Is the Bible the only sacred texts and why or why not.

[JudgeRightly]

Why do you keep asking the same thing as if I haven't shown that the Quran specifically states that the man Jesus was physically killed?

BECAUSE I WANT YOU TO CLARIFY WHAT YOU, POPS, SAY ABOUT THOSE VERSES. I know what the verses say. I'm asking about what YOU think they say. There's a difference.

Giving me verses doesn't mean anything if you yourself don't recognize exactly what it says.

So you, POPS, insist that the verses you quote say that Jesus was killed/crucified, and did not die of natural causes?

Refer to the post before the one you qouted without additions.

2:71. He said, ‘He (- God) says, “It is indeed a cow neither broken in to plough the land nor to water the tillage, perfectly sound (without any blemish), no spot on her”, (she is of one colour).’ They said, ‘Now you have (after all) brought the exact truth (with the necessary description).’ So they slaughtered her, though they had no mind to do it.

2:73. So We said, ‘Judge it in the context of its other circumstances.’ That is how Allâh brings the dead (for Jesus being dead to all appearances) to life, and He shows you His signs so that you may refrain (from evil).

2:74. Then your hearts hardened after that, so that they were (hard) like rocks or harder still; for there are rocks out of which streams come gushing forth, and there are some others out of which (some) water comes forth when they split asunder. And indeed there are some (hearts) that humble themselves for awe of Allâh. And Allâh is not at all unmindful as to what you do.

(if you cannot see that all these verses are speaking about Jesus then perhaps ask GOD for discernment. Please consider that you are coming off as quite disingenuous presently; to little ole me.)

Sent from my Moto G (5) Plus using Tapatalk

Here's the question again:

POPS: Do YOU insist that the verses say that Jesus was killed/crucified, and that He did not die of natural causes?

If so, here is my follow up:

Does these verses contradict you AND the verses you quoted, because it states very clearly that Jesus was not crucified/killed, but died a natural death/was brought to Allah (after dying a natural death:

And [for] their saying, "Indeed, we have killed the Messiah, Jesus, the son of Mary, the messenger of Allah ." And they did not kill him, nor did they crucify him; but [another] was made to resemble him to them. And indeed, those who differ over it are in doubt about it. They have no knowledge of it except the following of assumption. And they did not kill him, for certain. [Quran 4:157]
Rather, Allah raised him to Himself. And ever is Allah Exalted in Might and Wise. [Quran 5:158]

If you think this verse does not contradict the verses you quoted, and you yourself, then please explain how Jesus was both killed/crucified and died a natural death ("they did not kill him")

And here is my second follow up. How does the above passage in the quran which I posted NOT contradict what John 19 says, that Jesus WAS CRUCIFIED by the Jews.

 

[freelight]

You are making things up. I already showed you the verses that show Jesus was killed in the Quran. I have also already showed you how this is not a contradiction because though the temporal physical manifestation and holy Temple of God was destroyed and raised back up this in no way means that the spirit of God has ever died especially by the hands of man.

Sent from my Moto G (5) Plus using Tapatalk

Hi pops,

Haven't posted here in awhile,....same ole merry go around I see. 'God' cant be put in a 'box' no matter what criteria, terms or qualifications are concocted to make an attempt. God is the Great Central Sun and that sun has many rays, and reflections, further inflected by different points of view.

Youre PM box is full. You need to delete old messages to make room for new or put your email address in the profile settings so people could send messages to ur email. I'd like to share something with u - write me at freelight68@gmail.com.

 

[freelight]

Manner of death inconsequential in context.....

Manner of death inconsequential in context.....

BECAUSE I WANT YOU TO CLARIFY WHAT YOU, POPS, SAY ABOUT THOSE VERSES. I know what the verses say. I'm asking about what YOU think they say. There's a difference.

Giving me verses doesn't mean anything if you yourself don't recognize exactly what it says.

So you, POPS, insist that the verses you quote say that Jesus was killed/crucified, and did not die of natural causes?



Here's the question again:

POPS: Do YOU insist that the verses say that Jesus was killed/crucified, and that He did not die of natural causes?

If so, here is my follow up:

Does these verses contradict you AND the verses you quoted, because it states very clearly that Jesus was not crucified/killed, but died a natural death/was brought to Allah (after dying a natural death:

And [for] their saying, "Indeed, we have killed the Messiah, Jesus, the son of Mary, the messenger of Allah ." And they did not kill him, nor did they crucify him; but [another] was made to resemble him to them. And indeed, those who differ over it are in doubt about it. They have no knowledge of it except the following of assumption. And they did not kill him, for certain. [Quran 4:157]
Rather, Allah raised him to Himself. And ever is Allah Exalted in Might and Wise. [Quran 5:158]

If you think this verse does not contradict the verses you quoted, and you yourself, then please explain how Jesus was both killed/crucified and died a natural death ("they did not kill him")

And here is my second follow up. How does the above passage in the quran which I posted NOT contradict what John 19 says, that Jesus WAS CRUCIFIED by the Jews.

It matters not how Jesus died but how he lived and what he taught/revealed by his life, giving his soul(life) for others....which is sacrifice of ego and complete surrender to God and his will.

Besides, both Judaism and Islam do not believe in human blood sacrifice so Jesus could not atone by his blood in such a manner. Since Jesus is not God, neither the Son of God in the Koran, his manner of death as a special prophet is inconsequential, since God raised him up to heaven anyways. Any crucifixion has no redeeming power, neither any magical power in shed blood, but what counts is DOING God's will....and living according to divine laws and principles. This is all that matters in the spirit worlds (the afterlife) as well.

 

[JudgeRightly]

It matters not how Jesus died but how he lived and what he taught/revealed by his life, giving his soul(life) for others....which is sacrifice of ego and complete surrender to God and his will.

Besides, both Judaism and Islam do not believe in human blood sacrifice so Jesus could not atone by his blood in such a manner. Since Jesus is not God, neither the Son of God in the Koran, his manner of death as a special prophet is inconsequential, since God raised him up to heaven anyways. Any crucifixion has no redeeming power, neither any magical power in shed blood, but what counts is DOING God's will....and living according to divine laws and principles. This is all that matters in the spirit worlds (the afterlife) as well.

Get thee hence, Satan. Your heretical teachings are unwelcome.

 

[popsthebuilder]

My whole point is that the Quran says that Jesus was sacrificed by the Jew, and that He ascended to GOD and did not actually die, nor was He actually destroyed; only His material vessel; the Holy Temple of GOD was destroyed, and raised up again; as per prophesy.

If we cannot agree that this is a plausible understanding of the texts then we should end discussion.

BECAUSE I WANT YOU TO CLARIFY WHAT YOU, POPS, SAY ABOUT THOSE VERSES. I know what the verses say. I'm asking about what YOU think they say. There's a difference.

Giving me verses doesn't mean anything if you yourself don't recognize exactly what it says.

So you, POPS, insist that the verses you quote say that Jesus was killed/crucified, and did not die of natural causes?



Here's the question again:

POPS: Do YOU insist that the verses say that Jesus was killed/crucified, and that He did not die of natural causes?

If so, here is my follow up:

Does these verses contradict you AND the verses you quoted, because it states very clearly that Jesus was not crucified/killed, but died a natural death/was brought to Allah (after dying a natural death:

And [for] their saying, "Indeed, we have killed the Messiah, Jesus, the son of Mary, the messenger of Allah ." And they did not kill him, nor did they crucify him; but [another] was made to resemble him to them. And indeed, those who differ over it are in doubt about it. They have no knowledge of it except the following of assumption. And they did not kill him, for certain. [Quran 4:157]
Rather, Allah raised him to Himself. And ever is Allah Exalted in Might and Wise. [Quran 5:158]

If you think this verse does not contradict the verses you quoted, and you yourself, then please explain how Jesus was both killed/crucified and died a natural death ("they did not kill him")

And here is my second follow up. How does the above passage in the quran which I posted NOT contradict what John 19 says, that Jesus WAS CRUCIFIED by the Jews.

Sent from my Moto G (5) Plus using Tapatalk

 

[JudgeRightly]

My whole point is that the Quran says that Jesus was sacrificed by the Jew, and that He ascended to GOD and did not actually die, nor was He actually destroyed; only His material vessel; the Holy Temple of GOD was destroyed, and raised up again; as per prophesy.

If we cannot agree that this is a plausible understanding of the texts then we should end discussion.

Sent from my Moto G (5) Plus using Tapatalk

SACRIFICE IMPLIES KILLING, NOT DYING A NATURAL DEATH.

This passage in the Quran

And [for] their saying, "Indeed, we have killed the Messiah, Jesus, the son of Mary, the messenger of Allah ." And they did not kill him, nor did they crucify him; but [another] was made to resemble him to them. And indeed, those who differ over it are in doubt about it. They have no knowledge of it except the following of assumption. And they did not kill him, for certain. [Quran 4:157]
Rather, Allah raised him to Himself. And ever is Allah Exalted in Might and Wise. [Quran 5:158]

Says that Jesus was not KILLED, but died a natural death.

Ergo, he couldn't have been sacrificed, ergo you're position and verses you provided are CONTRADICTORY to the above passage.

IN ADDITION TO THAT, the above passage is contradictory to what the Bible says, which is that Jesus was killed.

 

[popsthebuilder]

SACRIFICE IMPLIES KILLING, NOT DYING A NATURAL DEATH.

This passage in the Quran



Says that Jesus was not KILLED, but died a natural death.

Ergo, he couldn't have been sacrificed, ergo you're position and verses you provided are CONTRADICTORY to the above passage.

IN ADDITION TO THAT, the above passage is contradictory to what the Bible says, which is that Jesus was killed.

What?!....how does that say Jesus died a natural death?



Why is it that you never answer any questions but expect others to continually do so?

Sent from my Moto G (5) Plus using Tapatalk

 

[JudgeRightly]

What?!....how does that say Jesus died a natural death?

Why is it that you never answer any questions but expect others to continually do so?

Sent from my Moto G (5) Plus using Tapatalk

How dumb can you be, Pops? Seriously, how many ways are there to die? Either someone kills you, or you die of natural causes (old age, disease/sickness). Right?

So if Jesus WAS NOT KILLED, then the only other way (besides sickness, and I'm pretty sure Jesus didn't die from sickness), to die is old age.

You still are not addressing the contradiction in the Quran (since you insist, and I'll even give you the benefit of the doubt, that the passages you provided earlier mean that Jesus WAS IN FACT CRUCIFIED) where the verses you provided say He was crucified, and the verses I provided say HE WAS NOT.

Pops, two contradictory statements cannot both be true simultaneously.

Which passage in the Quran is correct, your passage or mine? Because they do, in fact, contradict, meaning they both cannot be true.

 

[popsthebuilder]

How dumb can you be, Pops? Seriously, how many ways are there to die? Either someone kills you, or you die of natural causes (old age, disease/sickness). Right?

So if Jesus WAS NOT KILLED, then the only other way (besides sickness, and I'm pretty sure Jesus didn't die from sickness), to die is old age.

You still are not addressing the contradiction in the Quran (since you insist, and I'll even give you the benefit of the doubt, that the passages you provided earlier mean that Jesus WAS IN FACT CRUCIFIED) where the verses you provided say He was crucified, and the verses I provided say HE WAS NOT.

Pops, two contradictory statements cannot both be true simultaneously.

Which passage in the Quran is correct, your passage or mine? Because they do, in fact, contradict, meaning they both cannot be true.

Only one with very little spiritual discernment would conclude such; or one vered by the inclinations and fancies of man.

Are you remotely aware of how many seeming contradictions are in the bible to those with little understanding or faith?

Bet you won't answer[emoji6]

Sent from my Moto G (5) Plus using Tapatalk

 

[JudgeRightly]

Only one with very little spiritual discernment would conclude such; or one vered by the inclinations and fancies of man.

Pops, if a book (any book) states something as fact, and then later in that same book it states something as fact that contradicts the first statement of fact, then the book is contradicting itself, REGARDLESS of what the reader thinks the passage means.

It's called the LAW of noncontradiction. Two contradictory statements CANNOT BOTH be true at the same time.

Are you remotely aware of how many seeming contradictions are in the bible to those with little understanding or faith?

Except that NO MATTER WHAT ANYONE THINKS, the Bible DOES NOT CONTRADICT ITSELF, because the AUTHOR, GOD, does not contradict Himself.

Did you get that?

NO MATTER WHAT ANYONE THINKS the Bible says, THE BIBLE DOES NOT CONTRADICT ITSELF. And I'm not saying that just to defend the Bible, it's a fact. Nothing in the Bible contradicts.

The Quran on the other hand, DOES IN FACT CONTRADICT ITSELF (regardless of what you or I or anyone else thinks it says), BECAUSE IN ONE PART OF THE BOOK, IT SAYS THAT JESUS WAS NOT KILLED, AND THEN IN ANOTHER PART, IT SAYS HE WAS NOT KILLED.

Bet you won't answer

:noid:

 

[popsthebuilder]

The Quran too is authored by GOD.....so the same stands for it as well.

Equal scales my friend. I'm almost surprised you didn't attempt an actual answer. Gotta stick with your mo I guess.

Pops, if a book (any book) states something as fact, and then later in that same book it states something as fact that contradicts the first statement of fact, then the book is contradicting itself, REGARDLESS of what the reader thinks the passage means.

It's called the LAW of noncontradiction. Two contradictory statements CANNOT BOTH be true at the same time.



Except that NO MATTER WHAT ANYONE THINKS, the Bible DOES NOT CONTRADICT ITSELF, because the AUTHOR, GOD, does not contradict Himself.

Did you get that?

NO MATTER WHAT ANYONE THINKS the Bible says, THE BIBLE DOES NOT CONTRADICT ITSELF. And I'm not saying that just to defend the Bible, it's a fact. Nothing in the Bible contradicts.

The Quran on the other hand, DOES IN FACT CONTRADICT ITSELF (regardless of what you or I or anyone else thinks it says), BECAUSE IN ONE PART OF THE BOOK, IT SAYS THAT JESUS WAS NOT KILLED, AND THEN IN ANOTHER PART, IT SAYS HE WAS NOT KILLED.



:noid:

Sent from my Moto G (5) Plus using Tapatalk

 

[JudgeRightly]

The Quran too is authored by GOD.....so the same stands for it as well.

Saying it doesn't make it so.

The Bible says that the JEWS (not the Ishmaelites) were entrusted with the recording of scripture.

Muhammad (last I checked, which was just now) is a descendant of Ishmael. Therefore nothing he wrote is considered "oracles of God."

Speaking of the advantage of the Jews:
Much in every way! Chiefly because to them were committed the oracles of God. - Romans 3:2 http://www.biblegateway.com/passage/?search=Romans3:2&version=NKJV

Equal scales my friend.

Nope. Paul would disagree.

Much in every way! Chiefly because to them were committed the oracles of God. - Romans 3:2 http://www.biblegateway.com/passage/?search=Romans3:2&version=NKJV

I'm almost surprised you didn't attempt an actual answer. Gotta stick with your mo I guess.

:noid:

The Quran was authored by a delusional man over the course of his life, because he wanted to start a religion.

The Bible was composed by God and written by men inspired by Him, not in the course of one lifetime, but in the course of about 1500 years, and still maintains a coherent story, and not only that, but there's a flavor of realism that NO OTHER religious text or historical account has about the people who wrote it. If a dominant king writes about his nation in a historical document, he usually expresses only the good things about his nation, leaving out the parts he deems detrimental to his story. Muhammad was no different.

The Bible, on the other hand, shows the Jews as an UTTER FAILURE throughout their long history. Time and time again it shows them turning away from their God, and then being conquered by an enemy nation because God removed His hand from them, and they even killed their long-promised Messiah, and then they killed Stephen and were cut off from their promise because of their unbelief.

 

[freelight]

Get thee hence, Satan. Your heretical teachings are unwelcome.

Just stating facts.

 

[JudgeRightly]

Just stating facts.

Teachings heretical to the Bible are not facts.

 

[freelight]

Teachings heretical to the Bible are not facts.

Many would disagree, since thats based on your assumption, translation and interpretation of the bible. My former analysis holds within the contexts addressed.

The world's treasury of wisdom and revelation is not limited to one religious book, cult or denomination. Truth is universal, just many different points of view, perspectives and inflections of it using different languages, symbols and terms.

 

[JudgeRightly]

Many would disagree, since thats based on your assumption, translation and interpretation of the bible. My former analysis holds within the contexts addressed.

The world's treasury of wisdom and revelation is not limited to one religious book, cult or denomination. Truth is universal, just many different points of view, perspectives and inflections of it using different languages, symbols and terms.

Paul says:

What advantage then has the Jew, or what is the profit of circumcision? Much in every way! Chiefly because to them were committed the oracles of God. - Romans 3:1-2 http://www.biblegateway.com/passage/?search=Romans3:1-2&version=NKJV

Either you're right, and Paul is wrong. Or Paul is right, and you're wrong.

I'm gonna stick with Paul being correct on this one.

 

[freelight]

Paul says:

What advantage then has the Jew, or what is the profit of circumcision? Much in every way! Chiefly because to them were committed the oracles of God. - Romans 3:1-2 http://www.biblegateway.com/passage/?search=Romans3:1-2&version=NKJV

Either you're right, and Paul is wrong. Or Paul is right, and you're wrong.

I'm gonna stick with Paul being correct on this one.

I agree physical circumcision doesnt affect a spiritual transformation, yet Paul circumsiced Timothy anyways, yes?

I would question circumcision as a religious ritual in itself, regardless of assumed hygiene benefits, since its physical mutilation, and painful. Why would the Creator demand such when he created males with it, apparently for a beneficial purpose?

Paul has some things right, but not all, and spun his own gospel with its own peculiar features (vicarious blood atonement, etc.). Paul's apostleship is self proclaimed....none of Jesus original apostles call Paul an 'apostle'.

 

[Idolater]

Paul's apostleship is self proclaimed....none of Jesus original apostles call Paul an 'apostle'.

You know this how? Because if it's not in the Bible, therefore it never happened? Come on . . . .

 

[freelight]

Bible is a limited narrative.....

Bible is a limited narrative.....

You know this how? Because if it's not in the Bible, therefore it never happened? Come on . . . .

Just stating a fact as no apostles recognize or call him as an apostle chosen by Jesus, - as well as the observation Paul distanced himself from the original 12 more and more with his doctrine and basic anti-torah stance, assuming his own calling over any previous ordinations, even demeaning the Jerusalem pillars as they were nothing to him. (see Galations)

His gospel claims no apostolic succession, since hes going wholly by personal revelation, visions and esoteric interpretations of the scriptures. He got his gospel from no man. (Only from a celestial or phantom-Jesus who appeared as a light and a voice). This gesture and its epistemology is essentially 'gnostic' which is why some gnostic groups draw their lineage back to Paul (see the Valentinians).

I'm in nowise saying because something is not in the bible it never happened or is not true, since I dont see the bible as perfect, inerrant or infallible, - the bible is limited as literature within a given time-frame and cultural-context further subject to editing by scribal 'pre-scriptions'

I appreciate some versatility of texts, tradition and universalism within catholicism, but its still quite grid-locked in its own creeds, traditions and dogma as the only ark of salvation for mankind. Granted it includes the Apocrypha in its bible, there are still many other texts of value and meaning within judeo-xianity, and in other religious faith traditions.

 

[Idolater]

Just stating a fact as no apostles recognize or call him as an apostle chosen by Jesus,* - as well as the observation Paul distanced himself from the original 12 more and more with his doctrine and basic anti-torah stance, assuming his own calling over any previous ordinations, even demeaning the Jerusalem pillars as they were nothing to him. (see Galations)

* You're confirming what I accused you of---it's not in the Bible, so it didn't happen. Typical Protestant.

His gospel claims no apostolic succession, since hes going wholly by personal revelation, visions and esoteric interpretations of the scriptures. He got his gospel from no man. (Only from a celestial or phantom-Jesus who appeared as a light and a voice). This gesture and its epistemology is essentially 'gnostic' which is why some gnostic groups draw their lineage back to Paul (see the Valentinians).

I'm in nowise saying because something is not in the bible it never happened or is not true, since I dont see the bible as perfect, inerrant or infallible, - the bible is limited as literature within a given time-frame and cultural-context further subject to editing by scribal 'pre-scriptions'

I appreciate some versatility of texts, tradition and universalism within catholicism, but its still quite grid-locked in its own creeds, traditions and dogma as the only ark of salvation for mankind. Granted it includes the Apocrypha in its bible, there are still many other texts of value and meaning within judeo-xianity, and in other religious faith traditions.

Again, you're tied to what is written, and to what is written only. You've no room for what the Apostles actually uttered with their own mouths, nor to those men who succeeded the Apostles; the bishops, the college of whom are still around today, and who have judiciously revealed what the Apostles did actually utter with their own mouths. Among which, that Paul is certainly an Apostle, and the Twelfth one at that.