+- Forums (https://bb.islamsms.com)
+-- Forum: ENGLISH (https://bb.islamsms.com/forumdisplay.php?fid=5)
+--- Forum: Discussion of Beliefs (https://bb.islamsms.com/forumdisplay.php?fid=25)
+--- Thread: John 1 (/showthread.php?tid=6066)
John 1 - wel_mel_2 - 08-04-2009
Quote:You may have asked a question, but it is clear that there is only one answer that you are willing to hear.
Jesus is dead to you.
Jesus to me is the only alive prophet. it was you and FHC (<i>and most Christians</i>) who hold this beliefs that he died on the cross. the debate was about whether he died as a human being or as God. for you, we can't totally comprehend this dogma, for FHC and the Gospel of John, it is a fact that he died as a complete person (<i>man and God</i>).
Salam
Wael.
John 1 - Steve Consilvio - 08-04-2009
Quote:Jesus to me is the only alive prophet. it was you and FHC (<i>and most Christians</i>) who hold this beliefs that he died on the cross. the debate was about whether he died as a human being or as God. for you, we can't totally comprehend this dogma, for FHC and the Gospel of John, it is a fact that he died as a complete person (<i>man and God</i>).
Salam
Wael.
Well, that is a most interesting response.
Are you saying that the events of the crucifixion are a historical ruse, or that Jesus faked his death? As in, he appeared dead, so they buried him in the tomb.
What do you mean by the "only alive prophet?"
If I may speculate, are you saying he faked his death, never actually died, and is still alive today as a result of not having died?
John 1 - wel_mel_2 - 08-05-2009
Quote:Well, that is a most interesting response.
Are you saying that the events of the crucifixion are a historical ruse,
Historically? These are not my words. In the second and third century there were various beliefs concerning Christianity and the nature of Jesus. There were those who believed that Jesus was both divine and human, God and man, while other Christians argued that he was completely divine and not human at all. There were those who insist that Jesus was fully human and not divine. Some Christians in the 2nd and 3rd centuries believed in One God, others in 2 gods, some in 3 and some of them even believed in 365 gods. There were Christians who believed that Jesus never tasted death at all. And the list can go like for ever.
So history cannot really establish what exactly happened to him. But as far as the Qur'an is concerned, he was not killed nor Crucified, but it was made to appear to them so.
” That they said (in boast) “We killed Christ Jesus the son of Mary, the Messenger of Allah” – but they killed him not, nor crucified him, but so it was made to appear to them, and those who differ therein are full of doubts, with no (certain) knowledge , but only conjecture to follow, for of a surety they killed him not.
(Qur’an 4:157)
Quote:What do you mean by the "only alive prophet?"
If I may speculate, are you saying he faked his death, never actually died, and is still alive today as a result of not having died?
He did not fake his death simply because he did not die at all according to Islam, and till this day, he is still alive.
Salam
Wael.
John 1 - Muslimah - 08-05-2009
Bismillah
Steve, according to our belief in Islam Allah may He be Glorified Willed not for His Messenger salla Allah a`lyhee wa salam to be humiliated or mistreated, or plotted against and just let him face all of this demeaning situation. But rather Allah Granted befiting victory to His Messenger and thus His message, but not allowing Jesus blessing and peace be upon him to be put on the cross. Allah Elevated him alive to the skies, and Juta the one who plotted against him became his resembled person. That the enemies took him as Eassa (Jesus), put him on the cross, spat on him..etc.
Eassa (Jesus) blessing and peace be upon him shall descend to earth once again, which is one of the major signs of drawing near the end of this world and pefrom certain duties before he fianlly dies.
That is why Wael said the only alive prophet... I didnt elaborate on the duties because those are out of topic.
John 1 - Steve Consilvio - 08-05-2009
Well, this gets more and more interesting. Please forgo your conceptions of forum etiquette and tell me more.
It almost seems that you are saying that Muslims are Christians, in the sense that Protestants are Catholics. The root of Protestant being "protest and reform" of Catholic errors. You are suggesting protest and reform of Christianity (however defined and divided).
While I am intrigued by the main question (Did Jesus die?) it is inevitably only part of a greater arrangement.
I have many specific questions. For example, how does the Last supper and communion fit into the Koran? I was familiar that there is a lot of overlap, but I tended to think of it as being related to Abraham, etc., and Jesus was 'downgraded' to a prophet. But you are suggesting the exact opposite of how I understood it.
Of course, this all falls into the 'riddles' that Gibran was speaking about. The important thing to get right is the message, not how it arrived.
John 1 - wel_mel_2 - 08-06-2009
Bismillah: Assalamo Alikum.
Quote:how does the Last supper and communion fit into the Koran?
There is no place for the last supper and communion in Islam.
Salam
Wael.
John 1 - Steve Consilvio - 08-06-2009
Quote:Bismillah: Assalamo Alikum.
There is no place for the last supper and communion in Islam.
Salam
Wael.
The logic here being that if it isn't in the Koran, as written by Muhammad, then the event never occurred?
Using logic as a guide, isn't that using a lack of evidence as proof?
Also, is what you are saying a heretical* version of Islam? If Jesus is the only living prophet, then why is Christianity found so objectionable in certain Muslim countries?
*I realize that what is one mans heresy is another mans commonsense.
Also, what role do the apostles play? Are they not witness to what occurred?
John 1 - wel_mel_2 - 08-06-2009
Bismillah: Assalamo Alikum.
Steve
Quote:The logic here being that if it isn't in the Koran, as written by Muhammad, then the event never occurred?
Using logic as a guide, isn't that using a lack of evidence as proof?
I didn’t use logic to answer your question, you simply inquired about the last supper and communion in the Qur’an, and I provided the answer according to that source. Now I might use logic according to the Bible to prove to you that Jesus never got crucified, in which you may follow this link (Jesus & Jonah) if you wish to see my argument concerning this matter.
Quote:If Jesus is the only living prophet, then why is Christianity found so objectionable in certain Muslim countries?
Don’t judge Islam by Muslims.
Quote:Also, what role do the apostles play? Are they not witness to what occurred?
No they were not eyewitnesses according to Bible scholars also. Even the books that were written and bearing Jesus’ disciples names (Matthew, Mark, Luke and John), were in fact written by anonymous authors who never meet Jesus. Plus, none of the writers claims to be an eyewitness, and that’s why all accounts are at odd with one another in their narrations.
Another point just to think about is that all Jesus’ disciples were lower class citizen from Galilee, illiterate, and Aramaic speaking, while the authors of the gospels were highly educated and Greek speaking who lived outside Palestine. So the answer is no, Jesus’ apostles were not eyewitnesses or ear-witnesses to the happening.
Salam
Wael.
John 1 - Muslimah - 08-06-2009
Bismillah
Quote:Bismillah: Assalamo Alikum.
Don’t judge Islam by Muslims.
Salam
Wael.
Wael I think you will need to clarify this stentence, otherwise, some may take it that you might be willing to convert to Christianity.
John 1 - Steve Consilvio - 08-06-2009
Quote:Bismillah: Assalamo Alikum.
Steve
I didn’t use logic to answer your question, you simply inquired about the last supper and communion in the Qur’an, and I provided the answer according to that source. Now I might use logic according to the Bible to prove to you that Jesus never got crucified, in which you may follow this link (Jesus & Jonah) if you wish to see my argument concerning this matter.
Don’t judge Islam by Muslims.
No they were not eyewitnesses according to Bible scholars also. Even the books that were written and bearing Jesus’ disciples names (Matthew, Mark, Luke and John), were in fact written by anonymous authors who never meet Jesus. Plus, none of the writers claims to be an eyewitness, and that’s why all accounts are at odd with one another in their narrations.
Another point just to think about is that all Jesus’ disciples were lower class citizen from Galilee, illiterate, and Aramaic speaking, while the authors of the gospels were highly educated and Greek speaking who lived outside Palestine. So the answer is no, Jesus’ apostles were not eyewitnesses or ear-witnesses to the happening.
Salam
Wael.
I just said using logic, it wasn't suggesting it as your personal standard. My point being that just because something is not where you look , that doesn't mean it doesn't exist.
But, your follow up post reveals the same questionable logic. The claim is that the Bible was not written testimony of the events, according to scholars, but the scholars were not present when the written testimony was created. Their testimony is hearsay, the same as the Bible, according to your own standards.
But if we are to believe scholars, there has always been an oral tradition coexisting with a written tradition. Only the elite could write, as you mentioned. So if someone from the elite wrote down the oral tradition, it does not make it any less true. In fact, the Koran would seem to corroborate the basic outline of the events, not dispute it. Afterall, the 'unbeliever' doesn't believe anything. It isn't about the smaller details at all.
If the scholars are correct that the apostles were lowerclass illiterate, then it would make sense that their testimony was cataloged by another. Rather than refuting the Bible, it would seem to affirm it, since there are multiple corroborations of certain events.
Then there is the issue of Paul, who like Muhammed was given insight by being chosen by God. Not a terribly good witness by this standard. But if we are to accept the testimony of one, then why not the other? Paul clearly says that Jesus died for our sins. Which is not so different than the Christians who died at Paul's (then Saul) hand for believing in what Christ said. This would further reinforce the commonality, which sadly still exists today, that people will kill one another because what they believe is different from themselves.
Of course, that still doesn't include the entire scriptural tradition of the Old Testament, etc. It isn't hard to find a scholar that will say what you want to believe, human nature being what it is.
Thanks for posting the other link. It appears that you and FHC have been beating this dead horse for many years. She follows the scholars of the Catholic Church uncritically, and you follow another set of scholars uncritically. Since neither of you are thinking for yourself, clearly you two can make no progress.
I am very much interested in learning what I don't understand. Could you please explain to me what you meant by "Don't judge Islam by Muslims." Where are the fault lines as you see them? It struck me very much like FHC's complaint against Protestants. In a PM to me, she lumped King Henry and Martin Luther together as 'bad' Christians, but I see them as vastly different. Martin Luther wanted people to more closely follow the commandments, whereas King Henry wanted permission to break the commandments. Protest and reform is a double-edge sword. By a selfish and self-serving interpretation of scripture, one can become less holy and more self-righteous, whereas through an honest reading one can become more holy and more righteous.
Again, it isn't so much what is written on the paper as is what is written on our hearts. The meaning of the words is more important than their literal interpretation. God only has one message, and we are all evaluating hearsay evidence. I doubt he would tell different people different things to confuse them, rather he would tell different people different things at different times to help them according to what they needed at the time. If there are inconsistencies and rejected evidence, then it is done by us, not God, for we are failing to get the 'big picture' in focus.
Just as a scholar cannot write everything he is thinking or knows about a particular subject, why should we expect to find all the answers in one book, and none in another? Both books were written with a purpose to teach.
I have been writing for the last seven years or so, after a hiatus of about 20 years. As I said to my kids not long ago. When they write papers in school, it is so they can learn. When I write, I write to teach (and vent. lol). Of course, I also learn in the act of writing and teaching. My ideas change and evolve. My language gets tighter, etc. But it all returns to a single event: knock, and the door will be opened.
People only knock if they have unanswered questions. Those who are sure of their answers don't knock.