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  
MartyS

What do these words of Jesus mean?

Rate this topic

Recommended Posts

No one can come to me unless the Father who sent me draws him. And I will raise him up on the last day. It is written in the Prophets, 'And they will all be taught by God.' Everyone who has heard and learned from the Father comes to me- - John 6:44-45 (Injeel)

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Hi Marty

It will be more appropriate if a Christian member answers your question.

However, and as far as my reading goes, I think it means that you have to fulfill your obligations to God if you wish to receive the grace of Jesus' intercession.

But if you keep ignoring His commandments and we all know what they are and lead a life of unrepentant sin, then don't expect Jesus to come to your rescue.

At least, that is the meaning of the first sentence in my view, though I must admit I find it difficult to interpret the second. 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

@Abu Hadi As-salamu Alaykum

Thank you very much for your reply. It helps me understand now why you do not find the same meaning in Jesus' words as we do. And I apologize if I misused the title Injeel. No offense was intended. I thought the Injeel was the revelations of Jesus, i.e., His words. And I have always believed the gospel of John was written by Jesus' beloved disciple John, an eye-witness to the life and words of Jesus. Please accept my explanation, no disrespect intended. Many thanks.

Share this post


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

Hi Marty

It will be more appropriate if a Christian member answers your question.

However, and as far as my reading goes, I think it means that you have to fulfill your obligations to God if you wish to receive the grace of Jesus' intercession.

But if you keep ignoring His commandments and we all know what they are and lead a life of unrepentant sin, then don't expect Jesus to come to your rescue.

At least, that is the meaning of the first sentence in my view, though I must admit I find it difficult to interpret the second. 

As-salamu Alaykum

Thank you for sharing that understanding with me. Doesn't it also appear that Jesus describes our relationship with Him (coming to Jesus) being the result of the Father's will (drawing us to Him) and Jesus' intercession (raising us up on the last day), therefore, also God's will for us?

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
On 7/31/2018 at 8:43 PM, Abu Hadi said:

First, the book of John is not the Injeel. Please do not make that assumption and please do not translate 'Bible' as 'Injeel', they are not the same thing. Because you are a new member, I will give you some slack, but please do not do this in the future. 

 The Injeel is the Book that was given to Jesus(peace be upon him) by God Almighty

(Note: I intend none of this to be rude or disrespectful towards the Islamic religion, this is simply my point of view as a Christian)

It is expedient for Muslims to throw out the Gospel of John from the Gospel tradition considering the fact that it refuted Islamic theology centuries before Muhammad first preached about the Qur'an, just as it is expedient for Muslims to throw out pretty much everything in the New Testament that Islamic theology does not agree with.

Christians do not view the Gospel as one book specially revealed to Jesus by Allah like Muslims believe how Qur'an was revealed to Muhammad, the word "Gospel" is a translation of the Greek word "εὐαγγέλιον" meaning "good news"; this "good news" refers to the coming of the Kingdom of God embodied in the life, death, and resurrection of Jesus Christ. These traditions about Jesus and what he taught were passed on from community to community in oral form for about the first three or four decades before being committed to writing. We can see these traditions in the various epistles attributed to Paul, John, Peter, James, and such, and which were more fully put down in the Gospels of Matthew, Mark, Luke, and John. 

On 7/31/2018 at 8:43 PM, Abu Hadi said:

 The Book of John was a book written by Paul of Tarsus, a man who lived after the time of Jesus and never met him. This is his interpretation of the teachings of Jesus(peace be upon him). That is not to say that there is absolutely nothing valuable or wise in the book, but it is not the Injeel. 

That's one of the silliest things I have ever heard. Paul died 25 years before the Gospel of John was written, being martyred in Rome. Rather, the Gospel of John was written by the beloved disciple (tradition says it's John, hence the Gospel's name) or by one of his close disciples. It was most likely written somewhere in Asia Minor (modern day Turkey), probably in or around the city of Ephesus, and Papias of Hierapolis (a disciple of John) seems to confirm this in the writings we have of his. The Gospel of John geography is better than Josephus, for example: the Gospel mentions that there was a pool in Jerusalem called "Bethesda" - the Gospel of John is the only source we have that mentions the existence of this pool and it's not even mentioned in Josephus, but in 1964, upon an archaeological dig in Jerusalem, the pool was actually discovered and confirmed to exist. The Gospel of John was written 20 years after the destruction of the Jerusalem by the Romans and the mass diaspora that resulted from it This and other examples found in the Gospel (such as the beloved disciple being known to the high priest) strongly suggest the beloved disciple's eyewitness behind this Gospel. 

On 7/31/2018 at 8:43 PM, Abu Hadi said:

If you were living at that time, then you could not come to God Almighty except thru the Prophet of the Time, which was Jesus(peace be upon him).

A prophet is going to raise the dead on the last day? A prophet is going to sit on the throne of God and render each person his final fate? 

Quote

 “When the Son of Man comes in His glory, and all the holy angels with Him, then He will sit on the throne of His glory.  All the nations will be gathered before Him, and He will separate them one from another, as a shepherd divides his sheep from the goats.  And He will set the sheep on His right hand, but the goats on the left.  Then the King will say to those on His right hand, ‘Come, you blessed of My Father, inherit the kingdom prepared for you from the foundation of the world:  for I was hungry and you gave Me food; I was thirsty and you gave Me drink; I was a stranger and you took Me in; was naked and you clothed Me; I was sick and you visited Me; I was in prison and you came to Me.’

 “Then the righteous will answer Him, saying, ‘Lord, when did we see You hungry and feed You, or thirsty and give You drink?  When did we see You a stranger and take You in, or naked and clothe You? Or when did we see You sick, or in prison, and come to You?’ And the King will answer and say to them, ‘Assuredly, I say to you, inasmuch as you did it to one of the least of these My brethren, you did it to Me.’

 “Then He will also say to those on the left hand, ‘Depart from Me, you cursed, into the everlasting fire prepared for the devil and his angels: for I was hungry and you gave Me no food; I was thirsty and you gave Me no drink;  I was a stranger and you did not take Me in, naked and you did not clothe Me, sick and in prison and you did not visit Me.’

 “Then they also will answer Him, saying, ‘Lord, when did we see You hungry or thirsty or a stranger or naked or sick or in prison, and did not minister to You?’ Then He will answer them, saying, ‘Assuredly, I say to you, inasmuch as you did not do it to one of the least of these, you did not do it to Me.’  And these will go away into everlasting punishment, but the righteous into eternal life.” 

- MATTHEW 25:31-46 (Jesus)

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

This is what you get when you google 'Who wrote the Gospel of John'

It speaks of an unnamed "disciple whom Jesus loved" as the source of its traditions, but does not say specifically that he is its author.Christian tradition identified this disciple as the apostle John, but for a variety of reasons the majority of scholars have abandoned this view or hold it only tenuously.

https://www.google.com/search?q=who+wrote+the+gospel+of+john&rlz=1C1GCEA_enUS745US745&oq=who+wrote+the+gospel+of+john&aqs=chrome..69i57.6063j0j7&sourceid=chrome&ie=UTF-8

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
On 8/8/2018 at 5:28 AM, Abu Hadi said:

This is what you get when you google 'Who wrote the Gospel of John'

It speaks of an unnamed "disciple whom Jesus loved" as the source of its traditions, but does not say specifically that he is its author.Christian tradition identified this disciple as the apostle John, but for a variety of reasons the majority of scholars have abandoned this view or hold it only tenuously.

https://www.google.com/search?q=who+wrote+the+gospel+of+john&rlz=1C1GCEA_enUS745US745&oq=who+wrote+the+gospel+of+john&aqs=chrome..69i57.6063j0j7&sourceid=chrome&ie=UTF-8

Yet scholars have long recognized since C.H. Dodd that what has been dubbed the Johannine Community was centered around the beloved disciple who was an eyewitness and his testimony and teachings form the Gospel of John:

https://books.google.com/books?id=QQzjDM_L7-oC&printsec=frontcover&dq=gospel+of+john+eyewitness+testimony+scholars&hl=en&sa=X&ved=0ahUKEwjQlLj33t7cAhWoiOAKHaB_DAkQ6AEIQDAF#v=onepage&q=gospel of john eyewitness testimony scholars&f=false

https://books.google.com/books?id=oRCdxOJWvcQC&printsec=frontcover&dq=raymond+brown+beloved+disciple&hl=en&sa=X&ved=0ahUKEwj_4YGy6t7cAhWPr1kKHV6JBtYQ6AEIKTAA#v=onepage&q=raymond brown beloved disciple&f=false

The amazing geographical knowledge, as well as the string of various independent traditions like Jesus having baptized alongside John the Baptist, and verses like John 19:35 and John 21:24 which explicitly claim to be based off of eyewitness testimony tell most scholars that there certainly is an eyewitness behind this and his teachings are put together in the Gospel of John. 

Also, Christians tradition regarding the beloved disciple is open. All I'm saying is that the traditional identity is John but others have been suggested such as, for example, Lazarus. But it's absolutely preposterous to say that Paul was behind the Gospel of John since, once again, Paul had been dead for a long time and the Gospel of John exhibits none of his language or writing style. Rather, the Gospel of John style exhibits that of the Johannine Epistles and most scholars believe that they were either written all by the same author or by someone in the same community as that author which. This would be the dubbed Johannine Community. The Johannine Community was a community with it's own independent traditions centered around the beloved disciple and based in Asia Minor, specifically around Ephesus, alongside other communities such as the Petrine/Antiochian Community based in Asia Minor and Syria centered around Peter where the Gospel of Matthew was most likely written from, the Roman community centered primarily around Peter but also Paul based in Italy and Northern Africa where the Gospel of Mark came from, the Pauline community obviously centered around Paul and was made up on various churches in Asia Minor and Greece, and the Jerusalem Community centered around James and based in Palestine. There were also other smaller itinerant movements in Asia Minor and Palestine that didn't belong to any one community and the author of Luke-Acts was most likely among these. 

Quote

"John once appeared to be a Hellenistic Gospel, full of non-Jewish ideas. Now, however, scholars have come to recognize that it arose among a community of Jewish Christians. The change in perspective came about for two primary reasons:

1. The discovery of the Dead Sea Scrolls has demonstrated the Jewish character of John. Some ideas thought to have been non-Jewish have been now been found in the scrolls, writings from a Palestinian Jewish sect. For instance, both John and the scrolls emphasize an ethical dualism, expressed as a  between light and darkness or truth and falsehood. In both sets of writings, those in the community possess light and truth, while those outside the community walk in darkness and falsehood. In making this contrast the literature even employ some of the same terms such as "sons of light" (John 12:36) and "the Spirit of Truth" (John 14:17; 15:26; 16:13)

2. Several passages in the Gospel indicate that is arose in among Jewish Christians who were being expelled from the synagogue. These Jewish Christians came into conflict with the larger Jewish community because of their high esteem for Jesus and their rejection of the traditional institutions of Judaism. 

Scholars generally date the Gospel of John from the end of the first century or the beginning of the second, anywhere from 80 to 110. - 

An Introduction to the New Testament and the Origins of Christianity, p. 215-216

I find that Muslims only make use of scholars when they find it expedient. No scholar denies the historical reality of the crucifixion, nor does any scholar deny that the disciples really believed they witnessed the risen Jesus, yet Islam objects to this despite the crucifixion being historical fact. You can read here more on this subject, especially regarding the resurrection: 

http://www.garyhabermas.com/articles/J_Study_Historical_Jesus_3-2_2005/J_Study_Historical_Jesus_3-2_2005.htm

Some quotes:

Quote

"Of these scholars, approximately 75% favor one or more of these arguments for the empty tomb, while approximately 25% think that one or more arguments oppose it. Thus, while far from being unanimously held by critical scholars, it may surprise some that those who embrace the empty tomb as a historical fact still comprise a fairly strong majority."

Quote

"Third, without question, the most critically-respected witness for Jesus’ resurrection is the apostle Paul. As Norman Perrin states, “Paul is the one witness we have whom we can interrogate.”[42] And 1 Corinthians 15:3-8 is taken to be the strongest evidence for the historicity of this event. Howard Clark Kee boldly asserts that Paul’s testimony here “can be critically examined . . . just as one would evaluate evidence in a modern court or academic setting.”[43] For several strong reasons,[44] most scholars who address the issue think that this testimony predates any New Testament book. Murphy-O’Connor reports that a literary analysis has produced “complete agreement” among critical scholars that “Paul introduces a quotation in v. 3b. . . .”[45]

Paul probably received this report from Peter and James while visiting Jerusalem within a few years of his conversion.[46] The vast majority of critical scholars who answer the question place Paul’s reception of this material in the mid-30s A.D.[47] Even more skeptical scholars generally agree.[48] German theologian Walter Kasper even asserts that, “We have here therefore an ancient text, perhaps in use by the end of 30 AD . . . .” [49] Ulrich Wilckens declares that the material “indubitably goes back to the oldest phase of all in the history of primitive Christianity.”[50]

Fourth, while this pre-Pauline creed provides crucial material, it is not the only instance. For example, many scholars think that the Book of Acts contains many early confessions, embedded in the sermons.[51] These creeds are indicated by brief, theologically unadorned wording that differs from the author’s normal language. Although this is more difficult to determine, it appears that most critical scholars think that at least some reflection of the earliest Christian preaching is encased in this material. This can be determined not only by the many authors who affirm it,[52] but also because it is difficult to find many who clearly reject any such early reports among the Acts sermons. The death and resurrection appearances of Jesus are always found at the center of these traditions. Gerald O’Collins holds that this sermon content “incorporates resurrection formulae which stem from the thirties.”[53] John Drane adds: “The earliest evidence we have for the resurrection almost certainly goes back to the time immediately after the resurrection event is alleged to have taken place. This is the evidence contained in the early sermons in the Acts of the Apostles.”[54]"

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
On 8/8/2018 at 5:30 AM, Abu Hadi said:

Yes. Except we don't believe he is going to sit on the 'throne' of God. We don't believe that the 'throne' as it is refered to in the Quran as the Arsh, is a physical seat , like a chair that someone is able to sit in. If that were the case, then God Almighty would be able to be contained in a space, and we believe that God is Infinite and cannot be contained. The 'throne' is a metaphor pointing to the fact that everything that exists is equally present and under the control of God. 

Huh, so a simple prophet, being Jesus here, is going to raise the dead on judgment day and render their judgment to either everlasting life or everlasting punishment. I don't know, if Shia are giving specifically divine characteristics to Jesus when they believe he is only a simple prophet then maybe the accusations of idolatry could be flipped. But doesn't your Qur'an contradict your assertion that Jesus will be the judge of all mankind? Qur'an 83:4-6 says the dead will stand before the Lord of the worlds. So Jesus is Lord of the worlds now for Islam? Also Qur'an 4:87 says Allah will gather the resurrected together on judgment day, but in Islam Jesus is not Allah just a man so it seems like your own assertions contradict the Qur'an. And the Qur'an contradicts Jesus in Matthew 25:31-46 so... 

And yes, we agree with that too. God is simple, not contained in space and time. Christ is in a glorified/spiritual body as well. The throne is obviously metaphorical. Though I thought Muslims did believe the throne was literal, at least that is what I have seen on Sunni sites. 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
On 8/8/2018 at 10:04 PM, Christianity said:

Huh, so a simple prophet, being Jesus here, is going to raise the dead on judgment day and render their judgment to either everlasting life or everlasting punishment. I don't know, if Shia are giving specifically divine characteristics to Jesus when they believe he is only a simple prophet then maybe the accusations of idolatry could be flipped. But doesn't your Qur'an contradict your assertion that Jesus will be the judge of all mankind? Qur'an 83:4-6 says the dead will stand before the Lord of the worlds. So Jesus is Lord of the worlds now for Islam? Also Qur'an 4:87 says Allah will gather the resurrected together on judgment day, but in Islam Jesus is not Allah just a man so it seems like your own assertions contradict the Qur'an. And the Qur'an contradicts Jesus in Matthew 25:31-46 so... 

And yes, we agree with that too. God is simple, not contained in space and time. Christ is in a glorified/spiritual body as well. The throne is obviously metaphorical. Though I thought Muslims did believe the throne was literal, at least that is what I have seen on Sunni sites. 

If God gives him that power, then yes, he will do that. The dead will be raised, exactly how that is going to happen and who is going to do it, is not important. The important part is that it will either be done by God directly, via a miracle, or God will use an agent, a person, to do it, like what Jesus(p.b.u.h) did when he was alive. Jesus(p.b.u.h) healed the sick, raised the dead, and fed 5000 people with a few fish and a few loaves of bread by the permission of God. This is what muslims believe. 4:87 says that God will gather together... Do you know exactly how God is going to do that ? Are two big hands going to come down from the sky ? Is a big tornado going to pick everyone up and drop them at one spot ? We don't know, but God usually works thru things (inanimate objects) or people, agents to accomplish these things. I never said Jesus is 'the Lord of the Worlds'. That is an assumption you made, and a wrong one that springs from your lack of knowledge of the concept of Tauhid(oneness of God) which all muslims believe in. I suggest you study up on the topic before making such wild and wrong statements as you made above. 

All muslims sects, that I am familiar with, believe that the Arsh (Throne of God) is a metaphor that represents His(s.w.a) authority over his creation and not a literal chair. There is alot of disinformation about Islam on the Internet and people claiming to be muslim who post things. All Muslims agree on Tauhid. This is the basis of the religion. Any muslims who posts things that violate the principle of Tauhid is not a muslim, although they may claim to be one on the Internet. 

Edited by Abu Hadi

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
On 8/8/2018 at 5:30 AM, Abu Hadi said:

Yes. Except we don't believe he is going to sit on the 'throne' of God. We don't believe that the 'throne' as it is refered to in the Quran as the Arsh, is a physical seat , like a chair that someone is able to sit in. If that were the case, then God Almighty would be able to be contained in a space, and we believe that God is Infinite and cannot be contained. The 'throne' is a metaphor pointing to the fact that everything that exists is equally present and under the control of God. 

This is like the argument I make to evangelicals in my own town about when they try to tell me "Well, God doesn't *want* people to go to hell, but he *has* to send them there"

Because then I get frustrated and counter: God doesn't *need* or *have* to do anything, otherwise he wouldn't be God! 

The arguments really gets under my skin because I believe in a God that doesn't need a single thing from me or any other created being on this Earth or beyond it. It goes the same way for people who tell me that *I* have to "invite Jesus into my heart" because if Jesus is God as they say, I don't have any control or influence over what he does not would he have to ask *my* permission to "come into my heart" & would do if he chose to do so.

I get really weird about making these kinds of statements because I was raised with the dogma that "Jesus is God in the flesh" but it never really made sense to me and doesn't now that I am 32, because God cannot be encapsulated in anything physical by the sheer logic of what "being God" might actually mean (which I will admit that I cannot comprehend, as it is like trying to explain to a 2D drawing what a 3D world is, so to speak).

It gives me a headache somewhat to really get into the nitty gritty of it, so I'll stop here for now.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

This is one of the main reasons I am Muslim, and not Christian. Christianity teaches Tauhid, with fine print, (like what you stated above), unlike Islam which teaches Tauhid with no fine print. To say that Allah(s.w.a), God(s.w.a) a being that is Eternal, Omnipotent, and All Powerful 'has' to do something is ridiculous. It makes no sense, but unfortunately most Christians simply repeat what they heard their parents or their pastor or their preist say without thinking about it. 

All human beings were created with Tauhid(with no fine print) stamped on their heart. That is why these concepts that were created by men (like God became flesh in Jesus, etc, and other nonsense) don't make sense to you because you actually 'think' about them. Like I said, most Christians don't do that. It is not that they never think about it, but if they start to come to the conclusions that it isn't true (which would naturally happen after spending some time thinking about it), they start to think about the implications for themselves personally, should they stop believing in this. Implications like being shuned and ostracized by their family and friends, church, possibly losing their spouse, maybe even their job, people talking about them or thinking their 'weird',  etc. Then they stop thinking about it, because they love the dunya (this lower life) more than they love the Truth. A person who loves the truth and looks for what is right and good to do, regardless of their personal interests is very rare, in any religion or society. 

Edited by Abu Hadi

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
12 minutes ago, Abu Hadi said:

This is one of the main reasons I am Muslim, and not Christian. Christianity teaches Tauhid, with fine print, (like what you stated above), unlike Islam which teaches Tauhid with no fine print. To say that Allah(s.w.a), God(s.w.a) a being that is Eternal, Omnipotent, and All Powerful 'has' to do something is ridiculous. It makes no sense, but unfortunately most Christians simply repeat what they heard their parents or their pastor or their preist say without thinking about it. 

All human beings were created with Tauhid(with no fine print) stamped on their heart. That is why these concepts that were created by men (like God became flesh in Jesus, etc, and other nonsense) don't make sense to you because you actually 'think' about them. Like I said, most Christians don't do that. It is not that they never think about it, but if they start to come to the conclusions that it isn't true (which would naturally happen after spending some time thinking about it), they start to think about the implications for themselves personally, should they stop believing in this. Implications like being shuned and ostracized by their family and friends, church, possibly losing their spouse, maybe even their job, people talking about them or thinking their 'weird',  etc. Then they stop thinking about it, because they love the dunya (this lower life) more than they love the Truth. A person who loves the truth and looks for what is right and good to do, regardless of their personal interests is very rare, in any religion or society. 

Nicely said brother. I learned a lot from your posts! Thank you. May Allah bless you and of course @GD41586 too

may your journey be easy and fruitful 

Inshallah

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
On 8/8/2018 at 7:28 AM, Christianity said:

Christians do not view the Gospel as one book specially revealed to Jesus by Allah like Muslims believe how Qur'an was revealed to Muhammad, the word "Gospel" is a translation of the Greek word "εὐαγγέλιον" meaning "good news"; this "good news" refers to the coming of the Kingdom of God embodied in the life, death, and resurrection of Jesus Christ.

There is no trace of the crucifixion, resurrection and all surrounding events as depicted in the Gospel, anywhere in secular history. Given the magnitude and spectacular nature of the incidents that are described, one would expect the opposite.

 

As to the Injil, some say it is the Taarib (conversion and adoption of a foreign word into the Arabic language, without necessarly retaining the original meaning) of the Greek word evangelion/good news (gospel in English). If that is the case, then the Quran only recognizes one among several -canonical or not- gospels as it speaks of "Injil" in the singular, a revelation stamped into Jesus's heart since his infancy 3:3,48,19:30 a source of guidance, admonition, light and wisdom 3:48,5:44,46 verifying the Torah that precedes it 3:50,5:46 while abolishing to the Jews the self imposed restrictions of their man-made soulless traditions, as well as giving glad tidings of a prophet to come after him.

 

Jesus either put himself into writing or asked his followers to eventually write down (during his lifetime or after the termination of his earthly stay) what was revealed to him since infancy of wisdom, teachings, prophecies, warnings and admonitions 7:157. The same was the case of previous Israelite prophets such as Isaiah, Jeremiah, Ezekiel or Habakkuk, Iddo and others 2Chr11:2,12:5,15,13:22. Solomon had his wise utterings, that were either put into writing in his lifetime or later, compiled from scattered suppports under the reign of Hezekiah Prov25:1. It thus certainly is an established trend within the line of the prophets of Israel, of which Jesus fully adhered to, to commit to writing, whether themsleves or by others, in their lifetime or later, the revelation bestowed upon them. That reality hasnt escaped the rabbinical commentaries (see for example Rashi on Iddo).

 

While part of his scripture or what his first followers remembered and compiled, made it in its uncorrupted form into the current Greek compilation of writings called in English the "New Testament", another part did not make it either due to negligence, forgetfulness, or some was discarded and worse yet obscured and tampered with as it did not fit the message, ideas and bias of the unknown Greek writers and later compilers and editors 5:14-15"..those who say, We are Christians, We made a covenant, but they neglected a portion of what they were reminded of..". The current NT is in great majority a compilation of writings about Jesus, not of Jesus, and while containing some elements of what was revealed to him, the Injil, is in great majority a combination of texts compiled during great political and religious turmoil, reflecting the bias of its writers. The victorious sect, among many other early conflicting christian sects, that thus became "orthodoxy" did not let any competing texts it could lay hands on to survive, either by physically destroying it or discrediting it and leaving it to disapear with time. And thus, though we know there were radically variant sects even in Paul's day, we have not a single text from them. Instead, the vast bulk of surviving material is solely what was approved by the victorious "orthodoxy," who did not win because of their greater adherence to the truth, but their more effective and fortunate politics.

 

That is why the Quran refers to the Book in the hands of its Christian addressees as Injil in the singular; it only recognizes whatever remains from Jesus' revelation among other multiple canonized scriptures in Christian hands as true.

 

The Quran similarily alludes to the suhuf/pages of Abraham and to some of the divine verities they contain and share with both the Quran and the Torah 53:36-38,87:18-19. It is also interesting to note that rabbinical tradition attributes the authorship of the book of Psalms to 9 different others besides David, including Adam, Malchizedek and Abraham.

On 8/8/2018 at 7:28 AM, Christianity said:

Paul died 25 years before the Gospel of John was written, being martyred in Rome. Rather, the Gospel of John was written by the beloved disciple (tradition says it's John, hence the Gospel's name) or by one of his close disciples. 

 

Paul was a hellenezied Jew who never met Jesus and started interpreting and explaining his teachings in ways Jesus himself never did. Paul's letters were written about AD 50-60, while the Gospels were not written until 60-90 meaning Paul's theories were already established before the unknown writers of the gospels started their works and earlier christian thought was quickly branded heretical.

 

The NT shows in Matt26,Jn18 that the disciples did not witness anything but Jesus' arrest by the Romans, and among the disciples only Peter saw Jesus' questionning by the high priest at the courtyard. None of the disciples saw or were present at Jesus' alleged public beating, humiliation and crucifixion. While there is mention in Jn19:25-27 of a "disciple" being near Jesus at the cross, there is no proof that this unnamed disciple mentionned by John's Gospel's writer (mentionned in the 3rd person by the way, why would John mention himself in the 3rd person?) is John the son of Zebedee. That traditional interpretation is still a matter of dispute among scholars. Also, the other gospels dont mention a "disciple whom Jesus loved". So that "beloved disciple" who witnessed the crucifixion is the John who authored the gospel that hold his name, yet that "beloved disciple" fails to mention the spectacular transfiguration (and the talking cloud) of Jesus of which he was only 1 of 3 eyewitnesses Matt17:1-13,Mk9:2-13? That is not to mention that "beloved disciple"'s silence of other events of which he was the privileged eyewitness, leaving others who werent present to testify to those events, such as the raising of Jairus' daughter Mk5:37-42 or Jesus' ascencion Lk24:33-51.


The NT sometimes speaks of "disciples" without them being necessarly those among his inner circle of 12. For example Paul says the resurrected Jesus firstly appeared to Peter then to the twelve 1Cor15:15 at a time when Judas was already dead Matt27:5, and his successor had not yet been chosen Acts1:26. The other Gospels also say nothing about any disciple or any women being near the cross, or talking with Jesus while he was on the cross. They only mention a group of women watching the scene from a distant place.

The Gospel of is so different than the others that several early church fathers argued against its canonization but it was inventually included, and over the centuries has probably been the most influential gospel of all. Its difference could be due to the fact that the primary witness to the multiple authors, named the beloved disciple, is unique to that Gospel. The identification of John the son of Zebedee with the "beloved disciple" also does not hold due to the fact that not one of the events in the other gospels that involves and names John (around twenty of them) is to be found in this gospel, some of them mentionned above. 

On 8/9/2018 at 4:04 AM, Christianity said:

so a simple prophet, being Jesus here, is going to raise the dead on judgment day and render their judgment to either everlasting life or everlasting punishment.

Jesus identifies himself as a prophet and is similarily recognized by the multitudes as such Matt21:11,Mk6:3-5,Lk13:32-4.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

The verse 6:29 is an explanatory reference to 6:44-45. The God Dominance is clearly expressed here.

Historically, the "l will raise him up" is a Trinitarian lnsert which violates the First Commandment and Quran.

Gospel of John's author is unknown and about cannot be identified with any of the known Johns of that time. So the name "John the Evangelist" was contrived. The gospel uses a different method of promoting the Satan-Says choice than the Synoptic Gospels do by having (unknown) people testify to "son of g" rather than quoting Satan, devils and what knot from the Synoptics.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
On 12/14/2018 at 3:03 AM, hasanhh said:

The verse 6:29 is an explanatory reference to 6:44-45. The God Dominance is clearly expressed here.

Historically, the "l will raise him up" is a Trinitarian lnsert which violates the First Commandment and Quran.

Gospel of John's author is unknown and about cannot be identified with any of the known Johns of that time. So the name "John the Evangelist" was contrived. The gospel uses a different method of promoting the Satan-Says choice than the Synoptic Gospels do by having (unknown) people testify to "son of g" rather than quoting Satan, devils and what knot from the Synoptics.

Considering all Christians believe in the last day, how could 6:29 be talking about Christians? never met a Christian who believed you only live once. 

I have a feeling that a lot of times the Quran isn't actually referencing Christians at all, but the school of Islamic thought likes to attribute anything wrong with anybody as a Christian problem. 

"I will raise you/him up" is said four times. Which one was an insert? Why does it have to be a "trinitarian" thing?

These verses start with things like "It is the will of God", which obviously means Jesus isn't god enough to do such things on His own. 

"No one can come to me unless the Father who sent me draws him, and I shall raise him on the last day."  Should sound slightly familiar. Lotsa Islam believes a person is drawn by God. If God gave Jesus the job of lifting up those God wills, so be it. Where's Imam Mahdi in all this?

John wrote a few things, not only the notes for a gospel. One would strain their neck looking around that. Toss a few Johns at it, make it ambiguous, twist a few things and there you have it...corruption, and the entire message is lost.

During the temptation of Jesus the "Satan-says" is, "If you are the son of God..." From there on satan said it, so everybody panic. Out of context always works best. 

On 12/12/2018 at 4:58 PM, Abu Hadi said:

This is one of the main reasons I am Muslim, and not Christian.

:)

 

 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
49 minutes ago, Son of Placid said:

"I will raise you/him up" is said four times. Which one was an insert? Why does it have to be a "trinitarian" thing?

Because lsa-as by his own admission does nothing of his own or by himself.

Which verses are you referring to (4x)?

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
15 hours ago, hasanhh said:

Because lsa-as by his own admission does nothing of his own or by himself.

Which verses are you referring to (4x)?

 

“I can of mine own self do nothing: as I hear, I judge: and my judgment is just; because I seek not mine own will, but the will of the Father which hath sent me.” 

Trinitarians have their own opinion on what is written but it doesn't change what's written, neither does it make it true.

The problem is; Islam takes the trinitarian route to prove the Bible is corrupt. Message lost.

 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

When someone chooses to believe in Jesus Christ as Savior, he does so only in response to the urging of God's Holy Spirit. God does the urging; then we decide to believe or not believe. Nobody can believe in Jesus without God's help.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

The Truth is universal, there is only one God who is the Absolute and rest are relative, any religion that follow this principle and also encourage doing good deeds so the heart can reach the peaceful state, will gain everlasting paradise, no matter which religion it is. Christians, Jews, Muslims etc will reach to heaven when they follow the Truth. 

Share this post


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

When someone chooses to believe in Jesus Christ as Savior, he does so only in response to the urging of God's Holy Spirit. God does the urging; then we decide to believe or not believe. Nobody can believe in Jesus without God's help.

Jesus (عليه السلام) is truth, so is Muhammad (saws) so are all the Prophets of God, they are all saviors. They preached the same principles, and anyone who believe in them will reach salvation. 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

If only the People of the Scripture would believe and ward off (evil), surely We should remit their sins from them and surely We should bring them into Gardens of Delight. (65) If they had observed the Torah and the Gospel and that which was revealed unto them from their Lord, they would surely have been nourished from above them and from beneath their feet. Among them there are people who are moderate, but many of them are of evil conduct. (66)

http://tanzil.net/#trans/en.pickthall/5:65

Lo! those who believe, and those who are Jews, and Sabaeans, and Christians - Whosoever believeth in Allah and the Last Day and doeth right - there shall no fear come upon them neither shall they grieve. (69)

http://tanzil.net/#trans/en.pickthall/5:69

They surely disbelieve who say: Lo! Allah is the third of three; when there is no Allah save the One Allah. If they desist not from so saying a painful doom will fall on those of them who disbelieve. (73) Will they not rather turn unto Allah and seek forgiveness of Him? For Allah is Forgiving, Merciful. (74) The Messiah, son of Mary, was no other than a messenger, messengers (the like of whom) had passed away before him. And his mother was a saintly woman. And they both used to eat (earthly) food. See how We make the revelations clear for them, and see how they are turned away! (75)

http://tanzil.net/#trans/en.pickthall/5:73

Al-Ma'ida p 119-120

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
On 12/26/2018 at 11:16 PM, Laayla said:

@MartyS

How is your health?  Were you able to spend Christmas with your family? 

Merry Christmas to all our Christian members on ShiaChat.

Thank you for inquiring about my health, Laayla. This was my entry in my journal today...

God is my healer. The awful tumor that was growing outside my body has been removed. The incision healed after two months. My body is intact. I have full motion of my arm. I was broken, but now I am whole. God is faithful. God is good.

Even more importantly, God has healed my family. We were broken. Now we are whole. It is well. It is well with my soul.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
On ‎3‎/‎18‎/‎2019 at 9:39 PM, Abu Nur said:

Jesus (عليه السلام) is truth, so is Muhammad (saws) so are all the Prophets of God, they are all saviors. They preached the same principles, and anyone who believe in them will reach salvation. 

The Bible teaches in John 14:6 that Jesus is the way, the truth, and the life and that nobody comes to the father except through Him. The Prophets taught the truth and although they are highly revered in our history and in the Bible, they cannot bring salvation.

Share this post


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

The Bible teaches in John 14:6 that Jesus is the way, the truth, and the life and that nobody comes to the father except through Him. The Prophets taught the truth and although they are highly revered in our history and in the Bible, they cannot bring salvation.

This statement is exactly found in Qur'an:

Indeed, with Allah religion is Islām, and those who were given the Book did not differ except after knowledge had come to them, out of envy among themselves. And whoever defies Allah’s signs [should know that] Allah is swift at reckoning. 3:19

The God religion have always been same and one, every Prophets mission were to guide to the same religion. Time passed where people started to give wrong interpretations to the words of God which mislead them, so God sended Jesus (عليه السلام) to correct them. Same happened agein and thus Prophet Muhammad (saws) was sended to the people. What you find in the old and new testament, all it's principles and teaching is found in Qur'an. In Islam, A Christian gets salvation when they truly and sincerely practice the new testament principles that are resonance with God religion.

A sincere Christian who reject and does not recognize Muhammad (saws) out of ignorance, how can such a person be even judged and enter to hellfire? It is impossible, because rejecting Muhammad (saws) out of ignorance while believe and practice the teaching of God that have been taught by all previous Prophets, does not make the person kafir (rejector). What make person rejector is when they see the truth  and recognize in front of them that Prophet Muhammad (saws) teaching are same what others Prophets were teaching, while still rejecting him, is exactly rejecting God. This is described in Qur'an as following:

Those to whom We have given the Scripture recognize it as they recognize their [own] sons. Those who will lose themselves [in the Hereafter] do not believe. 6:20

This same thing happened exactly in time of Jesus (عليه السلام) when part of Jews rejected Jesus, even when they know very well that what Jesus taught were truth.

Edited by Abu Nur

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Respectfully, I submit that what sets Jesus apart from all other Prophets is that Jesus was sinless, and therefore able to take onto Himself the sins of the world and pay the price for them, on behalf of all (Christians, Jews, Muslims, all) who believe in Him. He is able to give those who put their trust in Him, His own righteousness, which gives us right-standing with God, forgiveness from sin, eternal salvation.

"For our sake he made him to be sin who knew no sin, so that in him we might become the righteousness of God." - 2 Corinthians 5:21

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
On 3/21/2019 at 10:38 AM, MartyS said:

Respectfully, I submit that what sets Jesus apart from all other Prophets is that Jesus was sinless, and therefore able to take onto Himself the sins of the world and pay the price for them, on behalf of all (Christians, Jews, Muslims, all) who believe in Him. He is able to give those who put their trust in Him, His own righteousness, which gives us right-standing with God, forgiveness from sin, eternal salvation.

"For our sake he made him to be sin who knew no sin, so that in him we might become the righteousness of God." - 2 Corinthians 5:21

Respectfully, Muslims don't believe Jesus(peace be upon him) 'paid' for the sins of the world. In the view of Islam, God is Just, so He(s.w.a) would not penalize someone for something they did not do, even if the person chose to do this voluntarily, this is something that is against the concept of Justice, which we all believe in, and this requires no further proof. 

We believe that Jesus(peace be upon him) was sent by God to guide humanity to the Truth of God and away from sin. This was the mission of all the Prophets. The unique things about Jesus were 

1) He spoke about the fact that he was a Prophet and sent by God while he was still in the cradle

2) He was born of a virgin women(Mary, may peace be upon her) , without having a father

3) He was one of only 5 Prophets who had a book (called the Injil) that was the direct Word of God. 

4) He will return to Earth before the Day of Judgement and will pray with Imam Al Asr(the Imam of the Age)(may Allah hasten his return)

 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
On 3/22/2019 at 1:38 AM, MartyS said:

Respectfully, I submit that what sets Jesus apart from all other Prophets is that Jesus was sinless, and therefore able to take onto Himself the sins of the world and pay the price for them, on behalf of all (Christians, Jews, Muslims, all) who believe in Him.

You mention Jews but Jews don't believe in him, brother.

Nor do Hindus, Sikhs, Buddhists, Zoroastrians, and many others.

Who is going to pay for them?

Surely, there would be some people, however few, in those religions,. who are also deserving of heaven, by virtue of their good deeds.

And by the way, the only non-Christians in all the world who truly believe in Jesus are Muslims. 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I wonder how many European Christians in the west would expect Jesus (peace be upon him) to have tanned skin, dark eyes (not blue) as he probably was because he was a Jew and not blue eyes and blond hair as they perceive him. That is the danger of racism. We have to take this as an example within every community. This type of closed mindset can drive people away from the word of the creator. 

Edited by Murtaza1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
9 minutes ago, baqar said:

You mention Jews but Jews don't believe in him, brother.

Nor do Hindus, Sikhs, Buddhists, Zoroastrians, and many others.

I wish especially the Hindus would stop messing around with Islam. I can’t believe they have a supposed grave in India and say he visited India astagfurillah. There is a lot of online propaganda going on. I see people from India editing Wikipedia as they please. 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
59 minutes ago, baqar said:

You mention Jews but Jews don't believe in him, brother.

Jesus came to Earth to bring the good news of God's favor and His gift of salvation through His own death on the cross and resurrection from the dead to the house of Israel. But they rejected him and crucified Him (accomplishing God's plan). They didn't recognize the Savior they had waited millennia for when He came. So God called the gentiles to come to the banquet instead, to provoke the Jews by jealousy. But God says they will come to believe. They will recognize the One they pierced...

"And I will pour out on the house of David and the inhabitants of Jerusalem a spirit of grace and pleas for mercy, so that, when they look on me, on him whom they have pierced, they shall mourn for him, as one mourns for an only child, and weep bitterly over him, as one weeps over a firstborn. - Zechariah 12:10

"On that day there shall be a fountain opened for the house of David and the inhabitants of Jerusalem, to cleanse them from sin and uncleanness. - Zechariah 13:1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
1 hour ago, MartyS said:

"And I will pour out on the house of David and the inhabitants of Jerusalem a spirit of grace and pleas for mercy, so that, when they look on me, on him whom they have pierced, they shall mourn for him, as one mourns for an only child, and weep bitterly over him, as one weeps over a firstborn. - Zechariah 12:10

"On that day there shall be a fountain opened for the house of David and the inhabitants of Jerusalem, to cleanse them from sin and uncleanness. - Zechariah 13:1

Even if those verses refer to Jesus, which is not easily very clear, modern Jews do not believe in Jesus as the Messiah.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
On 4/11/2019 at 9:33 PM, baqar said:

Even if those verses refer to Jesus, which is not easily very clear, modern Jews do not believe in Jesus as the Messiah.

Yes. I agree. And I believe that does not negate God's faithfulness to the Jews at the end of human history. These verses are prophecies that may not have yet been completely realized; however, Jesus did say He fulfilled this prophecy of Isaiah...

17 And the scroll of the Prophet Isaiah was given to him. He unrolled the scroll and found the place where it was written,
18 "The Spirit of the Lord is upon me, because he has anointed me to proclaim good news to the poor. He has sent me to proclaim liberty to the captives and recovering of sight to the blind, to set at liberty those who are oppressed, 
19 to proclaim the year of the Lord's favor." 
20 And he rolled up the scroll and gave it back to the attendant and sat down. And the eyes of all in the synagogue were fixed on him.
21 And he began to say to them, "Today this Scripture has been fulfilled in your hearing." - Luke 4:17-21

The Jews did not recognize Jesus that day as their Messiah. In fact, they tried to kill him for speaking those and these words...

24 And he said, "Truly, I say to you, no Prophet is acceptable in his hometown.
25 But in truth, I tell you, there were many widows in Israel in the days of Elijah, when the heavens were shut up three years and six months, and a great famine came over all the land,
26 and Elijah was sent to none of them but only to Zarephath, in the land of Sidon, to a woman who was a widow.
27 And there were many lepers in Israel in the time of the Prophet Elisha, and none of them was cleansed, but only Naaman the Syrian."
28 When they heard these things, all in the synagogue were filled with wrath.
29 And they rose up and drove him out of the town and brought him to the brow of the hill on which their town was built, so that they could throw him down the cliff.
30 But passing through their midst, he went away. - Luke 4:24-30

Nevertheless, these next verses make it clear that God will yet accept the sacrifice of Jesus for the forgiveness of sins on behalf of the offspring of Abraham, who are literally Isaac and Ishmael...

16 For surely it is not angels that he helps, but he helps the offspring of Abraham.
17 Therefore he had to be made like his brothers in every respect, so that he might become a merciful and faithful high priest in the service of God, to make propitiation for the sins of the people. - Hebrews 2:16-17

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...