Christianity or Islam Debate

  • Thread starter Thread starter ZAKI
  • Start date Start date
Status
Not open for further replies.
Answersplease said:
Tu quoque argument.
Click to expand...
I was referring to the last bit of what he said and that argument. Oh it is metaphorical-whatever a christian doesn’t like about the bible they will say that it is metaphorical. I knew a christian who was asked by an atheist, “how can the adam and eve story be true when we know the theory of evolution?” The christian replied by saying, “Oh no don’t worry the adam and eve story is only metaphorical”. That atheist should have gone further and asked, “metaphorical for WHAT?”
and I ask you what is the violence in this parable—what is it METAPHORIC for?
“And now about these enemies of mine who didn’t want me as their king-bring them in and execute them here in my presence”. Luke.

So this is referring to judgement after death? So God is going to raise up all his enemies from the dead so that he can have them executed in his presence?
Something doesn’t sound right.

wasalam
 
ZAKI said:
I was referring to the last bit of what he said and that argument. Oh it is metaphorical-whatever a christian doesn’t like about the bible they will say that it is metaphorical. I knew a christian who was asked by an atheist, “how can the adam and eve story be true when we know the theory of evolution?” The christian replied by saying, “Oh no don’t worry the adam and eve story is only metaphorical”. That atheist should have gone further and asked, “metaphorical for WHAT?”
and I ask you what is the violence in this parable—what is it METAPHORIC for?
“And now about these enemies of mine who didn’t want me as their king-bring them in and execute them here in my presence”. Luke.

So this is referring to judgement after death? So God is going to raise up all his enemies from the dead so that he can have them executed in his presence?
Something doesn’t sound right.

wasalam
Click to expand...
Thanks. Now, tell me, why is Mary called the sister of Moses in the Qu’ran? She didn’t exist when Moses was around.
 
I was mistaken, she is called the sister of Aaron.
019.028
YUSUFALI: “O sister of Aaron! Thy father was not a man of evil, nor thy mother a woman unchaste!”
PICKTHAL: O sister of Aaron! Thy father was not a wicked man nor was thy mother a harlot.
SHAKIR: O sister of Haroun! your father was not a bad man, nor, was your mother an unchaste woman.
Click to expand...
So, again, why is Mary called the sister of Haroun/Aaron? She didn’t live when he was around. He died centuries before she was even born.
 
Eucharisted said:
Thanks. Now, tell me, why is Mary called the sister of Moses in the Qu’ran? She didn’t exist when Moses was around.
Click to expand...
Mughira b. Shu’ba reported: “When I came to Najran, they (the Christians of Najran) asked me: You read “O sister of Harun (Aaron)” (i. e. Mary) in the Qur’an, whereas Moses was born much before Jesus. When I came back to Allah’s Messenger (may peace be upon him) I asked him about that, whereupon he said: The (people of the old age) used to give names (to their persons) after the names of Apostles and pious persons who had gone before them. (Translation of Sahih Muslim, The Book on General Behaviour (Kitab Al-Adab), Book 025, Number 5326)”

As we clearly see from the Saying (Hadith) of our beloved Prophet, this issue was brought to him before and he clearly responded to it. The false claim made against our Prophet about him meaning that Mary was a biological sister of Aaron is clearly refuted.
 
elwill said:
Mughira b. Shu’ba reported: “When I came to Najran, they (the Christians of Najran) asked me: You read “O sister of Harun (Aaron)” (i. e. Mary) in the Qur’an, whereas Moses was born much before Jesus. When I came back to Allah’s Messenger (may peace be upon him) I asked him about that, whereupon he said: The (people of the old age) used to give names (to their persons) after the names of Apostles and pious persons who had gone before them. (Translation of Sahih Muslim, The Book on General Behaviour (Kitab Al-Adab), Book 025, Number 5326)”

As we clearly see from the Saying (Hadith) of our beloved Prophet, this issue was brought to him before and he clearly responded to it. The false claim made against our Prophet about him meaning that Mary was a biological sister of Aaron is clearly refuted.
Click to expand...
Mohammed isn’t an expert on Jewish names, so that’s an Appeal to Authority fallacy.

And notice that he didn’t give any evidence that Aaron is the name of Mary’s brother. Nor did he give any evidence that Mary has a biological brother. That dosen’t help him at all.
 
Eucharisted said:
Mohammed isn’t an expert on Jewish names, so that’s an Appeal to Authority fallacy.
Click to expand...
No the illiterate prophet (pbuh) is not an expert. But God does know. Are you going to tell me that God would not be an expert on Jewish names?
I rest my case. 😉
(Btw, I joined ur poetry group eucharisted-check out my first poem when u have time).

wasalam
 
ZAKI said:
No the illiterate prophet (pbuh) is not an expert. But God does know. Are you going to tell me that God would not be an expert on Jewish names?
I rest my case. 😉
(Btw, I joined ur poetry group eucharisted-check out my first poem when u have time).

wasalam
Click to expand...
Hadiths aren’t revelation, though. I rest my case 😉

I don’t have a poem group, but I’ll check out your work 🙂
 
Btw, if you don’t see the connection then lemme explain. God gave info to Muhammed (pbuh). Muhammed (pbuh) gave that info to the rest of his ummah. Similar to the way God revealed his Holy Book to Muhammed (pbuh). Muhammed (pbuh) being the illiterate man he was couldn’t write so either as a non-believer would think he got some random follower to write it for him OR as I believe and 1.8 billion muslims believe: Allah revealed the Quran to him.

wasalam
 
Eucharisted said:
Hadiths aren’t revelation, though. I rest my case 😉

I don’t have a poem group, but I’ll check out your work 🙂
Click to expand...
No you can’t rest your case because whatever Muhammed (pbuh) said was from Allah and therefore this would’ve been information that Allah would disclosed to Muhammed (pbuh).
Get me? I rest my case.
(Time for you to reply and say that you rest your case as well). 👍

wasalam
 
ZAKI said:
Btw, if you don’t see the connection then lemme explain. God gave info to Muhammed (pbuh). Muhammed (pbuh) gave that info to the rest of his ummah. Similar to the way God revealed his Holy Book to Muhammed (pbuh). Muhammed (pbuh) being the illiterate man he was couldn’t write so either as a non-believer would think he got some random follower to write it for him OR as I believe and 1.8 billion muslims believe: Allah revealed the Quran to him.

wasalam
Click to expand...
You might want to read about Jewish names in the Biblical time before you jump to the conclusion that Mohammed was correct: en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Jewish_names

Appeal to Authority fallacy still stands.
 
ZAKI said:
Why do I need wikipedia when I have God?
(How did you like my poem? Pretty good eh? ;))

wasalam
Click to expand...
In other words, “I believe in something even though it’s been proven false.” Suit yourself, Zaki.

I replied to your poem on the wall messages.
 
Eucharisted said:
In other words, “I believe in something even though it’s been proven false.” Suit yourself, Zaki.

I replied to your poem on the wall messages.
Click to expand...
You mean somebody’s opinion? Btw, I haven’t checked the wikipedia page but I will soon (when I’m bothered—in particular what sub-section do you want me to see?) 🙂

wasalam
 
Eucharisted said:
Mohammed isn’t an expert on Jewish names, so that’s an Appeal to Authority fallacy.

And notice that he didn’t give any evidence that Aaron is the name of Mary’s brother. Nor did he give any evidence that Mary has a biological brother. That dosen’t help him at all.
Click to expand...
The People of Isreal used to call people by either their last names, or by adding words such as you “Son of…” or “Brother of…” or “Sister of…” When they called people “O Son of…” they didn’t mean for that person to be the actual biological son of the person whom they used his name. The other person could be a simply in the family tree or a last name.

When Jesus was called “Jesus the son of David” for instance, the Jews didn’t mean to call Jesus the actual biological son of David. Similarily, when they called Mary “O sister of Aaron”, they meant to call her sister of Aaron in faith !. Not the actual biological sister of Aaron.

both the Bible and Quran agree she was a LEVITE i.e. a member of the tribe of hereditary “cohens” or “priests” in Judaism. (All ultimately descendants of Aaroon)

How do I know this? Mary’s cousin was Elizabeth
whom we are told “belonged to a priestly family”
(Luke 1:5, 36). See also Quran 3:35-36 (stating Mary was descendent of priestly line of Imran).

A female descendent of the hereditary priesthood could quite properly be called a "sister of Aaroon!
 
elwill said:
The People of Isreal used to call people by either their last names, or by adding words such as you “Son of…” or “Brother of…” or “Sister of…” When they called people “O Son of…” they didn’t mean for that person to be the actual biological son of the person whom they used his name. The other person could be a simply in the family tree or a last name.

When Jesus was called “Jesus the son of David” for instance, the Jews didn’t mean to call Jesus the actual biological son of David. Similarily, when they called Mary “O sister of Aaron”, they meant to call her sister of Aaron in faith !. Not the actual biological sister of Aaron.

both the Bible and Quran agree she was a LEVITE i.e. a member of the tribe of hereditary “cohens” or “priests” in Judaism. (All ultimately descendants of Aaroon)

How do I know this? Mary’s cousin was Elizabeth
whom we are told “belonged to a priestly family”
(Luke 1:5, 36). See also Quran 3:35-36 (stating Mary was descendent of priestly line of Imran).

A female descendent of the hereditary priesthood could quite properly be called a "sister of Aaroon!
Click to expand...
Since you are contradicting Mohammed in the hadith which you yourself posted, I won’t take your words seriously.
 
Eucharisted said:
You might want to read about Jewish names in the Biblical time before you jump to the conclusion that Mohammed was correct: en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Jewish_names

Appeal to Authority fallacy still stands.
Click to expand...
Numerous are the instances in Bible where tribal names are used to mention descendants. For example, Lot is called Abraham’s brother (Genesis 14:14), though he was in fact Abraham’s nephew (Genesis 11:31).
Similarly Abraham spoke to Lot saying: “We men are brothers” (Genesis 13:8). But Abraham was actually was the uncle of Lot!
Likewise the Babylonian queen referred to Nebuchadnezzar as the father of Belshazzar, when, Nabonidus was evidently his father and Nebuchadnezzar his grandfather (Daniel 5:11).
Thus, in New Testament Abraham is referred to as the father of us, when actually he was a distant forefather (Acts 7:2, Romans 4:12, James 2:21).
A member of the Jewish race removed from Abraham as much by 2000 years can still refer to Abraham as his father (Luke 16:24-25, 1:67-73; 13:16).
In Numbers (20:14), the Israelites are referred to as the brother of the king of Edom, even though Esau and Jacob were the brothers from whom both groups descended.
Similarly, Obed is referred to as Naomi’s son in Ruth 4:17, even though he was the son of her daughter-in-law, Ruth.
Laban is called Nahor?s son (Genesis 49:5) when he is actually the son of Bethuel, the son of Nahor (Genesis 4:47).
Jesus in the synagogue on the Sabbath healed the woman who had a spirit of infirmity for 18 years. In response to criticism of the healing, Jesus referred to her as a daughter of Abraham (Luke 13:16).
In the parable of the rich man and Lazarus, Jesus placed Lazarus on Abraham?s bosom (Luke 16:22).
Zacchaeus, as tax collector, was socially alienated. The crowd murmured against Jesus’ voluntary visit to Zacchaeus? house. After his declaration that he would give back to the poor half of his wealth and restore fourfold to those he had defrauded, Jesus called him a son of Abraham (Luke 19:9).

In the longest statement recorded in the New Testament (John 8:37-59), Jesus has used Abraham?s children thrice. St. Paul referred to Jesus as the offering of Abraham (Galatians 3:16-18, 24:29). Persons in authority are also known as Fathers in Biblical language: priestly officials (Judges 17:10), Prophets (2 Kings 2:12, 6:21), Persons holding office (Genesis 45:8, Isaiah 22:21), benefactors (Job 29:16). Sometimes, families are known after the names of their distinguished ancestors.
In the Bible, the name Israel sometimes stands for the Israelites (Deuteronomy 6:3-4) and Kedar for the Ishmaelite (Isaiah 21:16, 42:11). Jesus was titled son of David (Matthew 9:27, 15:22, 20:30-31, Mark 10:47-48).

i didn’t see your link yet , but i have to ask you if i have to reject the bible if wikipedia contradict it ? !!!
 
ZAKI said:
I was referring to the last bit of what he said and that argument. Oh it is metaphorical-whatever a christian doesn’t like about the bible they will say that it is metaphorical. I knew a christian who was asked by an atheist, “how can the adam and eve story be true when we know the theory of evolution?” The christian replied by saying, “Oh no don’t worry the adam and eve story is only metaphorical”. That atheist should have gone further and asked, “metaphorical for WHAT?”
and I ask you what is the violence in this parable—what is it METAPHORIC for?
“And now about these enemies of mine who didn’t want me as their king-bring them in and execute them here in my presence”. Luke.

So this is referring to judgement after death? So God is going to raise up all his enemies from the dead so that he can have them executed in his presence?
Something doesn’t sound right.

wasalam
Click to expand...
First off, I won’t pretend to be an expert on Islam - I have only read the first couple chapters of the Quran, and have a brief understanding of Mohammad’s life/history of Islam.

Secondly, I only claim to present a Catholic perspective of the Bible - which by the way is the ONLY correct understanding of the Bible. Any other conflicting interpretations are derived by apostates and/or heretics. So that may be why you are so easily confused by what answers various Christians give you regarding the Bible - most don’t have the right understanding either, and therefore give incorrect and conflicting answers.

Adam and Eve can be believed to be both literal and metaphorical. Literal in the sense that as Christians, we are to believe that God created the first two human beings. There were indeed two humans from whom all humans are descended. Now, whether their ACTUAL names were Adam and Eve? It is free to believe this is correct, or just imputed
names. Were they created on the sixth day, literally? Possible? Yes. Possibly metaphorical?, Yes. Ultimately, the Catholic Church allows either belief, so long as one acknowledges that God created the universe, and created humankind - in the first two parents. Since God lives outside time, it is only a human construct to ascribe a specific time to WHEN He created things, i.e. the First day, the Second Day, etc. That could mean literally ONE day in our understanding of time, or again, just the use of imperfect human words to try and comprehend the creative power of God.

As for the Parable in Luke that was quoted. The parable is a metaphor - that means that certain aspects of it are symbolically linked to other aspects of something else. In this case, the King is God. The servants are the Jews and Gentiles. The Kingdom the King (God) goes out to claim is the whole World. When he returns (the Second coming of the Messiah/judgement day - which is metaphorical for death) there are those who took his money and made more with it (this is symbolic of keeping and spreading the faith) are rewarded. The one who did not make more money (symbolic of one who fails to follow in the King’s (Gods) ways is punished. Likewise, the King (God) decrees that all His enemies will be slain before Him. (This is symbolic of the Last Judgement, where ALL whohave died enemies of God will be cast into hell.)

The point of the parable is to NOT take it literally, but as a figure or symbol of the supernatural.

Finally, I was merely pointing out that it is not necessary for a Christian to use deceitful tactics to win converts. That some Christian might use such tactics is possible and quite probable, given what I have said above regarding the many wrong interpretations of the Bible and Christianity itself that so many non-Catholic Christians have. I think that “Aha! I gotcha!” type of debate is disingenuous and that the points should be able to be debated on their own merits, rather than attempting to twist their meanings or take them out of context, as it appears that the debater must have done at the end of this debate (again, I haven’t watched it.)
Peace,
 
Status
Not open for further replies.
Back
Top