Is there an Islamic response to John 3?
Printed From: IslamiCity.org
Category: Religion - Islam
Forum Name: Interfaith Dialogue
Forum Description: It is for Interfaith dialogue, where Muslims discuss with non-Muslims. We encourge that dialogue takes place in a cordial atmosphere on various topics including religious tolerance.
URL: https://www.islamicity.org/forum/forum_posts.asp?TID=7450
Printed Date: 23 April 2024 at 11:32pm
Software Version: Web Wiz Forums 12.03 - http://www.webwizforums.com
Topic: Is there an Islamic response to John 3?
Posted By: Sarita
Subject: Is there an Islamic response to John 3?
Date Posted: 03 November 2006 at 6:54am
This is the chapter of the Bible I base my faith on. Does Islam have a response to this? I posted the chapter below, I could really use your insight. Thank you all so much! God bless you!John 31 There was a man named Nicodemus, a Jewish religious leader who was a Pharisee. 2 After dark one evening, he came to speak with Jesus. �Rabbi,� he said, �we all know that God has sent you to teach us. Your miraculous signs are evidence that God is with you.� 3 Jesus replied, 4 �What do you mean?� exclaimed Nicodemus. �How can an old man go back into his mother�s womb and be born again?� 5 Jesus replied, 9 �How are these things possible?� Nicodemus asked. 10 Jesus replied, 16 18 |
Replies:
Posted By: Andalus
Date Posted: 03 November 2006 at 10:00pm
Greetings Sarita. That is a nice passage, and it is a favorite to many Christians. There are several theological points in the verses, and so I am curious. Is there a single, major point that you are curious about? ------------- A feeling of discouragement when you slip up is a sure sign that you put your faith in deeds. -Ibn 'Ata'llah http://www.sunnipath.com http://www.sunniforum.com/forum/ http://www.pt-go.com/ |
Sarita wrote:Posted By: Cyril
Date Posted: 04 November 2006 at 8:33am
This text that looks so nice says people who believe in Jesus (as the Son of the Trinity) will have eternal life. But what about the people who do not believe in him (as the Son of the Trinity), among them the billions Muslims?
But it is exactly the contrary that he does: those who do not believe are already judged. |
Posted By: BMZ
Date Posted: 04 November 2006 at 9:20am
|
Greetings, Sarita My response: In blue John 31 There was a man named Nicodemus, a Jewish religious leader who was a Pharisee. 2 After dark one evening, he came to speak with Jesus. �Rabbi,� he said, �we all know that God has sent you to teach us. Your miraculous signs are evidence that God is with you.� Here, Nicodemus confirms by saying,"we all know that God has sent you to teach us. Your miraculous signs are evidence that God is with you.� that God sent Jesus as a teacher with powers to show miraculous signs. However, Nicodemus did not suggest that he was God. 3 Jesus replied, 4 �What do you mean?� exclaimed Nicodemus. �How can an old man go back into his mother�s womb and be born again?� Here in above Nicodemus has been shown by John to be dumb and silly, as if he did not understand what "born again" meant. 5 Jesus replied, From the above reply, we can see that Jesus is simply saying that humans will be brought to life after death. 9 �How are these things possible?� Nicodemus asked. Nicodemus again asks a silly question. 10 Jesus replied, Look at the way, John introduces the Son of Man and Moses lifting up the bronze snake on a pole which has nothing to do with the question that Nicodemus asked. 16 18 That again is John's own view and it has nothing to do with the teachings of Jesus. God bless. Ameen. BMZ |
Posted By: Sign*Reader
Date Posted: 05 November 2006 at 2:07am
|
THREE GRADES OF EVIDENCE I have
no hesitation in telling you that in Bible there are three different categories
of witnessing apparent without any need
of specialized training to discern these: 1. You will recognize in the Bible what may
be described as "The Word of God." 2. You will also discern what can be
described as the "Words/ saying of a Prophets of God." 3. And you will most readily observe that the
bulk of the Bible is the records of eye witnesses or written from hearsay. As
such they are the "Words what a historian would write" You
want to take it leave it without much harm to faith in God. You do not have to hunt for examples of these
different types of evidences in the Bible. The following quotations will make
the position crystal clear: The FIRST Category: (a) I
will raise them up a prophet . . . and I
will put my words in ... and he shall speak unto them all that I shall command him." (Deuteronomy 18:18) (b) I
even, I am the Lord, and beside me there is no savior." (Isaiah 43:11) (c) "Look unto Me, and be ye saved, all the end of the earth:
for I am God, and there is non
else." (Isaiah 45:22) Note the first person pronoun singular
(highlighted in green) in the above references, and without any difficulty you
will agree that the statements seem to have the sound of being GOD'S WORD. The SECOND Category: (a) "Jesus cried with a
loud voice, saying Eli, Eli, lama sabachtani? . . ."
(Matthew 27:46) (b) "And Jesus answered him, The
first of all the commandments is, Hear, O (c) "And Jesus said unto him, Why
callest thou me good? There is none good but one, that is God." (Mark Even a child will be able to affirm that:
Jesus "cried" Jesus "answered" and Jesus
"said" are the words of the one to whom they are attributed, i.e.
the WORDS OF A PROPHET OF GOD. The THIRD Category : "And seeing a fig tree afar off having
leaves, he, (JESUS) came, if haply he (JESUS) might find anything
thereon: and when he (JESUS) came to it, (Jesus) found nothing but
leaves . . ." (Mark The bulk of the Bible is a witnessing of this
THIRD kind. These are the words of a third person. Note the
underlined pronouns. They are not the Words of God or of His prophet, but the
WORDS OF A HISTORIAN. For knowledgeable Muslim it is cinch to
distinguish the above types of evidence, cus he also has them in his own faith
but clearly separated from each other. Category
ONE: THE WORD OF GOD � is the Book called The Holy Qur�an. TWO: � THE WORDS OF THE PROPHET OF GOD, (Muhummed, may the peace and
blessings of Allah be upon him) are in the Books of Tradition called The Hadith.
THREE: Evidence of the third kind abounds in different volume of Islamic
history, written by some of the highest integrity and learning. The Prophet established the model of the first
University in the world in his life time. From which sprung the keepers of
truth that we have the minutest detail of His life whereas the
Jesus life and its details are known for not more than 3 years of his ministry and
then none consistent. In Islamic system there is no way these
categories can get mixed up, when quoted the speaker or writer must specify
clearly. He never equates them in their level of authority. On the other hand, the "Holy Bible"
is a motley reading, which contain the embarrassing kind, the
sordid, and the obscene � all under the same cover � A Christian has no choice or doesn't care to
concede equal spiritual import and authority to all, and is thus unfortunate in
this regard. Then coming to Islam for it's veracity checkout, sure I will do it---Let's look at it with the above yard stick
I hope your foundation
better be good one to withstand the test. You don�t want your faith failing you
on the judgment day and leaving in lurch cus it was not on God�s words on prima
facie evidence as we see it clearly.
Wont you agree blue hi light sounds like Jesus stated and somebody recorded, in red somebody else said or recorded..Can not find anything stated in first person by God Almighty in these passages.
Normally I will sit on the side lines when I see Br. MBZ taking the lead on things related to Bible quandaries but I couldn�t keep my 2 cents. The above passage fits into the HISTORIAN or THIRD PERSON category .
The above passage fits into the HISTORIAN or
THIRD PERSON category . 5 Jesus replied, 9 �How are these things possible?�
Nicodemus asked. 10 Jesus
replied, 16 18 CONCLUSION: THESE PASSAGES DO Sarita you need to know very clearly from the get go, Islam is the faith of un compromising monotheism just like examples quoted in category 1 above. And the standard prayer for Muslim has signs of God which are absolutely definitive in purity of unity of God. 112:1 Say: He is Allah,
the One and Only; 112:2 Allah, the Eternal,
Absolute; 112:3 He begetteth not,
nor is He begotten; 112:4 And there is none
like unto Him. Think it this way there are more than a billion Muslim in the world nobody has any negotiation authority to make any deviation from above. Yes there are deviant cults created at the behest of the imperialists and colonizers or some individual charlatan out to ruin some ignorant folks but then they fall outside the realm of blessed Islam. 35:8 >>>>>For Allah leaves to stray whom He wills, and guides whom He wills. So let not thy soul go out in (vainly) sighing after them: for Allah knows well all that they do! - ------------- Kismet Domino: Faith/Courage/Liberty/Abundance/Selfishness/Immorality/Apathy/Bondage or extinction. |
Posted By: BMZ
Date Posted: 05 November 2006 at 3:13am
|
Sign*Reader, That was an excellent categorisation and I fully concur with you on that. When I have time in future, I will edit the New Testament like Jefferson did but I would be extracting only what Jesus really seems to have said or spoken. You have already classified the NT well and one will easily note that John blends his own thoughts to ascribe a lot of statements to Jesus as if Jesus really said that but any reader can easily make out that those words were not from Jesus. You wrote: "The FIRST Category: (a) I will raise them up a prophet . . . and I will put my words in ... and he shall speak unto them all that I shall command him." (Deuteronomy 18:18) (b) I even, I am the Lord, and beside me there is no savior." (Isaiah 43:11) (c) "Look unto Me, and be ye saved, all the end of the earth: for I am God, and there is non else." (Isaiah 45:22)" That First Category of "I" is also the Last and you have rightly quoted Surah Ikhlas which is the final answer. From you: "CONCLUSION: THESE PASSAGES DO Yes, things would have been different and moreover, he went further West to Rome. That was another disaster! Thanks & Best Regards Assalaamo Alaikum BMZ |
Posted By: StephenC
Date Posted: 05 November 2006 at 7:02pm
|
Which sounds more creditable: The story of Jesus Christ or The story of Muhammad? As Jesus said, you can tell the truthfulness of a prophet by his works. I would add, you can tell the truthfulness of a religion by how it treats people. The Jewish and Muslim religions have strict punishments for the slightest violations. How does the religious punishments of Christianity compare to that of Judahism and Islam? I realize that over the years individuals and committees have converted religious beliefs for person gain and bias, but reading the actual text - which religion is more in line with what YOU think God is like? Remember, we all worship the same God, it is the messengers (including false messengers) that cause the problems! |
Posted By: Andalus
Date Posted: 05 November 2006 at 8:16pm
How can you be sure what Jesus said?
Irrational. Christianity allows people to do whatever they like, therefore it is a better religion. LOL...Thats what you just said. Islam, nor Judaism punish for the slightest violations.
Your "complex" question uses an assumption that is false. The comparison cannot be made given the ambiguity of Christian theology regarding "law" . Depends how you interpret the Pauline letters as to how much law from the Torah, or Hebrew Scriptures you will use. Christendom, for the most part, have chosen to reject Gd's law out of convenience, as they create their own, and that has been revised with utter failure for 2000 years.
Who cares. If you think you can define Gd based upon complete conjecture, then you are more ignorant than I ever would have guessed. Here is a tip (it is free for you): Better to remain silent and be thought a fool than to speak out and remove all doubt -Lincoln
Remember, we all worship the same God, it is the messengers (including false messengers) that cause the problems! how do you know? How can you be sure?
------------- A feeling of discouragement when you slip up is a sure sign that you put your faith in deeds. -Ibn 'Ata'llah http://www.sunnipath.com http://www.sunniforum.com/forum/ http://www.pt-go.com/ |
Posted By: Sign*Reader
Date Posted: 06 November 2006 at 12:12am
I don't know what demon is upon you which bugging you around. You say you don't have religion but sound like pitching Jesus, Christianity against Islam and Muhammad and now Judaism. Just forget about your moronic comparisons, who cares, go get a massage from Haggard's boy friend. and enjoy his confession, there is no punishment for him now it will be on the Doom's day for sure. http:// - dayhttp://www.latimes.com/news/nationworld/nation/la-na-hagg ard6 http:// - nov06,0,7806096.story?coll=la-home-headlines Haggard bares his soul in note to congregationThousands listen as the former evangelical leader shares his moral failings in a letter read from the pulpit.
By Stephanie Simon, Times Staff Writer November 6, 2006 COLORADO SPRINGS, COLO. � In the hush of a Sunday morning, "I am a deceiver and a liar," Haggard told 9,000 of his followers in a letter read from the pulpit of New Life Church by one of his spiritual mentors. "There's a part of my life that is so repulsive and dark that I have been warring against it for all of my adult life."---------------------What do you say  ------------- Kismet Domino: Faith/Courage/Liberty/Abundance/Selfishness/Immorality/Apathy/Bondage or extinction. |
Posted By: StephenC
Date Posted: 06 November 2006 at 6:37am
How can you be sure what Jesus said?
[quote] Let's see. The life and times of Jesus Christ in the New Testament was written by contempary eyewitnesses who's accounts while not exactly the same (no witness gives the exact same account as anotheer witness) gives basically the same events and sayings. With the life and times of Muhammad in the Quran, it was written well by a committee who picked and chose what would go in and what would not. Anything not included in the final Quran was destroyed. This committeewas commissioned by someone who allegedly showed favoritism and bias towards his own clan. Which is more reliable? That is solely up to the reader. |
Posted By: StephenC
Date Posted: 06 November 2006 at 6:43am
Irrational. Christianity allows people to do whatever they like, therefore it is a better religion. LOL...Thats what you just said. Islam, nor Judaism punish for the slightest violations. [quote] I just love your one word sentence. They pack such insight into them that no explanation would seem to be necessary, unless of course the reader demands more than"blind faith and obedience!" I am not such a person. God gave me a brain to reason and ask questions. If you would quit being so timid about your religion and attempt to give honest answers to honest questions, you would learn more. And no, I did not say Christians could do whatever they want. And NO your lie is not what I said. Anyone can read what I wrote. Well, maybe you can not, but others can. |
Posted By: StephenC
Date Posted: 06 November 2006 at 6:52am
Your "complex" question uses an assumption that is false. The comparison cannot be made given the ambiguity of Christian theology regarding "law" . Depends how you interpret the Pauline letters as to how much law from the Torah, or Hebrew Scriptures you will use. Christendom, for the most part, have chosen to reject Gd's law out of convenience, as they create their own, and that has been revised with utter failure for 2000 years. [quote] Initially, I would take except with your characterization of my posting as "complex questions" but then I realize that to a person who likes to post one word sentences, anything containing more than two words maybe "complex." I could break it down to: How does the punishments of Christianity compare to that of Judahism? and How dooes the punishments of Christianity compare to that of Islam? Does that make it easier for you to understand? Care to answer, perferrably with more than a one word answer? But if it is a strain, don't! As for YOUR BASELESS claim that "Christendom, for the most part, have chosen to reject Gd's law out of convenience, as they create their own, and that has been revised with utter failure for 2000 years. " What is your proof? Yes, some Christian religions have adopted pagan churches and traditions, but so has Islam! Some Christians have elevated apostles to positions of semi-worship, but so has islam! Shall I continue or will removing the veil from your eyes offend you too much?
|
Posted By: StephenC
Date Posted: 06 November 2006 at 6:57am
Who cares. If you think you can define Gd based upon complete conjecture, then you are more ignorant than I ever would have guessed. Here is a tip (it is free for you): Better to remain silent and be thought a fool than to speak out and remove all doubt -Lincoln [quote] Trust me, I lost all doubt about your ignorance many many posts ago! Your "Who cares." sic (Shouldn't that be a question?) statement (at least you used TWO words in that sentence, so I quess our discussions are improving you in some manner) about my question on people injection personal bias and gain into a religion is a prime example. EVERYONE should care! At least everyone who truly wants to worship God!
|
Posted By: StephenC
Date Posted: 06 November 2006 at 7:03am
There is some merit to the theory that certain religions worship the Devil. However, I am not prepared to make such a claim without proof. I tend to accept doctrine unless it is faulty. For example, it is my understanding that Judahism, Christianity, and Islam all worship the God of Abraham. And that the major differences is what the various prophets allegedly claimed. The real differences between Islam and the other two mentioned religions is that Christianity builds upon Judahism without changing anything. Whereas, Islam changes the messages of the status of certain people in the other two religions. |
Posted By: BMZ
Date Posted: 06 November 2006 at 8:58am
|
Stephen, Let's take a look at what you wrote and I have put in bold some of the striking parts of your comment: "For example, it is my understanding that Judahism, Christianity, and Islam all worship the God of Abraham. And that the major differences is what the various prophets allegedly claimed." Read the entire Jewish Holy Scriptures ONLY, not the Christian Old Testament. The message of all the prophets was the same and the message of Muhammad was exactly the same. Compare the messages of Qur'aan with Isaiah and you will be dazzled. In the case of Jesus, his message was the same but the various writers of the gospels, Paul and others after him over a period of 561 years made the major changes and kept on making, to what the prophet, Jesus truly claimed. And notice that the time of Muhammad's arrival gets so close. Let's come now to your 2nd remark: "The real differences between Islam and the other two mentioned religions is that Christianity builds upon Judahism without changing anything. Whereas, Islam changes the messages of the status of certain people in the other two religions." Please read the Jewish Holy Scriptures side by side with the Christian Old Testament, which the Jews do not even recognise and never call it by that name and see what has been done. Read just Isaiah and Psalms of the Jewish Holy Scriptures and compare with the same of The Old Testament and find out yourself what Christianity has done to the Jewish Holy Scriptures. They made a God out of a man, whom they could not understand, while the Jews never did any such thing in their history and still remain fiercely monotheistic. Christianity changed Judaism completely and came up with a poor manifestation of God which they had spun on in Jesus. Wonder how they did it! I Will give you an example. In Isaiah, God says,"I am the the First and I am the Last" and John after plagiarising made it, "Jesus said,'I am the Alpha and I am the Omega." Another wrong example given in defence of trinity: "Holy, holy, holy, is God" and this does not mean three holies. In Hebrew, anything pronounced three times is the superlative degree. In other words, in modern English "Holy, holy, holy" simply means the holiest. BMZ |
It is not that Jesus did it but the writers and philosophers of the time did it. Heck, they kept on discussing the nature of Jesus for over 365-451 years and that can be seen from the two Creeds that were written 3-4 centuries after he was gone.Posted By: StephenC
Date Posted: 06 November 2006 at 11:48am
Thank you for the response. It is my understanding from reading both the Old Testament and the New Testament that the early Christians believe that Jesus Christ is the Messiah that the Jews are still waiting for. Is that an incorrect understanding? I don't recall the verse, but John the Baptist was in prison and he sent two of his disciples to ask Jesus if he was the one. Do you remember what Jesus' response was? So, if I understand you correctly you believe the contemporary eyyewitness accounts were either wrong or else changed over the years. Yet you accept without reservation the committee's (commissioned by Uthman) compilation of what they thought should go into the written Quran and the destruction of what they thought should not go into it? I can understand how you might feel that the New Testament may have been "corrupted" by the personal bias of the writers and later editors. Can you not see how I feel that the exact same possibility MAY have occurred with the Quran? |
Posted By: StephenC
Date Posted: 06 November 2006 at 11:56am
I will, when I arrive at today's destination do as you suggest. However, have I claimed that Jesus Christ was God? Have I rejected Jesus Christ as God either? I think if you search the many posts that I have made on this forum and others, you will not find that I have done either. Remember I said I was more of a "John the Baptist" type believer. I always willing to discuss Jesus Christ and his relationship to God. But will Andulas and others lockout the discussion? My concerns about Islam is that it (just like all religions) is filled with myths and legends. I am not here to "put down" Islam. I am here merely to put the truth about Islam out for discussion. Many seem to think that the written text of the Quran is perfect. It is not. However, the fact that the committee produced Quran is not perfect, does not (in my opinion) destroy it. If God wanted a perfect text, God can easily make one. God gives us the ability to reason and to think (what other animal has our mental abilities?). "Blind faith and obedience" is something a pet does. Man should not. |
Posted By: StephenC
Date Posted: 06 November 2006 at 6:58pm
|
Well, that is real Muslim of you! Is that what Islam really is? By the way, I have NEVER said that I did not have religion! I thought lying was against Islam, but I could be wrong based on the actions of some who claim to be Muslim on this forum. What is the REAL problem you have with my postings? Does the truth hurt that much? Would you like to engage in honest discussion? Pick anything I have said and let us discuss it. Show me that I lied and I will make my apologies and leave defeated.
|
Posted By: Dzul
Date Posted: 06 November 2006 at 8:30pm
|
StephenC says, "What is the REAL problem you have with my postings? Does the truth hurt that much?" Why must you impose your TRUTH here? After so many people have said that you can believe anything you like and if you cannot accept anything from here, why don't you quietly open another forum like the one from Angela's Plan ? I do not know whether the truth here hurts you till you can come out with a lot of postings whenever your previous post had been replied. Actually from where I am looking, you are always accusing us of the frustrated feelings you are habouring... StephenC says, "Many seem to think that the written text of the Quran is perfect. It is not. However, the fact that the committee produced Quran is not perfect, does not (in my opinion) destroy it." Here is one example that really hits a raw nerve with Muslims. Muslims must believe that Quran is perfect...period. If you cannot accept that than just leave us alone... that's all. You say about the written text in Quran is not perfect ? Do you know that in the region where I am right now has been using written text exactly from the Quran to cure many ailments ? But still you can dismiss this easily and I will not mind it at all. Like I said before, it doesn't matter even for a single atom how absurd you think Muslim based their religion upon. You can laugh as hard as you like but please keep your opinion to yourself. The problem I have with your postings is you already have the answers to the questions that you post here. You are merely using the questions as baits to make fun of us.
|
Posted By: Reepicheep
Date Posted: 06 November 2006 at 8:35pm
|
Dzul wrote: >Do you know that in the region where I am right now has been using written text exactly from the Quran to cure many ailments ? Can you provide us with more details, please? |
Posted By: Dzul
Date Posted: 06 November 2006 at 9:01pm
|
To StephenC Before you say that you did not mean to make fun of us, by saying that Muslims are blind towards the faith... is making fun of the millions of Muslims around the world.... So you are the enlightened one is it? So continue enlighten everyone else in your own space and forum... |
Posted By: StephenC
Date Posted: 06 November 2006 at 9:15pm
Who forced you to read my postings? Do you own this forum? Is my posting on this forum costing you or anyone else any additional money? I am just as much of a member of this forum as you. Am I posting in the Muslim only forums? No. I am now only posting here and in the forum for non-muslims. By the way, the only way someone can make fun of you is if you let them. I treat all religions the same. |
Posted By: BMZ
Date Posted: 06 November 2006 at 9:23pm
|
Welcome & Greetings, Reepicheep What a pleasant surprise! Glad to see you here. Best Regards BMZ |
Posted By: Andalus
Date Posted: 06 November 2006 at 10:25pm
|
Which sounds more creditable: The story of Jesus Christ or The story of Muhammad? As Jesus said, you can tell the truthfulness of a prophet by his works. How can you be sure what Jesus said? [quote] Let's see. The life and times of Jesus Christ in the New Testament was written by contempary eyewitnesses who's accounts while not exactly the same (no witness gives the exact same account as anotheer witness) gives basically the same events and sayings. Your are asserting again, without evidence or proof. 1) Please give me the name of the contemporary who wrote the document, and the name of the person to whom it was passed on. 2) Hundreds of narratives existed. Please tell us which ones were correct. 3) Authenticate the narratives of the NT. 4) The NT was not put together until well into the third century.
With the life and times of Muhammad in the Quran, it was written well by a committee who picked and chose what would go in and what would not. The nature of the Quran was transmitted primarily through memorization. The Quran is supposed to be recited. Writing was only a secondary means for preservation. The Quran was already memorized and written at the death of the Prophet (saw). 1) Provide proof that someone threw out something that was a part of the Quran. (please provide proof of your charge, you have been wanred over and over about this) 2) The Quran was taught by the Prophet (saw), and taught to those around him, and memorized it. It was not some new novelty after his death. 3) You want to keep whining about a �committee�, yet it was the Christian NT that was put together by a committee, centuries after the death of Jesus, who chose the narratives based upon pure conjecture and speculation. Lets not forget the fact that the narratives they did choose exist as copies, of copies, of copies of the originals, and exists as variant. 4) The very fact that an authoritative edition, an official �key�, that would be the official standard of what the Quran is in written form was put together by men who actually learned directly from the Prophet does not do any damage to the integrity of the Quran. The fact that you feel more comfortable with the NT, a book put together by men centuries after the event, a book that contains narratives that were among hundreds of narratives, without any way of knowing what was right or wrong, proves just how prejudiced you are. And I am 99% certain you are an evangelical. Your replies and obfuscation, and deflections, are right on the MO of a missionary.
Anything not included in the final Quran was destroyed. This committee was commissioned by someone who allegedly showed favoritism and bias towards his own clan. This begs the question: Why would someone keep errors? Unless you can prove that the �Quran� was thrown out during this time, do not keep repeating this charge. Your next charge is, like most of your dribble, incomplete. �This committee was commissioned by someone who allegedly showed favoritism and bias towards his own clan.� My reply is: Who was showing favoritism? What is the favoritism that would have corrupted the Quran? And show what was thrown out due to the favoritism? I find your replies odd. No one with any serious background would take your theories serious, or base any serious conclusion from them. They are waay to far fetched, and one must use a great deal of imagination to fill in the gaps to find your conclusion.
I would add, you can tell the truthfulness of a religion by how it treats people. The Jewish and Muslim religions have strict punishments for the slightest violations. Irrational. Christianity allows people to do whatever they like, therefore it is a better religion. LOL...Thats what you just said. Islam, nor Judaism punish for the slightest violations. I just love your one word sentence. They pack such insight into them that no explanation would seem to be necessary, unless of course the reader demands more than"blind faith and obedience!" Pot calling the kettle black? You place drunkard utterances and then exclaim huge conclusions, and then have the audacity to think that everyone should be as inebriated as you are in order to make the same sweeping jumps to such absurd conclusions. The world is not all entirely inebriated; we require more clarification, evidence, and an argument to find your absurd utterance. You stated that a faith can be judged truthful about how it treats its people, and then followed with a typical Christian howler about �punishments� and �slightest violations�. You are implying that Christianity is true because it is easier. That is irrational. Please tell me where this is wrong? I do not care if you are unable to keep up with this thread, that�s really a matter of your lack of background.
I am not such a person. God gave me a brain to reason and ask questions. If you would quit being so timid about your religion and attempt to give honest answers to honest questions, you would learn more. Your questions are sophomoric and completely juvenile. You ask some of the same things, when replied to, you deflect, find trivial items to carp on, and then after 30,000 lines of your tautological dribble, you repeat the same odd utterances. Your questions are usually complex, with assumptions buried in them that are a direct result of your ignorance and weakness in critical thinking. I should not be forced to run in circles due to your lack of education and knowledge of religion. If you stop thinking so highly of yourself, and take time to crack open books, and take a basic critical thinking course, you might actually come to know how foolish your position has been, and maybe you would offer an apology!
And no, I did not say Christians could do whatever they want. And NO your lie is not what I said. Anyone can read what I wrote. Well, maybe you can not, but others can. Actually, that is exactly what you implied. If you do not like what the direct implication is, then stop sounding off like a broke drunkard and take the time to be coherent and clarify what you mean and how your conclusions are found.
How does the religious punishments of Christianity compare to that of Judahism and Islam? Your "complex" question uses an assumption that is false. The comparison cannot be made given the ambiguity of Christian theology regarding "law" . Depends how you interpret the Pauline letters as to how much law from the Torah, or Hebrew Scriptures you will use. Christendom, for the most part, have chosen to reject Gd's law out of convenience, as they create their own, and that has been revised with utter failure for 2000 years. Initially, I would take except with your characterization of my posting as "complex questions" but then I realize that to a person who likes to post one word sentences, anything containing more than two words maybe "complex." Irrational ranting. Your opinion about my reply does not make your question any more valid. You are beginning one of your famous deflections. Find an excuse to ignore a valid, and factual point, and then move on like it is all ok. It is still a complex question.
I could break it down to: How does the punishments of Christianity compare to that of Judahism? and How dooes the punishments of Christianity compare to that of Islam? Does that make it easier for you to understand? Care to answer, perferrably with more than a one word answer? But if it is a strain, don't! The questions are just separate from the original question. The assumption is still buried in your �questions�, instead of the �one�. Let me re-paste what you purposely avoided. �Your "complex" question uses an assumption that is false. The comparison cannot be made given the ambiguity of Christian theology regarding "law" . Depends how you interpret the Pauline letters as to how much law from the Torah, or Hebrew Scriptures you will use. Christendom, for the most part, have chosen to reject Gd's law out of convenience, as they create their own, and that has been revised with utter failure for 2000 years. � You have to clarify time period and sect (Of Christianity). Your lack of education about this topic makes it difficult to have a coherent discussion. Really.
As for YOUR BASELESS claim that "Christendom, for the most part, have chosen to reject Gd's law out of convenience, as they create their own, and that has been revised with utter failure for 2000 years. " What is your proof? History! History recorded from the third century to the 20th century.
Yes, some Christian religions have adopted pagan churches and traditions, but so has Islam! That was one of those �drunkard like utterances�. You made, absolutely, no sense at all. Christians adopting churches?????? Pagan churches???? Traditions? Islam adopted a pagan church? Stephen, put the bottle down, or crack pipe, or whatever it is you are fixed to, and brush this up when you are a bit more coherent. LOL. Seriously.
Some Christians have elevated apostles to positions of semi-worship, but so has islam! Shall I continue or will removing the veil from your eyes offend you too much? Your crack pipe is offensive, as your ranting is giving me a headache. What does any of this irrelevant dribble have to do with the unproven or argued assumption that you have buried in your question? Answer: Nothing. It was a way for you to throw in another accusation about Islam. This is another waste of time.
Remember, we all worship the same God, it is the messengers (including false messengers) that cause the problems! how do you know? How can you be sure? There is some merit to the theory that certain religions worship the Devil. However, I am not prepared to make such a claim without proof. I tend to accept doctrine unless it is faulty. For example, it is my understanding that Judahism, Christianity, and Islam all worship the God of Abraham. And that the major differences is what the various prophets allegedly claimed. The real differences between Islam and the other two mentioned religions is that Christianity builds upon Judahism without changing anything. Whereas, Islam changes the messages of the status of certain people in the other two religions. Christianity has to build upon the Hebrew Scriptures because it is dependent up it, it is a must; Christianity is replacement theology, so it has to be built upon the HS. Its nature requires it. This is out of necessity. Replacement theology completely changes the Hebrew Scriptures, and alters their meanings, the nature of Gd, and the replaces the people of
------------- A feeling of discouragement when you slip up is a sure sign that you put your faith in deeds. -Ibn 'Ata'llah http://www.sunnipath.com http://www.sunniforum.com/forum/ http://www.pt-go.com/ |
Posted By: Mona_1022
Date Posted: 07 November 2006 at 12:05am
|
Salam, "God gave me a brain to reason and ask questions." StephenC, this is an important part of Islam. God tells us to use our logic and reason to study all religions and to decide which one is the true religion. Although I believe Islam is the truth, based on my research of Islam, that does not mean that my search should end. As a creation of the Lord Almighty, it is my duty to learn all religions, that teach that there is only One God, and to decide which one is right. The truth should not be confusing or contradictory in any way. People must realize that God Almighty is not one of Us and is intelligent beyond our comprehension. I am sure that He made sure that it would not be hard for us to realize the truth when we find it. Do not base your opinions of any religion, including Islam, on what you hear from people or see on tv. Take the time to read the holy books and any scriptures that may help explain the religion more. In this case, for you to really understand Islam and know what it teaches, try to get a hold of a Qur'an and some Hadiths (tell about the life of the Prophet [pbuh]) and then you can have an opinion. Please, for your own sake, do not listen to what people say because each person has their own interpretation and it would not be fair to you to accept what another person believes...it is your duty. It is okay to ask questions but don't just believe the answers just because a muslim said it...they could be wrong for all you know. I say this based on my own experience. When i researched Islam, i got a whole different perspective than i had from asking questions. |
Posted By: Angel
Date Posted: 07 November 2006 at 5:17am
|
you are here to help understand (true) Islam ??
-------------  ~ Our feet are earthbound, but our hearts and our minds have wings ~
|
Posted By: StephenC
Date Posted: 07 November 2006 at 5:51am
You are absolutely correct on all accounts! Thank you for your insight and wisdom.
|
Posted By: BMZ
Date Posted: 07 November 2006 at 8:43am
you are here to help understand (true) Islam ??
Angel, how come I missed that? BMZ |
Posted By: Angel
Date Posted: 08 November 2006 at 1:25am
bmz, guess you were busy  ------------- ~ Our feet are earthbound, but our hearts and our minds have wings ~
|
Posted By: StephenC
Date Posted: 08 November 2006 at 7:07am
Yes, the Islam of Muhammad not the Islam of the Uthman committee! |
Posted By: BMZ
Date Posted: 08 November 2006 at 7:31am
|
Stephen, Perhaps, you wanted to say,"I am here to understand Islam." Regarding the committe of Uthman, most of the members were quite a number of Sahabaas, scribes, Ali, Zaid and many others. All knew Qur'aan well. Uthman and company simply made sure that no undesired material was added to Qur'aan. Uthman did not re-write Qur'aan. If they had not done that, Qur'aan would have been turned into something like the Bible with narrations of various people exceeding the words of God. That is why all the Hadith material was kept out and separate. The company or the committee knew well what had happened to the Holy Scriptures of the past. BMZ |
Posted By: StephenC
Date Posted: 08 November 2006 at 8:19am
I am very interested in the "undesire material" and especially how the committee that wrote down the Quran decided what should and should not be in the Uthman Quran. When I refer to the Uthman Quran, I am not meaning any disrespect. Just to specify which written Quran I am discussing. I find other Islamic websites that (Islamonline.net) that claim that a written version of the Quran was compiled during the life of Muhammad and he personally approved it. I have also read that a copy (Omar Quran) was retained by Muhammad's last wife. I am fully aware of how the Bible was committee edited, translated, and clarified as much or more than the way the Uthman Quran was committee edited, translated, and clarified. One of my main points is that it really doesn't matter - it is the worship of God that is important not the status of the various messengers! |
Posted By: StephenC
Date Posted: 08 November 2006 at 8:26am
|
Shi'a view of Uthman
As the Shi'a believe that Ali, Muhammad's cousin and son-in-law, should have been the first caliph, they regard Uthman as a usurper and an enemy of Ali (see Succession to Muhammad). They believe that he is guilty of nepotism, corruption, double-dealing, and turning the empire over to Muhammad's old enemies, the Umayyads. Shi'as believe that Uthman, like many of the other early Muslims, was seduced by the pleasures of power and wealth, and strayed from the strict path of Islam as followed by Ali. There is dispute among the Shi'a as to whether Uthman married two of the Prophet's daughters, with a faction insisting that Ruqayyah and Umm Kulthum bint Muhammad were Muhammad's step-daughters." Uthman - wikipedia.org What is your opinion of this? Is wikipedia.org correct in the Shi'a view of Uthman? Did Uthman betray Muhammad the prophet as he apparent did other Muslims? |
Posted By: BMZ
Date Posted: 08 November 2006 at 9:35am
Very good questions, Stephen. Let me put it as short as possible. Our Shia brothers try to find Ali in Qur'aan like the Christian brothers try to find Jesus in the Jewish Holy Scriptures or the Jewish Bible. There was no betrayal of any kind. I have no comments on other matters which I consider irrelevant. It was politics played that caused the people to differ on the leadership. Regarding Wikipedia, I regret to write that I do not consider that "Pedia" any authority. BMZ |
Posted By: Hanan
Date Posted: 08 November 2006 at 9:43am
|
Hold fast to the rope of Allah, and be not divided |
Posted By: Redneck
Date Posted: 08 November 2006 at 11:09am
|
salamu'alaykum,
Seems this thread has run amok. Somebody took it off into the rhubarb by bring up questions about Muhammad (sallahu'alayhe assalam) and the Qur'an and has created a lot of confusion. ------------- "One Nation Under Allah" |
Posted By: StephenC
Date Posted: 08 November 2006 at 9:06pm
Good point thank you. |
Posted By: air_one
Date Posted: 09 November 2006 at 1:30am
How? Will God really leave it up to his creation to decide how He will be worshipped? Will God accept His creations' logical thinking on what is good (allowed) and what is evil (sins)? |
Posted By: ysimjee
Date Posted: 09 November 2006 at 2:32am
|
A few good statements made. But to the ones that don�t know, the bible has been chance to sooth the lifestyle of the Christians in this time n era. If they read the original old testament they would find that pork n drinking of wine is also not permitted. As for the Jewish Torah, they refused to accept that Muhammad (saw) was the last prophet of Allah just because he was n Arab and not from them.
|
Posted By: Angel
Date Posted: 09 November 2006 at 3:53am
|
Well, God did give us free will to choose ------------- ~ Our feet are earthbound, but our hearts and our minds have wings ~
|
Posted By: StephenC
Date Posted: 09 November 2006 at 4:46am
God has allowed numerous false prophets in the past and present.
|
Posted By: StephenC
Date Posted: 09 November 2006 at 4:51am
But the Quran does not state that Muhammand was the last prophet. I believe that is something Muhammad claimed in his last sermon. Previously did not he claim (in the QURAN) that he was merely an apostle?
|
Posted By: Angel
Date Posted: 09 November 2006 at 5:04am
Stephen, please go to the thread: Basic Islamic Questions, in islam for nonmuslims, where I have posted answered, yes the qu'ran does state so and it is Allah that has said. Please continue about the qu'ran there or the other thread you made about it ------------- ~ Our feet are earthbound, but our hearts and our minds have wings ~
|
Posted By: Cyril
Date Posted: 09 November 2006 at 9:02am
I don't think that drinking of wine was forbidden in the Old Testament. The taboo on eating pork was abandoned because of the numerous non-Jews entering Christianity and as a protest against religion becoming too ritualistic. Jesus said that it is not the eating of pork that makes people impure but the evil thinking that comes out of the mind.
Ridiculous. It was because they had a complete religion and the Quran did not bring anything new to them. Would you accept that Baha'is invite you to acknowledge that their religion is the continuation and final revelation of God to replace Islam? |
Posted By: Redneck
Date Posted: 09 November 2006 at 10:25am
|
Cyril wrote: I don't think that drinking of wine was forbidden in the Old Testament. Jesus( sallahu alayhe wassalam) contradicts this hear........ Matthew 5:17-20 17 Think not that I am come to destroy the law, or the prophets: I am not come to destroy, but to fulfil. 18 For verily I say unto you, Till heaven and earth pass, one jot or one tittle shall in no wise pass from the law, till all be fulfilled. 19 Whosoever therefore shall break one of these least commandments, and shall teach men so, he shall be called the least in the kingdom of heaven: but whosoever shall do and teach them, the same shall be called great in the kingdom of heaven.It wasn't Jesus(sallahu alayhe wassalam) who relaxed the laws but he people. When he said "it is not what goes into the mouth that defiles a man but what comes out of it" a person could hardly construe that as a command from him to repeal the law against eating pork. ------------- "One Nation Under Allah" |
Posted By: Cyril
Date Posted: 09 November 2006 at 11:35am
This is one of the contradictions of Christianity. Let's find a Christian to explain it.
|
Posted By: Reepicheep
Date Posted: 09 November 2006 at 8:40pm
|
There are no passages in the bible where wine is forbidden. And, if you check out Mark 7:19, you will read:
So obviously, Christians are not required to follow Old Testament dietary laws. |
Posted By: ysimjee
Date Posted: 10 November 2006 at 12:04am
|
Find the origenal text of the Bible and Torah.
|
Posted By: Cyril
Date Posted: 11 November 2006 at 6:27am
I have noticed that on Muslim forums words have sometimes been given a new definition. I guess that it may be the case with "original". So I ask what does "original text of the Bible " mean? (There is no Bible and Torah as the Torah is part of the Bible) |
Posted By: Redneck
Date Posted: 12 November 2006 at 4:01pm
Peace,
It's a contradiction.
In Matthew Jesus (sallahau alayhe wassalam) is saying that he came not to change the laws and in Mark he is changing the laws. But how to explain this? I set it down to a difference in gospel writers as we see in other places major problems between Matthew's gospel and Mark's gospel. They differ drastically.
We may never know what Jesus (sallahu alayhe) really said. ------------- "One Nation Under Allah" |
Posted By: Reepicheep
Date Posted: 13 November 2006 at 6:50pm
The phrase "until all that must happen has happened" is a reference to the death and resurrection of Jesus. With the resurrection of Jesus, humans were no longer "under the law", so it was and is no longer necessary to follow the laws which were concerned with ritual purity (e.g., dietary laws). |
Posted By: Redneck
Date Posted: 13 November 2006 at 8:31pm
Wow! Brother! What you are saying is a stretch! Does you church teach you this? Funky translation you are using too but it's just as telling. "So long as heaven and earth endure." KJV says "Till heaven and earth pass." How long is that? Obviously until the day of judgment. That's a hellofa twist you are putting on this verse. ------------- "One Nation Under Allah" |
Posted By: Reepicheep
Date Posted: 14 November 2006 at 6:03am
|
> Funky translation you are using too but it's just as telling. The New English Bible, Oxford University Study Edition. How is that "funky"? |
Posted By: BMZ
Date Posted: 14 November 2006 at 6:52am
|
Reepicheep, According to NIV, the title of the particular section is "The Fulfillment of the Law" and not "The Fulfillment of Jesus". We have to read the entire passage 5:17-18 which according to NIV is: 17"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. 18I 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." The truth revealed in above is that if people obey the Law and live righteously, which at any cost cannot be abolished till the Judgement Day, they will enter the kingdom of God or the Heavens. "until everything is accomplished" means the accomplishment of God's Laws, wishes, God Almighty's plans and Win.
|
Posted By: Servetus
Date Posted: 14 November 2006 at 12:22pm
|
Although the subject is complex, I tend, at this point, to agree with Reepicheep�s reading. As I see it, the so-called �New� testament, when considered in total, seems a type of abrogation, or, in Islamic theological parlance, perhaps naskh, of the �Old� (see, e.g., Heb 9:16). Thus, apparent contradictions between the Old and New testaments, between the received Torah of Moses and the reported Gospel of Jesus, might be both read and at least somewhat satisfactorily resolved in that light. Paradox, as always with Christian doctrines, seems also to apply. Consider that certain aspects of the law of Moses may have been (I won't say) abolished by having been, in the person and work of Christ, fulfilled. It might be further kept in mind that, again as I see it, in much the same way that Islam claims a lineage which predates Muhammad and harkens back to Abraham as its progenitor, so too in Christianity the �law� of Moses and its attendant priesthood (of Aaron) becomes superceded by its antecedent, that of Melchisadek, the King of Peace, to whom Abraham himself paid tithe (Gen 14:17-20). To Christians there was, in sum, and as the writer of Hebrews (7:12) says, a change in the priesthood and thus also a corresponding change in the law (though the details of this change are argued to this day). By the way, wine (alcohol) was prohibited in the �Old� testament to those who had taken the Nazarite vow, or who were �set apart� or consecrated to God for a particular purpose: http://www.jewishencyclopedia.com/view.jsp?artid=142&letter=N - http://www.jewishencyclopedia.com/view.jsp?artid=142&let ter=N Over and out ...
Serv |
Posted By: BMZ
Date Posted: 14 November 2006 at 3:21pm
|
Dear brother Serv, That was a masterpiece and you wrote it so well and qualified so well. Had the Bible been translated in that style, there would, perhaps, not have been so much confusion at all. Thanks for the comments and I enjoyed the "Nasikh" part. Yes, from our Christian brothers' point of view the entire Jewish Holy Scriptures, in fact, stand abrogated by the reported writers of the reported gospels. Best Regards BMZ |
Posted By: Redneck
Date Posted: 14 November 2006 at 7:10pm
|
OK, So the KVJ is a mistranslation? ------------- "One Nation Under Allah" |
Posted By: BMZ
Date Posted: 15 November 2006 at 3:41am
|
"OK,
So the KVJ is a mistranslation?" Yes, Redneck. Most of the translations have been mistranslated. BMZ |
Posted By: Sarita
Date Posted: 15 November 2006 at 6:27am
I guess John 3:16 is my biggest question, when it says he is the Son of God and whoever believes in Him will have eternal life. How can you see that and go against it? |
Posted By: Cyril
Date Posted: 15 November 2006 at 9:47am
Not true. The prophets spoke Hebrew and Aramaic and their revelations were written down in Hebrew (a small part in Aramaic). That is the Old Testament. All other translations are made from that Hebrew original. As of the New Testament Jesus spoke mostly Aramaic. His teachings were written down in Greek (the English of the time). There is absolutely no way to know if the Greek version corresponds to the words of Jesus. From a religious standpoint, and only believers in religions can accept that, God is all-powerful and has protected his revelation. So from a religious point of view the Greek NT reflects exactly the sayings and teachings of Jesus. Same with the Quran. Religious people say it was delivered to Muhammad by an angel, and historians say it is a collection of various religious teachings from the 7th century, probably put together by Hanif circles. |
Posted By: Servetus
Date Posted: 15 November 2006 at 10:05am
|
Thank you brother BMZ and, with sons like us, I must say, it�s no wonder that dear old dad went lame in his arms from having to be always caning one or the other of us!
Thanks.
I think that some of us have just grown accustomed to an overly �rationalist� approach to scriptures. To my view, the underlying problem in many of these Interfaith, especially Christian and Islamic, discussions is not predominantly one of translation, though because translation is such an obvious factor it might seem so. I do suspect, and this is an admittedly rather unorthodox opinion of my own, that quite unlike the Quran, which, as I understand, claims to be for the most part straightforward (39:28) and clearly written in Arabic while not altogether devoid of allegories, much of both the New and Old Testament writings, especially the prophecies, are, even in their original languages, in a sense deeply encrypted and are meant to be comprehended primarily by those with the (spiritual) �eyes to see� and �ears to hear� (see, e.g., Matt 13:13 referring, in turn, to Isaiah 6:9). According to the written record of his ministry, Jesus was known to speak almost entirely in parables and at times riled the religious establishment with pointed if somewhat oblique references to certain members of that establishment, to their understandings, and to their practices (see, e.g., Matt 21:45). Sometimes that all seems very confusing, in and of itself.
I thought you might enjoy that.
And all of that according to prophecy ... Further concerning the issue of reportage, I have thought that however difficult or in fact impossible it might be to establish and substantiate the isnad, or chain of transmission of the written Gospel accounts (see, e.g., Luke 1:2), the fact remains that those Gospels stand upon the considerable merits of their own spiritual content. And they have so stood for 2,000 years. Best (and fraternal) regards, Serv |
Posted By: Redneck
Date Posted: 15 November 2006 at 1:58pm
Peace to you,
You know I have heard that many times and the more I read about it the more logical it becomes. I can understand them wanting to translate it into Greek. To expand toward the East is a lot easier than going West with this message. I would have thought someone would have saved the original Hebrew at least long enough to make some copies and get them into circulation. Besides Saint Paul's plan was to spread the message of salvation to the Jews first as we see in Romans. For I am not ashamed of the Gospel of Christ, for it is the power of God to salvation for everyone who believes, for the Jew first and also for the Greek" (Romans 1:16). So translating it into Greek and burying the Hebrew doesn't make much seance. Besides we know that the Greeks were mired in all sorts of polytheistic ideas. So now you have the multitudes of millions of people reading a Jewish book with Greek glasses. Learning it as the Greeks would have interpreted it. Would leaving it in Hebrew have been detrimental to the message?
------------- "One Nation Under Allah" |
Posted By: Cyril
Date Posted: 16 November 2006 at 3:27am
|
Redneck Who told you that there was an Hebrew original of the New Testament? There could have been more likely an Aramaic one. All those speculations are useless as no one of us was there at the time to check. Such is the case of all religious revelations. Believers say that God has protected his revelation so the language in which it was delivered must exactly convey it. |
Posted By: BMZ
Date Posted: 16 November 2006 at 8:02am
|
Redneck, Cyril is correct. The New Testament was mostly written for the Gentiles and as such was in Greek. The earliest copies could have been in Aramaic and some parts might have also been written in Hebrew addressed to Hebrew-speaking converts. Besides the four gospels, most of the NT is written by Paul and as one of our friends wrote somewhere here, I can't recollect where, that had Paul travelled or remained in the East, instead of travelling to the West (Greece) he would have written a different story. I had added that Paul did travel further West to Rome and the story completely changed. Yes, Redneck, you are right on the point that if the teachings of Jesus were understood in his own language, things would have been different. Jesus was not addressing the permanent group of Pharisees and Saducees, chasing him non-stop everywhere, in Greek. He spoke in Parables to his chasers and persecutors, which was even not understood at all by his own faithful disciples and he used to explain to them the parables in private and even then they never understood and asked him silly questions. That is why we do not find much from the disciples themselves but find it only through the unknown reported writers of the selcted reported gospels who do not even have a surname and their true identities are unknown. That is another problem. Paul was thus in a good position to exploit the dead silence from Jerusalem elders and filled up the NT. Note that the maximum contribution should have come from the disciples but there is not much. That is why they were discussing the nature of Jesus for 365-451 years after he was long gone and that is still discussed today and will be discussed till heavens and earth are about to pass away. BMZ |
Posted By: BMZ
Date Posted: 16 November 2006 at 8:20am
|
Dear brother Serv, From you: "Thank you brother BMZ and, with sons like us, I must say, it�s no wonder that dear old dad went lame in his arms from having to be always caning one or the other of us!"
An excellent observation from you: "Jesus was known to speak almost entirely in parables and at times riled the religious establishment with pointed if somewhat oblique references to certain members of that establishment, to their understandings, and to their practices (see, e.g., Matt 21:45). Sometimes that all seems very confusing, in and of itself." Exactly! A lesson should have been learnt by his followers and those reported writers when Jesus said, something like this:"It doesn't matter what goes into your mouth but what matters most is what comes out!" In other words, the subject matter was that Jesus was , at that moment, telling the Pharisees and sadducees to be polite and talk good but as you mentioned the pointed and sharp remarks but taken as slant/oblique reference, the remark became the basis of making all food lawful, thereby throwing away the Law and nobody realised that the food does not come back again through the mouth, unless one wanted to throw up. You wrote: "Further concerning the issue of reportage, I have thought that however difficult or in fact impossible it might be to establish and substantiate the isnad, or chain of transmission of the written Gospel accounts (see, e.g., Luke 1:2), the fact remains that those Gospels stand upon the considerable merits of their own spiritual content. And they have so stood for 2,000 years." The above was another gem from you. Thanks for the Best (and fraternal) regards. My Best Regards BMZ |
Posted By: Servetus
Date Posted: 16 November 2006 at 4:47pm
|
Frater BMZ,
This is me sitting next to you in catechism (formal religous instructional class) or Sunday School: The change of dietary laws, with all relevant New and Old Testament scriptures considered in total, including the possibility that the hand (and personal opinion) of a redactor of St. Mark�s Gospel is at times in evidence (7:19), is itself a complex and controversial study. I think, at this point, and as far as I am concerned, it would be better and more productive for you and others especially from the Muslim side to continue to address newcomer Sarita�s opening post and the issues therein raised. I have, as always, enjoyed our discussion and will here excuse myself, with your permission. I hope to meet you later, God willing, as St. James in his epistle (4:13-17) instructs me always to say. Best regards, Serv |
Posted By: Redneck
Date Posted: 16 November 2006 at 6:31pm
|
Peace, Common knowledge that Mathew was written in the Hebrew language. This is bible study 101. In the introductory preface to the book of Matthew (Thomas Nelson pub.) says this.... "Mathew is the gospel written by a Jew to Jews about a Jew". You want to tell me the original was not in Hebrew? You are free to pursue that line of thinking but by doing so will only work to discredit the bible. If Matthew was written originally in Greek then naturally would cast a dark shadow of suspicion over the book as to its authenticity. If God protected the bible from corruption then what versions have been protected and what versions has he allowed people to change since huge discrepancies exist from one version to the next? ------------- "One Nation Under Allah" |
Posted By: Cyril
Date Posted: 17 November 2006 at 2:10am
Redneck
Most scholars have abandoned that theory and think more of an Aramaic one, if it ever has existed.
Not at all. Never heard of translations? If there were an original in Aramaic or Hebrew it would certainly have been carefully translated into Greek as a divinely inspired scripture. If a translation would be synonymous with "suspicion over authenticity" Muslims would never use translations of the Quran. Your obsession to find "corruptions" in the NT makes you look for non-arguments as no one, the Coran included, has proofs of those corruptions.
According to Christians it is the NT in Greek which is the "version" protected by God. I think I won't get an answer but could you tell me anyway what are the "huge discrepancies" from one version to the other? |
Posted By: Servetus
Date Posted: 17 November 2006 at 7:44am
|
Hi Cyril,
I am interested. In light of the following quotations, on what basis have most scholars, in your research, questioned the existence of an original Hebrew or Aramaic Matthew Gospel? �... The only apocryphal work which was at all generally received [by the Church], and relied upon, in addition to our four canonical Gospels, is the "Gospel according to the Hebrews". It is a well-known fact that St. Jerome, speaking of this Gospel under the name of "The Gospel according to the Nazarenes", regards it as the Hebrew original of our Greek canonical Gospel according to St. Matthew � At a very early date, too, it was treated as devoid of Apostolic authority, and St. Jerome himself, who states that he had its Aramaic text at his disposal, does not assign it a place side by side with our [Greek] canonical Gospels: all the authority which he ascribes to it is derived from his persuasion that it was the original text of our First Gospel [according to St. Matthew], and not a distinct Gospel over and above the four universally received from time immemorial in the Catholic Church ..." Source: http://www.newadvent.org/cathen/06655b.htm - http://www.newadvent.org/cathen/06655b.htm �... St. Irenaeus (Adv. Haer., III, i, 2) affirms that Matthew published among the Hebrews a Gospel which he wrote in their own language � in his "Hist. eccl." (VI xxv, 3, 4), Eusebius tells us that Origen, in his first book on the Gospel of St. Matthew, states that he has learned from tradition that the First Gospel was written by Matthew, who, having composed it in Hebrew, published it for the converts from Judaism [the Ebionites?]. According to Eusebius (Hist. eccl., III, xxiv, 6), Matthew preached first to the Hebrews and, when obliged to go to other countries, gave them his Gospel written in his native tongue. St. Jerome has repeatedly declared that Matthew wrote his Gospel in Hebrew ("Ad Damasum", xx; "Ad Hedib.", iv), but says that it is not known with certainty who translated it into Greek � St. Jerome uses Matthew�s Hebrew text several times to solve difficulties of interpretation, which proves that he had it at hand � Pantaenus also had it, as, according to St. Jerome ("De Viris Ill.", xxxvi), he brought it back to Alexandria. However, the testimony of Pantaenus is only second-hand, and that of Jerome remains rather ambiguous, since in neither case is it positively known that the writer did not mistake the Gospel according to the Hebrews (written of course in Hebrew) for the Hebrew Gospel of St. Matthew. However all ecclesiastical writers assert that Matthew wrote his Gospel in Hebrew, and, by quoting the Greek Gospel and ascribing it to Matthew, thereby affirm [as a matter of �faith,� apparently] it to be a translation of the Hebrew Gospel ...� Source: http://www.newadvent.org/cathen/10057a.htm - http://www.newadvent.org/cathen/10057a.htm Serv |
Posted By: ejdavid
Date Posted: 18 November 2006 at 12:14pm
|
Sign Reader
The Jewish Old Testament, the Christian New Testament, and Koran were all assembled from bits and pieces by committees of people over time. Not one Jew I know claims even one infallible human. Both Christian and Islamic authorities identify only one each, neither of which wrote anything at all, as far as I can find. Perhaps The Diety inspired these committees? Show me evidence the members of these committees believed it? |
Posted By: harrdnut
Date Posted: 18 November 2006 at 9:01pm
=================================================== Anybody who says that Bibles are being translated from anything other than from the ORIGINAL three languages of Hebrew and Aramaic (for OT) , Greek for the NT, don't know anything about how authentic Bibles are translated. Take any Bible and read the very first few pages and find out what Bibles they used to transate the one you are holding in your hands. If a Bible you have in your hands has been translated by looking at another translation, throw it out. No sensible carpenter will use a copy of a piece of wood as a measure to mark off and cut another piece of wood of the original size. Why? Because any error that happened to the second piece will get into the third piece. So, likewise it is never good to translate from other translations. That is why all GOOD trnsltions of the Holy Bible are always made from the originals. When I say originals I don't mean the ones that original writers like Moses, David, Matthew, Mark , Luke etc wrote. Moses wrote 3500 yrs ago. David wrote 3000 yrs ago. Matthew wrote about 1900 yrs ago. Since the meterial they used were bio-degradable, they all went into dust and ashes in few hundred yrs �fter thy were written, just as is the case with the hand-written original Quran. (I like to know where the very first hand-written Arabic Quran is deposited. If anybody knows, please let the world know. Its a shame to keep it a secret). What am I saying? I am saying that there are no Bibles worth being called a Bible, if they have been translated from other translations. It means that all good Bibles have been translated by using the oldest , best available copies written in Hebrew, Aramaic and Greek! If interested please do Google on "The Dead Sea Scrolls" and find out about the original copies of the Holy Scriptures of the Bible. Or do a Google on: "How the Bible came to us." ------------- Once born twice dead, twice born once dead |
Posted By: Sign*Reader
Date Posted: 18 November 2006 at 9:09pm
So far Quraan is concerned it was preserved in a unique fashion; the Messenger remembered by heart himself and had hundreds of his followers do the same while having it written down on whatever media was available. Then best preservation was the functioning republic (Caliphate which lead the ME world for 14 centuries) he left behind to assure the continuity in its original form that it was to be recited everyday in 5 prayers by sections 25 times and once in its entirety during the month of fasting=Ramadan prayers. And this has been in practice ever since the world over. The described facility was not available or established in case of OT and NT. These writings were homeless for long periods of time after the revelations.
Restate this  what are you trying to say!
The first distribution of hand written copies of Quraan for the reference throughout the far flung empire was reviewed by the people who knew the Quraan by heart and under the supervision of the Caliph who had been Muhammad's secretary and the son in law. THe Quraan was the law of the land, it was that simple. The same is done every time the Quraan is published by any Muslim publisher and certified. I don't know what you mean by the Deity inspired committees? ------------- Kismet Domino: Faith/Courage/Liberty/Abundance/Selfishness/Immorality/Apathy/Bondage or extinction. |
Posted By: Sign*Reader
Date Posted: 18 November 2006 at 9:45pm
|
Do you know Arabic? and then some. ------------- Kismet Domino: Faith/Courage/Liberty/Abundance/Selfishness/Immorality/Apathy/Bondage or extinction. |
Posted By: Hanan
Date Posted: 18 November 2006 at 10:06pm
|
Moses wrote 3500 yrs ago. David wrote 3000 yrs ago. Matthew wrote about 1900 yrs ago. Since the meterial they used were bio-degradable, they all went into dust and ashes in few hundred yrs �fter thy were written I�ve always wondered about the authenticity of the Dead Sea Scrolls which are in possession of the Catholic church and somewhere hidden away in a vault in the Vatican. |
Posted By: Redneck
Date Posted: 21 November 2006 at 10:11am
Peace,
Yes. Major discrepancies for sure from one version to the next. The King James version has 66 chapters and the Douay-Rheims (catholic version) has 73 chapters. Were those extra 7 books supposed to be in the bible? If not God failed to protect the rehims version by allowing interpolations. If they were supposed to be there then God failed to protect the King James version by allowing the Protestants to leave them out. Either way its a major change. They are different. This is a discrepancy. This will do for a start. ------------- "One Nation Under Allah" |
Posted By: Redneck
Date Posted: 21 November 2006 at 10:25am
Peace,
Israel has the Dead Scrolls. Since they wont release the contents of them to the public to let archaeologist study them we are forced to conclude that this is a hoax. $ort of like the "Loch Ne$$ Monster" or "Bigfoot" A P.R. $tory told to bring in tourist$ traffic. Do you $ee what Im $aying? ------------- "One Nation Under Allah" |
Posted By: Reepicheep
Date Posted: 21 November 2006 at 10:45am
|
Redneck wrote: > Israel has the Dead Scrolls. Since they wont > release the contents of them to the public
You are wrong. Check out the following link: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Dead_Sea_Scrolls#Publication - http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Dead_Sea_Scrolls#Publication :
|
Posted By: Redneck
Date Posted: 21 November 2006 at 11:16am
|
Peace, I dont have to check any links. Im in possession of the facts now.
Isreal found the Dead Sea Scrolls. Portions of them may have been released but the bulk of the finding, what ever it is, is the property of Israel and in Tel Aviv.
End of discussion.
------------- "One Nation Under Allah" |
Posted By: Cyril
Date Posted: 21 November 2006 at 11:20am
| The Dead Sea Scrolls have been found by Jordanian beduins, not by Israelis. |
Posted By: Arab
Date Posted: 20 December 2006 at 5:12am
|
"The author is the apostle John, 'the disciple whom Jesus loved' (13:23; 19:26; 20:2; 21:7, 20,24). He was prominent in the early church but is not mentioned by name in this Gospel--which would be natural if he wrote it, but hard to explain otherwise. (From the NIV Bible Commentary, page 1588)" When one reads this gospel, he would immediately notice that it was not written by John himself. Let us look at the following verses from the gospel: "And this is the record of John, when the Jews sent priests and Levites from Jerusalem to ask him, Who art thou? (From the King James Version Bible, John 1:19)" "John answered them, saying, I baptize with water: but there standeth one among you, whom ye know not; (From the King James Version Bible, John 1:26)" "For John was not yet cast into prison. (From the King James Version Bible, John 3:24)" If it was him speaking why didnt he speak in the first person? Notice that there are http://www.answering-christianity.com/comforter_rebuttal.htm - 24,000 letters or papers found that were not included in today's New Testament , which means that the excerpts that were used for writing the "Gospel of John" and all of the other books and gospels of the NT are highly doubtful and contain no proof what so ever that they were written by any of Jesus' original disciples. The Gospel of John was written about John but not by the original "Saint John". Big difference. from: answering christianity http://www.answering-christianity.com/authors_gospels.htm - http://www.answering-christianity.com/authors_gospels.htm |
Posted By: Reepicheep
Date Posted: 20 December 2006 at 6:20am
|
The evil, hate crazed kooks who wrote this nonsense for the "Answering Christianity" website have really outdone themselves with the level of ignorance revealed by their claims about the Book of John. Thanks for my laugh of the day, Arab. |
Posted By: Arab
Date Posted: 20 December 2006 at 6:23am
| Laugh now .... But God is one who has no partners because he is far more exhalted then to "begett". |
Posted By: BMZ
Date Posted: 20 December 2006 at 4:44pm
|
Hi Arab, From you: "The Gospel of John was written about John but not by the original "Saint John". Big difference." One does not need answering-christianitydot coms to come to the above conclusion. Reading JOHN21:24-25 will itself clarify that the disciple John did not write the Gospel of John. Otherwise John21:24-25 would have been written as "I am the disciple who testifies to these things and who wrote them down. I know that my testimony is true." instead of the printed "This is the disciple who testifies to these things and who wrote them down. We know that his testimony is true." This must have been some other John or a team of writers, as is evident from John21:25"Jesus did many other things as well. If every one of them were written down, I suppose that even the whole world would not have room for the books that would have to be written." Salaam Alaikum BMZ |
Posted By: Sarita
Date Posted: 21 December 2006 at 3:31am
Yes, in fact these verses are written by Jesus' disciple John, and written about John the Baptist. John the Baptist was a relative of Jesus and was also the man who baptized Jesus, and was later beheaded at the request of Herod's daughter. If you go up a couple of verses to John 1:19 it states at the title this stretch of verses is about John the Baptist testimony. Just wanted to clear that up. |
Posted By: BMZ
Date Posted: 21 December 2006 at 4:00am
|
Sarita, John 1:19 is not a couple of verses up, it is right in the beginning of John's book. I was talking about the disciple whom Jesus loved, reference Verses John 21:20-22, which are talking about a disciple of Jesus by the name John. John the Baptist was not a disciple of Jesus. This is the disciple who wrote. John the Baptist wrote no testimony. Please read John 21:19-25 and you will know this has nothing to do with John the Baptist. Hope my point is clear. Thanks. |
Posted By: Sarita
Date Posted: 21 December 2006 at 4:22am
Excuse I hope I don't sound PMSy or something like that. Yes, there is a John who was loved by Jesus. There are a few different John's in the New Testament, I guess they couldn't have had more original names then, it is like me, my name is Sarah, many ladies my same age also have this name, if we all knew each other and wrote a book, it would be exhausting trying to figure out which Sarah was which I copied over the verses in question here to show you so that you will be able to see indeed this was John the Baptist testimony.
|
Posted By: BMZ
Date Posted: 21 December 2006 at 4:33am
|
That's all right, Sarita. According to what you quoted, about John the Baptist, that was his testimony. But I hope you will agree with me that John 21:24 speaks of the testimony of this disciple John. BMZ
|
Posted By: Arab
Date Posted: 21 December 2006 at 4:34am
|
It is interesting to note that:
This shows that the Jews were looking for THREE different prophecies to come true not just two. The Christ, Jesus, Elijah, and the Prophet. My Christian brothers only see two questions posed here, not three. Now we ask, who is "the Prophet"? Who else claimed prophecy and had to do with Jesus and John other than Mohammed?
|
Posted By: Arab
Date Posted: 21 December 2006 at 4:42am
|
And if we look up any Bible which has a concordance or cross-references, the we will find in the marginal note where the words "the Prophet", or "that Prophet" occur in John 1:25, that these words refer to the prophecy of Deuteronomy 18:15 and 18. So what does Deutronomy say? It says: 18 I will raise up for them a Prophet like you (like Moses) from among their brethren, and will put My words in His mouth, and He shall speak to them all that I command Him. Well who are the Jews' brethren? You guessed it. The Arabs. If Ishmael and Isaac are the sons of the same father Abraham, then they are brothers. And so the children of the one are the BRETHREN of the children of the other. The children of Isaac are the Jews and the Children of Ishmael are the Arabs - so they are BRETHREN to one another. The Bible affirms, 'AND HE (ISHMAEL) SHALL DWELL IN THE PRESENCE OF ALL HIS BRETHREN.' (Genesis 16:12). 'AND HE (ISHMAEL) DIED IN THE PRESENCE OF ALL HIS BRETHREN.(Genesis 25:18). The children of Isaac are the brethren of the Ishmaelites. In like manner Muhummed is from among the brethren of the Israeli tes beause he was a descendant of Ishamel the son of Abraham. This exactly as the prophecy has it- 'FROM AMONG THEIR BRETHREN'.(Deut.18:18). There the prophecy distinctly mentions that the coming prophet who would be like Moses, must arise NOT from the 'children of Israel' or from 'among the mselves', but from among their brethren. MUHUMMED THEREFORE WAS FROM AMONG THEIR BRETHREN! And no two men are so much similar in amazing ways other than Moses and Mohammed. Christians say that the Prophet was Jesus. In no way is Jesus like Moses that Mohammed isnt also. It also says: "and will put My words in His mouth" This is what happened with Mohammed. The Quran was no inspirational revelation. It was a verbal revelation. God Almighty tells Mohammed "Say" and Mohammed says "Say". God tells him "He is Allah the one and only" Mohammed says "He is Allah the one and only". God says "the eternal; absolute" Mohammed says "the eternal absolute". God says "He Begetteth not nor is he begotten." And on and on and on. It fits perfectly like a glove. "SAY: HE IS ALLAH THE ONE AND ONLY;
|
Posted By: Sarita
Date Posted: 21 December 2006 at 5:27am
Yes I am in totally agreement with you on that. Excellent research professor! |
Posted By: Sarita
Date Posted: 21 December 2006 at 5:36am
Yes I can see that clearly, that is why my mind is open to Prophet Mohommed being a true prophet. However, I figured they were just asking him the same question in three different ways. If they weren't, then who is Elijah? |
Posted By: Sarita
Date Posted: 21 December 2006 at 5:39am
I can understand that you would feel it was meaning Ishamael. But God was speaking to sons of Isaac, their brothers (i.e. Israel). I feel God was saying that he would raise up someone from Israel. |
Posted By: Sarita
Date Posted: 21 December 2006 at 5:42am
| The problem we all face is that only God really knows which one is true. I pray we can all step away from our "religion" and put the focus on God and what is His truth. |
Posted By: Arab
Date Posted: 21 December 2006 at 7:10am
|
"If they weren't, then who is Elijah?" I dont know but I think its a biblical contradiction. |
Posted By: Sarita
Date Posted: 21 December 2006 at 7:32am
My dearest Arab, we will have to continue to study this. |
Posted By: Arab
Date Posted: 21 December 2006 at 1:55pm
|
".......ELIAS TRULY SHALL FIRST COME, AND RESTORE ALL THINGS. BUT I SAY UNTO YOU, THAT ELIAS IS COME ALREADY, AND THEY KNEW HIM NOT,...THEN THE DISCIPLES UNDERSTOOD THAT HE SPAKE UNTO THEM OF JOHN THE BAPTIST."(Matthew 17:11-13). "AND THEY ASKED HIM, AND SAID UNTO HIM, WHEY BAPTIZEST THOU THEN, IF THOU BE (John 1:25) It must be noted that at the time of prophet Mohammed, before he migrated to Medinah, when he was at Mecca, he met a couple of guys from Medinah. When he told them he was Mohammed and that he is God's messenger, they were shocked. When he asked them why the shock they said that the Jews in Medinah have been telling them (the Arabs) for some time already that this is the time of the coming of the Prophet and that when he comes they shall follow him and rule over the Arabs so they were shocked that he is the Prophet since he is an Arab and not a Jew. This proves that the Jews knew that there was a Prophet and that he was coming, they even knew exactly when, they just didnt know he was an Arab. Later on, many Jews did convert to Islam and did testify to the Prophet that he is indeed mentioned in there scriptures. There are many many many nice stories about the encounters of Mohammed with the Jews and stories of how they converted to Islam.
|
yes we should. Jesus said that Elias was John.Posted By: Angel
Date Posted: 21 December 2006 at 3:24pm
That's what I see, asking the same question 3 different ways. ------------- ~ Our feet are earthbound, but our hearts and our minds have wings ~
|
Posted By: Angel
Date Posted: 21 December 2006 at 3:27pm
Elias? what happened to Elijah Are they not two different names? although most likely come from the same name base. ------------- ~ Our feet are earthbound, but our hearts and our minds have wings ~
|
Posted By: Arab
Date Posted: 22 December 2006 at 2:33am
|
elias is the same word as elijah. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Elijah - http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Elijah (read the name section) |
Posted By: Arab
Date Posted: 22 December 2006 at 2:59am
|
Btw most prophets names in true didnt have a "J". It was translated that way. For example: Jesus's true name was Eesa. The E is made into a J. Josephs real names was Yoosif. The Y is made into a J. John the Baptists real name was: Yahya. Moses: Moosa Aron: Haroon Jona: Yoonis just thought it was interesting.
|