Prophets after Jesus

[daler]

This is a whole other ‘sunni-shia’ discussion. Can you try to explain why Ali r.a. himself chose to cooperate and work under the three Khalifas who preceded him - albeit after a reported initial delay in the case of the first Khalifa? Why did Ali r.a. reject his own supposed position of authority?

Then you reject the verse 24:55 which states that Allah will Himself appoints Khalifas under certain conditions.

Peace.

Dialogues,
. As you have stated much in your post, let me address it in two separate posts.

. As to Surah 24:55, surely it could be argued that this refers to the Imams, although as you say, it gets into the whole issue of the sunni/shiah debate. The understanding that I have on this is that there was a temporal power grab by the self-interested, whose motives were not pure, and whose dedication to the spirit of Islam was secondary to securing their own gain.

. That they essentially returned to their traditional tribal means of leadership by consensus in electing and choosing the Caliphs is in contrast to the appointment of Ali by Muhammad, which they contorted as being caused by Muhammad’s illness just prior to His death. As to why Ali relented, that is because he sought unity, and not conflict. He was willing to sacrifice at all costs for the preservation of Islam and not create division.

. Consider, all of the Imams were murdered, while a number of the Caliphs were clearly corrupt and seekers of earthly power, utilizing the religion of the Prophet as a means to their own end. Still, the influence of Islam cannot be denied, although had it remained unified and untainted from the beginning, its flowering in the world would have been far more elevated.

. The schisms of Christianity as well destroyed its potential as it degenerated into multiple sects, each competing with the other and claiming their own interpretation as superior to others, an aspect of self-delusion and ambition. We are dealing with humans, here, who are always subject to greed and seeking dominance over others. Submission to the will of God is devoid of these qualities.

 

[daler]

Even if for arguments sake, we were to accept that statement as an accurate portrayal of what Jesus actually stated, the simple point is that God had in His knowledge the existence of all the prophets before Abraham a.s. walked the earth in his time. For God is All-Knowing.

He had already decreed Jesus as well as other prophets before the creation of Abraham a.s. There is a hadith in which the Prophet s.a. is reported to have said that he was the Seal of the Prophets when Adam a.s. was between mud and water. It is referring to divine decrees and unlimited divine knowledge, not the physical or spiritual pre-existence of prophets before other prophets.

So, in the context of the conversation the Jews are reported to be having with Jesus, he is talking about knowledge of the unseen which comes from God the All-Knowing. Now analyse the reported conversation:

*53 Are you greater than our father Abraham? He died, and so did the prophets. Who do you think you are?"
54 Jesus replied, “If I glorify myself, my glory means nothing. My Father, whom you claim as your God, is the one who glorifies me.
55 Though you do not know him, I know him. If I said I did not, I would be a liar like you, but I do know him and keep his word.
56 Your father Abraham rejoiced at the thought of seeing my day; he saw it and was glad.”
57 “You are not yet fifty years old,” the Jews said to him, “and you have seen Abraham!”
58 “I tell you the truth,” Jesus answered, "before Abraham was (born), I am *

Even if the expression ‘I am’ is taken to refer to God Almighty, the context would be that God is the one who conveyed knowledge of the time of Jesus to Abraham, and of the knowledge of what was shown to Abraham to Jesus. This isn’t a claim to divinity. Anyone who uses these words to argue divinity for Jesus or for anyone else is relying on an ambiguous text, and ambiguity cannot be the basis of proof.

You are trying to introduce an even stranger claim on the basis of an ambiguous passage, which may not have been correctly reported in the first place, being in any case not the actual words of Jesus himself in his own language.

That’s another strange interpretation, of a passage which clearly denies the physical death of Jesus a.s. on the cross.

Peace.

Dialogues,
. As God is Unknowable, and cannot be directly known by limited human minds, there must be some means by which He makes Himself known to us, conveys His will, and prescribes His Laws. Clearly, to those who accept Moses as His Lawgiver, Jesus as Ruhu’llah, and Muhammad as His Apostle, They are the means in all of this. What is left for us is to recognize the Messengers God actually sends, and how are we to do this?

. In the Quran, it is the verses themselves which are the proofs. The Bab makes the same claim. As no one among the ulama could answer His proofs, they resorted to imprisonment, torture, and execution, the same as the Caliphs in silencing the Imams.

. As to the crucifixion of Jesus, consider the verse in the Quran 3:169

Yusuf Ali: “Think not of those who are slain in Allah’s way as dead. Nay, they live, finding their sustenance in the presence of their Lord”

. Hence, we can say as well that Jesus is not dead. 4:157

. “We killed Christ Jesus the son of Mary, the Apostle of God”;- 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) know ledge, but only conjecture to follow, for of a surety they killed him not."

. Again, how can the One Who was before Abraham be crucified? (I understand that you question the authenticity of the verse.) But as you say regarding the hadith about Muhammad existing prior to Adam, the principal is the same.

. If I may state a further comparison along this line from the Bab:

. “The substance wherewith God hath created Me is not the clay out of which others have been formed. He hath conferred upon Me that which the worldly-wise can never comprehend, nor the faithful discover … I am one of the sustaining pillars of the Primal Word of God. Whosoever hath recognized Me, hath known all that is true and right, and hath attained all that is good and seemly; and whosoever hath failed to recognize Me, hath turned away from all that is true and right and hath succumbed to everything evil and unseemly.”

 

[Dialogues]

As to Surah 24:55, surely it could be argued that this refers to the Imams,

The verse states that Allah makes a promise to those who have faith and do good works, that He Himself will make them Khalifas in the earth. It does not say the Prophet s.a. will himself appoint them as Khalifas after him. The supposed appointment of Ali r.a. by the Prophet s.a. is not only unproven, it also goes against what the verse states.

The Khilafah went to those who deserved it in the eyes of Allah, and He established them in the earth as Khalifas. When the conditions of true faith and righteous works was no longer being met, the promise of Khilafah was lifted, and monarchy replaced it after Ali r.a. The allegation of temporal power grab is unsubstantiated and contradicts the verse.

As to why Ali relented, that is because he sought unity, and not conflict. He was willing to sacrifice at all costs for the preservation of Islam and not create division.

He is not known to have pointed out that the Prophet s.a. declared him as Khalifa afterwards. This shows him to be a coward. Yet shi’as laud Hussain r.a. for not submitting to Yazid. Why is Hussain r.a. not criticised for not seeking unity like Ali r.a. supposedly did? What a contradiction!

Consider, all of the Imams were murdered, while a number of the Caliphs were clearly corrupt and seekers of earthly power, utilizing the religion of the Prophet as a means to their own end.

The rightly guided caliphate ceased with Ali r.a. at 30 years as prophecied. Those who were Caliphs in name followed this, and they were actually just monarchs.

Peace.

 

[Dialogues]

In the Quran, it is the verses themselves which are the proofs. The Bab makes the same claim. As no one among the ulama could answer His proofs, they resorted to imprisonment, torture, and execution, the same as the Caliphs in silencing the Imams.

None of the 4 rightly guided Khalifas imprisoned tortured or executed Imams. So try to make a distinction between those who are regarded by the majority of Muslims as Khulafaa-Raashideen and those who are Caliphs in name only.

As for the Bab, whatever his claims, I would disagree with those who imprisoned and executed him, as per the following verse which applies to claimants to prophethood:

[40:28] And a believing man from among the people of Pharaoh, who concealed his faith, said, “Will you slay a man because he says, ‘My Lord is Allah,’ while he has brought you clear proofs from your Lord? And if he be a liar, on him will be the sin of his lie; but if he is truthful, then some of that which he threatens you with will surely befall you. Certainly Allah guides not one who is a transgressor, and a liar.

As to the crucifixion of Jesus, consider the verse in the Quran 3:169

Yusuf Ali: “Think not of those who are slain in Allah’s way as dead. Nay, they live, finding their sustenance in the presence of their Lord”

. Hence, we can say as well that Jesus is not dead.

There are about 30 verses in the Qur’an which show that Jesus a.s. is dead, among them being 3:55, 3:144, and 5:117.

4:157 . “We killed Christ Jesus the son of Mary, the Apostle of God”;- 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) know ledge, but only conjecture to follow, for of a surety they killed him not."

The verse is clear that he was not killed, so 3:169 does not apply to him in any case.

. Again, how can the One Who was before Abraham be crucified? (I understand that you question the authenticity of the verse.) But as you say regarding the hadith about Muhammad existing prior to Adam, the principal is the same.

You misunderstand. Muhammad s.a. himself did not exist before Adam, but he was decreed already.

Peace.

 

[FathersKnowBest]

Hi,

No one checked his vital signs to confirm he was dead.

Ummm, yeah. They did.

The Roman soldiers who were responsible for making sure he died checked. He was dead, which was why they didn’t break His legs. But even with that, for good measure, they drove a lance through His heart.

Oh, and BTW, if the executioners “goofed” and allowed someone to live who was supposed to die, they were in for a really bad time. The punishment could be as severe as replacing the victim on the cross (unless he was a Roman citizen, but that was not likely).

After that, He was taken down from the cross and prepared for burial (hastily, which is why they wanted to come back on Easter morning to finish it). So, with the women, including His very own mother, looking on (at least; I believe that they assisted), Joseph of Arimathea washed & wrapped His Body.

Had he truly resurrected, there was no reason why he only spent time with his disciples, and even that behind closed doors. Why didn’t he declare himself resurrected to the Romans and Jews? Rather, it was because he escaped death on the cross and was afraid of being captured again.

That would be funny if this very absurd thought wasn’t seriously proposed.
Picture a man who was beaten, scourged until his flesh was hanging off his back, beaten some more, crucified, and then had a lance shoved in his side and up through his heart.

Now, imagine him 3 days later getting up & walking around.

If THIS was an inspiring enough person to make the disciples rejoice, then it is a miracle indeed.

 

[Isaiah45_9]

Ummm, yeah. They did.

The Roman soldiers who were responsible for making sure he died checked. He was dead, which was why they didn’t break His legs. But even with that, for good measure, they drove a lance through His heart.

Oh, and BTW, if the executioners “goofed” and allowed someone to live who was supposed to die, they were in for a really bad time. The punishment could be as severe as replacing the victim on the cross (unless he was a Roman citizen, but that was not likely).

After that, He was taken down from the cross and prepared for burial (hastily, which is why they wanted to come back on Easter morning to finish it). So, with the women, including His very own mother, looking on (at least; I believe that they assisted), Joseph of Arimathea washed & wrapped His Body.

That would be funny if this very absurd thought wasn’t seriously proposed.
Picture a man who was beaten, scourged until his flesh was hanging off his back, beaten some more, crucified, and then had a lance shoved in his side and up through his heart.

Now, imagine him 3 days later getting up & walking around.

If THIS was an inspiring enough person to make the disciples rejoice, then it is a miracle indeed.

:knight1:

 

[FathersKnowBest]

You really believe that Christianity was not forced upon other people during Emperor Constantine’s reign?

I believe that because I read actual history.

 

[Dialogues]

Ummm, yeah. They did.

The Roman soldiers who were responsible for making sure he died checked.

You don’t seem to be aware what the vital signs are. He was up on the cross; how could they have checked his pulse and temperature? He was only presumed dead because his head had lowered, and this happened immediately after finishing a drink he received on the cross.

He was dead, which was why they didn’t break His legs.

They didn’t break his legs because he was presumed dead. This is not sufficient evidence that he was infact dead.

But even with that, for good measure, they drove a lance through His heart.

Through his heart? Where do you get that from? It is not stated in the Bible.

Oh, and BTW, if the executioners “goofed” and allowed someone to live who was supposed to die, they were in for a really bad time. The punishment could be as severe as replacing the victim on the cross (unless he was a Roman citizen, but that was not likely).

Doesn’t mean they couldn’t have erred. It is human to err.

After that, He was taken down from the cross and prepared for burial (hastily, which is why they wanted to come back on Easter morning to finish it). So, with the women, including His very own mother, looking on (at least; I believe that they assisted), Joseph of Arimathea washed & wrapped His Body.

There is nothing which states he was given the ritual bath [tahara] for the dead. And it wasn’t a proper ritual ‘burial’ below the ground, because he was not dead.

Picture a man who was beaten, scourged until his flesh was hanging off his back,

No such reference in the Bible, which just mentions in one verse alone that he was whipped; if his flesh was hanging off his back, one would expect it to have been mentioned.

Now, imagine him 3 days later getting up & walking around.

His vital organs weren’t injured. He was indeed seen alive later, which is proof that he survived the cross alive.

Peace.

 

[Servant19]

I think a clarifying point needs to be made.

Jesus resurrection was not of his physical body.

It was his spiritual, glorified body that walked around with his disciples and entered a room but not through the door etc.

The reference to death in the Quran is not related to his physical body, it is related to his resurrected, spiritual, glorified body. He did not die, because His true identity, His spiritual body was alive and well.

This body is CLEARLY differentiated from a physical body in 1 Corinthians
(15:44 I believe)

.

 

[FathersKnowBest]

You don’t seem to be aware what the vital signs are. He was up on the cross; how could they have checked his pulse and temperature? He was only presumed dead because his head had lowered, and this happened immediately after finishing a drink he received on the cross.

They didn’t break his legs because he was presumed dead. This is not sufficient evidence that he was infact dead.

Through his heart? Where do you get that from? It is not stated in the Bible.

Joh 19:34 But one of the soldiers pierced his side with a spear, and at once there came out blood and water.

Forensic doctors have confirmed that the water that came out would have been collected in the pericardial sack as a by-product of the suffocation brought on by crucifixion.

Doesn’t mean they couldn’t have erred. It is human to err.

The Roman execution squad that oversaw such things were quite familiar with death.
They would not make such a mistake, especially given the grave consequences.

There is nothing which states he was given the ritual bath [tahara] for the dead. And it wasn’t a proper ritual ‘burial’ below the ground, because he was not dead.

Joh 19:39 Nicodemus also, who had at first come to him by night, came bringing a mixture of myrrh and aloes, about a hundred pounds’ weight.
40 They took the body of Jesus, and bound it in linen cloths with the spices, as is the burial custom of the Jews.

No such reference in the Bible, which just mentions in one verse alone that he was whipped; if his flesh was hanging off his back, one would expect it to have been mentioned.

Interesting argument from silence.
The Gospels were very minimalistic about these tortures, not describing them in much detail.
We know from history, however, what was involved.

His vital organs weren’t injured. He was indeed seen alive later, which is proof that he survived the cross alive.

Question-begging much?

 

[FathersKnowBest]

I think a clarifying point needs to be made.

Jesus resurrection was not of his physical body.

It was his spiritual, glorified body that walked around with his disciples and entered a room but not through the door etc.

He specifically denied this and St. Luke, a physician, made it a point to record His words:

Lu 24:39 See my hands and my feet, that it is I myself; handle me, and see; for a spirit has not flesh and bones as you see that I have."

 

[Servant19]

He specifically denied this and St. Luke, a physician, made it a point to record His words:

Lu 24:39 See my hands and my feet, that it is I myself; handle me, and see; for a spirit has not flesh and bones as you see that I have."

I think a study of 1Cor 15 together with Pope Benedict’s book in relation to Jesus’ Ascension will give a clearer idea.

Which parts of the resurrection narrative are literally true and which parts are parts of visions is an important distinction to make based on the context of other teachings

.

 

[Dialogues]

I think a clarifying point needs to be made. Jesus resurrection was not of his physical body. It was his spiritual, glorified body that walked around with his disciples and entered a room but not through the door etc.

Then what was the need that the stone be rolled away from the sepulchre if he could simply have walked through it?

And he ate fish infront of his disciples and showed them his physical wounds to prove that he was the same person who had the very same physical body.

Peace.

 

[Gabriel_of_12]

Servant19;11787349]Just a quick intervention here Gabriel, if I may. Heaven, according to Catholicism is not a physical reality. If someone was to come down from heaven, it is only a “spiritual reality”, and can only be “seen” with spiritual eyes, not physical ones

Oh really? your going to tell me the Catholic’s don’t believe in the full resurrection of Jesus Christ, and his appearance during the 40 days after the resurrection was not real but only a false vision of Jesus physcical body eating fish after the resurrection was not a physical reality! You got Catholicism all wrong.

So Servant19 and his/her view of Catholicism has the power and authority to place God in a box, who cannot raise the physical dead or allow Moses or Elijah to appear with Jesus?

Maybe you are confusing Approved Apparations with the Transfiguration which are two different revelations of God.

My point is John announced the coming of the Messiah Jesus in the Spirit of Elijah. Elijah appeared in physical form with Jesus transfigured that made this physical event appear.

The debate is open for interpretation whether or not a physical (eternal) revelation of the transfiguration appeared as recored in the gospel, or by a heavenly vision. In either case the physical appearance of Elijah is seen by eyewitnesses and Jesus resurrection.

Dialogue emphatically denied Elijah never came; The gospels have proved him wrong. Elijah did appear, both in the spirit of John and physically appeared at the Transfiguration.

Peace be with you

 

[Dialogues]

Joh 19:34 But one of the soldiers pierced his side with a spear, and at once there came out blood and water.

Forensic doctors have confirmed that the water that came out would have been collected in the pericardial sack as a by-product of the suffocation brought on by crucifixion.

You mean Christians have alleged so. Others suggest pleurisy as the cause of it. In any case, corpses don’t bleed, any doctor will tell you that. The gushing out of blood and water is a clear sign of a pumping heart.

The Roman execution squad that oversaw such things were quite familiar with death.

Even qualified doctors are known to have certified people dead, having checked their vital signs, and these people are later seen to be alive. The conclusion is that a mistake was made, and the person didn’t actually die and resurrect.

They would not make such a mistake, especially given the grave consequences.

They did make the mistake, and that’s how Jesus survived the cross.

Joh 19:39 Nicodemus also, who had at first come to him by night, came bringing a mixture of myrrh and aloes, about a hundred pounds’ weight.
40 They took the body of Jesus, and bound it in linen cloths with the spices, as is the burial custom of the Jews.

Like I said, there was no washing, and no proper burial.

Interesting argument from silence. The Gospels were very minimalistic about these tortures, not describing them in much detail.

What happened in the Sanhedrin is described in detail as far as I recall. Any hanging flesh would be too significant to ignore.

Peace.

 

[FathersKnowBest]

I think a study of 1Cor 15 together with Pope Benedict’s book in relation to Jesus’ Ascension will give a clearer idea.

That’s a nice dodge.

I’ve studied 1Cor extensively. You’ll have to be, err., a little more exacting on your book citation. Pope Benedict has written over 40 books.

Which parts of the resurrection narrative are literally true and which parts are parts of visions is an important distinction to make based on the context of other teachings

Maybe, but the quote I gave you was pretty explicit.

Question: if He had WANTED to say it more explicitely, how could He have worded it?

 

[Dialogues]

Dialogue emphatically denied Elijah never came; The gospels have proved him wrong. Elijah did appear, both in the spirit of John and physically appeared at the Transfiguration.

Matthew 17:9 records Jesus clearly stating it was a vision.

Peace.

 

[Servant19]

That’s a nice dodge.

I’ve studied 1Cor extensively. You’ll have to be, err., a little more exacting on your book citation. Pope Benedict has written over 40 books.

Please read the exchanges between myself and eddie too on page 22 of this thread
Benedict’s passage of interest is post # 317.

Maybe, but the quote I gave you was pretty explicit.

Question: if He had WANTED to say it more explicitely, how could He have worded it?

Visions are quite explicit FKB.

Look at how the recipients of the vision at the Transfiguration wanted to build shelters for Moses and Elijah etc. Visions can be pretty real

I’m not sure I understand your question?

.

 

[FathersKnowBest]

You mean Christians have alleged so. Others suggest pleurisy as the cause of it. In any case, corpses don’t bleed, any doctor will tell you that.

Please, give a reference.

The gushing out of blood and water is a clear sign of a pumping heart.

Who said anything about “gushing”?
Tell me, do you think the soldiers would know if blood was “gushing” out rhythmically as you are implying?

Picture a myocardial sack filled with blood and water. Picture it being pierced. Remember that gravity affects fluids.

Even qualified doctors are known to have certified people dead, having checked their vital signs, and these people are later seen to be alive. The conclusion is that a mistake was made, and the person didn’t actually die and resurrect.

Yeah, and how often does that happen?
And has it ever happened that they made such a mistake, then stabbed the person through the heart, and THEN that person resuscitated?
Oh, yeah, and then was able to, 40 or so hours later, roll a large stone out of the way (typically so large that it would take 4 or so healthy, strong men to move it) and then convince everyone that he was completely healthy?

They did make the mistake, and that’s how Jesus survived the cross.

I enjoy silly unfounded and unsupported assertions. Thanks. VERY entertaining.

Like I said, there was no washing, and no proper burial.

Doesn’t say there was no washing. It says that His body was “bound …in linen cloths with the spices, as is the burial custom of the Jews.” Even if it wasn’t washed as was the burial custom of the Jews, it was certainly “handled.”

What happened in the Sanhedrin is described in detail as far as I recall. Any hanging flesh would be too significant to ignore.

Another argument from silence.

 

[Gabriel_of_12]

Dialogues;11787261]And the Prophet Muhammad s.a. prevented the angel from punishing the people of Ta’if who had nearly stoned him to death, and desired not just their forgiveness, but also their right guidance.

You claim that Muhammad is divine then? if he had the power over angels to prevent them from punishing. That is not even biblcal, and angels are messengers of God not of men. Your view of Muhammad and angels has blasphemy attached to it.

You could only really claim this IF he had the power to judge and punish, and still refrained from using it. Otherwise, it remains just a claim.

So, you can’t find any where in the gospels where it states that all power and authority in heaven and earth was given to Jesus? What? your Islamic apologetics never taught this to you? or did your teachers purposely skipped over these documented gospels, that prove Jesus divine authority of Angels and demons? I don’t make this claim, the bible proclaims that Jesus could by Just one word from his lips, could bring Legion’s’s of angels to his aid. But that is not why Jesus came.

It is too bad Islam preaches a different Jesus and a heretical view of Christianity. I would prefer Islam to have the correct understanding of Jesus and the correct view of the Christian faith believed in by Catholic’s. So that a correct dialogue can be pursued.

Thus far, it appears your chasing your own tail, and Iam having to correct your false view of Christianity.

Tell you what, allow me to interpret the bible from a 2000 year old Catholic faith. And I will allow you to interpret your Quran?

In conclusion; Your denied Elijah never appeared. You were historically and biblically proven wrong.

Secondly; The Quran does not teach the divine teaching to Love your enemy the way Jesus practiced it, and taught it. You have only shown Muhammad being merciful to his enemies, when he killed his enemies and decieved his enemies inorder to kill them.

But you say Muhammad perfected the love of enemy teaching over Jesus, because Muhammad has the power to dictated to angels when to strike and when not to strike enemies of Muhammad.

I am following you, but any reasonable mind can see Muhammad’s teaching or the Quran’s teaching of Love your enemy never measures up the divine teaching of Jesus to love your enemies.

There is no comparison because Islam loves it’s enemies from carnal understanding, that leads to blood shed.

Jesus love of enemy, is sacrifice oneself for the Love of enemy. There are too many historical events that prove Jesus teachings are realized within Catholicism and her martyrs and Saints.

Peace be with you