Why should I become a Muslim, and why you should become a Christian.

[inJESUS]

Well, if the distinction was a distinction of position, how could the son do as the father? It is supposed that each one has his position, otherwise, there is no distinction.

because you think that the distinction in position results in seperation. The Bible says the Father creates, the Word creates, the Holy Spirit creates, does it mean there are 3 seperate deities creating? not if there is One God who creates.

That verse you gave must be given in context:

 

[inJESUS]

last part:

And how could we know whether he is acting with his divine or his human nature?

this is called the hypostatic union related to the Incarnation… the union of the 2 natures…the “how” is beyond our comprehension, just as we don’t know how God manages to be omnipotent or onipresent. When it comes to the “how”, i don’t think you will have answers because when we understand, we will understand God’s omnipotence, which is impossible.

A diplomatic answer, but this is not what I want. I need a yes/no answer. Is the human nature God or not?

no it is not a diplomatic answer as Jesus is the Word incarnate. Your question pertains to the hypostatic union, and hence to the incarnation, the Divine Word took.

But wait a minute, what do you mean by saying that Jesus didn’t become God?

i meant that neither is God a man, nor did Jesus become God when previously He wasn’t.

Well, the word mother is well known to have the meaning of leadership in many languages, while the word set up must mean that there is a subject and an object, that one wasn’t set up then he was, the Bible could have used other words which also used in many languages, for example it could have said " I was with God from the beginning". The same as using the word “pocessed” which means that the father owns the son.

what you suggested are used in the same context:
Proverbs 8:22-30 The LORD **possessed **me in the beginning of his way, before his works of old. I was set up from everlasting, from the beginning.

John 1:1 In the beginning was the Word, and the Word was with God, and the Word was God.

It may mean eternally existing but it can’t mean eternally begotten as he mentioned begetting after this sentence, I have even read an early father before saying that God used to have the word in his belly, then when he wanted to create all things he begot him, but unfortunately, I couldn’t remember the source exactly.

the source is theophilus as well to beget :

verb 1. (Old-fashioned) cause, bring, produce, create, effect, lead to, occasion, result in, generate, provoke, induce, bring about, give rise to, precipitate, incite, engender
verb 2. father, breed, generate, sire, get, propagate, procreate

I don’t actually know where Jesus said so, he didn’t differentiate between a Jew and a gentile concerning this issue, this is Paul. But anyways, I will go with you till the end, if a Jew living now converted to Christianity, should he abide to the OT laws?

if he wishes so, but not with the intent of salvation ,as the Judaizers insisted and which prompted the apostles to reply to them , but in light of what Jesus taught and did, and the same applies to a gentile who wishes to abide by the law, he can if he wishes, but not as a means for salvation, as Jesus fulfills the law and gives salvation to the circumcised and uncircumcized…

But the Scripture imprisoned everything under sin, so that the promise by faith in Jesus Christ might be given to those who believe. Now before faith came, we were held captive under the law, imprisoned until the coming faith would be revealed. So then, the law was our guardian until Christ came, in order that we might be justified by faith. But now that faith has come, we are no longer under a guardian," Galatians 3:19-25

“Behold, the days are coming, declares the LORD, when I will make a new covenant with the house of Israel and the house of Judah, not like the covenant that I made with their fathers on the day when I took them by the hand to bring them out of the land of Egypt, my covenant that they broke, though I was their husband, declares the LORD. But this is the covenant that I will make with the house of Israel after those days, declares the LORD: I will put my law within them, and I will write it on their hearts. And I will be their God, and they shall be my people. And no longer shall each one teach his neighbor and each his brother, saying, ‘Know the LORD,’ for they shall all know me, from the least of them to the greatest, declares the LORD. For I will forgive their iniquity, and I will remember their sin no more.” Jeremiah 31:31-34

 

[inJESUS]

So you still didn’t give me the source of what you posted, and still you didn’t tell me who discredited it.

sorry, the source is:

newadvent.org/cathen/05496a.htm

You say it is discredited because many cultures had it? many cultures have had the story of the flood of Noah…

[/QUOTE]

 

[inJESUS]

http://theislampath.com/smf/Smileys/default/salam.gif

Salaam/peace

I am asking you to show me a holy book or other book that has more than 6 thousands verses/ sentences & can be memorised by milllions . Why it’s so hard for you to give me the name of such book. Out of billion Christians in the earth , there could be some believers who have the whole Bible in memory , right ? Let me know about only one such person , thanks .it isn’t hard and didn’t even attempt to give you a name because your argument makes no sense whether there is a book or not.

yap , each verse of Quran is superb & meet the challenge . I am now giving only one verse here . Let me know if u like it . On the last day , in front of God Almighty , Jesus & his dear mom (p) will surely tell you they love this verse

 

[inJESUS]

God cursed Cain for killing, while He didn’t condemn polygamy,

no i didn’t say He condemned it. I said He allowed it, but it is not His original plan, in other words, it is not the ideal…
the Bible presents monogamy as the plan which conforms to God’s ideal for marriage. The Bible says that God’s original intention was for one man to be married to only one woman, “For this reason a man shall leave his father and his mother, and be joined to his wife (not wives); and they shall become one flesh (not multiple )” (Genesis 2:24) and Jesus repeated the same when He refered to Genesis by restoring marriage to His original intent. So if Muhammad wants polygamy and you want to defend it, don’t tell us it’s in the Bible because we know and we know what Genesis says and what Jesus quoted when talking about marriage as Jesus did not quote what Solomon or David did.

Didn’t you say that this was about divorce?

“Moses because of the hardness of your hearts suffered you to put away your wives: but from the beginning it was not so” (Matt.19:7).

This was about divorce.

When Jesus spoke of marriage, He refered to Genesis.

You still didn’t answer me, if polygamy wasn’t God’s plan, why did He condone it?

i could give you many answers, but it is not about whether He condoned it or not, or the reasons, since He did, and you can insert any reason, just as he condonned divorce and you can insert reasons. At the begining, it was not so (divorce). At the Begining, God created one man for one woman not a group. These are Jesus’ words unless you believe that “corrupt” men decided the hard way.

Well, there must be a strong reason for a woman to ask for divorce as being not fair with her or that he is a bad person, but polygamy itself is not a strong reason, she may feel annoyed for having a second wife, but she can get over it after some time unless he is not fair with her or prefers the other wife over her.

a Muslim man is supposed to ask his first wife if she agrees. If she says no, she has the right to do what Allah *hates *in order to satisfy what Allah granted for the male, *before he marries again. *.

It was practiced after the Prophet’s death as it is not necessary that all people knew about it since it was forbidden at the end of the Prophet’s life, but after a while all people knew. The hadith is so clear that Mut’a is Haram.

of course the Shia have their ample proof to the contrary, from Quran and hadith, but this isn’t the problem. The problem is the morality behind teaching some people that momentary sexual marriage is ok .

you who believe! Make not unlawful the good things, which Allah has made lawful for you, but commit no transgression.’ (5.87)

temporay sexual marriages is considered “good things” to Allah.

As for misusing, the case of Mut’a is much difficult as misusing it will lead to much more problems which overwhelm its benefits while in case of divorce and polygamy, they may be misused, but still their benefits and importance overcomes problems coming from some misuses.

that’s your obsrvation i guess and the opposite can be true, depending on the individual cases, as Allah did command wife beating and Muslim societies so misused it yet he did command it.

 

[inJESUS]

Well, you are now talking about a different issue which is the difference between recitation, I thought you were talking about adding vowels to the Quranic text, these are two different subjects.

you have not adressed my points nor my questions related to the Warsh and Hafs differences, which one is the preserved Quran, and where are the 5 other readings if they are as authoritative as these 2.

Either Allah revealed them or that the Prophet (Peace be upon him) named them and Allah accepted them.

 

[Muslim_Woman]

(Please Note: This uploaded content is no longer available.)

Salaam/peace

it isn’t hard …

 

[planten]

**The posts of inJesus are extra ordinarily long so there cannot be any room for reply. There was a mention of some kind of Union. I was always wondering whether:

1. Jesus being god, did he create his own mother too?
2. They say One God consisting of three gods. It appears that son is in the father and the father is in the son. That is how they could be called one.

What is all this theology? Not believable.**

 

[underdog]

http://theislampath.com/smf/Smileys/default/salam.gif

Salaam/peace

there is only one God – God of Adam , Abraham ,Moses , Jesus , Muhammed (peace be upon them all ) & all human being , Jinn , angels etc. Remember Jesus (p) also had the same God .

Sadly many people take other deity besides God. Muslims are free from committing this major sin …Alhamdulillah ( praise be to God only ).

That’s the main reason U should be a Muslim , heaven is for those ( according to all major holy books ) who worship one God only & don’t bow down in front of other deity.

Jesus is the eternal God, 2nd person of the godhead.

John 1

In the beginning was the Word, and the Word was with God, and the Word was God. He was in the beginning with God. All things were made through him, and without him was not any thing made that was made. In him was life, and the life was the light of men. The light shines in the darkness, and the darkness has not overcome it.

 

[Ibn_Taymiya]

because you think that the distinction in position results in seperation. The Bible says the Father creates, the Word creates, the Holy Spirit creates, does it mean there are 3 seperate deities creating? not if there is One God who creates.

So when the word incarnated as a man, does it mean that the father and the holy spirit were also incarnated as a man?

of course, because the Son does nothing unless the Father does it because the Son is not seperate, so Jesus continues saying “whatever the Father does, I do likewise”. You are forgetting the second part.

So the case is that the son is just a follower of the father?

Jesus had a human will in virtue of having a human nature yet His human will did not conflict with that of His divine Will but was submissive. So here again you are talking about the Incarnation.

And this human will (which doesn’t conflict with the divine will) already conflicts with the Father’s will.

because it is eternally begotten. The Father eternally begets His Word, the Father eternally has His Word, the Father was never without His Word.

I know that you say that the Father was never without His Word. But the word cannot be said to be eternally begotten, because it was in God as reason, then God begot it, so when it was in God as reason, it hasn’t been begotten yet.

you say the Quran in the uncreated Word of Allah, yet you do not say the Quran is Allah. does it mean you believe in 2 uncreated deities?

Your case is different, I will rephrase your statement for your belief:
you say Jesus is the uncreated Word of God, yet you DO say Jesus is God.
See, you answered yourself.
We believe that God’s Word is an attribute of Him as His Power, His Mercy,…etc. Do you really believe that the Word is only an attribute of God?
Again, how could Jesus sit on the right of the Father when they are both one God?

Jesus did the same. I will give you 2 examples :

Well, although I have some notes on these examples, but I will consider temporarily that they say that Jesus is divine, so now Jesus acknowledged that he is God, where did he acknowledge that he had both natures and that his human nature is just because of incarnation not that he is a human god? At least to show people and especially the Jews that he is not blaspheming, and you of course know that the Jews accused him of blaspheming more than a time, why didn’t he defend himself and say that he had two natures?

this is called the hypostatic union related to the Incarnation… the union of the 2 natures…the “how” is beyond our comprehension,

This wasn’t what I was asking about, I will clarify it more, when Jesus eats, what nature does he eat with? When he raises from death, by what nature does he raise?

what you suggested are used in the same context:
Proverbs 8:22-30 The LORD possessed me in the beginning of his way, before his works of old. I was set up from everlasting, from the beginning.

John 1:1 In the beginning was the Word, and the Word was with God, and the Word was God.

What I suggested is in the NT only not in the OT, the OT expressions as possess or set up prove that the wisdom is NOT God because God was neither possessed nor set up. Besides OT differentiates between Word and Wisdom, while the NT mentioned Word only, so they are not the same. Even Theophilus formulated a new Trinity out of that:
In like manner also the three days which were before the luminaries, are types of the Trinity,of God, and His Word, and His wisdom.

ccel.org/ccel/schaff/anf02.iv.ii.ii.xv.html

the source is theophilus as well

Theophilus was the one who said that the word was in God’s belly?

to beget :

What do you mean by giving the meanings of beget?

if he wishes so, but not with the intent of salvation ,as the Judaizers insisted and which prompted the apostles to reply to them , but in light of what Jesus taught and did, and the same applies to a gentile who wishes to abide by the law, he can if he wishes, but not as a means for salvation, as Jesus fulfills the law and gives salvation to the circumcised and uncircumcized…

So when a Jew marries more than one woman, or treat the gentiles as the OT ordered him to treat, you shouldn’t condemn him. Remember what Tertullian said:
You receive digamy; admit circumcision too.
He is already circumcised, then he can receive digamy.

So then, the law was our guardian until Christ came, in order that we might be justified by faith. But now that faith has come, we are no longer under a guardian," Galatians 3:19-25

So Jesus said that no word from the law will be abolished, while Paul says that it was just a guardian and we no longer need it, which means throw it away, which one should we believe?

 

[Ibn_Taymiya]

sorry, the source is:

newadvent.org/cathen/05496a.htm

So you want me to believe it’s a myth because Christian sources say it is so? Circular reasoning.

not, not everything found in different cultures is necessarily a myth but a myth can be found in different cultures otherwise the concept of a supreme deity could be considered a myth as well. It is discredited because of the growth of this story and its spread.

Because of the growth of this story and its spread?
And how could this be an evidence?

Even this Muslim man says the same:

He may have tried to interpret it by saying these were the essenes, this is his opinion, and when the man calls it a legend, he is calling the Christian story not the Quranic one. And in all cases, whether it was the Christian story or the Essenes or a third story, I still don’t see any historical evidence to prove it was a myth.

The difference between inspiration and revelation, is…

Sorry, I couldn’t understand what you mean, please clarify more?

To us, it is a totally different idea because even if Justin was correct, though he could have been wrong, it still does not mean God does not preserve His words because the preservation is not in letters, dots and vowels but in the Church He established.

So you will now begin to throw the Bible away, so you either defend arguments against it, or don’t cite it again.
Justin could have been proven wrong? How? And it is not Justin only, it’s Chrysostom as well? Why didn’t the Holy Spirit tell them the truth that the Bible is the preserved God’s word?

although your argument actually proves my case,

How could my argument prove your case?

so the Quran is based on gnosticism written by unknown authors, as opposed to the church belief handed down by the apostles…this speaks volumes in terms of history. Besides, the gospel of Judas says:

So you are trying to force us on accepting that your church was the orthodoxy one and held by the apostles? If this was the case, we wouldn’t have needed all that conversation as we already believe that your church is the apostolic one, and of course we don’t, neither do we believe that the gnostics are, you may have had some truth, and they may have had some as Christians were divided into many sects, we don’t even have the writings of the heretics and how they responded to the arguments of your fathers, as they were all burnt and suppressed by the Roman empire. Prove me first that your church is really an apostolic, then we may then have a different direction.

so why do you say Jesus cannot die for anyone ? or isn’t it a general Islamic belief?

I am saying so because I feel like you want to say so to prove your case that Jesus died for our sins, which is a totally false theory.

if taken from an abnormal apocrypha, no.

You consider it an apocrypha, I consider all your books as apocrypha as no one has a solid evidence to prove, besides this is not a proof that it is taken from that apocrypha.

Allah made a trick to save Jesus yet asks people not to believe in his trick?

How so?

what does this have to do with Pharaoh? did Allah say he made a trick but actually he didn’t die?

Didn’t God push him to the sea thinking he can’t walk in then once he entered, the sea reclosed again and he was drowned? Isn’t this a trick?

The miraculous birth was shown by Jesus? how exactly? he could have spoken in the cradle without the virgin birth, or couldn’t he?

Yes, of course, but when it comes after accusing Lady Mary with adultery, the miracle become more clear and stronger.

well the Jews wrote in the NT

They are considered no more Jews, I am talking about Jews who remained Jews, besides, there is a doubt in who wrote the NT.

what does this have to do with anything?am asking about the “why”, not about whether the jews wrote it or not.

and why didn’t Allah save other killed prophets? and who died instead of Jesus and why?

Well, asking God why He does so and so doesn’t prove anything, since God knows the full reason, we may try to know why, but whether we knew or not, that would change nothing, because we know that God has the full reason.
Now let me ask you, why did yhwh need to incarnate in a woman’s womb? Why didn’t he incarnate as a man from nothing for example?
And why did your god wait for 4000 years (according to the OT error) to incarnate and save people as he really loves us? Why didn’t he save us from the beginning when Adam sinned? Why did God specify the law with the Jews? What about the gentiles? Why didn’t he send them laws and prophets to guide them? Why does God have angels?..etc.

what does this have to do with why Jesus was born as such?

To prove that even when the traditional Jews not reporting it, you still believe it happened, the same as the miracle of birth and speaking in the cradle.

 

[Ibn_Taymiya]

InJesus:

no i didn’t say He condemned it. I said He allowed it, but it is not His original plan, in other words, it is not the ideal…
the Bible presents monogamy as the plan which conforms to God’s ideal for marriage.

Well, I don’t see that Genesis is a real proof for what you say, as I don’t see where it says it’s better to have one wife, the OT allowed polygamy and didn’t condemn it. You may have been true if it never mentioned polygamy or said that it shouldn’t be practiced.

“Moses because of the hardness of your hearts suffered you to put away your wives: but from the beginning it was not so” (Matt.19:7).

This was about divorce.

When Jesus spoke of marriage, He refered to Genesis.

Sorry? Read the verse again:

Mat 19:3 And there came unto him Pharisees, trying him, and saying, Is it lawful for a man to put away his wife for every cause?
Mat 19:4 And he answered and said, Have ye not read, that he who made them from the beginning made them male and female,
Mat 19:5 and said, For this cause shall a man leave his father and mother, and shall cleave to his wife; and the two shall become one flesh?
Mat 19:6 So that they are no more two, but one flesh. What therefore God hath joined together, let not man put asunder.

It’s clearly talking about divorce and didn’t mentioned polygamy anywhere.

a Muslim man is supposed to ask his first wife if she agrees. If she says no, she has the right to do what Allah hates in order to satisfy what Allah granted for the male, before he marries again. .

She shouldn’t ask him for divorce for that reason as there is a hadith ordering that a woman shouldn’t ask for divorce except for a strong reason. Scholars say that this strong reason is like what I mentioned before, marrying another woman is not a strong reason.

of course the Shia have their ample proof to the contrary, from Quran and hadith, but this isn’t the problem. The problem is the morality behind teaching some people that momentary sexual marriage is ok .

you who believe! Make not unlawful the good things, which Allah has made lawful for you, but commit no transgression.’ (5.87)

temporay sexual marriages is considered “good things” to Allah.

Well, who told you so? First of all, it is not we who forbade it Allah is the one who abrogates according to the circumstances, secondly I am not sure that Mut’a is included in that verse, as Ibn Abbas says it was sanctioned for necessity as the case with wine, blood and pork not that it is the norm.

that’s your obsrvation i guess and the opposite can be true, depending on the individual cases, as Allah did command wife beating and Muslim societies so misused it yet he did command it.

Well, wife beating is under very narrow circumstances, and there are many warnings from the Prophet (Peace be upon him) concerning opressing women and misusing their authorities on their wives.

 

[Ibn_Taymiya]

you have not adressed my points nor my questions related to the Warsh and Hafs differences, which one is the preserved Quran, and where are the 5 other readings if they are as authoritative as these 2.

Are you sure you read what I said? I said ALL are correct and they give more than one meaning to the verse with no confliction, and I gave 2 examples for that. Read what I said again.

i know that some of the names are mentioned in the hadith, but some chapters have different names. If Allah/Muhammad gave these other names, who put just one in the Quran, based on what, and who put the chapter order?

A Sura can have more than one name, no problem about that, don’t you believe that Immanuel is Jesus although he was never called Immanuel?
As for the order, there is a diversity whether it was sent from God as it is or that it was by the disciples of the Prophet (Peace be upon him) and in both cases no problem is found as the Prophet (Peace be upon him) said: my nation couldn’t have a consensus on something false.

really? Allah decided to remove a verse from the Quran to “test” you? what a strange test indeed

The verse is already present in the hadiths, and proved to be authentic, the one who denies it is actually disobeying the Prophet (Peace be upon him)

what about :
We used to recite a surah which resembled in length and severity to (Surah) Bara’at. I have, however, forgotten it with the exception of this which I remember out of it: “If there were two valleys full of riches, for the son of Adam, he would long for a third valley, and nothing would fill the stomach of the son of Adam but dust”. ( Sahih Muslim, Vol. 2, p.501).

Is it another “test”?

This verse is included in what God says:
SHAKIR: Whatever communications We abrogate or cause to be forgotten, We bring one better than it or like it. Do you not know that Allah has power over all things?

So this is an abrogation for this Sura not that this Sura was lost.

and how come this verse isn’t in the Quran despite it’s miraculous language?

Sorry I cannot understand what you mean?

orry i don;t understand what you mean.

Your original post was to prove that the Bible is not the main case, you replied me with a line and let all the rest of the message to respond to sentence in my post.

lol, do you want me to copy the whole tradition?

No need, give me the links and leave it to me.

besides, if you want to start claiming that one cannot know the belief of the apostolic churches except by providing what you cited, then how can one believe in the sunnah of Muhammad although what you have are only islamic claims of "i heard x saying that he heard from y?

Evidence is either by documented manuscripts or by external evidence by eyewitnesses proven to be authentic, any of the two cases can be applied, the hadith has fulfilled the second case.

anyway, this will make an interesting thread please chose a topic and open a new thread for others to contribute and let us see what those who knew the apostles, and others who knew these people who knew the apostles said and we’ll see . If you want, we can start by Jesus’ crucifixion.

Begin with what you like on this thread.

 

[Xiaahmad]

Christians should become muslim coz of Concept of GOD that make sense.

We dont believe that GOD is not depedent
Dont need to eat, sleep, drink etc coz that sounds like God in hinduism more.

www.youtube.com/ozzycda

 

[dolphinlove]

Christians should become muslim coz of Concept of GOD that make sense.

We dont believe that GOD is not depedent
Dont need to eat, sleep, drink etc coz that sounds like God in hinduism more.

www.youtube.com/ozzycda

The concept of the trinity makes perfect sense to me, and to the 2 billion other Christians on the face of this earth.

We have had numerous muslims come on this forum asking the same questions you have already asked and have attempted to find ‘holes’ with the trinity. Yet, they all have been defeated and none have been able to find any untruth with the trinity.
I doubt if you have the cranial capacity to be able to do this, as no other muslim has been able to either.

 

[dzheremi]

Christians should become muslim coz of Concept of GOD that make sense.

Well, no, it doesn’t, but if it did then you might even be in worse shape than you are now. Who can understand God? Only God. Not you or I or anyone. Show me someone who claims to understand God or have “made sense” of Him, and you’ll see only a man who has deluded himself in the worst way possible.

I am proud to worship God in the way of those who followed Him in Galilee two thousand years ago, but I will never say I understand Him. I have a Christian understanding of Him, which is built upon our Sacred Tradition and Scripture (to the extent that I can understand those things), but He will forever remain only partly illuminated for us here on Earth, not because He is only partly enlightening, but because we see so dimly with our very human limitations, of which He Himself has none. This is the way it was, is, and always will be, and this is the way I joyfully accept it to be, because acceptance of this is a means of true submission to God (something I think Muslims like, too).

Do you not accept that it should be this way? Does Islam offer you a God that is understandable and makes inherent sense to you, so that you have Him all figured out and nothing bothers you about Him like the Christian concept of God? If so, why does the Islamic Allah make more sense? I do not understand, and simply claiming it to be so based on Islam’s preceived superiority in your own mind will not make it so any more than my claiming that Christianity is better because it makes “more sense” to me will make that a fact and somehow not my opinion.

 

[inJESUS]

So when the word incarnated as a man, does it mean that the father and the holy spirit were also incarnated as a man?

no

So the case is that the son is just a follower of the father?

 

[inJESUS]

He may have tried to interpret it by saying …

 

[inJESUS]

Well, I don’t see that Genesis is a real proof for what you say, as I don’t see where it says it’s better to have one wife, the OT allowed polygamy and didn’t condemn it. You may have been true if it never mentioned polygamy or said that it shouldn’t be practiced.

i think what said is very clear. If you don’t consider Genesis and Jesus refering to it as a proof of what marriage is, i can do nothing, and i don’t think there is need writing again that it was condoned because we all know it.

Sorry? Read the verse again:

 

[inJESUS]

Are you sure you read what I said? I said ALL are correct and they give more than one meaning to the verse with no confliction, and I gave 2 examples for that. Read what I said again.

you gave examples of grammatically different markers. I gave examples of different meanings. Are you telling us, different Qurans with different spelling and different meanings are all the preserved words of Allah? was it Allah who revealed different meanings in different Qurans, and you tell us not one dot is changed from the original Quran? it seems there wasn’t an original Quran but different ones with different variations and meanings and words and all happen to be the “unchanged” words of Allah?

A Sura can have more than one name, no problem about that, don’t you believe that Immanuel is Jesus although he was never called Immanuel?