Who is the father of Jesus, if he is not the son of God or Joseph ?

[jude3]

Funny you should say that. The previous documentary in the series I was watching today was on the Galapagos - and that featured Darwin's finches. Evolution in action - and shown by science as well - DNA shows they are related species.

Yeah...I love that one. I like how scientists now confirm the finches are the same...eg the small beaks and the large beaks....how they ADAPT over time and season. Adaptation is a wonderful part of God's design. In a secular sense, we'd call it micro-evolution.

I'm sure you have an answer - but haven't in the past bothered to look it up - but do you deny the existence of dinosaurs and the process by which oil was formed from organic matter over millenia?

Don't know about the oil bit, sorry.

I like hiking and a bit of (easy) mountain climbing. I've seen fossils of sea creatures way up in mountains and hills - as well as the fossils in marble, for example. That accords with the earth not being 6000 years old.

I know, wild eh? If you kept hiking up to the North Pole, you can find fossil palm frongs.

[Shafique]

I agree, adaptation over time is wonderful. It is what Darwin called evolution by natural selection.

But don't fossils up mountains point to the fact that the earth isn't a few thousand years old, but that the mountains were formed millions of years ago by movements of the techtonic plates pushing up what was the ocean floor etc?

The beautiful landscapes and gorges forged by water flowing over millennia is also a miracle of God - and we can see how much canyons have changed over the past few thousand years, and can extrapolate backwards to how old these valleys and gorges actually are. Not a few thousand years old, but much much older.

Cheers,
Shafique

[jude3]

I agree, adaptation over time is wonderful. It is what Darwin called evolution by natural selection.

That would be true if we saw many transitional fossil records....sadly, they seem pretty hard to locate. Bummer. Let's just stick with micro evolution being adaptation of features WITHIN a kind.

But don't fossils up mountains point to the fact that the earth isn't a few thousand years old, but that the mountains were formed millions of years ago by movements of the techtonic plates pushing up what was the ocean floor etc?

Yeah, I know. Imagine how palms got up to the North Pole. Perhaps some nomadic Arabic tribe were taking them up there to trade...? Who know. But hold on...what does Genesis have to say on this point? The flood of Noah was world-wide and CATACLYSMIC in nature, with the text saying that even the ocean floors broke open. Wow. Imagine that...a literal reading of the text solving our 'dilemna'.

The beautiful landscapes and gorges forged by water flowing over millennia is also a miracle of God - and we can see how much canyons have changed over the past few thousand years, and can extrapolate backwards to how old these valleys and gorges actually are. Not a few thousand years old, but much much older.

Yeah, I love those gorges...and I've done some white water rafting....fantastic fun. You know, there's some gorges in Australia where the scientists remain baffled as to how they were formed...because some evidence clearly suggests the rock pattern was shaped very quickly...as if a tidal wave of 'sand' caused the smooth curved rock features. But becase of their myopic/secular world view, they are limited to 'forcing' the data into eons and hopefully relying on the "millions and millions of years ago..." But what does Genesis have to say on this point? Oh yeah, I've already answered that.

[jude3]

Oh, if you're speaking to your next secular scientific buddy...can you test your theory about Mary & Jesus....see what response you get. I'd be interested in that.

[Shafique]

But you seem to be missing the point with fossils - it takes much more than 6000 years for rocks to be formed and fossilised remains to turn up on mountains.

Was this all 'a miracle'? The flood in Noah's time doesn't explain early plant fossils in the North Pole, after all.

(Mammalian parthenogenesis is not unknown to science, you know. )

Cheers,
Shafique

[jude3]

But you seem to be missing the point with fossils - it takes much more than 6000 years for rocks to be formed and fossilised remains to turn up on mountains.

Yes, I'm dull. So, if a fish dies...and is then encased in hard sand...are you saying I have to wait for 6,000+ years for that to be fossilised...? I've seen them after 2 years. Maybe I'm missing something.

Was this all 'a miracle'?

You tell me. It was God speaking through the author of Genesis, Moses. Sounds pretty amazing to me.

The flood in Noah's time doesn't explain early plant fossils in the North Pole, after all.

How not so?

[Shafique]

A flood in the Middle East in the past 4 to 6 thousand years does not explain the fossilised remains of the earliest forms of prehistoric plants in the North Pole which are in rocks formed millions of years ago.

You've seen fossils that are 2 years old? Or do you mean fish bones? Fossils are where rock has taken the place of the organic material - and I'd be very impressed if you've seen this take place over 2 years!

Cheers,
Shafique

[jude3]

A flood in the Middle East in the past 4 to 6 thousand years does not explain the fossilised remains of the earliest forms of prehistoric plants in the North Pole which are in rocks formed millions of years ago.

I totally agree. What makes you say the flood was limited to the Middle East? Is the region known as Mesopotamia COMPLETELY surrounded by a ring of mountains to hold in the water???

You've seen fossils that are 2 years old? Or do you mean fish bones? Fossils are where rock has taken the place of the organic material - and I'd be very impressed if you've seen this take place over 2 years!

OK, five years. But your saying 6000 years...?

[Shafique]

So, you've seen fish bones fossilise after 5 years. Wow - I presume you have some basis for this tall tale?

It is customary to put a smiley when one is joking - but I laughed anyway.

Cheers,
Shafique

[jude3]

So, you've seen fish bones fossilise after 5 years. Wow - I presume you have some basis for this tall tale?

It is customary to put a smiley when one is joking - but I laughed anyway.

Cheers,
Shafique

[Nawawi619]

The very first Koran?

You're relying on a gross generalisation re "biblical scholars in textual criticism." Many of these so called scholars are not even believers. I hold in the inerrant nature of the scriptures, and reject the so-called 'oldest and most reliable' sianiticus and vaticanus texts. From these, we get our fruity liberal bibles. You say we worship the same God as in the OT...hence, the God of the OT said he would preserve his Word. Either God is puny, or we have the true bible today. As I've said often, there's no point with your argument re the bible's reliability...because we don't have the original Koran, nor direct copies. The notion of oral memory is also pathetic...because unless you can prove they're memorising the original, you have no validity in your argument. Hence, we are on the same playing field. Easy.

But, with your tone, I'm not interested in a discussion...as it is clear you are not interested in inquiry. Also, per my post on the other forum, you play the man, not the ball. Grow up, or remain alone in your posts on the forum.

I'm very comfortable with inquiry and learning. The fact is unless you are conversant in Biblical Hebrew or Greek, you are relying on the translations of scholars. It is not an either or with regards to the Bible. I dont accept your argument that if the bible is not true than God is puny. It is not black and white. The third option is The Bible as we have it now is not a reliable source to know God. It has been altered, changed, and not well preserved.

You can attack Biblical scholarship all you want. That just shows your immaturity and blind faith to the actual facts. That shows your learning on the Bible is not at a high level and restricted to your church rather than in scholarship. While its true that there are people who are not "believers" who are in the field, you are contradicting your own advice to me about playing the game not the man. Unlike your assertions, despite the person's background, their work is peer-reviewed by other scholars and those with off the wall theories that cannot be proven with evidence acceptable in Biblical scholarship quickly find themselves on the conspiracy theory shelf and ignored by serious biblical scholarship. There is an argument in scholarship that the closest the document to the source in terms of dating, the more likely it will be more reliable. Textus Receptus, the group of manuscripts accepted by your ilk is several centuries younger than the Codices of Sinaiticus and Vaticanus.

My point in addressing you is you recycle the same questions and debates on this forum hoping to snare an unsuspecting Muslim who hasn't seen your amateur scholarship on the Bible and even more horrendous knowledge of Islam. So in other words, and I'll repeat, you are a forum troll. If you dont know what that means, look it up in internet terminology. You tell me to grow up, I tell you to get a life. Stop bothering Muslims on their own forum. You claim to follow Christ yet you dont follow the golden rule.

[jude3]

You can attack Biblical scholarship all you want. That just shows your immaturity and blind faith to the actual facts. That shows your learning on the Bible is not at a high level and restricted to your church rather than in scholarship. While its true that there are people who are not "believers" who are in the field, you are contradicting your own advice to me about playing the game not the man. Unlike your assertions, despite the person's background, their work is peer-reviewed by other scholars and those with off the wall theories that cannot be proven with evidence acceptable in Biblical scholarship quickly find themselves on the conspiracy theory shelf and ignored by serious biblical scholarship. There is an argument in scholarship that the closest the document to the source in terms of dating, the more likely it will be more reliable. Textus Receptus, the group of manuscripts accepted by your ilk is several centuries younger than the Codices of Sinaiticus and Vaticanus.

My point in addressing you is you recycle the same questions and debates on this forum hoping to snare an unsuspecting Muslim who hasn't seen your amateur scholarship on the Bible and even more horrendous knowledge of Islam. So in other words, and I'll repeat, you are a forum troll. If you dont know what that means, look it up in internet terminology. You tell me to grow up, I tell you to get a life. Stop bothering Muslims on their own forum. You claim to follow Christ yet you dont follow the golden rule.

I've got a life..and my life is in Jesus (APAHTH)....!

I like how you say, snare an unsuspecting Muslim. Doc, for example, is a very solid Muslim...yet he's prepared to undertake various studies in the bible. So, with that openness, there's positive engagement. If someone doesn't wish to engage on that basis...that's cool...people are entitled to their veiw and approach. I say this though...your post confirms my view ...that, for many folk on this forum, it's really about 'intellectualism,' that is, the thrill of the debate....not a humble and contrite matter of coming to a very serious subject such as eternal life, love, forgiveness, sacrifice, sin etc. You're really only interested in the codex this, or the dietry law that...in other words, the peripheral, not the core.

Kind regards....

[Nawawi619]

I've got a life..and my life is in Jesus (APAHTH)....!

I like how you say, snare an unsuspecting Muslim. Doc, for example, is a very solid Muslim...yet he's prepared to undertake various studies in the bible. So, with that openness, there's positive engagement. If someone doesn't wish to engage on that basis...that's cool...people are entitled to their veiw and approach. I say this though...your post confirms my view ...that, for many folk on this forum, it's really about 'intellectualism,' that is, the thrill of the debate....not a humble and contrite matter of coming to a very serious subject such as eternal life, love, forgiveness, sacrifice, sin etc. You're really only interested in the codex this, or the dietry law that...in other words, the peripheral, not the core.

Kind regards....

I'm not naive as the others on this forum Jude. You've done enough mudslinging and denigration of Islam, the Quran, and the Prophet Muhammad (salla llahu alayhi wa sallam) as well as your self-righteous Christian missionary tone and tactics for me to believe in anything you say.

We don't need you to teach us about the subjects you mentioned because we have it in our own tradition. We have our sources. If I wanted to learn about Christian theology , or the Bible or what not I'll go to a Christian forum for that. This in case you forgot the title, is an Islamic forum (mostly based on the ideology of Javed Ghamidi) and there are threads where such topics are appropriate like the interfaith thread.

Also, based on your past behavior as well as current Jude, I don't see you acting Christ-like. My mother who is a devoted Catholic, acts more Christlike than you. I call it as it is...you are a forum troll. Those who have been on this forum know what you are all about. It's just the new forum members who get sucked into your troll trap

Definition of internet troll: In Internet slang, a troll is someone who posts inflammatory,extraneous, or off-topic messages in an online community, such as an online discussion forum, chat room, or blog, with the primary intent of provoking readers into an emotional response or of otherwise disrupting normal on-topic discussion.

The Islamic view of Jesus which is in the Quran is already been established...Jesus has no father but was born as a miracle by God, just as Adam was born without a mother or father. We also regard him as a messiah, a prophet and messenger but he is not God, not a partner of God, not God incarnate, not the son of God. If you try to convince us through the Bible, I already illustrated problems with the Bible being a reliable source about Jesus.

[Ron]

He's no longer with us...