What the Koran's Surah 5:32 is REALLY about.

[Linda]

On Thursday, November 19, 2015 at 2:13:36 PM UTC-5, Kendall Down wrote:
> On 19/11/2015 12:12, Nobody wrote:
>
> > The Quran "If anyone slays a person, it would be as if he slew the whole
> > people: and if any one saved a life, it would be as if he saved the life
> > of the whole people." 5:32.
>
> It is not clear whether non-Muslims are included in this warning.


You were right to question this quote.

Muslim apologists are very selective in the out-of-context quotes they provide.

The Koran's Surah 5:32 is a law for the JEWS who might take a life (or save a
life) in a Muslim land, and is plagiarized from the Jewish Mishnah. And look at Surah 5:33, and what is to be done to those who resist the "clear signs"
Mohammed's apostles have brought to them to convert to Islam.

"June 4, 2009
Obama quotes verse 5:32, omits 5:33
By Mladen Andrijasevic

President Obama in his speech said " The Holy Koran teaches that whoever kills
an innocent, it is as if he has killed all mankind; and whoever saves a person,
it is as if he has saved all mankind."

I really find it odd that neither President Obama nor any of his advisors did
not realize that the meaning of verse 5:32 is not clear until it is quoted
together with verse 5:33 which follows it:

005.032

YUSUFALI: On that account: We ordained for the Children of Israel that if any
one slew a person - unless it be for murder or for spreading mischief in the
land - it would be as if he slew the whole people: and if any one saved a life,
it would be as if he saved the life of the whole people. Then although there
came to them Our messengers with clear signs, yet, even after that, many of
them continued to commit excesses in the land

005.033

YUSUFALI: The punishment of those who wage war against Allah and His Messenger,
and strive with might and main for mischief through the land is: execution, or
crucifixion, or the cutting off of hands and feet from opposite sides, or exile
from the land: that is their disgrace in this world, and a heavy punishment is
theirs in the Hereafter;


Update: Andrew Bostom writes:

Immediately following the murderous acts of jihad terrorism committed on
September 11, 2001, Ibn Warraq highlighted the tragic irony of many apologists
quoting selectively from Qur'an 5:32-"whoso slays a soul . . . shall be as if
he had slain mankind altogether; and whoso gives life to a soul, shall be as if
he has given life to mankind altogether"- attempting to demonstrate that the
Qur'ran disapproved of violence and killing.

Firstly, these wonderful sounding words come from a preexisting Jewish text
(Mishnah, IV Division 5, "Thus was created a single man, to teach us that every
person who loses a single soul, it shall be written about him as if he has lost
the entire world, and every person who sustains a single soul, it shall be
written about him as if he has sustained the entire world."

And apologists for Islam-just like President Obama-quote the Koranic words out
of context. For the very next verse offers quite a different meaning from that
of 5:32, which was "laid...down for the Israelites," as stated in the next
verse, 5:33, continuing:

"...Our apostles brought them [the Jews] veritable proofs: yet it was not long
before many of them committed great evils in the land. Those that make war
against Allah and His apostle [Muhammad] and spread disorder shall be put to
death or crucified or have their hands and feet cut off on alternate sides, or
be banished from the country. (Qur'an 5:33)"

The supposedly noble sentiments of the first verse, taken from a Jewish source,
are entirely undercut by the second verse, which becomes a bloodthirsty
menacing by Muhammad of the Jews. (And as an aside the Muslim sources estimate
Muhammad killed 24,000 Jews in his jihad campaigns against them). Far from
abjuring violence, these verses aggressively insist that any who oppose the
Muslim prophet will be killed, or crucified, mutilated, and banished."

From http://www.americanthinker.com/blog/2009/06/obama_quotes_verse_532_omits_5.html


The short article at this link is also VERY revealing:
http://wikiislam.net/wiki/If_Anyone_Slew_a_Person

[Linda]

On Thursday, November 19, 2015 at 2:13:36 PM UTC-5, Kendall Down wrote: 
> On 19/11/2015 12:12, Nobody wrote: 
> 
> > 
> 

> > Even in times of war "if the enemy incline towards peace, do thou (also) 
> > incline towards peace" 8:61. 
> 
> Very praise-worthy, but a long way from "love your enemies". 
> 
> God bless, 
> Kendall K. Down 

Is it praise-worthy? Mohammed's cousin, Ibn ‘Abbās, whom Nobody has informed 
us preserved the Koran for us, said it was superseded by another verse that is 
less praise-worthy (to non-Muslims anyway). 

It appears what we really have in the religion of Islam are the teachings of 
Mohammed's COUSIN, Ibn ‘Abbās, AND Mohammed, and not necessarily just the 
teachings of Mohammed alone. 



"If they incline towards peace, you incline also, Allah hates aggressors (8:61) 

Verse 
But if the enemy incline towards peace, do thou (also) incline towards peace, 
and trust in Allah: for He is One that heareth and knoweth (all things). 

Qur'an 8:61 

Meaning of Verse 
Abrogation (Naskh) refers to one Qur'anic verse superseding another, and is 
itself supported by Qur'anic verses and various hadith narrations. According
to Ibn ‘Abbās (Muhammad's Cousin) verse 8:61 has been replaced by another
well known verse. 

‘This has been abrogated by the “sword verse” [Q. 9:5]’ 
Surat Al-'Anfāl (The Spoils of War) 8:61 
Ibn Abbas in Tafsir Ibn Abbas and Tafsir al-Jalalayn (Suyuti) 

And here is that verse in full. 

But when the forbidden months are past, then fight and slay the Pagans
wherever ye find them, and seize them, beleaguer them, and lie in wait
for them in every stratagem (of war); but if they repent, and establish
regular prayers and practise regular charity, then open the way for them:
for Allah is Oft-forgiving, Most Merciful. 
Qur'an 9:5 

Notice that it says "if they repent, and establish regular prayers and
practice regular charity, then open the way for them". The only way a non-
believer can repent and establish regular prayers, is by converting to Islam.
Muhammad also said, fighting must go on even after it stops. 

(Until the war lays down its burden.) Mujahid said: "Until `Isa [JESUS] bin 
Maryam (peace be upon him) descends. It seems as if he derived this opinion 
from the Prophet's saying, There will always be a group of my Ummah victorious 
upon the truth, until the last of them fight against Ad-Dajjal.) Imam Ahmad 
recorded from Jubayr bin Nufayr who reported from Salamah bin Nufayl that he 
went to the Messenger of Allah and said, "I have let my horse go, and thrown 
down my weapon, for the war has ended. There is no more fighting. Then the 
Prophet said to him, Now the time of fighting has come. There will always be a 
group of my Ummah dominant over others. Allah will turn the hearts of some 
people away (from the truth), so they (that group) will fight against them 

The Command to strike the Enemies' Necks 
Tafsir Ibn Kathir 
Conclusion 
Verse 8:60 is no longer applicable to Muslims and many scholars agree.

{NOTE: Apparently, "8:60" was a typo and verse 8:61 was meant, as that verse
is the subject of this article, and it is said above, "verse 8:61 has been
replaced by another well known verse" – the “sword verse” [Q. 9:5]".}

"It is the consensus of the scholars of this Ummah that if part of the
religion is Allah's and other part is not, fighting must go on until the
entire religion is Allah's".[3] 

Ibn Taymiyyah 

"Jihad and the rifle alone. NO negotiations, NO conferences and NO dialogue." 
Join The Caravan, p9 
Sheikh Abdullah Yusuf Azzam 
"So, if the fighting stops, the disbelievers will dominate, and fitnah, which 
is Shirk (polytheism), will spread." 
Join The Caravan, p20 
Sheikh Abdullah Yusuf Azzam" 

From http://wikiislam.net/wiki/Misinterpreted_Qur'anic_Verses 

[Linda]

"That verse [5:32] also says it is okay to kill someone who does "mischief".
In the Tafsir ibn Kathir, Qatada, one of Muhammad's companions, explained the
definition of "Mischief" according to Islam.

(And when it is said to them: "Do not make mischief on the earth,"), means,
"Do not commit acts of disobedience on the earth. Their mischief is disobeying
Allah, because whoever disobeys Allah on the earth, or commands that Allah be
disobeyed, he has committed mischief on the earth.
Meaning of Mischief
Tafsir Ibn Kathir - see http://wikiislam.net/wiki/Misinterpreted_Qur%27anic_Verses

[Kendall Down]

On 20/11/2015 06:02, Linda wrote:

> "That verse [5:32] also says it is okay to kill someone who does "mischief".
> In the Tafsir ibn Kathir, Qatada, one of Muhammad's companions, explained the
> definition of "Mischief" according to Islam.

One of the reasons for rejecting a post made by a person who has been
put on manual is if it is identical to one already posted. This is the
second or third time that you have posted the same post to two different
threads. I trust it won't happen again.

[Nobody]

On 11/20/2015 5:47 AM, Linda wrote:
> On Thursday, November 19, 2015 at 2:13:36 PM UTC-5, Kendall Down wrote:
>> On 19/11/2015 12:12, Nobody wrote:
>>
>

> From http://wikiislam.net/wiki/Misinterpreted_Qur'anic_Verses
>
>

All your information is from WikiISLAM, which is a wonderfully named
anti-Islamic website. A point I have made in previous discussions, when
your comrade Ken used it as his reference. I am not here to explain and
break down the arguments of antiIslamic web pages, no more than you are
in this group to explain what is written in antiChristian web pages. I
could rebut each point from your reference, but I wont as from previous
experience, the likes that do post from such sources will post a
different page from a similar source to change subject when the first
post gets exposed for what it is, an out of context cherry picked
inflammatory, biased propaganda tool to demonise the millions of the
people around the world.

However sticking to the reference I provided, the references cites, the
same was ordained for the children of Isreal, the mentioning of the
verses is clear, that the same also applies to Muslims. In that killing
one is though one had killed humanity. Also the verses of combat are
clear, it is your source that is playing word games with difference
cherry picked citations, many of which are not authentic, and proven to
be fabrications. The Quran is clear, even if you enemy wants peace in
the battlefield, then you must choose peace of fighting.



--
Muhammad
--
(Jesus said), "And indeed, Allah is my Lord and your Lord,
so worship Him. That is a straight path." (Quran 19:36)

[Linda]

On Friday, November 20, 2015 at 11:03:24 AM UTC-5, Nobody wrote:
> On 11/20/2015 5:47 AM, Linda wrote:
> > On Thursday, November 19, 2015 at 2:13:36 PM UTC-5, Kendall Down wrote:
> >> On 19/11/2015 12:12, Nobody wrote:
> >>
> >
> > From http://wikiislam.net/wiki/Misinterpreted_Qur'anic_Verses
> >
> >
>
> All your information is from WikiISLAM, which is a wonderfully named
> anti-Islamic website.

Okay, here is another website that agrees with that material concerning Surah 5:32-33:
http://www.americanthinker.com/blog/2009/06/obama_quotes_verse_532_omits_5.html

>
> A point I have made in previous discussions, when
> your comrade Ken used it as his reference.

Comrade? Are Kendall and I supposed to be Russians now? Kendall and I disagree
a lot of the time. We just happen to agree these verses are taken out of
context in order to make Islam seem to not compel conversion to Islam at the
point of a sword.

> I am not here to explain and
> break down the arguments of antiIslamic web pages, no more than you are
> in this group to explain what is written in antiChristian web pages.

You require us to refute your antiChristian posts though.

>I
> could rebut each point from your reference, but I wont as from previous
> experience, the likes that do post from such sources will post a
> different page from a similar source to change subject when the first
> post gets exposed for what it is, an out of context cherry picked
> inflammatory, biased propaganda tool to demonise the millions of the

You've exposed nothing. And you're only insinuating the Koran does not
compel conversion, not outright stating it.

>
> Also the verses of combat are
> clear, it is your source that is playing word games with difference
> cherry picked citations, many of which are not authentic, and proven to
> be fabrications. The Quran is clear, even if you enemy wants peace in
> the battlefield, then you must choose peace of fighting.

You have not proven this to be a fabrication, so your denial is 'falling on
deaf ears'. A cause for peace is conversion only; without conversion to Islam,
there is no peace.

Do you deny Mohammed's cousin said that Surah 8:61 is to be superseded by the
sword verse - Surah 9:5?

"But if the enemy incline towards peace, do thou (also) incline towards peace, 
and trust in Allah: for He is One that heareth and knoweth (all things). 

Qur'an 8:61 

Meaning of Verse 
Abrogation (Naskh) refers to one Qur'anic verse superseding another, and is 
itself supported by Qur'anic verses and various hadith narrations. According to 
Ibn ‘Abbās (Muhammad's Cousin) verse 8:61 has been replaced by another well 
known verse. 

‘This has been abrogated by the “sword verse” [Q. 9:5]’ 
Surat Al-'Anfāl (The Spoils of War) 8:61 
Ibn Abbas in Tafsir Ibn Abbas and Tafsir al-Jalalayn (Suyuti) 

And here is that verse in full. 

But when the forbidden months are past, then fight and slay the Pagans
wherever ye find them, and seize them, beleaguer them, and lie in wait for
them in every stratagem (of war); but if they repent, and establish regular
prayers and practise regular charity, then open the way for them: for Allah
is Oft-forgiving, Most Merciful. 
Qur'an 9:5"

> people around the world.
>
> However sticking to the reference I provided, the references cites, the
> same was ordained for the children of Isreal, the mentioning of the
> verses is clear, that the same also applies to Muslims. In that killing
> one is though one had killed humanity.

Nothing says it applies to Muslims; it was a law given by Mohammed for the
Children of Israel only, as stated in the Koran. The Koran often says
to kill those who refuse to convert to Islam.

[Linda]

Sorry, I just wanted the material in a thread by itself so I might be able to
find it later by the thread's title.

[Nobody]

On 11/20/2015 6:48 PM, Linda wrote:
> On Friday, November 20, 2015 at 11:03:24 AM UTC-5, Nobody wrote:
>> On 11/20/2015 5:47 AM, Linda wrote:
>>> On Thursday, November 19, 2015 at 2:13:36 PM UTC-5, Kendall Down wrote:
>>>> On 19/11/2015 12:12, Nobody wrote:
>>>>
>>>
>>> From http://wikiislam.net/wiki/Misinterpreted_Qur'anic_Verses
>>>
>>>
>>
>> All your information is from WikiISLAM, which is a wonderfully named
>> anti-Islamic website.
>
> Okay, here is another website that agrees with that material concerning Surah 5:32-33:
> http://www.americanthinker.com/blog/2009/06/obama_quotes_verse_532_omits_5.html
>
>
>>
>> A point I have made in previous discussions, when
>> your comrade Ken used it as his reference.
>
> Comrade?

Comrade means "companion who shares one's activities or is a fellow
member of an organization".

> Are Kendall and I supposed to be Russians now? Kendall and I disagree
> a lot of the time. We just happen to agree these verses are taken out of
> context in order to make Islam seem to not compel conversion to Islam at the
> point of a sword.
>

Both of agree after consulting after consultiing antiIslamic websites.
How convenient, and it does show you both formed a informed opinion.

>> I am not here to explain and
>> break down the arguments of antiIslamic web pages, no more than you are
>> in this group to explain what is written in antiChristian web pages.
>
> You require us to refute your antiChristian posts though.
>

My posts are my work, they present my opinions with complete in context
references, I am human, I can be wrong, and when I see that, as per out
previous discussions I am willing to admit it.

>> I
>> could rebut each point from your reference, but I wont as from previous
>> experience, the likes that do post from such sources will post a
>> different page from a similar source to change subject when the first
>> post gets exposed for what it is, an out of context cherry picked
>> inflammatory, biased propaganda tool to demonise the millions of the
>
> You've exposed nothing. And you're only insinuating the Koran does not
> compel conversion, not outright stating it.
>

"There shall be no compulsion in [acceptance of] the religion. The right
course has become clear from the wrong. So whoever disbelieves in Taghut
(false God/s) and believes in Allah has grasped the most trustworthy
handhold with no break in it. And Allah is Hearing and Knowing" (Quran
2:256)

>>
>> Also the verses of combat are
>> clear, it is your source that is playing word games with difference
>> cherry picked citations, many of which are not authentic, and proven to
>> be fabrications. The Quran is clear, even if you enemy wants peace in
>> the battlefield, then you must choose peace of fighting.
>
>
> You have not proven this to be a fabrication, so your denial is 'falling on
> deaf ears'. A cause for peace is conversion only; without conversion to Islam,
> there is no peace.
>

I did not say it, I wrote it, so I guess you are trying to read with
your eyes closed.

2.190. Fight against those who fight against you in the way of Allah,
but do not transgress, for Allah does not love transgressors.

(this was permission given to the Muslims to a fight a people that had
oppressed them, killed a number of Muslims in weaker positions, removed
them from their homeland and sort to make alliances with other groups to
eliminate Muslims - in this verse despite the permission to fight their
is clear correction that one must not transgress, which is further
elaborated in the following verses)

2.191. Kill them whenever you confront them and drive them out from
where they drove you out. (For though killing is sinful) wrongful
persecution is even worse than killing. Do not fight against them near
the Holy Mosque unless they fight against you; but if they fight against
you kill them, for that is the reward of such unbelievers.


(drive them out from where they drove you out, hence this is a defensive
actions, in this Muslims are not permitted to in the holy mosque, unless
they be attacked first)

2.192. Then if they desist, know well that Allah is Ever-Forgiving, Most
Compassionate.

(But if the enemy while they fight, seeks peace, then the Muslims must
offer peace, that is the command of God, per this and v.190 mentioned above)

2.193. Keep on fighting against them until mischief ends and the way
prescribed by Allah prevails. But if they desist, then know that
hostility is only against the wrong-doers


(however if they continue to persecute and cause tribulation in the
land, keep on fighting them, and not the verse clearly says "Fight
against those who fight against you in the way of Allah, but do not
transgress, for Allah does not love transgressors" hence innocent people
cant be targeted)

>> people around the world.
>>
>> However sticking to the reference I provided, the references cites, the
>> same was ordained for the children of Isreal, the mentioning of the
>> verses is clear, that the same also applies to Muslims. In that killing
>> one is though one had killed humanity.
>
> Nothing says it applies to Muslims; it was a law given by Mohammed for the
> Children of Israel only, as stated in the Koran. The Koran often says
> to kill those who refuse to convert to Islam.
>

1) the Quran is not a once a upon time story narrative like the Bible,
2) the stories mentioned in the Quran serve as parables, hence when the
Quran says Moses, David etc, were prophets to the Jews, we Muslims
accept them to be our prophets too. Hence the teaching mentioned in the
Quran for the Jews and Christians applies to the Muslims.
4) Muhammad did not bring laws for the children of Israel, to state as
such you are only showing your lack of knowledge on the subject matter
and by insisting on your false stance, you are making a fool of yourself.
5) the quran does not say kill those who refuse to convert to Islam,
please do give me a fully context quote.


...

Surah 9 is which you have masterfully taken out of context, because your
abrogation and its approval comes from antiIslamic webpages,
specifically related to those that had a treaty with Muslims. The
polytheists that broke their oat with the Muslims and attacked them, and
sought an agreement with other tribes to eliminate the Muslims.
In this you and your source neglected v7 "So as long as they are upright
toward you, be upright toward them. Indeed, Allah loves the righteous
[who fear Him]", hence as long as they keep their word and keep the
peace you Muslims must also keep the peace. The same passaged in v6 also
mentioned If any of the polytheists asks you for protection, give them
protection, so they must be granted security so that they can hear the
Qur'an to see whether they will become Muslim or not. If they do not
become Muslim, return them to a safe place. Linda however you are
partially right what your source did not mention is that only a minority
of Islamic scholars in the past have considered the concept of fighting
till conversion or expulsion from the land, but only in the specific
mentioned case where a treaty has been broken, and the party seeks to
unite with other forces to exterminate the Muslims.

.....

I got this argument from a antiChristian website:

Can you explain why Jesus and lucifer both are referred to as the
'morning star' in the Bible, the Bible does seem to be hinting that both
are the same being.

[Linda]

On Friday, November 20, 2015 at 4:43:25 PM UTC-5, Nobody wrote:
> On 11/20/2015 6:48 PM, Linda wrote:
> > On Friday, November 20, 2015 at 11:03:24 AM UTC-5, Nobody wrote:
> >> On 11/20/2015 5:47 AM, Linda wrote:
> >>> On Thursday, November 19, 2015 at 2:13:36 PM UTC-5, Kendall Down wrote:
> >>>> On 19/11/2015 12:12, Nobody wrote:
> >>>>
> >>>
> >>> From http://wikiislam.net/wiki/Misinterpreted_Qur'anic_Verses
> >>>
> >>>
> >>
> >> All your information is from WikiISLAM, which is a wonderfully named
> >> anti-Islamic website.
> >
> > Okay, here is another website that agrees with that material concerning Surah 5:32-33:
> > http://www.americanthinker.com/blog/2009/06/obama_quotes_verse_532_omits_5.html
> >
> >
> >>
> >> A point I have made in previous discussions, when
> >> your comrade Ken used it as his reference.
> >
> > Comrade?
>
> Comrade means "companion who shares one's activities or is a fellow
> member of an organization".
>
> > Are Kendall and I supposed to be Russians now? Kendall and I disagree
> > a lot of the time. We just happen to agree these verses are taken out of
> > context in order to make Islam seem to not compel conversion to Islam at the
> > point of a sword.
> >
>
> Both of agree after consulting after consultiing antiIslamic websites.
> How convenient, and it does show you both formed a informed opinion.

We are not in collusion against you, and we have never discussed how to reply
to you. I simply looked up Surah 5:32 after seeing it mentioned here and found
the website I quoted.

>
>
>
> >> I am not here to explain and
> >> break down the arguments of antiIslamic web pages, no more than you are
> >> in this group to explain what is written in antiChristian web pages.
> >
> > You require us to refute your antiChristian posts though.
> >
>
> My posts are my work, they present my opinions with complete in context
> references, I am human, I can be wrong, and when I see that, as per out
> previous discussions I am willing to admit it.

Refresh my memory of when you admitted to being wrong about something?

>
> >> I
> >> could rebut each point from your reference, but I wont as from previous
> >> experience, the likes that do post from such sources will post a
> >> different page from a similar source to change subject when the first
> >> post gets exposed for what it is, an out of context cherry picked
> >> inflammatory, biased propaganda tool to demonise the millions of the
> >
> > You've exposed nothing. And you're only insinuating the Koran does not
> > compel conversion, not outright stating it.

What you're quoting below was already covered in the website on misrepresented
verses used by Muslim apologists. It's ironic you use the same few verses they
say are always used to misrepresent Islamic teachings, don't you think?

I notice you posted almost the same things to Kendall in his thread concerning
Islam teaching to forgive one's enemies.

Islam seems to be all about fighting and killing; your quotes below are a far
cry from the teachings of Christ.

More precisely from an atheist website. I've seen the question before.

>
> Can you explain why Jesus and lucifer both are referred to as the
> 'morning star' in the Bible, the Bible does seem to be hinting that both
> are the same being.

They are not hinting that. The Hebrew word Heylel, translated in the KJV
Bible as Lucifer, means morning star.

Lucifer is not the proper name of the Devil, but denotes only the state
from which the Devil has fallen. The Devil had been an angel (a morning
star) in Heaven, but when he was cast down, he was known only as the Devil,
meaning the slanderer.

Lucifer became a fallen angel, and angels are called "morning stars" in Job
38:7, and are also called simply "stars" elsewhere in the Bible (Isa. 14:13,
Rev. 12:4).

Angels are spirits (Psa. 104:4), and YHWH/God is sometimes called "the Angel
of the LORD" (Exo. 3:2-4). "God is a Spirit" (John 4:24), and the ascended
Christ is called "the Spirit" (about 8 times) in the Book of Revelation.

Although there are many "sons of God" (a term used of angels in Job 38:7
and Gen. 6:2, just as "children of God" is used of men/women many times),
Christ is unique in that he is the "only begotten Son of God" (John 3:18).

Christ is also unique in that he is not just a "morning star", but he is
"the bright and morning star" (Rev. 22:16).

Isa 14:12 How art thou fallen from heaven, O Lucifer, son of the morning!
how art thou cut down to the ground, which didst weaken the nations!
Isa 14:13 For thou hast said in thine heart, I will ascend into heaven, I
will exalt my throne above the stars of God: I will sit also upon the mount
of the congregation, in the sides of the north:
Isa 14:14 I will ascend above the heights of the clouds; I will be like
the most High.


You will be very confused if you get your information about Christianity
from atheist websites, as they do not know what they're talking about. I
argued with them for years. None of their arguments hold up, and it just got
very tiresome. And I gave it up.


>
> --
> Muhammad
>

[John Cooper]

On Fri, 20 Nov 2015 16:37:14 -0800 (PST)
Linda <lindal...@gmail.com> wrote:

> Christ is also unique in that he is not just a "morning star", but he
> is "the bright and morning star" (Rev. 22:16).
>
> Isa 14:12 How art thou fallen from heaven, O Lucifer, son of the
> morning! how art thou cut down to the ground, which didst weaken the
> nations! Isa 14:13 For thou hast said in thine heart, I will ascend
> into heaven, I will exalt my throne above the stars of God: I will
> sit also upon the mount of the congregation, in the sides of the
> north: Isa 14:14 I will ascend above the heights of the clouds; I
> will be like the most High.
>
>
> You will be very confused if you get your information about
> Christianity from atheist websites, as they do not know what they're
> talking about. I argued with them for years. None of their arguments
> hold up, and it just got very tiresome. And I gave it up.

It must have been very tiresome.

My godly grandfather once told me to count how many 'I's there were in
Isaiah 14:13,14, after he noticed how much I was talking about myself.
I couldn't understand how we came to such different numbers. I made it
21. He sent me back to count it again. He made it 5. It was so
frustrating. But now I get it.

John Cooper
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=UgXW9dGnKng

[Kendall Down]

On 21/11/2015 00:37, Linda wrote:

> You will be very confused if you get your information about Christianity
> from atheist websites, as they do not know what they're talking about. I
> argued with them for years. None of their arguments hold up, and it just got
> very tiresome. And I gave it up.

I think that is nobody's point - that getting arguments from an
anti-Islam website is comparable to him getting arguments from an
anti-Christian website.

What he says is true - if, and only if, the anti-Islamic website is
deviating from the truth (and the same thing applies to anti-Christian
websites). It would be useful if readers to the newsgroup could see the
various quotations that are being bandied about in their true context
and not all of us have a Qur'an lying around at home.

nobody, could you please post the URL to an on-line Qur'an (in English,
of course) which you would accept as a trustworthy translation?

[Linda]

On Saturday, November 21, 2015 at 2:21:38 AM UTC-5, Kendall Down wrote:
> On 21/11/2015 00:37, Linda wrote:
>
> > You will be very confused if you get your information about Christianity
> > from atheist websites, as they do not know what they're talking about. I
> > argued with them for years. None of their arguments hold up, and it just got
> > very tiresome. And I gave it up.
>
> I think that is nobody's point - that getting arguments from an
> anti-Islam website is comparable to him getting arguments from an
> anti-Christian website.
>
> What he says is true - if, and only if, the anti-Islamic website is
> deviating from the truth (and the same thing applies to anti-Christian
> websites). It would be useful if readers to the newsgroup could see the
> various quotations that are being bandied about in their true context
> and not all of us have a Qur'an lying around at home.

To see in context the 8 or 9 verses Wiki Islam said were used by Muslim
apologists to misrepresent what is taught in the Koran, I used the website
below. But although it says it is annotated, I saw no notations, only
different people's translations of the verse.

What is really needed is an English version Koran that includes the notes
concerning what Mohammed's cousin said about other verses superseding
particular verses.

http://corpus.quran.com/translation.jsp?chapter=5&verse=32

[Steve Wilson]

To be honest I don't know why you regularly hint that anyone who makes
use of anti-Muslim websites is somehow inferior. What matters is whether
the refuting evidence is correct.

You say your posts represent your own opinions, and so they may, but
funnily enough the positions you expound are well represented on
websites devoted to refuting Islam. Clearly your position on the
Ebionites and the Apostle Paul did not originate with you because these
poor arguments are represented on such sites thus indicating they are
not new. Personally I don't see anything wrong with someone making use
of such sites to further their knowledge. Indeed, why would I not make
use of sites which specialise in refuting Mormonism, Jehovah's
Witnesses, Islam etc when the authors are far more knowledgeable than
myself? Seems to me in using this tactic you are trying to negate the
arguments against Islam by attacking where they come from. If I
remember correctly this is an invalid form of logical argument called
the 'genetic fallacy'.


[section snipped for brevity]

> .....
>
> I got this argument from a antiChristian website:
>
> Can you explain why Jesus and lucifer both are referred to as the
> 'morning star' in the Bible, the Bible does seem to be hinting that both
> are the same being.
>

Clearly this anti-Christian website is not so good because using similar
imagery does not at all mean the persons being referred to are one and
the same.

Steve Wilson

[Linda]

I think he's gotten a lot more than a question about one verse from anti-
Christian or atheist websites, as I've heard many times before the things
he brings up about it. Also, he claims to have read the entire NT, but his
questions about it often belie that claim.
>
> Steve Wilson

[celia]

On Saturday, November 21, 2015 at 6:53:21 PM UTC, Steve Wilson wrote:

> > Can you explain why Jesus and lucifer both are referred to as the
> > 'morning star' in the Bible, the Bible does seem to be hinting that both
> > are the same being.
> >
> Clearly this anti-Christian website is not so good because using similar
> imagery does not at all mean the persons being referred to are one and
> the same.
>

I also thought it rather feeble as it is difficult to even equate Lucifer
and Satan using only the Bible.
On the other hand I wouldn't mind seeing more such arguments against
Christianity as it is important to be able to give reasons for our hope.

Celia

[Linda]

When I Pet. 3:15 says we should be ready always to give a reason of the hope
that is in us, he is not talking about verifying the authenticity of the NT
manuscripts, but about preaching the Gospel to others because it is the
Gospel, the good news, of Christ, that is the reason for our hope of
salvation and eternal life.

1Pe_3:15 But sanctify the Lord God in your hearts: and ___be ready always
to give an answer to every man that asketh you a reason of the hope that is
in you___ with meekness and fear:



1Th_5:8 But let us, who are of the day, be sober, putting on the
breastplate of faith and love; and for an helmet, the hope of salvation.

Tit_1:2 In hope of eternal life, which God, that cannot lie, promised
before the world began;

Tit_3:7 That being justified by his grace, we should be made heirs
according to the hope of eternal life.


Trying to verify the authenticity of every verse of the Scriptures is a
never-ending process when you're dealing with unbelievers.

[Steve Wilson]

I agree. At one time atheists used to supply this service but I've
noticed of late that they seem to have retreated into their bunkers
preferring not to be disturbed. I find it odd that though the thinking
atheists have retreated somewhat, we now live in a society that assumes
atheism is coherent and Christianity not, when the truth is that it's
the other way round.

Steve W

[Nobody]

On 11/21/2015 6:48 PM, Steve Wilson wrote:
> On 20/11/2015 21:35, Nobody wrote:
>> On 11/20/2015 6:48 PM, Linda wrote:
>>> On Friday, November 20, 2015 at 11:03:24 AM UTC-5, Nobody wrote:
>>>> On 11/20/2015 5:47 AM, Linda wrote:
>>>>> On Thursday, November 19, 2015 at 2:13:36 PM UTC-5, Kendall Down
>>>>> wrote:
>>>>>> On 19/11/2015 12:12, Nobody wrote:
>
> To be honest I don't know why you regularly hint that anyone who makes
> use of anti-Muslim websites is somehow inferior. What matters is whether
> the refuting evidence is correct.
>

1) when I read the article I can see the gasping hole in their arguments
2) to break down such articles and show their deceit is a lengthy
process, a process I conducted numerous times in the past, and no longer
have the time to do. I have a young family, a job, and have to do my
'bit' around the house.
3) as I have mentioned before to you (which also counts for others),
that you are free to use antiIslamic web pages.
4) though please don't expect me to spend time out of my busy schedule
to give thorough replies to such posts, when you yourself copy paste
material from pages, which in reality you know are in the business of
demonising their target by hook or by crook.

> You say your posts represent your own opinions, and so they may, but
> funnily enough the positions you expound are well represented on
> websites devoted to refuting Islam. Clearly your position on the
> Ebionites and the Apostle Paul did not originate with you because these
> poor arguments are represented on such sites thus indicating they are
> not new.

The ebionites are also mentioned in numerous pro Christian and other non
anti-Christian sites. They are also mentioned by Bible scholars and
others that study the text. I have already mentioned, I present the
Ebionites as a possibility not as a fact and for the reason that their
belief system is almost identical to Islam when it comes to Jesus.

> Personally I don't see anything wrong with someone making use
> of such sites to further their knowledge. Indeed, why would I not make
> use of sites which specialise in refuting Mormonism, Jehovah's
> Witnesses, Islam etc when the authors are far more knowledgeable than
> myself?

For the reason if you know it is a anti website, its main purpose is to
demonising their target by hook or by crook, otherwise it wont be known
as a anti... website.

>
>> .....
>>
>> I got this argument from a antiChristian website:
>>
>> Can you explain why Jesus and lucifer both are referred to as the
>> 'morning star' in the Bible, the Bible does seem to be hinting that both
>> are the same being.
>>
> Clearly this anti-Christian website is not so good because using similar
> imagery does not at all mean the persons being referred to are one and
> the same.
>

To argue for that antiChristian website which I know is deluded (just to
make a point). Millions of Christians read the Bible in english, and a
good majority of them consider it to be God's word, and in that english
language lucifer and Jesus both are referred to as the morning star.

[Nobody]

The site below gives the vast majority of Hadith collections. The site
does note the validity of many hadith, whether they are authentic, weak,
or fabricated etc. Albeit for many hadiths no information has been
provided in terms of validity. But it is the best site I know. I do have
PDF copies of the complete hadith works, if anyone would like, can be
emailed, or put up for download.

http://sunnah.com/

The link below is for the Quran. I would like to add, Muslims do not
consider the English or any translation to be the word of God. The
translation is the understanding of the original of the translator/s,
and tries to portray the message the best it can. The translation I like
after having read the Yusuf Ali translation, is Sahin international.
Though I have found mistakes in both, which a couple I have notices
others have been pointed out to me by people that have studied and speak
the language as a profession.

http://quran.com/


I also have a word by word PDF translation of the Quran if anyone would
like I can put it up for download, or if easier email.

[celia]

On Saturday, November 21, 2015 at 8:43:22 PM UTC, Linda wrote:

> When I Pet. 3:15 says we should be ready always to give a reason of the hope
> that is in us, he is not talking about verifying the authenticity of the NT
> manuscripts, but about preaching the Gospel to others because it is the
> Gospel, the good news, of Christ, that is the reason for our hope of
> salvation and eternal life.

Nor was I talking about verifying the authenticity of the NT but rather
having an answer for atheists and others who ask embarrassing questions
such as 'if God is good why do children suffer?' Such questions, as voiced by
the opponents of Christianity, to a lesser extent are barriers between honest
seekers and God. If we have thought through these old chestnuts we are better
able to preach Christ.

>
>
> Trying to verify the authenticity of every verse of the Scriptures is a
> never-ending process when you're dealing with unbelievers.

I'm not someone who believes we are born Christian; to my mind we were all
initially an unbeliever and each unbeliever is a potential Christian.
It is more important to be loving than right but at the very least we should
have thought through such issues for our own confidence and peace of mind.

Celia

[Linda]

On Saturday, November 21, 2015 at 5:33:21 PM UTC-5, celia wrote:
> On Saturday, November 21, 2015 at 8:43:22 PM UTC, Linda wrote:
>
> > When I Pet. 3:15 says we should be ready always to give a reason of the hope
> > that is in us, he is not talking about verifying the authenticity of the NT
> > manuscripts, but about preaching the Gospel to others because it is the
> > Gospel, the good news, of Christ, that is the reason for our hope of
> > salvation and eternal life.
>
> Nor was I talking about verifying the authenticity of the NT but rather
> having an answer for atheists and others who ask embarrassing questions
> such as 'if God is good why do children suffer?'

We all suffer because of original sin; the sin of following the Devil. That is
the lesson given to Job. IOW, we suffer because of the Devil and our own actions
that resulted in us being born into this world as "children of the Devil", not
because it was what God wanted for us when he created us as children of God.

Why do you think children suffer if God is good?

>
> Such questions, as voiced by
> the opponents of Christianity, to a lesser extent are barriers between honest
> seekers and God. If we have thought through these old chestnuts we are better
> able to preach Christ.
> >
> >
> > Trying to verify the authenticity of every verse of the Scriptures is a
> > never-ending process when you're dealing with unbelievers.
>

> I'm not someone who believes we are born Christian; to my mind we were all
> initially an unbeliever and each unbeliever is a potential Christian.

Right, because all are either children of the Devil or children of God, according
to I John 3:10, we are all children of the Devil until and/or unless we become
children of God through belief in Christ.

However, I do believe the Scriptures indicate some are destined to become children
of God, although the Methodist church rejects predestination because they think it
is contrary to free will. I don't think it negates free will; it just shows God
knows beforehand what we will choose in this crucible, even though it still has to
be acted out.

1Pe 1:2 Elect according to the foreknowledge of God the Father, through
sanctification of the Spirit, unto obedience and sprinkling of the blood of
Jesus Christ: Grace unto you, and peace, be multiplied.


Eph 1:4 According as he hath chosen us in him before the foundation of the world,
that we should be holy and without blame before him in love:
Eph 1:5 Having predestinated us unto the adoption of children by Jesus Christ to
himself, according to the good pleasure of his will,
Eph 1:6 To the praise of the glory of his grace, wherein he hath made us accepted
in the beloved.
..
Eph_1:11 In whom also we have obtained an inheritance, being predestinated
according to the purpose of him who worketh all things after the counsel of his
own will:


Rom 8:28 And we know that all things work together for good to them that love God,
to them who are the called according to his purpose.
Rom 8:29 For whom he did foreknow, he also did predestinate to be conformed to the
image of his Son, that he might be the firstborn among many brethren.
Rom 8:30 Moreover whom he did predestinate, them he also called: and whom he called,
them he also justified: and whom he justified, them he also glorified.

> It is more important to be loving than right but at the very least we should
> have thought through such issues for our own confidence and peace of mind.

I understand.

>
> Celia

[Linda]

Do you have a link to an annotated Quran that informs of abrogated verses?

[Linda]

On Saturday, November 21, 2015 at 4:43:21 PM UTC-5, Nobody wrote:
> On 11/21/2015 6:48 PM, Steve Wilson wrote:
> > On 20/11/2015 21:35, Nobody wrote:
> >> On 11/20/2015 6:48 PM, Linda wrote:
> >>> On Friday, November 20, 2015 at 11:03:24 AM UTC-5, Nobody wrote:
> >>>> On 11/20/2015 5:47 AM, Linda wrote:
> >>>>> On Thursday, November 19, 2015 at 2:13:36 PM UTC-5, Kendall Down
> >>>>> wrote:
> >>>>>> On 19/11/2015 12:12, Nobody wrote:
> >
> > To be honest I don't know why you regularly hint that anyone who makes
> > use of anti-Muslim websites is somehow inferior. What matters is whether
> > the refuting evidence is correct.
> >
>
> 1) when I read the article I can see the gasping hole in their arguments
> 2) to break down such articles and show their deceit is a lengthy
> process, a process I conducted numerous times in the past, and no longer
> have the time to do. I have a young family, a job, and have to do my
> 'bit' around the house.
> 3) as I have mentioned before to you (which also counts for others),
> that you are free to use antiIslamic web pages.
> 4) though please don't expect me to spend time out of my busy schedule
> to give thorough replies to such posts, when you yourself copy paste
> material from pages, which in reality you know are in the business of
> demonising their target by hook or by crook.

We do not know that they are demonizing the subject. It is you who says
they are anti-Islam. They do not say they are. And you think they are
because you don't like what they're saying.

It seems to me it's a matter of interpretation. The few verses you've quoted
here to "prove" Islam is peaceful were also covered on such websites; you
simply interpret them in a different way.

Don't you know any verses that prove your claims other than the 8 or 9
verses that such websites say are the same verses used by Muslim apologists
to misrepresent Islam as a peaceful religion? Out of the entire Koran are
there REALLY only 8 or 9 verses that make it sound peaceful?

You must know more than 8 or 9 verses that prove your allegations. That you
seem to be able to only offer the SAME few verses makes it look like these
websites you claim are anti-Islam are actually correct. Give us something
other than those verses that follow:

5:32, 2.256, 2.195, 8:61, 2.190, 8:39, 2:62, & 109.1-6 -
from http://wikiislam.net/wiki/Misinterpreted_Qur%27anic_Verses

>
>
> > You say your posts represent your own opinions, and so they may, but
> > funnily enough the positions you expound are well represented on
> > websites devoted to refuting Islam. Clearly your position on the
> > Ebionites and the Apostle Paul did not originate with you because these
> > poor arguments are represented on such sites thus indicating they are
> > not new.
>
> The ebionites are also mentioned in numerous pro Christian and other non
> anti-Christian sites.

The Ebionites are mentioned as heretical to Christianity by Irenaeus, an
early church father, in the second century (long before the Trinity doctrine
was formed).

>
> They are also mentioned by Bible scholars and
> others that study the text.

They are mentioned as being heretical.

>
> I have already mentioned, I present the
> Ebionites as a possibility not as a fact and for the reason that their
> belief system is almost identical to Islam when it comes to Jesus.

Small wonder since Mohammed's version of Jesus is heretical to very early
Christianity. Perhaps Mohammed knew an offshoot of the Ebionites and learned
from them.

>
>
> > Personally I don't see anything wrong with someone making use
> > of such sites to further their knowledge. Indeed, why would I not make
> > use of sites which specialise in refuting Mormonism, Jehovah's
> > Witnesses, Islam etc when the authors are far more knowledgeable than
> > myself?
>
> For the reason if you know it is a anti website, its main purpose is to
> demonising their target by hook or by crook, otherwise it wont be known
> as a anti... website.

Demonize or reveal?

>
> >
> >> .....
> >>
> >> I got this argument from a antiChristian website:
> >>
> >> Can you explain why Jesus and lucifer both are referred to as the
> >> 'morning star' in the Bible, the Bible does seem to be hinting that both
> >> are the same being.
> >>
> > Clearly this anti-Christian website is not so good because using similar
> > imagery does not at all mean the persons being referred to are one and
> > the same.
> >
>
> To argue for that antiChristian website which I know is deluded (just to
> make a point). Millions of Christians read the Bible in english, and a
> good majority of them consider it to be God's word, and in that english
> language lucifer and Jesus both are referred to as the morning star.

Most people know the OT was in Hebrew/Aramaic and the NT was in Greek, so
had there been identical terms in the English, they wouldn't necessarily
have been identical in the other languages.

But there weren't identical terms. The NT - Rev. 22:16 says "I am the root and the offspring of David, and the bright and morning star", and the OT -
Isa. 14:12 says, "How art thou fallen from heaven, O Lucifer, son of the
morning!"

And what these websites conveniently forget to mention is that Christ ALSO
said of believers in Rev 2:28, "And I will give him the MORNING STAR",
meaning they will become angels (as angels are called "morning stars" in
Job 38:7).

Rev 2:26 And he that overcometh, and keepeth my works unto the end, to him will I give power over the nations:
..
Rev 2:28 And I will give him the morning star.

Daniel prophesies something similar:
Dan 12:3 And they that be wise shall shine as the brightness of the
firmament; and they that turn many to righteousness as the stars for ever
and ever.

>
>
>
> --
> Muhammad

[Kendall Down]

On 21/11/2015 21:39, Nobody wrote:

> For the reason if you know it is a anti website, its main purpose is to
> demonising their target by hook or by crook, otherwise it wont be known
> as a anti... website.

No doubt there are some websites that will resort to dishonest tactics
in order to villify their target, but there are others which present
carefully researched and factual evidence in order to expose both errors
and evil. The difficulty, of course, is know the difference between the two.

That is why, despite your busy schedule - and I would certainly urge you
to put your family before uk.r.c - your feedback is valuable. If a
website is posting lies, any reasonable person will be glad to know it.
On the other hand, if a website is merely posting alternate
interpretations, then we have to look at the various interpretations and
make up our own minds which are the reasonable ones - but we will never
know the interpretation you favour if you don't post it. Sometimes
repeatedly.

[Kendall Down]

On 21/11/2015 21:55, Nobody wrote:

> http://sunnah.com/
> http://quran.com/

Thanks for those links.

> The link below is for the Quran. I would like to add, Muslims do not
> consider the English or any translation to be the word of God.

If true, it means that Islam is not a message for all mankind but only
for the Arabs.

[Steve Wilson]

On 21/11/2015 21:39, Nobody wrote:

> On 11/21/2015 6:48 PM, Steve Wilson wrote:
>> On 20/11/2015 21:35, Nobody wrote:
>>> On 11/20/2015 6:48 PM, Linda wrote:
>>>> On Friday, November 20, 2015 at 11:03:24 AM UTC-5, Nobody wrote:
>>>>> On 11/20/2015 5:47 AM, Linda wrote:
>>>>>> On Thursday, November 19, 2015 at 2:13:36 PM UTC-5, Kendall Down
>>>>>> wrote:
>>>>>>> On 19/11/2015 12:12, Nobody wrote:
>>
>> To be honest I don't know why you regularly hint that anyone who makes
>> use of anti-Muslim websites is somehow inferior. What matters is whether
>> the refuting evidence is correct.
>>
>
> 1) when I read the article I can see the gasping hole in their arguments

That works both ways.

> 2) to break down such articles and show their deceit is a lengthy
> process, a process I conducted numerous times in the past, and no longer
> have the time to do. I have a young family, a job, and have to do my
> 'bit' around the house.

Most of us are in a similar position. Although my child rearing days are
done, shift work often makes me so tired that I can hardly keep awake
let alone marshal my thoughts long enough to compose a post.

> 3) as I have mentioned before to you (which also counts for others),
> that you are free to use antiIslamic web pages.

I've never noticed you state this before but perhaps I should give you
the benefit of the doubt as I often don't keep up with the discussions
on the ng. And anyway, isn't it a bit pointless of you to state that
I'm free to use 'anti-Islamic' web sites? I don't actually need your
permission. What I resent slightly is your insinuation that those who
learn from these sites are somehow being lazy or dishonest. I think it
is perfectly valid form of learning, if you will, a more accessible and
up to date form of reading a book on the subject, which I also do
routinely.

> 4) though please don't expect me to spend time out of my busy schedule
> to give thorough replies to such posts, when you yourself copy paste
> material from pages, which in reality you know are in the business of
> demonising their target by hook or by crook.
>

Except in certain instances i.e quotes from God's word, quotes from the
Koran and citations of authors, I rarely copy and paste. What I
actually do is put into my own faltering words that which I've learnt
from others who are far more knowledgeable than myself. In this I don't
think I'm any different from yourself. However your repeated remarks
about 'anti-islamic websites', as you are apt to put it, leads me to
suspect you want to neutralise the arguments against Islam by
disparaging the source, which as I said previously, is an invalid form
of argumentation.

And I think you are wrong in your assertion that these sites are 'in the
business of demonising their target by hook or by crook'. There may
indeed be a minority but most are genuinely pointing out what they see
as inconsistencies and errors in the specific belief system under
scrutiny. What really matters is whether the evidence and explanations
provided stand up. Like most I think I can tell when a website merely
has an axe to grind rather than a heart to reach out and warn using
reasoned evidence.

>
>> You say your posts represent your own opinions, and so they may, but
>> funnily enough the positions you expound are well represented on
>> websites devoted to refuting Islam. Clearly your position on the
>> Ebionites and the Apostle Paul did not originate with you because these
>> poor arguments are represented on such sites thus indicating they are
>> not new.
>
> The ebionites are also mentioned in numerous pro Christian and other non
> anti-Christian sites. They are also mentioned by Bible scholars and
> others that study the text. I have already mentioned, I present the
> Ebionites as a possibility not as a fact and for the reason that their
> belief system is almost identical to Islam when it comes to Jesus.
>

My point is that you didn't originate this argument or the one about the
Apostle Paul. If you didn't then you must have learnt about it from
somewhere, most likely Islamic sources. If this is the case then you are
no different from me and all it boils down to which position is true
based on evidences. Where we source the arguments is irrelevant.

>
>> Personally I don't see anything wrong with someone making use
>> of such sites to further their knowledge. Indeed, why would I not make
>> use of sites which specialise in refuting Mormonism, Jehovah's
>> Witnesses, Islam etc when the authors are far more knowledgeable than
>> myself?
>
> For the reason if you know it is a anti website, its main purpose is to
> demonising their target by hook or by crook, otherwise it wont be known
> as a anti... website.
>

You are assuming that Islam is unquestionably the truth, something which
I and many others dispute. And 'anti' is your pejorative use of the word
not mine. Seems to me you are displaying the self-referential arrogance
to which many Muslims, both conservative and radical are prone. This
Islamic arrogance concerns me because without humility it is a short
step from believing you have the truth to imposing that truth on others
by physical force, which is precisely what we see in the Islamic world.

>>
>>> .....
>>>
>>> I got this argument from a antiChristian website:
>>>
>>> Can you explain why Jesus and lucifer both are referred to as the
>>> 'morning star' in the Bible, the Bible does seem to be hinting that both
>>> are the same being.
>>>
>> Clearly this anti-Christian website is not so good because using similar
>> imagery does not at all mean the persons being referred to are one and
>> the same.
>>
>
> To argue for that antiChristian website which I know is deluded (just to
> make a point). Millions of Christians read the Bible in english, and a
> good majority of them consider it to be God's word, and in that english
> language lucifer and Jesus both are referred to as the morning star.
>

A quick google revealed that this was a transliteration mistake in the
King James version of the bible that soon led to lucifer being confused
with Satan. Subsequent bible versions don't have Lucifer i Isaiah 14 but
'light-bearer' or something similar. The context of this passage in
Isaiah is the King of Babylon not Satan. So what is the point you are
trying to make? Surely you can't be using the example of one poor
argument on an 'anti-Christian' website as a benchmark to dismiss all
such websites? If you are then I would suspect you want Islam to be
placed beyond criticism.

Steve W

[Timreason]

On 21/11/2015 19:41, celia wrote:

> On the other hand I wouldn't mind seeing more such arguments against
> Christianity as it is important to be able to give reasons for our hope.
>
> Celia
>

Yes, I think it is right and proper to listen to those who do not engage
with Christianity, and try to understand their reasons for rejection. I
spent a little time in one of the atheist newsgroups for that reason.
The hardest part BY FAR was convincing them first and foremost that I
was NOT there to proselytise, but instead to listen and understand. For
me, I was particularly curious to understand those who reject ALL forms
of spirituality or any search for deeper meaning.

Of course, atheists are not a homogeneous group in any sense, the only
uniting factor being that they do not believe in any God or gods. They
can have other beliefs, such as belief in 'luck' or superstitions, and
still be atheists - but most seem to reject any 'spiritual dimension' or
metaphysical thinking.

To me, one of the main aspects is my belief that "The Creation bears
witness to its Creator". IOW, the fact that there is something rather
than nothing, and that 'something' is incredibly complex and diverse,
makes me certain in my own mind that there is form and purpose behind
existence. In my opinion it is the Creation, more so than any Holy
Books, that is perhaps the closest we get to 'proof' of God. The nearest
I have come across to what I would expect God to be like is portrayed in
the Gospels as God as revealed in Jesus Christ. That revelation seems
different to God as described in other religions, including Judaism.

It's why I reject notions that seem to try to make Christianity 'the
same' as other religions. It seems to me a unique revelation of God. The
teachings of Christianity seem to promote forgiveness, love, compassion,
kindness and mercy, in a way that other religions do not match (IMO).

Tim.

[Mark Carroll]

On 22 Nov 2015, timr...@hotmail.co.uk wrote:
(snip)

> Yes, I think it is right and proper to listen to those who do not engage
> with Christianity, and try to understand their reasons for rejection. I
> spent a little time in one of the atheist newsgroups for that reason.

(snip)

> Of course, atheists are not a homogeneous group in any sense, the only
> uniting factor being that they do not believe in any God or gods.

Especially, those who actually go so far as to participate in atheist
newsgroups may be unrepresentatively rabid, some for good reason, like
truly bad experiences that they unfortunately had in religious settings.

(snip)

> It's why I reject notions that seem to try to make Christianity 'the
> same' as other religions. It seems to me a unique revelation of God. The
> teachings of Christianity seem to promote forgiveness, love, compassion,
> kindness and mercy, in a way that other religions do not match (IMO).

One special thing that Christianity offers is a personal relationship
with Jesus Christ. If one genuinely opens one's heart and patiently
tries to behave in a Christian way and prays for guidance and help, then
I suspect a good indicator is if one actually starts to feel Christ
working in one's life. How true something analogous might be in Judaism
or Islam or whatnot, I've not heard, but from outside they have seemed
to me to be more ritualistic and legalistic, in contrast with Paul's,

] For our gospel came not unto you in word only, but also in power, and
] in the Holy Ghost, and in much assurance ...

] Now if any man have not the Spirit of Christ, he is none of his.

-- Mark

[Nobody]

Abrogation is not a exact science, one scholar may differ from another
thus it is a offering of opinion, where seemingly a contradiction may
appear or there is a contradiction between Quran and Hadith.

[Nobody]

The word of God can only be in the language the text was delivered in.
The translation is a rendition of the original were the human
translating the original can make mistakes. The process is apparent in
the Bible, the words in one version do not match that of another
version, which exactly is the word of God. Did God reveal all the
versions, and all the translations.

The purpose of the translation is to convey the message, and most do to
a very good degree and accuracy. However when we 'knit pick', we may
find mistakes in the translation. For example the Bible states God
created in 6 days. Which clearly leads to the notion of our 6, 24 hour
days. When you look at the the copy, the text has been translated from,
the word also means 6 stages of time. The truer rendition is and always
will be the 6 stages of time, for God is not limited to our day cycle.

[Linda]

So, no. Where can these scholars' varied opinions on what verses are
abrogated be found, for without them apparently, there can be no
understanding of the Koran. I have read Surah 8:61 (one of the few verses
you tout as proof Islam is peaceful) is abrogated by the sword verse, Surah
9:5, according to Ibn Abbas in Tafsir Ibn Abbas and Tafsir al-Jalalayn (Suyuti).

"But when the forbidden months are past, then fight and slay the Pagans

wherever ye find them, an seize them, beleaguer them, and lie in wait for

them in every stratagem (of war); but if they repent, and establish regular
prayers and practise regular charity, then open the way for them: for Allah

is Oft-forgiving, Most Merciful." - Qur'an 9:5


>
>
> --
> Muhammad

[Kendall Down]

On 22/11/2015 15:17, Nobody wrote:

> The word of God can only be in the language the text was delivered in.

That is nonsense.

I would agree with you that the *words* of God can, perhaps, be best
expressed in the language the text was delivered in, but the word of God
- the meaning of God's message - should be capable of delivery in any
language on earth and the more so if someone wants to claim that that
message is intended for everyone on earth.

> The process is apparent in
> the Bible, the words in one version do not match that of another
> version, which exactly is the word of God. Did God reveal all the
> versions, and all the translations.

The word of God is clear in all the translations and versions, whether
the many translations in English or the translations into other languages.

> The purpose of the translation is to convey the message, and most do to
> a very good degree and accuracy. However when we 'knit pick', we may
> find mistakes in the translation. For example the Bible states God
> created in 6 days. Which clearly leads to the notion of our 6, 24 hour
> days. When you look at the the copy, the text has been translated from,
> the word also means 6 stages of time. The truer rendition is and always
> will be the 6 stages of time, for God is not limited to our day cycle.

I have always said that Muslims have a very limited notion of God,
thinking that He is nothing more than a big man in the sky.

[Nobody]

On 11/22/2015 2:10 AM, Linda wrote:
> On Saturday, November 21, 2015 at 4:43:21 PM UTC-5, Nobody wrote:
>> On 11/21/2015 6:48 PM, Steve Wilson wrote:
>>> On 20/11/2015 21:35, Nobody wrote:
>>>> On 11/20/2015 6:48 PM, Linda wrote:
>>>>> On Friday, November 20, 2015 at 11:03:24 AM UTC-5, Nobody wrote:
>>>>>> On 11/20/2015 5:47 AM, Linda wrote:
>>>>>>> On Thursday, November 19, 2015 at 2:13:36 PM UTC-5, Kendall Down
>>>>>>> wrote:
>>>>>>>> On 19/11/2015 12:12, Nobody wrote:
>>>
>>> To be honest I don't know why you regularly hint that anyone who makes
>>> use of anti-Muslim websites is somehow inferior. What matters is whether
>>> the refuting evidence is correct.
>>>
>>
>> 1) when I read the article I can see the gasping hole in their arguments
>> 2) to break down such articles and show their deceit is a lengthy
>> process, a process I conducted numerous times in the past, and no longer
>> have the time to do. I have a young family, a job, and have to do my
>> 'bit' around the house.
>> 3) as I have mentioned before to you (which also counts for others),
>> that you are free to use antiIslamic web pages.
>> 4) though please don't expect me to spend time out of my busy schedule
>> to give thorough replies to such posts, when you yourself copy paste
>> material from pages, which in reality you know are in the business of
>> demonising their target by hook or by crook.
>
>

> You must know more than 8 or 9 verses that prove your allegations. That you
> seem to be able to only offer the SAME few verses makes it look like these
> websites you claim are anti-Islam are actually correct. Give us something
> other than those verses that follow:
>

The Quran is not like the Bible. You are expecting exact words which you
would denote to mean peace. The Quran more so delivers a narrative and
we much follow the teaching of the narrative. So for example when we
find in the Quran Moses being instructed to go to Pharaoh and "Speak
gently to him but make him see the truth and fear Us..." (Quran 20),
thus this means we Muslims must also speak gently if it be someone as
evil as Pharaoh. In the same way when we find the Quran says we
delivered onto Moses the 10 commandments, that means we Muslims are to
adhere to those commandments.

> 5:32, 2.256, 2.195, 8:61, 2.190, 8:39, 2:62, & 109.1-6 -
> from http://wikiislam.net/wiki/Misinterpreted_Qur%27anic_Verses
>

I will make a exception for the above mentioned site and respond to it.
But I cant do this on a consistent basis, as it is very tiresome, as I
have to look at the sources at times 3 to 4 different sources (ie.
Quran, Hadith, Tafseer, and historical record), separate them, see their
validity, and then respond, which at times may be the case for just a
small section from such sites.

I must first try to make clear that the site is using at least 3
sources. 1) the quran 2) hadith 3) quranic tafseer. The first Muslims
consider to be the actual word of God, the second is a historical record
of early Islam and does contain many teaching in how the Quran should be
followed, the later is a opinion based on translation and gathering of
sources including hadith and opinions of people and the opinion of the
writer, in this many early writers did not distinguish between authentic
and non authentic sources. Essential the tafseer tries to give
explanation of the meanings of Quranic verses and everything it
contains, from creed matters, laws, wisdoms, advices, social
interactions, and so on.

The first allegation of v5.32 Killing a person is like killing all of
mankind.

First the site claims the verse is only a teaching for the children of
Israel, mentioning "it clearly does not apply to Muslims". Later it
contradicts itself when it provides a reference showing the early
Muslims do apply the verse to themselves. "Sa`id bin Jubayr said, "He
who allows himself to shed the blood of a Muslim, is like he who allows
shedding the blood of all people..." In this they have used the tafsir
of Ibn Kathir, and cherry picked one of the citations which makes it
look as though Muslims think it is OK to kill non Muslims. If one
consults the tafsir of Ibn Kathir
(http://www.qtafsir.com/index.php?option=com_content&task=view&id=786&Itemid=60)
pertaining to the same verses, he gathered a number of opinions and
hadith, one of which has been presented by the site. Now the passage
they present which only includes Muslims has also been noted as:

"He who kills a believing soul intentionally, Allah makes the Fire of
Hell his abode, He will become angry with him, and curse him, and has
prepared a tremendous punishment for him, equal to if he had killed all
people, his punishment will still be the same.'' Ibn Jurayj said that
Mujahid said that the Ayah"

Now we see any the opinion of Ibn Jurayj, may have been any believer of
God, which in Islam also includes the people of the book, i.e. Jews and
Christian, albeit we have numerous reservations on particular matters.

Within the same tafseer of Ibn Kathir, also collated opinion that
Al-A`mash and others said that Abu Salih said that Abu Hurayrah said, "I
entered on `Uthman when he was under siege in his house and said, `I
came to give you my support. Now, it is good to fight (defending you) O
Leader of the Faithful!' He said, `O Abu Hurayrah! Does it please you
that you kill all people, including me' I said, `No.' He said, `If you
kill one man, it is as if you killed all people. Therefore, go back with
my permission for you to leave. May you receive your reward and be saved
from burden.' So I went back and did not fight. "Ali bin Abi Talhah
reported that Ibn `Abbas said"

This narration gives us a much wider parameter, in that it includes all
of mankind. Yet the site in question cherry picked the one specific
collated opinion from within the tafseer of ibn Kathir to make it look
as though Muslims are permitted to kill all non Muslims.

The site tries to back up it's opinion from the rendition of 5.33-34.
Now if anyone read the verse, it is clear, the verse is if people fight
against the messenger and the message of God, thus God, and continually
strive to cause corruption (i.e pillage, murder, violate others without
cause) in the land. Those that do conduct such activity repent, i.e.
mend their ways, then the punishment is not applicable. In this they
must repent before they get caught and are about to be punished. We must
also take account when Muhammad returned to Makkah as the leader of the
land, he announced peace to all people, the very people that tried to
exterminate the Muslims. Thus repentance must be made prior to being
actually caught i.e seized, held by the person / people that will apply
the punishment. The verse itself was revealed when (about 1400 years
ago) some people from UKIL who came to Madinah, they claimed to be of
the Muslim faith, ate some food and later in the day murdered and robbed
an innocent shepherd, the criminals tortured and then literally
butchered this innocent man to pieces. This verse in turn was revealed
to deal with those who make mischief in the land. "they killed the
shepherd and drove away the camels, and they became unbelievers after
they were Muslims..." Sahih al-Bukhari, volume 4, Book 52, Hadith 261.


In these verses the site uses Ibn Kathir's tafseer, to define the
meaning of mischief, however conveniently on this occasion they did not
give hadith pertaining to the verse, because the meaning Ibn Kathir
gives to the word and his example does serve their purpose. The word is
"fasādan" which literally means corruption
(http://corpus.quran.com/qurandictionary.jsp?q=fsd#%285:33:10%29). And
the type of corruption these men conducted has been explained above.

In the above I have not distinguished between the sites use of non
authentic and authentic references as I feel that was not necessary to
prove my point for the reason, that they first contradict themselves,
then cherry pick one narrative from the numerous available on the same
passage from Ibn Kathirs tafseer to make their point and ignore a
authentic reference pertaining to the text.

The second verse the site uses is 2:256.
It is using Ibn Kathir again to deduce the meaning of the text. It
admits, the specific mention of their quotation is from a Sheikh
Muhammad Nasib Ar-Rafa‘i rendition of Ibn Kathir tafseer, however it
admits that the same narration does not exist in the more popular and
more widely available rendition of Ibn Kathir's tafsir by Safiur Rahman
Mubarakpuri. I do not have a copy of the specific tafsir they mention as
rendered by the site, but the same reference which they provide is also
mentioned in Wikipedia site
(https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Al-Baqara_256) which does not read as the
site in question has rendered it. I am not saying the site is lying, but
certainly there is a element of choosing, which is denoted within their
reference, thus they have left a portion of the text out. As with the
previously mentioned tafseer, I think this is another case of Ibn Kathir
have numerous opinions mentioned within his collation and it is possible
someone has interpreted the verses in the manner the site has argued,
but the context nor the circumstance or it validity is not visible; and
neither did I find the same opinion in any hadith (for all the
collection of hadith I have provided a link already (sunnah.com))

The third allegation made by the site is verse 2:195, refers to
continuous non stop fighting until all become Muslims. The site would
like us to believe Muslims at all cost, must make continuous war, else
it will be a loss of faith and lead them to the hell fire.

In this the first boxed reference is pertaining to a certain time and
circumstance. In the time of war with the Byzantine empire, the message
in essence is, you may have won the battle, but does that does mean you
must rest on that and abandon your struggle. Else if you abandon jihad
(fighting Jihad) in totality a destruction will come to you. In this we
must remember the circumstance and time period. The Arabs were in the
middle of two warring empires, Byzantine and Persia. Byzantine has
murdered a emissary of the Muslims, which at the time was seen by all as
a declaration of war in that era by all parties. In that period of time
people did not have stealth air craft to carry out a tactical operations
in order to find the specifically guilty, and even if such a attack was
somehow planned, it would always be seen as a declaration of war. Thus
for the Muslims it was a situation of fight or be taken over as the
declaration of war had already been instigated. Thus in such a
circumstance when fighting Jihad becomes necessary the one that is
capable of fighting must join or do what they are capable of, this can
only be declared by a Muslim ruler a caliph, not a imam, which is for a
defensive fight.

There are also numerous other interpretations:

(Then fight (O Muhammad ) in the cause of Allah, you are not tasked
(held responsible) except for yourself.) (4:84) That Ayah (2:195) is
about (refraining from) spending.'' Ibn Marduwyah reported this Hadith,
as well as Al-Hakim in his Mustadrak who said; "It meets the criteria of
the Two Shaykhs (Al-Bukhari and Muslim) but they did not record it."
Ath-Thawri and Qays bin Ar-Rabi` related it from Al-Bara'. but added:
(You are not tasked (held responsible) except for yourself.) (4:84)
"Destruction refers to the man who sins and refrains from repenting,
thus throwing himself to destruction.' Ibn `Abbas said: (And spend in
the cause of Allah and do not throw yourselves into destruction) "This
is not about fighting. But about refraining from spending for the sake
of Allah, in which case, one will be throwing his self into destruction."

Many have reconciled the two opinions and noted spending in this
specific instance refers to a war time period. Does this mean Muslims
must make outright non stop war in order to attain paradise? No.

Malik’s Muwatta, Book of Jihad (965) "Abdullah bin Abdulrahman bin
Maamar Al-Ansari told me about Aata’a bin Yasa’ar said that the
Messenger of Allah (SAWS) said, “Shall I tell you who is the best of you
amongst the people in grades?” “A man who directs his horse for jihad in
the way of Allah.” “And do you want me to tell you who is the best of
the people after this?” “A man who takes his sheep and stands for prayer
and gives charity (zakat) and worships Allah and doesn’t associate with
him in anything.”

This is again pertaining to defensive warfare, the one that actually
fights in order to save the Muslims has a higher rank for he is willing
to put in himself in harms way, but also the one that goes about his
daily life, prays, and gives charity, and worships God alone without
associating with him any partners is also considered to be someone that
will enter paradise. Hence the notion that Muslims must be at non stop
war is a false notion which the site in question is trying to portray.
These are defensive war time actions which are being portrayed as wider
non stop war methods by the site. By presenting this skewed position the
site is also neglecting that non Muslims lived in Muslims controlled
areas, where they had semi autonomous regions, in which they were
permitted to practice their own law. Many would like to point out that
non Muslims had to pay a tax that the Muslims did not, but the Muslims
also paid a tax the non Muslims did not. We must also note fighting
Jihad has its limitations as per restrictions applied per circumstance,
i.e to stop fighting if the enemy stops, offer protection if the enemy
wants etc. The site is also neglecting simple teachings in Islam, like
heaven is at the feet of your mother.

The third verse the site uses is 8:61, which states if the enemy stop
fighting and want peace then, you must too stop fighting and accept
peace. The site would like to allege this verse does not mean stop
fighting at all but it means continue fighting until they become
Muslims. First the site mentions the verse 8:61, "And if they incline to
peace, incline thou also to it, and trust in Allah. Lo! He, is the
Hearer, the Knower. (61) And if they would deceive thee, then lo! Allah
is Sufficient for thee. He it is Who supporteth thee with His help and
with the believers (62)". This is quite clear and does not need further
elaboration, but the site would like to allege that this verse is no
longer deemed as a teaching as it has been abrogated.

Abrogation in Islam is not a exact science and is a matter of opinions,
and there numerous categories in terms of abrogation.

The notion the site appears to be presenting is at odds with the
practice of prophet Muhammad himself, under whose rule numerous non
Muslims lived in semi autonomous regions. From 8:61 the site jumps and
tries to join this verse with 9:5 which is "And when the sacred months
have passed, then kill the polytheists wherever you find them and
capture them and besiege them and sit in wait for them at every place of
ambush. But if they should repent, establish prayer, and give zakah, let
them [go] on their way. Indeed, Allah is Forgiving and Merciful". This
has been explained in other posts as a cherry picked verse which is used
to masterfully and put forth the antiIslamic agenda of such sites.

The site would have us believe when the verse says "if they should
repent, establish prayer, and give zakah, let them [go] on their way",
this means Muslims must fight until the other party becomes Muslims. As
has been mentioned in a previous post, this verse relates specifically
against the tribe in the time of Muhammad that broke a peace treaty, it
aided, supported and made plans to exterminate the Muslims. If one reads
the context the very next verse (v6) say "if any one of the polytheists
seeks your protection, then grant him protection so that he may hear the
words of Allah . Then deliver him to his place of safety. That is
because they are a people who do not know", so if they seek protection
give them protection, and if they do not become Muslims during that
protection, deliver them to a safe place. This site presents a notion
which is in complete contradiction to the verses and to the actual
practice of the time, where numerous non Muslims lived under Muslims
rule. What the site has omitted is that in context both verses 8:61 and
9:5, mean if the enemy stop fighting and want peace offer peace. I have
already mentioned that their are different types of abrogation in
Islamic text and each is a matter of opinion. When the site states verse
8:61 has been abrogated by 9:5 it only gives 9 cherry picked words from
an entire quote from different tafsir (it had used Ibn Kathir previous)
so why change now? this time it uses the tafsir of al-jalalayn which states:

"And if they incline to peace (read silm or salm, meaning,
‘settlement’), then incline to it, and conclude a pact with them: Ibn
‘Abbās said, ‘This has been abrogated by the “sword verse” [Q. 9:5]’;
Mujāhid said, ‘This [stipulation] applies exclusively in the context of
the People of the Scripture, for it was revealed regarding the Banū
Qurayza; and rely on God, put your trust in Him; truly He is the Hearer,
of words, the Knower, of actions". (Quran 8:61) -
http://main.altafsir.com/Tafasir.asp?tMadhNo=0&tTafsirNo=74&tSoraNo=8&tAyahNo=61&tDisplay=yes&UserProfile=0&LanguageId=2

Thus we see Al-Jalayn's opinion of abrogation is specific only on
account of the Banu Qurayza tribe for breaking the treaty and joining
forces with those that attacked Muslims. Thus according to Al Jalalayn
one must look at the context of the specific circumstance prior to any
interpretation of such verses.

Thus in this section the site has missed the context and it has
misrepresented the views of its source by cherry picking specific words
to put forth its agenda.

...............

I don't have time to go through the remaining, the above is sufficient
to show the site, has misrepresented the sources they cite, it shows
they cherry picked words and give out of context quotations, and the
site at times contradicts itself.

>>>
>>
>> To argue for that antiChristian website which I know is deluded (just to
>> make a point). Millions of Christians read the Bible in english, and a
>> good majority of them consider it to be God's word, and in that english
>> language lucifer and Jesus both are referred to as the morning star.
>
> Most people know the OT was in Hebrew/Aramaic and the NT was in Greek, so
> had there been identical terms in the English, they wouldn't necessarily
> have been identical in the other languages.
>

Ken seems to think the English is also the word of God. Which Christian
is telling the truth?

[Linda]

Muhammad, I did NOT ask you to explain those 8 references that the site says
Muslim apologists consistently use. I asked you to provide some OTHER verses
from the Koran that show that it teaches peace.

I said "Give us something other than those verses that follow".

You obviously cannot do so and just use the same few verses other Muslim
apologists use. The Koran has more than 8-12 verses, but apparently these
are the only ones that point to it being a peaceful religion, and that is
PATHETIC.

..

>
> Ken seems to think the English is also the word of God. Which Christian
> is telling the truth?

I rely on the KJV or its more modern derivatives because it holds to the
Hebrew and Greek texts. Paraphrased versions wind up with much error.

The word of God is God's words in whatever language in which we are able to
read it.

[Nobody]

Sorry no such works exists, for if one did the works would be perhaps
10x the size of the Bible. Many a time these are non binding opinions,
many a time some of these opinion come from weak sources for that reason
many Muslims don't take them too seriously, and see them as a historical
reference. The Quran and Authentic Hadith, the latter a huge works
itself are suffice for a very sound understand of the Islamic faith.

[Linda]

Um, "MAKE HIM see the truth and FEAR Us" is not what I had in mind EITHER.


It indicates forced conversion ("make him see the truth") based on fear
("and fear Us"), not peace. That you think it shows otherwise is just
incredible - literally incredible.

[Nobody]

On 11/22/2015 4:50 PM, Kendall Down wrote:
> On 22/11/2015 15:17, Nobody wrote:
>
>> The word of God can only be in the language the text was delivered in.
>
> That is nonsense.
>
> I would agree with you that the *words* of God can, perhaps, be best
> expressed in the language the text was delivered in, but the word of God
> - the meaning of God's message - should be capable of delivery in any
> language on earth and the more so if someone wants to claim that that
> message is intended for everyone on earth.
>

The key is potentially be transmitted to another language. As a whole we
would say the translation transmits the message, but when one knit
picks, one may find mistakes, after all the translators are human and
prone to mistakes.

>> The process is apparent in
>> the Bible, the words in one version do not match that of another
>> version, which exactly is the word of God. Did God reveal all the
>> versions, and all the translations.
>
> The word of God is clear in all the translations and versions, whether
> the many translations in English or the translations into other languages.
>

Is the English the word of God, is the Urdu Bible too the world of God,
what about the French Bible, or the German Bible? how many times did God
reveal the text? The revelation is only in one language, other languages
may represent that message as best as possible.

[Linda]

I think maybe Nobody doesn't want us to see what some Muslim scholars think
are abrogated verses. It would look even worse than that they can't come up
with but a few verses that may be interpreted in a peaceful way.

[Linda]

On Sunday, November 22, 2015 at 10:13:23 AM UTC-5, Nobody wrote:

I found a link to a website giving the opinions of various Muslim scholars
believe to be abrogated verses.

http://www.answering-islam.org/Quran/abrogatedverses.html

[Nobody]

Thank you Linda, you posted about 3 different links to sites, and
alongside a number of others defended the use of antiIslamic web page
material. I spent a good amount of time looking at the latest link your
provided, as that is what is takes to look at all the sources, which is
what the site is claiming it has done by way of posting material from 3
to 4 different Islamic sources some of which may have numerous different
authors. When I proved that your given material is out of context,
cherry picked and misrepresents the sources it has used, you call it
pathetic. Good for you.

I have previously also stated The Quran is not like the Bible. You are

expecting exact words which you would denote to mean peace. The Quran

more so delivers a narrative an we much follow the teaching of the

narrative. So for example when we find in the Quran Moses being
instructed to go to Pharaoh and "Speak gently to him but make him see
the truth and fear Us..." (Quran 20), thus this means we Muslims must
also speak gently if it be someone as evil as Pharaoh. In the same way
when we find the Quran says we delivered onto Moses the 10 commandments,

that means we Muslims are to adhere to those commandments. You do know
one of commandments is love thy neighbour.

But if it is what you asked for then:

And the servants of the Most Merciful are those who walk upon the earth
easily, and when the ignorant address them [harshly], they say [words
of] peace, (25:63)

Speak kindly even if someone is harsh to you, this obliviously does
require a element of patience, forgiveness and will to make peace.

And let not those of virtue among you and wealth swear not to give [aid]
to their relatives and the needy and the emigrants for the cause of
Allah, and let them pardon and overlook. Would you not like that Allah
should forgive you? And Allah is Forgiving and Merciful. (24:22)

Forgive others so that God forgives you.

But indeed if any show patience and forgive, that would truly be an
exercise of courageous will and resolution in the conduct of affairs.
(42:43)

Forgive, make a mends, and leave the judgement to God.

And obey Allah and the Messenger that you may obtain mercy. And hasten
to forgiveness from your Lord and a garden as wide as the heavens and
earth, prepared for the righteous. Who spend [in the cause of Allah ]
during ease and hardship and who restrain anger and who pardon the
people - and Allah loves the doers of good; (3:133-134)

Do good and pardon others for their wrongs and you shall enter paradise.
v135 also states "And those who, when they commit an immorality or wrong
themselves [by transgression], remember Allah and seek forgiveness for
their sins - and who can forgive sins except Allah ? - and [who] do not
persist in what they have done while they know".

Hence repent for your sins and do not persist in them. For if you
persist on them and do not repent, then God's judgement may rule you out
of paradise.

[Nobody]

"Make him see the truth", just before those words it says "speak
gently", thus speak to him gently about God, have a rational dialogue
within that make him see the truth. And when it says "fear us", it is
relating to the fear of God.

It is clear you are making a callous attempt to skew realities when you
own Bible states:

The fear of the LORD [is] the beginning of knowledge - Proverbs 1:7
And unto man he said, Behold, the fear of the Lord, that [is] wisdom;
and to depart from evil [is] understanding. - John 28:28
Let all the earth fear the LORD: let all the inhabitants of the world
stand in awe of him. - Psalms 33:8

[Nobody]

Which is another anti-Islamic website, was very popular mostly in the
non moderated forums I use to partake in.

[Nobody]

You are free look and search the different sources yourself. But you
asked for a single source which binds all the multiple sources into one
works, and no such works exists. It is like a trainee biologist asking,
tell of one book, and only, that will teach me everything there is know
about biology.

I have already provided you with the link that shows Quran translations
and Hadith.

qtafsir.com - link to Tafsir of Ibn Kathir

http://www.altafsir.com/Tafasir.asp?tMadhNo=0&tTafsirNo=0&tSoraNo=1&tAyahNo=1&tDisplay=no&LanguageID=2
The above link gives you access to about 7 other tafsir's including the
one of used by wikiIslam Jalalayn.

http://www.searchtruth.com/tafsir/tafsir.php - this is the tafsir of
Sayyid Abul ala Maududi.

And you may be able to find others if you type "Quran tafsir" in google.

[Nobody]

On 11/23/2015 6:54 PM, Linda wrote:

Forgot to mention, their is a answering Christianity website in response
to the site which you mentioned. The Christian site as far as I know has
information from the like of Sam Shamoun and David Wood. Both of whom
have had numerous debates with Muslims. The last ones I viewed I while
back when David Wood had a series of debates with Abdullah Andalusi. -

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=ba1kuvoQpK8

It has 3 parts, it is lengthy, but I suppose such dialogue always is.

[Linda]

I think you're trying to obfuscate the issue with your complaints. I asked
you to provide OTHER verses, and instead you spoke against the same verses.
The point is all Muslim apologists use the same few verses; I wanted you to
show you can do otherwise.

>
> I have previously also stated The Quran is not like the Bible. You are
> expecting exact words which you would denote to mean peace. The Quran
> more so delivers a narrative an we much follow the teaching of the
> narrative. So for example when we find in the Quran Moses being
> instructed to go to Pharaoh and "Speak gently to him but make him see
> the truth and fear Us..." (Quran 20), thus this means we Muslims must
> also speak gently if it be someone as evil as Pharaoh.

You're just repeating yourself. As I said before, "make him see
the truth and fear Us' DOES NOT sound peaceful to me; it sounds like forced
conversion.

>
> In the same way
> when we find the Quran says we delivered onto Moses the 10 commandments,
> that means we Muslims are to adhere to those commandments. You do know
> one of commandments is love thy neighbour.

Love thy neighbor is NOT in the 10 Commandments. Are you trying to deceive or do you not know the 10 Commandments.

Here are the 10 Commandments, show me where 'love thy neighbor' is here in
the 10 Commandments:

Exo 20:3 Thou shalt have no other gods before me.
Exo 20:4 Thou shalt not make unto thee any graven image, or any likeness of
any thing that is in heaven above, or that is in the earth beneath, or that
is in the water under the earth:
Exo 20:5 Thou shalt not bow down thyself to them, nor serve them: for I the
LORD thy God am a jealous God, visiting the iniquity of the fathers upon the
children unto the third and fourth generation of them that hate me;
Exo 20:6 And shewing mercy unto thousands of them that love me, and keep my
commandments.
Exo 20:7 Thou shalt not take the name of the LORD thy God in vain; for the
LORD will not hold him guiltless that taketh his name in vain.
Exo 20:8 Remember the sabbath day, to keep it holy.
Exo 20:9 Six days shalt thou labour, and do all thy work:
Exo 20:10 But the seventh day is the sabbath of the LORD thy God: in it
thou shalt not do any work, thou, nor thy son, nor thy daughter, thy
manservant, nor thy maidservant, nor thy cattle, nor thy stranger that is
within thy gates:
Exo 20:11 For in six days the LORD made heaven and earth, the sea, and all
that in them is, and rested the seventh day: wherefore the LORD blessed the
sabbath day, and hallowed it.
Exo 20:12 Honour thy father and thy mother: that thy days may be long upon
the land which the LORD thy God giveth thee.
Exo 20:13 Thou shalt not kill.
Exo 20:14 Thou shalt not commit adultery.
Exo 20:15 Thou shalt not steal.
Exo 20:16 Thou shalt not bear false witness against thy neighbour.
Exo 20:17 Thou shalt not covet thy neighbour's house, thou shalt not covet
thy neighbour's wife, nor his manservant, nor his maidservant, nor his ox,
nor his ass, nor any thing that is thy neighbour's.

>
> But if it is what you asked for then:
>
> And the servants of the Most Merciful are those who walk upon the earth
> easily, and when the ignorant address them [harshly], they say [words
> of] peace, (25:63)
>
> Speak kindly even if someone is harsh to you, this obliviously does
> require a element of patience, forgiveness and will to make peace.

I'm not talking about refraining from violence when you don't like what
someone has SAID to you (and who has done you no violence). I'm talking
about not being violent and forcing others' conversion to Islam.

Anyone other than a Muslim or Muslim convert is your enemy. And you are to
make your enemies accept the alleged truth of Islam and to fear you.

I read the following and I see no indication that any of it refers to
anyone other than Muslims and Muslim converts.

[Linda]

So now you expect me to believe "Us" refers to Allah. Is Allah more than
one? Allah is plural? Allah has a "partner"? Is Allah's partner Jesus?

>
> It is clear you are making a callous attempt to skew realities when you
> own Bible states:

Projection. It is you who is trying to skew the reality of the Koran.

>
> The fear of the LORD [is] the beginning of knowledge - Proverbs 1:7

Where does it say 'The fear of Us is the beginning of knowledge?

> And unto man he said, Behold, the fear of the Lord, that [is] wisdom;

Where does it say 'Behold the fear of Us, that is wisdom'?

> and to depart from evil [is] understanding. - John 28:28


> Let all the earth fear the LORD: let all the inhabitants of the world
> stand in awe of him. - Psalms 33:8

Where does it say 'Let all the earth fear Us: let all the inhabitants of
the world stand in awe of Us'?

You are either very foolish yourself, or you think others are fools.

>
>
> --
> Muhammad

[Linda]

So what? You refused to supply a link to the Koran that includes the Muslim
scholars' opinions concerning abrogated verses, so I found my own source of
abrogated verses. And I note you're STILL not supplying one you don't
consider anti-Islamic. So supply one of which you approve.

I think you don't want anyone to see them because it makes Islam look worse
than it already does. He who has nothing to hide, hides nothing.

[Nobody]

> Exo 20:17 Thou shalt not covet thy neighbour's house, thou shalt not covet
> thy neighbour's wife, nor his manservant, nor his maidservant, nor his ox,
> nor his ass, nor any thing that is thy neighbour's.
>

Exo 20:17 - I always thought meant love thy neighbour in context, i.e.
be a good neighbour.

>
>
>>
>> But if it is what you asked for then:
>>
>> And the servants of the Most Merciful are those who walk upon the earth
>> easily, and when the ignorant address them [harshly], they say [words
>> of] peace, (25:63)
>>
>> Speak kindly even if someone is harsh to you, this obliviously does
>> require a element of patience, forgiveness and will to make peace.
>
> I'm not talking about refraining from violence when you don't like what
> someone has SAID to you (and who has done you no violence). I'm talking
> about not being violent and forcing others' conversion to Islam.
>
> Anyone other than a Muslim or Muslim convert is your enemy. And you are to
> make your enemies accept the alleged truth of Islam and to fear you.
>
> I read the following and I see no indication that any of it refers to
> anyone other than Muslims and Muslim converts.

No they were about the concept of forgiveness which I though we were
discussing. Perhaps the discussion moved on and I didn't notice. Just to
note they have parameters than just Muslims.

It is quite simple there is no compulsion in religion. Muslims are not
permitted to force anyone to convert to Islam. That is not allowed full
stop. This is further attested by the fact that non Muslims in the time
of Muhammad lived in semi autonomous regions, in which whey practices
their own law. However this does not mean no Muslims have ever not
forced anyone into converting into Islam, it is a issue that is a fact
in history of both Islam and Christianity.

[Nobody]

WHO do you the "us" mentioned in the Quran is referring to?

[Kendall Down]

On 23/11/2015 18:08, Nobody wrote:

> The key is potentially be transmitted to another language. As a whole we
> would say the translation transmits the message, but when one knit
> picks, one may find mistakes, after all the translators are human and
> prone to mistakes.

Indeed - which is why there are so many versions, including revised
versions. Each translator (or team of translators) attempts to correct
the mistakes of the previous ones.

> Is the English the word of God, is the Urdu Bible too the world of God,
> what about the French Bible, or the German Bible? how many times did God
> reveal the text? The revelation is only in one language, other languages
> may represent that message as best as possible.

They are all the word of God - or rather, they all contain the word of God.

[Linda]

Muslims, certainly not the singular Allah.

>
>
> --
> Muhammad

[Nobody]

On 11/23/2015 10:09 PM, Kendall Down wrote:
> On 23/11/2015 18:08, Nobody wrote:
>
>> The key is potentially be transmitted to another language. As a whole we
>> would say the translation transmits the message, but when one knit
>> picks, one may find mistakes, after all the translators are human and
>> prone to mistakes.
>
> Indeed - which is why there are so many versions, including revised
> versions. Each translator (or team of translators) attempts to correct
> the mistakes of the previous ones.
>

Which is my point. If you insist the English, the French, the German etc
are all the word of God, then what about the mistakes? does God makes
mistakes?

>> Is the English the word of God, is the Urdu Bible too the world of God,
>> what about the French Bible, or the German Bible? how many times did God
>> reveal the text? The revelation is only in one language, other languages
>> may represent that message as best as possible.
>
> They are all the word of God - or rather, they all contain the word of God.
>

So when did God reveal the message in English?

[Nobody]

What are you trying to say exactly. What do you think the plan was when
the Quran states Moses was told to speak gently to Pharaoh and make him
see the truth. Do you think the plan was speak gently to him, get close
and put him in a headlock. And in regard to the use of the word "us", it
is the same as when people at times say "we", and refer to a single
entity. In the UK it is akin to the 'royal we' not sure if you have a
similar concept in the states.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Royal_we

[Kendall Down]

On 24/11/2015 17:27, Nobody wrote:

> Which is my point. If you insist the English, the French, the German etc
> are all the word of God, then what about the mistakes? does God makes
> mistakes?

I said that they all *contain* the word of God. Thus a copyist's errors
do not nullify the word - the message - which is expressed. After all,
you expect us to understand you despite your many mistakes!

[Kendall Down]

On 24/11/2015 17:36, Nobody wrote:

> What are you trying to say exactly. What do you think the plan was when
> the Quran states Moses was told to speak gently to Pharaoh and make him
> see the truth. Do you think the plan was speak gently to him, get close
> and put him in a headlock. And in regard to the use of the word "us", it
> is the same as when people at times say "we", and refer to a single
> entity. In the UK it is akin to the 'royal we' not sure if you have a
> similar concept in the states.

The question is not whether America or Britain have the "royal we", it
is whether Arabic has it!

[Linda]

I take that back. It is "Us", not us, and "Us" (and also "We") refers to
Allah who does not sound singular, but PLURAL, just as in the Jewish
Scriptures, more often than not (almost 2,600 times), "God" is translated
from the plural word Elohim.

Perhaps Muslims don't really understand what Mohammed believed about God
just as the Jews of Christ's time were the blind being led about by blind
leaders.

>
> >
> >
> > --
> > Muhammad

[Kendall Down]

On 25/11/2015 14:18, Linda wrote:

> Perhaps Muslims don't really understand what Mohammed believed about God
> just as the Jews of Christ's time were the blind being led about by blind
> leaders.

In fact, if you read the Qur'an carefully, you find that Muhammed was
opposing a trinity made up of Father, mother and Son. I can only presume
that he got this idea from some heretics he met in Arabia, because it
certainly isn't orthodox Christian doctrine. He says nothing about the
*real* Trinity, so Muslims could - if they had enough intelligence -
become Christian Trinitarians without transgressing what the Qur'an
says. And, needless to say, I agree with the Qur'an in rejecting a
trinity of Father, mother and Son.

[Nobody]

I know what you said, but somehow you seem to think a copy and a
translation are 'one in the same'. A copy is a exact copy of the
supposed original, a translation is where the you have a choice of words
to use as you are rendering the message to a different language. Now God
is not choosing those words for you, thus the translation cant be
inspired, but only a rendition of a inspired works. The reason why you
have to cling to such fallacious opinion is that you know the Gospels
are written in Greek, Jesus spoke Aramaic and Hebrew and the disciples
spoke Aramaic and perhaps Hebrew. The Bible say in English is a
rendition of Greek which itself is a rendition of the spoken Aramaic or
Hebrew. Hence you have a works which is not in its original form, nor in
its original language, it is a translation of a translation of a
translation. For that reason I can understand your chosen
interpretation, however it does not tally. Else you will need to explain
when did God reveal the Bible in English.

[Nobody]

It certainly does Ken. It denotes a lofty high position.

[Nobody]

The Quran does not define the Trinity. It mentioned Father, Mother and
Son, as the Father is God, and Son (Jesus) and Mother (Mary) will be
questioned on the day of Judgement. The Holy Spirit (angel Gabriel) will
not be questioned in this matter, for he did not teach nor deliver the
message to us as people, he did his job by following the command of his
creator. And you know well, that many Christians (albeit heretics and
non Christians according to you) do pray to Jesus as a the holy mother
of God.

[Nobody]

Talking of the blind.

Nowhere does Jesus say he is God. You can find cherry picked verses,
which you have done so in the past and all have been rebutted with full
context.

Nowhere does Jesus ask to be worshipped, instead he himself bows and
begs to be saved. He calls his father "our" and "your" hence he God is
the father of the believers.

You have always twisted this with Father, Son relationship, which
obviously no Jew or Muslims could understand.

Also your notion of Trinity is at odds with all the previous prophets,
where God was one and always one, without any partners, son, mother, or
wife, but with the doctrine accepted by the empire, you put forth God
has a son, and he has a biological mother in his earthly existence.

[Nobody]

Typo* Pray to Mary as the holy mother of God.

[Kendall Down]

On 26/11/2015 14:16, Nobody wrote:

> I know what you said, but somehow you seem to think a copy and a
> translation are 'one in the same'. A copy is a exact copy of the
> supposed original, a translation is where the you have a choice of words
> to use as you are rendering the message to a different language.

In the days when texts were copied by hand, an exact copy was a very
rare beast indeed. There were always small mistakes and occasionally
even an interpolated or altered word.

That is what is so interesting about the manuscript of the Qur'an which
turned up in Birmingham (or was in Manchester?) recently, for it had
some small variations, if I remember correctly.

> Now God
> is not choosing those words for you, thus the translation cant be
> inspired, but only a rendition of a inspired works.

There are many people - I'm not one of them, mind - who would disgree
with you and just about accord inspired status to the KJV!

Christians have always accepted that it is the message which is
important rather than the words in which that message is expressed. Thus
"Love thy neighbour" is the inspired word of God, but so is "yr wyt i
garu dy gymydog" and likewise "apni paddosi say muhabat karo".

[Kendall Down]

On 26/11/2015 14:17, Nobody wrote:

> It certainly does Ken. It denotes a lofty high position.

Is that based on the Qur'an and what you assume it meant or was it in
existence before the Qur'an?

[Kendall Down]

On 26/11/2015 14:21, Nobody wrote:

> And you know well, that many Christians (albeit heretics and
> non Christians according to you) do pray to Jesus as a the holy mother
> of God.

Er - I think you need to rephrase that statement.

[Kendall Down]

On 26/11/2015 17:07, Nobody wrote:

> Typo* Pray to Mary as the holy mother of God.

But even those who do so, do not make Mary part of the Trinity, whereas
Muhammad appears unaware of that fact.

[Mark Carroll]

On 26 Nov 2015, Kendall Down wrote:

> On 26/11/2015 17:07, Nobody wrote:
>
>> Typo* Pray to Mary as the holy mother of God.
>
> But even those who do so, do not make Mary part of the Trinity, whereas
> Muhammad appears unaware of that fact.

That variety of intercession is a curious concept; I was just mentioning
in my other post things that the Roman Catholics somehow came up with.
Is there any scriptural basis at all for praying to anybody other than
God the Father, perhaps asking in Jesus' name; do we know anything about
how the practice arose of praying more widely? How should concepts like
the "communion of saints" be understood? It even gets a mention in
Common Worship.

-- Mark

[Mark Carroll]

On 26 Nov 2015, Kendall Down wrote:

(snip)

> Christians have always accepted that it is the message which is
> important rather than the words in which that message is expressed. Thus
> "Love thy neighbour" is the inspired word of God, but so is "yr wyt i
> garu dy gymydog" and likewise "apni paddosi say muhabat karo".

Absolutely. God ensures that the means for our salvation are available
to us. The exact details of that are indeed simply details. From Acts 2,
"we do hear them speak in our tongues the wonderful works of God". God
will make sure that what we hear and understand suffices; language is no
barrier, and Jesus inspires us to focus more on good, loving works and
prayer than on linguistic nit-picking.

-- Mark

[Linda]

On Wednesday, November 25, 2015 at 11:53:23 AM UTC-5, Kendall Down wrote:
> On 25/11/2015 14:18, Linda wrote:
>
> > Perhaps Muslims don't really understand what Mohammed believed about God
> > just as the Jews of Christ's time were the blind being led about by blind
> > leaders.
>
> In fact, if you read the Qur'an carefully, you find that Muhammed was
> opposing a trinity made up of Father, mother and Son. I can only presume
> that he got this idea from some heretics he met in Arabia, because it
> certainly isn't orthodox Christian doctrine. He says nothing about the
> *real* Trinity, so Muslims could - if they had enough intelligence -
> become Christian Trinitarians without transgressing what the Qur'an
> says.

They couldn't do it without transgressing against what the Koran says about Christ.

>
> And, needless to say, I agree with the Qur'an in rejecting a
> trinity of Father, mother and Son.
>
> God bless,
> Kendall K. Down

I think that idea is gotten from the fact that the Hebrew word for Spirit,
Ruach, is a feminine noun, therefore Spirit is Mother, and Mother and Father
produce the Son.

However, the Hebrew word for Wisdom, is a feminine noun, and Christ is
called the Wisdom of God (and is Wisdom in Proverbs 8). So matching the
roles up with the proper word gender doesn't work well in the biblical
story.

[Linda]

On Thursday, November 26, 2015 at 9:23:15 AM UTC-5, Nobody wrote:
> On 11/24/2015 8:31 PM, Kendall Down wrote:
> > On 24/11/2015 17:36, Nobody wrote:
> >
> >> What are you trying to say exactly. What do you think the plan was when
> >> the Quran states Moses was told to speak gently to Pharaoh and make him
> >> see the truth. Do you think the plan was speak gently to him, get close
> >> and put him in a headlock. And in regard to the use of the word "us", it
> >> is the same as when people at times say "we", and refer to a single
> >> entity. In the UK it is akin to the 'royal we' not sure if you have a
> >> similar concept in the states.
> >
> > The question is not whether America or Britain have the "royal we", it
> > is whether Arabic has it!
> >
>
>
> It certainly does Ken. It denotes a lofty high position.

"We" also denotes plurality, and there is no indication the "royal we"
existed when the Israelites called God the plural Elohim; in fact, the
"royal we" probably originated BECAUSE of that fact. And it seems Mohammed
reworked the OT and NT to come up with the Koran; he knew of the Hebrew
prophets and the Christ, but gave them different stories.

>
>
> --
> Muhammad

[Linda]

On Thursday, November 26, 2015 at 12:13:00 PM UTC-5, Nobody wrote:
> On 11/26/2015 2:21 PM, Nobody wrote:
> > On 11/25/2015 4:48 PM, Kendall Down wrote:
> >> On 25/11/2015 14:18, Linda wrote:
> >>
> >>> Perhaps Muslims don't really understand what Mohammed believed about God
> >>> just as the Jews of Christ's time were the blind being led about by
> >>> blind
> >>> leaders.
> >>
> >> In fact, if you read the Qur'an carefully, you find that Muhammed was
> >> opposing a trinity made up of Father, mother and Son. I can only presume
> >> that he got this idea from some heretics he met in Arabia, because it
> >> certainly isn't orthodox Christian doctrine. He says nothing about the
> >> *real* Trinity, so Muslims could - if they had enough intelligence -
> >> become Christian Trinitarians without transgressing what the Qur'an
> >> says. And, needless to say, I agree with the Qur'an in rejecting a
> >> trinity of Father, mother and Son.
> >>
> >
> > The Quran does not define the Trinity. It mentioned Father, Mother and
> > Son, as the Father is God, and Son (Jesus) and Mother (Mary) will be
> > questioned on the day of Judgement.

"Three Qur'anic verses may directly refer to this doctrine. Possible
Qur'anic references to the doctrine of "Trinity" are verses 4:171, 5:73,
and 5:116.[1]

"People of the Book, do not go to excess in your religion, and do not say
anything about God except the truth: the Messiah, Jesus, son of Mary, was
nothing more than a messenger of God, His word, directed to Mary, a spirit
from Him. So believe in God and His messengers and do not speak of a
'Trinity'—stop, that is better for you—God is only one God, He is far above
having a son, everything in the heavens and earth belongs to Him and He is
the best one to trust.

— Qur'an, sura 4 (An-Nisa), ayat 171[3]
Those who say, "God is the Messiah, son of Mary," have defied God. The
Messiah himself said; "Children of Israel, worship God, my Lord and your
Lord." If anyone associates others with God, God will forbid him from the
Garden, and Hell will be his home. No one will help such evildoers. Those
people who say that God is the third of three are defying [the truth]: there
is only One God. If they persist in what they are saying, a painful
punishment will afflict those of them who persist. Why do they not turn to
God and ask his forgiveness, when God is most forgiving, most merciful? The
Messiah, son of Mary, was only a messenger; other messengers had come and
gone before him; his mother was a virtuous woman; both ate food. See how
clear We make these signs for them; see how deluded they are.

— Qur'an, sura 5 (Al-Ma'ida), ayat 72-75[4]
And when Allah will say, "O Jesus, Son of Mary, did you say to the people,
'Take me and my mother as deities besides Allah ?'" He will say, "Exalted
are You! It was not for me to say that to which I have no right. If I had
said it, You would have known it. You know what is within myself, and I do
not know what is within Yourself. Indeed, it is You who is Knower of the
unseen.

— Qur'an, sura 5 (Al-Ma'ida), ayat 116[5]
Furthermore, verses 19:88-93, 23:91, and 112:1-4 are relevant to the
doctrine of "Trinity":

They say: "(Allah) Most Gracious has begotten a son!" Indeed ye have put
forth a thing most monstrous! At it the skies are ready to burst, the earth
to split asunder, and the mountains to fall down in utter ruin, that they
should invoke a son for (Allah) Most Gracious. For it is not consonant with
the majesty of (Allah) Most Gracious that He should beget a son. Not one of
the beings in the heavens and the earth but must come to (Allah) Most
Gracious as a servant.

— Qur'an, sura 19 (Maryam (sura)), ayat 88-93[6]
No son did Allah beget, nor is there any god along with Him: (if there were
many gods), behold, each god would have taken away what he had created, and
some would have lorded it over others! Glory to Allah! (He is free) from the
(sort of) things they attribute to Him!

— Qur'an, sura 23 (Al-Mumenoon), ayat 91[7]
Say: He is Allah, the One and Only; Allah, the Eternal, Absolute; He
begetteth not, nor is He begotten; And there is none like unto Him.

— Qur'an, sura 112 (Al-Ikhlas), ayat 1-4[8]" - see
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Islamic_view_of_the_Trinity#In_the_Qur.27an


Odd, that Mohammed denies the Son of God because the NT isn't the only text
saying God has a Son, the Old Testament does as well:

Pro 30:4 Who hath ascended up into heaven, or descended? who hath gathered
the wind in his fists? who hath bound the waters in a garment? who hath
established all the ends of the earth? what is his name, and what is his
son's name, if thou canst tell?
Pro 30:5 Every word of God is pure: he is a shield unto them that put
their trust in him.

The NT never teaches that Christ taught people to call his mother a god.

And although Christ was God incarnate and the son of Mary as well as the
Son of God, neither did Christ teach that he was a deity besides God; he
said he was one with God.

Mohammed definitely sounds confused about the teaching concerning Christ.
He knew even less about it than you do, Nobody.

>
> The Holy Spirit (angel Gabriel) will
> > not be questioned in this matter, for
he did not teach nor deliver the
> > message to us as people, he did his job by following the command of his
> > creator. And you know well, that many Christians (albeit heretics and
> > non Christians according to you) do pray to Jesus as a the holy mother
> > of God.

Roman Catholics call her the mother of God, although they pray to her, they
claim they do not worship her; they pray to saints too.

[Linda]

That's funny; I was talking about the subject of Catholic belief about Mary
today myself.


Catholics deny worshipping Mary, but they do pray to her. They also pray to
saints, so praying to her doesn't equate to worshipping her. However, they
do make her an intercessor of sorts; she gets you in good with Jesus.

But Christ said in Matt. 11:28, "Come unto me, all ye that labour and are heavy laden, and I will give you rest.", and NOT 'Go to Mary so you can come unto me'.

I can't think of any scriptural basis for asking Mary to okay us to Christ.

In an aside, in Jer. 6:16, Jeremiah talked of the "old paths" and "the good
way" that lead to rest for our souls as well, and in Isa. 35:8, Isaiah spoke
of the "way of holiness" (Christ saying HE was "the way" - John 14:6).

Jer_6:16 "Thus saith the LORD, Stand ye in the ways, and see, and ask for
the old paths, where is the good way, and walk therein, and ye shall find
rest for your souls. But they said, We will not walk therein."

Isa_35:8 "And an highway shall be there, and a way, and it shall be called
The way of holiness; the unclean shall not pass over it; but it shall be for
those: the wayfaring men, though fools, shall not err therein."

Those both sound like they refer to Christ (Abraham knowing of Christ's day - John 8:56).


Back to the subject of Mary - I have never heard of the communion of saints;
it sounds like prayer with the saints. (Or is it just joining with the
saints?) I can't think of any biblical basis for praying to saints or to
Mary.

However, they do call Mary "the queen of heaven", which in the OT referred
to a pagan goddess whom God forbid to be worshipped (Jer. 7:18 & Jer. 44:17,
18, 19, & 25). That sounds very iffy.


And they say she was "without sin", i.e. was not born with the stain of
original sin as all others are except Christ.

And they say she was translated to Heaven like Enoch, based on the fact that
her death is not mentioned in the NT. (Neither are the deaths of most of
those featured in the NT mentioned.)

[Linda]

On Thursday, November 26, 2015 at 4:53:18 PM UTC-5, Mark Carroll wrote:
> On 26 Nov 2015, Kendall Down wrote:
> (snip)
> > Christians have always accepted that it is the message which is
> > important rather than the words in which that message is expressed. Thus
> > "Love thy neighbour" is the inspired word of God, but so is "yr wyt i
> > garu dy gymydog" and likewise "apni paddosi say muhabat karo".
>
> Absolutely. God ensures that the means for our salvation are available
> to us. The exact details of that are indeed simply details. From Acts 2,
> "we do hear them speak in our tongues the wonderful works of God".

Good point, the word of Christ was translated from the beginning and that
was done supernaturally. I don't think Mohammed had any such miracles happen.

[Kendall Down]

On 26/11/2015 21:36, Mark Carroll wrote:

> That variety of intercession is a curious concept; I was just mentioning
> in my other post things that the Roman Catholics somehow came up with.
> Is there any scriptural basis at all for praying to anybody other than
> God the Father, perhaps asking in Jesus' name; do we know anything about
> how the practice arose of praying more widely? How should concepts like
> the "communion of saints" be understood? It even gets a mention in
> Common Worship.

Roman Catholic apologists claim that they are doing no more than you or
I might do if we ask a friend to pray for us. Prayer "to" a saint is
simply asking that person to speak to God on your behalf.

The theory is fine, but I am convinced that an awful lot of people do
indeed pray *to* the saint as others pray to God - and what is worse,
believe that a prayer to a saint is more likely to be answered than one
to God!

The whole business relies upon the idea that the dead are not only
conscious in heaven - which the Bible denies - but are conscious of
events on earth, which the Bible also denies. Why anyone surrounded by
the bliss of heaven, would spend his or her life peering down at our
wreck of a society and giving themselves pain, is beyond me.

In addition, we ascribe to these saints god-like powers in that they can
hear and respond to hundreds, if not thousands, of prayers
simultaneously (or, in the case of St Christopher, keep track of every
lunatic driver with a plastic medal stuck to his dashboard!)

Plus, of course, we are now officially informed that St Christopher
is/was a myth. Think of all the wasted prayers addressed to him - and
such people cannot really complain if God returns their prayers
unanswered with a "not known at this address".

[Kendall Down]

On 27/11/2015 03:19, Linda wrote:

> Back to the subject of Mary - I have never heard of the communion of saints;

The communion of saints is the idea that there is no difference between
the church on earth and the church in heaven; as Christians we are
members of a body that embraces both earth and heaven.

*If* the dead were conscious, the idea might have value.

[Kendall Down]

On 26/11/2015 21:44, Mark Carroll wrote:

> Absolutely. God ensures that the means for our salvation are available
> to us. The exact details of that are indeed simply details. From Acts 2,
> "we do hear them speak in our tongues the wonderful works of God". God
> will make sure that what we hear and understand suffices; language is no
> barrier, and Jesus inspires us to focus more on good, loving works and
> prayer than on linguistic nit-picking.

Thanks for reminding me of that. nobody protested that a translation
cannot be the word of God but is a human's rendering of the word of God
(which, apparently, was given in Greek and Hebrew). However a God Who
can enable the apostles to speak (or be understood) in multiple
languages can certainly inspire and guide translators and thus the word
of God is indeed present in English - as well as Croatian, Telegu,
Sinhala and Quechua.

[Kendall Down]

On 27/11/2015 01:49, Linda wrote:

> "We" also denotes plurality, and there is no indication the "royal we"
> existed when the Israelites called God the plural Elohim; in fact, the
> "royal we" probably originated BECAUSE of that fact.

When Nathan pointed at David and said "Thou art the man", David did not
respond with "We have sinned".

[celia]

On Friday, November 27, 2015 at 2:33:31 AM UTC, Linda wrote:

> Roman Catholics call her the mother of God, although they pray to her, they
> claim they do not worship her; they pray to saints too.

Not strictly true, they pray 'through' Mary and the saints using them as
intermediaries.

Celia

[Timreason]

On 26/11/2015 21:44, Mark Carroll wrote:

Yes, it is (to me) inconceivable that God would reveal His message in
one language only, in a way that can only be properly understood once
one has learnt that language. So, presumably one can only be a 'proper'
Muslim if one has first learnt Arabic? It doesn't ring true somehow, at
least to me.

Tim.

[Timreason]

YOU don't know that they are not!

From my POV I believe that Time is a part of THIS Created realm, and
the heavenly realms are not restricted by Time (at least as we
understand it). Thus, from God's perspective, ALL Time from the Alpha to
the Omega is 'Instantly' accessible. I believe that people who have been
accepted into God's heavenly realms will be/are given a similar perspective.

Thus we can (for example) ask Mary to pray "Now" for us, at the hour of
our death.

I don't think many Christians believe that praying to (NOT worshipping)
Mary or other saints is *necessary*, but rather, that the 'Communion of
Saints' is about recognising that our fellowship extends beyond Earthly
realms into the heavenly realms.

Tim.

[Mark Carroll]

Thank you to both you and Linda for your perspectives on this and the
intercession stuff.

-- Mark

[Linda]

Thank you for pointing out God supernaturally translated the word of God very early
in the ministry of the apostles; in fact from the very beginning! It puts the lie to
the Jews' and Muslims' claim that only their own Scriptures are the true word of God.

[John Cooper]

On Thu, 26 Nov 2015 21:36:55 +0000
Mark Carroll <mt...@ixod.org> wrote:

> >> Typo* Pray to Mary as the holy mother of God.
> >
> > But even those who do so, do not make Mary part of the Trinity,
> > whereas Muhammad appears unaware of that fact.
>
> That variety of intercession is a curious concept; I was just
> mentioning in my other post things that the Roman Catholics somehow
> came up with. Is there any scriptural basis at all for praying to
> anybody other than God the Father, perhaps asking in Jesus' name; do
> we know anything about how the practice arose of praying more widely?
> How should concepts like the "communion of saints" be understood? It
> even gets a mention in Common Worship.

Stephen prayed to Jesus - Acts 7:59

The Corinthian church prayed to Jesus - 1.Corinthians 1:2 - as do all
other Christians in all other places.

John Cooper

[Linda]

David being royalty... Yes, I don't think the OT was using the "royal we"
either when they called God the plural word Elohim.

[Linda]

On Friday, November 27, 2015 at 12:33:18 AM UTC-5, Kendall Down wrote:
> On 26/11/2015 21:36, Mark Carroll wrote:
>
> > That variety of intercession is a curious concept; I was just mentioning
> > in my other post things that the Roman Catholics somehow came up with.
> > Is there any scriptural basis at all for praying to anybody other than
> > God the Father, perhaps asking in Jesus' name; do we know anything about
> > how the practice arose of praying more widely? How should concepts like
> > the "communion of saints" be understood? It even gets a mention in
> > Common Worship.
>
> Roman Catholic apologists claim that they are doing no more than you or
> I might do if we ask a friend to pray for us. Prayer "to" a saint is
> simply asking that person to speak to God on your behalf.
>
> The theory is fine, but I am convinced that an awful lot of people do
> indeed pray *to* the saint as others pray to God - and what is worse,
> believe that a prayer to a saint is more likely to be answered than one
> to God!

The medals of protection indicate that; Saint Christopher's medal is quite
popular - see
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Saint_Christopher

>
> The whole business relies upon the idea that the dead are not only
> conscious in heaven - which the Bible denies -

You know I don't believe that, so I guess you want to discuss it again.

The Bible uses a euphemism for death - sleep, and says the dead know nothing
of what goes on in this world anymore. However, Christ said those who
are saved are not among "the dead"; they are still "living". And he says
nothing about them being in suspended animation.

Actual sleep is for those still in the flesh.

>
> but are conscious of
> events on earth, which the Bible also denies. Why anyone surrounded by
> the bliss of heaven, would spend his or her life peering down at our
> wreck of a society and giving themselves pain, is beyond me.

Christ does indicate the angels watch what goes on here as he says they
rejoice at every sinner that repents (Luke 15:10). Christ says the redeemed
are in Paradise with Christ (Luke 23:43) Christ also says we will be equal
unto the angels in the afterlife (Luke 20:36).

>
> In addition, we ascribe to these saints god-like powers in that they can
> hear and respond to hundreds, if not thousands, of prayers
> simultaneously (or, in the case of St Christopher, keep track of every
> lunatic driver with a plastic medal stuck to his dashboard!)

And carry Christ and the whole world on his back - look at the article at
that link.

>
> Plus, of course, we are now officially informed that St Christopher
> is/was a myth. Think of all the wasted prayers addressed to him - and
> such people cannot really complain if God returns their prayers
> unanswered with a "not known at this address".

The Eastern Orthodox church still venerates him. The article says his name
was Reprobus. That sounds like it means reprobate.

[Linda]

That's even worse. Christ never taught we needed an intermediary to come to
him.

[Linda]

On Friday, November 27, 2015 at 4:03:19 PM UTC-5, John Cooper wrote:
> On Thu, 26 Nov 2015 21:36:55 +0000
> Mark Carroll <mt...@ixod.org> wrote:
>
> > >> Typo* Pray to Mary as the holy mother of God.
> > >
> > > But even those who do so, do not make Mary part of the Trinity,
> > > whereas Muhammad appears unaware of that fact.
> >
> > That variety of intercession is a curious concept; I was just
> > mentioning in my other post things that the Roman Catholics somehow
> > came up with. Is there any scriptural basis at all for praying to
> > anybody other than God the Father, perhaps asking in Jesus' name; do
> > we know anything about how the practice arose of praying more widely?
> > How should concepts like the "communion of saints" be understood? It
> > even gets a mention in Common Worship.
>
> Stephen prayed to Jesus - Acts 7:59

I pray to the Father in Heaven in the Lord's prayer and to Christ using the
name Yehoshua`.

[Timreason]

If, like me, you are a Trinitarian, or at least believe in the divinity
of Christ, then the Gospels tell us His mother was Mary. There's no
getting around that, Mary is "The mother of God", because if she isn't,
then Jesus is not God.

Mary is reported as having said "Generations shall call me blessed".
It seems very reasonable to assume that, if anyone made it to heaven,
then she did.

However, I do not subscribe to the Roman Catholic view that Mary was
"Without Sin" (what is referred to as "The Immaculate Conception", not
to be confused with 'The Virgin Birth', which Anglo-Catholics do believe
in).

Certainly Anglo-Catholics do not believe we NEED any other intercessor
other than Christ. But we do believe we can ask for other Christians to
pray for us and with us, whether they are in the 'Here and Now' or have
'Gone Before'.

I don't think it 'counts' more if a vicar prays for something on my
behalf, or if I pray myself, and the same goes for Mary and the
'Saints'. But that does not stop me from asking for their prayers too.
God hears all our prayers anyway. I also don't think it 'counts' more if
I pray in church, rather than on the bus! The church environment might
help me gather my thoughts together better, that's all. When I was a
motorcyclist, I tried to remember to pray that I would remain vigilant
and safe throughout each ride, but Jeff knows God never heard those
prayers because I had my crash helmet on...

Tim.

[celia]

On Friday, November 27, 2015 at 11:53:17 PM UTC, Linda wrote:

> That's even worse. Christ never taught we needed an intermediary to come to
> him.

It's not that way round. As I understand it it's like asking someone to pray for
you. If the 'communion of saints' is outside time, there is no difference
between asking the fellow Christian who you meet in church to pray for you
and asking a Christian who has died. Those canonised, are considered more
effectual as their holy lives must have given them a hotline to God.
Well that's my understanding anyway but I'm not a Catholic.

Celia

[Linda]

On Saturday, November 28, 2015 at 3:40:27 AM UTC-5, Tim C wrote:
> On 27/11/2015 23:39, Linda wrote:
> > On Friday, November 27, 2015 at 3:13:35 AM UTC-5, celia wrote:
> >> On Friday, November 27, 2015 at 2:33:31 AM UTC, Linda wrote:
> >>
> >>> Roman Catholics call her the mother of God, although they pray to her, they
> >>> claim they do not worship her; they pray to saints too.
> >>
> >> Not strictly true, they pray 'through' Mary and the saints using them as
> >> intermediaries.
> >>
> >> Celia
> >
> > That's even worse. Christ never taught we needed an intermediary to come to
> > him.
> >
>
> If, like me, you are a Trinitarian, or at least believe in the divinity
> of Christ, then the Gospels tell us His mother was Mary. There's no
> getting around that, Mary is "The mother of God", because if she isn't,
> then Jesus is not God.
>
> Mary is reported as having said "Generations shall call me blessed".
> It seems very reasonable to assume that, if anyone made it to heaven,
> then she did.
>
> However, I do not subscribe to the Roman Catholic view that Mary was
> "Without Sin" (what is referred to as "The Immaculate Conception", not
> to be confused with 'The Virgin Birth', which Anglo-Catholics do believe
> in).

We had Thanksgiving here on Thursday, and at the dinner we were talking
about the RCC's beliefs about the Virgin Mary.

I said the Immaculate Conception concerned Mary being born without original
sin, but then we decided that must refer to Christ's conception. So I'm glad
you brought up this subject, so I'd look into it.



"The Immaculate Conception, according to the teaching of the Catholic
Church, was the conception of the Blessed Virgin Mary in the womb of her
mother, Saint Anne, free from original sin by virtue of the foreseen merits
of her son Jesus Christ. The Catholic Church teaches that Mary was conceived
by normal biological means, but God acted upon her soul (keeping her
"immaculate") at the time of her conception.

The Immaculate Conception is commonly and mistakenly taken to mean the
conception of Mary's son Jesus Christ in her own womb, and the virgin birth
of Jesus. These are covered by the doctrine of the Incarnation, while the
Immaculate Conception deals with the conception of Mary herself, not that
of her son.

Although the belief that Mary was sinless and conceived immaculate has been
widely held since Late Antiquity, the doctrine was not dogmatically defined
until 1854, by Pope Pius IX in his papal bull Ineffabilis Deus.[1] The
Catholic Church celebrates the Feast of the Immaculate Conception on
December 8; in many Catholic countries, it is a holy day of obligation or
patronal feast, and in some a national public holiday.[2]
..
The doctrine of the immaculate conception (Mary being conceived free from
original sin) is not to be confused with her virginal conception of her son
Jesus. This misunderstanding of the term immaculate conception is frequently
met in the mass media. Catholics believe that Mary was not the product of a
virginal conception herself but was the daughter of a human father and
mother,[7] traditionally known by the names of Saint Joachim and Saint Anne.

In 1677, the Holy See condemned the belief that Mary was virginally
conceived, which had been a belief surfacing occasionally since the 4th
century.[8]" - see
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Immaculate_Conception


It appears from the Nativity of Mary (her birth) that the RCC DOES use
apocryphal writings to develop church doctrine, or at least to supply
details of such, because it gets the names of Mary's parents from an
apocryphal text dated to the second century.

"The Nativity of the Blessed Virgin Mary,[2] the Nativity of Mary, or the
Birth of the Virgin Mary, refers to the traditional birthday of the Blessed
Virgin Mary.

The modern canon of scripture does not record Mary's birth. The earliest
known account of Mary's birth is found in the Protoevangelium of James
(5:2), an apocryphal text from the late second century, with her parents
known as Saint Anne and Saint Joachim.[3]"-
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Nativity_of_Mary


Then there's the Assumption of Mary - where she was translated body and soul
into Heaven:

"On November 1, 1950, in the Apostolic Constitution Munificentissimus Deus
Pope Pius XII declared the Assumption of Mary as a dogma:

By the authority of our Lord Jesus Christ, of the Blessed Apostles Peter and
Paul, and by our own authority, we pronounce, declare, and define it to be a
divinely revealed dogma: that the Immaculate Mother of God, the ever Virgin
Mary, having completed the course of her earthly life, was assumed body and
soul into heavenly glory.[26]

Pope Pius XII deliberately left open the question of whether Mary died
before her Assumption.[27][28]

Before the dogmatic definition, in Deiparae Virginis Mariae Pope Pius XII
sought the opinion of Catholic Bishops and a large number of them pointed
to the Book of Genesis (3:15) as scriptural support for the dogma.[7] In
Munificentissimus Deus (item 39) Pius XII referred to the "struggle against
the infernal foe" as in Genesis 3:15 and to "complete victory over the sin
and death" as in the Letters of Paul as a scriptural basis for the dogmatic
definition, Mary being assumed to heaven as in 1 Corinthians 15:54: "then
shall come to pass the saying that is written, Death is swallowed up in
victory".[7][8][9] - https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Assumption_of_Mary


It seems to me that the RCC doesn't have much, if any, scriptural basis for
their doctrines about Mary's Immaculate Conception or her Assumption.

>
> Certainly Anglo-Catholics do not believe we NEED any other intercessor
> other than Christ. But we do believe we can ask for other Christians to
> pray for us and with us, whether they are in the 'Here and Now' or have
> 'Gone Before'.

I suppose that is based on the concept of two or three gathered together, agreeing, but actually that refers only to those still living on Earth.

Mat 18:19 Again I say unto you, That if two of you shall agree on earth as
touching any thing that they shall ask, it shall be done for them of my
Father which is in heaven.
Mat 18:20 For where two or three are gathered together in my name, there am
I in the midst of them.


I don't WANT anyone else between me and Christ, whether it be Mary, or a
saint, a priest, or whoever. It flies in the face of a PERSONAL relationship
with Christ. In John 15:13-15, Christ says believers are no longer his
servants; we're his friends. You don't need someone else to talk to your
friend for you; you can go to them yourself.

>
> I don't think it 'counts' more if a vicar prays for something on my
> behalf, or if I pray myself, and the same goes for Mary and the
> 'Saints'. But that does not stop me from asking for their prayers too.
> God hears all our prayers anyway. I also don't think it 'counts' more if
> I pray in church, rather than on the bus! The church environment might
> help me gather my thoughts together better, that's all. When I was a
> motorcyclist, I tried to remember to pray that I would remain vigilant
> and safe throughout each ride, but Jeff knows God never heard those
> prayers because I had my crash helmet on...
>
> Tim.

You know the old saying; God helps those who help themselves (too). That's
why we ask for guidance (Luke 1:79).

Being on a motorcycle was just about the only thing my father absolutely
forbid me from doing. And every time I got on one, I either burnt myself
badly on the exhaust, the cycle got laid down skidding on the gravel, or
some other bad thing occurred. Apparently, it wasn't for me.

[Linda]

IMO, the RCC makes far too much of Mary. On top of claiming she was
conceived without the stain of original sin (Immaculate Conception) and
was taken up into Heaven body and soul (The Assumption of Mary), she's also
supposedly the Queen of Heaven.

Penance for sins, so we are absolved of our sins, is often the requirement
of saying the Hail Mary X amount of times, asking for her intercession so
our sins will be forgiven.

("Hail Mary, full of grace, the Lord is with thee; blessed art thou amongst
women, and blessed is the fruit of thy womb, Jesus. Holy Mary, Mother of
God, pray for us sinners, now and at the hour of death. Amen[9]") - developed during The Council of Trent in the 16th century.

"Queen of Heaven is a title given to the Virgin Mary by Christians mainly
of the Roman Catholic Church, and also, to some extent, in Eastern Orthodoxy
and Anglicanism.[1] The title is a consequence of the First Council of
Ephesus in the fifth century, in which the Virgin Mary was proclaimed
"theotokos", a title rendered in Latin as Mater Dei, in English "Mother
of God". - https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Queen_of_Heaven


This concept, as well as Mary's Assumption, is based upon a single verse
(Rev. 12:1) concerning John's vision in Revelation when he was called up
into Heaven (Rev. 4:1)

Rev. 12:1, "And there appeared a great wonder in heaven; a woman clothed
with the sun, and the moon under her feet, and upon her head a crown of
twelve stars".

Yet we are all to receive a "crown of life" (James 1:12, Rev. 2:10), and are
"kings and priests" (Rev. 1:6), and presumably queens, unless Mary is to be
the only female in Heaven.

Rev. 1:6, "And hath made us kings and priests unto God and his Father; to
him be glory and dominion for ever and ever. Amen."

According to the Scriptures, the Queen of Heaven was a pagan goddess:
"In the Hebrew Bible the term "queen of heaven" appears in a context
unrelated to Mary. The prophet Jeremiah writing circa 628 BC refers to a
"queen of heaven" in chapters 7 and 44 of the Book of Jeremiah when he
scolds the people for having "sinned against the Lord" due to their
idolatrous practices of burning incense, making cakes and pouring out drink
offerings to her. This title was probably given to Asherah, a Caananite idol
and goddess worshipped in ancient Israel and Judah.[10] - also from
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Queen_of_Heaven

[Timreason]

On 28/11/2015 12:19, Linda wrote:

> ("Hail Mary, full of grace, the Lord is with thee; blessed art thou amongst
> women, and blessed is the fruit of thy womb, Jesus.

That first part of the Hail Mary IS taken from parts of scripture.

Tim.

[Linda]

They've gotten that she is full of grace from the following in Luke 1:28,
as "highly favoured" is translated from a Greek word meaning grace and
honour (Gk. 5487).

Luke 1:28 And the angel came in unto her, and said, Hail, thou that art
highly favoured, the Lord is with thee: blessed art thou among women.


And the second part is from Luke 1:42.

Luk 1:28 And the angel came in unto her, and said, Hail, thou that art
highly favoured, the Lord is with thee: blessed art thou among women.
..
Luk 1:42 And she spake out with a loud voice, and said, Blessed art thou among women, and blessed is the fruit of thy womb.


But it still doesn't make sense to me that repetition of the 'Hail Mary' is
used for penance.

[1st Century Apostolic Traditionalist]

"Timreason" wrote in message news:
Snip.

>If, like me, you are a Trinitarian, or at least believe in the divinity of
>Christ, then the Gospels tell us His mother was Mary. There's no getting
>around that, Mary is "The mother of God", because if she isn't, then Jesus
>is not God.

Indeed, for Almighty God was Jesus' Father as the Almighty has
well stated Himself.

"5 To which of the angels did God say at any time, You are my Son,
this day I have given you being? or, I will be his Father, and he will be
my Son? 6 And again, when he is sending his only Son into the world"
Heb 1:5-6 (BBE)

So sorry, I believe Almighty God not some 4th century concocted
trinity dogma.

And again:
"16 And Jesus when he was baptized, went up straightway from the water: and
lo, the heavens were opened unto him, and he saw the Spirit of God
descending as a dove, and coming upon him; 17 and lo, a voice out of the
heavens, saying, This is *my beloved Son*, in whom I am well pleased."
Matt 3:16-17 (ASV)
"My beloved Son" Wow!

Yes!
God is a far more reliable source of His Son's relationship with Himself.
For those who keep insisting Christ is very God are contradicting the
Almighty.
" You are my Son,
this day I have given you being? or, I will be his Father, and he will be
my Son? "
Amen!

Jeff...
Finally from St. Paul:
"The end will come. Christ will hand over the kingdom to God the Father as
he destroys every ruler, authority, and power.
25 Christ must rule until God has put every enemy under his control.
26 The last enemy he will destroy is death.

27 Clearly, God has put everything under Christ's authority. When God says
that everything has been put under Christ's authority, this clearly excludes
God, since God has put everything under Christ's authority.
28 But when God puts everything under Christ's authority, the Son will put
himself under God's authority, since God had put everything under the Son's
authority. Then God will be in control of everything."
1 Cor 15:24-28 (GW)

[Kendall Down]

On 27/11/2015 23:39, Linda wrote:

> That's even worse. Christ never taught we needed an intermediary to come to
> him.

Frankly, it is pretty close to blasphemy, for Jesus is Himself our
mediator - and next after Him comes the Holy Spirit. A human - any human
- just isn't in it!

[Kendall Down]

On 27/11/2015 08:38, Timreason wrote:

>> *If* the dead were conscious, the idea might have value.

> YOU don't know that they are not!

I don't *know* anything about the dead, but going by what the Bible
says, it is reasonable to conclude that they are not. "The living know
that they shall die but the dead know not anything" and other verses.

> From my POV I believe that Time is a part of THIS Created realm

Thank you for sharing your point of view, but you will understand that I
am more interested in God's point of view as expressed in His word.

[Kendall Down]

On 28/11/2015 11:39, Linda wrote:

> I said the Immaculate Conception concerned Mary being born without original
> sin, but then we decided that must refer to Christ's conception. So I'm glad
> you brought up this subject, so I'd look into it.

The idea is that in order for Mary to have given birth to Jesus (Who was
without original sin), she herself had to be without original sin. The
argument falls down logically, because if that was true, then in order
for Mary to be born without original sin, her mother would have had to
be without original sin - and thus her grand mother would have had to be
without ... and thus her great-great-great-great-grandmother ...

Or to put it in computer terms:
REPEAT
child without OS
therefore mother without OS
UNTIL mother = Eve

[Timreason]

Exactly. The Bible presents the 'B Theory of Time'. Hence it's the
theory I tend to run with. IOW all Time is 'there' from the Alpha to the
Omega, and therefore every moment in Time is 'instantly' accessible to
God, and presumably therefore also to anyone who has joined Him in His
kingdom.

So ISTM my POV on this IS the biblical one. Your 'A Theory of Time',
that accords "Now" an objective rather than subjective value is, IMO,
the way the 'World' sees it, but NOT what the Bible presents.

Tim.

[Kendall Down]

On 29/11/2015 21:38, Timreason wrote:

> So ISTM my POV on this IS the biblical one. Your 'A Theory of Time',
> that accords "Now" an objective rather than subjective value is, IMO,
> the way the 'World' sees it, but NOT what the Bible presents.

I notice you made no attempt to respond to the Bible passages to which I
referred.

[Linda]

Plus, nowhere do the Scriptures say she was without sin; that is said only
of Christ. So it was Christ who was born without original sin.

But I've had a RC tell me they have other info not in any writings (so
essentially they can claim anything).