Jump to content


- - - -


Photo
- - - - -

Why dont Christians and Jew believe in the Prophet


305 replies to this topic

#1 AliSaleh

AliSaleh

    ALi Saleh

  • Advanced Members
  • PipPipPipPip
  • 1,427 posts
  • Location:Yes
  • Interests:Soccer, facebook, jersy shore, Shah's Of Sunset, Iran, seperation of nader and simin, ashkan dejagah

Posted 25 November 2009 - 08:54 PM

Why dont christians and jews believe in the prophet? this question has been eating away at my mind. If the Quran came after Jesus, wouldnt that be a confirmation that the Quran is the true book? That prophet muhammad(pbuh) had the perfect book revealed to him through Gabriel. Why did christians and jews start believing the bible, if the Quran was the true word of god. I dont get it. Please help me out brothers, this has been on my mind for forever. May the blessings of Allah be upon all of you and your families.

#2 Son of Placid

Son of Placid

    Member

  • Advanced Members
  • PipPipPipPipPipPip
  • 3,579 posts
  • Location:Alberta Canada
  • Religion:Christian
  • Interests:Watching Islam and Christianity come together.

Posted 01 December 2009 - 01:41 AM

Every religion believes they have the final truth.

Jews believe they were the chosen people of the Old Testament. They have everythng they need. They don't believe Jesus was anybody, even though He was a Jew. The rest of us are all gentiles.

Christians believe Jesus was God. To call Him a mere prophet is blasphemy. That's why they get upset if you start talkng about it.
Not only that but most Christian circles teach Islam is a demonic cult of unethical proportions, aka terrorists. They're a pretty hard headed bunch.

If it were said that Guru Nanuk had found the "new" truth, would you feel compelled to go seek out his beliefs?

#3 yonus

yonus

    Member

  • Advanced Members
  • PipPipPipPipPipPip
  • 4,754 posts

Posted 01 December 2009 - 07:27 PM

Hi Son of Placid,

Christians believe Jesus was God. To call Him a mere prophet is blasphemy. That's why they get upset if you start talkng about it.


According to your belief : Is it astray to believe Jesus was God ?

#4 Mohammed-W

Mohammed-W

    Member

  • Advanced Members
  • PipPipPip
  • 960 posts
  • Religion:Islam - Follower of Ahl ul Bayt (AS)

Posted 01 December 2009 - 08:11 PM

(bismillah)
The jews rejected Prophet Jesus AS because he condemmed their hypocrisy they wouldnt take admonishment

The christians (montheistic) Allah says in the quran when they hear the verses of the quran tears come to their eyes they prostrate and say this is what we followed before! count us amongst the muslims :)

The trinitarian christians are in a perverse rebellion they follow what is in accordance to their desires (according to quran)

The jews reject Prophet Mohammed SAW out of envy since they were expecting the prophet to be a descendant of Prophet Isaac AS not Prophet IshmailAS.

people of the book/ monotheist followers of Jesus
Christians/Trinitarians
Jews/European converts
Children of israel/ The descendents of Isaac (twelve tribesof judea) jews claim to be the children of israel. but they are converts.

According to your belief : Is it astray to believe Jesus was God ?

Yes

Edited by Mohammed-W, 01 December 2009 - 08:38 PM.


#5 Mohammed-W

Mohammed-W

    Member

  • Advanced Members
  • PipPipPip
  • 960 posts
  • Religion:Islam - Follower of Ahl ul Bayt (AS)

Posted 01 December 2009 - 08:31 PM

(bismillah)
christianity spread when an Paul (he was not actually Jesus companion he converted after Jesus death and never met him) went to rome and presented Jesus as a prophet but he incorporated the trinity into the belief so Rome accepted and it became state religion.

He did not meet Jesus he met the companions as they were spreading Jesus teachings but he said he had dreams where Jesus said it is halal to eat pork and circumcision is not necassary to go to heaven it is the faith that matters he started saying he was having visions (they are in the present bible compiled by king james the visions) The apostles (ansar in quran) broke with him and he went with his visions to Rome where he adapted the message to their trinitarian customs and celebration of saturnalia (christmas)

saturnalia this is a heathen festival where people have orgies and feasts to get the sun to come back nimrod (who did incest with his mother was born on the 25th of dec also he was a king in babylon, where people worshipped the sun) the bible tells them not to celebrate this heathen festival but paul said it was ok it is Jesus birthday.

The books of the bible were collected by Rome and they kept what they wanted. They banned the maccabean bible and the gospal according to barnabos. (A true apostle/Ansar)

most eminant scholars in chritianity got together in the 1970's to find the most ancient text, when they did this they threw out most of the new testament (mostly pauls visions or versions of what apostles said) and they included the macabean bible. A bible is a compilation of sayings.

the church made a big uproar and the bible was banned and the old king james version was reinstated. The banned bible was the RSV first edition around the 70's. if you by a revised standard version of the bible now it is back to the king james version

Edited by Mohammed-W, 01 December 2009 - 08:32 PM.


#6 BostonJew

BostonJew

    Member

  • Advanced Members
  • Pip
  • 174 posts

Posted 01 December 2009 - 11:57 PM

Why dont christians and jews believe in the prophet? this question has been eating away at my mind. If the Quran came after Jesus, wouldnt that be a confirmation that the Quran is the true book? That prophet muhammad(pbuh) had the perfect book revealed to him through Gabriel. Why did christians and jews start believing the bible, if the Quran was the true word of god. I dont get it. Please help me out brothers, this has been on my mind for forever. May the blessings of Allah be upon all of you and your families.


Hi,
I can give you a Jewish perspective.

I think you need to start with a very basic question of evidence. Imagine the following: A person comes to you on the street and says "Guess what? I'm a prophet and I just got a revelation from G-d. You should follow me." Do you believe him? Unless you're very credulous, you're not going to believe every person who claims to have a revelation from G-d. Odds are, he's either lying or deluded. So you would need some specially high level of evidence to believe he really is a prophet. The burden is not on you to "prove" that he isn't a prophet; the burden is on him to prove that he *is* a prophet.

The Jewish nation is 3700 years old. We experienced the revelation at Sinai, and received the Torah (written and oral) 3400 years ago. The Torah sets forth our obligations to fellow-men and to G-d. The Torah explains that we will receive further prophets, but that there will also be false prophets (i.e. person who says he is a prophet but isn't, or who actually receives a prophecy but then lies about what he has received and transmits a falsehood). We received supplementary revelations over the next 1000 years, which ceased after the death of the generation of the first (Babylonian) exile, i.e. about 2500 years ago. But all of our prophets emphasized that the Jew's obligation is to the Torah and that the Torah will be binding on the Jewish nation forever, and that any "prophet" who says anything the slightest bit contradictory to the Torah is not a prophet (or at the very least least, is not talking to us).

We are a skeptical people by nature. Frankly, I suspect we wouldn't have believed that the revelation at Sinai had occurred if not for the fact that the entire nation witnessed it. If one Jew had been asleep in his tent during the revelation at Sinai, I suspect he would be accusing the other 2,999,999 of having hallucinated the whole thing. But we all saw and heard and experienced it, which is quite extraordinary; indeed, the Torah itself (committed to writing 3400 years ago!) explicitly states that no other nation will ever claim to have had a mass revelation in which the entire nation participated. This prediction is so far true.

Over the past 2500 years, various figures have arisen both within and without the Jewish people and claimed that they are prophets. Some of them you have heard of, many you have not. Not just Jesus of Nazareth and Muhammad, but also Joseph Smith (founder of Mormonism), Guru Nanak (founder of Sikhism), Baha'ullah (founder of Baha'i), Elijah Muhammad (founder of the Nation of Islam), etc. You can decide for yourself whether you think this one or that one is a true prophet. (They can't all be.)

It may seem obvious to you that Muhammad was a true prophet. But it seems obvious to a Mormon that Joseph Smith was.

When you have formulated an explanation in your mind of why you don't think Joseph Smith was a true prophet, you will understand why Jews do not think Muhammad was a true prophet. Or, at any rate, not a prophet delivering a message for the Jewish nation. Rambam (Maimonides) suggests that the spread of Islam and Christianity was part of G-d's plan to prepare the pagans of the world for the concept of monotheism so that when messiah arrives, they will have at least heard of the concept (as opposed to, say, a tribesman in the Amazon who will be totally confused by the concept). But that is different from saying that Muhammad had a message from G-d for the Jewish nation.

I hope that helps.

#7 Son of Placid

Son of Placid

    Member

  • Advanced Members
  • PipPipPipPipPipPip
  • 3,579 posts
  • Location:Alberta Canada
  • Religion:Christian
  • Interests:Watching Islam and Christianity come together.

Posted 02 December 2009 - 03:24 AM

According to your belief : Is it astray to believe Jesus was God ?


According to my belief, yes.

Posted Image
christianity spread when an Paul (he was not actually Jesus companion he converted after Jesus death and never met him) went to rome and presented Jesus as a prophet but he incorporated the trinity into the belief so Rome accepted and it became state religion.


Actually, Paul never referred to Jesus as God. Paul was never a trinitarian, and he never confused Jesus with God, not even once. The trinity was incorporated by the Nicean Creed around 325 AD.

He did not meet Jesus he met the companions as they were spreading Jesus teachings but he said he had dreams where Jesus said it is halal to eat pork and circumcision is not necassary to go to heaven it is the faith that matters he started saying he was having visions (they are in the present bible compiled by king james the visions) The apostles (ansar in quran) broke with him and he went with his visions to Rome where he adapted the message to their trinitarian customs and celebration of saturnalia (christmas)


You have some strange sources Bro.
Paul met Jesus on the road to Damascuss. Jesus knocked him off his horse and blinded him. Paul spent three days at the house of Ananias in prayer and fasting with Jesus where he recieved revelation from Jesus. There he was converted. Paul was of Jewish descent and probably never ate pork his life through. (You might be confusing him with Peter who had the vision of the unclean creatures) He did teach circumcision would neither save you nor condemn you, but he is famous for saying " Faith without works is dead" which means his teachings were never about blind faith.

It was Paul who confronted Peter about acting like a Gentile yet trying to convert Gentiles to Jewish standards. (The same Peter that had the vision about eating the unclean creatures) There is also record of reconciliation between them before they went separate ways.

You'll have to show me somethng that said Paul had anything to do with Christmas.


saturnalia this is a heathen festival where people have orgies and feasts to get the sun to come back nimrod (who did incest with his mother was born on the 25th of dec also he was a king in babylon, where people worshipped the sun) the bible tells them not to celebrate this heathen festival but paul said it was ok it is Jesus birthday.


Lol. Where does the Bible say that? There's not even a mention of a "birthdate" for Jesus.


The books of the bible were collected by Rome and they kept what they wanted. They banned the maccabean bible and the gospal according to barnabos. (A true apostle/Ansar)


"Rome" didn't keep "what they wanted" They didn't make up what they wanted either. If they had the Bible would have been filled with "Jesus is God" statements all over the place, which it is not. It was their theological ideals that were twisted, not the Bible. The Maccabees were part of the Bible until Martin Luther caused the protestant reformation and excluded them for lack of relevence. That was the early 1500s. The Maccabees have been in and out of some translations ever since.

There's no evidence that Barnabas was any more a true apostle than the rest. There is also a big question mark around who wrote the gospel of Barnabas. It would seem the authors writings, (around 90 AD) don't jive with history. Barnabas was only "named" Barnabas after the ascension of Jesus, when he sold property and gave it to the apostles for the poor. That's when he aquired the name, "Son of encouragment" aka Barnabas. Before that time he was known as Joseph. The author apperantly didn't know that. That's why the gospel of barney was rejected. The council of nicea actually did a rather good job of removing the fairy tales.


most eminant scholars in chritianity got together in the 1970's to find the most ancient text, when they did this they threw out most of the new testament (mostly pauls visions or versions of what apostles said) and they included the macabean bible. A bible is a compilation of sayings.


Huh?

the church made a big uproar and the bible was banned and the old king james version was reinstated. The banned bible was the RSV first edition around the 70's. if you by a revised standard version of the bible now it is back to the king james version


The original RSV was written in the mid 40's. The idea was to make a translation that was true to the KJV, but was easier to understand. Baptists never liked anything new and found a couple verses they could argue about, ( encouraging people to stick with the KJV). The second edition that came in 71 was the first Bible accepted by Protestants, and Catholics, and has become one of the most popular versions in USA today. banned???

I happen to know this about the RSV because as soon as it was accepted by both Protestant and Catholics, Placid was the first to introduce them to the grade 5 Catholic students, as is the practice of the Gideon's organisation in Protestant schools.

#8 Mohammed-W

Mohammed-W

    Member

  • Advanced Members
  • PipPipPip
  • 960 posts
  • Religion:Islam - Follower of Ahl ul Bayt (AS)

Posted 02 December 2009 - 11:19 AM

According to my belief, yes.



Actually, Paul never referred to Jesus as God. Paul was never a trinitarian, and he never confused Jesus with God, not even once. The trinity was incorporated by the Nicean Creed around 325 AD.



You have some strange sources Bro.
Paul met Jesus on the road to Damascuss. Jesus knocked him off his horse and blinded him. Paul spent three days at the house of Ananias in prayer and fasting with Jesus where he recieved revelation from Jesus. There he was converted. Paul was of Jewish descent and probably never ate pork his life through. (You might be confusing him with Peter who had the vision of the unclean creatures) He did teach circumcision would neither save you nor condemn you, but he is famous for saying " Faith without works is dead" which means his teachings were never about blind faith.

It was Paul who confronted Peter about acting like a Gentile yet trying to convert Gentiles to Jewish standards. (The same Peter that had the vision about eating the unclean creatures) There is also record of reconciliation between them before they went separate ways.

You'll have to show me somethng that said Paul had anything to do with Christmas.




Lol. Where does the Bible say that? There's not even a mention of a "birthdate" for Jesus.




"Rome" didn't keep "what they wanted" They didn't make up what they wanted either. If they had the Bible would have been filled with "Jesus is God" statements all over the place, which it is not. It was their theological ideals that were twisted, not the Bible. The Maccabees were part of the Bible until Martin Luther caused the protestant reformation and excluded them for lack of relevence. That was the early 1500s. The Maccabees have been in and out of some translations ever since.

There's no evidence that Barnabas was any more a true apostle than the rest. There is also a big question mark around who wrote the gospel of Barnabas. It would seem the authors writings, (around 90 AD) don't jive with history. Barnabas was only "named" Barnabas after the ascension of Jesus, when he sold property and gave it to the apostles for the poor. That's when he aquired the name, "Son of encouragment" aka Barnabas. Before that time he was known as Joseph. The author apperantly didn't know that. That's why the gospel of barney was rejected. The council of nicea actually did a rather good job of removing the fairy tales.




Huh?



The original RSV was written in the mid 40's. The idea was to make a translation that was true to the KJV, but was easier to understand. Baptists never liked anything new and found a couple verses they could argue about, ( encouraging people to stick with the KJV). The second edition that came in 71 was the first Bible accepted by Protestants, and Catholics, and has become one of the most popular versions in USA today. banned???

I happen to know this about the RSV because as soon as it was accepted by both Protestant and Catholics, Placid was the first to introduce them to the grade 5 Catholic students, as is the practice of the Gideon's organisation in Protestant schools.


(bismillah)
good stuff now anyone reading has two completely different sides :)

thats the best place to start!

they can research and see which is true i need not argue specifics I have stated a view and so have you.
PEACE

Jeremiah 10:1-16

1 Hear ye the word which the LORD speaketh unto you, O house of Israel:

2 Thus saith the LORD, Learn not the way of the heathen, and be not dismayed at the signs of heaven; for the heathen are dismayed at them.

3 For the customs of the people are vain: for one cutteth a tree out of the forest, the work of the hands of the workman, with the axe.

4 They deck it with silver and with gold; they fasten it with nails and with hammers, that it move not.


5 They are upright as the palm tree, but speak not: they must needs be borne, because they cannot go. Be not afraid of them; for they cannot do evil, neither also is it in them to do good.

6 Forasmuch as there is none like unto thee, O LORD; thou art great, and thy name is great in might.

7 Who would not fear thee, O King of nations? for to thee doth it appertain: forasmuch as among all the wise men of the nations, and in all their kingdoms, there is none like unto thee.

8 But they are altogether brutish and foolish: the stock is a doctrine of vanities.

9 Silver spread into plates is brought from Tarshish, and gold from Uphaz, the work of the workman, and of the hands of the founder: blue and purple is their clothing: they are all the work of cunning men.

10 But the LORD is the true God, he is the living God, and an everlasting king: at his wrath the earth shall tremble, and the nations shall not be able to abide his indignation.

11 Thus shall ye say unto them, The gods that have not made the heavens and the earth, even they shall perish from the earth, and from under these heavens.

12 He hath made the earth by his power, he hath established the world by his wisdom, and hath stretched out the heavens by his discretion.

13 When he uttereth his voice, there is a multitude of waters in the heavens, and he causeth the vapours to ascend from the ends of the earth; he maketh lightnings with rain, and bringeth forth the wind out of his treasures.

14 Every man is brutish in his knowledge: every founder is confounded by the graven image: for his molten image is falsehood, and there is no breath in them.

15 They are vanity, and the work of errors: in the time of their visitation they shall perish.

16 The portion of Jacob is not like them: for he is the former of all things; and Israel is the rod of his inheritance: The LORD of hosts is his name. (KJV)

Both setting up and taking down a Christmas tree are associated with specific dates. In Europe, when the practice of setting up evergreen trees originated in pagan times, the practice was associated with the Winter Solstice, around December 21.[21] Tree decoration was later adopted into Christian practise after the Church set December 25 as the celebration of the birth of Christ, thereby supplanting the pagan celebration of the solstice.

a pagan ritual: jeramiah

2 Thus saith the LORD, Learn not the way of the heathen, and be not dismayed at the signs of heaven; for the heathen are dismayed at them.

3 For the customs of the people are vain: for one cutteth a tree out of the forest, the work of the hands of the workman, with the axe.

4 They deck it with silver and with gold; they fasten it with nails and with hammers, that it move not.

side note:
this is evidence of babylonion pagan celebration when the days are darkest 21st to 25th of december of lunar calender, the lunar calender goes through all seasons so setting the date in a solar calender are proof that this festival is a pagan solar related activity,since Jesus birthday would go through all seasons (if celebrated in earnest)


Influenced in its earliest stages by Greek and Etruscan mythology, Roman religion came to encompass and absorb hundreds of other religions, developing a rich and complex mythology. In addition, an Imperial cult supplemented the pantheon with Julius Caesar and some of the emperors.

Under the Empire, religion in Rome evolved in many ways. Numerous foreign cults grew popular, such as the worship of the Egyptian Isis and the Persian Mithras. The importance of the imperial cult grew steadily, reaching its peak during the Crisis of the Third Century. Also, Christianity began to spread in the Empire, gaining momentum in the second century. Despite persecutions, it steadily gained converts. It became an officially supported religion in the Roman state under Constantine I. All cults except Christianity were prohibited in 391 by an edict of Emperor Theodosius I. However, even in the fourth and fifth century Roman paganism kept its vitality. Temples were still frequently visited, ancient beliefs and practices continued. As the original Roman religion faded, many aspects of its hierarchy remain ingrained in Christian ritual and in Western traditions.

nimrod and his birthday

To understand this, we have to go back to Genesis 10:8-10.

And Cush begat Nimrod: he began to be a mighty one in the earth. He was a mighty hunter before the Lord: wherefore it is said, Even as Nimrod the mighty hunter before the Lord. And the beginning of his kingdom was Babel, and Erech, and Accad, and Calneh, in the land of Shinar.

The Bible does not identify Nimrod's mother, or his date of birth, but Egyptian and Babylonian antiquities identify his mother as Semiramis, and his birthday is celebrated on 25th December. Sometimes Semiramis is referred to as the mother of Nimrod, and sometimes as his wife, leading to the belief that Nimrod married his mother.

"NIMROD" - The LORD of Christmas

"Nimrod started the great organized worldly apostasy from God that has dominated this world until now.Nimrod married his own mother, whose name was Semiramis. After Nimrod's death, his so-called mother-wife, Semiramis, propagated the evil doctrine of the survival of Nimrod as a spirit being. She claimed a full-grown evergreen tree sprang overnight from a dead tree stump, which symbolized the springing forth unto new life of the dead Nimrod. On each anniversary of his birth, she claimed, Nimrod would visit the evergreen tree and leave gifts upon it. December 25th, was the birthday of Nimrod. This is the real origin of the Christmas tree." -The Plain Truth About Christmas
by David J. Stewart | December 24th, 2005

For more details of how the Babylonian system of religion has been passed on the the church via Egypt and Rome, I recommend that you should read:

The Two Babylons, Rev. Alexander Hislop, Partridge, ISBN 0-7136-0470-0

the trinity and its origin:


3. Paul and the Trinity: The Experience of Christ and the Spirit for Paul's Understanding of God

Author: Fee, Gordon D.

Source: The Trinity, February 2002 , pp. 49-73(25)

Publisher: Oxford Scholarship Online Monographs


this is the tip of the ice berg for one point so seekers of truth can seek the rest of everything i say. It takes a lot of study to see the reality.

Edited by Mohammed-W, 02 December 2009 - 12:07 PM.


#9 Mohammed-W

Mohammed-W

    Member

  • Advanced Members
  • PipPipPip
  • 960 posts
  • Religion:Islam - Follower of Ahl ul Bayt (AS)

Posted 02 December 2009 - 12:17 PM

(bismillah)

(16) And they say, "Be jews or Christians, then you will be guided." Say (to them O Muhammad صلى الله عليه وسلم), "Nay, (we follow) only the religion of Ibrahim (Abraham), Hanifa [Islamic Monotheism, i.e. to worship none but Allah (Alone)], and he was not of Al-Mushrikun (those who worshipped others along with Allah - see V.2:105)."
( سورة البقرة , Al-Baqara, Chapter #2, Verse #135)

(13) The jews said that the Christians follow nothing (i.e. are not on the right religion);and the Christians said that the jews follow nothing(i.e. are not on the right religion);though they both recite the Scripture. Like unto their word, said (the pagans) who know not. Allah will judge between them on the Day of Resurrection about that wherein they have been differing.
( سورة البقرة , Al-Baqara, Chapter #2, Verse #113)

(1) And if you (Arab pagans, jews, and Christians) are in doubt concerning that which We have sent down (i.e. the Qur'an) to Our slave (Muhammad صلى الله عليه وسلم), then produce a Surah (chapter) of the like thereof and call your witnesses (supporters and helpers) besides Allah, if you are truthful.
( سورة البقرة , Al-Baqara, Chapter #2, Verse #23)

(8) And when it is said to them (the jews), "Believe in what Allah has sent down," they say, "We believe in what was sent down to us." And they disbelieve in that which came after it, while it is the truth confirming what is with them. Say (O Muhammad صلى الله عليه وسلم to them): "Why then have you killed the Prophets of Allah aforetime, if you indeed have been believers?"
( سورة البقرة , Al-Baqara, Chapter #2, Verse #91)

(11) Neither those who disbelieve among the people of the Scripture (jews and Christians) nor Al-Mushrikun (the idolaters, polytheists, disbelievers in the Oneness of Allah, pagans, etc.) like that there should be sent down unto you any good from your Lord. But Allah chooses for His Mercy whom He wills. And Allah is the Owner of Great Bounty.
( سورة البقرة , Al-Baqara, Chapter #2, Verse #105)

12) Many of the people of the Scripture (jews and Christians) wish that if they could turn you away as disbelievers after you have believed, out of envy from their ownselves, even after the truth (that Muhammad صلى الله عليه وسلم is Allah's Messenger) has become manifest unto them. But forgive and overlook, till Allah brings His Command. Verily, Allah is Able to do all things.
( سورة البقرة , Al-Baqara, Chapter #2, Verse #109)

(3) And when they (jews) meet those who believe (Muslims), they say, "We believe", but when they meet one another in private, they say, "Shall you (jews) tell them (Muslims) what Allah has revealed to you [jews, about the description and the qualities of Prophet Muhammad صلى الله عليه وسلم, that which are written in the Taurat (Torah)] , that they (Muslims) may argue with you (jews) about it before your Lord?" Have you (jews) then no understanding?
( سورة البقرة , Al-Baqara, Chapter #2, Verse #76)

(4) Know they (jews) not that Allah knows what they conceal and what they reveal?
( سورة البقرة , Al-Baqara, Chapter #2, Verse #77)

(7) And when there came to them (the jews), a Book (this Qur'an) from Allah confirming what is with them [the Taurat (Torah) and the Injeel (Gospel)], although aforetime they had invoked Allah (for coming of Muhammad صلى الله عليه وسلم) in order to gain victory over those who disbelieved, then when there came to them that which they had recognised, they disbelieved in it. So let the Curse of Allah be on the disbelievers.
( سورة البقرة , Al-Baqara, Chapter #2, Verse #89)

Edited by Mohammed-W, 02 December 2009 - 12:24 PM.


#10 Son of Placid

Son of Placid

    Member

  • Advanced Members
  • PipPipPipPipPipPip
  • 3,579 posts
  • Location:Alberta Canada
  • Religion:Christian
  • Interests:Watching Islam and Christianity come together.

Posted 03 December 2009 - 01:28 AM

Posted Image
good stuff now anyone reading has two completely different sides Posted Image

thats the best place to start!

they can research and see which is true i need not argue specifics I have stated a view and so have you.
PEACE


Is it not prudent to argue the specifics? Not much use arguing generalities.

Jeremiah 10:1-16

1 Hear ye the word which the LORD speaketh unto you, O house of Israel:

2 Thus saith the LORD, Learn not the way of the heathen, and be not dismayed at the signs of heaven; for the heathen are dismayed at them.

3 For the customs of the people are vain: for one cutteth a tree out of the forest, the work of the hands of the workman, with the axe.

4 They deck it with silver and with gold; they fasten it with nails and with hammers, that it move not.


5 They are upright as the palm tree, but speak not: they must needs be borne, because they cannot go. Be not afraid of them; for they cannot do evil, neither also is it in them to do good.


14 Every man is brutish in his knowledge: every founder is confounded by the graven image: for his molten image is falsehood, and there is no breath in them.



Main Entry: graven imageFunction: noun Etymology: graven, past participle of 1graveDate: 14th century: an object of worship carved usually from wood or stone

Wasn't this more the style of idol the Children of Isreal made while Moses was up a mountain? Are there even evergreen trees in the Middle East?
This passage is often used as oposition to a "Christmas tree", but it's rather clear they are talking about manufacturing an actual idol.
Nobody use hammers and nails to decorate a tree.


Both setting up and taking down a Christmas tree are associated with specific dates. In Europe, when the practice of setting up evergreen trees originated in pagan times, the practice was associated with the Winter Solstice, around December 21.[21] Tree decoration was later adopted into Christian practise after the Church set December 25 as the celebration of the birth of Christ, thereby supplanting the pagan celebration of the solstice.


Actually it had more to do with boughs of a tree than the tree itself. The boughs of an evergreen were to bring hope to those who worried the sunkight would shorten everyday until it disappeared completley. I can't find anything in this tradition about orgies.

this is evidence of babylonion pagan celebration when the days are darkest 21st to 25th of december of lunar calender, the lunar calender goes through all seasons so setting the date in a solar calender are proof that this festival is a pagan solar related activity,since Jesus birthday would go through all seasons (if celebrated in earnest


"Many Americans celebrate both Christmas amd Xmas. Others celebrate one or the other. And some of us celebrate holidays that, although unconnected with the winter solstice occur near it: Ramadan, Hanukkah and Kwanzaa." John Silber
The solstace usually started somewhere around the 17th, and lasted into the(our) new year. Christmas is still only one day, (and 60 shopping days)
Actually, there is a notion that Christmas was established on the 25th to override the pagan festival of solstice...I wouldn't put it past them.
I'd guess it worked because nobody thnks much about the solstice around Christmas time.



Influenced in its earliest stages by Greek and Etruscan mythology, Roman religion came to encompass and absorb hundreds of other religions, developing a rich and complex mythology. In addition, an Imperial cult supplemented the pantheon with Julius Caesar and some of the emperors.

Under the Empire, religion in Rome evolved in many ways. Numerous foreign cults grew popular, such as the worship of the Egyptian Isis and the Persian Mithras. The importance of the imperial cult grew steadily, reaching its peak during the Crisis of the Third Century. Also, Christianity began to spread in the Empire, gaining momentum in the second century. Despite persecutions, it steadily gained converts. It became an officially supported religion in the Roman state under Constantine I. All cults except Christianity were prohibited in 391 by an edict of Emperor Theodosius I. However, even in the fourth and fifth century Roman paganism kept its vitality. Temples were still frequently visited, ancient beliefs and practices continued. As the original Roman religion faded, many aspects of its hierarchy remain ingrained in Christian ritual and in Western traditions


Sounds like a New age/new history thing. Paralumun perhaps?


And Cush begat Nimrod: he began to be a mighty one in the earth. He was a mighty hunter before the Lord: wherefore it is said, Even as Nimrod the mighty hunter before the Lord. And the beginning of his kingdom was Babel, and Erech, and Accad, and Calneh, in the land of Shinar.

The Bible does not identify Nimrod's mother, or his date of birth, but Egyptian and Babylonian antiquities identify his mother as Semiramis, and his birthday is celebrated on 25th December. Sometimes Semiramis is referred to as the mother of Nimrod, and sometimes as his wife, leading to the belief that Nimrod married his mother.

"NIMROD" - The LORD of Christmas

"Nimrod started the great organized worldly apostasy from God that has dominated this world until now.Nimrod married his own mother, whose name was Semiramis. After Nimrod's death, his so-called mother-wife, Semiramis, propagated the evil doctrine of the survival of Nimrod as a spirit being. She claimed a full-grown evergreen tree sprang overnight from a dead tree stump, which symbolized the springing forth unto new life of the dead Nimrod. On each anniversary of his birth, she claimed, Nimrod would visit the evergreen tree and leave gifts upon it. December 25th, was the birthday of Nimrod. This is the real origin of the Christmas tree." -The Plain Truth About Christmas
by David J. Stewart | December 24th, 2005


David J still remains a heretic for many of his statements.

3. Paul and the Trinity: The Experience of Christ and the Spirit for Paul's Understanding of God

Author: Fee, Gordon D.

Source: The Trinity, February 2002 , pp. 49-73(25)

Publisher: Oxford Scholarship Online Monographs


There is a much more popular book about Paul. It's called the New testament. If you have a chance, please find me a relationship between Paul and the trinity there.


this is the tip of the ice berg for one point so seekers of truth can seek the rest of everything i say. It takes a lot of study to see the reality.


Or a few quick google searches. Your sources include an astute trinitarian author, a heritic, and a new-age group. Because it does take a lot of study I prefer to stick with the holy books. The Testaments, and the Quran.






#11 ShortOfDeeds

ShortOfDeeds

    Member

  • Advanced Members
  • Pip
  • 121 posts

Posted 05 December 2009 - 04:08 AM

Why don’t Christians believe in the prophet?

1) We are warned not to follow a different teaching even if it was delivered by an angel.

Galation1:8
But even if we or an angel from heaven should preach a gospel other than the one we preached to you, let him be eternally condemned!

2) Islam rejects the crucifixion event.

All 4 Gospels tell of Jesus’ crucifixion and His prediction of betrayal, suffering, death, and resurrection before they happened.

3)I have not seen a single clear reference in the Old or New Testament of the prophet.

I have read references brought up from the Old Testament claiming his name is mentioned and references to the prophet being the Comforter in the New Testament but neither are convincing to me.

While Islam acknowledges Jesus as the Christ and speaks highly of Him it takes away the crucifixion which is the number 1 requirement for salvation for mankind. We believe blood sacrifice is required in the Old Testament and Jesus removed the requirement with His Holy precious blood. Today’s Jew will say prayer is enough. What else can they claim, they have no temple to perform sacrifices to G_d, but I guarantee if they rebuild the temple sacrifices will be reestablished.

#12 naro

naro

    Member

  • Banned
  • 438 posts

Posted 05 December 2009 - 06:48 AM

Why dont christians and jews believe in the prophet? this question has been eating away at my mind. If the Quran came after Jesus, wouldnt that be a confirmation that the Quran is the true book? That prophet muhammad(pbuh) had the perfect book revealed to him through Gabriel. Why did christians and jews start believing the bible, if the Quran was the true word of god. I dont get it. Please help me out brothers, this has been on my mind for forever. May the blessings of Allah be upon all of you and your families.




1) They have been raised as jews and christians for their entire life, even if Islam was the truth, it would be very very hard for them to forget what they ve been taught and accept a totally new faith

2) They are misinformed about Islam and think the Prophet was a murderer, that Islam is a violent religion, etc

3) Their corrupted scriptures prevent them from believing in our Prophet because he doesn't appear in it, or doesn't fit their criterias and so on.

#13 IloveImamHussain

IloveImamHussain

    Iloveimamhussain

  • Advanced Members
  • PipPipPipPipPipPip
  • 4,178 posts

Posted 05 December 2009 - 04:00 PM

1) We are warned not to follow a different teaching even if it was delivered by an angel.

Galation1:8
But even if we or an angel from heaven should preach a gospel other than the one we preached to you, let him be eternally condemned!

While Christians regard all the books of the Bible to be inspired, Muslims find very little grounds for this belief.

If you believe the Galatians to be inspired and therefore the Word of God, you are absolutely right. You cannot accept another teaching.

However, if you remove the aura of 'inspired books' from the Galatians, then the fact of the matter is that it was only the opinion of the person who wrote the Galatians.

That is all.

2) Islam rejects the crucifixion event.

All 4 Gospels tell of Jesus’ crucifixion and His prediction of betrayal, suffering, death, and resurrection before they happened.

You are absolutely right. That indeed is a big sticking point.

Islam insists that Jesus was quietly whisked away out of harm's way.

We believe blood sacrifice is required in the Old Testament.


Required for what ?

What else can they claim, they have no temple to perform sacrifices to G_d, but I guarantee if they rebuild the temple sacrifices will be reestablished.


What sacrifices ?

Muslims celebrate the intended sacrifice of Abraham’s son. Shia Muslims also celebrate the extraordinary sacrifices of Imam Hussain, the Prophet’s grandson.

However, we don’t believe a blood sacrifice is necessary in the sense that Jews and Christians so.

The greatest sacrifice is to rein in your sinful desires and to turn to God in earnest. That is all.

#14 Son of Placid

Son of Placid

    Member

  • Advanced Members
  • PipPipPipPipPipPip
  • 3,579 posts
  • Location:Alberta Canada
  • Religion:Christian
  • Interests:Watching Islam and Christianity come together.

Posted 06 December 2009 - 02:22 PM

Islam insists that Jesus was quietly whisked away out of harm's way.


There is one ayat that says the Jews boasted that they killed Jesus, but they didn't, and we all know that.
What scripture says He was whisked away?

However, we don't believe a blood sacrifice is necessary in the sense that Jews and Christians so.

Christians believe the last sacrifice was made.


The greatest sacrifice is to rein in your sinful desires and to turn to God in earnest. That is all.


I'll go along with that.

#15 IloveImamHussain

IloveImamHussain

    Iloveimamhussain

  • Advanced Members
  • PipPipPipPipPipPip
  • 4,178 posts

Posted 07 December 2009 - 06:30 PM

What scripture says he was whisked away?

I think it is available in Hadeeth but I regret I am unable to provide you with the precise reference. Perhaps some other members could help.

#16 Qa'im

Qa'im

    The Hadith Guy

  • Mods
  • 4,590 posts
  • Religion:Islam

Posted 07 December 2009 - 07:51 PM

(salam)

Here's a few. Unfortunately I don't have the gradings.

Jàbir al-Ansàri reported that the Prophet (‘s) taught ‘Alí and Fàtimah this prayer, and said to them, “When a misfortune descends upon you or you are afraid of a king’s injustice or something is lost, you should perform a good ablution, say a prayer with two rak‘at, raise your hands to heaven and say:

‘O Knower of the hidden and the secrets! O Obeyed One! O Most Knowing! O Allah! O Allah! O Allah! O Vanquisher of the parties against Muhammad (‘s) ! O Outwitter of Pharaoh for Moses! O Savior of Jesus from the hands of the unjust! O, Deliverer of the people of Noah from drowning! O, Compassionate for the tears of Ya‘qub! O Remover of the Difficulties of Job! O Savior of Jonah from the darkness! O Doer of every good! O Guider to every good! O Shower of every good! O Commander to every good! O Creator of the good! O Good-doer! You are Allah. I want from You what you know I want, and You are Omniscient of all that is hidden. I ask you to bless Muhammad and his descendants.’

Then ask your need, both of you. It will be answered, God willing.”
(Mustadrak al-Wasà’il, 8, 214, 9286)

(A part of the psalm “Mashlul” is:) “O He who returned Joseph to Ya‘qub! O He who removed the harm from Job! O He who forgave the sin of David! O He who raised Jesus the son of Mary and saved him from the hands of the Jews! O He who answered the calling of Yunus in the darkness! O He who chose Moses by the Words! …”

(Al-Misbàh, 262)

It is reported that Abu ‘Abd Allah (‘a) said, “… as for the occultation of Jesus, the Jews and the Christians are agreed that he was killed, so Allah, the Mighty and Magnificent, belied them by His saying, They did not kill nor crucify him, but it appeared to them so (4:157). Likewise, the occultation of al-Qà’im (‘a), then the community will deny it.”

(Bihàr, 51, 220, 9)

It is related in the tafsír attributed to Imam Hasan ‘Askarí that regarding the verse, and We strengthened him with the holy spirit (2:87) he said, “He is Gabriel, and this was when Allah raised him through a hole in his house to heaven, and He cast his likeness on the one who had desired to kill him, so he was killed instead of him.”

(Bihàr, 14, 338, 10)

It is reported, “Hujjat ibn al-Hasanu in his qunut prayed, ‘…And I supplicate You with the supplication of Jesus Your spirit when he supplicated You and You saved him from his enemies and You raised him to Yourself....’”

(Bihàr, 82, 233)

Abu Ja‘far (‘a) said, “Verily, Jesus (‘a) invited his companions [to come] the night when Allah would raise him to Himself. So, they were gathered before him at evening, and they were twelve men. He brought them into a house, then he came out to them from a fountain in a corner of the house while the water was flowing from his head, and he said, ‘Verily, Allah revealed to me that He will raise me to Him now, and He will free me from the Jews. Which of you will bear my semblance, then be killed and crucified and be with me at my level?’ A youth among them said, ‘I, O Spirit of Allah!’ He said, ‘So, you are he.’ Then Jesus said to them, ‘Beware! Among you there is one who will disbelieve in me before twelve men become disbelievers.’ A man among them said, ‘I am he. O prophet of Allah!’ Jesus said to him, ‘If you feel it in yourself, you are he.’ Then Jesus (‘a) said to them, ‘Beware! After me you will divide into three sects. Two sects will blaspheme Allah and they will be in the Fire, and one sect will follow Sham‘un, be true to Allah, and they will be in the Garden. Then Allah raised Jesus from the corner of the house, while they were looking at him.” Then Abu Ja‘far u continued, “Verily, the Jews came seeking Jesus that night, and took the man about whom Jesus (‘a) had said that he would disbelieve in him before twelve men became disbelievers. And they took the youth upon whom the semblance of Jesus had been cast. Then he was killed and crucified. And the one about whom Jesus (‘a) had said that he would disbelieve in him before twelve men became disbelievers disbelieved.”

(Bihàr 14, 336, 6)

#17 Son of Placid

Son of Placid

    Member

  • Advanced Members
  • PipPipPipPipPipPip
  • 3,579 posts
  • Location:Alberta Canada
  • Religion:Christian
  • Interests:Watching Islam and Christianity come together.

Posted 08 December 2009 - 01:40 AM

It is infortunate that the closest reference is in Hadeeth, other than 4:157.

" And they say in boast We killed jesus" but they didn't...Surah 4 is all about the Jews. We know the Jews didn't kill Jesus. It appeared to the Jews that they did because they shouted until Pilate washed his hands and handed Jesus over to the Romans. If a Jew ever tells you they killed Jesus you can tell him they did not because the fact of the matter is The Romans were the government, and they did all the dirty work, the Jews only watched.

How many times have you heard a soccer fan say, "We kicked their butts on that game!"? A spectator does nothing to win a soccer game but associates himself with the team <----human nature.

The next Ayat reiterates this statement and sites any other ideas as conjecture. Is it possible this conjecture was carried over into Hadeeth?

The idea Jesus was swapped out comes from the Gospel of Barnabus, but we can't prove Barnabus wrote it...90 yrs later.
Baranbus spent a lot of time with the Apostle Paul. Could he have secretly held this conviction? I'd think not. This would have been a major point of contention and Barnabus could have never followed a teacher that taught other than he believed. It just doesn't make sense. Add to that the mention of Judus after the crucifixion.


Abu Ja‘far (‘a) said, “Verily, Jesus (‘a) invited his companions [to come] the night when Allah would raise him to Himself. So, they were gathered before him at evening, and they were twelve men. He brought them into a house, then he came out to them from a fountain in a corner of the house while the water was flowing from his head, and he said, ‘Verily, Allah revealed to me that He will raise me to Him now, and He will free me from the Jews. Which of you will bear my semblance, then be killed and crucified and be with me at my level?’ A youth among them said, ‘I, O Spirit of Allah!’ He said, ‘So, you are he.’ Then Jesus said to them, ‘Beware! Among you there is one who will disbelieve in me before twelve men become disbelievers.’ A man among them said, ‘I am he. O prophet of Allah!’ Jesus said to him, ‘If you feel it in yourself, you are he.’ Then Jesus (‘a) said to them, ‘Beware! After me you will divide into three sects. Two sects will blaspheme Allah and they will be in the Fire, and one sect will follow Sham‘un, be true to Allah, and they will be in the Garden. Then Allah raised Jesus from the corner of the house, while they were looking at him.” Then Abu Ja‘far u continued, “Verily, the Jews came seeking Jesus that night, and took the man about whom Jesus (‘a) had said that he would disbelieve in him before twelve men became disbelievers. And they took the youth upon whom the semblance of Jesus had been cast. Then he was killed and crucified. And the one about whom Jesus (‘a) had said that he would disbelieve in him before twelve men became disbelievers disbelieved.”

(Bihàr 14, 336, 6)


This does, and does not make sense to me, but fits better with the appearance of Jesus to the disciples after the resurection, (the day He ascended) rather than the last supper, which I assume this hadeeth was in contrast to.

First off, they were assembled into a house, not an inn.
The Nag Hammdi library, Gospel of Thomas sites that Jesus called Tomas His twin. Obviously not a twin from the womb, but in appearance? Thomas was the disbeliever in the house.

Jesus did not ascend from the inn after the feast, but from the house after Thomas confirmed his belief after seeing the evidence.

Then the hadeeth seems to revert back to the times after the last supper. The hadeeth seems to me to be a mix of two stories portrayed in the NT.


Does that make any sense?

#18 Qa'im

Qa'im

    The Hadith Guy

  • Mods
  • 4,590 posts
  • Religion:Islam

Posted 08 December 2009 - 01:44 PM

(salam)

I think 4:157 is pretty explicit, brother. It may not have been the Jews who physically nailed the man to the tree, but ultimately it was up to the Jews. In other words, in the Gospels, they made the decision when they had the choice to either punish Jesus bar Abbas or Jesus the son of God (two different people with the same name - barabbas = son of the Father). You can legimitately say the Jews killed the man, because they made the choice to do so. Saying the Romans did it is only half true - it's like shooting someone with the gun and saying the gun did it - the gun played a role, but it is the shooter that triggers it and makes that decision. That and all the tafasir and ahadith agree that Jesus (as) was not crucified.

Plus, how can you rationalize the "but it appeared so" part of the verse? If Jesus were crucified by the Romans, how could God have made it "appear" that the Jews did it? A bit 'ungodly' if you ask me ;)

Part of the reason why the Qur'an leaves out the rest of the details of this story is because it holds next to no importance in our religion. I understand Christianity is all about the cross, as Paul said, without the cross the religion is lost. But the reason why this is so is not because of the crucifixion itself, but the result - divine atonement. It's a big deal, but no such concept is mentioned anywhere in the Qur'an or ahadith. We are held accountable for our sins, as it is said in many places in all our scriptures, unless Allah chooses to give us mercy after repentance and action. The event therefore holds the same importance as Musa (as) escaping the Pharoah, Yusuf (as) being saved from adultery and the treachery of his brothers, Nuh (as) being saved from the flood, or Muhammed's (pbuh) divine victories - they are historical events and hold relative importance, but are not completely relevant to the major doctrines of the religion (oneness of Allah, faith and actions, accountability for deeds, etc).

As for the rest of your post, mind you the ahadith I've posted above don't necessarily have great chains. Even if it did though, it does not depend on the early Gospels - if it were an authentic narration of Abu Ja'far (Imam Muhammed al-Baqir (as)) then it would be more authentic than the Gospels. I'll see what I can do in getting the gradings of the above ahadith for you, brother :)

#19 Son of Placid

Son of Placid

    Member

  • Advanced Members
  • PipPipPipPipPipPip
  • 3,579 posts
  • Location:Alberta Canada
  • Religion:Christian
  • Interests:Watching Islam and Christianity come together.

Posted 09 December 2009 - 01:24 AM

Posted Image

I think 4:157 is pretty explicit, brother. It may not have been the Jews who physically nailed the man to the tree, but ultimately it was up to the Jews. In other words, in the Gospels, they made the decision when they had the choice to either punish Jesus bar Abbas or Jesus the son of God (two different people with the same name - barabbas = son of the Father). You can legimitately say the Jews killed the man, because they made the choice to do so. Saying the Romans did it is only half true - it's like shooting someone with the gun and saying the gun did it - the gun played a role, but it is the shooter that triggers it and makes that decision. That and all the tafasir and ahadith agree that Jesus Posted Image was not crucified.

Plus, how can you rationalize the "but it appeared so" part of the verse? If Jesus were crucified by the Romans, how could God have made it "appear" that the Jews did it? A bit 'ungodly' if you ask me Posted Image

Part of the reason why the Qur'an leaves out the rest of the details of this story is because it holds next to no importance in our religion. I understand Christianity is all about the cross, as Paul said, without the cross the religion is lost. But the reason why this is so is not because of the crucifixion itself, but the result - divine atonement. It's a big deal, but no such concept is mentioned anywhere in the Qur'an or ahadith. We are held accountable for our sins, as it is said in many places in all our scriptures, unless Allah chooses to give us mercy after repentance and action. The event therefore holds the same importance as Musa Posted Image escaping the Pharoah, Yusuf Posted Image being saved from adultery and the treachery of his brothers, Nuh Posted Image being saved from the flood, or Muhammed's Posted Image divine victories - they are historical events and hold relative importance, but are not completely relevant to the major doctrines of the religion (oneness of Allah, faith and actions, accountability for deeds, etc).

As for the rest of your post, mind you the ahadith I've posted above don't necessarily have great chains. Even if it did though, it does not depend on the early Gospels - if it were an authentic narration of Abu Ja'far (Imam Muhammed al-Baqir Posted Image) then it would be more authentic than the Gospels. I'll see what I can do in getting the gradings of the above ahadith for you, brother Posted Image


The gun analogy isn't quite the same. Maybe more a hired gun? Anyway, it is aperant that "it apprears to be so" to you as well.

I feel if you gave the Gospels the same consideration as ahadith some answers might be easier to understand. There are also books in the Nag Hammadi liabrary that make reference to the crucifixion. There is reference to John, James, and Peter at the site of the crucifixion, but no mention of Barnabus, (Assuming he headed for the hills with the rest of them). I'm not up to giving creedence to the Nag Hammadi either, but I haven't really found anything contradictory yet...yet.

I don't know many of the ahadiths, nor anything about the grading so I'll have to take our word on it.

#20 Faithfully999

Faithfully999

    Member

  • Advanced Members
  • PipPip
  • 691 posts

Posted 10 December 2009 - 09:50 AM

Bismillaah ir Rahmaan ir Rahiim In The Name of Allah, The Only GOD, The Most Merciful, The All Merciful. As salaamu 'alaikum, all.


As to "Why dont christians and jews believe in the prophet?" If ever there is a time to begin a study of Islam, or enhance one's knowledge of Islam, it is when one encounters the writings of Maulana Maududi. Syed Abul A'ala Maududi is a writer whose work's I began reading in the late 1970's, or early 1980's. His books are written clearly, and furthermore, they appeal to the souls consciousness. Concerning this thread it will be helpful to read Maulana Maududi's thoughts re: Barnabas' gospel and the Bible. See Surah 061 As-Saff - as a pdf (scroll down the page): http://www.biharanju...English-pdf.htm ~ I would say re: The Gospel of Barnabas, page 496 is a good place to start reading, otherwise begin at the beginning of the discourse (page 487). There are some typos, which cause me to wonder, and the scan of some portions is not the best.



Wassalaam. Faithfully999

#21 Son of Placid

Son of Placid

    Member

  • Advanced Members
  • PipPipPipPipPipPip
  • 3,579 posts
  • Location:Alberta Canada
  • Religion:Christian
  • Interests:Watching Islam and Christianity come together.

Posted 10 December 2009 - 09:28 PM

Timothy put it this way.



For this is good and acceptable in the sight of God our Saviour; who will have all men to be saved, and to come unto the knowledge of the truth. For there is one God, and one mediator between God and men, the man Christ Jesus; who gave himself a ransom for all, to be testified in due time.

#22 Qa'im

Qa'im

    The Hadith Guy

  • Mods
  • 4,590 posts
  • Religion:Islam

Posted 10 December 2009 - 10:29 PM

(salam) brother,

The gun analogy isn't quite the same. Maybe more a hired gun? Anyway, it is aperant that "it apprears to be so" to you as well.


Hired gun analogy is good too. Either way, the Jews played an incremental role in yelling "Crucify him!"; thereby choosing Jesus (as) rather than Jesus Barabbas to bear the punishment. They rejected him, wanted him removed, and succeeded in doing so. I can't really see how to reject that they and the Romans together conspired to kill Jesus (as) rather than just the Romans.

But what my question was about the second part of the verse, of God making it appear like he was killed and crucified - what is your interpretation of this verse? If I interpret this ayah the way you are, then it would mean that God made it appear that the Jews killed and crucified Jesus (as). But why would God deliberately make it appear that the Jews did it? Is what we know from the Bible about the Jews conspiring against the Messiah (as) a result of that effect?

I feel if you gave the Gospels the same consideration as ahadith some answers might be easier to understand. There are also books in the Nag Hammadi liabrary that make reference to the crucifixion. There is reference to John, James, and Peter at the site of the crucifixion, but no mention of Barnabus, (Assuming he headed for the hills with the rest of them). I'm not up to giving creedence to the Nag Hammadi either, but I haven't really found anything contradictory yet...yet.

I don't know many of the ahadiths, nor anything about the grading so I'll have to take our word on it.


I think the problem is that I am treating them like ahadith. Christians need to start looking at the Gospels the same way we view our hadith books. A hadith in Islam is a saying or tradition traced back to the Prophet (pbuh) via a chain of narrators. In Shi'ah Islam, it can also be traced back to the 12 Imams (as). A chain of narrators would be like "I heard from my brother, who heard from Placid, who heard his son say: 'I love God'".

The science of hadith would require me to study the source of the claim. In other words, our scholars grade any hadith by looking at the chain of narrators. They'd have to make sure that all the people in the chain knew each other at the said time, and that each person is trustworthy. If they find that I've lied about things before, they will reject me as a legitimate narrator and give the hadith a weaker grading.

However with the Gospels it is a complete unknown. Firstly, despite their names, they are written completely anonymously decades after the ascension of Jesus (as); some say the Gospel of John for example may have been written anytime between 90 and 120 CE.

-We also are unsure as to who wrote these books.

-We also do not have a chain of narrators on the quotes of Jesus (as) and therefore do not know for sure where or how the authors obtained or heard the full story of Jesus (as) from before his conception to his death.

-Also, there are conflicting statements within the Gospels as they seem to not agree on certain events (like the resurrection of Jesus (as) and its details).

-There is also talk of the Gospels having drawn from other sources - I'm sure you've heard of Matthew allegedly taking a lot of his work from Mark, and Mark taking information from the theoretical Gospel of Q.

-Lastly, we today have access to thousands of manuscripts, of which no two are completely identical. And at that, some verses, chapters, and stories contained in today's New Testament are either proven forgeries (For there are three that bear record in heaven: the Father, the Word, and the Holy Ghost, and these three are one), borrowed from other religions (the Temptation and Zoroastrianism), or downright mistranslations from the most ancient Greek manuscripts (only "begotten" son).

If Muslim scholars were to put Islam aside and accept the Gospels as hadith books for the Messiah Jesus (as), they are likely to rate its level of authenticity as da'if, or "weak". Probably even munkar. No doubt, the Bible could be used as a historical document, a narrative, and a book of good morals, due to its completely unknown authenticity and room for inaccuracy, it cannot be looked at as a 100% end all be all truth without you overlooking a lot of unanswered questions.

So what's my solution to you? Keep the Gospels, but be historical honest with them. They are great books, but we don't know the authors, if they knew Jesus (as), and where they got their information. Keep in mind that the authors remained anonymous for their self-preservation.

But we don't have to worry about this: God had put His words in the mouth of His Prophet, who spoke the Qur'an, which is a protector of the old scriptures, because with the Qur'an was can see what is factual and what is not. God has also given us a renewed Law and system of life.

Meditate deeply on what I have said here.

With the peace and mercy of Allah.

#23 IMAnonymous

IMAnonymous

    Member

  • Advanced Members
  • PipPipPipPip
  • 1,634 posts
  • Location:USA

Posted 12 December 2009 - 08:55 PM

According to your belief : Is it astray to believe Jesus was God ?


Good day, Yonus.

I certainly don't represent the majority of Christian thought but, in my case, no - Jesus was/is not God. However, trinity is supposedly taught by the Catholic Church and I have three Catholic children. None of them knows what trinity is although they do recite a prayer that includes it. They recite it, however, with no understanding of the concept. having never been taught it, and would reject it. They are familiar with the claim that Jesus was the "son of God" and may, or may not, believe that. Personally, I do not. I believe Mark's phrase "Son of Man" is is derived from the Book of Enoch, an Essene work. Since the Book of Daniel, which predicts the coming of Jesus, appears to have been written by an Essene, the Jews outside Jerusalem Jesus preached to are likely to have called him the "Son of Man" in fullfillment of Daniel and Mark repeated the title.

The Jews who converted to Christianity in Jerusalem began to decrease in number when the expected "second coming" of Jesus did not occur in their lifetimes. Thus, the Church of James was shrinking as Jews left while the Church of Paul grew as Gentiles joined. About the time Matthew , a Hellenized Jew, was writing the Temple had fallen and James was dead. Matthew's declaring Jesus was the "son of God" is likely a later addition in an attempt to make Jesus more important to Jews in general - A claim which failed along with Jewish conversion and is now rejected by all Jews today. However, as the Gentiles continued the faith, they collected the later works of Matthew and Luke, declared them to be genuine and, therefore, made the title "Son of God" officially genuine as well.

#24 IMAnonymous

IMAnonymous

    Member

  • Advanced Members
  • PipPipPipPip
  • 1,634 posts
  • Location:USA

Posted 12 December 2009 - 09:08 PM

(bismillah)
The jews rejected Prophet Jesus AS because he condemmed their hypocrisy they wouldnt take admonishment


Jesus was actually less well known than John the Baptist or even his brother, James, and did not preach in Jerusalem. Perhaps 4-5,000 Jews ever heard him speak. Most Jews did not even know who he was to reject him. If you had been a Jew living in Jerusalem and been informed Jesus had just been crucified, your first question would probably have been, "Jesus who?" followed by the second question, "Was he a Zealot?"

The jews reject Prophet Mohammed SAW out of envy since they were expecting the prophet to be a descendant of Prophet Isaac AS not Prophet IshmailAS.


The Jews have been rejecting things long before Mohammed arrived. In fact, I would say their religion is based upon rejectionism.

#25 Qa'im

Qa'im

    The Hadith Guy

  • Mods
  • 4,590 posts
  • Religion:Islam

Posted 12 December 2009 - 09:23 PM

(salam)

It's good hearing from you brother Anonymous :)



Reply to this topic



  


0 user(s) are reading this topic

0 members, 0 guests, 0 anonymous users