عرض للطباعة
Salamu Alikom Brothers,
You can check out new website answering Christians here, if you have any comments kindly feed me back, you can see also a pdf file collecting the articles in my website:http://jesus-is-muslim.net/http://jesus-is-muslim.net/wp-conten...-Is-Muslim.pdfI hope this may help. If you have any comments or any kind of review, kindly inform me.Best Regards
ما شاء الله
جزاكم الله خير
I have a question please. On what do you base your claim that Ismael was the child of sacrifice? As I understand the Quran does not identify the child by name. Is it accurate enough to go by the assumptions of some muslims that it was Ishmael? Or should you think if the Quran was indeed meant to confirm the previous scriptures and not to contradict them, then given that the child if not named in the Quran it could as well be referring to Isaac... Thus confirming the scriptures. Or is it acceptable to go with a version according to Muslim tradition that does not raise other uncomfortable points for you. You can't really just accuse the Jews of changing the scriptures for no reason. Why would they need to change the name from Ishmael to Isaac? What would they have to gain by doing so?اقتباس:
المشاركة الأصلية كتبت بواسطة M.Khaled
There are other points on other issues that could do with clarification. However, I do not think you would be interested, given that your target audience I'm assuming to be Christians who you would wish to convert to Islam for whatever reason, I think you need to check what Christians actually understand from many of the issues you raise. Otherwise the hard work you have spent on your article with fall on stony ground. If your target audience is your fellow muslims then no doubt they will congratulate you on a job well done. It depends on what the aims and objectives are I guess. :)
Peace to you.
Sorry for the late replies as I am very busy nowadays, actually Ishmael being the sacrificed son is mentioned by name in the Sunna, as for the Quran, although it wasn't mentioned that the sacrificed son is Ishmael, but the context is clearly talking about the action of sacrifice then it moves to the birth of Isaac, and it's well known that Ishmael is older than Isaac:
99. He said: "I will go to my Lord! He will surely guide me!
100. "O my Lord! Grant me a righteous (son)!"
101. So We gave him the good news of a boy ready to suffer and forbear.
102. Then, when (the son) reached (the age of) (serious) work with him, he said: "O my son! I see in vision that I offer thee in sacrifice: Now see what is thy view!" (The son) said: "O my father! Do as thou art commanded: thou will find me, if Allah so wills one practising Patience and Constancy!"
103. So when they had both submitted their wills (to Allah., and he had laid him prostrate on his forehead (for sacrifice),
104. We called out to him "O Abraham!
105. "Thou hast already fulfilled the vision!" - thus indeed do We reward those who do right.
106. For this was obviously a trial-
107. And We ransomed him with a momentous sacrifice:
108. And We left (this blessing) for him among generations (to come) in later times:
109. "Peace and salutation to Abraham!"
110. Thus indeed do We reward those who do right.
111. For he was one of our believing Servants.
112. And We gave him the good news of Isaac - a prophet,- one of the Righteous.
http://www.islam101.com/quran/yusufAli/QURAN/37.htm
The Jews of course wanted to have the honor of being the sons of Isaac, that's why they corrupted that verse.
explain please.. Is the Sunna the word of God as the Quran claims to be? If not it is only the opinion of men and as you say the words of men can't be trusted in the Bible as accurately relaying Gods word then why should the word of men in the Sunna be an exception to this rule?اقتباس:
المشاركة الأصلية كتبت بواسطة M.Khaled
The fact that Ishmael is older makes no difference. The Bible is quite clear that Isaac was the child of promise. Gods covenant was through Isaac. God made a promise for Ishmael but the covenant was through Isaac.
اقتباس:
99.
اقتباس:
He said: "I will go to my Lord! He will surely guide me!
I fail to see purely on the belief alone that because Ishmael was the elder it must have referred to him and not Isaac. Ishmael was born through Hagar.. Abrahams wife's Sarah slave. God promised Abraham that Sarah would bear a child and he was to be called Isaac and he would be the child of promise. It was only through Sarah's doubting Gods promise that Ishmael was born at all. I wonder if she could have seen the implications of her doubt would she have been so hasty.. Or would she, as she should have done trusted in God.اقتباس:
100. "O my Lord! Grant me a righteous (son)!"
101. So We gave him the good news of a boy ready to suffer and forbear.
102. Then, when (the son) reached (the age of) (serious) work with him, he said: "O my son! I see in vision that I offer thee in sacrifice: Now see what is thy view!" (The son) said: "O my father! Do as thou art commanded: thou will find me, if Allah so wills one practising Patience and Constancy!"
103. So when they had both submitted their wills (to Allah., and he had laid him prostrate on his forehead (for sacrifice),
104. We called out to him "O Abraham!
105. "Thou hast already fulfilled the vision!" - thus indeed do We reward those who do right.
106. For this was obviously a trial-
107. And We ransomed him with a momentous sacrifice:
108. And We left (this blessing) for him among generations (to come) in later times:
109. "Peace and salutation to Abraham!"
110. Thus indeed do We reward those who do right.
111. For he was one of our believing Servants.
112. And We gave him the good news of Isaac - a prophet,- one of the Righteous.
http://www.islam101.com/quran/yusufAli/QURAN/37.htm
You do of course have proof of this statement.اقتباس:
The Jews of course wanted to have the honor of being the sons of Isaac, that's why they corrupted that verse.
Peace
Well, as for your question concerning the Sunna, we consider it as a revelation from God to Prophet Muhammad so hr is not talking from himself and that's why the Quran ordered us to follow and obey him.
Regarding Ishmael being older this is a proof from the Quran that the sacrificed son is Ishmael as the story of sacrifice was mentioned then the event afterwards was Abraham being blessed with Isaac, you asked me about the Quran I gave you evidence from the Quran, as for the Bible, although it tells that it was Isaac, the story regarding the age of Ishmael is inconsistent giving an indication that a manipulation in the scriptures occurred which is explained in detail in the article you're supposed to ask me about. As for Ishmael being the son of the maid, well he was actually blessed and promised with a great nation which is actually a prophecy of Islam as you can see my article of blessing of Ishmael
Greetings M.Khaled, if you put equal importance on the Sunna as the Quran then that is fine by me. From my personal perspective I see that the Quran itself should be the greater authority in all matters. On that basis the Quran is not clear in regards to which child was the child of promise which has left muslims with the predicament of having to join the dots themselves. But you cannot change the truth of Gods word or intentions.اقتباس:
المشاركة الأصلية كتبت بواسطة M.Khaled
I do not recall you inviting me personally to read your article so I was not aware that I was supposed to ask you about it, but since you bring it up then I have questions on this issue.
Why did you not quote the section in Genesis pertaining to this matter in full? Instead of taking a line here or there that you feel may back up your position. Is this fair or intellectually honest? If I were to use the Quran out of context I'm sure I would be censured for it. You see my point I hope. If you give the section more consideration you will see it is quite clear it refers to Isaac and not Ishmael.
Genesis 15:27
15 God also said to Abraham, “As for Sarai your wife, you are no longer to call her Sarai; her name will be Sarah. 16 I will bless her and will surely give you a son by her. I will bless her so that she will be the mother of nations; kings of peoples will come from her.”
17 Abraham fell facedown; he laughed and said to himself, “Will a son be born to a man a hundred years old? Will Sarah bear a child at the age of ninety?” 18 And Abraham said to God, “If only Ishmael might live under your blessing!”
19 Then God said, “Yes, but your wife Sarah will bear you a son, and you will call him Isaac. I will establish my covenant with him as an everlasting covenant for his descendants after him. 20 And as for Ishmael, I have heard you: I will surely bless him; I will make him fruitful and will greatly increase his numbers. He will be the father of twelve rulers, and I will make him into a great nation. 21 But my covenant I will establish with Isaac, whom Sarah will bear to you by this time next year.” 22 When he had finished speaking with Abraham, God went up from him.
23 On that very day Abraham took his son Ishmael and all those born in his household or bought with his money, every male in his household, and circumcised them, as God told him. 24 Abraham was ninety-nine years old when he was circumcised, 25 and his son Ishmael was thirteen; 26 Abraham and his son Ishmael were both circumcised on that very day. 27 And every male in Abraham’s household, including those born in his household or bought from a foreigner, was circumcised with him.
you are right that God promised Ishmael that he would fruitful and be the father of nations.. Which all came to pass. However, the child of the covenant promise was to be Isaac. I am not sure what inconsistencies you find that lead you to believe the Jews of the time would have had cause to change the names. For what? The honour of being the sons of Isaac? They must then have known at that time the nature of the "honour"would bring them in the future. That seems rather far fetched. Was the Quran sent down in chronological order? It does not seem to be arranged chronologically to me, but then I am no expert and do not claim to be. Whereas the Bible is chronological and we see and understand why Ishmael was first born, why Isaac was the child of promise. Ishmael was born in the normal way, at Sarah's behest.. Not Gods. The birth of Isaac was considered to be miraculous given the advanced age of both his parents.. That was at Gods behest.
Why is it important for muslims that it should be Ishmael? Are you trying to make the facts fit Gods truth or mans opinion?
Peace
Hi Pandora,اقتباس:
المشاركة الأصلية كتبت بواسطة pandora
Well, for me I see that the Quran is clear concerning that the offered son is Ishmael when we look at its context in the right way, your concern that the Quran is not chronologically in order is regarding the whole Quran, but we are talking here about the order inside one story not through the whole Quran, which is represented in about 15 verses talking about the story of Abraham when he faced his people in Ur Cheldan then he had a son and the story of sacrifice occurred then he had Isaac, for sure the story of sacrifice is pointing to Ishmael as Isaac wasn't born yet. As for your question regarding the Sunna, if the hadith was proven to be true from the Isnad, then it is taken as the Quran. The difference between the Quran and the Sunna is the same as the difference between general constitution and detailed law. Both are important.
Actually I quoted the Christian arguments you gave below and answered them:اقتباس:
Why did you not quote the section in Genesis pertaining to this matter in full? Instead of taking a line here or there that you feel may back up your position. Is this fair or intellectually honest? If I were to use the Quran out of context I'm sure I would be censured for it. You see my point I hope. If you give the section more consideration you will see it is quite clear it refers to Isaac and not Ishmael.
Gen 17:7 And I will establish my covenant between me and thee and thy seedafter thee throughout their generations for an everlasting covenant, to be a God unto thee and to thy seed after thee.Gen 17:8 And I will give unto thee, and to thy seed after thee, the land of thy sojournings, all the land of Canaan, for an everlasting possession; and I will be their God. Gen 17:9 And God said unto Abraham, And as for thee, thou shalt keep my covenant, thou, and thy seed after thee throughout their generations. Gen 17:10 This is my covenant, which ye shall keep, between me and you and thy seed after thee: every male among you shall be circumcised. Gen 17:11 And ye shall be circumcised in the flesh of your foreskin; and it shall be a token of a covenant betwixt me and you. Gen 17:12 And he that is eight days old shall be circumcised among you, every male throughout your generations, he that is born in the house, or bought with money of any foreigner that is not of thy seed. Gen 17:13 He that is born in thy house, and he that is bought with thy money, must needs be circumcised: and my covenant shall be in your flesh for an everlasting covenant. Gen 17:14 And the uncircumcised male who is not circumcised in the flesh of his foreskin, that soul shall be cut off from his people; he hath broken my covenant.
So it clearly tells that the sign of this covenant is circumcision, this covenant is everlasting and that the one who don’t circumcise breaks God’s covenant, which Muslims already do while according to Christians , Paul cancelled circumcision.
Other might say that the covenant is with Isaac only as it says:
Gen 17:21 But my covenant will I establish with Isaac, whom Sarah shall bear unto thee at this set time in the next year.
Well, this was in the beginning, then it was transferred to Ishmael’s descendants, and that’s what is told in the New Testament when Jesus said to the Jews that the kingdom of God shall be taken away from them:
Mat 21:43 Therefore say I unto you, The kingdom of God shall be taken away from you, and shall be given to a nation bringing forth the fruits thereof.
Calling Ishmael as a fruitful, and have a great nation is very clear in praising him, otherwise, if God knew that a false prophet came from his descendants where a great nation followed him, why did He describe this nation as great?
Besides the Bible tells in another part:
Gen 12:3 and I will bless them that bless thee, and him that curseth thee will I curse: and in thee shall all the families of the earth be blessed.
We Muslims bless Abraham everyday in our prayer. At the end of every prayer, a Muslim must say:
“All the compliments, prayers and good things are due to Allah; peace be upon you, O Prophet, and Allah’s Mercy and Blessings be upon you. Peace be on us and on the true pious devotees of Allah. I testify that none has the right to be worshipped but Allah and I also testify that Muhammad is His slave and His Messenger. O Allah! send your Salat (Blessings, Graces, Honors and Mercy) on Muhammad and the family of Muhammad as You sent Your Salat on Abraham and the family of Abraham. O Allah! Send Your Blessings on Muhammad and the family of Muhammad as You sent Your Blessings on Abraham and the family of Abraham. You are Praiseworthy, Most Gracious.”
So if Muslims bless Abraham, the Bible says that God blesses who bless him, how come that the followers of a false prophet be blessed?
You are free to see what you wish in the Quran as it is your respected Holy Book. However, the Bible gives a different account and it is abundantly clear Isaac was always the child of promise.. And it was through Isaac that Gods covenant is passed. It is also very clear why it had to be Isaac. Maybe we should discuss the various covenants sometime... Because I am not sure God ever did make a covenant with the Muslims.. Rather muslims see themselves grafted onto the Abrahamic covenant through Ishmael. You have your own reasons to prefer it to be Ishmael I think.. Even though the Quran itself does not confirm this fact by naming the child of sacrifice. On a matter of such importance do you not think Allah would have given a definitive answer to this question? Given the implications. I really see this exercise as yet another way to negate Jesus.اقتباس:
المشاركة الأصلية كتبت بواسطة M.Khaled
I bow to your knowledge in regards to the Quran and Sunna.
اقتباس:
Actually I quoted the Christian arguments you gave below and answered them:
Gen 17:7 And I will establish my covenant between me and thee and thy seedafter thee throughout their generations for an everlasting covenant, to be a God unto thee and to thy seed after thee.Gen 17:8 And I will give unto thee, and to thy seed after thee, the land of thy sojournings, all the land of Canaan, for an everlasting possession; and I will be their God. Gen 17:9 And God said unto Abraham, And as for thee, thou shalt keep my covenant, thou, and thy seed after thee throughout their generations. Gen 17:10 This is my covenant, which ye shall keep, between me and you and thy seed after thee: every male among you shall be circumcised. Gen 17:11 And ye shall be circumcised in the flesh of your foreskin; and it shall be a token of a covenant betwixt me and you. Gen 17:12 And he that is eight days old shall be circumcised among you, every male throughout your generations, he that is born in the house, or bought with money of any foreigner that is not of thy seed. Gen 17:13 He that is born in thy house, and he that is bought with thy money, must needs be circumcised: and my covenant shall be in your flesh for an everlasting covenant. Gen 17:14 And the uncircumcised male who is not circumcised in the flesh of his foreskin, that soul shall be cut off from his people; he hath broken my covenant.
So it clearly tells that the sign of this covenant is circumcision, this covenant is everlasting and that the one who don’t circumcise breaks God’s covenant, which Muslims already do while according to Christians , Paul cancelled circumcision.
Yes.. But read it carefully...this refers to Abraham and his direct descendants through the covenant. This circumcision never applied to Gentiles... Who were later grafted on to the spiritual family of Abraham through Jesus. So it had nothing to do with Paul cancelling circumcision. Besides which muslims have already broken this covenant.. I don't believe the Quran actually says anything about boys being circumcised on the eighth day .. Which is a covenant condition. It's not just the fact that a male is circumcised but it should be done on the eighth day. Or maybe you feel you can make adjustments accordingly to Gods Covenant?
God said of Ishmael in the Bible... “A wild donkey of a man, and his hand will be against everyone, and everyone's hand against him, and he will dwell (settle, encamp) in the presence (“in the face”) of his brothers.” .... Did God see Ishmael as a suitable candidate to carry His covenant? It does not seem so.
اقتباس:
Other might say that the covenant is with Isaac only as it says:
اقتباس:
Gen 17:21 But my covenant will I establish with Isaac, whom Sarah shall bear unto thee at this set time in the next year.
Well, this was in the beginning, then it was transferred to Ishmael’s descendants, and that’s what is told in the New Testament when Jesus said to the Jews that the kingdom of God shall be taken away from them:
Mat 21:43 Therefore say I unto you, The kingdom of God shall be taken away from you, and shall be given to a nation bringing forth the fruits thereof.
Calling Ishmael as a fruitful, and have a great nation is very clear in praising him, otherwise, if God knew that a false prophet came from his descendants where a great nation followed him, why did He describe this nation as great?
Besides the Bible tells in another part:
Gen 12:3 and I will bless them that bless thee, and him that curseth thee will I curse: and in thee shall all the families of the earth be blessed.
It was never transferred to Ishmael or his descendants. This is wishful thinking on your parts. You cannot take your misunderstanding of Matthew 21:43 as proof of this. This parable referred to Jesus. The Kingdom of God would be taken from the Jews but here Jesus teaches that it is His followers that shall inherit that Kingdom... Not the muslims.. the bringing forth of fruits is in connection to the parable Jesus is the cornerstone in this verse. The fact that God promised Ishmael would be fruitful is coincidental.. When referred to Ishmael the meaning was fruitful and multiply in numbers.
اقتباس:
We Muslims bless Abraham everyday in our prayer. At the end of every prayer, a Muslim must say:
اقتباس:
“All the compliments, prayers and good things are due to Allah; peace be upon you, O Prophet, and Allah’s Mercy and Blessings be upon you. Peace be on us and on the true pious devotees of Allah. I testify that none has the right to be worshipped but Allah and I also testify that Muhammad is His slave and His Messenger. O Allah! send your Salat (Blessings, Graces, Honors and Mercy) on Muhammad and the family of Muhammad as You sent Your Salat on Abraham and the family of Abraham. O Allah! Send Your Blessings on Muhammad and the family of Muhammad as You sent Your Blessings on Abraham and the family of Abraham. You are Praiseworthy, Most Gracious.”
So if Muslims bless Abraham, the Bible says that God blesses who bless him, how come that the followers of a false prophet be blessed?
Its good that you bless Abraham I'm sure God will look with kindness on that fact. However that still does not have any baring on the fact that Ishmael was not the child of promise.. It was always Isaac.
Peace.
Especially when I see that the Bible is dealing with Ishmael who is 16 years old as baby and I see a clear inconsistency as expressed here, you haven't addressed this till now by the way:اقتباس:
المشاركة الأصلية كتبت بواسطة pandora
http://jesus-is-muslim.net/corruptio...-son-to-isaac/
Well, if the circumcision was never applied to the Gentiles, then on what basis that the Gentiles were preached? Either they have the covenant of Isaac, or that they have nothing to do with it. In Islam, circumcision is not for just for the Arabs but for the whole people, and we are talking about the concept of circumcision not the full details, otherwise Abraham was circumcised at 80 years old. Besides, Jesus said in Matthew 21:43 that the Kingdom of God shall be taken away from the Jews and given to a nation working with it's fruits. If this nation were the Christians, then actually Paul stopped working with any fruits either circumcision or anything else as he considered faith only is enough. And if you considered the everlasting covenant shall be in the seed of Abraham, then Jesus says that it shall be taken away from the sons of Isaac, you can gesture who are the other sons of Abraham, the stone which was rejected "and he will dwell (settle, encamp) in the presence (“in the face”) of his brothers" ;)اقتباس:
Yes.. But read it carefully...this refers to Abraham and his direct descendants through the covenant. This circumcision never applied to Gentiles... Who were later grafted on to the spiritual family of Abraham through Jesus. So it had nothing to do with Paul cancelling circumcision. Besides which muslims have already broken this covenant.. I don't believe the Quran actually says anything about boys being circumcised on the eighth day .. Which is a covenant condition. It's not just the fact that a male is circumcised but it should be done on the eighth day. Or maybe you feel you can make adjustments accordingly to Gods Covenant?
God said of Ishmael in the Bible... “A wild donkey of a man, and his hand will be against everyone, and everyone's hand against him, and he will dwell (settle, encamp) in the presence (“in the face”) of his brothers.” .... Did God see Ishmael as a suitable candidate to carry His covenant? It does not seem so.
A coincidence? Ok, let's go to Isaiah 42:11:اقتباس:
The fact that God promised Ishmael would be fruitful is coincidental.. When referred to Ishmael the meaning was fruitful and multiply in numbers.
Isa 42:11 Let the wilderness and the cities thereof lift up their voice, the villages that Kedar doth inhabit; let the inhabitants of Sela sing, let them shout from the top of the mountains.
Why especially Kedar and Sela? Actually Kedar was the eldest son of Ishmael, Sela is a mountain in Medina (See here), and it was mentioned in hadiths as this for example.. Coincidence, isn't it? You may say that the Bible’s dictionary tells that it is Petra. Well there may be more than one Sela as Seir for example:
H8165
say-eer’
Formed like H8163; rough; Seir, a mountain of Idumaea and its aboriginal occupants, also one in Palestine: – Seir.(Strong’s dictionary)
M.Khaled, your article is quite long... I did not realise I am expected to address everything!!! :) how do you arrive at the conclusion the Bible portrays Ishmael as a baby? He is clearly at least 16 possibly 17. Look at the verse in question...اقتباس:
المشاركة الأصلية كتبت بواسطة M.Khaled
8 The child grew and was weaned, and on the day Isaac was weaned Abraham held a great feast. 9 But Sarah saw that the son whom Hagar the Egyptian had borne to Abraham was mocking, 10 and she said to Abraham, “Get rid of that slave woman and her son, for that woman’s son will never share in the inheritance with my son Isaac.”
11 The matter distressed Abraham greatly because it concerned his son. 12 But God said to him, “Do not be so distressed about the boy and your slave woman. Listen to whatever Sarah tells you, because it is through Isaac that your offspring will be reckoned. 13 I will make the son of the slave into a nation also, because he is your offspring.”
14 Early the next morning Abraham took some food and a skin of water and gave them to Hagar. He set them on her shoulders and then sent her off with the boy. She went on her way and wandered in the Desert of Beersheba.
15 When the water in the skin was gone, she put the boy under one of the bushes. 16 Then she went off and sat down about a bowshot away, for she thought, “I cannot watch the boy die.” And as she sat there, she began to sob.
17 God heard the boy crying, and the angel of God called to Hagar from heaven and said to her, “What is the matter, Hagar? Do not be afraid; God has heard the boy crying as he lies there. 18 Lift the boy up and take him by the hand, for I will make him into a great nation.”
Point 1 Abraham and Hagar never married.. On that basis Isaac was at that time Abrahams only legitimate son. Although Ishmael was still of Abrahams seed. The child of promise according to God was through the union of Abraham and Sarah. The Quran does not deny this.. And it does not confirm Hagar's standing.
Point 2 Abraham was clearly distressed at being asked to send them away, as he was obviously fond of Ishmael. Yet he bowed to Sarah's demands because firstly Hagar had no other claim on him but as Sarah's maid servant.. And secondly God reassured Abraham that he should not be distressed about it. God had other plans for Ishmael.
Point 3 the food and water was put on Hagar's shoulders and she and Ishmael were sent off. Now, I know you feel that some translations may imply that Ishmael was also put on Hagar's shoulders as well as the food and water. Now she may have been strong but to carry food and water was task enough without carrying the weight of a 16 year old.. Even if boys of that age may have been smaller in stature then.. It was still a big ask.. There are many pointers as to why this was not likely.. No woman would ever have carried a child on her shoulders. Maybe on her hip or more likely on her back as children are still carried thus today. Tho not 16 year olds.. ;) be honest.. How many women do you see carrying their children around on there shoulder?
Point 4.. Put the boy under bushes.. Not out of the question.. She could have suggested he sit there out of the sun, or even pushed him under the bushes. Mothers will always put their children's needs first.
Point 5. God recognises Hagar's distress and tells her to lift up the boy and take him by the hand ... To pull him up from his sitting position from under the bushes? Well.. Take one by the hand seems a reasonable way to achieve this.
Then we have God repeating the promise He made to Abraham that he would bless Ishmael and make him into a great nation. It ought to be said that there is nothing to suggest that Abraham had shared this knowledge with Hagar before sending them both away. Another reason to suppose Hagar did not share the status of a wife... But as His wife's maidservant Abraham did not feel obliged to give any explanation of his actions.
If you don't mind I will address your other points raised in your post later.... :)
Peace :11:
[/QUOTE]
Jesus fulfilled the need for circumcision, followers of Christ are grafted to the Abrahamic covenant.. Spiritually.. Through the redeeming work of Jesus. At the risk of repeating myself..Circumcision on the eighth day was a mark of the covenant for direct descendants of Abraham. This was what God ordained.. The requirement was this should be done on the eighth day. How can you just apply the concept of circumcision but not uphold the conditions? If muslims are part of the abrahamic covenant then the conditions laid down by God of the covenant should be followed to the letter. Muslims do not uphold this part of the covenant as circumcision is done at any time. In fact I don't even think it's a requirement upon muslims in the Quran .. Is it? You didn't answer that bit. Is it a condition in the Quran or is it Sunnah? By denying the work of Jesus you exclude yourself from being "spiritually grafted" as with Christians. I'm really not sure where muslims stand on this issue, and I don't think the Quran is clear on this very important point. Gods covenants are of great importance and many were made between God and His people, some conditional some unconditional. The final one being eternal.. That being the covenant of grace through Christ.اقتباس:
Well, if the circumcision was never applied to the Gentiles, then on what basis that the Gentiles were preached? Either they have the covenant of Isaac, or that they have nothing to do with it. In Islam, circumcision is not for just for the Arabs but for the whole people, and we are talking about the concept of circumcision not the full details, otherwise Abraham was circumcised at 80 years old. Besides, Jesus said in Matthew 21:43 that the Kingdom of God shall be taken away from the Jews and given to a nation working with it's fruits. If this nation were the Christians, then actually Paul stopped working with any fruits either circumcision or anything else as he considered faith only is enough. And if you considered the everlasting covenant shall be in the seed of Abraham, then Jesus says that it shall be taken away from the sons of Isaac, you can gesture who are the other sons of Abraham, the stone which was rejected "and he will dwell (settle, encamp) in the presence (“in the face”) of his brothers" ;)
Jesus, as the Seed of Abraham. God’s promises in the Abrahamic Covenant find fulfillment in the person and work of Jesus, Until His coming, the promises could never achieve their full realisation. When Mary learned she would bear the Jesus the Messiah, she praised God for giving help to...."his servant, Israel, in remembrance of his mercy, As he spoke to our fathers, to Abraham, and to his seed forever" (Luke 1:54-55) Zackarias the priest, and father of John the Baptist, likewise tied Jesus’ birth to the Abrahamic promises providing "the mercy promised to our fathers, and to remember his holy covenant; The oath which he swore to our father, Abraham" (Luke 1:72-73). Paul confirmed that Jesus came to fulfil the Abrahamic promises, not only for the Jews but also for the Gentiles....Now I say that Jesus Christ was a minister of the circumcision for the truth of God, to confirm the promises made unto the fathers (Abraham), And that the Gentiles might glorify God for his mercy (Rom. 15:8-9).
The New Testament expands the fulfillment of the Abrahamic Covenant to include both Jewish and Gentile Christians. Paul stated that the seed of Abraham consists of all believers.. "And if ye be Christ’s, then are ye Abraham’s seed, and heirs according to the promise". The blessings of the Abrahamic Covenant are available to everyone in the gospel of the Jesus Christ. In fact, the Abrahamic Covenant is actually the gospel in Advance! The good news...or gospel...consists of God providing the blessing of justification to Gentiles who believe in Jesus, who is the seed of Abraham, so in Christ we are all the spiritual "seed of Abraham"
Well, we are saved by faith, faith and by the grace of God. Our good works alone are not sufficient but being saved by faith alone does not mean that good works are not required of a person.. They are, it's a fundamental belief that in order to have any hope of salvation we should treat others as we would wish to be treated, love our neighbours and enemies alike and forgive those who trespass against us. In short, our good works follow from the example of Jesus...the man and His teachings. It's a given. But salvation is a gift from God and that comes by Gods grace, our faith in the person and teachings of Jesus is what builds the bridge towards that goal. To put ones faith in good deeds alone I cannot see how that could work. How does one ever know if ones good deeds are enough? To balance ones good deeds against sin one also has to fully understand how God views sin.. That is all sin big and small. If God is Holy then all sin is an affront to that Holiness. Can we measure that?
Jesus never said the covenant would be taken away from Isaac. The only one who can remove a covenant is the author of that covenant. The author of the abrahamic covenant was God. Am I to understand you are implying Jesus status as equal to God the Father if you see Jesus has the power to remove a covenant and bestow it on another? Dangerous ground you tread.. Even Christians would not say this was something in the remit of Jesus..but purely for God alone.
I'll address the Isaiah question in another post. By quoting Isaiah do you accept his words as a prophet of God? I mean is Isaiah a prophet in Islam?
Peace.
The case is that the event when he went away with Hagar is actually before he was 16, the writer of the Bible just rearranged the paragraph telling that Isaac was born and he became 16 to be before the rest of the chapter just before the sacrifice event to say that Isaac was the one who was sacrificed when actually Isaac hasn't yet been born when the sacrifice event occurred.اقتباس:
المشاركة الأصلية كتبت بواسطة pandora
Well, you still gave no justification on what putting Ishmael on her shoulders mean. As for your question, actually I see you have no point about it because actually when mothers carry children, the child's head is most probably on her shoulders. not necessarily that his legs are standing on her shoulders.اقتباس:
Point 3 the food and water was put on Hagar's shoulders and she and Ishmael were sent off. Now, I know you feel that some translations may imply that Ishmael was also put on Hagar's shoulders as well as the food and water. Now she may have been strong but to carry food and water was task enough without carrying the weight of a 16 year old.. Even if boys of that age may have been smaller in stature then.. It was still a big ask.. There are many pointers as to why this was not likely.. No woman would ever have carried a child on her shoulders. Maybe on her hip or more likely on her back as children are still carried thus today. Tho not 16 year olds.. ;) be honest.. How many women do you see carrying their children around on there shoulder?
Are you sure you really see these justifications logic? I don't think so, Actually putting is not like leaving, and lifting is not as helping one standing up. In addition that Abraham put Ishmael on Hagar's shoulders. I think that any guy looking at these without motivation to justify his belief will never think this is a 16 year old guy but actually a baby.اقتباس:
Point 4.. Put the boy under bushes.. Not out of the question.. She could have suggested he sit there out of the sun, or even pushed him under the bushes. Mothers will always put their children's needs first.
Point 5. God recognises Hagar's distress and tells her to lift up the boy and take him by the hand ... To pull him up from his sitting position from under the bushes? Well.. Take one by the hand seems a reasonable way to achieve this.
Spiritually?? Actually these are same as excuses of some ignorant Muslims who don't pray, they say we spiritually pray. Actually if God made a covenant, then people should abide to it, spiritual excuses have no meaning.اقتباس:
Jesus fulfilled the need for circumcision, followers of Christ are grafted to the Abrahamic covenant.. Spiritually
Well, We as Muslims have the same concept of circumcission whether it is in the eighth day or not. I see that's enough especially when you actually don't circumcise at all nor did Jesus tell you not to circumcise or stop working with the Old Testament except for some issues but it was actually Paul who negated circumcission and the law, so Jesus has nothing with you not to circumcise, and you are trying to explain this with no single quote from Jesus but all from Paul, you are not actually following Jesus but Paul.اقتباس:
Muslims do not uphold this part of te covenant as circumcision is done at any time. In fact I don't even think it's a requirement upon muslims in the Quran .. Is it? You didn't answer that bit. Is it a condition in the Quran or is it Sunnah? By denying the work of Jesus you exclude yourself from being "spiritually grafted" as with Christians.
This means that since Jesus couldn't remove from the covenant because only the author of the covenant is the one who could do that, and since the author of the covenant is God, then Jesus is not God. Well said:36_1_55:اقتباس:
Jesus never said the covenant would be taken away from Isaac. The only one who can remove a covenant is the author of that covenant. The author of the abrahamic covenant was God.
For me no, he is just telling what God said not that he is the one who removes or not.اقتباس:
Am I to understand you are implying Jesus status as equal to God the Father if you see Jesus has the power to remove a covenant and bestow it on another? Dangerous ground you tread.. Even Christians would not say this was something in the remit of Jesus..but purely for God alone.
Well, Islam didn't mention the names of all prophets as in Sura 40:79 below, but it seems he was.اقتباس:
I'll address the Isaiah question in another post. By quoting Isaiah do you accept his words as a prophet of God? I mean is Isaiah a prophet in Islam?
78. We did aforetime send apostles before thee: of them there are some whose story We have related to thee, and some whose story We have not related to thee. It was not (possible) for any apostle to bring a sign except by the leave of Allah. but when the Command of Allah issued, the matter was decided in truth and justice, and there perished, there and then those who stood on Falsehoods.
Hello M.Khaled, sorry I don't have a lot of time to spare this evening but would just like to address a couple of points if I may... I will continue another time.
What case are you trying to make here? Am I understanding you correctly? Are you saying that Ishmael was younger than 16 when they were sent away...and someone rearranged the sequence of events to show the sacrifice happened before the birth of Isaac ergo .. It must be Ishmael as the child of promise? On that basis then the covenant was with Ishmael all along and there was no need for Jesus or God to transfer the covenant to Ishmael at all????!!!!!اقتباس:
المشاركة الأصلية كتبت بواسطة M.Khaled
Question is why? For what reason would the Jews have to rearrange the verses in favour of Isaac over Ishmael? And why did they not think to remove all other verses that referred to the covenant with ?? May one ask where do you get your evidence for this remarkable hypothesis? It's not the Quran.. Because I don't believe the Quran ever names Ishmael.. And is silent on which child it was. It's not the Bible.. For obvious reasons.. Another question why is it essential to you to believe it was Ishmael?
The food and water skin was put on Hagar's shoulders other than the fact that Ishmael was a strapping lad of 16+ years then I just think the likely impossibility of Hagar.. A woman.. And although as a slave was no doubt no stranger to hard work and lifting heavy objects. I still think carrying a 16 year old.. And food.. And water.. On her shoulders is quite a big ask. I know I could not carry a 16 year old lad very far... Shoulders or not! I think that is justification enough.. It's called common sense. You are splitting hairs here when you say such as.. The child's head resting on ones shoulder is akin to carrying a child on ones shoulder.. If the child's head is resting on a mothers shoulder she would be carrying the child on her hip or back. Except if the child was 16.. Then his head would likely be at a higher level than her shoulder.. Even if she could physically carry him on her hip or back. Standing on her shoulders!!!!! What are we now? Acrobats!!!اقتباس:
Well, you still gave no justification on what putting Ishmael on her shoulders mean. As for your question, actually I see you have no point about it because actually when mothers carry children, the child's head is most probably on her shoulders. not necessarily that his legs are standing on her shoulders.
I'm still not seeing this Abraham putting Ishmael on Hagar's shoulders as a going concern.. Think of the logistics... Abraham already of advanced years.. He was 100 when Isaac was born, Ishmael and Hagar were sent away after Isaac was weaned.. That's usually about 2 or so.. So you've got an old guy of 102 lifting a 16 year old onto the shoulders of a woman. I can see he could place the food and water on Hagar's shoulders and I can see him handing over Ishmael to her care and I can see him sending them off. Seems logical to me.اقتباس:
Are you sure you really see these justifications logic? I don't think so, Actually putting is not like leaving, and lifting is not as helping one standing up. In addition that Abraham put Ishmael on Hagar's shoulders. I think that any guy looking at these without motivation to justify his belief will never think this is a 16 year old guy but actually a baby.
Maybe you do not place the same importance on spirituality as Christians do.اقتباس:
Spiritually?? Actually these are same as excuses of some ignorant Muslims who don't pray, they say we spiritually pray. Actually if God made a covenant, then people should abide to it, spiritual excuses have no meaning.
having the concept of something is not the same as following as set down.اقتباس:
Well, We as Muslims have the same concept of circumcission whether it is in the eighth day or not. I see that's enough especially when you actually don't circumcise at all nor did Jesus tell you not to circumcise or stop working with the Old Testament except for some issues but it was actually Paul who negated circumcission and the law, so Jesus has nothing with you not to circumcise, and you are trying to explain this with no single quote from Jesus but all from Paul, you are not actually following Jesus but Paul.
That is your twisting and wilful misunderstanding of what I said. I forgive you that because you don't understand how Christians see the relationship between Jesus and God the Father. Jesus is subordinate to God the Father and does nothing but not by the will of the Father. Which is to say .. If Jesus did transfer the covenant... Which He didn't... It would be Gods will. As God the Father authored the covenant then God the Father has the power to transfer it.. If He wished.. But He didn't.. And the covenant went with Isaac and through his descendants until it came to fulfilment in Jesus.اقتباس:
This means that since Jesus couldn't remove from the covenant because only the author of the covenant is the one who could do that, and since the author of the covenant is God, then Jesus is not God. Well said:36_1_55:
We'll agree to disagree on this point. :)اقتباس:
For me no, he is just telling what God said not that he is the one who removes or not.
I think I see what you mean... Though it strikes me as odd, as Isaiah is considered a prophet of some importance in the Bible... And I believe muslims use Isaiah to claim Mohammed is the suffering servant mentioned rather than Jesus. Yet Isaiah does not get a mention in the Quran by name.اقتباس:
Well, Islam didn't mention the names of all prophets as in Sura 40:79 below, but it seems he was.
78. We did aforetime send apostles before thee: of them there are some whose story We have related to thee, and some whose story We have not related to thee. It was not (possible) for any apostle to bring a sign except by the leave of Allah. but when the Command of Allah issued, the matter was decided in truth and justice, and there perished, there and then those who stood on Falsehoods.
Anyway.. Time is short and I have a lot of stuff and things to do..
blessings to you. :)
No problem take your time, I also may not have much spare time as well.اقتباس:
المشاركة الأصلية كتبت بواسطة pandora
Sacrifice is not necessarily the covenant, we believe actually that Prophets before Prophet Muhammad (Peace be upon him) were from Isaac's seed and no prophet from Ishmael's seed before Prophet Muhammad and that God chosen the people of Israel in the beginning, we as Muslims already acknowledge that, but this is other than the point of the offered son.اقتباس:
What case are you trying to make here? Am I understanding you correctly? Are you saying that Ishmael was younger than 16 when they were sent away...and someone rearranged the sequence of events to show the sacrifice happened before the birth of Isaac ergo .. It must be Ishmael as the child of promise? On that basis then the covenant was with Ishmael all along and there was no need for Jesus or God to transfer the covenant to Ishmael at all????!!!!!
Well, this was an honor to Ishmael, and they tried to show him in a bad way. May be they couldn't have removed everything that honors him, but through the evidence I see here, I find it clear that they tried to do so, and the point regarding the age of Ishmael here is a remarkable evidence, and in the Quran it's clear that the event of offering was before the birth of Isaac. So, it is not the point that I find it essential, but I see this is more clear through the Quran and the manipulation regarding Ishmael's age in the Bible.اقتباس:
Question is why? For what reason would the Jews have to rearrange the verses in favour of Isaac over Ishmael? And why did they not think to remove all other verses that referred to the covenant with ?? May one ask where do you get your evidence for this remarkable hypothesis? It's not the Quran.. Because I don't believe the Quran ever names Ishmael.. And is silent on which child it was. It's not the Bible.. For obvious reasons.. Another question why is it essential to you to believe it was Ishmael?
So you are just answering yourself, this means that either you are denying what the Bible says, or that Ishmael wasn't actually 16 years old. Well done.اقتباس:
The food and water skin was put on Hagar's shoulders other than the fact that Ishmael was a strapping lad of 16+ years then I just think the likely impossibility of Hagar.. A woman.. And although as a slave was no doubt no stranger to hard work and lifting heavy objects. I still think carrying a 16 year old.. And food.. And water.. On her shoulders is quite a big ask. I know I could not carry a 16 year old lad very far... Shoulders or not! I think that is justification enough.. You are splitting hairs here when you say such as.. The child's head resting on ones shoulder is akin to carrying a child on ones shoulder.. If the child's head is resting on a mothers shoulder she would be carrying the child on her hip or back. Except if the child was 16.. Then his head would likely be at a higher level than her shoulder.. Even if she could physically carry him on her hip or back.
Well, actually that's not what the Bible says, the Bible says :"Put Ishmael on her shoulders, she put him near the tree, she lifts him up". Ishmael is totally silent except for crying, these are all indications that he is not a 16 year old guy, but a baby. A 16 year old guy is old enough in our age, only 2 other years and he is no more a minor, these are not the actions of Ishmael in the chapter in question.اقتباس:
I'm still not seeing this Abraham putting Ishmael on Hagar's shoulders as a going concern.. Think of the logistics... Abraham already of advanced years.. He was 100 when Isaac was born, Ishmael and Hagar were sent away after Isaac was weaned.. That's usually about 2 or so.. So you've got an old guy of 102 lifting a 16 year old onto the shoulders of a woman. I can see he could place the food and water on Hagar's shoulders and I can see him handing over Ishmael to her care and I can see him sending them off. Seems logical to me.
Exactly, Jesus is subordinate to God, not equal to God as phil 2:5 says. Simply becaus he is not God.اقتباس:
That is your twisting and wilful misunderstanding of what I said. I forgive you that because you don't understand how Christians see the relationship between Jesus and God the Father. Jesus is subordinate to God the Father and does nothing but not by the will of the Father. Which is to say .. If Jesus did transfer the covenant... Which He didn't... It would be Gods will. As God the Father authored the covenant then God the Father has the power to transfer it.. If He wished.. But He didn't.. And the covenant went with Isaac and through his descendants until it came to fulfilment in Jesus.
Actually it is not only Isaiah which is foretelling Prophet Muhammad, the Quran generally tells us the stories of the prophets that we might need in our life and the morals of the stories rather than just chronology.اقتباس:
I think I see what you mean... Though it strikes me as odd, as Isaiah is considered a prophet of some importance in the Bible... And I believe muslims use Isaiah to claim Mohammed is the suffering servant mentioned rather than Jesus. Yet Isaiah does not get a mention in the Quran by name.
Take your time and have a nice day. :)اقتباس:
Anyway.. Time is short and I have a lot of stuff and things to do..
blessings to you. :)
I don't recall anyone saying sacrifice was part of the covenant. What is part of the covenant is circumcision on the eighth day for males. Which has been discussed and muslims do not follow this except by their own interpretation. However, the sacrifice does have a link with Jesus and it is a link the Bible clearly shows.اقتباس:
المشاركة الأصلية كتبت بواسطة M.Khaled
"Now it came about after these things, that God tested Abraham, and said to him, Abraham!' And he said, 'Here I am.' 2 And He said, 'Take now your son, your only son, whom you love, Isaac, and go to the land of Moriah; and offer him there as a burnt offering on one of the mountains of which I will tell you.'"(Gen. 22:1-2).
God told Abraham to kill his son Isaac because their actions are pointing ahead to the person of Jesus in an example of the true sacrifice. Firstly God says to Abraham to take his "only son", But, we know that 13 years earlier Ishmael had been born to Abraham. So why would God call Isaac the only son? The Bible shows many similarities between the sacrifice of Isaac and the future sacrifice of Jesus. Both are referred to as the only begotten son.. As we know Isaac already had a brother in Ishmael.. But God refers to Isaac by this term because we know it was not Ishmael who was the son of the promised covenant.. it was Isaac. That is why God called Isaac Abraham's only son. Isaac was representing the future Messiah. Jesus was also called the only begotten son. There are many close parallels between the sacrifice of Isaac and the sacrifice of Jesus. Abraham represented God the Father. Isaac represented God the Son. The sacrifice of Christ was typified in the sacrifice of Isaac. Just as God provided the ram in place of Isaac God provided Jesus.. The lamb of God in place of us. Abraham showed the ultimate obedience in offering his son born out of complete faith in God.. This reflects the same depth of obedience in Jesus. If we see this covenant fulfilled in Jesus then I'm not sure why the need to transfer it to Ishmael would ever be an issue. But of course we know nothing of the kind happened according to both the Quran and the Bible.
Ishmael is honoured in the Bible and I don't know where you get the impression that he is not. God honoured Ishmael through the promise of making him the father of many nations.. Which he was. It seems like you are trying to prove corruption of the Bible to imply Ishmael was hard done by when not even the Quran gives you reason to suppose he was!! Any manipulation here is really your own.اقتباس:
Well, this was an honor to Ishmael, and they tried to show him in a bad way. May be they couldn't have removed everything that honors him, but through the evidence I see here, I find it clear that they tried to do so, and the point regarding the age of Ishmael here is a remarkable evidence, and in the Quran it's clear that the event of offering was before the birth of Isaac. So, it is not the point that I find it essential, but I see this is more clear through the Quran and the manipulation regarding Ishmael's age in the Bible.
:) nope.. The Bible is quite clear on the age of Ismael when the sacrifice of Isaac took place. If you look at the rest of the text and the ages of all concerned in the time frame.. Then Ishmael is at least 16 years old. But thank you kindly for the well done.... But I guess you could be applying a modicum of sarcasm here.. ;)اقتباس:
So you are just answering yourself, this means that either you are denying what the Bible says, or that Ishmael wasn't actually 16 years old. Well done.
not it does not... As for Ishmael being silent except for crying.. Well.. He had just been told to leave all he knew and was cast out along with his mother. Even 16 year olds are allowed to get upset at such a prospect .. Crying is sometimes a consequence of that. I can't imagine why it would be thought to record any dialogue he and Hagar may have had on their journey.اقتباس:
Well, actually that's not what the Bible says, the Bible says :"Put Ishmael on her shoulders, she put him near the tree, she lifts him up". Ishmael is totally silent except for crying, these are all indications that he is not a 16 year old guy, but a baby. A 16 year old guy is old enough in our age, only 2 other years and he is no more a minor, these are not the actions of Ishmael in the chapter in question.
That's your opinion and I respect that and of course you don't expect me to agree. Jesus submitted to the Father’s will and obeyed His commands. How then you may ask could they be equal? Both are equally God, yet according to the divine order, each has a different rank or position in the hierarchy of God. Just as man and woman are equal, so are the Father and the Son. The different rank a woman has does not make her any less of a Christian... or human for that matter. Neither does the different rank of Christ make Him any less Deity. The different rank that each person holds simply means that there are different roles and responsibilities that each one fulfils. All three persons (the Father, Son, and Holy Spirit) represent Deity, though each person of the Godhead is distinguishable from the other. Each person of God is distinct in the sense that each one has a different role that each one fulfils. The Word and the Spirit cannot act independently of God the father because they are ONE.اقتباس:
Exactly, Jesus is subordinate to God, not equal to God as phil 2:5 says. Simply becaus he is not God.
I can see that could put you at a disadvantage and explains the random claims muslims make in regards to the foretelling of Mohammed in the Torah and the Gospel. You miss the bigger picture and the chronological order in the Bible puts things into context. So we are left with no doubt. I think it's a shame you don't have the greater picture of the prophets instead of a snap shot. You miss out on a lot.اقتباس:
Actually it is not only Isaiah which is foretelling Prophet Muhammad, the Quran generally tells us the stories of the prophets that we might need in our life and the morals of the stories rather than just chronology.
Thank you. Have a good day also. :)اقتباس:
Take your time and have a nice day. :)
Well, regarding the point of Ishmael, I see we are just keeping on repeating ourselves, so I see that keeping on discussing this issue is a waste of time. You may try to make analogy of the offered son with the sacrifice of Jesus, but that does nothing if the point that Jesus died for our sins is not applicable.
I will just answer some other points raised, well giving the analogy of Jesus and the Father as man and woman is actually not applicable to the Trinity as man and woman are two different people, no one can be a man and a woman at the same time. You are saying that the son and Holy Spirit cannot act independently of the Father? Is the opposite true that the Father is dependent on the Son and the Holy Spirit? And if they are one, how can they have different roles and responsibilities? Different roles are between parts, not that each of them is God but they are one God.
Yes, I agree, we are travailing over old ground on the issue of Ishmael. I'm afraid I don't see your arguments as convincing enough for me to change my opinion that the account in the Bible seems more realistic and makes better sense. On this I feel we must agree to disagree. I see it has everything to do with Jesus as the offered sacrifice but I respect you do not see this and on that point we also beg to differ. :) I have enjoyed dialogue with you though and you have put your points across well. Would you care to discuss another topic?اقتباس:
المشاركة الأصلية كتبت بواسطة M.Khaled
Hmm.. Maybe not such a good analogy.. I thought it kind of got my point across, obviously not tho. :) the Son and the Holy Spirit cannot act independently of the Father.. They do the Fathers will at all times.. The Father is not dependant on the Son or the Holy Spirit in the way you seem to be implying, for there to be independence then they would have to be three separate distinct beings..if we take that Jesus is Gods uncreated Word, and the Holy Spirit as Gods uncreated Will.. Then they have always existed in unity.. As ONE. The Word communicates with mankind.. The Will (Holy Spirit) grants understanding. I'm sorry this does not make sense to you and I truly wish I could explain it to you better. Yet truly, I believe God is a mystery and we are not meant to fully understand God except in terms has He chooses to reveal Himself to us. I don't think I would want to condense my understanding of God to something logical I could place on a postage stamp.. I want God to be more than that.. I believe my God is.. Or my view of our God if you like.. ;)اقتباس:
I will just answer some other points raised, well giving the analogy of Jesus and the Father as man and woman is actually not applicable to the Trinity as man and woman are two different people, no one can be a man and a woman at the same time. You are saying that the son and Holy Spirit cannot act independently of the Father? Is the opposite true that the Father is dependent on the Son and the Holy Spirit? And if they are one, how can they have different roles and responsibilities? Different roles are between parts, not that each of them is God but they are one God.
Blessings.
If you don't mind me joining in here, Christians and Muslims agree that Jesus was subordinate to God. Let's look at the verse in context 5 Have this mind among yourselves, which is yours in Christ Jesus, 6 who, though he was in the form of God, did not count equality with God a thing to be grasped, 7 but emptied himself, by taking the form of a servant, being born in the likeness of men. 8 And being found in human form, he humbled himself by becoming obedient to the point of death, even death on a cross. 9 Therefore God has highly exalted him and bestowed on him the name that is above every name, 10 so that at the name of Jesus every knee should bow, in heaven and on earth and under the earth, 11 and every tongue confess that Jesus Christ is Lord, to the glory of God the Father.اقتباس:
المشاركة الأصلية كتبت بواسطة M.Khaled
From these verses and the fact that Jesus said "the father is greater than I," we Christians understand that the father was greater in position, function and office than Jesus, but they were always equal in nature, character and essence, but Jesus didn't claim His deity rights as the son of man on earth; therefore, Muslims, IMHO, fail to know who Jesus is. That is why Jesus said, "You will die in your sin unless you believe I am he...and no man comes to the father except through me" Christians and Muslims agree that Jesus is the word of God, but Muslims are unable to see that it is impossible for the word of God to be created; IOW, the Word is uncreated; therefore, the Word is eternal. As in Jn. 1 In the beginning (which is as far back as a human can imagine) was the word, who was with God and who was God. Jesus is the eternal word of God. This is the only inference that can be made. Jesus is all that God is but not all there is to God.
Muslims focus more on the trinity than Christians, because it is only too obvious they are trying to trap us Christians into explaining what can not be explained by finite beings such as ourselves. It is like me asking you explain how God is everywhere and knows all things or how could God have no beginning or how can he say be and it is ? Jesus said, "Before Abraham was I am,"and I am is a form of "Be" Allah says "be" and it is. Jesus is the I am or the word God used to create all things. That is why the Scripture states all things were made by Him for Him and through Him. It is written that God exalts His word above all His name, but Muslims don't know the name of God, but Christians do know His name and do know God and we want all people to know the truth who is Jesus. Jesus said it. I am the truth he didn't say show the truth for now He said I am. I am is the name God gave to Moses I wonder if you will know Jesus today like true Biblical Christians know Him? To know Him is to have eternal life!
If you want to discuss another topic, you can raise it. :)اقتباس:
المشاركة الأصلية كتبت بواسطة pandora
It's ok :) the problem I have with Trinity is not that we are not able to understand it although I don't like what some Christians do when they try to make it logical by some analogies which are actually irrelevant. We in Islam believe in attributes of God and we don't try to explain how, but we just believe in them the way God told about. The real problem in the Trinity is that it has no evidence.اقتباس:
Hmm.. Maybe not such a good analogy.. I thought it kind of got my point across, obviously not tho. :) the Son and the Holy Spirit cannot act independently of the Father.. They do the Fathers will at all times.. The Father is not dependant on the Son or the Holy Spirit in the way you seem to be implying, for there to be independence then they would have to be three separate distinct beings..if we take that Jesus is Gods uncreated Word, and the Holy Spirit as Gods uncreated Will.. Then they have always existed in unity.. As ONE. The Word communicates with mankind.. The Will (Holy Spirit) grants understanding. I'm sorry this does not make sense to you and I truly wish I could explain it to you better. Yet truly, I believe God is a mystery and we are not meant to fully understand God except in terms has He chooses to reveal Himself to us. I don't think I would want to condense my understanding of God to something logical I could place on a postage stamp.. I want God to be more than that.. I believe my God is.. Or my view of our God if you like.. ;)
Well, actually I am concerned with what Jesus said, actually Jesus never said that he is God, but actually when he was accused by the Jews that he is saying he is God, his answer was actually denying it:اقتباس:
المشاركة الأصلية كتبت بواسطة Burninglight
“I and the Father are one”:
Well, this word in itself is not a proof that he claims divinity, for the unity can be unity in aim, for example what Jesus said concerning the disciples:
Joh 17:22 And the glory which thou hast given me I have given unto them; that they may be one, even as we are one;
Of course this verse doesn’t mean that they are one by body, but by aim and faith, it is the same also concerning John 10:30. Dr. Thomas Constable, a Christian commentator acknowledges this on his notes on John 10:30:
“Jesus did not mean that He and the Father were the same person of the Godhead. If He had meant that, He would have used the masculine form of the word translated “one” (Gr. heis). Instead He used the neuter form of the word (Gr. hen). He meant that He and the Father were one in their action. This explanation also harmonized with the context since Jesus had said that He would keep His sheep safe (v. 28) and His Father would keep them safe (v. 29)……..First, Jesus’ claim to oneness does not in itself prove the Son’s unity in essence with the Father. In 17:22, Jesus prayed that His disciples might be one as He and the Father were one, namely, in their purpose and beliefs…….In short, this verse does not say that Jesus was claiming to be of the same essence as God. Here He claimed to function in union with the Father. However the context and other statements in this Gospel show that His unity with the Father extended beyond a functional unity and did involve essential metaphysical unity.”
http://www.soniclight.com/constable/.../John/John.htm
So Dr. Constable is saying here that this verse in itself doesn’t mean real unity but figurative one, but the context proves that he was claiming to be God, but actually I don’t agree with him on that, because the context disproves his deity, let’s look at what the context says:
Joh 10:32 Jesus answered them, Many good works have I showed you from the Father; for which of those works do ye stone me? Joh 10:33 The Jews answered him, For a good work we stone thee not, but for blasphemy; and because that thou, being a man, makest thyself God. Joh 10:34 Jesus answered them, Is it not written in your law, I said, ye are gods? Joh 10:35 If he called them gods, unto whom the word of God came (and the scripture cannot be broken), Joh 10:36 say ye of him, whom the Father sanctified and sent into the world, Thou blasphemest; because I said, I am the Son of God? Joh 10:37 If I do not the works of my Father, believe me not. Joh 10:38 But if I do them, though ye believe not me, believe the works: that ye may know and understand that the Father is in me, and I in the Father. Joh 10:39 They sought again to take him: and he went forth out of their hand.
When we look at the context, we find actually that Jesus is actually disproving the claim that he is God not proving it. The Jews misunderstood what he said, and thought that he was saying that he was God. Actually what the Jews said means that they understood from the scriptures that the Messiah is not God, so anyone who is saying that he is God is blaspheming. if they really misunderstood the scriptures, it should have been that Jesus answers their misconception by quoting a verse from the OT telling that the Messiah will be God as Isaiah (9:6 for example, see my post (Old Testament and Jesus), but the verse he quoted proves the opposite, Jesus referred to Psalms 82:6:
Jesus answered them, Is it not written in your law, I said, ye are gods?
So simply Jesus is quoting people who were called gods when they are not actually God. Just a metaphorical godhead, Jesus says that as these judges in Psalm 82:6 are called gods metaphorically, I am called son of God metaphorically. So I am called son of God as these were called gods and sons of Most High, if the Psalm wasn’t blasphemed when they called the judges as gods, why do you consider me blaspheming when I am called son of God?
Finally coming to the last point which some may say that Jesus said that he is in the Father and the Father is in him. This is not also a proof, as it only means that he has a good relationship with God since he is a prophet, and this language is very common:
Joh 14:20 In that day ye shall know that I am in my Father, and ye in me, and I in you.
1Jo 2:24 As for you, let that abide in you which ye heard from the beginning. If that which ye heard from the beginning abide in you, ye also shall abide in the Son, and in the Father.
As for the 2 verses you quoted here:
“Before Abraham was born, I am!”
This actually is not a proof that Jesus is God because he is eternal, because this language was present in the Bible, it only means that he was in God’s foreknowledge, the same as what said concerning Jeremiah and Paul:
Jer 1:5 Before I formed thee in the belly I knew thee, and before thou camest forth out of the womb I sanctified thee; I have appointed thee a prophet unto the nations.
Eph 1:4 even as he chose us in him before the foundation of the world, that we should be holy and without blemish before him in love:
The context also proves this when he said before:
Joh 8:56 Your father Abraham rejoiced to see my day; and he saw it, and was glad. Joh 8:57 The Jews therefore said unto him, Thou art not yet fifty years old, and hast thou seen Abraham? Joh 8:58 Jesus said unto them, Verily, verily, I say unto you, Before Abraham was born, I am.
Jesus (Peace be upon him) meant here is that Abraham (Peace be upon him) rejoiced when he knew that Jesus (Peace be upon him) will be from his descendants, and this is clear through the word “my day”, he didn’t say:”when he saw me”, this clearly means that he meant that Abraham knew that he will be raised one day, so he was rejoiced for that day.
The word “I AM” doesn’t claim divinity, anyone can say I am. The word “ego eimi” if it really meant Jehovah, it wouldn’t have been translated but it have been written Jehovah, especially when we see that the same word “ego eimi” was said by others:
Some said, “It is he.” Others said, “No, but he is like him.” He kept saying, “I am the man.” (John 9:9)
Is the beggar God? Of course not, but it actually means “I am the Messiah”, and this is very clear with what he said to the Samaritan woman:
Joh 4:25 The woman saith unto him, I know that Messiah cometh (he that is called Christ): when he is come, he will declare unto us all things. Joh 4:26 Jesus saith unto her, I that speak unto thee am he.
Which was said in other translation:
(MKJV) Jesus said to her, I AM, the One speaking to you.
This is a very clear proof that he didn’t mean to Jehovah by this word, and the context can show that as above.
John 1:1-3:
First of all, these are the words of Gospel John’s writer. Actually there is a doubt in theidentity of the writer of Gospel John being John the apostle or an anonymous writer. What is more important is that this verse is mistranslated. The first “God” in “the word was with God” in this verse is “hotheos” in Greek origin which means God (with capital G) and with ho a definite article, while the second which is in “the word was god” is “theos” with no definite article which is supposed to be translated into god (with small g). Of course there is a big difference between both words , since the word “God” means Jehovah of the Old Testament, while the word god, means a god for pagans which is not meant in this verse, or god which means master as told about Moses (Peace be upon him):
Exodus 7:1″ And Jehovah said to Moses, See, I have made you a god to Pharaoh. And Aaron your brother shall be your prophet.”
Or Psalms 82:6 “:
“I said, ‘You are “gods”; you are all sons of the Most High.’ (Psalms 82:6)”.
As for John 1:3
Joh 1:3 All things were made through him; and without him was not anything made that hath been made.
These things doesn’t necessarily mean creation, but it is his religion, and saving the people by faith in God and in Jesus as a prophet, since many scripts prove that Jesus (Peace be upon him) is not God.
http://jesus-is-muslim.net/did-jesus-really-say-i-am-god/
OK.. How about covenants? I don't see covenants mentioned in your article... Also I confess I'm not sure what covenant God made with Mohammed for the muslims. I would be interested in your view on this. What do you think? Or would you prefer I pick something from your article?اقتباس:
المشاركة الأصلية كتبت بواسطة M.Khaled
:) you don't have to understand it, and as a Muslim it doesn't impact on your person any. Truly.. It could well be a concept beyond our understanding and sometimes words we use in an effort to explain fall short. However, it is a concept found in the Bible and I find it makes more sense that a unitary being for various reasons. Maybe man will always seek to try to understand and explain God in terms we are comfortable with. Yet.. Are we right to do this? If God, as we believe, is far greater than His creation, how on earth can we expect the creation could fully know the creator. I am content to understand what God has revealed to me about His being.. From the Bible but mainly through Jesus. In the absence of any clear proof to the contrary I see Christianity and accepting Jesus as my saviour is truth.اقتباس:
It's ok :) the problem I have with Trinity is not that we are not able to understand it although I don't like what some Christians do when they try to make it logical by some analogies which are actually irrelevant. We in Islam believe in attributes of God and we don't try to explain how, but we just believe in them the way God told about. The real problem in the Trinity is that it has no evidence.
Peace to you. :)
Well, you can consider the covenant made with Muslims as the five pillars:اقتباس:
المشاركة الأصلية كتبت بواسطة pandora
http://jesus-is-muslim.net/pillars-of-islam/
Also regarding the praying which is the second pillar, Prophet Muhammad (Peace be upon him) said:
"The pact between us and them is prayer. Whoever abandons it is a disbeliever." (Related by Ahmad, Abu Dawud, at-Tirmidhi, anNasa'i and Ibn Majah.)
Well, actually the case is that the Bible itself mentioned nothing regarding the Trinity or that Jesus is God, actually Jesus said that only the Father is God:Joh 17:1 When Jesus had spoken these words, he lifted up his eyes to heaven, and said,“Father, the hour has come; glorify your Son that the Son may glorify you, Joh 17:2 since you have given him authority over all flesh, to give eternal life to all whom you have given him. Joh 17:3 And this is eternal life, that they know you the only true God, and Jesus Christ whom you have sent.اقتباس:
:) you don't have to understand it, and as a Muslim it doesn't impact on your person any. Truly.. It could well be a concept beyond our understanding and sometimes words we use in an effort to explain fall short. However, it is a concept found in the Bible and I find it makes more sense that a unitary being for various reasons. Maybe man will always seek to try to understand and explain God in terms we are comfortable with. Yet.. Are we right to do this? If God, as we believe, is far greater than His creation, how on earth can we expect the creation could fully know the creator. I am content to understand what God has revealed to me about His being.. From the Bible but mainly through Jesus. In the absence of any clear proof to the contrary I see Christianity and accepting Jesus as my saviour is truth.
Jesus says that the Father is the only true God. Actually if he said “God” instead of Father in verse 1 (the bolded word), this wouldn’t have been a proof that the Father is the only Gpd, because God could have meant the whole Trinity. By using the word Father, Jesus clearly states the Father only is the only God, thus excluding the son and the holy spirit.
And consider Jesus word “this is the eternal life”.Jesus didn’t say that the eternal life is that he is God who came in flesh or that he is the second person in the Trinity, or that he is the Savior who came to be crucified for the sin of Adam, it is simply that the Father is the only God, and that Jesus was sent by God.
By your rather dismissive tone am I to assume that Covenants are a no go then? Shame.. I would have been interested in knowing what actually constitutes a covenant between Allah and Mohammed on behalf of muslims. I'm not sure I see the five pillars of Islam fits the bill as a covenant. What are the conditions.. Is it unconditional or conditional?اقتباس:
المشاركة الأصلية كتبت بواسطة M.Khaled
Im really not sure what to make of this.. It's like anything I have said about Christianity and my efforts to explain things have been completely ignored. The Trinity is not mentioned anywhere in the Bible.. I don't think you would find a Christian that would say it was. Neither does Jesus ever say the words "I am God, worship me". Although He never said he was just a prophet either.. However... The concept of the trinity is in the Bible. I could ask you is the word Tawheed found in the Quran? Yet the concept of oneness is. On the point of deity in regards to Jesus.. There are other means rather than direct speech to say something. That is by actions and examples.. If you didn't know I was a woman.. And I said I was to about to give birth to a child you would immediately realise that I was in fact a woman.. Maybe poor analogy.. But you get the idea ;) poor analogies being my thing it seems..اقتباس:
Well, actually the case is that the Bible itself mentioned nothing regarding the Trinity or that Jesus is God, actually Jesus said that only the Father is God:,Joh 17:1 When Jesus had spoken these words, he lifted up his eyes to heaven, and said,“Father, the hour has come; glorify your Son that the Son may glorify youJoh 17:2 since you have given him authority over all flesh, to give eternal life to all whom you have given him. Joh 17:3 And this is eternal life, that they know you the only true God, and Jesus Christ whom you have sent.
Jesus says that the Father is the only true God. Actually if he said “God” instead of Father in verse 1 (the bolded word), this wouldn’t have been a proof that the Father is the only Gpd, because God could have meant the whole Trinity. By using the word Father, Jesus clearly states the Father only is the only God, thus excluding the son and the holy spirit.
And consider Jesus word “this is the eternal life”.Jesus didn’t say that the eternal life is that he is God who came in flesh or that he is the second person in the Trinity, or that he is the Savior who came to be crucified for the sin of Adam, it is simply that the Father is the only God, and that Jesus was sent by God.
Joh 17:1 When Jesus had spoken these words, he lifted up his eyes to heaven, and said,“Father, the hour has come; glorify your Son that the Son may glorify you
But Jesus used the term Father .. Not God. Jesus asking the Father to Glorify Him and in doing so the Son reflects the Glory back to the Father. This implies community and close relationship. Why would Jesus assume he was worthy of being glorified by God if He did not share in a greater relationship than others had. No Prophets before had ever asked God to glorify them in a way that implies a shared mutual glory.
Joh 17:2 since you have given him authority over all flesh, to give eternal life to all whom you have given him.
Here Jesus claims God has given Him authority over mankind.. To sit in judgement? To grant eternal life to those who have accepted Him.
Joh 17:3 And this is eternal life, that they know you the only true God, and Jesus Christ whom you have sent.
When those who have accepted Jesus for who He claims to be, when granted eternal life will come to know God and Jesus as being one in essence. This is Gods will.
So really, as Jesus by these words is claiming to know God the Father unlike any other has ever known God. Why would you be expecting Him to be mentioning the trinity, or indeed being the sent Saviour, or even bring Adam and his fall from grace into the equation in this verse I don't quite understand. We know that God the Father is the only true God.. You are saying this as if you think we see Jesus as a god and the Holy Spirit as a god!!!!
Peace to you, may God grant you understanding.
I believe Satan makes pacts, but God makes covenants. People make pacts with the devil, but they can never make a pact with God. A pact is like an alliance, covenant, or treaty. God makes the covenants with us and not us with Him, and prayer is not a pact; it is communication. It is not only us speaking our peace to god but God speaking to us. Jesus warns us not to use repetitious prayers where people think they will be heard for their many words. Those types of prayers bounce off the ceiling!
What do you mean by a no go? I am not even sure what is your aim of that point of covenants.اقتباس:
المشاركة الأصلية كتبت بواسطة pandora
Well, I didn't ask for specific words, I am actually asking for the concept. The case is that the concept is absent from what Jesus said.اقتباس:
Im really not sure what to make of this.. It's like anything I have said about Christianity and my efforts to explain things have been completely ignored. The Trinity is not mentioned anywhere in the Bible.. I don't think you would find a Christian that would say it was. Neither does Jesus ever say the words "I am God, worship me". Although He never said he was just a prophet either.. However... The concept of the trinity is in the Bible. I could ask you is the word Tawheed found in the Quran? Yet the concept of oneness is.
Well, I am not sure how you got the impression that Jesus knew the Father in a different way than anyone else have known Him, yes he came to teach people about God in the present and in generations afterwards, but not in a different way from past prophets I am not sure where you got that impression from these verses. The case here is that Jesus is negating here that he or the Holy Spirit to be God either as separate gods or as persons of Trinity when he says that the Father is the only true God, he didn't say: "That they know you, me and the Holy Spirit as three persons one God or the only true God", but the Father only. This is clearly against Trinity since the Father is different from the Son and the Holy Spirit.اقتباس:
So really, as Jesus by these words is claiming to know God the Father unlike any other has ever known God. Why would you be expecting Him to be mentioning the trinity, or indeed being the sent Saviour, or even bring Adam and his fall from grace into the equation in this verse I don't quite understand. We know that God the Father is the only true God.. You are saying this as if you think we see Jesus as a god and the Holy Spirit as a god!!!!
I mean by the tone of your reply it seems to me that it is not a topic you wish to pursue. I thought it could be an interesting comparison. As I'm not clear on what if any covenant God made with the Mohammed for the Muslims. Covenants are viewed as quite important in the Bible and it shows God made many throughout its history.. Some conditional some not. I just assumed that Muslims were just adopted into the Abrahamic Covenant.. The circumcision requirement gave me that idea, but however although you follow circumcision you do not do so according to the Covenant. So then I thought, maybe you have some other covenant applicable to Muslims. No matter, we can discuss something from your article if you like. Do you mind if I chose? :)اقتباس:
المشاركة الأصلية كتبت بواسطة M.Khaled
To arrive at the concept of the Trinity involved much study of the Scriptures as a whole.. Not random verses here and there. I mean the word "monotheism" is not in the Bible, yet the Bible teaches it. Therefore, your criticism on this point is invalid.اقتباس:
Well, I didn't ask for specific words, I am actually asking for the concept. The case is that the concept is absent from what Jesus said.
Matthew 28:18
18 And Jesus came up and spoke to them, saying, "All authority has been given to Me in heaven and on earth. 19"Go therefore and make disciples of all the nations, baptizing them in the name of the Father and the Son and the Holy Spirit, 20teaching them to observe all that I commanded you; and lo, I am with you always, even to the end of the age."
John 15:26
“When the Advocate (comforter) comes, whom I will send to you from the Father—the Spirit of truth who goes out from the Father—he will testify about me. 27 And you also must testify, for you have been with me from the beginning.
This is the impression one gets from the teachings of Jesus in the Bible. You keep saying about what Jesus didn't say in verses but fail to truly understand what He did say. You seem bent on rewriting verses and having Jesus say something else entirely.. Something that maybe conforms to what little you understand of Jesus from what you have in the Quran.. With Issa. Jesus and the Holy Spirit are not gods and please stop implying they are.اقتباس:
Well, I am not sure how you got the impression that Jesus knew the Father in a different way than anyone else have known Him, yes he came to teach people about God in the present and in generations afterwards, but not in a different way from past prophets I am not sure where you got that impression from these verses. The case here is that Jesus is negating here that he or the Holy Spirit to be God either as separate gods or as persons of Trinity when he says that the Father is the only true God, he didn't say: "That they know you, me and the Holy Spirit as three persons one God or the only true God", but the Father only. This is clearly against Trinity since the Father is different from the Son and the Holy Spirit.
Peace.
Well, this depends upon your definition to a covenant, for me I see that a covenant is what anyone should do to be a Muslim.اقتباس:
المشاركة الأصلية كتبت بواسطة pandora
Actually there are some comments on this verse:اقتباس:
Matthew 28:18
18 And Jesus came up and spoke to them, saying, "All authority has been given to Me in heaven and on earth. 19"Go therefore and make disciples of all the nations, baptizing them in the name of the Father and the Son and the Holy Spirit, 20teaching them to observe all that I commanded you; and lo, I am with you always, even to the end of the age."
The verse doesn’t say that the Father, the Son, and the Holy Ghost are one, all what it said is to baptize people in the name of the 3 of them, saying name not names doesn’t mean that the 3 are one. When a leader tells his soldiers: “fight your enemies in the name of the country the people and the king” doesn’t mean that the 3 are one, this is the same case for 1 Peter 1:1-2.
Otherwise, if we used the same way, we can have another Trinity from the Bible:
1Ti 5:21 I charge thee in the sight of God, and Christ Jesus, and the elect angels, that thou observe these things without prejudice, doing nothing by partiality.
It is the first time for me to hear that the elect angels became the third person in the Trinity.
The apostles didn’t respond to what Jesus ordered them in this verse, since the baptismal formula was never told that way by the apostles, but they were always baptizing people in the name of Jesus, and they were baptizing the Jews only not the gentiles, only Paul and Baranabas (who were not present when Jesus said the above) baptized the gentiles.
There is a problem in the canonicity of the verse itself as Eusebius quoted it, “Go ye and make disciples of all the nations in my name.”(Church history 3.5.2), Basil said that he knew nothing about it:”Of the rest I say nothing; but of the very confession of our faith in Father, Son, and Holy Ghost, what is the written source? If it be granted that, as we are baptized, so also under the obligation to believe, we make our confession in like terms as our baptism, in accordance with the tradition of our baptism and in conformity with the principles of true religion, let our opponents grant us too the right to be as consistent in our ascription of glory as in our confession of faith.”
http://www.ccel.org/ccel/schaff/npnf208.vii.xxviii.html
I don't see where this verse is talking about Trinity.اقتباس:
John 15:26
“When the Advocate (comforter) comes, whom I will send to you from the Father—the Spirit of truth who goes out from the Father—he will testify about me. 27 And you also must testify, for you have been with me from the beginning.
اقتباس:
Jesus and the Holy Spirit are not gods and please stop implying they are.
Well, I never implied that you say they are gods in a polytheistic means. I am not sure where you get this impression, if Jesus didn't mean that neither he nor the Holy Spirit are persons in the Trinity, i.e. each of them is God, he won't have addressed the Father by "the only true God". That's my point.اقتباس:
This leads me to think there is no covenant given to muslims from God through Mohammed in the Quran. A covenant has to have conditions. Simply doing things that one believes one should do to be a Muslim is a bit wooly, don't you think? You haven't answered yet.. Is this a topic you would like to explore further or not?اقتباس:
المشاركة الأصلية كتبت بواسطة M.Khaled
اقتباس:
Actually there are some comments on this verse:
Again, you are concentrating on what was not said rather than seeing what was actually said, and what was meant by the words actually said!! Why would Jesus tell the apostles to go and baptise in His name.. Along side the name of God and the Name of the Holy Spirit? If Jesus saw Himself as simply a prophet or messenger would He have the audacity to make such a bold claim to adjoin Himself with God and the Holy Spirit? The alternative... Is that Jesus is who He claimed to be.. Which makes perfect sense. Your link.. Interesting.. But only as interesting as a mans personal opinion and interpretation can be. Others of course may hold a different view. Who is to say which is right? We can deliberate till the cows come home.. However, at the end of the day we are all judged the same.اقتباس:
The verse doesn’t say that the Father, the Son, and the Holy Ghost are one, all what it said is to baptize people in the name of the 3 of them, saying name not names doesn’t mean that the 3 are one. When a leader tells his soldiers: “fight your enemies in the name of the country the people and the king” doesn’t mean that the 3 are one, this is the same case for 1 Peter 1:1-2.
Otherwise, if we used the same way, we can have another Trinity from the Bible:
1Ti 5:21 I charge thee in the sight of God, and Christ Jesus, and the elect angels, that thou observe these things without prejudice, doing nothing by partiality.
It is the first time for me to hear that the elect angels became the third person in the Trinity.
The apostles didn’t respond to what Jesus ordered them in this verse, since the baptismal formula was never told that way by the apostles, but they were always baptizing people in the name of Jesus, and they were baptizing the Jews only not the gentiles, only Paul and Baranabas (who were not present when Jesus said the above) baptized the gentiles.
There is a problem in the canonicity of the verse itself as Eusebius quoted it, “Go ye and make disciples of all the nations in my name.”(Church history 3.5.2), Basil said that he knew nothing about it:”Of the rest I say nothing; but of the very confession of our faith in Father, Son, and Holy Ghost, what is the written source? If it be granted that, as we are baptized, so also under the obligation to believe, we make our confession in like terms as our baptism, in accordance with the tradition of our baptism and in conformity with the principles of true religion, let our opponents grant us too the right to be as consistent in our ascription of glory as in our confession of faith.”
[COLOR=#141412][FONT=Source Sans Pro]http://www.ccel.org/ccel/schaff/npnf208.vii.xxviii.html
It infers a relationship between God, the Holy Spirt and Jesus. The Father will send the Spirit in the Sons name.اقتباس:
I don't see where this verse is talking about Trinity.
John 15:26
“When the Advocate (comforter) comes, whom I will send to you from the Father—the Spirit of truth who goes out from the Father—he will testify about me. 27 And you also must testify, for you have been with me from the beginning.
Jesus will send the Holy Spirit from the Father... The Spirit goes out from the Father.. That implies a closeness of community between them.. The Holy Spirit will testify about Jesus.. Seems like three acting in unity to me.
I thank you for that at least.. Because it gets very tiresome as a Christian to be referred to as a polytheist.. What makes you the expert on what Jesus meant? I'm afraid I don't get your point.. Why would you think that Jesus would not see God as the One..only ..true God? Why do you assume that if Jesus and the Spirit exist in community with the Father that somehow negates Gods unity.. God exists with His Word and His will. We also have words and will to communicate through speech and actions, do you see this is something God does not have? If God has these attributes.. Why do you assume that they would have to conform to our human concept? God being far greater than all His creation.اقتباس:
Well, I never implied that you say they are gods in a polytheistic means. I am not sure where you get this impression, if Jesus didn't mean that neither he nor the Holy Spirit are persons in the Trinity, i.e. each of them is God, he won't have addressed the Father by "the only true God". That's my point.
Peace.
Well, Islamic pillars have many conditions and times as well. I see no much difference and still cannot see what you are trying to prove.اقتباس:
المشاركة الأصلية كتبت بواسطة pandora
Well, the point is that what wasn't said is much more important, I don't see that these verses imply the Trinity in the way you believe in, it just mentions the son and the Holy Spirit, neither does it say they are God nor that they are one with the Father.اقتباس:
Again, you are concentrating on what was not said rather than seeing what was actually said, and what was meant by the words actually said!!
No not necessary a unity, they are just three different entities interacting with each other.اقتباس:
Jesus will send the Holy Spirit from the Father... The Spirit goes out from the Father.. That implies a closeness of community between them.. The Holy Spirit will testify about Jesus.. Seems like three acting in unity to me.
Well, I didn't say that these verses negate God's unity all what it says is there is no Trinity and only the Father is God.اقتباس:
Why do you assume that if Jesus and the Spirit exist in community with the Father that somehow negates Gods unity.. God exists with His Word and His will. We also have words and will to communicate through speech and actions, do you see this is something God does not have?