06-09-04, 06:13 AM #1
If Jesus is a Prophet to Islam...
Then why aren't Muslims realizing the truth in His teachings and following him? How can you hold someone a prophet, but not believe in what he says?
I am aware some think the Christian Jesus is a perversion of a Muslim prophet. But Jesus' teachings of loving everyone, whether they be friend or enemy, make much more sense than "Kill the Unbelievers". I would tend to think that my Savior wouldn't say such things.
About the ways in which the Muslims view His life, I am compelled to believe, based on the archaeological, historical and medical evidence presented in The Case for Christ by Lee Strobel, that Jesus is the way we Christians view Him. Any thoughts?
06-09-04, 06:22 AM #2
can you imagine if 1.5 billion people in the world wanted to "kill" all unbelevers? Muslims believe in Jesus for what HE said not want others said about him (paul/saul etc....) those extremists that want to kill all unbelivers also target muslims whose views dont support theirs also not just christians.
06-09-04, 02:27 PM #3
Originally Posted by Truth51
Islam does not say "kill the unbelivers" it says "explain them islam" i dont think thts wrong
06-09-04, 04:54 PM #4Originally Posted by Al hussein
The punishment for leaving Islam is death.
06-09-04, 04:58 PM #5
back in the prophets day people would try to pretend that they were muslims in order to get close to the prophet for assassination purposes so thats why it was "treason" to denounce their faith
06-09-04, 05:13 PM #6Originally Posted by surenderer
06-09-04, 07:56 PM #7
1st of all their were plenty of attemps......the reason his life was in constant danger was because Arabia was well know for pagan and idol worship and travellers would come from afar to visit the Kabla(place where the idols were stored) when Muhamaad started preaching of "One God" business in Arabia was suffering because people strted listening to him instead of the tribal leaders.Since Muhamaad was in a "influencial" clan he couldnt be touched by someone from another clan without starting a war so some "infidels"(which is where that word came from by the way) would pretend to be muslims to try to assassinate Muhamaad
06-10-04, 03:10 AM #8
"I am compelled to believe, based on the archaeological, historical and medical evidence presented in The Case for Christ by Lee Strobel, that Jesus is the way we Christians view Him. Any thoughts?"
Lee Strobels views are one interpretation only. There is in reality, very little evidence for a historical Jesus. Some further reading:
Bear in mind these links require an open mind and attitude, but if one has faith, the truth shall speak for itself.
06-10-04, 06:31 PM #9
also, kill unbelievers etc etc.
kill those who opress you and stop you from practiscing your religion unless they repent. it does not mean kill unbelievers in general
06-10-04, 06:35 PM #10
Originally Posted by stretched
How much evidence is there for Plato?.. if infact his real name was Plato..
06-10-04, 11:40 PM #11Originally Posted by stretched
06-11-04, 08:04 AM #12
"How much evidence is there for Plato?.. if infact his real name was Plato.. "
Hmmm... I know what you mean but, Plato is well is historically well documented and comfortably researchable to be able to establish without "reasonable doubt" that he in fact existed and was the literal author of at least some of his works. Jesus however, apart from the Bible, does not appear to be documented in any valid contemporary commentary.
But instead of making comments regarding Platos existance, why don`t you do some research and make up your own mind regarding the comparable evidence?
Like I said, this would need an "open" mind.
06-11-04, 04:26 PM #13
Originally Posted by stretched
Let me quote some text from this book by Josh McDowell.
When it comes to the manuscript authority of the New Testament, the abundance of material is almost embarassing in contrast. After the only papyri manuscript discoveries that bridged the gap between the times of Christ and the second century, an abundance of other MSS came to light. Over 20,000 copies of New Testament manuscripts are in existence today. The Illiad has 643 MSS and is second in manuscript authority after the New Testament.
For internal evidence of reliability:
1In the fifteenth year of the reign of Tiberius Caesar--when Pontius Pilate was governor of Judea, Herod tetrarch of Galilee, his brother Philip tetrarch of Iturea and Traconitis, and Lysanias tetrarch of Abilene--
This closeness to the recorded accounts is an extremely effective means of certifying the accuracy of what is retained by a witness.Lawrence J. McGinley of Saint Peter's College comments on the value of hostile witnesses in relationship to recorded events: "First of all, eye witnesses of the events in question were still alive when the tradition had been completely formed; and among those eyewitnesses were bitter enemies of the new religious movement. Yet the tradition claimed to narrate a series of well known deeds and publicly taught doctrines at a time when false statements could, and would, be challenged."
06-11-04, 04:29 PM #14
F.F. Bruce notes that "where Luke has been suspected of inaccuracy, and accuracy has been vindicated by some inscriptional [external] evidence, it may be legitimate to say that archaeology has confirmed the New Testament record."
A.N. Serwin-White, a classical historian, writes that "for Acts the confirmation of historicity is overwhelming." He continues by saying that any attempt to reject its basic historicity even in matters of detail must now appear absurd. Roman historians have long taken it for granted."
06-12-04, 03:51 PM #15
As Surrender already stated, we believe in him -peace be upon him- not those that have written about him.
I'll give you a couple of reasons that I personally have for believing this:
1. God has told us in his book that Jesus is but a man. He has explained to us how the miraculous birth of Jesus -peace be upon him- is like that of Adam -peace be upon him-. God says:
In chapter 3 verse 59
YUSUFALI: The similitude of Jesus before Allah is as that of Adam; He created him from dust, then said to him: "Be". And he was.
PICKTHAL: Lo! the likeness of Jesus with Allah is as the likeness of Adam. He created him of dust, then He said unto him: Be! and he is.
SHAKIR: Surely the likeness of Isa is with Allah as the likeness of Adam; He created him from dust, then said to him, Be, and he was.
In another verse God says:
Cahpter 5 verse 075
YUSUFALI: Christ the son of Mary was no more than a messenger; many were the messengers that passed away before him. His mother was a woman of truth. They had both to eat their (daily) food. See how Allah doth make His signs clear to them; yet see in what ways they are deluded away from the truth!
PICKTHAL: The Messiah, son of Mary, was no other than a messenger, messengers (the like of whom) had passed away before him. And his mother was a saintly woman. And they both used to eat (earthly) food. See how We make the revelations clear for them, and see how they are turned away!
SHAKIR: The Messiah, son of Marium is but a messenger; messengers before him have indeed passed away; and his mother was a truthful woman; they both used to eat food. See how We make the communications clear to them, then behold, how they are turned away
He thereby declares that Mary/Mariam was -peace be upon her- a virtuous woman thereby clearing her from the charges of those that said that she 'fooled around with carpenters'. God then says that they both ate food. This means that they needed food to survive. I believe God does not need food to subsist. It also meant that the food had to leave they body . I don't think that is apropriate of god.
2. The central thought in Islam is that of that of monotheism. In the word of God it is repeated over and over that there is but one God. Now that makes sense to me. It cannot be overstressed. Monotheism is important. In the Bible and the contemporary version of the torah the divine nature of Jesus -peace be upon him- is not stressed. On the contrary, there are many sentences that mean that Jesus -peace be upon him- is not divine, that he is nor the begotten son of God (nor part of God nor God). He is called the son of God. But that is meant, again, in my personnal opinion, in figurative way of speech. I believe that that Idea arose since people at the time were it arose, were already used to the Greek/Roman Gods having Childeren and half-childeren.
3. I have read in some version of the bible how he -peace be upon him- refused to be called good and instead said that only God could be good. Now that means for me that he is not God.
4. I believe that, whoever thinks clearly shall come to the conclusion that there must be God. Now for me that God must be far beyond this world, than its material nature. He could not have a human body and die at a cross. By the way, we believe Jesus - peace be upon him- did not die on the cross and that he is not dead until this very moment.
There is much, much more to say but I hope this will suffice.
Peace be upon you
Last edited by Bruce Wayne; 06-12-04 at 06:16 PM.
06-14-04, 08:44 AM #16
I have read "Evidence that demands a Verdict" and yes, as comprehensive and exhaustive as the book is, it merely validates the consistancy and inerrency of the "Bible" per se. There is still no concrete firsthand historical evidence for a man named Jesus, who just happend to be the son of god and performed miracles. Outside of the Bible, the closest contemporary mention of a man call Jesus, was written by Josephus around 92 CE. This mention is also widely considered to be an interpolation inserted by Esebius.