John, Mary and Jesus in the Qur'an. Surah Maryam

page: 5
2
<< 2  3  4    6  7  8 >>

log in

join

posted on Mar, 4 2013 @ 02:32 AM
link   
reply to post by eight bits
 



Of course they voted, there is no other way that a collective could jointly publish a literary composition, the first Nicene Creed.
The fact that they had to vote over basic theological matters demonstrates that Christians were still arguing among themselves. There were a number of views on the nature of Jesus.

Most Christians identified Jesus as divine from a very early period, although holding a variety of competing views as to what exactly this implied. Early Christian views tended to see Jesus as a unique agent of God; by the Council of Nicaea in 325 he was identified as God in the fullest sense, being 'of the same substance, essence or being'.
wiki




Save the word lawyering for your own "Just because people worship Jesus, it doesn't mean they think he's divine" thread.
I brought it up in response to your post about Pliny's witness to Christian worship of Jesus. You brought that subject up here



You could start by posting there where you think James counsels Christians against worhipping Jesus, but it is not the topic here.
I said nothing about James counselling Christians against worshiping Jesus. Thats your twist on what I actually said. My original words about James were... " Go read the book of James, where all worship is directed towards God.". That was the case even in the Gospels.



Justin Martyr is a nice illustration of the state of the doctrinal evolution, as of the mid Second Century. For Justin, Jesus is the Logos, the word of God. Justin does have non-proto-orthodox features....
Doctrinal evolution sums up Christian history quite nicely. Christian doctrines have always been evolving, in directions that are not in line with the Bible. Even here, we have some members who believe Jesus is actually Yahweh of the Old Testament.



He articulates a Trinity.... There's nothing in Justin that corroborates a Muslim view of Jesus.
Justin mentioning Father, son and Holy spirit in the same line does not exactly equal "articulating" a trinity. The same is also mentioned in the Bible as well, but can be easily countered through the tons of scripture which prove that God is One. And I am not even implying that Justins view of Jesus is in line with the Muslim view. However, he does get a few things right... for instance, the idea that worship was directed towards God.




posted on Mar, 4 2013 @ 02:33 AM
link   
reply to post by eight bits
 


There is nothing in what you quoted from 1 Corinthians which bears on the other poster's claim that Paul did "tailor it to the need of pagan roman customers to help the rulers rule peacefully over the masses."
Paul being "as a Jew to Jews and as a Gentile to Gentiles"... indicates he was being two faced, for the sake of gaining converts. I guess he didn't think being a Christian to both Jews and Gentiles was a good idea.


You are, in any case, in an odd position to complain about what Paul describes there. You promote yourself here as a former Christian when addressing Christian issues, and as a Muslim when addressing Islamic issues.
The difference between me and Paul is that I am not seeking to gain converts.
Also, I do bring in Islamic perspectives from time to time, whenever the subject calls for it.
edit on 4-3-2013 by sk0rpi0n because: (no reason given)



posted on Mar, 4 2013 @ 04:58 AM
link   
Scorpie


The fact that they had to vote over basic theological matters demonstrates that Christians were still arguing among themselves. There were a number of views on the nature of Jesus.


Yes, and there still are. I am unclear why it is at all a bad thing that people use their brains in hopes of better understanding difficult things. The differences among Nicene Christians, and even in the Fourth Century between Nicene Chrisitans and Arians, are minuscule. They are or were important to the people involved, but scrupulous all the same.

In contrast, the lines dividing Christianity from Islam and Judaism are big, bright and shining. Was Jesus the Messiah? Did Jesus have a father?

We needn't reach the question of whether Jesus was God, much less the discussion at Nicea about what it would mean for any man to be God. Among the Abrahamics, almost everybody who believes that Jesus was the Messiah and had a father also believes that Jesus is divine.

Judaism: No on Messiah, Yes on father
Islam: Yes on Messiah, No on father
Chrisitianity: Yes on both

On other matters:

Congratulations on finding my earlier post. So, Christians were worshipping Jesus and not other men two centuries before Constantine ruled. Thus, Christian ideas about Jesus' divinity did not originate with Constantine, contrary to your claim.

As I mentioned, your remark about James is off-topic here. If you don't want to pursue it in your own thread, that's fine, but I'm not going to derail this thread to accommodate you.


Doctrinal evolution sums up Christian history quite nicely. Christian doctrines have always been evolving, in directions that are not in line with the Bible. Even here, we have some members who believe Jesus is actually Yahweh of the Old Testament.


And so we conclude what? I propose that as tempting as the "analogy" is

Koran : Islam :: Bible : Christianity

that nevertheless, it is false. The Bible, whether Jewish or Christian, has always been directed to thinking people, who consult it to learn and to grow in spirituality through critical reflection upon the text. The Koran expects, and has always expected, something else from its readers.


And I am not even implying that Justins view of Jesus is in line with the Muslim view.


Good, then we can set him aside. His views aren't in strict line with those of Nicene Christians, either. Although they are close, differing mainly on whether the Logos is co-eternal with God or merely antecedent to all else that is. Either way, Justin agrees with his Nicene successors that Jesus is the only incarnation of the Logos, and that Jesus' father is God.
-
edit on 4-3-2013 by eight bits because: (no reason given)



posted on Mar, 4 2013 @ 05:46 AM
link   

Originally posted by sk0rpi0n
Ah the tired old "if its older, its truer" argument.
By that logic, we can also dismiss the NT as a fabrication, since it was written ages after the Torah.

Now you are just being obtuse.

The closer the historical documentation is to the events .. the more likely they are to be accurate. The further away that they were recorded after the events .. the less likely they are to be accurate. This is COMMON SENSE and it's practiced by police departments across the country. Eyewitness' are better witness to the truth than someone who was never there and heard the story hundreds of years later.

I mean .. comeone ... DUH! :shk:

And your New Testament/Torah 'example' is pathetic.

The New Testament was written during the time of the events and just afterwards. The New Testament has nothing to do with the Torah so you can't even compare the two. That's just absurd.

Stop running away from the FACT that Muhammad made up fictional stories 600+ years after Jesus walked the earth .. that Muhammad CHANGED the stories to suit his political empire building agenda ... and that the first hand accounts of Jesus life in the New Testament are OBVIOUSLY more reliable than the fiction Muhammad made up.

That's the truth. Deal with it.



posted on Mar, 4 2013 @ 05:51 AM
link   

Originally posted by sk0rpi0n
Through Islam, 1.5 billion people accept Jesus as the messiah....

That's all you've got for 'good fruits' of Islam? I'm not surprised that the list is so short.
(and that the one item you listed was skewed and in error).

Through Islam, 1.5 billion people DENY the truth of the New Testament. They DENY
the historical accounts of Jesus recorded in the New Testament. They DENY that
Jesus is God Incarnate because they have been indoctrinated with the FICTIONAL
stories that Muhammad made up 600+ years after Jesus walked the earth.



posted on Mar, 4 2013 @ 06:54 AM
link   
reply to post by FlyersFan
 



The closer the historical documentation is to the events .. the more likely they are to be accurate. The further away that they were recorded after the events .. the less likely they are to be accurate.

I get what you are saying.
But from the Jewish perspective they too could dismiss the NT as a fabrication, written 1000 years after the OT. Also, it was the Jews who originally had the concept of "messiah" BEFORE Christianity... they defined messiah as a man and not God. The Christians came much, much after the time "Messiah" was defined... so Christians are less likely to be accurate regarding the definition of "messiah". So lets go by the original definition of messiah i.e - that he would be a man and not God.

So in that respect the muslims have the messiah and see him as human, as the word was defined.
The christians also have the messiah, but defined as a part of God or God himself.
The Jews had the correct definition of the messiah, but are mistaken on the identity of the messiah,



posted on Mar, 4 2013 @ 06:57 AM
link   
reply to post by FlyersFan
 



That's all you've got for 'good fruits' of Islam? I'm not surprised that the list is so short.


I wasn't even attempting to list the "fruits" of Islam to colbe... who has clearly made up his mind about Islam. I was making a statement.... and your denial of Jesus as messiah in the muslim world makes YOU an anti-Christ.



posted on Mar, 4 2013 @ 07:00 AM
link   

Originally posted by sk0rpi0n
But from the Jewish perspective they too could dismiss the NT as a fabrication, written 1000 years after the OT.

But they are on two different subject. Two different historical time periods. The New Testament isn't rewriting the Old Testament. It's telling a whole new story.

it was the Jews who originally had the concept of "messiah" BEFORE Christianity...

It was the Jews who were the first Christians.



posted on Mar, 4 2013 @ 07:04 AM
link   

Originally posted by sk0rpi0n
and your denial of Jesus as messiah in the muslim world makes YOU an anti-Christ.

pffffft yeah right ... that's a wild stretch. Proclaiming Jesus to be God Incarnate and proclaiming that He will return to judge the entire world is NOT being anti-Christ. That's beyond silly.

Muslims deny Jesus is God Incarnate. They've watered him down to the point of practical irrelevance. They think he'll return as a 'side kick' to their Mahdi .. the Mahdi who fulfills the exact description of the Anti-Christ. THAT is what is 'anti-christ'. But most Muslims dont' know any better. That's the errors they've been spoon fed via the Qu'ran and their Imams ..



posted on Mar, 4 2013 @ 07:24 AM
link   
reply to post by FlyersFan
 



The New Testament isn't rewriting the Old Testament. It's telling a whole new story.

Its telling a whole new story by having a whole new definition of the word in question, "messiah"
Since you are so convinced that "older is truer", lets go by how the Jews defined "messiah"... as a man and NOT God.... and discard the Christian definition of "messiah" (that he was God)


Muslims deny Jesus is God Incarnate.

Thats because the original definition of "messiah" is that he would be human and not God incarnate. Its the Christians who have redefined the word "messiah" to mean something else. If anything, Muslims deny the false definition of "messiah" that Christians adhere to.


Proclaiming Jesus to be God Incarnate and proclaiming that He will return to judge the entire world is NOT being anti-Christ.
Your denial of Jesus being Messiah in Islam makes you an anti-christ.



posted on Mar, 4 2013 @ 08:27 AM
link   

Originally posted by sk0rpi0n
Since you are so convinced that "older is truer", lets go by how the Jews defined "messiah"... as a man and NOT God.... and discard the Christian definition of "messiah" (that he was God)

I said very clearly that the closer the information is recorded to the actual events, then the more likely it'll be to be truth. The FACTS are that the Old Testament Jews wrote their definition of 'messiah' FURTHER AWAY from the time of Christ than the New Testament did.

Its the Christians who have redefined the word "messiah" to mean something else.

No. It's JESUS and his APOSTLES who correctly defined who He is.
Not 'prophets' from hundreds of years before.

If anything, Muslims deny the false definition of "messiah" that Christians adhere to.

No. Muslims deny the historical documents showing Jesus to be God Incarnate ... and they cling to fabrications made up by a murderer 600+ years after Jesus walked the earth.

Your denial of Jesus being Messiah in Islam makes you an anti-christ.

Wrong. The Muslims don't know who Christ is.
Your denial of Jesus being God Incarnate makes you an anti-Christ.
And your mythological Mahdi fits the description of THE anti-Christ.



posted on Mar, 4 2013 @ 09:02 AM
link   
reply to post by FlyersFan
 



The FACTS are that the Old Testament Jews wrote their definition of 'messiah' FURTHER AWAY from the time of Christ than the New Testament did.

Nope. The Old Testament Jews defined the messiah as being a human being, NOT God incarnate.
Christians who came AFTER the Old Testament Jews have redefined "messiah" to mean he was God incarnate.



No. Muslims deny the historical documents showing Jesus to be God Incarnate .

Its Christians who deny Jewish documents that define the messiah as a human being. Muslims are going with the original definition of a human messiah.



Wrong. The Muslims don't know who Christ is. Your denial of Jesus being God Incarnate makes you an anti-Christ.


How does the Bible defines an anti-Christ?

Who is the liar? It is the man who denies that Jesus is the Christ. Such a man is the antichrist--he denies the Father and the Son.

Muslims don't deny that Jesus is the Christ.
But you, however, deny Jesus as the Christ in the Islamic context. So YOU and other Christians who deny Jesus' status as the Messiah in Islam are anti-Christs.

Perhaps this is what you desire and seek and you are most welcome.



posted on Mar, 4 2013 @ 09:41 AM
link   

Originally posted by sk0rpi0n
reply to post by FlyersFan
 


Muslims don't deny that Jesus is the Christ.
But you, however, deny Jesus as the Christ in the Islamic context. So YOU and other Christians who deny Jesus' status as the Messiah in Islam are anti-Christs.


I could easily say, based on scripture, that being anti-Christ is anyone who doesn't believe that Jesus is God's son.

1 John 2:22

22 Who is a liar but he that denieth that Jesus is the Christ? He is antichrist, that denieth the Father and the Son.



posted on Mar, 4 2013 @ 11:24 AM
link   
reply to post by FlyersFan
 





Through Islam, 1.5 billion people DENY the truth of the New Testament. They DENY the historical accounts of Jesus recorded in the New Testament. They DENY that Jesus is God Incarnate because they have been indoctrinated with the FICTIONAL stories that Muhammad made up 600+ years after Jesus walked the earth.

FF, you cannot really claim 'historical' accounts as a reason for your belief. Yes history has a 'man' Jesus pbuh who lived about 2000 years back.
The NT however is a story about him and can contain facts and FICTIONS equally.
No historian can academically state the autenticity of miracles, being the Son or even resurrection. Historical records can prove only death on the cross on the contrary if eyewitness accounts of his sighting after crucifixtion are taken as true then it actually would point that he survived!
You decide to take both as true to believe a 'fiction' of resurrection.
Historians see the sightings as unreliable/fictional accounts that were added to promote the new religion.
Your saying NT is all true because it has some historical account is same as saying the novel Da Vinci Code is all true because it has real places and facts.

About Islam,
if it can happen that Jesus pbuh got divine revealations(Gospel) then prophet Muhammad pbuh can also get it(Qur'an)
history cant prove it. History however has a very detailed account of Muhammad pbuh as its more recent than the time of Jesus pbuh. You should try and know the objective history from academic sources, rather than blindly believing half baked stories about him that are told on anti-islamic sites. I feel that you dont really want the truth as these false stories make you feel good and more certain about your own faith.



posted on Mar, 4 2013 @ 01:19 PM
link   

Originally posted by sk0rpi0n
The Old Testament Jews defined the messiah as being a human being, NOT God incarnate.
Christians who came AFTER the Old Testament Jews have redefined "messiah" to mean he was God incarnate.

And the New Testament people were there AT THE TIME OF THE MESSIAH .. whereas the Old Testament people were separated from him by hundreds of years. So again ... The New Testament writers are closer to the Jesus time period than the Old Testament writers. The Old Testament writers were further from the Jesus event and were wrong. Always go with the witness' closest to the event. In this case, it's the New Testament writers.

Christians who deny Jewish documents that define the messiah as a human being. Muslims are going with the original definition of a human messiah.

Muslims go with Jesus not being God Incarnate because they HAVE TO. Otherwise, their religion becomes obsolete like the Jewish religion is. The entire Jewish faith is based on prophecy. That prophecy was fulfilled by Jesus. Therefore, it is obsolete.

But you, however, deny Jesus as the Christ in the Islamic context. So YOU and other Christians who deny Jesus' status as the Messiah in Islam are anti-Christs.

The Muslim context is wrong. It denys Jesus is God Incarnate which is clearly spelled out in the New Testament historical documents and by Christ himself. And therefore that is anti-Christ.

Bottom line ... The writers of the New Testament are closer to the Jesus event and therefore have better knowledge than the Old Testament writers from hundreds of years before the event ... and the New Testament writers are closer to the Jesus event and therefore have better knowledge than the Muslim writers of 600+ years after the jesus event.

It's just that simple.
edit on 3/4/2013 by FlyersFan because: fixed quote



posted on Mar, 4 2013 @ 01:27 PM
link   

Originally posted by logical7
The NT however is a story about him and can contain facts and FICTIONS equally.

You are discribing the Qu'ran.

Historical records can prove only death on the cross on the contrary if eyewitness accounts of his sighting after crucifixtion are taken as true then it actually would point that he survived!

The documents clearly state that he died. The documents state that on the third day he was seen in a glorified body. He walked through walls. He appeared and disappeared. that's not the story of someone surviving murder .. that's the story of someone who is no longer confined to the natural world.

Historians see the sightings as unreliable/fictional accounts that were added to promote the new religion.

Muslim so called 'historians' I"m sure.
And as for using unreliable/fictional accounts which were added to promote a new religion .. again, that describes the Qu'ran perfectly.


if it can happen that Jesus pbuh got divine revealations(Gospel) then prophet Muhammad pbuh can also get it(Qur'an)

Muhammad was a mass murdering thief. His so called 'revelations' contradict the first hand accounts of the New Testament. All Muhammad did was repeat stories he had heard, and he repeated them wrong. He had no 'revelations'. It's impossible.


You should try and know the objective history from academic sources, rather than blindly believing half baked stories about him that are told on anti-islamic sites.

Muhammad being a murderer and a liar are well documented. You should try to know the objective history from academic sources rather than blindly believing the half baked pius stories made up by his followers.


I feel that you dont really want the truth as these false stories make you feel good and more certain about your own faith.

Dead wrong. I know the truth about Muhammad. He was a bad man and a liar.
It's very clear and has nothing to do with me sticking to 'my faith' - whatever it is.
My beliefs change as I learn more. My beliefs are fluid.
As everyones who isn't brainwashed should be.



posted on Mar, 4 2013 @ 02:31 PM
link   
reply to post by FlyersFan
 





Muhammad was a mass murdering thief. His so called 'revelations' contradict the first hand accounts of the New Testament.

first hand?
ok as you say.
I would still believe bible scholars.

Muhammad being a murderer and a
liar are well documented. You should
try to know the objective history from
academic sources rather than blindly
believing the half baked pius stories
made up by his followers.

maybe you could open my eyes then and give an academic source, a link, a biography by any non muslim historian. Accutally a recent biography is available 'The first Muslim' by Lesley Hazelton if you wana read.

Dead wrong. I know the truth about
Muhammad. He was a bad man and a
liar.

His success either denies it or makes it very depressing that a religion based on a lie is flourishing too well.

It's very clear and has nothing to do
with me sticking to 'my faith' -
whatever it is.
hmm.. hard to believe, but maybe i am really brainwashed by islam

My beliefs change as I learn more. My
beliefs are fluid.
As everyones who isn't brainwashed
should be.
thats good, so i have hope of having better discussions with yoù with time.



posted on Mar, 4 2013 @ 02:33 PM
link   
logical7, scorpion,

Anyone who believes in Islam. Reject it.

Please come to the Truth, to Jesus Christ, He loves you.

I am posting a photo, it is so horrid. Our evil President, BHO is a Muslim. He supports the Muslim Brotherhood and so does Congress (not all)!

Jesus Mercy, there are no words, look at this photo.

politicalvelcraft.org... hey-crucify-our-christians-they-must-be-stopped/



posted on Mar, 4 2013 @ 03:09 PM
link   

Originally posted by logical7
it very depressing that a religion based on a lie is flourishing too well.

Yes, it's very depressing that there are many religions that are based on lies and that are flourishing .. or should I say ... SPREADING. (like cancer spreads). Very sad.



posted on Mar, 4 2013 @ 07:50 PM
link   
reply to post by Deetermined
 



I could easily say, based on scripture, that being anti-Christ is anyone who doesn't believe that Jesus is God's son.

1 John 2:22

22 Who is a liar but he that denieth that Jesus is the Christ? He is antichrist, that denieth the Father and the Son.


Its saying a man who denies Jesus as messiah is the anti-christ who denies God and the messiah.
Muslims accept God and the messiah. But you deny Jesus as the Christ in Islam, thereby making you an anti-Christ.

As for the "Father-son" argument, its purely symbolic. Jesus is also called "the son of David".... and David and Adam are also called son of God. So by your logic, you should also consider David and Adam as divine sons of God.





new topics
top topics
 
2
<< 2  3  4    6  7  8 >>

log in

join