still we 'r looking for an answer ?! [Archive]

Milliardo Peacecraft

19-09-03, 10:49 AM

Originally posted by mkongwe
Read then John 17:21 That they (the disciples) all may be one; as thou, Father, art me, and I in thee, that they may be also be one in us…
It is clear here that God and Jesus are one, but also that the disciples are one in Jesus and God. If Jesus is God because he is in God, why are the disciples then not God, as they all are like Jesus also in God? If God, Jesus and Holy Ghost form one unit of Trinity, then with the disciples included they should form a God unit of fifteen.

But first of all, the Disciples never claimed divinity nor did they make any declaration of this oneness with God. The relationship we have with God is very different from that of Jesus with God in that regard, and as we can see in the Gospels, Jesus revealed Himself slowly to people. We can as well turn to Peter's declaration in Metthew 16 of Jesus being the Son of God. This declaration not merely denotes a belief that Jesus is Messiah--a step that has already been accepted by the Disciples before that event--but Jesus' divine image. As well in John Jesus declares that He is the I AM--which is a very direct declaration of Him as YHVH. This declaration made the Jews angry with Him because He proclaimed Himself not just as Messiah, but indeed as God Himself. When He was accused and sentenced, the charge against Him was blasphemy--a charge which could not be brought about by a mere declaration of Him as Messiah. For the Jewish authorities, the charge is very much deeper: He declared Himself to be the Lord, and for them this was much graver than a mere declaration of Messiah.

Then why do priests accept being addressed as 'father'

And how is the logic of address for 'Pope' where do these ranks fit in the system ?

The term "Father" is used by Catholics and Orthodox, as well as Anglicans, to denote that the priest is head of the and pastor of the community. In effect, as the Church is God's children, so then the priest stands as caretaker of the Church. The analogy that I can give here is that the Pope, bishops and priests are seen as fosterfathers, who guides and leads the community of God.

The King James Version, authorized in 1611, and formed the strongest evidence for the Doctrines of the Trinity.

The KJV doesn't actually show the strongest evidence fo the Trinity; how can that be, when the KJV is merely a copy of earlier texts? So you will have to point to earlier texts for it, not the KJV. Remember also that the dogma of the Trinity antidates the KJV by a good 1100+ years.

...that's because you are quoting from 1 John, not the Gospel of John. 1 John was written after the Gospel. It is from the Gospel of John that the quote "I and the Father are One" comes from, not 1 John. So no, that quote has never been expunged from the Bible, in any version. Do get your facts straight before making such nonsensical posts.

Milliardo Peacecraft

19-09-03, 11:04 AM

But now this part, the Father, the Word, and the Holy Ghost: and these three are one, has been expunged in the Revised Standard Version of 1952 and 1971 and many other Bibles, as it was a gloss that encroached on the Greek text.
I John 5:7-8...

Getting a hold of the Latin Vulgate, which is even earlier than the KJV, there is no such thing as what you claim. To wit:

7 quia tres sunt qui testimonium dant

8 Spiritus et aqua et sanguis et tres unum sunt

9 si testimonium hominum accipimus testimonium Dei maius est quoniam hoc est testimonium Dei quod maius est quia testificatus est de Filio suo

Actually I quoted until verse 9. Now remember that St. Jerome would not have seen fit to expunge a reference of the Trinity at that point, so early in Christianity's part then (405 A.D.) and the Arian heresy still very much fresh in the mind of the Church. So basically, what it really comes down to is that you have done very poor research.

mkongwe

19-09-03, 06:13 PM

Originally posted by Milliardo Peacecraft
But first of all, the Disciples never claimed divinity nor did they make any declaration of this oneness with God.

Let me ask you again:did Jesus ever claim to be God or to say,Here am I, your God, and worship me?
________________________________________
Mark 12:29 what Jesus himself said:And Jesus answered him,The first commandments is,Hear, O Israel:The Lord our God is one Lord.

silver_ring

19-09-03, 11:00 PM

Originally posted by Milliardo Peacecraft
As understood, Jesus only suffered physical death, not spiritual.

physical death? so do u mean that he still living some where .he or his soul???

Shinoda LP

19-09-03, 11:09 PM

S_R, get a mug full of water. Insert your mouth and nose in it. Don't remove the mug, till 5 mins. That's another miracle right there!

What does Islam believe God in what form is he ?

I don't know. How confusing ha?

silver_ring

19-09-03, 11:13 PM

Shinoda LP

is that you what in your avatar?!

Milliardo Peacecraft

19-09-03, 11:22 PM

Originally posted by mkongwe
Let me ask you again:did Jesus ever claim to be God or to say,Here am I, your God, and worship me?

58 Jesus said to them, "Amen, amen, I say to you, before Abraham came to be, I AM." (John 8:58)

Notes on John 8:

12 [24,28] I AM: an expression that late Jewish tradition understood as Yahweh's own self-designation (Isaiah 43:10); see the note on John 4:26. Jesus is here placed on a par with Yahweh.

24 [58] Came to be, I AM: the Greek word used for "came to be" is the one used of all creation in the prologue (John 1:1-2), while the word used for "am" is the one reserved for the Logos.

And of course, the whole chapter: http://www.nccbuscc.org/nab/bible/john/john8.htm

physical death? so do u mean that he still living some where .he or his soul???

Put to death in the flesh, he was brought to life in the spirit.
19 n it he also went to preach to the spirits in prison,
20 who had once been disobedient while God patiently waited in the days of Noah during the building of the ark, in which a few persons, eight in all, were saved through water. (1 Peter 3:18-20)

It is shown here that Jesus was alive, not dead, and that He preached to the spirits in prison (in Judaism, this prison is known as Sheol, or the abode of the dead, where Jesus went and preached before the Resurrection). So no, He didn't die both bodily and spiritually, but only physically, for we proclaim that the Son of God shall always live and triumph even over death.

silver_ring

19-09-03, 11:28 PM

Milliardo Peacecraft

so jesus is the father and he also the spirite?

Shinoda LP

19-09-03, 11:32 PM

Can someone lock this absolutely pointless thread? Silver Ring's just beating around the bush.

Milliardo Peacecraft

19-09-03, 11:37 PM

Originally posted by Shinoda LP
Can someone lock this absolutely pointless thread? Silver Ring's just beating around the bush.

I agree: if he can't get it now, he'll never get it.

Silver: go reread again the article about the Trinity that I have posted.

silver_ring

19-09-03, 11:41 PM

Originally posted by Milliardo Peacecraft
I agree: if he can't get it now, he'll never get it.
if you havn't evidence s to give so ask some one else to explain

Shinoda LP

19-09-03, 11:43 PM

if you havn't evidence s to give so ask some one else to explain

.....

Mr. Hanif Muhammad
University Lane drive
apt. J
Huntersville
North Carolina - 29878

(Works at a Gas station most of the time)

.....

And you're welcome ... Can we close this now?

Milliardo Peacecraft

20-09-03, 12:25 AM

Originally posted by silver_ring
if you havn't evidence s to give so ask some one else to explain

I already presented the evidence for you; it's up to you to believe. Since you refuse to, there is no point in this thread, as Shinoda pointed out.

jack

20-09-03, 12:37 AM

silver_ringOriginally posted by silver_ring
if you havn't evidence s to give so ask some one else to explain

Ask a Jew. I am sure they will be able to fully explain it to you in terms you will be able to understand.

Thug4Life

20-09-03, 01:29 AM

guys please no need to call each others name!
I can see a very intresting discussion here!

questions asked...and simply questions can be answerd!
no need to flame each others!!!!

U dont like the questions asked...(specially if its within the respect lines) dont reply in a personal way!!!!

I ask u all to go through a mature line!
U r all here adults
and we r all here to benifit!

SOOOO
from here down
No off topics
NO flammes
No calling each others names!!!

sanwin25

20-09-03, 03:35 AM

So tell SR to stop acting like an idiot.

The topic has been adequately discussed yet he keeps coming back saying 'tell me again, tell me again'.

In other cases, an answer like 'Because the Quran said so' is consiered the utlimate in scientific logic and we are all supposed to bow in awe and accept your argument.

silver_ring

20-09-03, 04:41 PM

Originally posted by Milliardo Peacecraft
I already presented the evidence for you; it's up to you to believe. Since you refuse to, there is no point in this thread, as Shinoda pointed out.

which evidences !!!!

untill now we do not know if jesus is god or prophet

some times they said he is a god and some time they admired as a prophet !!!

mkongwe

20-09-03, 10:03 PM

Originally posted by sanwin25
In other cases, an answer like 'Because the Quran said so' is consiered the utlimate in scientific logic and we are all supposed to bow in awe and accept your argument.

And we are all supposed to accept the Bible as John 14:8 Philip saith unto him, Lord, shew us the Father, and it sufficeth us John 14:9:Jesus saith unto him, have I been so long time with you, and yet hast thou not known me, Philip? he that hath seen me hast seen the Father; and how sayest thou then, shew us the Father?
So finally Jesus asked Philip how to show the appearance of God to the disciple, which is not possible. You should believe in God by admiring his creation: the sun, the moon, all creation, and Jesus himself who was created by God. He said John 4:24God is a Spirit… and John 5:37..ye have neither heard his voice at any time, nor seen his shape. How can you see a spirit then? What they saw was Jesus and not God. Also Paul said I Timothy 6:16…whom no man hath seen, nor can see…. so what you can see is never God.
_______________________________________________
Holy Qur’an says (Surah 6:103): Vision comprehendeth Him not, but He comprehendeth (all) vision. He is the Subtile, the Aware.

mkongwe

20-09-03, 10:21 PM

Originally posted by jack

Ask a Jew. I am sure they will be able to fully explain it to you in terms you will be able to understand.

Why ask a Jew? Let ask Jesus himself, what is the first commandments? Mark 12:29 And Jesus answered him, The first commandments is, Hear. O Israel:The Lord our God is one Lord.

shamsery

20-09-03, 11:34 PM

A Muslim judge every religious points based on Holly Qur’an . His outlook is deferent form other believers. It is matter of owns believe, not a matter of argument.
From Holly Qur’an:
O mankind! There has come to you a good advice from your Lord (i.e. the Qur'an, ordering all that is good and forbidding all that is evil), and a healing for that (disease of ignorance, doubt, hypocrisy and differences, etc.) in your breasts, - a guidance and a mercy (explaining lawful and unlawful things, etc.) for the believers.[Quran 10:57]
Say: He is Allah, the One! Allah, the eternally Besought of all! He begetteth not nor was begotten. And there is none comparable unto Him [Qur'an 112:1-4]

sanwin25

21-09-03, 04:49 AM

So what you are saying is that you can quote your book and that is a valid argument. But no one else is allowed to do the same ?

Do you know how to spell the word hipokrite ?

Milliardo Peacecraft

21-09-03, 05:49 AM

Originally posted by mkongwe
And we are all supposed to accept the Bible as John 14:8 Philip saith unto him, Lord, shew us the Father, and it sufficeth us John 14:9:Jesus saith unto him, have I been so long time with you, and yet hast thou not known me, Philip? he that hath seen me hast seen the Father; and how sayest thou then, shew us the Father?
So finally Jesus asked Philip how to show the appearance of God to the disciple, which is not possible. You should believe in God by admiring his creation: the sun, the moon, all creation, and Jesus himself who was created by God. He said John 4:24God is a Spirit… and John 5:37..ye have neither heard his voice at any time, nor seen his shape. How can you see a spirit then? What they saw was Jesus and not God. Also Paul said I Timothy 6:16…whom no man hath seen, nor can see…. so what you can see is never God.

Jesus is pointing to God the Father, which no one has seen. But it does not mean no one has seen the Son or the Spirit. The Holy Spirit was seen as in the form of a dove during Jesus' baptism.

Let ask Jesus himself, what is the first commandments? Mark 12:29 And Jesus answered him, The first commandments is, Hear. O Israel:The Lord our God is one Lord.

As I have posted before, coming from the article on the Trinity: The evidence from the Gospels culminates in the baptismal commission of Matthew 28:20. It is manifest from the narratives of the Evangelists that Christ only made the great truth known to the Twelve step by step. First He taught them to recognize in Himself the Eternal Son of God. When His ministry was drawing to a close, He promised that the Father would send another Divine Person, the Holy Spirit, in His place. Finally after His resurrection, He revealed the doctrine in explicit terms, bidding them "go and teach all nations, baptizing them in the name of the Father, and of the Son, and of the Holy Ghost" (Matthew 28:18). The force of this passage is decisive. That "the Father" and "the Son" are distinct Persons follows from the terms themselves, which are mutually exclusive. The mention of the Holy Spirit in the same series, the names being connected one with the other by the conjunctions "and . . . and" is evidence that we have here a Third Person co-ordinate with the Father and the Son, and excludes altogether the supposition that the Apostles understood the Holy Spirit not as a distinct Person, but as God viewed in His action on creatures.

The phrase "in the name" (eis to onoma) affirms alike the Godhead of the Persons and their unity of nature. Among the Jews and in the Apostolic Church the Divine name was representative of God. He who had a right to use it was invested with vast authority: for he wielded the supernatural powers of Him whose name he employed. It is incredible that the phrase "in the name" should be here employed, were not all the Persons mentioned equally Divine. Moreover, the use of the singular, "name," and not the plural, shows that these Three Persons are that One Omnipotent God in whom the Apostles believed. Indeed the unity of God is so fundamental a tenet alike of the Hebrew and of the Christian religion, and is affirmed in such countless passages of the Old and New Testaments, that any explanation inconsistent with this doctrine would be altogether inadmissible.

So we can see that when Jesus speaks of God as one, it is so, since this oneness of the Father Son and Holy Spirit is made manifest in Christ and the Holy Spirit, as well as God Himself. I think, though, that this is not understood by non-Christians, while we Christians treat this as a divine mystery: that we believe that God is at once Finite and Infinite, that He is in the past, present and future all at the same time seems to pose no objection among Muslims, yet is it because to proclaim Jesus as the Son of God, indeed as God Himself, will eventually invalidate Islam and Mohammed's claims? I think that's the problem, and there is nothing more we can do about it in that case.

shamsery

21-09-03, 09:13 PM

Mr.Sanwin,
Hope you understand the very simple English.
Valid argument for us, binding for us and not for you.
You can think, as you like.
None should try to impose any thing on others.

sanwin25

21-09-03, 11:25 PM

You want simple English, I will give it to you in Simple English.

If you (ie Muslims) can say that quoting the Quran is a valid argument for you, I agree and that is your right.

In exactly the same way, we (ie Christians) are also saying that quoting the Bible is a valid argument (that is what Milardo has been to patiently trying to do) and you should also agree that doing so is our right.

I am sorry I used a few words of more than two syllables, but I could not find any alternatives.

I hope things are clear with you now.

mkongwe

21-09-03, 11:39 PM

Originally posted by Milliardo Peacecraft
Jesus is pointing to God the Father, which no one has seen.

If you can now believe in One God, Jesus, son of Mary, as a Prophet, why don’t you go one step further and accept Muhammad as the Last Messenger? Read with me the shahadah or Witness (Testimony), first in English, then in Arabic.
I bear witness that there is no deity except Allah, Who has no partner, and Muhammad is His slave servant and messenger. Ash-hadu an la Ilaha illa- Lahu wahdahu la shareekalahu wa asha-hadu anna Muhammadan abduhu wa rasuluhu.

The Qur’an rejects the concept of the Trinity as strongly as it rejects the sonship of Jesus. This is because God is One. This is the essence of all monotheistic revelations. Three, by reason and by simple arithmetic, are not one. The Qur’an addresses the Christian in the following verses in the chapter entitled “Woman”
People of the Book, go not beyond the bounds in your religion, and say not as to God but the Truth. The Messiah, Jesus, son of Mary, was only the Messenger of God, and his Word that He committed to Mary, and a spirit from Him. So believe in God and His Messengers, and say not, ‘Three’ Refrain, better is it for you. God is only One God. Glory be to Him - that He should have a son! To him belongs all that is in the heaven and in the earth, God suffices for a guardian.
The Messiah will not disdain to be a servant of God, neither the angels who are close to Him. Whosoever disdains to serve Him and waxes proud, He will assuredly muster them to Him, all of them.
As for the believers, who do deeds of righteousness, He will pay them their rewards in full, and He will give them more, of His bounty; as for them who disdain and wax proud, them He will punish with a severe punishment, and they shall not find from them, apart from God, a friend or helper. (4:171-3)

Milliardo Peacecraft

22-09-03, 12:12 AM

Originally posted by mkongwe
If you can now believe in One God, Jesus, son of Mary, as a Prophet, why don’t you go one step further and accept Muhammad as the Last Messenger?

There's a little problem with this: there isn't any other prophet after Jesus, at least not in the sense of proclaiming another word from God. That is why it is always proclaimed that Jesus is the alpha and the omega, the first and the last. The proof of burden actually lies upon Islam to prove itself, not the other way around (meaning, Christianity to prove itself). Smple logic dictates it quite easily: you came after Christianity with a new word and a new message.

The Qur’an rejects the concept of the Trinity as strongly as it rejects the sonship of Jesus. This is because God is One.

As much as The Bible rejects any claim made in the name of Islam. But this is all now in the realm of faith (actually our discussion is in the realm of faith more than anything else). You believe in the Qur'an; we don't. We believe in the Bible; you don't.

Arabian Princess

22-09-03, 09:11 AM

I always admired the way MP expresses his points, well said MP.

I have a question, Jews dont beleive in prophet Jesus right? doesnt that makes you in the same place as ours?

Milliardo Peacecraft

22-09-03, 11:17 AM

Originally posted by Arabian Princess
I have a question, Jews dont beleive in prophet Jesus right? doesnt that makes you in the same place as ours?

It depends on how you look at it. If you say that they have rejected Jesus, then yes we are in the same place. But then as well Islam rejects the notion of Jesus as Messiah and Lord, so ironically Islam is in the same place as Judaism is on that score.

Arabian Princess

22-09-03, 11:47 AM

MP, Islam beleives in Jesus and that he is a prophet. The only thing is that we beleive that there is one and only ultimate God who has no son and no wife.

if we beleived that Jesus was son of god then there would be no reason for us to beleive in prophet Mohammed!!
we beleive that prophet Mohammed came to correct the followers of Jesus who were not in the right path, I guess christians feel the same regarding Jews, right?

Milliardo Peacecraft

22-09-03, 02:37 PM

Originally posted by Arabian Princess
if we beleived that Jesus was son of god then there would be no reason for us to beleive in prophet Mohammed!!

Exactly the point I stated earlier.

we beleive that prophet Mohammed came to correct the followers of Jesus who were not in the right path, I guess christians feel the same regarding Jews, right?

Not exactly. Christians believe that Israel to be the chosen people, whose rejection of the Messiah has caused it to be estranged from Christianity. Nevertheless, God still looks after Israel and calls out to them, as John the Baptist did when he called to pave the way for Jesus. And we maintain that this call not only is for Jews, but for Muslims and other faiths as well. The relationship between Christianity and Judaism is deep that it will take awhile of explanation, but it is best summarized in this way: the New Testament is the fulfillment of the Old, while the Old Testament proclaims and testifies to the New. In other words, Jesus has fulfilled everything that the Old Testament has said, and that the Old Testament heralds in the Messiah. In terms of Judaism and Christianity, Judaism is the precursor and the antecedent of Christianity, while Christianity is the rounding out and fulfillment of all of the past--and indeed, even of those after it. This is in fulfillment again of all that Jesus has said.

mkongwe

22-09-03, 04:20 PM

Originally posted by Milliardo Peacecraft
Smple logic dictates it quite easily: you came after Christianity with a new word and a new message.

All prophets from Adam to Muhammad (PBUT) were sent with the same message: that is, the total submission of mankind to Allah. This submission in Arabic is called Islam; Islam means also peace, peace between the Creator and His creatures. Unlike the names Judaism and Christianity, this name Islam has been given by Allah, the Creator Himself, as mentioned in surah 5:3 ...This day I have perfected your religion for you and completed My favor on you, and have chosen for you as the way of life AL-Islam as your religion. Neither the name Judaism nor Christianity is found in the Bible. No Israelite prophet mentioned the word Judaism. Jesus never claimed to establish Christianity on earth and never called himself a Christian. The word Christian is mention only three times in the New Testament and first by pagans and Jews in Antioch about 43 A.D., long after Jesus had left this earth. Read in Acts 11:26 ...And the disciples were called Christian first in Antioch. .
Later by King Agrippa II to Paul in Acts 26:28 ...Then Agrippa said unto Paul Almost thou persuedest me to be a Christian. .
So the name Christian was first given by foes rather than friends. And finally by Peter in his letter to comfort the faithful in I Peter 4:16 ...Yet if any man suffer as Christian, let him not be ashamed….
The first Muslim on earth is not Muhammad but Abraham who submitted totally to Allah. But Islam as way of life had been revealed to other prophets prior to Abraham like Adam and Noah. Then Islam follows the way of life for all humanity.
Qur’an 2:136 Say ye: “We believe in Allah, and the revelation given to us, and to Abraham, Isma’il, Isaac, Jacob, and the tribes and that given to Moses, Jesus, and that given to (all) prophets from their Lord: We make no difference between one and another of them: And we bow to Allah (in Islam).
Qur’an 3:19 The religion before Allah is Islam (submission to his will): Nor did the people of the book dissent therefrom except through envy of each other, after knowledge had come to them. But if any deny the signs of Allah is swift in calling to account.

Milliardo Peacecraft

22-09-03, 05:25 PM

Originally posted by mkongwe
All prophets from Adam to Muhammad (PBUT) were sent with the same message: that is, the total submission of mankind to Allah.

Yes, though it shuld be noted as well that the Old Testament prophets have heralded and paved the way for the coming of the Messiah. Even the Jews believed in this--only the Jews have not seen yet in Jesus to be that Messiah.

Unlike the names Judaism and Christianity, this name Islam has been given by Allah, the Creator Himself, as mentioned in surah 5:3 ...

That is well and good; however, that is according to your book, which neither Judaism nor Christianity subscribe to.

Neither the name Judaism nor Christianity is found in the Bible.

None mention of those names doesn't mean they have not existed before, does it now? I see this comment to be pointless, since regardless of it not being mentioned it is still there and existed long before Islam ever came.

The first Muslim on earth is not Muhammad but Abraham who submitted totally to Allah.

This would be true if only the Jews accept it--but neither Jews nor Christians accept this, and surprisingly even unbiased and objective scholars and historians agree that Abraham was Jewish, or at least of the line of Judaism, not Islamic.

As you can see in history, Islam is very recent, and it tries to assert its claim by discrediting its predecessors--ironically the very same faiths it took most of its ideas from. As I have discussed in another thread here, and which a book this fall will also try to show, far from being Islamic, it seems the first Qur'an as known (and presumably written) by the Prophet seems more to be a Christian apologetic, not Islamic in any way. Do look up that thread here, since no Muslim there has so far been able to refute the salient points made by the book's author.

silver_ring

22-09-03, 05:26 PM

Originally posted by mkongwe
All prophets from Adam to Muhammad (PBUT) were sent with the same message: that is, the total submission of mankind to Allah. This submission in Arabic is called Islam; Islam means also peace, peace between the Creator and His creatures. Unlike the names Judaism and Christianity, this name Islam has been given by Allah, the Creator Himself, as mentioned in surah 5:3 ...This day I have perfected your religion for you and completed My favor on you, and have chosen for you as the way of life AL-Islam as your religion. Neither the name Judaism nor Christianity is found in the Bible. No Israelite prophet mentioned the word Judaism. Jesus never claimed to establish Christianity on earth and never called himself a Christian. The word Christian is mention only three times in the New Testament and first by pagans and Jews in Antioch about 43 A.D., long after Jesus had left this earth. Read in Acts 11:26 ...And the disciples were called Christian first in Antioch. .
Later by King Agrippa II to Paul in Acts 26:28 ...Then Agrippa said unto Paul Almost thou persuedest me to be a Christian. .
So the name Christian was first given by foes rather than friends. And finally by Peter in his letter to comfort the faithful in I Peter 4:16 ...Yet if any man suffer as Christian, let him not be ashamed….
The first Muslim on earth is not Muhammad but Abraham who submitted totally to Allah. But Islam as way of life had been revealed to other prophets prior to Abraham like Adam and Noah. Then Islam follows the way of life for all humanity.
Qur’an 2:136 Say ye: “We believe in Allah, and the revelation given to us, and to Abraham, Isma’il, Isaac, Jacob, and the tribes and that given to Moses, Jesus, and that given to (all) prophets from their Lord: We make no difference between one and another of them: And we bow to Allah (in Islam).
Qur’an 3:19 The religion before Allah is Islam (submission to his will): Nor did the people of the book dissent therefrom except through envy of each other, after knowledge had come to them. But if any deny the signs of Allah is swift in calling to account.

very true ....well said

Originally posted by Milliardo Peacecraft
That is why it is always proclaimed that Jesus is the alpha and the omega, the first and the last

do u believe in any others befor jesus ??!!! :confused:

Milliardo Peacecraft

22-09-03, 06:11 PM

Originally posted by silver_ring
do u believe in any others befor jesus ??!!! :confused:

Since Jesus is the first and the last, as recorded in John, then it would make sense that those who proclaimed and paved the way before Him must be listened to as well, but their relationship vis-a-vis with Jesus is such that Jesus is first and foremost, as indeed He is not just someone who brought the Law like Moses did, but embodied in Him the fulfillment of all that had been written before Him.

mkongwe

22-09-03, 08:40 PM

Originally posted by Milliardo Peacecraft

You believe in the Qur'an; we don't. We believe in the Bible; you don't.

We believe in the Quran because, we read Qur’an 2:2 This is the book ;In it is guidance sure, without doubt, to those who fear Allah.
And we don't believe in the Bible because,if you read the bible
Jeremiah 8: 8 “How can you say, ‘we are wise, and the Law of the Lord is with us’? But behold, the false pen of the scribes has made into lie.
Now it is up to you,Islam is based on reason, and you should not just accept it. Even your Bible says, 1 Thessalonians 5:21 Prove all things; hold fast that which is good.

mkongwe

22-09-03, 10:13 PM

Originally posted by Milliardo Peacecraft
This would be true if only the Jews accept it--but neither Jews nor Christians accept this, and surprisingly even unbiased and objective scholars and historians agree that Abraham was Jewish, or at least of the line of Judaism, not Islamic.
]

Can you show me where in the Bible it says that he is a Jew?
Qur’an 3:65 O people of the scripture! Why do you dispute about Abraham, while the Torah and the Gospel were not revealed till after him? Have you then no sense?
Qur’an 3:67 Abraham was neither a Jew nor a Christian, but he was a true Muslim (worshiper of none but Allah alone) and he joined none in worship with Allah.
Please go and Ask Jews to read for you Job 22:21 “Agree with God, and be at Islam; thereby good will come to you.
I'm sure you don't have that verse in your christian Bible.

Milliardo Peacecraft

22-09-03, 10:58 PM

Originally posted by mkongwe
And we don't believe in the Bible because,if you read the bible
Jeremiah 8: 8 “How can you say, ‘we are wise, and the Law of the Lord is with us’? But behold, the false pen of the scribes has made into lie.

It is nice when such passages are twisted out of its context. These books are called the prophetic books, since many of them pertain to the coming of Christ, and this passage has often been associated with the very people who went against Christ--the Pharisees and the scribes who were the Jewish authorities of that time.

About Abraham--of course your Qur'an will tell you that he is Muslim--it is to add more credibility in your religion, which compared to both Judaism and Christianity, is but an infant. So to add more prestige, it takes Abraham as its own--nevermind if the true Chosen People of God, the Israelites, came from him. It might be so that, as commonly held, you might be descendants of Ishmael, Abraham's son; nonetheless, it was with Isaac, who later on will father Jacob, whome the Lord kept His covenant. And since Jesus is of this lineage, then rightfully this has more weight than those of the line of Ishmael, whom God has not had a covenant with. So you can see why Islam can never claim the very position it tries to take from Judaism and Christianity--the simple fact that it is of Israel, in the House of David, that this King shall be born, not of any other house or lineage.

Job 22:21--neither does the Jewish version of it has that, the part pertaining to Islam. For one, it is an affront to the ancient religion which you try to say you came from (and curiously at the same time you try to repudate). For another, Islam never was and never will be at the same time that Job was. Again, proof of that is that the Jews don't recognize Islam, nor even claim Islam was already there at the time of Abraham. Do bear in mind that if you as much as even insinuate this notion to them, you'd be lucky if they simply laugh you out of their presence. I wouldn't be surprised if they get mad. As I've said, the objective and unbiased scholar and historian does not accept this view as held by Islam for the simple reason that archeological evidence often points to Jewish Israel as we often read in the Old Testament--not to any Islamic kingdom or people.

IceTea

23-09-03, 07:32 PM

Originally posted by Milliardo Peacecraft
Silver ring, if you can't understand, then read, and read, and read. Not open a topic that serves no other purpose than to make such comments as "Is the Trinity 3 Gods?" I think we've explained to you so many times about it. Go and read about the Trinity here: http://www.newadvent.org/cathen/15047a.htm.

Any human being can recognize that the concept of Trinity is a human made theory and Allah rejected it as stated the holy book (the Quran).

Shinoda LP

23-09-03, 08:41 PM

Allah didn't reject it. The humans who made up Islam, and those who wrote the Quran rejected it.

My comment shouldn't come across as rude to you, because you directly mentioned Christianity as a man-made religion, and to me Islam is one too.

Good day!

IceTea

23-09-03, 10:00 PM

Originally posted by Shinoda LP
Allah didn't reject it. The humans who made up Islam, and those who wrote the Quran rejected it.

My comment shouldn't come across as rude to you, because you directly mentioned Christianity as a man-made religion, and to me Islam is one too.

Good day!

I quoted below verse incase you didn't came across it before:

"O People of the Book ! exceed not the limits in your religion, and say not of ALLAH anything but the truth. Verily, the Messiah, Jesus, son of Mary, was only a Messenger of ALLAH, and a fulfillment of HIS word which HE has sent down to Mary, and a mercy from HIM. So believe in ALLAH and HIS Messengers, and say not, `They are three.' Desist, it will be better for you. Verily, ALLAH is the only One God. Holy is HE, far above having a son. To HIM belongs whatever is in the heavens and whatever is in the earth. And sufficient is ALLAH as a guardian."

And another verse:

"They surely disbelieve who say, `ALLAH is the third of three;' there is no god but the One God. And if they do not desist from what they say, a grievous punishment shall surely befall those of them that disbelieve."

mkongwe

23-09-03, 11:23 PM

Originally posted by Milliardo Peacecraft
It might be so that, as commonly held, you might be descendants of Ishmael, Abraham's son; nonetheless, it was with Isaac, who later on will father Jacob, whome the Lord kept His covenant. And since Jesus is of this lineage, then rightfully this has more weight than those of the line of Ishmael, whom God has not had a covenant with.

Islamic states that the covenant between God, Abraham and his only son Ishmael was made and sealed when Ishmael was supposed to be sacrificed. And on the same day were Abraham, Ishmael and all men of the household circumcised while Isaac was even born yet (Genesis 17:24-27: << And Abraham was ninety years old and nine, when he was circumcised in the flesh of his foreskin. And Ishmael his son was thirteen years old, when he was circumcised in the flesh of his foreskin. In the selfsame day was Abraham circumcised, and Ishmael his son. And all the men of his house, born in the house, and bought with money of the stranger, were circumcised with him>>.
A year later Isaac was born and circumcised when he was eight days old (Genesis 21:4-5): And Abraham circumcised his son Isaac being eight days old, as God had commanded him. And Abraham was an hundred years old, when his son Isaac was born unto him.
So when the covenant was made and sealed (circumcision and sacrifice) Abraham was ninety-nine and Ishmael thirteen years old. Isaac was born a year later when Abraham was a hundred years old.
The descendants of Ishmael, Prophet Muhammad (PBUH), including all Muslim, remain faithful until today to this covenant of circumcision. In their prayers at least five times a day the Muslims include the praise of Abraham and his descendants with the praise of Muhammad (PBUH) and his descendants.

Qur’an 17:15 Who receiveth guidance, receiveth it for his own benefit: who goeth astray doth so to his own loss. No bearer of burdens can bear the burden of another: nor would we visit with our wrath until we had sent a Messenger (to give warning).
The Bible states (Genesis 15:4): And behold, the word of the Lord came unto him (Abraham), saying, This (Elizier of Damascus) shall not be thine heir, but he that shall come forth out of thine own bowels shall be thine heir. So Ishmael was also heir.
Deuteronomy 21:15-17: If a man have two wives, one beloved, and another hated, and they have born him children, both the beloved and the hated; and if the firstborn son be hers that was hated: Then it shall be, when he maketh his son to inherit that which he hath, that he may not make the son of the beloved firstborn before the son of the hated, which is indeed the firstborn: But he shall acknowledge the son of the hated for the firstborn, by giving him a double portion of all that he hath: for he is the beginning of the strength; the right of the firstborn is he. Islam does not deny God’s blessing on Isaac and his descendant, but the son of promise is Ishmael from whom later arose Muhammad (PBUH) as the seal of Prophets.

mkongwe

24-09-03, 12:14 AM

mkongwe

24-09-03, 08:55 AM

Originally posted by Milliardo Peacecraft
Yes, He is. As the Athanasian Creed states:

"the Father is God, the Son is God, and the Holy Spirit is God, and yet there are not three Gods but one God"

Please read Matthew 1:18 Now the birth of Jesus Christ was on the wise: When as his mother Mary was espoused to Joseph, before they came together, she was found with child of the Holy Ghost.
Compare now with Luke 1:26-27
And in the sixth month the angel Gabriel was sent from God unto a city of Galilee, named Nazareth, To a virgin espoused to a man whose name was Joseph, of the house of David; and the virgin’s name was Mary.
So in the miraculous birth of Jesus, Matthew mentioned the Holy Ghost and Luke mentioned the angel Gabriel. What is the Holy Ghost then?

Milliardo Peacecraft

24-09-03, 12:20 PM

Originally posted by Shinoda LP
Allah didn't reject it. The humans who made up Islam, and those who wrote the Quran rejected it.

Well said, Shinoda.

On Abraham again: you only point to circumcision. This is not the covenant that we speak of. We find in Genesis 21:12 why Ishmael did not receive the covenant promised to Isaac and Israel: "Do not be distressed about the boy (Ishmael) or about your slave woman (his mother). Heed the demands of Sarah (Isaac's mother), no matter what she is asking you; for it is through Isaac that descendants shall bear your name." Though in verse 13 we find that through Ishmael will be made a great nation (possibly Egypt or the other tribes beside Israel), we of course will find later that these people will set themselves against Israel, and were punished even more by God than Israel was. So we can see clearly from where the lineage and prestige shall come from, from where the Messiah came. It is from the throne of David, the House of Israel, not another nation nor people.

Matthew 15:9--actually, you twist the very meaning of this passage out of its context. I do not know whether you read why Jesus quoted it. Anyway, Jesus quotes Isaiah in here (Matthew 15:8-9) as a charge against the Pharisees and scribes because they question Jesus why His Disciples do not wash their hands before the meal. Jesus charge them with hypocrisy because they pile up laws upon people without them following it themselve. Time and again Jesus will level this charge against them.

Matthew 1:18 and Luke 1: 26-27. I do not know what your problem here is. The first one, in Matthew, Mary was found with child of the Holy Ghost. The Holy Spirit is one of the Persons in the Trinity--the Spirit guides the Church and was sent as protector of the Church. This passage foreshadows that by showing that the Holy Spirit gave Jesus to Mary, and indeed by doing so God gives Jesus to us. In Luke 1: 26-27 it simply states that the angel Gabriel announces to Mary of this event which occured to her, as we can see that indeed he says: "Hail full of grace! The Lord is with you." Two things we can surmise in this greeting: one, that Jesus is already with her, and that two through the Holy Spirit (as recorded in Matthew) God has brought Jesus to her. So really the two passages copliment each other.

mkongwe

24-09-03, 08:05 PM

Originally posted by Milliardo Peacecraft
" Though in verse 13 we find that through Ishmael will be made a great nation
Where in the Bible does it say that Allah would not make any covenant with Ishmael?

because they question Jesus why His Disciples do not wash their hands before the meal.
Do you wash your hand before meals? or Do you worship Jesus?
Jesus had prophesied (Matthew 15:9) that people will worship him uselessly and believing in doctrines made by men: But in vain they do worship me, teaching for doctrines the commandments of men.

the Holy Spirit gave Jesus to Mary,... that Jesus is already with her,... God has brought Jesus to her.
If you mention three person are sitting together or eating togethr,does it mean that they are forming one person?

Milliardo Peacecraft

24-09-03, 11:25 PM

Originally posted by mkongwe
Where in the Bible does it say that Allah would not make any covenant with Ishmael?

As far as I can tell there is no more mention of Ishmael or his sons afterwards; the focus has now been towards Isaac and Jacob (Israel). Proof of that is that even the Jews know the lineage to be Abraham-Isaac-Jacob. You are free to look for more references about Ishmael in the Bible if you want to, but it will not be much of a successful search.

Do you wash your hand before meals? or Do you worship Jesus?

Yes, I wash my hands before meansl, but that is to keep clean and be free of germs, not because I will be ritually impure. The Pharisees and scribes charge Jesus and His Disciples of ritual impurity--this is important in Judaism because one cannot participate in the Sabbath and feasts like Passover if one were ritually impure. This is why Jesus called the hypocrites and quoted the verse in Isaiah about them--because they use religion as a means to levy such hardships on people and draw them away from God. As you can see the quoting of Jesus has nothing to do about Himself, but was used as a charge against the Pharisees. Do use the Bible properly if you will make such quotes next time, and read the verse in relation to the context of the whole narrative to understand. What you do is called proof texting--the use of a verse or passage not designed for the puprose at hand, thus twisting the very meaning of the verse intended.

Jesus had prophesied (Matthew 15:9) that people will worship him uselessly and believing in doctrines made by men: But in vain they do worship me, teaching for doctrines the commandments of men.

Do read carefully again my comment above--the vain worship specified by Jesus has to do with the ritual of washing and being clean before the Sabbath and other important Jewish feasts. Being ritually pure is very big among the Pharisees, thus Jesus charged them with hypocrisy because what they do is merely outward gestures. Ironically, the quote you just mentioned actually points to the fact that by what the Pharisees are doing, they draw people away from Jesus, as Jesus teaches these outward gestures are the ones not needed, but what is important is what comes out of a person--if you will follow the passage to its conclusion in Matthew 15:20. As you can see, you are really losing this one badly mkongwe, because you desperately use passages out of context to disprove, but in so doing you do not read first the context by which such quotes have been used. Like I said, read and understand.

If you mention three person are sitting together or eating togethr,does it mean that they are forming one person?

Depends on the situation. We know that people who come together and form a corporation do form a single legal entity, which even in law is addressed to like a person. And in context people coming together do form as one person, which is called bonding and harmony. This unity of persons are contextual in nature though. It is wholly different when one speaks of the Trinity, as there the unity made is real and palpable, not just in context.

mkongwe

25-09-03, 08:19 AM

[i]Originally posted by Milliardo Peacecraft, Proof of that is that even the Jews know the lineage to be Abraham-Isaac-Jacob.

Where in the Bible does it say that Allah would not make any covenant with Ishmael?

This is why Jesus called the hypocrites and quoted the verse in Isaiah about them--
Matthew 15:9 Did you read wash,should you read worship,reason worship is nothing to do with wash your hand before meals,let me ask you again:did Jusus ever claim to be God or to say"Here am I,your GOD, and WORSHIP me?
Jesus had prophesied (Matthew 15:9) that people will worship him uselessly and believing in doctrines made by men: But in vain they do worship me, teaching for doctrines the commandments of men.

It is wholly different when one speaks of the Trinity, as there the unity made is real and palpable, not just in context.
There is no basis or proof in the Bible whatsoever for the acceptance of the Trinity.
Did you read Jeremiah 17:5 "Cursed the man who trusts in man"

Milliardo Peacecraft

25-09-03, 09:56 AM

Originally posted by mkongwe
Where in the Bible does it say that Allah would not make any covenant with Ishmael?

I think I've already explained to you that since the covenant was with Isaac, and indeed with Israel, and since no mention of a covenant was made with Ishmael, then it is fitting to conclude that no covenant with Ishmael existed. Do come back here if you find in the Bible where it says Ishmael had a covenant. And no, circumcision doesn't count.

Matthew 15:9 Did you read wash,should you read worship,reason worship is nothing to do with wash your hand before meals.

It is evident you are not even familiar with Judaism, or else you won't even make this statement. Again, ritual purification is very much a big deal for the Pharisees. If they eat anything ritually unclean or have touched anything unclean and then ate without washing their hands, then they are ritually unclean and unfit to partake in the Sabbath rites in the Temple. Thus cleaning one's self is very much part of their worship, as it signifies that they are pure and fit to be before the Holy of Holies. That is why circumcision is also big among the Pharisees, as this is another ritual purification for them. You really should brush up on Jewish practices so that you know what you're talking about instead of proof texting.

Let me ask you again:did Jusus ever claim to be God or to say"Here am I,your GOD, and WORSHIP me?
Jesus had prophesied (Matthew 15:9) that people will worship him uselessly and believing in doctrines made by men: But in vain they do worship me, teaching for doctrines the commandments of men.

I have explained to you what the quote made by Jesus means; it has nothing to do with how Christians see Christ but rather Jesus is pointing to the hypocrisy of the Pharisees. Have you just plucked that verse out of nowhere? If you did, then you should read the whole passage to see why Jesus quoted it. I will direct you to Matthew 15:1-20 and read it, so you will have a better grasp on the context of Jesus' quoting Isaiah.

There is no basis or proof in the Bible whatsoever for the acceptance of the Trinity.
Did you read Jeremiah 17:5 "Cursed the man who trusts in man"

http://www.newadvent.org/cathen/15047a.htm Read again the whole article and come back here and tell me if there is really no basis. Funny how you spout off nonsense when you haven't even read the whole thing.

IceTea

25-09-03, 10:06 AM

Originally posted by Milliardo Peacecraft
Do come back here if you find in the Bible where it says Ishmael had a covenant. And no, circumcision doesn't count.

First show the real Bible then say above statement.

Milliardo Peacecraft

25-09-03, 10:25 AM

Originally posted by IceTea
First show the real Bible then say above statement.

Icebag, if you can't contribute anything better to this discussion, then don't even post. As it is I am enjoying this discussion, but that's because the replies I get aren't even enough for me, just like that thread I made about the Qur'an, which none here has been able to sufficiently explain why something so holy would only be lost, or burned by the third caliph, and have him come out with a translation that for all we know, might really be different from the original. But that issue is for that thread, not here. In any case, the chapters about Ishamel are in Genesis 16-21, apart from a brief mention of Ishmael's lineage and passing in Genesis 25. Genesis 16 records that Ishmael and his kinsmen will oppose his fellow kin--a prophecy fulfilled in the neighboring tribes going against Israel.

silver_ring

26-09-03, 12:25 AM

Originally posted by Milliardo Peacecraft
Icebag, if you can't contribute anything better to this discussion, then don't even post. As it is I am enjoying this discussion, but that's because the replies I get aren't even enough for me, just like that thread I made about the Qur'an, which none here has been able to sufficiently explain why something so holy would only be lost, or burned by the third caliph, and have him come out with a translation that for all we know, might really be different from the original. But that issue is for that thread, not here. In any case, the chapters about Ishamel are in Genesis 16-21, apart from a brief mention of Ishmael's lineage and passing in Genesis 25. Genesis 16 records that Ishmael and his kinsmen will oppose his fellow kin--a prophecy fulfilled in the neighboring tribes going against Israel. yes first go and find out where is the original one ...!!! still you cant answer those questions (http://www.englishsabla.com/forum/showthread.php?s=&threadid=13355&highlight=questions+wont+answer)

Milliardo Peacecraft

26-09-03, 02:15 AM

Originally posted by silver_ring
yes first go and find out where is the original one ...!!! still you cant answer those questions (http://www.englishsabla.com/forum/showthread.php?s=&threadid=13355&highlight=questions+wont+answer)

I think we've already told you before that the original copies of the Bible are extant and can easily be found. Some of those copies are in the Vatican Library, while others are in various museums around the world. Experts have studied these copies and verified them. However, that can't be said of the Qur'an, whose first copy was lost or burned, thus leaving the Qur'an we have now suspect since there's no original to verify if it has actually followed the first one. Since no copy of the first existed, we can assume then that the Qur'an we have now is a corrupt version of the earlier, inspite of the protestations of Muslim scholars. The only way to judge its veracity is to produce the early copy--but with none in hand, we can't do that now, can we?

silver_ring

26-09-03, 02:34 AM

Originally posted by Milliardo Peacecraft
I think we've already told you before that the original copies of the Bible are extant and can easily be found. Some of those copies are in the Vatican Library, while others are in various museums around the world. Experts have studied these copies and verified them. However, that can't be said of the Qur'an, whose first copy was lost or burned, thus leaving the Qur'an we have now suspect since there's no original to verify if it has actually followed the first one. Since no copy of the first existed, we can assume then that the Qur'an we have now is a corrupt version of the earlier, inspite of the proestations of Muslim scholars. The only way to judge its veracity is to produce the early copy--but with none in hand, we can't do that now, can we?

i am really wondering ... which faith is in your heart ..!!!

you admired that bibles writtin by humans .is it not?whatever they are .. finally they only humans

.. and humans simply could be in mistake . and you are following them..and you have read enough about the mistakes in bible ...

sanwin25

26-09-03, 03:14 AM

So where is the original Quran ?

You know the one which Mohammed approved ?

Milliardo Peacecraft

26-09-03, 11:54 AM

Originally posted by silver_ring
i am really wondering ... which faith is in your heart ..!!!

My faith is the Catholic faith. You know that very well.

you admired that bibles writtin by humans .is it not?whatever they are .. finally they only humans

As much as the Qur'an is also made by humans, inspite of what your Muslim teachers would like you to believe. Something that's made by God would not be lost or burned down by another human--something which the original Qur'an clearly has not survived. Thus inspite of your scholars' ramblings, the very fact it is lost and what we have now is a transliteration of the original shows us that it is only made by humans, not by Allah. Christians say that the Bible is written by men who were guided by God, and as well the Jews also say this is true of the Old Testament manuscripts. It's time Islam admits the same of the Qur'an--there's no shame in admitting such. It won't change the message, unless you would think such an admission would make that book fall from grace. But if that happens, then the next logical step would be to repudate Islam itself. So admitting it is made by humans shouldn't be a cause for shame, since if you are a true Muslim, you can still proudly say that the Qur'an is made by men who were inspired by God, just as we Christians proudly say it, without shame or guilt.

...and humans simply could be in mistake . and you are following them..and you have read enough about the mistakes in bible ...

Does God make mistakes? No. Even the so-called mistakes you say have meaning, and are symbolic. Take for instance the differences between the narratives of Jesus' lineage and birth in Matthew and Luke. Non-Christians might say that the differences prove that one must be false, and the other true, or both must be false. But theologians see a much deeper meaning to this: Matthew shows us that Jesus is a Jew's Jew, faithful to God's covenant, while Luke shows us that Jesus is first among men; and indeed, His lineage goes all the way back to God Himself. So there are theological meanings to these so-called mistakes.

mkongwe

26-09-03, 12:00 PM

Originally posted by Milliardo Peacecraft
Do come back here if you find in the Bible where it says Ishmael had a covenant. And no, circumcision doesn't count

Allah tells Abraham in Genesis 17:7 And I will establish my covenant between me and you and to your descendants after you throughout their generations for an everlasting covenant, to be God after you and to your descendants after you.
Genesis 15:14…And be hold, the word of the Lord came unto him (Abraham), saying, This (Eliezer of Damascus) shall not be thine heir, but he shall come forth out of thine own bowels shall be thine heir…So Ishmael was also heir.
Genesis 16:10…And the Angel of the Lord said unto her (Hagar), I will multiply thy seed exceedingly, that it shall not be numbered for multitude…
Genesis 17:20 …And for Ishmael, I have heard thee: Behold, I have blessed him, and will make him fruitful, and will multiply him exceedingly: twelve princess shall he beger, and I will make him great nation…
Genesis 21:13 … And also of the son of the bondwoman will I make a nation, because he is thy seed…
Genesis 21:18 … Arise, lift up the lad (Ishmael), and hold him in thine hand, for I will make him a great nation….
Galatians 4:21-24... Tell me, you who desire to be under law, do you not hear the law? for it is written that Abraham had two sons, one by a slave and one by a free woman. But the son of the slave was born according to the flesh, the son of the free woman through promise. Now this is an allegory: these women are two covenants.
You will see the contradiction in Genesis 22:2...It is mentioned there “thine only son Isaac”. Should it not have been written “thine only son Ishmael”. When Ishmael was thirteen years old and Isaac not born yet? When Isaac was born Abraham had two sons. Because of chauvinism the name Ishmael was changed to Isaac in all of Genesis 22, but God preserved the word “only” to show us what it should have been.

I will direct you to Matthew 15:1-20 and read it, so you will have a better grasp on the context of Jesus' quoting Isaiah.
Jesus worshiped God as any other mortal: Luke 5:16 “And he withdrew himself into the wilderness, and prayed”
Jesus said to him, “Begone, Satan! For it is written, ‘you shall worship the Lord your God and him only shall you serve”
Jesus had prophesied (Matthew 15:9) that people will worship him uselessly and believing in doctrines made by men: But in vain they do worship me, teaching for doctrines the commandments of men.
Let me ask you again:did Jusus ever claim to be God or to say"Here am I,your GOD, and WORSHIP me?
Please don't ignore my question.

Read again the whole article and come back here and tell me if there is really no basis. Funny how you spout off nonsense when you haven't even read the whole thing.
That is why I ask you. There is no basis or proof in the Bible whatsoever for the acceptance of the Trinity.
Please read Jeremiah 17:5 "Cursed the man who trusts in man"

Milliardo Peacecraft

26-09-03, 01:12 PM

About Ishmael again: you forget that it is prophecied as well that Ishamel and his descendants will be set up against its neighbors, who later on we shall see to be Jewish Israel. The banishment of Ishmael from Abraham and the lifting up of Isaac, and later on of Jacob (Israel) shows us that the covenant was fulfilled with Isaac, not anymore with Ishmael. Though Ishmael is promised a great nation to come (possibly Egypt), it will not surpass the greatness of Israel, as we see later on again with the resto f the Old Testament.

Galatians 4:21-24... Tell me, you who desire to be under law, do you not hear the law? for it is written that Abraham had two sons, one by a slave and one by a free woman. But the son of the slave was born according to the flesh, the son of the free woman through promise. Now this is an allegory: these women are two covenants.

Again, you are proof texting. Read the rest of the passage for your understanding, form Galatians 4:25-31--(24) One was from Mount Sinai, bearing children for slavery; this is Hagar.
25 Hagar represents Sinai, a mountain in Arabia; it corresponds to the present Jerusalem, for she is in slavery along with her children.
26
But the Jerusalem above is freeborn, and she is our mother.
27 For it is written: "Rejoice, you barren one who bore no children; break forth and shout, you who were not in labor; for more numerous are the children of the deserted one than of her who has a husband." 16
28 Now you, brothers, like Isaac, are children of the promise.
29 But just as then the child of the flesh persecuted the child of the spirit, it is the same now.
30 But what does the scripture say? "Drive out the slave woman and her son! For the son of the slave woman shall not share the inheritance with the son" of the freeborn.
31 Therefore, brothers, we are children not of the slave woman but of the freeborn woman.

Paul here is contrasting between those who are under the Law--Judaism--and those who have accepted Christ. Note that Paul mentions that it is Isaac who is born of the promise (verse 28) and that he affirms Ishmael being driven out from Abraham (and in conclusion, from God as well) in verse 30. The inheritance--the salvation that is in Christ--shall not be shared by the children of slavery (slavery in sin, that is, as contrast to Paul referring to himself as a slave for Christ). Paul concludes then that as Christians we must be born of the free woman, not of the slave. Paul is thus contrasting here in allegorical terms the fates of Ishamel and Isaac as the fates of those who have rejected Christ and accepted Him.

You will see the contradiction in Genesis 22:2...It is mentioned there “thine only son Isaac”.[/qoute]

Nope, it is not a contradiction. By driving out Hagar and Ishmael, as I have mentioned, they have lost the inheritance and covenant due to them, and this passed onto Isaac, in fulfillment of the fact that from the seed of Jacob shall come the Savior, from the House of Israel shall rise the King of all. Thus God has fulfilled this in Isaac and later on in Jacob. So you can see this is a prophetic message of the coming of Christ.

[quote]chauvinism the name Ishmael was changed to Isaac in all of Genesis 22, but God preserved the word “only” to show us what it should have been.

Nope. See the explanation I have given.

hiped God as any other mortal: Luke 5:16 “And he withdrew himself into the wilderness, and prayed”

Prayer is a means of communication between the hosts in heaven and those on earth. It doesn't necessarily mean worship. Jesus employed that mode so as not to fully reveal His nature to most until He has fulfilled what He came to do: to die and rise up so that through Him, our sins are borne. As you can see elsewhere, He can communicate and indeed show His true nature if He wanted to (the Transfiguration is one such instance).

I ask you again: did Jusus ever claim to be God or to say"Here am I,your GOD, and WORSHIP me?
Please don't ignore my question.

As I have already posted, Jesus has declared: "Amen, amen, I say to you, before Abraham came to be, I AM." (John 8:58) This declaration is, as explained: I AM: an expression that late Jewish tradition understood as Yahweh's (God's) own self-designation (Isaiah 43:10); see the note on John 4:26. Jesus is here placed on a par with Yahweh (God). So yes, Jesus has declared it.

silver_ring

26-09-03, 10:37 PM

Originally posted by sanwin25
So where is the original Quran ?

You know the one which Mohammed approved ?

yes i do

silver_ring

26-09-03, 10:49 PM

Originally posted by Milliardo Peacecraft
[B]My faith is the Catholic faith. You know that very well.

i hope that u r wearing hejab !! and not showing ppl ur beauty

As much as the Qur'an is also made by humans, inspite of what your Muslim teachers would like you to believe. Something that's made by God would not be lost or burned down by another human--something which the original Qur'an clearly has not survived. Thus inspite of your scholars' ramblings, the very fact it is lost and what we have now is a transliteration of the original shows us that it is only made by humans, not by Allah. Christians say that the Bible is written by men who were guided by God, and as well the Jews also say this is true of the Old Testament manuscripts. It's time Islam admits the same of the Qur'an--there's no shame in admitting such. It won't change the message, unless you would think such an admission would make that book fall from grace. But if that happens, then the next logical step would be to repudate Islam itself. So admitting it is made by humans shouldn't be a cause for shame, since if you are a true Muslim, you can still proudly say that the Qur'an is made by men who were inspired by God, just as we Christians proudly say it, without shame or guilt.
thanks for making me laugh

[font=comic sans ms]Does God make mistakes? No. Even the so-called mistakes you say have meaning, and are symbolic. Take for instance the differences between the narratives of Jesus' lineage and birth in Matthew and Luke. Non-Christians might say that the differences prove that one must be false
unacceptable

mkongwe

27-09-03, 12:41 AM

Originally posted by Milliardo Peacecraft
Christians say that the Bible is written by men who were guided by God, and as well the Jews also say this is true of the Old Testament manuscripts. ...
Does God make mistakes? No.

We will take the most popular Bibles , the King James Version (K.J.V.), the Revised Standard Version (R.S.V.) , the New International Version (N.I.V.) , the Good News Bible (G.N.B.), and the Living Bible Version (L.B.V.) and contrast verses within these Bibles .
verse Matthew 17:21
----------------------
K.J.V. "Howbeit this kind goes not out but by prayer and fasting
R.S.V. (not included)
N.I.V. (not included)
G.N.B. (not included)
L.B.V. (not included)
==================
verse Mark 9:44
-------------------
K.J.V. "Where their warm dies not, and the fire is not quenched"
R.S.V. (not included)
G.N.B. (not included)
N.I.V. (not included)
L.B.V. (not included)
=================
verse Mark 16:9-20
----------------------
K.J.V. (not omitted )
R.S.V. (omitted in edition 1952 and recently restored with the footnote "not include in the most reliable manuscripts)
====================
verse Luke 9:56
-------------------
K.J.V. "For the son of man is not come to destroy men's live but to save.
R.S.V. (not included)
N.I.V. (not included)
G.N.B. (not included)
L.B.V. (not included)
==================

verse Luke 17:36
---------------------
K.J.V. "Two men shall be in the field, the one shall be taken and the other left"
R.S.V. (not included)
N.I.V. (not included)
G.N.B. (not included)
===================
verse John 5:4
------------------
K.J.V. "For an Angel went down at a certain season into the pool and troubled water. Whosoever then after the troubling of the water stepped in was made of whatsoever disease he had"
R.S.V. (not included)
N.I.V. (not included)
G.N.V. (not included)
===================
verse 1 John 5:7
--------------------
K.J.V. "For there are three that bear witness in Heaven, the Father, and the word and the Holy Ghost, and these three are one"
R.S.V. (not included)
N.I.V. "For there are three that testify; the Spirit, the Water, and the Blood and these three are in agreement."
G.N.B. "There are three witnesses; the Spirit, the Water, and the Blood,
L.B.V. (not included)
=========================
the word "begotten" is not included in verse; [[John 3:16]]
---------------
K.J.V. "For God so loved the world, that he gave his only begotten son"
R.S.V. "For God so loved the world that he gave his only son"
N.I.V. "For God so loved the world that he gave his one and only son"
G.N.B. "For God so loved the world so much that he gave his only son"
L.B.V. "For God loved the world so much that he gave his only son"
============================
verse Romans 7:17
---------------------
R.s.V. "I do not understand my own actions"
K.J.V. (not included)
===========================
verse Hebrew 12:8
---------------------
K.J.V. "Then you are bastards, and not sons."
R.S.V. "Then you are illegitimate children and not sons."
G.N.B. "It means you are not real sons, but bastards."
L.B.V. "It means that you are not God's son at all"
=====================
verse Job 13:15
-------------------
K.J.V. "Though he slay me yet I trust him"
R.S.V. "he will slay me, I have no hope"
G.N.B. "I've lost all hope so what if God kills me."
L.B.V. "God may kill me for saying this, in fact I expect him to."
=====================
verse Ezekiel 16:25
-----------------------
K.J.V. "And had opened your feet to every one that passed by."
R.S.V. "Offering yourself to any passer by"
N.I.V. "Offering your body with increasing promiscuity to who passed by"
L.B.I. "You offered your beauty to every man who came by"
D.R.V. "And had prostituted thyself to every one that passes by"
=========================
This is excluding the deadly argument between the Catholics and Protestants who have Bibles that differ even more;
The Catholics have 7 additional Chapters/books called "Deutrocanonicals" their names are; (Tobit, Judith, Esther, The Wisdom of Solomon, Baruch, 1st. Maccabees, and 2nd. Maccabees) .
-------------
a total of 73 Chapters/books within the Catholic Bible
============
The Protestants in the year 1611 AD , removed the Deutrocanonicals from the Bible
--------------
66 Chapters/books within the Protestant Bible .
If the Christians had obeyed the Bible from the start , than all the Christians persecuting Christians would not have occurred and will stop occurring .
" What thing soever I command you, observe to do it: thou shalt not add thereto, nor diminish from it." De 12:32
" Add thou not unto his words, lest he reprove thee, and thou be found a liar."Pr 30:6
"For I testify unto every man that hearth the words of the prophecy of this book, If any man shall add unto these things, God shall add unto him the plagues that are written in this book:" Re 22:18
"And if any man shall take away from the words of the book of this prophecy, God shall take away his part out of the book of life, and out of the holy city, and from the things which are written in this book." Re 22:19
By the Grace of Allah , the Holy Qur'an , the Third and Final Warning to humans , has been protected by Allah from change for over 1,400 hundred years .

Milliardo Peacecraft

27-09-03, 03:00 AM

Originally posted by mkongwe
We will take the most popular Bibles , the King James Version (K.J.V.), the Revised Standard Version (R.S.V.) , the New International Version (N.I.V.) , the Good News Bible (G.N.B.), and the Living Bible Version (L.B.V.) and contrast verses within these Bibles .

Most of what you posted are only differences in translations; this does not take away the fact that mistakes are not made. As for some verses not placed, it is usually noted as to what's the most reliable transcript is. Agan, this does not take away the very nature and meaning of the passages presented.

the word "begotten" is not included in verse; [[John 3:16]]
---------------
K.J.V. "For God so loved the world, that he gave his only begotten son"
R.S.V. "For God so loved the world that he gave his only son"
N.I.V. "For God so loved the world that he gave his one and only son"
G.N.B. "For God so loved the world so much that he gave his only son"
L.B.V. "For God loved the world so much that he gave his only son"

Usually only and begotten are synonymous, thus it is understood that Christ is the only begotten Son when it is read.

============================
This is excluding the deadly argument between the Catholics and Protestants who have Bibles that differ even more;
The Catholics have 7 additional Chapters/books called "Deutrocanonicals" their names are; (Tobit, Judith, Esther, The Wisdom of Solomon, Baruch, 1st. Maccabees, and 2nd. Maccabees) .
-------------
a total of 73 Chapters/books within the Catholic Bible
============
The Protestants in the year 1611 AD , removed the Deutrocanonicals from the Bible
--------------
66 Chapters/books within the Protestant Bible .

Luther removed them since he thought them to be not inspired; however, early Christians have all 73 books, since the Council of Carthage in 419 A.D. has ratified this listing to be the final one. Both Catholic and Orthodox Churches have 73 books. Some Protestant Bible scholars actually think Luther made a mistake in taking out those books, and are looking into the possibility of reinserting them into Protestant Bibles. Do note that as far as the Catholic Church is concerned, Luther's action on this is anathema, and sees this as his personal choice, not to be associated with the general consensus of Christianity.

If the Christians had obeyed the Bible from the start , than all the Christians persecuting Christians would not have occurred and will stop occurring .

The same that if Muslims follow the Qur'an faithfully, they would stop persecuting fellow Muslims and people of different faith.

sanwin25

27-09-03, 06:46 AM

Originally posted by sanwin25
So where is the original Quran ?

You know the one which Mohammed approved ?

yes i do

Yes I do WHAT ?

Yes you DO NOT KNOW WHERE THE ORIGINAL QURAN IS ?

You are correct.

The original was written on leaves and bark and bones.

Unfortunately Uthman BURNT them all, so that no one could question his ONE FINAL VERSION.

Think about it.

You have your passport.

You take a photocopy or photograph.

Then you BURN the original passport so that no one can say the photocpy is fake.

Incredible !

mkongwe

27-09-03, 07:46 AM

Originally posted by Milliardo Peacecraft

Paul concludes then that as Christians we must be born of the free woman, not of the slave.

Is Paul God?
God says in Genesis 15:14…And be hold, the word of the Lord came unto him (Abraham), saying, This (Eliezer of Damascus) shall not be thine heir, but he shall come forth out of thine own bowels shall be thine heir…So Ishmael was also heir.

Genesis 16:3-4…and Sarah gave her Hagar to her husband Abram to be his wife and he went in to Hagar, and she conceived.

As I have already posted, Jesus has declared: "Amen, amen, I say to you, before Abraham came to be, I AM." (John 8:58) This declaration is, as explained: I AM: an expression that late Jewish tradition understood as Yahweh's (God's) own self-designation (Isaiah 43:10); see the note on John 4:26. Jesus is here placed on a par with Yahweh (God). So yes, Jesus has declared it.
Please don't ADD
"For I testify unto every man that hearth the words of the prophecy of this book, If any man shall add unto these things, God shall add unto him the plagues that are written in this book:" Re 22:18.
Let me ask you again:did Jusus ever claim to be God or to say"Here am I,your GOD, and WORSHIP me?
Please don't ignore my question.

The Trinity is not Biblical. The word Trinity is not even in the Bible, trinity never taught by Jesus and was never mentioned by him.
There is no basis or proof in the Bible whatsoever for the acceptance of the Trinity.
The Trinity, the Divinity of Jesus ,the Original Sin, the Atonement. All these are doctrines made by men. Jesus had prophesied (Matthew 15:9) that people will worship him uselessly and believing in doctrines made by men: But in vain they do worship me, teaching for doctrines the commandments of men.

silver_ring

27-09-03, 10:50 PM

Originally posted by sanwin25
Yes I do WHAT ?

Yes you DO NOT KNOW WHERE THE ORIGINAL QURAN IS ?

You are correct.

The original was written on leaves and bark and bones.

Unfortunately Uthman BURNT them all, so that no one could question his ONE FINAL VERSION.

Think about it.

You have your passport.

You take a photocopy or photograph.

Then you BURN the original passport so that no one can say the photocpy is fake.

Incredible !

this is the words of ALlah not passport .... and Uthman " alyhe alslaam" , burnt it infront of muslims after they collect it in one book .. and was good idea to burn it .

sanwin25

28-09-03, 04:34 AM

Sigh.

You are being thicker than usual.

I did not say it was a passport.

I just the passport as an analogy to something valuable to you.

So.

Why was it a good idea ?

A simple direct answer would be appreciated.

Not any of your ususal mumbo jumbo.

So I will ask you once again, slowly this time :

W H Y
W A S
I T
A
G O O D
I D E A
T O
B U R N
T H E
O R I G I N A L
C O P I E S ?

Milliardo Peacecraft

28-09-03, 05:22 AM

Originally posted by mkongwe
Is Paul God?
God says in Genesis 15:14…And be hold, the word of the Lord came unto him (Abraham), saying, This (Eliezer of Damascus) shall not be thine heir, but he shall come forth out of thine own bowels shall be thine heir…So Ishmael was also heir.

Since Ishamel and his mother Hagar were banished from Abraham by Sarah's request, the covenant fell on Isaac and he was made heir, not Ishmael. Again, this is reflected in the fact that Jews follow the line of Abraham-Isaac-Jacob, not Abraham-Ishmael. Ishmael effectively lost his right to become heir to Abraham.

Please don't ADD
"For I testify unto every man that hearth the words of the prophecy of this book, If any man shall add unto these things, God shall add unto him the plagues that are written in this book:" Re 22:18.

Nope, I am not adding. The verse I quoted is in John. You are free to look at John 8 for your own satisfaction: http://www.usccb.org/nab/bible/john/john8.htm. I have not ignored your question, and have in fact answered it very straightly. I wonder what part of the explanation I gave you can't seem to understand. Or maybe you refuse to do so, in which case I cannot help you then, since you would not try to understand.

The Trinity is not Biblical. The word Trinity is not even in the Bible, trinity never taught by Jesus and was never mentioned by him.

This is perhaps the poorest of arguments. Just because something is not mentioned does not mean it is not taught, or even has a reference to. I have given you the link to study about the Trinity. It puts all the references and explanations about them there. If, like I said, you refuse to understand, then I cannot do anything about it. That is your problem, not mine.

You see, as sanwin has observed, you are merely like parrots who talk but do not think. I don't even know if you read. Do you read? You quote verses out of context, not bothering to read them in light of the passage where it came from. If you read the whole passage from where you take those verses, you will realize it says differently from what you were taught by your Muslim "scholars"--who are just as clueless of the Bible anyway, since this is not their line of expertise. You ask us Christians to give you proof--we gave you proof, and then tell us that it is not so. We can't do anything anymore for people who refuse to understand, since that is your problem to work out.

Milliardo Peacecraft

28-09-03, 05:26 AM

Originally posted by sanwin25
W H Y
W A S
I T
A
G O O D
I D E A
T O
B U R N
T H E
O R I G I N A L
C O P I E S ?
Sanwin, we've asked this before to them, and they didn't as much as try to reply (and funny that they charge us for not being direct. How amusing). I will reply for them: the original Qur'an was burned because it did not suit the taste of those who wanted to make religion as an excuse to occupy people's lands. So what better way to hide something than to burn it, make a new copy, and say to the world, "Behold! This is the Qur'an as we know it. All praise!" while lying to people's faces and laughing it good for burning the original.

sanwin25

28-09-03, 05:30 AM

I agree.

Although I will let Silver Ring have one more shot at it.

Although I don't expect him to be deal with it anyway.

After all it would acutally involve USING your brain, not just being a parrot.

silver_ring

28-09-03, 06:29 AM

Originally posted by Milliardo Peacecraft
Sanwin, we've asked this before to them, and they didn't as much as try to reply (and funny that they charge us for not being direct. How amusing). I will reply for them: the original Qur'an was burned because it did not suit the taste of those who wanted to make religion as an excuse to occupy people's lands. So what better way to hide something than to burn it, make a new copy, and say to the world, "Behold! This is the Qur'an as we know it. All praise!" while lying to people's faces and laughing it good for burning the original.

we have answered it several times

and here 'll be again my same answer

W H Y
W A S
I T
A
G O O D
I D E A
T O
B U R N
T H E
O R I G I N A L
C O P I E S

After Abu Bakr (ra), the Caliph Umar ruled, and after the Caliph Umar, Uthman Ibn Affan was elected as Caliph. During the period of the Caliph Uthman, Islam spread to many areas. The Muslims who were not Arabs, couldn't read the Qur'an as it should have been read. They changed the meanings of the verses, and many variant readings sprung out, because the people were ignorant of Arabic. Old Arabic was written as lines, and now one can distinguish such and such alphabets easily by marks. But this was not the case in older times. That's why, the Caliph Uthman immediately told a committee of scribes to write the Qur'an in the dialect of the Quraysh, because that was how the Qur'an was revealed. When the scribes had prepared many copies from the one which Abu Bakr (ra) had compiled, each copy was sent to each city under Muslim rule. Other copies which were not from Uthman were burned. Then, from the standard copies, more copies were made and this time there were also teachers of the people to teach them how to recite the Qur'an.

Reasons for the burning
The Christian missionaries have been openly making the allegation that Uthman (ra) ordered all copies of the Qur'an to be burnt because of the varying content. This is not true. We quote Dr. Ahmad Shafaat on this issue:

Now suppose that there were at any time any variations in the Qur'an other than those caused by scribal errors or failure of memory or due to some minor differences in script. That is, suppose that some individuals or groups deliberately held onto a text of the Qur'an that they knew was different from the one followed by others and that was closer to the original text than the one we possess. How could it then happen that from century to century and from country to country we find the same text of the Qur'an? It is said that 'Uthman, the third leader succeeding the Prophet, ordered people to burn all the texts of the Qur'an which were different from a certain text. But is it conceivable that people will submit to this order even if they thought 'Uthman's text was not the authentic text? Westerners may have the tendency to think that Muslim rulers must have always been tyrant dictators who could force the people to do anything. This is certainly not true of the early leaders of Muslims. But even if we assume that people lived in terror of their leaders, it was logistically impossible for 'Uthman to control every home. People could easily hide their various copies of the Qur'an and secretly pass them on to their descendants and through them on to us. It is self-evident and is also required by the teachings of the Qur'an that every Muslim should do his utmost to prevent the alteration or suppression of the word of God. For in passages where there are no variations alleged the Qur'an had condemned earlier nations for altering or fabricating the "divine" scripture. Thus in one such passage we read:

And woe unto those who write the scripture with their own hands and then say, "This is from God," that they may in this way obtain a small gain. Woe unto them for what their hands have written and woe unto them for what they gain thereby! (2:79).

In the following passage condemns even hiding any part of the revelation, much less altering it:

[God says:] [/color=red]Those who hide what We have revealed of the clear matters and of the guidance, after We have made it clear for the people, are accursed of God and accursed of those who (are entitled to) curse - except such of them as repent and amend and make manifest the truth. These it is to whom I turn in forgiveness. And I am the forgiving, the merciful[/color] (2:159-160).

Many early Muslims are expected to live up to the obligation implied in these verses even if it meant loosing their lives. For, there has never been a shortage of Muslims who have been willing to give their lives for the sake of Islam. Hence any attempt by 'Uthman or anyone else would have been met with the stiffest resistance on the part of many Muslims. But we hear of no such resistance.

And what about the text that 'Uthman promulgated? How did he arrive at that text? On the basis of what text did the first two leaders, Abu Bakr and 'Umar governed the Muslim lands before him ? What text people had been using in their daily prayers in Medina, the city of the Prophet, which consisted almost entirely of Muslims, most having seen and heard the Prophet? What text was used throughout the land during sermons before the Friday congregational prayers? How could 'Uthman change the text that had been used for twelve years before him in the presence of hundreds of companions of the Prophet who could easily detect any change to the original text and were obligated by religious principles to prevent alterations in the word of God? And why at all would he want to change it, considering that the extant text says nothing in his favor? It is also important to keep in mind that the vast Muslim world was not homogeneous. There was as much diversity of opinion as one expects from any group of people. There were even conflicts, some of them armed. 'Uthman himself had opposition from some groups, one of which actually martyred him. Had the text he promulgated been less than 100% reliable his opponents would have made it an issue and accused him of changing the word of God. But the fact is that these opponents accused him of many things but we do not have any tradition, certainly not an early reliable one, in which they accuse him of changing the word of God.

It is indeed possible that 'Uthman did promulgate one particular text and ordered others to be burnt. For differences in script and copying errors during a period of fast conversion might have resulted in many manuscripts with errors. If these manuscripts were then used to make further copies, the errors would have multiplied. The best solution was that certain authenticated copies be sent to various centers of the Muslim world and all others destroyed. The very fact that the text whose copies were sent by 'Uthman was accepted throughout the Muslim world, by both his friends and foes, and the fact that no other text has ever been put forward as an alternative to the existing text proves that the text sent by 'Uthman was the authentic one.

In addition to the multiplying number of copying errors, there was probably another reason for promulgating a standard text. Earlier we noticed two peculiarities of the Arabic language: differences in script and absence of the vowel. These also could have resulted in confusion. Steps taken by 'Uthman effectively solved the problem caused by the first peculiarity: the differences in script. His solution to the second peculiarity -- the absence of vowels -- was to send a Qari along with the copy of the Qur'an to preserve the correct reading that the hundreds of companions had learnt from the Prophet. This was clearly not a satisfactory solution. Later, at the insistence of Zayd, the Governor of Basrah (45-53 H), dots were assigned as vowel points. Then during the reign of Abdul Malik (65-85 H.) Hajjaj bin Yusuf appointed scholars to assign new symbols for vowels while dots were used to distinguish different letters that were in some words looked the same.(Dr. Ahmad Shafaat, 2000, "Journal of the Muslim Research Institute", Canada) (http://www.answering-christianity.com/quran/quran_textual-reply.html#4)

sanwin25

28-09-03, 07:39 AM

Nope you didn't answer the question.

You posted earlier that Uthman burned the copies.

I asked why.

You couldn't answer. You just copied from some website without reading.

Too bad, you don't know what you believe in.

WHY DID UTHMAN BURN THE COPIES.

Milliardo Peacecraft

28-09-03, 08:25 AM

Originally posted by silver_ring
The Muslims who were not Arabs, couldn't read the Qur'an as it should have been read.

If that's so, why not just make a non-Arabic version? I fail to see why the original needs to be burned when it's a simple matter of translation.

Other copies which were not from Uthman were burned.

Agan, this doesn ot explain why the original has to be burned with the rest. It only shows, however, that Uthman was shrewd, and used the Qur'an as an excuse to consolidate his power, since he figured the original would undermine whatever he really believed in.

Now suppose that there were at any time any variations in the Qur'an other than those caused by scribal errors or failure of memory or due to some minor differences in script.['quote]

So this actually means the original was erroneous? But how can that be, when it is the first, and so should contain the seeds of Islam? This is stange logic being taught here.

[quote]That is, suppose that some individuals or groups deliberately held onto a text of the Qur'an that they knew was different from the one followed by others and that was closer to the original text than the one we possess.

How could it be "closer" when the original was lost or burned? Of course, one can say such and such is true or close since there's no comparison with the original. Very convenient excuse made. As I've said, we have strange logic being taught here.

But is it conceivable that people will submit to this order even if they thought 'Uthman's text was not the authentic text?

Yes, isn't it strange? At least this professor is willing to admit that Uthman's text is not the authentic one. Now we must wonder if what Islam abides to is the authentic book that Mohammed made.

People could easily hide their various copies of the Qur'an and secretly pass them on to their descendants and through them on to us.

The fact that none did should lead us to wonder what measures were enforced to ensure eradicating all traces of the original, including "corrupt" copies thereof.

In the following passage condemns even hiding any part of the revelation, much less altering it...

Clever of Uthman to have included this. It is evident he did all he could to scare the wits out of those who might challenge him.

The most likely way things happened is like this:

Uthman secretly called in his "scholars" and ordered them to make copies of the original, seeing to it that verses that will frighten or intimidate the people are added in for effect. The originals were then burned, leaving us with this new text. Then these copies were sent out, and anyone who has a different text will be shown Uthman's text, and intimidated or coerced into giving up their copies. It really isn't hard for such a scenario, given the conditions of those times and the fact that Islam was spread by the sword. So by intimidation and force, the original Qur'an was lost among us, and we have now Uthman's version which is being bandied out as the "true" version--nevermind if few Muslims ever wondered what really happened to the original, and why it was lost to us. Uthman did a pretty good job in this case then.

mkongwe

28-09-03, 03:09 PM

[QUOTE]Originally posted by Milliardo Peacecraft
Christians say that the Bible is written by men who were guided by God, and as well the Jews also say this is true of the Old Testament manuscripts. ...
Does God make mistakes? No.
Most of what you posted are only differences in translations;
this does not take away the fact that mistakes are not made.
As for some verses not placed,
it is usually noted as to what's the most reliable transcript is.
this does not take away the very nature and meaning of the passages presented.
Luther removed them since he thought them to be not inspired; however, early Christians have all 73 books,
since the Council of Carthage in 419 A.D. has ratified this listing to be the final one.
Both Catholic and Orthodox Churches have 73 books.
Some Protestant Bible scholars actually think Luther made a mistake in taking out those books,
and are looking into the possibility of reinserting them into Protestant Bibles.
Do note that as far as the Catholic Church is concerned, Luther's action on this is anathema, and sees this as his personal choice, not to be associated with the general consensus of Christianity.
IS BIBLE GOD'S WORD?

mkongwe

28-09-03, 04:37 PM

Originally posted by sanwin25
[B]So where is the original Quran ?
You know the one which Mohammed approved ?

Which is original Bibles?

The King James Version (K.J.V.)

The Revised Standard Version (R.S.V.)

The New International Version (N.I.V.)

The Good News Bible (G.N.B.)

The Living Bible Version (L.B.V.)

The American Standard Version (A.S.V)

The Queen Version, Promise and ..................? ? ? ? ?

Is it 73 chapter/books or 66 chapter/books?

WHY 'ACCORDING TO"
what about the so-called New Testament? why does every Gospel begin with the introduction-ACCORDING TO......
Why "according to?"
Because not a single one of the vaunted four thousand copies extant carries author's autograph! Hence the supposition "according to!' Even the internal evidence proves that Matthew was not author of the first Gospel which bears his name.

mkongwe

28-09-03, 05:04 PM

Originally posted by Milliardo Peacecraft Since Ishamel and his mother Hagar were banished from Abraham by Sarah's request,

Is sarah God?

Nope, I am not adding. The verse I quoted is in John. You are free to look at John 8 for your own satisfaction: I have not ignored your question, and have in fact answered it very straightly. I wonder what part of the explanation I gave you can't seem to understand. Or maybe you refuse to do so, in which case I cannot help you then, since you would not try to understand]
Please try to undestanding, my quesion is: did Jusus ever claim to be God or to say"Here am I,your GOD, and WORSHIP me?

This is perhaps the poorest of arguments. Just because something is not mentioned does not mean it is not taught, or even has a reference to.
Read Jeremiah 17:5 "Cursed the man who trusts in man"
Let me ask U simple questinE: what is TRINITY?

Milliardo Peacecraft

29-09-03, 04:50 AM

Originally posted by mkongwe
Is sarah God?

No, but God certainly agreed to let Sarah persuade Abraham: But God said to Abraham: "Do not be distressed about the boy or about your slave woman. Heed the demands of Sarah, no matter what she is asking of you; for it is through Isaac that descendants shall bear your name." (Genesis 21:12). As I have explained, though it goes on that Ishamel will be made a great nation, Israel takes prominence and acquired the rights of inheritance that was denied of Ishmael because of his banishment.

Please try to undestanding, my quesion is: did Jusus ever claim to be God or to say"Here am I,your GOD, and WORSHIP me?

Read it carefully: yes He did. I already quoted the verse in John when He went out and proclaimed He is the I AM--Yahweh personified. It entails then worship. If you cannot understand that, then go and get yourself a dictionary or phrasebook, since all you do is parrot.

Which is original Bibles?

The original manuscripts that make up the Bible were made by either the Apostles themselves, or their followers in the early Apostolic Age, which was about from 35 A.D.-120 A.D. by some accounts. Most of the Pauline letters were made by Paul. Of course, these are all in addition to the Old Testament manuscripts which were found in a cave by the Dead Sea, which confirmed the use of the Septaguint by Jews, or at least a sect of it. These manuscripts were copied and handed down by early Christians, collected and sorted out, until in 405 A.D. St. Jerome made the Latin Vulgate, which became the standard Bible of the Church for over 1000 years before Luther. The Bible yu mentioned are based from these early manuscripts, and all are deemed at one point or another to be true, inasmuch as they have kept as faithfully as possible to the original manuscripts.

Why according to--this is simply to differentiate the Gospel books from one another. Are there differences in style and some details? Yes, there are. This is because each Gospel has a different thrust and audience. Mark, the earliest Gospel, was aimed primarily at Jewish-Christians. Matthew and Luke were aimed more towards the Gentiles who became Christians. John is the same. Their differences also show theological viewpoints which compliment one another: John shows Jesus as the Son of God, the beginning and the end, as we all see in Revelation. So each Gospel shows a different side of Jesus, each one complimenting the other. Such differences does not take away from each one's veracity, and taken together shows us a complete picture of Jesus.