History Community ~ All Empires Homepage


This is the Archive on WORLD Historia, the old original forum.

 You cannot post here - you can only read.

 

Here is the link to the new forum:

  FAQ FAQ  Forum Search   Events   Register Register  Login Login

Forum LockedWho was jesus, Prophet?

 Post Reply Post Reply Page  <1 23456>
Author
Murat View Drop Down
Knight
Knight
Avatar

Joined: 27-Mar-2007
Location: Cleveland
Status: Offline
Points: 85
Post Options Post Options   Thanks (0) Thanks(0)   Quote Murat Quote  Post ReplyReply Direct Link To This Post Posted: 19-Jan-2009 at 04:14
Originally posted by Truthisnotrelitive Truthisnotrelitive wrote:

by the way, murat, on a technical note, as biologists have not yet defined life, this passage you posted can't be use to define an undefinable thing. there is no complete definition for life in the bible or in modern science.
So you say life is relative ( which means life is not a truth)
Why should I seek? I am the same as
He. His essence speaks through me.
I have been looking for myself!----Rumi
Back to Top
azimuth View Drop Down
Immortal Guard
Immortal Guard
Avatar
SlaYer'S SlaYer

Joined: 12-Dec-2004
Location: Neutral Zone
Status: Offline
Points: 2983
Post Options Post Options   Thanks (0) Thanks(0)   Quote azimuth Quote  Post ReplyReply Direct Link To This Post Posted: 19-Jan-2009 at 08:28
Originally posted by Truthisnotrelitive Truthisnotrelitive wrote:

hi azimuth

for the record, none of the paragraphs are quotes. the red one covers a little pre-messiah history and then out lines what i, in my limited understanding, can conclude to be the general Muslim stance on the importance and chronology of the holy books. i may be wrong, but that info seemed a good foundation and useful background knowledge to the discussion. so for the moment i acknowledged my brothers and friends beliefs, stating some of them clearly and simply, before going on to question some inconsistencies in those beliefs.

the reason i asked the questions was not simply to know that, as you said:
"well  People who think Jesus is one of the Prophet don't believe he is God , and who believe he is God don't believe he is a Prophet. simple."


the purpose of the question was to discover the Islamic explanation for these inconsistencies. you can simply say to me that "Jesus is a prophet" or "jesus is god" with out some biblical proof. that's not academic or logical. I'll need more than an opinion without clear and relevant justification before i can consider a response, let alone accept it.

 
 
ok so you dont belive the part you wrote regarding general Muslim stance on the importance and chronology of the holy books, although you wrote it as you were beliving it.
 
what inconsistencies you are talking about?
 
and why would i look in the "Bible" for a proof in what muslims belive? muslims dont follow the Bible, their holy book is the Quran, proofs of islamic belives must be taken from Islamic Holy book not others.
 
maybe thats not what you are looking for since its too easy to get. again what inconsistencies?
 
Back to Top
gcle2003 View Drop Down
Immortal Guard
Immortal Guard
Avatar

Joined: 06-Dec-2004
Location: Luxembourg
Status: Offline
Points: 7011
Post Options Post Options   Thanks (0) Thanks(0)   Quote gcle2003 Quote  Post ReplyReply Direct Link To This Post Posted: 19-Jan-2009 at 15:38
Originally posted by Murat Murat wrote:

         The source of the knowledge and the declerations of the prophets is same for all time periods.Some of the prophets are unknown but all the populations even tribes has been had the capability to reach the truth. The truth is we are created and One did it. "Believe it or not"  has been the offering of all prophets.
         In an opinion, if you are not a polytheist, you will be appreciated by God. All the prophets in a chronological order brought the truth to mankind, each one as a sample with their lives.They talked about three basic things: Faith,afterlife, and fairness.
Murat, all you are doing is stating what your religious beliefs are. That's fine, as long as you don't start preaching them, which would be a violation of the Code of Conduct here. As it stands it's interesting enough because I collect all sorts of religious beliefs as a kind of hobby.
 
None of that means though that anyone else should believe what you are saying is true.
Quote
         One more thing:
         If a regime,an economical system,an ideology or a belief is alive, there must certainly be some seeds of the truth in it. Because human being is wise enough to seperate it from enormity unless (he/she) hasn`t lost the conscience.
I don't follow that at all. You would seem to be saying that if a beliefe system exists then it must be at least partly true. I see no reason to believe that whatsoever.
Quote
         "Religious texts are not evidence of their own truth."  This is a wrong proposal because religions are not in a race.
Then you should not proffer religious texts as evidence of their own truth. In fact if religions are 'not in a race', whatever that means, I don't see any reason to post religious texts at all except as examples of what people are capable of believing.
Citizen of Ankh-Morpork
Never believe anything until it has been officially denied - Sir Humphrey Appleby, 1984.
Back to Top
gcle2003 View Drop Down
Immortal Guard
Immortal Guard
Avatar

Joined: 06-Dec-2004
Location: Luxembourg
Status: Offline
Points: 7011
Post Options Post Options   Thanks (0) Thanks(0)   Quote gcle2003 Quote  Post ReplyReply Direct Link To This Post Posted: 19-Jan-2009 at 15:45
Originally posted by Menumorut Menumorut wrote:

By living being I understand self-conscious, rational life, what the animals don't have.
 
You would be easier to follow, and would have more chance of being convincing, if you were to use words the same way as everyone else.
Citizen of Ankh-Morpork
Never believe anything until it has been officially denied - Sir Humphrey Appleby, 1984.
Back to Top
gcle2003 View Drop Down
Immortal Guard
Immortal Guard
Avatar

Joined: 06-Dec-2004
Location: Luxembourg
Status: Offline
Points: 7011
Post Options Post Options   Thanks (0) Thanks(0)   Quote gcle2003 Quote  Post ReplyReply Direct Link To This Post Posted: 19-Jan-2009 at 16:08
Originally posted by Omar al Hashim Omar al Hashim wrote:

Originally posted by Truth Truth wrote:

this is an interesting passage as it speaks of the Word (which is God) becoming flesh. than isn't an interpretation, that's just what it says. so here the Word is refurred to as containing life which gave light to the world. it appears that this Flesh/Word exsisted with god in the begining, and was indeed god himself (what ever "he" is).

I have never really understood this whole "Word" thing in a Christian perspective. It sounds like a incorrectly translated metaphor to me. If anything "the Word" would be "the message", or "by God's command", which is not God.
In a sense it is a mistranslation, in that the Greek 'Logos' means rather more than 'word' in the modern English sense. In French it is the 'parole' not the 'mot' of God, which is better than in most languages because it indicates somewhat more than a simple word.
 
Etymologically it's actually the same as the '-logy' suffix in something like 'theology' or 'biology', where it means 'knowledge', deriving from 'words about'. One of the early Greeks introduced 'Logos' to mean something like the 'rationale' of the universe: i.e. the guiding principle and source. It then got picked up by the Neo-Platonists, worked its way into Jewish philosophy, and by one or both of those routes into Christianity.
 
I think it was an attempt by John, rather more erudite than the other three, to align the new teaching of Christ's divinity with existing accepted beliefs among Hellenes and Jews.
 
A simpler translation of John 1:1 might be simply 'what was in the beginning was God' or 'the source of the universe was God'.
 
 
Citizen of Ankh-Morpork
Never believe anything until it has been officially denied - Sir Humphrey Appleby, 1984.
Back to Top
Leonidas View Drop Down
Immortal Guard
Immortal Guard
Avatar

Joined: 01-Oct-2005
Location: Australia
Status: Offline
Points: 4617
Post Options Post Options   Thanks (0) Thanks(0)   Quote Leonidas Quote  Post ReplyReply Direct Link To This Post Posted: 20-Jan-2009 at 10:48
this is an handy expert on Logos.

I have always understood it as a creative force


edit: a much better extract than the incomplete one above
Quote
For Plotinus, Logos (Word) names the formative force proceeding from a higher principle which expresses or represents that principles in a lower plane of Being. Thus Logos holds the key to the unity and continuity of the various levels of Being emanating from The One. For Augustine, Logos will be appropriated as that aspect of the Trinity involved in the incarnation of God as Jesus Christ. The Logos's Plotinian role is signified in the diagram by a series of arrows indicating the generation of each lower plane from out of the reality of the higher one. This generation is itself the outcome of a pure overflow of reality from one level to the next.

http://faculty.salisbury.edu/~jdhatley/plotinus.htm

I still havent got the time for the EnneadsOuch


Edited by Leonidas - 20-Jan-2009 at 10:55
Back to Top
Murat View Drop Down
Knight
Knight
Avatar

Joined: 27-Mar-2007
Location: Cleveland
Status: Offline
Points: 85
Post Options Post Options   Thanks (0) Thanks(0)   Quote Murat Quote  Post ReplyReply Direct Link To This Post Posted: 21-Jan-2009 at 02:46

 

I have been busy for two days.

You misunderstood me :)
It was a kind of satire. How coudn`t you understand.
 


Edited by Murat - 22-Jan-2009 at 03:22
Why should I seek? I am the same as
He. His essence speaks through me.
I have been looking for myself!----Rumi
Back to Top
Murat View Drop Down
Knight
Knight
Avatar

Joined: 27-Mar-2007
Location: Cleveland
Status: Offline
Points: 85
Post Options Post Options   Thanks (0) Thanks(0)   Quote Murat Quote  Post ReplyReply Direct Link To This Post Posted: 21-Jan-2009 at 03:14
   
 Smile


Edited by Murat - 22-Jan-2009 at 03:25
Why should I seek? I am the same as
He. His essence speaks through me.
I have been looking for myself!----Rumi
Back to Top
Murat View Drop Down
Knight
Knight
Avatar

Joined: 27-Mar-2007
Location: Cleveland
Status: Offline
Points: 85
Post Options Post Options   Thanks (0) Thanks(0)   Quote Murat Quote  Post ReplyReply Direct Link To This Post Posted: 22-Jan-2009 at 03:24
Dear gcle 2003 
Actually if it is a hobby it might be different from a research.   
 You do not have to believe my ideas. Everyone may be wrong, so am I. These here are all subjective things. The belief is something which is not only the result of your logical and scientific evidences. It is in my heart difficult to explain but occupies all of it . The reality of the metaphysical perspectives change when you physically do something for God. We and our surroundings are all composed of apparently matter and energy.What I believe is some other forces without measurements.Because I certainly know the rules of the measurement scientifically.I also know the measurements are relative, and Human being is not capable enough to measure God. WE ARE THE VIEWERS OF THE UNIVERSE,SOME OF US HAVE MAGNIFIER LENSES.We should admire and appreciate these arts.
Why should I seek? I am the same as
He. His essence speaks through me.
I have been looking for myself!----Rumi
Back to Top
Akolouthos View Drop Down
Immortal Guard
Immortal Guard
Avatar

Joined: 24-Feb-2006
Location: United States
Status: Offline
Points: 2096
Post Options Post Options   Thanks (0) Thanks(0)   Quote Akolouthos Quote  Post ReplyReply Direct Link To This Post Posted: 22-Jan-2009 at 04:00
Originally posted by gcle2003 gcle2003 wrote:

One of the early Greeks introduced 'Logos' to mean something like the 'rationale' of the universe: i.e. the guiding principle and source. It then got picked up by the Neo-Platonists, worked its way into Jewish philosophy, and by one or both of those routes into Christianity.
 
I believe you're thinking of Heraclitus, but my memory may be playing me false.*
 
Quote
I think it was an attempt by John, rather more erudite than the other three, to align the new teaching of Christ's divinity with existing accepted beliefs among Hellenes and Jews.
  
 
Well stated. I would add that the phrasing in John 1 is a direct reference to the phrasing in Genesis 1. In demonstrating the identity of the pre-existent Logos with the Incarnate Christ, John clarifies the narrative of the beginning of Creation as we know it. The fact that God created with his Word, is also the reason that, contrary to the image of the silver-haired God in many Adam and Eve children's books today, the icons of the Creation depict Christ as we knew him in his incarnate form.
 
Quote A simpler translation of John 1:1 might be simply 'what was in the beginning was God' or 'the source of the universe was God'.
 
Wouldn't those be interpretations, rather than translations? Not trying to nitpick, over semantics, and I certainly do value interpretation. Still, we would find it a bit problematic to propose these as translations for an English audience. I think that while they serve to elucidate one point which the author was trying to make, they leave aside the key connection between the pre-existent Logos and the Creation, and might undermine the introduction for the connection he draws between the Logos and Jesus/the Son later in the chapter. After all, if the wordplay translates at all, even as inadequately as it has been rendered in English, I would be reluctant to remove the key to the entire verse simply because most English readers have a problem understanding the shades of meaning surrounding the term Logos.
 
-Akolouthos
 
*Incidentally, my dear grammar expert, should that have been "My memory might be playing me false," and what is the difference if any?


Edited by Akolouthos - 22-Jan-2009 at 04:03
Back to Top
Truthisnotrelitive View Drop Down
Housecarl
Housecarl
Avatar

Joined: 13-Oct-2008
Status: Offline
Points: 32
Post Options Post Options   Thanks (0) Thanks(0)   Quote Truthisnotrelitive Quote  Post ReplyReply Direct Link To This Post Posted: 22-Jan-2009 at 09:02

hi Omar al Hashim


[Quote]To bring the people he was sent to (the Palestinians, both Jewish and non-Jewish) back to Islam/Judaism after they had ceased to practice it.[quote/?]


well thank you for the Muslim perspective. i understand your reasoning for this, due to Quranic scripture.

but i do think that you would have had a hard time convincing Isaiah, Jeremiah and Ezekiel that this was the purpose of the messiah. they all spoke explicitly of Israel and Judah"s sin, and how that the children of Jacob had abandoned the commands layed out by the Lord their God. thus the lord said he was ending the "contact" or Covenant with Isreal. what does that mean? well for starters He exiles them, ending the season of blessing he processed them if they obeyed the commands. He goes on to speak that since the people of Israel have rejected him as god and have worshiped other gods, he is ending the covenant He made with Moses and Abraham. I don't want to sound like I'm preaching at you or anything, but do you see? He is no longer bound to these people as they have broken the terms of the agreement, so he is now free from any obligation, as are the children of Isael. Essentially god divorces Israel. Period. Contract terminated.


But, in the second half old Isaiah, and later on through other prophetic books (Joel, Ezekiel, Jerahmiah ect... ) God reveals he is not completely through with Isreal. he speaks of a new covenant between man isreal and god, one that will be brought about through his messiah, a covenant that will extend to all the nations of the earth. His new contact has different requirements, different rules. (or just a complete lack of them as some would say, though I'm not sure if i agree with that entirely). You don't have to look far into old testement scripture to find evidence of this. I'm not preaching an opinion, thats just what is says. Check it.


So how can the messiah be sent to bring people back to the old covenant that no longer is in place?

Mabey god wanted to restore the old covenant, but if that be the case, then why did he say he was

making a new one with mankind? Are the old testament prophetic books wrong? Is god not able to for fill his promises? I don't think so because that would contradict his nature, making him a liar.


Shall we put god on trial?



Edited by Truthisnotrelitive - 22-Jan-2009 at 09:05
a man sees as he wishes
Back to Top
gcle2003 View Drop Down
Immortal Guard
Immortal Guard
Avatar

Joined: 06-Dec-2004
Location: Luxembourg
Status: Offline
Points: 7011
Post Options Post Options   Thanks (0) Thanks(0)   Quote gcle2003 Quote  Post ReplyReply Direct Link To This Post Posted: 22-Jan-2009 at 20:35
Originally posted by Akolouthos Akolouthos wrote:

 
I believe you're thinking of Heraclitus, but my memory may be playing me false.*
  
Quote A simpler translation of John 1:1 might be simply 'what was in the beginning was God' or 'the source of the universe was God'.
 
Wouldn't those be interpretations, rather than translations? Not trying to nitpick, over semantics, and I certainly do value interpretation. Still, we would find it a bit problematic to propose these as translations for an English audience. I think that while they serve to elucidate one point which the author was trying to make, they leave aside the key connection between the pre-existent Logos and the Creation, and might undermine the introduction for the connection he draws between the Logos and Jesus/the Son later in the chapter. After all, if the wordplay translates at all, even as inadequately as it has been rendered in English, I would be reluctant to remove the key to the entire verse simply because most English readers have a problem understanding the shades of meaning surrounding the term Logos.
I was kind of fumbling around. I agree with you. I do find it interesting though that French allows the distinction to be made between 'parole' and 'mot', and chooses 'parole'. But it's as difficult to explain why I feel that as it is to explain what 'Logos' means (and why the word - hah! - 'word' is chosen.
 
I wonder if any other language distinguishes 'word' is the sense of 'something spoken' and 'word' in the sense of a grammatical unit. Russian (slovo) and German (Wort) have the same problem as English.
Quote  
-Akolouthos
 
*Incidentally, my dear grammar expert, should that have been "My memory might be playing me false," and what is the difference if any?
You made a straight assertion, so 'may be playing' is correct. 'Might be playing' demands a conditional - 'it might be playing me false if I'd drunk too much wine' or something similar. 'My mind might be playing me false if it was Tuesday, but never on Sunday' Smile
Citizen of Ankh-Morpork
Never believe anything until it has been officially denied - Sir Humphrey Appleby, 1984.
Back to Top
Akolouthos View Drop Down
Immortal Guard
Immortal Guard
Avatar

Joined: 24-Feb-2006
Location: United States
Status: Offline
Points: 2096
Post Options Post Options   Thanks (0) Thanks(0)   Quote Akolouthos Quote  Post ReplyReply Direct Link To This Post Posted: 23-Jan-2009 at 00:00
Originally posted by gcle2003 gcle2003 wrote:

I was kind of fumbling around. I agree with you. I do find it interesting though that French allows the distinction to be made between 'parole' and 'mot', and chooses 'parole'. But it's as difficult to explain why I feel that as it is to explain what 'Logos' means (and why the word - hah! - 'word' is chosen.
 
I wonder if any other language distinguishes 'word' is the sense of 'something spoken' and 'word' in the sense of a grammatical unit. Russian (slovo) and German (Wort) have the same problem as English.
 
LOL Nice one with the wordplay.
 
I wish I read French, but I fear any explanation of the distinction you made would be lost on me. Maybe in a year or so, eh? Wink
 
As for the distinction, the way we get around it in English is to simply use the Greek and teach people as much as we can about what inheres in the term. It would probably just confuse people if placed in the Scriptures, and the use of the word "Word" makes it easier for people to draw the connection with Genesis. Still, whenever I lecture or write, I almost invariably just use Logos. Of course there are still slight variations across disciplines -- Theology vs. Philosophy, for instance -- so there is the possibility of some confusion. Still, if people are submitting themselves to a particular academic discipline, even on the level of a hobby, they might as well learn the basic terminology to be employed.*
 
Quote
You made a straight assertion, so 'may be playing' is correct. 'Might be playing' demands a conditional - 'it might be playing me false if I'd drunk too much wine' or something similar. 'My mind might be playing me false if it was Tuesday, but never on Sunday' Smile
 
Thank you for the answer. I hope you don't mind me pestering you for tips every now and then. After all, I shouldn't really expect proficiency with other languages before I learn my own properly, eh? Tongue
 
-Akolouthos
 
*I got it, didn't I? Smile
Back to Top
edgewaters View Drop Down
Immortal Guard
Immortal Guard
Avatar

Joined: 13-Mar-2006
Location: Canada
Status: Offline
Points: 2396
Post Options Post Options   Thanks (0) Thanks(0)   Quote edgewaters Quote  Post ReplyReply Direct Link To This Post Posted: 23-Jan-2009 at 00:31

Originally posted by gcle2003 gcle2003 wrote:

I wonder if any other language distinguishes 'word' is the sense of 'something spoken' and 'word' in the sense of a grammatical unit. Russian (slovo) and German (Wort) have the same problem as English.

What about vocalization, utterance, or enunciation? 

Or are you looking for something that exclusively refers to a grammatical unit? 

Back to Top
gcle2003 View Drop Down
Immortal Guard
Immortal Guard
Avatar

Joined: 06-Dec-2004
Location: Luxembourg
Status: Offline
Points: 7011
Post Options Post Options   Thanks (0) Thanks(0)   Quote gcle2003 Quote  Post ReplyReply Direct Link To This Post Posted: 23-Jan-2009 at 16:51
The French Bible uses 'parole' to translate Logos. The simplest French-English dictionary definition of 'parole' is 'speech'[1]; it is connected after all with the word 'parler' meaning 'speak'. In the basic sense in which English uses 'word' - i.e. to refer to something like 'something' or 'to': a distinguishable collection of phonemes - French has 'mot'. 
 
Latin has 'verbum' and 'dictum' but my Latin isn't good enough to tell how the y are distinguished, if they are. 
 
[1] 'Parole' has developed a specific meaning in English which is something else, though the derivation is fairly obvious.
Citizen of Ankh-Morpork
Never believe anything until it has been officially denied - Sir Humphrey Appleby, 1984.
Back to Top
Omar al Hashim View Drop Down
Immortal Guard
Immortal Guard
Avatar

Joined: 05-Jan-2006
Location: Snowy-Highlands
Status: Offline
Points: 5725
Post Options Post Options   Thanks (0) Thanks(0)   Quote Omar al Hashim Quote  Post ReplyReply Direct Link To This Post Posted: 25-Jan-2009 at 02:20
Hi Truth,
You'll have to forgive me, I haven't read very much of the OT, and don't understand the Jewish perspective about their covenant with God or the role of the Messiah. The Quran speaks alot about the covenant with the Jews and God's perspective of it. Hopefully I'll quote you the right portions of it, but if I don't its because I don't understand the covenants.
Quote So how can the messiah be sent to bring people back to the old covenant that no longer is in place?

The purpose of all the convenants with God, regardless of which messenger started it, is to worship God, do good deeds and believe in the day of judgement. That is what Jesus preached. There is always a covenant between believers and God. If the people cease to believe the covenant is broken. When I say that Jesus was sent to bring people back to the faith, I mean bringing people back to worshipping God. This was a requirement in all covenants, so it doesn't matter whether this is a new covenant or an old one. Probably it was a new one.
Quote And remember We took a covenant from the Children of Israel (to this effect): Worship none but Allah; treat with kindness your parents and kindred, and orphans and those in need; speak fair to the people; be steadfast in prayer; and practise regular charity. Then did ye turn back, except a few among you, and ye backslide (even now). [2:83]

The Jews broke the covenant, they did not hold up their side of the agreement.
Originally posted by Truth Truth wrote:

he speaks of a new covenant between man isreal and god, one that will be brought about through his messiah, a covenant that will extend to all the nations of the earth. His new contact has different requirements, different rules. (or just a complete lack of them as some would say, though I'm not sure if i agree with that entirely). You don't have to look far into old testement scripture to find evidence of this. I'm not preaching an opinion, thats just what is says. Check it.

This did happen though. God did establish a new covenant with the prophethood of Jesus.
Quote From those, too, who call themselves Christians, We did take a covenant, but they forgot a good part of the message that was sent them: so we estranged them, with enmity and hatred between the one and the other, to the day of judgment. And soon will Allah show them what it is they have done.[5:14]

So there was a covenant established with the Chrisitans too. Separate from the Jewish covenant, which is what your quote above appears to be talking about. In this case the Christians forgot their covenant, and therefore it was broken. Hence the need for a new messenger to establish a new covenant - Muhammed.

While I understand the purpose of the covenants, I'll have to read alot more of the bible to understand the chronology of them. I've probably made a mistake, so ask me again if it doesn't make sense.
"O Byzantines! If success is your desire and if you seek right guidance and want your empire to remain then give the pledge to this Prophet"
~ Heraclius, Roman Emperor
Back to Top
Truthisnotrelitive View Drop Down
Housecarl
Housecarl
Avatar

Joined: 13-Oct-2008
Status: Offline
Points: 32
Post Options Post Options   Thanks (0) Thanks(0)   Quote Truthisnotrelitive Quote  Post ReplyReply Direct Link To This Post Posted: 28-Jan-2009 at 06:32
okay, now i see what u ment when u talked of bring people back to the old way/worshiping god. i think that this foundation of worship is the fudermental doctrinal link between all three religions of monotheism., even if it is a bit different when it comes to ritual/practice. i agree with u.

 this statement raises a few questions; 

So there was a covenant established with the Chrisitans too. Separate from the Jewish covenant, which is what your quote above appears to be talking about. In this case the Christians forgot their covenant, and therefore it was broken. Hence the need for a new messenger to establish a new covenant - Muhammed.

 as i've never had the oppertunity of a freindship with a devout muslim, i've never been able to ask this, but in what way, in your opinion Omar al Hashim, and in the opinion of muslim shcolars, did the church deviate from the teachings of jesus? now i'm like minded and also agree that there are quite a few aspects of roman cathlic doctrine that are not based on sound scripture in eather the Gosples or in the eppistles and revalations. but bare in mind that the cathlic church is not the only strand that was initiated by the early church, there are also the coptic Egyptian Church which still exsists tot his day.
 
a man sees as he wishes
Back to Top
Omar al Hashim View Drop Down
Immortal Guard
Immortal Guard
Avatar

Joined: 05-Jan-2006
Location: Snowy-Highlands
Status: Offline
Points: 5725
Post Options Post Options   Thanks (0) Thanks(0)   Quote Omar al Hashim Quote  Post ReplyReply Direct Link To This Post Posted: 29-Jan-2009 at 03:03
Not only the Catholic and Egyptian Coptic, but also the Ethiopian Coptic, Syrian/Greek/Bulgarian/Serbian/Russian/Albanian Orthodox, Armenian and many other smaller churches are the direct descendants of the early Roman church, but most of what was forgotten was done before the early church was founded. Protestants can't really be put into a single basket, but some of their teachings like rejecting Saints, Icons, and the power of the priesthood we consider to be a great leap forward. (And as such, early protestant groups received support and financial aid from muslim nations like the Ottoman Empire)

The main, and most important deviation is the divinity of Jesus (pbuh), and the trinity. While Jesus was not a normal person, and could do many things that you or I cannot. He is not, in any way shape or form God. If God wishes to create a person that is more blessed than others, that is entirely in his ability to do so. If God wishes to create a virgin birth, he can create it at will. That birth is not God's son, it is his creation.
God is not at all like the ancient Greek Gods, who are merely super human, have many human traits and human flaws. God is the creator and the destroyer, the lord of worlds, the controller of everything both minute and major. God has the power to forgive whomever he pleases, whenever he pleases, for whatever reason he pleases, and similarly can punish. He has does not need to have a son to create, nor does that son need to die to forgive.

Quote Behold! the angels said: "O Mary! Allah giveth thee glad tidings of a Word from Him: his name will be Christ Jesus, the son of Mary, held in honour in this world and the Hereafter and of (the company of) those nearest to Allah;

"He shall speak to the people in childhood and in maturity. And he shall be (of the company) of the righteous."

She said: "O my Lord! How shall I have a son when no man hath touched me?" He said: "Even so: Allah createth what He willeth: When He hath decreed a plan, He but saith to it, 'Be,' and it is!

"And Allah will teach him the Book and Wisdom, the Law and the Gospel,

"And (appoint him) a messenger to the Children of Israel, (with this message): "'I have come to you, with a Sign from your Lord, in that I make for you out of clay, as it were, the figure of a bird, and breathe into it, and it becomes a bird by Allah's leave: And I heal those born blind, and the lepers, and I quicken the dead, by Allah's leave; and I declare to you what ye eat, and what ye store in your houses. Surely therein is a Sign for you if ye did believe;

"'(I have come to you), to attest the Law which was before me. And to make lawful to you part of what was (Before) forbidden to you; I have come to you with a Sign from your Lord. So fear Allah, and obey me.

"'It is Allah Who is my Lord and your Lord; then worship Him. This is a Way that is straight.'"

[3:45-51]

(I should point out that in the Quran quotations I've provided the translator has not translated the word for 'God' - Allah)

Other than the divinity of Jesus there is only one other difference worthy of mention, and that is access to sources. There are many Christians who search through the bible to ensure that what they believe is as authentic as possible. The only problem with that is that the Bible itself is subject to the errors and motivations of the authors, we know hardly anything about the authors themselves let alone their motivation. The prophet Muhammed (pbuh) left to the world two important documents.
1) The Hadith collections. They are sayings, actions, history, and work of Muhammed and his companions. You can consider the Hadith to be like the "muslim bible", although its very much larger and has undergone an enourmous amount of scientific scrutiny over the last 1200 odd years (because many Hadiths are subject to the same problems as the bible).
2) The Quran. Which is the revealation to Muhammed from God over the 23 years of his prophet hood. There is nothing in the Christian or Jewish traditions that is similar. It is written by God, from his perspective. It is intended to be read by both a layman and an academic. The advantage of the Quran is that it outlines in many different ways the core of the religion, it is an excellent teacher that makes the religion simple.

I have met christians who don't believe in the trinity, and have read the Quran. While they still call themselves Christians for all effective purposes they are muslim. At least they are the literal meaning of muslim ('one who submits to God'). I'm sure it does not matter in the slightest if they aren't cultural muslims. God will recognise his own. The Quran does not tell you how to say your prayers it just says that you should say them.
"O Byzantines! If success is your desire and if you seek right guidance and want your empire to remain then give the pledge to this Prophet"
~ Heraclius, Roman Emperor
Back to Top
Cryptic View Drop Down
General
General


Joined: 05-Jul-2006
Location: United States
Status: Offline
Points: 901
Post Options Post Options   Thanks (0) Thanks(0)   Quote Cryptic Quote  Post ReplyReply Direct Link To This Post Posted: 30-Jan-2009 at 15:56

Originally posted by Omar al Hashim Omar al Hashim wrote:

While Jesus was not a normal person, and could do many things that you or I cannot. He is not, in any way shape or form God. 

What extraordinary abilities does the Quran or Islamic tradition describe Jesus as having?
 


Edited by Cryptic - 30-Jan-2009 at 15:59
Back to Top
Truthisnotrelitive View Drop Down
Housecarl
Housecarl
Avatar

Joined: 13-Oct-2008
Status: Offline
Points: 32
Post Options Post Options   Thanks (0) Thanks(0)   Quote Truthisnotrelitive Quote  Post ReplyReply Direct Link To This Post Posted: 31-Jan-2009 at 08:30
i see ur point, but you've only used quotations from the Quran to support ur point. 
it also seems a little odd that god would send this magnificent prophet/messiah which his prophets spoke admittedly of through his prophets for over 500 yrs, who was only supposed liberate humanity, only to have his message completely twisted completely out of proportion by his own followers within 50 days of his death. its the biggest flop on god's behalf ever recorded. 
a man sees as he wishes
Back to Top
 Post Reply Post Reply Page  <1 23456>
  Share Topic   

Forum Jump Forum Permissions View Drop Down

Forum Software by Web Wiz Forums® version 11.10
Copyright ©2001-2017 Web Wiz Ltd.

This page was generated in 0.125 seconds.