Go  |
New |
Find |
Notify |
|
Reply |
|
Admin |
New PM! |
|
quote: f the theory of the teachings losing their way after generations have passed....hmmmnn
This is self evident with all information especially when there was no way of documenting information for long periods of time. As for the JW's and CLDS they are both based on previously flawed information, so can not be deemed as more authentic than Islamic teachings. |
| |
|
|
Fascinating, the premise of I/we are correct everybody else is wrong/misguided. I will also take that information with a hint of salt. Inner truth rather than outer practice is preferred.
“You have your way. I have my way. As for the right way, the correct way, and the only way, it does not exist.”
Friedrich Nietzsche
|
| |
|
|
quote: Originally posted by Lorenzo De La Cruz:
Fascinating, the premise of I/we are correct everybody else is wrong/misguided.
I will also take that information with a hint of salt.
Inner truth rather than outer practice is preferred.
Not at all. The whole point of this was to show that Islam is the only religion to say that the original messages of other religions were correct and then over time became adulterated. That is why there are so many similar viens running through the different religions. Can you not see how inclusive Islam is? I think only Sikhism comes close to Islam in this way of thinking and, as most people know, Sihkism was influenced by Islam. As for inner truth Islam also has that: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Sufi |
| |
|
|
i have personally had this discussion with christians friends. one verse from the testament where jesus(isa) says "he that commeth after me is mightier than I whose shoes i am not worthy to bear" (matthew III:II) if jesus was god how can anyone be mightier then god himself?
the ink of a scholar is more valuable then the blood of a matyr.
|
| |
|
|
my take on that would be that Jesus visited earth in human form. Jesus is an extension of god/who is spirit...
meaning that he who comes will not be in human form but spirit form or not identified as flesh and blood.
|
| |
|
|
quote: Originally posted by kevlar:
The whole point of this was to show that Islam is the only religion to say that the original messages of other religions were correct and then over time became adulterated.
Which is just another way of saying that your chosen belief is correct and others aren't - it proves nothing. What evidence have you that your belief is less adulterated than any other abrahamic mythology? None. |
| |
|
|
quote: Originally posted by ohdearieme!:
my take on that would be that Jesus visited earth in human form. Jesus is an extension of god/who is spirit...
meaning that he who comes will not be in human form but spirit form or not identified as flesh and blood.
Then your take is wrong. According to the bible Jesus is the manifestation of god in human form. He is god as part of the trinity - they cannot be separated. I'm afraid your argument is just apologetic nonsense which bears no scrutiny. Of course this all assumes that Jesus was a real person and that god actually exists - No evidence for that I'm afraid so the question is pretty moot. |
| |
|
|
quote: Originally posted by Joobs: quote: Originally posted by kevlar:
The whole point of this was to show that Islam is the only religion to say that the original messages of other religions were correct and then over time became adulterated.
Which is just another way of saying that your chosen belief is correct and others aren't - it proves nothing. What evidence have you that your belief is less adulterated than any other abrahamic mythology? None.
Hi Joobs, nice to see you again. Take a look yourself at some Christian "critical anaylsis". Even you can see how easy it is to answer these "contradictions". http://www.doyougetme.net/faithworks/thequran.htm#H |
| |
|
|
quote: Originally posted by muzzy123:
i have personally had this discussion with christians friends.
one verse from the testament where jesus(isa) says
"he that commeth after me is mightier than I whose shoes i am not worthy to bear" (matthew III:II)
if jesus was god how can anyone be mightier then god himself?
Actually the Gospel records that John the Baptist said this about Jesus. Mohomed never said he was God incarnate. He never said he was sinless. He never said he would return at the end to judge the living and the dead. He was not, unlike Mohomed, a military man. The Bible says that He is the first and the last, the author of creation and it's final judge. Mohommed fought for the preemminence of his people and his idea of God. Christ (in his divinity) was creator of the universe. But his greatest work was to die as a sacrificial offering for the sin of humanity. he did this out of love for us fallen humans. The scope and breadth and majesty of Christs' teaching, nature and character are vastly greater than that of Mohommed. For that reason Mohommed cannot be seen as compatable with the Biblical revelation that he claims to have improved upon. His claims are false, and his view of the character of God distorted. The historical church has had amny failings, sometimes excused to some extent by the fact that the bible was not readily available to the mases. Christians can only apologise for the wrongs they have done to Muslims. However, Christ and Christ only is the answer to man's needs. |
| |
|
|
quote: Originally posted by Simon P: quote: Originally posted by muzzy123:
i have personally had this discussion with christians friends.
one verse from the testament where jesus(isa) says
"he that commeth after me is mightier than I whose shoes i am not worthy to bear" (matthew III:II)
if jesus was god how can anyone be mightier then god himself?
Reposted to remove ambiguity in 3rd line Actually the Gospel records that John the Baptist said this about Jesus. Mohomed never said he was God incarnate. He never said he was sinless. He never said he would return at the end to judge the living and the dead. Jesus was not, unlike Mohomed, a military man. The Bible says that He is the first and the last, the author of creation and it's final judge. Mohommed fought for the preemminence of his people and his idea of God. Christ (in his divinity) was creator of the universe. But his greatest work was to die as a sacrificial offering for the sin of humanity. he did this out of love for us fallen humans. The scope and breadth and majesty of Christs' teaching, nature and character are vastly greater than that of Mohommed. For that reason Mohommed cannot be seen as compatable with the Biblical revelation that he claims to have improved upon. His claims are false, and his view of the character of God distorted. The historical church has had many failings, sometimes excused to some extent by the fact that the bible was not readily available to the mases. Christians can only apologise for the wrongs they have done to Muslims. However, Christ and Christ only is the answer to man's needs.
|
| |
|
|
quote: Originally posted by kevlar: quote: Originally posted by Lorenzo De La Cruz:
Fascinating, the premise of I/we are correct everybody else is wrong/misguided.
I will also take that information with a hint of salt.
Inner truth rather than outer practice is preferred.
Not at all. The whole point of this was to show that Islam is the only religion to say that the original messages of other religions were correct and then over time became adulterated. That is why there are so many similar viens running through the different religions. Can you not see how inclusive Islam is? I think only Sikhism comes close to Islam in this way of thinking and, as most people know, Sihkism was influenced by Islam. As for inner truth Islam also has that: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Sufi
I've met some Sufis and read some Rumi. I find their belief system quite beautiful along with the Gnostic Christians. It's a pity many of the Islamic world find them to be heretical. One book I read theorised that Jesus was taught by the Essenes and that the Sufis are descended from that teaching. They also seem to find more of a teacher in Jesus rather than Mohammed.
“You have your way. I have my way. As for the right way, the correct way, and the only way, it does not exist.”
Friedrich Nietzsche
|
| |
|
|
quote: It's a pity many of the Islamic world find them to be heretical.
This is not the mainstream view of Sunnis, I myself want to explore this path more. As soon as I have got my jurisprudence and Arabic to a better standered, this is the direction I want to go. As for Jesus(PBUH), Muslims see no contradictions between his teachings and Mohammeds(PBUH). If anything we would say Mohammeds(PBUH) was not as strict. This is because we believe he came to uphold the laws of Judaism, which is, what I believe, to be far more strict than the Islamic doctrine. |
| |
|
|
Yeshua was a Jewish rabbi. His followers were Jewish until Paul decided to take the power away from Yeshua's nearest and dearest and changed the Law so it would be more acceptable to the Romans. So those who followed Paul became Christians leaving the Judaism in the dust. What makes me laugh are those who claim kinship to him and Mary. Any offspring of them would be Jewish, because they were religious Jews and wouldn't have married out.
*********************************
It is easier to get forgiveness than permission
|
| |
|
|
quote: Yeshua was a Jewish rabbi. His followers were Jewish until Paul decided to take the power away from Yeshua's nearest and dearest and changed the Law so it would be more acceptable to the Romans.
So those who followed Paul became Christians leaving the Judaism in the dust.
What makes me laugh are those who claim kinship to him and Mary. Any offspring of them would be Jewish, because they were religious Jews and wouldn't have married out.
Kumquat:Are you forgetting that Paul was also a Jewish rabbi and makes it quite clear in his writings that he did not renounce his religion.He saw Christianity as a fulfilment of Judaism but thought it unnescesarily onerous for gentile believers to have to obey every letter of the Torah. Far from making Christianity acceptable to the Romans he and numerous other Christians were martyred because their religion was unacceptable to the Romans!!! |
| |
|
|
Matthew Chapter 12 verse 38-40:
"Then certain of the scribes and of the Pharisees answered, saying, Master, we would see a sign from thee.
But he answered and said unto them, An evil and adulterous generation seeketh after a sign; and there shall no sign be given to it, but the sign of the prophet Jonas: For as Jonas was three days and three nights in the whale's belly; so shall the Son of man be three days and three nights in the heart of the earth."
King James version.
What was the sign, for me interpretate this as the miricle of Jonas being alive in the belly of the whale and Jesus(PBUH) saying he would do the same but in the earth. The operative word is alive. If Jesus(PBUH) was dead this would not have been the same as Jonas, and I do not believe Jesus was mistaken or a lier.
|
| |
|
|
Kevlar: Jesus is talking symbolically here, just as he was when he said "Destroy this temple (meaning his body) and I will raise it again in three days".I don't think you can draw a literal inference about the fact of his life or death from his symbolic use of one old testament story.
Jesus makes repeated references to his impending death in the gospels and applies the "suffering servant" passages from Isaiah to himself.The Romans knew their business when it came to crucifixion and it is recorded that they did not break his legs to speed up his dying because he had already died. Instead they stabbed Jesus in the side bringing a flow of blood and water. This suggests that significant coagulation of his blood had already taken place so that there was a flow of serum - this can only have taken place after he had died.
|
| |
|
|
|
| |
|
|
Hi Kevlar,
I havn't got time right now for a thorough read or a decent reply but first impressions:
Breathless, imaginative, great fun but.....
There are some crazy ideas that just cannot be substantiated such as "Jesus was a great military tactician". The gospels are used selectively to further the authors point of view
and there is no attempt at balanced interpretation in the historical context.
He labours the point that Jesus never claimed to be God but misses the significance of Jesus repeatedly claiming to forgive people their sins. Only God could forgive sins in the Jewish faith which is why the Pharisees accused Jesus of blasphemy.
I agree with him about the substitutional theory of atonement ie God demands a blood sacrifice for original sin and has to provide it in Jesus.This seems to me ( and many modern theologians) to be a misinterpretation of the first temple Jewish liturgy of the atonement and it only dates back to Calvin - it wasn't part of early Christian teaching.He is also right about Christian persecution of the Jews. Again this wasn't a feature of the early church - maybe they were too busy being persecuted by the Romans but there is no call in the New Testament for revenge on the Jews. It all came later from misinterpretations of Paul's writings(who was a Jewish pharisee and never renounced his Jewish faith.)
|
| |
|
|
quote: Originally posted by kevlar:
Hi Joobs, nice to see you again.
Thanks, had a death in the family so haven't had time to visit the fora over the last month or so. quote: Take a look yourself at some Christian "critical anaylsis". Even you can see how easy it is to answer these "contradictions". http://www.doyougetme.net/faithworks/thequran.htm#H
Leaving aside the bias of the writer above. The fact is that Muslims claim the Koran to be infallible and without error. Like every other religious text it clearly has these problems. If you choose to ignore the contradictions and errors etc. then it is only yourself you are deluding. Anything to continue believing eh, bit like your final argument for free will and omniscience, what was it again - "It just is so"? (even though you admitted this defied explanation or logic). OK your infallible Koran (like the Bible) mentions Solomon - Care to post some evidence that such a character actually existed? Can't be hard after all he is such an important person with such an large empire. |
| |
|
|
quote: Originally posted by Simon P:
The historical church has had amny failings, sometimes excused to some extent by the fact that the bible was not readily available to the mases.
How trite. The reason the bible wasn't readily available was due to the church's policy of restricting learning to its own. You cannot easily dismiss their guilt since they told the uneducated what the bible said. The Church therefore was directly responsible for the actions of their congregation thereafter. Your purile excuse also conveniently forgets the actions of the Church itself in persecution and subjugation of others, etc. The clergy could both read and had access to bibles but it didn't make their actions good, did it. quote:
However, Christ and Christ only is the answer to man's needs.
What rubbish. If anything religion restricts mans attempts to better his lot by imposing many medieaval and outdated rules not to mention prejudices. Throughout history the church has and is being forced to accept society's values not us theirs. Unless you are a fundamentalist who believes in the literal word of the bible then you must be an apologist making excuses for its errors and contradictions. As such what criteria and authority have you for making such decisions on the dodgy 'bits'? None - you just make it up to equate with and satisfy your desire to believe. Many of you christians claim that none of this matters since it is only the message of Christ which is of relevance (leaving aside the fact that the supposed teachings of Christ are in fact just plagarised ideas of earlier and contemporaneous philosophers). Again what authority have you to make such a decision. Arbitrary picking and choosing of which parts are correct hardly proves or authenticates your claim to the message being correct. Hey, maybe the OT is correct and the NT is just all fiction. The gospels are certainly dubious in content and contradictory so their word can't be invoked as being correct. And of course Jesus himself has no evidence for existance outside those dodgy texts aside from a couple of forged (by early christians) historical documents. Don't you find it rather off-putting that for such an important (and suposedly well-known) figure the early church had to resort to such dishonest measures to validate their claims for his existance? Many historians of the time wrote about and mention other self proclaimed 'Messiahs' so their non-mention of the mythic Jesus speaks volumes. |
| |
|
|
quote: If you choose to ignore the contradictions and errors etc. then it is only yourself you are deluding. Anything to continue believing eh, bit like your final argument for free will and omniscience, what was it again - "It just is so"? (even though you admitted this defied explanation or logic).
No my argument didn't come down to "It just is so", it came down to: if a being created time and space, wouldn't that being be exempt from the restrictions of time and space? As that being would have existed before time and space so it would be logic for the being not to be constricted by its own creation. Hardly "It is just so", is it? P.S Very sorry to hear about your relative. Hope you and your family get through this difficult time with as little pain as possible. |
| |
|
|
quote: Originally posted by kevlar:
No my argument didn't come down to "It just is so", it came down to:
if a being created time and space, wouldn't that being be exempt from the restrictions of time and space? As that being would have existed before time and space so it would be logic for the being not to be constricted by its own creation.
But the timeline in question was never gods - we never were constricting him. This was an invention of yours to explain it all away. (which it doesn't). The only timeline to be considered was mans not gods. If an omniscient god can see our future then our timeline and actions are se. If we exercise free will and can choose anything at any juncture our timeline cannot be set and god cannot be omniscient and able to predict. By definition an omniscient God knows all from before he even creates the universe. He does not continually travel back and forward in time to see what is to happen. He supposedly has always known everything. We do not have to consider his abilities with regard to time travel or constrain him in any way. The only ability of his which we need consider and take consequence of is his omniscience. Hardly "It is just so", is it? Well yes it is since you still haven't equated the two merely introduced an aside as an explanation which explains nothing. By doing that and accepting it as valid you are really saying "it just is". quote:
P.S Very sorry to hear about your relative. Hope you and your family get through this difficult time with as little pain as possible.
Ah well, we all die. It was my step-father (cancer of the Liver), he was in his mid 70s and he had been going downhill since the beginning of the year so not unexpected but his hospitalisation, etc. did obviously take priority over my posting here. |
| |
|
|
