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  
Christianity

Is YHWH the same as Allah?

Rate this topic

Recommended Posts

21 minutes ago, Mishael said:

I always hear this myth that Jews killed prophets please tell me which prophet they killed. Actually only the high priests tried to kill Jesus not all Jews and by the way I can also say that the children of Ishmael tried to killed Jesus you'd ask me how but you know Herod was originally an Arab and he massacred hundreds of infants all in the process of trying to kill Jesus.

Hi for example they killed John the Baptis & Romans fullfiled request of most of Jews to try. To kill Jesus & this is not an accurate word that Herod was an Arab thus we can’t call all Arabs as children of Ishmael because beside them other tribes were lived in Arabian peninsula by generalizing everything we can’t prove our debate.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
2 hours ago, Mishael said:

Herod was the one who killed John the Baptist and he wasn't a real Jew.

John the Baptist killed because he was against doing great sin & if Herod was not a real Jew how he became a king which nowadays Jews still sensitive to their race so it was be. Worth at that time & they didn’t  accept a not real Jew as asking.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

@Mishael everything I say you just deny by generalizing & myth that written by corrupted rabbis so this is non ending circle.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
2 hours ago, Ashvazdanghe said:

They was names of God at first but pagan tribest later used for name of Idols if children of Ishmael were wild so children of Isaac were savages because they always disobeyed prophets (as) & killed most of them , they also tried to kill Jesus but they failed

Also it could be that they were under Taqiya, having such names and expressing polytheism so that pagans didn't harm them.

Imam Al-Sadiq a.s. said: "The example of Abu Talib is like that of the Sleepers of the Cave - they hid their faith and expressed polytheism, so Allah gave them their reward twice."  Al-Kafi, Volume 1, Hadith 1209.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
9 hours ago, Mishael said:

Firstly Al Uzza and Manaf were pagan gods worshipped in Arabia Abd means servant or slave of so when I say Abd Al Uzza or Abd Manaf it means servant or slave of Al Uzza and servant or slave of Manaf. There is only one family tree of Mohammed Sunnis hold the same genealogy as Shias.

Ishmael didn't do anything wrong God just said he will bless Ishmael and multiply his descendants and give him much land I mean look how big the Arabian peninsula is and look how many Arab tribes that trace their ancestry back to Ishmael are. But God said the real covenant and promise would be with Isaac and all the prophets and the Messiah would be from his line not from Ishmael, God also fortold Ishmael and his descendants would be wild and would fight with each other and everyone would fight with them this is also true. Look how the Arab tribes fought with each other endlessly and everyone fought with them.

Circumcision was part of the Old Law for the children of Israel and is not required for Christians. The New Testament is a fulfillment of the Old Testament in the sense that it completes the Old Testament and the reason it's much different to the Old Testament due to the fact that the Old Testament was only a temporary law for the children of Israel the real law that was meant for all the world wheather Jew or Gentile is the New Testament.

First of all Mishael, I just want to say thank you. Thank you for expressing the Judeo-Christian viewpoint of how Prophet Ismail/Ishmael (AS) is portrayed as a Cain/Qabil like figure in the Torah/Bible. Because it only highlights out how the portrayal of The God of Abraham under Judeo-Christian perspective showing ABSOLUTE FAVORITISM from Prophet Isaac (AS) over Prophet Ishmael (AS) is a huge contradiction.

Let me explain what you have so eloquently elaborated,

If Ishmael is portrayed as a Qabil/Cain like figure, then did he really have a choice to be a Wild Donkey as noted in Genesis 16:12? I want you to think really hard on this, because there is some serious INJUSTICE being done here for what The God of Abraham within Judeo-Christian perspective has done. What reason would The God of Abraham under Judeo-Christian have to provide Prophet Ishmael (AS) multiple offsprings if his fate along with his descendants down the line would be living like a Wild Donkey? Did Prophet Ishmael (AS) had a choice to NOT live like a Wild Donkey? Doesn't seem like it. This makes The God of Abraham under Judeo-Christian perspective beyond incompetent to even have the AUDACITY to express His favoritism over Prophet Isaac (AS).

All because of Sarah's jealousy that got in the way of portraying Prophet Abraham/Ibrahim (AS) as a terrible person for disowning one of his sons as portrayed in Genesis 21:9-12. Do you not see the glaring implications here? Why did Sarah even bother allowing Prophet Abraham/Ibrahim (AS) to wed with her slave maid Hagar/Hajra? What is the point of Prophet Abraham/Ibrahim (AS) having both Ishmael and Isaac when clearly The God of Abraham should have been smart on His end to ONLY give Prophet Abraham/Ibrahim (AS) one son to fulfill the everlasting covenant?

None of this makes any logical sense from a family perspective unless you believe that The God of Abraham never showed any favoritism, and instead aims to give Prophet Abraham/Ibrahim (AS) two sons from both differing mothers to fulfill the everlasting covenant.

So Prophet Ismail/Ishmael (AS) MUST have a greater purpose just as much as Prophet Isaac (AS). It can't be an Abel and Cain like scenario, if Ishmael didn't do anything wrong to justify being a Cain/Qabil like figure within Judeo-Christian perspective.

In other words, there is no reason for Prophet Ismail/Ishmael (AS) to exist. He has no reason to be born in this world and that is quite a tragedy indeed if he didn't do anything wrong as you state. I blame this ultimate divide between The Israelites and The Ishmaelites all on Sarah for being the instigator. She shouldn't have allowed her slave-maid Hagar/Hajra to wed with Prophet Abraham/Ibrahim (AS) under Judeo-Christian perspective.

Thankfully, Islam does restore Ishmael's (AS) honor since Prophet Muhammad (SAW) was Ishmael's (AS) living proof of fulfilling the covenant of Prophet Abraham/Ibrahim (AS) along with The Ahlul-Bayt that he (SAW) brought Justice and Order in Pre-Arabia where there was injustice and chaos for all the wrong reasons *cough*Female Infanticide*cough*.

As for your statement on the New Testament completing the Old Testament, How so? By abrogating laws that were firmly established for the Children of Israel to live up to in order to please The God of Abraham, only to appeal to Gentiles because of Paul's influence on expressing his undying diety worship love for Prophet Jesus/Isa (AS) and not so on what He (AS) taught to The Israelites? That's not completing the Old Testament, that's straying far off and delivering these so called "New Laws" too soon for the Israelites to adapt to.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Still I enjoyed this discussion with you Mishael. I know that I have a long way to go and understand the foundations of my religion alongside understanding what it means to be a true follower of Prophet Abraham/Ibrahim (AS). And I'm sorry if I have been rude to you in anyway. I'm still learning how to be humble and not cave in to my arrogance which you can clearly tell from the implications of my posts. But, then again I'm willing to learn and understand the wrongdoings of my own actions and behavior. I'm not perfect. :)

Take care and don't be a stranger.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
4 hours ago, Mishael said:

Firstly female infanticide is probably a myth since we basically know nothing about pre Islamic Arabia outside of Islamic sources so there is simply no proof this practice was wide spread and it seems strange they would be ashamed to have female offspring yet they had know problem to worship female idols. There was no abrogation because the Old Law was only for Israel and the Jews and it was meant to be temporary the New Testament was meant to be for all the world while the Old Testament focuses on the wrath of God the New Testament is his grace to the world. The Old Testament saw paradise lost for Adam; the New Testament shows how paradise is regained through the second Adam (Christ). In summary, the Old Testament lays the foundation for the coming of the Messiah who would sacrifice Himself for the sins of the world (1 John 2:2). The New Testament records the ministry of Jesus Christ and then looks back on what He did and how we are to respond. Both testaments reveal the same holy, merciful, and righteous God who condemns sin but desires to save sinners through an atoning sacrifice. In both testaments, God reveals Himself to us and shows us how we are to come to Him through faith (Genesis 15:6; Ephesians 2:8). God also says Ishmael would be a wild man but that is not necessarily a meaning that God hates him it means that he will be free to roam untouched while Isaac and his people will be tested with endless hardships and this is what is meant by chosen people it means God will test the Jews more then anyone else on Earth and they will have to uphold more laws then anyone else and in history we have seen how the Jews have been both tested punished and forgiven while the children of Ishmael were free from the covenant and yet were never conquered by anyone the Arabs throughout history have never been subjagated as a whole people they are probably one of the only people on Earth like this so in a way God blessed them.

Worshiping Female Idols =/= Treatment of Woman as being Worse than Animals during the Pre-Islamic Arabia Times which was downright Patriarchy to the core (AKA Sex Objects and being unequal in comparison to a man). The two are mutually exclusive so you can't make that correlation at all. Also, the fact that you even highlighted that out doesn't exactly make your argument stronger. It actually weakens it if you think about it.

 

Do you really think in The Age of Ignorance where Arabs of those times (Polytheists and Atheists) whom were mostly illiterate and uneducated be able to keep track of their own history when they were considered wild donkeys as you state? Wouldn't these Female Idols you pointed out be all scantily clad and sexually objectified? Polytheism always had its roots to portray images of Female Gods as Sex Objects and the Pre-Islamic Arabia times were no exception. If a common average Pre-Arabia woman did not live up to the status quo of her respective time period based on their Female Gods, there would be serious consequences. Only Khadijah was an exception because she was Rich and did not adhere to Polytheism. The poor woman of the Pre-Arabia times on the other hand whom were polytheists or atheists, not so much. Why do you think Prophet Muhammad (SAW) fled to the cave of Hira after witnessing such atrocities that were being committed by the Pagan Arabs during his time? There was no justice, no order, no sense of equality.

 

What did the Jews and Christians that lived there during the Pre-Arabia times do to the majority of Arabs whom some of them descended down from Ishmael (AS)? Nothing, but inflicting mass usury upon the Pagan Arabs including The Hashemite Tribes and taking advantage of their "Free to Roam Untouched" as you state. And you have the nerve to say that The 12 Tribes of Ishmael NEVER went through Hardships just as much as The Israelites? My my aren't we all being disrespectful to each other. Jews and Christians only know so much about The Legacy of Ishmael and his 12 Tribes, but since you portray him (AS) as a Qabil/Cain like figure + Wild Donkeys, should you really be the ones to talk?

https://www.al-islam.org/restatement-history-islam-and-muslims-sayyid-ali-ashgar-razwy/arabia-islam

https://www.al-islam.org/glance-life-holy-prophet-islam-dar-rah-haqq/chapter-1-pre-islamic-world

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
6 hours ago, Mishael said:

All these statements come from Islamic sources while there is no proof for any of these things if Khadijah was able to be rich then she must have been treated well. We're Ishmaelites killed and inslaved and scattered across the whole world like the Israelites were and were they punished and pushed with endless trials like the Israelites or did they have commandments released to them? No body neither the Persians nor Alexander nor the Romans nor the Ethiopians was able to conquer Arabia or all the descendants of Ishmael or inslave them. And by the way Assyrian records show the Arabs had female queens that would lead them into battle and would serve as the priestess of the kingdom and also have you ever heard of queen Mavia she was an Arab queen who lived a few hundred years before the advent of Islam and she was able to lead armies against the Byzantine Empire before the Byzantines had to sue for peace and she likely converted to Christianity or she might have already been initially Christian or pagan I'm not sure. Actually no record exists of pre Islamic Arabia just certain poems and some of these poems were destroyed by Muslims while the really famous poems are still around today but we're not sure how pre Islamic Arabia looked liked and there is no proof of women being treated like garbage and sex slaves since Muslims were the ones writing everything at the time. And Islam had to look like it was an enlightening power so what better way then to exaggerate everything and portray the setting as barbaric and ignorant and then boom make Islam look like something from heaven. Almost all major religions have done so even Christians on occasions have made certain pagan peoples look like complete barbarians.

You're also forgetting that not ALL Islamic sources are biased with their own history just as much as not ALL Judeo-Christian sources are biased since they're all striving their best to be unbiased as best as they can. All Humans regardless of their beliefs and creed are striving hard to be as unbiased as possible and if you can't see through that then you're lost and being way too cynical for your own good. Basically, you're being a skeptic just because of being a skeptic. There is no point to it. Why be Christian then when you can be Agnostic based on your sheer unnerving skepticism? At least my skepticism about Judeo-Christian viewpoints are justified based on the Injustice of Ishmael (AS) and the superiority complex The Israelites have shown. Don't get me wrong, I do see some good in the previous scriptures The God of Abraham has sent, but we must understand the Tribal Connotations littered all over the place and how these scriptures during their respective times were written specifically for them in mind.

But you made a valid point there that "History is written by those who are Winners". We as Human Beings need to understand the losers side of the History to forge a balanced perspective of the facts. Otherwise, we'll never learn and shall be doomed to repeat the same mistake as the previous tribes that The God of Abraham has previously tested before the Israelites e.g. Tribe of Adam, Tribe of Nuh, Tribe of Ad, Tribe of Thamud, Tribe of Sodom, Tribe of Gomorrah etc etc. So, basically some of us Muslims have a hard time buying the whole "Covenant only established to Prophet Isaac (AS)" when The God of Abraham tested many tribes. Doesn't make the Israelites that special really, when the previous tribes had it worse.

Found this interesting Non-Islamic perspective about Pre-Arabia that caught my attention so this might be interesting,

http://www.reviewofreligions.org/8577/the-truth-behind-the-untold-story-explaining-the-origins-of-islam-part-i-of-ii/

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
On 1/9/2018 at 8:53 AM, Mishael said:

Actually first it's a myth we have all the names of The writers of the Bible and I will list their names here.


Genesis, Exodus, Leviticus, Numbers, Deuteronomy = Moses - 1400 B.C.
Joshua = Joshua - 1350 B.C.
Judges, Ruth, 1 Samuel, 2 Samuel = Samuel/Nathan/Gad - 1000 - 900 B.C.
1 Kings, 2 Kings = Jeremiah - 600 B.C.
1 Chronicles, 2 Chronicles, Ezra, Nehemiah = Ezra - 450 B.C.
Esther = Mordecai - 400 B.C.
Job = Moses - 1400 B.C.
Psalms = several different authors, mostly David - 1000 - 400 B.C.
Proverbs, Ecclesiastes, Song of Solomon = Solomon - 900 B.C.
Isaiah = Isaiah - 700 B.C.
Jeremiah, Lamentations = Jeremiah - 600 B.C.
Ezekiel = Ezekiel - 550 B.C.
Daniel = Daniel - 550 B.C.
Hosea = Hosea - 750 B.C.
Joel = Joel - 850 B.C.
Amos = Amos - 750 B.C.
Obadiah = Obadiah - 600 B.C.
Jonah = Jonah - 700 B.C.
Micah = Micah - 700 B.C.
Nahum = Nahum - 650 B.C.
Habakkuk = Habakkuk - 600 B.C.
Zephaniah = Zephaniah - 650 B.C.
Haggai = Haggai - 520 B.C.
Zechariah = Zechariah - 500 B.C.
Malachi = Malachi - 430 B.C.
Matthew = Matthew - A.D. 55
Mark = John Mark - A.D. 50
Luke = Luke - A.D. 60
John = John - A.D. 90
Acts = Luke - A.D. 65
Romans, 1 Corinthians, 2 Corinthians, Galatians, Ephesians, Philippians, Colossians, 1 Thessalonians, 2 Thessalonians, 1 Timothy, 2 Timothy, Titus, Philemon = Paul - A.D. 50-70
Hebrews = unknown, mostly likely Paul, Luke, Barnabas, or Apollos - A.D. 65 
James = James - A.D. 45
1 Peter, 2 Peter = Peter - A.D. 60
1 John, 2 John, 3 John = John - A.D. 90
Jude = Jude - A.D. 60
Revelation = John - A.D. 90

https://www.gotquestions.org/Bible-authors.html

They broke the covenant yes Jesus came to both guide them back as he said I have been sent to the lost house of Israel but does this also mean that he was sent for the Jews only no he was showing Israels place in Gods plan for salvation. And God has tested the Jews a lot and this is proven by history they have been pushed to their very limits have they not. Also Israel broke the covenant not God that's why God called it the ever lasting covenant.

Also, can you provide more details as to who these authors/writers of the Bible you quote their names were? Biographical Information? Facts? Who were they? Were they devout followers of the "Teachings" of Prophet Jesus/Isa (AS) or did they worshiped him (AS) as being Son of The God of Abraham?

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
6 hours ago, Mishael said:

All these statements come from Islamic sources while there is no proof for any of these things if Khadijah was able to be rich then she must have been treated well.

Actually Khadijah was born rich and wealthy because of her strong lineage so she was only able to remain rich since she had the necessary monetary benefits to educate herself that no Pagan Arab man, and neither Jews or Christians supporting mass usury for that matter would touch her.

Read her history from not only Islamic sources like this,

https://www.al-islam.org/articles/khadijah-daughter-khuwaylid-wife-prophet-muhammad-yasin-t-al-jibouri

But even from Non-Islamic sources such as The First Muslim: The Story of Muhammad written by Lesley Hazleton.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

First of all @Mishael, I'd like to apologize for my disrespectful behavior throughout all these posts since it has come to my realization that you remained humble and calm throughout your posts. I realized that I focused too much on the little details and not so much on the big picture. You made your point on the many historical biases Islamic sources and authors may have, but it doesn't excuse yours since even the opposer's point of view (aka Romans) will also be just as biased to fit in the "seemingly exaggerated" Christian narratives of your Christian sources. At the end of the day you've proved your point, the historical accounts are all up for debate on this one and simply need to be proven one way or another.

 

Other than that, I would discuss something else that slipped my mind. Not only do I wish to discuss this with you, but it would be relevant to the actual topic at hand.

5 hours ago, Mishael said:

Also Muslims seem to think the title Son of God means God took a wife and birthed a child and Jesus is some kind of demi god while this is false Son of God means that he is the Son and was born into this world. Jesus was divine and many of the prophets prophecized his coming, the whole Bible leads to this final moment most of the authors were prophets and some were the apostles of Jesus you can google each of them since each of them have their own stories and prophecies and what not.

If this is the extent of how you perceive ALL Muslims who think like this about the Christian Theology of The Trinity then allow me to give you the benefit of the doubt.

 

If it is established under the OT that The God of Abraham is One and Only (which would strongly imply that He is "Whole" as well given by the "Only" nature of Him) based on given evidence (Deuteronomy 4:35-39, Deut 6:4, and Psalms 86:10) then what reason does He/It have in the NT to seemingly split His Oneness into 3 entities: The Father, The Son, The Holy Spirit? Is He/It not limiting His immeasurable power by doing so? Why Prophet Jesus/Isa (AS) as the Son of God? Because he came into existence from his virgin mother Mary? Why not Prophet Adam (AS) be the Son of God since he came into existence without the need of a mother and a father and YHWH directly created him? Does that not make his existence superior to Prophet Jesus/Isa (AS)?

 

Case in point, The Christian Trinity makes no sense to Muslims just as much as "some" Jews since it seemingly violates the concept of Monotheism (Tawheed) of The God of Abraham in all respects.

 

This concept of monotheism Christians propose is truly alienating because of the plausibility of the Trinity Theology that was established as a doctrine from the Council of Nicea at 325 AD, ascribing Prophet Jesus/Isa (AS) and The Holy Spirit being equal to YHWH (The Father) which IMO goes against everything the OT YHWH was described being One and Only.

 

Also, I want to leave it with this,

 

This video sums up everything about The Christian Theology being off in every way possible.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

C: Oneness

Wahid (One) can have different meanings. During the battle of Jamal, when an Arab asked Imam Ali about God being one, he replied: “There can be four interpretations of God being one. Two of them however, do not apply to God. The first false interpretation is that He is one, as a number, [this is false] because whatever is numbered, must have second and third to it. Don’t you know that the Quran stipulates that if one believes that God is one of three (ثالث ثلاثه) he is a disbeliever? The second is when it is said that God is one of the many beings that exist, as it is said that you are a person like other people, because in this case, God has been compared to other beings.

The two correct interpretations are that there is no parallel for God and that He is simple [and comprises of no parts] in the mind and imagination.”[6]

Therefore, according to the tradition for God to be one means that He is not composed of parts or that He has no parallel.

The most common meaning of God’s oneness is that He has no parallel or like.

In Philosophy and Theology books, there are four types of oneness mentioned for God, namely:

A: Oneness of Essence (Which we explained above)

B: Oneness of Attributes: God’s attributes and His essence are one and united

C: Oneness of Actions: All actions and movements are traced back and attributed to God

D: Oneness of Worship: God is the only being entitled to be worshipped and nothing other than Him is worthy of our worship. This is because we should worship a being that is perfect, has no need to others, grants everything blessings and creates all beings. These qualities are only found in God.[7]

[6] Shaykh Saduq, Al-Tawhid, p. 83, second edition, Jame’eye Modarresin Press, Qum, 1398 AH.

[7] Baba’i, Ahmad Ali, Bargozideye Tafsir Nemouneh, vol. 5, p. 61, Daar al-Kutub al-Islamiyyah, Tehran, 1383 (solar) 13th edition.

How do we interpret the attributes just, most compassionate and one for God?

http://www.islamquest.net/en/archive/question/fa2614

 

Edited by Ashvazdanghe

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
9 hours ago, Mishael said:

Trinity was always in existence even in the Old Testament here's is even a website from Jewish Christians https://jewsforjesus.org/publications/newsletter/newsletter-jun-1987/the-trinity-in-the-old-testament/ 

The trinity is in the Old Testament but it is not as plainly revealed as in the New Testament.

In Genesis 1:1-2 we read, “In the beginning God created the heaven and the earth. And the earth was without form, and void; and darkness was upon the face of the deep. And the Spirit of God moved upon the face of the waters.” In the very beginning of God’s revelation of himself we read of two Persons—God and the Spirit of God.

There is much more aswell in the Old Testament. Further more Adam was a created being while Jesus said he was before Adam and was uncreated. If you were to say God can't split his essence into three then you'd be limiting God since what is stopping him from doing such a thing?

*Sigh* Now listen Mishael, if you've even bothered to watch the video I linked, the person does point out how the previous scriptures which the Bible represents as a collection of all the previous scriptures of The Word of God through Prophet Jesus/Isa (AS) that were revealed to the Israelites are not the same as they were originally. Meaning that the Bible Christians are working with is endless multiple copies of what the Torah, Injeel, Zabur, and all the previous scriptures revealed "could've been" (Video timestamp, 8:00). Do you Christians have the Aramaic equivalent of it preserved since Prophet Jesus/Isa (AS) not only spoke Greek and Hebrew, but largely spoke Aramaic for his time to his own people? So, The Bible is nothing more to some Muslims like me other than "What The Word of God could've been through the previous prophets" instead of The Legitimate Word of God spoken through Prophet Jesus/Isa (AS) recorded by his stern and stoic disciples.

So the evidence you're even bringing is self-defeating for me. The man in the video studied Textual Criticism of the Bible along with the previous scriptures.

Furthermore, if Prophet Adam (AS) was created last before Jesus (AS), then that's a weak and baseless argument since all the previous prophets after Adam (AS) weren't created during the creation of Prophet Adam (AS). Thus, Noah was before Adam and was uncreated. Moses was before Adam and was uncreated. Abraham was before Adam and was uncreated. David was before Adam and was uncreated. Solomon was before Adam and was uncreated. Lot was before Adam and was uncreated. 

Doesn't matter since the model Jews and Christians have of their portrayal of the previous prophets based on the endless multiple copies of their respective scriptures is outright disrespectful, blasphemous, nonsensical and borderline disingenuous

Examples:

Prophet Lot/Lut (AS) committing Incest (Major Sin) upon his daughters after the destruction of Sodom and Gomorrah.

Quote

Genesis 19:30 - 35

 

30 And Lot went up out of Zoar, and dwelt in the mountain, and his two daughters with him; for he feared to dwell in Zoar: and he dwelt in a cave, he and his two daughters.

31 And the firstborn said unto the younger, Our father is old, and there is not a man in the earth to come in unto us after the manner of all the earth:

32 Come, let us make our father drink wine, and we will lie with him, that we may preserve seed of our father.

33 And they made their father drink wine that night: and the firstborn went in, and lay with her father; and he perceived not when she lay down, nor when she arose.

34 And it came to pass on the morrow, that the firstborn said unto the younger, Behold, I lay yesternight with my father: let us make him drink wine this night also; and go thou in, and lie with him, that we may preserve seed of our father.

35 And they made their father drink wine that night also: and the younger arose, and lay with him; and he perceived not when she lay down, nor when she arose.

Prophet David/Dawud (AS) committing adultery (Major Sin)

Quote

2 Samuel 11: 2-5 (KJV Edition)

 

And it came to pass in an eveningtide, that David arose from off his bed, and walked upon the roof of the king's house: and from the roof he saw a woman washing herself; and the woman was very beautiful to look upon.

And David sent and enquired after the woman. And one said, Is not this Bathsheba, the daughter of Eliam, the wife of Uriah the Hittite?

And David sent messengers, and took her; and she came in unto him, and he lay with her; for she was purified from her uncleanness: and she returned unto her house.

And the woman conceived, and sent and told David, and said, I am with child.

Propet Noah/Nuh (AS) being an Alcoholic Drunk

Quote

Genesis 9: 19-24 (KJV Edition)

 

19 These are the three sons of Noah: and of them was the whole earth overspread.

20 And Noah began to be an husbandman, and he planted a vineyard:

21 And he drank of the wine, and was drunken; and he was uncovered within his tent.

22 And Ham, the father of Canaan, saw the nakedness of his father, and told his two brethren without.

23 And Shem and Japheth took a garment, and laid it upon both their shoulders, and went backward, and covered the nakedness of their father; and their faces were backward, and they saw not their father's nakedness.

24 And Noah awoke from his wine, and knew what his younger son had done unto him.

Nawuzubillah, may The God of Abraham have mercy on my poor deluded miserable soul for what have I just read and pondered through. I would've been a die-hard atheist if I wasn't aware of Islam and only read the previous scriptures. Bless Prophet Muhammad (SAW) and His Family The Ahlul-Bayt for restoring the honor of the previous prophets.

I rest my case. Joshua Evans made too many points that are undeniable.

Also, I really despise people who only assert but never bring out evidences/proofs to back up their assertions.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
On 1/10/2018 at 7:47 AM, Mishael said:

Jesus spoke Galilean Aramaic, Assyrians speak Syriac and read the Bible in the Syriac translation of it which came many centuries after Jesus. Allaha and Allah are different terms similar but still not the same. And keep in mind we know basically nothing about pre Islamic Arabia since the only documentation of it comes mainly from Islamic sources so it's pretty hard to identify what was true and what was made up.

Are you sure about it? Historical sources state Mattai (Matthew) composed his own Gospel in Hebrew.

The early churchman, Papias, wrote that "Matthew wrote down the sayings in Hebrew and each translated it as he was able", (Eusebius, H.E. [the History of the Church], 3.39; cf. 3.24).

"Matthew published a written gospel for the Hebrews in their own tongue, while Peter and Paul were preaching the gospel in Rome and founding the church there. After their passing, Mark also, the disciple and interpreter of Peter, transmitted to us in writing the things preached by Peter. Luke ... . Lastly, John ..." (Irenaeus, Against Heresies, 3.1.2; cf. Eusebius, H.E., 5.8)

Pantaenus, c.180s, an early church missionary and Bible scholar, travelled to India to preach the gospel but found that the apostle Bartholomew had gone there before and left behind Matthew's gospel,

"in the actual Hebrew characters" (Eusebius, H.E., 5.10; cf. Jerome, De.Vir.Ill. 36).

Origen, around the end of the 2nd century, wrote in his commentary on Matthew that he only accepted,

"the traditional view of the four gospels which alone are undeniably authentic in the church of God on earth. First to be written was that of the one-time exciseman who became an apostle of Jesus Christ - Matthew; it was published for believers of Jewish origin, and was composed in Hebrew letters/language. Next came that of Mark, who followed Peter's instructions in writing it ... Next came that of Luke, who wrote for Gentile converts ... Last of all came John's." (Origen cited in Eusebius, H.E., 6.25).

Athanasius and Epiphanius (Synops. sacr. Script. p. 134. Vol. 2.; Contra Haeres. 1. Haer. 29. & 30) confirm the above traditions as does Jerome (4th century, Catalog. Script. Eccles fol. 90. Tom. 1. ad Hedib. fol. 46. Tom. 3).

Matthew's is the only gospel apart from John's which was written by an original apostle of the 12. Are we really to think that the one who heard Jesus' words in person had to copy Mark's second-hand reporting of Peter or Luke's 3rd hand narrative via Paul? [http://www.biblicalhebrew.com/nt/hebrewgospel.htm]

 

Aramaic is the ancient language of the Semitic family group, which includes the Assyrians, Babylonians, Chaldeans, Arameans, Hebrews, and Arabs.  In fact, a large part of the Hebrew and Arabic languages is borrowed from Aramaic, including the Alphabet.  The modern Hebrew (square) script is called  “Ashuri”, “Ashuri” is the Hebrew name for Assyrian, the name being used to signify the ancestor of the Assyrians, Ashur the son of Shem, the son of Noah (Genesis 10:22).  Aramaic is quoted in the very first book of the Bible, Berisheth (Genesis) in Chapter 31:47.  In fact, many portions of the Old Testament are penned originally in Aramaic, including Daniel chapter 2:4 thru chapter 7. (Reference http://www.pe[Edited Out]ta.org/initial/aramaic.html)

In the Book of Ezra & Daniel, we come across the Aramaic equivalent ‘Elah’

Elah - Awesome, Fearful One

In a cognate word form, it is formed from the following Aramaic words

El (god)

ha (the)

Essentially forming ‘the God’ and can also be translated in a meaning form of ‘awesome, fearful One’

Now, let’s take a look at Allah in Arabic

11.jpg

In a cognate word form, it is formed from the following Arabic words

ilah (god)

al ‘the’

Once again forming ‘The God’ .

As you can see, through linguistic variation and development, there is no basis for a claim that Allah is not mentioned in the Bible/Torah.

One could also look at the similarities between ‘El’ and ‘ilah’ once again if they wished to. A lot of Christians also have in their modern Bible translations in the Gospel of Matthew:

45 Now from the sixth hour darkness fell upon all the land until the ninth hour. 46 About the ninth hour Jesus cried out with a loud voice, saying, ‘Eli, Eli, lama sabachthani?’ that is, ‘My God, My God, why have You forsaken Me?’ (Matthew 27:45 – 46, NASB)

This is directly quoted in the Aramaic language, Eli (My God), when the Prophet Isa (Jesus) would then address God in general terms, he would have also used Elah.

“So We have revealed an Arabic Quran to you, in order that you may warn the capital city and all who live nearby…” (Qur’an 42:7)

“Say, ‘We believe in God and in what was sent down to us and what was sent down to Abraham, Ishmael, Isaac, Jacob, and the Tribes, and what was given to Moses, Jesus, and all the prophets by their Lord. We make no distinction between any of them, and we devote ourselves to Him.’” (Quran, 2:136)

Edited by TheGreenWanderer

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
28 minutes ago, Mishael said:

Elah means god and can refer to any god even false gods since even Baal was called Baal El. It is the the same thing as إله in Arabic. 

The Prophets used these and they are listed through the Torah and Injeel, if they weren't suitable to be applied to the One God, then they wouldn't have used them.

Maybe the issue is you are trying to apply and define Allah with one specific name by your own understanding. But the reality is, He has revealed a range of applicable names through the Prophets.

https://99namesofallah.name/

 

 

 

 

 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
14 hours ago, Mishael said:

Actually keep in mind the there's a difference between reporting a story and supporting it the Bible is just reporting it not supporting the incest in any way. The Bible was never written in Aramaic but in Greek but we do have the Syriac Pe[Edited Out]ta which is almost exactly like the original language of Jesus. Also back then Greek was like a global language in the Mediterranean and it was widely spoken in the area where Christianity started. If the man in the video really studied them then he wouldn't be a Muslim since any unbiased document scholar will agree that the Bible has been remarkably well-preserved over the centuries. Copies of the Bible dating to the 14th century A.D. are nearly identical in content to copies from the 3rd century A.D. When the Dead Sea Scrolls were discovered, scholars were shocked to see how similar they were to other ancient copies of the Old Testament, even though the Dead Sea Scrolls were hundreds of years older than anything previously discovered. Even many hardened skeptics and critics of the Bible admit that the Bible has been transmitted over the centuries far more accurately than any other ancient document. And by the way at the time of prophet Lot incest wasn't forbidden, the command against incest came in Leviticus way after prophet Lot. By the way the prophets weren't perfect and were capable of wrong doings and also it's not like God is supporting their bad decisions in the Bible rather it is just reporting the story. Also keep in mind the oldest Quran still in existence dates back to the 11th century way after Mohammed the original one was lost and all the copies of the original were also lost. 

By that line of logic you're implying on your first statement, your argument is self-defeating. Why? Because if any of the Previous Prophets (AS) of the Ancient Times in Judeo-Christian sources were depicted to be madmen as some of them are really portrayed based on their "wrongdoings" as you claim then what is to stop the argument on the Disbelievers side of the story such as The Tribe of Noah whom were warned by Drunk Prophet Noah (AS) that they were innocent and YHWH was UNJUST to punish them for their wickedness is nothing compared to Prophet Noah's (AS) Major Sin? Why would The Tribe of Noah listen to their Prophet if he was a drunkard in the first place? The Tribe of Sodom and Gomorrah were innocent all along despite their wickedness if Prophet Lot (AS) is going to indulge in incest with his daughters anyway after their destruction. And just because incest was not forbidden for its time doesn't excuse it (The rest of Humanity would've been wiped out long ago if this was the case) and only highlights how incompetent and confused The God of Abraham in Judeo-Christian scriptures really is. The way of "How" the story is "reported" as you state only makes the Disbelievers arguments stronger.

Try telling the Full Biblical Story of Lot, David, and Noah to the kids from all faiths and religions and let me know upfront what their reactions would be. No Christian Scholar would tell the full Biblical story of the previous prophets which only brings suspicion according to Joshua Evans in the video.

Question the man in the video all you want, you have yet to meet and know the man in person to even tell you of his experience on his Textual Criticism since you're all assertion and no proof since you didn't even bring your evidences to back them up from what you wrote. At least I have the unfortunate nerve to prove that I intend to look at these Prophets as my Role Models, but now that I read the Biblical Story of Lot, David, and Noah, it just makes me appreciate the Quran even more.

Like I said, the model Jews and Christians have for their respective Prophets is different than the model Shia Muslims like myself have so if this is what your belief is about these Prophets then so be it. Your belief is your belief and my belief is mine.

As for your stance on how you think the oldest Quran dates back 11th century from opposing sources (e.g. Zionism) that might have an agenda to de-legitimize Islam I dare you to read the perspective of The Quranic Manuscripts from Islamic sources,

 

http://www.islamic-awareness.org/Quran/Text/Mss/

 

But alas, you've shown yourself time and time again that you wish to be firm in your faith and blissfully turn a blind eye, so I really don't believe you'll ever click that since you find ALL Islamic sources biased and misinformed.

At least this case can be concluded that although there are some similarities between YHWH and Allah, the two have some notable differences that makes them stand out in many ways.

Share this post


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

Zionism...? Zionism literally means to believe Jews have a country for the Jewish people. Zionism doesn't operate like they tell you in conspiracy theories even Zionists wish in their dreams they wielded such power. Also Israel had better things to do then belittle Muslims Muslims already give themselves bad reputations across the globe they don't need Israel for that. Funny the website quotes the Saana manuscript which is much different from the 11th century Quran to the modern day Quran in words, chapter organization, and writing style.

The prophets in Christianity are not role models the only role model is Jesus who was sinless the prophets were still men at the end of the day and although came with divine message that does not make them infallible and if they are not infallible why look at them as a role model since their only job was to guide their peoples who had gone astray people weren't meant to copy their actions in the future just follow their message. And also secondly Lot didn't indulge in incest if you read the verse his daughters decided to make him become drunk and lie with him because no other men could be found for where ever the eye could look he didn't purposely choose to have incest with them. Noah could be a drunkard but what matters is his message he could even be a crazy man but if his message is true I would follow him wheather or not he was a drunkard, Noah's people were doing all kinds of things including idolatry which is much worse then the sin of Noah although he was a drunkard atleast he was chosen by God and he was a firm believer in the real God infact even in Islam a drunkard has a chance to get to heaven while a Mushrik has no chance for Shirk is the greatest sin in Islam. Joshua Evans was already refuted in his statements about the Bible by Christians also by that same logic I could also apply the same criticism to the Quran or Hadith without looking at detail or background at all. 

*Sigh* There's so much wrong in your points it depresses me since I don't even know where to begin :(.

 

First of all, Zionism is established as an ideological atheistic movement by the Founding Father Theodor Herzl whom actual religiously devout Jews are opposed to such as The Orthodox,

http://www.truetorahjews.org/whatiszionism

Plus, I've found this interesting discussion in ShiaChat. Care to take a read?

And here's a Jew's personal experience with Zionism,

https://www.deiryassin.org/byboard44.html

 

Second, the fact that you only quote the Saana manuscript portion in your comment about the Quranic Manuscript is proof of not only admitting to me that you blissfully turn a blind eye, but shown that you've only begun to read the evidence that is in the website.

 

Did you know that The First Imam Ali ibne Abi Talib (AS) who lived with Prophet Muhammad (SAW) all his life compiled his Manuscript of The Quran at 718/818 AD (From 1st/2nd century After Hijra AH) according to the same website?

 

Sure you make a point that "Maybe" The original Quran and its copies might not exist, but based on this website which shows some of the copies of the Quran that survived before the 11th century Quran you propose at least they were written and preserved in Classical Arabic just as much as the 11th century Quran.

 

The same cannot be said for the previous scriptures like your Bible since it was translated into many different languages other than Hebrew, Greek, and Aramaic. They're bound to be filled to the brim with translation errors and discrepancies based on what these websites suggests so expect some of us Muslims like me to be skeptical on our end if we're having a hard time swallowing the Christian perspective of "Bible has been preserved well" for you have only shown that you preserved the many translations of the translation of what the original scriptures "could've been" into many languages.

http://www.religioustolerance.org/chr_bibl.htm

http://irr.org/todays-bible-real-bible

 

If the prophets of the Ancient Times were never meant to be role models in the first place on the same light as Prophet Jesus/Isa (AS) and Muhammad (SAW) then it only highlights out the justification for Disbelievers that anyone that claims to be a Prophet of The God of Abraham is a Madman/Sorcerer/Magician. Thus, ALL Prophets are Madmen. So the Tribe of Noah and all the tribes of the Ancient times were justified in their position to NEVER follow them since they were still Seeking Knowledge in their respective time to understand their way of life. While a Prophet, a MESSENGER of God, don't need to seek knowledge like us Humans since they have The Divine Knowledge of God on their side to preach the truth. So even the act of the thought of giving into sin and temptation shouldn't be an option for any Prophet of God in the first place.

 

Joshua Evans refuted by Christians? Proof?

Share this post


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

Orthodox Jews don't necessarily oppose Zionism they just don't view Israel as the real Israel apthey believe they are still in bondage and they believe once the Messiah comes back he will surely defeat the enemies of the Jews and unleash a but whooping on them. Also Zionism was spoken of by many rabbis in history and there are also Orthodox Jews who support Israel. The Saana Quran is far different to the modern day Quran this is a fact. We still have copies of the original that can be checked for error, the Bible is also known to be one of the most accurately transmitted manuscripts also translation of the Bible was carefully checked so we're errors infact there was a time in England where a single word was found out to be in error and every copy of that Bible was immediately burned and the scribes restarted from the beginning. It I quite easy to tell the difference between a prophet and a sorcerer and we have the miracles of the prophets to prove it. Also keep in mind Classical Arabic of the Quran is not spoken as a regular language today and is extremely hard to master as a language. Even sheikhs I know don't know everything about the Arabic of the Quran. And about Joshua Evans being refuted,

https://m.youtube.com/watch?v=t7eqHx9BwT8

https://m.youtube.com/watch?v=CNLt9aP3aEg

https://m.youtube.com/watch?v=Xuu838TRYY0

 

Ok the first video I've watched and it was pretty insightful though there are some issues I found, but the last two videos focus too much on David Wood (Christian Apologist) so I'll not bother wasting my time watching this man of all people since he has no empathy to understand basic human nature (AKA a Sociopath). So, I really question if he even is a Christian since Prophet Jesus/Isa (AS) emphasizes greatly on empathy.

https://www.compellingtruth.org/Bible-empathy.html

 

The first video I can give my rebuttal for what Joshua Evans strongly emphasizes that a lot of people don't understand and since Joshua Evans studied psychology to back what his major argument is that he had trouble reading the Bible,

"An Implicit Statement cannot override an Explicit Statement. An Explicit Statement takes precedence." Joshua Evans (How the Bible Led Me to Islam: The Story of a Former Christian Youth Minister - Joshua Evans, Video Timestamp - 25:30)

https://writingexplained.org/implicit-vs-explicit-difference

 

So, its a shame the guy in the first video doesn't explain that in the video directly of what Joshua Evans is saying and instead turns on preach mode at the end to throw verses from the Bible. Don't know if they were explicit statements since most of the verses in the Bible (Especially the New Testament) are implicit?

 

So, we as not only Muslims and Christians need to understand this, but Humanity as a whole to distinguish between Explicit Statements and Implicit Statements when reading our own sacred scriptures or any book for that matter.

 

Overall, I enjoyed this debate with you Mishael :). There were some ups and downs, but all in all it was fun and exciting. Sorry if I was a jerk to you, but hey different strokes for different folks and I found your humbleness throughout this debate a refreshing sight.

 

My only wish to The God of Abraham is this,

"Provide salvation/redemption for those who believe in you (Momin/Saints), Muslims, Jews, Christians, and those who seek and live up to the Absolutivity of Truth. I don't believe ALL Jews and Christians and those who strive hard to live up to seeking and living up to the Absolutivity of Truth will go to Hell and shall be permitted to Heaven where everything shall be explained. If I am wrong for all my life and deserve to wrought in Hell/Jahanum for all eternity then I'll spend for all eternity worshiping you the way you intend since Human Beings are created for the sole purpose of worshiping you. I aspire to be a believer (Momin/Saint) in God more so than a Muslim despite my position as a sinner."

 

I'm done debating for quite a while, but if you wish to lay your final say on my last debate with you then be my guest. ^_^

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...