Active TopicsActive Topics  Display List of Forum MembersMemberlist  CalendarCalendar  Search The ForumSearch  HelpHelp
  RegisterRegister  LoginLogin  Old ForumOld Forum  Twitter  Facebook
Advertisement:
         

Interfaith Dialogue
 IslamiCity Forum - Islamic Discussion Forum : Religion - Islam : Interfaith Dialogue
Message Icon Topic: CHRISTIANS - Answer this Question Post Reply Post New Topic
<< Prev Page  of 13 Next >>
Author Message
Salaam_Erin
Male Christian
Groupie
Groupie
Avatar

Joined: 30 October 2012
Location: United Kingdom
Online Status: Offline
Posts: 41
Quote Salaam_Erin Replybullet Posted: 09 November 2012 at 4:32am
Hi Abu Loren.

I'll go through what you have said to myself and Placid point by point. 

The reason Allah Subhana Wa Ta'ala subsituted another man in place of Jesus (pbuh) has nothing to do with sacrifices.

Ezekiel 18 confirms the Holy Qur'an where it says that each soul is responsible for it's own transgressions.

Well, since as Islam agrees, that Jesus was sinless, so this means that Jesus, who was supposed to die a criminal death while innocent, was substituted by a man who was dying for someone who did no wrong.  That's even worse than having someone die for someone who did wrong, according to Islamic logic.  Also, I agree with Ezekiel 18.  However, Ezekiel 18 is also about the responsibility to repent as well as having responsbility for one's actions.  Furthermore, repentance is clearly taught in the Torah (see the Book of Leviticus) that repentance and blood atonement for sin go together in securing God's forgiveness.  Ezekiel was not only an prophet, but a priest of God who before being exiled by Babylon was offering such sacrifices in the Temple.  See Ezekiel 40-48 and there you will notice that blood atonement is clearly taught by him. 

I want to ask you an honest question.  According to Islamic teaching, iof you are to be consistent, saying that Allah put someone else on the Cross, I still maintain that this violates the principle Islam lays down against someone dying in another person's place, and also it means that everyone for 600 years was fooled into thinking Jesus died then rose again.  As a result a false religion was formed.  One, why would Allah take an action which would be the basis of a false religion?  (You and I both know Allah would never do such a thing.)  Two, why did Allah wait a full 600 years to correct this error?  Isn't it more likely Jesus really died on the Cross and that this was God the Father's plan for our atonement if we repented?

With so many copies floating around it would be ver difficult to know which is real and which has been added/deleted. Produce the original and we can talk.

Abu, pay closer attention to my careful discussion of the textual history of Luke 22:20.  There are 5700 ancient Greek manuscripts of the New Testament.  We can therefore fully track every reading, and work out through the genaological method wich variant reading coems from the other.  As Hort said in the 19th century, less than one thousandth of the New Testament is interfered with by the variants and indeed, not a single doctrine is affected.  We know what the original said because of this process of textual criticism and the tenacity of the readings.  The originals were written on papyrus.  Except for the dry environments of southern Egypt and the Dead Sea area, they don't survive.  However, we know from the disciples of the Apostles who were with them when they wrote the New Testament, that we can trust the text.  Besides, you don't have an original Qur'an.  You do not have Zaid's manuscript compiled for Caliph Uthman, the likes of the Topkapi manuscript are a century too late, but this is not evidence for the Qur'an being false any more than a lack of an 'original' Bible manuscript 'disproves' the Bible. 

Let's put it this way.  The Qur'an teaches that Jesus confirmed the Torah.  The Bible agrees.  But Jesus had no access to the original Torah either.  Why did Jesus fully expect the Pharisees to know their Scriptures?  Because, quite simply, Jesus, the Pharisees, and your own Qur'an, and indeed the Bible itself, regards the Bible as being fully preserved in the 1st century.  Without needing an autograph manuscript!  You haven't been trained in textual criticism.  Use your logic here.  If the two extremes of the textual spectrum, the Textus Receptus for the AKJV New Testament and the 27th Edition of the Nestle-Aland combined with the 4th Edition of the UBS agree on all doctrine, and you can read out John 1 and know it teaches the same thing, then it is obvious to anyone that John 1 is an original chapter.  And another thing.  I scratch my head in amazement when Muslims use John 14-16 to prove that Jesus prophesied Muhammad, and yet still think it is a forgery! 

This is rich coming from people who claim that the Law has been done away with.

The Law hasn't been done away with.  It has been fulfilled and superceded and absorbed within the New Covenant.  The Ten Commandments are as much part of the New Covenant as in the Old.  The sacrificial rituals are abolished, yes, but only because Jesus' sacrifice was the final one, which is eternal and so in fact, the Old Covenant and sacrifices have a permanent effect whereas the previous sacrifices were temporary and had to be repeated over and over again.  This is not the same as abrogation.  Also, the Torah's curse is abolished for those who are saved.  Alas, for those who are not saved and have not repented, the curse of the Torah is still in effect.  Also, the word Torah doesn't just mean Law.  It also means Teaching and Instruction.  And that aspect of it still co-exists along with the New Covenant side by side and explains the New.  That's why a Christian minister called John Newton once wrote, "Twas Grace that taught my heart to fear, and Grace my fears relieved."  The Torah teaches us to fear God.  The Injeel relieves that fear as we repent having been exposed as sinners by the Torah's curse.  The Torah is stillour teacher and disciplinarian.  Also, bear in mind that in the light of the Holy Spirit's decree through Jesus' own brother James, in Acts 15, that the Gentiles are NOT to be included in the Old Covenant but only in the New, as the Old Covenant was for the Jews.  Paul was one of the men appointed by James as the enforcer of this decree, and that is why I quote to you that Paul taught that Jews remain circumcised and Gentiles remain uncircumcised.  Circumcision is not a sign of the New Covenant. Also, the Abrahamic Covenant still stands, as does the Davidic Covenant.  But they too are fulfilled and absorbed into the New Covenant, but not abolished. 

Jesus (pbuh) did not come to start a new religion nor to abolish anything. So starting a new church in Corinth has no bearing except that they started a new religion

Neither Jesus nor Paul started a new religion.  The new church in Corinth was not separate from the rest of the Christian Church.  My point was, that this church which Paul had founded, had follow-up work done in support of Paul by Peter, Barnabas and Apollos.  You need to get FF Bruce's Greek commentary on Acts, and you will see that Paul's speech to the Governor Felix in Acts 24:10-21 that Paul says he is a follower of the God of our fathers as a follower of the Way, which they call a sect (the Greek is airesis, from where we get the word heresy, referring to the Roman term superstitio, an illegal sect which was an innovation rather than a legal proper ancient religio licitas like Judaism)- Paul's point is that Christianity IS Judaism proper, and mainstream Judaism, not a different religion.  The term The Way refers to the Hebrew terms Ha Derekh and Halakhah which are to do with true religion and Jewish teachings on the Torah.  Paul points out he believes in the Resurrection of the Dead.  As he said in Romans 3:31: "Do we, then, nullify the law by this faith?  Not at all!  Rather, we uphold the law."  What Paul explains is that the Torah is abolished as a legal code condemning us, and becomes a spiritual code written in our hearts upon repentance and conversion. 

This doesn't make sense as Christians DO believe Jesus (pbuh) to be the son of god or god incarnate;

Let's try again.  I'm giving you an example here of how even if Jesus is not God, He still has the right to broker on behalf of God the Father (who is the Patron) a New Covenant.  After all, Moses was only a man, just a prophet, and he was given the authority by God to broker the Sinai Covenant with YHWH as patron.  But since we believe Jesus is indeed both the Son of God (as in God the Father) and God incarnate (coming from God's inner self), He can even more so be a broker on behalf of the Father as His Hypostatic representative on Earth.  

No he did not decide it was scripture. If you read the example you have given carefully, all it says is that people distort his message LIKE THE OTHER SCRIPTURES.

Your quote and emphasis of the phraise 'like the other Scriptures' defeats your point.  Peter is STILL declaring Paul's words to be Scripture.  Peter is warning people against distorting Paul's words.  He is attacking those who think Paul attacks the Law or twisted Jesus' words.  Compare 1 Peter with Romans.  Peter and Paul are in agreement.

How did you come to the conclusion that Mark and Peter are the same person? Scholars are not even sure who Mark really was.

I just have to gasp at you saying this.  You are in confusion because I said that Mark's Gospel is really Peter's Gospel.  

I never said Mark and Peter are the same person.   I said that Mark's Gospel is really Peter's Gospel.  We know exactly who Mark was.  I could put out a long post entirely on who Mark was, but I'll give you a preliminary explanation.  John Mark was the son of Mary the owner of the Upper Room where the first Jewish Christians met.  His cousin was Barnabas.  He accompanied Barnabas and Paul on Paul's first missionary journey, but left them and went home, causing Paul to doubt his maturity, leading to a disagreement with Barnabas, who took Mark on a separate journey when Paul went out again.  When Paul founded the Corinthian Church, Barnabas then went there to follow up his work.  Later, Mark teamed up with Peter who took him to Rome.  Here, he also partnered Paul in his ministry again.  While there, Peter and the Church in Rome came to Mark and commissioned him to convert Peter's stories about Jesus while preaching and quizzing new converts in what we call a catechism, and turned Peter's teaching into a biography of Jesus.  Mark was Peter's interpreter.  This is the testimony of the Church Fathers, the earliest of whom knew Peter and Mark personally.  Mark was also an eyewitness to the arrest of Jesus.  

With regard to your comment about the 'other gospels' what I meant to convey was that the early church fathers who were really preaching the Trinity decided what to include and which gospels to exclude. The Trinitarians somehow became the majority and pushed all the others aside. Hence modern Christianity was born.

Arius, who opposed the Trinitarians at Nicaea, used exactly the same Bible.  Arius rejected the other gospels as much as the Trinitarians did, and besides, the other gospels are Gnostic and deny Jesus was even a real human being, since matter is evil and all of us are gods.  Why would Muslims want to defend esoteric junk that denies Jesus' humanity?  Hint: the Trinitarians camed first.  The first Unitarians came in the late 2nd century when Judaism and Christianity split after the Second Jewish-Roman War of AD 132-135- the Ebionites tried a compromise approach and failed.  Arius doesn't count as a Unitarian.  Arianism believes in two gods, a big God, the Father, and the created little god, Jesus, who before becoming human created the Universe on God the Father's orders, in a twisting of Proverbs 8.  Arius actually accused the Trinitarians of being Unitarians.  Arius was a Henotheist, not a Monotheist.  Henotheism being a type of polytheism.  Arius understood full well what Trinitarianism really is.  Far better than any Muslim.

"As I've stated earlier, all of the Prophets of God were given a covenent, so Jesus' covenent did not mean that it was a new covenent which will abrogate all the other covenents."

Incorrect.  Only Abraham received the Abrahamic Covenant, Moses received the Sinatic Covenant, Nathan proclaimed to his fellow prophet, King David, the Davidic Covenant, and Jesus received from the Father and gave to Israel the New Covenant.  The other Hebrew prophets from Joshua right through to John the Baptist preached the Old Covenant, John preparing the way for the New Covenant.  Jeremiah preached the Old Mosaic Covenant, but prophesied the New Covenant.  Jesus' Covenant fulfils and absorbs the other covenants, but does not abrogate them.  Through Abraham the nations are being blessed.  David was promised an eternal dynasty, Jesus as Al Masih, the King of Israel, is the current and final upholder of that Covenant, as the final sacrifice, He upholds the Sinai Covenant, and through doing this He fulfils the New Covenant which He brokered through the Cross.  This Jesus taught Himself.  Besides, in arguing these points, you are actually as a Muslim unwittingly denying that the Qur'an abrogates these older covenants, which is a key Islamic teaching- namely that the Qur'an abrogates the older covenants, as surely Islam is a covenant Allah made with the Muslim Arabs brokered by Muhammad. 

If I'm not mistaken the Jews rejected Jesus (pbuh) as the Messiah. So you are saying that Jesus (pbuh) made the New Covenent with the Christians? Abolishing the Law of Moses (pbuh) in the process?

Not all Jews rejected Jesus.  His followers fulfilled their obligations under the New Covenant.  Jesus in making the New Covenant, made His Jewish followers and those Gentiles who came later and joined with them, Christians.  The term Christian means someone who follows Al-Masih, the Jewish King Messiah, Melek Moschiach.  And Jesus fulfilled, not abolished the Torah.  Jesus is the culmination of the Torah's purpose and mission. 

I've told you before that we should not take Paul seriously. He was a man with a guilty conscience who after slaughtering thouands of Christians had a nervous breakdown and thought he had a vision of the risen Christ. His letters are just that, letters. Oh yeah btw he conveniently connects the Old Testament scripture with the alleged sacrifice of Jesus (pbuh) on the cross, which never happened.

Paul had no guilty conscience and was about to arrest Christians in Damascus when he was confronted by Jesus so unexpectedly.  He suffered no nervous breakdown.  The amazing literary quality and inspiration of his letters are not the work of someone who lost his mind.  It's funny how Jesus' original followers endorsed him.  Not least Peter. 

You would do well to look at Isaiah 53: "For he bore the sin of many, and made intercession for the transgressors."  

There is a clear prophecy by the Prophet Isaiah of the one who would die for the sins of many.  This is not an invention of Paul.  Isaiah was preaching this in the Jewish Temple in 700 BC.  We have manuscripts of Isaiah from 150 BC saying the same thing.  The prophecies of the death of YHWH's righteous servant well predates Jesus, Paul and even the Babylonian Exile. 

You seem to be a very confused person who thinks that the Old Testament is all about the Holy Trinity. In that if Trinitarians like you had the chance you would invent a new Bible called The New Revised Edited and Added Version (NREAV). That Bible would begin thus...

 

"In the beginning God the Father, the Son and the Holy Spirit made the heavens and the earth.......".

Interesting, for there is a threefold aspect to God's nature right from the start.  God is creating, the Spirit is working, the Word of God is spoken, and the Word creates light to begin with. 

"In the beginning God created the heavens and the earth.  Now the earth was formless and empty, darkness was upon the face of the deep, and the Spirit of God was hovering over the waters.  And God said, "Let there be light," and there was light."  (Genesis 1:1-3)  Even the Hebrew word for this singular God is... plural.  El is singular.  Elohim is plural.  El means High or Exalted One. 

Just a question that arises out of curiosity.

 

Why would God Almighty need to have 3 distinct personalities? Is He an incapable God?

Rather the opposite.  God's Wisdom is so powerful that it is literally personified.  God is singular and infinite at the same time.  So God's Wisdom can actually speak and think and be an eternal second point of consciousness within this single, solitary and infinite God.  God's Wisdom is infinite, but also, since God is everywhere, this means that God has the power to stay on the throne of Heaven and at the same time be near us.  He can fully concentrate on both.  This means He really can project Himself infinitely.  So the sheer intensity of God's Wisdom and Power and Authority is such that He can interact and relate within Himself and communicate within Himself.  He can call Himself We and Us but still be one God.  (And use the singular verb to describe what 'We' will do in creating man in 'our' image.)  So the sheer power of this single God throughout eternity non-stop to personify His attributes and project Himself makes Him eternally Father (God's Nerve Centre), Son (a metaphor for His loving Word/Hypostatic Wisdom), and Holy Spirit (Living Principle of Power and Authority).  It's got to do with God being single yet infinite, able to personify and project non-stop forever, that makes Him what is called a Hypostatic Entity.  (Hypostasis is to do with personality and consciousness.)  It's not a mystery at all, except in the sense that we finite creatures are dealing with the infinite.  But it makes sense to me.  Remember, although the Qur'an teaches God as a Monad, it still teaches that God is on the throne of Heaven yet is closer than a jugular vein.  Yet such an ability, to be single and infinite and everywhere requires the power of Hypostasis.  That's why the question of who was running the Universe while Jesus was suffering on the Cross is so unnecessary.  The FATHER was running the Universe.  ;o)    



 








 








Edited by Salaam_Erin - 09 November 2012 at 4:35am
IP IP Logged
Abu Loren
 
Senior Member
Senior  Member
Avatar

Joined: 29 June 2012
Location: United Kingdom
Online Status: Offline
Posts: 1150
Quote Abu Loren Replybullet Posted: 11 November 2012 at 2:23am
Originally posted by Salaam_Erin

I want to ask you an honest question.  According to Islamic teaching, iof you are to be consistent, saying that Allah put someone else on the Cross, I still maintain that this violates the principle Islam lays down against someone dying in another person's place, and also it means that everyone for 600 years was fooled into thinking Jesus died then rose again.  As a result a false religion was formed.  One, why would Allah take an action which would be the basis of a false religion?  (You and I both know Allah would never do such a thing.)  Two, why did Allah wait a full 600 years to correct this error?  Isn't it more likely Jesus really died on the Cross and that this was God the Father's plan for our atonement if we repented?

Another person was substituted for Jesus (pbuh) and crucified not to atone for anybody's sin, Allah Subhana Wa Ta'ala do not give a reason for why He did this. Does God Almighty need to give us human beings a reason? I don't think so. You fail to understand that it was men who changed the gospels and made Jesus (pbuh) into a deity, a partner alongside God Almighty. As for the length of time it took to correct this, God only knows. You can question Him but I will not.
 

Let's put it this way.  The Qur'an teaches that Jesus confirmed the Torah.  The Bible agrees.  But Jesus had no access to the original Torah either.  Why did Jesus fully expect the Pharisees to know their Scriptures?  Because, quite simply, Jesus, the Pharisees, and your own Qur'an, and indeed the Bible itself, regards the Bible as being fully preserved in the 1st century.  Without needing an autograph manuscript!  You haven't been trained in textual criticism.  Use your logic here.  If the two extremes of the textual spectrum, the Textus Receptus for the AKJV New Testament and the 27th Edition of the Nestle-Aland combined with the 4th Edition of the UBS agree on all doctrine, and you can read out John 1 and know it teaches the same thing, then it is obvious to anyone that John 1 is an original chapter.  And another thing.  I scratch my head in amazement when Muslims use John 14-16 to prove that Jesus prophesied Muhammad, and yet still think it is a forgery! 


 
Jesus (pbuh) confirming the Toran doesn't mean that he said that everything was intact as originally given to Prophet Moses (pbuh). It means that Allah Subhana Wa Ta'ala gave a book to Moses (pbuh) so that book is from God.
What you have in the Bible is copies of copies of copies....... We can't be sure what is real and what is false. Simple.
 

The Law hasn't been done away with.  It has been fulfilled and superceded and absorbed within the New Covenant.  The Ten Commandments are as much part of the New Covenant as in the Old.  The sacrificial rituals are abolished, yes, but only because Jesus' sacrifice was the final one, which is eternal and so in fact, the Old Covenant and sacrifices have a permanent effect whereas the previous sacrifices were temporary and had to be repeated over and over again.  This is not the same as abrogation.  Also, the Torah's curse is abolished for those who are saved.  Alas, for those who are not saved and have not repented, the curse of the Torah is still in effect.  Also, the word Torah doesn't just mean Law.  It also means Teaching and Instruction.  And that aspect of it still co-exists along with the New Covenant side by side and explains the New.  That's why a Christian minister called John Newton once wrote, "Twas Grace that taught my heart to fear, and Grace my fears relieved."  The Torah teaches us to fear God.  The Injeel relieves that fear as we repent having been exposed as sinners by the Torah's curse.  The Torah is stillour teacher and disciplinarian.  Also, bear in mind that in the light of the Holy Spirit's decree through Jesus' own brother James, in Acts 15, that the Gentiles are NOT to be included in the Old Covenant but only in the New, as the Old Covenant was for the Jews.  Paul was one of the men appointed by James as the enforcer of this decree, and that is why I quote to you that Paul taught that Jews remain circumcised and Gentiles remain uncircumcised.  Circumcision is not a sign of the New Covenant. Also, the Abrahamic Covenant still stands, as does the Davidic Covenant.  But they too are fulfilled and absorbed into the New Covenant, but not abolished. 

 
Exactly the arguement that Christians and Muslims have. You say Jesus (pbuh) fulfilled the Law and therefore all sin is on his shoulders whilst we say that each man must carry his sin to judgement day.

Neither Jesus nor Paul started a new religion.  The new church in Corinth was not separate from the rest of the Christian Church.  My point was, that this church which Paul had founded, had follow-up work done in support of Paul by Peter, Barnabas and Apollos.  You need to get FF Bruce's Greek commentary on Acts, and you will see that Paul's speech to the Governor Felix in Acts 24:10-21 that Paul says he is a follower of the God of our fathers as a follower of the Way, which they call a sect (the Greek is airesis, from where we get the word heresy, referring to the Roman term superstitio, an illegal sect which was an innovation rather than a legal proper ancient religio licitas like Judaism)- Paul's point is that Christianity IS Judaism proper, and mainstream Judaism, not a different religion.  The term The Way refers to the Hebrew terms Ha Derekh and Halakhah which are to do with true religion and Jewish teachings on the Torah.  Paul points out he believes in the Resurrection of the Dead.  As he said in Romans 3:31: "Do we, then, nullify the law by this faith?  Not at all!  Rather, we uphold the law."  What Paul explains is that the Torah is abolished as a legal code condemning us, and becomes a spiritual code written in our hearts upon repentance and conversion. 

 
You must be joking if you are saying that Judaism and Christianity are in any way linked. Oh you forgot the paganism aspect of Christianity when all sorts of pagan rituals were included in the Council of Nicea to appease the Romans.

Let's try again.  I'm giving you an example here of how even if Jesus is not God, He still has the right to broker on behalf of God the Father (who is the Patron) a New Covenant.  After all, Moses was only a man, just a prophet, and he was given the authority by God to broker the Sinai Covenant with YHWH as patron.  But since we believe Jesus is indeed both the Son of God (as in God the Father) and God incarnate (coming from God's inner self), He can even more so be a broker on behalf of the Father as His Hypostatic representative on Earth.  

 
Now I'm really confused, a Trinitarian saying Jesus (pbuh) is not god.
 

You would do well to look at Isaiah 53: "For he bore the sin of many, and made intercession for the transgressors."  

There is a clear prophecy by the Prophet Isaiah of the one who would die for the sins of many.  This is not an invention of Paul.  Isaiah was preaching this in the Jewish Temple in 700 BC.  We have manuscripts of Isaiah from 150 BC saying the same thing.  The prophecies of the death of YHWH's righteous servant well predates Jesus, Paul and even the Babylonian Exile. 

 
I've said so many times before Isaiah only becomes relevent if you associate Jesus (pbuh) with that propehcy.
 

Interesting, for there is a threefold aspect to God's nature right from the start.  God is creating, the Spirit is working, the Word of God is spoken, and the Word creates light to begin with. 

"In the beginning God created the heavens and the earth.  Now the earth was formless and empty, darkness was upon the face of the deep, and the Spirit of God was hovering over the waters.  And God said, "Let there be light," and there was light."  (Genesis 1:1-3)  Even the Hebrew word for this singular God is... plural.  El is singular.  Elohim is plural.  El means High or Exalted One. 

I'm surprised an intelligent man like you do not the royal 'WE'.

 



Edited by Abu Loren - 11 November 2012 at 2:26am
IP IP Logged
Placid
Male Christian
Senior Member
Senior Member


Joined: 01 November 2012
Online Status: Offline
Posts: 231
Quote Placid Replybullet Posted: 11 November 2012 at 5:15am
Hi Abu,

In answering the question about the ‘fulfilling of the Law,’ I want to mention again this verse in Matthew 11:13 “For all the prophets and the law prophesied until John.”
--- The Law was in effect until John the Baptist, and he was part of the transition from the Old Covenant to the New.
--- The New Covenant was the law of Love, which fulfilled and complimented the Ten Commandments, which continue to be the ‘moral code’ for all generations.

--- And here is the defining statement about the law in Matthew 22:
34 But when the Pharisees heard that He had silenced the Sadducees, they gathered together.
35 Then one of them, a lawyer, asked Him a question, testing Him, and saying,
36 “Teacher, which is the great commandment in the law?”
37 Jesus said to him, “‘You shall love the Lord your God with all your heart, with all your soul, and with all your mind.’
38 This is the first and great commandment.
39 And the second is like it: ‘You shall love your neighbor as yourself.’
40 On these two commandments hang all the Law and the Prophets.”

This relates back to what God said to the people, in Deuteronomy 6:
4 “Hear, O Israel: The Lord our God, the Lord is one!
5 You shall love the Lord your God with all your heart, with all your soul, and with all your strength.
6 “And these words which I command you today shall be in your heart.
7 You shall teach them diligently to your children, and shall talk of them when you sit in your house, when you walk by the way, when you lie down, and when you rise up.
8 You shall bind them as a sign on your hand, and they shall be as frontlets between your eyes.
9 You shall write them on the doorposts of your house and on your gates.

--- And the second commandment is found in Leviticus 19:
18 You shall not take vengeance, nor bear any grudge against the children of your people, but you shall love your neighbor as yourself: I am the Lord.


--- While you can argue or ignore these Scriptures, your argument is with God and His word, not with us. --- Jesus WAS the New Covenant to the Jews, and those who followed Him became Christians, (Christ’s ones).

This is the lesson that the Apostles had to learn, --- to be converted from ‘prejudiced Jews,’ to being ‘vessels of love,’ and witnesses of Jesus and the Gospel. --- This was the teaching of Peter, John, James, and Paul, because the New Law was in their hearts.    

(Thank you Salaam for your excellent explanation of the Scriptures, and responses to Abu’s statements.)


Placid

IP IP Logged
Abu Loren
 
Senior Member
Senior  Member
Avatar

Joined: 29 June 2012
Location: United Kingdom
Online Status: Offline
Posts: 1150
Quote Abu Loren Replybullet Posted: 12 November 2012 at 11:25am
Originally posted by Placid


--- And here is the defining statement about the law in Matthew 22:
34 But when the Pharisees heard that He had silenced the Sadducees, they gathered together.
35 Then one of them, a lawyer, asked Him a question, testing Him, and saying,
36 “Teacher, which is the great commandment in the law?”
37 Jesus said to him, “‘You shall love the Lord your God with all your heart, with all your soul, and with all your mind.’
38 This is the first and great commandment.
39 And the second is like it: ‘You shall love your neighbor as yourself.’
40 On these two commandments hang all the Law and the Prophets.”

This relates back to what God said to the people, in Deuteronomy 6:
4 “Hear, O Israel: The Lord our God, the Lord is one!
5 You shall love the Lord your God with all your heart, with all your soul, and with all your strength.
6 “And these words which I command you today shall be in your heart.
7 You shall teach them diligently to your children, and shall talk of them when you sit in your house, when you walk by the way, when you lie down, and when you rise up.
8 You shall bind them as a sign on your hand, and they shall be as frontlets between your eyes.
9 You shall write them on the doorposts of your house and on your gates.


 
To me all Matthew 22 is doing is that Jesus (pbuh) is re-enforcing what God Almighty has ordered the Children of Israel to do. In effect he is just repeating Deuteronomy 6. May be people read too much into it. I don't think Deuteronomy 6 was a prophecy. I know that Christianity hangs on tieing up the OT with the invented New Covenent of Jesus (pbuh). The OT was just a guidance for the Children of Israel which the Christians have hijacked and made into a prophecy of Jesus (pbuh). You have to read the OT for what it is. This is exactly what Paul did when he attributed many of the OT verses to Jesus (pbuh).
 
Anyway, we can't trust the NT because we don't know what is original and what is invented. For example, mdern scholars are finding discrepancies in the copies that are in existance. When they compare the oldest and the newest copies they don't always add up.
IP IP Logged
Salaam_Erin
Male Christian
Groupie
Groupie
Avatar

Joined: 30 October 2012
Location: United Kingdom
Online Status: Offline
Posts: 41
Quote Salaam_Erin Replybullet Posted: 15 November 2012 at 5:00am
Hello again Abu. 

OK, to go through with what you have said to me. 

Another person was substituted for Jesus (pbuh) and crucified not to atone for anybody's sin, Allah Subhana Wa Ta'ala do not give a reason for why He did this. Does God Almighty need to give us human beings a reason? I don't think so. You fail to understand that it was men who changed the gospels and made Jesus (pbuh) into a deity, a partner alongside God Almighty. As for the length of time it took to correct this, God only knows. You can question Him but I will not.

You are missing the point.  If it is wrong for someone to die in another's place, whether it was atonement or not, then it is all the more wrong for someone else to have died in Jesus' place.  Also, you must see that if this is what happened then Allah was responsible for a false religion which He never corrected for 600 years.  Why didn't Jesus correct this notion on the spot before ascending to Heaven?  The reason is simple.  Jesus really did die on the Cross.  The Romans in their writings say so, the Jews say so, the Christians say so.  The Gnostics were the first to deny it in the next century or so because they believed that Jesus wasn't human but a phantom, as only spirit is good and matter is evil in their thinking.  Then the Muslims, misunderstanding what the Gnostics were saying used this to defend the Qur'an's teaching that Jesus did not die.  Let's be clear about this.  You have no evidence whatsoever that men changed the Gospels to say this.  By contrast, I have tons of evidence on my side and the critical apparati in my Greek New Testaments and textual commentaries to track down every reading known in the manuscripts, so I know that the Gospels have always been unanimous on Jesus dying on the Cross.  Source-criticial studies show the proclamation of Jesus' death and Resurrection as coming from AD 33 itself- the very year it happened. 

We do not believe Jesus is a partner alongside God Almighty.  He comes from inside the Father, making Him God Almighty.  God indeed has no partners.  He is, though, what we call Hypostatic.  I've already explained how God's powers of Hypostasis works. 

Jesus (pbuh) confirming the Toran doesn't mean that he said that everything was intact as originally given to Prophet Moses (pbuh). It means that Allah Subhana Wa Ta'ala gave a book to Moses (pbuh) so that book is from God.
What you have in the Bible is copies of copies of copies....... We can't be sure what is real and what is false. Simple.

If the Torah wasn't intact as given to Moses then Jesus wasn't a true prophet.  What did Jesus say?  Not one yod or tau would be removed from the Torah.  Jesus is absolutely clear that the Torah is what God revealed to Moses.  He's pretty dogmatic on this issue.  Little hint: You only have copies of copies of copies of the Qur'an too.  We can be sure of what is true or false.  That's a hyper-scepticism even Atheist textual critics would snigger at.  I've already showed you in a previous post to do with Luke 22:20 how textual criticism works.  Also, given that the evidence is unanimous in relation to for example John 1:1, then it should be obvious to everyone but the most obstinate conspiracy theorist that this is what John wrote. 

I would contend that you are going against the Qur'an in claiming that the Torah is not the book of Moses, and that the Bible is not the Taurat, the Zabur and the Injeel.  The Qur'an is unequivocally clear that we are the People of the Book, and have in our hands those Scriptures, the Qur'an is clear that the Bible was intact with the authentic Taurat, Zabur and Injeel in Muhammad's day and it is clear that God through Muhammad commanded Muslims to consult us on the Taurat, the Zabur and the Injeel.  And what passed for the Taurat, the Zabur and the Injeel but the Bible in the 7th century?  There isn't anything else. 

Exactly the arguement that Christians and Muslims have. You say Jesus (pbuh) fulfilled the Law and therefore all sin is on his shoulders whilst we say that each man must carry his sin to judgement day.

Incorrect.  We DO carry our own sins, but only if we repent does God the Father count Jesus as having died for us.  If not, and we don't acknowledge Jesus as Lord, then the Father will not count Jesus as having died for us and we remain in our sins.  And God doesn't weigh the good agaisnt the bad- if He sees any bad at all even if our good exceeds that bad 1000 times He will refuse to allow us into Heaven, because God's holy standards are of perfection.  In the Bible God has a more severe view of sin even than that of Allah as depicted in the Qur'an.

You must be joking if you are saying that Judaism and Christianity are in any way linked. Oh you forgot the paganism aspect of Christianity when all sorts of pagan rituals were included in the Council of Nicea to appease the Romans.

Well that is complete fiction in relation to Nicaea.  I've studied the accounts of Nicaea and there were no pagan rituals, and certainly nothing to appease Rome.  Christianity IS Judaism- Biblical Judaism of the New Covenant.  Here is what one of the early Christians wrote about pagans:

"The wrath of God is being revealed from heaven against all the godlessness and wickedness of men who supporess the truth by their wickedness, since what may be known about God is plain to them, because God has made it plain to them.  For since the creation of the world God's invisible qualities- his eternal power and divine nature- have been clearly seen, being understood from what has been made, so that men are without excuse.  For although they knew God, they neither glorified him as God nor gave thanks to him, but their foolish thinking became futile and their foolish hearts were darkened.  Although they claimed to be wise, they became fools and exchanged the glory of the immortal God for images made to look like mortal man and birds and animals and reptiles.  Therefore God has given them over in the sinful desrires of their hearts to sexual immorality for the degrading of their bodies with one another.  They exchanged the truth of God for a lie, and worshipped and served created things rather than the Creator- who is for ever praised, Amen."   

The same writer wrote, two years earlier, "We know that an idols is nothing at all in the world and that there is no God but one.  For even if there are so-called gods, whether in heaven or in earth (as indeed there are many '"gods" and many "lords"), yet for us there is but one God, the Father, from whom all things came and for whom we live; and there is but one Lord, Jesus Christ, through whom all things came and through whom we live." 

When talking to pagan yokels who foolishly tried to worship him, this same Christian tore his clothes in grief and said, "Men, why are you doing this? We too are only men, human like you.  We are bringing you good news, telling you to turn from these worthless things to the living God, who made heavena nd earth and sea and everything in them."  This same Christian went on a trip to Athens in AD 50, and it says, "He was greatly distressed to see that the city was full of idols.  So he reasoned in the synagogue with the Jews and the God-fearing Greeks, as well as in the market-place day by day with those who happened to be there.  A group of Epicurean and Stoic began to dispute with him.  Some of them asked, "What is this babbler trying to say?"  

The Christian's name?  The Apostle Paul. 

(See Romans 1, 1 Corinthians 8, and Acts 14 and 17.)

Revelation, also has Jesus refer to Pergamum as the Seat of Satan.  The eason for this was because of all the altars there, including a big one to Zeus and a massive one for the Roman Emperor. 

Ask yourself a question: If Christianity so compromised with paganism, why did the Romans persecute Christians and feed them to the Lions and call them Atheists?  Why did Nero behead Paul and crucifiy Peter upside down?  Why did the Emperor Diocletian burn so many Bibles?  Why did the philosopher Celsus and the satirist Lucian of Samosata attack Christianity in their writings?

Lucian wrote: " the man who was crucified in Palestine because he introduced this new cult into the world.... Furthermore, their first lawgiver persuaded them that they were all brothers one of another after they have transgressed once for all by denying the Greek gods and by worshipping that crucified sophist himself and living under his laws."  And notice he says Jesus was crucified.  This is a BIG reason why pagans had terrible trouble accepting Christianity. 

One: Jesus was crucified, and everyone knew it.  Two, Christians taught that Jesus is God and that Jesus Himself taught this- this is according to a pagan opponent of Christianity.  Three- Jesus and His followers denied the Greek gods- as Paul clearly did in 1 Corinthians 8. 

Now I'm really confused, a Trinitarian saying Jesus (pbuh) is not god.

Yes, you are confused, sorry.  You argued that since Jesus is not God according to Islam, then Jesus could not have implemented a New Covenant.  I simply pointed out that if Jesus isn't God, this still does not disqualify Him from implementing a New Covenant as whether He is God or not, He still as a Broker executes God the Father's will regarding a New Covenant, God being the Patron.  Moses was the Broker of the Sinai Covenant on behalf of God who was the Patron.  I was simply pointing out the flaw in your argument.

I've said so many times before Isaiah only becomes relevent if you associate Jesus (pbuh) with that propehcy

Even if Jesus is not the fulfilment of that prophecy, the prophecy still destroys your claim that nobody can die for the sins of another.  Atonement is taught throughout the Bible and is a central part of the Torah.  A whole book in the Torah is devoted to this, and indeed there is a day in the Jewish calendar called Yom Kippur, the Day of Atonement.  I recommend you read Leviticus 16 then read the Book of Hebrews in the New Testament. 

I'm surprised an intelligent man like you do not the royal 'WE'.


And where do you think the Royal We came from and why?  ;o) 

In God's case the Royal We is to do with God being Multiple in Majesty, and also Multiple in consciousness, as in being Hypostatic.  That's the whole point of the Trinity doctrine- how does a single, solitary God exist as Father, Son and Holy Spirit? Because He is hypostatic- He can project Himself and have a Wisdom so powerful that His Wisdom and Living Principle of Authority are personified and extend eternally from the Core of His Being.  Which is exactly what a single but infinite and omnipresent, omniscient God can do.  Wisdom is able to speak to King Solomon and present Himself as God's craftsman by His side and also as Lady Wisdom giving her advice to men.  Then Jesus comes and proclaims Himself to be that Wisdom.  When Queen Victoria or Henry VIII earlier used the Royal We, they were referring to themselves as private people, and as monarchs, and as one monarch in the position of so many predecessors before them.  So God speaks solely of Himself, as He is the only Creator, as Elohim He is multiple in Majesty, and as a Hypostatic Entity, this single, solitary God is multiple in His infinite mind and consciousness, having an infinitely powerful Wisdom which thinks and speaks for itself.  God's inner Being can therefore interact lovingly with it, which is why God can address himself as Father and Son.  (But that is merely symbolic language for something beyond our understanding.)

I'm surprised an intelligent man like you do not the royal 'WE'.








 
IP IP Logged
Placid
Male Christian
Senior Member
Senior Member


Joined: 01 November 2012
Online Status: Offline
Posts: 231
Quote Placid Replybullet Posted: 15 November 2012 at 7:22am
Hi Abu,

You are right that Jesus was repeating the commandment of God to ‘Love God with all their heart, soul and mind,’ --- because the legalistic Jews ignored that as a commandment, --- which Jesus restated as the first Law of the New Covenant.

Jesus fulfilled the OT law with the New commandments to Love God first, then to love your neighbor as yourself. --- Also, the personal commandment to the disciples, ‘to love one another,’ because Jesus said in John 13:
35 “By this all will know that you are My disciples, if you have love for one another.”


So your question is answered, that Paul did not change the OT laws.

In fact, the new instructions for the Gentiles came from the meeting of the Jerusalem Church where James was the Leader or Pastor. --- James, Peter, and other Apostles, along with the elders, agreed to send the following letter, along with representatives from the Church in Jerusalem, to the Church in Antioch, Syria, in Acts 15:

1 And certain men came down from Judea and taught the brethren, “Unless you are circumcised according to the custom of Moses, you cannot be saved.”
--- (This is what prompted a full meeting to settle this matter, because the Gentiles were never required to keep the Jewish laws, except the Ten Commandments which are the moral code for all generations.)

This is the letter to the Church in Antioch:

The Jerusalem Decree --- (As it is called).
22 Then it pleased the apostles and elders, with the whole Church, to send chosen men of their own company to Antioch with Paul and Barnabas, namely, Judas who was also named Barsabas, and Silas, leading men among the brethren.
23 They wrote this letter by them:
The apostles, the elders, and the brethren,
To the brethren who are of the Gentiles in Antioch, Syria, and Cilicia:
Greetings.

24 Since we have heard that some who went out from us have troubled you with words, unsettling your souls, saying, “You must be circumcised and keep the law,” —to whom we gave no such commandment—
25 it seemed good to us, being assembled with one accord, to send chosen men to you with our beloved Barnabas and Paul,
26 men who have risked their lives for the name of our Lord Jesus Christ.
27 We have therefore sent Judas and Silas, who will also report the same things by word of mouth.
28 For it seemed good to the Holy Spirit, and to us, to lay upon you no greater burden than these necessary things:
29 that you abstain from things offered to idols, from blood, from things strangled, and from sexual immorality. If you keep yourselves from these, you will do well.
Farewell.

--- And this was the 'Continuing Ministry in Syria.'
30 So when they were sent off, they came to Antioch; and when they had gathered the multitude together, they delivered the letter.
31 When they had read it, they rejoiced over its encouragement.
32 Now Judas and Silas, themselves being prophets also, exhorted and strengthened the brethren with many words.
33 And after they had stayed there for a time, they were sent back with greetings from the brethren to the apostles.
34 However, it seemed good to Silas to remain there.
35 Paul and Barnabas also remained in Antioch, teaching and preaching the word of the Lord, with many others also.


Placid



IP IP Logged
Abu Loren
 
Senior Member
Senior  Member
Avatar

Joined: 29 June 2012
Location: United Kingdom
Online Status: Offline
Posts: 1150
Quote Abu Loren Replybullet Posted: 16 November 2012 at 2:22am
Originally posted by Salaam_Erin

Hello again Abu. 

OK, to go through with what you have said to me. 

You are missing the point.  If it is wrong for someone to die in another's place, whether it was atonement or not, then it is all the more wrong for someone else to have died in Jesus' place. 



I would contend that you are going against the Qur'an in claiming that the Torah is not the book of Moses, and that the Bible is not the Taurat, the Zabur and the Injeel.  The Qur'an is unequivocally clear that we are the People of the Book, and have in our hands those Scriptures, the Qur'an is clear that the Bible was intact with the authentic Taurat, Zabur and Injeel in Muhammad's day and it is clear that God through Muhammad commanded Muslims to consult us on the Taurat, the Zabur and the Injeel.  And what passed for the Taurat, the Zabur and the Injeel but the Bible in the 7th century?  There isn't anything else. 
 
The torah is the book of Moses (pbuh) as confirmed by the Holy Qur'an. Jesus (pbuh) only used what was authentic text as he knew what was real and what was forged.

Ask yourself a question: If Christianity so compromised with paganism, why did the Romans persecute Christians and feed them to the Lions and call them Atheists?  Why did Nero behead Paul and crucifiy Peter upside down?  Why did the Emperor Diocletian burn so many Bibles?  Why did the philosopher Celsus and the satirist Lucian of Samosata attack Christianity in their writings?
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 

 
 
The Romans persecuted the Christians up until the two religions merged.

 


Edited by Abu Loren - 16 November 2012 at 10:41am
IP IP Logged
Abu Loren
 
Senior Member
Senior  Member
Avatar

Joined: 29 June 2012
Location: United Kingdom
Online Status: Offline
Posts: 1150
Quote Abu Loren Replybullet Posted: 16 November 2012 at 11:04am
Originally posted by Placid

Hi Abu,

You are right that Jesus was repeating the commandment of God to ‘Love God with all their heart, soul and mind,’ --- because the legalistic Jews ignored that as a commandment, --- which Jesus restated as the first Law of the New Covenant.

Jesus fulfilled the OT law with the New commandments to Love God first, then to love your neighbor as yourself. --- Also, the personal commandment to the disciples, ‘to love one another,’ because Jesus said in John 13:
35 “By this all will know that you are My disciples, if you have love for one another.”
All I can see is Jesus (pbuh) re-establishing the Law of Moses (pbuh) so I don't know why people jump straight to the conclusion that Jesus (pbuh) fuliflled the Law. Jesus (pbuh) telling his disciples to love one another is nothing miraculous. It's just a command to stay together and focus on the common goal, it was nothing more than a pep talk because he also said that "Where I go you cannot follow".
I've said it before, the Gospel of John is different because it goes for the jugular and from the beginning tries to make Jesus (pbuh) into a devine being. The follwoing verses also stand out from John 13, it doesn't fit.

13:1 Now before the feast of the passover, when Jesus knew that his hour was come that he should depart out of this world unto the Father, having loved his own which were in the world, he loved them unto the end.

13:3 Jesus knowing that the Father had given all things into his hands, and that he was come from God, and went to God;

13:13 Ye call me Master and Lord: and ye say well; for so I am.

13:31 Therefore, when he was gone out, Jesus said, Now is the Son of man glorified, and God is glorified in him.

13:32 If God be glorified in him, God shall also glorify him in himself, and shall straightway glorify him.

 

So your question is answered, that Paul did not change the OT laws.
 
Nope.



--- And this was the 'Continuing Ministry in Syria.'
30 So when they were sent off, they came to Antioch; and when they had gathered the multitude together, they delivered the letter.
31 When they had read it, they rejoiced over its encouragement.
32 Now Judas and Silas, themselves being prophets also, exhorted and strengthened the brethren with many words.
33 And after they had stayed there for a time, they were sent back with greetings from the brethren to the apostles.
34 However, it seemed good to Silas to remain there.
35 Paul and Barnabas also remained in Antioch, teaching and preaching the word of the Lord, with many others also.


Placid



 
Key points highlighted in bold. Judas and Silas were prophets?
IP IP Logged
<< Prev Page  of 13 Next >>
Post Reply Post New Topic
Printable version Printable version

Forum Jump
You cannot post new topics in this forum
You cannot reply to topics in this forum
You cannot delete your posts in this forum
You cannot edit your posts in this forum
You cannot create polls in this forum
You cannot vote in polls in this forum

Disclaimer:
The opinions expressed herein contain positions and viewpoints that are not necessarily those of IslamiCity. This forum is offered to stimulate dialogue and discussion in our continuing mission of being an educational organization.
If there is any issue with any of the postings please email to icforum at islamicity.com or if you are a forum's member you can use the report button.

Note: The 99 names of Allah avatars are courtesy of www.arthafez.com

Advertisement:



Sponsored by:
Islamicity Membership Program:
IslamiCity Donation Program  http://www.islamicity.com/Donate
IslamiCity Arabic eLearning http://www.islamiCity.com/ArabAcademy
Complete Domain & Hosting Solutions www.icDomain.com
Home for Muslim Tunes www.icTunes.com
Islamic Video Collections www.islamiTV.com
IslamiCity Marriage Site www.icMarriage.com