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
Akbar673

Christians getting into Jannah

Rate this topic

Recommended Posts

13 hours ago, AbdulKarim313_Austin/Nola said:

 

Anything else you want to say?  We both can snide comment all day. I’m your huckleberry. :rolleyes: 

But hopefully we don’t take that direction. Be humble like Marty and start Bringing some of your so called PhD knowledge with you because right now it’s absent.  

 

 

Okay. As you wish. I am finishing up some work and have a few minutes to accommodate you before I have to get some sleep before Mass. Muslims , I believe, are no strangers to research regarding authenticity.

I am providing info refuting one of your main sources ( Hislop) from:

A Catholic site

A non-denominational Conservative site 

Comments from a former follower Woodrow

Here we go. Hope this helps.

*********
Is Catholicism Pagan? Catholic Answers

https://www.catholic.com/tract/is-catholicism-pagan

 

 


''The Two Babylons'' - Conservapedia


https://www.conservapedia.com/''The_Two_Babylons''

 

 

Quotes from Woodrow:
The evangelical minister Ralph Woodrow, drawing heavily on Hislop's book, made the case, which he no longer holds, in his book  Babylon Mystery Religion that Catholicism was a syncretic religion that had evolved from pagan Babylon. Mr.. Woodrow, after realizing how flawed Hislop's book was, recanted the error of his own book (Babylon Mystery Religion) and decried its and Hislop's errors and false connections.[8]
Hislop's work has been described by Bill Ellis as "sketchy knowledge of Middle Eastern antiquity with a vivid imagination."[9]
A history teacher challenged Woodrow, and called the integrity of Hislop's research into question. Mr.. Woodrow began to diligently research the subject, and as he explored the theories of Hislop, began to discover that those ideas were either fraudulent, mis-interpretations, or had created false relationships where none actually existed. Eventually, Ralph Woodrow felt compelled to remove his own book from print, and later wrote a second book "The Babylon Connection?" to further explain and refute Hislop's (and his own) mistaken ideas.[8] Woodrow had now become a critic of Hislop's 'pagan' theories. 

My original book had some valuable information in it. But it also contained certain teachings that were made popular in a book many years ago, THE TWO BABYLONS, by Alexander Hislop. This book claims that the very religion of ancient Babylon, under the leadership of Nimrod and his wife, was later disguised with Christian-sounding names, becoming the Catholic Church. Thus, two “Babylons”—one ancient and one modern. Proof for this is sought by citing numerous similarities in paganism. The problem with this method is this: in many cases there is no connection.

Mr.. Woodrow went to the original source documents and found that the analogies, links, and suppositions that Hislop had made were strained and unfounded. 

Because Hislop wrote in the mid-1800s the books he refers to or quotes are now quite old. I made considerable effort to find these old books and to check Hislop's references; books such as Layard's Nineveh and Its Remains, Kitto's Cyclopeidia of Biblical Literature, Wilkinson's Ancient Egyptians, as well as old editions of Pausanias, Pliny, Tacitus, Herodotus and many more. When I checked his footnote references, in numerous cases I discovered they do not support his claims.


As I did this [research], it became clear-Hislop's "history" was often only mythology... an arbitrary piecing together of ancient myths can not provide a sound basis for history. Take enough tribes, enough tales, enough time, jump from one time to another, from one country to another, pick and choose similarities-why anything could be "proved"! 

Woodrow also shows how Hislop's creative numerology (which he describes as no more than mere superstition) could be used to make almost any name 'add up' to the mark of the beast, including the name "The Rev Alexander Hislop." Woodrow reclaims (from supposed pagan origins) candles and lamps (which are used by Jews in the Old Testament), he also defends the practice of anointing with oil "...anointing him with oil in the name of the Lord." (James 5:14, 15 & Mat 6:13). Woodrow demonstrates the faulty logic that claims a Church steeple is a phallic symbol and the tower of Babel. According to Herodotus 425 BC. Babel was a ziggurat shape, looking nothing like a steeple. (pg 28) 
While seeking to condemn the paganism of Catholicism, Hislop produced his own myths. Hislop theorized that Nimrod, Adonis, Apollo, Attes, Ball-zebub, Bacchus, Cupid, Dagon, Hercules, Janus, Linus, Lucifer, Mars, Merodach, Mithra, Moloch, Narcissus, Oannes, Oden, Orion, Osiris, Pluto, Saturn, Teitan, Typhon, Vulcan, Wotan, and Zoroaster were all one and the same. By mixing myths, Hislop supposed that Semiramis was the wife of Nimrod and was the same as Aphrodite, Artemis, Astarte, Aurora, Bellona, Ceres, Diana, Easter, Irene, Iris, Juno, Mylitta, Proserpine, Rhea, Venus, and Vesta.

Hislop taught that Tammuz (whom he says was Nimrod) was born on December 25, and that this is the origin of the date on which Christmas is observed. Yet his supposed proof for this is taken out of context. Having taught that Isis and her infant son Horus were the Egyptian version of Semiramis and her son Tammuz he cites a reference that the son of Isis was born "about the time of the winter solstice." When we actually look up the reference he gives for this (Wilkinson’s Ancient Egyptians, vol. 4, 405), the son of Isis who was born "about the time of the winter solstice was not Horus, her older son, but Harpocrates. The reference also explains this was a premature birth, causing him to be lame, and that the Egyptians celebrated the feast of his mother’s delivery in spring. Taken in context, this has nothing to do with a December celebration or with Christmas as it is known today.


The subtitle for Hislop’s book is “The Papal Worship Proved to Be the Worship of Nimrod and His Wife.” Yet when I went to reference works such as the Encyclopedia Britannica, The Americana, The Jewish Encyclopedia, The Catholic Encyclopedia, The Worldbook Encyclopedia – carefully reading their articles on “Nimrod” and “Semiramis” — not one said anything about Nimrod and Semiramis being husband and wife. They did not even live in the same century. Nor is there any basis for Semiramis being the mother of Tammuz. I realized these ideas were all Hislop’s inventions.

In another appeal to Wilkinson, Hislop says that a Lent of 40 days was observed in Egypt (which Catholicism celebrates). But when we look up the reference, Wilkinson says Egyptian fasts "lasted for seven to forty-two days, and sometimes even a longer period: during which time they abstained entirely from animal food, from herbs and vegetables, and above all from the indulgence of the passions" (Wilkinson, Ancient Egyptians vol. 1, 278) With as much credibility, we could say they fasted 7 days, 10 days, 12 days, or 42 days. Hislop’s claim appears to have validity only because he used partial information.

If we based claims on partial information, we could even prove from the Bible there is not God: "…’There is no God’" (Ps. 14:1). When the entire statement is read, however, it has a different meaning: "The fool says in his heart, ‘There is no God.’"

 

 

 

 

 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I don't believe it matters if you're a Jew, or a Christian, or a Muslim, or whatever. God is a very personal God, He deals with the heart, indoctrinated or not. 
Prophets come to remind and warn but they don't start religions, their followers do. From the moment a Prophet leaves this Earth the message is degraded. What follows is disagreements and splits, hoops and hurdles, and various methods to tithe. It's not enough to go through the motions. You have to look past your religion to see God. 

Share this post


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

I don't believe it matters if you're a Jew, or a Christian, or a Muslim, or whatever. God is a very personal God, He deals with the heart, indoctrinated or not. 
Prophets come to remind and warn but they don't start religions, their followers do. From the moment a Prophet leaves this Earth the message is degraded. What follows is disagreements and splits, hoops and hurdles, and various methods to tithe. It's not enough to go through the motions. You have to look past your religion to see God. 

Agreed. Each messenger came to warn their own nation. All Abrahamic religions believe in the same God, but just in different ways.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
1 hour ago, Son of Placid said:

Prophets come to remind and warn but they don't start religions, their followers do. From the moment a Prophet leaves this Earth the message is degraded.

I guess I’m confused. “Warn” is a verb, but “message” is a noun, and “religion” is also a noun. Aren’t the difference between these nouns just semantics?

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
2 hours ago, Son of Placid said:

I don't believe it matters if you're a Jew, or a Christian, or a Muslim, or whatever. God is a very personal God, He deals with the heart, indoctrinated or not. 
Prophets come to remind and warn but they don't start religions, their followers do. From the moment a Prophet leaves this Earth the message is degraded. What follows is disagreements and splits, hoops and hurdles, and various methods to tithe. It's not enough to go through the motions. You have to look past your religion to see God. 

"this day I have perfected your religion for you".....? Prophet Muhammad (sallallahu alaihi wassallam) certainly started a religion.

 

1 hour ago, Reza said:

I guess I’m confused. “Warn” is a verb, but “message” is a noun, and “religion” is also a noun. Aren’t the difference between these nouns just semantics?

Not in my opinion if a person wants to insinuate the message was so degraded from the very start it never really became a religion. It is a wording that may be used to degrade an entire religion. Kind of like telling a person 'you're not really even human' when insulting them.

Share this post


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

I guess I’m confused. “Warn” is a verb, but “message” is a noun, and “religion” is also a noun. Aren’t the difference between these nouns just semantics?

How so? The Qur'an was the message but it's the Sunnah and ahadith that formed the religion. 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Just now, Son of Placid said:

How so? The Qur'an was the message but it's the Sunnah and ahadith that formed the religion. 

But the sunnah and ahadith originate with the Prophet. So the religion had to formed during the Prophets time, not after.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
46 minutes ago, Reza said:

But the sunnah and ahadith originate with the Prophet. So the religion had to formed during the Prophets time, not after.

The Sunnah was direct, ahadith was indirect quotes meant for guidance, or to mislead, somebody else decides. The basics for a religion were being realized but Muhammad didn't put pen to paper. He didn't make every little law you follow. 

Shortly after the death of Muhammad came a split, same as Christianity.  Until the split there was one message, after the split depended on the teacher. "Caliphate" was introduced as the leadership. Shia didn't like the first three "guided ones" but they are the ones that fine tuned Islam. 
Since then Islam is separated into many many groups, as did Christianity, all thinking their unique group was truer to the word than the rest, therefore leaving them to question if the other groups could even make it to jannah. Add the prejudice of being the only one true following and all other groups become second class. How are you trained to handle the second class?

The crux of it all, God sent a message of love, peace, and unity, men turned it to hate, war, and separation at every turn. Historically, that's what "religion" does. You have the one true belief, all others may as well be pagan. Pagans waste oxygen.

According to ahadith, tafsirs, etc. all the verses that say Christians will not grieve come with conditions. Ahadith has made sure the grey turns black. This is how you know I'm going to hell. According to the religion I once followed, Muslims are all kinds of evil, definitely going to hell. 
Sure glad God is in charge.

 

Share this post


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

According to ahadith, tafsirs, etc. all the verses that say Christians will not grieve come with conditions.

Everything that says Muslims will not grieve comes with conditions as well. The very act of being a Muslim comes with quite a lot of conditions.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
On 5/26/2019 at 3:23 AM, baqar said:

You don't owe an explanation to anyone how you spend your time. 

This is a difference between Christians and Muslims. Correct me any time, but in my experience Muslims admit nothing. Christians are more likely to share and admit shortcomings. It's not a weakness. Open honesty, I hope it shows. We do have our limits, mostly based on your response. I'd venture to say the veterans here know lots more about me than I know of them.

I can relate to LCM in her fatigue arguing, although I'm a little more stubborn. Like she said; It really doesn't matter what evidence you put forward, it's about acceptance. Of course, being a Shia site acceptance is not forthcoming, nor can it be encouraged. 

We have the freedom to investigate other beliefs outside our religion...NO WE DON'T. How fast do you want to be outcast? I can tell you that anyone who has been less than careful in agreeing with me, or accepting me as me, or considered my understanding as plausible is no longer here. 

What saddens me is the university students that show up here with an obvious prejudice to Christians since grade one. Tafsir al-Mizan takes no time telling Muslims what to think of Christians, and there's a whole conspiracy made up for Paul. No matter how often I prove lack of evidence of their accusations, and provide the only actual records there are, the best response I get is none, the worst goes on and on until I rail them, or the admins stop me. Either way the evidence remains flatulence. 

It's not about proving who's right or wrong, it's about proving that Christians aren't all the shallow illogical polygamists they've been taught to hate. How many times they've come and told me what I believe, and they can't accept anything more or less than the story they've been taught. Of course all Christians are going to hell. 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
1 hour ago, Son of Placid said:

It's not about proving who's right or wrong, it's about proving that Christians aren't all the shallow illogical polygamists they've been taught to hate. How many times they've come and told me what I believe, and they can't accept anything more or less than the story they've been taught. Of course all Christians are going to hell. 

I agree. There are a lot of misconceptions about Christians, one being that they all believe Jesus (alaihi Salam) is God.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
5 hours ago, Aragaia said:

I agree. There are a lot of misconceptions about Christians, one being that they all believe Jesus (alaihi Salam) is God.

Yeah, I get that. There are a lot of misconceptions in Christianity as well. Makes it easy to pick on. It's interesting because the Bible tells a whole nuther story if you don't start with preconceived dogma. 
Many Christians don't read their Bible because they go to church and are told what it says. You can have a point that everyone agrees on, Jews/Christians/Muslims, but bring it up to the average Christian, they also agree, but have no actual backing if they ever had to argue it. 

Muhammad was given a revelation, as was Jesus, as was Moses. When they taught, they laid the foundation for a religion. What happens...Moses came down with ten commandments first, more laws were given and the law books were written, recording "commandments" such as washing earthen pots seven times between use. Rambam turned that into 613 commandments, while eliminating useless "commandments". Since then Judaism has volumes and volumes of "law" which shapes their religion. More and more laws. The question is, when did God's laws get confused with man made God laws, and how do we separate them to find truth? 

 In the case of emergency only, a Jewish surgeon is allowed to preform surgery on the Sabbath, but not alone, he must have another surgeon with him. Not exactly sure the reason, but I'm guessing two surgeons working together confuse God as to who's doing the work so God can't condemn either for working on the Sabbath. 

Jesus gave one commandment. "A new commandment I give unto you that ye love one another as I have loved you."

Jesus didn't abrogate "the Law". He challenged the man made God laws the Jews had imposed. How ridiculous were these rules? The disciples were hungry and walking through a grain field on the Sabbath. They took a handful of grain and rubbed off the chaff and ate it. The Pharisees were all over them.  What were the charges? Not trespassing, nor stealing, but the "law" states that Jews have to prepare all food for the Sabbath the day before. that includes rubbing the chaff off of grain as "preparation for a meal".

Muhammad didn't say, You be Shia, you be Sunni. 

This is why I say religions are man made.

Share this post


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

Muhammad didn't say, You be Shia, you be Sunni. 

This is why I say religions are man made.

All of it or part of it?

I try to follow the real part of it and discard the man made part of it. But no one can see the time of Muhammad (sallallahu alaihi wassallam). However I believe in the Qur'an and it says everything goes according to Allah's plan. And there are no faults in His plan. Since He gave us hope, there must be the right way somewhere.

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.


×
×
  • Create New...