrong. but we have tawhid!

for a christian, we have to explain in the correct terms. thus, it is "universally agreed" that the book referred to as matthew, has quite a bit of the book known as mark, copied in it. AND that the consensus, thus majority opinion, is that the author is definitely not matthew the apostle. and we're talking about Bible scholars! it's really close to fact, but they're not there yet. close, though.

btw, there's an old thread somewhere, where i was having to defend that video. it was waaaay back.

i hope, in shaa allah, that you understand my point. you also now possess a little knowledge of where western scholarship is on the bible. use it wisely though. tawhid is much more important.

ma salama!

 

[Sojourn]

Peace be with you Scimitar,

Thank you for your lengthy reply, and I must admit it was at times very tedious responding to some of the points I found you attempt to make but out of respect to the energy you put into it, I tried to respond to as much as possible. Please forgive if towards the end my own energy wanes on me and get a bit course.

Now one thing I did come across and I'm not sure whether it was intentional was your haughty attitude. Even though I am a non-Muslim I would think some of your behavior falls under poor adaab, but if I am mistaken and you are following the Sunnah, then please disregard ; )

And trust me, I am a very simple person and know all too well that I'm not the sharpest tool in the shed, so I don't need to be reminded that I'm stupid. I think if you spent more time focusing on your point and less time trying to attack me by saying I'm ignorant, we'd have a much better discussion.

Just my two cents, I look forward to conversing with you!

Anyway, here we go!

Yet, you are ignoring the very fact that if Allah wishes to decieve the eyes of the onlookers - it would be easy for HIM to do so - and this is exactly what happened according to Quran, and history, as per the example I cited regarding Yehshua Bar Abbas...

Deception is something associated with Satan and the devils, it's rather interesting that you associate it here with Allah. Do you believe the followers of Jesus were also deceived or just his enemies? And if the followers of Jesus were not deceived, why did they invent the crucifixion? Hope you don't mind delving into this, I'd really like to know what your personal understanding is of this matter.

there are doubts amongst Christians regarding the crufixion and there are Unitarian Christians who do not follow the idea of trinity nor crucifxion... why ignore these? If proponents from your own faith are in disagreement regarding the crucifixion and more, what makes you think you can prove your premise here when you cannot even do it on home ground? A bit ambitious of you don't you think?

Actually there is unanimous agreement among the ancient sources, even outside of the New Testament we have the letter of Clement to the Corinthians in 96AD, the letters of Ignatius of Antioch circa 110 AD, epistle of St Polycarp, St Justin Martyr's dialogue with Trypho. All of these early texts confirm the importance of the crucifixion as well as the real and sad torment Jesus underwent. The only sect I can think of that came to close to rejection the crucifixion were the Gnostics who because of there rejection of matter as evil believed Jesus to be pure spirit, and therefore his crucifixion a mere illusion. Gnostics were a diverse group though, and their crucifixion accounts mutually contradictory at times. It is interesting though that they held to some sort of "illusion", very reminiscent of what the Quran says concerning the crucifixion. Is it possible that Gnostics were inhabiting the Hijaaz of Muhammad's time? It's interesting to speculate.

Now with regards to the Unitarian Christians, you appear to claim they don't accept the crucifixion of Jesus? I am not aware of any formal teaching by the Unitarian community that rejects the crucifixion, but don't worry, I won't accuse you of lying as you will accuse me later on in this discussion I'm going to give you the benefit of the doubt and presume you meant to say you met *a* Unitarian who rejected the crucifixion? Or perhaps by rejecting the "idea of crucifixion" you mean it's implication? Hopefully you can elaborate. Either way, the Unitarian Church is a very small minority compared to say, the Catholic Church or Eastern Orthodox. I wouldn't for example say that Muslims are not in agreement over whether it's ok to make sajdah to a man because I saw murids doing that to their Shaykh (of course the cop-out is to say they're not really Muslim.)

BTW, as an aside, apparently only 18.1% of Unitarians believe in heaven and 8.5% in hell! (http://www.thearda.com/)

This is a piece of cake brother Sojourn,

You claim that the OT describes a suffering Messiah. Ok. Let's examine the premise in detail shall we?

No, it's not my claim at all, it is rather the undertaning of virtually all Jewish rabbinical thought. Literally ever Jewish targum (i.e. Tafseer) in a thousand year period taught that this passage refers to the Messiah and his suffering and death. (Reference: http://www.hadavar.org/critical-iss...52-53-messiahs-first-coming/rabbinic-support/)

I doubt you would profess yourself more konwledgable than the Jewish ulema when it comes to their own understanding of texts, that would be rather brash, and so I would be justified in skipping over your own explanation of this chapter which is rather tedious (to be charitable.) Out of respect to the energy you put in though, I will respond.

Isaiah 53:

53 Who hath believed our report? and to whom is the arm of the Lordrevealed?
2 For he shall grow up before him as a tender plant, and as a root out of a dry ground: he hath no form nor comeliness; and when we shall see him, there is no beauty that we should desire him.
3 He is despised and rejected of men; a man of sorrows, and acquainted with grief: and we hid as it were our faces from him; he was despised, and we esteemed him not. (i thought the Christian Jesus pbuh was acquainted with Love, not Grief)

This reads as a quick afterthought of yours. I'm not sure how familiar you are with the gospels, but yes, Jesus was acquainted with grief, from disbelief towards him despite his teachings and miracles to the sufferings he endured during his Passion.

4 Surely he hath borne our griefs, and carried our sorrows: yet we did esteem him stricken, smitten of God, and afflicted. (afflicted like a leper? surely not)

Afflicted like being tortured, mocked, bearing a cross, and then being crucified.

Up til this point, the verses flow from the first person - ie God is apparently speaking, but from here on the narrative shifts to human form and in the third person - this is clear evidence of human tampering - just read on:

First person up to verse 5, you say?

Even a simple non BB editor like me knows that "he" in verses 2 through 3 indicates a third persons point of view.

And God is the narrator up until this point, you say?

So God is holding him in low esteem (verse 3) and he takes up God's suffering (verse 4)?

Clear evidence of tampering? More like clear evidence of poor reading comprehension

5 But he was wounded for our transgressions, (wounded for the transgressions of humanity, a human being is claiming this - not God)

I'm not sure whether you're trying to say this verse is not inspired, e.g. fabricated, or whether the Messiah who atones for the transgressions of humanity is not Divine? Or perhaps something else? I enjoy discussions and I encourage you to develop your thoughts and explain yourself.

My point with this passage is to demonstrate that the Messiah *had* to suffer and die, which counters the Islamic claim that Jesus could not have died and yet been Messiah.

he was bruised for our iniquities: (again, human third person)

I take it by this point that you are referring to the Divinity of the Messiah, but this passage doesn't address the nature of the Messiah, but rather that he is prophesied to suffer and that his suffering has an *atoning* quality.

the chastisement of our peace was upon him; and with his stripes we are healed.(not exactly sound context is it? Nope, see I used to be an editor for global B2B publication, not much gets past my eyes bud)

I chuckle when I read this, you're one smug son-of-a-gun!

So to address your point, if we may call it that since it's rather vague (how is it not sound context? Feel free to type your thoughts!) I'm guessing you don't see how this connects with Jesus life? If so, apparently your eyes slipped the part about Jesus being scourged at the pillar, Mr B2B editor

6 All we like sheep have gone astray; we have turned every one to his own way; and the Lord hath laid on him the iniquity of us all. (still third person human narrative here)

Again, irrelevant. Point is Messiah must suffer and die.

From here on we see the appeal to emotion, not logic nor reason... so here we go, down the rabbit hole

7 He was oppressed, and he was afflicted, yet he opened not his mouth: he is brought as a lamb to the slaughter, and as a sheep before her shearers is dumb, so he openeth not his mouth.

This is not an appeal to emotion, this section describes virtually exactly what happened to Jesus. From his interrogation by the Sanhedrin to the point of Crucifixion.

8 He was taken from prison and from judgment: and who shall declare his generation? for he was cut off out of the land of the living: for the transgression of my people was he stricken. (here we've somehow managed to get back in the first person God view point - this shifting of contextual narrative is a complete deception to anyone who follow it)

Seriously dude, do you know the difference between first/second/third person? And why are you assuming God is referred here? Is not Isaiah referring to his people in the prophecy when he says "my people"? Don't assume I know what you're thinking, explain!

9 And he made his grave with the wicked, and with the rich in his death; because he had done no violence, neither was any deceit in his mouth. (wow, is God now saying that Jesus pbuh made his grave with the wicked and with the rich his death - as a prophecy, this doesn't even align with your narrative of the crucifxion, so how can you cite Isaiah 53 as an evidence when it is so easy to pick apart?)

If you read just the verses from Jesus' last supper to resurrection in the gospels you would be *AMAZED* the parallels up to this point. You're obviously not familiar with it so I challenge you to read it yourself, and then read this passage again (after you've had a nap and cup of coffee ;-) )

Even this verse has a reference to Jesus burial in a rich man's tomb (one donated by Joseph of Arimathea.)

10 Yet it pleased the Lord to bruise him; he hath put him to grief: when thou shalt make his soul an offering for sin, he shall see his seed, he shall prolong his days, and the pleasure of the Lord shall prosper in his hand. (your Chrstian idea of God is apparently of one who enjoys harming his rightly guided according to your theology. According to your theology, God is not loving, but very unrationally vengeful, he would kill his own so called son because others were committing evil? Ok, lets punish the raped person because the rapist should be forgiven - yes? Make sense? Ofcourse not)

I'm not going to join beating the strawman with you, rather I want to bring your attention to the incredible reality of this prophecy. Does it not speak of atonement? Is it not what we Christians believe Jesus fulfilled?

Remarkable, eh? Again, I challenge you to bring anything like this in support of Muhammad.

11 He shall see of the travail of his soul, and shall be satisfied: by his knowledge shall my righteous servant justify many; for he shall bear their iniquities. (see, this Christian idea of inherited sin, is ridiculous. Imagine you found out your father was a nazi war criminal and because he was dead, you have to now bear his sin in court and suffer accordingly, although you wasn't even born during WW2??? how would that go down for justice? simply put, it would not, and this is something you as a Christian ignore - all I see Christians do on forums is appeal to emotion, when the reality is, we are thinking people, who follow that which makes sense and is just! Not some falsified pragmatic pagan idea of inherited sin and crucifixion as a means to forgive those who would transgress Gods laws... sheesh! )

I'm skipping over the diatribe caricaturing original sin. If you want to discuss this topic we can, let me say you are misunderstanding our belief, and if you want to know what our understanding is, I am willing to share. But for now I want to focus on the point which you recognized, is that the concepts of original sin and atonement stream through these verses. See brother, your eyes are rather open after all.

12 Therefore will I divide him a portion with the great, and he shall divide the spoil with the strong; because he hath poured out his soul unto death: and he was numbered with the transgressors; and he bare the sin of many, and made intercession for the transgressors. (again, the appeal to emotion so the sinner will think "hey you know what? it's ok, Jesus already died for our sins" - very very escapist and illogical to anyone who has an ounce of intellect and humanity within them.)

Not an appeal to emotion, this was fulfilled by Jesus.

I want you to use your logic and explain what the chances are that Jesus fulfilled this prophecy to the T.

And then I'd like you to explain why we should believe the deity you call Allah deceived us (as you suggested above) to make this prophecy fall flat...

This is too easy, and I am surprised you remain ignorant of the prime theology of RCC Christianity. Pagan in origin, and proven here:

A video, dude? Really? I am more than willing to discuss any of your points on this topic but I request you summarize the argument you want to from this video and explain why you believe in it. Stop being lazy!

This video makes a solid case for Constantines pragmatic decision to adopt Christianity and turn it into a reflection of the old Roman pantheon religion of Mithraism. Can you refute it? No. Has anyone been able to refute it to date? No. So please, do not make such assumptions that I am fabricating when it is non Muslims (actually Christians) who are telling you the same thing here.

Belief in Jesus' divine, resurrection, and atoning sacrifice predate Constantine. Constantine's reasons for taking on baptism are irrelevant.

Hey, did I just refute it without watching the video? ;-)

Seriously though, stop being lazy, if you feel a point is to be made summarize it and defend it. Don't expect me to burn minutes of my time to watch a video you're posting.

You see Sojourn, I gave you two posts where I told that I can post evidence if need be - this is just the tip of the ice berg, and I have so much more I can inundate you with that you will seriously have to question your faith - if you are really seeking truth. If not, you will wrap your purple cloak around your self and try to warm your emotions in lieu of having your faith questioned by relevant authority.

I'm shaking in my pants... my faith has been rocked... I mean totally...

LOL

I'm being facetious of course, but you do think highly of yourself, don't you?

I challenge you, Sojourn here, on this open platform, to debate me with everything you have, bring your friends, bring your priests and pastors, and whoever else you feel necessary to this platform here and now, and let's see what happens shall we? You can't get fairer than this.

Thanks Scimitar, I don't think I'll need assistance debating you any time soon, it hasn't exactly been thought-provoking

But again, you do think highly of yourself, don't you? Watch that nafs, akhi.

You're actually very ignorant of the old languages aren't you Sojourn - what an embarrassing mistake of your I am having to expose here. You see, the Hebrew Aramaic and the Arabic are sister languages, you speak one, you speak the other and both languages share the same tri-lateral rooting systems, so the word Masah cannot be borrowed - for an Arab who has never heard the word Masah before, it is easy for him to know what that word means simply by referring to the tri-lateral root of the word to determine its meaning in context. It's really as simple as that.

So for you to claim that Masah was a borrowed word, you cannot prove this either etymologically, morphologically or even philologically - and I would know, I study the nuances within languages as part of my studies into ancient myth and lore.

Your ridiculous claim is also overturned on one more point - namely that the word Masah, in Arabic, means "ritual cleansing" and has been existence within Arabia since time immemorial. So please do not lie on this forum as I will expose your lies easily.

Scimitar, relax. I didn't mean the Messiah is a loan word in the Arabic language, rather I meant Muslims kept the title of Messiah for Jesus but rejected the implications, such as those revealed by Isaiah above. And I'm not sure you realize this but you contradicted yourself here, is "anointing" and "ritual cleansing" supposed to be taken as the same thing?

In case you are wondering how i know all this stuff? well, type in my screen name into google followed by "debating Christianity" or even "the subject of jesus" and see what turns up in your feed. It is better for you to know who you are dealing with so you can better prepare yourself for this level of debate, which you are clearly not ready for.

Are you some sort of narcissist? Do you really think your "arguments" are that good and that you're some sort of hot-shot? If you're trying to suggest you're some sort of professional Muslim apologist then I'm emboldened to start preaching Muslims on the street.

Cyrus the Persian was hailed as the messiah by the Jews also, since he fulfilled every rite required within the confines of the biblical term "Messiah" - why do you remain ignorant of this? I can easily refer every verse you have posted here to refer to cyrus for that matter and the descriptions would fit better with cyrus for messiah than it would for Jesus according to your ideas of messianic understanding.

Yea, I must be an ignorant person because you decide to bring up an irrelevant point. We both agree Jesus is the Messiah, why not try to stick with that.

As for your whole El Ghibor is Messiah nonsense - you know that's exactly describing the Anti-Christ, who will claim to be God - and according to us Muslims, Jesus pbuh will return at this time and kill this fake imposter who claims he is the divine messiah and great god in one. Not to mention that the context of those verses are so spangled that anyone would think he'd already some in the form of Superman, son of Jarel.

So according to B2B editor I should google so to be amazed, Isaiah 9:6 refers to the antichrist. Why don't you read that in context my friend, it does not refer to the Antichrist but a Jewish King, and guess what the consensus is among the Jewish targums that's this refers to? Yep, you guessed it, the Messiah.

The Messiah = El Gibbor

Thus the Messiah is Divine.

How much more do you need to believe?

As for us Muslims, we believe that Jesus pbuh is the messiah but his term to fulfil the role of Messiah is still yet to come...

So the part that Isaiah prophesied, about the Messiah taking up our iniquities and suffering for our atonement, is going to happen in the future according to Islam?

Now for the mysterious authors of the NT

Let's see what I'm going to have to sift through in your thoughts here. Can't wait. I'm sure you'll make some great arguments. Can you tell my excitement?

First of all, the Quran mentions that Jesus pbuh made birds out of clay and then asked God to bring them to life and HE did, so the miracle is not disputed in Islam at all - I'm surprised you remain so ignorant of the Quran when we are so up to date with the various versions of your NT seems Muslims are way more prepared to tackle Christians than the other way round.

Of course the 'miracle' is not disputed in Islam, it's in the Quran! But the point is it's not a miracle, it's a fable, that found it's way into the Qur'an, and thus one among many reasons the Quran is not tenable.

You want evidence - I will give you something easy to swallow, in video form, made by an ex Christian who is a professor of religion, fair? ofcourse - I am only debating you with information you will be comfortable with, coming from your own wing of Christianity, to prove your premise wrong. Hows that for method?

Hopefully by now you've realized that the points I value are the ones that you *personally* value and understand. I'm not going to waste time watching videos, if there is a point in that video you feel is strong and you want to discuss, then summarize it in your own words and bring it to the debate.

You claim that Matthew and John were apostles, Mark and Luke were disciples of Apostles. Yet, modern biblical scholars cannot be absolutely sure who actually wrote them

We're dealing with history, nothing is absolutely certain when you're dealing with events that occurred two thousand years ago, rather we're dealing with probabilities. Was it probable that Jesus was crucified? Yes, in fact so probable that we come as close to certainty as is possible. Was it probable that Jesus turned clay birds into living ones? Highly improbable. Was it probable Muhammad made a night journey from Mekka to Jerusalem? Don't worry, I wont go there.

But yes, absolute certainty is for the chemists, all we can say is that it is probable and reasonable that they did write the texts.

- the very fact that names such as Matthew, Mark, Luke and John were popular during the time frame doesn't exactly lend your ideas any weight either.

Show me your daleel for this

Further the very idea that these men didn't leave a last name begs for anyone with an ounce of literary logic to conclude that these books should be left on the shelf as they cannot be legitimised in literary circles - this is a fact you cannot refute - and proves once again how I claim that Christians place too much emphasis on the appeal to emotion, instead of understanding method and sifting through the lies from the truth.

Are you saying that their last names are not in the title that it somehow refutes the text? Again, please explain.

The very fact remains, your NT bibles have more versions than I can shake a stick at - each one faltering on key theological points which differs them into sects, each with its own ideas about what Christian theology is... compare this to islam - ONE QURAN, 5 FUNDAMENTALS OF FAITH WHICH EVERY MUSLIM AGREES WITH. And you quickly find the old adage comes to mind - TRUTH PREVAILS AND FALSEHOOD PERISHES... the persihing of the gospel is a slow and steady process as more and more "VERSIONS" of the bible get printed in the modern day, and the original never existed in the first place - except for a collection of papers randomly selected out of a plethora of papers, in the court of infamous pragmatic pagan Constantine!

One Quran with how many readings? ;-)

You're clearly out of you depth, and I haven't even gotten started.

Yes, you've clearly outclassed me here. You're greater than even you've thought yourself to be.

Just be aware that I too haven't even started.

For your information, I think you will find the following interesting:

It's another video, isn't it...

Well, you know the drill.

please don't run off like the others have, I have only just gotten started and investing this time and energy into replying to you will be a waste if you don't come back.

Not scared at all, my friend. Bring the best you got. Maybe even let the mods allow me to get into some Islamic issues without editing my posts

Anwyay, glad this is over, I'm sure you'll put foward equal energy and attention to the points I've made ;-)


Wa salaam

 

[Sojourn]

Hi Sojourn,

Peace be with you Greenhill. Forgive me if I'm a little rattled, I just finished responding to a B2B editor named Scimitar, he asked me to google his name so I can be bedazzled. I didn't google his name, but as you can tell, my brain must be very fatigued

All kidding aside, I'm glad scimitar is willing to engage in a discussion, I just hope the mods will allow it to continue! And aside from his sense of grandeur, I'm sure he's a really nice guy, he just needs to curb his nafs

Without understanding the progression it would be easy to get stuck to a message for a 'time' it was given. I'm not sure how Christianity is taught. Do they refer to messages of previous prophets and messengers?

We don't just refer to them, we read and study them. You're understanding the prophets through an Islamic lense, so of course you're seeing a progression in an Islamic paradigm, but try reading the what was actually taught, and you'd be amazed. Scimitar and I were discussing Isaiah 53, and I suggest you take a glance yourself.


Peace and blessings