|
THE BIBLE SAYS TO WORSHIP JESUS IS IDOLAT |
Post Reply 
|
Page <1 89101112> |
| Author | |||||||||||
honeto 
Senior Member 
Male Islam Joined: 20 March 2008 Location: Texas Status: Offline Points: 2487 |
 Post Options
 Thanks(0)
 Quote Reply
 Posted: 01 January 2009 at 9:52am |
||||||||||
Patty,
you are right I have known you and your belief by now.
Unfortunately, any of your claim has not been able to establish yet.
If you look at my question, it was to your claim, " yet they are all equal"
In your reply you did not give a quote that shows that they are all equal.
Please quote an appropriate verse.
Hasan |
|||||||||||
|
The friends of God will certainly have nothing to fear, nor will they be grieved. Al Quran 10:62
|
|||||||||||
 |
|||||||||||
|
PattyaMainer
Senior Member 
Female Joined: 03 August 2008 Location: United States Status: Offline Points: 352 |
Post Options
Thanks(0)
Quote Reply
Posted: 01 January 2009 at 11:07am |
||||||||||
Hasan,
I think I have given you more than enough evidence to show that the Father, the Son (Word), and the Holy Spirit are ONE GOD. Three separate individuals who come together to form the Holy Trinity, the Godhead. It says as much in the two verses I offered you, when the verse in I John says "AND THESE THREE ARE ONE"....ONE GOD, HASAN. Being one Triune God certainly makes them equal.
Have a good day,
Patty
|
|||||||||||
|
"FOR THOSE WHO DO NOT BELIEVE, NO EXPLANATION IS POSSIBLE. FOR THOSE WHO BELIEVE, NO EXPLANATION IS NECESSARY."
|
|||||||||||
|
|||||||||||
|
honeto
Senior Member
Male Islam Joined: 20 March 2008 Location: Texas Status: Offline Points: 2487 |
Post Options
Thanks(0)
Quote Reply
Posted: 05 January 2009 at 2:13pm |
||||||||||
|
Patty,
unfortunately that claim of yours don't take one more than a few inches let alone to the next reality of life.
Not too far just inches away in the same book here is something to reflect upon. And as always you would find my reponse short, to the point, clear, and simple.
John 20:17
"I am ascending to my father and your father, and to my God and your God"
Please Patty read this many times over in a peaceful and quiet place. And it will click to you.
May God guide us all.
Hasan
Edited by honeto - 05 January 2009 at 2:15pm |
|||||||||||
|
The friends of God will certainly have nothing to fear, nor will they be grieved. Al Quran 10:62
|
|||||||||||
|
|||||||||||
|
Honzo
Groupie 
Joined: 01 January 2009 Status: Offline Points: 76 |
Post Options
Thanks(0)
Quote Reply
Posted: 05 January 2009 at 9:24pm |
||||||||||
The only verses in the whole Bible that explicitly ties God, Jesus, and the Holy Spirit
in one "Triune" being is the verse of 1 John 5:7 "For there are three that bear record in heaven, the Father, the Word, and the
Holy Ghost: and these three are one." This verse is now universally recognized
as being a later "insertion" of the Church and all recent versions of the Bible,
such as the Revised Standard Version the New Revised Standard Version, the New American
Standard Bible, the New English Bible, the Phillips Modern English Bible ...etc. have all
unceremoniously expunged this verse from their pages. Why is this? The scripture
translator Benjamin Wilson gives the following explanation for this action in his "Emphatic
Diaglott." Mr. Wilson says: "This text concerning the heavenly witness is not contained in any Greek
manuscript which was written earlier than the fifteenth century. It is not cited by any of
the ecclesiastical writers; not by any of early Latin fathers even when the subjects upon
which they treated would naturally have lead them to appeal to it's authority. It is
therefore evidently spurious." Others, such as the late Dr. Herbert W. Armstrong argued that this verse was added to
the Latin Vulgate edition of the Bible during the heat of the controversy between Rome,
Arius, and God's people. Whatever the reason, this verse is now universally recognized as
an insertion and discarded. Since the Bible contains no verses validating a "Trinity"
therefore, centuries after the departure of Jesus, God chose to inspire someone to insert
this verse in order to clarify the true nature of God as being a "Trinity."
Notice how mankind was being inspired as to how to "clarify" the Bible centuries
after the departure of Jesus (pbuh). People continued to put words in the mouths of Jesus,
his disciples, and even God himself with no reservations whatsoever. They were being
"inspired" (see chapter two). If these people were being "inspired" by God, I wondered, then why did they
need to put these words into other people's mouths (in our example, in the
mouth of John). Why did they not just openly say "God inspired me and I will add a
chapter to the Bible in my name"? Also, why did God need to wait till
after the departure of Jesus to "inspire" his "true" nature? Why not
let Jesus (pbuh) say it himself? The great luminary of Western literature, Mr. Edward Gibbon, explains the reason for
the discardal of this verse from the pages of the Bible with the following words: "Of all the manuscripts now extant, above fourscore in number, some of which are more than 1200 years old, the orthodox copies of the Vatican, of the Complutensian editors, of Robert Stephens are becoming invisible; and the two manuscripts of Dublin and Berlin are unworthy to form an exception...In the eleventh and twelfth centuries, the Bibles were corrected by LanFrank, Archbishop of Canterbury, and by Nicholas, a cardinal and librarian of the Roman church, secundum Ortodoxam fidem. Notwithstanding these corrections, the passage is still wanting in twenty-five Latin manuscripts, the oldest and fairest; two qualities seldom united, except in manuscripts....The three witnesses have been established in our Greek Testaments by the prudence of Erasmus; the honest bigotry of the Complutensian editors; the typographical fraud, or error, of Robert Stephens in the placing of a crotchet and the deliberate falsehood, or strange misapprehension, of Theodore Beza." "Decline and fall of the Roman Empire," IV, Gibbon, p. 418. Edward Gibbon was defended in his findings by his contemporary, the brilliant British
scholar Richard Porson who also proceeded to publish devastatingly conclusive proof that
the verse of 1 John 5:7 was only first inserted by the Church into the Bible in the year
400C.E.(Secrets of Mount Sinai, James Bentley, pp. 30-33). Regarding Porson's most devastating proof, Mr. Gibbon later said "His structures are founded in argument, enriched with learning, and enlivened
with wit, and his adversary neither deserves nor finds any quarter at his hands. The
evidence of the three heavenly witnesses would now be rejected in any court of justice;
but prejudice is blind, authority is deaf, and our vulgar Bibles will ever be polluted by
this spurious text." To which Mr. Bentley responds: "In fact, they are not. No modern Bible now contains the interpolation." Mr. Bentley, however, is mistaken. Indeed, just as Mr. Gibbon had predicted, the simple
fact that the most learned scholars of Christianity now unanimously recognize this verse
to be a later interpolation of the Church has not prevented the preservation of this
fabricated text in our modern Bibles. To this day, the Bible in the hands of the majority
of Christians, the "King James" Bible, still unhesitantly includes this verse as
the "inspired" word of God without so much as a footnote to inform the reader
that all scholars of Christianity of note unanimously recognize it as a later fabrication. Peake's Commentary on the Bible says "The famous interpolation after 'three witnesses' is not printed even in RSVn,
and rightly. It cites the heavenly testimony of the Father, the logos, and the Holy
Spirit, but is never used in the early Trinitarian controversies. No respectable Greek MS
contains it. Appearing first in a late 4th-cent. Latin text, it entered the Vulgate and
finally the NT of Erasmus." It was only the horrors of the great inquisitions which held back Sir Isaac Newton from
openly revealing these facts to all: "In all the vehement universal and lasting controversy about the Trinity in Jerome's time and both before and long enough after it, the text of the 'three in heaven' was never once thought of. It is now in everybody's mouth and accounted the main text for the business and would assuredly have been so too with them, had it been in their books� Let them make good sense of it who are able. For my part I can make none. If it be said that we are not to determine what is scripture and what not by our private judgments, I confess it in places not controverted, but in disputed places I love to take up with what I can best understand. It is the temper of the hot and superstitious part of mankind in matters of religion ever to be fond of mysteries, and for that reason to like best what they understand least. Such men may use the Apostle John as they please, but I have that honor for him as to believe that he wrote good sense and therefore take that to be his which is the best" Jesus, Prophet of Islam, Muhammad Ata' Ur-Rahim, p. 156 According to Newton, this verse first appeared for in the third edition of
Erasmus's (1466-1536) New Testament. For all of the above reasons, we find that when thirty two biblical scholars backed
by fifty cooperating Christian denominations got together to compile the Revised
Standard Version of the Bible based upon the most ancient Biblical manuscripts available
to them today, they made some very extensive changes. Among these changes was the
unceremonious discardal of the verse of 1 John 5:7 as the fabricated insertion that it is.
For more on the compilation of the RSV Bible, please read the preface of any modern copy
of that Bible. Such comparatively unimportant matters as the description of Jesus (pbuh) riding an ass
(or was it a "colt", or was it an "ass and a colt"? see point 42 in
the table of section 2.2) into Jerusalem are spoken about in great details since they are
the fulfillment of a prophesy. For instance, in Mark 11:2-10 we read: "And saith unto them, Go your way into the village over against you: and as
soon as ye be entered into it, ye shall find a colt tied, whereon never man sat; loose
him, and bring [him]. And if any man say unto you, Why do ye this? say ye that the Lord
hath need of him; and straightway he will send him hither. And they went their way, and
found the colt tied by the door without in a place where two ways met; and they loose him
And certain of them that stood there said unto them, What do ye, loosing the colt? And
they said unto them even as Jesus had commanded: and they let them go And they brought the
colt to Jesus, and cast their garments on him; and he sat upon him. And many spread their
garments in the way: and others cut down branches off the trees, and strawed [them] in the
way And they that went before, and they that followed, cried, saying, Hosanna; Blessed
[is] he that cometh in the name of the Lord: Blessed [be] the kingdom of our father David,
that cometh in the name of the Lord: Hosanna in the highest." |
|||||||||||
|
|||||||||||
|
PattyaMainer
Senior Member
Female Joined: 03 August 2008 Location: United States Status: Offline Points: 352 |
Post Options
Thanks(0)
Quote Reply
Posted: 06 January 2009 at 1:27pm |
||||||||||
I realize (and understand why) Muslims are quite intimidated and frightened by this verse in I John. I will offer this explanation to you:
Integrity of the BibleIt is hard to accept that God was capable of protecting the Qur�an from alteration and yet powerless to preserve his earlier books, the Torah, the Zabur, the Injil and the books of the prophets. Muslims, in believing that the Bible once was Allah�s word, but is no longer, in fact contradict the Qur�an which says: "There is none who can change His words" (Surah 6:116; 6:34; 10:64). Several centuries before Muhammad, the Bible stated: "All men are like grass, and all their glory is like the flowers of the field; the grass withers and the flowers fall, but the word of the Lord stands forever" (1 Peter 1:24-25). In the Qur�an we do not find any suggestion whatsoever that the text of the Jewish and Christian Scriptures had been altered at the time of Muhammad. Indeed Muhammad himself trusted these Scriptures so much that we find verses in the Qur�an which instruct Christians and Jews to follow their own Scriptures. How could the Qur�an say such things if the Bible were corrupted? Let the people of the Gospel judge according to what has been revealed in it. ... Say O People of the Scriptures, Ye have naught of guidance till ye observe the Torah and the Gospel and that which was revealed unto you from your Lord (Surah 5:47,68). The immediate followers of Muhammad were so busy in establishing a Muslim community, that they did not have much time to read and compare the earlier Scriptures. When the next generation of Muslims after Muhammad came into regular contact with Christians, they found certain difficulties in reconciling the Qur�an with the Bible. First, Jesus did not prophesy about Muhammad and secondly, the Gospel narrative that Jesus died on the cross, was buried and rose again. If, in the light of what the Qur�an said, they accepted that the Bible was a guide and light from God, then they would have had to accept the supremacy of Jesus. This would not only have led to the absorption of Islam into Christianity, but would also have diminished their political power. Since, in their opinion, the Qur�an could not be wrong, they were forced to discredit the text of the Jewish and Christian Scriptures by claiming that they had been changed. Missing versesBoth orthodox and Ahmadi Muslims refer to certain variations they find in different translations of the Bible. To prove the Bible fallible, in their discussion with Christians, they compare certain passages from the Authorised Version with the Revised Standard Version and then argue that a certain verse is found in one copy and is missing in others, proving that the original text has been tampered with.5 Typical examples are John 5:2-4 and 1 John 5:7. Some translations have added brackets to such verses while other recent translations in English have included them in the margins or footnotes, stating that this portion of the text is not found in some of the earlier manuscripts discovered recently. However Bashir-ud-din, Mirza�s son has this to say: When the Christians entered into conflict with the Muslims and the latter began to hurl attacks at such passages, the former altered the text of their sacred Scriptures and the words within brackets were expunged .6 In recent translations, only the first sentence of 1 John 5:7 is found compared with a long verse in the Authorised Version. Thus Bashir claims that it was simply done, �out of fear of Muslim criticism�.7 In endeavouring to discredit the Bible, other Muslim writers claim that by taking out most of 1 John 5:7 from the present day translations, the doctrine of the Trinity has been removed. This was the main passage that represented the �nearest thing to the Christian Trinity in the whole of the Bible�.8 If this were all the evidence, the doctrine of the Trinity would be in serious doubt. However there are other passages which provide evidence about the unity of the Father, the Son and the Holy Spirit (Matthew 28:19, Ephesians 2:18 and 2 Corinthians 13:14). The standard in questionThe irony is that the Qur�an has also suffered from variant readings, and thus the above argument can be used against the Qur�an, or any other book claiming to be inspired or revealed. Variant readings are not found in the present Qur�an simply because the Caliph Uthman (the third successor after Muhammad) ordered that the version codified by his commission should be treated as the official text. All other copies, even those of the most prominent Qurra, Qur�an reciters and the nearest companions of Muhammad, were ordered to be burnt.9 If the Bible had been rectified in such a way, we also would have had the one and only text available to us. If our leading men had burnt all the ancient MSS. of the Bible and compelled all copies to be made from one which they had caused to be written, we too should have but few varied readings in our Bible, but all men of learning would feel that no reliance whatever was to be placed upon the text thus produced.10 The drastic action on the part of Uthman is itself evidence that major textual differences existed between various copies of the Qur�an. These differences were not only affecting the qira, recitation of the Qur�an, but also its form and content. Both orthodox and Ahmadi Muslims claim that the differences between these Qur�ans were only to be found in the pronunciation and in the recitation of the text: The variations which have become the subject-matter of discussion were not variations either of the text or verse or even variations of a word. They were all cases of enunciation of vowel points which did not in any way alter the meaning or significance of a word.11 One wonders how anyone can accept the idea that the differences could appear only in the verbal recital of the text, without appearing in the written text and would not alter the meaning of a word. The unifying fact was the destruction of the written text that Uthman ordered. Furthermore, there were no vowel points in the early written text of the Qur�an. Therefore the difference in recital would never have appeared in the written manuscript. Thus Uthman was standardising one text of the Qur�an at the expense of all other Qur�ans with variant texts. Although these major early Qur�anic manuscripts were destroyed, we have come to know about them and their variants from Muslim traditions, classical commentaries such as those of At-Tabari and Az-Zamakhsheri, and Islamic books written by respected and eminent Muslim divines. Such works as Jalaldin Sayyuti�s �Itaqan� and Ibn-Abi Dawood�s �Kitab al-Masahif� still survive. The latter contains the most information about differences that existed between the pre-Uthmanic codices. In the records of these early Muslim writers, we find many indications, from first hand sources, that the present Qur�an is incomplete. Abdullah ibn Umar, for example, is quoted as saying: Let no man say, �I have learned the whole of the Qur�an!� How can he have learned the whole of it when much of it has been lost? Let him say, �I have learned what is extant of it.�12 Like other Muslims, Ahmadiyya authors, in spite of strong proof, boldly allege that the Qur�an text "has been preserved absolutely pure and entire, down to the last vowel point".13 This is just exaggeration, because the history of the Qur�an text shows that diacritical marks and vowel points were only fully introduced at least two hundred years after Muhammad�s death. |
|||||||||||
|
"FOR THOSE WHO DO NOT BELIEVE, NO EXPLANATION IS POSSIBLE. FOR THOSE WHO BELIEVE, NO EXPLANATION IS NECESSARY."
|
|||||||||||
|
|||||||||||
|
Honzo
Groupie
Joined: 01 January 2009 Status: Offline Points: 76 |
Post Options
Thanks(0)
Quote Reply
Posted: 06 January 2009 at 10:29pm |
||||||||||
patty u hv no clue wt u r talking abt, i hv stated the view point of ur own biblical scholars not my own personal view.Which clearly suggest john 5-7 to be interpolation.
Here i will help u out finding those verses: But because of their breach of their covenant, We cursed them, and made their hearts grow hard; they change the words from their (right) places and forget a good part of the message that was sent them, nor wilt thou cease to find them- barring a few - ever bent on (new) deceits: but forgive them, and overlook (their misdeeds): for Allah loveth those who are kind. � [Quran 5:13]
From those, too, who call themselves Christians, We did take a covenant, but they forgot a good part of the message that was sent them: so we estranged them, with enmity and hatred between the one and the other, to the Day of Judgment. And soon will Allah show them what it is they have done. � [Quran 5:14] Again we see in this verse, the Quran clearly mentions people who call themselves �Christians� (i.e. followers of Christ) broke their covenant and abandoned the true message that was sent to them. When people like Paul came along they abandoned the true teachings of Jesus (as) and tried to create a religion of their own. There was a race of popularity being run by Paul. The Jews rejected Paul and today some scholars doubt that Paul himself was a Jew. However that is to be discussed in a later article. Paul wanted people to accept his version of Christianity. As a marketing ploy he included paganism in the teachings of Jesus so as to make it appealing to the Romans. This point will also be discussed in a later article Insha�allah however it was appropriate to make reference to the doings of Paul here and hence I did. Such people are being referred to by the Quran and truly today Christianity is no more than a Pauline religion rather than being the religion brought by Jesus (as). Among the Jews are those who distort words from their [proper] usages and say, �We hear and disobey� and �Hear but be not heard� and �Ra�ina,� twisting their tongues and defaming the religion. And if they had said [instead], �We hear and obey� and �Wait for us [to understand],� it would have been better for them and more suitable. But Allah has cursed them for their disbelief, so they believe not, except for a few. � [Quran 4:46] The example of those who were entrusted with the Torah and then did not take it on is like that of a donkey who carries volumes [of books]. Wretched is the example of the people who deny the signs (ayaat) of Allah. And Allah does not guide the wrongdoing people. � [Quran 62:5] (emphasis added) Then woe to those who write the Book with their own hands, and then say: �This is from Allah,� to traffic with it for miserable price! - Woe to them for what their hands do write, and for the gain they make thereby. � [Quran 2:79]
Allah Almighty commanded the Jews and Christians to rule among themselves according to the Bible only in the social and domestic disputes. This was when Islam was partial and its Laws were not yet complete. The following Hadith further proves this: Narrated 'Abdullah bin 'Umar: "The Jews came to Allah's Apostle and told him that a man and a woman from amongst them had committed illegal sexual intercourse. Allah's Apostle said to them, "What do you find in the Torah (old Testament) about the legal punishment of Ar-Rajm (stoning)?" They replied, (But) we announce their crime and lash them." Abdullah bin Salam said, "You are telling a lie; Torah contains the order of Rajm." They brought and opened the Torah and one of them solaced his hand on the Verse of Rajm and read the verses preceding and following it. Abdullah bin Salam said to him, "Lift your hand." When he lifted his hand, the Verse of Rajm was written there. They said, "Muhammad has told the truth; the Torah has the Verse of Rajm. The Prophet then gave the order that both of them should be stoned to death. ('Abdullah bin 'Umar said, "I saw the man leaning over the woman to shelter her from the stones." (Translation of Sahih Bukhari, Virtues and Merits of the Prophet (pbuh) and his Companions, Volume 4, Book 56, Number 829)" But after Islam became complete, there was no reason for them to continue following the Bible: ".....This day those who reject faith given up all hope of your religion: Yet fear them not But fear Me (Allah). This day have I (Allah) perfected your religion for you, completed my favour upon you, and have chosen for you Islam as your (complete) religion....(The Noble Quran, 5:3)" Here is what Noble Verse 7:157 states: "Those who follow the Messenger [Muhammad], the unlettered Prophet, whom they find mentioned in their own (scriptures) in the Law and the Gospel for he commands them what is just and forbids them what is evil; he allows them as lawful what is good and prohibits them from what is bad; He releases them from their heavy burdens and from the yokes that are upon them. So it is those who believe in him, honor him, help him, and follow the Light which is sent down with him- it is they who will prosper." We Muslims believe that Allah Almighty did send the Torah (Old Testament or the Law) to the Jews, but they then corrupted this Holy Message; "We (Allah) certainly gave the Book To Moses, but differences arose therein: had it not been That a Word had gone forth Before from thy Lord, the matter Would have been decided Between them: but they Are in suspicious doubt Concerning it. (The Noble Quran, 11:110)"
Already proved otherwise . here is something interesting tht ur own bible says: "`How can you say, "We [the Jews] are wise, for we have the law of the LORD," when actually the lying pen of the scribes has handled it falsely?' (From the NIV Bible, Jeremiah 8:8)" The Revised Standard Version makes it even clearer: "How can you say, 'We are wise, and the law of the LORD is with us'? But, behold, the false pen of the scribes has made it into a lie. (From the RSV Bible, Jeremiah 8:8)"
First learn the difference between interpolation and variant. here is an example of variant reading in bible: King James Bible And he said, Who art thou, Lord? And the Lord said, I am Jesus whom thou persecutest: it is hard for thee to kick against the pricks. American King James Version And he said, Who are you, Lord? And the Lord said, I am Jesus whom you persecute: it is hard for you to kick against the pricks. can u tell us wt are these pricks tht jesus is talking abt. Now this owrd "pricks" is not consideres as interpolation Lets see wt they hv done in other versions: International Standard Version (�2008) Now get up, go into the city, and you will be told what you are to do." New American Standard Bible (�1995) And he said, "Who are You, Lord?" And He said, "I am Jesus whom you are persecuting, GOD'S WORD� Translation (�1995) Saul asked, "Who are you, sir?" The person replied, "I'm Jesus, the one you're persecuting.
patty pls go back to my previous thread and read wt i hv mentioned.Have given enough evidences from ur biblical scholars which proves it to be interpolation Here are more, Daniel B. Wallace , Th.M., Ph.D on joh 5:7 http://www.bible.org/page.php?page_id=1186
None of those verses prove trinity.
U hv failed to understand few basic, Qirat is not variant reading. We would first like to define what is the actual meaning of Qir�'a which is frequently translated as 'variant reading'. The Hans-Wehr Dictionary Of Modern Written Arabic defines Qir�'a as: Qir�'a pl. -�t recitation, recital (especially of the Koran); reading (also, e.g., of measuring instruments); manner of recitation, punctuation and vocalization of the Koranic text. It is quite clear that the Qir�'a is not a 'variant' reading or text. The Muslims in history have never considered different Qir�'�t as different 'versions' of the Qur'an.
can u pls provide authentication of the above narration :-D
It is to be made clear that the Arabic script before and during the time of cUthm�n was written without vowel and diacritical marks. To say that the vowels and diacritical marks were not included in the cUthm�nic Qur'an actually shows the ignorance regarding of Arabic script. The need for vowel and diacritical marks arose only after the time of cUthm�n to prevent the wrong recitation of the Qur'an by ignorant Arabs and non-Arabs. Arabic orthography at the time of cUthm�n was not yet developed in the way we have known for centuries, particularly in two important areas. There was no distinction between letters of the alphabet of similar shape and there were no vowel marks. This may now give the impression that such a system must have given rise to great confusion in reading. This was not actually the case because the morphological patterns of words in Arabic enable readers to read even very unfamiliar material without the short vowels being marked. More important, however, as far as the Qur'an was concerned, was the fact that learning and reading relied above all on oral transmission. In the Islamic tradition, writing remained a secondary aid; nevertheless, to ensure correct reading of the written texts of the Qur'an, particularly for those coming after the first generation of Muslims, steps were taken gradually to improve the orthography. This started with the two above mentioned areas by introducing dots to indicate different vowels and n�n�tion and these were put in different coloured ink from that of the text. There were also dots to distinguish between consonants of similar shape. This work was carried out chiefly by three men: Ab�-l-Aswad al-Du'al� (d. 69 / 688), Nasr Ibn cAsim (d. 89 / 707) and Yahya Ibn Yacmur (d.129 /746). Understandably there was some opposition at first to adding anything to the way the Qur'an was written. Ibn cUmar (73/692) disliked the dotting; others welcomed it, clearly because it was, in fact, doing no more than ensuring proper reading of the Qur'an as received from the Prophet(P), and this view was accepted by the majority of Muslims throughout the different parts of the Muslims world, from the time of the t�bic�n. The people of Madinah were reported to have used red dots for vowels - tanw�n, tashd�d, takhf�f, suk�n, wasl and madd and yellow dots for the hamzas in particular. Naqt (placing dots on words in the mushaf), became a separate subject of study with many books written on it. For details please see the article Qur'anic Orthography: The Written Representation Of The Recited Text Of The Qur'an. Edited by Honzo - 06 January 2009 at 11:11pm |
|||||||||||
|
|||||||||||
|
honeto
Senior Member
Male Islam Joined: 20 March 2008 Location: Texas Status: Offline Points: 2487 |
Post Options
Thanks(0)
Quote Reply
Posted: 07 January 2009 at 2:52pm |
||||||||||
Patty,
on this quote you said: "Bieng one truine God certaily makes them equal."
Now your asumption contradicts this folowing verse:
" ...for my Father is greater them I"
this is what Jesus claimed according to John 14:28
Hasan Edited by honeto - 07 January 2009 at 2:53pm |
|||||||||||
|
The friends of God will certainly have nothing to fear, nor will they be grieved. Al Quran 10:62
|
|||||||||||
|
|||||||||||
|
robin
Senior Member 
Joined: 17 May 2008 Status: Offline Points: 595 |
Post Options
Thanks(0)
Quote Reply
Posted: 09 January 2009 at 1:08am |
||||||||||
I do not think I am wrong as my wife and her family were cathloics before she became a Christian so I think I know I am talking about!
Mary is the cataechism:-
The 'Catechism of the Catholic Church' p.221
"When the course of her (Mary) earthly life was finished, [she] was taken body and soul into heavenly glory, and was exulted by the Lord as Queen over all things".
Ishtar is symbolised WORSHIPPERS FELL TO THE WORSHIP OF ISHTAR Judges 10:6 ; 2 Kings 23:13:- Ishtar is called in the Bible ASTORETH, she was symbolised by a Cow. King Reoboam's introduction of Calf worship in Israel was a great sin in Jehovah's eyes, 1 Kings 12:28-30. (it-1 p. 975)
Jerimiah 7:18 " Queen of the Heavens," (Just like mary); 2 Kings 23:5 "Signs of the Zodiac. Jehovah's condemnation of Astoreth/Ishtar & Astrology, King Josiah cleans out false worship. The star VENUS, which is the ruling planet of the Zodiac sign Taurus the Bull. (Venus=Ishtar, Myths of Babylon & Assyria by D.A.Mac Kenzie p.?) The whole Zodiac belt was called The Girdle Of Ishtar (Women's Mysteries by Harding p.163)This to is Idol worship. |
|||||||||||
|
|||||||||||
|
Post Reply
|
Page <1 89101112> |
Tweet
|
| Forum Jump | Forum Permissions You cannot post new topics in this forum You cannot reply to topics in this forum You cannot delete your posts in this forum You cannot edit your posts in this forum You cannot create polls in this forum You cannot vote in polls in this forum |
Topic Options
PattyaMainer wrote: