 |
I have to disagree with you on this. Paul wasn't like this at all. In the New Testament, God didn't want sacrifices, he desired mercy. Jesus was the Sacrificial Lamb. True, John & Peter explain this better than Paul;but, there is truly nothing tragic about it.Quote:
Originally Posted by ordinaryguy
Paul has had a bad press. He has even been accused of 'inventing' Christianity. However, wemust understand that Paul was the first Christian theologian, and because he labored among Greeks he had to explain what Jesus was about in terms they could understand. Although there is no continuing consistency in paul's writings - he writes to whatever matter is before him - yet it is not difficult to reconcile his positions on various essential matters with what are recorded as the teachings of Jesus.Quote:
Originally Posted by ordinaryguy
I agree somewhat about Paul's (if indeed it is Paul writing ijn Hebrews) drawing on imagery and symbolism of the Temple and its services to illustrate who and what Jesus was in his letter to Jewish Christians. We find John using similar literary techniques in his Apocalypse.
The whole point of the works of gospellers and epistolarians is to make the Christian message relevant and available in terms with which they were familiar. This is one reason why reading an English translation of the Bible in today's world conveys to non-specialists so little of what was originally intended, because most people are unable to read it through a mindset equivalent to those of Palestinians and Greeks of two thousand years ago.
It is possible that Paul's greatest point of divergence is with John's view of eschatology, but John wrote much later when the non-appearance of Jesus was troubling the saints.
Hello, and welcome to the discussion. I'm not sure I understand you. Your statement that "Jesus was the Sacrificial Lamb" seems to imply that you agree with Paul's interpretation, i.e. that Jesus' suffering and death was necessary and instrumental in effecting God's forgiveness, in the same way that the death of the animal sacrifice was essential in the temple ritual. If that's the case, I guess we do disagree.Quote:
Originally Posted by Retrotia
My contention is that the analogy between Jesus' death and the death of the animal sacrifice is a misunderstanding of Jesus' mission to reveal God as a Father who freely offers His children unconditional love, abundant mercy and willing forgiveness, not a remote and severe judge who demands the death of an innocent person as the price of forgiveness. It's the consequences of this misunderstanding that seem tragic to me.
You could not mean #80 as that was not yours. I looked at #180, but need a clearer statement of your direct question.Quote:
Originally Posted by talaniman
Sorry I wanted clarity as to your disagreement to post!#175, as your disageement made no sense to me.
Also your response to #181 about redemption where did that come from as you directed it at me in 184 when that's not what I asked at all, please explain.
For my information, which translations to you consider reliable, and/or which ones are not?Quote:
Originally Posted by Morganite
You make much of discrepancies in the Bible, but do not above 90% of all scripture remnanents agree? People who copied scripture were very careful, I understand. If the preponderance of copies agree, don't you think we may safely assume thea we are getting a correct message? Do you think that a God who could give us His word is not able to protect the purity of that word? Yes, it would be helpful to read and understand the origingal languages, but most of us cannot do that, so we depend on an English translation.
As to study, what's the problem with just reading the Book? Jesus said the Law and Prophets testify of Him. It is no great difficulty to read the English translation of those prophecies about Christ, and then read the literal fulfillment in the New Testament.
Why do you not study the koran or the torah, as they are making the same claim as you do??Quote:
Originally Posted by galveston
Different people different names, the native indians call him the great sprite, no one ever complains about that one. I guess it is based on how you serve which ever name you choose. Like the sabbath some say Saturday some says Sunday, no walls are falling over that one. People just do not know how to respect each other not even for their own ideas,opinonsQuote:
Originally Posted by galveston
I did so want to respond to you sooner but my computer crashed. Anyway, the term Sacrificial Lamb is a figurative term. In 1Corinthians 5:7,Paul says: For Christ, our Passover lamb, has been sacrificed. This has to do with Christ's death being an atonement for the sins of man. Why do you get hung up comparing Jesus' death to animal sacrifices?Quote:
Originally Posted by ordinaryguy
It certainly is a misunderstanding for you to believe that the apostle Paul, who wrote the majority of the N.T. preached that way.
Romans 5:8 But God demonstrates His own love for us in this: While we were still sinners, Christ died for us. Anyone who rejects Christ as Savior, who denies the Savior who bought him(2Peter2:1)-that person will be subject to God's wrath for eternity(Romans1:18) not His love(Romans6:23)
God's love is both unconditional & conditional.
Since I ran out of time, didn't save my text, computer crashed, & it's late- I'll refer you to this site which explains about God's unconditional & conditional love.Acts 17:11 Dialog: Is God's Love Unconditional?
Logically that does not makes any sense - it's one or the other.Quote:
Originally Posted by Retrotia
I understand the figurative analogy between Jesus and the sacrificial lamb. What I object to is the idea that his death was a necessary element in effecting a reconciliation between God and man. I don't believe that God insisted on the death of an innocent person in order to forgive and be reconciled to His children. I believe that it was Jesus' life, not his death, that was essential to our reconciliation, and that the required change was not in God's attitude toward us, but our understanding of Him.Quote:
Originally Posted by Retrotia
and the same can be said of the christian faith can't it?the birth of christ story was cooped from what you would call a pagan faith, and same with many of the other stories in the bible.Then the church pick the dates of all there holy days to coincide with pagan holidays and built their churches on the sites the earlier religions held holy,didn't they?Quote:
Originally Posted by Fr_Chuck
Quote:
Originally Posted by TheSavage
Interestying. It is certain that there are many stories of a dying and rising God - Osiris in Egypt for example, and Tammuz, etc - but the story of Jesus is of a different order because Jesus was an historic figure, and there are witrnesses to the events of his life, death and resurrection.
It is imlortant to acknowledge that the religion of ancient Israel did not sprig out of a vacuum, and that surrounding societies not only impinged on Israelie society, but also impacted its religion. This provides some similarities and parallels in the OT and in the mythology of the surrounding civilisations.
As Christianity spread it supplanted earlier creeds and gods, so what better way to demonstrate in a concrete way the superiority of Christianity over the previous gods of the new Christians. Thus, what was once a grove became a church building, what was a temple to a pagan deity became a church, and so on.
As to Christian holy-days being syperimposed on the dates of pagan festivals, it is well to remember that there are only 365 days in most years, so if you want to establish a new feast to honour a particular saint, finding a day that was not once paganised is probably impossible.
While it is undeniably true that both Judaism and Christianity enfolded some pagan notions into their respective faiths and practices, the Christianization of the day, usually indicate a complete break with the pagan past. That being so, what used to happen on that day is of no importance and has no bearing or influence on what happens on the new feast and what it celebrates.
Take your own nativity as an example. If you search you will be able to find good and bad events that took place on the same date, but that doesn't make a link to you. Separate events on the same date have only the date in common, and that is usually not significant.
My own birthday coincides with an event in the life of Adolph Hitler's life, but I assure you that apart from sharing a common date there is absolutely no significant connection between Adolph and me. Synchronicity should never be taken as evidence of connection.
M:)RGANITE
NK,Quote:
Originally Posted by NeedKarma
It is an interesting point that you address. Yet it could be argued that while God is described as 'no respecter of persons' [meaning that he does not prefer one person over another when it comes to dispensing justice, etc.] he also says "Jacob I have loved but Esau I have hated.' There are other examples, and what probably needs to be done to fathom this question is to take cases where God shows unconditional love for the whole human family and yet offers cursings for those whom oppose him, and blessings for those who obey. That could mean that he always loves all his children unconditionally but that he has set conditions to the receipt of certain blessings.
The Decalogue provides some examples of this.
The fact of variants [disagreements] in Bible texts is not in dispute. I cannot place a percentage of who agrees with what, but the book of Luke exists in ancient manuscript forms in more than 24,000 different version. I am doing no more than stating a well known truth. I am not making "much" of it. The differences are there, the textual difficulties have been demonstrated for hundreds of years, so they are facts of Bible life. Whether you choose to make much or little of them is up to you. I only mention them.Quote:
Originally Posted by galveston
The copyists were m,eant to be extremely particular and careful, but it is undeniable that errors were made by copyists. The notion that each copy was authenticated as 100% a correct copy of its 'father' is mythical. Copyists made mistakes, and some of them are glaringly obvious to Bible readers who are careful in their reading and thinling.
The problem with just reading the book is that it contains muchj from ancient cultures and modes of thought that the modern man in the street does not understand, and that means that if the contex is not available to him, he will not be able to obtain the force of the message the original monographist intended to convey.
Whatever God is or is not capable of does not change the fact that establishing the authentic text of the Bible is a minefield in which there is no general agreement. That disagreement, however, should not be made a cause of war. It is far better to search for truth with your 'enemy' than it is to get to fisticuffs with him to try to reach agreement. Bible scholars are, in the main, honest and do not represent any sectarian point of view that must be served, and so skues their interpretations.
However, many commentaries written under certain imprests [Banner of Truth, for example] are unashamedly Protestant, sola scriptura, sola fide, etc, etc, etc, in their conclusions. Others are even more pointed in supporting the views of particular sects and cults against the views of other cults and isms, but these are not honest scholarly commentaries but homiletica with a polemic chaser. From such unreliable and biased writings, turn away.
When you choose an English translation that you are at the mercy of the translator. Even reading his credentials could make him seem to be more authoritarian than he is. Ask, is he/she known and honoured among the academic corps of biblical scholars?
Two of my favourite bibklical commentaries are the SPCK, and Peake's Commentary. They are much better than most. Peake's is especially helpful to the non-specialist, as it goes into greater detail, while the SPCKs Commentary on the Holy Sciptures is more intense in its coverage of background, etc.. Introductions are no accessible to the non specialist, and these should not be approached until the groundwork has been done, and an appreciation of the history, background, sit im leben, weltgeist, and zeitgeist of the people in the story and/or the target readership at each turn in the road.
Biblical Hebrew is not a difficult language to learn, and reading the Hebrew Scriptures for one'sself is like a man ploughing a field he has ploughed scores of times, but suddenly tuns up treasure trove! It is a votage of discovery and excitement. Some of our predelictions and prejudices will be challenged and fopund wanting, but what could be better than reading and understanding the sacred writings as they were meant to be read?
M:)RGANITE
I believe that I do study from the torah. Isn't that the "law and prophets" that Jesus said testify of Him? (Genesis, Exodus, Leviticus, Numbers & Deuteronomy). Now, unless I have been grossly misinformed, the Koran claims that Mohammed is God's greatest prophet, and Jesus merely a "prophet". I have not heard if Mohammed walked out of a tomb after being dead three days and nights, so I don't think the claims are exactly the same. Do you?Quote:
Originally Posted by talaniman
No, but what is your point?
Torah is 'instruction' generally referred to as the 'law. The prophets are nebi'im, and other writings are ketubim. The first letter of each of these three make TNK, pronounced tanach or tanak, referring to the whole of the Hebrew Scriptures.Quote:
Originally Posted by galveston
Have you heard what did happen to Mohammed? He was/is not held to be divine.
Muhammad never claimed divinity at all.
All of us here have been going back and forth about the differences that can be pointed out about the various religions, that's easy, but can no one see the similarities that they all have, history notwithstanding? After all they all sprang from ancient tribal man. What makes one any better than the other? I mean they all profess a GOD so what more could you ask for? You mean to tell me this is not enough common ground among humans and accept that we all don't know, but have filled in the gaps with our own regional tribal logic. Has any one forgotten the wars and human migrations over the centuries that have spread one word or another? You can change the name and be still be talking about the same thing, and I'm sure there is a written record somewhere you can quote dogma from, but is this enough to put one above the other and accept this as a fact for all? Or should we just concede that whom ever has the biggest stick will tell the rest what the truth is.
Who was Frankfort, and why is he not as warmly received? Sorry for all the questions, and I could Google the dude but your personal view is what I would be interested in.
Henri Frankfort was an anthropoligist who premised a scheme of the development of religion for primitive folkways through successive discrete and geographically varied acculturations, eventually evolving into moral monotheism. He is no longer warmly received because his simplistic theories are no longer accepted by the majority of anthropologists or sociologists.Quote:
Originally Posted by talaniman
Henri Frankfort
However, his work is recognised as setting down the foundation for further inquiry into his subject, much as Freud, who is also less warmly received these days, nevertheless laid down a foundation for psychoanalysis and inquiry into the aberrant human psyche.
Theories come and go. It is the way of science.
This is important because Jesus lived, died, & was resurrected in front of many witnesses. If the apostle John's story in Revelation is comparable to Mohammed's Koran, then I look at how credible John was in writing other books in the Bible. I can't say the same for Mohammed.Quote:
Originally Posted by kiwimac
The story says that he went into a cave & the angel Gabriel came to give him all these revelations; to write them down, & this led to the Koran.
Christianity is the faith that offers the best promises. (And it automatically takes 10 yrs off your looks!) That is what happens when the old man dies, & you become a new creature in Christ.
Yes,
But the Gospels were written between 20 (in the case of Mark) and 80-100 years after (in John's case) Jesus' death. The earliest records in the NT are in fact Paul's letter's and his picture of Jesus is quite different than that given in the Gospels.
This is all fine. And Paul preached the Good News about Jesus and the resurrection. Acts 17:18. I do not see any discrepancies between the epistles of Paul and the gospels of Matt. Mk, Luke, or John. Just more interesting reading to add to the gospels.Quote:
Originally Posted by kiwimac
No?
Jesus was a pharisee, his teachings are those of the Hillelite school made famous by Gamaliel. Paul, for all his posturing, was almost certainly a Sadducee, his teachings differed considerably from those of the Jerusalem church led by James and Peter.
Quote:
Originally Posted by kiwimac
Paul was a Pharisee, and was taught at the feet of Gamaliel. Jesus set himself apart from Sadducee, Pharisee, and Essene.
When Paul - as Saul - had completed the studies as given in the Jewish schools at Tarsus, and had learned his trade, he desired to attend college. He was then, probably, about fourteen years of age. There were Gentile universities near his home, but, as he wanted to become a Rabbi, he went to Jerusalem, and became a student in the famous School of Hillel.
The president of this noted institution of learning was, "a Pharisee named Gamaliel, a doctor of the law had in reputation among all the people." It is supposed that he was a son of Simeon who was in the Temple when the little baby Jesus was blessed.
As to the leanings of Jesus, whatever the words used, the thoughts he expressed, and the doctrine he taught, his preachments were not like those of the scribes. He spoke in his own right, with authority, and not by reciting long concatenations of Rabbinical lore and tradition.
Consequently, it is recorded that "The Jews marvelled" at his teachings. Their natural queries were: "How knoweth this man letters, having never learned?" "He is no authorized Rabbi; He belongs to no recognized school; neither the followers of Hillel nor those of Shammai claim Him; He is a Nazarene; He was trained in the shop of the Galilean carpenter; how knoweth this man letters, having never learned?
Writes Farrar: "In all ages there is a tendency to mistake erudition for learning, knowledge for wisdom; in all ages there has been a slowness to comprehend that true learning of the deepest and noblest character may coexist with complete and utter ignorance of everything which absorbs and constitutes the learning of the schools.And so, to their misplaced queries, Jesus responds:
'My doctrine is not mine but his that sent me. If any man will do his will, he shall know of the doctrine, whether it be of God or whether I speak of myself.'" [Life of Christ]
I have not heard of Jesus being claimed for a Pharisee. In the Jewish culture of Jesus' day there were many discordant and divisive voices crying out in defense of divergent divorce standards and advocating differing marriage disciplines. Plural marriage, handed down from their fathers, was still practiced, though it does not seem to have been the dominant order of matrimony. Their main difficulties, however, seem to have grown out of the meaning of this Mosaic statement:
"When a man hath taken a wife, and married her, and it come to pass that she find no favour in his eyes, because he hath found some uncleanness in her: then let him write her a bill of divorcement, and give it in her hand, and send her out of his house. And when she is departed out of his house, she may go and be another man's wife." (Deut. 24:1-2.)
The Pharisaic question assumes the propriety of divorce; the issue, as they express it, is, may it be granted "for every cause"; and, in theory at least, this depends upon the meaning of the Mosaic phrase "some uncleanness," which may also be translated "some unseemly thing," or "some matter of shame," or, literally, "some matter of nakedness."
On this point the School of Shammai interpreted the Mosaic standard so as to allow divorce only for unchastity, while the School of Hillel allowed almost any trivial act to sever a marriage. Among these the Mishnah recites such things as: seeing another woman who pleased him more; feeling any disgust toward the wife; spoiling her husband's dinner; breaking the law of tithing, or other Mosaic requirement; going in public with an uncovered head; spinning in the public streets; brawling or being troublesome, or quarrelsome, or of ill repute; being childless for ten years; and on and on and on.
These differences between the two major schools led, it is said, to the Jewish proverb: "Hillel loosed what Shammai bound."
In practice there were many divorces for minor reasons. But Jesus, in his reply, as his won't was, rose above the battleground of the Rabbinists and went back to first principles.
Have ye not read, that he which made them at the beginning made them male and female, And said, For this cause shall a man leave father and mother, and shall cleave to his wife: and they twain shall be one flesh? Wherefore they are no more twain, but one flesh. What therefore God hath joined together, let not man put asunder.
In that he stood neither in the Pharisaic tradition, nor in the tradiitonms of (The Great) Hillel.
Would you care to share your reasons for saying he did?
M:)RGANITE
.
It is true that the author of Hebrews is probably unknown, it is Pauline in approach and ideas, so an ascription of it to Paul has been accepted by non-specialists.Quote:
Originally Posted by Retrotia
I responded to your argument against what ordinaryguy wrote when he spoke of Paul equating the sacrificial death of Jesus "in a manner consistent with the Old Testament temple rituals of atonement for sin by animal sacrifice."
If you will read Hebrews, you will discover that the writer - apart from the tangenital issue of who he might be - is very familiar with temple ritual and redemptive sacrifice, and plays off the position and finction of Jesus Christ as Saviour against the Old testament Paradigm. That is what OG pointed out and it ought not to be difficult for you to conceded that such is indisputable. Why then dispute it without evidentiaty argument? If you have a case, I am, confidant that I will not be the only one interested in putting it to the test.
Quote:
Originally Posted by Retrotia
How remarkably arrogant you sound. Would you care to be more specific by providing some particular examples? If all you really mean is that you disagree qwith my understanding of scripture, then I fail to see how that is even remarkable?
At your pleasure.
Arrogant about what? The comment I made is almost 2 months ago & sorry, but I cannot really get the feeling back.Quote:
Originally Posted by Morganite
I think it had to do with the flow of the posts- how you were quick to discredit your Christian fellow & were more than patient & generous to the heathen-even when they didn't accept your answer entirely & they went on to state their case with more believers!
Ordinaryguy had a qualm with Paul's teachings. I think they are great-all the epistles. I think if one reads the entire N.T. there shouldn't be any "hang-up" in understanding the Blood Atonement of the N.T. The Lamb, period.
Paul was a convert from Judaism- why wouldn't he mention the High Priest- & the Tabernacle things? But it's so small & ordinaryguy couldn't get passed Jesus' suffering & dying for our sins. The Intercessor between God & man. It was necessary because God said it was & Jesus freely gave up his life for us.
NOW---We are in Christ Jesus. My Church does not have a cross at the altar--bc 'it is done'.
My Church doesn't have a problem with any of Paul's teachings. Gifts of the Spirit--Armor of God- all Paul's Epistles are needed &" All Scripture is given by inspiration of God, and is profitable for doctrine, for reproof, for correction, for instruction in rightousness, that the man of God may be complete, thoughly equipped for every good work" 2 Timothy 3:16,17.
NKJ
So, have a nice day. Maybe I'll forgive you for calling me a blasphemer on one of the Christian threads! :(
Who is Allah?
III&E Brochure Series; No. 2
(published by The Institute of Islamic Information and Education (III&E))
It is a known fact that every language has one or more terms that are used in reference to God and sometimes to lesser deities. This is not the case with Allah. Allah is the personal name of the One true God. Nothing else can be called Allah. The term has no plural or gender. This shows its uniqueness when compared with the word god which can be made plural, gods, or feminine, goddess. It is interesting to notice that Allah is the personal name of God in Aramaic, the language of Jesus and a sister language of Arabic.
The One true God is a reflection of the unique concept that Islam associates with God. To a Muslim, Allah is the Almighty, Creator and Sustainer of the universe, Who is similar to nothing and nothing is comparable to Him. The Prophet Muhammad was asked by his contemporaries about Allah; the answer came directly from God Himself in the form of a short chapter of the Quran, which is considered the essence of the unity or the motto of monotheism. This is chapter 112 which reads:
"In the name of God, the Merciful, the Compassionate.
Say (O Muhammad) He is God the One God, the Everlasting Refuge, who has not begotten, nor has been begotten, and equal to Him is not anyone."
Some non-Muslims allege that God in Islam is a stern and cruel God who demands to be obeyed fully. He is not loving and kind. Nothing can be farther from truth than this allegation. It is enough to know that, with the exception of one, each of the 114 chapters of the Quran begins with the verse: "In the name of God, the Merciful, the Compassionate." In one of the sayings of Prophet Muhammad (PBUH) we are told that "God is more loving and kinder than a mother to her dear child."
But God is also Just. Hence evildoers and sinners must have their share of punishment and the virtuous, His bounties and favors. Actually God's attribute of Mercy has full manifestation in His attribute of Justice. People suffering throughout their lives for His sake and people oppressing and exploiting other people all their lives should not receive similar treatment from their Lord. Expecting similar treatment for them will amount to negating the very belief in the accountability of man in the Hereafter and thereby negating all the incentives for a moral and virtuous life in this world. The following Quranic verses are very clear and straightforward in this respect:
"Verily, for the Righteous are gardens of Delight, in the Presence of their Lord. Shall We then treat the people of Faith like the people of Sin? What is the matter with you? How judge you?" (68:34-36)
Continued in next post...
Islam rejects characterizing God in any human form or depicting Him as favoring certain individuals or nations on the basis of wealth, power or race. He created the human beings as equals. They may distinguish themselves and get His favor through virtue and piety only.
The concept that God rested in the seventh day of creation, that God wrestled with one of His soldiers, that God is an envious plotter against mankind, or that God is incarnate in any human being are considered blasphemy from the Islamic point of view.
The unique usage of Allah as a personal name of God is a reflection of Islam's emphasis on the purity of the belief in God which is the essence of the message of all God's messengers. Because of this, Islam considers associating any deity or personality with God as a deadly sin which God will never forgive, despite the fact He may forgive all other sins.
[Note that what is meant above applies ONLY to those people who die in a state wherein they are associating others with God. The repentance of those who yet live is acceptable to God if He wills. - MSA of USC]
The Creator must be of a different nature from the things created because if he is of the same nature as they are, he will be temporal and will therefore need a maker. It follows that nothing is like Him. If the maker is not temporal, then he must be eternal. But if he is eternal, he cannot be caused, and if nothing outside him causes him to continue to exist, which means that he must be self-sufficient. And if the does not depend on anything for the continuance of his own existence, then this existence can have no end. The Creator is therefore eternal and everlasting: "He is the First and the Last."
He is Self-Sufficient or Self-Subsistent or, to use a Quranic term, Al-Qayyum. The Creator does not create only in the sense of bringing things into being, He also preserves them and takes them out of existence and is the ultimate cause of whatever happens to them.
"God is the Creator of everything. He is the guardian over everything. Unto Him belong the keys of the heavens and the earth." (39:62, 63)
"No creature is there crawling on the earth, but its provision rests on God. He knows its lodging place and it repository." (11:6)
God's Attributes
If the Creator is Eternal and Everlasting, then His attributes must also be eternal and everlasting. He should not lose any of His attributes nor acquire new ones. If this is so, then His attributes are absolute. Can there be more than one Creator with such absolute attributes? Can there be for example, two absolutely powerful Creators? A moment's thought shows that this is not feasible.
The Quran summarizes this argument in the following verses:
"God has not taken to Himself any son, nor is there any god with Him: For then each god would have taken of that which he created and some of them would have risen up over others." (23:91)
And Why, were there gods in earth and heaven other than God, they (heaven and earth) would surely go to ruin." (21:22)
The Oneness of God
The Quran reminds us of the falsity of all alleged gods. To the worshippers of man-made objects, it asks:
"Do you worship what you have carved yourself?" (37:95)
"Or have you taken unto you others beside Him to be your protectors, even such as have no power either for good or for harm to themselves?" (13:16)
To the worshippers of heavenly bodies it cites the story of Abraham:
"When night outspread over him he saw a star and said, 'This is my Lord.' But when it set he said, 'I love not the setters.' When he saw the moon rising, he said, 'This is my Lord.' But when it set he said, 'If my Lord does not guide me I shall surely be of the people gone astray.' When he saw the sun rising, he said, 'This is my Lord; this is greater.' But when it set he said, 'O my people, surely I quit that which you associate, I have turned my face to Him Who originated the heavens and the earth; a man of pure faith, I am not of the idolaters.'" (6:76-79)
continued in next post...
The Believer's Attitude
In order to be a Muslim, i.e. to surrender oneself to God, it is necessary to believe in the oneness of God, in the sense of His being the only Creator, Preserver, Nourisher, etc. But this belief - later on called "Tawhid Ar-Rububiyyah" - is not enough. Many of the idolaters knew and believed that only the Supreme God could do all this, but that was not enough to make them Muslims. To tawhid ar-rububiyyah one must add tawhid al'uluhiyyah, i.e. one acknowledges the fact that is God alone Who deserves to be worshipped, and thus abstains from worshipping any other thing or being.
Having achieved this knowledge of the one true God, man should constantly have faith in Him, and should allow nothing to induce him to deny truth.
When faith enters a person's heart, it causes certain mental states which result in certain actions. Taken together these mental states and actions are the proof for the true faith. The Prophet said, "Faith is that which resides firmly in the heart and which is proved by deeds." Foremost among those mental states is the feeling of gratitude towards God which could be said to be the essence of 'ibada' (worship).
The feeling of gratitude is so important that a non-believer is called 'kafir' which means 'one who denies a truth' and also 'one who is ungrateful.'
A believer loves, and is grateful to God for the bounties He bestowed upon him, but being aware of the fact that his good deeds, whether mental or physical, are far from being commensurate with Divine favors, he is always anxious lest God should punish him, here or in the Hereafter. He, therefore, fears Him, surrenders himself to Him and serves Him with great humility. One cannot be in such a mental state without being almost all the time mindful of God. Remembering God is thus the life force of faith, without which it fades and withers away.
The Quran tries to promote this feeling of gratitude by repeating the attributes of God very frequently. We find most of these attributes mentioned together in the following verses of the Quran:
"He is God; there is no god but He, He is the Knower of the unseen and the visible; He is the All-Merciful, the All-Compassionate. He is God, there is no God but He. He is the King, the All-Holy, the All-Peace, the Guardian of Faith, the All-Preserver, the All-Mighty, the All-Compeller, the All-Sublime. Glory be to God, above that they associate! He is God the Creator, the Maker, the Shaper. To Him belong the Names Most Beautiful. All that is in the heavens and the earth magnifies Him; He is the All-Mighty, the All-Wise." (59:22-24)
"There is no god but He, the Living, the Everlasting. Slumber seizes Him not, neither sleep; to Him belongs all that is in the heavens and the earth. Who is there that shall intercede with Him save by His leave? He knows what lies before them and what is after them, and they comprehend not anything of His knowledge save such as He wills. His throne comprises the heavens and earth; the preserving of them oppresses Him not; He is the All-High, the All-Glorious." (2:255)
"People of the Book, go not beyond the bounds in your religion, and say not as to God but the truth. The Messiah, Jesus son of Mary, was only the Messenger of God, and His Word that He committed to Mary, and a Spirit from Him. So believe in God and His Messengers, and say not, 'Three.' Refrain; better is it for you. God is only one God. Glory be to Him - (He is) above having a son." (4:171)
----------------------------------------
Disclaimer:-I provide information for those who may wish to know.
I am not here to argue or to prove a point and I do not have to prove my faith to any human...
I believe what I believe and practice it to the best of my abilities... :) :)
Quote:
Originally Posted by firmbeliever
I read on a Christian fundamentlaist website recently that Allah is an Arabic Moon God. Have you heard of the before, and how do you answer it?
Personally, I believe that the site is shoddy in its research and contentious in spirit.
M:)RGANITE
As muslims believe Allah is the Lord from the beginning before time itself and will remain the same.
We also believe Him to be the Lord who sent the Prophets, Noah,Moses,Jesus etc, hence my guess would be that the word "Allah" is not a new one, but this word must have been common among many, and maybe some people used the name for their own beliefs.
Does not mean that when muslims use it they are referring to the moon.
As I am no expert...
Here's what Wikipedia says
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Allah
Allah (Arabic: اﷲ, Allāh) is the standard Arabic word for "God", derived from al-ilah, the God.[1][2] The term is best known in the West for its use by Muslims as a reference to God.[3] Arabic-speakers of all faiths, including Christians and Jews, use the word "Allah" to mean "God".[4] The Muslim and Christian Arabs of today have no other word for 'God' than 'Allah'.[5] In pre-Islamic Arabia, Allah was used by pagan Meccans as a reference to the creator-god, possibly the supreme deity.[6]
In Islam, Allah is the only deity, transcendent creator of the universe, and the judge of humankind.[3][1] Some Islamic scholars believe that the term "Allāh" should not be translated, arguing that "Allāh" as used in Islam is a special and glorified term whose use should be preserved, while God can also be used in reference to deities worshiped by polytheists.
According to F. E. Peters, "The Qur'an insists, Muslims believe, and historians affirm that Muhammad and his followers worship the same God as the Jews.[Qur'an 29:46] The Quran's Allah is the same Creator God who covenanted with Abraham". Peters states that the Qur'an portrays Allah as both more powerful and more remote than Yahweh, and as a universal deity, unlike Yahweh who closely follows Israelites.[7]
According to the tradition of Islam there are more than 99 Names of God (al-asma al-husna lit. meaning: "The best names") each of which evoke a distinct characteristic of Allah. The most famous and most frequent of these names are "the Merciful" (al-rahman) and "the Compassionate" (al-rahim).[8][3]
---------------------------------------------
Also the following from the same article
----------------------------------------
Translation
Some Muslim scholars feel that "Allāh" should not be translated, because they perceive the Arabic word to express the uniqueness of "Allāh" more accurately than the word "god" for two reasons:
The word "god" can take a plural form "gods", whereas the word "Allāh" in their view has no plural form.
The word "god" can have gender as male god or female god (called goddess) whereas the word "Allāh" in their view does not have gender.[15]
This is a significant issue in translation of the Qur'an.
-------------------------------------------------------------
:)
All the evidence points to one God, and the only ones disputing it are the ones who differentiate to promote their own brand of dicrimination, to assure their superiority.Quote:
I submit for your consideration this: the God of the Bible is not the same as Allah. Discussion anyone?
What on earth does that mean? Are you saying that anyone who disagrees with your claims to superrior knowledge about God is wong because you are right? As a non-trinitarian who reaches non-trinitarian conclusions from within the pages of the Bible with little difficulty, I find your remarks unhelpful since I have never met a non-trinitarian who claims to be superior to anyone.Quote:
Originally Posted by talaniman
Reaching a different conclusion than another on the basis of availabel evidence cannot be called being 'superior,' whatever it is that you infer by use of that unfortunate word.
Since all evidence clearly does not point to one God, there should be room for reasoned and polite discussion without anyone being called by a term of opprobrium since, hopefully, the days when the penalty for diagrement was mutilation or death is long past.
Why ios disagreement discrimination? I will say that you remark is discriminatopry. I cannot believ that it is well thoughht out, and since you do not make any argument for your view, perhaps it is not incorrect to suggest that your ground for the statement is at best shallow, and at worst discriminatory in and of itself.
Perhaps I have misunderstood you. Have I? If sio, then I am sorry. However, I do not believe that I have misunderstood Jesus who said:
The kingdom of heaven is likened unto a man which sowed good seed in his field:
But while men slept, his enemy came and sowed tares among the wheat, and went his way.
But when the blade was sprung up, and brought forth fruit, then appeared the tares also.
So the servants of the householder came and said unto him, Sir, didst not thou sow good seed in thy field? from whence then hath it tares?
He said unto them, An enemy hath done this. The servants said unto him, Wilt thou then that we go and gather them up?
But the Master said, Nay; lest while ye gather up the tares, ye root up also the wheat with them.
Let both grow together until the harvest: and in the time of harvest I will say to the reapers, Gather ye together first the tares, and bind them in bundles to burn them: but gather the wheat into my barn.
Shall any strike before the Lord of the Harvest gives His order to do so? Only He, and he alone, knows which are tares and which are wheat. We should leave this judgement to God. Are we not wise to wait for the Judge?
M:)RGANITE
Quote:
Originally Posted by firmbeliever
Thank you. As I suspected, the article was pejorative, and that usually means that it is untrue.
M:)
Being there is no argument that that Jews, Christians, and Muslims trace there roots to Abraham, there can be no doubt that they have come from the same tree, and that they have established different branches is irrelevant. History has taught us that man has chosen instead of bonding to that fact that we are the same, man has done everything in his power to argue and war, on the fact that they are different in an effort to divide and reap the spoils of that division for power over the minds of the people, to enrich not the people who follow as sheep, but control the wealth that the division of man offers, for their own agendas. This has been played out for all to see, but since we put so much into man, we have forgotten Gods' way as the lust for superiority is the norm and has been for centuries of mans history. In other words man exploiting man has enriched those so much as to forget and subvert, the real meaning of God himself and is being used to this day as an excuse to kill and destroy all those that see the truth, but in the name of whatever, to enrich the few against the many. I really don't care the book you subscribe to, History provides all the fact you need to back up my argument of those that claim superiority in Gods name, have divided and conquered for their own sake and mankind suffers that division. Sorry Morganite, history tells the truth of man, and the facts are irrefutable.Quote:
Morganite, What on earth does that mean?
Uh honey, you're spamming the site with your copy/paste. Please don't do that.
| All times are GMT -7. The time now is 04:10 PM. |