1. 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!

What do Muslims think of Jesus?

Discussion in 'Religious Debates' started by flysky, Sep 12, 2005.

  1. flysky

    flysky Member

    Joined:
    Aug 17, 2005
    Messages:
    129
    Ratings:
    +13
    Well see your first answer is not the right one anyways

    regarding you second reply

    "What did he have to gain? Wealth? Political Power? Social Status? None of those things were waiting for him as a result of his conversion with the exception of certainty of death for his beliefs? What would make someone in their right mind choose that path? "

    Simple he Hate Jesus (PBUH) and what religion did he followed before he converted?

    Moreover, we have Paul's denial of his own total inspiration at 1 Corinthians 7:25. Here he states that he writes without God's inspiration on a subject.



    Moreover, we have Paul's denial of his own total inspiration at 1 Corinthians 7:25. Here he states that he writes without God's inspiration on a subject.
     
  2. blueman

    blueman God's Warrior

    Joined:
    May 14, 2005
    Messages:
    1,066
    Ratings:
    +66
    I've heard it before and it is a weak argument. You look at modern versions of the Bible today and compare it with some of the more ancient and primative manuscripts from first century antiquity and you will see very little, if any disparity. These documents (especially, earlier New Testament manuscripts) are housed in museums/libraries in Europe, including the Rylands Library in England). :)
     
  3. Fatmop

    Fatmop Active Member

    Joined:
    Mar 16, 2005
    Messages:
    651
    Ratings:
    +64
    blueman, a couple of quick points. First, though the Gospels claim that Paul met with the resurrected Jesus, Paul himself never really mentions this meeting. Why is that?

    Second, why would you believe that the Bible is the true word of god and has not changed a bit? All one need do is pull open the King James Bible and the New International Version to see major discrepancies in translation. Flysky was making the point that the Quran is as it was 1400 years ago, language preserved down to the minutest detail. You can not make that claim with the Bible.

    Third, how is it a 'weak point' to argue that, while Mohammed wrote and edited the entire Qu'ran, people born long after Jesus died had a say as to what went into the Bible? You haven't answered that question. Is the Bible really God's word, even though it was written by many different people? Is it just a chronicle of Jesus' life (and not, in fact, God's word)? I don't think it was a weak point at all.
     
  4. blueman

    blueman God's Warrior

    Joined:
    May 14, 2005
    Messages:
    1,066
    Ratings:
    +66
    First off, Dr Luke, who wrote the book of Acts cites Paul's (formerly Saul of Tarsus) conversion in Chapter 9. He had access to Paul and traveled with him, so it's clearly logical that Paul shared his conversion experience with Luke. Secondly, the early Christian doctrine during the life of Christ and shortly after his cruxifiction and the resurrection were being taught throughout 1st century Palenstine, from Jeruselem to Egypt, Rome and the like. The basic tenents was that Jesus Christ was the only begotten Son of God, He was cruxified for the sins of mankind and that He rose from the dead and lives. This theme and doctrine was not tampered with in anyway by modern translation of the Holy Word. That's why I refer to the argument as weak.

    Lastly, no one has given me a valid reason about the conversion of Saul. I will also include other key events that require an explanation. The disciples were distraught after the cruxifiction of Christ and many went back to their labor and trades they were involved with prior to meeting Jesus. They were scattered. Within a very short period after the cruxifiction, they were preaching fervently about the love and salvation of Jesus and henceforth, the commencement of the church evolved. Why? Once again, what did these individuals have to gain? A date with death was all that awaited them. 10 of the 11 disciples were slaughtered to death! James, the brother of Jesus, doubted Jesus's claims to deity all throughout His ministry. Shortly after Jesus's cruxifiction, James became a staunch advocate for a resurrected Christ all the way to his eventual stoning. Within 20 years of the cruxifiction, more than 10,000 Jews broke religious, social and cultural tradition and converted from Judiasm to Christianity. Why? Because of the resurrected Christ, that's why!

    The New Testament Gospels were written by people who walked with Christ and/or had access to people who witnessed the events referenced in the four Gospels (Matthew, Mark, Luke and John) well within the lifetimes of the people who were witnesses to thsoe events. These events could have been easily disputed by the comtempararies of that day. It was not. The message is valid and authentic and would be able to pass any objective test that you put any other book of antinquity through. No one ever questions the validity of the Biography of Alexander The Great, although the first copy of that account was written 400 years after his death. But they will dispute the Bible and specifically, the New Testament Gospels and Paul's Epistles, even though these books were written within 10-50 years after Christ's death and resurrection. :)
     
  5. HOGCALLER

    HOGCALLER Active Member

    Joined:
    Sep 14, 2004
    Messages:
    255
    Ratings:
    +8
    flysky,

    You answered: “Its not Jews and Christians it tell to every nation who got the script and if you go in details that is true. Isn't it.”

    Let me rephrase the question: Does the statement I quoted, “the people who misunderstood and misinterpreted them,” also apply to the Muslims? If so, can you explain why and how it is that the Muslims are “the people who misunderstood and misinterpreted them?” If not, can you explain why and how it is that Muslims are excluded from that statement?

    I agree that “the people who misunderstood and misinterpreted them” would include Jews and Christians but I am particularly interested in hearing a ‘Muslim’ point-of-view explained.

    Please explain the proper ‘Muslim’ point-of-view or attitude toward the Bible and Christians (I excluded the Torah and the Jews just to keep it simple. If there is a substantial difference, that is to say, if what is said regarding Bible/Christians does not apply to Torah/Jews then please explain the proper ‘Muslim’ view of them also.)


    .
     
  6. flysky

    flysky Member

    Joined:
    Aug 17, 2005
    Messages:
    129
    Ratings:
    +13
    "can you explain why and how it is that Muslims are excluded from that statement?"
    The answer is simple Quran was not interpreted so they won't be any misinterpretation.

    As far as your second question please visit http://askmuslims.com and go to 25 most asked questions and it will answer your questions.

    Like i said earliar most of the questions are already been answered on that site so please check it out we already answer those questions so that it it won't get repeated.
     
  7. Fatmop

    Fatmop Active Member

    Joined:
    Mar 16, 2005
    Messages:
    651
    Ratings:
    +64
    The Gospels tell that Paul met the resurrected Jesus on a road. Is this the same story as Paul's (Saul's) conversion - by that I mean, did Paul only convert after Jesus died? I was under the impression that Paul had long before converted. I could be totally wrong on this, though, so feel free to clear me up.

    The basic tenets of Christianity, as you put them, could just as easily have been propaganda as the actual word of god. There were many stories of virgin births, miracles, and bodily ascensions into heaven flying around during this period; what makes those themes different from the one in the Bible? The Qu'ran at least was written by the same prophet who spoke it. Islam is not founded on humans who chronicled the life of a supposed deity on Earth, but is instead founded on the notion of a human who received direct inspiration from God. IMO, that makes it a much more reliable source of information than second-hand accounts (which might, maybe, possibly have been a little exaggerated?) of the existence of Jesus.

    None of this is especially logical. If I wanted to deify Saddam Hussein, I could 'preach fervently about his love and salvation,' too. I could collect another 11 men to do it with me. We might very well be killed. Now, I know that isn't a good comparison, but do you understand why this paragraph is illogical? You're trying to point to the fact that Jesus was the son of God simply because he convinced 12 men of that fact.


    No, that's not necessarily why. There are a fiar number of steps involved in that logic.
    A) Christ was, in fact, resurrected.
    B) His apostles and supporters spread the word, in the various forms that they knew it.
    C) Many of these supporters happened to be persuasive enough to convince 10,000 jews that their messiah had come.

    Saying that 10,000 Jews converted to Christianity proves that Christ resurrected is a huge stretch. The bandwagon approach never appealed to me, anyway.


    Matthew, Mark, Luke, and John have not been dated to anywhere near the life of Jesus. None of them walked with him. Now, to say that these events were not disputed is to simply ignore every other religion on the face of the planet at that time. Were all Jews convinced? If they weren't, wouldn't there be some dispute there? Why were Christians fed to the lions in Rome? If every Roman were convinced that Jesus were pulling off those miracles and had risen from the dead, would they be slaughtering those who spoke such?
    Yes, the Bible can 'pass any objective test that you put any other book of antiquity through' - except that miracles aren't historical at all. There is no way to verify that any of these miracles happened outside of the Bible, making it an unreliable historical document in that regard. And if you simply look at it as a small history of a small group of people, then it 'passes the test,' but doesn't confirm that Jesus was the son of God. After all, if we are to believe everything in every old document, Emperor Augustus also bodily ascended into heaven.

    So flysky still has a point: the Qu'ran has been preserved from the word of Mohammed for 1400 years; the Bible has numerous different copies, none of which are the original, and the original wasn't even written by Jesus. If I had to choose between the two, "theme and message intact" or "total preservation," I'd have to go with the argument made by flysky. This isn't a major reason for choice between the two religions, obviously, but you have to concede the point. The Qu'ran is a far more accurate transcription of the word of God than is the Bible.
     
    • Like Like x 1
  8. blueman

    blueman God's Warrior

    Joined:
    May 14, 2005
    Messages:
    1,066
    Ratings:
    +66
    You need to check your facts. There is no doubt amongst many historians, theologians and scholars that the men who wrote the four Gospels either walked with Jesus while he was alive or had access to people who did. John Mark (who wrote Mark's Gospel) was one of Peter's chief companions. Peter was one of the twelve disciples. Dr. Luke, who wrote both Luke and Acts, had access to Peter, other witnesses and was a companion of Paul's. Even some of the most skeptical scholars and historians acknowledge the validity of the timeframe upon which this scriptures are written, so your general comment related to this has no basis whatsoever.

    Paul was converted after Jesus's resurrection, not before. Why would he convert before? There was no reason for him to. He was a dedicated Pharisee and hated everything about Jesus and Christians and he carried those feelings out by persecuting them. So your thinking that he was converted prior to the resurrection makes no sense.

    You have to understand something about the Jewish culture and social infrastructure of that time. The majority of Jews did not believe Jesus was the Messiah, because they envisioned the Messiah would come and overthrow the Roman Government, setting up his own kingdom. Their picture of the Messiah did not include him being slaughtered on a tree through cruxifiction! To convert from Judaism to Christianity at that time was deemed to be condeming your soul to damnation within the Jewish community. So 10,000 Jews being converted to Christianity in two decades subsequent to Christ's resurrection is significant. If the disciples and apostles were promulgating a falsehood, both the Jewish religious leaders and Romans could have easily disputed the notion that Jesus was resurrected? They knew where he was buried and the fact that he did indeed die on the tree, correct?

    I don't think you are looking at it objectively and with an open mind, because you choose not to believe and that's fine. I put more stock in the New Testament Gospels because they were written well within the lifetimes of those who witnessed the events and I want to emphasize the word "witness" and there were lots of them, rather than on a doctrine that based on the message of one person whom "no one" witnessed this encounter in the cave upon which allegedly Mohammed was given the true word by Allah.

    If this was a trial and I was on a jury and a case that presented no direct and/or corroborating evidence, it would be thrown out of court. :)
     
  9. Fatmop

    Fatmop Active Member

    Joined:
    Mar 16, 2005
    Messages:
    651
    Ratings:
    +64
    The Gospels, you would agree, were written after Paul's writings (Paul wrote around 50 AD). Paul certainly would have witnessed those events you say he witnessed. I defy you to find a passage in which Paul directly identifies or talks about a miracle that Jesus performed. You won't.
    "The Jesus of whom Paul writes is a disembodied, spiritual Christ, speaking from the sky. He never talks about Jesus's parents or the virgin birth or Bethlehem. He never mentions Nazareth, never refers to Jesus as the 'son of man' (as commonly used in the Gospels), avoids recounting a single miracle committed by Jesus, does not fix any historical activities of Jesus in any time of place, makes no reference to any of the twelve apostles by name, omits the trial, and fails to place the crucifixion in a physical location (Jerusalem). Paul rarely quotes Jesus, and this is odd since he used many other devices of persuasion to make his points [...]
    Paul never claims to have met the pre-resurrected Jesus. In fact, one of the most glaring contradictions of the bible appears in two differing accounts of how Paul supposedly met the disembodied Christ for the first time. When Paul was traveling to Damascus one day in order to continue persecuting Christians, he was knocked to the ground and blinded by a great light (struck by lightning?). In both versions of this story, Paul heard the voice of Jesus, but in one account the men who were with Paul heard the voice (Acts 9:7), and in the other his men specifically "heard not the voice" (Acts 22:9). Did Paul's men hear the voice, or didn't they?"
    -Dan Barker, Losing Faith in Faith: From Preacher to Atheist pp. 368-9

    Back to the Gospels, prove to me that they were written by the people you say they were. If they were written within the lifetimes of those who witnessed the events, you realize that these accounts can have up to two or three sources for embellishment and not just one - these men talked to the guys who saw Jesus do something, and every jury knows eyewitness accounts can be greatly exaggerated upon retelling. If the Gospel writers found so much evidence for the miracles and saw them as so important that they had to write about them, why did Paul (who lived during Jesus's time) not?

    I happen to know very little about how the Qu'ran was actually written - I still might point out that the "doctrine that [was] based on the message of one person whom "no one" witnessed this encounter in the cave upon which allegedly Mohammed was given the true word by Allah" was still written by the same one who experienced it. Jesus had no hand in writing the Bible. It was people after his time who spun the phrases you read today - and these people often contradict one another.
     
  10. blueman

    blueman God's Warrior

    Joined:
    May 14, 2005
    Messages:
    1,066
    Ratings:
    +66
    First off, embellishment from not just one source but multiple sources would not have withstood the test of time. If it was false and a lie, there were many comtempararies of that day to dispute the message and prove it's authors wrong. Although the writings of Paul did occur prior to the authorship of the Gospels, the context of His message was not divergent from what the authors of the synoptic gospels clearly delineated, that Jesus was the Son of God (Romans 1:4), that he lived in the flesh (Romans 1:3 "which was made of the seed of David according to the flesh") was crucified and rose again (Ist Corinthians 15). You have to understand, these writers were not running a race to see who could write the earliest text, nor collaborated with each other on the message or to conspire a falsehood, but wrote independently and to different groups, both Jew and Gentile in Jerusalem, Rome, Asia, Egypt, Ephesus, Greece and the like. All of the New Testament Gospels had to be written prior to A.D. 70, because none of them mention one of the more significant events in Jewish history (the destruction of the Temple A.D. 70), and for them not to mention this, especially Mark and Matthew, would have been a gross oversight. Remember, archaeology has also backed up people, places and things referenced throughout the Old and New Testament with no evidence that has been deemed inaccurate.

    It is not up to me to prove to you regarding the validity of the gospels, because I think that I have providing compelling reasons why I believe them to be trustworthy that any objective person would look at and say, those are valid points that speak to high probability of trustworthiness.

    It is more up to you, as a skeptic, to disprove all the reasons I've laid out, based on historical fact, not speculation or anecdotal opinions. :)
     
  11. Fatmop

    Fatmop Active Member

    Joined:
    Mar 16, 2005
    Messages:
    651
    Ratings:
    +64
    OK. Ignoring all those other points for a moment, did Paul's men hear the voice or didn't they?
     
  12. blueman

    blueman God's Warrior

    Joined:
    May 14, 2005
    Messages:
    1,066
    Ratings:
    +66
    Whether they did or they didn't is not as material as to what prompted Saul of Tarsus to have a life-changing event and convert from a radical Pharisee to a staunch supporter of Christ? At least to my knowledge, none of those men that accompanied Saul on the road to Damascus had any impact of the evolvement of the Christian Church, but Paul certainly did. :)
     
  13. Fatmop

    Fatmop Active Member

    Joined:
    Mar 16, 2005
    Messages:
    651
    Ratings:
    +64
    But you haven't answered the question. I'm not going to place my faith in documents that contradict each other, if they're supposed to be the divinely inspired word of god.
     
  14. blueman

    blueman God's Warrior

    Joined:
    May 14, 2005
    Messages:
    1,066
    Ratings:
    +66
    That is certainly your right, but I'm not sure you will not find a level of divergence in any ancient document of antiquity. If each writer got together and collaborated to perpetuate a fraud, wouldn't you think they would match each others statements verbatim and be very meticulous about it? I find more validation in the fact that there was some level of divergence in scriptures and to me, this makes it more authentic and trustworthy. What is important to me is the context of the message and the five points I stressed in an earlier response regarding Jesus. From that standpoint, whether you read Matthew, Mark, Luke, John, Paul, Peter and the like, there is no ambiguity or divergence regarding the message of salvation and through whom we have salvation, Jesus Christ. :)
     
  15. Fatmop

    Fatmop Active Member

    Joined:
    Mar 16, 2005
    Messages:
    651
    Ratings:
    +64
    Ok, I can call this one done. I've really got nothing left to throw at you, and you've been defending yourself quite well. (All while adding little smilies at the end of your posts to let me know you care:))

    Would that be the classic 'agreement to disagree?'
     
  16. flysky

    flysky Member

    Joined:
    Aug 17, 2005
    Messages:
    129
    Ratings:
    +13
    All in all blueman did Jesus (PBUH) ever said that he was a "GOD" and don't bring other things because if he was he would have said it clearly.

    And if Paul was inspired by God why did he said that he wasn't?
     
  17. blueman

    blueman God's Warrior

    Joined:
    May 14, 2005
    Messages:
    1,066
    Ratings:
    +66
    I'm find with that Fatmop. i wish you well and enjoyed the dialogue. :)
     
  18. blueman

    blueman God's Warrior

    Joined:
    May 14, 2005
    Messages:
    1,066
    Ratings:
    +66
    John 8:58 Jesus said, "Before Abraham was "I AM".

    If you also refer to Exodus 3:14 in response to Moses inquiry to God regarding if he is asked by the children of Israel the name of the person who sent him and God responded in verse 14 "I AM that I AM": Thus shalt thou say unto the children of Israel, I AM hath sent me unto you.

    John 1:1 "In the beginning was the Word and the Word was with God and the Word was God" John 1:14 "And the Word was made flesh and dwelt among us (and we beheld his glory, the glory as of the only begotten of the Father,) full of grace and truth".

    Reference John 5:17,18 regarding Jesus and the sabbath and the reasons the religious leaders wanted to kill him because he put himself equal with God.

    John 4:26-Jesus's verification to the woman at the well that He is the Messiah.

    John 5:22 "The Father judgeth no man but has committed all judgement unto the Son".

    John 10:30 "I and my Father are one".

    Matthew 12:8 For the Son of man is Lord of the Sabbath day.

    Throughout the New Testament Jesus refers to Himself as the Son of man, which actually is applicable to biblical prophecy to "having dominion and power over all things and whose kingdom shall never perish away (Daniel 7:14). Jesus also specified that the Son of man has the authority to forgive sins. Only God has the authority to forgive us of our sins. Once again, Jesus puts himself on a level playing field with God.

    When you hear Christian refer to the Trinity, although this word is not referenced in the Bible, they are referring to The Father, The Son and The Holy Spirit (or Holy Ghost), which is referenced many times throughout New Testament scripture. The reason why each is God is because they all possess the same attributes which qualify their deity: (1) Omniscience, (2)Omnipresence, (3) Omnipotence, (4) Eternality and (5) Immutability.

    When Jesus was incarnated in the flesh, as described in Philippians 2, he voluntarily "emptied himself" of some of the independent attributes associated with His deity as he pursued the mission of the redemption of humanity. :)
     
  19. Mujahid Mohammed

    Mujahid Mohammed Well-Known Member

    Joined:
    Jun 5, 2005
    Messages:
    1,306
    Ratings:
    +99
    Religion:
    Muslim
    This is very true and let us not forget Allah says the virgin Mary is the greatest woman in all of creation. And the Prophet told his people this as commanded by God. Most people if they were speaking of their own accord would say that their mother, sister, daughter or wife as the best but not Mohammed all the words in Qur'an are Gods words because there are a couple passages where God call Muhammed by name. This is one of the evidences used and there are many that he was speaking what has been spoken to him. Also most of the verses state Qul in the begining which means recite to them or tell them. Qul huwallahu ahad, allah hus samad lam yalid wa lam yulad wa lam yakul lahu kufu wan ahad. Whcih means tell them Muhammed that your God Allah He is one and he is the only, that he does not beget and that he is not begotten and that there is nothing like unto him. Jesus (pbuh) is considered one of the greatest Messengers ever right up there with Noah, Abraham, Moses, and Mohammed each being equal because they all came with the same message so if one denies any of them you might as well not believe in any of them. That is an article of our faith to deny anything God has sent man is to deny everything because we can not accept one and reject another. That is hypocrisy in belief if these things happen I guess a person is a only partial believer which makes no sense.
     
  20. Mujahid Mohammed

    Mujahid Mohammed Well-Known Member

    Joined:
    Jun 5, 2005
    Messages:
    1,306
    Ratings:
    +99
    Religion:
    Muslim
    Then why out of the 250,000 different manuscripts none are exactly the same if no desparity. Why do some Bibles remove words phrases and whole books from them if they are the same. The oldest manuscripts are housed in the Vatican and the ones they allow people to examine are the ones put in Museums and librarys etc. Have you read the Gospel of Barnabus. It is the only known manuscript where the author is known without any speculation why is it not accepted by the church. The bible says according to Jesus he was full of the Holy Spirit and to recieve him when he comes.
     
Loading...