Author Topic: MUSLIMS VS. CHRISTIANS  (Read 13735 times)

0 Members and 1 Guest are viewing this topic.

Offline lionger

  • Super Member
  • *****
  • Join Date: Jan 2003
  • Posts: 578
    • View Profile
MUSLIMS VS. CHRISTIANS
« Reply #15 on: October 11, 2004, 02:13:34 PM »
One of these days I will tackle specifically the beef u and many Muslims seem to have with Paul - which conveniently sidetracks you from the truth of the Gospel.

Quote
It is suprising for you to quote from Hebrews, which is a collection of verses with an uncertain author, how can you hold something as your evidence when the composer is uncerain?


Once again you have ignored the substance and are clutching straws. All those quotations from Hebrews 1 are not just out of the blue, but from the Old Testament, to be precise, the book of Psalms. That is what is important, not the unknown author - and there is nothing he says that is not backed by the rest of the scriptures. All were inspired by the Holy Spirit; irrespective of what vessel He used.

I wonder why you keep running around with this anti-Pauline argument. The man wrote half of the new testament scriptures, so is it any wonder that I quote him the most! In addition, I have also numerously quoted the apostle John, so why are you making a mountain out of a mole hill? Btw, what do you know about Paul's background?


Quote

Your quotations indicated that God was talking to his son...."who is himself God" does is it make any sense if the verses indicated that God was talking to himself? since he is one. Did you get what am saying? let me give you another example in verse 13 "And God never said to an angel, as he did to his son, sit in honor at my right hand until i humble your enemies, making them a footstool under your feet".

The son "who is himself God" will sit at God's right hand....how are they one?

Agreed Barde is not seperate with his image, if it is to be taken in this regard, it means "God died" for three days since "God and Jesus are inseperable". There was a time when you or Mallamt said it was not God that died but Jesus, and you are now telling me that they can never be seperated.


Seems you didn't quite get my question completely, because you gave the wrong answer  :lol:  :lol: :
Quote
Barde, are you separate from your image, i.e. your reflection, what others see when they look at you, or not ? In the same sense, are your words (i.e. your communication) clearly divisible from yourself, or arent they?


The logical answer to that question would be 'yes and no'! After all, isnt your image somewhat distinct from you, yet part of you? And are the words you speak not distinct from yourself, though it is also a reflection of you? Is your reflection not distinct, yet the same in essense with you. Can you have one without the other? No! Therefore in the same sense, though the Son is a distinct person from the Father, they are One in essence and nature! Jesus says this clearly in John 10:30, and it is obvious from the Jew's reaction that they understood what exactly He was saying, that He was One in nature with the Father, and not a separate God. So it is the Son who became flesh and came down to earth, not the Father. If you cannot understand how exactly they relate, then explain to me how the universe can have no boudaries. My good friend, no-one completely understands the nature of God, not even me. I believed God as 'three-in-one' long before Ie ver came to a minute understanding of it. Did you ever think you could understand God? That you do not understand is not an excuse - be sure the Scriptures affirm it!

Quote

Sorry for ignoring Colossians 1:15, let's read what it says, "And christ is the visible image of the invisible God. He existed before God made anything at all and is supreme over all creation". And verse 16 says "Christ is the one through who God created everything in heaven and earth.He made things we can see and the things we can't see- Kings, kingdoms,rulers, and authorities. Everything has been created through him".

Taken these verses as they are, one can notice that Jesus is the medium through which all things were created. Substitute the name of Christ in place of God and see if the verses will make any sense.


This is exactly what John 1 says - have you forgotten? 'In the beginning was the Word, and the Word was with God, and the Word was God'? But you didn't understand that either, so why take issue with Paul? Here is John, speaking through the same Holy Spirit that inspired Paul. How can we fully understand God when in several thousands of years we have not yet understood creation fully? However, be sure the Scriptures affirm it!

Quote

One interesting thing is that Jesus has never equated himself with God but christians of now a days elevated him to the status of God...many apologies to Jehovah witnesses, who do not hold the same view. Better part of what you quoted are letters mostly written by Paul after the "resurrection of Jesus". I was expecting you to quote Jesus directly from the books of Luke, John etc who recorded lengthy teachings of Jesus, including the seven "I am" statements of Jesus about himself.


Read John 10:30. Jesus says to the Jews, 'I and the Father are one'. Since it seems you have read the book of John, what do you make of the words of Jesus? Do they sound like the words of just a man? Which other prophet ever said, 'i came down from heaven' (John 6:38, 51), or that 'I am the bread of life, and he who comes to me will never go hungry..whoever eats myself and drinks my blood will have eternal life, and I will raise him up at the last day?' (John 6). What other prophet ever claimed to be 'the resurrection and the life, he who believes in me will live, even though he dies, and whoever lives and believes in me will never die' (John 11:25-26) ?. Are these really the words of a mere man? Judge for yourself! His words are quite plan for all to see; like the Jews we can either choose to accept them or we don't.

Quote
Let me quote Paul's final instructions to timothy, since you prefer the words of Paul, where he says in 1Timothy 6:16 "He alone can never die, and he lives in light so brilliant that no human can approach him. No else has EVER SEEN, NOR EVER WILL. To him be honor and power forever amen". Emphasis mine.


John 1:18 - 'No-one has ever seen God, but God the One and Only, who is at the Father's side has made him known'
and Jesus himself says in John 6:46 'No-one has seen the Father except the one who is  from God; only he has seen the Father'. Both sentences speaking about God the Son, who became flesh for our sake.

Later I will focus on Jesus' divinity as revealed in the gospels.

Offline mallamt

  • Sr. Member
  • ****
  • Join Date: Apr 2004
  • Location: na
  • Posts: 229
    • View Profile
MUSLIMS VS. CHRISTIANS
« Reply #16 on: October 11, 2004, 10:54:23 PM »
Barde


I see one of your main reasons to question Christs divinity is Apostle Paul, as you have accused him of deciving christians.  So let us take a little close look at Paul.  

Although of the tribe of Benjamin and a zealous member of the Pharisee party (Rom. 11:1; Phil. 3:5; Acts 23:6), he was born in Tarsus a Roman citizen (Acts 16:37; 21:39; 22:25ff.). Tarsus was a centre of learning, some believed that Paul became acquainted with various Greek. philosophies and religious cults during his youth there.  As a ?young man? (Acts 7:58; Gal. 1:13f.; 1 Cor. 15:9) Paul was given official authority to direct the persecution of Christians and as a member of a synagogue or Sanhedrin council ?cast his vote against them? (see Acts 26:10). In the light of Paul?s education and early prominence we may presume that his family was of some means and of prominent status; his nephew?s access to the Jerusalem leaders accords with this impression (Acts 23:16, 20).

There is no evidence that Paul was acquainted with Jesus during his earthly ministry (2 Cor. 5:16 means only to ?regard from a human point of view?), his Christian kinsmen (cf. Rom. 16:7) and his experience of the martyrdom of Stephen (Acts 8:1) must have made an impact upon him. The glorified Jesus? question in Acts 26:14 implies as much. The result of Paul?s encounter with the risen Christ gives ample assurance that it was an experience of a healthy mind; and it can be adequately interpreted, as indeed Luke does interpret it, only as a miraculous act, which transformed Christ?s enemy into his apostle. The three accounts in Acts (chs. 9, 22, 26) attest not only the significance of Paul?s conversion for Luke?s theme but also, suggests, its essential importance for Paul?s Christology and his interpretation of his ministry to the Gentiles. Apart from an interval in the Transjordan desert, Paul spent the 3 years following his baptism preaching in Damascus (Gal. 1:17; Acts 9:19ff.). Under pressure from the Jews he fled to Jerusalem, where Barnabas ventured to introduce him to leaders of the understandably suspicious Christians. His ministry in Jerusalem lasted scarcely 2 weeks, for again certain Hellenistic Jews sought to kill him. To avoid them, Paul returned to the city of his birth, spending there some 10 years. Barnabas, hearing of his work and remembering their first meeting, requested Paul to come to Antioch to help in a flourishing Gentile mission (Gal. 1:17ff.; Acts 9:26ff.; 11:20ff.). These newly named ?Christians? soon began their own missionary work. After a year of notable blessing Paul and Barnabas were sent on a ?famine visit? to help stricken colleagues in Judaea.

Upon their return from Jerusalem?about ad 46?Paul and Barnabas, commissioned by the church in Antioch, embarked on an evangelistic tour. It took them across the island of Cyprus and through ?S Galatia? (Acts 13-14). Their strategy, which became a pattern for the Pauline missions, was to preach first in the synagogue. Some Jews and Gentile ?Godfearers? accepted the message and became the nucleus for a local assembly. When the mass of Jews rejected the gospel, sometimes with violence, the focus of the preaching shifted to the Gentiles (cf. Acts 13:46f.). Despite these perils and the defection at Perga of their helper, John Mark, the mission succeeded in establishing a Christian witness in Pisidian Antioch, Iconium, Lystra, Derbe and possibly Perga.
-----------------------------------------------------------------------------------
I shall not go beyond here, but here are my questions to you

Why should a person from an influential home well educated in his time rich want to influence people to follow or believe in another person in the name of Jesus Christ? Why did he not seek glory for himself considering that at that time there were virtually no christians and these christians were being prosecuted and killed?  Why should he ask that we should believe in Christ considering all that he stood to loose?

Why should a person who may not have even met Christ during His earthly ministry work so hard to preach His (Christs) words and evangelise?  Why should he risk his life to be a christian at a time that being a christain equaled the death sentence? Why should he take risks preaching in synagogoues (this may be likened to going to main mosques in the main cities of Saudi Arabia to preach christianity in present day what do you think will happen?) to the point of raising Christ to the level he was doing so?

Kindly show us were there are inconsistencies between pauls teachings and those of other books in the bible.  Please answer these questions so that we can see were you are planting your conspiracy theory.


In addition to answering the questions I have posd above please answer these as well

In the Holy Book of Islam (quran) Christians are referred to as the people of the Injil. (Surah 5, Al Ma'idah, 47) The literal meaning of the word is 'Good News,' or 'Gospel'.  The term is used in the Quran to describe what is known to Christians as the New Testament, including the four Gospels already mentioned and the 23 other parts written by some of the early followers of Jesus under the inspiration of God. (Surah 5, Al Ma'idah, 111-113) This becomes clear when one looks at the evidence found in the Quran and in history.

Surah 61, Al Saff, 14 mentions true Christians who prevailed in the time of Jesus, in the 1st century AD. Surah 57, Al Hadid, 27 speaks about true believers in Christ who received their due reward at the beginning of monasticism, in the 4th century AD. Surah 85, Al Buruj, 4-9 talks about believers who were ready to die for their faith. Hamidullah identifies them in the footnotes to his translation of the Quran as Christians who were persecuted in the sixth century by Dhu Nuwas, a Jewish king of Yemen. S. Abul A'la Maududi and Yusuf Ali also refer to that tragic incident as a possible explanation in the comments on those verses in their translations of the Quran. Surah 5, Al Ma'idah, 66 mentions that some Jews and Christians were on the right course in Muhammad's (p.b.u.h.) time, the sixth century. In verse 114 of the same Surah the followers of Jesus are called 'al-hawariyun' in Arabic. Abdullah Yusuf Ali wrote in a footnote regarding Surah 44, 54 in his translation of 'The Meaning of the Holy Qur'an' (1989) concerning that word: 'Hur implies the following ideas:  purity; possibly the word Hawariyun, as applied to the first Disciples of Jesus, is connected with this root...' People could only be called 'true Christian believers' and 'the pure ones' if they were in possession of the Injil (Gospel), the New Testament given by God;

(i) The belief in the Quran which was written about 600 years after the Gospels and it acknowledges the gospels (this includes writings by Paul) yet you doubt or accuse paul. Why do you believe a witness that is so far away from when the actual events happened?

ii) The Quran denies the historical fact of Jesus' death and resurrection and many other things that had been foretold in the Old Testament (Torah, Psalms). Did God contradict Himself and history in what is alleged to be His last revelation, the Quran?

iii) The Quran states that the death of Jesus on the cross was only 'made to appear to them'. (Surah 4, Al Nisa, 157-159) Such a view would turn the Holy and Righteous God into the greatest deceiver of all! (From a Christian point of view it is totally unacceptable) Is a God who allegedly deceives his people worthy to be worshipped?

iv) Today's translations of the Jewish Scriptures, known as the Old Testament, are based on the Masoretic text the standard edition of the Hebrew Old Testament. It was prepared by Jewish scholars, called Masoretes, mainly from 500 to the 950 AD (See, 'The World Book Encyclopaedia', Volume 2, 1982, USA, page 222b) Furthermore the translators compared it with a number of other sources still in existence today. The most important of which is the Dead Sea Scrolls, written in Hebrew at about 100 BC. They were discovered in the late 1940's and early 1950's in Palestine. Among the fragments are complete copies or parts of every Old Testament book except Esther, and the variations in the text after a thousand years of copying are minimal. The manuscript evidence for the Christian Scriptures, known as the New Testament (NT), is equally strong. Approximately 5500 partial or complete copies of it are still in existence. That is by far the most evidence we have of any ancient work. Further witnesses include: -About 18000 copies of early NT translations into different languages. -About 86000 citations of different parts of the NT in the writings of early Church Fathers within 250 years of its composition. The oldest known copies of almost half of the New Testament that are still in existence, are dated about 200 AD, that is 130-174 years after they were originally written. It is important to realise that all the main Christian doctrines are contained in them! The oldest copy of the complete New Testament (Gospel) which still exists today is dated around 350 AD, that is 280-324 years after it was first written down. This time span is minimal when compared to most ancient works. No wonder that Sir Frederic Kenyon, former director and principal librarian of the British Museum, a leading expert on ancient manuscripts, wrote: '...the last foundation for any doubt that the Scriptures have come down to us substantially as they were written has now been removed. Both the authenticity and the general integrity of the books of the New Testament may be regarded as finally established.' (Cited in 'Answers to Tough Questions', by J. Mc Dowell and Don Stewart, 1980, USA page 6)

v) Muslim belief is that the Bible, accepted as being God's word, is not reliable any more. The Quran contradicts this when it says in Surah 10, Yunus, verses 64-65:

'Those who believe and (constantly) guard against evil; -- For them are Glad Tidings, in the life of the Present and in the Hereafter: No change can there be in the Words of Allah. This is indeed the supreme Felicity.' (also Surah 2, Al-Baqarah, verse 85; 7, Al Araf, verses 159; 10,16).




[/quote]

Anonymous

  • Guest
MUSLIMS VS. CHRISTIANS
« Reply #17 on: October 13, 2004, 03:20:02 PM »
Lionger,

I personally do not have anything against Paul, is just that the letters he wrote are not in comformity with the true message of Jesus, have i ever misquoted him? does highlighting such verses amount to a beef?

Thanks for enlightening me about your own perception of the Hebrews but as far as the version of the bible am using is concern, the author is uncertain, some suggested Paul, Barnabas, and others suggested Apollos, while others argued that it was Priscilla. Furthermore, i want to tell you that the author of any piece of writting is essential especially when conducting a research, just write a thesis without a reference and see if you won't be charged for plagiarism.

Can you give a yes and no answer in an examination? it is either yes or no, but it can never be yes at the sametime no. I am happy you acknowledged that the 'son is distinct from the father' how do you think then that Jesus is divine? when you still belief that there is only one God. Who is the real God now, is it God the son or God the father? two distinct beings can never be one.

Are they really one in nature? Luke and Mathew recorded the geneanology of Jesus, Luke recorded the ancestors of Jesus which originated from Joseph the carpenter to Adam who was stated as "the son of God" (3:23-38) while Mathew gave his own in 1:1. Jesus was reported in John 17:3 to have mentioned his relationship with God "This is the way to have eternal life-to know you as one true God and Jesus christ the one you sent to earth". This is very easy to comprehend, isn't it?


Talking about John 10:30 where Jesus says "I and the father are one". Let me draw your attention to John 17:23 where Jesus says "I in them and you in me all being perfected into one."  if you can use the oneness in John 10:30 to established the divinity of Jesus then the same oneness would have qualified his diciples to be God since as the verse says; the father, jesus and his diciples all perfected into one.

You also quoted John 6:38,51 where jesus says ' i am the bread of life'. During the time of Moses, he was the way, the truth and the bread of life, since he was the only way to salvation at his time. Does this therefore not apply to all the prophets at their respective times? since Jesus acknowlwdged the prophets that came before him.

You also mentioned John 11:25-26. Were the miracles of Jesus not by God's power? see John 5:30, was it not God who performed the miracle of the birth of Jesus? if so, who is more special, Jesus or God? Afterall Elisha performed some miracles too.

In the preface of a book called The myth of God incarnate, the editor, John Hick, wrote the following. "The writers of this book are convinced that another major theological development is called for in this last part of the twenthieth century. The need arises from growing knowledge of christian origins and involves a recognition that Jesus was a man approved by God for a special role within the divine the purpose, and that the later conception of him as God incarnate, the second person of the Holy trinity living a human life, is a mythological or poetic way of expressing his isgnificance for us".  These writers are a group of seven biblical scholars, including Anglican theologians and other New Testament scholars, who are covered from head to toe with the holy spirit, not Barde that have not come close to having the holy spirit in him.

Anonymous

  • Guest
MUSLIMS VS. CHRISTIANS
« Reply #18 on: October 13, 2004, 04:52:37 PM »
Mallamt,

I don't understand what you are trying to say with all what you've quoted from the Qur'an. Have i ever told you that Jesus and his true followers are not mentioned in the qur'an? Belief in Jesus and his true message is one of the pillars of Islam, every true muslim will tell you that he beliefs in Jesus as a messenger not as "God in flesh". So there is no any big deal if you see the name of Jesus written in the qur'an.

The gospel acknowledged by the qur'an is not the same gospel that circulates in these days, considering the fact that it is been modernised periodically, as am going to proved to you later inshaAllah.


Let's assumed condradict itself and Jesus' death and resurrection  are true as recorded in the bible, here are some questions

1) Jesus prayed to be saved from death (Luke 22:42, mathew 26:39) and his prayers was answered Hebrews 5:7 where Paul himself says "While Jesus was here on earth, he offered prayers and pleadings, with  a loud cry and tears, to the one who could deliver him out of death. And God heard his prayers because of his reverence with God". See also James  5:16. James was reported to be the half brother of Jesus, soory half brother of "God in flesh". Why is he said to have died?


2) If Jesus was dead on the cross, why was he still bleeding from his side? (John 19:34). Does a dead person bleed?

3) The sign of Prophet Jonah was a failed execution. All those who were on the ship with Jonah believed he drowned and was dead. But he was actually alive and even praying in the belly of the whale. Jesus said that his sign or miracle would be 'Just as' that of Jonah. See Mathew 12: 38-40.

You mentioned that Qur'an 4:157-159 where says the death of Jesus was ' only made to appear to them' as unacceptable from a christian point of view, let me ask your opinion on the this verse where Paul says "So God will send great deception upon them and they will believe all these lies"
(2 Thissalonians 2:11). Do you accept such a verse or not? moreso the verse is coming from the 'high esteemed Paul'.

Yes! the present day bible is not reliable, here are some of my reasons;


1) Genesis 19:30-37 narrated that 'Lot slept with his two daugthers, giving birth to Moab and ben-ammi'. See also Genesis 35:22, 2 samuel 13:5-14 for similar narrations.

2) This is from the Preface of the good news bible where it states ' There are, in several kinds of notes which appear at the bottom of the page(1) cultural or historical Notes...(2) Textural Notes. In the old testament these indicate primarily those places where the translators were compelled for a variety of reasons to base the translation on some text other than the Hebrew. Where one or more of the ancient versions were followed, the note indicates this by one ancient Translation (e.g Genesis 1:26) or some Ancient Translations (e,g Genesis 4:); where a Conjectural emendation was adopted the note reads probable Text (e.g Genesis 10:14). In the new testament there are textual notes indicating some places where there are significant differences among the greek manuscripts. These differences may consist of additions to the text e.g Mathew 21:43), deletions e.g Mathew 24:36). (3) Alternative rendering'.

Do you still need more facts on why the present bible is not reliable to muslims?

Anonymous

  • Guest
MUSLIMS VS. CHRISTIANS
« Reply #19 on: October 13, 2004, 06:02:18 PM »
Mallamt/Lionger,

Here is my stand on Paul.

I do not have any beef neither do i plant any conspiracy against him. What i expected of you guys is to disprove me by comparing the red lettered words with those of Paul; let me give you some examples;

1) The purpose of Paul's letter to the Colossians was to show sufficiency of Jesus Christ for them. while Jesus says 'The kingdom is not his to grant but for God'(Mathew 20:20-23). How is he sufficient?

2)In Phillippians 2:6 Paul says "Though he was God, he did not demand and cling to his rights as God".  While Jesus is reported to have said in John 17:3 "And this is the way to have eternal life-to know you, the only true God, and Jesus christ, the one you sent to earth".  

Did you see the difference?in the first case, Paul said 'Jesus was sufficient'for them (we all know what sufficient is) while on the other hand Jesus said only God can grant anybody a place in heaven-a place where everybody is aiming to be. In my second example Paul says 'Jesus was God but he did not demand his right' (This verse could as well be interpreted that Jesus was a coward wa'iyyazhubillah), while Jesus was referring to another being as the only true God, again we all know the meaning of only, there can never be two only(s).

I can go on and on enumerating such examples but i feel these two are enough, or do you still need more?

Afterall there are quite a number of christians too that belief paul was the founder of the present day christianity, one of them is Micheal Hart, who in his book The 100's says ' Although Jesus was  responsible for the main ethical and moral prefects of christianity, st Paul was the main dveloper of christian theology, its principal proselytizer, and the author of a large portion of the new Testament'.

Let me refer you to an interesting book called;
The Myth-Maker: Paul and the invention christianity. By Maccoby Hayam. Published in New York by Harper and Row. (1987).

The author, who is a christian has revealed alot about the role Paul played in present day christianity, so you guys should stop accusing Barde or any muslim for putting the facts as they are.

Barde

Offline mallamt

  • Sr. Member
  • ****
  • Join Date: Apr 2004
  • Location: na
  • Posts: 229
    • View Profile
MUSLIMS VS. CHRISTIANS
« Reply #20 on: October 14, 2004, 01:32:10 AM »
Barde

Before I start answering you please consider this and ponder on it. The bible was written and in existence before the time of Mohammed(SAW). The then bible contained the books that are in present day bible and the text as far as present day evidence has shown is the same. The quran and even other historical arabic and islamic writings do acknowledge the bible as I have indicated in my previous post, now you come and say "I personally do not have anything against Paul, is just that the letters he wrote are not in comformity with the true message of Jesus, have i ever misquoted him? does highlighting such verses amount to a beef?" So does this mean you are disputing the quran as well?

You have left most of my questions without answering them, before I start responding to your questions I will try and put us into focus and summaries what I think your main questions/issues/points are

1  Paul's letters were not in conformity with the message of jesus and should not be part of the bible
2  Jesus is not God and there are various texts to confirm same in the bible
3  Present day bible is not reliable

Here is how I respond

1 PAUL'S LETTERS ARE NOT IN CONFORMITY WITH THE MESSAGE OF JESUS

On this point you have made very many errors that have displayed a lack of understanding and ignorance of the bible.  I just hope you will be open to learn. I see some where you stressed the importance of cross referencing in a research (good to see you are now learning I did suggest that to you quite awhile back), you must also understand that it is very critical to CONTEXTUALIZE. On the matter of Paul and his letters you wrote
Quote
1) The purpose of Paul's letter to the Colossians was to show sufficiency of Jesus Christ for them. while Jesus says 'The kingdom is not his to grant but for God'(Mathew 20:20-23). How is he sufficient?

2)In Phillippians 2:6 Paul says "Though he was God, he did not demand and cling to his rights as God". While Jesus is reported to have said in John 17:3 "And this is the way to have eternal life-to know you, the only true God, and Jesus christ, the one you sent to earth".

Did you see the difference?in the first case, Paul said 'Jesus was sufficient'for them (we all know what sufficient is) while on the other hand Jesus said only God can grant anybody a place in heaven-a place where everybody is aiming to be. In my second example Paul says 'Jesus was God but he did not demand his right' (This verse could as well be interpreted that Jesus was a coward wa'iyyazhubillah), while Jesus was referring to another being as the only true God, again we all know the meaning of only, there can never be two only(s).

I can go on and on enumerating such examples but i feel these two are enough, or do you still need more?
I have given you a very brief history of Paul uptil the early part of his ministry, you still have not given us one reason why Paul would have done what you say he has done. That apart let us examine the your percieved contradictions in the bible by paul. Your assertion as I understand it is that only Paul refered to Jesus as God in the bible and that is were christians get it from.  You are very WRONG and shows you have not understood your bible.  Paul was not the first to refer to Jesus as God, it was done in the old testament and in the new even before paul, so if you are suggesting that paul is wrong or lied then in essence you are saying that the other writters are wrong or lied. I refer you to my previous posting on the subject matter of the trinity in one of the forums.  Jesus and God are one in essence and that is where Jesus is God is coming from.  The oneness of Jesus and God is found right through the bible well before paul (see Deut. 18:19, Isaiah 9:6, Luke 1:35, John 1:1-5, John 14:6), I will advice you read Isaiah 9:6 it categorically refers to Jesus as God, there are a lot of other verses you will find but I will stop here.  What is meant by saying Jesus and God are one in essence is not a physical thing (i noticed you tried to suggest somewhere that christians are saying Jesus is the physical characteristic of God, you are really out to twist the bible).  No where is it contained in the bible that the physical character of Jesus is that of God, and true christains know that what Jesus said is what God said what Jesus thought is what God thought, in other words Jesus's body contained Gods spirit (may be you should look at phillipian 2:5-7 this time again). I do not intend to take the passages you qouted and explain but let me take the one that appears to bother you most, which is where sufficient is mentioned.  Obviously you do not know what the word means since you did not say the context it was used by paul. You said and i qoute "In my second example Paul says 'Jesus was God but he did not demand his right' (This verse could as well be interpreted that Jesus was a coward wa'iyyazhubillah)" can you see how you are trying to interprete the statement negatively? what was the context of the statement? Is Jesus's reaction not a sign of humility rather than cowardice as you try to suggest? Is humility not a common and persistent theme in the bible?  Jesus's reaction was a sign of humility, and even today if a highly placed person does not act or behave as they are expected and instead act/behave like ordinary people we refer to them as being humble right?

You wrote "One good thing is that Jesus has never equated himself with God, but Christians of nowadays who consider him coequal with God" you are not telling the truth or you did not study your bible see John 10:30 and tell us who was speaking and what did He say.

You wrote "In the preface of a book called The myth of God incarnate, the editor, John Hick, wrote the following. "The writers of this book are convinced that another major theological development is called for in this last part of the twenthieth century. The need arises from growing knowledge of christian origins and involves a recognition that Jesus was a man approved by God for a special role within the divine the purpose, and that the later conception of him as God incarnate, the second person of the Holy trinity living a human life, is a mythological or poetic way of expressing his isgnificance for us". These writers are a group of seven biblical scholars, including Anglican theologians and other New Testament scholars, who are covered from head to toe with the holy spirit, not Barde that have not come close to having the holy spirit in him."  This is nothing there have been people like this since the begining of time, what of maitatsine in nigeria did he not attempt to re-write the quran?  the group is still there and are most probably using a different quran from you.

You wrote "Let me refer you to an interesting book called;
The Myth-Maker: Paul and the invention christianity. By Maccoby Hayam. Published in New York by Harper and Row. (1987)." May I ask have you read the Satanic Verses by Salman Rushde?  Very interesting book and I recommend you get a copy to read.

You wrote "Afterall there are quite a number of christians too that belief paul was the founder of the present day christianity, one of them is Micheal Hart, who in his book The 100's says ' Although Jesus was responsible for the main ethical and moral prefects of christianity, st Paul was the main dveloper of christian theology, its principal proselytizer, and the author of a large portion of the new Testament'." Please read your qoute again from Micheal Hart and let me know what your point is.  After all how many people were inspired by Allah to write the quran? was it not one person even though we know he did not write it himself but dictated it? so what are we to say about the quran then?

I shall continue with the other two points in my next posting in the mean time please answer the question I have raised in my previous post

Offline mallamt

  • Sr. Member
  • ****
  • Join Date: Apr 2004
  • Location: na
  • Posts: 229
    • View Profile
MUSLIMS VS. CHRISTIANS
« Reply #21 on: October 14, 2004, 01:03:22 PM »
Barde
continuation of my response

2  JESUS IS NOT GOD
You try to assert that Jesus is not God and claim that Jesus himself never said so and it was a creation of Paul and christains. Again we will just end up debating this point without end, but the passages you qouted to buttress your point tell us nothing because you did not mention the CONTEXT in which the statements qouted by you were made.  

For Mat 20:20-23, this was a conversation, Jesus? recent discussion about ?the renewal of all things? (Mat 19:28) prompted the following incident. The mother of James and John came to Jesus with her two sons and bowed before Him. When Jesus inquired what her request was, she asked that her two sons might be granted places of favor in His kingdom, one seated at His right hand and one at His left. Perhaps she had heard Jesus say His disciples would be seated on thrones (Mat 19:28), and she, with typical motherly pride, felt her sons deserved the two best locations.
Jesus did not correct her as to the fact of His coming kingdom. His only question was addressed to the two sons (you is pl.), who apparently had urged their mother to make the request. He asked if they could drink the cup He was about to drink. Jesus was speaking of His coming trials and death as He would be betrayed and die on a cross (Mat 26:39, 42). They both replied, We can. Jesus indicated they would indeed share the cup of suffering and death with Him. James suffered death early in the Church Age at the hands of Herod Agrippa I (Acts 12:1-2), and John is thought to have died a martyr?s death near the end of the first century.
However, granting positions of honor to His right and left in the kingdom is not His prerogative. Those places will be filled by those . . . whom the Father, the gracious and generous Judge (cf. Matt. 20:1-16), will appoint (v. 23). This account illustrates again that the disciples did not understand Jesus? teaching about humility (cf.Mat 18:1-6). Peter?s question (Mat 19:27) also demonstrated a desire for position. This the disciples continued to discuss, even to the point of the Lord?s death.  Now please note that heaven was refered to as HIS KINGDOM and He did not object, the use of the term shows ownership, rulership and authority over heaven. If Jesus and God are not one can Jesus thus claim such over heaven? Secondly in verse 23 we see that even though Jesus has authority over heaven, the filling or assigning of positions in heaven is done by the Father (God), again this is a perfect illustration of the working together of God the Father and God the Son - the oneness. This verse you have qouted is dealing with humility and not the position of Christ in relationship to God.

You go on to qoute Philipians 2:6 and John 17:3 to buttress your point. And yes you are right to say they are different, the context was different!
In Philipians 2:6, The word translated nature (morphe?) in verses 6 and 7 is a crucial term in this passage. This word (trans. ?form? in the kjv and nasb) stresses the inner essence or reality of that with which it is associated (cf. Mark 16:12). Christ Jesus, Paul said, is of the very essence (morphe?) of God, and in His incarnation He embraced perfect humanity. His complete and absolute deity is here carefully stressed by the apostle. The Savior?s claim to deity infuriated the Jewish leaders (John 5:18) and caused them to accuse Him of blasphemy (John 10:33).
Though possessing full deity (John 1:14; Col. 2:9), Christ did not consider His equality with God (Phil. 2:6) as something to be grasped or held onto. In other words Christ did not hesitate to set aside His self-willed use of deity when He became a man. As God He had all the rights of deity, and yet during His incarnate state He surrendered His right to manifest Himself visibly as the God of all splendor and glory.
Christ?s humiliation included His making Himself nothing, taking the very nature (morphe?) of a servant, and being made in human likeness (v. 7). These statements indicate that Christ became a man, a true human being. The words ?made Himself nothing? are, literally, ?He emptied Himself.? ?Emptied,? from the Greek kenoo?, points to the divesting of His self-interests, but not of His deity. ?The very nature of a servant? certainly points to His lowly and humble position, His willingness to obey the Father, and serve others. He became a man, a true human being. ?Likeness? suggests similarity but difference. Though His humanity was genuine, He was different from all other humans in that He was sinless (Heb. 4:15).  Thus it is seen that Christ, while retaining the essence of God, was also human. In His incarnation He was fully God and fully man at the same time. He was God manifest in human flesh (John 1:14). Some have wrongly taught that the phrase, being found in appearance as a man (Phil. 2:8), means that He only looked human. But this contradicts verse 7. ?Appearance? is the Greek sche?mati, meaning an outer appearance which may be temporary. This contrasts with morphe? (?very nature?) in verses 6 and 7, which speaks of an outer appearance that reveals permanent inner quality.

John 17:3 on the other hand was a prayer by Jesus. Eternal life, as defined here by Jesus, involves the experience of knowing the only true God through His Son (cf. Matt. 11:27). It is a personal relationship of intimacy which is continuous and dynamic. The word know (gino?sko?sin) here in the present tense, is often used in the Septuagint and sometimes in the Greek New Testament. Thus a person who knows God has an intimate personal relationship with Him. And that relationship is eternal, not temporal. Eternal life is not simply endless existence. Everyone will exist somewhere forever (cf. Matt. 25:46). This passage again shows the oneness of Jesus and God. Jesus was not speaking about His nature here but was praying towards the end of His life.  Remember Jesus died for all our sins, now if the Jesus and God are not one in essence then how could Jesus die for all our sins? Surely if Jesus is not God then you are suggesting that there was arm twisting tactics applied by Jesus to make God accept His death for our sins and that is complete nonsense!  Because the coming and death of Jesus had long been prophesied.

So you see there is no contradiction but an affirmation of the oneness of Jesus and God in the verses you have qouted. Unless you read the whole and contextualize it you will continously make these absurd conclusions that you are making and you will continously display your ignorance.

Offline Yoruba Land

  • Jr. Member
  • **
  • Join Date: May 2004
  • Posts: 39
    • View Profile
MUSLIMS VS. CHRISTIANS
« Reply #22 on: October 15, 2004, 12:09:31 PM »
It is really very hard for one to use the statements of Christ only  in the Bible and safely arrive at the truth that  he(Christ) is God.

And Paul whose books form the greater part of New Testament cannot be an authourity of Christ's religion amidst most authentic disciples of Christ. In fact the history of New Testament and how it was composed some 325 yrs after Christ reveals more the inherent flow of logic in many biblical claims.

Offline lionger

  • Super Member
  • *****
  • Join Date: Jan 2003
  • Posts: 578
    • View Profile
MUSLIMS VS. CHRISTIANS
« Reply #23 on: October 19, 2004, 03:14:01 AM »
Quote
It is really very hard for one to use the statements of Christ only  in the Bible and safely arrive at the truth that  he(Christ) is God.


Have you read any of the arguments put forth by myself or mallamt? You seem to have interjected into the discussion w/out paying attention to what has been said.Read and understand what the scripture plainly says:


He is GOD
 
He is worshiped (Matt. 2:2,11; 14:33; 28:9)
He is prayed to (Acts 7:59; 1 Cor. 1:2)
He was called God (John 20:28; Heb. 1:8)
He was called Son of God (Mark 1:1)
He is sinless (1 Pet. 2:22; Heb. 4:15)
He knew all things (John 21:17)
He gives eternal life (John 20:28)
The fullness of deity dwells in Him (Col. 2:9)

He is Man
He worshiped the Father (John 17)
He prayed to the Father (John 17:1)
He was called man (Mark 15:39; John 19:5).
He was called Son of Man (John 19:35-37)
He was tempted (Matt. 4:1)
He grew in wisdom (Luke 2:52)
He died (Rom. 5:8)
He has a body of flesh and bones (Luke 24:39)
 
Contradiction? No, He is the Word that became flesh, John 1:8. Since you also reject Paul's testimony without reason, read the book of Revelation, paying special attention to the first seven chapters. Does Jesus speak as just a man, or as God? Judge for yourself.

Quote

And Paul whose books form the greater part of New Testament cannot be an authourity of Christ's religion amidst most authentic disciples of Christ. In fact the history of New Testament and how it was composed some 325 yrs after Christ reveals more the inherent flow of logic in many biblical claims.


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

Offline EMTL

  • Super Member
  • *****
  • Join Date: Jul 2003
  • Location: Nigeria
  • Posts: 705
    • View Profile
MUSLIMS VS. CHRISTIANS
« Reply #24 on: October 19, 2004, 09:33:35 AM »
Quote from: "lionger"
Quote
It is really very hard for one to use the statements of Christ only  in the Bible and safely arrive at the truth that  he(Christ) is God.


Have you read any of the arguments put forth by myself or mallamt? You seem to have interjected into the discussion w/out paying attention to what has been said.Read and understand what the scripture plainly says:


He is GOD
 
He is worshiped (Matt. 2:2,11; 14:33; 28:9)
He is prayed to (Acts 7:59; 1 Cor. 1:2)
He was called God (John 20:28; Heb. 1:8)
He was called Son of God (Mark 1:1)
He is sinless (1 Pet. 2:22; Heb. 4:15)
He knew all things (John 21:17)
He gives eternal life (John 20:28)
The fullness of deity dwells in Him (Col. 2:9)

He is Man
He worshiped the Father (John 17)
He prayed to the Father (John 17:1)
He was called man (Mark 15:39; John 19:5).
He was called Son of Man (John 19:35-37)
He was tempted (Matt. 4:1)
He grew in wisdom (Luke 2:52)
He died (Rom. 5:8)
He has a body of flesh and bones (Luke 24:39)
 
Contradiction? No, He is the Word that became flesh, John 1:8. Since you also reject Paul's testimony without reason, read the book of Revelation, paying special attention to the first seven chapters. Does Jesus speak as just a man, or as God? Judge for yourself.

Quote

And Paul whose books form the greater part of New Testament cannot be an authourity of Christ's religion amidst most authentic disciples of Christ. In fact the history of New Testament and how it was composed some 325 yrs after Christ reveals more the inherent flow of logic in many biblical claims.


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


He is God, he is Son of God, He worshiped, Was being worshiped, sinless, etc, etc. This is the mother of confusion.....

The fact remains that Jesus (AS) was NOT God or SON OF GOD he was a Prophet sent by Allah (SWT). The confused fail to understand this fact because they are false. Allah (SWT) says:

10. In their hearts is a disease; and Allah has increased their disease and grievous is the penalty they (incur) because they are false (to themselves).

May Allah (SWT) continue to guide us on His rightous path-amiyn.
In the Affairs of People Fear Allah (SWT). In the Matters Relating to Allah (SWT) Do not be Afraid of Anybody. Ibn Katthab (RA).

Offline Yoruba Land

  • Jr. Member
  • **
  • Join Date: May 2004
  • Posts: 39
    • View Profile
MUSLIMS VS. CHRISTIANS
« Reply #25 on: October 19, 2004, 11:26:31 AM »
lionger,

all your references where not from Jesus himself

Anonymous

  • Guest
MUSLIMS VS. CHRISTIANS
« Reply #26 on: October 23, 2004, 06:38:44 AM »
Mallamt,

I have given you some examples on why the present day bible is not  reliable, abi you need some more? here are some more examples:

1) Remember i quoted from the preface of the good news bible, this is another quotation from the preface of the King James version and it says "The king james version of the new testament was based upon a Greek text that was marred by mistakes, containing the accummulated errors of the fourteen centuries of manuscript copying. The revisers in the 1870's had most of the evidence that we now have for the Greek text, though the most ancient of all extant manuscripts of the Greek new testament were not discoverd until 1031. But they lacked the resources which discoveries within the past eighty years have afforded for  understanding the vocubulary grammer and idioms of the Greek New Testament".

2) see 2 samuel 13:5-14 and  16:22.

The list is endless, if you still need more reasons, please do not hesistate to ask me.

Don't just start jubilating because you see Gospel written in the Qur'an "that Qur'an contradicts itself". The features of the original Gospel is clearly written in the Qur'an and Hadith of the prophet (SAW)
Allah is aware of all what the christians are claiming, as he says in Qur'an 4:171  " O people of the scripture! Do not exceeds limits in your religion, nor say of Allah aught but the truth, Isa ( Jesus) son of mary was a messenger of Allah and his word "Be" which he bestowed on Mary and a spirit created by Him, so believe in Allah and His messengers say not "Three (trinity)" cease! it is better for you. For Allah is one God, Glory be to Him above having a son. To Him belongs all that is in the heavens and all that is in the earth. Allah is All-sufficient as a disposer of affairs".

The Qur'an also quoted a conversation which will take place between Jesus and God on the Day of judgement. Allah states in chapter
Al-ma'idah (5):116-7 "When Allah will say:'O Jesus, son of Mary, did you tell people:"Worship me and my mother as two gods instead of Allah?"...[Jesus will say]: 'It was not for me to say what i had no right, i only told them what You commanded me to say: "Worship Allah, my Lord and your Lord..." ".

See also Qur'an 19:30-36.

So, as i said the Qur'an gave us the kind of verses that make-up the original Gospel.

Am i the one to tell you the reason why Paul wrote his letters? my only responsibility is to highlight where these letters do not represent the true Gospel of Jesus, nevertheless, My bible states the purpose of his letter to the Phillipians that is "To thank them for the gift they had sent him and to encourage them by describing the contentment he has found in jesus christ alone". Therefore, i will take the above statement as a reason why he wrote his letters.

Now to the Verses you gave as referring to "Jesus as God"

1) Deu 18:19, i think you wanted to quote verse 18, because verse 19 states" i will personally deal with anyone who will not listen to the messages the prophets proclaims". If at all you meant verse 18, here is what it says "God says He will raise a prophet like Moses" Do you believe that Jesus is like Moses?

This verse (18) is another chapter which i wouldn't want to go into for now. Deutronomy 18:15-22 is talking about true prophets, i wonder why you mentioned the chapter since "Jesus as God is not suppose to be in that category".

2) Isiah 9:6. The author of this Book is also uncertain as far as my bible is concern, whoever the author may be, he is narrating that "A child is born to us, a son is given to us ....these will be his royal titles: wonderful councelor, mighy God, everlasting Father, prince of peace". then he went on to say "The passionate commitment of the Lord Almighty will guarantee this!"

Looking at this verse, one will understand that there was a "newly born God" and another Almighty God will gurantee whatever the "newly Born God" will do, similarly, the statement means that there are "two Gods", since is "another God" that will guarantee whatever the "newly born God"  is going to do.

3) Luke 1:35. This verse is also talking about a baby, who will be holy and he will be called "the son of God". Does that make him God? verse 37 of the same chapter says "for nothing is impossible with God" meaning God is all powerful, he can do everything He wishes within the twinkle of an eye. And in John 5:30, Jesus (the baby) says "I of my own self can do nothing without consulting the Father" how can he then be God? It is so amazing that your God cannot do anything without consulting his father.

4) John1:1-5. I have already answered Lionger on these verses.

5) John 14:6. It says "Jesus is the way, the truth and life no one can come to the father except through him". As i said, this verse applies to all other prophets (which Jesus himself acknowledges in Mathew 5:17) at their respective times. Noah was the way, the truth, no one amongst his people could go to the father except through him, the same thing applies to Abraham, Ishmael, Isaac, Jacob, David, Aaron,.......,and to the Last of them Muhammad (S.A.W). Moreover, does being the way to the father makes "Jesus to be God"? Qur'an says "Messengers as of good news as well as warning inorder that mankind should have no plea against Allah after the messengers..." (4:165).

I want you to please give us some quotations from the maitatsine's version of the Qur'an, since you said People are still using it.

Am taken some weeks off again, will see you as soon as possible inshaAllah.

Offline Barde

  • Full Member
  • ***
  • Join Date: May 2003
  • Location: Niger Delta
  • Posts: 148
    • View Profile
MUSLIMS VS. CHRISTIANS
« Reply #27 on: October 23, 2004, 07:01:43 AM »
EMTL,

Amin. Jesus came with a plain message but they have turned it into something which they cannot explain. The highest they can say is that "you dont have the holy spirit thats why you wont understand".

Yoruba land,

Thank you very much, thats what we have been trying to make them understand but they refused.

Lionger,

Welcome back.

Mallamt,

I forgot to say something on the original sin, Jesus did not die for anybody's sin. Thats also another chapter entirely, which we would discuss some other time inshaAllah.
im

Offline mallamt

  • Sr. Member
  • ****
  • Join Date: Apr 2004
  • Location: na
  • Posts: 229
    • View Profile
MUSLIMS VS. CHRISTIANS
« Reply #28 on: October 23, 2004, 05:28:25 PM »
Barde
I see you are not in the habit of answering questions put to you.  On the issues you raised here are my responses

1  From you posting, i gather that what you have a problem with is the present day bible and the preface or introduction in your bible.  You definately need to carry out a historical study of the bible if you are really interested in understanding it or else you will continue making statements out of ignorance.  Firstly there is nothing wrong with what you have qouted, read carefully and you will find it is the Greek text that had the error and not the bible.  So you should do a little investigation, one question you should ask yourself is why greek text was the bible written? the answer may be said to be a yes and no. However it is a known fact that the scriptures in the old testament were written in hebrew and those in the new testament (atleast most of it) were written in greek. The concept of versions or translations started the Targums. After the return from the Captivity, the Jews, no longer familiar with the old Hebrew, required that their Scriptures should be translated for them into the Chaldaic or Aramaic language and interpreted. These translations and paraphrases were at first oral, but they were afterwards reduced to writing, and thus targums, i.e., ?versions? or ?translations?. The Onkelos Targum, i.e., the targum of Akelas=Aquila, a targum so called to give it greater popularity by comparing it with the Greek translation of Aquila. This targum originated about the second century after Christ. The targum of Jonathan ben Uzziel comes next to that of Onkelos in respect of age and value. It is more a paraphrase on the Prophets, however, than a translation. Both of these targums issued from the Jewish school which then flourished at Babylon.
Now to the Greek Versions you seem to be excited about.  The oldest of these is the Septuagint, usually quoted as the LXX. Established facts about this version is that it was made at Alexandria; that it was begun about 280 B.C., and finished about 200 or 150 B.C.; that it was the work of a number of translators who differed greatly both in their knowledge of Hebrew and of Greek (please note this).  You should know and understand with more knowledge and understanding of hebrew, correct and actual meanings were derived and thus the actual meaning of the manuscript was gained leading to the correction of earliar meanings ascribed to these texts.  So why do we still refer to this translation or version, with all its defects, it is of the great importance and interest (a) as preserving evidence for the text far more ancient than the oldest Hebrew manuscripts; (b) as the means by which the Greek Language was wedded to Hebrew thought; (c) as the source of the great majority of quotations from the Old Testament by writers of the New Testament.  So my friend the error refered to is not that of content but of meaning.

2  You made mention of 2Samuel 13:5-14 and 16:22 as part of the "endless list of inconsistencies or errors".  I am not sure what your problem is with these chapters, but I do surely hope you realise that they are talking about two different sons of David (Absalom and Amnon) please see 2Samuel 3:2-3.

3  The quran mentioning christians or anything like that means nothing to me (it is logical anyway for them to have been mentioned, they came into existence before islam and muslims)

4  I cringed when I read this by you
Quote
Am i the one to tell you the reason why Paul wrote his letters? my only responsibility is to highlight where these letters do not represent the true Gospel of Jesus, nevertheless, My bible states the purpose of his letter to the Phillipians that is "To thank them for the gift they had sent him and to encourage them by describing the contentment he has found in jesus christ alone". Therefore, i will take the above statement as a reason why he wrote his letters.
 Your first line makes even this discussion useless because it appears you are not making any effort to substantiate your claims or positions instead you are just making statements regardless of facts or an indipendent study.  You went on further to say that your responsibility is to present the true gospel, if I may ask you what is the true gospel?  what evidence or facts do you have with regard to the true gospel?  why are you not presenting your facts and evidence here?  Why do you qoute the quran as you source of fact or evidence when on its own it is biased against christain doctrine and position, furthermore it is (the quran) further away from the time of the events than the bible (this is historical fact)?

5  On Deu. 18:19, it was not a mistake, it is the verse I wanted to qoute.  Since you decided to go a verse further it is fine.  I find again you have made some errors or it is a deliberate misqouting prophet was not plural but singular in the verses refering to a specific prophet.  You asked if I believe Jesus was like Moses, and my answer is to an extent yes.  Please look up the meaning of prophet first, Jesus did prophesy (did you remember even his own death he prophesied).

6  On the other issue raised by you, I refer you to previous posts by linger and myself.

----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

Seeing that you have raised the issue of reliability I will like you to answer the following for me about the reliability of the quran.

The revelations Muhammad (p.b.u.h.) received were written down during his lifetime on different writing materials. However, they were not bound into one single book. (see report that says "when people came to Medina to learn about Islam, they were provided with copies of the chapters of the Quran, to read and learn them by heart." ("Sahifa Hammam ibn Munabbih," by Hamidullah, 1979, p.64).

The revelations given to Muhammad (p.b.u.h.) were not written down by himself: "Narrated al Bara: There was revealed 'Not equal are those believers who sit and those who strive and fight in the cause of Allah' (Surah 4, Nisaa, verse 95). The prophet said: 'Call Zaid for me and let him bring the board, the ink pot and the scapula bone.' Then he said: 'Write: Not equal are those believers...'" (Bukhari,VI, No.512)

The revelations Muhammad (p.b.u.h.) received were passed on mainly orally for 43 years from 610 AD until 653 AD. At that time the Quran was officially written under the command of Uthman. During the first 22 years of this period the prophet of Islam was still alive. In case of doubt his followers could have consulted him immediately. Many of them also memorized the revelations under his personal guidance. More than 20 of those are mentioned by name in the Hadith. Among them were well know persons, such as Abu Bakr, Umar, Uthman, Ali, Ibn Masud, Abu Huraira, Abdullah bin Abbas, Abdullah bin Amr bin al-As, Aisha, Hafsa and Umm Salama. ('Itqan' by Suyuti, I, p.124)
When at the battle of Yamama in 633 AD a number of Muslims were killed it was feared that part of the revelations might be lost. Therefore, Abu Bakr, the first Muslim leader after Muhammad's (p.b.u.h.) death, asked Zaid ibn Thabit to collect all the different writing materials on which the Quran was written down.

This was his reaction: '..By Allah, if he (Abu Bakr) had ordered me to shift one of the mountains it would not have been harder for me than what he had ordered me concerning the collection of the Quran. I said to both of them, 'How dare you do what the prophet has not done?' Abu Bakr said, 'By Allah, it's a good thing'... So I started locating the Quranic material and collecting it from parchments, scapula, leafstalks of date palms and from the memories of men. I found with Khuzaima two verses of Surah Tauba which I had not found with anybody else...'(Bukhari,VI, No.201) Even though those verses had only been found with one person and only one man had the sole responsibility to collect the first official Quran, Muslims believe it contained all the revelations given to their prophet.


A number of Hadith mention that several of Muhammad's (p.b.u.h.) companions wrote down their own collections of the revelations. ('Itqan I' by Suyuti, p.62) The best known among them are:

Ibn Masud

He claimed to have learned some seventy Surahs directly from the prophet. Muhammad (p.b.u.h.) told other people to learn the Quran from him and three others. (Bukhari, 6, No.521) However, Surah 1, 113 and 114 were missing in his collection. (Fihrist, I, pages 53-57)

Ubay bin Kab

The prophet's secretary in Medina. He is one of the other three mentioned above whom the prophet recommended as a teacher of the Quran. His collection contained two additional Surahs and an otherwise unknown verse. ('Itqan I' by Suyuti, p.65; 'Masahif' by Ibn Abi Dawud, p.180-181) It was widely used in Syria before the appearance of Uthman's text.

Abu Musa

The people of Basra used his collection. It was identical with the material of Ubai bin Kab. There were many variants attributed to various reasons,
the many variant reading caused Muslim soldiers from Iraq who followed Ibn Masud's collection, and soldiers of Syria who took Ubay's collection to be the correct one, to accuse each other of lying. Uthman's reaction in 653 AD is recorded in the following Hadith:

Uthman sent a message to Hafsa saying, 'Send us the manuscripts of the Quran so that we may compile the Quranic materials in perfect copies and return the manuscripts to you'. Hafsa sent it to Uthman, Uthman then ordered Zaid bin Thabit, Abdullah bin Az-Zubair, Said bin Al-As and Abdur Rahman bin Harith bin Hisham to rewrite the manuscripts in perfect copies. Uthman said to the three Quraishi men, 'In case you disagree with Zaid bin Thabit on any point in the Quran, then write it in the dialect of Quraish as the Quran was revealed in their tongue.' They did so, and when they had written many copies, Uthman returned the original manuscripts to Hafsa. Uthman sent to every Muslim province one copy of what they had copied, and ordered that all the other Quranic materials whether written in fragmentary manuscripts or whole copies, be burned. Zaid bin Thabit added, 'A verse from Surah 33, Alizab, (verse 23) was missed by me when we copied the Quran and I used to hear Allah's Apostle reciting it. So we searched for it and found it with Khuzaima bin Thabit Al-Ansari...' (Bukhari, VI, No.510)

There are basic facts we can glean

The quran as we know it today was put together after the time of the prophet (pbuh), and is a collect of Uthman not the prophet, so how can it be said to be reliable?

The present day quran has omitted some of the contributions made by people close to the prophet (pbuh) and thus we have variant readings today, so why are the evidence or contributions of these people omitted?  can we still say that the quran is truly reliable?

Why are the other "non reliable" qurans or writtings burnt? should they not have been kept as evidence of attempts to distort the quran?  or should they not have been kept as indication of followers must not do?

Do these facts not raise questions on the reliability of the quran?

Offline al_hamza

  • Sr. Member
  • ****
  • Join Date: Oct 2002
  • Location: WHERE MUSLIMS ARENT FREE
  • Posts: 351
    • View Profile
MUSLIMS VS. CHRISTIANS
« Reply #29 on: November 05, 2004, 12:24:08 PM »
who made christianity a state religion?
ANS= "ROMANS"
WHY?
ANS= "PEOPLE WERE TIRED OF TOO MANY gods and found a better religion in christianity"
WHAT THE ROMANS DID?
ANS= "ROMANISED THE RELIGION TO CONFERM WITH THE LAWS OF THAT TIME TO SAVE THE ROMAN EMPIRE"

PROOF, PLEASE JUST PICK UP STORY BOOKS OF ROMAN gods AND THEIR SEXUAL TRIPS AND EXPEDITIONS TO EARTH, WHERE THEY WOULD HAVE KIDS, AND THOSE KIDS WOULD HAVE GODLY POWERS,
ANYONE READY TO BE A GOOD AND FAIR JUDGE, WOULD CERTAINLY SEE THE SIMILARITIES BETWEEN THE ROMAN RELIGIONS AND gods STORIES AND THE CHRISTIAN RELIGION.
ABILUNAH? SABILUNAH? AL-JIHAD! AL-JIHAD!

 


Powered by EzPortal