Discussion:
It's Good Friday because Jesus died for you on this day
(too old to reply)
Alan Cossey
2005-03-26 03:19:11 UTC
Permalink
The Qu'ran tells us to believe the Christian (and Jewish) scriptures. For
example, Sura 4.136 tells us, "Believers, have faith in God and His apostle,
in the Book He has revealed to His apostle, and in the Scriptures He
formerly revealed." It is thus clear that the Qu'ran teaches that it was
still trustworthy at the time of Mohammed. Otherwise, how can we "have
faith" in it? Again we can see 5.68, which says, "Say: People of the Book,
you will attain nothing until you observe the Torah and the Gospel and that
which has been revealed to you from your Lord". Clearly this teaches that
the People of the Book (Jews and Christians) were to "observe the Torah and
the Gospel" and that could only happen if they knew what it was!

For followers of Jesus, the next three days are the highlight of our year.
Today we celebrate Good Friday, the day when Jesus died for our sins, and on
Sunday we celebrate his rising to life again, which demonstrated God's power
over death and the acceptance of Jesus' sacrifice of himself for us.

May all who frequent these newsgroups come to know the truth of the Gospel
and the riches we have in Christ Jesus.

Amen!

Alan Cossey
Richard Dell
2005-03-28 10:08:07 UTC
Permalink
Post by Alan Cossey
The Qu'ran tells us to believe the Christian (and Jewish) scriptures.
How can that be, Alan, when Christianity and Islam have mutually
exclusive blasphemies? "Jesus is the Son of God" is blasphemy to the
Muslim and "God has no son" is blasphemy to the Christian. Moslems do
not believe Christian and Jewish scriptures and they certainly do not
believe "Jesus died for us".

Take off the rose tinted glasses Alan - Islam wants world domination
and it wants your mind and soul.
Altway
2005-03-29 10:23:30 UTC
Permalink
"Alan Cossey" wrote > For followers of Jesus, the next three days are the
highlight of our year.
Post by Alan Cossey
Today we celebrate Good Friday, the day when Jesus died for our sins, and
on Sunday we celebrate his rising to life again, which demonstrated God's
power over death and the acceptance of Jesus' sacrifice of himself for us.

Comment:-

The trouble with this is that Islam confirms that Jesus did not teach that
he was God,
that God is a trinity and that salvation is through the crucifixion of
Jesus.
You can verify this from reading the Gospels.

As for sacrifice, the Prophet Muhammad sacrificed/devoted his life to the
service of God
and man as did Jesus and Moses and other Prophets. But the sacrifice
consisted of bringing us the Message of God, not the worship of the
Messenger.

The Quran and Jesus tell us that Salvation is through obedience to God:-

"Not every one that saith unto me Lord, Lord shall enter into the kingdom of
heaven, but He THAT DOETH THE WILL OF MY FATHER WHICH IS IN HEAVEN. Many
will say to me in that Day: Lord, Lord, have we not prophecied in thy name?
and in thy name have cast out devils? And in thy name done many wonderful
works? And then will I profess unto them, I NEVER KNEW YOU: DEPART FROM ME,
YE THAT WORK INIQUITY." Matthew 7:21-23

"And this is Eternal Life that they might know THEE THE ONLY TRUE GOD and
Jesus Christ whom Thou has sent." John 17:3

"While I was with them in the world I kept them in THY NAME..." John 17:12

"He that hears my word and believes on Him that sent me, hath everlasting
life, and shall not come unto condemnation, but is passed from death into
life." John 5:24

"And he said unto him, Why callest thou me good? there is none good but one,
that is, God: but if thou wilt enter into life, keep the commandments." Mt
19:17

"..I do nothing of myself; but as the Father hath taught me, I speak these
things." John 8:28
Post by Alan Cossey
May all who frequent these newsgroups come to know the truth of the Gospel
and the riches we have in Christ Jesus.

Comment:-
May all Christians come to know the Truth about God and the way to
salvation.
Amen

Hamid S. Aziz
Alan Cossey
2005-03-31 17:19:54 UTC
Permalink
Post by Altway
"Alan Cossey" wrote > For followers of Jesus, the next three days are the
highlight of our year.
Post by Alan Cossey
Today we celebrate Good Friday, the day when Jesus died for our sins, and
on Sunday we celebrate his rising to life again, which demonstrated God's
power over death and the acceptance of Jesus' sacrifice of himself for us.
Comment:-
The trouble with this is that Islam confirms that Jesus did not teach that
he was God,
that God is a trinity and that salvation is through the crucifixion of
Jesus.
Hamid,

The trouble with this is that Islam came along 600 years later, claimed that
the Christian and Jewish scriptures (aka New and Old Testaments) were
inspired by God, taught its people to believe them then ignored much of what
they actually said. In the context of our discussion, it is "Islam alleges
that Jesus did not teach that he was God...".
Post by Altway
You can verify this from reading the Gospels.
Afraid not. The gospels are quite clear that Jesus is God. That's why his
followers taught that he was God. See long spiel marked * at the end of this
post.
Post by Altway
As for sacrifice, the Prophet Muhammad sacrificed/devoted his life to the
service of God
and man as did Jesus and Moses and other Prophets. But the sacrifice
consisted of bringing us the Message of God, not the worship of the
Messenger.
The Quran and Jesus tell us that Salvation is through obedience to God:-
"Not every one that saith unto me Lord, Lord shall enter into the kingdom of
heaven, but He THAT DOETH THE WILL OF MY FATHER WHICH IS IN HEAVEN. Many
will say to me in that Day: Lord, Lord, have we not prophecied in thy name?
and in thy name have cast out devils? And in thy name done many wonderful
works? And then will I profess unto them, I NEVER KNEW YOU: DEPART FROM ME,
YE THAT WORK INIQUITY." Matthew 7:21-23
There is some common ground here between us (as there is in other areas).
The bible teaches that we should obey God. There are various reasons for
this, the two most important being our relationship with God himself and
also with our fellow human beings. Jesus said the two most important
commandments were "Love the Lord your God with all our heart and with all
your soul and with all your mind. This is the first and greatest
commandment. And the secod is like it: 'Love your neighbour as yourself'.'"
If we ignore God, then we can hardly have a relationship with him. This is
similar to if I ignore my wife, I can hardly call it a relationship. God
knows what is best for my life. Much of the time I can see why he says
something, but sometimes I have to take it on trust. As for rules for our
society, we need them just as you do in a game of football. If we were to
argue about where the touchline is or just ignore it if the ball goes out of
play, we will get into an awful muddle. If we were all Roy Keanes, it would
be anarchy. Ditto our life. If we cheat on our wife/husband, steal, ignore
the state of the poor and needy etc., life will be mess.
I don't think we disagree on the rightness of obeying God. However, where we
diverge is what the bible teaches about God is holy and the requirement to
be like him. Islam and Christianity both teach a fall (Adam and Eve), but
the bible makes more of it. It teaches that its effects are more serious. We
don't live up the standards God demands of us (I don't even live up to the
standards I expect of other people). Islam teaches that Allah says (and I
know this is a bit of a caricature, but you will get my gist), "It's
alright, Hamid/Alan. I can forgive your sin straight off. You've repented.
That's enough. The fact that you lied/cheated/killed/committed
adultery/stole/ignored 30,000 people dying from hunger-related illnesses
each day/ignored the madmen in your Islamic/Christian religion and settled
for the cosy atmosphere of a newsgroup/whatever doesn't really matter.
Despite the eternal consequences of some of your actions, I am going to
ignore them and treat eveything as if they never happened." The bible
recognises our actions for what they are and some of them have huge
consequences. God can't/won't just say, "Well that's alright then, you're
forgiven." Sin requires a penalty. That may sound harsh, morbid or whatever,
particularly to a Western ear where we reckon we have a right to the pursuit
of happiness/pleasure/a decent car, but if that is what God says, then that
is what God says (and people living outside the cosiness of Western
Europe/America will be more inclined to agree than softie Westerners). This
where Jesus paid for our sin by dying on the cross. He took our sins on
himself. Don't ask me to explain it fully because I can't, but somehow there
was some sort of separation between Jesus and his Father. "My God, my God.
Why have you foresaken me?" he cried. Though the physical pain was immense,
even that was not the main thing. It was this sinless God-who-was-and-is-man
taking my sins upon him. You may disagree with this teaching, but if there
is even the faintest chance that it is correct, how can you and I ignore it.
If God loves me that much - that he would send his son to die like this for
you and me - how can I do anything but turn to him in awe, thankfulness and
repentance? And if I do that will my actions, my life as a whole, not be
somewhat different to how it used to be? In the New Testament, James writes
that if someone claims to have faith without the resulting actions then
there is something horribly wrong with my so-called faith. You can't have
one without the other.
To sum up, if a person claims to have faith without
actions/deeds/works/obeying God, then their "faith" is not truly faith.
However, it is our turning to God in faith and repentance that is the actual
turning point, the bit that gets us forgiven. Jesus paid the price on the
cross to make it possible. Our faith and repentance do not earn us the right
to be forgiven. No way. It is the route in though and as a response to God's
truly wonderful, awe-inspiring forgiveness, we want to live a life pleasing
to him. Our response will be to "do the will of our father who is in heaven"
and not "work iniquity". Our obedience will not earn us the right to
forgiveness, the pass mark in the exam is 100% and I only score 40% or
whatever, but being forgiven means I want to do what God wants much more
than before.
Post by Altway
"And this is Eternal Life that they might know THEE THE ONLY TRUE GOD and
Jesus Christ whom Thou has sent." John 17:3
When discussing the Trinity, Christians avoid phrases like "makes up" to try
to avoid giving the impression that the Father, Son or Holy Spirit were in
any way created/made, but let's use that phrase. God consists of / is made
up of/ exists as three persons. "Person" is the best word we can find in the
English language and any word describing God is going to be incomplete, but
let's use it. The Father (part of the tri-une God) is the only true God;
Jesus (part of the tri-une God) is the only God; the Holy Spirt (part of the
tri-une God) is the only God. I am not God nor are you. Father, Son and Holy
Spirit together are the only true God. They are not totally separate
entities like I am separate from you, but the Son is not the Father and the
Holy Spirit is not the Son etc. Look at a photo of my head and someone who
knows me will say, "That's Alan Cossey." Show someone a photo of me as a
whole and they will say, "That's Alan Cossey". Show someone my left leg from
behind (where you can see my birthmark) and they will say, "That's Alan
Cossey". My head is not all of me and my left leg is not my head but they
are all Alan Cossey.
Post by Altway
"While I was with them in the world I kept them in THY NAME..." John 17:12
A bit of context helps. Jesus is praying to the Father and praying for his
disciples. He protected them with the authority the Father gave him. That is
what "in the name" of someone means. In English we only use it in a similar
fashion if we were policemen and say "Open up in the name of the law". We
don't mean the "forename and surname" of the law as that just does not make
sense; it means "I demand you open up because the law allows me to demand
it".
Post by Altway
"He that hears my word and believes on Him that sent me, hath everlasting
life, and shall not come unto condemnation, but is passed from death into
life." John 5:24
I do wish translations of the bible (and Qu'ran) would use English English,
not posh, feigned English. No-one says, "I believe on" something. We say, "I
believe in" something. What does that mean? Everyone believes in Tony
Blair/George Bush/Margaret Thatcher, i.e. that they exist, so is Jesus
saying we just need to believe in God's existence. Nope. Even Satan does
that. Again we are talking about putting our faith in God. If I get on a
plane, I need to do more than believe in the existence of the pilot; I need
to have faith in his ability. Same with the faith Jesus is talking about. I
need to have faith in God and what he has done, particularly sending Jesus
to die for my sins. I need to put my trust in him. This verse doesn't tell
me not to put my trust in Jesus.
Post by Altway
"And he said unto him, Why callest thou me good? there is none good but one,
that is, God: but if thou wilt enter into life, keep the commandments." Mt
19:17
Yes, God alone is truly and completely good. The Father is God; Jesus is
God; the Holy Spirit is God. This verse does not have Jesus denying that he
himself is good. He is making the man think about what he is saying and, if
anything, is a hint to him that Jesus is more than what the man was taking
him for. "You call me good, God alone is good, so who does that make me?
Eh?"
Post by Altway
"..I do nothing of myself; but as the Father hath taught me, I speak these
things." John 8:28
This may not be the whole answer, but the gospels taught that there were
things Jesus did not know, e.g. when he would return to earth after his
ascension to heaven after his resurrection (the Second Coming). When he
became man he was obviously restricted in some ways, e.g. being in only one
place at a time, having to go to the loo, being hungry, needing sleep. We
are also taught that he had to learn stuff, e.g. when he went to the Temple
with his parents. What this verse is saying is that Jesus is claiming to be
totally in tune with the Father (unlike any other human being in history).

I acknowledge that the verses you quoted are capable of being understood in
the manner you are implying. However, I would contend that they could also
be understood in the manner I explained. To understand which is the correct
way, we need to look at them in the context of the whole of the bible, in
particular in the context of the New Testament. See below for more details.
Post by Altway
Post by Alan Cossey
May all who frequent these newsgroups come to know the truth of the Gospel
and the riches we have in Christ Jesus.
Comment:-
May all Christians come to know the Truth about God and the way to
salvation.
Amen
Hamid S. Aziz
A couple of questions for you now.

1) Why do Muslims quote the New Testament when it is meant to be corrupt?
Why do Muslims ignore what the Qu'ran teaches about the New Testament, e.g.
4.136, 5.68 and so on? No hint there of "corruption".

2) When Jesus rose from the dead, one of his disciples, Thomas, refused to
believe it until he saw Jesus. When he did, he exclaimed to Jesus, "My Lord
and my God!" (John 20.28). What would Mohammed's response have been if
someone had said that to him? What does that tell us about about who
Mohammed thought he himself was and what Jesus thought he himself was?

Alan

* Long spiel promised early on

The bible, original texts and translations alike,
teach that God is one. Christians believe in one God. The Christian creeds
teach one God. Even the Church of England teaches one God! It is wrong to
say that Christianity teaches otherwise. To say that Christianity teaches
polytheism or anything-else-ism is to present a caricature of the Christian
faith. Our disagreement is not on how many gods there are, but who he is and
what he is like (to some extent). It is clear to me that you want to have an
intelligent discussion with Christians and it will make it much easier all
round if none of us tries to argue against beliefs that the other discussion
members don't believe anyway. I hope that doesn't sound like a lecture and
do feel free to let me know if/when I do something similar! It is just that
there is enough misunderstanding in this world (and this newsgroup in
particular) that we could do with not arguing about things we actually agree
on.

On Jesus being part of the Trinity, i.e. on him being God, below is part of
a post I made a while back. Hope it helps you see where Christians are
coming from:


The Jewish followers of Jesus did not rush to believe that Jesus was God.
They understood that there was one God, much like you do. It was only after
spending time living with Jesus, hearing what he taught and seeing what he
did that they came to the conclusion that Jesus was indeed God. The word
"Trinity" and the creeds, particularly the Anathasian Creed, that were
formulated later are a (good) summary of what the bible, particularly the
New Testament, said about who God is. Have a look at
http://www.bible.org/page.asp?page_id=223 and
http://www.creeds.net/ancient/Quicumque.html for example,


More biblical passages:

a.. John 1.1 & 2 say, "In the beginning was the Word and the Word was with
God and the Word was God. He was with God in the beginning", i.e. he was
already there when God started creating things.
b.. John 1.18 explains this further, "No-one has ever seen God, but God
the only [Son], who is at the Father's side, has made him known."
c.. John 20.28 Thomas, who had real doubts up to that point, was driven to
the response "My Lord and my God" when he saw Jesus after his death and
resurrection. If Jesus was not his Lord and his God, his appropriate
response under Jewish law would have been to have got Thomas stoned to
death. Instead, he accepted his worship and chided him for being slow on the
uptake.
d.. John 5.23 Jesus says that he is worthy of the same honour as the
Father.
e.. In John 10, Jesus spoke of him and the Father being one. The Jews knew
what this meant and went to stone him for blasphemy (John 10.30-33). Jesus
didn't say, "Hang on chaps! You misunderstand me. I'm not God" when they
said to him, "...you, a mere man, claim to be God." Why not? If someone was
about to stone me because they thought I was claiming to be God, I would
certainly have pointed out the misunderstanding! Wouldn't you?
f.. Similarly John 8.58 where Jesus said, "Before Abraham was, I am." See
the rest of that chapter to get the context. The importance of this saying
of Jesus is that "I am" is the meaning of the name of God, i.e. Yahweh (or
YHWH without the vowels). Here again, the Jews fully understood what Jesus
was saying. Jesus did not just say, "Before Abraham, I was" (though that
would have wound them up any way claiming to exist a couple of thousand
years beforehand), but instead he used God's name for himself.
g.. John spoke of Jesus as being YHWH. See John 12.41 where he says,
"Isaiah said this because he saw Jesus' glory and spoke about him" referring
to a quotation from Isaiah 6.1-10 where Isaiah said he saw YHWH.
h.. Matthew (3.3) speaks of John the Baptist preparing the way for Jesus,
saying, "
"A voice of one calling in the desert,
`Prepare the way for the Lord,
make straight paths for him.' "

This is a quote from Isaiah 40.3, i.e.

"A voice of one calling:
'In the desert prepare
the way for the LORD;
make straight in the wilderness
a highway for our God.'"

a.. Jesus is the First and the Last. See Isaiah 44.6 and Revelation 1.17,
18.
"This is what the LORD says--
Israel's King and Redeemer, the LORD Almighty:
I am the first and I am the last;
apart from me there is no God."

(John speaking) "When I saw him, I fell at his feet as though dead. Then he
placed his right hand on me and said: "Do not be afraid. I am the First and
the Last. I am the Living One; I was dead, and behold I am alive for ever
and ever! And I hold the keys of death and Hades."

a.. Have a look at Philippians 2 which is describing Jesus.
"Who, being in very nature God, did not consider equality with God something
to be grasped (hung onto), but made himself nothing, taking the very
nature of a servant, being made in human likeness. And being found in
appearance as a man, he humbled himself and became obedient to death--
even death on a cross! Therefore God exalted him to the highest place and
gave him the name that is above every name, that at the name of Jesus every
knee should bow, in heaven and on earth and under the earth, and every
tongue confess that Jesus Christ is Lord, to the glory of God the Father."

a.. Again John speaks of Jesus as the true God.
"We know also that the Son of God has come and has given us understanding,
so that we may know him who is true. And we are in him who is true--even in
his Son Jesus Christ. He is the true God and eternal life. " 1 John 5.20.

a.. John 5.18 says that the Jews knew who Jesus was claiming to be.
"For this reason the Jews tried all the harder to kill him; not only was he
breaking the Sabbath, but he was even calling God his own Father, making
himself equal with God."

a.. God is the King of Kings and Lord of Lords according Paul in 1 Timothy
6.15
"God, the blessed and only Ruler, the King of kings and Lord of lords, "

Hello, that's Jesus, isn't it, in Revelation 19.13-16?

"He is dressed in a robe dipped in blood, and his name is the Word of God.
... On his robe and on his thigh he has this name written: KING OF KINGS AND
LORD OF LORDS. "

a.. 1 Samuel 2.2 from the Old Testament tells us that there is no-one holy
like the LORD.
"There is no one holy like the LORD;
there is no one besides you;
there is no Rock like our God."



Peter, speaking on the day of Pentecost when the Holy Spirit came upon the
early believers and speaking about Jesus, said:

"You disowned the Holy and Righteous One and asked that a murderer be
released to you. 1You killed the author of life, but God raised him from the
dead. We are witnesses of this. "

a.. Isaiah 9.6 tells us that the Messiah will be called, "Mighty God".
Christians and Muslims believe Jesus is the Messiah, so the logical
conclusion is.....
b.. etc, etc.
zev
2005-04-02 13:38:55 UTC
Permalink
"Alan Cossey" <***@cossey58.freeserve.co.uk.XYXYZYZY> wrote in
message news:d2dran$n85$***@newsg3.svr.pol.co.uk...
<snipped>
Post by Alan Cossey
The Jewish followers of Jesus did not rush to believe that Jesus was God.
They understood that there was one God, much like you do. It was only after
spending time living with Jesus, hearing what he taught and seeing what he
did that they came to the conclusion that Jesus was indeed God. The word
"Trinity" and the creeds, particularly the Anathasian Creed, that were
formulated later are a (good) summary of what the bible, particularly the
New Testament, said about who God is....
Alan, I'm sure you are aware of the argument used against Islam
that Muslims say Muhammad must be a prophet because
God dictated to him, through Gabriel, the Qur'an,
and the Qur'an must be God's word because
the prophet Muhammad wrote it.
Since this argument is circular, both parts remain unproven.

The Christian belief in the Trinity is much the same.
The NT is true because it consists of Jesus' teachings,
Jesus is (son of) God because
that's how the NT seems to refers to him.

Isn't this just as circular?

What really prevents us from believing that Jesus
was much less than (a) God,
and that God is one and absolutely indivisible
as both Jews and Muslims believe?

Why invent a 'Godhead' with parts,
each of which can be called 'God' on its own?
Can't the relevant verses of the NT
be explained some other way to avoid
postulating an idea which no ancient Hebrew
would have agreed with, based on the entire OT?

Zev
Uncle_Sinbad
2005-04-06 07:36:52 UTC
Permalink
Post by zev
Alan, I'm sure you are aware of the argument used against Islam
that Muslims say Muhammad must be a prophet because
God dictated to him, through Gabriel, the Qur'an,
and the Qur'an must be God's word because
the prophet Muhammad wrote it.
Since this argument is circular, both parts remain unproven.
The Christian belief in the Trinity is much the same.
The NT is true because it consists of Jesus' teachings,
Jesus is (son of) God because
that's how the NT seems to refers to him.
Isn't this just as circular?
No it isn't because the NT doesn't teach the Trinity. NT and Trinity
are two worlds apart because christology developed apart from
Scripture. The word trinity doesn't exist in the Bible, Jesus (p)
never calls himself God and there is not a single verse that
unambigous states that Jesus is God. Verses like 1 john 5:7 that seem
to refer to the trinity are proven to be later corruptions.

Secondly, It's a bad example to compare this with what muslims do. No
one who is fair and wise would raise the circular argument against
muslims because muslims don't use it and have never used it. That
would be a straw-man. They always used external evidence for
prophethood and devine origin of the Quran in their apologetics. Even
the Quran states that signs can be found in the Book as well as
outside it and even in yourself.
The Quran calls itself a reminder for mankind, It reminds the heart of
what it already knew and strengthens the heart and is a cure and
guidance for the hearts.

Peace,

Kamal
Viqar Ahmed
2005-04-08 05:28:44 UTC
Permalink
"No one who is fair and wise would raise the circular argument against
muslims because muslims don't use it and have never used it".

Sssssshhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhh!!!!!!

What muslims believe is not what they say they believe, but what
non-muslims (any variety) claim they believe in.

Viqar Ahmed
James Dowdeswell
2005-04-12 00:04:50 UTC
Permalink
Post by Uncle_Sinbad
Jesus (p)
never calls himself God
Jesus never calls himself "the Messiah" (Or Arabic equivalent) in the Qur'an.

So, can we assume you don't believe he is the Messiah then?


Warm regards,

James.
Amr Sabry
2005-04-13 04:42:48 UTC
Permalink
Post by James Dowdeswell
Post by Uncle_Sinbad
Jesus (p)
never calls himself God
Jesus never calls himself "the Messiah" (Or Arabic equivalent) in the Qur'an.
Huh ??? In the Qur'an, almost every occurrence of "Jesus" comes associated
with "Messiah." The most common description of him is: the Messiah Jesus son
of Mary. --Amr
James Dowdeswell
2005-04-17 03:49:20 UTC
Permalink
2nd attempt.
Post by Amr Sabry
Post by James Dowdeswell
Post by Uncle_Sinbad
Jesus (p)
never calls himself God
Jesus never calls himself "the Messiah" (Or Arabic equivalent) in the Qur'an.
Huh ??? In the Qur'an, almost every occurrence of "Jesus" comes associated
with "Messiah."
"Jesus" occurs 25 times in the Qur'an, "Messiah" occurs 11 times, but
on only 3 occassions do "Jesus" and "Messiah" appear together.
Post by Amr Sabry
The most common description of him is: the Messiah Jesus son
of Mary. --Amr
This occurs only 3 times (the same 3 as above). However, he's called
"Jesus, son of Mary" 13 times. So, "Jesus, son of Mary" will be the
most common description of him in the Qur'an.

(Do check my counting! I could be wrong).


I brought up this "sound byte", (which I believe is factually
correct), because, like saying, "Jesus never calls himself "God",
(which in my view, if are looking for the 'sense' rather than the
'word', is not correct), it is misleading.

One might say, "Jesus (p) never calls himself "God"", was not meant to
be taken as a conclusive argument. Good, then let that be
acknowledged. And also let it be acknowledged that the Bible makes it
clear that he was God.

Just as I can acknowledge that the Qur'an makes it clear, despite
Jesus not saying it himself (in the Qur'an), that he was the Messiah.


Warm regards,

James.

Altway
2005-04-02 13:45:17 UTC
Permalink
"Alan Cossey" wrote in message
Post by Alan Cossey
Post by Altway
The trouble with this is that Islam confirms that Jesus did not teach that
he was God, that God is a trinity and that salvation is through the
crucifixion of
Jesus.
Post by Alan Cossey
The trouble with this is that Islam came along 600 years later, claimed that
the Christian and Jewish scriptures (aka New and Old Testaments) were
inspired by God, taught its people to believe them then ignored much of
what
they actually said. In the context of our discussion, it is "Islam alleges
that Jesus did not teach that he was God...".

Comment:-
Certainly the Quran affirms that revelation were given to Moses and Jesus
but also affirms that these came to be misinterpreted.
Post by Alan Cossey
Post by Altway
You can verify this from reading the Gospels.
Afraid not. The gospels are quite clear that Jesus is God. That's why his
followers taught that he was God. See long spiel marked * at the end of
this
post.

Comment:-
You see what we mean by misinterpretation.
Nowhere does Jesus say he was God. Nowhere does he say that
God is a Trinity and nowhere does he say that salvation is by his death.
These are human speculations.
Post by Alan Cossey
Post by Altway
As for sacrifice, the Prophet Muhammad sacrificed/devoted his life to the
service of God and man as did Jesus and Moses and other Prophets. But the
sacrifice
consisted of bringing us the Message of God, not the worship of the
Messenger.

The Quran and Jesus tell us that Salvation is through obedience to God:-
Post by Alan Cossey
Post by Altway
"Not every one that saith unto me Lord, Lord shall enter into the kingdom
of heaven, but He THAT DOETH THE WILL OF MY FATHER WHICH IS IN HEAVEN.
Many
will say to me in that Day: Lord, Lord, have we not prophecied in thy
name?
and in thy name have cast out devils? And in thy name done many wonderful
works? And then will I profess unto them, I NEVER KNEW YOU: DEPART FROM
ME,
YE THAT WORK INIQUITY." Matthew 7:21-23
Post by Alan Cossey
I don't think we disagree on the rightness of obeying God. However, where
we diverge is what the bible teaches about God is holy and the requirement
to
be like him. Islam and Christianity both teach a fall (Adam and Eve), but
the bible makes more of it. It teaches that its effects are more serious.

Comment:-
I do not agree.
According to the Quran man has Fallen owing to sin and has been sent to
earth to learn
and develop with the guidance sent by God and return to Paradise.
Post by Alan Cossey
Islam teaches that Allah says (and I know this is a bit of a caricature,
but you will get my gist), "It's
alright, Hamid/Alan. I can forgive your sin straight off. You've repented.
That's enough. The fact that you lied/cheated/killed/committed
adultery/stole/ignored 30,000 people dying from hunger-related illnesses
each day/ignored the madmen in your Islamic/Christian religion and settled
for the cosy atmosphere of a newsgroup/whatever doesn't really matter.
Despite the eternal consequences of some of your actions, I am going to
ignore them and treat eveything as if they never happened."

Comment:-
Is that how you interpret the Quran?
So you have not read and understood it and
probably have a strong desire not to.
This kind of closed mind can hardly be admirable.
Post by Alan Cossey
Sin requires a penalty. That may sound harsh, morbid or whatever,
particularly to a Western ear. ..This where Jesus paid for our sin by
dying on the cross. He took our sins on himself.
Don't ask me to explain it fully because I can't,
taking my sins upon him. You may disagree with this teaching, but if there
is even the faintest chance that it is correct, how can you and I ignore it.

Comment:-
Sorry this makes no sense to us. It does not even make sense to you.
Allah is Just and quite able to forgive sins without requiring Jesus to die.
How can the death of Jesus cause forgiveness of other peoples sin.

"He who accepts guidance (or does right), accepts it only for his own soul:
and he who errs, errs only against it; nor shall one burdened soul bear the
burden of another." Quran 17:15

Even Paul taught:-
"Be not deceived: God is not mocked:for whatsoever a man soweth that shall
he also reap. For he that soweth to his flesh shall of the flesh reap
corruption; but he that soweth to the Spirit shall of the Spirit reap life
everlasting." Galatians 6:7-8

I will tell you how:-

The Messengers God sent sacrificed/devoted their lives to the service of
God and Man in that they brought the Word, the message of God to man.
It is by obeying this Message that salvation is gained, not by the sacrifice
of the Messenger.
However, we are all required to follow the Messengers (They are example)
in sacrifice our worldly life in order to regenerate our spiritual life
(this is death and resurrection).

"Say (O Muhammad): If you love Allah then follow me, and Allah will love you
and forgive you your sins, for Allah is Forgiving and Merciful." Quran 3:31

"O you who believe! Respond unto Allah and His Messenger when He calls you
to that which quickens you; and know that Allah comes in between a man and
his own heart; and that He it is unto Whom you shall be gathered." Quran
8:24

What Jesus taught was:-
"And he that taketh not his cross, and followeth after me, is not worthy of
me." Matthew 10:38

"Then said Jesus unto his disciples, If any man will come after me, let him
deny himself, and take up his cross, and follow me." Matthew 16:24

Yes, there is suffering involved in giving up the sinful life. But it is
one's own suffering, not that of someone else.
Post by Alan Cossey
If God loves me that much - that he would send his son to die like this for
you and me - how can I do anything but turn to him in awe, thankfulness and
repentance?

Comment:-
The love of God for man is shown by every Messenger that God sent.
The love of the Messenger also leads his followers to obey God as he did.

The phrase "Son of God" is symbolic and is explained in your Bible as those
who are led by the Word or Spirit of God
see John 1:12-13, John 10:33-35 (quoting Psalms 82:6) and Romans 8:14

Jesus taught:-
"..I do nothing of myself; but as the Father hath taught me, I speak these
things." John 8:28
See also John 6:38, 57, 7:16, 8:28, 10:37-38, 12:49.

"And he said unto him, Why callest thou me good? there is none good but one,
that is, God: but if thou wilt enter into life, keep the commandments." Mt
19:17

"Whosoever shall speak a word against the Son of Man (Jesus) it shall be
forgiven him; but unto him that blasphemes against the Holy Ghost it shall
not be forgiven." Luke 12:10

None of these show that Jesus thought he was a God. In fact John 1:18 tells
us that no man has seen God, but the Word of God has delclared him. The
"Word was made flesh" is also symbolism because we are told in John 1:14
that "we beheld his glory, the glory AS OF the only begotten of the Father"
not "of the only begotten". The "only begotten" refers to the Word. This is
how John sees it, not Jesus. According to the Quran Allah begets not, but
"He says only Be. And it is."
Post by Alan Cossey
Post by Altway
"And this is Eternal Life that they might know THEE THE ONLY TRUE GOD and
Jesus Christ whom Thou has sent." John 17:3
Post by Alan Cossey
When discussing the Trinity, Christians avoid phrases like "makes up" to
try to avoid giving the impression that the Father, Son or Holy Spirit
were in any way created/made,
Comment:-
Sorry Trinity does not make any sense to us unless it refers not to God but
to Religion.
Certainly religion is presented to us by God, the Messenger and the Spirit
that informs both the Messenger an his followers.
Trinity refers to a Relativity wheras God is Absolute.
Jesus like other Messengers represents God on earth, he is "God-with-Us" not
"God".

Even Paul did not believe in Trinity:-

"For there is one God, and one mediator between God and men, the man Christ
Jesus" 1 Tim 2:5
"There is actually to us one God the Father,...and there is one Lord, Jesus
Christ" 1 Cor 8:6
"One God and Father of all, who is over all and through all and in all" Eph
4:6
"And ye are Christ's, and Christ is God's" 1 Cor 3:23
Thus John 1:1 should be "...Word was God's" [Theos=God, Theou=God's]
Post by Alan Cossey
Post by Altway
"While I was with them in the world I kept them in THY NAME..." John 17:12
A bit of context helps. Jesus is praying to the Father and praying for his
disciples. He protected them with the authority the Father gave him. That
is
what "in the name" of someone means. In English we only use it in a similar
fashion if we were policemen and say "Open up in the name of the law". We
don't mean the "forename and surname" of the law as that just does not make
sense; it means "I demand you open up because the law allows me to demand
it".

Comment:-
This is rationalisation, confusion caused by the invention of Trinity.
What is clear is that Jesus kept his followers in the name of God.
Post by Alan Cossey
Post by Altway
"He that hears my word and believes on Him that sent me, hath everlasting
life, and shall not come unto condemnation, but is passed from death into
life." John 5:24
Post by Alan Cossey
I do wish translations of the bible (and Qu'ran) would use English English,
not posh, feigned English. No-one says, "I believe on" something. We say,
"I
believe in" something. What does that mean? Everyone believes in Tony
Blair/George Bush/Margaret Thatcher, i.e. that they exist, so is Jesus
saying we just need to believe in God's existence.

Comment:-
It is clear to me: "on Him" means believes his teachings and example
and that he was sent by God as he said.
Post by Alan Cossey
Post by Altway
"And he said unto him, Why callest thou me good? there is none good but
one, that is, God: but if thou wilt enter into life, keep the
commandments." Mt
19:17
Post by Alan Cossey
Yes, God alone is truly and completely good. The Father is God; Jesus is
God; the Holy Spirit is God.

Comment:-
This invention. There is nothing like this in the words of Jesus.
What he said is clear:-
It is not Jesus, but God alone is the Good. And we are expected to obey the
commandments of God.
Post by Alan Cossey
Post by Altway
"..I do nothing of myself; but as the Father hath taught me, I speak these
things." John 8:28
Post by Alan Cossey
This may not be the whole answer, but the gospels taught that there were
things Jesus did not know, e.g. when he would return to earth after his
ascension to heaven after his resurrection (the Second Coming).

Comment:-
So he was not the Omnipotent God.
Post by Alan Cossey
I acknowledge that the verses you quoted are capable of being understood in
the manner you are implying. However, I would contend that they could also
be understood in the manner I explained.

Comment:-
No. I deny that your interpretation is possible without contradicting what
Jesus said
and without extraneous invented doctrines.
To us Allah surrounds all things and is self-sufficient.
That cannot be said about Jesus.

But we do recognise that the word "God" was used to refer to the Pharoahs
and Caesars and other human authorities in the past.
That is why the term "Allah" is quite distinct from the term "God".
Allah refers only to what Jesus calls "The Father" and not to the
Word, or Messenger who carries the Word of God, nor to the
Holy Ghost separately.
Post by Alan Cossey
Post by Altway
May all Christians come to know the Truth about God and the way to
salvation.
Amen
Post by Alan Cossey
A couple of questions for you now.
1) Why do Muslims quote the New Testament when it is meant to be corrupt?
Why do Muslims ignore what the Qu'ran teaches about the New Testament, e.g.
4.136, 5.68 and so on? No hint there of "corruption".

Comment:-
Jesus was given Revelations. These are not the same thing as the Books
written by human beings - Matthew, Mark, Luke, John. However, these contains
the teaching of Jesus.
Post by Alan Cossey
2) When Jesus rose from the dead, one of his disciples, Thomas, refused to
believe it until he saw Jesus. When he did, he exclaimed to Jesus, "My Lord
and my God!" (John 20.28). What would Mohammed's response have been if
someone had said that to him? What does that tell us about about who
Mohammed thought he himself was and what Jesus thought he himself was?

Comment:-
Many people say "My God" when they recognise something wonderful
without implying that the thing itself is God. It is a common expression
among Muslims
to praise God when something wonderful occurs.
Muhammad would have understood what Thomas meant or
if Thomas meant it literally, he would have corrected him.

Apart from this this is a report by John, not a teaching of Jesus.

Note that the disciples thought that Jesus had died and when they saw him
they thought he was a Ghost. But Jesus asked him to touch him to see that he
was still flesh and bones.
Post by Alan Cossey
* Long spiel promised early on
The bible, original texts and translations alike,
teach that God is one. Christians believe in one God. The Christian creeds
teach one God. Even the Church of England teaches one God!
It is wrong to say that Christianity teaches otherwise.

Comment:-
Yes, but it divides God into parts and they make a man into a God.
This is the Islamic objection.
Because the phrase "Son of God" came to be taken literally,
then the Quran denies it.
Post by Alan Cossey
On Jesus being part of the Trinity, i.e. on him being God, below is part of
a post I made a while back. Hope it helps you see where Christians are
coming from:

Comment:-

We have heard the Christian position often enough.
You have a great number of missionaries -
Islam does not.
Muslims are expected to tell others about Islam when they wish to know.

Christians criticise Islam without understanding their point of view,
but at the same time want Muslims to understand their point of view
without expecting a reply to their criticisms of Islam.

Christians can believe whatever they like, but if they come to
Islamic sites in order to push their criticisms and points of view
they must expect replies in the same kind.

We find the Christian position rather primitive because it uses
ancient notions while the Islamic position much more reasonable,
an advance over Christianity as that wasove Hebrewism.
Hebrewism places emphasis on Hope, Justice and ritual. Christianity
places it on Love and Charity, because Hebrewism became formal and
emphasised the letter ignoring the spirit. Islam while including the others,
places emphasis on Truth and Awareness, mainly because many Christians
tended to rationalise and to attribute good motives to themselves.
Post by Alan Cossey
The Jewish followers of Jesus did not rush to believe that Jesus was God.
They understood that there was one God, much like you do. It was only after
spending time living with Jesus, hearing what he taught and seeing what he
did that they came to the conclusion that Jesus was indeed God.

Comment:-
No. The early Christians did not believe that Jesus was God.
That is a much later invention.
a.. John 1.1 & 2 say, "In the beginning was the Word and the Word was with
God and the Word was God. He was with God in the beginning", i.e. he was
already there when God started creating things.

Comment:-
No. The word was Divine i.e. it was the Word of God.
It is not something apart from God,
But it is not separately a god, as in a person or a book.
When I utter a word that word though it started as part of me
is not me.
Post by Alan Cossey
b.. John 1.18 explains this further, "No-one has ever seen God, but God
the only [Son], who is at the Father's side, has made him known."

Comment:-
Not "only Son", but "only begotten" which refers to the Word.
Post by Alan Cossey
d.. John 5.23 Jesus says that he is worthy of the same honour as the
Father.

Comment:-
The Messenger must be honoured because he represents God.
Post by Alan Cossey
e.. In John 10, Jesus spoke of him and the Father being one. The Jews knew
what this meant and went to stone him for blasphemy (John 10.30-33). Jesus
didn't say, "Hang on chaps! You misunderstand me. I'm not God" when they
said to him, "...you, a mere man, claim to be God." Why not? If someone was
about to stone me because they thought I was claiming to be God, I would
certainly have pointed out the misunderstanding! Wouldn't you?

Comment:-
Jesus did point out the misunderstanding by pointing to Psalms 82:6
"I have said, Ye are gods; and all of you are children of the Most High."

No Jew interprets this literally as meaning they are all gods.
Jesus points out that " If He called them gods unto whom the Word of God
came..."
Post by Alan Cossey
f.. Similarly John 8.58 where Jesus said, "Before Abraham was, I am." See
the rest of that chapter to get the context. The importance of this saying
of Jesus is that "I am" is the meaning of the name of God, i.e. Yahweh (or
YHWH without the vowels).

Comment:-
Do you think that everytime the phrase "I am" is mentioned it refers to
God.
What the saying probably means is that Jesus as a word of God was planned
by God before Abraham. Certainly Jesus in the flesh came long after Abraham.
Post by Alan Cossey
g.. John spoke of Jesus as being YHWH. See John 12.41 where he says,
"Isaiah said this because he saw Jesus' glory and spoke about him"
referring
to a quotation from Isaiah 6.1-10 where Isaiah said he saw YHWH.

Comment:-
In Isaiah 6:8, What makes you think that the person who agreed to be sent by
God
was also God.
What makes you think that Isaiah 6:10 does not apply generally to people who
do not accept the Messengers.

h.. Matthew (3.3) speaks of John the Baptist preparing the way for Jesus,
saying, "A voice of one calling in the desert, `Prepare the way for the
Lord,
make straight paths for him.' "

Comment:-
This is a very naive interpretation.
You prepare the way of the Lord by accepting the commandments of God
or preparing to hear and accept the Message.
Post by Alan Cossey
a.. Jesus is the First and the Last. See Isaiah 44.6 and Revelation 1.17,
18
Comment:-
Isaiah 44:6 also says "Besides Me there is no God."
How can this apply to Jesus.
Post by Alan Cossey
a.. Have a look at Philippians 2 which is describing Jesus.
"Who, being in very nature God, did not consider equality with God
something
to be grasped (hung onto), but made himself nothing, taking the very
nature of a servant, being made in human likeness.

Comment:-
That is Paul writing.
But Jesus is reportedto have said:-
"...For my Father is greater than I" John 14:28
"The Son can do nothing of himself, but what he seeth the Father do." John
5:19
Post by Alan Cossey
a.. Again John speaks of Jesus as the true God.
"We know also that the Son of God has come and has given us understanding,
so that we may know him who is true. And we are in him who is true--even in
his Son Jesus Christ. He is the true God and eternal life. " 1 John 5.20.

Comment:-
You are misquoting:- The sentence reads "This is the true God, and Eternal
Life"
It refers to the true God.
Apart from this these are not the words of Jesus and we also know that the
chapter contains false verses. For instance 1 John 3:7, ( in the King James
Version) on which the notion of Trinity is based,
has been excluded from all modern versions of the Bible.
Post by Alan Cossey
a.. John 5.18 says that the Jews knew who Jesus was claiming to be.
"For this reason the Jews tried all the harder to kill him; not only was he
breaking the Sabbath, but he was even calling God his own Father, making
himself equal with God."
a.. God is the King of Kings and Lord of Lords according Paul in 1 Timothy
6.15
"God, the blessed and only Ruler, the King of kings and Lord of lords, "
Hello, that's Jesus, isn't it, in Revelation 19.13-16?
"He is dressed in a robe dipped in blood, and his name is the Word of God.
... On his robe and on his thigh he has this name written: KING OF KINGS AND
LORD OF LORDS. "
a.. 1 Samuel 2.2 from the Old Testament tells us that there is no-one holy
like the LORD.
"There is no one holy like the LORD;
there is no one besides you;
there is no Rock like our God."
Peter, speaking on the day of Pentecost when the Holy Spirit came upon the
"You disowned the Holy and Righteous One and asked that a murderer be
released to you. 1You killed the author of life, but God raised him from the
dead. We are witnesses of this. "
a.. Isaiah 9.6 tells us that the Messiah will be called, "Mighty God".
Christians and Muslims believe Jesus is the Messiah, so the logical
conclusion is.....
b.. etc, etc.
Altway
2005-04-03 14:20:08 UTC
Permalink
Addendum to my previous reply

Re: Trinity

Islam is strictly Monotheist and does not accept the Christian idea of
Trinity.
However, it does recognise that Allah has many aspects that can be
seen from different points of view - i.e the Attributes.

Trinity could be understood as referring to Religion rather than God -
It is presented to us by God, the Messenger and the Spirit

However, Trinity could be understood by another analogy:- There is the
Sun in heaven, there are its rays and there is the reflection in a
mirror or pond or in other things. These are all one and continuous.
But neither the rays nor the image is the Sun.

The Quran also makes the link between the three:-
"The Spirit is by the Command (or Word) of Allah." 17:85

We also recognise that Allah is Transcendental, Imminent in the
Universe and Personal (i.e. within man - 32:9, 50:16). These could,
perhaps, be understood as Father, Spirit and Son respectively.

These ideas could, perhaps reconcile the two religions or lead to
understanding.

Hamid S. Aziz
Alan Cossey
2005-03-29 10:56:53 UTC
Permalink
Post by Richard Dell
Post by Alan Cossey
The Qu'ran tells us to believe the Christian (and Jewish) scriptures.
How can that be, Alan, when Christianity and Islam have mutually
exclusive blasphemies? "Jesus is the Son of God" is blasphemy to the
Muslim and "God has no son" is blasphemy to the Christian. Moslems do
not believe Christian and Jewish scriptures and they certainly do not
believe "Jesus died for us".
Take off the rose tinted glasses Alan - Islam wants world domination
and it wants your mind and soul.
Hi Richard,
I don't believe the Qu'ran to be inspired by God. My point in my original
post was that the Qu'ran tells Muslims to believe in the Christian and
Jewish scriptures, which is great. Wish they would do so. The fact that you
can't believe both the Qu'ran and the Christian and Jewish scriptures is a
problem for Muslims, not for Christians.

Alan
PS My glasses are a plain £8.99 from Super Drug. No rose tint at all.
Amr Sabry
2005-03-31 13:22:38 UTC
Permalink
Post by Alan Cossey
I don't believe the Qu'ran to be inspired by God. My point in my original
post was that the Qu'ran tells Muslims to believe in the Christian and
Jewish scriptures, which is great. Wish they would do so. The fact that you
can't believe both the Qu'ran and the Christian and Jewish scriptures is a
problem for Muslims, not for Christians.
It is always funny that some people refer to "Christian and Jewish"
scriptures on one side vs. the Qur'an on another side. There are many
problems with such a position, not least of which is that the Jewish and
Christian positions are fundamentally at odds with each other, and the Muslim
position is rather in-between them:

The Jews are Jews because they rejected the claim that Jesus is the
Messiah. Here the position of the Muslims is the same as the Christians.

The Jews consider it a blasphemy that the Christians deify the
Messiah. Here the position of the Muslims is the same as the Jews.

--Amr
Richard Dell
2005-03-31 16:27:35 UTC
Permalink
Post by Alan Cossey
Post by Richard Dell
Post by Alan Cossey
The Qu'ran tells us to believe the Christian (and Jewish) scriptures.
How can that be, Alan, when Christianity and Islam have mutually
exclusive blasphemies? "Jesus is the Son of God" is blasphemy to the
Muslim and "God has no son" is blasphemy to the Christian. Moslems do
not believe Christian and Jewish scriptures and they certainly do not
believe "Jesus died for us".
Take off the rose tinted glasses Alan - Islam wants world domination
and it wants your mind and soul.
Hi Richard,
I don't believe the Qu'ran to be inspired by God. My point in my original
post was that the Qu'ran tells Muslims to believe in the Christian and
Jewish scriptures, which is great. Wish they would do so. The fact that you
can't believe both the Qu'ran and the Christian and Jewish scriptures is a
problem for Muslims, not for Christians.
Nor do I. In fact I follow an adage my father used to use - when
someone does something unusual and you wonder why, if you attribute
the basest motive to it, you are probably not far off. However as a
Christian you are constrained in your criticism of the Quran. When a
Muslim says to you that Muhammad was inspired by God, then as a
Christian you have to accept this, knowing that many criticisms that
apply to Islam can also be levelled at Christianity, while I can just
say "bullshit", and mean it.
Post by Alan Cossey
My point in my original
post was that the Qu'ran tells Muslims to believe in the Christian and
Jewish scriptures, which is great.
Does it, really? The Quran is such a confused and contradictory muddle
that it means what the reader says it means. You could probably find
another verse which says the opposite. Just like economists, with 10
Islamic scholars in a room, you get 11 opinions.
Post by Alan Cossey
Wish they would do so. The fact that you
can't believe both the Qu'ran and the Christian and Jewish scriptures is a
problem for Muslims, not for Christians.
They don't see it that way. They see the Quran as superceding the
Bible and Torah, and abrogated by it.
Post by Alan Cossey
Alan
PS My glasses are a plain £8.99 from Super Drug. No rose tint at all.
Alan Cossey
2005-04-07 09:23:06 UTC
Permalink
Post by Richard Dell
Post by Alan Cossey
Post by Richard Dell
Post by Alan Cossey
The Qu'ran tells us to believe the Christian (and Jewish) scriptures.
How can that be, Alan, when Christianity and Islam have mutually
exclusive blasphemies? "Jesus is the Son of God" is blasphemy to the
Muslim and "God has no son" is blasphemy to the Christian. Moslems do
not believe Christian and Jewish scriptures and they certainly do not
believe "Jesus died for us".
Take off the rose tinted glasses Alan - Islam wants world domination
and it wants your mind and soul.
Hi Richard,
I don't believe the Qu'ran to be inspired by God. My point in my original
post was that the Qu'ran tells Muslims to believe in the Christian and
Jewish scriptures, which is great. Wish they would do so. The fact that you
can't believe both the Qu'ran and the Christian and Jewish scriptures is a
problem for Muslims, not for Christians.
Nor do I. In fact I follow an adage my father used to use - when
someone does something unusual and you wonder why, if you attribute
the basest motive to it, you are probably not far off. However as a
Christian you are constrained in your criticism of the Quran. When a
Muslim says to you that Muhammad was inspired by God, then as a
Christian you have to accept this, knowing that many criticisms that
apply to Islam can also be levelled at Christianity, while I can just
say "bullshit", and mean it.
Would you explain your "as a Christian you are constrained.... many
criticisms that apply to Islam can also be levelled at Christianity" bit a
bit more.
Post by Richard Dell
Post by Alan Cossey
My point in my original
post was that the Qu'ran tells Muslims to believe in the Christian and
Jewish scriptures, which is great.
Does it, really? The Quran is such a confused and contradictory muddle
that it means what the reader says it means. You could probably find
another verse which says the opposite. Just like economists, with 10
Islamic scholars in a room, you get 11 opinions.
:-)

Well, the translations I've seen of 2.136, 3.2-3, 4.136, 5.47-50 make it
clear that the Qu'ran teaches that the previous scriptures (i.e. the bible,
i.e. OT and NT) were to be trusted. It also contains warnings to Muslims
about ignoring them, e.g. 5.47 (Evil-doers are those that do not judge
according to God's revelations (plural)) and 3.5 (Those that deny God's
revelations shall be sternly punished). These warnings are clearly about
ignoring the bible as well as ignoring the Qu'ran.
Post by Richard Dell
Post by Alan Cossey
Wish they would do so. The fact that you
can't believe both the Qu'ran and the Christian and Jewish scriptures is a
problem for Muslims, not for Christians.
They don't see it that way. They see the Quran as superceding the
Bible and Torah, and abrogated by it.
That may be the case. If it is, they are ignoring their own scripture.
Post by Richard Dell
Post by Alan Cossey
Alan
PS My glasses are a plain £8.99 from Super Drug. No rose tint at all.
Richard Dell
2005-04-07 17:09:12 UTC
Permalink
"Alan Cossey" <***@cossey58.freeserve.co.uk.XYXYZYZY> wrote in message news:d32u25$7d5$***@newsg4.svr.pol.co.uk...
| "Richard Dell" <***@hotmail.com> wrote in message

| >> Hi Richard,
| >> I don't believe the Qu'ran to be inspired by God. My point in my original
| >> post was that the Qu'ran tells Muslims to believe in the Christian and
| >> Jewish scriptures, which is great. Wish they would do so. The fact that
| >> you
| >> can't believe both the Qu'ran and the Christian and Jewish scriptures is
| >> a
| >> problem for Muslims, not for Christians.
| >
| > Nor do I. In fact I follow an adage my father used to use - when
| > someone does something unusual and you wonder why, if you attribute
| > the basest motive to it, you are probably not far off. However as a
| > Christian you are constrained in your criticism of the Quran. When a
| > Muslim says to you that Muhammad was inspired by God, then as a
| > Christian you have to accept this, knowing that many criticisms that
| > apply to Islam can also be levelled at Christianity, while I can just
| > say "bullshit", and mean it.
|
| Would you explain your "as a Christian you are constrained.... many
| criticisms that apply to Islam can also be levelled at Christianity" bit a
| bit more.

While there are conflicts between Islam and Christianity, there are also major
similarities, of which the most obvious is acceptance of the existence of God,
and the ability of Christians and Muslims to conduct dialogues with Him. So when
a Muslim says "God has no son because the Quran says so", a Christian has no
counter. He has to accept that the Muslim's belief in this position is sincere
and substantiated by the Muslim's relationship with God. The Christian may
strongly disagree, but he can have no traction on which to dispute the position
of the Muslim because both stand on the same shaky ground of unsubstantiated
texts.

The scientist (archaeologist, linguist, etc.) does have some traction - he can
find old texts on which the Quran was based (undermining its origin), he can
carbon date them, he can find old settlements which may prove (to him) that
there was no such leader as Mohammad living in Medina when the Quran says he did
(such as the studies of Patricia Crone). Such arguments will make the Christian
uneasy because while he wants Islam undermined, he is only too well aware of how
Science has already undermined some tenets of Christianity (such as the Genesis
story), and that should science turn its ever more penetrating microscope onto
the life of Jesus, who knows what it may find? Already, studies in the West Bank
by Israeli archaeologists are suggesting that Jesus was married to Mary
Magdalene (as for a man to be unmarried was rare at that time), that he may have
been a Zealot (why would any Jew accept Roman rule), and that the Gospels were
"sanitised" by Paul to remove any anti-Roman sentiments. And why do we see no
miracles today (Pope John-Paul and his Saints notwithstanding) when they were
apparently so prolific in the time of Jesus? Where does all this leave Jesus -
the Divine pacifist?

Hence the tension in the anti-Islamic Christian - how can he undermine Islam
without undermining some (possibly crucial) parts of Christianity? The Christian
therefore is forced into an uneasy theological alliance with those who would
destroy him and all he stands for. There are two types of such Christian - the
Franklin Graham fire and brimstone, and the bleeding heart appeasers. Neither
type impresses the Muslims, they see the first as the latter-day Crusader to
engage with Jihad, and the second as a pushover to be ensnared with placating
lies and then to have his throat slit when the time is right.

Trust them if you dare, Alan.
Prophetic News
2005-04-07 17:14:42 UTC
Permalink
Dear readers,



The science community pride themselves for the accuracy of the atomic clock.
They claim that the earth does not revolve on itself in exactly 24 hrs. What
came first? Is it the rotation of the earth or the rotation of a watch
needle? Is it God creation or man creation?



Who came first? Jesus or Mohammed? Jesus, Son of God who draw His own blood
for the salvation for all man and who warned about false prophets that will
follow him or Mohammed who draw blood from man opposing him and declaring
that Jesus was a prophet?



To recognise important keys in understand Biblical prophecy:



1. Jesus first coming was not to establish a new religion base on love
and peace only; it was to pay for our penalty of our sins, and also to
announce the soon coming of His Kingdom, a new government with a new politic
and economy.



2. Israel is still God chosen people. They have the responsibility to
represent God government here one earth. They failed this task in the past
but God promise that they will succeed in the near future. Ezekiel 36:24-27





3. The body of Christ (The Church) and Israel have their purpose in the
fulfilment of prophecies. The Church commission is to spread the gospel of
salvation to Jews and gentiles and to preach the Kingdom of God (Christ
return) to all nations as a witness. It is not commission to convert the
whole world.



Matthew 24:37. As were the days of Noah, so will be the coming of the Son of
man.



Head up, The Son of God is about to return.
André Keshav
2005-04-07 18:22:49 UTC
Permalink
"Richard Dell" <***@hotmail.com>

| Hence the tension in the anti-Islamic Christian - how can he undermine Islam
| without undermining some (possibly crucial) parts of Christianity? The
Christian
| therefore is forced into an uneasy theological alliance with those who would
| destroy him and all he stands for. There are two types of such Christian - the
| Franklin Graham fire and brimstone, and the bleeding heart appeasers. Neither
| type impresses the Muslims, they see the first as the latter-day Crusader to
| engage with Jihad, and the second as a pushover to be ensnared with placating
| lies and then to have his throat slit when the time is right.
|
| Trust them if you dare, Alan.

Yet according to the Quran there are righteous people among the Christians and
the Jews (e.g. 2.62, 3.113), who will be saved. But then the question arises as
to whom exactly these verses are referring (mainstream Christians or not).
Alan Cossey
2005-04-08 10:08:25 UTC
Permalink
Post by Richard Dell
| >> Hi Richard,
| >> I don't believe the Qu'ran to be inspired by God. My point in my original
| >> post was that the Qu'ran tells Muslims to believe in the Christian and
| >> Jewish scriptures, which is great. Wish they would do so. The fact that
| >> you
| >> can't believe both the Qu'ran and the Christian and Jewish scriptures is
| >> a
| >> problem for Muslims, not for Christians.
| >
| > Nor do I. In fact I follow an adage my father used to use - when
| > someone does something unusual and you wonder why, if you attribute
| > the basest motive to it, you are probably not far off. However as a
| > Christian you are constrained in your criticism of the Quran. When a
| > Muslim says to you that Muhammad was inspired by God, then as a
| > Christian you have to accept this, knowing that many criticisms that
| > apply to Islam can also be levelled at Christianity, while I can just
| > say "bullshit", and mean it.
|
| Would you explain your "as a Christian you are constrained.... many
| criticisms that apply to Islam can also be levelled at Christianity" bit a
| bit more.
While there are conflicts between Islam and Christianity, there are also major
similarities, of which the most obvious is acceptance of the existence of God,
and the ability of Christians and Muslims to conduct dialogues with Him. So when
a Muslim says "God has no son because the Quran says so", a Christian has no
counter. He has to accept that the Muslim's belief in this position is sincere
and substantiated by the Muslim's relationship with God. The Christian may
strongly disagree, but he can have no traction on which to dispute the position
of the Muslim because both stand on the same shaky ground of
unsubstantiated
texts.
The scientist (archaeologist, linguist, etc.) does have some traction - he can
find old texts on which the Quran was based (undermining its origin), he can
carbon date them, he can find old settlements which may prove (to him) that
there was no such leader as Mohammad living in Medina when the Quran says he did
(such as the studies of Patricia Crone). Such arguments will make the Christian
uneasy because while he wants Islam undermined, he is only too well aware of how
Science has already undermined some tenets of Christianity (such as the Genesis
story), and that should science turn its ever more penetrating microscope onto
the life of Jesus, who knows what it may find? Already, studies in the West Bank
by Israeli archaeologists are suggesting that Jesus was married to Mary
Magdalene (as for a man to be unmarried was rare at that time), that he may have
been a Zealot (why would any Jew accept Roman rule), and that the Gospels were
"sanitised" by Paul to remove any anti-Roman sentiments. And why do we see no
miracles today (Pope John-Paul and his Saints notwithstanding) when they were
apparently so prolific in the time of Jesus? Where does all this leave Jesus -
the Divine pacifist?
Hence the tension in the anti-Islamic Christian - how can he undermine Islam
without undermining some (possibly crucial) parts of Christianity? The Christian
therefore is forced into an uneasy theological alliance with those who would
destroy him and all he stands for. There are two types of such Christian - the
Franklin Graham fire and brimstone, and the bleeding heart appeasers. Neither
type impresses the Muslims, they see the first as the latter-day Crusader to
engage with Jihad, and the second as a pushover to be ensnared with placating
lies and then to have his throat slit when the time is right.
Trust them if you dare, Alan.
This has probably been put much better by other people, but here goes.

My understanding is that Jesus is the Son of God, that he died for my sins
(and yours and Salahuddin's and so on). If anyone is going to heaven, it is
not because they are good enough, but because Jesus paid for their sins on
the cross before being raised to life again. Though it has been, is and will
continue to be extremely important for everyone that the truth is discussed,
taught, understood and accepted by men and women across this world, Jesus
did not make perfect intellectual understanding of the bible or of anything
else into the requirement for entry into God's kingdom. To give an example
of the bare bones of it all, have a look at Luke 23.36-43 (the thief on the
cross). His was no theoretical discussion, no formulation of the Trinity, no
intellectual assent to the canon of the Old and New Testament nor even a
real understanding of why Jesus was dying. Instead, he knew that he was
under judgement for his wrongdoings and that he needed help. Beyond that, I
for one cannot say what was going on in his mind, but I do know that it,
once again, gives me that funny feeling inside when I hear the words that
Jesus spoke to him.

There is, as you say, some agreement between Islam and Christianity. Again,
as you say, the most obvious is the understanding that God exists. Other
points of agreement are the holiness of God, the seriousness of sin and the
need for men and women to be put right with God (as well as quite a few
other points). I have little experience of discussion about Islam and
Christianity outside these newsgroup, but from reading what others say (who
do have a serious amount of such experience), when a Muslim becomes a
Christian, they do not see it as a totally separate experience. They do not
then say that all that they had been taught and knew beforehand was utterly
wrong. There is something of a continuation, a fulfillment, a realisation
that God really, really, really loves them. They can now see that God loves
them from what he did, not just what he said, in Jesus, the Son of God,
dying for them rather than just working through some texts which tells them
about love and mercy in a rather dry way. Such a person realises that they
are powerless to save themselves, but that God has provided the means of
salvation through Jesus. Before that they are having to (try to) work their
way into heaven.

Maybe that is why Muslims can have some sort of relationship with God. I
don't really know, but that is how it comes across to me. However, any
Muslim who truly acknowledges his/her sin, asks God for forgiveness and
truly desires to go God's way will be accepted into God's kingdom on the
basis of what Jesus did, just like me. As for which among the Muslims those
people are, I don't know. God does. I don't. There will be some people who
call themselves Christians who will get a nasty shock on the day of
judgement, but I fully expect to see some blokes wearing turbans in heaven.
That, for me, is good news. It also explains why I have no problem in trying
to persuade Muslims that Jesus is God's son. I can accept that some (many?)
Muslims are sincere and still be wrong. I too can be sincere and wrong in
some things. There are some things I believed as a Christian early on and
was as sincere as I could be (I think), but on which I hold slightly
different views now. Hopefully, I've got them right now!

Please note that I am not saying that all is fine and dandy in Islam. There
is some horrible stuff and some stuff in the Qu'ran (and more so, it seems,
in the hadiths) that is just plain wrong. Ditto in materialism, atheism or
anythingelseism. Christians are not immune from it either.

To move onto your other points, I would be interested if you would post some
links on the stuff about Jesus being married to Mary Magdelene, him being a
Zealot and Paul sanitising his writings. I respect your views greatly.
However, over the years I've seen some real crap printed by people wanting
to sell books or make a name for themselves. If you post the links, it would
be good.

Last point - about the Genesis stuff. I readily acknowledge that the views
expressed by bible-believing Christians vary widely. It should not happen,
any more than it should happen on some other subjects, e.g. the Second
Coming and the special place or, I would contend, the not-particularly
special place of Israel in God's plans. We do disagree. However, I would
also contend that what is actually written in Genesis is not contradicted by
science, but that would be another thread. You may find
http://www.godandscience.org/ useful. I did Natural Sciences at Cambridge.
There were 6 of us who did mainly chemistry. One was a Christian when we
started, four became Christians, including your truly, and the other one
thought he was a Christian but wasn't. However, if he isn't a Christian now,
he sounds like he is well on the way (keep going, Chris). There were more
scientists in the Christian Union than there were arty-farty types, so
please accept that the Genesis-is-a-load-of-rubbish view doesn't hold sway
everywhere.

Got to go. My father-in-law needs help to buy an incinerator at B & Q.

Alan
Richard Dell
2005-04-08 15:38:40 UTC
Permalink
"Alan Cossey" <***@cossey58.freeserve.co.uk.XYXYZYZY> wrote in message news:<d35l34$pg2$***@news6.svr.pol.co.uk>...

<snip theological stuff on which I am not really qualified to speak>

However, your beliefs may not be as innocuous as you think:

<http://opinion.telegraph.co.uk/opinion/main.jhtml?xml=/opinion/2005/03/05/do0501.xml>

(...)

The same minister told me that one day he handed out one of his
pamphlets to a Muslim whom he describes as a "lovely, dignified, old
gentleman". The Muslim said to him that their two faiths essentially
pointed
in the same direction, but when the minister, as tough Protestants do,
pointed out that there was a fundamental difference, because
Christians
believe that Jesus was the Son of God, the old man said, quite
seriously:
"Oh, sir, please do not say that again, or I shall have to kill you:
it is
such blasphemy."

(...)
Post by Alan Cossey
To move onto your other points, I would be interested if you would post some
links on the stuff about Jesus being married to Mary Magdelene, him being a
Zealot and Paul sanitising his writings. I respect your views greatly.
However, over the years I've seen some real crap printed by people wanting
to sell books or make a name for themselves. If you post the links, it would
be good.
I have no particular position on these issues, I mention them merely
to point out a possible fragility of Christianity which would make
Christians a little chary of criticising Islam. I have gleaned these
ideas from some programmes on BBC, Channel4 and Discovery, and they
must be considered controversial and work in progress. I find them
interesting purely for historical reasons. I am sure you could find
sources by Googling the appropriate keywords.

On the meeting between Paul and the Apostles have a look at the
Didache:
http://www.earlychristianwritings.com/didache.html

There was a programme on BBC Radio 4 about the Didache a couple of
months ago, which you should be able to find on the BBC site.

Look up the contemporary Jewish historian Flavius Josephus for another
view of the times of Jesus:
http://www.soton.ac.uk/~josephus/
Post by Alan Cossey
Last point - about the Genesis stuff. I readily acknowledge that the views
expressed by bible-believing Christians vary widely. It should not happen,
any more than it should happen on some other subjects, e.g. the Second
Coming and the special place or, I would contend, the not-particularly
special place of Israel in God's plans. We do disagree. However, I would
also contend that what is actually written in Genesis is not contradicted by
science, but that would be another thread. You may find
http://www.godandscience.org/ useful. I did Natural Sciences at Cambridge.
There were 6 of us who did mainly chemistry. One was a Christian when we
started, four became Christians, including your truly, and the other one
thought he was a Christian but wasn't. However, if he isn't a Christian now,
he sounds like he is well on the way (keep going, Chris). There were more
scientists in the Christian Union than there were arty-farty types, so
please accept that the Genesis-is-a-load-of-rubbish view doesn't hold sway
everywhere.
I would call myself a Christian in the same way I might call myself a
Kantian or a Platonist, i.e. I agree with much that he said and would
continue to do so even if he were married, a Zealot and just a man. I
just find the divinity and miracles a bit hard to swallow. The rest of
the Bible is mainly historical, and could do with corroboration. The
Jericho story, for example, is another that is not borne out by
archaeology, but it was 3000 years ago.

I have no problem with anyone else's sincere belief, no matter how
barmy I might find it, until such "believers" start intruding into my
life and threatening all that I value as a humanist.

Cheers, Richard
Alan Cossey
2005-04-09 09:16:30 UTC
Permalink
Post by Richard Dell
<snip theological stuff on which I am not really qualified to speak>
<http://opinion.telegraph.co.uk/opinion/main.jhtml?xml=/opinion/2005/03/05/do0501.xml>
(...)
The same minister told me that one day he handed out one of his
pamphlets to a Muslim whom he describes as a "lovely, dignified, old
gentleman". The Muslim said to him that their two faiths essentially
pointed
in the same direction, but when the minister, as tough Protestants do,
pointed out that there was a fundamental difference, because
Christians
believe that Jesus was the Son of God, the old man said, quite
it is
such blasphemy."
(...)
Richard,
Two points. Firstly, there is much that is common between Islam and
Christianity, but the actual way the two faiths say you can get put right
with God is very different. I would suggest that if a Muslim actually gets
right with God, it will be somewhat despite, not because of, what Islam
teaches. Islam teaches that men and women are sinners, that they need to
repent (OK so far), but that if they are then good enough, then maybe
they'll get to heaven. Christianity teaches that men and women are sinners,
that they need to repent, but that they can never earn their way into heaven
however well they do because they have sinned and will continue to sin (at
least some of the time). It is calling on God to forgive them and Jesus has
paying for their sins on the cross that makes it possible. It seems clear to
me that many Muslims do call out to God for forgiveness and therefore,
though they may not know it, God can forgive them on the basis of what Jesus
did. That is a fairly fundamental difference between the two teachings.

As for the old boy threatening to kill the Christian minister, if he was
serious, it is time the cops paid a visit.
Post by Richard Dell
Post by Alan Cossey
To move onto your other points, I would be interested if you would post some
links on the stuff about Jesus being married to Mary Magdelene, him being a
Zealot and Paul sanitising his writings. I respect your views greatly.
However, over the years I've seen some real crap printed by people wanting
to sell books or make a name for themselves. If you post the links, it would
be good.
I have no particular position on these issues, I mention them merely
to point out a possible fragility of Christianity which would make
Christians a little chary of criticising Islam. I have gleaned these
ideas from some programmes on BBC, Channel4 and Discovery, and they
must be considered controversial and work in progress. I find them
interesting purely for historical reasons. I am sure you could find
sources by Googling the appropriate keywords.
On the meeting between Paul and the Apostles have a look at the
http://www.earlychristianwritings.com/didache.html
Good stuff. I'd never read the Didache before. Well, at least not for 20 odd
years.
Post by Richard Dell
There was a programme on BBC Radio 4 about the Didache a couple of
months ago, which you should be able to find on the BBC site.
Look up the contemporary Jewish historian Flavius Josephus for another
http://www.soton.ac.uk/~josephus/
Post by Alan Cossey
Last point - about the Genesis stuff. I readily acknowledge that the views
expressed by bible-believing Christians vary widely. It should not happen,
any more than it should happen on some other subjects, e.g. the Second
Coming and the special place or, I would contend, the not-particularly
special place of Israel in God's plans. We do disagree. However, I would
also contend that what is actually written in Genesis is not contradicted by
science, but that would be another thread. You may find
http://www.godandscience.org/ useful. I did Natural Sciences at Cambridge.
There were 6 of us who did mainly chemistry. One was a Christian when we
started, four became Christians, including your truly, and the other one
thought he was a Christian but wasn't. However, if he isn't a Christian now,
he sounds like he is well on the way (keep going, Chris). There were more
scientists in the Christian Union than there were arty-farty types, so
please accept that the Genesis-is-a-load-of-rubbish view doesn't hold sway
everywhere.
I would call myself a Christian in the same way I might call myself a
Kantian or a Platonist, i.e. I agree with much that he said and would
continue to do so even if he were married, a Zealot and just a man. I
just find the divinity and miracles a bit hard to swallow. The rest of
the Bible is mainly historical, and could do with corroboration. The
Jericho story, for example, is another that is not borne out by
archaeology, but it was 3000 years ago.
On the corroboration side, the more there is, the merrier. Personally, as
long as there is some corroboration and no definite contradiction, then I'm
happy to take the OT as from God, because that is how Jesus treated it. I
appreciate that this may sound a bit woolly to you, but it is the whole
package that I'm interested in. If there is corroboration and no
contradiction, then, like most Christians I would suspect, the bit that does
the most convincing of who Jesus is comes from the NT.
Post by Richard Dell
I have no problem with anyone else's sincere belief, no matter how
barmy I might find it, until such "believers" start intruding into my
life and threatening all that I value as a humanist.
Cheers, Richard
Have a good weekend.

Alan
Viqar Ahmed
2005-04-01 03:26:16 UTC
Permalink
Qur'an only requires muslims to believe that earlier scriptures (Injil
and Torah) were
revealed to Jesus and Moses (Peace be Upon Them Both).

There is no requirement for muslims to believe in the veracity of what
Christians and
Jews consider to be their scripture today.

Peace,
Viqar Ahmed
PS: The problem is not with your glasses, and their cost is, therefore,
immaterial.
a***@gmail.com
2005-04-08 05:27:38 UTC
Permalink
Post by Alan Cossey
I don't believe the Qu'ran to be inspired by God. My point in my original
post was that the Qu'ran tells Muslims to believe in the Christian and
Jewish scriptures, which is great. Wish they would do so. The fact that you
can't believe both the Qu'ran and the Christian and Jewish scriptures is a
problem for Muslims, not for Christians.
I understand what you are saying but I think there are ways to address
your point. First off, the Quran doesn't mention "the Bible" per se. It
mentions the Torah given to Moses, the Injil of Jesus, the Zabur of
David, and the Suhuf of Abraham and Moess. These are described as
revelation. The Quran does not just say to believe whatever the Jews
and Christians say is revelation.

You've probably heard this but many Muslims believe that the Bible has
been changed over time. For example, the original Torah given to Moses
was definitely revelation. But virtually every Biblical scholar (Muslim
or not) believes that the current Penteteuch in the Bible was actually
composed many centuries after Moses and contains materials from
multiple authors.

So as a Muslim, I think it is possible to say in good faith that the
Torah is revelation, and in fact that the Torah might substantially be
contained in the first five books of the Bible, but that the Biblical
Penteteuch also contains things which probably aren't revelation (for
example, I might say that I don't believe God would order genocide so I
don't believe those sections are actually inspired.)

Something else which should be mentioned is that even just from a
Christian perspective it is hard to specify what the limits of those
scriptures are. Do the Jewish scriptures stop at the Torah (as the
Samaritans teach) or do they include the other books of the Old
TEstament? Do they include the apocryphal books? The Talmud?

The Quran refers to a single revelation called the Injil given to
Jesus. Does that mean that the epistles of Paul are inspired?

Catholics, Protestants, ORthodox, and Ethiopian Orthodox Christians
have different canons. Which one is "the Bible"?

In any case, to make a long story short. As a Muslim I would say that
God really did give revelation to the Jews and Christians and that in
*some* form the essence and core of that revelation is actually still
contained in the Bible. (And so it is justified for the Quran to tell
Jews and Christians to follow what is inspired in their scriptures) But
there are also other materials in the Bible which aren't inspired. (And
even Jews and Christians would say don't come from God) So Muslims are
certainly justified in having reservations and criticisms of the
current Biblical text.


Peace

Abdul-Halim
Alan Cossey
2005-04-12 00:10:58 UTC
Permalink
Post by Alan Cossey
Post by Alan Cossey
I don't believe the Qu'ran to be inspired by God. My point in my
original
Post by Alan Cossey
post was that the Qu'ran tells Muslims to believe in the Christian
and
Post by Alan Cossey
Jewish scriptures, which is great. Wish they would do so. The fact
that you
Post by Alan Cossey
can't believe both the Qu'ran and the Christian and Jewish scriptures
is a
Post by Alan Cossey
problem for Muslims, not for Christians.
I understand what you are saying but I think there are ways to address
your point. First off, the Quran doesn't mention "the Bible" per se. It
mentions the Torah given to Moses, the Injil of Jesus, the Zabur of
David, and the Suhuf of Abraham and Moess. These are described as
revelation. The Quran does not just say to believe whatever the Jews
and Christians say is revelation.
You've probably heard this but many Muslims believe that the Bible has
been changed over time. For example, the original Torah given to Moses
was definitely revelation. But virtually every Biblical scholar (Muslim
or not) believes that the current Penteteuch in the Bible was actually
composed many centuries after Moses and contains materials from
multiple authors.
So as a Muslim, I think it is possible to say in good faith that the
Torah is revelation, and in fact that the Torah might substantially be
contained in the first five books of the Bible, but that the Biblical
Penteteuch also contains things which probably aren't revelation (for
example, I might say that I don't believe God would order genocide so I
don't believe those sections are actually inspired.)
Something else which should be mentioned is that even just from a
Christian perspective it is hard to specify what the limits of those
scriptures are. Do the Jewish scriptures stop at the Torah (as the
Samaritans teach) or do they include the other books of the Old
TEstament? Do they include the apocryphal books? The Talmud?
The Quran refers to a single revelation called the Injil given to
Jesus. Does that mean that the epistles of Paul are inspired?
Catholics, Protestants, ORthodox, and Ethiopian Orthodox Christians
have different canons. Which one is "the Bible"?
In any case, to make a long story short. As a Muslim I would say that
God really did give revelation to the Jews and Christians and that in
*some* form the essence and core of that revelation is actually still
contained in the Bible. (And so it is justified for the Quran to tell
Jews and Christians to follow what is inspired in their scriptures) But
there are also other materials in the Bible which aren't inspired. (And
even Jews and Christians would say don't come from God) So Muslims are
certainly justified in having reservations and criticisms of the
current Biblical text.
Peace
Abdul-Halim
Abdul-Halim,
I see what you mean, but, to quote some stuff from the Qu'ran that I've also
quoted elsewhere on this thread, I don't think you are accurately quoting
the Qu'ran.
A bit further on, I've requoted something I posted elsewhere, so my
apologies if it is a second time through it for you. However, may I make the
following comments on what you are suggesting.

You are basically arguing against the reliability of the biblical texts
separate from what the Qu'ran says about them. That is a huge discussion and
I am struggling a bit follow the whole of this thread as it is (26
contributions so far), so could we discuss that bit on a separate thread if
you wish to pursue it. My attempted point is that the Qu'ran requires people
to give more than an intellectual assent that once upon a time there used to
be some stuff that God revealed to various people but that it had all got
muddled up by Mohammed's time. This leads to a contradiction in Islamic
faith in that Muslims are called to believe the biblical texts that were
around during Mohammed's time, but none do. You state, "And so it is
justified for the Quran to tell Jews and Christians to follow what is
inspired in their scriptures". OK. Tell us which bits are inspired and which
aren't. We have manuscripts from well before Mohammed's time (thousands of
them). Let us know which bits are right and which bits are wrong.


Quick replies on a couple of your questions:

"Does that mean that the epistles of Paul are inspired?" Obviously, I would
say, "Yes", but where do Muslims stand on this? Why won't/can't they give an
answer? I would really like to know which bits of the bible Muslims actually
believe are trustworthy. So far it has come across very much as Muslims
believing the bits they want to believe and not believe the bits they don't
want to believe.

Which booksactually constitute the bible? There is a helpful (long)
explanation at http://www.pastornet.net.au/rtc/canon.htm. There it explains
that determining the Old Testament (OT) list of books was not a big deal.
The Palestinian Jews in Jesus' time accepted what is still the Hebrew bible
(and is the Protestant Old Testament). I don't know enough to explain why
the Roman Catholics have extra books in their OT apart from the fact that
they were in the Greek translation of the OT (the Septuagint). For details
on why the books we accept as forming the New Testament are in it, have a
look at the link above.


Here is the post I made elsewhere and is uncle Alan's attempt at
understanding what the Qu'ran says:

It seems clear from a plain reading of the Qu'ran is that 2.236, 3.2-3,
4.136, 5.47-50 state that it was worth people trusting the Christian/Jewish
scriptures (aka the bible) of Mohammed's time.

2.136, in my translation, says, " We believe in God and that which has been
revealed to us; in what was revealed to Abraham, Ishmael, Isaac, Jacob, and
the tribes; to Moses and Jesus and the other prophets by their Lord. We make
no distinction among any of them, and to Him we submit." It lumps together
what was revealed to Mohammed with what had been revealed before. The logic
here is that if you can't believe in the previous scriptures, you can't
believe in the Qu'ran. If you are to believe the Qu'ran, you have to believe
the previous scriptures as well. At least that is how the English goes.

3.2-3. This Sura is written to Muslims, e.g. 3.6 says, " It is He who has
revealed to you the Book", i.e. the Qu'ran. So let's go back to 3.2 and 3.3.
Though the emphasis is on the revelation of the Qu'ran, it does say it
confirms the previous scriptures with no hint that they were no longer
trustworthy. If Islam at the time of the revelation of the Qu'ran taught
that the bible was no longer trustworthy, don't you think someone, somewhere
would have said so? If God wanted people to understand that the bible was no
longer trustworthy, you would think he would have mentioned it.

4.136 This seems pretty plain to me. My translation says, "Believers, have
faith in God and His apostle, in the Book He has revealed to his apostle,
and (here comes the important bit) in the Scriptures He formerly revealed."
Are you saying this really means, "Believers, have faith in God and His
apostle, in the Book He has revealed to his apostle and the Scriptures He
formerly revealed, but remember they've been corrupted and are no longer
trustworthy so I don't really mean 'have faith in them' but have an
intellectual assent that they were worth believing once upon a time." If
someone tells me to have faith in something, it means that it is trustworthy
(present tense).

5.47, 48 These say "After them We sent forth Jesus son of Mary, confirming
the Torah already revealed, and gave him the Gospel in which there is
guidance and light, corroborating what was revealed before in the Torah: a
guide and an admonition to the righteous. Therefore let those who follow the
Gospel judge according to what God has revealed therein. Evil-doers are
those that do not judge according to God's revelations. And to you We have
the revealed the Book with the truth. It confirms the Scriptures which came
before it and stands as a guardian over them." This clear to me that the
Qu'ran is teaching here that there was no problem at that time with the
previous scriptures. There is no hint that it considers them untrustworthy.
How could Christians "judge according to what God has revealed" in the Torah
and Gospel if they no longer had it?

The Qu'ran says that the Torah and Gospel should be used to judge matters,
we should believe in them, that they were revealed by God and so on.

Alan
Salahuddin
2005-03-28 10:18:34 UTC
Permalink
The Quran says have faith in the previous scriptures in the sense that they
were from Allah, but they were corrupted and altered by man, thus the Quran
was revealed to reconfirm previous scriptures and to finally complete
Allah's favour upon mankind.

A question for Christians, if Jesus can die for you, why dont you die for
him?

Oh Allah increase the believers in their Imaan and keep us steadfast, ameen.

Salahuddin
Mike
2005-03-29 10:38:04 UTC
Permalink
Post by Salahuddin
The Quran says have faith in the previous scriptures in the sense that they
were from Allah, but they were corrupted and altered by man, thus the Quran
was revealed to reconfirm previous scriptures and to finally complete
Allah's favour upon mankind.
A question for Christians, if Jesus can die for you, why dont you die for
him?
Can I point out that it is partly unfair to pose this sort of question
in this forum. Properly answering a question in SRI of this nature is
nigh-on impossible - how can an answer to such a question be framed to
be "relevant" to Islam? Any answer made from a Christian POV involves
looking at Christian history, which while interwoven at times with
Islamic history, is also not necessary "relevant" under the terms of
SRI.

The simple answer to the question is that countless numbers have, and
in a mystical way all Christians are to do so on a daily basis. I am
not sure how meaningful this would be to an Islamic audience who are
skeptical of the whole death/resurrection thing in Christianity, or
even whether the idea of dying to oneself has any sort of resonance.

In practical terms, I have to ask what the tenure of the question is. I
hope it does not display a hope that we will all go away and disappear.
Discounting that, are you suggesting all Christians should go off
somewhere and find some way we can die for the faith? Or is it a
question of wondering why so many people think twice at putting their
own lives on the line in defence of their faith?

One thing is clear. We are not to go out seeking martyrdom (a term we
use in rather different terms than seems to be the case in Islam - is
this just the case of one word being used to describe two different
concepts?), and we are not to commit suicide. I would guess that most
Muslims could see the merit in taking that approach.

Mike.
Richard Dell
2005-03-31 16:23:06 UTC
Permalink
Post by Salahuddin
Post by Salahuddin
The Quran says have faith in the previous scriptures in the sense
that they
Post by Salahuddin
were from Allah, but they were corrupted and altered by man, thus the
Quran
Post by Salahuddin
was revealed to reconfirm previous scriptures and to finally complete
Allah's favour upon mankind.
A question for Christians, if Jesus can die for you, why dont you die
for
Post by Salahuddin
him?
Can I point out that it is partly unfair to pose this sort of question
in this forum. Properly answering a question in SRI of this nature is
nigh-on impossible - how can an answer to such a question be framed to
be "relevant" to Islam? Any answer made from a Christian POV involves
looking at Christian history, which while interwoven at times with
Islamic history, is also not necessary "relevant" under the terms of
SRI.
I posted the following to SRI as well as ARI and URI, not surprisingly
they rejected it, while allowing Salahuddin's offensive remark above.
QED.

Well I am posting from ARI, where no such strictures apply, and I can
tell you that Salahuddin is an Islamist troll, and that SRI is a
comfort zone for Muslims where they can snipe at others in the
knowledge that the moderators will not allow any criticisms of the
Arabian brigand and his manual for world domination, rather like
Palestinian snipers hiding behind children. Waste not your time on
him, or on the obcurantist waffle of SRI.
Alan Cossey
2005-03-29 10:54:52 UTC
Permalink
Post by Salahuddin
The Quran says have faith in the previous scriptures in the sense that
they were from Allah, but they were corrupted and altered by man, thus the
Quran was revealed to reconfirm previous scriptures and to finally
complete Allah's favour upon mankind.
A question for Christians, if Jesus can die for you, why dont you die for
him?
Oh Allah increase the believers in their Imaan and keep us steadfast, ameen.
Salahuddin
Hi Salahuddin,
On this point I'll actually go with what the Qu'ran says, i.e. have faith in
the previous scripture, and not add human interpretation to the plain
meaning. I would suggest you are making the Qu'ran say something that isn't
there. Not good.

Alan
Altway
2005-04-06 06:30:20 UTC
Permalink
This article failed to appear on SRI

My incomplete reply was accidentally posted.
Here is the rest

Reply to "Alan Cossey" (continued)

Comment:-
You are misquoting:- The sentence reads "This is the true God, and Eternal
Life"
It refers to the true God.
Apart from this these are not the words of Jesus and we also know that the
chapter contains false verses. For instance 1 John 3:7, ( in the King James
Version) on which the notion of Trinity is based,
has been excluded from all modern versions of the Bible.
Post by Alan Cossey
a.. God is the King of Kings and Lord of Lords according Paul in 1
Timothy 6.15
"God, the blessed and only Ruler, the King of kings and Lord of lords, "
Hello, that's Jesus, isn't it, in Revelation 19.13-16?
"He is dressed in a robe dipped in blood, and his name is the Word of
God.... On his robe and on his thigh he has this name written: KING OF KINGS
AND LORD OF LORDS. "

Comment:-
This is not a teaching of Jesus.
And Revelation is highly symbolic and cannot be understood literally.
Many people have the name of their firm or company, teams, heros etc.
written on their caps, T-Shirts etc
Post by Alan Cossey
a.. 1 Samuel 2.2 from the Old Testament tells us that there is no-one
holy like the LORD.
Peter, speaking on the day of Pentecost when the Holy Spirit came upon the
early believers and speaking about Jesus, said: "You disowned the Holy
and Righteous One and asked that a murderer be released to you. You killed
the author of life, but God raised him from the dead. We are witnesses of
this. "
Comment:-
Samuel does not say that there are no other Holy Ones?
Post by Alan Cossey
a.. Isaiah 9.6 tells us that the Messiah will be called, "Mighty God".
Comment:-
The verse states:-
"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, the mighty God, the everlasting Father, the Prince of Peace."

It says: "his name shall be called" not that he is.

Nor is this a teaching of either Moses or Jesus.
Nor ss the book of Isaiah unaltered.
Post by Alan Cossey
Christians and Muslims believe Jesus is the Messiah, so the logical
conclusion is.....
Comment:-
That Jesus is the Messiah.
As the Quran affirms he is a word and spirit from Allah.

But we believe we have the truth about him as opposed to
speculations by human beings, the original intent of which
have also become obscure.

But there are many different sects in Christianity with different doctrines.
There are Unitarians also. Just think of Islam as another Christian sect as
we think of the different versions of Christianity as sects of Islam.

Hamid S. Aziz
Uncle_Sinbad
2005-04-01 03:23:39 UTC
Permalink
Post by Alan Cossey
The Qu'ran tells us to believe the Christian (and Jewish) scriptures. For
example, Sura 4.136 tells us, "Believers, have faith in God and His apostle,
in the Book He has revealed to His apostle, and in the Scriptures He
formerly revealed." It is thus clear that the Qu'ran teaches that it was
still trustworthy at the time of Mohammed. Otherwise, how can we "have
faith" in it? Again we can see 5.68, which says, "Say: People of the Book,
you will attain nothing until you observe the Torah and the Gospel and that
which has been revealed to you from your Lord". Clearly this teaches that
the People of the Book (Jews and Christians) were to "observe the Torah and
the Gospel" and that could only happen if they knew what it was!
This argument looks very much like the famous logical paradox of
Aristotles and Socrates.
It can be summarised in two statements:

1)The Quran is trustworthy and says the Bible is trustworthy
2)The Bible is trustworthy and says the Quran is not trustworthy.

It would follow that if (1) is true then (2) is true wich would make
(1) false wich would make (2) false wich would make (1) true wich
would make (2) true wich would make (2) false wich would make (1) true
etc.

Compare:

1)Aristotle says whatever Socrates says is true
2)Socrates says whatever Aristoteles says is false.

What the christian tried by this argument is to bring the muslim to
accept the Bible as 100% trustworthy from 100% belief in the the
Quran, but if he does this he ends up believing in a contradiction
wich is not acceptable for a reasonable person. The two statements
make a referential circle, and together they form a logical
contradiction. It's very foolish if you think about it.

But the problem can be solved easely from a muslim perspective if it
is proven that the Quran does not accept the Bible to be 100%
trustworthy or by proving that the Bible is misinterpreted and thus
does not contradict the teachings of the Quran.

I think it's a combination of both. For e.g.:
a)The christian's belief in the trinity is a misinterpretation since
it is not clearly expressed or explained in the Bible and
b)the belief that Jesus died for the sins of the world is clearly
expressed by writings of Paul in the New Testament and thus can be
believed to be be a man made alteration/corruption if it can be proven
1. Negatively: that the Quran does not say that the Bible is
errorfree.
2. Positively: the Quran makes the positive claim that the Bible
has
changed.

ad 1)I don't think there is any verse in the Quran that explicitely
says that the Scriptures that exist among the people of the Book today
are 100% reliable. What it says is that they are being confirmed and
that christians should be truthfull towards themselves and if they
don't accaept islam atleast practice what they (or their Book) preach.

The Quran "confirms" the previous scriptures, does not mean it
accepted them as unchanged, uncorrupted or errorfree:

(Quran 5:15-16) O people of the Scripture! Now hath Our messenger come
unto you, expounding unto you much of that which ye used to hide in
the Scripture, and forgiving much. Now hath come unto you light from
Allah and a plain Scripture, Whereby Allah guideth him who seeketh His
good pleasure unto paths of peace. He bringeth them out of darkness
unto light by His decree, and guideth them unto a straight path.

(Quran 2:89) And when there comes to them a Book from Allah,
confirming what is with them,- although from of old they had prayed
for victory against those without Faith,- when there comes to them
that which they (should) have recognized, they refuse to believe in it
but the curse of Allah is on those without Faith.

Narrated Abu Huraira: "The people of the Book used to read the Torah
in Hebrew and then explain it in Arabic to the Muslims. Allah's
Apostle said (to the Muslims). 'Do not believe the people of the Book,
nor disbelieve them, but say, 'We believe in Allah and whatever is
revealed to us, and whatever is revealed to you.' ' (Translation of
Sahih Bukhari, Holding Fast to the Qur'an and Sunnah, Volume 9, Book
92, Number 460)"

ad 2)The theory that the Quran and the first muslims including the
prophet recognised the holy books of the people of the Book
uncorrupted seems to exist even among some academics of Missionaries
and Orientalists. This would surely lead to the contradiction since
the Quran clearly rejects some believes that are expressed in the
Bible for eg that Jesus died for the sins of mankind.

Some people seem to be ignorent of the following verse and the
following hadith refuting this theory positively:

2:79 Therefore woe be unto those who write the Scripture with their
hands and then say, "This is from Allah," that they may purchase a
small gain therewith. Woe unto them for that their hands have written,
and woe unto them for that they earn thereby.


Narrated Ubaidullah: "Ibn 'Abbas said, "Why do you ask the people of
the scripture about anything while your Book (Quran) which has been
revealed to Allah's Apostle is newer and the latest? You read it pure,
undistorted and unchanged, and Allah has told you that the people of
the scripture (Jews and Christians) changed their scripture and
distorted it, and wrote the scripture with their own hands and said,
'It is from Allah,' to sell it for a little gain. Does not the
knowledge which has come to you prevent you from asking them about
anything? No, by Allah, we have never seen any man from them asking
you regarding what has been revealed to you!" (Translation of Sahih
Bukhari, Holding Fast to the Qur'an and Sunnah, Volume 9, Book 92,
Number 461)"



Other verses about corruptions/changes in previous scriptures:

(Quran 2:59) But the transgressors changed the word from that which
had been given them; so We sent on the transgressors a plague from
heaven, for that they infringed (Our command) repeatedly. (see also
similar verse 7:162)

(Quran 5:13) "But on account of their breaking their covenant We
cursed them (Jews and Christians) and made their hearts hard; they
altered the words from their places and they neglected a portion of
what they were reminded of; and you shall always discover treachery in
them except a few of them; so pardon them and turn away; surely Allah
loves those who do good (to others)."

(Quran 5:41) O Messenger. let not those grieve thee, who race each
other into unbelief: (whether it be) among those who say "We believe"
with their lips but whose hearts have no faith; or it be among the
Jews,- men who will listen to any lie,- will listen even to others who
have never so much as come to thee. They change the words from their
(right) times and places: they say, "If ye are given this, take it,
but if not, beware!" If any one's trial is intended by Allah, thou
hast no authority in the least for him against Allah. For such - it is
not Allah's will to purify their hearts. For them there is disgrace in
this world, and in the Hereafter a heavy punishment.

I think this all is more than enough proof to refute the claim that:
to accept the Quran you must belief the Bible is 100% trustworthy or
an errorfree book. Wich I showed in the start anyway ends in believing
in a BIG contradiction.

Peace,

Kamal
John Eritsu
2005-04-02 13:49:26 UTC
Permalink
religious orthodoxy apart, it is not inconceivable that christian
account of jesus dying on fri and waking up on sun can be correct.

muslims think that jesus was raised to heaven. christians think the same
too. christian give a timeline for the events leading up to jesus
ascending to heaven. muslims just say jesus ascended to heaven but do
not say a timeline. so in principle both can be right.
Alan Cossey
2005-04-08 05:34:05 UTC
Permalink
Post by John Eritsu
religious orthodoxy apart, it is not inconceivable that christian
account of jesus dying on fri and waking up on sun can be correct.
muslims think that jesus was raised to heaven. christians think the same
too. christian give a timeline for the events leading up to jesus
ascending to heaven. muslims just say jesus ascended to heaven but do
not say a timeline. so in principle both can be right.
The trouble is that Islam teaches that Jesus did not die. Jesus dying for
our sins on the cross and then being raised to life is the crux of the
Christian message (crux = Latin for "cross") and is what sets Christianity
apart from all other religions (basics like God existing being assumed). It
is this that supremely demonstrates God's love for you and me.

Alan
Altway
2005-04-12 00:01:21 UTC
Permalink
Post by Alan Cossey
The trouble is that Islam teaches that Jesus did not die. Jesus dying for
our sins on the cross and then being raised to life is the crux of the
Christian message (crux = Latin for "cross") and is what sets Christianity
apart from all other religions (basics like God existing being assumed). It
is this that supremely demonstrates God's love for you and me.

Comment:-

It is the Christian Message, but not that of Jesus.
Islam accepts Jesus and his teachings but not the Christian
misinterpretation.

The love of God for you and me is demonstrated when He sent
Messengers to mankind to show them the way of forgiveness and salvation,
and these devoted heir lives despite persecution to bring that message.

Islam being surrender to God, also assumes that God exists.

Hamid S. Aziz
Mike
2005-04-13 04:37:56 UTC
Permalink
Post by Alan Cossey
Post by Alan Cossey
The trouble is that Islam teaches that Jesus did not die. Jesus dying for
our sins on the cross and then being raised to life is the crux of the
Christian message (crux = Latin for "cross") and is what sets
Christianity
Post by Alan Cossey
apart from all other religions (basics like God existing being assumed). It
is this that supremely demonstrates God's love for you and me.
Comment:-
It is the Christian Message, but not that of Jesus.
Unfortunately Christians have a tendency to put store in the many
Biblical accounts of Jesus' life and death, and these accounts not only
record the claim that he died, but also numerous teachings from Jesus
Himself predicting his own death. These accounts are even given some
credence by non-Christian scholars as well. Indeed, the only major
group who now seriously doubt Jesus' death are Muslims.

The Qur'an in comparison IIRC has a single passage dealing with the
claimed non-death of Jesus.

The two sides here are at loggerheads. From one POV the Christian
message has the advantage, both in terms of numbers of accounts, and in
terms of immediacy to the actual events. Its weakness, if any, is in
the clearly supernatural and at times mysterious nature that His death
would have.

In contrast the Islamic account simplifies the mystery by denying it
ever happened. But it is less believable to those lacking faith in the
Qur'an, both owing to the claims of supernatural transmittance of the
book itself, and also from its lack of immediacy to the events, at
least in terms of time.
Post by Alan Cossey
Islam accepts Jesus and his teachings but not the Christian
misinterpretation.
No. Islam accepts what the Qur'an teaches of Jesus and no more. In
fact, accounts of Jesus' teachings are rather thin on the ground in the
Qur'an - for these we seem to need to go back to the Bible. Which is
claimed to be flawed by Islam...

Islam has a different interpretation of Jesus' teaching from the
Christian interpretation, which is informed and coloured by the
teaching in the Qur'an. How valid that is, and how it affects Jesus'
teaching depends on what you believe. But I don't believe we're likely
to come to consensus on that score any time soon.
Post by Alan Cossey
The love of God for you and me is demonstrated when He sent
Messengers to mankind to show them the way of forgiveness and
salvation,
Post by Alan Cossey
and these devoted heir lives despite persecution to bring that
message.

God shows his love in many ways. Indeed, the major religions of the
world all teach of divine love and its implication for our lives. It's
just a pity we often forget that it applies to everyone, and not just
when it suits us.

Mike.
Altway
2005-04-13 23:49:52 UTC
Permalink
Post by Mike
Unfortunately Christians have a tendency to put store in the many
Biblical accounts of Jesus' life and death, and these accounts not only
record the claim that he died, but also numerous teachings from Jesus
Himself predicting his own death. These accounts are even given some
credence by non-Christian scholars as well. Indeed, the only major
group who now seriously doubt Jesus' death are Muslims.
Post by Mike
The Qur'an in comparison IIRC has a single passage dealing with the
claimed non-death of Jesus.

Comment:-
You are mistaken.
What the Quran says is that he was not crucified or killed by the Jews
(4:157).

Muslims believe in Resurrection and Judgement. This belief does not
depend on Jesus having died and resurrected.
They also believe that Jesus was raised to heaven.
Jesus did die physically (Quran 19:33, 5:117, 21:34)
but like the martyrs (Quran 2:154) is spiritually alive.
Post by Mike
In contrast the Islamic account simplifies the mystery by denying it
ever happened. But it is less believable to those lacking faith in the
Qur'an, both owing to the claims of supernatural transmittance of the
book itself, and also from its lack of immediacy to the events, at
least in terms of time.

Comment:-
You are mistaken again.
It is much more believable that Jesus fainted.
Note that according to Luke 24:37-43, it is the disciples
that thought that Jesus was dead and so when he reappeared
they thought he was a ghost.
But Jesus showed them that he was still flesh and bones.
He had not died.
He was only later taken to heaven.
Post by Mike
Post by Altway
Islam accepts Jesus and his teachings but not the Christian
misinterpretation.
Post by Mike
Islam has a different interpretation of Jesus' teaching from the
Christian interpretation, which is informed and coloured by the
teaching in the Qur'an. How valid that is, and how it affects Jesus'
teaching depends on what you believe. But I don't believe we're likely
to come to consensus on that score any time soon.

Comment:-
We cannot agree.
In the Gospels Jesus did not teach that he was God, the Trinity
or vicarious atonement. What he did say was:-

""Not every one that saith unto me Lord, Lord shall enter into the kingdom
of heaven, but he that does the will of My Father which is in heaven."
Matthew 7:21

"And this is Eternal Life that they might know THEE THE ONLY TRUE GOD and
Jesus Christ whom Thou has sent." John 17:3

"While I was with them in the world I kept them in THY NAME..." John 17:12

"He that hears my word and believes on Him that sent me, hath everlasting
life, and shall not come unto condemnation, but is passed from death into
life." John 5:24
Post by Mike
Post by Altway
The love of God for you and me is demonstrated when He sent
Messengers to mankind to show them the way of forgiveness and
salvation, and these devoted heir lives despite persecution to bring that
message.
Post by Mike
God shows his love in many ways. Indeed, the major religions of the
world all teach of divine love and its implication for our lives. It's
just a pity we often forget that it applies to everyone, and not just
when it suits us.

Comment:-
By pointing out that Allah sent many Messengers, Islam has universalised
religion whereas Christians want to confine it to Jesus.
That is why Christianity is called Christianity and Islam is not called
Muhammadanism.
Certainly the sacrifice of the Messengers is recognised and the love
for the Messenger is a part of Religion, but to say that the Messenger is
God
is to deny the Message, and, therefore, to libel the Messenger.
It is clearly absurd to suppose that a man who was confined in space and
time
and depended on the resources of the earth was the all pervading creator of
the
Universe.
But yes, he like other Messengers represented God on earth.
They were "emanuel".
As the Spirit of God is in all human beings (Quran 32:9), and it
was active in Jesus, then yes, God was acting through him,
as in the case of other Messengers.
The phrase "Son of God" is defined as referring to people who are led by
the Spirit or Word of God.
See John 1:12-13, John 10:33-35 (quoting Psalms 82:6) and Romans 8:14

Hamid S. Aziz
Richard Dell
2005-04-16 10:55:59 UTC
Permalink
"Altway" <***@freeuk.com> wrote in message news:***@spandrell.news.uk.clara.net...
|
| "Mike" <***@yahoo.co.uk> wrote in message
| > Unfortunately Christians have a tendency to put store in the many
| Biblical accounts of Jesus' life and death, and these accounts not
only
| record the claim that he died, but also numerous teachings from
Jesus
| Himself predicting his own death. These accounts are even given some
| credence by non-Christian scholars as well. Indeed, the only major
| group who now seriously doubt Jesus' death are Muslims.
|
| > The Qur'an in comparison IIRC has a single passage dealing with
the
| claimed non-death of Jesus.
|
| Comment:-
| You are mistaken.
| What the Quran says is that he was not crucified or killed by the
Jews
| (4:157).

Stoning was the Jewish method of execution, crucifixion was reserved
for crimes against Rome only. Jesus was executed by the Romans for
sedition, so of course he was not crucified by the Jews.

| Muslims believe in Resurrection and Judgement. This belief does not
| depend on Jesus having died and resurrected.
| They also believe that Jesus was raised to heaven.
| Jesus did die physically (Quran 19:33, 5:117, 21:34)
| but like the martyrs (Quran 2:154) is spiritually alive.
|
| > In contrast the Islamic account simplifies the mystery by denying
it
| > ever happened. But it is less believable to those lacking faith in
the
| Qur'an, both owing to the claims of supernatural transmittance of
the
| book itself, and also from its lack of immediacy to the events, at
| least in terms of time.
|
| Comment:-
| You are mistaken again.
| It is much more believable that Jesus fainted.
| Note that according to Luke 24:37-43, it is the disciples
| that thought that Jesus was dead and so when he reappeared
| they thought he was a ghost.
| But Jesus showed them that he was still flesh and bones.
| He had not died.
| He was only later taken to heaven.

Why is it more likely that Jesus fainted than that he died and was
resurrected, particularly when you seem to find it perfectly credible
that he was later taken to Heaven? On what criteria do you make this
remark? Why is one miracle more credible than another? And fainted
from what?

As for the rest of your post, why would someone poorly versed in
Jewish or Roman customs, 600 years after the fact and a good deal more
miles away be in any position credibly to contradict the corroborated
reports of contemporary eye witnesses?

But even though you would see and admit to the obvious logic and
reason of this point on almost any other subject, you cannot admit it
here, can you Hamid? It would mean that Mohammad was a liar, and that,
in contradistinction to all other religions, as Islam is based solely
on one man's word, it means Islam is a lie.
John Eritsu
2005-04-12 00:04:29 UTC
Permalink
Post by Alan Cossey
Post by John Eritsu
religious orthodoxy apart, it is not inconceivable that christian
account of jesus dying on fri and waking up on sun can be correct.
muslims think that jesus was raised to heaven. christians think the same
too. christian give a timeline for the events leading up to jesus
ascending to heaven. muslims just say jesus ascended to heaven but do
not say a timeline. so in principle both can be right.
The trouble is that Islam teaches that Jesus did not die. Jesus dying for
our sins on the cross and then being raised to life is the crux of the
Christian message (crux = Latin for "cross") and is what sets Christianity
apart from all other religions (basics like God existing being assumed). It
is this that supremely demonstrates God's love for you and me.
Alan
Alan,

I did mean it when I said "religious orthodoxy apart". You want to bring
in christian fundamentalism, then we are talking christian
fundamentalism, not the events around good friday.

Events are one thing, their fundamentalistic interpretation by
christians are yet another thing. Here we are talking about the
chronology of what actually happened.

So the events do not preclude the following scenario:

1. Jesus was crucified but he did not exactly die on the cross. He went
into a unconscious state that looked like death. Some hindu mystics can
do it even today.

2. He was buried in that tomb with a big stone,

3. Jesus came out of that state of unconsciousness on Easter Sunday.

4. He disappeared from the tomb,

5. He was subsequently raised to heaven by God.


Now all the peripherals, like him dying for your sins, the notion of the
cross as some thing beyond twigs of wood, etc are the problems not for
an impartial observer but for a christian fundamentalist.

The scenario I cited above is consistent with the Christian historians
(not fundamentalists) and Muslim views. So in that sense the twi
versions are the same.
CooolBreeeze
2005-04-12 00:10:53 UTC
Permalink
Post by Alan Cossey
Post by John Eritsu
religious orthodoxy apart, it is not inconceivable that christian
account of jesus dying on fri and waking up on sun can be correct.
muslims think that jesus was raised to heaven. christians think the same
too. christian give a timeline for the events leading up to jesus
ascending to heaven. muslims just say jesus ascended to heaven but do
not say a timeline. so in principle both can be right.
The trouble is that Islam teaches that Jesus did not die. Jesus dying for
our sins on the cross and then being raised to life is the crux of the
Christian message (crux = Latin for "cross") and is what sets
Christianity
Post by Alan Cossey
apart from all other religions (basics like God existing being
assumed).

COMMENT:

No, Alan and John, it is the christian idea that is questionable and
problematic. If Jesus died for our sins, then who died? God? Or
man? God cannot die - we know that. If the man portion died then
we know what ever a man does is NOT good enough. So it does not
matter.

If Jesus is both God and man which portion died? That concoction was
never expounded upon by any prophets from Adam to Jesus over 4000
years, not once. It is a man made Paulist idea ("Jesus is resurrected
by MY gospel", says Paul). For example, if I drank a malted shake we
know it is made of malt and ice cream. Without the malt or the ice
cream, it ceases to be a malted shake. If I say that is what I drank
then a drink without those ingredients is NOT a malted shake. If God
did not die then then you have a regular man dying which merely a man
dying. Jesus asked for forgiveness as he recognized his shortcomings.
He was a crying, sleeping, eating, fearing, ignorant, praying, and
discovering man. God is none of those things.

No, Alan, what you are constructing is a defense for trinitarism,
another man made idea. No prophet from Adam to Jesus not ONE not ONCE
over 4000 years ever mentioned the word "trinity" and none, not one not
once, expounded the idea. The christian takes tid bits and fragments
to construct the idea. It is an invention which is Christianity's
uniqueness. Jesus' statements were a statements of AGREEMENT never
identity. All slave/servants of God, including lowly Jesus, agree
with Him as He is the Lord of Hosts.

"Good Friday" is good because the Friday Jumah congregation is fullest
on that day, alhamdulilah
André Keshav
2005-04-06 13:32:18 UTC
Permalink
"M.S.M. Saifullah"
| Dowdeswell, let me put it this way. I challenge you to show us the Bible
| in your hands was same as in Muhammad's, SAW, time. Yes, you really need
| to produce one for us to believe. I think we have had enough to those
| missionaries who come to this newsgroup announcing this claim but without
| any evidence. Perhaps you have an evidence hidden somewhere.

The oldest complete or almost complete Bibles are the Codex Vaticanus and the
Codex Alexandrinus, from the fourth and fifth centuries respectively.

| The ahl as-Sunnah wa-l-Jama` already accepts the authoritative hadith
| collection. As for the Christians, one man's "inspired" scripture is other
| man's apocrypha. What is your point anyway?

The Roman Catholic canon contains a couple of books and portions of books which
are not included in the Protestant canon. These are called "deuterocanonical
books". These scriptures are the parts of the Septuagint Greek translation of
the Old Testament of which the original Hebrew version is lost. These
differences in canon form a relatively small portion with regard to the Bible as
a whole, and are not fundamental texts, such as the Gospels or the Epistles.

Regards

AK
zev
2005-04-06 19:39:01 UTC
Permalink
I don't believe Saifullah reads posts to ARI.
If you haven't posted this to SRI,
consider yourself as not having posted this at all.

He doesn't respond to emails either.
Of course, I have no way of knowing if he reads them,
but I suppose he doesn't like being confused by the facts.

Zev
Post by André Keshav
"M.S.M. Saifullah"
| Dowdeswell, let me put it this way. I challenge you to show us the Bible
| in your hands was same as in Muhammad's, SAW, time. Yes, you really need
| to produce one for us to believe. I think we have had enough to those
| missionaries who come to this newsgroup announcing this claim but without
| any evidence. Perhaps you have an evidence hidden somewhere.
The oldest complete or almost complete Bibles are the Codex Vaticanus and the
Codex Alexandrinus, from the fourth and fifth centuries respectively.
| The ahl as-Sunnah wa-l-Jama` already accepts the authoritative hadith
| collection. As for the Christians, one man's "inspired" scripture is other
| man's apocrypha. What is your point anyway?
The Roman Catholic canon contains a couple of books and portions of books which
are not included in the Protestant canon. These are called
"deuterocanonical
books". These scriptures are the parts of the Septuagint Greek translation of
the Old Testament of which the original Hebrew version is lost. These
differences in canon form a relatively small portion with regard to the Bible as
a whole, and are not fundamental texts, such as the Gospels or the Epistles.
Regards
AK
André Keshav
2005-04-06 18:54:30 UTC
Permalink
"zev" <***@yahoo.com>

| I don't believe Saifullah reads posts to ARI.
| If you haven't posted this to SRI,
| consider yourself as not having posted this at all.
|
| He doesn't respond to emails either.
| Of course, I have no way of knowing if he reads them,
| but I suppose he doesn't like being confused by the facts.

I tried to reply to him in SRI first, but my post didn't appear, probably
because it was deemed irrelevant to Islam by the moderators, which is true in a
way, yet it does address some of the comments Saifullah made about the Bible.
zev
2005-04-06 21:21:18 UTC
Permalink
Post by André Keshav
| I don't believe Saifullah reads posts to ARI.
| If you haven't posted this to SRI,
| consider yourself as not having posted this at all.
|
| He doesn't respond to emails either.
| Of course, I have no way of knowing if he reads them,
| but I suppose he doesn't like being confused by the facts.
I tried to reply to him in SRI first, but my post didn't appear, probably
because it was deemed irrelevant to Islam by the moderators, which is true in a
way, yet it does address some of the comments Saifullah made about the Bible.
Yes, that's exactly what happened to me.
Judging from comments here and there,
it's happened to others also.
As frustrating as it is, there's not much you can do,
the moderators tell you you can complain,
but they don't respond to complaints!

You may try to change your post
so it seems more islamic and post it again.
It doesn't always help, but it never hurts.
It's not really cheating, they almost tell you to do it.

BTW using a phoney email address, as yours is,
protects you from spam,
but it means that in posts to SRI,
you won't get the moderator's rejection notice.
HArden
2005-04-12 00:11:09 UTC
Permalink
Post by Alan Cossey
The trouble is that Islam teaches that Jesus did not die.
Jesus dying for our sins on the cross and then being raised to life is the
crux of the Christian message (crux = Latin for "cross") and is what sets
Christianity apart from all other religions (basics like God existing being
assumed). It is this that supremely demonstrates God's love for you and me.

Comment:-

Muslims believe in Resurrection and Judgement. They also believe that Jesus
was raised to heaven. Jesus did die physically (Quran 19:33, 5:117, 21:34)
but like the martyrs (Quran 2:154) is spiritually alive. What the Quran says
is that he was not crucified or killed by the Jews (4:157).

We do not think Christianity is unique. God's love is shown by the fact that
He has sent us Messengers to show us the way of forgiveness and salvation,
Messengers (carrying the Word of God) who were willing to devote and
sacrifice their lives to the service of God and Man and set us examples. In
so far as the phrase "Son of God" is defined as those who are led by the
Word or Spirit of God, then these Messengers were all Sons of God.
Continue reading on narkive:
Loading...