Quran Vs. Bible (And the vast contradictions between the two)

page: 4
7
<< 1  2  3    5  6 >>

log in

join

posted on Jan, 24 2013 @ 05:10 PM
link   

Originally posted by Nevertheless

Why do you keep "if so":ing this?
It is completely irrelevant whether or not the Bible is the infallible word of god when it comes to finding contradictions between the Quran and Bible.

Again, there are contradictions between the Quran and The Bible for the simple reason that Jesus split Jews into Jews and Christians, i.e. those who believed Jesus or the stories of Jesus to be the One, and those who didn't.
Several hundred years later, Mohammed came along and explained how he got new orders from God, also telling that Jews were right about Jesus not being the one (only a great prophet).

You being religious and for some reason been both Christian and Muslim (if I understood you correctly), I guess you already know all this (and if not, I'd suggest asking God instead of weirdos on a site for weirdos).

So, again, what is the point of comparing these two books? They are different by definition. And regardless of either book being true.


Alright Nevertheless..I kinda like your way of presenting, so I'm going to try and understand you the best I can and respond with the best and briefest truths you've asked. I guess my main confusion is you seem to say both books are mostly false but I am not sensing you do not believe in God? Am I wrong?? It's important to me to know where you stand as far as faith. I "if so'd" because I did not grasp what you were writing at all previously.

I'm not Religious anymore. I do not want anything to do with man-made Religions. I really do not believe that was Jesus' message at all (but that's my view) many people disagree and I can respect that. I find though that today, if there was ever meant to be a Religion "of God" it's all too corrupt now, by corrupt men (or women) who not not glorify God, but seek to glorify self or establishment. I do pray to God or ask Him as you suggested and I don't think-at least not yet-everyone here is a weirdo, I think we can find genuine people anywhere, here or out in the world you can find people who are willing to listen and to share what they know, that's why I'm here. (I also share these same things with people in my general circle who are Muslim) I am residing overseas currently in the middle east.

Yes Bible and Quran are different even if like you stated they are not "true" either way true or not, they are different. But also...very similar. Islam declares their book to be most accurate, un-doctored so to speak and therefore the only real undiluted message from God, yet at the same time, that same book states they must believe ALL THREE Books. So even that is a contradiction within their own book they claim has not faults.


Originally posted by honeybe
I fell into the trap of believing the Bible and Quran were both given/ordained by the same God



Originally posted by Nevertheless
How is that even possible? Please tell me more.
Also, do you believe there are several Gods? Isn't that a sin in both religions?


It just is. Maybe i'm one of the weirdos you spoke of earlier
But anyway.. I was searching for the right WAY to worship God, disillusioned that it HAD to be in one of these (3) Religions and when I read the Quran and about Islam, I did find it closest and even closer to the "correct" Religion than Christianity-mainstream. I did NOT know at the time every single word therein and assumed, "oh hey look, they too believe Jesus is Messiah so this can be wrong" And off I went...Not just like that of course, it was over a period of several years before I actually converted to Islam and it was not until I began reading Hadith(s) I started to say to myself..."uh oh" something is definitely not right here. And there I went again...And here I am. I don't claim to know all truths, but the one I do stand on is that Jesus IS Messiah and is indeed the living son of God, who died for all of our sins.

I believe in One God.

(It cut me short due to characters left.)




posted on Jan, 25 2013 @ 05:22 AM
link   
reply to post by HoneyBe
 





Thank you logical. Your view here was very simple and easy to understand. I do believe in angels. I do believe there is an order, from earth up the chain to God, woman, man, angels, Christ, God. (With God of course being the highest order and nothing above Him) God commands all beneath Him and Christ has the power given by God to command all beneath him. I'm just explaining it basically how it is written but not perfectly as there are not Scriptures in front of me right now and almost bed time. Are you Muslim? I have a specific question to ask if you are so I'll just wait til you come back

yes i am Muslim. I'l b happy to answer if i can.



posted on Jan, 25 2013 @ 11:39 AM
link   
reply to post by logical7
 


Thank you. I did not forget you. But I have forgotten what it was i wanted to ask you
If it comes to me, I will be back. I'm not sure it was overly important though. My apologies...



posted on Jan, 25 2013 @ 01:07 PM
link   

Originally posted by HoneyBe
reply to post by iwilliam
 


My topic is not about miracles, if you are referring to me as OP? I was asking about the clear contradiction which I've supplied in detail. Do you have any thoughts about that?



Well, you did mention the miracles of Christ in one of your posts, and the topic of the divinity of Jesus was brought up as well, so I tangented a bit. Sorry.

The question about whether Gabriel might have lied, of if it could have been Satan impersonating, or whether Islam is a false religion? I can't say any of these things for sure. I'm not certain any of us could do anything more than speculate.

What I will say is this: If you believe in the omnipotence and omniscience of god, it might be fair to assume that everything is a part of, or serves his plan. This theological question often comes up from those who want to debate Christianity, often tied to the presence of evil in this world. That question is usually answered with the idea of free will.

But how about this-- we know that god must have put the "other" tree in the garden for the express purpose of temptation, no? Why else would it have been there? God knew he gave them free will. God must have known they were curious creatures. God must have allowed "The Serpent" into the garden (whoever that "really" was.... it is often assumed the serpent was satan / Lucifer but scripture says no such thing. I have ever heard some equate the serpent with christ. Though some people / sects also associate the figure of Lucifer with Christ as well. While that relates to this, I suppose that is a somewhat more lengthy and tricky subject.) So if god set this all up knowing how it might end.... was this more or less "planned" as a piece of the ultimate puzzle... the Ultimate Plan?

An interesting side-question. If god is truly omniscient-- all knowing-- does god know the future? Does god just see all the possibilities of chance and choice, or does god actually know what the real final outcome will be, even with the factor of our free-will interactions included? I think most faithful would believe the latter. A truly omniscient god. And if that's the case... why tempt them, knowing that they would choose to disobey, and thus "fail."

Here is another one: We are told that Judas betrayed Christ. However, we are also told that as a result of this Christ was crucified, and we are told that this was an important event. That christ had to die... whether just to fulfil some prophecy, or to die for the sins of man (depending on your particular belief system). If this is the case, was not Judas truly doing the will of god in his betrayal?

Maybe Gabriel really did lie to Mohamed, because in some way the outcome would serve god's Ultimate Plan. Or maybe satan was allowed to do this in disguise, as you suggest. I'm not sure there's a way any of us can know, much beyond guessing.

I will say that on a personal level, I find the idea of Mohammed being a "greater" prophet than Jesus to be an extraordinarily silly notion. Then again, my knowledge of Islam is somewhat limited, and being a Westerner who was raised as a christian I may be biased on that one. Lots of delusional people throughout history have been convinced that they were god's latest prophet. Some, i suppose, more "believable" than others. But rarely or never (from what I have seen at least) provable.



posted on Jan, 25 2013 @ 01:18 PM
link   

Originally posted by HoneyBe
I guess my main confusion is you seem to say both books are mostly false but I am not sensing you do not believe in God? Am I wrong?? It's important to me to know where you stand as far as faith. I "if so'd" because I did not grasp what you were writing at all previously.

It is quite obvious that both books are definitely not the word of God.
The Bible is written by a bunch of different people, mostly a few hundreds years after the lifetime of Jesus, so the content is for most parts folklore. On top of that, a group of people, not God, actually chose which stories would be in the Bible.
The Quran is claimed to be the exact word of God, yet it was "given" to a random guy only. It is also not written well, and I often hear it said that it should be read in Arabic. It makes me wonder why God the almighty would suck so badly in writing, when the text of famous writers usually work quite well to be translated. Also, to avoid confusion and mistranslation, is this a good idea? Also, why would God want to create an army of parts of his own creation to try spreading the word (force or no force) to the rest of his own creation?
The only way I can explain this is that God created the universe, and meanwhile building mankind, hit his head and became a bit of an idiot.

When it comes me believing in God, I still think that's irrelevant in the discussion, but just because you asked:
I don't believe in those books because they are fiction. Since I cannot explain the Big Bang and my mind isn't capable of grasping how the universe could possibly be, I can only shrug and say "Maybe God did it?".
There is nothing in my every day world that would point towards there being a God though, so I'm not troubled by this question at all. I don't believe in God, nor do I deny him.
And when it comes to how I live my life, I try to be fair because I want to, not because I have to. I find it strange how many religious people seem to live on their toes not to "sin", instead of enjoying what their God created for them. If God didn't intend us to like what he created, then he's just a big a-hole that does not deserve to be worshipped.

That aside, If I really do something wrong, I welcome God to bitch-slap me. If it turns out that I don't agree with the slap, then we'd have a problem. But if there is a God, I think he's intelligent enough to distinguish right from wrong.



I'm not Religious anymore. I do not want anything to do with man-made Religions.
[...]

Thanks for the explanation.



Yes Bible and Quran are different even if like you stated they are not "true" either way true or not, they are different. But also...very similar. Islam declares their book to be most accurate, un-doctored so to speak and therefore the only real undiluted message from God, yet at the same time, that same book states they must believe ALL THREE Books. So even that is a contradiction within their own book they claim has not faults.

Well, this is what you get when a human-being who hasn't thought things through writes a book and claims something he/she cannot backup.



It just is. Maybe i'm one of the weirdos you spoke of earlier
But anyway.. I was searching for the right WAY to worship God,

Why do you need a God so much that you spend that much time searching for one?



posted on Jan, 25 2013 @ 01:53 PM
link   
No, from what I understand Jesus is highly regarded in Islam as a world leader and one of the great prophets intune with Gods will. Along with Abraham and maybe others...



posted on Jan, 25 2013 @ 02:55 PM
link   

Originally posted by Nevertheless

It is quite obvious that both books are definitely not the word of God.

I respect you're opinion. But I believe the exact opposite.



The Bible is written by a bunch of different people, mostly a few hundreds years after the lifetime of Jesus, so the content is for most parts folklore. On top of that, a group of people, not God, actually chose which stories would be in the Bible.


I'm not concerned when it was written, that's irrelevant to me, I believe those people who wrote it were some eye-witnesses to Jesus life. You and I have extremely opposite beliefs/faiths and views regarding the Bible. so I'll just stop here, unless you're interested in me just disagreeing with you on every point. Just consider...a bunch of men of no real faith or following have been debunking the Bible over the years it has been published, so the source of your view of the Bible is coming from "a bunch of different people too" I believe the people before these people and I trust in God that they were ordained to deliver these messages and writings to us. Either way...we are both listing to, or entrusting our faith or lack thereof to "a bunch of different people".



Why do you need a God so much that you spend that much time searching for one?

For the opposite reason(s) you do not need a God so much



posted on Jan, 25 2013 @ 03:00 PM
link   

Originally posted by FreedomEntered
No, from what I understand Jesus is highly regarded in Islam as a world leader and one of the great prophets intune with Gods will. Along with Abraham and maybe others...


Yes this is very true. He is respected and highly regarded as a Prophet for which is not completely wrong, but it's not all together the fullness of the truth either. I think there is one passage in the NT where Jesus talks about those that say He is just a prophet, I'm not completely sure what He is saying exactly. I'll study it though for sure!

The Muslims also believe Jesus is the Messiah, the problem here is they do not really understand this title or description as Christians or Bible followers do. They say Jesus will return to earth, destroy the AC and then bring Islam as the world Religion and then He will die...this is wrong, wrong wrong (according to the Bible)
edit on 25-1-2013 by HoneyBe because: (no reason given)
edit on 25-1-2013 by HoneyBe because: correction



posted on Jan, 25 2013 @ 03:13 PM
link   

Originally posted by iwilliam
Well, you did mention the miracles of Christ in one of your posts, and the topic of the divinity of Jesus was brought up as well, so I tangented a bit. Sorry.

Actually I don't believe it was me. But it's alright...He did perform miracles and it is a huge part of the reason most of His followers believe(d) Him.



The question about whether Gabriel might have lied, of if it could have been Satan impersonating, or whether Islam is a false religion? I can't say any of these things for sure. I'm not certain any of us could do anything more than speculate.

I'm not sure we have to speculate. If one believes the Bible is true and then compares or discerns the teachings and writing in Quran, there is nothing to speculate. One is right, one is wrong or as some have stated, both are wrong-but I do not agree.



What I will say is this: If you believe in the omnipotence and omniscience of god, it might be fair to assume that everything is a part of, or serves his plan. This theological question often comes up from those who want to debate Christianity, often tied to the presence of evil in this world. That question is usually answered with the idea of free will.

YES!! I really agree with you, everything serves an important purpose in God's plan. For instance, if He gave us a prophecy that Satan was cast to earth and would go after the "true" church (body/not building) then if it is currently happening now, or has been happening, it is God's Word coming to pass, whether it's good for us, or painful for us. Nice thoughts William!

I want to complete responding to you because you brought up some very interesting things, but I need to pause here. I'll return later but in the meantime if you can think of anything. I'm all about reading what comes to mind. Thank you.



posted on Jan, 25 2013 @ 03:51 PM
link   

Originally posted by HoneyBe
I'm not concerned when it was written, that's irrelevant to me, I believe those people who wrote it were some eye-witnesses to Jesus life.

May I ask you how come you put so much faith into man that this story is accurate, when you see how our world looks like? You have also said yourself that all people along the line of religion seem put their own twist into things, "corrupting" the real deal. How can the original be "the real deal" when it too was written down by man?

I doubt that even if your closest friend would tell you that she's pregnant without been with anyone, you wouldn't believe it. And if you did, wouldn't it make you gullible?



You and I have extremely opposite beliefs/faiths and views regarding the Bible.

I don't think we should be that far apart considering the lack of faith you have in man.



so I'll just stop here, unless you're interested in me just disagreeing with you on every point.

It's interesting as long as I'm learning how you think and/or there being reasonable arguments for you to think the way you do.



Just consider...a bunch of men of no real faith or following have been debunking the Bible over the years it has been published, so the source of your view of the Bible is coming from "a bunch of different people too"

Actually, most of the research around the origin of the writings that make up the bible has been done by priests and theologists in general, because it is to them it actually matters.
This is no secret. Here's an example from a page that seems to be "christian":
When was the bible written
Also, science is not there to "debunk" religion or anything else for that matter. Science is there for us to learn about the world we live in. We just have come to a point where there is nothing that points towards there being a God, spirits or anything "supernatural", and those things are quite necessary to explain the content of the bible.

And the "bunch of people" making things up doesn't work in science because of the scientific method. The scientific method is the direct consequence of man constantly making things up, instead of actually proving things. This is a great and important leap which makes man self-sanitize the nonsense it produces.



I believe the people before these people and I trust in God that they were ordained to deliver these messages and writings to us.

There are a lot of smaller sects out there, so called "new religions" that gather followers of varying sizes. These followers are also those who searched and found. Also believing the word of man, not God.
Unfortunately, this isn't any different, except that the world was primitive back then and religion was a lot more important to fill all the gaps which made them popular. Culture is something that sticks.
The religion/culture being so old also makes it easier for people to accept it, it's just a part of life. Content being true or not.



Either way...we are both listing to, or entrusting our faith or lack thereof to "a bunch of different people".

I can't really see which bunch has affected me? The "official" story of the church is enough in itself, really. The science I know may have helped indirectly, because knowledge of the world makes it easier to evaluate "other" things. In this case religion.
There is a big difference in that, and being convinced by so called "atheists" who believe (know!!!) that there is no God in the same fanatic fashion as religious people do believe in God.




Why do you need a God so much that you spend that much time searching for one?

For the opposite reason(s) you do not need a God so much

I'd like you to elaborate on that a little bit more.
edit on 25-1-2013 by Nevertheless because: (no reason given)



posted on Jan, 25 2013 @ 04:57 PM
link   

Originally posted by Nevertheless

May I ask you how come you put so much faith into man that this story is accurate, when you see how our world looks like? You have also said yourself that all people along the line of religion seem put their own twist into things, "corrupting" the real deal. How can the original be "the real deal" when it too was written down by man?

I doubt that even if your closest friend would tell you that she's pregnant without been with anyone, you wouldn't believe it. And if you did, wouldn't it make you gullible?


The reason I put faith into the Bible is just that...faith. I've never been able to explain faith though, because it seems to me reason and rational, is something that comes from our brains or minds, and faith is something that comes from the heart, it would be similar if you asked me, for example, "why do you love your husband or wife" We can reason love and break it down with reasons, but in the end, we really do not know "why", we just do.

The original Bible or the OT, specifically the Torah, was in the hands of the Hebrew people long before the NT arrived. So if we need to actually find a reason to believe that Jesus was who He claimed He was, we can read the OT and prophet's and even Psalms. Many Jews have converted to Christianity from finding the prophecies of old were indeed fulfilled in Jesus. It's not about opening the physical eyes and breaking it down and criticizing this and that, it's about opening our hearts and let faith guide us with wisdom rather than man teach us with knowledge.

I know the world isn't very good overall. But this too is one of the things prophesied to happen, we were foretold that things would get so bad in fact that people would actually wish they were dead, but cannot die. That gives a pretty eye-opening insight that this world is going to get a lot worse, before it get's better or good or is renewed again.

I've witnessed enough in my life personally to say if a close friend came to me and said she was pregnant and yet no man had touched her, I would believe her...who knows anymore, stranger things are happening.

I don't totally lack faith in man, it just depends on what man or system you're referring to. Science has everything they have from knowledge, in fact we've advanced this far on knowledge and inventions and technology and it is impressive, but it's poles apart from wisdom. Knowledge is something acquired, wisdom is a blessing or gift. We apply wisdom to faith and belief in things we cannot necessarily touch and/or see.

I had to cut your other responses out due to lack of characters left, so I'm just going back and reading and then responding in a flow, I hope that's ok and doesn't confuse. I do tend to ramble tho or carry on, but sometime more needs to really be said or I feel it does anyway....


I've done all the studies of origins from Hebrew to Aramaic to Greek, I've studied the history of the Bible,manuscripts, scrolls et al, and the various translations and copies we have and their sources and have found most validity is within the King James Version though some believers avidly disagree..

Science may not be here or there to debunk faith, but it does because it leads a person down another path, again there is knowledge and there is wisdom, people who follow knowledge ultimately are rejecting wisdom because their mind is controlling them rather than their heart-with respect to faith. So perhaps unintentionally Science is the devil's advocate, who can say. We have not come to the point of where there is nothing proving spirits or God or paranormal, perhaps you have, but I have not. I've witnessed too much in my lifetime and also have spoken to people close to me who have witnessed similar as me, science does not understand these things and therefore can never prove them and vice versa. Their method is based on proof, if they can see it, smell it, hear it or feel it, they can prove it and share it for others to believe by the same 5 senses. That is the leg they stand on is "proof".

So what do you believe? I keep sensing you believe in God. How about you ramble a while


Goodnight.

I need God because He is where my hope lies...without my belief in His existence, my life is meaningless now and in the hereafter. Meaning..I'm just a vessel of skin and bones who lives to die. I refuse to believe we are here and we mean so little to The Creator, our suffering here one day is going to reap benefits and rewards.
edit on 25-1-2013 by HoneyBe because: (no reason given)



posted on Jan, 25 2013 @ 09:22 PM
link   
www.bible.ca...

the best link of all



posted on Jan, 26 2013 @ 11:12 AM
link   
reply to post by HoneyBe
 





As a Believer in the Bible as the being the Holy and anointed Word of God and therefore using it to discern (wisdom) Then clearly something is not right here. 1. The Angel Gabriel is a liar 2. The Angel Gabriel was telling the truth initially, but fell somewhere between 1BC and 700AD. 3. Mohammed was a liar. 4. The entity that delivered the message to Mohammed was a liar and identity thief.

you have made an initial assumption of Bible being right.
If we agree to disregard that and make it purely an academic discussions then the possibilities narrow down to just two:
1) Qur'an got it wrong.
2) Bible got it wrong.
.
Also in Luke 1:30-32 it is interesting how the "Son of the Highest" is taken.
My question are:
1)what were the Hebrew/Aramaic word?
2)Does that word only translate to "Son"?
3) how is that word used in other places in the Bible and is it just metaphorical?
What i know is that other prophets were called, "son", "begotton son", "my first born" by God.
The Bible also says that whoever does the Will of God is son of God, also Jesus pbuh said "My Father and your Father"
in the luke verses you posted David pbuh is also called his father, that i guess is again metaphorical as he is the decendant from line of David pbuh through Mary.
So why take "son" literally yet all other "son-father" addresses metaphorically? There should be consistency or the metaphor is just used to serve and prove a pre-formed concept thats not actually being said in the scripture.



posted on Jan, 26 2013 @ 11:49 AM
link   

Originally posted by logical7

you have made an initial assumption of Bible being right.
If we agree to disregard that and make it purely an academic discussions then the possibilities narrow down to just two:
1) Qur'an got it wrong.
2) Bible got it wrong.
.


Yes I am fine with that.



Also in Luke 1:30-32 it is interesting how the "Son of the Highest" is taken.
My question are:
1)what were the Hebrew/Aramaic word?
2)Does that word only translate to "Son"?
3) how is that word used in other places in the Bible and is it just metaphorical?


Son is just that on all accounts it's not a difficult word or meaning to translate. What's more important is the "description" given there in the passage after "Son" (of the Highest) That description I would say is something that might need to be looked into for the most correct translation, "if" it is doubted. I always use the King James Version though, which is proven to have been translated the most accurately from the previous Greek Texts. I have the Greek version as well and so I do not disagree with KJV being the closest.


What i know is that other prophets were called, "son", "begotton son", "my first born" by God.
The Bible also says that whoever does the Will of God is son of God, also Jesus pbuh said "My Father and your Father"




Well...you just said opposite to what Quran say's. So is Jesus the Son of God or not? Whether or not we all are is not the question here. Muslims refuse to regard Jesus as "A" or "The" Son of God. But you just contradicted your own belief. I think...

in the luke verses you posted David pbuh is also called his father, that i guess is again metaphorical as he is the decendant from line of David pbuh through Mary.
So why take "son" literally yet all other "son-father" addresses metaphorically? There should be consistency or the metaphor is just used to serve and prove a pre-formed concept thats not actually being said in the scripture.

Well we know David cannot be his literal blood father as David was long dead at the birth of Jesus. I always thought it was fair to state Jesus is the "only begotten son of God" even before I questioned what that really meant. Mary was a virgin so if God placed the seed inside Mary, then by all accounts in fairness...Jesus is permitted to refer to God as HIS father in Heaven and Earth. That doesn't even need any scholarly proof to just say what it is, as it is.

In the Old Testament no individual ever addressed God as "my Father". sons of God is entirely different than The Son of God. Also remember Jesus is not "just" a Prophet, he did not just foretell events to take place and deliver a message, He committed NO sin, not even in His heart. He was crucified, He died and was dead for 3 days and then was raised back to life in the flesh and then taken up into heaven in that form, from God. All of these accounts are witnessed & proven in the NT. And many were prophesied in the OT & prophet's, this is why many Jews at that time followed Jesus and believed indeed, He is the "One" who they had been waiting for. "The Messiah"



posted on Jan, 26 2013 @ 05:18 PM
link   
reply to post by HoneyBe
 





What's more important is the "description" given there in the passage after "Son" (of the Highest) That description I would say is something that might need to be looked into for the most correct translation, "if" it is doubted.

so you are saying that you doubt the later part after "Son of the Highest"? Why? Why not the whole text including "son on the Highest"?
I respect you belief but its essential that we discuss from a common platform objectively, i have no right to question or judge you personal belief but dont also expect that i will take your belief as a valid explanation for anything. Hope you can seperate the two.

Well...you just said opposite to
what Quran say's. So is Jesus the
Son of God or not? Whether or
not we all are is not the question
here. Muslims refuse to regard
Jesus as "A" or "The" Son of God. But you just contradicted your
own belief. I think...



I am very aware of what Qur'an says. The topic is how Bible uses "son", "father" and for whom. If for any good/pious person or decendant and ancestors too then thats metaphorical and should be taken consistently that way. Like Adam is called father of all humans, we all metaphorically are children of God, but if using the above two i conclude "that means Adam is God" then it would be stupid.

I always
thought it was fair to state Jesus is the
"only begotten son of God" even
before I questioned what that really meant. Mary was a virgin so if God
placed the seed inside Mary, then by all
accounts in fairness...Jesus is
permitted to refer to God as HIS father
in Heaven and Earth. That doesn't even
need any scholarly proof to just say what it is, as it is.
Thats a very simple explanation and a good one. God however used "begotten son"and "my first born" in the OT. However as Qur'an does explain that Jesus pbuh is similar to Adam pbuh.
So if Jesus pbuh is son of God as he dint have a father then Adam pbuh is too and more so as he dint have a father or mother! Which is a bigger miracle? Arent both very easy for God? Why He is given the idea of placing His "seed" in Mary!! Is God a man!!!
It theoretically will just take a failed cell division(mitosis) to give the egg ability to become a zygote and form into a baby without sperm/seed.

this
is why many Jews at that time
followed Jesus and believed indeed, He is the "One" who they had been
waiting for. "The Messiah"

Messiah by jewish definition is someone who wont die till he finishes the job he was supposted to do. The luke 1:30-32 also told what he would be given, 'throne of his father David' that dint happen. It will in the 2nd coming. So the Messiah has to be alive. The jews who dint believe him took his death as a proof that he was not a 'true' Messiah.



posted on Jan, 26 2013 @ 08:54 PM
link   
reply to post by logical7
 





Also in Luke 1:30-32 it is interesting how the "Son of the Highest" is taken. My question are: 1)what were the Hebrew/Aramaic word? 2)Does that word only translate to "Son"? 3) how is that word used in other places in the Bible and is it just metaphorical? What i know is that other prophets were called, "son", "begotton son", "my first born" by God. The Bible also says that whoever does the Will of God is son of God, also Jesus pbuh said "My Father and your Father" in the luke verses you posted David pbuh is also called his father, that i guess is again metaphorical as he is the decendant from line of David pbuh through Mary. So why take "son" literally yet all other "son-father" addresses metaphorically? There should be consistency or the metaphor is just used to serve and prove a pre-formed concept thats not actually being said in the scripture.


By expert testimony, the Bible was written by about 50 people over the course of 1500 years.
The quoran much fewer people and miniscule years as well.



posted on Jan, 26 2013 @ 10:35 PM
link   
reply to post by slugger9787
 




By expert testimony, the Bible was written by about 50 people over the course of 1500 years.
The quoran much fewer people and miniscule years as well.


Citing the difference between the Bible and the Koran proves nothing.
"More authors, longer time period" does not mean its truer. In fact, it only increases the chances of contradictions.



posted on Jan, 27 2013 @ 06:28 AM
link   
reply to post by sk0rpi0n
 


Increases the chances of contradiction?
only if it was not inspired by God.



posted on Jan, 27 2013 @ 08:17 AM
link   
reply to post by logical7
 





Originally posted by honeybe
What's more important is the "description" given there in the passage after "Son" (of the Highest) That description I would say is something that might need to be looked into for the most correct translation, "if" it is doubted.



Originally posted by logical7
so you are saying that you doubt the later part after "Son of the Highest"? Why? Why not the whole text including "son on the Highest"?


No. Absolutely not what I was saying at all! I said "IF" it is doubted than rather at looking into the obvious translation as you suggested, then look more into the second part of the description of "Son" . I believe and know Jesus is the Son of God so I am not the doubter in this topic.



I respect you belief but its essential that we discuss from a common platform objectively, i have no right to question or judge you personal belief but dont also expect that i will take your belief as a valid explanation for anything. Hope you can seperate the two.


I already agreed to discuss from a common platform. So we can 'pretend" for discussions sake that both Books are wrong and go from there to discover if they are right and if so, then which one is the RIGHT one. Is that what you wanted to do? I'm just following you in that one because we both believe totally different to that.





I am very aware of what Qur'an says. The topic is how Bible uses "son", "father" and for whom. If for any good/pious person or decendant and ancestors too then thats metaphorical and should be taken consistently that way. Like Adam is called father of all humans, we all metaphorically are children of God, but if using the above two i conclude "that means Adam is God" then it would be stupid.


Actually the topic is not about how the Bible is using the word "son". Son is son period! It feels to me you are reaching all over the place trying to break down a simple word and meaning of "son". If Jesus said He is the son of God, then we have two choices, believe Him or don't believe Him. To go any further than that and try to rationalize what He meant means getting way off track, truth itself is generally found in simplicity. You are interchanging metaphors and literalness, but truth is...whether it is metaphor, allegorical or literal, Jesus declared Himself to be "The" Son of God. That meant...proving it in which case He did prove it, which I've already shared in the previous post. From Adam til now, not one single person on earth has ever done what Jesus did, so if you need to believe or doubt then look at His actions.




God however used "begotten son"and "my first born" in the OT. However as Qur'an does explain that Jesus pbuh is similar to Adam pbuh.


This is not true. Nowhere in the entire Bible did God ever state to anyone "except" referring to Jesus alone, that they are a begotten son of God. The first passage the begotten son of God is written in in the NT Book of John. Which is the exact reference back where God said the same thing about Jesus in Psalms. (Which we mostly written by King David) And Jesus is heir to the throne of David through his lineage bloodline on Mary's side, which is why Jesus is also referred to as being son of David. Jesus is also called Son of man. Who on earth ever had so many references, to God, to prophet's to mankind??? No one! That alone ought to tell us something.




So if Jesus pbuh is son of God as he dint have a father then Adam pbuh is too and more so as he dint have a father or mother! Which is a bigger miracle? Arent both very easy for God? Why He is given the idea of placing His "seed" in Mary!! Is God a man!!!
It theoretically will just take a failed cell division(mitosis) to give the egg ability to become a zygote and form into a baby without sperm/seed..

Adam could very well call God Father, but it is not written in that time that he did so. It is not until much later in the NT we begin to understand the Son of God Jesus as compared to the first man Adam. Adam was born of dirt/earth, Jesus was born of spirit. Adam disobeyed God, went against God's word and will, Jesus did everything unto death in perfect obedience and will of God. Adam sinned, Jesus did not. Jesus is/was God's new creation we are told to follow rather than in the old sinful nature of the first man, Adam. This get's much more intricate here and I will happily share with you what I understand of it from the Bible if you like


(Ran out of room to write more) But I do enjoy our discussion very much, I am learning, I hope u are too.





top topics
 
7
<< 1  2  3    5  6 >>

log in

join