Question on Islam -- round 4

  • Thread starter Thread starter Aydan
  • Start date Start date
Status
Not open for further replies.
More places in the Bible where women are inferior.

Ecclesiasticus 25:19-24 (Catholic Bible)
All wickedness is but little to the wickedness of a woman: let the portion of a sinner fall upon her.
As the climbing up a sandy way is to the feet of the aged, so is a wife full of words to a quiet man.
Stumble not at the beauty of a woman, and desire her not for pleasure.
A woman, if she maintain her husband, is full of anger, impudence, and much reproach.
A wicked woman abateth the courage, maketh an heavy countenance and a wounded heart: a woman that will not comfort her husband in distress maketh weak hands and feeble knees.
Of the woman came the beginning of sin, and through her we all die.

Here it tells how a woman would never treat her husband fairly if she were to be the authorative one. If she was authorative, she is full of anger, impudence and much reproach. She will not comfort her husband when he in distress but would make him weaker. Ending with, with woman came sin and because of her we all die. How much respect the Bible, thus Christianity has for women I can see with my own eyes.

I Timothy 2:9-14
In like manner also, that women adorn themselves in modest apparel, with shamefacedness and sobriety; not with broided hair, or gold, or pearls, or costly array;
But (which becometh women professing godliness) with good works.
Let the woman learn in silence with all subjection.
But I suffer not a woman to teach, nor to usurp authority over the man, but to be in silence.
For Adam was first formed, then Eve.
And Adam was not deceived, but the woman being deceived was in the transgression.
Notwithstanding she shall be saved in childbearing, if they continue in faith and charity and holiness with sobriety.

First point, it tells woman to dress modestly, just as Islam does. However, Islam does not tell the women, do not teach, or learn in silence with all subjection. If women have questions regarding somethings when learning she has the right to ask.
 
Hei…my pagan ancestors also had legend or story circulating until now that there was a huge lake besides the mountain near the city where I live. No one could ever see any evidence of it now or even at their time. But later on, the expert of archeology came and study the soil there and later on conclude that there was a great lake in that particular place that exist around 260.000 years ago…! Now…I have to thank my ancestors who didn’t claim their pagan faith to be divine and make that legend the proof of what they have believed.😃 And, really I am not joking about the story!
with all my respect , mohammed (pbuh) didn’t have such legends about Iram nor did he lived beside it
you knew about the huge lake from the legends , but where did mohammed (pbuh) knew about Iram ?
 
Nah…do i have to explain something that u could read ur self in the bible, that Jesus in all the accounts were brought to Pilate, to the Jews council, later on died in the cross. Did they wrote something different? Now a muslim member here have tried to explain that Jesus indeed was crucified, but later on could escape and ran away to India. And now ur version which is even more ridiculuous says that the man on the cross was Judas. There were so many people at that time witnessing the account, don’t u think that if it was Judas replaced Jesus he would scream, rebelled and said many things. People would notice his reaction, and of course also Pilate and the Romans, and so the story would be different. Why would Christianity be spread if it only based on lies, the apostles and many early Christian have sacrificed their life, only for lies? Will u find any story telling people are sacrificing their lifes for lies?
**seraphime, it was jesus himself on the cross. Some one (That was some christian saint) who cheated the muslims into the wrong idea of some one else being on the cross. That is not true. Quran does not teach that. There is no Hadith to support that bad idea. So forget about that idea. You are right what you have said. You also have objection to that idea. So you are right. It was Jesus himself on the cross.

Allah did not switch the persons. Allah does not do such things. **
Compare the story to ur so called propeht, all his companions were given rewards from the booty of the war. They immediately fought each other after ur prophet died!
** Here you are wrong. The prophet and his companions suffered heavily and they were persecuted from day one till 15 years or more. They suffered at Makkah. They suffered at Madinah because they were attacked regularly.

Muhammad did not have any booty to give to followers. Rathers, the followers were sacrificing their own money all the time for the survival of Islam. This continued for many years. So where was the booty?

Every one tried to attack Islam. There were battles. Muslims were victorious. You know that when war is imposed on some people and one party wins, they do gather booty. So tell me what they should do with that booty? Should they return it to the loosing army? What should be done about the spoils of war? Should it not be distributed equably amongs the soldiers?

I cannot understand how you people come up with funny ideas and accusations against Islam. A christian should be honest in every matter.**
 
it will be acceptable reason for me , if we had the scriptures which written in his time , actually many verses of OT was very clearly writen after his death by the hand of those jews whom moses (pbuh) predict that they will provoking the God to anger with the work of thier hands
**and evil will befall you in the latter days, for you will do that which is evil in the sight of the LORD, provoking Him to anger with the work of your hands.” **
isn’t OT is the work of thier hands !
That is eisegesis, or reading into the scripture. The “works of their hands” merely means their actions in general, not their scripture - reading the full context of the passage makes that clear. Unless you are suggesting that the only thing mankind is capable of doing with their hands is writing.

Furthermore, many of those Jews who wrote after Moses were prophets of God: Jeremiah (whom you’ve quoted), Ezekiel, Micah, Isaiah, etc. I doubt any of them provoked the Lord to anger or corrupted scripture.
i think that i decleared my point allrady , quran for muslims is the book which revealed to the prophet we believe in , not the book which later genearations authorised , but the OT contains additions from later generations [emphasis mine]
The Koran which you hold now was the one authorized by Uthman - all the other ones were burned. If you are going to debate with Christians, I urge you to be consistent in your reasoning and judgment of either side. Given that the Koran was revealed gradually over the course of Mohammad’s life up until his death, there is little doubt that they had a full book version of the Koran at that time.

In any case, I reiterate that according to the logic that a prophet saying “You guys are going to get corrupt later on” means scripture will be corrupt, then the Koran is corrupt because Mohammad said later generations would be corrupt.
The Revised Standard Version makes it even clearer…
Appealing to the authority of one single translation, and one that’s not even that respected among biblical scholars at that? My friend, I say this with respect to your dignity: not only is that a logical fallacy (appealing to a single authority as if it were infallible) but it is grasping for straws. Unless you believe the RSV is somehow an “uncorrupted” Bible.

Furthermore, this is simply repeating an argument I already addressed. If you look at the full context of that passage and understanding what the words within them mean for the time period they were written, Jeremiah is condemning false teachers, not men who corrupted scripture.
well , i respect your view . but honesty i read the otherwise
I’m sorry - and again I say this because I care about you - but you’re reading through the lens of the Koran and what Islam wants you to read. This goes as well for the following argument regarding the corruption of scripture. There’s simply no historical evidence of any grand conspiracy to turn Jesus into God or to paganize Christianity. The works of the earlies Church Fathers attack any form of pananization, and all of them confirm the divinity of Christ and the presence of the Trinity.

As I suggested to Hadi, instead of repeating what the imams or Koran tell you, or running to Google or YouTube to find something else to respond with, read early patristics and read about early Church history from the contemporary sources. Read especially the works of Ignatius, Polycarp, Clement I, Justin Martyr, and other early men of God, and I think you will be astounded by what you will find. And then read the works of later men such as John Chrysostom, Jerome, Ambrose, and others. You will find, as I did, that there is a consistent line of Christian thought from the earliest days of the apostles well up to Saint John Damascene in the 8th century.
what about Bart Ehrman ?
Bart Ehrman is an atheist, and I always find it ironic when Muslims use him because his denial of the God of Christianity extends to the God of Islam. In fact, to deny the God Jesus believed in, according to Islam, is to deny Allah.

This leads to the grand problem dzheremi hints to:
Oh, come on now. You may not have written the words “I do not believe in Jesus”, but by claiming that Jesus is the latest incarnation of previous mythical characters (which is what that list of historical “facts” is meant to do), this is in effect what you are doing.
It’s the problem with most Muslim apologetics, as I said. It’s what Christian apologist James White calls the problem of finding the “rare consistent Muslim” who doesn’t have to change hats. When Muslims go to Gnostics, atheists, and Jehovah’s Witnesses for argumentation, they do not seem to realize they are taking advice from the opinions of men who are deemed heretics and are destined for the hellfire according to the words of their own Koran.
 
**…
The prophet and his companions suffered heavily and they were persecuted from day one till 15 years or more. They suffered at Makkah. They suffered at Madinah because they were attacked regularly…
**
What goes around comes around. He who lives by the sword dies by the sword. Mohammed lived by the sword, and he died by the sword.
 
Can i ask as to why the Book of Revelations by St Peter (also known as the Apocolypse of Peter) was not accepted, when Jesus himself said “And I say also unto thee, that thou art Peter. And upon this rock I will build my church” Mathew 16:18

Here in the Apocolypse of Peter, from the earliest times, it is written.

“Come therefore, let us go on with the completion of the will of the incorruptible Father. For behold, those who will bring them judgment are coming, and they will be put to shame. But me they cannot touch. And you, O Peter, shall stand in their midst. Do not be afraid because of your cowardice. Their minds shall be closed, for the invisible one has opposed them.”

When he said those things,** I saw him seemingly being seized by them. And I said “What do I see, O Lord, that it is you yourself whom they take, and that you are grasping me? Or who is this one, glad and laughing on the tree? And is it another one whose feet and hands they are striking?”**

The Savior said to me, "He whom you saw on the tree, glad and laughing, this is the living Jesus. But this one into whose hands and feet they drive the nails is his fleshly part, which is the substitute being put to shame, the one who came into being in his likeness. But look at him and me."

But I, when I had looked, said “Lord, no one is looking at you. Let us flee this place.” But he said to me, "I have told you, “Leave the blind alone!” And you, see how they do not know what they are saying. For the son of their glory instead of my servant, they have put to shame."

(Personal Note* Like in the Quran "That they said (in boast): ‘We killed Christ Jesus The son of Mary, The Messenger of Allah.’ 4:156. Here Jesus says the same, look at wht they are saying. )

And I saw someone about to approach us resembling him, even him who was laughing on the tree. And he was filled with a Holy Spirit, and he is the Savior. And there was a great, ineffable light around them, and the multitude of ineffable and invisible angels blessing them. And when I looked at him, the one who gives praise was revealed. And he said to me, “Be strong, for you are the one to whom these mysteries have been given, to know them through revelation, that he whom they crucified is the first-born, and the home of demons, and the stony vessel, in which they dwell, of Elohim, of the cross, which is under the Law. But he who stands near him is the living Savior, the first in him, whom they seized and released, who stands joyfully looking those who did him violence, while they are divided among themselves. Therefore he laughs at their lack of perception, knowing that they are born blind. So then the one susceptible to suffering shall come, since the body is the substitute. But what they released was my incorporeal body. But I am the intellectual Spirit filled with radiant light. He whom you saw coming to me is our intellectual Pleroma , which unites the perfect light with my Holy Spirit.”

(Personal Note* It is a substitute. In the Quran it says continuing the verse previously mentioned. "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. ")

**“These things, then, which you saw you shall present to those of another race who are not of this age **. For there will be no honor in any man who is not immortal, which has shown that it is able to contain him who gives his abundance. Therefore I said, “Every one who has, it will be given to him, and he will have plenty.” But he who does not have, that is, the man of this place, who is completely dead, who is removed from the planting of the creation of what is begotten, whom, if one of the immortal essence appears, they think that they possess him - it will be taken from him and be added to the one who is. You, therefore, be courageous and do not fear at all. For I shall be with you in order that none of your enemies may prevail unto you. Peace be to you, Be strong!”

(Personal Note* Indeed these things which Peter saw, was presented to another race, the Arabs. This version of the crucifixion is written in the Quran, where it was meant to appear that Jesus was crucified. Also, please do onot confuse the Gnostic Apocalypse of Peter, with this Apocolypse of Peter. This was discovered in 1910. Furthermore, “Clement of Alexandria considered the Apocalypse of Peter to be holy scripture. Eusebius, Historia Ecclesiae (VI.14.1)”, as well as many others.)
 
Can i ask as to why the Book of Revelations by St Peter (also known as the Apocolypse of Peter) was not accepted, when Jesus himself said “And I say also unto thee, that thou art Peter. And upon this rock I will build my church” Mathew 16:18
Because this verse is not an endorsement of any particular piece of writing attributed to Peter. Read what the Catholic Encyclopedia has to say about the canon here. Basically, that particular piece of writing is of dubious authenticity.
 
Because this verse is not an endorsement of any particular piece of writing attributed to Peter. Read what the Catholic Encyclopedia has to say about the canon here. Basically, that particular piece of writing is of dubious authenticity.
Obviously, I assumed that is what Christians are going to say because it is obviously not in their Bible. Doesn’t mean your correct in that statement. (btw, i checked out that link of yours, and its just toooo much info to absorb at this moment.)
 
First you complain that I and others here have not provided “proof”, but then when you are given the information, you won’t read it because it is just “too much information” for you? You can’t have it both ways.

And please keep in mind that what I have written is not my personal opinion, but the consensus of the early Church, which decided in concert hundreds of years before any of us ever existed that a certain set of writings would be canonized, while others would not be.

Your “it doesn’t mean you’re correct in your assesment” stance is really obnoxious. I think the Early Church Fathers and Doctors of the Church know a little bit more about Christianity than you.
 
First you complain that I and others here have not provided “proof”, but then when you are given the information, you won’t read it because it is just “too much information” for you? You can’t have it both ways.

And please keep in mind that what I have written is not my personal opinion, but the consensus of the early Church, which decided in concert hundreds of years before any of us ever existed that a certain set of writings would be canonized, while others would not be.

Your “it doesn’t mean you’re correct in your assesment” stance is really obnoxious. I think the Early Church Fathers and Doctors of the Church know a little bit more about Christianity than you.
First of all, i already admitted that you are going to say it is of dubious authority, and you gave me a link of the Catholic Encyclopedia saying the same thing. I have told you that the early church did not have this version of the Apocolypse of Peter, because it is different from the Gnostic Apocalypse of Peter. The early church proved that the Gnostic Aplocalyps of Peter was of dubios authortity. How about this version? The Early Church Fathers did know more but the First Council of Nicea was held in 325 AD, which is i think over 300 years too late. Yes, they chose, but even before then there have been many versions of the Books within the Bible, which is proved from the Dead Sea Scrolls. So if they decided to remove the Gnostic Apocalypse of Peter from the Bible, then alright, but if they dont have the other version or the other Apocalypse of Peter, then how could they remove it from the Bible?
 
Status
Not open for further replies.
Back
Top