[Taliesin]

Originally Posted by undotwa

That is precisely what I thought before. This thread merely confused me.

The inconsistencies in the Christian scriptures is understandable, as we understand them as a gradual revelation. But for a prophet who is to be the be-all-end-all, how does Islam justify the apparent contradictions.

What contradictions? The Quran simply called prophet Muhammad and his followers to fight against those that started the war, ie. polytheistic Mecca and those jews and christians that allied themselves with them and became polytheists themselves by turning Jesus and Ezra into independent gods to be worshipped in the Kabbah alongside the hundreds of other gods worshipped therein.

Big Mac and vmarks are not ready to acknowledge the fact that the Quran only talks bad about those people of the book that deviated from their own belief-system and became polytheists much like the polytheists of Mecca with who they were allied.

For those jews and christians that kept and keep faithful to their own belief-system the Quran promises eternal reward in paradise if they believe(d) in God and commit(ted) good deeds, and calls prophet Muhammad and his followers to respect and stay on friendly terms with them, as they are also part of the religion of truth.

Sure the jews have problems with their scriptures because of the two times the temple in Jerusalem got destroyed where the originals of the scriptures were located, and because of the time they were expelled and changed their mother-tongue-language, but still the essence of the true religion has survived, mostly orally and through tradition, namely to believe in just one God, to worship only Him, to believe in judgment day, the last day and the hereafter, to follow Moses commandments, to commit good deeds and to reject evil.

Similar things can be said about christianity, despite having misunderstood the role of Jesus, they still believe in just one God, the creator of the universe, they just believe that creator has also paid visit to the earth in a human form, the hold high the tenets of the ten commandments, the tenets of forgiving, charity and good deeds...and also believe in judgment day and the hereafter...

The jews and christians that became polytheistic and allied with the polytheistic Mecca though lost belief in most of these things, they even transformed Jesus and Ezra into second gods alongside God and set them up alongside the hundreds of gods that the meccans used to worship in the Kaabah.

That's why it seems as if there are contradictions in the Quran, but only if reading single verses out of their textual and historical context.

Taliesin

[Taliesin]

Originally Posted by Big Mac

...

<cutting down the unsubstantiated and rediculous islam-hate-fest>

Before his rejection, Mohammed had established that worshipers should pray in the direction of Jerusalem; afterward, Mohammed changed the direction of prayer to Mecca, so that Muslims would have their backs toward Jerusalem.

<more of the same..>

__________________
B'Ahavat Yisrael
Am Yisrael Chai Vekayam

That's the only interesting, albeit rediculous comment, as it tangles an important aspect of Islam. The change of praying direction was ordered by God in the second year prophet Muhammad lived in Medina. Before that the general praying direction for people of the book was always Jerusalem and that for centuries. So why changing it then? The Quran made clear that the direction of prayer had no substantial worth beside the obvious organization-purpose, because God exists in every direction, east-west, south-north, doesn't matter.

But then why changing it if God is also in the direction of Jerusalem? The change was made in order to find out who was really a believer in God and his messenger prophet Muhammad. For changing this centuries old direction expects a lot of belief and commitment of prophet Muhammad's believers and was a good test of their faith, in order to find out who were merely hypocrites. Another side-effect was off course to remind the followers of prophet Muhammad that there were still followers that were under oppression in Mecca that waited to be liberated and off course God's house, the Kaabah, that was built by Abraham and son and that had to be freed from the polytheism therein practiced.

By the way that change in praying direction led some of the jews in Medina to doubt and eventually to reject prophet Muhammad's prophethood.

Taliesin

[Taliesin]

Originally Posted by vmarks

http://forums.macnn.com/showthread.p...th#post2507168

In that post, eklipse tells us that the Hadith and Bukhari are not worth anything.

Hadiths are worth nothing if they contradict the Quran's essential message, if not they can be tolerated. They are not nearly as reliable as the Quran and at times have been invented and used for political purposes... but those hadiths that reflect the Quran's message are a-ok imho.

Taliesin

[Taliesin]

Originally Posted by mojo2

Yadda, yadda, yadda! Enough with the interpretations of the scriptures. Some say it does, others say it doesn't...

My question is, "why, oh, why is it that the BIGGEST JEW HATERS and the ones with the BIGGEST CHIPS ON THEIR SHOULDERS and who want to kill all the infidels are the ones who make it to the top of your organizations and governments????"

If there is a question as to which way the Quran can be interpreted it seems the guy with the MOST violent interpretation is the one who somehow manages to win the hearts and minds of such a peace loving people.

Hmph!



More about the "MUFTI!" He's just one of a series of Muslim "Holy Men" who don't seem that holy to this man. Oh, and before you try to explain HIS being an exception, why not start now to prepare a case defending ALLLLLLLLLLL the other Muslim leaders who just happened to ALSO be HATERS, playa!



http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Amin_al-Husayni

1. Al-Hussaini is and and always was an extremist that served in the ottoman-empire-army and was despite his hate-filled speeches and activities against jews and zionists was installed as the mufti of Jerusalem by the british colonist-commander, who was by the way and ironically a jew, eventhough Hussaini had no religious authority to talk about.

2. You ask why the leaders of the arabic dictatorships who were mostly installed by the western mights were always so anti-jewish and anti-west with their tongues? Simple, because that's what dictators tend to do, in order to deceive their oppressed people, they blame the problems that they suffer on to external effects and circumstances, and the jews were an easy target because of the criminal acts of the zionists, like entering an arabic land as immigrants and then forming an independent state, violently expelling most of the natives and later on even occupying more ...


Taliesin

[Taliesin]

Originally Posted by undotwa

It's understandable to me, why Mohammed thought this way. The early Christian church had a particularly strong devotion to Mary. To an outsider, it could easily look like the Christians were actually worshiping Mary (which perhaps some Christians who were confused of their faith may have done so).

You are off course thinking that prophet Muhammad wrote the Quran, understandable, but for us muslims it's clear that God wrote the Quran and merely let it be voiced by prophet Muhammad, who was by the way an illiterate who voiced a Quran with so much poetry with such a quality that it beshamed the best arabic poets at that time..

The problem the Quran has issued with christians and jews were only with the ones that allied with the polytheistic Mecca and became polytheists themselves betraying their own belief-system and setting up Jesus and Ezra as independent secondary sculpture-gods beside God and hundreds of other gods in the kaabah. They also left the path of the ten commandments and practiced some, if not all of the criminal and sinful activities that the polytheistic Mecca engaged in...


Taliesin

[Big Mac]

Originally Posted by Taliesin

By the way that change in praying direction led some of the jews in Medina to doubt and eventually to reject prophet Muhammad's prophethood.

I'd love to see some documentation of that. One could write an extensive book about the varied reasons why the Jews rejected Mohammed. His choice of what direction the followers of his religion would pray was of little concern to the Jews of Medina. I really don't want to derail this thread by veering in the direction of that topic, however. And for the record, while it is kind of you not to overtly accuse my people of intentionally corrupting our texts (even though that's what Mohammed charged), you're still wrong about scriptural corruption in general. The Hebrew Scriptures is neither intentionally nor unintentionally corrupt. I can most assuredly disprove not only your assertion that my people lost the keys to our texts with the destruction of Solomon's Temple in 586, I can disprove Mohammed's accusation in toto. If you really want me to elaborate, please let me know. I really don't wish to disturb you, since what I read from you now seems to indicate you aren't that hostile toward Judaism, or even Zionism, which is quite surprising to me. Anyway, for now, I've got to get a few hours rest.

[eklipse]

Originally Posted by Big Mac

As we've seen in this thread, Muslims are taught to revile and label as corrupted the holy books and beliefs of the religions that preceded Islam and served as the templates for the latter. Now if one wants to say Mohammed was personally ignorant or willfully dismissive of the truth, that could be argued. But Mohammed's followers offer his testimony as divine, inerrant and the final word. That is why Taleisin defensively alleged there were Jews who fit Mohammed's description.

The fact is, Judaism is predicated on a central truth, on which the entire faith is based: the oneness of the sole supreme being, without form, without consort. Any Jew who did not believe that central tenet was excised from his or her community. So for Mohammed to say "the Jews" worship an image or incarnation of any sort, let alone a fellow Jew, is the most egregious accusation anyone could ever make. Equally horrendous is the Islamic belief that the Hebrew Scriptures have been corrupted by the Jewish people.

So much of the Koran is an admixture of Judaism, Christianity, and commentary/tradition from both faiths. But despite their considerable influence on his thought, Mohammed eventually vilified and defamed both religions - mostly due to Jewish rejection of his claim to prophecy. (The manifold substantive reasons for the rejection of Mohammed by the Jews is a subject best left for another thread.) Before his rejection, Mohammed had only claimed to be a prophet to the Arabs, acknowledging Jews and Christians had their own holy books; afterward, he proclaimed that his religion was the end all be all for all of humanity. Before his rejection, Mohammed had established that worshipers should pray in the direction of Jerusalem; afterward, Mohammed changed the direction of prayer to Mecca, so that Muslims would have their backs toward Jerusalem. After his rejection, Mohammed inserted all of the vitrolic language toward his new enemies. At the same time, he failed to erase the various positive references to them, which is why the book is rife with internal contradiction.

Mohammed taught his people to believe Jews and Christians were the lowest scum of the earth - for only the most evil creatures of creation would wilfully alter divine teachings. (But it was apparently perfectly fine for Mohammed to redact his holy book to suit his purposes.) These Koranic claims about Judaism and Christianity are, simply stated, repulsive. Such is the doctrine of hatred that permeates the Koran. But please realize I am not saying the Koran is uniformally hateful or anti-Jewish/Christian, for it is most definitely not. There is a lot of virtuous material contained in the Koran. Yet, those passages of hate cannot be overlooked, reconciled or explained away through exegetical acrobats. Just as the goodness in the Koran inspires Talesin and von Wrangel to champion it as a religion of peace, the evilness in the Koran inspires bin Laden to champion it as a religion of bloodshed and global domination. Both sides overlook the internal contradictions that serve as mutual invalidations of their respective interpretations. Anyway, I'm doing my very best to phrase the truth as diplomatically as possible. I don't hate anyone and don't wish to inspire hatred in turn. I seek only to relate the truth and defend my religion. I've done my best to abstain from the PL since these discourses are often counter-productive, but if I have, at the very least, given one person food for thought I have accomplished a great amount.

Bullsh*t.

[Taliesin]

Originally Posted by Big Mac

It seems your interpreation is at variance with so many of your co-religionists:
in this article,
and this article,
and this article,
and this article,
and in this discussion, to name a few sources. But perhaps you misunderstood the point of my original statement.
__________________
B'Ahavat Yisrael
Am Yisrael Chai Vekayam

From the second link you provided:

Similarly, those historical figures to whom the title “prophet of God” is attributed may not be said to have authored content in their scriptures. This represents the utmost violation of fairness and accurate representation of revealed religion. The question of “influence” among religions is also not appropriate because it injects the author’s personal view. Applied to Islam, this principle disqualifies statements to the effect that Muhammad modified the emerging Qur’anic scriptures in certain ways to attract, mollify or impress certain groups. This explanation is frequently encountered with regard to the change in direction of prayer from Jerusalem to Makkah during the Madinan period.

That goes right against your interpretation.

From the third link you provided:

About this website (islam-facts)
...
Despite all these efforts, the Quran still remains a least understood book due to its nonsensical character, and the insanities with which it is filled up.



I have been studying the Quran for over fifteen years in English, Urdu and Bangla in order not only to understand its messages but also to find out if it contains anything good and constructive the propagation of which could help mankind co-exist on earth in peace and harmony. I found no such thing in the Quran, hence my humble attempt, through this website, for apprising readers with its true character and teachings.

Obviously some islamophobe who thinks the Quran is nonsensical and filled with insanities, and who thinks it's enough to study the Quran in english, urdu and bangla. Right.

The other sources seem to be ok, but not dicisive in any direction.

Taliesin

[SimpleLife]

Interpretation:

An intellectual process in which you select, gather, and reassemble information and evidence within the framework of your own ideas.

[Taliesin]

Originally Posted by Big Mac

I'd love to see some documentation of that. One could write an extensive book about the varied reasons why the Jews rejected Mohammed. His choice of what direction the followers of his religion would pray was of little concern to the Jews of Medina. I really don't want to derail this thread by veering in the direction of that topic, however. And for the record, while it is kind of you not to overtly accuse my people of intentionally corrupting our texts (even though that's what Mohammed charged), you're still wrong about scriptural corruption in general. The Hebrew Scriptures is neither intentionally nor unintentionally corrupt. I can most assuredly disprove not only your assertion that my people lost the keys to our texts with the destruction of Solomon's Temple in 586, I can disprove Mohammed's accusation in toto. If you really want me to elaborate, please let me know. I really don't wish to disturb you, since what I read from you now seems to indicate you aren't that hostile toward Judaism, or even Zionism, which is quite surprising to me. Anyway, for now, I've got to get a few hours rest.

I have found no documentation on the net for my claim, I tried to google it, but nothing worthwhile came up, so you are free to ignore it for the moment.

But you have to remember that some jews in Medina used to pray together with prophet Muhammad in the direction of Jerusalem, and then stopped to pray with the prophet when God's message changed the direction.

And considering that a lot of prophets before Muhammad sticked to the Jerusalem-direction for prayers, it most probable added to the doubts they had.

Regardless the point of Islam was never to convert jews or christians, who are and were already part of religion of truth and are promised paradise, if they believe in God, the last day and commit good deeds, but to save Arabia from polytheism.

As to your assumption that I am or were hostile towards Judaism and jews, that is and was always wrong, I'm fond of Judaism as it is also a religion of truth, and that is the real islamic point of view that the Quran calls for. Zionism is though a political story, that I'm against it because it used violence and criminal activities to achieve its goals.


Taliesin

[Y3a]

" Islamic religious law "

LOL

Sounds like"Jumbo Shrimp" to me, or "Business Ethics", or "Honest Politician".

There isn't any such thing until they agree on what it is.
Until that time they are just a dying culture who has attained modern weapons.
They are no better than the wacko religious right, or the cultists of all brands.
Their religion has certainly not helped them over the past 1400 years, and IMHO has hurt them globally. The Hindu are more respected, and so are the Buddists.
The wacko muslims have not been shouted down by the rest in their 'society' so it seems apparent that most agree with them.
Their religious beliefs are more important to them than the various country borders.
Their leaders appear to be loud immature violent thugs, who use whatever religious laws they find to justify their actions, and seek approval from the religious leaders.

[mojo2]

"Suicide terorism" is the most aggressive form of terrorism, pursuing coercion even at the expense of angering not only the target community but neutral audiences as well."

Robert Pape

[undotwa]

Originally Posted by Taliesin

What contradictions? The Quran simply called prophet Muhammad and his followers to fight against those that started the war, ie. polytheistic Mecca and those jews and christians that allied themselves with them and became polytheists themselves by turning Jesus and Ezra into independent gods to be worshipped in the Kabbah alongside the hundreds of other gods worshipped therein.

Contradictions primarily concerning the way in which 'The People of the Book' are to be treated.

How does allying oneself with a polytheistic city make you polytheistic? Perhaps the Jews and Christians rejected Islam because it was very militant in its orientation, and allied with Mecca because they believed that it was better than succumbing to the militancy of Islam. Jesus was worshipped as God from the very beginning of Christian times, but alas they remain monotheists because Jesus Christ remained the same as the One True God, as he was his earthly incarnation 'The Word made Flesh' (a phrase spoken by Christians in the earliest century a.d.). I seriously doubt that Jews, in the Diaspora, would deviate from their faith and worship Ezra amongst other gods. If any did, would have to be such a minute number because we have no other accounts of such worship having taken place.

[Taliesin]

Originally Posted by undotwa

Contradictions primarily concerning the way in which 'The People of the Book' are to be treated.

How does allying oneself with a polytheistic city make you polytheistic?

Well, that's what happened! Maybe it was the military and financial and economical power of Mecca that led parts or even major parts of the people of the book in and around Mecca allie with polytheistic Mecca, and considering the zealous nature of Mecca's polytheism it could have led to corruption among those people of the book that allied with the polytheists. Maybe it was a requirement of the alliance-agreement that the people of the book also installed their idols in the Kaabah and took part in worshipping them therein and bringing sacrifices. Remember much of Mecca's income was made up by the the visits of polytheists to Kaabah and the tax they collected from them ... so it's very likely that the polytheistic Mecca made it a requirement for the alliance with (major) parts of the people of the book in Arabia to set up idols in the Kaabah and to visit them regularly.

By this probably the religion of (major) parts of the people of the book in and around Mecca got corrupted, their copies of scriptures changed in order to assimilate with the practice of polytheistic Mecca. It sounds blasphemous, unbelievable, ... that parts of the people of the book in and around Mecca would do such a thing, but maybe they saw no other way to survive without allying themselves with a strong partner that could protect them. That's probably why they came up with Jesus as God's son and turned him into a secondary independent god and the jews came up with Ezra as God's son and turned him also into a secondary independent god, and set them up as idols in Kaabah.

That was probably the reality that prophet Muhammad and his followers found present and that's why the Quran is so harsh against the notion of God having sons and so harsh against idolatry.

Originally Posted by undotwa

Perhaps the Jews and Christians rejected Islam because it was very militant in its orientation, and allied with Mecca because they believed that it was better than succumbing to the militancy of Islam.

You have to remember that the quranic message was revealed over a time of 23 years in portions. It wasn't until after Mecca declared war against prophet Muhammad and his followers that a quranic message was revealed that called prophet Muhammad and his followers to lead a defensive war. Before that there was no militancy in the quranic message, so your theory falls flat. The alliance between major parts of people of the book and polytheistic Mecca existed even before the birth of prophet Muhammad, but when polytheistic Mecca declared war, those people of the book became suddenly also enemies of prophet Muhammad and his followers due to the alliance of those living in Mecca and the vicinities of Mecca.

Besides polytheistic Mecca was a very militant and zealous town, who oppressed and persecuted, kidnapped and tortured the followers of prophet Muhammad, who came mostly from the poor parts of Mecca, and eventually tried to assassinate prophet Muhammad after he rejected the offer of Mecca to become king of the tribes if he only introduced some polytheistic elements into God's message, and espescially after the prophet's human protector died.

Originally Posted by undotwa

Jesus was worshipped as God from the very beginning of Christian times, but alas they remain monotheists because Jesus Christ remained the same as the One True God, as he was his earthly incarnation 'The Word made Flesh' (a phrase spoken by Christians in the earliest century a.d.). I seriously doubt that Jews, in the Diaspora, would deviate from their faith and worship Ezra amongst other gods. If any did, would have to be such a minute number because we have no other accounts of such worship having taken place.

The Quran's message is that's a wrong statement to claim Jesus is God, God makes clear in the Quran that he was merely His servant and prophet:

004.171
YUSUFALI: O People of the Book! Commit no excesses in your religion: Nor say of God aught but the truth. Christ Jesus the son of Mary was (no more than) a messenger of God, and His Word, which He bestowed on Mary, and a spirit proceeding from Him: so believe in God and His messengers. Say not "Trinity" : desist: it will be better for you: for God is one God: Glory be to Him: (far exalted is He) above having a son. To Him belong all things in the heavens and on earth. And enough is God as a Disposer of affairs.
PICKTHAL: O People of the Scripture! Do not exaggerate in your religion nor utter aught concerning God save the truth. The Messiah, Jesus son of Mary, was only a messenger of God, and His word which He conveyed unto Mary, and a spirit from Him. So believe in God and His messengers, and say not "Three" - Cease! (it is) better for you! - God is only One God. Far is it removed from His Transcendent Majesty that He should have a son. His is all that is in the heavens and all that is in the earth. And God is sufficient as Defender.
SHAKIR: O followers of the Book! do not exceed the limits in your religion, and do not speak (lies) against God, but (speak) the truth; the Messiah, Isa son of Marium is only a messenger of God and His Word which He communicated to Marium and a spirit from Him; believe therefore in God and His messengers, and say not, Three. Desist, it is better for you; God is only one God; far be It from His glory that He should have a son, whatever is in the heavens and whatever is in the earth is His, and God is sufficient for a Protector.

004.172
YUSUFALI: Christ disdaineth nor to serve and worship God, nor do the angels, those nearest (to God): those who disdain His worship and are arrogant,-He will gather them all together unto Himself to (answer).
PICKTHAL: The Messiah will never scorn to be a slave unto God, nor will the favoured angels. Whoso scorneth His service and is proud, all such will He assemble unto Him;
SHAKIR: The Messiah does by no means disdain that he should be a servant of God, nor do the angels who are near to Him, and whoever disdains His service and is proud, He will gather them all together to Himself.

004.173
YUSUFALI: But to those who believe and do deeds of righteousness, He will give their (due) rewards,- and more, out of His bounty: But those who are disdainful and arrogant, He will punish with a grievous penalty; Nor will they find, besides God, any to protect or help them.
PICKTHAL: Then, as for those who believed and did good works, unto them will He pay their wages in full, adding unto them of His bounty; and as for those who were scornful and proud, them will He punish with a painful doom. And they will not find for them, against God, any protecting friend or helper.
SHAKIR: Then as for those who believe and do good, He will pay them fully their rewards and give them more out of His grace; and as for those who disdain and are proud, He will chastise them with a painful chastisement. And they shall not find for themselves besides God a guardian or a helper

Remember that Jesus was sent to the jews not only to fulfill a prophecy but also in order to correct their deviation from the true path and to set things right again.

Similar things can be said about prophet Muhammad and his message, he was not just sent in order to fulfill the prophecy Abraham received, namely that the prophethood will be continued among his descendants, ie. Ismaeel's and Isaac's blood-lines, but also in order to correct some wrong statements from the jews and christians:

Sura 5:72-77:

005.072
YUSUFALI: They do blaspheme who say: "God is Christ the son of Mary." But said Christ: "O Children of Israel! worship God, my Lord and your Lord." Whoever joins other gods with God,- God will forbid him the garden, and the Fire will be his abode. There will for the wrong-doers be no one to help.
PICKTHAL: They surely disbelieve who say: Lo! God is the Messiah, son of Mary. The Messiah (himself) said: O Children of Israel, worship God, my Lord and your Lord. Lo! whoso ascribeth partners unto God, for him God hath forbidden paradise. His abode is the Fire. For evil-doers there will be no helpers.
SHAKIR: Certainly they disbelieve who say: Surely God, He is the Messiah, son of Marium; and the Messiah said: O Children of Israel! serve God, my Lord and your Lord. Surely whoever associates (others) with God, then God has forbidden to him the garden, and his abode is the fire; and there shall be no helpers for the unjust.

005.073
YUSUFALI: They do blaspheme who say: God is one of three in a Trinity: for there is no god except One God. If they desist not from their word (of blasphemy), verily a grievous penalty will befall the blasphemers among them.
PICKTHAL: They surely disbelieve who say: Lo! God is the third of three; when there is no God save the One God. If they desist not from so saying a painful doom will fall on those of them who disbelieve.
SHAKIR: Certainly they disbelieve who say: Surely God is the third (person) of the three; and there is no god but the one God, and if they desist not from what they say, a painful chastisement shall befall those among them who disbelieve.

005.074
YUSUFALI: Why turn they not to God, and seek His forgiveness? For God is Oft-forgiving, Most Merciful.
PICKTHAL: Will they not rather turn unto God and seek forgiveness of Him? For God is Forgiving, Merciful.
SHAKIR: Will they not then turn to God and ask His forgiveness? And God is Forgiving, Merciful.

005.075
YUSUFALI: Christ the son of Mary was no more than a messenger; many were the messengers that passed away before him. His mother was a woman of truth. They had both to eat their (daily) food. See how God doth make His signs clear to them; yet see in what ways they are deluded away from the truth!
PICKTHAL: The Messiah, son of Mary, was no other than a messenger, messengers (the like of whom) had passed away before him. And his mother was a saintly woman. And they both used to eat (earthly) food. See how We make the revelations clear for them, and see how they are turned away!
SHAKIR: The Messiah, son of Marium is but a messenger; messengers before him have indeed passed away; and his mother was a truthful woman; they both used to eat food. See how We make the communications clear to them, then behold, how they are turned away.

005.076
YUSUFALI: Say: "Will ye worship, besides God, something which hath no power either to harm or benefit you? But God,- He it is that heareth and knoweth all things."
PICKTHAL: Say: Serve ye in place of God that which possesseth for you neither hurt nor use? God it is Who is the Hearer, the Knower.
SHAKIR: Say: Do you serve besides God that which does not control for you any harm, or any profit? And God-- He is the Hearing, the Knowing.

005.077
YUSUFALI: Say: "O people of the Book! exceed not in your religion the bounds (of what is proper), trespassing beyond the truth, nor follow the vain desires of people who went wrong in times gone by,- who misled many, and strayed (themselves) from the even way.
PICKTHAL: Say: O People of the Scripture! Stress not in your religion other than the truth, and follow not the vain desires of folk who erred of old and led many astray, and erred from a plain road.
SHAKIR: Say: O followers of the Book! be not unduly immoderate in your religion, and do not follow the low desires of people who went astray before and led many astray and went astray from the right path.

... to be continued

[Taliesin]

Sura 4:47-48:

004.047
YUSUFALI: O ye People of the Book! believe in what We have (now) revealed, confirming what was (already) with you, before We change the face and fame of some (of you) beyond all recognition, and turn them hindwards, or curse them as We cursed the Sabbath-breakers, for the decision of God Must be carried out.
PICKTHAL: O ye unto whom the Scripture hath been given! Believe in what We have revealed confirming that which ye possess, before We destroy countenances so as to confound them, or curse them as We cursed the Sabbath-breakers (of old time). The commandment of God is always executed.
SHAKIR: O you who have been given the Book! believe that which We have revealed, verifying what you have, before We alter faces then turn them on their backs, or curse them as We cursed the violaters of the Sabbath, and the command of God shall be executed.

004.048
YUSUFALI: God forgiveth not that partners should be set up with Him; but He forgiveth anything else, to whom He pleaseth; to set up partners with God is to devise a sin Most heinous indeed.
PICKTHAL: Lo! God forgiveth not that a partner should be ascribed unto Him. He forgiveth (all) save that to whom He will. Whoso ascribeth partners to God, he hath indeed invented a tremendous sin.
SHAKIR: Surely God does not forgive that anything should be associated with Him, and forgives what is besides that to whomsoever He pleases; and whoever associates anything with God, he devises indeed a great sin.

Sura 2:135-141

002.135
YUSUFALI: They say: "Become Jews or Christians if ye would be guided (To salvation)." Say thou: "Nay! (I would rather) the Religion of Abraham the True, and he joined not gods with God."
PICKTHAL: And they say: Be Jews or Christians, then ye will be rightly guided. Say (unto them, O Muhammad): Nay, but (we follow) the religion of Abraham, the upright, and he was not of the idolaters.
SHAKIR: And they say: Be Jews or Christians, you will be on the right course. Say: Nay! (we follow) the religion of Ibrahim, the Hanif, and he was not one of the polytheists.

002.136
YUSUFALI: Say ye: "We believe in God, and the revelation given to us, and to Abraham, Isma'il, Isaac, Jacob, and the Tribes, and that given to Moses and Jesus, and that given to (all) prophets from their Lord: We make no difference between one and another of them: And we bow to God (in Islam)."
PICKTHAL: Say (O Muslims): We believe in God and that which is revealed unto us and that which was revealed unto Abraham, and Ishmael, and Isaac, and Jacob, and the tribes, and that which Moses and Jesus received, and that which the prophets received from their Lord. We make no distinction between any of them, and unto Him we have surrendered.
SHAKIR: Say: We believe in God and (in) that which had been revealed to us, and (in) that which was revealed to Ibrahim and Ismail and Ishaq and Yaqoub and the tribes, and (in) that which was given to Musa and Isa, and (in) that which was given to the prophets from their Lord, we do not make any distinction between any of them, and to Him do we submit.

002.137
YUSUFALI: So if they believe as ye believe, they are indeed on the right path; but if they turn back, it is they who are in schism; but God will suffice thee as against them, and He is the All-Hearing, the All-Knowing.
PICKTHAL: And if they believe in the like of that which ye believe, then are they rightly guided. But if they turn away, then are they in schism, and God will suffice thee (for defence) against them. He is the Hearer, the Knower.
SHAKIR: If then they believe as you believe in Him, they are indeed on the right course, and if they turn back, then they are only in great opposition, so God will suffice you against them, and He is the Hearing, the Knowing.

002.138
YUSUFALI: (Our religion is) the Baptism of God: And who can baptize better than God? And it is He Whom we worship.
PICKTHAL: (We take our) colour from God, and who is better than God at colouring. We are His worshippers.
SHAKIR: (Receive) the baptism of God, and who is better than God in baptising? and Him do we serve.

002.139
YUSUFALI: Say: Will ye dispute with us about God, seeing that He is our Lord and your Lord; that we are responsible for our doings and ye for yours; and that We are sincere (in our faith) in Him?
PICKTHAL: Say (unto the People of the Scripture): Dispute ye with us concerning God when He is our Lord and your Lord? Ours are our works and yours your works. We look to Him alone.
SHAKIR: Say: Do you dispute with us about God, and He is our Lord and your Lord, and we shall have our deeds and you shall have your deeds, and we are sincere to Him.

002.140
YUSUFALI: Or do ye say that Abraham, Isma'il Isaac, Jacob and the Tribes were Jews or Christians? Say: Do ye know better than God? Ah! who is more unjust than those who conceal the testimony they have from God? but God is not unmindful of what ye do!
PICKTHAL: Or say ye that Abraham, and Ishmael, and Isaac, and Jacob, and the tribes were Jews or Christians? Say: Do ye know best, or doth God? And who is more unjust than he who hideth a testimony which he hath received from God? God is not unaware of what ye do.
SHAKIR: Nay! do you say that Ibrahim and Ismail and Yaqoub and the tribes were Jews or Christians? Say: Are you better knowing or God? And who is more unjust than he who conceals a testimony that he has from God? And God is not at all heedless of what you do.

002.141
YUSUFALI: That was a people that hath passed away. They shall reap the fruit of what they did, and ye of what ye do! Of their merits there is no question in your case:
PICKTHAL: Those are a people who have passed away; theirs is that which they earned and yours that which ye earn. And ye will not be asked of what they used to do.
SHAKIR: This is a people that have passed away; they shall have what they earned and you shall have what you earn, and you shall not be called upon to answer for what they did.

So, those verses should make it clear, that the christians and jews mentioned therein are those that prophet Muhammad directly talked to, as proven by the beginnig of sentences with "They say: Become jews or christians..." or "Say (to the people of the book):...", directing prophet Muhammad to directly talk to the people of the book..., warning them that the overtaking of polytheistic practices and idolatry from the Meccans with which they were allied is/was a big sin..

Taliesin

[Macrobat]

Originally Posted by Taliesin

The unbelievers talked about in the Quran, those from Mecca were not just simple atheists, but zealous polytheists, worshipping hundreds of gods, and bringing human sacrifices for them, sinning in every way possible from raping to stealing, to killing, torturing, kidnapping all those that tried to bring them to their senses and others that didn't belong to their tribe...

So, what you're saying is that they (the Meccan poltheists) were doing exactly what the "radical extremists Islamists" are doing with the single exception of worshipping hundreds of gods (although the blind devotion to their extremeist leaders could easily be construed as worship).

Thanks for clearing that up for us.

[Taliesin]

Originally Posted by Macrobat

So, what you're saying is that they (the Meccan poltheists) were doing exactly what the "radical extremists Islamists" are doing with the single exception of worshipping hundreds of gods (although the blind devotion to their extremeist leaders could easily be construed as worship).

Thanks for clearing that up for us.

Yes, indeed, there are many similarities between the polytheists and the radical and violent islamistic militants.

Taliesin

[undotwa]

Originally Posted by Taliesin

That's probably why they came up with Jesus as God's son and turned him into a secondary independent god and the jews came up with Ezra as God's son and turned him also into a secondary independent god, and set them up as idols in Kaabah.

That Jesus was God's son didn't arise in 7th century Mecca. It was a belief which originated from the 1st century claimed by Jesus Christ himself (as quoted by the evangelists) in the scriptures.

In fact, the claim that Jesus Christ was man alone was a heresy that was first appeared in the late second century (Arianism), which my friend, used the same tradition of scripture to justify its claims.

Before you can say that the faith was falsified and corrupted over time especially concerning Jesus Christ's divinity, you have to show evidence for that. Abrahamic faith is never blind, rather it is always based upon an historical event. For example, God introduced himself to Moses as the God of his ancestors and henceforth God often introduced himself as the one who liberated you from Egypt. This tradition continued into Christian times where we see in the Creed that Jesus was crucified under Pontius Pilate. Pontius Pilate plays no central role in Christian theology, but was mentioned so as to emphasize that Jesus Christ was a real man who walked the earth not merely a spirit which was claimed by many Gnostics.

So basically, you can't just say the Christian scriptures were falsified unless you can provide historical evidence. Even with faith, we need reason to believe.

We know for a fact that the OT Scriptures we have today are nearly exactly the same as they were 2000 years ago. We've got the Dead Sea Scrolls to prove it. Most of the supposed corruptions actually occurred in the Jewish Masoretic traditions. Even then, it was only a few verses which were mistranslated (I think there is a significant one in Genesis and that is about it).

[undotwa]

Originally Posted by Taliesin

Remember that Jesus was sent to the jews not only to fulfill a prophecy but also in order to correct their deviation from the true path and to set things right again.

I've seen these quotations before, and understand what Islam's position on Jesus Christ is.

Answer this: Why would God send a messenger to sour things? Before Jesus Christ, the Jews only worshipped God as One. But after Jesus Christ, most Jews still worshipped God as One and Jesus's message was largely ignored because of the High Priest's disapproval but some splintered off to worship God As One but of three essences, worshipped Jesus Christ as God's Son, started to worship bread and wine, and honoured Jesus's mother as Mother of God, claimed to be able to forgive in God's name etc..

If Jesus Christ was only a messenger and all that Islam said is correct, God made a terrible mistake in choosing Jesus as his messenger because no-one got the message and if anything he turned (whether it was his intention or not) a good portion of the Jews into polytheists. What was the point of the Messiah then?

The Messiah was meant to fulfill the Torah and be the last Prophet to lead the Jews to a Golden age. If what Islam preaches is true, Jesus was a pretty lousy Messiah.

[RonnieoftheRose]

Polytheism is really bad. They commited acts of terror throughout the world, crusades, etc

[Turning off sarcasm.]

Polytheism is freedom of religion, to be able to worship what and how you choose. Any act against it in history was an act of oppression and tyranny.

[RonnieoftheRose]

Originally Posted by undotwa

Before you can say that the faith was falsified and corrupted over time especially concerning Jesus Christ's divinity, you have to show evidence for that. Abrahamic faith is never blind, rather it is always based upon an historical event.

The word 'bollocks' comes to mind.

[undotwa]

Originally Posted by RonnieoftheRose

The word 'bollocks' comes to mind.

You show an outstanding ignorance in that statement.

Whether or not you agree with whether the events were historical or not, Christianity and Abrahamic religions place an important emphasis on historicity.

It was important to Christian theology that rather the scriptures being written by Jesus Christ but by witnesses (and converts) for the same reason - historicity.

[RonnieoftheRose]

Originally Posted by undotwa

You show an outstanding ignorance in that statement.

Whether or not you agree with whether the events were historical or not, Christianity and Abrahamic religions place an important emphasis on historicity.

So do Hindus, Ancient Egyptians, Ancient Babylonians, The Church of Latter Day Saints and most recently Scientology. The point is almost every sect has created origin stories and myths in order to throw their beliefs further back in time. To call a person ignorant because they have weighed up the evidence collected in the 20th century, which is all very recent, is ignorant itself. I can say bollocks because what you said in that post was a mishmash of popular superstition and belief with little to no imperical evidence behind it. I might not have been politically correct in my choice of words but then I don't really give a toss.

[loki74]

Originally Posted by RonnieoftheRose

Polytheism is freedom of religion, to be able to worship what and how you choose.

polytheism != religious freedom

pol·y·the·ism n. The worship of or belief in more than one god.

thus, any act against polytheism in history is not necessarily tyrannical, but rather a push for aethism, agnosticism, monotheism, etc.

...right?

[von Wrangell]

Originally Posted by undotwa

That Jesus was God's son didn't arise in 7th century Mecca. It was a belief which originated from the 1st century claimed by Jesus Christ himself (as quoted by the evangelists) in the scriptures.

He never claimed that himself. You have indirect sources(the scribes who today no know who were) claiming he implied it. I've seen the verses before and he never just says that he is God on earth. He says things that could be understood that way. And if he was God on earth why did he pray to God? That doesn't make any sense at all to me.

""Why do you call me good?" Jesus answered. "No one is good–except God alone." (From the NIV Bible, Mark 10:18)"

How could Satan tempt and cause Jesus suffering if Jesus was God?

Luke 22
39 Jesus went out as usual to the Mount of Olives, and his disciples followed him.
40 On reaching the place, he said to them, "Pray that you will not fall into temptation."
41 He withdrew about a stone's throw beyond them, knelt down and prayed,

James 1
13When tempted, no one should say, "God is tempting me." For God cannot be tempted by evil, nor does he tempt anyone;
14but each one is tempted when, by his own evil desire, he is dragged away and enticed.
15Then, after desire has conceived, it gives birth to sin; and sin, when it is full -grown, gives birth to death.

Before you can say that the faith was falsified and corrupted over time especially concerning Jesus Christ's divinity, you have to show evidence for that. Abrahamic faith is never blind, rather it is always based upon an historical event. For example, God introduced himself to Moses as the God of his ancestors and henceforth God often introduced himself as the one who liberated you from Egypt. This tradition continued into Christian times where we see in the Creed that Jesus was crucified under Pontius Pilate. Pontius Pilate plays no central role in Christian theology, but was mentioned so as to emphasize that Jesus Christ was a real man who walked the earth not merely a spirit which was claimed by many Gnostics.

"`How can you say, "We are wise, for we have the law of the LORD," when actually the lying pen of the scribes has handled it falsely?' (Jeremiah 8:8)"

25 he gave this command to the Levites who carried the ark of the covenant of the LORD : 26 "Take this Book of the Law and place it beside the ark of the covenant of the LORD your God. There it will remain as a witness against you. 27 For I know how rebellious and stiff-necked you are. If you have been rebellious against the LORD while I am still alive and with you, how much more will you rebel after I die! 28 Assemble before me all the elders of your tribes and all your officials, so that I can speak these words in their hearing and call heaven and earth to testify against them. 29 For I know that after my death you are sure to become utterly corrupt and to turn from the way I have commanded you. In days to come, disaster will fall upon you because you will do evil in the sight of the LORD and provoke him to anger by what your hands have made." Deuteromy 31:25-29

"Although there is no direct internal evidence of authorship, it was the unanimous testimony of the early church that this Gospel was written by John Mark. (From the NIV Bible Commentary, page 1488)"

"Serious doubts exists as to whether these verses belong to the Gospel of Mark. They are absent from important early manuscripts and display certain peculiarities of vocabulary, style and theological content that are unlike the rest of Mark. His Gospel probably ended at 16:8, or its original ending has been lost. (From the NIV Bible Foot Notes, page 1528)"

So basically, you can't just say the Christian scriptures were falsified unless you can provide historical evidence. Even with faith, we need reason to believe.

We know for a fact that the OT Scriptures we have today are nearly exactly the same as they were 2000 years ago. We've got the Dead Sea Scrolls to prove it. Most of the supposed corruptions actually occurred in the Jewish Masoretic traditions. Even then, it was only a few verses which were mistranslated (I think there is a significant one in Genesis and that is about it).

"Although the author does not name himself, evidence outside the Scriptures and inferences from the book itself lead to the conclusion that the author was Luke. (From the NIV Bible Commentary, page 1643)"

"The author's name does not appear in the book, but much unmistakable evidence points to Luke. (From the NIV Bible Commentary, page 1529)"

"IV. TRANSMISSION OF THE TEXT

No book of ancient times has come down to us exactly as it left the hands of its author-- all have been in some way altered(from here: http://www.newadvent.org/cathen/14530a.htm)

"The writer of this letter does not identify himself, but he was obviously well known to the original recipients. (From the NIV Bible Commentary, page 1856)"

"The author is the apostle John, 'the disciple whom Jesus loved' (13:23; 19:26; 20:2; 21:7, 20,24). He was prominent in the early church but is not mentioned by name in this Gospel--which would be natural if he wrote it, but hard to explain otherwise. (From the NIV Bible Commentary, page 1588)"

That's one huge leap in the conclusion.

"....Unlike most NT letters, 1 John does not tell us who its author is. The earliest identification of him comes from the church fathers...(From the NIV Bible Commentary, page 1904)"

"The letter is difficult to date with precision....(From the NIV Bible Commentary, page 1905)"

I'll let this do for now but there is enough evidence for anyone but the blind in faith that the Bible has been corrupted over the years.

[Taliesin]

Originally Posted by undotwa

That Jesus was God's son didn't arise in 7th century Mecca. It was a belief which originated from the 1st century claimed by Jesus Christ himself (as quoted by the evangelists) in the scriptures.

In fact, the claim that Jesus Christ was man alone was a heresy that was first appeared in the late second century (Arianism), which my friend, used the same tradition of scripture to justify its claims.

Before you can say that the faith was falsified and corrupted over time especially concerning Jesus Christ's divinity, you have to show evidence for that. Abrahamic faith is never blind, rather it is always based upon an historical event. For example, God introduced himself to Moses as the God of his ancestors and henceforth God often introduced himself as the one who liberated you from Egypt. This tradition continued into Christian times where we see in the Creed that Jesus was crucified under Pontius Pilate. Pontius Pilate plays no central role in Christian theology, but was mentioned so as to emphasize that Jesus Christ was a real man who walked the earth not merely a spirit which was claimed by many Gnostics.

So basically, you can't just say the Christian scriptures were falsified unless you can provide historical evidence. Even with faith, we need reason to believe.

We know for a fact that the OT Scriptures we have today are nearly exactly the same as they were 2000 years ago. We've got the Dead Sea Scrolls to prove it. Most of the supposed corruptions actually occurred in the Jewish Masoretic traditions. Even then, it was only a few verses which were mistranslated (I think there is a significant one in Genesis and that is about it).

You have completely misunderstood my point, I wasn't talking about christians in the roman empire but about the christians living in Arabia outside the roman empire and therefore also outside the reach of the catholic church. Major parts of the christians there took the trinity-teachment they have learned from the monks and priests and assimilitated it with the polytheistic Mecca-idolatry-belief in order to make and alliance with them or during the time of the alliance, difficult to know. They took the trinity-teachment, which means three essences in one unity, and interpreted as meaning actually three independent gods and set them up as idols in the Kaabah and elsewhere! From what I could gather from the Quran yesterday, it seems major parts of the christians in Arabia chose Jesus, God Himself and Mary as the three independent gods. That's surely a deviation even according to your belief-system.

These christians in Arabia who did that and the monks and priests that didn't prevent and tolerated it or, unlikely but possible even legitimised it, the Quran is and was criticizing.

Regarding the OT, it doesn't matter really if the scripture is the same as 2000 years ago, because the change of scripture probably happened way before, I guess, after the first destruction of the Temple, when the babylonians destroyed it and everything in it and took the jews into exile for 70 years. Then they were allowed to go back to Jerusalem and to rebuild the Temple.

Jesus himself came to the leaders of the jews and accused them of having led the jews astray, accused them of having killed legitimate prophets, of having changed rules and law against God's message...just for the sake of the worldly riches.

But those are old times where leaders of jews could manipulate the jews because of their illiteracy and lack of education as well as the lack of access to the scriptures..., these days literacy among jews is very high, scriptures and copies of them are abundant and everyone has access to them and the transparency makes it much more difficult for jewish religious leaders to gather extreme riches for themselves through the abuse of charity.

But to the topic of Jesus being God:

Mark 10:17:

17And as he was setting out on his journey, a man ran up and knelt before him and asked him, "Good Teacher, what must I do to inherit eternal life?" 18And Jesus said to him, "Why do you call me good? No one is good except God alone.

In this one, Jesus develops the idea of calling God "Father in Heaven" for all jews, therefore the jews must be the sons of God, including him, off course only meant symbolically.

Matthew 23:1-12:

1Then Jesus said to the crowds and to his disciples: 2"The teachers of the law and the Pharisees sit in Moses' seat. 3So you must obey them and do everything they tell you. But do not do what they do, for they do not practice what they preach. 4They tie up heavy loads and put them on men's shoulders, but they themselves are not willing to lift a finger to move them.

5"Everything they do is done for men to see: They make their phylacteries[a] wide and the tassels on their garments long; 6they love the place of honor at banquets and the most important seats in the synagogues; 7they love to be greeted in the marketplaces and to have men call them 'Rabbi.'

8"But you are not to be called 'Rabbi,' for you have only one Master and you are all brothers. 9And do not call anyone on earth 'father,' for you have one Father, and he is in heaven. 10Nor are you to be called 'teacher,' for you have one Teacher, the Christ.[b] 11The greatest among you will be your servant. 12For whoever exalts himself will be humbled, and whoever humbles himself will be exalted.

The last one is from the old testament:

Genesis 6:1-2:

1When man began to multiply on the face of the land and daughters were born to them, 2the sons of God saw that the daughters of man were attractive. And they took as their wives any they chose.

This discussion though is circular because obviously some of the books of the Bible seem to support the idea of Jesus being the real and only son of God, while other books of the Bible support the idea that the term son of God is just symbolic and includes all believers in God, while in other parts of the book, the reason for the crucifiying of Jesus was his insistance that he claimed to be the king of the jews, while in other parts he seemed to be very silent and not saying anything against the charges, just saying "you said it so."...

I also reasearched a bit in the Quran and found a nice summary of Jesus work and life in sura 3:45-55:

003.045
YUSUFALI: Behold! the angels said: "O Mary! God giveth thee glad tidings of a Word from Him: his name will be Christ Jesus, the son of Mary, held in honour in this world and the Hereafter and of (the company of) those nearest to God;
PICKTHAL: (And remember) when the angels said: O Mary! Lo! God giveth thee glad tidings of a word from him, whose name is the Messiah, Jesus, son of Mary, illustrious in the world and the Hereafter, and one of those brought near (unto God).
SHAKIR: When the angels said: O Marium, surely God gives you good news with a Word from Him (of one) whose name is the '. Messiah, Isa son of Marium, worthy of regard in this world and the hereafter and of those who are made near (to God).

003.046
YUSUFALI: "He shall speak to the people in childhood and in maturity. And he shall be (of the company) of the righteous."
PICKTHAL: He will speak unto mankind in his cradle and in his manhood, and he is of the righteous.
SHAKIR: And he shall speak to the people when in the cradle and when of old age, and (he shall be) one of the good ones.

003.047
YUSUFALI: She said: "O my Lord! How shall I have a son when no man hath touched me?" He said: "Even so: God createth what He willeth: When He hath decreed a plan, He but saith to it, 'Be,' and it is!
PICKTHAL: She said: My Lord! How can I have a child when no mortal hath touched me? He said: So (it will be). God createth what He will. If He decreeth a thing, He saith unto it only: Be! and it is.
SHAKIR: She said: My Lord! when shall there be a son (born) to I me, and man has not touched me? He said: Even so, God creates what He pleases; when He has decreed a matter, He only says to it, Be, and it is.

003.048
YUSUFALI: "And God will teach him the Book and Wisdom, the Law and the Gospel,
PICKTHAL: And He will teach him the Scripture and wisdom, and the Torah and the Gospel,
SHAKIR: And He will teach him the Book and the wisdom and the Tavrat and the Injeel.

003.049
YUSUFALI: "And (appoint him) a messenger to the Children of Israel, (with this message): "'I have come to you, with a Sign from your Lord, in that I make for you out of clay, as it were, the figure of a bird, and breathe into it, and it becomes a bird by God's leave: And I heal those born blind, and the lepers, and I quicken the dead, by God's leave; and I declare to you what ye eat, and what ye store in your houses. Surely therein is a Sign for you if ye did believe;
PICKTHAL: And will make him a messenger unto the Children of Israel, (saying): Lo! I come unto you with a sign from your Lord. Lo! I fashion for you out of clay the likeness of a bird, and I breathe into it and it is a bird, by God's leave. I heal him who was born blind, and the leper, and I raise the dead, by God's leave. And I announce unto you what ye eat and what ye store up in your houses. Lo! herein verily is a portent for you, if ye are to be believers.
SHAKIR: And (make him) a messenger to the children of Israel: That I have come to you with a sign from your Lord, that I determine for you out of dust like the form of a bird, then I breathe into it and it becomes a bird with God's permission and I heal the blind and the leprous, and bring the dead to life with God's permission and I inform you of what you should eat and what you should store in your houses; most surely there is a sign in this for you, if you are believers.

003.050
YUSUFALI: "'(I have come to you), to attest the Law which was before me. And to make lawful to you part of what was (Before) forbidden to you; I have come to you with a Sign from your Lord. So fear God, and obey me.
PICKTHAL: And (I come) confirming that which was before me of the Torah, and to make lawful some of that which was forbidden unto you. I come unto you with a sign from your Lord, so keep your duty to God and obey me.
SHAKIR: And a verifier of that which is before me of the Taurat and that I may allow you part of that which has been forbidden t you, and I have come to you with a sign from your Lord therefore be careful of (your duty to) God and obey me.

003.051
YUSUFALI: "'It is God Who is my Lord and your Lord; then worship Him. This is a Way that is straight.'"
PICKTHAL: Lo! God is my Lord and your Lord, so worship Him. That is a straight path.
SHAKIR: Surely God is my Lord and your Lord, therefore serve Him; this is the right path.

003.052
YUSUFALI: When Jesus found Unbelief on their part He said: "Who will be My helpers to (the work of) God?" Said the disciples: "We are God's helpers: We believe in God, and do thou bear witness that we are Muslims.
PICKTHAL: But when Jesus became conscious of their disbelief, he cried: Who will be my helpers in the cause of God? The disciples said: We will be God's helpers. We believe in God, and bear thou witness that we have surrendered (unto Him).
SHAKIR: But when Isa perceived unbelief on their part, he said Who will be my helpers in God's way? The disciples said: We are helpers (in the way) of God: We believe in God and bear witness that we are submitting ones.

003.053
YUSUFALI: "Our Lord! we believe in what Thou hast revealed, and we follow the Messenger; then write us down among those who bear witness."
PICKTHAL: Our Lord! We believe in that which Thou hast revealed and we follow him whom Thou hast sent. Enrol us among those who witness (to the truth).
SHAKIR: Our Lord! we believe in what Thou hast revealed and we follow the messenger, so write us down with those who bear witness.

003.054
YUSUFALI: And (the unbelievers) plotted and planned, and God too planned, and the best of planners is God.
PICKTHAL: And they (the disbelievers) schemed, and God schemed (against them): and God is the best of schemers.
SHAKIR: And they planned and God (also) planned, and God is the best of planners.

003.055
YUSUFALI: Behold! God said: "O Jesus! I will take thee and raise thee to Myself and clear thee (of the falsehoods) of those who blaspheme; I will make those who follow thee superior to those who reject faith, to the Day of Resurrection: Then shall ye all return unto me, and I will judge between you of the matters wherein ye dispute.
PICKTHAL: (And remember) when God said: O Jesus! Lo! I am gathering thee and causing thee to ascend unto Me, and am cleansing thee of those who disbelieve and am setting those who follow thee above those who disbelieve until the Day of Resurrection. Then unto Me ye will (all) return, and I shall judge between you as to that wherein ye used to differ.
SHAKIR: And when God said: O Isa, I am going to terminate the period of your stay (on earth) and cause you to ascend unto Me and purify you of those who disbelieve and make those who follow you above those who disbelieve to the day of resurrection; then to Me shall be your return, so l will decide between you concerning that in which you differed.

Taliesin

[RonnieoftheRose]

Originally Posted by Taliesin

these days literacy among jews is very high, scriptures and copies of them are abundant and everyone has access to them and the transparency makes it much more difficult for jewish religious leaders to gather extreme riches for themselves through the abuse of charity.

That, prosperity, science and education, has also led to the best historians some of whom are Israeli archaeologists who have discovered much about the 'myths and legends' in Judaism, Christianity and Islam. Now top Israeli professors will tell you that those Bible stories were for Jewish culture alone and were not supposed to be taken by other cultures, updated into new religions and used to conquer and rule...

http://www.library.cornell.edu/colld...st/jerques.htm

Deconstructing the walls of Jericho

Following 70 years of intensive excavations in the Land of Israel, archaeologists have found out: The patriarchs' acts are legendary, the Israelites did not sojourn in Egypt or make an exodus, they did not conquer the land. Neither is there any mention of the empire of David and Solomon, nor of the source of belief in the God of Israel. These facts have been known for years, but Israel is a stubborn people and nobody wants to hear about it
By Ze'ev Herzog
This is what archaeologists have learned from their excavations in the Land of Israel: the Israelites were never in Egypt, did not wander in the desert, did not conquer the land in a military campaign and did not pass it on to the 12 tribes of Israel. Perhaps even harder to swallow is the fact that the united monarchy of David and Solomon, which is described by the Bible as a regional power, was at most a small tribal kingdom. And it will come as an unpleasant shock to many that the God of Israel, Jehovah, had a female consort and that the early Israelite religion adopted monotheism only in the waning period of the monarchy and not at Mount Sinai.Most of those who are engaged in scientific work in the interlocking spheres of the Bible, archaeology and the history of the Jewish people - and who once went into the field looking for proof to corroborate the Bible story - now agree that the historic events relating to the stages of the Jewish people's emergence are radically different from what that story tells.

What follows is a short account of the brief history of archaeology, with the emphasis on the crises and the big bang, so to speak, of the past decade. The critical question of this archaeological revolution has not yet trickled down into public consciousness, but it cannot be ignored.




Inventing the Bible stories
The archaeology of Palestine developed as a science at a relatively late date, in the late 19th and early 20th century, in tandem with the archaeology of the imperial cultures of Egypt, Mesopotamia, Greece and Rome. Those resource-intensive powers were the first target of the researchers, who were looking for impressive evidence from the past, usually in the service of the big museums in London, Paris and Berlin. That stage effectively passed over Palestine, with its fragmented geographical diversity. The conditions in ancient Palestine were inhospitable for the development of an extensive kingdom, and certainly no showcase projects such as the Egyptian shrines or the Mesopotamian palaces could have been established there. In fact, the archaeology of Palestine was not engendered at the initiative of museums but sprang from religious motives.

The main push behind archaeological research in Palestine was the country's relationship with the Holy Scriptures. The first excavators in Jericho and Shechem (Nablus) were biblical researchers who were looking for the remains of the cities cited in the Bible. Archaeology assumed momentum with the activity of William Foxwell Albright, who mastered the archeology, history and linguistics of the Land of Israel and the ancient Near East. Albright, an American whose father was a priest of Chilean descent, began excavating in Palestine in the 1920s. His declared approach was that archaeology was the principal scientific means to refute the critical claims against the historical veracity of the Bible stories, particularly those of the Wellhausen school in Germany.

The school of biblical criticism that developed in Germany beginning in the second half of the 19th century, of which Julian Wellhausen was a leading figure, challenged the historicity of the Bible stories and claimed that biblical historiography was formulated, and in large measure actually "invented," during the Babylonian exile. Bible scholars, the Germans in particular, claimed that the history of the Hebrews, as a consecutive series of events beginning with Abraham, Isaac and Jacob, and proceeding through the move to Egypt, the enslavement and the exodus, and ending with the conquest of the land and the settlement of the tribes of Israel, was no more than a later reconstruction of events with a theological purpose.

Albright believed that the Bible is a historical document, which, although it had gone through several editing stages, nevertheless basically reflected the ancient reality. He was convinced that if the ancient remains of Palestine were uncovered, they would furnish unequivocal proof of the historical truth of the events relating to the Jewish people in its land.

The biblical archaeology that developed from Albright and his pupils brought about a series of extensive digs at the important biblical tells: Megiddo, Lachish, Gezer, Shechem (Nablus), Jericho, Jerusalem, Ai, Giveon, Beit She'an, Beit Shemesh, Hazor, Ta'anach and others. The way was straight and clear: every finding that was uncovered would contribute to the building of a harmonious picture of the past. The archaeologists, who enthusiastically adopted the biblical approach, set out on a quest to unearth the "biblical period": the period of the patriarchs, the Canaanite cities that were destroyed by the Israelites as they conquered the land, the boundaries of the 12 tribes, the sites of the settlement period, characterized by "settlement pottery," the "gates of Solomon" at Hazor, Megiddo and Gezer, "Solomon's stables" (or Ahab's), "King Solomon's mines" at Timna - and there are some who are still hard at work and have found Mount Sinai (at Mount Karkoum in the Negev) or Joshua's altar at Mount Ebal.




The crisis
Slowly, cracks began to appear in the picture. Paradoxically, a situation was created in which the glut of findings began to undermine the historical credibility of the biblical descriptions instead of reinforcing them. A crisis stage is reached when the theories within the framework of the general thesis are unable to solve an increasingly large number of anomalies. The explanations become ponderous and inelegant, and the pieces do not lock together smoothly. Here are a few examples of how the harmonious picture collapsed.

Patriarchal Age: The researchers found it difficult to reach agreement on which archaeological period matched the Patriarchal Age. When did Abraham, Isaac and Jacob live? When was the Cave of Machpelah (Tomb of the Patriarchs in Hebron) bought in order to serve as the burial place for the patriarchs and the matriarchs? According to the biblical chronology, Solomon built the Temple 480 years after the exodus from Egypt (1 Kings 6:1). To that we have to add 430 years of the stay in Egypt (Exodus 12:40) and the vast lifetimes of the patriarchs, producing a date in the 21th century BCE for Abraham's move to Canaan.

However, no evidence has been unearthed that can sustain this chronology. Albright argued in the early 1960s in favor of assigning the wanderings of Abraham to the Middle Bronze Age (22nd-20th centuries BCE). However, Benjamin Mazar, the father of the Israeli branch of biblical archaeology, proposed identifying the historic background of the Patriarchal Age a thousand years later, in the 11th century BCE - which would place it in the "settlement period." Others rejected the historicity of the stories and viewed them as ancestral legends that were told in the period of the Kingdom of Judea. In any event, the consensus began to break down.

The exodus from Egypt, the wanderings in the desert and Mount Sinai: The many Egyptian documents that we have make no mention of the Israelites' presence in Egypt and are also silent about the events of the exodus. Many documents do mention the custom of nomadic shepherds to enter Egypt during periods of drought and hunger and to camp at the edges of the Nile Delta. However, this was not a solitary phenomenon: such events occurred frequently across thousands of years and were hardly exceptional.

Generations of researchers tried to locate Mount Sinai and the stations of the tribes in the desert. Despite these intensive efforts, not even one site has been found that can match the biblical account.

The potency of tradition has now led some researchers to "discover" Mount Sinai in the northern Hijaz or, as already mentioned, at Mount Karkoum in the Negev. These central events in the history of the Israelites are not corroborated in documents external to the Bible or in archaeological findings. Most historians today agree that at best, the stay in Egypt and the exodous occurred in a few families and that their private story was expanded and "nationalized" to fit the needs of theological ideology.

The conquest: One of the shaping events of the people of Israel in biblical historiography is the story of how the land was conquered from the Canaanites. Yet extremely serious difficulties have cropped up precisely in the attempts to locate the archaeological evidence for this story.

Repeated excavations by various expeditions at Jericho and Ai, the two cities whose conquest is described in the greatest detail in the Book of Joshua, have proved very disappointing. Despite the excavators' efforts, it emerged that in the late part of the 13th century BCE, at the end of the Late Bronze Age, which is the agreed period for the conquest, there were no cities in either tell, and of course no walls that could have been toppled. Naturally, explanations were offered for these anomalies. Some claimed that the walls around Jericho were washed away by rain, while others suggested that earlier walls had been used; and, as for Ai, it was claimed that the original story actually referred to the conquest of nearby Beit El and was transferred to Ai by later redactors.

Biblical scholars suggested a quarter of a century ago that the conquest stories be viewed as etiological legends and no more. But as more and more sites were uncovered and it emerged that the places in question died out or were simply abandoned at different times, the conclusion was bolstered that there is no factual basis for the biblical story about the conquest by Israelite tribes in a military campaign led by Joshua.

The Canaanite cities: The Bible magnifies the strength and the fortifications of the Canaanite cities that were conquered by the Israelites: "great cities with walls sky-high" (Deuteronomy 9:1). In practice, all the sites that have been uncovered turned up remains of unfortified settlements, which in most cases consisted of a few structures or the ruler's palace rather than a genuine city. The urban culture of Palestine in the Late Bronze Age disintegrated in a process that lasted hundreds of years and did not stem from military conquest. Moreover, the biblical description is inconsistent with the geopolitical reality in Palestine. Palestine was under Egyptian rule until the middle of the 12th century BCE. The Egyptians' administrative centers were located in Gaza, Yaffo and Beit She'an. Egyptian findings have also been discovered in many locations on both sides of the Jordan River. This striking presence is not mentioned in the biblical account, and it is clear that it was unknown to the author and his editors.

The archaeological findings blatantly contradict the biblical picture: the Canaanite cities were not "great," were not fortified and did not have "sky-high walls." The heroism of the conquerors, the few versus the many and the assistance of the God who fought for his people are a theological reconstruction lacking any factual basis.

Origin of the Israelites: The fusion of the conclusions drawn from the episodes relating to the stages in which the people of Israel emerged gave rise to a discussion of the bedrock question: the identity of the Israelites. If there is no evidence for the exodus from Egypt and the desert journey, and if the story of the military conquest of fortified cities has been refuted by archaeology, who, then, were these Israelites? The archaeological findings did corroborate one important fact: in the early Iron Age (beginning some time after 1200 BCE), the stage that is identified with the "settlement period," hundreds of small settlements were established in the area of the central hill region of the Land of Israel, inhabited by farmers who worked the land or raised sheep. If they did not come from Egypt, what is the origin of these settlers? Israel Finkelstein, professor of archaeology at Tel Aviv University, has proposed that these settlers were the pastoral shepherds who wandered in this hill area throughout the Late Bronze Age (graves of these people have been found, without settlements). According to his reconstruction, in the Late Bronze Age (which preceded the Iron Age) the shepherds maintained a barter economy of meat in exchange for grains with the inhabitants of the valleys. With the disintegration of the urban and agricultural system in the lowland, the nomads were forced to produce their own grains, and hence the incentive for fixed settlements arose.

The name "Israel" is mentioned in a single Egyptian document from the period of Merneptah, king of Egypt, dating from 1208 BCE: "Plundered is Canaan with every evil, Ascalon is taken, Gezer is seized, Yenoam has become as though it never was, Israel is desolated, its seed is not." Merneptah refers to the country by its Canaanite name and mentions several cities of the kingdom, along with a non-urban ethnic group. According to this evidence, the term "Israel" was given to one of the population groups that resided in Canaan toward the end of the Late Bronze Age, apparently in the central hill region, in the area where the Kingdom of Israel would later be established.

[RonnieoftheRose]

Continued from above...





A kingdom with no name
The united monarchy: Archaeology was also the source that brought about the shift regarding the reconstruction of the reality in the period known as the "united monarchy" of David and Solomon. The Bible describes this period as the zenith of the political, military and economic power of the people of Israel in ancient times. In the wake of David's conquests, the empire of David and Solomon stretched from the Euprates River to Gaza ("For he controlled the whole region west of the Euphrates, from Tiphsah to Gaza, all the kings west of the Euphrates," 1 Kings 5:4). The archaeological findings at many sites show that the construction projects attributed to this period were meager in scope and power.

The three cities of Hazor, Megiddo and Gezer, which are mentioned among Solomon's construction enterprises, have been excavated extensively at the appropriate layers. Only about half of Hazor's upper section was fortified, covering an area of only 30 dunams (7.5 acres), out of a total area of 700 dunams which was settled in the Bronze Age. At Gezer there was apparently only a citadel surrounded by a casematewall covering a small area, while Megiddo was not fortified with a wall.

The picture becomes even more complicated in the light of the excavations conducted in Jerusalem, the capital of the united monarchy. Large sections of the city have been excavated over the past 150 years. The digs have turned up impressive remnants of the cities from the Middle Bronze Age and from Iron Age II (the period of the Kingdom of Judea). No remains of buildings have been found from the period of the united monarchy (even according to the agreed chronology), only a few pottery shards. Given the preservation of the remains from earlier and later periods, it is clear that Jerusalem in the time of David and Solomon was a small city, perhaps with a small citadel for the king, but in any event it was not the capital of an empire as described in the Bible. This small chiefdom is the source of the "Beth David" title mentioned in later Aramean and Moabite inscriptions. The authors of the biblical account knew Jerusalem in the 8th century BCE, with its wall and the rich culture of which remains have been found in various parts of the city, and projected this picture back to the age of the united monarchy. Presumably Jerusalem acquired its central status after the destruction of Samaria, its northern rival, in 722 BCE.

The archaeological findings dovetail well with the conclusions of the critical school of biblical scholarship. David and Solomon were the rulers of tribal kingdoms that controlled small areas: the former in Hebron and the latter in Jerusalem. Concurrently, a separate kingdom began to form in the Samaria hills, which finds expression in the stories about Saul's kingdom. Israel and Judea were from the outset two separate, independent kingdoms, and at times were in an adversarial relationship. Thus, the great united monarchy is an imaginary historiosophic creation, which was composed during the period of the Kingdom of Judea at the earliest. Perhaps the most decisive proof of this is the fact that we do not know the name of this kingdom.

Jehovah and his consort: How many gods, exactly, did Israel have? Together with the historical and political aspects, there are also doubts as to the credibility of the information about belief and worship. The question about the date at which monotheism was adopted by the kingdoms of Israel and Judea arose with the discovery of inscriptions in ancient Hebrew that mention a pair of gods: Jehovah and his Asherah. At two sites, Kuntiliet Ajrud in the southwestern part of the Negev hill region, and at Khirbet el-Kom in the Judea piedmont, Hebrew inscriptions have been found that mention "Jehovah and his Asherah," "Jehovah Shomron and his Asherah, "Jehovah Teman and his Asherah." The authors were familiar with a pair of gods, Jehovah and his consort Asherah, and send blessings in the couple's name. These inscriptions, from the 8th century BCE, raise the possibility that monotheism, as a state religion, is actually an innovation of the period of the Kingdom of Judea, following the destruction of the Kingdom of Israel.

The archaeology of the Land of Israel is completing a process that amounts to a scientific revolution in its field. It is ready to confront the findings of biblical scholarship and of ancient history. But at the same time, we are witnessing a fascinating phenomenon in which all this is simply ignored by the Israeli public. Many of the findings mentioned here have been known for decades. The professional literature in the spheres of archaeology, Bible and the history of the Jewish people has addressed them in dozens of books and hundreds of articles. Even if not all the scholars accept the individual arguments that inform the examples I cited, the majority have adopted their main points.

Nevertheless, these revolutionary views are not penetrating the public consciousness. About a year ago, my colleague, the historian Prof. Nadav Ne'eman, published an article in the Culture and Literature section of Ha'aretz entitled "To Remove the Bible from the Jewish Bookshelf," but there was no public outcry. Any attempt to question the reliability of the biblical descriptions is perceived as an attempt to undermine "our historic right to the land" and as shattering the myth of the nation that is renewing the ancient Kingdom of Israel. These symbolic elements constitute such a critical component of the construction of the Israeli identity that any attempt to call their veracity into question encounters hostility or silence. It is of some interest that such tendencies within the Israeli secular society go hand-in-hand with the outlook among educated Christian groups. I have found a similar hostility in reaction to lectures I have delivered abroad to groups of Christian bible lovers, though what upset them was the challenge to the foundations of their fundamentalist religious belief.

It turns out that part of Israeli society is ready to recognize the injustice that was done to the Arab inhabitants of the country and is willing to accept the principle of equal rights for women - but is not up to adopting the archaeological facts that shatter the biblical myth. The blow to the mythical foundations of the Israeli identity is apparently too threatening, and it is more convenient to turn a blind eye.

[RonnieoftheRose]

http://www.jesusneverexisted.com/jews.htm

http://www.worldagesarchive.com/Refe..._(Harpers).htm

http://www.amazon.com/exec/obidos/tg...130048-6519051

http://www.amazon.com/exec/obidos/tg...glance&s=books

[RonnieoftheRose]

That all said, just because the stories in religious texts are not 'historical' and belong more to the sphere of literature that Arthurian legend belong to, does that mean you can't be a good person, or believe in a supreme being, or pray? Of course not.

What history is saying is that myths have been used for political purposes by men of power to enslave just about everyone on Earth. Terrorism is not just a result of hunger, occupation or imperialism otherwise Hindus ,Chinese and Africans, all of whom lived in Victorian England, would have burned London to the ground during the height of the empire. The Arab world, the Islamic world, needs to do what the rest of the world did in reinterpreting the texts and seeing them for what they are. Like all books they are written by the hands of men.

[Taliesin]

Originally Posted by undotwa

I've seen these quotations before, and understand what Islam's position on Jesus Christ is.

Answer this: Why would God send a messenger to sour things? Before Jesus Christ, the Jews only worshipped God as One. But after Jesus Christ, most Jews still worshipped God as One and Jesus's message was largely ignored because of the High Priest's disapproval but some splintered off to worship God As One but of three essences, worshipped Jesus Christ as God's Son, started to worship bread and wine, and honoured Jesus's mother as Mother of God, claimed to be able to forgive in God's name etc..

If Jesus Christ was only a messenger and all that Islam said is correct, God made a terrible mistake in choosing Jesus as his messenger because no-one got the message and if anything he turned (whether it was his intention or not) a good portion of the Jews into polytheists. What was the point of the Messiah then?

The Messiah was meant to fulfill the Torah and be the last Prophet to lead the Jews to a Golden age. If what Islam preaches is true, Jesus was a pretty lousy Messiah.

Sorry, that I took so long to answer that post but I wanted a bit of time to think about it, because it's a very good question. So that's about what my thinking brought up:

Jesus was sent because it was a) prophecized before and b) as a forgivance for the jews and an attempt to set jews back on the right track after the pharisaers led them astray which was possible because of the destruction of the first Temple and the 70-year-exile in Babylon.

But there was never a guarantee that they would accept that generous offer from God, afterall the free-will plays also a role and the devil surely is also active to try to convince the jews not to accept the new prophet. After the pharisaers declared that the scriptures are closed and no new revelations to be accepted, every prophet that came afterwards who would not only just repeat and strengthen the knowledge that was already there but also bring new scriptures, books, rules was not to be accepted and many legitimate prophets were killed after they were accused of being impostors...

Regardless after the leading jews thought they had achieved the crucifixation and killing of Jesus (which they had surely not, God and the Quran is my witness to that), ie. after jesus was risen to God, the christians had a problem, Jesus didn't have the time to produce a new scripture, so what they had to be content with was the stories of his deeds and sayings preserved in the minds and memory of the disciples of Jesus, which were collected and written down by dozens of authors (eventhough the books were attributed to just four authors) over a time span of a thousand years and more, and summarized into a cohesive story, which is similar to the hadith-collections about prophet Muhammad's life and sayings minus the cohesive story but not on the level of the dictated scriptures that the Thora represented and Quran represents.

In order to still be able to claim the same level of revelation, the church developed the idea of inspiration, namely that the authors of the books were inspired by the holy spirit and therefore kept from making any mistakes regarding the books, it also claimed it would keep the popes from making any mistakes regarding religious aspects...

Only God knows if it's true or not, but considering the sinful behaviour of many popes and the intermingling with the roman emperors and other worldly riches-seeking activities, I have my doubts, but I still leave it for God to decide in that matter.

But for my claim of jews taking over polytheistic behaviourings of surrounding polytheists, I have found a first support:

The religious-ethical sphere included ritual excesses in Israel. Especially the northern kingdom, but after several decades also increasingly the southern, was involved in all kinds of idolatry. King Jeroboam started a whole sacrificial system as substitute for the temple service. During the time of settling in Canaan Israel learnt also to worship the local gods. The Canaanites and Amorites taught them how to till the soil and how they should worship the (local) gods of rainfall, fertility and control over the land. One prophet who spoke against Israel’s attitude was Amos. God told through him that He hated their religious feasts, songs and offerings (Amos 5:21–23).

Source: http://216.239.59.104/search?q=cache...he+Thora&hl=de
On page 45.

So, if they are willing to do that in Israel, they would as likely do it in a foreign country, like Arabia, too and considering the influence, financial capability and military strength of polytheistic Mecca, it's very likely true to have happened.
And if jews could be forced to accept polytheistic practices in Arabia, christians could too, so in that sense the arrival of prophet Muhammad was not only to bring the polytheistic arabians to monotheism, but also to make it possible that the christians and jews in Arabia could return to the monotheistic belief described in their own scriptures.

Taliesin

[undotwa]

Originally Posted by RonnieoftheRose

So do Hindus, Ancient Egyptians, Ancient Babylonians, The Church of Latter Day Saints and most recently Scientology. The point is almost every sect has created origin stories and myths in order to throw their beliefs further back in time. To call a person ignorant because they have weighed up the evidence collected in the 20th century, which is all very recent, is ignorant itself. I can say bollocks because what you said in that post was a mishmash of popular superstition and belief with little to no imperical evidence behind it. I might not have been politically correct in my choice of words but then I don't really give a toss.

Many of these religions have a more cyclical view of history, rather than the more lineal approach given by the Abrahamic faiths.

I apologise in calling someone ignorant, for it is my fault for not explaining myself more clearly. You obviously hadn't understood me properly. This weekend, when I have time, I shall explain what I mean in more detail.

[RonnieoftheRose]

Originally Posted by Taliesin

Sorry, that I took so long to answer that post but I wanted a bit of time to think about it

Taliesin

And your thoughts added up to nothing. Unlike others who have been reading the findings of REAL historians like Ze'ev Herzog above you went back to typing out popular superstition BS.

ALL religion, polytheist and monotheist, are exactly the same. They have identical pantheons whether they be Hindu, Egyptian, Babylonian, Jewish, Christian or Muslim. They simply use different names and slightly different ways of communicating or depicting their religions.

The stories conjured up by the first Muslims, the Arabs who were conquering the middle-east and north Africa, of how the Arabians were commiting despicable acts, or running around naked, are not supported by any physical or actual historical evidence either. The culture before and when Islam came is almost identical in every aspect from beliefs to customs. Islam was simply a new wrapper on an old product the same way Christianity and Judaism also absorbed ideas and distorted the past to reflect the political conditions at the time texts were written.

[undotwa]

Originally Posted by RonnieoftheRose

So do Hindus, Ancient Egyptians, Ancient Babylonians, The Church of Latter Day Saints and most recently Scientology. The point is almost every sect has created origin stories and myths in order to throw their beliefs further back in time. To call a person ignorant because they have weighed up the evidence collected in the 20th century, which is all very recent, is ignorant itself. I can say bollocks because what you said in that post was a mishmash of popular superstition and belief with little to no imperical evidence behind it. I might not have been politically correct in my choice of words but then I don't really give a toss.

I'm not speaking about historicity in the sense of making up beliefs to justify yourself or anything like that. Rather Christianity and other Abrahamic faiths give emphasis to the fact that God has a personal relationship with his people, encapsulated in the 'Word', which was 'made flesh' in Jesus Christ which occur in events. God is not merely your God because a prophet says so, the prophet uses historical events like the Exodus to demonstrate that this is the same God that we speak of and God is good for his word. It is a topic which can go very deep, which I admit am no where near qualified to enter into, but perhaps this weekend I will try to go into more detail.

[undotwa]

Originally Posted by RonnieoftheRose

And your thoughts added up to nothing. Unlike others who have been reading the findings of REAL historians like Ze'ev Herzog above you went back to typing out popular superstition BS.

ALL religion, polytheist and monotheist, are exactly the same. They have identical pantheons whether they be Hindu, Egyptian, Babylonian, Jewish, Christian or Muslim. They simply use different names and slightly different ways of communicating or depicting their religions.

The stories conjured up by the first Muslims, the Arabs who were conquering the middle-east and north Africa, of how the Arabians were commiting despicable acts, or running around naked, are not supported by any physical or actual historical evidence either. The culture before and when Islam came is almost identical in every aspect from beliefs to customs. Islam was simply a new wrapper on an old product the same way Christianity and Judaism also absorbed ideas and distorted the past to reflect the political conditions at the time texts were written.

Absolute rubbish. If you want historical evidence, there is plenty. Mecca was not monotheist before Islam, that is a historical fact. Monotheism is profoundly different to polytheism in outlook, theology, morality and complexity.

[undotwa]

Originally Posted by von Wrangell

....

I shall not let your post go unanswered, but I will see to it that my answer which I will compile on Saturday will do justice to your questions.

[RonnieoftheRose]

Originally Posted by undotwa

Absolute rubbish. If you want historical evidence, there is plenty. Mecca was not monotheist before Islam, that is a historical fact. Monotheism is profoundly different to polytheism in outlook, theology, morality and complexity.

I didn't say it was monotheist. I said in that very post you snipped that all religions that have pantheons are identical and if you want I can in five minutes explain that in very simple terms. If you're old enough to even debate these matters you should have at least put a year or two aside to learn this. If not, you're either a young man with lots to learn or believe popular jargon. Even with the articles I posted you continue to hold yourself ignorant when the words are from Israel's top profs.

Again, there is no difference between them in their pantheons, and your words, outlook, theology, morality and complexity. Go ahead, ask and you shall recieve. I'm going to play on my PSP and await your response.

[von Wrangell]

Originally Posted by undotwa

I shall not let your post go unanswered, but I will see to it that my answer which I will compile on Saturday will do justice to your questions.

Thank you

[Taliesin]

Originally Posted by RonnieoftheRose

ALL religion, polytheist and monotheist, are exactly the same. They have identical pantheons whether they be Hindu, Egyptian, Babylonian, Jewish, Christian or Muslim. They simply use different names and slightly different ways of communicating or depicting their religions.

You are wearing the shoe the wrong way. You see, since humanity existed God inspired prophets that brought them the knowledge about Him and the hereafter... but as is always with orally preserved religions they changed and became polytheistic. So the existence of the Hindu-religion, the egyptian and even the greek zeus-and co-religions is just proof that they had once received a real prophetic message from God but over the millenias changed to polytheism.

Sure as an atheist you don't have to believe or acknowledge that but at least you should be open minded enough to see it as a viable alternative to your interpretation.

Taliesin

[RonnieoftheRose]

Originally Posted by Taliesin

You are wearing the shoe the wrong way. You see, since humanity existed God inspired prophets that brought them the knowledge about Him and the hereafter... but as is always with orally preserved religions they changed and became polytheistic. So the existence of the Hindu-religion, the egyptian and even the greek zeus-and co-religions is just proof that they had once received a real prophetic message from God but over the millenias changed to polytheism.

We now have a pretty accurate picture from the myths that have been recovered and the archaeological record of how religious ideas developed over time, by man and always by man. We even have a pretty accurate record of these so-called prophets and how stories about them have been magnified, normally for political reasons. I welcome any discussion on this subject because...I'm in the mood to lambast.

Sure as an atheist you don't have to believe or acknowledge that but at least you should be open minded enough to see it as a viable alternative to your interpretation.

It's not an interpretation. And I didn't say one should not believe in a higher power and become an atheist when confronting 'mythology.

[Taliesin]

Originally Posted by RonnieoftheRose

We now have a pretty accurate picture from the myths that have been recovered and the archaeological record of how religious ideas developed over time, by man and always by man. We even have a pretty accurate record of these so-called prophets and how stories about them have been magnified, normally for political reasons. I welcome any discussion on this subject because...I'm in the mood to lambast.

Yes, we have archeological record of how the original monotheism devolved into the polytheism of the various religions you mentioned, but we have no archaelogical or other record of how the first idea, namely that of the existence of a creator and a hereafter first appeared and how.

If you want to discuss that you have to look for someone else, I don't have the time nor the motivation to do so, because those discussions are always circular and ultimately tangle the question if God exists or not, which can't be decided rationally in either way, for both the atheistic point of view and the monotheistic/polytheistic point of view belief is necessary.

Taliesin

[Taliesin]

Originally Posted by RonnieoftheRose

And your thoughts added up to nothing. Unlike others who have been reading the findings of REAL historians like Ze'ev Herzog above you went back to typing out popular superstition BS.

ALL religion, polytheist and monotheist, are exactly the same. They have identical pantheons whether they be Hindu, Egyptian, Babylonian, Jewish, Christian or Muslim. They simply use different names and slightly different ways of communicating or depicting their religions.

The stories conjured up by the first Muslims, the Arabs who were conquering the middle-east and north Africa, of how the Arabians were commiting despicable acts, or running around naked, are not supported by any physical or actual historical evidence either. The culture before and when Islam came is almost identical in every aspect from beliefs to customs. Islam was simply a new wrapper on an old product the same way Christianity and Judaism also absorbed ideas and distorted the past to reflect the political conditions at the time texts were written.

Besides archaeology, and that is what most of your critique seem to be based on, is and was never an exact science:

Archaeological theory
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia.

Archaeological theory covers the debates over the practice of archaeology and the interpretation of archaeological results. There is no single theory of archaeology, and even definitions are disputed. Until the mid-20th century and the introduction of technology, there was a general consensus that archaeology was closely related to both history and anthropology. Since then, elements of other disciplines such as physics, chemistry, biology, metallurgy, engineering, medicine, etc, have found an overlap, resulting in a need to revisit the fundamental ideas behind archaeology.

The first major phase in the history of archaeological theory is commonly referred to as cultural, or culture history. The product of cultural history was to group sites into distinct "cultures", to determine the geographic spread and time span of these cultures, and to reconstruct the interactions and flow of ideas between them. Cultural history, as the name suggests, was closely allied with the science of history. Cultural historians employed the normative model of culture, the principle that each culture is a set of norms governing human behaviour. Thus, cultures can be distinguished by patterns of craftsmanship; for instance, if one excavated sherd of pottery is decorated with a triangular pattern, and another sherd with a chequered pattern, they likely belong to different cultures. Such an approach naturally leads to a view of the past as a collection of different populations, classified by their differences and by their influences on each other. Changes in behaviour could be explained by diffusion whereby new ideas moved, through social and economic ties, from one culture to another.

The Australian archaeologist Vere Gordon Childe was one of the first to explore and expand this concept of the relationships between cultures especially in the context of prehistoric Europe. By the 1920s sufficient archaeological material had been excavated and studied to suggest that diffusionism was not the only mechanism through which change occurred. Influenced by the political upheaval of the inter-war period Childe then argued that revolutions had wrought major changes in past societies. He conjectured a Neolithic Revolution, which inspired people to settle and farm rather than hunt nomadically. This would have led to considerable changes in social organisation, which Childe argued led to a second Urban Revolution that created the first cities. Such macro-scale thinking was in itself revolutionary and Childe's ideas are still widely admired and respected.

In the 1960s, a number of young, primarily American archaeologists, such as Lewis Binford, rebelled against the paradigms of cultural history. They proposed a "New Archaeology", which would be more "scientific" and "anthropological". They came to see culture as a set of behavioural processes and traditions. (In time, this view gave rise to the term processual archaeology). Processualists borrowed from the exact sciences the idea of hypothesis testing and the scientific method. They believed that an archaeologist should develop one or more hypotheses about a culture under study, and conduct excavations with the intention of testing these hypotheses against fresh evidence. They had also become frustrated with the older generation's teachings through which cultures had taken precedence over the people being studied themselves. It was becoming clear, largely through the evidence of anthropology, that ethnic groups and their development were not always entirely congruent with the cultures in the archaeological record.

In the 1980s, a new movement arose led by the British archaeologists Michael Shanks, Christopher Tilley, Daniel Miller and Ian Hodder. It questioned processualism's appeals to science and impartiality by claiming that every archaeologist is in fact biased by his or her personal experience and background, and thus truly scientific archaeological work is difficult or impossible. This is especially true in archaeology where experiments (excavations) cannot possibly be repeatable by others as the scientific method dictates. Exponents of this relativistic method, called post-processual archaeology, analysed not only the material remains they excavated, but also themselves, their attitudes and opinions. The different approaches to archaeological evidence which every person brings to his or her interpretation result in different constructs of the past for each individual. The benefit of this approach has been recognised in such fields as visitor interpretation, cultural resource management and ethics in archaeology as well as fieldwork. It has also been seen to have parallels with culture history. Processualists critique it, however, as without scientific merit. Even if you can't perfectly replicate digs, one should try to follow science as rigorously as possible, they say.

Post-processualism provided an umbrella for all those who decried the processual model of culture, which many feminist and neo-Marxist archaeologists for example believed treated people as mindless automatons and ignored their individuality.

This divergence of archaeological theory has not progressed identically in all parts of the world where archaeology is conducted. Australian archaeologists have embraced post-processualism, while those in the United States freely combine it with older approaches and methods.
[edit]

Ideology

Much of the early history of professional archaeology was motivated by an attempt to distance itself from pseudo-archaeologists and dilettantes, and to establish itself as a science. While this battle has been won, archaeology has been and remains a cultural, gender and political battlefield. Many groups have tried to use archaeology to prove some current cultural or political point. Marxist or Marxist-influenced archaeologists in the USSR and the UK (among others) often try to prove the truth of dialectical materialism or to highlight the past (and present) role of conflict between interest groups (e.g. male vs. female, elders vs. juniors, workers vs. owners) in generating social change. Some contemporary cultural groups have tried, with varying degrees of success, to use archaeology to prove their historic right to ownership of an area of land. Many schools of archaeology have been patriarchal, assuming that in prehistory men produced most of the food by hunting, and women produced little nutrition by gathering; more recent studies have exposed the inadequacy of many of these theories. Some used the "Great Ages" theory implicit in the three-age system to argue continuous upward progress by Western civilisation. Much contemporary archaeology is influenced by neo-Darwinian evolutionary thought, phenomenology, postmodernism, agency theory, cognitive science, Functionalism, gender-based and Feminist archaeology and Systems theory.

Taliesin

[Macrobat]

Ronnie cites one "historian's" OPINION, while conveniently neglecting to mention his complete obscurity and the fact that his opinion is not shared by the majority of people in the historial community. Too bad that the vast majority of archaeological records find exactly the opposite, huh?

The History Channel ran an entire series called "The Bible in Archaeology" where multiple historians and theologians were consulted.

Here tis:

http://store.aetv.com/html/product/index.jhtml?id=72066

Sorry to burst your atheistic bubble.

[undotwa]

Originally Posted by Taliesin

Sorry, that I took so long to answer that post but I wanted a bit of time to think about it, because it's a very good question. So that's about what my thinking brought up:

Jesus was sent because it was a) prophecized before and b) as a forgivance for the jews and an attempt to set jews back on the right track after the pharisaers led them astray which was possible because of the destruction of the first Temple and the 70-year-exile in Babylon.

But there was never a guarantee that they would accept that generous offer from God, afterall the free-will plays also a role and the devil surely is also active to try to convince the jews not to accept the new prophet. After the pharisaers declared that the scriptures are closed and no new revelations to be accepted, every prophet that came afterwards who would not only just repeat and strengthen the knowledge that was already there but also bring new scriptures, books, rules was not to be accepted and many legitimate prophets were killed after they were accused of being impostors...

Granted men and women had free will, but it was part of the prophecy that the Messiah will actually do these things. If he didn't restore the glory of Israel, he was not who he said he was. We have free will, but there is also predestination. Jesus Christ accepted the role as Messiah out of free will, but he was predestined as such to accept it. Mary pronounced 'fiat' out of her own free will, but she was predestined to be the Mother of God. Interesting philosophical questions this raises!

Regardless after the leading jews thought they had achieved the crucifixation and killing of Jesus (which they had surely not, God and the Quran is my witness to that), ie. after jesus was risen to God, the christians had a problem, Jesus didn't have the time to produce a new scripture, so what they had to be content with was the stories of his deeds and sayings preserved in the minds and memory of the disciples of Jesus, which were collected and written down by dozens of authors (eventhough the books were attributed to just four authors) over a time span of a thousand years and more, and summarized into a cohesive story, which is similar to the hadith-collections about prophet Muhammad's life and sayings minus the cohesive story but not on the level of the dictated scriptures that the Thora represented and Quran represents.

Well, I'm not going to argue with the Qu'ran because it'll end up just being your word against mine. But I'll quote a controversial passage from Josephus, who was a Jewish historian at the time of Jesus living in Rome, who attests to Christ being crucified. He writes:

3. Now there was about this time Jesus, a wise man, if it be lawful to call him a man; for he was a doer of wonderful works, a teacher of such men as receive the truth with pleasure. He drew over to him both many of the Jews and many of the Gentiles. He was [the] Christ. And when Pilate, at the suggestion of the principal men amongst us, had condemned him to the cross, those that loved him at the first did not forsake him; for he appeared to them alive again the third day; as the divine prophets had foretold these and ten thousand other wonderful things concerning him. And the tribe of Christians, so named from him, are not extinct at this day.

Psalm 22:1 My God, my God, why have you forsaken me?
Why are you so far from saving me, from the words of my groaning?
2 O my God, I cry by day, but you do not answer,
and by night, but I find no rest.

3 Yet you are holy,
enthroned on the praises [1] of Israel.
4 In you our fathers trusted;
they trusted, and you delivered them.
5 To you they cried and were rescued;
in you they trusted and were not put to shame.

6 But I am a worm and not a man,
scorned by mankind and despised by the people.
7 All who see me mock me;
they make mouths at me; they wag their heads;
8 “He trusts in the Lord; let him deliver him;
let him rescue him, for he delights in him!”

9 Yet you are he who took me from the womb;
you made me trust you at my mother's breasts.
10 On you was I cast from my birth,
and from my mother's womb you have been my God.
11 Be not far from me,
for trouble is near,
and there is none to help.

12 Many bulls encompass me;
strong bulls of Bashan surround me;
13 they open wide their mouths at me,
like a ravening and roaring lion.

... It seems here crucifixion was the punishment due for the Messiah 'my hands and feet pierced'. If Jesus was the Messiah, the prophecy must apply to him.

Jesus fulfills another aspect of the prophecy, that he will be the Messiah not only to the Jews but to the whole world:

(Isaiah 49:6)
5 It is too little, he says, for you to be my servant, to raise up the tribes of Jacob, and restore the survivors of Israel; I will make you a light to the nations, that my salvation may reach to the ends of the earth.

Christianity becoming the religion of the Roman Empire fulfills this prophecy.

In order to still be able to claim the same level of revelation, the church developed the idea of inspiration, namely that the authors of the books were inspired by the holy spirit and therefore kept from making any mistakes regarding the books, it also claimed it would keep the popes from making any mistakes regarding religious aspects...

The Church uses more oral tradition that scriptural that is true and attests to her own own magisterial authority. What is your point? That is a fundamental belief of Christianity.

Only God knows if it's true or not, but considering the sinful behaviour of many popes and the intermingling with the roman emperors and other worldly riches-seeking activities, I have my doubts, but I still leave it for God to decide in that matter.

You see, popes are only men and can be corrupted and be very sinful. The same, my friend, is applicable to Islam. I'm sure many of the caliphs were corrupted by their power and used it to their own selfish advantage. Islam was also subject to the Ottoman Empire for many years (akin to the way Christianity was tied with the Roman Empire). Is not it a great testament to God's infinite mercy that despite our corruption and sinfulness, he remains with us ready to forgive us the next time we repent? God's forgiveness and mercy can reach even the greatest wretches of society, and we will all be judged whether pope or beggar.

Amos

Remember that we are dealing with a different time period. The Jews of Mohammed's time lived during the Diaspora, since they were expelled from Jerusalem by the Romans. During this time, the Jews held onto their faith even more fervently than ever before.

[undotwa]

Originally Posted by von Wrangell

He never claimed that himself. You have indirect sources(the scribes who today no know who were) claiming he implied it. I've seen the verses before and he never just says that he is God on earth. He says things that could be understood that way. And if he was God on earth why did he pray to God? That doesn't make any sense at all to me.

Every single evangelist has many references to Jesus's divinity.

John 18:6: When he said to them, "I AM," they turned away and fell to the ground.

Just think what the significance of this is, to utter 'I am'. This phrase has been understood to typify God 'Who is that is'. Also consider the pronouncement, 'they turned away and FELL TO THE GROUND'. You can imagine how shocked they were, to hear a seemingly mortal man, the son of a carpenter to pronounce such a thing. It was heresy. And yet, they fell to the ground!

""Why do you call me good?" Jesus answered. "No one is good–except God alone." (From the NIV Bible, Mark 10:18)"

In this statement, Jesus Christ is actually stressing his divinity. The rich man is correct in saying Jesus Christ is good, but Jesus Christ is actually saying he is good because he is God Himself.

The same story is repeated in Matthew 19:16, which gives us another angle on the story:

'And behold, one came up to him saying 'Teacher, what good deed must I do, to have eternal life?" And he said to him, "Why do you ask me about what is good? One there is who is good. If you would enter life, keep the commandments."

Jesus prayed to his Father because he was God's Son and had both Human and Divine natures. He prayed to be an example to us all, as well to emphasize that although he is God in every sense of the word, there is a filial relationship of Him to his Father. The Trinity is so deep a topic that it cannot be understood by human reasoning. How can man understand the Divine? We can't. The more God reveals to us the harder it is for us simple humans to understand his Divinity for we have limited intelligence.

How could Satan tempt and cause Jesus suffering if Jesus was God?

James 1
13When tempted, no one should say, "God is tempting me." For God cannot be tempted by evil, nor does he tempt anyone;
14but each one is tempted when, by his own evil desire, he is dragged away and enticed.
15Then, after desire has conceived, it gives birth to sin; and sin, when it is full -grown, gives birth to death.

Jesus was God, fully divine. But he was also fully Human, and as Human he could be tempted (although because he was perfect he never succumbed). It was apart of Jesus's mandate to endure suffering for the redemption of men's sins.

Here James is emphasizing that God is all that is Good and that evil stems not from God but from our own desires. Jesus Christ under his divine nature, cannot be tempted. Let me emphasise that really the true nature of Jesus's relationship to the Father, and his divinity is a mystery. No Christian can really understand it. It is a testament of faith to believe it.

"`How can you say, "We are wise, for we have the law of the LORD," when actually the lying pen of the scribes has handled it falsely?' (Jeremiah 8:8)"

There is an excellent explanation on this page:

http://answering-islam.org.uk/BibleCom/jer8_8_ss.html

I'll let this do for now but there is enough evidence for anyone but the blind in faith that the Bible has been corrupted over the years.

I'm not going to dispute your sources. There is a marked difference between corruption and alteration. The books of the Torah were compiled by Ezra in something like 450 B.C. Much of what known before passed through oral tradition combined with fragments being written down. It is certainly possible that alterations could have been made, but no corruptions. Corruption comes from the Latin 'corrumpere' which literally means to 'spoil'. The alterations were all made under the guise of the Holy Spirit. God doesn't leave his people, He is most faithful. The Holy Spirit was, is and ever shall be with the Jews. God's faithfulness to us as the Chosen Ones prevents texts from being 'corrupted'.

[undotwa]

I'm sorry I completely missed this post. So many arguments happening at once! I shall answer it in due course, I'm just really busy at the moment unfortunately. I'm not trained in theological studies so I'll have to think about the question hard before I answer.

Originally Posted by Taliesin

You have completely misunderstood my point, I wasn't talking about christians in the roman empire but about the christians living in Arabia outside the roman empire and therefore also outside the reach of the catholic church. Major parts of the christians there took the trinity-teachment they have learned from the monks an...

[Taliesin]

Originally Posted by undotwa

Granted men and women had free will, but it was part of the prophecy that the Messiah will actually do these things. If he didn't restore the glory of Israel, he was not who he said he was. We have free will, but there is also predestination.

That's where we differ in interpretation, regardless of the prophecy when the jews rejected their messiah, and that is and was always possible due to free will, there was no way that the prophecy could get fulfilled in the original way, ie. kingdom of jews reestablished. By the rejection of the leaders of the jews, christianity became a religion for all tribes and people not just for the children of Israel, and probably that was the destination/fate planned by God anyway.

Originally Posted by undotwa

Well, I'm not going to argue with the Qu'ran because it'll end up just being your word against mine. But I'll quote a controversial passage from Josephus, who was a Jewish historian at the time of Jesus living in Rome, who attests to Christ being crucified. He writes:

The Quran doesn't deny that a crucification happened at all, but says that it looked to the jews like they had crucified Jesus to death. One possibility to interpret that notion is that someone else got crucified, maybe another human who looked similar to Jesus and who voluntarily took on the role as a martyr, which would explain the words of that "Jesus", saying "Why have you forsaken me, God".., which is understandable considering the pain involved...

Originally Posted by undotwa

You see, popes are only men and can be corrupted and be very sinful. The same, my friend, is applicable to Islam. I'm sure many of the caliphs were corrupted by their power and used it to their own selfish advantage. Islam was also subject to the Ottoman Empire for many years (akin to the way Christianity was tied with the Roman Empire). Is not it a great testament to God's infinite mercy that despite our corruption and sinfulness, he remains with us ready to forgive us the next time we repent? God's forgiveness and mercy can reach even the greatest wretches of society, and we will all be judged whether pope or beggar.

Yes, that's all right and true, but the difference between pope and caliph, is that one was thought to be infallible and the other not. In Islam the caliph should be chosen by the people, the criteria for his choosing should be his righteousness and sense for justice, and obeyed only for organizational purposes and only as long as he keeps true to the tenets of Islam explained in the Quran, he had no right to change doctrines or anything in the direction.
The pope on the other hand was understood as being the governor, the replacement of God on earth, infallible and appointed for life with the power to change doctrines. The institution of the pope is by the way a very big deviation from Jesus' words, when he said that his followers and the jews should not call anyone on earth "father" since the only Father is in heaven. Yet, the bishop of rome declared himself as the holy father, ie. pope, and claimed to be able to forgive sins, eventhough only God can forgive sins, and claimed to have the authority to attribute that power to all the bishops and priests under his regime, which led off course later on to the commercial selling of sin-forgivings, even for sins that would be commited in the future, etc...(similar to the trade of shares) with which the catholic church could establish a lot of might and richdoms, including an own army and the possession of land in the size of about a third of whole Europe.

Basically the catholic church did things similar to the things done by the pharisears which Jesus criticized.

Originally Posted by undotwa

Remember that we are dealing with a different time period. The Jews of Mohammed's time lived during the Diaspora, since they were expelled from Jerusalem by the Romans. During this time, the Jews held onto their faith even more fervently than ever before.

Possible, but we are talking here about two waves of immigrated jews, jews that immigrated into Arabia after they were expelled by the babylonians, five hundred years before Jesus' birth, and then the second wave 70 years after Jesus' death I think.

You have also to note that Arabia was not always polytheistic, it stayed for a long time true to the monotheism of Abraham and Ismaeel, and incorporated much later idols imported from Syria that was always the hotbed of prophets and messengers, as a sort of mediators that should help in connecting with the one God, for whom the Kaabah was built by Abraham and Ismaeel. Through that backdoor polytheism crept into the Kaabah, and slowly but surely these socalled mediators became lesser gods and at the end independent gods worshipped alongside God.

Taliesin

[HawgJawl]

Again, true jews and christians are already part of the religion of truth, despite their integrity-problems with their scriptures; as long as they believe in the one God and the hereafter and commit good deeds, they will enter paradise, too.

But Jesus enters the picture, and it all gets messed up. Islam deems it bad for one to believe that Jesus was God too. That is known as Blasphemy.

The very thing that the Christians claim that is the only way, that will save your mortal soul, is blasphemy to Islam.

So how can they support it?

[undotwa]

Originally Posted by Taliesin

Yes, that's all right and true, but the difference between pope and caliph, is that one was thought to be infallible and the other not. In Islam the caliph should be chosen by the people, the criteria for his choosing should be his righteousness and sense for justice, and obeyed only for organizational purposes and only as long as he keeps true to the tenets of Islam explained in the Quran, he had no right to change doctrines or anything in the direction.

In Ancient times, the Pope was actually democratically elected by the People of Rome. Nowadays, we have the Princes of the Church (Cardinals) to represent us.

The Pope has no power to change Catholic Doctrine, he can merely speak what is spoken to him by the Holy Gost.

The pope on the other hand was understood as being the governor, the replacement of God on earth, infallible and appointed for life with the power to change doctrines.

Absolutely not! The Pope is no replacement for God on earth! He is not to be worshipped, he is merely a man. His infallibility is ordained by the Holy Ghost through Peter to whom the Keys of Heaven were given.

The institution of the pope is by the way a very big deviation from Jesus' words, when he said that his followers and the jews should not call anyone on earth "father" since the only Father is in heaven.

I believe you are referring to Matthew 23:9. Jesus of course meant here not to call anyone on earth 'Father' as in - God the Father (Jesus Christ is God the Son). Jesus did not literally mean not to call anyone father - then he would be contradicting Deuteronomy and even Luke 1:73 where he refers to Abraham as 'Father'.

The Title of Pope, which comes from the Greek 'papa' literally means 'father'. It was a title that Christians traditionally applied to all priests. It was in time that this title came to only be used for Bishops of importance, such as Rome. (The Coptic Patriarch is also called 'Papa'). I believe in Greek Orthodox traditions they to refer to priests as 'papa'. However, the sense of 'holy father' here is not the same as 'God the Father' of heaven. Rather, it is as a spiritual leader of a community.

Yet, the bishop of rome declared himself as the holy father, ie. pope, and claimed to be able to forgive sins, eventhough only God can forgive sins, and claimed to have the authority to attribute that power to all the bishops and priests under his regime, which led off course later on to the commercial selling of sin-forgivings, even for sins that would be commited in the future, etc...(similar to the trade of shares) with which the catholic church could establish a lot of might and richdoms, including an own army and the possession of land in the size of about a third of whole Europe.

A priest can only forgive sins because Jesus can forgive sins as he is God and he ordained priests to forgive in his name. St Paul in Corinthians 2:10 gives us an example of a priest forgiving sins and imposing penance much like the modern Catholic Church.

Jn 20:22-23 "He breathed on them, and said to them, "Receive the Holy Spirit. If you forgive the sins of any, they are forgiven; if you retain the sins of any, they are retained."

I admit the selling of indulgences was a grave corruption within the Church, but alas, it merely demonstrates our humanity. To sin is human, to forgive - divine.

Basically the catholic church did things similar to the things done by the pharisears which Jesus criticized.

The Pharisees were criticised for different things. They stayed true to the Torah and remained orthodox. The Pharisees however were criticised as being hypocrites, in which they displayed piety to be seen as pious rather than for the Glory of God. They never claimed for example to be infallible or be able to forgive sins.

[Taliesin]

Originally Posted by HawgJawl

But Jesus enters the picture, and it all gets messed up. Islam deems it bad for one to believe that Jesus was God too. That is known as Blasphemy.

The very thing that the Christians claim that is the only way, that will save your mortal soul, is blasphemy to Islam.

So how can they support it?

Yes, it's a blasphemy to claim a prophet, albeit a special one is a god, but that's not what christians believe. Christians believe God paid a visit to earth in a human form by filling up the baby Jesus with the holy spirit, and since christians believe the holy spirit is also God, it means at the end of the day that Jesus were God.

The Quran on the other hand claims that Jesus is just a wonderfully prophet created by God and strenghtened by the holy spirit and not God himself, and the Bible itself has enough quoted speeches of Jesus himself that are proof of that interpretation.

Nonetheless the catholic doctrine chose the trinity-teachment as a way to defeat polytheism, because the arians, a major sect believed Jesus was an independent god, albeit a lesser one than God himself, and the threat was there that polytheism would creep into christianity through that idea.

So when christians are praying to Jesus they are actually praying to God, thinking God, Jesus' spirit and the holy spirit are one! In that sense they believe in one God, and that's the whole point of the Quran and Islam, too.

In the time of prophet Muhammad and the overboarding polytheism of Mecca and Arabia at that time, it was necessary to take a clear stance against polytheism and any ideas hinting or easing the setting of gods beside God, and since some of the christians espescially in and around Mecca took part in the polytheism of Mecca by interpreting the trinity-teachment as meaning really three gods...

The interesting fact is that while christianity supports the Thora, and Islam supports the Law, Thora and gospel, judaism thinks christianity and islam are false beliefs created by false prophets, and christianity thinks that islam is a false belief created by a false prophet.

Taliesin