Islam, Muslim / Christian Forum - Welcome All

Quote from: HeathenMuslimGuy on April 04, 2009, 12:08:46 PM

According to a recent survey, most religious Jews consider Islam as closer to their religious doctrines than Christianity.

Should this surprise me? Their religion is focused on denying that Jesus is the Messiah. Christianity is focused on believing Jesus is the Messiah.
Perhaps a better question to ask yourself is why you find comfort in the Jews denying that Jesus is the Messiah.

It should surprise you a great deal if you think that Jews and Christians share the same holy book and worship the same God. Jesus said in Matt 5:17-18 "Think not that I am come to destroy the law (Torah), or the prophets: I am not come to destroy, but to fulfil. For verily I say unto you, Till heaven and earth pass, one jot or one tittle shall in no wise pass from the law, till all be fulfilled." The fact that there is such an enormous gulf between Christianity and Judaism, even in doctrines unrelated to Jesus, should be worrying.

The followers of the Torah feel a greater affinity to the followers of the Qur'an than to their 'brothers', the followers of the Gospels. This is because the primary author of the Gospels was influenced by Greek pagan beliefs that have no place in the OT.
The revelation given by God to his Prophet Muhammad is free of this pagan contamination.

Didn't Mary become pregnant? How did she bear Jesus, as a full grown man?
Who impregnated the virgin Mary?

If not God's Son, then who is the father?

The same person who fathered Adam.

Quote from: HeathenMuslimGuy on April 04, 2009, 12:08:46 PM

Christianity and the writtings of Paul turn all these concepts on their head, without a shred of scriptural support. It was Paul who aboragated the Bible. This is why we (and the Jews) reject them.

That's silly. You have to reject ALL of the New Testament prophets and apostles and the WHOLE SUBJECT of the new covenant, to follow Mohammed.

No, we accept Jesus and John the Baptist. We reject Paul. Muhammad's teachings were much more in sync with Jesus' and the OT teachings than were those of Paul. You reject the WHOLE SUBJECT of salvation in the OT to follow him. Why?

Quote from: HeathenMuslimGuy on April 04, 2009, 12:08:46 PM

Claiming that God "begat" a son with a human girl is obviously a major blasphemy against God.....

Perhaps in the limited understanding of a 6th century desert dwelling illiterate, that you have chosen to adopt.
http://islamchristianforum.com/index.php?topic=55.0

Not to mention the followers of the Old Testament: http://jewsforjudaism.org/index.php?option=com_content&task=view&id=146&Itemid=211

Increasing numbers of practising Christians:
"More than half of England's Anglican Bishops say that Christians are not obliged to believe that Jesus Christ was God, according to a survey published today. The pole of 31 of England's 39 bishops shows that many of them think that Christ's miracles, the virgin birth and the resurrection might not have happened exactly as described in the Bible. Only 11 of the bishops insisted that Christians must regard Christ as both God and man, while 19 said it was sufficient to regard Jesus as 'God's supreme agent'" - "Daily News" (British newspaper) 25/6/84

And the overwhelming majority of free-thinking intellectuals including America's founding fathers:
http://www.jesus-is-savior.com/Wolves/thomas_jefferson.htm

Some interesting quotes by Thomas Jefferson:

"Millions of innocent men, women and children, since the introduction of Christianity, have been burnt, tortured, fined and imprisoned. What has been the effect of this coercion? To make one half the world fools and the other half hypocrites" –Thomas Jefferson, Notes on Virginia, 1782."

"Rogueries, absurdities and untruths were perpetrated upon the teachings of Jesus by a large band of dupes and importers led by Paul, the first great corrupter of the teaching of Jesus."

"The clergy converted the simple teachings of Jesus into an engine for enslaving mankind and adulterated by artificial constructions into a contrivance to filch wealth and power to themselves...these clergy, in fact, constitute the real Anti-Christ."

"And the day will come when the mystical generation of Jesus, by the supreme being as his father in the womb of a virgin will be classed with the fable of the generation of Minerva in the brain of Jupiter. But may we hope that the dawn of reason and freedom of thought in these United States will do away with this artificial scaffolding, and restore to us the primitive and genuine doctrines of this most venerated reformer of human errors." –Thomas Jefferson, Letter to John Adams, April 11, 1823

"I do not find in orthodox Christianity one redeeming feature."

Quote from: HeathenMuslimGuy on April 04, 2009, 12:08:46 PM

.......and that Allah is the name of some pagan moon god.

Pretty compelling archaeological evidence:
http://www.biblebelievers.org.au/moongod.htm
Though there are other opinions:
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=tkrgObVwTSc

'Allah' is Arabic for 'God'. We don't have another word for it. I don't know how this myth continues to persist when Christian Arabs refer to Jesus as 'Allah Al Ibn', or 'God the son'.

http://www.babylon.com/define/98/English-Arabic-Dictionary-Online.html

"Allah
Allah (, ) is the standard Arabic word for "God". The term is best known in the West for its use by Muslims as a reference to God. Arabic-speakers of all faiths, including Christians and Jews, use the word "Allah" to mean "God". The Muslim and Christian Arabs of today have no other word for 'God' than 'Allah'. In pre-Islamic Arabia, Allah was used by pagan Meccans as a reference to the creator-god, possibly the supreme deity."

Please make sure that you cite RELIABLE sources. It's ironic that Biblebelievers.org use archeology to support this myth, but ignore/explain away concrete archeological evidence that the earth is far older than 6000 years, that dinosaurs didn't coexist with people, etc.

Quote from: HeathenMuslimGuy on April 04, 2009, 12:08:46 PM

I'm sorry. I didn't realize there were more unpardonable sins besides shirk. Would appreciate a heads up on what they are.
 

Off the top of my head, suicide and murder, though there are others. I actually think that suicide is considered are MORE serious sin than shirk. A Muslim who commits shirk can perform good deeds to make up for it. A Muslim who commits suicide has for all extents and purposes died an unbeliever, and is condemned eternally to hell.

Quote from: HeathenMuslimGuy on April 04, 2009, 12:08:46 PM

***The Jews accept the Son of God as the Old Testament verses reveal.*** - Sorry. Rubbish. Show me any modern mainstream Jewish donomination who are waiting for God to "beget" a son for them.

You are looking for God in "modern" denominations? No wonder you can't see Him.
John wrote about a church under satanic attack back in the first century. You think things improved after that?

OK, then show me ANY Jewish denominations, past or present, that are/were waiting for a divine messiah.

Koine Greek was the lingua franca of the first century holy land. Portions of Daniel are in Aramaic, but the New Testament was penned in Koine Greek.

You keep denying Jesus' divinity even as you believe He is the only person ever conceived of a virgin but the will of God.

Even though He declared: Mat 28:18 And Jesus came and spake unto them, saying, All power is given unto me in heaven and in earth.

What does that make Him? Just another son of God?


[/quote]

The New Testament was penned in Greek because Paul was preaching predominantly to Greeks.
Jesus was a Jew preaching to Jews. He had no reason to speak in Greek to Hebrew and Aramaic speakers.

Who gives God his power?

Sorry i'm so late in posting this.

***Look again:
".....BEFORE ABRAHAM WAS, I AM."

Why didn't Jesus say before Abraham was, I was? But then how could He have been 1500 years before He is speaking?
Because God IS. His name is I AM.***

I've already debunked this. Did you check the link i gave you? I'll write the argument here so you don't need to bother.

1: "before Abraham was" - This is nothing special. Read Proverbs 8:22: "The Lord possessed me in the beginning of his way, before his works of old. From everlasting i was established, from the earliest times of the earth..." A quote ascribed to Moses.
Also read Jer. 1:5 - "Before I formed you in the womb I knew you, and before you were born I consecrated you; I have appointed you a prophet to the nations." regarding Jeremiah. These verses indicate that these prophets had some sort of presence before thier earthly manifestations.

2: "I am" - Christian versions of the Bible mistranslate Exodus 3:14. The correct reading in Hebrew would be "I WILL BE who I WILL BE. Thus you shall say to the children of Israel, I WILL BE has sent me to you". So 'I am' isn't mentioned in this verse after all. So Jesus wasn't claiming divinity.
Don't take my word for it, see what fluent Hebrew speakers have to say: http://www.jewsforjudaism.com/web/faq/faq128.html


***John 10:30 I AND [MY] FATHER ARE ONE. 31 Then the Jews took up stones again to stone him.

That "one" is in the koine Greek neuter gender meaning of one essence. That is why they wanted to stone him again.***

Not speaking Greek, I wouldn't know. But then, neither did Jesus, who spoke either Hebrew or Aramaic. This is a strawman argument, and makes no sense when the verse is put in it's proper context.

The same word "one" is used by Jesus in John 17:21 refering to God, Jesus, the Holy Spirit, and the twelve disciples. Common sense indicates that if Jesus was speaking metaphorically here when he says the disciples are "one" with him, the Father and the Holy Ghost, then he was also speaking metaphorically in John 10:30.
Otherwise you would have a God unit of 15. And that's just plain silly.


***It is your mistake. You fail to recognize the difference between sons of God - that is regenerate Christians and Jews - and THE ONLY begotten Son of God. The ONLY person EVER conceived by a virgin by the will of God.

Gal 4:6 And because ye are sons, God hath sent forth the Spirit of his Son into your hearts, crying, Abba, Father.

Why doesn't Jesus call God "our" father here:

Jhn 20:17 Jesus saith unto her, Touch me not; for I am not yet ascended to my Father: but go to my brethren, and say unto them, I ascend unto my Father, and your Father; and [to] my God, and your God.***


1: Read Mark 12:29 - “The first of all the commandments is : Hear, O Israel, the Lord OUR God, the Lord is one..."
God is his Lord as well as ours.

2: When I started this correspondence with you, I challenged you to give me a quote from Jesus in the Bible claiming to be God, or the "begotten" son. The closest you have come to this John 10:30 and John 8:58, which I have thoroughly disproven. Whether you admit it or not, you can't provide a single quote from Jesus to this effect.


Mark 28:18: Who GIVES God his power?


***The Jews accept the Son of God as the Old Testament verses reveal.*** - Sorry. Rubbish. Show me any modern mainstream Jewish donomination who are waiting for God to "beget" a son for them.


***Muslims can see Jesus is the Messiah, but then tragically REJECT HIM AS THE SON OF GOD. Purely because of a 6th century self-serving illiterate false prophet that taught the opposite.*** - No, we reject him as the begotten son of God because he never claimed to be the begotten son of God.


***Receiving the Son of God the ONLY unpardonable sin (in Islam).***

No, it isn't. This is why you shouldn't get your information from those silly Christian websites that say the Qur'an commands us to kill all non-Muslims and that Allah is the name of some pagan moon god.
Tawheed, or monotheism, is the primary doctrine of Islam. Shirk, or polytheism, is the primary sin, much the same way as it is in Judaism. It is not unforgivable.
Claiming that God "begat" a son with a human girl is obviously a major blasphemy against God in Islam and Judaism. But Shirk encompases all pagan beliefs which associate partners with God, whether the partners are Jesus, Rama, Krishna, the Emperor of Japan or David Icke. The same as in modern Judaism.
Christianity and the writtings of Paul turn all these concepts on their head, without a shred of scriptural support. It was Paul who aboragated the Bible. This is why we (and the Jews) reject them.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Tawheed
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Shirk_(polytheism)


***The reason rejecting the Son is the most important fundamental in Islam is that it was inspired by a jealous fallen angel named Satan who hates the Son of God. The EXACT, PERFECT, MIRROR OPPOSITE of God's Word and people.***

Of the Abrahamic faiths, it is Christianity that is the odd one out, with opposite doctrines.
1: Islam and Judaism teach salvation through works. Christianity doesn't.
2: Christianity teaches original sin and atonement. Islam and Judaism don't.
3: Christianity teaches the concept of trinity. Trinity has NO support in the Torah. Don't you think it odd that this doctrine didn't appear in the Torah, but in Greek paganism? Check http://www.sabbatarian.com/Paganism/HecateTrinity.html
4: Christianity teaches that God impregnated a human girl with his son. This concept is not only blasphemous to both Islam and Judaism, but is utterly repugnant to basic human sensibilities. Even you struggle to justify it.

According to a recent survey, most religious Jews consider Islam as closer to their religious doctrines than Christianity.
Read - http://www.ynet.co.il/Ext/Comp/ArticleLayout/CdaArticlePrintPreview/1,2506,L-3676026,00.html


***Even the Quran teaches there IS ONLY ONE person EVER born of a virgin, BY THE WILL OF GOD.
Then you turn around and deny who His Father is.***

As gratifying as it is to see you refer to the Qur'an as an authority in this matter, it is clear that you get this information from those silly evangelist websites that you frequent, and not from the book itself.
God didn't say Jesus was the ONLY person to be created in this manner in the Qur'an. Adam was also created without a father, and without a mother also. That he didn't gestate in a virgin's womb for 9 months makes his creation even more miraculous. If Jesus was God because he had no father, than Adam was a greater God by the same standard.
The fact that you concede here that Jesus was born through God's will proves that he was created, as all are created by the will of God. You don't use the word 'begotten' because you're embarrassed by the obvious sexual connotation of the word.


***Now consider the term begat:

1. To father; sire.
2. To cause to exist or occur; produce: Violence begets more violence.

Does violence have to have sex with violence to produce more violence? Of course not.***

If you're saying God is a father to Jesus as violence is a father to violence, then you are concedeing the the metaphorical nature of Jesus' sonship.
On the other hand, if God is the literal father of Jesus, then he "begat" him either sexually or asexually. There is no getting around this. Whether or not there was penetration or the exchange of body fluids is besides the point: Sexual and asexual reproduction are animal acts, and as such, beneath the dignity of God.

***Yet you choose to adopt the mentally deficient mindset of a 6th century illiterate, that put God in a box the size of his own personal comprehension...***

No, the mentally deficient mindset is to think that God cannot create someone without the aid of a male sperm, so if a virgin gets pregnant, God must have fathered the child. This reasoning may have made sense in Paul's time, but today it is possible to impregenate a woman without a father and with the aid modern science. If we can do it, then for God it's surely an easy thing.


***It is immaterial who said what, but you don't believe Jesus words when they are quoted anyway, so why pretend to make a distinction?

Mat 26:28 For this is MY BLOOD of the new testament, which is SHED FOR MANY for the remission of sins.

You only have to reject that single verse and you reject THE WHOLE SUBJECT of Jesus and the New Testament. New Testament MEANS new covenant.***

I do reject that verse and i've never claimed to take the modern verions of the NT as my holy books. I believe in what Jesus ORIGINALLY brought, but the NT has undergone enormous alteration and corruption over the centuries. This isn't an opinion. It is fact, as supported by many Christian scholars.
It's up to YOU to prove that Jesus claimed divinity in the NT. This is the BARE MINIMUM that you need to substantiate your claims. The fact that you can't do this should raise questions in your mind about Paul's (the real founder of modern Christianity) legitimacy and the reliability of the modern Bible versions.


***Did you ever stop to wonder why it is that declaring Jesus to be the Son of God is the ONLY unpardonable sin in Islam?***

It isn't. Yet more lies and lunacy from the websites that you unwisely rely on for your information about Islam. Why not open a Qur'an and find out for yourself?
http://www.muslim.org/english-quran/quran.htm
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Shirk_(polytheism)


***Act 13:33 God hath fulfilled the same unto us their children, in that he hath raised up Jesus again; as it is also written in the second psalm, Thou art my Son, this day have I begotten thee.

Thus you accidentally helped me confirm that Jesus is the begotten Son.***

Of couse, that would rely on our having a geneology linking Jesus as a descendant of David. Do you know of any?


I'll apologise here for not taking your points in order, or for tackling all of them as it would take too much time. I'll post a reply to the Jews/antichrists thread within the next few days.
I ask you again to be patient and refrain from posting until i've replied to both threads. You can then reply to both and save alot of time. It's confusing to us and to anyone reading to follow 2 parralell arguments at the same time.
I might take some time in posting. I'm sure you understand that i have a life to lead away from this forum, and that my answers won't always be swift.

Take care.

Hello Peter. Got here in the end!

I'll try to tackle your points in order:

1: Long before the time of Jesus, there existed a Greek translation of the Old Testament called the Septuagint. The key word, "I am," in Exodus which is used by Christians to prove the deity of Jesus is translated as "HO ON." However, when Jesus uses the word in John 8:58 the Greek of the "I am," is EGO EIMI. If Jesus wanted to tell the Jews that he was claiming to be God he should have at least remained consistent in the use of words or the whole point is lost. How many people in that age would have said "I am," in answer to questions in everyday life. Billions. Are they all gods? Of course not!
Check <<http://www.jewsforjudaism.com/web/faq/faq128.html>>


2:*John 10:30 - I and my Father are one.* Compare this to John 17:21: "that they (disciples) may all be one; even as thou, Father, art in me, and I in thee, that they also may be in us..."
So you have a choice here. You can recognise that Jesus spoke in parables and metaphors, and taught that God is one and undivisable, or you can take his words literally and believe God, Gabriel, Jesus and the disciples (including the traitor Judas) are all divine and form a God unit of 15.

3: You said: "You fail to recognize the difference between sons of God - that is regenerate Christians and Jews - and THE ONLY begotten Son of God."
First, that is a distinction you made. I asked for quotes from Jesus claiming divinity. Jesus never claimed to be THE son of God, nor did he refer to himself as the begotten son.
Second, he is not the only figure in the Bible to be called the 'begotten' son of God:
"I will declare the decree: the LORD hath said unto me (David), Thou art my Son; this day have I begotten thee." (Psalms 2:7)


4: Regarding Matt 19:17, it's interesting that you should be so adamant on the phrase 'I am', an ambiguous non-statement that doesn't really mean anything, as being a claim to divinity. Yet when Jesus makes a specific statement to the contrary, you simply dismiss it. Jesus made a clear distinction between himself and God. Not between himself and the Father - himself and GOD, as two seperate entities. How could Jesus have been God, when he didn't even deserve to be called good?

5: Matt 28:18 - "All power is GIVEN unto me..." ie: It's not mine. It was GIVEN to me. How can Jesus be God if his Godly power was GIVEN to him?

6: Alpha and Omega cannot be argued to be a direct quote from Jesus. The Book of Revelations were a dream. That's all. I'm sorry Peter, but I give about as much credance to the Book of Revelations as you do to the Qur'an.

7: You said: "Nor would he (Jesus) need to (claim to be God). That's what witnesses are for." You seem to be slowly conceding the fact that Jesus never claimed divinity or divine sonship. I'll give you full credit for your honesty.
You will next have to explain where those witnesses got the idea of Jesus' divinity from. Not from Jesus, at any rate.

8: "So did Deedat deceive his adoring, bible-ignorant, minions with a verse of his own creation, or not?"
I think i may have misunderstood your presentation, because i honestly don't see how. Muhammad and muslims accept Jesus as the Christ (ie: Messiah). Therefore, we cannot be anti-christs. This would seem to follow. Perhaps you would be good enough to explain what i'm missing?

It's late where i am, so i'll post a more detailed response to your final point tomorrow, insha'allah (God willing). Good night!