St. Paul vs. St. Peter: Moslems' view?
MIRSE
Moslems attack St. Paul and his writings. One Moslem argument is that
St. Paul never met Jesus.
So what do Moslems say about St. Peter, who obviously lived with Jesus?
St. Peter says that Jesus was crucified, while Moslems claim that the Koran,
which was written at least 600 years after St. Peter died, says that Jesus
was never crucified. mi...@aol.com
Moataz H. Emam
> So what do Moslems say about St. Peter, who obviously lived with Jesus?
> St. Peter says that Jesus was crucified,
Two points:
1) The Gospels (the ones APPROVED by the councils of Nicea) SAY that
Peter said so. We have no way to verify he actually did.
2) The Quran said "they have not killed him nor crucified him, but they
thought so", where this last could be translated either "they thought
they did" or "they though they saw it happen". If the last is the case
then Peter may have been of the ones who "thought" they saw someone who
looks like Jesus (divine miracle) get crucified.
> while Moslems claim that the Koran,
> which was written at least 600 years after St. Peter died, says that Jesus
> was never crucified. mi...@aol.com
The Quran is believed by Muslims to be the unchanged word of God. Being
of divine authorship, it does not matter if it was written 600 or 6
million years after the event, since God does not forget.
--
Moataz H. Emam
MIRSE
not say, then how can you verify what Mohammed saw or did not see, if
Mohammed's visions, 600 years after the time of Jesus, was a only a one-on-one
meeting between Mohammed and Gabriel?
For instance, if I told you the angel Gabriel visited me over a 20 year
period, would you believe me? Wouldn't you ask for some kind of proof?
You say that the Koran is the Word of God, but, really, you only have
Mohammed's word that it is. mi...@aol.com
David / Amicus
year period, would you believe me? Wouldn't you ask for some kind of
proof?>>
But on occassion Gabriel appeared to Muhammad in a group setting
visibly-->
http://www.salaam.co.uk/themeofthemonth/june02_index.php?l=5
Zuiko Azumazi
"Moataz H. Emam" <em...@physics.umass.edu> wrote in message
news:3E1CC01E...@physics.umass.edu...
>
> The Quran is believed by Muslims to be the unchanged word of God. Being
> of divine authorship, it does not matter if it was written 600 or 6
> million years after the event, since God does not forget.
>
Do you believe that God could or has ever changed his mind?
Peace
--
Zuiko Azumazi.
Sa'id
MIRSE wrote:
> You say that the Koran is the Word of God, but, really, you only have
> Mohammed's word that it is. mi...@aol.com
we have the Qur'an, which is a miracle of literature in the best language in the
world.
maybe you should read it.
--
JiŠan
--
Oderint, dum metuant
If you want to email me, change .mil to .net
Her urgent need for a brain surgery doesn't make me love this country any less
"Above it are 19 to confuse the disbelievers"
G. Waleed Kavalec
news:20030109150352...@mb-md.aol.com...
> If there is no way to verify, according to you, what St. Peter said or
did
> not say, then how can you verify what Mohammed saw or did not see, if
> Mohammed's visions, 600 years after the time of Jesus, was a only a
one-on-one
> meeting between Mohammed and Gabriel?
When I hear the word of God as revealed to Mohammed I have ZERO doubt.
This is no "proof" for you, a sad truth I know. But the Lord's message got
through to *ME*, a US born resident of Texas, even through the dangerous
distortion of Arabic-to-English translation. Very FEW passages in the New
Testament have that "ring" of authentic Divine authorship that I found in
the Qur'an.
Some of the Biblical teachings of Jesus do ring true. Matthew 6, for
example, seems very intact.
Again, even through the filter of language translation.
> For instance, if I told you the angel Gabriel visited me over a 20 year
> period, would you believe me? Wouldn't you ask for some kind of proof?
I would have to reserve judgement. Unless you claimed to have a new Message.
That would contradict God's existing word.
> You say that the Koran is the Word of God, but, really, you only have
> Mohammed's word that it is. mi...@aol.com
No, I have the faith that God, in His infinity mercy, allowed into my heart.
Peace
G.
Altway
"MIRSE" <mi...@aol.com> wrote in message
news:20030109150352...@mb-md.aol.com...
> For instance, if I told you the angel Gabriel visited me over a 20 year
> period, would you believe me? Wouldn't you ask for some kind of proof?
> You say that the Koran is the Word of God, but, really, you only have
> Mohammed's word that it is. mi...@aol.com
Comment:-
Muhammad (saw) based his entire life on the revelation he received,
and his life shows that he was not psychotic.
People followed him because they experienced his sincerity.
The Word of God which he conveyed to the people is recognized by
his followers as something inspired and true because it touches something
deep in their hearts.
The teaching brings transformation to people if they apply it (though some
may misuse it).
There are no other criteria for truth.
What Jesus (saw) said also applies to Islam (saw):-
"He that is of God, hears God's word: you, therefore, hear them not
because you are not of God." John 8:47
and
"If I do not the works of my Father, believe me not. But if I do, though you
believe not me, believe the works." John 10:37-38
--
Hamid S. Aziz
Understanding Islam
www.altway.freeuk.com
.
Moataz H. Emam
> Do you believe that God could or has ever changed his mind?
I have posted my views on this before:
--
Moataz H. Emam
Dave Lister
news:104220965...@demeter.uk.clara.net:
> The Word of God which he conveyed to the people is recognized by
> his followers as something inspired and true because it touches
> something deep in their hearts.
This is equally true of the Mormons, for example. A religion which shares
much in common with Islam such as patriarchy, polygamy, a book divinely
ispired which has been passes intact to correct the misconceptions caused
by errors in previous books, and a feeling of persecution.
In fact, one could argue that Joseph Smith was inspired by Islam into
starting the LDS faith.
--
Oh, to have a President with a 75+ IQ instead of GW Bush,
who says:
"I'm gonna talk about the ideal world, Chris. I've
read, I understand reality. If you're asking me
as the president, would I understand reality, I do."
"...when I put my hand on the Bible, I will
swear to not, to uphold the laws of the land"
CooolBreeeze
For instance, if I told you the angel Gabriel visited me over a 20
year
> period, would you believe me? Wouldn't you ask for some kind of proof?
> You say that the Koran is the Word of God, but, really, you only have
> Mohammed's word that it is. mi...@aol.com
MIRSE,
Your are laboring under the notion that the bible and the Quran are
the same things or are analogous. They are not.
(1)The Quran has ALWAYS been in the hands of the people from the first
words to the last words. Revelation was made in the midst of
believers, Christians, and others as witnesses. Your bible was not
public until the 15th century, as the majority of christian believers
had never seen a bible nor were they generally able to read it. They
relied on the stories told to them
(2)The Prophet of Allah (s.a.w.) confirmed the book and essentially
"signed off" on it. He memorized it and by his death about a 100
others memorized and confirmed it with him. In the case of the jew,
the are so many theories that give doubt to the OT's authenticity or
authorship, one could spend decades on Genesis and Exodus alone to
exhaust the debates in those books. For the Christians, Paul the 13th
self appointed apostle who never ever met Jesus, nor ate or walked or
talked with him, yet who wrote 14 of 27 books of the New Testament.
These books present the gospel of Paul and verr from the gospel of
Jesus in mtters of faith and faith with works. Paul says begone with
the law and Jesus says salvation is earned through obedience to LAw
and the commandments.
(3) The Holy Quran is in a living language, arabic. The same arabic
is essentially unchanged from the 6th century CE to the present date.
One can easily understand the words of the Quran without an expert
having to interpret it for you or translate from obscure sources.
That means anyone who wants to know can know, no interpretors
required. The Bible almost wholly is in dead languages that no one
speaks. To know you must go to experts and wade through their
interpretations and revisions to reach an issue.
Having distinguished between the books, you supposition about Gabriel
(r.a.) has no basis. It has a good basis if you are christian or
jewish but no basis if you are muslim. You cannot even say with
certainty who is the author of a particular book, say, Matthew or
Luke. The scholars debate the sources even into the 21st century.
For example, many claimed the good doctor Luke copied in big clumps
from Mark, a youth. Without a source declared and meticulously
maintained you have problems and doubts just constructing your NT
sources, authorship and authenticity.
It is no wonder that you are dumbfounded over the fact that the
Prophet of Allah (s.a.w.) was regularly visited by the Angel Gabriel
(r.a.)
Muhammad s.a.w. certainly had help writing that Quran but no human
could have helped him. The deduction will be that Muhammad s.a.w.
spoke the truth about Gabriel (r.a.) Why? No one knew, no one had
yet experimented to know where intellectual thoughts emanate from.
The atheists and missionary christians who hate Islam generally like
to claim that the knowledge was somewhere in the grasp of Muhammad
(s.a.w.) or his contemporaries but no one knew this or thought about
this aspect. If you claim some other source then prove it. Then
prove the hundreds of other conclusions and facts stated by Muhammad
and where they were found and sources. Speculation is an easy out,
the atheists abound in that type logic. The fact that Muhammad
produce so many in the Holy Quran without error is subject to
elevation of thought and scrutiny.
The Holy Quran says "lying forelocks". To lie requires thought and
the primitive arabs thought that their tongues alone with the help of
their hearts did the lying. That phrase made no sense to anyone
during that period, it was accepted on faith. If you told a 6th
century person from any continent that the forelock area is the source
intelligent and creative thought you would not have been believed or
understood. The concept was inknown. It turns out that as you and I
now know that frontal lobes (THE FORELOCK AREA) are the source of our
complex non-instinctual thoughts. It wasn't until the 19th century
that experimentation begin to find the abilities of the frontal lobe
Muhammad in the Holy Quran tells of a barrier between fresh and salt
water which is not violated. But how did Muhammad know this? THERE
ARE NO RIVERS IN ARABIA that flow into the sea! How exactly does an
illiterate bedouin arab possibly describe this without aide? How
possibly?
MIRSE, by deduction Muhammad had help, a superior help. If he says 23
years, then 23 years it is. Every revelation has some issues or
points or steps that are as unfathomable to us now as some were to the
6th century arabs. That us as ut should be, the Quran is a revelation
then and now. If you write a chapter like it, please share your
abilities with us.
MIRSE
"If I do not the works of my Father, believe me not. But if I do, though you
believe not me, believe the works." John 10:37-38
--
Hamid S. Aziz
Understanding Islam
www.altway.freeuk.com
***********
I see you quote from John in the New Testament above.
Does that mean you are saying that the Gospel of John is an authentic book?
If you can quote from John, does that mean that I can also quote from John,
especially the part that tells us about how Jesus was crowned with thrones,
carried the cross, and was crucified?
Of course, we know that the Koran, written 600 years after the time of
Jesus, denies that Jesus was crucified at all. mi...@aol.com
Moataz H. Emam
> Muhammad in the Holy Quran tells of a barrier between fresh and salt
> water which is not violated. But how did Muhammad know this? THERE
Which reminds me, I lately saw that barrier with my own eyes and got it
on tape. You can actually see a curvy white line of salty bubbles. I
went back several times to look at it and it really doesn't change much
over time. I remembered the Quranic verse and got shivers down my spine.
I understand that the barrier is rarely so visible with the naked eye. I
saw it in a small town called Valdivia in Chile.
[25.53] And He it is Who has made two seas to flow freely, the one sweet
that subdues thirst by its sweetness, and the other salt that burns by
its saltness; and between the two He has made a barrier and inviolable
obstruction.
--
Moataz H. Emam
M.S.M. Saifullah
> Of course, we know that the Koran, written 600 years after the time of
> Jesus, denies that Jesus was crucified at all. mi...@aol.com
And that does not automatically conclude that your "holy" Bible is true
and the Qur'an is false.
Regards
Saifullah
Denis Giron
> > Of course, we know that the Koran, written 600 years after the time of
> > Jesus, denies that Jesus was crucified at all.
>
> and the Qur'an is false.
Well, the difference in years does not lead to an automatic
indisputable conclusion that the Biblical account is the true one,
while the Qur'an got it wrong. You are certainly right about that.
However, if objective scholars were trying to get some information on
the historical Jesus (starting from the assumption that he did exist),
it would seem more reasonable for them to believe the account in the
Synoptic Gospels rather than the account in the Qur'an.
Of course the Qur'an does not say a great deal about Jesus, but as was
pointed out it does state that Jesus was not crucified. Objective
scholars (not dogmatic Christians) will always conclude that if we
start from the premise that there was an historical Jesus, the
evidence seems in favor of him being crucified rather than not (though
of course this is not absolute proof). Now, I don't think this is
really a crack against the Qur'an, as what a book of faith means to a
believer is something that cannot be touched by the rigours of
historical studies.
In SRI recently there was a discussion on what Soorat an-Nisaa' 4:157
implies happened to Jesus:
http://groups.google.com/groups?threadm=3E037358.FA46CFB2%40mailandnews.com
Some of the points raised about about what conclusions would be
reached from the methods of objective scholarship were touched on in
some posts by Imran Aijaz that showed signs of being influenced by the
rather strong arguments along these lines of William Lane Craig (as
per his debate with Jamal Badawi, and to a lesser degree his debate
with John Dominic Crossan). Much of this is discussed in a thread on
another forum (which is dedicated to Muslim-Christian dialogue):
http://www.f24.parsimony.net/forum54389/messages/27709.htm
[scroll down to the bottom of the page for the entire thread]
-Denis Giron
MahmudTaha
<azu...@hotmail.com> wrote:
>Do you believe that God could or has ever changed his mind?
Didn't he actually change his mind? At least according to the theory of
abrogation (naskh).
Peace,
Mahmud K. Taha
Moataz H. Emam
> Didn't he actually change his mind? At least according to the theory of
> abrogation (naskh).
Naskh (to those who don't know) is the concept that some verses of the
Quran abrogate earlier ones. The standard Islamic idea is that God did
this intentionally in order to gradually impose rules that He did not
wish to have imposed instantaneously, example, the prohibition of
drinking alcohol.
--
Moataz H. Emam
Moataz H. Emam
< snip for brevity >
Your analysis of what objective non religious scholars would conclude
sounds fine to me. Except that those scholars must take into
consideration that both religious traditions (Islam and Christianity)
are based on a single book in either case. There is a vast literature in
both religions, but they can all be traced to one of these two books. If
the "evidence" of BOTH the Quran and the Bible (in modern form) are
excluded, it seems to me there is very little left to conclude whether
or not a man named Jesus existed, let alone how he died. Mind you some
writings of early historians point to Jesus, without reference to the
Bible, but those can be filed away to Fiction and Myth. Consider the
belief in Atlantis for example, largely based on a single work by Plato.
--
Moataz H. Emam
Kavalec
> Didn't he actually change his mind? At least according to the theory of
> abrogation (naskh).
Only if you believe in abrogation.
God 'changing His mind' is *very* tightly entangled with the concept
of human free will, is it not?
Peace
G.
Tomasz Antkowiak
> Didn't he actually change his mind? At least according to the theory of
> abrogation (naskh).
Abrogation was used in cases such as Alcohol. Where at first it was
forbidden to come drunk to prayer and then it was completely
forbidden. This does not mean that God changed his mind or found error
in His previous rule, this was a method to allow Muslims to
comfortably conform to Islamic guidance.
As for the issue in general, its incomprehendable. Changing one's mind
requires time: you must make a decision in the past that you wish to
change in the present to affect you in the future. According to my
understanding, God is beyond time, and therefore 'changing of the
mind' does not apply.
Tomasz
Denis Giron
I agree 100%. I remember when Imran Aijaz raised questions about the
historical Jesus a couple of Muslims noted how it is hard enough just
proving that he existed at all, much less prove what happened in his
life. The other references you cited are not entirely myth, some were
serious attempts at documentation (Tacitus for example), though I
concede these weren't exactly journalist (ancient historians were more
collectors of rumors and oral traditions). Still, even those sources
tell us nothing when assumed to be true (Tacitus, for example, is more
proof that people believed in a certain "Christ/Crestus" than proof
that Jesus existed).
The arguments that I used in my most have also been used by William
Lane Craig. I think that when a Christian raises such points in
Muslim-Christian debate it often puts his Muslim counterpart in an
awkward position. That being said, Craig did commit a few mild
fallacies, exempli gratia: when debating Badawi he argues along the
lines of "even the Jesus Seminar scholars admit/conclude that Jesus
was crucified, that the crucifixion was historical". The problem is
that this only resonates with Christian ears, as it is more like
saying "even the evil godless Atheists who work hard at destroying our
blessed religion concede to this point, and yet you are going to
dispute even what scholars set out to destroy us concede to?"
Still, Craig did have one interesting point against Crossan that I
think is relevant to this thread. He managed to turn the
contradictions to his advantage, noting that contradictions implies
there was no collusion among the gospel authors, and this seems to
corroborate the points they agree on (such as Jesus being crucified by
a Roman procurator). I think the argument is far from fool-proof
(objections can be raised that they all had information that
originated with a common pool of tradition, and that pool could have
been pure fiction), but it is interesting.
Ultiumately though I imagine an appeal to "objective scholarship" will
be irrelevant in faith issues (since objective scholars would
certainly be forced to reject the virgin birth of Jesus as more of a
developed fiction, and I doubt either side of Christian-Muslim debate
would care to bring that up). While it has no meaning to an objective
historical study (it is far too fantastic), some Muslims can
simultaneously concede that witnesses did faithfully report the
crucifixion of Jesus while finding no contradiction with their
interpretation of the Qur'an (it appeared to them that way, hence the
reports, et cetera).
-Denis Giron
Denis Giron
> Your bible was not
> public until the 15th century, as the majority of christian believers
> had never seen a bible nor were they generally able to read it.
This is a bit incorrect, as while the layman may not have been
familiar with the Bible, the many people had access to something quite
similar to what we have now in light of the many quotes in other
writings stretching back as far as the fourth, third, and maybe even
second century. The preservation of the Bible over 2,000 years may not
be as good as the preservation of the Qur'an over 1,400 years, but
that aside many books of the Bible have been pretty well preserved
(particularly Isaiah, for example with the current version only having
minor differences with the version found at Qumran). While there may
have been small additions and editings here or there, the Bible was
generally in the hands of the people, at least from the fourth century
onward.
> In the case of the jew,
> the are so many theories that give doubt to the OT's authenticity or
> authorship, one could spend decades on Genesis and Exodus alone to
> exhaust the debates in those books.
Curious... I wonder what arguments against Genesis you find worthy,
and why. I'd like to see how immune the Qur'an is to some of your
favorite arguments against the Bible.
> Speculation is an easy out,
> the atheists abound in that type logic.
Yeah, that is a shame isn't it? The Mulhideen are given clear proof,
yet some how they manage to always fall back on "logic".
> The Holy Quran says "lying forelocks". To lie requires thought and
> the primitive arabs thought that their tongues alone with the help of
> their hearts did the lying.
Heard this one before. I don't see why this can't be a literary
device, not unlike when a child's mother says "get your lying behind
in the house" when the kid has fibbed about why he was late. Do
behinds lie? You go into a whole thing about creativity being in the
frontal lobe, but of course the verse says nothing about that. You're
interpreting a great deal into the verse. If you're going to go that
route, could we not just the same ask how Zeno (and the author of the
Epistle to Peter, and the Psalmist, and various Hindus) knew about
relativity more than two thousand years before Einstein? How did
Genesis know about the Big Bang? How did Ashvagosha know the atom
would be split? How did Aristotle know the genders of bees and ants?
How did Thales know that life sprang from water? How did Anaximander
know about evolution? How did the Talmudic sages know that the female
also makes a contribution to the birthing process (they called it "the
purest part" of the menstrual fluid... a reference to the egg that
drops during menstration?). Every single time, a vague passage that is
not clear and distinct is reinterpreted as being in tune with science,
but in order for a statement to be scientific, it must not be vague.
> Muhammad in the Holy Quran tells of a barrier between fresh and salt
> water which is not violated.
Again, why is this a reference to this barrier that exists between two
bodies of water? Why exactly is it that we're not supposed to believe
that this was a reference to a body of land between two SEAS, like one
being the dead sea perhaps?
These are just my rough thoughts...
GF Haddad
As far as I can see the most meticulous reply to Mirse was
by Cool Breeze. As for the criterion of acceptance of the
Qur'an being the person of the Prophet Muhammad, upon him
blessings and peace, first and foremost, then yes. Even his
enemies agreed he did not lie and they concurred that the
Qur'an was not human speech. Their rejection of the message
was due neither to disbelief in the messenger nor disbelief
in the content of the message but because of arrogance, lust
for leadership, or jealousy.
However, to address the original question: what do Muslims
say about Peter, who obviously lived with Jesus, as opposed
to Paul? There are some facts:
Even according to Peter and James, the leaders of the
Church of Jerusalem after the departure of Jesus, upon
him blessings and peace, and according to Barnabas whom
they trusted, Paul altered the teachings of Jesus radically.
Jesus said, according to the Gospels, "Do not think I
have come to change an iota of the Law of Moses." Paul
turned his back on this and changed it, not to mention
his recasting of Jesus the Prophet into a Dionysian cult.
Hajj Gibril
David / Amicus
change an iota of the Law of Moses." Paul turned his back on this and
changed it,>>
But wouldn't a Muslim agree that in some instances that Jesus changed /
modified Mosaic Law? Like for instance he forbade divorce which he said
Moses only allowed because of "the hardness of their hearts".
Moataz H. Emam
> Again, why is this a reference to this barrier that exists between two
> bodies of water? Why exactly is it that we're not supposed to believe
> that this was a reference to a body of land between two SEAS, like one
> being the dead sea perhaps?
Umm! Because it SAYS so?
[25:53] It is He Who has let free the two bodies of flowing water: One
palatable and sweet, and the other salt and bitter; yet has He made a
barrier between them, a partition that is forbidden to be passed.
I think the verse is very clear on the issue. The two bodies of FLOWING
water are in contact and yet do not mix. I don't see how you can explain
this in terms of a land barrier.
--
Moataz H. Emam
Kavalec
> > The Quran is believed by Muslims to be the unchanged word of God. Being
> > of divine authorship, it does not matter if it was written 600 or 6
> > million years after the event, since God does not forget.
> >
> Comment:-
> Do you believe that God could or has ever changed his mind?
Salaam
Allah does not change HIS mind, but he gives US some freedom and
latitude, thus neccessisating His handling of multiple futures. Lot's
of them.
But He's Allah, He can do that.
The Qur'an tells us to look for His signs in the world. And this is an
example, before Quantum Theory the idea of multiple timelines would
not have been likely to occur to humans.
Peace
G.
GF Haddad
A good question which has the full weight of Christian tradition
defending the interpretation mentioned. (Another possible objection is
the reply of Jesus concerning plucking fruit and eating during the
Sabbath.) However, from an Islamic perspective, this where the science
of usul - principles - comes in to harmonize between the apparently
contradictory stances reported from Jesus.
Namely: the prohibition of divorce is a ruling of perfection while
divorce itself is valid and effective but odious. This is in line with
the general import of teachings of Christ, which pertain mostly to
spirituality and not to legalities. Indeed, Jesus blasted his
contemporary Israelites with much worse than hardness of hearts. But
to those of them that responded, he preached perfection on top - not
in replacement - of what they already knew the Law said.
Hajj Gibril
Steadfast
the principle of prophethood and messengership differ between
Jewish, Christians and Muslims
Prophets hold a special high status in Islam
Messengers, Apostles, Saints etc all have sometimes similar meanings but
mostly they vary in the different religions
even amongst the same religion amongst different dominations
In Islam there is clear definition of the above common terms
prophet
messenger
saint
who has the right to speak with the authority of God
who has the right to rule with the authority of God
etc
Muslims have different views who David and Solomon were
though Muslims believe in all biblical characters but there is a vast
difference in how do we cherish them
so Muslims believe that no body can speak for God except a prophet with a
proof of appointment
once a prophet establishes a doctrine no one can abrogate such a law except
another prophet with proof of appointment and authority
the belief of the majority of the Moslems believe that only a proven Prophet
can change the law
this is why it is acceptable for Jesus to change some rulings in the law
(and who is more proven prophet with the highest status then Jesus)
while it is blasphemous for Paul to do so
"David / Amicus" <Ami...@webtv.net> wrote in message
news:8797-3E3...@storefull-2135.public.lawson.webtv.net...
Doulos Tou Staurou
> Even according to Peter and James, the leaders of the
> Church of Jerusalem after the departure of Jesus, upon
> him blessings and peace, and according to Barnabas whom
> they trusted, Paul altered the teachings of Jesus radically.
Muslims frequently make this accusation against Paul. What evidence
do you have that Peter, James and Barnabas made this claim?
> Jesus said, according to the Gospels, "Do not think I
> have come to change an iota of the Law of Moses."
"Do not think that I came to abolish the Law or the Prophets; I did
not come to abolish but to fulfill. For truly I say to you, until
heaven and earth pass away, not the smallest letter or stroke shall
pass from the Law until all is accomplished."
(Matthew 5:17-18)
> Paul turned his back on this and changed it, not to mention
> his recasting of Jesus the Prophet into a Dionysian cult.
How did Paul change the Law of Moses? Interestingly enough, it seems
the Quran accuses Jesus of doing the the very thing you accuse Paul of
doing:
"And (I come) confirming that which was before me of the Torah, and to
make lawful some of that which was forbidden unto you. I come unto you
with a sign from your Lord, so keep your duty to Allah and obey me."
(Quran 3:50)
A Dionysian cult???
Doulos
Steadfast
"Doulos Tou Staurou" <wdl...@yahoo.com> wrote in message
news:9a4f4d8a.03012...@posting.google.com...
> Qas...@ziplip.com (GF Haddad) wrote in message
news:<c0734f73.03012...@posting.google.com>...
> > Even according to Peter and James, the leaders of the
> > Church of Jerusalem after the departure of Jesus, upon
> > him blessings and peace, and according to Barnabas whom
> > they trusted, Paul altered the teachings of Jesus radically.
>
> Muslims frequently make this accusation against Paul. What evidence
> do you have that Peter, James and Barnabas made this claim?
It has always been narrated by moslems scholars that the original message of
Jesus Peace be upin him
was changed and since christianity heavely followed the teaching of Paul
let us not forget that many discussions have happened through the centuries
between Christains and moslems
the first one happened when the early moslems took refuge in Abbessenya
the story is quite famous and I am sure it is on the net somewhere
the second I can recall is the most important is between the Prophet himself
and a party from Najran(Yemen) christians
this has happened in the 7th centruy when most europe was still not
christians
so detailed knowledgeable discussions can be found in the history books
through the history if the interactions onf muslims and christians till this
day
I believe the issue of Barnabas has come recently since the so cal.led
gospel of Barnbas came into appearnace
but this does not change the fact that moslems as early as the 7th century
are aware of the changes that were done by Paul
let us not forget that many early chritians who lived in the east differed
from the early christains who loved in the west
and the majority of those christains who lived in the east became moslems
and they trnasfered the knowledge of
the early christians and there major diferences and fights as well as war
this is why you would find in many average moslems would know about Ncea 325
conference
while many average christians are not aware if I am correct.
> > Jesus said, according to the Gospels, "Do not think I
> > have come to change an iota of the Law of Moses."
>
> "Do not think that I came to abolish the Law or the Prophets; I did
> not come to abolish but to fulfill. For truly I say to you, until
> heaven and earth pass away, not the smallest letter or stroke shall
> pass from the Law until all is accomplished."
> (Matthew 5:17-18)
>
> > Paul turned his back on this and changed it, not to mention
> > his recasting of Jesus the Prophet into a Dionysian cult.
>
> How did Paul change the Law of Moses? Interestingly enough, it seems
> the Quran accuses Jesus of doing the the very thing you accuse Paul of
> doing:
> "And (I come) confirming that which was before me of the Torah, and to
> make lawful some of that which was forbidden unto you. I come unto you
> with a sign from your Lord, so keep your duty to Allah and obey me."
> (Quran 3:50)
>
It should be understood how the prophethood is viewed in Islam
First of all Only God can dictate a universal LAW that concerns humanity
Only a prophet with a proof and authority can speak for God
therefore any Law that is introduced or changed can only come through a
legal proven prophet
Jesus is one of the highest top five prophets according to Islam (Noah,
Abraham, Moses, Jesus and Mohammad)
Jesus has the authority to confirm or cancel any law by the authority taken
form God
Paul did not have that
he is not a Prophet so any new law introduced or changed by him or people
who came after him is flase intervention in God's Law
so the suggestion that all food is legal and hence allowing the christians
to eat Pork which is a basic strict prohibtion in the Mosaic Law
(which Jesus did not change) is considered by Moslems a great change in
God's Law without authority and hence a great sin and could even be
plasphamy
if no proof can be taken back to Jesus commands.
I will give an example how muslims way of belief is
Drinking is taboo in Islam
so if a moslem drinks then he is a sinner
but if a Moslem claims that drinking should not be taboo then he is
blasphomous even if he does not drink himslef
and similarly in every think that in the same manner
> A Dionysian cult???
>
> Doulos
>
Doulos Tou Staurou
> It has always been narrated by moslems scholars that the original message of
> Jesus Peace be upin him
> was changed and since christianity heavely followed the teaching of Paul
Yes, Christianity followed the teachings of Paul and Peter and John
and the other Apostles. If one Apostle had deviated from the
teachings of Jesus, the others would have opposed him. We see no such
thing in the New Testament.
> I believe the issue of Barnabas has come recently since the so cal.led
> gospel of Barnbas came into appearance
Even Muslim scholars acknowledge that the "gospel" of Barnabas is a
fraud.
> but this does not change the fact that moslems as early as the 7th century
> are aware of the changes that were done by Paul
Aware how? What changes?
> let us not forget that many early chritians who lived in the east differed
> from the early christains who loved in the west
The Greeks did love their philosophical speculations.
> and the majority of those christains who lived in the east became moslems
> and they trnasfered the knowledge of
> the early christians and there major diferences and fights as well as war
And if Charles Martel hadn't defeated the Muslims at Tours in 732 AD
the West might have become Muslim as well.
> this is why you would find in many average moslems would know about Ncea 325
> conference
> while many average christians are not aware if I am correct.
Are you referring to the Arian heresy? I am familiar with it. Arius
described the Son as an inferior God, created by the Father, but
Creator of all things. This is hardly consistent with Islamic
doctrine.
> Only a prophet with a proof and authority can speak for God
> therefore any Law that is introduced or changed can only come through a
> legal proven prophet
The word Apostle (Greek apostolos) means Messenger. The Apostles were
Messengers. Muslims consider Jesus a Messenger, but He called His
Messengers servants, and they called Him Master.
> Paul did not have that
> he is not a Prophet so any new law introduced or changed by him or people
> who came after him is flase intervention in God's Law
Not only was Paul a Prophet, he was a Messenger, so he would have been
well within his rights to do what you say.
> so the suggestion that all food is legal
"What God has cleansed, no longer consider unholy."
(Acts 10:15).
> and hence allowing the christians
> to eat Pork which is a basic strict prohibtion in the Mosaic Law
The Mosaic Law never applied to Gentiles. It never applied to
Abraham, Ishmael, Isaac, Jacob or Joseph.
> (which Jesus did not change) is considered by Moslems a great change in
> God's Law without authority and hence a great sin and could even be
> plasphamy if no proof can be taken back to Jesus commands.
And He said to them, "Are you so lacking in understanding also? Do you
not understand that whatever goes into the man from outside cannot
defile him, because it does not go into his heart, but into his
stomach, and is eliminated?" (Thus He declared all foods clean.)
(Mark 7:18-19)
Doulos
Steadfast
"Doulos Tou Staurou" <wdl...@yahoo.com> wrote in message
news:9a4f4d8a.03020...@posting.google.com...
I am not here to get into an endless thread of prove me wrong and prove me
right
I was briefly pointing out that christains in the east and west differed
till this day they differ and they differed even more in the early centuries
always difference start big and then they still down
I was not saying that whether the Gospel of barnabas is fraud or authentic
I said it has made the issue of the difference between Barnabas and Paul
more apparent.
> Are you referring to the Arian heresy? I am familiar with it. Arius
> described the Son as an inferior God, created by the Father, but
> Creator of all things. This is hardly consistent with Islamic
> doctrine.
I am not saying that what happened in 325 is conssitant with Islam
I said it is an example of early christiad differnces also in 432 I think I
am not sure of the exact year is another example
and the finghting and the wars between the romans and the original
christains and how the early christians were massacred
and the later wars between the roman christian trying to force their versin
of christianity onthe others
the msulims were at the time well aware of these issues.
>
>
> The word Apostle (Greek apostolos) means Messenger. The Apostles were
> Messengers. Muslims consider Jesus a Messenger, but He called His
> Messengers servants, and they called Him Master.
this exactly what I am trying to say
the definition and understanding of a prophet and a messenger between
msolems and non-msolems differ greatly
so according to Moslems Paul and the apostles are not prophets
maybe messengers but messenger of who
there is a differnce between a messenger of God and a messenger of a prohet
or a messenger of a king
etc
>
> Not only was Paul a Prophet, he was a Messenger, so he would have been
> well within his rights to do what you say.
>
>
> "What God has cleansed, no longer consider unholy."
> (Acts 10:15).
>
see below for more explanation
>
> The Mosaic Law never applied to Gentiles. It never applied to
> Abraham, Ishmael, Isaac, Jacob or Joseph.
>
here again non-muslims fail to understand or maybe have a clear
understanding
let us say fail to clarify the God is the God of all
that God is the God of always
that God is God for everybody
so his ineraction with people is continuous since he had created them
Moslems clearly state that Islam is the religion if God to all people all
the time (before time and beyond)
Islam is the submission to the will of Allah (God)
this is the main message of all prophets since God created Man and befoer if
there were any other creation before
this is message is not unque to one prophet or one nation
now a certain prophet may have a certain mission more specific or unique
and a certain nation may have a crtain role to play more important than
others
but the resultant is the same all should worship God and obey him and pass
the message to others in a good way (simple)
now certain aspects of life may vary from one people to another so they
might get a specific rule that is sutable for them only
and this can be specific to Noah era or Moses era and Jesus era
but the basics are the same
These things have been very clearly stated and clarified in the Quran
so the message from God to all prophets is always the same
however the life rulings may differ slightly specially if the propeht is for
a restricted area and time
>
> And He said to them, "Are you so lacking in understanding also? Do you
> not understand that whatever goes into the man from outside cannot
> defile him, because it does not go into his heart, but into his
> stomach, and is eliminated?" (Thus He declared all foods clean.)
> (Mark 7:18-19)
>
God of everlasting who has created the laws of the universe who created
health and allowed disease
who has created good and allowed bad etc
would surely have conssitancy between the things that he had created
so there must be unity in the laws of physics and chemistry and astronomy
and biology and geology and zeology etc
you can list all the sciences that are known and the unknown
all what you find is unity and harmony
if not then it can be true or we have erred
so if God issues a command
then it must be for the good of Humans whom He had created and he wishes the
best for them
and as his children would protect them frm evil if they obey and seek his
protection
therefore if God says do not do this act xyz
and then someone says no God did not say that and xyz is good
and then we find out that by doing xyz would cause a disaster
trhe conclusion is one of the following
the originator is not God
the sayer is not a prophet
or the we misunderstood the message
the above statement can not be true or is misinterpreted out of context
since many things we take by mouth can be fatal for humans
I hope you are not going to ask me for examples
thank you
> Doulos
>
asimm...@yahoo.com
> >
> > And He said to them, "Are you so lacking in understanding also? Do you
> > not understand that whatever goes into the man from outside cannot
> > defile him, because it does not go into his heart, but into his
> > stomach, and is eliminated?" (Thus He declared all foods clean.)
> > (Mark 7:18-19)
> >
>
The actual context is in reference to the cleaning of hands. The
Pharisees had approached jesus (AS) and witnessed that he had taken
food without washing his hands and questioned him about this in order
to mock him. The Pharisees, as is evident from the words of Jesus
(AS), took all means to keep their outward appearances clean, while
inwardly they professed nothing but sin. Jesus then rebukes them for
following the traditions of men, i.e. washing hands and utensils,
while disobeying God's laws or commandments. One of the very
commandments Jesus points to is to not even bring 'dishonour' to one's
parents, yet many of the Childrne of Israel did not fulfil this very
commandment of God Almighty as preached through Moses (AS). The
Mosaic law even stipulated that those that did so are to be killed.
Thus, Jesus is actually referring to not the abrogation of law, but
the Pharisees throwing aside the law of God for their own traditions.
Jesus (AS) was not declaring all foods clean, but was referring to the
washing of hands and the traditions of men. If that were the case, he
would have made no mention of the Mosaic law and the failure of the
Jews to abide by it.
Even then, the response that is quoted above is alleged to have been
made to the Apostles and this is strange considering that the whole
incident had nothing to do with the lawfulness and unlawfulness of
certain foods, but the hypocrisy the Pharisees were displaying. They
were impeccable on the outside, but as Jesus called them, "Wolves in
sheeps clothing."
asimm...@yahoo.com
> following the traditions of men, i.e. washing hands and utensils,
> while disobeying God's laws or commandments.
I was actually corrected on this point by a Christian brother and
Leviticus makes mention of certain regulations regarding edibles and
the cleanliness that was demanded of the Israelites. Although, I do
not believe though that it changes the point.
Jesus (AS) is emphasizing the Pharisees hypocrisy in their observance
of the law and was not making a statement regarding the issue of the
lawfulness of certain edibles. Their profession to Judaism was their
cleanliness on the outside, including their extravagant dress, which
had little to do with the true spirit their religion entailed. That
is why Jesus (AS) draws attention to how they failed to fulfill the
rights of their parents which was a binding and very important law of
God Almighty. The Pharisses were putting on a show in the name of
their faith.
It is very noteworthy that the Quran refers to how Jesus (AS) was very
compassionate towards his mother, and also refers to this particular
quality of John the Baptist. The Quran demands that the rights of the
parents are second only to God Almighty.