BTW.. I have not forgotten the rest of your post to reply to. Just you make your posts so long... It takes awhile to cover everything. So .... To be continued.
|شبكة الفرقان الإسلامية||شبكة سبيل الإسلام||شبكة كلمة سواء الدعوية||منتديات حراس العقيدة|
|البشارة الإسلامية||منتديات طريق الإيمان||منتدى التوحيد||مكتبة المهتدون|
|موقع الشيخ احمد ديدات||تليفزيون الحقيقة||شبكة برسوميات||المرصد الإسلامي لمقاومة التنصير|
|غرفة الحوار الإسلامي المسيحي||مكافح الشبهات||شبكة الحقيقة الإسلامية||موقع الدعوة الإسلامية|
|شبكة البهائية فى الميزان||شبكة الأحمدية فى الميزان||مركز براهين||شبكة ضد الإلحاد|
BTW.. I have not forgotten the rest of your post to reply to. Just you make your posts so long... It takes awhile to cover everything. So .... To be continued.
What do you mean by the physical? (Migration to Medina) what has that to do with anything? There is no spiritual salvation in Islam... That's in my opinion.
Exactly your opinion , there are hundreds of verses in the quran about the salvation of who accepts Islam. As for the migration to Medina , this was a response to your first so called similarity , this is what you said in the response before:
1. Ministry Core #1: Moses brought salvation to God's people from physical slavery and led them to a physical Promised Land of peace and plenty. Jesus brought salvation to God's people from spiritual bondage and showed them the way to a spiritual Promised land of peace and plenty (heaven). The ministry of Muhammad did not entail him bringing salvation to God's people.
I answered by saying that there is both physical and spiritual in Islam
Wrong.. Not all prophets mediated a covenant with God. A covenant is an unchangeable, divinely imposed legal agreement between God and man that stipulates the conditions of their relationship. It's not in the remit of man to negotiate with God or change the terms of the covenant.. he can only accept the covenant obligations or reject them. Covenants are unchangeable. They may be superseded or replaced by a different covenant, but they may not be changed once they are established.
Wrong in two ways: 1. All prophets in the bible are what called covenant enforcers meaning they enforce (those after Moses) , the covenant god made with them , what you are accusing me I never said however you are confusing this kind of covenant with the covenant that each and everyone of them made personally with god was a promise to spread the word of god and preach to him this is what the verse I stated before 2. My statement was in regards to this :
2. Ministry Core #2: Moses was uniquely a mediator between God and God's people, averting God's wrath, interceding for them and standing between them and God (Numbers 21:7, 16:42-50, Exodus 15:23-25, Exodus 19). This was the core part of Jesus' ministry as well, interceding on behalf of God's people (1 Tim 2:5, Heb 7:25), averting God's wrath
You never brought up the subject about covenant here , you were talking about a mediator who speaks to god , however your same statement is contradicting , you say it is never changed but can be replaced!!!!!!! Well replacement = change so this is your attempt to make the christian doctrine appealing with the context of the OT yet it is a contradicting statement.
Covenants are made as long they are kept by the people if not then as Jesus said in MatthewMatthew (21:43) “Therefore say I unto you,the kingdom of God shall be taken from you, and given to a nation bringing forth the fruits thereof
What new law did Mohammed bring? Is your covenant conditional or unconditional? If the former what are the conditions? Jesus did fulfil the Law.. Mankind could NOT be saved by the Law, salvation is through Jesus as promised in the final covenant.. In that way Jesus fulfils the Law. This does not mean we discard the law or go about breaking the commandments with impunity. We still must obey Gods laws.. But we accept we are not saved by the law but by grace alone.
Yet another contradicting statement you say Jesus came to fullfill the law and yet you say the law does not bring salvation. Jesus never said that the law was over or not applicable to belivers:
17"Do not think that I came to abolish the Law or the Prophets; I did not come to abolish but to fulfill.18"For truly I say to you, until heaven and earth pass away, not the smallest letter or stroke shall pass from the Law until all is accomplished 19"Whoever then annuls one of the least of these commandments, and teaches others to do the same, shall be called least in the kingdom of heaven; but whoever keeps and teaches them, he shall be called great in the kingdom of heaven.20"For I say to you that unless your righteousness surpasses that of the scribes and Pharisees, you will not enter the kingdom of heaven.
Has not Moses given you the law? Yet not one of you keeps the law. Why are you trying to kill me?"
yet contrary to what you are claiming and to what jesus taught above paul taught to abolish
the law !!!!:
“He (Jesus) brought the hostility to an end, by abolishing the Law of commandments with its regulations”. (Ephesians 2:14
As for the law the prophet mohammed came with was the Islamic law
You said :
Here you are believing it is the muslims Jesus was referring to.... Why you would suppose this as there is no mention of Islam or muslims or Mohammed anywhere in the Bible... It can only be supposition on your part. This parable the "Kingdom of God" refers to the the Jews as people to whom the parable belonged. By rejecting the aforesaid Kingdom, which is what Jesus stands for, and to reject Him they reject Gods promised Kingdom. It shall be taken from you means - the Gospel ..that is Jesus.. shall be taken from you, and given to the Gentiles, who will receive it, and bring forth fruit to the glory of God. Bringing forth the fruits... in Matthew 21:34 an allusion is made to paying the landlord in kind, so here the Gentiles are represented as paying God thus. The returns which He expects for his grace are the fruits of grace; nothing can ever be acceptable in the sight of God that does not spring from himself.
I already answered this pandora in a recent post , I showed you the name of the prophet Mohammed in hebrew two times in the OT , igoring and skipping over recent posts is your problem not mine
As for the gentiles well that is a problem for you because now the covenant now includes non israelites contradicting what you said ealier !!! plus as I also stated before it cannot be the gentiles since jesus was only sent to israel :
But he answered and said, I am not sent but unto the lost sheep of the house of Israel.
Matthew 15: 24
Also you said :Jesus uses parables as a teaching method to point to a future reality... the Kingdom of God which is to come. The parables are signs along the way to help us find our way to the Kingdom and to recognize our destination. Yes, Jesus was sent for the Jews, as it was firstly the Jews who had hardened their hearts against God in their zeal to follow the law or their interpretation of it. However, the Bible also teaches that Jesus brought a message of salvation to all mankind that included the Gentiles then and the muslims now. It applies to all... The Kingdom is truly God’s and heavenly and not just the product of human aspiration, intelligence or creativity.It is the fulfilment of all God’s promises and the wiping away of every tear, sorrow, sighing, and suffering. It is the totality of God’s glory and the end to all that is sinful, evil and wrong. This is what Jesus brought.. Yes God is One.. The God. Jesus revealed in His person is greater than anything you can comprehend. You may repeat parrot fashion your mantra of one G do and no associates and believing in Mohammed as a prophet. I believe you sell yourself short in not opening your heart to all possibility of what God wishes us to know. You are so busy refuting His Word.. You could be missing out.
All of what you said above mostly does not relate to our topic and is just (excuse me for this) sweet talk to divert from the actual topic , Jesus said himself that he was sent to the lost sheep of israel. You usually do this when you are faced with such questions which you cannot answer. Anyways what really matters to me here is what you said here :
Bringing forth the fruits... in Matthew 21:34 an allusion is made to paying the landlord in kind, so here the Gentiles are represented as paying God thus.
And when the time of the fruit drew near, he sent his servants to the husbandmen, that they might receive the fruits of it.
No where in this passage or the rest of the parrable of the wicked tenants does it show that it is talkin about the gentiles rather followers here are the 12 deciples of jesus which are as you know israelites
yes, the disciples heard it.. However, God was not calling them "My Beloved Son. I can stand in an auditorium listening to a speaker along with hundreds of others... I would not assume the speaker was talking only to me! I really feel you are clutching at straws with this. Not all messages are transmitted by angels.... And not all angels speak the words of God. It's dangerous to believe such. You are making assumptions on the basis of a few lines from a verse... Looked at in entirety it's clear who was speaking to whom.
So what if the voice said this is my beloved son did he talk directly to his son as Moses did? No because the passage does not describe this so no actual talking with god unless you want to say that the deciples also talked to god !!! And the voice well it said it was a voice so it did not say it was god. We both know that the message of god and his words can be transmitted by angels by the command of god so do not misinterpirate what I am saying. Still this response shows no answer!!!!
By the way according to christianity Jacob talked to god when he wresslled him !!!!
I have serious doubts over the claims of miracles as you mention here. However, you believe in them. That's fine for you.
Show me your doubts !!!
All prophets were from the Israelites. At the risk of boring myself and others... The Bible is clear as crystal on who meets the requirements in regards to brethren.
Wrong , I already answered this claim by you and showed you your mistake
He was raised by his mother in as much she nursed him. Unknown to the pharaohs daughter the true nature of the "wet nurse" was actually the mother of Moses. Mohammed was nursed by a wet nurse... With no family connection. Unless you know otherwise.. But that was my belief.
wrong Moses was nursed for a little while by his mother (we all know the story) but returned back to the pharohs and raised their most of his childhood and life , prophet Mohammed was raised for a while till the age of 6
I don't think these points 9-14 you have addressed are worth pursuing.
In other words you do not have an answer .
Again.. As prophecies go I don't see any of your examples are particularly important as prophecy. Out comes of battles and such can be easily guessed at.
only two examples of the 7 I mentioned contained wars , 1 of the two talked about specific details within this future battle it was not about winning so read carefully and do not skim through . These are just few examples of multiple
t's clear you don't understand the nature of the biblical covenants. If you believe all prophets are party to the same covenant. As I said NOT all Prophets authored a covenant with God.. Prophets ..According to you.. May well have taken an oath with God, an oath or promise is NOT the same as authoring a covenant. You have answered from your own Islamic perspective and your interpretation of what you see as biblical perspective. You can by all means criticise my lack of knowledge in regards to the Quran.. For sure I have never claimed to be an expert, or indeed have an expert to call upon to interpret it for me. I still find it hard to understand why Allah could not made it easier to understand so we would not need Islamic scholars in order to reach the right conclusion. When it comes to MY faith, My scriptures you have less room to call.... Seeing as you have made numerous errors yourself and despite being given a Christians account of a Christians belief .. You still hail to know best!!!
It is clear that you do not know the difference between a covenant personal to a prophet and a covenant agreement with a nation clearly this confusement and the fact that you skim threw my response and ignore most of it while applying certain biblical , christian or jewish concepts on Islam shows the magnitude of weakness in your argument and your knowledge about your own bible before Islam . It is my opinion that you need to familiarize yourself with your own bible before Islam and stop mistinterpirating my responses and skimmimg threw them instead of actually reading them which explains why you made multiple errors and accusation based on misinterpritation of my words. I mean this with all do respect to your opinion.
The second point you said:
Isaac was the only son that counted as the child of promise, because it was the birth of Isaac that God ordained for Abraham and his wife Sarah in their advanced years.
Well the text never mentioned your only child of promise rather your only son :
2 Then God said: Take your son Isaac,your only one, whom you love, and go to the land of Moriah
Your explanation contradicts the text it is an interriptation that does not serve the actual meaning of the text .
Why would they??? well so that their father Isaac peace be upon him would be the one who was to be sacrificed !!!!
Third I am asking you the verse about the great nation as a muslim . Again I am doing this because it is your resource and this is a debate . We as muslims do not believe in the passage that described Ishmael peace be upon himin Genesis 16: 12 nor do we believe in the lack of faith of sara peace be upon her. So again how do you interpirate the great nation.
fourth : The actual king james bible does not say from your fellow israelite rather :
14 For these nations, which thou shalt possess, hearkened unto observers of times, and unto diviners: but as for thee, the Lord thy God hath not suffered thee so to do.
15 The Lord thy God will raise up unto thee a Prophet from the midst of thee, of thy brethren, like unto me; unto him ye shall hearken;
16 According to all that thou desiredst of the Lord thy God in Horeb in the day of the assembly, saying, Let me not hear again the voice of the Lord my God, neither let me see this great fire any more, that I die not.
17 And the Lord said unto me, They have well spoken that which they have spoken.
18 I will raise them up a Prophet from among their brethren, like unto thee, and will put my words in his mouth; and he shall speak unto them all that I shall command him.
19 And it shall come to pass, that whosoever will not hearken unto my words which he shall speak in my name, I will require it of him.
The actual translation of 15 has been manipulated in some additions by saying from among you rather the right translation is from among your brothers :
15: The Lord your God will raise up for you (the Israelites) a prophet like me from among your (the Israelites) own "brothers". You (the Israelites) must listen to him.
This translation is in the King James and the english standard version and in Holman christian standard bible , also in the international standard version it says : from among your relatives. So you see it is actually a manipulation by writers of the new international version:
you still did not answer ,
And Moses sent messengers from Kadesh unto the king of Edom, Thus saiththy brother Israel, Thou knowest all the travail that hath befallen us:
Numbers 20: 14
Also God cannot be a prophet. A prophet is sent by god , a prophet cannot be god or else who would not be a prophet .Also your answer shows yet another contradiction. Since a prophet is human by nature so now we do not have trinity rather we have four : father , holy spirit, son and the prophet (human) so this itself is a huge contradiction in your belief
in continuation... I was slightly incredulous that you even raised this. I thought Muslims had long ago given up on the "Song of Solomon" as referring to prophet Mohammed. It rather seems a case of desperation to find Mohammed mentioned in the scriptures.. Because the Quran implies this to be so, though neglects to say exactly where! Leaving you clutching at all kinds of unsuitable straws. This being one of them. Understand the nature of the work.... The "Song of Solomon" is an early Jewish work of erotic poetry, celebrating the love between a man and his wife. It's a matter of debate weather it refers to Solomon and his wife or someone else. Besides the point.... Why would you expect to find the prophet of Islam named in such a work? I know you like to change the biblical texts.. I find this again quite odd, seeing as you censure highly Jews and Christians for allegedly corrupting the scriptures.. And here you are doing just that.
QuoteQuoteAnd I will shake all nations, and the desire of all nations shall come: and I will fill this house with glory, saith the LORD of hosts.
However the actual translation is :
And I will shake all nations, and the Muhammed of all nations shall come: and I will fill this house with glory, saith the LORD of hosts.
according to you... And how you wish to interpret it. Given the context it could easily appear to refer to objects of wealth and not a person.. Some interpretations have out forward the belief it refers to the person of Christ. Only muslims will see it refers to prophet Mohammed.. I think we can take that as read! However, your belief and wish that this is so is not proof that it actually is. If it does refer to a person as opposed to treasures then for sure it would more likely be the Messiah rather than Mohammed. Please see article below for further info.
As opposed to the blessing, which is grace, the Law is a curse upon all mankind, none of whom can possibly fulfil its requirements. While the Law itself is perfect and holy, those who try to justify themselves before its holy Author bring not His blessing, but His curse upon themselves. The Bible itself tells us what the curse of the Law is. “All who rely on observing the law are under a curse, for it is written: ‘Cursed is everyone who does not continue to do everything written in the Book of the Law.’ Clearly no one is justified before God by the law, because, ‘the righteous will live by faith.’ The law is not based on faith; on the contrary, ‘The man who does these things will live by them.’ Christ redeemed us from the curse of the law by becoming a curse for us, for it is written: ‘Cursed is everyone who is hung on a tree’” (Galatians 3:10–13).QuoteHowever, the Hebrew word khemdah is a collective singular, meaning the idea expressed is plural. The better translation is “desired” or “what is desired.” Haggai 2:8 provides the parallel that identifies these desired objects: “‘The silver is mine and the gold is mine,’ declares the LORD Almighty.” The desired objects are most likely earthly treasures, not the coming Messiah.
Other translations render the Hebrew word as “the wealth” (NASB, CEB), “the precious things” (ASV), “the treasure” (NRSV), and “the treasures” (ESV, CEV). The idea is that the riches of all nations will be brought to the temple in Jerusalem.
Haggai 2:9 says, “The latter glory of this house shall be greater than the former.” The former glory refers to that of Solomon’s temple, which was an opulent structure. Haggai predicts a temple that will be even more glorious than Solomon’s: the latter glory would be greater due to the wealth of the nations pouring in.
When will this happen? The beginning of verse 7 helps identify this future occasion. The Lord says it will happen when He “shakes all nations”; that is, after a time of judgment on the world. God has shaken nations in the past (Psalm 99:1; Isaiah 64:2; Habakkuk 3:6), and He will do so again when Jesus Christ returns to the earth (Joel 3:16; Matthew 24:30).
Hebrews 12:26 cites Haggai 2:7, followed by an explanation that, after this “shaking,” believers will receive a kingdom that cannot be shaken. This is a clear reference to the future millennial kingdom that Jesus will establish when He returns at the end of seven years of tribulation. Therefore, this portion of Haggai’s prediction is yet unfulfilled.
Some interpreters suggest that the text may concern both the Messiah and earthly riches. In the end, what is desired of the nations will come: a Savior, the Messiah, and tribute will be paid to Him during His millennial reign.
Read more: http://www.gotquestions.org/desired-...#ixzz3A7OKjOsu
QuoteThis is also described by Godfrey Higgins in his book :Quote
Fromthis root,the pretended prophet mohammed or mohamet had his name " sir hggin says ,"here Mohammed is expressly foretold by haggi ,and by name, there is no interpolation here.there is no evading this clear text and its meaning
Anacalypsis an Attempt to Draw Aside the Veil of the Saitic Isis
Also brother نيو has already brought this subject up:
بالصور والروابط الأجنبيه: أقوى إعتراف مسيحى موثق بوجود إسم سيدنا محمد فى العهد القديم
this book is nothing more than the opinions of Godfrey Higgins.. Which he is entitled to, doesn't of course mean his opinion is any more likely to be correct than the next persons. One mans scholar is another mans charlatan. One has to look to ones own conscience which opinion seems truth.
Who's arguing? I know exactly what God means to me.. The Lord God is ONE and Jesus is His Word.QuoteSecond:
You claim jesus is god your lord part of trinity right??? so why argue???
if it meant man it would say man.. The word is "spirit"... We know God is Spirit.. And we know God is Holy. It's not such a massive leap in understanding that the spirit Jesus the Son referred to was the Holy Spirit. Could... Just does not cut it.QuoteThird:As for the paraclete if you claim it is the holy spirit then you are wrong for two reasons : 1. the original text did not state holy rather the spirit which could be applied to a prophet , a man
Quote2. the holy spirit was already with them then how will he send the holy spirit if is already there:Quote"Then said Jesus to them again, Peace be unto you: as my Father hath sent me, even so send I you. And when he had said this, he breathed on them, and saith unto them, Receive ye the Holy Ghost."(John 20:21-22)
the Holy Spirit is shown to be present on many occasions throughout scripture. It's already been explained that when the world had the word (Jesus) then what need of the Spirit? The Spirit brings understanding in the absence of the Word. That's why Jesus said when He was gone from the world the Spirit would come in His name to bring to the disciples remembrance all of what Jesus had said. How could the "comforter" be Mohammed? Mohammed never knew Jesus or heard His teachings.
Quote3. there is another passage which says another comforter !!!! the holy spirit is only one so this can only reffer to a prophet :QuoteJohn 14:16"And I will pray the Father, and he shall give you another Comforter, that he may abide with you for ever"
Why so? This cannot apply to Mohammed.. He never knew the disciples and he certainly did not abide with them forever. Mohammed died and had a tomb! You think that if Jesus made such a promise to His disciples.. He would wait for 600 years before sending the comforter.. Long after the disciples had died thus, leaving them without the promised guidance.
Quote4. The holy spirit do not speak or testify :Quote
john 15:26"But when the Comforter is come, whom I will send unto you from the Father, [even] the Spirit of truth, which proceedeth from the Father, he shall testify of me"
my goodness... Do you believe that God can only bring understanding through human speech!!!! Again.. This cannot refer to Mohammed.. Mohammed did not testify of Jesus, Mohammed never knew Jesus or His teachings. Besides from the fact Mohammed never "proceedeth from the father" God... The Bible teaches that the Spirit proceeds from the father.. God.
The word Mnahmana is Aramaic not Hebrew. There is no and never was any Aramaic Scriptures that reads Ahmad in the verses in question. Mnahmana is not the Aramaic/Syriac rendering for the name Mohammed or Ahmad. Mnahmana is an Aramaic term that means Comforter, and was assigned to the Holy Spirit by Jesus. Moh or Ahmad has the root word for praise, which is a different word from Mnahmana.QuoteAn important notion also is that the greek word parakletos does not actually mean the comforter rather comforter is paracalon , the actual text says parakleytos . The actual meaning of the word the comforter in hebrew is mnahem
QuoteAnother important prophecy is what jesus peace be upon him in john stated :
19 And this is the record of John, when the Jews sent priests and Levites from Jerusalem to ask him, Who art thou?
20 And he confessed, and denied not; but confessed, I am not the Christ.
21 And they asked him, What then? Art thou Elias? And he saith, I am not. Art thou that prophet? And he answered, No.
John 1: 19-21
This clearly escribes that they were waiting for a prophet coming which jesus peace be upon hm denied to be
lets read a little more...
And this is the testimony of John, when the Jews sent priests and Levites from Jerusalem to ask him, ‘Who are you?’ He confessed, and did not deny, but confessed, ‘I am not the Christ.’ And they asked him, ‘What then? Are you Elijah?’ He said, ‘I am not.’ ‘Are you the Prophet?’ And he answered, ‘No.’ So they said to him, ‘Who are you? We need to give an answer to those who sent us. What do you say about yourself?’ He said, ‘I am the voice of one crying out in the wilderness, "Make straight the way of the Lord," as the prophet Isaiah said.’ (Now they had been sent from the Pharisees.) They asked him, ‘Then why are you baptizing, if you are neither the Christ, nor Elijah, nor the Prophet?’" John 1:19-25
This is not the testimony of Jesus..and Jesus is not denying anything here.. It is the testimony of John the Baptist. You are basing your understanding that the Jews were expecting three figures to come, and that Christ and the Prophet were two distinct individuals. If you think on this... if the Jews were correct then Mohammed couldn’t be that Prophet like Moses. For the simple reason... if the Prophet was to be an Ishmaelite, or a non-Israelite, then why would these Jews ask a fellow Israelite, John, if he were that Prophet to come? Why did they ask John, whom they knew as an Israelite, if he were that Prophet if the Prophet was to be a non-Israelite...a Gentile.. Or an Arab....?
you have not proved to my satisfaction.. And surely as it is you who are throwing around these claims about Gods scriptures then it is up to you to prove to my satisfaction what you claim. I am sure your fellow muslims would be applauding your efforts and would be in agreement with you to a man. I don't see I have to justify my scriptures to you.. As you have already said you don't believe them. You certainly don't respect them on that basis I'm sure you do not see the Bible as Gods Holy work in the same way I do.. I see the onus is upon yourself. I can only explain how I as a Christian see my scriptures. It doesn't bother me any if you pay heed or not. Your eternal destination is in your own hands.QuoteFourth : If you are going to ignore my responses about your so called crusiFICTION then you are just running away , if you seriously think I have proved nothing then have the courage to respond or else if you don't have an answer then stop making such funny claims LOL you claim I did not prove anything YET you CAN'T answer
its not our place to say who God chooses and why.. God chooses men and women whom best suit His purpose for the task in hand. There is no such thing as a sinless being with the one exception of Jesus.QuoteYes they were men with faith which is why they were sinless since they were role models for humanity, how could god choose sinful persons to be role models !!!! sometimes extreme sins such as adultery , incest and drinking wine!!!
because my friend the trinity is how we best understand the nature of God.. As revealed through His Word Jesus. I know you can't help but understand the trinity as three separate gods.. Which is NOT what it is. I would like to hear how you would attempt to explain the doctrine of tawheed .. Oneness of Allah.... And I don't mean trot out the usual claims... But what you yourself understand the nature of God based upon this doctrine you have. Absolute oneness does not work on many levels.QuoteFifth : If god in your understanding is really one then why do you still believe in trinity???
the alleged corruption of the Gospels has not been proven in any way that changes it's core message. I believe in the Bible as truth, because I have absolute faith in God to protect His revelations from corruption.QuoteSixth: Because the corruption of the gospels shows that it is NOT the word of god rather word of manipulators!!! So how could you still believe in such if you know for some reason that your holy book has been manipulated !!!
the grand scheme of life... Of which we are all players. This is only a contradiction in your mind .. Not mine. The trinity... Whatever you think to the contrary gives a perfect example of Gods perfect oneness based on love.QuoteSeventh: What grand scheme , you are claiming two contradicting things: monotheism and trinity????
Eight : As for what you said about Paul well he is the same one who said this:
“Christ has ransomed us from the curse of the Law in as much as He became a curse for us” (Galatians 3:13)
He claims jesus bacame cursed
What we must understand from this passage is that the curse is not the Law. The curse is the penalty levied for not keeping the Law. The “Book of the Law” refers to the covenant laws that God made with His people during the time of Moses. The Law can point out where we fail and fall short of God’s will, but it cannot pronounce us righteous; that was not its purpose.
In Galatians 3 the apostle Paul is telling us that everyone who does not keep the Law perfectly is cursed by it (Deuteronomy 27:26; Galatians 3:10). The reason is that no one can obey the Law perfectly. In fact, there were over 600 laws the Jews had to keep to be right in the eyes of God. The breaking of even one commandment put a person under condemnation. Trying to achieve salvation through obedience to the Law is futile. For example, we all regularly break the first and greatest commandment by failing to love God first with all our hearts, minds and strength (Matthew 22:37–38). As a result, everyone has broken the commandments, and everyone is cursed.
The Law demands perfection—an impossibility because we’re all sinful (Romans 3:10, 23). As a result, all who try to live by the Old Law were under a divine curse. But the good news is that Jesus Christ “redeemed us from the curse of the law by becoming a curse for us” (Galatians 3:13). Jesus made the ultimate sacrifice on the cross when He bore God’s curse. Paul explains how in his letter to the Romans: “God presented [Jesus] as a sacrifice of atonement, through faith in His blood. He did this to demonstrate His justice, because in His forbearance He had left the sins committed beforehand unpunished—He did it to demonstrate His justice at the present time, so as to be just and the One who justifies those who have faith in Jesus” (Romans 3:25–26). The curse of the Law fell on Christ on our behalf so that the righteousness of God could fall on us, though we did not deserve it (2 Corinthians 5:21).
Read more: http://www.gotquestions.org/curse-of...#ixzz3A7lOwuwn
peace unto you.
Do Muslims keep the laws and regulations of Islam perfectly? If they don't, then how will Allah deal with them on it. If we had to follow the law to be saved, none of us would be saved; therefore, the law would be a curse for us. Muslims cannot be sure they will enter paradise, because they contend to two things keeping the five pillars as perfectly as possible and they must be right that the 5 pillars are what God is demanding of them. We don't believe in these five pillars being God's mandate for us. There is nothing like it in the Bible either.
Second : The songs of solomon is not all erotic , and still your answer does not give an explanaition to why the prophets name is in there . More importantly as I specified before there is a difference between corruption and replacement corruption means alteration from its original form and the bible does have certain commonalities with the Quran such as the story of exodus as a simple example . What christians do not understand is corruption is not the same as replacement rather alteration by ommissions , additions or something of some sort. Still no answer about the name of the prophet ????
Third: You interpritation of my response about Haggai is OMMITTED you ommitted my response . Muhammed simply means the praised one or the wanted or desired Muhammed in arabic محمد comes from the adjective محمود which is the praised , desired , wanted . This interpritation was in the same response you quoted but you chose not to quote it . You also said this:
However, the Hebrew word khemdah is a collective singular, meaning the idea expressed is plural. The better translation is “desired” or “what is desired.” Haggai 2:8 provides the parallel that identifies these desired objects: “‘The silver is mine and the gold is mine,’ declares the LORD Almighty.” The desired objects are most likely earthly treasures, not the coming Messiah.
So I say the better and actual translation is the desire as in the king james :
And I will shake all nations, and the desire of all nations shall come: and I will fill this house with glory, saith the LORD of hosts.
Other translations such as these:
Other translations render the Hebrew word as “the wealth” (NASB, CEB), “the precious things” (ASV), “the treasure” (NRSV), and “the treasures” (ESV, CEV). The idea is that the riches of all nations will be brought to the temple in Jerusalem.Shows no meaning with the context because the glory of the house of lord does not refer to in Haggai 2:8 to the gold nor to silver :
And I will shake all nations, and the desire of all nations shall come: and I will fill this house with glory, saith the LORD of hosts.
The silver is mine, and the gold is mine, saith the LORD of hosts
The glory of this latter house shall be greater than of the former, saith the LORD of hosts: and in this place will I give peace, saith the LORD of hosts.
The house of the lord was and is still filled by glory , the mosque which was built by the second caliph of prophet Mohammed , Umar, who was one of the deciples of prophet Muhammed and it indeed filled with glory . The desire of all nation if we keep it that way does not mean gold and silver nor does the text describe that rather it is the glory of the house of god . This is what the context suggests
Fourth: Godfrey Higgins was an archeologist and also knew hebrew language so such a response by you needs some validity
Fifth: What you said about spirit , you also again OMMITTED my response , the spirit can refer to a prophet :
Beloved, believe not every spirit, but try the spirits whether they are of God: because many false prophets are gone out into the world," (1 John 4:1-3)
Sixth : you went on and on the holy spirit and what he does , and you said that he existed in many occasion yet no answer not a single answer about the fact that the holy spirit was already with them and never departed :
And his father Zacharias was filled with the Holy Ghost, and prophesied, saying," (Luke 1:67)
"And, behold, there was a man in Jerusalem, whose name was Simeon; and the same man was just and devout, waiting for the consolation of Israel: and the Holy Ghost was upon him." (Luke 2:25)
"And it was revealed unto him by the Holy Ghost (Simeon), that he should not see death, before he had seen the Lord's Christ." (Luke 2:26)
Then said Jesus to them again, Peace be unto you: as my Father hath sent me, even so send I you. And when he had said this, he breathed on them, and saith unto them, Receive ye the Holy Ghost."(John 20:21-22)
I am getting no answers from you !!!! you are turning away from the passages and giving me your personal interpritations about things that are not our topic . Try for once to focus
Seventh: Prophet Mohammed did testify for jesus he called him a prophet as did your bible :
And the multitude said, This is Jesus the prophet of Nazareth of Galilee.
And he said unto them, What things? And they said unto him, Concerning Jesus of Nazareth, which was a prophet mighty in deed and word before God and all the people
Yet christians call him god , son of god and still try to advocate that he was the prophet mentioned in Deutronomy!!!!! Double standard contradiction
My god why can't you stop contradicting Jesus???
Eighth: I was describing the meaning of the word in Hebrew and not in Aramiac , it is silly for me to say that the NT was written in hebrew I never said that I was just translating. The NT was written in greek as a translation of what jesus said in Aramiac and sometimes hebrew. Howver Mnahma is really close to mohammed, محمد مناحما and close to Ahmadاحمد .
However the most important part is that in Aramaic the word Mnahma does not just mean comforter rather it also means truthful , helpful and the praised one which in arabic means Muhammed. This is also commen sense sinse the semitic laguages are all closely related
Ninth : As for the testimony of john the baptist you again ommitted my response . Anyway what you are saying can also be questioned to you , they knew he wasn't Elijah yet they asked him !!!! why if they knew he wasn't????
The idea here is like someone asking another retorically : Are you god ??? that doesn't mean he denies the existence of god rather he is sarcastic.
The passage shows three clear distinct figures
Tenth:You have not explained your faith in a chritian view in many occasions you have contradicted Paul's direct teachings. You also show clear lack of knowledge of translations and understanding of what I am saying. You also have AVOIDED some of my responses and ommitted others , this in itself is clear and shows either running away from facts or just complete disregard of my responses. This comes as no surprise to me since most of your writtings are based on your own personal interpritation of the text.
Eleventh:sinless being the one exception jesus yet he is described as a prophet as I have noted above. It is against the wisdom of god to choose sinners as role models. Here we have two views the Quranic and the biblical , both say we cannot judge what god says and both says god has the most knowledge and wisdom yet the bible portrays him choosing prophets as role models who are sinners and sometimes they commit the worst sins !!!!
Twelfth :God is one , if gos was in trinity he would have at least said it in the OT or the NT . What you are saying is that this is your understanding of god and I agree your understanding but it is incorrect because trinity in itsself cannot be monotheism since it distincts god into three different entities which is exactly what the hindus and other pagans belived multiple in one . While we see God as one , one you has not begotton or begot , one that has nobody like him , one which is not contained or can be aged , he is perfect creator of everything all knowing and all powerfull, he does not regret or forget or be manipulated he is one our lord and our only god of everything.
Thirteenth: The corruption of the gospel has been proven many times and already have given you an example with the ending in Mark which you have ignored many times , there are other multiple examples of manipulations
Fourteenth:trinity and monotheism is with all do respect a contradiction to every human with comprehension capability
Fifteenth: Without the going into the many personal interpritations away from the subject, you claimed that the law was not cursed rather for not keeping the law which is a clear contradiction to the text
Also you Paul claimed that jesus was cursed to remove the sin from us which paul did actually say , this itself shows a degredation to jesus and to god , for if someone was to be cursed if hung of a tree then this would contradict what jesus said about fullfilling the law since anybody hung is cursed and how would that be fullfilling the same law which stated that hanging up on a tree is a curse!!!!
Also you ommitted what I said between the contradiction of what paul said and what jesus said:
He (Jesus) brought the hostility to an end, by abolishing the Law of commandments with its regulations”. (Ephesians 2:14)
contradicting Jesus :
hink not that I am come to destroy the law, or the prophets: I am not come to destroy, but to fulfil. For verily I say unto you, Till heaven and earth pass, one jot or one tittle shall in no wise pass from the law, till all be fulfilled. Whosoever therefore shall break one of these least commandments, and shall teach men so, he shall be called the least in the kingdom of heaven: but whosoever shall do and teach [them], the same shall be called great in the kingdom of heaven. (Matthew 5:17-20)
This raises many questions especially that paul in one other passage did actually preach for the law , this can be explained by his own confession about it :
Although I am free from everyone, I have enslaved myself to all of them in order to win a larger number. To the Jews I behave as a Jew; to those under the Law as one who is under the Law, although I am not under the Law, to gain those who are under the Law. To those who are without law I am without law, although not lawless toward God but committed to Christ’s Law, in order to win those who are without law” (1 Corinthians 9:19)
look friend... I don't think you appreciate that it is not easy for me to post lengthy posts with quotes with the device I use. Seeing as you think nothing of raising as many as a dozen different points in a post... Not always connected.. And expect every word of yours to be answered to your satisfaction!!!! Whilst blissfully disregarding anything I have to say. Not being afforded the same rights as muslims members, that is being able to edit my posts for errors. Which I see were made with my quotes. There is not much I can do about it after the event. I'm not sure why after over 650 posts I'm not afforded the same privileges as muslim members. I guess that may be a reflection on how we as non muslims are viewed by yourselves .. As Second class citizens!!! I do so hope that is not the case... But for sure it does appear so. You obviously have issue with my style of dialogue and I sense it annoys you, well I am how I am, as The Lord God made me.... Your arrogance is a slight annoyance to myself but I am trying very hard to rise above that and do my best to answer your queries. May hap .. We have reached a parting of the ways here. I will answer this one point you make.
what bit pray tell do you feel is not erotic? By erotic I mean to do with love, love in a physical nature as well as spiritual. It's a widely accepted opinion that "The Song of Solomon" is exactly that.. Erotic prose which deals with the human emotion of love. It's not the fact that your prophets name is in there... Which it is NOT.. You just believe it is... Based on some imaginative word play. It the reason why you would expect to find the name of your prophet in such a work? You say a better translation.. According to your wordplay, which I really can't be bothered to go into. Is....QuoteSecond : The songs of solomon is not all erotic , and still your answer does not give an explanaition to why the prophets name is in there . More importantly as I specified before there is a difference between corruption and replacement corruption means alteration from its original form and the bible does have certain commonalities with the Quran such as the story of exodus as a simple example . What christians do not understand is corruption is not the same as replacement rather alteration by ommissions , additions or something of some sort. Still no answer about the name of the prophet ????
***His mouth is most sweet: yea, he is Muhammed . This is my beloved, and this is my friend, O daughters of Jerusalem.***
So explain please.. Whose beloved is Mohammed here? Whose friend? And what has he to do with the daughters of Jerusalem in question? May I suggest you read the Song of Solomon for yourself ... I have only included the section pertinent to your claim.. It is too long to post in its entirety besides by its nature may offend some sensibilities. This section where you claim the name of Mohammed is found is the Bride.. Speaking of her beloved..it is the Bride speaking to the daughters of Jerusalem. If Mohammed was indeed the object of her desires then how so..? She would have a very long time to wait for her bride groom.. Seeing as Mohammed was not on the scene for a thousand years hence give or take a few.
The Bride Praises Her Beloved
10 My beloved is radiant and ruddy,
distinguished among ten thousand.
11 His head is the finest gold;
his locks are wavy,
black as a raven.
12 His eyes are like doves
beside streams of water,
bathed in milk,
sitting beside a full pool.
13 His cheeks are like beds of spices,
mounds of sweet-smelling herbs.
His lips are lilies,
dripping liquid myrrh.
14 His arms are rods of gold,
set with jewels.
His body is polished ivory,
bedecked with sapphires.
15 His legs are alabaster columns,
set on bases of gold.
His appearance is like Lebanon,
choice as the cedars.
16 His mouth is most sweet,
and he is altogether desirable.
This is my beloved and this is my friend,
O daughters of Jerusalem.
I hope you can see why I cannot take as serious consideration that the name of Mohammed is to be found in the "Song of Solomon". As for your mutterings regarding corruption of the texts.. You have shown nothing that changes the core message of the Bible. You can offer NO proof of such corruption taking place. Your misreading, tearing out of context and deliberate misrepresentation of Bible scripture cannot be considered proof of what you so desperately wish to be true.. That the Bible is corrupt... Because if the Bible is truth, where does that leave the Quran? You have a vested interest in proving the Bible false... Whereas I have nothing to loose by not accepting what the Quran claims for itself. The Bible does not need the Quran it stands as it is ... As Gods inspired revelation and testimony to His glory and Truth through His word... Jesus.
I continue to wish you well, and pray God guides you to His truth.
Peace unto you.
First the concerns about the blog privelages is not within my hands nor with my power. I advise you to talk to the blog mediators and managers so that they would tend to your concerns and demands.
Second : My criticisism to your responses is based on three facts: 1. the fact that you quote some of my responses and ommit the rest 2. The mistinterpritation of my responses based on not reading my responses well 3. The fact that you are drifting away from the subject and writting things that have nothing to do with our discussion. You also have ignored certain subjects that we have already discussed and which you could not answer and brought it up again here claiming that I have proven nothing!!!!!!!!
Third : Now to your claim about the passage in the songs:
1. The word Erotic has a different meaning than love in a way . I do not think that I need to explain the meaning of the word Erotic so that will be all concerning the meaning of erotic.
As for the other passages that is not erotic they are MOSTLY kind of love poems , since there are some passages which do not contain within them love such as :
7 Behold, it is the litter[a] of Solomon!
Around it are sixty mighty men,
some of the mighty men of Israel,
8 all of them wearing swords
and expert in war,
each with his sword at his thigh,
against terror by night.
9 King Solomon made himself a carriage[b]
from the wood of Lebanon.
Song of solomon 3:7-9
BUT it is important to indicate that these are within the context of a love
2. The reference of the prophet is being DESCRIBED by the bride not that the word muhammed takes the place of the bride!!!! read my previous post :
His mouth is most sweet: yea, he is altogether lovely. This is my beloved, and this is my friend, O daughters of Jerusalem.
Song of solomon 5: 16
The actual hebrew text :(in hebrew ):
"Hikko Mamittakim we kullo Muhammadim Zehdoodeh wa Zehraee Bayna Jerusalem."
this would make the actual text as :
His mouth is most sweet: yea, he is Muhammed . This is my beloved, and this is my friend, O daughters of Jerusalem.
So all together lovely replaced Mohammed . So Mohammed means all together lovely
As for the context well there is something important :
"Hikko Mamittakim we kullo Muhammadim Zehdoodeh wa Zehraee Bayna Jerusalem."
This is the context in hebrew , what is important is im which in hebrew is a masculine plural that comes after a noun like elohim . This type of hebrew grammer here and in other examples such as in elohim are used as the excellentiae or what is referred to as the royal we , which is a phrase used in semetic languages to indicate plurality to a single person as a tool of glorifying that person. So this means that the word muhammed is actually a noun
As for the corruption of the bible I gave you already multiple examples such as the ending of Mark about the ressurection. As for my interest remember that it was you and burnlight who brought this in a previous subject
There are currently 1 users browsing this thread. (0 members and 1 guests)