Qu'ran: Did Jesus die?

[lew0049]

You know why this issue is so important to our Christian friends?

Because Paul told them that if Jesus didn't raise from the dead then their preaching is in vain, or something along the lines.

For us, we don't care whether that was spiritual death, the soul left the body or the whole body, etc which appeared in all your arguments and the others and none of it has any solid proof. Therefore, we say that Allah knows best and he will tell us all about it in the after life.

What we know for sure that even if Jesus himself was here, he would just be a Muslim, and if he was there while prophet Mohammed was there, he would have no choice but to follow prophet Mohammed "peace be upon him" because it's not about who was greater, but about the plan of this message of God, and his orders.

Well, I wouldn't consider taking a blind leap of faith as proof that Gabriel spoke to Mohammed though.

 

[Popeyesays]

2) I'm sure Muslims would love to have erased this verse from history, they failed. Who wrote this article on Wikipedia? Muslims probably wrote it, it is therefore inaccurate and one-sidded. As is stated also on Wikipedia though, there were many Islamic Scholars that spoke of this verse....it seems even they do Muslims reject.

I'll deal with (1) later, let's go on to this:

2) So in short and in complete your argument is based on the fact that you say so?

Regards,
Scott

 

[lew0049]

Since I have nothing better to do, I'm going to attempt to show my the Bible is nearly 100% reliable and why there is a definite reason to believe that what they say is the truth. I'm sure it won't change anyone's mind; nevertheless, there is a SLIGHT hope.
I'll post when done

 

[Popeyesays]

Since I have nothing better to do, I'm going to attempt to show my the Bible is nearly 100% reliable and why there is a definite reason to believe that what they say is the truth. I'm sure it won't change anyone's mind; nevertheless, there is a SLIGHT hope.
I'll post when done

Lew,

I am almost sixty--I've been a Baha`i for thirty -two years, thirty-three come this August.

i was a christian before that, studying to be a deacon in the Episcopal Church. I discover the Baha`i Faith and over the course of a year, I decided it was true.

I am sure I have seen all your arguments and exposition in the past almost thirty-three years.

I find no opposition at all between belief in Christ and belief in Baha`u'llah. That's after years of intense study and I am a scholar by nature.

I won't say I could not be argued out of my beliefs, I'll just say I don't think you have the chops to do it.

Regards,
Scott

 

[lew0049]

Then I guess there is no harm in doing it.
Actually will take more time than I thought so be patient.

 

[JayHawes]

I'll deal with (1) later, let's go on to this:

2) So in short and in complete your argument is based on the fact that you say so?

Regards,
Scott

Why skip number 1? Are you avoiding to accept being prooved wrong with scripture?

2) I dont say so. I was looking up things about Momonism and noticed that the articles were written by F.A.I.R., a Mormon organization. Also with Islam pages dealing with contradictionsthat were written by Muslims. It's also very convincing that the verse actually existed becuase there were MUSLIM schalors who said so.

 

[JayHawes]

Lew,

I am almost sixty--I've been a Baha`i for thirty -two years, thirty-three come this August.

i was a christian before that, studying to be a deacon in the Episcopal Church. I discover the Baha`i Faith and over the course of a year, I decided it was true.

I am sure I have seen all your arguments and exposition in the past almost thirty-three years.

I find no opposition at all between belief in Christ and belief in Baha`u'llah. That's after years of intense study and I am a scholar by nature.

I won't say I could not be argued out of my beliefs, I'll just say I don't think you have the chops to do it.

Regards,
Scott

Once being Christian then you must have studied the Christian scriptures. Now being Baha'i you must also have studied other scriptures. I have been told, that Baha'i interpret the second coming of Christ as being fulfilled by Bahhull'ah is this true?

 

[Popeyesays]

Once being Christian then you must have studied the Christian scriptures. Now being Baha'i you must also have studied other scriptures. I have been told, that Baha'i interpret the second coming of Christ as being fulfilled by Bahhull'ah is this true?

It is the teachings of my faith that every religious revelation speaks with respect of the Prophet Who came before and of the Prophet Who will follow.

All my life I have heard people say: "We could argue til Christ comes again."

Well, He's come three times since He ascended to Heaven. The Prophet Who followed Christ are Muhammad, the Bab and Baha`u'llah. Baha`u'llah is not the last, in a thousand years or so there will be another. God's Revelation is eternal.

Regards,
Scott

 

[Popeyesays]

I dealt with two rather than one because it pleased me to do so.

Regards,
Scott

 

[JayHawes]

It is the teachings of my faith that every religious revelation speaks with respect of the Prophet Who came before and of the Prophet Who will follow.

All my life I have heard people say: "We could argue til Christ comes again."

Well, He's come three times since He ascended to Heaven. The Prophet Who followed Christ are Muhammad, the Bab and Baha`u'llah. Baha`u'llah is not the last, in a thousand years or so there will be another. God's Revelation is eternal.

Regards,
Scott

Jesus Christ is Jesus Christ. Clearly the BIble says:Which also said, Ye men of Galilee, why stand ye gazing up into heaven? this same Jesus, which is taken up from you into heaven, shall so come in like manner as ye have seen him go into heaven." Acts 1:11.

The bible clearly teaches that the same Jesus who ascended shall also return, not anyone else in his name, not Mohammed, not even Baha' u'llah. Muslims themsleves never teach that Jesus returned as Mohammed, or that Mohammed came as another Christ (maybe i understood your sentence wrong).

Jesus however did teach:

"And then if any man shall say to you, Lo, here is Christ; or, lo, he is there; believe him not: For false Christs and false prophets shall rise, and shall show signs and wonders, to seduce, if it were possible, even the elect" Mark 13:21,22

The Bible teaches that When Christs returns every eye shall see him, and that every knee shall bow. And a trump shall blow, and Jesus shall come down from heaven upon a white horse, wearing a vesture dipped in blood, having on his thigh written, The Word of God. Has anyone fulfilled this prophecy of the return of Christ? Nope.

The disciples asked Jesus "what shall be the sign of thy coming..." Matthew 24:3. Jesus answered listing many things. Which to this date have not all come to past. Therefore, for you to claim Christ has returned already is to ignore the very signs Jesus himself said would preced his return.

*Jesus returns as Jesus,not as another man.*

Mt 24:30And then shall appear the sign of the Son of man in heaven: and then shall all the tribes of the earth mourn, and they shall see the Son of man coming in the clouds of heaven with power and great glory.

I guess Baha'i views the Holy Spirit, or the Comforter as being Baha'ullah. This has no scriptural standing, becuase he does not fulfill any of the prophecies/requirements concerning either of them.

 

[Popeyesays]

The Great Prophets have Two stations. The first is that They are the same Soul, the Same Voice and from the Same Source.
The second of these stations is that Each is a man born to a woman in a different place and time.

If this seems a paradox to you, I'm sorry; but not so sorry that I wish to debate it with you. It's pointless to argue what we know will cause disagreement.

From my own point of view God draws near him whom He chooses, when He chooses.
In due time this will come to you as a simple understanding. In this life? Who knows? Rest assured that the next spiritual life will give you the same choice to approach God or not.

Regards,
Scott

 

[TashaN]

1) Please finsh quoting. Jesus told them to buy the swords to accomplish Prophecy, not just to defend him because he didn't want to die.

You don't have any proof for that, and i don't see any prophecy but i see guards "desciples" with swords to defend Jesus.

If it was meant for this, Jesus would not have told Peter to put it up.

He allowed them to use it ...

"And, behold, one of those who were with Jesus stretched out his hand, and drew his SWORD, and struck a servant of the high priests, and cut off his ear." (HOLY BIBLE) Matthew 26:51

After that he realized they were too much soldeirs to handel.

2) The simple fact that Mohammed gave "false" revelation is proof enough that he was not a Prophet (of course this is my "opinion").

You don't have any proof and your UNPROVEN claim is false because you didn't prove it, and you will NEVER be able to do so.

I refer to the revelation that Mohammed pur foward.

That al-Lat, al-Uzza and Manat, were the daughters of Allah. What's strange is that al-Lat, al-Uzza and Manat, were daughters of Mohammed's tribe's main god, al-lah, a moon god. Mohammed later on in the Quran seeks forgiveness for giving this false revelation, for giving the words of Satan.

This is false, and you should stop reading from anti-islam sites, just an advice so you don't look ridiculous in front of all in such a decent debate.

3) Jesus' claim that he came to die for the sins of the World:

John 3:16- It is Jesus speaking.

"For God so loved the world that he gave his only begotten son that whosoever belvies in him shall not perish but have everlasting life.

I'm not seeing it.

1 Corinthians 15:3 "...Christ died for our sins according to the scriptures"

Jesus didn't say so, but the scripture.

Joh 4:42 -And said unto the woman, Now we believe, not because of thy saying: for we have heard him ourselves, and know that this is indeed the Christ, the Saviour of the world.

Jesus is not talking in here either.

Mt 1:21 -And she shall bring forth a son, and thou shalt call his name JESUS: for he shall save his people from their sins.

Of course, as all the prophets before him saved their people from sins by ordering them to follow God orders.

Mt 26:28 -For this is my blood of the new testament, which is shed for many for the remission of sins.

When Jesus say a statement, he won't go around to explain it saying "which is bla bla". That is so false. It was edited by whom you ever know or don't know.

 

[TashaN]

1) If you actually pick the Bible up you will notice that John 3:16 is in red letters, they are the words spoken by Jesus Christ, about what God was saying. Jesus is speaking for most of that Chapter, besides Nicodemus responding to him. It is not God speaking as you assume.

I'm sure Muslims would love to have erased this verse from history, they failed.

lol. You don't know what you are talking about.

Who wrote this article on Wikipedia? Muslims probably wrote it, it is therefore inaccurate and one-sidded.

Show me your side of story then, but not in this thread because we are going off-topic.

Start a new thread if you want, then tell me about it in here or through a PM.

If you are interested, we can make it a one-on-one debate to see which scripture have contracdictions, is it the Quran or the bible.

 

[TashaN]

Well, I wouldn't consider taking a blind leap of faith as proof that Gabriel spoke to Mohammed though.

That's your own opinion, and if you don't have any proof so its totally meaningless.

Since I have nothing better to do, I'm going to attempt to show my the Bible is nearly 100% reliable and why there is a definite reason to believe that what they say is the truth. I'm sure it won't change anyone's mind; nevertheless, there is a SLIGHT hope.
I'll post when done

The bible is not the word of God 100%, because most of it is just the interpretations of known and unknown reporters and writers.

 

[benign6]

If you are interested, we can make it a one-on-one debate to see which scripture have contracdictions, is it the Quran or the bible.

Then u should note down some of these points as well. May Allah bless u.

http://www.religiousforums.com/forum/showthread.php?t=52880

http://www.religiousforums.com/forum/showthread.php?t=52673

http://www.religiousforums.com/forum/showthread.php?t=52706


.
.

 

[Dirty Penguin]

Well, I wouldn't consider taking a blind leap of faith as proof that Gabriel spoke to Mohammed though.

But you have no problem taking that blind leap when it comes to Paul saying Jesus spoke to him on the road???

Regardless of who was with him wo heard and saw or saw but not heard etcr. None of them, from what we can tell of the scriptures, had ever met Jesus.....So you have no problem excepting the their word for it.....

 

[love]

Christ's resurrection from the dead is clear proof of His death. As you study the Bible you will find that the keystone of Christianity is found in the resurrection of Jesus Christ from the dead. His resurrection from the dead is mentioned some 85 times in the New Testament. (Obviously He could not have risen from the dead if He had not died). The Apostle Paul said in the New Testament, "If Christ has not been raised, then our preaching is in vain and your faith is in vain. " (1 Corinthians 15:14)

 

[Mujahid Mohammed]

Dear Mujahid,

You do not have the right to say Christians have thrown anything away.

What do you mean, I am stating a fact, they they have in fact thrown many things in terms of verses and scripture and gospels away. as well as the law commanded to them. but I am not talking about the ones living today. I am speaking of the one who authored, changed, altered the text.

The is extreme pride before God and God does not allow His servants to wax proud.

Regards,
Scott

Do not follow you in your statements above and below. Not sure what your comments are a response to.

 

[Mujahid Mohammed]

"You have no proof that it was about the bible, because the bible was collected by the church and those who came after that whether they are Christians scholars, or even unknown authors. The verse was talking about Torah, Injil, etc.

so you are saying that these me are the ones who authored the bible.

The bible contain the word of God, Jesus but the majority is not the word of God, and its not even the word of Jesus."

So 1 how is it the word of God when it is clear that man authored it, and if the majority is not the words of god of words of Jesus then why should it should be accepted as a valid understanding and context for us to derive what God or Jesus says.

If he is wrong relying on a personal interpretation, then so are you.

that may depend on if his interpretation is based on what Islam says. Besides in Christianity everyone is entitled to their own interpretation.

From the bare words of the verse it is not justified to say what the Gospels are and what they are not. Interpretation is a two-edged sword, it cuts the user most when he ignores the fact that he is using it,

Regards,
Scott

but if we are to interpret I think part of the problem is the manner in which it is read or examined. Many scholars of christology interpret the Gospels in light of one another. And not like many Christians who take a collective interpretation.

Now many thoughts and interpretations that Christians have is also based on what they have been told by their religious leaders, whether the individual is learned or not. They do not have the access to the actual texts, nor have the put in the study that classical scholars like Bruce Metzger, Bart Erhman, Prof hays etc. etc. And when the actual text is examined many concepts christians have about the text in terms of it being absolute and how it came to be have been proven to be either incorrect or stretched. Because many concepts they have come from scripture which has been proven to be either an addtion or letters and things were added to make people be in line with what that particular scribe thinks.

You know Scott about the historical compilation of the text in the first two centuries and how many gospels and many ideas and interpretations were given for there was no canon, not as the christians have today anyways.

But that is part of the contention that muslims have, is that Christian scholars like those mentioned above who have seen all the docs, scripts, letters, and historical evidence that we have concerning the ideas and issues of the early church and its church fathers. they are presenting facts and evidence that there was definite alteration and manipulation in the compilation of the texts used to compile what is today one of many different versions of the suppossed same scripture.

As a former christian it is very confusing when everything is looked at in light of one another.

 

[Popeyesays]

Actually, Mujahid I think you've jumbled my statements with the statements of others, so I do not think I can reply, until you unjumble the quotes.

Regards,
Scott