Muslims and Universalists, what do you think of these verses?

[elwill]

Yes…and I honestly believe your prophet Mohammad would consider them heretics as well.

Because, again, they did not reflect either a Judeo-Christian or even Islamic mindset.

You also know (or I hope you would know) that in the early years of Islam there were many sects that claimed to have commands from Mohammad or be in line with Islamic belief, but were simply heretical by Muslim standards. There were good reason to reject them. Likewise, there are plenty of good reasons to ignore the Gnostic and neo-Gnostic beliefs that sprung up around that time. Most of them were pagan and held beliefs that, again, even Mohammad would say were heretical.

when you said to me that We have here a source given by the disciples of Christ, dated close to the time of Christ, and with plenty of manuscript evidence from that time period to verify what it says.
i just thought for a moment as you asked me and i i found out that we have many sources fit the same standards ( given by disciples and dated close to jesus’s time) and they contradicts each other
i wanted to tell you that your criteria not suffecient to consider your versions over the others or to consider both of them over my beliefs in quran

 

[Byzantine_Wolf]

when you said to me that We have here a source given by the disciples of Christ, dated close to the time of Christ, and with plenty of manuscript evidence from that time period to verify what it says.
i just thought for a moment as you asked me and i i found out that we have many sources fit the same standards ( given by disciples and dated close to jesus’s time) and they contradicts each other
i wanted to tell you that your criteria not suffecient to consider your versions over the others or to consider both of them over my beliefs in quran

Wait a moment - sir, I explained those points to you. To simply say, “I don’t care, it’s not sufficient,” is to simply repeat your argument. You’re not even attempting to respond to what has been placed before you.

However, I might add that you did not even directly respond to my question: why should believers of Christ believe a revelation given to one man 600 years after the time of Christ with teachings that contradict what Christ and His disciples gave? Again, suppose 600 years after the time of Mohammad someone in a land far from Mecca in a different culture claimed to be in line with Mohammad and gave a revelation that contradicted what was taught in the Quran - should we simply submit to that person? What if those followers pointed to Muslim offshoots or heresies which existed around that time (and you know they did) as verification that their revelation should be trusted?

Would you deny the Quran and submit to their revelation, or would you demand signs that this revelation was in line with what had come before? Ponder your answer to that, and then use the same standards for Christians. Don’t run to attack Christianity, but try to remain consistent in your thinking and answer that question. That is my only request.

 

[elwill]

However, I might add that you did not even directly respond to my question: why should believers of Christ believe a revelation given to one man 600 years after the time of Christ with teachings that contradict what Christ and His disciples gave? Again, suppose 600 years after the time of Mohammad someone in a land far from Mecca in a different culture claimed to be in line with Mohammad and gave a revelation that contradicted what was taught in the Quran - should we simply submit to that person? What if those followers pointed to Muslim offshoots or heresies which existed around that time (and you know they did) as verification that their revelation should be trusted?

well , i will give you some reasons for why you can’t depend on your gospels .

We first start with the book of Matthew.
en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Gospel_of_Matthew

The authorship of this Gospel is traditionally ascribed to St Matthew, a tax-collector who became an apostle of Jesus. However, most modern scholars are content to let it remain anonymous.

The relation of the gospels to one another is the subject of some debate. Most modern scholars believe that Matthew borrowed from Mark and the hypothetical Q document, but some scholars believe that Matthew was written first and that Mark borrowed from Matthew (see: Augustinian hypothesis). Out of a total of 1071 verses, Matthew has 387 in common with Mark and the Gospel of Luke, 130 with Mark, 184 with Luke; only 387 being peculiar to itself.

Like the authors of the other gospels, the author of Matthew wrote this book according to his own plans and aims and from HIS OWN POINT OF VIEW, while at the same time borrowing from other sources. According to the two-source hypothesis (the most commonly accepted solution to the synoptic problem), Matthew borrowed from both Mark and a hypothetical sayings collection, known by scholars as Q (for the German Quelle, meaning “source”).

please take your time to read this link either

earlychristianwritings.com/matthew.html
This means, however, that we can no longer accept the traditional view of Matthew’s authorship. At least two things forbid us to do so. First, the tradition maintains that Matthew authored an Aramaic writing, while the standpoint I have adopted does not allow us to regard our Greek text as a translation of an Aramaic original. Second, it is extremely doubtful that an eyewitness like the apostle Matthew would have made such extensive use of material as a comparison of the two Gospels indicates. Mark, after all, did not even belong to the circle of the apostles. Indeed Matthew’s Gospel surpasses those of the other synoptic writers neither in vividness of presentation nor in detail, as we would expect in an eyewitness report, yet neither Mark nor Luke had been among those who had followed Jesus from the beginning of His public ministry.

again , you can read this link either
newadvent.org/cathen/10057a.htm
through reading in this article you can find out that the early Christians had a different version of Matthew than we have today , that’s why the Christians face problems on establishing what language Matthew wrote his Gospel in.

How can you rely on the accounts in these Gospels which are the basic Pillars of your Faith?

 

[KathleenGee]

Elwill,

Your use of language has changed dramatically…are there several working with you? Planten…

 

[jakasaki]

Elwill,

Your use of language has changed dramatically…are there several working with you? Planten…

If you are talking about his post #23 - it’s all copy & paste from a website…

 

[KathleenGee]

Jakasaki,

Yes, and it makes me understand why Muslims do not understand the authentic teachings of Christ…I don’t think he or the others who showed him the verses even understand what they mean or in what context…

Back to housecleaning and vegetable canning…

 

[Byzantine_Wolf]

How can you rely on the accounts in these Gospels which are the basic Pillars of your Faith?

Elwill, you haven’t even answered the basic question I posed to you.

However, I might add that you did not even directly respond to my question: why should believers of Christ believe a revelation given to one man 600 years after the time of Christ with teachings that contradict what Christ and His disciples gave? Again, suppose 600 years after the time of Mohammad someone in a land far from Mecca in a different culture claimed to be in line with Mohammad and gave a revelation that contradicted what was taught in the Quran - should we simply submit to that person? What if those followers pointed to Muslim offshoots or heresies which existed around that time (and you know they did) as verification that their revelation should be trusted?

Would you deny the Quran and submit to their revelation, or would you demand signs that this revelation was in line with what had come before? Ponder your answer to that, and then use the same standards for Christians. Don’t run to attack Christianity, but try to remain consistent in your thinking and answer that question. That is my only request.

 

[Byzantine_Wolf]

If you are talking about his post #23 - it’s all copy & paste from a website…

Parts of them are quotations from the websites (although there’s no effort to show they’re quotes, which is close to plagiarism). Most of these scholars would likewise deny the Quran has any divine or consistent source, which would deny his entire thesis.

It’s quite interesting how, even in the days of the apostles, supposedly religious people used pagans against the followers of Christ…

 

[elwill]

Elwill, you haven’t even answered the basic question I posed to you.

i think that somehow i answered your question

you asked me why should you trust a prophet’s account about jesus (pbuh) while he came after 600 years

my answer is that , because christians differed about jesus in this time , many different accounts and many canons and many traditions and many bibles and many sects are raised between christians where all of them contradicts each other and because the original writing if thiere any are lost

it’s not fair to leave these genrations in thier confusion , so that he sent the last prophet with the truth and with the true account about jesus (pbuh) , that’s my humble answer

allah said in quran about people of book ( the bold words)

4-157 That they said (in boast), "We killed Christ Jesus the son of Mary, the Messenger of Allah.;- but they killed him not, nor crucified him, but so it was made to appear to them, and those who differ therein are full of doubts, with no (certain) knowledge, but only conjecture to follow, for of a surety they killed him not:-

11-110 We certainly gave the Book to Moses, but differences arose therein: had it not been that a word had gone forth before from thy Lord, the matter would have been decided between them, but they are in suspicious doubt concerning it.

42-14 And they became divided only after Knowledge reached them,- through selfish envy as between themselves. Had it not been for a Word that went forth before from thy Lord, (tending) to a Term appointed, the matter would have been settled between them: **But truly those who have inherited the Book after them are in suspicious (disquieting) doubt concerning it. **

i think that i wanted to show you how scholars of your relegions themselfs have doubts about authenticity of the bible and it’s truthfulness

do you think that i didn’t answer your question yet

 

[Byzantine_Wolf]

i think that somehow i answered your question

you asked me why should you trust a prophet’s account about jesus (pbuh) while he came after 600 years

my answer is that , because christians differed about jesus in this time , many different accounts and many canons and many traditions and many bibles and many sects are raised between christians where all of them contradicts each other and because the original writing if thiere any are lost

I already responded to this regard on the many different churches/canons, even using a Muslim context. You did not respond to that. I know I have brought this up to you in the past, and you have never responded directly to it. This leads me to wonder if you are even desiring to consider the answer.

And my question is not simply why we should trust the prophet’s account, but why you expect Christians to follow the contradictory teachings of a self-proclaimed prophet who claims to be in line with all that came before when he cannot even quote what came before to prove it. I then compared it to something like the Ba’hai, who claim to be in line with Islam yet teach commands contradictory to the commands of Islam. Should you go with them?

 

[elwill]

Parts of them are quotations from the websites (although there’s no effort to show they’re quotes, which is close to plagiarism). Most of these scholars would likewise deny the Quran has any divine or consistent source, which would deny his entire thesis.

It’s quite interesting how, even in the days of the apostles, supposedly religious people used pagans against the followers of Christ…

offcourse there’s no effort to show they are quotes , because i allready provided the links i quoted from

is theire any objections about the links i provided ?

 

[elwill]

I already responded to this regard on the many different churches/canons, even using a Muslim context. You did not respond to that. I know I have brought this up to you in the past, and you have never responded directly to it. This leads me to wonder if you are even desiring to consider the answer.

i don’t remeber

And my question is not simply why we should trust the prophet’s account, but why you expect Christians to follow the contradictory teachings of a self-proclaimed prophet who claims to be in line with all that came before **when he cannot even quote what came before to prove it. **I then compared it to something like the Ba’hai, who claim to be in line with Islam yet teach commands contradictory to the commands of Islam. Should you go with them?

i expect christians to follow the teaching of mohammed (pbuh) when they found out it’s truthfulness , exactly as you can expect christians leave theire relegion to be athiests when they realize it’s fallacy without needing to read quran .

as for Bahai or any other sects which proclaim to be in line with islam , i don’t know much about them and i never argued with one of them , i think that i can proof the fallacy of their relegion from their own beliefs not from mine

what did you mean by this bold statement ?
when he cannot even quote what came before to prove it.

 

[Byzantine_Wolf]

as for Bahai or any other sects which proclaim to be in line with islam , i don’t know much about them and i never argued with one of them , i think that i can proof the fallacy of their relegion from their own beliefs not from mine

Bahai claim that Mohammad was one of their prophets, but that their prophet is an extension of everything that came before. Most Muslims believe that Mohammad was the last and final prophet. That’s what I mean by using them as an example. If your mindset is to “prove everyone wrong” without using your own religion as a standard, nor to even set your own religion by the same standards, then I think you are revealing that the only mindset in defending Islam is to attack everyone else. That isn’t how most religious apologetics work - save for what we usually find in Muslim apologetics. However, that’s also not directly answering my point. That’s also misunderstanding my question.

My question is not a how but a why: why should you expect those who came before the Quran to embrace it when it contradicts their own beliefs when you certainly don’t expect yourself to follow any later revelations that claim to be in line with the Quran. Why, as a Muslim and not merely as a non-member of that newer faith, would you not be expected to follow those later revelations that claim to be in line with your faith? Using those same standards for Islam and later revelations, how would you expect people of pre-Muslim revelations to follow Islam? I think I’ve clarified this question ad nauseum.

 

[elwill]

Bahai claim that Mohammad was one of their prophets, but that their prophet is an extension of everything that came before. Most Muslims believe that Mohammad was the last and final prophet. That’s what I mean by using them as an example. If your mindset is to “prove everyone wrong” without using your own religion as a standard, nor to even set your own religion by the same standards, then I think you are revealing that the only mindset in defending Islam is to attack everyone else. That isn’t how most religious apologetics work - save for what we usually find in Muslim apologetics. However, that’s also not directly answering my point. That’s also misunderstanding my question.

My question is not a how but a why: why should you expect those who came before the Quran to embrace it when it contradicts their own beliefs when you certainly don’t expect yourself to follow any later revelations that claim to be in line with the Quran. Why, as a Muslim and not merely as a non-member of that newer faith, would you not be expected to follow those later revelations that claim to be in line with your faith? Using those same standards for Islam and later revelations, how would you expect people of pre-Muslim revelations to follow Islam? I think I’ve clarified this question ad nauseum.

are you asking about christians who believed in him 1400 years ago ?
we believe that they waited him and recognized him as a prophet ,
christians back then may saw harmony in both teaching , not as you see it
beside , thiere nothing in the bible says that jesus is the last of prophets , as it was said in islam about mohammed (pbuh)

 

[KathleenGee]

Elwill,

The Muslim understanding of Christ is false and full of holes, and completely denies His greatness and purpose to the world and to you.

I have read the Koran from what both Muslims and Christians have provided here…and, although it contains a sincere faith in God, I shake my head right now if you could see me…
it is not revealed truth.

I respect other people’s sensitivity to their beliefs and I do believe it is wrong to burn a Koran or kill a Muslim.

Don’t you think, if you had the true Christ, that there would be more unity between us?

 

[Byzantine_Wolf]

are you asking about christians who believed in him 1400 years ago ?
we believe that they waited him and recognized him as a prophet ,
christians back then may saw harmony in both teaching , not as you see it
beside , thiere nothing in the bible says that jesus is the last of prophets , as it was said in islam about mohammed (pbuh)

Elwill, what I say will be blunt, but believe me it is said out of love and not out of disrespect.

I have on several occasions clarified what I am asking you. I think everyone reading this thread will identify that there should be no confusion on your part. Personally, I have seen your responses to other people asking you questions, and you usually do this “I don’t understand” response. I worry very much that you are doing what planten often did, which was avoid giving a response by feigning ignorance or inability to answer. Be forewarned that, as you may notice, the same Muslims and Christians engage in debate here over and over again, so repeating debate tactics will be noticed.

Now, I want to point out something you have done over and over again: avoid putting Islam under the microscope. When I asked why Christians should follow Islam, you attack Christianity. When I make it clear I’m asking about the legitimacy of Islam as a revelation in line with Christianity, you again attack Christianity. When I try to clarify the point further by using Bahai and its claim to be in line with Islam as an example, you claim that you would simply attack Bahai.

Notice: my question is regarding Islam itself…but you refuse to put Islam under the standards you would put every other faith. Even if people may not post in this thread, any reader coming across this discussion will notice this. If Islam is a true revelation, there should be no need to avoid keeping it as the topic. I would ask, again, to respond to the ultimate question posed before you, and not run to another religion to distract our attention from Islam.

 

[slave_of_god]

i think that for any prophet to proof to his people that he is prophet , God should give him a sign to his people
the sign must to be something challanger for those people

miracle of moses (pbuh) were in magic , because egyption were powerfull in it
miracle of jesus (pbuh) were in healing , because people of this time were powerfull in medicine
miracle of mohammed (pbuh) were in literacy and in the languge because his people were powerfull in it either

Moses was not a magician ,
indeed, he was affected by their magic
His miracle was from god while the magic is from devil !

 

[elwill]

Now, I want to point out something you have done over and over again: avoid putting Islam under the microscope. When I asked why Christians should follow Islam, you attack Christianity. When I make it clear I’m asking about the legitimacy of Islam as a revelation in line with Christianity, you again attack Christianity. When I try to clarify the point further by using Bahai and its claim to be in line with Islam as an example, you claim that you would simply attack Bahai.

Notice: my question is regarding Islam itself…but you refuse to put Islam under the standards you would put every other faith. Even if people may not post in this thread, any reader coming across this discussion will notice this. If Islam is a true revelation, there should be no need to avoid keeping it as the topic. I would ask, again, to respond to the ultimate question posed before you, and not run to another religion to distract our attention from Islam.

i confess that somethimes i need to base my argument with common language that’s why i likely request definations for the concepts

believe me i don’t try to attack christianity nor i ever tried to ignore any questions , i try my best to address the question and give my answer directly and briefly

give me one more chance , your question is regarding islam itself and you asking why should i expect those who came before the Quran to embrace it when it contradicts their own beliefs

the question is tricky for me , i don’t know if you need guidlines for rational or logical reasons or do you want from me to give a list of actual or specific reasons from islamic teaching which make someone follow it even if it contradicts his formal beliefs

if your question is about the second type , then comparison between relegions is very important issue here , unfortunaltly if i used it you will say that i attack christianity

i really want to help , and try to answer your questions honestly , i’m sorry if i can’t
i hope some other muslims can help you if they understood your question correctly

 

[Byzantine_Wolf]

i confess that somethimes i need to base my argument with common language that’s why i likely request definations for the concepts

believe me i don’t try to attack christianity nor i ever tried to ignore any questions , i try my best to address the question and give my answer directly and briefly

give me one more chance , your question is regarding islam itself and you asking why should i expect those who came before the Quran to embrace it when it contradicts their own beliefs

the question is tricky for me , i don’t know if you need guidlines for rational or logical reasons or do you want from me to give a list of actual or specific reasons from islamic teaching which make someone follow it even if it contradicts his formal beliefs

if your question is about the second type , then comparison between relegions is very important issue here , unfortunaltly if i used it you will say that i attack christianity

i really want to help , and try to answer your questions honestly , i’m sorry if i can’t
i hope some other muslims can help you if they understood your question correctly

I guess I can try to clarify it one more time. Think hard and prayerfully about what I say, and don’t let presuppositions or the mentality of “What argument do we usually use against this?” get in the way.

You’re a Muslim. Someone of a later faith (not even Bahai, maybe even a made up, theoretical one) comes to you and claims that they believe in the same God you do. They claim that their prophet was in line with Mohammad. They tell you that they have a holy book you should follow. You read that holy book, and find that their prophet and his text contradict much of what you know as a Muslim. Yet the person assures you that you should follow their religion because it is the perfected revelation which you follow. Their prophet, however, lived far away from Mohammad, was not related to Islam or the Arabic people, and there are no eyewitnesses to profess who he is except him and his own self-given revelation. Again, the person of the other faith assures you that you should still follow his faith. Now think - as a follower of Islam - what standards would you set up to respond to this person, from the context of your faith. Why would you not follow their faith, and why would you not trust their prophet?

Now, take those standards you applied to Islam - not the other person’s faith, but Islam - and apply those same standards to a Christian being confronted by a Muslim, and from the Christian’s point of view. Prayerfully consider that.

 

[elwill]

I guess I can try to clarify it one more time. Think hard and prayerfully about what I say, and don’t let presuppositions or the mentality of “What argument do we usually use against this?” get in the way.

You’re a Muslim. Someone of a later faith (not even Bahai, maybe even a made up, theoretical one) comes to you and claims that they believe in the same God you do. They claim that their prophet was in line with Mohammad. They tell you that they have a holy book you should follow. You read that holy book, and find that their prophet and his text contradict much of what you know as a Muslim. Yet the person assures you that you should follow their religion because it is the perfected revelation which you follow. Their prophet, however, lived far away from Mohammad, was not related to Islam or the Arabic people, and there are no eyewitnesses to profess who he is except him and his own self-given revelation. Again, the person of the other faith assures you that you should still follow his faith. Now think - as a follower of Islam - what standards would you set up to respond to this person, from the context of your faith. Why would you not follow their faith, and why would you not trust their prophet?

Now, take those standards you applied to Islam - not the other person’s faith, but Islam - and apply those same standards to a Christian being confronted by a Muslim, and from the Christian’s point of view. Prayerfully consider that.

well
if someone came to me and said to me he believe in same God i do , i will ask him about his God , if he told me that his God is the same God of mohammed and all prophets , he is the God who created us and created the heavins and the earth . he is one God and have no parteners beside him
hence i will accept that he worship the same God
by the way i have no problem to consider bahai to be believers in the same God

if they told me that they have a holy book which i should to follow , then i find it contradicts mine in some issues
i will think a moment that as long as both of us worship the same God , then God can’t contradicts himself , i will guess that one of those contradiction issues is from God and the other not from God

i will compare both of them honestly to find out which of them more reliable , more clear and more convinced and nearst to the truth , if it was the new relegion i will accept it , if not i will deny it