Print Page | Close Window

CHRISTIANS - Answer this Question

Printed From: IslamiCity.com
Category: Religion - Islam
Forum Name: Interfaith Dialogue
Forum Discription: It is for Interfaith dialogue, where Muslims discuss with non-Muslims. We encourge that dialogue takes place in a cordial atmosphere on various topics including religious tolerance.
URL: http://www.IslamiCity.com/forum/forum_posts.asp?TID=24056
Printed Date: 24 July 2014 at 1:26am


Topic: CHRISTIANS - Answer this Question
Posted By: Abu Loren
Subject: CHRISTIANS - Answer this Question
Date Posted: 10 October 2012 at 2:47am
To All Christians,


Do you believe it is right that Paul a mere man has the authority to change the Mosiac Law?



Replies:
Posted By: Caringheart
Date Posted: 12 October 2012 at 8:48pm
How does Paul change the Mosaic law?


Posted By: Experiential
Date Posted: 28 October 2012 at 2:29am

 

The prophet Jeremiah talks about the New Covenant in Jeremiah 31:33.

But this shall be the covenant that I will make with the house of Israel; After those days, saith the LORD, I will put my law in their inward parts, and write it in their hearts; and will be their God, and they shall be my people.

 

Jesus took the cup of wine and said, “This cup is the new covenant in my blood, which is poured out for you.”

Luke 22:20.

 

With Jesus' birth, life, death, and resurrection the Old Covenant was fulfilled and a new covenant was instituted.

 

The Injil says, “At the moment of Jesus' death on the cross, states that the veil (separating the entrance to the holy of holies) of the Temple was ripped from top to bottom, symbolizing that with Jesus death there was no longer a need for the temple.”

Matthew 27:51



Posted By: Abu Loren
Date Posted: 29 October 2012 at 12:59am
Originally posted by Experiential

 

The prophet Jeremiah talks about the New Covenant in Jeremiah 31:33.

But this shall be the covenant that I will make with the house of Israel; After those days, saith the LORD, I will put my law in their inward parts, and write it in their hearts; and will be their God, and they shall be my people.

 

Jesus took the cup of wine and said, “This cup is the new covenant in my blood, which is poured out for you.”

Luke 22:20.

 

With Jesus' birth, life, death, and resurrection the Old Covenant was fulfilled and a new covenant was instituted.

 

The Injil says, “At the moment of Jesus' death on the cross, states that the veil (separating the entrance to the holy of holies) of the Temple was ripped from top to bottom, symbolizing that with Jesus death there was no longer a need for the temple.”

Matthew 27:51

 
Very nice quotes from the Bible indeed but you haven't answered the question.


Posted By: honeto
Date Posted: 29 October 2012 at 2:04pm
Hopefully some learned Christians can answer this great question.
Hasan

-------------
39:64 Proclaim: Is it some one other than God that you order me to worship, O you ignorant ones?"


Posted By: Caringheart
Date Posted: 29 October 2012 at 8:09pm
First someone must answer my question.

"How does Paul change the Mosaic law? "


Posted By: Salaam_Erin
Date Posted: 30 October 2012 at 10:43am
Paul didn't change the Mosaic Law.  The key to understanding Paul's thinking lies in 3 areas.  One, the Torah and the Hebrew Bible generally say that salvation is by faith.  It does say that if anyone obeys the Torah they will live, but nobody can do that is they  are not righteous, so the sacrificial system for sin was brought in to deal with that.  So Paul cites Genesis 15:6 where Abraham believing the LORD as credited to him as righteousness, the just shall live by faith, that's from Habakkuk 2:4, and Joel 2:32 "He who calls upon the name of the LORD shall be saved."  So while obeying the Torah is important, it cannot save.  Faith and God's mercy saves. 

Two, Paul was mostly writing to Gentiles.  Peter was the first to lead a Gentile to faith in Jesus, namely Cornelius the Roman centurion.  The question emerged, did the Gentile believers need to be converted to Judaism and be circumcised?  Many Jewish believers in Jesus said that they did, which is weird as Jesus never taught this but praised the faith of those Gentiles who trusted in Him.  Paul gave his answer in Galatians.  The answer being no.  Then the Council of Jerusalem met and in Acts 15 we see Peter saying no, Paul and Barnabas gave a missionary report then James, Jesus' brother, a Pharisee, the man who said if you break one law, you break them all, decreed that Gentiles did not need to convert to Judaism but must not eat food sacrificed to idols, from sexual immorality, the meat of strangled animals, and from eating blood.  James then appointed Paul and Barnabas as the enforcers of this.  James also decreed for Moses has been preached in every city from earliest times and is read in the synagogues on every Sabbath.  (Acts 15:21)

So Jewish believers in Jesus remain Jewish, and Gentile believers in Jesus remain Gentile.

This is what Paul taught.  Read 1 Corinthians 7:18  In verse 19 he actually says that circumcision is nothing and uncircumcision is nothing.  It's keeping the commandments that counts.  And what we find in the Bible then is that apart from Abraham and Ishmael and their servants from the very beginning of circumcision, circumcision is for Hebrews/Israelites/Jes (funny thing is, Ishmael, son of Abraham, father of the Arabs, counts as a Hebrew, but not as an Israelite), and circumcision is NOT for Gentiles.  The Old Covenant, superseded but not abolished, is to do with the Land of Israel, and the Israelites, and circumcision is in it, as with the covenant of Abraham.  But the Gentiles post-Abraham are NOT to be circumcised.  Gentiles are not physically descended from Abraham and the New covenant alone is relevant to them, not the older covenants.  However, Paul teaches that the Torah points to Jesus who is the end, the telos, the destination of the Law.  The part of the torah which is abolished, or rather brought to a climax, is the sacrificial system, as Jesus is the final sacrifice.  The Passover Lamb, Paul taught. (1 Corinthians 5:7-8)  This shows that the Passover was still celebrated, but now done every time the Church met and not just once a year, with the Lord's Supper slotted in, as Jesus did (see 1 Corinthians 11), and opened out for Gentiles to partake and not need circumcision and conversion to Mosaic Yahwism/Judaism as before.   The New Covenant, cited by an earlier contributor on this thread is relevant, as it is a covenant NOT like the one God gave to the Israelites when they came out of Egypt, for the Israelites could not keep that covenant.   So God will take that New Covenant, that different Covenant, and place it in their hearts.  Moses spoke in Deuteronomy of the Israelites needing God to circumcise their hearts, Paul takes up this concept.  The key to understanding Paul's nuanced view of the Law is to understand that he sees the Torah as a paedagogos to lead us to Christ, that it is spiritual (Romans 7) but we are sinners needing rescuing by Christ.  Also, we are under a curse of the Law because of our sin.  One, God cursed the ground when Adam and Eve sinned, that's for Gentiles as well as Israelites, while curses were also imposed on the Israelites in the Mosaic Covenant for disobedience (carried out by God in 721 BC and 587 BC and AD 70 when He inflicted judgement on Israel and Judah and Judaea in the Roman era; see Deuteronomy 27 and 28).  Jesus' death removed that curse provided we repent of our sin, Paul taught.  The other key is when Paul says "To those not having the law I became like one not having the law (though I am not free from God's law but am under Christ's law).  Pauol understood that the Ten Commandments were under Christ's law.  Jesus said He came to FULFIL the Torah.  Paul understood what that meant.  He says we are saved not by merit, but by God's grace but then are predestined by God to do good works which He has prepared for us.  Ephesians 2:8-10.  The key is to understand what Jesus meant by fulfilling the Torah.  It is clear that in Paul's thinking, Jews remain Jews, Gentiles remain Gentiles, the New Covenant must be accepted by everyone to get into Heaven, Jesus' death covers this, the Torah shows us we are sinners, and what right and wrong is, the old Torah regime is over, but the Torah is a disciplinarian to lead us to Jesus, and is still spiritual and valuable to expose our sin and call on God's mercy and guide us in terms of how we obey God after salvation.  I hope this helps.  

   



    


Posted By: Abu Loren
Date Posted: 01 November 2012 at 5:25am
Originally posted by Salaam_Erin

Paul didn't change the Mosaic Law.  The key to understanding Paul's thinking lies in 3 areas.  One, the Torah and the Hebrew Bible generally say that salvation is by faith.  It does say that if anyone obeys the Torah they will live, but nobody can do that is they  are not righteous, so the sacrificial system for sin was brought in to deal with that.  So Paul cites Genesis 15:6 where Abraham believing the LORD as credited to him as righteousness, the just shall live by faith, that's from Habakkuk 2:4, and Joel 2:32 "He who calls upon the name of the LORD shall be saved."  So while obeying the Torah is important, it cannot save.  Faith and God's mercy saves. 

Two, Paul was mostly writing to Gentiles.  Peter was the first to lead a Gentile to faith in Jesus, namely Cornelius the Roman centurion.  The question emerged, did the Gentile believers need to be converted to Judaism and be circumcised?  Many Jewish believers in Jesus said that they did, which is weird as Jesus never taught this but praised the faith of those Gentiles who trusted in Him.  Paul gave his answer in Galatians.  The answer being no.  Then the Council of Jerusalem met and in Acts 15 we see Peter saying no, Paul and Barnabas gave a missionary report then James, Jesus' brother, a Pharisee, the man who said if you break one law, you break them all, decreed that Gentiles did not need to convert to Judaism but must not eat food sacrificed to idols, from sexual immorality, the meat of strangled animals, and from eating blood.  James then appointed Paul and Barnabas as the enforcers of this.  James also decreed for Moses has been preached in every city from earliest times and is read in the synagogues on every Sabbath.  (Acts 15:21)

So Jewish believers in Jesus remain Jewish, and Gentile believers in Jesus remain Gentile.

This is what Paul taught.  Read 1 Corinthians 7:18  In verse 19 he actually says that circumcision is nothing and uncircumcision is nothing.  It's keeping the commandments that counts.  And what we find in the Bible then is that apart from Abraham and Ishmael and their servants from the very beginning of circumcision, circumcision is for Hebrews/Israelites/Jes (funny thing is, Ishmael, son of Abraham, father of the Arabs, counts as a Hebrew, but not as an Israelite), and circumcision is NOT for Gentiles.  The Old Covenant, superseded but not abolished, is to do with the Land of Israel, and the Israelites, and circumcision is in it, as with the covenant of Abraham.  But the Gentiles post-Abraham are NOT to be circumcised.  Gentiles are not physically descended from Abraham and the New covenant alone is relevant to them, not the older covenants.  However, Paul teaches that the Torah points to Jesus who is the end, the telos, the destination of the Law.  The part of the torah which is abolished, or rather brought to a climax, is the sacrificial system, as Jesus is the final sacrifice.  The Passover Lamb, Paul taught. (1 Corinthians 5:7-8)  This shows that the Passover was still celebrated, but now done every time the Church met and not just once a year, with the Lord's Supper slotted in, as Jesus did (see 1 Corinthians 11), and opened out for Gentiles to partake and not need circumcision and conversion to Mosaic Yahwism/Judaism as before.   The New Covenant, cited by an earlier contributor on this thread is relevant, as it is a covenant NOT like the one God gave to the Israelites when they came out of Egypt, for the Israelites could not keep that covenant.   So God will take that New Covenant, that different Covenant, and place it in their hearts.  Moses spoke in Deuteronomy of the Israelites needing God to circumcise their hearts, Paul takes up this concept.  The key to understanding Paul's nuanced view of the Law is to understand that he sees the Torah as a paedagogos to lead us to Christ, that it is spiritual (Romans 7) but we are sinners needing rescuing by Christ.  Also, we are under a curse of the Law because of our sin.  One, God cursed the ground when Adam and Eve sinned, that's for Gentiles as well as Israelites, while curses were also imposed on the Israelites in the Mosaic Covenant for disobedience (carried out by God in 721 BC and 587 BC and AD 70 when He inflicted judgement on Israel and Judah and Judaea in the Roman era; see Deuteronomy 27 and 28).  Jesus' death removed that curse provided we repent of our sin, Paul taught.  The other key is when Paul says "To those not having the law I became like one not having the law (though I am not free from God's law but am under Christ's law).  Pauol understood that the Ten Commandments were under Christ's law.  Jesus said He came to FULFIL the Torah.  Paul understood what that meant.  He says we are saved not by merit, but by God's grace but then are predestined by God to do good works which He has prepared for us.  Ephesians 2:8-10.  The key is to understand what Jesus meant by fulfilling the Torah.  It is clear that in Paul's thinking, Jews remain Jews, Gentiles remain Gentiles, the New Covenant must be accepted by everyone to get into Heaven, Jesus' death covers this, the Torah shows us we are sinners, and what right and wrong is, the old Torah regime is over, but the Torah is a disciplinarian to lead us to Jesus, and is still spiritual and valuable to expose our sin and call on God's mercy and guide us in terms of how we obey God after salvation.  I hope this helps.   

    
    
 
This doesn't help at all unfortunately, this is just re-gurgetating of the same ole Christian doctrine which Christians keep repeating over and over again like a parrot.


Posted By: Matt Browne
Date Posted: 01 November 2012 at 5:54am
Paul relied on Jesus, who said: "Do not think that I came to abolish the Law or the Prophets; I did not come to abolish, but to fulfill."



-------------
A religion that's intolerant of other religions can't be the world's best religion --Abdel Samad
Great minds discuss ideas. Average minds discuss events. Small minds discuss people--Eleanor Roosevelt


Posted By: honeto
Date Posted: 01 November 2012 at 2:56pm
And what does that mean, "did not come to abolish, but to fulfill?
Hasan

-------------
39:64 Proclaim: Is it some one other than God that you order me to worship, O you ignorant ones?"


Posted By: Experiential
Date Posted: 01 November 2012 at 3:31pm
[
 
Very nice quotes from the Bible indeed but you haven't answered the question.
[/QUOTE]

Your question was how Paul changed the Mosaic law or Old covenant. From above it is obvious it was Jesus who first heralded in the new Covenant. Not Paul.



Posted By: Caringheart
Date Posted: 01 November 2012 at 3:58pm
Originally posted by Abu Loren

Originally posted by Salaam_Erin

Paul didn't change the Mosaic Law.  The key to understanding Paul's thinking lies in 3 areas.  One, the Torah and the Hebrew Bible generally say that salvation is by faith.  It does say that if anyone obeys the Torah they will live, but nobody can do that is they  are not righteous, so the sacrificial system for sin was brought in to deal with that.  So Paul cites Genesis 15:6 where Abraham believing the LORD as credited to him as righteousness, the just shall live by faith, that's from Habakkuk 2:4, and Joel 2:32 "He who calls upon the name of the LORD shall be saved."  So while obeying the Torah is important, it cannot save.  Faith and God's mercy saves. 

Two, Paul was mostly writing to Gentiles.  Peter was the first to lead a Gentile to faith in Jesus, namely Cornelius the Roman centurion.  The question emerged, did the Gentile believers need to be converted to Judaism and be circumcised?  Many Jewish believers in Jesus said that they did, which is weird as Jesus never taught this but praised the faith of those Gentiles who trusted in Him.  Paul gave his answer in Galatians.  The answer being no.  Then the Council of Jerusalem met and in Acts 15 we see Peter saying no, Paul and Barnabas gave a missionary report then James, Jesus' brother, a Pharisee, the man who said if you break one law, you break them all, decreed that Gentiles did not need to convert to Judaism but must not eat food sacrificed to idols, from sexual immorality, the meat of strangled animals, and from eating blood.  James then appointed Paul and Barnabas as the enforcers of this.  James also decreed for Moses has been preached in every city from earliest times and is read in the synagogues on every Sabbath.  (Acts 15:21)

So Jewish believers in Jesus remain Jewish, and Gentile believers in Jesus remain Gentile.

This is what Paul taught.  Read 1 Corinthians 7:18  In verse 19 he actually says that circumcision is nothing and uncircumcision is nothing.  It's keeping the commandments that counts.  And what we find in the Bible then is that apart from Abraham and Ishmael and their servants from the very beginning of circumcision, circumcision is for Hebrews/Israelites/Jes (funny thing is, Ishmael, son of Abraham, father of the Arabs, counts as a Hebrew, but not as an Israelite), and circumcision is NOT for Gentiles.  The Old Covenant, superseded but not abolished, is to do with the Land of Israel, and the Israelites, and circumcision is in it, as with the covenant of Abraham.  But the Gentiles post-Abraham are NOT to be circumcised.  Gentiles are not physically descended from Abraham and the New covenant alone is relevant to them, not the older covenants.  However, Paul teaches that the Torah points to Jesus who is the end, the telos, the destination of the Law.  The part of the torah which is abolished, or rather brought to a climax, is the sacrificial system, as Jesus is the final sacrifice.  The Passover Lamb, Paul taught. (1 Corinthians 5:7-8)  This shows that the Passover was still celebrated, but now done every time the Church met and not just once a year, with the Lord's Supper slotted in, as Jesus did (see 1 Corinthians 11), and opened out for Gentiles to partake and not need circumcision and conversion to Mosaic Yahwism/Judaism as before.   The New Covenant, cited by an earlier contributor on this thread is relevant, as it is a covenant NOT like the one God gave to the Israelites when they came out of Egypt, for the Israelites could not keep that covenant.   So God will take that New Covenant, that different Covenant, and place it in their hearts.  Moses spoke in Deuteronomy of the Israelites needing God to circumcise their hearts, Paul takes up this concept.  The key to understanding Paul's nuanced view of the Law is to understand that he sees the Torah as a paedagogos to lead us to Christ, that it is spiritual (Romans 7) but we are sinners needing rescuing by Christ.  Also, we are under a curse of the Law because of our sin.  One, God cursed the ground when Adam and Eve sinned, that's for Gentiles as well as Israelites, while curses were also imposed on the Israelites in the Mosaic Covenant for disobedience (carried out by God in 721 BC and 587 BC and AD 70 when He inflicted judgement on Israel and Judah and Judaea in the Roman era; see Deuteronomy 27 and 28).  Jesus' death removed that curse provided we repent of our sin, Paul taught.  The other key is when Paul says "To those not having the law I became like one not having the law (though I am not free from God's law but am under Christ's law).  Pauol understood that the Ten Commandments were under Christ's law.  Jesus said He came to FULFIL the Torah.  Paul understood what that meant.  He says we are saved not by merit, but by God's grace but then are predestined by God to do good works which He has prepared for us.  Ephesians 2:8-10.  The key is to understand what Jesus meant by fulfilling the Torah.  It is clear that in Paul's thinking, Jews remain Jews, Gentiles remain Gentiles, the New Covenant must be accepted by everyone to get into Heaven, Jesus' death covers this, the Torah shows us we are sinners, and what right and wrong is, the old Torah regime is over, but the Torah is a disciplinarian to lead us to Jesus, and is still spiritual and valuable to expose our sin and call on God's mercy and guide us in terms of how we obey God after salvation.  I hope this helps.  
 
 
This doesn't help at all unfortunately, this is just re-gurgetating of the same ole Christian doctrine which Christians keep repeating over and over again like a parrot.


Greetings Abu Loren,

I have to wonder did you even read?  Because I did and I found some things new in it.  Every response I read usually has a slightly different perspective and something to bring to the discussion.

Salaam,
Caringheart


Posted By: Experiential
Date Posted: 01 November 2012 at 10:30pm
Originally posted by Abu Loren

Originally posted by Experiential

 

The prophet Jeremiah talks about the New Covenant in Jeremiah 31:33.

But this shall be the covenant that I will make with the house of Israel; After those days, saith the LORD, I will put my law in their inward parts, and write it in their hearts; and will be their God, and they shall be my people.

 

Jesus took the cup of wine and said, “This cup is the new covenant in my blood, which is poured out for you.”

Luke 22:20.

 

With Jesus' birth, life, death, and resurrection the Old Covenant was fulfilled and a new covenant was instituted.

 

The Injil says, “At the moment of Jesus' death on the cross, states that the veil (separating the entrance to the holy of holies) of the Temple was ripped from top to bottom, symbolizing that with Jesus death there was no longer a need for the temple.”

Matthew 27:51

 
Very nice quotes from the Bible indeed but you haven't answered the question.

Your question was how Paul changed the Mosaic law or Old covenant. From above it is obvious it was Jesus who first heralded in the new Covenant. Not Paul.

 

 

 



Posted By: Abu Loren
Date Posted: 02 November 2012 at 2:58am
Originally posted by Experiential

 

The prophet Jeremiah talks about the New Covenant in Jeremiah 31:33.

But this shall be the covenant that I will make with the house of Israel; After those days, saith the LORD, I will put my law in their inward parts, and write it in their hearts; and will be their God, and they shall be my people.

Oh really? If you read chapter 31 properly God is talking about a new covenent with the Children of Israel, it does say that this new covenent will be with Jesus (pbuh).

Oh dear look at verse 30...
31:30 But every one shall die for his own iniquity: every man that eateth the sour grape, his teeth shall be set on edge.
Everyone is accountable for his own sins and noone else can atone for your sins unless you repent to God and ask forgiveness.
 
Also to get the correct context you must read verse 31 & 32 put together it looks like this...
 
31:31 Behold, the days come, saith the LORD, that I will make a new covenant with the house of Israel, and with the house of Judah:
31:32 Not according to the covenant that I made with their fathers in the day that I took them by the hand to bring them out of the land of Egypt; which my covenant they brake, although I was an husband unto them, saith the LORD:
31:33 But this shall be the covenant that I will make with the house of Israel; After those days, saith the LORD, I will put my law in their inward parts, and write it in their hearts; and will be their God, and they shall be my people.
 
Again this new covenent is not specifically for Jesus (pbuh). All Prophets of God had a covenent with Him, Abraham (pbuh) had covenent, Moses (pbuh) had a covenent and the final covenent with Prophet Muhammed (pbuh).

Originally posted by Experiential

 

Jesus took the cup of wine and said, “This cup is the new covenant in my blood, which is poured out for you.”

Luke 22:20. 

This was added much later.

 

Originally posted by Experiential

With Jesus' birth, life, death, and resurrection the Old Covenant was fulfilled and a new covenant was instituted. 

Who says?

 

Originally posted by Experiential

The Injil says, “At the moment of Jesus' death on the cross, states that the veil (separating the entrance to the holy of holies) of the Temple was ripped from top to bottom, symbolizing that with Jesus death there was no longer a need for the temple.”

Matthew 27:51

 
Another later addition as Jesus (pbuh) was not killed. Also verse 52 confirms that this was a lie.
 
27:53 And came out of the graves after his resurrection, and went into the holy city, and appeared unto many.
 
 Although Jesus (pbuh) brought one or two people back from the dead with th epermission of God, there is only one RESURRECTION at the end of time. Only God knows the hour, if Jesus (pbuh) was part of the Trunity then he would also have known the hour.
 


Posted By: Placid
Date Posted: 02 November 2012 at 5:13am
Hi Abu,

Concerning the Law of Moses, Jesus said in Matthew 5:
17 “Do not think that I came to destroy the Law or the Prophets. I did not come to destroy but to fulfill.’
--- He re-introduced the law of love which is the fulfilling of the Law. And after Judas had left the group, Jesus said to the 11 Apostles, in John 13:
34 A new commandment I give to you, that you love one another; as I have loved you, that you also love one another.
35 By this all will know that you are My disciples, if you have love for one another.”

--- So it was not Paul, nor James, that did away with the law, but Jesus --- because it had become ineffective.
It says again in Luke 16:
14 Now the Pharisees, who were lovers of money, also heard all these things, and they derided Him.
15 And He said to them, “You are those who justify yourselves before men, but God knows your hearts. For what is highly esteemed among men is an abomination in the sight of God.
16 “The law and the prophets were until John. Since that time the kingdom of God has been preached, and everyone is pressing into it.
--- It says this in John 1:
17 For the law was given through Moses, but grace and truth came through Jesus Christ. --- (So the law was in effect from the days of Moses till the days of John the Baptist.)

This is what Paul said about the Jews in Romans 10:
1 Brethren, my heart’s desire and prayer to God for Israel is that they may be saved.
2 For I bear them witness that they have a zeal for God, but not according to knowledge.
3 For they, being ignorant of God’s righteousness, and seeking to establish their own righteousness, have not submitted to the righteousness of God.
4 For Christ is the end of the law for righteousness to everyone who believes.

And here is what it means. --- As mentioned above in Jeremiah 31:31-34, it mentions a New Covenant, and it is fulfilled in Hebrews 8:
7 For if that first covenant had been faultless, then no place would have been sought for a second.
8 Because finding fault with them, He says: “Behold, the days are coming, says the Lord, when I will make a new covenant with the house of Israel and with the house of Judah—
9 not according to the covenant that I made with their fathers in the day when I took them by the hand to lead them out of the land of Egypt; because they did not continue in My covenant, and I disregarded them, says the Lord.
10 For this is the covenant that I will make with the house of Israel after those days, says the Lord: I will put My laws in their mind and write them on their hearts; and I will be their God, and they shall be My people.
11 None of them shall teach his neighbor, and none his brother, saying, ‘Know the Lord,’ for all shall know Me, from the least of them to the greatest of them.
12 For I will be merciful to their unrighteousness, and their sins and their lawless deeds I will remember no more.”
13 In that He says, “A new covenant,” He has made the first obsolete. Now what is becoming obsolete and growing old is ready to vanish away.


Placid



Posted By: Abu Loren
Date Posted: 03 November 2012 at 3:25am
Originally posted by Placid

Hi Abu,

Concerning the Law of Moses, Jesus said in Matthew 5:
17 “Do not think that I came to destroy the Law or the Prophets. I did not come to destroy but to fulfill.’
--- He re-introduced the law of love which is the fulfilling of the Law. And after Judas had left the group, Jesus said to the 11 Apostles, in John 13:
34 A new commandment I give to you, that you love one another; as I have loved you, that you also love one another.
35 By this all will know that you are My disciples, if you have love for one another.”

--- So it was not Paul, nor James, that did away with the law, but Jesus --- because it had become ineffective.
It says again in Luke 16:
14 Now the Pharisees, who were lovers of money, also heard all these things, and they derided Him.
15 And He said to them, “You are those who justify yourselves before men, but God knows your hearts. For what is highly esteemed among men is an abomination in the sight of God.
16 “The law and the prophets were until John. Since that time the kingdom of God has been preached, and everyone is pressing into it.
--- It says this in John 1:
17 For the law was given through Moses, but grace and truth came through Jesus Christ. --- (So the law was in effect from the days of Moses till the days of John the Baptist.)

This is what Paul said about the Jews in Romans 10:
1 Brethren, my heart’s desire and prayer to God for Israel is that they may be saved.
2 For I bear them witness that they have a zeal for God, but not according to knowledge.
3 For they, being ignorant of God’s righteousness, and seeking to establish their own righteousness, have not submitted to the righteousness of God.
4 For Christ is the end of the law for righteousness to everyone who believes.

And here is what it means. --- As mentioned above in Jeremiah 31:31-34, it mentions a New Covenant, and it is fulfilled in Hebrews 8:
7 For if that first covenant had been faultless, then no place would have been sought for a second.
8 Because finding fault with them, He says: “Behold, the days are coming, says the Lord, when I will make a new covenant with the house of Israel and with the house of Judah—
9 not according to the covenant that I made with their fathers in the day when I took them by the hand to lead them out of the land of Egypt; because they did not continue in My covenant, and I disregarded them, says the Lord.
10 For this is the covenant that I will make with the house of Israel after those days, says the Lord: I will put My laws in their mind and write them on their hearts; and I will be their God, and they shall be My people.
11 None of them shall teach his neighbor, and none his brother, saying, ‘Know the Lord,’ for all shall know Me, from the least of them to the greatest of them.
12 For I will be merciful to their unrighteousness, and their sins and their lawless deeds I will remember no more.”
13 In that He says, “A new covenant,” He has made the first obsolete. Now what is becoming obsolete and growing old is ready to vanish away.


Placid

 
Ok so are you a placid person or do you live near Lake Placid?
 
Let's go through your post point by point so we are on the same page.
 
Concerning the Law of Moses, Jesus said in Matthew 5:
17 “Do not think that I came to destroy the Law or the Prophets. I did not come to destroy but to fulfill.’
--- He re-introduced the law of love which is the fulfilling of the Law. And after Judas had left the group, Jesus said to the 11 Apostles, in John 13:
34 A new commandment I give to you, that you love one another; as I have loved you, that you also love one another.
35 By this all will know that you are My disciples, if you have love for one another.”
 
OK verse 5:7 is crystal clear in the English language. So who destroyed the Law?
 
John 13:34-35 you are automatically thinking that he is god. A new commandment is not replacing the Law of Moses (pbuh) but he just says that people should love one another. He did not advocate any change in the Law nor a new covenent.
 
--- So it was not Paul, nor James, that did away with the law, but Jesus --- because it had become ineffective.
It says again in Luke 16:
14 Now the Pharisees, who were lovers of money, also heard all these things, and they derided Him.
15 And He said to them, “You are those who justify yourselves before men, but God knows your hearts. For what is highly esteemed among men is an abomination in the sight of God.
16 “The law and the prophets were until John. Since that time the kingdom of God has been preached, and everyone is pressing into it.
--- It says this in John 1:
17 For the law was given through Moses, but grace and truth came through Jesus Christ. --- (So the law was in effect from the days of Moses till the days of John the Baptist.)
 
If you had kept reading Luke 16 it says in verse 17..
 
16:17 And it is easier for heaven and earth to pass, than one tittle of the law to fail.
 
With regard to John:17 it can be interpreted as that verse was inserted much later by pro Jesus the god trinitarian activists. It just does not make sense with the context of the chapter.
 
This is what Paul said about the Jews in Romans 10:
1 Brethren, my heart’s desire and prayer to God for Israel is that they may be saved.
2 For I bear them witness that they have a zeal for God, but not according to knowledge.
3 For they, being ignorant of God’s righteousness, and seeking to establish their own righteousness, have not submitted to the righteousness of God.
4 For Christ is the end of the law for righteousness to everyone who believes.
Nobody should take Paul seriously  because he did not intent for his LETTERS to be included in any canonical work. They were just LETTERS that he wrote to these different church communities who decided to follow the Trinitarian line. Paul had a nervous breakdown after he persecuted and killed thousands of Christians and had a guilty feeling and became a Christian himself. Who is Paul to say the Christ is the end of the Law? The Law can only be abolished by God Alimighty.
 
And here is what it means. --- As mentioned above in Jeremiah 31:31-34, it mentions a New Covenant, and it is fulfilled in Hebrews 8:
7 For if that first covenant had been faultless, then no place would have been sought for a second.
8 Because finding fault with them, He says: “Behold, the days are coming, says the Lord, when I will make a new covenant with the house of Israel and with the house of Judah—
9 not according to the covenant that I made with their fathers in the day when I took them by the hand to lead them out of the land of Egypt; because they did not continue in My covenant, and I disregarded them, says the Lord.
10 For this is the covenant that I will make with the house of Israel after those days, says the Lord: I will put My laws in their mind and write them on their hearts; and I will be their God, and they shall be My people.
11 None of them shall teach his neighbor, and none his brother, saying, ‘Know the Lord,’ for all shall know Me, from the least of them to the greatest of them.
12 For I will be merciful to their unrighteousness, and their sins and their lawless deeds I will remember no more.”
13 In that He says, “A new covenant,” He has made the first obsolete. Now what is becoming obsolete and growing old is ready to vanish away.
 

Fine. Paul is quoting Jeremiah so what? Who is he to say that Jesus (pbuh) set up the New Covenent? Any new covenents must come from God Almighty. This is fine if you believe that Jesus (pbuh) was the son of or god incarnate.

Everything falls down flat I'm afraid. You must take Paul out of the equation, don't believe anything he says. His letters are just his opinions poured out to the new churches and which somebody decided to include in the new Christian canonical works. Now bring in the early church fathers like Iraneus and ask him why he specifically chose these gospels and letters of Paul and left out all of the other gospels such as Peter, Mary, Judas, Thomas etc etc et.


Posted By: Placid
Date Posted: 03 November 2012 at 1:56pm
Hi Abu,

Quote: With regard to John :17 it can be interpreted as that verse was inserted much later by pro Jesus the god trinitarian activists. It just does not make sense with the context of the chapter.

Response: --- Since we were talking about the law, I assume you were commenting on John 1:17, --- so I checked John 1:17 in its context in the Codex Siniaticus which was from 400 AD, --- about the same time that the Scholar Jerome translated the whole Bible into the Latin Vulgate, --- which, in about 1600 AD was translated into English in the Douay Version. --- (You can compare and check the differences.)

Also, about 1600 AD, King James commissioned 47 Bible scholars and linguists to translate from the Greek to the English, at that time, the language of the people.

--- You would think that if there were any discrepancies they would certainly show up between the Latin Vulgate, which travelled from 400 AD to 1600 AD in Latin, --- and the Greek manuscripts which made up the Canon of Scripture, which had been copied and distributed from the time they were written, --- first as individual Books, then in groups of Books in the second and third century, and finally being accepted and confirmed as the Canon of the 27 Books of the NT in 367 AD, --- to be added to the 39 Books of the OT.
Then it was these 66 Books of the King James Bible, which were also preserved in the Greek scrolls or manuscripts from 367 AD to 1600, when they were translated to English.

So to start with, these verses are from the Codex Siniaticus of John 1:
12 But as many as received him, to them gave he the right to become children of God, to those that believe on his name,
13 who were born not of blood, nor of the will of the flesh, nor of the will of a man, but of God.
14 And the Word became flesh, and tabernacled among us, and we beheld his glory, the glory as of the Only Begotten of the Father, full of grace and truth.
15 John testified of him and cried, saying: This was he of whom I said: He that comes after me has been advanced before me, because he was before me.
16 For of his fullness have we all received, and grace for grace;
17 for the law was given through Moses, the grace and the truth came through Jesus Christ.

Now the Douay Version of John 1:
12 But as many as received him, he gave them power to be made the sons of God, to them that believe in his name.
13 Who are born, not of blood, nor of the will of the flesh, nor of the will of man, but of God.
14 And the Word was made flesh, and dwelt among us, (and we saw his glory, the glory as it were of the only begotten of the Father,) full of grace and truth.
15 John beareth witness of him, and crieth out, saying: This was he of whom I spoke: He that shall come after me, is preferred before me: because he was before me.
16 And of his fulness we all have received, and grace for grace.
17 For the law was given by Moses; grace and truth came by Jesus Christ.

Now the New King James version of John 1:
12 But as many as received Him, to them He gave the right to become children of God, to those who believe in His name:
13 who were born, not of blood, nor of the will of the flesh, nor of the will of man, but of God.
14 And the Word became flesh and dwelt among us, and we beheld His glory, the glory as of the only begotten of the Father, full of grace and truth.
15 John bore witness of Him and cried out, saying, “This was He of whom I said, ‘He who comes after me is preferred before me, for He was before me.’”
16 And of His fullness we have all received, and grace for grace.
17 For the law was given through Moses, but grace and truth came through Jesus Christ.


Placid



Posted By: Experiential
Date Posted: 04 November 2012 at 2:15am
Originally posted by Abu Loren

Originally posted by Experiential

 

The prophet Jeremiah talks about the New Covenant in Jeremiah 31:33.

But this shall be the covenant that I will make with the house of Israel; After those days, saith the LORD, I will put my law in their inward parts, and write it in their hearts; and will be their God, and they shall be my people.

Oh really? If you read chapter 31 properly God is talking about a new covenent with the Children of Israel, it does say that this new covenent will be with Jesus (pbuh).

Oh dear look at verse 30...
31:30 But every one shall die for his own iniquity: every man that eateth the sour grape, his teeth shall be set on edge.
Everyone is accountable for his own sins and noone else can atone for your sins unless you repent to God and ask forgiveness.
 
Also to get the correct context you must read verse 31 & 32 put together it looks like this...
 
31:31 Behold, the days come, saith the LORD, that I will make a new covenant with the house of Israel, and with the house of Judah:
31:32 Not according to the covenant that I made with their fathers in the day that I took them by the hand to bring them out of the land of Egypt; which my covenant they brake, although I was an husband unto them, saith the LORD:
31:33 But this shall be the covenant that I will make with the house of Israel; After those days, saith the LORD, I will put my law in their inward parts, and write it in their hearts; and will be their God, and they shall be my people.
 
Again this new covenent is not specifically for Jesus (pbuh). All Prophets of God had a covenent with Him, Abraham (pbuh) had covenent, Moses (pbuh) had a covenent and the final covenent with Prophet Muhammed (pbuh).

Originally posted by Experiential

 

Jesus took the cup of wine and said, “This cup is the new covenant in my blood, which is poured out for you.”

Luke 22:20. 

This was added much later.

 

Originally posted by Experiential

With Jesus' birth, life, death, and resurrection the Old Covenant was fulfilled and a new covenant was instituted. 

Who says?

 

Originally posted by Experiential

The Injil says, “At the moment of Jesus' death on the cross, states that the veil (separating the entrance to the holy of holies) of the Temple was ripped from top to bottom, symbolizing that with Jesus death there was no longer a need for the temple.”

Matthew 27:51

 
Another later addition as Jesus (pbuh) was not killed. Also verse 52 confirms that this was a lie.
 
27:53 And came out of the graves after his resurrection, and went into the holy city, and appeared unto many.
 
 Although Jesus (pbuh) brought one or two people back from the dead with th epermission of God, there is only one RESURRECTION at the end of time. Only God knows the hour, if Jesus (pbuh) was part of the Trunity then he would also have known the hour.
 

You can analyse and dissect the verses all you like. Your original allegation was that Paul dispensed with the Mosiac Law.  Luke 22:20 shows that it was Jesus that dispensed with the Old Covenant Mosaic law. Not Paul. Where is your  proof Luke 22.20 was added later?



Posted By: Abu Loren
Date Posted: 04 November 2012 at 11:35pm
Originally posted by Placid

Hi Abu,

Quote: With regard to John :17 it can be interpreted as that verse was inserted much later by pro Jesus the god trinitarian activists. It just does not make sense with the context of the chapter.

Response: --- Since we were talking about the law, I assume you were commenting on John 1:17, --- so I checked John 1:17 in its context in the Codex Siniaticus which was from 400 AD, --- about the same time that the Scholar Jerome translated the whole Bible into the Latin Vulgate, --- which, in about 1600 AD was translated into English in the Douay Version. --- (You can compare and check the differences.)

Also, about 1600 AD, King James commissioned 47 Bible scholars and linguists to translate from the Greek to the English, at that time, the language of the people.

--- You would think that if there were any discrepancies they would certainly show up between the Latin Vulgate, which travelled from 400 AD to 1600 AD in Latin, --- and the Greek manuscripts which made up the Canon of Scripture, which had been copied and distributed from the time they were written, --- first as individual Books, then in groups of Books in the second and third century, and finally being accepted and confirmed as the Canon of the 27 Books of the NT in 367 AD, --- to be added to the 39 Books of the OT.
Then it was these 66 Books of the King James Bible, which were also preserved in the Greek scrolls or manuscripts from 367 AD to 1600, when they were translated to English.

So to start with, these verses are from the Codex Siniaticus of John 1:
12 But as many as received him, to them gave he the right to become children of God, to those that believe on his name,
13 who were born not of blood, nor of the will of the flesh, nor of the will of a man, but of God.
14 And the Word became flesh, and tabernacled among us, and we beheld his glory, the glory as of the Only Begotten of the Father, full of grace and truth.
15 John testified of him and cried, saying: This was he of whom I said: He that comes after me has been advanced before me, because he was before me.
16 For of his fullness have we all received, and grace for grace;
17 for the law was given through Moses, the grace and the truth came through Jesus Christ.

Now the Douay Version of John 1:
12 But as many as received him, he gave them power to be made the sons of God, to them that believe in his name.
13 Who are born, not of blood, nor of the will of the flesh, nor of the will of man, but of God.
14 And the Word was made flesh, and dwelt among us, (and we saw his glory, the glory as it were of the only begotten of the Father,) full of grace and truth.
15 John beareth witness of him, and crieth out, saying: This was he of whom I spoke: He that shall come after me, is preferred before me: because he was before me.
16 And of his fulness we all have received, and grace for grace.
17 For the law was given by Moses; grace and truth came by Jesus Christ.

Now the New King James version of John 1:
12 But as many as received Him, to them He gave the right to become children of God, to those who believe in His name:
13 who were born, not of blood, nor of the will of the flesh, nor of the will of man, but of God.
14 And the Word became flesh and dwelt among us, and we beheld His glory, the glory as of the only begotten of the Father, full of grace and truth.
15 John bore witness of Him and cried out, saying, “This was He of whom I said, ‘He who comes after me is preferred before me, for He was before me.’”
16 And of His fullness we have all received, and grace for grace.
17 For the law was given through Moses, but grace and truth came through Jesus Christ.


Placid

 
What does copying prove? Nothing.
 
Some copies were consistent and others were not. Watch the youtube videos I've posted to hear the opinions of modern day scholars about copying and the mistakes and additions made. They will give you a clear picture. Don't forget they are scholars, not laymen.


Posted By: Salaam_Erin
Date Posted: 06 November 2012 at 7:34am
OK, Abu Loren.  some points to make. 

Jeremiah 31:30 refers to crime and punishment and God forbidding the saying, "The fathers have eaten sour grapes, and the children's teeth are set on edge."  Cutting a covenant, however, requires sacrifice for atonement.  See the Book of Leviticus.  Blood atonement for sin is a different issue.  Ezekiel elaborates more on what is said in Jeremiah 31:29-30, with Ezekiel 18- something Muslims use to deny blood atonement by something innocent in our place to obtain forgiveness.  But again that refers to crime and punishment and repentance, non repentance and apostacy.  On that logic, then having someone else dying in place of Jesus contradicts that, since nobody is supposed to die in the place of another yet here in Surah 4:157 someone did. 

Also, the New Covenant is NOT for Jesus but Israel and Judah- the Gentiles come in as the prophecies connect this New Covenant with the Gentiles coming to worship God and coming to the Temple in Jerusalem to pay tribute to God.  God the Father was the pratron and Jesus was the broker of this Covenant. 

As for your claim that Luke 22:20 had the reference to Jesus saying, "This cup is the new covenant in my blood, which is poured out for you," this was NOT added later.  It's the original reading, according to the Nestle-Aland 26th and 27th editions and the United Bible Societies' 4th edition of the Greek New Testament.  I've checked it over with Bruce Metzger's Textual Commentary of the Greek New Testament and the critical apparatus of the Nestle-Aland 26th edition.  When a mixed bag of manuscripts of different types like Aleph (Codex Sinaiticus), A (Codex Vaticanus), B, C, K, L, T T(vid), W, X, Delta, Theta, Pi, Psi, Family 063 of the papyri, f1, f2 and f13 (textual families of the early manuscripts), including all minuscules, the Itala in c, q, r1, Latin Vulgate, Syriac pal, Copsa, Copbo (as in Coptic), arm geo.  That's an impressive and weighty testimomy to the authenticity of this passage.  Most likely you are concocting a convenient conspiracy theory without knowing the textual history of this verse.  There is a problem in that some rogue Western texts and Itala translations (ita, b,c,d,e) from the Western miss out  on it, due to the problem of copying similar endings (a mistake called homoiteleuton), and some oddball Syriac manuscripts like syrc, syr8 and syrv.  The chain of transmission of the verse is strong, and the erroneous ones have a weak chain and mor to the point, lack weight, besides, Jesus is shown to affirm the New Covenant in 1 Corinthians 11, Matthew 26, Mark 14.  That's four times over.  Matthew does not use the word new, but Jesus still says that His blood is the blood of the covenant.  Ditto with Mark.  Paul's reference says new covenant, and there is no textual dispute. 

Sorry, the reference is authentic.

"
16:17 And it is easier for heaven and earth to pass, than one tittle of the law to fail."

This is not relevant to a new covenant.  The problem, as God says to Jeremiah in chapter 31, is that the people of Israel did not keep that covenant.
 
Your claim that John 1:17 is an interpolation is also untrue, there is no textual dispute over John saying that Moses gave the Law, grace and truth came through Jesus Christ.  There are a few manuscripts which add the particle de, which means but.  So your theory about changes fails again. 

To say that Paul wrote letters makes them not Scripture is also a failure, as there are many letters sent out by the prophets containing their oracles.  You only have to read the Old Testament prophetic books, especially Jeremiah, to see that.  You might also ponder on the fact that Peter also visited Corinth after Paul founded it, and that Barnabas was also known to the Corinthians, whom Paul defended (Barnabas that is), and 1 Peter is the same in theology as Paul's letters.  As I have said, Paul said Christ is the end (telos) of the Law, which does not mean its abolishing, but that Jesus is its destination and fulfillment. 

Even if Jesus isn't God and/or Son of God, your argument breaks down since Moses was used by God to set up the Sinai Covenant.  God was the Patron, Moses the Broker.  The Father is the patron of the New covenant, Jesus the Broker. 

You said, "Everything falls down flat I'm afraid. You must take Paul out of the equation, don't believe anything he says. His letters are just his opinions poured out to the new churches and which somebody decided to include in the new Christian canonical works."

Guess who it was who decided Paul's letters were Scripture?

Peter
.

"Bear in mind that our Lord's patience means salvation, just as our dear brother Paul also wrote to you with the wisdom that God gave him.  He writes the same way in all his letters, speaking in them of these matters.  His letters contain some things thart are hard to understand, which ignorant and unstable people distort, as they do the other Scriptures, to their own destruction."  (2 Peter 3:15-16) 

We know from Mark's Gospel, which is really Peter's Gospel, that Peter preached that Jesus on the night He was betrayed, and said this cup is the blood of the covenant which is poured out for many.  (Mark 14:24)  This is not just Paul's teaching. 

So why was the Gospel of Peter excluded?  Well, according to this, Jesus rose from the dead in public, became 200 foot tall, rose in front of Pilate, the High Priest and everyone else, and that His Cross actually could talk and preach.  A wooden cross which can talk. 

I've read the Gospel of Mary, an esoteric Gnostic Gospel which denies Jesus was even physical, but a phantom to show us that matter was evil and only spirit was good, and we had all the divine spark in us.  Why would anyone amongst us accept that as genuine?  The same with Judas- who is said in the Gospel of Judas plotted with Jesus to fake a crucifixion to show that Jesus was not real, and how only Judas had Gnostic enlightenment.  Also, Judas is supposed to be writing about Jesus' apparent crucifixion.  Except that in reality Judas was already dead by suicide when Jesus was crucified.  Why take a 3rd century esoteric Gnostic text with the view that we are all gods if we have the divine spark in us and access to special knowledge as the real thing?  It has nothing to do with the real Historical Jesus of Second Temple Judaism in the Roman period. 

The Gospel of Thomas- denies the real, physical world.  Jesus says that Mary Magdalene has to become a man in order to inherit the Kingdom of God.  And those sayings of Jesus which are in the canonical Gospels, are written in Syriac, identical to Tatian's Syriac translation of his Diatessaron, a rolling of the Four Gospels into one.  So Jesus spoke Aramaic, the Gospels in Greek, the Diatessaron, harmony of the Gospels by Tatian in Greek, then translates into Syriac, a dialect of Aramaic, but it just so happens to have the Gospel of Thomas with sayings the same as in the Syriac translation?  That indicates that since the Diatessaron comes from AD 170, that Thomas is based on the Diatessaron! 

"
Watch the youtube videos I've posted to hear the opinions of modern day scholars about copying and the mistakes and additions made. They will give you a clear picture. Don't forget they are scholars, not laymen."

Well, in that case, you need to pay attention especially to your claims about Christians making up stuff about Jesus instituting a covenant, a new covenant being shown to be false, especially the textual discussion concerning Luke 22:20.         



 


     


Posted By: Abu Loren
Date Posted: 07 November 2012 at 8:38pm
Originally posted by Salaam_Erin

OK, Abu Loren.  some points to make.  

On that logic, then having someone else dying in place of Jesus contradicts that, since nobody is supposed to die in the place of another yet here in Surah 4:157 someone did. 
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.
Also, the New Covenant is NOT for Jesus but Israel and Judah- the Gentiles come in as the prophecies connect this New Covenant with the Gentiles coming to worship God and coming to the Temple in Jerusalem to pay tribute to God.  God the Father was the pratron and Jesus was the broker of this Covenant. 
You are simply connecting the dots with the pre-conceived notion of Jesus (pbuh) being the 'lamb that was lead to the slaughter'.
Sorry, the reference is authentic.
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.

"16:17 And it is easier for heaven and earth to pass, than one tittle of the law to fail."
This is rich coming from people who claim that the Law has been done away with.


To say that Paul wrote letters makes them not Scripture is also a failure, as there are many letters sent out by the prophets containing their oracles.  You only have to read the Old Testament prophetic books, especially Jeremiah, to see that.  You might also ponder on the fact that Peter also visited Corinth after Paul founded it, and that Barnabas was also known to the Corinthians, whom Paul defended (Barnabas that is), and 1 Peter is the same in theology as Paul's letters.  As I have said, Paul said Christ is the end (telos) of the Law, which does not mean its abolishing, but that Jesus is its destination and fulfillment. 
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.
Even if Jesus isn't God and/or Son of God, your argument breaks down since Moses was used by God to set up the Sinai Covenant.  God was the Patron, Moses the Broker.  The Father is the patron of the New covenant, Jesus the Broker. 
 
This doesn't make sense as Christians DO believe Jesus (pbuh) to be the son of god or god incarnate;
 
 
Guess who it was who decided Paul's letters were Scripture?

Peter
.
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.

We know from Mark's Gospel, which is really Peter's Gospel, that Peter preached that Jesus on the night He was betrayed, and said this cup is the blood of the covenant which is poured out for many.  (Mark 14:24)  This is not just Paul's teaching. 
 
How did you come to the conclusion that Mark and Peter are the same person? Scholars are not even sure who Mark really was.
 
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.
Well, in that case, you need to pay attention especially to your claims about Christians making up stuff about Jesus instituting a covenant, a new covenant being shown to be false, especially the textual discussion concerning Luke 22:20.          
 
As I've stated earlier, all of the Prophets of God were given a covenent, so Jesus's covenent did not mean that it was a new covenent which will abrogate all the other covenents.


Posted By: Placid
Date Posted: 08 November 2012 at 5:13am
Hi Abu,

The reason for repeating the verses that contain John 1:17 was because you said it was inserted later.
--- So I quoted from the Codex Siniaticus from 400 AD,
--- Then from the Douay Version from 1600 AD,
--- Then from the New King James, from 1980.
They all contain verse 17, --- and they all say the same, do they not?

You quote from Jeremiah 31:
29 In those days they shall say no more:
‘The fathers have eaten sour grapes, And the children’s teeth are set on edge.’
30 But every one shall die for his own iniquity; every man who eats the sour grapes, his teeth shall be set on edge.

Response: --- Because they had broken their covenant there was no more provision for their salvation. --- The Law said to repent of sin and bring an unblemished animal for sacrifice, and then live righteously before the Lord.
--- But instead, they were disobedient as it says in Isaiah 66:
3 Just as they have chosen their own ways, And their soul delights in their abominations,
4 So will I choose their delusions, And bring their fears on them;
Because, when I called, no one answered, When I spoke they did not hear;
But they did evil before My eyes, And chose that in which I do not delight.”

--- And again it speaks of their contempt for God in Malachi 1:
7 “You offer defiled food on My altar, But say, ‘In what way have we defiled You?’
By saying, ‘The table of the Lord is contemptible.’
8 And when you offer the blind as a sacrifice, Is it not evil?
And when you offer the lame and sick, Is it not evil?
Offer it then to your governor! Would he be pleased with you?
Would he accept you favorably?” Says the Lord of hosts.

--- (And because of these things< God rejected them, and they would die in their sin. --- ‘Their teeth set on edge,’ --- they would live and die in fear and anger, and because they had rejected God, they had no hope of salvation.) --- And God said:
31 “Behold, the days are coming, says the Lord, when I will make a new covenant with the house of Israel and with the house of Judah— 32 not according to the covenant that I made with their fathers in the day that I took them by the hand to lead them out of the land of Egypt, My covenant which they broke, though I was a husband to them, says the Lord.

--- (So God was providing a New Covenant to those who would return to righteousness, and it was a New Covenant to the Jews in Israel.)
33 But this is the covenant that I will make with the house of Israel after those days, says the Lord: I will put My law in their minds, and write it on their hearts; and I will be their God, and they shall be My people. 34 No more shall every man teach his neighbor, and every man his brother, saying, ‘Know the Lord,’ for they all shall know Me, from the least of them to the greatest of them, says the Lord. For I will forgive their iniquity, and their sin I will remember no more.”


--- (And the prophecy of the New Covenant, is fulfilled through their Jewish Messiah, Jesus), in Hebrews 8:
7 For if that first covenant had been faultless, then no place would have been sought for a second.
8 Because finding fault with them, He says: “Behold, the days are coming, says the Lord, when I will make a new covenant with the house of Israel and with the house of Judah—
9 not according to the covenant that I made with their fathers in the day when I took them by the hand to lead them out of the land of Egypt; because they did not continue in My covenant, and I disregarded them, says the Lord.
10 For this is the covenant that I will make with the house of Israel after those days, says the Lord: I will put My laws in their mind and write them on their hearts; and I will be their God, and they shall be My people.
11 None of them shall teach his neighbor, and none his brother, saying, ‘Know the Lord,’ for all shall know Me, from the least of them to the greatest of them.
12 For I will be merciful to their unrighteousness, and their sins and their lawless deeds I will remember no more.”
13 In that He says, “A new covenant,” He has made the first obsolete. Now what is becoming obsolete and growing old is ready to vanish away.


Placid



Posted By: Abu Loren
Date Posted: 09 November 2012 at 1:16am
Originally posted by Placid

Hi Abu,

The reason for repeating the verses that contain John 1:17 was because you said it was inserted later.
--- So I quoted from the Codex Siniaticus from 400 AD,
--- Then from the Douay Version from 1600 AD,
--- Then from the New King James, from 1980.
They all contain verse 17, --- and they all say the same, do they not?
You can quote from any fancy copy you like but where is the original?

Originally posted by Placid


--- (So God was providing a New Covenant to those who would return to righteousness, and it was a New Covenant to the Jews in Israel.)
33 But this is the covenant that I will make with the house of Israel after those days, says the Lord: I will put My law in their minds, and write it on their hearts; and I will be their God, and they shall be My people. 34 No more shall every man teach his neighbor, and every man his brother, saying, ‘Know the Lord,’ for they all shall know Me, from the least of them to the greatest of them, says the Lord. For I will forgive their iniquity, and their sin I will remember no more.”
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?


Originally posted by Placid


--- (And the prophecy of the New Covenant, is fulfilled through their Jewish Messiah, Jesus), in Hebrews 8:
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.

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.......".
 
Just a question that arises out of curiosity.
 
Why would God Almighty need to have 3 distinct personalities? Is He an incapable God?


Posted By: bunter
Date Posted: 09 November 2012 at 3:12am
Originally posted by Abu Loren

To All Christians,Do you believe it is right that Paul a mere man has the authority to change the Mosiac Law?


Not sure what you are getting at, are not prophets generally 'mere' men? Biblically speaking it's not so much the man we look at but the message.


Posted By: Salaam_Erin
Date 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)    



 








 








Posted By: Abu Loren
Date 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'.

 



Posted By: Placid
Date 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



Posted By: Abu Loren
Date 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.


Posted By: Salaam_Erin
Date 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'.








 


Posted By: Placid
Date 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





Posted By: Abu Loren
Date 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.

 


Posted By: Abu Loren
Date 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?


Posted By: Placid
Date Posted: 17 November 2012 at 7:40am
Hi Abu,

The ministry of Jesus was totally different from the Jewish law in that He taught Love and Obedience as the requirements. --- And when the people came to Him in multitudes, He taught them many things in Parables.
--- A parable is really an earthly story with a heavenly meaning, --- or an easily understood story that has a Spiritual application.

Jesus often used common or local subjects to teach the 12 Apostles and then explain it, so that there would be 12 more teachers who could explain it to the multitudes. --- This was teaching the Apostles to be Leaders as well as Teachers.

This is a prophetic Parable that will involve all of us In Matthew 13:
24 Another parable He put forth to them, saying: “The kingdom of heaven is like a man who sowed good seed in his field;
25 but while men slept, his enemy came and sowed tares among the wheat and went his way.
26 But when the grain had sprouted and produced a crop, then the tares also appeared.
27 So the servants of the owner came and said to him, ‘Sir, did you not sow good seed in your field? How then does it have tares?’
28 He said to them, ‘An enemy has done this.’ The servants said to him, ‘Do you want us then to go and gather them up?’
29 But he said, ‘No, lest while you gather up the tares you also uproot the wheat with them.
30 Let both grow together until the harvest, and at the time of harvest I will say to the reapers, “First gather together the tares and bind them in bundles to burn them, but gather the wheat into my barn.”

36 Then Jesus sent the multitude away and went into the house. And His disciples came to Him, saying, “Explain to us the parable of the tares of the field.”
37 He answered and said to them: “He who sows the good seed is the Son of Man.
38 The field is the world, the good seeds are the sons of the kingdom, but the tares are the sons of the wicked one.
39 The enemy who sowed them is the devil, the harvest is the end of the age, and the reapers are the angels.
40 Therefore as the tares are gathered and burned in the fire, so it will be at the end of this age.
41 The Son of Man will send out His angels, and they will gather out of His kingdom all things that offend, and those who practice lawlessness,
42 and will cast them into the furnace of fire. There will be wailing and gnashing of teeth.
43 Then the righteous will shine forth as the sun in the kingdom of their Father.
--- He who has ears to hear, let him hear!


Placid



Posted By: Abu Loren
Date Posted: 17 November 2012 at 11:05am
Originally posted by Placid

Hi Abu,

The ministry of Jesus was totally different from the Jewish law in that He taught Love and Obedience as the requirements. --- And when the people came to Him in multitudes, He taught them many things in Parables.
--- A parable is really an earthly story with a heavenly meaning, --- or an easily understood story that has a Spiritual application.

Jesus often used common or local subjects to teach the 12 Apostles and then explain it, so that there would be 12 more teachers who could explain it to the multitudes. --- This was teaching the Apostles to be Leaders as well as Teachers.

This is a prophetic Parable that will involve all of us In Matthew 13:
24 Another parable He put forth to them, saying: “The kingdom of heaven is like a man who sowed good seed in his field;
25 but while men slept, his enemy came and sowed tares among the wheat and went his way.
26 But when the grain had sprouted and produced a crop, then the tares also appeared.
27 So the servants of the owner came and said to him, ‘Sir, did you not sow good seed in your field? How then does it have tares?’
28 He said to them, ‘An enemy has done this.’ The servants said to him, ‘Do you want us then to go and gather them up?’
29 But he said, ‘No, lest while you gather up the tares you also uproot the wheat with them.
30 Let both grow together until the harvest, and at the time of harvest I will say to the reapers, “First gather together the tares and bind them in bundles to burn them, but gather the wheat into my barn.”

36 Then Jesus sent the multitude away and went into the house. And His disciples came to Him, saying, “Explain to us the parable of the tares of the field.”
37 He answered and said to them: “He who sows the good seed is the Son of Man.
38 The field is the world, the good seeds are the sons of the kingdom, but the tares are the sons of the wicked one.
39 The enemy who sowed them is the devil, the harvest is the end of the age, and the reapers are the angels.
40 Therefore as the tares are gathered and burned in the fire, so it will be at the end of this age.
41 The Son of Man will send out His angels, and they will gather out of His kingdom all things that offend, and those who practice lawlessness,
42 and will cast them into the furnace of fire. There will be wailing and gnashing of teeth.
43 Then the righteous will shine forth as the sun in the kingdom of their Father.
--- He who has ears to hear, let him hear!


Placid

 
I'm sorry but what has this got to do with this subject?
 
The parable you've quoted is simply saying that the wicked and the righteous will be judged at th End of Days.


Posted By: Placid
Date Posted: 19 November 2012 at 6:56pm
Hi Abu,

I'm sorry but what has this got to do with this subject?
The parable you've quoted is simply saying that the wicked and the righteous will be judged at the End of Days.

Response: --- You are right, --- this parable has nothing to do with the OT Law, but rather concerns the present and the future from that point on. --- It starts with sowing the good seed, or the good Word.
And v37 says “He who sows the Good Seed is the Son of Man,” (that was Jesus), so what He was sowing could not have preceded Him could it?

--- And He said in this verse in John 5:
24 “Most assuredly, I say to you, he who hears My word and believes in Him (God) who sent Me has everlasting life, and shall not come into judgment, but has passed from death into life.”

--- Therefore, Jesus was saying that salvation does not depends on any law, but on knowing and doing His word, --- and in believing and worshiping God who sent Jesus to represent Himself on earth.

--- And in Muhammad’s last ‘teaching’ message in Surah 9, he said:
18 He only shall tend Allah's sanctuaries who believeth in Allah and the Last Day and observeth proper worship and payeth the poor-due and feareth none save Allah. For such (only) is it possible that they can be of the rightly guided.
19 Count ye the slaking of a pilgrim's thirst and tendance of the Inviolable Place of Worship as (equal to the worth of) him who believeth in Allah and the Last Day, and striveth in the way of Allah? They are not equal in the sight of Allah. Allah guideth not wrongdoing folk.
20 Those who believe, and have left their homes and striven with their wealth and their lives in Allah's way are of much greater worth in Allah's sight. These are they who are triumphant.
21 Their Lord giveth them good tidings of mercy from Him, and acceptance, and Gardens where enduring pleasure will be theirs;
22 There they will abide for ever. Lo! with Allah there is immense reward.

--- There is nothing about law there, is there?
And it says about the same for Christians in Surah 3:
55 Behold! God said: "O Jesus! I will take thee and raise thee to Myself and clear thee (of the falsehoods) of those who blaspheme; I will make those who follow thee superior to those who reject faith, to the Day of Resurrection: Then shall ye all return unto me, and I will judge between you of the matters wherein ye dispute.
56 "As to those who reject faith, I will punish them with terrible agony in this world and in the Hereafter, nor will they have anyone to help."
57 "As to those who believe and work righteousness, God will pay them (in full) their reward; but God loveth not those who do wrong."

Sher Ali: 55 Remember the time when ALLAH said' `O Jesus, I will cause thee to die a natural death and will raise thee to Myself, and will clear thee of the charges of those who disbelieve, and will exalt those who follow thee above those who disbelieve, until the Day of Resurrection; then to ME shall be your return, and I will judge between you concerning that wherein you differ.
--- I understand that in Arabic, the word, or words, --- refer to physical death, which is the separation of the body and spirit.

So it seems that acceptance with God involves Faith in Him, --- and that faith is expressed in doing ‘good works’ of love for others.


Placid



Posted By: Abu Loren
Date Posted: 21 November 2012 at 2:46am
Originally posted by Placid

Hi Abu,

Response: --- You are right, --- this parable has nothing to do with the OT Law, but rather concerns the present and the future from that point on. --- It starts with sowing the good seed, or the good Word.
And v37 says “He who sows the Good Seed is the Son of Man,” (that was Jesus), so what He was sowing could not have preceded Him could it?
Salaam,
I accept that Jesus (Alayhi Salaam) was sowing the good seed with his teaching, but that is not exclusive to Jesus (Alayhi Salaam) but to all the Prophets and Messengers of God because they all came with the good news of salvation for mankind. So all Prophets of God sowed the godd seeds.

--- And He said in this verse in John 5:
24 “Most assuredly, I say to you, he who hears My word and believes in Him (God) who sent Me has everlasting life, and shall not come into judgment, but has passed from death into life.”

--- Therefore, Jesus was saying that salvation does not depends on any law, but on knowing and doing His word, --- and in believing and worshiping God who sent Jesus to represent Himself on earth.
I have a big problem with the Gospel of John. Somehow I just believe anything written in it, it seems like it was written expecially for and by Trinitarians. This Gospel stands out like a sore thumb.

--- And in Muhammad’s last ‘teaching’ message in Surah 9, he said:
18 He only shall tend Allah's sanctuaries who believeth in Allah and the Last Day and observeth proper worship and payeth the poor-due and feareth none save Allah. For such (only) is it possible that they can be of the rightly guided.
19 Count ye the slaking of a pilgrim's thirst and tendance of the Inviolable Place of Worship as (equal to the worth of) him who believeth in Allah and the Last Day, and striveth in the way of Allah? They are not equal in the sight of Allah. Allah guideth not wrongdoing folk.
20 Those who believe, and have left their homes and striven with their wealth and their lives in Allah's way are of much greater worth in Allah's sight. These are they who are triumphant.
21 Their Lord giveth them good tidings of mercy from Him, and acceptance, and Gardens where enduring pleasure will be theirs;
22 There they will abide for ever. Lo! with Allah there is immense reward.
I don't understand the context. The verses that you've quoted are comparing believers to people who do works for show.


--- There is nothing about law there, is there?
And it says about the same for Christians in Surah 3:
55 Behold! God said: "O Jesus! I will take thee and raise thee to Myself and clear thee (of the falsehoods) of those who blaspheme; I will make those who follow thee superior to those who reject faith, to the Day of Resurrection: Then shall ye all return unto me, and I will judge between you of the matters wherein ye dispute.
56 "As to those who reject faith, I will punish them with terrible agony in this world and in the Hereafter, nor will they have anyone to help."
57 "As to those who believe and work righteousness, God will pay them (in full) their reward; but God loveth not those who do wrong."

--- I understand that in Arabic, the word, or words, --- refer to physical death, which is the separation of the body and spirit.

So it seems that acceptance with God involves Faith in Him, --- and that faith is expressed in doing ‘good works’ of love for others.


Placid

 
The Law is mentioned elsewhere in the Holy Qur'an. May be you should compare Shar'ia Law to the Mosaic Law, you will be surprised.
 
The Law of God is important, surely, otherwise you will have lawlessness which is the weapon of satan. Therefore, godly law is protection from the satanic lawlessness. Compare lawlessmess in Chritianity where everything decays into chaos to the law of Judaism and Islam. This kind of situation gave rise to the 'anything goes' scenario where Christians think they can do anything and can get away with it.


Posted By: Placid
Date Posted: 22 November 2012 at 2:01pm
Hi Abu,

Quote: I accept that Jesus (Alayhi Salaam) was sowing the good seed with his teaching, but that is not exclusive to Jesus (Alayhi Salaam) but to all the Prophets and Messengers of God because they all came with the good news of salvation for mankind. So all Prophets of God sowed the godd seeds.

Response: --- The Prophets of the OT gave good seeds, but most of it fell on deaf ears, so, --- it IS exclusive to the New Testament that the Message of the Gospel or Injil was given, --- and it was made powerful through the Holy Spirit of God.

Quote: --- [Therefore, Jesus was saying that salvation does not depend on any law, but on knowing and doing His word, --- and in believing and worshiping God who sent Jesus to represent Himself on earth.]
I have a big problem with the Gospel of John. Somehow I just believe anything written in it, it seems like it was written expecially for and by Trinitarians. This Gospel stands out like a sore thumb.

Response: --- Did you mean to say you “don’t” believe anything written in it?
The words, trinity, and trinitarians, are not in the Gospel of John, --- neither is there a ‘doctrine of trinity’ in the NT. --- I have always said that the faulty ‘doctrine of trinity,’ which came out of a meeting in AD 325, --- came out of the faulty Church, not out of the Scriptures. --- But, a little clarity:
--- The Gospel of Matthew was written to the Jews.
--- The Gospel of Mark was written to the Romans.
--- The Gospel of Luke was written to the Greeks.
--- And the Gospel of John was written later with his knowledge of all the others, so he didn’t repeat the same events, but wrote a general Gospel that explains the power and working of the Holy Spirit, in relationship to Man’s salvation.

It may interest you to know that I don’t accept the trinity as it is generally taught in many Churches. It can’t really be explained and it is rarely mentioned other than as a tradition, --- as it has no significance in one’s salvation through Faith.

--- There is a statement made by John that is misunderstood, because it does not include Jesus the Son, --- but it says in I John 5:
7 For there are three that bear witness in heaven: the Father, the Word, and the Holy Spirit; and these three are one.
--- This verse corresponds with the way the Gospel begins in John 1:
1 In the beginning was the Word (Logos), and the Word was with God, and the Word was God.
2 He was in the beginning with God.
3 All things were made through Him (the Word, Logos), and without Him nothing was made that was made.

---When they try to replace the ‘Creative power of God through the Word (Logos),’ --- with Jesus the Son, --- then they have Jesus, creating all things, --- which is faulty. --- The human Jesus, was born on earth, He lived on earth, and He died on earth. --- However, He was indwelt by the Word (Logos) and filled with the Holy Spirit, so He was God’s representative on earth.

I rather agree with What Muhammad said in this verse in Surah 4:
171 O People of the Book! Commit no excesses in your religion: Nor say of God aught but the truth. Christ Jesus the son of Mary was an apostle (Messenger) of God, and His Word, which He bestowed on Mary, and a Spirit proceeding from Him: so believe in God and His apostles. Say not "Trinity" : desist: it will be better for you: for God is one God: Glory be to Him:

Notice: --- Jesus was the Messenger of God, --- and His Word, --- and a Spirit from Himself.
172. Christ will never scorn nor disdain to serve and worship God, nor do the angels, those nearest (to God).

--- The Word (Logos) and the Holy Spirit were really Servants of God, as was Jesus when He was on earth.

(More later on the other quotes.)


Placid



Posted By: Abu Loren
Date Posted: 23 November 2012 at 10:13am
Originally posted by Placid

Hi Abu,


--- The Word (Logos) and the Holy Spirit were really Servants of God, as was Jesus when He was on earth.

(More later on the other quotes.)


Placid

 
So you are deviant Christian preaching a new gospel?


Posted By: Caringheart
Date Posted: 23 November 2012 at 12:11pm
Greetings Abu,

Placid and I do not agree on trinity teaching.  This is not an uncommon thing.  I do not see him as deviant.  Just as Shia and Sunni do not agree on all teaching.  God's Word is always subject to interpretation.  This is why we each must be free to find our own way.  Only God can lead, not man.

Regarding an earlier comment of yours...
the only place I see chaos in the world is in the Islamic regions... however, there is not chaos in Iran is there? or in Saudi Arabia, or Malaysia?  This has more to do with leadership.

Salaam,
CH


Posted By: Salaam_Erin
Date Posted: 24 November 2012 at 1:01pm
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.

And how do you know what was 'forged'? Jesus never preached EVER that the Torah was forged. Your only chance is Jeremiah 8:8 and that was a forgery by syncretist priests justifying YHWH as a fertility god with Asherah as his consort. This fake Bible was exposed as such by the rediscovery of the true Torah in 621 BC in the Temple, long before Jeremiah preached against the disobedient priests. Not a single copy of this fake Torah exists anymore. Presumably it was lost once the Babylonians destroyed Jerusalem and the Temple in 587 BC. The true Torah's preservation was made possible by the rediscovery of the the true Torah in 621 BC which was presumably hidden during the persecution of the YHWH Only Movement (those of the true Faith) by King Manasseh. Also, Jeremiah and his secretary Baruch, and the scribal tribe of the Recabites preserved the true Bible in the Holy Land, while many faithful priests such as the Prophet Ezekiel and the likes of the Prophet Daniel kept true copies of the Torah in Babylon. They had been deported there in 597 BC, and so the true Torah was preserved. It was from Babylon that Ezra the priest and scribe brought copies of the Torah and he founded the excellent proto-Massoretic Babylonian Text which was the basis of the Massoretic Text from AD 500-1000. This was already seen to be the best Hebrew text amongst the Essenes who wrote the Dead Sea Scrolls from around 150 BC onwards and Queen Salome Alexandra who in 70 BC ordered more copies of the Torah to be brought from Babylon to Jerusalem, Babylon having a leading and influential Jewish community. The issues concerning Judaism in the 1st century AD were totally different from those concerning Jeremiah in the 6th century BC and controversies over texts did not exist. When Jesus debated with the Pharisees, He fully expected them to have the same Torah He did.    


Posted By: Salaam_Erin
Date Posted: 24 November 2012 at 1:16pm
The Romans persecuted the Christians up until the two religions merged.

The two religions did not merge when Christianity was legalised. In fact Roman religion was abolished in AD 390 by the Emperor Theodosius I.

Simply saying 'nope' in relation to Paul not changing the OT law is not an argument. Paul concerns himself with the New Covenant, which is different from the OT law. The OT law, Paul taught, leads us to Jesus.

Judas and Silas were indeed prophets, empowered by the Holy Spirit, and indeed Silas was co-author of some of Paul's Letters and co-author with Peter of 1 Peter.

I have a big problem with the Gospel of John. Somehow I just believe anything written in it, it seems like it was written expecially for and by Trinitarians. This Gospel stands out like a sore thumb.

John walked with Jesus and was the disciple whom He loved, His best friend. You're just not coping with Jewish Wisdom Theology and the concept of God as a Hypostatic Entity. Besides, what of Muslims who use the Gospel of John to 'prove' that Jesus said He was not God, and even slice Jesus' sayings apart and rip them out of context in order to justify this claim? It's not that different from the Synoptic Gospels- just look at how explicit Jesus gets with His Son of Man is the Lord of the Sabbath, can forgive sins sayings, and His proclamation under oath to the High Priest Caiaphas citing Daniel 7:14.

The Law is mentioned elsewhere in the Holy Qur'an. May be you should compare Shar'ia Law to the Mosaic Law, you will be surprised. The Law of God is important, surely, otherwise you will have lawlessness which is the weapon of satan. Therefore, godly law is protection from the satanic lawlessness. Compare lawlessmess in Chritianity where everything decays into chaos to the law of Judaism and Islam. This kind of situation gave rise to the 'anything goes' scenario where Christians think they can do anything and can get away with it.

Careful, Abu, Ancient Israel was constituted by God as a political entity. The Church is not. See Acts 1. The Church is a witness to Jesus and is to make disciples. Jesus in Heaven retains the political authority- to be enforced when He returns. Christianity is not lawless- never confuse Western secularism for Christianity. Christians don't think they can do anything and get away with it. Repentance is part and parcel of conversion to Christianity. The Law of Christ in the New Covenant contains the ethical laws of the Old Covenant. It's the sacrificial system of the Old Covenant which is not needed as it is fulfilled by the Cross.

So you are deviant Christian preaching a new gospel?

If the Logos and Spirit are 'servants' they are only so voluntarily as equal Hypostases to the Father coming from within Him to express His bidding to us on Earth. I hope this is what Placid means. Never confuse voluntary earthly subordinationalism with ontological equality.



Posted By: honeto
Date Posted: 24 November 2012 at 3:24pm
Placid,
also looking at your first response in the post above you said:
"Response: --- The Prophets of the OT gave good seeds, but most of it fell on deaf ears, so, --- it IS exclusive to the New Testament that the Message of the Gospel or Injil was given, --- and it was made powerful through the Holy Spirit of God. "
Those seems to be just words without any material proof or meanings. How different it that in real term. The word of Gospel, powerful vs the words of Old Testament? I see those who read and profess the words of OT NT and FT (Final Testament, the Quran) good bad and in between. It is the individual that makes the choice to be guided by God's guidance or reject it. Unless God open's a heart, none of them do any magic like you claim for NT. Can you prove you claim?
Hasan

-------------
39:64 Proclaim: Is it some one other than God that you order me to worship, O you ignorant ones?"


Posted By: Placid
Date Posted: 26 November 2012 at 6:36pm
Hi Abu,

(I had said): --- The Word (Logos) and the Holy Spirit were really Servants of God, as was Jesus when He was on earth.
Quote: So you are deviant Christian preaching a new gospel?

No, only a Bible believing Christian.
Abu, you might be the first Muslim to understand what I’m saying, --- But it is not a new Gospel.
I have no argument with the Trinitarians. --- They believe as they do and I believe as I do. --- But we all believe in the Three in Heaven, as it says in 1 John 5:
7 For there are three that bear witness in heaven, the Father, the Word, and the Holy Spirit, and these three are one.

Our understanding of the three in heaven, and how God has manifested Himself through them on earth does not affect our salvation, which comes through Faith in Jesus Christ, and the worship of God, --- as it says in Surah 3:
50 (Jesus said), I have come to you with a Sign from your Lord. So fear God, and obey me.
51 "It is God Who is my Lord and your Lord; then worship Him. This is a Way that is straight."
--- (This is what we believe as Christians, and this is what we do.)
And the Quran says, “This is a Way that is straight.”
--- Is there a straighter Way for Christians?)

And four verses later, it says in Surah 3:
55 Behold! God said: "O Jesus! I will take thee and raise thee to Myself and clear thee (of the falsehoods) of those who blaspheme; I will make those who follow thee superior to those who reject faith, to the Day of Resurrection: Then shall ye all return unto me, and I will judge between you of the matters wherein ye dispute.
--- (And if God says “This is a Way that is straight, is it not the Way to be on?)
--- So this is not a ‘new’ Gospel, is it? --- Jesus said more than once “Follow Me.”

I will start to explain myself, but since you don’t like long posts, I will have to continue later.

--- Somebody said, “GOD is of Divine Essence which is above Personhood.” --- Therefore there can be no likeness of God, in all creation. --- Also John said “No one has seen God at any time.”
So GOD cannot be seen. --- And the Holy Spirit is present, but cannot be seen.
And the Word (Logos) cannot be seen either, --- but (I believe) He has been Manifested in different Personages to represent and ‘Reveal God’ to people on earth.
Consider these appearances: --- Melchizedek in Genesis 14:18, --- with an explanation in Hebrews 7: 1-3 --- and 3 says, “Without father, without mother, without genealogy, having neither beginning of days nor end of life, but made like the Son of God, remains a priest continually.”
As the LORD in Genesis 18:1, --- and as the Commander of the army of the LORD in Joshua 5:13-15. --- (And I believe, He was later called ‘the LORD of hosts.’)

And the fourth Man in the fiery furnace in Daniel 3:
25 “Look!” he answered, “I see four men loose, walking in the midst of the fire; and they are not hurt, and the form of the fourth is like the Son of God.”
--- And finally. in His last Role as the indwelling Word (Logos) of God, in the Person of Jesus. John 1:
14 And the Word became flesh and dwelt among us, and we beheld His glory, the glory as of the only begotten of the Father, full of grace and truth.

More later


Placid



Posted By: Placid
Date Posted: 27 November 2012 at 6:19am
(To continue)

John 1 confirms that the Word (Logos) was with God in the beginning,:
1 In the beginning was the Word, and the Word was with God, and the Word was God.
2 He was in the beginning with God.
3 All things were made through Him, and without Him nothing was made that was made.

--- God created, --- but through the Word (Logos).
So, you see, the Word (Logos) did not act on His own, but responded to the will of God. Consider Genesis 1:
1 In the beginning God created the heavens and the earth.
2 The earth was without form, and void; and darkness was on the face of the deep. And the Spirit of God was hovering over the face of the waters.
3 Then God said, “Let there be light”; and there was light.

--- 1 God created --- (Notice the Three in these verses, --- 1 God --- 2 the Holy Spirit, --- and 3 the Word.)
--- 2 God’s Holy Spirit ‘hovered (brooded) over the deep (the waters),’ and brought life to the sea. --- (Do not scientists agree that life on Earth began in the sea?)
--- 3 God said, “Let there be light” --- so there was the active Word --- “Be,” to bring in the light. --- If all things were created ‘through the Word,’ --- then when God said, “Let there Be,” --- then the ‘creative Word (Logos)’ brought it into being.

As in Surah 19:35     It is not befitting to (the majesty of) God that He should beget a son. Glory be to Him! when He determines a matter, He only says to it, "Be", and it is.
--- Or we can consider the verse which mentions the ‘Word’ in Surah 3:
45 Behold! the angels said: "O Mary! God giveth thee glad tidings of a Word from Him: his name will be Christ Jesus, the son of Mary, held in honour in this world and the Hereafter and of (the company of) those nearest to God;
45 Hilali Khan: (Remember) when the angels said: "O Maryam (Mary)! Verily, Allah gives you the glad tidings of a Word ["Be!" - and he was! i.e. 'Iesa (Jesus) the son of Maryam (Mary)] from Him, his name will be the Messiah 'Iesa (Jesus), the son of Maryam (Mary), held in honour in this world and in the Hereafter, and will be one of those who are near to Allah."

While it is accurate to say that God ‘created’ all things, --- if He created them ‘through’ His Holy Spirit, and His Word (Logos), --- then They responded to His will, did they not?
--- When God said, “Let there be light,” --- then the Word (Logos) brought it into being. --- Does this not give the understanding that Almighty God was the Architect, --- and His Holy Spirit, and His Holy Word, brought His plans into being?

Therefore, --- does this not reveal that Almighty God was always “The Leader?”
--- And that the Holy Spirit and the Word (Logos) did not act on their own, but they always responded in harmony with God’s will.
--- So can we not say, --- that in this sense, --- The Word, and the Holy Spirit were “Servants” of God, to do His will?
--- So, if this is the case from the beginning, --- they were not “Co-equal” as the trinity doctrine said, is that not right?

Now Abu, if you don’t believe the OT and how it carries over into the NT and the Quran, then you will believe nothing of this. --- So that is okay for now, --- but you were questioning, so I am just responding with what God has given me to understand from the Scriptures. --- Others may not agree, but that is the blessing of our individuality, --- and to have the civility of discussion, to enlighten, --- or to be enlightened
(More later)


Placid



Posted By: Abu Loren
Date Posted: 28 November 2012 at 1:21am
Originally posted by Placid

Hi Abu,

(I had said): --- The Word (Logos) and the Holy Spirit were really Servants of God, as was Jesus when He was on earth.
Quote: So you are deviant Christian preaching a new gospel?

No, only a Bible believing Christian.
Abu, you might be the first Muslim to understand what I’m saying, --- But it is not a new Gospel.
I have no argument with the Trinitarians. --- They believe as they do and I believe as I do. --- But we all believe in the Three in Heaven, as it says in 1 John 5:
7 For there are three that bear witness in heaven, the Father, the Word, and the Holy Spirit, and these three are one.

Our understanding of the three in heaven, and how God has manifested Himself through them on earth does not affect our salvation, which comes through Faith in Jesus Christ, and the worship of God, --- as it says in Surah 3:
50 (Jesus said), I have come to you with a Sign from your Lord. So fear God, and obey me.
51 "It is God Who is my Lord and your Lord; then worship Him. This is a Way that is straight."
--- (This is what we believe as Christians, and this is what we do.)
And the Quran says, “This is a Way that is straight.”
--- Is there a straighter Way for Christians?)

And four verses later, it says in Surah 3:
55 Behold! God said: "O Jesus! I will take thee and raise thee to Myself and clear thee (of the falsehoods) of those who blaspheme; I will make those who follow thee superior to those who reject faith, to the Day of Resurrection: Then shall ye all return unto me, and I will judge between you of the matters wherein ye dispute.
--- (And if God says “This is a Way that is straight, is it not the Way to be on?)
--- So this is not a ‘new’ Gospel, is it? --- Jesus said more than once “Follow Me.”

I will start to explain myself, but since you don’t like long posts, I will have to continue later.

--- Somebody said, “GOD is of Divine Essence which is above Personhood.” --- Therefore there can be no likeness of God, in all creation. --- Also John said “No one has seen God at any time.”
So GOD cannot be seen. --- And the Holy Spirit is present, but cannot be seen.
And the Word (Logos) cannot be seen either, --- but (I believe) He has been Manifested in different Personages to represent and ‘Reveal God’ to people on earth.
Consider these appearances: --- Melchizedek in Genesis 14:18, --- with an explanation in Hebrews 7: 1-3 --- and 3 says, “Without father, without mother, without genealogy, having neither beginning of days nor end of life, but made like the Son of God, remains a priest continually.”
As the LORD in Genesis 18:1, --- and as the Commander of the army of the LORD in Joshua 5:13-15. --- (And I believe, He was later called ‘the LORD of hosts.’)

And the fourth Man in the fiery furnace in Daniel 3:
25 “Look!” he answered, “I see four men loose, walking in the midst of the fire; and they are not hurt, and the form of the fourth is like the Son of God.”
--- And finally. in His last Role as the indwelling Word (Logos) of God, in the Person of Jesus. John 1:
14 And the Word became flesh and dwelt among us, and we beheld His glory, the glory as of the only begotten of the Father, full of grace and truth.

More later


Placid

 
You are just deluding yourself with all these explanations of the Quadrinity. Why is it hard for you people to just believe in ONE GOD? Forget the son and the holy spirit which just does not make any sense. You are just burying yourself deeper and deeper with these explanations which are exclusive to ONLY you. You are also getting further away from the Christian teachings, some Christians will probably call you a heretic. Just give it up. Also stop using the Holy Qur'an to justify your st**idity.


Posted By: Abu Loren
Date Posted: 28 November 2012 at 1:28am
Originally posted by Placid

(To continue)

Now Abu, if you don’t believe the OT and how it carries over into the NT and the Quran, then you will believe nothing of this. --- So that is okay for now, --- but you were questioning, so I am just responding with what God has given me to understand from the Scriptures. --- Others may not agree, but that is the blessing of our individuality, --- and to have the civility of discussion, to enlighten, --- or to be enlightened
(More later)


Placid

 
I've deleted what you've written above as it is just pure rubish but I will respond to this.
 
Don't be deluded that the OT carries over into the NT and the Qur'an. Re-read the Holy Qur'an and you will see that the whole reason for it's revelation is that both the Torah and the Injil are corrupted. It's people like you who corrupt it with your own ideas and interpretations of it, then what happens is that you innovate. This is strictly forbidden in Islam.
 
If you are not careful you will start a new Christian cult pretty soon.


Posted By: honeto
Date Posted: 29 November 2012 at 10:58am
Placid writes,
"John 1 confirms that the Word (Logos) was with God in the beginning,:
1 In the beginning was the Word, and the Word was with God, and the Word was God.
2 He was in the beginning with God.
3 All things were made through Him, and without Him nothing was made that was made."


Question arises, if like many you are suggesting that somehow it refers to Jesus. If that is so why did they called him Jesus and not "Logos" if it was a name according to you. It does not make sense if someone has a name already, like you claim, how come his name is then changed. Did anyone mention in the OT that their is a person of God named "Logos" and his name will be changed, and he (that person of God) will come to the earth?
And if there were two or three persons of God in a Trinity as you believe where is that mentioned in the OT?
Did anyone before Jesus mentioned anything about such an important aspect of God, or they just forgot?
And please don't forget to answer my previous question.
Hasan


-------------
39:64 Proclaim: Is it some one other than God that you order me to worship, O you ignorant ones?"


Posted By: Placid
Date Posted: 01 December 2012 at 8:13am
Hi Abu,

Quote: Re-read the Holy Qur'an and you will see that the whole reason for it's revelation is that both the Torah and the Injil are corrupted.


Response: --- can you show the verses that give this new revelation.
And can you list any new laws in the Quran, that are not in the former Scriptures, --- other than dietary laws, those on multiple marriages and their inheritances.


Posted By: Placid
Date Posted: 01 December 2012 at 10:04am
Hi Honeto,

Quote: Placid,
also looking at your first response in the post above you said:
"Response: --- The Prophets of the OT gave good seeds, but most of it fell on deaf ears, so, --- it IS exclusive to the New Testament that the Message of the Gospel or Injil was given, --- and it was made powerful through the Holy Spirit of God. "
Those seems to be just words without any material proof or meanings. How different it that in real term. The word of Gospel, powerful vs the words of Old Testament?

Response: --- Yes, I see that you are quite a discerning person to pick up on this, and ask why. --- I will gladly explain this to you in two posts, and I hope that you will understand what the Scriptures say from Jeremiah and Hebrews.

--- At the end, you can say, --- “That’s okay for you to believe, but it’s not for me.”
You see, I don’t argue these points but just show what the Scriptures say in their continuity from the OT to the NT.

Jeremiah’s Prophetic ministry was from 627-580 BC and because of the rebellious state of both Israel and Judah, God called him to warn them of the coming disasters.
A large part of Israel, the ten northern tribes, had been taken into captivity in Assyria, some 200 years before, and most of them were dispersed in that area, rather than returning to Israel. --- So now, Jeremiah was called to warn the southern two tribes of Judah to repent and return to God, or they too, would be taken into captivity

So God gave Jeremiah 10 sermons to preach to them. I will give some content from them, starting in Jeremiah 2:
5 Thus says the LORD, “What injustice have your fathers found in Me? That they have gone far from Me, have followed idols and become idolaters?”
6 Neither did they say, “Where is the LORD that brought us up out of the land of Egypt?”
8 The priests did not say, “Where is the LORD? And those who handled the law did not know Me.”
3:11 Then the LORD said to me, “Backsliding Israel has shown herself more righteous than treacherous Judah.”
4:14 “O Jerusalem, wash your hearts from wickedness, that you may be saved.”
18 “This is your wickedness, because it is bitter, because it reaches to your heart.”
5:7 “How shall I pardon you of this? Your children have forsaken Me and sworn by those who are not gods.
When I had fed them to the full then they committed adultery and assembled themselves by troops in the harlots’ houses.”
30 “An astonishing and horrible thing has been committed in the land
31 The prophets prophesy falsely and the priests rule by their own power, and My people love to have it so, --- but what will you do in the end?”

7:1 The word of the LORD came to Jeremiah saying, “Stand in the gate of the LORD’s house and proclaim, “Hear the word of the LORD, all you of Judah who enter in at these gates to worship the Lord.”
8 “Behold you trust in lying words that cannot profit.
9 Will you steal, murder, commit adultery, swear falsely, burn incense to Baal and walk after other gods whom you do not know
10 and then come and stand before Me in this house, which is called by My name, and say, ‘We are delivered to do all these abominations’?”
11 "Has this house which is called by My name become a den of thieves in your eyes? Behold, I, even I, have seen it,” says the LORD.
13 “And now, because you have done all these works,” says the LORD, “And I spoke to you, but you did not hear, and I called you, but you did not answer.”

--- The warnings go on for several more chapters, --- but they did not respond so, --- without God’s protection, --- Nebuchadnezzar invaded and carried them away in captivity to Babylon, --- about 600 BC.
(Enough for now).


Placid





Posted By: Abu Loren
Date Posted: 02 December 2012 at 1:10am
Originally posted by Placid

Hi Abu,

Quote: Re-read the Holy Qur'an and you will see that the whole reason for it's revelation is that both the Torah and the Injil are corrupted.


Response: --- can you show the verses that give this new revelation.
And can you list any new laws in the Quran, that are not in the former Scriptures, --- other than dietary laws, those on multiple marriages and their inheritances.
 
Salaam,
 
I'm surprised that you want quotes from the Holy Qur'an. You seem to indicate that you are an expert in Qur'anic verses.
 
Sahih International
 
So woe to those who write the "scripture" with their own hands, then say, "This is from Allah ," in order to exchange it for a small price. Woe to them for what their hands have written and woe to them for what they earn. 2:79
 
Or do you say that Abraham and Ishmael and Isaac and Jacob and the Descendants were Jews or Christians? Say, "Are you more knowing or is Allah ?" And who is more unjust than one who conceals a testimony he has from Allah ? And Allah is not unaware of what you do. 2:140
 
Those who follow the Messenger, the unlettered prophet, whom they find written in what they have of the Torah and the Gospel, who enjoins upon them what is right and forbids them what is wrong and makes lawful for them the good things and prohibits for them the evil and relieves them of their burden and the shackles which were upon them. So they who have believed in him, honored him, supported him and followed the light which was sent down with him - it is those who will be the successful. 7:157
 
 


Posted By: honeto
Date Posted: 02 December 2012 at 7:35pm
Originally posted by Placid

Hi Honeto,

Quote: Placid,
also looking at your first response in the post above you said:
"Response: --- The Prophets of the OT gave good seeds, but most of it fell on deaf ears, so, --- it IS exclusive to the New Testament that the Message of the Gospel or Injil was given, --- and it was made powerful through the Holy Spirit of God. "
Those seems to be just words without any material proof or meanings. How different it that in real term. The word of Gospel, powerful vs the words of Old Testament?

Response: --- Yes, I see that you are quite a discerning person to pick up on this, and ask why. --- I will gladly explain this to you in two posts, and I hope that you will understand what the Scriptures say from Jeremiah and Hebrews.

--- At the end, you can say, --- “That’s okay for you to believe, but it’s not for me.”
You see, I don’t argue these points but just show what the Scriptures say in their continuity from the OT to the NT.

Jeremiah’s Prophetic ministry was from 627-580 BC and because of the rebellious state of both Israel and Judah, God called him to warn them of the coming disasters.
A large part of Israel, the ten northern tribes, had been taken into captivity in Assyria, some 200 years before, and most of them were dispersed in that area, rather than returning to Israel. --- So now, Jeremiah was called to warn the southern two tribes of Judah to repent and return to God, or they too, would be taken into captivity

So God gave Jeremiah 10 sermons to preach to them. I will give some content from them, starting in Jeremiah 2:
5 Thus says the LORD, “What injustice have your fathers found in Me? That they have gone far from Me, have followed idols and become idolaters?”
6 Neither did they say, “Where is the LORD that brought us up out of the land of Egypt?”
8 The priests did not say, “Where is the LORD? And those who handled the law did not know Me.”
3:11 Then the LORD said to me, “Backsliding Israel has shown herself more righteous than treacherous Judah.”
4:14 “O Jerusalem, wash your hearts from wickedness, that you may be saved.”
18 “This is your wickedness, because it is bitter, because it reaches to your heart.”
5:7 “How shall I pardon you of this? Your children have forsaken Me and sworn by those who are not gods.
When I had fed them to the full then they committed adultery and assembled themselves by troops in the harlots’ houses.”
30 “An astonishing and horrible thing has been committed in the land
31 The prophets prophesy falsely and the priests rule by their own power, and My people love to have it so, --- but what will you do in the end?”

7:1 The word of the LORD came to Jeremiah saying, “Stand in the gate of the LORD’s house and proclaim, “Hear the word of the LORD, all you of Judah who enter in at these gates to worship the Lord.”
8 “Behold you trust in lying words that cannot profit.
9 Will you steal, murder, commit adultery, swear falsely, burn incense to Baal and walk after other gods whom you do not know
10 and then come and stand before Me in this house, which is called by My name, and say, ‘We are delivered to do all these abominations’?”
11 "Has this house which is called by My name become a den of thieves in your eyes? Behold, I, even I, have seen it,” says the LORD.
13 “And now, because you have done all these works,” says the LORD, “And I spoke to you, but you did not hear, and I called you, but you did not answer.”

--- The warnings go on for several more chapters, --- but they did not respond so, --- without God’s protection, --- Nebuchadnezzar invaded and carried them away in captivity to Babylon, --- about 600 BC.
(Enough for now).


Placid





Placid,
now you look confused. Just read please what I wrote, and what you replied with.
___"Placid writes,
"John 1 confirms that the Word (Logos) was with God in the beginning,:
1 In the beginning was the Word, and the Word was with God, and the Word was God.
2 He was in the beginning with God.
3 All things were made through Him, and without Him nothing was made that was made."

Honeto replied:
Question arises, if like many you are suggesting that somehow it refers to Jesus. If that is so why did they called him Jesus and not "Logos" if it was a name according to you. It does not make sense if someone has a name already, like you claim, how come his name is then changed. Did anyone mention in the OT that their is a person of God named "Logos" and his name will be changed, and he (that person of God) will come to the earth?
And if there were two or three persons of God in a Trinity as you believe where is that mentioned in the OT?
Did anyone before Jesus mentioned anything about such an important aspect of God, or they just forgot?
And please don't forget to answer my previous question."

Can you please read, and then reply. Thank you.
Hasan


-------------
39:64 Proclaim: Is it some one other than God that you order me to worship, O you ignorant ones?"


Posted By: Placid
Date Posted: 03 December 2012 at 8:04am
Hi Abu,

The verses you gave, --- in Surah 2:79 and verse 140, simply reveal that there were false teachers that wrote false sermons , or perhaps books for sale to make a profit. But that did not change the Scriptures any more than those today who write false books about the Bible and Quran (for a profit), --- have any effect upon the written Scriptures.

However, this third verse was believed long before Muhammad became a messenger of God, and is followed by upright believers in God --- and in what is good and right, is it not? --- It doesn’t teach division, prejudice, or war, does it?
--- “Those who follow the Messenger, the unlettered prophet, whom they find written in what they have of the Torah and the Gospel, who enjoins upon them what is right and forbids them what is wrong and makes lawful for them the good things and prohibits for them the evil and relieves them of their burden and the shackles which were upon them. So they who have believed in him, honored him, supported him and followed the light which was sent down with him - it is those who will be the successful.” 7:157

--- Note: --- These words, ‘relieves them of their burden and the shackles which were upon them.’ --- That speaks loudly of the Old Testament laws, which were done away with in the coming of Christ in the New Testament. ---And the ‘light’ given to Muhammad is found in Surah 42:
52 And thus have We inspired in thee (Muhammad) a Spirit of Our command. Thou knewest not what the Scripture was, nor what the Faith. But We have made it (the revelation) a Light whereby We guide whom We will of Our bondmen (servants).

--- The ones who believed this in the days of Moses were successful. --- The ones that followed this Message in the days of Jesus, --- (and even up to this day) are successful.
--- You see, the Message is the important part, not the Messenger, --- as the Quran says the messengers are all the same, “We make no distinction between them, but unto God we have surrendered.” 2:136, and 3:84.
--- (Those are verses you like to use when emphasizing that Jesus was ‘just a messenger’, --- but it applies to Muhammad as well, does it not?)

And here was the response of Christians to what Muhammad taught, in Surah 5:
82 Strongest among men in enmity to the believers wilt thou find the Jews and Pagans; and nearest among them in love to the believers wilt thou find those who say, "We are Christians": because amongst these are men devoted to learning and men who have renounced the world, and they are not arrogant.
83 And when they listen to the revelation received by the Apostle, thou wilt see their eyes overflowing with tears, for they recognise the truth: they pray: "Our Lord! we believe; write us down among the witnesses.
84 "What cause can we have not to believe in God and the truth which has come to us, seeing that we long for our Lord to admit us to the company of the righteous?"
85 And for this their prayer hath God rewarded them with gardens, with rivers flowing underneath, - their eternal home. Such is the recompense of those who do good.
86 But those who reject Faith and belie our Signs, - they shall be companions of Hell-fire.

--- This is what I find when I read the Quran, which should bring us closer together, should it not?
However, --- this was not a ‘new law’ in the Quran, --- and you will have to list the new laws, because in reading it, --- I haven’t found any.


Placid



Posted By: Caringheart
Date Posted: 03 December 2012 at 4:24pm
Greetings Hasan,
Aren't there 99 or more different names for God in the Qur'an, to represent different aspects of His nature?
Salaam,
CH


Posted By: Placid
Date Posted: 03 December 2012 at 6:22pm
Hi Honeto,

I said I would answer the first question in two posts, --- then I will answer about the Logos. --- (My wife and family keep me busy as well, so I can’t keep up immediately in answering the questions.)
--- What I do is copy the questions into a document and then answer them in order, so it takes a little while, --- but be patient. This is the second post of the first question.

I listed in the first Post, some of the sins of the Jews, and how Jeremiah’s words and warnings fell on deaf ears, --- So, this is what God did about it, and it is prophesied in Jeremiah 31:
31 “Behold, the days are coming, says the Lord, when I will make a new covenant with the house of Israel and with the house of Judah—
32 not according to the covenant that I made with their fathers in the day that I took them by the hand to lead them out of the land of Egypt, My covenant which they broke, though I was a husband to them, says the Lord.
33 But this is the covenant that I will make with the house of Israel after those days, says the Lord: I will put My law in their minds, and write it on their hearts; and I will be their God, and they shall be My people.
34 No more shall every man teach his neighbor, and every man his brother, saying, ‘Know the Lord,’ for they all shall know Me, from the least of them to the greatest of them, says the Lord. For I will forgive their iniquity, and their sin I will remember no more.”

--- Notice: --- God said He would make a New Covenant, which is what the New Testament is. --- Notice, He said, “I will put My law in their minds, and write it on their hearts.”

--- This is speaking of the Holy Spirit that would indwell them. John 14:
15: (Jesus said)   “If you love Me, keep My commandments.
16 And I will pray the Father, and He will give you another Helper, that He may abide with you forever—
17 the Spirit of truth, whom the world cannot receive, because it neither sees Him nor knows Him; but you know Him, for He dwells with you and will be in you.
--- At that time, the Holy Spirit was with them, indwelling the Person of Jesus, and the promise was that the same Holy Spirit would indwell them, --- which is what happened when they were filled with the Holy Spirit in Acts 2.

And to see the fulfillment of this prophecy, we go to Hebrews 8:
7 For if that first covenant had been faultless, then no place would have been sought for a second.
8 Because finding fault with them, He says: “Behold, the days are coming, says the Lord, when I will make a new covenant with the house of Israel and with the house of Judah—
9 not according to the covenant that I made with their fathers in the day when I took them by the hand to lead them out of the land of Egypt; because they did not continue in My covenant, and I disregarded them, says the Lord.
10 For this is the covenant that I will make with the house of Israel after those days, says the Lord: I will put My laws in their mind and write them on their hearts; and I will be their God, and they shall be My people.
11 None of them shall teach his neighbor, and none his brother, saying, ‘Know the Lord,’ for all shall know Me, from the least of them to the greatest of them.
12 For I will be merciful to their unrighteousness, and their sins and their lawless deeds I will remember no more.”

13 In that He says, “A new covenant,” He has made the first obsolete. Now what is becoming obsolete and growing old is ready to vanish away.

--- So the New Covenant came with Jesus Christ and each person who repents and invites Jesus to be their Savior, can receive this Holy Spirit as a guide for their lives. --- It says this in 2 Peter 3:
9 The Lord is not slack concerning His promise, as some count slackness, but is longsuffering (patient) toward us, not willing that any should perish but that all should come to repentance.
--- Notice this, --- in saying ‘God is not willing that any should perish,’ --- it is saying that ‘God’s will is that all should come to repentance, and be saved.”
--- But many, by their own choice, are perishing.


Placid



Posted By: Abu Loren
Date Posted: 04 December 2012 at 4:35am
Originally posted by Placid

Hi Abu,

The verses you gave, --- in Surah 2:79 and verse 140, simply reveal that there were false teachers that wrote false sermons , or perhaps books for sale to make a profit. But that did not change the Scriptures any more than those today who write false books about the Bible and Quran (for a profit), --- have any effect upon the written Scriptures.
 
Here is a tasfir (scholarly explanation) of 2:79
 
* تفسير Tafsir al-Jalalayn 

{  javascript:Open_Menu%28%29 - فَوَيْلٌ لِّلَّذِينَ يَكْتُبُونَ ٱلْكِتَابَ بِأَيْدِيهِمْ ثُمَّ يَقُولُونَ هَـٰذَا مِنْ عِنْدِ ٱللَّهِ لِيَشْتَرُواْ بِهِ ثَمَناً قَلِيلاً فَوَيْلٌ لَّهُمْ مِّمَّا كَتَبَتْ أَيْدِيهِمْ وَوَيْلٌ لَّهُمْ مِّمَّا يَكْسِبُونَ  }

So woe, a severe chastisement, to those who write the Scripture with their hands, that is, fabricating it themselves, then say, ‘This is from God’ that they may sell it for a small price, of this world: these are the Jews, the ones that altered the description of the Prophet in the Torah, as well as the ‘stoning’ verse, and other details, and rewrote them in a way different from that in which they were revealed. So woe to them for what their hands have written, of fabrications, and woe to them for their earnings, by way of bribery (rishan, plural of rishwa).

However, this third verse was believed long before Muhammad became a messenger of God, and is followed by upright believers in God --- and in what is good and right, is it not? --- It doesn’t teach division, prejudice, or war, does it?
--- “Those who follow the Messenger, the unlettered prophet, whom they find written in what they have of the Torah and the Gospel, who enjoins upon them what is right and forbids them what is wrong and makes lawful for them the good things and prohibits for them the evil and relieves them of their burden and the shackles which were upon them. So they who have believed in him, honored him, supported him and followed the light which was sent down with him - it is those who will be the successful.” 7:157

--- Note: --- These words, ‘relieves them of their burden and the shackles which were upon them.’ --- That speaks loudly of the Old Testament laws, which were done away with in the coming of Christ in the New Testament. ---And the ‘light’ given to Muhammad is found in Surah 42:
52 And thus have We inspired in thee (Muhammad) a Spirit of Our command. Thou knewest not what the Scripture was, nor what the Faith. But We have made it (the revelation) a Light whereby We guide whom We will of Our bondmen (servants).
 
Tasfir for 7:157
 
* تفسير Tafsir al-Jalalayn 

{  javascript:Open_Menu%28%29 - ٱلَّذِينَ يَتَّبِعُونَ ٱلرَّسُولَ ٱلنَّبِيَّ ٱلأُمِّيَّ ٱلَّذِي يَجِدُونَهُ مَكْتُوباً عِندَهُمْ فِي ٱلتَّوْرَاةِ وَٱلإِنْجِيلِ يَأْمُرُهُم بِٱلْمَعْرُوفِ وَيَنْهَاهُمْ عَنِ ٱلْمُنْكَرِ وَيُحِلُّ لَهُمُ ٱلطَّيِّبَاتِ وَيُحَرِّمُ عَلَيْهِمُ ٱلْخَبَآئِثَ وَيَضَعُ عَنْهُمْ إِصْرَهُمْ وَٱلأَغْلاَلَ ٱلَّتِي كَانَتْ عَلَيْهِمْ فَٱلَّذِينَ آمَنُواْ بِهِ وَعَزَّرُوهُ وَنَصَرُوهُ وَٱتَّبَعُواْ ٱلنُّورَ ٱلَّذِيۤ أُنزِلَ مَعَهُ أُوْلَـٰئِكَ هُمُ ٱلْمُفْلِحُونَ  }

those who follow the Messenger, the uninstructed Prophet, Muhammad (s) whom they will find inscribed in their Torah and Gospel, in name and description, enjoining them to decency and forbidding them indecency, making lawful for them the good things, which were forbidden [to them] by their Law, and making unlawful for them the vile things, such as carrion and the like, and relieving them of their burden, their onus, and the shackles, the hardships, that they used to bear, such as [the requirement] to kill oneself as a repentance and the severing of that part that had come into contact with any impurity. Then those who believe in him, from among them, and honour, revere, him, and help him, and follow the light that has been revealed with him, namely, the Qur’ān, they are the ones who will prosper’.

The rest is just the same old Christian gumph.
[/QUOTE]


Posted By: Placid
Date Posted: 04 December 2012 at 5:05am
Hi Honeto,

(Just had to add this) --- About the New Covenant replacing the Old Covenant, --- the writer of Hebrews said, “Now what is becoming obsolete and growing old is ready to vanish away.

Did you know that after the crucifixion, --- there was an earthquake, and the ‘veil of the Temple’ was torn from the top to the bottom, Matthew 27:51, --- and that there were no more animal sacrifices at the Temple? --- Nor have there been any since.

--- According to the teaching of the NT, --- either a person accepts the sacrifice of Jesus, --- or they have no redemption.
--- (And you can say to me, --- “That’s okay for you to believe, but it’s not for me.”)

You see, when the veil of the Temple was torn down, it opened the ‘Holy of Holies,’ so that all can enter the inner chamber, and pray anywhere directly to God, in Jesus’ name, --- because He is the New High Priest (after the order of Melchizedek), Hebrews 8:1.

While the emphasis is too often on the death of the sacrifice, Jesus had to go through death, to be “resurrected” in ‘new life’ being ‘born again’ Spiritually. --- and the Power is in the Resurrection, because “Jesus ever lives to make intercession for us.” Hebrews 7:25.
--- The Temple and the Old Covenant continued for another 40 years, till in 70 AD the Temple was destroyed by the Romans, --- and with it, all the family genealogies, so that from there on they could not accurately trace their lineage.

--- So after 70 AD, the city of Jerusalem remained, but the Temple, which had been the ‘Center of Worship,’ was no more. --- Jesus said in Matthew 23:
37 “O Jerusalem, Jerusalem, the one who kills the prophets and stones those who are sent to her! How often I wanted to gather your children together, as a hen gathers her chicks under her wings, but you were not willing!
38 See! Your house is left to you desolate.

John had said of the old generation in John 12:
37 But although He had done so many signs before them, they did not believe in Him,
38 that the word of Isaiah the prophet might be fulfilled, which he spoke:
“Lord, who has believed our report?
And to whom has the arm of the Lord been revealed?” (Isaiah 53)
39 Therefore they could not believe, because Isaiah said again:
40 “He has blinded their eyes and hardened their hearts,
Lest they should see with their eyes,
Lest they should understand with their hearts and turn,
So that I should heal them.” --- (Because of their gross sins, the new Message fell on deaf ears. --- However, the new generation was enlightened by the Holy Spirit.)

42 Nevertheless even among the rulers many believed in Him, but because of the Pharisees they did not confess Him, lest they should be put out of the synagogue.

--- And this is the Conclusion, --- during the 40 years after the Day of Pentecost in Acts 2, the Apostles and disciples went everywhere preaching and establishing local Churches. --- The Old Covenant was ended and the Temple was replaced by Local “Gospel Churches,” --- which became the New ‘Centers of Worship’ all around the ‘then known’ world.   


Placid



Posted By: honeto
Date Posted: 04 December 2012 at 3:48pm
Originally posted by Caringheart

Greetings Hasan,Aren't there 99 or more different names for God in the Qur'an, to represent different aspects of His nature?Salaam,CH



CAringheart,
yes these are all mentioned in the Quran by God himself.
Here is a beautiful recitation with meanings.
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=mrcoYTGCXvc - http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=mrcoYTGCXvc

Hasan

-------------
39:64 Proclaim: Is it some one other than God that you order me to worship, O you ignorant ones?"


Posted By: Placid
Date Posted: 12 December 2012 at 11:32am
Hi Honeto,

(Responding to the first part of a post on page 7)

___"Placid writes,
"John 1. confirms that the Word (Logos) was with God in the beginning,:
1 In the beginning was the Word, and the Word was with God, and the Word was God.
2 He was in the beginning with God.
3 All things were made through Him, and without Him nothing was made that was made."

Honeto replied:
Question arises, if like many you are suggesting that somehow it refers to Jesus. If that is so why did they called him Jesus and not "Logos" if it was a name according to you.

Response: --- ‘Logos’ means Word. When God says “Be” and it is, it seems that the Logos is the Creative Power of God, to bring it into ‘Being.’
Check out the wording of this verse in Surah 3:
45 (And remember) when the angels said, "O Mary, Lo! God gives you glad tidings of a Word from Him, whose name is the Messiah, Jesus son of Mary, illustrious in the world and the Hereafter, and one of those brought near unto God."

And check out this verse in Surah 4:
171 --- Where it said, ‘The Messiah, Jesus, son of Mary, was a messenger of --- God --- and His Word, which He conveyed into Mary, --- and a Spirit from Himself.'

--- (I don’t believe in the faulty trinity concept, but here are the Three that were there in the beginning, --- God, the Father (of all), --- the Word (Logos), --- and the Holy Spirit.)
The verse goes on to say, “Don’t say Three, God is only one God.”

When it says in John 1:14 “And the Word became flesh and dwelt among US (US, meaning John and the other disciples that witnesses Jesus), --- and WE beheld His glory, the glory as of the only begotten (Unique) Son of God.”
--- (Unique, 'one of a kind.' In the various appearances I mention below, this is the only time that the Logos 'indwelt' a fleshly body.)

--- In Hebrews 10 it gives the fulfillment of what is written in Prophecy:
5 “Sacrifice and offering You did not desire,
But a body You have prepared for Me.
6 In burnt offerings and sacrifices for sin
You had no pleasure.
7 Then I said, ‘Behold, I have come—
In the volume of the book it is written of Me—
To do Your will, O God.’”

--- The Word (Logos) appeared various times in the OT, (As Melchizedek in Gen 14:18, and Hebrews 7:1-3. --- The Lord, in Genesis 18:1. --- The Commander of the Lord’s army in Joshua 5:13-15. --- The fourth man in the ‘fiery furnace’ in Daniel 3:23-25. --- And as The LORD of hosts, who is recorded for the last time in Malachi 4.
--- The only appearance of the Word (Logos) in the NT was in the Person of Jesus.

--- I hope you can follow this ‘transition’ in Malachi 3:
1 “Behold, I send My messenger,
And he will prepare the way before Me.
And the Lord, whom you seek,
Will suddenly come to His temple,
Even the Messenger of the covenant,
In whom you delight.
Behold, He is coming,”
Says the Lord of hosts.
--- To explain it,I will add brackets)

“Behold I (the LORD of hosts) send My messenger (small ‘m’ on messenger (meaning John the Baptist) (Isaiah 40 3-5)
And he (John the Baptist) will prepare the way before Me (the LORD of hosts),
And the Lord (the coming Messiah) whom you seek
Will suddenly come to His (God’s) temple,
Even the Messenger (capital ‘M’ on Messenger) of the (new) covenant
In whom you (will) delight (at His coming).
Behold, He (the Messiah, Jesus) is coming,”
Says the LORD of hosts.

Malachi 4 is the last mention of the LORD of hosts --- In the New Testament (covenant}, He is CALLED the Lord Jesus.
--- The Word (Logos) who filled these former roles, is now the Word that took on the form of flesh, in the Person of Jesus.(John 1:14).


Placid



Posted By: Abu Loren
Date Posted: 13 December 2012 at 4:01am
Originally posted by Placid

Hi Honeto,

(Responding to the first part of a post on page 7)

___"Placid writes,
"John 1. confirms that the Word (Logos) was with God in the beginning,:
1 In the beginning was the Word, and the Word was with God, and the Word was God.
2 He was in the beginning with God.
3 All things were made through Him, and without Him nothing was made that was made."

Honeto replied:
Question arises, if like many you are suggesting that somehow it refers to Jesus. If that is so why did they called him Jesus and not "Logos" if it was a name according to you.

Response: --- ‘Logos’ means Word. When God says “Be” and it is, it seems that the Logos is the Creative Power of God, to bring it into ‘Being.’
Check out the wording of this verse in Surah 3:
45 (And remember) when the angels said, "O Mary, Lo! God gives you glad tidings of a Word from Him, whose name is the Messiah, Jesus son of Mary, illustrious in the world and the Hereafter, and one of those brought near unto God."

And check out this verse in Surah 4:
171 --- Where it said, ‘The Messiah, Jesus, son of Mary, was a messenger of --- God --- and His Word, which He conveyed into Mary, --- and a Spirit from Himself.'

--- (I don’t believe in the faulty trinity concept, but here are the Three that were there in the beginning, --- God, the Father (of all), --- the Word (Logos), --- and the Holy Spirit.)
The verse goes on to say, “Don’t say Three, God is only one God.”

When it says in John 1:14 “And the Word became flesh and dwelt among US (US, meaning John and the other disciples that witnesses Jesus), --- and WE beheld His glory, the glory as of the only begotten (Unique) Son of God.”
--- (Unique, 'one of a kind.' In the various appearances I mention below, this is the only time that the Logos 'indwelt' a fleshly body.)

--- In Hebrews 10 it gives the fulfillment of what is written in Prophecy:
5 “Sacrifice and offering You did not desire,
But a body You have prepared for Me.
6 In burnt offerings and sacrifices for sin
You had no pleasure.
7 Then I said, ‘Behold, I have come—
In the volume of the book it is written of Me—
To do Your will, O God.’”

--- The Word (Logos) appeared various times in the OT, (As Melchizedek in Gen 14:18, and Hebrews 7:1-3. --- The Lord, in Genesis 18:1. --- The Commander of the Lord’s army in Joshua 5:13-15. --- The fourth man in the ‘fiery furnace’ in Daniel 3:23-25. --- And as The LORD of hosts, who is recorded for the last time in Malachi 4.
--- The only appearance of the Word (Logos) in the NT was in the Person of Jesus.

--- I hope you can follow this ‘transition’ in Malachi 3:
1 “Behold, I send My messenger,
And he will prepare the way before Me.
And the Lord, whom you seek,
Will suddenly come to His temple,
Even the Messenger of the covenant,
In whom you delight.
Behold, He is coming,”
Says the Lord of hosts.
--- To explain it,I will add brackets)

“Behold I (the LORD of hosts) send My messenger (small ‘m’ on messenger (meaning John the Baptist) (Isaiah 40 3-5)
And he (John the Baptist) will prepare the way before Me (the LORD of hosts),
And the Lord (the coming Messiah) whom you seek
Will suddenly come to His (God’s) temple,
Even the Messenger (capital ‘M’ on Messenger) of the (new) covenant
In whom you (will) delight (at His coming).
Behold, He (the Messiah, Jesus) is coming,”
Says the LORD of hosts.

Malachi 4 is the last mention of the LORD of hosts --- In the New Testament (covenant}, He is CALLED the Lord Jesus.
--- The Word (Logos) who filled these former roles, is now the Word that took on the form of flesh, in the Person of Jesus.(John 1:14).


Placid

 
Questions for Mr. Placid.
 
1) Why does the logos (word) has to exist as an entity?
2) Why does this logos (word) then be manifested as Jesus (pbuh)?
3) Why can't this logos (word) just be a word "Be"?
4) Why do Christians try to complicate everything?


Posted By: Caringheart
Date Posted: 13 December 2012 at 12:33pm
Originally posted by honeto

Originally posted by Caringheart

Greetings Hasan,Aren't there 99 or more different names for God in the Qur'an, to represent different aspects of His nature?Salaam,CH

CAringheart,
yes these are all mentioned in the Quran by God himself.
Here is a beautiful recitation with meanings.
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=mrcoYTGCXvc - http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=mrcoYTGCXvc
Hasan
Thank you Hasan.  That was interesting to watch.
 


Posted By: Placid
Date Posted: 14 December 2012 at 5:41am
Hi Honeto,

Quote: --- so why did they called him Jesus and not "Logos" if it was a name according to you. It does not make sense if someone has a name already, like you claim, how come his name is then changed. Did anyone mention in the OT that their is a person of God named "Logos" and his name will be changed, and he (that person of God) will come to the earth?

Response: --- There was a name given for Jesus in the OT, in Isaiah 7:
13 Then he said, “Hear now, O house of David! Is it a small thing for you to weary men, but will you weary my God also?
14 Therefore the Lord Himself will give you a Sign: Behold, the virgin shall conceive and bear a Son, and shall call His name Immanuel.

The prophecy is fulfilled in Matthew 1:
20 But while he (Joseph) thought about these things, behold, an angel of the Lord appeared to him in a dream, saying, “Joseph, son of David, do not be afraid to take to you Mary your wife, for that which is conceived in her is of the Holy Spirit.
21 And she will bring forth a Son, and you shall call His name Jesus, for He will save His people from their sins.”
22 So all this was done that it might be fulfilled which was spoken by the Lord through the prophet, saying:
23 “Behold, the virgin shall be with child, and bear a Son, and they shall call His name Immanuel,” which is translated, “God with us.”

--- So, here we have two names --- Immanuel, which means “God with us,” or “God is with us.” --- And here is the meaning of ‘God being with us.’

Almighty God cannot be seen. --- The Holy Spirit cannot be seen. The Word (Logos) cannot be seen.
--- So, the Word (Logos) can only be Manifested through a Personage that can be seen, --- like Melchizedek in Genesis, --- the Commander of the Lord’s army in Joshua, (who I believe became) the unseen Voice of God, “The LORD of hosts,” through the OT. --- And I had explained the transition from ‘the LORD of hosts,’ to Jesus; in the previous post from Malachi 3:1.

--- So, the promised Sign would be Immanuel, meaning, “God with us,” in the person of Jesus.
21 And she will bring forth a Son, and you shall call His name Jesus, for He will save His people from their sins.”
--- So, the name Jesus means, “Savior”

--- (I see that you have 2 names. I address you as Honeto, and you sign ‘Hasan.
So, are you Honeto only on this Forum, and Hasan all the time? --- So then you are both at the same time, ---‘some of the time,’ is that right? --- Not confusing.)

So, the name and Sign ‘Immanuel’ meant that God was sending His Word (Logos) to indwell a human body among us, who would be ‘God’s Manifestation’ to the world, --- and this One would be called Jesus, meaning Savior, --- and Christ, meaning Messiah.

The Sign is mentioned again in these verses in Luke 2:
8 Now there were in the same country shepherds living out in the fields, keeping watch over their flock by night.
9 And behold, an angel of the Lord stood before them, and the glory of the Lord shone around them, and they were greatly afraid.
10 Then the angel said to them, “Do not be afraid, for behold, I bring you good tidings of great joy which will be to all people.
11 For there is born to you this day in the city of David a Savior, who is Christ the Lord.
12 And this will be the Sign to you: You will find a Babe wrapped in swaddling cloths, lying in a manger.”
13 And suddenly there was with the angel a multitude of the heavenly host praising God and saying:
14 “Glory to God in the highest, And on earth peace, goodwill toward men!”
15 So it was, when the angels had gone away from them into heaven, that the shepherds said to one another, “Let us now go to Bethlehem and see this thing that has come to pass, which the Lord has made known to us.”
16 And they came with haste and found Mary and Joseph, and the Babe lying in a manger.
17 Now when they had seen Him, they made widely known the saying which was told them concerning this Child.

Notice the wording of this verse in Surah 3:
43 (And remember) when the angels said, “O Mary, God gives you glad tidings of a Word from Him, whose name is the Messiah, Jesus son of Mary.”

--- And a few verses later are these verses where Jesus said, in Surah 3:
50 I come unto you with a Sign from your Lord, so keep your duty to God and obey me.
51 God is my Lord and your Lord, so worship Him. That is a Straight path.


Placid



Posted By: honeto
Date Posted: 15 December 2012 at 3:01pm
Placid writes:
    "Response: --- There was a name given for Jesus in the OT, in Isaiah 7:
13 Then he said, “Hear now, O house of David! Is it a small thing for you to weary men, but will you weary my God also?
14 Therefore the Lord Himself will give you a Sign: Behold, the virgin shall conceive and bear a Son, and shall call His name Immanuel."


Two things worth noting here: one that there is no mention that it will be God's son or God himself. As we all know that Jews were expecting a Messiah, not a God to come on earth as some try to preach.
Second, even though as a Muslim I believe in the virgin birth of the Messiah, I also believe like this verse suggest, his name was not Jesus. How it could be when letter "J" was added to English language around four hundred year ago, while Messiah came over two thousand years ago. It's funny that some people renamed Messiah after "J" was added to English language to Jesus some sixteen hundred years after he was born.

Also it is worth noting that names are proper nouns that means they should remain the same regardless of crossing language boundaries.
For example my name Hasan which is Arabic, it means handsome I think . If in Mexico, if someone call me guapo, I will be flattered, but still they have to address me with Sr. Hasan, not Sr. Guapo .
So, regardless where I go I am called and known with that name,
Hasan.    

-------------
39:64 Proclaim: Is it some one other than God that you order me to worship, O you ignorant ones?"


Posted By: Placid
Date Posted: 17 December 2012 at 7:13am
The name Immanuel given in Isaiah is interpreted in the Sign of Jesus coming as Savior in Matthew 1:23, and it means "God with us," or "God is with us."

Would it matter if it said, "Yoi shall call His name Joshua, or Hoshea, or Jesus"? They each mean Savior or Salvation, --- Should they not rather have called Him Savior? --- Then the critics would say, but that is not a proper name.

In the Greek interlinear, the Greek word is translated 'Jesus." Matthew 1:21 says, "You shall call His name Jesus for He will save His people from their sins."

What was the English translation in in 400 AD or in 600 AD in the Quran?




Posted By: Placid
Date Posted: 18 December 2012 at 1:01pm
Hi Abu,

Quote:
1) Why does the logos (word) has to exist as an entity?
2) Why does this logos (word) then be manifested as Jesus (pbuh)?
3) Why can't this logos (word) just be a word "Be"?
4) Why do Christians try to complicate everything?

Response: --- John wrote in John 1:
1 “In the beginning was the Word and the Word was with God, and the Word was God.”
This sounds like it is confirming that the Word (Logos) was God.

--- However, it is important to understand what that meant to the Jews and the Greeks, --- as it was written to them both.
The Jews were familiar with God ‘Speaking the Word, and it was done.’ --- To the Jews, the Word meant ‘The Creative power of God Himself.’

To the Greeks the term “Word” meant “Logos,” meaning, ‘The reason and power for the Universe.’ --- The Greeks had the concept that ‘behind it all’ there was a rational “Intelligence” that created and sustained all things, including the Cosmos.
While we call that the Power of our Almighty and Everlasting God, the Greeks called that Power, “Logos.”

John 1:2 says He (the Word), was in the beginning with God.
3 All things were made through Him (the Word).
4 In Him (the Word), was life, and the life was the light of men. (This ‘light of men’ also meant ‘enlightenment’ and intelligence to relate and respond to God.)

Now to go a little deeper we can look at Genesis 1:1 where it says, “In the beginning God created the heavens and the earth.
2 And the Spirit of God moved (or was hovering) over the face of the waters
--- (Scientists agree that Life began in the sea, do they not?)

So the Spirit of God brought “Life” to God’s Creation.
3 And God said, ‘Let there “BE” Light, --- and there was Light
--- So we can say that the Spirit of God brought ‘Life’ into the world
And the Word “BE” brought ‘Light’ into the world.
The Spirit and the Word “BE” were there with God in the beginning
--- So they were recognized as ‘the power of God in Creation, --- and in the world.’

The wonderful Mystery of God is there, so I won’t go deeper into it as I know it can be confusing.

However, God created ‘beings’ (angels) to surround His throne, He loved them and they loved Him, but He went a step further to create ‘beings’ with a free will who would love God, of their own desire, in response to God’s love for them.

--- Notice how God created Adam? --- It says “He breathed into his (Adam’s) nostrils the ‘Breath of Life and man became a living “Being.”
--- Notice how God brought Jesus into being? --- He breathed into Mary’s body (or womb), and she conceived.

(Enough for now, a little more later. --- And you may have more questions.)


Placid



Posted By: Abu Loren
Date Posted: 19 December 2012 at 8:15am
Originally posted by Placid

Hi Abu,

Quote:
1) Why does the logos (word) has to exist as an entity?
2) Why does this logos (word) then be manifested as Jesus (pbuh)?
3) Why can't this logos (word) just be a word "Be"?
4) Why do Christians try to complicate everything?

Response: --- John wrote in John 1:
1 “In the beginning was the Word and the Word was with God, and the Word was God.”
This sounds like it is confirming that the Word (Logos) was God.

--- However, it is important to understand what that meant to the Jews and the Greeks, --- as it was written to them both.
The Jews were familiar with God ‘Speaking the Word, and it was done.’ --- To the Jews, the Word meant ‘The Creative power of God Himself.’

To the Greeks the term “Word” meant “Logos,” meaning, ‘The reason and power for the Universe.’ --- The Greeks had the concept that ‘behind it all’ there was a rational “Intelligence” that created and sustained all things, including the Cosmos.
While we call that the Power of our Almighty and Everlasting God, the Greeks called that Power, “Logos.”

John 1:2 says He (the Word), was in the beginning with God.
3 All things were made through Him (the Word).
4 In Him (the Word), was life, and the life was the light of men. (This ‘light of men’ also meant ‘enlightenment’ and intelligence to relate and respond to God.)

Now to go a little deeper we can look at Genesis 1:1 where it says, “In the beginning God created the heavens and the earth.
2 And the Spirit of God moved (or was hovering) over the face of the waters
--- (Scientists agree that Life began in the sea, do they not?)

So the Spirit of God brought “Life” to God’s Creation.
3 And God said, ‘Let there “BE” Light, --- and there was Light
--- So we can say that the Spirit of God brought ‘Life’ into the world
And the Word “BE” brought ‘Light’ into the world.
The Spirit and the Word “BE” were there with God in the beginning
--- So they were recognized as ‘the power of God in Creation, --- and in the world.’

The wonderful Mystery of God is there, so I won’t go deeper into it as I know it can be confusing.

However, God created ‘beings’ (angels) to surround His throne, He loved them and they loved Him, but He went a step further to create ‘beings’ with a free will who would love God, of their own desire, in response to God’s love for them.

--- Notice how God created Adam? --- It says “He breathed into his (Adam’s) nostrils the ‘Breath of Life and man became a living “Being.”
--- Notice how God brought Jesus into being? --- He breathed into Mary’s body (or womb), and she conceived.

(Enough for now, a little more later. --- And you may have more questions.)


Placid

 
I think we've already had this exact explanation from you before. This is the same drvel that all the Christians try to explain about the 'word'. Sorry but it's all rather stoopid to me.
 
 
The wonderful Mystery of God is there, so I won’t go deeper into it as I know it can be confusing.
 
It's not really confusing at all, just stoopid.
 


Posted By: Placid
Date Posted: 20 December 2012 at 7:08am
Hi Abu,

To continue to answer the questions about the Word, Logos.

There isn’t a ‘doctrine of trinity’ in the Scriptures. --- It was made a doctrine at a meeting in 325 AD.
--- However, it was always a mystery of God to the Church Fathers, who followed the Apostles. --- And more difficult even, was how to explain the relationship of the Word and the Holy Spirit to God, --- when they were asked.
--- Not all Christians believe in the ‘trinity’ (The word is simply a shortening of ‘tri-unity.’ --- It is like the word ‘university,’ which means ‘unity in diversity.’)

We are not to make any idols or images of God as it says in the first commandment in Exodus 20. --- However, we can make similitudes or parables that help us understand the greatness of God
The example they use of water is a good one in that the same element can be in liquid form --- which could be the truth of this verse in James 1:
17 Every good gift and every perfect gift is from above, and comes down from the Father of lights, with whom there is no variation or shadow of turning.
--- The comparison is that, ‘Water always finds its own level.’
And the vapor from water that is boiled is like a spirit, thus like God’s Holy Spirit, as in this verse in John 3:
8 The wind blows where it wishes, and you hear the sound of it, but cannot tell where it comes from and where it goes. So is everyone who is born of the Spirit.”
--- While this speaks of one who is indwelt by the Spirit, it signifies that the Spirit is like the wind, invisible, --- you can hear it and see the effects of it but it is invisible.
And Ice, the solid state of water. --- The Word (Logos) is also invisible, --- But in the case of Adam and Jesus, when God said “Be!” --- They came into being.

However, One of the Church Fathers in about the second century said he thought of the Word and the Holy Spirit as ‘the Arms of the Lord’ --- They were not separate entities, but God worked through them. --- Many places in the OT it mentions ‘the arm of the Lord,’ or ‘the arms of the Lord.’ --- It says in I John 5:
7 For there are three that bear witness in heaven: the Father, the Word, and the Holy Spirit; and these three are one.
--- Now I want to give you one more picture of how their relationship can be understood, --- following this theme of the ‘arms of the Lord’.

Abu, do you play a guitar? --- If not, I am sure you know someone who does.
--- They often talk about ‘creating’ a symphony, a piece of music, or a song.
The ‘creating’ is --- ‘bringing into being something that has not existed before.’

Picture this, --- a person sits down with his guitar and has the music and words to a song in his mind, (his intellect).
With his left hand his fingers trace out the arrangement on the finger board. --- so his fingers can work silently to follow the arrangement that the person has in mind.
Then when he is ready, --- with his right hand he strums the strings and the melody comes from his right hand.

--- He can think all he wants, --- he can finger the strings all he wants with his left hand (which is attached to his body by the arm, full of muscles and nerves, which work in harmony with the intellect of the body),
--- But not until the right hand strums, or fingerpicks the strings, is there any evidence of the ‘new creation,’ is there?
--- If we can think this through without getting carried away, it is comparable.

All things are decided in the intellect of God, they are arranged and guided by the Holy Spirit of God, --- and they are put into action by the Word of God, “Be!” --- and it is.   


Placid



Posted By: Abu Loren
Date Posted: 22 December 2012 at 11:39pm
Originally posted by Placid

Hi Abu,

To continue to answer the questions about the Word, Logos.

There isn’t a ‘doctrine of trinity’ in the Scriptures. --- It was made a doctrine at a meeting in 325 AD.
--- However, it was always a mystery of God to the Church Fathers, who followed the Apostles. --- And more difficult even, was how to explain the relationship of the Word and the Holy Spirit to God, --- when they were asked.
--- Not all Christians believe in the ‘trinity’ (The word is simply a shortening of ‘tri-unity.’ --- It is like the word ‘university,’ which means ‘unity in diversity.’)

We are not to make any idols or images of God as it says in the first commandment in Exodus 20. --- However, we can make similitudes or parables that help us understand the greatness of God
The example they use of water is a good one in that the same element can be in liquid form --- which could be the truth of this verse in James 1:
17 Every good gift and every perfect gift is from above, and comes down from the Father of lights, with whom there is no variation or shadow of turning.
--- The comparison is that, ‘Water always finds its own level.’
And the vapor from water that is boiled is like a spirit, thus like God’s Holy Spirit, as in this verse in John 3:
8 The wind blows where it wishes, and you hear the sound of it, but cannot tell where it comes from and where it goes. So is everyone who is born of the Spirit.”
--- While this speaks of one who is indwelt by the Spirit, it signifies that the Spirit is like the wind, invisible, --- you can hear it and see the effects of it but it is invisible.
And Ice, the solid state of water. --- The Word (Logos) is also invisible, --- But in the case of Adam and Jesus, when God said “Be!” --- They came into being.

However, One of the Church Fathers in about the second century said he thought of the Word and the Holy Spirit as ‘the Arms of the Lord’ --- They were not separate entities, but God worked through them. --- Many places in the OT it mentions ‘the arm of the Lord,’ or ‘the arms of the Lord.’ --- It says in I John 5:
7 For there are three that bear witness in heaven: the Father, the Word, and the Holy Spirit; and these three are one.
--- Now I want to give you one more picture of how their relationship can be understood, --- following this theme of the ‘arms of the Lord’.

Abu, do you play a guitar? --- If not, I am sure you know someone who does.
--- They often talk about ‘creating’ a symphony, a piece of music, or a song.
The ‘creating’ is --- ‘bringing into being something that has not existed before.’

Picture this, --- a person sits down with his guitar and has the music and words to a song in his mind, (his intellect).
With his left hand his fingers trace out the arrangement on the finger board. --- so his fingers can work silently to follow the arrangement that the person has in mind.
Then when he is ready, --- with his right hand he strums the strings and the melody comes from his right hand.

--- He can think all he wants, --- he can finger the strings all he wants with his left hand (which is attached to his body by the arm, full of muscles and nerves, which work in harmony with the intellect of the body),
--- But not until the right hand strums, or fingerpicks the strings, is there any evidence of the ‘new creation,’ is there?
--- If we can think this through without getting carried away, it is comparable.

All things are decided in the intellect of God, they are arranged and guided by the Holy Spirit of God, --- and they are put into action by the Word of God, “Be!” --- and it is.   


Placid

 
No offence but more baloney!


Posted By: Placid
Date Posted: 25 December 2012 at 5:16am
Hi Abu,

I appreciate the fact that on an interfaith forum, where there are questions asked, --- there is the opportunity to answer them, giving references --- and that is the privilege we have here.

You asked the questions: Quote:
1 ) Why does the logos (word) has to exist as an entity?
2) Why does this logos (word) then be manifested as Jesus (pbuh)?
3) Why can't this logos (word) just be a word "Be"?

It doesn’t bother me that you don’t accept what I have explained, so,

I ask you, --- what is your understanding of what the ‘Word’ means in this verse? --- Surah 3:
45 Pickthall: (And remember) when the angels said: O Mary! Lo! Allah giveth thee glad tidings of a Word from him, whose name is the Messiah, Jesus, son of Mary, illustrious in the world and the Hereafter, and one of those brought near (unto Allah).
45 Yusuf Ali: Behold! the angels said: "O Mary! God giveth thee glad tidings of a Word from Him: his name will be Christ Jesus, the son of Mary, held in honour in this world and the Hereafter and of (the company of) those nearest to God;
45 Hilali Khan: (Remember) when the angels said: "O Maryam (Mary)! Verily, Allah gives you the glad tidings of a Word ["Be!" - and he was! i.e. 'Iesa (Jesus) the son of Maryam (Mary)] from Him, his name will be the Messiah 'Iesa (Jesus), the son of Maryam (Mary), held in honour in this world and in the Hereafter, and will be one of those who are near to Allah."

This is from the Quran, --- so, how do you explain the ‘Word,’ which is capitalized in this verse?




Posted By: Abu Loren
Date Posted: 26 December 2012 at 12:12am
Originally posted by Placid

Hi Abu,

I appreciate the fact that on an interfaith forum, where there are questions asked, --- there is the opportunity to answer them, giving references --- and that is the privilege we have here.

You asked the questions: Quote:
1 ) Why does the logos (word) has to exist as an entity?
2) Why does this logos (word) then be manifested as Jesus (pbuh)?
3) Why can't this logos (word) just be a word "Be"?

It doesn’t bother me that you don’t accept what I have explained, so,

I ask you, --- what is your understanding of what the ‘Word’ means in this verse? --- Surah 3:
45 Pickthall: (And remember) when the angels said: O Mary! Lo! Allah giveth thee glad tidings of a Word from him, whose name is the Messiah, Jesus, son of Mary, illustrious in the world and the Hereafter, and one of those brought near (unto Allah).
45 Yusuf Ali: Behold! the angels said: "O Mary! God giveth thee glad tidings of a Word from Him: his name will be Christ Jesus, the son of Mary, held in honour in this world and the Hereafter and of (the company of) those nearest to God;
45 Hilali Khan: (Remember) when the angels said: "O Maryam (Mary)! Verily, Allah gives you the glad tidings of a Word ["Be!" - and he was! i.e. 'Iesa (Jesus) the son of Maryam (Mary)] from Him, his name will be the Messiah 'Iesa (Jesus), the son of Maryam (Mary), held in honour in this world and in the Hereafter, and will be one of those who are near to Allah."

This is from the Quran, --- so, how do you explain the ‘Word,’ which is capitalized in this verse?


 
My understanding of the verse is that God said 'Be' ( we cannot know for sure as if it was spoken as in human terms as we do not know if God speaks like human do). It could be that by saying 'Be' is not really saying 'Be' but it's just for us to understand in human terms that it is very easy for God to make something or someone to come int being.
 
Unlike you I don't believe that the 'Word' is a third part of the Trinity.


Posted By: Caringheart
Date Posted: 26 December 2012 at 2:59pm
surah 4:171
"The Christ Jesus son of Mary is indeed the prophet of God and His Word which He cast into Mary, and a spirit from Him."

Just curious, What does this mean to you?

To me it means simply this... that God cast the Word(Logos?) and the Spirit of Himself into Jesus to be born of Mary.

To put it another way... to break it down
Jesus is the Christ
Jesus the son of Mary
the prophet of God
who carries the Word of God and the Spirit of God within Him.

I think it is Muhammad who was confused and did not understand the word being given to him.
Muhammad was confused about God's Word... the scriptures.


Posted By: Abu Loren
Date Posted: 27 December 2012 at 2:25am
Originally posted by Caringheart

surah 4:171
"The Christ Jesus son of Mary is indeed the prophet of God and His Word which He cast into Mary, and a spirit from Him."

Just curious, What does this mean to you?

To me it means simply this... that God cast the Word(Logos?) and the Spirit of Himself into Jesus to be born of Mary.

To put it another way... to break it down
Jesus is the Christ
Jesus the son of Mary
the prophet of God
who carries the Word of God and the Spirit of God within Him.

I think it is Muhammad who was confused and did not understand the word being given to him.
Muhammad was confused about God's Word... the scriptures.

* تفسير Tafsir al-Jalalayn 


{  javascript:Open_Menu%28%29 - يٰأَهْلَ ٱلْكِتَابِ لاَ تَغْلُواْ فِي دِينِكُمْ وَلاَ تَقُولُواْ عَلَى ٱللَّهِ إِلاَّ ٱلْحَقَّ إِنَّمَا ٱلْمَسِيحُ عِيسَى ٱبْنُ مَرْيَمَ رَسُولُ ٱللَّهِ وَكَلِمَتُهُ أَلْقَاهَا إِلَىٰ مَرْيَمَ وَرُوحٌ مِّنْهُ فَآمِنُواْ بِٱللَّهِ وَرُسُلِهِ وَلاَ تَقُولُواْ ثَلاَثَةٌ ٱنتَهُواْ خَيْراً لَّكُمْ إِنَّمَا ٱللَّهُ إِلَـٰهٌ وَاحِدٌ سُبْحَانَهُ أَن يَكُونَ لَهُ وَلَدٌ لَّهُ مَا فِي ٱلسَّمَٰوَٰتِ وَمَا فِي ٱلأَرْضِ وَكَفَىٰ بِٱللَّهِ وَكِيلاً  }

O People of the Scripture, the Gospel, do not go to extremes, do not go beyond the bounds, in your religion and do not say about God except, the saying of, the truth, such as exalting Him above any associations with a partner or a child: the Messiah, Jesus the son of Mary, was only the Messenger of God, and His Word which He cast to, [which] He conveyed to, Mary, and a spirit, that is, one whose spirit is, from Him: he [Jesus] is here attached to God, exalted be He, as an honouring for him, and not as you claim, that he is the son of God, or a god alongside Him, or one of three, because one that possesses a spirit is compound, while God transcends being compound and the attribution of compounds to Him. So believe in God and His messengers, and do not say, that the gods are, ‘Three’, God, Jesus and his mother. Refrain, from this and say what, it is better for you, [to say], which is the profession of His Oneness. Verily, God is but One God. Glory be to Him, transcending [the possibility], that He should have a son! To Him belongs all that is in the heavens and in the earth, as possessions, creatures and servants, and such sovereignty is not compatible with [that] prophethood [of Jesus]. God suffices as a Guardian, a Witness to this.


Posted By: Placid
Date Posted: 27 December 2012 at 1:59pm
Hi Caringheart,

Quote: surah 4:171
"The Christ Jesus son of Mary is indeed the prophet of God and His Word which He cast into Mary, and a spirit from Him."
Just curious, What does this mean to you?
To me it means simply this... that God cast the Word(Logos?) and the Spirit of Himself into Jesus to be born of Mary.

To put it another way... to break it down
Jesus is the Christ
Jesus the son of Mary
the prophet of God
who carries the Word of God and the Spirit of God within Him.

I think it is Muhammad who was confused and did not understand the word being given to him.
Muhammad was confused about God's Word... the scriptures.

Response: --- The Pickthall Translation says this in 4:
171 O People of the Scripture! Do not exaggerate in your religion nor utter aught concerning God save the truth. The Messiah, Jesus son of Mary, was only a messenger of God, and His Word which He conveyed unto Mary, and a Spirit from Him. So believe in God and His messengers, and say not "Three" - Cease! (it is) better for you! - God is only One God.

--- What it says to me is that some ‘trinitarians’ must have come to Muhammad and either asked him about Jesus, --- or they were telling him about Jesus.
(If this revelation was given to him through the angel Gabriel, then it is important to look at it, as it gives non-trinitarians a better understanding than what most of them have.)
--- He first said, “Don’t exaggerate the truth (perhaps about Jesus being God).
“The Messiah Jesus, son of Mary, was only a Messenger of God (and not God, Himself) --- (But, being the Messiah, He was more than just a Messenger.)

--- 1 --- So, that is your first point, that Jesus is the Christ, the Messiah.

Then it says Jesus, ‘the Messiah (who was the Manifestation of God, and was sent to earth in the form of a Servant), --- was the human Son of Mary.

--- 2 --- So your second point is that Jesus was the son of Mary.

And though He came as a Servant or Messenger of God, He was a Prophet of God.

--- 3 --- So your third point is that Jesus was the Prophet of God.

It goes on to say that Jesus, the Messiah, the Son of Mary was the Messenger of God, --- and His Word (Logos, the creative power of God) which God conveyed into Mary, --- and a Spirit from Him (God, which is the Holy Spirit).
--- So Jesus as a Servant, a Messenger, and a Prophet of God was the Manifestation of God in a human body, indwelt by the Word, and the Holy Spirit of God.

--- 4 --- So, this your fourth point, “who carries the Word of God and the Spirit of God within Him.”

So, basically, we agree with what Muhammad said, do we not?
But it goes on to say, “But believe in God and His messengers.” The immediate ones were Jesus and Muhammad to instruct humans, --- and the Ones mentioned, --- God (the Father), --- the Word, --- and the Holy Spirit.

BUT DON’T SAY THREE, (as a trinity) --- God is only One God.
--- Is this not what John said in 1 John 5:
7 “For there are three that bear witness in heaven, The Father, the Word, and the Holy Spirit, --- and these three are one,”

I believe that Muhammad said it right, so there is no way you can really accuse him of confusion is there, when he says the same as the NT?

--- The problem I see is that the Trinitarians like to over-exaggerate the position of Jesus when He came as a Servant, --- because they think of when He will come back as King of kings, and Lord of lords.

--- And Muslims like to under-exaggerate who Jesus was as a Prophet of God, by saying, “The Messiah was (no more than a messenger), as though He was JUST human, --- when the Scriptures teach that He had a human Body, but was indwelt by a Divine Spirit.
--- He could speak with the voice of man, but also with the Voice of God, through the Word, that indwelt Him

And have you looked at the next verse in Surah 4?:
172. The Messiah will never scorn (disdain) to be a slave (Servant) unto God, nor will the favoured angels.


Placid



Posted By: Rational
Date Posted: 28 December 2012 at 5:07am
Originally posted by Salaam_Erin


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.

O people, have you lost your minds? Is this your faith?


Posted By: honeto
Date Posted: 28 December 2012 at 6:45pm
Originally posted by Placid

The name Immanuel given in Isaiah is interpreted in the Sign of Jesus coming as Savior in Matthew 1:23, and it means "God with us," or "God is with us."

Would it matter if it said, "Yoi shall call His name Joshua, or Hoshea, or Jesus"? They each mean Savior or Salvation, --- Should they not rather have called Him Savior? --- Then the critics would say, but that is not a proper name.

In the Greek interlinear, the Greek word is translated 'Jesus." Matthew 1:21 says, "You shall call His name Jesus for He will save His people from their sins."

What was the English translation in in 400 AD or in 600 AD in the Quran?




Placid,
so you agreed to both my points, 1- that there is no mention in the OT, that the Messiah will be God or a physical son of God. 2-According to English language rules and proper noun remains unchanged regardless of translations. Pluto will be Pluto.
Hasan

-------------
39:64 Proclaim: Is it some one other than God that you order me to worship, O you ignorant ones?"


Posted By: Rational
Date Posted: 29 December 2012 at 4:33am
Dr. W Craig is well known for his works for proving the concept of creation over evolution. He demonstrates how the analogies that are presented by atheists and darwinists are flawed and have no logical or scientific justification. He is well respected for his sound philosophical views. When asked to give a good analogy that can represent the Trinity, Dr. Craig, uses a dog as the representation for the "holy" trinity. It's obvious even he isn't convinced with his own answer. This clearly reveals that christians themselves are questioning this mysterious idea of 3 in 1

What is a Good Analogy of the Trinity? (William Lane Craig)
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Gp4L9um9uRY



Posted By: Placid
Date Posted: 29 December 2012 at 12:30pm
Hi Hasan,

Quote: --- So you agreed to both my points, 1- that there is no mention in the OT, that the Messiah will be God or a physical son of God. 2-According to English language rules and proper noun remains unchanged regardless of translations. Pluto will be Pluto.

Response: --- In Isaiah 7:14 it says, “Therefore the Lord Himself will give you a Sign: Behold, the virgin shall conceive and bear a Son, and shall call His name Immanuel.
9:6 For unto us a Child is born, Unto us a Son is given;
And the government will be upon His shoulder. And His name will be called
Wonderful, Counselor, Mighty God, Everlasting Father, Prince of Peace.
7 Of the increase of His government and peace There will be no end,
Upon the throne of David and over His kingdom,
To order it and establish it with judgment and justice
From that time forward, even forever.

Concerning point 1: --- God couldn’t have a physical son, because God is not a physical Being, is He?
However, through the virgin birth, He could bring One into Being that is CALLED the Son of God, as it says in Luke 1:
35 And the angel (Gabriel) answered and said to her, “The Holy Spirit will come upon you, and the power of the Highest will overshadow you; therefore, also, that Holy One who is to be born will be CALLED the Son of God.”
9:6 says that the one born would be a physical Son, --- so, a son CALLED the Son of God.

Concerning point 2: --- the original name for Jesus was Immanuel, which is fulfilled in Matthew 1:
22 So all this was done that it might be fulfilled which was spoken by the Lord through the prophet, saying:
23 “Behold, the virgin shall be with child, and bear a Son, and they shall call His name Immanuel,” which is translated, “God with us.”

20 An angel of the Lord appeared to him in a dream, saying, “Joseph, son of David, do not be afraid to take to you Mary your wife, for that which is conceived in her is of the Holy Spirit.
21 And she will bring forth a Son, and you shall CALL His name Jesus, for He will save His people from their sins.”
--- The name Jesus means Savior, --- the name Christ means Messiah, --- so this was His name in the New Testament, “God with us, Jesus, the Christ.”

Isaiah 9:7 “Of the increase of His government and peace There will be no end,
Upon the throne of David and over His kingdom,
To order it and establish it with judgment and justice
From that time forward, even forever.”

Again, this is fulfilled in Luke 1:
30 Then the angel said to her, “Do not be afraid, Mary, for you have found favor with God.
31 And behold, you will conceive in your womb and bring forth a Son, and shall CALL His name Jesus.
32 He will be great, and will be CALLED the Son of the Highest; and the Lord God will give Him the throne of His father David.
33 And He will reign over the house of Jacob forever, and of His kingdom there will be no end.”

And Jesus was born in Bethlehem of Judea, according to the prophecy in Micah 5:
2 “But you, Bethlehem Ephrathah,
Though you are little among the thousands of Judah,
Yet out of you shall come forth to Me
The One to be Ruler in Israel.”
--- It identifies ‘Ephrathah,’ as this is said to have been the district around Bethlehem in Judea. (And the ‘thousands’ of Judah must refer to the small towns and villages in Judah.)

And the angel appeared to the Shepherds, and said in Luke 2:
8 Now there were in the same country shepherds living out in the fields, keeping watch over their flock by night.
9 And behold, an angel of the Lord stood before them, and the glory of the Lord shone around them, and they were greatly afraid.
10 Then the angel said to them, “Do not be afraid, for behold, I bring you good tidings of great joy which will be to all people.
11 For there is born to you this day in the city of David a Savior, who is Christ the Lord.
12 And this will be the Sign to you: You will find a Babe wrapped in swaddling cloths, lying in a manger.”

--- And there is the name again, “A Savior (Jesus) who is Christ the Lord.”
So there you have the full title, “The Lord Jesus Christ.”
--- And notice this from Isaiah 7:14 --- the “SIGN” --- The angel said, “This shall be a SIGN unto you.”

(Sorry, long answer for a short question)


Placid



Posted By: Abu Loren
Date Posted: 03 January 2013 at 2:17am
Originally posted by Placid




--- And there is the name again, “A Savior (Jesus) who is Christ the Lord.”
So there you have the full title, “The Lord Jesus Christ.”
--- And notice this from Isaiah 7:14 --- the “SIGN” --- The angel said, “This shall be a SIGN unto you.”

 
Mr. Placid,
 
Can you accept the Messiah or Christ or the Anointed one as a saviour (without the capital S) without attributing divinity to him?
 
Also isn't the Lord bit added?


Posted By: Placid
Date Posted: 04 January 2013 at 10:54am
Hi Abu,

Quote: Can you accept the Messiah or Christ or the Anointed one as a saviour (without the capital S) without attributing divinity to him?
Also isn't the Lord bit added?

Response: --- It is natural to capitalize the names or titles that are capitalized in the NT, but I have noticed that the word ‘savior’ is not used at all in the Quran, so then it really has no meaning for Muslims, does it?
However, the word Messiah is used in eight different verses, --- each time called the Messiah son of Mary, --- and each time it is capitalized.
Then there is this verse where the Word is capitalized in Surah 3:
45 Behold! the angels said: "O Mary! God giveth thee glad tidings of a Word from Him: his name will be Christ Jesus, the son of Mary, held in honour in this world and the Hereafter and of (the company of) those nearest to God;

And this verse in 4:
171 O People of the Book! Commit no excesses in your religion: Nor say of God aught but the truth. Christ Jesus the son of Mary was an apostle of God, and His Word, which He bestowed on Mary, and a spirit proceeding from Him: so believe in God and His apostles. Say not "Trinity" : desist: it will be better for you: for God is one God: Glory be to Him

This is the verse that says Jesus was the messenger and servant of God, and His ‘Word’ and His spirit (sometimes capitalized) --- which are from God.
172 The Messiah will never scorn to be a slave (servant) unto Allah, nor will the favoured angels.

I have said many times that Jesus was human from a human mother, So Jesus himself was not deity --- but because he had no human father, the Word and the Holy Spirit that indwelt his human body, were from God, --- and were one with God. --- So, since Jesus was a ‘son,’ --- who do you say his ‘Father’ was?

We both believe there is only One God, --- and though we can’t see God, or His Holy Spirit, He can manifest Himself through other Personages, as He had done in the OT.

I understand that to Muslims, ‘Lord’ always refers to God, and I can accept that. However I have wondered about the verses like these in Surah 2:
62 Lo! Those who believe (in that which is revealed unto thee, Muhammad), and those who are Jews, and Christians, and Sabaeans - whoever believeth in Allah and the Last Day and doeth right - surely their reward is with their Lord, and there shall no fear come upon them neither shall they grieve.
112 Nay, but whosoever surrendereth his purpose to Allah while doing good, his reward is with his Lord; and there shall no fear come upon them neither shall they grieve.
2:277 Lo! those who believe and do good works and establish worship and pay the poor-due, their reward is with their Lord and there shall no fear come upon them neither shall they grieve.

Why does Muhammad say, “Their reward is with ‘their’ Lord, or ‘his’ Lord,” --- rather than saying, “Their reward is with ‘our’ Lord?
--- Was he acknowledging that the Lord to the Jews was Jehovah, and that the Christians called Jesus their Lord?


Placid



Posted By: Abu Loren
Date Posted: 05 January 2013 at 2:46am
Originally posted by Placid


I have said many times that Jesus was human from a human mother, So Jesus himself was not deity --- but because he had no human father, the Word and the Holy Spirit that indwelt his human body, were from God, --- and were one with God. --- So, since Jesus was a ‘son,’ --- who do you say his ‘Father’ was?
Jesus (pbuh) did not have a father, he was 'made' through a miraculous virgin birth. Therefore this is the reason that Allah Subhana Wa Ta'ala refers to Jesus as son of Mary. I don't know if you are aware but in Arabic culture a man is known as son of - (name of father).
Originally posted by Placid



We both believe there is only One God, --- and though we can’t see God, or His Holy Spirit, He can manifest Himself through other Personages, as He had done in the OT.
What other Personages are you talking about? This will be interesting.

Originally posted by Placid



Why does Muhammad say, “Their reward is with ‘their’ Lord, or ‘his’ Lord,” --- rather than saying, “Their reward is with ‘our’ Lord?
--- Was he acknowledging that the Lord to the Jews was Jehovah, and that the Christians called Jesus their Lord?


 
Muhammad (pbuh) doesn't say anything. As a Christian you can be forgiven for thinking that the Holy Qur'an is the work of Prophet Muhammad (pbuh) but to over a billion Muslims it is the inerrant Words or Allah Subhana Wa Ta'ala.
 
You still have a basic comprehension problem me thinks. Go back and re-read those verses in it's proper context.
 
By the way, is English your mother tongue?


Posted By: honeto
Date Posted: 05 January 2013 at 3:22pm
Originally posted by Placid

Hi Hasan,

Quote: --- So you agreed to both my points, 1- that there is no mention in the OT, that the Messiah will be God or a physical son of God. 2-According to English language rules and proper noun remains unchanged regardless of translations. Pluto will be Pluto.

Response: --- In Isaiah 7:14 it says, “Therefore the Lord Himself will give you a Sign: Behold, the virgin shall conceive and bear a Son, and shall call His name Immanuel.
9:6 For unto us a Child is born, Unto us a Son is given;
And the government will be upon His shoulder. And His name will be called
Wonderful, Counselor, Mighty God, Everlasting Father, Prince of Peace.
7 Of the increase of His government and peace There will be no end,
Upon the throne of David and over His kingdom,
To order it and establish it with judgment and justice
From that time forward, even forever.

Concerning point 1: --- God couldn’t have a physical son, because God is not a physical Being, is He?
However, through the virgin birth, He could bring One into Being that is CALLED the Son of God, as it says in Luke 1:
35 And the angel (Gabriel) answered and said to her, “The Holy Spirit will come upon you, and the power of the Highest will overshadow you; therefore, also, that Holy One who is to be born will be CALLED the Son of God.”
9:6 says that the one born would be a physical Son, --- so, a son CALLED the Son of God.

Concerning point 2: --- the original name for Jesus was Immanuel, which is fulfilled in Matthew 1:
22 So all this was done that it might be fulfilled which was spoken by the Lord through the prophet, saying:
23 “Behold, the virgin shall be with child, and bear a Son, and they shall call His name Immanuel,” which is translated, “God with us.”

20 An angel of the Lord appeared to him in a dream, saying, “Joseph, son of David, do not be afraid to take to you Mary your wife, for that which is conceived in her is of the Holy Spirit.
21 And she will bring forth a Son, and you shall CALL His name Jesus, for He will save His people from their sins.”
--- The name Jesus means Savior, --- the name Christ means Messiah, --- so this was His name in the New Testament, “God with us, Jesus, the Christ.”

Isaiah 9:7 “Of the increase of His government and peace There will be no end,
Upon the throne of David and over His kingdom,
To order it and establish it with judgment and justice
From that time forward, even forever.”

Again, this is fulfilled in Luke 1:
30 Then the angel said to her, “Do not be afraid, Mary, for you have found favor with God.
31 And behold, you will conceive in your womb and bring forth a Son, and shall CALL His name Jesus.
32 He will be great, and will be CALLED the Son of the Highest; and the Lord God will give Him the throne of His father David.
33 And He will reign over the house of Jacob forever, and of His kingdom there will be no end.”

And Jesus was born in Bethlehem of Judea, according to the prophecy in Micah 5:
2 “But you, Bethlehem Ephrathah,
Though you are little among the thousands of Judah,
Yet out of you shall come forth to Me
The One to be Ruler in Israel.”
--- It identifies ‘Ephrathah,’ as this is said to have been the district around Bethlehem in Judea. (And the ‘thousands’ of Judah must refer to the small towns and villages in Judah.)

And the angel appeared to the Shepherds, and said in Luke 2:
8 Now there were in the same country shepherds living out in the fields, keeping watch over their flock by night.
9 And behold, an angel of the Lord stood before them, and the glory of the Lord shone around them, and they were greatly afraid.
10 Then the angel said to them, “Do not be afraid, for behold, I bring you good tidings of great joy which will be to all people.
11 For there is born to you this day in the city of David a Savior, who is Christ the Lord.
12 And this will be the Sign to you: You will find a Babe wrapped in swaddling cloths, lying in a manger.”

--- And there is the name again, “A Savior (Jesus) who is Christ the Lord.”
So there you have the full title, “The Lord Jesus Christ.”
--- And notice this from Isaiah 7:14 --- the “SIGN” --- The angel said, “This shall be a SIGN unto you.”

(Sorry, long answer for a short question)


Placid




Placid, this is what I call the grand Christian deceit.
You quoted from Isaiah chapter 9. We all know that the book of Isaiah belongs to the OT, to the Jews. Let us see if it agrees with their version, ya'll borrowed it from them in the first place. So let us see if Isaiah 9:6 really said what you wrote it did, or someone made it to say what they wanted it to say.
Remember this verse was posted by you in response to my challenge that nowhere in the OT it says that the Messiah will be God. I know Jews were expecting a Messiah not God.

I am not contesting Isaiah 7:14 which says:
"Therefore the Lord himself will give you a sign: behold, a virgin shall conceive, and bear a son, and shall call his name Immanuel." No mention that Immanuel is God.

Now let us look at the real stuff:

here is your version of the story:
" For unto us a child is born, unto us a son is given; and the government shall be upon his shoulder: and his name shall be called Wonderful, Counsellor, Mighty God, Everlasting Father, Prince of Peace."

Sure, this verse suggests "his name shall be....Mighty God".
To someone who has not done there critical homework this is the end of the road. Thank God it is not, the truth is something else, I searched for it, and found it. It is not too far, go to any Torah online website and it will show the truth of what the Christians did, they changed and placed just a couple of words to change the meanings and to clearly misguide and deceive themselves and others. Imagine what will be there end!!

Here is the Jewish version and the same verse appears in Isaiah 9:5
"For a child has been born to us, a son given to us, and the authority is upon his shoulder, and the wondrous adviser, the mighty God, the everlasting Father, called his name, "the prince of peace."           ה. כִּי יֶלֶד יֻלַּד לָנוּ בֵּן נִתַּן לָנוּ וַתְּהִי הַמִּשְׂרָה עַל שִׁכְמוֹ וַיִּקְרָא שְׁמוֹ פֶּלֶא יוֹעֵץ אֵל גִּבּוֹר אֲבִי עַד שַׂר שָׁלוֹם:"

Wow, what a shame, what a deceit, what a monster, what s pit they have created for themselves, except those who are truth seekers, who only serve God.




PRIME EXAMPLE OF BIBLE ALTERATION, PRIME EXAMPLE OF BIBLE ALTERATION, here you got it!

Hasan

-------------
39:64 Proclaim: Is it some one other than God that you order me to worship, O you ignorant ones?"


Posted By: Abu Loren
Date Posted: 06 January 2013 at 1:41am
Originally posted by honeto


Placid, this is what I call the grand Christian deceit.
You quoted from Isaiah chapter 9. We all know that the book of Isaiah belongs to the OT, to the Jews. Let us see if it agrees with their version, ya'll borrowed it from them in the first place. So let us see if Isaiah 9:6 really said what you wrote it did, or someone made it to say what they wanted it to say.
Remember this verse was posted by you in response to my challenge that nowhere in the OT it says that the Messiah will be God. I know Jews were expecting a Messiah not God.

I am not contesting Isaiah 7:14 which says:
"Therefore the Lord himself will give you a sign: behold, a virgin shall conceive, and bear a son, and shall call his name Immanuel." No mention that Immanuel is God.

Now let us look at the real stuff:

here is your version of the story:
" For unto us a child is born, unto us a son is given; and the government shall be upon his shoulder: and his name shall be called Wonderful, Counsellor, Mighty God, Everlasting Father, Prince of Peace."

Sure, this verse suggests "his name shall be....Mighty God".
To someone who has not done there critical homework this is the end of the road. Thank God it is not, the truth is something else, I searched for it, and found it. It is not too far, go to any Torah online website and it will show the truth of what the Christians did, they changed and placed just a couple of words to change the meanings and to clearly misguide and deceive themselves and others. Imagine what will be there end!!

Here is the Jewish version and the same verse appears in Isaiah 9:5
"For a child has been born to us, a son given to us, and the authority is upon his shoulder, and the wondrous adviser, the mighty God, the everlasting Father, called his name, "the prince of peace."           ה. כִּי יֶלֶד יֻלַּד לָנוּ בֵּן נִתַּן לָנוּ וַתְּהִי הַמִּשְׂרָה עַל שִׁכְמוֹ וַיִּקְרָא שְׁמוֹ פֶּלֶא יוֹעֵץ אֵל גִּבּוֹר אֲבִי עַד שַׂר שָׁלוֹם:"

Wow, what a shame, what a deceit, what a monster, what s pit they have created for themselves, except those who are truth seekers, who only serve God.




PRIME EXAMPLE OF BIBLE ALTERATION, PRIME EXAMPLE OF BIBLE ALTERATION, here you got it!

Hasan
 
Thank you for the research brother! This doesn't surprise me one bit, yet they STILL claim the Bible hasn't been altered.


Posted By: Placid
Date Posted: 07 January 2013 at 1:38pm
Hi Hasan

Quote: PRIME EXAMPLE OF BIBLE ALTERATION, PRIME EXAMPLE OF BIBLE ALTERATION, here you got it! --- And in Red Letters too.

Response: --- Well you sure caught me off guard with that. --- I had never heard before that the Christians went back and changed the prophecies of Isaiah.

I thought I better check this out too. --- (I will give more info later, but this is a start.)

--- I checked the oldest known copies of Isaiah and found the following:

Quote: The Great Isaiah Scroll (1QIsaa) is one of the original seven Dead Sea Scrolls discovered in Qumran in 1947. It is the largest (734 cm) and best preserved of all the biblical scrolls, and the only one that is almost complete. The 54 columns contain all 66 chapters of the Hebrew version of the biblical Book of Isaiah. Dating from ca. 125 BCE, it is also one of the oldest of the Dead Sea Scrolls, some one thousand years older than the oldest manuscripts of the Hebrew Bible known to us before the scrolls' discovery. --- End of quote.

--- I Found one thing which I will mention later, but I thought I would check with the Douay first, as it was translated to English from the Latin Vulgate before 400 AD, --- which carried the Scriptures through from 400 -1600 AD:
6 For a CHILD IS BORN to us, and a son is given to us, and the government is upon his shoulder: and his name shall be called, Wonderful, Counsellor, God the Mighty, the Father of the world to come, the Prince of Peace.
7 His empire shall be multiplied, and there shall be no end of peace: he shall sit upon the throne of David, and upon his kingdom; to establish it and strengthen it with judgment and with justice, from henceforth and for ever: the zeal of the Lord of hosts will perform this.

Amplified:
6 For to us a Child is born, to us a Son is given; and the government shall be upon His shoulder, and His name shall be called Wonderful Counselor, Mighty God, Everlasting Father [of Eternity], Prince of Peace.(C)
7 Of the increase of His government and of peace there shall be no end, upon the throne of David and over his kingdom, to establish it and to uphold it with justice and with righteousness from the [latter] time forth, even forevermore. The zeal of the Lord of hosts will perform this.(D)

Knox Bible: (A few out of the ordinary translations.)

6 For our sakes a child is born, to our race a son is given, whose shoulder will bear the sceptre of princely power. What name shall be given him? Peerless among counsellors, the mighty God, Father of the world to come, the Prince of peace. 7 Ever wider shall his dominion spread, endlessly at peace; he will sit on David’s kingly throne, to give it lasting foundations of justice and right; so tenderly he loves us, the Lord of hosts.

Young’s Literal Translation:
For a Child hath been born to us, A Son hath been given to us, And the princely power is on his shoulder, And He doth call his name Wonderful, Counsellor, Mighty God, Father of Eternity, Prince of Peace.
7 To the increase of the princely power, And of peace, there is no end, On the throne of David, and on his kingdom, To establish it, and to support it, In judgment and in righteousness, Henceforth, even unto the age, The zeal of Jehovah of Hosts doth this.

Complete Jewish Bible:
5 (6) For a child is born to us,
a son is given to us;
dominion will rest on his shoulders,
and he will be given the name
Pele-Yo‘etz El Gibbor
Avi-‘Ad Sar-Shalom
[Wonder of a Counselor, Mighty God,
Father of Eternity, Prince of Peace],
6 (7) in order to extend the dominion
and perpetuate the peace
of the throne and kingdom of David,
to secure it and sustain it
through justice and righteousness
henceforth and forever.
The zeal of Adonai-Tzva’ot
will accomplish this.

(There are slight variations, but the Dead Sea Scroll next.)


Placid



Posted By: honeto
Date Posted: 08 January 2013 at 1:16pm
Originally posted by Placid

Hi Hasan

Quote: PRIME EXAMPLE OF BIBLE ALTERATION, PRIME EXAMPLE OF BIBLE ALTERATION, here you got it! --- And in Red Letters too.

Response: --- Well you sure caught me off guard with that. --- I had never heard before that the Christians went back and changed the prophecies of Isaiah.

I thought I better check this out too. --- (I will give more info later, but this is a start.)

--- I checked the oldest known copies of Isaiah and found the following:

Quote: The Great Isaiah Scroll (1QIsaa) is one of the original seven Dead Sea Scrolls discovered in Qumran in 1947. It is the largest (734 cm) and best preserved of all the biblical scrolls, and the only one that is almost complete. The 54 columns contain all 66 chapters of the Hebrew version of the biblical Book of Isaiah. Dating from ca. 125 BCE, it is also one of the oldest of the Dead Sea Scrolls, some one thousand years older than the oldest manuscripts of the Hebrew Bible known to us before the scrolls' discovery. --- End of quote.

--- I Found one thing which I will mention later, but I thought I would check with the Douay first, as it was translated to English from the Latin Vulgate before 400 AD, --- which carried the Scriptures through from 400 -1600 AD:
6 For a CHILD IS BORN to us, and a son is given to us, and the government is upon his shoulder: and his name shall be called, Wonderful, Counsellor, God the Mighty, the Father of the world to come, the Prince of Peace.
7 His empire shall be multiplied, and there shall be no end of peace: he shall sit upon the throne of David, and upon his kingdom; to establish it and strengthen it with judgment and with justice, from henceforth and for ever: the zeal of the Lord of hosts will perform this.

Amplified:
6 For to us a Child is born, to us a Son is given; and the government shall be upon His shoulder, and His name shall be called Wonderful Counselor, Mighty God, Everlasting Father [of Eternity], Prince of Peace.(C)
7 Of the increase of His government and of peace there shall be no end, upon the throne of David and over his kingdom, to establish it and to uphold it with justice and with righteousness from the [latter] time forth, even forevermore. The zeal of the Lord of hosts will perform this.(D)

Knox Bible: (A few out of the ordinary translations.)

6 For our sakes a child is born, to our race a son is given, whose shoulder will bear the sceptre of princely power. What name shall be given him? Peerless among counsellors, the mighty God, Father of the world to come, the Prince of peace. 7 Ever wider shall his dominion spread, endlessly at peace; he will sit on David’s kingly throne, to give it lasting foundations of justice and right; so tenderly he loves us, the Lord of hosts.

Young’s Literal Translation:
For a Child hath been born to us, A Son hath been given to us, And the princely power is on his shoulder, And He doth call his name Wonderful, Counsellor, Mighty God, Father of Eternity, Prince of Peace.
7 To the increase of the princely power, And of peace, there is no end, On the throne of David, and on his kingdom, To establish it, and to support it, In judgment and in righteousness, Henceforth, even unto the age, The zeal of Jehovah of Hosts doth this.

Complete Jewish Bible:
5 (6) For a child is born to us,
a son is given to us;
dominion will rest on his shoulders,
and he will be given the name
Pele-Yo‘etz El Gibbor
Avi-‘Ad Sar-Shalom
[Wonder of a Counselor, Mighty God,
Father of Eternity, Prince of Peace],
6 (7) in order to extend the dominion
and perpetuate the peace
of the throne and kingdom of David,
to secure it and sustain it
through justice and righteousness
henceforth and forever.
The zeal of Adonai-Tzva’ot
will accomplish this.

(There are slight variations, but the Dead Sea Scroll next.)


Placid



Placid,
you are only looking at Christian sources, of course they are going to try to match it with their doctrine, in particular if they have them changed for a purpose. Go to a Jewish online bible and you will see the truth of this matter.
I am pasting this link from a popular Jewish online Bible, check it out to see how the original was before Christians took and modified it so they can make Jesus God.

http://www.chabad.org/library/bible_cdo/aid/15940 - http://www.chabad.org/library/bible_cdo/aid/15940

Hasan

-------------
39:64 Proclaim: Is it some one other than God that you order me to worship, O you ignorant ones?"


Posted By: Placid
Date Posted: 08 January 2013 at 3:20pm
Hi Abu,

Quote:
(I said)--- I have said many times that Jesus was human from a human mother, So Jesus himself was not deity --- but because he had no human father, the Word and the Holy Spirit that indwelt his human body, were from God, --- and were one with God. --- So, since Jesus was a ‘son,’ --- who do you say his ‘Father’ was?
(You said) --- Jesus (pbuh) did not have a father, he was 'made' through a miraculous virgin birth. Therefore this is the reason that Allah Subhana Wa Ta'ala refers to Jesus as son of Mary. I don't know if you are aware but in Arabic culture a man is known as son of - (name of father).

Response: --- Yes, it was the same with the Jews, the lineage was always through the father. --- This is why the genealogy in Matthew is from Abraham through David, and through David’s son Solomon, down to Joseph ‘who was the husband of Mary, of whom was born Jesus who is called Christ.” 1:16.
So in the Roman census Jesus was recorded as the son of Joseph, who was his foster father.

--- The other genealogy goes backwards from Mary, and records this in Luke 3:
23 “Now Jesus Himself began His ministry at about 30 years of age, being (as was supposed) the son of Joseph.” --- This was the true line from David to Mary through David’s son Nathan.



(I said) --- We both believe there is only One God, --- and though we can’t see God, or His Holy Spirit, He can manifest Himself through other Personages, as He had done in the OT.
(You asked) --- What other Personages are you talking about? This will be interesting.

Response: --- As Melchizedek in Genesis 14:
18 Then Melchizedek king of Salem brought out bread and wine; he was the priest of God Most High. --- And a description is given in Hebrews 7:
1 For this Melchizedek, king of Salem, priest of the Most High God, who met Abraham, and blessed him,
2 to whom also Abraham gave a tenth part of all, first being translated “king of righteousness,” and then also king of Salem, meaning “king of peace,”
3 without father, without mother, without genealogy, having neither beginning of days nor end of life, but made like the Son of God, remains a priest continually.

*** As the Lord in Genesis 18:
1 Then the Lord appeared to him by the terebinth trees of Mamre, as he was sitting in the tent door in the heat of the day.
2 So he lifted his eyes and looked, and behold, three men were standing by him; and when he saw them, he ran from the tent door to meet them, and bowed himself to the ground,
3 and said, “My Lord, if I have now found favor in Your sight, do not pass on by Your servant.
16 Then the men rose from there and looked toward Sodom, and Abraham went with them to send them on the way.
17 And the Lord said, “Shall I hide from Abraham what I am doing,
18 since Abraham shall surely become a great and mighty nation, and all the nations of the earth shall be blessed in him?
19 For I have known him, in order that he may command his children and his household after him, that they keep the way of the Lord, to do righteousness and justice, that the Lord may bring to Abraham what He has spoken to him.” 20 And the Lord said, “Because the outcry against Sodom and Gomorrah is great, and because their sin is very grave, --- (He would destroy them).
22 Then the men (angels) turned away from there and went toward Sodom, but Abraham still stood before the Lord.

*** As the Angel of the Lord in Exodus 3:
1     Now Moses was tending the flock of Jethro his father-in-law, the priest of Midian. And he led the flock to the back of the desert, and came to Horeb, the mountain of God.
2     2 And the Angel of the Lord appeared to him in a flame of fire from the midst of a bush. So he looked, and behold, the bush was burning with fire, but the bush was not consumed.
3     3 Then Moses said, “I will now turn aside and see this great sight, why the bush does not burn.”
4 So when the Lord saw that he turned aside to look, God called to him from the midst of the bush and said, “Moses, Moses!”
And he said, “Here I am.”
4     5Then He said, “Do not draw near this place. Take your sandals off your feet, for the place where you stand is holy ground.”
5     6Moreover He said, “I am the God of your father—the God of Abraham, the God of Isaac, and the God of Jacob.” And Moses hid his face, for he was afraid to look upon God.

*** As the Commander of the Lord’s army in Joshua 5:
13 And it came to pass, when Joshua was by Jericho, that he lifted his eyes and looked, and behold, a Man stood opposite him with His sword drawn in His hand. And Joshua went to Him and said to Him, “Are You for us or for our adversaries?”
14 So He said, “No, but as Commander of the army of the Lord I have now come.”
And Joshua fell on his face to the earth and worshiped, and said to Him, “What does my Lord say to His servant?”
15 Then the Commander of the Lord’s army said to Joshua, “Take your sandal off your foot, for the place where you stand is holy.” And Joshua did so.

*** From the Book of Judges to the Book of Malachi, the LORD of Hosts is a common name for God. (The Jehovah’s Witnesses say Jehovah of Armies).
He represented God, but was never seen by man

*** As the fourth Man in the fiery furnace in Daniel 3:
13 Then Nebuchadnezzar, in rage and fury, gave the command to bring Shadrach, Meshach, and Abed-Nego. So they brought these men before the king. --- (They would not bow down before the image of the king.)
20 And he commanded certain mighty men of valor who were in his army to bind Shadrach, Meshach, and Abed-Nego, and cast them into the burning fiery furnace
24 Then King Nebuchadnezzar was astonished; and he rose in haste and spoke, saying to his counselors, “Did we not cast three men bound into the midst of the fire?” They answered and said to the king, “True, O king.”
25 “Look!” he answered, “I see four men loose, walking in the midst of the fire; and they are not hurt, and the form of the fourth is like the Son of God.”

--- Since God cannot be seen, I believe these Personages were the Word (Logos).
The Trinitarians usual say these appearances were the ‘Pre-incarnate Christ.’
--- They were not Jesus, as He hadn’t been born yet. --- But I believe that they were the Word that transferred from the LORD of hosts to Jesus, since the LORD of hosts was no more mentioned after Jesus was born, because the Word (Logos) took on the role of the Christ, indwelling the physical body of Jesus. --- Malachi 3:1.


(I asked) --- Why does Muhammad say, “Their reward is with ‘their’ Lord, or ‘his’ Lord,” --- rather than saying, “Their reward is with ‘our’ Lord?

(You said) ---Muhammad (pbuh) doesn't say anything. As a Christian you can be forgiven for thinking that the Holy Qur'an is the work of Prophet Muhammad (pbuh) but to over a billion Muslims it is the inerrant Words or Allah Subhana Wa Ta'ala.

Response: -- Sorry, what I should have asked was, “Why does the Quran say, “Their reward is with ‘their’ Lord, or ‘his’ Lord,” --- rather than saying, “Their reward is with ‘our’ Lord?
--- Or are they written differently in your version?
(You asked) By the way, is English your mother tongue?
Response: --- Yes.


Placid





Posted By: Abu Loren
Date Posted: 09 January 2013 at 1:14am
Originally posted by Placid



Response: --- As Melchizedek in Genesis 14:
18 Then Melchizedek king of Salem brought out bread and wine; he was the priest of God Most High. --- And a description is given in Hebrews 7:
1 For this Melchizedek, king of Salem, priest of the Most High God, who met Abraham, and blessed him,
2 to whom also Abraham gave a tenth part of all, first being translated “king of righteousness,” and then also king of Salem, meaning “king of peace,”
3 without father, without mother, without genealogy, having neither beginning of days nor end of life, but made like the Son of God, remains a priest continually.
Why do you have to jump from High Priest of God to Son of God? If Hebrews was written by Paul then he is gravely mistaken.
Islamic scholars believe that Melchizedek is Dhul Qarnayn mentioned in the Holy Qur'an in Surah Al Khaf (18). I suggest you read it. Allah Subhana Wa Ta'ala says that He established him on the earth.

*** As the Lord in Genesis 18:
1 Then the Lord appeared to him by the terebinth trees of Mamre, as he was sitting in the tent door in the heat of the day.
2 So he lifted his eyes and looked, and behold, three men were standing by him; and when he saw them, he ran from the tent door to meet them, and bowed himself to the ground,
3 and said, “My Lord, if I have now found favor in Your sight, do not pass on by Your servant.
16 Then the men rose from there and looked toward Sodom, and Abraham went with them to send them on the way.
17 And the Lord said, “Shall I hide from Abraham what I am doing,
18 since Abraham shall surely become a great and mighty nation, and all the nations of the earth shall be blessed in him?
19 For I have known him, in order that he may command his children and his household after him, that they keep the way of the Lord, to do righteousness and justice, that the Lord may bring to Abraham what He has spoken to him.” 20 And the Lord said, “Because the outcry against Sodom and Gomorrah is great, and because their sin is very grave, --- (He would destroy them).
22 Then the men (angels) turned away from there and went toward Sodom, but Abraham still stood before the Lord.
 
No man has ever seen God. According to the Holy Qur'an God did not visit Abraham (Alayhi Salaam) but three angels. So going by what we are told in the Holy Qur'an the above verses could be corrupted.
 

*** As the Angel of the Lord in Exodus 3:
1     Now Moses was tending the flock of Jethro his father-in-law, the priest of Midian. And he led the flock to the back of the desert, and came to Horeb, the mountain of God.
2     2 And the Angel of the Lord appeared to him in a flame of fire from the midst of a bush. So he looked, and behold, the bush was burning with fire, but the bush was not consumed.
3     3 Then Moses said, “I will now turn aside and see this great sight, why the bush does not burn.”
4 So when the Lord saw that he turned aside to look, God called to him from the midst of the bush and said, “Moses, Moses!”
And he said, “Here I am.”
4     5Then He said, “Do not draw near this place. Take your sandals off your feet, for the place where you stand is holy ground.”
5     6Moreover He said, “I am the God of your father—the God of Abraham, the God of Isaac, and the God of Jacob.” And Moses hid his face, for he was afraid to look upon God.
 
Are you saying the angel of the Lord is God Himself?
 

*** As the Commander of the Lord’s army in Joshua 5:
13 And it came to pass, when Joshua was by Jericho, that he lifted his eyes and looked, and behold, a Man stood opposite him with His sword drawn in His hand. And Joshua went to Him and said to Him, “Are You for us or for our adversaries?”
14 So He said, “No, but as Commander of the army of the Lord I have now come.”
And Joshua fell on his face to the earth and worshiped, and said to Him, “What does my Lord say to His servant?”
15 Then the Commander of the Lord’s army said to Joshua, “Take your sandal off your foot, for the place where you stand is holy.” And Joshua did so.
 
Again angel not God.
 


--- Since God cannot be seen, I believe these Personages were the Word (Logos).
The Trinitarians usual say these appearances were the ‘Pre-incarnate Christ.’
--- They were not Jesus, as He hadn’t been born yet. --- But I believe that they were the Word that transferred from the LORD of hosts to Jesus, since the LORD of hosts was no more mentioned after Jesus was born, because the Word (Logos) took on the role of the Christ, indwelling the physical body of Jesus. --- Malachi 3:1.

What you believe, in my opinion, is wrong. Why can't you just accept God for God? Why bring the word or logos or whatever else you want to into the equation? Is it that difficult for you to accept God as being ONE?






Posted By: Placid
Date Posted: 10 January 2013 at 12:54pm
(To continue with):
The Dead Sea Scrolls

1. The Dead Sea Scrolls at the Gnostic Society Library: Online Texts from ...
A large collection of texts online from the Dead Sea Scrolls,
Complete Scholarly Translations of Scroll Texts with Commentary

Quote: Great Isaiah Scroll (Fred Miller) -- This site presents the most impressive internet presentation of a complete scroll from the DSS. While the site offers little of interest to a casual reader, it gives glimpses into the issues involved in the analysis and translation of a scroll. It includes black & white plates of each column of The Great Isaiah Scroll (one of the first seven scrolls found in Cave 1, and the oldest extant Hebrew biblical manuscript), along with detailed notes on the physical condition of the manuscript and comparison of its orthography and wording with the standard Masoretic text. The technical discussions of the site are obviously intended for scholars familiar with Hebrew

The Great Isaiah Scroll (1QIsaa) is one of the original seven Dead Sea Scrolls discovered in Qumran in 1947. It is the largest (734 cm) and best preserved of all the biblical scrolls, and the only one that is almost complete. The 54 columns contain all 66 chapters of the Hebrew version of the biblical Book of Isaiah. Dating from ca. 125 BCE, it is also one of the oldest of the Dead Sea Scrolls, some one thousand years older than the oldest manuscripts of the Hebrew Bible known to us before the scrolls' discovery.
--- It exhibits a very full orthography (spelling), revealing how Hebrew was pronounced in the Second Temple Period. Around twenty additional copies of the Book of Isaiah were also found at Qumran (one more copy was discovered further south at Wadi Muraba'at), as well as six pesharim (commentaries) based on the book; Isaiah is also frequently quoted in other scrolls (a literary and religious phenomenon also present in New Testament writings). The authoritative and scriptural status of the Book of Isaiah is consistent with the messianic beliefs of the community living at Qumran, since Isaiah is known for his prophecies of judgment and consolation, and his visions of the End of Days and the coming of the Kingdom of God. --- End of quote.

7:14 “Therefore the LORD Himself will give you a Sign. The young woman has conceived and is bearing a son, and His name will be Immanuel.”

8:1 Moreover, the LORD said to me, “Take a large scroll and write on it with a man’s pen ---
13 The LORD of hosts, consider Him holy, revere Him, be in awe of Him.
14 He will be a sanctuary, but also ‘a stone of stumbling and a rock of offence,’ to both the house of Israel, a trap and a snare to the inhabitants of Jerusalem.
15 Many among them may stumble and fall.
16 Bind up the testimony and seal the instructions among my disciples.
17 I will wait for the LORD who is hiding His face from the house of Jacob and I will hope for him.
18 Here I am with the children the LORD has given me as a Sign and a wonder in Israel from the LORD of hosts who dwells in Mount Zion.”

9:2 “’The people who walked in darkness have seen a great light. On those who lived in the land of deep shadows, light has shined.’
3 You have expanded the nation, you have increased its joy. They rejoice in your presence as with the joy at harvest, as people cheer as they divide spoil.
4 For the yoke of their burden and the pole on their shoulder, the rod of their oppressors , --- and you have broken, as in the day of Midion.”

9:6 “For a child is born to us, a son is given to us. The government will be upon His shoulders. He is called Wonderful Councilor, Mighty God, Everlasting Father, the Prince of Peace.
7 His government shall expand, and peace will be endless for the throne of David and his kingdom, to establish it and to sustain it with justice and righteousness from now on and forever. The zeal of the LORD of hosts will do it.”

(Next we can study it)


Placid



Posted By: Placid
Date Posted: 14 January 2013 at 5:43pm
Hi Abu,

About Melchizedek:
Quote: Why do you have to jump from High Priest of God to Son of God? If Hebrews was written by Paul then he is gravely mistaken.
Islamic scholars believe that Melchizedek is Dhul Qarnayn mentioned in the Holy Qur'an in Surah Al Khaf (18). I suggest you read it. Allah Subhana Wa Ta'ala says that He established him on the earth.

Response: --- Hebrews wasn’t written by Paul, and I don’t see any identification of Melchizedek in Surah 18. Some sources say the references are to Alexander the Great. --- Melchizedek dated back to Genesis, but the description is in Hebrews in these words:
--- Without father, without mother, without genealogy, having neither beginning of days nor end of life, but made like the Son of God, remains a priest continually.
If we understand that Almighty God never left Heaven, and that Jesus had a genealogy with beginning and end of life on earth, --- this figure was neither God nor Jesus. So who do you say it was?
You see, I don’t try to defend these difficult Scriptures, I just write them the way they are. --- However, what I found was this in Surah 18:
27 “And recite that which hath been revealed unto thee of the Scripture of thy Lord. There is none who can change His words, and thou wilt find no refuge beside Him.”
--- If we couple this with Surah 3:3 which says, “He hath revealed unto thee (Muhammad) the Scripture with truth, confirming that which was (revealed) before it, even as He revealed the Torah and the Gospel.” --- Then we have a dilemma. --- Either it is that, ‘God said it wrong,’ or ‘Gabriel confirmed it wrong.’
--- The angels were created beings, so would it apply to angels to say, “--- Without father, without mother, without genealogy, having neither beginning of days nor end of life,” --- This is why these special appearances seem to be the Word (Logos) of God, --- who could and did appear in different forms.

About the angels that visited Abraham:
Quote: No man has ever seen God. According to the Holy Qur'an God did not visit Abraham (Alayhi Salaam) but three angels. So going by what we are told in the Holy Qur'an the above verses could be corrupted.

Response: --- It is so convenient to say ‘corrupted.’ --- Then let’s say it was three angels.
One had this kind of wisdom in Genesis 18:17 “Shall I hide from Abraham what I am doing (18) Since he will surely become a great and mighty nation. (19) For I have known him ---- that his children and household that they keep the way of the LORD. ---( 32) He knew how many righteous ones there were in Sodom and Gomorrah, before it was destroyed.

About Moses and the burning bush:
Quote: Are you saying the angel of the Lord is God Himself?

Response: --- No, since Almighty God never leaves Heaven, but the Angel of the LORD came from God. --- Not another God, but a Manifestation of God.

About the Commander of the LORD’s army:
Quote: Again angel not God.

Response: --- Not God, but a Manifestation of ‘the LORD of hosts,’ who spoke as the Voice of God throughout the OT. --- (More than just an angel.)

Quote: What you believe, in my opinion, is wrong. Why can't you just accept God for God? Why bring the word or logos or whatever else you want to into the equation? Is it that difficult for you to accept God as being ONE?

Response: There is only one Almighty and Everlasting God who could never come to earth because His very approaching Presence would burn the earth to a crisp. --- But since God is God he can Manifest Himself in whatever form He chooses.
His multitudes of angels surround us. --- As it speaks in Surah 50:16-34, they can record our every thought and action, they can guide us through our conscience, or we can reject their warning. --- But they all respond to God, do they not?


Placid



Posted By: Abu Loren
Date Posted: 15 January 2013 at 4:36am
Originally posted by Placid


Response: --- Hebrews wasn’t written by Paul, and I don’t see any identification of Melchizedek in Surah 18. Some sources say the references are to Alexander the Great. --- Melchizedek dated back to Genesis, but the description is in Hebrews in these words:
--- Without father, without mother, without genealogy, having neither beginning of days nor end of life, but made like the Son of God, remains a priest continually.
If we understand that Almighty God never left Heaven, and that Jesus had a genealogy with beginning and end of life on earth, --- this figure was neither God nor Jesus. So who do you say it was?
You see, I don’t try to defend these difficult Scriptures, I just write them the way they are. --- However, what I found was this in Surah 18:
27 “And recite that which hath been revealed unto thee of the Scripture of thy Lord. There is none who can change His words, and thou wilt find no refuge beside Him.”
Either you are confused or I am. Whoever wrote the Book of Hebrews, did he also have revelations from God? No he was just writing hiw own thoughts.
I don't understand about the geneology bit.

--- The angels were created beings, so would it apply to angels to say, “--- Without father, without mother, without genealogy, having neither beginning of days nor end of life,” --- This is why these special appearances seem to be the Word (Logos) of God, --- who could and did appear in different forms.
So you still think that Jesus (Alayhi Salaam) appeared throughout history as differerent men? You also think that the Lord of Hosts is also Jesus (Alayhi Salaam)?


About Moses and the burning bush:
Quote: Are you saying the angel of the Lord is God Himself?

Response: --- No, since Almighty God never leaves Heaven, but the Angel of the LORD came from God. --- Not another God, but a Manifestation of God.

About the Commander of the LORD’s army:
Quote: Again angel not God.

Response: --- Not God, but a Manifestation of ‘the LORD of hosts,’ who spoke as the Voice of God throughout the OT. --- (More than just an angel.)
So let me get this straight, you are saying that this 'more than an angel' figure is Jesus (Alayhi Salaam) or the Logos?


Response: There is only one Almighty and Everlasting God who could never come to earth because His very approaching Presence would burn the earth to a crisp. --- But since God is God he can Manifest Himself in whatever form He chooses.
His multitudes of angels surround us. --- As it speaks in Surah 50:16-34, they can record our every thought and action, they can guide us through our conscience, or we can reject their warning. --- But they all respond to God, do they not?


Placid

 
Why should God Almighty needs to manifest Himself to us? He has His angels as messengers. Seems very silly to me.


Posted By: Placid
Date Posted: 16 January 2013 at 11:42am
Hi Abu,

Quote: Either you are confused or I am. Whoever wrote the Book of Hebrews, did he also have revelations from God? No he was just writing his own thoughts.

Response: --- The Book of Hebrews was called, ‘Paul’s Epistle to the Hebrews in the Douay and King James, but the newer Versions, have not named it.
It was no doubt included with Paul’s letters to the various Churches, as they were originally distributed individually and then sent as sections, and the Church letters were circulated among all the Churches, so it may have been natural to keep them together.

The other reason is the personal note in Chapter 13:
18 “Pray for us; for we are confident that we have a good conscience, in all things desiring to live honorably.
19 But I especially urge you to do this, that I may be restored to you the sooner.”
22 And I appeal to you, brethren, bear with the word of exhortation, for I have written to you in few words.
23 Know that our brother Timothy has been set free, with whom I shall see you if he comes shortly.
24 Greet all those who rule over you, and all the saints. Those from Italy greet you.
--- This was no doubt written by Paul because he mentions Timothy and ‘those from Italy.’

22 --- refers to ‘his exhortation, written in a few words,’ --- and I believe this is an indication that Paul perhaps wrote all of Chapter 13, which would be a ‘short letter’ to the Hebrews, which is the only part that is written in Paul's style.

The 12 chapters are inspired revelation that fulfill many prophecies from the OT, --- so whether they were dictated to and through Paul or one of the other disciples, as has been suggested, there is no indication. (But not something off the top of anyone’s head.)

Quote: I don't understand about the geneology bit.
So you still think that Jesus (Alayhi Salaam) appeared throughout history as different men? You also think that the Lord of Hosts is also Jesus (Alayhi Salaam)?

Response: --- There was no genealogy of Melchizedek, --- that is the point, which is evident that he came from God.
No I don’t believe Jesus appeared throughout the OT history --- since He hadn’t come into ‘being’ yet. --- He would have the DNA of Mary, so Jesus couldn’t precede Mary, could He?
But as I said, I believe that the Supernatural appearances, including the Lord of hosts were the Word (Logos).
Who do you think the Lord of hosts was?

Quote: So let me get this straight, you are saying that this 'more than an angel' figure is Jesus (Alayhi Salaam) or the Logos?

Response: --- I believe this ‘more than an angel’ figure with the wisdom of God was again the Word (Logos), in appearance like the other two. According to the Scriptures, the Word (Logos) was with God from the beginning and will go into eternity, --- that is why there was no genealogy. --- Jesus was born on earth, lived on earth, and died on earth, --- but because He was the special Messenger and Messiah of God, He was indwelt by the Word. --- As it says in Surah 3:45.
--- I believe that it was the Word that appeared in these other forms in the OT, before He indwelt the physical body of Jesus.

Quote: Why should God Almighty needs to manifest Himself to us? He has His angels as messengers. Seems very silly to me.

Response: --- But He had Prophets as messengers too, and as it says in Surah 4:171, Jesus son of Mary was a Messenger, --- where it also mentions, that He was the Messenger of, ‘God, the Word, and the Spirit,’ --- and it says, “But don’t say three, God is only One God.”

These are all good questions and I understand where you are coming from. --- So I am only trying to acquaint you with what is written in Scripture.
You don’t have to believe it as I do, but if it is God's word, you can’t easily discard it all, can you?


Placid



Posted By: Abu Loren
Date Posted: 17 January 2013 at 5:20am
Originally posted by Placid


Response: --- The Book of Hebrews was called, ‘Paul’s Epistle to the Hebrews in the Douay and King James, but the newer Versions, have not named it.
It was no doubt included with Paul’s letters to the various Churches, as they were originally distributed individually and then sent as sections, and the Church letters were circulated among all the Churches, so it may have been natural to keep them together.

--- This was no doubt written by Paul because he mentions Timothy and ‘those from Italy.’

22 --- refers to ‘his exhortation, written in a few words,’ --- and I believe this is an indication that Paul perhaps wrote all of Chapter 13, which would be a ‘short letter’ to the Hebrews, which is the only part that is written in Paul's style.
Ok so Hebrews was written by Paul. I'm sorry but if that is the case then I just can't take it seriously.

The 12 chapters are inspired revelation that fulfill many prophecies from the OT, --- so whether they were dictated to and through Paul or one of the other disciples, as has been suggested, there is no indication. (But not something off the top of anyone’s head.)
I think you are going a bit OTT with lines like "inspired revelation". I'm from the school that says Paul did not receive any revelation nor did he meet the 'risen Christ'.


Response: --- There was no genealogy of Melchizedek, --- that is the point, which is evident that he came from God.
No I don’t believe Jesus appeared throughout the OT history --- since He hadn’t come into ‘being’ yet. --- He would have the DNA of Mary, so Jesus couldn’t precede Mary, could He?
But as I said, I believe that the Supernatural appearances, including the Lord of hosts were the Word (Logos).
Who do you think the Lord of hosts was?
There was no geneology according to that charlatan Paul.
I think the Lord of Hosts was God Himself.


Response: --- I believe this ‘more than an angel’ figure with the wisdom of God was again the Word (Logos), in appearance like the other two. According to the Scriptures, the Word (Logos) was with God from the beginning and will go into eternity, --- that is why there was no genealogy. --- Jesus was born on earth, lived on earth, and died on earth, --- but because He was the special Messenger and Messiah of God, He was indwelt by the Word. --- As it says in Surah 3:45.
--- I believe that it was the Word that appeared in these other forms in the OT, before He indwelt the physical body of Jesus.
 
So God can't do all these things without the Word? There is no need for the Word to co-exist with the God from the beginning. That would be saying that
God wasn't capable of anything.



Response: --- But He had Prophets as messengers too, and as it says in Surah 4:171, Jesus son of Mary was a Messenger, --- where it also mentions, that He was the Messenger of, ‘God, the Word, and the Spirit,’ --- and it says, “But don’t say three, God is only One God.”
I see that you STILL have problems comprehending verse 4:171.
Sahih International
 
O People of the Scripture, do not commit excess in your religion or say about Allah except the truth. The Messiah, Jesus, the son of Mary, was but a messenger of Allah and His word which He directed to Mary and a soul [created at a command] from Him. So believe in Allah and His messengers. And do not say, "Three"; desist - it is better for you. Indeed, Allah is but one God. Exalted is He above having a son. To Him belongs whatever is in the heavens and whatever is on the earth. And sufficient is Allah as Disposer of affairs. 4:171
All it says is that Jesus (Alayhi Salaam) is not the son of god but a messenger of God. A word from God which means that all God had to say was "Be" and lo and behold Jesus (Alayhi Salaam) came into being or rather was conceived in the womb of Mary. Spirit (soul) created from Him, all human beings are given spirit or soul before they are born so that is not exclusive to Jesus (Alayhi Salaam).

These are all good questions and I understand where you are coming from. --- So I am only trying to acquaint you with what is written in Scripture.
You don’t have to believe it as I do, but if it is God's word, you can’t easily discard it all, can you?

You don't understand where I'm coming from because whatever I say to you goes over your head and then you complicate things. I am well acquainted with what is written as I used to be a Christian. I accept that there are still words of God contained the the Bible, mixed with man made corruptions. the trouble is you over complicate things where you see things that are not there. If you just accept that there is only One God then everything becomes crystal clear, like the fog has been lifted. 



Posted By: Placid
Date Posted: 18 January 2013 at 6:30am
Hi Hasan,

To study these verses from Isaiah in the Dead Sea scrolls:.

7:14 “Therefore the LORD Himself will give you a Sign. The young woman has conceived and is bearing a son, and His name will be Immanuel.”
9:6 “For a child is born to us, a son is given to us. The government will be upon His shoulders. He is called Wonderful Councilor, Mighty God, Everlasting Father, the Prince of Peace.

This is where God was giving a prophecy that Isaiah would not understand, because it would not be fulfilled for some 700 years.
--- This is how prophesy worked in the OT. --- Prophets were inspired by the Holy Spirit to make a prediction for the future, --- and, at the time of fulfillment, another servant of God who was inspired by the same Holy Spirit, would reveal it.

--- This is why, especially in the Gospel of Matthew which was written for the Jews, --- there are many places it says, “Thus it is written,” and then a ‘cross reference’ is given with chapter and verse.
Notice, in the Scroll copy, 7:14, it says ‘the young woman,’ whereas, it says in Matthew 1: 22, --- So all this was done that it might be fulfilled which was spoken by the Lord through the prophet, saying:
23 “Behold, the virgin shall be with child, and bear a Son, and they shall call His name Immanuel,” which is translated, “God with us.”
--- Perhaps 700 years earlier, there was no question that a young woman referred to a virgin, --- but perhaps when this was revealed to Matthew in Greek, it was more accurate to identify her as a virgin, (which she was, or she would not have been a pure vessel for God to use).

As well as that, it establishes the name that Immanuel meant, “God with us.”
And this is a question from another topic where Islam said:
Quote: Jesus (pbuh) was never referred to by the name "Immanuel". Yet, Isaiah 7:14 clearly states that the name of the child will be "Immanuel" (not Jesus). How can this apply to Jesus?
--- This is the mystery, that the one called Immanuel, --- meaning ‘God with us,’ --- indwelt the human being (of virgin birth, with no human father), who would be called Jesus.

--- This is a statement from the other topic by Islam:
Quote: By the way, I already pointed out before that the name "Jesus" does not mean "savior". I don't know where you are getting this from. It actually means "God saves" or "Yahweh saves". Put another way, it means "The Lord is Salvation"

So, we have Immanuel, ‘God with us,’ --- and Jesus, ‘God saves,’ --- and as you said before, “Names remain the same” and have meaning.

So we have the two names. --- Immanuel, ‘God with us’ --- who was with God from the beginning, who could be called ‘the wonderful counselor,’ the Mighty God (not the Almighty God, but with power, because the government was placed upon his shoulders), and the Everlasting Father of eternity, --- because this Immanuel will be there till the end, and through eternity.

--- And Jesus, 'God saves,’ or ‘the Lord is salvation,’ or simply ‘Savior' --- who was not from the beginning, so these eternal names could not apply, to Him.
--- But He was and is called, ‘The Prince of Peace.

So, here is the Jewish verse from Torah:
"For a child has been born to us, a son given to us, (Immanuel, God with us) and the authority is upon his shoulder, and the wondrous adviser, the mighty God, the everlasting Father, called his name (Jesus, Savior), "the prince of peace."     

It is easy to identify Immanuel as the Word, who was with God in the beginning, and came from heaven to earth to indwell the human body of Jesus as it says in John 1:14, and in Surah 3:
45 Behold! the angel said: "O Mary! God giveth thee glad tidings of a Word from Him: his name will be Christ Jesus, the son of Mary, held in honour in this world and the Hereafter and of (the company of) those nearest to God;


Placid



Posted By: Abu Loren
Date Posted: 19 January 2013 at 8:21am
Originally posted by Placid

Hi Hasan,

To study these verses from Isaiah in the Dead Sea scrolls:.

7:14 “Therefore the LORD Himself will give you a Sign. The young woman has conceived and is bearing a son, and His name will be Immanuel.”
9:6 “For a child is born to us, a son is given to us. The government will be upon His shoulders. He is called Wonderful Councilor, Mighty God, Everlasting Father, the Prince of Peace.

This is where God was giving a prophecy that Isaiah would not understand, because it would not be fulfilled for some 700 years.
--- This is how prophesy worked in the OT. --- Prophets were inspired by the Holy Spirit to make a prediction for the future, --- and, at the time of fulfillment, another servant of God who was inspired by the same Holy Spirit, would reveal it.

--- This is why, especially in the Gospel of Matthew which was written for the Jews, --- there are many places it says, “Thus it is written,” and then a ‘cross reference’ is given with chapter and verse.
Notice, in the Scroll copy, 7:14, it says ‘the young woman,’ whereas, it says in Matthew 1: 22, --- So all this was done that it might be fulfilled which was spoken by the Lord through the prophet, saying:
23 “Behold, the virgin shall be with child, and bear a Son, and they shall call His name Immanuel,” which is translated, “God with us.”
--- Perhaps 700 years earlier, there was no question that a young woman referred to a virgin, --- but perhaps when this was revealed to Matthew in Greek, it was more accurate to identify her as a virgin, (which she was, or she would not have been a pure vessel for God to use).

As well as that, it establishes the name that Immanuel meant, “God with us.”
And this is a question from another topic where Islam said:
Quote: Jesus (pbuh) was never referred to by the name "Immanuel". Yet, Isaiah 7:14 clearly states that the name of the child will be "Immanuel" (not Jesus). How can this apply to Jesus?
--- This is the mystery, that the one called Immanuel, --- meaning ‘God with us,’ --- indwelt the human being (of virgin birth, with no human father), who would be called Jesus.

--- This is a statement from the other topic by Islam:
Quote: By the way, I already pointed out before that the name "Jesus" does not mean "savior". I don't know where you are getting this from. It actually means "God saves" or "Yahweh saves". Put another way, it means "The Lord is Salvation"

So, we have Immanuel, ‘God with us,’ --- and Jesus, ‘God saves,’ --- and as you said before, “Names remain the same” and have meaning.

So we have the two names. --- Immanuel, ‘God with us’ --- who was with God from the beginning, who could be called ‘the wonderful counselor,’ the Mighty God (not the Almighty God, but with power, because the government was placed upon his shoulders), and the Everlasting Father of eternity, --- because this Immanuel will be there till the end, and through eternity.

--- And Jesus, 'God saves,’ or ‘the Lord is salvation,’ or simply ‘Savior' --- who was not from the beginning, so these eternal names could not apply, to Him.
--- But He was and is called, ‘The Prince of Peace.

So, here is the Jewish verse from Torah:
"For a child has been born to us, a son given to us, (Immanuel, God with us) and the authority is upon his shoulder, and the wondrous adviser, the mighty God, the everlasting Father, called his name (Jesus, Savior), "the prince of peace."     

It is easy to identify Immanuel as the Word, who was with God in the beginning, and came from heaven to earth to indwell the human body of Jesus as it says in John 1:14, and in Surah 3:
45 Behold! the angel said: "O Mary! God giveth thee glad tidings of a Word from Him: his name will be Christ Jesus, the son of Mary, held in honour in this world and the Hereafter and of (the company of) those nearest to God;


Placid

 
Mr. Placid stop twisting the Qur'anic verses to suit your confused ideology. I guess you are a Trinitarian Muslim? Be very careful o your will start a new cult.
 
What you have said in this forum, in my opinion, is just pure rubbish. I'm sure many people are having a laugh at your expense. A bit of friendly adivise, please stop now before your already tarnished reputation is damaged beyond repair.


Posted By: honeto
Date Posted: 19 January 2013 at 10:07am
Placid,
I was interested in only the facts of how the Christians changed the meanings of the entire verse by changing the place of the words in order to make their case.
There is nothing more than that to it. One cover up or one lie leads one to many more. I am just amazed and it confirms the truth that Jesus a man was made into God by man. It does not appeal to logic, it does not make sense, it defies all facts, it is untrue.
Here is the Jewish version and the same verse appears in Isaiah 9:5
"For a child has been born to us, a son given to us, and the authority is upon his shoulder, and the wondrous adviser, the mighty God, the everlasting Father, called his name, "the prince of peace."           ה. כִּי יֶלֶד יֻלַּד לָנוּ בֵּן נִתַּן לָנוּ וַתְּהִי הַמִּשְׂרָה עַל שִׁכְמוֹ וַיִּקְרָא שְׁמוֹ פֶּלֶא יוֹעֵץ אֵל גִּבּוֹר אֲבִי עַד שַׂר שָׁלוֹם:"
See, this Jewish version of the verse has no problem and is in contrast to the Christian version. And another thing if you noticed is the tense used. "has been" not "will be" as the Christians changed it to.
Hasan

-------------
39:64 Proclaim: Is it some one other than God that you order me to worship, O you ignorant ones?"


Posted By: Caringheart
Date Posted: 19 January 2013 at 10:54am
Originally posted by honeto

Placid,
I was interested in only the facts of how the Christians changed the meanings of the entire verse by changing the place of the words in order to make their case.
There is nothing more than that to it. One cover up or one lie leads one to many more. I am just amazed and it confirms the truth that Jesus a man was made into God by man. It does not appeal to logic, it does not make sense, it defies all facts, it is untrue.
Here is the Jewish version and the same verse appears in Isaiah 9:5
"For a child has been born to us, a son given to us, and the authority is upon his shoulder, and the wondrous adviser, the mighty God, the everlasting Father, called his name, "the prince of peace."           ה. כִּי יֶלֶד יֻלַּד לָנוּ בֵּן נִתַּן לָנוּ וַתְּהִי הַמִּשְׂרָה עַל שִׁכְמוֹ וַיִּקְרָא שְׁמוֹ פֶּלֶא יוֹעֵץ אֵל גִּבּוֹר אֲבִי עַד שַׂר שָׁלוֹם:"
See, this Jewish version of the verse has no problem and is in contrast to the Christian version. And another thing if you noticed is the tense used. "has been" not "will be" as the Christians changed it to.
Hasan


Greetings Hasan,

Your statements brought to mind two questions;
Why the need for the divine birth?
and if the scripture is translated 'has been', then who would it be referring to?

Salaam,
CH


Posted By: Rational
Date Posted: 19 January 2013 at 4:30pm
Originally posted by Caringheart

Why the need for the divine birth?

To show that He (almighty) is able to do anything.

"She said, "My Lord, how will I have a child when no man has touched me?" [The angel] said, "Such is Allah; He creates what He wills. When He decrees a matter, He only says to it, 'Be,' and it is." ( http://tanzil.net/#trans/en.sahih/3:47 - 3:47 )


"She said, "How can I have a boy while no man has touched me and I have not been unchaste?" ( http://tanzil.net/#trans/en.sahih/19:20 - 19:20 ) He said, "Thus [it will be]; your Lord says, 'It is easy for Me, and We will make him a sign to the people and a mercy from Us. And it is a matter [already] decreed.' " ( http://tanzil.net/#trans/en.sahih/19:21 - 19:21 )

Ibn Kathir writes:

"This means a proof and a sign for mankind of the power of their Maker and Creator, Who diversified them in their creation. He created their father, Adam, without a male (father) or female (mother). Then, He created Hawwa' (Adam's spouse) from a male (father) without a female (mother). Then, He created the rest of their progeny from male and female, except `Isa. He caused `Isa to be born from a female without a male. Thus, Allah completed the four types of creation (of the human being), which proves the perfection of His power and the magnificence of His authority. There is no god worthy of worship except Him and there is no true Lord other than Him."



-------------
الله


Posted By: Webber
Date Posted: 19 January 2013 at 11:22pm
Originally posted by Abu Loren

 
Mr. Placid stop twisting the Qur'anic verses to suit your confused ideology. I guess you are a Trinitarian Muslim? Be very careful o your will start a new cult.
 
What you have said in this forum, in my opinion, is just pure rubbish. I'm sure many people are having a laugh at your expense. A bit of friendly adivise, please stop now before your already tarnished reputation is damaged beyond repair.
 
I've been told that every Ayat has 7 meanings.
I've also heard it said many Arabic words have several meanings.
several words X several meanings X 7 Quranic meanings = 1 Ayat.
 
What's the chance of getting that twisted?


-------------
I'm a Gentile.
Numb. 6:24-26


Posted By: Placid
Date Posted: 22 January 2013 at 7:44am
Hi Hasan,

Quote: I was interested in only the facts of how the Christians changed the meanings of the entire verse by changing the place of the words in order to make their case. There is nothing more than that to it.
Here is the Jewish version and the same verse appears in Isaiah 9:5
"For a child has been born to us, a son given to us, and the authority is upon his shoulder, and the wondrous adviser, the mighty God, the everlasting Father, called his name, "the prince of peace."   

Response: --- I don’t quite see what is changed. However, the Jewish version may separate the two Personages mentioned so it appears easier to understand

This is Isaiah from the Dead Sea Scroll:
9:6 “For a child is born to us, a son is given to us. The government will be upon His shoulders. He is called Wonderful Councilor, Mighty God, Everlasting Father, the Prince of Peace.
The Jewish version:
"For a child has been born to us, a son given to us, and the authority is upon his shoulder, and the wondrous adviser, the mighty God, the everlasting Father, called his name, "the prince of peace."

--- So are you suggesting that Christians changed something? --- Did they go back 750 years before Christianity began, to influence Isaiah when he wrote it? Or did they change the copy that was used from 125 BC to be put in the Dead Sea Scroll, to be taken out about 1947? --- Or did some Christians infiltrate the deciphering of the Hebrew in some secluded country, and then have it revealed through this Gnostic Library source?

The only change between the Scroll of Isaiah and the verse we have in the Bible today is the comma between Wonderful and Counselor in some versions.
   
Now if you can just get away from your "forever link to trinity every time Jesus is mentioned" --- for a minute, you might see the truth of the verse.

Isaiah said in 7:14 --- God Himself would give a Sign. A virgin would conceive and bear a Son and His name will be called Immanuel, --- meaning ‘God.’ --- But a special representative of God and not God Himself, --- who never leaves heaven.
--- And the government will be upon His (Immanuel’s) shoulders.
This special One who was called, ‘The Everlasting Father,’ or ‘Father of Eternity’ had to be the One who was with God from the beginning in order to be referred to as ‘everlasting.’

As I’ve said many times, the Word (Logos) was in the beginning with God. --- And the Word was the one who was Manifested at different times in the OT.

For instance, --- Melchizedek. It says this in Hebrews 7:
1 For this Melchizedek, king of Salem, priest of the Most High God, --- first being translated “king of righteousness,” and then also king of Salem, meaning “king of peace,”
3 without father, without mother, without genealogy, having neither beginning of days nor end of life.

That was the eternal One who was with God in the beginning and will continue into eternity.--- If you notice that John ‘called’ the Word, ‘God.’ --- Maybe this will help you understand the connection between the two, as this is written in John 1:
1 In the beginning was the Word, and the Word was with God, and the Word was God.
2 He was in the beginning with God.
3 All things were made through Him, and without Him nothing was made that was made.
--- And we can say, the Word was God (or Immanuel, who came down from heaven) --- because, Immanuel means “God with us.”

--- So this is saying that not only is the Word ‘everlasting’ but the Word was the Manifestation of God that came down to us. --- So the Word was Immanuel, who came down to us, --- who was identified as the One who had the Government upon His shoulders, and was the Wonderful Counsellor, the Mighty God and the Everlasting Father (of Eternity).

14 And the Word became flesh and dwelt among us, and we beheld His glory, the glory as of the only begotten of the Father, full of grace and truth.
--- (So there you have it. The Word came down from heaven to indwell a human body. The name of the heavenly Being was Immanuel, but the human that He indwelt would be called Jesus.)

--- Isn’t that what it says in Surah 3?:
45 Behold! the angel said: "O Mary! God giveth thee glad tidings of a Word from Him: his name will be Christ Jesus, the son of Mary, held in honor in this world and the Hereafter and of (the company of) those nearest to God;

--- So the Word from Him (God) was the Personage (Immanuel) that came down from heaven to indwell a body on earth, --- and while on earth, He was ‘called’ Jesus, ‘the Prince of Peace.’
(More later)


Placid



Posted By: Placid
Date Posted: 23 January 2013 at 1:39pm
Hi Hasan,

I want to add this, which might clarify what I said before. This again is from the Dead Sea Scroll of Isaiah, chapter 9:
6 “For a child is born to us, a son is given to us. The government will be upon His shoulders. He is called Wonderful Councilor, Mighty God, Everlasting Father, --- (I basically said that the titles to here would apply to the One who came down from heaven, ‘Immanuel,’ --- which means God with us. --- But while He was on earth, He was called Jesus) --- “The Prince of Peace.”

--- (But look at the next verse to see what it says in the prophecy):
7 His government shall expand, and peace will be endless for the throne of David and his kingdom, to establish it and to sustain it with justice and righteousness from now on and forever. The zeal of the LORD of hosts will do it.”

Here is what it says, after the birth was announced to Mary, in Luke 1:
30 Then the angel said to her, “Do not be afraid, Mary, for you have found favor with God.
31 And behold, you will conceive in your womb and bring forth a Son, and shall CALL His name Jesus.
32 He will be great, and will be CALLED the Son of the Highest; and the Lord God will give Him the throne of His father David.
33 And He will reign over the house of Jacob forever, and of His kingdom there will be no end.”

Notice, in 31 “You will bring forth a Son and shall CALL His name Jesus
Notice the word, CALL – CALL – CALL His name Jesus. --- That was the 'earthly' name of the Immanuel that came down from heaven to dwell with mankind..

--- The name Jesus, means Savior. Matthew 1:
21. And she will bring forth a Son, and you shall CALL His name Jesus, for He will save His people from their sins.”
--- This One was also chosen to be a Sacrifice, as John the Baptist said in John 1:
29 The next day John saw Jesus coming toward him, and said, “Behold! The Lamb of God who takes away the sin of the world!

BUT WHAT I WANT TO POINT OUT IS THIS PROPHECY IN ISAIAH 9:
7 His government shall expand, and peace will be endless for the throne of David and his kingdom, to establish it and to sustain it with justice and righteousness from now on and forever
And Luke 1:
32 He will be great, and will be CALLED the Son of the Highest; and the Lord God will give Him the throne of His father David.
33 And He will reign over the house of Jacob forever, and of His kingdom there will be no end.”

Now, you see, this was not fulfilled in Jesus was it?
Jesus came as a Servant to bring Salvation first to the Jews and then the Gentiles.
He did not sit on the throne of David, and there was no physical sight of Him ruling over the house of Jacob. --- The house of Jacob and the nation of Israel pretty much came to an end in AD 70, when the Romans plundered and destroyed the Temple. --- Destroying all the records and genealogies.

33 “And He will reign over the house of Jacob forever, and of His kingdom there will be no end.”

--- But remember, Jesus said, “My kingdom is not of this world.” --- And Jesus established His Spiritual kingdom which WILL go on forever. --- But it was not from the throne of David, but was from the Throne of God, through God’s Holy Spirit that had descended on the Apostles and disciples on the Day of Pentecost.


Placid



Posted By: Placid
Date Posted: 24 January 2013 at 7:26am
(To continue)

--- But remember, Jesus said, “My kingdom is not of this world.” --- And Jesus established His Spiritual kingdom which WILL go on forever. --- But it was not from the throne of David, but was from the Throne of God, through God’s Holy Spirit that had descended on the Apostles and disciples on the Day of Pentecost.

The preliminary training was done through the three years that the Apostles spent with Jesus, while teaching the Jews, so that the Gospel would go ‘to the Jew first’ as was promised. --- The Day of Pentecost was the launching of the Spiritual Church to the Gentile world, --- and to whoever will receive the Gospel.

So you see, while these prophecies weren’t literally fulfilled, in Jesus, --- these are yet to be fulfilled when Jesus returns. --- He will not return in a human body, but in the power of God. --- As well as being called JESUS, --- it says this in Revelation 19:
11 “Now I saw heaven opened, and behold, a white horse. And He who sat on him was called Faithful and True, and in righteousness He judges and makes war.
12 His eyes were like a flame of fire, and on His head were many crowns. He had a name written that no one knew except Himself.
13 He was clothed with a robe dipped in blood, and His name is called The Word of God.
14 And the armies in heaven, clothed in fine linen, white and clean, followed Him on white horses.
15 Now out of His mouth goes a sharp sword, that with it He should strike the nations. And He Himself will rule them with a rod of iron. He Himself treads the winepress of the fierceness and wrath of Almighty God.
16 And He has on His robe and on His thigh a name written:
KING OF KINGS AND
LORD OF LORDS.”

***

--- And that will be the end of the great battles to subdue earth under the rule of Him who sat on the white horse, who was CALLED Faithful and True, --- And “The Word of God."

--- Then this is the final conclusion in 1 Corinthians 15:
24 Then comes the end, when He (Jesus, who is CALLED the Son, and the Word of God) delivers the kingdom to God the Father, when He puts an end to all rule and all authority and power.
25 For He must reign till He has put all enemies under His feet.
26 The last enemy that will be destroyed is death.
27 For “He (God) has put all things under His feet.”
28 Now when all things are made subject to Him (Jesus, the Son, the Word of God), then the Son Himself will also be subject to Him (God) who put all things under Him, --- THAT GOD MAY BE ALL IN ALL.


Placid



Posted By: honeto
Date Posted: 24 January 2013 at 12:30pm
Placid,
all the pages you wrote were useless for one simple reason that they do not address the facts, rather you tried to simply cover the discovered truth with long unrelated posts. Am I not familiar with those tricks, sure I am. Will I leave it there, you bet, never.

You even failed to see the difference between the Jewish version and the Christian version.
I will repeat this a million time if you refuse it a time short!
Here is Jewish's version of the verse:
"For a child has been born to us, a son given to us, and the authority is upon his shoulder, and the wondrous adviser, the mighty God, the everlasting Father, called his name, "the prince of peace."
If you missed whoever is being talked about here is only called "the prince of peace", (Jesus, let us assume). And who is calling him that? God: "and the wondrous adviser, the mighty God, the everlasting Father,".
Now remember this comes from Jewish version, let us see what flipping did the Christians did to support their agenda.
Christian's version changed a lot just look at it and this is how it appears in many Christian Bibles:
" “For a child is born to us, a son is given to us. The government will be upon His shoulders. He is called Wonderful Councilor, Mighty God, Everlasting Father, the Prince of Peace."
Don't tell me you cannot tell the difference!
Hasan

-------------
39:64 Proclaim: Is it some one other than God that you order me to worship, O you ignorant ones?"



Print Page | Close Window