-
Hey, guest user. Hope you're enjoying NeoGAF! Have you considered registering for an account? Come join us and add your take to the daily discourse.
Jesus and Jihad (Left Behind series & Christian fundamentalism: NY Times editorial)
- Thread starter FoneBone
- Start date
- Status
Holy shit this person is a complete moron.
A) The gruesome deaths belong mostly to those who work for and believe in the antichrist, and are fighting against Jesus and God.
B) It says mostly the same thing in the Bible, a couple thousand year old book, it is just elaborated and exaggerated on in this series.
Fucking fearmongers
A) The gruesome deaths belong mostly to those who work for and believe in the antichrist, and are fighting against Jesus and God.
B) It says mostly the same thing in the Bible, a couple thousand year old book, it is just elaborated and exaggerated on in this series.
Fucking fearmongers
SKluck said:
I know that both Muslims and Christians believe in Jesus being the Messiah to oppose the antichrist, but do Jewish people also believe that? It wouldn't surprise me if all three religions believed in the same thing and yet still found plenty of reasons to want to hate and kill each other.
Jews dont regard Jesus as anything special. I know theres a small group out there who thinks of him as a prophet but im talking about the majority.
Also, in Islam, Jesus isn't going to come back to fight the Anti-Christ. A lot of muslims do believe this because of the influence of Christian thought during the compilation of the Hadith books.
Also, in Islam, Jesus isn't going to come back to fight the Anti-Christ. A lot of muslims do believe this because of the influence of Christian thought during the compilation of the Hadith books.
Fresh Prince
Banned
Having not read the books wouldn't 'non-christians' also infer those who had other faiths and not only satanists?
If I'm not mistaken, only Christians believe that Jesus is the Messiah. Muslisms and Jews are still waiting for their Messiah. Yes it's one of those ironies, they seemingly share the same God, however it all falls apart when it comes to Jesus.
If I'm not mistaken, only Christians believe that Jesus is the Messiah. Muslisms and Jews are still waiting for their Messiah. Yes it's one of those ironies, they seemingly share the same God, however it all falls apart when it comes to Jesus.
I thought it goes like
jews = Torah
christians = old testament (Torah), new testament
muslims = old testament, new testament, and Koran.
And by that I mean they believe the 'history' mostly. For example, christians don't follow the old testament too much, it is mostly there for history and learning about the past.
The newest ones, Torah, New testament, and Koran are the most important to each religion.
AFAIK anyway.
jews = Torah
christians = old testament (Torah), new testament
muslims = old testament, new testament, and Koran.
And by that I mean they believe the 'history' mostly. For example, christians don't follow the old testament too much, it is mostly there for history and learning about the past.
The newest ones, Torah, New testament, and Koran are the most important to each religion.
AFAIK anyway.
Azih said:
I thought there were different sects, within Islam much how there are Cathlics, Mormons, Baptist... and so on. Some believe that Jesus was just another phophet like Mohamad, others believe him to be the son of God, and yet others think he was a shame pretending to be the son of God.
Theres no sect within Islam equating Jesus to be a God or Man-God. There are sects though, even though the Quran forbids the people dividing into sects.
Once again I must say, the whole Jesus issue within Islam is a very touch subject. Most
Sunni* muslims believe he didnt die and wasnt even ever put on the cross and is coming back. This idea has been ingrained in the muslim ideology from very early on and can be found in the Hadith book.
A close examination of the Quran would tell you that Jesus was never crucified as in he didnt die on the cross. He survived and died a natural death later. Which, unlike the traditional muslim belief of no crucixion which has no external backing, can be confirmed by numerous writings found in the Nag Hammadi collection as well as the Letter of the Witness which was apparently written about 30 years after the crucifixion.
Once again I must say, the whole Jesus issue within Islam is a very touch subject. Most
Sunni* muslims believe he didnt die and wasnt even ever put on the cross and is coming back. This idea has been ingrained in the muslim ideology from very early on and can be found in the Hadith book.
A close examination of the Quran would tell you that Jesus was never crucified as in he didnt die on the cross. He survived and died a natural death later. Which, unlike the traditional muslim belief of no crucixion which has no external backing, can be confirmed by numerous writings found in the Nag Hammadi collection as well as the Letter of the Witness which was apparently written about 30 years after the crucifixion.
"As my Times colleague David Kirkpatrick noted in an article, this portrayal of a bloody Second Coming reflects a shift in American portrayals of Jesus, from a gentle Mister Rogers figure to a martial messiah presiding over a sea of blood. Militant Christianity rises to confront Militant Islam."
Organized religion, by it's very definition, is flawed.
Organized religion, by it's very definition, is flawed.
DrForester
Kills Photobucket
I might be able to offer a different view to this, as I have read all 12 of these books, and might be the only one here who has....
First, this article does not seem to mention is the books are a (Pretty litteral) interpetation of the prophecies of the bible, The bulk being from the book of Revalations (last book in the Bible). They were not the ramblings of fanatics.
The guys who wrote it went through biblical prophecy, and started the series the moment the Rapture happened, and continued the story over a span of just over 7 years. Again, they took the prohecies very literally in presenting them in their books. Jesus speaking and destroying his enemies comes from a section of the bible that mentions Jesus destroying his enemies with a sword from his mouth. In the book, the people who were killed by his word were those part of a mass army of the antichrist that was marching to destroy both Jerusalem and the remnant of the Jewish faith who had converted to christianity.
The first part, where Jesus speaks and puts non-beleivers into hell comes after nearly 2 dozzen judgements that God brings upon the earth over a 7 year span, which included a global earthquake, the oceans and rivers turning to blood. These people lived through these judgements and still did not recieve Jesus.
To kind of outline the books. Here was a basic timeline they used for the 12 books.
First, this article does not seem to mention is the books are a (Pretty litteral) interpetation of the prophecies of the bible, The bulk being from the book of Revalations (last book in the Bible). They were not the ramblings of fanatics.
The guys who wrote it went through biblical prophecy, and started the series the moment the Rapture happened, and continued the story over a span of just over 7 years. Again, they took the prohecies very literally in presenting them in their books. Jesus speaking and destroying his enemies comes from a section of the bible that mentions Jesus destroying his enemies with a sword from his mouth. In the book, the people who were killed by his word were those part of a mass army of the antichrist that was marching to destroy both Jerusalem and the remnant of the Jewish faith who had converted to christianity.
The first part, where Jesus speaks and puts non-beleivers into hell comes after nearly 2 dozzen judgements that God brings upon the earth over a 7 year span, which included a global earthquake, the oceans and rivers turning to blood. These people lived through these judgements and still did not recieve Jesus.
To kind of outline the books. Here was a basic timeline they used for the 12 books.
DrForester
Kills Photobucket
Im not trying to say that the books are the outline of things to come, just that what was in there was their interpetation of the bible. I noted that it was pretty litteral, becasue they did notassume one thing meant this, or one thing represents that, but rather took it to mean just what it says, which granted, when it comed to bliblical prophecy is just as open to that interpetation as any.
Oh, and to get my two cents in on the comaprison of this series to Jihad..
I consider a big difference between a bunch of radicals killing people in gods name, and Jesus comming down from Heaven and doing it himself.
Oh, and to get my two cents in on the comaprison of this series to Jihad..
I consider a big difference between a bunch of radicals killing people in gods name, and Jesus comming down from Heaven and doing it himself.
I thought it was kind of ridiculous when the masses of christians were running across the desert at like 80 mph, I mean, come on. They were passing cars.
I own all the books though, there is some fluff and BS, but mostly its nice, interesting fiction. And no one should take it as anything but.
End of the world stuff is always fun, right?
I own all the books though, there is some fluff and BS, but mostly its nice, interesting fiction. And no one should take it as anything but.
End of the world stuff is always fun, right?
RiZ III said:
I'm a Shia Muslim but I took classes in a Sunni Islam class and what I was told was that Jesus would come back and he would lead the battle against the anti-christ. At the same time, I was told that Jesus never died, instead he was lifted up to the heavens. This is something that I my father told me as a Shia Muslim too.
Truth is Shia and Sunni really don't have much difference other than a historical conflict that occured regarding who would lead the people after the Prophet (pbuh) passed away.
Quranic quotes on Isa (Jesus) peace be upon him, with all quotes are taken from the Yusaf Ali translation.
Concerning the origin and role of Jesus peace be upon him.
concerning the crucifixion:
Concerning the Second Coming:
Among Sunni muslims it's accepted that Jesus pbuh is the messiah. He did not die but was instead raised to heaven, and that he is the messiah and will come back at the end of days to fight against the anti-christ. I have no idea where you'er getting your info from Azih...
And Firest0rm, you're mostly right. Sunni and Shia is the major split which revolves around the Prophet peace be upon him's last speech. However, there are also a bunch of offshoots to both main sects, such as Quranism* and Ismailism* that differ in some major ways from the mainstream.
Before I would have said go do a google search on it, but when I was doing some googling for the quranic verses I found that most of the top sites were really messed up. I don't think the Internet can really be trusted with finding this info anymore, or at least it's now ridiculously hard to wade through all the BS and false sites. To help anybody that's interested, one of my favourite sites is
www.themodernreligion.com
Concerning the origin and role of Jesus peace be upon him.
concerning the crucifixion:
Concerning the Second Coming:
Among Sunni muslims it's accepted that Jesus pbuh is the messiah. He did not die but was instead raised to heaven, and that he is the messiah and will come back at the end of days to fight against the anti-christ. I have no idea where you'er getting your info from Azih...
And Firest0rm, you're mostly right. Sunni and Shia is the major split which revolves around the Prophet peace be upon him's last speech. However, there are also a bunch of offshoots to both main sects, such as Quranism* and Ismailism* that differ in some major ways from the mainstream.
Before I would have said go do a google search on it, but when I was doing some googling for the quranic verses I found that most of the top sites were really messed up. I don't think the Internet can really be trusted with finding this info anymore, or at least it's now ridiculously hard to wade through all the BS and false sites. To help anybody that's interested, one of my favourite sites is
www.themodernreligion.com
NOTE to Christians: This isn't meant for you, so don't think I'm preaching to you guys or something.
This is more of a discussion with the muslims here.
Those are badly translated verses imo. Because of the influence of the hadith, most people dont question the beliefs about Jesus in islam.
Consider the follow:
3:49. And he will be Apostle to the children of Israel, (saying)
I have come to you with a prodigy from your Lord
that I will fashion the state of destiny* out of mire for you,
and breathe (a new spirit) into it, and (you) will rise
by the will of God.
I will heal the blind and the leper**, and infuse
life into the dead, by the leave of God.
I will tell you what you devour
and what you hoard in your homes.
In this will be a portent for you if you do believe.
3:49 * Apart from bird and other things, tair also means omen as in 7:131, 27:47, 36:19, and actions or good or evil fate the register of deeds as in 17:13. It also means destiny or fortune. As Apostle to the Jews at a time when their state was most deplorable (see verse 112 of this Surah), Jesus instilled new life into them, and raised them up from the mire.
3:49 ** The word used here is abras, one suffering from leukoderma, a disease that discolours the skin, and not judham, leprosy, in which fingers and toes rot and drop off, the leper, unlike a person with leukoderma being held in horror and shunned like are untouchable. It seems leukoderma has been confused with leprosy under evangelical influences, and abras has been invariably translated as leper. Metaphorically, however, leprosy means to have one misfortune added to another. See Duncan Forbes Hindustani-English Dictionary (London, 1866) under korh, leprosy. Ibn Faris says al-biras means barren portions of the desert, whence the metaphorical meaning of misfortune.
The Quran compares moral crimes to diseases, and calls those guilty of them deaf, dumb and blind as in 2:18, and diseased of heart as in 2:10, and even dead as in 27:80. That is why the Scripture is called a healing as in 41:44. The meanings of blind, leper and dead have, therefore, to be taken in their metaphorical sense and not literally.
Back to the bad translation part.
For example. Check out this verse:
"Ya Isa, inni mutawaffika wa rafiuka ilaiya" 3:54
Here is how it is translated:
Yusuf Ali : "O Jesus! I will take thee and raise thee to Myself "
Pickthall : "O Jesus! Lo! I am gathering thee and causing thee to ascend unto Me..."
Rashad Khalifa : "O Jesus! I am terminating your life, raising you to Me .."
Mohammad Sarwar : He told Jesus, "I will save you from your enemies, raise you to Myself..."
M. H. Shakir : "O Isa! I am going to terminate the period of your stay (on earth) and cause you to ascend unto Me"
Al-Hilali & M. Khan "O 'Iesa (Jesus)! I will take you and raise you to Myself ."
Farooq-i-Azam Malik: "O Isa (Jesus)! I am going to recall you (from your mission) and raise you up to Myself...."
Ahmed Ali: "O Jesus! I will take you to Myself and exalt you .."
The key word here is "wafat" . The most correct meaning of "wafat" is death, or take away soul. If soul is taken away from a person, it is nothing but death. The problem arises with regards to this verse, when Muslims refuse to interpret the meaning of "wafat" as death. Irony is that all scholars who translated the Holy Quran do agree "wafat" means death. Each and every scholar translated the word "wafat" as death in at least 20 different instances in their translations. However, in this particular verse, they interpreted the meaning as take away and insinuate physical ascension. These translators did not hesitate to twist the actual meaning of the word of God to support Christian faith and to some extent weak Hadith narrated by Wahab bin Munnabba, Kab Akbar and one isolated Hadith by Abu Hurairaa.
In the verse 3:54, two conditions are stipulated about Jesus(pbuh):
first,
God will cause Jesus' Death,
second,
he will be raised.
The second condition can not take place till the first condition is met. In other words, before Jesus(pbuh) can be raised, first, he must die.
The most correct meaning of the word "wafat" is death. Wherever in the Holy Quran the word "wafat" is used, all these translators derived the meaning as death, except in this verse 3:54, where they dont see "wafat" as death!!!! What is the problem here? Why are they contradicting the meaning of 'wafat'? What stops them from translating the words of Allah in its true context? They are seeing imaginary words only to support heresy they learned during their childhood.
Here are some of the verses in the Holy Quran where Allah used the word "wafat". The verses are 2:234, 2:240, 3:193, 4:15, 4:97, 6:61, 7:37, 7:126, 8:50, 10:46, 10:104, 12:101, 13:40, 16:28, 16:32, 16:70, 39:42, 40:67, 40:77, 47:27 etc. In each of the instances, all these scholars translated the word "wafat" as death, or a word very close to death but none of them used a word to mean take away in alive condition. Let us examine some of the verses and see how these translators derived the meaning of "wafat" in these instances.
Further evidence Jesus is dead:
In Surah Ale Imran, Allah says:
3:45 And he will speak to the people in the cradle and then of gray-haired age and (he will be) one of the righteous
5:110 ... you speak to the people in the cradle and in old age.....
23:50 ... We sheltered them in a plateau having meadows and springs.
Jesus was no more than a man.
5:75 The Messiah, son of Maryam, was none but a Messenger, surely the Messengers have passed away before him. And his mother was a truthful woman and they both used to take food
3:143 Muhammad is no more than a Messenger, surely the Messengers before him have already passed away. If then he dies or be killed, will you turn upon your heels?
Kinda the nail in the coffin imo:
5:116 And behold! God will say: O Isa, son of Maryam was it you who said to the people "Take me and my mother for two deities besides Allah?" He will say: "Glory to be to You! It is not fit for me to say what is not right for me (to utter). If I had said that, You would then have known it indeed. You know what is in my mind, while I do not know what is in Your mind. Surely you are the great Knower of hidden matter
5:117 "I did not say to them anything except about what You had ordered me, namely, "serve God, my Lord and your Lord" and I was witness over them so long as I was with them, but when you caused me to die (wafat), You were Watcher over them. And You are a Witness over all things "
This is another definite evidence of death of Jesus(pbuh). On the Day of Judgment Allah will question Jesus(pbuh) whether he taught his people to take him as a god. Jesus(pbuh) will reply that he did not teach so, and he bears witness that during his lifetime his people did not take him and his mother as gods besides Allah, but he does not know what they did after his death.
We all know that Christians do regard Jesus as Son of God and Mary as a goddess(certain sect(s)). If Jesus(pbuh) is alive, this should not have happened. How to reconcile this verse? According to the verse, the Christians were supposed to take Jesus and his mother as deities only after his death (wafat)!! And his death is yet to happen!!!! The answer is if this has to happen, then according to the verse Jesus(pbuh) must have died. It is only after his death people accepted him and his mother as god and goddess.
The key word here is wafat - death. Falamma tawaffai tani - that is, but when you caused me to die. Those who dont want to believe in the message, translate it saying that when you took me away thereby suggesting that when he was raised alive. Thus when Jesus(pbuh) was not with them physically, they started accepting him and his mother as god and goddess.
Even in the Biblical account, Jesus bled right before he was taken of the cross meaning he was alive.
EDIT: concerning Jesus being a sign for the end times verse.
Interpretation of the verse 43:61 from Surah Zukhruf
43:61
Various commentators of the Quran widely discussed the proper meaning
of the pronoun hu in innahu in this verse. While some commentators think the
pronoun refers to the person Jesus while others think the pronoun
refers to the Quran. Needless to say vast majority of the Muslim interpret the
pronoun in personal form and think it refers to Jesus who is the sign of the
Hour. Many classical commentators, including Tabari, Qatadah, Baghawi as well
as and few contemporary commentators of the Quran thought the pronoun
refer to the Quran.
If the former interpretation were to be accepted, i.e. the pronoun
refers to the person Jesus; it has to be used in context of the time when Jesus
was preaching among the Israelites or when Awakening has already happened.
Please note that in the entire Quran mention of Jesus occurred in context of
two clearly defined time setting (a) when he was a prophet among the Israelites and (b) at the time of Judgment when Allah would interrogate him. There is absolutely no reference in the Quran of any renewed interactions of Jesus and the people of the world at any other time. Therefore, if Jesus were to be the sign of the Hour, his appearance
among the Israelites must be the onset of the Hour. But as we see the Hour
has not happened at the appearance of Jesus. The Hour is tropically used to
signal that he was the last prophet of the Israelites and with him ended the
long chain of prophets in the lineage of Ishaq.
On the other hand if the pronoun hu is used to mean the revelation of
the Quran, it still remains that revelation of the Quran is the evidence
that the prophethood shifted from the house of the Israelite to the
brother-nation Ishmaelite.
While interpreting the verse please use various translations of the
Quran and verify the word usage for accuracy of translation. Then with an
open mind please see if the above argument brings any significance.
Dont take offense to any of this. Just my views
Peace
This is more of a discussion with the muslims here.Those are badly translated verses imo. Because of the influence of the hadith, most people dont question the beliefs about Jesus in islam.
Consider the follow:
3:49. And he will be Apostle to the children of Israel, (saying)
I have come to you with a prodigy from your Lord
that I will fashion the state of destiny* out of mire for you,
and breathe (a new spirit) into it, and (you) will rise
by the will of God.
I will heal the blind and the leper**, and infuse
life into the dead, by the leave of God.
I will tell you what you devour
and what you hoard in your homes.
In this will be a portent for you if you do believe.
3:49 * Apart from bird and other things, tair also means omen as in 7:131, 27:47, 36:19, and actions or good or evil fate the register of deeds as in 17:13. It also means destiny or fortune. As Apostle to the Jews at a time when their state was most deplorable (see verse 112 of this Surah), Jesus instilled new life into them, and raised them up from the mire.
3:49 ** The word used here is abras, one suffering from leukoderma, a disease that discolours the skin, and not judham, leprosy, in which fingers and toes rot and drop off, the leper, unlike a person with leukoderma being held in horror and shunned like are untouchable. It seems leukoderma has been confused with leprosy under evangelical influences, and abras has been invariably translated as leper. Metaphorically, however, leprosy means to have one misfortune added to another. See Duncan Forbes Hindustani-English Dictionary (London, 1866) under korh, leprosy. Ibn Faris says al-biras means barren portions of the desert, whence the metaphorical meaning of misfortune.
The Quran compares moral crimes to diseases, and calls those guilty of them deaf, dumb and blind as in 2:18, and diseased of heart as in 2:10, and even dead as in 27:80. That is why the Scripture is called a healing as in 41:44. The meanings of blind, leper and dead have, therefore, to be taken in their metaphorical sense and not literally.
Back to the bad translation part.
For example. Check out this verse:
"Ya Isa, inni mutawaffika wa rafiuka ilaiya" 3:54
Here is how it is translated:
Yusuf Ali : "O Jesus! I will take thee and raise thee to Myself "
Pickthall : "O Jesus! Lo! I am gathering thee and causing thee to ascend unto Me..."
Rashad Khalifa : "O Jesus! I am terminating your life, raising you to Me .."
Mohammad Sarwar : He told Jesus, "I will save you from your enemies, raise you to Myself..."
M. H. Shakir : "O Isa! I am going to terminate the period of your stay (on earth) and cause you to ascend unto Me"
Al-Hilali & M. Khan "O 'Iesa (Jesus)! I will take you and raise you to Myself ."
Farooq-i-Azam Malik: "O Isa (Jesus)! I am going to recall you (from your mission) and raise you up to Myself...."
Ahmed Ali: "O Jesus! I will take you to Myself and exalt you .."
The key word here is "wafat" . The most correct meaning of "wafat" is death, or take away soul. If soul is taken away from a person, it is nothing but death. The problem arises with regards to this verse, when Muslims refuse to interpret the meaning of "wafat" as death. Irony is that all scholars who translated the Holy Quran do agree "wafat" means death. Each and every scholar translated the word "wafat" as death in at least 20 different instances in their translations. However, in this particular verse, they interpreted the meaning as take away and insinuate physical ascension. These translators did not hesitate to twist the actual meaning of the word of God to support Christian faith and to some extent weak Hadith narrated by Wahab bin Munnabba, Kab Akbar and one isolated Hadith by Abu Hurairaa.
In the verse 3:54, two conditions are stipulated about Jesus(pbuh):
first,
God will cause Jesus' Death,
second,
he will be raised.
The second condition can not take place till the first condition is met. In other words, before Jesus(pbuh) can be raised, first, he must die.
The most correct meaning of the word "wafat" is death. Wherever in the Holy Quran the word "wafat" is used, all these translators derived the meaning as death, except in this verse 3:54, where they dont see "wafat" as death!!!! What is the problem here? Why are they contradicting the meaning of 'wafat'? What stops them from translating the words of Allah in its true context? They are seeing imaginary words only to support heresy they learned during their childhood.
Here are some of the verses in the Holy Quran where Allah used the word "wafat". The verses are 2:234, 2:240, 3:193, 4:15, 4:97, 6:61, 7:37, 7:126, 8:50, 10:46, 10:104, 12:101, 13:40, 16:28, 16:32, 16:70, 39:42, 40:67, 40:77, 47:27 etc. In each of the instances, all these scholars translated the word "wafat" as death, or a word very close to death but none of them used a word to mean take away in alive condition. Let us examine some of the verses and see how these translators derived the meaning of "wafat" in these instances.
Further evidence Jesus is dead:
In Surah Ale Imran, Allah says:
3:45 And he will speak to the people in the cradle and then of gray-haired age and (he will be) one of the righteous
5:110 ... you speak to the people in the cradle and in old age.....
23:50 ... We sheltered them in a plateau having meadows and springs.
Jesus was no more than a man.
5:75 The Messiah, son of Maryam, was none but a Messenger, surely the Messengers have passed away before him. And his mother was a truthful woman and they both used to take food
3:143 Muhammad is no more than a Messenger, surely the Messengers before him have already passed away. If then he dies or be killed, will you turn upon your heels?
Kinda the nail in the coffin imo:
5:116 And behold! God will say: O Isa, son of Maryam was it you who said to the people "Take me and my mother for two deities besides Allah?" He will say: "Glory to be to You! It is not fit for me to say what is not right for me (to utter). If I had said that, You would then have known it indeed. You know what is in my mind, while I do not know what is in Your mind. Surely you are the great Knower of hidden matter
5:117 "I did not say to them anything except about what You had ordered me, namely, "serve God, my Lord and your Lord" and I was witness over them so long as I was with them, but when you caused me to die (wafat), You were Watcher over them. And You are a Witness over all things "
This is another definite evidence of death of Jesus(pbuh). On the Day of Judgment Allah will question Jesus(pbuh) whether he taught his people to take him as a god. Jesus(pbuh) will reply that he did not teach so, and he bears witness that during his lifetime his people did not take him and his mother as gods besides Allah, but he does not know what they did after his death.
We all know that Christians do regard Jesus as Son of God and Mary as a goddess(certain sect(s)). If Jesus(pbuh) is alive, this should not have happened. How to reconcile this verse? According to the verse, the Christians were supposed to take Jesus and his mother as deities only after his death (wafat)!! And his death is yet to happen!!!! The answer is if this has to happen, then according to the verse Jesus(pbuh) must have died. It is only after his death people accepted him and his mother as god and goddess.
The key word here is wafat - death. Falamma tawaffai tani - that is, but when you caused me to die. Those who dont want to believe in the message, translate it saying that when you took me away thereby suggesting that when he was raised alive. Thus when Jesus(pbuh) was not with them physically, they started accepting him and his mother as god and goddess.
Even in the Biblical account, Jesus bled right before he was taken of the cross meaning he was alive.
EDIT: concerning Jesus being a sign for the end times verse.
Interpretation of the verse 43:61 from Surah Zukhruf
43:61
Various commentators of the Quran widely discussed the proper meaning
of the pronoun hu in innahu in this verse. While some commentators think the
pronoun refers to the person Jesus while others think the pronoun
refers to the Quran. Needless to say vast majority of the Muslim interpret the
pronoun in personal form and think it refers to Jesus who is the sign of the
Hour. Many classical commentators, including Tabari, Qatadah, Baghawi as well
as and few contemporary commentators of the Quran thought the pronoun
refer to the Quran.
If the former interpretation were to be accepted, i.e. the pronoun
refers to the person Jesus; it has to be used in context of the time when Jesus
was preaching among the Israelites or when Awakening has already happened.
Please note that in the entire Quran mention of Jesus occurred in context of
two clearly defined time setting (a) when he was a prophet among the Israelites and (b) at the time of Judgment when Allah would interrogate him. There is absolutely no reference in the Quran of any renewed interactions of Jesus and the people of the world at any other time. Therefore, if Jesus were to be the sign of the Hour, his appearance
among the Israelites must be the onset of the Hour. But as we see the Hour
has not happened at the appearance of Jesus. The Hour is tropically used to
signal that he was the last prophet of the Israelites and with him ended the
long chain of prophets in the lineage of Ishaq.
On the other hand if the pronoun hu is used to mean the revelation of
the Quran, it still remains that revelation of the Quran is the evidence
that the prophethood shifted from the house of the Israelite to the
brother-nation Ishmaelite.
While interpreting the verse please use various translations of the
Quran and verify the word usage for accuracy of translation. Then with an
open mind please see if the above argument brings any significance.
Dont take offense to any of this. Just my views
Peace
Dice
Pokémon Parentage Conspiracy Theorist
Hahahaha, oh man this is messed up stuff...
And that last paragraph completely contradicts itself, if we can believe in a God that throws non-christians into hell then what is wrong with the book? It is also missing the point that no where in christianity are christians encouraged to deal judgment themselves, in fact it's specifically forbidden. What does he think those christian aid groups believe about what happens to non-christians in the end?
As for the books, they are purely fiction. There are people who believe something similar to the events described will happen, but if you ask me that is based on a backwards interpretation of scripture. It's a theology no more than 150 years old and it literally interprets visions that are figurative while figuratively interpreting statements of Christ and the apostles that are literal.
And to be quite honest I'm not sure how long it will last. The total lack of a solid foundation has the teachers of these theologies constantly contradicting each other and even themselves sometimes. It will probably deconstruct itself after awhile and postmillenialism will become the most common eschatological teaching again as it was through all christian history.
The teaching of heaven and hell and what God will do at final judgment has been taught for thousands of years, and now it's eithnic cleansing? LOL! I didn't realize religious beliefs had anything to do with ethnicity.
Intolerance? You can't tolerate something you accept. A belief that universally accepts anything contrary to it isn't a belief, it is a theory. One who practices such a "belief" is not being tolerant, they are being plain accepting, there is a large difference.
And that last paragraph completely contradicts itself, if we can believe in a God that throws non-christians into hell then what is wrong with the book? It is also missing the point that no where in christianity are christians encouraged to deal judgment themselves, in fact it's specifically forbidden. What does he think those christian aid groups believe about what happens to non-christians in the end?
I'd think the truth of why they would be thrown into hell in view of the unveiled glory and authority of God would be sufficient. I'm surprised this guy even knows what the word eschatological means, as every eschatological view includes final judgment and so if he knew what it was you'd think he wouldn't be so surprised by this.
I haven't met a single christian who didn't believe that Jesus was going to return with judgment. This has been a most basic doctrine of christianity since it's beginning.
As for the books, they are purely fiction. There are people who believe something similar to the events described will happen, but if you ask me that is based on a backwards interpretation of scripture. It's a theology no more than 150 years old and it literally interprets visions that are figurative while figuratively interpreting statements of Christ and the apostles that are literal.
And to be quite honest I'm not sure how long it will last. The total lack of a solid foundation has the teachers of these theologies constantly contradicting each other and even themselves sometimes. It will probably deconstruct itself after awhile and postmillenialism will become the most common eschatological teaching again as it was through all christian history.
Sorry to any christian out there it's just my opinion -but you are talking like Bible has no hate in it. I must inform you that Bible is full of hate it's just that the priests are trying to conceal it by interpreting the Bible the way they want it. When for example God promises that he will burn the forests and destroy the temples of enemies the priest is gonna interpret it like this: "Oh this shows the infinite love of our Lord because.... blah blah blah"
and definatelly he'll find some lame excuse to explain why although God is destroying forests and temples is full of love. Give me a break!
and definatelly he'll find some lame excuse to explain why although God is destroying forests and temples is full of love. Give me a break!
Dice
Pokémon Parentage Conspiracy Theorist
No offense taken, it's the truth.
Psalm 11:5
The LORD tests the righteous, but his soul hates the wicked and the one who loves violence.
God isn't a hippie, people often misunderstand His love and how it works. There is a good book on the issue, "The Difficult Doctrine of the Love of God". It's pretty short as far as books go but it covers a lot.
Psalm 11:5
The LORD tests the righteous, but his soul hates the wicked and the one who loves violence.
God isn't a hippie, people often misunderstand His love and how it works. There is a good book on the issue, "The Difficult Doctrine of the Love of God". It's pretty short as far as books go but it covers a lot.
f_elz said:
Nietzsche is dead.
How do we know this? One can't truly know until you "see" the evidence yourself, otherwise you take textbook's word for it and or empirical evidence. Say 2000 years pass since. One may question the validity of the empirical evidence now even if there is plenty of documented writings on Nietzsche. The same thing with writings on Jesus, except no one ever wrote of Nietzsche performing miracles and dying on the cross for man's iniquities, which, I'm sure raises the skeptism bar, but also questions of the validity of what is truth in our walk on earth.
Che said:
I'm not christian, but you're way off. Have you ever read or studied the bible? Before you form an opinion it may help to know at least some background. Christianity's message about God's love mainly comes from the New Testament in which not a single temple or forest fell to the wraith of God, well besides Jesus trashing a temple.
robochimp said:
I stopped studying the bible when I was still in the Old Testament. A religion based on the Old Testament isn't a religion for me. If Old Testament doesn't have the message of God's love and only the New Testament does then they shouldn't have included it in the Bible.
ManaByte
Gold Member
As Mel Gibson says, the Bible is R rated.
Edit:
I actually started reading the Left Behind series a couple months ago and am slowly getting through it. As fiction I like it as they basically took Revelation and based a super long story on each event mentioned. They are basically like "ok, how would this apply to our modern world" and ran with it. Pretty cool.
Edit:
I actually started reading the Left Behind series a couple months ago and am slowly getting through it. As fiction I like it as they basically took Revelation and based a super long story on each event mentioned. They are basically like "ok, how would this apply to our modern world" and ran with it. Pretty cool.
Che said:
Think about this;
What is love / hate? For you to even have a moral basis on whats love or hate, good and evil, requires a Moral-Giver. This is why many atheists hold the view that there really is no such thing as good and evil since we simply evolved from pond scum. you either;
(1) dont believe there are any grounds in which to ditinguish what is good / evil
(2) distinguish between what is good and evil based on your own opinions, but, then, how did you formulate your opinions? on other's opinions from other's opinions from other's opinions from other's opinions from other's opinions from other's opinions from other's opinions, etc. etc. until your left with whom? A self-reflecting and concious ape-like creature
The Judeo-Christian God is not only a God of love but he is also a just God. He holds the scales of judgement. In the old testament he sent prophets to WARN Israel for their neglect of the Law and even then the Jews didn't react accordingly to the warnings and THEN God would be just and would demonstrate his wrath by using other nations to give Israel a whoopin' for not listening to his commands. But he is also a God of love that, knowing that we will ALWAYS screw up, he sent Christ to die a painful death on the cross as a sacrifice for ALL of our screw-ups.
We can choose to reject God/Christ or to believe in God/Christ. In the same way we can understand the difference from what is Good and Evil because he has integrated those moral grounds in his creation...us. If God doesn't exist then life is utterly meaningless and no human can make any valid point about anything since we can distinguish between products of complex chance at work or self-concious/self-reflecting truths.
To be blunt, christianity is one of the last places I'd look for a good idea of love or morality. Perhaps it's only because christians are completely inept at selling their religion, but I can see no way to reconcile their claims of love and justice with any of the notions of Hell that I've heard of to date. The whole "jesus died for your sins" idea doesn't sit at all well, either, actually.
And I also see no reason why I should believe that any god's opinion on morality would be superior to my own - if we're going to question my mental abilities anyway, I'd have to question the belief that God's morality was superior to any man-made one. And at that point, I have to consider other forms of morality, and frankly, I can't see any way that biblical morality is superior to, say, enlightened self-interest.
And the "If God didn't create life then life is meaningless" line is pure nonsense. Meaning is inherently subjective, so it's not only possible, but necessary for people to come to their own meaning for their own lives.
And finally, there's the whole "choose to reject God" line. Simply put, people who have no reason to believe in your god to begin with have nothing to reject.
And I also see no reason why I should believe that any god's opinion on morality would be superior to my own - if we're going to question my mental abilities anyway, I'd have to question the belief that God's morality was superior to any man-made one. And at that point, I have to consider other forms of morality, and frankly, I can't see any way that biblical morality is superior to, say, enlightened self-interest.
And the "If God didn't create life then life is meaningless" line is pure nonsense. Meaning is inherently subjective, so it's not only possible, but necessary for people to come to their own meaning for their own lives.
And finally, there's the whole "choose to reject God" line. Simply put, people who have no reason to believe in your god to begin with have nothing to reject.
TAJ
Darkness cannot drive out darkness; only light can do that. Hate cannot drive out hate; only love can do that.
>>>We can choose to reject God/Christ or to believe in God/Christ.<<<
Um, no. There are two categories, those who believe in God and those who don't.
Within the believer category, there are the subcategories of those who reject God ("I absolutely believe in God, and I absolutely hate the fucker.") and those who accept God. Non-believers are divided into those who have no involvement in religion and those who have no religious faith, but practice religion for socio-economic gain. (polititians, especially)
Personally, I fall into the non-believing/non-practicing group, after being in the non-believing/practicing group early in life as lip-service to my family, and being in the believing/practicing group back when I still believed in Santa, the Easter Bunny, and the Tooth Fairy.
Um, no. There are two categories, those who believe in God and those who don't.
Within the believer category, there are the subcategories of those who reject God ("I absolutely believe in God, and I absolutely hate the fucker.") and those who accept God. Non-believers are divided into those who have no involvement in religion and those who have no religious faith, but practice religion for socio-economic gain. (polititians, especially)
Personally, I fall into the non-believing/non-practicing group, after being in the non-believing/practicing group early in life as lip-service to my family, and being in the believing/practicing group back when I still believed in Santa, the Easter Bunny, and the Tooth Fairy.
Hey Riz,
sorry it took so long for me to get back to you on this, but I just read it now. Pretty interesting stuff that I'm definitely gonna have to look into. Unfortunately my arabic is non-existent at best and will have to run these things by my mother who is fluent. However, even without my knowledge of arabic I can see this guy's argument (is this your writing?) isn't the strongest. Essentially it boils down to the translation of "wafat"
And a very easy rebuttal for that is that words can have different meanings based on context in every language. The rebuttal to that is that EVERY other instance of wafat refers to death, still the possibility remains.
Furthermore, the author performs a very nice sleight of hand by attempting to discredit the hadith by calling them Christian influenced. That then pretty much discredits the entirety of the Hadith which is pretty sketchy as well.
But like I said, interesting comments and I'll look into them more, thanks for the great information. Seriously, I havent' been keeping up AT ALL with my Islamic studies so any chance to get back into them is always welcomed
sorry it took so long for me to get back to you on this, but I just read it now. Pretty interesting stuff that I'm definitely gonna have to look into. Unfortunately my arabic is non-existent at best and will have to run these things by my mother who is fluent. However, even without my knowledge of arabic I can see this guy's argument (is this your writing?) isn't the strongest. Essentially it boils down to the translation of "wafat"
And a very easy rebuttal for that is that words can have different meanings based on context in every language. The rebuttal to that is that EVERY other instance of wafat refers to death, still the possibility remains.
Furthermore, the author performs a very nice sleight of hand by attempting to discredit the hadith by calling them Christian influenced. That then pretty much discredits the entirety of the Hadith which is pretty sketchy as well.
But like I said, interesting comments and I'll look into them more, thanks for the great information. Seriously, I havent' been keeping up AT ALL with my Islamic studies so any chance to get back into them is always welcomed
From what I know, Muslims believe that Jesus will return and establish the Sharia (God's Law) and at this point there will be no one left on the world but Muslims.
It's nearly the same concept as Christianity's.
I'm sure if Muslims made a movie or a book about it, there would be an uproar. The author of this article makes this very good point, and I don't think anyone can dispute that.
It's nearly the same concept as Christianity's.
I'm sure if Muslims made a movie or a book about it, there would be an uproar. The author of this article makes this very good point, and I don't think anyone can dispute that.
Bailey's Dad
Banned
Fusebox said:Jesus doesn't believe I exist.
Yes he does, and he also knows you didn't pay for those games on your xbox hd.
SteveMeister
Hang out with Steve.
"Believe in me now, because if you don't by the time I come back, I'll make you pay!"
Sounds like a threat invented to keep people going to church...
I guess all that stuff about sins being absolved has a time limit.
Sounds like a threat invented to keep people going to church...
I guess all that stuff about sins being absolved has a time limit.
McLesterolBeast
Member
One was known for his ideas that were verifiable by introspection, primarily. The other was known for ideas that only had value because of who he was or was thought to be and thought to have done. To take Nietsches work as credibile doesn't require you believe he was ever alive. A Nietzsche by any other name would be just as persuasive. Had jesus been an ordinary man, or as many argue - never having even existed, all of the work attributed to him would lose it's prescriptive and intellectual value (ill be generous to suggest there was any to begin with), sans the historical context. The two concepts aren't analogous.... AT ALL.
- Status