Can Muslims Answer These Conundrums?

a reply to: AudioOne

No, not one single conundrum in the OP was even addressed, later ones were attempted to be rebutted, but only by you saying "What about you Christians! What about the Bible!!!".

The reason you failed to rebut them is that you tried to play the diversion game and then tried to tell me what a few mystical poets said.

I gave you Quran verses that you said were mistranslated, even though it was not me who translated them in the first place. The error is on your Muslim scholars.

I gave you Hadiths, but you reject those, even though Hadiths came BEFORE the Quran, because Hadiths EXPLAIN Quran verses.

Now, show me if you can, DID the Quran come down to Mohammed in its present form that day in the cave with Jibreel?

Nope, it did not. Mohammed was told to RECITE Quran, well, how could he recite a Quran that didn't exist? And how does Mohammed justify this?

15:1 Muhsin Khan
Alif-Lam-Ra. [These letters are one of the miracles of the Quran, and none but Allah (Alone) knows their meanings]. These are the Verses of the Book, and a plain Quran.

Shakir
Alif Lam Ra. These are the verses of the Book and (of) a Quran that makes (things) clear.
Indonesian
Alif, laam, raa. (Surat) ini adalah (sebagian dari) ayat-ayat Al-Kitab (yang sempurna), yaitu (ayat-ayat) Al Quran yang memberi penjelasan.

Then WHY read something that is supposed to be clear, and yet the clear revelation was not even given to Mohammed to translate what those very letters in the Quran mean?

Well, I CAN tell you what they mean because they are not Arabic, they are Greek and Hebrew, and those Greek and Hebrew words mean "The first ox Ra, I take".

Too bad the translator says that only Allah knows what those words mean. Ancient Hebrew Letters

It also means RA is strong authority. I don't think the original writer of the Quran studied much about Hebrew, Greek and Egyptian, but too bad it shows up in your Quran to say that only Allah knows what it means...in a clear book, that is revealed completely (except those letters).

Alif lam Ra, strong authority is RA.

A pagan god associated with Allah..did you know this?

But now, I suppose you will tell me what it really means when your own scholars can't.

By the way, I only pasted the correct citation from Quran, as I always do, so don't tell me it is mistranslated when you have a slew of scholars doing that work. The error is theirs.

a reply to: WarminIndy

I gave you Hadiths, but you reject those, even though Hadiths came BEFORE the Quran, because Hadiths EXPLAIN Quran verses.

If it explains Quran verses, then the Quran would have to exist first before it can be explained, right? Talmud is suppose to explain Torah (Old Testament) verses so Torah came first, right?

Alif lam Ra, strong authority is RA.

And the Arabic letter Ra relates to the Hebrew letter Resh which symbolizes the first, top, or beginning (link), so why not translate it as...

Strong Authority Above?
Alif Lam Ra
Alaph Lamed Resh

And when it says Alif lam mim does that mean strong authority is water, since the Arabic letter mim relates to the Hebrew letter mem which symbolizes water?

People keep mentioning the Bible because it's obvious that you're just trying to make your Biblical beliefs seem better than those who believe in the Quran.

Surely you can't defend every bit of Islam, you wouldn't be a Constitutional loving American if you did.

You wouldn't be a Constitutional loving American if you defended every part of the bible.

originally posted by: arpgme
a reply to: WarminIndy

I gave you Hadiths, but you reject those, even though Hadiths came BEFORE the Quran, because Hadiths EXPLAIN Quran verses.

If it explains Quran verses, then the Quran would have to exist first before it can be explained, right? Talmud is suppose to explain Torah (Old Testament) verses so Torah came first, right?

Alif lam Ra, strong authority is RA.

And the Arabic letter Ra relates to the Hebrew letter Resh which symbolizes the first, top, or beginning (link), so why not translate it as...

Strong Authority Above?
Alif Lam Ra
Alaph Lamed Resh

And when it says Alif lam mim does that mean strong authority is water, since the Arabic letter mim relates to the Hebrew letter mem which symbolizes water?

People keep mentioning the Bible because it's obvious that you're just trying to make your Biblical beliefs seem better than those who believe in the Quran.

Surely you can't defend every bit of Islam, you wouldn't be a Constitutional loving American if you did.

You wouldn't be a Constitutional loving American if you defended every part of the bible.

Except that Hadiths came first because the book we know today, didn't exist in Mohammed's day. And here we go again, diverting from the OP to not answer the questions.

But here's the funny thing, you know how they say that no warner came to the Arabs before Mohammed? Well now, that is really another error, because the Bible does say that PETER was, that day in Jerusalem, who was there?

Acts 2:7 And they were all amazed and marvelled, saying one to another, Behold, are not all these which speak Galilaeans? 8 And how hear we every man in our own tongue, wherein we were born? 9 Parthians, and Medes, and Elamites, and the dwellers in Mesopotamia, and in Judaea, and Cappadocia, in Pontus, and Asia, 10 Phrygia, and Pamphylia, in Egypt, and in the parts of Libya about Cyrene, and strangers of Rome, Jews and proselytes, 11 Cretes and Arabians, we do hear them speak in our tongues the wonderful works of God. 12 And they were all amazed, and were in doubt, saying one to another, What meaneth this?

Hmm, so they heard the Gospel from Peter. But here's the other thing, if you just look up references, they were once called Saracens, and people usually think that is a Middle Ages term, however, the Greeks knew them as Sarakoi.

Ptolemy's Geography (2nd century CE) describes "Sarakene" as a region in the northern Sinai peninsula.[2] Ptolemy also mentions a people called the "Sarakenoi" living in north-western Arabia (near neighbor to the Sinai).[2] Eusebius of Caesarea refers to Saracens in his Ecclesiastical history, in which he narrates an account wherein Dionysus, Bishop of Alexandria, mentions Saracens in a letter while describing the persecution of Christians by the Roman emperor Decius: "Many were, in the Arabian mountain, enslaved by the barbarous 'sarkenoi'."[2] The Historia Augusta also refers to an attack by "Saraceni" on Pescennius Niger's army in Egypt in 193, but provides little information as to identifying them.[7]

They rode horses, didn't they?

Both Hippolytus and Uranius mention three distinct peoples in Arabia during the first half of the third century: the "Saraceni", the "Taeni" and the "Arabes".[2] The "Taeni", later identified with the Arabic-speaking people called "Tayy", were located around the Khaybar oasis north of Medina, and also in an area stretching up to the Euphrates River. The "Saraceni" were placed north of them.[2] These Saracens, located in the northern Hejaz, were described as people with a certain military ability who were opponents of the Roman Empire and who were classified by the Romans as barbarians.[2]

Way back in the first and second centuries, they were known as sarakoi, rode heavy cavalry and were military warlords living in the northern Hejaz.

And here is a very early criticism of Islam from the seventh century (the same century as Mohammed died and a contemporary of Uthman).. St. John of Damascus

These used to be idolaters and worshiped the morning star and Aphrodite, whom in their own language they called Khabár, which means great. [100] And so down to the time of Heraclius they were very great idolaters. From that time to the present a false prophet named Mohammed has appeared in their midst. This man, after having chanced upon the Old and New Testaments and likewise, it seems, having conversed with an Arian monk, [101] devised his own heresy. Then, having insinuated himself into the good graces of the people by a show of seeming piety, he gave out that a certain book had been sent down to him from heaven. He had set down some ridiculous compositions in this book of his and he gave it to them as an object of veneration.

How would he even know about Mohammed? His grandfather worked as a tax collector for Heraclius, therefore his grandfather would have known about the so-called Letter to Heraclius. He doesn't mention that event, not even when he was working for the Ummayid Caliphate. He knew the Quran, his first language was Arabic.

If there is any influence from Christianity, it is from Arianism, which is remarked early on by St. John of Damascus who was born only 50 years after Mohammed died, but knew enough of Islam, because he was surrounded by Muslims and knew the Quran and Arabic, then probably he is the best early source outside of Islam to know the history of Islam.

St. John Al-Mansur asks the question..where did the other camel come from? Silence from those Muslims.

As they could not answer the conundrums then, they can't answer today.

a reply to: WarminIndy

If you knew history or academics you would know that it's been only in the last century that any unbiased non colonial texts were written about Islam in a European language. Next your going to quote the medieval Pope who said that Muhammad must have been a failed Catholic Cardinal who got pissed off that he didn't become Pope so instead he started a false religion. Your using completely discredited sources written by outsiders who had a political agenda. Not one historian gives any credit to early European views on Islam. Just as no Christian would trust a 2nd century account of Romans calling Christians cannibals because they apparently eat the body and blood of somebody. This was a common accusation back than repeated by people who didn't know anything about this new religion Christianity except hearsay.

However, St. John being in Syria is a better source, but still he was biased and got many parts of the Qur'an wrong in his discussions. However, it is amazing that he could write pro Christian books under a Muslim Calip, no? You seriously need to read Edward Said's seminal book Orientalism, which describes how Occidental writers passed down and wrote of an exotic Arabia as way to manufacture and control it, as colonial conquests. The European writings on Islam and Muhammad up to this century were laughable and no historian in their right mind would use them.

As far as translators? Read Reading the Qur'an by Ziauddin Sardar. First off, any educated Muslim knows the pros and cons of different translations. There are whole discussions of the benefits of certain commentators and translations and educated Muslims like Sardar might consult eight or more translations to understand verses. Second of all, there is a reason the Qur'an is always recited in Arabic instead of in translation. Muslims have ALWAYS known that translations lose the multi-valence and polyvocality of the original Arabic, and thus Muslims are expected to memorize the Arabic. Anyone who wants to delve into their faith are expected to look through lexicons on the meanings of words. Great translators like Yusaf Ali or Muhammad Assad fill their Qur'ans with long footnotes explaining the root words and possible meanings of the Arabic words in trying to educate the reader past the text of the translation. It's not ONE translation. Any Muslim is expected to be knowledgeable about multiple translations and then within the commentaries (as footnotes) in the translations there are whole discourse on Arabic grammar and root words. Muhammad Asad's translation with commentary is superb in this regard. It has been often remarked that Islam is a path of knowledge, meaning that any one who seriously undertakes it is expected to understand aspects of Islamic grammar and root words. So these linguistic "conundrums" don't exist because anyone studying Islam for themselves as a religion get educated by their mosque, iman, and translations with commentary. Of course, online Qur'an's almost never include the commentary, but a Muslim is expected to own a Qur'an so...... I knew more about Arabic grammar and root words in my first week of studying Islam than you seem to know from all of your googling anti-Islam websites... Why? Because any good translation with commentary has this information in spades... Muslims don't pray in English, don't recite in English, and study the Arabic grammar of the Qur'an with its rich polyvocality including the powerful way it keeps changing perspective from I to We to You. That's part of its powerful appeal, its constant shifts between planes of existence and perspective, including from 1st person, to 2nd person, to 3rd. It's not like Christians who may never see the Greek original, and pray and recite in their native language (although a good study Bible will reference the greek words.) Muslims are expected to always engage with the Arabic in order to alleviate the issue that come with translation.

a reply to: AudioOne

Not only all that but she's harping on the Hadiths as though they're the holy grail of Islam without understanding that some varying sects only accept certain Hadiths and there really is no universal rule across the board for all of Islam on recognition or acceptance regarding the Hadiths and then just quote mining random ones without understanding the context. It's like using The Book of Mormon to take a piss on the Cathlic Church and not knowing that each text is representative of seperate interpretations of the original teachings. It's why I stand hard on firm in the ignorance and hypocrisy of the OP and subsequent rants. I'm still waiting for her to answer my questions but have stopped holding my breath. Blue isn't my color!

a reply to: AudioOne

AudioOne, I'm glad you're taking the time to give real information on Islam. This may be the first time many readers get a chance to see some of the things you're typing.

Having said that, you do realize you're dealing with a troll right? As you pointed out in one of your posts, he/she didn't even know Muslims ("those who submit to God") are simply the followers of Islam ("submission to God"). The reason I called him/her out in my first post in this thread is because he/she always finds a reason to bash Islam. Any time there's a thread on Muslims being hurt, he/she shows up justifying it. Any time there's a thread showing Muslims doing something wrong, he/she shows up using that as an excuse to bash Islam. There will always be people who intentionally try to cause division among others. And guess what? You found one. You even pointed it out yourself that he/she ignores everything that refutes his/her crap. Then he/she moves the goalpost & comes up with another dumb reason to bash Islam.

I'm not telling you to stop your debate with him/her; just reminding you of what you're dealing with. Any reader who wants to know Muslims' responses to the ridiculous OP have several pages of responses to comb through.

As for the OP: You claim to be a Christian, right? But how many days have you spent cherry picking things about Islam in order to cause negative perceptions of Islam? Why not instead spend that time making positive threads about Christianity, memorizing Christian scripture, or out performing acts of charity?

a reply to: enlightenedservant

You're right. I have things I need to do other than engage in a futile children's game. I appreciate the change in perspective. I am moving on to more enlightened threads. I appreciate you and everybody else who wasn't trolliing's input.

Thank you for snapping me out of it.

a reply to: WarminIndy

And here we go again, diverting from the OP to not answer the questions.

You diverted yourself from the OP by making claims that don't make sense, like translating Alif and Lam but not Ra and leaving out the fact that Alif Lam Mim was also written.

Acts is not a real history book, it tries to tell a story about Paul's work with the church by looking at his older letters for any details and adding in stuff to make it fit like one complete story.

a reply to: peter vlar

I appreciate your input on this thread. I myself am going to exit it as I have other things I should be doing instead of getting exasperated. Thank you for both your service and your humanistic balanced approach to the subject.

ETA: And I agree completely about the hadith. She doesn't even realize they were compiled way after the compilation of the Qur'an.

originally posted by: AudioOne
a reply to: enlightenedservant

You're right. I have things I need to do other than engage in a futile children's game. I appreciate the change in perspective. I am moving on to more enlightened threads. I appreciate you and everybody else who wasn't trolliing's input.

Thank you for snapping me out of it.

No problems. And thanks again for the insightful posts.

originally posted by: enlightenedservant

originally posted by: AudioOne
a reply to: enlightenedservant

You're right. I have things I need to do other than engage in a futile children's game. I appreciate the change in perspective. I am moving on to more enlightened threads. I appreciate you and everybody else who wasn't trolliing's input.

Thank you for snapping me out of it.

No problems. And thanks again for the insightful posts.

Aww. thank you.

Now can YOU answer the conundrums?

Let me give tell why Quran as we know it came later...it was compiled by....Uthman, who compiled it when? After Mohammed died. What did he compile it from? Hadiths.

I don't think you have much room to talk considering your prophet or whoever wrote the Quran, got too many verses from the Bible wrong. Is that a translation error on his part?

You see, if you rip off a previous text, make sure you get it right.

Surah Al-A'raf (The Heights) 7: 143. And when Musa (Moses) came at the time and place appointed by Us, and his Lord spoke to him, he said: "O my Lord! Show me (Yourself), that I may look upon You." Allah said: "You cannot see Me, but look upon the mountain if it stands still in its place then you shall see Me." So when his Lord appeared to the mountain , He made it collapse to dust, and Musa (Moses) fell down unconscious. Then when he recovered his senses he said: "Glory be to You, I turn to You in repentance and I am the first of the believers."

He made the whole mountain collapse to dust? Allegorical? If Mohammed was right, then that wasn't Allah or Moses, because here is the real story...

Exodus 19:16 And it came to pass on the third day in the morning, that there were thunders and lightnings, and a thick cloud upon the mount, and the voice of the trumpet exceeding loud; so that all the people that was in the camp trembled. 17 And Moses brought forth the people out of the camp to meet with God; and they stood at the nether part of the mount. 18 And mount Sinai was altogether on a smoke, because the Lord descended upon it in fire: and the smoke thereof ascended as the smoke of a furnace, and the whole mount quaked greatly. 19 And when the voice of the trumpet sounded long, and waxed louder and louder, Moses spake, and God answered him by a voice. 20 And the Lord came down upon mount Sinai, on the top of the mount: and the Lord called Moses up to the top of the mount; and Moses went up.

Actually, it says that ALL of Israel heard the Lord, that is why they were there. No collapsing the mountain to dust. Please, make sure when you accuse me of getting it wrong, well, who can get it right, when the Quran is completely full of error to begin with?

Can you now point to exactly which mountain Musa was on that was collapsed to dust? Please show us, I would be interested to know if you can do such a thing. It sure wasn't Mount Sinai that Moses WAS on that collapsed to dust, because Mount Sinai stands to this day.

The only other mountain he was on was in Midian, and he wasn't fasting at that time and it was before he went back to Egypt, but the Quran has it AFTER he brought Israel out because before this ayat above, it told the whole story of the snakes and Pharaoh.

So, Mount Sinai was collapsed to dust...when?

a reply to: peter vlar

TextI'm sorry, but that's a bunch of hooey in my opinion. The early church was SO divided and there were so many sects, so many varying traditions in the first 250-300 years of the church that anybody can lay claim to a any number of them and cite them as the "true church" or faith. One thing we can agree on though is the bastardization of the original message by organized religion. Especially so in the American South and Midwest.

Your opinion of course but I do not agree. In my opinion the true Christian movement was from the death of Christ Jesus as is told in the Gospels to 70 CE or shortly thereafter. Nevertheless of our differences it is futile to try to discuss theology unless we could both be somewhat on the same page and that will never happen.

A last remark is that I do not respect any ideology that promotes killing, torture, maiming or abusing any other people. A Muslim is a Muslim by choice just as a Christian is a Christian by choice and within all ideologies you will find the insane. If hate is in the heart of one against the other then harm is not far away.

LOL Seede

originally posted by: AudioOne
from www.fiqhcouncil.org...

1. The preponderance of evidence from both the Qur’an and Sunnah indicates that there is no firm ground for the claim that apostasy is in itself a mandatory fixed punishment [Hadd], namely capital punishment
2. References to early capital punishment for apostasy were not due to apostasy itself but the other capital crime [s] that was coupled with it.

First off, here in the states I know ex-Muslims, and they did not have any issue leaving the fold.

Just as with Christianity or any religion, when you have 1.6 billion followers you will get many viewpoints. Christianity not only killed apostates in the middle ages, but non-Christians as well. At least you could live as a Hindu, Christian or Jew under Islam.. In fact, Jews lived better in Jerusalem under Islam than under Christianity. Of course, Christians still kill people too, like Joesph Kony..Or the genocide of Muslims by Serbian Christians just a couple of decades ago.. So there has yet to be a religion where every one who calls themselves a believer of that religion has been pure. So yes, you finally found a real point to make on page 6 of this thread. and this is an issue Muslims are addressing, but it gets hard when you're getting bombed. Also congratulations on finally addressing the gender issue, the only other real point you finally made after pages of nonsense. Read Fatema Mernissi and other Muslim feminists who have argue for Gender equality using the hadith and the Qur'an, showing that patriarchy was cultural and not a part of original Islam... Considering Islam is 1400 years old though, they are still ahead of where Christianity was even at 1800 years.. Pakistan has had a female Prime Minister, that's more than the US has had yet... But yes, gender is an issue and it is being addressed by many Muslim thinkers and activists.. Why don't you help their voice get out to the uneducated public instead of letting everyone demonize Muslims instead? All day long on social media I see some Christians posting things like "Squish them all like a bug" "Just nuke the whole ME" "They are evil rodents that must be eradicated..." Religion of Love, yeah right.

It's about Spirit.. There are good Christians, Muslims, Hindus.. etc. . My experience through Islam has made me suffer for the hurt and destroyed in this world, I can see them all as humans. Apparently your experience of god teaches you that all Muslim are following a demon.... and you know what follows calling people demons.... You don't even know how easily you'll light a match to burn all these supposed witches.. .. .. You ever cry for the dead in Iraq? Or do you only cry for souls being lost and for the calamities of the supposed faithful? Learn to separate your own fears and cultural influences from your experience of spirituality.

I appreciate your viewpoint. How many Christians have read the Koran? Have most Christians even read the bible? Probably not. Have most Muslims read the bible? I have read both. A scripture from both:

Mathew 7:13,14 "Enter through the narrow gate. For wide is the gate and broad is the road that leads to destruction, and many enter through it. But small is the gate and narrow the road that leads to life, and only a few find it." You see, from a biblical standpoint Christianity would be very small, so what constitutes Christianity to the Muslim world, and even most Christians, is not Christian at all.

The Cow 85: Yet you it is who slay your people and turn a party from among you out of their homes, backing each other up against them unlawfully and exceeding the limits; and if they should come to you, as captives you would ransom them-- while their very turning out was unlawful for you. Do you then believe in a part of the Book and disbelieve in the other? What then is the re ward of such among you as do this but disgrace in the life of this world, and on the day of resurrection they shall be sent back to the most grievous chastisement, and Allah is not at all heedless of what you do.

I don't think most Christians understand the Koran condemns (Muslims) slaying their own people, which is what some are doing right now....

a reply to: WarminIndy

Oh stop. I answered your weak OP on page 3 of this very thread. And you've shown that you only want to create divisions in a subject you don't even understand.

Now why don't you answer my questions from above?

As for the OP: You claim to be a Christian, right? But how many days have you spent cherry picking things about Islam in order to cause negative perceptions of Islam? Why not instead spend that time making positive threads about Christianity, memorizing Christian scripture, or out performing acts of charity?

a reply to: TheChrome

I don't think most Christians understand the Koran condemns (Muslims) slaying their own people, which is what some are doing right now....

Oh, the Qur'an is even more straightforward than that on the issue.

Surat An-Nisā' (The Women) 4:93 says (Pickthall translation):

Whoso slayeth a believer of set purpose, his reward is hell for ever. Allah is wroth against him and He hath cursed him and prepared for him an awful doom.

You can see several different translations here which all say the same thing. quran.com...

The Qur'an literally says that whoever intentionally kills another believer is going to Hell! This is just one reason why we call out and oppose Wahabis, who are the main ones the West labels "Islamic extremists", "radical Islam", etc. Depending on the specific conflict, other Muslims are 75-90% of their victims. They wage war on Sunnis & Shiites alike.

a reply to: enlightenedservant

One thing that I disagree with Christendom and Islam on is hell. There is nothing in the bible that indicates a hell, it is an ancient mythological concept adopted by many religions but has no basis in the bible or true Christianity. The after life was of ancient Sumerian and Egyptian religion and was morphed into most all other faiths.

The bible indicates we as humans are a separate creation from the spirit realm, and our purpose is eternal life living on earth as a restored perfect people. That is why Jesus gave his life to redeem man from original sin, to restore us to our original status on earth. That is why the bible speaks of a resurrection. This will happen soon. We are living during the reign of the 7th and final world power listed in the bible (UK, US) which will soon be replaced by the Theocracy of God according to prophecy.

a reply to: TheChrome

Well, I won't cast judgment on that so to each their own. I know different denominations have different views on Hell, Sheol, Purgatory, Limbo, etc. But I've always wondered something so would you mind answering this?

I've heard about the Theocracy of God aka Kingdom of God on Earth before. But I always hear about it as if the antichrist has to appear first, rule, and then be defeated before the kingdom is created. I expect that different denominations will feel differently about that. But if it's true (or is widely accepted as the truth), wouldn't Christians need the antichrist to come in order to trigger the 2nd Coming?

I ask that because I always hear people refer to different "bad people" as the antichrist. But if they really believed in the 2nd Coming, I'd expect them to help the antichrist reach his power so they could hasten the 2nd Coming. That never made sense to me, that they'd try to stop the figure who they believe would eventually trigger the 2nd Coming & their Kingdom on Earth.

My own views are vastly different on this but it's something I've been curious about.

originally posted by: enlightenedservant
a reply to: TheChrome

Well, I won't cast judgment on that so to each their own. I know different denominations have different views on Hell, Sheol, Purgatory, Limbo, etc. But I've always wondered something so would you mind answering this?

I've heard about the Theocracy of God aka Kingdom of God on Earth before. But I always hear about it as if the antichrist has to appear first, rule, and then be defeated before the kingdom is created. I expect that different denominations will feel differently about that. But if it's true (or is widely accepted as the truth), wouldn't Christians need the antichrist to come in order to trigger the 2nd Coming?

I ask that because I always hear people refer to different "bad people" as the antichrist. But if they really believed in the 2nd Coming, I'd expect them to help the antichrist reach his power so they could hasten the 2nd Coming. That never made sense to me, that they'd try to stop the figure who they believe would eventually trigger the 2nd Coming & their Kingdom on Earth.

My own views are vastly different on this but it's something I've been curious about.

That is actually a brilliant question, because asking it may give you more insight into true Christianity, than those who claim Christianity know.

1 John 2:18 "Dear Children, this is the last hour; and as you have heard that the antichrist is coming, even now many antichrists have come.

In the first century was the prediction of the future corruption of (false) Christianity, and also the acknowledgement that it was already happening. Thus the reference to the antichrist above. Antichrist meaning those working in opposition to Christ.

Thinking that a particular person could trigger or hasten the coming of the kingdom is nonsense. God has a specific date, which we do not know, in which he will act decisively. However because of bible prophecy, I can safely say it will most likely be in our lifetime. He wishes everyone to understand the truth, so he is gathering people from all nations. I have friends who have endured turmoil teaching truths in Islamic nations, underground.

originally posted by: TheChrome

originally posted by: enlightenedservant
a reply to: TheChrome

Well, I won't cast judgment on that so to each their own. I know different denominations have different views on Hell, Sheol, Purgatory, Limbo, etc. But I've always wondered something so would you mind answering this?

I've heard about the Theocracy of God aka Kingdom of God on Earth before. But I always hear about it as if the antichrist has to appear first, rule, and then be defeated before the kingdom is created. I expect that different denominations will feel differently about that. But if it's true (or is widely accepted as the truth), wouldn't Christians need the antichrist to come in order to trigger the 2nd Coming?

I ask that because I always hear people refer to different "bad people" as the antichrist. But if they really believed in the 2nd Coming, I'd expect them to help the antichrist reach his power so they could hasten the 2nd Coming. That never made sense to me, that they'd try to stop the figure who they believe would eventually trigger the 2nd Coming & their Kingdom on Earth.

My own views are vastly different on this but it's something I've been curious about.

That is actually a brilliant question, because asking it may give you more insight into true Christianity, than those who claim Christianity know.

1 John 2:18 "Dear Children, this is the last hour; and as you have heard that the antichrist is coming, even now many antichrists have come.

In the first century was the prediction of the future corruption of (false) Christianity, and also the acknowledgement that it was already happening. Thus the reference to the antichrist above. Antichrist meaning those working in opposition to Christ.

Thinking that a particular person could trigger or hasten the coming of the kingdom is nonsense. God has a specific date, which we do not know, in which he will act decisively. However because of bible prophecy, I can safely say it will most likely be in our lifetime. He wishes everyone to understand the truth, so he is gathering people from all nations. I have friends who have endured turmoil teaching truths in Islamic nations, underground.

Interestingly enough, I actually agree with a lot of what you said. I don't believe in a specific Antichrist, Armilus, or Dajjal. But I do believe there are people who work against God's teachings & against His Prophets, regardless of their titles. I also don't believe humans can hasten the Day of Judgment. I believe God has a set time for it and that's that.

I was just curious because there are many different interpretations I've heard on this.