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
Sign in to follow this  
sm9658

Islamic View On The Torah And Bible

Rate this topic

Recommended Posts

But they diverted the words from their true meanings. They presented their opinions as divine revelation

 

 

Happens all the time

 

I see it all as a big excuse not to have to read past scriptures.  :P

I've met a few Muslims that liked the Harry Potter series tho, so...

 

You have not given us the "Islamic" view, but more the Muslim view, predominantly Shia...school. 

Understand that if Islam was the first religion then the Jews had it first. You are assuming they ALL got it wrong. 

 

I will not criticize Islam, (in the context of Islam being the first and only real religion), nor the Quran, but...

Shia hadith can be loosely translated as; Anything but what the Christians say. Al Mitzah even starts with an agenda. Many explanations are lame, and tradition is so well set out for you that you don't even have to think about it any more. Hadith seems to have an answer for everything. 

 

In my years of coaching baseball, when all the bases are loaded and the offense is weak, it's usually a tactic comes next. A plan of distraction. You have enough reading material to keep you busy enough to keep you from reading the Quran for yourself let alone the actual Torah and Bible. They also tell you that God's message to mankind is too difficult for mankind to understand, so you rely on what the "somebody said, somebody said" say about the Quran, Torah, and NT, without ever knowing why. Also note in the Quran translations how [(interjection)] is separated from the actual word. 

 

I am sorry but it seems you have your own forms of corruption, (without ever touching the Quran). I believe that if you study you will find the same with the Torah and Bible. It's not the scriptures, but the man made rules around the scriptures. 

 

Just like; Everybody who runs around saying "Jesus is not God, so the Bible is corrupt", is clueless. Trinity is a doctrine, not a Biblical fact. 

 

To be fair...I'm neither Muslim, nor trinitarian, so my perspective does not come from worshiping a human God, nor an earth birthed son. 

 

If you want to argue doctrines/traditions someone else will have to step up, I can't defend mainstream if it doesn't follow scripture. ;)

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Happens all the time

 

I see it all as a big excuse not to have to read past scriptures.  :P

I've met a few Muslims that liked the Harry Potter series tho, so...

 

You have not given us the "Islamic" view, but more the Muslim view, predominantly Shia...school. 

Understand that if Islam was the first religion then the Jews had it first. You are assuming they ALL got it wrong. 

 

I will not criticize Islam, (in the context of Islam being the first and only real religion), nor the Quran, but...

Shia hadith can be loosely translated as; Anything but what the Christians say. Al Mitzah even starts with an agenda. Many explanations are lame, and tradition is so well set out for you that you don't even have to think about it any more. Hadith seems to have an answer for everything. 

 

In my years of coaching baseball, when all the bases are loaded and the offense is weak, it's usually a tactic comes next. A plan of distraction. You have enough reading material to keep you busy enough to keep you from reading the Quran for yourself let alone the actual Torah and Bible. They also tell you that God's message to mankind is too difficult for mankind to understand, so you rely on what the "somebody said, somebody said" say about the Quran, Torah, and NT, without ever knowing why. Also note in the Quran translations how [(interjection)] is separated from the actual word. 

 

I am sorry but it seems you have your own forms of corruption, (without ever touching the Quran). I believe that if you study you will find the same with the Torah and Bible. It's not the scriptures, but the man made rules around the scriptures. 

 

Just like; Everybody who runs around saying "Jesus is not God, so the Bible is corrupt", is clueless. Trinity is a doctrine, not a Biblical fact. 

 

To be fair...I'm neither Muslim, nor trinitarian, so my perspective does not come from worshiping a human God, nor an earth birthed son. 

 

If you want to argue doctrines/traditions someone else will have to step up, I can't defend mainstream if it doesn't follow scripture. ;)

Ive read the Quran in its original text (Arabic) many times, as in in daily basis. Read it from cover to cover.

As part of my role as permanent SC resident, I read the translations from time to time and I can understand your confusion because the translations sometimes come short.

I do read the Bible, was reading Peter actually few hours ago. I read it in English Arabic and hebrew and i'd love to read it in Syriac and Aramic.

I am familiar with hadiths as well , i read them in original arabic without the need for translation.

Maybe your post was more of a reflection on your own shortcomings sir.

 

 

Believing and Disbelieving are not novel to this age. It's been the way since Satan and Adam, Cain and Abel , Jews and Christians and now Muslims are not an exclusion.

It is mentioned in the first verses of the Kahf (Cave) chapter. A rhetorical question was asked in Quran " Did you think that the story of the seven sleepers is a wonder?" The answer is no, because the state of the repetition of disbelief by the humanity is more wondrous.

 

 

9. Do you think that the people of the Cave and the Inscription (the news or the names of the people of the Cave) were a wonder among Our Signs?

 
 
Just because it happens all the time dose not render it trivial.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Please do!

1)You can provide me with the Quranic verse(s) that say that another person was crucified instead of Jesus.

2) you can tell me what happened to the original Injeel and Torah that was in Muhammeds possesion.

3) All sources I have seen agree that Islam does not accept the idea of trinity.

1- I think we have one verse :

 

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

 

They (Jews) did not kill him nor did they crucify him (He was not put on a cross)

but

Shubbiha lahaum

This sentence is starting with the verb Shubbiha which is in its past passive tense. 

The noun Shabaha which is the root from which the verb is derived from means :Likeness.

So the Quran is saying that someone made it look like it to them (looked like as if they killed jesus) , well they did not killed a scarecrow but real human who was not Jesus but they thought he was jesus because someone made it look like it. It here refers to the killing and the crucifixion of Jesus.

The verse goes on to describe that after his crucifixion , they were in doubt about their mission. The man looked like jesus but they were very sure.

 

----

2- They are in possession of his heirs.

 

---

 

3-True, but your previous post you said that you think Muhamad believed in Trinity.

They are unbelievers who say, 'God is the Third of Three. No god is there but One God. If they refrain not from what they say, there shall afflict those of them that disbelieve a painful chastisement.

 

That's what Quran says about Trinity. It really dose not matter who are or what are those three entities. Be it Jesus, Mary and God. Be it Jesus , Holy spirit and God. Be it Jesus, Holy spirit and Mary. Be it Jesus the flesh, Jesus the divine and Jesus the spirit.

 

Once you stepped into defining God as an object, restricting Him in space or time, attributing human characters to Him, assuming that his nature and human nature is interchangeable etc, then you stepped into polytheism in Islam.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Hi Salam,

Quote from Post 22:
تغييره = change
و = and
تبديله = replace
and be given a different explanation for a with an agenda (literally a different purpose, changed meaning other than what was meant originally)

Therefore, in one sense of the term, the Gospels and Torah (according to Muslims; again, I condemn this belief); have been
(1) changed, (2) replaced, and (3) given a different explanation
Inconsistencies (also difference, opposition, etc) concerning (between) the original document (text, manuscript) and the copy (reproduction) (takes from an event).

In this sense, it's an inconsistency between the original events in the Bible (Muslims believe there is an original) and the current versions of the Torah and Gospels, which go along with the path that Chaotic Muslem was heading.
Either way, the Muslims will argue that both of these constitute a change. They would be right if it were true.

Yet, if Muslims admit that the Gospels are proper, there is no Islam.
The burden of proof is on the Muslims; not us, to show that there have been changes in the Bible.

Response: --- When we think of inconsistencies or the choice of words of translators as being changes or corruption, there would be no end to it.
I agree with you that the burden of proof is on them to show any changes in the Bible, by showing the ‘before’ and ‘after.’
There are some differences in some verses from one Greek Manuscript to another, but that version will have a footnote saying what is, or isn’t, included in other versions. --- It is not a change, but it was the translation of the Manuscript they were using.

The other thing you mentioned was in --- 3 given a different explanation.
--- This happens between more contemporary versions when a simpler explanation is given, which might be the interpretation of the translator himself.

--- I can show you a different interpretation in the Quran, in Surah 2.
The message was directed to the Jews reminding them of breaking their covenant with God, violating the Sabbath and worshiping the golden calf in the wilderness, from verses 63-66. --- Then God instructed Moses to have them sacrifice an unblemished heifer for their sins, in verses 67-71. This was a blood sacrifice which compares to the special sacrifice for purification of sin in Numbers 19. --- It is also the verses where the Surah gets its name, “The Cow.”

Again, speaking to the Jews about their sins in the time of Jesus, it says next:
72 Pickthall: And (remember) when ye slew a man and disagreed concerning it and Allah brought forth that which ye were hiding.
72 Yusuf Ali: Remember ye slew a man and fell into a dispute among yourselves as to the crime: But God was to bring forth what ye did hide.

73 Pickthall: And We said: Smite him with some of it. Thus Allah bringeth the dead to life and showeth you His portents so that ye may understand.
73 Yusuf Ali: So We said: "Strike the (body) with a piece of the (heifer)." Thus God bringeth the dead to life and showeth you His Signs: Perchance ye may understand.

This is the literal translation and it says, “Strike the (body of Jesus, the man slain in verse 72) with a piece of the (heifer, sacrificed in verse 71)

--- This is quite impossible because the sacrifice of the heifer some 1500 years earlier was reduced to ashes and had been used up.

However, the translator and commentator, Maulana said, --- “The Arabic word here used as ‘strike’ can also mean ‘liken to,’ or ‘compare to.’”
--- This gives a different meaning, which is used in this other translation:
72 Sher Ali: And remember the time when you killed a person and differed among yourselves about it, and Allah, would bring to light what you were hiding.
73 Sher Ali: Then WE said, `Compare this incident with some other similar ones' and you will discover the truth. Thus does Allah give life to the dead and show you HIS Signs that you may understand.

Maulana lived in the same period as Pickthall and he wrote a footnote in the Pickthall translation saying that verses 72-73 refer to the martyrdom of Jesus.
So you would say here, --- not a mistake or change, but a different meaning, --- but the only one that explains the verse in an understandable way, --- isn’t that right?

 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Hi Chaotic, Good to hear you do read. My apoligies, most who jump into this forum want to blurt their version of the Islamic view, and skip out. They have no intention of trying to understand why everyone does not think their way. It's interesting that Muhammad gave Christians more credit than any Muslim since, but some guys come here thinking they know better. Still, the corruption you mentioned remains only a refutation of doctrines while continuing to confirm the actual text. 4:162
And their saying: Surely we have killed the Messiah, Isa son of Marium, the apostle of Allah; and they did not kill him nor did they crucify him, but it appeared to them so (like Isa) and most surely those who differ therein are only in a doubt about it; they have no knowledge respecting it, but only follow a conjecture, and they killed him not for sure.
Is true, the Jews did not kill Jesus, nor crucify Him...Actually, the Jews couldn't kill Jesus anyway. Under the Roman rule, it was the job of the Romans to invoke any form of punishment. The Jews did yell crucify Him enough times the Romans finally did crucify Him, and by that, it appeared that the Jews killed Him, they even boasted of it.

 

The conspiracy comes in when the " but it appeared to them so" , (which I explained), gets an interjection "(like Isa)" and thus starts the whole swap theory, as intended.

 

A couple of ayahs later...But those among them who are well-grounded in knowledge, and the believers, believe in what hath been revealed to thee and what was revealed before thee: 

 

Who were these well-grounded believers? What truth was revealed to them? 

 

I find it interesting that every Christian has the same belief about the crucifixion, and Muslims have all the theories. Conjecture, you could say.

 

But Allah took him up unto Himself

 

Then Jesus let out a loud sigh and gave up the ghost. The soldiers found Him already dead. People can't just stop living unless Allah takes them.

 

Put the Quran next to the Bible and it fills in the blanks and completes the story. You guys are always so busy looking for "anything but what the Christians believe" you can't see the obvious.

 

 

 

I have many shortcomings, It's your diversion so which would you like to fix first? Let's start with too many quote boxes for one post.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

The conspiracy comes in when the " but it appeared to them so" , (which I explained), gets an interjection "(like Isa)" and thus starts the whole swap theory, as intended.

 

A couple of ayahs later...But those among them who are well-grounded in knowledge, and the believers, believe in what hath been revealed to thee and what was revealed before thee: 

 

Who were these well-grounded believers? What truth was revealed to them? 

 

I find it interesting that every Christian has the same belief about the crucifixion, and Muslims have all the theories. Conjecture, you could say.

 

Then Jesus let out a loud sigh and gave up the ghost. The soldiers found Him already dead. People can't just stop living unless Allah takes them.

 

Put the Quran next to the Bible and it fills in the blanks and completes the story. You guys are always so busy looking for "anything but what the Christians believe" you can't see the obvious.

 

 

 

I have many shortcomings, It's your diversion so which would you like to fix first? Let's start with too many quote boxes for one post.

It is not conspiracy nor theory nor conjecture.

It is as clear as the arabic can go

Quran says:

Jesus was not killed

Nor crucified

But the jews thought they killed him

meaning that all these historical records of a man on cross came from jews.

Those who are well learned among christians are his 12 disciples .

 

I don't get why the christians on this site find it difficult to get the first parts of the verse where it says : They did not kill him nor crucified him.

:donno:

 

peeps you are weird.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

1- I think we have one verse :

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

----

2- They are in possession of his heirs.

---

3-True, but your previous post you said that you think Muhamad believed in Trinity.

1) I have looked up the vers myself. The many and very different translations give me more than one scenery, one of them the one you propose. It seem as if even translators have difficulties in understanding old written Arabic. I have of course not the knowledge to judge which translation comes closest to the original meaning.

http://www.internetmosque.net/read/english_translation_of_the_quran_meaning/4/157/index.htm

2) Very interesting. Originals of Injeel and Torah still exist! Where can I get a copy?

3) I said Muhammed had his own definition of Trinity, not that he believed in it, he refused it as polyteism.

Edited by andres

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

and for their saying, 'We killed the Messiah, Jesus the son of Mary, the Messenger (and Prophet) of Allah. ' They did not kill him, nor did they crucify him, but to them, he (the crucified) had been given the look (of Prophet Jesus). Those who differ concerning him (Prophet Jesus) are surely in doubt regarding him, they have no knowledge of him, except the following of supposition, and (it is) a certainty they did not kill him.

 

And for their saying, "Verily we have slain the Messiah, Jesus the son of Mary, an Apostle of God." Yet they slew him not, and they crucified him not, but they had only his likeness. And they who differed about him were in doubt concerning him: No sure kno

 

and their boast, "Behold, we have slain the Christ Jesus, son of Mary, [who claimed to be] an apostle of God!" However, they did not slay him, and neither did they crucify him, but it only seemed to them [as if it had been] so; and, verily, those who hold conflicting views thereon are indeed confused, having no [real] knowledge thereof, and following mere conjecture. For, of a certainty, they did not slay him:

 

 

and have said, verily we have slain Christ Jesus the son of Mary, the Apostle of God; yet they slew him not, neither crucified him, but he was represented by one in his likeness; and verily they who disagreed concerning him, were in a doubt as to this matter, and had no sure knowledge thereof, but followed only an uncertain opinion. They did not really kill him;

 

 

And their saying: "We have killed the Messiah Jesus the son of Mary, the messenger of God!" They did not kill him, nor did they crucify him, but it appeared to them as if they had. Those who dispute are in doubt of him, they have no knowledge except to follow conjecture; they did not kill him for a certainty.

 

And for claiming, "We killed the Messiah Jesus son of Mary, Allah's Messenger." They never killed him and never crucified him. But it appeared so to them and the matter remained dubious to them. Those who hold conflicting views on this issue are indeed confused. They have no real knowledge but they are following mere conjecture. Very certainly, they never killed him.

 

They even say: "We have killed the Messiah, Jesus, son of Mary, the Messenger of Allah." Whereas in fact, neither did they kill him nor did they crucify him but they thought they did because the matter was made dubious for them. Those who differ therein are only in doubt. They have no real knowledge, they follow nothing but merely a conjecture, certainly they did not kill him (Jesus).[157]

 

And [for] their saying, "Indeed, we have killed the Messiah, Jesus, the son of Mary, the messenger of Allah." And they did not kill him, nor did they crucify him; but [another] was made to resemble him to them. And indeed, those who differ over it are in doubt about it. They have no knowledge of it except the following of assumption. And they did not kill him, for certain.

 

 

And because of their saying (in boast), "We killed Messiah Iesa (Jesus), son of Maryam (Mary), the Messenger of Allah," - but they killed him not, nor crucified him, but the resemblance of Iesa (Jesus) was put over another man (and they killed that man), and those who differ therein are full of doubts. They have no (certain) knowledge, they follow nothing but conjecture. For surely; they killed him not (i.e. Iesa (Jesus), son of Maryam (Mary) ):

 

 

And for claiming that they killed the Messiah, Jesus, son of Mary, the messenger of GOD. In fact, they never killed him, they never crucified him - they were made to think that they did. All factions who are disputing in this matter are full of doubt concerning this issue. They possess no knowledge; they only conjecture. For certain, they never killed him.

 

 

and their statement that they murdered Jesus, son of Mary, the Messenger of God, when, in fact, they could not have murdered him or crucified him. They, in fact, murdered someone else by mistake. Even those who disputed (the question of whether or not Jesus was murdered) did not have a shred of evidence. All that they knew about it was mere conjecture. They certainly could not have murdered Jesus.

 

And their saying: "We have killed the Messiah, Jesus, Mary's son, God's messenger, and they have not killed him, and they have not crucified him/placed him on a cross, and but (it) resembled/was vague/was doubtful to them, and that those who disagreed/disputed in (about) him (are) in (E) doubt/suspicion from him, (there is) no knowledge for them with (about) him, except following the assumption , and they have not killed him surely/certainly.

 

 

That's around 11 translations which agree with what I said. 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

It is not conspiracy nor theory nor conjecture.

It is as clear as the arabic can go

Quran says:

Jesus was not killed

Nor crucified

But the jews thought they killed him

meaning that all these historical records of a man on cross came from jews.

Those who are well learned among christians are his 12 disciples .

 

I don't get why the christians on this site find it difficult to get the first parts of the verse where it says : They did not kill him nor crucified him.

:donno:

 

peeps you are weird.

 

 

What andres is referencing is Muhammad's view on the Christian trinity.

المائدة اية 116

وإذ قال الله يا عيسى ابن مر‌يم أنت قلت للناس اتخذوني وأمي إلهين من دون الله

Say God, "O Jesus, son of Mary, you said to the people take me and my mother as [two] gods besides God?

 

Jesus is part of the trinity. Mary is not.

I don't know of any cult that worshiped Mary, as the Arians were non-trinitarian (so no "3" anything) and Nestorians just had an opposing view as Jesus being part man, part God, not full man, and full God. We actually had this conversation earlier on here but it was fruitless.

There were no other Christians who believed this at the time, otherwise, why is it only Islamic sources cite them?

The fact is there is no outside source, so I can't believe that these Christians existed. That's not to say they didn't either. Just proof is necessary.

 

Oh a sidenote: I think you've done a good job explaining the Islamic perspective, and I think many, if not all Muslims would agree with you.

I personally agree with you in that the Quran (and Islam as a whole) argues there has been changes in the Gospels/Torah

However, I also believe that there have been no changes/تحريف/ whatsoever in the Bible.

 

The problem is the ones you are debating don't understand Arabic. They will likely never understand Arabic well enough to understand that verse in particular, or any verse, for that matter.

They will always rely on translations.Try your hardest to be understanding with them. They don't speak Arabic, most Christians don't.

Edited by salamtek

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

That's around 11 translations which agree with what I said.

I could very well understand the translations like: the jboasting jews did not crucify and kill Jesus, the romans did. Which was also the case. Placid comes to the conclusion that Jesus killed himself before the crucifixion did. Dont understand how this conclusion is reached, but since the Quran gives so few informations on a crucial matter I would not be surprised if there were different opinions also among Muslims. If however all Muslims agree that your version is indeed what happened according to the Quran I will naturally accept this as Islamic belief. But the translations are so different that one can have a feeling that some of them have an agenda.

Are you really sure the original Torah and Injeel given to Jesus still exist??????

Edited by andres

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I could very well understand the translations like: the jboasting jews did not crucify and kill Jesus, the romans did. Which was also the case. Placid comes to the conclusion that Jesus killed himself before the crucifixion did. Dont understand how this conclusion is reached, but since the Quran gives so few informations on a crucial matter I would not be surprised if there were different opinions also among Muslims. If however all Muslims agree that your version is indeed what happened according to the Quran I will naturally accept this as Islamic belief. But the translations are so different that one can have a feeling that some of them have an agenda.


Are you really sure the original Torah and Injeel given to Jesus still exist??????

Quran said : They did not kill him nor crucified him. That is an absolute statement. Quran did not say "But others than them did it" Nope. Noon killed Jesus son of Mary messenger , spirit and word of Allah.

Non.

and 

If a man in my building annoyed me, so much so that i really don't want him to exist. But because I don't own the building then i can't do much about it. So , i called the owner and told him things about that annoying man (be it false or true) and worded it in a way that can motivate the owner to kick him off unjustly.

Then who actually kicked that man out of the building? me or the owner?

The jews had the motivation to kill Jesus, they attempted to do so . It is like the Sunni argument that Yazid did not kill Husain because he wasnt fighting him with his army in Karbala.

http://carm.org/religious-movements/jehovahs-witnesses/john-1030-33-what-made-jews-want-kill-jesus

No, noon killed Jesus , noon put him on a cross.


What andres is referencing is Muhammad's view on the Christian trinity.

المائدة اية 116

 

Jesus is part of the trinity. Mary is not.

I don't know of any cult that worshiped Mary, as the Arians were non-trinitarian (so no "3" anything) and Nestorians just had an opposing view as Jesus being part man, part God, not full man, and full God. We actually had this conversation earlier on here but it was fruitless.

There were no other Christians who believed this at the time, otherwise, why is it only Islamic sources cite them?

The fact is there is no outside source, so I can't believe that these Christians existed. That's not to say they didn't either. Just proof is necessary.

 

Oh a sidenote: I think you've done a good job explaining the Islamic perspective, and I think many, if not all Muslims would agree with you.

I personally agree with you in that the Quran (and Islam as a whole) argues there has been changes in the Gospels/Torah

However, I also believe that there have been no changes/تحريف/ whatsoever in the Bible.

 

The problem is the ones you are debating don't understand Arabic. They will likely never understand Arabic well enough to understand that verse in particular, or any verse, for that matter.
They will always rely on translations.Try your hardest to be understanding with them. They don't speak Arabic, most Christians don't.

http://www.eld3wah.net/html/m03az/3badet-maryam/fhrs.htm

Edited by Chaotic Muslem

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Response: --- When we think of inconsistencies or the choice of words of translators as being changes or corruption, there would be no end to it.

I agree with you that the burden of proof is on them to show any changes in the Bible, by showing the ‘before’ and ‘after.’

There are some differences in some verses from one Greek Manuscript to another, but that version will have a footnote saying what is, or isn’t, included in other versions. --- It is not a change, but it was the translation of the Manuscript they were using.

Speaking of the English versions yes.

 

As to the Greek versions, they were updated with the times to fit the newer Koine Greek language.

You can't read certain versions of the Greek manuscripts with knowledge of only earlier Greek manuscripts. That's probably what leads to the perceived "inconsistencies"

In this way, yes, I agree, it was a sort of "translation" from Greek to Greek, as the NKJV relates to the KJV.

 

 

The other thing you mentioned was in --- 3 given a different explanation.

--- This happens between more contemporary versions when a simpler explanation is given, which might be the interpretation of the translator himself.

Explanation/meaning. The root was قصد.

Yes, like the example I cited in the thread you posted about the pamphlet and how it was using a translation that "disproved" Christianity.

 

However, Muslims argue that the Bible was changed and words were replaced in order to convey a different meaning.

 

 

--- I can show you a different interpretation in the Quran, in Surah 2.

The message was directed to the Jews reminding them of breaking their covenant with God, violating the Sabbath and worshiping the golden calf in the wilderness, from verses 63-66. --- Then God instructed Moses to have them sacrifice an unblemished heifer for their sins, in verses 67-71. This was a blood sacrifice which compares to the special sacrifice for purification of sin in Numbers 19. --- It is also the verses where the Surah gets its name, “The Cow.”

 

Again, speaking to the Jews about their sins in the time of Jesus, it says next:

72 Pickthall: And (remember) when ye slew a man and disagreed concerning it and Allah brought forth that which ye were hiding.

72 Yusuf Ali: Remember ye slew a man and fell into a dispute among yourselves as to the crime: But God was to bring forth what ye did hide.

73 Pickthall: And We said: Smite him with some of it. Thus Allah bringeth the dead to life and showeth you His portents so that ye may understand.

73 Yusuf Ali: So We said: "Strike the (body) with a piece of the (heifer)." Thus God bringeth the dead to life and showeth you His Signs: Perchance ye may understand.

This is the literal translation and it says, “Strike the (body of Jesus, the man slain in verse 72) with a piece of the (heifer, sacrificed in verse 71)

--- This is quite impossible because the sacrifice of the heifer some 1500 years earlier was reduced to ashes and had been used up.

However, the translator and commentator, Maulana said, --- “The Arabic word here used as ‘strike’ can also mean ‘liken to,’ or ‘compare to.’”

--- This gives a different meaning, which is used in this other translation:

72 Sher Ali: And remember the time when you killed a person and differed among yourselves about it, and Allah, would bring to light what you were hiding.

73 Sher Ali: Then WE said, `Compare this incident with some other similar ones' and you will discover the truth. Thus does Allah give life to the dead and show you HIS Signs that you may understand.

Maulana lived in the same period as Pickthall and he wrote a footnote in the Pickthall translation saying that verses 72-73 refer to the martyrdom of Jesus.

So you would say here, --- not a mistake or change, but a different meaning, --- but the only one that explains the verse in an understandable way, --- isn’t that right?

 

 

(If a Muslim can help me out here, please do)

Jesus says he will die in surat maryam, 33 right

 

وَالسَّلَامُ عَلَيَّ يَوْمَ وُلِدتُّ وَيَوْمَ أَمُوتُ وَيَوْمَ أُبْعَثُ حَيًّا

And Peace be upon me from the day I was born, until the day I die, and the day I come back to life.

 

In any event, Jesus predicts his own death here.

Muslims apparently believe Jesus died a normal death (as in he was not crucified), was resurrected and assumed bodily into heaven, like Enoch, Elijah, etc.

So he died (not through crucifixion), was resurrected and then ascended into heaven.

If you are to follow history, the timing of his death is very close to when the apostles spread out and preached Christianity.

 

. I've read the a tafseer in Arabic, and there was nothing I found that suggested such a thing, unless I'm missing something. You realize that those translation notes may be corrupted, and that the tafseer (interpretation) that you provided (which I looked up and could not find the reference for the root ضرب) could be just a Muslims way of propaganda that makes Christians more accepting of Muslims, and maybe Islam in general.

 

 

For every Christian, there is no worship of Mary. Whether Protestant, Catholic, Orthodox.

 

If you believe Tawasul is a sin, then that's a different story. Mary intercedes, and she is not God, nor do we worship her, at all.

 

You've given me a Sunni source explaining Protestant material against Catholics. 

 

This is similar to an an atheist giving a Christian an explanation on Islamic doctrine.

 

Mary alone cannot be salvation, contrary to what this website says Catholics believe. That is blasphemy. This source is nonsense, so try again.

 

 وتعلم أن الخلاص ينال عن طريق مريم وحدها

This is nonsense. They don't even cite a source for this other than a Protestant pastor.

 

The only way to God is Jesus, who is God in the flesh.

Edited by salamtek

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

 

 

 

 

(If a Muslim can help me out here, please do)

Jesus says he will die in surat maryam, 33 right

 

 

correct.

He was ascended, his soul was taken in mid way then given back to his body when he reached heavens.

 

 

 

For every Christian, there is no worship of Mary. Whether Protestant, Catholic, Orthodox.

 

If you believe Tawasul is a sin, then that's a different story. Mary intercedes, and she is not God, nor do we worship her, at all.

 

You've given me a Sunni source explaining Protestant material against Catholics. 

 

This is similar to an an atheist giving a Christian an explanation on Islamic doctrine.

 

Mary alone cannot be salvation, contrary to what this website says Catholics believe. That is blasphemy. This source is nonsense, so try again.

This is nonsense. They don't even cite a source for this other than a Protestant pastor.

 

The only way to God is Jesus, who is God in the flesh.

 I think the main objection is "Mary, Mother of God"

 

Mary of the 1st century was the virgin who gave birth to the Messiah. Mary of the 20th century is a goddess created by the Roman Catholic Church. A simple comparison of what the Bible teaches about Mary and what the Roman Catholic Church teaches about her will reveal two different Marys. Mary is not the "Mother of God." If she were she would be GOD! There is only one true, eternal God. He was not born of a woman

 

http://www.catholic.com/tracts/mary-mother-of-god

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Hi Chaotic

You seemingly do not wish to confirm your statement that the original Injeel are in the hands of Muhammeds heirs. Maybe you just forgot, but if intentional I can be sure you found out this was not correct.

I am a protestant. We do not agree on the catholic view on Saints, but we know they are not regarded as Gods. You seem to wish they do, but this does not change catholic belief. Sorry.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Mary of the 1st century was the virgin who gave birth to the Messiah. Mary of the 20th century is a goddess created by the Roman Catholic Church. A simple comparison of what the Bible teaches about Mary and what the Roman Catholic Church teaches about her will reveal two different Marys. Mary is not the "Mother of God." If she were she would be GOD! There is only one true, eternal God. He was not born of a woman

 

http://www.catholic.com/tracts/mary-mother-of-god

 

I think you need to think of this a bit more carefully.

 

You are confirming your belief in that quote, but think of this way. The post you found was located here. Secondly, it claims that up until the twentieth century, the "Catholic" Mary (there is no such thing) was the right Mary. If that were the case, this doesn't support your theory that Christians "worshiped Mary" back in the time of Muhammad.

 

Muhammad's view of the trinity is solid. Christianity's view of Mary is solid, there have been no acts of worship performed unto Mary.

 In around 600AD, he says that Christians worship Mary.

So far, there has been no evidence to support this. Even the quote you gave me goes against the Quran.

 

 

Hyperdulia is the honor we give to the Virgin Mary. We give her the highest honor because she is unique amongst all God’s creation. She is higher than the cherubim and seraphim. She is the only created being who was honored by God so greatly that His Son took his flesh from her. She has totally unique place of honor in heaven and therefore also amongst all of God’s people on earth. The honor we give her, therefore, and the dulia we give her is higher than any other being. But it is not latria. We’re clear about that. We do not worship Mary.

 

 

The special veneration due to the Blessed Virgin Mary. It is substantially less than the cultus latria (adoration), which is due to God alone. But it is higher than the cultus dulia (veneration), due to angels and other saints. As the Church understands the veneration of Mary, it is to be closely associated but subordinated to that of her Son.

 

The titles like Co-Redemptrix, and Mediatrix refer to her role as the mother of God, via Jesus. 

Co-Redemptrix because she carried the Redeemer, Jesus Christ, the Son of God.

 

From the Hail Mary, السلام عليك يا مريم

"blessed [is the] fruit of [her] womb, Jesus". 

ومباركة ثمرة بطنك يسوع..

ܡܒܪܟ ܗܘ ܦܐܪܐ/ܒܪ ܕܟܪܣܟ ܝܫܘܥ

 

She is beyond a regular saint, because she was blessed by having/giving birth Jesus (Christotokos/Theotokos), who then gave his blessings and grace to the world.

 

Her title as Mediatrix of all graces is because she gave the world Jesus.

Many protestants (and apparently Muslims who use protestant sources) take these titles and twist them around because many people don't bother to check on sources and since the words "Mediator" and "Redeemer"  are close enough to the Latin titles of Mary, they take advantage of ignorant Catholics who then disagree with the Catholic doctrine being purported by the Protestant churches, which isn't actually Catholic doctrine at all but used to bad-mouth the Catholic church and gain more protestant following.

 

This has been the subject of quite a number of churches I went to to study Protestant views on Catholicism, and calling the "Virgin Mary that Catholic's worship" the Great Wh*re of Babylon.

I've just demonstrated that Catholics don't worship the Virgin Mary, nor do we have a different Mary. It is the Mary, Mother of Jesus, we ask to intercede, and ask that she pray for us.

 

The Protestants are directly attacking the Mother of God, i.e Mary، and saying we worship her, yet even in the last part of the Hail Mary

 

يا قديسة ماريم، يا والدة الله صلي لاجلنا

Holy Mary, Mother of God, pray for us sinners.

ܡܪܬܝ ܡܪܝܡ ܐܡܗ ܕܐܠܗܐ ܐܬܟܫܦܝ ܚܠܘܦܢ

 

There is no basis for the belief that Catholics, or any Christians worship Mary other then downright ignorance.

Edited by salamtek

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

The owner kicked him out of the building, you were the lobbyist. 

 

 

 

It is not conspiracy nor theory nor conjecture.

It is as clear as the arabic can go

Quran says:

Jesus was not killed

Nor crucified

But the jews thought they killed him

meaning that all these historical records of a man on cross came from jews.

Those who are well learned among christians are his 12 disciples .

 

I don't get why the christians on this site find it difficult to get the first parts of the verse where it says : They did not kill him nor crucified him.

:donno:

 

peeps you are weird.

We get it. The Jews did not kill Jesus.

Jesus was crucified, as per the testimonials of those well learned. 

 

Not those well learned among Christians. Those well learned among Jews, who became Christians. 

None of them had a swap theory. 

 

The idea of saying "The Quran almost says this, so we made up the rest" to discredit every Abrahamic religion before Muhammad is a bit of a stretch. It's a lot easier to see from the outside.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I think you need to think of this a bit more carefully.

 

You are confirming your belief in that quote, but think of this way. The post you found was located here. Secondly, it claims that up until the twentieth century, the "Catholic" Mary (there is no such thing) was the right Mary. If that were the case, this doesn't support your theory that Christians "worshiped Mary" back in the time of Muhammad.

 

Muhammad's view of the trinity is solid. Christianity's view of Mary is solid, there have been no acts of worship performed unto Mary.

 In around 600AD, he says that Christians worship Mary.

So far, there has been no evidence to support this. Even the quote you gave me goes against the Quran.

 

 

 

The titles like Co-Redemptrix, and Mediatrix refer to her role as the mother of God, via Jesus. 

Co-Redemptrix because she carried the Redeemer, Jesus Christ, the Son of God.

 

From the Hail Mary, السلام عليك يا مريم

 

She is beyond a regular saint, because she was blessed by having/giving birth Jesus (Christotokos/Theotokos), who then gave his blessings and grace to the world.

 

Her title as Mediatrix of all graces is because she gave the world Jesus.

Many protestants (and apparently Muslims who use protestant sources) take these titles and twist them around because many people don't bother to check on sources and since the words "Mediator" and "Redeemer"  are close enough to the Latin titles of Mary, they take advantage of ignorant Catholics who then disagree with the Catholic doctrine being purported by the Protestant churches, which isn't actually Catholic doctrine at all but used to bad-mouth the Catholic church and gain more protestant following.

 

This has been the subject of quite a number of churches I went to to study Protestant views on Catholicism, and calling the "Virgin Mary that Catholic's worship" the Great Wh*re of Babylon.

I've just demonstrated that Catholics don't worship the Virgin Mary, nor do we have a different Mary. It is the Mary, Mother of Jesus, we ask to intercede, and ask that she pray for us.

 

The Protestants are directly attacking the Mother of God, i.e Mary، and saying we worship her, yet even in the last part of the Hail Mary

 

There is no basis for the belief that Catholics, or any Christians worship Mary other then downright ignorance.

http://www.marnarsay.com/Subject/Hope%20to%20the%20Virgin%20Mary.htm

i am not the one who coined the title : mother of god. I'm just copy pasting what other christians had /has written.

The owner kicked him out of the building, you were the lobbyist. 

 

 

 

We get it. The Jews did not kill Jesus.

Jesus was crucified, as per the testimonials of those well learned. 

 

Not those well learned among Christians. Those well learned among Jews, who became Christians. 

None of them had a swap theory. 

 

The idea of saying "The Quran almost says this, so we made up the rest" to discredit every Abrahamic religion before Muhammad is a bit of a stretch. It's a lot easier to see from the outside.

 

Information on the Gospel of Peter

F. F. Bruce writes (Jesus and Christian Origins Outside the New Testament, p. 93):

 

The docetic note in this narrative appears in the statement that Jesus, while being crucified, 'remained silent, as though he felt no pain', and in the account of his death. It carefully avoids saying that he died, preferring to say that he 'was taken up', as though he - or at least his soul or spiritual self - was 'assumed' direct from the cross to the presence of God. (We shall see an echo of this idea in the Qur'an.) Then the cry of dereliction is reproduced in a form which suggests that, at that moment, his divine power left the bodily shell in which it had taken up temporary residence.

 

F. F. Bruce continues (op. cit.):

 

Apart from its docetic tendency, the most striking feature of the narrative is its complete exoneration of Pilate from alll responsibility for the crucifixion of Jesus. Pilate is here well on the way to the goal of canonisation which he was to attain in the Coptic Church. He withdraws from the trial after washing his hands, and Herod Antipas takes over from him, assuming the responsibility which, in Luke's passion narrative, he declined to accept. Roman soldiers play no part until they are sent by Pilate, at the request of the Jewish authorities, to provide the guard at the tomb of Jesus. The villians of the piece throughout are 'the Jews' - more particularly, the chief priests and the scribes. It is they who condemn Jesus to death and abuse him; it is they who crucify him and share out his clothes among themselves.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

http://www.marnarsay.com/Subject/Hope%20to%20the%20Virgin%20Mary.htm

i am not the one who coined the title : mother of god. I'm just copy pasting what other christians had /has written.

 

The Bible entitles her essentially as mother of God.

She bore Jesus Christ, God in the flesh.

Christotokos = Christ bearer, Theotokos = God bearer

 

Choose your argument wisely and present it prudently.

As a Muslim you can't use their argument because it doesn't work with your religion.

 

What the Protestants claimed is contrary to what Muhammad claimed, you can't claim both. They are exclusive. Also, the Protestant base for "Mary worship" is weak.

The other Christians are lying, maybe unknowingly, maybe knowingly, to try to get Catholics and Orthodox to convert to their form of Protestantism.

 

Where in that website do you have difficulty understanding? It's around 50,000 words. If something stands out, let me know.

 

It's clear you have a flawed view of Mary in Catholicism and Orthodoxism. Maybe that's something you should add to your studies?

Maybe Mary and Christianity in general?

Edited by salamtek

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Hi SM9658,

Quote from Post 1:
This is still one of the things that i cannot understand. Why were the Torah and bible revealed before the quran? In the past, were they essentially the same thing revealed for different people? Were the original torah and bible islamic texts?
I just don't understand why these other books were revealed if Islam is suppose to be the correct religion.

Response: --- It seems to me that no one has really answered your questions which started the topic.
1 --- Why were the Torah and Gospel revealed before the Quran.?
--- Answer: --- The Torah was the Old Testament written in Hebrew, which covers the history from the creation till 400 BC when the last Book of Malachi was written.
--- The New Testament from Matthew to Revelation was written in Greek in the first century AD. --- Muhammad didn’t come till 600 AD.

2 --- In the past, were they essentially the same thing revealed for different people?
--- Answer: --- God’s message has always been the same. To believe in Him, and be obedient to His word. --- In the Torah or OT they were to worship God, and be obedient to the Law.--- In the New Testament, Jesus came to represent God on earth so people were instructed to worship God and obey the teaching of Jesus, as we find in Surah 3:
45 Behold! the angel said: "O Mary! God giveth thee glad tidings of a Word from Him: his name will be Christ Jesus, the son of Mary, held in honour in this world and the Hereafter and of (the company of) those nearest to God;
46 "He shall speak to the people in childhood and in maturity. And he shall be (of the company) of the righteous.
47 She said: "O my Lord! How shall I have a son when no man hath touched me?" He said: "Even so: God createth what He willeth: When He hath decreed a plan, He but saith to it, 'Be,' and it is!
48"And God will teach him the Book and Wisdom, the Law and the Gospel,
49 “And (appoint him) an apostle to the Children of Israel, (with this message): "'I have come to you, with a Sign from your Lord, in that I make for you out of clay, as it were, the figure of a bird, and breathe into it, and it becomes a bird by God's leave: And I heal those born blind, and the lepers, and I quicken the dead, by God's leave; and I declare to you what ye eat, and what ye store in your houses. Surely therein is a Sign for you if ye did believe;
50 "'(I have come to you), to attest (confirm) the Law which was before me. And to make lawful to you part of what was (before) forbidden to you; I have come to you with a Sign from your Lord. So fear God, and obey me.
51 "'It is God Who is my Lord and your Lord; then worship Him. This is a Way that is straight.'"

--- So, you see Jesus came with the Gospel, which means ‘Good News’ --- and that was the “Good News of salvation through Jesus Christ.”
In 49 it speaks of His healing and deliverance ministry,
In 50 He said, “I have come to confirm the law of the Torah, and as a Sign from the Lord,” so He said, “Obey (follow) Me, which meant, ‘Believe My teaching.’
In 51 He says, “God is my Lord and your Lord; then worship Him. This is a Way that is straight.'"

This is the ‘Way that is straight’ for Christians,

3 --- Were the original torah and bible islamic texts?
--- Answer --- No, the OT was written in Hebrew, and the NT in Greek
However what is misleading is the word Islam, or Islamic.
--- Al-Islam from Surah 5:3, simply means, “The Surrender,” or ‘Submission.’ --- And that means “surrender unto the will of God.” --- An example is given in Surah 2:
131 Pickthall: When his Lord said unto him: Surrender!, He (Abraham) said: I have surrendered to the Lord of the Worlds
132 The same did Abraham enjoin upon his sons, and also Jacob, (saying): O my sons! Lo! Allah hath chosen for you the (true) religion; therefore die not save as men who have surrendered (unto Him).
133 Or were ye present when death came to Jacob, when he said unto his sons: What will ye worship after me? They said: We shall worship thy God, the God of thy fathers, Abraham and Ishmael and Isaac, One God, and unto Him we have surrendered.

131 Yusuf Ali: Behold! his Lord said to him: "Bow (thy will to Me):" He said: "I bow (my will) to the Lord and Cherisher of the Universe."
132 And this was the legacy that Abraham left to his sons, and so did Jacob; "Oh my sons! God hath chosen the Faith for you; then die not except in the Faith of Islam."
132 Were ye witnesses when death appeared before Jacob? Behold, he said to his sons: "What will ye worship after me?" They said: "We shall worship Thy God and the God of thy fathers, of Abraham, Isma'il and Isaac, - the one (True) God: To Him we bow (in Islam)."

So you see, the term ‘bow in Islam,’ means, ‘bow in surrender.’
--- Or be obedient, even as Jesus said in the Gospels, “Follow Me.”

4 --- I just don't understand why these other books were revealed if Islam is suppose to be the correct religion.
--- Answer: --- If you notice in verse 132 above, it says:
Allah hath chosen for you the (true) religion; therefore die not save as men who have surrendered (unto Him).
--- The true religion is, “The surrender unto God’s will, and obedience to Him.”
It is explained very well in the message given to Muhammad in Surah 2:
177 It is not righteousness that ye turn your faces to the East and the West; but righteous is he who believeth in Allah and the Last Day and the angels and the Scripture and the prophets; and giveth wealth, for love of Him, to kinsfolk and to orphans and the needy and the wayfarer and to those who ask, and to set slaves free; and observeth proper worship and payeth the poor-due. And those who keep their treaty when they make one, and the patient in tribulation and adversity and time of stress. Such are they who are sincere. Such are the God-fearing.


Quote from Post 9:
Well my question was asked from an islamic. view of why the other books were sent which is why I said "suppose to be".
I probably chose the wrong section on the forum since I asked from an islamic point of view but that was my mistake.
My question was essentially, do all these books have the same content? Do they all contain different content?

Response: --- This is the right forum for such discussion, And as I showed from the instruction to Abraham, --- "The TRUE religion with God is ‘surrender' unto His will," --- and for Christians, it is to let Him guide by His Holy Spirit.’

I'm sorry that the topic went in different directions and kind of ignored your questions.

 

Placid

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Bismillah.

 

Salaam.

 

There is just one religion for all humanity, from the Prophet Adam (p) to the last person who will die; but there are various versions of this one religion which are in accordance with numerous factors of every nations. All people are going towards perfection but those who were living three thousand years ago in that simple situation, their religious version was as simple as they were.

 

Secondly, as you know the main teachings of religion is beliefs which are same in every period which is Unity, Prophethood and the hereafter (Usūl ad-Dīn) and dissimilarities are in rulings and laws (Furū‘ ad-Dīn).

 

With Duas.

 

Narsis.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
i am not the one who coined the title : mother of god. I'm just copy pasting what other christians had /has written.

 

 

 

I'm good with that. Very familiar with main stream Christianity even if it's not me.

 

Information on the Gospel of Peter

F. F. Bruce writes (Jesus and Christian Origins Outside the New Testament, p. 93):

 

The docetic note in this narrative appears in the statement that Jesus, while being crucified, 'remained silent, as though he felt no pain', and in the account of his death. It carefully avoids saying that he died, preferring to say that he 'was taken up', as though he - or at least his soul or spiritual self - was 'assumed' direct from the cross to the presence of God. (We shall see an echo of this idea in the Qur'an.) Then the cry of dereliction is reproduced in a form which suggests that, at that moment, his divine power left the bodily shell in which it had taken up temporary residence.

F. F. Bruce continues (op. cit.):

 

 

More than just an echo my friend. This basically confirms what I wrote previously, (without agenda). "as though he felt no pain" is an assumption and as you know, we have to be careful with these.

Apart from its docetic tendency, the most striking feature of the narrative is its complete exoneration of Pilate from alll responsibility for the crucifixion of Jesus. Pilate is here well on the way to the goal of canonisation which he was to attain in the Coptic Church. He withdraws from the trial after washing his hands, and Herod Antipas takes over from him, assuming the responsibility which, in Luke's passion narrative, he declined to accept. Roman soldiers play no part until they are sent by Pilate, at the request of the Jewish authorities, to provide the guard at the tomb of Jesus. The villians of the piece throughout are 'the Jews' - more particularly, the chief priests and the scribes. It is they who condemn Jesus to death and abuse him; it is they who crucify him and share out his clothes among themselves.

 

The chief priests were the Pharisees and Sadducees. Sadducees were the majority of the council, who preferred to suck up to the Romans and believed Talmud only. Pharisees believed Talmud plus Oral Tradition, were more popular with the people, and had much better influence. Either way, if Jesus became the new trend, they stood to lose everything. 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

 

The chief priests were the Pharisees and Sadducees. Sadducees were the majority of the council, who preferred to suck up to the Romans and believed Talmud only. Pharisees believed Talmud plus Oral Tradition, were more popular with the people, and had much better influence. Either way, if Jesus became the new trend, they stood to lose everything. 

 

 

????????

Talmud is the oral tradition, composed of the mishnah (the actual oral law) and the gemara (or commentary)

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Sorry Salamtek, did I get my words mixed up? I should have said Torah, my apologies. 

 

Along with this, I was under the impression that they followed their own laws that derived from the Torah, and that they were uniformly consistent, and there was no room for other interpretations.

I understand it's not exactly an oral tradition, but then what would that be called?

Edited by salamtek

Share this post


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.

Sign in to follow this  

×
×
  • Create New...