Jump to content
Islamic Forum
Joker37

Muslims Attending Church Service

Recommended Posts

I agree; I don't appreciate it when people who know nothing about the Qur'an come here and try to teach me my religion...

What you are saying here is that you don't appreciate people that know something about the Quran.... If you don't know nothing about something, that actually means you know something! It is fine if we talk past each other; the point is we try to reach the other with truth. If I try and fail, I can at least say I tried. You cannot accuse me for not trying to reach you. It doesn't bother me if someone attacks the Bible. I just try and keep trying to point them to Jesus. As long as they are not rude and disrespectful, I will keep trying. I cannot stand idle watching someone burn alive in a building can you? Can my brother in Christ do this, if your reading?

Edited by aj4u

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
PropellerAds
You brought up the deception and delusion God sends to wicked people and prophets, but the deception of Allah is different. When you look at him making it appear that Jesus died to where 3 billion people today are decieved into believing He did die on the cross, and that is not the mention the multiple billions that have gone on before those of us today. Why would Allah deceive that many people into commiting shirk so they go to hell?

 

why does Allah do it to all people wicked or not in regards to making it look like Jesus died for their sin? Was it just to protect Jesus with the subsitutionary death of another in Jesus' place resulting in sending billlons to burn in hell forever just to save Jesus???

 

God didn't make it look like Jesus (pbuh) died for their sins. How does a person like he is dying for your sins? God made it look like Jesus (pbuh) died. Jesus (pbuh) didn't tell people he would die for their sins. The people invented this concept afterwards. Those who like inventing falsehood, God lets them do excactly that. God could have prevented the incident of the golden calf by sending Moses (pbuh) on time but He didn't resulting in the people going astray. This doesn't mean that God is to blame. See, had the Christians only believed that Jesus (pbuh) died, there really wouldn't be that much of problem. The problem is they innovated the idea that Jesus (pbuh) died for their sins. Jesus (pbuh) became their golden calf. Substituting Jesus (pbuh) for somebody else was to render the Jews' plot in vain. If the Christians got deceived at the same time, it just reveals their hidden paganism/disbelief excactly like the worshippers of the calf.

 

Those people who haven't been exposed to the Truth still have hope. Christians of the past who weren't warned because the Message of Islam didn't reach them can still enter Paradise. On the Day of Judgement, they will be asked to enter Hell by God. If they do, they will find it safe and cool and will be admitted into Paradise after that brief but tremendous trial. If they don't, they are thrown into Hell. This applies to all disbelievers who weren't exposed to the Truth, not just Christians.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
God didn't make it look like Jesus (pbuh) died for their sins. How does a person like he is dying for your sins? God made it look like Jesus (pbuh) died.
For what purpose would he make it look like He died especially when that is the only deduction we could make: He died for our sin as the Bible states in prophecy. Why would he mislead us? and isn't putting someone else on the cross in Jesus place a form of subsitutionary death? BTW, I believe that God of the Bible didn't make it look like Jesus died for our sin or just plain died. It was Allah that made Jesus look like he died! Why???
Jesus (pbuh) didn't tell people he would die for their sins. The people invented this concept afterwards. Those who like inventing falsehood, God lets them do excactly that.

God could have prevented the incident of the golden calf by sending Moses (pbuh) on time but He didn't resulting in the people going astray. This doesn't mean that God is to blame. See, had the Christians only believed that Jesus (pbuh) died, there really wouldn't be that much of problem. The problem is they innovated the idea that Jesus (pbuh) died for their sins. Jesus (pbuh) became their golden calf. Substituting Jesus (pbuh) for somebody else was to render the Jews' plot in vain. If the Christians got deceived at the same time, it just reveals their hidden paganism/disbelief excactly like the worshippers of the calf.

People invented no such concept. You haven't read Isaiah 53 that tells why and how Jesus was to die. Jesus' death on the cross fulfills that prophecy. Jesus prayed in the garden that the cup of suffering could pass but God's will be done. Jesus spoke of His death and ressurection in the new testament. the Bible is repelet with prophecy concerning Jesus' death. And many OT events point to His death. I believe the real deception is to get people to believe that he didn't die so they won't come to accept God's gift of salvation for the remission of sin. God is just; therefore, we must pay for our sin, if we don't have Jesus' shed blood for our atonement. If not, you are on your own.
Those people who haven't been exposed to the Truth still have hope. Christians of the past who weren't warned because the Message of Islam didn't reach them can still enter Paradise. On the Day of Judgement, they will be asked to enter Hell by God. If they do, they will find it safe and cool and will be admitted into Paradise after that brief but tremendous trial. If they don't, they are thrown into Hell. This applies to all disbelievers who weren't exposed to the Truth, not just Christians.

Jesus said, "I am the Truth...." He didn't say I show you the truth! He said, "NO one comes to God except through me" The Bible says how shall we escape the judgment of God if we neglect so great a salvation? There is no remission of sin without the shedding of blood. You'll have to pay for your own sin because God is just. If He let us in without the payment for our sin, He wouldn't be just. God's mercy has been provided through Jesus. We have to meet Him on His terms not ours.

Edited by aj4u

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I have read Isaiah 53, it isn't speaking of Jesus (pbuh): (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 yetjewsforjudaism(contact admin if its a beneficial link)/index.php?option=com_content&view=article&id=313:isaiah-53&catid=72:scriptural-studies&Itemid=507"]you can't post links until you reach 50 posts_you are not allowed to post links yetjewsforjudaism(contact admin if its a beneficial link)/index.php?op...&Itemid=507[/url]

 

I have looked at passages that are claimed to be prophecies about Jesus (pbuh). Some are grossly taken out of context and plain false such as this: (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 yetjewsforjudaism(contact admin if its a beneficial link)/index.php?option=com_content&view=article&id=68:what-about-matthew-hosea-111-and-being-called-out-of-egypt&catid=58:birth-of-jesus&Itemid=488"]you can't post links until you reach 50 posts_you are not allowed to post links yetjewsforjudaism(contact admin if its a beneficial link)/index.php?op...&Itemid=488[/url]

 

Of course the NT says that Jesus (pbuh) said he would die for our sins. Christians, who came up with the idea that he died for our sins, wrote the NT. Of course they are going to have Jesus (pbuh) saying that he will die for our sins. There is no proof that the Gospels were written by men who knew Jesus (pbuh). This is the position of modern NT scholarship. Do a seach on it. The Gospels are considered anonymous works.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
I have read Isaiah 53, it isn't speaking of Jesus (pbuh): (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 yetjewsforjudaism(contact admin if its a beneficial link)/index.php?option=com_content&view=article&id=313:isaiah-53&catid=72:scriptural-studies&Itemid=507"]you can't post links until you reach 50 posts_you are not allowed to post links yetjewsforjudaism(contact admin if its a beneficial link)/index.php?op...&Itemid=507[/url]

 

I have looked at passages that are claimed to be prophecies about Jesus (pbuh). Some are grossly taken out of context and plain false such as this: (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 yetjewsforjudaism(contact admin if its a beneficial link)/index.php?option=com_content&view=article&id=68:what-about-matthew-hosea-111-and-being-called-out-of-egypt&catid=58:birth-of-jesus&Itemid=488"]you can't post links until you reach 50 posts_you are not allowed to post links yetjewsforjudaism(contact admin if its a beneficial link)/index.php?op...&Itemid=488[/url]

 

Of course the NT says that Jesus (pbuh) said he would die for our sins. Christians, who came up with the idea that he died for our sins, wrote the NT. Of course they are going to have Jesus (pbuh) saying that he will die for our sins. There is no proof that the Gospels were written by men who knew Jesus (pbuh). This is the position of modern NT scholarship. Do a seach on it. The Gospels are considered anonymous works.

So Is 53 is not speaking of Jesus? you say. Why would the apostles in the NT say Jesus died and rose for our sin if it didn't happen? Why would they risk their lives to preach a tale. Friend, if you don't repent, I want to see you personally on judgment day. Satan is & has been going through a lot of trouble to try and cover up Jesus' prophecied comming, death and resurrection. I don't know what else to tell you. I am tried of trying to convince you.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Friend, if you don't repent, I want to see you personally on judgment day.

What does that mean? Are you going to gloat over him if he is wrong or do you think there is something you can do to help him at that point in time?

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
I cannot stand idle watching someone burn alive in a building can you? Can my brother in Christ do this, if your reading?

 

But they did not receive Him, because His face was set for the journey to Jerusalem.

And when His disciples James and John saw this, they said, "Lord, do You want us to command fire to come down from heaven and consume them, just as Elijah did?"

But He turned and rebuked them, and said, "You do not know what manner of spirit you are of."

 

Bible, Luke 9:53 -55

 

Who is burning? Who is on a 'highway to hell'? There are Muslims who think non-Muslims will go to hell; there are Christians who think non-Christians will go to hell.

Well, prepare for a shock! God is love, and looks at the heart of each one of us, and not only that, he seeks to help each one of us also, for he is kind and loves mankind.

 

Peace in Christ our Saviour,

 

Richard

PS. The stuff Muslims seems to be saying about the Bible is just pointless, just like some of the stuff said about the Quran. Sit back and consider, that's all. I'm leaving this thread now. Bye! :sl:

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
What you are saying here is that you don't appreciate people that know something about the Quran.... If you don't know nothing about something, that actually means you know something!

 

That's the most absurd and moronic thing you have said to date; congratulations.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
I find it beneath us to point out alleged contradictions, daft teachings, corruptions in either the Bible or Quran: it is not an interesting debate, because we could just go to the web site of the other's religion and probably guess what will be said. And the chances of either one changing their opinion is very slim: even the very concept of revelation is different.

 

I dont find it beneath us, and the scholars that walked out of the meeting with emperor Constitine didn't find it beneath them in fact they foud it very disturbing that they was infusing Jesus with greek and roman mythology and making Jesus divine. Other ones sat in there and helped to code the language in hopes that one day the coded language would be found out and understood. If you are a true student of the Bible then you would earnstly study the history of the Bible and you will see what happened to scripture. Put emotions aside and look at the history of it and study world mythology and look at how Jesus and the trinity and all that line right up with ancient egypt mythology and greek and roman mythology.

Then take the Quran and do the same thing, look at what the Quran is addressing, see what it is saying , put the Quran to the test as well, dont just look at a vese and take it out of context read it and try to understand it. And then you would see a relationship between Quran and Bible, a relationship between Muhammad and Jesus and all other Prophets. But if we take a position that it is beneath us then you are subjected to reading a book with out even studying it and accepting what has been givin to you. Then that doesnt qualify you to speak on the book it on qualifies you to be a reader thats it.

 

 

We Christians have a special place in heaven?

 

Of course, wouldn't you want a special place in heaven?? Muslims have aspecial place in hevan as well,, as well as all who do good and rigeteous deeds have their reward with God.

 

 

Outwardly, I am very guilty of shirk: I kiss images of saints. Surely I am going to go to hell!!! I would love to get an answer to my points raised in this post,

 

1) Is it idolatry to make an image of a person, especially of the prophets?

 

2) Is it idolatry to kiss them? remember that you Muslims kiss the Black Stone

:

 

 

answer to number 1 is yes!

 

number 2

The black stone is not kissed in adoration of idolatry at all. It is part of a ritual not a idol worshiping ritual. The black stone is the cornerstone that has been put into that house by Abraham. in the Bible it speaks about the corner stone as well. Kissing the black stone is symbolic and takes away from idol worship, the muslim knows that the black stone is not Allah, nor do we say it is Allah, nor do we make the stone out to be any diety whatsoever in connection with God or as God. The black stone is a representation of ourselves the human being, you ever hear of the saying "the kiss of death" well there is also the "kiss of life" as well. The whole ritual is about the human being comming back to his original human nature. There is absolutly no worship whatsoever in the kissing of the black stone and that is the difference! Errecting pictures of men, saints, Prophets , God, and kissing them is all forms of worship. Why would a grown man kiss a picture or a statue of another man, it is because he loves that man more than he loves himself. And that type of love is only supposed to be for God and not no saints or Prophets or idols. And that is what makes that practice idol worship.

 

If your away from your church for a long period of time and you come back and you love god so much that you say thank you God for bringing me back home to worship you and you kiss the church on a wall, that is not idol worship. You acknowledged God and you only kissing a building that you worship God from but that building is not in your mind God or godlike.

But if you kiss pics or carvings of men, prophets, saints,scholars, the question then comes up...why are you doing that? Because automaticly you have placed that man between the love that should be for God and if your not placing that man before God then you wouldnt be kissing the pic or the statue of that person.

 

 

 

Discussing differing points of view is far better than poking at each other's 'holy book'.

 

i agree poking is wrong, but we have to also see how infomation is given and recieved, if we are not open to study then emotions will block every thing out and all of a sudden what is a simple point of view becomes an open challenge and then the conversation gets derailed because somebody cant answer the question or refuses to study the question and has no answer for the question.

 

True, they do openly and boldly

 

 

Not once has the Prophet Muhamamd ever went into a church and openly tried to secretly convert christians. Muslims respect the people who follow the bible and their religion and we dont make it a habit of going into a church for the sole purpose of cnverting anybody. One of our fundemental teaching is this..that it is God who guides people to Islam and that there is no forcing in religion, and that all we are supposed to do is give the message, and the message is giving by how we live our lives. And how we wlive our lives is what attracted many people to become muslim. If going into a church to try an sway people to become muslim was practice im sure the church would restrict muslims from comming into their church. And that practice would be wide spread amongst muslims.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
I dont find it beneath us, and the scholars that walked out of the meeting with emperor Constitine didn't find it beneath them in fact they foud it very disturbing that they was infusing Jesus with greek and roman mythology and making Jesus divine.

You mean the Arians who believed that Jesus was created at the beginning of time, the first and greatest of creation? These the noble scholars who were furious about greek and roman mythology?

 

The black stone is not kissed in adoration of idolatry at all. It is part of a ritual not a idol worshiping ritual. The black stone is the cornerstone that has been put into that house by Abraham. in the Bible it speaks about the corner stone as well. Kissing the black stone is symbolic and takes away from idol worship, the muslim knows that the black stone is not Allah, nor do we say it is Allah, nor do we make the stone out to be any diety whatsoever in connection with God or as God. The black stone is a representation of ourselves the human being, you ever hear of the saying "the kiss of death" well there is also the "kiss of life" as well. The whole ritual is about the human being comming back to his original human nature. There is absolutly no worship whatsoever in the kissing of the black stone and that is the difference!

Interestingly, this is almost exactly how Eastern Orthodox describe iconography in their worship as well. I didn't realize there was this much similarity.

 

If your away from your church for a long period of time and you come back and you love god so much that you say thank you God for bringing me back home to worship you and you kiss the church on a wall, that is not idol worship. You acknowledged God and you only kissing a building that you worship God from but that building is not in your mind God or godlike.

But if you kiss pics or carvings of men, prophets, saints,scholars, the question then comes up...why are you doing that? Because automaticly you have placed that man between the love that should be for God and if your not placing that man before God then you wouldnt be kissing the pic or the statue of that person.

But by that logic, aren't you have placed the wall of the church before God? Of course not, and I am fairly sure that the Orthodox are able to distinguish between a picture of a man and God just as you are able to do so.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
You mean the Arians who believed that Jesus was created at the beginning of time, the first and greatest of creation? These the noble scholars who were furious about greek and roman mythology?

 

No not those, im speaking of those who was arguing that Jesus is not divine many scholars left who didnt agree with Jesus being divine, to say Jesus is the greatet is not of the scholars im speaking about

 

Interestingly, this is almost exactly how Eastern Orthodox describe iconography in their worship as well. I didn't realize there was this much similarity.

 

In our worship we have many rituals that have vast meanings as well.

 

 

But by that logic, aren't you have placed the wall of the church before God? Of course not, and I am fairly sure that the Orthodox are able to distinguish between a picture of a man and God just as you are able to do so.

 

No a picture or an idol is a personification of a person, a person when you go to kiss a pic or statue of Mary is kissing an idol of a person. No its a wall its not placing it before God because its a wall not an idol, it is not a personification of a person.

 

The black stone is not an idol, at all kissing pics and statues of people is idols

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
No not those, im speaking of those who was arguing that Jesus is not divine many scholars left who didnt agree with Jesus being divine, to say Jesus is the greatet is not of the scholars im speaking about

Yes, the Arians are those people who were arguing that Jesus was not divine and who left the first ecumenical council. Those are the scholars you are speaking about.

 

No a picture or an idol is a personification of a person, a person when you go to kiss a pic or statue of Mary is kissing an idol of a person. No its a wall its not placing it before God because its a wall not an idol, it is not a personification of a person.

Of course it is a personification. Any representation of a person is a personification. But why does that make it an idol if you aren't worshipping it? And how do I know you aren't worshipping the wall, or the architect who designed the wall or the mason who built the wall or the financier who paid for the wall or even the person for whom the building, including the wall, were dedicated to? Why would it matter if it is a personification? I would think if you worship it and it isn't God then it is an idol, no matter what it looks like.

 

The black stone is not an idol, at all kissing pics and statues of people is idols

My mother is not just a picture, she is a person, the ultimate personification would be the person themselves, right? And I have kissed her. Have I committed idolatry? I am afraid I have also done the same thing with my wife and my children. Again, why does it matter if it is a personification instead of whether or not you are worshipping it, whatever it may be, as a god?

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
That's the most absurd and moronic thing you have said to date; congratulations.

Why? if a person says he doesn't known nothing about the Bible or the Quran it means he knows something about them. Tell me what you find moronic about that before you congratulate me. In other words. what is moronic? Even in math two negatives equal a positive. Didn't you know that? If I said something moronic, it could be cause I have heard so many moronic statments since I have been posting that it is beginning to affect me. So tell me why my statment is moronic. Keep in mind you can tell more about a person from what he says about others than what others say about him. Think carefully before you respond!

Edited by aj4u

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
I dont find it beneath us, and the scholars that walked out of the meeting with emperor Constitine didn't find it beneath them in fact they foud it very disturbing that they was infusing Jesus with greek and roman mythology and making Jesus divine. Other ones sat in there and helped to code the language in hopes that one day the coded language would be found out and understood. If you are a true student of the Bible then you would earnstly study the history of the Bible and you will see what happened to scripture. Put emotions aside and look at the history of it and study world mythology and look at how Jesus and the trinity and all that line right up with ancient egypt mythology and greek and roman mythology.

I was going to leave this topic, but seeing the absurd misinformation of the above has caused me to come in to right a clear wrong. Dear Muslims, you do not like it when we suggest that Uthman corrupted the Quran - even though I still have some interesting points about this, but thought it would be pointless to discuss them. Uthman for Islam, Nicea for Christians. Christianity had spread far outside the Roman empire, a strong community being in India. The Chaldean Christians (i.e. those in the far east, who went to China also) accept the Nicene creed. Emperor Constantine held no authority over them, but they accepted his teaching as being the same as theirs. By the way, Egyptian and Greek etc mythology is a corruption of ancient pre-israelite religion (Abraham and earlier). King Solomon's temple had statues in it; it looked like idolatry, but wasn't. This is the religion of Allaah. Millennia before, the Egyptians saw this religion and corrupted it into idolatry. If you want to know more please start a new topic - I can't stand one topic being used for another!

 

(Forgive me, aj4u and other Christians, but us writing on Uthman and other things is like Muslims writing on Nicea: how could the emperor have corrupted Christianity when it had spread far outside his control? You did not like to hear of this so-called corruption, so I'm just trying to make you aware that Muslims feel the same way when we talk about Uthman. Sorry :sl: )

 

The black stone is not kissed in adoration of idolatry at all. ...

Please see my reply in that topic - I like to keep topics separate ...

(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=726593&pid=1246611&st=80entry1246611"]Post #84[/url]

 

Not once has the Prophet Muhamamd ever went into a church and openly tried to secretly convert christians.

No, but the King of Ethiopia put a paper copy of Islamic teaching on Jesus beneath his shirt and told his people, when touching this paper, that this is what he believed. The people thought he meant Christian teachings, but he deceptively referred to Islamic teaching.

 

 

Then take the Quran and do the same thing, look at what the Quran is addressing, see what it is saying , put the Quran to the test as well, dont just look at a vese and take it out of context read it and try to understand it. And then you would see a relationship between Quran and Bible, a relationship between Muhammad and Jesus and all other Prophets. But if we take a position that it is beneath us then you are subjected to reading a book with out even studying it and accepting what has been givin to you. Then that doesnt qualify you to speak on the book it on qualifies you to be a reader thats it.

 

I've just thought of a Quranic passage which is relevant to this topic, but I have to go now so will post later. Wouldn't it be good to actually discuss "Muslims Attending Church Service" in a topic of the same name!

 

Richard

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Why? if a person says he doesn't known nothing about the Bible or the Quran it means he knows something about them. Tell me what you find moronic about that before you congratulate me. In other words. what is moronic? Even in math two negatives equal a positive. Didn't you know that? If I said something moronic, it could be cause I have heard so many moronic statments since I have been posting that it is beginning to affect me. So tell me why my statment is moronic. Keep in mind you can tell more about a person from what he says about others than what others say about him. Think carefully before you respond!

 

Can you show me where I used two negatives? Otherwise accept what you said was moronic and irrelevant.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
I was going to leave this topic, but seeing the absurd misinformation of the above has caused me to come in to right a clear wrong. Dear Muslims, you do not like it when we suggest that Uthman corrupted the Quran - even though I still have some interesting points about this, but thought it would be pointless to discuss them. Uthman for Islam, Nicea for Christians. Christianity had spread far outside the Roman empire, a strong community being in India. The Chaldean Christians (i.e. those in the far east, who went to China also) accept the Nicene creed. Emperor Constantine held no authority over them, but they accepted his teaching as being the same as theirs. By the way, Egyptian and Greek etc mythology is a corruption of ancient pre-israelite religion (Abraham and earlier). King Solomon's temple had statues in it; it looked like idolatry, but wasn't. This is the religion of Allaah. Millennia before, the Egyptians saw this religion and corrupted it into idolatry.

 

 

What Uthman did verses what Constantine did is night and day, Constantine took Jesus and made him divine and incorporated greek mythology in the Bible. Constantine did not only have followers of Jesus in this meeting he had numerous of different scholars. Now what Uthman did was the total opposite if you studied the Islamic history on this. You would see that it was a group of people (the readers) who was going around trying to overthrow the present government in which Uthman was the head of state.

 

This group of people also had claimed to study the Quran and were scholarly in the Quran and also what they had as a quran was the quran mixed with other stuff as well. What Uthman did was compiled the Quran into one book…now it should be understood that the Quran was a constant practice of committing to memory and writing it down already. And there were a multitude thousands of persons who could recite the whole Quran. So what Uthman did was put the Quran into a single Book and gave a governmental order to burn all other Qurans.

 

Because the group of people(readers) had tried to corrupt the Quran and tried to gain political power.And guess what.. when the Quran was compiled , which was checked thoroughly by reciters of the quran including Uthman as well and many others. Many of those who claimed to have the quran when they recited they were considered false because what they were reciting was NOT the Quran and not one of the “readers” books were left…not one.And their uprising and trying to establish themselves as a head of government failed. And the Quran that had been around before Uthman was the head of state was still in its original order and in accordance to how its recited.

 

Constantine on the other hand never studied Christianity nor was he a student of the bible old or newtestement. Yet he brought all differing aspects about the bible and infused it into one book. If Uthman infused what the readers did and made one Quran with what the readers was doing then and only then would we say that Uthman was like Constantine. But he wasn’t and the situations wasn’t the same. Now yes Christianity is and was spread but what book do you read?? King James??? Majority of Christians today read what was the out come of the council of nicea and the king james version ..well that’s a whole story.

 

 

 

(Forgive me, aj4u and other Christians, but us writing on Uthman and other things is like Muslims writing on Nicea: how could the emperor have corrupted Christianity when it had spread far outside his control? You did not like to hear of this so-called corruption, so I'm just trying to make you aware that Muslims feel the same way when we talk about Uthman. Sorry :sl: )

 

Its not the same if you study the history of both events then you would see the difference. I dont have no deep emotinal feelings i do have a thirst to study history and to look into the facts.

 

 

No, but the King of Ethiopia put a paper copy of Islamic teaching on Jesus beneath his shirt and told his people, when touching this paper, that this is what he believed. The people thought he meant Christian teachings, but he deceptively referred to Islamic teaching.

 

 

 

Your forgetting that the king was a Christian ruler talking to his Christian brothers and sisters, now what would happen if a man in his position openly said i am muslim, they would have either killed him or removed him, so he had to keep his feeling about Jesus hidden as to not to cause trouble with his following. But he accepted the Qurans version of Jesus and He was a Christian

Edited by twoswordali

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Yes, the Arians are those people who were arguing that Jesus was not divine and who left the first ecumenical council. Those are the scholars you are speaking about.

Of course it is a personification. Any representation of a person is a personification. But why does that make it an idol if you aren't worshipping it? And how do I know you aren't worshipping the wall, or the architect who designed the wall or the mason who built the wall or the financier who paid for the wall or even the person for whom the building, including the wall, were dedicated to? Why would it matter if it is a personification? I would think if you worship it and it isn't God then it is an idol, no matter what it looks like.

My mother is not just a picture, she is a person, the ultimate personification would be the person themselves, right? And I have kissed her. Have I committed idolatry? I am afraid I have also done the same thing with my wife and my children. Again, why does it matter if it is a personification instead of whether or not you are worshipping it, whatever it may be, as a god?

 

 

Arian was one of the scholars but they wasn’t called arianism or a group of arians at that time they were followers of Jesus …man Wikipedia really mess people up sometimes Anyway Arian taught that jesus was divine he just taught that Jesus was inferior to God the father where as others called the whole trinity and Jesus being divine and there were a group who said that Jesus was not divine and a mere mortal. There were others who believed that Jesus was a prophet as well. Keep studying it you will see

 

Of course it is a personification. Any representation of a person is a personification. But why does that make it an idol if you aren't worshipping it? And how do I know you aren't worshipping the wall, or the architect who designed the wall or the mason who built the wall or the financier who paid for the wall or even the person for whom the building, including the wall, were dedicated to? Why would it matter if it is a personification? I would think if you worship it and it isn't God then it is an idol, no matter what it looks like.

 

If they are worshipping the wall or the architect or the mason ect ect. Then it is idol worship. And your being pedantic, because even the Jews have the wailing wall but we all know that they are not worshipping the wall. When you take God and put it into the image of a man or a woman that automatically constitutes as idol worship. God says not to make any GRAVEN images in the Bible, so if you are a follower of the bible and Jesus came to uphold the law not to change it …then you should not have no images in your church of Mary, Jesus or saints bottom line

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Arian was one of the scholars but they wasn't called arianism or a group of arians at that time they were followers of Jesus …man Wikipedia really mess people up sometimes Anyway Arian taught that jesus was divine he just taught that Jesus was inferior to God the father where as others called the whole trinity and Jesus being divine and there were a group who said that Jesus was not divine and a mere mortal. There were others who believed that Jesus was a prophet as well. Keep studying it you will see

I did study. Remember me, the guy who studied himself right out of Christianity? BTW, I didn't get that information from wikipedia. I got it from multiple scholarly works devoted to early Christian history. Here is an example of what I am talking about: ((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 yetamazon(contact admin if its a beneficial link)/Rise-Christianity-W-H-Frend/dp/0800619315/ref=cm_cr_pr_product_top"]you can't post links until you reach 50 posts_you are not allowed to post links yetamazon(contact admin if its a beneficial link)/Rise-Christianity-W-..._pr_product_top[/url]). Let me know if that isn't scholarly enough for you. I can mention more. I am confident that I know more about this subject than you do.

 

If they are worshipping the wall or the architect or the mason ect ect. Then it is idol worship. And your being pedantic, because even the Jews have the wailing wall but we all know that they are not worshipping the wall. When you take God and put it into the image of a man or a woman that automatically constitutes as idol worship. God says not to make any GRAVEN images in the Bible, so if you are a follower of the bible and Jesus came to uphold the law not to change it …then you should not have no images in your church of Mary, Jesus or saints bottom line

But are these Orthodox Christians taking God and putting him into the image of a man or woman? Or are these images of men and women who had devoted their lives to God and are considered not God, but fellow travelers in the way of faith who have succeeded in their journey and are now encouraging todays Christians to strive as they did and receive the heavenly prize as they did? As far as I know, no one is claiming to worship these images as God.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
No not those, im speaking of those who was arguing that Jesus is not divine many scholars left who didnt agree with Jesus being divine, to say Jesus is the greatet is not of the scholars im speaking about

In our worship we have many rituals that have vast meanings as well.

No a picture or an idol is a personification of a person, a person when you go to kiss a pic or statue of Mary is kissing an idol of a person. No its a wall its not placing it before God because its a wall not an idol, it is not a personification of a person.

 

The black stone is not an idol, at all kissing pics and statues of people is idols

 

 

Can you show me where I used two negatives? Otherwise accept what you said was moronic and irrelevant.

No. it wouldn't mean I was a moron; it would mean I misread what you wrote. Do you know the difference between a moron and a mistake? Why are you so rude?

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
No. it wouldn't mean I was a moron; it would mean I misread what you wrote. Do you know the difference between a moron and a mistake? Why are you so rude?

 

I'm sorry if I come across as being rude, but I can't see sincerity in your posts at all and it seems you're just here to bash Islaam whilst promoting Christianity. Maybe I shouldn't have used the word moron, maybe I made a mistake too.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
What Uthman did verses what Constantine did is night and day, Constantine took Jesus and made him divine and incorporated greek mythology in the Bible. Constantine did not only have followers of Jesus in this meeting he had numerous of different scholars.

 

By mentioning Uthman and Constantine I only meant to imply that non-Muslims can debate Uthman endlessly to try to discredit Islaam, and non-Christians can debate Constantine endlessly to try to discredit Christianity.

 

Ok - I am perfectly happy to ignore any Christianity related to the Roman Empire. Yet bishops from Ireland in the far west and from India and beyond in the far east agreed that they had the same faith, which just so happened was the same as the Nicene creed. Their faith was independent of the Roman Empire and Constantine, but was the same because Constantine did not innovate.

 

Constantine on the other hand never studied Christianity nor was he a student of the bible old or newtestement. Yet he brought all differing aspects about the bible and infused it into one book.

 

Conatantine was the chairman of the meeting.

 

If you wish me to go on and on about Uthman supposedly changing the Quran then I will do. I do not want to because I know just knocking someone's faith is pointless; it is far better to point to what is higher and more noble than try to bash down. I will accept your interpretation about Uthman if you will accept my interpretation about Constantine. I will only talk about Uthman so you can see how wrong it is for you to talk about Constantine.

 

Richard

 

:sl: - still smiling but hoping you will treat Christianity as you would like Islaam treated - asking questions, some probing, but always available to change your mind.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I have to agree with EasternQibla here. Constantine had no theological influence on Christianity. The the idea of Jesus (pbuh) being God, the Son of God and Lord, were already firmly rooted when Constantine got on the scene. Constantine did give Christianity (Trinitarian) a major political backing, of course, but to claim that he came up with the idea of Jesus (pbuh) being Divine is not correct.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Then take the Quran and do the same thing, look at what the Quran is addressing, see what it is saying , put the Quran to the test as well, dont just look at a vese and take it out of context read it and try to understand it. And then you would see a relationship between Quran and Bible, a relationship between Muhammad and Jesus and all other Prophets. But if we take a position that it is beneath us then you are subjected to reading a book with out even studying it and accepting what has been givin to you. Then that doesnt qualify you to speak on the book it on qualifies you to be a reader thats it.

 

I am in favour of studying, but throwing around differences in translations and various readings is pointless: I could do the same with the Quran, see (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=735929&st=20"]"Christian And Jewish Scriptures, page 2, posts #22 and 26 "[/url]. Remember, I could write more, but do not wish to do so.

 

Regarding attending church services, I did not at first realise that this topic was a reference to "Can Muslims attend church service to secretly revert weak Christians back to Islam?" (#1), so I put my controversial thoughts in another topic: (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=736859&st=20&gopid=1246954"]Islamic Forum > Islamic Forums > Islamic-Western Dialogue "Can Muslims Visit A Church On A Sunday?" page 2 Post #26[/url]

 

Peace, peace, peace

 

Richard

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
I did study. Remember me, the guy who studied himself right out of Christianity? BTW, I didn't get that information from wikipedia. I got it from multiple scholarly works devoted to early Christian history. Here is an example of what I am talking about: ((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 yetamazon(contact admin if its a beneficial link)/Rise-Christianity-W-H-Frend/dp/0800619315/ref=cm_cr_pr_product_top"]you can't post links until you reach 50 posts_you are not allowed to post links yetamazon(contact admin if its a beneficial link)/Rise-Christianity-W-..._pr_product_top[/url]). Let me know if that isn't scholarly enough for you. I can mention more. I am confident that I know more about this subject than you do.

 

 

Confidence does not equate to truth, braggingthat you know more than another person shows unintelligence for you have no idea who i am what ive studyied ect ect nor do i know of you and i would never take a position of arrogance as to say i know more than so an so. Discuss the topic this isnt a battle of my wits verses yours. If you did study then you would come to know the others as well.

 

But are these Orthodox Christians taking God and putting him into the image of a man or woman? Or are these images of men and women who had devoted their lives to God and are considered not God, but fellow travelers in the way of faith who have succeeded in their journey and are now encouraging todays Christians to strive as they did and receive the heavenly prize as they did? As far as I know, no one is claiming to worship these images as God.

 

Irregaurdless what are the images doing in a church?? Why are they being kissed, idol worship is not always openly addmitted its the behaviour of a people sometimes that show that what their doing is idolotry. Jesus had to show this to his people and Moses had to show this to his people.

 

 

 

 

By mentioning Uthman and Constantine I only meant to imply that non-Muslims can debate Uthman endlessly to try to discredit Islaam, and non-Christians can debate Constantine endlessly to try to discredit Christianity.

 

Ok - I am perfectly happy to ignore any Christianity related to the Roman Empire. Yet bishops from Ireland in the far west and from India and beyond in the far east agreed that they had the same faith, which just so happened was the same as the Nicene creed. Their faith was independent of the Roman Empire and Constantine, but was the same because Constantine did not innovate.

 

 

If their faith was independent then why is it the christianity that is wide spread today is a direct result from the council of nicea, rome intertwined mythology with Jesus that is a fact you can ignore it if you want but that is a fact.

 

Conatantine was the chairman of the meeting.

 

That does not excuse him from heading up and starting the meeting and being responsible for what had happened. He was happy with whatever out come they had came to.

 

If you wish me to go on and on about Uthman supposedly changing the Quran then I will do. I do not want to because I know just knocking someone's faith is pointless; it is far better to point to what is higher and more noble than try to bash down. I will accept your interpretation about Uthman if you will accept my interpretation about Constantine. I will only talk about Uthman so you can see how wrong it is for you to talk about Constantine.

 

By all means you can do this and you will see that Uthman's record is clean and comes out on top but constitine doesent. How could a man who is not even of the faith HEAD a meeting to discuss the matter of the faith, and then allow for the wrong interpretation to be giving. Uthman was a muslim and knew the Quran and so did evey one else who took part in that discusion big big difference.

 

 

 

 

I have to agree with EasternQibla here. Constantine had no theological influence on Christianity. The the idea of Jesus (pbuh) being God, the Son of God and Lord, were already firmly rooted when Constantine got on the scene. Constantine did give Christianity (Trinitarian) a major political backing, of course, but to claim that he came up with the idea of Jesus (pbuh) being Divine is not correct.

 

Again that does not excuse constitine whatsoever, he wanted the people to be unitied and he done whatever he wanted to make sure that that happened. So Jesus being divine or not was not a major concern for him and it was these type of things that led to the event of Prophet Muhammad comming. Constitine had no right to hold or host or rule over a debate if he didnt even understand what the debate was all about. He was only motivated by power thats it and he is held accountable.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Again that does not excuse constitine whatsoever, he wanted the people to be unitied and he done whatever he wanted to make sure that that happened. So Jesus being divine or not was not a major concern for him and it was these type of things that led to the event of Prophet Muhammad comming. Constitine had no right to hold or host or rule over a debate if he didnt even understand what the debate was all about. He was only motivated by power thats it and he is held accountable.

 

As-salamu alaikum

 

I agree with you on the above. Constantine is definately accountable and provided a major political backing for the Trinity, no doubt, which cannot be underestimated. I agree that he didn't really care. But it would be false to claim that Constantine was the one who invented the Trinity or made Jesus (pbuh) divine. That idea was invented long, long before he was even born. In the end, it was decided by the bishops and they (the one who took part in the council of Nicaea) weren't the first to invent it, either.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Create an account or sign in to comment

You need to be a member in order to leave a comment

Create an account

Sign up for a new account in our community. It's easy!

Register a new account

Sign in

Already have an account? Sign in here.

Sign In Now


×