|
|
When God Almighty sent down the Noble Qur'an in order to "bear witness" over the previous scriptures and to "rectify" the changes which have crept into them over the ages, He also provided us with the path to salvation. Strangely enough, in the Qur'an we find a confirmation of the message of both Jesus and James:
"And whosoever does of the righteous good deeds, be they male or female, and has faith, such will enter Paradise and shall not be wronged even so much as a 'Naqeer'(the speck on the back of a date stone)"
The noble Qur'an, Al-Nissa(4):124
"And whosoever works deed of righteousness and has faith, then he shall fear no injustice nor any curtailment [of his reward]."
The noble Qur'an, Ta'ha(20):112
"Verily, those who believed and did righteous deeds, they are the best of creatures"
The noble Qur'an, Al-Bayyinah(98):7
"[God swears] by all time!. Verily, humanity is in loss. Except such as had faith, and did righteous deeds, and encouraged one-another in truth, and encouraged one-another in patience."
The noble Qur'an, Al-Asr(103):1-3
Jesus (pbuh) himself never said "Believe in my sacrifice on the cross and you will be saved." He didn't tell this young man "You are filthy wicked and sinful and can never enter heaven except through my redeeming blood and your belief in my sacrifice." He simply said repeatedly "keep the commandments" and nothing more. If Jesus (pbuh) was being prepared and conditioned for this sacrifice from the beginning of time, then why did he not mention it to this man? Even when this man pressed him for more, Jesus only told him that to be "PERFECT" he only needs to sell his belongings. He made no mention whatsoever of his crucifixion, an original sin, or a redemption. Would this not be quite sadistic of Jesus (pbuh) if Paul's claims are true "for by the works of the law shall no flesh be justified"? We do not know when or how this young man later died. However, supposing he died the very next day, right after receiving this command directly from the mouth of Jesus, would he then be destined for Hell since he never believed in a Trinity, an original sin, a crucifixion or an atonement even though he was following the command of Jesus to the letter?
If Jesus' (pbuh) whole mission in life was to die on the cross in atonement for the "sin of Adam," and if this was the founding reason why he was sent, would we not be justified in expecting him to spend night and day drumming this into the minds of his followers? Should we not expect him to speak of nothing else? Should we not expect him to spend night and day preaching that the commandments shall soon be thrown out the window (Galatians 3:13) and faith in his upcoming crucifixion shall be the only thing required of them? (Romans 3:28). Should we not expect Jesus (pbuh) to echo the teachings of Paul who never in his life met Jesus but claims Jesus (pbuh) was preaching these things to him in "visions"? Should we not expect Jesus (pbuh) to tell everyone he meets "The commandments are worthless. I shall be dying on the cross soon. Believe in my sacrifice and you shall be saved"? Is this not dictated by plain simple logic? Can we find such an explicit statement from Jesus anywhere in the whole Bible?
7) We read in the Bible that Jesus (pbuh) taught his followers to pray to God as follows:
"..And forgive us our debts, as we forgive our debtors."
Matthew 6:12.
Also: "And forgive us our sins; for we also forgive every one that is indebted to us."
Luke 11:4.
Jesus is asking us to pray to God that He forgive our sins. But how does he want God to forgive our sins? By a blood sacrifices of a sinless god? No!. That is not what he said. Rather, he taught us to ask God to forgive us "as we forgive those who are indebted to us." Therefore one must ask, if someone owes us money and we want to forgive them, what do we do?:
Do we say "I forgive you your debt ... now pay up!"?
Do we say "I forgive you your debt ... now I shall kill your neighbor"
Or do we say "I forgive you," and forget the matter?
Therefore, did Jesus teach us to pray to God that He should:
Say "All of mankind is forgiven ... now pay an ultimate price"?
Or, to say "All of mankind is forgiven ... now I need to kill someone who is sinless"?
Or, to say "All of mankind is forgiven" and that is it !?
In the Qur'an we are told that Adam (pbuh) did indeed repent
"And Adam received from his Lord words (teaching him how to repent) and He relented toward him. Lo! He is the Relenting the Merciful"
The noble Qur'an, Al-Bakarah(2):37
So Adam (pbuh) received a revelation from God showing him how to repent and he did so. God Almighty did not mandate a gruesome and torturous death for "His only begotten son" or anything else. He simply accepted Adam's repentance and relented. This is true mercy.
Tom Harpur, a former professor of New Testament, author of "For Christ's Sake," and an Anglican Minister writes;
"Perhaps I am lacking in piety or some basic instinct, but I know I am not alone in finding the idea of Jesus' death as atonement for the sins of all humanity on one level bewildering and on the other morally repugnant. Jesus never to my knowledge said anything to indicate that forgiveness from God could only be granted 'after' or 'because of' the Cross."
Allah Knows Best...
Peace Yall.... |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
The problems arose because there are no equivalents in Panare for many words held as basic to the concept of the Christian religion. There are none, for example, for sin, guilt, punishment and redemption. Since Panare tribe lived as an isolated society in the forests for thousands of years, it is impossible to have famines, plagues were unrecorded and the wars that shaped our history were reduced to a ceremonial skirmish. The biblical dramas, therefore, were hardly more than shadow plays.[13]
It was soon realized, however, that before the Indians could be made to accept repentance and salvation - both equally obscure concepts to the Panare - one had to give them something to feel guilty about. The missionaries came up with an ingenious, yet underhand, solution - translate and re-edit the New Testament in such a way so as to implicate the Panare Indians in Jesus' death! Gone from the Bible were Judas's betrayal, the Romans, the trial, and Pontius Pilate. The text now read at the appropriate places:
The Panare killed Jesus Christ
because they were wicked.
Let's kill Jesus Christ, said the Panare.
The Panare seized Jesus Christ.
The Panare killed in this way.
The laid a cross on the ground.
They fastened his hands and his feet
against the wooden beams, with nails.
They raised him straight up, nailed.
The man died like that, nailed.
Thus the Panare killed Jesus Christ[14]
It is clear that if this could create the feelings of guilt, nothing could. Now there was a talk of God's vengeance for the dreadful deed. The re-edited New Testament continued:
God will burn you all,
burn all the animals, burn also the earth,
the heavens, absolutely everything.
He will burn also the Panare themselves.
God will exterminate the Panare by throwing them on the fire.
It is a huge fire.
I am going to hurl the Panare into the fire, said God.
.....
God is good.
'Do you want to be roasted in the fire?' asks God.
'Do you have something to pay me with so that I won't roast you in the fire?
What is it you're going to pay me?'[15]
One does not have to think hard in order to realize what payment was being demanded; namely, unquestioning submission to the missionaries' demands, the abandonment of their traditional lives and their customs, and the acceptance of Christianity. The Indians were terrified. The first Indian woman came forward and said:
".... I don't want to burn in the big fire. I love Jesus."
.... Here we had sat for almost a year teaching one believer and nothing else happening and all of a sudden WOW![16]
It seems it was a common practice among the Christian missionaries to accuse Indians of killing the Christ.
David Stoll, writing in SIL in Peru, describes a missionary teacher calling his Amuesha congregations Jews 'because they did not have faith and were killing Jesus'.[17]
From the present discussion, it would seem that the Bible will be 'translated' for the benefit of winning the souls even if it requires gross deception and misrepresentation of the scripture itself.
In the Gospel according to John, chapter six, Jesus(P) is reported to have said: "I am the bread of life." In the time of Jesus(P) at least, and probably even today in the Middle East, bread is the "staple of life", it is essential and it is available even to the poor. It is a 'relatively cheap' food. If the Bible translators would translate something like that into the tribal languages of Papua New Guinea literally, what would these people think? In these countries, 'bread' is something only the rich can afford. If they read "I am the bread of life," they would immediately think "Oh, Jesus is not for me, I can't afford to become a Christian... " and this would mean a complete miscommunication. In Papua New Guinea the staple food is sweet-potato. And therefore this verse would be best translated by the missionary standards as "I am the sweet-potato of life" as well as communion/eucharist is celebrated with sweet-potato instead of bread. This way the meaning would be "preserved" and convey what Jesus(P) "meant" albeit the original text is re-edited. It is available for all, it is life essential, since for those people a meal without sweet-potato is not a complete meal. Perhaps for the Chinese, Jesus(P) would be the "rice of life". And to win the souls of some Russian drunks, a translation of Jesus(P) being the "vodka of life" would be perfect!
This explains many of the problems within Christianity; they can't make up their mind on the translation of their scripture as much as the actual extent of their scripture. And above all the deception of any kind is exercised to win converts.
Weapons & Wine: A Case Of Tahiti
In 1795 the London Missionary Society was formed, its immediate attention focused upon the Pacific; two years later a convict ship bound for Australia put the first missionaries ashore on Tahiti. It was four years before any of them learned enough of the local language to be able to preach a sermon to a puzzled though sympathetic audience. The Tahitians built houses for them, fed them, and provided them with servants galore, but after seven years not a single convert to Christianity had been gained. The missionaries opted for a more brutal tactic and gained the upper hand by helping to reduce the local chief called Pomare to an alcoholic and then offered him backing in a war against other islands chiefs by supplying firearms (the enemy having only wooden clubs to defend themselves). But Pomare would be backed in a war against the other island chiefs on the understanding that:
his victory would be followed by enforced conversion. Since Pomare was supplied with firearms to be used against its opponents' clubs, victory was certain. 'The whole nation', Orsmond wrote, 'was converted in a day.'[18]
With their power base firmly established in Tahiti, the missionaries moved swiftly to the outer islands. The methods they employed were as before. A local chieftain would be baptised, crowned king, introduced to large quantities of alcohol and left to the work of converting his own people. Chieftains who put up any form of opposition were quickly shown the might of the missionary forces. Where no resistance was found, a native teacher supported by a half dozen missionary police would take over an island within a week.[19] What a way to love your neighbour!
Conclusion
The present discussion has dealt with in the deceptive tactics used by the Christian missionaries to gain converts. The deceptive tactics would involve imitation of the religious ideas of other faiths, gross mistranslation of the Bible even if it involves tampering with the 'word' of God and to persecute people to win the souls for Jesus(P). Commenting on the book of Norman Lewis, The Missionaries: God Against The Indians, the famous writer Graham Greene said:
In the recent years we have found it easy to laugh at the American television evangelists... but until I read Mr. Lewis's remarkable book I had no idea of the danger to human life which they represent.[20]
And Allah knows best!
Peace Yall....:hmm: |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
This is also a good thing to ask the missionaries about....
http://wings.buffalo.edu/sa/muslim/library/jesus-say/ch5.7.html
Like Jesus' greeting
From ancient times, the prophets of God including Moses, Joseph, David, Jesus, the angles of God and many others have made it their custom to greet the believers with the words "Peace be with you." This can be seen in such verses as:
Genesis 43:23 "And he said, Peace be to you, fear not: your God, and the God of your father, hath given you treasure in your sacks: I had your money. And he brought Simeon out unto them."
Judges 6:23 "And the LORD said unto him, Peace be unto thee; fear not: thou shalt not die."
1 Samuel 25:6 "And thus shall ye say to him that liveth in prosperity, Peace be both to thee, and peace be to thine house, and peace be unto all that thou hast."
Numbers 6:26 "The LORD lift up his countenance upon thee, and give thee peace."
1 Samuel 1:17 "Then Eli answered and said, Go in peace"
Luke 24:36 "And as they thus spake, Jesus himself stood in the midst of them, and saith unto them, Peace be unto you."
John 20:19 ".....came Jesus and stood in the midst, and saith unto them, Peace be unto you."
John 20:26 "........then came Jesus, the doors being shut, and stood in the midst, and said, Peace be unto you."
And especially:
Luke 10:5 "And into whatsoever house ye enter, first say, Peace be to this house."
Can anyone guess what Muhammad (pbuh) taught his followers to say when greeting each other or departing from each other? You guessed it! "Assalam alaikum" or "Peace be unto you." Have you ever met a Christian who greets others with the words of Jesus (pbuh): "Peace be unto you" or departs with those words?
Allah Knows Best...
Peace Yall.... |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Taken from; http://www.themodernreligion.com/index2.html
Answers to Questions on the Bible asked by Christians
Note: The following is written in the language that is intended as an invitation (Daw'ah) to Christians, from their biblical perspective.
Question No.1
Jesus said: "I and the Father are one" (Jn.10:30), therefore, is not Jesus the same, or, "co-equal" in status with his Father?
Answer No.1
In Greek, `heis' means `one' numerically (masc.)
`hen' means `one' in unity or essence (neut.)
Here the word used by John is `hen' and not `heis'. The marginal notes in New American Standard Bible (NASB) reads; one - (Lit.neuter) a unity, or, one essence.
If one wishes to argue that the word `hen' supports their claim for Jesus being "co-equal" in status with his Father, please invite his/her attention to the following verse:
Jesus said: "And the glory which Thou hast given me, I have given
to them (disciples); that they may be one, just as we are one." (John 17:22).
If he/she was to consider/regard/believe the Father and Jesus Christ to be "one" meaning "co-equal" in status on the basis of John 10:30, then that person should also be prepared to consider/regard/believe "them" - the disciples of Jesus, to be "co-equal" in status with the Father and Jesus ("just as we are one") in John 17:22. I have yet to find a person that would be prepared to make the disciples (students) "co-equal" in status with the Father or Jesus.
The unity and accord was of the authorized divine message that originated from the Father, received by Jesus and finally passed on to the disciples. Jesus admitted having accomplished the work which the Father had given him to do. (Jn.17:4)
Hot Tip (precise and pertinent)
Jesus said: "I go to the Father; for the Father is greater than I." (Jn.14:28). This verse unequivocally refutes the claim by any one for Jesus being "co-equal" in status with his Father.
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Question No.2
Jesus said: "I am the way, ...no one comes to the Father, but through me." (Jn.14:6), therefore, is not the Salvation through Jesus, ALONE?
Answer No.2
Before Jesus spoke these words, he said; "In my Father's house are many mansions (dwelling places); if it were not so, I would have told you; for I go to prepare a mansion (a dwelling place) for you." (John 14:2). The above explicit statement confirms that Jesus was going to prepare "a" mansion and not "all" the mansions in "my Father's house". Obviously, the prophets that came before him and the one to come after, were to prepare the other mansions for their respective followers. The prophet that came after Jesus had evidently shown the current "way" to a modern mansion in the kingdom of heaven.
Besides; the verse clearly states; Jesus was the "WAY" to a mansion. It is a folly to believe that Jesus (or any prophet) was the "DESTINATION".
Jesus said; "I am the door" to find the pasture. (Jn.10:9).
A sheep that walks through the "door" will find the pasture.
A sheep that circles around the "door" will never find the pasture.
One who crosses over the "way" will reach the mansion. Anyone that stops on the "way" and believes the "way" to be the end of his/her journey, will be out in the open without any shelter and a roof.
Hot Tip (precise and pertinent)
Jesus said; "Not every one that says to me; `Lord, Lord,' will enter the kingdom of heaven; but he who does the will of my Father, who is in heaven." (Mt.7:21).
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Question No.3
Jesus said: "He who has seen me has seen the Father" (Jn.14:9), does this not prove that Jesus Christ and his Father were one and the same?
Answer No.3
One day to prove a point and settle an argument, Jesus picked up a child and said to his disciples; "Whoever receives this child in my name receives me; and whoever receives me receives Him who sent me;" (Luke 9:48).
Jesus said; "He who believes in me does not believe in me, but in Him who sent me." (John 12:44)
"He who hates me hates my Father also. ...but now they have both seen and hated me and my Father as well." (John 15:23-24)
"And this is eternal life, that they may know Thee the only true God, and Jesus Christ whom Thou hast sent." (John 17:3).
The call of sincerity demands that if believing in the Truth is the honest intention then one could only pass an ethical judgement after reflecting upon all the relevant texts.
John 17:3 (quoted above), if read with the following verse clears the air.
Hot Tip (precise and pertinent)
Jesus said; "Truly, truly, I say to you, a slave is not greater than his master; neither one who is sent greater than the one who sent him." (John 13:16).
During his ministry, Jesus repeatedly said he was sent by his Father.
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Question No.4
The Bible; "For God so loved the world, that He gave His only begotten son, that whoever believes in him should not perish, but have eternal life." (John 3:16); should you not believe in Jesus to have eternal life?
Answer No.4
Of course, we believe in Jesus for what he was and we do not believe in what he was not. We Muslims believe Jesus was a Messiah;
"Spirit from God"; "Word of God"; the righteous Prophet as well as Messenger of God and the son of Virgin Mary. But, we do not believe Jesus was "the begotten son of God." The truth of the matter is apostle John never ever wrote; Jesus was "the begotten" son of God.
Please obtain a copy of the `Gideon Bible' from a Hotel or Motel near you. It is distributed free since 1899, all over the world, by The Gideon Society. In the beginning of this famous Bible, John 3:16 is translated in 26 popular world languages. You may be amazed to discover that in the English translation, the editors have used the traditionally accepted term "His only begotten son." Whereas, in several other languages the editors have used the term "His unique son" or "His one of a kind son."
In 1992, when I discovered this textual variations, I wrote letters to various universities in North America requesting them to confirm the original Greek term used by John. Below is a copy of the response received from The George Washington University:- John 3:16 and John 1:18 each have the word `monogenes' in Greek. This word ordinarily means "of a single kind". As a result, "unique" is a good translation. The reason you sometimes find a translation that renders the word as "only begotten" has to do with an ancient heresy within the church. In response to the Arian claim that Jesus was made but not begotten, Jerome (4th century) translated the Greek term `monogenes' into Latin as `unigenitus' ("only begotten").
Paul B. Duff, 22 April, 1992.
Professor Duff's response was based upon `Anchor Bible', volume 29, page 13-14. The Greek term for "begotten" is `gennao' as found in Mt.1:2, which John did not use.
Hot Tip (precise and pertinent)
Jesus said to Mary; "...go to my brethren, and say to them, I ascend to my Father and your Father..." (John 20:17). This verse demonstrates that the usage of term `Father' was purely metaphorical. As for Jesus being a "unique son", he, unlike us, was created without a physical Father. |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Question No.5
Jesus said: "Truly, truly. I say to you, unless one is born again, he cannot see the kingdom of God." (John 3:3); I am a "born again" Christian, are you a "born again" Muslim?
Answer No.5
The truth of the matter is apostle John did not use the phrase "born again". The Greek text reveals, the phrase used by John is "born from above". The Greek word used by John is `anothen' (`ano' + `then'). `ano' means `above' and the suffix `then' denotes `from'.
Hence, what Jesus said was "unless one is born from above, he cannot see the kingdom of God." And, that sounds logical. Since none of the living creature is "born from above", no one can see the kingdom heaven during his life time. The concept of being "born again" to see the kingdom of heaven is an innovation to instill the concept of Baptism.
The same word `anothen' appears in the same Gospel and in the same chapter in verse 31. Here the editors have translated the word as "from above" and not "again".
This further supports the logic of Jesus having said; "born from above".
To enter the Kingdom of Heaven one has to keep the Commandments. God's distinguished Command known as the `Covenant of Circumcision' (physically, "in the flesh of your foreskin") was an everlasting Covenant (Compact,Treaty) between God and man. See Genesis 17:10-14.
Can an everlasting Treaty be abrogated or revoked unilaterally? Did Jesus abrogate it? No. Jesus was circumcised in the flesh (Luke 2:21). We, Muslim males, are circumcised. Are the male Christians circumcised in the "flesh of their foreskins"?
If not, please read the following verse:-
Hot Tip
Jesus said; "Whoever then annuls (discards) one of the least of these commandments, and so teaches others, shall be called least in the kingdom of heaven; but whoever keeps and teaches them, he shall be called great in the kingdom of heaven." (Matt. 5:19).
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Question No.6
Jesus said; "Go therefore and make disciples of all the nations, baptizing them in the name of the Father and the Son and the Holy Spirit," (Matthew 28:19); does this not prove that the `Doctrine of Trinity' and its present day formula was communicated and promulgated by Jesus Christ himself?
Answer No.6
With all due respect, we tend to disagree in view of the following
compelling evidences:-
1. `Peake's Commentary on the Bible' published since 1919, is universally welcomed and considered to be the standard reference book for the students of the Bible. Commenting on the above verse it records; "This mission is described in the language of the church and most commentators doubt that the trinitarian formula was original at this point in Mt.'s Gospel, since the NT elsewhere does not know of such a formula and describes baptism as being performed in the name of the Lord Jesus (e.g. Ac. 2:38, 8:16, etc.)."
2. Tom Harpur, author of several bestsellers and a former professor of New Testament, writes in his book `For Christ's Sake'; "All but the most conservative of scholars agree that at least the latter part of this command was inserted later. The formula occurs nowhere else in the New Testament, and we know from the only evidence available (the rest of the New Testament) that the earliest Church did not baptise people using these words - baptism was "into" or "in" the name of Jesus alone."
3. The above command (authentic or otherwise) does not indicate that the three names mentioned in the formula are or were, "co-equal" in their status, as well as, were "co-eternal" in the time frame, to conform with the acknowledged `Doctrine of Trinity'.
4. If the Father and His Son were both in "existence" from the Day One, and no one was, a micro second before or after, and, no one was "greater or lesser" in status, than why is one called the Father and the other His begotten Son?
5. Did the act of "Begetting" take place?
If YES, where was the "Begotten Son" before the act?
If NO, why call him the "Begotten Son"?
Hot Tip
"And Peter said to them, `Repent, and let each of you be baptized in the name of Jesus Christ for the forgiveness of your sins;...'" (Acts 2:38). It is most unlikely that apostle Peter would have disobeyed the specific command of Jesus Christ for baptising in the three names and baptized them in the name of Jesus Christ, alone.
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Question No.7
Apostle John in his first Epistle, chapter 5 and verse 7 wrote:
"For there are three that bear record in heaven, the Father, the Word, and the Holy Ghost, and these three are one."; is this not a fair testimony to acknowledge the `Doctrine of Trinity'?
Answer No.7
1. The text quoted does appear in the Kings James Version but has been omitted by most of the editors of the recent versions e.g. Revised Standard Version, New American Standard Bible, New English Bible, Phillips Modern English Bible, because the quoted text does not appear in the older Greek manuscripts.
2. Renowned historian Edward Gibbon calls the addition a "Pious Fraud" in his famous history book `Decline and Fall of Roman Empire'.
3. Peakes commentary on the subject reads; "The famous interpolation after "three witnesses" is not printed even in RSVn, and rightly. It cites the heavenly testimony of the Father, the logos, and the Holy Spirit, but is never used in the early trinitarian controversies. No respectable Greek MS contains it. Appearing first in a late 4th-cent. Latin text, it entered the Vulgate and finally the NT of Erasmus."
Hot Tip
Notwithstanding the above rejections, the verse that follows the quoted text reads in KJV; "And there are three that bear witness in earth, the spirit, and the water, and the blood; and these three agree in one." (1John5:8). Are these three witnesses "co-equal"? Can blood be substituted with water? Can water be regarded as the same in any respect with the Spirit? Just as the spirit, the blood and the water are three separate entities, so are the first three witnesses, namely; the Father, the Son (Word, Logos) and the Holy Spirit (Ghost).
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Question No.8
Jesus said:"He who believes in the son has eternal life; but he who does not obey the son shall not see life, but the wrath of God abides on him." (John 3:36); are you not under the wrath of God for not being a follower of Christ - a Christian, by belief?
Answer No.8
It is an interesting question. In fact, we Muslims should be asking the question to you the followers of Christ. Do the vast majority of Christians truthfully believe Christ for what he said he was, and, truly understand his commands and obey them?
We believe, most of the followers who claim to be Christians do not even understand the implications of calling their Leader or Lord;
"Christ". (The readers will understand what I mean by the last sentence, once they go through the rest of the text).
Here is the answer to your question. The above verse has two parts. `Belief' and `Obedience'. On the subject of Belief in Christ, Jesus asked his disciples;
"But who do you say that I am? And Peter answered and said, "The Christ of God." (Luke 9:20). Peter did not say God or a god. We Muslims truly believe Jesus was "The Christ (al-Masih) of God".
The expression "The Christ of God" literally means; "The one that was anointed by God himself". Please go back in time and think.
God performed the ceremony of anointing (physically or spiritually) and for that reason, Jesus became "The Christ of God". Now may I please ask you a simple question. Who is greater and exalted; the one who anointed, or, the one who got anointed? Since God anointed Jesus, God is the greater and exalted between the two, which we Muslims, do truly believe. But surprisingly, the followers who say Jesus is "Christ", don't.
Hot Tip
"...Thy holy Servant Jesus, whom Thou didst anoint,..."
(Acts 4:27 - New American Standard Bible).
This leaves no room for doubt that Jesus was a `Servant of God'.
Besides, there are other verses which declare Jesus; God's Servant.
Now let us go to the second part of the quoted verse; "obeying the Christ". Please read the following verse and ask yourself a question; have I obeyed?
"Truly, truly, I say to you, he who hears my word, and believes Him who sent me, has eternal life, and does not come into judgement, but has passed out of death into life." John 5:24 Have I believed and placed my trust basically, fundamentally and predominately in Him or in Jesus?
Hot Tip
Jesus said; "But I do not seek my glory; there is One who seeks and judges." John 8:51. Who is this "One", who is not Jesus? Have you basically, essentially and fundamentally glorified the "One" or Jesus?
Please remember, the "One" will be the Judge on the Day of Judgement and not Jesus. If you disbelieve or disobey the above word of Jesus please read the verse quoted by you and then think about the "wrath of God". |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Question No.9
In the Book of Genesis 1:26, we read; "And God said, Let us make man in our image, after our likeness..."; does not the use of terms "us" and "our" prove that the God which created man was not a singular entity, furthermore, does it not support the Johnannine concept (John 1:3); all things came into being through Jesus?
Answer No.9
1. Below is an extract from a commentary for the above verse, written by the editors of King James Version (The Hebrew-Greek Key Study Bible, 6th edition):
"The Hebrew word for God is `Elohim' (430), a plural noun. In Genesis 1:1, it is used in grammatical agreement with a singular verb `bara' (1254), created. When plural pronouns are used, "Let us make man in our image after our likeness," does it denote a plural of number or the concept of excellence or majesty which may be indicated in such a way in Hebrew? Could God be speaking to angels, the earth, or nature thus denoting Himself in relation to one of these? Or is this a germinal hint of a distinction in the divine personality? One cannot be certain."
Having written "One cannot be certain", the editors try to advocate the theory of Jesus, as the "essential (internal) unity of Godhead."
2. The response to your question, as well as, to the commentators remark; "One cannot be certain", lies not very far, but in the next verse (Genesis 1:27), which reads; "And God created man in His own image,..." This statement tells us that the actual act of creation when performed, was performed by "Him" and in "His" image and not by "Us" in "Our" image.
Hot Tip
As a closing conclusive argument, here is a statement of truth from Jesus himself; "And he (Jesus) answered and said unto them, `Have you not read, that He which made them at the beginning made them male and female." (Matthew 19:4). This statement by Jesus also negates the so called Johnannine concept put forward by you (NOT by apostle John); "all things came into being through Jesus."
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Question No.10
In the Gospel of John, we find that eight days after his resurrection, Jesus stood before his disciples and asked the unbelieving Thomas to feel his hands and side, to verify the nail marks and spear scar. After seeing the hands and the side, Thomas said to Jesus; "My Lord and my God." If Jesus was not God, he would have certainly reprimanded Thomas, but he did no such thing, does this not prove, `Jesus was God'?
Answer No.10
Please allow me quote from the `New American Standard Bible' the entire text as it appears in Ch.20:27-28 from John's Gospel:
"Then he (Jesus) said to Thomas, "Reach here your finger, and
see my hands, and reach here your hand, and put it into my side; and be not unbelieving, but believing." Thomas answered and said to him, "My Lord and my God!"
1. Please observe the mark of exclamation (!) at the end of the phrase. (Note: K.J.V. has removed the exclamation mark).
2. Please observe there was no question asked in the entire narration. Hence, the text which reads "Thomas answered" is inaccurate.
3. The last phrase "My Lord and my God!" was not an *answer* but an outburst of *exclamation* by Thomas, having seen something inexplicable and baffling. Often, we too cry out; "O' my God!" when we see something totally bizarre or grotesque.
4. To prove that the above explanation is not my concocted theory, below are the texts from two reputed versions of the Bible that support this theory.
In the `New English Bible' it reads: Thomas said, "My Lord and my God!"
b. In the `Phillips Modern English Bible' it reads: "My Lord and my God!" cried Thomas.
Hot Tip
Apostle John writes, immediately after the discourse between Jesus and Thomas; "Many other signs therefore Jesus also performed in the presence of the disciples, which are not written in this book; but these have been written that you may believe that Jesus is the Christ..." If John had recognized the answer by Thomas to be a testimony for the `Deity of Jesus' and the observed silence by Jesus to be his acquiesce to such a testimony, then John would have written "Jesus is the God" and not "Jesus is the Christ..."
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Question No.11
Apostle Matthew records that Jesus was worshipped by Magi that came from the East (2:11); by the boat people (14:33); by Mary Magdalene and the other Mary (28:9); and also by his disciples on a mountain in Galilee (28:17). Since worshipping any one other than God is a fundamental sin, why did not Jesus stop these people from worshipping him, unless he was God himself?
Answer No.11
1. For your information, none of the above worshipped Jesus. Nor, did apostle Matthew record it so. According to the lexical aids to the Bible, the proper Greek word for `worship' is `sebomai' (4576) from the root `seb'. That word `sebomai' is used by apostle Matthew in 15:9 where Jesus said; "But in vain do they worship me,..."
The Greek word used by the apostle in the above quotes is `prosekunesan' and not `sebomai'. `Prosekunesan' comes from `proskuneo' (4352), which literally means bow, crouch, crawl, kneel or prostrate. If the apostle wanted to convey; `Jesus was worshipped', he would have used the word `sebomai' which he did not.
2. To prove the point further, in `New English Bible' the translations of the quoted verses read; `bowed to the ground' in (2:11); `fell at his feet' in (14:33); `falling prostrate before him' in (28:9), and `fell prostrate before him' in (28:17).
3. The question of Jesus stopping them for worshipping, therefore does not arise, because they simply bowed or prostrated to him.
Hot Tip
Apostle Mark records in 10:17-18; "And as he (Jesus) was setting out on a journey, a man ran up to him and knelt before him and began asking him, "Good Teacher, what shall I do to inherit the eternal life?" And Jesus said to him, "Why do you call me good? No one is good except God alone." It sounds inharmonious and inconsistent that a person who even refuses to be called "good" could have allowed any one to worship him.
Since, no one is good except "God alone", should not Christians be worshipping directly to that solitary God to whom Jesus himself prayed more than a dozen times, according to the Gospels?
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Question No.12
When prophet Moses asked God; What was His name? What shall he say to his people? From behind the Burning Bush God replied; "I AM THAT I AM." God also asked Moses to say to the sons of Israel: "I AM hath sent me unto you." Exodus 3:14.
When confronted by Jews; "Jesus said unto them, `Verily, verily, I say unto you, Before Abraham was, I am." (John 8:58 K.J.V.). Jesus also said; "I said therefore unto you, that ye shall die in your sins: for if ye believe not that I am he, ye shall die in your sins. (John 8:24, K.J.V.). Does that not prove, Jesus existed before his birth; he was the One who spoke to Moses from behind the Burning Bush; and if you do not believe that, you will die in your sins?
Answer No.12
Your question is based upon a simple conjecture. Even the editors of K.J.V. insinuate that fact. Under the foot note of Exodus 3:14 the editors write; "Jesus probably alluded to this name of God in John 8:58, `Before Abraham was, I AM." The use of phrase "probably alluded" clearly indicates it is not an established reality. My dear friend, a surmise can never take place of (replace) an acknowledged statement. This is what Jesus said; "...I am he, and that I do nothing of myself; but as my Father hath taught me, I speak these things." (John 8:28). God of Moses that claimed "I AM THAT I AM" had no instructor or tutor, and, needed no tutoring. If God had an instructor or an educator, then what would you call that entity? God's mentor or boss??
As for the existence of Jesus before his birth, please remember Jesus was anointed by God before he was born. Hence, he was called Christ (Messiah). Besides Jesus, there were others who were either anointed, consecrated or made holy, before their births. (see Ps. 89:20, Is. 45:1, 61:1; 1 Sam. 24:6). God did take a solemn covenant from Novah, Abraham, Moses, Jesus - son of Mary, and Muhammad before they were sent, reveals the Qur'an. Bible records, God came to prophet Jeremiah and said to him;
"Before I formed you in the womb I knew you, and before you were born I consecrated you; I have appointed you a prophet to the nations." Jeremiah 1:5.
I have question for you. How would you explain this ensuing statement? Jesus said to Jews; "Your father Abraham rejoiced to see my day, and he saw it, and was glad." (John 8:56)
Hot Tip
When Jews were doubtful about the identity of a particular blind beggar who had been healed by Jesus, the blind beggar - who was no more blind, kept saying; "I am he" (John 9:9, K.J.V.). Does that make the blind beggar, God! Further more, the beggar when questioned about Jesus who had healed him, replied to Jews; "And he said, "He is a prophet." (John 9:17). |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Question No.13
Apostle Mark records in 16:19; "...He (Jesus) was received up into heaven, and sat down at the right hand of God." The question is, who can have such an unparalleled privilege and distinction, besides his own begotten Son? Is there anyone else who has been elevated to that station, in any other scripture?
Answer No.13
1. Are you aware of the fact that there are two versions of Mark's Gospel? One is called the shorter version and other, the longer version. The shorter version, which ends at verse 8, does not contain the above verse.
2. One of the two great achievements of an eminent biblical critic of the nineteenth century, Lobegott Friedrich Konstantin Von Tischendorf, was the historical discovery of the oldest known Bible manuscript `Codex Sinaiticus' from St. Catherine's Monastery in Mt. Sinai. The most damaging piece of evidence that Tischendorf discovered in this 5th century document was that the gospel of Mark ended at 16:8. In other words, the last 12 verses (Mark 16:9 to 20) were "injected" sometime after the 5th century. Clement of Alexandria and Origen never quoted these verses. Later on, it was also discovered that the said 12 verses, wherein lies the various accounts of "Resurrected Jesus", do not appear in codices Syriacus, Vaticanus and Bobiensis. Today, in many of the revised versions of the Bible, the said twelve verses appear within parentheses. Tischendorf also discovered that John's gospel was heavily reworked. For example, verses starting from John 7:53 to 8:11 are not to be found in codices Sinaiticus or Vaticanus. Similarly, a verse from the gospel of Luke that speaks of Peter running to the tomb, stooping and looking in and finding it empty and marvelling at what had happened is not to be found in the ancient manuscripts. (For detailed information please read `Secrets of Mount Sinai' by James Bentley, Orbis, London, 1985).
3. Peake's Commentary on the Bible records; "It is now generally agreed that 9-20 are not an original part of Mk. They are not found in the oldest MSS, and indeed were apparently not in the copies used by Mt. and Lk. A 10th-cent. Armenian MS ascribes the passage to Aristion, the presbyter mentioned by Papias (ap.Eus.HE III, xxxix, 15)."
Hot Tip
The Book of Revelation (symbolic and obscure writings of uncertain authorship), records in 3:21 that Jesus sat down with his Father on his Father's throne. You write, based upon injected verse; Jesus sat down at the right hand side of God. Which one do you believe?
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Question No.14
In the Epistle of Paul to Romans, it reads; "that if you confess with your mouth Jesus as Lord, and believe in your heart that God raised him from the dead, you shall be saved; for with the heart man believes, resulting in righteousness, and with the mouth he confesses, resulting in salvation." (Roman 10:9-10, NASB). The salvation is assured to us Christians who confess with our mouth and heart; Jesus Christ to be our Lord. What do Muslims have for their salvation?
Answer No.14
This is a preferred verse with the evangelic missionaries. It is one of the bases of the Christianity propagated by Paul and needs to be addressed in detail and from various perspectives.
1. This is a quotation from one of the Epistles (letters) written by Paul. While reading a passage from an Epistle one has to bear in mind that these letters when written by the author, were a sort of discourse containing religious instructions and admonitions, and, were not intended to form a part and parcel of the canonical Scripture.
2. To substantiate the above claim, please read 1 Corin 7:25-26 and 7:40. Here Paul writes; "I give an opinion"; "in my opinion" and "I think" (twice). Whereas, Jesus - the prophet of God, admitted; "...and I do nothing on my own initiative, but I speak these things as the Father taught me." (John 8:28). One has to differentiate "my opinion" and "my thought" from the "inspired" or the divinely "tutored" document.
3. In 2 Corin 12:16, Paul - a zealous persecutor of the disciples that overnight became a fervent propagator of `Christianity', makes a perplexing statement; "...crafty fellow that I am, I took you in by deceit." Jesus was a righteous prophet propagating the `Kingdom of God'. His mission was, alike every other Jewish prophet, to glorify God alone.
4. Imagine, you are at a crossroad. There are three signs. Paul transcribes; Take the Left turn to reach the Destination. Jesus transcribes; Take the Right turn. The Old Testaments transcribes; Take the Right turn. Which way should you be headed if you wish to reach the Destination with certainty? Please bear this viewpoint in mind, while comparing various passages from the Bible.
5. Now let us go to Roman 10:9-10, the verses quoted by you in the above question. Please continue reading the succeeding verses, which say; "For the Scripture says, `Whoever believes in Him will not be disappointed.' For there is no distinction between Jew and Greek; for the same Lord is Lord of all, abounding in riches for all who call upon Him; for `Whoever will call upon the name of the Lord will be saved." (Roman 10:11-13).
Note: The editors of the New Testament have created confusion by translating the Greek word `Theos' (meaning, God) as "Lord". And, the Greek word `Kurios' (meaning, Master, Owner, Head of a house) as "Lord", as well. For those who consider Jesus to be God, it may not make any difference, but for the rest it does.
6. To resolve the dilemma as to who is this "the same Lord" who is the Lord of Jews, of Greeks and of all; let us go to verses 3:29-30 in the same Epistle. It reads; "Or is God the God of Jews only? Is He not the God of Gentiles also? Yes, of Gentiles also-if indeed God is one- and He will justify the circumcised by faith and the uncircumcised through faith." Jews never accepted Jesus as their Prophet or Messiah, leave alone accepting him as their Lord (Master) or as their Lord (God). So, "Lord Jesus" is out of the picture, leaving "Lord the God" to be the "one God" of all.
7. To answer your specific question, the verse above reads; "Whoever will call upon the name of the Lord (Lord of all) will be saved." We Muslims call upon the name of that Almighty God, the God of all, who pronounced His Commands to Adam, Noah, Abraham, Ishmael, Isaac, Jacob, Moses, David, Solomon, Jesus, Muhammad and many others (peace be upon all the prophets).
8. BTW, the verses that you have originally quoted has one very portentous underlying theme which you probably might have over looked. It says; "and (if you) believe in your heart that God raised him from the dead, you shall be saved." This sentence conveys there were two separate entities:
a. One called Jesus, who was dead and lying motionless in a tomb.
b. One called God, who was alive and able to perform acts. The entity (b) raised the entity (a) that was in an agony. "And God raised him up again, putting an end to the agony of death..." Acts 2:24.
I hope you will henceforth recognize "the dead" and "the alive" to be two distinct entities and "un-equal", whenever you think of the "Risen Jesus".
9. Would it not be an unfair practise on part of the Almighty God to have sent His son as a "Saviour to all" thousands of years after Adam. Did not that deprive those born before the Christian Era of "the easy way out" to the Salvation? God cannot be unfair. He is a Righteous God. May be the entire concept is an Innovation.
10. Tom Harpur, a former professor of New Testament and an Anglican Minister writes; "Perhaps I am lacking in piety or some basic instinct, but I know I am not alone in finding the idea of Jesus' death as atonement for the sins of all humanity on one level bewildering and on the other morally repugnant. Jesus never to my knowledge said anything to indicate that forgiveness from God could only be granted `after' or `because of' the cross." (For Christ's Sake, p.75).
Hot Tip
"And there is no other God besides Me, A righteous God and a Saviour; There is none except Me. `Turn to Me, and be saved, all the ends of the earth; For I am God, and there is no other." Isaiah 45:21-22. (please also read Hosea 13:4). When God said; "all the ends of the earth" He righteously meant it to be so. The era of "cross" should make no difference.
BTW, if you truly accept the end part of the quoted Isaiah, you have accepted the first half of the `Confession of Islamic Faith' called "Shahadah".
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Question No.15
From the prologue of John's Gospel, I have a very valid and legitimate three part question:-
(a) Was not Jesus God from the beginning?
Verse upholding (a); In the beginning was the Word,
and the Word was with God, and the Word was God. (John 1:1)
(b) Were not all things made through Jesus??
Verses upholding (b); He was in the beginning with God.
All things came into being through him; and apart from him nothing came into being that has come into being. (John 1:2-3)
(c) Was not Jesus made flesh and dwelt among us???
Verse upholding |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Answer No.15
This three part question is so often repeated, collectively or individually, that I will try to answer them (God-willing), from various perspectives. For an uncomplicated comprehension, I am going to separate the three part question into three separate questions. In this number fifteen, I will deal with part (a) above.
1. The verse insinuates "Jesus was God from the beginning" because Christians have, for the last numerous generations, embraced the concept of SUBSTITUTING the word "Word" (Greek term `Logos') with "Jesus". John did not write "Jesus". It is a SUBSTITUTION.
2. One can only SUBSTITUTE (of course with admissible logic), the original term *IF* the LITERAL translation of the used term fails to reconcile with the rest of the text. Unfortunately, as you will soon discover, the situation here is the other way around.
3. Please read the last two lines from (a) with the SUBSTITUTION.
It reads; "and Jesus was with God and Jesus was God."
How can Jesus be "with" God and "was" God, as well? It defies the logic. The SUBSTITUTION creates an enigmatic dilemma to which the Christian scholars have yet to find an answer.
4. The norm of accepting the SUBSTITUTION has been so deep rooted that no believing Christian scholar has sincerely attempted to find out what in reality is the LITERAL translation. Let us do it together. The Greek term `Logos' is derived from the root word `Lego' meaning `to speak'. The literal translation of `Logos' is `something spoken or thought'. The verification of the above translation is simple. Please pick up your English Dictionary and look for the word `Decalogue'. Surprised! It reads; `The Ten Commandments'. (deka=ten; logous=commands). Now please flip a few more pages of your dictionary and go to the word `Logos'. Please look for the word origin. In my pocket `Oxford Dictionary' it reads; "[Gk, = reason, discourse, (rarely) word]."
5. Having discovered the LITERAL translation of the word "Logos" used by apostle John, let us read (a):
In the beginning was the `spoken word, command', and the `spoken word, command' was with God, and the `spoken word, command' was Divine. (John 1:1)
6. The LITERAL translation is not only logical but it coincides perfectly with the prologue of the Book of Genesis. "In the beginning God created the heavens and the earth." "And the God said, Let there be light; and there was light." (Genesis 1:1 and 3)
7. You may now ask, why did I translate "Divine" instead of "God" in the last line?. The answer is based upon the usage of Greek grammar. In the second line, the phrase used by John for "God" is `ho theo', meaning `the God'. In the last line it is simply `theo', the definitive article `the' is not used. Why? Because, it is a predicate of the subject `ho theo'. The predicate is used to denote the nature, quality, attribute or property of the subject. Here the in this instance the nature of the God's spoken command was Divine.
8. In `New translation of the Bible' (1922) by the famous Dr. James Moffatt, it reads; "the Logos was Divine." And, also in `The Complete Bible - An American Translation' (Smith-Goodspeed) and `The Authentic New Testament' by Hugh J. Schonfield.
Please look for No. 16 and 17 for answers to (b) and |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Question No.17
From the prologue of John's Gospel, I have a very
valid and legitimate three part question:-
(a) Was not Jesus God from the beginning?
Verse upholding (a); In the beginning was the Word,
and the Word was with God, and the Word was God. (John 1:1)
(b) Were not all things made through Jesus??
Verses upholding (b); He was in the beginning with God.
All things came into being through him; and apart from him nothing came into being that has come into being. (John 1:2-3)
(c) Was not Jesus made flesh and dwelt among us???
Verse upholding |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Answer No.18
1. Before I answer your question, please tell me who was the author of this letter (Epistle) to the Hebrews from which you have submitted the above "Words of God"? Before one places his/her confidence in the quoted texts and builds up the faith, it is equitable and fair to first identify the authorship of the letter.
2. Have you noticed that the name of the author, which is invariably mentioned in the title (heading) of every Epistle, is conspicuously missing in the Hebrews. To know the reason why, please read the followings:
3. The King James Version is supposed to be the most conservative biblical version. The editors of K.J.V. (New Revised and Updated 6th, the Hebrew/Greek Key Study, Red Letter Edition), in their introduction to the Epistle to the Hebrews, write:
"The author of the Book of Hebrews is unknown. Martin Luther suggested that Apollos was the author...Tertullian said that Hebrews was a letter of Barnabas...Adolf Harnack and J. Rendel Harris speculated that it was written by Priscilla (or Prisca). William Ramsey suggested that it was done by Philip. However, the traditional position is that the Apostle Paul wrote Hebrews...Eusebius believed that Paul wrote it, but Origen was not positive of Pauline authorship."
4. The traditional position that "Apostle Paul wrote Hebrews" is seriously undermined by the fact that the Epistle to Hebrews does not begin with his personal name. For your information, each and every other Epistle of Paul begins with his personal name. The Hebrews begin with God's name. Further, Paul had specified that his letters will bear his signature.
5. The Epistle to the Hebrews is not listed in the 6th century list of the manuscripts called Codex Claromon. This leads to the suspicion that it could have been written at a later date.
6. The critics who have studied the text of Hebrews suggest, it is not likely the work of Paul. It was written much later to prove the superiority of God's Son (Jesus) over God's Prophets (Abraham and others). In other words, the document was created by a pseudo author to prove the superiority of Christianity over Judaism.
7. All the three quoted passages from the Hebrews are in fact the direct quotes from Psalms. (Psalms 2:7; 97:7; 110:1). To say that the Psalmist had written these Songs "about Jesus" and not "about characters from their history" needs hard evidence, which is not to be found in the Psalms. Lack of such evidences have lead the bible critics to question:
Were the prophecies of the Old Testament fulfilled by the history, or, the history was written to fulfil the prophecies? (May I add, specially when the authorship is questioned, not by the outsiders, but the insiders! KJV).
Hot Tip
Al-Hamdulillah (Praise be to "the God"), you yourself have indirectly admitted, by submitting the above three quotations that there is only ONE who is:
1. The Eternal 2. The Worthy of Prayers 3. The Supreme.
Your quotes and my submissions:
1. Thou art My Son, Today I have begotten Thee.
Yesterday, the Son did not exist. "The God" alone is "The Eternal".
2. Let all the Angels worship you.
If you believe, since Angels worshipped Jesus, `Jesus is Worthy of Prayers' then in the Garden of Gethsemane, Jesus "fell on his face and prayed, saying, `My Father, if it is possible, let this cup pass from me." (Matthew 26:39). Hence, the Heavenly Father - "The God" is "The Worthy of Prayers" from Jesus, Angels and every one.
3. Sit on My right hand,....
Does not the above sentence clearly demonstrate (manifest) that "The God" who articulated or commanded the above, was sitting on the "Supreme Throne" and Jesus was standing and waiting to be told to sit down, next to him? "The God" is "THE SUPREME".
Note: All the prophets, including Jesus used to "fall on their faces" like we Muslims do, while praying.
See; Abraham, Genesis 17:3; Job, Job 1:20; Moses and Aaron, Numbers 16:22; Jesus, Mt.26:39.
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Question No.19
Below is a question from Brother Muhammad Ali Siddiqui <mas@lznhbu1.lincroftnj.attgis.com>:-
Assalamu alaykum, Here's a question. According to following verse of Isaiah, Jesus was born and he was "everlasting father". How do u explain this? Wassalam
"Unto us a Child is born, unto us a son is given, and the government shall be upon His shoulders. And His name shall be called Wonderful Counselor, Almighty God, the Everlasting Father, the Prince of Peace." Isaiah 9:6
Answer No.19
Jesus was not born according to the above verse of Isaiah.
This and several others verses from the Book of Isaiah have been *alluded* to Jesus Christ by the Christian clergy and theologians. Majority of these allusions do not have the authenticated supports.
In John's gospel there is a narration about the multitude challenging Jesus by saying; "We have heard out of the Law that the Christ is to remain forever; and how can you say, `The Son of Man must be lifted up'? Who is this Son of Man?" John 12:34.
The theologians imply that the multitude was alluding to the above quoted verse (Isaiah 9:6), while speaking of having heard from the Law. Jesus Christ used to call himself, "Son of Man" (See Matthew 16:13). Disciple Stephen before he was stoned to death called Jesus, the "Son of Man" (Acts 7:55-56). However, Jesus is not the only person in the Bible to be so called. God addressed Ezekiel as the "Son of Man" (Ezekiel 2:1).
Notwithstanding the authentication of the above allusion, here is an answer to your original question; how do you explain Jesus was "the everlasting father"?
In the Bible, the term "everlasting" or "forever" is often used as a figurative term and does not necessarily mean in its literal sense, e.g., It says; "and David My servant shall be their prince forever." Ezekiel 37:25.
The same goes for the use of the term "Father". It does not necessarily mean; "the Heavenly Father" (God), or the biological.
Joseph is called a father to Pharaoh. Genesis 45:8, Abraham is called the father of a multitude of nations. Gen. 17:5, and Job is called the father of the needy. Job 29:16. Again by theologians alluding to Psalms 110;
Jesus is a called Priest or a Father of the priesthood, forever.
Before some one reads the above quoted Isaiah 9:6 and wants to question; How do you explain the phrase;
"Almighty God", let me clear that issue in advance.
"Almighty God" is a deliberate mistranslation of the Hebrew phrase "El-Gibbor" used by Isaiah. The Hebrew phrase for "God Almighty" is "El-Shadday". In the famous Hebrew and Chaldee Dictionary by James Strong the word "gibbowr" or short "gibbor" (1368), is translated as; warrior, tyrant:-champion, chief, X excel, giant, man, mighty (man, one), strong (man), valiant man. The word "shadday" (7706), is translated as, the Almighty:-Almighty. If one was to read the verses preceeding the quoted Isaiah 9:6, the on going subject there is; "at the battle of Midian", and "the booted warrior in the battle tumult".
Hot Tip
It is very interesting to read and note;
"And whoever shall speak a word against the Son of Man, it shall be forgiven him; but whoever shall speak against the Holy Spirit, it shall not be forgiven him, either in this age or in the age to come." Matthew 12:32.
Now please read and also note this;
"But the Comforter (Greek, Paraclete), the Holy Spirit, whom the Father will send in my name, *He* will teach you all things, and bring to your remembrance all that I said to you. (John 14:26).
If one was to honestly look at the historical records of the Great Religious Teachers, and try to discover *He* "a male salvific figure"; that came after Jesus, taught "all things", spoke of Jesus and his teachings, he would but have to point his finger to the prophet of Islam. The Christian traditions have indeed "confused" this "male salvific figure" with "Spirit", in spite of the fact that the word "Spirit" (Greek, `pneu'ma'), is of a neutral gender and is *always* referred to by the pronoun "it". Below is a direct quote from the world famous `The Anchor Bible' published by Doubleday & Company, Inc, Garden City, N.Y. 1970.
"Christian tradition has identified this figure (Paraclete) as the Holy Spirit, but scholars like Spitta, Delafosse, Windisch, Sasse, Bultmann, and Betz have doubted whether this identification is true to the original picture and have suggested that the Paraclete was once an independent salvific figure, later confused with the Holy Spirit." (page 1135).
Al-Hamdulillah, what a mighty statement of truth.
Peace Yall... |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
This article discuss about the tactic and activities of the christian missionaries around the world, also can read at;http://www.themodernreligion.com ... onary-sweeping.html
Christian Missionaries Sweeping the Islamic World By Sheikh Salman Al-Odeh, from a tape by the same title, on Monday 12th of Safar, 1413 Hijra
Let us first discuss some of the new ways that Christian missionaries are using in the Islamic world, these new methods have been applied because the old methods did not prove as effective as the Christian missionaries thought they were. Some of the problems were the great gap between Islam and Christianity such as the principle of trinity and escalation of Jesus PBUH. Some of these new ways are:-
1) Misguiding, making similar, lying (taDDlel, khida3, labs Al-7aqaiq) Many books have been written for Muslims, keeping the belief of Muslims, their ideas and general princeples in mind. The book "shahadat Al-Quran" which was distributed all around the Islamic world, even in Saudi Arabia. This book was taken from the book "The Lord is one" for Zakariya Boutros. This book talks about the similarities between Islam and Christian faith. They, for example, quote the verse that refers to prophet Jesus PBUH as a prophet, a word and a spirit. They say that is originaly the same trinity! Of course this is a false interpretation, a lie. Allah said he blew in Adam of his own spirit, allah gave his word to Moses, David, Ibraham, Adam, Mohammad PBUT and not only to Jesus. The missionaries base this whole theory on the fact that there are three nouns, ie just because of the number. One of their other arguments that they say that "In the name of Allah, the most gracious, the most merciful" means three gods!! not one! that is a worst liethan the one before, they ignore that Allah has 99 names that we know, and many more that Allah promised to tell his prophet at the day of judgment.
2) Building churches that look similar to mosques : Muslims were turned off from entering churches because they looked different, that also made them feel very uncomfortable with them. They also changed the internal structure of the church to look similar to a mosque, the people sit on the floor and in lines. They have circles (7alaqat) for teaching and that sort of stuff. They started using a new way for reciting the bible that is similar to the Tarteel of Quran. The also try to compare Christ in Islam to Christ in "Christianity". They misquoted Tafseer Al-jalaleen, and make it sound like the Tafseer says Jesus PBUH knows the time of Domesday (ya3lamu Assa3a), when you refer to Al-Jalaleen you find that the time of Domesday is known to be very soon when Jesus comes (to3lamu benozolihi assa3a). In other words they lie in a shamefuly. This is used to fool the muslim who is not educated about his religion. Another book is "Al-saleeb fi al-injeel wal-quran", where they claim that Shiekh Al-fakhr Al-Razi believes that Jesus was killed on the cross, when you check al-Tafseer Al-Kabeer you find that this is a big lie. Al-Fakhr Al-Razi quoted a question from a Christiana guy then took pages to answer it so they quoted the QUESTION of the Christian guy!!! This is one of many examples.
3) Names : they started using Islamic names, for examples one of their radio stations that has a person that is responsible for answering the questions of the listeners is called "Shiekh Abdallah", his program is called "Allahu Akbar", other radio stations are called "Sawt Al-7aq", "noor 3ala noor". They can use different names but they use these only to confuse muslims with their misguided preaching.
4) The started a new way, not to tell muslims things as they are, for example not to tell them that Xtians believe that Jesus is the Son of Allah (a3ooth Billah), since Jesus himself didn't use that expression, so they use other words like "the spirit of Allah" since it is closer to the understanding of a muslim. They also use titles that are common between the two religions such as "Assalah", "Assawm", "Assadaqa" which include Christian propaganda but a title that is used to hunt muslim readers.
5) The use of Islamic expressions such as "bismilalhi Al-Rahmani Al-raheem", "Jesus Alaihi assalam", "Allah subhanah", "Allah tabarak wa ta3ala" ... calling their churches "boyoot Allah" (houses of God). They sometimes even claim to accept Islam as a religion from God, but they say that Christianity was not canceled by Islam! (ghayr-nasekh). There is a book called "deen Al-Masee7 lam Yonsakh" by Iskandar Jadid (Xtian), he also misquoted Al-Jalaleen claiming that they said that muslims must ask the people of the book "Is'alo ahlal-thikr" when in fact Al-Jalaleen were explaining that Allah was asking the Kufar to check with Ahl Al-Kitab that Allah always sent MALE messengers only, like Jesus, Moses, David ... etc pubt. And to ask them onyl about that, not anything else.
6) Making concessions to win muslims : for examples making Qudas (Christian ceremony) on Fridays not on Sundays to confuse muslims, this was done in Kuwait for example.
7) Accepting the princeple of polygamy. A funny thing to mention, In England, there was a conference in 1409 AD for priests (assaaqifat Al-Injeel) and a big discussion took place about polygamy, many of them totally rejected that issue and said that this is one thing they use against Islam, but they faced the problem that if they didn't allow polygamy they will lose their campaigns in Africa, after realizing that, they allowed it. There are catholic priest in Africa with 40 wives or more. |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
8) They say that many muslims have changed to Christianity and they publish books and cassettes about that. For example the book "limatha sirtu masee7iyan?" for a writter "sultan Muhammad Bolous", a weird mix of Christian and muslim names, they claim in this book that this person was a muslim from Afghanistan who was the son of a scholar and went to Mecca to do Hajj, asked Allah for one thing which was to give him the true guidance, then the book says they he accepted Christianity, the rest of the book is attacks on Islam that appear to be written by someone who has done a whole lot of research and is very deep into Islamic issues. It is very obvious that this book is false and forged, this is a way that is used quite a lot by Christians and even shi3a and the other misguided, lost sects who claim that Ahlul-sunna wal-jama3a do the same thing (go to Hajj and ask for true guidance and accept their sect .. ). Another book "Sudan rushes to God", giving a lot of stories about many people who came back to Xtianity, many of them are actually originaly Christians who strengthen their bond with the (Adden Al-Mansookh, deen Al-Kaneesah) unrighteous way. some other cases they to be originaly muslims. We say in answer "In Tastafti7o faqad Ja'akom Al-Fat7u", Sudan is rushing to Allah because Islamic law is being applied more and more day by day, The Xtian military state in the south loses more and more and now it is a little insignificant group that has no place to stay, the kafir tribes in the south are coming into the religion of Allah. Like Allah said in his book, when the victory of Allah comes, and you see the people coming into Islam in big groups then do "tasbee7" for Allah and thank him a lot, aski him for forgiveness because he is Attawab. (surat Al-FatH).
9) Taking the children from their parents and raising them according to their belief. for example in England they started special Hotels for children where they stay there with no connection with their parents, the workers there speak many languages, funny how most of them are muslim spoken languages (eg Arabic). Another example is Bosnia children who were taken from Bosnia in Italy and France where they are raised according to Xtian belief, children who are 3month-3years old who know nothing about their original religion. Even if these children discover what happened to them they will still have doubts from what was taught to them for all their lives.
10) Education Curriculums : In Egypt the Christians there protested and asked to remove the verses of Quran and the Hadeeths from curriculums, they write several articles in the newspapers. And how fast do you think did the government answer? in a very short while the curriculums were changed and the verses and Ahadeth were dropped, the government used the excuse "the material was too hard for the children", compare that to how they teach muslims to forget Allah and accept Kufr such as Jesus is the son of God.
11) The use of Natural disasters : Such as wars, floods, ... etc, for example in Sudan they had such things when Sudan had its starvation, muslims had to choose either take food+Kufr, or stay a muslim, but a hungry muslim. It is also sad that the aids that muslims send were distributed by Christians such as the Red Cross and others, these funds were sent by Muslims in the Gulf and the rest of the world for the muslims in Somalia, Sudan, Bangladesh, Afghanistan. It is also sad that all the aid that goes to Bosnia is given by German institutions, what do we expect from these people? they use they funds and resources to spread their religion and to spread hatred of one muslim towards the other ("the cross comes with food for you, your muslim brothers forgot you").
12) Making conditions easy for new converts from Islam to Xtianity : These converts are treated by other muslims as a traitor and something shameful, and that is the truth. They also saw that new converts feel left and abandoned, they also do not find full satisfaction with Xtianity. Something i want to mention, a book a looked at "Al-Masi7i Al-Mubashir bayna Al-Muslimeen" (The Christians missionary among muslims). This book was printed in Laghous in Nigeria and was given to all the missionaries in that area, this books explains how the missionary can get the best results of his preaching. It says : " the Christian missionary must offer a great love for new converts, as well as regular muslims, be nice to him. Learn about Islam not only to distroy muslims belief, but also to understand the similarities between Islam and Xtianity so that YOU START WITH THESE POINTS. Talk to them about Jesus, tell them that he loves them and that he is their Saviour. Do not argue the faith, give them a general idea, a fast answer, even try to make it as a joke. Especially the trinity,or the idea that Jesus is god (Addition from the person typing this article PS:this exactelly is what Xtian missionaries on the Usenet do), logical conclusions and discussions then we will fail, therefore we must ignore the subject or even make it a joke, also use similar things, for example Ibn-Assabell, say that Jesus is Ibn-Assabel" and that is a great lie because these missionaries say that Jesus is son of god not Ibn-Assabel. Some of the advises that are used in that book "avoid discussing the prophet Mohammad (we add Salla Allahu Alaihi Wa Sallam) and tell them that God will evaluate Mohammad, you don't evaluate him. Also use the point of freedom of religion, use the verse from Quran that says that." It is known to muslims that fi a muslim changes religion his punishment is to be killed, the prophet PPOABUH said "if a muslim changes religion then kill him." Also the book says "Do not try to change the religion of the muslim right away, try to first make them accept Jesus as their lover and Saviour, then you must encourage them to get babtized and declare their new religion." The book also says "muslim converts must not marry Christians, it has been proven that he may marry another muslim women" but the truth is that in many cases converts into Christianity change back into Islam and their Christian wives change with them too. Christian girls must marry Christian youth.
Now we discuss missionary acitvity itself ...
First of all, the importance of the Islamic world, the Islamic world is the land that is full of milk and honey, the way "Butrous Al-Nasik" described it when he called for the European Crusades, today the Islamic world floods with Oil too, which is the most important one because the western civilization and economy is based on the consumption of this oil, of which 70% is in the Islamic world, and much more is discovered day by day.
Second, the great number of Muslims, which grows faster than any other nations, for example in Palestine, the growth rates of muslim are much higher than Israelis, which indicates that if things go as they are Muslims will outnumber the Israelis and take over, so what you notice now is that they try to completely terminate the Islamic existence, we can see that very clearly in Bosnia where they kill a muslim even if he knew nothing about his religion. This is one issue, the other is birth control and limiting it among Muslims. A funny example is Indonesia, Indonesia is a densely populated muslim land, one of the doctors who i know that lived in Australia before told me that the average Australian believes that one day those Indonesians will invade Australia, he said that this belief is very strong in the heart of Australian to the degree that he thought it originated from some sort of a previous prediction or so, after investigation we discovered that there is no such thing and it is only from the fact that Indonesia in densely populated and Australia is not, and so when this muslim country is over populated Muslims will invade Australia, that is what Australians fear. |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
The third reason, and the most important, the Islamic threat, the one they call "fundemantalist threat", which they fear today, and which is coming now. It appears to me that this threat is coming very soon, so they fear Islam today. I talked about this in details in a previous lecture titled "Why do they fear Islam?", but, concerning their fear today, i will add something new to it. Islam in central Asia and previous USSR republics: It has become a danger to them, they decided not to allow any Saudi muslim to get a visa to go there, it appears that this is a cooperation between Russian and American intelegence because of their fear of Islam s spreading or getting stronger. Another example is Afghanistan, there are great threats to destroy the Islamic government in Afghanistan and to establish a state in northern Afghanistan that doesn't apply Islamic law so that it stands between the control of what they call the "fundemantalist government" in Kabul and the rest of Afghanistan. Another example is Bosnia, i read yesterday about a report from the British intelegence which warns against the great Islamic danger from the Balkan states, it also says that there is apart of Serbia called Kusufo which is populated by a Muslims majority, and that these Muslims are uniting and they assigned for themselves a muslim leader and they are gathering weapons. It says that they intend to ask for separation from Serbia and recognition from the world, and if not given that they will start a new Balkan war against the Serbs and the Balkans will fall into a muslim-Christian war that no one can predict how and when it will end. In addition to many muslim groups who store guns in Albania and Montinegro. So they expect a war between Islam, or what they call fundementalism, Versus Christianity. We too expect that war and maybe even faster than they expect, that is why they give a great deal to the muslim lands.
It is enough evidence for you that the council of international churches in its 7th gathering in Australia concentrated on the middle east and decided to assign the pope Shinoda to be the head for its missionary campaigns in the Islamic world, with the center being Cairo in Egypt. Shinoda was given great authority to do his mission. This is why notice that Shinoda has that great attention in the media and on TV, especially in the Egyptian TV and newspapers. We notice the same attention in western newspapers and TV channels, where he is portrayed as the leader of Christians in the middle east.
Many of the young Muslims today are not afraid of this missionary campaign, they think that it does not affect anything. I say that this is wrong, It was proven by study that this is not true, and that many Muslims are effected by this missionary activity, and that many Muslims leave Islam and enter into Christianity! add to that the ones who are slightly affected by christianity they for example leave Islam without entering into christianity, or accept some of the Christian belief, or help Christians in their activities, or accept that their relatives become Christians then that is a huge number of people! So the missionary activity is doing what it is supposed to do.
It is wrong to think that every muslim has an impunity against these missionaries, the missionary efforts are very huge, they are starting to give results even it is was a partial success. The need for food, shelter, medicine, education and clothes are one of the reasons that Muslims may accept christianity. Ignorance is also another reason, there are many Muslims who do not know much about Islam. The ignorant muslim is called to christianity in cunning ways and so he enters into it. The fact that there is no Islamic preaching to stand in the face of Christian missionary with similar preaching is also another factor, there is not such activity to teach those ignorant Muslims about their religion and warning them about the danger of the missionaries is a reason that made christianity acceptable among Muslims.
I will give some examples about this, just some examples of the many i have, Wallah if i wanted to discuss all the documents i have we would spend all night, but this is a few just t give you some idea :-
1) Africa : In the Newspaper "Adda3wa", issue number 1324, they asked a question " Did the popes plan to make Africa a Christian continent by the year 2000 succeed?", it appears that there is a huge campaign to make Africa a Christian continant, many missionary activities are taking the forms of medical and educational aid, it is based on a huge number of missionaries and a well designed plan to convert the continent. For example, in Zambia the president announced that it is a Christian country even though the Christians are only 25% of the population, the church is running with a dictatorship methodology in Africa by oppressing and controlling, trashing their false theories of the freedom of religion. The international organizations are keeping their eyes away from the act of forcing people to convert into christianity, why don't they protect Muslims from this injustice? the Muslims in Zambia, 50% of them send their children to Christian schools. Two ministers in Zambia are official priests, in addition to the minister of information who is another official priest. The council of the Muslims of Africa says that in Malawi the percentage of Muslims has dropped from 66% to 17% in half a century. In Mali one single priest built 200 churches, 20 hospitals, 50 schools and 600 wells.
The pope made seven visits to Africa! Allahu Akbar!!! the head of christianity gives that much attention and time to Africa! The muslim scholars do not even think about these African states not just not visit them. 300,000 Muslims were converted into christianity in the last two years. In Sinigal the pope met the Sufi shiekhs, and he even met the muslim youths which made the media in that country make fun of Muslims, their belief and their scholars. In Somalia, the only country that is 100% pure muslim land with no minority, that is why it was divided into three states, churches were built everywhere, great efforts were put to build radio stations, spread books, .. etc and in the time of the war of Aghadeer the Christians used that war to build their sites and churches even though Somalia had not a single Christian before the war. The Christians have reached powerful positions in the country and there are radio stations for the sole purpose of converting Muslims in Somalia and to Africa in general. |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
In Spain they have the biggest center of missionaries to Africa, they are trained really well and their efforts lead many Morrocans to convert, in Morocco missionaries are given many privileges from the government to do their activity and travel freely. Missionary work in Africa towards Muslims in Europe is a great activity, the fact that they are in a Christian society makes it easy. David Pareet says in the Christian encyclopedia, and this is dangerous survey, the number of Christians in Africa was 9 million only in 1900Ad, or they were 9% of the whole population. In the year 1980 they became 200 million! imagen! they jumped from 9 to 200 million in 80 years, he expected them to reach 390 million in the year 2000 or 48% of the whole population of Africa!!! that is if they grow on the same ratio, of course they want to speed up the process.
Concerning Algeria, I read a report in the magazine "Al-3alam Al-Islami", issue 1229, it says that French occupation came to Algeria originally to convert Algeria into a Christian country, the marshal Vego used to say "the days of Islam are few", Suhan Allah! i wish he could see what happened to Algeria and how it became a great Islamic strength that the west thinks a 1000 times about. A French leader used to say "Quran is stronger than France", the second French guy was right and the first was wrong, the good thing that relieves me a bit is that in the 132 years of occupation not a single muslim child converted into christianity in Algeria! and this shows the strength and decency of the great people of Algeria against the missionary activities.
Egypt is considered a center, a great center for the muslim world, it is known to have a Christian minority (coptic). The west supports the Egyptian government on the bases of its support for that minority. The Egyptian government gives its reports of obedience to that minority and other reports of the crushing of muslim youth to get its support from the west. In the year 1986 six of the Muslims in Egypt converted into christianity, the Azhar didn't do anything. Then mother Terreza, a very well known missionary came to Egypt and was able to change 50 young Girls from Islam into Christianity.
In a secret, dangerous meeting in Oxford, which some results were exposed to the public later, it was concerning missionary activity in Egypt and the new methods of missionaries. The pope Shinoda built hundreds of schools in Egypt, add to that many foreign schools like the university of Singoor in Alexandria. A secret report was exposed showing that there is a council called Al-Jam3iya Al-SiHiya Al-Mase7iya with support from the American imbacy there and that it main purpose is missionary activity. The protestant churches in Egypt started an intensive missionary activity from Qasr ADDeborah which is also close from the American imbacy and is also a head quarters for missionary activity. Other institutions were built in universities and schools to capture young muslim girls and arrange for them (da3arah) immoral activities and then photograph them and blackmail them with those pictures. There are also Christian gangs and terrorist groups such as Al-Jihad Al-Nasrani, and the weird thing is that the government lets it work without harassment, and the so called pope Shinoda completely denies its existence while the scholars of Al-Azhar confirm its existence and its harassment to Muslims. The government is only concerned with limiting the activities of the muslim youth.
2) Indonesia : The biggest muslim gathering in the world, more than 180 million Muslims of which 80% of are Muslims. This country is very poor, for example one Saudi Riyal is 2000 Rupees there, they are ready to accept anything, if Muslims intend to spread Islam it would be a great land for it. I saw that with my eyes when i visited it and i told my companions that Indonesia is for those who come first. From the poorness of Indonesia, they have something called "rice missionary", the use of rice to spread christianity! and also "medical missionary", it is enough to know that more than 30% have an income less than 500$ per year. Many of them have converted. Above all that 65% of the companies are in the hands of Christians, the best schools are Christian schools and they are always the center for the children of influential, rich and powerful people. On the political side, most of the politicians are Christians, 65% of the high military officers are Christians! even there is an attempt to put a Christian president from them, a guy called Beni Murdani, a catholic who holds the ministry of defense and is supported by the west. It is enough to know that this man is supported by Jam3iyat Nahdat Al-3olama', a muslim group!!! The number of foreign missionaries 27,324!! almost 30 thousands missionary and that doesn't include the Indonesian missionaries!!!! on the other hand the number of muslim preachers are less than 80! there is 20 American missionary institutions, 44 European ... the budget for missionaries in Indonesia is 100 million dollars per year!!!! their methods are many: reaching power positions, educational institutions, publications! Also there are empty Islands where the government moves some Muslims and some pagans there so the missionaries hurry to build there and meet these people as they come and convert them! many Muslims were converted this way. Mixed marriages between Muslims and Christians is another way. There are also several air line companies that dedicate all their revenue to the missionary effort as mentioned the the magazine Al-Yamamah, issue 1410.
There is also an Island called Samarang which has the High Institution For Missionary which was able to convert 6000 muslim students in 9 years who became missionaries too. There is also another area called Riyam, this area is uncivilized and the people there still live in primitive life style. There is a great effort to convert these people even by seducing them by European girls who live among them ... there are some muslim efforts but they do not compare to the Christian efforts.
3) Malaysia : Father "Than" there calls for political activity to build what he calls "the Kingdom of God" in Malaysia to stop the corruption in the government. Malaysia is also threatened by the change of the kind of population from the immigration by Chinese people who changes the ratios and percentages of Muslims there in all its states.
4) The Ex-communist republics : The magazine Al-Mujtama3 in the issue 996 said that Istanbul witnessed a huge meeting, which is the first of its kind since a 1000 years, which was attended by the highest priests of Eastern Orthodox churches and 14 Orthodox churches from the Middle East, Africa and Eastern Europe were represented in that meeting. The goal of that meeting was reconciliation with the other churches to face the so called "challenges". These challenges are us the Muslims, meaning that the Christians are uniting and gathering to face and fight what they call the "Islamic fundementalism" which is prefered to as "challenges". The meeting also issued a statement saying that the eastern church has faced a lot of oppression on the hands of Muslims and that the lands of central Asia and Russia was a Christian land and it must return a Christian land as it was before! therefore the meeting assigned a great deal of funds and methods like tapes, publications, sending missionaries, building schools to bring Christians back to their religion and and to convert Muslims. ..... For that ... an American institution made a great campaign called "Uniting for the sake of Jesus" which was aimed to at the Christians of Russia, it sent 1,000,000 copies of the bible to Russia, other activites included publishing Christian leaflets everywhere, broadcasting movies such as one called "Jesus" which I saw here in this city, which talks to these people and asks them to take Jesus into their life after leaving communism. They also built many Christian schools all around Russia and training missionaries there. In Albania which is a state that left communist, there are massive missionary efforts, it even reached that Christians are staring to get a good grip on the economy there even though that there is a lot of poorness and hunger there ... the Christians are also trying only to provide work for Christians, they even built a huge factory and the only condition to work there was to wear a cross on your chest. One of the local shiekhs, Twfiq Islam, exposed in an interview with the press the missionary and Christians plots, he also said the Christians have built centers in most cities and villages there. Of course this is just some of what they did, i have several other documents but I'll save them for the lack of time.
I have an article, titled "The Future Of Islam in Africa", it was published in the magazine Al-Ummah in Jumada the first 1406 Hijri, it talks about the planes to convert the tribe Fulani, one the biggest tribes in Nigeria which was the tribe that supported Shiekh Othman Fudio who established a Khilafa in Nigeria the beginning of the 19th century.
This concludes the material on this lecture, next lecture we will continue about missionaries.
Wa Assalatu Wa Assalamu Ala Sayyidina Muhammad.
Peace Yall.... |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
http://www.themodernreligion.com ... ity_evangelists.htm
What is the goal of the Evangelists?
By Abdul Azim Gregor Shepherd
I recently came across a copy of the "The Great Commission New Testament" published out of Nashville U.S.A in 1982. Turning to the first page we read in large bold type, This is a marked copy of the New Testament, the first sentence says, "God offers salvation as a free gift." After three short quotes expounding this "free gift" we are again directed in large bold type to turn to page 177.
The evangelists will tell you that this book is God’s LIVING WORD, but who cares about actually reading it, just go straight to page 177! Skip 176 pages and go right to the core. Surely these 176 pages of God’s word actually contain some important information? Most of which are supposedly quotes from Jesus.
On page 177 we read in large bold print at the top of the page Realize you are a sinner, and we are directed to read the underlined verse, Romans 3:23. At the bottom of the page we are then directed in large bold print to skip to page 180. Turning to the said page, we read at the top, The penalty for sin is death, once again in large bold print. We scan down the page to the underlined section of a single verse from Romans 6:23 and at the bottom of the page in large bold print we are directed to refer to page 178.
Turning back to page 178 at the top we read in large bold print Christ paid your penalty and we are obliged to read the underlined three verses explaining this phenomena, Romans 5:8-10. Again, at the bottom of the page we are encouraged to turn to page 138, in large bold print.
This "choose your own salvation adventure book" is rather entertaining!
On the top of page 138 we find again in large bold print You must repent and our gaze falls upon an underlined verse, Acts 3:19. The bottom of the page directs us to refer to page 220, in large bold print. On page 220 written in large bold print at the top of the page we find, You must accept Christ by faith (how else would one do this?) and we notice an underlined verse, Ephesians 2:8. The large bold print at the bottom of the page refers us to page 183.
Finding our way back over the forty pages which we have not even glanced at, we read at the top of page 183 in large bold print, You must confess him as Lord and we notice two underlined passages, Romans 10:9-10 & 13. The large bold print at the bottom of the page directs us to turn to the back page of the book.
What do we then find after having read a total of 7 tiny passages from five pages out of a total of 292 pages? (What happened to the importance of the other 287 pages?)
We find the delightful question in large bold print at the top of the page, Are you ready to receive God’s free gift? Which is according to the little prayer below it in italics, "Lord Jesus, I know I am a sinner and need your forgiveness. I know you died on the cross for me. I now turn from my sins and ask you to forgive me. I now invite you into my heart and life. I now trust you as Saviour and follow you as Lord. Thank you for saving me. Amen."
Why do we have to ask Jesus for forgiveness and salvation? Cannot God do that?
The text continues thus; Did you ask Jesus to forgive you of your sins? Did you ask him to save you? Did you give Jesus complete control of your life? If so, welcome to God’s family! Why not pause for a moment and thank him for saving you.
I answer NO! to all three of these questions.
It goes on in large bold print, What does Jesus want you to do now? I marvel at this! If you take the time to study the selected quotes above you will notice that Jesus is quoted, ZERO times!ALL the quotations are taken from other then Jesus. Using these quotes as a guideline for determining what Jesus wants for us results in no answer whatsoever.
Let us refer to Jesus words directly to get an answer.
As for the person who hears my words but does not keep them, I do not judge him. For I did not come to judge the world, but to save it. There is a judge for the one who rejects me and does not accept my words; that very word which I spoke will condemn him at the last day. John 12: 47-48.
What does keeping Jesus’ words mean?
Jesus answered and said unto him, If a man love me, he will keep my words: and my Father will love him, and we will come unto him, and make our abode with him. He that loveth me not keepeth not my sayings: and the word which ye hear is not mine, but the Father’s which sent me. John 14: 23-24.
He that hath my commandments and keepeth them, he it is that loveth me: and he that loveth me shall be loved of my Father, and I will love him, and will manifest myself to him. John 14: 21
If ye love me, keep my commandments. John 14:15.
Those who love Jesus, therefore keep his words and commandments and will be loved by both Jesus and his Father since the words and commandments are not from Jesus, but from the Father!
These evangelists quote Jesus ZERO times! They don’t care a toss what Jesus has to say because they don’t love Jesus since they can’t be bothered quoting him. They don’t want you to discover the words of Jesus. Their goal is to take Jesus, his words and his commandments, bypass them on the freeway and toss them into the garbage pile. Then they will take their potential proselyte by the left hand and drag him down hand in hand on their faces into the everlasting fire which is never quenched.
Allah Knows Best...
Peace Yall.... |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
http://www.themodernreligion.com ... t/christ_saleeb.htm
Refutation of Most Popular Christian Hoax about a Muslim convert
By Imam Dr. Muhammad Abu Bakar Siddiq
Dear Brothers, Assalam-u-Alaikum,
I received your letter and read it with a deep sight. I found it contradictory, because the sender of this letter, Abdul Saleeb, to you, has mentioned in the beginning of his statement that he took birth in a Muslim family. I think that he can not be Muslim by birth because of his name, Abdul Saleeb, which means "Servant of Cross". A Muslim family can never give their children such type of names. A Muslim can neither be a Servant of Cross nor the Servant of Anybody except Allah Almighty. Actually he wanted to get the attention of Muslims in order to impress them for the propagation of Christianity.
However, I try to solve his problems in such a manner that no more cloud of doubt will remain about the Holy Quran, the prophet Muhammad ( Allah's Blessing and Peace be upon him ) and shining teachings of Islam and on the other hand it will, clearly, appear that modern Christianity is nothing but a tell of false-hood. Now I directly address Mr. Abdul Saleeb.
Mr. Abdul Saleeb,
You wrote that when you reached in a Christian missionary school you asked your teacher that how come Christians can drink wine but Muslims can not? How come your word of God says one thing and our word of God says something different. After listening this your teacher attacked you, saying that how do you know the Holy Quran is the word of God. This was the first incident of your life, which stressed you to investigate about Christianity. Before going to make comparison between Islam and Christianity I inform you that the Christianity itself does not allow its followers to drink wine see letter of Paul to Galatians, chapter 05, verse 21-22. "Envyings, Murder, Revelings and such like, of the which I tell you before, as I have also told you in time past, that they which do such things shall not inherit the kingdom of God." (The epistle of Paul to the Galatians). And you can find this prohibition of wine in ten commandments of Moses ( Peace be upon him ).
You wrote that "their was a sincerity in their relationship with God and with other people that I had not encountered among my own Muslim people". Let us analyse this statement in the light of facts.
SINCERITY OF CHRISTIANS WITH GOD AND OTHERS:
1.Christian's God prohibits Christians to touch wine but we see that, all over the world, the Christian dominated areas are the centers of wine, especially a simple Christian as well as their religious people drink freely, when celebrate Easter and other religious days. Is it a sincere relationship with God and with other people?
2.Christian's God or Jesus taught them to love mankind and stopped them again and again to take revenge. But when we peep into the window of history we find that Christians are beasts for other nations. Read the history of Spain, Read the history of Christians overwhelming upon Philistine. Now in our ages what has done Christian world in 2nd world war with Muslims. Even now a days you can see the dual character of Christian world in case of Philistine, Baghdad, Bosnia and Kashmir etc., I think that the bombardment of atom bomb on two cities, Nagasaki & Heroshema of Japan was a taken of love, which has been taught in Bible, from Christian world to the whole mankind. Is it a sincere relationship with God and with other people?
3.I ask you does your Lord not forbid you to commit adultery. But we we see that the Christian society is a sex free society all over the world. Is it a sincere relationship with God and with other people?
4.What do you say about the world famous sexual scandals of Christian priests and Nuns? In short I can present you a long series of such type of dishonest relationships of Christians with their God and with other people who belong from various religions especially Islam.
UNVEILING THE TEACHINGS OF LOVE IN BIBLE :
Your wrote that the violent tone of many of Qur'anic passages (against the unbelievers but also against the Jewish and Christian people) began to bother you, when you compared with the emphasis on love in new Testament. My dear innocent friend, in this respect, I inform you that the facts are not like this as you are taking it. Bible itself contains such type of passages against those who do not believe in, according to Christians, begotten son of God. See chapter 3, verse no. 36 of the Gospel of St. John. It mentions, "He that believeth on the son hath everlasting life: and he that beliveth not the son shall not see life; but the wrath of God abideth on him."
This statements of Bible clearly shows that no one can attain solvation, get success, inter into heaven except Christians. Is it not a harassment and violent tone for unbeliever as well as Jewish and Muslim people? What would you argue about it? Please read the coming passage too with a deep sight. You will find it a nearer translation of Sura 5:51 which troubled you too much to remain a believer in oneness of Allah Almighty.
"For this ye know, that no whoremonger, nor unclean person, nor covetous man, who is an idolater, hath any inheritance in the kingdom of Christ and of God. Let no man deceive you with vain words for because of these things cometh the wrath of God upon the children of disobedience. Be not ye therefor partakers with them." (The Epistle of Paul the Apostle to Ephasians ch. 5, verses : 5,6,7)
I asked you does this passage not threat unbelievers as well as Jewish and Muslims, does this passage not forbid Christians to establish a relation of love with others? If you have an eye of justice you would have to accept that it is a same commandment which Holy Quran commands its followers. If there remains still some doubt in your mind I quote for you an other passage of Bible which will clearly tell you the reality of love in Christianity. Read it with open eyes.
"But as touching brotherly love ye need not that I write unto you, for ye yourselves are taught of God to love one another." (The first epistle of Paul the Apostle to thessalonians, chapter 4 - vers 9)
Is this passage not showing that the love of Christian is only for Christian brethren? A wise and justice person, without any doubt, will say that the teaching of love in Bible is limited for the fold of Christianity. Now I am bringing before you a passage from Bible which will narrate this limitation of love, in such a manner that no one can deny the hatred of Christians with others.
Read it please,
"And that we may be delivered from unreasonable and wicked man, for all men have not faith ……………… Now we command you, brethren, in the name of our Lord Jesus Christ, that ye withdraw yourselves from every brother that walketh disorderly, and nor after the tradition which he received of us." (The second Epistle of Paul the Apostle to the thessalonians. Chapter 3 : 1 and 6)
These two passages show that a Christian should not make friendship with others. But do you see the prejudices and jealousy of Holy Bible with non-believer which includes Muslims and Jews. Does this Holy Bible not call names others by saying unreasonable and wicked man? On the other hand it uses a word "brother" for a Christian who believes in, but do not practice the teaching of Bible. Now I ask you where is that love, which is taught by Bible, in part of others? Yes I obviously, say that the slogan of love in Bible is merely in fate of a Christian while other people, who do not have faith in Christianity, are deserveable of the wrath of God and they will go to the Hell. Read it please:
"When the Lord Jesus shall be revealed from heaven with his mighty angles. In flaming fire taking vengeance on them that know not god and that obey not the gospel of our Lord Jesus Christ. who shall be punished with everlasting destruction from the presence of the Lord and from the glory of his poseur." (The second Epistle of Paul the Apostle to the thessalonians. Chapter 1, ver. 7-9)
my dear innocent friend you have been deceived by Christian missionary and by your Christian friends because they always shout that Christianity is love, its teachings are the teachings of love while the God of Muslims is very dreadful. He will not forgive the sins of people. He does not accept repentance. He is very angry upon his creature. But it is black propaganda against Allah Almighty. It is nothing but a false proclamation. I prove it through verses of Holy Quran that Allah Almighty is All kind and All pity. In this regard you can see the Holy Qur'an. You will find, that [from the first chapter (opening sura Al-Fatiha) to the last chapter (sura Wan-Nas)] each sura of Holy Qur'an starts with Bismillah, which is translated in English in these words, "In the name of Allah, the most gracious, the most merciful." |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
The Holy Prophet says "He loves his creature more than the love which seventy mothers have with their children".
I accept that Allah Almighty warns the non-believer as well as Jews and Christians, and call them to the path of guidance i.e. Islam, but not like the style of Bible which is just compels the people to have to believe in its unreasonable doctrine of begotten son of God. See the colossians : chapter 2 ; 6,7,8
"As ye have therefore received Christ Jesus the Lord, so walk ye in him. Rooted and built up in him and stablished in the faith, as ye have been taught abounding therein with thanks giving. Beware least any man spoil you through philosophy and vain deceit after the tradition of man after the rudiments of the world, and not after Christ. For in him dwelth all the fullness of God head bodily."
While on the other hand the Qur'anic style is a reasonable. It invites mankind for thinking. You can find this reasonable style scattered at various places in the Holy Qur'an. Sometimes it calls people by saying, "don't you ponder", Sometimes by saying, "don't you see", and sometimes invites by saying, "don't you reason".
Please see what does Qur'an say about Christians in its particular style :
"And they say : (God) Most Gracious has begotten a son. Indeed you have put forth a thing most monstrous. At it the skies are ready to burst and the earth to split asunder and the mountains to fall down in utter run. That they should envoke a son for (God) most Gracious. For it is not consonant with the Majesty of (God) most Gracious - that he should beget a son." (The Holy Qur'an 19:88:42)
Read it also and see that how does Qur'an reveal the facts and challenge the denier. But you will not find such beautiful and strong style in man made Bible.
Allah almighty says:
"In the sight of Allah the case of birth of Jesus is like that of Adam, whom he created out of dust and said "Be" and he was. This is the fact of the matter, your Lord is importing and you should not be of those who doubted it." (Sura 3 verse. 59:60)
Dear, compare this strong evidence of the Holy Qur'an with the epistle of Paul to collisions. You will find it quite different. Because Paul just orders the Christians to believe in and does not explain that how can have a person two natures in one time? How can be a man of flesh and blood a God? While on the other hand the Holy Qur'an denies the deity of Jesus ( Peace be upon him ) giving the example of Adam ( Peace be upon him ). This narration of the Holy Qur'an urges its reader to consider about the belief in Adam ( Peace be upon him ). As a result a reader of the Holy Qur'an will reach to a conclusion that a person i.e. Adam ( Peace be upon him ) had been created without mother and father and yet he is neither a God nor a son of God, then what is problem with belief in Jesus ( Peace be upon him ) being a man. He will utter that Jesus ( Peace be upon him ) is a man like Adam ( Peace be upon him ) was a man. He would have to accept that Adam ( Peace be upon him ), who had been created without any human resources, is not a God so how can be Jesus ( Peace be upon him ) a God or son of God.
If a person does not believe in this Qur'anic teachings then Qur'an challenges him in these words as given below :
" After the coming of this knowledge to you if anyone argues with you about this matter, say Muhammad ( May Blessing and Peace be upon him ) come let us both gather together and also bring our children and your children, our women and your women and then pray to Allah and invoke him to lay the liar under his curse, these narration absolutely true and the fact is that there is no deity except Allah. Indeed Allah is Almighty and all wise than if they turn away (from accepting the challenge) it will be a clear proof of their mischief and Allah has full knowledge of the mischief-makers." (sura 3, verses 61 to 63)
This event has been happened in the life of the Holy Prophet Muhammad ( May Blessing and Peace be upon him ) when a group of Christian priests came to Prophet ( May Blessing and Peace be upon him ). But they turned away from accepting the challenge. You can testify this event from the books written about the life history of the Holy Prophet Muhammad ( May Blessing and Peace be upon him ). From the time period of the Holy Prophet ( May Blessing and Peace be upon him ) up till now Christian world does not accept the challenge of the Holy Qur'an.
My dear, do you know why does Christianity face such problems? It is only because of that their believes are unreasonable. Human mind rejects it harshly due to its mystery. That is why Paul the Apostle said :
" and established in faith as ye have been taught abounding therein with thanks giving. Because least any man spoil you through philosophy and vain deceit."
I think after this discussion, you would have come to know that the Qur'anic teachings about the unbelievers and Jews as well as Christians is the same as has been ordered in Bible. So there remains no point of objection against the Holy Qur'an in regarding this matter.
Let us come to your next objection and see does it base upon facts or it is too prehabitted and presupposed prejudices of a Christian which usually has been taught to every Christian?
You wrote that God sanctioned MUHAMMAD'S ( May Blessing and Peace be upon him ) desire to marry the divorced wife of his own stepson. I ask you how did you know Muhammad's ( May Blessing and Peace be upon him ) desire? Who told you? In which book have you read and what is your source of knowledge that Muhammad ( May Blessing and Peace be upon him ) desired to marry that divorced woman of his stepson? If you have any proof from the Holy Qur'an or tradition of the Holy Prophet ( May Blessing and Peace be upon him ) then bring it before us, otherwise you are liar and there would not remain any difference between you and Jews, because they also falsified the Jesus ( Peace be upon him ) and accused the pious and Holy virgin Mary ( May Allah happy with her ). But, indeed, you can never present a single proof in laying blame upon the Holy, the beloved Prophet ( May Blessing and Peace be upon him ) of Allah till the day of judgment. It was not a self-serving to Prophet ( May Blessing and Peace be upon him ) at all. He was ordered to marry her, by his example, to disown the superstitious custom of the pagan Arabs, in such matter, of treating their adopted sons as their real sons, which was against the law of God. (i.e. the laws of nature ); whereas in arranging a marriage the woman indention ought to be considered. Unhappy marriage was no part of Allah's ordinance. You wrote that you felt sorrow and shame after reading this passage. But I say to you that this is not a place of feeling sorrow and shame. It is place of proud. When an honest and fair man will read this passage, he, indeed, shout that how great MUHAMMAD ( May Blessing and Peace be upon him ) is! Who saved whole mankind from such superstitious and wrong customs. He will have to say that Muhammad ( May Blessing and Peace be upon him ) is a great reformer for mankind who taught the people by his own deeds. Whatever you think about the Holy Prophet ( May Blessing and Peace be upon him ) but facts will remain same, this phenomenon can neither be hidden nor be changed that Muhammad ( May Blessing and Peace be upon him ) is the most perfect and ideal moral example for mankind. Read the coming lines and see that the famous scholars of various religion, including Christianity and Judaism, singing the praising songs of MUHAMMAD ( May Blessing and Peace be upon him ).
Mr. Ahmad Deedat wrote in "What the Bible says about MUHAMMAD ( May Blessing and Peace be upon him )" He writes "The weekly news magazine "Time" dated July 15, 1974 carried a selection of opinions by various historians, writers, military man, business man and other on the subject, "Who were History's Great Leaders", some said that it was Hitler, other said Gandhi, Buddha, Lincoln and the like. But Jules Masserman, a United States psychoanalyst put the standards straight by giving the correct criteria where with to judge. He said, "Leaders must fulfill three functions :-
1.Provide for well-being of the led. 2.Provide a social organization in which people feel relatively secure, and 3.Provide them with one set of belief. With the Above three criteria, he searches history and analysis - Hitler, Pasteur, Caesar, Moses, Confucius and the lot and ultimately concludes :-
"People like Pasture and Salk are leaders in the first sense. People like Gandhi and Confucius, on one hand , and Alexander, Caesar and Hitler on the other hand, are leaders in the second and perhaps the third sense. Jesus ( Peace be upon him ) and Buddha belong in the third category alone. Perhaps the greatest leader of all times was MUHAMMAD ( May Blessing and Peace be upon him ) who combined all three functions. To a lesser degree Moses did the same." |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Read it also how a famous historian Gibbon a Christian, praises Muhammad ( May Blessing and Peace be upon him ) in his "Decline and fall of Roman Empire" He says, The human brute, almost without sense, is poorly distinguished from the rest of the animal creation. There was no hardly anything to distinguish between the man and the animal in human form. From this object barbarism, Muhammad ( May Blessing and Peace be upon him ) elevated them."
In this respect I can give you a long list of sayings of the non-muslims scholars who have bow their heads down before the undisputable and the Holy Personality of MUHAMMAD ( May Blessing and Peace be upon him ) and they praised the Holy Prophet ( May Blessing and Peace be upon him ) in such a manner that a reader feels as if they were Muslims. But, with a grief, I have to say that Christians are unfortunate in understanding the Holy Prophet Muhammad ( May Blessing and Peace be upon him ) and his teachings. They have fallen in the dark pit of prejudices and ignorance as it happened with Jews in case of Jesus Christ ( Peace be upon him ). You too falsify the Holy Prophet Muhammad ( May Blessing and Peace be upon him ) as Jews did about Jesus ( Peace be upon him ) and did not believe in him having seen miracles, but suggested him a liar. Same case is with Christians who do not believe in Prophet Muhammad ( May Blessing and Peace be upon him ) yet having a sufficient knowledge about his miracles and his teachings. They just endeavor to falsify the Prophet ( May Blessing and Peace be upon him ) by laying different wrong blames. The blames which you have laid upon the Holy Prophet ( May Blessing and Peace be upon him ) is one amongst those false blame that he married the divorced wife of his adopted son. I think that you charged the Prophet ( May Blessing and Peace be upon him ) only because of your lack of knowledge about the life history of the Holy Prophet ( May Blessing and Peace be upon him ) . if you know about him you would have not said these ugly words. Now come and see the life history of Prophet ( May Blessing and Peace be upon him ) you will not find even a single wrong there. I reveal you some facts about his marriages so that you may not be driven by the enemies of Allah and by their leader satan. O dear! The Holy Prophet ( May Blessing and Peace be upon him ) never married due to his own desire but due to the order of Allah and for the cause of Islam, so that he could make near other tribes to preach them Islam. From the age of twenty-five till the age of fifty he had only one wife, Khadijah ( May Allah happy with her ), fifteen years his senior, to whom he was devotedly attached and whose memory, he cherished till his dying day even though she was a widow. With the exception of Ayeshah ( May Allah happy with her ), the daughter of his closest friend, Abu Bakar siddiq ( May Allah happy with him ), whom he married at her father's request when she was still a minor, all his later marriages were with widows, whose state was pitiable for one reason or another. Some of them were widows of men killed in war. One was a captive, when he made the marriage excuse for emancipating all the conquered tribe and restoring their property. Two were daughters of his enemies, and his alliance with them was cause of peace. It is noteworthy that the period of these marriages was also the period of his great activity, when he had little rest from campaigning and was always busy with the problems of growing empire. He used to pass his nights worshipping Allah Almighty and did not sleep but a little bid, He got his feet injured due to the long standing pasture in prayer so Ayeshah ( May Allah happy with her ) had to say that, "O, Messenger of Allah ( May Blessing and Peace be upon him ) why do you worship so much even though Allah had given you already the good news of forgiveness. He, immediately, replied, " should I not be a thankful to my Lord." An eye of justice will undoubtedly appreciate him instead of arising objections. It is Christians only who criticize without knowing the matter of fact and speak against the holiness of Prophet ( May Blessing and Peace be upon him ) without any proof but, in doing so, they forget what the man made Bible utters, really shameful, against the holiest personalities of their mankind -
Read this passage from man made Bible :
" Because Lot was afraid to stay in Zoar, he and his two daughters move up into the hills and lived in a cave. The elder daughter said to her sister, "our father is getting old, and there are no men in the whole world to marry us, so that we can have children. Come on, let make our father drunk, so that we can sleep with him and have children by him. That night they gave him wine to drink, and elder daughter had intercourse with him. But he was so drunk that he did not know it … so that night they made him drunk, and the younger daughter had intercourse with him …….. In this way both of Lot's daughter ( Peace be upon him ) became pregnant by their own father." [ Genesis chapter 19]
What to say about a religion whose prophets had such shameless character. A lot of thanks to Allah Almighty who has blessed us by Islam and prophet Muhammad ( May Blessing and Peace be upon him ) who told us the holiness of all the Prophets ( Peace be upon them ) of Allah. Lot ( Peace be upon him ) is also pious and Holy man according to Islam. Read the coming passage from man made Bible too and clap upon the Bible which reveals such dirty words about Prophet David ( Peace be upon him ) which should never be said for a Holy man.
"David got up from his rope and went to the palace roof. As he walked about up there, he saw a woman having a bath. She was very beautiful ………………. David ( Peace be upon him ) sent messengers to fetch her. They brought her to him and he made love to her. ( She had just finished her monthly ritual of purification ) ………" [ 2 - Samuel chapter - 11 ]
Now I bring before you marriage custom from Bible. If you have an eye of bashfulness you will sink down in the earth. Read what the man made Bible charges upon innocent Prophet of Allah ( Peace be upon him )
" Now Kind David ( Peace be upon him ) was old and strick ……….. and let her stand before the Kind, and let her cherish him and let her lie in thy bosom ………" ( I Kings chapter - 1)
Mr. You have laid a blame on Prophet Muhammad ( May Blessing and Peace be upon him ) and the authenticity of the Holy Qur'an because of a single marriage only, but what is your opinion about Bible which narrates about Solomen ( Peace be upon him ) as given into inverted commas :
" And he had seven hundred wives, princesses and three hundred concubines ;" ( I - King chapter 11:3 )
I think you have received answers of your questions which you encountered in the Holy Qur'an. Now, you should return to the, only religion near Allah, Islam, witnessing that there is no God but Allah and Muhammad ( May Blessing and Peace be upon him ) is his servant and messenger ( Peace be upon him ) and asking Allah for forgiveness to your sins. Indeed, He is the only acceptor of repentance, the most merciful.
And the utterance of these two witnesses itself remove all the sins, which had been committed, before Islam. The Holy Prophet Muhammad ( May Blessing and Peace be upon him ) said that the one who uttered that there is no God except Allah, he will inter into the heaven (Jannat).
You wrote that " even as a Muslim I came to believe that the crucifixion of Christ" was an undisputable historical fact that no honest person that deals with evidence of history could deny." -----
But I tell you that this was your beginning to be a Christian. Because whole Christianity depends upon it as said Paul : " If Christ be not risen from dead, then our preaching is vain and your faith is also vain." ( I - Corinthians 15:14 )
So according to Paul, there is nothing that Christianity can offer mankind, other than the blood and gore of Jesus. If Jesus ( Peace be upon him ) did not die, and he was not resurrected from dead, then there can be no salivation in Christianity! "For all your good deads," Says the Christian dogmatist, "are like filthy rags." ( I Saiah 64:6 ) |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
| |
|
Author
