Jump to content
Guests can now reply in ALL forum topics (No registration required!) ×
Guests can now reply in ALL forum topics (No registration required!)
In the Name of God بسم الله


Advanced Members
  • Content Count

  • Joined

  • Last visited

Profile Information

  • Religion

Previous Fields

  • Gender

Recent Profile Visitors

584 profile views
  1. Hello Algerian Shia. Why Israel? I know that there is enmity between Iran and Israel but I haven't heard exactly why that is. Also, why the US Gov? I can understand why Iran might consider the US Gov an enemy, but why would an individual Shia Muslim do so?
  2. Hello, Lion of Shia. As an American Christian, I am so sorry that some of my countrymen are not treating you well! That's unfortunate and inappropriate. But I hope you understand that the majority of Americans don't feel that same way. Most of us are very accepting. Maybe you just live in a lousy community? Also, this is not just an American problem, it is a human problem. There is much racism and tribalism all over the world. It is very sad.
  3. @shiaman14, you'll have to explain what you mean. How did I prove your point??? I pointed out that the verse describes him in ways that can only mean he is divine.
  4. @Ashvazdanghe, it's an interesting video. However, it ignores the fact that throughout the Bible, Jesus refers to himself as the Son of Man, not using the term in reference to another figure. For example, in the book of Mark, chapter two: 23 One Sabbath he was going through the grainfields, and as they made their way, his disciples began to pluck heads of grain. 24 And the Pharisees were saying to him, “Look, why are they doing what is not lawful on the Sabbath?” 25 And he said to them, “Have you never read what David did, when he was in need and was hungry, he and those who were with him: 26 how he entered the house of God, in the time of[d] Abiathar the high priest, and ate the bread of the Presence, which it is not lawful for any but the priests to eat, and also gave it to those who were with him?” 27 And he said to them, “The Sabbath was made for man, not man for the Sabbath. 28 So the Son of Man is lord even of the Sabbath.” Here, Jesus is the one who has just overridden the Sabbath regulations, and then at the end of his explanation he says "so the Son of Man is lord even of the Sabbath." It was not a cryptic reference to the future, but a titular explanation of what just happened and why he did what he did. Another example, in Matthew 8: 18 When Jesus saw the crowd around him, he gave orders to cross to the other side of the lake. 19 Then a teacher of the law came to him and said, “Teacher, I will follow you wherever you go.” 20 Jesus replied, “Foxes have dens and birds have nests, but the Son of Man has no place to lay his head.” 21 Another disciple said to him, “Lord, first let me go and bury my father.”22 But Jesus told him, “Follow me, and let the dead bury their own dead.” In this passage, we can see clearly that the author was showing examples of Jesus' responses to those who wished to follow him. He was pointing out to the man who spoke in verse 19 that following him will mean wandering, homeless. It would not have been relevant for Jesus to tell this man that, in the Shia view, this messianic figure from the distant future would be homeless. Clearly from the context he is referring to himself. So the Shia view takes Jesus' use of "the Son of Man" out of context.
  5. @shiaman14, agreed, serving isn't always worship. But in your example of feeding the poor, you are conflating the idea of the one who is being served with the one who benefits. They're not always the same person. In biblical understanding, our service which benefits others is obedience to God, and thus worshipful service to him. And this is what we see in Christendom, where you have people radically serving others as an act of service FOR God. As an example, I have a friend who flew down to Bolivia (he's there right now) to provide free surgeries for the poor in the rural areas. He's doing this act of service to the Bolivians, but it is for God. Which is another reason why Daniel seven ought to be considered worshipful. These people from all nations could be serving in charitable capacities, or in sacramental service such as singing worship songs, bowing in prayer, etc. There is no reason to read this passage as mundane service rather than worship. Remember that in Daniel 7 this is clearly a supernatural context in which this Son of Man is clearly a divine figure, not a prophet or human king. When you read this, it is clear that no human could be described this way. "And to him was given dominion and glory and a kingdom, (glory here means that this person is worthy of worshipful service)that all peoples, nations, and languages (He will be so great that people from every ethnicity will serve/worship him; this cannot be applied to any mere human being, and we already ) should serve him; his dominion is an everlasting dominion, (his rule; he will reign for eternity, not just a lifetime) which shall not pass away,and his kingdom one that shall not be destroyed." (his kingdom is eternal, indestructible; the kingdom of God) Further, in Matthew 25, Jesus explains God's paradigm for worship as service in a parable: 41“Then he will say to those on his left, ‘Depart from me, you who are cursed, into the eternal fire prepared for the devil and his angels. 42For I was hungry and you gave me nothing to eat, I was thirsty and you gave me nothing to drink, 43I was a stranger and you did not invite me in, I needed clothes and you did not clothe me, I was sick and in prison and you did not look after me.’ 44“They also will answer, ‘Lord, when did we see you hungry or thirsty or a stranger or needing clothes or sick or in prison, and did not help you?’ 45“He will reply, ‘Truly I tell you, whatever you did not do for one of the least of these, you did not do for me.’ Here, Jesus clearly points out that our service to those in need are as acts of worship to God. Loving humble service = worship.
  6. Oh, I see. So you're saying that serving can be a form of worship even in Islam, correct? I'm glad to hear it!
  7. @Ashvazdanghe, WOOOW, I am not possibly going to be able to look into all of this. I'm a hobbyist on Shiachat, not a professional! Maybe you could boil this down into your own words? Also, @shiaman14 and @Dhulfikar, it's true that it's frequently translated "serve," but there has always been a deep relationship between "serving" and "worship" in the Hebrew tradition. The two meanings are interlocked. See https://tifwe.org/avodah-a-life-of-work-worship-and-service/ and here, https://www.efcatoday.org/story/avodah-word-study for an explanation. Hebrew worship was seen as service. Plus, you can see later in Daniel 7:26-27 a very clear association of this same act of "service" being for "The Most High" (God). So service in this context is clearly a worshipful service. Even throughout both the Old and New Testament, "service" is emphasized as worship. Priests served in the temple. (this is not meant as argument, but it is telling that most churches call their weekly meeting a "worship service"). The entire book of Leviticus is a handbook for appropriate worship, and what does it prescribe? Service. And a mutual favorite for all of us, Jesus, also equates service with worship. Satan asks him for worship, and Jesus responds by denying him both worship and service. from Luke 4 = 5 The devil led him up to a high place and showed him in an instant all the kingdoms of the world. 6 And he said to him, “I will give you all their authority and splendor; it has been given to me, and I can give it to anyone I want to. 7 If you worship me, it will all be yours.” 8Jesus answered, “It is written: ‘Worship the Lord your God and serve him only.’” So if you want to make the argument that the "serving" of the Son of Man is not an act of worship, there is no biblical reason to do so.
  8. Sorry, I meant to put this link up. Verses where God is referred to (or refers to himself) as a father. http://www.shiachat.com/forum/messenger/126318/?tab=comments#comment-378493
  9. As I said before, Jesus uses the term "father" for God way more frequently and refers to their relationship more intimately than anyone else in the Bible, and substantially so. Plus, throughout the Old Testament, which set the precedent for Jesus' day, NOBODY refers to God as their own, personal father. Yes, God is referred to as a father to Israel, or as a father to creation. And yes, God says of certain individuals, both known and unknown, that they will be his sons. But these are symbolic terms, not relational terms. Jesus was the first to say God was his father. Look through these verses; all of the Old Testament references are symbolic, where God is seen as a father to a nation or to a category of people. Only in Jesus and then subsequently in the New Testament do we see a full picture of God confessed as a father. And NO, that does not mean a biological, sexual father. It is spiritual and in the case of Christians, adoptive.
  10. On how intimately Adam spoke with God, the Torah should be our final authority (I'm sure we both agree), and it doesn't showcase anything like the way Jesus speaks of God as his father. To suggest otherwise is really an argument from silence. Also, "Son of Man" is not controversial among Christians, unless you can show me evidence to the contrary. Also, it cannot pertain to Muhammad, because he is shown to be a divine figure, and Muhammad even says of himself that he is only a man, while Jesus claims to be The Son of Man. So, not Muhammad. You might find this article to be interesting. But again, neither of those titles are the key factor in this passage. I was only pointing it out originally because it was in there and I didn't want to ignore it. The more important thing is Jesus' claim to be God. "I Am" is God's expressed name, not an attribute (although it expresses an attribute as well). So this is very different than your example of "merciful." And you are right they they had a general vendetta against Jesus, but that's not what we see driving their actions in this instance. Their response is acute, and it is in direct relation to what he has just said, not his general accusations against them. If you want further evidence, just a few chapters further it happens again. See this from John 10: Then came the Festival of Dedication at Jerusalem. It was winter, 23and Jesus was in the temple courts walking in Solomon’s Colonnade. 24The Jews who were there gathered around him, saying, “How long will you keep us in suspense? If you are the Messiah, tell us plainly.” 25Jesus answered, “I did tell you, but you do not believe. The works I do in my Father’s name testify about me, 26but you do not believe because you are not my sheep. 27My sheep listen to my voice; I know them, and they follow me. 28I give them eternal life, and they shall never perish; no one will snatch them out of my hand. 29My Father, who has given them to me, is greater than all ; no one can snatch them out of my Father’s hand. 30I and the Father are one.” 31Again his Jewish opponents picked up stones to stone him, 32but Jesus said to them, “I have shown you many good works from the Father. For which of these do you stone me?” 33“We are not stoning you for any good work,” they replied, “but for blasphemy, because you, a mere man, claim to be God.” You can see that they (Pharisees and religious elite; not the same group as in chapter 8, by the way) are only agitated to the point of violence when he makes statements of his divinity. These were very clear to them, and they knew the context much better than we do. Also, within the timeline of the book of John, the formal plotting to kill Jesus hadn't begun yet. That isn't introduced until after these two events, in chapter 11:45-57.
  11. Hi @shiaman14. It's true that we see several people referred to as "sons of God" throughout the Old and New Testament. However, there are a couple of things to remember. All of those others (aside from Adam) had biological fathers; Jesus did not (we agree on this, I believe) None of the others claims God as their own father in the same sense as Jesus does. Jesus refers to God as his father in intimate terms, the others use this term in a symbolic sense of God (as the originator of all things). Christians don't hang the divinity of Christ on his use of the idea of being a "son of God," but more on identifying himself as The Son of Man from Daniel 7. Christ refers to himself frequently as The Son of Man, which is a divine identifier. I'll grant your argument about Muhammad (although obviously I disagree that it's true that he was the first creation), because I can see how you would espouse that. But what about the rest of my bullet points? These are really more important: Jesus uses the name of God {"I am"} as a description of himself. The Jewish authorities recognized this as a claim to divinity, as evidenced by their grabbing of stones to kill him. God vindicated this claim by hiding Jesus so he could leave the Temple safely.
  12. @father, When people have partial knowledge and someone (especially an affluent, respected, influential person) claims to have advanced knowledge, especially in a society where critical thinking and questioning of authorities are discouraged, and it can be easy to get them to comply. There were plenty of Jews in Arabia, and there were heretical "christian" sects as well, so biblical and extra-biblical accounts would have been available but not necessarily clearly understood. Also, gnostic gospel writings had been imported with the "christian" sects, so their content (recognized as fraudulent by the churches further north around the Mediterranean) would have been in the mix as well. Voila, you've got a simple, rational context in which Muhammad could very reasonably have known incomplete biblical stories as well as falsehoods. He may not even have needed to twist them. By the way, no book can be a miracle in and of itself, because choosing and arranging words in any order is an ability that most humans have (and it doesn't matter that Muhammad was illiterate; Homer was blind, but he composed The Iliad and the Odyssey.) Also, even if you say that the content of the words in the Qur'an couldn't have been disclosed by a human, you are missing the fact that its content borrows from earlier sources. If this content was revealed by a miracle, the miracle was for the earlier authors, not Muhammad. Certainly not exclusive to him. But like I said, a book isn't a miracle anyway. People can arrange words in any order, regardless of the language.
  13. Wa salam alaikum! (did I spell that right?) I have a question about which I would love to hear a Muslim perspective. It regards Jesus Christ, a favorite for all of us. In my conversations with Muslims, many say things like "Jesus never claimed to be God." So I would like to know what you (the Muslims on here) would say about this passage from John chapter 8: 54 Jesus answered, “If I want glory for myself, it doesn’t count. But it is my Father who will glorify me. You say, ‘He is our God,’ 55 but you don’t even know him. I know him. If I said otherwise, I would be as great a liar as you! But I do know him and obey him. 56 Your father Abraham rejoiced as he looked forward to my coming. He saw it and was glad.” 57 The people said, “You aren’t even fifty years old. How can you say you have seen Abraham?[j]” 58 Jesus answered, “I tell you the truth, before Abraham was even born, I am![k]” 59 At that point they picked up stones to throw at him. But Jesus was hidden from them and left the Temple. [emphasis mine; for full context, check here] In this passage, we see Jesus expressing several important things. God is his father Jesus is older than Abraham Jesus uses the name of God {"I am"} as a description of himself. The Jewish authorities recognized this as a claim to divinity, as evidenced by their grabbing of stones to kill him. God vindicated this claim by hiding Jesus so he could leave the Temple safely. What are your thoughts about this passage?
  14. @father, you said : lot of stories are different like such as moses(pbuh) went to mountain to talk to the almighty for 40 days and his people started worshipping the ox made of gold, when he came back he was very angry and asked the lord for forgiveness, and in another place it tells that they started fishing on the day which was forbidden so they were converted to monkeys, in another place quran says that they were forbidden alot of things to eat because they used to disobey and killed the prophets. so they changed alot of stuff The only reason to assert that the Jews changed things is because they are different than the Qur'an. But it is, at a minimum, equally possible that the Qur'an is simply wrong about these things. In fact, I would say it is far more likely that the Qur'an is mistaken, given how highly it speaks of the Bible. Check this video out.
  15. What the heck? I have no idea why that post is completely crossed out. It is not supposed to be! Ignore the strike-through!
  • Create New...