The Growing Greatness of Muhammad (S+) In The Eyes of Much of The World

[Storm]

I'm not sure what exactly you want to debate.

I think, like most humans, Muhammad was a mixed bag. People are messy. I wouldn't get to excited about seeing that some non-Muslims admire him, though. While views will hopefully become more nuanced in the face of multiculturalism, I sincerely doubt you'll ever see reverence for him in the West, at least not by the standards of Islam.

ETA: Um, how did I miss the fact that this thread is 38 pages long? Carry on, folks.....

 

[Lady B]

Dear Lover of Truth,
I actually accept your responses and won't even argue one at this time.
Just one thing....
Could you be more clear on how I can know which is a Suhih Hadith and which is not? for example: Abu Bakr yes, Aisha's letters no? Can you explain to me in a rational manner as I see you are so capable, why there is many Hadith's you (your branch) dismiss while others ( other branches of Islam ) Hold to them?

Really I would like a list of sorts of all the good bad and ugly, so that I can be sure they won't be dismissed in debates and discussions. I Trust you in this because I find you to be skilled in your own religion above many I have debated in the past. I am not asking for a time consuming complicated list, Just the basics If you may

 

[loverOfTruth]

Dear Lover of Truth,
I actually accept your responses and won't even argue one at this time.
Just one thing....
Could you be more clear on how I can know which is a Suhih Hadith and which is not? for example: Abu Bakr yes, Aisha's letters no? Can you explain to me in a rational manner as I see you are so capable, why there is many Hadith's you (your branch) dismiss while others ( other branches of Islam ) Hold to them?

Really I would like a list of sorts of all the good bad and ugly, so that I can be sure they won't be dismissed in debates and discussions. I Trust you in this because I find you to be skilled in your own religion above many I have debated in the past. I am not asking for a time consuming complicated list, Just the basics If you may

Out for the weekend ... So I'll respond to you soon. Peace.

 

[1robin]

Seriously ? Here's some info on some of your sources you have provided and even which didn't prove anything ...

Greenleaf is an important figure in the development of that Christian school of thought known as legal or juridical apologetics.

So, I guess you are saying that Christians can't be used to defend the bible. Figures. No source that is inconvenient may be used against Islam. Great scholarship. Greenleaf made Harvard one of if not the top law school in the world. This is admitted by secular law experts as well. He contributed more to secular law than anyone in human history since Hammmurabi. Your evaluation of his faith and what he has done in that area has no bearing. It is just another shoot the messenger to kill the message without any justification what so ever.

Wilbur Smith is a fiction writer.

Wilber Smith wasn't who was quoted. He was quoting another person: He refers to John Singleton Copley, better known as Lord Lyndhurst (1772-1863), recognized as one of the greatest legal minds in British history, the Solicitor-General of the British government in 1819, attorney-general of Great Britain in 1824, three times High Chancellor of England, and elected in 1846, High Steward of the University of Cambridge, thus holding in one lifetime the highest offices which a judge in Great Britain could ever have conferred upon him. When Chancellor Lyndhurst died, a document was found in his desk, among his private papers, giving an extended account of his own Christian faith, and in this precious, previously-unknown record, he wrote: "I know pretty well what evidence is; and I tell you, such evidence as that for the resurrection has never broken down yet."
Evidence That Demands a Verdict - Ch. 10 p. 2
That fact can be found in many places I just happen to find an example where
Smith recorded it.

Come on, I know Muslim's just deny any source they find doesn't agree with them but I at least expect them to recognise who said what.

I don't think I need to add anymore.

You should not have added what you did as it is completely false.

Here comes the trump card - the Holy Ghost . No offense but Muslims have a very strong spiritual connection with God but they just don't brag about it. But if you wanna get a glimpse of that, may be you should look at how the many converts to Islam feel when they accept Islam. I guess for them at least the spiritual power/feeling of the God Almighty overwhelmed the feeling of any other diety/spirit/material experience. Hear their accounts and see it for yourself

I never said some Muslim's do not have a connection to God. I do not believe they do but out of respect I do not claim to know that is the case. The point was that it does not offer the kind experience that Christianity does to every single believer. In fact it is the first step of faith. Every actuall Christian (billions and billions) has had that experience. They got that experienec by using the Bible to find it. Numbers are not proof but to ignore them is silly. Islam requires a ceremony or ritual (for lack of a better word) to be a Muslim. It does not offer or demand anything beyond a superficial intellectual agreement to a ideology to become one. In many cases that is reinforced by coersion, threat, or force. It is even determined for a baby that has no ability to deny or accept it. It is also in many places punishable by death to later on try and get out. Islam may in fact offer an connection to God but in no way is it equivalent to the Christian offer. In other words a religion that makes a spiritual experience available but not universally required or offered can be belived in without it being true. One that demands a spiritual experience of every single believer if false could not be (at least sincerely).

I congratulate you. At least for once you have avoided using an anti-muslim hate filled biased source.

Wow, I was not sure a source existed that said a single word that Muslin's do not agree with that is not biased.

* The written material of the Quran in the Prophet's possession were not bounded between the two covers in the form of a book, because the period of revelation of the Qur'an continued up until just a few days before the Prophet's death. The task of collecting the Qur'an as a book was therefore undertaken by Abu Bakr, the first successor to the Prophet.

This has as many and probably far worse problems than your claims about the Biblical authors.

Essentially, what it means is every single verse (i.e complete Qur'an) that is in the Qur'an today existed in written form but not necessarily the whole Qur'an as a book form. And during the book compilation for any verse to be included as part of the compiled Qur'an they verified 2 witnesses (written, memorized).

That is not the case. Many competant Islamic scholars admit that surahs were lost by individuals who had memorised them but were killed before they were recorded. That is backed up by statements his wives made.

* So why the burning of the Qur'an ? Hudhaifa was afraid of their differences in the recitation of the Quran, so he said to Uthman, 'O chief of the Believers! Save this nation before they differ about the Book (Quran) as Jews and Christians did before'.
So Uthman orderered to standardize the Qur'an in Quraishi dialect to avoid later alteration and differences.

Yet that is exactly what happened anyway. In fact it happened prior to this and so he decided to make a single Quran and destroy the others that were different. How do we know that he was correct? How do we know he didn't pick stuff he liked? How do we know anything about the originals? There exists no burning of all competing Bibles, and so the originals are very reliable.

During the period of Caliph Uthman (second successor to the Prophet) differences in reading the Quran among the various tribes became obvious, due to the various dialectical recitations. Dispute was arising, with each tribe calling its recitation as the correct one. This alarmed Uthman, who made a official copy in the Quraishi dialect, the dialect in which the Quran was revealed to the Prophet and was memorized by his companions. Thus this compilation by Uthman's Committee is not a different version of the Quran (like the Biblical versions) but the same original revelation given to the Prophet by One God, Allah.

You are confusing the semantics of terms. It may very well not be the equivalent to versions as is used to describe different Bibles. That has nothing to do with the fact that he chose a certain reading and burned all competitors and there is no way to know if his was what the original said. Saying it is in the same style does not make it the same.

* Why different manuscripts ?
Because of the nature of the Arabic script, in which short vowels were not indicated and consonants of similar form were only sometimes distinguished by pointing. Even today people who know good arabic can read without the vowels but many people from the indian sub-continent can't. So if you don't know arabic it might look different to you given the missing symbols on the words, but that doesn't mean they read a different Qur'an. Also, some differences are due to permissible different pronunciations. For example, al-baqira in place of al-baqara etc.
It doesn't change the Qur'an at all like the Bible. Every Qur'an has the same number of verses and same meaning regardless of these differences.

This is inaccurate. The lack of the dots in the original has caused many well known divergent readings. There are many other things that cause severe problems.

I found several by Subhii al-Saalih,an Islamic scholar in this area. He summarizes the differences into seven categories.

Differences in grammatical indicator (i`raab). Differences in consonants. Differences in nouns as to whether they are singular, dual, plural, masculine or feminine. Differences in which there is a substitution of one word for another. Differences due to reversal of word order in expressions where the reversal is meaningful in the Arabic language in general or in the structure of the expression in particular. Differences due to some small addition or deletion in accordance with the custom of the Arabs. Differences due to dialectical peculiarities. These have caused massive problems over the years.

Now unlike your biased sources, I will give you statements from non-muslim unbiased source :
Sir Williams Muir states, " There is otherwise every security, internal and external, that we possess the text which Muhammad himself gave forth and used".
Sir William Muir continues, "There is probably no other book in the world which has remained twelve centuries (now fourteen) with so pure a text".

Sir William Muir was an Orientalist specialising in the history of the time of Muhammad and the early caliphate and have no reason to favor the muslims.
That should rest this topic, I hope.

There is no point in dabating a person who just summarily rejects anything he does not like. It seems to be a universal tactic made necessary by the weakness of your position. It shows up and is widely discussed in even proffessional debates. I have never once said any source was biased. If it is I can quickly show that and my position is strong enough that I do not need to use unjustified reasons (as you did above) to dismiss scholars I do not like. This makes a debate frustrating and meaningless.

 

[InvestigateTruth]

In the verses that we have Given you regarding all men have sinned. Not one accredited bible scholar sees your view, that it was for that time in history. Not even one real Christian will support you in this, I challenge you to find one, this is your work not mine.

And I am saying, those scholars made many mistakes in their interpretations.
This is why we can discuss.
This is not about you and I to see who knows better, but it is about finding the truth.

As for your claims about the trinity? You perhaps are thinking of someone else. The trinity as a word is not mentioned once in the Bible, not once. This is a term Christians use to try to understand and explain the oneness of God in 3 distinct persons. This is not my debate and I don't appreciate you attacking me on it.

Yes, this is what I am saying, it is a man-made idea trying to explain the station of Jesus.

As for the deity of Christ, you only need read the Bible to know it is there.many prophecy's foretell of him God himself was a voice clear to all who can hear at the river Jordan, "this is my son, in whom I am well pleased". After this we have Christ himself declaring himself . This is a debate in of itself and if you are prudent you can find all you need in the bible.

I am not denying the verses of Bible. I am discussing the interpretation of them, as they fail to match with the Torah, as the torah never says, God has any parts.
Moreover, the trinity way to explain, fails to consider all those other verses, regarding Jesus being a prophet of God, who said only what God asked Him.

But I do not want to get into these discussions. We were discussing if Bible and Quran say different things about Jesus.
Please note that, I am not saying what Moslems say about Jesus is the same as what the Bible says about Jesus. Neither I am saying what christians say about Jesus is the same as what Moslems say about Jesus. What I am saying is, Quran and Bible say the same thing about Jesus!!

God does not give us scripture that says "As it is writtenThere is none righteous, no, not one;" and mean only in the time period . If this is how you view the Bible, then I understand how you cannot comprehend or interpret correctly any verse that I or Robin have given you and how you can be stuck in your own presupposing views. That is
between you and God, we have given you plenty to support our claim and dispute yours.

Please do not stretch things from the Bible to match with what you believe. If we read them within the context it is correct.

You must see the way you see, to justify your own religion. I do not need this, My religion is said and done and I believe every word.
"God gives them ears to hear and eyes to see"
without this you will not understand or interpret his word correctly, no matter how many
verses we show you.

I agree. That is why we are discussing.

For every sin I have shown Muslims of our prophets recorded in the bible and Koran, they can and will say well that was just a mistake or that was forgetfulness, so you see we can't even agree on what is sin.
The bible says:
Romans 5:12
"Wherefore , as by one man sin entered into the world, and death by sin; and so death
passed upon all men, for that all have sinned " this is Adam,Islam sees he was a prophet, well he obviously sinned,no one will agree that was just forgetfulness , he was punished by God and so are we all.
Sin of Moses
"Because you did not trust Me enough to sanctify Me in the eyes of the children of Israel,
therefore you will not lead them into the land." (Num 20:12)
Moses did not follow God's orders to the 't' when he was ordered to talk to the rock and
bring forth water for the people. He struck the rock 2 times with his staff.
While you and I may think well that seems harmless and in the end God's will was done,water came from the rock. God chose to punish Moses for this, so Obviously it was a sin that was punishable in God's eyes.
You and I cannot judge for ourselves what God alone can judge, We have his words only,the bible is very clear in that no man is without sin but Christ alone.Even Mohammad sought God's forgiveness and God instructed him to seek it. So did Elijah, and Abraham.
You asked How then can we trust an imperfect prophet? That is easy, we trust God used his own methods of bringing us his word and not our own Ideas of what he should have done.Who are you to say God can or can't do this? I do not question God's means or methods, I believe God's word entirely even if it doesn't suit my own interests.
I fully realize you will interpret or disregard any evidence contrary to your beliefs.We
cannot possibly agree if we do not share the very foundations of our belief system.You have argued much against the sin in prophets and asked for proof the sin exists. We have given our proof from God's words. You choose how to interpret our scripture, that is your problem not ours.


Also but not least important is How do you view the Bible? I have seen your debate with others and claim the bible has been corrupted/changed throughout history. If you do not hold to the inerrancy of scripture you have no right to use any verse to support your own claims. Think about this as I have seen you do the same to Hadiths in the Islam Faith.Does your religion adhere to the bible or not? If yes, then you can't pick and choose what works for you. If not, well you have no business using it at all.
Peace

I have already replied to all these. Please see my discussion with 1robin.

 

[InvestigateTruth]

Also but not least important is How do you view the Bible? I have seen your debate with others and claim the bible has been corrupted/changed throughout history. If you do not hold to the inerrancy of scripture you have no right to use any verse to support your own claims. Think about this as I have seen you do the same to Hadiths in the Islam Faith.Does your religion adhere to the bible or not? If yes, then you can't pick and choose what works for you. If not, well you have no business using it at all.
Peace

The Baha'i Scriptures, says the Bible is NOT corrupted, but misinterpreted.
So, you must have confused someone else with me.

 

[InvestigateTruth]

Now I will challenge you, show me in my scriptures where God says his prophets are sinless.do not use the term righteous for I have already translated the term for you, and Bible scholars are in absolute agreement. For all men are found righteous by the blood of christ.blameless also is not excepted as sinless, for I have shown you scripture in how the church was set up and How God instructed pastors ,deacons,elders to be blameless among their flock.
You are making a claim that adds to scripture what is not there. You need to find support for your claim,you have shown nothing to support your theory.

I just showed you, the word righteous as described originally in the Torah, as one who follows the will and commands of God. We need to see how the scripture defines the righteousness. If you read the Bible, anyone who followed the teachings of God and His prophets is called rigtheous. This is the proof, the Prophets are not sinners.

But why, the scriptures seems like it is rebuking prophets?
I gave you the example from jesus as well. Jesus said, do not say I am good. This is only to show and teach others to confess their sins, and be not arrogant. Other parts of Bible which seems to be rebuking the prophets is for the same purpose.

This is proved in the Baha'i Scriptures and I am not saying Just because Baha'i scriptures says, you must accept, No! I challenge you to discuss it:
From the Book, some Answered Questions:

Question.—In the Holy Books there are some addresses of reproach and rebuke directed to the Prophets. Who is addressed, and for whom is the rebuke? ​

Answer.—All the divine discourses containing reproof, though apparently addressed to the Prophets, in reality are directed to the people, through a wisdom which is absolute mercy, in order that the people may not be discouraged and disheartened. They, therefore, appear to be addressed to the Prophets; but though outwardly for the Prophets, they are in truth for the people and not for the Prophets.
.....every Prophet is the expression of the whole of the people. So the promise and speech of God addressed to Him is addressed to all. Generally the speech of reproach and rebuke is rather too severe for the people and would be heartbreaking to them. So the Perfect Wisdom makes use of this form of address, as is clearly shown in the Bible itself, as, for example, when the children of Israel rebelled and said to Moses: "We cannot fight with the Amalekites, for they are powerful, mighty and courageous." God then rebuked Moses and Aaron, though Moses was in complete obedience and not in rebellion. Surely such a great Man, Who is the mediator of the Divine Bounty and the deliverer of the Law, must necessarily obey the commands of God. These Holy Souls are like the leaves of a tree which are put in motion by the blowing of the wind, and not by Their own desire; for They are attracted by the breeze of the love of God, and Their will is absolutely submissive. Their word is the word of God; Their commandment is the commandment of God; Their prohibition is the prohibition of God. They are like the glass globe which receives light from the lamp. Although the light appears to emanate from the glass, in reality it is shining from the lamp. In the same way for the Prophets of God, the centers of manifestation, Their movement and repose come from divine inspiration, not from human passions. If it were not so, how could the Prophet be worthy of trust, and how could He be the Messenger of God, delivering the commands and the prohibitions of God? All the defects that are mentioned in the Holy Books with reference to the Manifestations refer to questions of this kind.

.....

But let us return to our subject. For example, in the Old Testament it is said in the Book of Isaiah, chapter 48, verse 12: "Hearken unto Me, O Jacob and Israel, My called; I am He; I am the first, I also am the last." It is evident that it does not mean Jacob who was Israel, but the people of Israel. Also in the Book of Isaiah, chapter 43, verse 1, it is said: "But now thus saith the Lord that created thee, O Jacob, and He that formed thee, O Israel, Fear not: for I have redeemed thee, I have called thee by thy name; thou art Mine."
Furthermore, in Numbers, chapter 20, verse 23: "And the Lord spake unto Moses and Aaron in mount Hor, by the coast of the land of Edom, saying, Aaron shall be gathered unto his people: for he shall not enter into the land which I have given unto the children of Israel, because ye rebelled against My word at the water of Meribah";* and in verse 13: "This is the water of Meribah; because the children of Israel strove with the Lord, and He was sanctified in them." ​

Observe: the people of Israel rebelled, but apparently the reproach was for Moses and Aaron. As it is said in the Book of Deuteronomy, chapter 3, verse 26: "But the Lord was wroth with Me for your sakes, and would not hear Me: and the Lord said unto Me, Let it suffice Thee; speak no more unto Me of this matter."


Now this discourse and reproach really refer to the children of Israel, who, for having rebelled against the command of God, were held captive a long time in the arid desert, on the other side of Jordan, until the time of Joshua—upon him be salutations. This address and reproach appeared to be for Moses and Aaron, but in reality they were for the people of Israel.
......

Their sins and faults! This is only to teach other men, to encourage and incite them to humility and meekness, and to induce them to confess their sins and faults. For these Holy Souls are pure from every sin and sanctified from faults. In the Gospel it is said that a man came to Christ and called Him "Good Master." Christ answered, "Why callest thou Me good? there is none good but One, that is, God."† This did not mean—God forbid!—that Christ was a sinner; but the intention was to teach submission, humility, meekness and modesty to the man to whom He spoke. These Holy Beings are lights, and light does not unite itself with darkness. They are life, and life and death are not confounded. They are for guidance, and guidance and error cannot be together. They are the essence of obedience, and obedience cannot exist with rebellion. ​

To conclude, the addresses in the form of reproach which are in the Holy Books, though apparently directed to the Prophets—that is to say, to the Manifestations of God—in reality are intended for the people. This will become evident and clear to you when you have diligently examined the Holy Books.

Bahá'í Reference Library - Some Answered Questions, Pages 167-170

 

[Lady B]

I gave you the example from jesus as well. Jesus said, do not say I am good. This is only to show and teach others to confess their sins, and be not arrogant. Other parts of Bible which seems to be rebuking the prophets is for the same purpose. This is proved in the Baha'i Scriptures and I challenge you to discuss it:
From the Book, some Answered Questions:

The passage, in context, actually says:

"As He was setting out on a journey, a man ran up to Him and knelt before Him, and asked Him, ‘Good Teacher, what shall I do to inherit eternal life?’ And Jesus said to him, ‘Why do you call Me good? No one is good except God alone.’" Mark 10:17-18

If you take this out of the context, sure you can interpret that jesus is denying He is God, but if you take it in context in light of the entire New testemant you will understand he is questioning why the man is attributing Good to him, when surely he must know None are Good save God alone. This misleading selectivity leads the questioner to erroneously conclude that Jesus was denying his essential goodness. He/she automatically assumes that Jesus is denying his absolute purity without taking into consideration the overall context of Mark, as well as the entire NT, to see if this is indeed what Christ was trying to convey.


Jesus many times did not rebuke men for calling him good and called himself Good see these verses.

"Simon Peter answered him, ‘Lord, to whom shall we go? You have the words of eternal life. We believe and know that you are the Holy One of God.’" John 6:68-69
"And there was much muttering about him among the people. While some said, ‘He is a good man,’ others said, ‘No, he is leading the people astray.’ ... He who speaks on his own does so to gain honor for himself, but he who works for the honor of the one who sent him is a man of truth; there is nothing false about him." John 7:12, 18
​

Some of the crowds acknowledge that Jesus is good, with Christ later denying that there is anything false about him. In other words, Jesus doesn’t just agree with those who say about him that he is good, but goes way beyond that by asserting that he is absolutely good!

"The one who sent me is with me; he has not left me alone, for I always do what pleases him ... Can any of you prove me guilty of sin? If I am telling the truth, why don't you believe me?" John 8:29, 46
"I am the good shepherd. The good shepherd lays down his life for the sheep ... I am the good shepherd; I know my sheep and my sheep know me." John 10:11, 14
​

I will try to answer more of your points later, Have patience please, I am working this weekend and cannot put much time here.Thanks
​

 

[InvestigateTruth]

The passage, in context, actually says:

"As He was setting out on a journey, a man ran up to Him and knelt before Him, and asked Him, ‘Good Teacher, what shall I do to inherit eternal life?’ And Jesus said to him, ‘Why do you call Me good? No one is good except God alone.’" Mark 10:17-18

If you take this out of the context, sure you can interpret that jesus is denying He is God, but if you take it in context in light of the entire New testemant you will understand he is questioning why the man is attributing Good to him, when surely he must know None are Good save God alone. This misleading selectivity leads the questioner to erroneously conclude that Jesus was denying his essential goodness. He/she automatically assumes that Jesus is denying his absolute purity without taking into consideration the overall context of Mark, as well as the entire NT, to see if this is indeed what Christ was trying to convey.


Jesus many times did not rebuke men for calling him good and called himself Good see these verses.

"Simon Peter answered him, ‘Lord, to whom shall we go? You have the words of eternal life. We believe and know that you are the Holy One of God.’" John 6:68-69
"And there was much muttering about him among the people. While some said, ‘He is a good man,’ others said, ‘No, he is leading the people astray.’ ... He who speaks on his own does so to gain honor for himself, but he who works for the honor of the one who sent him is a man of truth; there is nothing false about him." John 7:12, 18
​

Some of the crowds acknowledge that Jesus is good, with Christ later denying that there is anything false about him. In other words, Jesus doesn’t just agree with those who say about him that he is good, but goes way beyond that by asserting that he is absolutely good!

"The one who sent me is with me; he has not left me alone, for I always do what pleases him ... Can any of you prove me guilty of sin? If I am telling the truth, why don't you believe me?" John 8:29, 46
"I am the good shepherd. The good shepherd lays down his life for the sheep ... I am the good shepherd; I know my sheep and my sheep know me." John 10:11, 14
​

Well, I did not use that argument to show Jesus is not God. I used that argument to show, the rebukes to prophets in the Bible, is to teach others how to confess. You just agreed with me. Jesus is a Manifestation of God, but not God. Other Messengers also claimed the same. Examples:

Here are consistent sayings of Messengers claiming their union with God:

With regards to Moses:

"Then the LORD said to Moses, "See, I have made you like God to Pharaoh, and your brother Aaron will be your prophet." Exodus 7:1
"He [Aaron] will speak to the people for you, and it will be as if he were your mouth and as if you were God to him." Exodus 4:16

With regards to Muhammad:

Recorded saying of Muhammad: "I am He [God] and He is I, save that I am I, and He is He"
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Sahl_al-Tustari

Another quote is when Muhammad threw shafts, Quran says: “Those shafts were God’s, not Thine!” Qur’án 8:17.

Also “In truth, they who plighted fealty unto thee, really plighted that fealty unto God.” Qur’án 48:10.

With regards to Jesus:

Jesus said: “I and father are one”
“Whoever has seen Me, has seen the Father”

With regards to Baha’u’llah:

“When I contemplate, O my God, the relationship that bindeth me to Thee, I am moved to proclaim to all created things ‘verily I am God!’; and when I consider my own self, lo, I find it coarser than clay!” Baha’u’llah


“Were any of the all-embracing Manifestations of God to declare: “I am God,” He, verily, speaketh the truth, and no doubt attacheth thereto. For ... through their Revelation, their attributes and names, the Revelation of God, His names and His attributes, are made manifest in the world.... And were any of them to voice the utterance, “I am the Messenger of God,” He, also, speaketh the truth, the indubitable truth.... Viewed in this light, they are all but Messengers of that ideal King, that unchangeable Essence.... And were they to say, “We are the Servants of God,” this also is a manifest and indisputable fact. For they have been made manifest in the uttermost state of servitude, a servitude the like of which no man can possibly attain....” Baha’u’llah

I will try to answer more of your points later, Have patience please, I am working this weekend and cannot put much time here.Thanks

Sure, take your time.

 

[Lady B]

Well, I did not use that argument to show Jesus is not God. I used that argument to show, the rebukes to prophets in the Bible, is to teach others how to confess. You just agreed with me.

Sure, take your time.

This is not even a rubuke to a prophet, this is a somewhat sarcastic (human term) rebuke to a well studied man. So like If an athiest had in his mind through all his studies and research that there is no God. Then one day he sees God and says HI God. and God says, why do you call me God? you know there is no God.
He is not saying I am not God, he is saying hey you don't believe I am God.

Why am I using this verse form you? You asert the bible and Koran agree in Jesus. I am showing you partly, I am not finished, That our Bible clearly shows Jesus as God,Part of God and one with God. I just happened to like the verse you used wrongly

 

[InvestigateTruth]

This is not even a rubuke to a prophet, this is a somewhat sarcastic (human term) rebuke to a well studied man. So like If an athiest had in his mind through all his studies and research that there is no God. Then one day he sees God and says HI God. and God says, why do you call me God? you know there is no God.
He is not saying I am not God, he is saying hey you don't believe I am God.

But the way you are explaining the verse is not as the Bible story says:

"As Jesus started on his way, a man ran up to him and fell on his knees before him. "Good teacher," he asked, "what must I do to inherit eternal life?
And Jesus said to him, “Why do you call me good? No one is good except God alone."

It is clear, the man already believed in eternal life and this is not the belief of an atheist. The belief in eternal life comes from believing in religions. SO, sorry, your point does not work.

Reading farther the verses:

[Jesus said]: "But to answer your question, you know the commandments: 'You must not murder. You must not commit adultery. You must not steal. You must not testify falsely. You must not cheat anyone. Honor your father and mother.'"

and the man replied:

"Teacher," the man replied, "I've obeyed all these commandments since I was young."

So, it seems the guy was a believer in God and Moses, and perhaps even believed in Jesus, as He asked Him the question of eternal life.

 

[Lady B]

Here are consistent sayings of Messengers claiming their union with God:

With regards to Moses:

"Then the LORD said to Moses, "See, I have made you like God to Pharaoh, and your brother Aaron will be your prophet." Exodus 7:1
"He [Aaron] will speak to the people for you, and it will be as if he were your mouth and as if you were God to him." Exodus 4:16

Again you take a verse out of context and use at your will. here is the context of Moses's conversation with God regarding his being as God.

10 ¶And Moses said unto the Lord, O my Lord, I am not eloquent, neither heretofore, nor since thou hast spoken unto thy servant: but I am slow of aspeech, and of a bslow tongue.
11 And the Lord said unto him, Who hath made man’s mouth? or who amaketh the dumb, or deaf, or the seeing, or the blind? have not I the Lord?
12 Now therefore go, and I will be with thy amouth, and bteach thee what thou shalt csay.
13 And he said, O my Lord, send, I pray thee, aby the hand of him whom thou wilt send.
14 And the aanger of the Lord was kindled against Moses, and he said, Is not Aaron the Levite thy brother? I know that he can speak well. And also, behold, he cometh forth to meet thee: and when he seeth thee, he will be glad in his heart.
15 And thou shalt speak unto him, and put words in his mouth: and I will be with thy amouth, and with his mouth, and will bteach you what ye shall do.
16 And he shall be thy aspokesman unto the people: and he shall be, even he shall be to thee instead of a mouth, and thou shalt be to him binstead of cGod.
17 And thou shalt take this arod in thine hand, wherewith thou shalt do signs.

Be reasonable, do you see anywhere that Moses is claiming union with God? as for your claim that Mohammad claimed it, I will let our Islamic friends speak for him

 

[Lady B]

But the way you are explaining the verse is not as the Bible story says:

"As Jesus started on his way, a man ran up to him and fell on his knees before him. "Good teacher," he asked, "what must I do to inherit eternal life?
And Jesus said to him, “Why do you call me good? No one is good except God alone."

It is clear, the man already believed in eternal life and this is not the belief of an atheist. The belief in eternal life comes from believing in religions. SO, sorry, your point does not work.

Reading farther the verses:

[Jesus said]: "But to answer your question, you know the commandments: 'You must not murder. You must not commit adultery. You must not steal. You must not testify falsely. You must not cheat anyone. Honor your father and mother.'"

and the man replied:

"Teacher," the man replied, "I've obeyed all these commandments since I was young."

So, it seems the guy was a believer in God and Moses, and perhaps even believed in Jesus, as He asked Him the question of eternal life.

you just helped my claim not your own. look carefully what the man said. "I've obeyed all these commandments since I was young."
This man is saying to Jesus, I have studied well and done all these things. now you see why Jesus was being somewhat sarcastic to him. he knew this man well, knew that this man was well studied and knew God's word, He knew the man would only attribute good with God. and so he called him out on this.

 

[InvestigateTruth]

Again you take a verse out of context and use at your will. here is the context of Moses's conversation with God regarding his being as God.

10 ¶And Moses said unto the Lord, O my Lord, I am not eloquent, neither heretofore, nor since thou hast spoken unto thy servant: but I am slow of aspeech, and of a bslow tongue.
11 And the Lord said unto him, Who hath made man’s mouth? or who amaketh the dumb, or deaf, or the seeing, or the blind? have not I the Lord?
12 Now therefore go, and I will be with thy amouth, and bteach thee what thou shalt csay.
13 And he said, O my Lord, send, I pray thee, aby the hand of him whom thou wilt send.
14 And the aanger of the Lord was kindled against Moses, and he said, Is not Aaron the Levite thy brother? I know that he can speak well. And also, behold, he cometh forth to meet thee: and when he seeth thee, he will be glad in his heart.
15 And thou shalt speak unto him, and put words in his mouth: and I will be with thy amouth, and with his mouth, and will bteach you what ye shall do.
16 And he shall be thy aspokesman unto the people: and he shall be, even he shall be to thee instead of a mouth, and thou shalt be to him binstead of cGod.
17 And thou shalt take this arod in thine hand, wherewith thou shalt do signs.

Be reasonable, do you see anywhere that Moses is claiming union with God? as for your claim that Mohammad claimed it, I will let our Islamic friends speak for him

Even within the context, God does not have to make Moses like a God to Aaron, simply because he cannot speak well. If that was the only reason, He could simply say, I make Aaron to be your assistant to say things for you. More over you ignored the first verse, God make Moses a God to Pharoah.

Regarding, letting Moslems answer that Question, the Suffies and some Shias believe that is a Hadith from Muhammad, are not they Moslems? By your own logic, UUs do not believe Jesus is God, So I go and ask them, and whatever they say, huh?
Farther more, that saying of Muhammad is confirmed by Baha'u'llah, who recieved new revelation from God.

 

[InvestigateTruth]

you just helped my claim not your own. look carefully what the man said. "I've obeyed all these commandments since I was young."
This man is saying to Jesus, I have studied well and done all these things. now you see why Jesus was being somewhat sarcastic to him. he knew this man well, knew that this man was well studied and knew God's word, He knew the man would only attribute good with God. and so he called him out on this.

Well, you just changed your story. First discribing the man as an Atheist.
By commandmensts, He is refering to the teachings of Moses.
Also, this verse, repudiates the claim of some Christians, who say, all they need to do is have faith in Jesus.
Jesus, farther confirms somewhere else, He who does the commands of His Father, is accepted. Clearly, not His own sayings. If He is a part of God, why HE says, the commands of His father? Why He says all His saying are from the Father, not Himself? If He was part of God, He would say, My own commandments.

 

[Lady B]

Even within the context, God does not have to make Moses like a God to Aaron, simply because he cannot speak well. If that was the only reason, He could simply say, I make Aaron to be your assistant to say things for you. More over you ignored the first verse, God make Moses a God to Pharoah.

Regarding, letting Moslems answer that Question, the Suffies and some Shias believe that is a Hadith from Muhammad, are not they Moslems? By your own logic, UUs do not believe Jesus is God, So I go and ask them, and whatever they say, huh?
Farther more, that saying of Muhammad is confirmed by Baha'u'llah, who recieved new revelation from God.

seriously? You see Moses making himself God? or God making Moses God? in the same way Jesus claimed it? you can't see in the scripture you showed me and I put in context for you that this is not at all what Moses was doing?

as for Mohammad, I will not argue this for them. I argue what you claim my scriptures say not dispute what you say is in theirs. I will however go look up this hadith and see what context it is in.

 

[1robin]

But the way you are explaining the verse is not as the Bible story says:

Actually this is a fascinating verse because of what competant people say it means. I do not give this as something I claim to know is true. It is a very likely and extremely possible interpetation. THis man was an official and learned. He was a ruler (Luke); probably a ruler in a synagogue, or of the great council of the nation; a place to which he was chosen on account of his unblemished character and promising talents. He came running (Mark); evincing great earnestness and anxiety,
Barnes' Notes on the Bible
Many scholars say that he thought he knew what was going on and was merely testing Jesus. Some say he was very legalistic and wanted to debate. Others that he thought he knew but wanted to make sure.

"As Jesus started on his way, a man ran up to him and fell on his knees before him. "Good teacher," he asked, "what must I do to inherit eternal life?
And Jesus said to him, “Why do you call me good? No one is good except God alone."

Barnes' Notes on the Bible
Why callest thou me good? - Why do you give to me a title that belongs only to God? You suppose me to be only a man, yet you give me an appellation that belongs only to God
Scholars have said that Jesus was saying do you actually know who are you are addressing. That he applied a term or title that belongs to only God but he did so to what he thought was merely a man. It is in effect Jesus saying why do you call me God but do not believe it.
Others have said that this verse means that Jesus was signifying that he was not God.
I think the former rather than the latter is closer to the truth.

It is clear, the man already believed in eternal life and this is not the belief of an atheist. The belief in eternal life comes from believing in religions. SO, sorry, your point does not work.

That is true but his status was the same as an Atheist. In other words not approved. This is where it realy gets interesting: Why did he tell him to obey the commandments when in many other instances he says to believe alone?
Barnes' Notes on the Bible

1. because it was his duty to keep them.
2. because the young man depended on them, and he ought to understand what was required if he did - that they should be kept perfectly, or that they were not kept at all. 3. because he wanted to test him, to show him that he did not keep them, and thus to show him his need of a Saviour.

I think the case is number 3.
keep the commandments; that is, perfectly: he must do not only one good thing, but all the good things the law requires; he must not be deficient in any single action, in anyone work of the law, either as to matter, or manner of performance; everything must be done, and that just as the Lord in his law has commanded it. Our Lord answers according to the tenor of the covenant of works, under which this man was; and according to the law of God, which requires perfect obedience to it, as a righteousness, and a title to life; and in case of the least failure, curses and condemns to everlasting death; see Deuteronomy 6:25. This Christ said, in order to show, that it is impossible to enter into, or obtain eternal life by the works of the law, since no man can perfectly keep it; and to unhinge this man from off the legal foundation on which he was, that he might drop all his dependencies on doing good things, and come to him for righteousness and life.
Gill's Exposition of the Entire Bible

It is likely that he was taunting his legalistic foundation for faith. The man was an expert or at least trained in the law. Jesus was not lieing, if the law is perfectly kept then we would get to heaven. I believe he was leading the man to that issue so he could point out that he had not perfectly kept the law and would instead need a savior, but the man's claims that he had done so meant he was still arrogant and proud and that the message would be to no effect.

Reading farther the verses:

[Jesus said]: "But to answer your question, you know the commandments: 'You must not murder. You must not commit adultery. You must not steal. You must not testify falsely. You must not cheat anyone. Honor your father and mother.'"

and the man replied:

"Teacher," the man replied, "I've obeyed all these commandments since I was young."

So, it seems the guy was a believer in God and Moses, and perhaps even believed in Jesus, as He asked Him the question of eternal life.

This is addressed above. However since when the same type of person Nicodemus questioned him on the same issue, the fact that Nicodemus had a heart that was truly open and not arrogant and proud allowed Christ to complete the thought and told him he must be born again. There are two choices and two alone. Either we must obey the law perfectly and therefore be blamless and perfect. Or we must acknowledge that we are not perfect and have sinned and accept through faith Christ's death. That means Christ's perfect record is legally transferred to our account and our faulty one to him which was dealt with at Calvary. That means legally based on his merit we are perfect and have obeyed the law perfectly and can dwell with God. This can not be gained by our effort but would get us to heaven if we could. There is no in between, one or the other.

My statements on the story above are reasonable and are consistent but fall short of what I believe as a fact and therefore normally do not defend. My conclusion is what I believe to be a fact and constantly defend.

 

[Lady B]

Well, you just changed your story. First discribing the man as an Atheist.
By commandmensts, He is refering to the teachings of Moses.
Also, this verse, repudiates the claim of some Christians, who say, all they need to do is have faith in Jesus.
Jesus, farther confirms somewhere else, He who does the commands of His Father, is accepted. Clearly, not His own sayings. If He is a part of God, why HE says, the commands of His father? Why He says all His saying are from the Father, not Himself? If He was part of God, He would say, My own commandments.

I did not change my story, My athiest text was an analogy of my own making ,please do not disrespect me so.

It in no way repudiates anything. "Faith comes by hearing and hearing the word of God"
God doesnt ask us for blind faith, our faith comes from his word.

The sayings of Christ for his father is not making Jesus less than, God the father the son and the Holy Ghost have 3 distinct roles, one is not the other yet all are one. Yes confusing and I am not an expert on explaining the trinity, I do not have to be an expert to believe there is one and even Paul says there is some mystery to this. I do not claim to have all the answers and humbly bow out of Trinity debates. I feel ill equipped in this doctrine but I can explain within my scriptures that Jesus did claim and was claimed as part of the Godhead.

 

[InvestigateTruth]

seriously? You see Moses making himself God? or God making Moses God? in the same way Jesus claimed it? you can't see in the scripture you showed me and I put in context for you that this is not at all what Moses was doing?

as for Mohammad, I will not argue this for them. I argue what you claim my scriptures say not dispute what you say is in theirs. I will however go look up this hadith and see what context it is in.

All the Messengers of God, are the same:

"They only differ in the intensity of their revelation, and the comparative potency of their light. Even as He hath revealed: "Some of the Apostles We have caused to excel the others."
That a certain attribute of God hath not been outwardly manifested by these Essences of Detachment doth in no wise imply that they Who are the Daysprings of God’s attributes and the Treasuries of His holy names did not actually possess it." Baha'u'llah, Book of Certitude


Moreover, as for Muhammad, it is a tradition of Muhammad, that God told Muhammad: "Were it not for you, I would not have created the universe.”
Islamic Hadith quoted by al-Shawkaani in al-Fawaa’id al-Majmoo’ah fi’l-Ahaadeeth al-Mawdoo’ah (p. 326).

The above, is the same claim of Bible, that God created everything for Jesus. By that is meant, ALL Messengers of God.


The above is also confirmed by Baha'u'llah:

"And of all men, the most accomplished, the most distinguished and the most excellent are the Manifestations of the Sun of Truth. Nay, all else besides these Manifestations, live by the operation of their Will, and move and have their being through the outpourings of their grace. "But for Thee, I would have not created the heavens." - Baha'u'llah

Moreover according to other Islamic Hadithes, Muhammad existed before Adam. Even 14000 years before it.
Similar claims as Bible does for Jesus.

Moreover, it is believed for similar reasons, Krishna is also God.

 

[Lady B]

Even within the context, God does not have to make Moses like a God to Aaron, simply because he cannot speak well. If that was the only reason, He could simply say, I make Aaron to be your assistant to say things for you. More over you ignored the first verse, God make Moses a God to Pharoah.

Regarding, letting Moslems answer that Question, the Suffies and some Shias believe that is a Hadith from Muhammad, are not they Moslems? By your own logic, UUs do not believe Jesus is God, So I go and ask them, and whatever they say, huh?
Farther more, that saying of Muhammad is confirmed by Baha'u'llah, who recieved new revelation from God.

could you explain the enlarged text a bit better? I do not get what you are saying here.thanks