Music in worship

Status
Not open for further replies.
And I have also shown you before that many pagans, tribes, etc are also drawn closer to God in worship with music.
As I mentioned before, the fundamental difference is that we worship Yahweh, the God of Abraham, Isaac and Jacob, while those tribes do not.

Sounds like you are dependent on music to get closer to God. This actually reminds me of my former friends who swore by God that they felt much closer to God when they were ingesting drugs.
The fundamental difference is that the joy of worship (combined either with music or without music) brings pleasure to God, while the sinful pleasure of drugs brings grief to God.


nice fiction, not very creative though.
The first word that comes to our mind when it comes to worship is joy. Peace is too weak to describe our joyful heart when we are in the presence of God.
 
s I mentioned before, the fundamental difference is that we worship Yahweh, the God of Abraham, Isaac and Jacob, while those tribes do not.

You mention christian in your religion status. Christians worship jesus.
You are right. those tribes do not worship jesus, a man.

The fundamental difference is that the joy of worship (combined either with music or without music) brings pleasure to God, while the sinful pleasure of drugs brings grief to God.

who is your god exactly? your god is pleasured by music and griefed by drugs? is he a human? sounds like he is one of those ancient greek god actually.

The first word that comes to our mind when it comes to worship is joy. Peace is too weak to describe our joyful heart when we are in the presence of God

to your mind.
why did you suddenly mention "peace"? and who mentioned the word "peace" in this conversation?

I get it that your god derived pleasure from watching and listening to you guys swaying your hips, shaking your collective bootay, dancing your heart out and singing enthusiastically to the sound of cymbals, trumpets, drums, flutes, piano, violins. organs, guitars, electronic music etc and screaming "hallelujah!"

No wonder none of you christians take your god seriously.
 
Last edited:
You mention christian in your religion status. Christians worship jesus.
You are right. those tribes do not worship jesus, a man.



who is your god exactly? your god is pleasured by music and griefed by drugs? is he a human? sounds like he is one of those ancient greek god actually.



to your mind.
why did you suddenly mention "peace"? and who mentioned the word "peace" in this conversation?

I get it that your god derived pleasure from watching and listening to you guys swaying your hips, shaking your collective bootay, dancing your heart out and singing enthusiastically to the sound of cymbals, trumpets, drums, flutes, piano, violins. organs, guitars, electronic music etc and screaming "hallelujah!"

No wonder none of you christians take your god seriously.


I really want to focus on music in worship in this thread, but you kept questioning the divine nature of Jesus. In response to your repeated questions, I sidetrack to answer your questions.

If you read carefully the whole Bible with open mind and ponder over the implication of what Jesus said and more importantly what He did, it is not difficult to see Jesus is both divine and human. I am not saying that Jesus is only God, or He is only man, but Jesus is both God and man. In this post I talk about one of His divine natures briefly. First of all you need to understand as a background that Jesus lived according to all Jewish cultures and customs. You have heard the famous statement of God to Moses “I am who I am” (Exodus 3:14). After this statement by God, Jewish peoples have been strictly forbidden to say “I am …..” Only the almighty God was allowed to say this statement. If somebody had said “I am …..”, he would have been accused of blasphemy and condemned to death. I suppose you might have heard the following statements by Jesus. I am the way and the truth and the life (John 14:6). I am the resurrection and the life (John 11:25). I am the light of the world (John 8:12). I am the bread of life (John 6:35). I am the gate for the sheep (John 10:7). There are more but I have to stop. Each every statement of these was equivalent to saying, “I am the almighty God” in Jewish cultures and customs. Of course Jesus was well aware of this and knew well what He was saying. He just revealed to people who he really is. Because of this kind of statements He was condemned to death and crucified on the cross by Jewish religious leaders and experts in the laws. "We are not stoning you for any of these," replied the Jews, "but for blasphemy, because you, a mere man, claim to be God." (John 10:33) If you have doubt about this Jewish custom, please ask Jewish friends familiar with it. Jesus is who He revealed Himself to be, both God and man.
 
I really want to focus on music in worship in this thread, but you kept questioning the divine nature of Jesus. In response to your repeated questions, I sidetrack to answer your questions.


Music has no place in worship.. if you come with a pure heart then you don't need instruments to drown out God calling..
everything in creation will chant and praise God then in its own melodious way.. the wind in the trees, the rustling of the leaves, birds chirping and man reciting his words in a melodious tone.

as for the rest, quoting your bible does little for anyone. You are yet to establish contextual and chronological integrity for that book. I am sure the Hindus can quote Ganesh being the way to truth, or Zarathustra being the way to the truth.. surely you can see the absurdity in that.. one pagan belief is as good as the next..

have a great day!
 
Last edited:
I really want to focus on music in worship in this thread, but you kept questioning the divine nature of Jesus.

Excuse me! Please do not insult my intelligence.

where in my post that I question the divine nature of Jesus?

I know 100% that Jesus not divine, so I have no need to ask you about his divinity.

All I was saying is that those pagan tribes experiencing joy of salvation in using music with worship of their god, and true, they do not worship a man like you christians who worship jesus (a man).
 
Last edited:
τhε ṿαlε'ṡ lïlÿ;1378254 said:
Music has no place in worship.. if you come with a pure heart then you don't need instruments to drown out God calling.

Is this possible in Islam, a pure heart every time we come to God - though I am not entirely sure what you mean: sinless, no stray thoughts, no unkind thoughts about anyone, honest motives, ...?
 
Excuse me! Please do not insult my intelligence. where in my post that I question the divine nature of Jesus? I know 100% that Jesus not divine, so I have no need to ask you about his divinity.
How do you know this? The evidence of the Gospels says he did miracles and rose from the dead - surely that might give you an incling that he was in some way at least different?
 
You mention christian in your religion status. Christians worship jesus.
You are right. those tribes do not worship jesus, a man.

If I misunderstood you, I apologize you. But your latest comment clearly indicates that Jesus is not divine, but just a man. That is why I sidetracked to answer your wrong comment to show you that Jesus is both divine and human, namely, both God and man.


To The yale’s lilly

The manuscript evidence for the New Testament is dramatic, with over 5,300 known copies and fragments in the original Greek, nearly 800 of which were copied before 1000 AD. Some manuscript texts date to the early second and third centuries, with the time between the original autographs and our earliest existing copies being a remarkably short 60 years. Among 5,300 copies, there are 40 disputed lines of text. This pales in textual comparison with the over 5,300 copies and fragments of the New Testament that, together, assure us that nothing's been lost. In fact, all of the New Testament except eleven verses can be reconstructed from the writings of the early church fathers in the second and third centuries. Interestingly, this manuscript evidence far surpasses the manuscript reliability of other ancient writings that we trust as authentic every day. Look at these comparisons: Julius Caesar's "The Gallic Wars" (10 manuscripts remain, with the earliest one dating to 1,000 years after the original autograph); Pliny the Younger's "History" (7 manuscripts; 750 years elapsed); Thucydides' "History" (8 manuscripts; 1,300 years elapsed); Herodotus' "History" (8 manuscripts; 1,300 years elapsed); Sophocles (193 manuscripts; 1,400 years); Euripides (9 manuscripts; 1,500 years); and Aristotle (49 manuscripts; 1,400 years).

I do not know about the manuscript reliability of your scripture. I think there is for the Quran. The Bible is authentic, as your scripture is authentic. The fundamental difference between Hindus and Christians is that they believe Ganesh is the way to the truth, while Christians believe Yahweh (the God of Abraham, Isaac and Jacob) is the way to the truth. We do not worship three gods. We worship one God that has been revealed to us in different ways (The Father, The Son and The Holy Spirit).

 
Is this possible in Islam, a pure heart every time we come to God - though I am not entirely sure what you mean: sinless, no stray thoughts, no unkind thoughts about anyone, honest motives, ...?

Well of course you don't know what that means!

When I see christians and their music in church I think of Satanists summoning the devil!




To The yale’s lilly

The manuscript evidence for the New Testament is dramatic, with over 5,300 known copies and fragments in the original Greek, nearly 800 of which were copied before 1000 AD. Some manuscript texts date to the early second and third centuries, with the time between the original autographs and our earliest existing copies being a remarkably short 60 years. Among 5,300 copies, there are 40 disputed lines of text. This pales in textual comparison with the over 5,300 copies and fragments of the New Testament that, together, assure us that nothing's been lost. In fact, all of the New Testament except eleven verses can be reconstructed from the writings of the early church fathers in the second and third centuries. Interestingly, this manuscript evidence far surpasses the manuscript reliability of other ancient writings that we trust as authentic every day. Look at these comparisons: Julius Caesar's "The Gallic Wars" (10 manuscripts remain, with the earliest one dating to 1,000 years after the original autograph); Pliny the Younger's "History" (7 manuscripts; 750 years elapsed); Thucydides' "History" (8 manuscripts; 1,300 years elapsed); Herodotus' "History" (8 manuscripts; 1,300 years elapsed); Sophocles (193 manuscripts; 1,400 years); Euripides (9 manuscripts; 1,500 years); and Aristotle (49 manuscripts; 1,400 years).

I do not know about the manuscript reliability of your scripture. I think there is for the Quran. The Bible is authentic, as your scripture is authentic. The fundamental difference between Hindus and Christians is that they believe Ganesh is the way to the truth, while Christians believe Yahweh (the God of Abraham, Isaac and Jacob) is the way to the truth. We do not worship three gods. We worship one God that has been revealed to us in different ways (The Father, The Son and The Holy Spirit).


please spare me the cuts and pastes.. but if you dig them, sink your teeth into this:

Textual Integrity Of The Bible
Is the Bible that we have in our hands today unchanged? Or has it undergone extensive revisions and alterations? Truth is the first victim in the Christian apologetical literature. This is because if they tell the truth about the Church history and its role in formulating the Bible (or Bibles) as well as the manuscript tradition of the New Testament, belief in the Bible as the "Word" of God would take the beating and the Churches would go absolutely empty. Hence it is not be surprising to find an average Christian's knowledge about his own scriptures is pretty close to zero.
This page is to educate the Muslims about the Bible of the Christians, concerning mainly with its compilation and textual reliability. It is often seen that Christian missionaries dupe less-knowledgeable Muslims about the Bible by saying that the Qur'an confirms the Bible and hence Muslims should believe in the Bible. Muslims should remember that the Qur'an attests Torah, Zabur and Injil as revelations from God given to the Prophet. It does not attest whatever writers of the Old Testament or St. Paul in the New Testament wrote or said.
But what is the textual reliability of the so-called Torah, Zabur and Injil present in the modern Bibles? The aim of this page is to venture into this issue. If one can't establish the 'revealed' books' textual reliability, is there any point calling it as the Word of God?
Lastly, we have made sure that we use the references of Judeo-Christian scholars of repute not the apologetical literature for very obvious reasons.
The Canon Of The Bible
redarrow-1.gif
A detailed discussion about the various canons of the Bible drawn at various times by different Churches can be seen here.
The New Testament Manuscripts Was The Bible Same As We have In Our Hands Today?
The Bible and Its 'Inspiration'
Textual Reliability Of The Bible - Who Is Afraid Of Textual Criticism?
redarrow-1.gif
Criteria Used In Choosing Among Conflicting Readings In New Testament Witnesses

  1. Introduction
  2. The Criteria
  3. Outline Of Criteria
    1. External Evidence
    2. Internal Evidence
  4. Some Examples
redarrow-1.gif
Textual Reliability / Accuracy Of The New Testament
redarrow-1.gif
Sir David Dalrymple (Lord Hailes), The Patristic Citations Of The Ante-Nicene Church Fathers And The Search For Eleven Missing Verses Of The New Testament
Based on a narrative whose source is alleged to have been the renowned Scottish Judge Sir David Dalrymple (Lord Hailes), it is frequently asserted that the entire New Testament can be reconstructed from the citations of the Church Fathers of the first three centuries, with the exception of only eleven verses. Going back to the original documents, something which none of the authors have attempted to study, it is shown that the data in them clearly disproves this claim – repeated in numerous missionary and apologetical publications for a period of more than 165 years.

redarrow-1.gif
Modern Approaches To New Testament Textual Criticism

  1. Radical Eclecticism (G. D. Kilpatrick, J. K. Elliott)
  2. Reasoned Eclecticism (B. M. Metzger, K. Aland)
  3. Reasoned Conservatism (H. A. Sturz)
  4. Radical Conservatism (Z. Hodges, A. Farstad)
redarrow-1.gif
Critical Text Of The New Testament: Methodology and Implications

  1. Introduction
  2. Formation Of A Critical Text: Methodology and Implications
  3. Conclusion
  4. Appendix: Other Articles Of Interest
redarrow-1.gif
The Multivalence Of The Term "Original Text" In New Testament Textual Criticism, E. Jay Epp, Harvard Theological Review, 1999, Volume 92, No. 3. pp. 245-281.

  1. Introduction
  2. The Use of the Term "Original Text" Past and Present and Its Multivalence
  3. The Relation of an Elusive, Multivalent "Original Text" to the Concept of "Canon"
  4. Conclusion
redarrow-1.gif
Who Is Afraid Of Textual Criticism?

  1. Variant Readings In The Qur'an and In The Bible
    1. The Qur'an, Its Variant Readings and Islamic Scholarship
    2. The New Testament, Its Problems and The Critical Texts
  2. Textual Criticism and The Reaction Of The Church
    1. J Mill
    2. R Bentley
    3. J J Wettstein
    4. B F Westcott and J A Hort
For centuries, they have been saying that Muhammad(P) composed the Qur'ân by borrowing the Judeo-Christian material. The 'logic' of showing the borrowing was to simply show similarity between the Qur'ânic and Biblical narrative and then conclude that Muhammad(P) copied the verses in question from the Judeo-Christian sources.
So we figured that it was about time that we reciprocated the favour and pay the Christian missionaries their due in full. We will use their own methodology to show how good the Bible stands the scrutiny.
Borrowing In The Old Testament
Borrowing In The New Testament
redarrow-1.gif
Epimenides Paradox and St. Paul


Is The Bible Inimitable?
Anyone who has read the history of the Bible as a text as well as the constantly changing canon at the whims of the leaders of the Church and some 300,000+ variant readings in the New Testament itself would suggest that no book in history enjoyed such as reputation. The process of serious editing through which the Christian Bible went through is unparalleled in its almost 2000 year history. This would itself make the Bible an inimitable book.
As far as the language of the Bible and its stylistic perfection is concerned, the Bible does not make any such claim. Therefore, it not does challenge the mankind of produce a few verses or a chapter like it. Further, it is a Christian claim that the Bible contains scribal and linguistic errors. The language in which the Greek New Testament was written is demotic Greek which itself has little or no regard for grammatical rules of classical Greek. Comparing the stylistic perfection of the Qur'an versus stylistic imperfection of the Bible, von Grunebaum states:
In contrast to the stylistic perfection of the Kur'an with the stylistic imperfections of the older Scriptures the Muslim theologian found himself unknowingly and on purely postulative grounds in agreement with long line of Christian thinkers whose outlook on the Biblical text is best summed up in Nietzsche's brash dictum that the Holy Ghost wrote bad Greek.[19]
Futher, he elaborates the position of Western theologians on the canonization process and composition of the Bible:
The knowledge of the Western theologian that the Biblical books were redacted by different writers and that they were, in many cases, accessible to him only in (inspired) translation facilitated admission of formal imperfections in Scripture and there with lessened the compulsive insistence on its stylistic authority. Christian teaching, leaving the inspired writer, under the guidance of the Holy Spirit, free in matters of style, has provided no motivation to seek an exact correlation between the revealed text on the one hand and grammar and rhetoric on the other. It thereby relieved the theologian and the critic from searching for a harmony between two stylistic worlds, which at best would yield an ahistoric concept of literary perfection and at worst would prevent anything resembling textual and substantive criticism of Revelation....
In Christianity, besides, the apology for the "low" style of the Bible is merely a part of educational problem - what to do with secular erudition within Christianity; whereas in Islam, the central position of the Kur'an, as the focal point and justification of grammatical and literary studies, was theoretically at least, never contested within the believing community.[20]
That pretty much sums up the Bible, its stylistic perfection (or the lack of it!) and the position of Western theologians.


The criticism is as follows:
I hope you see my problem. If God comes to the conclusion that he has to abrogate and make new orders then this is admitting that he made mistakes. It shows that what he gave before was not perfect. It could be improved.

Your scenario accuses God of making mistakes.

But God is all-knowing, he is not surprised by new circumstances and new ideas. It is against the nature and attributes of God to change his mind. And clearly, if God had changed the Qur'an before he revealed it then we would never have known about the change. Because we know the abrogated and abrogating verses [at least some] therefore it is clear that you accuse God not only of changing his mind just for himself, but that he took rather long to find out that it was wrong. After all, the Qur'an is uncreated and was with God for eternity, how come he just found out that some things have to be changed after he revealed it to Muhammad?

To me, this does not make sense. It is derogatory of the holy and supreme God. It attributes mistakes to him and that he didn't know what he was doing in the first place. And then he has to abrogate to clean up the mess of wrong revelation.

That is what I cannot accept.

When one studies the Hebrew and Greek scriptures, it becomes clear that omnipotent and omniscient God did make mistakes and repented. This means that the God did not know his own actions and the outcomes of the actions. Now for some fine examples. Let us first start with Old Testament. In the story of Noah(P), it is mention that:
And the LORD smelled a sweet savour; and the LORD said in his heart, I will not again curse the ground anymore for man's sake; for the imagination of man's heart is evil from his youth; neither will I again smite any more everything living, as I have done. [Genesis 8:21]
And in the story of Moses(P), we read
And the LORD repented of the evil which he thought to do unto his people. [Exodus 32:14]
Oh no! that is Old Testament, cries the Christian. The New Testament has replaced all that. Yes, in the New Testament, the monotheistic and henotheistic God of Israel, Yahweh, suddenly starts to be interpreted as Trinity. So, the concept of monotheistic and henotheistic God itself got abrogated in the New Testament as the Christians allege! So we have to assume that the monotheistic and henotheistic God of Israel did not know that he was Trinity and made a serious mistake or he simply changed his mind or in the worst case scenario, he cheated the People of Israel.
The problem just does not end here. Let us also see what are the problems of the Christian cry; The New Testament has replaced all that. The following essay is intended to show evidence of the concept of abrogation in the Bible both between the Hebrew Scriptures (Old Testament) and Greek Scriptures (New Testament) as well as internally in the Greek Scriptures themselves.
To begin - what is meant by the term "abrogation"? The Concise Oxford Dictionary defines the word Abrogate as:
ab-ro-gate: v.tr. repeal, annul, abolish (a law or custom).
In the context of the will and law of God (Holy is He above all that is attributed to Him) as expressed in Scripture, it refers to the nullification of an older Law or concept in favour of a newer and more appropriate one.
We might ask whether an omniscient God, if He is the one who sent Torah and Injeel, might employ such a concept as abrogation? Surely an all-knowing God would be able to impart His will in entirety without recourse to change? Doesn't the idea of abrogating, or nullifying, a previous law in light of a better one suggest that the Author is not all-knowing?
What these questions don't take into account, is that whilst God is all-knowing, unchanging (e.g., Malachi 3:6, with lots of problems with the concept of Trinity), His audience, humanity, is not. The very concept that Christianity holds so dear, of the difference between the old covenantal relationship of law, as opposed to the new covenantal relationship of grace relies on the understanding that human beings as individuals and in human societies are in fact subjected to change in condition.
According to Matthew, Jesus(P) said:
"Do not think that I have come to abolish the Law or the Prophets; I have not come to abolish them but to fulfill them. I tell you the truth, until heaven and earth disappear, not the smallest letter, not the least stroke of a pen, will by any means disappear from the Law until everything is accomplished. Anyone who breaks one of the least of these commandments and teaches others to do the same will be called least in the kingdom of heaven, but whoever practices and teaches these commands will be called great in the kingdom of heaven. (Matthew 5:17-19)
And surprising, Jesus(P), the omniscient Yahweh incarnate (allegedly!) suddenly had to change the Laws of Divorce, Justice and Oaths apart from changing his own mind!
Abrogation Of Divorce
The best examples of Jesus(P) abrogating parts of Old Testament law concern a number of statements recorded in the gospel according to Matthew. The most prominent of them would be the Law concerning Divorce.
In the Old Testament we find the following law concerning divorce:
If a man marries a woman who becomes displeasing to him because he finds something indecent about her, and he writes her a certificate of divorce, gives it to her and sends her from his house, and if after she leaves his house she becomes the wife of another man, (Deutronomy 24:1-2)
Now without going into the minute of this particular law of divorce, one thing becomes immediately clear. Not only is divorce permitted by God, it is legal for her to remarry.
However in the time of Jesus(P), the rules of divorce seem to have taken a U-turn.
"It has been said, 'Anyone who divorces his wife must give her a certificate of divorce.' But I tell you that anyone who divorces his wife, except for marital unfaithfulness, causes her to become an adulteress, and anyone who marries the divorced woman commits adultery. (Matthew 5:31-32)
Here Jesus(P) abrogated the former permission to divorce according to the husband's displeasure and strictly allowed it under one condition - adultery. He even went so far as to legislate that divorcees were not permitted to remarry, clearly abrogating the former permission. But what is the reason given for this abrogation? Had God changed His mind? Is this evidence of God not being omniscient? Or more importantly, is this evidence that in fact God was never the author of these laws? Well Jesus(P) himself explains:
"Why then," they asked, "did Moses command that a man give his wife a certificate of divorce and send her away?" Jesus replied, "Moses permitted you to divorce your wives because your hearts were hard. But it was not this way from the beginning. I tell you that anyone who divorces his wife, except for marital unfaithfulness, and marries another woman commits adultery." (Matthew 19:7-9)
Jesus(P) points to the fact that God designs laws that are suitable to the needs and exigencies of the time and audience.
Law Of Absolute Justice
In the Hebrew Scriptures it is written:
Show no pity: life for life, eye for eye, tooth for tooth, hand for hand, foot for foot. (Deutronomy 19:21)
Quite a harsh law of absolute justice that was necessary due to the conditions of Moses'(P) age. But Jesus(P) was inspired by God to reveal a softer code for the believers to practice in individual relationships. By abrogating the harshness of absolute justice, Jesus(P) was inspired to encourage the believers to employ forgiveness and mercy. It is recorded he said:
"You have heard that it was said, 'Eye for eye, and tooth for tooth.' But I tell you, Do not resist an evil person. If someone strikes you on the right cheek, turn to him the other also. And if someone wants to sue you and take your tunic, let him have your cloak as well. If someone forces you to go one mile, go with him two miles. Give to the one who asks you, and do not turn away from the one who wants to borrow from you. (Matthew 5:38-42)
It is a different story that many Christians do not practice what Jesus(P) has told them to do.
Law Of Oaths
We read:
If you make a vow to the LORD your God, do not be slow to pay it, for the LORD your God will certainly demand it of you and you will be guilty of sin. But if you refrain from making a vow, you will not be guilty. Whatever your lips utter you must be sure to do, because you made your vow freely to the LORD your God with your own mouth. (Deutronomy 23:21-23)
That is, it is permissible to make an oath for various reasons, however, the swearer must fulfil the oath he makes. In Jesus' time it became necessary for him to abrogate this permission so that the swearing of oaths became forbidden. In Matthew it is recorded:
"Again, you have heard that it was said to the people long ago, `Do not break your oath, but keep the oaths you have made to the Lord.' But I tell you, Do not swear at all: either by heaven, for it is God's throne; or by the earth, for it is his footstool; or by Jerusalem, for it is the city of the Great King. And do not swear by your head, for you cannot make even one hair white or black. Simply let your `Yes' be `Yes,' and your `No,' `No'; anything beyond this comes from the evil one. (Matthew 5:33-37)
Jesus(P) Abrogating His Own Commandments

Perhaps the clearest example of God inspiring Jesus
(P) to practice abrogation can be seen in the commissioning of his disciples. It is written in the New Testament that initially Jesus(P) forbade his disciples from preaching to non-Jews. He restricted their activities and commanded them to avoid Gentiles. However, due to the change in circumstances and the completion of his earthly mission, Jesus(P) abrogated this earlier law and made it not only permissible but obligatory for his disciples to reach out to a broader base.
A nice example of Jesus(P) asking his disciples to preach the lost sheep of Israel is:
These twelve Jesus sent out with the following instructions: "Do not go among the Gentiles or enter any town of the Samaritans. Go rather to the lost sheep of Israel. (Matthew 10:5-6)
This prohibition is reinforced by Jesus'(P) own practice:
A Canaanite woman from that vicinity came to him, crying out, "Lord, Son of David, have mercy on me! My daughter is suffering terribly from demon-possession." Jesus did not answer a word. So his disciples came to him and urged him, "Send her away, for she keeps crying out after us." He answered, "I was sent only to the lost sheep of Israel." (Matthew 15:22-24)
Even though because of his mercy Jesus(P) healed the sick daughter, he made it clear that his mission was to the Jews, not to the Gentiles. Later on this was abrogated and Jesus(P) commanded his disciples to reach out to all peoples. It is recorded he said:
Then Jesus came to them and said, "All authority in heaven and on earth has been given to me. Therefore go and make disciples of all nations, baptizing them in the name of the Father and of the Son and of the Holy Spirit, and teaching them to obey everything I have commanded you. And surely I am with you always, to the very end of the age." (Matthew 28:18-20)
Conclusions
It is clear that the concept of abrogation: the nullifying of an older commandment or practice in favour of a newer law, is nothing new and it has been practiced by God for aeons. What we know is that the laws governing the mankind (i.e., Shariah) changes according to the needs of the society. But the concept of monotheism (i.e., Tawheed) remains the same. The Creator knows very well that his creation, the humans, need time and discipline to grow and mature, He reveals commandments and practices that help them develop both as individuals and as members of society. All Praise be to the God, Lord of the Worlds.
And Allah knows best!




_______________________




have a good one

 
If I misunderstood you, I apologize you. But your latest comment clearly indicates that Jesus is not divine, but just a man. That is why I sidetracked to answer your wrong comment to show you that Jesus is both divine and human, namely, both God and man.


To The yale’s lilly

The manuscript evidence for the New Testament is dramatic, with over 5,300 known copies and fragments in the original Greek, nearly 800 of which were copied before 1000 AD.

actually, the "evidence" for the "authenticity" is pretty sad. you have hearsay upon hearsay. if i were an arbitrator deciding the matter, i might let 7 letters of Paul into evidence. however Paul claims to bring a new religion, so it doesn't help you. there are NO CONTEMPORANEOUS EYEWITNESS ACCOUNTS of ANY PART OF Jesus' human life! NOT A ONE!


Some manuscript texts date to the early second and third centuries, with the time between the original autographs and our earliest existing copies being a remarkably short 60 years.

that is just not true! why try to mislead? you mean FRAGMENTS of manuscripts, NOT manuscripts! the oldest FRAGMENT of the NT is a piece of "John" that is sometimes thought to be from as early as 125AD. this fragment is no bigger than a credit card. while Paul's letters can be approximated, at least those that "Scholars" assume Paul wrote, to the 50's, this fragment is 75 years older than that! it is my understanding, that there NO COMPLETE Manuscripts until the 3rd Century! Jesus lived in the 1st Century, you do the math!


Among 5,300 copies, there are 40 disputed lines of text. This pales in textual comparison with the over 5,300 copies and fragments of the New Testament that, together, assure us that nothing's been lost. In fact, all of the New Testament except eleven verses can be reconstructed from the writings of the early church fathers in the second and third centuries. Interestingly, this manuscript evidence far surpasses the manuscript reliability of other ancient writings that we trust as authentic every day. Look at these comparisons: Julius Caesar's "The Gallic Wars" (10 manuscripts remain, with the earliest one dating to 1,000 years after the original autograph); Pliny the Younger's "History" (7 manuscripts; 750 years elapsed); Thucydides' "History" (8 manuscripts; 1,300 years elapsed); Herodotus' "History" (8 manuscripts; 1,300 years elapsed); Sophocles (193 manuscripts; 1,400 years); Euripides (9 manuscripts; 1,500 years); and Aristotle (49 manuscripts; 1,400 years).


I do not know about the manuscript reliability of your scripture. I think there is for the Quran. The Bible is authentic, as your scripture is authentic.

ABSOLUTELY NOT! EVERY SINGLE S0LITARY "VERSE" IN THE Qur'an WAS WRITTEN DOWN "IN THE PRESENCE OF THE PROPHET ON THE DAY IT WAS REVEALED!" The earliest that the majority of scholars can agree that the "Gospels" were written was 65 to 75AD for "Mark"; 80 to 85AD for "Matthew" and "Luke" and around 95AD for "John." i put the names in quotes because ALL of the Gospels were written anonymously and NO ONE KNOWS who really wrote them! the 2 don't compare in the least bit!

The fundamental difference between Hindus and Christians is that they believe Ganesh is the way to the truth, while Christians believe Yahweh (the God of Abraham, Isaac and Jacob) is the way to the truth. We do not worship three gods. We worship one God that has been revealed to us in different ways (The Father, The Son and The Holy Spirit).

Jesus claims, in YOUR Bible to "sit at the right hand of the father," does he not? 2 butts equals 2 gods any way you slice it!



now, let us take a look at what you Christians have posted:

If you read carefully the whole Bible with open mind and ponder over the implication of what Jesus said and more importantly what He did, it is not difficult to see Jesus is both divine and human. I am not saying that Jesus is only God, or He is only man, but Jesus is both God and man. In this post I talk about one of His divine natures briefly. First of all you need to understand as a background that Jesus lived according to all Jewish cultures and customs. You have heard the famous statement of God to Moses “I am who I am” (Exodus 3:14). After this statement by God, Jewish peoples have been strictly forbidden to say “I am …..” Only the almighty God was allowed to say this statement. If somebody had said “I am …..”, he would have been accused of blasphemy and condemned to death. I suppose you might have heard the following statements by Jesus. I am the way and the truth and the life (John 14:6). I am the resurrection and the life (John 11:25). I am the light of the world (John 8:12). I am the bread of life(John 6:35). I am the gate for the sheep (John 10:7). There are more but I have to stop.

where do you get your "best evidence" that Jesus is god? from "John!" this is a document that the MAJORITY of Biblical Scholars date to the min 90's AD. when did the ministry of Jesus end? ovver 60 years earlier! have you ever seen a movie about Jesus? [and YES, that IS a rhetorical question. i assume you have.] in these movies, Jesus is portrayed as a young upstart with maybe the Apostle John being of similar age. According to "Matthew" Jesus had be born before 4BC, that would make him and John around 35 when Jesus' ministry ended. 65 years later John would be 100! and we can safely presume the other Apostles long dead and John at least a little dead. so now that the Apostles are dead, what begins to be taught? that ?Jesus is god! why did they wait so long? eh?

with the veracity of the Qur'an LIGHT YEARS AHEAD OF your Bible, we can safely depend on what we are taught!

we worship ONLY the Creator, Provider, Protector and Sustainer of ALL that has been created. we seek the help of [pray to] Him and Him alone! and we do this as taught by our Messenger. we have replaced ALL of the previous uncertain "books" with the Noble Qur'an. THIS Qur'an, we do our share in preserving. THAT does NOT require music so "you can feel good." it requires serving Allah and Allah Alone as directed by Rasulullah! THAT is PURE Guidance!

:sl:
 
I know this off topic but its just a short note to correct false notions about the Bible, for simplicity I will just speak about the New Testament. There are about 5,400 primary sources for the Gospels themselves as mostly parchments or papyri and many of these these goes back to about 150CE. In addition to this there are about 15,000 other secondary source such as commentaries, letters, hymns etc and using these alone it would be possible to reconstruct the NT. Using the huge volume of evidence it is possible to reconstruct the NT and scholars agree that the Greek text is accurate and perfectly reliable and only about 1/1000 is still in doubt and this involves just three passages: Mark 16:9-20 (an added ending to the Gospel), Luke 22:41-45 (Jesus prayer in the Garden) and John 7:53-8:11 (woman caught in the act of adultery). These three sections represent the only major textual problems in the Gospels and no important teaching hangs on any one of them unless you have some weird beliefs. So we have 20,000 sources and it is probably correct there are 300,000 variant readings but what is often forgotten by those with bias that is we might have say have 500 different copies of a verse from Matthew's Gospel with the same single spelling error and that would count as 500 variants readings.

What some scholars argue about is not the text as such for as I said little of that is in doubt but they do argue about what it all means and who Jesus is. If you want to see this work then look for the authors Bart Ehrman, James Robinson or the so called Jesus Seminar and then make your own mind up but let it be an honest assessment and not one based on excerpts from websites of dubious quality.

There are many thousands of translations in thousands of languages from Arabic to Klingon and someone who becomes a Christian today can almost certainly read the NT in his or her own modern language today also. In addition if I look at my English Bible and a German one I can see the same message in both for the same verses. So any one who says the Bible is corrupted to such an extent that is message is lost is not telling the truth.

One reads here about the apocryphal Gospels such as The Gospel to The Egyptians, the Secret Gospel of Mark or The Shepard of Hermas and so on but one only has to read them and then read the canonical Gospels to know with absolute certainty which is to be trusted. For example, in one. called the Acts of Paul we have the obviously false and fanciful story of Paul baptising a lion who later spared him when he was sent to the Arena by the Roman Emperor.

There is no shortage of books though I think the best coverage is given by Professor Graig Evans in his book (though a little technical) called "Fabricating Jesus", ISBN 9781844 741724.
 
Last edited:
music is amusement, and worship is not amusement.
 
There are many thousands of translations in thousands of languages from Arabic to Klingon and someone who becomes a Christian today can almost certainly read the NT in his or her own modern language today also. In addition if I look at my English Bible and a German one I can see the same message in both for the same verses. So any one who says the Bible is corrupted to such an extent that is message is lost is not telling the truth.

The message of the bible whether in Arabic or Klingon is worshiping a man for salvation and much ado about nothing else.. surely it wouldn't matter what you translate that sentence to, as it pretty much spells out a non-religion..

an even better book I recommend is
114835812_172bf9f4e1_o-1.jpg


all the best
 
τhε ṿαlε'ṡ lïlÿ;1378477 said:
The message of the bible whether in Arabic or Klingon is worshiping a man for salvation and much ado about nothing else.. surely it wouldn't matter what you translate that sentence to, as it pretty much spells out a non-religion.. an even better book I recommend is
114835812_172bf9f4e1_o-1.jpg
all the best

Can you confirm that you have also read Professor Evans' book, else how could you know?

But fine read Ehrman's book Misquoting Jesus, ISBN 9780060 85910 but if it's the only one you read then you are not being fair even to yourself. In any case Professor Evans give far more information with glossaries, lists of manuscripts, list of all ancient extra canonical sources and much besides and even if you don't agree with him you will at least know what the discussion is all about and you will not get that from Ehrman (incidentally Evans and Ehrman have worked together in translation projects)
 
Can you confirm that you have also read Professor Evans' book,


I haven't and to do so would in fact be 'unfair' since most of the information is readily available on the web-- you can have a thousand page manuscript on utter nonsense, not only is it a pure waste of time, but one will have gained nothing except perhaps putting money in a dullard's person's pocket book-- I wouldn't anymore spend time reading a book on the Rehbein's method to treat Hirschsprung's dz. When more clear, precise methods causing lesser morbidity and mortality and higher success rate exist.

Stop promoting your paganistic religion, I'd much rather be an atheist than waste time, or money reading nonsense about the manuscripts that conjecture the sayings of a man now turned god!

all the best
 
To get back on track.

Legislation in Islâm is based upon the Qur’ân and the Sunnah. All authority to declare things permissible or impermissible must derive from these two sources, directly or indirectly. For as long as the Qur’ân or the Sunnah provide guidance on a particular issue there is no need, or rather, it would be unwarranted, to opt for other sources of legislation. The actions of any particular person, no matter how erudite or pious he may be, will have no bearing on the ruling of the Sharî‘ah, if it does not derive from the Qur’ân and the Sunnah, or is in contradiction with either of these two.

This is where legislation on Music comes from. Although one can see that reason for such a mechanism for deciding it is or may be considered inadequate for there are a million and one things in the modern world that could not possibly have been mentioned in the Qu'ran or Sunnah so as we must "..opt for other sources of legislation.."

The range and utility of Music, instruments and singling today cannot possibly have been known or even anticipated back in the 7-9th centuries so is it stretching way to far such rulings as there are on Music. Indeed in this thread there has been very little discussion of the original, sources of music being forbidden and mostly it has been attempts to justify the ruling and to me that is equivalent to "..opting for other sources.." though without much connecting logic and mostly it has been opinion.

So in the Qu'ran there are thought to be 3 relevant references though none mention Music and I assume there are perfectly good Arabic words to do that. In the hadith we seem to have about 6 references though these are not direct - so its opinion of the exegete at the time but is that opinion still relevant in that the institutions, kind of music and instruments are very different now?
 
τhε ṿαlε'ṡ lïlÿ;1378483 said:
I haven't and to do so would in fact be 'unfair' since most of the information is readily available on the web-- you can have a thousand page manuscript on utter nonsense, not only is it a pure waste of time, but one will have gained nothing except perhaps putting money in a dullard's person's pocket book-- I wouldn't anymore spend time reading a book on the Rehbein's method to treat Hirschsprung's dz. When more clear, precise methods causing lesser morbidity and mortality and higher success rate exist.

You might be right and if you really do want a better success rate please don't tell us one book is better that anther when you have not even read it - that is deliberate misinformation and unworthy of this board.
 
You might be right and if you really do want a better success rate please don't tell us one book is better that anther when you have not even read it - that is deliberate misinformation and unworthy of this board.


How do you personally measure a 'higher success rate'?
If you have read the book and would like to share its 'millions upon millions of truthful manuscripts' then do so here and let's all collectively examine it, especially those on board former Christians.
If you have something of substance dear Hugo do share, quit referencing us to books where you yourself haven't glanced passed the title and perhaps the small parts of interests [snip].

all the best
 
Last edited by a moderator:
To get back on track.

Legislation in Islâm is based upon the Qur’ân and the Sunnah. All authority to declare things permissible or impermissible must derive from these two sources, directly or indirectly. For as long as the Qur’ân or the Sunnah provide guidance on a particular issue there is no need, or rather, it would be unwarranted, to opt for other sources of legislation. The actions of any particular person, no matter how erudite or pious he may be, will have no bearing on the ruling of the Sharî‘ah, if it does not derive from the Qur’ân and the Sunnah, or is in contradiction with either of these two.

This is where legislation on Music comes from. Although one can see that reason for such a mechanism for deciding it is or may be considered inadequate for there are a million and one things in the modern world that could not possibly have been mentioned in the Qu'ran or Sunnah so as we must "..opt for other sources of legislation.."

The range and utility of Music, instruments and singling today cannot possibly have been known or even anticipated back in the 7-9th centuries so is it stretching way to far such rulings as there are on Music. Indeed in this thread there has been very little discussion of the original, sources of music being forbidden and mostly it has been attempts to justify the ruling and to me that is equivalent to "..opting for other sources.." though without much connecting logic and mostly it has been opinion.

So in the Qu'ran there are thought to be 3 relevant references though none mention Music and I assume there are perfectly good Arabic words to do that. In the hadith we seem to have about 6 references though these are not direct - so its opinion of the exegete at the time but is that opinion still relevant in that the institutions, kind of music and instruments are very different now?

Quran sunnah, Ijma, Qiyas are authorities used in Islam - as nobody on this forum is a qualiifed Jurist I wouldnt expect people to actaully make rulings on it. They are stating there beliefs just like non muslims are.
 
Last edited:
How do you know this?

a human is not god.
period.
I don't worship a human who needed to be born out of a woman, who needed to take crap, who needed his own god and cried and prayed to be saved by his own god.
If you want to worship that human, it is up to you.
You will have a lot to answer.

The evidence of the Gospels says he did miracles and rose from the dead - surely that might give you an incling that he was in some way at least different

yes, jesus did miracles, his miracles were told by Allah in the Qur'an.
miracles do not make someone divine/god.
if that is your yardstick in determining whether someone is god, then you really have devalued god, because throughout history there have been many priophets and pious people given miracles by god. Adam a.s. didi not have father and mother, jesus had a mother. By christian logic, Adam is a greater god than jesus?
Really, how low do christians want to drag down god?
"hey, that person can perform miracles, let's worship him!"
LOL.
also, Jesus did not die. Allah saved him from the capture and torture of the romans and the betrayal by his own disciple, Allah raised him to heaven, and he will return to break crosses and kill swines and kill the antichrist. I actually am hoping I could see the event, it would be fun to see what the likes of you will react. And jesus will get married and die a natural and peaceful death, just like in his prayer to Allah "Peace is the day I was born and the day I die"
being tortured and left to die on a cross is certainly not a peaceful death.
even Abraham a.s. was saved by Allah from the fire and Allah made the fire cool for him.
All prophets are protected by Allah from the wickedness of their own people.

surely that might give you an incling that he was in some way at least different?

Yes, jesus was not merely a human.
he was a prophet and messenger sent by Allah to lead the lost sheep of Israel to return to the path of Noah, Abraham, and Moses, the path of tawheed.
 
Last edited:
Status
Not open for further replies.

Similar Threads

Back
Top