Print Page | Close Window

why this anti Paul stuff, Muslims

Printed From: WhyIslam.org
Category: General
Forum Name: InterReligious Dialogue
Forum Discription: Forum for people of various faiths to discuss and inquire about different religions
URL: http://www.whyislam.org/forum/forum_posts.asp?TID=28197
Printed Date: 31 July 2014 at 12:19am
Software Version: Web Wiz Forums 8.03 - http://www.webwizforums.com


Topic: why this anti Paul stuff, Muslims
Posted By: wesley
Subject: why this anti Paul stuff, Muslims
Date Posted: 22 August 2011 at 10:17pm
Clue me in.



Replies:
Posted By: Al-Cordoby
Date Posted: 23 August 2011 at 12:10am
Hello Wesley

Most Muslims believe that Paul changed some of the teachings of Jesus, peace be upon him, and introduced some concepts which he invented

The changes he introduced (according to the Muslim perspective) have led to a deviation of the followers of Jesus from God's original Guidance of pure Monotheism





-------------
http://cortoby.blogspot.com/ - My Blog
http://www.muslimheritage.com/ - Muslim Heritage



Posted By: waheed1
Date Posted: 23 August 2011 at 1:54am
It should be noted that "Anti-Paul stuff" is not a doctrine that is central to Islam, rather, it comes up in religious discussions with Christians, because when we analyse what Jesus is reported to have said and acted, and what Paul is said to have written, we have, on occasion, two different threads of thought.

As a quick example, the Bible has it that Jesus was very much for law, saying that he condemns those who change an iota of law, or who teach men so, he also is said to have proclaimed himself as the fulfillment of law, yet Paul writes that "the law is death".

The followers of Muhammad, the final Prophet, sent for the benefit of all humanity, assert that because of the whole barrage of religious confusion, he [Muhammad] and the scripture given to him [the Qur'an] are sent to tell us the truth on these important matters.

-------------
http://arifinimports.com - Lectures and books
http://shamsuddinwaheed.blogspot.com - My Blog

<a href="">


Posted By: Mad Cat
Date Posted: 23 August 2011 at 11:49am

This is my understanding:

Muslims must believe in the previous scriptures because the Quran tells them to.

The Quran contradicts the previous scriptures?!?

Muslims have to qualify the above two and the simplest answer is that someone changed previous scriptures although the Quran also says:

6:115... there is none who can change His words, and He is the Hearing, the Knowing.

Paul is the most obvious choice although the Quran makes no mention to him which is strange since changing the word of God is no small thing, let alone to believers of the Quran.

I have yet to hear an explanation of What, Why, When and How Paul did this.



-------------
Test everything. Hold on to the good. 1 Thessalonians 5:21


Posted By: Perseveranze
Date Posted: 23 August 2011 at 1:11pm
Paul seems to contradict whatever Jesus(pbuh) says.

An example; If it wasn't for Paul, Christians may be fasting like the Muslims are fasting too, just how Jesus(pbuh) and all the other Prophets(pbut) fasted.


-------------
Fast Growing Islamic Search

http://www.Searching-Islam.com - www.Searching-Islam.com


Posted By: Damo808
Date Posted: 23 August 2011 at 3:37pm
Originally posted by Mad Cat

This is my understanding:

Muslims must believe in the previous scriptures because the Quran tells them to.

The Quran contradicts the previous scriptures?!?

Muslims have to qualify the above two and the simplest answer is that someone changed previous scriptures although the Quran also says:

6:115... there is none who can change His words, and He is the Hearing, the Knowing.

Paul is the most obvious choice although the Quran makes no mention to him which is strange since changing the word of God is no small thing, let alone to believers of the Quran.

I have yet to hear an explanation of What, Why, When and How Paul did this.

 
 
 Lol MC.... If its not Paul then its was Constantine.. if not them then it was the so and so, council of so and so...or maybe ...etc etc etc with so much ambiguity and little proof in any one body or single identity as long as there is a smoke screen to blame it on Islam remains vibrant.


-------------
I will walk among you, and will be your God, and you shall be my people.
Leviticus 26:12


Posted By: wesley
Date Posted: 23 August 2011 at 3:44pm
Originally posted by Perseveranze

Paul seems to contradict whatever Jesus(pbuh) says.

An example; If it wasn't for Paul, Christians may be fasting like the Muslims are fasting too, just how Jesus(pbuh) and all the other Prophets(pbut) fasted.
How and to what form did Paul change fasting?
 
Early Christians did fast on occasion and Paul himself was associated with such fasts. (Acts 13:2, 3 and Acts 14:23)
 
Paul didn't forbid fasting but wanted anyone that did fast to make sure of their motive in doing so. (Roman 14:5, 6)
 
So perhaps it is the obligitory nature of fasting to Muslims that makes them object to Paul on this topic.
 
I don't think Jesus and the prophets fasted like Muslims, that is for a whole month year by year. Jesus did fast for 40 days on one occasion.
 
 


Posted By: Mad Cat
Date Posted: 23 August 2011 at 4:20pm

Originally posted by Perseveranze

Paul seems to contradict whatever Jesus(pbuh) says.
An example; If it wasn't for Paul, Christians may be fasting like the Muslims are fasting too, just how Jesus(pbuh) and all the other Prophets(pbut) fasted.

What did Jesus say about fasting?

Matthew 6:16 ďWhen you fast, do not look somber as the hypocrites do, for they disfigure their faces to show others they are fasting. Truly I tell you, they have received their reward in full. 17 But when you fast, put oil on your head and wash your face, 18 so that it will not be obvious to others that you are fasting, but only to your Father, who is unseen; and your Father, who sees what is done in secret, will reward you.

So for all you know, the Christians following Jesus' teachings are fasting. You just donít know it.

Does Paul teach against fasting? Please show me where!

However Paul did fast himself as Wesley pointed out with references above:

It is true that Christians do not fast like Muslims but that is largely because Jesus told us not to.

I hope you can see there is no contradiction between Jesus and Paul!

Damo, you are right but Paul does seem to take the brunt of it. Just as in life I suppose.



-------------
Test everything. Hold on to the good. 1 Thessalonians 5:21


Posted By: Perseveranze
Date Posted: 23 August 2011 at 5:24pm
Originally posted by wesley

I don't think Jesus and the prophets fasted like Muslims, that is for a whole month year by year. Jesus did fast for 40 days on one occasion.


I don't think there's any difference to how Muslims fast and how the Prophets(pbut) fasted, some may have fasted for less, others for longer, the fact of the matter is, they fasted.

And they fasted for the sake of God, which is exactly why Muslims fast today.

Originally posted by Mad Cat

So for all you know, the Christians following Jesus' teachings are fasting. You just donít know it.


So your saying, Christians do fast, but they do it in secret?


-------------
Fast Growing Islamic Search

http://www.Searching-Islam.com - www.Searching-Islam.com


Posted By: Damo808
Date Posted: 23 August 2011 at 5:32pm
I don't think there's any difference to how Muslims fast and how the Prophets(pbut) fasted, some may have fasted for less, others for longer, the fact of the matter is, they fasted.

And they fasted for the sake of God, which is exactly why Muslims fast today.
- Perseveranze
 
 
 And your point being ? As MC has demonstrated Fasting is part of Christian tradition... ever heard of Lent for example ?


-------------
I will walk among you, and will be your God, and you shall be my people.
Leviticus 26:12


Posted By: Mad Cat
Date Posted: 23 August 2011 at 6:11pm

Originally posted by Perseveranze

So your saying, Christians do fast, but they do it in secret?

I do not speak for all Christians but I am saying that if Christians follow Jesus' teaching from Matthew 6 that I quoted, you would probably not know it. How would you?

Jesus was commenting on people who fasted so that people would notice and think them extra holy. They made themselves appear to others that they were suffering 'for God'. Jesus simply says that the reward they were actually looking for (praise from men) they have received but they should not expect praise from God since they didnít do it for Him.

Our faith is between us and God. If we fast because others tell us to or because we want others to think highly of us then we do it for those people and not God.

Judge for yourself if it is better that someone does something nice for you because they wanted to or because they wanted to impress a third party or they had to.



-------------
Test everything. Hold on to the good. 1 Thessalonians 5:21


Posted By: Mad Cat
Date Posted: 23 August 2011 at 6:13pm
Originally posted by Perseveranze

... the fact of the matter is, they fasted.

Just like Paul.


-------------
Test everything. Hold on to the good. 1 Thessalonians 5:21


Posted By: Perseveranze
Date Posted: 23 August 2011 at 7:16pm
Originally posted by Damo808

And your point being ? As MC has demonstrated Fasting is part of Christian tradition... ever heard of Lent for example ?


Only Catholics do that right?

Fair enough though, I read that Christians fast whenever they want and it's not limited to not intaking food/water, a "fast" in Christianity could be not watching tv or something.




-------------
Fast Growing Islamic Search

http://www.Searching-Islam.com - www.Searching-Islam.com


Posted By: Damo808
Date Posted: 23 August 2011 at 7:32pm
 
Originally posted by Damo808

And your point being ? As MC has demonstrated Fasting is part of Christian tradition... ever heard of Lent for example ?


Originally posted by Perseveranze

Only Catholics do that right?

Fair enough though, I read that Christians fast whenever they want and it's not limited to not intaking food/water, a "fast" in Christianity could be not watching tv or something.


 
 Not only Catholics observe Lent.. some other denominations do too.
 
 But fasting is ultimately about sacrifice... denying oneself. Fasting is not always required. Some people due to health reasons or for example the line of work they are in perhaps they need a high calorie intake to do their job etc .. So perhaps instead of fasting, they may donate a substantial part of their weekly pay towards a charity or whatever.. It ultimately however must be a genuine meaningful sacrifice . Not watching TV or whatever...??  lol... did you just make that up.. or just hear it from someone talking tounge in cheek ? maybe .. maybe not... however judge religion not on the individual but ultimately on its teachings.
 
 


-------------
I will walk among you, and will be your God, and you shall be my people.
Leviticus 26:12


Posted By: wesley
Date Posted: 23 August 2011 at 9:30pm
But of course this topic is not simply about fasting but about Pauls' presumed changing of what Jesus said about fasting.
(Among other presumed changes of teaching) 
I can see that in this regard, that Muslims, in appreciation for the Quran, will fast for a period of one month (Ramadan). Paul, on the other hand, dictated no set period of time.
 
I can not see where Paul contradicts any of what Jesus said about fasting.
 
 
Perhaps another example of Pauline vs Jesus doctrine/practice can be cited.


Posted By: waheed1
Date Posted: 24 August 2011 at 10:53am
With regards to fasting, its true that the way Qur'an followers [Muslims] observe fasting is different, in many ways, from that observed by Jews, Christians and others. However, I don't think we should concentrate on those differences,at least for this discussion, as its largely inconsequential!

About Paul, there is a book called "Paul" by A.N.Wilson, which details in a thorough way the manner in which Paul represented religion as being different from that of Jesus.

Back to changing scripture, which I think MC brought up...scholars have been writing on this for a long time now...the example that comes to my mind is one which I learned about relatively recently [even though I have cited the story in lectures myself], the story of the adulteress, set free by Jesus with the words "Let he who has not sinned cast the first stone.". This story is an interpolation, said by scholars not to have been in the original manuscripts.

Admittedly, the above has nothing to do with Paul [the subject of this thread], but Paul was a preacher, an amazingly determined fellow who seems to have wanted to get his points across, even at the expense of the historical Jesus's sayings and mission.

The book mentioned above will give the reader a better picture of this issue.


-------------
http://arifinimports.com - Lectures and books
http://shamsuddinwaheed.blogspot.com - My Blog

<a href="">


Posted By: Mad Cat
Date Posted: 24 August 2011 at 12:36pm

Originally posted by waheed1

...the story of the adulteress, set free by Jesus with the words "Let he who has not sinned cast the first stone.". This story is an interpolation, said by scholars not to have been in the original manuscripts.

The story of the adulteress is completely consistent with the story of the woman at the well in John 4 and other stories where Jesus acknowledges people sin but doesnít condemn them. Our understanding of Jesus is not based on a single story but on the whole picture. I would be interested in reading the references to your claim.

Originally posted by waheed1

Admittedly, the above has nothing to do with Paul [the subject of this thread], but Paul was a preacher, an amazingly determined fellow who seems to have wanted to get his points across, even at the expense of the historical Jesus's sayings and mission.

Could you elaborate on this please?

I am still interested to hear exactly what, when, how, why etc Paul changed scripture. There seems to be lots of finger pointing but no evidence or reasoning.

Years ago when I was new here I wrote a thread called Paulianity where I studied every possible reason I could think of that Paul might have to change scripture and then looked if it tallied with what he wrote in his letters. I could repost if anyone is interested.

Originally posted by wesley

Perhaps another example of Pauline vs Jesus doctrine/practice can be cited.

I would also be interested to see other examples of how Paul's teaching conflicted with Jesus'.



-------------
Test everything. Hold on to the good. 1 Thessalonians 5:21


Posted By: Perseveranze
Date Posted: 24 August 2011 at 12:52pm
Originally posted by Damo808


Not watching TV or whatever...??


I heard that from a Christian actually, i'm sure if you searched it, Christians would find this acceptable, or atleast some denominations would.

This is what he said -

Christians fast whenever they feel a need for self discipline - to become more spiritually orientated towards God.

We can fast whenever we want to.

The traditional time for Christians is in Lent, a period of forty days before Easter.Some fast during that time every Friday, as this was the day Jesus died for us, and especially on Good Friday and Ash Wednesday which is the beginning of Lent.

Some Christians fast every Friday. Fasting does not mean only having nothing to eat all day. It can mean giving up something we enjoy such as watching TV or some other pleasures.

We have to add prayer to our fasting as the whole purpose is to help us come closer to God and not for us to lose weight!

God bless


He don't know what he's talking about I assume?




-------------
Fast Growing Islamic Search

http://www.Searching-Islam.com - www.Searching-Islam.com


Posted By: Perseveranze
Date Posted: 24 August 2011 at 12:55pm
Originally posted by Mad Cat

I would also be interested to see other examples of how Paul's teaching conflicted with Jesus'.


http://www.voiceofjesus.org/paulvsjesus.html

http://www.answering-christianity.com/abdullah_smith/anti_christ_paul_1.htm

This is interesting too http://www.answering-christianity.com/bassam_zawadi/paul_jesus.htm




-------------
Fast Growing Islamic Search

http://www.Searching-Islam.com - www.Searching-Islam.com


Posted By: Mad Cat
Date Posted: 24 August 2011 at 2:07pm
Hello perserverance. I too have google.
I was wondering if you had any personal thoughts on the matter.
the reason I came to a forum was for a two way dialogue. Otherwise we could just end up playing internet link top trumps.
alternativly you could pick something from one of your links to discuss.

-------------
Test everything. Hold on to the good. 1 Thessalonians 5:21


Posted By: Damo808
Date Posted: 24 August 2011 at 3:54pm
Christians fast whenever they feel a need for self discipline - to become more spiritually orientated towards God.

We can fast whenever we want to.

The traditional time for Christians is in Lent, a period of forty days before Easter.Some fast during that time every Friday, as this was the day Jesus died for us, and especially on Good Friday and Ash Wednesday which is the beginning of Lent.

Some Christians fast every Friday. Fasting does not mean only having nothing to eat all day.
It can mean giving up something we enjoy such as watching TV or some other pleasures.

We have to add prayer to our fasting as the whole purpose is to help us come closer to God and not for us to lose weight!

God bless


He don't know what he's talking about I assume?
-Perseveranze
 
 
Why the massive text size ?
 
What one privately sees as their own sacrifice is between Him/her and God.
 
 Only they can decide if they genuinely believe that restricting their TV viewing is an act of genuine sacrifice.
 As i said, do not judge a religion by the individual but by what it teaches.




-------------
I will walk among you, and will be your God, and you shall be my people.
Leviticus 26:12


Posted By: Mad Cat
Date Posted: 24 August 2011 at 4:26pm

It occurred to me that there is a contradiction in accusations against Paul in this thread.

Firstly Paul is being accused of changing scriptures, specifically what Jesus said and did.

Then Paul is accused of having his own teaching which are at odds with Jesus' teaching.

It makes no sense that Paul would change Jesus' teachings only to then contradict his own corruptions.

Would it be possible for Paul's accusers here to decide which angle they are going to attack him from?



-------------
Test everything. Hold on to the good. 1 Thessalonians 5:21


Posted By: Perseveranze
Date Posted: 24 August 2011 at 6:17pm
Originally posted by Mad Cat

Hello perserverance. I too have google.
I was wondering if you had any personal thoughts on the matter.
the reason I came to a forum was for a two way dialogue. Otherwise we could just end up playing internet link top trumps.
alternativly you could pick something from one of your links to discuss.


I came here to have a dialogue on Islam really, I havn't studied Bible enough to have an open dialogue with someone. I mean, I could, but it would require me to give up time to do more research which I don't really have time to do.

But you wanted to know where the contradictions were and I gave you various websites. One of the website seemed like a Christian website aswell (apologise if I'm mistaken).

The verses speak for themselves, unless there's some hidden explanation to all of them.

Most of http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Orthodoxy - orthodox Christianity relies heavily on these teachings and considers them to be amplifications and explanations of the http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ministry_of_Jesus - teachings of Jesus . Others perceive in Paul's writings, teachings that are radically different from the original teachings of Jesus documented in the http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Canonical_gospels - canonical gospels , early http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Acts_of_the_Apostles - Acts and the rest of the http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/New_Testament - New Testament , such as the http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Epistle_of_James - Epistle of James .


http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Pauline_Christianity

Even some Christians are at debate about Paul...

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Christian_anarchism -

Christians anarchists , such as http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Leo_Tolstoy - Leo Tolstoy and http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ammon_Hennacy - Ammon Hennacy , believe Paul corrupted http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ministry_of_Jesus - Jesus' teachings . Tolstoy believed Paul was instrumental in the church's "deviation" from Jesus' teaching and practices, whilst Hennacy believed "Paul spoiled the message of Christ." http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Pauline_Christianity#cite_note-21 - [22] http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Pauline_Christianity#cite_note-22 - [23]

Anyways, maybe there is some hidden meaning to why some verses seem to contradict each other. Who knows, I'm not the one to really pass a verdict on it, I'm more in knowledge about Islam :)





-------------
Fast Growing Islamic Search

http://www.Searching-Islam.com - www.Searching-Islam.com


Posted By: Mad Cat
Date Posted: 24 August 2011 at 6:22pm

Originally posted by Perseveranze

http://www.voiceofjesus.org/paulvsjesus.html
http://www.answering-christianity.com/abdullah_smith/anti_christ_paul_1.htm
This is interesting too http://www.answering-christianity.com/bassam_zawadi/paul_jesus.ht

Perseverance, I think you should be embarrassed recommending these websites. Here is the first bit from one of the Answering Christianity links. (Emphasis mine)

Did you wonder what the 'Ö' was after 'Be ye followers of me' or why the author chose not to include it? Here is the unedited verse.

1 Corinthians 11:1 Follow my example, as I follow the example of Christ.

So do we have to choose between following Jesus or Paul? According to the unedited version of the verse chosen by the author, ABSOLUTLY NOT. In-fact the opposite is true if you take an honest look at the verse.

Here is his next point.

Originally posted by answering-christianity

Jesus was circumcised, Paul rejected circumcision:

The author mentions that Jesus was circumcised but fails to mention that Paul was too! Why?

Philippians 3:5 circumcised on the eighth day, of the people of Israel, of the tribe of Benjamin, a Hebrew of Hebrews; in regard to the law, a Pharisee;

Here are a few more verses the author neglected to include:

IMO this is mickey mouse reasoning that relies almost entirely on unquestioning acceptance of what he says. Answering Christianity should be embarrassed too posting this stuff unless their aim is to deceive.



-------------
Test everything. Hold on to the good. 1 Thessalonians 5:21


Posted By: waheed1
Date Posted: 25 August 2011 at 8:10am


[ The adulteress story}
The references to this claim include the book "Misquoting Jesus" by Bart Erhman. It's true that the account sounds nice, and even has a lesson or two, but it is scholars who say its false. Recently I had a chance to speak to a Bible scholar, and he admitted the same.

It has happened with our hadeeth literature as well. One saying attributed to the Prophet says "seek knowledge, even in China." Our scholars say this is a false hadeeth, that the Prophet [Upon whom we ask for God's peace and blessings] never made, even though it sounds nice and is perfectly consistent with the Qur'an as well as other hadeeths.


[ Paul going against Jesus?]

Earlier in the thread I did quote some examples, but I think a better way to address this is to refer you to the book "Paul" by A.N. Wilson. If you don't want to spend money for it, I'm sure you can get it on loan from your local library.

[Edited for clarity]

-------------
http://arifinimports.com - Lectures and books
http://shamsuddinwaheed.blogspot.com - My Blog

<a href="">


Posted By: waheed1
Date Posted: 25 August 2011 at 8:25am
This is my understanding:
Muslims must believe in the previous scriptures because the Quran tells them to.
The Quran contradicts the previous scriptures?!?
Muslims have to qualify the above two and the simplest answer is that someone changed previous scriptures although the Quran also says:
6:115... there is none who can change His words, and He is the Hearing, the Knowing.
Paul is the most obvious choice although the Quran makes no mention to him which is strange since changing the word of God is no small thing, let alone to believers of the Quran.
I have yet to hear an explanation of What, Why, When and How Paul did this.


Qur'an 6:115, one of our favorites.

The Qur'an does not name Paul or any particular person as those who did this or that to the Christian texts. Indeed, the Bible has it that Jesus says "The heavens and earth shall pass away, but the words of the Lord shall not pass away." Yet, from a historical perspective at least, that is precisely what happened! The books referenced before detail some aspects of this.


I tend to view the above cited Biblical verse, and even the Qur'anic verses cited earlier, as saying that the essential points of practice and principle will not be lost on believers, even with the passing of time.

-------------
http://arifinimports.com - Lectures and books
http://shamsuddinwaheed.blogspot.com - My Blog

<a href="">


Posted By: Perseveranze
Date Posted: 25 August 2011 at 12:26pm
Originally posted by Mad Cat

Perseverance, I think you should be embarrassed recommending these websites. Here is the first bit from one of the Answering Christianity links. (Emphasis mine)


I don't think it's as bad as you claim. One of them, the "voiceofjesus" seems as legit as you can get.

Either way, there will always be legit websites which talk about the Paul/Jesus contradictions, because it is regarded by Academics today as a proper Critisism of the Paul doctrine.

Your missing the part that comes before

The New Testament gives us a choice; either we follow Jesus Christ, or the anti-Christ Paul of Tarsus: Each one demands his followers to accept his teachings:

I think your misunderstanding the Author here. Paul is saying to "Follow him" and claims to be following Jesus. He's basically saying, follow him regardless of what Jesus may have said or done, which still accounts to telling people that they should listen to him (because he apprarently knows everything about Jesus). So if there is anything contradictory, people would have to follow Paul over Jesus.


I'm pretty sure thats the point the author was making. 



I am 100% sure now that Paul rejected circumcision. Which is no doubt contradictory to Jesus(pbuh).

Your accusations against that website seem very judgemental.

This is from a Christian website, I also looked up the verses which pretty much speak for themself -

What did Paul teach about circumcision?

Genesis 17:14 says that an uncircumcised man shall be 'cut off from his people' but Paul taught that those who accept circumcision are obliged to keep the whole law, and those who want to be justified by the law have cut themselves off from Christ (Galatians 5: 2-4).

Paul confirmed that circumcision was nothing (Galatians 6:15) and Christ was all and in all (Colossians 3:11). Jeremiah had already taught that circumcision in other nations was uncircumcision (Jeremiah 9: 25-26).

Paul advised people to accept their lot in life and not seek circumcision or uncircumcision, or slavery or freedom (1 Corinthians 7:17-24).




-------------
Fast Growing Islamic Search

http://www.Searching-Islam.com - www.Searching-Islam.com


Posted By: Damo808
Date Posted: 25 August 2011 at 2:01pm
What does the OT also teach about the Law
 
Jer 31:31-34:
 
Behold the days shall come, saith the Lord, and I will make a new covenant with the house of Israel, and with the house of Juda: http://www.drbo.org/x/d?b=drb&bk=28&ch=31&l=32#x - [32] Not according to the covenant which I made with their fathers, in the day that I took them by the hand to bring them out of the land of Egypt: the covenant which they made void, and I had dominion over them, saith the Lord. http://www.drbo.org/x/d?b=drb&bk=28&ch=31&l=33#x - [33] But this shall be the covenant that I will make with the house of Israel, after those days, saith the Lord: I will give my law in their bowels, and I will write it in their heart: and I will be their God, and they shall be my peopleAnd they shall teach no more every man his neighbour, and every man his brother, saying: Know the Lord: for all shall know me from the least of them even to the greatest, saith the Lord: for I will forgive their iniquity, and I will remember their sin no more.
 
 What does Jesus perform in the upper room ?
 
Mathew 26:26:
 
Take ye, and eat. This is my body. http://www.drbo.org/x/d?b=drb&bk=47&ch=26&l=27#x - [27] And taking the chalice, he gave thanks, and gave to them, saying: Drink ye all of this. http://www.drbo.org/x/d?b=drb&bk=47&ch=26&l=28#x - [28] For this is my blood of the new testament, which shall be shed for many unto remission of sins.
 
 Remember Jesus says not one part of the law will pass away.... UNTILL all be fulfilled (Math5:18).
 
Did Jesus not come fulfill the Law ? In order to fulfill it, He must be subject to it.
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 


-------------
I will walk among you, and will be your God, and you shall be my people.
Leviticus 26:12


Posted By: Mad Cat
Date Posted: 25 August 2011 at 7:20pm

Originally posted by waheed1

The references to this claim include the book Misquoting Jesus by Bart Erhman. It's true that the account sounds nice, and even has a lesson or two, but it is scholars who say its false. Recently I had a chance to speak to a Bible scholar, and he admitted the same.

Believe me, stories didnít make it into the Bible because they sounded nice. You would have a very different book if that was the case. Like I said, for the sake of argument we can ignore that particular story and still have the same Jesus.

Originally posted by waheed1

Earlier in the thread I did quote some examples, but I think a better way to address this is to refer you to the book "Paul" by A.N. Wilson. If you don't want to spend money for it, I'm sure you can get it on loan from your local library.

Its not so much the money but the time to buy and read, since you have just recommended reading two whole books (i'm no johnny 5). I will probably look out for them but it will take time.

Out of interest, are you in the 'Paul changed the teachings of Jesus' camp or 'Paul taught something different' camp?

Originally posted by waheed1

I tend to view the above cited Biblical verse, and even the Qur'anic verses cited earlier, as saying that the essential points of practice and principle will not be lost on believers, even with the passing of time.

Iím not sure I understand you here. From a Christian perspective we donít believe the Jesus' words have passed away. We also believe the Jewish scriptures are uncorrupted as the Jews do but Muslims believe that both OT and NT are corrupt. That to me suggests changing the words of God.

If the essential points of practice and principle are not lost even in time, why the need to send further prophets?

If these points and principles are insufficient and further prophets are required, then why protect the points and principles at all?

One of many things that I cannot get my head round with this idea that Paul corrupted Jesus' teaching concept is that you are left with a bumbling, incompetent God. He goes to the effort of sending Jesus to guide men only to allow Paul to come along a few years later to undo all the good work. Since Paul's 'corruption' has lasted 2000 years over Jesus' 10ish years that makes Paul rather more successful than God, according to this theory.



-------------
Test everything. Hold on to the good. 1 Thessalonians 5:21


Posted By: waheed1
Date Posted: 25 August 2011 at 7:56pm
If the essential points of practice and principle are not lost even in time, why the need to send further prophets?

Good question.  The answer is multi faced, in that varying audiences have varying needs. This question is briefly addressed from the Islamic perspective in the video 'The relationship between the Bible and the Qur'an", available at http://noorulislam.podomatic.com - http://noorulislam.podomatic.com

One of many things that I cannot get my head round with this idea that Paul corrupted Jesus' teaching concept is that you are left with a bumbling, incompetent God. He goes to the effort of sending Jesus to guide men only to allow Paul to come along a few years later to undo all the good work. Since Paul's 'corruption' has lasted 2000 years over Jesus' 10ish years that makes Paul rather more successful than God, according to this theory.

Again, good points. From the Islamic perspective, and I think Mainstream Christian view as well, all occurs by the permission of God. Even if the devil, or someone or something else, does something bad with bad intentions in mind, good can still come out of it. Admittedly, this is more of a philosophical question.

I think it was Michael Hart who said words to the affect you have stated above, that Paul was more successful or more influential that Jesus was.


-------------
http://arifinimports.com - Lectures and books
http://shamsuddinwaheed.blogspot.com - My Blog

<a href="">


Posted By: Mad Cat
Date Posted: 26 August 2011 at 10:31am

Originally posted by perseverance

Your missing the part that comes before

The New Testament gives us a choice; either we follow Jesus Christ, or the anti-Christ Paul of Tarsus: Each one demands his followers to accept his teachings:

I think your misunderstanding the Author here. Paul is saying to "Follow him" and claims to be following Jesus.

I didnít miss that part, I just thought it was only made correct-sounding by the author's edit of the verse. The NT does not ask us to make that choice at all. Paul says 'follow my example'. What is his example? To follow Jesus. How do we know this? By reading the bit the author cut out. 'as I follow the example of Christ'.

Originally posted by perseverance

He's basically saying, follow him regardless of what Jesus may have said or done, which still accounts to telling people that they should listen to him (because he apprarently knows everything about Jesus). So if there is anything contradictory, people would have to follow Paul over Jesus.

I'm pretty sure thats the point the author was making.

You are putting words in Paul's mouth here. Paul's example is to follow Jesus and he call his readers to do the same.

Originally posted by perseverance

I am 100% sure now that Paul rejected circumcision. Which is no doubt contradictory to Jesus(pbuh).

Since he circumcised Timothy I think it is fair that he didnít reject it outright but he clearly came up against people who thought that circumcision we enough to be saved and for whom the subject of circumcision got in their way to God.

  • Cain makes an offering to God but it is not received well.

  • God called for sacrifice in Leviticus and yet rejects the sacrifices of his people throughout the OT.

  • John the Baptist was faced with people who thought that being descendants of Abraham was qualification enough.

  • The Law calls for stoning of Adultery and Jesus identified the woman at the well as such but didnít stone her.

  • Jesus said that the tax collectors and prostitutes are entering heaven ahead of those who strictly followed the laws of God.

  • Jesus commented that a rich young ruler who had kept all the commandments since childhood had missed the point.

  • The Law said not to work on the Sabbath but Jesus performed miracles on the Sabbath.

Paul teaches that circumcision of the flesh only, counts for nothing in God's eyes which is completely consistent with the above points throughout the whole Bible including Jesus time and again. I would recommend reading Romans where Paul says that true circumcision is circumcision of the heart. This is the message of the whole Bible.



-------------
Test everything. Hold on to the good. 1 Thessalonians 5:21


Posted By: Mad Cat
Date Posted: 26 August 2011 at 10:32am

Originally posted by Waheed

Good question.  The answer is multi faced, in that varying audiences have varying needs. This question is briefly addressed from the Islamic perspective in the video 'The relationship between the Bible and the Qur'an", available at http://noorulislam.podomatic.com

I agree that varying audiences have varying needs but Islam seems to be an anti-solution to this problem. Having a 'final' messenger flies in the face of this theory unless you believe that these variances stopped 1400 years ago. Surely we need a constant supply of prophets. Not to mention the 'Should be read in Arabic' issues that donít speak to the needs of most of the globe.

Originally posted by Waheed

Again, good points. From the Islamic perspective, and I think Mainstream Christian view as well, all occurs by the permission of God. Even if the devil, or someone or something else, does something bad with bad intentions in mind, good can still come out of it. Admittedly, this is more of a philosophical question.
I think it was Michael Hart who said words to the affect you have stated above, that Paul was more successful or more influential that Jesus was.

The thing here is that I disagree with this quote. I believe that God did a good job and achieved what He set out to. Paul was part of that process but that he worked in harmony with Jesus. You seem to agree with that quote and although believing that some good can come out of bad, God's work through Jesus was invalidated by a mere man directly after He had finished. It makes a mockery of God IMO which I imagine was Michael Hart's intention.



-------------
Test everything. Hold on to the good. 1 Thessalonians 5:21


Posted By: waheed1
Date Posted: 26 August 2011 at 1:29pm
. Having a 'final' messenger flies in the face of this theory unless you believe that these variances stopped 1400 years ago. Surely we need a constant supply of prophets. Not to mention the 'Should be read in Arabic' issues that donít speak to the needs of most of the globe.


Good questions. In terms of basic theological needs, we believe, those needs are completed by the coming of the Qur'an and Prophet. I think the video briefly addresses that as well. As for the "should be read in Arabic", it's true that Muhammad was an Arab, and the Qur'an was sent in that language, but it's not something that is utterly un-understandable by mankind. Indeed, the fact that the Arabs are now an ethnic minority in the Muslim world is an evidence of that. Moreover, the Qur'anic contents are, for the most part, general and applicable in any place, time or social context.

The thing here is that I disagree with this quote. I believe that God did a good job and achieved what He set out to. Paul was part of that process but that he worked in harmony with Jesus. You seem to agree with that quote and although believing that some good can come out of bad, God's work through Jesus was invalidated by a mere man directly after He had finished. It makes a mockery of God IMO which I imagine was Michael Hart's intention.


I don't think Hart was trying to mock God or even Paul. Moreover, I may have mixed up the speaker as it is, but when we read that statement, it's just an acknowledgement that Paul's influence was weighty, largely due to his own efforts.


-------------
http://arifinimports.com - Lectures and books
http://shamsuddinwaheed.blogspot.com - My Blog

<a href="">


Posted By: Mad Cat
Date Posted: 26 August 2011 at 4:59pm

Originally posted by waheed1

Good questions. In terms of basic theological needs, we believe, those needs are completed by the coming of the Qur'an and Prophet.

Are you saying that the basic theological needs were left unfulfilled by Allah for the first however many millennia?

Originally posted by waheed1

I think the video briefly addresses that as well. As for the "should be read in Arabic", it's true that Muhammad was an Arab, and the Qur'an was sent in that language, but it's not something that is utterly un-understandable by mankind. Indeed, the fact that the Arabs are now an ethnic minority in the Muslim world is an evidence of that. Moreover, the Qur'anic contents are, for the most part, general and applicable in any place, time or social context.

Not utterly inn-understandable but a strong emphasis is placed on reading in the original Arabic which a very small percentage of the world can do to any serious degree, let alone to really appreciate the finer aspects that many Muslims boast in the Quranic language.

I still donít see how a final prophet sent 1400 years ago and varying needs for varying audiences is not a contradiction. Either there is a need for regular prophets to meet the varying needs or not or have there been no variations in life over the last 1400 years.

Originally posted by waheed1

...but when we read that statement, it's just an acknowledgement that Paul's influence was weighty, largely due to his own efforts.

But you are saying that Paul's efforts are weightier and more influential than Allah's efforts with Jesus. I donít understand how you see this is a God worthy of worship. It seems to me that you should rather worship Paul (if that does not come across as offensive).

IMO everything Paul says points to Jesus and I see him as nothing without Jesus. I believe Paul would agree with me too.



-------------
Test everything. Hold on to the good. 1 Thessalonians 5:21


Posted By: Perseveranze
Date Posted: 26 August 2011 at 5:17pm
Originally posted by Mad Cat

Since he circumcised Timothy I think it is fair that he didnít reject it outright but he clearly came up against people who thought that circumcision we enough to be saved and for whom the subject of circumcision got in their way to God.

  • Cain makes an offering to God but it is not received well.

  • God called for sacrifice in Leviticus and yet rejects the sacrifices of his people throughout the OT.

  • John the Baptist was faced with people who thought that being descendants of Abraham was qualification enough.

  • The Law calls for stoning of Adultery and Jesus identified the woman at the well as such but didnít stone her.

  • Jesus said that the tax collectors and prostitutes are entering heaven ahead of those who strictly followed the laws of God.

  • Jesus commented that a rich young ruler who had kept all the commandments since childhood had missed the point.

  • The Law said not to work on the Sabbath but Jesus performed miracles on the Sabbath.

Paul teaches that circumcision of the flesh only, counts for nothing in God's eyes which is completely consistent with the above points throughout the whole Bible including Jesus time and again. I would recommend reading Romans where Paul says that true circumcision is circumcision of the heart. This is the message of the whole Bible.



Well, my only point was the difference of what Jesus(pbuh) did/said to what Paul did/said.

Jesus(pbuh) got circumsticed, Christians do not do this however, because of what Paul said.

Paul says that true circumcision is circumcision of the heart. This is the message of the whole Bible.


Lol, this is what I mean. Wonder where Paul got these ideas from, because they certainly weren't from Jesus(pbuh).





-------------
Fast Growing Islamic Search

http://www.Searching-Islam.com - www.Searching-Islam.com


Posted By: waheed1
Date Posted: 27 August 2011 at 8:28am
Originally posted by Mad Cat


<p style="margin-bottom: 0cm;">
Originally posted by waheed1

Good questions. In
terms of basic theological needs, we believe, those needs are
completed by the coming of the Qur'an and Prophet.


<p style="margin-bottom: 0cm;">Are you saying
that the basic theological needs were left unfulfilled by Allah for
the first however many millennia?


<p style="margin-bottom: 0cm;">
Originally posted by waheed1

I think the video
briefly addresses that as well. As for the "should be read in
Arabic", it's true that Muhammad was an Arab, and the Qur'an was
sent in that language, but it's not something that is utterly
un-understandable by mankind. Indeed, the fact that the Arabs are now
an ethnic minority in the Muslim world is an evidence of that.
Moreover, the Qur'anic contents are, for the most part, general and
applicable in any place, time or social context.


<p style="margin-bottom: 0cm;">Not utterly
inn-understandable but a strong emphasis is placed on reading in the
original Arabic which a very small percentage of the world can do to
any serious degree, let alone to really appreciate the finer aspects
that many Muslims boast in the Quranic language.


<p style="margin-bottom: 0cm;">I still donít
see how a final prophet sent 1400 years ago and varying needs for varying audiences is
not a contradiction. Either there is a need for regular prophets to
meet the varying needs or not or have there been no variations in life over the last 1400 years.
Originally posted by waheed1

...but when
we read that statement, it's just an acknowledgement that Paul's
influence was weighty, largely due to his own efforts.


<p style="margin-bottom: 0cm;">But you are
saying that Paul's efforts are weightier and more influential than
Allah's efforts with Jesus. I donít understand how you see this is
a God worthy of worship. It seems to me that you should rather
worship Paul (if that does not come across as offensive).


<p style="margin-bottom: 0cm;">IMO everything
Paul says points to Jesus and I see him as nothing without Jesus. I
believe Paul would agree with me too.





Are you saying that the basic theological needs were left unfulfilled by Allah for the first however many millennia?


Perhaps I should rephrase. Muslims believe that God sent forth prophets and messengers in the past to address issues and needs that were particular to their audiences needs. This process, we assert further, comes to a close with the coming of the Qur'an to the Prophet Muhammad [Upon whom be peace].

Not utterly inn-understandable but a strong emphasis is placed on reading in the original Arabic which a very small percentage of the world can do to any serious degree, let alone to really appreciate the finer aspects that many Muslims boast in the Quranic language.
I still donít see how a final prophet sent 1400 years ago and varying needs for varying audiences is not a contradiction. Either there is a need for regular prophets to meet the varying needs or not or have there been no variations in life over the last 1400 years.


What happens on a cultural or popular level does not mean that such is the intention of the Qur'an. What I mean is that it's true it was sent in arabic, and it is also true that in terms of getting the picture in a full sense, that we should try to become acquainted, nay, intimate knowledge of Arabic, but that does not mean the Qur'an is specifically for an Arab audience.

Look at the Qur'an's overall text and message, there are very few contents therein that are culturally specific, and where those things that are culturally specific, it's usually something refuting that local practice [for example, in Soorah 58, if memory serves, it forbids an Arab divorce method by which a man would call his wife "You are like my mother's back", suspending marital relations, keeping her basically in limbo, even unable to divorce or remarry herself].

The Qur'anic content is general, and useful anywhere.


But you are saying that Paul's efforts are weightier and more influential than Allah's efforts with Jesus. I donít understand how you see this is a God worthy of worship. It seems to me that you should rather worship Paul (if that does not come across as offensive).


Allah sent forth Jesus Christ, that's true. It's also true that all of us can't always understand Divine will and plans. Satan, to use another example, may do things, with his own intentions and motives in mind, but [according to Islamic teachings], God has his own plans as well, and in the end, it is God's will and plan that overcome everyone else's !

Indeed, the Pauline efforts led to many developments in people's religious mindsets that then- later on- led them to see the errors, enough of them to come to take a look at the message that was sent forth to Muhammad. We say that Muhammad's message, the one given to him by God Almighty, is sufficient, that no more has to come.

Admittedly, it's a long discussion..


-------------
http://arifinimports.com - Lectures and books
http://shamsuddinwaheed.blogspot.com - My Blog

<a href="">


Posted By: Seeking
Date Posted: 29 August 2011 at 9:27pm
Originally posted by waheed1



About Paul, there is a book called "Paul" by A.N.Wilson, which details in a thorough way the manner in which Paul represented religion as being different from that of Jesus.




According to some on-line reviews. Wilson was anything but thorough.

"Wilson provides some excellent (and some fatally flawed) insights into the social and political atmosphere of first century Palestine. However, his conclusions and assumptions are not based on a full survey of the available research."
Read it, but be sure to read some Marcus Borg, N.T. Wright, Meier, Schweitezer, Wenham, Witherington to round out the survey." Or "Apostle: A Life of Paul" by John Pollock.

"This book is good if you want to understand the thinking an approaches used by one that does not believe
a) Jesus is God or ever claimed to be God
b) The apostles were inspired in any way
d) Scripture is inspired by God and applicable to us
According to this book there are three main groups coming from Paul, Peter, and James. James is the only one that "got" the meaning of Jesus' teaching, and that was to do good deeds. Peter and Paul had their own spins and battled it out with Paul's version winning the popular non-Jewish influence. It is sad this is even classified as "religious".

"But far too often Wilson builds his arguments on decidedly shaky foundations. On one page he will openly speculate and 20 pages later he treats that speculation as proven truth."

 All of this is mute, however.  Wilson wrote the book while an atheist.  He recently came back to his former religion of christianity, and wrote this:

http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-1196439/Have-body-St-Paul.html

More information on the author:

"By his own admission, Wilson became a fairly conventional mocker of Christianity. "
http://www.commonwealmagazine.org/blog/?p=3062

http://www.crosswalk.com/news/believe-again-a-n-wilson-returns-to-the-faith-11603062.html

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/A._N._Wilson

"For much of my life, I, too, have been one of those who did not believe. It was in my young manhood that I began to wonder how much of the Easter story I accepted, and in my 30s I lost any religious belief whatsoever.

"Like many people who lost faith, I felt anger with myself for having been 'conned' by such a story. I began to rail against Christianity, and wrote a book, entitled Jesus, which endeavoured to establish that he had been no more than a messianic prophet who had well and truly failed, and died."

Read more: http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-1169145/Religion-hatred-Why-longer-cowed-secular-zealots.html#ixzz1WSldg9m8






Posted By: Seeking
Date Posted: 29 August 2011 at 9:53pm
Originally posted by waheed1



[ The adulteress story}
The references to this claim include the book "Misquoting Jesus" by Bart Erhman. It's true that the account sounds nice, and even has a lesson or two, but it is scholars who say its false. Recently I had a chance to speak to a Bible scholar, and he admitted the same.

It has happened with our hadeeth literature as well.



Comparison to how authenticity of hadith is judged is probably valid.

Not all scholars say it is false.  I think most say it is an accurate account of what occurred, but it just wasn't in the earliest copies of St. John.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Jesus_and_the_woman_taken_in_adultery#Authorship

Bart Ehrman is no longer christian, last I heard.  His opinions should be weighed, but relying on him as a definitive authority is akin to quoting a Ahmadiyya source when discussing Islam.

http://www.colbertnation.com/the-colbert-report-videos/224128/april-09-2009/bart-ehrman





Posted By: Traveller
Date Posted: 01 September 2011 at 6:25am
Do christians believe God forgave Paul for the crimes he did before that road to Damascus? 

-------------
In life, be like a traveller. Take only what you need


Posted By: Traveller
Date Posted: 01 September 2011 at 6:27am
I have to assume yes for obvious reasons.
 
Is there any verses in the Bible that will support this belief?


-------------
In life, be like a traveller. Take only what you need


Posted By: Mad Cat
Date Posted: 01 September 2011 at 10:01am

Sorry for the delay

Originally posted by Perseveranze

Jesus(pbuh) got circumsticed, Christians do not do this however, because of what Paul said.

I do understand what you are getting at but from our perspective Paul pointed completely to Jesus. Jesus got circumcised and Paul got circumcised. Jesus is not recorded as saying much about circumcision, Paul did say some things. Paul did not write it off completely but said that if you follow circumcision you have to follow the whole Law which if the OT teaches us anything it is that we will fail. Jesus gave us a way out and that is grace.

In an over-simplification of things the Jews were waiting for the prophesied messiah and no other prophet's coming was prophesied before Jesus. All 4 gospels devote a huge amount of time to the crucifixion of Jesus. And in the story of the road to Emmaus, Jesus said that these things had to happen although no other prophet 'had' to die. My point is that Jesus was special. He was not simply one in a line of prophets. That is one of the reasons why things changed after Jesus rose again.

Originally posted by Perseveranze

Lol, this is what I mean. Wonder where Paul got these ideas from, because they certainly weren't from Jesus(pbuh).

Like I said above, I believe they were from Jesus. Jesus was not asking people to physically follow the rules but to love God and love their neighbours. In fact most of Jesus' problems were with the religious elite (Pharisees and the teachers of the Law) and if you read these incidents, I believe the reason is that these people followed the rules physically but not in their hearts. In other words, Paul teaches the same thing Jesus did.



-------------
Test everything. Hold on to the good. 1 Thessalonians 5:21


Posted By: Mad Cat
Date Posted: 01 September 2011 at 10:22am

Originally posted by Waheed

Perhaps I should rephrase. Muslims believe that God sent forth prophets and messengers in the past to address issues and needs that were particular to their audiences needs. This process, we assert further, comes to a close with the coming of the Qur'an to the Prophet Muhammad [Upon whom be peace].

I would argue that audiences are more diverse today than ever meaning that we would need more prophets more often.

Originally posted by Waheed

What happens on a cultural or popular level does not mean that such is the intention of the Qur'an. What I mean is that it's true it was sent in arabic, and it is also true that in terms of getting the picture in a full sense, that we should try to become acquainted, nay, intimate knowledge of Arabic, but that does not mean the Qur'an is specifically for an Arab audience.

Being revealed in Arabic is one thing because it has to be revealed in a language. However it is Muslims that often insist that it be read in its original language. If the Quran was meant for all people for all time, there would be no emphasis on any language.

Originally posted by Waheed

Look at the Qur'an's overall text and message, there are very few contents therein that are culturally specific, and where those things that are culturally specific, it's usually something refuting that local practice.
The Qur'anic content is general, and useful anywhere.

Overviews are non-specific by definition. That said there is a lot of stuff specific to Muhammad himself, let alone a people group, let alone the world. Islam combines religion and state which would put it at odds with most countries in the world.

Originally posted by Waheed

Indeed, the Pauline efforts led to many developments in people's religious mindsets that then- later on- led them to see the errors, enough of them to come to take a look at the message that was sent forth to Muhammad. We say that Muhammad's message, the one given to him by God Almighty, is sufficient, that no more has to come.

The problems with this theory are too many to mention but one of the bigger ones is that:

  • God sends Jesus

  • 10ish years later God allows Paul/Satan (whoever you want to blame) to corrupt all the good works done by Jesus.

  • 600 years later God gets round to 'undoing' this corruption but sends the correction to a completely different people group?!?

Also can Christians be blamed for believing in Christianity if Allah allows such things to happen?

This god is a long way from being worthy of worship IMO.



-------------
Test everything. Hold on to the good. 1 Thessalonians 5:21


Posted By: Mad Cat
Date Posted: 01 September 2011 at 10:37am

Originally posted by Traveller

Do Christians believe God forgave Paul for the crimes he did before that road to Damascus?

I have to assume yes for obvious reasons.

Is there any verses in the Bible that will support this belief?

To my knowledge there is no verse that specifically says 'Ö and then God forgave Paul' but we believe that Paul was sincerely repentant of his crimes. 1 Corinthians 15:9 For I am the least of the apostles and do not even deserve to be called an apostle, because I persecuted the church of God.

We also believe that if we sincerely repent we gain forgiveness through Jesus.

The whole of Jesus' teaching supports this belief and all of Paul's letters testify to his sincerity.



-------------
Test everything. Hold on to the good. 1 Thessalonians 5:21


Posted By: Damo808
Date Posted: 01 September 2011 at 3:30pm
I agree with MC.. Paul was most likely a Just man in his heart of hearts and uncorruptable. He believed most likely that by such drastic action he was preventing the the spread of a blasphemous movement with God's apporoval according to OT Law.

-------------
I will walk among you, and will be your God, and you shall be my people.
Leviticus 26:12


Posted By: talib84
Date Posted: 02 September 2011 at 5:12am
Originally posted by Mad Cat

This is my understanding:

Muslims must believe in the previous scriptures because the Quran tells them to.

The Quran contradicts the previous scriptures?!?

Muslims have to qualify the above two and the simplest answer is that someone changed previous scriptures although the Quran also says:

6:115... there is none who can change His words, and He is the Hearing, the Knowing.

Paul is the most obvious choice although the Quran makes no mention to him which is strange since changing the word of God is no small thing, let alone to believers of the Quran.

I have yet to hear an explanation of What, Why, When and How Paul did this.

 
I personally don't believe Paul changed anything. I believe the RCC changed everything and attributed these changes to various figures in Christ's life such as Matthew, Paul, etc.
 
And it's not that hard to make changes to a scripture, even if just slight enough to alter the meaning, since they're all handwritten by scribes. Didn't the Bible itself make a reference to the "Lying pens of scribes"?
 
Plus, Paul's letters were never considered "God's Word". Just Christians believe that.


-------------
"To be sure, Jesus will come and will restore all things. But I tell you, Jesus has already come, and they did not recognize him, but have done to him everything they wished."


Posted By: talib84
Date Posted: 02 September 2011 at 5:22am
Originally posted by Damo808

Originally posted by Mad Cat

This is my understanding:

Muslims must believe in the previous scriptures because the Quran tells them to.

The Quran contradicts the previous scriptures?!?

Muslims have to qualify the above two and the simplest answer is that someone changed previous scriptures although the Quran also says:

6:115... there is none who can change His words, and He is the Hearing, the Knowing.

Paul is the most obvious choice although the Quran makes no mention to him which is strange since changing the word of God is no small thing, let alone to believers of the Quran.

I have yet to hear an explanation of What, Why, When and How Paul did this.

 
 
 Lol MC.... If its not Paul then its was Constantine.. if not them then it was the so and so, council of so and so...or maybe ...etc etc etc with so much ambiguity and little proof in any one body or single identity as long as there is a smoke screen to blame it on Islam remains vibrant.
 
So let me ask you...if I rejected Paul's scriptures, but would accept the rest of the N.T., would that send me to Hell? Or would that get me ex-communicated or disfellowshiped from the church? Could I still be saved if I followed merely Jesus's (p) teachings and the teachings of his actual apostles? In other words, are Paul's teachings such that without them I couldn't have everlasting life in the world to come?


-------------
"To be sure, Jesus will come and will restore all things. But I tell you, Jesus has already come, and they did not recognize him, but have done to him everything they wished."


Posted By: Mad Cat
Date Posted: 02 September 2011 at 10:34am

Originally posted by Traveller

Do Christians believe God forgave Paul for the crimes he did before that road to Damascus?

I have to assume yes for obvious reasons.

Is there any verses in the Bible that will support this belief?

Something else occurred to me about this, we can read the story of Paul's conversion in Acts 9. In it God uses a third party, Ananias, to miraculously heal Paul's eyes. This could reasonably be interpreted as a clear sign that God forgave Paul, witnessed by others.



-------------
Test everything. Hold on to the good. 1 Thessalonians 5:21


Posted By: Mad Cat
Date Posted: 02 September 2011 at 10:36am

Originally posted by talib84

I personally don't believe Paul changed anything. I believe the RCC changed everything and attributed these changes to various figures in Christ's life such as Matthew, Paul, etc.

Can I ask you why you donít think Paul did it when so many here think he did?

Is there any evidence to support the RCC theory.

Also do you know what, when, how, why, etc.

Originally posted by talib84

And it's not that hard to make changes to a scripture, even if just slight enough to alter the meaning, since they're all handwritten by scribes. Didn't the Bible itself make a reference to the "Lying pens of scribes"?

I agree it is not hard to make changes to scriptures but it is another thing for your changes to be accepted by others.

Yes the Bible does make that reference but as above it doesnít meant that these lies were accepted. This verse IMO acts as one argument for the reliability of the scriptures since it would make no sense that the corrupters would write in such a verse but would mos def remove a verse like this already existing.

Originally posted by talib84

So let me ask you...if I rejected Paul's scriptures, but would accept the rest of the N.T., would that send me to Hell? Or would that get me ex-communicated or disfellowshiped from the church? Could I still be saved if I followed merely Jesus's (p) teachings and the teachings of his actual apostles? In other words, are Paul's teachings such that without them I couldn't have everlasting life in the world to come?

I can see where you are coming from here but we do have Paul's letters. We believe that Paul's letters were part of God's plan. We believe that Jesus appeared to Paul and turned his life around. We believe that Jesus' disciples and followers accepted Paul. We believe that Paul's letters are completely in harmony with Jesus as recorded in the gospels. So to hypothesise about what did not happen is largely redundant.

Can we gain salvation from the Gospels alone? I would say yes since the core elements to our faith are taken from the Gospels and not Paul. To my understanding Paul's letters were in response to FAQs that arose after Jesus' assertion among different groups of people.

The reason Christians quote Paul so much is because the same questions arise today as did in the early days of the church and Paul does such a good job of answering them. Many if not most of the questions that arise on this website are the same as those that Paul experienced.



-------------
Test everything. Hold on to the good. 1 Thessalonians 5:21


Posted By: Damo808
Date Posted: 02 September 2011 at 4:44pm
Lol MC.... If its not Paul then its was Constantine.. if not them then it was the so and so, council of so and so...or maybe ...etc etc etc with so much ambiguity and little proof in any one body or single identity as long as there is a smoke screen to blame it on Islam remains vibrant.
 
 So let me ask you...if I rejected Paul's scriptures, but would accept the rest of the N.T., would that send me to Hell? Or would that get me ex-communicated or disfellowshiped from the church? Could I still be saved if I followed merely Jesus's (p) teachings and the teachings of his actual apostles? In other words, are Paul's teachings such that without them I couldn't have everlasting life in the world to come?
 
 -Talib

 Could you specify any of the teachings of Paul which contravene those of Jesus ?
 
 I interpret Scripture differently from you obviously, in that Jesus yes adhered to the Law of Moses, but only because in order to fulfill the Law He had to be subject to it. As Jesus said "For amen I say unto you, till heaven and earth pass, one jot, or one tittle shall not pass of the law, till all be fulfilled."    
 
 It was the fulfilment of the Law through Jesus which opened the door to the Gentiles. Now, the conversion of the Gentiles from many nations to "the way" happened exponentially around the time of Paul. You may argue that the conversion of the Gentiles came by the figure of Mohammud. But then this puts at odds the prophesy of Zecharias 8:23:
 
 "Thus saith the Lord of hosts: In those days, wherein ten men of all languages of the Gentiles shall take hold, and shall hold fast the shirt of one that is a Jew, saying: We will go with you: for we have heard that God is with you."
 
 Also what of Tobias, verified as scripture as it was included in the Dead Sea Scrolls ver 14:8 : "And the Gentiles shall leave their idols, and shall come into Jerusalem, and shall dwell in it."
 
 As for your Salvation ? If Paul is indeed bonafide, then it is not Paul you are rejecting but the Holy Spirit which worked through him. But ultimately i believe all people are worthy of Redemption and Salvation on account of God's unfathomable Mercy, and them living according to their own understanding and belief of Truth with a sincere and pure heart with . 


-------------
I will walk among you, and will be your God, and you shall be my people.
Leviticus 26:12


Posted By: Traveller
Date Posted: 02 September 2011 at 5:39pm
Thank you Madcat and Damo.
 
I'm questioning the elevated status of Paul to an Apostle. Have you ever wondered what would the victims of his previous doings have to say about that? That begs another question. Did they forgive him?
 
Serious implications arises from that last question if the answer is no.


-------------
In life, be like a traveller. Take only what you need


Posted By: Damo808
Date Posted: 03 September 2011 at 2:24pm
Thank you Madcat and Damo.
 
I'm questioning the elevated status of Paul to an Apostle. Have you ever wondered what would the victims of his previous doings have to say about that? That begs another question. Did they forgive him?
 
Serious implications arises from that last question if the answer is no.
 
 -Traveller
 
 Serious implications in what way..
 
 Paul ofcourse caused many people grevious pain thats true. But no-one is perfect before God. Do we suppose that all the prophets of God throughout the ages came across people who in their time went to their graves with forgiveness in their heart for such wrong doings caused by them in their ignorance or even in full knowlege of their wrongdoings ? Sin is sin, some sin ofcourse is more grevious then others but is imperfection all the same. Do we suppose that everyone who was an enemy of Islam went to their grave with forgiveness in their heart for Mohammud ?


-------------
I will walk among you, and will be your God, and you shall be my people.
Leviticus 26:12


Posted By: talib84
Date Posted: 03 September 2011 at 10:47pm
Madcat,

I personally don't have any evidence to accuse a particular individual of committing any crimes. It could be possible that he did that, but I personally don't believe it. In the end, though, I don't have enough evidence to accuse a man -- one who for all we know spent his life as a great Muslim -- of committing such an evil deed. I also don't have enough evidence to redeem him from the accusations being made against him. But, being that I was born and raised in the USA, I follow the philosophy of "innocent until proven guilty". But the RCC is known for their devious behaviors, so I wouldn't put it past them to frame an innocent man like that.

As for evidence and whatnot...I simply said I believed this to be the case. It could very well be that aliens came down and wrote Paul's letters and told the early popes that it was God-breathed lol. I'm not directly or officially accusing the RCC for framing Paul, I just "feel" that way. I'm not pushing this belief onto anyone else...I simply view it this way till I see evidence to the contrary. For me it's the most plausible explanation.

-------------
"To be sure, Jesus will come and will restore all things. But I tell you, Jesus has already come, and they did not recognize him, but have done to him everything they wished."


Posted By: Mad Cat
Date Posted: 04 September 2011 at 3:41pm

Originally posted by Traveller

Thank you Madcat and Damo.

I'm questioning the elevated status of Paul to an Apostle. Have you ever wondered what would the victims of his previous doings have to say about that? That begs another question. Did they forgive him?

Serious implications arises from that last question if the answer is no.

Not to play down what Paul did as Saul but he is not recorded as doing that much. He was there at the stoning of Steven. He gave his approval but didnít take part in the stone throwing or witnessing. It reads like he was too young to be that involved.

Did his victims forgive him? We donít know for sure but Paul does express regret and as Damo said, he did follow a long tradition of flawed prophets which IMO shows that they were real people and not idealised myths.

The existence of the stories of Paul's bad doings in his former life suggest to me that there is no corruption by Paul or the RCC since I would expect this story to have been removed.


Talib, of cause you are welcome to your opinion, I just wondered why you though that about the RCC when Paul seems to get accused most frequently. As you can probably see from what I have written here, I think accusing Paul causes more problems than it solves to a Muslim.



-------------
Test everything. Hold on to the good. 1 Thessalonians 5:21


Posted By: simpleton
Date Posted: 04 September 2011 at 7:08pm
Originally posted by talib84

Madcat,

I personally don't have any evidence to accuse a particular individual of committing any crimes. It could be possible that he did that, but I personally don't believe it. In the end, though, I don't have enough evidence to accuse a man -- one who for all we know spent his life as a great Muslim -- of committing such an evil deed. I also don't have enough evidence to redeem him from the accusations being made against him. But, being that I was born and raised in the USA, I follow the philosophy of "innocent until proven guilty". But the RCC is known for their devious behaviors, so I wouldn't put it past them to frame an innocent man like that.

As for evidence and whatnot...I simply said I believed this to be the case. It could very well be that aliens came down and wrote Paul's letters and told the early popes that it was God-breathed lol. I'm not directly or officially accusing the RCC for framing Paul, I just "feel" that way. I'm not pushing this belief onto anyone else...I simply view it this way till I see evidence to the contrary. For me it's the most plausible explanation.
It's also possible that muhammad, moses, abraham(if he even really existed...there is no hard core evidence), jesus and all the rest were either one or a combination of a con or mad as a hatter(on this occasion, not due to over exposure of mercury fumes).  I know you won't agree, but until i see evidence to the contrary, it's the most plausible explanation.


Posted By: talib84
Date Posted: 04 September 2011 at 8:21pm
Have you ever read the Quran? I mean, really read it? Read it from cover to cover and I think you'll understand why we take it as evidence for our beliefs.

But the fact still remains that Paul's teachings are in sharp contrast with ancient Jewish belief (which Jesus was a part of). I personally don't have enough evidence to blame Paul himself when in reality the whole world is relying on legends from a time when there were so many conflicting legends about Jesus (p) and his message. Contrast this with the stories of Mohammad (p) or his hadiths. Though I agree that Islamic hadiths or historical accounts are nowhere near perfect, they have too many witnesses, too many descendants, etc. Basically, our link between us and Mohammad (p) is still there. The link between us and Jesus (p) was changed by the many, many early Christian groups that sprung into existence when he ascended into heaven, and most notably by the RCC who invented this doctrine that Jesus (p) himself was God.


-------------
"To be sure, Jesus will come and will restore all things. But I tell you, Jesus has already come, and they did not recognize him, but have done to him everything they wished."


Posted By: talib84
Date Posted: 04 September 2011 at 8:27pm
In fact, you can get a free Quran from Why Islam (if they still give them out). I can also send you some terrific links to Quranic translations.

For me, Moses, Jesus, etc. (except Mohammad) could've been make believe individuals. However, because Mohammad (p) testifies to their existence, I believe in them. And I believe in Mohammad (p) because of the Quran's testimony.

I understand your point, though.


-------------
"To be sure, Jesus will come and will restore all things. But I tell you, Jesus has already come, and they did not recognize him, but have done to him everything they wished."


Posted By: Mad Cat
Date Posted: 05 September 2011 at 9:32am
Originally posted by talib84

For me, Moses, Jesus, etc. (except Mohammad) could've been make believe individuals. However, because Mohammad (p) testifies to their existence, I believe in them. And I believe in Mohammad (p) because of the Quran's testimony.

Hi Talib, can you see how this sounds like circular reasoning?

You believe because of the Quran's testimony but how do you know that Muhammad did not just make the Quran up?



-------------
Test everything. Hold on to the good. 1 Thessalonians 5:21


Posted By: Seeking
Date Posted: 05 September 2011 at 11:38am
 
I have also wondered the same thing, MC.

The circular reasoning, and the possibility that Mohammad was another Joseph Smith, David Koresh, etc.


Posted By: Damo808
Date Posted: 05 September 2011 at 12:38pm
Originally posted by talib84

Basically, our link between us and Mohammad (p) is still there. The link between us and Jesus (p) was changed by the many, many early Christian groups that sprung into existence when he ascended into heaven, and most notably by the RCC who invented this doctrine that Jesus (p) himself was God.
 
 
 And you know this as fact... or is this what you "feel" again ? Just to clarify.


-------------
I will walk among you, and will be your God, and you shall be my people.
Leviticus 26:12


Posted By: talib84
Date Posted: 05 September 2011 at 1:07pm
If you have to really ask me this then maybe this discussion is a bit too deep to participate in. cheers!

-------------
"To be sure, Jesus will come and will restore all things. But I tell you, Jesus has already come, and they did not recognize him, but have done to him everything they wished."


Posted By: talib84
Date Posted: 05 September 2011 at 1:14pm
MC,

The Quran itself contains information in it that could not come from a man in Mohamad's (p) time or circumstance...this rules out Mohamad as the author. Unless, of course, he was psychic and used his powers for evil by uniting mankind under a single religion.

-------------
"To be sure, Jesus will come and will restore all things. But I tell you, Jesus has already come, and they did not recognize him, but have done to him everything they wished."


Posted By: talib84
Date Posted: 05 September 2011 at 1:15pm
The latter is also a possibility mind you.

-------------
"To be sure, Jesus will come and will restore all things. But I tell you, Jesus has already come, and they did not recognize him, but have done to him everything they wished."


Posted By: Damo808
Date Posted: 05 September 2011 at 1:38pm
Something i said... i thought it was a valid enough question to ask when you state in the context at the top of the paragraph "Its a fact that" .....
 
I'm just wondering when from what followed it siezed becoming fact and became just what you feel ? As you pointed out to MC earlier... Because if its what you FEEL i'm fine with that  but if your saying such stuff as factual and do not come forward and produce at least some key evidence of  anything, such as, who were responsible ?  or a year perhaps ? a timeframe even of a decade ?  , was it an individual or a group ? What is it you feel ??? You can't say for certain anything about Paul because you think it may have been Catholic invention , or was it St Paul that doomed the Church of Rome initially... in the beginning just make up your mind about what you feel at least...


-------------
I will walk among you, and will be your God, and you shall be my people.
Leviticus 26:12


Posted By: talib84
Date Posted: 05 September 2011 at 3:34pm
Damo, based on previous conversations I've had with you, I know that you're not ignorant to how the Bible was compiled. Now, whether you want to have a Catholic twist to this history, that's a different story. But you should at least admit that the Bible we have today is thanks to the RCC and the council of Nicaea. So there's just as much possibility of the RCC corrupting the original teachings as there is for Paul making up his own religion and telling people they'll never be saved unless they follow it.

And if history is not enough evidence for you, then you're right, it's not fact. The same way a Christian argued with me that it's not "fact" that the earth is older than 7,000 years.

Also, it's very interesting that churches differ incredibly by what's canonized and what's not. From the Ethiopians to the Eastern Syrian Orthodox...you guys all have different ways of determining what's from God and what's not. In the end, all these churches are determining the beliefs to be held by their religion by selecting scriptures that likely reinforce their own beliefs.

Hey, it happens to some extent in the Muslim world as well...and that's fact. I've seen Muslims use the Gospel of Barnabas as proof that Mohammad (p) was the prophet...but you probably already know the fault behind that. Yet it's precisely the same thing I believe is happening in all religions, yours being at the top of my suspects list.

-------------
"To be sure, Jesus will come and will restore all things. But I tell you, Jesus has already come, and they did not recognize him, but have done to him everything they wished."


Posted By: talib84
Date Posted: 05 September 2011 at 3:47pm
Originally posted by Seeking

†I have also wondered the same thing, MC.The circular reasoning, and the possibility that Mohammad was another Joseph Smith, David Koresh, etc.


David Koresh? maybe Smith, but Koresh sounds a bit far off.

The BOM originally taught the trinity. After a short time of its initial publication, the BOM was "revised" or "edited" to show the church's new belief that the trinity was not the same person but three separate gods.

The BOM itself includes references to horses and certain technologies in ancient America, something that a non-prophet could've believed with a 19th century education. It's also very interesting that the literary style doesn't seem to change much when the book was supposedly written by a number of different writers.

For me, these are easy signs that a human mind was responsible for the BOM and no god or demon or extraterrestrial. The amazing prophecies supposedly made in the D&C refer to current events...I wouldn't be that impressed that in early 2003 there were a number of people who predicted we would invade Iraq and win. See my point?

The Quran is much different. It's a book worth reading and studying. I myself used to go through atheist and Christian websites seeing if their claims of the religion being false could be verified, and much of the time, the only claims I've seen are from one of two perspectives: 1) ignorance or 2) outright lies.

And as I mentioned above...the Quran contains statements that are so plain and simple yet could not have been known by the ancients. Though I admit there's never any proof for any claim that's made, I think it's fair to say that this is pretty hard evidence that a book is really from a superior life form, a superior intelligence. So if a book that can show evidence that it is from an author with a superior knowledge than the only other person who could've wrote it, I'd take its testimony about Mohammad (p).

-------------
"To be sure, Jesus will come and will restore all things. But I tell you, Jesus has already come, and they did not recognize him, but have done to him everything they wished."


Posted By: Damo808
Date Posted: 05 September 2011 at 5:53pm
Damo, based on previous conversations I've had with you, I know that you're not ignorant to how the Bible was compiled. Now, whether you want to have a Catholic twist to this history, that's a different story.
 
  Catholic twist to this history ?  I've said nothing from a Catholic perspective, but at least if i did , i would draw on evidence of some sort. You are the one here who's presenting a biased at best view of Christian heritage as fact, at worst showing a complete ignorance of you own bigotry by not supporting such a view of history and making unsupported accusations.
 
But you should at least admit that the Bible we have today is thanks to the RCC and the council of Nicaea. So there's just as much possibility of the RCC corrupting the original teachings as there is for Paul making up his own religion and telling people they'll never be saved unless they follow it.
 
 And there is the possibility also that neither true scenarios are true and that the Bible is infact uncorrupted and Paul also was bonifide.

And if history is not enough evidence for you, then you're right, it's not fact.
 
  History has certainly played no part in substantiating any of your claims here, for if they had you'be be listing them.
 
 
 The same way a Christian argued with me that it's not "fact" that the earth is older than 7,000 years.
 Whats that guy gotta do with me or this diologue...? must i add what i've argued with other Muslims about to justify my POV also?
 

Also, it's very interesting that churches differ incredibly by what's canonized and what's not. From the Ethiopians to the Eastern Syrian Orthodox...you guys all have different ways of determining what's from God and what's not. In the end, all these churches are determining the beliefs to be held by their religion by selecting scriptures that likely reinforce their own beliefs.
 
 Seriously... ?? Tell me what differentiates between the Eastern Orthodox, And Roman Catholic interpretation of the Trinity for example, and if Paul was genuine of false ?  I assume it has something to do with the debate here since you raised it ?  

Hey, it happens to some extent in the Muslim world as well...and that's fact. I've seen Muslims use the Gospel of Barnabas as proof that Mohammad (p) was the prophet...but you probably already know the fault behind that. Yet it's precisely the same thing I believe is happening in all religions, yours being at the top of my suspects list.
 
 Because some Muslims became caught up in a fraudulent text is nothing to do with the RCC which never accepted it anyway, a  fake is a fake. This does not give ANY credence to your claim against the Gospels of the NT Talib just as if some transcipt were found tomorrow claiming to be of Islamic origin but was deemed a latter dated fake... this would not implicate the Quran as being a forgery. So your argument is pretty much a strawman in that sense.


-------------
I will walk among you, and will be your God, and you shall be my people.
Leviticus 26:12


Posted By: Seeking
Date Posted: 05 September 2011 at 6:30pm
Originally posted by talib84




And as I mentioned above...the Quran contains statements that are so plain and simple yet could not have been known by the ancients. Though I admit there's never any proof for any claim that's made, I think it's fair to say that this is pretty hard evidence that a book is really from a superior life form, a superior intelligence.


I've read the Quran and never been struck by any comments such as you mention.  But I appreciate that you think you found some, and although they don't provide "proof", they provide "hard evidence" to validate the book and Mohammad.

Originally posted by talib84

MC,

The Quran itself contains information in it that could not come from a man in Mohamad's (p) time or circumstance...this rules out Mohamad as the author. Unless, of course, he was psychic and used his powers for evil by uniting mankind under a single religion.


I've read those arguments, and don't find them convincing, all due respect.  And "used his powers for evil by uniting mankind under a single religion" is rhetoric.


Posted By: talib84
Date Posted: 05 September 2011 at 10:15pm
That's perfectly fine, Searching. The Quran also makes reference to those that even if you brought them down evidence from heaven, they still wouldn't believe.

To be honest, when someone is determined not to believe, I don't think any amount of evidence can make them believe. And if something is beneficial, it becomes easier to believe in.

Either way, evidence is there whether or not people want to accept. A Muslim's duty is to do nothing more than to relate the Quran to the non-Muslims and to invite them to the worship of the One True God. If you reject, then the Muslims are not guardians over you.

And I'm not sure if it's a good thing or bad thing what you said last. But it does sound silly when we think that Mohammad (p) was this psychic who manipulated the Arab tribes into making peace, telling people to love one another, etc. all in the name of God. He did it all for free! :-)


-------------
"To be sure, Jesus will come and will restore all things. But I tell you, Jesus has already come, and they did not recognize him, but have done to him everything they wished."


Posted By: Damo808
Date Posted: 06 September 2011 at 4:02am
 The Quran also makes reference to those that even if you brought them down evidence from heaven, they still wouldn't believe.
 
 Perhaps that might be true... But for non-Muslims like myself, i don't see any evidence from Heaven.
 
 
To be honest, when someone is determined not to believe, I don't think any amount of evidence can make them believe. And if something is beneficial, it becomes easier to believe in.

Either way, evidence is there whether or not people want to accept. A Muslim's duty is to do nothing more than to relate the Quran to the non-Muslims and to invite them to the worship of the One True God. If you reject, then the Muslims are not guardians over you.
 
 Guardians or Rulers ?

And I'm not sure if it's a good thing or bad thing what you said last. But it does sound silly when we think that Mohammad (p) was this psychic who manipulated the Arab tribes into making peace, telling people to love one another, etc. all in the name of God. He did it all for free! :-).
 
 Again, others have their own beliefs about this version of History as you do the History of the RCC's involvement with Scripture.
 
 
 


-------------
I will walk among you, and will be your God, and you shall be my people.
Leviticus 26:12


Posted By: Mad Cat
Date Posted: 06 September 2011 at 8:38am
Originally posted by talib84

MC,

The Quran itself contains information in it that could not come from a man in Mohamad's (p) time or circumstance...this rules out Mohamad as the author. Unless, of course, he was psychic and used his powers for evil by uniting mankind under a single religion.

I would love to see a thread opened on this subject.

Personally all the evidence I have seen in the Quran points to a human author.

But I don't want to steer this thread away from the original question.




-------------
Test everything. Hold on to the good. 1 Thessalonians 5:21


Posted By: waheed1
Date Posted: 06 September 2011 at 8:56am

If the essential points of practice and principle are not lost even in time, why the need to send further prophets?

If these points and principles are insufficient and further prophets are required, then why protect the points and principles at all?

One of many things that I cannot get my head round with this idea that Paul corrupted Jesus' teaching concept is that you are left with a bumbling, incompetent God. He goes to the effort of sending Jesus to guide men only to allow Paul to come along a few years later to undo all the good work. Since Paul's 'corruption' has lasted 2000 years over Jesus' 10ish years that makes Paul rather more successful than God, according to this theory.


Forgive the late reply. The last week of Ramadan and the Eid holiday is particularly busy for us, this is the first time I have been on forum in a couple of weeks. To answer your questions above, [a] Islam teaches that God has sent forth prophets, messengers, to all peoples at one point or another. The teachings given by these messengers can all be said to have similar points. Indeed, the Shema ["Here this O Israel, The Lord your God is One God."] is upheld by Jesus [whom the Bible says he says was "the greatest commandment of all"], and is obviously taught by Muhammad as well, although we use the Arabic word Tauheed.


Muslims believe that Muhammad was different, in that he was sent for all mankind, and not just a particular nation.


As far as the questions regarding Paul, as stated before, those thoughts that Muslims [and others] state about him are more so related to historical interpretation. Moreover, even if someone else wants to distort the teachings of a Divine teacher for whatever reason, we do believe that God is the one in charge, that God does show humans, in his own time [and not our time frame] his true guidance. Even functions of evil and misguidance in the world can have some plan or wisdom behind it, as God is the one who allows it to exist and can eliminate it at any given moment.



-------------
http://arifinimports.com - Lectures and books
http://shamsuddinwaheed.blogspot.com - My Blog

<a href="">


Posted By: waheed1
Date Posted: 06 September 2011 at 9:02am
Comparison to how authenticity of hadith is judged is probably valid.

Not all scholars say it is false.  I think most say it is an accurate account of what occurred, but it just wasn't in the earliest copies of St. John.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Jesus_and_the_woman_taken_in_adultery#Authorship

Bart Ehrman is no longer christian, last I heard.  His opinions should be weighed, but relying on him as a definitive authority is akin to quoting a Ahmadiyya source when discussing Islam.

http://www.colbertnation.com/the-colbert-report-videos/224128/april-09-2009/bart-ehrman


I understand the point, but would like to respond in the following manner.

[A] Ehrman is speaking from an Academic, rather than a religious, perspective.  Indeed, while the particular book we referenced earlier is seemingly for a wide audience, the same author has written a few more books on these subjects which appear to be geared towards the academic world. One such work is "Lost Christianities".  In any case, he has not been the only one to make the arguments we have shared.

The Ahmadiyyah have serious disagreements with mainstream Muslims, but they do all agree on the veracity of the Qur'an, Islam's scripture. IMO, the comparison to them is not apt.




-------------
http://arifinimports.com - Lectures and books
http://shamsuddinwaheed.blogspot.com - My Blog

<a href="">


Posted By: Mad Cat
Date Posted: 06 September 2011 at 10:36am

Originally posted by waheed1

To answer your questions above, [a] Islam teaches that God has sent forth prophets, messengers, to all peoples at one point or another.

I discussed this a few years ago and asked for any non-Biblical evidence for this, I.e. apart from prophets and messengers mentioned in the Bible. I think the best people could find was vague references to Zoroaster. IMO if your above statement were true we should find masses of evidence of something similar to the OT among every people group on earth. Yet we find virtually nothing.

This means that the Muslims who hold to this belief have to conclude that there was something very special about the Jewish people in particular. Not that they were the best of a bad bunch, or they did better than most but they out-religioned all other peoples of the earth by so vast an amount that all other peoples donít even make it onto the comparison chart.

Simply put, I don't see any evidence for this theory for which we should be able to fill libraries to over-flowing, if it were true.

Originally posted by waheed1

The teachings given by these messengers can all be said to have similar points. Indeed, the Shema ["Here this O Israel, The Lord your God is One God."] is upheld by Jesus [whom the Bible says he says was "the greatest commandment of all"], and is obviously taught by Muhammad as well, although we use the Arabic word Tauheed.

Again I have discussed this point before and found it to be a miss quoting and misunderstanding.

IMO Jesus is not teaching 'one God' here at all. Firstly He is quoting from scripture. Secondly Jesus is responding to the question 'what is the greatest commandment'. Jesus' reply is to Love the LORD your God with all your heart and with all your soul and with all your strength. So it is this part of what Jesus said, (the part you missed out above) that was in fact the answer to the greatest/most important commandment. The part about God being 'one' was a given. In other words Jesus did not have to teach this because everyone already believed this. To teach this would literally be preaching to the converted.

Originally posted by waheed1

Muslims believe that Muhammad was different, in that he was sent for all mankind, and not just a particular nation.

This in my mind leads to the obvious question 'why did God not just send one prophet to all mankind at the beginning (Abraham perhaps) and protect that book from corruption back then?



-------------
Test everything. Hold on to the good. 1 Thessalonians 5:21


Posted By: talib84
Date Posted: 06 September 2011 at 12:13pm
Originally posted by Mad Cat


I discussed this a few years ago and asked for any non-Biblical evidence for this, I.e. apart from prophets and messengers mentioned in the Bible. I think the best people could find was vague references to Zoroaster. IMO if your above statement were true we should find masses of evidence of something similar to the OT among every people group on earth. Yet we find virtually nothing.


This isn't true, actually. The reason why the OT came from the Israelites is because of their response to God's message. The Quran came from among the Arabs because of the Arabs' response to it. In the Quran itself, there are stories of other prophets who were sent to other tribes and those tribes were destroyed because they didn't listen.

Not to mention, most religions in my opinion are indeed monotheistic to some extent. A good portion of non-Abrahamic religions assert that there is a central, all-powerful god above all the other gods. My friend, a Brahmin (Hindu, they don't eat meat or drink alcohol), told me that Hinduism itself is a religion where one God is served but because so many tribes had their own interpretations of that same god, it seems to us Westerners (Muslims included) that they worship many gods. I believe it would be the same as though other religions not exposed to Christianity could probably mistaken the saints for gods and the trinity as a union of 3 gods.

Ultimately, a prophet being sent to a nation does not equate to the presence of a holy scripture as significant as the Quran or the Torah.


-------------
"To be sure, Jesus will come and will restore all things. But I tell you, Jesus has already come, and they did not recognize him, but have done to him everything they wished."


Posted By: waheed1
Date Posted: 06 September 2011 at 12:14pm
I discussed this a few years ago and asked for any non-Biblical evidence for this, I.e. apart from prophets and messengers mentioned in the Bible. I think the best people could find was vague references to Zoroaster. IMO if your above statement were true we should find masses of evidence of something similar to the OT among every people group on earth. Yet we find virtually nothing.
This means that the Muslims who hold to this belief have to conclude that there was something very special about the Jewish people in particular. Not that they were the best of a bad bunch, or they did better than most but they out-religioned all other peoples of the earth by so vast an amount that all other peoples donít even make it onto the comparison chart.
Simply put, I don't see any evidence for this theory for which we should be able to fill libraries to over-flowing, if it were true.


The entire history of mankind, even from a secular viewpoint, is full of religion, tradition, ritual and belief. Indeed, one can look at what we call today Hinduism, writers from the Hindu tradition [well, many of them anyways] will say that their religious texts proclaim God as One. Zoroaster proclaimed the same.

Islam says that all peoples received such guides at one point, even if, through the passage of time, such persons and messages have become forgotten to history.

-------------
http://arifinimports.com - Lectures and books
http://shamsuddinwaheed.blogspot.com - My Blog

<a href="">


Posted By: waheed1
Date Posted: 06 September 2011 at 12:18pm
Again I have discussed this point before and found it to be a miss quoting and misunderstanding.
IMO Jesus is not teaching 'one God' here at all. Firstly He is quoting from scripture. Secondly Jesus is responding to the question 'what is the greatest commandment'. Jesus' reply is to Love the LORD your God with all your heart and with all your soul and with all your strength. So it is this part of what Jesus said, (the part you missed out above) that was in fact the answer to the greatest/most important commandment. The part about God being 'one' was a given. In other words Jesus did not have to teach this because everyone already believed this. To teach this would literally be preaching to the converted.


There are various implications behind the teaching that God is one, alone, in deserving worship. Here's an example, admittedly from a Quranic perspective, but nonetheless relevant to the presentation of monotheism by Jesus as well.
http://shamsuddinwaheed.blogspot.com/2008/10/only-one-god-forgotten-aspects-of.html - http://shamsuddinwaheed.blogspot.com/2008/10/only-one-god-forgotten-aspects-of.html
also check out http://shamsuddinwaheed.blogspot.com/2008/01/tauheed-understanding-divine-monotheism.html - http://shamsuddinwaheed.blogspot.com/2008/01/tauheed-understanding-divine-monotheism.html

-------------
http://arifinimports.com - Lectures and books
http://shamsuddinwaheed.blogspot.com - My Blog

<a href="">


Posted By: Mad Cat
Date Posted: 06 September 2011 at 6:43pm

Originally posted by talib84

Ultimately, a prophet being sent to a nation does not equate to the presence of a holy scripture as significant as the Quran or the Torah.

My point was that while we have a wealth of detailed historical records for Judaism in respect of the One God sending prophets to a people group, including names, dates, sayings, doings, etc, etc, etc, we have virtually nothing even mildly resembling this for or from any other people group. Historically it is as though this theory is not true.

As for Hinduism, I cannot find any real similarity with what we find in either Judaism or Islam. I don't think the one God point is enough to add any weight to this argument especially since the Hindu concept of God and the resulting religion is so vastly different in every way.

This is taken from the BBC website on Hinduism about Brahman which I thought might be interesting since you mentioned it:

Brahman is a Sanskrit word which refers to a transcendent power beyond the universe. As such, it is sometimes translated as 'God' although the two concepts are not identical. Brahman is the power which upholds and supports everything. According to some Hindus this power is identified with the self (atman) while others regard it as distinct from the self.

Most Hindus agree that Brahman pervades everything although they do not worship Brahman. Some Hindus regard a particular deity or deities as manifestations of Brahman.

This is so different to the Abrahamic God as to be unrecognisable. Also from the BBC is one of two short sentences giving a brief overview of Hinduism:

Unlike most other religions, Hinduism has no single founder, no single scripture, and no commonly agreed set of teachings.



-------------
Test everything. Hold on to the good. 1 Thessalonians 5:21


Posted By: Mad Cat
Date Posted: 06 September 2011 at 6:45pm

Originally posted by waheed

The entire history of mankind, even from a secular viewpoint, is full of religion, tradition, ritual and belief. Indeed, one can look at what we call today Hinduism, writers from the Hindu tradition [well, many of them anyways] will say that their religious texts proclaim God as One. Zoroaster proclaimed the same.

Islam says that all peoples received such guides at one point, even if, through the passage of time, such persons and messages have become forgotten to history.

I agree that there are many religions out there but that does not add weight to the theory that the one God sent messengers to every nation. A quick glance at any of them should show you this. My point was that if this were true, we should find similar amounts of evidence that we find with the Jewish people in all other people groups round the world. Since there are so many peoples, it is more than reasonable that we should find mountains of this evidence throughout the world. Yet we find almost none. Now that should strike you as strange unless you think the Jews were special in some way.

I think it is unreasonable to think that every people group managed to eliminate every scrap of evidence of every prophet except for the Jews and Christians who managed to preserve an abundance.



-------------
Test everything. Hold on to the good. 1 Thessalonians 5:21


Posted By: Mad Cat
Date Posted: 06 September 2011 at 6:46pm

This question was not addressed.

Originally posted by Mad Cat

Why did God not just send one prophet to all mankind at the beginning (Abraham perhaps) and protect that book from corruption back then?

Also what was wrong with the original prophet sent to the Arab people? Why did Allah do things differently with Muhammad as with his predecessor?



-------------
Test everything. Hold on to the good. 1 Thessalonians 5:21


Posted By: talib84
Date Posted: 06 September 2011 at 7:00pm
Originally posted by Mad Cat

Originally posted by talib84

Ultimately, a prophet being sent to a nation does not equate to the presence of a holy scripture as significant as the Quran or the Torah.

My point was that while we have a wealth of detailed historical records for Judaism in respect of the One God sending prophets to a people group, including names, dates, sayings, doings, etc, etc, etc, we have virtually nothing even mildly resembling this for or from any other people group. Historically it is as though this theory is not true.

As for Hinduism, I cannot find any real similarity with what we find in either Judaism or Islam. I don't think the one God point is enough to add any weight to this argument especially since the Hindu concept of God and the resulting religion is so vastly different in every way.

This is taken from the BBC website on Hinduism about Brahman which I thought might be interesting since you mentioned it:

Brahman is a Sanskrit word which refers to a transcendent power beyond the universe. As such, it is sometimes translated as 'God' although the two concepts are not identical. Brahman is the power which upholds and supports everything. According to some Hindus this power is identified with the self (atman) while others regard it as distinct from the self.

Most Hindus agree that Brahman pervades everything although they do not worship Brahman. Some Hindus regard a particular deity or deities as manifestations of Brahman.

This is so different to the Abrahamic God as to be unrecognisable. Also from the BBC is one of two short sentences giving a brief overview of Hinduism:

Unlike most other religions, Hinduism has no single founder, no single scripture, and no commonly agreed set of teachings.



Mad Cat, I get what you're trying to say, but as I mentioned before, it all depends on the reaction of the nation involved. The Israelites and Arabs were much more receptive of their prophets than the rest of the world. It only makes sense that we would find minimal traces of these prophets.

Only in today's day and time with the help of technology and excellent record-keeping practices are we able to record the name of most leaders of most cults regardless of how tiny and uneventful they are.

I sometimes imagine these prophets to be either followed by a very small number of followers (not enough to even be remembered but who may have left traces of their religion in the culture) or as those preachers you see on street corners in big cities talking about the end of the world or how God spoke to them. They come a dime a dozen. We never take heed of any of their warnings because once you know one, you know them all, and we've prematurely judged them as false prophets or as loonies.

And Hindus regard a particular deity as a manifestation of Brahman, nu? Isn't Jesus (p), according to Christians, a manifestation of God the Father? Yet Christianity remains labeled as a monotheistic religion despite its polytheistic qualities.

Can't we see the similarities between the RCC and pagan religions? I think that we've associated Catholicism too much with monotheism that we're not taking the religion at face value. The RCC has both Roman polytheistic roots as well as Jewish monotheistic roots. Hinduism and a wide range of other so-called polytheistic religions also seem to have both polytheistic and monotheistic roots. We can't brush these facts off for the sake of keeping their current labels.


-------------
"To be sure, Jesus will come and will restore all things. But I tell you, Jesus has already come, and they did not recognize him, but have done to him everything they wished."


Posted By: waheed1
Date Posted: 07 September 2011 at 8:04am
I agree that there are many religions out there but that does not add weight to the theory that the one God sent messengers to every nation. A quick glance at any of them should show you this. My point was that if this were true, we should find similar amounts of evidence that we find with the Jewish people in all other people groups round the world. Since there are so many peoples, it is more than reasonable that we should find mountains of this evidence throughout the world. Yet we find almost none. Now that should strike you as strange unless you think the Jews were special in some way.
I think it is unreasonable to think that every people group managed to eliminate every scrap of evidence of every prophet except for the Jews and Christians who managed to preserve an abundance.


I am surprised that you would say such a thing. So, let me ask, do you believe that God sent prophets and scripture to the Jewish people only?

-------------
http://arifinimports.com - Lectures and books
http://shamsuddinwaheed.blogspot.com - My Blog

<a href="">


Posted By: waheed1
Date Posted: 07 September 2011 at 8:06am
Also what was wrong with the original prophet sent to the Arab people? Why did Allah do things differently with Muhammad as with his predecessor?


For many reasons, Muhammad was sent. One of those reasons is [a] the fulfillment of prophecy.

-------------
http://arifinimports.com - Lectures and books
http://shamsuddinwaheed.blogspot.com - My Blog

<a href="">


Posted By: Mad Cat
Date Posted: 07 September 2011 at 9:29am

Originally posted by Talib

Mad Cat, I get what you're trying to say, but as I mentioned before, it all depends on the reaction of the nation involved. The Israelites and Arabs were much more receptive of their prophets than the rest of the world. It only makes sense that we would find minimal traces of these prophets.

I disagree here. I think we would find the evidence we see with the Israelites at one end of the spectrum and nothing at the opposite end but also we should find every shade in-between. Some whose reaction was very close to the Israelites and some whose reaction was not. Some peoples would completely reject it and some would largely accept it and every shade between the two.

The fact that we have so much evidence from the Israelites and virtually none anywhere else suggests very strongly that God only sent prophets to the Israelites.

If the Israelites managed to do what they did then it is reasonable to expect the same from other peoples.

Originally posted by Talib

I sometimes imagine these prophets to be either followed by a very small number of followers (not enough to even be remembered but who may have left traces of their religion in the culture) or as those preachers you see on street corners in big cities talking about the end of the world or how God spoke to them. They come a dime a dozen. We never take heed of any of their warnings because once you know one, you know them all, and we've prematurely judged them as false prophets or as loonies.

I think it is fair to assume that what God did with the Israelites (undeniable miracles) would be similar to what He would do with all these other peoples. This should negate the idea that some of these prophets had very few followers. Unless, as I said earlier, you agree that the Israelites were very special.

Originally posted by Talib

And Hindus regard a particular deity as a manifestation of Brahman, nu? Isn't Jesus (p), according to Christians, a manifestation of God the Father? Yet Christianity remains labeled as a monotheistic religion despite its polytheistic qualities.

I see your point here although I disagree with the term 'polytheistic qualities', but you donít have to look far into Hinduism to see how vastly different a religion it is in every way. Unrecognisable to the extent that to use it as an example of Allah sending prophets with the same message as Muhammad, seems somewhat desperate.

Lets say for the sake of argument that Zoroaster does qualify, we still havenít moved out of the realms of pure change considering all the religions out there. What I mean is that with so many religions, we should expect by chance to find more than one that has similarities to Abrahamic faiths.

Add to all this the fact that the Quran only (99%) references Israelite prophets of the past, almost as if there were no other prophets to other peoples.



-------------
Test everything. Hold on to the good. 1 Thessalonians 5:21


Posted By: Damo808
Date Posted: 07 September 2011 at 9:54am
http://www.whyislam.org/forum/forum_posts.asp?TID=24352&KW=misquoting&PID=519424#519424 -
 
 
 Misquoting Truth.  Its worthwhile hearing Bart D Erhman, as understood  by Timothy Paul Jones. Also answers much of whats questioned here. Its copywrited so i can't just lift an excerpt:  But available here
 
  http://books.google.com/books?id=gVTGketAE7kC&printsec=frontcover&dq=misquoting+truth - http://books.google.com/books?id=gVTGketAE7kC&printsec=frontcover&dq=misquoting+truth #
 
 
 
 
 


-------------
I will walk among you, and will be your God, and you shall be my people.
Leviticus 26:12


Posted By: Mad Cat
Date Posted: 07 September 2011 at 9:55am

Originally posted by Waheed

I am surprised that you would say such a thing. So, let me ask, do you believe that God sent prophets and scripture to the Jewish people only?

I am simply asking you to bring forward the evidence since this is an Islamic theory. I think if what the Quran says were true, there would be mountains of evidence to back it up and we wouldn't be having this discussion.

IMO the lack of evidence from all the peoples of the earth suggests this theory is not true.

The evidence we have from the Israelites suggests the Israelites have a case.

Also the Quran talks of 'a' warner/prophet/messenger sent to all peoples but the Israelites recieved a huge number! Again, are they special?

Originally posted by Waheed

For many reasons, Muhammad was sent.

I would like to hear them.

Originally posted by Waheed

One of those reasons is [a] the fulfillment of prophecy.

This doesnít make sense. If Allah did with Muhammad's predecessor what he supposedly did with Muhammad then there would be no prophecy or need of one.



-------------
Test everything. Hold on to the good. 1 Thessalonians 5:21


Posted By: Damo808
Date Posted: 07 September 2011 at 10:41am

edited



-------------
I will walk among you, and will be your God, and you shall be my people.
Leviticus 26:12


Posted By: waheed1
Date Posted: 07 September 2011 at 4:05pm

I am simply asking you to bring forward the evidence since this is an Islamic theory. I think if what the Quran says were true, there would be mountains of evidence to back it up and we wouldn't be having this discussion.

IMO the lack of evidence from all the peoples of the earth suggests this theory is not true.

The evidence we have from the Israelites suggests the Israelites have a case.

Also the Quran talks of 'a' warner/prophet/messenger sent to all peoples but the Israelites recieved a huge number! Again, are they special?


IMO, the evidence is abundant throughout history. But here's a quote from a writer, a seemingly devoted Christian [penning one such title as How Christianity led to freedom],

But even though innovations are scattered across time and space, their new formulations are  remarkably similar, especially when comparisons are made across cultures at comparable levels of development. Perhaps new religious cultures tend to be similar because each innovator is responding to the universal human predicament. Or, perhaps, they are similar because each is responding to a revelation from the same divine source.


[Discovering God, the origins of the great religions and the evolution of belief by Rodney Stark, pg 44, Harper Collins, 2007 edition]

It's noteworthy that this writer appears to be a Christian, a professor, and, from what I read, not all that loving towards Islam.

If the above is not satisfactory, think of the presence of similar morals and ethics [not to mention beliefs in the Divine, and invoking the Divine via deeds, prayers etc..] that are present in just about [nay, all] societies, in one sense or another.

Were the Israelites special?

The Qur'an does answer that question, it says, to paraphrase, that God repeatedly sent them Prophets, guides, as well as leaders [A'immah  or Imams in Arabic]. The Bible has something similar, in that it proclaims that the Israelites were to be "a nation of priests".

It's a blessing to receive such teachers and guides from God. That does not, at least in our understanding, mean that the nation is "superior" to others. It simply means that God gave them what they needed.


-------------
http://arifinimports.com - Lectures and books
http://shamsuddinwaheed.blogspot.com - My Blog

<a href="">


Posted By: waheed1
Date Posted: 07 September 2011 at 4:10pm
This doesnít make sense. If Allah did with Muhammad's predecessor what he supposedly did with Muhammad then there would be no prophecy or need of one.


Didn't see this earlier. The prophethood in human history is best compared to a chain, linking up to the earlier and later loops. Indeed, the Bible asserts that John the Baptist was the forerunner to Jesus, even predicting his [Jesus'] coming. The Qur'an follows the same sort of teaching, but it says that the last link in that chain was Muhammad himself, and the textual part of that chain that forms the last link was the Qur'an revealed to him.

I'm sure you have read Muslim claims by now, so I won't go into too much detail, but we believe that Jesus predicted the coming of Muhammad as well. As the one who would teach "all truth". I know you would disagree with this claim, but nonetheless I share it to explain the Islamic viewpoint.

I hope this- in short form, answers your questions as to why Muhammad was sent.


-------------
http://arifinimports.com - Lectures and books
http://shamsuddinwaheed.blogspot.com - My Blog

<a href="">


Posted By: Traveller
Date Posted: 08 September 2011 at 8:04am
Originally posted by Mad Cat

I am simply asking you to bring forward the evidence since this is an Islamic theory. I think if what the Quran says were true, there would be mountains of evidence to back it up and we wouldn't be having this discussion.

IMO the lack of evidence from all the peoples of the earth suggests this theory is not true.

There are familiar verses found in the Zorastrian text, familiar to the Quran, just like there are familiar verses between the Quran and the OT.
If I'm not mistaken, Zorastrian doesn't have jewish origins.
 
 
 


-------------
In life, be like a traveller. Take only what you need


Posted By: Mad Cat
Date Posted: 08 September 2011 at 8:21am

Originally posted by Waheed

IMO, the evidence is abundant throughout history. But here's a quote from a writer, a seemingly devoted Christian [penning one such title as How Christianity led to freedom],

But Ö

This is not what I was looking for really. I was hoping to see actual evidence similar to what the Israelites have. This quote seems to be the musing of an individual whose understanding is not at odds with Christianity.

You talked about an abundance of evidence but presented one man's thoughts.

Originally posted by Waheed

The Qur'an does answer that question, it says, to paraphrase, that God repeatedly sent them Prophets, guides, as well as leaders [A'immah  or Imams in Arabic]. The Bible has something similar, in that it proclaims that the Israelites were to be "a nation of priests".
It's a blessing to receive such teachers and guides from God. That does not, at least in our understanding, mean that the nation is "superior" to others.

This said, how does your belief that the Israelites were special (not superior) work with what you believe about Allah seeming to make less effort with all the other people groups?

It seems to me that by this understanding, the more effort Allah puts in, the more he gets out. Therefore success is directly related to Allah's effort and so the other people groups cannot really be blamed for their rejection.

Originally posted by Waheed

It simply means that God gave them what they needed.

The evidence, or lack of it from everyone else, clearly shows that the other people groups needed what the Israelites received as much if not more. So this statement is not true.

Originally posted by Waheed

I hope this- in short form, answers your questions as to why Muhammad was sent.

I have heard this and discussed it before but it doesnít really answer the question. The question is about the many Prophets sent to every nation. Simply put, if Allah had 'sealed' the original message from the earlier prophets then there would be no need to send more prophets later.

It makes some sense to sent a Muhammad style figure 'one for all peoples' and protect this message OR to send lots of prophets continually to every nation. My problem comes when you combine the two.

IMO Muhammad heard about all the Jewish prophets and thought it only makes sense that God would do the same thing with every nation. This is why the Quran seems only to know about the Jewish prophets with very few exceptions.



-------------
Test everything. Hold on to the good. 1 Thessalonians 5:21


Posted By: Traveller
Date Posted: 08 September 2011 at 8:30am
@ Damo
 
We muslims believe God is just. I'm sure you believe that too.
 
The implication of a found-guilty Paul on Judgment Day would be serious, wouldn't it? That judgment on Paul is a supposition on my part.
 
 


-------------
In life, be like a traveller. Take only what you need


Posted By: waheed1
Date Posted: 08 September 2011 at 10:06am

This is not what I was looking for really. I was hoping to see actual evidence similar to what the Israelites have. This quote seems to be the musing of an individual whose understanding is not at odds with Christianity.

You talked about an abundance of evidence but presented one man's thoughts.


It sounds like you are asking me to present some historical account of each and every society on the earth! One could read the accounts associated with Krishna or Buddha in India, or that of Akharton, [ An Egyptian ruler who removed even the words in their language about differing gods, who was himself as worshiper of One God].

Muslims believe that God sent forth messengers to all peoples, now, some of those messages or even messengers may have had their story forgotten to history, or mixed up with legend, myth and false doctrine, but the simple fact that every people on this earth can narrate some religious history or doctrine that was particular to their circumstances is plenty of evidence. Indeed, the study of religion is an academic one, giant writers in this field being such people as Huston Smith, if it was something restricted to the Israelites alone, it would not be much of a field, now would it?


This said, how does your belief that the Israelites were special (not superior) work with what you believe about Allah seeming to make less effort with all the other people groups?

It seems to me that by this understanding, the more effort Allah puts in, the more he gets out. Therefore success is directly related to Allah's effort and so the other people groups cannot really be blamed for their rejection.

We all have needs, but one person's needs may be different from someone else's. I may need $50,000, while you may need only $5.00. God, in looking out for the needs and guidance of various peoples, at least in our understanding of things, sent forth those guides, speaking in their local languages and addressing their local issues.


If, for example, I am in a village that is about to be destroyed by an earthquake, I have that information, and tell the people to evacuate, that was my job! Not to go tell some other people that.


So, the job of some of the messengers were bigger than others. The Mayor is not equal to the President. The latter has more authority, although both have important roles.


The evidence, or lack of it from everyone else, clearly shows that the other people groups needed what the Israelites received as much if not more. So this statement is not true.


Again, the evidence is abundant, but clarify for us, what kind of evidence are you looking for?


I have heard this and discussed it before but it doesnít really answer the question. The question is about the many Prophets sent to every nation. Simply put, if Allah had 'sealed' the original message from the earlier prophets then there would be no need to send more prophets later.

It makes some sense to sent a Muhammad style figure 'one for all peoples' and protect this message OR to send lots of prophets continually to every nation. My problem comes when you combine the two.

IMO Muhammad heard about all the Jewish prophets and thought it only makes sense that God would do the same thing with every nation. This is why the Quran seems only to know about the Jewish prophets with very few exceptions.

Compare the Prophets of God to a corporation, a company. All the employees have varying roles, sometimes in charge of or working in specific [geographical] areas. They may have to give solutions/guidance unique to their area, but all work for the same goal, the same organization.


Muhammad- upon whom be peace, as well as  on all of the Prophet and messengers of God- was that last link, because to him was given a scripture that is suitable and understandable for all mankind. Sure, it has some contents [such as disallowing some Arab divorce method that was unjust to ladies] that have particular relevance to the Arab audience of those days, but as a general rule, all of what the Qur'an contains has relevance and application in any area, any context, any situation. We Muslims believe Jesus himself predicted this, when he speaks of, in the Gospel of St John, the Paraclete or Comforter, who will "Guide into all truth". 


The Jewish people are related to the Arabs. They are cousins, actually. They are interconnected in many levels, even in language. Yet, the Qur'an takes an approach quite different from the Jewish tradition, or perhaps I should say their way of looking at things. Repeatedly, the Bible has God described as "The Lord God of Israel" or "The god of Abraham, Issac and Jacob". An emphasis on tribe, on nationality and people. Yet, the Qur'an, in the very first chapter, that Muslims are to invoke God with on a daily basis, describes God by the words Rabb Al 'Aal ameen.  This phrase means "The One who cares for, nourishes, provides, raises to perfection, for the whole universe." None is left out!!


It never says that God is 'Lord of Arabs" or "God of Muslims". It's a universal message, sent to a man who happened to be an Arab, destined himself to serve as an universal messenger.


Sure, it [Qur'an] speaks about Moses, Jesus, David, Solomon, but it also speaks about persons such as Luqman, whom the scholars say was probably an Ethiopian! It tells us about the "Jewish Prophets", because that is one of its jobs, as the Qur'an says "Surely, this Qur'an does clarify for the children of Israel most of the issues in which they differ." [Q 27:76]




-------------
http://arifinimports.com - Lectures and books
http://shamsuddinwaheed.blogspot.com - My Blog

<a href="">


Posted By: waheed1
Date Posted: 08 September 2011 at 10:23am
Regarding the notion of God sending forth messengers and Prophets outside the Jewish dispensation..

[see from around the second minute till 9.40]

http://noorulislam.podomatic.com/player/web/2010-10-02T14_05_11-07_00 - http://noorulislam.podomatic.com/player/web/2010-10-02T14_05_11-07_00

Also worth seeing, in addressing the teaching that the Qur'an is for all mankind, is the lecture "Maqaam: the universal message of Muhammad", at the same website.


-------------
http://arifinimports.com - Lectures and books
http://shamsuddinwaheed.blogspot.com - My Blog

<a href="">


Posted By: Mad Cat
Date Posted: 08 September 2011 at 12:24pm

Originally posted by Waheed

It sounds like you are asking me to present some historical account of each and every society on the earth! One could read the accounts associated with Krishna or Buddha in India, or that of Akharton, [ An Egyptian ruler who removed even the words in their language about differing gods, who was himself as worshiper of One God].

It seemed reasonable to me that if this theory were true then we would have at least thousands of groups similar to the Israelites, today. We would then have archaeological evidence like the Dead Sea Scrolls throughout the world for each of these. I think the lack of anything like this suggests that this is not true.

I am not saying that there are not other religions out there or that none of these have some points in common. I am saying that I donít see much to suggest a God sent individual prophets 'Islam style' to every nation. The fact that the Quran only really mentions Israel's prophets adds weight to this understanding.

You might have to explain what you mean about Krishna and Buddha.

Originally posted by Waheed

We all have needs, but one person's needs may be different from someone else's.

I can accept this but by your reasoning Allah sent all those prophets to the Israelites because that is what there needs required, so far so good.

My problem comes when we see that all the other nations who Allah sent prophets (according to the Quran) failed to maintain his laws. Therefore there needs were either equal to the Israelites but were not met by Allah or greater and not met by Allah.

You cannot just say 'oh well, these other people must have rejected the prophets' because the Israelites, by their own admission, rejected God time after time after 1000 times but God kept sending more prophets.

Originally posted by Waheed

Again, the evidence is abundant, but clarify for us, what kind of evidence are you looking for?

Something like the Jews with their scriptures and the historical evidence that can be found with them but for all these peoples all over the world. Iím not saying every case should be the same as with the Jews but some should be similar and other less so. These should bare unmistakeable resemblance to Islam IMO and not just 'this' aspect is similar to 'that' aspect.

Originally posted by Waheed

Muhammad- upon whom be peace, as well as  on all of the Prophet and messengers of God- was that last link, because to him was given a scripture that is suitable and understandable for all mankind.

I understand your understanding of Muhammad but my questions were:

Why then bother with all the previous prophets?

Why not give the original prophet (I suggested Abraham) a 'scripture that is suitable and understandable for all mankind.' to quote you?

Originally posted by Waheed

Sure, it [Qur'an] speaks about Moses, Jesus, David, Solomon, but it also speaks about persons such as Luqman, whom the scholars say was probably an Ethiopian! It tells us about the "Jewish Prophets", because that is one of its jobs, as the Qur'an says "Surely, this Qur'an does clarify for the children of Israel most of the issues in which they differ." [Q 27:76]

It is fair enough that the Quran would mention previous prophets but my point is that the absolutely massive proportion of these are from the Bible. I found a list of prophets mentioned in the Quran and how many times they get a mention each. 24 prophets got a total of 495 mentions and only 27 mentions could be assigned to (potentially) non-Biblical characters. Luqman did not make the list of Prophets unless he went by another name.

Now if there were indeed prophets sent to every nation, the wealth of characters and stories that the Quran could choose from would be absolutely immense. Strangely though the Quran almost exclusivity (95% - 100% by mention alone) uses Biblical characters.

Strange!



-------------
Test everything. Hold on to the good. 1 Thessalonians 5:21


Posted By: Damo808
Date Posted: 08 September 2011 at 1:03pm
Thank you Madcat and Damo.
 
I'm questioning the elevated status of Paul to an Apostle. Have you ever wondered what would the victims of his previous doings have to say about that? That begs another question. Did they forgive him?
 
Serious implications arises from that last question if the answer is no.
 
 -Traveller
 
 Serious implications in what way..
 
 Paul ofcourse caused many people grevious pain thats true. But no-one is perfect before God. Do we suppose that all the prophets of God throughout the ages came across people who in their time went to their graves with forgiveness in their heart for such wrong doings caused by them in their ignorance or even in full knowlege of their wrongdoings ? Sin is sin, some sin ofcourse is more grevious then others but is imperfection all the same. Do we suppose that everyone who was an enemy of Islam went to their grave with forgiveness in their heart for Mohammud ?
 
 
Originally posted by Traveller

@ Damo
 
We muslims believe God is just. I'm sure you believe that too.
 
The implication of a found-guilty Paul on Judgment Day would be serious, wouldn't it? That judgment on Paul is a supposition on my part.
 
 
 
 
 Ofcourse, but speaking strictly as a Catholic here. I believe in the state of Purgatory, what process purgatory is however i cannot stipulate, other than to say it is a process of ones purification before entering into Paradise that few people can avoid. Further as i also said , by Paul  acting in ignorance as i believe, and in his heart  believed he was carrying out the law as he understood it and in God's service. Going against God's Will in full knowlege is a sin,  though when done in ignorance it is NOT a sin.  And as MC has already pointed out, Paul didn't actually kill anyone personally.
 
 As part of the Lords Prayer says :
 
"For if you will forgive men their offences, your heavenly Father will forgive you also your offences. http://www.drbo.org/x/d?b=drb&bk=47&ch=6&l=15#x - [15] But if you will not forgive men, neither will your Father forgive you your offences."
Mat 6:14
 
  I firmly believe that after death, one STILL has the ability to forgive... and most likely, due to the fact that after death and in our transformed state... we then appreciate what forgiveness truly is, and what fate one brings upon themselves if they themselves are guilty of having agrieved God and do not recieve Mercy .


-------------
I will walk among you, and will be your God, and you shall be my people.
Leviticus 26:12


Posted By: talib84
Date Posted: 08 September 2011 at 2:13pm
Mad Cat, I think your line of questioning stems from faulty expectations. Consider the battle against evolution. Some people might argue with an evolutionist that if the theory of evolution were true, then there should be more cases happening all around us or that every now and then a human should give birth to an ape-like creature, etc. People seem to have a propensity for making up their own concepts of evidence when it comes to something that threatens their beliefs and then trying to disprove the threatening theory by pointing to lack of evidence in the form of the concepts they themselves invented.

If different societies had OT-like remnants from some left over cult, so what? It wouldn't necessarily serve as evidence in support of Mohammad's (p) claim. Instead, people would likely be using the argument that Mohammad (p) capitalized on the common origins of different religions.

But most of all, it's important to note that simply because the Israelites, Arabs, and Persians left such strong remnants showing their historical monotheistic roots, this doesn't mean that this must be the case or that this is some law that history must observe or something. It makes no sense that unsuccessful prophets who were long forgotten and who were rejected way too early in their ministry to leave any significant remnants, especially since only a few select messengers were responsible for bringing a scripture rather than mere prophecies.


-------------
"To be sure, Jesus will come and will restore all things. But I tell you, Jesus has already come, and they did not recognize him, but have done to him everything they wished."


Posted By: Mad Cat
Date Posted: 08 September 2011 at 4:42pm

I will try to simplify my objections because they have got a bit lost.

There is the idea that Allah sent a large number of prophets to all nations. Watching Waheed's video reminded me that the official number is 144,000.

Why did Allah do this?

One answer is that different people have different needs and so need a prophet specific to their needs.

Then there is the Islamic idea is that Muhammad was one prophet for all people for all times.


Firstly, this first idea seems to fly in the face of the second and the explanation for the first seems to contradict the second. Do we need one/many prophets per nation or one for all? I donít see how you can have it both ways.


Secondly, my expectations for evidence of these 144,000 prophets stems from the example of the Israelites. Is it so strange to expect something else very similar from at least 1000 (less than 1% of Allah's efforts) of these other nations?


Thirdly, the Qur'an itself testifies very clearly in favour of the prophets sent to Israel but has virtually nothing to say about the other 143,979 prophets it could have mentioned.


If you put these three things together, I think you get a strong case for these many prophets never existing backed up by 1- consistency of reasoning, 2 Ė historical evidence (or lack of) and 3 Ė the Qur'an.



-------------
Test everything. Hold on to the good. 1 Thessalonians 5:21


Posted By: waheed1
Date Posted: 08 September 2011 at 10:28pm

It seemed reasonable to me that if this theory were true then we would have at least thousands of groups similar to the Israelites, today. We would then have archaeological evidence like the Dead Sea Scrolls throughout the world for each of these. I think the lack of anything like this suggests that this is not true.

I am not saying that there are not other religions out there or that none of these have some points in common. I am saying that I donít see much to suggest a God sent individual prophets 'Islam style' to every nation. The fact that the Quran only really mentions Israel's prophets adds weight to this understanding.

You might have to explain what you mean about Krishna and Buddha.

So, for you it seems that the presence of texts is necessary. But there are texts! The Hindu tradition has the Vedic literature, which can be broadly be compared to the Old and New Testaments respectively, as well as the Puranas, which is comparable to hadith/ tafsir for Muslims and the Tanakh for the Jews.


I don't know much about Zoroastrian, Buddhist traditions, but at least for the former, if not the latter, I am almost positive they have a text that forms a "scripture". 


My problem comes when we see that all the other nations who Allah sent prophets (according to the Quran) failed to maintain his laws. Therefore there needs were either equal to the Israelites but were not met by Allah or greater and not met by Allah.

Consider that some messengers were not sent to convey "laws", rather, they were sent to deliver specific warnings. Lot, for example, sent to warn Sodom and Gomorrah about their behavior. 


Something like the Jews with their scriptures and the historical evidence that can be found with them but for all these peoples all over the world. Iím not saying every case should be the same as with the Jews but some should be similar and other less so. These should bare unmistakeable resemblance to Islam IMO and not just 'this' aspect is similar to 'that' aspect.


"Islam" is a verbal noun meaning "submission" or surrender unto God. Just because Jesus, for example, did not say his prayers in Arabic language, that does not mean he was not teaching "Islam". The Qur'an teaches that "Islam" was completed, finished, in the time of the Prophet Muhammad, upon whom be peace.


Why then bother with all the previous prophets?

Why not give the original prophet (I suggested Abraham) a 'scripture that is suitable and understandable for all mankind.' to quote you


That is the will and plan of God. Indeed, even if we ignore the Qur'an, the Old Testament is especially full of accounts about Prophets other than Abraham. We simply assert that they were all drinking from the same fountain.


It is fair enough that the Quran would mention previous prophets but my point is that the absolutely massive proportion of these are from the Bible. I found a list of prophets mentioned in the Quran and how many times they get a mention each. 24 prophets got a total of 495 mentions and only 27 mentions could be assigned to (potentially) non-Biblical characters. Luqman did not make the list of Prophets unless he went by another name.

Now if there were indeed prophets sent to every nation, the wealth of characters and stories that the Quran could choose from would be absolutely immense. Strangely though the Quran almost exclusivity (95% - 100% by mention alone) uses Biblical characters.


Sure, Luqman is not a Prophet, but a "wise man" whose account is given. In a similar fashion, the Qur'an mentions stories associated with the same figures in the Bible, which the latter does not mention [Moses and Khidhr, for example, in Soorah 18].


The video mentions the exact place in the Qur'an where God tells Muhammad "some of their [i.e. prophets] account, God has narrated to you [in this revelation] and some of them, their story has not been given."

So, yes, if all the various prophets/messengers accounts were given, there would be no end of Qur'an.

The Qur'an contains only information that is relevant for our spiritual and worldly development. We can find information outside of the Qur'an, for sure, but God [in our belief, the source of The Qur'an] saw fit to put certain information therein. It's not a history book. It has other purposes.




-------------
http://arifinimports.com - Lectures and books
http://shamsuddinwaheed.blogspot.com - My Blog

<a href="">


Posted By: talib84
Date Posted: 09 September 2011 at 6:24pm
Originally posted by Mad Cat

I will try to simplify my objections because they have got a bit lost.

There is the idea that Allah sent a large number of prophets to all nations. Watching Waheed's video reminded me that the official number is 144,000.

No one knows the exact number. 144,000 is according to one narration from the Prophet (saws), but there are numbers too.

Why did Allah do this?

Because every nation is responsible toward Allah (swt).

One answer is that different people have different needs and so need a prophet specific to their needs.

This is true and would be my answer as well.

Then there is the Islamic idea is that Muhammad was one prophet for all people for all times.


The reason why this contradicts the first answer is because they are indeed contradictory. Yes, it is true that each tribe and nation had a different situation many thousands of years ago which required a different set of rules, to some extent, but it is also true that by the time Mohammad (p) came, the world was at a point where modernity was just around the corner. People realized the differences between civilizations. A person could pick up from one city or land and move to another. People educated themselves in philosophy, mathematics, and the sciences -- sometimes by translating the works from different civilizations and times. This was a time when the world could finally live by one set of rules, thus the Quran. So, yes, Mohammad (p) was the prophet of God for all people, but it surely wasn't for all times. Prior to him, each nation had their own prophet that they had to follow and Mohammad (p) had no say-so over them.


Firstly, this first idea seems to fly in the face of the second and the explanation for the first seems to contradict the second. Do we need one/many prophets per nation or one for all? I donít see how you can have it both ways.


Actually, yes, you can have it both ways. Just as US citizens obey the President of the United States as well as the governor of their particular state, observing both federal and state laws (which may or may not overlap), people could follow a general prophet as well as a prophet specific to their place and time. Consider the Jews and their minor prophets in comparison to their major prophet, Musa (p).

Either way, we've reached a time when Jesus's (p) words that he came only unto the Children of Israel are obsolete. Mohammad (p) came to mankind. Yes, God sent a specific prophet to the Israelites when He sent his beloved servant, Jesus Christ, but when He sent Mohammad, it may have been through the Arabs in the 7th century, but it was for the whole world for every generation thereafter. We accept what Mohammad (p) brought before anything else. So, we acknowledge the previous prophets, but their messages no longer apply. Gehenna is no longer a place outside your city gates. Shell fish is no longer forbidden. We non-Hebrews don't need to observe traditions that were meant for the Hebrews and their ancestors. Our religion - Islam - is meant for all mankind regardless of what nationality or culture you're from. God sent instructions that everyone could understand and follow regardless of where they live.


Secondly, my expectations for evidence of these 144,000 prophets stems from the example of the Israelites. Is it so strange to expect something else very similar from at least 1000 (less than 1% of Allah's efforts) of these other nations?

A nation that has received prophets for thousands of years should've left much more than simply a collection of scriptures that range only 39 books in length. We can't use this as a standard for judging whether someone came to another nation. Why? Because every prophet and every culture is different. A prophet who showed up in the middle of a heavily populated city in India in the year 3,450 B.C.E. and who was rejected and killed before he reached the age of 30 or 40 or whatever might not be as well remembered as Moses (p) who came with the Tanakh that laid out the laws for living for a whole nation. Do you get my drift?


Do you know how many cults and small religious movements developed in the US over the last 400 years? Imagine that one person preached a message that was completely outlandish during the 1600's in Massachusetts. Let's say that he was preaching that God didn't really exist as we understand, but rather, the Devil was the true God. Not only would he have been executed immediately, but there's a possibility that a thousand years from now, such a deviation would've been long buried in the pages of history leaving behind not a single trace. And we live in modern times with modern record keeping! Imagine how it could've been in ancient Mesopotamia or Egypt? We can't even find good enough evidence who built the pyramids, and that was a major operation that took a long time to finish! Not to mention, how many civilizations disappeared off the face of the earth and were long forgotten until someone accidentally discovered them? Whole cities and nations were lost until people began to rediscover them.

I think you're trying to apply the Israelite situation to the whole world, and then judging the claim that other prophets were sent to these places negatively based on this initial false assumption. For me, there is very strong evidence that there are eerily similar features found in all the religions like life after death, the existence of a supreme deity, etc. Of course, an alternative explanation could be that all religion stemmed from one ancient religion that was followed by our cavemen ancestors and which evolved over the millennia. But we need more evidence for this, obviously.

Thirdly, the Qur'an itself testifies very clearly in favour of the prophets sent to Israel but has virtually nothing to say about the other 143,979 prophets it could have mentioned.

There are quite a few prophets mentioned in the Quran which were not found in the Bible or even come from Israel. There's even one unnamed prophet. In the end, what benefit does it do to mention details about something people don't need to know about? Why didn't any of the holy scriptures mention "dinosaurs"? See my point?


If you put these three things together, I think you get a strong case for these many prophets never existing backed up by 1- consistency of reasoning, 2 Ė historical evidence (or lack of) and 3 Ė the Qur'an.


I don't deny that the burden of proof is on the Quran. And I don't try to sit here and say you're a dummy for not believing that prophets were sent to each and every tribe. Instead, I'm arguing that the Quran hasn't lied to me yet, and it's telling me prophets were sent to the nations of the world, so I'd put money on it (METAPHORICALLY) that the Quran is right with this one too. When you begin to examine some of the religions, you can see certain features that could've been adopted by ancient cultures and religions or which may have been left-overs from the original religion. Consider the ka'bah and the circumvention of it. Dates back to Ismail and Ibrahim (p). Yet, Islam transformed into Arab polytheism and features like this were still part of the religion while the rest of the religion began to change its ways and beliefs.


To me, I don't see any evidence to disprove the claim that prophets were sent to each nation. I see evidence, personally, supporting it such as the common features of the world's religions.




-------------
"To be sure, Jesus will come and will restore all things. But I tell you, Jesus has already come, and they did not recognize him, but have done to him everything they wished."


Posted By: wesley
Date Posted: 10 September 2011 at 7:06am
As far as the questions regarding Paul, as stated before, those thoughts that Muslims [and others] state about him are more so related to historical interpretation
This quote from Waheed is the most honest response to my original posting.
A misinterpretation of Pauls' writings is the problem that Muslims have. 
 
Did the discussion on fasting and circumcision cause any Muslim here to rethink their use of these examples to prove Paul changed Jesus teaching?
 
Surely these two issues aren't the only examples to be cited against a supposed Pauline doctrine.



Print Page | Close Window

Bulletin Board Software by Web Wiz Forums version 8.03 - http://www.webwizforums.com
Copyright ©2001-2006 Web Wiz Guide - http://www.webwizguide.info