Jesus/YHWH created Adam from the Dust not Allah - Quran Sura 3:59

The Quran confirms the previous scriptures are not corrupt because they were given by God.

Torah - "We gave Moses the Book and followed him up with a succession of messengers," (2:87)

Psalms - "We have sent thee inspiration, as We sent it to Noah and the Messengers after him: we sent inspiration to Abraham, Isma'il, Isaac, Jacob and the Tribes, to Jesus, Job, Jonah, Aaron, and solomon, and to David We gave the Psalms," (4:163).

NT Gospel - Also, "And in their footsteps We sent Jesus the son of Mary, confirming the Law that had come before him: We sent him the Gospel(of the Holy Spirit): therein was guidance and light, and confirmation of the Law that had come before him: a guidance and an admonition to those who fear Allah," (5:46).

We see that the Quran states that the Torah, the Psalms, and the Gospel were all given by God. With this we Christians heartily agree.

But, the Muslims claim that the Bible is corrupted and full of contradictions. If that is so, then it would seem they do not believe the Quran since the Quran says that the Word of God cannot be altered:

"Rejected were the messengers before thee: with patience and constancy they bore their rejection and their wrongs, until Our aid did reach them: there is none that can alter the words of Allah. Already hast thou received some account of those messengers," (6:34).

"The word of thy Lord doth find its fulfillment in truth and in justice: None can change His words: for He is the one who heareth and knoweth all," (6:115).
carm.org...

Since we can see that the Quran says no scriptures of God can be corrupt, then they must all agree.

Who is Jesus according to the Bible?

15 The Son is the image of the invisible God, the FIRSTBORN over all creation. 16 For in him all things were created: things IN heaven and ON earth, visible and invisible, whether thrones or powers or rulers or authorities; all things have been created through him and for him. Colossians 1:15-16

Notice it says that Jesus has a BEGINNING, the FIRSTBORN.

He is the creator of the things IN heaven and ON the earth, but not the creator OF heaven and earth. Which is consistent with the Genesis account and what Jesus says about himself.

Also Paul testifies the Father existed prior to the beginning.

1 In the beginning God created the heavens and the earth. 2 Now the earth was formless and empty, darkness was over the surface of the deep, and the Spirit of God was hovering over the waters.

3 And God said, “Let there be light,” and there was light. Genesis 1

Then Jesus again spoke to them, saying, "I am the Light of the world; he who follows Me will not walk in the darkness, but will have the Light of life." John 8:12

1 Paul, a servant of God and an apostle of Jesus Christ to further the faith of God’s elect and their knowledge of the truth that leads to godliness 2 in the hope of eternal life, which God, who does not lie, promised before the beginning of time... Grace and peace from God the Father AND Christ Jesus our Savior. Titus 1

Is Jesus YHWH? Their was only one Lord for the Jews and that was YHWH Elohim. Elohim is the name of the father, and Jesus is YHWH Elohim, in the image of Elohim.

And YHWH Elohim (Lord God) is the creator of Adam in the OT.

36 “Therefore let all Israel be assured of this: God has made this Jesus, whom you crucified, both Lord and Messiah.” Acts 2:36

Then the LORD God (YHWH Elohim) formed a man from the dust of the ground and breathed into his nostrils the breath of life, and the man became a living being. Genesis 2:7

Jesus is YHWH and the creator of Adam in both OT and NT.

Using Google Translate Sura 3:59 word for word translates as follows

Such Isa(Jesus) God likeness of Adam. He created him from dust, then said to him, 'Be! 3:59

Aribic source - quran.al-islam.org...

All Quran translations in English have been interpreted similar to this.

Surely the likeness of Isa(Jesus) is with Allah as the likeness of Adam; He created him from dust, then said to him, Be, and he was. 3:59

In this as well as all other interpretations of the Quran it is assumed Allah created Adam from the dust. However this is not consistent with the previous scriptures, which cannot be corrupt according to the Quran.

A more accurate translation reads like this.

Jesus is like God to Adam, He created him from dust, then said to him, 'Be! 3:59

This interpretation as you can see is highly plausible based on the word for word Aribic, and this is the ONLY WAY to align the three texts.

The largest problem with English interpretations is they are not word for word. Each interpreter has added words trying to make the song read like a book. Much of the added texts are male centric, Zionist, and anti Christian/Jew. But when you look word for word those biases disappear.

"God took a covenant from the prophets, saying, 'I will give you the scripture and wisdom. Afterwards, a messenger will come to confirm ALL existing scriptures, You shall believe in him and support him.' He said, 'Do you agree with this, and pledge to fulfill this covenant?' They said, 'We agree.' He said, 'You have thus borne witness, and I bear witness along with you." 3:81

a reply to: Isurrender73

Jesus said nothing about being God, or being a creator...

nor did he say a thing about this Yahweh god...

Also the personality of these two characters are so far off they're like night and day...

The Dark and the Light... Which is ironic because the so called "god" of the OT is mighty dark...

And Jesus did call himself the light...

a reply to: Akragon

We will have to agree to disagree.

I accept the OT and have two threads detailing the worst of the OT and why I believe the OT is the word of God.

This on homosexuality
www.abovetopsecret.com...

And this one on Deuteronomy and the order to kill the Cananites as God's punishment for their behavior.
www.abovetopsecret.com...

Add - one more link defending the OT, was a reply to another users thread. The Israelites did a lot of Evil, but I accept YHWH's instructions as justified by God.
www.abovetopsecret.com...

And I don't think Deuteronomy 22:28-29 is forced marriage on rape. Rape is defined clearly only a few verses prior and a different word is used. I believe the act is consensual that leads to the forced marriage.

However, I doubt any of that will change your mind. - So agree to disagree.

a reply to: Isurrender73

Obviously I wouldn't change my mind... its blatantly clear the OT god is not the Father Jesus spoke of... Well, at least to anyone whos actually done a bit of study on the bible without a church looking over their shoulders

And those things you wrote about in your threads are hardly the worst of the OT

In any case I'm not trying to change your mind, I've learned its impossible to change a fundamentalist's mind, Even if you stump their pastor... Im merely pointing out the flaws in your theology, so as to be sure no one else fails to see the issues between the Old and New testament

a reply to: Isurrender73

I don't understand how the Qurun can claim that certain scriptures are not corrupt because they were given by God.
Surely the Qurun was written a lot later by other men after Mohammad had died. Therefore the Quran is no different than the bible in that it was written by men, to govern other men and based on a lot of different historical myths from earlier cultures.

Any talk about YHWH is irrelevant simply because we know he was a originally a Storm God within the Canaanite Pantheon from our archaeological records/finds. We also know he was worshipped in the ancient world along with his female partner, whom the Jewish priests derided and demoted into virtual shady existence.

Nit picking over different bits taken from either the Quran or Bible cannot genuinely be backed up by any proof of God existing. He is simply an archetype that man puts on a pedestal and tries to make other men accept without ever producing any form of reality to God's existence - its all in truth "what is said" but not what has ever been proved. Religion is the simplest means of running a civilisation with a velvet glove, which is why its tolerated and even pushed by the state.

a reply to: Shiloh7

If it possible to prove that all 3 texts, SAY THE EXACT SAME THING, and all 3 texts teach to FOLLOW INTERNAL DIVINITY, then they were at least written by men who understood and believed in the EXACT SAME CONCEPT, when referring to GOD/ALLAH and JESUS/YHWH.

So even if you reject that they are the words of God himself, we can at least stop fighting over who is right, since they say the EXACT SAME THING.

I would say that is more than a 1600 -3500 year old coincidence.

You can say what you will about RELIGION, but the important message in the sacred texts is the HOLY SPIRIT. The texts claim the HOLY SPIRIT, is the voice of LOVE and REASON WITHIN us.

Do you have a problem if we ALL FOLLOW the voice of LOVE AND REASON, the Holy Spirit? Even if you don't believe in the Holy Spirit, surely we CAN all FOLLOW LOVE AND REASON.

Also no scared text allows forced conversion, because it is possible that not all will agree. But surely all can tolerate others and agree to democratically choose our laws. Thus avoiding any form of forced conversion.

Democracy, tolerance and the voice of Love and Reason are the core of all three texts. This is what we should follow, in my opinion.

a reply to: Isurrender73

I see your point about the holy spirit and you don't need to shout about it its actually considered quite rude.

So you contribute spiritual love to God/Allah/YHWH do you? So perhaps you would like to think, how without love man has managed to survive for nearly 200,000 years. We have done so because love is a natural part of being human. We love to help and look after each other. Sure we fall out but its only 1 in 12 who are actual psychopaths and even then many train their tendencies into managing businesses, murderers are actual rare unless of course one looks at those killed for religious reasons etc etc.

What you fail to understand is that you also only have to look at something everyday such as a beautifully kept garden outside a house, people raising money for charity, someone helping a disabled person to see every day human love being carried out even by non-believers. Its not some form of privilege or gift we have been shown by some benevolent God, its within us as part of our basic nature.

Ever since we have been saddled with professional 'holy' men you need to remember that these men lived and indeed today live off working men and society and their status only came into being once society was established and could afford their lifestyles - so their dignity and authority was their most prized possession and because rulers recognised their value emotional blackmail value for keeping people in order and doing what they were told, we have maintained all these so-called religious power mongers throughout the desert religions.

Simply look at the numbers of people who walk out of the mosques, synagogues and churches who have all listened to what they are told pretty much without questioning any of it and you get the true idea of power without election. Religious men wear the mask of weakness, but beware the power of the weak because they can destroy you though influencing your peers and family into believing you are evil if you go against their teachings. That is their power and we don't like to upset them incase they try to destroy our credibility/lives. That's how religion works.

Whether its actually just man running his life sensibly from ancient times well before the desert religions barged their way into our lives, or holy and from God is quite another matter. If you research the Babylonian King Hammurabi's Code, you see exactly what today's religions base their laws on. (In fact his code is not earliest known code of law, its taken from earlier times). These laws are not in any way original, in fact they come from a wise ruler who wrote down a code a laws with which to govern. The religiosity grabbed onto these and have altered and adapted them to suit their cause by adding bits of scripture/dogma to them to suit the needs of the societies as time moved on. However today science have moved on and much of this teaching is backward and unsuited for the world as it is today.

When you look at the Gods of the ancients, you see actual archetypes for teaching the different skills men and women have had to develop and understand in order to survive. These practical aspects of survival have been stretched by the priestly to include dogma and hard nose rules in order to spread the word and force as many to give money to the various religious institutions. It fair to say Yyou will notice that God, Allah YHWH doesn't contribute a penny to any of these institutions, which were they his and all the power their followers grant him, one would expect some form of contribution.

a reply to: Shiloh7

I am sorry if you felt the caps are rude, maybe I can switch to italics or bolding, just more difficult on the phone. I only use caps for emphasis not intending to sound like I am yelling.

I consider my ideology similar to the Essenes and Sufism. I don't think any of the modern religious institutions teach what the prophets themselves taught. Today's churches seem to believe that God will only Love those who perform some form of Ritual Salvation, or follow strict Temporal Laws.

Both of these ideologies are refuted by the prophets themselves, and lead to self-righteous men who think that they are more qualified to speak about God, hence they feel justified taking our money,

To me it doesn't matter why you believe that Love draws us together. The only thing that matters is that we agree, the true foundation of the scriptures is Love and Reason.

I attribute Love and Reason to a devine voice, the Holy Spirit. If you believe this has evolved it makes no difference to me. I am not asking for money or followers.

In "Thus Spoke Zathustra" Nieche describes the role of Christ absent of religion. I think Nieche was closer to the truth than most of the so called religious.

What I am saying is that it is possible to reconcile all three texts to determine what the Authors of the OT, NT and Quran believed about the Christ/Holy Spirit and the concept of One God.

The One God in the religious texts is the Spiritual Emotion of Love. The souls of men are driven by the Spirit of Love towards a common unity of Love among all mankind.

If the texts themselves prove they can be reconciled then we can stop fighting over who is right and the religious can truly focus on the Spirit written about within the texts.

Again I am sorry if you feel like I was yelling. It is hard to get my point across, since not many people agree with me.

...created Jesus/Adam from the dust, who was 'tempted' by a satan to get Eve to eat an apple, that apparently we all have to pay for, to then be crucified on a cross, to pay for original 'sins' that Jesus/Adam incurred on our behalf...

How many different ways can you twist an already incredulous story?

Å99

a reply to: Isurrender73

I agree with you over Neiche.

Where we 'possibly split hairs' albeit we are going in the same direction is over the point about the actual foundation of religious scriptures. Were they intended by the originators to enhance our spiritual lives and to sanctify mankind by making our lives fuller? or, were they as I actually believe, basically a vehicle of emotional blackmail used by rulers, cleverly selecting and promoting 'holy men' and not military force, to administer and augment their laws/rules over how the civilisations they governed were to be run. Its more acceptable to be told by a non-threatening individual what to do than be forced by armed men etc etc. As society grew so did the rules which permeated even down to Nanny-State level e.g. telling people how to dress, to eat fish on a Friday etc.

Man's attitude to death only became frightening once religion gave us the concept of punishment if you didn't obey the laws. This was done by making each person accountable by telling them they have a soul so we don't in fact die after death. We are told its something we can't see but its the perfect religious vehicle to make us fearful and vulnerable to suffer for eternity in hell fire etc etc.

The concept of reward if we follow the law, which our rulers projects onto us via the image of God, simply isn't feasible because how many people actually think about the concept of living forever just worshipping God, having virgins or whatever other thrills death promises us? If these two religious concepts were not taught to us a children, we simply wouldn't accept them or their implications as educated adults.

For me most of the differences are purely academic and historical. The world where our desert religions were created simply doesn't exist any more except in very rural areas, which begs their relevance in places where civil law ensures people behave and are safe.

I appreciate your comments about shouting. We come here to discuss controversial topics which is a great thing because it makes us think and opens our minds when we read another's perspective. I suspect it is inevitable that science and terrorism will eventually eclipse religion.

a reply to: Shiloh7

So you contribute spiritual love to God/Allah/YHWH do you? So perhaps you would like to think, how without love man has managed to survive for nearly 200,000 years. We have done so because love is a natural part of being human. We love to help and look after each other. Sure we fall out but its only 1 in 12 who are actual psychopaths and even then many train their tendencies into managing businesses, murderers are actual rare unless of course one looks at those killed for religious reasons etc etc.

While you seem to be on track you suddenly derail your train. You pull numbers out of the air like a true politician. Can you prove your 200,000 years? Are you quite sure that there was a 200,000 year 200,000 years ago? About that 1 in 12 psychopaths statistic? Are you saying that is a certified figure and if so just how in the world would anyone take that survey?

And then murders are rare? Where do you live and what do you call rare? Are you counting wars and politicians who starve their kids to death? Maybe you are counting the Detroit or Boston killings every night of the week. And then you chide religions? I don't think religions have any part in most of what is going on unless you follow your POTUS to the wright church or perhaps his little playmate Sharpton who carries his water.