E
exoflare
Guest
Apart from the miracles, it’s also very important to note how he took the liberty of forgiving everybody’s sins. Even those not committed directly toward him.
- Status
E
exoflare
Guest
Good grief! That sounds like something out of the 1001 Arabian Nights Tales! You don’t expect us to believe that do you?
Don’t be so quick to judge. Protestants use the very same faulty reasoning about rejecting the so-called “Apocrypha,” I hear.
In any case, remember this is definitely not the time or place to post knee-jerk reactions like this.
H
hawk
Guest
Astaghfirullah, Such strong words I have caused.
Having said that, I dont believe it is a bad thing to have started this thread, even though I have seen tempers flare in the posts.
I believe seeing the posts, that Mohammed was inspired to do the right thing for his society, and who shall inspire anyone but God?
Does this mean that I believe that the Quran is the speech of Allah?
I cannot believe it, but certainly as it is inspired, and the intentions were right, there is some wisdom of Allah in it.
**
But I think muslims should realise how terrible it feels to Christians, when they are asked similar questions by muslims.
I know that the Quran teaches us to challenge beliefs of another, and so prove to them the correctness of islam.
**
I dont think the Quran is right in this manner. It isnt pleasant when this happens to you, is it?
G
Genesis315
Guest
Let’s just clarify what you mean by “inspired” by God. It is definitely not inspired by God the way Christian Scripture is. Muhammed, during his travels may have heard stories of God and this inspired him to pen the Quran; I think that would be acceptable to say.
J
jcaz
Guest
Scripture is affirmed by Apostalic Succession. And Apostalic Succession is affirmed by the scripture, which is affirmed by Apostalic Succession. And Apostalic Succession is affirmed by Scripture.
seems to be a certain flow here
…
…
H
hawk
Guest
Yes, I believe it is as inspired as “The Prophet” by Khalil Gibran.
No more, no less.
G
Genesis315
Guest
Actually, Apostolic Succession is affirmed by history.
H
hawk
Guest
jcaz,
Scripture, for Christians is the work of many hands, The Old Testament affirms the New Testament in the messianic verses.
This is different for muslims, since no one but Mohammed corroborates the Quran, and it alone Corroborates him.
Wa’salaam
J
jcaz
Guest
Hawk! We FINALLY agree on something!
And Ghosty, I do have a question, and please do know, that I really want to know the Catholic answer for this one. This is not one of those questions where the goal is to set someone up.
I asked you why do you believe Paul’s testimony. Your response:
Correct me if i am wrong (which I may be, and you surely will
), but according to Paul’s story, found in acts, he did supposedly have “witnesses” with him. Is it the case that these “witnesses” saw nothing, only heard a voice, and these “witnesses” went unnamed? I may very well be missing something. Please advise.
J
jcaz
Guest
Sorry Ghosty, maybe I got it reversed. Here’s the NRSV passage of the account from Acts 22:6-9
Thanks.
So it appears that the “witnesses” saw the light but did not hear the voice. Anyway, just wanted to ask if it is correct that these witnesses are unknown.
Thanks.
J
jcaz
Guest
Geez. Stumped here. Mabye I did not get it backwards. Now I see the following earlier in Acts 9:3-7
But again Ghosty, my real question is where these men known. You say you do not believe Paul, but his witnesses. Who were these witnesses? Thanks.
I thought I was going crazy. I knew there was a passage talking about them hearing a voice but not seeing anyone. Very interesting to know that later in Acts, when the testimony is given again, that it says the men saw the light but heard nothing. You can comment on that or not.
But again Ghosty, my real question is where these men known. You say you do not believe Paul, but his witnesses. Who were these witnesses? Thanks.
H
hawk
Guest
Actually it rather easy to explain, in one passage it says “did not see anyone”, it does not however claim that they “did not see anything” leaving the possibility that they did indeed “see a light”
As far as hearing the voices, I checked strongs concordance, and the translation is
- to be endowed with the faculty of hearing, not deaf
- to hear
c) to understand, perceive the sense of what is said
- to hear something
b) to get by hearing learn
c) a thing comes to one’s ears, to find out, learn
d) to give ear to a teaching or a teacher
e) to comprehend, to understand
I believe what is belig conveyed is that they didnt “comprehend”
which is understandable considering the supernatural nature of the event.
The witnesses are the other apostles, who though were not present at the actual event met with Paul, in particular Peter who spent a fortnight with him, and obviously infused with the Holy Spirit was in a position to test the veracity of Pauls experience.
However this is not the point…is it?
But let it rest, this is a pointless argument, and after being unable to make your point , you have decided to attack catholicism.
Peace.
G
Ghosty
Guest
Apostalic Succession is actually based on history first. Yes, Scriptures mention it, but it is recorded outside of Scripture before the New Testament was even compiled together in one book, and before its contents were described as inspired. You can see it here.
Then you agree with the story that Christians have said from the beginning. Jesus did not write a single book, and this is well recorded by history.
The witnesses are recorded as not having received the full apparition, though the details differ as to which part they missed. Luke records these differences in Acts. Remember, Acts is actually a historical compilation from multiple sources, as was Luke’s style with his Gospel version as well.Correct me if i am wrong (which I may be, and you surely will
No, I said that the story was believed on their account, and on the account of Apostalic Succession. I’m not aware of any surviving written records of their personal accounts, but their accounts were related to the Apostles and handed down through Apostalic Succession, later to be written down in places such as Acts. That these men were known is shown by Luke recording them, and the differences in their accounts are also recorded.
Remember, also, that differences in their accounts does not indicate a problem per se, because multiple witnesses are recorded, not just one. In fact, it is very common in apparition situations for some people to hear, and not see, and some to see and not hear. That both of these things are recorded as happening is not unusual at all. The constant in all stories is that only Paul saw and heard both, and the words he heard and what he saw is also consistant.
God bless!
G
Ghosty
Guest
Hawk: Thanks for posting from Strong’s Concordance. I don’t have any Greek concordances available to me, so I didn’t know what the underlying Greek was saying. It sounds like a problem with translation, not with the actual account. That basically makes what I said above superfluous, but I’m fine with that
G
Genesis315
Guest
I believe St. Pauls’ testimony because it jives with the writings of St. James, St. John, St. Matthew, and St. Peter. Three of these guys died horrible deaths for what they witnessed–the Resurrection. I also believe his testimony because he also died a horrible death for the religion he once hated. Something happened there.Hawk! We FINALLY agree on something!
And Ghosty, I do have a question, and please do know, that I really want to know the Catholic answer for this one. This is not one of those questions where the goal is to set someone up.
I asked you why do you believe Paul’s testimony. Your response:
Correct me if i am wrong (which I may be, and you surely will
Muhammed did not get tortured and executed for what he allegedly experienced.
R
r.gonzales
Guest
booklover is not a muslimah, thus she is a kaafirah. strong words perhaps, but it’s the truth. in this wordly life, anyone who is not a muslim is a kaafir. plain and simple.
and f.y.i., there are no tempers flaring here on my part either. i said what i said very matter-of-factly.
why should i feel terrible for being asked why i believe what i do? if you don’t like being asked such questions, then perhaps you shouldn’t be trying to give da’wah or trying to defend your faith… just a thought.
as a muslim on this forum, it’s my duty to present the religion as is and to clear up any misconceptions regarding it - whether they be held by christians or even by muslims. and being that i, and the other muslims on this board, have put ourselves in a position to have our beliefs questioned, i think it’s fair that we should be up to the task and be prepared for such things - after all, it is our religion and faith that is the focus of discussion on this particular part of the site.
anyhow, those are my two cents about that…
just about all of what has come to us concerning prophet muhammad, his etiquettes, manners and descriptions are from eye witness accounts of those who accompanied him, as well as some accounts from those who fought against him. their narrations are recorded in the books of hadeeth.
G
Ghosty
Guest
I understand that this account comes from hadith, but what I’m asking for is any account that this mark on his body was considered a mark of the Prophet before Mohammed came onto the seen with this birthmark.
What faith believed in this mark and recorded it before Mohammed was around, showing that they were expecting it?
R
r.gonzales
Guest
perhaps you should read the portions of his biography that talk about the persecution he faced from some of his own family members in mecca, as well as the treatment he received from the town of taa’if… not to mention what some of his companions experienced as a result of believing in his message; bilaal bin rabbaah, as well as yaasir and his wife sumaiyah are some names that come to mind in that regard.
G
Genesis315
Guest
Please elaborate. Was he crucified upside down or boiled in oil?
This all well and good, but when it comes down to it, they were persecuted for what they were told. I don’t mean to downgrade Muslim martyrs, but like later Christian martyrs, they die for something they were told–the witness to the Truth while strong, is not quite as strong as those who witnessed the central event firsthand and then stuck to their story at all costs.
This is probably why the Quran says the Crucifixion was an illusion, in order to get around this issue.
J
jayb
Guest
Dear jcaz
That Paul had a vision which he himself had discribed would be valid depending on the outcome of that vision. Paul was a top notch persecutor of the Church. His conversion itself wouldn’t have been possible if not through some divine intervention. It’s like Hitler converting to Judaism, something only God can accomplish. So whatever vision or revelation he had ended up being to his own disadvatage since he had to switch sides in the midst of being the ringleader of the anti christian movement.
Paul’s vision brought upon him lots of embarassment, sorrow, and persecution. Mohammed’s vision on the other hand brought him power and fame. Paul’s vision was only a conversion like any other person who converts may have done so through some divine revelation. Mohammed’s vision on the other hand founded a new religion.
So I think it very unfair of u to compare Paul’s “conversion vision” to Mohammed’s “revolutionary vision”. Paul simply converted, he had no intention to manipulate that vision to found his own religion. Mohammed on the other hand did. Now any vision for conversion is more credible than a vision that ushers in a new faith.
So i think u’re still stuck with answering how can anyone believe that Mohammed be the Prophet by using his own words (Quran) for it?
That Paul had a vision which he himself had discribed would be valid depending on the outcome of that vision. Paul was a top notch persecutor of the Church. His conversion itself wouldn’t have been possible if not through some divine intervention. It’s like Hitler converting to Judaism, something only God can accomplish. So whatever vision or revelation he had ended up being to his own disadvatage since he had to switch sides in the midst of being the ringleader of the anti christian movement.
Paul’s vision brought upon him lots of embarassment, sorrow, and persecution. Mohammed’s vision on the other hand brought him power and fame. Paul’s vision was only a conversion like any other person who converts may have done so through some divine revelation. Mohammed’s vision on the other hand founded a new religion.
So I think it very unfair of u to compare Paul’s “conversion vision” to Mohammed’s “revolutionary vision”. Paul simply converted, he had no intention to manipulate that vision to found his own religion. Mohammed on the other hand did. Now any vision for conversion is more credible than a vision that ushers in a new faith.
So i think u’re still stuck with answering how can anyone believe that Mohammed be the Prophet by using his own words (Quran) for it?
- Status