InvestigateTruth
Well-Known Member
FYI, Islam believes Jesus was the Messiah as stated in the Quran.
-
Welcome to Religious Forums, a friendly forum to discuss all religions in a friendly surrounding.
Your voice is missing! You will need to register to get access to the following site features:- Reply to discussions and create your own threads.
- Our modern chat room. No add-ons or extensions required, just login and start chatting!
- Access to private conversations with other members.
We hope to see you as a part of our community soon!
Question to christians and muslims
- Thread starter Starlight
- Start date
Spirit of Light
Be who ever you want
Jesus in the quran is only mentioned as messiah 8 times but less than 34 times as Jesus (Isa)
Last edited:
Nouman Farooqui
New Member
Islam is the only way to God.
But the bible says more than that . That he is the Son of God , equal with the father , The ' i am ' , the Alpha and the Omega ' . That he died on a cross ,was buried and rose on the third day. All of this ,Islam denies and rejects .
Spirit of Light
Be who ever you want
I do not know if this verses from the teaching in islam will help, or you will just seem them as false
Just wanted to give a comparance to what you said[3:84] Say, “We have believed in Allah and in what was revealed to us and what was revealed to Abraham, Ishmael, Isaac, Jacob, and the Descendants, and in what was given to Moses and Jesus and to the prophets from their Lord. We make no distinction between any of them, and we are Muslims [submitting] to Him.”
[4:157] And [for] their saying, “Indeed, we have killed the Messiah, Jesus, the son of Mary, the messenger of Allah .” And they did not kill him, nor did they crucify him; but [another] was made to resemble him to them. And indeed, those who differ over it are in doubt about it. They have no knowledge of it except the following of assumption. And they did not kill him, for certain.
Yes I know these verses. It should be a red flag as Islam contends the most obvious fact of the new Testament. Even secular scholars admit that Jesus died on a cross . Of course they don't believe the miracles ect but , its the most undisputed fact in all ancient history . It should actually seem a bit silly that such a fact should be contested . All the evidence from atheist scholars all the way to biblical scholars ( Non wacky radical sceptical ones on the Internet) do not dispute that Jesus ( however you refer to him , A wise man , or The Son of God ) Died on a cross .I do not know if this verses from the teaching in islam will help, or you will just seem them as false
[3:84] Say, “We have believed in Allah and in what was revealed to us and what was revealed to Abraham, Ishmael, Isaac, Jacob, and the Descendants, and in what was given to Moses and Jesus and to the prophets from their Lord. We make no distinction between any of them, and we are Muslims [submitting] to Him.”
[4:157] And [for] their saying, “Indeed, we have killed the Messiah, Jesus, the son of Mary, the messenger of Allah .” And they did not kill him, nor did they crucify him; but [another] was made to resemble him to them. And indeed, those who differ over it are in doubt about it. They have no knowledge of it except the following of assumption. And they did not kill him, for certain.
Spirit of Light
Be who ever you want
I wonder why Christians are more interested in Jesu dying on the cross than the actual teaching he gave when he was alive?
Last edited:
Because If he did not die then no one has paid for the sins of the world . If he did not die , or resurrect then no one past or future can be redeemed according to the bible.
As these verses states clearly .1 cor 15
4And if Christ be not risen, then is our preaching vain, and your faith is also vain.
15Yea, and we are found false witnesses of God; because we have testified of God that he raised up Christ: whom he raised not up, if so be that the dead rise not.
16For if the dead rise not, then is not Christ raised:
17And if Christ be not raised, your faith is vain; ye are yet in your sins.
18Then they also which are fallen asleep in Christ are perished.
19If in this life only we have hope in Christ, we are of all men most miserable.
20¶But now is Christ risen from the dead, and become the firstfruits of them that slept.
21For since by man came death, by man came also the resurrection of the dead.
22For as in Adam all die, even so in Christ shall all be made alive.
Without the death , burial, resurrection no one is saved .
Spirit of Light
Be who ever you want
This question i ask now is not directly from Islam but i have a question personally
What if the part of Jesus being raised to heaven is not after the physical death, but a spiritual awakening to he was able to see Gods truth fully, and was able to deliver it to the followers? So the death of Jesus was not a physical death but a death of his ego, and that is the way sin is supposed to be payed. payed by beginning to understand our own sin, and actually doing the change our self, and not relying on Jesus taking all sins for all times?
or that Jesus did take the sin of his followers, but only those of his time in and around the area he was? and not for all times to come
exchemist
Veteran Member
????
You'll have to explain to me, firstly, whether that is supposed to be a statement or a question and secondly, what it has to do with my post.
The reason that cannot be, is because the bible says no such thing .
Right from when Jesus shows up to John the baptist its
John 1:29
“The next day John seeth Jesus coming unto him, and saith, Behold the Lamb of God, which taketh away the sin of the world.”
And .
1 john 2
2And he is the propitiation for our sins: and not for ours only, but also for the sins of the whole world.
2 cor 5
18And all things are of God, who hath reconciled us to himself by Jesus Christ, and hath given to us the ministry of reconciliation;
19To wit, that God was in Christ, reconciling the world unto himself, not imputing their trespasses unto them; and hath committed unto us the word of reconciliation.
What some have to do to get round all of this is to teach the' corrupt monk theory ' basically any way to say the bible was corrupted and changed somehow.
exchemist
Veteran Member
My understanding is that this is completely wrong.
There is no authenticated corroboration of Jesus having been crucified.
The only apparent source is the "Testimonium Flavianum" of Josephus. The consensus seems to be that this was probably embellished by a Christian author, precisely to concoct a corroboration by a non-biblical source. Details here: Josephus on Jesus - Wikipedia
Josephus does give some added credence to Jesus having been a real historical figure - and he may well have met his end at the hands of Pilate on the cross - but that is as far as it goes.
exchemist
Veteran Member
This is actually quite an involved and tricky issue. In Christianity there is the concept of "The Atonement", by which Jesus's death on the cross is said to be a kind of sacrifice on behalf of all mankind, past and future, which overcame the barrier between God and Man that had arisen due to Man's sinfulness.
However there are various theories of the Atonement. One I regard as rather primitive and savage, in that it supposes the loving God demanded a blood sacrifice as payment for sin. To me, the rest of the teaching about the nature of God is not consistent with this idea. There are various others, but the one that I find appealing is due to Abelard and is the moral influence theory. Details here (I told you it was involved
):The "moral influence theory of atonement" was developed, or most notably propagated, by Abelard (1079–1142),[94][95][x] as an alternative to Anselm's satisfaction theory.[94] Abelard not only "rejected the idea of Jesus' death as a ransom paid to the devil",[94][95] which turned the Devil into a rival god,[95] but also objected to the idea that Jesus' death was a "debt paid to God's honor".[94] He also objected to the emphasis on God's judgment, and the idea that God changed his mind after the sinner accepted Jesus' sacrificial death, which was not easily reconcilable with the idea of "the perfect, impassible God [who] does not change".[94][98] Abelard focused on changing man's perception of God – not to be seen as offended, harsh, and judgemental, but as loving.[94] According to Abelard, "Jesus died as the demonstration of God's love", a demonstration which can change the hearts and minds of the sinners, turning back to God.[94][99]
During the Protestant Reformation in Western Christianity, the majority of the Reformers strongly rejected the moral influence view of the atonement in favor of penal substitution, a highly forensic modification of the honor-oriented Anselmian satisfaction model. Fausto Sozzini's Socinian arm of the Reformation maintained a belief in the moral influence view of the atonement. Socinianism was an early form of Unitarianism, and the Unitarian Church today maintains a moral influence view of the atonement, as do many liberal Protestanttheologians of the modern age.[100]
During the 18th century, versions of the moral influence view found overwhelming support among German theologians, most notably the Enlightenment philosopher Immanuel Kant.[101] In the 19th and 20th century, it has been popular among liberal Protestant thinkers in the Anglican, Methodist, Lutheran, and Presbyterian churches, including the Anglican theologian Hastings Rashdall. A number of English theological works in the last hundred years have advocated and popularized the moral influence theory of atonement.[102][91]
A strong division has remained since the Reformation between liberal Protestants (who typically adopt a moral influence view) and conservative Protestants (who typically adopt a penal substitutionary view). Both sides believe that their position is taught by the Bible.[102][103][y]
But be in no doubt that what is taught in sermons every Sunday, in Catholic churches at least, is largely reflections on the teaching of Christ, often drawn from the gospel reading for the day, rather than focusing solely on his death and resurrection, central though those are to Christian theology.
exchemist
Veteran Member
As does Judaism. That is why neither religion is part of Christianity, obviously. I'm really not sure what point you are trying to make here.
The New Testament of the bible may say all that, but then that is not part of the scripture of either religion.They have their own scripture which says different things, equally convincingly, to them.
Shakeel
Well-Known Member
Oh you mean the invented type of "Islam"?
No such thing in Islam. No good works can get a disbeliever to Jannah. Not if they are the best of the best of the best in the whole world - without faith they go to hell.
Last edited:
exchemist
Veteran Member
I don't know if it is "invented" or not - it is just what a muslim has said.
But tell me, then about post 77 on this thread which quotes the Quran as follows:
Surely those who believe; and those who are Jewish, and the Nazarenes, and the Sabians, whoever of them believes in God and the Last Day and does good works; they will have their recompense with their Lord, and there is no fear upon them, nor will they grieve. – Quran 2:62
That does not sound as if they are all going to hell.
Is this a true verse?
InvestigateTruth
Well-Known Member
In Quran, believing in God, means believing in all Messengers of God. It is not acceptable to make a distinction between God and His Messengers:
"Surely those who deny Allah and His messengers and wish to make a distinction between Allah and His messengers, saying, “We believe in some and disbelieve in others,” desiring to forge a compromise, they are indeed the true disbelievers. And We have prepared for the disbelievers a humiliating punishment."
4:150-151
So, while if Christians do good work will have their recompense but at the same time they will be punished for their disbelief in some Messengers. And the Muslims seems to make a distinction between Allah and His Messengers, so, that is punishable according to Quran as well.
Last edited:
Shirk has been condemned on the following grounds:
(1) Going against knowledge of God's Oneness and belittling God.
(2) Attributing God what we don't know.
(3) Saying about God something without proof.
(4) Not following the truth
(5) Denying God's proofs and Messengers.
(6)Following caprice and being playful with regards to God's religion.
You can gather that outward polytheism is condemned for what all false religions do. That is attribute God what they don't know.
If you attribute God falsehood, it's not a forgivable sin.
That said, truth seekers exist in other paradigms other then "Islam". There are searchers for God in every "religion" yet all these searchers of God feel at odd with their religion and religious brethren. Whoever is sincere to God, God will not nullify their actions.
Those without means to reject truth or acknowledge the proofs for it, are not accounted for, like those who turn away from the family of the reminder.
Ultimately, God doesn't forgive people following religions without proof, but also doesn't hold them accountable for being astray with no reminders or access to truth.
At times and places when God's word is high and manifest, we are obligated to follow it. But when it's low due to the propaganda and in a weak state where the foundations are no longer strong, it's more complicated then simply accept the truth or pay the price.
(1) Going against knowledge of God's Oneness and belittling God.
(2) Attributing God what we don't know.
(3) Saying about God something without proof.
(4) Not following the truth
(5) Denying God's proofs and Messengers.
(6)Following caprice and being playful with regards to God's religion.
You can gather that outward polytheism is condemned for what all false religions do. That is attribute God what they don't know.
If you attribute God falsehood, it's not a forgivable sin.
That said, truth seekers exist in other paradigms other then "Islam". There are searchers for God in every "religion" yet all these searchers of God feel at odd with their religion and religious brethren. Whoever is sincere to God, God will not nullify their actions.
Those without means to reject truth or acknowledge the proofs for it, are not accounted for, like those who turn away from the family of the reminder.
Ultimately, God doesn't forgive people following religions without proof, but also doesn't hold them accountable for being astray with no reminders or access to truth.
At times and places when God's word is high and manifest, we are obligated to follow it. But when it's low due to the propaganda and in a weak state where the foundations are no longer strong, it's more complicated then simply accept the truth or pay the price.
Shakeel
Well-Known Member
That was before Islam. If one of those now learns about Islam and rejects it, they have disbelieved.
firedragon
Veteran Member
1. I know you love the Hindu God, Hinduism, Hindus, and they are all perfect, muslims are demons, murderers, and always the boogey man. With all of that baggage, for you to isolate the so called Christian God and the Islamic God has a conditional love, and how about the Hindu God, is it an unconditional love?
2. Who told you that Islamic Law is for all times, and does not change? Can you explain the technicality of the Shariah that makes it eternally unchanging?