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

Originally posted by Deetermined
reply to post by logical7

 

It's all right there in Luke 24 where you pulled the fish and honeycomb verses.

Read John 20 as a back up if you like.

edit on 1-3-2013 by Deetermined because: (no reason given)

there is nothing about walking through doors in Luke 24, John 20 tells about door being closed. It is however strange that its only mentioned in John. It does create doubt that what Jesus pbuh ate is more better reported and witnessed than his dramatic entry through a closed door!!

reply to post by eight bits

In my opinion, Paul started a Gentile wing of Christianity, which survived the fall of Jerusalem and the end of Second Temple Judaism, when any Jewish Christianities would presumably have ended. So his is the variety of Christianity that we have today. Paul obviously didn't rewrite anything, since he wrote before the Gospels were written. There's nothing I know of in his seven authentic epistles that conflicts with the Gospel Jesus.

i'l put it simply, when exactly did Jesus pbuh cancel the 'actions' and preached only 'grace'?
who cancelled the laws of Moses?
He dint even met Jesus pbuh and neither learnt from disciples yet he preached not to believe anyone except him as he gets revealations from Christ through the Holy Spirit. He is claiming to be almost a prophet, so my question is, do you believe him just because he says things in the name of Christ?

Originally posted by Deetermined
reply to post by logical7

 

I will ask you a question, has worshipping Jesus pbuh ever made you feel get away from God?

Can you rephrase that question, I'm not sure I understand.

from among the trinity, whom do you pray to the most? Think about most? Talk about most?

logical7

so my question is, do you believe him just because he says things in the name of Christ?

What I believe isn't the question, and I have already described my religious beliefs. The question is whether Paul conflicted in his epistles with what the Gospels report about Jesus. That's a factual matter, with no reason why anybody's religion would have much to do with the answer.

when exactly did Jesus pbuh cancel the 'actions' and preached only 'grace'? who cancelled the laws of Moses?

Paul preached to Gentiles, who never were under the Law of Moses. Grace is a reasonable description of what righteous Gentiles might receive from God in the end of days, according to Paul's Pharisaic beliefs. Jesus is not portrayed in the Gospels as having addressed Gentile righteousness (except, interestingly, to praise the personal faith of the few Gentiles with whom he is shown dealing amicably), but the Great Commission (see end of Matthew) directed the Apostles to evangelize the Gentiles (the "Nations") after Jesus' Ascension.

He dint even met Jesus pbuh and neither learnt from disciples yet he preached not to believe anyone except him as he gets revealations from Christ through the Holy Spirit.

As another poster has pointed out, Jesus promised instruction by the Holy Spirit to the earthly church (John 14:26 and several later verses through 16: 14). I sense you doubt that Paul actually received that gift, but Paul saying that he had received such instruction doesn't conflict with what Jesus said about how things were supposed to proceed.

I note in passing that Mohammed never met Jesus, either. You don't seem to have any problem thinking that Mohammed would know a great deal about Jesus. Perhaps getting your information directly from God trumps face-to-face meetings. Just a thought.

He is claiming to be almost a prophet...

Oh, I don't think there's any "almost" about it. You think Paul isn't what he claims, and Paul's followers think your guy isn't what he claims. Trading coomplaints about inauthenticity and disbelief won't get us anywhere.

reply to post by eight bits


what i see is you counter a question with a question.
A question of paul's authority with a question of Muhammad's pbuh.
In short you are asking me why i question other people's belief when i have my own!!
Maybe you'l be more intellectually consistent when you doubt paul and Muhammad pbuh equally, so do you?
Paul did went against Jesus' pbuh explicite command to not go to gentiles, gentiles not coming under the law is paul's opinion not a factual matter.
Paul criticizing people about following other disciples and questioning their faith is a fact in his writings.
So lets start with we both being neutral and you being agnostic and not pro paul or anti muhammad or both.
If you defend a belief just because i question it then you are just working as a sounding board with no opinions of your own.
Have opinions and then we can discuss.

logical7

A question of paul's authority with a question of Muhammad's pbuh.
In short you are asking me why i question other people's belief when i have my own!!
Maybe you'l be more intellectually consistent when you doubt paul and Muhammad pbuh equally, so do you?

Your complaint was that Paul claimed to be a prophet ("almost"). There is obvious symmetry between your complaint about Paul and the complaint made about Mohammed by followers of Paul. That's an observation of fact, it has nothing to do with me personally, nor with my being "intellectually consistent."

Paul did went against Jesus' pbuh explicite command to not go to gentiles, gentiles not coming under the law is paul's opinion not a factual matter.

The question was whether Paul contradicted Jesus. Jesus did not place Gentiles under the Law. As you have pointed out, Jesus' earlier command to the Apostles-in-training wasn't spoken to Paul. Jesus had never commanded Paul not to go to Gentiles. Just as those Apostles, when they and the time ripened, were charged with the Great Commission, so, too, was Paul, he says.

Paul criticizing people about following other disciples and questioning their faith is a fact in his writings.

Quite so. Heresies and controversies have always been a feature of church history. Jesus endured pointed criticism and denunciation from Judas, and some unattributed disciple(s)'s grumbling about the doctrine on remarriage. So what?

So lets start with we both being neutral and you being agnostic and not pro paul or anti muhammad or both.

Agnosticism has to do only with how I answer the question of God. Paul and Mohammed both raised many much more specific matters than that. Meanwhile, you are an Islamic apologist, so it is probably best that you not propose yourself as a neutral. I would be delighted to think that we could discuss things as two fair-minded people, who each believe and disbelieve what we do.

If you defend a belief just because i question it then you are just working as a sounding board with no opinions of your own. Have opinions and then we can discuss.

You raised the possibility that Paul contradicted the Gospels about Jesus. I stated my belief that he did not. It seems to me that we have been discussing that difference of opinion for several posts now. Maybe your posts aren't your own opinions, but my posts are my own opinions.

reply to post by eight bits

In between, generations came and went who had much more to say about triune monotheism than Paul did in the writings we have. Nobody at Nicea thought Jesus was "just a man."

Almost everybody who attended was a Trinitarian.

Everybody understood Jesus as the messiah born of a virgin...nobody would have thought he was an ordinary man. However, there was an ongoing debate pertaining to the nature of Jesus and his relationship to the Father.... which is why the council of Nicea had to be held to reach some sort of a consensus among Christians... by vote. Its strange Christians needed a council, by vote, to reach a consensus because I was under the impression that Jesus made things clear when he was on earth.

We have Pliny's witness to Christian worship of Jesus

Your star witness, Pliny... was an outsider to Christian beliefs.
He could have easily mistaken the Christian veneration of Jesus as a form of Godly worship. Even if he indeed witnessed Christians offer Godly worship to Jesus, it doesn't change whats in the Bible and the dual meaning of the Greek word for worship.

We also have Justin Martyrs witness. Justin was NOT an outsider to Christian beliefs... and he clearly states the following in his description of Christian worship.

I will also relate the manner in which we dedicated ourselves to God when we had been made new through Christ

...are instructed to pray and to entreat God with fasting, for the remission of their sins that are past

Furthermore, we have witnesses from the Bible itself that prove Jesus was not worshiped. Go read the book of James, where all worship is directed towards God.

Mohammed and his allies eventually won the civil war, and what opponents remained to his tailored-to-Arab-taste Abrahamic doctrines, he murdered. So yes, late in his career, there came a point where he stopped tailoring his doctrines to the Arabs, and instead tailored the Arabs to his doctrines.

Mohammad brought the Abrahamic concept of One God to a culture that was given in to polytheism and idolatry.
There was no "tailoring" of anything to suit anybodys taste. Monotheism in, idolatry/polytheism out.

Speaking of "tailoring".... it was Paul who tailored the message to suit his audience. As he himself admits...
To the Jews I became like a Jew, to win the Jews. To those under the law I became like one under the law (though I myself am not under the law), so as to win those under the law. To those not having the law I became like one not having the law (though I am not free from God's law but am under Christ's law), so as to win those not having the law.

Scorpie

However, there was an ongoing debate pertaining to the nature of Jesus and his relationship to the Father.... which is why the council of Nicea had to be held to reach some sort of a consensus among Christians... by vote.

Of course they voted, there is no other way that a collective could jointly publish a literary composition, the first Nicene Creed. Arianism had already been defeated in synod, and continued despite dual condemnation for a while longer. The orthodox consensus, then, existed before, during and after Nicea. The council made no difference about that, but was part of the long intergenerational effort that eventually retired Arianism from maninstream contention.

A version of it survives today in the Jehovah's Witness church, where "Jesus" is actually the archangel Michael. As I said, you wouldn't like Arianism very much.

Your star witness, Pliny... was an outsider to Christian beliefs. He could have easily mistaken the Christian veneration of Jesus as a form of Godly worship. Even if he indeed witnessed Christians offer Godly worship to Jesus, it doesn't change whats in the Bible and the dual meaning of the Greek word for worship.

I think you've lost track of which thread you're posting in. In this thread, Pliny reports practices which you incorrectly dated as beginning two centuries later.

Save the word lawyering for your own "Just because people worship Jesus, it doesn't mean they think he's divine" thread. You could start by posting there where you think James counsels Christians against worhipping Jesus, but it is not the topic here.

Justin Martyr is a nice illustration of the state of the doctrinal evolution, as of the mid Second Century. For Justin, Jesus is the Logos, the word of God. Justin does have non-proto-orthodox features. So what? He articulates a Trinity, his Logos becomes a man, and his Jesus is the only begotten Son of God. There's nothing in Justin that corroborates a Muslim view of Jesus.

Unfortunately, we know that either Justin, his sources, or those who transmit Justin to us, are liars. Justin's "First Apology" is one source for the hijacked version of the miracle of Marcus Aurelius, faked as a Christian miracle. That caper was the subject of my thread earlier this year:

www.abovetopsecret.com...

The "First Apology" is available in English here

www.earlychristianwritings.com...

The offending material, in the form of a forged or altered afteraction report and decree from Marcus, is the last paragraph in that block.

There is nothing in what you quoted from 1 Corinthians which bears on the other poster's claim that Paul did "tailor it to the need of pagan roman customers to help the rulers rule peacefully over the masses." You are, in any case, in an odd position to complain about what Paul describes there. You promote yourself here as a former Christian when addressing Christian issues, and as a Muslim when addressing Islamic issues. There's nothing wrong with that, whether it's you or Paul doing it.

reply to post by logical7


Leave it to you to make the whole argument look weak based on a locked door instead of the obvious in Luke 24.

Luke 24

31 And their eyes were opened, and they knew him; and he vanished out of their sight.

34 Saying, The Lord is risen indeed, and hath appeared to Simon.

35 And they told what things were done in the way, and how he was known of them in breaking of bread.

36 And as they thus spake, Jesus himself stood in the midst of them, and saith unto them, Peace be unto you.

37 But they were terrified and affrighted, and supposed that they had seen a spirit.

51 And it came to pass, while he blessed them, he was parted from them, and carried up into heaven.

Originally posted by FlyersFan
Here you go ... Jesus of the Koran is not the Jesus of the Bible.

The Qu'ran was made up 600+ years after Jesus walked the earth.
The bible was written by those who knew Jesus and who studied under those who knew him.
The Qu'ran waters down the divinity of Christ .. all to make room for the human invention of Islam.
The bible is a first hand historical account of the life of Jesus.
The Qu'ran, made up 600+ years later, contradicts the historical facts of Jesus in the bible.

You muslims know all this already. You've been told these facts many times.
Guess that doesn't stop the Qu'ran thumping though ...

... too bad.

I am not sure which makes the Koran holy. The Koran was just literature from a warrior and much of the teachings were taken from the original Torah by Moses. Because of this warrior mentality the muslims have learned to hate and seperate themselves from the rest of the world by making women wear things over their faces, it is the opposite of a 'free' society, yet they claim to all come from the same lineage they can't believe in the same thing. Really that is an outstandly immature group of people, in no way can you love God and not love others.

The bible wasn't written by people who knew Jesus, maybe John and Peter wrote a couple things, but for the most part it is just a special book and a recording of a special time in history. To say that you are going to take the bible literally is something that Jesus would probably laugh at you over because he spoke in parables for the specific reason that people would have to choose which to believe out of a metaphor. So it is impossible to take metaphors literally, and when you see that other stories were written in the same context it is just close minded to say that you are not going to look into time before the bible was written, what specifics the world kept from society, and who the Father of Jesus was, you are just going tp spend thousands of years argueing over the differences between the Son of Man, the Son of God, and the Christ Savior.

So in conclusion, instead of the eyes being closed it is important to open the mind to history of all civilizations and why they recorded what they did in ancient texts. If you look at the whole picture and not just one egotistical thought you can see that there is no need to argue at all with anyone, but that strides can be taken to achieve truth.

Originally posted by Deetermined
reply to post by logical7

 

Leave it to you to make the whole argument look weak based on a locked door instead of the obvious in Luke 24.

Luke 24

31 And their eyes were opened, and they knew him; and he vanished out of their sight.

34 Saying, The Lord is risen indeed, and hath appeared to Simon.

35 And they told what things were done in the way, and how he was known of them in breaking of bread.

36 And as they thus spake, Jesus himself stood in the midst of them, and saith unto them, Peace be unto you.

37 But they were terrified and affrighted, and supposed that they had seen a spirit.

51 And it came to pass, while he blessed them, he was parted from them, and carried up into heaven.

Dee, i am not deliberately making the arguement weak
vanished, disappeared may mean what you think, but it also means simply left. He was walking with them and they dint recognise him, he must be disguised to hide from authority.
Also here
39 Look at my hands and my feet. It is I myself! Touch me and see; a ghost
does not have flesh and bones, as you
see I have.”

he says he is not a ghost but the same man with flesh and bones, they obviously thought him as ghost because they presumed him dead not because he walked through a closed door or just popped in the middle of the room.

Originally posted by greyer
To say that you are going to take the bible literally is something that Jesus would probably laugh at you

Most of the bible can't be taken literally. It's a lot of myth, legend, and stories taken from the Egyptians and Summerians and changed. HOWEVER, the gospels were written by those who knew Jesus and by those who studied under those who knew jesus ... whereas the Qu'ran is just a bunch of stories made up 600+ years after Jesus was alive. There is NO WAY the Qur'an is accurate. However, there is a good chance that the gospels are giving a more accurate picture.

Originally posted by FlyersFan
Most of the bible can't be taken literally. It's a lot of myth, legend, and stories taken from the Egyptians and Summerians and changed. HOWEVER, the gospels were written by those who knew Jesus and by those who studied under those who knew jesus ... whereas the Qu'ran is just a bunch of stories made up 600+ years after Jesus was alive. There is NO WAY the Qur'an is accurate. However, there is a good chance that the gospels are giving a more accurate picture.

I think there should be more threads to show the Muslims as a final truth and conclusion that all they are doing is neglecting to give attention to past history. It is obvious to me that this neglection has made their society become less free because they are governed by religion which actually causes a suppression of individuality.

Religion is to be taken into historical context and practiced, it is not to be a dictatorship. They have the history wrong so they are arguing about things that don't even stand.

reply to post by logical7


The best explanation for the "incorruptible bodies" that we will inherit at the time of resurrection is best explained here.

1 Corinthians 15:42-49

42 So also is the resurrection of the dead. It is sown in corruption; it is raised in incorruption:

43 It is sown in dishonour; it is raised in glory: it is sown in weakness; it is raised in power:

44 It is sown a natural body; it is raised a spiritual body. There is a natural body, and there is a spiritual body.

45 And so it is written, The first man Adam was made a living soul; the last Adam was made a quickening spirit.

46 Howbeit that was not first which is spiritual, but that which is natural; and afterward that which is spiritual.

47 The first man is of the earth, earthy; the second man is the Lord from heaven.

48 As is the earthy, such are they also that are earthy: and as is the heavenly, such are they also that are heavenly.

49 And as we have borne the image of the earthy, we shall also bear the image of the heavenly.

reply to post by greyer

he Qu'ran was made up 600+ years after Jesus walked the earth.

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

Islam is from Satan,look at it's fruits.

reply to post by colbe

Islam is from Satan,look at it's fruits.

The "fruits" of Christianty aren't something Christians should be proud of.
Remove the plank out of your own eyes first.

Originally posted by sk0rpi0n
reply to post by colbe

 

Islam is from Satan,look at it's fruits.

The "fruits" of Christianty aren't something Christians should be proud of.
Remove the plank out of your own eyes first.

edit on 4-3-2013 by sk0rpi0n because: (no reason given)

Excuse me, show one good fruit of Islam? Muslims desired to destroy the most sacred spot on earth, the
place Jesus was crucified and died. Islam's history up until this day remains the same, kill Christians.

Islam is not of God, run far from it.

The one thing that will help Muslims, at the time of the Great Warning (Rev 6:15-17), realizing their respect for Our Lord's mother was/is right, they will convert.

Mary will help them.

It is hard to believe now if you are anti-Christian and more specific anti-Catholic but remember when events from Heaven happen.

www.pelianito.stblogs.com...

Ephesians 5:6 Let no one deceive you with empty arguments, for because of these things the wrath of God is coming upon the disobedient.

“Children of my heart, what do you know? You know that all truth is to be found in Scripture as taught by my holy Church. Do not, therefore, be deceived, but distill what you hear. If at its source is not found Scripture and Tradition, discard it. I have given you the Church for your protection and the gates of hell shall not prevail against her. Will she suffer? She will follow Christ in all ways. But the Body of Christ on earth cannot cease to be the Body of Christ. The Body cannot repudiate itself. Cling to the Rock my children. Remain steadfast. There is much more to come. Do not be blown around by all manner of strange teachings, but cling to the Church. She is your safe harbor. Ask my Mother to assist you."...

reply to post by colbe

Excuse me, show one good fruit of Islam?

You have already made your mind about Islam being of the devil, in the same way Protestants have made up their minds about Catholicism being of the devil.

Through Islam, 1.5 billion people accept Jesus as the messiah... but of course, Christians dislike this fact and will deny Jesus as the messiah of the Muslims.... and thereby will turn into the very anti-Christs they warn about.

The one thing that will help Muslims, at the time of the Great Warning (Rev 6:15-17), realizing their respect for Our Lord's mother was/is right, they will convert.

Muslims pray to the God who both Jesus and Mary prayed to.