The eternal nature of the Qur'an...please help me understand?

[Reuben_J]

*Shenango:
As for Muhammad (PBUH) glorifying Jesus (PBUH), this he did by correcting the lies people told about him (that he claimed to be God etc.), and restoring his honor as a prophet from the disgrace of blashphemy and idolatry.

As for taking what is of Jesus’ and giving it to people, this I believe is a reference to the common thread of prophetic teachings running across all the prophets. Muhammad (PBUH) even prayed as Jesus (PBUH) did, and greeted people as Jesus (PBUH) did (“Peace be upon you”).*

Reuben:
So this make Mohammad justified in taking what Jesus did to the people. For a very scholarly analysis that you are trying to impress, you disappoint me on this one. Any Jew or Arab does that. What’s new and extraordinary about that. You don’t need prophet to give that.

You are truly circumscribing the issue my friend. The Bible is full of verses glorifying Jesus and you consider these lies, while on the other hand, just based on a single verse, John 16:13, you said this is true. That does not make sense at all.

*Shenango:
And where did you get this lie from? Your Catholic friends? First of all, the word “Trinity” itself cannot be found in either the Bible or the Qur’an, so I vehemently reject your assertion that the Bible or the Qur’an teach what the Trinity is or is not. *

Reuben:
I used the word Trinity for simplicity to explain our understanding of the concept of God. What does the Quran says about the belief of the Christians regarding their God? Father, son and mother! By implication, producing child through human sexual encounter. This is not what the Christian believe! Even if Quran does not agree with their belief. So where did Quran got this wrong information, if it is from Allah, the all-knowing?

Shenango:
Catholic consecrations to Mary, and prayers to her to protect you (which I assume you’d be aware of) are tantamount to worship of Mary.

Reuben:
This had been discussed many times. You are still forcing it on us on what we do not do. If I say that you worship pig, just because you are forbidden to eat pork, would you agree with me? I won’t say that, but for some pagans, that is very reasonable assumption. Would you agree with them?

Shenango:
So please save your criticism for someone ignorant, or otherwise correct it. Muhammad (PBUH) knew well what he was talking about, and Muslims are totally unapologetic about, much less to be embarassed or shamed by it. I repeat: IT IS NO ERROR!

Reuben:
It’s no error, huh?

*Shenango:
This is called circular reasoning, my friend. You’re essentially saying the following:

The Bible is God’s Word–>the Qur’an disagrees with the Bible–>therefore the Qur’an is not God’s Word.*

Reuben:
As I mentioned above, you used the Bible to justify Mohammad. Now when the going gets tough, oh, it’s circular reasoning, indeed.

*Shenango:
They made this criticism of the Qur’an during Muhammad’s lifetime, and in his very presence. …how could something from Satan lambaste the Devil as much as the Qur’an does? *

Reuben:
You still haven’t explained that the Quran is not consistent with God’s nature.

Peace

God bless you

Reuben

 

[Reuben_J]

Shenango:
This is just not factually true. Moses (PBUH) was the only who God spoke to directly. All others were inspired by angels, including Muhammad (PBUH). In any case, angels in Islam have no free will of their own, so they’re merely vessels for the word they carry. Technically they’re middle-men, yes, but effectively it’s the same thing as God Himself doing the talking, because as I said, angles can do nothing on their own, but God speaks through them. It isn’t like with a human middle man, who can change or channel the message.

Reueben:
Grave mistakes my friend. Important God’s Word would be delivered by God himself and not through angels. Moses. Noah, Abraham, Isaiah, Jeremiah, Ezekiel, and even Jesus (…He is my beloved son whom I am well pleased).

Angels have no free will on their own? Good grief. Well, granted, as you said this is in Islam. Anyway. how would they become evil? They were made beautiful, remember?

*Shenango:
Muhammad (PBUH) was a businessman who lost all his business dealings with his people and was shunned by them for preaching Islam.

As for politics, the Arabs thought 1,400 years ago, just as you do today, that Muhammad (PBUH) certainly must have been motivated by desire for power. That’s why, in their desperation, they promised to make him King over them, ruler and lord of all of them, if only he would quit preaching Islam. *

Reueben:
Mohammad began in Mecca…. How about the Islamic empire? I know what you are going to say, never mind. ….Islam was spreaded not by force and those who got killed were the enemies of Islam….

Shenango:
It’s the ONLY likely possibility! Look, if you don’t want to accept Islam, my sincere advice to you would be to stop coming up with possible motives for Muhammad’s preaching. They’ve all been tried before, and all have failed…most of them within the Prophet’s own lifetime. This is why the best scholars who remain non-Muslims today have wisely quit trying to find a workable hypothesis of Muhammad’s motives. They merely present him as he was, and leave it at that, because they’ve realized that his sincerity was beyond question, and his impact incalculable. I suggest you quit too.

Reuben:
Hey, man, what got into you? There, there, you seem to be rather touchy today. Is it something that I say? Huh?

A possibility is a possibility! Goodness if the possibility does become true…. You would be hanging your belief on a very thin line, my friend.

Peace.

God bless you.

Reuben.

p/s these are rather long posts. I apologise any for typos or errors.

 

[Booklover]

Emad:

The Quran is not something physical. It is part of God, since it is His speech. I have said this to you already and will say it again: THE QURAN IS NOT PHYSICAL AND IT IS PART OF GOD JUST LIKE HIS KNOWLEDGE IS PART OF HIM SO IS HIS SPEECH. Please stop asking the same questions over and over. It seems to me that you are looking for a specific answer which is different from what I am telling you. In my post before this I made it clear that the Quran is not physical and now you say “It seems as if it is physical and spiritual” did you not read my last post?

You’re saying that the Qur’an is not physical, but how come there are so many copies of it out there? I’m sorry, but I cannot make heads or tails of this statement.

 

[Booklover]

Shenango:

Obviously, we don’t feel our justifications of Muhammad (PBUH) from the Bible go to “ridiculous lengths” (not most of them anyway).

However, I’m not going to argue the Paraclete prophecy with you, because neither will you convince me, nor I you, so there’s no point.

But just briefly, I will say the Paraclete prophecy is much more complicated than how most Muslims and Christians argue it. It’s one you really have to scratch beneath the surface of the text to get at.

There’s no point in quoting the text of the Gospel of John directly today, and arguing over its meaning, for three major reasons.

1. The Gospel was written late, at the earliest sixty years after Christ (PBUH), and as such, what Jesus (PBUH) says in it is not be taken as his verbatim speech.
2. The Gospel (text) contains a thick layer of Greek metaphysics through which everything said, even Jesus’ lines, is screened. Jesus (PBUH) was a Semitic Jew, and he most definitely didn’t say lines about people dwelling in him, and him in them, and God in people, and people consuming his flesh and blood. This way of abstract thinking about the “the Logos”, the soul, the body and man’s relation to God is foreign to Judaism (and also Islam) and Semitic metahphysics in general. So this Gospel requires a very in-depth analysis getting underneath the superficial level of the plain text to re-construct a picture of how the Jewish Jesus (PBUH) might have said some of the things attributed to him.
3. Anyone who reads John should recognize that Jesus (PBUH) is being presented filtered through the eyes of an author with an agenda to portray Jesus (PBUH) and his words in a certain manner, to bring across to the reader the view the author would like he or she to believe. In other words, there’s a lot of interpolation on the author’s part.

#3 is very important. See, I don’t deny that the author of John himself believed that the Paraclete was the Holy Spirit–it’s very clear he himself believed that, and tried to portray the oral tradition of what Jesus (PBUH) is supposed to have said in that manner. But frankly, it doesn’t work: the problems are endless.

The first major problem is the word the author renders “Advocate/Comforter” in Greek (“paraklytos”) doesn’t really exist as a real word at all in common usage–back then or now. It’s essentially made up. But, it’s interesting to note here that an actual Greek word very similar to it signifies exactly what Muhammad’s name means: most illustrious, the praised one etc. With that understanding, John 14:16-17 sounds very similar to a verse in the Qur’an that quotes Jesus (PBUH) as bearing news to the Children of Israel of a messenger to come after him by the name of “Ahmad”, which is a nickname for “Muhammad”, and means exactly what that similar Greek word means. This is too uncanny to be totally coincidental.

The second major problem is, as I said, that the Holy Spirit already existed with Jesus (PBUH) during his life, and with the disciples, and previously among Jewish prophets. Yet a close (and honest) reading of John 16:7-15 very clearly implies that this “Paraclete”, whoever he is, is a new character that nobody knows yet, because he hasn’t been introduced to the world yet. No matter how you cut it, that just doesn’t square with the Holy Spirit, who is already there among them.

But like I said, John is clearly trying to push this character as the Holy Spirit. He has a tradition sitting in front of him about this “most illustrious, praised one”, that he doesn’t understand…because he (the author) himself believes that Jesus (PBUH) is the end-all-be-all of prophets and messengers. So who could possibly come later? So he includes the tradition for the sake of not concealing information, but there’s a clear sense of him trying to force the character to be something he’s clearly not.

Continued in Part 2…

Shenango, the Catholic Church has never discredited anyone else’s beliefs in order to prove its validity or that of its teachings. It can stand on its own. I am not an apologist or anything of the kind and I’m sorry if I was rude to you before, but in your statements here you’re implying that everything we believe is false.

You’re still insisting that the Paraclete refers to Mohammed. Since you’re not a Catholic you cannot understand how ridiculous the claims of Mohammed being the messenger seem to us! You’re twisting everything out of context and trying to make the pieces fit what you want them to. The concept that Mohammed is the Paraclete is like trying to fit a square peg in a round hole. It just does not make sense!

 

[Booklover]

Shenango:

…Continued from Part 2…

This is just not factually true. Moses (PBUH) was the only who God spoke to directly. All others were inspired by angels, including Muhammad (PBUH). In any case, angels in Islam have no free will of their own, so they’re merely vessels for the word they carry. Technically they’re middle-men, yes, but effectively it’s the same thing as God Himself doing the talking, because as I said, angles can do nothing on their own, but God speaks through them. It isn’t like with a human middle man, who can change or channel the message.

Since you say that the angels do not have free will how do you account for Satan and the rest of the fallen angels who rebelled against God?

It’s the ONLY likely possibility! Look, if you don’t want to accept Islam, my sincere advice to you would be to stop coming up with possible motives for Muhammad’s preaching. They’ve all been tried before, and all have failed…most of them within the Prophet’s own lifetime. This is why the best scholars who remain non-Muslims today have wisely quit trying to find a workable hypothesis of Muhammad’s motives. They merely present him as he was, and leave it at that, because they’ve realized that his sincerity was beyond question, and his impact incalculable. I suggest you quit too.

You still have not provided any tangible proof for Mohammed’s claims. All you’ve done is try to discredit what Christians believe. When did Mohammed walk on water, or make the blind see, or the deaf hear? When did he cleanse any leper of his disease? Jesus did all these things and more!

Saying that the Qur’an is Mohammed’s only miracle with no other corroborating evidence is crazy.The whole thing is crazy!

 

[Booklover]

Shenango:

…Continued from Part 1

As for Muhammad (PBUH) glorifying Jesus (PBUH), this he did by correcting the lies people told about him (that he claimed to be God etc.), and restoring his honor as a prophet from the disgrace of blashphemy and idolatry.

So you’re saying that people lied when they claimed that Jesus was God? What do you suppose Jesus meant when He said: I am the way, the truth and the life". How do you interpret that?

 

[Preacher]

dennisknapp:

I have asked certain Muslims to explain the nature of the Qur’an. Some have done so, but I still have some questions.

Islam teaches that the Qur’an is the eternal Word of God, correct?

My question in this:

Does the Qur’an exist apart from God? If it does, and is eternal, you have two seperately existing things that are eternal, God and the Qur’an.

Either the Qur’an exists in God and is a part of God, or it is seperate and exists with God. If it is eternal and seperate and exists with God, I see no reason for Muslims having a problem with the Christian concept of the Word of God (Logos) as found in John 1.

Peace

Hello dennisknapp

I just joined this forum and this is my first response after introduction. Nevertheless, I was wondering that why did you ask “certain” (unknown and unnamed) Muslims instead of using the direct and authentic sources of Islam? I am also wondering how learned and qualified these “certain” Muslims were?

Having said that, the answer is as follows:

The Qur’an is the Word of Allah and the Word of Allah cannot be considered Allah’s creation. The Qur’an is a part of Allah’s knowledge and Allah’s knowledge is not created.

Regarding your “logos” issue I must assert the following:

In the Beginning was the Wisdom, NOT Word.

What ‘Allaah’s Word’ Means, Used For Isa Ibn Maryam?

I hope this clears up things for you.

Regards
Preacher

 

[Reuben_J]

Dear Shenango,

My last responses were long and some might border on trivialities. There were many issues to address that I didn’t response sufficiently on the main point – that you said the Paraclete cannot be the Holy Spirit but Mohammad.

I still want to deal on this point at length here.

Your analysis was not apt as regards to interpreting John 16 and its background. As mentioned earlier, the use of the word paraclete is nothing unusual, as there are many names for the Holy Spirit, and they are used at different episodes of the Bible. Helper, Counselor, Advocate, Paraclete, Spirit; they are all the same person.

Allah might be referred by many attributes; merciful, forgiving, loving or all-knowing, etc. One cannot say Allah is the all-merciful, but the all-knowing is Joseph Smith, see. Remember, the Bible or the Quran can be interpreted in 101 ways. One, however, needs to look for what the author wanted to convey when he put the words in writing.

Let look again at the source of this argument.

Jesus speaking to his disciples/apostles: Basically Jesus is speaking about his impending death and what the disciples should expect when the time comes especially after it would happen.

**John 16: (GNB)

Verse 12:
“…I have much more to tell you, but now it would be too much for you to hear.

Verse 13:
When, however, the Spirit comes, who reveals the truth about God, he will lead you into all the truth. He will not speak on his own authority, but he will speak of what he hears and will tell you of the things to come.

Verse 14:
He will give me glory, because he will take what I say and tell it to you.

Verse 15:
All that my Father has is mine, that is why I said that the Spirit will take what I give him and tell it to you.

Verse 16:
In a little while you will not see me anymore, and then a little while later you will see me.”**

Please read the above passage very carefully, so that you will not be out of context.

Verse 12:

Disciples misconception of Jesus as the Messiah is to restore the Jewish kingdom and drive the Romans out of Jewish land. It’s thus too much for the disciples to bear to realize he would he would NOT be understood as this. His messiahship is to deliver the world from sin, not from the Romans. He is not to be the King of the Jews, but his Kingdom is heaven and is eternal.

Verse 13:

In the concept of Trinity, Jesus would be speaking to them through the Spirit. Specifically, when Jesus is explained as the Messiah (the Christ, the Anointed One, the Redeemer, the Savior; names used to denote this) who saves mankind from sin, it would be understood by the disciples, because the physical signs had already happened. Jesus died, buried, risen and appeared to them.

Verse 14:

You gave flimsy examples of how Mohammad fulfills this. Read this verse again. Your idea of Mohammad giving Jesus glory does not make sense at all. In effect what you were saying, Mohammad is deglorifying Jesus.

Even if what you said make sense (which is not), did Mohammad take what Jesus says and tell it to the disciples of Jesus? Don’t tell me stuff that the disciples could be people 600 years later, because this promise is specific. The chain of events had not been completed, and it would only be completed when the disciples received from Jesus (through the Holy Spirit) what he wanted to say, sometimes later after this episode.

Even assuming the ridiculous, that this happens 600 years later, still the fact remains that Mohammad did NOT take what Jesus said and tell it to the people. I don’t mean giving sign of peace though it could be one of them, but on things that really matter. I did give you an example of Matthew 16:21.

Continued in part 2 …

 

[Reuben_J]

Continued … Part 2

Verse 15:

The Father and Jesus are one. The Spirit is the ‘mode’ that conveyed Jesus’ word to the disciples. In this sense, the Spirit has the authority, for being one with the Father and Jesus, the Spirit has heard everything for He was there all along.

But the added authority is from Jesus himself who underwent death and resurrection and tells this to the Holy Spirit. The emphasis on authority is for the truth of the words said (see verse 13).

Of course, when a person is inspired by the Holy Spirit, it is Jesus who gives the Word through the Holy Spirit. Jesus as human is already dead. As God he is not. As human he speaks of the Father, as God he and the Father are one and same.

This verse also shuts the remaining little possibility that Mohammad could have been the Holy Spirit, because the disciples did not see, did not experience Mohammad.

Verse 16:

Jesus was with them then, but after his death, even though he was not with them physically, he was with them as if physically, by the power of the Holy Spirit. Please refer to my earlier posting how the disciples could do extraordinary things, like, which Jesus himself had done.

**Thus in a little while you will not see me anymore ** (he will die and ascend to heaven, leaving them), **then a little while later you will see me ** (his brief appearance after the resurrection – and if you like, the coming of the Holy Spirit at Pentecost).

The meaning of this sentence will be clear to the disciples when the Spirit came later.

I said what need to be said regarding this and I cannot see for the life of me how Mohammad or Ahmad could fit as the promised spirit. It will defy simple reasoning to do so. This is what I meant when I said that you Muslims would go to ridiculous length to justify Mohammad.

It is so obvious what the author (John) trying to convey and it not logical for him to insert verse 16:13 only to destroy the message of the Bible. This time, it’s my turn to ask you to give credit to the intelligence of the Biblical author, since you are approaching this objectively.

I don’t quarrel with you on the interpretation of the Quran, though those possibilities that I highlighted that Quran might not come from God, arises from the fact that the presentation of Mohammad and Quran to us is filled with much contradiction.

As long as you present to us things like “stepping stone” theology, erroneous information and “theology of acquiescing to human desire” (the words my own), I shall have lots to say on **DOUBTS ** about Quran coming from God.

Peace.

God bless you.

Reuben

 

[Booklover]

Reuben J:

Continued … Part 2

Verse 15:

The Father and Jesus are one. The Spirit is the ‘mode’ that conveyed Jesus’ word to the disciples. In this sense, the Spirit has the authority, for being one with the Father and Jesus, the Spirit has heard everything for He was there all along.

But the added authority is from Jesus himself who underwent death and resurrection and tells this to the Holy Spirit. The emphasis on authority is for the truth of the words said (see verse 13).

Of course, when a person is inspired by the Holy Spirit, it is Jesus who gives the Word through the Holy Spirit. Jesus as human is already dead. As God he is not. As human he speaks of the Father, as God he and the Father are one and same.

This verse also shuts the remaining little possibility that Mohammad could have been the Holy Spirit, because the disciples did not see, did not experience Mohammad.

Verse 16:

Jesus was with them then, but after his death, even though he was not with them physically, he was with them as if physically, by the power of the Holy Spirit. Please refer to my earlier posting how the disciples could do extraordinary things, like, which Jesus himself had done.

**Thus in a little while you will not see me anymore **(he will die and ascend to heaven, leaving them), **then a little while later you will see me **(his brief appearance after the resurrection – and if you like, the coming of the Holy Spirit at Pentecost).

The meaning of this sentence will be clear to the disciples when the Spirit came later.

I said what need to be said regarding this and I cannot see for the life of me how Mohammad or Ahmad could fit as the promised spirit. It will defy simple reasoning to do so. This is what I meant when I said that you Muslims would go to ridiculous length to justify Mohammad.

It is so obvious what the author (John) trying to convey and it not logical for him to insert verse 16:13 only to destroy the message of the Bible. This time, it’s my turn to ask you to give credit to the intelligence of the Biblical author, since you are approaching this objectively.

I don’t quarrel with you on the interpretation of the Quran, though those possibilities that I highlighted that Quran might not come from God, arises from the fact that the presentation of Mohammad and Quran to us is filled with much contradiction.

As long as you present to us things like “stepping stone” theology, erroneous information and “theology of acquiescing to human desire” (the words my own), I shall have lots to say on **DOUBTS **about Quran coming from God.

Peace.

God bless you.

Reuben

Thanks Reuben for defending our faith! According to Shenango everything we believe is a big lie, the apostles are a bunch of dingbats who don’t know what they’re talking about and whose credibility is iffy! They claimed that Jesus was the Son of God, but Mohammed came and corrected that lie by saying Jesus was just a prophet who did not die on the cross as we have been taught. The apostles even put words in Jesus’ mouth having him say whatever they wanted! No one is to be believed except Mohammed whose credibility is above reproach.

Jesus lied to his disciples by telling them to wait for the Paraclete, who shows up 600 years later! Makes a lot of sense doesn’t it? Why did Jesus even bother to mention the Paraclete at all, right? Then in the Qur’an the name of the paraclete is disclosed by Jesus saying that he was sending his messenger, Ahmad, which means Mohammed! Uncanny! Totally incredible and completely unbelivevable!

Shenango, you’ve taken our whole religion and dissected it like a specimen on a slab. You’ve twisted, distorted and taken everything out of context to prove the credibility of your prophet. But since we believe the Paraclete to be the Holy Spirit who descended on the Apostles and Mary on Pentecost, ten days after Jesus’ ascension, everything makes sense. The Paraclete came just as Jesus promised, to complete his work on earth and bring us the fullness of truth!

Jesus said "I am the way, the truth and the life. I am the Alpha and the Omega, the beginning and the End, which means there will be no revelations after him.

 

[Reuben_J]

Hi Booklover,
By the way why do you choose this acronym?

We will always be an encouragement to each other on the journey of our faith.

Always remember that it is built on the Rock of Peter, where the gate of hell will not prevail. The successor of the prime apostle is still there in Rome, and true enough, the Lord, like He said, would go a little while but come back later, and be with His people, … till the end of time.

Generally I don’t have problem with Islam. It’s the distortion and putting words/erroneous belief into our mouth that need to be countered with the truth.

Keep the faith.

God bless you.

Reuben

 

[Booklover]

Reuben J:

Hi Booklover,
By the way why do you choose this acronym?

Keep the faith.

God bless you.

Reuben

Because I’m a book-a-holic! So many books, so little time, that sort of thing!

 

[hlgomez]

In any case, angels in Islam have no free will of their own, so they’re merely vessels for the word they carry. Technically they’re middle-men, yes, but effectively it’s the same thing as God Himself doing the talking, because as I said, angles can do nothing on their own, but God speaks through them. It isn’t like with a human middle man, who can change or channel the message.

Shenango,

I wish to correct your error. Angel is the name of their office, which means messenger. But their nature is they are pure spirits. They are persons, not some robot who thinks and acts at the command of somebody. They are, as I said, pure spirits and persons.

Angels do have freewill. Satan and the rest of the evil spirits were once good angels. When they chose not to serve God, they did it out or their own freewill, not that God caused them to sin against him. Otherwise you are trying to imply that God was the cause why angels sinned, therefore God is evil. But God didn’t cause them to sin, angels did it on their own freewill.

Angels who chose to obey God can no longer sin. They already made that irrevocable decision and is with God for eternity enjoying the beatific vision. This is also how we are going to be with God after the resurection and being united with him. We will no longer be capable of sinning, though we will retain our freewill. But this freewill will be in perfect union with the Trinity such that we are no longer capable of sinning. That’s the true freedom of the children of God–that is, being free from sin for all eternity. And we will reign with God and worship Him perfectly for all eternity.

Pio

 

[Shenango]

dennisknapp:

Why not believe Joseph Smith, the founder of Mormonism? He was sincere too, and his follows number in the millions.

Pardon me if I don’t share your view that 1.2 billion Muslims (and Islam as the fastest growing faith in the world) is comparable to 10 million Mormons but anyway…to you it’s all the same…and I understand that (see below).

You are saying that we must believe Muhammad because he said we should? I don’t get it?

I’m not saying anything in that regard. In fact, I don’t want you to believe in anything. There’s no point to these questions as long as you’re a satisfied Catholic, because as long as you are, you won’t be open to listening to others, no matter how much you’d like to have me believe you are. It just doesn’t work. I’ve had enough experience to know how our minds work in this regard. No matter how much I argue that my evidence is objective, you will always see it as subjective, and reject it as such. By the way, it’s vice versa for me with Catholicism. You should understand that I’m not here to proselytize you.

For your own good, I am serious in saying that I do not want you to believe any of Muhammad’s claims…until you start to question Catholicism. If ever, one day you should ever question your own beliefs, then you will have your answer as to why you should consider what Muhammad (PBUH) said. But it won’t happen before then, I can guarrantee it. It cannot. You’re effectively asking me to answer a question that your own mental wall won’t let me answer. You’ll never admit this is unfair, because you don’t see it from where you sit. It’s not your fault, really. As I said, I’m exactly the same way, and would do the same exact thing to you. It’s only normal that we function this way as humans.

This is why I can only pray for God to illuminate your heart and make you question your faith one day, and eventually guide you to the Straight Path.

Peace to you, my friend.

 

[Shenango]

Booklover:

So you’re saying that people lied when they claimed that Jesus was God? What do you suppose Jesus meant when He said: I am the way, the truth and the life". How do you interpret that?

Booklover,

Just so you know that from now I will be ignoring all of your posts. Comment as you wish, and ask any question you would like, but I’ll never respond to anything you write ever again. I have found you to be both intellectually dishonest and hypocritical in your posts. You have decided not to respect the out-of-bounds lines on the field we’re playing on, and have violated them more than once when it suited your interest. Please understand that I have nothing against you personally, and don’t wish to insult you. But both in fairness to others who are willing to dialogue honestly and my own sanity, I just cannot pursue what masquerades as honest questioning to foregone conclusions. Such discussions are worthless.

 

[Shenango]

Reuben J:

There is no error and doubt in the Bible and you have to understand it as such. You would do the same to Quran too.

I would respectfully disagree with this.

I’m using the Bible to rebut you on this Mohammad thing, because you used the Bible to say that it prophecises the coming of Mohammad.

Ah, but you must understand that I take the Bible to be a corrupted text. Not corrupted enough to have wiped out all the prophecies of Muhammad (PBUH) in it, but please understand that I don’t accept the Bible literally the way it is, all the way through. So even though the prophecis of Muhammad (PBUH) in it are valid to me, other parts of the text may or may not be.

You are truly circumscribing the issue my friend. The Bible is full of verses glorifying Jesus and you consider these lies, while on the other hand, just based on a single verse, John 16:13, you said this is true. That does not make sense at all.

Let’s just say I believe Jesus (PBUH) would disagree with you about what glorifying him ultimately means.

What does the Quran says about the belief of the Christians regarding their God? Father, son and mother! By implication, producing child through human sexual encounter. This is not what the Christian believe!

Ok Reuben, I’ve had enough of these games. If you’re going to claim my Qur’an says “Father, son, mother”, then you’re going to show me exactly where it does that and interpret it for me. Then I will respond. Then we’ll see who’s wrong.

This had been discussed many times. You are still forcing it on us on what we do not do.

Don’t say “we”. You individually may not pray to Mary. But I can quote you Catholic consecrations and blessings said to Mary from Catholic sites, and show you exactly where they amount to deification of her according to Islam’s definition of worship. Catholics do use these prayers, even if you yourself don’t.

It’s no error, huh?

Absolutely not.

As I mentioned above, you used the Bible to justify Mohammad. Now when the going gets tough, oh, it’s circular reasoning, indeed

I hope I’ve clearly explained this above.

You still haven’t explained that the Quran is not consistent with God’s nature.

I don’t have to, because I don’t believe it’s the Bible that has the monopoly on explaining God’s nature.

Grave mistakes my friend. Important God’s Word would be delivered by God himself and not through angels. Moses. Noah, Abraham, Isaiah, Jeremiah, Ezekiel, and even Jesus (…He is my beloved son whom I am well pleased).

Where did you get this claim? The Bible you believe in contradicts it.

Angels have no free will on their own? Good grief. Well, granted, as you said this is in Islam. Anyway. how would they become evil? They were made beautiful, remember?

In asking “how would they become evil?”, I’m assuming you’re speaking of Satan, who it sounds like Catholics believe is a fallen angel. But Muslims believe Satan is jinni, not an angel. Jinns have free will in Islam, and can disobey God, as humans can do, but angels cannot.

Mohammad began in Mecca…. How about the Islamic empire? I know what you are going to say, never mind. ….Islam was spreaded not by force and those who got killed were the enemies of Islam….

I’m sorry, but you’ve lost me on the point you’re trying to make here. What does the preaching of Islam have to do with financial motives, in either the case of Muhammad (PBUH) or the Muslim empire? The Muslim empire was created to spead Islam to the world

The concept that Mohammed is the Paraclete is like trying to fit a square peg in a round hole. It just does not make sense!

.

In my opinion, trying to fit the Holy Spirit into the role of the Paraclete is trying to fit a square peg twice as big as Muhammad (PBUH) in a round hole. As I’ve said, we’ll have to agree to disagree about this, because there’s no way on God’s green earth I’m ever going to convince you, or you me. That’s why I said before we may as well drop it. I’ve shared my thoughts, and you’ve shared yours, and we’ve both read what the other has to say. We’ll just have to leave it at that.

 

[Shenango]

hlgomez:

I wish to correct your error.

Wait a minute, Pio. Let me get this straight. You underline my saying that angels in Islam have no free will, and then wish to “correct” my error by presenting the Catholic view of angels? How does that work? You can correct if how I presented angels is wrong according to my own faith, but otherwise it’s a fallacy to say you are “correcting” me. After all, I could “correct” what you just wrote by pasting what I wrote the first time.

 

[fatuma]

Originally Posted by Booklover
So you’re saying that people lied when they claimed that Jesus was God? What do you suppose Jesus meant when He said: I am the way, the truth and the life". How do you interpret that?

Jesus(as) is a prophet, prophets are the way to God because they where sent by God show us to the truth and the correct way to live our lives.

wa salam

 

[Reuben_J]

hlgomez:

That’s the true freedom of the children of God–that is, being free from sin for all eternity. And we will reign with God and worship Him perfectly for all eternity.

Pio

Amen!

 

[Reuben_J]

Shenango:
Ah, but you must understand that I take the Bible to be a corrupted text. Not corrupted enough to have wiped out all the prophecies of Muhammad (PBUH) in it, but please understand that I don’t accept the Bible literally the way it is, all the way through. So even though the prophecis of Muhammad (PBUH) in it are valid to me, other parts of the text may or may not be.

Reuben:
I can see where this leads to, and already I’m beginning to feel tired, because I am going to ask you which parts of the Bible is corrupted and can you please show me the uncorrupted version … ? Which words were expunged or replaced and when did it happened and who did it… ?

Shenango:
Let’s just say I believe Jesus (PBUH) would disagree with you about what glorifying him ultimately means.

Reuben:
By all means. But you must realised I have to be very tough in addressing this, if you don’t mind. Nothing personal though.
Nobody can say Jesus is Lord unless it is by the Holy Spirit. It’s the evil one who decieves though he knows who Jesus actually is.

I’ll follow up on the rest later.

Peace.

Reuben.