Prophets after Jesus

[Servant19]

It means you have to reference posts not by page number but by posting number to have a common reference frame.

Unless He was Divine, for example.
Just using the word “obviously” doesn’t make something true that is not necessarity so.

Sorry, but since they are synonymous, I would have thought that one would imply the other.

Hi there, if you look back, I did give you a post number

Your response does not answer the conflicting realities, physical (which is humanly visible) going into a spiritual realm (which is a humanly invisible realm)

How do you resolve this conflict?

Lastly, I do not believe in ghosts. I believe in a human soul, which will always belong to the invisible realm of the Kingdom, and a physical representation of that soul on this earth. There are no inbetween realities that have independent existence…



.

 

[FathersKnowBest]

Hi there, if you look back, I did give you a post number

Looked back. You gave a page number, and on another issue gave a post number.
Are you trying to spread confusion?

From your post 354 (see how it’s done?):
Please read the exchanges between myself and eddie too on page 22 of this thread
Benedict’s passage of interest is post # 317.

Your response does not answer the conflicting realities, physical (which is humanly visible) going into a spiritual realm (which is a humanly invisible realm)

How do you resolve this conflict?

No resolution necessary. The Christian God transcends the physical.

Lastly, I do not believe in ghosts. I believe in a human soul, which will always belong to the invisible realm of the Kingdom, and a physical representation of that soul on this earth. There are no inbetween realities that have independent existence…

Interesting assertion. I suppose you can prove this?


The word “ghost” and the word “spirit” both mean a non-corporeal entity. The words are synonymous, with the major difference being the words’ origin. Ghost comes from old German geist (spirit), while Spirit comes from the Latin spiritus (literally breath).

Origin of GHOST

Middle English gost, gast, from Old English gāst; akin to Old High German geist spirit

 

[Dialogues]

Ever been deer hunting, Dialogues?

No.

Can you honestly say that blood doesn’t flow out of a dead animal?

Are you referring to the wound that caused death? If so, the heart pumps for a while until the animal dies, so there is some blood that flows out.

But out of a dead animal or human, blood does not flow out. It might ooze out, but it would hardly be a trickle.

Your grasping at straws indicates the weakness of your argument.

You are alleging it, but it is a false allegation. There is no grasping at straws on my part.

I never heard of the MSG translation, and it doesn’t appear very reliable.

It’s not the only translation to use the word gush:

John 19:34 (VOICE) Instead, one soldier took his spear and pierced His abdomen, which brought a gush of blood and water.

The NIV translation doesn’t give the color you wish it to.

The word ‘sudden’ also indicates pressure in the vessels due to a pumping heart.

Again, I doubt that the soldiers, faced with the threat of themselves being crucified if His heart was still pumping, would have thought so either.

They were not physicians. They saw his head bowed down, and presumed him dead. They appear not to have made the connection with the drink he received, immediately after which this happened, indicating there was an opiate/sedative in the drink.

You’re sounding desperate, Dialogues.

Desperate to be saved from death is what Jesus was, as he was praying earnestly and in anguish in the garden of olives, or gethsemane according to another gospel.

Now you’re just contradicting your own argument with this ridiculous one. Have you ever seen a “small cut or prick” lead to a gushing wound from a pumping heart?

I didn’t say the blood came out in spurts, as it would do if the carotid artery in the neck was punctured. The wound in this case was not in the neck close to the heart, but at the side of the abdomen. The word gush is used by christian translators; it is not my own invention.

Peace.

 

[eddie_too]

it is much more reasonable to believe the testimonies of eyewitnesses to an event than to believe the testimonies of people who lived four hundred years (like mohammed) or 1800 years (like bahaullah) after an event.

this is especially true when the later testimonies are self-serving to the those testifying.

 

[Gabriel_of_12]

Dialogues;11792505]Islam strongly opposes the idea that anyone other than the One God Himself be considered divine.

Which is it? Did God speak to Muhammad or did an angel give Muhammad to recite? And then if an angel was it a vision of smoke? or was it truly an Angel taken on a physical form?

I Know of no man or prophet that God has placed charge over His angels other than His only begotten Son Jesus Christ fully human/fully divine proven by His crucifixion and His miracles and raising the dead to include exorcism of demons, whom the demons feared.

If the Quran has Muhammad ordering angels around, then you have a contradiction of the Quran. Unless your not interpreting the Quran correctly?

Angels are not made superior to the prophets.

Wow! your gonna have a hard time convincing the jury of that false statement. Do you have proof?

They are made to serve the cause of prophets.

Another contradiction; If angels are made to serve the cause of prophets, then why do we need prophets? IF the angels are doing the works of God, instead of being messengers of God to bring God’s message to the prophets. God does not send Angels to serve the cause of prophets, they are sent by God not by prophets to reveal the message of God for the prophet to proclaim. These are assistng angels, the prophets never send angels only God sends His angels (messengers).

The angel was sent by God to ask the Prophet Muhammad s.a. that very question. So there is no blasphemy involved in it.

There is no blasphemy in an angel asking the prophet, but you have Muhammad telling the angel to obey Muhammad and did! that is blasphemy.

He was never in the position to practically demonstrate it, so it remains just a claim.

So die-ing on the cross and forgiving those who crucified Him does not demonstrate love of enemy? And I am the only one in the world of history to make such a claim? That is unreasonable thinking.

Do you dispute the Jewish understanding of the OT?

No, but I dispute your misunderstanding of comaparing the old testament Patriarch’s obedience to the natural Law of God’s covenant to the faith of those who have died to the old covenant Law (Christians) and raised in the new covenant of God.

You have not revealed a Jewish understanding of the OT. You have only revealed a surface reading of the Word with eyes that believe they see, but do not see. Thus as Jesus say’s “these remain blind”.

In Matthew 27:9, Jesus categorically states it was a vision. Was Jesus wrong too?

Matthew 27:9 deals with Judas 30 pieces of silver fulfilling the prophets prophecy. You have it categorically wrong. The voice that spoke from the clouds during the transfiguration is a reality of the physical presence being heard during the transfiguration not a supposed vision.

A vision is prophetic of what is to come, the Transfiguration is present time event revealed in the present, what is spoken of from this Transfiguration speaks of the exodus of Jesus passion, death and resurrection. But the event has eye witnesses who saw and heard the transfiguration with Jesus glory attended by Moses and the prophet Elijah.

Elijah who was taken up by God, appeared in the present with Jesus only disproves your false claim that Elijah never came. Yet you continue to hold to your false pretense by limiting his appearance only from a supposed dream that multiple eye witnesses dreamed the same dream from a vision?

He taught it indeed, but did he really practice it? In the case of the Prophet Muhammad s.a., he even forgave the Jewish woman who tried to poison him, killing a companion of his in the process. She was pardoned by the Holy Prophet s.a. You were suggesting that the Prophet pbuh only showed mercy to Arabs.

There is no comparison to Jesus. The widow attempted to poison, she did not inflict bodily harm to Muhammad. That is not the same as one inflicting a mortal blow by passion, and Jesus forgave these for crucifying him.

cont’

 

[Gabriel_of_12]

cont’

Moses is said to have killed 3000 Israelites. Elijah killed 400 prophets [of Baal]. Abraham went to fight in order to free Lot. Yet you still believe they were prophets. And this is the second time you allege deception on the part of the Prophet pbuh, but do not give proof.

And Jesus did not kill anyone, including the demons for it was not their time yet. But Muhammad? how many human beings did he kill or ordered to be killed?

There are different types and degrees of love. One cannot love God and his prophets in the same way as the enemies of God and friends of satan. Love for the enemies manifests itself in praying for their forgiveness and guidance, inviting them to faith and righteousness, and warning them against wrongdoing. And even if they don’t respond to this call, one should not treat them with injustice. Hence the Qur’an teaches:

Islam and Muhammad cannot love their enemies because God has put His Loving Spirit in either one. Muhammad rejects the third person of the Trinity which is the Spirit of God. So how can Islam love it’s enemies the way God loves His enemies?

Praying for the guidance of enemies is a carnal understanding?

Praying for ones enemy is not the same as Loving putting into action of that Love displayed to one’s enemy by sacrifice of self for one’s neighbor.

Do you deny Muslims the right of self-defence and protection of innocent?

To live your religion according to the flesh reveals a one sided justice, when the one committing offense is never loved by the one being offended. That is Jesus teaching of loving one’s enemy.

To live faith according to the Spirit supersedes the carnal flesh understanding of justice, forgiveness and love of enemy. “When one strikes you on the cheek, offer the other cheek” on the surface as Islam translates such a divine teaching is foolishness, but to those who have the mind of Christ supersedes all carnal knowledge who retorts to violence instead of reconcilation and love of enemy.

He was earnestly praying for the cup of death to be removed from him, and never made a willing sacrifice.

The result of Jesus action on the cross gives true witness of His will to do His Father’s will not His flesh. Jesus prayed for our humanity from his humanity to the point of sweating blood. Jesus will was to please His Father’s will which he makes known saying the same prayer multiple times; “Father not my will be done but your will be done”. Thus it is God’s will for His only begotten Son to take on death for us all, so that the Father can give us new life in the eternal Spirit Covenant of God. No covenant of God was ever made without the sacrifice of Love Himself.

What covenant did Islam’s founder make with heaven for all humanity?

Peace be with you

 

[eddie_too]

it is teaching sheer and utter nonsense to declare that Jesus was somehow forced to offer His life for our sins.

there is absolutely no evidence of Jesus being coerce in any manner to offer His life on the cross.

the only people who teach or believe such nonsense are followers of people who were born 400 years after the Lord’s crucifixion.

it is beyond me to understand why anyone would put more credence in the testimony of someone over 400 years removed from the event being spoken about than they would credit the eyewitnesses to the event.

however, regarding whether Jesus was free when He accepted death on the cross is a non-starter. claiming He was coerced in to His sacrifice and did not freely accept it is complete and utter rubbish made up by ignorant and vainglorious men with ulterior motives completely unrelated to the truth.

 

[rinnie]

it is teaching sheer and utter nonsense to declare that Jesus was somehow forced to offer His life for our sins.

there is absolutely no evidence of Jesus being coerce in any manner to offer His life on the cross.

the only people who teach or believe such nonsense are followers of people who were born 400 years after the Lord’s crucifixion.

it is beyond me to understand why anyone would put more credence in the testimony of someone over 400 years removed from the event being spoken about than they would credit the eyewitnesses to the event.

however, regarding whether Jesus was free when He accepted death on the cross is a non-starter. claiming He was coerced in to His sacrifice and did not freely accept it is complete and utter rubbish made up by ignorant and vainglorious men with ulterior motives completely unrelated to the truth.

It is usually people who do not understand the true meaning of the Holy Trinity.

The Trinity is One God, Jesus is God, The Father is God and the Holy Trinity is God.

The problem comes when people try to separate Jesus from God, the Father from God and the Holy Spirit from God which is impossible because you can’t separate God from God.

They cannot see how God can be the Father the Son and Holy Spirit and still be ONE. You can’t blame them really, because this is a mystery even to us. But when you have great faith you can believe in something you can’t truly understand or explain yourself.

We know and believe God loves us, but when we suffer we cannot see the gift in that suffering at the time, if you are lucky it is usually years after you see the true gift in that suffering.

It was not only a unique gift because God was with you at every step, even at times when you feel he left you, it is later that you realize when you feel he left you that he was indeed carrying you. Its something that you can’t always explain. But because you can’t explain it does not mean its not true.

And its usually that suffering that makes you more compassionate to others suffering, and the grace given to you by that suffering that helps you to help others.

 

[Dialogues]

Peace.

Which is it? Did God speak to Muhammad or did an angel give Muhammad to recite? And then if an angel was it a vision of smoke? or was it truly an Angel taken on a physical form?

Waraqa, a relative of Khadija r.a., wife of the Prophet s.a., knew the Bible, and he said the same angel who had descended on Moses a.s., had descended on Muhammad s.a., i.e. Gabriel.

I Know of no man or prophet that God has placed charge over His angels other than His only begotten Son Jesus Christ fully human/fully divine proven by His crucifixion and His miracles and raising the dead to include exorcism of demons, whom the demons feared.

Son of God is just a Biblical metaphor for a beloved servant of God. God sends angels to help the prophets.

If the Quran has Muhammad ordering angels around, then you have a contradiction of the Quran. Unless your not interpreting the Quran correctly?

The Qur’an has the angels submitting to Adam.

Wow! your gonna have a hard time convincing the jury of that false statement. Do you have proof?

Angels do not have free-will, but do as they are commanded, whereas a human can rise above human weaknesses and serve God out of his own free will, which makes the prophets higher than the angels.

Another contradiction; If angels are made to serve the cause of prophets, then why do we need prophets?

Human messengers are needed to serve as examples for humans.

There is no blasphemy in an angel asking the prophet, but you have Muhammad telling the angel to obey Muhammad and did! that is blasphemy.

It may seem as blasphemy to you because you think only Jesus had that power, but the Holy Prophet Muhammad s.a. was given it.

So die-ing on the cross and forgiving those who crucified Him does not demonstrate love of enemy?

It remains just what it is, a religious claim, untested and unproven by practical demonstrations of mercy through forgiveness when one had the manifest power to punish.

Matthew 27:9 deals with Judas 30 pieces of silver fulfilling the prophets prophecy. You have it categorically wrong.

I meant Matthew 17:9, as I quoted before. Do you deny that Jesus says it was a vision?

Elijah who was taken up by God, appeared in the present with Jesus only disproves your false claim that Elijah never came. Yet you continue to hold to your false pretense by limiting his appearance only from a supposed dream that multiple eye witnesses dreamed the same dream from a vision?

Matthew 17:9 records Jesus saying "tell the vision to no one … "

There is no comparison to Jesus. The widow attempted to poison, she did not inflict bodily harm to Muhammad.

The companion of the Prophet Muhammad s.a. died from the poison, and he would have too, had he eaten it. But he appears to have realised it was poisoned and refrained. So she was guilty of pre-meditated murder in one case, and a clear attempt to murder in the second. Yet she was given a noble pardon.

That is not the same as one inflicting a mortal blow by passion, and Jesus forgave these for crucifying him.

As I keep having to remind you, Jesus was never in the position of authority to punish his enemies. He merely talked about forgiveness. In the case of Muhammad s.a., he was ruler of Medina at the time, and could have had her killed, and it would have been just; but he showed mercy to her.

God Almighty is both Just and Merciful, and the Prophet Muhammad s.a. manifested both these attributes to perfection in his life. Jesus could not manifest either of them. He was never in a position of authority like Joseph a.s. was and Muhammad s.a. was. Joseph did not pardon actual murder, but Muhammad s.a. did, so his mercy and forgiveness was to a much larger degree and on a much larger scale than that of Joseph.

Peace.

 

[Dialogues]

And Jesus did not kill anyone, including the demons for it was not their time yet. But Muhammad? how many human beings did he kill or ordered to be killed?

Jesus talks about killing his enemies in Luke19:27. I mentioned it before. So what happens to your unconditional love for enemies which you presume to tell me Jesus proclaimed? So your criticism of Muhammad.s.a. for what other Biblical prophets did is hypocritical.

Besides, there is not a single person who is known to have been killed by Muhammad s.a. himself. He fought in just wars to protect the oppressed people from aggression after the enemies had wronged them and declared war. Do you want me to quote to you Biblical verses on war? The Qur’an is a far more peaceful book than the Bible, whose verses are far more violent and vicious compared to the fighting against aggression mentioned in the Qur’an.

So how can Islam love it’s enemies the way God loves His enemies?

Explain the hatred mentioned in this passage then:

Mal: 1:2 “I have loved YOU people,” Jehovah has said. And YOU have said: “In what way have you loved us?” “Was not E´sau the brother of Jacob?” is the utterance of Jehovah. “But I loved Jacob, 3 and* E´sau I have hated**; and I finally made his mountains a desolated waste and his inheritance for the jackals of [the] wilderness.” *

And the hate here:

• Luke 24:25 Large crowds were traveling with Jesus, and turning to them he said: 26"If anyone comes to me and does not hate his father and mother, his wife and children, his brothers and sisters—yes, even his own life—he cannot be my disciple. " *

Praying for ones enemy is not the same as Loving putting into action of that Love displayed to one’s enemy by sacrifice of self for one’s neighbor.

Except ofcourse that he was clearly praying earnestly against having to make any sacrifice.

To live faith according to the Spirit supersedes the carnal flesh understanding of justice, forgiveness and love of enemy. “When one strikes you on the cheek, offer the other cheek” on the surface as Islam translates such a divine teaching is foolishness, but to those who have the mind of Christ supersedes all carnal knowledge who retorts to violence instead of reconcilation and love of enemy.

The Qur’an teaches:

• [41:34] And good and evil are not alike. Repel evil with that which is best, and thy enemy will become as though a warm friend. [41:35] But none is granted it save those who are patient; and none is granted it save those who possess a large share of good. *

The result of Jesus action on the cross gives true witness of His will to do His Father’s will not His flesh. Jesus prayed for our humanity from his humanity to the point of sweating blood.

He didn’t sweat any blood. But his sweat was reported to have been so profuse when he was in anguish praying against death that it is likened to drops of blood.

Jesus will was to please His Father’s will which he makes known saying the same prayer multiple times; “Father not my will be done but your will be done”.

In other words, it was not his will at all to die on the cross.

Peace.

 

[IgnatianPhilo]

Eddie, I’d like you to know that were Jesus to have raised Himself from the dead or not is of no consequence whatsoever to the Baha’is. Not on iota of concern here…Bahaullah Himself raised others from the dead…nothing unusual for a Divine Being

I love Jesus and would give up my life for Him, resurrected or not…

What matters is your understanding of the term “Day of Resurrection”

This, for Baha’is, is critical…

God bless you, and I honour your courage to say sometimes, you just don’t know, which is a very godly and humble response when I posed the previous set if questions to you on this thread

.

The gnosticism is disproved if Christ has risen from the dead. Don’t misinterpret how i use the phrase “risen from the dead.” It absolutely matters to the bahai and the rejection of materiality ever being redeemed (evil will continue forever in a bahai worldview).

 

[eddie_too]

it has been my observation that many of the non-catholics who post on these threads are not interested in what the RCC teaches.

they seem to be more interested in attacking the teachings of the RCC.

people who have these motivations are not interested in any understanding that is contrary to their own so that when a RC explains a RC teaching it goes right over there heads and they resort back to their own beliefs.

for example, there is no evidence that Jesus did not sweat blood. there is no evidence that Jesus survived His crucifixion. there is nothing to support such assertions.

but, still some of the non-catholics insist that assertions such as these are true even though they know there is NO EVIDENCE to support these assertions.

i would contend these people are not posting here in good faith. at a minimum they should be able to support their false assertions with some kind of reason or evidence.

persuasion is of little use with people arguing from blind faith.

 

[IgnatianPhilo]

In response to dialogues.

Concerning Waraqa

He was a very obscure figure so how is it we know if this figure can be said to have existed in any real history (not merely being an Islamic tool for apologetics against the Christian). That it can be said he knew the general Orthodox canon and tried saw Muhammad clearly in it. Arabia was not the place wherein Christianity primarily had its canon developed and it seems quite plausible that if such a figure is to be taken as real he would not have necessarily been orthodox in his Christianity and hence would not be orthodox in his canon of scripture. We have the writings of arab Christians who knew the bible and knew the Islamic arguments and they thoroughly rejected them, be it John of Damascus or Theodore Abu Qurrah.

Concerning sonship

If the sonship of Christ is a mere metaphore for being a servant of God I wouldn’t have expected the early Christians or Jesus himself to speak so highly of Jesus as being the unique son or only begotten (monogenes) of the father as the New testament tells us. That God from heaven in the baptism scene says “this is my son who I love.”

Or consider this phrase

“Most assuredly, I say to you, the hour is coming, and now is, when the dead will hear the voice of the Son of God; and those who hear will live. For as the Father has life in Himself, so He has granted the Son to have life in Himself, John 5 20

The son is a phrase used time and again in the New Testament and the early Christians thought as much like in the book of Hebrews.

Hebrews 1 God, who at various times and in various ways spoke in time past to the fathers by the prophets, 2 has in these last days spoken to us by His Son, whom He has appointed heir of all things, through whom also He made the worlds;3 who being the brightness of His glory and the express image of His person, and upholding all things by the word of His power, when He had by Himself[a] purged our** sins, sat down at the right hand of the Majesty on high, 4 having become so much better than the angels, as He has by inheritance obtained a more excellent name than they.

Christ is subsequently described in a unique fashion, the author of Hebrews asking rhetorically to which of the angels did the father ever say “this is my son, today I have begotten you.”

And we cannot neglect Paul who does not use the word son (when talking about Christ) in a general sense. Jesus as the son is unique, not just one of many sons but as the author of John says, the only begotten son or if you do not like that translation unique son.

Concerning Christ and politics

Do I have your argument down that if Christ were to rule on earth he would rule as Muhammad or Moses? Ruthlessly destroying the sinner, without hesitation or mercy in contradiction to what we see in the New testament? That he would not have preached what we see in the writings of the new testament? I am reminded when Christ says that he has a host of angels at his disposal to call at any time but he doesn’t call them at any time. I think what we have here are two fundamentally different worldviews. IN Islam Christ did not come to fulfil the law and save sinners, but merely came to continue the established orthodoxy until the time of Muhammad (although I think Muslims must consider the mission of Jesus a complete and utter failure). You try to somewhat demonstrate this by saying that Jesus talked about killing enemies and yes he does have a king say that in his parable which would not seem to take place within the ministry of Jesus but rather the final judgement in which Christ as judge and ruler of the entire world along with his saints will judge the world. So what must the Christian judge by? I would suggest we judge by the direct words of Christ when he commanded us to baptise the world in his name and not kill our enemies. Christianity was never intended to have a political kingdom unlike islam or Judaism and this is best exemplified in the lives of the apostles and saints. (I anticipate your response to this claim and Christian history subsequent to Justinian, so please make a good case).

We must if we want to read the gospels read them in of themselves as an organic whole and not force an interpretation on to them which is utterly against the author’s intent. The Gospel writers were not muslims, Jesus was not a muslim, the jews were not muslims at the time of Jesus. This goes against your creed, but as a matter of history we need to deal with Jesus at his time and not go beyond that unless you have good reason to. Your reason would be the authority of the quran which cannot be established when it says anything about Isa, thus you are reliant on the texts of the Christians which we have read for two thousand years. You would reject the bahai misinterpreting the quran regarding the death of Jesus on the exact same basis, that this book has existed in the Islamic community and there has been an orthodox understanding of its contents since the earliest times. You would do well to consider that for the Christians bible as well. I think ultimately you would do best to believe the Islamic Jesus from faith alone and not attempt to show from our gospels your Jesus who simply isn’t there. I don’t think there is any room in Islam for a sinful woman to wash the feet of a man with her tears.**

 

[betsybug354]

The Qur’an teaches:

• [41:34] And good and evil are not alike. Repel evil with that which is best*, and thy enemy will become as though a warm friend. [41:35] But none is granted it save those who are patient; and none is granted it save those who possess a large share of good.

And how exactly does your worldview define good and evil?

 

[Dialogues]

Concerning Waraqa

He was a very obscure figure so how is it we know if this figure can be said to have existed in any real history (not merely being an Islamic tool for apologetics against the Christian).

So should we deny he existed just because someone else has doubts? Some people allege about some of the prophets that they didn’t even exist; this includes Jesus. Most of what Christians believe about Jesus is based on what is asserted in the NT without any other evidence that can be presented.

We have the writings of arab Christians who knew the bible and knew the Islamic arguments and they thoroughly rejected them, be it John of Damascus or Theodore Abu Qurrah.

John of Damascus wrote that the Qur’anic revelation descended in the form of a book that the Prophet s.a. found below his pillow. That’s how much he ‘knew the Islamic argument’! In any case, Christians became Muslims in multitudes in the time of the Caliph Omar bin Abdul Aziz [rh], who was a pious Muslim ruler, as mentioned in the book ‘Islam a Short History’ by Karen Armstrong.

Concerning sonship

If the sonship of Christ is a mere metaphore for being a servant of God I wouldn’t have expected the early Christians or Jesus himself to speak so highly of Jesus as being the unique son or only begotten (monogenes) of the father as the New testament tells us. That God from heaven in the baptism scene says “this is my son who I love.”

It is such a commonly used Biblical metaphor that I shouldn’t need to present verses in which the expression is used. Ephraim, Israel, David, Solomon are all referred to as sons of God, and so is Adam in the NT.

And we cannot neglect Paul who does not use the word son (when talking about Christ) in a general sense.

Read Romans 8:14, where Paul says that those who are led by the spirit of God are the sons of God.

Jesus as the son is unique, not just one of many sons but as the author of John says, the only begotten son or if you do not like that translation unique son.

He was the only ‘son’ in his time. ‘Begotten’ is not in the greek text anyway.

Concerning Christ and politics

Do I have your argument down that if Christ were to rule on earth he would rule as Muhammad or Moses? Ruthlessly destroying the sinner, without hesitation or mercy

Muhammad s.a. pardoned the people of Mecca who had opposed and reviled Islam, and persecuted and murdered Muslims for years. There was no punishment for them; he forgave them like Joseph forgave his brothers, except they weren’t his brothers, and they had actually murdered hundreds of Muslims for no other reason than that they said ‘Our Lord is Allah’. There is no parallel in world history of such a noble pardon to murderous enemies.

in contradiction to what we see in the New testament? That he would not have preached what we see in the writings of the new testament? I am reminded when Christ says that he has a host of angels at his disposal to call at any time but he doesn’t call them at any time. I think what we have here are two fundamentally different worldviews.

The angel of God asked Muhammad s.a. whether he wished the people of Ta’if, who had stoned him nearly to death, to be punished, but he held the angel back, wishing instead for their right guidance.

IN Islam Christ did not come to fulfil the law and save sinners, but merely came to continue the established orthodoxy until the time of Muhammad (although I think Muslims must consider the mission of Jesus a complete and utter failure).

Given that Christians began to worship him instead of the One God alone, this is a serious failure indeed. However, I believe his mission was fulfilled elsewhere among the lost tribes, but that is a whole other discussion.

Peace.

 

[Dialogues]

You try to somewhat demonstrate this by saying that Jesus talked about killing enemies and yes he does have a king say that in his parable which would not seem to take place within the ministry of Jesus but rather the final judgement in which Christ as judge and ruler of the entire world along with his saints will judge the world.

So you believe there will be mass murder of unbelievers at the command of Jesus for no crime whatsoever. Then you have no right to censure the Prophet Muhammad s.a. for fighting against those who committed the crime of first raising the sword against Muslims, and drove them out of their homes.

Christianity was never intended to have a political kingdom unlike islam or Judaism and this is best exemplified in the lives of the apostles and saints. (I anticipate your response to this claim and Christian history subsequent to Justinian, so please make a good case).

I think Jesus was quite right to oppose fighting against the Roman empire. There was no need to fight, as Jews had the right to practice their religion under Roman rule. There were some things they couldn’t do ofcourse, such as stoning adulterers to death, and they reportedly tried to trap Jesus on this very matter, but they had obtained a measure of freedom.

The Gospel writers were not muslims, Jesus was not a muslim, the jews were not muslims at the time of Jesus. This goes against your creed, but as a matter of history we need to deal with Jesus at his time and not go beyond that unless you have good reason to.

Prophets and their followers are regarded as ‘Muslims’ by definition, i.e. in that they submitted to God’s will. They were not however ‘Muslim’ in the sense the word has come to mean since the inception of the religion of Islam about 14 centuries ago.

Your reason would be the authority of the quran which cannot be established when it says anything about Isa, thus you are reliant on the texts of the Christians which we have read for two thousand years. You would reject the bahai misinterpreting the quran regarding the death of Jesus on the exact same basis, that this book has existed in the Islamic community and there has been an orthodox understanding of its contents since the earliest times. You would do well to consider that for the Christians bible as well.

I reject the bahai interpretation of the incident of the cross because it goes against what the verse actually states. I would reject any interpretation of the Bible by a Christian for the same reason. For instance, someone in this thread is saying the transfiguration was a physical occurrence, whereas Jesus categorically stated in Matthew 17:9 that is was a vision. Someone else is saying Jesus sweated blood in the garden of olives or gethsemane, whereas the Bible only likens his sweat to drops of blood. So, for good reasons, I reserve the right to disagree with some Christian interpretations of the Bible.

I think ultimately you would do best to believe the Islamic Jesus from faith alone and not attempt to show from our gospels your Jesus who simply isn’t there. I don’t think there is any room in Islam for a sinful woman to wash the feet of a man with her tears.

I don’t think there would be any room in the American presidency if Barak Obama was observed having that done to him. It would be a huge scandal.

Peace.

 

[Servant19]

Looked back. You gave a page number, and on another issue gave a post number.
Are you trying to spread confusion?

From your post 354 (see how it’s done?):
Please read the exchanges between myself and eddie too on page 22 of this thread
Benedict’s passage of interest is post # 317.

Ok, thanks

No resolution necessary. The Christian God transcends the physical.

So if Jesus transcends the physical, why do you insist on a “physical” resurrection
I agree, God DOES transcend the physical, and Christianity should do likewise.

Interesting assertion. I suppose you can prove this?

The proof is that no religious Scripture in history talks about a soul appearing willingly in the physical realm. “That which is flesh is flesh, that which is spirit is spirit”…yes people have visions and dreams, but those happen when the physical aspect of the human senses are switched off, enabling spiritual truths to be communicated.

But in generality, souls don’t just hang around and go shopping with me on weekends.

Ghosts, it was my understanding are “visible spirits” thereby contradicting the concept of invisibility, and availability to any physical sense for that matter.

When Jesus was resurrected, I believe He was resurrected into the Kingdom, and His true reality and glory was made manifest, and it was REAL, so real that the apostles could sense Him very clearly in their visions…

The Kingdom of God is an infinitely more glorious and magnificent realm than this Kingdom of Earth, true reality is in that realm. The physical kingdom is just an emanation of that invisible Kingdom…

 

[Dialogues]

And how exactly does your worldview define good and evil?

A very good question! This is a vast subject which can be approached from various angles.

From one perspective, the acquisition of those divine attributes which humans *can *acquire [such as mercy, kindness, love, justice, wisdom] make a person good. The absence of them makes a person evil [e.g. cruelty, tyranny].

Another perspective is that when natural human tendencies are governed and regulated by reason and good sense, they become moral qualities.

If you are interested to investigate this topic, the following link will help:

alislam.org/library/books/Philosophy-of-Teachings-of-Islam.pdf

The first chapter of this very insightful lecture covers the natural, moral and spiritual states of humans, and is well-worth reading.

Otherwise, feel free to ask specific questions.

Peace.

 

[betsybug354]

Dialogues,

Am I correct in assuming you are an Ahmadi Muslim? My husband is Sunni. Is it true that Ahmadis are not allowed to make Hajj to Mecca?

 

[Dialogues]

Dialogues,

Am I correct in assuming you are an Ahmadi Muslim? My husband is Sunni. Is it true that Ahmadis are not allowed to make Hajj to Mecca?

Yes you are correct.

Yes, the people of Mecca used to prevent the Holy Prophet Muhammad s.a. from performing the hajj, and now the people of Mecca prevent Ahmadi Muslims from performing the hajj.

History repeats itself.

Peace.