Quran and Bible debateKoran confirms Jesus Crucifixion...Mind to elaborate? I asked you to show the difference, because I believe in order for an argument of such nature to be made, when indicators seem to be contrary to it, then some type of evidence must be provided that would support it. I ask you again, could you show from the Qu'ra, not the Bible, where there is any indication that the slaying of the prophets is any different from their desire to slay Jesus? That they would think that crucifixion, and solely that, is evidence that this prophet is not Messiah? I don't see how this shows any bias against the Qu'ran. That is a given. I don't think there is any doubt here about what the Muslims see the case of Jesus to be; otherwise, we wouldn't be discussing the factuality of the crucifixion, would we?
You are arguing an irrelevant issue. No one is arguing about Jesus' parents, the point I made was that the Messiah could not die, because he had to sit on the throne of David; PER JEWISH SCRIPTURE AND BELIEF. Your argument above is more of an argument that would be used by someone who DID NOT believe that Jesus was the Messiah, therefore, arguing that his genealogy does not meet with King David.
And with that said, your argument is devoid of reality. Death is death. Quite to the contrary; I have been weeding out the irrelevant aspects of your argument. First of all, we have not been talking about "the death of the prophets", don't try to mix it up. We are talking about the KILLING AT THE HANDS of the JEWS/Israelites. So, when we speak of those executed by the Jews, we are most certainly going to have to include the law in Deuteronomy, which is not a law about crucifixion, but a law about KILLING A SINNER! "If a man shall have committed a sin whose judgment is death, he shall be put to death..." "But that prophet or that dreamer of dreams shall be put to death, because he has counseled rebellion against the LORD your God who brought you from the land of Egypt and redeemed you from the house of slavery, to seduce you from the way in which the LORD your God commanded you to walk. So you shall purge the evil from among you." (Deuteronomy 13:5) False prophecy; speaking contrary to God's word; blasphemy; these are the sins of a false prophet whose judgment is death! So, the killing of a prophet is the jugment of a FALSE PROPHET. The hanging on the tree is the judgment of a FALSE PROPHET. There is no difference if the prophet is stoned to death; if his head is rolled off onto a silver-plate; of he is slaughtered in the Temple; if he is killed with the sword; or any of other possible deaths that a man could suffer. The death is the penalty of their sin. When it says that a person who hangs on a tree is accursed, that is relating to the fact that they are put to shame in plain view, for all to see. As it is also with stoning, where the entire camp would take pleasure in taking the life out of the condemned. Really? So, if you are wrong, then it is the Scripture that is wrong; but if you are right, then the Scripture is still wrong? There were various methods of killing; the Jews originally TRIED TO STONE HIM! But their attempts failed in that area, it was not until they finally got it into court, that they were able to get the desires of their heart. Jesus said, "No one has taken it away from Me, but I lay it down on My own initiative. I have authority to lay it down, and I have authority to take it up again. This commandment I received from My Father." (John 10:18 ) There is something called "self-deception", and then there is another thing called "selective hearing". And, of course, there is the correct approach which is "deductive reasoning" -- all evidence is taken into account, and a deduction is made based on the evidence, not on preconceptions or bias. The evidence does not suggest at all that their request for him to save himself, is because of the tree, but because of the actuality of death. They never said anything about the crucifixion, not one of them said, "if you are the messiah, you can't be crucified," and perhaps even add, "but instead you must die by stoning." (just making it a bit more interesting... ) Guess which one is right? I know exactly what you were saying, you were and still are accusing me of taking the text out of its context. I have done no such thing. It is a continuation, but it is a separation of CHARGE! The prior charge was, 'they spoke against Mary great false charges', and 'AND' indicates an additional charge! What was the charge? According to the text, the charge was that 'we crucified the Messiah', in boast, as in a display of power and defiance of Allah. The context of the passage begins a few verse prior to it, with accusations about their breaking of covenant, and their nagging requests for Moses, and end with the proclamation that they must believe, and that the Messiah would be a witness against them. I have not ignored the context! In the context, it expresses arrogance, as the context also say that they did not accept new messages, because 'the word was in their heart'-- this is indicative of arrogance. Yusufali's translation puts it nicely: (They have incurred divine displeasure): In that they broke their covenant; that they rejected the signs of Allah; that they slew the Messengers in defiance of right; that they said, "Our hearts are the wrappings (which preserve Allah's Word; We need no more)"; Again, I am not using out of context rationale, I am quite within the boundaries of the context! See note above. Hold on, I am going by what you wrote here, and so far, you appeared to hold to the traditional position that Jesus was raised to God, without death. As you quote later in your post, you agreed with zampeada about there being no 'second coming', but you disagree about him living on earth. Instead, you say that you believe that he was raised. That is the only evidence I have had. Perhaps I missed something you said to someone else in this thread, and that would be my mistake, but as far as posts in other threads, I have not been around that long, and I seldomly enter threads which have been ongoing for so long. Interesting. The context of the passage would imply that Allah would set himself AGAINST the plotters, not in a race to see who kills the Messiah first. It doesn't make sense! My christian websites criticism? That site is this same site, what are you saying? It was merely a little quick exchange, nothing much. I just wanted to show that I know how Muslims take that verse, and how it fits the Muslim argument. That is all. So, what is your take on those hadiths; are they truthful in some aspects, or are they totally false? Hold on, how could Christians be blamed for EDITING the text, when the translation of the Qu'ran is left up to MUSLIMS! The translations, every single one of them that I have been able to grab a hold of, have all have been Islamic sources. Such accusations are ludicrous. Where do you get this information from? Do you have some way of tracking my site-browsing, that you know that I am visiting Christian websites that are the only sources of my understanding of Islam? And what does your quote of zampeada and yourself have to do with my learning of Islamic teachings? My understanding of Islam has come strictly from Islamic sources. There used to be a time when Arabia.com used to contain a search engine dedicated to things Islamic and Arabic, so that was a great source for Islamic study. But then they changed to Google, and they don't have the resources they used to have. I don't see how you can bring yourself to make accusations like this about a person you had never spoken to, until last week. I know that is what you believe.
I was reading out of curiosity, and in search for what could be perceived as truth, by the human mind. But of course, nothing I say can truly change your perception of me, can it? So, let's just leave this up to the way we carry ourselves in the open forum. I am certain you will find very little to accuse me of, and be still justified in it. Ah, that is what a Somali friend told me, that I could not touch the Qu'ran, unless I was a Muslim. See, I used to work in a place where around 80% + of the people were Muslim, mainly Somali, but a few were from other areas of Africa. And that is why I started reading the Qu'ran, because I had a few chats with them, and I got interested. But one time, when I asked one to give me a Qu'ran, she told me that I could not touch it (the book), but I could only read a few passages that she would copy from it, because I had to believe first, and then read it. Needless to say, I was perplexed. So, instead of asking them for a Qu'ran, I went to Barnes and Nobles, and got down to reading... Then I had another friend, a french lady from Ivory Coast, and she gave me a Qu'ran-- and then I had another friend who gave me one in Spanish -- and I have a number of sources online, from which I can read passages. As Jesus said, "seek and ye shall find." But, of course, I found the truth not in the Qu'ran, but in the Bible -- incidentally, the Quranic mentions of Jesus and the Book, and the People of the Book, was what sent me to the Bible. Tell that to the Somalis who did not want me to touch the Qu'ran. Ah, the words of a diviner. But You know me, O LORD; You see me; And You examine my heart's attitude toward You. (Jeremiah 12:3) Blessings! |
🌈Pride🌈 goeth before Destruction
When 🌈Pride🌈 cometh, then cometh Shame