Status of Jesus and Mary in Islam
Printed From: IslamiCity.org
Category: Religion - Islam
Forum Name: Interfaith Dialogue
Forum Description: It is for Interfaith dialogue, where Muslims discuss with non-Muslims. We encourge that dialogue takes place in a cordial atmosphere on various topics including religious tolerance.
URL: https://www.islamicity.org/forum/forum_posts.asp?TID=9018
Printed Date: 23 November 2024 at 8:01am
Software Version: Web Wiz Forums 12.03 - http://www.webwizforums.com
Topic: Status of Jesus and Mary in Islam
Posted By: crasss
Subject: Status of Jesus and Mary in Islam
Date Posted: 01 April 2007 at 12:58am
|
Dear all, I have seriously read the Quran (all 114 suras, that is) and I think I have understood most of it, especially its central point: There is only one God, and there are no other gods, and He has no family members, such as uncles, aunts, wives, daughters or sons, and any such non-existing family members are certainly not humans, and you should never pray to such non-existing human family member of God, because that is just a scam. Point taken and accepted. There are two points, however, where I am still puzzled as to what to think, or what is meant in the Quran. First point. Mary, mother of Jesus The women. 4.156 And for their unbelief and for their having uttered against Mary a grievous calumny. So, the Quran rejects the rather unflattering Jewish view on Mary and how the Jews question her respectability. But then again, Mary was not married when she became pregnant. The Christian bible insists on that point: Matthew 1:18 Now the birth of Jesus Christ was on this wise: When as his mother Mary was espoused to Joseph, before they came together, she was found with child [of the Holy Ghost]. The Koran insists that Jesus is not the son of God. But then, who is Jesus' father? The Koran does, however, say something similar to what the Bible says: Mary 19.17-19.22. then We sent to her Our spirit, and there appeared to her a well-made man. She said: Surely I fly for refuge from you to the Beneficent God, if you are one guarding (against evil). He said: I am only a messenger of your Lord: That I will give you a pure boy. She said: When shall I have a boy and no mortal has yet touched me, nor have I been unchaste? He said: Even so; your Lord says: It is easy to Me: and that We may make him a sign to men and a mercy from Us, and it is a matter which has been decreed. So she conceived him; Even the early Christian scriptures, reject the idea of Jesus conception by a Holy Spirit: Nag Hammadi. Gospel according to Philip. Some said, "Mary conceived by the Holy Spirit." They are in error. They do not know what they are saying. When did a woman ever conceive by a woman? A good example of what the Jewish scriptures say about who is the father of Jesus, is the "Sepher Toldoth Jeshu": 2.32. And peradventure God in his mercy and great goodness will bless me, and bring into my hands this bastard and son of an adulteress. 2.35. Then going through the city he cried out, Where are they who report that this bastard is the Son of God? Note that "Jeshu" in Hebrew means: the Heretic or the Blasphemer. The confrontation of Jewish, Christian, and Islamic sources surrounding who is the father of Jesus, is absolutely confusing. The fact that there is confusion surrounding who exactly is the father of a child, in itself, seriously tarnishes the reputation of the mother. Any comments? Do you know how to exonerate Mary from these charges? Apparently, that is what the Quran wants to do. Second point. Did Jesus, yes or no, endorse the use of the title "Son of God"? The Women. 4.171 O followers of the Book! do not exceed the limits in your religion, and do not speak (lies) against Allah, but (speak) the truth; the Messiah, Isa son of Marium is only an apostle of Allah. The Ranks. 61.6 And when Isa son of Marium said: O children of Israel! surely I am the apostle of Allah The Quran exonerates Jesus from blasphemy: He did not say that he was the son of God. His followers did, but he did not. However, both the Christian and the Jewish scriptures, insist that Jesus did say and endorse the idea that he was the son of God; all of which amounts to blasphemy. The Jews insist that the Sanhedrin sentenced him to death for that very reason. (I'll quote the relevant scriptures another time, if you like). Any comments? |
Replies:
Posted By: fatima
Date Posted: 01 April 2007 at 5:09am
|
Bismillah irrahman irrahim Assalamu alaykum Allah subhanahu wa ta'ala says in Holy Quran that similitude of Isa alyhisalaam is that of adam alayhisalaam. Allah subhanahu wa ta'ala tells us in many places that whenever He wills some thing, He says to it be and it is. We believe Allah subhanahu wa ta'ala created adam alyhisalaam from dust and blew his soul into him and he was an alive human being. So Adam alyhisalaam was created without any parent and that logicaly should have more question marks about it if you putting a question mark to ability of Lord to create a being from a single female. I am sure you are aware of scientific development which enable a human being to perform a process which allows conception through mothers own cells by starting a division process in cells. That is what a human being is capable of so what do you think how hard could it be for his creator? By the way in no way i am saying that it was the process through which Isa alyhisalaam was born. Now about your second question, Holy Quran tells us in various places that Isa alyhisalaam never claimed to be 'son of god'. Now how do you compare it with other scriptures, i would not know because i have no knowledge of those scriptures. So if you want i could move this thread to interfaith and brother BMZ or Brother andalus can help you out inshaAllah. wassalam ------------- Say: (O Muhammad) If you love Allah, then follow me, Allah will love you and forgive you your faults, and Allah is Forgiving, MercifuL |
Posted By: Arab
Date Posted: 01 April 2007 at 6:10am
|
Point one, the Quran defends Mary peace be upon her because if you read the Talmud it says some pretty bad things about her, so bad I cant even say them. Jesus Christ peace be upon him was created like Adam, except that Adam had no mother and no father and Jesus peace be upon him had a mother. Second point, the term son of God literally meant at the time of Jesus servant of God. Never did son of God literally mean son of God as in God's literal son except many many years after the departure of Christ. The OT itself has tons of sons of God's, they are all metaphorical sons of God, servants of God. In Psalms it even says that God told David peace be upon him "this day I have begotten thee". Is it literal? Of course not, its metaphorical.
|
Posted By: rami
Date Posted: 01 April 2007 at 7:24am
|
Bi ismillahir rahmanir raheem forum_posts.asp?TID=425&PN=1" title=" Bi ismillahi al rahman al rahimsorry but i could not give a direct link to the followingJesus Christ The..." target="_self - Jesus Christ and his Beloved Mother the part from THE SECRET OF THE CREATION OF JESUS AND MARY is relavent to your questions, you may or may not need background information to really understand what is before it though. However, both the Christian and the Jewish scriptures, insist that Jesus did say and endorse the idea that he was the son of God; all of which amounts to blasphemy. Yo have to understand the local language and usage of metaphors, in many places in the bible itself Jesus [hs] tells his followers they are the sons of God. This was a common metaphor at the time which was meant in the spiritual sence not the literal sence. If you understand this you will see the common sence and wisdom of his words not a God who talks and prays to himself and who requires human/devine sacrifice ie indicating he is not above and limited to the laws of creation rather than be in complete control of it all. ------------- Rasul Allah (sallah llahu alaihi wa sallam) said: "Whoever knows himself, knows his Lord" and whoever knows his Lord has been given His gnosis and nearness. |
Posted By: crasss
Date Posted: 01 April 2007 at 5:46pm
After reading and reading, and reading again, I have come to the conclusion that the scriptures are not metaphorical at all. They mean exactly what they say, including the Quran. The Word of God is not playing games, really. The bible insists that Jesus endorsed the idea that he was the son of God: Matthew 16:13-17. When Jesus came into the coasts of Caesarea Philippi, he asked his disciples, saying, Whom do men say that I the Son of man am? And they said, Some say that thou art John the Baptist: some, Elias; and others, Jeremias, or one of the prophets.He saith unto them, But whom say ye that I am? And Simon Peter answered and said, Thou art the Christ, the Son of the living God.And Jesus answered and said unto him, Blessed art thou, Simon Barjona: for flesh and blood hath not revealed it unto thee, but my Father which is in heaven. Jesus would have endorsed it in the city of Caesarea Philippi. And the idea would have come from Simon ibn Jonah, also known by his Greek name, Petros. There are 2 possibilities: Either this passage is a complete lie, and Jesus never said this; or else, the statement amounts to blasphemy, and the Sanhedrin, the supreme court of the Jews, was right to sentence him to death for blasphemy. What is the truth? Only one of both can be true. |
rami wrote:Posted By: crasss
Date Posted: 01 April 2007 at 6:08pm
By definition, the first human being cannot have been born from a human being. Otherwise the human being from which he was born, would have been the first human being. Recursively, we must arrive to one human being which was not born from another human being. The reasoning is similar to the Kalam Cosmological Argument. There must therefore be a beginning. To the Universe, to Human Beings, to everything actually. The Jewish scriptures and the Islamic scriptures are usually very much in synch with each other. They actually say the same things, except for one notable exception: (1) How did Mary conceive? (2) Who exactly is responsible for the "Son of God" blasphemy? My conjecture is that the two problems are related. "Isa ibn Maria" must sound insulting, just like "Achmed ibn Nadia". Calling a person after his mother, obviously sounds derogatory. It amounts to saying that no man claims fatherhood over the child; which amounts to saying that the mother obtained her pregnancy in a questionable way. According to the bible, Jesus went through life as "ibn Adam", the "Son of Man". The crowds, and especially the Jewish clergy kept calling him "Son of Mary". According to the bible, the whole situation degenerated when his disciples raised the stakes and started calling him "ibn Allah". Is this conjecture true, or is it possible to exonerate Jesus and his disciples from the Jewish accusation of blasphemy? |
Posted By: rami
Date Posted: 01 April 2007 at 6:54pm
|
Bi ismillahir rahmanir raheem What is the truth? Only one of both can be true. that is a condition you lone have placed on this after not being able to see any further posabilities, the following is taken from the work "what did jesus really say. "The most significant development since 1986 in this regard has been the discovery of the title "Son of God" in one of the Qumran papyri (Dead Sea Scrolls) used in relation to a person other than Jesus.....this simply reinforces the argument made there that to be called the Son of God in a Jewish setting in the first century is not by any means the same as being identical with God Himself." For Christ's Sake, pp. xii.How many sons does the Bible tell us that God Almighty has? - Jacob is God's son and firstborn: "Israel is my son, even my firstborn" Exodus 4:22. - Solomon is God's son "He shall build an house for my name, and I will establish the throne of his kingdom for ever. I will be his father, and he shall be my son": 2 Samuel 7:13-14. - Ephraim is God's firstborn: "for I am a father to Israel, and Ephraim is my firstborn." Jeremiah 31:9 (who is God's firstborn? Israel or Ephraim?). - Adam is the son of God "Adam, which was the son of God." Luke 3:38. - Common people (you and me) are the sons of God: "Ye are the children of the LORD your God" Deuteronomy 14:1. "For as many as are led by the Spirit of God, they are the sons of God" Romans 8:14. "But as many as received him, to them gave he power to become the sons of God, [even] to them that believe on his name:" John 1:12. "That ye may be blameless and harmless, the sons of God, without rebuke, in the midst of a crooked and perverse nation, among whom ye shine as lights in the world;" Philippians 2:15. "Behold, what manner of love the Father hath bestowed upon us, that we should be called the sons of God: ... now are we the sons of God" 1 John 3:1-2. "When the morning stars sang together, and all the sons of God shouted for joy?" Job 38:7. "Again there was a day when the sons of God came to present themselves before the LORD," Job 2:1. "Now there was a day when the sons of God came to present themselves before the LORD," Job 1:6. "when the sons of God came in unto the daughters of men," Genesis 6:4. "That the sons of God saw the daughters of men that they [were] fair" Genesis 6:2 As we can see, the use of the term "son of God" when describing normal human beings was not at all an uncommon practice among Jesus' people. Well then, was Jesus the only begotten son of God? Read Psalms 2:7 "I will declare the decree: the LORD hath said unto me (King David, King), Thou art my Son; this day have I begotten thee.". Indeed, the Jews are even referred to as much more than this in the Bible, and this is indeed the very trait which Jesus (pbuh) held against them. When the Jews picked up stones to stone Jesus (pbuh) he defended himself with the following words "Jesus answered them, Is it not written in your law, 'I said, Ye are gods?' If he called them gods, unto whom the word of God came, and the scripture cannot be broken..." John 10:34: (he was referring to Psalms 82:6 "I have said, Ye are gods; and all of you are children of the most High..") As we can see from these and many other verses like them, "son of God" in the language of the Jews was a very innocent term used to describe a loyal servant of God. Whether the translators and editors chose to write it as "Son of God" (with a capital S) in reference to Jesus and "son of God" (with a small S) in reference to everyone else does not diminish the fact that in the original language, both cases are exactly the same. Are we beginning to see what drove the most learned men of the Anglican Church to recognize the truth? But let us move on. Grolier's encyclopedia, under the heading "Jesus Christ," says: "During his earthly life Jesus was addressed as rabbi and was regarded as a prophet. Some of his words, too, place him in the category of sage. A title of respect for a rabbi would be "my Lord." Already before Easter his followers, impressed by his authority, would mean something more than usual when they addressed him as "my Lord.".... it is unlikely that the title "Son of David" was ascribed to him or accepted by him during his earthly ministry. "Son of God," in former times a title of the Hebrew kings (Psalms 2:7), was first adopted in the post-Easter church as an equivalent of Messiah and had no metaphysical connotations (Romans 1:4). Jesus was conscious of a unique filial relationship with God, but it is uncertain whether the Father/Son language (Mark 18:32; Matt. 11:25-27 par.; John passim) goes back to Jesus himself" . There seems to be only two places in the Bible where Jesus (pbuh) refers to himself as "son of God." They are in John chapters 5 and 11. Hastings in "The dictionary of the Bible" says: "Whether Jesus used it of himself is doubtful." Regardless, we have already seen what is meant by this innocent title. However, Jesus is referred to as the "son of Man" (literally: "Human being") 81 times in the books of the Bible. In the Gospel of Barnabas, we are told that Jesus (pbuh) knew that mankind would make him a god after his departure and severely cautioned his followers from having anything to do with such people. Jesus was not the son of a human man (according to both the Bible and the Qur'an). However, we find him constantly saying "I am the son of man." Why?. It was because in the language of the Jews, that is how you say "I am a human being." What was he trying to tell us by constantly repeating and emphasizing to us throughout the New Testament "I am a human being," "I am a human being," "I am a human being"?. What had he foreseen? Think about it!. Do Christians emphasize this aspect of Jesus? The New Testament Greek word translated as "son" are "pias" and "paida" which mean "servant," or "son in the sense of servant." These are translated to "son" in reference to Jesus and "servant" in reference to all others in some translations of the Bible (see below). As we are beginning to see, one of the most fundamental reasons why Jesus (pbuh) is considered God is due to extensive mistranslation. ------------- Rasul Allah (sallah llahu alaihi wa sallam) said: "Whoever knows himself, knows his Lord" and whoever knows his Lord has been given His gnosis and nearness. |
Posted By: crasss
Date Posted: 01 April 2007 at 8:54pm
Both the Jewish and the Christian scriptures insist that the Supreme Court of the Roman province of Judea, the Sanhedrin, having no right to issue a death penalty, insisted with the Roman colonial powers to execute that death penalty against someone, who was a fellow Jew. The Sanhedrin went to great length to have this death penalty executed.
The Jewish clergy was a separate class. The Torah endorses this, and insists that a rabbi must descend from the tribe of Levi, and must be pure of race. The Torah accidentally or perhaps voluntarily institutes a hereditary class of nobles, the Jewish Lords, and all Jews were supposed to tithe to them: "Give to God what belongs to God" means no more or no less, than that Jewish religion mandates to pay taxes to this hereditary class of nobles.
The Gospel of Barnabas indeed exonerates Jesus of blasphemy. The Quran also exonerates Jesus of blasphemy. The Jewish scriptures, however, insist that he was a blasphemer, and the Christian scriptures endorse this point of view. The point is very important. If Jesus did endorse this blasphemy in any way, he is bears responsibility for the ensuing nightmare.
He was not "bin Yusuf". Everybody apparently knew it. So, who was he? "bin who?". This was a big problem. Mary got pregnant, and nobody apparently knew what exactly happened. You can imagine what people were saying. Indeed. This whole problem runs as a red thread through Christian scriptures, especially given the fact that the Jewish scriptures repeat and repeat again, a whole host of accusations against Mary.
I seriously doubt that this is the result of a mistranslation. At the time, the Roman empire was held together by religious obedience to the emperor. The emperor was a God, and praying to the emperor was compulsory. Anybody who refused to pray to the emperor was to be persecuted, all across the empire. There were two kinds of people, who refused to pray to the emperor. The first kind were the Jews: "There is only one God, and it is not the emperor." After the bar Kochka rebellion in the Jewish colonial provinces of Judea, Samaria, and Galilea, the emperor killed as many Jews a he possible could, except for the survivors who managed to run away. The second kind, were people who looked in amazement at these Jews. This Jewish religion was simply a fantastic instrument to counter the emperor. How can the emperor be a god is there is only one God? So, they adopted a rather relaxed variation on this Jewish religion, and started circulating subversive scriptures throughout the empire. The emperor would regularly persecute and kill these monotheists. But then again, how do you know what someone really believes? So, this persecution was doomed to become a failure. Three hunderd years later, emperor Constantine understood that he could not win from the monotheists. So, he legalized Christianity. However, he cleverly understood that he had to regulate it. He thereto ordered the bundling of endorsed Christian religious scriptures into one book: the Bible. At the same time, he decreed that anybody who possessed a non-endorsed Christian scripture would face the death penalty. All other scriptures had to be destroyed. The essence of the Constantine Christian scriptures, the Bible, is that Jesus is the Lord. Everybody must obey to the Lord and pray to the Lord. And the Emperor is also a Lord and must therefore also be obeyed. And anybody whom the Emperor appoints in his service is also a Lord and must also be obeyed. And any other version of Christianity or abrahamic monotheism carries the death penalty. In Constantine monotheism, it is insufficient to submit to the heavenly Lord. You shall also submit to the worldy Lord, or else you shall go to hell. Note that Islam is effectively such other version of monotheism. Therefore, the Quran is again correct. (Trinitarian) Christianity is effectively a slavery system, and will invariably attempt to enslave you too. Therefore, war between Trinitarians and Muslims is absolutely inevitable. If you refuse to fight, you will simply become their slaves. |
Posted By: rami
Date Posted: 02 April 2007 at 12:03am
|
Bi ismillahir rahmanir raheem The Jewish scriptures, however, insist that he was a blasphemer, and the Christian scriptures endorse this point of view. The point is very important. If Jesus did endorse this blasphemy in any way, he is bears responsibility for the ensuing nightmare. This is the first time i have heard this, it is my understanding that he was persecuted for claiming to be the messiah a figure who the jews at the time and now are still waiting for, he was not persecuted for claiming to be god. He was not "bin Yusuf". Everybody apparently knew it. So, who was he? "bin who?". He was not claiming to be the literal son of man but a human being ie a non divine individual. This whole problem runs as a red thread through Christian scriptures, especially given the fact that the Jewish scriptures repeat and repeat again, a whole host of accusations against Mary. i place little credibility in the jewish scriptures as they have no known author, this aspect is nothing more than a historical account not devine revelation or inspiration and certainly open for manipulation. as the modern saying goes the winners write history. it would be interesting to know when the final verses of the torah where added. My earlier post was to establish that the term son of god was not used in the literal sense and i think i have established that. ------------- Rasul Allah (sallah llahu alaihi wa sallam) said: "Whoever knows himself, knows his Lord" and whoever knows his Lord has been given His gnosis and nearness. |
Posted By: crasss
Date Posted: 02 April 2007 at 1:30am
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Sanhedrin_Trial_of_Jesus All the Synoptic Gospels state that Jesus was asked by the Sanhedrin if Jesus was Christ, Son of God, and Jesus responding with confirmation. ... This does, however, seem irrelevant to the case at hand and so the translation the Christ, the Son of God has consequently remained the preferred, more logical choice, seeing as how it is on par with the blasphemy charge driven against him by the members of the Sanhedrin. ...Pilate initially wanted the Jews to judge Jesus by their own laws, but that the Jews object since they want to execute Jesus but don't have the legal authority... The problem was that the Sanhedrin could not kill him, and they wanted him dead.
These scriptures insist that the Sanhedrin went to great length, including serious violations of procedural formalities, and political insanities, to have Jesus executed. According to the scriptures, they used covert political threats to the Romans, who were reluctant to kill him, in order to force them to do so. The Sanhedrin was convinced that Jesus had committed unforgivable blasphemy, as he was literally calling himself the Son of God. The Christian Gospels agree that this happened exactly so: with Matthew and Mark adding that the high priest rent his clothes and said that Jesus' responses were blasphemy. The Jewish and Christian scriptures all concur on this issue: he called himself the Son of God. And if he did so, he is responsible for the nightmare that followed. |
Posted By: Arab
Date Posted: 02 April 2007 at 4:50am
| crasss are you here to debate? It was demonstrated to you that there are tons of sons of God in the OT, and that Jesus' language had the saying son of God which meant servant of God. Now, it is up to you to decide, we cant make that decision for you. |
Posted By: Doo-bop
Date Posted: 02 April 2007 at 6:33am
|
Rami wrote:- "Do Christians emphasize this aspect of Jesus? The New Testament Greek word translated as "son" are "pias" and "paida" which mean "servant," or "son in the sense of servant." These are translated to "son" in reference to Jesus and "servant" in reference to all others in some translations of the Bible (see below). As we are beginning to see, one of the most fundamental reasons why Jesus (pbuh) is considered God is due to extensive mistranslation." This is an extraordinary paragraph. I only know of 3 occasions in the New Testament when the word pias (actually pais) is used with reference to the LJC. (I hope you will inform me of the others, should there be any). They are Matthew 12: 18, where the word is translated servant, Acts 4: 27, 30, where the word is translated child in the AV, but corrected to servant in the RV and in all other modern translations I know of. This is doubtless the correct rendering, as Christ is presented in the New Testament as Yahweh's perfect servant. But he is also presented to us as the Son of God, the Son of man, or simply as the Son, on many occasions. Are you saying that in all of these instances pais is used? |
Posted By: crasss
Date Posted: 02 April 2007 at 7:07am
The essence of the Quran is to defeat the concept that God would have family members, because that is exactly what Christian religion preaches. The whole "Son of God" idea is a nightmare and the Quran rallies against it again and again. It is simply the single most important message in the Quran: There is only one God and He has no family members! |
Posted By: Doo-bop
Date Posted: 02 April 2007 at 7:57am
Why you should be obfuscating the specific issue I raised with this blarney, I do not know |
Posted By: Patty
Date Posted: 02 April 2007 at 10:51am
|
Jesus was born to the virgin Mary, by the power of the Holy Spirit, as it was also explained to her by the angel, Gabriel in the Gospel of Luke. This was also explained to her soon to be husband, Joseph. That she would conceive a son through the Holy Spirit. Afterall, God can do anything, can't he? This was told in the 4 gospels. Jesus mentioned several time in the Gospels (from His own words) that he was sent to earth by the Father (God) to redeem the world. He also said he was God (the Father). He told Phillip, when Phillip was asking him to show the disciples the Father, this "Phillip, so long you have known me, yet you do not know the Father? You have seen me, therefore, you have seen the Father." He came as the perfect sacrifice for our sins. Jesus was sent to earth as the Son of God as the Sacrificial Lamb. "He has not come to condemn the world, but that the world through Him might be saved." In John 14:1, before he ascended into Heaven, Jesus said, "Let not your heart be troubled," He said; "ye believe in God, believe also in Me. In My Father's house are many mansions: if it were not so, I would have told you. I go to prepare a place for you. And if I go and prepare a place for you, I will come again, and receive you unto Myself; that were I am, there ye may be also. And whither I go ye know, and the way ye know." So I think the Bible makes it implicitly clear that Jesus is the Son of God, born of the Virgin Mary, conceived through the power of the Holy Spirit. He speaks many times to his Father who is in Heaven. If you get the English version of the Latin Vulgate, you will learn much. God's Peace to You. ------------- Patty I don't know what the future holds....but I know who holds the future. |
Posted By: crasss
Date Posted: 02 April 2007 at 11:17am
That's not what the Jews say.
God has no family members: no aunts, no uncles, no wives, no daughters, and no sons.
You mean emperor Constantine's forgeries, the so-called bible? Why did all other Christian scriptures have to be destroyed? Why did it carry the death penalty to own one of these more truthful scriptures?
What a blasphemous statement. By the way, why do you call Jesus "The Lord", and every single self-serving scumbag in the House of Lords in London also "a Lord"? Praise the Lord! Give thanks to the Lord! We love the Lord! Is that what you teach the kids? To pray to a scumbag in the House of Lords? |
Posted By: Patty
Date Posted: 02 April 2007 at 11:27am
|
I'm sorry you are so mixed up. I have tried to explain from the Christian/Catholic point of view. You need help from someone much wiser than I. You have much anger and hatred in you. Seek help. God's Blessings Upon You. ------------- Patty I don't know what the future holds....but I know who holds the future. |
Posted By: Arab
Date Posted: 02 April 2007 at 12:11pm
|
I disagree with Patty because the OT says that no man can see God and live thus I believe Christ pbuh meant that metaphorically. But thats not our topic so Craasss arent u Christian? Why are u mad at our dear Patty? |
Posted By: Patty
Date Posted: 02 April 2007 at 2:48pm
Yes, Arab my dear friend, the OT does say that no MAN can see God and live.....here is where we disagree. Jesus Christ (in my religion) was not just a man....he was God, the 2nd person of the Trinity. We could hash this over til the end of time,couldn't we? crasss is mad at the world...not just me, but thank you for being so nice. Take Care and God Bless,
------------- Patty I don't know what the future holds....but I know who holds the future. |
Posted By: mochiah
Date Posted: 02 April 2007 at 3:45pm
|
No its his name in his mother tongue hebrew. Mariah wasnt brithish neither american!!! Examples: Moshe Moses Avraham Abraham Itshak Isaac Jaacov Jacob Shlomo Solomon Chavakuk Habakkuk Chaggai Haggai Yehoshua Joshua Yechezkiel Ezekiel Yonah Jonah Yirmiyahu Jeremiah Yeshayahu Isaiah Shmuel Samuel Esav Esau Miriam Mariah Jeshu Jesus |
Posted By: mochiah
Date Posted: 02 April 2007 at 5:05pm
|
Yunus-68 They say: Allah hath taken (unto Him) a son - Glorified be He! He hath no needs! His is all that is in the heavens and all that is in the earth. Ye have no warrant for this. Tell ye concerning Allah that which ye know not?
Surah 18
1. Praise be to Allah, Who hath sent to His Servant the Book, and hath allowed therein no Crookedness: 2. (He hath made it) Straight (and Clear) in order that He may warn of a terrible Punishment from Him, and that He may give Glad Tidings to the Believers who work righteous deeds, that they shall have a goodly Reward, 3. Wherein they shall remain for ever: 4. Further, that He may warn those (also) who say, "(Allah) hath begotten a son": 5. No knowledge have they of such a thing, nor had their fathers. It is a grievous thing that issues from their mouths as a saying what they say is nothing but falsehood! 6. Thou wouldst only, perchance, fret thyself to death, following after them, in grief, if they believe not in this Message. |
Posted By: crasss
Date Posted: 02 April 2007 at 8:46pm
And that is exactly what emperor Constantine wanted: Jesus is God. Jesus is the Lord. Jesus is perfect and so much better than you. You must obey to the Lord. I, emperor Constantine, am also a Lord. You must obey to me too. My generals are also Lords. You must obey to them too. From there, it gets extended into: Look at the picture, Jesus is a white, European man. Jesus is the Lord. Only white, European men can be Lords. They are so much better than you. You must obey to the Lord. You must obey to all the Lords. Your religion is the same racist Lordist slavery system as the polytheist slavery system the Roman empire had before. They just replaced one form of enslaving polytheism with another. The Quran is absolutely right. |
Posted By: rami
Date Posted: 03 April 2007 at 5:58am
|
Bi ismillahir rahmanir raheem http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Sanhedrin_Trial_of_Jesus If you like i can edit that page to say something else, will you then change your belief and agree with me.....get my point. All the Synoptic Gospels state that Jesus was asked by the Sanhedrin if Jesus was Christ, Son of God, and Jesus responding with confirmation. ... This does, however, seem irrelevant to the case at hand and so the translation the Christ, the Son of God has consequently remained the preferred, more logical choice, seeing as how it is on par with the blasphemy charge driven against him by the members of the Sanhedrin. this defies logic, the jews of the time where waiting for the messiah or anointed one, jesus claimed he was this messiah. The jewish messiah was another great prophet of god according to them, so to claim this messiah according to jewish scriptures would come and claim he was the son of god is plainly putting words in the mouth of jesus and ignoring what jews themselves say about the awaited messiah. Even if he had said the words i am the messiah son of god this would clearly be in line with the common usage of that term at the time because who would then be closer to god then he would be and more deserving of the term. It is obvious that the claim "christ, son of god" is convoluted and not the original wording, its basically an oxymoron to claim you are the awaited jewish messiah and the literal son of god you cant be both at the same time and even more so to the jewish community. when a woman poured expensive perfumed oils over him, an anointed, a son of God is simply a very naturalistic and fairly worldly statement for Jesus to confirm. anointed by God not some women, the article has the audacity to claim the two are the same and fails to mention this other more obvious understanding of the term. Anointed:To choose by or as if by divine intervention. the entire case falls apart at this point here. As many Christian scholars have conceded the idea of the trinity did not come until much later and not in the time of jesus himself. This is also confirmed by the fact that the term "Trinity" exists nowhere in the bible itself. It is amazing that something so "apparently" central to Christian belief is not mentioned or addressed in any clear terms but is the culmination of understanding certain passages in the Bible as Christian scholars them selfs admit. ------------- Rasul Allah (sallah llahu alaihi wa sallam) said: "Whoever knows himself, knows his Lord" and whoever knows his Lord has been given His gnosis and nearness. |
Posted By: crasss
Date Posted: 03 April 2007 at 7:22am
I don't know what to think about it. The scriptures are not conclusive. And there are too many Jewish and early pre-Constantine Christian scriptures saying this, to summarily dismiss the case.
The Trinity is most of all a political instrument. It justifies the central tenet of Christianity: You must submit to the Heavenly Lord, but you must also submit to the worldly Lord, and you must also submit to all his sub-Lords. This explains why at least half, probably more, of the western population hates religion (Christianity), and became atheist. Christianity is indeed a detestable religion. If religion can work in an enslaving way, it can also work in a liberating way. How can you be the slave of a worldly Lord, if you are already the slave of God? But then again, some of this hate of religion (Christianity) explains a large part of the hate of Islam in the West. Most people in the West believe that all religions are enslaving, and therefore bad. At the same time, atheism will increasingly lose its appeal. The atheist system increasingly prevents people from having functional families and raising kids. Atheism will therefore turn out to be self-defeating. In the meanwhile, the old nemesis of Lordism, socialism/communism have consistently proven to be losers. Therefore, there is no simple alternative to the current economic models. However, removing the privileges from the people the system obviously favours over others, should go a long way in building a more equitable system. The American Lordists will inevitably run into serious problems with their own underclasses. The harsher they oppress them, the more they will become sympathetic to Islam. It is inevitable that Islam will unify all their enemies. The dynamics are such that, if the Muslims keep fighting, Islam is bound to eventually win. |
Posted By: Doo-bop
Date Posted: 03 April 2007 at 12:26pm
|
Crasss, you know, when I read in forums how people start speaking against concepts (eg. Lordism) which they themselves have made up, I do begin to wonder what their motives are. Surely there are enough real things in the world to speak against without making others up.... Rami, you have not answered my question about pais |
Posted By: crasss
Date Posted: 03 April 2007 at 7:02pm
Look, the observation that Christianity is a slavery system, has been consistently argued for 250 years now. The American revolutionaries seriously distrusted Christianity. The French revolutionaries banned Christianity. The Russian revolutionaries banned Christianity. In order to get rid of the Lords, you must get rid of Christianity, because Christianity amounts to Lordism. And we're back to square one, because now we are facing an American Lordist elite that is trying to enslave the entire planet. But, don't worry, we did it before, and we'll do it again. We cannot let the American Lordist elite win against the Muslims. |
Posted By: Doo-bop
Date Posted: 03 April 2007 at 8:30pm
|
Ok, so some christians used to have slaves (I don't know of any who have nowadays), and you conclude from this that christianity is a "slavery system". But many muslims today have slaves, are you saying that islam is not a slavery system? You seem to be saying that islam is not "lordist" (whatever this ridiculous word means), so how come muslims have slaves? Or are you saying that slavery not caused by "lordism" is not so bad as slavery caused by it? Also, America did get rid of the Lords (without getting rid of christianity). Same with Russia, same with France. They still have christianity. Also, contrary to your claim, there is a muslim lord. Google "Lord Ahmad" and read all about him. And yes, he sits in the your beloved House of Lords |
Posted By: crasss
Date Posted: 03 April 2007 at 10:52pm
Wrong. To be Christian, is to be a slave, a SERF. Jesus is the Lord, and the owner of your land is also a Lord, and you are the SERF.
Indeed. Muslims are not supposed to be the slaves (serfs) of the Lord who owns their farm land. Nothing in Islam would justify that. So, Islam is not a slavery system.
That ridiculous word "Lord" is the key to everything. Jesus is the "Lord". The owner of your farm land is also a "Lord". All these Lords make the laws and run the show. What else is that other than Lordism?
You really don't get it: There is a great difference between being a slave and owning slaves. Muslims may own slaves, but themselves can only be the slaves of God and no one else. Therefore, Muslims cannot massively own other Muslims as slaves. It wouldn't work. I am already the slave of God, so how can I be your slave? The easiest way as a slave to get rid of a Muslim slave owner, is to claim that you are already the slave of God. These Muslim slave owners will have no choice than to eventually release all their Muslim slaves. And that is exactly how it worked. The islamic system gradually expunges slavery, because it is simply not feasible to own Muslim slaves. If there's too many of them, it automatically foments rebellion.
The Prophet (pbuh) allowed the Muslims to own slaves, because he very well knew that owning slaves would eventually be self-defeating. As soon as the slave declares that he is the slave of God, he will be unable to serve two masters. Slavery to a slave owner can only persist if the slaves accept that they are slaves to that slave owner. Islam automatically invalidates that concept, by insisting that Muslims are already the slaves of God.
The French banned Christianity during the revolution; and the Russians effectively persecuted Christianity. And they were damn right: If you keep praying to the Lord, one day or the other, the Lords will be back.
He is a traitor. Using hereditary honorific titles that makes you better than the others, amounts to high treason. |
Posted By: Doo-bop
Date Posted: 04 April 2007 at 8:31am
|
For the record, Crasss, only last week, here in the UK, we celebrated the 200th anniversary of the Abolition of the Slave Trade Act (1807). Read about it here, in this simple article:- http://www.spartacus.schoolnet.co.uk/Lslavery07.htm - http://www.spartacus.schoolnet.co.uk/Lslavery07.htm The house of lords had to be coaxed a bit, but they eventually passed it. In 1833, slavery itself was abolished in the UK. Isn't it strange that these lords managed to do this long before any muslim state? (Despite the "prophet's" knowledge "that owning slaves would eventually be self-defeating.") Or do you know of a muslim state that managed it before this? (Do let me know) |
Posted By: crasss
Date Posted: 04 April 2007 at 9:34am
Isn't he the "landlord"? I am surprised that they don't call the bank director: the Bank Lord. That's probably how they feel anyway.
No, because nobody can know what you believe or don't believe. You can declare whatever you like. So, a non-muslim can always declare to be a muslim to get rid of his slave owner, regardless of what he really believes.
No, because Allah cannot be a man. No one can claim to be Allah, the son of Allah, or the family friend of Allah. You can call Allah/God with all the honorific titles that you want. It is totally undangerous to call God/Allah with honorific titles, because no human being can claim the same status anyway.
Praise the Lords! Give thanks to the Lords! We love the Almighty Lords!
You cannot change the colour of your skin, but you can always pretend whatever about what you believe.
Indeed. Nobody can know what you really believe. So, you are indeed supposed to say, concerning your beliefs, what serves your interests best in the given situation.
How can anybody be forced to become muslim, if they don't want to? I am now a Hindu. Happy? No, a Buddhist, actually. Or no, something else. Who the hell knows what I really believe?
Exactly. There cannot be compulsion in religion, because nobody can possibly know what you really believe.
How can such muslim slave owner know that a particular slave is not a muslim? Everybody believes what he wants and says about his beliefs what he wants.
I don't know the particulars of those situations, really.
I've looked back a thousand years, and I see the same patterns re-emerging all the time. Some people get privileges to the detriment of others. It is still the same story today. We need a set of beliefs, say a religion, that prevents Lordism from ever emerging again; otherwise, we will never get rid of it.
You were and are still SERFS. Which amounts to the same as SLAVES. And by the way, there are sufficient other insidious ways to enslave people, which have exactly the same effect as slavery. Do you really believe that the Indian koolies stopped working like dogs for a pittance? They were still beaten up for not producing enough cotton. And travelling from one village to another still required permission from the resident "Lord". First, you make them believe that THEY MUST OBEY THE LAW. Next, you start manipulating the law, so that you and your friends get all the privileges. Ok. Religion can counter this. We believe that GOD HAS MADE ALL THE LAWS ALREADY. There are no valid new laws. I may be a poor exploited koolie, but I know that GOD HAS MADE ALL THE LAWS ALREADY. You are not God, and therefore YOU CANNOT MAKE ANY NEW LAWS.
Slavery wasn't abolished, because the former slaves were still subjected to the same harsh rules and treatment as before. You're not a slave, but you will still harvest 10 hectares of coffee for me, for the "agreed" pittance price, or else ...
You were always able to have yourself released, with a bit of patience, by refraining yourself from worshipping unnecessary additional gods. I don't say that a whole bunch of these slave owners were not arseholes, but there was a way out. What's more, freeing a slave has always been looked upon as an act of piety. I don't believe that any society can match the cruelty with which the white, European Christians colonized most of the planet. And they thought it was right to do that, because Jesus is the Lord, and the Lord is a white, European man. And the Lord is better than everybody else. |
Posted By: Doo-bop
Date Posted: 04 April 2007 at 12:08pm
|
This concludes this "discussion" on lordism/slavery, at least from my point of view. I can see no purpose in continuing. Might I suggest you return to the topic of the thread? |
Posted By: mochiah
Date Posted: 04 April 2007 at 6:05pm
|
the Quran says that Iesa al Massi isnt the machiach but only a messenger. |
Posted By: crasss
Date Posted: 04 April 2007 at 6:16pm
So, then why do you call Jesus the Lord? And why do you call a whole bunch of other people Lords too?
So, why do your "Christian" countries try to force all kind of new laws onto other countries, in order to restrict their people's freedom? Slavery is the ultimate restriction of freedom. Wholesale slavery can be achieved by a sufficient number of new laws.
So, I am now muslim. Happy now? That kind of declarations means nothing. You cannot possibly know who is muslim, and who is not.
You completely misunderstand dhimmitude. The muslims defeated the Christian Lords in battle. After that, they found theirs serfs. They asked their serfs: Do you still want to pray to a Lord? Yes. Ok, how much did you pay to your Lord? Ok. Now you pay the same to me. The muslims treated the dhimmi serfs exactly the same way as their own Christian Lords treated them before. If the dhimmis thought that they wanted to be treated as muslims, the only thing they had to do, was to say that they were also muslim. If you are a Christian serf, and you pray to "The Lord", you obviously want to obey to the Lords. You want to have Lords! Ok. In that case, we will be your Lords. What is there unfair about that?
http://dictionary.reference.com/browse/serf 1. a person in a condition of servitude, required to render services to a lord, commonly attached to the lord's land and transferred with it from one owner to another. 2. a slave. Middle English, from Old French, from Latin servus, slave.
Then the emperor will be one of your unnecessary gods. Then, the Lord will be one of your unnecessary gods. And you will call the emperor "Lord".
Most slaves were prisoners of war. Ok. You defeat the other side. You round up the survivors. What do you do with them? You have to feed them anyway. Ok, then let them work for it. Eventually, most of them would be released one way or another. They would spend a few years in captivity, but there was no point in keeping them in servitude forever.
Even that is not sure. Quite a few Jewish scriptures insist that he was the biological son of a Roman soldier.
Lord Jesus or Lord Goldsmith?
Concede defeat, if you cannot counter the arguments.
The topic is "Jesus and Mary" in Islam. Ok. These is the one single point in the Quran where I cannot simply accept what is written, because too many other scriptures seriously insist on a different version of the truth. The Quran exonerates Mary from sexual misbehaviour and Jesus from blasphemy. The Jewish and Christian scriptures seriously insist otherwise. What is the truth? |
Posted By: crasss
Date Posted: 04 April 2007 at 7:09pm
The Quran seriously saves Jesus. I am not sure why. From a political point of view, adopting the Jewish view, would have been completely understandable. The Quran doesn't. The Quran insist that Jesus is not a blasphemer. The Quran insists that Mary was not guilty of sexual misbehaviour. From a political point of view, Islam would have had every interest in discrediting Jesus and Mary. Islam doesn't. The Quran knew that the Jews accused her of sexual misbehaviour. The Quran calls the views: a calumny. On the other side, the Quran insists that future conflicts with Christianity and the Christian Lords are inevitable. But the Quran still takes away this very potent weapon. Why? There must be an explanation. If Jesus is not guilty of blasphemy, did not endorse the use of the title "Son of God", and Mary was not guilty of sexual misbehaviour, there must something that makes this a pretty sure fact. What is it? |
Posted By: crasss
Date Posted: 04 April 2007 at 9:25pm
Any decisive answer to the question "Did Jesus endorse the idea that he was a family member of God?" is a one-way bet against the Christian Lords. If yes, Jesus would be a blasphemer, and the Christians would simply be following a blasphemer. That whole religion would then simply be one huge blasphemy. If no, Christianity is an odious forgery, because in that case Jesus never said that he was a family member of God, and the Christians have turned his legacy, against his will, into one huge, heretic blasphemy. Now, defeating the Christian Lords is a goal in itself. We've spent the last 250 years doing that. It's about time we finally and decisively wipe out that heresy. |
Posted By: paarsurrey
Date Posted: 06 April 2007 at 8:47pm
|
Patty! I do respect your religion and everybody else's religion, but you know one should follow reason ,rationality and arguments, endowed by GodAllahYHWH to humans mercifully. Praise be to God the Creator of he Universe! I have pasted the post here, as it is now more relevent here. May GodAllahYHWH guide us all! I hope all Christians join the discussion, please take it as a discussion for truth, not as a crusade. Hi As I wrote earlire,the Christians have neither given the status to JesusYeshuaIssa nor to MaryMeriumMaryam they deserved on merit, only under unjustified and clever influence of Paul who robbed them off their truthful honor only to establish his own hegemony over the simple and ignorant people called Christians, I am sorry to say, but that is a fact. As Paul was disrespectful to Jesus� disciples so he belittled Mary so much so that one does not find any account of her life after when JesusYeshuaIssa and MaryMeriumMaryam last met at Galilee. Paul got Jesus cleverly ascended to heavens to pave his way for absolute hegemony over the church going people; and disciples and Mary he never cared about them. As pointed out by Patty, (this was not perhaps even known by the Popes who succeeded Paul), so much so that to rectify this grey patch, at a very late stage Pope Benedict XIV corroborated lately also by Pope Pius XII ; they invented/concocted the belief in the corporeal assumption of Mary and defined it to be a divinely revealed dogma ( now one could see how the NTGospels had been revealed/fabricated/played with): that their Immaculate Mother of God, their ever Virgin Mary, having completed the course of her earthly life ( while they knew nothing about her historically, or if they knew they opted to conceal it from the public for their vested interests) was assumed body and soul into heavenly glory." The establishment of this dogma as "necessary to salvation" is widely taken to be an example of the Pope's invoking papal infallibility (which in fact is a proof of Pope�s fallibility/sinfulness and his clear attempt at corrupting the Christian faith in the ages gone bye). So this is how Paul and Popes dealt with the Christianity; how cruel they had been to humanity? Would the Christians now realize it, if they wake up from their great slumber of two thousands+ years! But Quran is graceful and magnanimous, it not only gave a lofty status to JesusYeshuaIssa he deserved but in its own style Quran made Mary one of the highest example of the believers till the end of the world. For detail, please read my earlier post in this thread. Bridging gaps between religions and working for unity of all revealed religions with peaceful means. |
Posted By: mochiah
Date Posted: 07 April 2007 at 11:22am
|
I dont agree with your political point of view. The ones that believed jesus was the messiah at that time where more than the ones that didnt. The Maschiah we await is the same as the Mahdi you are waiting for. When the Qur'an was revealed The word messiah was allready taken and used to refer to Jesus. That is whay the Qur'an uses his name as used to be used in Arabia :Iesa Al Masi.
Now in hebrew we wait for the Mashiah. Allthough his name isnt written anywhere in the Tanach it is written only what he will do without his name. The word Machiah means annointed the Machiah refers to a person that will be annointed(chosen) by g*d as king David was annointed(chosen) by G*D to be King. The Maschiah will have to be chosen by G*d to be king as King David was chosen to be King. What the Maschiah before and at the time of the hereafter will do is completely different than what Jesus did. So he cant have been the machiah. The Maschiah in The Tanach is not only but a messenger. You should read in The thread Messiah in Judaisme( http://www.islamicity.com/forum/forum_posts.asp?TID=8855&PN=1 - http://www.islamicity.com/forum/forum_posts.asp?TID=8855& ;PN=1 )to know what the machich will be and you will see that in Islam the Machiah is the Mahadi. The name Al Masi was allready taken and widely known to be reffering to Jesus at the time that the Qur'an was revealed. Now back to The Qur'an: The Qur'an was delivered at a time that the name al Massi was always used to refer to Jesus Iesa al Massi. It was prettymuch his family name. This you can understand from here: An-Nisa 171 O People of the Scripture(Christans)! Do not exaggerate in your religion nor utter aught concerning Allah save the truth. The (one called) Messiah, Jesus son of Mary, was only a messenger of Allah, and His word which He conveyed unto Mary, and a spirit from Him. So believe in Allah and His messengers, and say not "Three" - Cease! (it is) better for you! - Allah is only One Allah. Far is it removed from His Transcendent Majesty that He should have a son. His is all that is in the heavens and all that is in the earth. And Allah is sufficient as Defender. Al-Maeda 75 The (one called) Messiah, son of Mary, was no other than a messenger, messengers (the like of whom) had passed away before him. And his mother was a saintly woman. And they both used to eat (earthly) food. See how We make the revelations clear for them, and see how they are turned away! |
Posted By: crasss
Date Posted: 07 April 2007 at 6:43pm
Validating or refuting this statement requires counting. How would anybody be able to produce such a count?
Isn't this a specific Shia theological point? I could be wrong, but in my impression, it might not be necessarily a generally accepted principle by all Muslims, such as the Quran is.
There seems to be a need in every religion to create as many subdivisions as possible, usually based on identifying a few small points of disagreement, and then over-emphasize their importance. I try to stay away from this kind of debates. The aspect I personally am interested in, is to figure out if expecting a Maschiah can degenerate into the emergence of an entire social class of people claiming to be somehow a Maschiah, and therefore better than everyone else. Another issue could be the problem that anybody in the social class of Maschiahs must be of a particular race or of a particular descent, which would be better than the other races or descents. My investigation would concern the point: how open to abuse is this belief? In the meanwhile, it is clear that abusing the belief in One God, is probably impossible, because the One God is no human being. No one and no social class can claim to be the One God. Whatever religious mechanism (such as worshipping pictures of a human-like One God) that allows to turn the One God somehow into a human being, is dangerous. The fact that the Maschiah is a man, and that he is "more than a messenger" sounds almost like he is "more than a man", which may go in a dangerous direction. Can you explain what safeguards there are in this belief, that prevent abuse? Can you prevent random people from claiming this? Can you prevent a whole social group of people from claiming this? Does it reinforce the authority of the ruling class somehow? |
Posted By: mochiah
Date Posted: 08 April 2007 at 2:32am
|
The thread The messiah in judaisme has been hijacked my posts explaining this have been deleted!!! I will open a thread on this subject hope it wont be deleted. for now:
|
Posted By: mochiah
Date Posted: 08 April 2007 at 2:35am
The Laws Concerning MoshiachChapters 11 & 12 of Hilchos Melachim from the Mishneh Torah of the RambamMaimonides (March 30, 1135 or 1138�December 13, 1204) was a Jewish rabbi, physician, and philosopher in Spain, Morocco and Egypt during the Middle Ages. He was one of the various medieval Jewish philosophers who also influenced the non-Jewish world. Although his copious works on Jewish law and ethics were initially met with opposition during his lifetime, he was posthumously acknowledged to be one of the foremost rabbinical arbiters and philosophers in Jewish history. Today, his works and his views are considered a cornerstone of Orthodox Jewish thought and study.
CHAPTER ELEVEN1. In future time, the King Moshiach http://www.kesser.org/moshiach/rambam.html#note1 - [1] will arise and renew the Davidic dynasty, restoring it to its initial sovereignty. He will rebuild the [Beis Ha]Mikdash and gather in the dispersed remnant of Israel. Then, in his days, all the statutes will be reinstituted as in former times. We will offer sacrifices and observe the Sabbatical and Jubilee years according to all their particulars set forth in the Torah.Whoever does not believe in him, or does not await his coming, denies not only [the statements of] the other prophets, but also [those of] the Torah and of Moshe, our teacher, for the Torah attests to his coming, stating: [Devarim 30:3-5]
These explicit words of the Torah include all that was said [on the subject] by all the prophets. There is also a reference [to Moshiach] in the passage concerning Bilaam, who prophesies about the two anointed [kings]: the first anointed [king] http://www.kesser.org/moshiach/rambam.html#note2 - [2] , David, who saved Israel from her oppressors, and the final anointed [king] who will arise from among his descendants and save Israel [at the End of Days] http://www.kesser.org/moshiach/rambam.html#note3 - [3] . The following [quoted] phrases are from that passage: [Bamidbar 24:17-18]
2. Similarly, in regard to the cities of refuge, it is stated [Devarim 19:8-9], "When G-d will expand your borders... you shall add three more cities." This command has never been fulfilled. [Surely,] G-d did not give this command in vain, [and thus the intent was that it be fulfilled after the coming of Moshiach]. There is no need to cite prooftexts on the concept [of the Moshiach] from the words of the prophets, for all [their] books are filled with it. 3. One should not entertain the notion that the King Moshiach must work miracles and wonders, bring about new phenomena within the world, resurrect the dead, or perform other similar deeds. This is [definitely] not true. [A proof can be brought from the fact that] that Rabbi Akiva, one of the greatest Sages of the Mishnah, was one of the supporters of King Ben Koziva, and would describe him as the King Moshiach. He and all the Sages of his generation considered him to be the King Moshiach until he was killed because of [his] sins. Once he was killed, they realized that he was not [the Moshiach]. The Sages did not ask him for any signs or wonders. [Rather,] this is the main thrust of the matter: This Torah, with its statutes and laws, is everlasting. We may neither add to them nor detract from them. http://www.kesser.org/moshiach/rambam.html#note4 - [4] 4. If a king will arise from the House of David who delves deeply into the study of the Torah and, like David his ancestor, observes its mitzvos as prescribed by the Written Law and the Oral Law; if he will compel all of Israel to walk in [the way of the Torah] and repair the breaches [in its observance]; and if he will fight the wars of G-d; - we may, with assurance, consider him Moshiach. If he succeeds in the above, builds the [Beis Ha]Mikdash on its site, and gathers in the dispersed remnant of Israel, he is definitely the Moshiach. http://www.kesser.org/moshiach/rambam.html#note5 - [5] He will then perfect the entire world, [motivating all the nations] to serve G-d together, as it is written [Zephaniah, 3:9], "I will make the peoples pure of speech so that they will all call upon the Name of G-d and serve Him with one purpose." CHAPTER TWELVE1. One should not entertain the notion that in the Era of Moshiach any element of the natural order will be nullified, or that there will be any innovation in the work of creation. Rather, the world will continue according to its pattern. Although Yeshayahu [Yeshayahu 11:6] states, "The wolf will dwell with the lamb, and the leopard will lie down with the young goat," these [words] are an allegory and a riddle. They mean that Israel will dwell securely together with the wicked gentiles who are likened to wolves and leopards, as in the verse [Yirmeyahu 5:6], "A wolf of the deserts despoils them, a leopard watches over their cities." [In this era, all nations] will return to the true faith and no longer plunder or destroy. Instead, at peace with Israel, they will eat that which is permitted, as it is written [Yeshayahu 11:7], "The lion shall eat straw like the ox." Similarly, other prophecies of this nature concerning Moshiach are analogies. In the Era of the King Moshiach, everyone will realize what was implied by these metaphors and allusions. 2. Our Sages taught: [Berachos 34b] "There will be no difference between the current age and the Era of Moshiach except [our emancipation from] subjugation to the [gentile] kingdoms." The simple meaning of the words of the prophets appears to imply that the war of Gog and Magog [Yechezkal ch. 38] will take place at the beginning of the Messianic age. Before the war of Gog and Magog, a prophet will arise to rectify Israel's conduct and prepare their hearts [for the Redemption], as it is written: [Malachi 3:23] "Behold, I am sending you Eliyah(u) http://www.kesser.org/moshiach/rambam.html#note6 - [6] [before the advent of the great and awesome Day of G-d]." He will not come [in order] to declare the pure, impure, nor to declare the impure, pure; nor [will he come in order] to disqualify the lineage of those presumed to be of flawless descent, nor to validate lineage which is presumed to be blemished. Rather, [he will come in order] to establish peace in the world; as [the above prophecy] continues [Malachi 3:24], "He will bring back the hearts of the fathers to the children." Some of the Sages say that Eliyahu will appear [immediately] before the coming of Moshiach. All these and similar matters cannot be [clearly] known by man until they occur, for they are undefined in the words of the prophets. Even the Sages have no established tradition regarding these matters, beyond what is implied by the verses; hence there is a divergence of opinion among them. In any case, neither the sequence of these events nor their precise details are among the fundamental principles of the faith. One should not occupy himself at length with the aggadot and midrashim that deal with these and similar matters, nor should he deem them of prime importance, for they bring one to neither the awe nor the love [of G-d]. Similarly, one should not try to calculate the appointed time [for the coming of Moshiach]. Our Sages declared: [Sanhedrin 97b] "May the spirits of those who attempt to calculate the final time [of Mashiach's coming] expire!" Rather, one should await [his coming] and believe in the general conception of the matter, as we have explained. 3. During the Era of the King Moshiach, once his kingdom has been established and all of Israel has gathered around him, the entire [nation's] line of descent will be established on the basis of his words, through the prophetic spirit which will rest upon him. As it is written [Loc. cit., v. 3], "He shall sit as a refiner and purifier." He will purify the lineage of the Levites first, stating that "This one is a priest of defined lineage" and "This one is a Levite of defined lineage." Those whose lineage he does not recognize will be relegated to the status of Israelites. This is implied by the following verse: [Ezra 2:63] "The governor said to them, '[They shall not eat of the most holy things] until a priest arises [who will wear] the Urim and Tumim.'" From this verse one can infer that the genealogy of those presumed to be of unquestioned [priestly and levitical] lineage will be traced by means of the prophetic spirit, and those found to be of such lineage will be made known. He will define the lineage of the Israelites according to their tribe alone; i.e., he will make known each person's tribal origin, stating that "This one is from this tribe" and "This one is from another tribe." However, concerning a person who is presumed to be of unblemished lineage, he will not state that "He is illegitimate," or "He is of slave lineage," for the law rules that once a family has become intermingled [within the entire Jewish people], they may remain intermingled. 4. The Sages and prophets did not yearn for the Messianic Era in order that [the Jewish people] rule over the entire world, nor in order that they have dominion over the gentiles, nor that they be exalted by them, nor in order that they eat, drink and celebrate. Rather, their aspiration was that [the Jewish people] be free Ito involve themselves] in Torah and its wisdom, without anyone to oppress or disturb them, and thus be found worthy of life in the World to Come, as we explained in Hilchos Teshuvah. 5. In that Era there will be neither famine nor war, neither envy nor competition, for good things will flow in abundance and all the delights will be as freely available as dust. The occupation of the entire world will be solely to know G-d. The Jews will therefore be great sages and know the hidden matters, and will attain an understanding of their Creator to the [full] extent of human potential; as it is written [Yeshayahu 11:9], "For the world will be filled with the knowledge of G-d as the waters cover the ocean bed." FOOTNOTES
|
Posted By: crasss
Date Posted: 08 April 2007 at 3:48am
Priests who have to be racially pure ... what a dangerous idea.
Christianity is indeed oppressive in nature. If you don't worship the picture that they call the Lord, you will end up having very serious problems with the Lords. After 250 years of war and revolution, they've temporarily lost this kind of control. It is, however, beyond any doubt that they will take every opportunity possible to re-institute and re-invigourate the old system of Lords, who will be again in control, and persecute everybody who is not praying to their picture of a Lord, and pay taxes to these Lords, and to them too, and force all the other ones, the serfs, to obey the Lords. They'll do it the same way as before, by schmoozing up to the elite, and confirm to this elite that they are better than the others, and confirm hereditary titles to them, and mislead the serfs with the help of this elite, into worshipping a picture of a man of this elite. The Jews and the Muslims will refuse to worship their pictures, and will be persecuted, because these pictures must be worshipped, because this picture worshipping is the basis of the elitist society they create, and is meant to re-inforce obedience to the Lords. |
Posted By: mochiah
Date Posted: 08 April 2007 at 3:57am
|
1st I want to make it clear that there is noting as your messiah and our messiah. He will unite the world in peace. 2nd Lets not hijack this thread I opened a new thread concerning the maschiah with a lot of information: http://www.islamicity.com/forum/forum_posts.asp?TID=9076&PN=1 - http://www.islamicity.com/forum/forum_posts.asp?TID=9076& ;PN=1
|
Posted By: Andalus
Date Posted: 08 April 2007 at 11:12am
Argue your case, do not baffle everyone with tons of tautalogical drivl that NEVER ends. This is a discussion forum, not a database to hold your favorite website materials.
------------- A feeling of discouragement when you slip up is a sure sign that you put your faith in deeds. -Ibn 'Ata'llah http://www.sunnipath.com http://www.sunniforum.com/forum/ http://www.pt-go.com/ |
Posted By: crasss
Date Posted: 08 April 2007 at 7:29pm
The Christians did actually wake up. The first serious attempt to get rid of this cruel, oppressive, racist religion, took place during the French revolution. This revolution went inevitably in the direction of getting rid of the ruling class of Lords and to war with the foreign Lords: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/French_Revolution Nobles ... began to flee the country as �migr�s, some of whom began plotting civil war within the kingdom and agitating for a European coalition against France. There are apparently existing synonyms for Lordism: Manorialism and Seigneurialism. (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Manorialism). Seigneur is just a French word for Lord. After getting rid of the Lords on the guillotine, the revolutionaries obviously understood that they had to stop praying to that picture of a French Lord: Against Robespierre's concepts of Deism and Virtue, H�bert's (and Chaumette's) atheist movement initiated a religious campaign in order to dechristianize society. The climax was reached with the celebration of the Goddess "Reason" in Notre Dame Cathedral on 10 November. Even though they knew they had to get rid of Christianity, it was not simple at all to invent a new religion: On the next day, the worship of the deistic Supreme Being was inaugurated as an official aspect of the Revolution. Compared with H�bert's popular festivals, this austere new religion of Virtue was received with signs of hostility by an amazed Parisian public. You cannot just invent a new religion out of the blue. To many people, atheism was not attractive either. So, they had no choice than to tolerate the return of the Christians and their priests. The French have become increasingly anti-Christian since the revolution, moving steadily in the direction of atheism. Now we gradually discover, however, that atheism does not work either. People increasingly fail to form the family structures that are needed to raise the next generations. Europe is simply turning into one huge brothel of sexual promiscuity, which endorses and glorifies estranged types of sexual relations between men and men or women and women. A return to Christianity won't happen. That class-based, racist, religion that promotes inequality, took too much time, effort and blood to get rid off. If you pray to the picture of a Lord, the Lords will be back. In the decades following the insights gathered in the French Revolution, Ludwig Feuerbach wrote in The essence of Christianity that man has created God and God has not created man. He was correctly referring to the fact that Christians make an invalid man-like representation of God, and that this representation, these pictures, are just a fictional creation of man. This Christian god, who is actually a man, loosely related somehow to the jewish prophet, Jesus, did not create man. He is not even a god. According to Karl Marx, religion is an expression of material realities and economic injustice. Thus, problems in religion are ultimately problems in society. In fact, the purpose of this Christian religion is to create and support these injustices. Much of the hatred of religion in Europe, is now spilling over on Islam. Christianity is bad, so all religions are bad. In Europe, they simply assume that Islam must also be oppressive and endorse social inequality, just like Christianity does. The opponents of Islam connect to these social inequalities enforced by Christianity by arguing that women are oppressed in Islam. This argument becomes weaker and weaker with time, when we observe that the so-called equality between men and women in the West just leads to a brothel in which it becomes increasingly difficult to form stable families and raise the next generation. The correct historical analysis is that the European hatred of Christianity is justified, but cannot be generalized to Islam. |