Jump to content
Islamic Forum


IF Guardian
  • Content count

  • Joined

  • Last visited

  • Days Won


Posts posted by yusufar

  1. Gods Servant, on 05 Mar 2015 - 03:18, said:

    "For if you love those (only) who love you, what recompense will you have? Do not the tax collectors do the same?" - Matthew 5:46

    God is not a tax collector, neither is Jesus.


    Tax collectors will surely love those that love them, but who does?


    Surely God will love those that love Him, and if you don't love those that love you then what are you?


    But of course you should not love only those that love you.


    "You will surely find the most intense of the people in animosity toward the believers [to be] the Jews and pagans; and you will find the nearest of them in love (affection) to the believers those who say, "We are Christians." That is because among them are priests and monks and because they are not arrogant". (Surah Al Maidah 5:82)


    Our recompense for love of anyone and God is only with God.

  2. The Trinitarian Christian hypothesis of a suffering god in human form is not exactly new or unique to Christianity and has its roots in pagan beliefs.


    God is not distant at all and in Islam the concept of suffering, hardship, trials and tribulations, even triumphs, are tests, our response to all of which is meant to bring us closer in love to God. Lovers of God are plentiful in Islam, even if Christians may think otherwise. They participate in His Love both in this life and the hereafter and do not require Him to suffer with or for them.


    "And We have already created man and know what his soul whispers to him, and We are closer to him than [his] jugular vein" (Surah Qaf 50:16).


    "...But those who believe are stronger in love for Allah (more than anything else)..." (Surah Baqarah 2:165)


    Abû Hurayrah relates that the Prophet said: “Allah will ask on the Day of Judgment: ‘Where are those who loved each other for the sake of My Glory? Today, - on a day when there is no shade but Mine – I shall shade them with My Shade.” [Sahîh Muslim (2566)]


    The Prophet said: “Among Allah’s servants are people who are neither Prophets nor martyrs, but whom the Prophets and martyrs will deem fortunate because of their high status with Allah.”


    They asked: “O Messenger of Allah! Inform us of who they are.”


    He said: “They are people who loved each other for Allah’s sake, without being related to one another or being tied to one another by the exchange of wealth. By Allah, their faces will be luminous and they will be upon light. They will feel no fear when the people will be feeling fear and they will feel no grief when the people will be grieving.”


    Then he read the verse: “Behold, on the friends of Allah there shall be no fear, nor shall they grieve.” (Surah Yunus 10:16) [Sunan Abî Dâwûd (3527)]


    In case you are wondering, "the friends" of Allah are those who love Him and whom He loves.


    Before I present the evidence of the Trinitarian Christians destroying Jesus's teachings, may I ask if you have gone through the "Paul's Different Gospel" thread?


    And by the way, so that there is no misunderstanding, if you read carefully what I said in my previous post, I did not say that the Trinitarian Christians destroyed these "glimpses" but rather that all other of Jesus's "real" teachings were destroyed except for the glimpses in the Four Gospels.

  3. God's Omnipotence is exactly the reason for Him not assuming a human nature. He has no need to do so. There is absolutely no question of denying his Omnipotence. The hypothesis of His Omnipotence may appear to include His Power to assume a human nature and dwell with us, but that is and will always be only a theory, as it has never happened and will never happen.


    To carry this hypothesis to its logical conclusion, we can say that His Omnipotence includes the Power to self-destruct, so God can self-destruct, but WILL He?


    The mistake and confusion of Christians is in attributing human nature to God's Omnipotence. Human nature is an attribute of creation, not of the Creator but by the Creator and entirely separate from Him.


    His Divinity is in contrast to humanity. That is the Very Essence of His Nature, that He is entirely different from His creation. Everything that human beings are, God is not. The Creator cannot at the same time be the created. That would be inimical to His Nature as Creator. Can we therefore attribute humanity to Divinity or Divinity to humanity?


    Even if it were Omnipotently possible to be both Creator and created at the same time, would God reduce His Status thereby? Can or would he He divide Himself into Two or Three? If so, why not more? Is humanity not sufficient proof of how the many can create chaos?


    Can He split His Omnipotence in such a manner that the Three Parts thereof are All Equal in Omnipotence to the One? If they are All Equal, Whose Will will prevail? Or will Two Parts not be Equal to the One, in which case can the Other Two (not Equal in Omnipotence) be called God? Can They All Be Equal yet different at the same time? In other words, can God be both Omnipotent yet not Omnipotent at the same time? For that is what being both Divine and "assuming" a human nature will entail.


    God cannot be both Divine and human at the same time as that would negate His Omnipotence.


    The Very Essence of God's Being is to Be One, not Two and not Three and certainly not to "assume" human nature. Two and Three cannot be the same as One. Is that so hard to believe?


    As for Jesus's "real" teachings, all I will say for now is that they are in direct contrast to those of Paul. There are only glimpses in the Four Gospels as unfortunately the Trinitarian Christians conveniently destroyed all others, especially after the Council of Nicaea, thereby establishing heresy as the truth.


    "You heard me say, 'I am going away and I am coming back to you.' If you loved me, you would be glad that I am going to the Father, for the Father is greater than I." (John 14:28)

    • Like 1

  4. How does God become "incarnate"? Has any human being ever seen God or can any human being know the nature or Essence of God? Human witnesses can be mistaken, even if it may be accepted that the apostles and a number of their associates did witness something (what?), which is doubtful. Exaggeration and embellishment could have taken place.


    Intrinsically and impossibly, the very first matter that has to be overcome is whether the Creator can become the created or whether the created can become the Creator. This will be a never-ending and futile quest, since it cannot be proven by witness testimony or self-proclamation.


    A super being who is both human and Divine (both created and Created) does not and cannot exist. One is Eternal, has no beginning and no end. The other is mortal and has a beginning and an end, at least in this life.


    Greater minds than ours have grappled with this issue and have led themselves and many others astray for failing to establish this fundamental fact.


    There is only One God. This was a fundamental teaching of Jesus.


    "Hear, O israel! The Lord our God, The Lord is One; Thou shalt love the Lord thy God with all thy heart, and with all thy soul, and with all thy mind".


    Jesus never taught anything about a "Trinity" or a "Triune" God. That is a later extrapolation, a hypothesis fabricated by Paul and later theologians who based Christianity on it. (Detailed arguments on this are in the old "Paul's Different Gospel" thread).


    Christianity (or at least the Trinitarian version of it) thus removed itself from Jesus and his teaching, while purporting to elevate him into becoming the "Son of God".


    It is not necessary to accept Muhammad as a prophet to come to this conclusion but it is necessary to accept that Jesus is no more the "Son of God" than anyone of us, if only to accept the real teaching of Jesus.

  5. Cardinal Jean-Louis Tauran, in an interview on Friday with the French Catholic daily La Croix, also said "Muslims do not accept that one can discuss the Koran in depth, because they say it was written by dictation from God," Tauran said. "With such an absolute interpretation, it is difficult to discuss the contents of faith."


    Hmm, let's see... how about "Muslims signal firm Islamic Stance with Christians/Vatican": "Yusufar, a Muslim nobody today said "Christians do not accept that one can discuss the divinity of Jesus in depth, because they say that he said he is the Son of God...With such an absolute interpretation, it is difficult to discuss the contents of faith."


    So how about it Christians? Are you willing to accept that Jesus may not be what you say someone said he said so that we can have a dialogue?

  6. I wonder what will happen in this forum if a none Muslim called an Islamic imam uneducated or ignorant. To us Catholics cardinals are the peak of piety, most of who reach it is the pride of Christendom, they have a chance to become the holy fathers of our faith.


    I'm quite sure there are uneducated or ignorant imams just as there are such priests, Cardinals or otherwise. It is a "tradition", "Islamic" or otherwise. The Prophet Muhammad (pbbuh) was unlettered (or illiterate as some may crudely put it) but no one would say he was uneducated or ignorant unless they themselves were, and the Christians (Catholics included) have said a lot of worse things about him so please excuse us if we say that if that is the peak of piety for Catholics and other Christians, then you are certainly in grave spiritual danger from your own holy fathers of your faith. Have you ever considered whether you have been misled by them?


    As for the topic his eminence discussed I think it would be a good topic to debate on this forums. You people say that Islam is tolerant and merciful towards all other religions, then why do Islamic governments restrict if allow at all the construction of churches on Islam soil?


    If his "eminence" really knew the Qur'an he would not be a Catholic now would he? He can debate it all he likes in any forum and so can you, but that would not change what it is, and what it is is a Revelation from God put into the mouth of the Prophet Muhammad (pbbuh).


    Islam's tolerance and mercy towards all other religions may not be shared by purportedly "Islamic" goverments or all who call themselves "Muslim", but this should not confuse you as sometimes such governments and people do not follow Islam.


    Christians are not imitating Jews, we never hated the lord, we never built a calf and worshiped it rather then god and we most certainly never killed any prophets sent to us in the name of mercy form the lord. I am trying to open the Islamic-Christian Dialogue here but you people have ignored me relentlessly.


    What would you call building statues of Jesus and his mother and worshipping them rather than God? You have never killed any prophets sent to you because none were sent to you after Jesus, but you (Christians) have ceaselessly character-assassinated the one God sent as a mercy to the whole of mankind. Don't wonder then if we relentlessly ignore you.


    But you are still welcome to open any dialogue here.

  7. I don't like to blow my own trumpet, but perhaps the answer to this question may lie in this thread started by me: (you are not allowed to post links yet)"you can't post links until you reach 50 posts_you are not allowed to post links yetgawaher(contact admin if its a beneficial link)/index.php?showtopic=28610"]The Gospel of Paul - Paul's Different Gospel[/url]


    It may also help to explain why Christians (or those who claim to really follow Jesus) shouldn't follow Paul's "teachings" of Jesus, which were actually really different from the teachings of Jesus.

  8. 6) Why do all muslims support Osama Bin Laden?


    For the same reason that the West supports Bliar and Bush against Muslims.


    7) Why do all muslims chant death to America before their prayer (After 9/11, I saw the videos of cheering and mass celebration going on in Pakistan, Iran, and Saudi Arabia)
    Again nothing to do with Islam. This is entirely political.


    8) Why do muslims want Jerusalem so bad when they don't believe in Christ, when it was the Lord Jesus Christ the worlds Savior who was born there. Why do they believe they should have their land back after they started the attack on israel?


    Since when was Jesus born in Jerusalem? This is a fight over land, not religion. Not all Palestinians are Muslim. There are Palestinian Christians as well. The Palestinians were there for thousands of years before israel was formed. It was the Jews (Zionists) who wanted their so-called "homeland" back who started the attack against Palestinians who had been living there for so long after the Jews had been expelled and dispersed by the Romans. So why can't the Palestinians also want their land back?


    9) Why does Iran continually ask for the destruction of israel and all of it's people. Why wouldn't they want peace and not to build nuclear weapons to destroy israel.
    Who has enough nuclear weapons to destroy the entire Middle East if not israel? Not all israelis are Jews. There are also Arab (and Muslim) israelis as well.


    10) I saw a video of a Palestinian cartoon that glorified the behavior of suicide bombing... it was shown to children. I also saw a video of Palestinian children screaming they would let their blood run for the destruction of israel. Why do muslims brainwash children to hate?


    For the same reason that the West brainwashes its children to hate Muslims and Islam.


    I've never personally talked to a muslim (my father forbade it after 9/11), but I'm curious as to what answers they might have for these questions.


    You have never personally spoken to a Muslim and yet you "truly" know about Islam? Don't mistake your own personal prejudices for the truth. Do your own research with an open mind. There is a lot more to Islam than you think, a lot more than what a minority of misguided Muslims themselves know or show.

  9. I am from USA and have a couple of questions about Islamic behavior and beliefs. As a Christian, I never knew anything about Islam until the day of 9/11, then I truly learned about it.


    Truly? That I really doubt, since nothing in any of your posts even suggests that you truly know anything about Islam other than your own personal prejudices and biases.


    1) If Islam is such a peaceful religion, why are the Holy Churches being burnt to the ground and their preachers killed.
    There is nothing in Islam which condones any such acts, and in fact Islam condemns them. These are senseless acts of violence which are completely unIslamic and do not advance the truth of the cause of Islam at all.


    Islam does not support compulsion in matters of religion since the truth is clear from error. If Islam in fact propagated such beliefs, needless to say there would be no churches or Christians at all in any Muslim land today nor would Muslims live in non-Muslim countries.


    2) If Islam is a peaceful religion, why are Muslims burning down U.N. embassies that have nothing to do with a cartoon being published.


    There is nothing in Islam which justifies senseless violence, even under extreme provocation. Nevertheless, it would seem that the West has seen how easy it is to provoke Muslims into committing such acts, which they can then attribute to Islam, even though there is entirely no basis for them in Islam. These are just senseless acts of violence perpetrated under provocation (no excuse).


    3) Why is it that Islam forces people into suicide bombings? Considering there are so many.
    There is nothing in Islam which forces people into suicide bombings. There is entirely no justification for suicide bombings in Islam. The Islamic ruling on suicide is clear - it is forbidden. Cruel oppression may provoke certain Muslims into committing such acts and delude them into thinking that these are acts of heroism and martyrdom but there is entirely no support for such acts in Islam.


    4) Why are muslims targeting children to kill? (I.E. Beslan Russia where 320+ children were massacred, israel suicide bombings, Iraq suicide bombings targeting children when US troops were handing out candy, the september 11th attacks)


    There is nothing in Islam which justifies targetting children or innocent civilians, even in war. US bombings in Iraq and Afghanistan (as well as israeli in Palestine and Lebanon) have probably killed more civilians and children than "combatants" than all these suicide bombings put together but that is no excuse for them. These are not "Islamic" acts.


    5)Why are women raped and beaten for just being women? Why is Shria law force gang rape (I.E. Pakistan)


    There is nothing in Islam which justifies rape. This is punishable by death. Where is Islam does that Shariah (law) even encourage let alone force gang rape? This statement alone shows just how brainwashed, biased, prejudiced and completely ignorant you are against Islam.

  10. The wine of fanaticism is laced with laziness.


    My fanaticism in this regard derives not from laziness but much contemplation. The only wine I know is that of the Absolute Oneness. I know of nothing other than. If I imbibe in the Unity out of sheer laziness only He will know.


    If that is laziness, then I claim the right to be lazy.


    If that is fanaticism then so be it. I will accept none other than.

  11. And therein lies your contradiction.


    If your first two assumptions are correct - the third cannot apply - and that still doesn't mean that He can become a creature.


    You are limiting that which you claim is unlimited.


    I see no reason why God cannot become anything - a person, a tree, the moon, a flower, the sound of a leaf falling.


    The only limit to God is our assumption of what God should be.


    There is absolutely no contradiction.


    Anything other than God is not Him. That is not a limitation, just a fact.


    While your theory that God can "become" anything appears reasonable and logical, yet this will go against His very Nature as Creator, and saying that does not in any way limit Him or His Powers to do or become "anything".


    The moment it even appears to us that God has "become" or is capable of "becoming" something else (as you say, a person, a tree, etc), then that which we know or assume we know is NOT God but a creation of God.


    What I am saying is not an assumption of what God should be, but rather what we know He is not, since what we know cannot be God.

  12. It is impossible to comprehend how this can do done.


    If you think you could comprehend God then perhaps you are being mislead.


    If all the rational arguments posited by all sides of any religious debate were comprehended then we would not be needing yet another intellectual debate.


    You may have misunderstood me.


    I never said nor even think that I can comprehend God, and I thought I made that quite clear.


    He is the Absolutely Incomprehensible. Nothing we know is like Him.


    Conversely that means that anything we know is not Him.


    And that still doesn't mean that He can become a creature.


    And the answer by anyone who asserts that He can (become a creature) that it is impossible to comprehend how this can be done is woefully inadequate.


    But as you say, the debate continues...

  13. It is explainable, actually.


    The problem, however, is what certain people think when they hear that Jesus is the begotten Son of God.


    Explain then if you can. As far as I can see, the problem is what certain people think when they hear that God does not "beget" nor is He "begotten". For some reason they can't accept this plain and simple statement (as stated in the Qur'an), but prefer a more complicated, convoluted and concocted doctrine.


    When we say that Jesus is the begotten Son of God (the Father), many people automatically make the assumption that Jesus was literally created by the Father or was born because of the Father ... and because of this wrong assumption, these people misunderstand what we mean.


    It is simple. The Father begat the Son in the sense that the Son has the same nature as that of the Father but is lower in rank than the Father, just as a human son has the same nature as that of his human father but is lower in rank than him.

    There was no transformation involved.

    That Jesus was literally created by God is a fact, not an assumption. How is it possible for people to misunderstand what that means? For people to understand what you (Christians) mean is a different matter, since you have got it all in a twist.


    It is simple but not as you explain it. What does "in the sense" mean? Does it mean that there was a time when the "Son" did not exist? If he existed pre-eternally with the "Father", how could he be lower in rank? If he did not, what does it mean for him to have been brought into existence as a human being?


    No transformation involved? How did God become a human being then, or how did a human being become God (or "Son" of God)? Just plain impossible!


    All true Christians believe in one God of a complex nature - a nature that's too complex for the human mind to comprehend.


    Really? How was God's complex nature reduced to such a simplistic (yet complicated) concept as the "Trinity" then, if it is far too complex for the human mind to comprehend? However, I can certainly comprehend without any great deal of complexity that the "Trinity" cannot even come close to explaining the true nature of God.


    Somehow you have grasped the truth, that God is of such a complex nature that cannot be comprehended by the human mind, yet you have still managed to lead yourself astray by reducing that complexity to a (purportedly) comprehensible "Trinity". (Yet there were and still are also Christians who believe in "Unity" of God rather than God the "Trinity").


    What we really know about God is that there is nothing like Him (that we know of). We cannot compare God to anything we know, let alone any human being. This is where the Christians got it wrong.


    What we know of God is what we read about Him in His written Word - the Bible.
    If it really was His Written Word, wouldn't it be reported and recorded in the first person? Why then is it possible to see that it is the scribes' words which comprise the Bible rather than the actual Word of God?


    And, by the way, Jesus did show us (in Matthew 28) a picture about God as the Trinity.


    Matthew 28:19

    Therefore go and make disciples of all nations, baptizing them in the name of the Father and of the Son and of the Holy Spirit,


    Notice how it says "name" instead of "names".


    The only thing I notice is that this is an obvious forgery. The evidence, among others, is that it is not to be found in the Hebrew Gospel of Matthew.

    (you are not allowed to post links yet)"you can't post links until you reach 50 posts_you are not allowed to post links yetjesus-messiah(contact admin if its a beneficial link)/apologetics/catholic/matthew-proof.html"]Matthew 28:19 Fraud Exposed[/url] See also (you are not allowed to post links yet)"you can't post links until you reach 50 posts_jesus-messiah(contact admin if its a beneficial link)/apologetics/catholic/matthew2819.html"]Is Matthew 28:19 Spurious?[/url]


    Well, I've just shown how they didn't have to make up any fictitious concept (or deny history and reality) to show that God is of a triune nature. So your statement above is based on an erroneous assumption.
    Indeed. To me a far more erroneous assumption would be that the Creator could become a creature or vice versa. God is God, Jesus is Jesus. There is no doubt that Jesus was a human being, therefore he cannot be God or "Son" of God.


    What were the Unitarian (Arian) Christians fighting about with the Trinitarian Christians then, such that Constantine had to call the warring factions together at the Council of Niceae in 325 CE?


    For your information, the term "beget" is not supposed to be used to explain the Son's conception by a human woman without the normal intervention of a human father.


    Then why use such a term? (with all its human connotations).


    Why is it impossible?

    There was no giving birth or adoption involved. We just need to understand what it means for Jesus to be the only begotten Son of God.


    It is just not possible for the Creator to become a creature. There are two entirely different and completely separate natures here, neither of which can be or become the other. All it needs is for us to understand what it means for Jesus NOT to be the "only" "begotten" "Son" of God.


    Otherwise, please explain how it is possible that the Creator can be or become a creature. And don't tell me it is impossible to comprehend how this can be so.

  14. Aha, so when the king begets a son, he hires someone else or what? To mods: i am trying to be as polite as i can, couldnt find a better way to explain it.

    So tell me if this is rational, instead of saying, I want to adopt this baby, we could also say i want to beget this baby?


    You are still being facetious, as polite as it may be, and I think there is no necessity for it. This is a serious fundamental issue and not one to be playful or impolite with.


    Unfortunately the Christians cannot explain this concept fully or clearly either, even impossibly since obviously it is an artificial concept, not even mentioned as such in the Gospels, but arising out of an unwarranted extrapolation of various statements appearing in them - the authenticity of which statements themselves is questionable.


    A heresy which Jesus (pbuh) never taught or even spoke about has been transformed from "Hear O israel, the Lord our God is One Lord" through politics and power play into the current orthodoxy of belief in "Father, Son and Holy Spirit" of those who purport to be his followers.


    To do so they have had to uphold a further fictitious concept of "inerrancy" of the Bible and to deny history as well as reality.


    Since the Christians have been misled into elevating the "Son" to equal partnership with the "Father" and a third party called the "Holy Spirit", they have had no choice but to use a totally inappropriate term such as "beget" to explain his conception by a human woman without the normal intervention of a human father.


    This idea and reality of the "virgin" conception is quite easily explained by God commanding it to "Be" as is usual with the normal process of creation, but rather more difficult (in fact impossible) to explain if one for any reason wished to equate the creature (Jesus (pbuh)) with the Creator.


    You know very well of course that there is no "begetting" involved, nor is it a form of adoption. It is just fiction.

  15. Why do you believe in Mr. Bernard D. Muller? What are his credentials?


    I don't have to believe in him to accept the reasonableness of what he writes. I am no scholar either, as are many in this Forum.


    I can certainly bring in what many other (acknowledged) scholars say, but more important I think is to show that it is not just scholars who can come to the same conclusions but ordinary people as well, doing their own research, thinking for themselves and working things out.


    Even Jesus' own credentials were never accepted by many of his own people at the time, notwithstanding the many miracles he wrought. His real credentials were also over-magnified by those who were not really his followers but followed Paul instead and who later turned him into the "Son of God" he wasn't.

  16. Those who may be interested in knowing just how different Paul's "Gospel" was are invited to read the thread on (you are not allowed to post links yet)"you can't post links until you reach 50 posts_you are not allowed to post links yetgawaher(contact admin if its a beneficial link)/index.php?showtopic=28610&st=0#entry289337"]The Gospel of Paul (Paul's Different Gospel)[/url]

  17. In answer to some queries about Lazarus dying twice, first of all let me begin by stating that the Gospel of John is historically the one accepted by most scholars as having been most changed and edited:


    As Bernard D. Muller has stated:


    "Many critical scholars have noticed the fourth gospel has signs of insertions, additions and reshuffling, suggesting its writing followed a long process:

    "It is today freely accepted that the fourth Gospel underwent a complex development before it reached its final form." Introduction to the Gospel of John, The New Jerusalem Bible. Furthermore, it is more and more accepted its author knew about the synoptic gospels (and NOT a gospel of signs & a passion narrative, none evidenced to have existed). In agreement with these later observations, I will proceed to flag out the "smoking guns" and propose the solutions."


    (you are not allowed to post links yet)"you can't post links until you reach 50 posts_you are not allowed to post links yetgeocities(contact admin if its a beneficial link)/b_d_muller/jnintro.html"]Jesus, A Historical Reconstruction[/url]




    "4.2 Jesus resurrects Lazarus (11:1-57):

    Another passage featuring "Martha" and her sister "Mary" is 'Jesus resurrects Lazarus'.

    Furthermore, let's note there is no mention of any Lazarus' resurrection story in the other gospels. However in GJohn, this alleged event is paramount. It explains the triumphal welcome:

    Jn12:17-19 "Therefore the people, who were with Him when He called Lazarus out of his tomb and raised him from the dead, bore witness. For this reason the people also met Him, because they heard that He had done this sign.

    The Pharisees therefore said among themselves, "You see that you are accomplishing nothing. Look, the world has gone after Him!"

    It also starts the plot to kill Jesus (Jn11:45-50). Then, why did the three synoptic gospels NOT report on something so much public & important?


    Note: the name 'Lazarus' appears in GLuke, as the beggar in a parable (Lk16:19-31).


    The original GJohn did not have any story about the earthly Jesus resurrecting anyone. GMark features one (the little girl of Jairus Mk5:22-43), but the disciples (and parents) are told to keep it secret (against the fondness of "John" for widely witnessed signs!):

    Mk5:43a "But He commanded them strictly that no one should know it, ..."

    However, GLuke has a very public resurrection observed by crowd and disciples (the widow's son in Nain Lk7:11-17):

    Lk7:14b-15a "... He said, "Young man, I say to you, arise."So he who was dead sat up ..."

    Let's notice here some similarities with Lazarus' resurrection narrative:

    Jn11:43b-44a "... He cried with a loud voice, "Lazarus, come forth!" And he who had died came out ..."


    Conclusion: because of "Martha" & "Mary" and some similarities with GLuke 7:11-17, 'Jesus resurrects Lazarus' (11:1-57) and also 'Lazarus is remembered' (12:17-19) were added on after GLuke appeared."


    (Those who wish to read the whole article, "Jesus, A Historical Reconstruction" may go here: (you are not allowed to post links yet)"you can't post links until you reach 50 posts_you are not allowed to post links yetgeocities(contact admin if its a beneficial link)/b_d_muller/index.html"]you can't post links until you reach 50 posts_you are not allowed to post links yetgeocities(contact admin if its a beneficial link)/b_d_muller/index.html[/url])


    In spite of and even notwithstanding this, from Jesus' own words as recorded in John we can see that Lazarus was only "sleeping" and not really dead (see the bold parts below):


    John 11: "1: Now a certain man was sick, named Lazarus, of Bethany, the town of Mary and her sister Martha. 2: (It was that Mary which anointed the Lord with ointment, and wiped his feet with her hair, whose brother Lazarus was sick.) 3: Therefore his sisters sent to him, saying, Lord, behold, he whom you love is sick. 4: When Jesus heard that, he said, This sickness is not to death, but for the glory of God, that the Son of God might be glorified thereby. 5: Now Jesus loved Martha, and her sister, and Lazarus. 6: When he had heard therefore that he was sick, he abode two days still in the same place where he was. 7: Then after that he said to his disciples, Let us go into Judaea again. 8: His disciples said to him, Master, the Jews of late sought to stone thee; and you go there again? 9: Jesus answered, Are there not twelve hours in the day? If any man walks in the day, he does not stumble, because he sees the light of this world. 10: But if a man walks in the night, he stumbles, because there is no light in him. 11: These things he said: and after that he said to them, Our friend Lazarus sleeps; but I go, that I may awake him out of sleep. 12: Then his disciples said, Lord, if he sleeps, he shall do well. 13: Howbeit Jesus spoke of his death: but they thought that he had spoken of taking of rest in sleep. 14: Then Jesus said to them plainly, Lazarus is dead."


    Verse 13 appears to be an editorial note or observation by the writer. The fact is still that Jesus originally said Lazarus was asleep and his saying subsequently that Lazarus was "dead" could be setting the stage for the miracle of raising him from the "dead", of course by the leave of God (as the Qur'an does state).


    It would of course have been a better or real "miracle" if Jesus had brought back to life someone who had been really dead for a much longer time than a mere 4 days.


    The "Secret Gospel of Mark" (not without controversy admittedly) gives the game away, however (emphasis in bold):


    "And they came to Bethany. And there was a woman there, whose brother was dead. And she came and fell down before Jesus and said to him: Son of David, have mercy on me. But the disciples rebuked her. And in anger Jesus went away with her into the garden where the tomb was; and immediately a loud voice was heard from the tomb; and Jesus went forward and rolled away the stone from the door of the tomb. And immediately he went in where the young man was, stretched out his hand and raised him up, grasping him by the hand".


    (you are not allowed to post links yet)"you can't post links until you reach 50 posts_you are not allowed to post links yetchristian-thinktank(contact admin if its a beneficial link)/qbadmark.html"]you can't post links until you reach 50 posts_you are not allowed to post links yetchristian-thinktank(contact admin if its a beneficial link)/qbadmark.html[/url]


    In the Gospel of Mark, Chapter 5 it is stated (emphasis in bold):


    "...35 While he was still speaking, people from the synagogue official's house arrived and said, "Your daughter has died; why trouble the teacher any longer?"

    36 Disregarding the message that was reported, Jesus said to the synagogue official, "Do not be afraid; just have faith."

    37 He did not allow anyone to accompany him inside except Peter, James, and John, the brother of James.

    38 When they arrived at the house of the synagogue official, he caught sight of a commotion, people weeping and wailing loudly.

    39 So he went in and said to them, "Why this commotion and weeping? The child is not dead but asleep."

    40 And they ridiculed him. Then he put them all out. He took along the child's father and mother and those who were with him and entered the room where the child was.

    41 He took the child by the hand and said to her, "Talitha koum," which means, "Little girl, I say to you, arise!"

    42 The girl, a child of twelve, arose immediately and walked around. (At that) they were utterly astounded.

    43 He gave strict orders that no one should know this and said that she should be given something to eat."


    (you are not allowed to post links yet)"you can't post links until you reach 50 posts_you are not allowed to post links yetusccb(contact admin if its a beneficial link)/nab/bible/mark/mark5.htm"]New American Bible[/url]


    In the above example, it is not even possible to argue that "asleep" means "dead" since Jesus said clearly that she was not dead.

  18. Thank you Yusufar,

    So why does Jesus need to come back to this world again and when will that be?




    Now I think this is a topic deserving of its own thread. There are quite a few reasons why Jesus needs to come back to this world, some of which have already been stated or alluded to here, not the least among which is to fulfil the prophecy that the meek (or the "Poor") shall inherit the earth, by him establishing a just rule over it in accordance with the commands of God (in Islam) after he defeats the Anti-Christ (aka "Dajjal") and his forces of evil.


    As to when that will be, that is what everyone has been waiting for since his ascension, so I personally cannot say exactly when. What we know is that it will be near the end of the world. His return will be preceded by the arrival of a Muslim leader by the name of Muhammad Ibn Abdullah (aka "Mahdi"), a descendant of the Prophet (pbbuh).

  19. What about those people that Jesus and others have raised from the dead, they have tasted death twice wouldn't they?


    They may not have been really dead at all in the first place. I find selective individual "resurrections" of such nature difficult to accept as a true "raising from the dead". Now if the resurrections were not so selective and involved more than one person at a time, you could have a point open for discussion.

  20. Thanks for that question. It is the one I'm most curious about. Why would God spare his physical death?




    If Jesus is to come back again to this world, which most Muslims accept, then he must have been taken to Heaven alive, since God has promised that every (human) soul shall taste of death but once.


    Jesus is not the only Prophet who has been spared physical death for the time being, by the way.

  21. For those who think that the worldly punishments prescribed by Islam may be unjust for any reason, please take note that sins which are punished in this life will not be punished in the hereafter. Those which go unpunished in this life may or may not be punished in the next life, depending entirely on God's Will and Mercy.


    See: Sahih Bukhari, Volume 8, Book 81, Number 775:


    Narrated ‘Ubada bin As-Samit:


    We were with the Prophet in a gathering and he said, ‘Swear allegiance to me that you will not worship anything besides Allah, Will not steal, and will not commit illegal sexual intercourse.” And then (the Prophet) recited the whole Verse (i.e. 60:12). The Prophet added, ‘And whoever among you fulfills his pledge, his reward is with Allah; and whoever commits something of such sins and receives the legal punishment for it, that will be considered as the expiation for that sin, and whoever commits something of such sins and Allah screens him, it is up to Allah whether to excuse or punish him.”