Jump to content
Islamic Forum


IF Guardian
  • Content count

  • Joined

  • Last visited

  • Days Won


Everything posted by yusufar

  1. Peace me, My apologies for the late reply. I had guests and was doing some research as well. Are you sure this was the original language? Some would disagree, especially since the lingua franca of those days was Aramaic. "In the beginning" also doesn't sound quite right, since it presumes a time when it was not. Some have suggested "in the Origin", but I have a preference for "In Eternity". In God's Endless Oceans? I don't know whether I'm swimming or sinking. :D I would think both, but rather than a fog, it is more like His Light which permeates every nook and cranny of what we call "Creation". "The Lord's Prayer" will contradict you there. But Psalm 139:7-16 is indeed also a wonderful quote. Perhaps. But God has to be distinct from His Creation. Notwithstanding His Infinite Nature, His Creation is what He is not and He is what His Creation is not. There is no question of Him being locked out of time and space. Time and space cannot constrain Him. Yet the opposite of Infinite is finite, which entering His Creation will render Him to be. God cannot be explained nor constrained by human form or notions. This is where Christianity has gone wrong and turned an ordinary human being, a creature of God whose existence came into being with God's Word "Be!", into God Himself. Agreed. But all things being possible with God, does it mean that God will do them to the extent of entering His Creation when clearly there is no reason for Him to do so? One can make up all kinds of reasons, but is there any reason for God to do anything or does God need any reason to do anything? More importantly, will He do anything without reason? Nice try, :D but I don't agree with Paul either. And the absurdity of his message and teachings should be good cause to reject it. This is slightly off-topic here, and belongs in "The Gospel of Paul" thread, but anyway... Jesus (pbuh) did not send Paul at all, let alone to baptize or to preach the gospel. He took it upon himself. He did not consult Jesus' original followers and did not see the need to until they disagreed with his teachings. He did not receive the gospel he preached from them but by direct revelation from Jesus (pbuh) himself. Could this be? Wouldn't Jesus have informed them that all he taught them would be annulled by the "gospel" he was going to reveal to Paul? From what little information we can garner from the NT about the teachings of Jesus' original disciples, we can see that they did not develop any teaching about the significance or non-significance of Jesus' (pbuh) "death" on the cross. It was to them in all probability of no effect. What have we here - Paul misquoting Scripture again? Where is this written? How could anyone want to follow Paul's "foolishness"? I really don't see how the message of the cross is the power of God, but then I may be blind. Then again I may not be. These are Paul's own sayings. Where is Jesus (pbuh) here? Paul knew very well that he was preaching a foolish message, yet he persisted against all reason, and out of his persistence in this foolish message, Christianity was born. It is Paul, not God, who made foolish the wisdom of this world. This is as clear as daylight to me. Quite a compelling, if contrived, message. But Paul must have been more than slightly "off-balance", to talk of the "foolishness" and "weakness" of God. Again, it is quite obvious that it is Paul doing the calling here, not God or Jesus (pbuh). It somehow seems clear to me that not only did Paul have a different gospel, he must have had a whole different Bible (OT) as well. I have not been able to find where this is written in the Bible, unless it refers to Jeremiah 9:24 "But let him who glories glory in this, That he understands and knows Me, That I am the LORD, exercising loving kindness, judgment, and righteousness in the earth. For in these I delight,” says the LORD." But what this says and what Paul says it says are different. No matter what, Paul had to justify his completely mistaken and misconceived elevation of Jesus (pbuh) some how or another, even if it meant misquoting Scripture. And the Power of God is in the Word "Be!". :) "God incarnate"? What creature is that? :D If it is God in human flesh, then it is not God at all. If it is Jesus, then it is also not God. How is it possible to make any sense of it, when it sounds and is so contrived? God the Ever-Living has made Himself known to people throughout history through His Prophets. He has changed lives through the teachings and messages of His Prophets. There is no need for God (incarnate or otherwise) to "die" on the cross for the "salvation" of the world and to redeem mankind from "original sin". These teachings were never in the Old Testament. Did God mislead humankind? I doubt it. What can His purported "death" mean anyway? Is it any real or meaningful sacrifice? Surely God who has given man the ability and free will to sin has also given man the ability and free will to do righteous deeds and works for his own salvation as well? I have no doubt at all that this is possible in any religion. And to you and your family too. yusufar (www.)"you can't post links until you reach 50 posts_www.islamicunityfoundation(contact admin if its a beneficial link)"]The Islamic Unity Foundation[/url]
  2. Muhammed (pbuh) & The Bible

    This is no longer true. The terms BC and AD are no longer used in the present times - BCE and CE are used instead. In any event, historically it appears that the dating of Jesus' (pbuh) birth was not accurate. There are two different accounts in the Gospels that chronologists find incompatible. In Matthew it is stated that Jesus (pbuh) was born at a time when Herod the Great was still alive and that Herod ordered the slaughter of infants two years old and younger (Matt. 2:16). Since Herod died in 4 BC (contra Dionysius Exiguus), it has been concluded that the year 6 BC is the most likely year of Jesus' birth. So Jesus (pbuh) would have been around 4 to 6 years old in AD/CE 1. But Luke places Jesus' (pbuh) birth during a census conducted under the governorship of Quirinius. According to Josephus, this census was done in AD 6. Which then is the correct account? Perhaps you could start by proving when exactly Jesus (pbuh) was born. So you agree then that Jesus (pbuh) was just a Prophet? Obviously Moses (pbuh) did not say that God would raise His "Son" from among their brothers. If Jesus (pbuh) was the "Son of God" as Christians claim, or that this prophecy referred to him, why doesn't it say so then? Ishmael's (pbuh) descendants may not have been there with their "cousins" (brothers) but they were certainly all over the area at that time. Why does God say that the Prophet would come from their "brothers" if it was already obvious and referred to them? Your argument also contradicts itself since israel did not recognize Jesus (pbuh) as a prophet either - which he was, or "The Prophet" or that Prophet - "like unto Moses" - which Jesus (pbuh) was not but which Muhammad (pbbuh) was. There has always been a messianic expectation among the "long-suffering" Jews, but the Prophet prophesied by Moses was not to come from them but their brothers, although he would be raised "unto them". Being raised as a mercy to mankind, this would necessarily include israel as well, and it is in this sense that it can be said that Muhammad (pbbuh) was raised unto israel. He was also a continuation of a long line of Prophets, many but not all of whom were Jews. There is nothing in this prophecy about that Prophet being raised from the dead. israel did not know of this and never acknowledged it and neither did Jesus (pbuh) or his disciples teach it. Regards, yusufar (www.)"you can't post links until you reach 50 posts_www.islamicunityfoundation(contact admin if its a beneficial link)"]The Islamic Unity Foundation[/url]
  3. Muhammed (pbuh) & The Bible

    Greetings Sharon, The central theme of the Qur'an basically is about the Absolute Unity of God. This concept is found in "The Unity Chapter" - Surah At-Tawhid (also known as "The Sincerity Chapter" - Surah Al-Ikhlas and guidance to the right path or way, which is the 5 times daily prayer, the very first or "The Opening Chapter" - Surah Al-Fatihah. Since Islam is a continuation and seal of the whole Prophetic tradition, the central message is the same as it has always been from the time of Adam (pbuh) to Abraham (pbuh) to Moses (pbuh) and to Jesus (pbuh). The Qur'an confirms all previous Scripture, including the Torah and the Gospel (the Bible). The big difference is of course the position of the Prophet Muhammad (pbbuh) as the Seal (last) of all the Prophets of God, in whose mouth God put His Word, which became the Qur'an or "The Recital". Because most previous Scripture has either disappeared or been corrupted, there will also be other significant differences from what you think you already know from the Bible. May God guide you to the Right Way, the Way of Jesus (pbuh) and the Prophets before him and the Way of the Prophet (pbbuh) after him. Regards, yusufar (www.)"you can't post links until you reach 50 posts_www.islamicunityfoundation(contact admin if its a beneficial link)"]The Islamic Unity Foundation[/url]
  4. The Gospel Of Paul

    Greetings Ignatius, Earlier I did try to break them up into more edible pieces. I don't mind focussing, but when discussing something like "Paul's Different Gospel", I think it would not be so easy to stay entirely focussed, since this will inevitably draw in many elements of how the entire basis of Christianity itself came about and its relationship with the original disciples of Jesus (pbuh). On one hand we have assertions by Paul himself that he got his gospel not through of from the original disciples, but by direct revelation from Jesus (pbuh) and he makes it very clear just how different his gospel was by arguing with Peter and the other disciples over the enforcement of the Mosaic Law, which it was then agreed did not apply to the Gentiles whom Paul was preaching to. On the other hand we have the disciples still praying in the Temple and continuing to adhere to the Mosaic Law. Unfortunately not much remains of the teachings of the original disciples and what remains are the present 4 gospels which may represent more Pauline teaching than Nazarene teaching. We may never be able to reconcile the two, but I believe that a fairly objective study of whatever evidence we have, placed in the historical context and without the baggage of any theology, can reveal to a great extent the truth of the matter. Regards, yusufar (www.)"you can't post links until you reach 50 posts_www.islamicunityfoundation(contact admin if its a beneficial link)"]The Islamic Unity Foundation[/url]
  5. The Gospel Of Paul

    Dizzy? Can you imagine what it was like for the early "Christians" when they argued with and even killed each other over the question of the Divine nature or Divinity of Jesus (pbuh)? At least today we can study and discuss it in a relatively calm and tolerant manner and not have our lives at stake for it on the basis of who purportedly "wins" the debate. I think the issue of Judas is still open and will be the subject of more study. Personally, I doubt if there was any need for him to have betrayed Jesus (pbuh). He may even have taken Jesus' (pbuh) place on the cross, voluntarily or otherwise. If it was voluntary, then yes, he would have been a good guy and the real sacrificial lamb. If not, it is entirely speculative. Christians will have to disagree because they have the "evidence" of their Scripture.
  6. The Gospel Of Paul

    Greetings Ignatius, You are right to a certain extent. I am quite certain that Jesus (pbuh) came to reform Judaism and would therefore have come into conflict with its priests and leaders. Yet Jesus (pbuh) never preached against the Mosaic Law, only how it was being (wrongly) implemented. Jesus (pbuh) gave it the spiritual dimension that was lacking. And he also had another mission. Judaism had by that time also become polluted by paganism, particularly of Roman and Greek origin and the Essenes and Nazarenes under Jesus (pbuh) were intent on purging it of these influences, yet all still within the context of Mosaic Law, which Jesus (pbuh) himself never abrogated or taught that it had to be done away with. Ah, Jeremiah! I was wondering when he would be trotted out. For good measure you could have thrown in Daniel as well and many other "unfulfilled" prophecies. These prophecies which the Jews expected to be fulfilled in the real sense and not merely spiritual, never did happen, unless looked at from the Islamic perspective. I'm sure you are aware of the "pesher" process of reworking of biblical passages whereby the scroll writer studies or examines a book of the Bible, usually a prophetic work, and reinterprets it in terms of the events of his own time. Using such a technique, what you propose can also be reinterpreted to refer to the Prophet Muhammad (pbbuh) rather than Jesus or perhaps even to both of them. The discovery of the Dead Sea Scrolls has given us even more ample material for this purpose, what with their references to The Messiah who was both Ruler and Priest and the Two Messiahs who will appear towards the end of time, one the Messiah of israel (the Royal or King Messiah) and the other the Messiah of Aaron (the Priest Messiah). Are these to be found in Christianity? The answer is "No". Are they to be found in Islam? The answer is "Yes". But that is perhaps another subject entirely, although perhaps connected in a way to Paul's different gospel. Yes, indeed, and this New Covenant which God made with them would only be fulfilled in the time of the Prophet Muhammad (pbbuh). And part of Jesus' (pbuh) mission was to prepare the way for the coming of "that Prophet"(pbbuh). Most of what you say here is correct, except perhaps that the division was not only between the righteous (Jews) and unrighteous (Pagans) but more between the Jews and the different Jewish sects themselves. I see Jesus as coming to reform Judaism and thereby restoring the Divine link between Creator and Created. But this doctrine about overcoming the very nature of sin "which is death itself" and for which he had to die and be resurrected sounds a bit convoluted to me. How can death be the very nature of sin, unless you mean it in a metaphorical way like sin being "spiritual" death? But surely this is not a sufficient reason or method for God to require the death and resurrection of Jesus (pbuh)? What would that prove? No "sacrifice" of anything by God can in any sense be a real "sacrifice" since God has nothing to "sacrifice" anything for nor should He need to, being above all needs or wants. Muslims also claim that very same "spiritual law" all the way back to Adam (pbuh) and Abraham (pbuh). There must be an external law as well, for we still live in a "material" world. Is inner guidance sufficient without external adherence? The relationship between God and His Creation was not limited only to israel, although the Jews would have liked to believe so. The Jews were God's "Chosen People" only in so far as they obeyed His Commandments and His Law and they lost that birthright because of their own arrogance, hard-heartedness and disobedience, as Jeremiah (pbuh) makes very clear. They were supposed to be the examples for the rest of the world, but does this mean that the rest of the world was left entirely without guidance until Jesus (pbuh) came? Christians may like to believe so, but Islam does not think so. "Self-styled old covenant in Islam"? Where did you get that from? Are you telling me that Christianity does not suffer from self-righteousness or division? To say that Islam is merely a form of external legalism ignores the very rich spiritual legacy and teachings of Islam which draw upon all of the Prophets, including Jesus (pbuh). In Islam, the external law without the spirit is emptiness or futility while spirituality without external law is deviation. Righteousness comes from a harmony of both, as shown by Jesus (pbuh) and Muhammad (pbbuh) and all of God's other Prophets. The same can also be said of Muslims. How do you explain the stoning by the Jewish priests of Stephen and later of James then? Was any Roman authority required or obtained for this or did the Jews assume that they had the authority and took matters into their own hands? Why didn't they do so with Jesus (pbuh) then? What details do I appear to have left out? I certainly do not think that I know everything. And yes, Roman control of israel was always under stress and threat of rebellion at the time, your point being? I doubt if the Romans could have bothered one way or another. Your point being? That Jesus (pbuh) was put to death as a rebel? But I thought he was all about peace, render unto Caesar, turn the other cheek, etc.? Why would the Romans or the Sanhedrin have seen him as a threat? I haven't. :D Does the Bible say that Jesus was put to death as a rebel by the Romans or can we assume this? They were not at war all the time. There were relative periods of calm and peace when a certain level of co-existence and tolerance had to be in place until some spark lit another flame. Obviously the Jews did not think that Jesus (pbuh) was the Messiah who would lead them against the Romans or were disappointed when he didn't. Either way he could not play that role. Christianity had to find a reason for this and this is where the Messiah baceme merely a spiritual concept and the "Kingdom of God" became merely the "Church of God". I would say that both would have been equally important and to emphasize on one without the other would be rather unbalanced. I doubt if it was as "throughout" as you put it. I don't think they would have needed it much any way - they were accustomed to a simple lifestyle. Paul may have just been trying to curry favour with them. Is there any record of them receiving such proceeds? If they were oppressed, how is it that their presence in the Temple was tolerated and James their leader had access even to the Holy of Holies? There was only One Law. Any Jew would know what it meant when speaking of the Law. Any follower of Jesus (pbuh) would too. Paul knew what Law it was he was accused of speaking against. The fact that Paul denied it, in spite of all evidence to the contrary (even his own letters as we know later), while the Apostles insisted on it showed just how different their teachings were. You mean they voted on it? Did they really deal with it? Or was Paul too smart and devious for them? Or did fate in the form of the Romans change everything, leading to the complete marginalization of Jesus' original disciples and their substitution by the Roman Catholic Church? Regards, yusufar (www.)"you can't post links until you reach 50 posts_www.islamicunityfoundation(contact admin if its a beneficial link)"]The Islamic Unity Foundation[/url]
  7. Quran Refutes Itself!

    Greetings, If this is an example of how the Bible is read, I'm certainly not surprised that the result is the "Trinity". If INFINITE GOD (which we as Muslims agree with) is "Infinite" why limit Him to "Three"? If God is unfathomable to the human mind (which He is), how is it possible to fathom that God is a "Trinity" or anything else? It is really pointless to speculate on this matter. All we can say is that there is only One God and that anything else other than God is not God. By all means prove it, but before jumping to any conclusions, perhaps more proper study is in order? Your posts are not being deleted. Otherwise how are they being answered? Or is it really farewell? With or without the shedding of blood there will be remission of sins and more, even the possibility of evil deeds being changed to good deeds, if there is real and sincere repentance. Regards, yusufar (www.)"you can't post links until you reach 50 posts_www.islamicunityfoundation(contact admin if its a beneficial link)"]The Islamic Unity Foundation[/url]
  8. Muhammed (pbuh) & The Bible

    Greetings, We engage in discussions here, not debate. We do not believe in winning or losing "debates". Everyone has their own style and way of doing things. Some cut and paste, some do more. That has no bearing on the level of a person's knowledge or ability to discuss or "debate". I am engaged in other discussions right now so may not be able to provide immediate feedback, but if there's anything you would like to really discuss do let me know. When I have a bit of free time I may address some of the issues which you have raised. Regards, yusufar (www.)"you can't post links until you reach 50 posts_www.islamicunityfoundation(contact admin if its a beneficial link)"]The Islamic Unity Foundation[/url]
  9. Quran Refutes Itself!

    Greetings, Posts are moderated and are set to "invisible" until approved in the "Islamic-Western Dialogue" and the "Refuting Non-Muslims" section. This is also to avoid unnecessarily abusive postings by Muslims. Please read the rules and the explanatory notes to each section which you are posting in. You can request the administrators for direct posting approval if you are sincerely interested in knowing more about Islam. Regards, yusufar (www.)"you can't post links until you reach 50 posts_www.islamicunityfoundation(contact admin if its a beneficial link)"]The Islamic Unity Foundation[/url]
  10. Quran Refutes Itself!

    If they do not worship Mary, then why PRAY to her? The KEY WORD is PRAY. Is that not WORSHIP? Of course Mary is not the Mother of God - but you will admit that there were and still are "Christians" who call her this. Jesus (pbuh) is God incarnate? Where did such a belief come from? Do you believe it? Your problem is that at the time when the Qur'an was revealed, the "Christianity" you espouse was not even in existence. At that time, the RCC which you roundly condemn as not being "Christian" was the dominant form of "Christianity" so the Qur'an was addressing its beliefs, not your brand of "Christianity". Have you ever really thought about why you call yourself "Christian"? It is not the Qur'an which has refuted itself, but the purported "Christianity" which has not only refuted itself but repudiated Jesus (pbuh) as well. Regards, yusufar (www.)"you can't post links until you reach 50 posts_www.islamicunityfoundation(contact admin if its a beneficial link)"]The Islamic Unity Foundation[/url]
  11. Quran Refutes Itself!

    Greetings, Perhaps you need to read more carefully and do more study before making such generalizations. If you say the RCC is not Christian, that is up to you. Muslims think so too but the RCC call themselves Christian and so do you. We happen to think that Christians are not followers of Jesus (pbuh) although they call themselves as such. The real followers of Jesus were all Jews who never left Judaism. They were called Nazarenes (nothing to do with Nazareth, which did not even exist at the time). While the Qur'an uses the term "Nazarenes" to apply to later "Christians" (mainly Gentiles and not Jews), in a sense this was applied to those who had usurped this title from the early followers of Jesus (pbuh) but who preached a completely different thing from him. No matter how you say it, 3 in 1 or 1 in 3 "subsistences", the 3 will betray you. It may not be polytheism to you but that is what it is. There is no real support in the Bible, whether OT or NT, for it. It is mainly conjecture and based on false interpretation of not so sure "Scripture". Sure, be honest with yourself! And preach no more this blasphemous doctrine. Regards, yusufar (www.)"you can't post links until you reach 50 posts_www.islamicunityfoundation(contact admin if its a beneficial link)"]The Islamic Unity Foundation[/url]
  12. Quran Refutes Itself!

    Greetings, Actually, some/many Christians do call Mary "Mother of God", even in their daily prayers, so do we have a Holy Quadrinity here? There is really no point in making any accusation that the Qur'an has misunderstood and mis-stated the Trinity. This doctrine has been responsible for all kinds of blasphemy and heresy and that is the summary of it. If anyone really believes that the Qur'an refutes itself, that belief is to their own detriment. Believe what you will. Say what you like, there is only ONE God, Jesus was one of His Holy Prophets and also a human being just as was his mother. Regards, yusufar (www.)"you can't post links until you reach 50 posts_www.islamicunityfoundation(contact admin if its a beneficial link)"]The Islamic Unity Foundation[/url]
  13. You have no idea what that means? I thought you knew Latin! :D My apologies, that was a typo - it should be "pedantrician" - someone who specializes in the disease of pedantricism, also known as "foot in mouth" disease. Have a good laugh! :D Regards, yusufar (www.)"you can't post links until you reach 50 posts_www.islamicunityfoundation(contact admin if its a beneficial link)"]The Islamic Unity Foundation[/url] Anti-Arab = Anti-Semite
  14. The Gospel Of Paul

    Greetings me, I think John was dated at a time when the Gentile Christians were breaking loose from the Jewish origins of "Christianity" and developing their own theology and also possibly facing much opposition from "Jewish Christians" as well as trying to cope with a potentially if not actually hostile Roman regime. Sometimes I also think that how we think could be "preconditioned" since many of the ideas I developed about Christianity came before I started doing any "serious" research if you could call it that. Islam was not a factor until much later. For example, I always believed in God alone and I could never accept that God could be a human being or that a human being could be God. Somehow I found it impossible to accept most of the basic Christian (Catholic) concepts and doctrines such as "Original Sin", the "Trinity", the "Resurrection", etc. and prayers such as the "Our Father" and "Hail Mary" and rituals such as the "Eucharist". Anyway those were my own personal biases and prejudices and nothing to do with Islam. I do not believe that Jesus was handed over to the Romans by the Sanhedrin, unless he was by then a fugitive from the Romans. Crucifixion was the Roman punishment for rebellion and other serious political crimes while the ultimate Jewish punishment for blaphemy was stoning to death. The Sanhedrin had authority to enforce its own religious enactments - that is clear, otherwise they wouldn't have been able to persecute and punish the early followers of Jesus. In any case I really don't see any reason why the Romans would have put him to death for blasphemy against Judaism - they probably would have been quite happy about it or at the very least unconcerned, as long as it was Jew against Jew and did not threaten Roman security. The Romans were known to have left Judaism pretty much alone, and were generally quite aware of the Jews' practices and sensitivities with regard to their religion, as well as tolerant to the extent that Roman rule was not in any way affected by the same. The fact that the early followers under the leadership of James - after Jesus' ascension - were still allowed to pray in the Temple somehow vitiates against any charges of blasphemy against Judaism in Jesus' teachings - and obviously they still adhered to Mosaic Law (Acts 21:20 "...they are all zealous of the law:"), for the other Jews to continue to tolerate them. There were incidents of persecution and Paul was of his own admission said to have been one of the persecutors, yet the puzzling thing is that they still managed to stay on in Jerusalem and even worshipped in the Temple with the other Jews. Why were they persecuted then by the priests and were not persecuted later? The Acts seem to reveal a fair bit about how even James and the other elders of the "Jewish Christian" community who were "zealous for the law" differed from Paul. While in the Acts Paul denies going against the law, yet as we have seen from his own words in his letters that this is exactly what he has done. Acts "[21] And they are informed of thee, that thou teachest all the Jews which are among the Gentiles to forsake Moses, saying that they ought not to circumcise their children, neither to walk after the customs. [22] What is it therefore? the multitude must needs come together: for they will hear that thou art come. [23] Do therefore this that we say to thee: We have four men which have a vow on them; [24] Them take, and purify thyself with them, and be at charges with them, that they may shave their heads: and all may know that those things, whereof they were informed concerning thee, are nothing; but that thou thyself also walkest orderly, and keepest the law. [25] As touching the Gentiles which believe, we have written and concluded that they observe no such thing, save only that they keep themselves from things offered to idols, and from blood, and from strangled, and from fornication. [26] Then Paul took the men, and the next day purifying himself with them entered into the temple, to signify the accomplishment of the days of purifcation, until that an offering should be offered for every one of them. [27] And when the seven days were almost ended, the Jews which were of Asia, when they saw him in the temple, stirred up all the people, and laid hands on him, [28] Crying out, Men of israel, help: This is the man, that teacheth all men every where against the people, and the law, and this place: and further brought Greeks also into the temple, and hath polluted this holy place." What the Jews of Asia were complaining about of course were the very essence of Paul's different teachings, in accordance with his own "different gospel", such as we can glimpse from the Acts and his letters. I don't expect you to agree with me of course. It's obvious to me that your beliefs are also the result of much study as well and I really appreciate your effort and willingness to discuss the same and your tolerance of my viewpoint. Regards, yusufar (www.)"you can't post links until you reach 50 posts_www.islamicunityfoundation(contact admin if its a beneficial link)"]The Islamic Unity Foundation[/url]
  15. I sympathize entirely with you. I didn't realize that morbus pes pedis intra os was so rampant in your part of the world. I hope you get well soon. Do see a pendantrician. :D Regards, yusufar (www.)"you can't post links until you reach 50 posts_www.islamicunityfoundation(contact admin if its a beneficial link)"]The Islamic Unity Foundation[/url]
  16. My, my, you really do love to argue don't you? But we may be talking at cross purposes here. (Anyway, why would you want to argue with someone who is mentally challenged? :D ) I never said anything about anyone having any "ulterior motive". If this is the way language has developed, then why can't it also develop (or redevelop) in a more positive and logical way as well? I really wonder who's being pedantic here. What has anti-semitism to do with anti-Judaism? Is Judaism a race or a religion? I'm not saying that the word anti-semitism cannot be used. I'm just saying that it shouldn't be used to refer only to Jews, since they are not the only semitic race in the Middle East. Your example does not make any sense. This is not merely about changing the name or the term for the sake of change but still meaning the same thing. I'm not talking about changing apples to bananas here. In the first place what is the agreed meaning of "semite"? The Merriam-Webster Online Dicitonary says: "Main Entry: Sem·ite Pronunciation: 'se-"mIt, esp British 'sE-"mIt Function: noun Etymology: French sémite, from Semitic Shem, from Late Latin, from Greek SEm, from Hebrew ShEm 1 a : a member of any of a number of peoples of ancient southwestern Asia including the Akkadians, Phoenicians, Hebrews, and Arabs b : a descendant of these peoples 2 : a member of a modern people speaking a Semitic language" Do you see the inconsistency here? Why should "anti-semite" only refer to "anti-Jew" then? The term anti-Jewish would still come under the definition of anti-semitic, but anti-semitic does not only include anti-Jewish but also anti-Arab and anti-whatever other semitic races/their descendants there are. In other words, I am talking about being more specific here - a rose includes both red and white roses, but a red rose is not a white rose and to say that it is is an abuse, even if somehow it has come to be accepted y all the dictionaries in the world. Understand? Furthermore I beg to differ, the term has been hijacked by some Jews (and their supporters) for their exclusive use and abuse. These would have no qualms about calling an Arab an anti-semite, even though the Arab was a semite himself. It is not merely semantics at stake here. I (and all Muslims) are supposed to be non-racist. We cannot dislike anyone (including Jews) just because of their race. Is that clear? Regards, yusufar (www.)"you can't post links until you reach 50 posts_www.islamicunityfoundation(contact admin if its a beneficial link)"]The Islamic Unity Foundation[/url]
  17. The Gospel Of Paul

    Firstly with regard to 2 Peter. I'm sure you are aware that most scholars are of the opinion that 2 Peter is a pseudepigraph (i.e. author unknown and not Peter) and date it between 100-160 CE, out of range of Peter's lifetime. Much of its material has been copied or is literarily dependent on Jude, which itself belongs in the post-apostolic age. It is also highly Hellenistic in concept and (rhetorical) language as is 1 Peter, something one would not expect from an unlettered Galilean fisherman (Acts 4:13). (www.)"you can't post links until you reach 50 posts_www./cathen/11752a.htm"]The Catholic Encyclopaedia[/url] states: "In the present state of the controversy over the authenticity it may be affirmed that it is solidly probable, though it is difficult to prove with certainty." Secondly, don't you find it even more strange that John never mentioned Paul at all? It is as if he didn't even know of Paul. Furthermore, would the Apostle John have become so anti-Jewish as the "Gospel of John" makes out? Perhaps these are questions worth pondering upon and pursuing. But for the time being I would like to concentrate on Paul, to which I shall return shortly. Regards, yusufar (www.)"you can't post links until you reach 50 posts_www.islamicunityfoundation(contact admin if its a beneficial link)"]The Islamic Unity Foundation[/url]
  18. Me pedantic? Far from it. Just trying to clarify things, that's all. Just because a word is used in a certain way by certain people does not make its usage correct even if accepted by all the purported authorities/dictionaries of the world. If they are wrong, they are wrong. There may come a time when people accept the fact that anti-semitism is wrongly used when it refers only to Jews and that it should also refer to Arabs. Once proper usage becomes acceptable, this would then put right the present wrong usage and abuse of this term. Actually what I object to more is the abuse of the term by the purported victims of "anti-semitism", the Jews. They hurl it all all and sundry who merely criticize some of the more unsavoury things that some of them - especially the Zionists - do, in unseeming attempts to shout down and drown out all such criticism. They have gotten away with it for too long, and their attempts have been made all the much easier by a loose interpretation of the term "anti-semitism". They would not be able to do so easily if this term was given its proper meaning to include "anti-Arab" as well. I have nothing against innocent "misnomers" which are not abused for ulterior motives. That is why I bother when a term such as this can and is misused. I am not for change just for the sake of change. Your conclusion is a reflection of your own bias and prejudice and a big smokescreen over the whole issue. If it's not really an issue, then what are you going on about it for? It is an issue, look it up in the Merriam Webster "Third New International Dictionary - Unabridged" where the current entry on anti-semitism reads as follows: "1) hostility toward Jews as a religious or racial minority group, often accompanied by social, political or economic discrimination (2) opposition to Zionism (3) sympathy for the opponents of israel."! I hope you do see this attempt at abuse, or perhaps being mentally challenged I am the only one who sees it. :D (Couldn't find a mentally challenged smiley - administrators please take note :D or maybe this is it :D ). Regards, yusufar (www.)"you can't post links until you reach 50 posts_www.islamicunityfoundation(contact admin if its a beneficial link)"]The Islamic Unity Foundation[/url]
  19. The Gospel Of Paul

    Greetings, It will be obvious by now from the above analysis that Paul did in fact teach a different gospel from that taught by the other apostles, one which depended entirely on faith - since he couldn't prove any of it - and not the (Mosaic) Law which Jesus (pbuh) had come to fulfil. He could not prove any of it because as he claimed he had received it by direct revelation from Jesus (pbuh). The fact that it contradicted Jesus' (pbuh) teaching while still alive did not stop Paul from expounding and expanding on his newly-found theology, especially among the non-Jews or Gentiles. This is where Christianity stumbles and becomes something that Jesus (pbuh) never taught, the moment Paul preaches his different gospel and distances himself from Jesus' (pbuh) original disciples. Paul had by this time developed a theology based on "faith in Jesus Christ" as opposed to one based on "observing the law". As he said, "if righteousness could be gained through the law, Christ died for nothing!" (Galatians 2:14-21). It is at once apparent that the other apostles were teaching that righteousness could be gained through the law (or rather through observance of it). An example of the fairly original teachings of Jesus (pbuh) and his disciples (as far as can be ascertained) can be found in James: "JAS 2:8 If you really keep the royal law found in Scripture, "Love your neighbor as yourself,"* you are doing right. [9] But if you show favoritism, you sin and are convicted by the law as lawbreakers. [10] For whoever keeps the whole law and yet stumbles at just one point is guilty of breaking all of it. [11] For he who said, "Do not commit adultery,"* also said, "Do not murder."* If you do not commit adultery but do commit murder, you have become a lawbreaker." This of course was a very stringent doctrine and one which could hardly have found favour with the more relaxed Gentiles. If Paul wished to be "successful" in his mission to the Gentiles, obviously he had to tone down this doctrine of "strict adherence to the Law". Paul did more than that - he did away with the whole requirement to follow the Law and instituted a far easier belief of "faith in Christ" - which practically guaranteed salvation to the believer, even without any necessity to do good deeds. This peculiar theology also led to the development of the concept of "original sin" which it was said Jesus (pbuh) saved those who "had faith" from. Actually the point that Paul makes in Galatians is that the curse of the law is the fact that it is impossible to keep perfectly, hence Paul's statement that no-one is justified by the Law. What Paul tells the Galatians is simply that they are free to try to keep the letter of the Law if they like, but they will fail, and so they should therefore rely on faith in Christ. If the whole of Galatians is read thoroughly, it will be seen that this is what this letter is about. "JAS 2:12 Speak and act as those who are going to be judged by the law that gives freedom, [13] because judgment without mercy will be shown to anyone who has not been merciful. Mercy triumphs over judgment!" JAS 2:14 What good is it, my brothers, if a man claims to have faith but has no deeds? Can such faith save him? [15] Suppose a brother or sister is without clothes and daily food. [16] If one of you says to him, "Go, I wish you well; keep warm and well fed," but does nothing about his physical needs, what good is it? [17] In the same way, faith by itself, if it is not accompanied by action, is dead." This is a direct refutation of Paul's teachings. "JAS 2:18 But someone will say, "You have faith; I have deeds." Show me your faith without deeds, and I will show you my faith by what I do. [19] You believe that there is one God. Good! Even the demons believe that--and shudder." "JAS 2:20 You foolish man, do you want evidence that faith without deeds is useless*? [21] Was not our ancestor Abraham considered righteous for what he did when he offered his son Isaac on the altar? [22] You see that his faith and his actions were working together, and his faith was made complete by what he did. [23] And the scripture was fulfilled that says, "Abraham believed God, and it was credited to him as righteousness,"* and he was called God's friend. [24] You see that a person is justified by what he does and not by faith alone." Could James have been addressing Paul without mentioning his name? It would appear so. "JAS 2:25 In the same way, was not even Rahab the prostitute considered righteous for what she did when she gave lodging to the spies and sent them off in a different direction? [26] As the body without the spirit is dead, so faith without deeds is dead." "JAS 3:1 Not many of you should presume to be teachers, my brothers, because you know that we who teach will be judged more strictly. [2] We all stumble in many ways. If anyone is never at fault in what he says, he is a perfect man, able to keep his whole body in check. JAS 4:11 Brothers, do not slander one another. Anyone who speaks against his brother or judges him speaks against the law and judges it. When you judge the law, you are not keeping it, but sitting in judgment on it. [12] There is only one Lawgiver and Judge, the one who is able to save and destroy. But you--who are you to judge your neighbor?" And who is Paul to judge the Law? Or teach something which Jesus (pbuh) or his disciples never taught? Leviticus 18:5 (NIV) on the other hand states: "Keep my decrees and laws, for the man who obeys them will live by them. I am the LORD." This sounds more like a justification for the law rather than a refutal of it, and a sounder basis for faith (though perhaps not of the kind which Paul envisaged). Those who still think that it shows that faith is the basis for keeping God's Law, not the other way round, and that this is the point Paul made in Galatians have to be faced with the fact that by doing away with the Law, Paul has therefore demonstrated his lack of faith. Either way, Paul's different gospel cannot be supported by the teachings of the scriptures and of Jesus and his original disciples and must therefore be dismissed as an innovation. Regards, yusufar (www.)"you can't post links until you reach 50 posts_www.islamicunityfoundation(contact admin if its a beneficial link)"]The Islamic Unity Foundation[/url]
  20. We are not talking about plants, nuts or legumes here or are we? What is there to say that a more logical meaning cannot be agreed upon? Racism against Judaism? Now that is pretty confused. Is Judaism a race? Or is this another term which has a different illogical meaning as well? Of course a semite is a person of a certain descent and of course their ancestors were from around the middle east - doesn't that include Arabs as well? Sure, and a hotdog is also a hotdog because it has been decided upon. But as you point out, terms change. What is a hotdog today may not be a hotdog as we know it today in another 100 years. Language is full of such examples. Language is dynamic and it changes with time. "Orwellian New Speak" childish? Certainly not. I'm just proposing a logical usage of a word which has been abused by its purported victims. If you see any thing wrong about that, then there must be something wrong with you. This is a plain nonsensical statement. All words must make some sense whether under analysis or not. You appear to have a certain fixation, but I'm sure you know how that can be cured. :D Regards, yusufar (www.)"you can't post links until you reach 50 posts_www.islamicunityfoundation(contact admin if its a beneficial link)"]The Islamic Unity Foundation[/url]
  21. Peace from God to you, If you say that language is not a logical construct, what does that mean, that it does not say what it means or that it means something else other than what it says? Whether you realise it or not, you have just made out a case for your own mindset being "wrong conditioned" when you say that from the very start antisemitism meant anti-jewish ideology. That is exactly how you have been conditioned to think, no matter how illogical it is - to the extent that you believe that trying to avoid every "illogical" term is ridiculous. What is even more ridiculous perhaps is NOT trying to avoid every "illogical" term. Just because some anti-Jews coined the term 100 years ago does not make its then or current usage right. And because many Jews and their supporters have conveniently used it against the slightest criticism of them (no matter how well-deserved and which may not even be racial or racist in origin) makes all the more reason why its usage should be changed. I'm not up to confusing minds - that I'll leave to the many Jews and people like you of similar predeliction. :D What's confusing is for an Arab to be labelled an anti-semite for criticizing the Jews when the Arabs are just as much a semitic race as the Jews. This issue has to be clarified so that similar criticism of Arabs will also be correctly labelled as anti-semitic. This will certainly avoid all unnecessary confusion and the Jews will lose one weapon in their vast armoury of weapons against (well-deserved) criticism. Regards, yusufar (www.)"you can't post links until you reach 50 posts_www.islamicunityfoundation(contact admin if its a beneficial link)"]The Islamic Unity Foundation[/url]
  22. (www.)"you can't post links until you reach 50 posts_informationclearinghouse.info/article12790.htm"]Does Iran's President Want israel Wiped Off The Map - Does He Deny The Holocaust?[/url] An analysis of media rhetoric on its way to war against Iran - Commenting on the alleged statements of Iran's President Ahmadinejad . By Anneliese Fikentscher and Andreas Neumann Translation to English: Erik Appleby
  23. The Gospel Of Paul

    I'm older. It's just a common English expression and has nothing actually to do with age - sometimes English can be strange. I understand the Ecumenical Councils quite well, thank you. I also understand that the Pope is infallible. Or has that been voted out again? :D Not all Gnostic claims can be upheld and in fact most probably cannot be supported, especially by Muslims. I am aware of this and I am certainly not interested in undermining historic Christian teachings about their own faith. This is not about who wins the debate, as far as I am concerned. Please do not take my questioning or different viewpoint as trying to undermine your faith. What you believe is entirely up to you. Although I may not be able to understand why you believe what you do, you certainly are entitled to maintain that belief as far as you can without doing violence to others. My duty is only to convey the message, not to convince you of it. I have my own understanding of "historic Christian teachings" based on my own study and research and I can only assure you that this is not due to my being a Muslim but rather it is the reason I am a Muslim. The truth or otherwise of "Christian" teachings and doctrines can be determined both from intrinsic as well as extrinsic historical evidence. Islam merely clarifies it so it is not essential to use Islamic sources to determine the same. As far as I am concerned the eventual decision of the Council of Nicea is besides the point. What real authority did the Council have to "decide" on the nature of Jesus (pbuh) with regard to God? Did God or Jesus (pbuh) give it that authority or did it usurp such authority? To attempt to make that decision "authoritative" and "binding" on the whole of Christendom based on the understanding and majority votes of the bishops would therefore have been highly presumptious. This is where Christianity fell into its gravest error. By the way, Athanasius was not yet appointed Bishop at the time of the Council of Nicea. That appointment came about 5 months later, upon the death of his patron Bishop Alexander. He was there as assistant (or attendant) to Bishop Alexander. He was however allowed to take part in the discussions and must have been rather influential or instrumental in the decision to declare and implement the Nicene Creed. There is no necessity to "conjecture" about alternative histories of Chistianity, etc. The "Church" has done that just as well and attempted to impose its own view of history, especially the history of "Christianity" and the history of Jesus (pbuh), upon others when that view is itself imaginative conjecture and has turned Jesus (pbuh) into something he never was nor will ever be. Based on the basic premise that God is God and that Creator and created must of essence be different, God cannot become a human being and a human being cannot become God. You may disagree all you like, but why should God not mention it even once in the OT and suddenly spring such a surprise on mankind during the time of Jesus (pbuh) when Jesus (pbuh) himself said that "God is One"? Indeed, the Trinitarian Christian conjecture can be very stimulating and intriguing but I would assert that the "Historic Christian Position" cannot be substantiated with any "real" evidence which carries any "real" weight in anyone's evaluation of what is actually "true". The "antagonism" that you sympathize with is entirely your own conjecture as well. It is just not there. I have no reason to be antagonistic. I repeat, my duty is only to convey the message. If it does not convince you, I have nothing to lose and if it does, I have nothing to gain - nor has Islam for that matter. Salvation is entirely an individual affair. And one of the gravest mistakes made by many "Christians" (both Trinitarians and Unitarians) of the past was to attempt to impose their ideas on others by force. To be fair, it must also be said that some Muslims are also of this tendency. It just doesn't work. And the 4 gospels come direct from the "horse's mouth"? I doubt it - too many inconsistencies. But that is a different subject from Paul's Different Gospel. The same evaluation method you propose has already been done by many scholars who have also come to the conclusion that the 4 gospels were probably not written by the authors claimed and that they were also influenced by hellenistic and neo-platonistic ideas as well, even to the extent that through Paul's ideas, the Jesus (pbuh) of history was no longer recognizable and had been transformed into "God Himself". Paul's ideas, and his "different" gospel, built upon by the later Gentile Church into the "Trinity", were as far away as one could possibly get from the Mosaic-Judaic-Essenic teachings of Jesus (pbuh). Jesus (pbuh) would have been horrified that he had been turned into "God Almighty Himself" by something which he had never taught. Given the obviously pagan roots of present day "Christianity" I don't think it is in Islam's interest to side with either Gnosticism or Christianity. That is just my personal opinion. Islam can only side with the truth. Furthermore, Christianity has given up almost totally any Judaic roots it ever had and even its link to Jesus (pbuh) is in name only since it has managed to completely distort his person, personality and teachings. Regards, yusufar (www.)"you can't post links until you reach 50 posts_www.islamicunityfoundation(contact admin if its a beneficial link)"]The Islamic Unity Foundation[/url]
  24. The Gospel Of Paul

    Greetings Ignatius/me, My mistake, that was a typo - Constantine it is. No need to gloss over this dispute. The whole of Christianity was split by it and Constantine feared that it would cause grave problems to his rule. "Heretical" teaching of Arius depends on where you stand. It is obvious that Arius had his supporters and he was also right in stating that the "Son" is not of one nature or substance with "God the Father", etc. The teaching of Arius was based not only on Judaism but the teaching of Jesus (pbuh) himself that "God is One". What could be more straightforward than that? Those who disputed this assertion were the real heretics. Any dilution of this central assertion and truth must certainly be treated as suspect and could have been due to a few factors, not the least among which was forgery, interpolation and misinterpretation. The fact that the heretical teaching of the Trinity prevailed with the might of Constantine behind it does not mean that it was the right teaching. It would really be very difficult for Muslims to do any great violence to the integrity of the "scriptures" that has not already been done by Trinitarian Christians. I'm not at all saying that Trinitarian Christians are misunderstanding their own message. That in itself is a misunderstanding. Let's be very clear about this. I am quite sure that they understand their own message. But do they understand the real message of Jesus (pbuh)? When I say "Trinitarian Christians" I use this term to distinguish them from the original followers of Jesus (pbuh), who were Nazarenes of the Judaic-Essenic sect or movement (i.e. all of whom were Jews) and also from the "Unitarian Christians" such as Arius and others of his persuasion (who were essentially, though not all, non-Jews). As all will note, I have not made a single reference to the so-called "Qur'anic view" of "Christian" scriptures, as I believe that "Christian" scriptures or what the Christians (both Trinitarian and Unitarian) accept as "scriptures" can and should be looked at on their own merit. Indeed we must look at all Christian scriptures as a whole, not just those accepted by the Trinitarian Christians. If the Trinitarian Christians do not accept the Qur'an being imposed upon them, then likewise they should not insist upon their version of the Bible, especially the New Testament, being imposed upon others, including Christians of other persuasions (and thus ignoring those who disagree with their Bible as well). Fair enough? I never said that Paul was able to pull a fast one over the other Apostles. Far from it. They continued to pray and preach in the Temple of the Jews and I doubt if they were interested in speading the word of Jesus (pbuh) outside of the Jewish community and they were only too happy to let Paul say what he liked to the Gentiles. It only concerned them when he tried to impose his clearly different teachings on Jewish communities outside of israel and many times they sent emissaries to correct him, which upset Paul no end, as we can see from his letters. And this is where he came into conflict with them, as his letters also clearly indicate. As to "blow my premise out of the water"...well, I've already blown Paul's premises out of the water in my above analysis of his "different" gospel. Perhaps you'd care to go through his letters with a fine tooth comb and with a little bit more critical thought. You might get somewhere closer to the real Jesus, instead of the "imposter" whom Paul encountered on the way to Damascus. Peter and the other apostles of course knew exactly who Jesus (pbuh) was. "Men of israel, listen to this: Jesus the Nazarene was a man accredited by God to you by miracles, wonders and signs, which God did among you through him, as you yourselves know” (Acts 2:22 NIV)". As for the Council of Nicea, it was called by Constantine to settle once and for all the differences between the warring Unitarian Christians (Arians) and the Trinitarian Christians (Athanasians) so that he could preserve the political integrity of his Empire. This interference by civil authority in the affairs of the Church was not merely over doctrinal differences, but because those differences had become violent and threatened the stability of the Empire. Origen just 50 years earlier had taught that the "Son" was chosen not by superiority of nature but by virtue of his self-effort. This was also Arian teaching. It is also known that Origen had access to many of the lost words of Jesus, and quotes from the disciples not recorded in the NT. Origen knew the real nature of Jesus was that of an extremely holy man. And all can become holy men, as evident from the teachings of Jesus himself recorded in writing by those of the first century, but now lost - probably destroyed in the aftermath of the Council of Nicea. "And we recall the words of St. John in his epistle: "Beloved, now are we the sons of God...." (1 John 3: 2). Arius being "simply a Priest" is immaterial, as well as whether he had any authority to elaborate in the teachings of the "Church". The Trinitarian "Church" of course denounced and disowned his teachings since they were not the teachings of the Trinitarians, so of what relevance is it whether he had its authority or not? Obviously there was more than one movement in Christianity at that time and even till today. So it is rather disingenous when Trinitarian Christians refer to the "Church" as if theirs was the only authentic "Church". There was absolutely no reason for Arius to submit to their authority. In fact he was putting forward a totally different creed/doctrine of his own, one which he thought was closer to the truth - comparatively speaking he was right. Paul's "different" gospel makes it very clear who were the real heretics or blasphemers, and they were the ones, including Paul himself, who taught anything which was contrary to the Mosaic Law, which Jesus (pbuh) had come to fulfil, not to destroy as Paul did. Just because they now claim to be "orthodox" Christianity does not make Athanasius' explanation of the "Logos" or his defence of the personality and deity of the "Holy Spirit" right and Arius wrong. While most of the Christian priests and bishops signed the Nicene Creed, affirming that "Jesus Christ" - whom none of them had known - was "Very God of Very God" and "of one substance with the Father by whom all things were made," they did so under threat of banishment. Obviously and for some reason (which probably had nothing to do with the truth), Constantine sided with the Trinitarians on the issue of the nature of Jesus (pbuh), i.e. whether he was one with God and thefore God Himself, or a human being - one of those closest to God. In "Will the Real Heretics Please Stand Up: A New Look at Today's Evangelical Church in the Light of Early Christianity", by David W. Bercot , there were 5 who did not agree with the Nicene Creed. "...Constantine himself chaired the two-month long conference and actively participated in the discussions... Constantine persuaded the group to draw up a church-wide creed that specifically addressed the Divine nature of the Son. This was something quite new, for in the past each congregation used its own individual creed. (pp. 131-132) Constantine himself proposed the wording of the new church-wide creed. To exclude the viewpoints of Arius, Constantine argued that the Greek term homoousios should be used to describe the relationship of Jesus and His Father. This term is usually translated into English by the phrase, "being of the same substance." ... In fact, several pre-Nicene Christian writers had used that term to describe the Deity of the Son. However, the term doesn't appear anywhere in Scripture, and it had never been included in any of the early congregational creeds... (p. 132) Nevertheless, as a result of Constantine's persuasive skills, all but five of the church representatives at Nicaea eventually signed the newly-established creed. Constantine then banished into exile the five who wouldn't sign, one of whom was Arius. Constantine also decreed: "... If anyone shall be detected in concealing a book written by Arius, and does not instantly bring it forward and burn it, the penalty for this offense shall be death."... (p. 132) Subsequently, Eusebius of Nicomedia, Maris of Chalcedon and Theognis of Nicea regretted having put their signatures to the Nicene formula, as they said in a letter to Constantine written by Eusebius of Nicomedia: "We committed an impious act, O Prince, by subscribing to a blasphemy from fear of you." And a blasphemy it was that rules most of Christendom to this day, even though Constantine did change his mind about Arius and brought him back from banishment in an effort to unify the Empire which was still in grave danger of being torn apart by the warring factions of "Christianity", even after the Nicene Council. For his efforts Constantine, in collusion with the conniving bishops who supported him, rewarded himself with the office of Messiah— an office previously reserved only for Jesus pbuh). It was Constantine, not Jesus (pbuh), who became the embodied Messiah, Saviour and head of the "Church" - the Trinitarian Church of course. What had Jesus (pbuh) have to do with this? Absolutely nothing, for the Nicene Creed had transformed him into something else entirely and which he had never ever claimed to be - God. The very human Jesus (pbuh) of history had been transformed beyond redemption by the bishops of the Trinitarian Church with the backing of the very secular Emperor Constantine into God Himself and Constantine had become transformed into the Messiah. Peace and regards, yusufar (www.)"you can't post links until you reach 50 posts_www.islamicunityfoundation(contact admin if its a beneficial link)"]The Islamic Unity Foundation[/url]
  25. The Gospel Of Paul

    Greetings Ignatius, One by one, old chap, one by one... I'm sure you are an experienced debater and all that, but your unsubstantiated allegation that I appear to be avoiding addressing the errors of the Concil of Nicea is just another diversionary tactic. And my response "...Isn't an honest attempt at dialogue"? Also just another diversionary tactic, but still one that demands a response. If you are going to make all these snide side unsubstantiated remarks, I really must question your own lack of honesty in this dialogue. I will respond to your claims (or counter-claims) as you make them, the very first being your initial diversionary assertion that I offered no evidence about the "hundreds" of gospels being available prior to the Council of Nicea and that this was therefore "rhetoric" and "unsubstantiated". If what I did was not addressing your points paragraph by paragraph, well then I don't know what it is. But please don't twist my response into "avoiding" addressing issues raised by you. They will all be addressed. But you know that that cannot be done in a single post. I am sure you are aware of what the Council of Nicea was all about and why Constantine had summoned it. But if you want to go down that road, well... I shall do so in my next post. Patience and Regards, yusufar (www.)"you can't post links until you reach 50 posts_www.islamicunityfoundation(contact admin if its a beneficial link)"]The Islamic Unity Foundation[/url]