It looks like you're using an Ad Blocker.

Please white-list or disable AboveTopSecret.com in your ad-blocking tool.

Thank you.

 

Some features of ATS will be disabled while you continue to use an ad-blocker.

 

The story of Satan in Islamic tradition

page: 4
6
<< 1  2  3    5 >>

log in

join
share:

posted on Apr, 15 2013 @ 08:52 PM
link   
reply to post by FlyersFan
 



1 - Truth is truth. The information is correct.


I'm sure it feels "true" and "correct" for the people running those sites.
Again, Muslims disregard your sources of information on Islam, just like you would disregard sources claiming to hold the "truth" on Christianity.




posted on Apr, 15 2013 @ 10:24 PM
link   
reply to post by sk0rpi0n
 


If the Christian world was half as influential on the Islamic religion as you make it seem, then Arabia would have become Christian. Pre-Islamic Arabia was a hotbed of idolatry and paganism, not a Christian kingdom.

Goodness me. I didn't realise you were such an expert on historical process that you could tell, at the remove of more than a thousand years, what should have happened (but somehow did not) in a country of which, at the period of which we speak, very little is known.

Read some world history. Learn what were the cultural influences on Arabia in the late sixth century, and its position as a buffer state, largely wasteland, between great empires. Discover that many Arabs in Muhammad's time were indeed Christian (I thought that fact was well known to Muslims?) while others were Jews and still others were pagan.

As eight bits points out, this was an era of Christian heterodoxy. The varieties of doctrine in a faraway, half-civilised outpost of the world must have included some fairly bizarre ones. The Koranic story of Mary and the palm tree is certainly one of those. Yet—absurd as that story is, and the one about Jesus speaking in his cradle—Muhammad presented them as truths sent by God.

Your attempt to present an Islam that has no cultural connexion with the world it inhabited is of a piece with your superstitious belief in its divine origin. All religions are earthly creations, and only those who do not believe in them can judge them rationally. Your opinions are invalid precisely because you are a fervent believer.


edit on 15/4/13 by Astyanax because: of fetid believers.



posted on Apr, 16 2013 @ 02:24 AM
link   
reply to post by Astyanax
 





1)All religions are earthly creations, and 2)only those who do not believe in them can judge them rationally. Your opinions are invalid precisely because you are a fervent believer.

I have to disagree on all three,

but the first does not matter on this thread. I should tell you and posters that starred your posts that they would not be so generous if they heard your views about Jesus pbuh(not that you care). you are an atheist but the implications of your dis(belief) don't stop here.

On the second (in bold) yes anyone who is neutral is better to judge any event but you are NOT neutral, you are against the idea of divine and that will colour your judgement or make you blind to some observations as you refuse to acknowledge any explanation other than material and so will seek it and cling to any even if its weak/assumed if the other option is to accept the possibility of a divine. So you are not neutral and as a fevert disbeliever not eligible to judge or assume that your opinions are the only 'valid' ones.

You may know history and believe it to be true and just like you, even historians tend to seek material explanations/connections for events. The simplest example is if two similar texts are found in two different places/time. Historical assumption will be that the two places had contacts and the later text got 'influenced' by former. If no contact is found even then its 'believed' that there must be and they just don't have evidence for it. Interestingly even if there is contact, the theory of 'influence' is one possibility and not the 'only'.

Another example is the double standards of some christian posters here who use history like you use to prove islam is 'man-made'
but then disregard the historical view about Jesus pbuh that, if he was sighted after crucifixtion then he must have survived(interestingly thats the muslim view/belief)
you as an atheist will be hopefully more consistent(1st point) but you are not more eligible to have valid opinions unless you are open to all possibilities including divine.



posted on Apr, 16 2013 @ 06:09 AM
link   
logical7


Another example is the double standards of some christian posters here who use history like you use to prove islam is 'man-made'
but then disregard the historical view about Jesus pbuh that, if he was sighted after crucifixtion then he must have survived(interestingly thats the muslim view/belief)


The Christian orthodox (Nicene and Apostle's creedal) position is that Jesus died and then, after being dead for a while, lived again. The only Chrisitan "must have" is that in order to rise from death, Jesus must have died first. That is plainly not the Muslim view or belief in the matter.

Islam is described as man-made because all parties agree that the Recitations first appeared when Mohammed, a man, recited them. The disagreement is over how original the composition is with him. Even that disagreement is fairly narrow, ranging from not at all (Islam thinks he got the words from the God he talks about) to some originality, but not very much (everybody else thinks he mostly copied from Christian and Jewish antecedents - except the bits specifying his share of the loot from raids, how many wives he gets, and other things that concern only his personal status, wealth, family, sex life, etc., and so might easily be original with him).


you are not more eligible to have valid opinions unless you are open to all possibilities including divine.


There is an antecedent threshold question, whether the Koran raises any lively issue that it is of divine origin. Everybody must necessarily be qualified to assess that for their own guidance, else you are saying that there can be no "valid" debate about Islamic claims. Since it is seriously possible that the Koran isn't of divine origin, there is no issue of validity in holding the opinion that it isn't, regardless of whether or not the person thinks that anything else is of divine origin.

Openness to the possibility of the divine has no relevance until and unless something plausibly of divine origin is presented for discussion. A book of poems retelling older stories poorly, interspersed with practical tips for profitable raiding and keeping a household humming by domestic violence, may not meet this threshold condition. Like everybody else, Astyanax must judge that for himself. You don't have a vote in his judgment.



posted on Apr, 16 2013 @ 07:03 AM
link   
reply to post by Astyanax
 



I didn't realise you were such an expert on historical process that you could tell, at the remove of more than a thousand years, what should have happened (but somehow did not) in a country of which, at the period of which we speak, very little is known.

And yet you speak like you just know how exactly history unfolded in Arabia around a 1000 years ago... that Mohammad was actually influenced by Greek Christian ideas as opposed to receiving divine revelations. But of course, you seem to have thoroughly convinced yourself that being an atheist means your opinions are historical facts.



Read some world history. Learn what were the cultural influences on Arabia in the late sixth century, and its position as a buffer state, largely wasteland, between great empires.

Go read the basics of religious doctrine.
And see if what took place matches up with your theory that Mohammad was influenced by Christian culture.

If, like you say, Christian culture influenced Mohammad... then Islam should have been identical to Christianity in terms of doctrine. But we know that its not the case, as Islam does not teach Christian ideas such as trinity, Jesus' divinity and the crucifixion... and on the contrary fiercely opposes such Christian ideas.

It seems Christianity did an extremely lousy job of "influencing" Mohammad.



....belief in its divine origin. All religions are earthly creations, and only those who do not believe in them can judge them rationally. Your opinions are invalid precisely because you are a fervent believer.

Then by the same standard, only those who don't subscribe to the theory of evolution can rationally assess and such ideas. The opinions of those who accept it are invalid because they strongly believe it is the scientific truth.

The problem with discussing religion with an atheist is that the discussion does not progress beyond God is real... no he isn't... yes He is...". If we are in disagreement over basic premises, the discussion would be a waste of everybody's time.



posted on Apr, 16 2013 @ 07:07 AM
link   
reply to post by eight bits
 



Jesus must have died first. That is plainly not the Muslim view or belief in the matter.

Exactly.
This basically kills the argument that Mohammad was actually influenced by Christianity.



(everybody else thinks he mostly copied from Christian and Jewish antecedents

Well, some people say that the stories in the Bible are actually ripped off from other cultures in the middle east. So will Christians now dismiss their Bible as being a rip off of someone elses work.



posted on Apr, 16 2013 @ 07:14 AM
link   
reply to post by eight bits
 


I though you were not going to respond to me anymore?
Would you like to first clear what you meant by 'iblis being central to Islam'


The Christian orthodox (Nicene and
Apostle's creedal) position is that
Jesus died and then, after being dead
for a while, lived again. The only
Chrisitan "must have" is that in order
to rise from death, Jesus must have died first. That is plainly not the Muslim
view or belief in the matter.

i know the creed. I am saying history cannot prove it(it can prove he died or survived not both and for belief in resurrection, the more important proof should be that he was seen alive post crucifixtion) and yet some christians try to disprove Islam by using history. What happened to 'do unto others..'?

Its also surprising how you skirt around something i said plainly and responded with a whole paragraph which contributes nothing either way.


Islam is described as man-made
because all parties agree that the
Recitations first appeared when
Mohammed, a man, recited them.

who recited/taught the Gospel?


The
disagreement is over how original the
composition is with him.

how original it is can be checked by simply asking, how can a person copy only parts that were true from texts that contained both truth and false/wrong reportings?


Astyanax must judge that for himself.
You don't have a vote in his judgment.

you quoted me and took the meaning that you want to see, i said

you are not more eligible to have valid
opinions unless you are open to all
possibilities including divine.

'not more'eligible is different from 'un'eligible. I just refused to accept his claim that his opinion is more valid while a believer's opinion is invalid.

Btw do answer me what i asked in the beginning of the post.



posted on Apr, 16 2013 @ 07:21 AM
link   
reply to post by logical7
 



Another example is the double standards of some christian posters here who use history like you use to prove islam is 'man-made'

They are basically saying "what we believe is true and divine, what you believe is false and man made". In other words, "I am right, you are wrong" argument.

Atheists won't go beyond "God does not exist".
And Christians arguments begin and end with "Islam is a fake religion".

Complete waste of time.



posted on Apr, 16 2013 @ 08:38 AM
link   

Originally posted by sk0rpi0n
reply to post by logical7
 



Another example is the double standards of some christian posters here who use history like you use to prove islam is 'man-made'

They are basically saying "what we believe is true and divine, what you believe is false and man made". In other words, "I am right, you are wrong" argument.

Atheists won't go beyond "God does not exist".
And Christians arguments begin and end with "Islam is a fake religion".

Complete waste of time.

relax Sk0rpie!


61:8. They intend to put out the Light of Allah (i.e. the religion of Islam, this Qur'an, and Prophet Muhammad ) with their mouths. But Allah will
complete His Light even though the
disbelievers hate (it).
9. He it is Who has sent His Messenger (Muhammad ) with guidance and the religion of truth (Islamic
Monotheism) to make it victorious
over all (other) religions even though
the Mushrikun (polytheists, pagans,
idolaters, and disbelievers in the
Oneness of Allah and in His Messenger Muhammed ) hate (it).
10. O You who believe! Shall I guide you to a commerce that will save you
from a painful torment.
11. That you believe in Allah and His Messenger (Muhammad ), and that you strive hard and fight in the Cause
of Allah with your wealth and your
lives, that will be better for you, if you
but know!
12. (If you do so) He will forgive you your sins, and admit you into Gardens
under which rivers flow, and pleasant
dwelling in Gardens of 'Adn - Eternity
['Adn (Edn) Paradise], that is indeed
the great success.
13. And also (He will give you) another (blessing) which you love,
help from Allah (against your
enemies) and a near victory. And give glad tidings (O Muhammad ) to the believers.
14. O you who believe! Be you helpers (in the Cause) of Allah as said 'Iesa
(Jesus), son of Maryam (Mary), to Al-
Hawariun (the disciples): "Who are my
helpers (in the Cause) of Allah?" Al-
Hawarieen (the disciples) said: "We are
Allah's helpers" (i.e. we will strive in His Cause!). Then a group of the
Children of Israel believed and a
group disbelieved. So We gave power
to those who believed against their
enemies, and they became the
uppermost.



posted on Apr, 16 2013 @ 09:24 AM
link   
Scorpion


Exactly.
This basically kills the argument that Mohammad was actually influenced by Christianity.


You might want to read the part you snipped away.


The Christian orthodox (Nicene and Apostle's creedal) position is that Jesus died and then, after being dead for a while, lived again.


Nobody here was saying that the Christianity that reached Mohammed was the orthodox variety. The business about somebody dying instead of Jesus goes back at least as early as Basilides of Alexandria, who was a Second Century Christian, but not proto-orthodox (he was Gnostic).


Well, some people say that the stories in the Bible are actually ripped off from other cultures in the middle east. So will Christians now dismiss their Bible as being a rip off of someone elses work.


Some do say that, but I've already addressed that point in this thread. To recap briefly, most people don't confuse literary influence with plagiarism.

logical7


I though you were not going to respond to me anymore?


You might want to re-read what I wrote, then.


I thank you for your reply, but conversation can only be impeded by one-two punches like calling my ideas stupid and then calling me personally a sarcastic name, featuring an inappropriate religious title which demeans my own religion. I did nothing to deserve that attack except to follow the OP's lead on what is actually an uncontroversial point. There is nothing else on the table from you for me to comment upon at this time.


How do you get "I am not going to respond to you anymore" from my statement about there being nothing left undiscussed at some earlier time? Obviously, you didn't get it from my statement, but rather you made it up.

Then there's this,


Its also surprising how you skirt around something i said plainly and responded with a whole paragraph which contributes nothing either way.


In fact, you had misstated the typical Christian position, I called you on it, and you then wisely "clarified" your position. Forcing you to stick to the truth when you trash-talk your religiious rivals is a contribution to civil discussion.

And finally, your whining that I supposedly didn't answer your question about the role of Iblis in the Islam.

You asked on April 14, 0608 default board time. You were answered 13 minutes later by Scorpie, the original poster. He left it that if I had an objection to his remarks, then I could object. Actually, I thought he had understood my remarks well enough, and had expressed his understanding fairly enough to resolve your query, which wasn't the topic of the thread. About 30 minutes after that, I stated my displeasure with the namecalling and lies about me in your post, and as to your question, referred you to the original post. I have already quoted here above my second reply to your query, that I followed the OP's lead, etc.

Why bother to make up BS about me and my posts, when anybody who cares can just go back at most a few pages and read the truth?

Aren't you concerned that people will think "Since logical7 makes up stuff when it's so easy to check that he's made it up, might he also be making stuff up about things that are harder to check?"



posted on Apr, 16 2013 @ 10:43 AM
link   
reply to post by eight bits
 



You might want to read the part you snipped away.

Christianity's teaches that Jesus "died".
Islam teaches that he didn't "die".

Christianity teaches that Jesus is God or "part of" God.
Islam teaches that Jesus was not God or part of God.

These facts render invalid all ideas of Islam being influenced by Christianity.
Jesus being God or a part of God... is a very important concept of Christianity. NOT in Islam.



Nobody here was saying that the Christianity that reached Mohammed was the orthodox variety.
I guess you missed this post

Much of what was 'revealed' to Muhammad were Greek Christian ideas




most people don't confuse literary influence with plagiarism.

Allegations of "literary influence" and "plagiarism" discounts the Muslim P.O.V that Mohammad directly received divine revelations. Its like saying "Mohammad was a fraud, he was either influenced or he plagiarized."



edit on 16-4-2013 by sk0rpi0n because: (no reason given)



posted on Apr, 16 2013 @ 11:00 AM
link   
reply to post by eight bits
 



Now there's an interesting thread idea - given that the Christian and Jewish religions were so obviously the antecedents of the Koran and that their lore so thoroughly preoccupied Mohammed, why didn't he institute a locally flavored version of Jewish-Christianity?

The religion that Mohammad established was in accordance to what was divinely revealed to him. If it was revealed to him that God is a trinity and that Jesus is part of this trinity or God, as Christians believe... then Islam would have had held those ideas.

The Jewish religion, Christianity and Islam were all facets of the monotheistic tradition prevailing in the middle east. Islam was a continuation of Abrahamic religion.



posted on Apr, 16 2013 @ 11:06 AM
link   
Logical7


(Allâh) said:"Get you down (from the Paradise to the earth), both of you, together, some of you are an enemy to some others. Then if there comes to you guidance from Me, then whoever follows My Guidance shall neither go astray, nor fall into distress and misery. (Ta-Ha 20:123)


Wow, that’s an amazing verse, and it fits with my current understanding of the verse Genesis 3:15, albeit from a Christian perspective.




Originally posted by Logical7
the idea of man crushing the head of the serpent is not in Qur'an.


It may not be in the Quran but I know that Muslims accept the words of the prophets of the OT… What I’m trying to figure out is whether Muslims view those verses in Genesis 3:15 as allegorical or more literal in nature, and how it fits into there overall theological beliefs, in relation to Jin/Satan…





sk0rpi0n

My question to you, is roughly the same as my reply to Logical7



Originally posted by sk0rpi0n
Jinns, like angels and humans are a race of beings. Satan was one of the Jinn, but dwelled with angels because of his worship of God. And yes, Jinns are the evil spirits the bible speaks of, as they are capable of possessing humans.


I’ve been recently looking into the doctrines of different Christian denominational beliefs, in regards to Genesis 3:15. I saw your thread and was curious as to what the Islamic perspective might be.

I know Muslims accept the prophets of the OT, so I was curious about whether Islam views those verses more literally, or metaphorically, in relation to the Jin, seed and offspring etc…




Originally posted by sk0rpi0n
Regarding the enmity between Adam and Eve and their offspring, Islam teaches...


Allah said, "Descend from Paradise - all, your descendants being enemies to one another.
-Koran 20:123



Yes, this is what I’m trying to understanding from Islam’s perspective; For example, why is there enmity between the 2, and how does this tie in with the Jin and/or Satan etc…?



- JC



posted on Apr, 16 2013 @ 11:27 AM
link   
reply to post by Joecroft
 



I know Muslims accept the prophets of the OT, so I was curious about whether Islam views those verses more literally, or metaphorically, in relation to the Jin, seed and offspring etc…


"He will crush your head, and you will bruise his heel" means that both the man and the woman, i.e - mankind would live crushing each others heads and bruising each others heels.... meaning humans would be enemies of each other. The story of Cain and Abel would be the first example.

This was the enmity that humans were punished with. It is included in the same set of verses dealing with Gods punishment on Adam, Eve and the snake. The previous verse teaches that the snake was cursed to crawl and the next verse teaches that the woman was cursed to give birth in pain.


For example, why is there enmity between the 2, and how does this tie in with the Jin and/or Satan etc…?


Enmity being placed between the 2 was a punishment from God.
As for Satan and the Jinn.... Satan was one of the Jinn.... Satan (according to Islamic tradition) swore to mislead mankind because he himself was cursed.... and because of his hatred for the clay-being, Adam. He started off his mission with the first human himself.



posted on Apr, 16 2013 @ 11:59 AM
link   
reply to post by eight bits
 





Obviously, you didn't get it from my statement, but rather you made it up.

well, i misunderstood it.

In fact, you had misstated the typical
Christian position, I called you on it,
and you then wisely "clarified" your
position.

this is what i had said.

Another example is the double
standards of some christian posters
here who use history like you use to
prove islam is 'man-made'
but then disregard the historical view
about Jesus pbuh that, if he was sighted after crucifixtion then he must
have survived(interestingly thats the
muslim view/belief)

the creed demands belief in resurrection. Right?
You replied

The Christian orthodox (Nicene and
Apostle's creedal) position is that
Jesus died and then, after being dead
for a while, lived again. The only
Chrisitan "must have" is that in order
to rise from death, Jesus must have died first.
That is plainly not the Muslim
view or belief in the matter.

really? Yes i give you that historians says he died, now prove resurrection historically or i give you historical accounts that he was sighted post crucifixtion, now prove he died on the cross historically.
You as an agnostic may not be the best authority on "must have" for christianity.
And also should i get offended that you assume i am ignorant about christian creed!!

Forcing you to stick to the
truth when you trash-talk your
religiious rivals is a contribution to civil discussion.

talk about taking offence on name calling/insulting!
i was not forced to the truth, i just clarified your misunderstanding.


And finally, your whining that I
supposedly didn't answer your
question about the role of Iblis in the
Islam. You asked on April 14, 0608 default
board time. You were answered 13
minutes later by Scorpie, the original
poster. He left it that if I had an
objection to his remarks, then I could
object. Actually, I thought he had understood my remarks well enough,
and had expressed his understanding
fairly enough to resolve your query,
which wasn't the topic of the thread.

i wanted your reply. even an affirmation of Skorpie's post would have been enough.
It was on topic, i wanted to know what you meant by "character of iblis being central to islam"
you see, i saw a possibility that you were trying to slip in a comment that indirectly meant "islam is from iblis"
good you cleared it ultimately!

Aren't you concerned that people will
think "Since logical7 makes up stuff
when it's so easy to check that he's
made it up, might he also be making
stuff up about things that are harder
to check?"

no i am not afraid at all. People are smart to see if i am logical or not.
I also would encourage them to check for themselves what i or anyone posts.



posted on Apr, 16 2013 @ 12:09 PM
link   
reply to post by sk0rpi0n
 





most people don't confuse literary influence with plagiarism.

Allegations of "literary influence" and "plagiarism" discounts the Muslim P.O.V that Mohammad directly received divine revelations. Its like saying "Mohammad was a fraud, he was either influenced or he plagiarized."

i think its more like,
"if Bible has it and other ancient sources also have it, its 'literary influence' but if Qur'an has it, only then its plagiarism"

"if i copy your work, i just took a little inspiration. If your work and mine have some similarities you stole mine"

sometimes its worth to just read the double standards and have a good laugh!
edit on 16-4-2013 by logical7 because: (no reason given)



posted on Apr, 16 2013 @ 12:37 PM
link   
reply to post by sk0rpi0n
 


And yet you speak like you just know how exactly history unfolded...

We don't know exactly, but we have some ideas. Claiming to know what should have happened but didn't, based on no factual evidence, is something else again. I am discussing possibilities; you are pretending to know about things that did not happen. There is a slight difference.


Go read the basics of religious doctrine.

Which religion? I am familiar with several. I also know quite a few of Grimm's fairy tales.

How will reading religious doctrine help me to establish whether or not the Koran is divinely revealed? Christian doctrine tells me clearly that it isn't. Buddhist doctrine argues powerfully that it is false by revealing that Muhammad was a man of attachments and passions, which means that by Buddhist standards he was far from enlightenment. Taoism laughs in the face of all claims to ultimate truth and ultimate knowledge, including those of Islam. Which religious doctrine should I go to, then, apart from the Muslim, to learn that the Koran is true? Hinduism? Scientology? Sukyo Mahikari?


If, like you say, Christian culture influenced Mohammad... then Islam should have been identical to Christianity in terms of doctrine.

And if the Rolling Stones were influenced by Chuck Berry, then every single Stones single must sound just like 'Johnny B. Goode', right?


Then by the same standard, only those who don't subscribe to the theory of evolution can rationally assess and such ideas.

There is objective evidence for evolution. None for the claims you're making.


The problem with discussing religion with an atheist is that the discussion does not progress beyond God is real... no he isn't... yes He is..."

Fiddlesticks. This thread is now on its fourth page and nobody has indulged in that argument. Discussion here has been very much on topic. My contribution has been to suggest, and show some evidence to verify, that the concept of the Devil in Islam was rather obviously cribbed from the Christian concept. You may assert the contrary as often as you please, but since Islam is more than six hundred years younger than Christianity, and contains much distorted Jewish and Christian doctrine and myth within it, you're just howling at the moon.


edit on 16/4/13 by Astyanax because: Owwoooeeeooo!



posted on Apr, 16 2013 @ 12:41 PM
link   
Scorpie


Christianity's teaches that Jesus "died".
Islam teaches that he didn't "die".

Christianity teaches that Jesus is God or "part of" God.
Islam teaches that Jesus was not God or part of God.

These facts render invalid all ideas of Islam being influenced by Christianity.
Jesus being God or a part of God... is a very important concept of Christianity. NOT in Islam.


Again, you seem to have a problem distinguishing among literary influence, plagiarism, and eclecticism - all routinely encounterd literary practices. Also, you seem unable or unwilling to distnguish between fully developed Orthodox Christianity which dominates today and the more heterodox situation that prevailed in late ancient or early modern times. Since all of that has already been discussed, I see no point in going over it again.


I guess you missed this post


No, I didn't miss the post. "Greek Christian ideas" didn't mean "Orthodox Christian ideas" in the Seventh Century. Again, your inability or unwillingness to distinguish orthodox and heterodox just stalls conversation.


Allegations of "literary influence" and "plagiarism" discounts the Muslim P.O.V that Mohammad directly received divine revelations. Its like saying "Mohammad was a fraud, he was either influenced or he plagiarized."


Apparently you missed the post where I noted that nobody else in the Abrahamic sphere worries much about influence in their scriptures. There is nothing dishonest about influence, and there's no "allegation" involved in saying that it happened. Plagiarism, of course, is something else, and again, it is you who are lumping them together, an honest compositional practice with something dishonest and shameful.

We don't seem to be in disagreement that Islam is Abrahamic. As I recall from other threads, you have argued that trinitarianism is a late addition to Christianity, after the Gospels were written, and you showed full awareness of non-trinitarian movements within early Christianity. When I have commented on your teachings, I have acknowledged that the idea developed over time; mainly I think it had made more headway in proto-orthodoxy earlier than you do.

But how on earth could we not be in agreement that there were non-proto-orthodox Christians, and to their own satisfaction "right-believing" Christians, who had their own versions of Jesus, among them versions in which he wasn't God? Ebionites, for example, are a Jewish-Christian (no Trinity) sect or group of sects attested from the Second Century through the Eleventh.

logical7


And also should i get offended that you assume i am ignorant about christian creed!!


Take offense at whatever you want. You misstated the orthodox Christian position, and I corrected you. I won't take the bait where you yet again demean my religion and smear me for defending it. Orthodox Christianity is the religion of neither of us, however, anybody who can read can comment authoritatively on its creeds. The Apostles' and Nicene Creeds do not they imply that Jesus survived the crucifixion, which you correctly identified as the Muslim view. The creeds deny this Muslim view, contrary to your claim.



posted on Apr, 16 2013 @ 01:17 PM
link   
reply to post by Joecroft
 





What I’m trying to figure out is whether Muslims view those verses in Genesis 3:15 as allegorical or more literal in nature, and how it fits into there overall theological beliefs, in relation to Jin/ Satan…

There are verses in the Qur'an that mention it too.
In Genesis 3:15, the serpent just symbolises satan, so that part is metaphorical, but the remaining can be literal, also when taking verses from Qur'an, the picture comes out,
1)humans and devils are enemies.
2)humans will have enemies among themselves.
3)all jinns are not devils.
4)all devils are not jinns(human can be devils too)
5)the seed/offsprings just means generations of humans and satan.
Satan is not a fallen angel, its a jinn and jinn procreate.
whoever accepts the guidance will be better off.

Muslims believe in all prophets but the words in OT can't be trusted fully, in Qur'an Allah says, the Qur'an is sent as a confirmation of earlier scriptures and a watcher(quality control) over them.
edit on 16-4-2013 by logical7 because: (no reason given)



posted on Apr, 16 2013 @ 01:42 PM
link   
reply to post by eight bits
 





The Apostles' and Nicene Creeds do not they imply that Jesus survived the crucifixion, which you correctly identified as the Muslim view. The creeds deny this Muslim view, contrary to your claim.

why are you stuck on what the creed says?
My point was simple. "if christians can't use history to prove their belief completely, they or anyone defending the side should not used history to disprove Islam"
do you agree?
Jesus pbuh recieved Gospel, Muhammad pbuh recieved Qur'an. How you can say one was inspired by God while other forged?
While Qur'an was compiled before the companions died so in the generation who knew and learned from Muhammad pbuh directly,
while NT was compiled in 325 CE and 4 gospels picked among 30 and that was long after all apostles had died.

So tell me objectively, if both were historical figures, whose teachings are better preserved?
Do you reject both equally regarding their claims of being Messiah(Jesus pbuh) and last Prophet(Muhammad pbuh)?
I guess both would be just humans to you with some teachings but If not then why?




top topics



 
6
<< 1  2  3    5 >>

log in

join