Jump to content

Rate this topic

Recommended Posts

the book muslims believe christians had was this book called the injeel.

And in their footsteps, We sent 'Iesa (Jesus), son of Maryam (Mary), confirming the Taurât (Torah) that had come before him, and We gave him the Injeel (Gospel), in which was guidance and light and confirmation of the Taurât (Torah) that had come before it, a guidance and an admonition for Al-Muttaqûn (the pious).

Let the people of the Injeel (Gospel) judge by what Allâh has revealed therein. And whosoever does not judge by what Allâh has revealed (then) such (people) are the Fâsiqûn (the rebellious i.e. disobedient (of a lesser degree) to Allâh.

these say that the injeel is the gospel which muslims believe christians used, my question to muslims is why did muhammad mention this injeel book that you guys say disapeared from the face of the earth and did not mention the new testament ? at the time of muhammad 500 years after Jesus the christians were using the new testament which was in existance at that time ? so how come no record exist of the new testament ? did muhamad make a mistake and thought that this injeel book was the new testament ?

Edited by tek91

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
(salam)

We believe the Injeel wasn't literally a book, it was a verbal teaching preformed by Jesus (as) to the Children of Israel.

Yes, and the texts that Christians use contain elements of the injeel. So to the extent that they follow that, they are "people of the injeel."

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

hi Kadhim and Qa'im thanks for your input but somehow I am confused from what you guys say Qa'im you say that the injeel is not really a book but spoken words by Jesus and kadhim you say the same but you say they (christians) are people of the injeel in the quran arent they called people of the BOOK ?

I have a quote from the quran that show it must be a book.

Hilali-Khan 002:042 And mix not truth with falsehood, nor conceal the truth [i.e. Muhammad Peace be upon him is Allah's Messenger and his qualities are written in your Scriptures, the Taurat (Torah) and the Injeel (Gospel). while you know (the truth) .

according to this quote from the quran there are things written in the Taurat and the injeel (gospel) if it is spoken words why would things be written on it ? this makes no sense !!!

and even the word scripture has a meaning of "a body of writings considered sacred or authoritative" from webster.

if this injeel that is written was used by the christians or the people of the book and that book was lost why did muhammad not mention the New Testament which was in existance at the time of muhammad I would believe the one who you know as being a great prophet of God would have knowledge of this new testament and why is their no mention in history of the christians using this injeel ? and there are mentions of the christians using the new testament do you think the history books made a mistake ?

Edited by tek91

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Jesus walked around and talked.

Followers remembered some of those words, and passed them along and preserved them.

People wrote down some of those words in books.

But these books don't fully capture Jesus' words and teachings.

Unless you think Jesus ONLY said the things that are recorded in Matthew to John?

And, sorry; you indicated you were quoting 2:42, but you seem to be adding other things in; the part after "conceal the truth" is not in verse 2:42.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Jesus walked around and talked.

Followers remembered some of those words, and passed them along and preserved them.

People wrote down some of those words in books.

But these books don't fully capture Jesus' words and teachings.

Unless you think Jesus ONLY said the things that are recorded in Matthew to John?

do you have any evidence that there was another book written after Jesus that existed and used by christians at around 500 ad ? the only book history records is the new testament which christians were using around the time of muhamad what confuses me is that muhamad does not mention the nt and instead mentions this injeel, why did muhamad not mention the books that the christians have been using at that time i have seen no records of the new testament and this mystery injeel side by side this is a new teaching for me.

what I feel makes more sense is that muhammad was really saying the christians have the injeel which is the gospel the new testament because the injeel are written words as I showed you from the verses and where used by christians at the time. there is really no evidence of a different book in existence at around 500 ad that were used by christians.

wow the history books must all be wrong.

And, sorry; you indicated you were quoting 2:42, but you seem to be adding other things in; the part after "conceal the truth" is not in verse 2:42.

this is written by the translation of Hilali-Khan.

Edited by tek91

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
do you have any evidence that there was another book written after Jesus that existed and used by christians at around 500 ad ? the only book history records is the new testament which christians were using around the time of muhamad what confuses me is that muhamad does not mention the nt and instead mentions this injeel, why did muhamad not mention the books that the christians have been using at that time i have seen no records of the new testament and this mystery injeel side by side this is a new teaching for me.

wow the history books must all be wrong.

I'm a little confused; this doesn't have anything to do with what we were talking about. I didn't say anything about the history books, or say anything about any other physical book circling at that time.

Actually the very point of discussion was how the injeel was not a physical book, but that elements of this teaching - words and actions of Jesus - were captured in the New Testament, and thus were, and are available to Christians then, and now. You, and I have access to slices of the injeel in the Bibles we have on our bookshelves. But the point is that this is just a slice; the full injeel was only available to those who lived with him.

this is written by the translation of Hilali-Khan.

I don't really care about who translated; after a certain point, the words are not part of the translation of the verse itself.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
I'm a little confused; this doesn't have anything to do with what we were talking about. I didn't say anything about the history books, or say anything about any other physical book circling at that time.

I was just asking a question, sorry for confusing you.

Actually the very point of discussion was how the injeel was not a physical book, but that elements of this teaching - words and actions of Jesus - were captured in the New Testament, and thus were, and are available to Christians then, and now. You, and I have access to slices of the injeel in the Bibles we have on our bookshelves. But the point is that this is just a slice; the full injeel was only available to those who lived with him.

when you say the full injeel what is the full injeel ? if the injeel are just verbal words then there is no injeel because spoken words are not physical there would be no full injeel unless you believe the injeel is a book, it is more believable to believe the injeel was a book.

that quote that I showed you from the quran does confirm this imho.

you say that what we have the nt is just bits and pieces of the injeel and this is also what the christians of the time of muhamad had, so basically when muhamad was saying the christians had the injeel he was basically saying they had bits and pieces in their nt of this injeel which is not documented.

this sounds a little farfetched do you have any documents of all this you speak of that would help alot.

well i'll talk to you guys tommorow going to sleep.

peace

Edited by tek91

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
when you say the full injeel what is the full injeel ?

Jesus' words and actions, basically, taken as a collective. That is my understanding.

if the injeel are just verbal words then there is no injeel because spoken words are not physical there would be no full injeel unless you believe the injeel is a book, it is more believable to believe the injeel was a book.

Well, in a deep sense, the teachings of the injeel are in the book of all that happens; but this is with God. The idea is this; Jesus manifested the wisdom of God; this is why he was called "the word of God." If you had millions of pages to write in, and buckets of ink, and a lot of time, and had been able to hear everything Jesus said, and see all he did, and you described it exactly, that would be the injeel, the evangelion, the Gospel. But that is impossible; so what you get are different accounts that, with varying success, take snapshots to give a feeling of the essence of the message. Jesus taught for years; today there are 4 books preserved well. The point is just the obvious one that those four books do not capture the whole teaching mission of Jesus. It's not to knock what you've got, but to point out that Jesus' teachings overflow those 4 short books.

Really, I don't think the issue is really that alien to Christianity, either. The word injeel is just the Arabic equivalent of the Greek word Evangelion, which means "Gospel" or "Good news."

Christians use the phrase "The Gospel" to refer to the teaching of Jesus as a whole, no? Matt to John are called "the Gospels" because they capture much of the essence of that teaching through snapshots of Jesus' life.

Hope that makes more sense.

that quote that I showed you from the quran does confirm this imho.

Like I said, that was not a quote from the qu'ran, or, rather, only the first line was. The rest was the translator's comments. Qu'ran 2:42 says: 'And mix not truth with falsehood, nor conceal the truth."

The other part is either commentary or another verse I don't recall. If the second part is from the qu'ran, i'd need a reference of chapter and verse to comment further.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Hi,

I just copied this from the new long topic on Jesus and Ali.

Quote:

Here is a rather extended report given in the book Tuhaf al-­Uqul, although without any proper isnad (chain of narrators), that includes a large number of beatitudes: Advice of the Messiah, peace be with him, in the gospel and other places: Blessed are those who love and respect one another, for they shall receive mercy on the Resurrection Day. Blessed are the peacemakers among the people, for they will be brought nigh unto Him on the Resurrection Day. Blessed are the pure of heart, for they shall meet Allah on the Resurrection Day. Blessed are those who humble themselves in this world, for they shall inherit the thrones of sovereignty (manabir al-mulk).

Blessed are the poor, for theirs is the kingdom of heaven. Blessed are they who mourn, for they shall be glad. Blessed are they who bear hunger and thirst submissively, for their thirst will be quenched. Blessed are they who do righteous deeds, for they shall be called the chosen of Allah. Blessed are they who are abused for their purity, for theirs is the kingdom of heaven.

Blessed are you are envied and abused, and every evil and false word is told about you, then be glad and happy, for verily, your wage is plentiful in heaven.

--- This would have been written in Arabic from the Greek Gospel of Matthew, would it not?

Then at some point it would have been translated into English --- after English became a language.

Compare this with Matt 5:3-12.

Would this have been part of the oral InJeel? --- But here, it was no doubt copied from the Gospel of Matthew. --- So, isn't that good enough, that we have it in the Gospel which they had as well?

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
The point is just the obvious one that those four books do not capture the whole teaching mission of Jesus. It's not to knock what you've got, but to point out that Jesus' teachings overflow those 4 short books.

[Day] Hello Kadhim. The last verse in the book of John says that Jesus did many other things that would not be able to fill all the books of the world. But would it really matter to muslims what else Jesus taught, or said, just so long as he never said that he was the Son of God who would be crucified? I mean, muslims readily accept the virgin birth, transfiguration, walking on water, casting out demons, raising the dead, 2nd coming, etc. But a crucified Son is out of the question.

I just don't see any reasonable grounds for muslims to accept all the things Jesus said and did, and not believe these two things. It seems to me that muslims must think that the gospel writers got together to form some sort of conspiracy about the need to record Jesus saying that he was the Son of God who must be crucified for sins. Why would they do that? Why make up something so outrageous as someone dying for sins?

Well, I guess there is a reasonable ground, from the muslim's point of view, for rejecting this: Muhammed said so. And he said it only once. Since muslims are quick to challenge what the gospel writers recorded about the death of Jesus, they find no such grounds to challenge what Muhammed said in the light of what the prophets foretold, what history records, martyrs for the faith and what billions of people have believed over the centuries.

One verse over all that is, in my view, skating on very thin ice. But then faith is a powerful thing.

Peace

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Hi Day,

I keep saying, --- it wasn't Muhammad that said plainly that Jesus wasn't crucflied, but it does say. 'He appeared as one crucilied.' --- It doesn't deny that He died, --- but that they didn't kill Him.

It doesn't say He didn't die on the cross, --- but He didn't die from crucifixion.

The Jews didn't kill Him. The Romans didn't kill him. But Jesus 'Gave up His Spirit.'

This fulfills all Scripture, 'He was crucified, dead, and buried, and rose the third day.'

He died on the cross, but He said, "Father, into Your hands I commend My Spirit." --- Is that not right?

Check these two verses in the ten translations of --- Quranbrowser.com

Surah 3:55, and 4:157.

What is your understanding? Do they deny that Jesus died on the cross? --- Not really, do they?

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
[Day] Hello Kadhim. The last verse in the book of John says that Jesus did many other things that would not be able to fill all the books of the world. But would it really matter to muslims what else Jesus taught, or said, just so long as he never said that he was the Son of God who would be crucified? I mean, muslims readily accept the virgin birth, transfiguration, walking on water, casting out demons, raising the dead, 2nd coming, etc. But a crucified Son is out of the question.

Jesus being G-d is probably a far greater theological challenge than believing that Jesus was actually murdered. Also, I think the Christian concept of "Virgin Birth" in which the "Holy Spirit", who is considered to be the third party in the three-god "Trinity", is probably also foreign to Islam.

I was hoping -- and no one has convinced me I'm wrong -- that Muslims, because of their access to Arabic, would be able to read the parts of Isaiah that are incorrectly used to support some supernatural "Virgin Birth", and see that there is no scriptural support for Christianity's claims of a supernaturally born "messiah".

I just don't see any reasonable grounds for muslims to accept all the things Jesus said and did, and not believe these two things. It seems to me that muslims must think that the gospel writers got together to form some sort of conspiracy about the need to record Jesus saying that he was the Son of God who must be crucified for sins. Why would they do that? Why make up something so outrageous as someone dying for sins?

I don't know why Muslim's reject the concept, but the entire notion that someone else can make all your sins just go away is theologically absurd. A "sin" is something you did wrong. You have to start by making amends for your actions, which is something that Jesus actually said you have to do anyway, and then you have to work to not do that wrong again in the future. Someone dying for the mistakes you make is like saying that it's okay to make all the mistakes you want, or carelessly happen to make, and it's okay. I think that if you ask the people who are being wronged if it is okay with them, most would say it isn't. It's also theologically absurd because human sacrifice isn't one of the ways that sin was forgiven. There's no theological basis for human sacrifice taking away anyones sins because human sacrifice was expressly forbidden. Nor is there a theological basis for third party actions removing individuals' sins. The scapegoat on Yom Kippur was to address the sins of Am Yisrael, not those of specific individuals.

So, yes, some messiah being a human sacrifice for individual sins is clearly a fabrication. The "Why?" is pretty simple -- it removed the need for any Jewish religious structure, and that religious structure is what had caused Rome so much trouble in the past.

Well, I guess there is a reasonable ground, from the muslim's point of view, for rejecting this: Muhammed said so. And he said it only once. Since muslims are quick to challenge what the gospel writers recorded about the death of Jesus, they find no such grounds to challenge what Muhammed said in the light of what the prophets foretold, what history records, martyrs for the faith and what billions of people have believed over the centuries.

One verse over all that is, in my view, skating on very thin ice. But then faith is a powerful thing.

Peace

The entire concept of "forgiveness" is covered more than once, and more than just in the Qur'an. Other than the gospels, which are notorious for having been manipulated (the Council at Nicea voted 300 years after the fact on which to accept, and which to reject -- meaning, there is a lot of rejected material that would have to be considered today to understand how valid the four canonical gospels are), there is an entire body of religious writing that opposes Christian doctrine on forgiveness.

I'm on holiday, so I don't have all my books available. But the most basic is the doctrine which says "For the sins against G-d, the Day of Atonement (Yom Kippur) atones. For sins against another, the Day of Atonement does not atone." If you look at the scriptures which discuss preparing for Yom Kippur, it is plainly obvious that individual sins against another person can only be resolved by going to that person. You can't even begin to approach G-d to be forgiven for sins against G-d until you get straight with other people.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Jesus being G-d is probably a far greater theological challenge than believing that Jesus was actually murdered. Also, I think the Christian concept of "Virgin Birth" in which the "Holy Spirit", who is considered to be the third party in the three-god "Trinity", is probably also foreign to Islam.

The Holy Spirit and any reference to the Trinity are indeed alien to Islam. But we do believe in the miracle of the Virgin Birth. What baffles me is how Christians believe in the Virgin Birth if Jesus' mother was living with Joseph at the time.

Islam does, however, accept the miracle of the Virgin Birth, in that there was no male involved in the birth of Jesus. There is no mention of Joseph in Islamic scriptures.

Surah 3:55, and 4:157.What is your understanding? Do they deny that Jesus died on the cross? --- Not really, do they?

Hello Placid

Sorry to disappoint but [4:157] categorically rejects any stories of Jesus having been killed. It states that it appeared to the people that they had killed him but in fact they hadn't. So Jesus did not die on the Cross.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Hi Day,

I keep saying, --- it wasn't Muhammad that said plainly that Jesus wasn't crucflied, but it does say. 'He appeared as one crucilied.' --- It doesn't deny that He died, --- but that they didn't kill Him.

[Day] Muslims don't believe he died having been taken up to heaven.

It doesn't say He didn't die on the cross, --- but He didn't die from crucifixion.

[Day] Hello Placid. What did he die from?

The Jews didn't kill Him. The Romans didn't kill him. But Jesus 'Gave up His Spirit.'

This fulfills all Scripture, 'He was crucified, dead, and buried, and rose the third day.'

[Day] Yes. Are you making a distinction between him dying from the tortures of crucifixion and pre-empting his death from these things by giving up his spirit?

He died on the cross, but He said, "Father, into Your hands I commend My Spirit." --- Is that not right?

[Day] Yes, but are you making another point?

What is your understanding? Do they deny that Jesus died on the cross? --- Not really, do they?

[Day] All that matters is what muslims say, which is that Jesus was not crucified for our sins.

Peace

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Jesus being G-d is probably a far greater theological challenge than believing that Jesus was actually murdered. Also, I think the Christian concept of "Virgin Birth" in which the "Holy Spirit", who is considered to be the third party in the three-god "Trinity", is probably also foreign to Islam.

[Day] Hello Ariella. Yes, I should have included the Deity of Jesus. And you're probably right about the virgin birth. I don't really know how muslims explain that. Also, Christians don't believe in a "three-god" Trinity. We believe one God is manifested through Father, Son and Holy Spirit, each possessing Deity. This is what the scriptures plainly teach. Do you believe the Spirit in the Old Testament is the Holy Spirit?

I was hoping -- and no one has convinced me I'm wrong -- that Muslims, because of their access to Arabic, would be able to read the parts of Isaiah that are incorrectly used to support some supernatural "Virgin Birth", and see that there is no scriptural support for Christianity's claims of a supernaturally born "messiah".

[Day] The means of supernatural virgin birth can be debated. What's really important is that Matthew recorded the prophecy and which was fullfilled by Jesus. He was "God with us." (Immanuel).

Someone dying for the mistakes you make is like saying that it's okay to make all the mistakes you want, or carelessly happen to make, and it's okay.

[Day] God forbid! God hates sin even though they have been paid for, and which doesn't give any one a license to commit it. We who have "died" to sin, why in the world would we want to live with it and in it anymore? Those who have found God's forgiveness hate sin. When they do occasionally sin, they confess it and are forgiven. The reason innocent lambs were killed was because of sin. God chose to use the shedding of lamb's blood for atonement. The reason the innocent Lamb of God was killed was because of sin.

I think that if you ask the people who are being wronged if it is okay with them, most would say it isn't.

[Day] Not all sins are against other people, but God. When a person sins against another, he must confess it and make amends.

Nor is there a theological basis for third party actions removing individuals' sins. The scapegoat on Yom Kippur was to address the sins of Am Yisrael, not those of specific individuals.

[Day] "The goat shall bear on itself all their iniquities..." (Lev. 16:22). How absurd that the sins of Israel should be born by a third party goat!

I'm on holiday, so I don't have all my books available. But the most basic is the doctrine which says "For the sins against G-d, the Day of Atonement (Yom Kippur) atones. For sins against another, the Day of Atonement does not atone."

[Day] I would be interested in knowing what these scriptures are. Thanks

If you look at the scriptures which discuss preparing for Yom Kippur, it is plainly obvious that individual sins against another person can only be resolved by going to that person. You can't even begin to approach G-d to be forgiven for sins against G-d until you get straight with other people.

[Day] Yes, we must first go to the person we sinned against, confess it and apologize. But there are times when we sin only against God (worshiping other gods, idolatry, covetousness, profaning his holy name, etc.) When that happens, then we just go directly to God and confess. King David said, "For I acknowledge my transgressions, and my sin is ever before me. Against You, You only, have I sinned and done this evil in your sight." (Ps. 51:3,4)

Peace

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Hi Baqar,

I don't know whether the verse catagorically rejects, or ambiguously rejects any stories of Jesus dying on the cross.

Look at the following and see if it doesn't leave you in doubt?

Pickthall: And because of their saying: We slew the Messiah, Jesus son of Mary, Allah's messenger - they slew him not nor crucified him, but it appeared so unto them; and lo! those who disagree concerning it are in doubt thereof; they have no knowledge thereof save pursuit of a conjecture; they slew him not for certain.

Yusuf Ali: That they said (in boast), "We killed Christ Jesus the son of Mary, the Apostle of God"; - but they killed him not, nor crucified him, but so it was made to appear to them, and those who differ therein are full of doubts, with no (certain) knowledge, but only conjecture to follow, for of a surety they killed him not:-

Shakir: And their saying: Surely we have killed the Messiah, Isa son of Marium, the apostle of Allah; and they did not kill him nor did they crucify him, but it appeared to them so (like Isa) and most surely those who differ therein are only in a doubt about it; they have no knowledge respecting it, but only follow a conjecture, and they killed him not for sure.

Sher Ali: And for their saying, `We did slay the Messiah, Jesus, son of Mary, the Messenger of Allah;' whereas they slew him not, nor did they bring about his death upon the cross, but he was made to appear to them like one crucified; and those who differ therein are certainly in a state of doubt about it; they have no certain knowledge thereof, but only pursue a conjecture; and they did not arrive at a certainty concerning it.

--- There is enough doubt, that those who differ therein, are in a state of doubt about it. Some suggest a replacement to look like Jesus, and that the replacement died on the cross.

But on the other hand, if it was Jesus, --- then He didn't die on the cross.

Sher Ali says 'Nor did they bring about his death upon the cross, buit he was made to appear to them like one crucified.' --- This is why I said, the Jews didn't kill Him, and the Romans, though they carried out the torture, didn't kill Him, --- but He said, "Father, into Your hands I commend My Spirit." Luke 23:46. 'Then He bowed His head and gave up His spirit.'

John 10:14. 'I am the the good shepherd and I know My sheep.

15. And I lay down My life for the sheep.

17. Therefore My Father loves Me, because I lay down My life that I might take it again.

18. No one takes it from Me, but I lay it down of Myself. I have power to lay it down, ans I have power to take it again. This command I have received from My Father.'

12:23. 'Jesus answered them saying, "The hour has come that the Son of Man should be glorified.

27. Now My soul is troubled, and what shall I say? --- Father save Me from this hour? --- But for this purpose I came to this hour."

You see, the whole ministry of Jesus was centered around this fact that Jesus would die for the sins of the world. As well as Him saying numerous times that he would be put to death and rise again the third day. He said to the Pharisees, "Destroy this temple and in three days I will raise it up." This He spoke about His body.

They asked Jesus for a sign of who He was, and He said, "There shall no sign be given but the sign of the Prophet Jonah. For as Jonah was three days and three nights in the stomach of the whale, so shall the Son of Man be three days and three nights in the heart of the earth."

Muhammad said Jesus was of the truth, therefore it is pretty hard to wipe it out with one ambiguous verse. Also 3:55, 4:159, and 2:72-73 speak of Him dying.

My personal observation from reading the Quran is that both the angel Gabriel and Muhammad, in their speaking and writing are very deffinite, so I don't think either one of them wrote this verse, but rather, this might have been one of the verses that Mr Uthman or someone else adjusted to make it so indefinite. --- I guess that is why I don't like to blame it on Muhammad, because it is not his style of writing, is it?

Your alternative might be to say that somebody changed all the Scripture verses in the Gospels, and the example from the book of Jonah as well, to accommodate an indefinite verse.

If the Jews boasted, 'We killed the Messiah,' --- then they didn't want to take the responsibility for killing the Messiah, --- so they said, 'No, they didn't kill Him, He died of His own accord.'

Baqar, I am kind of smiling as I write this as I remember a discussion like this one time before, and I asked, "What difference does it make to the Muslims hope of salvation whether Jesus died, or whether He didn't?" --- and the answer I got was --- "It doesn't make any difference to Muslims."

Is the answer still the same?

Placid

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

hello Ariella, I saw your message is it ok if I talk to you about it ?

Jesus being G-d is probably a far greater theological challenge than believing that Jesus was actually murdered. Also, I think the Christian concept of "Virgin Birth" in which the "Holy Spirit", who is considered to be the third party in the three-god "Trinity", is probably also foreign to Islam.

I am not sure if the Holy Spirit is foreign to islam I do believe it is not foreign to judaism in fact it is very close to home.

the Holy Spirit is not a part of any three part god, nobody here believes in a three part god. what the Holy Spirit is is God's Spirit it is with God and it is also God.

or do you believe the Holy Spirit which God send to the israelites is another god ?

I have mentioned before the trinity is a concept that I believe is speaking of God his spirit and his word.

about the virgin birth it is well documented in the torah it is believed by both christians and muslims, if you desire I will help you find it.

I was hoping -- and no one has convinced me I'm wrong -- that Muslims, because of their access to Arabic, would be able to read the parts of Isaiah that are incorrectly used to support some supernatural "Virgin Birth", and see that there is no scriptural support for Christianity's claims of a supernaturally born "messiah".

actually there is but not in arabic it is in hebrew let me show you.

it's in chapter 7 of Isaiah as you know in the days of Ahaz the king was fearful because both the king of Israel and the king of Syria went to war against Ahaz and Judah in fact they made a confederacy with Ephraim to go up against Judah. as you may know Ahaz was scared stiff, so he seeked the Lord to deliver him. the Lord sent Isaiah to speak with Ahaz in here the Lord asured Ahaz by Isaiah not to fear, because the Lord would not let the enemies prevail against him because he would destroy Rezin, Pekah and Ephraim.

then the Lord to show that he would do all these things asked Ahaz for a sign or the hebrew ('owth) which the meaning is a distinguishing mark, banner, remembrance, miraculous sign, omen, warning, token, ensign, standard, miracle, proof you get the picture.

The Lord even insisted that Ahaz ask it in either the Depth ('amaq) or height (gabahh) ABOVE.

the key word is above this sign was not to be a sign from the earth but from the heavens ABOVE.

as the story goes Ahaz refused to ask for a sign because he did not want to tempt God. this sign was to be so miracolous that Ahaz refused to test God. so then God still wanted to do this sign so God said here ye now O HOUSE OF DAVID, you weary men and God therefore the Lord himself will give you a sign.

so the sign was meant for the house of David, this sign from ABOVE was that a virgin would give birth.

the word used is `almah which is a young woman of a very young age basically a young virgin.

almah means a young unmarried woman in fact every young unmarried woman were considered to be a virgin. in every instant the word is used you can see it means a young unmarried woman for instance Rebekah and Moses's sister which were virgins at the time of the mentioning.

those times were not like these times were woman have intercourse even without marriage in those times it was strict you were required to be married before you had intercourse.

it is in context and makes more sense to believe the SIGN given to the house of David from the DEPTHS and HEIGHTS ABOVE was a young unmarried virgin giving birth and assuredly this indeed happened.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
I don't know why Muslim's reject the concept, but the entire notion that someone else can make all your sins just go away is theologically absurd. A "sin" is something you did wrong. You have to start by making amends for your actions, which is something that Jesus actually said you have to do anyway, and then you have to work to not do that wrong again in the future. Someone dying for the mistakes you make is like saying that it's okay to make all the mistakes you want, or carelessly happen to make, and it's okay. I think that if you ask the people who are being wronged if it is okay with them, most would say it isn't. It's also theologically absurd because human sacrifice isn't one of the ways that sin was forgiven. There's no theological basis for human sacrifice taking away anyones sins because human sacrifice was expressly forbidden. Nor is there a theological basis for third party actions removing individuals' sins. The scapegoat on Yom Kippur was to address the sins of Am Yisrael, not those of specific individuals.

So, yes, some messiah being a human sacrifice for individual sins is clearly a fabrication. The "Why?" is pretty simple -- it removed the need for any Jewish religious structure, and that religious structure is what had caused Rome so much trouble in the past.

then why did the israelites have goats, sheeps, bullocks, pidgeons and other unblemished animals used for atonement of sins ?

because human sacrifice was expressly forbidden

was God doing forbidden things when he asked Abraham to offer Isaac ?

or when he allowed the sacrifice of Jephthah's Daughter ?

I'm on holiday, so I don't have all my books available. But the most basic is the doctrine which says "For the sins against G-d, the Day of Atonement (Yom Kippur) atones. For sins against another, the Day of Atonement does not atone." If you look at the scriptures which discuss preparing for Yom Kippur, it is plainly obvious that individual sins against another person can only be resolved by going to that person. You can't even begin to approach G-d to be forgiven for sins against G-d until you get straight with other people.

hello Ariella can you please show me this from scripture that forgiveness comes from going to the person you did harm to, thank you.

sin offerings were done with mostly unblemished animals being taken to an altar killed and it's blood sprinkled in the altar and whatever needed to be sanctified the priest and the people were atoned by these rituals.

I am sorry if I am bothering you but had to get this off my chest.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Look at the following and see if it doesn't leave you in doubt?

Hi Placid

No, it doesn't. To me, it is crystal clear that the verse says that Jesus was not killed as believed. I cannot see how you could miss it.

Baqar, I am kind of smiling as I write this as I remember a discussion like this one time before, and I asked, "What difference does it make to the Muslims hope of salvation whether Jesus died, or whether He didn't?" --- and the answer I got was --- "It doesn't make any difference to Muslims."

Is the answer still the same?

The Christian concept of salvation is not very clear to me. Does it mean that someone believing in Christ gets a pre-paid ticket to heaven? If that is so, it is completely alien to Islam. In Islam, people will be judged and rewarded or punished largely by their performance in this life.

But what, if I may ask, is so special about Jesus' death ? A far far greater sacrifice was given by Imam Hussain. Even if Jesus died in suffering as Christian belief holds, his pain and suffering pales by thousands of miles in comparison to the sufferings of Imam Hussain and his family, who died to save Islam from early death inflicted on the land by the depraved rulers of the day. A band of 72 God-fearing and otherwise fearless men who had been denied food and water for at least three days tried to negotiate with the godless authority. The response was an army of tens of thousands of men bent upon spilling the blood of the progeny of the Prophet of Islam. If you have read of the extraordinary bravery and fortitude of this small group, of the heart-rending details of this sad and tragic story - Imam Hussain's subsequent death and that of eighteen members of his immediate family, including his six-month old baby son, if you have read of the untold sufferings of the survivors, both women and little children, Jesus' pain, if there was one, stands at best in the shadow of an eclipse.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

(salam)

I don't think it's the pain that made it a sacrifice, brother. Just like how Peter was crucified upside down, he probably endured a lot more pain than the man on the cross.

But "salvation" is unclear to me as well. Just like the brother pointed out, in Islam we are sent to paradise or hellfire depending on what we did in life. Did we waste our time? Did we lie, cheat, steal, or kill? Did we call onto people to worship and alms giving?

The Christian concept of salvation seems kind of fishy, because I see that the worst people in the world can accept the sacrifice and go to paradise. On the other hand, the best people in the world can spend their whole lives worshiping and giving alms, and yet spend eternity in hell. Allah is a fair god, we don't believe He would judge like that. But rather, judge us on our actions more than our belief.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

To get back to the topic at hand.

(There are enough Jesus died, No he didn't, yes he did, no he didn't, yes he did threads out there already)

This is in it's own a valid question, and deserves to be addressed.

IMHO Kadhim has the right idea. There is no book called "The Injeel" "The book of jesus" W/E

There is no record big or small says Jesus himself ever wrote anything.

In the case of what Jesus was given, he gave to men.

It is documented, and is probably as close to any Injeel as could be possible.

Matthew 5

1And seeing the multitudes, he went up into a mountain: and when he was set, his disciples came unto him:

2And he opened his mouth, and taught them, saying,

3Blessed are the poor in spirit: for theirs is the kingdom of heaven.

4Blessed are they that mourn: for they shall be comforted.

5Blessed are the meek: for they shall inherit the earth.

6Blessed are they which do hunger and thirst after righteousness: for they shall be filled.

7Blessed are the merciful: for they shall obtain mercy.

8Blessed are the pure in heart: for they shall see God.

9Blessed are the peacemakers: for they shall be called the children of God.

10Blessed are they which are persecuted for righteousness' sake: for theirs is the kingdom of heaven.

11Blessed are ye, when men shall revile you, and persecute you, and shall say all manner of evil against you falsely, for my sake.

12Rejoice, and be exceeding glad: for great is your reward in heaven: for so persecuted they the prophets which were before you.

13Ye are the salt of the earth: but if the salt have lost his savour, wherewith shall it be salted? it is thenceforth good for nothing, but to be cast out, and to be trodden under foot of men.

14Ye are the light of the world. A city that is set on an hill cannot be hid.

15Neither do men light a candle, and put it under a bushel, but on a candlestick; and it giveth light unto all that are in the house.

16Let your light so shine before men, that they may see your good works, and glorify your Father which is in heaven.

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

18For verily I say unto you, Till heaven and earth pass, one jot or one tittle shall in no wise pass from the law, till all be fulfilled.

19Whosoever therefore shall break one of these least commandments, and shall teach men so, he shall be called the least in the kingdom of heaven: but whosoever shall do and teach them, the same shall be called great in the kingdom of heaven.

20For I say unto you, That except your righteousness shall exceed the righteousness of the scribes and Pharisees, ye shall in no case enter into the kingdom of heaven.

21Ye have heard that it was said of them of old time, Thou shalt not kill; and whosoever shall kill shall be in danger of the judgment:

22But I say unto you, That whosoever is angry with his brother without a cause shall be in danger of the judgment: and whosoever shall say to his brother, Raca, shall be in danger of the council: but whosoever shall say, Thou fool, shall be in danger of hell fire.

23Therefore if thou bring thy gift to the altar, and there rememberest that thy brother hath ought against thee;

24Leave there thy gift before the altar, and go thy way; first be reconciled to thy brother, and then come and offer thy gift.

25Agree with thine adversary quickly, whiles thou art in the way with him; lest at any time the adversary deliver thee to the judge, and the judge deliver thee to the officer, and thou be cast into prison.

26Verily I say unto thee, Thou shalt by no means come out thence, till thou hast paid the uttermost farthing.

27Ye have heard that it was said by them of old time, Thou shalt not commit adultery:

28But I say unto you, That whosoever looketh on a woman to lust after her hath committed adultery with her already in his heart.

29And if thy right eye offend thee, pluck it out, and cast it from thee: for it is profitable for thee that one of thy members should perish, and not that thy whole body should be cast into hell.

30And if thy right hand offend thee, cut it off, and cast it from thee: for it is profitable for thee that one of thy members should perish, and not that thy whole body should be cast into hell.

31It hath been said, Whosoever shall put away his wife, let him give her a writing of divorcement:

32But I say unto you, That whosoever shall put away his wife, saving for the cause of fornication, causeth her to commit adultery: and whosoever shall marry her that is divorced committeth adultery.

33Again, ye have heard that it hath been said by them of old time, Thou shalt not forswear thyself, but shalt perform unto the Lord thine oaths:

34But I say unto you, Swear not at all; neither by heaven; for it is God's throne:

35Nor by the earth; for it is his footstool: neither by Jerusalem; for it is the city of the great King.

36Neither shalt thou swear by thy head, because thou canst not make one hair white or black.

37But let your communication be, Yea, yea; Nay, nay: for whatsoever is more than these cometh of evil.

38Ye have heard that it hath been said, An eye for an eye, and a tooth for a tooth:

39But I say unto you, That ye resist not evil: but whosoever shall smite thee on thy right cheek, turn to him the other also.

40And if any man will sue thee at the law, and take away thy coat, let him have thy cloak also.

41And whosoever shall compel thee to go a mile, go with him twain.

42Give to him that asketh thee, and from him that would borrow of thee turn not thou away.

43Ye have heard that it hath been said, Thou shalt love thy neighbour, and hate thine enemy.

44But I say unto you, Love your enemies, bless them that curse you, do good to them that hate you, and pray for them which despitefully use you, and persecute you;

45That ye may be the children of your Father which is in heaven: for he maketh his sun to rise on the evil and on the good, and sendeth rain on the just and on the unjust.

46For if ye love them which love you, what reward have ye? do not even the publicans the same?

47And if ye salute your brethren only, what do ye more than others? do not even the publicans so?

48Be ye therefore perfect, even as your Father which is in heaven is perfect.

If there was ever a chance at an Injeel( in written words), this would have to be it.

Say Thanks Matt.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
My personal observation from reading the Quran is that both the angel Gabriel and Muhammad, in their speaking and writing are very deffinite, so I don't think either one of them wrote this verse, but rather, this might have been one of the verses that Mr Uthman or someone else adjusted to make it so indefinite. --- I guess that is why I don't like to blame it on Muhammad, because it is not his style of writing, is it?

[Day] Hello Placid. Here is the verse in question by pickthal. I have placed in parentheses who might be saying the different parts of the verse:

Pickthall: And because of their (Jews) saying: We (Jews) slew the Messiah, Jesus son of Mary, Allah's messenger - they (Muhammed/Uthman/someone else) slew him not nor crucified him, but it appeared so unto them (Jews); and lo! those (people) who disagree concerning it are in doubt thereof; they (people) have no knowledge thereof save pursuit of a conjecture; they (Jews) slew him not for certain.

Do these parenthetical insertions capture what you are saying? If not, please insert into the parentheses whom you believe they should be. I would like to get a better handle on this verse. Thanks.

Peace

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Hi Placid,

They asked Jesus for a sign of who He was, and He said, "There shall no sign be given but the sign of the Prophet Jonah. For as Jonah was three days and three nights in the stomach of the whale, so shall the Son of Man be three days and three nights in the heart of the earth."

I heared Ahmad Deedat said onece ,that this was not a miracle if he was a dead for 3 days in the heart of the earth ,but the miracle is to be like Jonah a live for three days in the belly of the whale .

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Nevertheless here is hadith in Bukhari maybe belong to this issue :

Narrated 'Abdullah: As if I am looking at the Prophet while he was speaking about one of the prophets whose people have beaten and wounded him, and he was wiping the blood off his face and saying, "O Lord! Forgive my, people as they do not know."

Luke 23 33] And when they were come to the place, which is called Calvary, there they crucified him, and the malefactors, one on the right hand, and the other on the left.

[34] Then said Jesus, Father, forgive them; for they know not what they do.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Create an account or sign in to comment

You need to be a member in order to leave a comment

Create an account

Sign up for a new account in our community. It's easy!

Register a new account

Sign in

Already have an account? Sign in here.

Sign In Now


  • Recent Posts on ShiaChat!

    • I wonder if it is enough for a person to believe in Islam until they die to be eternally in heaven eventually? I mean maybe a person would not believe if they were subject to torture but if they are not subject to torture they would believe. Must a Muslim believe no matter what or can they just rely on that if they believed in this life then they will someday enter heaven?
    • Guest Boy
      I m 28yrs old .I started praying since last year. I was not knowing the importance of praying.My parents never told me to pray .They were only after my studies.I was busy in my life not knowing the real purpose if life  . I new nothing about what are the duties of muslim. Then Allah guided me at the age of 27 and i started going to masjid . Now i regret why was i so far away from my deen for so many years.Some questions kill me everyday ..Why didnt allahs guidance came early .? .I have to make up for so many prayers.i have asked Allah for forgiveness .Why i hav to still make up?. Is it too late age to get guided ?  Like i have done nothing no namaz no roza ..when my parents never told me about deen how am i responsible ? Now i ask Allah for forgiveness why i still have to make up for qada ?? If i make niyat of making qada after some years is it ok  or i hav to start praying qada ??When were u ppl guided to do these things ? I am feeling very bad..Whatever we learn from childhood imprints in heart ..i have learnt nothing..share ur views please
    • This is not possible because this is a breach of the basis of unity. When its decided that we are not going to discuss about our beliefs. Scholars can sit together and discuss all this but this can't be done in a public scenario.
    • Quran has not talked about the punishment of Apostaty in this world. But we have Sahih hadeeths from Imams. Quran doesn't tell everything explicitly.  When Imam Ali said that "all secrets and knowledge is condensed in Quran" then it means we can't access it but they can. So its better to be satisfied with the hadeetha and Marajes have done a lot of study to accept these hadeeth and Law. And you're not being killed for your belief but your action. Flee to any other Non Muslim country and you're free but if you harm Muslim society by your Apostasy then you are ought to be killed as you are a corrupter.
×