Show Posts

This section allows you to view all posts made by this member. Note that you can only see posts made in areas you currently have access to.

Messages - Egyptian

Pages: 1 ... 11 12 13 14 [15] 16 17 18
To add to the second mistake of confusing ,Is Jesus God? with ,Is Jesus God be biblical?

What if the divinity of Jesus proved to be biblical?
If we suppose that the trinity is biblical ,still that doesn't prove that the trinity is a fact..... Jesus ,according to the bible, atoned with his blood the sinful Christians ,but that doesn't mean it is a fact. Jesus  ,according to the bible, was killed and resurrected from the dead,but that doesn't mean it is a fact.
Our position in Islam is clear . the Quran denies the deity of Jesus ,not whether it is taught in the bible, or not !..
I have contacted some in-experienced Muslims who felt disappointed after reading or listening to the christian materials that argue for the divinity of Jesus as biblical .....
those good ,pious Muslims, been confused and wrongly thought, that if the bible teaches trinity then not only Christianity is true but Islam is false !!!!

more important have you read what the THE WORD (LOGOS),did according to the writer of John?

John 1: 1 In the beginning was the Word, and the Word was with God, and the Word was God. 2 He was with God in the beginning. 3 Through him all things were made; without him nothing was made that has been made. 4 In him was life, and that life was the light of all mankind.

Through the word ,that is Jesus ,everything was created !.....
Are you ready to accept that?! Is that Quranic?!   
 it is obvious that the meaning that is suggested as an alternative from the text continues to contradict the Qur'an and teachings of Islam!
why would you waste your time arguing with Christians the meaning ?......
Have you any difficulty including such passage fully ,as one of the parts of the new testament to be against what the Quran defines as the true gospel revealed to Jesus,and thus has to be be rejected totally ?


The third mistake:

Though we got the message of the Quran that anyone, anywhere,anytime believes in the divinity of Jesus ,then has committed blasphemy ,yet I dunno why should a Muslim exclude one or more from the writers of the new testament to be a founder,believer of the belief of the deity of Jesus !!
Just where is such Islamic textual support either from the Quran or sunnah ,claiming that none of the writers of the new testament believed in the deity of Jesus ?

Hundreds of heated online debates ...  between Muslims and Christians ,Unitarians and Trinitarians on "Is the Trinity biblical?"....   such debates attract numerous Muslim audience ,to the limit that some of them dedicate most of their times searching for whatever new debates related would appear online !!!..
many Muslims mistakenly believe that the only difference between Islam and Christianity is the issue of the nature of Jesus,that is why there are numerous Muslim-christian debates on the trinity.
I was once addicted to view such debates ,and debating others on the same topic.....  till I found out after reflection ,that me and other Muslims are wasting their time in such futile debates.....

Why Muslims err when they debate Christians whether the trinity is in the bible or not?

The following is my positive criticism regarding the matter :

I have noted several mistakes committed by those good Muslims (whom I respect and wish them the best) who are,were involved in trinity debates ...

The first mistake:

They exaggerate the significance of the issue with regard to the difference between Islam and Christianity ....
their mistake here is that they are not fully aware of Islam opposing ,not only how the Christians suggest the nature of Jesus is ,but also how would they suggested his role in both past and future ,in addition to all that Islam opposes strongly the concept of blood atonement .


The second mistake:

most of them, don't realize the big difference between , the Question, Is Jesus God? and Does the bible say Jesus is God?

I contacted many Muslims whom though know the Quranic attitude towards the bible ( as partially inspired with some added fabrications therein),yet they would never put into their consideration ,the possibility that among the uninspired passages in the Bible there could be ones suggests the divinity of Jesus .
They accept that the new testament falsely teaches the crucifixion,resurrection of Jesus ,yet they will never accept that the some biblical passages ,at least possibly be understood as teaching a divinity of Jesus !!!
Their common argument is just those who belong to mainstream Christianity misunderstood them !

Now hold on ... dear Muslim pause and think !

1- Don't you realize that arguing that way,would give the impression that we accept such verses as inspired,it is just we disagree with  Christians regarding how it should be understood !!

That is clearly against Islam , I will give just one example:

Do you know what is the Muslim-christian argument of the famous trinity proof text in John 1:1 ?

John 1:1 "In the beginning was the Word, and the Word was with God, and the Word was God."

If you notice, the dispute is whether the word (logos) is God, or "... a god" or "... divine" ...
Hasn't the Muslim debater already assumed that the problem is not the passage but the way Christians understand it?!
if so ,what would he suggest the proper understanding would be? ...... it would be logically the second option..... if so , would he accept Jesus as a god (not God) or in some sense divine? is that Quranic?

Assalamualaikom .

A dozen of spam threads ,only for today !!

Bro Osama ,I think it is time for activating the tool of accepting the new threads only after the moderator's approval ....    most forums apply that rule to be protected from spammers..

assalamualaikom .

Cults & Deviant Beliefs / Re: rebuttal on Ahlul Quran's Claim?
« on: August 17, 2012, 10:00:45 AM »

This wiki article gives basic information about Ahlul Quran as Quranists ...

Though ,I think, they have gone to he extreme ignoring the importance of Sunna, yet I found some of their critical insight into some of the traditions, to be taken seriously into consideration.


I don't know what is absurd regarding SOME meteors ,used SOMETIMES to shoot  Jinns ?

Quran Morality and Moral Code, Laws & QA / Re: I need help!
« on: August 15, 2012, 03:09:04 PM »
Quote from: .wikipedia.age of consent/Marriageable_age
History and social attitudes

Traditionally, across the globe, the age of consent for a sexual union was a matter for the family to decide, or a tribal custom. In most cases, this coincided with signs of puberty, menstruation for a woman and pubic hair for a man.
In Ancient Rome, it was very common for girls to marry and have children shortly after the onset of puberty.  The first recorded age-of-consent law dates back 800 years: In 1275, in England, as part of the rape law, a statute, Westminster 1, made it a misdemeanor to "ravish" a "maiden within age," whether with or without her consent. The phrase "within age" was interpreted by jurist Sir Edward Coke as meaning the age of marriage, which at the time was 12 years of age.
In the 12th century Gratian, the influential founder of Canon law in medieval Europe, accepted age of puberty for marriage to be between 12 and 14 but acknowledged consent to be meaningful if the children were older than 7. There were authorities that said that consent could take place earlier. Marriage would then be valid as long as neither of the two parties annulled the marital agreement before reaching puberty, or if they had already consummated the marriage. It should be noted that Judges honored marriages based on mutual consent at ages younger than 7, in spite of what Gratian had said; there are recorded marriages of 2 and 3 year olds.
The American colonies followed the English tradition, and the law was more of a guide. For example, Mary Hathaway (Virginia, 1689) was only 9 when she was married to William Williams. Sir Edward Coke (England, 17th century) "made it clear that the marriage of girls under 12 was normal, and the age at which a girl who was a wife was eligible for a dower from her husband's estate was 9 even though her husband be only four years old."

A small number of Italian and German states introduced an age of consent in the 16th century, setting it at 12 years. Towards the end of the 18th century, other European countries also began to enact age of consent laws. The first French Constitution established an age of consent of 11 years in 1791, which was raised to 13 in 1863. Portugal, Spain, Denmark and the Swiss cantons, initially set the age of consent at 10–12 years and then raised it to between 13 and 16 years in the second half of the 19th century.Historically, the English common law set the age of consent to range from 10 to 12.

In the United States, by the 1880s, most states set the age of consent at 10–12, and in one state, Delaware, the age of consent was only 7. A New York Times article states that it was still aged 7 in Delaware in 1895.Female reformers and advocates of social purity initiated a campaign in 1885 to petition legislators to raise the legal age of consent to at least 16, with the ultimate goal to raise the age to 18. The campaign was successful, with almost all states raised the age of consent to 16–18 by 1920.
Social (and the resulting legal) attitudes toward the appropriate age of consent have drifted upwards in modern times. For example, while ages from 10 to 13 were typically acceptable in Western countries during the mid-19th century, the end of the 19th century and the beginning of the 20th century were marked by changing attitudes towards sexuality and childhood resulting in raising the ages of consent to ages generally ranging from 16 to 18.

Quran Morality and Moral Code, Laws & QA / Re: I need help!
« on: August 15, 2012, 07:05:51 AM »

If you want to have intellectual discussion with us  ,it has to be here. and be assured you will never be censored unless you resort to "addressing the person not the point,offensive language".

As Wayne A. Meeks:Woolsey "Professor of Biblical Studies Yale University" notes:

Quote from: Wayne A. Meeks:Woolsey
"They couldn't go away as they were supposed to ... have to deal with that fundamental question, - what does this mean that the one that we had all of these expectations about has been crucified? How do we deal with this, not merely the end of this life, but the shameful end of this life? And, the amazing thing is, they said, "Hey, Pilate's right - he was the King of the Jews, and moreover, God has vindicated this claim, that he is the King of the Jews, by raising him from the dead." Now, this is where the Jesus movement properly understood, which is to become Christianity, begins, with trying to explain that hard fact.... And so the early Christians, as proper Jews, they begin to search the scriptures, [looking for] what clues are hidden here which no one has noticed before.... They begin to find promises in scripture of an anointed king who will come at the end of days, a notion which they share with many other Jews, at the same time. So, this is where it all begins, with this kind of interpretive process, which of course goes in many different directions."

Those words are not conjecture or assumptions, we have the new testament and the old testament within our hands, and we can easily compare both find out how the writer of the new testament misused it and imposed Jesus on it.

now we are on our way to investigate the next step of exposing the origin of Christianity ....    From Judaism to Christianity or FROM MESSIANOLOGY TO CHRISTOLOGY,THE PROBLEM ?

After we examined objectively,using the whole Jewish sources before Jesus ,the term of the Messiah as thought to be ,as an Earthly king who would get the Davidic monarchy back and getting back the Jews  etc.......

Though the writers of the gospel included the traditions of calling Jesus a prophet ,yet they felt it wasn't sufficient weight to embody the significance of Jesus,Though the writers of the gospel included the traditions of calling Jesus a prophet ,yet they felt it wasn't sufficient weight to embody the significance of Jesus,their vain desires and hopes motivated them to claim that Jesus is that Davidic king messiah,son of God.

Matthew 1:1 This is the genealogy of Jesus the Messiah the son of David.
Matthew 2:4 When he had called together all the people’s chief priests and teachers of the law, he asked them where the Messiah was to be born.
Matthew 16:16 Simon Peter answered, “You are the Messiah, the Son of the living God.”
Mark 27 Jesus and his disciples went on to the villages around Caesarea Philippi. On the way he asked them, “Who do people say I am?” 28 They replied, “Some say John the Baptist; others say Elijah; and still others, one of the prophets.” 29 “But what about you?” he asked. “Who do you say I am?” Peter answered, “You are the Messiah.”

.Is there a problem ,that the writers of the New testament calls Jesus the promised king messiah ,the seed of David ? yes, actually there are gross problems with that concept !!!

By comparing what Jesus said ,did (according to the narratives of the new testament ) and what is believed by the Jews as the Qualifications for the king messiah ,as based on the text of the Old Testament ,one find out easily that the picture of Jesus in the New testament is radically different from that hoped-for Davidic ,royal messiah !........

none of the events prophecised of the so called king messiah occurred during the lifetime of Jesus (nor have they occurred afterwards)..

Jesus lived while the Second Temple was standing, and not while the Jews were exiled. He never reigned as King, and there was no subsequent era of peace or great knowledge. Jesus departed without completing or even accomplishing part of any of the messianic tasks. Rather than being redeemed, the Jews were subsequently exiled from Israel.

Maimonides"one of the most prolific and followed Torah scholars" states, "But if he did not succeed in all this or was killed, he is definitely not the Messiah promised in the Torah."
"Even Jesus the Nazarene who imagined that he would be Messiah and was killed by the court, was already prophesied by Daniel. So that it was said, “And the members of the outlaws of your nation would be carried to make a (prophetic) vision stand. And they stumbled” (Daniel 11.14). Because, is there a greater stumbling-block than this one? So that all of the prophets spoke that the Messiah redeems Israel, and saves them, and gathers their banished ones, and strengthens their commandments. And this one caused (nations) to destroy Israel by sword, and to scatter their remnant, and to humiliate them, and to exchange the Torah, and to make the majority of the world err to serve a divinity besides God."

the writers of the New Testament redefined the term king messiah , They were  zealously motivated to include him in the king messiah category ..... may be some of them were disappointed by the Jewish propaganda that they killed Jesus ,and shifted their hope of him as the king messiah to a prophet but others modified the term davidic king messiah to fit a slaughtered messiah ...


Quote from: James H. Charlesworth, The Messiah Developments in Earliest Judaism and Christianity


In this authoritative compilation of Jewish laws that determine the individual's and the community's way of life,the Messiah as a supernatural or eschatological figure does not make an appearance. The figure of messiah remains rooted in sociopolitical realities—viz. in the realities of post-70 Judaism."' There is hardly a trace of a utopian superstructure. Viewed against the backdrop of later configurations of the messianic idea in Judaism, and the more so in Christianity, we may indeed define that phenomenon with W D. Davies' "a paradoxical messianism."'It may be surmised that this inherent realism caused those Jewish sources not to offer a particularized description of the messianic age. Due to its predominant restorative thrust the future eon is in essence conceived as a vastly improved replica of a Status experienced in the past which is imprinted in the collective memory. Therefore it does not stand in need of being spelled out in detail. The messianic era is not characterized by a total revamping of man's nature and societal structures, nor of the Constitution of the universe. Rather it is seen as a sublime reenactment of the favorable conditions which obtained in the idealized period of the united monarchy under David and Solomon.
The memory of those days inspired later biblical writers, and upon it they modeled their vision of the future. In doing so they drew explicidy on past experience:Was it not this that YHWH proclaimed through the prophets of old, while Jerusalem was populous and peaceful, as were the cities around her, and the Negeb and the Shephelah?. . . These are the words of YHWH I will rescue my people from the countries of the east and the west, and bring them back to live in Jerusalem . . . [unlike] before that time . . . [when] no one could go about his affairs in peace because of enemies . . . but now . . .there shall be sowing in peace, the vine shall yield its fruit and the seil its produce . . . with all these things I will endow the survivors of this people.You, house of Judah and house of Israel, . . . I will save you, and you shall become the symbol of a blessing. Courage! Do not be afraid. (Zech 7:7-8:13,cf. Gen 12:2-3)

Quote from: James H. Charlesworth, The Messiah Developments in Earliest Judaism and Christianity

6- analysing the Enthronement Texts ,we find out The mythological language of the royal protocol,influenced as it was by Egyptian conceptions of the royal office, provided a textual base for the development of later, far more mythological conceptions of the awaited Messiah. Though strong mythological component, the language was understood in the enthronement ceremony, Ps 2:7 speaks of God giving birth to the king; Ps 110:3, though textually difficult, also appears to refer to the divine birth of the king; and Isa 9:5-6, after referring to the king's birth, assigns divine qualities to the king in the series of names that are given to him. These names in Isa 9 : 5 -6 are best explained as royal names given to the new king in the coronation ceremony on the analogy of the five royal names given the new Pharaoh in the Egyptian enthronement ceremony,' and this suggests a strong Egyptian influence on the Judean coronation ritual. This influence may go back to the formative period of the Israelite State when Egyptian influence was quite strong. As is well known, Solomon married a daughter of the Pharaoh (IKgs 3:1; 7:8; 9:16), and even  David appears to have adopted Egyptian models for many of the high offices in his empire.« In any case, the Egyptian influence on the Israelite royal ceremony brought with it the strongly mythological language of the Egyptian royal protocol. This language was probably not taken literally in the Israelite court—the language of divine sonship, for instance, was presumably understood in Israel as adoptive sonship—but once this mythological language had been deposited and preserved in texts whose original roots in particular court ceremonies were forgotten, the possibility for new, literalistic readings of this mythological language arose. Much of the mythological dimension in the later messianic expectations can be traced back to the remythologization of this borrowed mythological language of the royal protocol.

The period extending from the Exile to the time of Ezra and Nehemiah was one of transition within the religious and political structures of the Jewish people. This was certainly true of programs and visions of cultic and national restoration, for the clash between traditional forms and contemporary realities placed a great strain upon attempts to formulate plans for the future.
Haggai could promise that once the Temple had been restored,God would secure all aspects of peace, from fertility of the land (Hag 2:18-19) to safety from enemy hostilities (Hag 2:20-22).

8- Analyzing (Ezek 37:24-28; 43:18-27).(Zech 4:14).Zech 6:9 etc.....
after detailed analysis to such texts he concludes :
those traditions stemming from the Exile and the early Second Temple Period which later were drawn into various types of messianic speculation originally arose within a Situation rife with tension and change. All of the groups involved sought to explain the contradiction between a corporate identity understood in terms of a people living under God's rule and the experience of living under the sovereignty of a pagan emperor Given the co-existence of rival claims to leadership informed by different backgrounds and party affiliations, it is not surprising that the eschatological traditions arising from the period are characterized by wide diversity.Though the subsequent interpretation and reapplication of these traditions developed quite independently of their original meaning and setting,an awareness of origins is the proper starting point for the study of the history of interpretation of all traditions. The traditions developing the messianic themes discussed throughout this volume are no exception.

I think the previous points are the important outline of  how the Jews viewed the promised messiah to be .....
The following are additional detailed points on the picture of the messiah before Jesus ,quoted from the greatest and most valuable work on the topic of messiah (THE MESSIAH Developments in Earliest Judaism and Christianity by James H. Charlesworth, ), read them if you are interested for academic details ,or skip them and follow reading the topic...

Quote from: James H. Charlesworth, The Messiah Developments in Earliest Judaism and Christianity
1- Besides the Old Testament, We have numerous early Jewish sources that portray the Messiah, variously,as one who will serve as the eschatological high priest (the Dead SeaScrolls, the T12P), or as the consummate benevolent and all-powerful king(PssSol 17). Numerous functions are sometimes attributed to the Messiah:He will judge the wicked (PssSol 17, 4Ezra 12, 2Bar 40), destroy them(PssSol 17, 18; 4Ezra 12, 2Bar 72; c f Isa 11), deliver God's people (PssSol17, 4Ezra 12; c f Zech 9), and/or reign in a blessed kingdom (PssSol 17, 18;2Bar 40; c f Ps 2).

2 - Old Testament expectations of a new David are probably to be understood in terms of a continuing Davidic line. There is little indication that any of these prophets envisioned a final Davidic ruler who would actually rule for all time to come,thus obviating the need for the continuation of the dynastic line. The language of some of the prophecies is open to that interpretation, and such a reading was eventually given to them, but such passages as Jer 33:14-26 and Ezekiel 4 0 - 4 8 indicate that the dynastic understanding was the dominant interpretation of such promises as late as the exihc period, and the repeated references to  "the house of David," in Third Zechariah (Zech12:7-12; 13:1) suggest that this interpretation remained dominant well into the postexilic period.

3- The new Jerusalem is far more prominent in prophetic visions of the future than the Davidic king, but such eschatological hopes are not specifically messianic.

4- There are number of passages as not really envisioning a future king in their original contexts, Once the expectation of a new Davidic king became an important hope in large circles of the Israelite people, these passages would be subject to eschatological reinterpretation, to new readings that were genuinely prophetic.

5 - The later expectations of a priestly Messiah can be traced back to the promises of the restoration of the priesthood found in Jeremiah 33 and in Zechariah's oracles concerning the high priest Joshua.


Surely the old testament and Quran have lots in common , but old testament has some concepts that seem to degrade the almighty.


assalamu alaikum

The so called satanic verses, are proved to be forgeries ,without any reasonable doubt ....

The story of Christ temptation ,is a narrative portrays what was going on inside Jesus' mind, calling Jesus the Son of God, a mountain high enough in all the world to see the whole world ,The account of Matthew uses language from the Old Testament. The imagery of a conflict between an earlier "Jesus" and "the devil" would be familiar to Matthew's contemporary readers, recalling the vision of a conflict between Satan and the Angel of the Lord(wiki).

 The story is fictional forgeries that "just as most new testament stories" is based on borrowing some themes from the old testament ...

The satanic verses and the Christ temptation are both forgeries , comparing them to make a point like two wrongs can make one right....

Quote from: QuranSearchCom
All criticism are always welcomed! :)  This is how we learn and improve and cleanse the falsehood and errors from us.

I really admire your open mindedness and your welcoming the alternative views ..... no doubt we are all here agree on the conclusions ,even if we use alternative means ..

Jazak alahu khairan.

Pages: 1 ... 11 12 13 14 [15] 16 17 18

What's new | A-Z | Discuss & Blog | Youtube