Christianity vs. Islam thread

[theHawk]

is that what Bible say to tell Jokes about other mesages,,

I don't know that it does or does not say. And I wasn't joking. It does teach to reject lies.

and where that crap your saying that Qur'an contain it about Jesus,,
In qur'an allah gave Jesus and all prophet the message,, so by logic even if you didnt read Qur'an ,, allah wont say in his book bad things about the messenger and message he had sent,, so rest your self and dont keep saying crap,,
and call us liars
Qur'an sura 33 verse 7
[7] And remember We took from the Prophets their Covenant: as (We did) from thee: from Nuh, Ibrahim, Musa, and 'Isa the son of Maryam: We took from them a solemn Covenant:

You contradict yourself. You say the Qur'an won't say bad things about Jesus and his message. Yet you yourself say you don't believe Jesus is the Son of God or that he died for our Sins. Islam, as well as Christian-hating atheists have a hard time attacking Jesus because he was perfect. Like a good liar, Muhammed doesn't outright attack Jesus, rather he pretends he respects Jesus as a "prophet" yet then turns around and teaches many things that contradict what Jesus taught.


And he took the cup, and gave thanks, and gave [it] to them, saying, Drink ye all of it; For this is my blood of the new testament, which is shed for many for the remission of sins. ---(mat26:27-28)



But Jesus held his peace. And the high priest answered and said unto him, I adjure thee by the living God, that thou tell us whether thou be the Christ, the Son of God.
Jesus saith unto him, Thou hast said: nevertheless I say unto you, Hereafter shall ye see the Son of man sitting on the right hand of power, and coming in the clouds of heaven.
---(Mat26:63-64)


Do YOU believe this, Arabian? If not then was Jesus a LIAR? If so then why would Islam claim him to be a prophet of God? It makes little since to me that Islam would accept Jesus as a prophet of God yet THROW out the things that he said. WHY is this?

 

[5stringJeff]

Qur'an sura 33 verse 7
[7] And remember We took from the Prophets their Covenant: as (We did) from thee: from Nuh, Ibrahim, Musa, and 'Isa the son of Maryam: We took from them a solemn Covenant:

By claiming that Jesus ('Isa) was only a prophet is to ignore His own claims to be the Son of God. Therefore, Islam does not recognize all the words of the prophets they claim to uphold.

 

[Abbey Normal]

Arabian:

Jesus said the only way to the Father was through him.

Do you respect that?

 

[Nienna]

i see you didnt read this part well

-if god is living he could be reproduced and have a soul ,, but he isnt cause only living could be luxuriate, and we all know our mind cant know the main reality and existance of God

I think we both agree that God is a spiritual being.
I guess you are talking about the 4 indicators of life in the physical world: digestion, growth, reproduction, and respiration? I assume we would both agree that Jesus had a physical body which performed all of these functions.

-and if i believed that ,, we will came to the same point who is his mother cause mary is ahuman and the god is not,, and you said that mary only hold him and he isnt his mother,,

-another point if jesus is the son of god then the god is son of whom,,,
if we thought that jesus is the son of god that will leadus to believe that the god is a creature and he had once a father too

Maybe what the misunderstanding is is what it means to be a "son." Certainly, when a man or woman contributes a set of genes through the act of sex, the resulting offspring, if male, would be his/her "son."

But there are other ways to achieve this relationship. For instance, Joseph adopted Jesus and raised Jesus in his household. So Jesus was Joseph's adopted "son." Even though Joseph did not contribute genetically to Jesus' body.

Mary may or may not have contributed genetically to Jesus' body, but she carried him, gave him birth, nursed him and raised him. This gives her the right to call him "son."

Jesus is called the "Son of God" because no man contributed genetically to his physical body. The body was created by God.

Now, as we have agreed, the body and spirit/soul are two separate things. This body of Jesus' existed physically in time. The body is what we call "The Son." But the spirit that inhabited this body was God's own Spirit. This was not reproduced or created.

-last point if i believed that i should believe any one came to me with no father and told me im the son of god,,
and also believe in krishna in hinduism,, he is the same as Jesus and trinty ,, they say in hinduism about krishna as you say about Jesus the son of god,, which one is the true story
read the link
http://www.religioustolerance.org/chr_jckr.htm

Well, you just have to decide for yourself what you want to believe.

 

[Nightwish]

Jesus was called the Son of God, because no sperm cell from a man went into the making of His body.

Problem number 1, there is no proof, nor even good evidence, that he was conceived asexually. This notion is based largely on a misinterpretation of scripture. Are you familiar with the Hebrew words almeh and b'tullah? Almeh refers to an independent, unmarried woman, often one who refuses subservience to men. Alternately, it also refers to an Egyptian dancing girl (a reference that seems to be applicable in the Isaiah verse about virgin birth that has been mistakenly interpreted to be a prophecy about the messiah, when in fact it was an event fulfilled a full 400 years before the birth of Christ). B'tullah, on the other hand, refers to a woman who is chaste and has no sexual experience. The English translate both words as "virgin," but you can see they have two distinctly different meanings. In the biblical references to Christ being born of a virgin, it is the word "almeh," not the word "b'tullah" that was used. In an accurate rendering of scripture, then, it appears that Christ was born of an unmarried woman, not necessarily a chaste one. And the Bible does indicate that Mary and Joseph were not married at the time of his conception.

Since it was a human body, it could, and did, die. Since God's spirit inhabited it, it could, and did, come back to life. God is not dead. Jesus is not dead. That's how we know that He's God.

The resurrection of Christ is another thing that has no extrabiblical corroborating evidence. Further clouding the story is the biblical insistence that although the risen Christ walked among a multitude of his followers, none of them recognized him, indeed he was unnoticed at all. Dogmatists try to get around this problem by claiming that he wasn't recognized because he was in a "glorified" body, whatever that means. There are really only a couple ways that can be interpreted -- either his body was raised to a state of immaculate perfection (which certainly would not have gone unnoticed), or he was raised in another body altogether (which makes eyewitness accounts very problematic). There is also the problem that there are no eyewitnesses known to have authored any of the biblical accounts, and that the earliest of all the NT books covering the life and death of Jesus were written some 30 years after his death, and those were written by Paul, who never met Jesus. Lastly, the empty tomb "proof" is also bunk. For one thing, they don't even know what tomb he was buried in (the Catholics say it was the Tomb of the Holy Sepulchre, and the Protestants say it was the Garden Tomb, both of which are at opposite sides of the city). Mary and Mary arrived at the tomb at the break of dawn on Sunday, yet Jewish tradition was to hustle a corpse away to a temporary tomb, if death occurred on a Friday, then return at sundown on Saturday (the end of the Sabbath) to prepare the body and remove it to its permanent resting place. So what happened in those few hours between the preparation and removal of Christ's body, and the arrival of the two women at the temporary tomb on Sunday? The body was prepared by Joseph of Arimathea, who in later books was called a friend of Jesus, but in the earliest Pauline writings was known as an enemy of Jesus. Would he have even told Jesus' followers, his own enemies, of the location of Jesus' tomb, especially if he knew they were claiming that he would be resurrected, and suspected they might steal the body to support that story?

By the way, I don't want anyone to think I'm saying these biblical accounts aren't true. Just that the jury is out, and they should be taken with a grain of salt, lacking good extrabiblical corroboration. After all, I'm an agnostic, not an atheist.

 

[Markainion]

this is a quote a member sent to me and I just made it in a new third cause I think we will talk about something irrelevant from the main thread…
1st im not evil ,, u cant judge me cuz im just Arabian or Muslim,, by this u will lose human rights u are talking about,,,,,,
back to the main subject ,, you said that there is no human rights in Islam,, and I send you back this
Human rights in Islam I know its big but there are lots of human rights in Islam

It has been awhile Arabian; I am surprised you’re still up your antics. Just saying hi.

 

[5stringJeff]

Problem number 1, there is no proof, nor even good evidence, that he was conceived asexually. This notion is based largely on a misinterpretation of scripture. Are you familiar with the Hebrew words almeh and b'tullah? Almeh refers to an independent, unmarried woman, often one who refuses subservience to men. Alternately, it also refers to an Egyptian dancing girl (a reference that seems to be applicable in the Isaiah verse about virgin birth that has been mistakenly interpreted to be a prophecy about the messiah, when in fact it was an event fulfilled a full 400 years before the birth of Christ). B'tullah, on the other hand, refers to a woman who is chaste and has no sexual experience. The English translate both words as "virgin," but you can see they have two distinctly different meanings. In the biblical references to Christ being born of a virgin, it is the word "almeh," not the word "b'tullah" that was used. In an accurate rendering of scripture, then, it appears that Christ was born of an unmarried woman, not necessarily a chaste one. And the Bible does indicate that Mary and Joseph were not married at the time of his conception.

Around 200 BC, about 70 Jewish scribes got together to translate the Jewish Bible (Old Testament) into Greek, since so many Jews were living in Greek-speaking areaas, and not in Israel any more. When they came to this particular passage (Therefore the Lord Himself will give you a sign: Behold, a virgin will be with child and bear a son, and she will call His name Immanuel. - Isaiah 7:14), they translated the word as "virgin." This was about 200 years before the prophecy was fulfilled, written by people who didn't have an agenda, except to faithfully translate the scriptures, who were native speakers of the language - and they decided on the word 'virgin.' Therefore, it is a reliable translation, and its fulfillment is seen in Matthew chapter 1 at the birth of Christ.

The resurrection of Christ is another thing that has no extrabiblical corroborating evidence. Further clouding the story is the biblical insistence that although the risen Christ walked among a multitude of his followers, none of them recognized him, indeed he was unnoticed at all. Dogmatists try to get around this problem by claiming that he wasn't recognized because he was in a "glorified" body, whatever that means. There are really only a couple ways that can be interpreted -- either his body was raised to a state of immaculate perfection (which certainly would not have gone unnoticed), or he was raised in another body altogether (which makes eyewitness accounts very problematic). There is also the problem that there are no eyewitnesses known to have authored any of the biblical accounts, and that the earliest of all the NT books covering the life and death of Jesus were written some 30 years after his death, and those were written by Paul, who never met Jesus. Lastly, the empty tomb "proof" is also bunk. For one thing, they don't even know what tomb he was buried in (the Catholics say it was the Tomb of the Holy Sepulchre, and the Protestants say it was the Garden Tomb, both of which are at opposite sides of the city). Mary and Mary arrived at the tomb at the break of dawn on Sunday, yet Jewish tradition was to hustle a corpse away to a temporary tomb, if death occurred on a Friday, then return at sundown on Saturday (the end of the Sabbath) to prepare the body and remove it to its permanent resting place. So what happened in those few hours between the preparation and removal of Christ's body, and the arrival of the two women at the temporary tomb on Sunday? The body was prepared by Joseph of Arimathea, who in later books was called a friend of Jesus, but in the earliest Pauline writings was known as an enemy of Jesus. Would he have even told Jesus' followers, his own enemies, of the location of Jesus' tomb, especially if he knew they were claiming that he would be resurrected, and suspected they might steal the body to support that story?

Maybe you should reread the Biblical accounts. The Romans posted a guard in front of the tomb specifically to ensure that the body was not stolen away. Yet, the tomb was found to be empty on Sunday morning.

As to the state of Jesus after the resurrection: He remained (and remains) fully human and fully divine. So Jesus was able to show up in a locked room (displaying His divine attributes), but He was also able to eat food and allow the disciples to touch His wounds (displaying His human attributes). There is no contradiction; it is simply Jesus being able to use both His human and divine attributes as He saw fit.

And to say that none of His followers recognized Him is inaccurate. He appeared to them several times after His resurrection, each time being able to establish His identity.

 

[Nienna]

Around 200 BC, about 70 Jewish scribes got together to translate the Jewish Bible (Old Testament) into Greek, since so many Jews were living in Greek-speaking areaas, and not in Israel any more. When they came to this particular passage (Therefore the Lord Himself will give you a sign: Behold, a virgin will be with child and bear a son, and she will call His name Immanuel. - Isaiah 7:14), they translated the word as "virgin." This was about 200 years before the prophecy was fulfilled, written by people who didn't have an agenda, except to faithfully translate the scriptures, who were native speakers of the language - and they decided on the word 'virgin.' Therefore, it is a reliable translation, and its fulfillment is seen in Matthew chapter 1 at the birth of Christ.

Very true, Jeff. Also note Luke 1:34. "How will this be," Mary asked the angel, "since I am a virgin?" This passage wouldn't make much sense if Mary was an Egyptian dancing girl, as opposed to being chaste? Surely Mary knew that being a dancing girl, or simply being independent of a man, was not the way to keep from getting pregnant. She would have no reason to question had she not truly been a virgin.

 

[Nightwish]

Around 200 BC, about 70 Jewish scribes got together to translate the Jewish Bible (Old Testament) into Greek, since so many Jews were living in Greek-speaking areaas, and not in Israel any more. When they came to this particular passage (Therefore the Lord Himself will give you a sign: Behold, a virgin will be with child and bear a son, and she will call His name Immanuel. - Isaiah 7:14), they translated the word as "virgin." This was about 200 years before the prophecy was fulfilled, written by people who didn't have an agenda, except to faithfully translate the scriptures, who were native speakers of the language - and they decided on the word 'virgin.' Therefore, it is a reliable translation, and its fulfillment is seen in Matthew chapter 1 at the birth of Christ.

I'm afraid you're in error in a number of ways in this paragraph. First, the 70 scribes translated the text of Isaiah 7:14 200 years after the events they describe, not 200 years before. Read the surrounding text to gain context. This verse is part of the comfort given to King Ahaz, as a promise from God that "a young woman will be with child and will give birth to a son, and she will call his name Immanuel." Note that in many translations of the Bible, including The Revised Standard Version, the New Revised Standard Version, the New Jerusalem Bible, and the Good News Bible, have abandoned the word "virgin" in that passage, in favor of the phrase "a young woman," and for good reason. But back to the story -- King Ahaz was being threatened on two fronts by King Rezin and Pekah, son of Remaliah. The "prophecy" promised that when this sign was fulfilled, his two enemies would be crushed. This came to pass during the reign of King Ahaz, who reigned approximately 400 years before the birth of Christ. Very few scholars still believe this verse is about Jesus or Mary.

Secondly, the translators of the Septuagint did not choose the word "virgin" (that's from Latin, not Greek), they chose the word "parthenos." Parthenos has a number of meanings. In the pure Greek, it means virgin (a chaste woman, as in b'tullah), and it also means a young woman (as in almah). In the Hebrew Greek-speaking dialect, it also referred to a first wife or an only wife.

Maybe you should reread the Biblical accounts. The Romans posted a guard in front of the tomb specifically to ensure that the body was not stolen away. Yet, the tomb was found to be empty on Sunday morning.

The first interesting thing to note is that the earliest of all the NT writings, those of Paul, make no mention whatsoever of the guard at the tomb. The author writing closest in time to when the events actually happened completely ignored that rather important detail. Only two writings in the entire NT even mention the guard, the earliest of which is Matthew, who does not specify whether the guard was Roman or Jewish, but only that Pilate approved a guard to be placed at the tome, and then later Peter, who is the only one to specifically assert that the guard was Roman. Peter's writings, though, are often taken with a grain of salt by scholars, because of their apologetic nature (he was writing to defend traditions that had already come into place by the time he wrote, not so much to convey the actuality of events). Both Matthew and Peter were written many decades after the crucifixion.

As to the state of Jesus after the resurrection: He remained (and remains) fully human and fully divine. So Jesus was able to show up in a locked room (displaying His divine attributes), but He was also able to eat food and allow the disciples to touch His wounds (displaying His human attributes). There is no contradiction; it is simply Jesus being able to use both His human and divine attributes as He saw fit.

So goes the dogmatic interpretation, at any rate.

And to say that none of His followers recognized Him is inaccurate. He appeared to them several times after His resurrection, each time being able to establish His identity.

They had to be persuaded, and often at great lengths. A bit strange for a group that honestly believed he was going to be resurrected, and who knew him so intimately for much of his adult life, to be so difficult to persuade that this person in front of them was their risen comrade. I think the fact that most accounts of this "miraculous" event weren't ever written down until nearly everyone who was there to "see" it was already conveniently dead is quite telling.

 

[Nightwish]

Very true, Jeff. Also note Luke 1:34. "How will this be," Mary asked the angel, "since I am a virgin?" This passage wouldn't make much sense if Mary was an Egyptian dancing girl, as opposed to being chaste? Surely Mary knew that being a dancing girl, or simply being independent of a man, was not the way to keep from getting pregnant. She would have no reason to question had she not truly been a virgin.

What word for "virgin" was used in that passage? Also, the ancient Jews were hardly advanced experts in medical knowledge. There are many people still today, including whole cultures, who don't fully understand the relationship between sex and childbirth. In many ancient cultures, a pregnancy was not automatically associated with sexual coitus, but was more strongly associated with right living, properly appeasing the gods (or God), and was considered a gift from God. It's entirely possible that Mary was asking, "How can this be, I am not married, and have thus not earned such a gift?" It's also quite possible that this verse is one, like so many others, that was written decades after the fact, an apologetic verse to defend a myth that had already begun to grow in verbal traditions. Certainly, I can't prove that's the case, but neither can you prove it's not. It's as valid a hypothesis as the apologetics.

 

[kal-el]

first off, you didn't say that the gospels are not complety true you said that no one wrote of jesus during jesus' lifetime, your exact quote being " Dude, noone who wrote about Jesus, were alive in his lifetime. The Gospel's aren't proof of anything."

Ok, but I am lost here. How does this disprove evolution?

second, by saying that the gospels are not completey true then you aknowledge that they are partly true.

Wow, that's quite a giant leap there.

and finally, darwinism is survival of the fitest and given the quality of your logic and posts i am starting to question darwinisim as it applies to you.

O, so tiring. Hurling more insults I see.

 

[kal-el]

Listen little boy. Im not gonna get into a line by line debate with you, because you havent even shown the ability to follow simple logic.

Let me spell it out for you.

A person can understand a PART of something, without totally grasping the entire concept.

Most people understand a little about gravity, but they dont understand all of it.
Hence, I can say, I "DONT TOTALLY GRASP GRAVITY" and then go on to say, gravity is a force whereby an object the size of the earth pulls smaller objects that are close enough to it, towards it.

Now, by your reasoning, you would come back with "but I thought you said you dont totally grasp gravity?"

The poster said he doesnt TOTALLY GRASP CHRISTIANITY, then he stated a part of it he does grasp.

Then YOU idiotically retorted with, "but you said you dont grasp Christianity"

Until you can grasp this concept of deduction, then I will have to assume you dont have a full grasp of the concept of logical deductions.

Now run along little boy and feel proud thinking you won another debate, when all you really did was babble on so much that you onlly proved you have more time to WASTE on nonsense than others do.

I really don't have the time to respond to your ignorant pscyhobabble. By responding further, I am stooping down to your level.

 

[Arabian]

I think we both agree that God is a spiritual being.
I guess you are talking about the 4 indicators of life in the physical world: digestion, growth, reproduction, and respiration? I assume we would both agree that Jesus had a physical body which performed all of these functions.

i didnt say that God is a spritual beings,,,
its impossible cause if he is a being then he is a creature ,, and the same Q appear again,, will he end and who created him???

and if jesus is as you say and he is a god,, then why we cant see the god benoyed us and then we can see him ,,,
i think in christianity you believe we all cant see the god,,, and if jesus is a god then how come you saw him,,,
ahh cause he came in the shape of human,,, then why we cant see god in the shape of human,,

Mary may or may not have contributed genetically to Jesus' body, but she carried him, gave him birth, nursed him and raised him. This gives her the right to call him "son."

and should god put his son in woman ,,, we could found him ,, exist as god,,
god created mary.......... jesus came from mary............. then he came from a creature ,, then he is a creature not god,,,
if he is a god he should came from god and as long as there is no god reproduction cause there is only one god in the whole universe ,, and only living can reproduction then Jesus cant be a god,,,,

But there are other ways to achieve this relationship. For instance, Joseph adopted Jesus and raised Jesus in his household. So Jesus was Joseph's adopted "son." Even though Joseph did not contribute genetically to Jesus' body.

and yeah
Who is the father of Joseph?
MAT 1:16 And Jacob begat Joseph the husband of Mary, of whom was born Jesus, who is called Christ.

LUK 3:23 And Jesus himself began to be about thirty years of age, being (as was supposed) the son of Joseph, which was the son of Heli.

which one is true ?????????
and how we can make an Antecedent chain for jesus while he have no father
and it differ from matta and luke

Jesus is called the "Son of God" because no man contributed genetically to his physical body. The body was created by God.

the banana female tree reproduct with no need for a male banana
(in biology we studied soo)
does that make the banana tree ,, God banana tree

Now, as we have agreed, the body and spirit/soul are two separate things. This body of Jesus' existed physically in time. The body is what we call "The Son." But the spirit that inhabited this body was God's own Spirit. This was not reproduced or created.

me too have a soul and body we all doo,,,,,,

and what about Krishna in Hindunism ,, he have the same story as jesus ,,, no father is he also the son of the god ,,, or he is the brother of Jesus,, and who knows ,, maybe there are others.... you didnt answer this point i asked it before???

 

[Arabian]

Arabian:

Jesus said the only way to the Father was through him.

Do you respect that?

the father ,, you mean god,,,,

god sent his message to jesus,, if we work with this message then we will obey god,, then we will walk in his path

 

[Arabian]

It has been awhile Arabian; I am surprised you’re still up your antics. Just saying hi.

hii friend,,,
we all once will be antics ,,
thanx allah there still you saying hi to me so
hiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiii

 

[Arabian]

Originally Posted by LuvRPgrl

Unfortunately, women have also internalised attitudes against themselves. They sit in mosques and hear preachers telling them they're inferior and they socialise their sons as being superior.

Originally Posted by Arabian
Lol ,, who said so
i wonder what the president of Andonisia Say about this ,,
she is a woman and president in a muslim Country in the same time,,,

In america have you seen president lady

Indonesia is a republic with a presidential system, NOT a theocracy...

does that mean there is no mosque there????

 

[Annie]

does that mean there is no mosque there????

A mosque does not = theocracy.

 

[Nienna]

i didnt say that God is a spritual beings,,,

So you do NOT think God is a spiritual being? Is He only a man?

its impossible cause if he is a being then he is a creature ,, and the same Q appear again,, will he end and who created him???

and if jesus is as you say and he is a god,, then why we cant see the god benoyed us and then we can see him ,,,
i think in christianity you believe we all cant see the god,,, and if jesus is a god then how come you saw him,,,
ahh cause he came in the shape of human,,, then why we cant see god in the shape of human,,

and should god put his son in woman ,,, we could found him ,, exist as god,,
god created mary.......... jesus came from mary............. then he came from a creature ,, then he is a creature not god,,,
if he is a god he should came from god and as long as there is no god reproduction cause there is only one god in the whole universe ,, and only living can reproduction then Jesus cant be a god,,,,

and yeah
Who is the father of Joseph?
MAT 1:16 And Jacob begat Joseph the husband of Mary, of whom was born Jesus, who is called Christ.

LUK 3:23 And Jesus himself began to be about thirty years of age, being (as was supposed) the son of Joseph, which was the son of Heli.

which one is true ?????????
and how we can make an Antecedent chain for jesus while he have no father
and it differ from matta and luke

Wow. I don't know how else to explain this, if you will not recognize the difference between the physical being and the spiritual being, and recognize that God can be BOTH.

This line of reasoning makes me dizzy.

the banana female tree reproduct with no need for a male banana
(in biology we studied soo)
does that make the banana tree ,, God banana tree

Most fruit trees bear fruit through sexual reproduction. That is, the blossoms must be pollinated, accepting a portion of genetic material from another source. Although, the trees, themselves, can be propagated in other ways.

me too have a soul and body we all doo,,,,,,

and what about Krishna in Hindunism ,, he have the same story as jesus ,,, no father is he also the son of the god ,,, or he is the brother of Jesus,, and who knows ,, maybe there are others.... you didnt answer this point i asked it before???

Not familiar with

 

[Said1]

does that mean there is no mosque there????

Did I say that? No. I said THEOCRACIES. I'm really going out on a limb by assuming you DO know what that is.....not to be rude or anything.

And I know I did say Magawati's debarture was due in part to a strong MUSLIM opposition to her leadership, amoung OTHER things. She did NOT win her bid at re-election, like,,,,, NOT in power anymore.....not president TODAY.

 

[Markainion]

hii friend,,,
we all once will be antics ,,
thanx allah there still you saying hi to me so
hiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiii