Question for Muslims about Adam

TG12345 wrote: LOL. Speaking of actually reading what the other person wrote, you may want to take into account that I wrote Mark 10:18 which, in our debate (off forum), you stated shows that Jesus did not dare to compare Himself to God. I will post Mark 10:18 for you. 18 �Why do you call me good?� Jesus answered. �No one is good�except God alone. You got it confused with Mark 16:15-18. So... double to you LOL.

TG12345 wrote: Speaking of commentary on Mark 10:18, here is one: Gill's Exposition of the Entire Bible And Jesus said unto him,.... The same as in Mat_. 19:17, See Gill on Matthew 19:17. Why callest thou me good? This is said, not as denying that he was good, or as being angry with him for calling him so, but in order to lead this young man to a true knowledge of him, and his goodness, and even of his proper deity: there is none good, but one, that is, God; some render it, "but one God", as the Vulgate Latin, Syriac, and Arabic versions; and so the words are a proof of the unity of the divine being, and agree with Deuteronomy 6:4, but are not to be understood to the exclusion of the Son and Spirit, who, with the Father, are the one God: nor do these words at all militate against the deity of Christ, or prove that he is not God, as the Jew objects (a); seeing this is not to be understood of the person of the Father, in opposition to the Son and Spirit, who are equally good: nor does Christ, in these words, deny himself to be God, but rather tacitly suggests it; since he is good in the same sense in which God is good: in Matthew it is added, "but if thou wilt enter into life, keep the commandments", Matthew 19:17, this Christ said not as his sense, that the way to eternal life lies in keeping the commandments of the law; but he speaks in the language of the Pharisees, and of this man; and his view is, to bring him to a sense of the impossibility of obtaining eternal life by these things, as the sequel shows: wherefore the above Jew (b) has no reason to confront the followers of Jesus with this passage, as if it was a concession of his, that it is impossible any should be saved without keeping the commands of the law of Moses. (a) R. Isaac Chizzuk Emuna, par. 2. c. 19. p. 408. (b) Ib. http://bible.cc/mark/10-18.htm Most Christians also interpret it this way. Yet you, who are not a Biblical scholar, and many Muslims, interpret it to mean Jesus is saying He is not God.

I never said that most Christians do not interpret it that way.  Of course Christians would want the verse to say that Jesus is indeed "God"!  That is nothing new.  By the way, Webber is one "Christian" who would disagree with you!  See his above posts. 

But I do concede your point. 

TG12345 wrote: I don't get angry at you for providing your interpretation of some passages in the Bible or tell you that "your interpretation is meaningless" although most Christians and most Biblical scholars would disagree with you on that.

I didn't just say your opinions are "meaningless".  I said they are meaningless when compared to the unanimous agreement among Muslims that Adam (pbuh) was a prophet.  For you to argue otherwise is futile.

TG12345 wrote: Christian scholars are human beings. So are Muslim scholars. People are not infallible. Only God is. It is possible for a majority of scholars, scientists, lawmakers, teachers, professors, humanity to be wrong about something.

Certainly, which may explain why so many Christian scholars believe that Jesus is "God". 

TG12345 wrote: We are allowed to question their interpretations and views. They are not God.

Questioning must be done through facts and not on one's opinions.  You were quite insistent that Muslims are just "assuming" that Adam was a prophet and that the Quran and Hadiths are not clear. 

TG12345 wrote: You have presented no evidence before writing this post, that the Quran says Adam is a prophet.

I disagree.  The evidence presented, even before the last hadith I mentioned, showed conclusively that Adam (pbuh) was a prophet.

TG12345 wrote: On the subject of the other threads, I am assuming you refer to the Great Flood, I have presented evidence of not only tafsir writers but also other scholars (I wrote that post a few hours ago, so I don't know when it will be up) but also a fatwa that states it was global and that it did drown all humanity, as well as versions of the Quran which state that the people on the Ark were "ancestors" and "mankind". I look forward to seeing evidence of scholars that state the Flood was a regional event.

That is a separate topic and it will be discussed in that thread.

TG12345 wrote: Your opinion that in Mark 10:18 Jesus said He is not God matters even less then, since you are not an expert on Christianity and your opinion is far outweighed by Biblical scholars. Whether you agree or disagree doesn't change this fact. In spite of this, I will not go around telling you that your views don't matter, because my faith is strong enough to hear and refute your statements and trying to shut down a conversation is a form of weakness in my view by claiming "this is what the majority of scholars think so you have no say in the matter".

Irregardless, the fact remains that you had not refuted any of the evidence I provided except by denying their significance on your own authority.  You did not present any counter evidence to show that Adam was actually not a prophet. 

TG12345 wrote: Thank you for finally showing a hadith that states this!!!! In light of this, I agree with you that there is definitely proof that according to Islam, Adam was a prophet.

Even before this hadith, it was clear that Adam (pbuh) was a prophet. 

islamispeace wrote: In the Name of Allah, the Beneficent, the Merciful...

TG12345 wrote: You aren't a Christian either and don't believe the Bible is God's word, yet in our debate you have argued Mark 10:18 states Jesus is not God... although the vast majority of Christians and Biblical scholars will tell you that in the passage Jesus is affirming, not denying His divinity. I don't tell you it is not your place to tell Christians how to interpret the Bible.

islamispeace wrote: Actually, if you had read my responses in that thread from the beginning, you would have seen that I used Christian sources to prove that those verses are not even authentic.  I also referred to Barnes' Notes to show that the verses, if authentic, were not fulfilled as promised, since there is no evidence in the Bible that any Christian was able to drink poison and survive.  Therefore, how can you say that I am telling Christians how to interpret the Bible?   I have used Christian sources to make my arguments!

So... double to you LOL.

Speaking of commentary on Mark 10:18, here is one:

And Jesus said unto him,.... The same as in Mat_. 19:17, See Gill on Matthew 19:17.

Why callest thou me good? This is said, not as denying that he was good, or as being angry with him for calling him so, but in order to lead this young man to a true knowledge of him, and his goodness, and even of his proper deity:

there is none good, but one, that is, God; some render it, "but one God", as the Vulgate Latin, Syriac, and Arabic versions; and so the words are a proof of the unity of the divine being, and agree with Deuteronomy 6:4, but are not to be understood to the exclusion of the Son and Spirit, who, with the Father, are the one God: nor do these words at all militate against the deity of Christ, or prove that he is not God, as the Jew objects (a); seeing this is not to be understood of the person of the Father, in opposition to the Son and Spirit, who are equally good: nor does Christ, in these words, deny himself to be God, but rather tacitly suggests it; since he is good in the same sense in which God is good: in Matthew it is added, "but if thou wilt enter into life, keep the commandments", Matthew 19:17, this Christ said not as his sense, that the way to eternal life lies in keeping the commandments of the law; but he speaks in the language of the Pharisees, and of this man; and his view is, to bring him to a sense of the impossibility of obtaining eternal life by these things, as the sequel shows: wherefore the above Jew (b) has no reason to confront the followers of Jesus with this passage, as if it was a concession of his, that it is impossible any should be saved without keeping the commands of the law of Moses.

(a) R. Isaac Chizzuk Emuna, par. 2. c. 19. p. 408. (b) Ib.

http://bible.cc/mark/10-18.htm

Most Christians also interpret it this way. Yet you, who are not a Biblical scholar, and many Muslims, interpret it to mean Jesus is saying He is not God.

I don't get angry at you for providing your interpretation of some passages in the Bible or tell you that "your interpretation is meaningless" although most Christians and most Biblical scholars would disagree with you on that. 

Christian scholars are human beings. So are Muslim scholars. People are not infallible. Only God is. It is possible for a majority of scholars, scientists, lawmakers, teachers, professors, humanity to be wrong about something.

We are allowed to question their interpretations and views. They are not God.

islamispeace wrote: In you case, you have presented no evidence except your own opinions about how to interpret the Quran and Hadiths.  You have done so not only on this thread but on others as well.

TG12345 wrote: Having said this, if Islam is based on what is in the Quran and hadith, the fact remains that neither explicitly says that Adam was a prophet. Whether or not Muslims unanimously believe he was or wasn't doesn't change this fact.

islamispeace wrote: It does not matter what you think.  You are not an expert on Islam and your opinion is far outweighed by Islamic scholars.  The Quran and Hadiths are both clear that Adam (pbuh) was a prophet.  Whether you agree or disagree doesn't change this fact.

islamispeace wrote: In addition, there actually is a hadith in the compilation of Ibn Hibbaan, which is considered to be authentic, which clearly states that Adam (pbuh) was a prophet [1].

TG12345 wrote: You assume it means that, and so may most or all Muslims. Neither the hadith or Quran however affirm or deny this.

TG12345 wrote: Why would the tafsir writers use Islamic sources which they believe are true, and non-Islamic sources in their tafsir of the same events?

islamispeace wrote: I have already answered this question several times.  The exegetes often times used outside sources to fill-in details of the Quranic narrative which are not found in either the Quran or Hadiths.  In the case of one of Noah's sons being drowned in the flood, this is based on the Quran itself.    However, on other issues, such as the flood and other events which occurred thousands of years before, they did utilize the Jewish sources when there was no information in the Islamic sources.  That is why the tafsirs cannot be considered to be error-free.

TG12345 wrote: They give details about him that make you believe he was a prophet, but they don't state that he was or was not one way or the other.

islamispeace wrote: Irregardless of your personal opinions, the Quran states that Adam (pbuh) received God's words.  That makes him a prophet.