Misconceptions

[M.I.A.]

great thread, unfortunately its probably been done a hundred times before.

its news to me but im sure some will agree.

...im not sure if its helpfull in the long term. it neither promotes understanding of monothiesm or in itself explains anything towards our divergence from it.

only how we should treat each other and expect to be treated.


well if it was that simple it would have stuck the first time around.

arguing whos right and wrong will certainly swing some peoples view points but im not sure how it benefits humanity in the long run.

its insane because i only ever meet people that are struggling.

there is no give and im sure most people can live without it.



churches stop giving food to the poor because they cant handle it.

people who pray regularly talk badly of the poor.


...i have no idea really. those are the problems at the bottom of the scale.

truth stand out from flasehood certainly. well that should makes things easy then...


i dont know what to expect from an internet forum or what the pope actually does.

 

[Sojourn]

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!

Hey Yusuf!

What's the consensus Biblical scholars have on Jesus being crucified? I heard Christian and secular scholars reached an agreement on this one, but I can't remember whether it was for Ibn Kathir's "make an apostle look like Jesus so he gets nailed instead" or Scimitar's "Oops we crucified the wrong guy!" position? I know you put a lot of stock in the consensus of Biblical scholars, so I figured I'd ask :giggling:

Sorry If I'm coming across a bit flippant, but had to point out the hypocrisy in methodology. Picking an choosing like this is not logical, nor is it sound, nor rational, but rather it's biased and illogical.

 

[Scimitar]

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!

As my screen name suggests -I'm sharp one side, and blunt the other - thus, what you read is what you get. I'm past formalities on forums, and crunch right to the crux - pleasantries, we save for the time we may meet in person - if God so wills...

Anyway, here we go!

Deception is something associated with Satan and the devils,

According to your Christian and my Islamic theology, God created everything in pairs - Good and Evil, right and wrong, black and white, night and day, male and female etc... So I find it very odd that you would at this juncture, decide to question my logic in making such a claim when the theology of it is prevalent in your own faith.

Karen asks if God ever deceives people? There are scriptures that say so and that means we should answer yes to the question. (read more here: http://www.jimmcguiggan.com/questions2.asp?q_id=22 <- as you can see, as a Christian, you should know about this, so why question me? I can reference way more to prove it to you, and I am playing your debate on your own platform, Christianity, I don't even need to reference Quran for you - because the bible will be enough to prove you wrong, and Islam right. ready? good.

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.

Short answer No. Not in the way you think. The Gnostics of Arabia were very few and far between, it was a tribal place where the pantheon of Gods were attributed to certain tribes. TO leave such a belief system in ancient arabia meant you lost everything... so no.

Now, for your premise that the letters of Ignatius confirm the crucifxion of Jesus - they confirm "a crucifixion" but not Jesus' because as I had mentioned before, and as is prevalent in your own doctrines theology, and according to simple deduction by way of understanding God's relationship with his messengers and prophets, we find that HE does not allow for HIS chosen to suffer for the sins of others - the idea of inherited sin takes a whole new meaning when it comes to your crucifixion myth - somehow Jesus pbuh inherits the sins of those who murder him, and the actual crucifixion is attributed to God sending his lamb to roast?

Clear hypocrisy in theology my friend. Too clear... small wonder why many Christians today are leaving the fold and entering Islam instead, in record numbers - the majority of which are women!!

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/)

my apologies, I should have been clear - let me re-iterate for you - Unitarians reject the idea of Jesus pbuh being the son of God - Unitarianism rejects the mainstream Christian doctrine of the trinity or three Persons in one God, made up of Father, Son and Holy Spirit.

They typically believe that God is one being - God the Father, or Mother. Jesus pbuh was simply a man, not the incarnate deity. They believe him to be a jewish prophet, for he was sent to the lost sheep of Israel, and not the whole world yet, you got evangelists absolutely ignoring this and preaching that Jesus pbuh was sent for the salvation of mankind? Pfft. really now?

Bottom line, there is absolutely no evidence that will stick which promotes the idea that it was Jesus pbuh who was crucified on the cross - infact, many documents claim that it was another who was crucified - but as a Christian, I'm sure you are awaere of these even though you are ignoring that fact.

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.



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

Gosh, seems my editorial breakdown was lost on you - let me try again. I was demonstrating to you how the authorship of Isaiah 53 was not penned by one man, but by many who shifted between 1st and third person narratives - this is blatant evidence of scriptural compromisations. Not the word of God - word of Man!!! The bible is not divinely inspired - it is a book of weak and fabricated narratives given by people who didn't even leave a last name and compiled under the authority of an infamous pagan who pragmatically decided to adopt Christianity in order to solidify his rule over the lands - not because he feared or loved or even believed in God - no - he believed in demons - as is demonstrated in the video i linked you in my previous post. Savvy?

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

Smug, ofcourse... son of a gun? No. son of a Muslim. Yes!!! Snug in my longjohns? have to be, it's bloody winter here Bottom line brother Sojourn, your premise of Isaiah 53 does not hold if it keeps shifting narrative from 1st to 3rd, and you know this!!! Don't gloss over it - accept it, and move on!

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

What? that's NOT what Messiah means... sheesh. Not this rigmarole again... dude, listen, look up the meaning of Messiah and then try to write that again, because you won't make that mistake a second time, even though you ignored my etymological breakdown of the word messiah the first time round...

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.

yes, it is obviously an appeal to emotion. next?

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!

Simple, they didn't crucify jesus pbuh, they crucified someone else - what's so difficult to understand? as for 1st 2nd and 3rd person narratives - you get the idea, let's not play childish games here - the point is proven, the text shifts constantly between those (thanks for pointing out the 2nd person too, even though i did not) and appeals to emotion are made, which further discredit the narrative(s) of Isaiah 53.

You're getting hung up on insignificant details and losing sight of the bigger picture here - this is something I have come to expect from Christians, they always lose sight of the bigger picture and get lost in details which are hard to clarify because the contexts are skewed beyond repair... I was just demonstrating that to you, for you - and you did exactly as i expected you NOT to do, I thought you'd be different than the others - alas, my disappointment in knowing this is not the case, is something which just confirms a bias I have grown to understand as real!

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

I've read them, and I don't see the connection. At All.

You read Surah Al Maida from the Quran? Al Maida = the table spread, refers to the last supper!

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

regarding that, the burial dude, the math doesn't even add up... the bible says three days, yet there were only two days he could have been there if he rose on Sunday (which itself is dubious since he appeared as a wraith or ghostly apparition which then solidified like a Jinn which tricks human beings)... so, please, spare me the appeal to authority when the math doesn't even hold... surely you know the math doesn't add up here - the inconsistencies with the crucifixion narratives are so many that to even consider them as an historical event takes faith and leaves reason and logic to go fish for punters?

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?

I have no idea what you find "incredible" - truth be told, the verse makes me smirk at the emotional instability of Christians... is that what i am supposed to find "incredible" ???

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

1) Your asking me to compare a ridiculous man made, interpolated verse from the NT to the Quran - a divinely inspired book which has withstood the test of time? Are you even in the right frame of mind to make such a comparison?

Look, the NT is a book of weak and fabricated ahadeeth, the Quran is the WORD OF GOD - in your language - the LOGOS. There is no comparison. Quran wins.

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.

You don't need to start a topic, just use the search function instead... and yes, both my eyes are open, and my mind is keen, my heart - beating like a drum to a steady rhythm... you may just bop to it, if you catch my tempo...

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...

Ok, in a simple word - he didn't... he didn't die on the cross, the narratives of crucifxion from the NT and the historical record have much discrepancy in them to suggest that it was not Jesus pbuh who was crucified, heck, surely you know that documents exist in Israel which do not even recognise the crucifixion of Jesus pbuh, penned by so-called Christians no less.

With all this to consider, how you've managed to invest faith in the constantine doctrine of mithraism is beyond my scope of understanding - i find it quite amusing though.

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!

No, I ask you to look at the videos, because they save me time - and you time also. And i don;t like to regurgitate someone else work, instead, i'd rather just show you what they have done and then tell you "this is what i also think" - or - "I can ascribe to this"... so play ball, the video insert button is here for a reason, and I use it for that reason. play ball bud.

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? ;-)

Nope, you just got your dates wrong - Mithraism, Sol invictus etc - all go back to beyond the time of Moses, to the time of Egyptian pharaohs, who also believed in "trinity" beleive it or not (enter Horus and Osiris lol) - hence, the genesis of trinity, can be traced back to as far back as ancient Sumer and Akkad!!! Ofcourse, you being a well informed person quite conveniently ignored this didn't you?

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.

If you was serious about having a discussion, you'd play ball, and look at all the evidences I provide you, regardless of what form they come in... as for your precious minutes - you telling me that you can't spare these for something you so supposedly hold dear to your own life? Jesus pbuh? Really?

As I mentioned, this forum allows for the insertion of videos so it is well within the confines/rules of this forum to post them, and since this isn't your thread, but you entered it as a guest - you should not make such demands and listen to your hosts when they provide you with "gifts of knowledge" and not turn these away because they are in a form unacceptable to you for some silly reason like "wasting precious minutes".

You really are making some foolish demands here, but i can overlook this, since you have humoured me with a response.

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?

No, I am confident. Alhamdulillah. But, you see me as smug, you think I have an ego -etc- and all this you accuse me of is nowt but a reflection of your own self betraying your own inner inadequacies. and you had the nerve to call me out on my nafs? Surely you can see how the accusation returns to the accuser!

Scimi (part one end)

 

[Scimitar]

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.

Your gremlins are showing

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?

Brother Sojourn, this is a very noobish mistake you have made here - let me correct your mistake. To be anointed, one must be ritually cleansed first, you don't anoint someone who hasnt gone through the ritual cleansing, no - you wait for them to ritually cleanse first before the actual anointing takes place YOU DIDN'T KNOW THAT?

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.

I'm no apologist lol, no - why should I be - I'm more of a rogue eschatologist than anything else in this regard. And yes, please do record for me - your preaching to Muslims on the street - I will watch those with a keen interest, a packet of popcorn and some Irn Bru for kicks. Though what this has to do with the topic I have no idea - unless you are now hatching a plan to derail it

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.

Though we agree that Jesus pbuh is the messiah, what we disagree on is the meaning of it - for you, messiah means Son of God... to me that's a blasphemy of the highest order.

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?

1) I've let you get away with the B2B remarks for far too long. Now I need to remind you that I USED TO BE ONE... now I run a business where my company develops apps for business on android and IOS platforms. Maybe you can find a way to joke about that since the B2B ones are wearing thin? Gosh you've taken this way too personal, I must have hit some nerves eh?

2) the messiah is not divine - he is anointed. You need to recognise the difference. No man is divine - only God is divine. Tell me, how can you accept that your manGod took a poo? Do you know what the aboriginal term Atnatu means? It means He who has no anus - referring to the God head!!! If even the aborigines can recognise that God is above human needs and wants - how can you, a man living in the 21st century with a modern education, ascribe to such illogical fallacy?

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?

I don't place any providence in isaiah, so you'd be hard pressed getting me to ascribe to your way of thinking here. Isaiah is just, simply put - not very good reading material.

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?

no I smell fear coming from you instead and it smells like yellow snow.

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.

Pfft, hahahaa, that got me roffling my toffles mate too funny, how you reject the miracles Jesus pbuh performed by Gods permission as fables you sure you're a Christian man? Coz no Christian I have met, would ever claim as you have done - a Jew, definitely, but no Christian... WOW that was sheer entertainment! thank you

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.

Hey hey hey now, i already explained above that I will continue to post videos... you strike me as the type of person who asks for proof and when it is presented, you say "no, I want it in this format only" dude - that's not the age we live in, we live in the age of technology - embrace it - or be draconian in your approach and methodology - your choice. I will continue to post evidences in whatever manner i see fit - bottom line, if it does the job then it's good enough - for everyone, and that would include you also.

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.

So when you say the above - would you be ready to accept that Jesus pbuh may not have been crucified? See, you've just cornered yourself here... in one breath you claim that nothing is certain when we're dealing with events which occurred 2 millenia ago - and in the next - you use scanty texts from dubious sources to "help" you to believe in the cruci-fiction" ???? Gotta play it smarter than that in future pal

Show me your daleel for this

Show you daleel for names? LOL - you sure you know what daleel is dude? You're stupidity is growing on me, and i like it No offence, i find it... cute

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

YES I AM. Dude, let me put it to you like this, would you trust a textbook which made outrageous claims and was penned by someone who didn't even have the decency to leave their last name?

Short answer is no. You wouldn't - but you do - with the NT. And therein lies the hypocrisy!

One Quran with how many readings? ;-)

You mean "translations" ??? as many as there are languages - but only one VERSION of it - the orginal - whereas your NT has the problem of being MANY VERSIONS - heck, too many to keep up with. brother, you are grasping at straws which the straw man rejected

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

That promotes me from idiot to fool then, I guess.

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

Then please GET STARTED, and lets leave the foreplay alone, yes? And you have the nerve to claim I was wasting your time? pfft.

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

Well, you know the drill.

I know a drill - not your drill... watch the video bro, i can wait - no hurry ok?

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

I must admit, I am pleasantly surprised that you haven't run away - so kudos to you for that... now that the sugar coating is over, let's get back to business shall we?

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


Wa salaam

And I hope you will watch the videos and then start a narrative afresh with me once you've considered the evidence... and there's plenty more where that came from.

God bless,

Scimi