Islam Are Allah and God of the Bible the same Person?

[Muslim-UK]

So perhaps you could answer my question: How did Constantine influence Christianity in Persia, Armenia, or India?

By 324 A.D. Constantine had established himself as ruler over the whole Roman Empire. By 337, some 13 years later he passed away. He would have had some influence on the East, and I understand his 2 sons ruled after him, one had the Eastern Empire, and the other in the West.

Does your video get into how Constantine--who opposed the Nicene confessors and supported the Arians--was able to enforce a paganization of Christianity to people living thousands of miles away from the Roman Empire?

Beyond conflicting accounts, cold hard facts are hard to come by. James White says,

"We are dependent, in large measure, on the words of Eusebius of Caesarea for our knowledge of many of the events at the council. This is somewhat unfortunate, because Eusebius, the first “church historian,” was a partisan participant as well. Historians recognize that his viewpoint is influenced by his desire for the favor of the Emperor and by his own political and theological goals and positions. Philip Schaff, in reproducing Eusebius’s description of the entrance of the Emperor into the council, speaks of Eusebius’s “panegyrical flattery.”9 Eusebius presents Constantine in the highest possible terms so as to enhance his own position. http://www.equip.org/article/what-really-happened-at-nicea/

What kind of influence do you believe Constantine had in the Sasanian Empire?

I would imagine anyone not towing the official line would be excommunicated and their followers persecuted.

Here's the problem, you're basically just offering your own version of the Jack Chick history of religion;

I try to be fair minded. I came across quotes attributed to Eusebius in which he was said to have claimed, he reported what would benefit Christianity, and expunged anything damaging. On further investigation, the quotes were incorrect, but the whole episode took me half a day to resolve.

it's of the same quality as the claims that Muslims worship a moon god and that the Vatican was responsible for the creation of your religion (no, really, there are people who believe that).

I meet such people all the time, and they go silent when you ask for evidence.

I take the things your presenting with all the same seriousness I take those other things--that is, I don't. Because it's conspiracy theory, fabrication, and nonsense.

Fair enough. History changes depending on who is doing the reporting, and how they viewed the Catholic Church. There are some points that I would put forward as Historical facts:

Constantine was shrewd politician, accomplished military leader, trusted no one, and was power hungry.

He followed Paganism and Sun worship, as did the elect, and Roman soldiers.
Only 13% or 18% depending on how many Bishops you believe attended of the 1800 Bishops invited to the Council of Nicea turned up, and of them only 2 voted against.
The 50 official NT copies written would have been the only books acceptable to preach from, all previous works were ordered to be gathered and burnt.

The sheer volume of misinformation available is astonishing. I once watched a documentary about Constantine known as Constantine's Sword, it was a good budget well produced documentary but the problem is that even right from the beginning it got something that is really easy to learn completely wrong. In Constantine's Sword the narrator alleges that IHS, often found in Catholic art and architecture, is an abbreviation of the Latin phrase "in hoc signes vinces", "in this sign, conquer" the phrase supposedly uttered in Constantine's vision prior to the Battle at the Milvian Bridge.

I haven't seen that doc, the one I watched spoke about his vision before the battle at Milvian Bridge with Maxentius:

The author Eusebius, a Constantine apologist, also described the event in “Life of Constantine,” which he wrote after Constantine’s death in 337. According to Eusebius, Constantine saw a vision of a cross rather than the letters of Christ.

“He saw with his own eyes the trophy of a cross of light in the heavens, above the sun, and bearing the inscription, CONQUER BY THIS. At this sight he himself was struck with amazement, and his whole army also, which followed him on this expedition, and witnessed the miracle,” wrote Eusebius.

The following day, Constantine’s outnumbered forces defeated Maxentius’ forces.

Constantine ordered his troops to paint crosses on their shields and banners.

A Mural was painted by the artist Raphael, though I don't think he completed it, leaving that task to his students.

https://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/commons/1/19/Raphael_Vision_Cross.jpg

The Vision of the Cross - Wikipedia

"Εν τούτῳ νίκα", i.e. "By this, conquer" or Latin, "In this sign you shall conquer."

The only problem being this likely didn't happen, because as the Documentary I posted, examines the Arch the Roman Senate built to commemorate the battle some 3 years later, The Arch of Constantine does not depict crosses or anything of the sort, rather it is dripping in Pagan symbolism.

Furthermore when Constantine moved his base to Turkey, he didn't name change the City Byzantium to anything in honour of Christianity, rather he honoured himself using the name Constantinople.

 

[dzheremi]

Muslim-UK: Don't take this the wrong way, please, but it is clear that you are not understanding the thrust of Via Crucis' questions, which is that places like Ethiopia, India, Persia, etc. had churches that are completely outside of the Roman Empire (whether Western or Eastern), and hence Constantine would not have had any legal power to 'force' anything upon these churches or their communicants. Furthermore, they all accepted the Council of Nicaea even while the emperor himself and those of like mind (like Eusebius) did not favor it (to put it mildly; their enmity reached to the point of even exiling Nicene bishops like St. Athanasius the Apostolic several times following decisions against him by Arian councils). How do you explain that if Christianity was really so driven and shaped by imperial power?

 

[Muslim-UK]

Hahahaha. Hey, Muslim UK: Did you bother to notice that when you put up reference to a Bible verse in that fashion on this board, it will come up automatically if you hover your cursor over it? When you do that, you'll see that Haggai 2:7 as referenced doesn't mention anything about a "praised one", but instead reads "And I will shake all nations, and the desire of all nations shall come: and I will fill this house with glory, saith the LORD of hosts." This is because the word you are saying is a reference to Muhammad actually means 'desireable', 'delightful', 'valued', etc. (see Strong's Hebrew concordance here). It is also found elsewhere in the Bible in contexts that make absolutely no sense to claim could be in reference to Muhammad, such as Lamentations 1:11:

All her people sigh,
They seek bread;
They have given their valuables (מַחֲמַדֵּיהֶ֛ם - mahameddehem) for food to restore life.
“See, O Lord, and consider,
For I am scorned.”

If this word is really meant to stand for the proper name of your prophet, as the claim goes, then I suppose the people have given their Muhammads (plural!) for food.

The meaning of words no doubt changes depending on the context of the verse. I didn't say I was here to convince anyone, I said I would present the evidence, which you can take or leave. Thousands of Christians take the evidence each year and are happy to worship GOD alone.

Your abuse of the Song of Solomon can be answered similarly.
Hahaha. Yes, because there were so many Arabs in Lebanon in the 4th/3rd century BC!

Also, the term "Semitic" was invented in the late 18th century by Europeans looking to classify people by imagined 'race' according to the languages they spoke. Since it's based on language, it is still widely used in the field of linguistics, but it has no validity outside of that context. So saying Muhammad is a 'Semite' doesn't really mean anything, since so were many of the people of the ancient Middle East, including the Phoenicians -- the people who were actually inhabiting the area that is now Lebanon at the time when the Song of Solomon was presumably written.

The point is his description and name are given in a chapter about future events. I'm sure if you could find a single verse in the whole Torah where Jesus pbuh was described and named, you would rightly be happy and content. As such he's not, surprising given as you say, he's the Begotten Son of GOD, one who come and wipe away the sins of mankind from the time of Adam and Eve pbut. Other than being possibly referenced in the DSS, by James in 68 AD as the teacher of righteousness, there appears very little about Jesus pbuh outside of the NT.

Your view is entirely anachronistic, wrong, and religiously rather than factually driven. Stop listening to fools like Zakir Naik who peddle this idea as though it is some kind of profound insight.

This coming from people who say, 'The Wonderful Counsellor, The mighty God, The everlasting Father, The Prince of Peace' mentioned in Isaiah 9:6 is none other than Jesus pbuh. Except of course as the Jews point out, closer examination shows it has nothing to do with Jesus pbuh.

Again, if you are really going to claim that machmad in the Bible is a reference to your prophet Muhammad, then what about all of the times when that word is used where it can't possibly refer to a person? This is not a good argument

Email the Jews for Allah team in the link at the bottom of the article. I'm sure on hearing your protests, and knowledge of the Hebrew language, they will amend it accordingly.

What's there to explain about Islamic delusions? You think Muhammad is all over the Bible (even though Muslims also argue that the Bible is 'corrupted'...funny how that stops once they think they can use it to support their own religion), we do not, and since it's our book we don't listen to you or the sub-apologetics of the people who argue in this fashion without even understanding what they are saying.

Who said he was all over it? He is mentioned in several places, as is Kedar, the son of Ishmael pbut, Arabia, the Kaaba etc. We accept what is confirmed by the Qur'an and the rest of what remains, we leave as perhaps being from Allah swt. Stories slandering Prophets, we reject along with anything promoting the worship of created things.

And Maimonides' opinion on Muslims or Islam has nothing to do with anything. Since when is any Christian required to heed what anyone from a non-Christian religion says about people of another non-Christian religion? That's irrelevancy squared.

Maimonide's legal opinions are used by Jews to this day, such was his knowledge of scripture, as such I will always cite credible and learned Scholars where it furthers my argument.

 

[Muslim-UK]

Muslim-UK: Don't take this the wrong way, please, but it is clear that you are not understanding the thrust of Via Crucis' questions, which is that places like Ethiopia, India, Persia, etc. had churches that are completely outside of the Roman Empire (whether Western or Eastern), and hence Constantine would not have had any legal power to 'force' anything upon these churches or their communicants. Furthermore, they all accepted the Council of Nicaea even while the emperor himself and those of like mind (like Eusebius) did not favor it (to put it mildly; their enmity reached to the point of even exiling Nicene bishops like St. Athanasius the Apostolic several times following decisions against him by Arian councils). How do you explain that if Christianity was really so driven and shaped by imperial power?

Ok well let's look at this starting with Ethiopia. What is the earliest written creed of the Ethiopian Church that you have?

 

[dzheremi]

The meaning of words no doubt changes depending on the context of the verse. I didn't say I was here to convince anyone, I said I would present the evidence, which you can take or leave.

How is it evidence if it does not say what you claim it does? You claim the verse says "praised one", but it doesn't.

Thousands of Christians take the evidence each year and are happy to worship GOD alone.

Islamic boasting is not an argument.

This coming from people who say, 'The Wonderful Counsellor, The mighty God, The everlasting Father, The Prince of Peace' mentioned in Isaiah 9:6 is none other than Jesus pbuh. Except of course as the Jews point out, closer examination shows it has nothing to do with Jesus pbuh.

Yes, Jews and Christians do not agree about Jesus. What's your point? What does this have to do with anything?

Email the Jews for Allah team in the link at the bottom of the article.

No. Not interested in propaganda.

I'm sure on hearing your protests, and knowledge of the Hebrew language, they will amend it accordingly.

Why should I care what Jews do either way? I'm not a Jew. It's none of my business if they see the God of Islam and the God of their religion as being the same.

Maimonide's legal opinions are used by Jews to this day, such was his knowledge of scripture, as such I will always cite credible and learned Scholars where it furthers my argument.

That's fine, it's just completely missing that the context in which you are invoking him is not one in which he actually holds any authority to declare anything, nor one which about any Christian is likely to care, as it does not concern us at all but by inference.

 

[dzheremi]

Ok well let's look at this starting with Ethiopia. What is the earliest written creed of the Ethiopian Church that you have?

Why do you ask? What would this illustrate?

 

[ViaCrucis]

By 324 A.D. Constantine had established himself as ruler over the whole Roman Empire. By 337, some 13 years later he passed away. He would have had some influence on the East, and I understand his 2 sons ruled after him, one had the Eastern Empire, and the other in the West.

Here's the Roman Empire, circa 350 AD,

I don't suppose you'll notice a few things missing here, such as Persia, Armenia, and the Indian subcontinent.

Beyond conflicting accounts, cold hard facts are hard to come by. James White says,

"We are dependent, in large measure, on the words of Eusebius of Caesarea for our knowledge of many of the events at the council. This is somewhat unfortunate, because Eusebius, the first “church historian,” was a partisan participant as well. Historians recognize that his viewpoint is influenced by his desire for the favor of the Emperor and by his own political and theological goals and positions. Philip Schaff, in reproducing Eusebius’s description of the entrance of the Emperor into the council, speaks of Eusebius’s “panegyrical flattery.”9 Eusebius presents Constantine in the highest possible terms so as to enhance his own position. http://www.equip.org/article/what-really-happened-at-nicea/

I really don't see the relevance. Eusebius being a Constantine fanboy is fairly well known, what I fail to understand is what any of this has to do with what I said.

I would imagine anyone not towing the official line would be excommunicated and their followers persecuted.

By whose authority? Constantine's? What authority did he have in the Sassanid Empire? That's the thing you seem to be ignoring here.

The 50 official NT copies written would have been the only books acceptable to preach from, all previous works were ordered to be gathered and burnt.

Oh, I suppose you have evidence of this, and that you can provide for us the contents of these New Testaments. After all, to make a claim such as this would require at least some evidence. What makes it slightly suspicious is the fact that the development of the New Testament Canon continued for several centuries onward. Compare the 39th Paschal Epistle of St. Athanasius, dated 367 AD, Codex Sinaiticus, the Peshitta, the canonical lists of the 3rd Council of Carthage (397 AD) and the Council of Laodicea (364 AD). I find it impressive that we don't have a clue what the copies of Scripture ordered by Constantine actually contained (no record exists) and the fact that questions on both Deuterocanicals and Antilegomena continued well after almost without any difference to how they had been well before Constantine was even a twinkle in his father's eye--especially seeing as "all previous works were ordered to be gathered and burnt".

But then, I'm sure you'll have no trouble providing the evidence for us.

As for the rest, it doesn't really address anything of substance. I dare say you provided nothing of substance at all in this post, you don't seem to grasp what I was saying in regard to Constantine and Christian churches well outside the Roman Empire, and the only claim you really offered is one that I know that you won't provide any evidence for because no evidence for it exists, because it didn't happen. Though you are more than welcome to look for it if you so choose, the best way to learn is often to discover that what you previously thought was true turns out to have no basis in fact and to correct one's own position accordingly.

-CryptoLutheran

 

[ViaCrucis]

Ok well let's look at this starting with Ethiopia. What is the earliest written creed of the Ethiopian Church that you have?

The Nicene Creed, St. Frumentious brought Christianity to the Aksumite Kingdom when he was sold into slavery and ended up in Aksum, but was eventually able to help educate the royal court.

-CryptoLutheran

 

[Muslim-UK]

How is it evidence if it does not say what you claim it does? You claim the verse says "praised one", but it doesn't.

International Standard Version
I will shake all nations, and the One desired by all nations will come. Then I will fill this house with glory,' says the LORD of the Heavenly Armies.

Earlier you said, 'This is because the word you are saying is a reference to Muhammad actually means 'desireable', 'delightful', 'valued', etc.'

חמד
The root-verb חמד (hamad) occurs all over the Semitic spectrum but with slightly differing meanings; in Arabic it means to praise but in Hebrew it means to desire, to take pleasure in, or to find something precious, usually with the connotation of wanting to possess the desired thing or person.

The amazing name Muhammad: meaning and etymology

Yes, Jews and Christians do not agree about Jesus. What's your point? What does this have to do with anything?

Point is you see things in the OT about Jesus pbuh that aren't there, so arguing against references to Muhammad pbuh in the Bible is to be expected.

That's fine, it's just completely missing that the context in which you are invoking him is not one in which he actually holds any authority to declare anything, nor one which about any Christian is likely to care, as it does not concern us at all but by inference.

Maimonides ruling on Christianity and Islam regarding paganism is clear. Of course Christians don't care what he said because using his rulings, Rabbis say Jews are not permitted to enter a Church to pray, but can do in a Mosque.

 

[dzheremi]

International Standard Version
I will shake all nations, and the One desired by all nations will come. Then I will fill this house with glory,' says the LORD of the Heavenly Armies.

Earlier you said, 'This is because the word you are saying is a reference to Muhammad actually means 'desireable', 'delightful', 'valued', etc.'

חמד
The root-verb חמד (hamad) occurs all over the Semitic spectrum but with slightly differing meanings; in Arabic it means to praise but in Hebrew it means to desire, to take pleasure in, or to find something precious, usually with the connotation of wanting to possess the desired thing or person.

I am aware of all this already. I do speak and understand some Arabic (enough to participate in church services, at least, where this word comes up a lot). What it means in Arabic is not relevant, though, since it's written in Hebrew, not Arabic. So the point that they come from the same root but mean different things cannot be overlooked just because doing so allows you to claim things that are false about your prophet being in the Bible.

Here's a similar thing: In Syriac, another Semitic language, the word "hanpa" means "pagan". The cognate to this word in Arabic is "hanif", which as I am sure you know in an Islamic context is a term used positively with reference to the pre-Islamic monotheism of Abraham. Given this relation, would you be supportive of an argument that claims that the Qur'an praises pagans as correct believers because "hanif means pagan"? No, right? Because it doesn't mean pagan in an Islamic context just because a word in a related language means that (in Arabic as used by Christians, however, it carries the same meaning as the original Syriac; for reference, see the Risala of Abdelmasih al-Kindi, pre-12th century). You cannot argue this way as though the differences don't matter.

Point is you see things in the OT about Jesus pbuh that aren't there, so arguing against references to Muhammad pbuh in the Bible is to be expected.

Yes. but that is arguing over the referent, not the literal presence. It is standard Christian practice to read the Old Testament in the light of the New, but even then I have never, ever heard any Christian of any confession claim that Jesus' name is literally found in that form in the OT in a manner analogous to your claim that Muhammad is found in the Bible. It is simply not the case. It is a false statement. Muhammad is found nowhere in the Bible, OT or NT, except in St. Paul's warnings against the false prophets who are to come and other similar passages.

Maimonides ruling on Christianity and Islam regarding paganism is clear.

It may be clear, but that doesn't give it any weight or relevance in this conversation.

Of course Christians don't care what he said because using his rulings, Rabbis say Jews are not permitted to enter a Church to pray, but can do in a Mosque.

Good for them. What am I supposed to say to this? Non-Christians are not to pray in Christian churches. That's pretty clear from the canons. I do not care what happens in a mosque or why. That's the place of worship of another religion. They may do as they wish so long as they leave others alone. I do not follow Jewish rabbis (though some may be wise in some respects, and I don't have anything against Jews for being Jews and having this opinion), neither do any other Christians (the Judaizers lost at the apostolic council in Jerusalem c. AD 50). You are muddying the waters to no good end.

 

[Muslim-UK]

By whose authority? Constantine's? What authority did he have in the Sassanid Empire? That's the thing you seem to be ignoring here.

I asked what the Doctrine of Ethiopia was and you responded, it was the Nicean Creed taught by St. Frumentious; influenced by Constantine then. What did the Church in India and Persia believe as Doctrine and what is the earliest reference you can give for this?

Oh, I suppose you have evidence of this, and that you can provide for us the contents of these New Testaments. After all, to make a claim such as this would require at least some evidence. What makes it slightly suspicious is the fact that the development of the New Testament Canon continued for several centuries onward. Compare the 39th Paschal Epistle of St. Athanasius, dated 367 AD, Codex Sinaiticus, the Peshitta, the canonical lists of the 3rd Council of Carthage (397 AD) and the Council of Laodicea (364 AD). I find it impressive that we don't have a clue what the copies of Scripture ordered by Constantine actually contained (no record exists) and the fact that questions on both Deuterocanicals and Antilegomena continued well after almost without any difference to how they had been well before Constantine was even a twinkle in his father's eye--especially seeing as "all previous works were ordered to be gathered and burnt".

Beyond quoting what is recorded, I can't show you anything about the contents of these 50 copies, as they are lost.

My point is, the concept of Jesus pbuh being of the same divine essence as GOD had been agreed upon at Nicea. 50 copies of the NT were sent out. The Arian argument raged for another 60 or so years, but soon after the Holy Spirit was also accepted to be of the same essence, end of 4th Century, then we had:

Books of Arianism (after Council of Nicaea)

Burning of Arian books at Nicaea (illustration from a compendium of canon law, ca. 825, MS. in the Capitular Library, Vercelli) https://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/commons/d/df/Constantine_burning_Arian_books.jpg
The books of Arius and his followers, after the first Council of Nicaea (325 C.E.), were burned for heresy by the Roman emperor Theodosius I who published a decree commanding that, "the doctrine of the Trinity should be embraced by those who would be called catholics; that all others should bear the infamous name of heretics".[27] Arius was exiled and presumably assassinated following this, and Arian books continued to be regularly burned into the 330s

Joseph Priestley (unitarian). An history of the corruptions of Christianity (1782) pg. 225–227
An history of the corruptions of Christianity : in two volumes : Priestley, Joseph, 1733-1804 : Free Download & Streaming : Internet Archive

page 588 http://www.bu.edu/religion/files/pd...oman-Empire-in-the-first-three-centuries-.pdf

The imperial bishops' battle against Christian diversity affected more than the lives
of their contemporaries. It affected, as well, both the past and the future. By
banning the texts of "deviant" Christians, burning their books, or simply ceasing to
allow them to be copied, the bishops got to remake the past in their own image. The
only documents to survive were the ones that they approved. Countless gospels,
apocryphal acts, sermons, letters, commentaries, and theological treatises simply
disappeared. Some lucky manuscript finds in the twentieth century - most
spectacularly, the Nag Hammadi library in Egypt, on which more below - have off-set
this ancient triage. But the loss has been immense, and much of the record of the
Christian past was simply effaced by the church itself.

 

[Muslim-UK]

I am aware of all this already. I do speak and understand some Arabic (enough to participate in church services, at least, where this word comes up a lot). What it means in Arabic is not relevant, though, since it's written in Hebrew, not Arabic. So the point that they come from the same root but mean different things cannot be overlooked just because doing so allows you to claim things that are false about your prophet being in the Bible.

Here's a similar thing: In Syriac, another Semitic language, the word "hanpa" means "pagan". The cognate to this word in Arabic is "hanif", which as I am sure you know in an Islamic context is a term used positively with reference to the pre-Islamic monotheism of Abraham. Given this relation, would you be supportive of an argument that claims that the Qur'an praises pagans as correct believers because "hanif means pagan"? No, right? Because it doesn't mean pagan in an Islamic context just because a word in a related language means that (in Arabic as used by Christians, however, it carries the same meaning as the original Syriac; for reference, see the Risala of Abdelmasih al-Kindi, pre-12th century). You cannot argue this way as though the differences don't matter.

Yes I understand what you are saying, but in the SOS 5 we have a description of a mystery man to come, who will be chief amongst 10,000 and then we have a name; ḥiko, mam'tamkim, v'challo, maḥamadim: his mouth is most sweet, yea he is muhammad.

We read elsewhere:

Isaiah 29:11 This vision is like the words of a ·book [scroll] that is closed and sealed. You may give the book to someone who can read and tell that person to read it. But he will say, “I can’t read the book, because it is sealed.” 12 Or you may give the book to someone who cannot read and tell him to read it. But he will say, “I don’t know how to read.”

I wonder who that might be? or who might this be:

"The LORD came from Sinai, And dawned on them from Seir; He shone forth from Mount Paran, And He came from the midst of ten thousand holy ones; At His right hand there was flashing lightning for them (Deut. 33:2)."

or

 

[Postvieww]

Only it doesn't stop there, The men who were travelling with him stood speechless, hearing the voice but seeing no one. 8 Saul rose from the ground, and although his eyes were opened, he saw nothing. So they led him by the hand and brought him into Damascus. 9 And for three days he was without sight, and neither ate nor drank.

Starting at verse: 13 At midday, O king, I saw on the way a light from heaven, brighter than the sun, that shone around me and those who journeyed with me.14 And when we had all fallen to the ground, I heard a voice saying to me in the Hebrew language, ‘Saul, Saul, why are you persecuting me? It is hard for you to kick against the goads.’

Notice everyone fell to the ground in this version, and Saul is not struck by blindness for several days.

Then there's another version:

Acts 22:6-21: "While I was…approaching Damascus…a great light from heaven suddenly shone about me. I fell to the ground and heard a voice saying…Saul,Saul, why are you persecuting me?...those who were with me saw the light but did not hear the voice…I could not see because of the brightness of the light…those with me…led me to Damascus…Ananias, who was a devout man according to the law and well spoken of by all the Jews living there…said…get up, be baptized, and have your sins washed away, calling on his name."

In this version only Saul falls down, and his companions saw the light but heard no voice. In this version he gets baptised to 'wash away his sins.'

So which Version is the reader to believe? Saul alone fell to the ground; those with him stood speechless because they heard the voice but saw no one; Saul was without sight for three days; Ananias was a disciple who laid hands on Saul to restore his sight and fill him with the Holy Spirit.


Or

Saul alone fell to the ground; Those with him saw the light but did not hear the voice; No mention of three days without sight or food; Ananias was "a devout man according to the Law and liked by the Jews."

Or

Everyone fell to the ground; the voice spoke in the Hebrew Language; no blindness, no Ananias, no baptism, no restoration of sight, no “filled by Holy Spirit”!

Remember: Luke wrote all three of these accounts! It matters not that he put two of the versions into the mouth of Saul, who was by then known as Paul. LUKE WROTE ALL THREE VERSIONS!

If this was a Court case, the Judge in any Court would rule this witness unreliable.

Perhaps Paul read the account of from 2 Maccabees 3:22-29 and had some 'inspiration'.

As shown above, he is unreliable. The DSS say, he's the 'spouter of lies'.

Saul was baptised to remove sins. Here we read it doesn't purify ones body of dirt and filth, but cleanses the soul and consciousnesses. The key here, "baptism doth also now save us." Baptism is still needed.

Paul says, nothing but grace can save you in your faith: Ephesians 2:8-9 He's going against 1 Peter here.



Acts is written by Luke the Disciple of Paul.



Christians say original sin means everyone is born into it, presumably that includes Mary ra, mother of Jesus pbuh.



Like a football team then, or colleagues at work. different roles, but same purpose. Clear cut polytheism my friend and a sin GOD says, He will never forgive.

I prefer to pray to GOD alone, directly with no middle beings.


2 Peter has been doctored by a supporter of Paul.

In Jude 1 we read about false teachers:
4 For there are certain men crept in unawares, who were before of old ordained to this condemnation, ungodly men, turning the grace of our God into lasciviousness, and denying the only Lord God, and our Lord Jesus Christ.

Now notice 2 peter 2 about the same issue:
2 But there were false prophets also among the people, even as there shall be false teachers among you, who privily shall bring in damnable heresies, even denying the Lord that bought them, and bring upon themselves swift destruction.

So Jude is saying presently there is false teachers and whoever cooked up 2 Peter, says there were in the past, and there will be in the future. Taking the focus of Paul.


We can agree to disagree, you have your religion salvation in 3, and I have mine, Salvation in the ONE GOD, is neither begotten nor begets.


Yes of course those who worship GOD Alone, have nothing to fear. We saw in the other thread about Heaven, that Christians have very little knowledge, even though Jesus pbuh said, Allaha would send another Prophet who will abide with you forever and teach you all things. Almost 2000 years and nothing new has been revealed to you :/


All Muslims believe in Jesus pbuh. In fact Islam is the only religion that believes in all the Prophets.



The Scripture here is the OT, and Muslims believe from what can be seen to be preserved and free from corruption. Remember the NT wasn't put together for decades after all the letters and Gospels were in circulation.

Muslim-UK said:

If this was a Court case, the Judge in any Court would rule this witness unreliable.

As shown above, he is unreliable. The DSS say, he's the 'spouter of lies'.

Acts is written by Luke the Disciple of Paul.

2 Peter has been doctored by a supporter of Paul.

The Scripture here is the OT, and Muslims believe from what can be seen to be preserved and free from corruption.

Based on your own words and opinion of the Holy Bible, nothing you say to support Islam from said Bible is valid, but yet you still persist in trying to prove you are right from the writings of what you consider to be a corrupted book???????????????


You would be far more credible if you argued your side from your Quran and stayed away from the Bible you detest.


If you were a witness in a court case you would be ruled unreliable. Trying to prove your case from the Bible while at the same time trying to prove how unreliable it is, shows hypocrisy at a monumental level.

 

[Muslim-UK]

You would be far more credible if you argued your side from your Quran and stayed away from the Bible you detest.

If you were a witness in a court case you would be ruled unreliable. Trying to prove your case from the Bible while at the same time trying to prove how unreliable it is, shows hypocrisy at a monumental level.

You misunderstand. The Torah, Zaboor and Injeel are all from the Creator, however they were all entrusted to man to preserve, and their message was for a certain people at a certain point in time. They still contain much enlightenment, but the changes and alterations render them unreliable, hence we take what is confirmed by the Qur'an and the rest leave; agreeing with what is good and leaving what is considered questionable.

A fair minded Judge wouldn't insist the Bible be used as a benchmark, and so one could argue from the Qur'an alone.

 

[Postvieww]

You misunderstand. The Torah, Zaboor and Injeel are all from the Creator, however they were all entrusted to man to preserve, and their message was for a certain people at a certain point in time. They still contain much enlightenment, but the changes and alterations render them unreliable, hence we take what is confirmed by the Qur'an and the rest leave; agreeing with what is good and leaving what is considered questionable.

A fair minded Judge wouldn't insist the Bible be used as a benchmark, and so one could argue from the Qur'an alone.

I believe I do understand what is happening here!


Have there been any “changes and alterations” to the Qur'an ?


Are there any discrepancies in the Qur'an ?

 

[Muslim-UK]

I believe I do understand what is happening here! Have there been any “changes and alterations” to the Qur'an ?
Are there any discrepancies in the Qur'an ?

You mean like with the Bible? No a man doesn't go from prophet to GOD Almighty from beginning to end of book :/
Nor does GOD go from ONE to Three. Nothing like that, thank GOD. Message of the Qur'an is consistent, worship GOD alone, keep the commandments, do good works, and turn to GOD during the good and bad times. This is the message taught by all the Prophets pbut, all of them submitted their will to GOD, in Arabic they would be called Muslims.

 

[John 1720]

Muslims, Jews and Christians agree in the worshipping of one God or monotheism. Jews and Muslims do not accept the deity of Jesus Christ as the Messiah. While this is fundamental basis for the Christian faith, however the topic is direct at what is God verse what is Allah in respect of Muslim and Christian faith texts rather than the who is God or Allah.

Regards Doug

elohiym
el-216 AV

Are Allah and the God of the Bible the same person?
I think it depends. A Christian in the Middle East, Africa, and Asia would say yes. That said Christians and Muslims interpret God's identity and who He is differently. To a Christian we can have fellowship with God through Christ who has restored fallen man, being Emmanuel, "God with us". We believe we have no righteous of our own but a righteousness imputed to us by the perfection in Christ and His atoning sacrifice. We also believe the resurrection of Christ affirms all this. To a Muslim that fellowship does not exist and Christ is reduced to a sinless prophet who accomplish many Divine miracles but did not die on the cross. Hence, in the Muslim worldview, there is no atonement for mankind and we remain dead in our sins, and dependent upon our own self righteousness and that perhaps Allah/ aka (Theos) / aka (God) may have mercy upon them. They neglect the promise of the seed of the woman that would crush the head of satan but that promise was not only made in Genesis but is reoccurrently made to Abraham, his progeny, the prophets, and affirmed by Jesus (Isa in Arabic).

There is going to be some natural confusion by comparing the name of God across linguistic lines, the name "God" is of Germanic origin, "Elohim, El, YHWH" (Hebrew), "Theos" Greek and "Allah" Middle Eastern, African and Asian. It is important to remember God's name linguistically known as "Allah", was in use in the Christian era in these countries long before Mohammed was born. This was true in Syriac and the Arabic languages, which were mostly all Christian during that nearly 600 period between Christ and Mohammed. Antioch was the city Gentile believers were first called Christian. There was even 300 years before Mohammed where we find that Christianity was the official religion of these areas. However many areas were decimated by the invasions of the Huns, the Visigoths, and many pagan Barbarians. Moreover, Gnostic heresies were being spread and make believe scriptures, such as the infancy gospels, the gospel of Thomas, Juda etc that in reality were late to the plate bought sought to remake Jesus in their own image. This is the environment that Mohammed was born into. Is it any wonder then that his understanding of God (Allah) and Jesus was not orthodox according to the teachings of Jesus (Isa)? I can find the latent infancy gospels and the heretical gospels embedded in the Quran, which was very much a product of the times, namely the 7th century Arabian peninsula, and North Africa. But truly these latent gospels and stories about Christ can be proven they are latent and very late in comparison to the text of the Injil, i.e.- The New Testament. There are books on the Arabic Bible, one being Sidney H. Griffith’s The Bible in Arabic.
May the Lord Bless, Pat

 

[John 1720]

elohiym
el-216 AV
Are Allah and the God of the Bible the same person?
Language "God, Allah, Theos" further clarification:

It is important to remember God's name, linguistically known as "Allah", was in use in the Christian era in many of the lands which were much later conquered for Islam. They were Christian long before Mohammed was born and had influence even in the region where Mohammed was born.
Mada'in Saleh - Wikipedia
There are evidences in the Syriac and the Arabic languages translations of New Testament works. Clearly 600 years prior to Mohammed Antioch was the large city that Gentile Jesus believers were first called Christians. There was even 300 years before Mohammed where we find that Christianity was the official religion of these areas. During the 5th century many of areas formerly Roman became physically decimated by the invasions of the Huns, the Visigoths, and many pagan Barbarians. Moreover, Gnostic heresies were being spread and "make believe, fanciful" scriptures, such as the infancy gospels, the gospel of Thomas, Judas, etc sought to remake Jesus in their own image. These were all very late to the plate. But this was the influential environment that Mohammed was born into. Is it any wonder then that his understanding of God (Allah) and Jesus were not shaped by orthodox apostolic Christian according to the teachings of Jesus (Isa)? = see John 17:20. I can find the latent infancy gospels and the heretical gospels embedded in the Quran, which was very much a product of the times, namely the 7th century . These pseudo gospel stories about Christ can be proven they were subsequent to the canonical New Testament (Injil) There are books on the Arabic Bible, one being Sidney H. Griffith’s The Bible in Arabic.
May the Wisdom of God bless us all, Pat

 

[Muslim-UK]

Moreover, Gnostic heresies were being spread and "make believe, fanciful" scriptures, such as the infancy gospels, the gospel of Thomas, Judas, etc sought to remake Jesus in their own image. These were all very late to the plate. But this was the influential environment that Mohammed was born into. Is it any wonder then that his understanding of God (Allah) and Jesus were not shaped by orthodox apostolic Christian according to the teachings of Jesus (Isa)? = see John 17:20. I can find the latent infancy gospels and the heretical gospels embedded in the Quran, which was very much a product of the times, namely the 7th century . These pseudo gospel stories about Christ can be proven they were subsequent to the canonical New Testament (Injil) There are books on the Arabic Bible, one being Sidney H. Griffith’s The Bible in Arabic.
May the Wisdom of God bless us all, Pat

Infancy Gospel of Thomas is said to date from 80 A.D, though the majority consensus is mid to late 2nd century A.D. on par with the latest studies on P52, the earliest fragment of Gospel of John.
What is the significance of this fragment? (The University of Manchester Library)

Given you dispute these Infancy Gospels, what can you tell us about the life of Jesus, peace be upon him, between the time he was a baby to a man of 30?

 

[John 1720]

The Infancy Gospel of Thomas is said to date from 80 A.D, though the majority consensus is mid to late 2nd century A.D. on par with the latest studies on P52, the earliest fragment of Gospel of John.

The John Ryland's Papyrus has been dated anywhere between AD110 to AD150 so it is much more proper to say it is dated early to mid 2nd century rather than mid to late 2nd century. It is not the earliest Gospel papyrus that we have, although it is the earliest academically acclaimed. A mummy mask made from paper mache' (from a 1st century Egyptian) has been identified as having the Gospel of Mark on it. That would bring the corpus of orthodox manuscripts within a few decades of the original autograph. BTW no one would argue that for P52 either, since most believe the Gospel of John was written around AD90 and the early date of the fragment is about AD110. Not a single religion on the planet can attest to having empirical MS, even fragmentary, that is that close to the original autographs. But early attestation is only one factor in determining empirical evidence of orthodoxy (the real deal). Witness testimony is also a huge factor. And we have attestation from late 1st, early 2nd and mid to late 2nd centuries that speak of what Scriptural Books Christians were hearing in the churches and being propagated as true by word of mouth. While that could be a separation of decades to a century verbal attestation by leaders is a valid way of identification. Muslims utilize this method as well, since early copies of your books are almost non-existent, but in the case of Islamic attestations they are later than the Christian early church Fathers (ECF). Not only did the ECG attest to the canonical books but they attested to the heritical books as well, including the infancy Gospels, by which they even identified the priest who admitted to writing a romance story about Jesus' early days. Despite this it still circulated. And yes, there were early Roman forts in the proximity of Mohammed's birthplace. Archeology proves that.
There's little doubt he heard many stories tht had circulated about Isa (Jesus) blessed be His Name.

Given you dispute these Infancy Gospels, what can you tell us about the life of Jesus, peace be upon him, between the time he was a baby to a man of 30?

Pretty much every serious scholar of the Bible disputes them, not just me. This is what I can tell you about the early life of Jesus.

Christ’s Birth Announced to Mary
26 Now in the sixth month the angel Gabriel was sent by God to a city of Galilee named Nazareth, 27 to a virgin betrothed to a man whose name was Joseph, of the house of David. The virgin’s name was Mary. 28 And having come in, the angel said to her, “Rejoice, highly favored one, the Lord is with you; blessed are you among women!”
29 But when she saw him, she was troubled at his saying, and considered what manner of greeting this was. 30 Then the angel said to her, “Do not be afraid, Mary, for you have found favor with God. 31 And behold, you will conceive in your womb and bring forth a Son, and shall call His name JESUS. 32 He will be great, and will be called the Son of the Highest; and the Lord God will give Him the throne of His father David. 33 And He will reign over the house of Jacob forever, and of His kingdom there will be no end.”
Chap 2
Christ Born of Mary
(Matt. 1:18–25 )
1 And it came to pass in those days that a decree went out from Caesar Augustus that all the world should be registered. 2 This census first took place while Quirinius was governing Syria. 3 So all went to be registered, everyone to his own city.
4 Joseph also went up from Galilee, out of the city of Nazareth, into Judea, to the city of David, which is called Bethlehem, because he was of the house and lineage of David, 5 to be registered with Mary, his betrothed wife, who was with child. 6 So it was, that while they were there, the days were completed for her to be delivered. 7 And she brought forth her firstborn Son, and wrapped Him in swaddling cloths, and laid Him in a manger, because there was no room for them in the inn.
Glory in the Highest
8 Now there were in the same country shepherds living out in the fields, keeping watch over their flock by night. 9 And behold, an angel of the Lord stood before them, and the glory of the Lord shone around them, and they were greatly afraid. 10 Then the angel said to them, “Do not be afraid, for behold, I bring you good tidings of great joy which will be to all people. 11 For there is born to you this day in the city of David a Savior, who is Christ the Lord. 12 And this will be the sign to you: You will find a Babe wrapped in swaddling cloths, lying in a manger.”
13 And suddenly there was with the angel a multitude of the heavenly host praising God and saying:
14 “Glory to God in the highest,
And on earth peace, goodwill toward men!”
15 So it was, when the angels had gone away from them into heaven, that the shepherds said to one another, “Let us now go to Bethlehem and see this thing that has come to pass, which the Lord has made known to us.” 16 And they came with haste and found Mary and Joseph, and the Babe lying in a manger. 17 Now when they had seen Him, they made widely [fn4] known the saying which was told them concerning this Child. 18 And all those who heard it marveled at those things which were told them by the shepherds. 19 But Mary kept all these things and pondered them in her heart. 20 Then the shepherds returned, glorifying and praising God for all the things that they had heard and seen, as it was told them.
Circumcision of Jesus
21 And when eight days were completed for the circumcision of the Child, His name was called JESUS, the name given by the angel before He was conceived in the womb.
Jesus Presented in the Temple
22 Now when the days of her purification according to the law of Moses were completed, they brought Him to Jerusalem to present Him to the Lord 23 (as it is written in the law of the Lord, “Every male who opens the womb shall be called holy to the LORD” ), 24 and to offer a sacrifice according to what is said in the law of the Lord, “A pair of turtledoves or two young pigeons.”
Simeon Sees God’s Salvation
25 And behold, there was a man in Jerusalem whose name was Simeon, and this man was just and devout, waiting for the Consolation of Israel, and the Holy Spirit was upon him. 26 And it had been revealed to him by the Holy Spirit that he would not see death before he had seen the Lord’s Christ. 27 So he came by the Spirit into the temple. And when the parents brought in the Child Jesus, to do for Him according to the custom of the law, 28 he took Him up in his arms and blessed God and said:
29 “Lord, now You are letting Your servant depart in peace,
According to Your word;
30 For my eyes have seen Your salvation
31 Which You have prepared before the face of all peoples,
32 A light to bring revelation to the Gentiles,
And the glory of Your people Israel.”
33 And Joseph and His mother marveled at those things which were spoken of Him. 34 Then Simeon blessed them, and said to Mary His mother, “Behold, this Child is destined for the fall and rising of many in Israel, and for a sign which will be spoken against 35 (yes, a sword will pierce through your own soul also), that the thoughts of many hearts may be revealed.”
Anna Bears Witness to the Redeemer
36 Now there was one, Anna, a prophetess, the daughter of Phanuel, of the tribe of Asher. She was of a great age, and had lived with a husband seven years from her virginity; 37 and this woman was a widow of about eighty-four years, who did not depart from the temple, but served God with fastings and prayers night and day. 38 And coming in that instant she gave thanks to the Lord, and spoke of Him to all those who looked for redemption in Jerusalem.
The Family Returns to Nazareth
39 So when they had performed all things according to the law of the Lord, they returned to Galilee, to their own city, Nazareth. 40 And the Child grew and became strong in spirit, filled with wisdom; and the grace of God was upon Him.
The Boy Jesus Amazes the Scholars
41 His parents went to Jerusalem every year at the Feast of the Passover.42 And when He was twelve years old, they went up to Jerusalem according to the custom of the feast. 43 When they had finished the days, as they returned, the Boy Jesus lingered behind in Jerusalem. And Joseph and His mother did not know it;44 but supposing Him to have been in the company, they went a day’s journey, and sought Him among their relatives and acquaintances. 45 So when they did not find Him, they returned to Jerusalem, seeking Him. 46 Now so it was that after three days they found Him in the temple, sitting in the midst of the teachers, both listening to them and asking them questions. 47 And all who heard Him were astonished at His understanding and answers. 48 So when they saw Him, they were amazed; and His mother said to Him, “Son, why have You done this to us? Look, Your father and I have sought You anxiously.”
49 And He said to them, “Why did you seek Me? Did you not know that I must be about My Father’s business?” 50 But they did not understand the statement which He spoke to them.
Jesus Advances in Wisdom and Favor
51 Then He went down with them and came to Nazareth, and was subject to them, but His mother kept all these things in her heart. 52 And Jesus increased in wisdom and stature, and in favor with God and men.

Salam Alaikum to both you and your family and I pray that God (Allah) will bless you all, from the youngest to the oldest.
Patrick