Islam; A Pathway To Peace Or Destruction?

[♦ nivek ♦]

Omni..

 

Not a goddamn thing to do with subject really..

 

Sitting here at home/office, got landline from a friends Mother.

 

Seems he and a fellow female medic in Iraq fell to hostile fire yesterday while patching up some kids that had been caught in the middle of one hellova mixup with the Sainted Follers of Allah and the Oregon National Guardsmen involved.

 

After the action the young *natives* backshot, murdered the unarmed Medics and managed to put hostile fire into the group of children that were being patched up and treated.

 

So far the attrition counted is almost thirty persons killed 'after action' in all of this.

 

Save your bullshit for somefuckingone who cares.

 

I hope Allah loves his little shitheads, as that half a dozen has now gone on to find their way to whatever paradise they thought they were expecting..

 

My Lady Paramedic friend who never met a kid worldwide she didn't try and patch up, heal and make better is coming home in a box..

 

All this done after 'peace' by the Allahlovers was called and begged for.

 

'Religion of Pieces' my fucking fat ass..

 

kFL

[Kryten]

Omni..

 

Not a goddamn thing to do with subject really..

 

Sitting here at home/office, got landline from a friends Mother.

 

Seems he and a fellow female medic in Iraq fell to hostile fire yesterday while patching up some kids that had been caught in the middle of one hellova mixup with the Sainted Follers of Allah and the Oregon National Guardsmen involved.

 

After the action the young *natives* backshot, murdered the unarmed Medics and managed to put hostile fire into the group of children that were being patched up and treated.

 

So far the attrition counted is almost thirty persons killed 'after action' in all of this.

 

Save your bullshit for somefuckingone who cares.

 

I hope Allah loves his little shitheads, as that half a dozen has now gone on to find their way to whatever paradise they thought they were expecting..

 

My Lady Paramedic friend who never met a kid worldwide she didn't try and patch up, heal and make better is coming home in a box..

 

All this done after 'peace' by the Allahlovers was called and begged for.

 

'Religion of Pieces' my fucking fat ass..

 

kFL

Sorry Kev. My young and innocent nephew is in Baghdad now. I hope he doesn't show up on this list.

 

These are the fruits of the Islam religion: war, violence, beheadings, torture, rape, intollerance, ritualism, and deceit. Doesn't matter how much perfume you spray on it, it's still crap.

 

Omni, you seem too good-hearted and bright to hold onto that evil religion. What the hell are you keeping it for??

[The Sage Nabooru]

Here's the ultimate question:

 

God creates two faiths (Judaism and Christianity) that He apparently knows his human followers are going to corrupt and damage. So, why does he create them in the first place?

 

Going on, in order to correct the corruption of the first two faiths, He creates Islam, which is perfect now and forevermore, never to be corrupted. Why? Why didn't God just create the perfect incorruptible faith right off the bat? And how do we know that Islam ISN'T corrupted? The Quran was written the same way as the Bible: that is, Muhammad never wrote any himself, just used a scribe, and after his death his followers got together and decided what sayings that they had gathered from him were "legitimate" and decided to bound those up in the book we know today as the Quran. There's a pretty good chance that Islam was corrupted then, if you ask me. If you say that Islam cannot be corrupted because the Quran says so - you realize that the Jewish Torah and Christian Bible say the exact same thing, right?

 

The Abrahamic God sure is a neurotic guy.

[Ouroboros]

And I have a question to Omni, that's outside the scope of our debate in the Arena:

 

Was Jesus a prophet of Allah?

 

Can Prophets of Allah lie?

 

Did Jesus lie or tell the truth when he said he was the son of God?

[Taphophilia]

Omni,

 

I'm not sure if you stated this elsewhere, but I am curious.

 

Are you Muslim because it is your tradition to be Muslim, did you learn it as a child and accept it because you were taught to do so, OR did you convert to Islam later in life?

 

If you were taught to believe in Islam as a child, do you think you would be Muslim if your culture were a different religion?

 

Taph

[The_Omniscient]

Dear Golden Meadows;

 

I guess the same happens with the Quaran?

 

No, not at all. This did not happen to Quran rather it happened with Hadith or Sunnah means sayings of prophet. You would not find any credible evidence for the support of your assumption.

 

If the Jews had been so corrupt that they actually altered sacred texts do you seriously think they would have left this passage from Jeremiah as witness against themselves?

 

They did try their level best to corrupt as many according to their own judgements & likes and indeed they were successful in doing so but some of the passages which make logical and mathematical msitakes suggest us that they were not having a specific level of understanding of Torah thats why on some points they have amde very silly mistakes and the areas where they were expert they have done perfect corruption. However, even if i agree with your claim that it all was done by mere mistake even then , the text is corrputed and can not be taken as authentic and free of errors.

 

If any had attempted to change one scroll then there were many others to witness the crime as well as the memory of the devout.

 

But the text which was corrupted with the consent of high priests and in the councils of synagogue, it was not easy for a common man to terminate that poliferation. Many sincere Jews did try but their voices were lost in the past and only those written versions were survived which were under the patronage of high priests.

 

Once you understand the meaning the the term "only son" then its obvious it is Isaac who is being described. As Yahweh says to Abraham: "Grant Sarah all that she asks of you, for it is through Isaac that your name will be carried on" Gen 21:12

 

Well, other way round, you are caliming that, that even though Ishmael was Abraham's "seed," still, "seed" is a lesser designation than "son," and only Isaac was Abraham's "son." However, the Bible also bears witness to the fact that Ishmael was Abraham's "son":

 

"And Abraham took Ishmael his son."

Genesis 17:23

 

Not only that, but the Bible tells us that Ishmael remained the legitimate son of Abraham until even after his death,

 

"Then Abraham gave up the ghost, and died in a good old age, an old man, and full [of years]; and was gathered to his people. And his sons Isaac and Ishmael buried him in the cave of Machpelah"

Genesis 25:8-9

 

So was Ishmael a lesser "son" than Isaac because Isaac's mother was Abraham's wife while Hagar was not? Once again, let us read the Bible:

 

"And Sarai Abram's wife took Hagar her maid....and gave her to her husband Abram to be his wife.."

Genesis 16:3

 

So the Bible also bears witness that Hagar was Abraham's legitimate wife. In fact, if this were not the case then we would be labeling prophet Abraham an adulterer. A serious accusation indeed. Once the legitimacy of Hagar as Abraham's wife and Ishmael as his son has been established, now the objection of many becomes that Isaac was a better and truer son of Abraham because he was the son of the free woman not the bondwoman. However, this claim is not supported by the law of the Old Testament. According to this law, the first born son was to have double portions of honor, and even inheritance, and this right could not be affected by the status of his mother.

 

"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 sons 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 his strength; the right of the firstborn [is] his."

Deuteronomy 21:15-17

 

In the Interpreter's Bible we read the following comment on the above verses:

 

"However, the law of the first-born had ancient sanction, and so long as it was accepted justice demanded that mere favoritism not be allowed to deprive the eldest son of his rights."

 

The Dictionary of the Bible says:

 

"However deeply rooted [polygany] was before the exile may be seen from the parable of Ezk. 23, which represents Yahweh as the husband of two wives. The law of Dt 21:15-17 which is parallel to several Mesopotamian laws, protects the 'hated' wife and her children especially if she has borne the firstborn son (hated here means less loved)..."

The Dictionary of the Bible, John McKenzie, S. J., Collier books, p. 549

 

Abraham was eighty six years old (Genesis 16:16) when Ishmael was born and was one hundred years old (Genesis 21:5), when he was blessed with a second son, Isaac (pbuh). So Isaac was fourteen years younger than his older brother Ishmael, the first-born son of Abraham.

 

It should further be noted here that a similar occurrence is narrated in the Old Testament regarding a slave girl named Ruth and a landowner named Boaz (Ruth, chapters 3 and 4). Ruth, a widowed slave girl, was married to Boaz and gave him a son named Obed. Obed went on to become the founder of the royal line of Jews who, according to the Old and New Testament, were the ancestors of both King David and Jesus Christ peace be upon them both (for example Matthew 1:5-16). Not only that, but according to the same Old Testament, Ruth was a Moabitess (Ruth 2:2). Moabite women, according to the Old Testament, were women used to lure Israelite men into immorality and the worship of the pagan god Baal.

 

So, if a slave woman of a nation of such ill repute among the Jews as the Moabites is given legitimacy among the Jews and can even go on to become the ancestor and mother of their greatest prophets and leaders and indeed Jesus Christ (pbuh) himself, then why is a whole branch of prophet Abraham's children cast off simply because their mother too was a slave girl?

 

Further, it is well known that fully six of the tribes of Israel trace their ancestry through the second wife of Jacob (Israel), Rachel, and two of his concubines, Bilhah, and Zilpah. Nowhere in the Bible is it mentioned that these six tribes are disqualified from God's covenant simply because their mother was the "second" wife of Jacob or one of his concubines.

 

As we have already seen, God's covenant was with the "seed" of Abraham (pbuh), among whom was Ishmael. Secondly, there are many verses which specifically single out Ishmael for God's blessing. After the birth of Ishmael and before the birth of Isaac, God repeats his promise to Abraham to bless all the earth through his progeny.

 

"As for me, behold, my covenant [is] with thee, and thou shalt be a father of many nations."

Genesis 17:4

 

Also, "And also of the son of the bondwoman (Hagar) will I make a nation, because he [is] thy seed. ......... I will make him a great nation."

Genesis 21:13

 

Many people point to the verse of Genesis 22:2 as proof that Isaac was the only legitimate son of Abraham. We read:

 

"And he (God) said, Take now thy son, thine only [son] Isaac, whom thou lovest, and get thee into the land of Moriah; and offer him there for a burnt offering upon one of the mountains which I will tell thee of."

Genesis 22:2

 

What is going on here? On the one hand we have verses such as Genesis 16:15, Genesis 17:23, Genesis 17:25, Genesis 17:26, and Genesis 25:9...etc. which clearly confirm the fact that not only was Ishmael the first born son of Abraham and a legitimate son, but he remained so until the day Abraham died and was buried. On the other hand we have Genesis 22:2 which claims that Isaac, Abraham's second son is the only son of Abraham.

 

In Encyclopedia Judica Jerusalem, volume 9, under the heading "Ishmael," we read:

 

"It is related that a renowned traditionalist of Jewish origin, from Qurayza tribe and another Jewish scholar who converted to Islam, told Caliph Omar ibn 'Abd al-'Aziz (717-20) that the Jews were well informed that Ismail (Ishmael) was the one who was bound, but they concealed this out of jealousy."

 

A similar silly corruption of jews can be found in this passage of Genesis;

 

19Then God said, "Yes, but your wife Sarah will bear you a son, and you will call him Isaac. [d] I will establish my covenant with him as an everlasting covenant for his descendants after him. 20 And as for Ishmael, I have heard you: I will surely bless him; I will make him fruitful and will greatly increase his numbers. He will be the father of twelve rulers, and I will make him into a great nation. 21 But my covenant I will establish with Isaac, whom Sarah will bear to you by this time next year." 22 When he had finished speaking with Abraham, God went up from him.

 

One can easily observe that again the names have been substituted, Issac in the place of Ishmail and Ishmail in the place of Issac. further the passage is very wisely corrupted also in order to make it look like real in wordings by changing the names and places of verses but the time confirmed the reality. We very well know that the twelve tribes or rulers were in the descendants of Issac not Ishmael, these were the same 12 tribes which were present at the time of prophet Moses(pbuh). As an evidence, see the following verses from bible itself;

 

Moses then wrote down everything the LORD had said. He got up early the next morning and built an altar at the foot of the mountain and set up twelve stone pillars representing the twelve tribes of Israel. [Exodus 24:04]

 

So Moses spoke to the Israelites, and their leaders gave him twelve staffs, one for the leader of each of their ancestral tribes, and Aaron's staff was among them. [Numbers 17:06]

 

I do hope that now it has been cleared to you that how the passages of Bible had been corrupted by Jews, intentionally or unintentionally, and thus not much Bible is reliable. The book of genesis itself is not having any particular author or scribe. Therefore, It all is well established that;

 

1. Ishmael was the first born of Abraham.

2. He was the legal son of Abraham.

3. It was Ishmael who was sacrificed.

4. Issac was the second son of Abraham and a great prophet.

5. Both of his sons were legal and legitimate in front of the law of God and thus God himself.

 

Quran is not in any Error at all, rather it is the Bible and Genesis itself.

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

 

Dear Taylork45;

 

To me this seems why the Jews and the Muslims don't believe Jesus actually died. It seems more probable than the judas thing.

 

Yes, I do agree with your point of view also, indeed I have found a lot many verses in Bible which indicate that Jesus was not crucified rather he was put on the croos but was not dead and then he returned while he was alive and then he disappeared. If we take these verses seriously then also it is established that Jesus was not crucified.However, this theory of yours does not agree that it was Jesus who was put on cross, Quran says it was a like of him.

 

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

 

Dear The Pure one;

 

Plus, you can make $50,000 for your time if you are successful where no other Muslim has been.

 

If you would have read all of my posts in this thread, you would have understood at least some reality about Islam and Quran. the websites like that one are nothing but a conspiracy. Hired people for hired objectives. I do not appreciate such websites be it of any religion or any nation. If u read some of the debates over there with that person, you will find that how many times he was actually defeated but he never accepted and why should he accept when he is getting a considerable amount per month for such promotional activities.

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

 

Dear Robert UK;

 

what happens if some ones does break a law but only once? No person is perfect and everyone will have done wrong at some point .. how bad do they have to be to go to hell?

 

Well, I would try to narrate the answers in the words of God and scripture so you may not say that I am inventing my own thories and replies. The Quran has this answer to your Question:

 

[3.135] And those who when they commit an indecency or do injustice to their souls remember Allah and ask forgiveness for their faults-- and who forgives the faults but Allah, and (who) do not knowingly persist in what they have done.

 

[39.53] Say: O my servants! who have acted extravagantly against their own souls, do not despair of the mercy of Allah; surely Allah forgives the faults altogether; surely He is the Forgiving the Merciful.

 

[42.40] And the recompense of evil is punishment like it, but whoever forgives and amends, he shall have his reward from Allah; surely He does not love the unjust.

 

It is clear from all the above mentioned verses that If someone committs a crime/sin and then realizes his mistake and repents sincerely and does not turn again towards that violation of law, he/she indeed is forgiven by Allah and is provided with great rewards and honors. such as Eden and cosnent of God himself.

 

How does anyone know they good enough? What if someone was bad - stealing etc but is now reformed?

 

Quran says:

 

[4.175] Then as for those who believe in Allah and hold fast by Him, He will cause them to enter into His mercy and grace and guide them to Himself on a right path.

 

[5.16] With it [Quran]Allah guides him who will follow His pleasure into the ways of safety and brings them out of utter darkness into light by His will and guides them to the right path.

 

[4.116] Surely Allah does not forgive that anything should be associated with Him, and He forgives what is besides this to whom He pleases; and whoever associates anything with Allah, he indeed strays off into a remote error.

 

The above verses make it clear that to know that someone is good enough, the standard is piety and rightiousness and how to know that one is right? the uncorrupted scripture is a guide to those who seek the law and guidance. As for those who steal or make a sin and then repent, nothing is to fear for them they must not assosiate partners with God almighty alone and after the knowlege, should not violate the laws of God. Deliberate violation of law of God is regarded equivalent to assosiate partners with him.

 

Or what if they have always been bad but at the end of their life they say .. I am sorry for what I did I think it was wrong. Are they in heaven or hell?

 

Quran says:

 

[4.137] Surely (as for) those who believe then disbelieve, again believe and again disbelieve, then increase in disbelief, Allah will not forgive them nor guide them in the (right) path.

 

[3.90] Surely, those who disbelieve a,fter their believing, then increase in unbelief, their repentance shall not be accepted, and these are they that go astray.

 

[4.17] Repentance with Allah is only for those who do evil in ignorance, then turn (to Allah) soon, so these it is to whom Allah turns (mercifully), and Allah is ever Knowing, Wise.

 

[4.18] And repentance is not for those who go on doing evil deeds, until when death comes to one of them, he says: Surely now I repent; nor (for) those who die while they are unbelievers. These are they for whom We have prepared a painful chastisement.

 

I hope U have gotten the answers from your Lord himself.

 

What is Isalm's view on Creationism / age of the earth etc and what specifically does it say in the Quran.

 

Quran answers:

 

[11.7] And He it is Who created the heavens and the earth in six periods-- and His dominion (extends) on the water-- that He might manifest to you, which of you is best in action, and if you say, surely you shall be raised up after death, those who disbelieve would certainly say: This is nothing but clear magic.

 

[30.20] And one of His signs is that He created you from dust, then lo! you are mortals (who) scatter.

 

[31.10] He created the heavens without pillars as you see them, and put mountains upon the earth lest it might convulse with you, and He spread in it animals of every kind; and We sent down water from the cloud, then caused to grow therein (vegetation) of every noble kind.

 

[71.14] And indeed He has created you through various stages:

 

[15.26] And certainly We created man of clay that gives forth sound, of black mud fashioned in shape.

 

[45.4] And in your (own) creation and in what He spreads abroad of animals there are signs for a people that are sure;

 

All above verses Indicate a recognition for the Human evolution but this is not similar to the old theory of Darwin, it suggests some other method. About the age of Earth, we do not find any verse which explicitly tells about it but we have verses which indicate this time period and many other time periods. The age of Universe is calculated by two verses in Quran the calculation you can find on this page http://www.answering-christianity.com/18_billion_years.htm

 

Historically speaking do you not think there may be SOME doubt about this in the same way the bible has serious doubts cast on it by the way throughout history it seems to have been changed

 

Surely, we can have the same doubt about the origin of Quran itself and its preservance. However, In order to evaluate any text to be authentic two principles are universal.

 

1. The text should not be self-contradictory.

2. The text should not contradict the established facts of science.

 

When we apply these 2 priniciples on Quran, we find that neither a single verse is evidently contradictory nor it is against any scientificly established facts. But regretfully, this is not the case with Bible and other Holy scriptures.

 

Would you say that Allah and Islam are the one and only truth? Do you think if i invited Muslims to a Christian Church they would be comfortable worshipping God? If not why not?

 

Well, Islam is not a new religion. People misunderstand that Islam is a new religion but indeed, In Quran God has told many times that This was the religion of Adam, Abraham, Moses, David, Solomon, Jesus and Muhammad. In the time of every prophet, it was called with different names but the concept, beliefs, articles of faith and the message of holy scriptures was almost similar, there were only variations in social and cultural laws for different people of different era. Islam was the religion of Abraham and his sons and their progeny thus it is not at all any new religion rather its the restoration of all previous contaminated religions into their pure uncorrupted form. The God of Quran is Allah, he himself is Yahewah/Jehovah, He himself is Elohim, he himself is Ishvara and he himself is the Ultimate reality. In christian churches, the worship of one single God is not done, rather the worship of Jesus, the Son god is held in assosiation with worship of God the father and even sometimes in vatican itself, the bowing kind worship of Marry, the mother of god. So, Muslims or any believers of unity of God and those who do not ascribe any partners with Him would surely not attend any worship like this in any place be it a church, a synagogue, a temple or a mosque.

 

Can you say why it is then that there is such a large worldwide section of Islam that does believe in the more violent 'teachings' ? If they can read the Quran in one way who is to say they are not right and you are wrong..?

 

Dear brother, the reasons are political one rather then religious ones. Since 19th century Muslim population is in opression from non-muslims and sometimes even by muslims due to wide conspiracies. So in a reaction those people who have suffered a lot and have been victims of it tried to interpret the passages of holy book in order to find reassurance and moral-support. Some of them are right and many of them are wrong. They intentionally neglect the whole verses and only take the part which they please. I can write a great amount of words to make a comprehensive reply but i am tired by typing a lot so let we save it for some near future.

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

 

Dear Hansolo;

 

Was Jesus a prophet of Allah?Can Prophets of Allah lie? Did Jesus lie or tell the truth when he said he was the son of God?

 

Well, Jesus never claimed any divinity nor he calimed himself as a son of God. As an evidence the Gospel of Barnabas is a very evident evidence but christians hide it because if they accept it, it would demolish all of their corruption. This is the same Gospel towards which holy Quran also points out that they have hidden a portion of Bible which speaks the reality. you can refer to the chapter 95 of this gospel, easily available via internet. However, if u do not believe on this gospel either then I have nothing to support my claim except Quran. The QUran tel labout the life of jesus in following manner;

 

According to the holy book of Quran, Jesus has been described as following;

 

The Birth;

 

[3.59] Surely the likeness of Isa is with God as the likeness of Adam; He created him from dust, then said to him, Be, and he was.

 

[3.45] When the angels said: O Marium, surely God gives you good news with a Word from Him (of one) whose name is the '. Messiah, Isa son of Marium, worthy of regard in this world and the hereafter and of those who are made near (to God).

 

The Wittness;

 

[19.30] He (baby Jesus) said: Surely I am a servant of God; He has given me the Book and made me a prophet;

[19.31] And He has made me blessed wherever I may be, and He has enjoined on me prayer and poor-rate so long as I live;

[19.32] And dutiful to my mother, and He has not made me insolent, unblessed;

[19.33] And peace on me on the day I was born, and on the day I die, and on the day I am raised to life.

[19.34] Such is Isa, son of Marium; (this is) the saying of truth about which they dispute.

 

The Life;

 

[43.63] And when Isa came with clear arguments he said: I have come to you indeed with wisdom, and that I may make clear to you part of what you differ in; so be careful of (your duty to) God and obey me:

 

The Message;

 

[57.27] Then We made Our apostles to follow in their footsteps, and We sent Isa son of Marium afterwards, and We gave him the Injeel (Bible, NT), and We put in the hearts of those who followed him kindness and mercy; and (as for) mockery, they innovated it-- We did not prescribe it to them-- only to seek God's pleasure, but they did not observe it with its due observance; so We gave to those of them who believed their reward, and most of them are transgressors.

 

[61.6] And when Isa son of Marium said: O children of Israel! surely I am the apostle of God to you, verifying that which is before me of the Taurat (Bible, OT) and giving the good news of an Apostle who will come after me, his name being Ahmad, but when he came to them with clear arguments they said: This is clear magic.

 

[5.110] When God will say: O Isa son of Marium! Remember My favor on you and on your mother, when I strengthened you I with the holy Spirit, you spoke to the people in the cradle and I when of old age, and when I taught you the Book and the wisdom and the Taurat(OT) and the Injeel(NT); and when you determined out of clay a thing like the form of a bird by My permission, then you breathed into it and it became a bird by My permission, and you healed the blind and the leprous by My permission; and when you brought forth the dead by My permission; and when I withheld the children of Israel from you when you came to them with clear arguments, but those who disbelieved among them said: This is nothing but clear enchantment.

 

[5.116] And when Allah will say: O Isa son of Marium! did you say to men, Take me and my mother for gods in derogation of Allah he will say: Glory be to Thee, it did not befit me that I should say what I had no right to (say); if I had said it, Thou wouldst indeed have known it; Thou knowest what is in my mind, and I do not know what is in Thy mind, surely Thou art the great Knower of the unseen things.

 

The Consequence;

 

[3.52] But when Isa perceived unbelief on their part, he said Who will be my helpers in God's way? The disciples said: We are helpers (in the way) of God: We believe in God and bear witness that we are submitting ones.

 

The Ascent;

 

[3.55] And when God said: O Isa, I am going to terminate the period of your stay (on earth) and cause you to ascend unto Me and purify you of those who disbelieve and make those who follow you above those who disbelieve to the day of resurrection; then to Me shall be your return, so l will decide between you concerning that in which you differed.

 

[4.157] And their saying: Surely we have killed the Messiah, Isa son of Marium, the apostle of God; and they did not kill him nor did they crucify him, but it appeared to them so (like Isa) and most surely those who differ therein are only in a doubt about it; they have no knowledge respecting it, but only follow a conjecture, and they killed him not for sure.

 

The Trinity;

 

[4.171] O followers of the Book! do not exceed the limits in your religion, and do not speak (lies) against God, but (speak) the truth; the Messiah, Isa son of Marium is only an apostle of God and His Word which He communicated to Marium and a spirit from Him; believe therefore in God and His apostles, and say not, Three. Desist, it is better for you; God is only one God; far be It from His glory that He should have a son, whatever is in the heavens and whatever is in the earth is His, and God is sufficient for a Protector.

 

The above is the complete Quranic concept regarding the life and teachings of the Jesus peace be upon him. If we analyse Bible, it has this to say about him;

 

Matthew 4:10

Jesus said to him, "Away from me, Satan! For it is written: 'Worship the Lord your God, and serve him only."

 

John 20:17

Jesus said, "Do not hold on to me, for I have not yet returned to the Father. Go instead to my brothers and tell them, 'I am returning to my Father and your Father, to my God and your God.'

 

Acts 2:22

"Men of Israel, listen to this: Jesus of Nazareth was a man accredited by God to you by miracles, wonders and signs, which God did among you through him, as you yourselves know.

 

Hope this would have cleared to you the concept of Jesus in Islam. Should any clearrifications be required, need not to hesitate.

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

 

Dear Taphophilia;

 

If you were taught to believe in Islam as a child, do you think you would be Muslim if your culture were a different religion?

 

Well, one can say that I am actually a converted Muslim, though I have been born in a Muslim family but religion was nothing for me untill i started my graduation in neuroscience & psychology. I later indulged in a very comprehensive research for all major religions of world and after a painstaking research and job, i Found Quran to be an aunthetic message of a tru existing single God of Universes.

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

Regards

for every one

A well wisher

[Ouroboros]

Dear Hansolo;

 

Was Jesus a prophet of Allah?Can Prophets of Allah lie? Did Jesus lie or tell the truth when he said he was the son of God?

 

Well, Jesus never claimed any divinity nor he calimed himself as a son of God.

True. But others did and he didn't correct them. (According to the story)

 

As an evidence the Gospel of Barnabas is a very evident evidence but christians hide it because if they accept it, it would demolish all of their corruption.

Well, the Gospel of Barnabas isn't more true than the earlier Gospels. I think they're all bunk.

 

This is the same Gospel towards which holy Quran also points out that they have hidden a portion of Bible which speaks the reality. you can refer to the chapter 95 of this gospel, easily available via internet. However, if u do not believe on this gospel either then I have nothing to support my claim except Quran.

Yup. The only you have to stand on is your belief in a book. And I don't believe that book or the other religious books.

 

Here's an interesting thought for you, there are more and more people discussing the possibility that Jesus never existed at all, but was a complete fabrication or legend of some sorts. How would that affect Islam, since Mohammed clearly say Jesus (Isa) did exist. If it is true that Jesus didn't exist, was Mohammed wrong because he was misinformed, but then why didn't Allah correct him, or was it because Mohammed never really talked to Gabriel?

 

 

Hope this would have cleared to you the concept of Jesus in Islam. Should any clearrifications be required, need not to hesitate.

Thanks.

[ThePureOne]

Dear The Pure one;

 

Plus, you can make $50,000 for your time if you are successful where no other Muslim has been.

 

If you would have read all of my posts in this thread, you would have understood at least some reality about Islam and Quran. the websites like that one are nothing but a conspiracy. Hired people for hired objectives. I do not appreciate such websites be it of any religion or any nation. If u read some of the debates over there with that person, you will find that how many times he was actually defeated but he never accepted and why should he accept when he is getting a considerable amount per month for such promotional activities.

 

 

Oh please, what a complete non-answer! I don't think you've read the debates yourself quite frankly. A "conspiracy" to debate? That makes no sense. How can one "conspire" in debating the Quran itself? You say you don't appreciate such websites "be it of any religion", but this is provably false because you are on one right now! This site is as offensive and disturbing to Christians as www.faithfreedom.org is to Muslims, yet here you are. Perhaps you don't appreciate an informed audience who can refute your claims, or a website dedicated to debunking your chosen fairytales. Here of course you have the advantage of being able to quote as you like to a group vastly less familiar with Islamic apologetics than you. No matter, anyone interested can use that and other sources and force you to answer here instead. Fortunately I have little time or interest for such things.

[Celsus]

Blah, Blah, Blah...my version of the imaginary friend is better than your version of the imaginary friend......Regardless, Allah, Yahweh, Thor, Zues, Amen Ra, etc. are FICTIONAL.

[Ziggy]

The_Omniscient. Thank you for your replies. You are putting alot of work into this!..

 

On your answers..

The Christian message was that you are saved by faith... not by works. You say you are saved by works but as long as you have asked forgiveness from Allah. But you also say it does not matter what religion you have... so who gives forgiveness. It is clear most people are not perfect ... so if you have not asked forgiveness from Allah specifically then who is saved.?

 

I think your point on the violent side of Islam is fair. You say that many muslims feel persecuted historically and because of this they are seeking - wrongly as you say - to use the Quran as justification for their terrorist actions which in actual fact are basically revenge based.

I would like to see many many more Muslims stand up in horror when 9/11 or such happens.. and not just say it was terrible BUT... why can there be any but?

 

Anyway can I ask you a couple more questions?

 

How personal is Allah? Does he care for you personally and is he in charge of the world and what happens in it now?

 

Do you think there is a purpose to life and if so what is it?

[Curtdude]

Blah, Blah, Blah...my version of the imaginary friend is better than your version of the imaginary friend....

 

Yeah, I can't get through the silly flowery adjectives and same-old "you don't understand god like I do" thang.

 

Whatever. Yawn. :wacko_old: Religious wackos show their true colors whenever sexual morality comes into play, or the role of women. Again, totally whatever. I agree w/ Kevin: just don't step on me...I bite real bad.

[♦ nivek ♦]

Omni..

 

The one thing you've failed to address in any fashion is the simple inequity of any Islamic ruled nation.

 

The rich exploit the natural resources, kissing the asses of the people who will keep them in power as long as the oil runs, or there to be friends of a particular nation state.

 

Have heard the Imans tell the poor why they are poor, and why allah the merciless son of a bitch will reward them in the next life.. Keeps the simple uneducated persons happy while working until they die for the wealthy rulers.

 

I have yet to see a less educated, more superstitious, and fucking insane group of bi-peds than "muslims" angered and pissed off.

 

When the scourge of religious is finally taken off this planet and we do not have your imaginary sky spook to try and answer to things will be on their way to Peace and true Prosperity..

 

Until rationality is the *word*, you and your type, your penchant for exploding in the worst places, and spreading your mental diseases by sword and AkM is gone, we'll never find common ground.

 

As I told you in a post not too long ago, when the last shot in the Religious Wars is taken, one or the other group will be paramount..

 

I intend not to be the Second Place Winner...

 

kFL

[Golden Meadows]

OM,

I would like to respond to your assertions, based on the Quaran, that the Jews tampered with sacred texts to hide the fact that it was Ishmael and not Isaac whom Abraham tried to sacrifice.

 

GM:If the Jews had been so corrupt that they actually altered sacred texts do you seriously think they would have left this passage from Jeremiah as witness against themselves?

OM:"They did try their level best to corrupt as many according to their own judgments & likes and indeed they were successful in doing so but some of the passages which make logical and mathematical mistakes suggest us that they were not having a specific level of understanding of Torah thats why on some points they have made very silly mistakes and the areas where they were expert they have done perfect corruption. However, even if i agree with your claim that it all was done by mere mistake even then , the text is corrupted and can not be taken as authentic and free of errors."

GM: I never gave any reasons for "anomalies" in the OT texts. If you are a literalist then you will see many problem passages but I don't think the bible was ever meant to be a technical treatise - poetry allegory and other literary devices are used.

 

 

GM:If any had attempted to change one scroll then there were many others to witness the crime as well as the memory of the devout.

OM: "But the text which was corrupted with the consent of high priests and in the councils of synagogue, it was not easy for a common man to terminate that proliferation"

GM: So all the priests were corrupt? All the scrolls were altered in the temple and all the synagogues? All those who formed part of the oral transmission chain deliberately changed the sacred words? None of them feared divine retribution for doing so? The people did not rebel against the tampering of Gods word? Surely not!

OM: "Many sincere Jews did try but their voices were lost in the past and only those written versions were survived which were under the patronage of high priests."

GM: The Dead Seas Scrolls give us a practical example of how much care the Jews took to preserve their sacred texts.

 

 

GM: Once you understand the meaning the the term "only son" then its obvious it is Isaac who is being described. As Yahweh says to Abraham: "Grant Sarah all that she asks of you, for it is through Isaac that your name will be carried on" Gen 21:12

OM: "Well, other way round, you are claiming that, that even though Ishmael was Abraham's "seed," still, "seed" is a lesser designation than "son," and only Isaac was Abraham's "son."

GM: I never drew any distinction between "seed" and "son". I accept Ishmael was Abraham's son but he was not the miraculous son promised by Yahweh, he was not the son of Abraham and Sarah through whom Yahweh's promises would be fulfilled. "I will bless her [sarah] and give you a son by her. I will bless her and nations shall come out of her....But my covenant I will establish with Isaac, whom Sarah will bear you at this time next year" Gen 17:16..22

OM: "So was Ishmael a lesser "son" than Isaac because Isaac's mother was Abraham's wife while Hagar was not? Once again, let us read the Bible:"

GM: Like I say its clear that Ishmael was not the son promised by Yahweh – Isaac was, he was not conceived miraculously – Isaac was, he was not the son of Abraham and Sarah -Isaac was. Ishmael was the Abraham and Sarah trying to help out Yahweh with his promises but God didn't need any assistance according to the bible.

 

OM: "And Sarai Abram's wife took Hagar her maid....and gave her to her husband Abram to be his wife.." Genesis 16:3

GM: The romanised hebrew word translated as "wife" in the above passage is "ishshah" and it can mean adulteress, woman and several other things as well as "wife". I take it is a euphemism for surrogate mother/concubine.

I support this assertion by the following observations:

 

a. Its clear that Sarah wants the child of Abraham and Hagar to be regarded as her and Abraham's child, i.e "and Sarah said to Abram, "Behold now, the Lord has prevented me from bearing children; go in to my maid; it may be that I shall obtain children by her." Gen 16:2

 

b. Abraham's response to Sarah proposed eviction of Hagar does not involve any arguments about Hagar being his wife : "very well...your slave girl [i.e Hagar] is at your disposal, treat her as you think fit" Gen 16:6

 

c. When the angel of Yahweh greets Hagar after she has been evicted by Sarah he does not call her "wife of Abraham" but rather: "Hagar, slave-girl of Sarai, where have you come from from, where are you going ?" Gen 16:9

 

d. If Yahweh had thought Hagar was of equal position with Sarah, Abraham's wife, then his actions in allowing the young "wife" and mother Hagar to be evicted through the mere desire of the elderly wife Sarah is equally strange. "But God said to Abraham, "Be not displeased because of the lad and because of your slave woman; whatever Sarah says to you, do as she tells you, for through Isaac shall your descendants be named." Notice Yahweh does not call Hagar the "wife" of Abraham but rather the "slave woman". Gen 21:12

 

e. When Abraham asks for approval of Ishmael Yahweh point blank refuses: "Abraham said to God, 'Oh, let Ishmael live in your presence!'. But God replied, No, but your wife Sarah shall bear you as on whom you are to name Isaac. With him I will establish my Covenant, a covenant in perpetuity...." Gen 17:19. Yahweh goes on to promise that Ishmael will be blessed by him as a great nation as he is a child of Abraham's (and as as Arabs apply to themselves today) however........

 

f. It seems clear that Yahweh did not approve of Sarah's plans in using Hagar as a surrogate mother because he expressly then allows her surrogate child and future nation, Ishmael, to be constant source of strife (in effect a punishment) for the descendent's of Abraham and Sarah.( Gen 16:12). A believer in Yahweh's promises might see the present day Middle East position as being a fulfillment of what Yahweh observed 4,000 years ago – all through the impatience of Abraham and Sarah in not waiting for "Yahweh's" child. Gen 25:18

 

 

OM: "So the Bible also bears witness that Hagar was Abraham's legitimate wife. In fact, if this were not the case then we would be labeling prophet Abraham an adulterer. A serious accusation indeed."

GM: See my points above. In addition I would point out that the law of Moses is several centuries away in the future when these events occur so we cannot adopt a highly legalist/literal and Mosaic law position in such matters – nobody knows what recognized moral or ethical code Abraham followed, if any. The "serious accusation" that you mention with respect to Abraham's supposed adultery requires further comment since it seems to suggest that Yahweh should only pick perfect people to be leaders, the evidence of the bible suggest otherwise.

 

Abraham hides the fact that Sarah is his wife and gives her to Pharaoh as his "wife" in order to save his own skin. [cf Gen 12:10-20]. He does the same thing with Sarah and the King of Gerar [Gen 20:1-7]. David commits adultery with Bathsheba and then arranges the murder of her husband Uriah. [2 Sam 11:1-27] Peter denies Christ three times [Math 16:13-20, Math 26:69-75], and there are many more such examples of the failings of Yahweh's appointed leaders..

 

Why does the God of the Bible do such things, why does He not pick "plaster saints" with big golden halo's around their heads who have never done anything wrong and are perfect human beings? IMO the message I am supposed to take from this is that these weak human beings show the power of God at work and also his mercy. We see the human frailty of the human beings chosen and therefore attribute to God the power that has them doing wondrous deeds. We also receive a message of hope in that the bible God does not reject repentant people who have committed terrible crimes in the eyes of the world.

 

OM: "Once the legitimacy of Hagar as Abraham's wife and Ishmael as his son has been established, now the objection of many becomes that Isaac was a better and truer son of Abraham because he was the son of the free woman not the bondwoman. However, this claim is not supported by the law of the Old Testament. According to this law, the first born son was to have double portions of honor, and even inheritance, and this right could not be affected by the status of his mother."

GM: I have dealt with the issue of Hagar being a surrogate mother and concubine above and would again repeat the point that there was no Old Testament Law until several hundred years after the time of these events. You will find Christian interpretation's that treat Hagar as a true wife of Abraham but my feeling is that this is motivated more or less by the need to protect Abraham's reputation as a "plaster saint". These same accounts tend also to gloss over Abraham's other concubines and his use of his wife's body to save his own skin.

 

OM: "Abraham was eighty six years old (Genesis 16:16) when Ishmael was born and was one hundred years old (Genesis 21:5), when he was blessed with a second son, Isaac (pbuh). So Isaac was fourteen years younger than his older brother Ishmael, the first-born son of Abraham."

GM: But not the first born of Abraham and Sarah, and not the child promised by Yahweh:

"I will bless her [sarah] and give you a son by her. I will bless her and nations shall come out of her....But my covenant I will establish with Isaac, whom Sarah will bear you at this time next year" Gen 17:16..22

 

OM: " Ruth was a Moabitess (Ruth 2:2). Moabite women, according to the Old Testament, were women used to lure Israelite men into immorality and the worship of the pagan god Baal. So, if a slave woman of a nation of such ill repute among the Jews as the Moabites is given legitimacy among the Jews and can even go on to become the ancestor and mother of their greatest prophets and leaders and indeed Jesus Christ (pbuh) himself, then why is a whole branch of prophet Abraham's children cast off simply because their mother too was a slave girl?"

GM: I never suggested that Hagar was cast of for being a slave girl, neither do I think any less of her for being so. Ruth is often seen as foreshadowing the gentile Christian Church, just like Rahab the prostitute, something carried forward in tradition through the accounts of Mary Magdalene supposedly being a one time prostitute. When the relevant bible passages refer to Hagar as slave girl I take it to be in contrast with Sarah who is Abraham's wife in the fullest sense, not that we are to look down on slave-girls.

 

 

OM: "As we have already seen, God's covenant was with the "seed" of Abraham (pbuh), among whom was Ishmael".

GM:"I will bless her [sarah] and give you a son by her. I will bless her and nations shall come out of her....But my covenant I will establish with Isaac, whom Sarah will bear you at this time next year" Gen 17:16..22

 

OM: In Encyclopedia Judica Jerusalem, volume 9, under the heading "Ishmael," we read:

"It is related that a renowned traditionalist of Jewish origin, from Qurayza tribe and another Jewish scholar who converted to Islam, told Caliph Omar ibn 'Abd al-'Aziz (717-20) that the Jews were well informed that Ismail (Ishmael) was the one who was bound, but they concealed this out of jealousy."

GM: Unfortunately I don't have access to this encyclopedia in order to check the full context of this passage. If you have web link or can email a scanned image? I would observe though that people who apostatize can become quite bitter and hostile towards their old religion so you will understand why I don't take this as being a simple statement of fact.

OM: A similar silly corruption of jews can be found in this passage of Genesis;

19Then God said, "Yes, but your wife Sarah will bear you a son, and you will call him Isaac. [d] I will establish my covenant with him as an everlasting covenant for his descendants after him. 20 And as for Ishmael, I have heard you: I will surely bless him; I will make him fruitful and will greatly increase his numbers. He will be the father of twelve rulers, and I will make him into a great nation. 21 But my covenant I will establish with Isaac, whom Sarah will bear to you by this time next year." 22 When he had finished speaking with Abraham, God went up from him.

One can easily observe that again the names have been substituted, Issac in the place of Ishmail and Ishmail in the place of Issac. further the passage is very wisely corrupted also in order to make it look like real in wordings by changing the names and places of verses but the time confirmed the reality. We very well know that the twelve tribes or rulers were in the descendants of Issac not Ishmael, these were the same 12 tribes which were present at the time of prophet Moses(pbuh). As an evidence, see the following verses from bible itself;

Moses then wrote down everything the LORD had said. He got up early the next morning and built an altar at the foot of the mountain and set up twelve stone pillars representing the twelve tribes of Israel. [Exodus 24:04]

So Moses spoke to the Israelites, and their leaders gave him twelve staffs, one for the leader of each of their ancestral tribes, and Aaron's staff was among them. [Numbers 17:06]"

GM: "Twelve" is one of the most common numbers in the numerology of not just the Abrahmic religions. The "twelve" relating to Ishmael does not relate to the twelve tribes of Israel as suggested but rather to what is described in the following passage:

 

"These are the descendants of Ishmael, Abraham's son, whom Hagar the Egyptian, Sarah's maid, bore to Abraham. These are the names of the sons of Ishmael, named in the order of their birth: Nebaioth, the first-born of Ishmael; and Kedar, Adbeel, Mibsam, Mishma, Dumah, Massa, Hadad, Tema, Jetur, Naphish, and Kedemah. These are the sons of Ishmael and these are their names, by their villages and by their encampments, twelve princes according to their tribes."Gen 25:12.

 

OM: "I do hope that now it has been cleared to you that how the passages of Bible had been corrupted by Jews, intentionally or unintentionally, and thus not much Bible is reliable. The book of genesis itself is not having any particular author or scribe. Therefore, It all is well established that;

1. Ishmael was the first born of Abraham.

But not the son of Abraham and Sarah and not the son promised by Yahweh.

2. He was the legal son of Abraham.

The Mosaic Law did not come to be for several hundred years in the future.

3. It was Ishmael who was sacrificed.

It seems very clear to me that it was Isaac - all sound evidence points to this - and Mohammed's inspiration with regard to this particular issue points towards the human rather than a divine source.

4. Isaac was the second son of Abraham and a great prophet.

He was also the son promised by Yahweh, the miraculous conceived child whom Christians see foreshadowing Jesus Christ. He was the only son of Abraham and Sarah who Yahweh said would carry the promises given to Abraham.

5. Both of his sons were legal and legitimate in front of the law of God and thus God himself.

See point 2 and my earlier points about Hagar being used as a surrogate mother without the sanction of Yahweh.

OM: "Quran is not in any Error at all, rather it is the Bible and Genesis itself."

GM: My opinion is that the Quaran and the Bible, along with other sacred texts, reflect the truth of God but I do not believe they are exactly God's word from start to finish. I do not attribute malice to the Jews or Mohammad for that which is not of God – there are many reasons why human inspirations are confused with the divine in the realm of private revelation.

 

Thank you for your time and patience in dealing with my questions.

[SkepticOfBible]

Well, Jesus never claimed any divinity nor he calimed himself as a son of God

 

beeeeppp...wrong on the part of him not claiming to be son of God.

 

Mark 14:60-62(ESV)

And the high priest stood up in the midst and asked Jesus, "Have you no

answer to make? What is it that these men testify against you?"

But he remained silent and made no answer. Again the high priest asked him,

"Are you the Christ, the Son of the Blessed?"

And Jesus said, "I am, and you will see the Son of Man seated at the right

hand of Power, and coming with the clouds of heaven."

[scotter]

Re: Golden Meadows' post - information on Ishmael

 

Refer to:

http://www.jewishencyclopedia.com/

 

Type Ishmael on search box, and the Ishmael article will show up. There isn't any information about Omni's quotation from Encyclopedia Judaica. I hope the website and the article helps in general. My city's reference library has a set of Encyclopedia Judaica, I shall go and check.

 

OM: In Encyclopedia Judica Jerusalem, volume 9, under the heading "Ishmael," we read:

"It is related that a renowned traditionalist of Jewish origin, from Qurayza tribe and another Jewish scholar who converted to Islam, told Caliph Omar ibn 'Abd al-'Aziz (717-20) that the Jews were well informed that Ismail (Ishmael) was the one who was bound, but they concealed this out of jealousy."

GM: Unfortunately I don't have access to this encyclopedia in order to check the full context of this passage.

 

-----

 

Question for Omni on Trinity:

 

Christian belief of Trinity (although there are non-Trinitarian Christians) didn't start off right away but it evolved in the centuries.

 

Some background information:

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ecumenical_council

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/First_Council_of_Nicaea, and particularly The Nicene Creed.

 

Christian Trinity dogma was realized during the debates, meetings and votes, as early as 325 CE.

Quran is revealed material, dated around 600+ CE.

 

In short, according to Islam, Trinity is wrong dogma.

 

300 hundred years later after the Nicene Council God revealed to Muhammad and meant to correct and restore true Monotheism via the Quran.

 

Revelation is a supernatural means, so God could have influenced the Christian Ecumenical Councils' votes at that time and let not the Councils and Christians fall into Trinitarian beliefs, just as the way He revealed to Prophet Muhammad.

 

Question: Omni, why did you think God had not exerted such influence right there right then in the meetings and Councils, and chose to reveal the non-Trinitarian truth to another person in the Arabic land, and waited 300 years later?

 

This is not a question of dogmatic rhetorical debate, but more of a personal spiritual accord. I would like to hear your assessment.

 

I appreciate your patience and take your time as you have other questions to deal with.

[SkepticOfBible]

 

What is the foreshadowment you are talking about?

 

The story of Isaac and Jacob doesn't foreshadown Jesus's story anymore than Exo 26:2-14 being foreshadowment of martha Stewart

 

 

========================================================

Definition:

 

WordNet:

 

"The noun foreshadowing has one meaning:

 

Meaning #1: the act of providing vague advance indications; representing beforehand

Synonyms: prefiguration, adumbration"

==========================================================================

 

Doing a google on "Isaac type Jesus" gives this as first hit:

 

http://biblia.com/jesusbible/genesis4b.htm

 

This covers most of the elements of the foreshadowing of Jesus by Issac but not all and would basically be in line with the way church fathers interpreted the text. IMO these are valid using the definition of foreshadowing given above. As a xtian I believed, but did not know for sure, that Calvary was foreshadowed by this passage from the OT because of the number of points of similarity between them. If I still believed the bible to be the word of God then I would still believe this type of foreshadowing was valid. The emphasis is on the word "believed". Maybe one of the forum's xtian guests might like to argue in favour of this point rather than me trying to pretend to be something I am not.

 

 

First of all GM, I really love your quality of your rebuttal to Omni. They are well researched, and you debate as well as a christian.

 

However with regards to the foreshadowment prophecy, I disagree with your conclusion mainly because of the following reasons

 

1)The text doesn't say that it is a prophecy of any sort,

 

2)The NT writers and Christians are behaving just like Creationist, whereby there are trying to find evidence for a conclusion. Quoting text out of their context and using it to promote your theological agenda, is nothing more than creative embellishment, and is bad theology. Hosea 11:1 is a great example. Although the text is a historical statement, the author of matthew tries to say it is a prophecy that is to be accurately to be fulfilled. Christians would then cite this as evidence for JC, however on close examination it is circular reasoning which works like this

 

Hosea 11:1 is really a prophecy about Jesus regardless of the fact that it says nothing about Jesus or a Messiah and is a past tense statement.

The proof that it's really a fulfilled prophecy is because the author of Matthew said it was.

The Gospel of Matthew is true because it's found in the New Testament Bible, which must be the word of God because it has so many accurately fulfilled Old Testament prophecies in it.

 

3)There is no precedent set anywhere in the Hebrew Scripture for the "foreshadowment prophecy"(FP). Amos 3:7 says clearly that nothing is hidden from the prophet. "Foreshadownment" amounts to God hidding information in hebrew scripture. It is no wonder the Jews don't bite into this FP fulfillment

 

4)Christians try to ride on these vague foreshadowment by saying that Jesus accurately fulfillment the prophecies of the Old Testament. However if Muslims or Mormons try to use the same methodology of FP to validate their prophets, Christians will be the first to shout out "Out of Context" /"embellishment". So if they will not accept the standard for the Quran or the Book of Mormon, then why must we accept it for the NT?

 

 

Psalm 22: Nailing An Alleged Crucifixion Scenario

 

http://www.messiahtruth.com/psalms7.html

A Rabbis Take on Foreshadowment Fulfillment

[gangstaknitta]

As an evidence the Gospel of Barnabas is a very evident evidence but christians hide it because if they accept it, it would demolish all of their corruption.

 

I thought that it was pretty well known academically that the Gospel of Barnabas was a Middle Age Spanish forgery, although I don't believe that that is the reason why Xians have not accepted it. I worked on a research project concerning it. Do Muslims dismiss this? Just curious, as I am only aware of the academic viewpoint. I would be interested in your thoughts.

[Golden Meadows]

SkepticOfBible: However with regards to the foreshadowment prophecy, I disagree with your conclusion mainly because of the following reasons

1)The text doesn't say that it is a prophecy of any sort,

GM: There is indeed an explicit prophecy embedded in this passage:

"By myself I have sworn, says the Lord, because you have done this, and have not withheld your son, your only son, I will indeed bless you, and I will multiply your descendants as the stars of heaven and as the sand which is on the seashore. And your descendants shall possess the gate of their enemies, and by your descendants shall all the nations of the earth bless themselves, because you have obeyed my voice." Gen22:16. All the nations of the earth are to be blessed through Abraham's faith. Its clear that it was not fulfilled during Abraham's time, nor the whole of the OT period, but it has, according to xtians, been fulfilled through the events of Calvary through which all nations have received the Gospel. The mother of Jesus in her magnificat at the opening of the gospel declares "according to the promise he made to our ancestors, of his mercy to Abraham and to his descendants for ever." (Luke 1:55) i.e she saw the promise given to Abraham being fullfiled through the incarnation of her son. Paul also saw the same: "So you see that it is men of faith who are the sons of Abraham. And the scripture, foreseeing that God would justify the Gentiles by faith, preached the gospel beforehand to Abraham, saying, "In you shall all the nations be blessed." So then, those who are men of faith are blessed with Abraham who had faith."Gal 3

 

The NT writers and Christians are behaving just like Creationist, whereby there are trying to find evidence for a conclusion.

GM: assume you mean "creationists" and refer to those people who adopt a highly literal interpretation to the opening chapters of the Book of Genesis? IMO this is a comparatively modern phenomena and was not used by early Church Fathers such as Augustine, who read those passages non-literally so its not accurate to lump all xtians together with modern creationists. Certainly the NT writers did not adopt a highly literal reading of the OT as you suggest – rather the opposite.

 

Hosea 11:1 is a great example. Although the text is a historical statement, the author of matthew tries to say it is a prophecy that is to be accurately to be fulfilled. Christians would then cite this as evidence for JC, however on close examination it is circular reasoning which works like this

Hosea 11:1 is really a prophecy about Jesus regardless of the fact that it says nothing about Jesus or a Messiah and is a past tense statement.

The proof that it's really a fulfilled prophecy is because the author of Matthew said it was.

The Gospel of Matthew is true because it's found in the New Testament Bible, which must be the word of God because it has so many accurately fulfilled Old Testament prophecies in it.

GM: Xtians believe the evangelists were writing under the inspiration of the Holy Spirit and it is not Mathew who is interpreting the text. That being the case I guess the reasoning faculties of Mathew did not try to override the inspiration since he had been told that baby Jesus had fled with his parents for a time to Egypt whilst being oppressed by Herod. History being seen to repeat itself many times over in sacred scripture in this particular narrative theme in the OT.

 

3)There is no precedent set anywhere in the Hebrew Scripture for the "foreshadowment prophecy"(FP). Amos 3:7 says clearly that nothing is hidden from the prophet. "Foreshadownment" amounts to God hidding information in Hebrew scripture. It is no wonder the Jews don't bite into this FP fulfillment

GM: I think perhaps the thing you seem to indirectly criticize in creationists – literalism - you unwittingly support yourself. The verse from Amos reads: "No more does the Lord Yahweh do anything without revealing his plans to his servants the prophets". Do you really think Amos or his listeners actually thought that Yahweh who created the universe out of nothing and sustains it in existence from moment to moment consulted or informed them of every single thing He does in his omnipotence, omniscience....? If you believe in God its seems perfectly clear that ordinarily he remains hidden to us and it takes an act of faith, or, some might say, good-will to accept his existence. Why does he do this, why does he not make it perfectly clear to each and everyone that he indubitably exists? I don't know. I can only guess that he would rather have us do things for the right reasons in this world – essentially love – rather than because we are overwhelmed at the presence of an almighty power. This applies to scripture as well , e.g foreshadowings/prophecies/miracles and such like all require some act of faith to avoid any transgression of what seems like an unwritten law, i.e the need to live by faith and not sight in this world. A confirmed skeptic will not be open to these kind of nudges or inspirations. The thing he looks for, i.e verifiable scientific proof dissolves the principle of doing the right things for the right reasons. An all powerful deity has no need of anything but if he is love itself it can be imagined that in act of pure benevolence he brings into beings who can ultimately share in that love. Love requires free-will, but that is something that might be overwhelmed in the presence of the deity made manifest in this world. You say the Jews do not buy into the foreshadowing business but this is a comparatively modern phenomena probably as a response to xtians using it to show Jesus in the OT. If we leave behind modern prejudice and examine the Dead Seas Scrolls we find that before the xtian era Jews indeed did use these techniques in interpreting sacred texts, i.e using not the letter but the spirit. The basic principle of Jewish typology is "Ma'aseh abot siman le-banim" (the lives of the Patriarchs prefigured the lives of their descendants): "As in many instances in Am Yisrael's history the roots and basis for our relationship with the nations of the world are set in Sefer Bereishit. "Ma'aseh avot siman lebanim" is shown to mean that the history of our forefathers is a blueprint for our future history."

http://www.midreshetharova.org.il/onlineto...eitezei5764.php

 

4)Christians try to ride on these vague foreshadowment by saying that Jesus accurately fulfillment the prophecies of the Old Testament. However if Muslims or Mormons try to use the same methodology of FP to validate their prophets, Christians will be the first to shout out "Out of Context" /"embellishment". So if they will not accept the standard for the Quran or the Book of Mormon, then why must we accept it for the NT?

GM: It seems clear from the bible we have today that Jesus Christ of the NT is foreshadowed in many places, over many hundreds of years, in the OT. A xtian will see God carefully preparing the way for his only son so that people who are open to his claims can with goodwill – if they so wish – accept them as being reasonable whilst a skeptic will see contrivance. If you want to contrast the claims of Jesus Christ and his followers in mainstream xtianity with those of Muhammad, Charles Taze Russell and Joseph Smith then show me how the world was prepared for this latter groups coming in scripture/prophecy/foreshadowing and I will study and comment.

[The_Omniscient]

Dear fellows;

 

I would make my reply shortly as these days I am out of net-connection due to heavy rainfalls in my city. I would make the replies sooner.

Rest assured.

 

Regards

A well wisher

[SkepticOfBible]

GM: There is indeed an explicit prophecy embedded in this passage:

"By myself I have sworn, says the Lord, because you have done this, and have not withheld your son, your only son, I will indeed bless you, and I will multiply your descendants as the stars of heaven and as the sand which is on the seashore. And your descendants shall possess the gate of their enemies, and by your descendants shall all the nations of the earth bless themselves, because you have obeyed my voice." Gen22:16. All the nations of the earth are to be blessed through Abraham's faith. Its clear that it was not fulfilled during Abraham's time, nor the whole of the OT period, but it has, according to xtians, been fulfilled through the events of Calvary through which all nations have received the Gospel..

 

Nice job of throwing the discussion off topic.

 

Just explain to me how was Gen 22:16 fulfilled at the events of the calvary considering

 

1)Jesus never conquered enemies of the Jews. Even till this day they are fighting their enemies

 

2)The Jews were still persecuted throughout the centuries, and their number dwindled from time to time.

 

Now from time the Bible does tell us that the Isrealite wiped out their enemies such as Caanite, Midinites under the order of Yahweh, but nevertheless, you claim this was fulfilled by Jesus only, to which I see no evidence,

 

Let's not forget the the biblical claim that the Isrealite grew from small family to 6 millions within a few hundred years(multiply your descendants as the stars of heaven). But I guess you are gonna claim that Jesus fulfilled this promise again the calvary.

 

The mother of Jesus in her magnificat at the opening of the gospel declares "according to the promise he made to our ancestors, of his mercy to Abraham and to his descendants for ever." (Luke 1:55) i.e she saw the promise given to Abraham being fullfiled through the incarnation of her son..

 

Once again what fullfillment?

 

Paul also saw the same: "So you see that it is men of faith who are the sons of Abraham. And the scripture, foreseeing that God would justify the Gentiles by faith, preached the gospel beforehand to Abraham, saying, "In you shall all the nations be blessed." So then, those who are men of faith are blessed with Abraham who had faith."Gal 3 .

 

Apparently Paul did not read Isa 56:1-8 where it gives precise instruction as how are Gentiles are supposed to join God's chosen congregration .It certainly does not mention about the need to believe in illegal human sacrifice.

 

BTW, the book of James states that Abrham was justified by his works and so does the Genesis account. So Paul misinterpreted the passage, again

 

How Are Gentiles Saved?

 

In the name of his new religion, Paul contradicted God and even Jesus his Lord. The food laws are voided, the circumcision requirement is voided, and any other laws that stood in the way of Paul gaining converts among non-Jews who couldn't have been bothered with Yahweh's complicated laws in the first place. Jesus became a one stop shopping center for salvation where the cumbersome and complicated commands from Yahweh were exchanged for a much easier requirement of believing in Jesus as your savior.

 

 

GM: assume you mean "creationists" and refer to those people who adopt a highly literal interpretation to the opening chapters of the Book of Genesis? IMO this is a comparatively modern phenomena and was not used by early Church Fathers such as Augustine, who read those passages non-literally so its not accurate to lump all xtians together with modern creationists. Certainly the NT writers did not adopt a highly literal reading of the OT as you suggest - rather the opposite.

 

Then please explain the selective literal application of Is 53 to Jesus life's by the NT writers, when the intent of that chapter was meant to be metaphorical for Isreal.

 

FYI, the creationist movement is not something new. They have been oppossing Darwin's theory of evolution ever since it came out. Just read a bit of history.

 

GM: Xtians believe the evangelists were writing under the inspiration of the Holy Spirit and it is not Mathew who is interpreting the text. .

 

Yes, just assert something and believe it.

 

What is the proof that Matthew wrote under the inspiration of the HS? How do christians know that Gospel of Matthew was written under the inspiration of HS, where the Gospel of Thomas was not? Just because christians think it is so.?????????????

 

There is no independent confirmation of this assertion. The sole "proof" of authenticity of the claim rests on itself.

 

The canon of the Bible didn't drop from the sky as one leather bound book.

It was voted into place by various councils of male clerics over many years. It was these male clerics that decided which writings were God's word, and these councils didn't take place until hundreds of years after the author of matthew was dead. There is no record of God actually appearing at any of these councils, giving instructions on which writings were "divine" and which ones weren't.

All this was done by the whims of men, who felt they were being guided by God.

 

For the Bible to be as inspired and perfect as christians claim, it would require that all the male clerics that voted in the majority were inspired and perfect in their judgment as well.

If Christians don't think there were some behind the scenes politics associated with the vote, they are living in a fantasy. The validity of the Holy Bible as being directly from God is one layer of Christian speculation piled on top of another.

None of it can be questioned, yet it must all be believed.

 

 

It also seems that under the inspiration of the HS, these writers manage to create some obvious blunders and misreading of the hebrew scripture. One really classic one is where Matthew makes Jesus ride two donkeys like a circus freak. Why? Because he misread the hebrew parallelism of the prophetic verse in question.

 

Please explain does writing under the influence of the HS means that, it is a license to make up prophecy add credibility to the theological agenda? Cause the writers are pretty good at it.

 

 

And what about the fact that the NT writers keep quoting from the Septuigent, which is flawed translation of the hebrew bible. Was the HS unable to teach the writers to read proper herbew?

 

 

That being the case I guess the reasoning faculties of Mathew did not try to override the inspiration since he had been told that baby Jesus had fled with his parents for a time Egypt whilst being oppressed by Herod. History being seen to repeat itself many times over in sacred scripture in this particular narrative theme in the OT.

 

What the Matthew tried to was to build a classic "danger situation for the hero during his vunerabality," similar to the one for Moses and Hercules.

 

Please don't try to casually dismiss the hijacking of Old Testament scripture by the New Testament writer, in order to add credibility to a story about Jesus.

 

The text of Matthew draws no distinction about what "type" of fulfillment is being performed.

 

Matt 2:14-15

 

When he arose, he took the young child and his mother by night, and departed into Egypt:

 

And was there until the death of Herod: that it might be fulfilled which was spoken of the Lord by the prophet, saying, Out of Egypt have I called my son.

 

The author of Matthew depicts Jesus leaving Egypt as an event that was needed to "fulfill" what was spoken by the prophet in Hosea. If the event was needed at a future time in order to produce a fulfillment, then it was a predictive prophecy.

Assertions about "typological" versus "predictive" fulfillment are smoke screens employed to rationalize the fact that Hosea 11:1 is not a prophecy at all, nor was it used in context by the author of Matthew.

The text of Hosea says nothing about a "typological" fulfillment that should be expected in the future.

However, people that don't accept the Christian insertion of Jesus into Old Testament scripture are told that they should know the Old Testament "better".

In this case, knowing the Old Testament better also means accepting Christian wishful thinking as factual scripture.

 

Please explain why the rest of Hosea 11 doesn't apply to Jesus?

In his zeal for fitting in Jesus and fulfilling a prophecy, Matthew once again misinterprate the original verse from Jeremiah when he describe the herod massacre

 

http://sol.sci.uop.edu/~jfalward/Ramah.htm

 

Are you claiming that the Herod massacre was a historical fact? Please tell me why was this not mentioned by any of the Gentile historians? Herod also carried out attrocities against the Jews, and the Jews had well documeneted those acts. So why was the order of the killing of the Jewish babies escape the writings of the jews?

 

So the question is - was Matthew writing history or was he creating it?

 

Then there is also a whole issue of reconciling the Matthew birth narrative with the Luke, which completely blows away any veracity to the events described in the Matthew.

 

 

GM: I think perhaps the thing you seem to indirectly criticize in creationists - literalism - you unwittingly support yourself. The verse from Amos reads: "No more does the Lord Yahweh do anything without revealing his plans to his servants the prophets". Do you really think Amos or his listeners actually thought that Yahweh who created the universe out of nothing and sustains it in existence from moment to moment consulted or informed them of every single thing.

 

No it means what it says, that God of the Jews DOES NOT HIDE any information. Nobody is talking about God consulting his creation.

 

He doesn't hide information so that it was discovered by later crackpots, and then be told, if you don't believe in their kinky interpretation, then they will burn in hell for eternity

 

This is nothing more than rhethoric and smoke screen to rationalise the specific promise made by the Jewish God to his people, which Jesus failed to if he were a valid Davidic messiah.

 

He does in his omnipotence, omniscience....? If you believe in God its seems perfectly clear that ordinarily he remains hidden to us and it takes an act of faith, or, some might say, good-will to accept his existence.

 

And God of the Jews also says that he will send false prophets to Isreal to test the loyalty of his people.(Deaut 13;18)

 

What makes you sure that Christianity is not a elaborate test for the Jews?

 

How do you prove that the NT is continued revelation from the same god considering it contradicts the theology of the old on so many occasion?

 

This applies to scripture as well , e.g foreshadowings/prophecies/miracles and such like all require some act of faith to avoid any transgression of what seems like an unwritten law, i.e the need to live by faith and not sight in this world. A confirmed skeptic will not be open to these kind of nudges or inspirations. The thing he looks for, i.e verifiable scientific proof dissolves the principle of doing the right things for the right reasons.

 

So the arguement pretty boils down to this

 

Is the NT a progressive revelation of the Old Testament or a creative Revisionism of Hebrew Scripture?

 

A objective person would look at both possibility. A naive believer would not entertain the other. Which one should I be?

 

Love requires free-will, but that is something that might be overwhelmed in the presence of the deity made manifest in this world.

 

And those who choose to exercise to their freewill and honestly doubt the claims of the "holy book" in question will be sent to eternal torture. Some love? The Christian message is nothing more than a ultimatum, and nothing more.

 

You say the Jews do not buy into the foreshadowing business but this is a comparatively modern phenomena probably as a response to xtians using it to show Jesus in the OT.

 

Your above statement shows that either you are ignorant of the Jewish Polemics against the Christian message or that you are lying. The Jews have been rebutting christianity since the beginning.

 

Ever read the Justin Matyr writing. Read the book called Dialogue with Trypho , where he talks about the Jewish claim that Isaiah 7:14 talks about a young women rather than virgin. Here is the passage from his book

 

"…But since you and your teachers venture to affirm that in the prophecy of Isaiah it is not said, 'Behold, the virgin shall conceive,' but, 'Behold, the young woman shall conceive, and bear a son…"

 

see: http://www.earlychristianwritings.com/text...oguetrypho.html

 

Jerome, who was probably one of the greatest linguists of the 4 th century (he translated the Bible into Latin, which is called the Vulgate) records how the Jews are constantly telling Christianity about this mistake of Is 7:14, and he admits that they are right.

 

[32] Isaiah tells of the mystery of our faith and hope: "Behold a virgin shall conceive, and bear a son, and shall call his name Emmanuel." I know that the Jews are accustomed to meet us with the objection that in Hebrew the word Almah does not mean a virgin, but a young woman. And, to speak truth, a virgin is properly called Bethulah..."

 

(Jerome, Against Jovinianus , Book 1, chapter 32; Nicene and Post-Nicene Fathers, vol. 6, p. 370). See: http://www.ccel.org/ccel/schaff/npnf206.vi.vi.I.html

 

Origen, a second century church fathers mentions about Jewish claim that that Is 53 is about Isreal in one of his books

 

The disputation of Rambam at Barcelona which took place in 1263 is another example of Jewish Polemics. Here is both side of the that dialogue. Note the again repeated topic http://medspains.stanford.edu/demo/barcelo...isputation.html

 

"Faith Strengthened" by Isaac Troki is 500 years old and is still one of the best counter-missionary texts ever penned.

 

http://www.faithstrengthened.org/FS_TOC.html

 

So GM you are wrong about the fact that Jewish Counter Missionary movement is a modern phenomena.

 

Sure the Jews have not been loud voice against the christian message, mainly because of two reasons

 

1)Judaism outright prohibits proslystising, hence they don't interfere with the sprititual matters of others

 

2)By speaking against Christianity meant more persecution

 

If we leave behind modern prejudice .

 

What prejudice?? I am only examing it the claims skeptically and following basic hermeneutics. Is that wrong?

 

The basic principle of Jewish typology .

 

Yeah, but you wouldn't find any Jewish theologians outright contradict the principles of Hebrew bible nor misquote it. Nor do any of these writings say that descendents should now be worshipped like God.

 

Besides they are just mere human interpretation/exegesis of the hebrew scripture, not divine revelation from their god. So shall we not treat the NT in the same way? Or do you believe in special pleading?

 

 

4)Christians try to ride on these vague foreshadowment by saying that Jesus accurately fulfillment the prophecies of the Old Testament. However if Muslims or Mormons try to use the same methodology of FP to validate their prophets, Christians will be the first to shout out "Out of Context" /"embellishment". So if they will not accept the standard for the Quran or the Book of Mormon, then why must we accept it for the NT? .

 

GM: It seems clear from the bible we have today that Jesus Christ of the NT is foreshadowed in many places, over many hundreds of years, in the OT.

 

Sure just like the archer who shoots a arrow in a tree, draws a bullseye around it and claims he has accuracy. If you look for foreshadowment, you will find it, but it also means to disregard the context and intent of the orginal writer

 

A xtian will see God carefully preparing the way for his only son so that people who are open to his claims can with goodwill - if they so wish - accept them as being reasonable whilst a skeptic will see contrivance..

 

God carefully prepared the way, by hiding information in the bible, so that christians can tell the others that there Jesus is messiah, even the text says nothing of the sort.

 

Kind of reminds of the story of the Emperor's new clothes.

 

Not everybody is naive, like christians. Unfortunately the christian message is also filled with number of threats if you don't believe in the message

 

If you want to contrast the claims of Jesus Christ and his followers in mainstream xtianity with those of Muhammad, Charles Taze Russell and Joseph Smith then show me how the world was prepared for this latter groups coming in scripture/prophecy/foreshadowing and I will study and comment. .

 

As if christians or you have proved that the Old Testament speaks about Jesus.

 

When students study theology they are taught the one of the basic fundamentals of hermeneutics, the science and art of interpretation of religious texts, which basically states

 

The passage or words must be studied in context.

 

........

 

The first context is the material that immediately precedes and follows the passage under consideration. "A text without a context is a pretext."

 

[Rev. E.P.] Barrows stated, "To interpret without regard to the context is to interpret at random; to interpret contrary to the context is to teach falsehood for truth"

 

(Barrows, Companion to the Bible, 531). [barrows, a professor of theology at Oberlin Seminary, wrote in 1868.)

 

Please answer the following questions honestly

 

1)Do you agree with the above fundamental?

 

2)Do you think the NT writers followed this fundamental in their writing?

 

3)Do Christian practice this when they preach?

 

My whole arguement against the christian message can be summed up in this basic fundamental of hermeneutic.

[Golden Meadows]

 

Dear Skeptic,

My answers are colored blue whilst quotes of mine from previous posts ,used by you, are also underlined.

 

GM: There is indeed an explicit prophecy embedded in this passage:

"By myself I have sworn, says the Lord, because you have done this, and have not withheld your son, your only son, I will indeed bless you, and I will multiply your descendants as the stars of heaven and as the sand which is on the seashore. And your descendants shall possess the gate of their enemies, and by your descendants shall all the nations of the earth bless themselves, because you have obeyed my voice." Gen22:16. All the nations of the earth are to be blessed through Abraham's faith. Its clear that it was not fulfilled during Abraham's time, nor the whole of the OT period, but it has, according to xtians, been fulfilled through the events of Calvary through which all nations have received the Gospel..

Skeptic: Nice job of throwing the discussion off topic.

GM: You asked me where the prophecy was and I showed you, why therefore do you say I am throwing discussion off topic? I highlight the relevant words for your attention.

 

Skeptic: Just explain to me how was Gen 22:16 fulfilled at the events of the calvary considering

1)Jesus never conquered enemies of the Jews. Even till this day they are fighting their enemies

GM: Xtians believe Jesus conquered satan/sin/death on Calvary and this was foreshadowed in Gen 22:16, with the exception of literalists they read scripture in different ways believing that God has embedded different layers of meaning, including literal, allegorical...., sometimes within the same passage. Jews have also used the same techniques and I gave examples in my previous post. Remember also the Roman empire was finally converted to xtianity, something that must have seemed highly improbable/impossible to the Jews looking towards the band of Galilean fishermen etc who followed Jesus Christ in the immediate aftermath of calvary and especially so after that empire raised Jerusalem to the ground.

 

GM:The mother of Jesus in her magnificat at the opening of the gospel declares "according to the promise he made to our ancestors, of his mercy to Abraham and to his descendants for ever." (Luke 1:55) i.e she saw the promise given to Abraham being fullfiled through the incarnation of her son..

Skeptic: Once again what fulfillment?

GM: "and by your descendants shall all the nations of the earth bless themselves, because you have obeyed my voice."

 

GM: Paul also saw the same: "So you see that it is men of faith who are the sons of Abraham. And the scripture, foreseeing that God would justify the Gentiles by faith, preached the gospel beforehand to Abraham, saying, "In you shall all the nations be blessed." So then, those who are men of faith are blessed with Abraham who had faith."Gal 3 .

Skeptic: Apparently Paul did not read Isa 56:1-8 where it gives precise instruction as how are Gentiles are supposed to join God's chosen congregration .It certainly does not mention about the need to believe in illegal human sacrifice.

GM: The holy spirit is said to be upon Jephthah when he makes his vow that leads to the sacrifice of his daughter to save his people.(judges 11:29) Modern xtians might squirm at that passage but it seems to knock on the head any notion that human sacrifice was under all circumstances anathema to Yahweh. The early church fathers saw the sacrifice of Jephthahs virgin daughter as foreshadowing the sacrifice of Jesus who also offered up his life to save the people.

 

Skeptic: BTW, the book of James states that Abraham was justified by his works and so does the Genesis account. So Paul misinterpreted the passage, again

GM: When I was a practicing xtian I did not see these two passages as being mutually exclusive - the good works being a fruit of faith rather than an attempt to buy oneself into heaven.

 

Skeptics: How Are Gentiles Saved?

In the name of his new religion, Paul contradicted God and even Jesus his Lord. The food laws are voided, the circumcision requirement is voided, and any other laws that stood in the way of Paul gaining converts among non-Jews who couldn't have been bothered with Yahweh's complicated laws in the first place. Jesus became a one stop shopping center for salvation where the cumbersome and complicated commands from Yahweh were exchanged for a much easier requirement of believing in Jesus as your savior.

GM: This is your interpretation. This is my interpretation if I wear a xtian hat: what kind of God makes salvation dependent on following strictly complicated ceremonial law - empty gestures when the heart is unconverted? I can see it as being an expression of love but not as a means of buying Yahwehs the monsters favour. This part of Jesus's teaching I can accept without any difficulty. Why would a God who is love want mere observance of a rule book? All you need is love. Jesus fullfills the law for everyone who wants it but I guess if a person is stubborn and wants to hang on to every little part of the rule book and be his own little God, able to work out his own salvation, then God might like let him get tired out doing so, maybe then humbly submiting to the reality that we are all dependent creatures. Not one dot or iota will pass away from the law until pride takes a tumble. Gentiles are saved because we hope God is not the literalist nightmare of the holy book's and does not bring into existence human beings capable of love with the intention of destroying them because they did not happen to be Jews.

 

GM: assume you mean "creationists" and refer to those people who adopt a highly literal interpretation to the opening chapters of the Book of Genesis? IMO this is a comparatively modern phenomena and was not used by early Church Fathers such as Augustine, who read those passages non-literally so its not accurate to lump all xtians together with modern creationists. Certainly the NT writers did not adopt a highly literal reading of the OT as you suggest - rather the opposite.

Skeptic:Then please explain the selective literal application of Is 53 to Jesus life's by the NT writers, when the intent of that chapter was meant to be metaphorical for Isreal.

GM: The point I made was that the NT writers did not use a HIGHLY literal means of interpretation. Your opinon of what that passage in Isaiah means is exactly that - an opinion, xtians and Jews will obviously differ in many passages, thats why there are Jews and xtians and not just one religion. IMO linking the suffering servant passage of Is 53 to Israel is extremely tenuous based solely on the text itself. If I was a Jew I guess the terrible persecutions they have suffered down through the centuries and most especially in the Shoa would make me more open to stretching the text but as it is there is an strong link between these passages and the gospel accounts of the passion. If you are a xtian it will go beyond the mere literary into the realm of fulfilled prophecy. According to xtians the birth, death and resurrection of Christ transcended the narrow interests of the Jews and Israel outwards towards the whole world - this seems to me a more appealing and likely image of the true God.

 

Skeptic:FYI, the creationist movement is not something new. They have been oppossing Darwin's theory of evolution ever since it came out. Just read a bit of history.

GM: When I said the literal interpretation of Genesis was a comparatively modern phenomena I said it with reference to St Augustine who interpreted it non literally in the 3/4th century AD therefore I feel my assertion is justified.

 

GM: Xtians believe the evangelists were writing under the inspiration of the Holy Spirit and it is not Mathew who is interpreting the text.

Skeptic: Yes, just assert something and believe it.

What is the proof that Matthew wrote under the inspiration of the HS? How do christians know that Gospel of Matthew was written under the inspiration of HS, where the Gospel of Thomas was not? Just because christians think it is so.?????????????

There is no independent confirmation of this assertion. The sole "proof" of authenticity of the claim rests on itself.

GM: I suspect that the kind of proof you might demand is the kind which means God no longer remains hidden in this world and for whatever reason he choses not to do so. We are supposed to live by faith, learning to love our neighbors and be unselfish rather than through an overwhelming presence being made visible -thats my thoughts anyway - who knows but God?

 

 

 

Skeptic: The canon of the Bible didn't drop from the sky as one leather bound book.It was voted into place by various councils of male clerics over many years.

GM: The first council which defined the books of the bible was held in AD382 and these are the books found in catholic bibles today. I don't want to get into sectarian polemics about why other church's have dropped books as it not relevant to the discussion with Omni on the Quaran. Contrary to modern misconception the church was never exclusively a religion of the book like Islam and post reformation groups. Christ is not recorded as saying anything about forming a bible and observing it to the very letter, rather he founded a Church in which the living tradition of his teachings was preserved and developed down through the ages. The bible came out of that tradition, the Church did not come out of the bible.

Skeptic: It was these male clerics that decided which writings were God's word, and these councils didn't take place until hundreds of years after the author of matthew was dead. There is no record of God actually appearing at any of these councils, giving instructions on which writings were "divine" and which ones weren't.All this was done by the whims of men, who felt they were being guided by God.

GM: The Church believes that the Holy Spirit of God guides its councils such that they do not err in matters of faith and morals in accordance with the promises its founder gave her. I assume that God does not appear at councils for the same reason he does not make his overt presence felt to the world in general.

Skeptic: For the Bible to be as inspired and perfect as christians claim, it would require that all the male clerics that voted in the majority were inspired and perfect in their judgment as well. If Christians don't think there were some behind the scenes politics associated with the vote, they are living in a fantasy. The validity of the Holy Bible as being directly from God is one layer of Christian speculation piled on top of another. None of it can be questioned, yet it must all be believed.

GM: The OT itself shows how God takes the machinations of men and turns them towards the carrying out of his will anyway, remember the deceit of Jacob for example? The assumption is that at councils God is working away silently and invisibly to ensure it does not teach error no matter how obvious the failings of the human beings who form the council.

Skeptic: It also seems that under the inspiration of the HS, these writers manage to create some obvious blunders and misreading of the hebrew scripture. One really classic one is where Matthew makes Jesus ride two donkeys like a circus freak. Why? Because he misread the hebrew parallelism of the prophetic verse in question.

GM: I don't believe the bible as we have it is exactly Gods word from start to finish and there are many reasons why this may be so. Personally I like the idea that God allows a degree of uncertainty in these matters to discourage literalism and fundamentalism that leads from monotheism to a monomaniacal religion that excludes and demonizes everybody it sees on the outside. These monomaniacal religious then think they are justified in setting off bombs in public places, flying passenger jets into buildings and helping God by trying to bring about Apocalypse Now in the middle east by their crusading.

Skeptic: And what about the fact that the NT writers keep quoting from the Septuigent, which is flawed translation of the hebrew bible. Was the HS unable to teach the writers to read proper herbew?

GM: The Greek Septuagint, authorized by the Jerusalem hierarchy, was written by Jews for Greek speaking Jews in the diaspora in around the 300bc. At the time the Gospels are thought to have been committed to print the audience was essentially Greek speaking so it made sense to use the Septuagint translation. As a xtian I had no problems in dealing with differences between translations. IMO a Greek and Hebrew speaking Jew of 300bc knew more about the issues involved than modern translators and therefore I had no hang up about accepting such things as "virgin" for "almah" in that famously disputed passage from Isaiah.

GM: That being the case I guess the reasoning faculties of Mathew did not try to override the inspiration since he had been told that baby Jesus had fled with his parents for a time Egypt whilst being oppressed by Herod. History being seen to repeat itself many times over in sacred scripture in this particular narrative theme in the OT.

Skeptic: What the Matthew tried to was to build a classic "danger situation for the hero during his vunerabality," similar to the one for Moses and Hercules.

GM: Thats your opinion but I showed you in my previous post that Jews did expect the deeds of their ancestors to be repeated through history, a sort of foreshadowing culminating, according to xtians, in the life of Jesus Christ.

Skeptic: The text of Hosea says nothing about a "typological" fulfillment that should be expected in the future.

GM: Prophecies of whatever kind seem oftentimes to be understood after the event. I can only guess the reasons:

a) If prophecy was explicit and overt, without any grounds for doubt, then it would destroy the the need to live by faith, we would tend towards little literalist robots reading what the exact letter of the book says rather than having our hearts being led by love.

These same fundamentalists and literalist's might tend towards aggression rather than peace through their attempts to bring about the prophecy, real soon now, as if God needs a helping hand in rolling out the book of revelations, for example, by xtian extremists.

 

Skeptic: Are you claiming that the Herod massacre was a historical fact? Please tell me why was this not mentioned by any of the Gentile historians? Herod also carried out attrocities against the Jews, and the Jews had well documeneted those acts. So why was the order of the killing of the Jewish babies escape the writings of the jews?

GM: Don't know. If I assume goodwill towards the writer of Mathews gospel I would suggest that the numbers involved were so tiny, perhaps less than 20 as Bethlehem was only a small town. Compared to Herod's other atrocities they were not significant enough to register in any surviving historical accounts of the Jews. Remember Herod killed two of his OWN sons because he thought they posed a threat to him.

 

Skeptic: So the question is - was Matthew writing history or was he creating it?Then there is also a whole issue of reconciling the Matthew birth narrative with the Luke, which completely blows away any veracity to the events described in the Matthew.

GM: There are alternatives to questioning their honesty.

 

GM: I think perhaps the thing you seem to indirectly criticize in creationists - literalism - you unwittingly support yourself. The verse from Amos reads: "No more does the Lord Yahweh do anything without revealing his plans to his servants the prophets". Do you really think Amos or his listeners actually thought that Yahweh who created the universe out of nothing and sustains it in existence from moment to moment consulted or informed them of every single thing.

Skeptic: No it means what it says, that God of the Jews DOES NOT HIDE any information. Nobody is talking about God consulting his creation.

GM: Its very clear that the God of the Jews, Muslims and xtians hides plenty of information starting with himself and working downwords. No religion claims to know all of Gods actions in his creation but all three of the Abrahmic ones claim to have much of what is needed in this world to conform to Gods plan, its a pity they don't agree with one another. I take it that Hosea is writing in an Hebraic hyperbolic style as occurs in other places in scriptures its not meant to be taken in such a literal way.

Skeptic:He doesn't hide information so that it was discovered by later crackpots, and then be told, if you don't believe in their kinky interpretation, then they will burn in hell for eternity

GM: Are all the xtians you have met, read or listened to covered by the "crackpot" epithet- surely not? My hope is that the teaching of hell is indeed very wrong as we have it today because it makes God into a monster - if is true perhaps he will relent as he did with Israel throughout the OT.

Skeptic: This is nothing more than rhethoric and smoke screen to rationalise the specific promise made by the Jewish God to his people, which Jesus failed to if he were a valid Davidic messiah.

GM: I think much of these issues revolve around the meaning of certain words, e.g Jesus himself says his Kingdom is not of this world and xtian apologists take things like the promised land to be foreshadowings of a spiritual kingdom, partially realized here on earth with the Church, and fulfilled in heaven at some point in the future.

 

GM: If you believe in God its seems perfectly clear that ordinarily he remains hidden to us and it takes an act of faith, or, some might say, good-will to accept his existence.

Skeptic: And God of the Jews also says that he will send false prophets to Isreal to test the loyalty of his people.(Deaut 13;18) What makes you sure that Christianity is not a elaborate test for the Jews?

GM: The passage in context (de 13:2..) says that the false prophets will try and lead the people to worship other Gods, however Jesus Christ and his Church claims that they are the same God as Yahweh and therefore this passage is not to be applied to them.

 

Skeptic: How do you prove that the NT is continued revelation from the same god considering it contradicts the theology of the old on so many occasion?

GM: The OT is seen by xtians as being fulfilled in the NT - in the person of Jesus Christ. The first was a prelude to the reality of the latter which was appropriate to the spiritual development of the Jews at that time. The first was a period of learning of ones inadequacy as a independent being by practical examples in failing to keep the rule book, i.e the law, whereas the latter is humbly accepting the free gift from God who is love itself if you believe xtian revelation.

 

GM:Love requires free-will, but that is something that might be overwhelmed in the presence of the deity made manifest in this world.

Skeptic: And those who choose to exercise to their freewill and honestly doubt the claims of the "holy book" in question will be sent to eternal torture. Some love? The Christian message is nothing more than a ultimatum, and nothing more.

GM: According to council documents non catholic's, non xtains, Jews, Muslims ,atheists everybody .... can all reach heaven if they have acted with a good and informed conscience in choosing their path in life, i.e nobody is sent to hell through ignorance. Hell as it stands is an appalling doctrine and I, in good conscience, don't accept its literal meaning as commonly taught. A corrective punshment after death, a sort of purgatory, is compatible with God being love but not eternal punishment for a finite crime.

 

GM: You say the Jews do not buy into the foreshadowing business but this is a comparatively modern phenomena probably as a response to xtians using it to show Jesus in the OT.

Skeptic: Your above statement shows that either you are ignorant of the Jewish Polemics against the Christian message or that you are lying. The Jews have been rebutting christianity since the beginning.

GM: I gave examples of Jewish use of foreshadowing in my previous post. Obviously they do not accept xtians NT texts that "prove" the claims of xtianity but that does not mean Judaism has always rejected the idea of foreshadowing etc - that's the point I am making.

 

Skeptic: Jerome, who was probably one of the greatest linguists of the 4 th century (he translated the Bible into Latin, which is called the Vulgate) records how the Jews are constantly telling Christianity about this mistake of Is 7:14, and he admits that they are right.

[32] Isaiah tells of the mystery of our faith and hope: "Behold a virgin shall conceive, and bear a son, and shall call his name Emmanuel." I know that the Jews are accustomed to meet us with the objection that in Hebrew the word Almah does not mean a virgin, but a young woman. And, to speak truth, a virgin is properly called Bethulah..."

GM: Unfortunately the source you have pulled this quotation from has cut off the text just before Jerome explains the choice of words used in the Septuagint (translated by Jews expert in Greek as well as their own language) and he affirms the meaning the meaning of Almah and does not deny it as suggested. The full text is given below:

32. Isaiah tells of the mystery of our faith and hope: "Behold a virgin shall conceive, and bear a son, and shall call his name Emmanuel." I know that the Jews are accustomed to meet us with the objection that in Hebrew the word Almah does not mean a virgin, but a young woman. And, to speak truth, a virgin is properly called Bethulah, but a young woman, or a girl, is not Almah, but Naarah! What then is the meaning of Almah? A hidden virgin, that is, not merely virgin, but a virgin and something more, because not every virgin is hidden, shut off from the occasional sight of men. Then again, Rebecca, on account of her extreme purity, and because she was a type of the Church which she represented in her own virginity, is described in Genesis as Almah, not Bethulah, as may clearly be proved from the words of Abraham's servant, spoken by him in Mesopotamia: "And he said, O Lord, the God of my master Abraham, if now thou do prosper my way which I go: behold I stand by the fountain of water; and let it come to pass, that the maiden which cometh forth to draw, to whom I shall say, Give me, I pray thee, a little water of this pitcher to drink; and she shall say to me, Both drink thou, and I will also draw for thy camels: let the same be the woman whom the Lord hath appointed for my master's son." Where he speaks of the maiden coming forth to draw water, the Hebrew word is Almah, that is, a virgin secluded, and guarded by her parents with extreme care. Or, if this be not so, let them at least show me where the word is applied to married women as well, and I will confess my ignorance. "Behold a virgin shall conceive and bear a son."

http://www.iclnet.org/pub/resources/text/m.sion/jeropvbm.htm

 

Skeptic: Origen, a second century church fathers mentions about Jewish claim that that Is 53 is about Isreal in one of his books.

GM: More to the point show were Origen says that Is 53 is about Israel and not Jesus Christ.

 

Skeptic: So GM you are wrong about the fact that Jewish Counter Missionary movement is a modern phenomena.

GM: I never made mention of the Jewish Counter Missionary movement never mind asserting it was a modern phenomena!

 

Skeptic: Christians try to ride on these vague foreshadowment by saying that Jesus accurately fulfillment the prophecies of the Old Testament. However if Muslims or Mormons try to use the same methodology of FP to validate their prophets, Christians will be the first to shout out "Out of Context" /"embellishment". So if they will not accept the standard for the Quran or the Book of Mormon, then why must we accept it for the NT? .

GM: It seems clear from the bible we have today that Jesus Christ of the NT is foreshadowed in many places, over many hundreds of years, in the OT.

 

Skeptic: Sure just like the archer who shoots a arrow in a tree, draws a bullseye around it and claims he has accuracy. If you look for foreshadowment, you will find it, but it also means to disregard the context and intent of the orginal writer.

GM: Some of these foreshadowings are so striking that the only significant options are a) to accept they are true or the gospels are works of fiction, intended or otherwise.

 

GM:A xtian will see God carefully preparing the way for his only son so that people who are open to his claims can with goodwill - if they so wish - accept them as being reasonable whilst a skeptic will see contrivance.

Skeptic: God carefully prepared the way, by hiding information in the bible, so that christians can tell the others that there Jesus is messiah, even the text says nothing of the sort.

GM: Not only does God hide information in the bible - it's meant for all persons and peoples at radically different points in their spiritual path - he hides himself so you are encouraged to do and choose the good and not just simply, robot like, follow rules; thats my opinion anyway.

 

Skeptic: Not everybody is naive, like christians.

GM: Personally I find a touch of naivety far more appealing than cynicism anyday.

 

Skeptic: Unfortunately the christian message is also filled with number of threats if you don't believe in the message.

GM: Sadly a literal reading of the bible confirms this - the issue is wether they are true or if we don't know everything about God's mercy.

 

GM: If you want to contrast the claims of Jesus Christ and his followers in mainstream xtianity with those of Muhammad, Charles Taze Russell and Joseph Smith then show me how the world was prepared for this latter groups coming in scripture/prophecy/foreshadowing and I will study and comment. .

Skeptic:As if christians or you have proved that the Old Testament speaks about Jesus.

GM: Whilst you may disagree with their interpretations xtians do believe that the OT shows Jesus Christ foreshadowed in many places. Muslims, JW's and Mormons have access to the same material to make similar comparisons and claims of prophetic types for their founders. This is an important point. If God was going to send such a founder of a new religion to the world it could be reasonably expected that he would have prepared the world in some ways beforehand. The onus is on all such religions that claim descent from the Abramnic line of Yahweh to show where God has made the preparations in scripture for their coming. In my opinion xtianity does show this and one has to resort to contrivance on the part of the Gospel writers to account for the many points of contact, if one does not accept the truth of them. Where is the similar claims of Muslims, JW's and Mormons? I am not trying to suggest, far from it, that God is not with all of these people and the truths in their spiritual life but I am suggesting that xtianity is the one that makes the most sense in terms of continuity with what has gone previously and the validation of the founders claims through prior revelation.

 

Skeptic: When students study theology they are taught the one of the basic fundamentals of hermeneutics, the science and art of interpretation of religious texts, which basically states

 

The passage or words must be studied in context.

GM: Yes of course.

The first context is the material that immediately precedes and follows the passage under consideration. "A text without a context is a pretext."

GM: Yes but there are other levels of context. One relates to traditional types of exegesis and recognition of different kinds of idiom that may be in use. Another relates to studying, if you are a xtian, the OT in the light of the new. There are several more, not least the context of teaching authority, i.e who is sanctioned to give definite meaning to sacred texts.

 

[Rev. E.P.] Barrows stated, "To interpret without regard to the context is to interpret at random; to interpret contrary to the context is to teach falsehood for truth"

GM: Sometimes the difficulty is finding the context, its not always clear. Even those Church's which claim to have a mandate from Christ will not give a once and for all verse by verse definitive meaning for the whole bible for various good reasons. A xtian believes the NT writers were inspired. If they make what seems a curious interpretation of an existing text then its God who is supplying the meaning and not the human writers. The Rev Barrow I assume would bow to any interpretation given through an NT writer rather than demand that God submits to the Rev Barrows own personal understanding of context etc.

 

Please answer the following questions honestly

 

1)Do you agree with the above fundamental?

 

with qualifications.

 

2)Do you think the NT writers followed this fundamental in their writing?

 

yes if you accept they were inspired by God.

 

3)Do Christian practice this when they preach?

 

The NT writers did -if you accept the issue of inspiration. Oftentimes individual xtians act as if they are inspired in interpretation but all the division into thousands of little church's, from the one person band upwards, tends to show that they are not. This is no surprise since Christ never gave the individual xtian the authority to define meaning to sacred texts.

 

 

 

 

p.s These posts are way too long, can I suggest if you want to pursue anything else we limit it to a couple of points a post?

 

[The_Omniscient]

Dear Fellows:

 

I am very sorry for making a late reply as due to thunderstorms in my city i was unable to reach the net. However, I hope now i would be able to remain committed. I appreciate and pay thanks to all ,who have shown their patience.

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

 

Dear Hnasolo;

 

If it is true that Jesus didn't exist, was Mohammed wrong because he was misinformed, but then why didn't Allah correct him, or was it because Mohammed never really talked to Gabriel?

 

Well, there are more and more people here who are thinking and putting forward some good theories that George Washington did not ever exist as well as the Holocaust is a fabrication only and many people here are also doubting about the existence of Cyrus, the conqueror. Might be, if this is true wht they are thinking, then the present believing of whole world-nations is in error and mistake.

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

 

Dear ThePureOne;

 

Perhaps you don't appreciate an informed audience who can refute your claims, or a website dedicated to debunking your chosen fairytales.

 

Well, you have just made your personal comments and nothing more. If you would have read my thread properly as well as the debate going on in the Arena (which is highly unlikely), you would not have written what you have written. Moreover, you show a complete non-interest in indulging this type of conversations and debates, so it makes completely pointless to make a comprehensive reply or a debate-offer. I advice you to kindly visit the sites and forums of your interest only.

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

 

Dear Robert Uk;

 

It is clear most people are not perfect ... so if you have not asked forgiveness from Allah specifically then who is saved.?

 

Well, according to Quran :

 

[2.284] Whatever is in the heavens and whatever is in the earth is Allah's; and whether you manifest what is in your minds or hide it, Allah will call you to account according to it; then He will forgive whom He pleases and chastise whom He pleases, and Allah has power over all things.

 

[5.9] Allah has promised to those who believe and do good deeds (that) they shall have forgiveness and a mighty reward.

 

According to the above mentioned verses, It is clear that If a person is ignorant (which in this era of technology and knowledge is highly unlikely) to the fact that he /she should ask for mercy from a lord but yet committs good deeds and abstains from evil, in other words obey the commands of God shall have mercy and forgiveness without asking for it. But this situation is highly unlikely, as people have a built-in knowledge of a true-single God and you would probably not find a single normal person who would show complete ignorance to the concept of God. But, If the people have not accuired the knowledge of unity of God and are indulged in polytheism out of ignorance and no one has reached them by any means to show and tell them the truth then the above verses may apply to them. God knows better.

 

I would like to see many many more Muslims stand up in horror when 9/11 or such happens.. and not just say it was terrible BUT... why can there be any but?

 

Similarly, I would also like to see many many more Non-Muslims , especially the Jews, stand up in horror when Lebanon/Iraq/Bosnia attacks or such happens.. and not just say it was terrible BUT.... why can there be any but???

 

How personal is Allah? Does he care for you personally and is he in charge of the world and what happens in it now?

 

Well, Consider the following divine verses:

 

[3.150] Nay! Allah is your Patron and He is the best of the helpers.

 

[4.45] And Allah best knows your enemies; and Allah suffices as a Guardian, and Allah suffices as a Helper.

 

[4.36] And serve Allah and do not associate any thing with Him and be good to the parents and to the near of kin and the orphans and the needy and the neighbor of (your) kin and the alien neighbor, and the companion in a journey and the wayfarer and those whom your right hands possess; surely Allah does not love him who is proud, boastful;

 

[3.123] And Allah did certainly assist you at Badr when you were weak; be careful of (your duty to) Allah then, that you may give thanks

 

[25.59] Who created the heavens and the earth and what is between them in six periods, and He is firmly established on the throne of authority; the Beneficent God, so ask respecting it one aware.

 

[41.31] We are your guardians in this world's life and in the hereafter, and you shall have therein what your souls desire and you shall have therein what you ask for

 

I do hope that all above verses would have provided you the authentic answer in the language of God himself.

 

Do you think there is a purpose to life and if so what is it?

 

Well, it is one of the most important question. I would make the detailed reply of this question after your response of my current-reply. However, the following verse can give you a rough idea about the answer.

 

[3.14] The love of desires, of women and sons and hoarded treasures of gold and silver and well bred horses and cattle and tilth, is made to seem fair to men; this is the provision of the life of this world; and Allah is He with Whom is the good goal (of life).

 

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

 

Regards for everyone

A well wisher

[The_Omniscient]

Dear Golden Meadows;

 

He was also the son promised by Yahweh, the miraculous conceived child whom Christians see foreshadowing Jesus Christ. He was the only son of Abraham and Sarah who Yahweh said would carry the promises given to Abraham.

 

Well, you all arguments are again and again stressing on only one base argument that is : "the miraculous conceived child". and you assume that Ismai lwas not at all by any means too a miraculously concieved child. This time rather then taking the help from passages of Bible or Quran, i would like to show you some scientific facts. Kindly, consider the following unbiased quotes from standard scientific sources. It may help to increase your understanding of the scientific side of the issue.

 

Copenhagen, Denmark: Damage to DNA in sperm is significantly higher in older men than in those who are younger, according to research presented today (Tuesday 21 June 2005) at the 21st annual conference of the European Society of Human Reproduction and Embryology.

 

Dr. Sergey Moskovtsev, of the Mount Sinai Hospital, Toronto, Canada, told the conference that an increase in the average maternal and paternal ages at the time of attempted first pregnancy made this particularly significant. “Older men tend to reproduce with older women”, he said, “and the combination of increased female factor infertility, increased sperm DNA damage, low levels of DNA repair, and increased abnormalities in conventional semen parameters present in this population will have a pronounced impact on their reproductive potential.” Source: http://www.eshre.com/emc.asp?pageId=650

 

The above source tells very vividly that Older men tend to reproduce with older women. So, Hagar was probably younger then Abraham. As He was over 85, which can be considered Quite Old. In thiscase, the birth of Ismail is probably more a miracle then the birth of Ishaq. As the holy couple was of almost same age. Consider also the following quote;

 

By Lawrence Livermore National Laboratory, New research indicates that the genetic quality of sperm worsens as men get older, increasing a man's risk of being infertile, fathering unsuccessful pregnancies and passing along dwarfism and possibly other genetic diseases to his children.

 

Earlier research by the same team indicated that male reproductive ability gradually worsens with age, as sperm counts decline and the sperm lose motility and their ability to swim in a straight line. In the current study, the researchers analyzed DNA damage, chromosomal abnormalities and gene mutations in semen samples from the same subjects

 

"Our research suggests that men, too, have a biological time clock – only it is different. Men seem to have a gradual rather than an abrupt change in fertility and in the potential ability to produce viable healthy offspring."

 

I do hope that you would have concieved the message that our advance research would prove to us that what is right and what is wrong so, we need not to stress this only argument of miraculous and miraculous. Rather, we need to analyse the history, the wordings and the available text to draw the conclusions. I refuse to hold any further debate on this topic but I appreciate any response from your side about my current-answer or any clearrifications, If required.

 

Regards

A well wisher

[Checkmate]

 

 

 

Everytime I hear ANYONE from one of the Abrahamic faiths claim that their religion WAS originally peaceful, but it got perverted/corrupted by men (not women, BTW), I can't help but ask the question: THEN WHERE IS YOUR GOD TO SET THINGS STRAIGHT?

 

In the Bible there are instances where God punishes his servants whom bring discredit upon his name and glory. So, why is he suddenly so shy?

 

Omniscient, you seem like a nice enough fellow, but LONG before you can convince me that your religion is (fill in the blank), you'll first have to convince me that there is a "God". And THAT task I don't think ANYONE is up to.

 

There is NO god, and therefore your religion is useless. (It's also violent as all hell!)

[ThePureOne]

Omni,

 

You are quite correct, I have little patience for such discussions, however that is another simple excuse to ignore responding to valid points, such as the fact that you are on a web site that is as offensive to Christians as www.faithfreedom.org is to Muslims despite your stated distaste for such things.

 

I did glance at the Arena debate, but unlike you I already know the whole topic is a waste of time. If anyone could prove logically that God exists, it would have been done centuries ago by the most brilliant philosophical minds humanity has produced. The fact that it has not happened is a pretty reliable indicator that it cannot be done (as if that wasn't obvious anyway). You are not treading any new philosophical ground.

 

Understand that I do find you to be an intelligent, educated, and thoughtful person, and as someone for whom English is not his native language you write very well. This is attributable to the qualities listed earlier. I do find it interesting when intelligent people believe in religion, but intelligence is often highly compartmentalized. Also, having a powerful mind can simply mean one has a greater capacity to fool oneself, particularly if one makes the mistake of believing that one's own intelligence is insurance against being fooled.

 

I am familiar with this phenomenon as I used to perform close-up magic as a hobby. An intelligent person has the capacity to run away with many different trains of thought as to how something was done, and thus get so far off track that he is more impressed than someone who gives it less thought. The more intelligent and creative he is, the more easily he can become lost in an elaborate maze of his own creation. The human capacity to be fooled is not entirely independent of intelligence, but enough so that no one is proof against foolishness. The idea that God sent messengers to earth so that we could worship him is so absurd it simply isn't worth discussion, but if you ponder it at sufficient length you may wind up beating down your own natural resistance by the force of your own efforts. So it goes, and by this time there is nothing of the prior objectivity left.

 

Islam is a particularly dangerous religion because it is also a political ideology, declaring that Islamic law is the only legitimate form of government. This is compounded by the fact that unlike Jesus, who for the most part can be presented as someone worthy of emulation in his personal qualities, Mohammed personally led many battles and is thus a figure whose life, deeds, and sayings justify extreme violence in his name. If you want to have a useful discussion, tell us how "moderate" Islam, assuming there is such a thing, can become the mainstream view while currently the mainstream according to all major schools of Islamic jurisprudence appears to lean toward extremism, such as supporting the death penalty for apostasy (your native Pakistan being a stellar example). I have yet to meet a single moderate Muslim who does not insist that the "correct" application of Sharia can lead to a wonderful society, ignoring the fact that in every country where this is done it somehow manages to become an oppressive dictatorship. They also tend to wax nostalgic about the Caliphate, and deplore the existence of Israel, and in all these things the "moderate" is in agreement with the "extremist". Yet somehow with all this the world is to believe that the extremists are some tiny minority who misunderstand the Religion of Peace. Instead of promoting the greatness of Islam, tell us how to deal with its ugliness instead.