Jump to content

Rate this topic

Recommended Posts

Bzzt! Wrong answer!

"Ishah" is a grown woman, and "Ba'al" is just a generic person. The correct word for "young woman" is "almah".

almah is a word for a chaste unmarried young woman as scriptures clearly show.

there is a word you're looking for if you want a young woman that sleeps around it's na`arah the definition of na'arah is as follows.

girl, damsel, female servant

girl, damsel, little girl

of young woman, marriageable young woman, concubine, prostitute

maid, female attendant, female servant

I believe this is the word you would have preferred isaiah to have said instead of 'almah.

this is the word for a young prostitude someone that sleeps around.

Sure there is -- "almah". "Almah" means, literally, "youth (female)".

na'arah is the word your looking for if you want a young woman that sleeps around not almah, almah means an unmarried young woman who is chaste according to the tanach and jewish sources.

Sure -- it's in Ba'midbar 1:1. G-d tells Moshe how to conduct a census and which people to count.

Num 1:1 And the LORD spake unto Moses in the wilderness of Sinai, in the tabernacle of the congregation, on the first [day] of the second month, in the second year after they were come out of the land of Egypt, saying,

(That is, this is G-d telling Moshe the rules for a census, and how families are enumerated.)

Num 1:2 Take ye the sum of all the congregation of the children of Israel, after their families, by the house of their fathers, with the number of [their] names, every male by their polls;

(That is, the tribe, or "House" is determined by the fathers -- "l'beit avtam" -- counting just the males)

Num 1:3 From twenty years old and upward, all that are able to go forth to war in Israel: thou and Aaron shall number them by their armies.

(And that's the age requirement -- over 20 -- and it includes a stipulation that they be able to fight, which means, don't count the infirm)

Num 1:4 And with you there shall be a man of every tribe; every one head of the house of his fathers.

(And again we see the "house of his fathers" language -- "ish rosh l'beit avtav" -- a man who is the head ("rosh") of his father's (ancestrally) house.

That's the formula, and every time tribal affiliation comes up, that's the formula.

I think you missed some parts.

Num 1:3 From twenty years old and upward, all that are able to go forth to war in Israel: thou and Aaron shall number them by their armies.

(And that's the age requirement -- over 20 -- and it includes a stipulation that they be able to fight, which means, don't count the infirm)

these speak of enlistment in the israeli army God was asking them to count the male from the Father's side in order to recruit them for war.

how you guys get that God is saying tribal affiliation only comes from the Father from those verses makes absolutely no sense.

Of course it doesn't say that. It also doesn't say it's okay to drive a car the wrong way down a one way street. The bible doesn't say a lot of things. Claiming that the bible DOES say something, just because it DOESN'T say the opposite is illogical, irrational and intellectually dishonest.

the simple point is that God does not say tribal affiliation only comes through the Father as you yourself showed us, with this I rest my case.

all we have coming from you guys is what if, or maybes, or he could've said because it makes sense to you.

No, because there is no law that allows it, and more than abundant law that sets tribal affiliation by the father, when the father is a Jew, or as a 'am yisreal' when not.

none of these laws are by God nor by the Prophets

I am sorry but l have not heard God say tribal affiliations only comes through the Father, this is speculation on your part.

At any rate, I have class in 7 minutes. I don't believe for an instant that you have a single Jewish source for anything you write, and suspect that most of what you get is coming from missionary websites.

I have jewish sources which I have written to about marriage before sex, which are anti-christian and most of what I get is from my own understanding of studying the tanach.

If you want to learn how Jews read the bible, that's great. If you want to convince me Christianity is right, forget it. Based on what I've seen, I have a better grasp of Christian theology than you, and I can do it without twisting the Hebrew texts into mush.

we'll let the evidence speak for itself.

I pray everything goes well in your classes.

Edited by tek91

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
The same Gabriel from the OT and the Quran said that this would happen to Mary

Placid, my friend. The Gabriel of the NT may have said it. But according to Islam, the Gabriel of the Quran contradicts his namesake from the NT.

This is the part that Jews and Muslims have trouble with,

That Gabriel said to Mary,

35. "The HOLY SPIRIT will come upon you, and THE POWER OF THE HIGHEST will overshadow you; therefore, also, THAT HOLY ONE who is to be born WILL BE CALLED THE SON OF GOD."

I was emphasizing that it was Gabriel who said that Jesus would be CALLED the Son of God.

My dear friend

And why would you expect us to accept it ? The New Testament is not our book.

As you are surely aware, Islam rejects outright the sonship of Jesus. For us, it is simply a falsehood weaved into the gospels. I can understand why you believe every word of the NT to be true, even though many Christian scholars have cast serious doubts on their authenticity. After all, the authors of the four gospels lived several decades after Jesus and perhaps had not even met him. By most accounts, they were merely documenting what the Christians of their day believed in. The edict of the Church that the other gospels were heresies also seems to be based on belief more than anything else. Indeed, there were many other gospels written, and they all portray a different Jesus. Have you read Elaine Pagel's books ? You are entitled to keep on believing in every word of the NT as gospel truth. But you cannot expect others to do the same.

Perhaps there is little point in discussing this topic. It is very hard to discuss it purely rationally.

And since there is no chance of either one of us converting the other, perhaps we should let the topic go.

Cheers and best wishes.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Placid, my friend. The Gabriel of the NT may have said it. But according to Islam, the Gabriel of the Quran contradicts his namesake from the NT.

My dear friend

And why would you expect us to accept it ? The New Testament is not our book.

As you are surely aware, Islam rejects outright the sonship of Jesus. For us, it is simply a falsehood weaved into the gospels. I can understand why you believe every word of the NT to be true, even though many Christian scholars have cast serious doubts on their authenticity. After all, the authors of the four gospels lived several decades after Jesus and perhaps had not even met him. By most accounts, they were merely documenting what the Christians of their day believed in. The edict of the Church that the other gospels were heresies also seems to be based on belief more than anything else. Indeed, there were many other gospels written, and they all portray a different Jesus. Have you read Elaine Pagel's books ? You are entitled to keep on believing in every word of the NT as gospel truth. But you cannot expect others to do the same.

Perhaps there is little point in discussing this topic. It is very hard to discuss it purely rationally.

And since there is no chance of either one of us converting the other, perhaps we should let the topic go.

Cheers and best wishes.

John 1:12 says: But as many as received him, to them gave he power to become the sons of God, even to them that believe on his name: no reason why that cannot include all Gods followers.

From what I've read, Muhammad recited softly many words. Main reason was so people didn't worship Jesus. Good reason for it, but if you discredit the NT, then you also discredit what Muhamad had to say about it.

Historians have a way of turning your mind away, but what did Muhammad actually say?

Elaine Pagel's hadiths? She wants God to be a she! Hmmm, what does your woman say?

That's kind of an insult to put her writings ahead of the NT.

How far are you willing to go?

Do you want to be known as the guy who worships the "she" God?

Edited by Son of Placid

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
what does your woman say?

Abandoning politeness is a sign of weakness. Elaine Pagel is not my woman.

Good reason for it, but if you discredit the NT, then you also discredit what Muhamad had to say about it.

I have no intentions to discredit anyone's religious books. But not being a Christian, I must have a good reason if I am to accept the NT as authentic.

then you also discredit what Muhamad had to say about it.

Mohammad may not have rejected everything the gospels have to say but he did reject the most important teaching of Christianity - the sonship of Jesus.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Tek,

It's the same rule everywhere, not just for war.

Num 2:1 And the LORD spake unto Moses and unto Aaron, saying,

(This is G-d telling Moshe where the tribes are going to arrange themselves around the tabernacle in the wilderness)

Num 2:2 Every man of the children of Israel shall pitch by his own standard, with the ensign of their father's house: far off about the tabernacle of the congregation shall they pitch.

Num 2:32 These [are] those which were numbered of the children of Israel by the house of their fathers: all those that were numbered of the camps throughout their hosts [were] six hundred thousand and three thousand and five hundred and fifty.

Num 2:34 And the children of Israel did according to all that the LORD commanded Moses: so they pitched by their standards, and so they set forward, every one after their families, according to the house of their fathers.

(Here is what G-d decides who is going to minister to Him in the tabernacle)

Num 3:15 Number the children of Levi (one of the twelve tribes) after the house of their fathers, by their families: every male from a month old and upward shalt thou number them.

(Now the wandering in the dessert is coming to an end and G-d is finally allowing us to enter the Land he promised to our father, Abraham)

Num 33:54 And ye shall divide the land by lot for an inheritance among your families: [and] to the more ye shall give the more inheritance, and to the fewer ye shall give the less inheritance: every man's [inheritance] shall be in the place where his lot falleth; according to the tribes of your fathers ye shall inherit.

Here is Moshe dividing the Land as G-d commanded --

Num 34:1 And the LORD spake unto Moses, saying,

(G-d gives a lesson in surveying land)

Num 34:13 And Moses commanded the children of Israel, saying, This [is] the land which ye shall inherit by lot, which the LORD commanded to give unto the nine tribes, and to the half tribe:

Num 34:14 For the tribe of the children of Reuben according to the house of their fathers, and the tribe of the children of Gad according to the house of their fathers, have received [their inheritance]; and half the tribe of Manasseh have received their inheritance:

And that goes on for a while.

Remember those three women I told you about earlier?

Num 36:12 [And] they (the three women) were married into the families of the sons of Manasseh the son of Joseph, and their inheritance remained in the tribe of the family of their father.

Whenever "tribe" is mentioned, it's the father who matters. Whether it is arranging the tribes about the tabernacle to encamp, or to serve G-d, or to inherit the Land, or to be the king, or even to go to war.

If, only for the sake of argument because I otherwise disagree, G-d is Jesus's father, Jesus is not of the Tribe of Judah, and is not able to be the messiah, because G-d isn't a Jew, and G-d doesn't have a "tribe".

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Whenever "tribe" is mentioned, it's the father who matters. Whether it is arranging the tribes about the tabernacle to encamp, or to serve G-d, or to inherit the Land, or to be the king, or even to go to war.

If, only for the sake of argument because I otherwise disagree, G-d is Jesus's father, Jesus is not of the Tribe of Judah, and is not able to be the messiah, because G-d isn't a Jew, and G-d doesn't have a "tribe".

it really doesn't matter if the Fathers tribe is mentioned, you guys are making a bold statement that tribalhood can only come from the Father, this my friend is not backed up by tanach.

because the children of israel took a censor by their fathers side, or enlisted recruits for war by their Fathers side or started giving inheritence by the tribe of the father has no implication that tribal affiliations can only come through the Father.

this is the very definition of cherry picking.

I would understand if God literally said children cannot come through the mother side or the house of the Father is the only tribe there should be. but by making bold statements on verses which don't even imply in the little bit that tribal affiliation only comes through the Father is useless.

Jesus is in fact of the tribe of Judah through Mary.

I haven't heard God say eitherwise yet.

from the tanach all I heard is God saying that when you guys take a censor or when you guys give an inheritence you have to do it through your Fathers side, that's all I heard.

Ariella I don't mean to sound disrespectful, but to prove something wrong you have to cut clear in the scriptures, you can't just shoot scriptures without reading the sorrounding verses.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Abandoning politeness is a sign of weakness. Elaine Pagel is not my woman.

I have no intentions to discredit anyone's religious books. But not being a Christian, I must have a good reason if I am to accept the NT as authentic.

Mohammad may not have rejected everything the gospels have to say but he did reject the most important teaching of Christianity - the sonship of Jesus.

Sorry about the impolite stuff. Just a bit surprised about Daystar. Wealth of lost knowledge, and no, he really wasn't the worst. My post in that thread got lost somewhere, but probably for the same impolite reason.

I guess I better watch my P's and Q's, I see canning Christians is the latest trend.

Then again, I've been condemned by more Christians for my beliefs than by Muslims.

I didn't mean Elaine was "your" woman, but I'd bet your woman likes her theories tho, (as most women do). It's just...are her theories more truthful than the NT? Maybe each one of us could then write a book.

I understand what you are saying about accepting someone elses scripture, I'm having my own problems with the Quran.

There is much scripture about all of us becoming the "sons of God" so it's obviously not a genetic thing as much as it is a unity of thought, and a following of God.

Muhammad had trouble with the diety of Jesus, not so much the "sonship". Considering the virgin birth, a divine seed, etc, it's not so far fetched to call Jesus the son of God...really. It might all be a definition of terms from back in the days before when language only had so many words to describe.

The English language now has a kizbillion words, and they keep adding. New words mean we start to lose the meaning of the old words.

The NT was written by men, as was the Quran. With everything Men have done it always has a tendancy towards bias, as in "must match the main concept". Considering that man cannot grasp the full concept of God, unless God physically wrote it himself, there will always be human errors no matter what you are reading.

When I read the Quran I see it is written as "We" in so many places...who is the "We"? If there is One God, and He divinely wrote all scripture, who is the We?

Not wanting to discredit any scripture either. I'd actually like to understand how it all comes together.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
it really doesn't matter if the Fathers tribe is mentioned, you guys are making a bold statement that tribalhood can only come from the Father, this my friend is not backed up by tanach.

because the children of israel took a censor by their fathers side, or enlisted recruits for war by their Fathers side or started giving inheritence by the tribe of the father has no implication that tribal affiliations can only come through the Father.

this is the very definition of cherry picking.

Maimonidies is better versed in what I'm about to describe than me, but there are rules (laws, given by G-d) for interpreting Torah law. One of the rules, which applies in this case, is that when a rule is applied in more than one instance, the rule applies to all instances.

In the case of tribal membership, having given the rule that tribal membership comes through the father in multiple different situations, that means that according to G-d, that rule applies to all instances.

In formal argumentation terms, (I think -- because I've not formally studied logic in over 20 years, despite using formal logic all the time) this can be expressed as "For all enumerated S(x) therefore L(x), implies S'(x) therefore L(x)". That is "for all situations regarding 'x', where 'x' is a particular set of circumstances, if a specific law is applied to 'x', then for any situation regarding 'x', which is not enumerated, the same law also applies to 'x'".

From this it is readily (and logically) deducible that there exists no situation regarding tribal membership such that tribal membership is other than through the paternal side. It's just logic, or as Einstein said "G-d does not play dice."

Now, I seldom drag out raw logic when discussing theology, but if you want to be irrational and illogical, in addition to a poor student of linguistics, have at it. It was illogic, irrationality and poor linguistic skills that ran me out of Christianity and straight into Judaism. And I'd wager that if we took a poll of Muslim reverts on this forum who left Christianity, we'd find a similar trend. I'm happy whenever someone worships G-d, even if I disagree with their religion, because I'm all about G-d. But Christians would do well to find logical bases for their religious claims so you people don't chase your members off to become atheists. Islam and Judaism get the defectors who believe in G-d, but still.

(As an aside, after reading the "Taqleed" thread in "Islamic Jurisprudence", it appears that this same ruleset is used to derive Shari'a law in new circumstances. Confirmation of this from someone better versed in Islamic law than myself would be helpful.)

Edited by Ariella

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
When I read the Quran I see it is written as "We" in so many places...who is the "We"? If there is One God, and He divinely wrote all scripture, who is the We?

Linguistic nuance of Quranic Arabic. I think it is meant to try and put some emphasis. Does not signify plurality of persons. Every language has its quirks. Mark your own contradiction in the English language.

who is the We?

"IS" is singular but "WE" is plural. So was your grammar right or wrong ? You should have probably said "Who are the WE ?". Similar is the case with other languages.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Linguistic nuance of Quranic Arabic. I think it is meant to try and put some emphasis. Does not signify plurality of persons. Every language has its quirks. Mark your own contradiction in the English language.

That's kind of a weird quirk, but yeah, english has to be the worst. Include the accents, lingos, and dialects in Canada alone...

"IS" is singular but "WE" is plural. So was your grammar right or wrong ? You should have probably said "Who are the WE ?". Similar is the case with other languages.

Actually I used "IS" because there IS only one God, but the "WE" thing is kind of distracting.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
That's kind of a weird quirk, but yeah, english has to be the worst. Include the accents, lingos, and dialects in Canada alone

Nothing weird. You probably speak just one language. If you spoke a few, you'd know what I was trying to say.

Language are mathematics are mutual opposites.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

(salam)

Just like to add.....placid and Son of Placid....really enjoyed and was enlightened by the quotes from the Gospel of Matthew you added into this topic. could really quite clearly see close correlations with the Quranic message in there. Muslims and Christians could go on for days talking about their differences, but as Ariella pointed out in an earlier post in this topic, that things really shine when people come together to try and find some common understanding of God's message to mankind and get closer to Him.

Glad to see also that placid you've had the opportunity and interest to read about Imam Ali (a.s.).

Still not getting how you think 2:72-73 relates to Prophet Jesus (pbuh) or even if it has anything to do with the atonement of sin...maybe something for a new topic.....

Very interested by placid's interpretation of 4:157 - as it allows for the interpretation that Prophet Jesus (pbuh) did die by voluntarily giving up his spirit (which satisfy's the translation in the Gospel of Luke), but didn't die directly from the plot inflicted by those who wanted him dead (which would satisfy the Muslim translation of this verse)

Although one still has the issue of 4:159. And the whole "sign of Jonah" quote. I guess depending on the way you look at things you could interpret it either way.

Placid, though, I still think your correct in your observation. Whether Prophet Jesus (pbuh) was dead before being raised to God, or if he was in a coma, or if he was in a swoon, or if he had simply vanished through a wormhole.....there's still nothing in the Quran about salvation being achievied by believing that he died for our sins. Muslims simply don't *need* Prophet Jesus (pbuh) to have died in order to validate their faith in God. And if you're interpretation of the Quranic verses are correct, then similarly they don't *need* him to have survived either. Thus there's no underlying reason for a Muslim to deliberately search for a translation of the Quran that shows he died. The Muslim faith doesn't hinge on whether Jesus (pbuh) was dead before being raised to God or not. And, if you don't mind me saying, it doesn't look like the Sermon on the Mount hinges on that either. Now...salvation by believing in his message (as described in the Sermon on the Mount) and they way he depended on God, conducted his life on earth and way of dealing with others, and in him being the spirit and word of God, and even that he endured the hatred of the people and their wish to put him to death, just so he was able to carry out God's will and get this message out to the world....I think there might be something there we can all agree on. :)

Peace

Edited by hashmo

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Hi Hashmo,

Thanks for your kind comments. Good to hear from you again.

Quote:

Just like to add.....placid and Son of Placid....really enjoyed and was enlightened by the quotes from the Gospel of Matthew you added into this topic. could really quite clearly see close correlations with the Quranic message in there. Muslims and Christians could go on for days talking about their differences, but as Ariella pointed out in an earlier post in this topic, that things really shine when people come together to try and find some common understanding of God's message to mankind and get closer to Him.

--- RESPONSE --- Yes, we have much in harmony that we could share and benefit from. We see the similarities, others see the differences.

Glad to see also that placid you've had the opportunity and interest to read about Imam Ali (a.s.).

--- RESPONSE --- I was glad to find that Imam Ali used the Gospel of Matthew and the Sermon on the Mount in his teaching. I have no more questions about the supposed 'Injeel,' because I see that this is the 'Gospel' that he used. If he used the Arabic translation of the NT, that proves it was there.

Still not getting how you think 2:72-73 relates to Prophet Jesus or even if it has anything to do with the atonement of sin...maybe something for a new topic.....

Very interested by placid's interpretation of 4:157 - as it allows for the interpretation that Prophet Jesus did die by voluntarily giving up his spirit (which satisfy's the translation in the Gospel of Luke), but didn't die directly from the plot inflicted by those who wanted him dead (which would satisfy the Muslim translation of this verse)

--- RESPONSE --- I have explained the comparison of the sacrifice of Jesus to the 'unblemished heifer' of Numbers 19, which compares to the sacrifice that Moses asked for in 2:63-71. (The complicated part of the text is, it says, 'And We said: Smite him with some of it.' To study this in other translations it speaks of smiting the dead body of the one whom they killed, and who God raised from the dead, --- with a piece of the dead heifer from some 1500 years earlier. This is impossible and Sher Ali says, 'Compare this, and you will understand.' --- I won't write anything more here, but I have written it in Post 75, the last post on page 3 under the topic, 'Who witnessed the crucifixion.' --- Also I will mention it again on the topic I started, 'Does God hold us accountable for sin?' --- The reason for this topic is to deal with the misunderstanding of it all.

Although one still has the issue of 4:159. And the whole "sign of Jonah" quote. I guess depending on the way you look at things you could interpret it either way.

--- RESPONSE --- Yes, this will continue to be debated, but I have heard and read in commentaries that in that year the 14th of Nisan came on a Wednesday so that was the 'Preparation' day for the "High Day,' or special Sabbath which would be on Thursday, rather than the regular weekly Sabbath on Saturday.

Placid, though, I still think your correct in your observation. Whether Prophet Jesus was dead before being raised to God, or if he was in a coma, or if he was in a swoon, or if he had simply vanished through a wormhole.....there's still nothing in the Quran about salvation being achievied by believing that he died for our sins. Muslims simply don't *need* Prophet Jesus to have died in order to validate their faith in God. And if you're interpretation of the Quranic verses are correct, then similarly they don't *need* him to have survived either. Thus there's no underlying reason for a Muslim to deliberately search for a translation of the Quran that shows he died. The Muslim faith doesn't hinge on whether Jesus was dead before being raised to God or not. And, if you don't mind me saying, it doesn't look like the Sermon on the Mount hinges on that either. Now...salvation by believing in his message (as described in the Sermon on the Mount) and they way he depended on God, conducted his life on earth and way of dealing with others, and in him being the spirit and word of God, and even that he endured the hatred of the people and their wish to put him to death, just so he was able to carry out God's will and get this message out to the world....I think there might be something there we can all agree on.

--- RESPONSE --- It was necessary for Jesus to die regardless of who believes or disbelieves. Also a flesh and blood body cannot go to heaven so Jesus could not have been caught up to heaven in a blood body. What is totally ignored by Muslims is the history that Jesus was resurrected and appeared on earth to the disciples for 40 days after His resurrection, and then after His ascention there was another 10 days before the Holy Spirit came to the disciples in the 'Upper Room' on the Day of Pentecost. --- Penta, means 50, and the Day of Pentecost was 50 days after the resurrection.

You are right that the Muslims don't need the death of Jesus to follow their religion. I have asked more than once, "What difference does it make to salvation for Muslims whether Jesus died or not?" --- and they answer, --- "No difference." Then I can say, "Why argue against it then?"

However, I will give the reason as I develop the post on sin and the fact that the 'blood body' is the offence to God that had to be atoned for, and that involves all of us.

Thanks Hashmo, I hope we can continue to exchange views.

Placid

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
You are right that the Muslims don't need the death of Jesus to follow their religion. I have asked more than once, "What difference does it make to salvation for Muslims whether Jesus died or not?" --- and they answer, --- "No difference." Then I can say, "Why argue against it then?"

(salam) placid,

I hope you had a pleasant trip away inshah'Allah.

That is a VERY good point by the way. What strikes me so much is that there is much debate on the forum about crucifixion, atonement of sin, salvation etc...but when I search for occasions where the Household of the Prophet have interacted with their Christian brothers....there wasn't such debate taking place. I may be wrong on this, but I simply haven't come across any narrations from the lives of the Prophet or the Household where they engaged in debate on these particular matters. Obviously there are debates on the concept of the Trinity - but even from reading your and SOP's posts on this, its obvious that you both agree that there is only One God and that Prophet Jesus' (pbuh) role (whilst on Earth at least) to submit to and glorify "the Father". One would hope that in the time of the Prophet's family, that if these debates came to the same conclusion, then the matter was simply put to rest once clarified.

I guess the argument starts when Muslims are told by Evangelists (not you or SOP or many other Christian posters on this forum), that they can *only* make it to heavan by believing in those particular doctrines. The argument flows in the reverse direction when *corrupter scriptures* are mentioned. But if the narrations from Imam Ali you quoted are correct, then it is possible that he beleived that at least some of the Injeel (Good News given by God to Prophet Jesus (pbuh) to give to the people) appears in the NT (where the messages between it and the Quran are consistent).

Peace

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
I was glad to find that Imam Ali used the Gospel of Matthew and the Sermon on the Mount in his teaching.
If he used the Arabic translation of the NT, that proves it was there.

Whoever told you that Imam Ali based his teachings on the Sermon on the Mount or the Gospel of Matthew ? Placid, you have a moderating influence in this site here. And indeed I did not expect this from you. But by posting this, contrary to your usual honest approach, you have acted more like those always anxious to twist information to their advantage.

Imam Ali was the ultimate in knowledge and wisdom. He did not have to borrow from anyone to state the truth and preach the wisdom. He also had the highest ethical and moral standards that can be found anywhere.

Read more about Imam Ali. You will always be a winner. For starters, read the chapter on him by the Oxford writer Professor Madelung. His book is available in Amazon Books.

You are right that the Muslims don't need the death of Jesus to follow their religion. I have asked more than once, "What difference does it make to salvation for Muslims whether Jesus died or not?" --- and they answer, --- "No difference." Then I can say, "Why argue against it then?"

Because we believe it is not true.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
If Imam Ali said something about Jesus that is similar to what we read in matthew , from where Imam brought it ?

All men of God (prophets and Imams) said similar things. Does not mean they borrowed from one another's books. They got their wisdom from the same divine source but there is no evidence they got it from one another's books. Also, no evidence is available to show that Imam Ali had access to any of the Judeo-Christian books, scholars or teachers.

Please note again that the middle character of my name is a 'Q', not a 'G'.

That is

B as in BEAR

A as in ANT

Q as in QUEEN

A as in ARK

R as in ROAST

Thanks

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
All men of God (prophets and Imams) said similar things. Does not mean they borrowed from one another's books. They got their wisdom from the same divine source but there is no evidence they got it from one another's books. Also, no evidence is available to show that Imam Ali had access to any of the Judeo-Christian books, scholars or teachers.

Please note again that the middle character of my name is a 'Q', not a 'G'.

That is

B as in BEAR

A as in ANT

Q as in QUEEN

A as in ARK

R as in ROAST

Thanks

Im sorry for the third time regarding to your name Akh baqar Al3azeez,

This is the point that our brother Placid meant , when he read what Imam said and what Jesus said in Matthew especially his sermon he finds no different . This is the reason let Placid says [ bible is the word of God ].

Secondly, Imam has told us to take the wisdom even from hypocrite . This is why he sometimes use some poetries from famous poets of arabia .

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Hi,

I am quoting this from Post 10, which you no doubt read earlier. (I am surprised that anybody is surprised that I keep saying the same thing).

Here is what I wrote in Post 10 on page 1 of this topic.

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?

Endquote.

Placid

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
I am quoting this from Post 10, which you no doubt read earlier. (I am surprised that anybody is surprised that I keep saying the same thing).

Placid, my friend. I had not read post # 10. But I have read it now and I have no problems there. You thought Ali got it from Mathew and asked a question to that effect. Here is the extract from post # 10.

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

However, in post # 88, you changed that question into a statement.

I was glad to find that Imam Ali used the Gospel of Matthew and the Sermon on the Mount in his teaching.
If he used the Arabic translation of the NT, that proves it was there.

And I had to jump in.

You drew that conclusion, as you say, from that thread on Jesus and Ali. The passages may be similar enough to tempt the reader to that end. However, I strongly believe that your conclusion was an unsustainable assumption. There is no evidence that Imam Ali had any access to Christian books, teachers or scholars.

Divine knowledge is available equally to all men of God. Besides, as the saying goes, great men think alike.

Cheers

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
On 7/28/2007 at 6:17 AM, Qa'im said:

(salam)

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

So could we say that the Injeel was words of Jesus to refer back to the TORAH?

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
On 5/19/2017 at 3:16 PM, MohammadAli1993 said:

So could we say that the Injeel was words of Jesus to refer back to the TORAH?

I believe the Injeel was the words of Jesus. Unfortunate not everything was recorded. All we really have of His message is in the NT, most of which is called "the sermon on the mount". It's a good read.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
4 hours ago, Son of Placid said:

I believe the Injeel was the words of Jesus. Unfortunate not everything was recorded. All we really have of His message is in the NT, most of which is called "the sermon on the mount". It's a good read.

If I can remember, I will share with you something interesting in what the Holy Imams have said about the Lost Gospel of Jesus pbuh

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
5 hours ago, Son of Placid said:

Unfortunate not everything was recorded. 

Indeed.

Jesus's ministry is believed to have lasted three years. But what is recorded hardly covers that period.

I haven't read John but excluding his childhood, I think each of the other three gospels can be seen to flow through a period of no more then four to six weeks.

Which might mean that somehow a huge lot of the stuff seems to have gone missing. 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
7 hours ago, baqar said:

Indeed.

Jesus's ministry is believed to have lasted three years. But what is recorded hardly covers that period.

I haven't read John but excluding his childhood, I think each of the other three gospels can be seen to flow through a period of no more then four to six weeks.

Which might mean that somehow a huge lot of the stuff seems to have gone missing. 

Probably not missing. Much more likely it was never recorded. Unlike Muhammed, Jesus was not a famous person. He never wrote anything himself, and after his ascent to heaven his followers were convinced he would return soon. When Christians 40 years or so understood that this would not happen, they started to write the Gospels to document what they felt was important to know for generations to come. 

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!

    • Off-hand l'd say two of your options are: 1] Take him to small-claims court and use the courts 'judgment cap' (e.g. $2500 in some states) and claim this portion is past due if he owes more than $2500.  Then go-for-the-rest later (if necessary  ) 2] Write him off your taxes as a "bad debt" and send a report to a credit reporting agency. Also, if he put the money into a business, then go to the BBB and see if their complaint dep't can help.
    • hi in my opinion the main problem between sunni &shia is about their claiming of supremacy to  each other for shias their Imams are martyred and according to  below verses when we call them they answer us and all of them 100% beneficial to us but sunni leaders were ordinary people & sunnis bro&sis dont call them as martyrs  so whats their benefit for them as you see in  verse 12  And of the people is he who worships Allah on an edge. If he is touched by good, he is reassured by it; but if he is struck by trial, he turns on his face [to the other direction]. He has lost [this] world and the Hereafter. That is what is the manifest loss. (11) He invokes instead of Allah that which neither harms him nor benefits him. That is what is the extreme error. (12) He invokes one whose harm is closer than his benefit - how wretched the protector and how wretched the associate. (13)Indeed, Allah will admit those who believe and do righteous deeds to gardens beneath which rivers flow. Indeed, Allah does what He intends. (14) Whoever should think that Allah will not support [Prophet Muhammad] in this world and the Hereafter - let him extend a rope to the ceiling, then cut off [his breath], and let him see: will his effort remove that which enrages [him]? (15) Al-Hajj◄  333  ►Juz 17 http://tanzil.net/#22:11
    • First few minutes of this DeutscheWelle program. What is the solution for Autonomous Vehicles meeting obstacles that are not in its programming? tag w/ networking, satellites, system learning, human guidance integration, ... http://www.dw.com/en/tomorrow-today-the-science-magazine/av-41331201 
    • Salam Sister. Its very very heart breaking to listen to your situation. But remember, Bibi Fatima was also abused (May Allah curse the oppressors), Imam Hussain was also abused, So was Bibi Sakina but remember that they were satisfied with what God wished for them. They knew God as He should be known. Allah speaks in Quran 6:59 - "And with Him are the keys of the unseen; none knows them except Him. And He knows what is on the land and in the sea. Not a leaf falls but that He knows it. And no grain is there within the darknesses of the earth and no moist or dry [thing] but that it is [written] in a clear record." So remember this that whatever is happening with you Allah is a Witness over all of these. And people will be questioned the moment they enter their grave. But we are the nation of RasoolAllah. The bringer of Mercy of Allah. No matter how much painful incident happens with you, keep on forgiving. Ask from Allah the forgiveness of your parents as well Right Guidance.  Also, this is a trial for you. Do you know Allah tries only His "Best" Servants. You should be happy just like Imam Hussain for he was happy to be tried by Allah. His trial was the greatest and no trial matched his trial. And what a love story you told that despite you doing wrong to yourself (that is attempt to die), instead you were guided by the Rahma of Allah through His book. Not everybody is bestowed with such love of Allah. Know this, He is the giver of Death and Life. If He saved you and Guided you then He has a plan for you. Just believe in Him. Maybe He has a very luminous plan for you ahead.  This is the time when you should build a stronger bond with Him.  He has called you towards His love. And please don't do harm to yourself. Nothing is yours. Everything Belongs to Him. If you do harm yourself, you actually try to harm His Property. Seek Repentance, He is Sariyal Ridha, He accepts it very easily and very Quickly. May Allah bestow His Mercy and Love on you Sister all your life and May He keeps you steadfast on your religion and the love of Ahlulbayt. No pain is more than the pain of Ahlulbayt specially that of Aba Abdillah. Whenever a tragedy befalls you, remember the pain and tragedy Aba Abdillah has to go through, Bibi Zaynab and Bibi Sakina went through.. 6 month old Hazrat Ali Asghar went through.. And they all just saw the "Beauty of Allah", "Death being sweeter than honey when it was bestowed on them by Allah". Just be patient as Imam Ali was and know that Allah's plan surpasses our highest aspirations. Allah never leaves His servants hopeless. he is always with you. He created you to show His love to you. His love comes in different ways. It has come to you in the form of Guidance through Quran. A call of love. Answer it.
    • Alaikum Salaam Brothers And Sisters, I'm Wanting To Become A Shia Muslim, And Was Wondering If Anyone Could Refer Me To Some Really Good Shia Ideology, Beliefs And Practices? I Thought It More Prudent To Ask Some Experienced Shia Muslims On Some Good Book Titles In English? I Appreciate Any And All Assistance Given! Shukraan Jazilan, And Jazak Allah!!
×