The titles of Jesus in Islam.

page: 3
5
<< 1  2    4 >>

log in

join

posted on Dec, 24 2012 @ 07:06 AM
link   

Originally posted by sk0rpi0n
The "gospel according to" somebody is not the perfect Gospel of Jesus. It would have truth mixed with falsehoods.

The stories of Jesus in Islam are not the perfect life stories of Jesus.
They are made up and false .. falsehoods mixed with Christian stories ...

The 'titles of Jesus in Islam' skips the most important aspects of Christ.
No surprise, since the stories of Jesus in Islam are FICTION.

Titles of Jesus STRAIGHT FROM THE ORIGINAL SOURCE -
Christ, Lord; Logos; Son of God; Son of Man; Light of the World; Lamb of God; I Am ...

Prince of Peace; Suffering Servant; Son of David; Divine Mercy Incarnate;

Litany of the Holy Name


V. God the Son, Redeemer of the world,
V. Jesus, Son of the living God,
Jesus, splendor of the Father,
Jesus, brightness of eternal light.
Jesus, King of glory.
Jesus, sun of justice.
Jesus, Son of the Virgin Mary.
Jesus, most amiable.
Jesus, most admirable.
Jesus, the mighty God.
Jesus, Father of the world to come.
Jesus, angel of great counsel.
Jesus, most powerful.
Jesus, most patient.
Jesus, most obedient.
Jesus, meek and humble of heart.
Jesus, lover of chastity.
Jesus, lover of us.
Jesus, God of peace.
Jesus, author of life.
Jesus, example of virtues.
Jesus, zealous lover of souls.
Jesus, our God.
Jesus, our refuge.
Jesus, father of the poor.
Jesus, treasure of the faithful.
Jesus, good Shepherd.
Jesus, true light.
Jesus, eternal wisdom.
Jesus, infinite goodness.
Jesus, our way and our life.
Jesus, joy of Angels.
Jesus, King of the Patriarchs.
Jesus, Master of the Apostles.
Jesus, teacher of the Evangelists.
Jesus, strength of Martyrs.
Jesus, light of Confessors.
Jesus, purity of Virgins.
Jesus, crown of Saints




posted on Dec, 24 2012 @ 07:18 AM
link   

Originally posted by sk0rpi0n
The truth is, Christians claim to "love" Jesus.... but in reality they love their doctrines. The same way the self-righteous Pharisees loved their "laws" and interpretations of it.

:shk: So you judge the hearts of 2 billion Christians. How presumptuous of you. :


Which is why you find so many Christians... in their blind hatred of a religion that teaches Jesus is the messiah.... ]

Christians hate that Islam is misogynistic and violent. They hate that Islam forces conversion at the point of a sword and dhimmitude. They hate that Islam blows up ancient historical statues and threatens to blow up egyptian pyramids all in God's name. They hate that Islam FAKED stories about Jesus, stories that deny his divinity. There is nothing 'blind' about the hatred of these things in Islam. Christians don't hate muslims, they don't judge the hearts or souls, they just hate the things in Islam that are worthy of hate. (and there is plenty in it worthy of hating ... how women are treated for starters ... )


Originally posted by babloyi
Now if the so-called Christians ACTUALLY followed what Christ said (turn the other cheek, give up their money and traditions and and go in the path of God, praying, fasting, healing and generally helping their fellow man with more than just words etc.), the world as we know it now would fall to pieces, and it would be beautiful.

Yeah ... dhimmitude to Islam would be just 'beautiful'. Show me in Islam where these muslims are 'generally helping their fellow man' and 'turning the other cheek'. Go ahead .. I triple dog dare ya'. Debunk the facts here



Originally posted by sk0rpi0n
Islam relies on the revelations that Mohammad received.

.. and since Mohammad never actually received any devine revelations, and was totally unable to prove that he did, it looks like the entire premise for Islam falls apart right there ...
edit on 12/24/2012 by FlyersFan because: (no reason given)



posted on Dec, 24 2012 @ 07:22 AM
link   

Originally posted by logical7
your asumption is based on that either judaism is true or christianity is true, both cant be true but both can have some wrongs and islam corrects those wrongs.

Your assumption is that Islam is true and muhammad actually received revelations from God that totally contradicted the original first hand writings about Jesus. Muhammad had NO PROOF that his so-called revelations were actually from God. None. But you buy those and reject the actual first hand historical accounts of Jesus in the gospels.

I find that 'logic' odd.



posted on Dec, 24 2012 @ 07:24 AM
link   

Originally posted by sk0rpi0n
But Paul indeed contradicts Jesus in so many ways. In fact, Paul contradicts the Old Testament prophets and God Himself.

But Muhammad contradicts Jesus in so many ways. In fact, Muhammad contradicts the Old Testament prophets and God Himself.



posted on Dec, 24 2012 @ 07:42 AM
link   
reply to post by FlyersFan
 


why dont you research your own religion after removing any preformed ideas of Jesus pbuh as god and then see which idea makes more sense, divine Jesus or Messiah and prophet Jesus pbuh.
If you get stuck that because muslims are bad their religion must be wrong then you are like an atheist who says that if religions cause so much trouble then there must be no God.



posted on Dec, 24 2012 @ 08:58 AM
link   

Originally posted by logical7
why dont you research your own religion

1 - I don't have a formal religion.
2 - I have researched 'em all and continue to do so.

after removing any preformed ideas of Jesus pbuh as god

I don't have a 'preformed idea' of Jesus being God.
I believe it because it's clearly in front of me. Jesus is God incarnate.
Jesus came down from heaven. John 6:38

How about YOU remove your preformed idea that Muhammad had divine revelations and ask yourself what makes more sense ...

1 - Muhammad says God talked to him and told him things about Jesus, and not to worry that the 'revelations' contradict the first hand accounts of people who actually knew him. God told him to start a new religion and to mass murder people and to be His power on earth.

2 - A murdering thief (muhammad) took bits and pieces of other religions, made up a new one. He falsely claimed God gave him a special mission, and got the ignorant peasants to buy into his newly made up religion in order for himself to gain political power and money .. all at the point of a sword.

So which makes more sense? That God would tell a mass murdering thief that he is God's special messenger or that the mass murdering thief is really telling lies about being God's special messenger, all in order for himself to gain power and money? Muhammad did NOTHING to back up his false claims of having had divine revelations. The peasants just bought into it .. or they were forced into it at the point of a sword. So which makes more sense??? Back atchya.


If you get stuck that because muslims are bad

Muslims aren't bad. Their religion is just really wonky and easily debunked.



posted on Dec, 24 2012 @ 09:20 AM
link   
reply to post by FlyersFan
 



So you judge the hearts of 2 billion Christians. How presumptuous of you. :

You aren't Christian.
A real Christian wouldn't hold a low view of the prophet Moses... who is respected by Jews, Christians and Muslims.
I don't know what you are, but you definitely aren't Christian. You have made up your own religion to suit yourself.





edit on 24-12-2012 by sk0rpi0n because: (no reason given)



posted on Dec, 24 2012 @ 10:45 AM
link   

Originally posted by sk0rpi0n
A real Christian wouldn't hold a low view of the prophet Moses... who is respected by Jews, Christians and Muslims.

WRONG. A 'Christian' is someone who follows Christ as best that they know how.
I am a Christian with my eyes wide open.
And I see Moses for what he was ... a mass murderer. It's just that simple.


Originally posted by sk0rpi0n
You have made up your own religion to suit yourself.

GOOD! That makes me a heck of a lot smarter than billions of others who follow organized religions without using their brains. Just because some religion says something is true .. doesn't mean it is. (that includes Islam, Christianity, Buddhism, Hinduism .. whatever)

ETA ... and I notice that you are avoiding what was said ... deflecting to try to make me the topic instead of what has been said.
It's been noted ... EVERYTHING you have said has been debunked. Show us how Islam 'turns the other cheek'. Show us how the stories of Jesus in Islam are perfect and absolutely from heaven, even though they contradict scripture and first hand accounts .. go ahead and give it a try ... you can't do it .. it's impossible. Everything you accuse Christians of doing is exactly what YOU are doing with Islam.



edit on 12/24/2012 by FlyersFan because: (no reason given)



posted on Dec, 24 2012 @ 10:49 AM
link   
reply to post by FlyersFan
 





1 - Muhammad says God talked to him and told him things about Jesus, and not to worry that the 'revelations' contradict the first hand accounts of people who actually knew him.

first hand accounts!!!?? You better be sure about that because when i read John it requires a lot of faith to accept that someone is not inserting verses and that there are more than one writer, one of whom is trying to pull the understanding of the reader into a set standard thinking pattern.
John 21

24 This is the disciple which testifieth of these things, and wrote these things: and we know that his testimony is true.
25 And there are also many other
things which Jesus did, the which, if they should be written every one, I suppose that even the world itself could not contain the books that should be written. Amen.

who is this trying to convince me its a testimony and true?
There are other similar commentaries to "guide" me but writting them 'could not be contained' in one post.
But whoever wrote it is sure a performer, 2-3 years of Jesus' pbuh teaching written in books cant be contained by the whole world!!!



posted on Dec, 24 2012 @ 10:53 AM
link   
reply to post by logical7
 


The gospel stories of Jesus are written by his apostles and the disciples of the apostles. They are stories that came directly from his mother Mary (see the conception stories of Jesus in Luke and the information about what was on Mary's mind all that time). These are first hand accounts written at the time of Christ.

The Muslim stories were made up HUNDREDS of years later. No first hand accounts. No primary sources. All contradicting the gospels. It was all just some guy (muhammad) telling a bunch of peasants that God gave him the stories .. and the people bought into it.


The gospels which were written by people who were directly involved with Christ or the apostles have a MUCH better chance of actually being true than something written hundreds of years later by some dude on a self power quest (muhammad).



posted on Dec, 24 2012 @ 10:55 AM
link   

Originally posted by logical7
when i read John it requires a lot of faith to accept that someone is not inserting verses and that there are more than one writer, one of whom is trying to pull the understanding of the reader into a set standard thinking pattern.

... and yet you'll buy into the Quran .. written hundreds of years after Christ .. the Quran with it's direct contradictions and it's errors and it's obvious political agenda? Yeah .. okay .... have fun with that. (like I said .. not 'logical')



posted on Dec, 24 2012 @ 11:20 AM
link   
reply to post by FlyersFan
 





all in order for himself to gain power and money? Muhammad did NOTHING to back up his false claims of having had divine revelations. The peasants just bought into it .. or they were forced into it at the point of a sword. So which makes more sense??? Back atchya.

prophet Muhammad's pbuh house where he lived till death

doesnt make sense to have whole arabia under his rule and sleep on a bed of palm leaves, does it?



posted on Dec, 24 2012 @ 11:56 AM
link   

Originally posted by FlyersFan

Originally posted by logical7
when i read John it requires a lot of faith to accept that someone is not inserting verses and that there are more than one writer, one of whom is trying to pull the understanding of the reader into a set standard thinking pattern.

... and yet you'll buy into the Quran .. written hundreds of years after Christ .. the Quran with it's direct contradictions and it's errors and it's obvious political agenda? Yeah .. okay .... have fun with that. (like I said .. not 'logical')

Qur'an isnt Bible, neither biography of Jesus pbuh, you are confusing it to these, get above the idea set in your mind that each holy book should talk just about your idea or its not worthy.
You are just looking for validitation of your belief either by rationalising and ignoring errors in bible or by putting down other beliefs and books.
I want to ask you, honestly what do you want? To learn and know about other religions with respect towards them or the opposite?



posted on Dec, 24 2012 @ 12:18 PM
link   

Originally posted by FlyersFan
reply to post by logical7
 


The gospel stories of Jesus are written by his apostles and the disciples of the apostles. They are stories that came directly from his mother Mary (see the conception stories of Jesus in Luke and the information about what was on Mary's mind all that time). These are first hand accounts written at the time of Christ.

The Muslim stories were made up HUNDREDS of years later. No first hand accounts. No primary sources. All contradicting the gospels. It was all just some guy (muhammad) telling a bunch of peasants that God gave him the stories .. and the people bought into it.


The gospels which were written by people who were directly involved with Christ or the apostles have a MUCH better chance of actually being true than something written hundreds of years later by some dude on a self power quest (muhammad).


really?? What about the idea of being inspired by Holy ghost? Do you believe it?
You are saying God cant send revelations?
From where the gospel that Jesus pbuh preached came? I mean the great teachings. He didnt just pick up ideas from OT did he?
And if you see Bible as just historical account then also there are biographies of Muhammad pbuh that you can read objectively.
You agree with historical evidence of a man being god but deny to look into accounts about a man being a prophet.
Which is more likely to be possible? And if you say the accounts about Muhammad pbuh are altered etc then wouldnt the same doubt be valid about bible accounts?
So everyone in your group of historians/scribes was truthful, honest and upright and everyone in mine was a lying brainwashed fool(althought lying and brainwashed cant be true simultaneously)
my question to you is why you got stuck at Jesus pbuh and only interested to find more about him? Why your idea of religion revolves around him.
Without any scripture,you can still conclude that there is God. and then you go further, either He is One or triune, it doesnt yet require scripture to conclude that HE is One. What i am pointing is you rely completely on a already made theology to form your belief that contradicts a 'logical' approach and yet you value testimonies but refuse reasoning.
edit on 24-12-2012 by logical7 because: (no reason given)



posted on Dec, 24 2012 @ 02:48 PM
link   

Originally posted by logical7
Qur'an isnt Bible, neither biography of Jesus pbuh, you are confusing it to these,

No. I"m pointing out that LOGICALLY the Quran stories about Jesus aren't worthy of belief ... it was written hundreds of years AFTER Jesus. It totally contradicts the first hand accounts of the bible. It is MUCH more likely that the bible is accurate than the Qu'ran.

get above the idea set in your mind that each holy book should talk just about your idea or its not worthy.

I never said any such thing about 'my ideas being the only ones worthy of belief'. That's ABSURD. I'm simply stating COMMON SENSE.

You are just looking for validitation of your belief either by rationalising and ignoring errors in bible or by putting down other beliefs and books.

Wrong again.

1 - I have never asked for, nor sought out, any validation of my beliefs. I don't care if others believe what I believe or not. I am simply stating facts.

2 - I have NEVER ignored the errors in the bible. I've often spoke of them. This thread isn't about bible errors or contradictions .. so if you wish to discuss them .. go start a thread about them.

3 - YOU are ignoring the errors that are in the Qu'ran. YOU are ignoring that the Qu'ran was written HUNDREDS of years after Jesus and therefore is MUCH LESS likely to have anything accurate in it than the first hand accounts that were written down by the people who actually knew Christ. It's YOU ignoring facts .. not me.


I want to ask you, honestly what do you want? To learn and know about other religions with respect towards them or the opposite?

1 - What I want is TRUTH. The Jesus stories in the Quran simply don't have them.
2 - I already know about other religions and I continue to learn about them.
3 - I will not give respect that that which is not worthy of it .. and lies are not worthy of respect. Neither is misogyny. Neither is dumbing down a billion people and making them think that the stories about Jesus that were made up 600 years after he was alive are somehow 'more true' than the historical documentation that was written by those who actually knew him.

How about you admit that the Quran is full of errors?

How about you admit that the Quran Jesus stories, which were written hundreds of years after Jesus, are MUCH less likely to be true than what was written in the gospels by those who actually knew Jesus?

Common sense .. it goes a long way ... give it a try.



posted on Dec, 24 2012 @ 02:51 PM
link   

Originally posted by logical7
You are saying God cant send revelations?

Sure he can. But he didn't send any to Muhammad. If God had sent Muhammad 'revelations' they wouldn't have contradicted the gospel. The gospel has first hand accounts. Muhammads supposed 'revelations' contradict the first hand accounts .. they water down Jesus to be of less importance than even Muhammad ... and they contain massive historical and scientific errors. Not to mention the fact that Muhammad was a thief and a murderer with a massive political agenda .. not exactly a 'holy man' ...


What i am pointing is you rely completely on a already made theology to form your belief that contradicts a 'logical' approach and yet you value testimonies but refuse reasoning.

That pretty much sums up YOU.



posted on Dec, 24 2012 @ 02:53 PM
link   
reply to post by logical7
 


He had anything and everything he wanted. The peasants bought into his 'divine revelations'. They murdered at his command. They gave him their wives. They gave him everything even though Muhammad never did a single thing to prove that he actually was in communication with God. No common sense on the part of the peasants ...



posted on Dec, 24 2012 @ 06:05 PM
link   
reply to post by Deetermined
 


Originally posted by Deetermined
If Paul didn't have the Holy Spirit, he would not have been able to perform miracles.

Actually, that, and a previous statement I believe you made (where you discounted Muhammad's prophethood because according to you to you he didn't perform miracles) is in stark contrast to what the Bible says, when it warns against imposters and false prophets who perform marvellous miracles.

reply to post by FlyersFan
 


Originally posted by FlyersFan
Yeah ... dhimmitude to Islam would be just 'beautiful'. Show me in Islam where these muslims are 'generally helping their fellow man' and 'turning the other cheek'. Go ahead .. I triple dog dare ya'. Debunk the facts here

Hey FlyersFan!

"Islam" unfortunately isn't a place, nor a time, not a book retelling the history of muslims, so I can't really "show you in Islam where these muslims..." did anything. I already made mention of the verse I was talking about, however. You can look it up, it is in the Quran.
And despite your constant and unending litany of "murderer" "thief" "rapist" "evil" "satan" "murderer" "thief", again, Islamic literature is overstuffed with incidents of Muhammad and his followers generally helping their fellow man and turning the other cheek.
Also, I am sorry to have to tell you, the absurd "facts" at the thereligionofpeace website debunk themselves. The collector of these "facts" state themselves that they do not provide sources, instead claiming that they will provide them on request (and before you ask, no, they don't- I've asked for several incidents several times and never got a response). Despite saying this is not what they do, they essentially take any incident involving muslims at all (whether the incident was religious in nature or not), and sometimes incidents involving people who may possibly have been muslim, but no evidence of that is provided, and using that as an example of religious violence. If all that doesn't raise alarm bells for you, there are many many places on the internet that can point out how those "facts" are total BS....not that you'll care one whit, of course.


Originally posted by FlyersFan
Christians hate that Islam is misogynistic and violent. They hate that Islam forces conversion at the point of a sword and dhimmitude.

That is somewhat ironic, considering that Christianity itself is misogynistic and violent (and I'm not just talking about the OT), and Christianity did more than their fair share of conversions at the point of the sword (Ever wonder how it is that there are NO original native pagan religions remaining in most of Europe? There are resurgences and renewals, i.e. neo-paganism, but NONE of the original religions remain. If you shift over to places traditionally ruled by muslims, while certainly, it wasn't rosy throughout their history, you'll still be able to find zoroastrians in Iran and India, Hindus in India, Coptic Christians and Assyrian Christians and local Jews in Egypt and Syria and the Middle East)...and as for "dhimmitude", I think you'll find the Christian idea of "Perpetual Servitude" (which was basically the only reason the jews were allowed to live throughout much of Christianity's history- so that they could be humbled and shamed and be in servitude and owned by the church), which was Biblically derived, by the way, to be far, far worse.
Now you could use the tired old "Those were power hungry rulers, not 'True Christianity'" or "Those people weren't REAL Christians", and you might be right, but in that case....right back at ya.


And I realise this might be considered "quote spamming" or something, but I just wanted to lay out a sequential list of some of the stuff you said, for you to see:

Originally posted by FlyersFan
Titles of Jesus STRAIGHT FROM THE ORIGINAL SOURCE -
Christ, Lord; Logos; Son of God; Son of Man; Light of the World; Lamb of God; I Am ...


Originally posted by FlyersFan
Your assumption is that Islam is true and muhammad actually received revelations from God that totally contradicted the original first hand writings about Jesus.


Originally posted by FlyersFan
the 'revelations' contradict the first hand accounts of people who actually knew him.


Originally posted by FlyersFan
The gospel stories of Jesus are written by his apostles and the disciples of the apostles. They are stories that came directly from his mother Mary (see the conception stories of Jesus in Luke and the information about what was on Mary's mind all that time). These are first hand accounts written at the time of Christ.


Originally posted by FlyersFan
It is MUCH more likely that the bible is accurate than the Qu'ran.


Originally posted by FlyersFan
I have NEVER ignored the errors in the bible. I've often spoke of them. This thread isn't about bible errors or contradictions .. so if you wish to discuss them .

You understand the meaning of "first hand accounts", yes? Because The Bible has none. It CERTAINLY has no "original" first hand writings, nowhere close to that.
You also acknowledge that the Bible is rife with errors. For one example, did you know that manuscript research points to the story about Jesus and the adulteress being inserted later?
So I'm not quite sure what you mean by "much more likely to be accurate", because it isn't accurate. Now you may say that the Quran isn't accurate either, but then they are both inaccurate, and relying on the texts themselves for anything is meaningless, and so is the statement that the later revelation contradicts the earlier (since they are supposedly both inaccurate it doesn't make any difference that one came hundreds of years later).

If I wrote out a biography of my great grandfather, knowing almost nothing about him, simply claiming I was told those things by his ghost (if one believed in such influences), and then hundreds of years later my descendant did the same thing about my same great grandfather, with the same claim, if my biography had errors, it would show I was probably lying or mistaken. If my descendant's biography was different to mine, it wouldn't mean it was automatically wrong (we are still accepting the premise of ghost influence here for the sake of the hypothesis), although it certainly could be. HOWEVER, my having written the biography temporally much closer to the actual events gives me absolutely no greater intrinsic authority or accuracy simply for that.

My point being, the Bible is believed by Christians NOT because it was written temporally close (because it was still almost 2 generations later for the oldest incomplete scrap of a manuscript available) to the events it claims to describe, but because it was supposed to have been inspired by God. So using the temporal closeness as an argument against another scripture is a bit silly.
My point also being that using a text that you admit is inaccurate to prove that another text which contradicts it is also inaccurate is a bit silly.

PS: On a totally unrelated note, Merry Christmas, whatever that means for you!
edit on 24-12-2012 by babloyi because: (no reason given)



posted on Dec, 24 2012 @ 09:29 PM
link   
reply to post by FlyersFan
 



He had anything and everything he wanted. The peasants bought into his 'divine revelations'. They murdered at his command. They gave him their wives. They gave him everything even though Muhammad never did a single thing to prove that he actually was in communication with God. No common sense on the part of the peasants ...


As usual, anything to discount Mohammads character as a genuinely humble man. No amount of proof that Mohammad was communicating with God would suffice for you. Most of the "peasants" you speak of were once idolaters and polytheists... some of them who tried to kill Mohammad... but over time accepted his message and became Muslims.

Common sense tells you that men in control of an entire subcontinent would live lavishly in palaces and mansions. That's the story of every king and emperor that we know of in history. But history shows us that Mohammad did not live as an emperor despite being pretty much the emperor of Arabia.



posted on Dec, 24 2012 @ 09:48 PM
link   
reply to post by FlyersFan
 




How about you admit that the Quran Jesus stories, which were written hundreds of years after Jesus, are MUCH less likely to be true than what was written in the gospels by those who actually knew Jesus?


The Koran was a separate revelation. So the Jesus stories are a whole lot more accurate than the biblical account which was pieced together many generations later. Also, stop pretending as if the biblical accounts of Jesus are extremely accurate... they are not.

For starters-
- Judas dies in 2 different ways. (falling to death and hanging)
- Jesus is also was executed in 2 different ways (nailed to a cross and hung on a tree.)
Clearly, the people who wrote the bible tried to put together a story based on hearsay.

- Every account of the "resurrection" scene varies.
How is this even possible, if this story was true?

-and my favorite... one gospel even has an account of the dead coming to life and walking the streets. Seriously? This spectacular scene is not mentioned anywhere else... not in the bible... not even in Roman records.

Its clear that somebody was inserting these stories much after the event of Jesus' life took place. So when you follow a book that has contradictions on extremely basic matters, you are bound to be in error.





new topics
top topics
 
5
<< 1  2    4 >>

log in

join