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

Successor Of Prophet Isa Ibn Maryam (As)

Rate this topic


Recommended Posts

  • Advanced Member

Hazrat Isa ibn Maryam (as) is known to have 12 apostles or 12 disciples. Out of the 12 disciples, one was selected as his wasi and according to the school of ahlul bayt it is Saint Peter:

 

also I say I to you that you are Keepa (Cephah) and on this Keepa (Cephah) I will build my Church and the gates of Sheol not will subdue it.

Thou art a rock, and upon this rock: or, Thou art Peter, and upon this peter will I build my Church

There was also another prominent figure he is known as James the Just leader of the Christians, according to research he is not among the 12 apostles

 

 

Matthew [Mt 10:1–4] Mark [Mk 3:13–19] Luke [Lk 6:12–16] Simon, who is called Peter Simon (to whom he gave the name Peter) Simon, whom he named Peter Andrew, his brother Andrew Andrew his brother James the son of Zebedee James the son of Zebedee James John, his brother John the brother of James (to whom he gave the name Boanerges) John Philip Philip Philip Bartholomew Bartholomew Bartholomew Thomas Thomas Thomas Matthew, the tax collector Matthew Matthew James the son of Alphaeus James the son of Alphaeus James the son of Alphaeus Thaddaeus Thaddaeus Judas the son of James Simon the Zealot Simon the Zealot Simon who was called the Zealot Judas Iscariot Judas Iscariot Judas Iscariot

 

Link to post
Share on other sites
  • Basic Members

Peace be upon you:

My infinite thanks are yours. Saint Peter (peace be upon him) was the successor of Jesus (peace be upon him) just as Imam Ali (peace be upon him) was the successor to Muhammad (peace be upon him). I wish every Christian and every Muslim understood these two concepts. It would make discussions infinitely easier.

Link to post
Share on other sites
  • Veteran Member

interesting link

 

Is Peter really "the rock" of the Catholic church?

 

With all the difference Bible translations and their respective mistranslations, it's no wonder "the church" - Catholic or otherwise - has some confusing doctrines.

 

Take, for instance, the Catholic insistence that "Peter is the rock" or "cornerstone" of their church. They get that idea from mistranslations in the KJV and later versions:

 

The Aramaic English New Testament was translated directly from Aramaic into English from the oldest New Testament ever discovered, the Khabouris Codex, which some scholars date all the way back to 120 A.D. - and a footnote concerning Matthew 16:18 says:

This is a wordplay between Keefa the man and what his nickname means. Y'shua uses Keefa's name to reveal the significance of Keefa's conclusion. Neither flesh nor blood (an individual) can reveal the “nature” of Mashiyach, except YHWH Himself by the Ruach haKodesh! Using the literal meaning of Keefa's name (rock), Y'shua brings together the understanding of the Tsur (Rock) of D'varim/Deut 32:18, 30, 31; Psalm 18:46; Psalm 61 and 62; Isaiah 8:14; 17:10; 51:1-8. When Shimon Keefa says, “You are the Mashiyach, the Son of the Living Elohim” he confesses faith in Mashiyach, not the person only, but the Spirit of Mashiyach in Y'shua. Y'shua's reply provides Keefa the same reference that David and the Prophets had regarding YHWH's Salvation, the Rock. However, this verse was twisted by Catholicism to first give Peter “authority,” then usurp Peter's “authority” for its leader. Ya'akov was the first Rosh Beit Din of the Netzari, not Peter. Paganism makes the physical persons of Y'shua, Maryam, Peter, and others into deity-like icons, very contrary to Torah and Mashiyach. See also 1 Corinthians 10:4.

 

Not going to copy/paste whole articles.

 

Off topic, but what stood out to me was; Neither flesh nor blood (an individual) can reveal the “nature” of Mashiyach, except YHWH Himself by the Ruach haKodesh!

 

YHWH , The one bringing into being; Life-giver; Giver of existence, creator; He who brings to pass;

 

Mashiyach, The WORD of Yahweh is MASHIYACH

 

Ruach haKodesh, The way we should define Ruach haKodesh is as an intense experience of the Divine.

The site describes it very much the way Paul does in the NT. Wondering if Islam has a term for this Holy Spirit as well.

Edited by Son of Placid
Link to post
Share on other sites

interesting link

 

Is Peter really "the rock" of the Catholic church?

 

With all the difference Bible translations and their respective mistranslations, it's no wonder "the church" - Catholic or otherwise - has some confusing doctrines.

 

Take, for instance, the Catholic insistence that "Peter is the rock" or "cornerstone" of their church. They get that idea from mistranslations in the KJV and later versions:

 

The Aramaic English New Testament was translated directly from Aramaic into English from the oldest New Testament ever discovered, the Khabouris Codex, which some scholars date all the way back to 120 A.D. - and a footnote concerning Matthew 16:18 says:

This is a wordplay between Keefa the man and what his nickname means. Y'shua uses Keefa's name to reveal the significance of Keefa's conclusion. Neither flesh nor blood (an individual) can reveal the “nature” of Mashiyach, except YHWH Himself by the Ruach haKodesh! Using the literal meaning of Keefa's name (rock), Y'shua brings together the understanding of the Tsur (Rock) of D'varim/Deut 32:18, 30, 31; Psalm 18:46; Psalm 61 and 62; Isaiah 8:14; 17:10; 51:1-8. When Shimon Keefa says, “You are the Mashiyach, the Son of the Living Elohim” he confesses faith in Mashiyach, not the person only, but the Spirit of Mashiyach in Y'shua. Y'shua's reply provides Keefa the same reference that David and the Prophets had regarding YHWH's Salvation, the Rock. However, this verse was twisted by Catholicism to first give Peter “authority,” then usurp Peter's “authority” for its leader. Ya'akov was the first Rosh Beit Din of the Netzari, not Peter. Paganism makes the physical persons of Y'shua, Maryam, Peter, and others into deity-like icons, very contrary to Torah and Mashiyach. See also 1 Corinthians 10:4.

 

Not going to copy/paste whole articles.

 

Off topic, but what stood out to me was; Neither flesh nor blood (an individual) can reveal the “nature” of Mashiyach, except YHWH Himself by the Ruach haKodesh!

 

YHWH , The one bringing into being; Life-giver; Giver of existence, creator; He who brings to pass;

 

Mashiyach, The WORD of Yahweh is MASHIYACH

 

Ruach haKodesh, The way we should define Ruach haKodesh is as an intense experience of the Divine.

The site describes it very much the way Paul does in the NT. Wondering if Islam has a term for this Holy Spirit as well.

 

The Original Langue is in Hebrew after all.

the Catholic and Christian have both different translations of the Bible? Why?

are the translators different for both sides? and why is there 5 or I think more translations of the bible?

Which one is more accurate.

and peace be upon you.    

Link to post
Share on other sites
  • Veteran Member

 

 

I just did a quick search and a got Peter A.S. If anyone has any input please do add. So your saying it was not Peter A.S but it was his brother James?

This answer is due to old christian scrolls which say this?

 

This is what I found:

  • His immediate successor was Shamoon a.s according to Tarikh i-Anbiya az Adam ta Khatam" by Husain Imadzadeh
  • The Commander of the Faithful said, ‘He is Simon, the successor of Jesus (‘a).   (Amàlí, 1, 104-106, 5)
Edited by PureEthics
Link to post
Share on other sites
  • Veteran Member

Hi IslamHistory,

Quote from Post 9:

The Original Langue is in Hebrew after all.

the Catholic and Christian have both different translations of the Bible? Why?

are the translators different for both sides? and why is there 5 or I think more translations of the bible? Which one is more accurate.

Response: --- Thank you for your questions. --- The common language in Israel in the time of Jesus was Aramaic, which was a dialect of Hebrew. --- The OT was written in Hebrew with a few passages in Aramaic.

Matthew wrote a first Gospel account in Aramaic which would have been distributed at the time as well as given to the Apostles, and there are some records of that Gospel. --- Later the three synoptic Gospels were written in Greek, which was the language of Commerce, and still is a language today.

John wrote his General Gospel some years later and not so repetitious, but deals with the teaching of the Holy Spirit and the deeper life.

The individual Gospel accounts were copied and distributed from the time they were written, --- and the NT we have today is from the Greek Manuscripts. The Gospels, Acts, all the letters of Paul, Hebrews, James and Revelation were established and distributed separately, and then together as the Scriptures, from about 150 AD.

The first generation of Apostles died in the first century, --- and after those who used the ‘Oral Gospel,’ --- and the Church Fathers, were dying off, they relied on the written Books of Scripture.

For about 200 years they tried to decide what other books should be included in the NT, as there were many more Gospels and letters that were considered. --- Finally, about 365 AD, they added the letters of Peter and John, --- and Jude who was also a brother of Jesus along with James.

It was after the Canon of the 27 Books of the NT was accepted by all the Churches that the Scholar Jerome, translated the Bible into the Latin Vulgate, which was a language used from the time of Jesus --- (the inscription on the cross was written in Hebrew, Greek and Latin).

--- Now notice this: --- The Latin Vulgate was used in the Churches from 400 AD to 1600 AD, when it was translated into the Douay-Reimes Version (of which I have a copy). --- So this English Catholic Bible was used from then on.

About the same time, King James of England wanted an English Bible for the common people to read. --- He commissioned 47 Bible Scholars and linguists to translate the Bible from the most ancient Greek manuscripts, --- so they produced the King James Bible.

--- Because the Latin was translated from the ancient Manuscript as well, --- in the NT there is very little difference between the two. --- The verses are the same except for the choice of words of the translator. --- It is the same Message.

The Old Testament is the same also, except that the Catholic Bible includes 7 Books mostly of history, which were not included in the King James.

The Codex Siniaticus and the Codex Vaticanus, both from about 400 AD can be found online.

Since the Douay Version and the King James Bible, --- there have been many new versions of updated language as each were written in Old English.

But the ancient Manuscripts could not be changed, and therefore, the ‘changes in the updating,’ --- is due to the choice of words and phrases of the translator.

I use the New King James (as well as having copies of many others). It is a ‘Red Letter Edition,’ where all the words spoken by Jesus are printed in red.

--- If you want to study or compare the many versions go to ‘BibleGateway.com,’ --- and if you want to compare 10 English translations of the Quran, go to ‘Quranbrowser.net.’

Placid

Link to post
Share on other sites
  • Veteran Member

The Original Langue is in Hebrew after all.

the Catholic and Christian have both different translations of the Bible? Why?

are the translators different for both sides? and why is there 5 or I think more translations of the bible?

Which one is more accurate.

and peace be upon you.    

Actually the Catholic and Protestant Bibles are the same in their wording. The Catholics kept some extra history books, that's all.

There are translations for the Bible everywhere. Some were translated into modern English, but English is such a mish/mash that it's hard to satisfy all. At the same time there are some translated with a God is a woman theology, trinity theme, etc.

Right now I'm thinking the Aramaic English may be most accurate but it sure is a pain in the butt to read. I have to research every other word. Even so, it's not that it's different, it just corrects the imagination of some "scholars".

Link to post
Share on other sites
  • Advanced Member

Successor of Prophet Isa was in my view - James the Just [caller to both faith and works - Iman and Amal Salih] and the arch nemesis of Paul [caller to Hellenic influenced faith alone].

 

There is this widespread misunderstanding as regards Paul

Paul did not do away with any law.  Jesus does away with the law of sin and death... with the laws of the flesh, and leads us to something higher.

[*  under the law of sin and death, the law of the flesh]

because people do not understand what it is that Paul is saying, they have a misconception of Paul

He is saying that we are saved from the flesh through Jesus Christ who brings us to God, to our salvation, through love and sacrifice.

For here are the words of Paul, and one must be careful to understand the message.

(I have used a combined KJV and NIV to makes its meaning easier to read and understand)

What shall we say then? Shall we continue in sin, that grace may abound?

2 God forbid. How shall we, that are dead to sin, live any longer therein?

3 Know ye not, that so many of us as were baptized into Jesus Christ were baptized into his death?

4 Therefore we are buried with him by baptism into death: that like as Christ was raised up from the dead by the glory of the Father, even so we also should walk in newness of life.

5 For if we have been planted together in the likeness of his death, we shall be also in the likeness of his resurrection:

6 Knowing this, that our old man is crucified with him, that the body of sin might be destroyed, that henceforth we should not serve sin.

7 For he that is dead is freed from sin.

8 Now if we be dead with Christ, we believe that we shall also live with him:

9 For we know that since Christ was raised from the dead, he cannot die again; death no longer has mastery over him. 10 The death he died, he died to sin once for all; but the life he lives, he lives to God.

11 In the same way, count yourselves dead to sin but alive to God in Christ Jesus. 12 Therefore do not let sin reign in your mortal body so that you obey its evil desires. 13 Do not offer any part of yourself to sin as an instrument of wickedness, but rather offer yourselves to God as those who have been brought from death to life; and offer every part of yourself to him as an instrument of righteousness. 14 For sin shall no longer be your master, because you are not under the law [* see my note on this], but under grace.

15 What then? shall we sin, because we are not under the law, but under grace? God forbid.

16 Don’t you know that when you offer yourselves to someone as obedient slaves, you are slaves of the one you obey—whether you are slaves to sin, which leads to death, or to obedience, which leads to righteousness? 17 But thanks be to God that, though you used to be slaves to sin, you have come to obey from your heart the pattern of teaching that has now claimed your allegiance. 18 You have been set free from sin[laws of the flesh] and have become slaves to righteousness.

19 I speak after the manner of men because of the infirmity of your flesh: for as ye have yielded your members servants to uncleanness and to iniquity unto iniquity; even so now yield your members servants to righteousness unto holiness.

 20 When you were slaves to sin, you were free from the control of righteousness.

21 What fruit had ye then in those things whereof ye are now ashamed? for the end of those things is death.

22 But now that you have been set free from sin and have become slaves of God, the benefit you reap leads to holiness, and the result is eternal life. 23 For the wages of sin is death; but the gift of God is eternal life through Jesus Christ our Lord.

 

 

You have to understand what "saved by faith" means.

Faith... love of Christ, love of God's sacrifice made for our sake... leads us to do what is right, by which we are saved.

People totally miss the message... the message of the Christ... the sacrifice.

 

Salaam to all.

Edited by CLynn
Link to post
Share on other sites
  • Veteran Member

Hi Islamic Salvation,

 

Quote from Post 10:

Successor of Prophet Isa was in my view - James the Just [caller to both faith and works - Iman and Amal Salih] and the arch nemesis of Paul [caller to Hellenic influenced faith alone].

 

Response: --- It is very interesting that you have declared yourself in the first line, in mentioning James the brother of Jesus, and also, given a negative note concerning Paul, as though there was a disagreement.

--- I watched the video, and for a secular person he was fair, although he missed the mention of James as the Elder or Leader of the Jerusalem Church, and why he was chosen and not one of the Apostles. --- However, James was not a successor to Jesus as he stayed in the Church in Jerusalem, which was the home Church of the Apostles when they were there between their travels. --- But he was an influential Servant, and hosted Paul and Luke in Jerusalem after their missionary journeys, before they went to Rome to join Peter and Mark.

James has been discussed before, and there is already a topic on James, which we can continue in if you like.

 

 

--- There is also a Topic on Paul who is generally disliked by Muslims,

The main reason is what you have mentioned that Paul said ‘we are saved by Faith.’ --- I would like to pick up the conversation there and discuss the video so that we don’t take this topic of ‘succession’ off track.  

Link to post
Share on other sites
  • Veteran Member

If anyone wants to see the case for James, and the sidelining done to him by the Church, and the arguments for him being the real successor to Jesus - then one can begin reading the book, James the brother of Jesus - by Eisenman. Of course there are some errors and leaps in the book in my view (DSS Qumran identification etc.), but Eisenman is spot on in some of his points.

Quoting from Eisenman:

"The Letter of James follows up this attack on ‘breaking the Law’ by playing, as we saw, on both the theme of Abraham as a ‘Friend of God’ (a leitmotif too in Islam - in succession to nonorthodox Christianity) and Paul’s use of ‘Abraham’s Faith being reckoned as Righteousness’. As will be recalled, Paul uses this passage from Genesis 15:6 to underscore his ‘Justification by Faith’ ideology and his total break with Jewish or Mosaic Law preceding him.

But Islam goes further. Picking up Paul’s ‘Faith’ ideology, it has transformed his use of the Abraham model into a subtle rebuttal on not only the Mosaic tradition, but on Christianity too. Just as Paul uses Abraham in Romans and Galatians to develop the position that, though Abraham came before Moses and the Law, he was nevertheless ‘saved’ in some manner; for Muhammad, ‘Abraham’s Religion’ came before both Judaism and Christianity, and Islam is just a return to Abraham’s original monotheism.

For Paul, ‘Abraham was justified’ or ‘saved by his Faith’, and the ‘Faith in Christ Jesus’ he is preaching and that of his new converts is ‘Abraham’s Faith’. Because of this, they are all ‘Sons of’, or ‘Children of Abraham’; whereas for Muhammad (a ‘True Prophet’ to the Gentiles or Peoples), his people, the Arabs, need not evoke being spiritualized heirs of Abraham, as Paul’s Hellenistic converts must - ‘grafts upon the tree’ as Paul so deftly puts it in Romans - but rather, taking his cue from Ishmael’s genealogy in Genesis, they are actual physical descendants or ‘heirs’.

The difference, however, is that in true Jamesian style, Muhammad has combined this with an extreme ‘works-Righteousness’ approach. As the Koran repeatedly commands in its capsule descriptions of Islam, ‘believe and do good works’, including even a James-like emphasis on ‘doing’ also typical of Qumran. Nothing could better epitomize the Jamesian insistence - in rebuking the ‘Empty Man’ - on Abraham’s ‘Faith and works working together’ than this (Jas. 2:20-23)." (Pg. 466)

Another example of the link with Islam while discussing difficulty in translating a word:

"However these things may be, this prohibition of James probably had to do with what in English goes by the name of ‘carrion’, again probably based on the Noahic Covenant above. Therefore it would have been seen in a more general way as applicable to all Noah’s human descendants and, no doubt, as in Jewish Law generally, probably also would have included some sense of beasts or fowl that died of themselves or dead as a result of disease, not by just ritual slaughter or the action of beasts of prey. The problem was, as with John the Baptist’s ‘locusts’ above, transliteration into Greek - or better still transmogrification — from a so far undetermined Semitic original.

In fact, this interpetation is basically confirmed, if one goes to the Koran again, the heir, as we have been pointing out, to many of these traditions and formulations relevant to Jewish Christianity and, in particular, those called ‘Ebionites’/‘the Poor’. Not only do we have in the Koran the repeated reiteration of the Jamesian position: ‘Believe in Allah, the Last Day, and do good works’; but also a kind of stark works/Righteousness throughout, that is, you are saved not by intercession or variations of Pauline conceptualities of ‘Grace’, but only by ‘the works you have sent before you’. Here, of course, is ‘the works’ in the works/Righteousness equation with a vengeance.

In the Koran, too, we also have, perhaps even more impressively, actual evocation of James’ directives to overseas communities as presented in the Book of Acts reproduced almost verbatim. In fact, these become in effect - unlike in Christianity in the West - the basis of all Islamic dietary Law thereafter.

As Muhammad succinctly puts it: Abstain from swineflesh, blood, things immolated to an idol, and carrion. (2:172, 5:3, 16:115, etc.)

It was, no doubt, understood in James’ instructions to overseas communities and probably so self-evident that it was not even thought worthy of mention. But the interesting things in Muhammad’s presentation are that which is ‘immolated to an idol’, ‘blood’, and ‘carrion’. ‘Things immolated to an idol’ is clearly simply the terminology of James’ first prohibition to overseas communities - ‘things sacrificed to idols’ - so disingenuously laboured over in I Corinthians by Paul and evoked too in ‘MMT’ (which we shall later identify as a ‘Jamesian’ letter(s) to an ostensibly Judaized ‘Arab’ monarch in Northern Syria - Abraham’s putative homeland as well).

‘Blood’, too, is the second category of James’ directives to overseas communities as reported in Acts, and we have already discussed it sufficiently.

But the third, ‘carrion’ in Arabic, is the key. It, no doubt, is a better translation of whatever was originally intended in the original Semitic form of these directives than the version of it that has survived in the Greek, which seems to have preserved only one sense of what was intended, that is, strangulation or things killed by action on the windpipe. ‘Carrion’ is no doubt what was originally intended and carrion is what has survived into the Arabic. It certainly makes more sense. It is an overpowering fact that many of these traditions from Jamesian Christianity have survived into Islam, its unwitting, but in fact, clearly, similarly apocalyptic and uncompromising heir." (Pg. 494)

Edited by Islamic Salvation
Link to post
Share on other sites
  • Advanced Member

Successor of Prophet Isa was in my view - James the Just [caller to both faith and works - Iman and Amal Salih] and the arch nemesis of Paul [caller to Hellenic influenced faith alone].

Jamesian principles of Taharah, Dhabiha, no tolerance for Alcohol, a non-divine Jesus, circumcision and adherance to the Tawrat - were sidelined by the church ever since.

 

Refer to the works of Robert Eisenman (James, the brother of Jesus) and the history of the early Judaic 'Christianity' in Jerusalem.

 

"People see this material through the myopia or the eyeglasses that they're wearing. Okay, we all have eyeglasses; you want to call mine Islamic, that may be. I think Islam relates to this material more than any of the traditions that we've been talking about, at least in the ethos."

 

 

What are your sources to support the fact that James was the successor to Jesus (as)?

 

There are narrations to indicate that Peter was the successor and also the fact that there was dispute in Antioch between Peter and Paul as discussed earlier on the status of the Old Testament.

 

If you look up at the list of the 12 apostles, you will not find James the Just rather James the Lesser and Greater, some say he was not among the 12. The problem with Christian sources is far more haphazard.

There is this widespread misunderstanding as regards Paul

Paul did not do away with any law.  Jesus does away with the law of sin and death... with the laws of the flesh, and leads us to something higher.

[*  under the law of sin and death, the law of the flesh]

because people do not understand what it is that Paul is saying, they have a misconception of Paul

He is saying that we are saved from the flesh through Jesus Christ who brings us to God, to our salvation, through love and sacrifice.

For here are the words of Paul, and one must be careful to understand the message.

(I have used a combined KJV and NIV to makes its meaning easier to read and understand)

What shall we say then? Shall we continue in sin, that grace may abound?

2 God forbid. How shall we, that are dead to sin, live any longer therein?

3 Know ye not, that so many of us as were baptized into Jesus Christ were baptized into his death?

4 Therefore we are buried with him by baptism into death: that like as Christ was raised up from the dead by the glory of the Father, even so we also should walk in newness of life.

5 For if we have been planted together in the likeness of his death, we shall be also in the likeness of his resurrection:

6 Knowing this, that our old man is crucified with him, that the body of sin might be destroyed, that henceforth we should not serve sin.

7 For he that is dead is freed from sin.

8 Now if we be dead with Christ, we believe that we shall also live with him:

9 For we know that since Christ was raised from the dead, he cannot die again; death no longer has mastery over him. 10 The death he died, he died to sin once for all; but the life he lives, he lives to God.

11 In the same way, count yourselves dead to sin but alive to God in Christ Jesus. 12 Therefore do not let sin reign in your mortal body so that you obey its evil desires. 13 Do not offer any part of yourself to sin as an instrument of wickedness, but rather offer yourselves to God as those who have been brought from death to life; and offer every part of yourself to him as an instrument of righteousness. 14 For sin shall no longer be your master, because you are not under the law [* see my note on this], but under grace.

15 What then? shall we sin, because we are not under the law, but under grace? God forbid.

16 Don’t you know that when you offer yourselves to someone as obedient slaves, you are slaves of the one you obey—whether you are slaves to sin, which leads to death, or to obedience, which leads to righteousness? 17 But thanks be to God that, though you used to be slaves to sin, you have come to obey from your heart the pattern of teaching that has now claimed your allegiance. 18 You have been set free from sin[laws of the flesh] and have become slaves to righteousness.

19 I speak after the manner of men because of the infirmity of your flesh: for as ye have yielded your members servants to uncleanness and to iniquity unto iniquity; even so now yield your members servants to righteousness unto holiness.

 20 When you were slaves to sin, you were free from the control of righteousness.

21 What fruit had ye then in those things whereof ye are now ashamed? for the end of those things is death.

22 But now that you have been set free from sin and have become slaves of God, the benefit you reap leads to holiness, and the result is eternal life. 23 For the wages of sin is death; but the gift of God is eternal life through Jesus Christ our Lord.

 

 

You have to understand what "saved by faith" means.

Faith... love of Christ, love of God's sacrifice made for our sake... leads us to do what is right, by which we are saved.

People totally miss the message... the message of the Christ... the sacrifice.

 

Salaam to all.

 

 

Cyllin, it will be good if you refer to the dispute in Antioch between Paul, Peter, James and Barnabas. Paul was standing alone.

Link to post
Share on other sites
  • Advanced Member

There are narrations to indicate that Peter was the successor and also the fact that there was dispute in Antioch between Peter and Paul as discussed earlier on the status of the Old Testament.

 

Cyllin, it will be good if you refer to the dispute in Antioch between Paul, Peter, James and Barnabas. Paul was standing alone.

 

Greetings Ebn Tie me yeah,

 

Placid has responded to this in the thread, 'Paul'.

 

Salaam,

CLynn

Edited by CLynn
Link to post
Share on other sites
  • Advanced Member

Cool, does it have the same sort of description?

Rauch has many meanings and usages in Quran. When it comes in the form of the Rouh or Rouh Kodus though and according to narrations, it refers to great heavenly creature greater than the angels , other narrations interpret it as jebril the arch angel Gabriel
Link to post
Share on other sites
  • Veteran Member

To the Op there is dispute about the book of sulayman ibn qays one final book labels to one narrator as the one who fabricated that book namely aban ibn ayyash however there are other reports that say it was shamoun the successor of nabi Jesus (as) I have read the gospel of Thomas which labels james the brother of Jesus as his successor as for the mainstream throughout amongst Christian s it is Simon which is Peter I am a bit confused myself on who it is A: maybe Simon means shamoun B: shamoun means something and someone else

Link to post
Share on other sites
  • Veteran Member

Hi Maitham,

 

Quote from Post 21:

I have read the gospel of Thomas which labels james the brother of Jesus as his successor as for the mainstream throughout amongst Christian s it is Simon which is Peter I am a bit confused myself on who it is A: maybe Simon means shamoun B: shamoun means something and someone else

 

Response: --- Jesus trained many disciples and of them He chose the twelve to be Apostles, which means “Sent ones.”

--- The eleven that continued with Him were His Messengers to the world, --- so He commissioned them to “Go into all the World and preach the Gospel,” --- so there were 11 ‘successors’ to Jesus who went in different directions. They would have had with them the first Gospel of Matthew written in Aramaic, and any other written material, --- but they received the Holy Spirit on the Day of Pentecost, so the Holy Spirit was their guide.

.

Thomas may have referred to James as being the Leader in Jerusalem and therefore the one to go to. James may have been seen as a successor to his Brother, but the Jerusalem Church did not become a Center or Headquarters for the spreading of the Gospel, --- so James was not a successor to Jesus.

 

Peter was the leader of the disciples, the first to speak and the first to act, but not always the first to think before he did, or said something. --- However he was the first spokesman on the Day of Pentecost in Acts 2 where some 3000 were converted. --- These were Jews who were in Jerusalem for the Feast of Pentecost, so they were the first to carry the Gospel Message back to their homeland.

--- The Apostles went out from Jerusalem in different directions and some went to the countries that were represented in verses 5-12 in Acts 2.

They believe Thomas went to Parthia in Persia and then went on to India. So Thomas was the Successor to Jesus everywhere he went, and especially in India.

 

Peter travelled extensively and eventually went to Rome with Mark, who wrote the Gospel with input from Peter. --- So Peter was an Apostle in Rome, and had been a Successor of Jesus the same as Thomas or John or Philip, but they each went in different directions, so there was no central organization.

 

When some Christian leaders who were less spiritual and more political agreed to form a new Church with the Roman government after 300 AD, they called it the Roman Catholic (Universal) Church. --- They reverted back to a central Government, after the pattern of Judaism and the Pharisees. --- They appointed a hierarchy and then chose a Pope, --- like the Pharisee had a High Priest.

--- They tried to date back to Peter in Rome and say that he was the first Pope, but that was totally false.

Their central Government from the Vatican has proven to be off the track, has it not? --- And has many problems.

I am not knocking the Good Catholic people who believe in God and follow the Scriptures, but the central organization was never the pattern for Christianity.

 

The Evangelical Christians of today have denominations and a local organization for each one, but there is no central controlling body as we still go back to the NT Scriptures to establish Churches and to keep them on track.

The Holy Spirit still guides the Spiritual leaders, both in Churches and in the many world-wide ministries that have grown out of the benevolence of Churches.

Christ is still the head of the Church and will be, --- until He returns.

 

Placid 

Link to post
Share on other sites
  • Veteran Member

Peace be upon you:

My infinite thanks are yours. Saint Peter (peace be upon him) was the successor of Jesus (peace be upon him) just as Imam Ali (peace be upon him) was the successor to Muhammad (peace be upon him). I wish every Christian and every Muslim understood these two concepts. It would make discussions infinitely easier.

 

How do you reconcile between islam and catholocism? It is a huge contradiction. The beliefs of Imam Ali go against your whole search. I love the fact that you have respect for Muhammad A.S and Ali A.S, but respect and love is not even close to obedience. What your doing is what the sunnis do with the ahulubayt, they say them love them, yet do exactly the opposite of what they say and they love their enemies more then the prophet and his family.

Edited by PureEthics
Link to post
Share on other sites

Join the conversation

You are posting as a guest. If you have an account, sign in now to post with your account.
Note: Your post will require moderator approval before it will be visible.

Guest
Reply to this topic...

×   Pasted as rich text.   Paste as plain text instead

  Only 75 emoji are allowed.

×   Your link has been automatically embedded.   Display as a link instead

×   Your previous content has been restored.   Clear editor

×   You cannot paste images directly. Upload or insert images from URL.

×
×
  • Create New...