Muslims .v. Qur'an (A Christians prespective) 1 [Archive]

C-R-O-W-

22nd October 2003, 09:14

ok, em......the topic is still Muslims v Quran
but i have questions about Islam.

It [the Arabic Quran] does not come because the Torah and the Gospel were currupt, rather it came warn the Qurish people in Arabic tongue about the warnings of God that are written in the previous books which it {arabic Quran} says it confirm and attests them..

Many and many verses speak highly of Christians and their books...
example :-
[2.40-41]
O Children of Israel! Remember My favour wherewith I favoured you, and fulfil your (part of the) covenant, I shall fulfil My (part of the) covenant, and fear Me. And believe in that which I reveal, confirming that which ye possess already (of the Scripture)...

[2.89]
And when there cometh unto them a scripture from Allah, confirming that in their possession

[2.91]
And when it is said unto them: Believe in that which Allah hath revealed, they say: We believe in that which was revealed unto us. And they disbelieve in that which cometh after it, though it is the truth confirming that which they possess. 

[2.113]
And the Jews say the Christians follow nothing (true), and the Christians say the Jews follow nothing (true); yet both are readers of the Scripture.

[7:156-157]
"And I will write down (my mercy) for those who are righteous and give alms and who believe in our signs; who follow the apostle, the unlettered prophet, whom they find written in the Torah and the Gospel that is with them."

to give just a sample ......
you can get my collections from this link
http://www.faithful-cat.4t.com/Report.htm

Since the Quran says that the Christians read their book of the Good News [the Greek Euangelous means Good News=Gospel=Injel] I ant to ask you some Key Questions, that no muslim has confidently answered me.

1) Since Quran says that Christians read their Book, and to stand by it, when was it available from?

Since Jesus was taught the Gospel [Quran] and
since Jesus was taught and spoke the Gospel[Bible]
...... Did Jesus write it?
...... Did Jesus disciples write it?
...... Was it written after Jesus left or before he left earth?
...... Who penned down the Gospel on paper?
...... What was its original language that it was written in?

I ask you this to compare (from my understanding) Christian Church History v Quran.

Because Church History pedates Quran, it is a good way of testing the Quran and what it says and see if it maches History.

Yahya Sulaiman

22nd October 2003, 09:23

"And remember God took a covenant from the People of the Book, to make it known and clear to mankind, and not to hide it; but they threw it away behind their backs, and purchased with it some miserable gain! And vile was the bargain they made!" (3:187)

"O people of the Book! There hath come to you our Apostle, revealing to you much that ye used to hide in the Book, and passing over much (that is now unnecessary): There hath come to you from God a (new) light and a perspicuous Book,-wherewith God guideth all who seek His good pleasure to ways of peace and safety, and leadeth them out of darkness, by His will, unto the light,-guideth them to a path that is straight." (5:15-16)

"To thee We sent the Scripture in truth, confirming the scripture that came before it, and guarding it in safety: so judge between them by what God hath revealed, and follow not their vain desires, diverging from the Truth that hath come to thee. To each among you have we prescribed a law and an open way. If God had so willed, He would have made you a single people, but (His plan is) to test you in what He hath given you: so strive as in a race in all virtues. The goal of you all is to God; it is He that will show you the truth of the matters in which ye dispute." (5:48)

"This Qur'an is not such as can be produced by other than God; on the contrary it is a confirmation of (revelations) that went before it, and a fuller explanation of the Book-wherein there is no doubt- from the Lord of the worlds." (10:37)

"We did aforetime grant to the Children of Israel the Book the Power of Command, and Prophethood; We gave them, for Sustenance, things good and pure; and We favoured them above the nations. And We granted them Clear Signs in affairs (of Religion): it was only after knowledge had been granted to them that they fell into schisms, through insolent envy among themselves. Verily thy Lord will judge between them on the Day of Judgment as to those matters in which they set up differences. Then We put thee on the (right) Way of Religion: so follow thou that (Way), and follow not the desires of those who know not." (45:16-18)

"It is He Who has sent amongst the Unlettered an apostle from among themselves, to rehearse to them His Signs, to sanctify them, and to instruct them in Scripture and Wisdom,- although they had been, before, in manifest error...the similitude of those who were charged with the (obligations of the) Mosaic Law, but who subsequently failed in those (obligations), is that of a donkey which carries huge tomes (but understands them not). Evil is the similitude of people who falsify the Signs of God: and God guides not people who do wrong." (62:2-5)

The key phrases here are "and passing over much (that is now unnecessary)," "guarding it in safety" and "a fuller explanation."

I am the poster formerly known as American Deist.

C-R-O-W-

22nd October 2003, 09:35

The problem with phe ppl who "passed over much", and those who "conseal" are only refrences to those living close in Arabia and its immediate surrounding.

Also these dont say that the text was altered or currupted since there were those who were true to their faith and their Torah. Those people who were true to their Torah were not scilenced by those whi did mischief, p.s. i think when it says "aassed over much" it means lefr out from their reading, and not edited the text....

still, i would be glad if u could attempt to answer my previous post :D

Yahya Sulaiman

22nd October 2003, 10:35

I'm sorry, I thought I had answered the post. If you're referring to the slew of questions beginning with, "Did Jesus write it?" then I'm afraid I can't help you because I'm not a scholar in such matters. I would, however, refer you to my thread about the Gospel of Barnabas.

I am the poster formerly known as American Deist.

C-R-O-W-

22nd October 2003, 11:39

Gospel of Barnabas???? [G.O.B. for short]

Oah boy, not that again! (no offence)

I am sure that gospel was created after mohamed.....

As it contains many things that are pro-quran and anti-New Testament.

thats why muslims adore thats book, but i am sure not all muslims would use this gospel.

And i have read extracts from it and it has very strange teachings.

like its a known fact that Bible says Jesus is the Messiah also the Quran only attributes the title of Messiah to Jesus but in the G.O.B [Ch. 82] Jesus calls muhammed the Messiah.

Also its a knwn fact that the year of Jubilee in the Old Testament was every 50 years, yet the G.O.B. states its held every 100 years. Pope Clement VI reversed Boniface's decision and celebrated the next Jubilee in 1350. This was thus the only time that the Year of Jubilee was intended as a centenary occasion

put two and two togther and you can see there is something wrong with it...
i wil read up more on this, so watch this space

Yahya Sulaiman

22nd October 2003, 12:42

Put your comments in the appropriate thread. I started the thread about the GOB for a reason.

I am the poster formerly known as American Deist.

22nd October 2003, 12:43

The gospel of Barnabas is universally considered a flaw because it uses terms such as barrels that were not in use at the time Christ. The epistle of Barnabas is older but is not felt to be the work of the saint but some other layman.
http://www.ccel.org/fathers2/ANF-01/anf01-40.htm#P3115_512581
http://www.ccel.org/fathers2/ANF-01/anf01-41.htm#P3130_520749

Yahya Sulaiman

22nd October 2003, 12:45

What did I just say? PUT YOUR COMMENTS IN THE OTHER THREAD.

I am the poster formerly known as American Deist.

C-R-O-W-

22nd October 2003, 13:14

In the G.O.B t says in Chapter 39
"'Seeing the man alone, God said: "It is not well that he should remain alone." Wherefore he made him to sleep, and took a rib from near his heart, filling the place with flesh. Of that rib made he Eve, and gave her to Adam for his wife. He set the twain of them as lords of Paradise, to whom he said: "Behold I give unto you every fruit to eat, except the apples and the corn"

and in Quran it says Surat-ul Baqara (2):35
"0 Adam! dwell thou and thy wife in the Garden; and eat of the bountiful things therein as (where and when) ye will: but approach not this tree, or ye run into harm and transgression"

Itis possible that the tree they were not suppposed to eat from contained apples, but can Corn really grow on trees?

I will be back tomorrow, but please, first explain to me who is barnibas and his relation to Jesus and his disciples?

(1John4:6)
But we are of God; and he that knoweth God, heareth us; and he that is not of God, heareth us not. By this, we know the spirit of truth, and the spirit of error.

Edited by - C-R-O-W- on 10/22/2003 06:23:06

Yahya Sulaiman

22nd October 2003, 13:29

Why is nobody listening to me???

I already started a thread about this. Talk about the Gospel of Barnabas in that thread, not this one.

I am the poster formerly known as American Deist.

Azad

22nd October 2003, 23:36

Assalam

Why is nobody listening to me???

Don't despair, if they don't listen to you they will have to listen to me. Listen up, guys, you have committed the crime of..err well i dunno, but I advise you to continue the discussion about the Gospel of Barnabas here: The Gospel of Barnabas (http://www.understanding-islam.com/forum/topic.asp?TOPIC_ID=832)

Thanks!

May Peace be with you.

C-R-O-W-

23rd October 2003, 01:05

You must forgive me, i am a new face in forums.

I didnt understand what "thread" ment, but now i do....

And dont forget for all you other ppl, the topic here is

Quran v Muslim

<HR>
If any one feels brave enough, then answer these questions.

Since the Quran says that the Christians read their book of the Good News [the Greek Euangelous means Good News=Gospel=Injel] I ant to ask you some Key Questions, that no muslim has confidently answered me.

1) Since Quran says that Christians read their Book, and to stand by it, when was it available from?

Since Jesus was taught the Gospel [Quran] and
since Jesus was taught and spoke the Gospel[Bible]
...... Did Jesus write it?
...... Did Jesus disciples write it?
...... Was it written after Jesus left or before he left earth?
...... Who penned down the Gospel on paper?
...... What was its original language that it was written in?

Vajradhara

23rd October 2003, 02:05

Namaste CROW,

those are patently simple questions to answer, so i'll give them a go :)

...... Did Jesus write it?

No, Jesus did not write it. The Bible was written by various authors from approx 30 CE to 100 CE.

...... Did Jesus disciples write it?

Perhaps, though the textual evidence is suggestive that several disparate writers contributed to various sections.

...... Was it written after Jesus left or before he left earth?

After.

...... Who penned down the Gospel on paper?

well.. that's a good question, isn't it? IF it wasn't his disciples, then whom? please review this link for more information:
http://www.earlychristianwritings.com/

...... What was its original language that it was written in?

most scholars posit that the orignal language was Hebrew.. or Aramaic.. that, however, is irrelevant as we don't have any extant copies of those. the oldest "language" copy that we have is the Greek, which you can read a translation of here:
http://www.ccel.org/bible/brenton/index.html

~compassionately~

Yahya Sulaiman

23rd October 2003, 08:12

Okay, I've responded to the points nr and CROW made about the Gospel of Barnabas in the "Gospel of Barnabas" thread in "General Discussion," so I refer them to that thread.

I am the poster formerly known as American Deist.

mpriest

24th October 2003, 12:01

Salaam

I think that many muslims when referring to the corrupt texts
of the Bible,are referring to the errors in translation long
after the Quran.

Today we now have many new age bibles,my understanding of it is,
that over 600 different translations were rejected by the church.

matthew missionary priest

C-R-O-W-

26th October 2003, 08:35

<H6>
I think that we have all lost and are wondering off to side issues.
I would like to first of all confess to you all that I myself don’t know a great deal of things, but still from what I know I speak off. So, going back to the real topic of this subject area….
<HR>
If I may, let me form some foundations for our conversations here….

The Christian Bible is a canon, the collection of Books. Which can be seen as two parts, Old Testament [which starts from the creation of the world to the last recognised Jewish prophet Malachi] and the New Testament [which starts from the various accounts of the life of Jesus to the Book of Revelations which is about the end times]. Now these Books were what the Christians community used as their Scripture.

Now the very early Christians had no Books to read apart from the Old Testament, which was the Jewish collection of Holy Scripture [Torah, Writings and Prophets or better known as ‘TaNaK’.]. But the very early Christians had Apostles, Prophets and Teachers to guide and help them grow in the faith. Some of these writings can now be found in the New Testament, which in-turn help future generations of believers to read and live a holy life for the Gospel.

As a great number of people believed in the Christian Gospel in other countries and in other tongues, there came a bigger need to translate the Bible into their tongues.
(If I am correct) within 150 years after Jesus, the Gospel was spread to Palestine, Rome, Turkey, Libya, Cush [Ethiopia, Eritrea, Sudan] , Iran, Iraq, Syria, Arabia, Cyprus and other places.
<blockquote>
Oldest knows ½ copy of N.T. (200 AD Still exists today)

Oldest known complete N.T. (350 AD Still exists today)

Codex 151 (867 AD The oldest known Arabic N.T.)

Luke, John (200 AD 70% still exists today)
10 Epistles of Paul (200 AD 75% still exists today)

Matt, Mark, Luke, John, Acts, Paul’s Epistles, Revelations (200 AD Still exists today)

Fragments of Matthew (65 AD Still exists today) / Fragments of John (120 AD Still exists today)
</blockquote>
Now when comparing these manuscripts, they are similar and it is important to note that all these came before Mohammad and the Quran.

So, much later in time, when the Quran comes, it says things like : -

[5.68] Say: "O People of the Book! ye have no ground to stand upon unless ye stand fast by the Law, the Gospel, and all the revelation that has come to you from your Lord."

[2:101] And when there came to them a messenger from Allah, confirming what is with them,

[2.113] And the Jews say the Christians follow nothing (true), and the Christians say the Jews follow nothing ; yet both are readers of the Scripture.

[4.47] O ye unto whom the Scripture hath been given! Believe in what We have revealed confirming that which ye possess.

And in the Quran, it does not ask the Christians to observe the Quran because the Christians book is corrupted. Never, to my understanding does it say the Christian Book is corrupted. Instead, it asks the Christians to believe in Mohamed because [apparently] Mohamed is mentioned in the book of the Christians.

[2:101] And when there came to them a messenger from Allah, confirming what is with them, a party of the People of the Book threw away the Book of Allah behind their backs, as if they did not know!

Now, the Book that the Christians followed was the Bible, which was a canonised book, of which the majority of books are the same.

Now, the translation of our N.T. comes from a lot of these early manuscripts, before Mohammad and the Quran, of which says that the Christians have a genuine Book.

Considering these facts, we can say that the Quran has the view that the Christian Books are genuine, but on the other hand we have Muslims contradicting these evidences.

As I have said before, and I will say now, Muslims use the Christian Books and attempt to find Mohamed in them like Mohamed being the Counselor that will come after Jesus in the Gospel of John. While of the other hand they say it is not a genuine book.

I write this from experience of conversating with Muslims. And when I hear these obvious contradicting words of Muslims, I think to myself, “Where is your integrity?”

I suppose, depending on the Question you ask Muslims {though not every}, their response shifts from one extreme to the other.
Does any Christian out there identify with me or am I the only odd one out?

Any comments from any one is always welcome. </H6>

Yahya Sulaiman

26th October 2003, 08:44

As I've said before in another thread, the fact that one scripture was written earlier than another does not authenticate it in comparison. If that were the case, the truest scripture in the world would be the Enuma Elish of the ancient Babylonians.

And I've already talked about the confirmation of certain previous scriptures and etc.

I am Yahya, formerly Surah, formerly American Deist.

Ahmad24

26th October 2003, 15:01

I hope this helps :

http://understanding-islam.com/related/text.asp?type=question&qid=299

http://understanding-islam.com/related/text.asp?type=question&qid=298

http://understanding-islam.com/related/text.asp?type=question&qid=297

http://understanding-islam.com/related/text.asp?type=article&aid=7

C-R-O-W-

27th October 2003, 10:04

I think I aught to explain myself a little bit more, if you are going to say that.
Quran, as I have said earlier, always says the Book of Christians is genuine.
Never does it say [to my understanding] that Quran came to replace it.

So what is the Book of the Christian?

The book of the Christians is the New Testament.
This New Testament is a collection of Books that *the early Church fathers had compiled * or better known as ‘canon of scripture’.

The reason they were canonised was that as the first and second generation of disciples passing away, there came a need to preserve and collect the teachings of Jesus; of whom some were his apostles and other early influential disciples.
For example the Apostle Paul’s epistles seems to have been spread widely as one collection among the believers of ‘the way’ [i.e. Christians], within his life time: -

2 Peter 3:15-16
“… as also our beloved brother Paul, according to the wisdom conferred on him, wrote to you; as also in all his epistles,”

So we can say that the Book of the Christians evolved into the Bible that we have now, beginning from the second century.
Also other early writings of believers i.e. Ignatius, Clement and Polycarp seem to have knowledge of most of the New Testaments contents.

Now if u do a little of research, you will find this to be true.

So, if you compare Church history with what Muslims say, it becomes very hard to accept the words of Muslims and easy to accept the words of Quran.

But on the other hand there are reservations on what the Quran claims is in the Book of the Christians, i.e. Sura 9:111 which is foreign to Christian belief and Jesus’ teaching.
So I can ask, is what Quran speaking off the book that the Christians have or what?

Since you have missed my point in previous posts, I have made it very clear here, what the Christians book is, and how it came to be what it is.

Yahya Sulaiman

27th October 2003, 10:14

It doesn't say "the book of the Christians," so stop twisted its words. It says "al-injeel," or "the Gospel." Why do so many Christians just assume that "the Gospel" means "the New Testament"?

I am Yahya, formerly Surah, formerly American Deist.

C-R-O-W-

27th October 2003, 10:36

Think caefuly....

The early Christians had no Holy Book apart from the Old Testament, which is a Jewish collection of Holy Scripture. The very early Christians were litrally reformed Jews.

I say the Book of the Christians in light of History, and i need to say no more.
the Quran speaks of the Injel that came to Jesus. (the book, i think its called in Quran).
But Quran does not say Jesus wrote it, instead it evolves from the time of Jesus where he speaks verbally, to the time of Mohammed where his teachings becomes a written form that the christians possesed. In between these two periods, i dont think Quran has any plawsable account to fill the gap, so we have to look at documented history of the Church.

Within the Christian comunity the Injel means another thing. Injil is good news of Jesus, that he came and died, and was resurected on the third day as the scriptures said, and and in later time to preach repentence to all creation.

As i said before, the early followers of "the Way" had no book. It evolved into what we have, New Testament. That is the book of the Christians in light of History.

I am not twisting things, its just that you need to look and think a little harder and try to grasp what i am saying.

Yahya Sulaiman

27th October 2003, 11:27

The earliest known Gospel is either Mark or the Gospel of Thomas. The Gospel of Mark contains no explicit resurrection and no claim to divinity. The Gospel of Thomas (which I haven't finished reading yet) is all teachings, none of which are claims to divinity or involve a crucifixion and resurrection.

I am Yahya, formerly Surah, formerly American Deist.

27th October 2003, 12:17

The Gospel of Mark contains no explicit resurrection
This is incorrect though. Mark 16 gives a resurrection account before the longer ending. If your willing to read the Gospel of Thomas(50-140AD) you should read the Didache(50-120AD). http://www.earlychristianwritings.com/text/didache-roberts.html

Yahya Sulaiman

27th October 2003, 12:28

Pardon me. I should have said the earliest manuscripts of Mark do not contain an explicit resurrection.

I am Yahya, formerly Surah, formerly American Deist.

C-R-O-W-

27th October 2003, 12:29

I think you will find that even before the Gospels were written, Paul’s "1 Corinthians" letter was written first.
But still, it is in harmony with Marks Gospel.

And when we look at Mark, it is the same as all the other teachings of the Gospels, Jesus will die and be resurrected: -

Mark 8:31-33
And He began to teach them that the Son of Man must suffer many things and be rejected by the elders and the chief priests and the scribes and be killed and after three days rise. And He spoke this word openly.
And Peter took Him aside and began to rebuke Him. But turning around and looking at His disciples, He rebuked Peter and said, Get behind Me, Satan! For you are not setting your mind on the things of God, but on the things of men.

Here we find Jesus rebuking Peter for thinking the things of man and not God; for satan was borrowing Peters mouth to distract Jesus from his mission.

Gain we find an even more explicit words of Jesus in the mount of transfiguration

Mark 9:9-10
And as they were acoming down from the mountain, He ordered them not to relate to banyone the things which they had seen, except when the Son of Man has crisen from the dead. And they kept the word, discussing among themselves what rising from the dead was.

Again in Mark 14:6-9
But Jesus said, Leave her alone. Why do you trouble her? She has done a noble deed on Me.
For you always have the poor with you, and whenever you want, you can do good for them. But you do not always have Me. She has done what she could; she has anointed My body beforehand for the burial. And truly I say to you, Wherever the gospel is proclaimed in the whole world, what this woman has done shall also be told as a memorial of her.

Other references of his death and resurrection is
Mark 10:32-34 Mark 12:1-11 Mark 16
I think you are confused, because, the earliest records of Mark does not record his ascension into heaven [I think this is what u meant] but be in no doubt, it is clear that Jesus taught his death, burial and resurrection and in Mark it records his death burial and resurrection.

Angels meet the women in the empty toumb and tell them that Jesus was dead but now he is resurected
Mark 16:1-8
And they entered the tomb, and saw a young man sitting from the right, and wearing a white robe, and they were amazed.
6. He then said to them, "Do not be afraid, you are seeking Jesus the Nazarene,* who was crucified, he has risen, he is not here anymore.* Behold, the place he was consecrated!
7. "Except, go off and tell his disciples and Keepa[Peter,] that, behold, he will be ahead of you in Galilee. There you will see him, where he told you."
8. And as they heard, they ran and exited the tomb, for they were seized by amazement and trembling, and they did not say anything to any human being, for they were afraid.

Edited by - C-R-O-W- on 10/27/2003 06:34:08

27th October 2003, 12:35

My bible divides the longer ending at Mark 16:9. Mark 16:1-8 give a fairly convincing account of the resurrection account. Although does not explicitly say that the disciples saw the resurrected Jesus, there is the line "He is going before you to Galilee; there you will see him, as he told you."

Yahya Sulaiman

27th October 2003, 12:36

I would respond by pointing you to that debate I posted the link to earlier. Ahmed Deedat made some good points. (So did McDowell, to be sure.)

Also, remember: no claims to divinity in Mark.

I am Yahya, formerly Surah, formerly American Deist.

C-R-O-W-

27th October 2003, 12:51

Lets see if Jesus does not claim athorathy

Marh 14: 60-63
60 And the high priest arose in the midst, and interrogated Jesus and said: Returnest thou no answer ? What do these testify against thee ?
61 And Jesus was silent, and made no reply. And again the chief priest interrogated him, and said: Art thou the Messiah, the Son of the Blessed ?
62 And Jesus said to him: I am. And ye will see the Son of man sitting on the right hand of power, and he will come on the clouds of heaven.
63 And the high priest rent his tunic, and said: What need of witnesses have we, any more ?

The High priest got angry here because Jesus claimed to be the Messiah the Son of the Blessed.

Now when Jesus talks about when they will see him descend from the clowds of heaven, this had other refrences

Daniel 7:13-14

"I kept looking in the night visions,
And behold, with the clouds of heaven
One like a Son of Man was coming,
And He came up to the Ancient of Days
And was presented before Him.
14
"And to Him was given dominion,
Glory and a kingdom,
That all the peoples, nations and men of every language
Might serve Him.
His dominion is an everlasting dominion
Which will not pass away;
And His kingdom is one
Which will not be destroyed.

Here Jesus is claiming to be the one whom Daniel had prophesied over, where Jesus has a kingdom and where every people "nations and men of every language" will serve him.

this is something to think about.

Look also at mark 12:35-337
35 1And Jesus, while He was 2ateaching in the temple, answered and bsaid, How is it that the cscribes say that the Christ is the son of David?
36 David himself said in the aHoly Spirit, "The Lord said to my Lord, Sit at My right hand until I put Your enemies cunderneath Your feet.''
37 David himself calls Him Lord, and how is He ahis son?

Infact Jesus sitting at the right hand has another refrence to Psalms 110:1
The LORD says to my Lord:
"Sit at My right hand
Until I make (3) Your enemies a footstool for Your feet."

Here David calls Jesus his Lord.

Edited by - C-R-O-W- on 10/27/2003 06:56:25

C-R-O-W-

27th October 2003, 13:08

>>Yahya, formerly Surah, formerly American Deist.<<

Could you please post the site again, i must have passed over it,
I would be very greatful.

thank you.

Yahya Sulaiman

27th October 2003, 13:09

1. "Son of God" was an expression used many times in the Bible to refer to many people.
2. The idea of his descending from heaven and ruling the earth is compatible with the Muslim viewpoint, and we sure don't consider him to be a literal son of God.
3. For one prophet to be another's lord, well...that could mean almost anything, now couldn't it?

I am Yahya, formerly Surah, formerly American Deist.

Yahya Sulaiman

27th October 2003, 13:10

http://answering-islam.org/Debates/Deedat_McDowell.html

I am Yahya, formerly Surah, formerly American Deist.

C-R-O-W-

28th October 2003, 05:45

<blockquote>
1) "Son of God" was an expression used many times in the Bible to refer to many people.
</blockquote>
You have missed the essential idea here, though I don’t thin you missed it deliberately.
The title Jesus used for himself in Marks Gospel [which I posted], Jesus referred to himself as the “Son of Man” and not as the “Son of God”. And this Son of Man is seated at the “right hand of the power”, unlike any other, thus denoting the uniqueness of Jesus, separating him from any other. Another area that you may have missed is that in

Daniel 7:13-14 Jesus was given [as the NIV puts it] “authority, glory and sovereign power” again, denoting Jesus authority and uniqueness over any other, it continues to explain why he was given this authority, “that all peoples, nations and men of every language should serve him.” Pretty unique I would say.
<hr>
<blockquote>
2) The idea of his descending from heaven and ruling the earth is compatible with the Muslim viewpoint, and we sure don't consider him to be a literal son of God.
</blockquote>

If you mean “literal son of God” in the Quran’s eyes where God had to have a wife in order to produce a son, then forget it.

And here is a perfect example where it is Muslin .V. Quran. Let me explain.

I see that you are careful in the words you chose. You say, “The idea of his descending from heaven and ruling the earth is compatible with the Muslim viewpoint”

You are right, it is in Muslims viewpoint that comes from Hadith’s.
You assume Jesus is coming back to defeat the Dejal, kill all pigs, break all the crosses, and abolish the pole tax and establish Islam as the only religion. Then Jesus lives a normal life for some time then die as a normal person.

If we turn to the Quran for such teaching about Jesus descending from heaven and doing these things, it is a foreign concept to Quran. So this leads to another Queation.

Why wound God be silent on his Arabic Qur’an of such a huge event that will take place in the future?
Qur’an, when talking about Jesus has two periods. The first was on earth while Jesus was with his people, and the second will be at judgment day. But you want to add a third event [which is Islamic doctrine but not Qur’anic doctrine], between the first and second periods, and depend on stories compiled 200 years later, enough time to let Christian and other influences undermine the words of your Allah in the Qur’an.
And I had the privilege of talking to a Qur’anic scholar, and told me that Hadith’s on one hand could be true and on the other hand can be false [which is why he doesn’t get his beliefs from them]. That’s why it said to be ”SAHIH”.

From what I know, the Hadith’s were compiled years after the death of Muhammad.
In one case (If I can remember), of around 60,00 Hadith’s that were put forward for compilation; 98% of them were rejected.
However, what I notice from Muslims like yourself is that you imply Qur’an is not dependent on itself. You have to read other things apart from the Quran to [i]really understand the Qur’an [i.e. Jesus coming again].
If so, it should be a worrying fact, as the people at the lifetime and after the death of Muhammad, had no such things as Hadith’s. They only had the Arabic Qur’an.
Are we to assume those people who didn’t possess Hadith’s [as you do now] didn’t really understand the Quran and its teachings about Jesus’ 2nd coming?
If the Quran [in Arabic] was given, it should be sufficient for one to understand the Quran on its own. Allah does not say, “read the Hadith’s along with the Qur’an to understand what I am talking about” as Allah thinks the Quran is clear and fully detailed, and if there is any query about the revelations to Muhammad, then turn to those who received the Gospel and Torah (10:94). Thus, if Qur’an were fully detailed, then there is no need to refer to Hadith’s and say Jesus will return to die.
Maybe, to your surprise Allah warns Muslims about believing in misleading stories: -

<table border=4 cellspacing=3 cell padding=3 width=70%>
<tbody>
<TR>
<td>31:6
<td> Among the people, there are those who uphold baseless Hadith, and thus divert others from the path of God without knowledge, and take it in vain. These have incurred a shameful retribution.
<TR>
<td>3:78
<td> Among them are those who twist their tongues to imitate the scripture, that you may think it is from the Scripture, when it is not from the scripture, and they claim that it is from GOD, when it is not from GOD. Thus, they utter lies and attribute them to GOD, knowingly.
<TR>
<td>77:50
<td> Which Hadith, other than this, do they uphold?
<TR>
<td>7:185
<td> Have they not looked at the dominion of the heavens and the earth, and all the things GOD has created? Does it ever occur to them that the end of their life may be near?
Which Hadith, beside this, do they believe in?
<TR>
<td>45:6
<td> These are GOD's revelations that we recite to you truthfully.
In which Hadith other than GOD and His revelations do they believe?
</table>

Let me remind you that not all Muslims read the same Hadith’s. Sunni’s have different Hadith’s than Shiite’s. Not forgetting that the role of Hadith’s to Shiite’s is not as prominent as in Sunni Islam.

<HR>
<blockquote>
3. For one prophet to be another's lord, well...that could mean almost anything, now couldn't it?
</blockquote>

Errrrm, to a certain extent; but to Jesus its quite different,
I mean look at
Psalms 2:11-12
Psalms 110:1
Proverbs 30:2-4
Isaiah 9:6-7
Jeremiah 23:5-6
Micah 5: 2-5
These are strong prophesies about Jesus. Need I say more?
<hr>
I wil get back to u on Ahmed Didat

Yahya Sulaiman

28th October 2003, 11:18

1. The translation I trust most, A.J. Arberry's, says, I'm pretty sure, "consort" rather than "wife." I think many of them say the same thing. A wife is a wife, but a consort has a special position--she is an equal, or at least has a very high station near to equality. Nothing can even approach equality with God. Were God to have a son, the son would have to have a mother worthy of being God's mother, and no such woman exists.

2. The ahadith were passed down from generation to generation before they were transcribed. Therefore they existed before they were written, and so the early people were obviously not without ahadith or sayings, since they were there, with the prophet (P) at the time.

3. As for the Qur'an and the ahadith, the Qur'an is the only book that is absolutely necessary, but the ahadith are extremely useful in helping us understand our religion. If we had only the Qur'an, it would be enough, but we have more. It's like living in a first world society without electricity. You could do it, but it would be a mighty hassle.

4. Surah 31, Ayuh 6 may very well refer to the false ahadith that I've been told were inserted into the traditions by non-Muslims trying to make Muslims look bad. I'm not a scholar of Islam or ahadith: if you want to talk about the authenticity of this or that hadith, talk to Ronnie--he should know a lot about that. The second Koranic reference you gave doesn't seem to be referring to the same thing at all. 77:47-50 must be read in context, and I think that will make it clear. The same goes with 7:185. 45:6 could just as easily refer to the ahadith as to the Koran.

5. Let's take a look at the prophecies you cited:

Psalms 2:11-12 clearly refers to God and only God. (You know, God, as in "God the Father.")
Psalms 110:1 clearly distinguishes between THE Lord and MY Lord.
Proverbs 30:2-4 is completely obscure to me.
Isaiah 9:6-7 looks to me like the usual lip service people would give to the new baby in a royal family.
Jeremiah 23:5-6 says his name will be "The Lord Is Our Righteousness." And...?
Micah 5: 2-5, again, is completely compatible with Islam.

I must say, C-R-O-W, you're a better debater than any other Christian missionary I've seen wander onto this board. I am honored to be arguing with someone as knowledgeable as you. Perhaps we could both learn a lot from each other.

I am Yahya, formerly Surah, formerly American Deist.

28th October 2003, 14:32

Isaiah 9:6-7 looks to me like the usual lip service people would give to the new baby in a royal family.
The titles such as "Father-Forever" belong only to God. Jesus went so far as saying that no one should be called "father"(this must be understood in proper context) but he must have been aware of Isaiah.

Just Me

29th October 2003, 10:24

[b]The title Jesus used for himself in Marks Gospel [which I posted], Jesus referred to himself as the “Son of Man” and not as the “Son of God”.[b]

If I could interject a foot note here... I believe that Jesus during his life never referred to himself as 'son of God' but rather called himself the 'son of man'. This seems an obvious referrence to his humanity, and contrary to any claims of divinity. I have heard some Christians try to use the passage in Daniel as proof that the term 'son of man' is not a common term for human, but actually a prophetic messianic title, even though it is used that way nowhere in scripture. It seems obvious to me that the author of the passage in Daniel is simply saying that in his heavenly vision he saw someone who looked human, as opposed to angelic or supernatural. It also seems obvious to me that Jesus repeatedly called himself 'son of man' as a way of drilling home the point 'I am human,' because he saw the Trinitarians coming down the pike.

Well, it is a common human weakness to worship the seen rather than the unseen, because we are creatures of our senses, and even some Muslims have elevated Prophet Muhammad too high, in my opinion.

Peace

Edited by - Just Me on 10/29/2003 04:30:49

29th October 2003, 12:20

I have heard some Christians try to use the passage in Daniel as proof that the term 'son of man' is not a common term for human, but actually a prophetic messianic title, even though it is used that way nowhere in scripture.
It's used in the book of Enoch. Jesus quotes from it somewhat and the book of Jude does as well. It's no longer in the christian/catholic canon but some of the early church fathers used it. The book of enoch does not say directly that the Son of Man is God but does mention worship of the Son of Man.

<blockquote>
14 And he (i.e. the angel) came to me and greeted me with His voice, and said unto me '
This is the Son of Man who is born unto righteousness,
And righteousness abides over him,
And the righteousness of the Head of Days forsakes him not.'
15 And he said unto me:
' He proclaims unto thee peace in the name of the world to come;
For from hence has proceeded peace since the creation of the world,
And so shall it be unto thee for ever and for ever and ever. </blockquote>

<blockquote>
7 For from the beginning the Son of Man was hidden,
And the Most High preserved him in the presence of His might,
And revealed him to the elect.

8 And the congregation of the elect and holy shall be sown,
And all the elect shall stand before him on that day.

9 And all the kings and the mighty and the exalted and those who rule the earth
Shall fall down before him on their faces,
And worship and set their hope upon that Son of Man,
And petition him and supplicate for mercy at his hands.

10 Nevertheless that Lord of Spirits will so press them
That they shall hastily go forth from His presence,
And their faces shall be filled with shame,
And the darkness grow deeper on their faces.
</blockquote>

Yahya Sulaiman

29th October 2003, 12:34

nr, I think it's likelier that "son of Man" was an expression used both in that book and in other books, a label of sorts, than that the origin of the expression is in the Book of Enoch.

I am Yahya, formerly Surah, formerly American Deist.

29th October 2003, 14:47

The book of Enoch is about 200BC while the books of Ezekiel and Daniel are around 500BC. However, Daniel does not go into depth in what the Son of Man means and Ezekiel plays a passing role in being called the son of man. Since Jesus only uses the Son of Man in reference to judgement which corresponds to the book of Enoch, in all likelihood Jesus is using the meaning of Son of Man given in the book of Enoch.

C-R-O-W-

30th October 2003, 04:00

I have been away, but its good to be back.
And thank you Yahya, formerly Surah, I am not very knowledgeable, but what I have helps me survive and challenges people: ) .You aren’t bad yourself, I am sure I will be hearing more of yourself.
[Ok, enough with the compliments; you’re making me blush]
And yes, we can both learn from each other. I like debating with Muslims, and to be honest; when I debate with Muslims it gets me more into “religious” mode, which is a good thing.

Jeremiah 23:5-6

Well, that Lord, will be our righteousness, which is Jesus. So like, it’s not our righteousness that God will look at but Jesus righteousness, and it’s because of Him that we have the blessed hope that is mentioned in Titus 2:13-14
“looking for the blessed hope, and the manifestation of the glory of the great God, and our Life-giver, Jesus the Messiah; who gave himself for us, that he might recover us from all iniquity, and purify for himself a new people, who are zealous in good works..” Amen.

Micah 5: 2-5

Well, this is quite explicit, if I might say. But let me break it down into bite-size, we don’t want people biting off more than what they can chew, do we?

“One who will be ruler of Israel, whose origins are from old, from days of eternity.”
When I read this, I just think to myself, WOW.
“He will stand and Shepard his flock in the strength of YHWH, in the majesty of YHWH his Elohim …… and he will be their peace.”

WOW, now this is wonderful news.

And in Ps 110:1 well, David, speaking in the Holy Spirit, calls Jesus Lord even before he was born.
<hr><hr>
JUST ME

Well, lets see
We have Satan trying to tempt Jesus; “If you are the Son of God. then do this…”
Was Satan and his followers lied to about the identity of Jesus? Lets find out.
To that we shall see what Satan’s fellow daemons have to say….
Lets look at Matthew 8:29
“What do we have to do with You, Son of God? Have You come here before the appointed time to torment us?” (also Mark 5:2-8)
Again
Mark 3:11
“And the unclean spirits, when they beheld Him, fell before Him and cried out, saying, You are the Son of God! And He charged them many times not to make Him known.”

So in Satan’s camp, we can be sure that they believed he is the Son of God.

Now lets look at in the camp of Jesus disciples…
Matthew 16:15-17
“He said to them, But you, who do you say that I am? And Simon Peter answered and said, You are the Christ, the Son of the living God. And Jesus answered and said to him, Blessed are you, Simon Barjona, because flesh and blood has not revealed this to you, but My Father who is in the heavens.”

So we find that calling Jesus “the son of God” with conviction only comes when Jesus father reveals him. And we don’t find Jesus rebuking Peter for Jesus knew that His Father revealed who he was to Peter.

Now lets look at the camp of the Jewish authorities.

Matthew 26:63-64
“And the high priest said to Him, I charge You to swear by the living God to tell us if You are the Christ, the Son of God. Jesus said to him, You have said”
You see the elders were looking for a way to kill Jesus, and one of the reasons was that because of his claims, so when he was on the cross you find people saying

John 19:7
“The Jews say to him: We have a law, and, according to our law, he deserveth death, because he made himself the Son of God.”

Matthew 27:39-40
“And those who were passing by blasphemed Him, wagging their heads And saying, You who destroy the temple and build it up in three days, save Yourself! If You are the Son of God, come down from the cross!”
(Little did they realise that Jesus was talking about the temple of the body John 2:19-22; and secondly, why would they challenge Jesus by saying, if you are the Son of God come down, unless it had something to do with Jesus claims??)

We again find stand-buyers watching Jesus on the cross say
Matthew 27:42
“He saved others; Himself He cannot save. He is King of Israel; let Him come down now from the cross, and we will believe on Him. He trusts in God; let Him rescue now if He wants Him, for He said, I am the Son of God.”

Now lets look at the camp of the Angels
Luke 1:34-35
Mary said to the angel, "How can this be, since I do not have a husband?"
The angel replied and said to her, "The Holy Spirit shall come, and the power of Eil shall set upon you, Because of this the One you give birth to is holy, and shall be called the Son of God.

Finally lets look at Jesus
John 10:36
Do you say of Him whom the Father has sanctified and sent into the world, You are blaspheming, because I said, I am the Son of God?”
Again
John 5:25-28
“Verily, verily, I say to you, That the hour cometh, and even now come, when the dead will hear the voice of the Son of God; and they that hear, will live. For, as the Father hath life in himself, so hath he given to the Son also, to have life in himself: and hath moreover given him authority to execute judgment and hath moreover given him authority to execute judgment, as he is also the Son of man. Marvel not at this; for the hour cometh for the hour cometh when all that are in their graves will hear his voice”

Again

John 11:4
But when Jesus heard it, He said, This sickness is not unto death, but for the glory of God, in order that the Son of God may be glorified through it

Hum… it looks like from all quarters there is sufficient evidence for Jesus being Son of God, and holding a status above any other human, we even find Jesus telling his disciples that he will separate those who will enter heaven to is right and those who will to go to hell to his left. (Matthew 25:31-46)

And finally we find in Mark chapter 2 Jesus said to a paralytic man, “your sins are forgiven” but the teachers of the law said
“Who is this speaking, blasphemy ? Who can forgive sins, except God only ? And Jesus knew, in his spirit, that they thus reasoned in themselves; and he said to them: Why reason ye thus in your heart ?
Which is the easier, to say to a paralytic, Thy sins are forgiven thee ? or to say, Arise, take up thy bed, and walk ? But that ye may know that the Son of man hath power on earth to forgive sins”

Yahya Sulaiman

30th October 2003, 09:31

nr, I don't think there are two different definitions to the term "son of Man." It seems to me like it's a phrase with a single meaning, applied both to Jesus (P) and to Ezekiel (P).

Now as for CROW: first, you're a lot more knowledgeable than you seem to give yourself credit for. You obviously know a lot more about the Bible than I do. I went to a Christian high school for three years, during which time I was fairly consistently at the top of my theology classes in terms of grades (I was a very devout Christian at the time), but I've become a little rusty since then and I haven't yet read every book in the Old Testament.

Now, I really don't care about the Titus reference, because St. Paul is of no value to me. I didn't even like him very much when I was a Christian.

As for chapter 5 of Micah (I should mention it's been a long time since I've read all of Micah), it seems to me that the prophecy about the Messiah's (P) origin being of old refers to his sacred bloodline. And he had the strength of the Lord and "majesty of the name of the LORD his God." So we can see that his God is also our God.

I've already mentioned that Psalms 110:1 clearly distinguishes the Lord from "my Lord." They are referred to as two separate entities.

I've noticed that you've wandered from Mark to the other canonical Gospels, but I suppose that's okay to a certain extent. There are more parallels between the Koran and Matthew than between the Koran and any other Gospel I know of, canonical or no. This makes sense because much of Matthew consists of long monologues of Jesus's (P) teachings, so long that I doubt it could have been written from memory based on oral tradition, but was instead jotted down at the time by whoever wrote the Gospel, or was based on similar notes by someone else. But as I've said before, the title "son of God" is frequently used in the Old Testament to refer to prophets in a figurative way, and even in the New Testament Adam (P) is referred to as a son of God (end of Luke 3).

The Pharisees were incredulous of Jesus (P) because of his unorthodox teachings, and that he claimed to be the Messiah, or (figrurative) son of God. That's why they were so angry with him. They didn't like the way this annoying, unconventional man was being hailed as the prophet the Jews were looking for. As for the son of God coming down from the cross, well, this is simple considering that God gave all His prophets the power to work miracles through Him. But that is from the narration of Matthew, not one of the five, long discourses that probably contain accounts of Jesus's (P) teachings from notes or memory.

I don't put much stock in the book of Luke, but I suppose it contains fragments of truth in the nativity of John (P) and Jesus (P). And the reference in Luke is compatible with Islam, if you consider that the "son of God" title is so common in the Bible as a synonym for "messenger of God," and that a prophet being born of a virgin by the power of God does not make the child a son of God, according to Islam. After all, apart from the lack (LACK, mind you) of a father, it's really nothing different from what God usually does. He just says to something, "Be," and it is, as the Koranic version of the nativity states.

The Gospel of John contains a couple of passages which look like they might be prophesying the coming of Muhammad (P), and I am intrigued by these claims, but have not yet made an official stance on them. It does look to me, though, like the Muslim interpretation of these passages makes more sense than the Christian one. But I don't want to debate that here. I'm mentioning it only to make a point about the occasional reliability of John's Gospel, from my perspective. I would say that some of the mystical teachings in John are pretty good. The passage you cited, from the beginning of chapter 11, mentions that the glory goes to God first, and then is given to the (non-literal) son.

As for the stuff about Judgment Day, remember that many Muslims believe that the people in hell will ask God's prophets to present their case to God for them, and I think I've read something else about Muslims believing Jesus (P) will be directly involved with Judgment Day in another way, but I'll have to find the reference.

And finally we find in Mark chapter 2 Jesus said to a paralytic man, “your sins are forgiven” but the teachers of the law said
“Who is this speaking, blasphemy ? Who can forgive sins, except God only ? And Jesus knew, in his spirit, that they thus reasoned in themselves; and he said to them: Why reason ye thus in your heart ?
Which is the easier, to say to a paralytic, Thy sins are forgiven thee ? or to say, Arise, take up thy bed, and walk ? But that ye may know that the Son of man hath power on earth to forgive sins”

Finally, there is the passage in Mark 12. After the part you cited, there is this part:

"And immediately Jesus, perceiving in his spirit that they thus questioned within themselves, said to them, 'Why do you question thus in your hearts? Which is easier, to say to the paralytic, 'Your sins are forgiven,' or to say, 'Rise, take up your pallet and walk' But that you may know that the Son of man has authority on earth to forgive sins" --he said to the paralytic--'I say to you, rise, take up your pallet and go home.'"

I would interpret this as meaning that Jesus (P) was assuring the man that God had forgiven his sins, as consolation, and that as a prophet, he had the authority to do so. Rememember that Ezekiel (P) was also a "son of Man."

I am Yahya, formerly Surah, formerly American Deist.

30th October 2003, 11:31

nr, I don't think there are two different definitions to the term "son of Man." It seems to me like it's a phrase with a single meaning, applied both to Jesus (P) and to Ezekiel (P).
There are though. There is the son of man, which means as you said just a normal man, and then there is the Son of Man. First of all, the book of numbers says "is God a son of man that lies?". Yet the Son of Man as portrayed by the book of Enoch is different. Jesus' listeners would of course have read the book of Enoch and the prophesies contained therein. Thus the Son of Man took on a distinctive meaning developed by the prophesies as the source of all rightousness.

<blockquote>1 And in that place I saw the fountain of righteousness
Which was inexhaustible:
And around it were many fountains of wisdom:
And all the thirsty drank of them,
And were filled with wisdom,
And their dwellings were with the righteous and holy and elect.
2 And at that hour that Son of Man was named In the presence of the Lord of Spirits,
And his name before the Head of Days.

3 Yea, before the sun and the signs were created,
Before the stars of the heaven were made,
His name was named before the Lord of Spirits.
4 He shall be a staff to the righteous whereon to stay themselves and not fall,
And he shall be the light of the Gentiles,
And the hope of those who are troubled of heart.

5 All who dwell on earth shall fall down and worship before him,
And will praise and bless and celebrate with song the Lord of Spirits.

6 And for this reason hath he been chosen and hidden before Him,
Before the creation of the world and for evermore.

7 And the wisdom of the Lord of Spirits hath revealed him to the holy and righteous;
For he hath preserved the lot of the righteous,
Because they have hated and despised this world of unrighteousness,
And have hated all its works and ways in the name of the Lord of Spirits:
For in his name they are saved,
And according to his good pleasure hath it been in regard to their life.
</blockquote>

This same Son of Man is worshiped and glorified. In fact this passage has the doctrin of the Trinity and the proceding forth of the Spirit from the Son and the Father before Christ. Notice how the Jesus met the women by the fountain and is revealed by the holy Spirit.

Yahya Sulaiman

30th October 2003, 13:34

The Lord of Spirits is mentioned separately from the son of Man in the passage you cited. You might interpret that as being a reference to the Trinity, but I see no such thing. Instead, I would say that this passage refers to the Lord God choosing a spirit (i.e. prophet) before the creation of the world, to be a fountain of wisdom from which people drink. It may even be referring to prophets in general. But I have no context from which to judge. Is there a link you could give me to a site where I can read the book of Enoch?

Also, be sure not to overlook this verse:

"And he shall be the light of the Gentiles,
And the hope of those who are troubled of heart."

The Gentiles were not part of the Messiah's (P) mission. Indeed, in Matthew (I forget which chapter, but it shouldn't be hard to find, it's the story of the woman with the demon-possessed daughter), he says he was sent only to the lost sheep of the children of Israel. So this cannot refer to the Messiah (P).

I am Yahya, formerly Surah, formerly American Deist.

30th October 2003, 14:45

The Gentiles were not part of the Messiah's (P) mission. Indeed, in Matthew (I forget which chapter, but it shouldn't be hard to find, it's the story of the woman with the demon-possessed daughter), he says he was sent only to the lost sheep of the children of Israel. So this cannot refer to the Messiah (P).
Well your right. The Messiah's mission on earth was first and foremost to the Jewish people inorder that Isreal would proclaim his glory. However, there are numerous references such as Isaiah that say that he will gather all nations to Jerusalem and will be a light to the Gentiles.

The Lord of Spirits is mentioned separately from the son of Man in the passage you cited. You might interpret that as being a reference to the Trinity, but I see no such thing.
It's difficult to judge the authors intent. My view of God is Yahweh, I am who I am. So any creation that has not exited must share in this divine nature. I think your right though. This text really only presents a dualism. The one with the Head of Days seems kind of obscure. It might be a referance to the father in that Jesus said that only the father knows the last day but this conjecture. I'm quoting from this version. http://wesley.nnu.edu/noncanon/ot/pseudo/enoch.htm
but there are several others and you might want to check up on the dead sea scroll and Qumran versions.

Yahya Sulaiman

1st November 2003, 04:26

By the way, here are some relevant passages regarding what I've been talking about. It may be of no use to cite them, since Christians will so often stoop to any depth of self-deception or strange interpretation to support the idea that Jesus (P) was a literal son of God, but I should at least try:

"I say, 'You are gods, sons of the Most High, all of you; nevertheless, you shall die like men, and fall like any prince.'" (Psalms 82:6-7)

"You [the Jews] are the sons of the LORD your God." (Deuteronomy 14:1)

"the son of Enos, the son of Seth, the son of Adam, the son of God." (Luke 3:38)

"With weeping they shall come, and with consolations I [God] will lead them back, I will make them walk by brooks of water, in a straight path in which they shall not stumble; for I am a father to Israel, and E’phraim is my first-born." (Jeremiah 31:9)

"And the LORD said to Moses, 'When you go back to Egypt, see that you do before Pharaoh all the miracles which I have put in your power; but I will harden his heart, so that he will not let the people go. And you shall say to Pharaoh, Thus says the LORD, Israel is my first-born son, and I say to you, Let my son go that he may serve me; if you refuse to let him go, behold, I will slay your first-born son.'" (Exodus 4:21-23)

"Moreover the LORD declares to you that the LORD will make you a house. When your days are fulfilled and you lie down with your fathers, I will raise up your offspring after you, who shall come forth from your body, and I will establish his kingdom. He shall build a house for my name, and I will establish the throne of his kingdom for ever. I will be his father, and he shall be my son. When he commits iniquity, I will chasten him with the rod of men, with the stripes of the sons of men; but I will not take my steadfast love from him, as I took it from Saul, whom I put away from before you. (2 Samuel 7:11-15, and no this isn’t a prophecy of the Messiah, since it depicts him as committing iniquity--this passage refers to Solomon [P], period)

I am Yahya, formerly Surah, formerly American Deist.

Just Me

1st November 2003, 09:48

Greetings nr,

Thank you for the quote from the book of Enoch, which seems to use 'son of man' as more of a title than a term for human. I have been in possession of a copy of the book of Enoch before, but don't remember much from it.

By the way, do you know why it was excluded from the canon? I'd be interested to know why the compilers of the Bible rejected a book which is quoted in other books that are accepted as divine. Interesting...but then that's another topic. :)

Peace

Just Me

1st November 2003, 10:12

Greetings CROW-

Let's review my statement which provoked you to float me such a raft of quotes.

"I believe that Jesus during his life never referred to himself as 'son of God' but rather called himself the 'son of man'."

Now, you have quoted Satan, demons (reliable witnesses indeed), Peter, the Pharisees, scorners and angels calling Jesus the son of God. I am glad that you know how to use your Thompson Chain Reference, but this has nothing whatsoever to do with my point.

You could furnish only 3 quotes from Jesus himself, and I am not surprised they are all from the book of John (the most dubious in authenticity). In the first quote, John 10:36, Jesus is simply answering the Pharisees accusation that he called himself the son of God, when in fact, he did not. The 2nd and 3rd quotes are the only ones worth considering, where Jesus applies the term son of God to himself using the third person.

My point in making the first post, was not to argue whether or not Jesus may be called son of God, and what that term entails. My point, which your answer seems to have missed, is that Jesus himself did not make it a habit to title himself son of God, and I believe he did that for a reason. I am not really interested in any claims that devils or disciples may have made about him since then.

Peace

Edited by - Just Me on 11/01/2003 04:17:46

1st November 2003, 12:02

By the way, do you know why it was excluded from the canon? I'd be interested to know why the compilers of the Bible rejected a book which is quoted in other books that are accepted as divine. Interesting...but then that's another topic. :)
Quotation really cannot be used as a basis because there are other greek works quoted by Paul. The problem with Enoch is that true prophesy is mixed with a false storyline. If the book was only to tell a story, for example Job, Tobit and others, then maybe it could be considered.

mpriest

1st November 2003, 13:48

Salaam

What I learned about the term Son of Man(In Theology)was that it
was a term meaning prophet or messenger of God.

matthew missionary priest

C-R-O-W-

1st November 2003, 21:06

<blockquote>
since Christians will so often stoop to any depth of self-deception or strange interpretation to support the idea that Jesus (P) was a literal son of God,
</blockquote>

Could you please elaborate more on what you mean by “literal son of God”
<hr>
<blockquote>
I believe that Jesus during his life never referred to himself as 'son of God' but rather called himself the 'son of man'
</blockquote>
Yeah, most of the times, as you have said, Jesus called himself “Son of Man” and by no means does that automatically mean that he denied the title “Son of God”, [more below]

I will give one more Quote from John’s Gospel

John 5:25
“Verily, verily, I say to you, That the hour cometh, and even now come, when the dead will hear the voice of the Son of God; and they that hear, will live.”.

I also think when the term “Son of Man” is used in the Gospels; it only referred to Jesus, and no other. But still, in other Gospels we still find others calling Jesus “Son of God”, for example the angel Gabriel and Peter but Jesus doesn’t rebuke him.

I have three more verses for you. They are in Marks Gospel.

Mark 14:61-62
“And Jesus was silent, and made no reply. And again the chief priest interrogated him, and said: Art thou the Messiah, the Son of the Blessed? And Jesus said to him: I am.”

Here we have Jesus affirming the title “Son of the Blessed [God]”

Mark 13:32
“But of that day and that hour, knoweth no man; nor the angels of heaven; neither the Son, but the Father.”

Here we see Jesus putting things in a category.
1) Every other human being
2) The angels
3) The Son
4) The Father

Jesus calls the rest of muhamity, “no man” but when referring to himself he calls himseld “the Son”, and identifies himself as unique from every one else. There is a more explicit example of a parable that Jesus told below.

Mark 12:1-8
“And he began to discourse with them in similitudes. A certain man planted a vineyard, and inclosed it with a hedge, and dug in it a wine vat, and built a tower in it, and put it into the hands of husbandmen, and removed to a distance. And at the proper time, he sent his servant to the husbandmen, to receive of the fruits of the vineyard. And they beat him, and sent him away empty. And again he sent to them another servant; and him also they stoned, and wounded, and sent him away under indignities. And again he sent another [servant]; and him they killed. And he sent many other servants, some of whom they beat, and some they killed. At last, having an only and dear son, he sent him to them; for he said, Perhaps they will respect my son. But those husbandmen said among themselves: This is the heir; come, let us kill him, and the inheritance will be ours. And they took him, and slew [him], and cast [him] out of the vineyard.”

We again find Jesus categorising every other prophet and messenger as servants, while he identifies himself as “Son”.

Places where Jesus identifies himself above any angel, man or creation.

[Matthew 20:1-14]
“And Jesus answered again by similitudes, and said: The kingdom of heaven is like to a royal person, who made a feast for his son. And he sent his servants to call those that had been invited, to the feast: and they would not come…. etc”

We find again that other prophets and messengers are considered “servants” while Jesus is identified as “Son”.

[Matthew 21:33-43]

[Mark 13:32]

[Luke 19:12-27]
“And he said, A certain man of a noble birth went into a distant country, to receive for himself a kingdom, and to return…. and when he came back, having received the kingdom ……. Etc”

Here Jesus denotes his coming to earth, receiving his kingdom and becoming King, returning back to heaven…. Later returned back to earth.

Though Jesus mainly called himself “Son of Man” it doesn’t mean he is just a messenger like any other, as I have just given you lists of how Jesus saw himself as “Son” while other messengers are servants.

p.s. Sorry if I always talk a lot I just get excited.

p.s. “Yahya” tell me again, are you still a Muslim because I think I read somewhere in a post that you left Islam. Please if I am wrong correct me.
Ok peace to all

<HR>
Great peace have they that love thy Law; and nothing shall offend them. (Ps 119:165)

Yahya Sulaiman

2nd November 2003, 03:29

Yes, I am a Muslim. I had left Islam before, after which I briefly dabbled in the eastern philosophies and then had a long stay in deism, but now I've come back to God's religion.

Now, I mentioned Mark before for a reason, that it was written early enough that it was probably relatively free from legendary embellishments, and the earliest known manuscripts of it do not record a resurrection. I would like for you to visit an article by atheologist Dan Barker at http://www.ffrf.org/articles/rise.html where he discusses in detail just how much the number and intensity of extraordinary events in the resurrection rises over the years following Jesus's (P) alleged crucifixion. He includes all four canonical Gospels as well as the Gospel of Peter and the account by St. Paul that you mentioned, which he points out by considering the Greek text does not necessarily discuss a physical resurrection at all.

As for how accurate Mark is, well that's a different matter. And I'm still debating with myself exactly what I think of John. I know I don't care much for Luke. I do think that Matthew probably recorded many of Jesus's (P) sayings correctly, for the reasons I stated earlier.

You cited Matthew 20:1-14, but in the Revised Standard Version (the only version I trust) I do not see the word "son" anywhere in that passage, and in any case the moral of it is clearly stated in verse 16: "So the last will be first, and the first last."

You also cited Matthew 21:33-43, but in that parable, the reason the people want to kill "the son" is to collect his inheritance, and that has nothing to do with the idea of the alleged crucifixion and resurrection. Also, the moral of it is once again stated as being something different: "Therefore I tell you, the kingdom of God will be taken away from you and given to a nation producing the fruits of it." (verse 43)

But let's take a look at the passages from John and Mark too, just for the heck of it.

John 5:25 becomes a lot less convincing in context (not to be rude, but you really seem to have a problem with quoting verses in context):

"Truly, truly, I say to you, the hour is coming, and now is, when the dead will hear the voice of the Son of God, and those who hear will live. For as the Father has life in himself, so he has granted the Son also to have life in himself, and has given him authority to execute judgment, because he is the Son of man. Do not marvel at this; for the hour is coming when all who are in the tombs will hear his voice and come forth, those who have done good, to the resurrection of life, and those who have done evil, to the resurrection of judgment. I can do nothing on my own authority; as I hear, I judge; and my judgment is just, because I seek not my own will but the will of him who sent me."

That makes it pretty clear that "son of Man" and "son of God" are interchangeable here, thus the title "son of God" not referring to an literal Father-son relationship, and that Jesus (P) was sent by God and has no authority apart from Him. In other words, he's a prophet.

Here's Mark 14:61-62 in context: "But he was silent and made no answer. Again the high priest asked him, 'Are you the Christ, the Son of the Blessed?' And Jesus said, 'I am; and you will see the Son of man seated at the right hand of Power, and coming with the clouds of heaven.'"

Once again, he's a son of Man but also a son of God, leading me to think that the divine sonship isn't something real, any more than it was with Adam (P), Ephraim, Solomon (P) or all of Israel.

Mark 13:32 says this in the Revised Standard Version: "But of that day or that hour no one knows, not even the angels in heaven, nor the Son, but only the Father." It says "no one," which isn't as definite as "no man," and like I said before, this is the only translation I trust. Bringing up Dan Barker again (hey, the man knows just about everything there is to know about the Bible, and can read it in its original languages), he says the same thing about the RSV. In any case separating "no man" from "the Son," if you take it so much at face value, would mean that he's not a human at all, which goes against Christian orthodoxy.

Mark 12:1-8 is in the same boat as Matthew 21:33-43.

Really, again not to be rude, but you really must be more careful in the future not to isolate verses in a way that turns out to be misleading.

I am Yahya, formerly Surah, formerly American Deist.

2nd November 2003, 08:50

The life of Jesus is not corroborated. Not a single word about Jesus appears outside of the New Testament in the entire first century, even though many writers documented first-hand the early Roman Empire in great detail, including careful accounts of the time and place where Jesus supposedly taught[10]. The little paragraph about Jesus that appears in Josephus' Antiquities (written after 90 CE) is regarded by liberal and conservative scholars to have been either entirely interpolated or drastically altered by a later generation of believers, probably by the dishonest Christian historian Eusebius in the 4th century[11]. (Whichever view is right, they both agree that early Christians tampered with documents, a fact that must bear on the reliability of the New Testament writings.)
A arabic version of Josephus' Antiquities have been found without the clear christian interpolations like "if he shall be called a man". Josephus was also quoted by the church fathers before Eusebius, and was mentioned to have spoken about Jesus.

That makes it pretty clear that "son of Man" and "son of God" are interchangeable here, thus the title "son of God" not referring to an literal Father-son relationship, and that Jesus (P) was sent by God and has no authority apart from Him. In other words, he's a prophet.
Jesus was given all authority by his Father. The notion of Jesus being part of the Godhead is due to his unique relationship with the Father.

C-R-O-W-

2nd November 2003, 08:50

<blockquote>
You cited Matthew 20:1-14, but in the Revised Standard Version (the only version I trust) I do not see the word "son" anywhere in that passage, and in any case the moral of it is clearly stated in verse 16: "So the last will be first, and the first last."
</blockquote>
My apologies the chapter is Matthew 22: 1-14
<hr>

<blockquote>
You also cited Matthew 21:33-43, but in that parable, the reason the people want to kill "the son" is to collect his inheritance, and that has nothing to do with the idea of the alleged crucifixion and resurrection. Also, the moral of it is once again stated as being something different: "Therefore I tell you, the kingdom of God will be taken away from you and given to a nation producing the fruits of it." (verse 43)
</blockquote>
Jesus says “And He said to them, To you it has been given to know the mystery of the kingdom of God, but to those outside, all things are in parables,”

In Mark 4:33-34 It says that Jesus spoke to the people only with parables [Mark 3:23 Mark 4:1-2 Mark 4:33 Mark 12:1-14], but to his disciples he was more open and explained the parables to them [Mark 4:10-20,].

In the parable [Matt 21], the owner is God the Father, while the vineyard is Jerusalem (Isaiah 5:1 Jer12: 10) and the hired vinedressers are the leaders of Israel. God the Father sent his servants, who are the prophets (2Chron 24:19), to Jerusalem but the religious leaders kept killing them (2Chron 36:15-16). So finally he sent his Son Jesus Messiah [Heb 1:1-2], but when the Jewish leaders saw how the people of Jerusalem believed the words of Jesus and they did not like the way Jesus was teaching (Mark 3:6 Matt 12:14 Matt 26:3-5) and because he spoke against them (Mark 11:17-18; Mark 12:12 Mark 12:38-40 Matthew 23:1-7; 23:13-16; 23:23-32 ) and their traditions (Mark 7:5-13) they wanted to kill him. But they couldn’t kill him because the people hung on every word of Jesus (Luke 19:47-48) and were afraid of the crowd that gather to hear Jesus speaking. Also look at Mark 14:1-2.
The rulers wanted to take the Sons inheritance; which I believe was the vineyard, which is Jerusalem/the house of Israel [Isaiah 5:7]; for the crowd loved Jesus teaching over the Pharisees and they were becoming less popular, they envied Jesus and they preferred their false position [traditions] over Jesus sayings.
But finally, the rulers found a way to kill Jesus through Judas Iscariot, Jesus knew who would betray him and spoke to the 12 that he will be betrayed by one of them [Mark 14:18-21]. And when the time came the betrayer led the people he made a deal with to hand Jesus over to them [Mark 14:43-45]
Finally, the chief priests starred the crowd to kill Jesus [Mark 15:6-15]
Finally, to Jesus, they threw him outside the vineyard and killed him. And in verse 41 it was the fulfilment of when God sent the Roman prince Titus and his army and destroyed Jerusalem in 70 AD. And God gave over the lease of the vineyard from the Jewish leaders to the apostles, who would produce fruits from the vineyard and give to the owner the fruits in their seasons, because the apostles remained in Jesus (John 15:1-8).

In fact Marks Gospel is more explicit than Matthews Gospel about the parable Jesus spoke in Matthew 21:33-43.
Read Mark 12:1-12 and you will see that it is more explicit of how the parable was speaking against the religious leaders and Jesus foretelling that they will kill him just like they did to the other prophets before him. Luke 20:19 also portray the same message as Mark.

<blockquote>
Mark 13:32 says this in the Revised Standard Version: "But of that day or that hour no one knows, not even the angels in heaven, nor the Son, but only the Father." It says "no one," which isn't as definite as "no man,"
</blockquote>
What I was trying to get across here was that Jesus put things into category. And he is separated from anyone else.

“no one” or “no man” it all means the same thing to me. No one obviously means humans. And the other category is Angels [fallen angels or not], the Father and the Son. To me, Jesus separates himself from others.
<blockquote>
In any case separating "no man" from "the Son," if you take it so much at face value, would mean that he's not a human at all, which goes against Christian orthodoxy.
</blockquote>

Not necessarily because I am talking about category.

Yahya Sulaiman

2nd November 2003, 09:22

CROW, I don't quite understand what you're saying about the meaning of the people wanting to snatch the inheritance in the parable, or what you mean by all this talk of "category." Please enlighten me as to what, exactly, you're trying to say.

I am Yahya, formerly Surah, formerly American Deist.

Yahya Sulaiman

2nd November 2003, 09:28

nr said "Jesus was given all authority by his Father. The notion of Jesus being part of the Godhead is due to his unique relationship with the Father."

How can God give God authority? That's just one of the many ways that the Trinity doctrine blasphemes God by limiting God, not to mention failing to make sense on any level. Plus, Jesus (P) did not have a unique relationship with the Father. The so-called "Lord's Prayer," which he gave to the Jews, begins with, "Our Father." Also, in the resurrection account of the Gospel of John, which I'm sure you believe in, Jesus (P) is reported as saying, "Do not hold me, for I have not yet ascended to the Father; but go to my brethren and say to them, I am ascending to my Father and your Father, to my God and your God."

I am Yahya, formerly Surah, formerly American Deist.

2nd November 2003, 11:14

How can God give God authority? That's just one of the many ways that the Trinity doctrine blasphemes God by limiting God, not to mention failing to make sense on any level.
Why? It's just "ask and ye shall recieve". We praise the meekness and the might of God. There is no blaspheme. Because of his rights as the firstborn, Jesus was confered a kingdom from the father. But it is Jesus' perfection and goodness, and not power, in doing the will of the Father that shows himself to be God. The father in this way is God to Jesus, and so Jesus is also the perfect servent of God mentioned in Isaiah. Yet John raises the point of who is better: the one who serves or the one who recieves? The apparent answer is neither. Love serves and recieves. Also, notice how Jesus uses the word brethen. He raises those who do the will of God to be sons of God that have life everlasting, his very brothers. We have thus also been given Jesus' mother Mary just as she was given to John and told in Revelation 12.

C-R-O-W-

2nd November 2003, 11:21

what i mean by catigory is that Jesus puts the "no one" first, then the "Angels" second, then "the Son" third and places "the Father" at the very top.

So the hiracky goes
Father
Son
Angels
everyone

[this is my understanding]
Jesus places himself above everyone, and the Angels, but directly below the Father.

Jesus says, "no one knows" in general, but later he defines the top part of the hirachy.

God the Father first,
then Jesus Himself,
then the Angels
then everyone.
the Father as greater athorathy than the Son, and the Son has greater athority than the Angels, and the Angels have greater athority than every one else i.e. you and me.
Here Jesus is unique as the Son.
(not as The Son of God nor The son of Man, but simply as The Son, which speaks volumes about the relationship of the Father ans Son compared to the Angels and those below, like you and me.)
<hr>

I am thinking that since the Father owns the vineyard, then the Son is the heir to rule the Vineyard, which is Israel. but the religus rulers dont want him to have the inheritence, so by killing him, they think they steal the inheritence. When Jesus was on the Cross, the crowd taunted him by saying, arent you king of the Jews? save yourself. Matt27:42 Mark 15:26,32

This inheritence is a kingdom that the Father had confired to Jesus. And those who remain with Jesus, they share with Jesus as co-heirs in his kingdom[Matt25:31-34].

So the religus rulers took Jesus to pilot and acused him of claiming to be a King. [Luke23:1-2]

As i said earlyer, the religus rulers envied Jesus and were jealous of him because the Jews followed him more than them, so they delivered him up.
Mark 15:9-10
And Pilate answered, and said: Will ye, that I release to you the king of the Jews ? For Pilate knew that the chief priests, from envy, had delivered him up.

Even Herod before he died knew about the King of the Jews that was going to bord, that was why he sent the Magi to look for him, in false pretext, by saying he will go there to worship him. [Matt 2:1-8]

I am tired now..... i havent yet finish my post, i will comtinue tomorow. [see u then]

Yahya Sulaiman

2nd November 2003, 11:22

nr, you spoke of the meekness of God and then said, "There is no blaspheme." I don't think I even need to comment on that.

I am Yahya, formerly Surah, formerly American Deist.

Yahya Sulaiman

2nd November 2003, 11:27

And CROW, I don't see any heirarchy in that passage. It just looks to me like a bunch of different parties being mentioned separately, one after another. When someone expounds on a heirarchy, they tend to do more than make a list, because a mere list may or may not refer to a heirarchy.

As for the issue of inheritance, according to what you said, it seems to me that the only way your interpretation of that parable would fit in terms of inheritance would be if the people who allegedly slew Jesus (P) thought that by slaying him, they could somehow gain influence over the Jews themselves, and that doesn't really make any sense.

I am Yahya, formerly Surah, formerly American Deist.

2nd November 2003, 11:50

nr, you spoke of the meekness of God and then said, "There is no blaspheme." I don't think I even need to comment on that.
I doubt then that anyone could convince you. Still, you believe that God is mercifull and forgiving, the two signs of God's meekness in the Old Testament. When Jesus gave himself up on the cross, it was a sign of meekness not might; and who could proclaim the meek inheriting the earth and not be meek? We see God by what He wants to see in ourselves. So I believe your finding fault in how christians view God because your ideal of God is diametrically opposed to how christians view God.

Yahya Sulaiman

2nd November 2003, 13:41

Yeah, "dimetrically opposed" sounds about right. I believe that God is absolute, undivided, unlimited, and that it's blasphemy to say that He would ever occupy a human body.

I believe Kersey Graves put it better than I ever could in his book "The World's Sixteen Crucified Saviors." That book contains a lot of really sloppy scholarship and was obviously written by an author who had an extremely (uncalled for) high opinion of himself, but still it has one useful chapter in it, which is about the absurdity and blasphemy of God taking on a human body. Here's the link to that chapter: http://www.infidels.org/library/historical/kersey_graves/16/chap35.shtml

I am Yahya, formerly Surah, formerly American Deist.

Edited by - Yahya on 11/02/2003 07:46:42

C-R-O-W-

2nd November 2003, 21:36

Jesus spoke to the rulers a parable about themselves in the parable of the wicked tenants who killed former servants, and soon would slay the owners Son, that they may take the inheritance of the Son.

At the end of the parable, Jesus quoted Ps 118:22 which foretold that
The stone [Jesus] the builders [Religious rulers] rejected has become the capstone.

Or as in the book of the prophet Isaiah God says:
“Lo, I lay in Zion a foundation-stone, a precious and elect stone, against which both houses of Israel shall stumble!”

They would not submit to His teachings, His righteous standards, or His authority. So Jesus was telling them that they will opposed him and will reject him, but he will later become the most important stone of all the others.

So, about Jesus being the heir and his inheritance.
Because God owns the vineyard, he is automatically the ruler and he has all the rights. In the Bible Jesus is the first born over all creation. He is also the Messiah of God, and he will rule over the kingdom of God and will be seated at the right hand of God where he will be seated there and God the Father will put all his enemies under his foot. [Mark12: 35-36 1Corint 15:23-28]
More about the inheritance of Jesus as the heir is spoken in: Daniel 2:34-35, 44-45. Where the rock that was cut out not by human hands is Jesus. This rock grows and grows and fills the whole earth, this I think speaks of his kingdom.
I think also that God said that he would raise one from David’s line who will reign over his kingdom forever, where his kingdom will last forever. Isaiah 9:7 seams to fit the inheritance of Jesus in the new Heaven and the new Earth, in the New Jerusalem [more in the book of Revelations].

The religious rulers understood that Jesus claimed to be the Messiah and as they were corrupt in their practice of justice, and integrity and in tradition, these doctors of the law were blinded in their evils that they wanted to get rid of this Jesus.

My knowledge here is limited but I have tried to answer the question of the inheritance.

If I still don’t make sense then, I am sory.

3rd November 2003, 02:14

Yeah, "dimetrically opposed" sounds about right. I believe that God is absolute, undivided, unlimited, and that it's blasphemy to say that He would ever occupy a human body.
It's not so much that Jesus occupied a human body. He was always fully human and fully God, and so man was made in the image of God not vice-versa.

Yahya Sulaiman

3rd November 2003, 02:35

nr, what I'm trying to say is that it makes no sense to say that someone is "fully human and fully God," and even if it does, it's a great blasphemy. That was explained in full detail and with great articulation in the chapter I linked you to.

I am Yahya, formerly Surah, formerly American Deist.

Yahya Sulaiman

3rd November 2003, 02:35

CROW, I'll read your post and respond to it later. I'm feeling too tired to do it right now, and you always give me a challenge. ;-)

I am Yahya, formerly Surah, formerly American Deist.

3rd November 2003, 05:03

The article you have posted is not too accurate. If all of mankind must come to the Father like children, then the Son must as well. The article does not show too much understanding of the Trinity. Statements such as <blockquote>Ay, worse, more startling still, we are shocked with the thought that this mighty World-builder, this infinite, omnipotent Creator, was reduced so near to the verge of nonentity, so near to the last glimmering spark or speck of existence, and the world so near without a God, as to become an inanimate foetus</blockquote> betray his understanding of the Trinity because the Father is in heaven. Besides, in the Torah God became a burning bush and a cloud above the Isrealite's tents. The article goes on to say or that He, "by whom all things exist," could cease himself to exist, by dying upon the cross between malefactors? Death does not mean non-existance. The oracle of God given by Balaam says in Numbers 23, Who has ever counted the dust of Jacob, or numbered Isreal's wind-born particles? May I die the death of the just, may my descendants be as many as theirs! The Old Covenant was signed by animals blood and so it makes perfect sense that the New Covenant would be signed by the blood of God because the life of all living is in the blood. The article then goes on to present his own reason to be sacred. He even has the nerve to use "Temple of Reason" which were the temples setup after the French Revolution. Now have I commited blasphemy by telling you that by God's perfect humility he lowered himself to raise us up?

Edited by - nr on 11/02/2003 23:04:12

Edited by - nr on 11/02/2003 23:05:29

Yahya Sulaiman

3rd November 2003, 05:56

"If all of mankind must come to the Father like children, then the Son must as well."

In that case, the Son obviously isn't the same being as the Father. He is clearly and unmistakably inferior to him, even humble before him, and thus is not him. I've noticed that the Christian doctrine of Jesus (P) being "both perfect God and perfect man" isn't so much a doctrine as a cop-out (and a self-contradictory one at that) which allows them an excuse to say the most absurd things about their Trinity so as to preserve belief in it against all logic and all piety. If he's both God and man, and perfectly both, then you can have it both ways any time you want, avoiding such problems as I've pointed out.

As for your comments on Graves, I think you missed the main point of his chapter, which was exactly what I've been telling you for about half a dozen posts now: the irrationality and blasphemy involved with God limiting himself by becoming human. That two-thirds of Him remained in heaven does not help things one bit, but in fact makes things worse by further dividing up an already divided Deity.

"The oracle of God given by Balaam says in Numbers 23, Who has ever counted the dust of Jacob, or numbered Isreal's wind-born particles? May I die the death of the just, may my descendants be as many as theirs! The Old Covenant was signed by animals blood and so it makes perfect sense that the New Covenant would be signed by the blood of God because the life of all living is in the blood."

I cannot follow this logic at all. "Because the life of all living is in the blood"?? What does that mean?? How could it possibly make perfect sense to go from sacrificing animals to sacrificing God?? I don't think you've really thought any of this through.

"Now have I commited blasphemy by telling you that by God's perfect humility he lowered himself to raise us up?"

Of course you have. That God ever could or would lower Himself for any reason is obvious blasphemy. Is God or is God not infinite, fully independent and omnipotent? I don't see why you even have to ask that question.

Hold tight, CROW. I'll be with you soon enough.

I am Yahya, formerly Surah, formerly American Deist.

Edited by - Yahya on 11/02/2003 23:57:26

Edited by - Yahya on 11/02/2003 23:59:12

3rd November 2003, 07:56

Of course you have. That God ever could or would lower Himself for any reason is obvious blasphemy. Is God or is God not infinite, fully independent and omnipotent? I don't see why you even have to ask that question.
Why? When I used "lower Himself", I only meant being born of the women. If humbleness is good, then clearly God is humble. All glory of Jesus is given to Jesus by the Father. Jesus says "When you life up the Son of Man, then you will realize that I AM, and that I do nothing on my own, but I say only what the Father taught me. The one who sent me is with me. He has not left me alone, because I always do what is pleasing to him."..."A slave does not remain in a household forever, but a son always remains. So if a son frees you, then you will truly be free."

As for your comments on Graves, I think you missed the main point of his chapter, which was exactly what I've been telling you for about half a dozen posts now: the irrationality and blasphemy involved with God limiting himself by becoming human. That two-thirds of Him remained in heaven does not help things one bit, but in fact makes things worse by further dividing up an already divided Deity.
No, God is undivided unity.

I cannot follow this logic at all. "Because the life of all living is in the blood"?? What does that mean?? How could it possibly make perfect sense to go from sacrificing animals to sacrificing God?? I don't think you've really thought any of this through.
God specifically said that the blood was sacred and that the blood is life. "Moses took half of the blood and put it in large bowls; the other half he splashed on the altar. Taking the book of the covenant, he read it aloud to the people, who answered, "All that the LORD(Yahweh) has said, we will heed and do." Then he took the blood and sprinkled it on the people, saying, "This is the blood of the covenant which the LORD(Yahweh) has made with you in accordance with all these words of his." So God clearly ratified the Old Covenant in the blood of animals. Is it is not too much of stretch then that the everlasting New Covenant would be ratified by the everlasting blood of God?

Yahya Sulaiman

3rd November 2003, 12:58

"If humbleness is good, then clearly God is humble."

What's good for us is not necessarily good for God. God has no need to be humble, being infinite and almighty and all. But God gives us rules to live by, fitting them to our limited conditions, and one of those rules is to be humble.

"All glory of Jesus is given to Jesus by the Father"

God should not have to give glory to Himself. He has angels and humans to do that for Him. The very idea of God stooping down to become a human who needs to be glorified is one of limiting God, as I've been trying to tell you. If the other two parts of the Godhead are still in heaven, then they have still been weakened by having one-third of them descend to earth, as all three parts could not be infinite, but only God as a whole could be. What sense does it make to say that three parts of a whole are all infinite?

"God specifically said that the blood was sacred and that the blood is life. 'Moses took half of the blood and put it in large bowls; the other half he splashed on the altar. Taking the book of the covenant, he read it aloud to the people, who answered, All that the LORD(Yahweh) has said, we will heed and do.' Then he took the blood and sprinkled it on the people, saying, 'This is the blood of the covenant which the LORD(Yahweh) has made with you in accordance with all these words of his.' So God clearly ratified the Old Covenant in the blood of animals. Is it is not too much of stretch then that the everlasting New Covenant would be ratified by the everlasting blood of God?'"

I really don't see how it is that you can think that there isn't a great stretch between God and animals.

I am Yahya, formerly Surah, formerly American Deist.

Yahya Sulaiman

3rd November 2003, 13:20

Now as for CROW...

"Jesus spoke to the rulers a parable about themselves in the parable of the wicked tenants who killed former servants, and soon would slay the owners Son, that they may take the inheritance of the Son."

As tempting as it may be for a Christian to read the whole Gospel story into that parable because it involves a progression of servants and then a son who is killed, I already quoted what the moral (or point) of the parable was.

"At the end of the parable, Jesus quoted Ps 118:22 which foretold that the stone [Jesus] the builders [Religious rulers] rejected has become the capstone."

I could not find this in Matthew 21. Please give me an exact reference.

"Or as in the book of the prophet Isaiah God says: 'Lo, I lay in Zion a foundation-stone, a precious and elect stone, against which both houses of Israel shall stumble!'"

Once again, I would like a chapter and verse reference, if you don't mind.

"They would not submit to His teachings, His righteous standards, or His authority. So Jesus was telling them that they will opposed him and will reject him, but he will later become the most important stone of all the others. So, about Jesus being the heir and his inheritance. Because God owns the vineyard, he is automatically the ruler and he has all the rights. In the Bible Jesus is the first born over all creation. He is also the Messiah of God, and he will rule over the kingdom of God and will be seated at the right hand of God where he will be seated there and God the Father will put all his enemies under his foot. [Mark12: 35-36 1Corint 15:23-28]
More about the inheritance of Jesus as the heir is spoken in: Daniel 2:34-35, 44-45."

I can't make head or tail of those references in Daniel. Those prophecies look like they're too vague for us to say for certain that they've been fulfilled in anything. Indeed, they could mean almost anything. I think I'm starting to remember now why it is that I haven't quoted, read, or even thought about the book of Daniel in a long time.

"I think also that God said that he would raise one from David’s line who will reign over his kingdom forever, where his kingdom will last forever."

As I've pointed out already, that passage cannot refer to the Messiah (P), since you and I both would agree that he was sinless, and the passage speaks of him committing iniquity.

"Isaiah 9:7 seams to fit the inheritance of Jesus in the new Heaven and the new Earth, in the New Jerusalem [more in the book of Revelations]."

I don't really care about book of Revelations, quite frankly. I'm concerned mainly with Matthew and, to a much lesser extent, Mark, and only with the words of Jesus (P) that they record. As for the Isaiah passage, are you saying that the Jews thought that by killing Jesus (P), they could take over Jerusalem, or maybe the whole world? Once again, it doesn't seem to make sense. And exactly which passage from the book of Revelations are you referring to anyway?

"The religious rulers understood that Jesus claimed to be the Messiah and as they were corrupt in their practice of justice, and integrity and in tradition, these doctors of the law were blinded in their evils that they wanted to get rid of this Jesus."

Agreed. I have no problem with that. But I don't see how it applies.

I know it can be a real pain to dig up exact references in the Bible, and you complain often about being tired, so let me give you a useful link, in the hopes that it will help: http://bibleontheweb.com/Bible.asp
That's what I always use. You can view the Bible online in several translations there, and do word searches as well.

I am Yahya, formerly Surah, formerly American Deist.

3rd November 2003, 13:54

God should not have to give glory to Himself. He has angels and humans to do that for Him. The very idea of God stooping down to become a human who needs to be glorified is one of limiting God, as I've been trying to tell you.
There are three distinct persons of the Trinity. Jesus does not bask in his own glory but the glory of the Father. God, however, does not need humans and angels to glory himself. It thus must be possible for him to glorify himself. Now you might digress that this pride, and would be if God was only one person, but because of the Triune nature of the Trinity it is not.

If the other two parts of the Godhead are still in heaven, then they have still been weakened by having one-third of them descend to earth, as all three parts could not be infinite, but only God as a whole could be. What sense does it make to say that three parts of a whole are all infinite?
Well God is always one. Well there's more infinities than one. For example, there are countable sets such as the natural numbers and uncountable sets such as real numbers. Would it be better to say that God contains all infinities? Nevertheless, when someone is speaking of something like omnipotence, we have to ask if the Son is omnipotent. In isolation, which is impossible by the way, the Son is not omnipotent. But because the 3 persons of the Trinity are never in isolation and whatever the Son ask of the Father is given to him, Jesus is effectively omnipotent.

Edited by - nr on 11/03/2003 07:58:11

Yahya Sulaiman

3rd November 2003, 13:57

Whether God contains all infinities is beside the point. My point is that it makes no sense to say that three parts of a whole are all (equally) infinite. The whole can be infinite, yes, but all three of the parts? They wouldn't need each other, if that were the case--they could exist independently.

I am Yahya, formerly Surah, formerly American Deist.

3rd November 2003, 14:02

It does somewhat in mathematics. You can divide the natural numbers into three infinite sets. I'd rather ask though what God is infinite in because the context here means everything.

Yahya Sulaiman

3rd November 2003, 15:43

Well, I admittantly don't know much about mathematics, but I maintain that if you divide up God at all, you are limiting Him. A house divided cannot stand, so to speak. Please read http://answering-christianity.com/echad.htm

I am Yahya, formerly Surah, formerly American Deist.

4th November 2003, 06:30

The Trinity is a little more unified in some respects. I know that I said that the Father was in heaven when Jesus died but that's not quite true. We say "our Father who art in heaven" but our Father is omnipresent. When someone sees the Son, they see the Father but by John's gospel, the Father is within Jesus and Jesus is also within the Father. Ordinarily this would be a contradiction but we have to remember that God is not made of ordinary matter nor is he made. Some features of God such as love and obediance can only be emergent properties of God. For example, obediance to God is goodness. So for God to be completely good, it can not be so that obediance was created by man or angel. A one person God cannot fully express these properties.

Yahya Sulaiman

5th November 2003, 03:25

"The Trinity is a little more unified in some respects. I know that I said that the Father was in heaven when Jesus died but that's not quite true. We say 'our Father who art in heaven' but our Father is omnipresent. When someone sees the Son, they see the Father but by John's gospel, the Father is within Jesus and Jesus is also within the Father."

Read John 17:20-23.

"Ordinarily this would be a contradiction but we have to remember that God is not made of ordinary matter nor is he made. Some features of God such as love and obediance can only be emergent properties of God. For example, obediance to God is goodness. So for God to be completely good, it can not be so that obediance was created by man or angel. A one person God cannot fully express these properties."

I've already responded to that point. Now you're just repeating yourself.

I am Yahya, formerly Surah, formerly American Deist.

JCFan

16th November 2003, 09:59

Yahya said...

I've noticed that the Christian doctrine of Jesus (P) being "both perfect God and perfect man" isn't so much a doctrine as a cop-out

The doctrine says perfect man, and perfect 'Son'! Then God gave him all power, and as God's first fruit, he sits at the right hand of God, to act as the redeemer for all men who through their sinful state were not able to lead the perfect life, like a perfect son.

Christian doctrine says the Glory of the Father will rip through an unclean man like fire, and none on this earth are able to stand before him.

Since the foundation of the Earth, the Son has existed in spirit form with the Father. The Father knew in the begining all that would come to pass. He has prepared his Son since the begining for the position he holds in Heaven. He is the redeemer of mankind. He is the conduit by which man in his fallen form may return to a righteous state.

At the foundation of the Earth, God created his Son (and the Holy Spirit), because God knew, to his righteous eye every grape is bruised, and none are sweet enough. Christ is there to judge the grapes, and those he finds worthy, are made perfect before God.

It is said that God's judgements are harsh and his wrath cannot be endured. God cannot by his very nature, bring himself down to mans level. And man by his very nature is not capable of elevating himself to the level of God. Jesus is the key!

Those who believe they can stand in front of God, 'before' their sins are forgiven believe the great lie'.

The old testament built toward the coming of the Messiah. The new testament told the good news of his life and ascention to heaven.

To now deny him, and say that his life and death were unnecessary, that his very existence is against your understanding of God, can only be described as Fatal!

That is the Christian doctrine!
<hr>
A house divided cannot stand
The mis-quote you've chosen is found in Matthew 12:25...
<blockquote>And Jesus knew their thoughts, and said unto them, Every kingdom divided against itself is brought to desolation; and every city or house divided against itself shall not stand.</blockquote>

The Father and the Son are not against each other. If you read the passage in context it might make a little more sense.
<hr>
EDIT:
Thank you C.R.O.W.!

Your ministry in this thread has been an inspiration. It has taken me quite a while to catch up in my reading, and I can only say...
God Bless You!

Edited by - JCFan on 11/16/2003 04:20:57

Yahya Sulaiman

16th November 2003, 12:11

JCFan, I wasn't quoting the text when I made that comment about a house divided against itself--I was just using it as what it has become, which is an everday expression. I was making a specific point.

The rest of your post is only assertions without any arguments to back them up, so I don't have anything to say in response except that I disagree with many of your beliefs.

JCFan

16th November 2003, 14:39

Yahya...
I wasn't quoting the text when I made that comment about a house divided against itself--I was just using it as what it has become, which is an everday expression. I was making a specific point.
Good enough! It simply sounded as if you were twisting Christ's words to explain why Christ shouldn't be who he is.

The rest of your post is only assertions without any arguments to back them up...
I see that as a bit of a cop-out, but I thank you for the challenge, and shall endevour to tie it together a bit tighter(with references:)

Unfortunately I am a bit out of my element. When I joined this board I was hoping to have a dialogue(hence the name 'Interfaith Dialogue'), rather than an argument.

I simply find it so frustrating that people get so stuck on the fact that Jesus might actually have some power in Heaven. That they get so wrapped up in thinking that the Jesus described in the Bible, somehow strips power away from God, or makes him less perfect. It is the fullness of God's plan that best illustrates his perfection.

It is written, something to the effect of... It has never even entered mens hearts, the wonders that God has prepared for them in Heaven. I personally believe that his plan is a little more elegant than stoning non-believers. A little more humane than chasing schoolgirls back into a burning building, because they fled without their proper headgear.

Islam claims the Qur'an to be the uncorrupted word of God, yet those same words are being corrupted this very day!

Let me assure you, there is only one God, the God of Abraham. He created all things. He has absolute dominion over all things, including Jesus, and the Holy Spirit. They belong to him, yet he has given them to us.(see it's just full of those wonderful things that don't make sense)

I'm rambling, but I find it difficult to stop... It is just so perfect!

Peace to You!

C-R-O-W-

28th November 2003, 08:13

Thanks for your words of encouragements JCFan. I too am a JC-Fan.

#I could not find this in Matthew 21. Please give me an exact reference.#

Matt 21:42 Jesus said to them: Have ye never read in the scripture, The stone which the builders rejected, hath become the head of the corner: this is from the Lord; and it is marvellous in our eyes ?

#Agreed. I have no problem with that. But I don't see how it applies.#

One of the reasons they wanted to get rid o Jesus was because he taught new things and they could not stand it. I.E. the Pharisees, who were not priests but were an ultra religious people, they mixed their traditions with the Torah and make the practice of religious observation for the people very hard. Jesus came to reform them and get them into the Kingdom of God but they saw him as almost like a rival.

I will try to get back on you about the inheritance bit……I gotta search a little bit more.

Yahya Sulaiman

1st December 2003, 01:21

There's no need to search. As much as JCFan will probably label this a "cop-out", I'm going to change the subject back to what it originally was, which is the corruption of the Bible and the Koran's alleged endorsement of the Bible. The reason for this? Well, for one thing, this thread has been off topic for several pages now. For another thing, if you can manage to convince me that the blessed Jesus makes a claim to divinity in this or that part of the Gospels, it can just as easily mean that my methods of assessing the historicity of the Gospels need to be rethought as that my religion is wrong, and I think you can guess which view I will tend to favor.

Now where exactly does the Koran refer to the corruption of the Bible? Here:

002.071 (Moses) answered: Lo! He saith: Verily she is a cow unyoked; she plougheth not the soil nor watereth the tilth; whole and without mark. They said: Now thou bringest the truth. So they sacrificed her, though almost they did not.
002.072 And (remember) when ye slew a man and disagreed concerning it and Allah brought forth that which ye were hiding.
002.073 And We said: Smite him with some of it. Thus Allah bringeth the dead to life and showeth you His portents so that ye may understand.
002.074 Then, even after that, your hearts were hardened and became as rocks, or worse than rocks, for hardness. For indeed there are rocks from out which rivers gush, and indeed there are rocks which split asunder so that water floweth from them. And indeed there are rocks which fall down for the fear of Allah. Allah is not unaware of what ye do.
002.075 Have ye any hope that they will be true to you when a party of them used to listen to the word of Allah, then used to change it, after they had understood it, knowingly?
002.076 And when they fall in with those who believe, they say: We believe. But when they go apart one with another they say: Prate ye to them of that which Allah hath disclosed to you that they may contend with you before your Lord concerning it? Have ye then no sense?
002.077 Are they then unaware that Allah knoweth that which they keep hidden and that which they proclaim?
002.078 Among them are unlettered folk who know the Scripture not except from hearsay. They but guess.
002.079 Therefore woe be unto those who write the Scripture with their hands and then say, "This is from Allah," that they may purchase a small gain therewith. Woe unto them for that their hands have written, and woe unto them for that they earn thereby.

As you can see, the context is referring to the Jews specifically. So there's no guarantee that "the Gospel" has been corrupted, not that it matters, since "the Gospel" was probably a Gospel that has been long lost anyway--which is okay since the relevant parts of it were contained in the Koran. The two likeliest theories about what it was and who wrote it are that it was written by the hand of the blessed Jesus himself (in which case it's now lost), this theory confirmed by the fact that it was "revealed to him," and that it was the Gospel According to the Hebrews: http://understanding-islam.com/related/text.asp?type=question&qid=2419, this theory being confirmed by the fact that this was the Gospel being used in Arabia at the time.

So what Jewish scriptures were corrupted? Well, three are mentioned by the Koran as being "confirmed" by it:

087.016 But ye prefer the life of the world
087.017 Although the Hereafter is better and more lasting.
087.018 Lo! This is in the former scrolls.
087.019 The Books of Abraham and Moses.

17:55 And thy Lord is Best Aware of all who are in the heavens and the earth. And we preferred some of the prophets above others, and unto David We gave the Psalms.

So the tally reads: The Torah, an unidentified scripture by the blessed Abraham, and the Psalms. How were these corrupted? Well as for the Abrahamic scroll, I don't know. The Torah was corrupted by being made into four, alternating, often contradictory texts. The contradictions between Genesis 1 and 2 are a classic example of this. The Psalms were corrupted by having psalms added in that were not written by the blessed David himself. I also wouldn't be surprised if these texts contained a lot of miscellaneous interpolations as well.

So how does the Koran confirm them? Well...

5:15 O People of the Scripture! Now hath Our messenger come unto you, expounding unto you much of that which ye used to hide in the Scripture, and forgiving much [often translated like this: "and passing over much that is now unnessary"]. now hath come unto you light from Allah and plain Scripture,

5:48 And unto thee have We revealed the Scripture with the truth, confirming whatever Scripture was before it, and a watcher over it. So judge between them by that which Allah hath revealed, and follow not their desires away from the truth which hath come unto thee. For each We have appointed a divine law and a traced-out way.

So as we can see, it contains everything that needs to be said from the earlier revelations while leaving out everything false or superfluous. And there's one more way in which it confirms the earlier revelations:

61:6 And when Jesus son of Mary said: O Children of Israel! Lo! I am the messenger of Allah unto you, confirming that which was (revealed) before me in the Torah, and bringing good tidings of a messenger who cometh after me, whose name is the Praised One.

7:157 Those who follow the messenger, the Prophet who can neither read nor write, whom they will find described in the Torah and the Gospel (which are) with them.

There's more about the inescapability of the fact that the blessed Muhammad was prophesied in the Bible on my website, at this link: http://www.freewebs.com/ziggyzag/christianity.htm

Whichever Gospel "the Gospel" was, you can still find traces of it in the four Gospels and the Gospel of Thomas, as well as the Infancy of Thomas (a.k.a. Gospel of the Nativity), and that's why the Gospel of John prophesies him twice.

JCFan

1st December 2003, 22:44

As much as JCFan will probably label this a "cop-out"...
Let's look at the history here...

Yahya states his opinions...
...I've noticed that the Christian doctrine of Jesus (P) being "both perfect God and perfect man" isn't so much a doctrine as a cop-out...

I reply with...
The old testament built toward the coming of the Messiah. The new testament told the good news of his life and ascention to heaven.
To now deny him, and say that his life and death were unnecessary, that his very existence is against your understanding of God, can only be described as Fatal!
That is the Christian doctrine!

Yahya replies...
...only assertions without any arguments to back them up...

I replied...
I see that as a bit of a cop-out...

You were the first to use the term, in stating your misunderstanding of Christian beliefs.

Again, I will restate what I've stated elsewhere on this board. Theories regarding the trinity are the teachings of men. It is beyond any man to define the nature of God. And anyone, short of God, who equates Jesus position, with that of God, blasphemes against God.

I will also point up. Your prophet refered to Jesus as perfect, and spoke of him as being the Messiah. To now contend that Jesus has no place in God's plan, other than that of a mere prophet, is short sighted and self destructive.
---------------
As much as JCFan will probably label this a "cop-out"...
I don't label trying to keep a thread on topic as being a cop-out.

I do consider your insistance on using my name in this context, in your reply to others is snide, self serving, and shows you to be rather shallow. I can only assume what emotion you were trying to evoke when you chose your words, but the only emotion it has stirred in me is pity.

Peace be with you. Choose your path!

mule

2nd December 2003, 05:56

Again, I will restate what I've stated elsewhere on this board. Theories regarding the trinity are the teachings of men. It is beyond any man to define the nature of God. And anyone, short of God, who equates Jesus position, with that of God, blasphemes against God.

JCFan, what church do you go to?

Do you think God is a liar when he called the Son, God?

Be nice to Yahya.

JCFan

2nd December 2003, 08:22

Do you think God is a liar when he called the Son, God?
I will say it again...
And anyone, short of God, who equates Jesus position, with that of God, blasphemes against God.
God the Father is allmighty, he has the power, authority, and wisdom to grant wisdom, authority and power.

It is certainly not a situation which will come to pass, but I believe it is quite evident, given cause, God the Father could crush Jesus with a word.

If you want to get all snitty about the semantics of the word God that is fine. You only fuel the fire.

God gave Jesus his power(Matt 28:18) God's power and authority is absolute and eternal, he gives out power and authority as he see's fit.

I know it is tough to break the old habits. Yet, if you remember Christ was a man, he is easier to follow. Likewise, if you realize God is willing to share his name with his faithful servents he is much easier to Love. The reward is great for those who are faithful.

I don't believe God does parlor tricks to win over the souls of men. He doesn't dress up in lambs clothing and bleed to impress the natives. I think Jesus, and God himself, are just a little bit more real than you give credit for.

EDIT:
Be nice to Yahya.
Yes, I will try.

And, as Yahya pointed out earlier this is entirely off the topic of this thread. I've said all I will about the trinity here. It always seems to break down into an argument over the trinity doesn't it.

Edited by - JCFan on 12/02/2003 02:33:41

Yahya Sulaiman

3rd December 2003, 00:57

I admit my comment was a little snide. I actually meant to type that you would probably think his was a cop-out, not that you would say so. Perhaps Freud was right on those matters.

And JCFan, we believe that ALL the prophets were perfect. But what this means was that they were sinless (at least in Muslim orthodoxy) and infallible (but only when revealing God's religion to people--if one told you who would win the Super Bowl, he might not get it right).

The meaning of the word "Messiah" has changed over the years. Originally, in Judaism, it did not mean "son of God who would die for our sins," and to establish that it did, you ("you" as in Christians) must do more than point out texts like Isaiah 53 which you misinterpret. Maybe I should look into the pre-Christian editions of the Talmud on the matter--it might prove my point. I do know that most Jews actually thought he would be a military leader, tying in the concept of leading Israel with the concept of being stuck under Roman rule. More on the subject: http://understanding-islam.com/related/text.asp?type=question&qid=520

And JCFan, I'm glad that you recognize that

"Who then shall overrule God in any way if He desires to destroy the Messiah, Mary's son, and his mother, and all those who are on earth?" (The Koran Interpreted, 5:17)

Now I just wish you could follow the logic of that fact to where it should take you: that the Messiah (P) was not God Himself. (Yes, I know that you said God the Father and the Koran just says God, but the general principle remains.)

Edited by - Yahya on 12/02/2003 18:57:51

C-R-O-W-

3rd December 2003, 04:12

In your last post,
<blockquote>
#since "the Gospel" was probably a Gospel that has been long lost anyway--which is okay since the relevant parts of it were contained in the Koran. The two likeliest theories about what it was and who wrote it are that it was written by the hand of the blessed Jesus himself (in which case it's now lost), #
</blockquote><blockquote>
#Whichever Gospel "the Gospel" was, you can still find traces of it in the four Gospels and the Gospel of Thomas, as well as the Infancy of Thomas (a.k.a. Gospel of the Nativity), and that's why the Gospel of John prophesies him twice.#
</blockquote>
And on the second quote you say, #whichever "the Gospel" was#. To me that sounds like you don’t know what “"the Gospel"” was, yet you continued to say # you can still find traces of it in. …#. I still fail to see how you can say that traces of “the Gospel” are found in certain books while you have no idea what the Gospel is. In-fact, go to http://faithful-cat.4t.com/QuransGospel.htm and find out how Muslims confuse themselves in building up arguments based on bending facts to fit their own theories. The truth is that Muslims have a wide range of theories to pick from [with their eyes veiled (c.f. 2Cor4: 3-4)] concerning the Gospel that Muslims forget what “Gospel” really means.
<HR>
<blockquote>
# The Psalms were corrupted by having psalms added in that were not written by the blessed David himself. #
</blockquote>
As the Psalms that were written by David can clearly be identified does adding other Psalms that were not written by David result in the Psalms written by David being corrupted? Come-on Yahya, how can you justify that?
And anyway, to my understanding, Psalms are not exclusive to David alone. The Bible has 150 Psalms. I believe Psalms consist of Poems of Praise, Worship, Thankfulness and Repentance. The Psalms that were collected in the Books of Psalms in the Bible were written by, David, the Sons of Korah, Solomon (David’s son), and Moses.
If I may also add that in your Quran, though it agrees with Christian belief that David wrote Psalms, Muslims only acknowledges David’s Psalms because of (4:163) and (17:55).

But, Quran states that un-named messengers besides David brought inspired Psalms.

3:184 "Then if they reject thee, so were rejected messengers before thee, who came with Clear Signs, The Scriptures (Zuburi), and the Book of Enlightenment."

26:196 "Without doubt it is (announced) in the revealed Books of former peoples (Zubu-ril-'awwaliin)."

54:43 "Are your Unbelievers, (O Quraish), better than they? Or have ye an immunity in the Sacred Books (Zubur)?"

35:25 "And if they reject thee, so did their predecessors, to whom came their messengers with Clear Signs, Scriptures (Zuburi), and the Book illuminating."

[For those who don’t know what ‘Zubur’ is, it is ‘Psalms’.]

While you are reading these verses, please note that none of these Psalms are referred as ‘corrupt books’ as Quran is referring to them in the present tense; thus available and in the hands of the Christians and Jews.

P.S. yahya, interesting site.

Edited by - C-R-O-W- on 12/02/2003 22:14:13

Yahya Sulaiman

3rd December 2003, 05:19

1. 2:75-79 seem to be referring to the corruption of the Jewish scriptures in general, which I take to be the ones the Koran refers to.

2. ***We don't have to know which Gospel "the Gospel" was***. You don't seem to understand that. Whatever it was, the relevant parts of it are contained in the Koran, just as the relevant parts of the mysterious Abrahamic scroll are too. So in the end, it doesn't matter to us which Gospel it was.

3. The Psalms were said to be revealed to the blessed David, and yet I find psalms that were not his. Since I believe the Koran, it should therefore follow for me that the non-Davidic psalms are corruptions, or at the very least are not inspired.

Edited by - Yahya on 12/02/2003 23:19:50

Edited by - Yahya on 12/02/2003 23:20:55

JCFan

3rd December 2003, 06:38

I admit my comment was a little snide.
And I offer that my response was far 'sharper' than need be. I will attempt to keep this civil, yet as you've noted in the past, we have strong philsophical differences, and will probably not agree on the matters of greatest importance.

we believe that ALL the prophets were perfect...sinless...infallible
Then how do we reconcile the teachings of Muhammed, with the teachings of Christ? How do we reconcile the saying that 'all men have sinned, and fallen short of the glory of God'?

The meaning of the word "Messiah" has changed over the years.
No it hasn't. Our only our understanding of the Messiah has changed.

I do know that most Jews actually thought he would be a military leader...
He wasn't though! Instead he taught that those who kill would be killed. He promised special blessings to those killed in his name. He wasn't speaking of martyr's, he was speaking of the victims of misquided atrocities carried out by men, in his name. He was a teacher of peace, and Love. The Jews were expecting someone like Muhammed who would raise up his voice and assure them, as a group, that God approves of their wars. That it is their duty to conquer and oppress in the name of the one true God.

The words of Jesus and Muhammed cannot be reconciled. Islam claims perfection of both, the bible makes no such claim. Where is the truth here? They can't both be right!

And JCFan, I'm glad that you recognize that...
Jesus said, all Glory goes to the Father. It was his disciples who said he should be worshipped. As long as any man gives all Glory to God, and heartfully thanks Jesus for the part he plays in God's plan, that man is right in Jesus' eye. Of course, God could never rise up against Jesus, because Jesus will never rise up against God. So it's kind of a moot point.

Now I just wish you could follow the logic of that fact to where it should take you: that the Messiah was not God Himself.
Why must it always be our understanding of the nature of God, which stands as the road block to recieving the truths he has given us?

I have never said God and Christ are the same person! You see that is the wonderful thing about Christ's teachings. I don't have to be bound by mans theoligical teachings regarding God. I can simply pick up my Bible and read the message, and take it into my heart, and let it guide me. There will be no teaching impossed on me by any man, I won't have it. Christ says to examine it, and find the truth in it.

There are parts that don't easily settle into my understanding, such as exactly how Jesus and God are bound to one another. But in the message of the Bible it doesn't matter! It doesn't matter anymore than understanding how the world was created in six days. You simple accept that they have a special relationship, and move on to the matters of greater importance.

Some things are easy to understand though. Such as the message that we should closely examine anyone who claims to be a prophet of God. By the rules set forth in the old testament Muhammed hasn't proven himself a prophet. His words contradict the scripures at every turn, and on close examination his words contradict themselves. Not only on matters of little importance, but on matters regarding the salvation of mens souls.

I merely look for truth. My heart, mind and soul tell me that the truth is simple. It doesn't require mental calisthenics to defend it. The Truth defends itself. I've found that truth in the Gospel of Jesus Christ, and in the words of the prophets who foretold his coming.

---------------
Do they not ponder on the Qur'an?
Had it been from other than Allah,
they would surely have found therein much discrepancy.[4:82]

Edit:...that man is right in Jesus' eye. On rereading that doesn't sound right. It probably should have been something more along the lines of... As long as a man gives all Glory to God, humbly accepts the gift Christ gave him, and follows the leading of the Holy Spirit, according to the promise of Jesus, that man 'will' be saved.

Edited by - JCFan on 12/03/2003 01:03:17

Yahya Sulaiman

4th December 2003, 05:38

"Then how do we reconcile the teachings of Muhammed, with the teachings of Christ? How do we reconcile the saying that 'all men have sinned, and fallen short of the glory of God'?"

As far as I can remember, that's something Paul said, not something the blessed Jesus was reported as having said. But in any case the Koran says the same thing:

"If God should take men to task for their evildoing, He would not leave on the earth one creature that crawls."(The Koran Interpreted 16:61)

"He wasn't though! Instead he taught that those who kill would be killed. He promised special blessings to those killed in his name. He wasn't speaking of martyr's, he was speaking of the victims of misquided atrocities carried out by men, in his name. He was a teacher of peace, and Love."

I know.

"The Jews were expecting someone like Muhammed who would raise up his voice and assure them, as a group, that God approves of their wars. That it is their duty to conquer and oppress in the name of the one true God."

Give me some historical evidence to back up this claim. The blessed Muhammad taught that oppression is always sinful (I'll try to find the specific ahadith), and the Koran never once condones conquering and oppressing in the name of the one true God. (Please consult my article on this matter, and on Islam indeed being a religion of peace, at http://www.freewebs.com/ziggyzag/criticismsonislam.htm)

"The words of Jesus and Muhammed cannot be reconciled. Islam claims perfection of both, the bible makes no such claim. Where is the truth here? They can't both be right!"

The Bible (I think) prophesies the blessed Muhammad, but it does not say anything specific about his moral character, which is okay since it's only to be expected that a prophet of God would be a good person.

"Jesus said, all Glory goes to the Father. It was his disciples who said he should be worshipped. As long as any man gives all Glory to God, and heartfully thanks Jesus for the part he plays in God's plan, that man is right in Jesus' eye. Of course, God could never rise up against Jesus, because Jesus will never rise up against God. So it's kind of a moot point.
I have never said God and Christ are the same person! You see that is the wonderful thing about Christ's teachings. I don't have to be bound by mans theoligical teachings regarding God. I can simply pick up my Bible and read the message, and take it into my heart, and let it guide me. There will be no teaching impossed on me by any man, I won't have it. Christ says to examine it, and find the truth in it.
There are parts that don't easily settle into my understanding, such as exactly how Jesus and God are bound to one another. But in the message of the Bible it doesn't matter! It doesn't matter anymore than understanding how the world was created in six days. You simple accept that they have a special relationship, and move on to the matters of greater importance."

Why JCFan, I think you are one of those few true believers among the Christians that the Koran speaks of. Congratulations! I'm glad to hear you say those things.

"Some things are easy to understand though. Such as the message that we should closely examine anyone who claims to be a prophet of God. By the rules set forth in the old testament Muhammed hasn't proven himself a prophet. His words contradict the scripures at every turn, and on close examination his words contradict themselves. Not only on matters of little importance, but on matters regarding the salvation of mens souls."

It is a well-known fact that the Koran and the Old Testament are deeply connected, paralleling each other very often. They are twin scriptures, you might say, although some things from the New Testament and Christian apocrypha also have parallels in the Koran.

"I merely look for truth. My heart, mind and soul tell me that the truth is simple. It doesn't require mental calisthenics to defend it. The Truth defends itself. I've found that truth in the Gospel of Jesus Christ, and in the words of the prophets who foretold his coming."

Follow his teachings without deifying him and you'll be a true believer in a Muslim's eyes. You seem to be fine. I just don't understand why you or other Christians believe that someone has to be tortured and crucified for God's grace to reach you. Just ask for God's forgiveness, make an effort to reform, and that will be enough. No one has to be crucified.

C-R-O-W-

4th December 2003, 06:37

<blockquote>
# We don't have to know which Gospel "the Gospel" was#
</blockquote>
Of course you don’t have to know anything at all. Its weather you want to find out or not.
Gospel is not a written code [As many Muslims think it is] but a verbal message. Jesus came to preach the Gospel. Gospel, which I am sure I have explained to you before is not its original word. Gospel is the English translation. In its original language, Gospel was a Greek word, which is Euangelous. And its literal meaning into English is Good News. So Jesus went around preaching the Good News.
So what is question remains, what Good News did Jesus go around preaching? (I wil explore this topic in later time due to the amount of topics I am posting)
<HR>
<blockquote>
#2:75-79 seem to be referring to the corruption of the Jewish scriptures in general, which I take to be the ones the Koran refers to.#
</blockquote>

According to the information I have, Sura 2 was the 87th revelation out of 114.
But I tell you that there are verses that came later than the 87th revelation which say Torah was not corrupted.
For example lets take the 112th revelation (that is the second to last revelation) verse 44
“Lo! We did reveal the Torah, wherein is guidance and a light,”

And once more, if you read a little further below in Sura 2, (further below than verse 75-79 which you say means that the Jewish scriptures are corrupt) you will find the verses (89,91,101,113), which says
“And when there cometh unto them a scripture from Allah, confirming that in their possession -”
“And they disbelieve in that which cometh after it, though it is the truth confirming that which they possess.”
“And when there cometh unto them a messenger from Allah, confirming that which they possess,”
“And the Jews say the Christians follow nothing (true), and the Christians say the Jews follow nothing (true); yet both are readers of the Scripture.”

As you can see, the claim that in the Quran says that Torah is described as a corrupt scripture is a self-contradictory claim in your part. I will tell you more why that is.
You see, when Mohammad went around reciting these verses he believed that the Torah was Gods Book, which was available in his time. Again, if the Torah were corrupt, why would it not suddenly change its message from “We gave the Scripture unto Moses… an explanation of all things, a guidance and a mercy” to “Jews don’t practice your Torah because it is corrupted, because it is now corrupted you should now follow this Quran Mohammad is preaching instead”. I bet you will never find such a verse in Quran. This is because Quran says that it came to “confirm” earlier scriptures, and one of the main fundamental reasons Quran asks Jews to believe in it is because ‘allegedly’ Mohammad is found in the Torah.
One example is Sura 2:91 “And they disbelieve in that which cometh after it, though it is the truth confirming that which they possess. Say (unto them, O Muhammad): Why then slew ye the prophets of Allah aforetime, if ye are (indeed) believers?”
I wonder why Allah does not take this opportunity to say that Torah is corrupt?

And from the 89th revelation: -
“All food was lawful unto the Children of Israel, save that which Israel forbade himself, (in days) before the Torah was revealed. Say: Produce the Torah and read it if ye are truthful.”

“And there are, certainly, among the People of the Book, those who believe in Allah, in the revelation to you, and in the revelation to them, bowing in humility to Allah: They will not sell the Signs of Allah for a miserable gain!”

And from the 92nd revelation

“O ye unto whom the Scripture hath been given! Believe in what We have revealed confirming that which ye possess, before We destroy countenances so as to confound them, or curse them as We cursed the Sabbath-breakers (of old time). The commandment of Allah is always executed.”

And from the 112th revelation

“How come they unto thee (Mohammad) for judgment when they have the Torah, wherein Allah hath delivered judgment? Yet even after that they turn away.”

“Say: "O People of the Book! ye have no ground to stand upon unless ye stand fast by the Law (i.e. Torah), the Gospel, and all the revelation that has come to you from your Lord."”

And from the 113th revelation
“they shall fight in the way of Allah and shall slay and be slain. it is a promise which is binding on Him in the Torah and the Gospel and the Qur'an. Who fulfilleth His covenant better than Allah?”
It never stops… It goes on ……. And on ……. And on of how later Quranic verses state Torah is not corrupt.

This nicely leads me up to the thing about the Psalms.
<blockquote>
# 3. The Psalms were said to be revealed to the blessed David, and yet I find psalms that were not his. Since I believe the Koran, it should therefore follow for me that the non-Davidic psalms are corruptions, or at the very least are not inspired.#
</blockquote>

Because the Psalms were collected in the hands of the Jews, and as the above verses, which were recited near the end of the lifetime of Mohammad, state that the Torah was not corrupted, there is an interesting quote in the Quran, which says that the Quran only mentioned a limited number of prophets [some of whom little information is provided in Quran] 25 prophets to be precise.
Sura 40:78 “Verily We sent Messengers before thee, among them those of whom We have told thee, and some of whom We have not told thee”
AND
Sura 4:164 And messengers We have mentioned unto thee before and messengers We have not mentioned unto thee;
So we can clearly say that though Quran does not mention all of the people who wrote the Psalms but only mentions David by name. It is by no means is a closed door for other writers to write Psalms which the Quran does not mention to its audience. And as I posted earlier, there were other un-named Psalmists that I mentioned in my last post. So non-Davidic Psalms are perfectly possible.

P.S.
I know that Solomon is considered to be a prophet in Quran. Since there are Psalms ascribed to Solomon in the Book of Psalms, does that mean though you believe only Davidic psalms to be true, are Solomon’s Psalms false?
The same with Moses, there are Psalms ascribed to Moses, [and I know Moses is a prophet in Quran], does that mean that Moses’ Psalms are false too?

Edited by - C-R-O-W- on 12/04/2003 00:59:56

Edited by - C-R-O-W- on 12/04/2003 01:07:28

JCFan

4th December 2003, 08:39

No one has to be crucified.
Not anymore they don't. Christ's crucufixtion, was key to the law and bound God's forgivness into the same law he had layed down to the Jew's. The law regarding blood sacrifices for the remission of sin, is seen by many to be pagan, but it basically boiled down to God writing into law, "Give the best of what you have to me, and I will forgive your transgressions!". Then in accordance with his own law which he had written, he gave to us the best that he had, for the remission of our sins. Jesus' death on the cross, and the spilling of his blood was not only the single most Gracious act God ever did for men, it is bound by the Law. No one can change what Jesus willfully did for us at God's hand. It is in the law now. That is God's New Testament, a gift of forgiveness has been given, that gift is bound by His law, and no man may take it away.

Follow his teachings without deifying him and you'll be a true believer in a Muslim's eyes.
I'm sorry if this sounds disrespectful, but it is the truth none the less...
It is not Muslim's I wish to impress. I do deify Christ! I do hold Christ up to a higher position than any other man who ever walked the Earth. According to his teachings he has a place in Heaven of great importance. He will not only be the Judge, but also the Redeemer. He will be the individual who holds mens souls in the balance. He is the only rightful judge of mens hearts. He walked the Earth as a Man, and saw the temptations of Satan from a viewpoint which is unavailable to God. By God's very nature he does not see temptation. He does not feel with the heart of a human. His heart is untouchable to Satan.

I believe there is an Islamic teaching which say that there is a bridge over the hellfires, which all men must cross to enter the kingdom. The non-believers will fall, and the righteous will endure.

Christ is that bridge!

Just ask for God's forgiveness...
This is the crucial point. HE ALREADY GAVE US HIS FORGIVNESS! He sealed it in his Law. Don't deny it, and don't teach against it, or He will leave you by the wayside. That is His teaching, not mine.

------------
Do they not ponder on the Qur'an?
Had it been from other than Allah,
they would surely have found therein much discrepancy.[4:82]

Edited by - JCFan on 12/04/2003 02:46:06

Yahya Sulaiman

5th December 2003, 11:08

Something corrupted can still contain guidance and light. Why not? It's not like it's corrupt from start to finish.

And the Psalms were said to have been revealed unto the blessed David. Why would the Koran not have mentioned it if there were other people to whom it was revealed as well? Why would more than one person be needed to write down the revelations from God? All the other revelations were supposed to have been written by one person.

SubmitterKarim

5th December 2003, 11:12

Peace JCFan,

Do you believe if you are considered "Christian" you could be a bad person and life and be forgiven, because it's been written?

Karim, Submitter.
www.submission.org

Edit: Your topic about how Jesus should be held higher than any other because he walked the other and saw the devil's temptations from a viewpoint.. "God could not see." ... Do you truly think God does not see it? What you do, many people consider idol worship. You believe Jesus is a god, yet God is God also?

Edited by - SubmitterKarim on 12/05/2003 05:13:53

SubmitterKarim

5th December 2003, 11:31

Salaam,

http://www.miraclesofthequran.com/

"Which of your Lord's marvels do you deny?"

Karim, Submitter.
www.submission.org

JCFan

5th December 2003, 13:38

Something corrupted can still contain guidance and light. Why not? It's not like it's corrupt from start to finish.
It was written over many centuries, by many different people. And it all fits together to show that Jesus is important, more important than any other man of this earth. It fit's together to show that God might use other methods than simply saying 'BE!'. It is that message which is under the greatest attack by Islam. Any portion which gives authority to the Messiah is what Islam strips away as being corruption.

And the Psalms were said to have been revealed unto the blessed David. Why would the Koran not have mentioned it if there were other people to whom it was revealed as well?

The first reason which comes to my mind is that Muhammed didn't know what was contained in the book of Psalms. I think if you go back and look, the book of Psalms was fairly intact at the time of Muhammed.

The big point here is though, and it is BIG. It doesn't matter! The book of Psalms is wonderful, but it revolves around songs of praise. You can write your own! Sing to God of his Glory, and it will do more for your soul than 10 reams of David's singing.

Why would more than one person be needed to write down the revelations from God?
That is it's confirmation. The Prophets confirm each other.

That was why Muhammed had such a tough time getting the Islamic ball rolling. There was no place in the scripture for another prophet. The message was complete... The Jews were in a hold state, still waiting on their Messiah. And the Christians were busy spreading the good news of his death and resurection. The message that someone was claiming a new, revised, authoritive word of God didn't sit well.

That is the reason too that he is not accepted in those religions today. His message doesn't cornfirm that which was given already, it attempts to tear it down.

All the other revelations were supposed to have been written by one person.
Where does God say that, through any other mouth than Mohammds? I want confirmation from other prophets!

------------
Do they not ponder on the Qur'an?
Had it been from other than Allah,
they would surely have found therein much discrepancy.[4:82]

JCFan

5th December 2003, 14:05

"Which of your Lord's marvels do you deny?"
None! He is marvelous isn't he :)

As for the page you linked. I dig into it and find many remarkable claims but no Qur'an verses to back them up.

The fact is, there is much information in the Qur'an which shows a deeper understanding of our world, than in the Bible. THE QUR'AN WAS WRITTEN MANY HUNDRED YEARS LATER!!! Everything he says about embryology falls apart as revelation, when you realize it merely mimics the knowledge of the Greeks of his day.

You see this is the difficulty! As long as those points which are proven bogus, are still held up as a proof, they are no longer a misunderstanding, they are a LIE!

In the case of the embryology, it has been proven bogus. As long as it keeps being held up, I can only believe them to be liars. Lying to entice mens souls! I don't see that page as being godly in any way.

------------
Do they not ponder on the Qur'an?
Had it been from other than Allah,
they would surely have found therein much discrepancy.[4:82]

JCFan

5th December 2003, 14:36

Do you believe if you are considered "Christian" you could be a bad person and life and be forgiven, because it's been written?
No! Claiming christianity is a guarentee for no one. It has to be current!

The Holy Spirit has to be working in that person to make them better tomorrow than they are today.

Christianity is full of slack christians. Those who believe the hard part has already been done. Those who think that Christianity just means going to church, and gettin' saved.

The Spirit has to be working in them, or atleast recently enough that the Lord can see their commitment to Him.

------------
Do they not ponder on the Qur'an?
Had it been from other than Allah,
they would surely have found therein much discrepancy.[4:82]

Edited by - JCFan on 12/05/2003 08:45:43

Yahya Sulaiman

6th December 2003, 06:24

I think this is probably the best forum in which to bring this up.

JCFan, I have noticed your signature. What discrepancies in the Koran do you think you have seen? Or what's the point of the singature?

JCFan

6th December 2003, 08:20

I think this is probably the best forum in which to bring this up.
Sure... Good a place as any I suppose :)

Yes, I see discrepency in it. They are the same discrepencies which have been argued for years. I don't see that they have been argued against convincingly.

The Qur'an asks to be held up to inspection, and that inspection will prove it's authenticity. I encourage others to examine it also.

For me, the discrepency which broke the camels back, was it's vast divergence from existing scripture, it's waffling support for those scriptues, and lack of display of a solid knowledge of those scriptures, as they existed in its day.

It asks for examination, and everyman should do just that! I personally can't see it as divine. Yet any man who attacks it, or upholds it, without holding it up to examination, is speaking from complete ignorance.

------------
Do they not ponder on the Qur'an?
Had it been from other than Allah,
they would surely have found therein much discrepancy.[4:82]

Edited by - JCFan on 12/06/2003 02:26:57

Yahya Sulaiman

6th December 2003, 08:29

Do you have anything specific in mind?

JCFan

6th December 2003, 08:45

Let's see how this works... possibly will be seen as a bit less inflamitory :)

------------
Read it*, only then can you argue for it*,or against it*, from a position other than ignorance. [JCFan 1:1]
* other sources... 'the thing'

C-R-O-W-

7th December 2003, 09:29

In your previous post you said
<blockquote> #1. 2:75-79 seem to be referring to the corruption of the Jewish scriptures in general, which I take to be the ones the Koran refers to. #</blockquote>

I do believe that this conclusion is jumping the gun, as I believe that the reference [Sura 2:71-79] is not talking about the Jews corrupting their Torah. If you notice that the first reference of distortion in 2:71-79 [namely verse 75] is not refereeing to the Torah?
“Can ye (o ye men of Faith) entertain the hope that they will believe in you [i.e. when Quran is recited to them] ? Seeing that a party of them heard the Word of Allah [i.e. Quran], and perverted it knowingly after they understood it.”
And the second reference of distortion [namely verse 78] is not talking about the corruption of the Torah, as the context of the verses before it is referring to Quran. In affect, verse 78 says, “Among them are gentiles/illiterates who do not know the scripture [i.e. Quran], except through hearsay, then assume that they know it.”
So much so that these people think they know Quran, that the next verse says
“Therefore woe be unto those who write the Scripture [i.e. Quran] with their hands and then say, "This is from Allah," that they may purchase a small gain therewith. Woe unto them for that their hands have written, and woe unto them for that they earn thereby.”
From my interpretation, this is not talking about the Jews corrupting their own Torah, rather it is talking about Quran; how some distorting what Muhammad said when he was reciting and explaining the Qur'an. So I don’t see where you get the idea that Sura 2:71-79 is # referring to the corruption of the Jewish scriptures in general#.

And if you still are on the side that it is talking about the Torah, notice how in the reference it is condemning those who fabricate/create/invent their own scripture and say “this is from Allah”. It is not arguing about corruption of scripture but gaining out of selling fabricated scripture. And still, the reference of “corruption” is only applicable to those very near to Mohammad and you should not forget that there were Jews far, very far away from Arabia who had the Torah; also Christians would have had them too.
I can back my interpretation of Sura 2:71-79 is not speaking about Torah corruption. Even if the case was that, as you said # Something corrupted can still contain guidance and light. Why not? It's not like it's corrupt from start to finish #. This, in my eyes, is not a credible assumption, as textual corruption of Torah is not being called upon in Sura 2, rather it is of the tongue. Jews could corrupt the Torah by speech but the written Torah was uncorrupted in Mohammad’s lifetime. A good example to look to is in the same Sura [i.e. 2] but in a verse further down, in verse 121, which says,
[I]“Those unto whom We have given the Scripture, who read it with the right reading, those believe in it.”
Again, I urge you; though the Torah could be read in the wrong reading, it could only be read in the right reading if the pen did not alter the text. And as verse 121 proclaims, Torah could still could be read in the right reading, meaning that it was still intact, #from start to finish#.
<HR>

<blockquote>#And the Psalms were said to have been revealed unto the blessed David. Why would the Koran not have mentioned it if there were other people to whom it was revealed as well?# </blockquote>

That is a good question. And I rather not offend you, so I will refer you back to Quran: -
4.164 And messengers We have mentioned unto thee before and messengers We have not mentioned unto thee. 
40:78 Verily We sent Messengers before thee, among them those of whom We have told thee, and some of whom We have not told thee.

<blockquote>#Why would more than one person be needed to write down the revelations from God? All the other revelations were supposed to have been written by one person.# </blockquote>

To answer that, look at the meaning of “Psalm”. In my dictionary, it says that Psalm is a Hymn/Sacred Song. And if you read some of the Psalms, it is not styled like Torah. Many of David’s Psalms were his writings about [the history of his ancestors like Moses and Joseph, he also writes about] his life circumstances e.g. When he committed adultery with Bat-Sheba. The prophet Nathan, sent from God, came to confront David about his sin. After Nathan told David a parable about his sin, David repented and he wrote a Psalm of repentance, Psalm 51. Also David wrote Psalm 18, which was a song for Yahweh, because he delivered him from all his enemies and from the hands of Saul. Moses wrote Psalms 90, which was his prayer to God.

So the Psalms are not all “a revelation” as such, but a collection of Songs, Poems, Repentance and Thankfulness from a group of believers of God.

In Sura 3:184 says, "And if they deny thee, even so did they deny messengers who were before thee, who came with miracles and with the Psalms."

Sura 35:25 “And if they deny thee, those before them also denied. Their messengers came unto them with clear proofs, and with the Psalms”

These two references mention that the generations before them had denied their prophets who came to them with “clear proofs and with Psalms”. And in most Muslims mind, David alone received Psalms. But this kind of thinking, in my judgement, has a big flaw in it as the question “since when was David rejected as a prophet?” needs to be answered because the above two verses relate the rejection of Mohammad with those who came with Pslams before Mohammad.
But if David and his Psalms were not rejected, Sura 3:184 and 35:25 must be referring to the rejection of other prophets who came with Psalms, apart from David.
[Unless you can prove to me that these verses are talking about David and his Psalm’s being rejected, you should have no problem in believing that other un-named prophets, apart from David, wrote Psalms.]

Edited by - C-R-O-W- on 12/07/2003 03:43:02

Tony

6th January 2004, 00:25

Peace everyone,

I am new here. I just want to contribute something about Injeel and Quran. Please excuse me if this has already been thought of in earlier posts.

I believe that the Injeel mentioned in the Quran is not the so-called Gospel in the bible because of this verse:

5: 48. To thee We sent the Scripture in truth, confirming the scripture that came before it,...

The Quran does not confirm that:
1. Jesus is God
2. Jesus is the Son of God
3. God has children
4. God begets or is begotten
5. Christ was crucified
6. Man was created in the image and likeness of God
7. Jesus is seated at the right hand of God
8. God is a Father
9. We should pray to Jesus
10. Jesus is Lord

If the Quran referred to the biblical Injeel then we must have been taught that Jesus is Son of God. Pure blasphemy to Muslims.

No man ever believes that the Bible means what it says: He is always convinced that it says what he means. ~George Bernard Shaw

Edited by - Tony on 01/05/2004 18:27:23

xp²

6th January 2004, 07:06

i haven't followed this thread closely, but i think what C-R-O-W- is saying here is,

Muslims vs Quran, in the sense that the Quran confirms the revelations that went before it, and why muslims are calling them corrupted when they are mentioned in the Quran and no 'corruption' attributed to them.

i will challenge this notion using some of the verses c-r-o-w brought up & from his initial posting.

And when there came to them a messenger from Allah, confirming what was with them, a party of the People of the Book threw away the Book of Allah behind their backs, as if (it had been something) they did not know! [2:101]

confirming what was with them, doesnt say exactly what, and it doesn't mean that they all had the same corrupted version. but lets move on;

And they say: "None shall enter Paradise unless he be a Jew or a Christian." Those are their (vain) desires. Say: "Produce your proof if ye are truthful." [2:111]

Nay,-whoever submits His whole self to Allah and is a doer of good,- He will get his reward with his Lord; on such shall be no fear, nor shall they grieve. [2:112]

notice where it is written, "they say", so the true uncorrupted revelation sent before didn't tell them to preach that, it is only what they are putting forth of their own wishes. if you are christian, tell me, because i am muslim and do not follow your ways, will i get into paradise?
if the answer is 'no', then this means the goodpart of the previous revelations has been corrupted/modified. moving on;

 The Jews say: "The Christians have naught (to stand) upon; and the Christians say: "The Jews have naught (to stand) upon." Yet they (profess to) study the (same) Book. Like unto their word is what those say who know not; but Allah will judge between them in their quarrel on the Day of Judgment. [2:113]

And who is more unjust than he who forbids that in places for the worship of Allah, His name should be celebrated?-whose zeal is (in fact) to ruin them? It was not fitting that such should themselves enter them except in fear. For them there is nothing but disgrace in this world, and in the world to come, an exceeding torment. [2:114]

what does, 2 peoples who claim to be studying the same Book, yet these 2 peoples contradict each other, what does this say about the copy of the book they are holding onto?

 The Religion before Allah is Islám (submission to His Will): Nor did the People of the Book dissent therefrom except through envy of each other, after knowledge had come to them. But if any deny the Signs of Allah, Allah is swift in calling to account. [3:19]

So if they dispute with thee, say: "I have submitted my whole self to Allah and so have those who follow me." And say to the People of the Book and to those who are unlearned: "Do ye (also) submit yourselves?" If they do, they are in right guidance, but if they turn back, thy duty is to convey the Message; and in Allah's sight are (all) His servants. [3:20]

the people of the book, like the jews, christians etc who submit to One God are essentially muslim, it says those who believe in the hereafter, that submit their wills to Allah alone, work righteousness and give charity will be rewarded. it doesn't 'praise' the current corruptions they have, but rather it rewards those who follow the best of what is in them.

There is among them a section who distort the Book with their tongues: (As they read) you would think it is a part of the Book, but it is no part of the Book; and they say, "That is from Allah," but it is not from Allah. It is they who tell a lie against Allah, and (well) they know it! [3:78]

It is not (possible) that a man, to whom is given the Book, and Wisdom, and the Prophetic Office, should say to people: "Be ye my worshippers rather than Allah's": On the contrary (he would say) "Be ye worshippers of Him (Who is truly the Cherisher of all): For ye have taught the Book and ye have studied it earnestly." [3:79]

from here we see that by distorting the Book by their tongues, they are teaching a corrupted message down the generations, and even today, you might think it is part of the Book, but it isnot from Allah.

Not all of them are alike: Of the People of the Book are a portion that stand (for the right): They rehearse the Signs of Allah all night long, and they prostrate themselves in adoration. [3:113]

They believe in Allah and the Last Day; they enjoin what is right, and forbid what is wrong; and they hasten (in emulation) in (all) good works: They are in the ranks of the righteous. [3:114]

like i said, people of the book, people, not the corrupted scriptures, of some are righteous.

 (They are fond of) listening to falsehood, of devouring anything forbidden. If they do come to thee, either judge between them, or decline to interfere. If thou decline, they cannot hurt thee in the least. If thou judge, judge in equity between them. For Allah loveth those who judge in equity. [5:42]

But why do they come to thee for decision, when they have (their own) Torah before them?- therein is the (plain) command of Allah; yet even after that, they would turn away. For they are not (really) People of Faith. [5:43]

yeah, that is interesting, why do they come.. when they have the Torah before them? maybe it goes against their own wishes.

To thee We sent the Scripture in truth, confirming the scripture that came before it, and guarding it in safety: so judge between them by what Allah hath revealed, and follow not their vain desires, diverging from the Truth that hath come to thee.... [5:48]

And this (He commands): Judge thou between them by what Allah hath revealed, and follow not their vain desires, but beware of them lest they beguile thee from any of that (teaching) which Allah hath sent down to thee. And if they turn away, be assured that for some of their crime it is Allah's purpose to punish them. And truly most men are rebellious. [5:49]

when trying to understand this matter, it is important to take the whole Quran in context, there are many more verses but these should be enough.

the Quran confirms the scripture that went before it, and the Quran itself is the final revelation, it is guarded from corruption so we are told to judge between all the scriptures, and because we know the Quran has been protected, we have the criterion to judge between the other revelations.

it doesn't say anywhere outright and directly that 'that scripture has been corrupted', because the Quran was not intended to "tear down the previous scriptures" as one christian once put it. the Quran was sent to correct falsehoods (ie trinity) and to proclaim itself over all other religions.

-----------

btw Tony welcome to the forum.

C-R-O-W-

6th January 2004, 18:07

Hello there XP, nice to meet you.

I am Christian, and I disagree with what u r saying very strongly…
[p.s. If I am blunt, don’t be offended, its not personal ]

What I am saying is something like, for every one sura a Muslim quotes to talk about Bible corruption, I can find 3 or 4 that contradict what Muslim says. So, if I can bring 3 or 4 against what Muslim claims, there must be something wrong; either with the Muslim or with Quran. So far it’s the Muslim that have been in the wrong and you as well have taken their path. [p.s. This is not a challenge; its just the way I am thinking.]
<HR>
From my understanding, Quran says that it came to confirm the scriptures that came before it. Quran does not claim (to my understanding) that it came to replace previous scriptures because they were corrupted. I think, you will never find Quran say ‘so-and-so was sent to such-and-such people because the people before you corrupted their books.’

If we look at the first aya you quoted, Sura 2:101, if my understanding Is correct, it does not say “ confirming what was with them” rather it says “confirming that which they possess,”. Out of the 4 translations of Quran I have, only one says, “confirming what was with them”, and the translator wasn’t even a scholar of Arabic of Quran.

Think carefully here. The verse 2:101 is trying to say that Mohammad came to a people who possessed God’s book, which was genuine, but when Mohammad came to them, a group of them threw away that Book as if they did not know about anything.

You said
<blockquote>#confirming what was with them, doesnt say exactly what, and it doesn't mean that they all had the same corrupted version.#
</blockquote>

If we read a couple of versed below, from verse 101 it says “And the Jews say the Christians follow nothing (true), and the Christians say the Jews follow nothing (true); yet both are readers of the Scripture.”
Are you telling me that they read corrupted versions of Torah and Gospel and Psalms and ALL the scriptures they possessed?? Somehow I don’t thin so.

If that hasn’t convinced you, let me try to make it even clearer for you.
Look at Verse 121 “Those unto whom We have given the Scripture, who read it with the right reading”
Why does Quran assume that the problem was with the people and not in the texts of the Books they read??

Finally, in the context of verse 101, why would your Quran say they throw the book “as if they did not know” unless they know something? Your argument seams illogical to me. You made your argument illogical because you took it out of context.
<HR>

Regarding your second point in 2:11 and 2:112 you said
<blockquote>#notice where it is written, "they say", so the true uncorrupted revelation sent before didn't tell them to preach that, it is only what they are putting forth of their own wishes.# </blockquote>

I am sorry but this must be referring to heretical Jews and Christians; for the Old Testament nor the New Testament do not advocate that you have to be a Christian or a Jew to enter heaven. If you read the verse again, you will notice that Quran is not talking about what the Christian/Jew was reading; rather what the Christian/Jew was speaking. Thus the error is in the mouth of the people and not in what their Books said. And even Mohammad challenged those who claimed that ‘you had to be or Jew to enter heaven’, by saying, "Produce your proof if ye are truthful." WHERE is the proof of textual corruption? Its nowhere to be seen.
<HR>

You said , reffuring to verses 2:113-114
<blockquote>#what does, 2 peoples who claim to be studying the same Book, yet these 2 peoples contradict each other, what does this say about the copy of the book they are holding onto?# </blockquote>

As far as I understand, the difference between us is Who Messiah is. Jew is waiting for Messiahs first coming, while Christian is waiting for Messiahs second coming. So, Christian believes in Old Testament and New Testament. But because Jew doesn’t accept Jesus as Messiah, they accept Old Testament but have nothing to do with New Testament. But if the Jew accepts Jesus as Messiah, he can accept New Testament too. So depending what type of person you are talking about, they may have different interpretation of what scripture says. And Mohammad must have known that the arguments must have been about the interpretation of the text they were not agreeing upon. I mean, even Muslims to this day disagree upon interpretation of their Quran, does that mean because they argue about interpretation Quran is said to be corrupt?
The verse says “Yet they study the Book.”. (p.s. the brackets you put of are additions to the text) the word “yatluna” is translated as “study”, so it must be of the interpretation of what they studied they differed in, and not the text itself.

And also, later Sura’s say things like this

“How come they unto thee for judgment when they have the Torah”

“And let the People of the Gospel judge by what God has revealed in it.”

“The likeness of those who are entrusted with the Law of Moses, yet apply it not, is as the likeness of the *** carrying books. Wretched is the likeness of folk who deny the revelations of Allah.”

The problem is in the people not their Book.

“Say: "O People of the Book! ye have no ground to stand upon unless ye stand fast by the Law, the Gospel, and all the revelation that has come to you from your Lord."”

Again the problem is in the people, not the text of Book itself.

<HR>

<blockquote>#the people of the book, like the jews, christians etc who submit to One God are essentially muslim, it says those who believe in the hereafter, that submit their wills to Allah alone, work righteousness and give charity will be rewarded. it doesn't 'praise' the current corruptions they have, but rather it rewards those who follow the best of what is in them.# </blockquote>

Again, you have not proven that the Torah and Gospel are corrupt, thus any rational Christian or Jew will see this kind of argument you are bring to be baseless. I need to see proof.
<HR>

<blockquote>#from here we see that by distorting the Book by their tongues, they are teaching a corrupted message down the generations, and even today, you might think it is part of the Book, but it isnot from Allah.# </blockquote>

Again you are biasing your argument on what people said and not what there Book say. So far you haven’t produced any credible evidence of corruption of the Books. You have only brought up what people think. Give me proof.
<HR>

<blockquote>#like i said, people of the book, people, not the corrupted scriptures, of some are righteous.# </blockquote>

Again, you are claiming that the scriptures are corrupted but you produce no evidence.

In-fact,
Quran does not speak about any corruption of the Bible’s text.
But since Muslims [though not all] say the Quran says the Bible is corrupted, should I say that Quran is corrupted, because Muslims preach what is not in the text of Quran?

That’s hardly fare on Quran, is it? But that is exactly what you are doing here; you are condemning the Books because the people preach what they have not read.
So bring me proof of corruption of the TEXT not what people say or think.
<HR>

<blockquote>#the Quran confirms the scripture that went before it, and the Quran itself is the final revelation, it is guarded from corruption so we are told to judge between all the scriptures, and because we know the Quran has been protected, we have the criterion to judge between the other revelations.# </blockquote>

Again, I wait for proof from Quran to say that it is the final revelation. Also, you have failed to prove the corruption of the text of the Book of People of the Book, in light of Quran’s text..

Secondly there are plenty of verses that say Mohammad came to CONFIRM not SUPERSEED previous scriptures. If Mohammad came to supersede corrupted previous scriptures then why does the Quran tell the People o the Book to hold fast to their scriptures?
It’s quite weird. Muslim says one thing but Quran says another.

Quran asks Mohammad, may times, to ask the Christian and Jew if he is not sure about things. WHY? Because they have their with them the genuine books, which is with them.

5:68 “Say: 'O People of the Book! Ye have no ground to stand upon unless ye stand fast by the Law, the Gospel and all the revelation that has come to you from your Lord.”

3:79 “Be ye faithful servants of the Lord by virtue of your constant teaching of the Scripture and of your constant study thereof.”

These verses are addressed to the People of the Book. So, if Quran came to supersede the Books of the People of the Book, these verses are quite odd, aren’t they?

Don’t forget that Quran says that it came to the Arabs in Arabic tongue so they may know what is in right from wrong.

6:154-157 “We gave the Scripture unto Moses, complete for him who would do good, an explanation of all things, a guidance and a mercy, that they might believe in the meeting with their Lord.“ And this is a blessed Scripture which We have revealed. So follow it and ward off (evil), that ye may find mercy. Lest ye should say: The Scripture was revealed only to two sects [Jew? and Christian?] before us, and we in sooth were unaware of what they read; Or lest ye should say: If the Scripture had been revealed unto us, we surely had been better guided than are they.”

DID you read that???? It says that Arabic Quran came to the Arabs so they may know God’s warnings, and not because any of Gods book was corrupted.

46:12 “When before it there was the Scripture of Moses, an example and a mercy; and this is a confirming Scripture in the Arabic language, that it may warn those who do wrong and bring good tidings for the righteous.”

So I ask myself, why do you [among many muslins] contradict what your book says?
Of Quran, I haven’t come across any verse, which says Quran came as final revelation. I either haven’t read this verse in Quran OR this is just another Muslims belief.

And why do you say # we have the criterion to judge between the other revelations #, when Mohammad is told to ask the People of the Book about things he don’t know about? How can you Muslims Judge the Torah, Psalms, Gospel and all the Books that the People of the Book have if the majority of Muslims are ignorant of them?

I mean, should Muslims actually be allowed/have the right to Judge the Torah, Psalms, Gospel and all the books that is in the Bible if you haven’t [taken the time and effort to] read them and studied them? Your Quran says, “Follow not that of which you have not the knowledge. (17:36).” Now that is a good advice for you, isn’t it!
Quran contains only a fragment of what the Bible has, and of the story you read in your Quran, some are condensed and mixed up i.e. The Parable the Prophet Nathan tells King David in the Bible is turned into a real life event according to Quran, and Davis falls and repents in the same story for no reason at all? Quran also Mixes up the test [God asked] Gideon [to] gave his army with Solomon.

How can you Judge the Torah, Psalms Gospel, and all the Books in the Bible, when your Quran has so little information about prophets that are in the Bible? E.g. there are only 25 prophets named in Quran with fragments of their story, you can hardly judge the Bible with that kind of knowledge (c.f. sura 4.164; 40:78) can you?

I urge you, think again… its still “Quran .v. Muslim” who is right?

Edited by - C-R-O-W- on 01/06/2004 12:09:31

Edited by - C-R-O-W- on 01/06/2004 12:10:43

xp²

7th January 2004, 04:15

C-R-O-W-,

you are misunderstanding me, my previous post was like an addition to Tony's post. never before have i used the Quran to prove that previous scriptures are corrupted, that is not what the Quran was intended for, here is what i said.

it doesn't say anywhere outright and directly that 'that scripture has been corrupted', because the Quran was not intended to "tear down the previous scriptures" as one christian once put it. the Quran was sent to correct falsehoods (ie trinity) and to proclaim itself over all other religions.

the Quran does not say the previous scriptures have been totally corrupted. if i or any other muslim says the current scriptures you have today are not 100% authentic as divine, that is us muslims/people saying it, not the Quran.

I mean, even Muslims to this day disagree upon interpretation of their Quran, does that mean because they argue about interpretation Quran is said to be corrupt?

the disagreements you are talking about with muslims regarding interpretation, is with small trivial matters, such as something which is permissible and if it is to be encouraged or not, they don't disagree on something big as who the messiah is.

(p.s. the brackets you put of are additions to the text)

i didn't add anything in any brackets, i would not dare to play around with God's Word, the brackets are from the translator for clarification becoz the english language is not rich as arabic!

Your Quran says, “Follow not that of which you have not the knowledge. (17:36).” Now that is a good advice for you, isn’t it!

surah Al-Isrá (17.

33. Nor take life - which Allah has made sacred - except for just cause. And if anyone is slain wrongfully, we have given his heir authority (to demand Qisás or to forgive): but let him nor exceed bounds in the matter of taking life; for he is helped (by the Law).

34. Come not nigh to the orphan's property except to improve it, until he attains the age of full strength; and fulfill (every) engagement, for (every) engagement will be inquired into (on the Day of Reckoning).

35. Give full measure when ye measure, and weigh with a balance that is straight: that is the most fitting and the most advantageous in the final determination.

36. And pursue not that of which thou hast no knowledge; for surely the hearing, the sight, the heart, all of those shall be questioned of (on the Day of Reckoning).

and further in the same sura we see;

These are among the (precepts of) wisdom, which thy Lord has revealed to thee. Take not, with Allah, another object of worship, lest thou shouldst be thrown into Hell, blameworthy and rejected. [17:39]

yeah that sounds like good advice.

I mean, should Muslims actually be allowed/have the right to Judge the Torah, Psalms, Gospel and all the books that is in the Bible if you haven’t [taken the time and effort to] read them and studied them?

what you seem to have a problem understanding is, the Quran tells us to judge between them, and not to follow vain desires, meaning don't take something as lawful or truth when it has been forbidden to you in the Quran.

Also, you have failed to prove the corruption of the text of the Book of People of the Book, in light of Quran’s text..

ok you are a christian, answer these questions for me;

1. are you allowed to eat pork?
2. are you allowed to drink alcohol?
3. is Jesus a god? (trinity etc..).

if you can answer these, i will provide verses from Quran to show you.

Secondly there are plenty of verses that say Mohammad came to CONFIRM not SUPERSEED previous scriptures.

i said that Islam is to be proclaimed over all religion, not to tear down previous scriptures. following verse talks about the previous genuine revelations;

None of Our revelations do We abrogate or cause to be forgotten, but We substitute something better or similar: Knowest thou not that Allah Hath power over all things? [2:106]

once again, Quran is not here for what you think it is, it is to correct falshoods, and to give glad tidings to those in submission.

Quran does not directly say all previous scriptures are totally corrupted, but by reading the Quran and looking at what the other scriptures are saying today, we can correct the corruptions, just answer them questions, and you will know what i mean by the corruptions.

Yahya Sulaiman

7th January 2004, 06:19

Nice to see that I finally have some support in this thread. ;-) It gets hard (not to mention tedious) having to do everything on my own.

Now C-R-O-W, let me give you a broader version of my quote from Surah 2, which I think makes it pretty clear that it's the Jews corrupting their scripture that the Book is talking about.

002.067 And when Moses said unto his people: Lo! Allah commandeth you that ye sacrifice a cow, they said: Dost thou make game of us ? He answered: Allah forbid that I should be among the foolish!
002.068 They said: Pray for us unto thy Lord that He make clear to us what (cow) she is. (Moses) answered: Lo! He saith, Verily she is a cow neither with calf nor immature; (she is) between the two conditions; so do that which ye are commanded.
002.069 They said: Pray for us unto thy Lord that He make clear to us of what colour she is. (Moses) answered: Lo! He saith: Verily she is a yellow cow. Bright is her colour, gladdening beholders.
002.070 They said: Pray for us unto thy Lord that He make clear to us what (cow) she is. Lo! cows are much alike to us; and Lo! if Allah wills, we may be led aright.
002.071 (Moses) answered: Lo! He saith: Verily she is a cow unyoked; she plougheth not the soil nor watereth the tilth; whole and without mark. They said: Now thou bringest the truth. So they sacrificed her, though almost they did not.
002.072 And (remember) when ye slew a man and disagreed concerning it and Allah brought forth that which ye were hiding.
002.073 And We said: Smite him with some of it. Thus Allah bringeth the dead to life and showeth you His portents so that ye may understand.
002.074 Then, even after that, your hearts were hardened and became as rocks, or worse than rocks, for hardness. For indeed there are rocks from out which rivers gush, and indeed there are rocks which split asunder so that water floweth from them. And indeed there are rocks which fall down for the fear of Allah. Allah is not unaware of what ye do.
002.075 Have ye any hope that they will be true to you when a party of them used to listen to the word of Allah, then used to change it, after they had understood it, knowingly ?
002.076 And when they fall in with those who believe, they say: We believe. But when they go apart one with another they say: Prate ye to them of that which Allah hath disclosed to you that they may contend with you before your Lord concerning it ? Have ye then no sense ?
002.077 Are they then unaware that Allah knoweth that which they keep hidden and that which they proclaim ?
002.078 Among them are unlettered folk who know the Scripture not except from hearsay. They but guess.
002.079 Therefore woe be unto those who write the Scripture with their hands and then say, "This is from Allah," that they may purchase a small gain therewith. Woe unto them for that their hands have written, and woe unto them for that they earn thereby.

C-R-O-W-

7th January 2004, 06:54

Ok man, I think I got the wrong end of the stick of what you said then.

Anyways, Quran speaks about Christian and Jew who were living around Arabia, so when it comes to talking about corruption, weather small or big, Quran can only talk about the people around Arabia and the people Mohammad encountered. Don’t forget that Bible was in Jerusalem, Rome, Turkey, Cyprus, Syria, Iran, Iraq, Egypt, Cush (Eritrea, Ethiopia, Sudan) and many other places. I don’t think Quran has anything to say about the people in these places. Thus, corruption according to Quran is localised in the vicinity of Arabia.

Also, if, as you said, Quran came to correct falsehood, then if One was to ‘read the Bible in its right reading’ Quran is useless for that person, as he is going in the right path.

<blockquote>
ok you are a christian, answer these questions for me;
1. are you allowed to eat pork?
2. are you allowed to drink alcohol?
3. is Jesus a god? (trinity etc..).
</blockquote>

In The Old Covenant, God didn’t allow The Children of Israel to eat the flesh of swine. I believe this was part of their dietary law. Then in the New Covenant Jesus said,
“Jesus said, "Do you also still not understand? Don't you understand that whatever goes into the mouth passes into the belly, and then out of the body? But the things which proceed out of the mouth come out of the heart defile the man. For out of the heart come
forth evil thoughts,
murders,
adulteries,
sexual sins,
thefts,
false testimony,
and blasphemies.”

And quran says 3:50 Jesus came to “make lawful some of that which was forbidden unto you”

Alcohol in the Bible is not forbidden, but we are taught not to be dunk.
“do not be drunk with wine, in which is debauchery”

“You are all sons of light and sons of day; we are not of night, nor of darkness.
So then, we should not sleep, as the rest also do, but we should watch and be sober. For those sleeping sleep by night, and those having been drunk are drunk by night.”

“deacons are to be reverent, not double-tongued, not addicted to much wine, not greedy of ill gain”

“And so also the elder women, that they be in behaviour as becometh the fear of God; and not to be slanderers; and not to be addicted to much wine; and to be inculcators of good things,”

All good things come from God. It s God who created fruits and grapes, and it is for us to enjoy the good things God gives us. But, God does not give us good things so that we should misuse it. God has gives us choice, and free will, and with free will comes responsibility.

Thirdly, about Jesus, let me quote you something from Bible,
“Don't we all have one father? Hasn't one God created us?”

“For you are our Father, though Abraham doesn't know us, and Israel does not acknowledge us: you, Yahweh, are our Father; our Redeemer from everlasting is your name.”

“yet to us, on our part, there is one God, the Father, from whom are all things, and we in him; and one Lord, Jesus the Messiah, by whom are all things, and we also by him.”

Jesus says…….
“it is written, in the prophet: And they shall all be taught of God. Whoever, therefore, heareth from the Father, and learneth from him, cometh to me.”

“I ascended to my Father. But go to my brethren, and say to them: I ascend to my Father and your Father, and to my God and your God.”

“Him that is victorious, will I make a pillar in the temple of my God; and he shall not again go out: and I will write upon him the name of my God, and of the new Jerusalem which descendeth from heaven from my God, and my own new name.”

The Apostle Paul writes..
“And as by a man [Adam] came death, so also by a man [Jesus] came the reviviscence of the dead. For as it was by Adam, that all men die, so also by the Messiah they all live: every one in his order; the Messiah was the first-fruits; afterwards, they that are the Messiah's, at his coming. And then will be the end, when he [Jesus] shall have delivered up the kingdom to God the Father; when every prince, and every sovereign, and all powers shall have come to naught. For he [Jesus] is to reign, until he [Yahweh] shall put all his enemies under his [Jesus-Messiah’s] feet. And the last enemy, death, will be abolished. For he [Yahweh] hath subjected all under his [Jesus-Messiah’s] feet. But when he [Yahweh] said, that every thing is subjected to him [Jesus-Messiah], it is manifest that he [Yahweh] is excepted, who subjected all to him [Jesus-Messiah]. And when all shall be subjected to him, then the Son himself will be subject to him who subjected all to him, so that God [the Father/Yahweh] will be all in all.”

Read and understand, The Father is Yahweh, the self-exiting one. Jesus like everyone else is called Elohim [god] like you and I in the Psalms. (p.s. I dealt with this subject in one of the threads, I think it is this one, please read that, if u can find it.)

You have to try to understand what I am saying, in the Biblical way. Because, if you try to understand it in another way; you will confuse yourself.

Edited by - C-R-O-W- on 01/07/2004 01:00:39

Ronnie

7th January 2004, 10:37

Peace Crow,

I know this was for XP but I just had to point some things out:

You write:

In The Old Covenant, God didn’t allow The Children of Israel to eat the flesh of swine. I believe this was part of their dietary law. Then in the New Covenant Jesus said,
“Jesus said, "Do you also still not understand? Don't you understand that whatever goes into the mouth passes into the belly, and then out of the body? But the things which proceed out of the mouth come out of the heart defile the man..."

You can use this as an allowance to eat pork or anything else? Let's be honest here, is this a removal of a prohibition or a teaching of how to speak/act correctly? Of course you may disagree with the following and claim it's saying something else but I believe Jesus is stating that he is not here to change God's commands.

"Till heaven and earth pass, one jot or one tittle shall in no wise pass from the law, till all be fulfilled."

"And it is easier for heaven and earth to pass, than one tittle of the law to fail." Luke 16:17

"Think not that I am come to destroy the law, or the prophets: I am not come to destroy, but to fulfil." Matthew 5:17

So I really find it hard to believe that your quote, that has nothing to do with pork, changes the rules of God. Amazingly, you use the Qur'an to prove your point. You write:

And quran says 3:50 Jesus came to “make lawful some of that which was forbidden unto you”

You can't use that ;) Let me let you in on a little secret...pork is not to be consumed according to the Qur'an. It's still and always was forbidden. So whatever Jesus came to make lawful...pork was NOT one of them.

You write:

Alcohol in the Bible is not forbidden, but we are taught not to be dunk.

I simply disagree once more:

The LORD then spoke to Aaron, saying: "Do not drink wine or strong drink, neither you nor your sons with you, when you come into the tent of meeting, so that you will not die - it is a perpetual statute throughout your generations - and so as to make a distinction between the holy and the profane, and between the unclean and the clean, and so as to teach the sons of Israel all the statutes which the LORD has spoken to them through Moses." Leviticus 10: 8 - 11

[The angel said:] Now therefore, be careful not to drink wine or strong drink, nor eat any unclean thing. Judges 13: 4

Wine is a mocker, strong drink is raging, And whosoever is deceived thereby is not wise. Proverbs 20: 1

It is not for kings, O Lemuel, It is not for kings to drink wine, Or for rulers to desire strong drink. For they will drink and forget what is decreed, And pervert the rights of all the afflicted. Proverbs 31: 4 - 5

"For he will be great in the sight of the Lord; and he will drink no wine or liquor, and he will be filled with the Holy Spirit while yet in his mother's womb." Luke 1: 15

Now the deeds of the flesh are evident, which are: immorality, impurity, sensuality, idolatry, sorcery, enmities, strife, jealousy, outbursts of anger, disputes, dissensions, factions, envying, drunkenness, carousing, and things like these, of which I forewarn you, just as I have forewarned you, that those who practice such things will not inherit the kingdom of God. Galatians 5: 19 - 21

Excuse the Bible for not just saying it outright, but if you can pull the allowance of eating pork from the verse you quoted I have an easier time convincing just about anyone that alcohol is forbidden.

As for Jesus' godship, well to me it's all too plain. It seems that you don't believe in this doctrine so maybe I'm being redundant on this issue. If I am, pardon me. But at least you're half way there ;)

[/b]"And Jesus answered him, The first of all the commandments is, Hear, O Israel; The Lord our God is one Lord..." Mark 12:29[/b]

Regards