Page 2 of 2 FirstFirst 12
Results 16 to 29 of 29

Thread: Ayat 28 Of Surat Kahfi Considered.

  1. #16
    Senior Member
    Join Date
    Jun 2013
    Posts
    563

    Default Re: Ayat 28 Of Surat Kahfi Considered.

    Quote Originally Posted by lumumba_s View Post
    And Jesus also said that he was sent to the Lost Sheep of the House of Israel and so his statements must be taken in the context of which they were said. Prior to his statement that you are so fond of, he said, "In my Father's house there are many mansions, if it were not so, I would have told you. I go to prepare a place for you (O Lost Sheep of Israel)" being that I am the prophet who was sent by God to you, "No one goes to the Father except through me" since me being the prophet sent to you, belief in God necessitates belief and following of me. Hence, whenever Jesus came across someone to whom he was not sent, he simply told them to follow the general moral commandments and did not encourage them to follow him, for to them he was not sent. And his Apostles continued to minister only to Jews in their temples and synagogues, believing that Jesus was not sent to the Gentiles and thus, the first Church and Temple in Jerusalem composed of his followers were made up entirely of Jews who accepted Jesus as the Messiah. Hence, Jesus is the prophet to the Jews and Muhammad became the prophet to the rest of mankind.
    I am impressed with the amount of Scripture you know. You are right, but you missed something. Jesus came unto his own but they didn't not receive Him, but as many as received Him, to them gave He the power to become the sons of God. Moreover, you missed the parable that Jesus gave and its significance. The parable was about all those invited to the wedding feast (Jews), but each of the invited turned down the invitation for all different reasons and the owner of the feast said go to the highway and hedges and invite everyone you see all of them (gentiles) all to come in; compel them to come. None of those invited at first will enter my feast or taste of the feast. It was for the Jews (Lost house of Israel), but now it is for all. It was God's plan. Muslims appear to be turning down the invitation as well, but at least they believe Jesus is a prophet, but I don't believe that is enough to enter or stay in the feast. Some got into the feast without a wedding garment, and the owner asked how they got in. They were speechless and the owner had them thrown out.
    Last edited by Burninglight; 10th January 2014 at 01:54.
    Jesus is not valued (at all) unless he is valued above all. Augustine

  2. #17
    Veteran Member lumumba_s's Avatar
    Join Date
    Sep 2005
    Location
    Toronto/Winston-Salem
    Posts
    5,710

    Default Re: Ayat 28 Of Surat Kahfi Considered.

    The parable of the wedding feast comes at an exchange between the Jewish aristocrats (Chief Rabbis/Priests, Pharisees and Scribes) and Jesus, the former of whom deemed it preposterous that he should ignore their position in society and instead focus on the common riff-raff which was following him. He was defending John the Baptist for doing the same, rebuking their established hierarchy and explaining his blatant disregard of the religious aristocracy who were used to being catered to and running the affairs of the Jewish community. There is nothing in the exchange to indicate the parable had anything to do with Gentiles. It was the religious leadership at the time which rejected Jesus, not the Jews as a whole, and so to claim that it is speaking about Jews/Gentiles is to ignore both the circumstances which brought about the parable's telling, the demographics of the people who responded to his call in his era and the activities of his disciples (God be well pleased with them) who faithfully continued preaching his message in the synagogues and temples where the Jews gathered as their master had always done.
    Last edited by lumumba_s; 10th January 2014 at 11:42.
    "Allah is the point. If it is other-than-Allah, then it is besides the point." - Nuh Ha Mim Keller

  3. #18
    Senior Member
    Join Date
    Jun 2013
    Posts
    563

    Default Re: Ayat 28 Of Surat Kahfi Considered.

    Quote Originally Posted by lumumba_s View Post
    The parable of the wedding feast comes at an exchange between the Jewish aristocrats (Chief Rabbis/Priests, Pharisees and Scribes) and Jesus, the former of whom deemed it preposterous that he should ignore their position in society and instead focus on the common riff-raff which was following him. He was defending John the Baptist for doing the same, rebuking their established hierarchy and explaining his blatant disregard of the religious aristocracy who were used to being catered to and running the affairs of the Jewish community. There is nothing in the exchange to indicate the parable had anything to do with Gentiles. It was the religious leadership at the time which rejected Jesus, not the Jews as a whole, and so to claim that it is speaking about Jews/Gentiles is to ignore both the circumstances which brought about the parable's telling, the demographics of the people who responded to his call in his era and the activities of his disciples (God be well pleased with them) who faithfully continued preaching his message in the synagogues and temples where the Jews gathered as their master had always done.
    Again, you never cease to impress me with your view of things. I am particularly interested in knowing why you became a Muslim; moreover, I'd like to comment that there sounds like truth in what you say here, and I never really looked at it exactly like this.

    However, I would like to add to this the vision God gave Peter when he saw a blanket coming down from heaven with all manner of creatures. God told Peter to slay and eat and Peter said "NO" He said, "Lord no unclean thing has ever come near my mouth" God said, "Call thou not unclean what the Lord has made clean" This represents that the kingdom of God was open and acceptable to God for all people groups, language and tongues along with different foods they ate.

    Of course I agree Jesus singled out the religious leaders who were jealous of Him, but most of the Jews followed them. The disciples and others that followed were few by comparison; so, I believe when Jesus said "And the slave said, 'Master, what you commanded has been done, and still there is room.' 23"And the master said to the slave, 'Go out into the highways and along the hedges, and compel them to come in, so that my house may be filled. 24'For I tell you, none of those men who were invited shall taste of my dinner.'" Luke 14 He was speaking of all people. Paul confirms this to be true. The wild olive branch has been grafted into the fold of God's clean and pure vine

    Peace
    Last edited by Burninglight; 10th January 2014 at 15:17.
    Jesus is not valued (at all) unless he is valued above all. Augustine

  4. #19
    Veteran Member lumumba_s's Avatar
    Join Date
    Sep 2005
    Location
    Toronto/Winston-Salem
    Posts
    5,710

    Default Re: Ayat 28 Of Surat Kahfi Considered.

    The vision Peter saw presents a different issue, but if Jesus' message what was Paul said it was the entire time, why did it take a vision, reinforced repeatedly, for Peter to do something that Jesus had allegedly already instructed him to do? And as I said, Paul was not one of the original disciples, so I cannot give any Divine authority to his interpretations, words or explanations, especially when they contradict Jesus' message, the original Apostles understanding or simple truth and logic. And I converted to Islam initially because I found its theology completely sound, along with it confirming what I essentially already believed, confirming my basic contentions about God. As I learned more about other facets of the religion, particularly its spirituality, it only increased my faith.
    Last edited by lumumba_s; 10th January 2014 at 18:09.
    "Allah is the point. If it is other-than-Allah, then it is besides the point." - Nuh Ha Mim Keller

  5. #20
    Senior Member
    Join Date
    Jun 2013
    Posts
    563

    Default Re: Ayat 28 Of Surat Kahfi Considered.

    Quote Originally Posted by lumumba_s View Post
    The vision Peter saw presents a different issue, but if Jesus' message what was Paul said it was the entire time, why did it take a vision, reinforced repeatedly, for Peter to do something that Jesus had allegedly already instructed him to do? And as I said, Paul was not one of the original disciples, so I cannot give any Divine authority to his interpretations, words or explanations, especially when they contradict Jesus' message, the original Apostles understanding or simple truth and logic. And I converted to Islam initially because I found its theology completely sound, along with it confirming what I essentially already believed, confirming my basic contentions about God. As I learned more about other facets of the religion, particularly its spirituality, it only increased my faith.
    Well, your testimony has me awestruck like I said.

    What different issues did Peter present with that vision? How does Paul go against the Scriptures or Jesus?

    How can this increase your faith?
    Jesus is not valued (at all) unless he is valued above all. Augustine

  6. #21
    Veteran Member lumumba_s's Avatar
    Join Date
    Sep 2005
    Location
    Toronto/Winston-Salem
    Posts
    5,710

    Default Re: Ayat 28 Of Surat Kahfi Considered.

    As the Qur'an states, the New Testament declares and the Old Testament establishes, the Jewish prophets were prophets for and to the Jews. And the issue is the issue of authenticity and reliability of the texts that we have not really gotten into and will undoubtedly disagree strongly upon. And Jesus was a reformer of Jewish law, while Paul completely undermined it. In his philosophy, he established the radical concept of salvation through belief alone, while Jesus represented a more moralistic perspective which reflects our belief about spirituality and salvation. So while Jesus came not to destroy the law, but to fulfill and reform aspects of it according to the conditions of his time and followers with Divine authority, Paul was completely hostile to Judaism, opposing all ritual and law which was he did not deem to be moralistic, a stance which was not shared by the original Apostles - hence controversies like the circumcision and dietary issues.

    As for how Islamic spirituality increased me in my faith, here is an example: Concerning the Affirmation of Divine Oneness. I consider the essential sinfulness and pessimism which Christianity holds towards humanity to be an insurmountable obstacle, rooted largely in the problem of believing in a God-man as the example of human perfection and the rejection of the idea of a Divine Law, which resulted from failing to accept our master Jesus for what he was and as a result, a reactionary stance of the other extreme against the excesses of Jewish legalism.
    Last edited by lumumba_s; 11th January 2014 at 01:24.
    "Allah is the point. If it is other-than-Allah, then it is besides the point." - Nuh Ha Mim Keller

  7. #22
    Senior Member
    Join Date
    Jun 2013
    Posts
    563

    Default Re: Ayat 28 Of Surat Kahfi Considered.

    Quote Originally Posted by lumumba_s View Post
    As the Qur'an states, the New Testament declares and the Old Testament establishes, the Jewish prophets were prophets for and to the Jews. And the issue is the issue of authenticity and reliability of the texts that we have not really gotten into and will undoubtedly disagree strongly upon. And Jesus was a reformer of Jewish law, while Paul completely undermined it. In his philosophy, he established the radical concept of salvation through belief alone, while Jesus represented a more moralistic perspective which reflects our belief about spirituality and salvation. So while Jesus came not to destroy the law, but to fulfill and reform aspects of it according to the conditions of his time and followers with Divine authority, Paul was completely hostile to Judaism, opposing all ritual and law which was he did not deem to be moralistic, a stance which was not shared by the original Apostles - hence controversies like the circumcision and dietary issues..
    But to the Jews, Jesus also appeared to be undermining the law like Paul appears to be doing to a Muslim's worldview. For instance, on the Sabbath, Jesus healed a man and told him to carry his bed. The Jews rebuked the man for carrying his bed, but the man said to the Jews, "The man that healed me told to take up my bed" This made the religious leaders angry and self-righteous. Jesus did all kinds of things that appeared to break the law and yet He said, "I have not come to destroy the law but fulfill it."

    Muslims have totally missed what Jesus was saying. Jesus means He is the fulfillment of the law, He is the truth ,the life and the way. Paul was a stickler to the law more than any Jew for he was a Pharisee himself, but Jesus had to knock him off his horse to get his attention. Now Paul understood. All Muslims that convert to Christianity are Muslims that Jesus knocked off their high horse, and they now consider themselves blessed beyond description.

    Quote Originally Posted by lumumba_s View Post
    As for how Islamic spirituality increased me in my faith, here is an example: Concerning the Affirmation of Divine Oneness. I consider the essential sinfulness and pessimism which Christianity holds towards humanity to be an insurmountable obstacle, rooted largely in the problem of believing in a God-man as the example of human perfection and the rejection of the idea of a Divine Law, which resulted from failing to accept our master Jesus for what he was and as a result, a reactionary stance of the other extreme against the excesses of Jewish legalism.
    Basically, you are having trouble seeing Jesus as the son of God. When God said, "This is my beloved son..." you reject it, because you have been taught in Islam that the corrupt Bible states that, but what if the Bible is not corrupted and you've been lied to by slaves of the best of deceivers?
    You see we both have different worldviews. You see the central gospel message as corrupt, and I see that you have received a lying corrupt message from the best of deceivers. IOW, I see you has in deep deception. It took the Deceiver 700 years after the gospel message was received to devise the best of his plans which was deception about the death and resurrection of Jesus. Jesus predicted His death three times in the Bible; Islam makes him out to be a false prophet if he didn't die and rise like he said.

    Peace
    Last edited by Burninglight; 11th January 2014 at 05:17.
    Jesus is not valued (at all) unless he is valued above all. Augustine

  8. #23
    Veteran Member lumumba_s's Avatar
    Join Date
    Sep 2005
    Location
    Toronto/Winston-Salem
    Posts
    5,710

    Default Re: Ayat 28 Of Surat Kahfi Considered.

    Quote Originally Posted by Burninglight View Post
    But to the Jews, Jesus also appeared to be undermining the law like Paul appears to be doing to a Muslim's worldview. For instance, on the Sabbath, Jesus healed a man and told him to carry his bed. The Jews rebuked the man for carrying his bed, but the man said to the Jews, "The man that healed me told to take up my bed" This made the religious leaders angry and self-righteous. Jesus did all kinds of things that appeared to break the law and yet He said, "I have not come to destroy the law but fulfill it." Muslims have totally missed what Jesus was saying. Jesus means He is the fulfillment of the law, He is the truth ,the life and the way. Paul was a stickler to the law more than any Jew for he was a Pharisee himself, but Jesus had to knock him off his horse to get his attention. Now Paul understood. All Muslims that convert to Christianity are Muslims that Jesus knocked off their high horse, and they now consider themselves blessed beyond description.
    The Pharisees had a hypocritical relationship with the law and Jesus' actions, if we accept that they happened, entailed him showing them their hypocrisy. If you read, Jewish Religion, Jewish History: The Weight of Three Thousand Years, it becomes clearly obvious the attitude which Jesus was attempting to reform in the Jews who, according to the author, believed God "was a fool who fell for their simple tricks". The rabbis thought themselves interpreters of the law, simply made up somethings which entailed hardship for themselves, created "dispensations" for others which made absolutely no sense, at other times created loopholes which implied that God was an idiot who could not reason and frequently refused to enact punishments upon "respected" members of society, having no compassion for the commoner. So they milked cows on the Sabbath by a cooperative effort, devised crafty ways to blatantly undermine agricultural restrictions, but blamed Jesus for healing someone on the Sabbath... The Pharisees did not have a "strict adherence to the law", they had a hypocritical one which entailed an excessive legalism that resulted in absurdities that I cannot blame Christians for rejecting if they accept that their view is how things were supposed to be. We accept that Jesus, as a prophetic messenger, had every right and authority to "break" whatever law he saw fit, as he had Divine authority, and most of the laws he "broke" were merely restrictions the Jews had placed upon themselves without any Divine or prophetic authority. However, our issue with Jesus breaking laws is that they are often presented as an absurd instance of Jesus rebuking, not simply abrogating, a law that he had allegedly established in the first place. Jesus was a reformer, sent to a specific group of people steeped in hypocritical legalism in order to to return them to the spirituality that the religion was supposed to nurture. As for Paul, his relationship with the law is evident in his letters and it entails throwing about the baby with the bath water. The entire dispute which occurred between Paul and the original Apostles (as recorded in Acts), was precisely because of Paul's disregard for the ritual side of the law and his teaching that Gentiles did not have to follow anything but moral codes, disputing with those like Peter who upheld and maintained it. Paul had no regard for any law that was not moral, despised "ritual" (as evidenced by your attitude), while the Apostles upheld and maintained the Law, following them according to their spirit and original intent, as Jesus had explained to them, purifying them of the distortions of the Pharisees. Hence, the controversy of circumcision and dietary laws which resulted in Paul and his converts splitting off from the original Apostles and their Jewish followers as a result of irreconcilable opinions in regard to those two particular things which represented the two ritualistic laws which Paul rejected, but the original Apostles clearly did not, to the point where even Barnabus (who initially supported him) departed from him. As we already discussed the context of "the truth, the light, the way" statement and you regurgitate it again out of context as if it is relevant, I don't entertain much hope that we will continue with this conversation for much longer. If you are just going to "minister" to me, then we can go our separate ways.

    Quote Originally Posted by Burninglight
    Basically, you are having trouble seeing Jesus as the son of God. When God said, "This is my beloved son..." you reject it, because you have been taught in Islam that the corrupt Bible states that, but what if the Bible is not corrupted and you've been lied to by slaves of the best of deceivers? You see we both have different worldviews. You see the central gospel message as corrupt, and I see that you have received a lying corrupt message from the best of deceivers. IOW, I see you has in deep deception. It took the Deceiver 700 years after the gospel message was received to devise the best of his plans which was deception about the death and resurrection of Jesus. Jesus predicted His death three times in the Bible; Islam makes him out to be a false prophet if he didn't die and rise like he said.
    I do not have a problem seeing Jesus as the son of God, as the Bible asserted many to be the "Son of God" and it was a euphemism for a prophet who was considered great in God's eyes, like David and Solomon who are referred to by the same title. I have a problem with someone claiming that Jesus is the literal Son of God in the way that a Greek would understand such a statement. I already discussed this as well, to which I do not recall you responding. That is to say nothing of the confusion which such a belief entails, which Christians themselves cannot work out, in respect to Jesus' alleged Divinity and how that colors interpretations of problematic instances in the New Testament. As for the corruption of the Bible, it is an established, demonstrable fact. Part of that corruption lies in a manipulation of content and part of that corrupt lies in a manipulation of translation. That there can be no certainty regarding who authored the New Testament and that much of the New Testament contains either intentionally or unintentional fabrications is accepted as true among Biblical scholars. That Mathew, Mark, Luke and John are mere attributions, with no certain proof of their authorship is historical fact. That half of Paul's letters are outright fabrications or mis-attributions by individuals either claiming to be Paul or pretending to be Paul is an accepted fact. That Revelations was not authored by the John, the Apostle, is accepted as fact by historians. Not to mention the letters of Peter and the few remaining letters which are left. When you add it all up, it results in the fact that the majority of what comprises the New Testament are at best from anonymous authors upon whom it would be foolish to based one's beliefs of, if not outright liars who claimed to be people they were not - a well document phenomenon of early Christian sectarian polemics. This is also ignoring the fact that repeatedly, Matthew (if I remember correctly), misquotes the Old Testament time and time again when allegedly recounting Jesus' teachings, which entails that either Jesus did not know the Old Testament or the author of the Matthew did not, either way which poses a problem for people who claim that it is a Divinely inspired text (though the texts themselves do not claim to be Divinely inspired and in fact, Luke explicitly states that it is not). To mention nothing of blatant contradictions like Jesus allegedly saying that "nothing is of God's creation is unclean", when God Himself clearly referred to particular animals as unclean in the Old Testament and the original Apostles continued to uphold the relevant dietary laws related to purity, even after Jesus allegedly taught them otherwise. And to say nothing of the absurdity which Trinitarian belief entails, in that God completely hid His nature from His greatest prophets and both punished, judged and oppressed them with a law that He knew they could not fulfill, essentially creating a loophole out of His own rule as an act of "mercy" to humanity after burdening them for so long. As for Jesus and his death, we do not need to discuss the Qur'an, for the New Testament itself makes Jesus out to be a liar if you accept it as authentic, since he most certainly did not return when he said he would.

    Christians who convert to Islam come to understand precisely what the Qur'an means when it says it came to confirm the truth which is still retained in the previous scriptures and correct that which has been lost or distorted. We can play the convert game all day my friend. I can point to a number of ministers, pastors and scholars who left Christianity (both Protestant and Catholic) and converted to Islam after learning Arabic, learning about Muhammad from authentic sources and studying the religion for themselves - a good number of my teachers and community leaders being included among them. Not to mention that I myself am the grandson of an ordained minister and son of a deacon. How many of your Muslim converts to Christianity that you keep referring to were actual scholars, learned in Arabic, fiqh, history, hadith and the Qur'anic sciences? I myself, thus far have yet to meet one, though I have met plenty of ignorant Muslims who were converted away from a faith they barely understood. Most Christians are woefully ignorant of Islam, which turns out often to be the primary reason why so many convert after hearing the truth and realizing that they have been intentionally lied to. That ultimately does not matter, as these are issues of personal convictions. But the reason why Muslims can hear the Gospel and still remain in Islam is that if we aren't already converts from Christianity ourselves or from historically Christian families and communities (like myself), any Muslim who knows his religion already knows and loves Jesus (peace be upon him). We also know and love God and will not accept His Oneness being sullied with the philosophical ruminations of an illogical creed. I myself embraced Christianity and rejected Islam (to the degree that I burned my copy of the Qur'an) before I eventually converted to Islam a short time later, so if anything, it could be said that Jesus lead me to Muhammad.
    Last edited by lumumba_s; 11th January 2014 at 06:44.
    "Allah is the point. If it is other-than-Allah, then it is besides the point." - Nuh Ha Mim Keller

  9. #24
    Senior Member
    Join Date
    Jun 2013
    Posts
    563

    Default Re: Ayat 28 Of Surat Kahfi Considered.

    Quote Originally Posted by lumumba_s View Post
    The Pharisees had a hypocritical relationship with the law and Jesus' actions, if we accept that they happened, entailed him showing them their hypocrisy. If you read, Jewish Religion, Jewish History: The Weight of Three Thousand Years, it becomes clearly obvious the attitude which Jesus was attempting to reform in the Jews who, according to the author, "was a fool who they Jews believed fell for their tricks" in which the rabbis thought themselves interpreters of the law, created "dispensations" which made absolutely no sense, and created loopholes which implied that God was an idiot. We accept that Jesus, as a prophet, had every right and authority to "break" whatever law he saw fit, as most of the laws he "broke" were merely restrictions the Jews had placed upon themselves without any Divine or prophetic authority. ?
    Yes, Jesus did this as well, but the Sabbath was a divine law given by Moses. The man Jesus healed was told by Jesus to carry his bed. That was breaking the Sabbath. Jesus is the unique son of God; that is why He was born of a virgin. He wasn't sired by God, but He is the culmination of all the sons of God in that He is as JN 3: 16 states.


    Quote Originally Posted by lumumba_s View Post
    As for Paul, his relationship with the law is evident in his letters and it entails throwing about the baby with the bath water. The entire dispute which occurred between Paul and the original Apostles, was precisely regarding Paul's disregard for the law and his teaching that Gentiles did not have to follow the Law and disputing with those like Peter who upheld and maintained it. Paul had no regard for any law that was not moral, despised ritual, while the Apostles upheld and maintained the laws, following them according to their spirit and original intent, as Jesus had explained to them. Hence, the controversy of circumcision and dietary laws which resulted in Paul and his converts splitting off from the original Apostles and their Jewish followers as a result of irreconcilable opinions in regard to those two particular things which represented the two ritualistic laws which Paul rejected, but the original Apostles clearly did not. As we already discussed the context of "the truth, the light, the way" statement and you regurgitate it again out of context as if it is relevant, I don't entertain much hope that we will continue with this conversation for much longer.
    Even scholars like Bart Erhman who are hostile toward the Bible admit that Paul wrote all his letters. Paul is saying that those who follow the law had better do it perfectly otherwise they will be judged by it. Since no one can keep the law perfectly, it is sure damnation. We keep the law through Jesus. He is our all in all and He changes us to be conformed to the image of God's son. I have hope enough for both of us to continue the conversation.

    Quote Originally Posted by lumumba_s View Post
    I do not have a problem seeing Jesus as the son of God, as the Bible asserted many to be the "Son of God" and it was a euphemism for a prophet who was considered great in God's eyes, like David and Solomon who are referred to by the same title. I have a problem with someone claiming that Jesus is the literal Son of God in the way that a Greek would understand such a statement. I already discussed this as well, to which I do not recall you responding. That is to say nothing of the confusion which such a belief entails, which Christians themselves cannot work out, in respect to Jesus' alleged Divinity and how that colors interpretations of problematic instances in the New Testament.
    Yes you do have a problem seeing it the way the God means it in the Bible.

    Quote Originally Posted by lumumba_s View Post

    As for the corruption of the Bible, it is an established, demonstrable fact. Part of that corruption lies in a manipulation of content and part of that corrupt lies in a manipulation of translation. That there can be no certainty regarding who authored the New Testament and that much of the New Testament contains either intentionally or unintentional fabrications is accepted as true among Biblical scholars. That Mathew, Mark, Luke and John are mere attributions, with no certain proof of their authorship is historical fact.
    Scholars agree there are thousands of variances in the Bible, but 90% of it are nonsense errors and the rest is word order. We didn't have a Christian Uthman who burned the copies so we have hundreds upon hundreds to compare and contrast enough to get the central message clear enough such as all Bible in all version agree that Jesus died for our sin and rose from the dead and that He is the son of God the hope of glory.
    Quote Originally Posted by lumumba_s View Post
    That half of Paul's letters are outright fabrications or mis-attributions by individuals either claiming to be Paul or pretending to be Paul is an accepted fact. That Revelations was not authored by the John, the Apostle, is accepted as fact by historians. Not to mention the letters of Peter and the few remaining letters which are left. This is also ignoring the fact that repeatedly, Matthew (if I remember correctly), misquotes the Old Testament time and time again when allegedly recounting Jesus' teachings, which entails that either Jesus did not know the Old Testament or the author of the Matthew did not, either way which poses a problem for people who claim that it is a Divinely inspired text. To mention nothing of blatant contradictions like Jesus allegedly saying that "nothing is of God's creation is unclean", when God Himself clearly referred to particular animals as unclean and the original Apostles continued to uphold such dietary laws, even after Jesus allegedly taught them otherwise. And to say nothing of the absurdity which Trinitarian belief entails, in that God completely hid His nature from His greatest prophets and both punished, judged and oppressed them with a law that He should have known they could not fulfill, essentially creating a loophole out of His own rule as an act of "mercy" to humanity. As for Jesus and his death, we do not need to discuss the Qur'an, for the New Testament itself makes Jesus out to be a liar if you accept it as authentic, since he most certainly did not return when he said he would and all of his Apostles are long gone, though he allegedly promised that he would return while before "some of those standing here" taste death. And in that, Christians who convert to Islam come to understand precisely what the Qur'an means when it says it came to confirm the truth which is still retained in the previous scriptures and correct that which has been lost or distorted. We can play the convert game all day my friend. I can point to a number of ministers, pastors and scholars who left Christianity and converted to Islam after learning Arabic and studying the religion for themselves, a good number of my teachers and religious leaders being included among them. Not to mention that I myself am the grandson of an ordained minister and son of a deacon. How many of your Muslim converts to Christianity that you keep referring to were actual scholars, learned in Arabic, fiqh, history and the Qur'anic sciences?
    As I mentioned even Bart Erhman who is hostile toward the Bible and Muslims quote him a lot. He admits that Paul is the author of all his letters recorded in the Bible and I believe that.
    Jesus is not valued (at all) unless he is valued above all. Augustine

  10. #25
    Veteran Member lumumba_s's Avatar
    Join Date
    Sep 2005
    Location
    Toronto/Winston-Salem
    Posts
    5,710

    Default Re: Ayat 28 Of Surat Kahfi Considered.

    I have three corrections and then I am done. "Yes, Jesus did this as well, but the Sabbath was a divine law given by Moses." The Sabbath was a Divine Law given by God, directly, as evidence by Exodus 20:7, in which God Himself is speaking. This is important because the justification of many Christians, particularly those of Paul's understanding, is that Jesus broke Mosiac Law, when often he broke the Law that was revealed to Moses, which entails God rebuking or criticizing His own Law in some instances, if you believe that Jesus is in fact God - a logical absurdity and unexplainable contradiction, "unclean animals" being the best example.

    "As I mentioned even Bart Erhman who is hostile toward the Bible and Muslims quote him a lot. He admits that Paul is the author of all his letters recorded in the Bible and I believe that." Being that I have read at least two of Bart Erhman's books, I know that is in fact not true, as Erhman devotes entire chapters of Forged to proving that Paul could not and did not author many of the letters that are attributed to him in the New Testament, many of which were outright forgeries by individuals claiming to be Paul who clearly were not. So either you are an intentional liar, a sloppy reader or have not look at Erhman since his first popular publication.

    As for Uthman and the Qur'an, it is most certainly not true that the Biblical errors are merely nonsense or word order. There are entire sections which have been added, significant words which have been changed and passages which are included as Scripture which originally were not. The most famous example is the story of Mary of Magdalene, which was originally a tale which was floating around that a scribe decided should be added into the text and it thereafter became Scripture and the basis of the Pauline attitude Christians claim Jesus had toward the Law, being an example of him clearly disregarding it, when it is a story which clearly was not originally Scripture. This is in addition to John 3:16, which orders a universality which is contradicted internally by others parts of the Bible, including Acts, as we have already discussed and which the New Revised Standard Committee kept out of the initial critical editions of the Bible, but replaced after they received death threats by their fellow Christians who understood the significance of their research that it was not in the earlier manuscripts. Many of the changes of the Bible are profound and reflect intentional distortions of the text. As for Uthman, unlike the New Testament, the Muslims had a text from the very beginning, which was both memorized by the community at large and written down by a few individuals who had the ability and materials to compose a book. What Uthman did was produce an authoritative copy of the text, through the collective collaboration of the entire community, essentially any and everyone who had memorized any verses of the Qur'an and had burnt any personal copies which by definition did not have the benefit of the cross referencing his codex had and potentially contained the expected transcription errors that people make. Please do not compare the New Testament to the Qur'an. There is none. Most of the "manuscripts" are in fact mere fragments and at least a century passed before entire books/letters were found and unlike the Qur'an, there was NO TEXT during Jesus' time or immediately afterwards to speak of. Instead, you had the recollections of people, which is a far cry from the writings of Moses, David and Solomon or the Qur'an, recolletions themselves are only as authoritative as the individuals who composed them. So while letters were passed between Churches by barely literal people to congregations full of illiterate individuals who could not read for themselves well into the 1600s, the Qur'an was memorized in parts or whole by every man, woman and child at the time, which establishes a textual transmission which Christians historians are want to ignore in their desperate attempts to hold the written copies of the Qur'an to standards that the New Testament itself does not meet. If you want a real, accurate and faithful explanation/history/summary of the Qur'an's preservation and transmission, I would encourage you to read Muhammad al-Azami's A History of the Qur'an Text, which has the dual benefit of comparing the Qur'anic text to the Old (which he does purely by citing Old Testament verses) and New Testament, in order to provide some balance to the deceptive efforts of Biblical historians who have established the sort of revisionist history to which you repeatedly have alluded to.
    Last edited by lumumba_s; 11th January 2014 at 07:22.
    "Allah is the point. If it is other-than-Allah, then it is besides the point." - Nuh Ha Mim Keller

  11. #26
    Senior Member
    Join Date
    Jun 2013
    Posts
    563

    Default Re: Ayat 28 Of Surat Kahfi Considered.

    Quote Originally Posted by lumumba_s View Post
    I have three corrections and then I am done. "Yes, Jesus did this as well, but the Sabbath was a divine law given by Moses." The Sabbath was a Divine Law given by God, directly, as evidence by Exodus 20:7, in which God Himself is speaking. This is important because the justification of many Christians, particularly those of Paul's understanding, is that Jesus broke Mosiac Law, when often he broke the Law that was revealed to Moses, which entails God rebuking or criticizing His own Law in some instances, if you believe that Jesus is in fact God - a logical absurdity and unexplainable contradiction, "unclean animals" being the best example..
    That is fine, but I need to make some corrections to your corrections. No one said Jesus broke any of God's laws. It only appeared that way to the Jews. Jesus didn't come to break God's laws but to fulfill them and in Him and only through Him can we fulfill the law to satisfy God; otherwise, we will be judged by the law and what we think we are protecting becomes our condemning judge.

    The Bible never said Jesus is God the father or God the son independent of the father, but it does say He is the son of God or His word incarnate (Firstborn or only begotten not made) not sired by God has many Muslim misconstrue about Christianity.

    Paul never said Jesus broke the law; he said we have become dead to the law by the body of Christ. There is no law for those in Christ and who walk after the spirit and not the flesh, because Jesus already fulfilled it us, and we have become the righteousness of Christ to God as it had been imputed on us through His death on the cross. PTL He became sin (Our sin) and those of us that receive Him receive power to become righteous sons of God. That doesn't mean we don't fail in our walk, but we are a work in progress and Jesus who started the work in us will finish it. Like even the Quran said, we people of the book have become the most upright.
    Quote Originally Posted by lumumba_s View Post
    "As I mentioned even Bart Erhman who is hostile toward the Bible and Muslims quote him a lot. He admits that Paul is the author of all his letters recorded in the Bible and I believe that." Being that I have read at least two of Bart Erhman's books, I know that is in fact not true, as Erhman devotes entire chapters of Forged to proving that Paul could not and did not author many of the letters that are attributed to him in the New Testament, many of which were outright forgeries by individuals claiming to be Paul who clearly were not. So either you are an intentional liar, a sloppy reader or have not look at Erhman since his first popular publication..
    I don't read Bart's books, I heard him say that verbally when responding to a Muslim who doubted the authenticity of Paul's writings that Paul's letters are written by him. I never intentionally lied to you or anyone on this forum about anything!
    Quote Originally Posted by lumumba_s View Post
    As for Uthman and the Qur'an, it is most certainly not true that the Biblical errors are merely nonsense or word order. There are entire sections which have been added, significant words which have been changed and passages which are included as Scripture which originally were not. The most famous example is the story of Mary of Magdalene, which was originally a tale which was floating around that a scribe decided should be added into the text and it thereafter became Scripture and the basis of the Pauline attitude Christians claim Jesus had toward the Law, being an example of him clearly disregarding it, when it is a story which clearly was not originally Scripture. This is in addition to John 3:16, which orders a universality which is contradicted internally by others parts of the Bible, including Acts, as we have already discussed and which the New Revised Standard Committee kept out of the initial critical editions of the Bible, but replaced after they received death threats by their fellow Christians who understood the significance of their research that it was not in the earlier manuscripts. Many of the changes of the Bible are profound and reflect intentional distortions of the text. As for Uthman, unlike the New Testament, the Muslims had a text from the very beginning, which was both memorized by the community at large and written down by a few individuals who had the ability and materials to compose a book. What Uthman did was produce an authoritative copy of the text, through the collective collaboration of the entire community, essentially any and everyone who had memorized any verses of the Qur'an and had burnt any personal copies which by definition did not have the benefit of the cross referencing his codex had and potentially contained the expected transcription errors that people make. Please do not compare the New Testament to the Qur'an. There is none. Most of the "manuscripts" are in fact mere fragments and at least a century passed before entire books/letters were found and unlike the Qur'an, there was NO TEXT during Jesus' time or immediately afterwards to speak of. Instead, you had the recollections of people, which is a far cry from the writings of Moses, David and Solomon or the Qur'an, recolletions themselves are only as authoritative as the individuals who composed them. So while letters were passed between Churches by barely literal people to congregations full of illiterate individuals who could not read for themselves well into the 1600s, the Qur'an was memorized in parts or whole by every man, woman and child at the time, which establishes a textual transmission which Christians historians are want to ignore in their desperate attempts to hold the written copies of the Qur'an to standards that the New Testament itself does not meet. If you want a real, accurate and faithful explanation/history/summary of the Qur'an's preservation and transmission, I would encourage you to read Muhammad al-Azami's A History of the Qur'an Text, which has the dual benefit of comparing the Qur'anic text to the Old (which he does purely by citing Old Testament verses) and New Testament, in order to provide some balance to the deceptive efforts of Biblical historians who have established the sort of revisionist history to which you repeatedly have alluded to.
    I know the story in the Bible about that woman is not found in the original manuscripts, but that doesn't mean it isn't true through story tradition. Besides, if it is not true, it doesn't hurt the central gospel message. the most that would happen is we just lose a beautiful story. It is not like you found a true document stating Jesus never died and rose from the dead.

    I also know about the interpolation in the book John written by an over zealous scribe that was removed about the three being one. Because we didn't have a Christian Uthman to burn the evidence, we were able to do that, but that is not the case with the Quran; therefore, you cannot prove the Quran had been perfectly preserved since it was compiled and recompiled until after Muhammad's death and the text Uthman used (not memory) to help him do it was destroyed as well. He did receive a divine mandate to put the Quran to writing. Quran means say not write. The Bible holds its own.

    Allah even told you his word is unalterable and cannot be changed. He meant all his word not just the Quran. My point, if the Bible is corrupted or any of the Scriptures that came before then so is the Quran, and as a result all of Islam would be weighing in the balances found wanting. Moreover, there is no evidence that the Scriptures that came before confirm Muhammad a prophet. Muslim scholars only base it on poor inferences from the Bible. The inferences scholars have made about Allah's misconceptions about the Biblical tri-unity of God is well founded. I am amazed that you cannot see what I am talking about.

    peace
    Last edited by Burninglight; 11th January 2014 at 16:16.
    Jesus is not valued (at all) unless he is valued above all. Augustine

  12. #27
    Senior Member
    Join Date
    Jun 2013
    Posts
    563

    Default Re: Ayat 28 Of Surat Kahfi Considered.

    More clarification in regards to our dialogue above. Like Moses held up the serpent in the wilderness and the children of Israel were saved from their sin when they looked at the serpent. This is obviously indicative of Christ who said if I be lifted up I will draw all men onto me. Jesus becoming sin for us set us free from the curse of sin and death. He became a curse so we could be blessed; He died so we could live; He became poor so we could be rich, and that is why Jesus said, You will die in your sin unless you believe I am He. Who is He? He is the I am before ABRAHAM. John the Baptist said, "I must decrease but He most increase." Who must increase? Jesus must increase in our lives or we shall never be with Him and the father!

    In Ayat 28 of Surat Kahfi of the Qur'an (18:28) says:--

    "AND OBEY NOT HIM WHOSE HEART WE HAVE MADE HEEDLESS OF OUR REMEMBRANCE,
    ONE WHO FOLLOWS HIS OWN LUSTS AND WHOSE AFFAIR HAS BEEN LOST AND WASTED".

    You see even that agrees with Paul. It is the heart that corrupts and it is naturally evil wanting only lust, and only through Christ can our hearts be made pure. That is why Jesus said, "No one comes to God/Allah except through me" We were born in sin like the prophet David said he was! We need salvation. Whose heart had been made heedless? The heart that refuses to accept Jesus as their only hope of salvation. Only through Christ we stand all other ground is sinking sand.

    Think about it. Jesus said, the Kingdom of heaven is like the wise man who heeds Jesus word who built his house on the rock. When the rain and wind came, the house stood firm for it was founded on the rock. Jesus is that Rock of our salvation. The fool is the man who didn't heed Jesus and built his house on the sand. When the rain and wind came, great was the destruction of his house!
    Last edited by Burninglight; 11th January 2014 at 16:44.
    Jesus is not valued (at all) unless he is valued above all. Augustine

  13. #28
    Veteran Member lumumba_s's Avatar
    Join Date
    Sep 2005
    Location
    Toronto/Winston-Salem
    Posts
    5,710

    Default Re: Ayat 28 Of Surat Kahfi Considered.

    You are very selective in what you respond to and make statements while completely ignoring what we have already discussed in the past, so this will be my last post, as I do not like wasting my time and I have other things to do.

    1) There is not a single book of the New Testament which can be traced back to the Apostles, so the existence of flawed and manipulated manuscripts is only evidence against you. And if you would actually read Bart Erhman, who himself for the majority of his life was a practicing and believing Evangelical, you would realize the extent to which this is true.

    2) God promises that He will preserve the Qur'an, to claim that this applies to the previous Scriptures is a false claim and is demonstrably untrue. It was upon the previous communities to preserve their Scriptures and the very way the Qur'an was revealed and disseminated among the community distinguishes it from every revelation which proceeded it.

    3) Uthman did not "burn evidence", he created a critical edition of the Qur'an, well before such time there was even a cannonization of the New Testament in a parallel timeline and centuries before such a thing existed for the Bible, with the entire input of the community, using both written and oral evidence, during a time period when the vast majority of people who were witnesses to the Revelation where still alive. Nothing like that exists for the New Testament. Unlike the New Testament, the entire Muslim community participated in the transmission and preservation of the Qur'an and the New Testament can no way compare to the Qur'anic phenomenon, which is why when they are compared side-by-side the utter inferiority of the New Testament as a document is plain to see. And knowing this, Biblical scholars simply refuse to analyze the authenticity of the Qur'an holistically, but only in ways which parallel the Bible, without any consideration for the unique circumstances which existed during the time of the Qur'an, which even then makes it fall short if the critic is honest.

    4) Given how Christians see "prophecy" of Jesus in any and everything, including prophecies that you yourself admit already apply to other historical incidents, I take your dismissal of Muhammad's prophecies with a grain of salt.

    5) Jesus came to the Lost Sheep of the House of Israel, his Apostles continued ministering only to the Jews and it was Paul and Paul alone who made the decision to minister to Gentiles. Jesus' mission was not a universal one. He promised to return during the lifetime of his Apostles, for which reason Christianity as you know it was a historical development, along with the Scripture, and was reaction to this prophecy not being fulfilled. The first Church was a Jewish Church whose practices, views and belief were radically different from modern-day Christendom.

    6) The Trinity is just as "inferred" in the New Testament, completely violates the God's Oneness as He Himself declares and opposes the understanding of the prophetic messengers of the past whose job was to teach the people about God and His Revelation.

    7) Besides the fact that Jesus was sent to the Jews and his mission remained tied to them, when you consider that all the core books of the New Testament are of anonymous authoring, while the rest of either forgeries or simply Paul's beliefs, it cannot produce certainty and must be judged and measured for what it is.

    My book is the Qur'an, my prophet is Muhammad and my religion is Islam and there is nothing else like either of those things, for which reason I am fully content. I understand everything you are saying. I just consider it mistaken and in opposition to the Truth. And when you repeatedly regurgitate Scriptures like "No one comes to the Father but through Me" even after I have explained and given the context of such statements, it makes me understand that you do not see what I am talking about and are stuck in your beliefs, to which you will accept no alteration of, no matter how the evidence states. I already embraced Christianity, rejected Islam and found that decision to be mistaken. Have a nice day.
    Last edited by lumumba_s; 11th January 2014 at 17:47.
    "Allah is the point. If it is other-than-Allah, then it is besides the point." - Nuh Ha Mim Keller

  14. #29
    Senior Member
    Join Date
    Jun 2013
    Posts
    563

    Default Re: Ayat 28 Of Surat Kahfi Considered.

    Quote Originally Posted by lumumba_s View Post
    You are very selective in what you respond to and make statements while completely ignoring what we have already discussed in the past, so this will be my last post, as I do not like wasting my time and I have other things to do..
    Everyone has been selective on this forum for the most part; besides, I was mostly selecting what I felt were misconceptions. I agree with a lot of what you say; so there is no sense cluttering this thread. I do so hate to see you give up on our debate discussion. Nevertheless, I will address all you say here.
    Quote Originally Posted by lumumba_s View Post
    1) There is not a single book of the New Testament which can be traced back to the Apostles, so the existence of flawed and manipulated manuscripts is only evidence against you. And if you would actually read Bart Erhman, who himself for the majority of his life was a practicing and believing Evangelical, you would realize the extent to which this is true. .
    I never said there was. But I'll tell you that the NT documentation is way more closer to the events it records than the Quran. As I mentioned, the problems and the different translations, along with manuscript nuances do not effect in the slightest the central message of the gospel which testifies against what you would have me believe. I have heard Bart in debates; so, I know what he believes. He would shred Islam like he does Christianity only he is afraid to do so. Him being against Christianity doesn't make him for Islam at all. He is down on all Abrahamic faiths; so he is a waste of time to listen to.
    Quote Originally Posted by lumumba_s View Post
    2) God promises that He will preserve the Qur'an, to claim that this applies to the previous Scriptures is a false claim and is demonstrably untrue. It was upon the previous communities to preserve their Scriptures and the very way the Qur'an was revealed and disseminated among the community distinguishes it from every revelation which proceeded it..
    This is ridiculous, this tells me that you believe man's power to corrupt is greater that God's to preserve; moreover, logic, common sense, and just plain good reasoning tells anyone that if God couldn't have the foresight to know he needed to protect his previous Scripture from corruption or if he couldn't or wouldn't, he would be able to do it now, and what proves this about the Quran is the fact that abrogation exist in there. Allah has to change his mind by giving a verse that is similar or better to replace others, and he says those that say it is a fabrication are among those who don't know. Those who don't know what? of course, he doesn't say. That is manipulation of the mind and part of the best of deception, IMHO, but you cannot see this, but I can.
    Quote Originally Posted by lumumba_s View Post
    3) Uthman did not "burn evidence", he created a critical edition of the Qur'an, well before such time there was even a cannonization of the New Testament in a parallel timeline and centuries before such a thing existed for the Bible, with the entire input of the community, using both written and oral evidence, during a time period when the vast majority of people who were witnesses to the Revelation where still alive. Nothing like that exists for the New Testament. Unlike the New Testament, the entire Muslim community participated in the transmission and preservation of the Qur'an and the New Testament can no way compare to the Qur'anic phenomenon, which is why when they are compared side-by-side the utter inferiority of the New Testament as a document is plain to see. And knowing this, Biblical scholars simply refuse to analyze the authenticity of the Qur'an holistically, but only in ways which parallel the Bible, without any consideration for the unique circumstances which existed during the time of the Qur'an, which even then makes it fall short if the critic is honest..
    He didn't? Look, the fact that he used Hafsah's copy to recompile the Quran after Muhammad's death and her copy was destroyed proves foul play to me. Uthman was not a prophet and he acted as Allah's editor in chief. People have memorized Scriptures that came before as well. God preserved the central gospel message/ Muhammad never said the torah or gospel was corrupted nor did he say the gospel of Matthew, Mark, Luke and John wasn't the gospel that Allah said he sent down to him. If the Bible is corrupted it would have had to have happen somewhere between Muhammad's life time to date, but there is no evidence of such a thing and it is demonstratively provable. The Bible is the exact same as it was during his life time. This talk of corruption is modern Islam doing a patch job now that they understand what is now in the Quran clashes with what God said before. This wasn't so apparent during Muhammad's life time, because they knew every little about Biblical doctrine much less the trinity.
    Quote Originally Posted by lumumba_s View Post
    4) Given how Christians see "prophecy" of Jesus in any and everything, including prophecies that you yourself admit already apply to other historical incidents, I take your dismissal of Muhammad's prophecies with a grain of salt..
    You are referring to Isaiah 7 about the young maiden (virgin) not necessarily meaning someone who hadn't had sex, but most likely its referring to a virgin, but she wasn't a virgin after conception, but this is where matthew interprets this to be the prophecy confirming Jesus virgin birth. Mary was a virgin after conception, but she didn't remain one. This was obviously borrowed from the NT Bible, but not the reason for His virgin birth. This was the only point I was trying to make. I am not doubting Bible prophecy about Jesus' virgin birth.
    Quote Originally Posted by lumumba_s View Post
    5) Jesus came to the Lost Sheep of the House of Israel, his Apostles continued ministering only to the Jews and it was Paul and Paul alone who made the decision to minister to Gentiles. Jesus' mission was not a universal one. He promised to return during the lifetime of his Apostles, for which reason Christianity as you know it was a historical development, along with the Scripture, and was reaction to this prophecy not being fulfilled. The first Church was a Jewish Church whose practices, views and belief were radically different from modern-day Christendom..
    You and I believe Jesus will return so don't go there. His message wasn't universal at first, but His message is universal now. Look at the world there are more Christians than Muslims, but that doesn't prove truth, but it does prove the universal message of Christianity.
    Quote Originally Posted by lumumba_s View Post
    6) The Trinity is just as "inferred" in the New Testament, completely violates the God's Oneness as He Himself declares and opposes the understanding of the prophetic messengers of the past whose job was to teach the people about God and His Revelation..
    Christians said and will always say God is one; it is the Muslims that say we don't believe what we say we believe. Allah used the term "we" to refer to himself. At least our God identifies who the we is. I don't buy the royal stuff. Rushdie was cursed by Deedat to die, because he gave background information about Muhammad's pagan prophecy of Allah's daughters. The curse of Deedat retuned on his own head and Rushdie is alive and well. Muslims were trying to put Rushdie to death (fatwa). People of God don't feel the need to kill to protect or defend their faith against lies. Jesus said by their fruit you will know who belong to God or doesn't.
    Quote Originally Posted by lumumba_s View Post
    7) Besides the fact that Jesus was sent to the Jews and his mission remained tied to them, when you consider that all the core books of the New Testament are of anonymous authoring, while the rest of either forgeries or simply Paul's beliefs, it cannot produce certainty and must be judged and measured for what it is..
    God wouldn't let His children be without His word for 700 years until an illiterate Arab man could come along to uncorrupt what he never said was corrupted. This is far fetch to believe.
    Quote Originally Posted by lumumba_s View Post
    My book is the Qur'an, my prophet is Muhammad and my religion is Islam and there is nothing else like either of those things, for which reason I am fully content. I understand everything you are saying. I just consider it mistaken and in opposition to the Truth. And when you repeatedly regurgitate Scriptures like "No one comes to the Father but through Me" even after I have explained and given the context of such statements, it makes me understand that you do not see what I am talking about and are stuck in your beliefs, to which you will accept no alteration of, no matter how the evidence states. I already embraced Christianity, rejected Islam and found that decision to be mistaken. Have a nice day.
    Read Gal. 3. O foolish Galatians! Who has bewitched you? It was before your eyes that Jesus Christ was publicly portrayed as crucified. 2 Let me ask you only this: Did you receive the Spirit by works of the law or by hearing with faith? 3 Are you so foolish? Having begun by the Spirit, are you now being perfected by[a] the flesh? 4 Did you suffer[b] so many things in vain—if indeed it was in vain? 5 Does he who supplies the Spirit to you and works miracles among you do so by works of the law, or by hearing with faith— 6 just as Abraham “believed God, and it was counted to him as righteousness”?

    7 Know then that it is those of faith who are the sons of Abraham. 8 And the Scripture, foreseeing that God would justify[c] the Gentiles by faith, preached the gospel beforehand to Abraham, saying, “In you shall all the nations be blessed.” 9 So then, those who are of faith are blessed along with Abraham, the man of faith.

    The Righteous Shall Live by Faith

    10 For all who rely on works of the law are under a curse; for it is written, “Cursed be everyone who does not abide by all things written in the Book of the Law, and do them.” 11 Now it is evident that no one is justified before God by the law, for “The righteous shall live by faith.”[d] 12 But the law is not of faith, rather “The one who does them shall live by them.” 13 Christ redeemed us from the curse of the law by becoming a curse for us—for it is written, “Cursed is everyone who is hanged on a tree”— 14 so that in Christ Jesus the blessing of Abraham might come to the Gentiles, so that we might receive the promised Spirit[e] through faith.

    The Law and the Promise

    15 To give a human example, brothers:[f] even with a man-made covenant, no one annuls it or adds to it once it has been ratified. 16 Now the promises were made to Abraham and to his offspring. It does not say, “And to offsprings,” referring to many, but referring to one, “And to your offspring,” who is Christ. 17 This is what I mean: the law, which came 430 years afterward, does not annul a covenant previously ratified by God, so as to make the promise void. 18 For if the inheritance comes by the law, it no longer comes by promise; but God gave it to Abraham by a promise.

    19 Why then the law? It was added because of transgressions, until the offspring should come to whom the promise had been made, and it was put in place through angels by an intermediary. 20 Now an intermediary implies more than one, but God is one.

    21 Is the law then contrary to the promises of God? Certainly not! For if a law had been given that could give life, then righteousness would indeed be by the law. 22 But the Scripture imprisoned everything under sin, so that the promise by faith in Jesus Christ might be given to those who believe.

    23 Now before faith came, we were held captive under the law, imprisoned until the coming faith would be revealed. 24 So then, the law was our guardian until Christ came, in order that we might be justified by faith. 25 But now that faith has come, we are no longer under a guardian, 26 for in Christ Jesus you are all sons of God, through faith. 27 For as many of you as were baptized into Christ have put on Christ. 28 There is neither Jew nor Greek, there is neither slave[g] nor free, there is no male and female, for you are all one in Christ Jesus. 29 And if you are Christ's, then you are Abraham's offspring, heirs according to promise.

    So is you mind made up so that you don't want to be confused with the facts? I sense you are running from God not to Him.

    Peace
    Last edited by Burninglight; 12th January 2014 at 00:23.
    Jesus is not valued (at all) unless he is valued above all. Augustine

Similar Threads

  1. Ayat 44 Of Surat Ma'eda Considered.
    By Abu Fauzi in forum The Qur'an
    Replies: 24
    Last Post: 18th August 2017, 07:01
  2. Ayat 40 Of Surat Nazi'at Considered.
    By Abu Fauzi in forum The Qur'an
    Replies: 22
    Last Post: 29th January 2014, 02:12
  3. Ayat 97 Of Surat Nahli Considered.
    By Abu Fauzi in forum The Qur'an
    Replies: 0
    Last Post: 21st December 2013, 20:46
  4. Ayat 4 Of Surat Qalam Considered.
    By Abu Fauzi in forum The Qur'an
    Replies: 0
    Last Post: 2nd April 2012, 22:15
  5. What gelatin is considered halal?
    By Aziza in forum Islamic Discussions
    Replies: 23
    Last Post: 24th August 2011, 17:15

Posting Permissions

  • You may not post new threads
  • You may not post replies
  • You may not post attachments
  • You may not edit your posts
  •