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: Is Islam true?(Topic Closed Topic Closed) Post Reply Post New Topic
<< Prev Page  of 50 Next >>
Author Message
AhmadJoyia
 
Senior Member
Senior Member


Joined: 20 March 2005
Location: Pakistan
Online Status: Offline
Posts: 1161
bullet Posted: 23 February 2006 at 2:32pm

O my dear brother Melco, thanks for your reply, though, as usual, partial response to my questions.

Originally posted by Melco

Ahmed, I am sorry if my words fail in relation to God, but God's inner nature is beyond the capacity of the human mind. I do not intend to challenge the biblical scholars, certainly having studied this more than me, they are closer to the truth.

 In our discussions, after your points No. 1 & 2, now is the turn for your points No. 3 & 4 to go out of the window, where you agree with the remarks of your own Biblical scholars. Continuing with the same pace, shortly all others would follow the course.

Originally posted by Melco

(By the way, the Old Testament, not the NT took about 1000 years to be put together.)
1000 years of OT is yet understandable given the span of time in which different Prophets brought in the messages. Though, I can very well discuss the authenticity of this book as well, but for the time being we are talking about NT. For this, you would automatically realize the number of centuries it took to finalize the canonization process of NT with deliberate human efforts, to pick and choose which book should or should not be included into it. Is this all fair and square to you, my dear brother?


Originally posted by Melco

Ahmed, let me very clear, Christians believe that God is One. You think because we speak of trinity, that we believe of three gods, that isn't the case. We are very particular that these persons comprise one Being. Not everything is comprehensible.
My dear brother, I knew it, but how can it be reflected in our human understanding, is the question my Christian brothers always mesmerize.

Originally posted by Melco

I  love  reading about physics, but it would be sillly of me to then assert that because I don't understand how quantum leaps happen, they can't happen.
Your argument is too naïve to even comment upon, though I am sorry to say this.

Originally posted by Melco

Muhammad pedaled as a master trader/salesman would  a great story for the gulable,……….
You missed it, he was a shepherd as well. But how is this un-imaginable? I may have to doubt upon your rationalization, if not baised?

Originally posted by Melco

………. but his idea of Judaism and Christianity is so far from the historic truth, that I find hard to believe that there are a billion people that believe it.
Not to comment upon Judaism, at least from the dubious authenticity of 4 gospels, the NT can hardly be considered as “historic truth”. Do you want to re-read the work of your own Biblical scholars or just keeping it as part of your blind faith like the “Trinity”?

Originally posted by Melco

… (Obviously, I realise many are coerced to remain a muslim, eg in Egypt).

Quran, very categorically, pronounce there is no compulsion in faith. Your example from the practices of some is non-comparetive.

Originally posted by Melco

The Qu'ran while it borrows from stories Muhammad heard, shows a distorted idea of these religions. 
Not the Islam, but the Pauline Christianity is deviant from the true Abrahamic religion of Oneness of God. Quran’s whole emphasis is on this single concept. All other matters are secondary to discuss. Do you have any logical argument to talk about this??

I do see some new remarks by bro Melco. I shall respond to them in the next setting, God's Willing.



Edited by AhmadJoyia
IP IP Logged
fredifreeloader
 
Guest Group
Guest Group
Avatar

Joined: 17 February 2006
Location: United Kingdom
Online Status: Offline
Posts: 456
bullet Posted: 23 February 2006 at 3:18pm

one clear indication of the untruthfulness of islam is the utter nonsense muhammad talks about the holy faith of Christ

eg. in the quran 5: 72  we are accused of "joining other gods with God", which is false. 

 5: 73 informs us "they do blaspheme who say allah is one of three..."  one of three what?  what on earth does this phrase "one of three" mean?  christians certainly dont believe God is one of three. 

muhammad further compounds his confusion in this matter in 5: 116  where we learn that (according to him) the holy trinity consists of 1. - allah    2. - isa     3. - maryum.  (all 3 of them being seperate gods!!!!)

even if there were not a word of truth in christianity or in the notion of the holy trinity, the above verses are enough to disprove islam 



Edited by fredifreeloader
IP IP Logged
Servetus
Male Christian
Senior Member
Senior  Member


Joined: 04 April 2001
Location: United States
Online Status: Offline
Posts: 2109
bullet Posted: 23 February 2006 at 5:23pm

(Fredifreeloader:)  "… 5: 73 informs us "they do blaspheme who say allah is one of three..."  one of three what?  what on earth does this phrase "one of three" mean?  christians certainly dont believe God is one of three." 

In answer to your question, I think this phrase, "one of three," might mean “one [distinct] of three [persons]” in a single Godhead.  A quote (source linked below): “The Trinity is the term employed to signify the central doctrine of the Christian religion -- the truth that in the unity of the Godhead there are Three truly distinct Persons: the Father, the Son, and the Holy Spirit.” That is in answer to your question.  Your statement which follows the question I do not dispute.   

“… in 5: 116  … we learn that … the holy trinity consists of 1. - allah    2. - isa     3. – maryum .  …”

As I recall, by the time of Muhammad’s emergence, the monophysite controversy had raged throughout Christendom and those Christians especially from the East (Syria), the Nestorians (note the proximity to Arabia), were disinclined to readily accept, for Mary, the title theotokos, or “Mother of God,” lest in that process, or title, she be deified.  If it need be pointed out, many Protestants to this day accuse Roman Catholics of ‘Mariolatry” for their (Catholic’s) daily prayers, or ave's, which are addressed to the mother of Jesus (as "Mother of God").  For all we know, there might have been early Christian sects that found their way to Arabia and that included Mary in their trinitarian (doctrinal) formulations.   Perhaps this verse is addressed to them.  Origen (first century), in Contra Celsus as I recall, and this should at some point be checked, refers to the doctrine held by some in his time that Mary was equated with the Holy Spirit (feminine principle) and thus, if obliquely, with "one of three" distinct persons in the Godhead.  And so on.         

.“… even if there were not a word of truth in christianity or in the notion of the holy trinity, the above verses are enough to disprove islam”

To my mind, the case is not yet and so easily dismissed.  But please do carry on.

Servetus

Ref: www.newadvent.org/cathen/15047a.htm



Edited by Servetus
IP IP Logged
Melco
 
Guest Group
Guest Group


Joined: 20 February 2006
Online Status: Offline
Posts: 107
bullet Posted: 24 February 2006 at 11:29am
Ahmed, far from convincing me that Islam is true, you are confirming what I suspected all along that Islam doesn't allow for genuine candour. I have always acknowledged where I got points wrong, probably stated it several times if you look back. But you never admit an error. Why is that?

1) The "Prophet" contradicts many of the teachings of earlier prophets, eg Jesus teaches that marriage was comprised of one man and one woman. He was correcting various false notions of marriage, eg polygamy, etc. Muhammad's teaching is not the same as that, it is a regression. Jesus says it's black, Muhammad says it's white, and they are both prophets. That is a logical contradiction.


God cannot change his mind - this is one of the attributes of God, God cannot change. Muhammad claimed that God changed his mind on which direction to pray to three times (Kabaa, Jerusalem, then the Kabaa again). It would have been reasonable if Muhammad said, let's pray this way now, because the Jews reject this teaching, but he claimed that God now wanted them to do it. Surely, God would know in advance, and why would He go through the motions, only to solemnly say "Change of plan, you should pray towards the Kabaa again!"

Point 1 remains firm

2) It seems to focus on a God who is "all merciful", but it's followers are often unmerciful, eg Muhammad led a massacre in retaliation. Surely, Jesus teaching of turning the other cheek is more advanced, therefore, Muhammad is making a regressive change to an earlier prophet's teachings.

Who was it that said in this forum, (to paraphrase) "ah well, Muhammad only looked on at the execution of the 600 or so men, he didn't make the decision"? That's not good enough! Muhammad didn't practice what he preached. He was only conciliatory early in the Qu'ran when he was weak, as soon as he gained the power he so ferverantly craved all mercy went out the window.
 Point 2 remains firm

3) I don't buy the line that Jesus' true teaching was lost and the Gospel is completely in error. The Gospel was produced out of an oral tradition of many witnesses, while the Qu'ran is dependent entirely on the religious experience of one man.

Which is more likely to be a true representation of the teachings, practice and beliefs of christians from the beginning, the gospels (a written down account of the circulating oral tradition) and some of the apostles own letters with all the writings of the disciples' disciples (eg Polycarp was a disciple of John, Irenaeus of Polycarp) and the Church fathers' writings, all the vast archaelogical record of buildings, artefacts , etc., the 100s of historical references of what the Christians of that time believed, or the singular "epileptic-like" diatribe of a trader in a cave in Arabia? The simplest explanation is that this vast record far outweighs the  fallable words of one power-loving uneducated man. (I have no problem with him being undeucated, but the Qu'ran displays a failure of education)

 Point 3 remains firmer now. I would sooner believe what thousands saw and heard, than what one simply claimed to hear. They did (thousands saw and heard) because the Jews recorded a reference to Jesus in their Talmud, which is a sign that he did exist.

4) I have had many (what I consider) genuine religious experiences, which confirmed for me the truth of the Catholic faith. These contradict Muhammad's claims.

Point 4 remains too, because God has confirmed that the Catholic Faith is true by what he has revealed to me. God assuming humanity and bestowing on it its true dignity is not impossible for God. Muhammad's logic seems to be that somethings are impossible for God, while Christians believe that "nothing is impossible for God" (what the Angel Gabriel said to Mary).



Edited by Melco
IP IP Logged
fredifreeloader
 
Guest Group
Guest Group
Avatar

Joined: 17 February 2006
Location: United Kingdom
Online Status: Offline
Posts: 456
bullet Posted: 24 February 2006 at 1:19pm

servetus - i do not know arabic, but your statement that '"one of three" might mean "one [distinct] of three [persons] in a single Godhead" seems to have passed the translators by:

khalifa: pagans indeed are those who say that God is a third of a trinity

shakir: certainly they disbelieve who say: allah is the third (person) of three

yusuf ali: they do blaspheme who say: surely God is one of three in a trinity

sher ali: they surely disbelieve who say: surely allah is the third (person) of the three

pickthal: they surely disbelieve who say: lo! allah is the third of three

BUT progressive muslims: rejecters indeed are those who have said: "God is a trinity"  ----- this however is nullified by the next sentence ---"there is no god but one god", thus they have not understood that "trinity" is one God

going by 5: 116, it also seems to have passed muhammad by, as the talk there is clearly of 3 gods, not 3 persons in the Godhead

now i have heard of origen, but did not know of his reference to those who "equated mary with the holy spirit"  what did he have to say about them?  their elevation of mary into holy ghosthood runs into a brick wall in luke 1: 35  -- "..the Holy Ghost shall come upon thee...."  -----now allah the all-knowing and all-wise would certainly, by definition, have known this verse, or at least that it would become "corrupted" into its present form, but perhaps gabriel got it all wrong in the transmission, or perhaps muhammad just hadnt a clue what he was talking about

 

IP IP Logged
AhmadJoyia
 
Senior Member
Senior Member


Joined: 20 March 2005
Location: Pakistan
Online Status: Offline
Posts: 1161
bullet Posted: 24 February 2006 at 2:41pm

In the name of God most Gracious most merciful, the God to whom Jesus also used to pray, I begin:

Originally posted by Melco

In the name of the Father, and of the Son and the Holy Spirit…
Private revelations are not required for salvation. Public revelation is intended to express everything about God and everything necessary for our salvation. You are latching onto words, but private here, means that it isn't necessary to believe in or know about private revelations in order to achieve salvation - they are nice to knows, not need to knows, though they may assist in giving an indication of God's Will for a particular time and place.
I guess you didn’t pick my point. I have no interest in your visions and therefore, no comments upon as what you have seen or what not. I am only alluding to such practices, where ordinary people can easily be mislead when only blind faith is forwarded as a tool for convincing the others about its happening. Though, initially seemingly innocent looking “private” experiences, then later on, suddenly convert from private to public revelation just merely through one’s own choice of appropriate time. How much truth it has, no one dares to ask, then.
Originally posted by Melco


The notion of Trinity can be found obliquely even in the Old Testament, eg Genesis 1
26 Then God said, "Let us make man in our image, in our likeness

Genesis 18
 1 The LORD appeared to Abraham near the great trees of Mamre while he was sitting at the entrance to his tent in the heat of the day. 2 Abraham looked up and saw three men standing nearby. When he saw them, he hurried from the entrance of his tent to meet them and bowed low to the ground.  3 He said, "If I have found favor in your eyes, my lord, [a] do not pass your servant by.

(Notice he speaks to the three and says "my lord")

In a sense the trinity is hidden from sight in the old testament.

 

O my dear brother, it is highly inappropriate for some learned person like you to pick on words used as “figure of speech” to show any relevance to your assertion of Trinity in OT. Use of “us” or “our” is just a way as conversation used to take place at that time. Even now, in royal kingdom, the royal decree is always addressed in plurality, even though it is from just a “singular” king. Such translational difficulties in the absence of originals, is another dimension of falsehood in which people are easily seen being mislead.

Coming to your second evidence from Genesis 18, it is inappropriate and hence false, both logically as well as rationally to assume that, three human figurative characters are addressed as “One God” in this narration. The evidence to this correct understanding has both internal as well external sources. Internally, if we keep reading this narration in Genesis 18, we shall find:
 Abraham Pleads for Sodom

 16 When the men got up to leave, they looked down toward Sodom, and Abraham walked along with them to see them on their way. 17 Then the LORD said, "Shall I hide from Abraham what I am about to do?

Thus it becomes immediately clear, that these three men were not the “LORD”. Hence nothing to do with Trinity, unless someone is merely looking at the word “three” anywhere in narration to point out Trinity in it. Its simply like cutting the cloth to fit the person.

Now for external evidence, we have Quran that also narrate the same incident but with clear identity of these three characters as actually the “angels” sent by the God in human form. So your theory of hidden Trinity in OT is in shallow water.

  

Originally posted by Melco


In Mark's Gospel (yes, one of the Gospels you claimed erroneously had no reference to Christ's divinity) , you find a public acknowledgement by God of who he was.

Brother, again, its not correct to attribute such claim onto me as I always provided you the written evidence of your own Biblical scholars. So, it’s in fact your words against them and I have nothing to do with it. However, now that you have involved me into it, I shall go ahead to synthesize your quotes from your provided references.

Originally posted by Melco


Mark1, 10,As Jesus was coming up out of the water, he saw heaven being torn open and the Spirit descending on him like a dove. 11And a voice came from heaven: "You are my Son, whom I love; with you I am well pleased."

(The Voice represents God the Father, Jesus is called the Son, the Spirit is the Holy Spirit)

 

  1. It must be remembered that OT is also full of such phrases as “sons of God”, but how and when it got capitalized in NT, is best known to those who invented it. Here are few examples: “Genesis 6:2
    the sons of God saw that the daughters of men were beautiful, and they married any of them they chose.
    Genesis 6:1-3 (in Context) Genesis 6 (Whole Chapter)
  2. Genesis 6:4
    The Nephilim were on the earth in those days—and also afterward—when the sons of God went to the daughters of men and had children by them. They were the heroes of old, men of renown.
    Genesis 6:3-5 (in Context) Genesis 6 (Whole Chapter)

Can anyone among the people before Jesus time, ever thought that this “sons” can be taken in a literal sense?

The same goes in his other example where he says 

Originally posted by Melco


Christ's Divinity in Mark's Gospel
Oh, how does Mark begin the Gospel?
1The beginning of the gospel about Jesus Christ, the Son of God.

And again
5When Jesus saw their faith, he said to the paralytic, "Son, your sins are forgiven."

 6Now some teachers of the law were sitting there, thinking to themselves, 7"Why does this fellow talk like that? He's blaspheming! Who can forgive sins but God alone?"

 8Immediately Jesus knew in his spirit that this was what they were thinking in their hearts, and he said to them, "Why are you thinking these things? 9Which is easier: to say to the paralytic, 'Your sins are forgiven,' or to say, 'Get up, take your mat and walk'? 10But that you may know that the Son of Man has authority on earth to forgive sins . . . ." He said to the paralytic, 11"I tell you, get up, take your mat and go home." 12He got up, took his mat and walked out in full view of them all. This amazed everyone and they praised God, saying, "We have never seen anything like this!"

In this narration, the very issue has been aptly responded by Jesus and that is “10But that you may know that the Son of Man has authority on earth to forgive sins . . . .". Here we well recognize that Jesus is clearly distinguishing himself as one being on earth as son of man. Is there any moment when he addressed himself as son of God? Yet my Christian brothers are forcing to conclude him to be what he denounces to be by categorically saying he is “son of man” as a title for him. Secondly, all Prophets, have been given special powers by the God to use them during the transmission of the message of God. These are the famous miracle found commonly in OT as well as Quran. With that in mind, Jesus was only proclaiming of these powers vested in him by the God.

IP IP Logged
AhmadJoyia
 
Senior Member
Senior Member


Joined: 20 March 2005
Location: Pakistan
Online Status: Offline
Posts: 1161
bullet Posted: 24 February 2006 at 2:43pm

Originally posted by Melco

One more example, Mark 14

Again the high priest asked him, "Are you the Christ,[f] the Son of the Blessed One?"

 62"I am," said Jesus. "And you will see the Son of Man sitting at the right hand of the Mighty One and coming on the clouds of heaven."

 63The high priest tore his clothes. "Why do we need any more witnesses?" he asked. 64"You have heard the blasphemy. What do you think?"

The Blasphemy clearly was to claim to be God

Oh, really? But through which sentence? The question asked doesn’t show any such thing whose affirmative response can be taken as Blasphemy for claiming to be God. Let us see this question more closely and we find “Are you the Christ, the son of the Blessed One?”

First of all, the phrase is not “Son of God” but it is “Son of the Blessed One”. Hence it is not logical to equate God = Blessed One. In fact, a human, a creation of God, can only be titled as “Blessed One”, simply because only God can be the one provides Blessings and the one who receive this blessing, the human, is known as the Blessed One. God Himself can never be called as “Blessed One”, simply because He is above all such things; He is the source of all blessings. Isn’t it? So essentially, this phrase only hint at making Jesus to be that human savior, son of a human who was blessed by God, may safely be attribute to his mother Mary, that these Jewish people were waiting for a long time.

Secondly, it must be remembered from Jewish traditions, that they were already awaiting for the decent of a human savior, the Christ, who would rescue their nation from the slavery of the oppressors. It is ironical to say that the Jews were looking for some divine Godhead as their savior, if the meaning of “Blessed One” is as what you say. However, if they were really looking for divine savior, then why would they accuse Jesus of blasphemy?  Hence, the blasphemy was not because of his acceptance as a divine being, but towards their unexpected awe as what they had a pre-conceived notion that the savior would look like and behave in a certain way, where Jesus seemed to be totally opposite of their expectations. (I don’t want to go into the details of those expectations, but suffice is to know that none of them was of divine nature of savior). On the more, the state of Jews at that time was so pathetic, that Jesus was not the only one got such a treatment at their hands, but many before him also got killed through their hands. The famous example of John the Baptist is sufficient to prove this point. Was he not accused of Blasphemy and thus got treated badly in their hands and hence got killed through their provocation to the Romans?

Originally posted by Melco


What you have really is a far fetched claim by Islam, that Christ wasn't divine, but yet was a prophet. If God made him a prophet, then where is the true record of his prophesy if not in the gospels and letters of his followers? If they weren't a record, then God mustn't be able to tell the future (so isn't omniscient) or God is incompetent (so isn't omnipotent).
O my dear brother, all this what you say here are nothing but emotional, blind faith, based arguments. None of it is legitimate way of logical reasoning. Yes, I can understand the agony and the pain through which these questions are asked, but would that solve the riddle? I don’t think so.

Originally posted by Melco

But that is absurd, as God is All Powerful and All Knowing, therefore, if Jesus was a prophet, then the record in the Gospels must give his key teaching. (Why would God send Jesus as a prophet if no true record remained?).

Yap! That could be a logical question to ask, though the failure to satisfy someone from its possible answers, yet can not prove that Trinity concept is correct. In doing that, I can attempt to provide one of such possibilities. Before Islam, God sent different Prophets for the guidance of different nations and hence the mission of those prophets was limited to those nations. Once the message has been delivered, it was the duty of that nation to safe guard the message as long as they would remain on the earth. Their failure to protect the message can’t be seen as any deficiency in the God’s plan. The same thing can be applied to Prophet Jesus’ message. Now when Islam came, Prophet Mohammad was assigned a message, not a local mission to transmit it, but a universal one. Though, his immediate subjects were all local, but the message itself is not local. In fact the way message of Islam is spread is through the practical examples of how it was implemented at the time of Prophet himself. AS far as preservation of this message is concerned, since it’s a universal message, no one nation or tribe can be made responsible, hence God Himself took responsibility to preserve it, as long as He wishes it to be. This is all mentioned in Quran. If someone is interested, references can be provided.

Edited by AhmadJoyia
IP IP Logged
Melco
 
Guest Group
Guest Group


Joined: 20 February 2006
Online Status: Offline
Posts: 107
bullet Posted: 24 February 2006 at 3:39pm
I give up on you, you aren't really taking these points seriously. You aren't interested in the truth,only in defending your personal system of meaning...No one can argue with you, because there is nothing within Judaism, Christianity or human history that can ever count as evidence against what you believe. You are not really engaging, only fielding back. Anyone could do that...

Jesus is Lord of all! He will judge me, and you and Muhammad. Islam is a heretical offshoot, no more...


Edited by Melco
IP IP Logged
<< Prev Page  of 50 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