Truth Obscured

[HRea]

Originally Posted by bbyrd009

I should prolly warn you that agreeing with me on this forum (or for that matter, any other forum ) is not healthy...there are several ordained ministers here convinced that Allah is the antichrist, and I suggest you get lined up and start cursing Muslims if you want to be popular.

1. We're not cursing muslims; you keep trying to make this personal but it isn't

2. allah may or may not be the antichrist, you'll need to ask him yourself about this; but the koran has teachings that are certainly antichrist in their nature

3. agreeing or disagreeing - it's by open discussion that we learn from each other and come to a better understanding. The Bible does teach that "iron sharpens iron".

Following up on #2 above, there are 3 very important aspects where the Bible and the koran conflict, and these 3 are HUGE (definitely biggies):

1. the koran teaches that Jesus was not crucified and nor did He die for sins of any, for none can bear the sins of another; the Bible teaches that the crucifixion of Jesus is the central theme of New Testament salvation and His shed blood is the atonement for our sins; Jesus bore our sins on the cross. The Bible states through Paul that if Christ was not crucified, then our faith is vain.

2. the koran teaches that allah had no son, neither was he planning to have a son; the Bible teach that God gave His only begotten Son for our salvation. The Bible teaches that it is antichrist to deny the Son. In addition, the revelation of who Jesus is (Emmanuel, God with us, God manifest in flesh) has nor corresponding concept in the koran. The koran teaches that the very idea of having a begotten son, let alone manifesting himself in flesh is offensive to allah.

3. the koran teaches salvation by works; the Bible teaches salvation by Grace

[bbyrd009]

Ty for your response. My last post was extreme,
and I'm having to answer this on the fly, so...

1) I'm not Muslim, so it really isn't personal to me.
My last post just reflects my response to what I viewed
as looking for monsters, and erroneously finding Muslims a convenient one.

2) And yet the Qur'an states very plainly
that Christ is the way, and is to be followed,
and hell is the price to be paid for not doing so.

3) Amen. It isn't discussion that I would inhibit,
but uninformed accusations.

1) ...I'm not qualified to respond here; I am aware
of the verses you mention, and admit that Christ is
not prayed to by a Muslim (and should not be by a Christian, either).
I think this concept is most closely reflected in Christ's calling Himself
"Son of Man," and the Muslim response to Him reflects
the then current influence of the early Romish church.

Who here doesn't have issues with some, many,
Catholic practices? And yet I cannot call them lost,
having worked with practicing Catholics. You might consider
that Christ has many names, and they are just the other end
of the spectrum in this matter.
For instance, Christ has earned the title "Good,"
and a strong Scriptural argument can be made
that anyone who does good follows Christ.

I actually have not found the
"Christ was not crucified" quote
in the Qur'an.

2) And yet, 2/87 (the first ref I turned to, there are prolly better ones)
"...We gave Jesus the Son of Mary clear signs,
and strengthened Him with the Holy Spirit.

Is it that whenever there comes to you
a Messenger with what you yourselves
do not desire, you are puffed up with pride?"

Seems apropos.

3) "A good deed covers many sins."

I hope this might get someone, one person,
to reflect that although the forms are different,
and the culture is alien to you, Muslims who
faithfully follow the Qur'an are not your enemy,
and any arguments that attempt this might
be explained in the context of Religion,
and end up being semantics discussions.

My chief aim here is to illuminate that
your eye shows your premises;
if you look for boogeymen, a la Fox news,
you will find them.

[HRea]

Originally Posted by bbyrd009

2) And yet the Qur'an states very plainly
that Christ is the way, and is to be followed,
and hell is the price to be paid for not doing so.

One of the subtleties in the koran is that Christ is only for the "people of the Book" and not for everyone. Because of our discussion about this, I've been reading several pro-islamic scholar sites (specifically to get a pro-bias understanding of their views), and this is one of the topics universally discussed.

Originally Posted by bbyrd009

I actually have not found the
"Christ was not crucified" quote
in the Qur'an.

The quote is actually "nor crucified him"; the extended quote is "but they killed him not, nor crucified him, but it was made to appear to them so". Again, most of the pro-islamic scholars interpret this to mean that allah executed a clever ruse to make it appear that the enemies of Christ had won, when, in fact, allah had delivered Jesus from being crucified.

We've discussed the "Son of God" issue before, but this issue ("they killed him not, nor crucified him") is infinitely more important because it was the atoning sacrifice (blood shedding, death) of Christ on Calvary that paid the price for my sins and the sins of the world, and instituted the New Covenant (the death of the testator). The gospel of Christ (death, burial, and resurrection) is the power of God unto salvation.

Originally Posted by bbyrd009

My chief aim here is to illuminate that
your eye shows your premises;
if you look for boogeymen, a la Fox news,
you will find them.

Rest assured that none of my sources include "a la Fox news". I have made it a point to use a mixture of anti and pro-islam sites to gain insight, to see where both sides come from in their understanding of the conflicts.

[Walks_in_islam]

The "people of the book" referenced include (4) sets of monotheistic believers in God, Allah, Ehohim, all referenced as the same diety.

Nowhere in the Quran are those who follow Christ rather than follow the example of Christ (who by the way prayed to God and taught how to pray to God himself) cross referenced with the "people of the book"

It is a recognized fact that many years of Christ's ministry are lost but the few words that were recorded are recognized as a message from God Himself.

Originally Posted by HRea

One of the subtleties in the koran is that Christ is only for the "people of the Book" and not for everyone. Because of our discussion about this, I've been reading several pro-islamic scholar sites (specifically to get a pro-bias understanding of their views), and this is one of the topics universally discussed.


The quote is actually "nor crucified him"; the extended quote is "but they killed him not, nor crucified him, but it was made to appear to them so". Again, most of the pro-islamic scholars interpret this to mean that allah executed a clever ruse to make it appear that the enemies of Christ had won, when, in fact, allah had delivered Jesus from being crucified.

We've discussed the "Son of God" issue before, but this issue ("they killed him not, nor crucified him") is infinitely more important because it was the atoning sacrifice (blood shedding, death) of Christ on Calvary that paid the price for my sins and the sins of the world, and instituted the New Covenant (the death of the testator). The gospel of Christ (death, burial, and resurrection) is the power of God unto salvation.


Rest assured that none of my sources include "a la Fox news". I have made it a point to use a mixture of anti and pro-islam sites to gain insight, to see where both sides come from in their understanding of the conflicts.

[HRea]

Originally Posted by Walks_in_islam

The "people of the book" referenced include (4) sets of monotheistic believers in God, Allah, Ehohim, all referenced as the same diety.

The terms "people of the book" and "people of the scripture" refer to those who pre-date the muslim and have confessed faith in the God of Abraham - the Jews and the Christians. It doesn't include muslims, and it's not referencing to the koran. This is what I've found on pro-islam sites (not the anti-islam sites and not on "a la Fox News").

[Walks_in_islam]

Excluding Muslims as people of "their book" LOL the (3rd) referenced followers of "the book" are specifically referred to as the Sabians

Originally Posted by HRea

The terms "people of the book" and "people of the scripture" refer to those who pre-date the muslim and have confessed faith in the God of Abraham - the Jews and the Christians. It doesn't include muslims, and it's not referencing to the koran. This is what I've found on pro-islam sites (not the anti-islam sites and not on "a la Fox News").

[HRea]

Originally Posted by Walks_in_islam

Excluding Muslims as people of "their book" LOL the (3rd) referenced followers of "the book" are specifically referred to as the Sabians

LOL, it is amusing that some are confused about muslims being excluded; although it becomes much clearer why they are excluded since the koran is instructing muslims about who are and specific conduct toward the "people of the book" and "people of the scriptures". It makes perfect sense that they would be excluded.

And, LOL, the subject of the Sabians and just who they may be. Since this is a matter of recorded history, it's somewhat easy to deduce who they may be. Many groups of people have been called Sabian (or Sabean): descendants of Noah, religious sect of Sheba, an amalgamated group of Messianic Jews, the followers of John the Baptist who had yet to hear about Jesus, a secluded group of pagans who worshipped the moon god, a Persian group derived from zorastian beliefs, and a group that resurrected Egyptian idolatrous worship. Of the list and given the time frame of the writing of the koran, the followers of John the Baptist are the most likely group.

I'm a conservative apostolic christian, why am I teaching you these things?

LOL.

[bbyrd009]

Well, my reading of the Qur'an is naive, I guess, but I seem to read
unity there with Muslims and any followers after Abraham or Christ.
Ok and the constant "LOL"ing just reads as self serving, laughing at
someone else's opinion.

[bbyrd009]

Dang and I was really hoping it was not you.

[HRea]

Originally Posted by bbyrd009

Well, my reading of the Qur'an is naive, I guess, but I seem to read
unity there with Muslims and any followers after Abraham or Christ.
Ok and the constant "LOL"ing just reads as self serving, laughing at
someone else's opinion.

It was not my intention to give that impression. When walks_in_islam responded with LOL, I thought I would too to keep things from spiraling into contention. I guess I overused them and will be more judicious in my use of "LOL" in the future.