IslamiCity.org Homepage
Forum Home Forum Home > Religion - Islam > Interfaith Dialogue
  New Posts New Posts RSS Feed - The Original Sin  What is Islam What is Islam  Donate Donate
  FAQ FAQ  Quran Search Quran Search  Forum Search   Events   Register Register  Login Login

Topic ClosedThe Original Sin

 Post Reply Post Reply Page  <1 3738394041 47>
Author
Message
AhmadJoyia View Drop Down
Senior Member
Senior Member


Joined: 20 March 2005
Status: Offline
Points: 1647
Direct Link To This Post Posted: 10 January 2016 at 8:25pm
Originally posted by BaruchHaba BaruchHaba wrote:

Ahmad Joyia:
"why it took centuries for the 'Holy Spirit' to canonize the Bible and not bothered to preserve the Original? ...Angel Gabriel (commonly known as holy spirit..."
----------
We've gotten far afield of this thread's very important topic on original sin, but I'd like to address the two above erroneous statements made by Ahmad. First, the canonization of the Holy Scriptures was not done easily or by one man, but was a process undertaken by men knowledgeable in the Holy Scriptures. Caringheart has already done a good job in giving you a source to study and in his comparison to Quranic Hadiths. I will simply give you another source you can read for yourself, as there truly is not an easy or short answer to the question of Bible canon: http://www.greek-language.com/bible/palmer/03literaryhistory.html

Canonization through the council of Nicea over several decades at least, if not centuries, is well documented in Britannica Encyclopedia. On the contrary, surprisingly enough that your reference doesn't even mention of this council. For more comprehensive knowledge, here are few references that you may like to read through: http://www.newadvent.org/cathen/11044a.htm
and http://www.britannica.com/event/Council-of-Nicaea-Christianity-325

Originally posted by BaruchHaba BaruchHaba wrote:


Second, where do you get the idea that the Angel Gabriel was "commonly known as holy spirit"? Did you get that from one of the cults (of which there are many)? Such idea is neither Catholic nor Protestant dictum. Gabriel is an angel messenger of God, perhaps the Chief Messenger, whereas the Holy Spirit is the Third Person of the One True God.
While for the Muslims, Quran is the source of this info about the Holy Spirit, but what about my Christian Brothers? What is their source of info, please?

Edited by AhmadJoyia - 10 January 2016 at 8:26pm
Back to Top
BaruchHaba View Drop Down
Newbie
Newbie
Avatar

Joined: 22 November 2015
Status: Offline
Points: 28
Direct Link To This Post Posted: 11 January 2016 at 6:58am
AhmadJoyia: Canonization through the council of Nicea over several decades at least, if not centuries, is well documented in Britannica Encyclopedia. On the contrary, surprisingly enough that your reference doesn't even mention of this council. For more comprehensive knowledge, here are few references that you may like to read through: http://www.newadvent.org/cathen/11044a.htm
and http://www.britannica.com/event/Council-of-Nicaea-Christianity-325
------

Yes, of course, the Council of Nicea is well-known. Actually, there were two Councils of Nicea. The link I provided (at the Canonization section) provides some history on what had taken place prior to the 325CE Council. I found it interesting.

The following are the verses about the angel Gabriel:

Luke 1:19
And the angel answered and said to him, �I am Gabriel, who stands in the presence of God, and was sent to speak to you and bring you these glad tidings.

Luke 1:26
[ Christ�s Birth Announced to Mary ] Now in the sixth month the angel Gabriel was sent by God to a city of Galilee named Nazareth...
Back to Top
MarieFahnert View Drop Down
Starter.
Starter.

Male
Joined: 12 January 2016
Location: United States
Status: Offline
Points: 8
Direct Link To This Post Posted: 12 January 2016 at 12:48am
Originally posted by The Saint The Saint wrote:

Originally posted by kingskid kingskid wrote:




Okay, Saint, I see you may be trying to base your interpretation of what is original sin on the Biblical scriptures you cherry-picked. 

Ok, tell me what did I leave out?


However, if you do not believe the Bible to be the Word of God, why would you use it to debunk what you don't believe in anyway?

I did it to show you that the Bible is inconsistent. One part says something and the other part opposes it. And the Quran gives us a criterion that if anything is from other than Allah it is sure to have discrepancies?

  If it is because you are attempting to persuade me from my own scriptures, it would only work if you did not take verses out of context and twist them to fit into your own beliefs.  You aren't the only Muslim on this site that does this, but it is to no avail when the context is ignored.The concept of original sin, or man's inherent sin nature, goes back before the serpent in the Garden.

I do not like to win arguments for personal glory. I am a slave of Allah. Therefore, I try to present facts to the best of my knowledge. However, if you feel I have quoted out of context, you are welcome to show me and correct me.
As regards the 'earliest source' of the so-called Original Sin, I shall be grateful if you could add to my knowledge. Please tell me.


  It began in Gen. 2:16-17, "<span id="en-NIV-47" ="text="" gen-2-16"=""><sup ="versenum"="">16 And the <span style="font-variant: small-caps" ="small-caps"="">Lord</span> God commanded the man, �You are free to eat from any tree in the garden;</span> <span id="en-NIV-48" ="text="" gen-2-17"=""><sup ="versenum"="">17 but you must not eat from the tree of the knowledge of good and evil, for when you eat from it you will certainly die.�</span>  Adam and Eve disobeyed and they died, not physically of course, but spiritually.  They lost not only their innocence, but more importantly, they lost fellowship with God and were driven out of His presence.  None of the other scriptures you quote pertain to original sin.  And, the Matthew, Mark and Luke scriptures you quote simply do not talk about the sinlessness of little children, but about their simple faith and ability to believe.  Something adults often struggle with.

I think you failed to prove that the idea of the Original Sin predates the serpent incident.


As to the OT and how their sins were atoned for, on the Day of Atonement, the Jewish high priest went into the temple to offer sacrifice for his sins first and then for the sins of the people.  The sacrificial Lamb that he offered was an archetype of Yeshua, Who was to come, the Lamb of God who takes away the sin of the world.  I especially like the J.B. Phillips translation of Rom. 5:15:  " <span id="en-PHILLIPS-1873" ="text="" rom-5-15"=""><sup ="versenum"="">15 But
the gift of God through Christ is a very different matter from the
�account rendered� through the sin of Adam. For while as a result of one
man�s sin death by natural consequence became the common lot of men, it
was by the generosity of God, the free giving of the grace of one man
Jesus Christ, that the love of God overflowed for the benefit of all
men.
</span>


The very doctrine of atonement is severely questionable! It is an inconsistency between the OT and the NT. Invented no doubt by later writers of the Bible as ordered by mortal men to write that which was invented to change the word of God.

You know that the OT is absolutely clear on the issue. Saying that the son must not bear the inequity of the father. Therefore, the idea of the OS is clearly invented by rewriters of the Bible with the objective of raising the status of Jesus PBUH to that of more-than-a -man.


Yeshua did not arrive too late to save the Jews; they had the Day of Atonement, which looked forward to the cross.  For the last two thousand years, Christians look back to the cross and Yeshua's sacrificial death and subsequent resurrection.Yeshua was never raised to the status of a god.  He was God clothed in humanity from His conception.  John 1:1-18

How could Jesus PBUH save nations that preceded him? Your notions are not consistent with the idea you are trying to convey. That he was a universal saviour. The earlier nations had not even heard of doctrines like the OS, Cross, Atonement and so on.


1 In the beginning was the Word, and the Word was with God, and the Word was God. 2 He was with God in the beginning. 3 Through him all things were made; without him nothing was made that has been made. 4 In him was life, and that life was the light of all mankind. 5 The light shines in the darkness, and the darkness has not overcome it.

This still does not make him God, does it?

6 There was a man sent from God whose name was John. 7 He came as a witness to testify concerning that light, so that through him all might believe. 8 He himself was not the light; he came only as a witness to the light.

Yet, Jesus PBUH said about John:Mat 11:11 Verily I say unto you, Among them that are born of women there hath not risen a greater than John the Baptist

9 The true light that gives light to everyone was coming into the world. 10 He was in the world, and though the world was made through him, the world did not recognize him. 11 He came to that which was his own, but his own did not receive him. 12 Yet to all who did receive him, to those who believed in his name, he gave the right to become children of God� 13 children born not of natural descent, nor of human decision or a husband�s will, but born of God.

We are children of God. But not in the sense of being sired by Him. He is our creator, as such we are His children.

14 The Word became flesh and made his dwelling among us. We have seen his glory, the glory of the one and only Son, who came from the Father, full of grace and truth.

Fiction, more likely!

15 (John testified concerning him. He cried out, saying, �This is the one I spoke about when I said, �He who comes after me has surpassed me because he was before me.�)

So, who is right, Jesus PBUH or John?

16 Out of his fullness we have all received grace in place of grace already given. 17 For the law was given through Moses; grace and truth came through Jesus Christ.

Why couldn't grace have come through Moses or Muhammad PBUTB?

18 No one has ever seen God, but the one and only Son, who is himself God and is in closest relationship with the Father, has made him known."

This is a self-contradictory statement. Because if no one has seen God how could Jesus PBUH be seen?

I like your comment
Back to Top
MarieFahnert View Drop Down
Starter.
Starter.

Male
Joined: 12 January 2016
Location: United States
Status: Offline
Points: 8
Direct Link To This Post Posted: 12 January 2016 at 12:51am
Originally posted by The Saint The Saint wrote:

Originally posted by kingskid kingskid wrote:




Okay, Saint, I see you may be trying to base your interpretation of what is original sin on the Biblical scriptures you cherry-picked. 

Ok, tell me what did I leave out?


However, if you do not believe the Bible to be the Word of God, why would you use it to debunk what you don't believe in anyway?

I did it to show you that the Bible is inconsistent. One part says something and the other part opposes it. And the Quran gives us a criterion that if anything is from other than Allah it is sure to have discrepancies?

  If it is because you are attempting to persuade me from my own scriptures, it would only work if you did not take verses out of context and twist them to fit into your own beliefs.  You aren't the only Muslim on this site that does this, but it is to no avail when the context is ignored.The concept of original sin, or man's inherent sin nature, goes back before the serpent in the Garden.

I do not like to win arguments for personal glory. I am a slave of Allah. Therefore, I try to present facts to the best of my knowledge. However, if you feel I have quoted out of context, you are welcome to show me and correct me.
As regards the 'earliest source' of the so-called Original Sin, I shall be grateful if you could add to my knowledge. Please tell me.


  It began in Gen. 2:16-17, "<span id="en-NIV-47" ="text="" gen-2-16"=""><sup ="versenum"="">16 And the <span style="font-variant: small-caps" ="small-caps"="">Lord</span> God commanded the man, �You are free to eat from any tree in the garden;</span> <span id="en-NIV-48" ="text="" gen-2-17"=""><sup ="versenum"="">17 but you must not eat from the tree of the knowledge of good and evil, for when you eat from it you will certainly die.�</span>  Adam and Eve disobeyed and they died, not physically of course, but spiritually.  They lost not only their innocence, but more importantly, they lost fellowship with God and were driven out of His presence.  None of the other scriptures you quote pertain to original sin.  And, the Matthew, Mark and Luke scriptures you quote simply do not talk about the sinlessness of little children, but about their simple faith and ability to believe.  Something adults often struggle with.

I think you failed to prove that the idea of the Original Sin predates the serpent incident.


As to the OT and how their sins were atoned for, on the Day of Atonement, the Jewish high priest went into the temple to offer sacrifice for his sins first and then for the sins of the people.  The sacrificial Lamb that he offered was an archetype of Yeshua, Who was to come, the Lamb of God who takes away the sin of the world.  I especially like the J.B. Phillips translation of Rom. 5:15:  " <span id="en-PHILLIPS-1873" ="text="" rom-5-15"=""><sup ="versenum"="">15 But
the gift of God through Christ is a very different matter from the
�account rendered� through the sin of Adam. For while as a result of one
man�s sin death by natural consequence became the common lot of men, it
was by the generosity of God, the free giving of the grace of one man
Jesus Christ, that the love of God overflowed for the benefit of all
men.
</span>


The very doctrine of atonement is severely questionable! It is an inconsistency between the OT and the NT. Invented no doubt by later writers of the Bible as ordered by mortal men to write that which was invented to change the word of God.

You know that the OT is absolutely clear on the issue. Saying that the son must not bear the inequity of the father. Therefore, the idea of the OS is clearly invented by rewriters of the Bible with the objective of raising the status of Jesus PBUH to that of more-than-a -man.


Yeshua did not arrive too late to save the Jews; they had the Day of Atonement, which looked forward to the cross.  For the last two thousand years, Christians look back to the cross and Yeshua's sacrificial death and subsequent resurrection.Yeshua was never raised to the status of a god.  He was God clothed in humanity from His conception.  John 1:1-18

How could Jesus PBUH save nations that preceded him? Your notions are not consistent with the idea you are trying to convey. That he was a universal saviour. The earlier nations had not even heard of doctrines like the OS, Cross, Atonement and so on.


1 In the beginning was the Word, and the Word was with God, and the Word was God. 2 He was with God in the beginning. 3 Through him all things were made; without him nothing was made that has been made. 4 In him was life, and that life was the light of all mankind. 5 The light shines in the darkness, and the darkness has not overcome it.

This still does not make him God, does it?

6 There was a man sent from God whose name was John. 7 He came as a witness to testify concerning that light, so that through him all might believe. 8 He himself was not the light; he came only as a witness to the light.

Yet, Jesus PBUH said about John:Mat 11:11 Verily I say unto you, Among them that are born of women there hath not risen a greater than John the Baptist

9 The true light that gives light to everyone was coming into the world. 10 He was in the world, and though the world was made through him, the world did not recognize him. 11 He came to that which was his own, but his own did not receive him. 12 Yet to all who did receive him, to those who believed in his name, he gave the right to become children of God� 13 children born not of natural descent, nor of human decision or a husband�s will, but born of God.

We are children of God. But not in the sense of being sired by Him. He is our creator, as such we are His children.

14 The Word became flesh and made his dwelling among us. We have seen his glory, the glory of the one and only Son, who came from the Father, full of grace and truth.

Fiction, more likely!

15 (John testified concerning him. He cried out, saying, �This is the one I spoke about when I said, �He who comes after me has surpassed me because he was before me.�)

So, who is right, Jesus PBUH or John?

16 Out of his fullness we have all received grace in place of grace already given. 17 For the law was given through Moses; grace and truth came through Jesus Christ.

Why couldn't grace have come through Moses or Muhammad PBUTB?

18 No one has ever seen God, but the one and only Son, who is himself God and is in closest relationship with the Father, has made him known."

This is a self-contradictory statement. Because if no one has seen God how could Jesus PBUH be seen?




agree without your suggestion
Back to Top
AhmadJoyia View Drop Down
Senior Member
Senior Member


Joined: 20 March 2005
Status: Offline
Points: 1647
Direct Link To This Post Posted: 12 January 2016 at 1:11am
Originally posted by BaruchHaba BaruchHaba wrote:

AhmadJoyia: Canonization through the council of Nicea over several decades at least, if not centuries, is well documented in Britannica Encyclopedia. On the contrary, surprisingly enough that your reference doesn't even mention of this council. For more comprehensive knowledge, here are few references that you may like to read through: http://www.newadvent.org/cathen/11044a.htm
and http://www.britannica.com/event/Council-of-Nicaea-Christianity-325
------

Yes, of course, the Council of Nicea is well-known. Actually, there were two Councils of Nicea. The link I provided (at the Canonization section) provides some history on what had taken place prior to the 325CE Council. I found it interesting.
Interesting enough to my wonder, how unreliable these books could be, and yet my Christian brothers are so faithful about its contents that sometimes, it appears that their whole faith is totally dependent upon a single word 'the' when it comes to distinguishing betweeen 'a son of God' and 'the son of God'.
Originally posted by BaruchHaba BaruchHaba wrote:


The following are the verses about the angel Gabriel:
Luke 1:19
And the angel answered and said to him, �I am Gabriel, who stands in the presence of God, and was sent to speak to you and bring you these glad tidings.

Can you tell us who's eye witness account is this?
Originally posted by BaruchHaba BaruchHaba wrote:


Luke 1:26
[ Christ�s Birth Announced to Mary ] Now in the sixth month the angel Gabriel was sent by God to a city of Galilee named Nazareth...
Why in the sixth month? Any light on this aspect please?

Edited by AhmadJoyia - 12 January 2016 at 1:13am
Back to Top
airmano View Drop Down
Senior Member
Senior  Member
Avatar

Joined: 31 March 2014
Status: Offline
Points: 884
Direct Link To This Post Posted: 12 January 2016 at 12:05pm
Quote Ahmad:
Can you tell us who's eye witness account is this?
C'mon Ahmad: any independent observers of Gabriel in the cave ?


@Caringheart: Could you try to clarify your position concerning what I wrote about Trinity ?

Airmano

Edited by airmano - 12 January 2016 at 12:07pm
The word God is for me nothing more than the expression and product of human weaknesses (Albert Einstein 1954, in his "Gods Letter")
Back to Top
Caringheart View Drop Down
Senior Member
Senior  Member
Avatar

Joined: 02 March 2012
Status: Offline
Points: 2991
Direct Link To This Post Posted: 12 January 2016 at 3:44pm
Originally posted by AhmadJoyia AhmadJoyia wrote:

  how would you explain where technically the 'virgin birth' concept is opposite to 'literal begotten son'. Choose which one suits your hypothesis. But not both. Don't you think?

Greetings AhmadJoyia,
I don't understand your question.

'begotten not made,
One in being with the Father'


You understand what it means to beget?  It is when a child is born of a human.  Mary was a human, but Yshwe was begotten of God... placed in her womb by God Himself... by the Holy Spirit.
So yes, begotten(brought into the world), through the womb of a virgin.

asalaam and blessings,
Caringheart

note:  I think also, you may have missed my reply on Jan. 8, because of the moderation on this forum.  While your replies post automatically, mine do not... they are 'moderated'. Ermm


Edited by Caringheart - 12 January 2016 at 3:51pm
Let us seek Truth together
Blessed be God forever
"I believe in Jesus as I believe in the sun... not because I see it, but because by it, I see everything else.: - C.S.Lewis
Back to Top
Caringheart View Drop Down
Senior Member
Senior  Member
Avatar

Joined: 02 March 2012
Status: Offline
Points: 2991
Direct Link To This Post Posted: 12 January 2016 at 4:29pm
Originally posted by AhmadJoyia AhmadJoyia wrote:

  While for the Muslims, Quran is the source of this info about the Holy Spirit, but what about my Christian Brothers? What is their source of info, please?

Greetings AhmadJoyia,

Regarding the Holy Spirit, and wherewith do Christians have knowledge...

recorded in the book of John, chapter 14, the words of Yshwe:

16 And I will pray the Father, and he shall give you another Comforter, that he may abide with you for ever;

17 Even the Spirit of truth; whom the world cannot receive, because it seeth him not, neither knoweth him: but ye know him; for he dwelleth with you, and shall be in you.
Here when Yshwe says, 'ye know him for he dwelleth with you', He is referring to Himself who is currently with them, and who has walked with them;
 and when He says, 'and shall be in you', He means that He shall always be with those who seek and know Him.

18 I will not leave you comfortless: I will come to you.

19 Yet a little while, and the world seeth me no more; but ye see me: because I live, ye shall live also.
Yshwe was referring to the coming resurrection.

20 At that day ye shall know that I am in my Father, and ye in me, and I in you.

21 He that hath my commandments, and keepeth them, he it is that loveth me: and he that loveth me shall be loved of my Father, and I will love him, and will manifest myself to him.

22 Judas saith unto him, not Iscariot, Lord, how is it that thou wilt manifest thyself unto us, and not unto the world?

23 Jesus answered and said unto him, If a man love me, he will keep my words: and my Father will love him, and we will come unto him, and make our abode with him.

24 He that loveth me not keepeth not my sayings: and the word which ye hear is not mine, but the Father's which sent me.

25 These things have I spoken unto you, being yet present with you.

26 But the Comforter, which is the Holy Ghost, whom the Father will send in my name, he shall teach you all things, and bring all things to your remembrance, whatsoever I have said unto you.
In other words they would have understanding when the Holy Spirit comes to them... and this happens on Pentacost Sunday, as recorded in the book of Acts, chapter 2.

27 Peace I leave with you, my peace I give unto you: not as the world giveth, give I unto you. Let not your heart be troubled, neither let it be afraid.

28 Ye have heard how I said unto you, I go away, and come again unto you.
If ye loved me, ye would rejoice,
because I said, I go unto the Father:
 for my Father is greater than I.


29 And now I have told you before it come to pass, that, when it is come to pass, ye might believe.

30 Hereafter I will not talk much with you: for the prince of this world cometh, and hath nothing in me.
The prince of this world cometh, meaning the prince of darkness would have rule of the world in the absence of Christ.

31 But that the world may know that I love the Father; and as the Father gave me commandment, even so I do. Arise, let us go hence.
and He says, so that the world may know, let us go hence(let us go forth) and let the Father's will be fulfilled(done)... as the Father commands so the Son obeys.


recorded in the book of John, chapter 15, the words of Yshwe:

25 But this cometh to pass, that the word might be fulfilled that is written in their law, They hated me without a cause.

26 But when the Comforter is come, whom I will send unto you from the Father, even the Spirit of truth, which proceedeth from the Father, he shall testify of me:

27 And ye also shall bear witness, because ye have been with me from the beginning.



and in the book recording the Acts of the Apostles, chapter 2:

And when the day of Pentecost was fully come, they were all with one accord in one place.

2 And suddenly there came a sound from heaven as of a rushing mighty wind, and it filled all the house where they were sitting.

3 And there appeared unto them cloven tongues like as of fire, and it sat upon each of them.

4 And they were all filled with the Holy Ghost, and began to speak with other tongues, as the Spirit gave them utterance.

and you should read (the importance of), the whole of chapter 2, of the book of Acts.
The Holy Spirit came to the Apostles on Pentacost Sunday, just as Yshwe had promised.

We as Christians know of the Holy Spirit because of the things which Yshwe spoke to His Apostles.
We know of the Holy Spirit because the early Christians saw all that Yshwe spoke of come to pass.



Edited by Caringheart - 12 January 2016 at 4:38pm
Let us seek Truth together
Blessed be God forever
"I believe in Jesus as I believe in the sun... not because I see it, but because by it, I see everything else.: - C.S.Lewis
Back to Top
 Post Reply Post Reply Page  <1 3738394041 47>
  Share Topic   

Forum Jump Forum Permissions View Drop Down

Forum Software by Web Wiz Forums® version 12.03
Copyright ©2001-2019 Web Wiz Ltd.