+- 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 - SisterJennifer - 08-06-2009
Quote:Bismillah: Assalamo Alikum.
There is no place for the last supper and communion in Islam.
Salam
Wael.
What about the story of the table spread?
I heard a scholar once discuss this incident and state that it may have been twisted around to be what the Christians are now referring to as the last supper. That idea intrigued me as much of the Surah discusses dietary laws, which are meant to be obeyed not only by Muslims, but the people of the book, but are largely neglected by Christians.
John 1 - wel_mel_2 - 08-07-2009
Bismillah: Assalamo Alikum
Quote:Bismillah
Wael I think you will need to clarify this stentence, otherwise, some may take it that you might be willing to convert to Christianity.
No sister, I just meant to say that Islam has nothing to do with what "<i>certain Muslim countries</i>" behave towards Christians or Non Muslims in general.
Salam
wael.
John 1 - wel_mel_2 - 08-07-2009
Bismillah: Assalamo Alikum.
Quote: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.
It’s like you are saying that historians can’t really establish that WWI took place between the years 1914-1918 because they were not present at that time!
What I mentioned about the Bible is not new, it is something obvious to all Bible scholars who have spent years doing nothing but studying the existing copies of the manuscripts. These facts are even known to pastors and preachers and it is taught in USA seminars and divinity schools, however very few of them who have the courage to speak out about what exactly happened and how the books of today’s Bible made it into the Canon.
Quote: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.
Part of what you said is true, but you have to remember also that some critics used to alter that which was ‘<i>true’ </i>to make it say what they want it to say; and this practice was very common in early Christianity. And so, we can’t guarantee that the text remained untouched by critics and scribes after it left the hand of the original author.
I also agree that Christianity spread through oral traditions, which was the only way to convert pagans and bring them to the one true God, and the did this through stories, telling how Jesus taught about loving one another etc, and once someone converted, he too will relate a story to others, once they join the faith, they would also tell stories, and so the whole religion was spread by word of mouth. And those who were relating stories about Jesus knew nothing about him or those who knew him. This is how Christianity found its future, year after year, decade after decade until someone started to write down these stories. so what do you expect from stories told over the years? <b>They get changed, they get lost</b>.
Quote:If the scholars are correct that the apostles were lowerclass illiterate,
It seems that you are unsure of the fact that Jesus’ apostles were illiterate and low class! The fact is that illiteracy was widespread throughout the Roman Empire at that time, even Jesus who is said to know how to read, there is no mention at all in the entire Bible that he could write, because back then, reading and writing were totally different skills. You can read ‘<i>Ancient Literacy </i>by <b>William Harris </b>for more information.
Quote: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.
Yes but those who told the stories, were not eyewitness either. So you can’t really ensure that this is what happened.
Quote: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?
We can’t accept the testimony of Paul, because many books were forged in his name.
Quote:It isn't hard to find a scholar that will say what you want to believe
But it is very easy to investigate his words and come up with your own conclusion.
Quote: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.
BTW, I believe that some of the Biblical verses are God’s words, maybe not verbally the words of God, but it mean what God wanted to say. However, other narrations and stories I regard as a fabrication.
Quote:People only knock if they have unanswered questions. Those who are sure of their answers don't knock.
Yes, like how Jesus used to ask questions to his disciples, though he knew the answers for sure, yet he kept on asking them what we consider by our standard as <i>‘silly questions’ </i>but they were not actually silly, this was his way to teach them, to make them reflect over what he wanted to say.
Salam
Wael.
John 1 - Steve Consilvio - 08-07-2009
Quote:Bismillah: Assalamo Alikum
No sister, I just meant to say that Islam has nothing to do with what "<i>certain Muslim countries</i>" behave towards Christians or Non Muslims in general.
Salam
wael.
That doesn't answer my question, however. What is the definition of Islam and Muslim, and how do they differ?
For example, I always took the word Jew to refer to the religion, but some people see it as an ethnic term, like being white, black or Italian. In other words, they used a secularized definition, not a religious definition. Are you suggesting the same thing, although with two different words?
Back to the greater topic of dying, how are Paul's writings explained away? Particularly 1 Corinthians 15
Quote:For what I received I passed on to you as of first importance[a]: that Christ died for our sins according to the Scriptures, 4that he was buried, that he was raised on the third day according to the Scriptures, 5and that he appeared to Peter, and then to the Twelve. 6After that, he appeared to more than five hundred of the brothers at the same time, most of whom are still living, though some have fallen asleep. 7Then he appeared to James, then to all the apostles, 8and last of all he appeared to me also, as to one abnormally born.
Since Muhammad confirms the existence of Christ, and Christ is obviously of some importance, especially as "the only living prophet" it seems intellectually weird to dismiss the only evidence of his existence, or to dismiss parts of the testimony of those who were much closer to the event than ourselves. Why not just dismiss all of it?
Anyway, I am grateful for this understanding. Can you tell me where in the Koran to read the passages that make these claims regarding switching places with Judas?
John 1 - wel_mel_2 - 08-07-2009
Bismillah: Assalamo Alikum.
<b>Steve</b>
Quote:That doesn't answer my question,
Then maybe I misunderstood your question, if you don’t mind please rephrase it. Thanks
Quote:What is the definition of Islam and Muslim, and how do they differ?
Islam is the rule, the order the religion in the sight of God.
Muslim is he who follow that religion, however a Muslim who does not follow that rule and order, is not necessarily a good Muslim, its like a father who has children and don’t fulfill his responsibilities as a father, he is a father, but neglecting his duties makes him not good father.
Quote:Since Muhammad confirms the existence of Christ, and Christ is obviously of some importance, especially as "the only living prophet" it seems intellectually weird to dismiss the only evidence of his existence, or to dismiss parts of the testimony of those who were much closer to the event than ourselves. Why not just dismiss all of it?
What is this evidence of his existence?
As I said earlier, there was no eyewitness to the happening, even the Bible confirmed this fact, that at the most critical moment of Jesus’ life, <i>all</i> his disciples forsook him and fled.
Salam
Wael.
John 1 - Steve Consilvio - 08-07-2009
Is it fair to say there are those who read the scripture, go to their place of worship, pray, and still lead a faulty life? Not in the generic sense of being a sinner, but turn the scripture on its head in how they interpret it?
For example, the Commandments say "do not kill.' This becomes reinterpreted to 'do not kill until you see the whites of their eyes' (The battlecry of the American Revolution at Bunker Hill.) While the Minutemen did not claim to be speaking about religion, they were encouraged by religious leaders to overthrow the King. Which gets back to my point: The most educated and scholarly are fully capable of turning the message completely on its head, even though they themselves are leaders occupying a role of prominence.
Is it fair to say that this human error is not limited to any particular religion or denomination? While Christianity has a hierarchical schism with the Pope, don't all religions have the same schisms, and each schism has its favored scholars that reinforce their interpretation?
You wrote
Quote:But it is very easy to investigate his words and come up with your own conclusion.
Aren't we then back to where we began, placing limits on God.
For example, earlier you objected to the Holy Spirit, but Jesus describes the Holy Spirit, as does the Koran:
Quote:171 O People of the Scripture! Do not exaggerate in your religion nor utter aught concerning Allah save the truth. The Messiah, Jesus son of Mary, was only a messenger of Allah, and His word which He conveyed unto Mary, and a spirit from Him. So believe in Allah and His messengers, and say not "Three" - Cease! (it is) better for you! - Allah is only One God. Far is it removed from His Transcendent Majesty that He should have a son. His is all that is in the heavens and all that is in the earth. And Allah is sufficient as Defender.
Quote:When Allah saith: O Jesus, son of Mary! Remember My favour unto thee and unto thy mother; how I strengthened thee with the holy Spirit,
There is a world of difference between saying the Spirit and the trinity doesn't exist, and saying that people should pray to God, not the trinity.
Doesn't it seem odd (it does to me) that a religion that prays five times a day based around a great many minute details, should object to how others pray? The 'traditions' of all religions are embellished with habits that are not scripturally sound. The worst offense, of course, being that we pray separately. We have churches across the street from synagogues across the street from mosques and multitudes of each in the same town, if not on the same street. We all seem willing to tolerate our own bigotry, are we not?
Christ's complaint was that the Pharisees were not on track. Muhammad in the quote above suggests the Christians are off track. Luther suggested that the Pope was off track. It would seem that everybody is sure they are on the right track.
If the truth is so obvious, then why is it so hard to see, for everyone? What makes knowledge superior to understanding? It seems to me that the scholars have the same potential to mislead everyone as they do to lead them.
My point being that I am more interested in your opinion than what scholars say. They are a dime a dozen. As you said, we can decide for ourselves. Our relationship to God is through one another.
John 1 - Muslimah - 08-07-2009
Bismillah
Quote:What about the story of the table spread?
I heard a scholar once discuss this incident and state that it may have been twisted around to be what the Christians are now referring to as the last supper. That idea intrigued me as much of the Surah discusses dietary laws, which are meant to be obeyed not only by Muslims, but the people of the book, but are largely neglected by Christians.
Jazaki Allah khairan Jennifer, I was about to introduce this point and Alhamdulelah that you did cover it. If u like, you may bring in the tafseer..Just an idea :ph34r:
John 1 - Steve Consilvio - 08-11-2009
Quote:But as far as the Qur'an is concerned, he was not killed nor Crucified, but it was made to appear to them so.
<i></i>
150. Those who deny God and His apostles, and (those who) wish to separate God from His apostles, saying: "We believe in some but reject others": And (those who) wish to take a course midway,-
151. They are in truth (equally) unbelievers; and we have prepared for unbelievers a humiliating punishment.
152. To those who believe in God and His apostles and make no distinction between any of the apostles, we shall soon give their (due) rewards: for God is Oft- forgiving, Most Merciful.
I am in the process of reading the Koran. It is very interesting, with a tremendous amount of overlap, and some of the same confusing language surrounding specific issues. It seems clear, thus far, however, that the Koran is not meant to replace the Bible, but to continue it, just as we are continuing this conversation.
<i>157. That they said (in boast), "We killed Christ Jesus the son of Mary, the Apostle of God";- 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) know ledge, but only conjecture to follow, for of a surety they killed him not:-</i>
This line is describing the boasts of the unbelievers, who were unaware of the resurrection, as well as many other things. It is not a 'scientific' claim that Christ was not crucified.
<i>158. Nay, God raised him up unto Himself; and God is Exalted in Power, Wise;-</i>
This does not contradict the New Testament, and nor does it say when he was 'raised up' nor the condition of Jesus. He could be raised from the tomb, raised from the cross, or raised before being put on the cross, but logically, one is raised after 'appearing' to be put down, which is what his persecutors believed. I humbly suggest that my interpretation is consistent with the previous passages, and consistent with the New Testament, too. As 152 suggests, there should be no discrepancy between accepting one apostle and not another.
I have much more to read, but I thought I would share that.
John 1 - wel_mel_2 - 08-12-2009
Bismillah: Assalamo Alikum.
<b>Steve</b>
Quote:however, that the Koran is not meant to replace the Bible, but to continue it, just as we are continuing this conversation.
The Qur’an is a continuation of "the revealed previous scriptures", and not what you call today ‘<i>the Bible</i>’.
Quote:157. That they said (in boast), "We killed Christ Jesus the son of Mary, the Apostle of God";- 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) know ledge, but only conjecture to follow, for of a surety they killed him not:-
This line is describing the boasts of the unbelievers, who were unaware of the resurrection, as well as many other things. It is not a 'scientific' claim that Christ was not crucified.
No, it was talking about the unbelievers who were unaware of the fact that Jesus <b>did not die nor crucified</b>, the Qur’an is unambiguous about this fact, ‘<b>for of a surety, they killed him not</b>’ no interpretation needed.
Quote:158. Nay, God raised him up unto Himself; and God is Exalted in Power, Wise;-
This does not contradict the New Testament, and nor does it say when he was 'raised up' nor the condition of Jesus. He could be raised from the tomb, raised from the cross, or raised before being put on the cross, but logically, one is raised after 'appearing' to be put down, which is what his persecutors believed.
That’s because the Qur’an (<i>unlike the Bible</i>) is not a story book, it tells you what happened, without unnecessary details. Your interpretations that ‘<i>he could be raised from the tomb, or from the cross</i>’ does not make any sense, since the Qur’an clearly states that he did not die (<i>so he was not placed in a tomb</i>) and was not crucified (<i>was not put on the cross</i>), and so your third guess is more accurate, that he was raised right before they put him on the cross.
Salam
Wael.
John 1 - Steve Consilvio - 08-12-2009
The Qur’an says that they boasted that they killed him, but he was not dead. For them to boast, something must have occurred for them to think Christ was dead. There is no discussion here of switched bodies, etc. The text is plain. They were celebrating a victory, without realizing that they had lost, and that it was all a part of the plan. (Lots of testimony to that effect.)
Whether or not the Bible is a 'story' as compared to the commentary in the Qur’an, one does not supersede the other, according to the Qur’an itself.
The details you claim do not exist. Perhaps in a different chapter, but not here. "Jesus did not die, nor crucified, as they had believed they had succeeded," is how it reads. It is a description of their boasts, not of the event.