How is Islam similar to Christianity and Judaism?

westmidlands

858

Sister

481

#1 [Permalink] Posted on 11th October 2011 22:07

How is Islam similar to Christianity and Judaism?

Judaism Christianity, and Islam, in contrast to Hinduism and Buddhism, are all monotheistic faiths that worship the God of Adam, Abraham, and Moses-creator, sustainer, and lord of the universe. They share a common belief in the oneness of God (monotheism), sacred history (history as the theater of God's activity and the encounter of God and humankind), prophets and divine revelation, angels, and Satan. All stress moral responsibility and accountability, Judgment Day, and eternal reward and punishment.

All three faiths emphasize their special covenant with God, for Judaism through Moses, Christianity through Jesus, and Islam through Muhammad. Christianity accepts God's covenant with and revelation to the Jews but traditionally has seen itself as superseding Judaism with the coming of Jesus. Thus Christianity speaks of its new covenant and New Testament. So, too, Islam and Muslims recognize Judaism and Christianity: their biblical prophets (among them Adam, Abraham, Moses, and Jesus) and their revelations (the Torah and the New Testament, or Message of Jesus). Muslim respect for all the biblical prophets is reflected in the custom of saying "Peace and blessings be upon him" after naming any of the prophets and in the common usage of the names Ibrahim (Abraham), Musa (Moses), Daoud (David), Sulayman (Solomon), and Issa (Jesus) for Muslims. In addition, Islam makes frequent reference to Jesus and to the Virgin Mary, who is cited more times in the Quran than in the New Testament.

However, Muslims believe that Islam supersedes Judaism and Christianity-that the Quran is the final and complete word of God and that Muhammad is the last of the prophets. In contrast to Christianity, which accepts much of the Hebrew Bible, Muslims believe that what is written in the Old and New Testaments is a corrupted version of the original revelation to Moses and Jesus. Moreover, Christianity's development of "new" dogmas such as the belief that Jesus is the Son of God and the doctrines of redemption and atonement is seen as admixing God's revelation with human fabrication.

Peace is central to all three faiths. This is reflected historically in their use of similar greetings meaning "peace be upon you": shalom aleichem in Judaism, pax vobiscum in Christianity, and salaam alaikum in Islam. Often, however, the greeting of peace has been meant primarily for members of one's own faith community.

Leaders of each religion, from Joshua and King David to Constantine and Richard the Lion-Hearted to Muhammad and Saladin, have engaged in holy wars to spread or defend their communities or empires. The joining of faith and politics continues to exist in modern times, though manifested in differing ways, as seen in Northern Ireland, South Africa, America, Israel, and the Middle East.

Islam is similar to Judaism in its emphasis on practice rather than belief, on law rather than dogma. The primary religious discipline in Judaism and Islam has been religious law; for Christianity it has been theology. Historically, in Judaism and Islam the major debates and disagreements have been among scholars of religious law over matters of religious practice, whereas in Christianity the early disputes and cleavages in the community were over theological beliefs: the nature of the Trinity or the relationship of Jesus' human and divine natures.

How do Muslims view Judaism? Christianity?

Both Jews and Christians hold a special status within Islam because of the Muslim belief that God revealed His will through His prophets, including Abraham, Moses, and Jesus.

Say, We believe in God, and in what has been revealed to us, and in what has been sent down to Abraham and Ismail and Isaac and Jacob and their offspring, and what has been revealed to Moses and Jesus and to all the prophets of our Lord. We make no distinction between them and we submit to Him and obey. (Quran 3:84)

The Quran and Islam regard Jews and Christians as children of Abraham and refer to them as "People of the Book," since all three monotheistic faiths descend from the same patrilineage of Abraham. Jews and Christians trace themselves back to Abraham and his wife Sarah; Muslims, to Abraham and his servant Hagar. Muslims believe that God sent his revelation (Torah) first to the Jews through the prophet Moses and then to Christians through the prophet Jesus. They recognize many of the biblical prophets, in particular Moses and Jesus, and those are common Muslim names. Another common Muslim name is Mary. In fact, the Virgin Mary's name occurs more times in the Quran than in the New Testament; Muslims also believe in the virgin birth of Jesus. However, they believe that over time the original revelations to Moses and Jesus became corrupted. The Old Testament is seen as a mixture of God's revelation and human fabrication. The same is true for the New Testament and what Muslims see as Christianity's development of "new" and erroneous doctrines such as that Jesus is the Son of God and that Jesus' death redeemed and atoned for humankind's original sin.

report post quote code quick quote reply

No post ratings

O my Rabb (Cherisher and Sustainer)! Bestow wisdom on me, and join me with the righteous; grant me honorable mention on the tongue of truth among the latest (generations); make me one of the inheritors of the Garden of Bliss.�
(Qur��n 2683-84)

#2 [Permalink] Posted on 14th October 2011 13:37

This is a balanced analysis of the similarities but some of the distinctions made between Islam and Christianity need a bit more elucidation. The Christian belief in Jesus as the Son of God (in the synoptic Gospels), the Word of God incarnate (in the Gospel according to John), redemption and atonement (especially in the epistles of Paul) were developed in the New Testament, not after the New Testament period.

The holy wars waged by Christian leaders were (and are) a fundamental denial of the life and teaching of Jesus who consistently rejected the use of physical violence against others to achieve his goals. Jesus chose to suffer violence against himself; to sacrifice himself for the sins of others; and to invite followers who would walk his path of peace, self-sacrifice and forgiveness.

You are quite correct when you point out the historical Christian concern with theology as compared to law. However, the other important factor is the Christian concept of grace. While ethics and behaviour do figure in Christianity, they are subordinated to grace: the belief that no amount of human effort can make a person good enough to earn God's favour. The Christian is put into a right relationship with God, not by what he or she does but by what Jesus has already done on their behalf through his sacrificial death in their place and his resurrection. The Christian appropriates the perfect righteousness of Jesus by believing and trusting in him. This, of course, should impact on their behaviour. For example, they love others because they know that they are loved by God; they forgive others because, through Jesus, God has forgiven them.

report post quote code quick quote reply

+0 -1Dislike x 1

London

27,566

Brother

9,601

#3 [Permalink] Posted on 14th October 2011 14:19

"Anonymous" wrote:

The Christian appropriates the perfect righteousness of Jesus by believing and trusting in him. This, of course, should impact on their behaviour. For example, they love others because they know that they are loved by God; they forgive others because, through Jesus, God has forgiven them.

Do they really believe in Jesus (Peace be Upon Him). Do they Really trust him?

Why reject his words then? Why reject what many are over looking?

Youtube Video

report post quote code quick quote reply

No post ratings

Actions are judged by intentions, so each man will have what he intended.
ابو محمد

#4 [Permalink] Posted on 14th October 2011 15:37

Quote:

"Anonymous" wrote:The Christian appropriates the perfect righteousness of Jesus by believing and trusting in him. This, of course, should impact on their behaviour. For example, they love others because they know that they are loved by God; they forgive others because, through Jesus, God has forgiven them.

Do they really believe in Jesus (Peace be Upon Him). Do they Really trust him?

Why reject his words then? Why reject what many are over looking?

Fair questions Abu Mohammed.

Many people who consider themselves to be Christian believe in Jesus as a historical figure but do not really believe in Jesus in the sense of putting their faith in him and trusting him with their lives in this world and the next. Some are also poorly informed about the life and teaching of Jesus.

However, this is not a uniquely Christian problem but a universal human one. You will know yourself that many people who claim to be Moslem do not live their lives in conformity with the teachings of the Quran and many are also ill informed.

I guess one of the subtle differences between Islam and Christianity is that Moslems (at least in theory)really are the people of the book. Correct me if I'm wrong about Moslems, but the Quran really appears to be at the centre of Islam. Christians, on the other hand (at least in theory) place Jesus (the incarnate Word of God) at the centre. They are following a person rather than a book. The Bible, while important as the written Word of God, has a different status in Christianity to that of the Quran in Islam.

On the Video - all the quotations from the Gospel of John are unambiguously about Jesus promising the Holy Spirit to his followers. This is easy to check for yourself by reading those sections of the Gospel of John in which the quotations appear.

Dr Lazarus

report post quote code quick quote reply

No post ratings

London

27,566

Brother

9,601

#5 [Permalink] Posted on 14th October 2011 15:50

"Anonymous" wrote:

Christians, on the other hand (at least in theory) place Jesus (the incarnate Word of God) at the centre. They are following a person rather than a book. The Bible, while important as the written Word of God, has a different status in Christianity to that of the Quran in Islam. Dr Lazarus

http://www.muftisays.com/forums/articles-stories-more/5670/the-way-of-prophet-jesus-%28-isa-peace-be-upon-him%29.html?p=27421#27421

Please feel free to comment.

report post quote code quick quote reply

No post ratings

Actions are judged by intentions, so each man will have what he intended.
ابو محمد

Unspecified

811

Brother

1,555

#6 [Permalink] Posted on 14th October 2011 20:06

Quote:

I guess one of the subtle differences between Islam and Christianity is that Moslems (at least in theory)really are the people of the book. Correct me if I'm wrong about Moslems, but the Quran really appears to be at the centre of Islam. Christians, on the other hand (at least in theory) place Jesus (the incarnate Word of God) at the centre. They are following a person rather than a book. The Bible, while important as the written Word of God, has a different status in Christianity to that of the Quran in Islam.

I had never thought of it like that but you're so right.

If the eternal struggle of both Islam and Christianity is devotion to God then surely the God's own word is like a direct path compared to the messenger of God through whom the word came.

Because, Jesus (pbuh) called the people to God through God's word as did the prophet Muhammad (pbuh) through the word of God.

Islam has kept the source to be the Word of God, the means to be Muhammad (pbuh) and the objective the Lord.

Christianity changed somewhere down the line where the source became Jesus (pbuh), the Bible the means and objective Jesus again. Can the above guest let me know if I'm wrong here as this is my own understanding

report post quote code quick quote reply

+3 -0Like x 3

Stuck fast to the truth

BOYCOTT IzraHell | InMinds

#7 [Permalink] Posted on 15th October 2011 20:06

Thanks for the invitation Abu Mohammed although I am not sure if I am commenting on what you believe or on the beliefs of another. I do not consider myself competent to comment on Islam and the Quran but happy to do so on Christianity and the Bible.

The post begins by asserting: The following are some examples of teachings which Prophet Jesus ('alayhis-salaam) followed and taught, but which were later abandoned by the Church.

These teachings are listed as circumcision, pork, blood, alcohol, ablution before prayer, prostration in prayer, veiling, greetings, fasting, interest and polygamy.

The post is partly true and partly false. Jesus did have something to say about ablutions, greetings, fasting and marriage. He taught nothing (that is recorded in the four Gospels) about circumcision, pork, blood, alcohol, prostration in prayer, veiling or interest.

Circumcision was the sign and seal of the Abrahamic covenant with God. Jesus, who was born a Jew was, as all Jewish boys were (and are), circumcised but he had nothing to say on the subject. Paul did not believe that physical circumcision achieved anything for Christians, especially gentile Christians. He, like Jesus, was more concerned with the transformation of the person by God from the inside rather than outward conformity to religious regulations. In fact it was Peter, not Paul, who first made the argument against circumcision for the gentiles (see Acts 15:1-10).

Pork was a food forbidden to the Jewish people under their Levitical food laws. Jesus had nothing to say on the subject in the Gospels, and the food taboos were rescinded as a result of the vision God gave to Peter (see Acts 10:9-23). Jesus, when talking about religious taboos and customs to the religious leaders (the Pharisees) of his day said: "Nothing outside a man can make him unclean by going in to him. Rather it is what comes out of a man that makes him unclean" (Mark 7:15). Jesus taught that what goes into the stomach does not defile a person but the behaviour that comes from the heart (from the centre of the human will) often does (see Mark 7:17-23).

Blood was also forbidden to the Jewish people under their food laws. Jesus had nothing to say on the subject. The early Church originally comprised of only Jewish people who had become followers of Jesus. As more and more gentiles were converted to Christ these earliest Jewish followers of Jesus (Apostles and Disciples) asked the gentile Christians "to abstain from food polluted by idols (i.e. offered to idols), from sexual immorality, from the meat of strangled animals and from blood" (Acts 15:19-21). Again, Jesus lays down the principle in Mark 7 that the outward conformity to religious food taboos has nothing to do with being clean or unclean. What makes us unclean is our inner motives and the behaviour that results from those motives.

Jesus drank wine, which by its very nature contains alcohol. Jesus was not a Nazarite (a person who takes a vow that included abstaining from alcohol) but a Nazarene (i.e. a person from Nazareth). His parables include references to wine with no hint of prohibition (see, for example, Matthew 9:17, 21:33) and at the Last Supper gave wine to his Disciples as a symbol and reminder of his blood.

The Old Testament reference used in the post for ablution before prayer (Exodus 40) is about the Jewish Priests washing in the tent of meeting that preceded the building of the Temple of Solomon in Jerusalem. It is not about the everyday practices of Judaism. Jesus probably followed the washing customs of his time and culture but is silent on the subject. However, he was criticised by the religious leaders of his day for not insisting that his Disciples wash their hands before eating (Mark 7:1ff). On another occasion he washed his Disciples feet as an example of the love and service we should render to each other (John 13:5ff).

Jesus says nothing about prostration in prayer. Prostration was one of the positions used for prayer by the Jews. They also prayed standing with arms raised (the orans position). Jesus certainly prostrated himself in prayer when agonising with his Heavenly Father shortly before giving himself up to die for the sins of the world (Matthew 26). Although he taught nothing about prayer posture, he did teach his disciples how to pray: addressing God a Father; asking that God's will may be done on earth; asking for forgiveness and forgiving others; etc. (see Like 11:1-4).

Jesus taught nothing about veiling. However, it was customary for Jewish women to have their heads (but rarely their faces) covered in his day. I do find it strange that the author of the article should quote Paul in support of his argument on veiling when he has already tried to discredit Paul in the section on circumcision. He really can't have it both ways!

Jesus did indeed greet his followers with words of peace. He also gave them the gift of his peace (unity and concord) - peace with God and peace with other people. He taught the 72 of his Disciples that he sent out ahead of him: "When you enter a house, first say, 'Peace to this house.'" (Luke 10:5f). In many Christian services of worship, those present share the peace of the Lord Jesus Christ with each other.

Jesus taught his Disciples to fast but not as a religious obligation and never as an outward show. For the Christian, fasting is a secret thing between him/herself and God (see Matthew 6:16-18). It is often undertaken when spiritual warfare needs to be engaged in (see Matthew 17:21 and Mark 9:29).

Jesus taught nothing about interest, although it does figure incidentally in one of his parables. However, Jesus did teach about loving your neighbour as yourself. His teaching about loving others was very radical. For example in Luke 6 he says: "love your enemies, do good to them, and lend to them without expecting to get anything back" (Luke 6:35). That is a much more radical approach that either the Western secular or Islamic banking systems!

Jesus lived in a monogamous society and culture. He said nothing about polygamy. However, he did teach about marriage and divorce and the context in which he taught was monogamy not polygamy (Matthew 5:32 and Mark 10:7. See also Mark 10:9). The New Testament does set monogamy as the standard for Christian leaders (1 Timothy 3:12).

So why do Christians demonstrate little or no interest in many of these topics that seem to be so important to Islam? The simple answer, is because Jesus showed little or no interest in them. Most are not addressed by his teaching. The matters that engage Christians, not surprisingly, are those that Jesus taught about. At the centre of Jesus' life and teaching is not a set of religious rules but Good News (this is what the word Gospel means). Good News that God's rule (the Kingdom of God or Kingdom of Heaven - see, for example, Mark 1:14-15) is breaking into our world. This is not something brought about by human effort but is a gift from God that we are asked to accept (see Mark 10:14-15). Jesus' healings of physical illness and demonic oppression demonstrated this breaking in of God's rule over the forces that oppressed people. Jesus taught that the kingly rule of God is among us now and is demonstrated whenever God's will is done on earth, and will be fully revealed at the end of time.

So what is God's will now? According to Jesus it is not about the kind of things your post lists. It is about knowing we are loved by God and, in turn, loving God with all our being. It is about repentance: turning from our old way of life and believing the Good News about God. Not about making more human effort to be good but about trusting God more with our lives. It is about loving, not only our neighbour but also our enemy. About forgiving others as God has forgiven us. About sacrificial service to others as Jesus served us and sacrificed himself for us (Mark 10:41-45).

The Christian is called by Jesus to follow him, not to follow a set of rules. Certainly we are encouraged to follow his example but the example that Jesus set often broke the religious rules of his day (see some of my previous examples, and there are many other examples) because he was motivated by two much greater commands: to love God and to love ones neighbour (Mark 12:28ff)

Jesus ultimate act of loving his Heavenly Father and loving us was to sacrifice himself for us.

So Christians are called by Jesus, not to trust in what we do but to trust in what Jesus did for us by dying in our place (for our sin). We are called not to dominate others but to serve them in love. Because the crucifixion of Jesus was not the end but was followed by his resurrection we also have hope for the future. Following his departure to heaven Jesus sent the Holy Spirit to empower his followers to have a relationship with God as Father; to experience the life of Jesus within them; and to be guided in a life of love, forgiveness and humble service.

I hope you find some of this helpful in understanding what Jesus taught.

Dr Lazarus

report post quote code quick quote reply

No post ratings

#8 [Permalink] Posted on 15th October 2011 21:20

I'll do my best Super-Glue (great name BTW).

If by "devotion to God" you mean loving God, then I agree. Christians would also agree that God's Word is indeed a direct path to God. However, the Christian understanding of the Word of God is that Jesus is the Word of God incarnate: the Word of God in flesh; the Word of God in human history; the Word of God in time and space. While the Bible is also considered to be the Word of God, it is so in a secondary sense. So the written Word reveals the Living Word.

Jesus is believed by Christians (on the basis of the Bible and in particular the New Testament) to be more than just the messenger of God. He is the Messiah (the Christ); the Son of God; the visible immage of the invisible God; the Saviour of the world.

Now you use three terms; source, means and objective. I am not clear exactly how you are using these words so if I have misunderstood you, please let me know.

If by source you are referring to the source of our knowledge about God, then Christians would have a number of sources. God's creation (the book of nature which we have in common with all humanity); the written text of the Torah or Old Testament (God's revelation of himself in salvation history, which we have in common with the Jews); Jesus (God uniquely revealed in flesh); the testimony of those who saw and heard Jesus both before his death and after his resurrection recorded in the four Gospels; and the rest of the New Testament (the Letters and book of Revelation). Christians believe that Jesus revealed the nature and purpose of God in relation to human-kind in the most complete way.

If by means you mean the the person who was used by God to reveal his nature and purpose, then for Christians the means is also Jesus. Christians also believe that Jesus is the Way to the Father; that they are reconciled to God by Jesus death in their place (for their sin).

If by objective you mean that to which both the source and means (as defined above) direct us then the Christian answer is God. God understood not only as the source of all being and life and consciousness but God also understood as loving Father, as incarnate in Jesus and as with and within those that believe and trust in him as the Holy Spirit.

Dr Lazarus

report post quote code quick quote reply

No post ratings

#9 [Permalink] Posted on 16th October 2011 10:32

muslims will enter jannah eventually however jews and christians will never enter it if they know about the true religion islam christians and jews commit shirk while muslims do not on the topic of shirk a brother on this website wrote this "I see you have Ilmul-Ghayb too. I thought only Allah knew what's in a heart. Think!" is this shirk? because only allah has knowledge of the unseen and too say that a human being has knowledge of the unseen is attributing one of the qualities of allah to a human being and commiting shirk is worse than being a salafi im not saying it is shirk im only asking a question
and i think if someone does kufr or shirk then he is an apostate and he should be punished.

report post quote code quick quote reply

No post ratings

London

27,566

Brother

9,601

#10 [Permalink] Posted on 21st October 2011 16:29

Sorry Doctor, I was a bit tied up with other issues. However please take a look at these too:

www.muftisays.com/forums/articles-stories-more/6224/if-je...

www.muftisays.com/forums/articles-stories-more/6225/what-...

www.muftisays.com/forums/articles-stories-more/6226/the-t...

Some exellent posts by Sister-in-Islam.

report post quote code quick quote reply

No post ratings

Actions are judged by intentions, so each man will have what he intended.
ابو محمد

#11 [Permalink] Posted on 24th October 2011 22:36

Hi Abu Mohammed. I too have been buisy with other things so I'm just getting to this now.

Comments on Sister-in-Islam's post, If Jesus was God ...

I have re-quoted many of the texts used by Sister-in-Islam and also used many of the same references that she has used. I have so far only addressed the first part of her post that deals with the If Jesus was God question. I'll get to the second part and the other posts when I have time.

The fundamental question seems to be why did Jesus talk about One God, who was greater than him, on whom he was dependent, and to whom he prayed? Part of that question is also about Jesus' limitations, including his limited knowledge of the future. The short answer is because Jesus was a man: a human being who in many respects was just like us.

Jesus taught that there is only one true and living God. (In Mark 12:29 Jesus said "Here, O Israel: The Lord our God is one Lord."). As a man, part of God's creation and one of God's physical creatures, he addressed that one true and living God as "my God and your God". The God of the Christian and the God of Jesus are indeed the same and since there is only one true and living God, he is the God of all humanity and of all creation (whether recognised or not).

Jesus also addressed God as his Father and even used the more intimate term Abba (daddy - Matthew 14:36). (John 14:28 Jesus said "My Father (GOD) is greater than I" and in Luke 23:46 Jesus said "Father (GOD), "into thy hands I commend my spirit". He was constantly communicating with God his Father in prayer (Luke 5:16; Matthew 26:39)

Jesus, as a man, experienced the limitations that we experience as human beings. Among them, hunger, thirst, temptation, finite knowledge, anguish, suffering and even death. (Matthew 24:36; Matthew 26:39)

Jesus, as a human being like us, was nevertheless different from us in a number of ways. One of these profound differences is clear in the texts quoted by Sister-in-Islam: Jesus was totally dependent on God and was aware of this total dependency in a way that we are not. (John 8:28 Jesus said "I do nothing of myself"; John 5:30; John 5:31; John 5:36-38). Most human beings believe themselves to be, to a greater or lesser extent, autonomous: free to make whatever decisions they chose. This may involve choosing to obey God or choosing to sin against God, themselves, other human beings or other parts of God's creation. Jesus consistently chose to do the will of his Heavenly Father, even when tempted to do otherwise. He was totally dependent.

Sister-in-Islam asks, If Jesus was GOD, then why in John 5:32 Jesus told his followers that they have never seen GOD at anytime nor ever heard his voice? This is not the correct reference, the quotation is actually from John 5:37, but if you read the context, from verses 31 to 47, you will seen that Jesus is not talking to his followers but telling those who do not believe in his testimony "that the Father has sent me" (v36) that they "have never heard his (God's) voice nor seen his form (v37), nor does the his word dwell in you, for you do not believe the one he sent" (v38) ... you refuse to come to me to have life" (v40).

The question, however is not as simple as, "Was Jesus God or man; human or divine? It is not an ether-or question. That he was a man and human is clear (unless one is a Gnostic!) But what else was Jesus? To say that Jesus was a man, a human being is true but not the whole truth. If Jesus was just a man (or just a prophet) why did he call God his Father (see the texts from John quoted by Sister-in-Islam), and why ...

... did God call him his Son?

... a voice from heaven said, "This is my Son, whom I love; with him I am well pleased" (Matthew 3:17).
...a bright cloud enveloped them, and a voice from the cloud said, "This is my Son, whom I love; with him I am well pleased. Listen to Him! (Matthew 17:5)

Why did Jesus call himself God's Son?

They all asked, "Are you then the Son of God?" He replied, "You are right in saying I am." (Luke 22:70)
For God so loved the world that he gave his one and only Son, that whoever believes in him shall not perish but have eternal life (John 3:16. See also verses 17-18)
Why ... do you accuse me of blasphemy because I said, "I am God's Son." (John 10:36)

Why did the angel Gabriel call him God's Son?

...the holy one to be born will be called the Son of God (Luke 1:35)

Why did John the Baptist call him God's Son?

I have seen and I testify that this is the Son of God (John 1:34)

Why did the Disciples and Apostles call him God's Son?

Then those who were in the boat worshiped him, saying, "Truly you are the Son of God" (Matthew 14:33).
Simon Peter answered, "You are the Christ, the Son of the living God" (Matthew 16:16)
I believe that you are the Christ, the Son of God, who was to come into the world (John 11:27).

Why did even the demons call him God's Son?

"What do you want with us, Son of God?" they shouted (Matthew 8:29).
Whenever the evil spirits saw him, they fell down before him and cried out, "You are the Son of God" (Mark 3:11)
...demons came out of many people, shouting, "You are the Son of God!" (Luke 4:41)

Christians believe that Jesus is the Son of God because this is what the Gospels teach us, as does the rest of the New Testament. Christians do not believe that this term is about the kind of procreation that is required for a human father to have a son. Jesus was born of a virgin (Luke 1:26-35). His conception was the work of the Holy Spirit (Luke 1:34, 35). Christians believe that the sonship of Jesus was about the unique and intimate relationship he had with God whom he called Father. Whatever the term "Son of God" means, it is applied to Jesus throughout the Gospels (and the rest of the New Testament) and Jesus constantly calls God his Father and even Daddy (Abba - Matthew 14:36).

So what does it mean for Jesus to be the Son of God?

Jesus, while being human like us was also different from us. Jesus was ...

The Messiah (the Christ). Peter said to Jesus, "You are the Christ, the Son of the living God" (Matthew 16:16. see also Luke 2:11).

Eternal, existing before time. "I tell you the truth," Jesus answered, "before Abraham was born, I am!" (John 8:58). Jesus also said, "... Father, glorify me in your presence with the glory I had with you before the world began" (John 17:5. See also John 17:24). The baby born of Mary in Bethlehem at a particular time in human history was also the one who existed before time.

The Saviour of the world. "God did not send his Son into the world to condemn the world, but to save the world through him" (John 3:17)

The one who, while human, had all authority. Jesus said, "All authority in heaven and on earth has been given to me" (Matthew 28:18).

Able to know peoples thoughts and hearts (motives). "Jesus knew in his spirit ... what they were thinking in their hearts" (Mark 2:8).

Able to forgive sin. Jesus said to a paralysed man, "Son, your sins are forgiven.... some teachers of the law were ... thinking to themselves, Why does this fellow talk like that? He's blaspheming! Who can forgive sins but God alone?" (Mark 2:5-7).

Without sin (John 8:46; Corinthians 5:21; Hebrews 4:15; 1 John 3:5).

The sinless one who died in your place and mine; for your sins and mine; in order to reconcile us to the Holy God. (John 3:16; John 10:11; Romans 5:6; I Corinthians 15:3; 2 Corinthians 5:15).

The one who is risen from the dead. ( Matthew 16:21; Matthew 26:32; Mark 16:9; Matthew 28:9; Luke 24:15; John 20:19, 26: John 21:1; Matthew 28:17).

The one who ascended into heaven (see Mark 16:19; Luke 24:50).

Addressed as God. "In the beginning was the Word, and the word was with God, and the Word was God... The Word became flesh and made his dwelling among us" (John 1:1, 14); Thomas called Jesus, "My Lord and my God" (John 20:28).

Able to identify himself with God his Father. Jesus said, "I and the Father are one" (John 10:30); "Do not believe me unless I do what my father does" (John 10:37); "... know and understand that the Father is in me, and I in the Father" (John 10:38); "When a man believes in me, he does not believe in me only, but in the one who sent me. When he looks at me, he sees the one who sent me" (John 12:44, 45); "If you really knew me, you would know my Father as well. From now on, you do know him and have seen him" (John 14:7); "anyone who has seen me has seen the Father" (John 14:9); "I am in the Father and the Father is in me"(John 14:10); "All that belongs to the Father is mine" (John 16:15); "Father, glorify me in your presence with the glory I had with you before the creation of the world" (John 17:5. See also John 17:24).

The only conclusion one can reach from a study of the Gospels is that Jesus was a man and more than a man. He is the sinless Son of God, the Messiah, the Saviour of the world, with all that means in terms of pre-existence, divine authority, insight into our motives, and power to forgive sins. He was mortal in that he died for your sins and mine, taking the penalty in our place. Yet he is risen from the dead and ascended into heaven. His relationship with God, whom he called Father was such that he said the Father was in him and he was in the Father; that those who had seen him had seen the Father; that those who knew him, knew the Father.

There is more to be said about Jesus from the Old Testament and the rest of the new Testament, but this is some what we learn from the Gospels.

That's all I have time for today. But I'll try to answer the issues raised by the rest of the posts later.

Peace

Dr Lazarus

report post quote code quick quote reply

No post ratings

#12 [Permalink] Posted on 31st October 2011 22:21

Quote:

The "God" Title

How come Christians take the "God" (theos in Greek) title literally with Jesus in Isiah 9:6 and they don't take it literally for the rest of the Prophets and people who were called Gods ?[/quote]
Isaiah, like the rest of the Torah (the Old Testament) is written in Hebrew (and a bit of Aramaic), not Greek. In Isaiah 9:6 the word translated as God is El - the mighty one.

Quote:

The Prophets who were called "God" in the Bible are as follows:
Prophet Moses in Exodus 7:1 [/quote]
In Hebrew the word translated as god in Exodus 7:1 is elohim. This term is most commonly used in the OT (Torah) for those things that people worship as gods but are, of course, not the one true and living God (Yahweh). This is why the translators into English use the word "god" with a lower-case g. Where the one true and living God is referred to, the translators use an upper-case G.

Quote:

The Devil in Corinthians 4:4 (the word for God in this verse is theos in Greek, the same used for Jesus that was translated as "God") [/quote]
In 2 Corinthians 4:4, the Greek word for god, theos, is used twice. As in English, the same word is used for both things and beings that people worship as gods even though they are not, and for the one true God. The context determines the meaning.

Quote:

Multiple Prophets in Psalms 82:6[/quote]
There is no mention of prophets in Psalm 82. The beings referred to as gods are earthly judges or spiritual powers.

Quote:

King David in Psalm 45:3[/quote]
Read the whole Psalm. This is clearly not about David but about God (see verse 6) and probably about the Messiah. It is, of course, poetic and describes a royal wedding.

Quote:

Note: The only unique title given to GOD in the Bible that was not given to others at all are Jehova, GOD, and GOD LORD. "God", "Most Mighty" and "Almighty One" are titles that were given to Jesus, other Prophets and to Satan himself in the Bible.[/quote]
The many words used in the Old Testament to describe God are indeed used to describe others. This is the very nature of language: no words have unique applications unless they are names (proper nouns). This is as true of Arabic as it is of Hebrew, Aramaic, Greek and English. The exception is names (proper nouns). In the Old testament the tetragramaton (YHWH), usually pronounced Yahweh (not Jehovah), is the Name of God.

Quote:

Very important note: Did you know that in the languages of Arabic and Hebrew the father of the house can be called the God of the house? Jesus was the God (father or leader) of his people and their father according to Isiah 9:6. Jesus being the leader and the king, it is normal for him to be called the father of his people (Father in Isiah 9:6), and because he is their father he automatically becomes their God. My father is my God in Arabic and Hebrew. [/quote]
Yes, fine, but Isaiah 9 is talking about "the Father of eternity."

Quote:

The "Son" Title:

How come Christians take the "God's Son" title literally with Jesus and they don't take it literally for the rest of the Prophets and people who were called the Sons of God?[/quote]
It depends what you mean by "literally". Christians don't believe that Jesus is God's Son in a biological sense. They do believe that Jesus is God's Son in the sense described in my last post.

Quote:

In John 3:16 Jesus was called God's only Begotten Son.

In Exodus 4:22 "Thus saith Jehova, Isreal is my son, even my firstborn." Isreal was called God's First Son.

In Jeremiah 31:9 "I am a father to Isreal, and Ephraim is my firstborn." Ephraim is God's First Son and First Born. [/quote]
Christians would agree with you that Israel and Ephraim were also God's sons. The ideas of sonship and fatherhood, with which we are familiar through being human, are applied in the Bible to relationships (including conversations) that human being have with God, not to the biological procreative process. For Jesus and for Israel the ideas of sonship and fatherhood attempt to describe (within the limitations of human language and thought forms) a special relationship that a person and a nation have with God. According to the Bible, Israel as a nation had a special relationship with God, and Jesus as an individual had a very special relationship with God.

The languages of the Bible, Hebrew, Aramaic and Greek, are all idiomatic languages. I suspect that Arabic may be as well. An idiom is a phrase where the words taken together have a meaning that is different from the meanings of the individual words. Consequently, if individual words are taken too literally, the meaning will be lost.

Often the term "literal" is incorrectly used to mean "true". For example, "two plus two equals four" is literally true. However, "actions speak louder than words," while true, is not literally true, it is an idiom. Neither actions nor words literally speak. Furthermore, the meaning of a word is also determined by the context in which it is used. For example, the word "pinch" means rather different things depending on the context. In the phrase, "I pinch his arm," the word means something different to its use in the sentence, "Add a pinch of Saffron."
[quote]In Psalm 2:7 "... Jehova had said onto me (David), thou art my Son; this day have I begotten thee." David was called God's Begotten Son.

This Psalm is about a king being inagurated. It could, perhaps be David but we are not told. It centainly applies to Jesus (see Acts 13:13, Romans 1:4, Matthew 3:17 and 17:5).
[quote]Were Jesus's Miracle's Unique?

If Jesus is believed to be GOD because he could do miracles, he could heal leprosy, he could cause blind men to see, or raise the dead, then what about the others who performed the same miracles?

Elisha and Elijah fed a hundred people with twenty barley loaves and a few ears of corn (2 Kings 4:44).

Elisha told Naaman, who was a leper, to wash in the river Jordan (2 Kings 5:14) and he was healed. Elisha caused a blind man to see in (2 Kings 6:17,20).

Elijah and Elisha raised the dead in (1 Kings 17:22, and 2 Kings 4:34). Even Elisha's dead bones restored a dead body in (2 Kings 13:21).

Most of Jesus miracles were not unique, and Jesus never claimed that they were. However, he did point to one miracle as definitive evidence of his claims. In Matthew 12:38-40, Jesus said to some of the people who wanted to see "a miraculous sign" from him, "A wicked and adulterous generation asks for a miraculous sign! But none will be given it except the sign of the prophet Jonah. For as Jonah was three days and three nights in the belly of the huge fish, so the Son of Man will be three days and three nights in the heart of the earth." Jesus' unique miracle was his death in my place and yours, followed by his resurrection on the third day.
[quote]Indeed Jesus had prophesied that people will worship him uselessly and will believe in doctrines not made by GOD but by men "But in vain they do worship me, teaching for doctrines the commandments of men. (Matthew 15:9)"

This was not a prophecy made by Jesus but by Isaiah (see Isaiah 29:13) and quoted by Jesus. Jesus addressed these words to the Pharisees and teachers of the law two-thousand years ago (Matthew 15:1) when he accused them of hypocrisy. Here are the words of Isaiah as quoted by Jesus:

"These people honour me with their lips, but their hearts are far from me. The worship me (Yahweh) in vain; their teachings are but rules taught by men."

[quote]In Matthew 15:9 above, we see Jesus warning that Trinity (the bogus lie) will dominate, and people will take Jesus as GOD and worship him, which is a total sin according to what Jesus said !!

To suggest that this has something to do with the Trinity is simply false. Before quoting the words of Jesus (or Isaiah) it is essential to look at the context. Failure to do so (as in this case) is to put words into the mouth of Jesus the Messiah that he never said.
[quote]Allah Almighty (GOD) in the Noble Quran (The Muslims' Holy Scripture) states in Verse 5:72 "They do blaspheme who say: 'God is Christ the son of Mary.' But said Christ: 'O Children of Isreal ! worship God, my Lord and your Lord.' "

I don't know of any Christians who have said, "God is Christ son of Mary." This does not mean that someone has not used this term but it would be a poorly worded attempt at theology. To say that "God was in Christ" would be correct (2 Corinthians 5:19). Christians believe that Jesus, the son of Mary, was the Christ (the Messiah). They also believe that Jesus was both fully human and fully divine. However, to say that "Jesus was God" is very different from saying that "God is Christ". God cannot be reduced to the person of Jesus. God is the transcendent creator and sustainer of the universe. However Christians believe that the transcendent God, whom Jesus called his Father, was also incarnate in Jesus.
[quote]Also in Noble Verse 5:73 "They do blaspheme who say God is one of three in a Trinity: for there is no god except One God. If they desist not from their word (of blasphemy), verily a grievous penalty will befall the blasphemers among them."

Christians believe that God is One and that there is no other God, although there are many that human beings call gods. However, that one true and living God who is transcendent was incarnate in the man called Jesus and is at work in the world by his Holy Spirit. Christians do not believe in three gods but in One God
[quote]And also in Noble Verse 4:171 "O People of the Book! Commit no excesses in your religion: Nor say of God aught but the truth. Christ Jesus the son of Mary was (no more than) an apostle of God, ..."

Jesus certainly was an Apostle in the sense that he was sent into the world by God the Father. I'm not sure why you have the words (no more than) in brackets. He was certainly more than this. See my previous post where I conclude, on the basis of the Gospels, that Jesus was the sinless Son of God, the Messiah, the Saviour of the world, and that those that know him know the Father.
[quote]The Point that I am trying to prove:

Muslims believe that Prophet Jesus Peace be upon him is a messenger from God. He was sent from God Almighty to deliver God's words to his people.

If you believe that Jesus is a messenger from God then why don't you believe his message? If you really believed this, you would read what he has to say in the Gospels. Then we could have a much better informed discussion.
[quote]Jesus was never God, nor ever claimed to be God. Jesus was a humble wonderful human being just like the rest of the Prophets and Messengers of God. Muslims also believe that Jesus was never crucified, nor ever died on the cross, nor ever wanted to die on the cross, nor ever was sent to earth to die on the cross.

On who Jesus was, see what he said himself, in his own words, summarised in my last post but much better read in the Gospels.

Jesus not only died on the cross for you and me, he also foretold his own death. Have a look at Mark 8: 31-33, Matthew 16:21-28, Luke 9:22-27; Mark 9:30-32, and John chapters 13 to 17 and tell me what you think?

Jesus said to his Disciples, "We are going up to Jerusalem, and the Son of Man will be betrayed to the chief priests and the teachers of the law. They will condemn him to death and will turn him over to the gentiles to be mocked and flogged and crucified. On the third day he will be raised to life."

Given the choice of believing what Muslims say about Jesus or believing what Jesus said about himself, I must respectfully chose the latter.

Peace

Dr Lazarus

report post quote code quick quote reply

No post ratings

6,700

Brother

945

#13 [Permalink] Posted on 1st November 2011 01:21

In reply to the following portion:

Dr Lazarus wrote:

Given the choice of believing what Muslims say about Jesus or believing what Jesus said about himself, I must respectfully chose the latter.

I re-quote:

Jesus also addressed God as his Father and even used the more intimate term Abba (daddy - Matthew 14:36). (John 14:28 Jesus said "My Father (GOD) is greater than I" and in Luke 23:46 Jesus said "Father (GOD), "into thy hands I commend my spirit". He was constantly communicating with God his Father in prayer (Luke 5:16; Matthew 26:39)

Believing Jesus to be God would be going against what Jesus said so you've accepted neither what Jesus said nor what God revealed and clearly not what Islam says about Jesus either.

Second, Muslims do not say anything about Jesus except for what's been revealed in the Qur'aan. I think this topic is about similarities of Islam and the Christians so I'll leave it with the following video

Halalified YT Audio

by a doctor and an expert of the bible (plz ignore youtube comments. Ignorant muslims love fighting which each other)

report post quote code quick quote reply

+2 -0Like x 2

I am not a Mufti

London

4,762

Brother

4,175

#14 [Permalink] Posted on 1st November 2011 11:51

Quote:

Christians do not believe in three gods but in One God

By Misha'al ibn Abdullah al-Kadhi

The myth of the "trinity" as originally fabricated three centuries after the departure of Jesus (A.S.) and taught to Christians ever since is the merging of three entities into one while remaining three distinct entities.

In other words: Three bodies fold, or blend, or merge into one body so that they become one entity while at the same time exhibiting the characteristics of three distinct and separate entities. It is described as "a mystery." The first definition of the Trinity was put forth in the fourth century as follows: "...we worship one God in the trinity, and Trinity in Unity...for there is one Person of the Father, another of the Son, another of the Holy Ghost is all one... they are not three gods, but one God... the whole three persons are coeternal and co-equal...he therefore that will be saved must thus think of the trinity..." (excerpts from the Athanasian creed). When the Church speaks of worship, God, Jesus, and the Holy Ghost are claimed to be one being. Otherwise they would have to explain such verses as Isaiah 43:10-11. However, when they speak of "the death of God" it is Jesus (pbuh) who is claimed to have died and not God or the "trinity." Now the three are separate. When God is described as having "begotten" a son it is not the "trinity" nor Jesus (pbuh) which has begotten, but a distinctly separate being from the other two.... there are many such examples.

From the Bible's standpoint:

Matthew 28:19, I Corinthians 12:4-6, II Corinthians 13:14, and Jude 20-21? How someone could refer to such verses as requiring a "trinity" is beyond comprehension. Do any of these verses say "God, Jesus, and the Holy Ghost are the same being", or "God, Jesus, and the Holy Ghost are one and the same" etc.?. Just because the words "God," "Jesus," and "Holy Ghost" appear in one verse does not mean this verse requires a "trinity", or "merging of three into one." Even if this verse also contains the word "one" this still does not necessarily require a "trinity." For example, if I say "Joe, Jim, and Frank speak one language" this is not the same as saying "Joe, Jim, and Frank are one person." Let us clarify this with examples:

1) Matthew 28:19: If George Bush told General Norman Schwartzkopf to "Go ye therefore, and speak to the Iraqis, chastising them in the name of the United States, Great Britain, and the Soviet Union," does this require that these three are one physical entity? They may be one in purpose and in their goals but this does in no way require that they are merged into one physical entity. Also remember that the "Great Commission" as narrated in the Gospel of Mark, Bears no mention of the Father, Son and/or Holy Ghost (see Mark 16:15).

Christian historians readily admit that the Bible was the object of continuous "correction" and "addition" to bring it in line with established beliefs. They present many documented cases where words were "inserted" into a given verse to validate a given doctrine. Tom Harpur, former religion editor of the Toronto Star says in his book For Christ's sake (pp. 102): "All but the most conservative of scholars agree that at least the latter part of this command was inserted later."

2) I Corinthians 12:4-6: If I were to say: "There are different kinds of gifts, but the same Santa Claus. There are different kinds of service, but the same Government. There are different kinds of working, but the same God works all of them in all men." Do God, the U.S. Government and Santa Claus now form another "trinity"? The same verse which moments ago required a merging of three gods into a "trinity" can now be understood without the need for a trinity. Is it impossible to receive "gifts," "services," and "works" except from ONE person? Once again, we see that it is necessary to spend a little more time actually reading the verses in question in order to not read into them statements that are not there.

Why does everything have to be so abstract? If this is the true nature of God then why can't the Bible just come out and say "God, Jesus, and the Holy Ghost are physically joined in one being" or "God, Jesus, and the Holy Ghost are one and the same." Is this so very hard? Look at how much less space this would require. Look at how infinitely more clear and decisive that would be. Look at the clear cut decisiveness of Deuteronomy 4:39 "Know therefore this day, and consider it in thine heart, that the LORD he is God in heaven above, and upon the earth beneath: there is none else." God does not philosophize and speak all the way around matters. He speaks clearly and in no uncertain terms so that there can be no doubt as to what He meant. If there was a trinity why would He not simply just come out and say so, just as clearly and decisively as He does when He speaks about his uniqueness? Think about it.

3) II Corinthians 13:14 If I say: "May the genius of Einstein, the philosophy of Freud, and the strength of Schwarzenegger be with you all" does this require all three to be joined in a "trinity"? Does it require that Einstein is Freud (or a different "side" of Freud)? Does it require that Freud is Schwarzenegger (or a different "side" of Schwarzenegger)?

4) Jude 20-21: If a man on his death bed told his only son: "But you, dear son, build yourself up in your strength and strive in good works. Keep yourself in my love as you wait for the fullness of time to guide you to manhood," show us how these verses require a trinity. Go back and apply this same logic to the original verse. Deuteronomy 4:39 requires the uniqueness of God. There are no two ways about it. It is very clear, decisive, and to the point. The explicit (and not the "hidden") meaning is quite clear and direct. Show me just one verse of the Bible that is similarly decisive about the trinity. All of these verses require you to really strain the words and stretch their meaning to arrive at any merging of three into one.

An interesting point is that when people try to force a "trinity" upon a certain verse of the Bible they always do it with the New Testament and not the Old Testament. Why is that? Did the countless prophets of the Old Testament not know about the "trinity"? Did God not see fit to tell the Jews about the trinity? Think about it.

When someone speaks to someone else about a specific matter, they usually spend the majority of their time explaining the major issues and much less time on side-issues. For instance, if I wanted to give someone my favorite recipe for chicken parmesan I would spend most of my time speaking about the ingredients, their amounts, their order of combination, the amount of time needed to cook each one and so on. I would spend very little time (comparatively) talking about how to set the table or what color bowl to serve it in. When comparing this observation to the Bible, we find that for a matter of such profound importance, the "trinity" is never mentioned in the Bible at all. Sound preposterous? Read on.

The verse most often quoted by almost every Christian around the world in defense of the "trinity" is the verse of 1 John 5:7 "For there are three that bear record in heaven, the Father, the Word, and the Holy Ghost: and these three are one." This is the type of clear, decisive, and to-the-point verse we were asking for. However, this verse is now universally recognized as being a later "insertion" of the Church and all recent versions of the Bible, such as the Revised Standard Version and the New Revised Standard Version ...etc. Have unceremoniously expunged this verse from their pages. Why is this?

The scripture translator Benjamin Wilson gives the following explanation for this action in his "Emphatic Diaglott." Mr. Wilson says: "This text concerning the heavenly witness is not contained in any Greek manuscript which was written earlier than the fifteenth century. It is not cited by any of the ecclesiastical writers; not by any of early Latin fathers even when the subjects upon which they treated would naturally have lead them to appeal to it's authority. It is therefore evidently spurious." Others, such as the late Dr. Herbert W. Armstrong argued that they were added to the Latin Vulgate edition of the Bible during the heat of the controversy between Rome, Dr. Arius, and God's people.

Whatever the reason, this verse is now universally recognized as an insertion and discarded. Since the Bible contains no verses validating a "trinity" therefore, centuries after the departure of Jesus, God decided to "inspire" someone to insert this verse in order to "clarify" the "true" nature of God as being a "trinity." Notice that mankind was being "inspired" as to how to "clarify" the Bible centuries after the departure of Jesus (pbuh). People continued to put words in the mouths of Jesus, his disciples, and even God himself with no reservations whatsoever. They were being "inspired" (see chapter two).

If these people were being "inspired" by God then why did they need to put these words into other people's mouths. Why did they not just openly say "God inspired me and I will add a chapter to the Bible in my name"? Also, why did God need to wait till after the departure of Jesus to "inspire" his "true" nature? Why not let Jesus (pbuh) say it himself?

It was Sir Isaac Newton who made public this forged insertion: "Of all the manuscripts now extant, above fourscore in number, some of which are more than 1200 years old, the orthodox copies of the Vatican, of the Complutensian editors, of Robert Stephens are becoming invisible; and the two manuscripts of Dublin and Berlin are unworthy to form an exception...In the eleventh and twelfth centuries, the Bibles were corrected by LanFrank, Archbishop of Canterbury, and by Nicholas, a cardinal and librarian of the Roman church, secundum Ortodoxam fidem. Notwithstanding these corrections, the passage is still wanting in twenty-five Latin manuscripts, the oldest and fairest; two qualities seldom united, except in manuscripts....The three witnesses have been established in our Greek Testaments by the prudence of Erasmus; the honest bigotry of the Complutensian editors; the typographical fraud, or error, of Robert Stephens in the placing of a crotchet and the deliberate falsehood, or strange misapprehension, of Theodore Beza." Gibbon, "Decline and fall of the Roman Empire," IV, p. 418.

Such comparatively unimportant matters as the description of Jesus (pbuh) riding an ass (or was it a "colt"?, or was it an "ass and a colt"?) into Jerusalem are spoken about in great details since they are the fulfillment of a prophesy. For instance, in Mark 11:2-10 we read: "And saith unto them, Go your way into the village over against you: and as soon as ye be entered into it, ye shall find a colt tied, whereon never man sat; loose him, and bring him. And if any man say unto you, Why do ye this? say ye that the Lord hath need of him; and straightway he will send him hither. And they went their way, and found the colt tied by the door without in a place where two ways met; and they loose And certain of them that stood there said unto them, What do ye, loosing the colt? And they said unto them even as Jesus had commanded: and they let them go. And they brought the colt to Jesus, and cast their garments on him; and he sat upon him. And many spread their garments in the way: and others cut down branches off the trees, and strawed them in the And they that went before, and they that followed, cried, saying, Hosanna; Blessed is he that cometh in the name of the Lord Blessed be the kingdom of our father David, that cometh in the name of the Lord: Hosanna in the highest."

Also see Luke 19:30-38 which has a similar detailed description of this occurrence. On the other hand, the Bible is completely free of any description of the "trinity" which is supposedly a description of the very nature of the one who rode this ass, who is claimed to be the only son of God, and who allegedly died for the sins of all of mankind. Which is more important to Christian faith, the "trinity" or the description of an ass? Another verse quoted in defense of the "trinity" is the verse of John 1:1: "In the beginning was the Word, and the Word was with God, and the Word was God."

1) First of all, these words are acknowledged be every erudite Christian scholar of the Bible as the words of another Jew, Philo of Alexandria, who claimed no divine inspiration for them, and who had written them long before John or Jesus (pbut) were born. Groliers encyclopedia has the following to say under the heading "Logos"("the word"): "Heraclitus was the earliest Greek thinker to make logos a central concept ......In the New Testament, the Gospel According to Saint John gives a central place to logos; the biblical author describes the Logos as God, the Creative Word, who took on flesh in the man Jesus Christ. Many have traced John's conception to Greek origins- perhaps through the intermediacy of eclectic texts like the writings of Philo of Alexandria."

2) Internal evidence provides serious doubt as to whether the apostle John the son of Zebedee wrote this Gospel himself. In the dictionary of the Bible by John Mckenzie we read "A. Feuillet notes that authorship here may be taken loosely." Such claims are based on such verses as 21:24: "This is the disciple which testifieth of these things, and wrote these things: and we know that his testimony is true."????? Also see 21:20, 13:23, 19:26, 20:2, 21:7, and 21:20-23. The "disciple who Jesus loved" according to the church is John himself, but the author speaks of him as a different person. In other words, what we have here is a Gospel which someone wants us to think was written by the apostle John, but which in fact was not written by him.

3) The Gospel of John was written at or near Ephesus between the years 110 and 115 (some say 95-100) of the Christian era by this, or these, unknown author(s). According to R. H. Charles, Alfred Loisy, Robert Eisler, and other scholars of Christian history, John of Zebedee was beheaded by Agrippa I in the year 44 CE, long before the fourth Gospel was written.

4) C.J. Cadoux writes in "The life of Jesus": "The speeches in the fourth Gospel (even apart from the earlier messianic claim) are so different from those in the Synoptics, and so like the comments of the Fourth evangelist himself, that both cannot be equally reliable as records of what Jesus said: Literary veracity in ancient times did not forbid, as it does now, the assignment of fictitious speeches to historical characters: the best ancient historians made a practice of composing and assigning such speeches this way."

5) Even if we are to take this verse as authentic, then we must notice the following: In the "original" Greek manuscripts (Did the disciple John speak Greek?), the first occurrence of the word "God" is the Greek word (Hotheos) which means "The God," or "God" with a capital "G" to denote a proper noun. The second occurrence of the word "God" is the Greek (Tontheos) meaning "a god," or "god" (any god, not necessarily the almighty). So, if the translators were consistent in their translation, they would have written the above verse as follows: "In the beginning was the Word, and the Word was with God, and the Word was a god" (If you read the New World Translation of the Bible you will find exactly this wording). If we look at a different verse, 2 Corinthians 4:4, we find the exact same word is used to describe the devil, however, now the system has dishonestly been reversed: "(and the devil is) the god of this world."

According to the system of the previous verse and the English language, the translation of the description of the devil should also have been written as "God" with a capital "G." If Paul was inspired to use the same word to describe the devil, then why should we change it? Why is this word translated as simply a "god" when referring to the devil, but translated as the almighty "God" when referring to a "word"? Are we now starting to get a glimpse of how the "translation" of the Bible took place?

The apologists always manage to conveniently side-step this issue by conveniently forgetting the Hotheos/Tontheos problem and never mentioning a valid explanation for why one word was translated two different ways in two different verses, but rather, they say "I don't personally like the New World Translation of the Bible, thus, everything you say is wrong." Even if you do not like the New World Translation, you still have not explained the selective translation! This is blind faith talking here.

One of the biggest problems with the Bible as it stands today is that it forces us to look at Hebrew and Aramaic scriptures through Greek and Latin glasses as seen by people who are neither Jews, Greeks, nor Romans. All of the so called "original" manuscripts available today are written in Greek. The verses of John 1:1 is exactly equivalent to such verses as Psalms 82:6: "I have said, Ye (the Jews) are gods; and all of you are children of the most High", or Exodus 7:1: "And the LORD said unto Moses, See, I have made thee a god to Pharaoh" The Jews had no trouble reading such verses while still affirming that there is only one God in existence and vehemently denying the divinity of all but God almighty.

It is the continuous filtration of these manuscripts through different languages and cultures as well as the Roman Catholic church's extensive efforts to completely destroy all of the original Hebrew Gospels (see last quarter of this chapter) which has led to this misunderstanding of the verses. If I were an American, and I were to tell, for example, the citizens of China: "Hit the road men," we would more than likely find countless people beating the street with sticks. Did they understand the words? Yes! Did they understand the meaning? No! Mr. Tom Harpur says in the preface to his book: "The most significant development since 1986 in this regard has been the discovery of the title "Son of God" in one of the Qumran papyri (Dead Sea Scrolls) used in relation to a person other than Jesus.....this simply reinforces the argument made there that to be called the Son of God in a Jewish setting in the first century is not by any means the same as being identical with God Himself." For Christ's Sake, pp. xii.

6) In the Qur'an we are told that when God almighty wills something he merely says to it "BE" and it is. This is the Islamic viewpoint of "The Word." "The Word" is literally God's utterance "BE." This is held out by the Bible where thirteen verses later in John 1:14 we read: "And the Word was made flesh".

The third verse which Christians claim validates the doctrine of the trinity is the verse of John 10:30 "I and my father are one." This verse, however is quoted out of context. The complete passage, starting with John 10:23, reads as follows:

John 10:23-30 "And Jesus walked in the temple in Solomon's porch. Then came the Jews round about him, and said unto him, How long dost thou make us to doubt? If thou be the Christ, tell us plainly. Jesus answered them, I told you, and ye believed not: the works that I do in my Father's name, they bear witness of me. But ye believe not, because ye are not of my sheep, as I said unto you. My sheep hear my voice, and I know them, and they follow me: And I give unto them eternal life; and they shall never perish, neither shall any man pluck them out of my hand. My Father, which gave them me, is greater than all; and no man is able to pluck them out of my Father's hand. I and my Father are one." In divinity? In a holy "trinity"? No! They are one in PURPOSE. Just as no one shall pluck them out of Jesus' hand, so shall no one pluck them out of God's hand.

Need more proof? Then read John 17:20-22: "Neither pray I for these alone, but for them also which shall believe on me through their word; That they all may be one; as thou, Father, art in me, and I in thee, that they also may be one in us: that the world may believe that thou hast sent me. And the glory which thou gavest me I have given them; that they may be one, even as we are one." Is all of mankind also part of the "trinity"?

Well, what about the verse "He that hath seen me hath seen the father." Let us look at the context: John 14:8-9 "Philip saith unto him, Lord, shew us the Father, and it sufficeth us. Jesus saith unto him, Have I been so long time with you, and yet hast thou not known me, Philip? he that hath seen me hath seen the Father; and how sayest thou then, Shew us the Father?" Philip wanted to see God with his own eyes, but this is impossible since no one can ever do that (John 1:18 "No man hath seen God at any time," see also 1 John 4:12...etc.), so Jesus simply told him that his own actions and miracles should be a sufficient proof of the existence of God without God having to physically come down and let himself be seen every time someone is doubtful. This is equivalent to for example John 8:19: "Then said they unto him, Where is thy Father? Jesus answered, Ye neither know me, nor my Father: if ye had known me, ye should have known my Father also." If we want to insist that when Philip saw Jesus (pbuh), he had actually physically seen God "the father," then this will force us to conclude that John 1:18, 1 John 4:12, ..etc. are all lies.

Well, is Philip the only one who ever "saw the father"? Let us read John 6:46 "Not that any man hath seen the Father, save he which is of God, he hath seen the Father." Who is this who "is of God" you ask? Let us once again ask the Bible: John 8:47 "He that is of God heareth God's words: ye therefore hear them not, because ye are not of God." And 3 John 1:11 "Beloved, follow not that which is evil, but that which is good. He that doeth good is of God: but he that doeth evil hath not seen God." Have all people who have done good also physically seen God?

Such terminology can be found in many other places, read for example 1 Corinthians 6:15-17 "Know ye not that your bodies are the members of Christ? Shall I then take the members of Christ, and make them the members of an harlot? God forbid. What? know ye not that he which is joined to an harlot is one body? for two, saith he, shall be one flesh. But he that is joined unto the Lord is one spirit," and also Ephesians 4:6 "One God and Father of all, who is above all, and through all, and in you all."

In the New Catholic Encyclopedia (Bearing the Nihil Obstat and Imprimatur, indicating official approval) we read: "......The formulation 'One God in three persons' was not solidly established into Christian life and it's profession of faith until prior to the end of the fourth century. But it is precisely this formulation that has the first claim to the title the Trinitarian Dogma. AMONG THE APOLISTIC FATHERS, there had been nothing even remotely approaching such a mentality or perspective" (emphasis added). SO, JESUS' TWELVE APOSTLES HAD NEVER HEARD OF ANY "TRINITY"

Top Harpur writes in his book "For Christ's Sake": "What is most embarrassing for the church is the difficulty of proving any of these statements of dogma from the new Testament documents. You simply cannot find the doctrine of the Trinity set out anywhere in the Bible. St. Paul has the highest view of Jesus' role and person, but nowhere does he call him God. Nor does Jesus himself anywhere explicitly claim to be the second person in the Trinity, wholly equal to his heavenly Father. As a pious Jew, he would have been shocked and offended by such an Idea....(this is) in itself bad enough. But there is worse to come. This research has lead me to believe that the great majority of regular churchgoers are, for all practical purposes, tritheists. That is, they profess to believe in one God, but in reality they worship three.."

From the Qur'an's standpoint:

"O people of the book! commit no excesses in your religion: nor say of Allah aught but the truth. Christ Jesus the son of Mary was (no more than) a messenger of Allah, and his word, which he bestowed upon Mary, and a spirit preceding from him: so believe in Allah and his messengers. Say not "Three": desist!, it is better for you, for Allah is one god, Glory be to him, Far exalted is he above having a son. To him belong all things in the heavens and the earth. And enough is Allah as a disposer of affairs." The Qur'an, Al-Nissah(4):171

"Or have they (mankind) chosen gods from the earth who raise the dead. If there were therein gods besides Allah then verily both (the heavens and the earth) would have gone to ruin. Glorified be Allah, the lord of the throne from all they ascribe (unto Him)" The Qur'an, Al-Anbia(21):20. Think about it. If there were more than one God in existence, and one wanted you to do one thing and the other wanted you to do another then which one would have his way? If one wanted the sun to come out of the West and the other wanted it to come out of the East then which one would win? Verse such as Mark 14:36, and Matthew 26:39 clearly exhibit that God "The father" and God "the son" both have distinct wills. Further, we read:

"Allah coineth a similitude: A man in relation to whom are several partners quarreling, and a man belonging wholly to one man. Are the two equal in similitude? Praise be to Allah, but most of them know not." The Qur'an, Al-Zumar(39):27. In other words, which would be more conducive of harmony: For an employee to have two bosses quarreling over him, or for each employee to have only one boss?

"Say (O Muhammad, to the disbelievers): If there were other gods along with Him, as they say, then they would have sought a way against the Lord of the Throne. Glorified is He, and High Exalted above what they say! The seven heavens and the earth and all that is therein praise Him, and there is not a thing but hymneth his praise; but you understand not their praise. Lo! He is ever Clement, Forgiving." The Qur'an, Al-Israa(17):42-44.

"And say: Praise be to Allah, Who has not taken unto Himself a son, and Who has no partner in the Sovereignty, nor has He any protecting friend through dependence. And magnify Him with all magnificence." The Qur'an, Al-Israa(17):111.

"Allah has not chosen any son, nor is there any God along with Him; else would each God have assuredly championed that which he created, and some of them would assuredly have overcome others. Glorified be Allah above all that they allege. Knower of the invisible and the visible! and exalted be He over all that they ascribe as partners (unto Him)!" The Qur'an, Al-Muminoon(23):91-92.

Think of the mythology of the Romans and the Greeks and their countless "Gods". These "Gods" were constantly at odds with each other and declaring war against each other and it was mankind that was always caught in the middle.

From a logical standpoint:

If Jesus (pbuh) is part of a divine trinity which makes up the essence of God almighty, and Jesus (pbuh) died on the cross, then what happened to God almighty? (Remember, Christians claim that they pray to one "triune" god and not three separate gods). Did the trinity die? Did it continue to exist in a severely crippled form? If I am made up of heart, mind, and soul, and one of them dies; what happens to the rest of me? Are they ONE or THREE? If God, Jesus, and the Holy Ghost are three names for the same being, (definition of the "trinity" required by Isaiah 43:10-11 and many other verses) and not three separate gods, then the "death of Jesus" is just another way of saying "the death of God the 'Father'," which is also another way of saying "the death of the Holy Ghost."

Some members of the clergy will object that it was not "Jesus" per se who died, but rather it was "his human form" that died. His "godly" form was not affected. It is described as one describes someone removing his coat. This leaves us with a dilemma, because it leaves us with one of two cases:

1) Either Jesus (pbuh) "himself" died, in which case, since he is claimed to be part of the "Trinity", and the "Trinity" is claimed to be ONE god, not three (required by Isaiah 43:10-11 and many other verses), then God, Jesus, and the Holy Ghost are all claimed to have died, since they are all "the same essence".

2) Or, Jesus (pbuh) "himself" did NOT die, but only shed his earthly body (as it were), and in this case we must ask, where then is the great sacrifice in this shedding of a useless shell? How is his shedding of this shell which is not his actual essence an ultimate sacrifice in atonement for all of mankind's sins? Can he not simply make one hundred more human "shells" for himself to inhabit? Is his discarding of one of them an "ultimate sacrifice"?

Continuing with our theme of logic; remember when Jesus (pbuh) is alleged to have died (Luke 23:46: "And when Jesus had cried with a loud voice, he said, Father, into thy hands I commend my spirit: and having said thus, he gave up the ghost")? When people die they go to their Lord to be judged. If Jesus (pbuh) was, as claimed, a part of a trinity and the trinity is only ONE god (otherwise Christians would have to admit to worshipping multiple gods), then Jesus was with God in a trinity before his death. It was only after his death that he was claimed to have left God and gone down into hell for three days. However, this verse tells us a completely different story. It claims that Jesus' soul was somewhere other than already with God (otherwise it would not have to go to him) and was now going to God. Also read John 17:11: "....I come to thee. Holy Father." And John 17:13: "And now come I to thee"...etc.

Sadly enough, most Christians are taught to brush off these matters with words like "It is uncomprehendable, that is why it must be true," or "believe blindly or you will lose your soul."???? Have we so soon forgotten "For God is not the author of confusion" 1 Corinthians 14:33 ?

When Jesus (pbuh) allegedly died and went to hell for three days (1 Corinthians 15:3 "Christ died for our sins", Romans 5:6 "Christ died for the ungodly" etc.)? Did the trinity die then reside in hell also, or was a third of the trinity ripped away from the whole, then tortured and killed while the remaining two thirds (of God?) remained in it's crippled form outside a safe distance away? Who was overseeing the heavens and the earth while all of this was happening? A crippled trinity? No one? If it is possible for one third of the "trinity" to die independently of the other two then it becomes obvious that they are separate and independent and not ONE God, this contradicts Isaiah 43:10- 11. However, if they are indeed ONE God then the death of this one God contradicts many verses such as Jeremiah 10:10 "But the LORD is the true God, he is the living God, and an everlasting king." Also, if the giver of life is dead then who shall bring Him back to life?

God almighty is claimed to have "begotten" Jesus (pbuh). He is claimed to be the "father" of Jesus. Naturally a father is present before he "begets" his son (no matter how you wish to define "beget"). Before Jesus (pbuh) was "begotten," was the "trinity" a "duality"? Was God complete? Explain Isaiah 43:10-11. If Jesus (pbuh) was "begotten" then he is not eternal, but the definition of the trinity which was concocted in 325 AD when the trinity was first defined requires the co-eternity of God and Jesus (pbuh).

There are many such questions to be raised about this supposed trinity which defy logic. When someone loves God "with all thy mind" and they "Prove all things; hold fast that which is good" are they not presented with countless contradictions regarding the "trinity"? We are speaking about the logic of Jesus (pbuh) here and not blind faith. Jesus is beseeching us to use our minds but we would rather follow others who demand blind faith. Jesus (pbuh) tells us that "If a man love me, he will keep my words: and my Father will love him, and we will come unto him, and make our abode with him." John 14:23. Sadly, the same people who love him dearly have now been taught that in order to love Jesus they must completely disregard everything he ever taught his followers and must follow others who are better able to explain his message than himself. In effect, his words have been totally abandoned.

If the Trinity designates god as being three separate entities - the Father, the Son and the Holy Spirit, and if God is the Father and also the Son, He would then be the Father of Himself because He is His own Son. This is not exactly logical (please read chapter 1.2.8).

Jesus (pbuh) claims to not even know when "that day" is "But of that day and that hour knoweth no man, no, not the angels which are in heaven, neither the Son, but the Father" Mark 13:32. Is he not part of God? Is the "trinity" not one god? The fact that one of them has knowledge not available to the other "two thirds" is a clear indication that they are distinct and separate beings, and not three faces of one being.

If I have three balls of clay and I press them together into one ball then they become ONE but now it is impossible to retrieve the original three exactly as they were originally.

If I have three bricks and I stack them above each other then I can separate them, but I can not call the three bricks ONE brick.

If I have a cup of water which can become steam, water, or ice, then it is not possible for me to drink the "water" form while the "ice" and "steam" forms remain inside the glass. It is not possible for the "water" form to beseech the ice form to save it from being drunk while the ice form stayed a safe distance away. This is simple logic. "And thou shalt love the Lord thy God ... with all thy mind ... this is the first commandment" Mark 12:30

report post quote code quick quote reply

+1 -0Informative x 1

Seifeddine-M

London

4,762

Brother

4,175

#15 [Permalink] Posted on 1st November 2011 12:03

Quote:

"A wicked and adulterous generation asks for a miraculous sign! But none will be given it except the sign of the Prophet Jonah. For as Jonah was three days and three nights in the belly of the huge fish, so the Son of Man will be three days and three nights in the heart of the earth." Jesus' unique miracle was his death in my place and yours, followed by his resurrection on the third day.

Many verses of the Bible make reference to the "three day and three night" prophesy (Matthew 20:19...etc.). We Muslims do not believe that Jesus (pbuh) himself said these words. Christian scholars themselves make mention of several cases throughout the Bible where people have put words in Jesus' mouth (see chapter two). They also recognize many passages of the Bible as being of a questionable nature. However, let us simplify this matter a little in order to make it easier to recognize the tampering fingerprints of the unscrupulous. Let us start with the assumption that no human being ever added or removed a single word from the Bible and move on from there. Please try to stay with me on this and you will see how only a very small amount of logic will prove that Jesus (pbuh) never said these words:

You would be hard pressed to find a single Christian today who has not heard of the "three days and three nights" prophesy. Where do they get it from? They get it from "the Gospel of Matthew." What does it say? If we read Matthew 12 we will see how the Jews were giving Jesus (pbuh) no end of trouble. They were constantly doubting him and making trouble for him. They had seen countless signs of his prophethood but insisted on disbelieving. Finally they ask him for a sign of his prophethood. How does Jesus (pbuh) allegedly respond to this request? Does he draw their attention to his healing of the lepers and the blind? No! Does he draw their attention to his casting out of devils? No! Does he point out his raising of the dead? No! Does he mention any of his other countless miracles? No! Well, what does he say? He says: "But he answered and said unto them, An evil and adulterous generation seeketh after a sign; and there shall no sign be given to it, but the sign of the prophet Jonas: For as Jonas was three days and three nights in the whale's belly; so shall the Son of man be three days and three nights in the heart of the earth" Matthew 12:39-40. In effect, Jesus (pbuh) was claimed to have put all of his eggs in one basket. He was telling them that "NO" sign shall be given to them "BUT" the sign of Jonas. This ONE sign shall ALONE decide who is truthful, him or those who doubted him. This shall be the "be all end all" acid test of his truthfulness.

Now, what is "Good Friday"? "Good Friday" is the day Christians tell us Jesus (pbuh) was crucified. In Merriam Webster's Collegiate Dictionary (tenth edition), it is defined as "the Friday before Easter observed in churches as the anniversary of the crucifixion of Christ." Are you still with us? Have we made any of this up? OK, let us continue. According to the Bible, the Jews had been carting Jesus (pbuh) back and forth on "Good Friday" between Pontius Pilate and Harod trying to get a conviction and official sanction to crucify him. After all of this carting back and forth, they finally get him to the cross and hang him up on it. However, no sooner have they gotten him up on the cross than they are in a hurry to get him back down again. Why is that? It is because if he remains on the cross all night then he will defile their land. Deuteronomy 21:22-23 "And if a man have committed a sin worthy of death, and he be to be put to death, and thou hang him on a tree: His body shall not remain all night upon the tree, but thou shalt in any wise bury him that day; (for he that is hanged is accursed of God;) that thy land be not defiled, which the LORD thy God giveth thee for an inheritance." So the Jews begged Pilate to break Jesus' legs so that he would die quickly from suffocation, John 19:31: "The Jews therefore, because it was the preparation, that the bodies should not remain upon the cross on the sabbath day, (for that sabbath day was an high day,) besought Pilate that their legs might be broken, and that they might be taken away.."

About the sixth hour (twelve noon), Jesus is claimed to be in front of Pilate (John 19:14). According to the Bible (e.g. John 19:30), Jesus died around the ninth hour (three PM). During these three hours Jesus was dressed in purple with a crown of thorns and made fun of, he was spat on, he was abused and beaten, he was made to carry the cross to a different location (John 19:17), the cross was planted in the ground, he was hung up on it, his title was written in Hebrew, Greek and Latin on the cross, lots were cast and his clothes distributed, he spoke to one of the two thieves and to an apostle, many people passed before him and rebuked him, he was given something to drink, and he died, all of which took place in these three hours, and his legs were never broken. After that there was thunder, an eclipse, and an earthquake, the veil of the temple was rent in twain, andthe dead came out of their graves. Jesus (pbuh) was then let down and placed in the shroud and the tomb. Early Sunday morning (the first day of the week according to the Jews), while it was still dark, Mary Magdalene visits the tomb alone (Mark 16:9, John 20:1) and finds the stone moved and Jesus (pbuh) missing. Let us count together:

"Good Friday" - One Night

Saturday (the Sabbath) - One Day, One Night

Sunday morning - //

Total: ONE DAY, TWO NIGHTS

As you can see, it is impossible to add up the days and nights so that they equal "three days and three nights." The Bible tells us that Jesus (pbuh) was in the ground for ONE day and TWO nights. Has the prophesy been fulfilled? Has the ONE "be all end all" sign to the Jews been established?

Further, it is important to remember that Jonah was swallowed alive by a whale and remained in its belly alive for three days. His miracle was not that the whale swallowed him, nor that it swallowed him whole, nor yet that he remained in it's belly for three days (If I eat a piece of food and it remains in my stomach for three days, is this a "miracle"?). The miracle of Jonah was that HE DID NOT DIE. For Jesus to have properly fulfilled the prophecy, he would need to enter the tomb alive and come out alive. Why should Jesus give this of all signs if he was to die and be resurrected? Where is the "miracle"? Where is the similarity with the miracle of Jonah?

A Christian gentleman from Canada once asked us: "Why do Muslims doubt that the scriptures always taught the death and resurrection of Jesus." Can we now see why Muslims recognize such claims to be later insertions and not the words of Allah's elect messenger Jesus (pbuh) nor his most honorable apostles? Have we made anything up? Have we not been quoting directly from the same Bible every Christian has at home? For more, please read Mr. Ahmed Deedat's book "Crucifixion or cruci-fiction."

As a side note regarding the renting of the veil of the temple and resurrection of the dead, I would like to mention here that Mr. Tom Harpur says "The story of the saints' being resurrected from the tombs to the east of the city, just below the Mount of Olives, and going into Jerusalem is also the result of an attempt to give mythical form to the belief that Jesus was the "first fruits of them that slept," Surely an event of such stupendous dimensions, had it actually occurred, would have not only found its way into other Gospels (than Matthew) and letters in the New Testament, but would also have been recorded in some other Jewish or Roman historical source. Yet the record is silent." From For Christ's Sake, page 102.

report post quote code quick quote reply

+1 -0Informative x 1

Seifeddine-M

How is Islam similar to Christianity and Judaism?

Font Size

Font Weight