PDA

View Full Version : The Story of Christmas and Santa


Lulua
25-12-2001, 00:22
The Story of Christmas and Santa


--------------------------------------------------------------------------------

Ask any child about what happens at Christmas and they will you about "Santa", this "Santa" is very symbolic of Christmas. Santa Claus alias Father Christmas and Saint Nicholas appears at "Yuletide" along with Christmas Trees and presents.

Who was Santa

School Children are told Santa "lives" at the North Pole in Greenland. ½ Million tourists travel to Finland believing he originates from Lapland in Finland. They come in search of the Finnish Santa who they believe set up home in the little town of Rovaniemi. The city of Bari in southern Italy also claims to be the spiritual home of Santa Claus.

Nicholas is lived in southern Turkey, then Asia Minor, during the first half of the fourth century, but nothing was recorded about his life until more than two hundred and fifty years after his death. Less than a hundred years after his death, he was worshipped as a saint for his legendary deeds, such as :

A neighbour lost all his money becoming destitute with his three daughters and, to prevent them having to earn their living by prostitution, he threw them three bags of gold through the window.
Nicholas became a model of, generosity and protection to the oppressed People, children without any money, he was particularly good at looking after children. St. Nicholas, legend has it, resurrected three boys cut up by an innkeeper and pickled in brine, to be sold off to unsuspecting customers.



Santa meets Christianity

The city of Bari in southern Italy claims to be the spiritual home of Santa Claus, the City boasts, the final resting place of St. Nicholas, the man the Church believes is both the essence and the inspiration for our modern-day Santa. While the cathedral boasts of having the holy relics of this miracle-worker, St. Nicholas never put a foot in Italy while alive. His remains were actually seized seven hundred years after he'd been buried. The city of Bari, and the Catholic Church, keen to increase their power and wealth, conspired to steal the bones to make the city a magnet for pilgrims. At the end of the eleventh century, forty seven armed men from Bari set sail for Asia Minor. They overpowered four monks and seized the valued relics of St. Nicholas. The Church agreed to pay the thieves, and then their heirs, a percentage of the offerings, but later the Church reneged on this deal, keeping all the money for itself. Ever since, the Catholic Church has helped to promote an annual festival to celebrate this profitable act of piracy.

In the northern European countries, modern Scandinavia, St. Nicholas was not at first given the same warm reception. The people here had their own pagan gods to protect them during the long, cold winter nights. One of these god's who was a sky god and at mid-winter, the sky god came down to earth, kissed the horizon and started off the process for the birth of Spring, the rebirth of the new year and the animals would be born, the fruit would start to grow, the little crops from beginning agriculture would start to come up several months later. So this was a really crucial moment, a pivotal moment in the turning of the year, when the sky god coming down to the earth.

Later came the northern god Odin, who had a character for every month of the year. His kindly December character, Yulekatid, left money for the poor. People used to say that when the winter clouds scudded across the sky, it was Odin flying across the sky on his white horse, and he used to come to earth dressed in a long, hooded cloak, with a bag of coins, bread, to give to people who were poor, in his winter guise.

Around the same time, we had the Saxons who gave everyone and everything, personifications. So the weather, the elements, they all has personifications: Father Ice, King Frost, King Winter. They were all welcomed into the halls of the Saxon thanes because they believed that by welcoming them, they would be less harsh. The Saxons' tradition of mid-winter gods and festivals to honour them became widely accepted in Britain, but a clash between this pagan religion and emerging Christianity produced new mid-winter figure: Father Christmas, character part pagan, part Christian.

Father Christmas came from the old northern traditions of Odin and the personification of winter, which in the Middle Ages had come into a melting-pot together with St. Nicholas, and the parishes in the Middle Ages used to send out a man, either an actor or someone from outside the parish who wasn't known in the parish, and he would be dressed in a long cloak and he would go around the houses to each family in the parish saying 'is all well?' and leaving something for the children.

The Church, believed it needed to replace he, the misguided ways of the indigenous peoples and they went about it in a very organised manner. Pope Julius set the official date of Jesus's birth at the height of the pagan mid-winter festivals, and that just shows us how important it was to the Christian missionaries, to try to replace the Odin figure. They also came up with Bishop Nicholas, who was put forward as the figure who would represent the Christian Christmas and would replace this figure of Odin. And in fact they asked people, to dress up as St. Nicholas.

In the Russian Orthodox Church, St. Nicholas was seen as a demi-god, a symbol of eternal goodness and righteousness, a figure almost as popular as Christ. Where some East European saints were seen as stern, even forbidding, St. Nicholas was recalled as a kind and generous saint, a protector of young people.

He was a benefactor of children and on his commemoration, on the sixth of December, parents and other friends liked to give presents to children and because it was rather close to December the twenty fifth, where they also, gave presents, and that's a pre-Christian custom at that time of the year, because it was near to Christmas, therefore the two things became fused and Nicholas became a kind of mix-up with the Christmas festival of present's for children.

Despite the cult of St. Nicholas, which led to over four hundred churches in Britain being dedicated to him, pagan customs still had their undeniable attractions. The vast majority of people still lived in the countryside and worked in farming, and so in country, houses in villages and, little hamlets around the country, then the festivities would have been very much as they'd been in the very old times, the sorts of things that we associate with Christmas feasting, drinking, parties, present-giving, holly, ivy, mistletoe, Christmas sorts of activities that, that have sustained through the centuries.


Santa is Banned in Britan

But in 1642, the Puritans seized power and outlawed many act's that had no Christian or divine basis. The Puritans realised that the the sort of things that we associate with our popular Christmas today, which were still current then had nothing to do with Christianity and they, tried to dissuade people from partying, from drinking, from dressing up and giving gifts, they introduced an Act of Parliament which officially abolished the popular Christmas customs and it was, decreed that stores should stay open on Christmas day and that anyone found partying would be arrested. From Canterbury to London, there were bloody riots when shops were forced to stay open on Christmas day.

In Holland, St. Nicholas was untouched by political uncertainties or by pagan mid-winter characters. Even today, they celebrate the arrival of their saint in Holland and the anniversary of his death during a month of religious festivities before Christmas. Yet it was the Dutch who unwittingly helped to turn St. Nicholas, who they called Sinterklaas, into an icon of commercialism, when they set out for the New World in 1626. After St. Nicholas was transformed from Sinterklaas to Santa Claus.


Americanisation of Santa

The "Santa" Character was further developed in 1809 when an amusing but inaccurate history of Dutch traditions was written. Washington Irving, influenced by north European Christmas customs, pictured St. Nicholas riding in a wagon merrily over rooftops, dropping presents down chimneys, the first time this had been sighted.

In 1821, Clement Moore, a theology professor and an expert in European folklore, developed this character in a poem he wrote for his children, which went like this.

"CLEMENT MOORE":

'Twas the night before Christmas
When all through the house
Not a creature was stirring
Not even a mouse.

The stockings were hung by the chimney with care
In hope that St. Nicholas soon would be there.
Down the chimney St. Nicholas came With a bound
He was dressed all in fur from his head to his foot
And his clothes were all tarnished with ashes and soot.

A bundle of toys he had flung on his back
And he looked like a peddler just opening his pack
. His eyes how they twinkled His dimples, how merry

His cheeks were like roses
His nose like a cherry!
He had a broad face and a little round belly
That shook when he laughed like a bowl of jelly !

He was chubby and plump, oh a jolly old elf
And I laughed when I saw him in spite of myself!

Moore saw St. Nick as an Elf dressed in fur riding across rooftops on a sleigh with eight tiny reindeer, rather than a wagon, a vision not witnessed in Britain by writers struggling to popularise Christmas. Charles Dickens was one of the writers trying to revive ancient Christmas traditions which had survived in the country but not in the growing cities. His creation of Scrooge in 1844 captivated the new middle class. Dickens used Scrooge to pillory misers who despised traditional Christmas festivities.

What Dickens did was make Christmas middle-class and personal and, it wasn't merely, a repetition Christmas for Dickens was an occasion for summing up. An occasion for remembering. An occasion for calling to mind everything, the good times, fee bad times. He made Christmas an occasion for memory. Scrooge goes wrong because he fails to remember.

Scrooge is encouraged to recall the benefits of middle-class family life by the Ghost of Christmas Present - that was Father Christmas for Dickens. The first illustrated version of A Christmas Carol shows a Father Christmas from the Middle Ages, partly pagan and partly Christian. About this time, the Americans were seeing an elf called St. Nick, partly descended from tiny Nordic house-gods. Thomas Nast, one of America's most talented cartoonists, turned the elf into a Santa. Nast had made his name as a political cartoonist with a gift for populist imagery. He used these characters to make political statements.

Strongly supporting President Abraham Lincoln during the American Civil War, he looked for an image which embodied goodness and righteousness. His first Santa Claus, for instance, was in 1863 and it was a Santa Claus in cap, and it was a little gnome-like figure in a starred jacket and striped trousers handing out gifts to the soldiers.

He was created to give softer and "romantic" view of war and President Lincoln at the time was supposedly quoted as saying that Nast was his best recruiting agent, because Nast in a way glorified the Northern cause. Twenty years later, Nast's Santa was again Intervening politically. Now elderly, Santa had put on weight, his elf-life appearance had long gone.

Nast created the image of Santa Claus as we now know it and if you follow the Nast Santa Claus drawings from 1863 until the Christmas Drawings for the Human Race were published in 1889, you will see that Nast evolved his figure from the gnome-like figure that other artists had used before into a self-portrait of himself. He always portrayed himself as fat and jolly and his was his own self-portrait.

Nast's popular portraits of himself as the Santa in Twas The Night Before Christmas sold well in Europe and his image was taken up by other artists. By the 1870s, Christmas cards started to appear with versions of Nast's image.

At this time European Christmas traditions had barely changed. With gift-giving, which dates back to early times. With a Christmas tree, which first appeared in Britain about 1790. And with a slim Santa, more in keeping with the early Father Christmas, who was still in Europe the most popular visitor at Christmas.




Globalisation of the American Santa

The Globalisation of red and white American Santa was performed by Coca-Cola, a company struggling to sell cold drinks in the cold season, the company wanted to figure out a way to associate the product with the holiday season, and so they turned to, an illustrator named Haddon Sunblum. Sunblum concluded the spirit of the holiday was really Santa Claus, and Santa Claus had this enormous task facing him every Christmas Eve and that was to go around the world, in an evening, distributing, toys to children everywhere and obviously he would, you know, get tired and he would get thirsty and he would need some refreshment, so what better idea than to have Santa pausing in his rounds in various scenes enjoying a Coca Cola?

Sunblum's Santa Claus really became American Santa Claus and in real terms the global Santa Claus, because his characterisation of Santa Claus was the one that people saw over thirty years. He came into their homes, he became a part of their lives and so, in a very real sense, here is imagery created for a commercial product that has now become a part of popular culture. In Britain, the post-war years saw Santa's final assault on the throne occupied by Father Christmas. The department stores started getting visits from Santa Claus who was very much the American image of Santa Claus with the curly white whiskers, dressed in red and white and the fat jolly appearance, and was thought to be less frightening than Father Christmas.

Santa's story shows commercialisation has never been far from Santa's grotto. The relics of St. Nicholas have brought wealth to everyone who has possessed them. And St. Nicholas's papal protector is perfectly happy about the revered saint being reincarnated as Santa Claus.


Christianity The facts



THE ORIGINS OF CHRISTIANITY

Historical facts reveal that Jesus did not use the word Christianity. He and his followers used to worship in the temple which other Israelites used. The message of Jesus was to call people back to the religion of Abraham and Moses from which they had gone astray. After the disappearance of Jesus, Paul declared that belief in Jesus sufficed for salvation. The Jewish scholars of that time called the followers of prophet Jesus the misguided sect of Nazarene or Galilaens. In 43 C.E., when Paul and Barnabas went to Antioch to preach, they were ridiculed and were called Christians by the masses. The ones who were called Christians felt that if they are being given a name in reference to Jesus, there is nothing wrong in accepting it. A present day analogy may be the case of Muslims being called Mohammedans in the West and Muslims giving in to the name.



PAUL ALTERED THE MESSAGE

At the beginning, Paul was a staunch opponent of prophet Jesus and remained so for many years after his ascension. When he did join the followers of Jesus later on, he initiated many alterations in the teachings of Jesus in hopes of winning over the Gentiles (non-Jewish people). He championed the following concepts into Christianity:

1. the concept of Jesus as son of God;
2. Jesus died on the cross to wash eternal sins of Adam's children through his blood; and
3. the Law of Torah was renounced. He eliminated all regulations concerning food and abrogated the injunctions of circumcision.

The real followers of Jesus opposed these blatant misrepresentations of the message of Jesus. Their struggle to reject the notion of Divinity of Jesus continued for about two hundred years. Since these alterations were very appealing to the Gentiles, the true believers were unable to stop the misguidance.

In 325 C.E., a council of Christian leaders met at Nicaea and officiated Paul's beliefs as their religion. Roman Empire declared Paul's religion as the religion of the State and all those books which denied these beliefs were banned. In 367 C.E., the State announced a list of books acceptable to it and fifteen years later, a council held under the presidency of Pope Damasius gave its approval to these books. At the end of the fifth century, Pope Galasius published a list of unauthorized books (Apocryphal) to further conform with Paul's religion of Christianity.

seekeroftruth
25-12-2001, 01:05
Just wanted to post this 'important' issue to all my fellow muslims here. Dont go buying any cards for me, OK? (just kidding) This should clear the 'mis-conception' of Christmas in islam. And the above article is really good, mashallah sister, keep up the good work!!!



sadiQ!


Ruling on Christmas & New Year
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------

What is the ruling on celebrating Christmas & New Year?

Praise be to Allaah.

Shaykh al-Islam Ibn Taymiyah (may Allaah have mercy on him) said in his commentary on the aayah (interpretation of the meaning), “And those who do not witness falsehood [al-zoor]…” [al-Furqaan 25:72]:

As regards the festivals of the mushrikeen: they combine confusion, physical desires and falsehood, there is nothing in them that is of any religious benefit, and the instant gratification involved in them only ends up in pain. Thus they are falsehood, and witnessing them means attending them.

This aaayah itself praises and commends (those who do not witness falsehood), which has the meaning of urging people to avoid taking part in their festivals and other kinds of falsehood. We understand that it is bad to attend their festivals because they are called al-zoor (falsehood).

It indicates that it is haraam to do this for many reasons, because Allaah has called it al-zoor. Allaah condemns the one who speaks falsehood [al-zoor] even if no-one else is harmed by it, as in the aayah forbidding zihaar [a form of divorce in which the man says to his wife “You are to me like the back of my mother”], where He says (interpretation of the meaning): “… And verily, they utter an ill word and a lie [zooran]…” [al-Mujaadilah 58:2]. And Allaah says (interpretation of the meaning): “… So shun the abomination of idols, and shun lying speech (false statements) [al-zoor].” [al-Hajj 22:30]. So the one who does al-zoor is condemned in this fashion.

In the Sunnah: Anas ibn Maalik (may Allaah be pleased with him) said: “The Messenger of Allaah [an error occurred while processing this directive] (peace and blessings of Allaah be upon him) came [to Madeenah] and they had two days in which they would (relax and) play. He said, “What are these two days?” They said, “We used to play (on these two days) during the Jaahiliyyah.” The Messenger of Allaah [an error occurred while processing this directive] (peace and blessings of Allaah be upon him) said: “Allaah has given you something better instead of them: Yawm al-Duhaa [Eid al-Adha] and Yawm al-Fitr [Eid al-Fitr].” (Reported by Abu Dawood).

This indicates clearly that the Prophet [an error occurred while processing this directive] (peace and blessings of Allaah be upon him) definitely forbade his ummah to celebrate the festivals of the kuffaar, and he strove to wipe them out by all possible means. The fact that the religion of the People of the Book is accepted does not mean that their festivals are approved of or should be preserved by the ummah, just as the rest of their kufr and sins are not approved of. Indeed, the Prophet [an error occurred while processing this directive] (peace and blessings of Allaah be upon him) went to great lengths to command his ummah to be different from them in many issues that are mubaah (permitted) and in many ways of worship, lest that lead them to be like them in other matters too. This being different was to be a barrier in all aspects, because the more different you are from the people of Hell, the less likely you are to do the acts of the people of Hell.

The first of them is: The hadeeth “Every people has its festival, and this is our festival” implies exclusivity, that every people has its own festival, as Allaah says (interpretation of the meaning): “For every nation there is a direction to which they face (in their prayers)…” [al-Baqarah 2:148] and “… To each among you, We have prescribed a law and a clear way…” [al-Maa’idah 5:48]. This implies that each nation has its own ways. The laam in li-kulli [“for every”, “to each”] implies exclusivity. So if the Jews have a festival and the Christians have a festival, it is just for them, and we should not have any part in it, just as we do not share their qiblah (direction of prayer) or their laws.

The second of them is: one of the conditions set out by ‘Umar ibn al-Khattaab (may Allaah be pleased with him) and agreed upon by the Sahaabah and by all the Fuqaha’ after them is: that those of the People of the Book who have agreed to live under Islamic rule (ahl al-dhimmah) should not celebrate their festivals openly in Daar al-Islam (lands under Islamic rule). If the Muslims have agreed to prevent them from celebrating openly, how could it be right for the Muslims to celebrate them? If a Muslim celebrates them, is that not worse than if a kaafir does so openly?

The only reason that we forbade them to celebrate their festivals openly is because of the corruption involved in them, because of the sin or symbols of sin. In either case, the Muslim is forbidden from sin or the symbols of sin. Even if there was no evil involved apart from the kaafir feeling encouraged to celebrate openly because of the Muslim’s actions, how can a Muslim do that? The evil involved (in their festivals) will be explained below, in sha Allaah.

Al-Bayhaqi reported with a saheeh isnaad in Baab karaahiyat al-dukhool ‘ala ahl al-dhimmah fi kanaa’isihim wa’l-tashabbuh bihim yawmi nawroozihim wa maharjaanihim (Chapter on the abhorrence of entering the churches of ahl al-dhimmah on the occasion of their New Year and other celebrations): From Sufyaan al-Thawri from Thawr ibn Yazeed from ‘Ata’ ibn Deenaar who said: ‘Umar said: “Do not learn the language of the non-Arabs, do not enter upon the mushrikeen in their churches on their feast-days, for the wrath (of Allaah) is descending upon them.”

‘Umar ibn al-Khattaab said: “Avoid the enemies of Allaah on their festivals.”

It was reported with a saheeh isnaad from Abu Usaamah: ‘Awn told us from Abu’l-Mugheerah from ‘Abd-Allaah ibn ‘Amr: “Whoever lives in the land of the non-Arabs and celebrates their New Year and their festivals, and imitates them until he dies in that state, will be gathered with them on the Day of Resurrection.”

‘Umar forbade learning their languages, and even entering their churches on the day of their festival, so how about doing some of the things they do on those days, or doing things that are a part of their religion? Is not going along with their actions worse than learning their language? Is not doing some of the things they do on their festival worse than just entering upon them? If divine wrath is descending upon them on the day of their festival because of what they do, then is not the one who does what they do, or a part of it, also exposed to the same punishment? Do not the words “Avoid the enemies of Allaah on their festivals” mean that we should not meet them or join them on those days? So how about the one who actually celebrates their festivals?

‘Abd-Allaah ibn ‘Amr clearly stated: “Whoever lives in the land of the non-Arabs and celebrates their New Year and their festivals, and imitates them until he dies in that state, will be gathered with them on the Day of Resurrection.”

This implies that the one who joins in with them in all of these matters is a kaafir, or that doing this is one of the major sins (kabaa’ir) that will doom one to Hell; the former meaning is what is apparent from the wording.

He mentioned – and Allaah knows best – the one who lives in their land, because at the time of ‘Abd-Allaah ibn ‘Amr and the other Sahaabah, they used to forbid open celebration of kaafir festivals in the Muslim lands, and none of the Muslims imitated them in their festivals; that was possible only when living in the lands of the kaafirs.

‘Ali (may Allaah be pleased with him) refused to even acknowledge the name of their festivals which were exclusively theirs, so how about actually celebrating them?

Ahmad mentioned the meaning of the reports narrated from ‘Umar and ‘Ali (may Allaah be pleased with them) on this topic, and his companions discussed the matter of festivals.

Imaam Abu’l-Hasan al-Aamidi said: the one who is known as Ibn al-Baghdaadi said in his book ‘Umdat al-Haadir wa Kifaayat al-Musaafir: “It is not permitted to attend the festivals of the Christians and Jews. Ahmad stated this in the report of Muhannaa, and his evidence for that is the aayah (interpretation of the meaning): ‘And those who do not witness falsehood [al-zoor]…’ [al-Furqaan 25:72]. He said: (This is) al-Sha’aaneen and their festivals. He said: The Muslims are to be prevented from entering upon them in their synagogues and churches.”

From Iqtida’ al-Siraat al-Mustaqeem Mukhaalifat Ashaab al-Jaheem by Shaykh al-Islam Ibn Taymiyah, p. 183.


--------------------------------------------------------------------------------

Greeting the kuffaar on Christmas and other religious holidays of theirs is haraam, by consensus, as Ibn al-Qayyim, may Allaah have mercy on him, said in Ahkaam Ahl al-Dhimmah: "Congratulating the kuffaar on the rituals that belong only to them is haraam by consensus, as is congratulating them on their festivals and fasts by saying ‘A happy festival to you’ or ‘May you enjoy your festival,’ and so on. If the one who says this has been saved from kufr, it is still forbidden. It is like congratulating someone for prostrating to the cross, or even worse than that. It is as great a sin as congratulating someone for drinking wine, or murdering someone, or having illicit sexual relations, and so on. Many of those who have no respect for their religion fall into this error; they do not realize the offensiveness of their actions. Whoever congratulates a person for his disobedience or bid’ah or kufr exposes himself to the wrath and anger of Allaah."

Congratulating the kuffaar on their religious festivals is haraam to the extent described by Ibn al-Qayyim because it implies that one accepts or approves of their rituals of kufr, even if one would not accept those things for oneself. But the Muslim should not aceept the rituals of kufr or congratulate anyone else for them, because Allaah does not accept any of that at all, as He says (interpretation of the meaning):

"If you disbelieve, then verily, Allaah is not in need of you, He likes not disbelief for His slaves. And if you are grateful (by being believers), He is pleased therewith for you. . ."
[al-Zumar 39:7]

". . . This day, I have perfected your religion for you, completed My favour upon you, and have chosen for you Islaam as your religion . . ."
[al-Maa’idah 5:3]

So congratulating them is forbidden, whether they are one’s colleagues at work or otherwise.

If they greet us on the occasion of their festivals, we should not respond, because these are not our festivals, and because they are not festivals which are acceptable to Allaah. These festivals are innovations in their religions, and even those which may have been prescribed formerly have been abrogated by the religion of Islaam, with which Allaah sent Muhammad [an error occurred while processing this directive] (peace and blessings of Allaah be upon him) to the whole of mankind. Allaah says (interpretation of the meaning):
"Whoever seeks a religion other than Islaam, it will never be accepted of him, and in the Hereafter he will be one of the losers." [Aal ‘Imraan 3:85]

It is haraam for a Muslim to accept invitations on such occasions, because this is worse than congratulating them as it implies taking part in their celebrations.

Similarly, Muslims are forbidden to imitate the kuffaar by having parties on such occasions, or exchanging gifts, or giving out sweets or food, or taking time off work, etc., because the Prophet [an error occurred while processing this directive] (peace and blessings of Allaah be upon him) said: "Whoever imitates a people is one of them." Shaykh al-Islaam Ibn Taymiyah said in his book Iqtidaa’ al-siraat al-mustaqeem mukhaalifat ashaab al-jaheem: "Imitating them in some of their festivals implies that one is pleased with their false beliefs and practices, and gives them the hope that they may have the opportunity to humiliate and mislead the weak."

Whoever does anything of this sort is a sinner, whether he does it out of politeness or to be friendly, or because he is too shy to refuse, or for whatever other reason, because this is hypocrisy in Islaam, and because it makes the kuffaar feel proud of their religion.

Allaah is the One Whom we ask to make the Muslims feel proud of their religion, to help them adhere steadfastly to it, and to make them victorious over their enemies, for He is the Strong and Omnipotent.

JBJ
29-12-2001, 06:42
Hi Seekeroftruth,

Just some questions about your post. First, if someone says to you, "Merry Christmas," should you only remain silent? This would seem rude and disrespectful. How is one supposed to respond?

How much authority does this imam have (I'm assuming he's an imam)? Is this considered a fatwa? Can any Muslim simply disagree with him? Where does the authority of the tradition come from? How do you know it's authentic if it's not from someone like Bukhari?

And what about non-religious holidays? New Years' has nothing to do with religion, so are Muslims allowed to participate? If so, shouldn't they be allowed to be active in Christmas too because it's things like trees and presents have no root in the Bible?

Anything you can answer I'd appreciate. Thanks!

JBJ

Tita
05-01-2002, 00:51
As far as Santa goes, a number of Christians refuse to have anything to do with Santa because he is seen to usurp the place of Christ at Christmas. Christmas itself is not mentioned in the Bible, of course, but I personally have no objection to picking any day at random and celebrating Jesus' birth on that day. Only the Lord knows the exact day of His birth, and it's actually pretty irrelevant what day it was (as long as it conforms to the time period predicted in the Old Testament, which did not specify a day of the year).

>He was a benefactor of children
>and on his commemoration, on
>the sixth of December, parents
>and other friends liked to
>give presents to children and
>because it was rather close
>to December the twenty fifth,
>where they also, gave presents,
>and that's a pre-Christian custom
>at that time of the
>year, because it was near
>to Christmas, therefore the two
>things became fused and Nicholas
>became a kind of mix-up
>with the Christmas festival of
>present's for children.

Actually the sixth of January is supposedly the date on which the Wise Men reached Jesus and gave Him their gifts. A pleasant little myth to which not all Christians subscribe.

>But in 1642, the Puritans seized
>power and outlawed many acts
>that had no Christian or
>divine basis.

Actually the Puritans banned everything even remotely connected with the Catholic church, which was another reason why they abolished Christmas. They didn't mind celebrating Jesus' birth per se, they just didn't like how it had been paganized.

> What Dickens did was make
>Christmas middle-class and personal and,
>it wasn't merely, a repetition
>Christmas for Dickens was an
>occasion for summing up. An
>occasion for remembering. An occasion
>for calling to mind everything,
>the good times, fee bad
>times. He made Christmas an
>occasion for memory. Scrooge goes
>wrong because he fails to
>remember.

Wrong. Scrooge goes wrong because he's cheap, miserly, and unkind. Remember how his character changes by the end of the story?
>
>Christianity The facts
>
>
>
>THE ORIGINS OF CHRISTIANITY
>
>Historical facts reveal that Jesus did
>not use the word Christianity.

Well, no, He didn't. Since it only developed after His death and resurrection, that would have been hard, wouldn't it?

>He and his followers used
>to worship in the temple
>which other Israelites used. The
>message of Jesus was to
>call people back to the
>religion of Abraham and Moses
>from which they had gone
>astray.

His exact words were, "I am not come to destroy the law, but to fulfill it." Judaism revolved around the sacrifices for sin; Jesus was the ultimate sacrifice, thus fulfilling the need for remission of sins.

After the disappearance of
>Jesus, Paul declared that belief
>in Jesus sufficed for salvation.

Actually, Peter did so first, in the chapter two of the book of Acts. Paul was not even a Christian yet.

>The Jewish scholars of that
>time called the followers of
>prophet Jesus the misguided sect
>of Nazarene or Galilaens. In
>43 C.E., when Paul and
>Barnabas went to Antioch to
>preach, they were ridiculed and
>were called Christians by the
>masses. The ones who were
>called Christians felt that if
>they are being given a
>name in reference to Jesus,
>there is nothing wrong in
>accepting it. A present day
>analogy may be the case
>of Muslims being called Mohammedans
>in the West and Muslims
>giving in to the name.

Except that Muslims don't worship Muhammed, and Christians do worship Jesus.
>
>
>
>
>PAUL ALTERED THE MESSAGE
>
>At the beginning, Paul was a
>staunch opponent of prophet Jesus
>and remained so for many
>years after his ascension.

He did oppose Jesus at first, but it was a fairly short period of time, not years and years. The Bible does not give an exact time period, but Paul's conversion occurs fairly early in the book of Acts (chapter 8).

When
>he did join the followers
>of Jesus later on, he
>initiated many alterations in the
>teachings of Jesus in hopes
>of winning over the Gentiles
>(non-Jewish people). He championed the
>following concepts into Christianity:
>
>1. the concept of Jesus as
>son of God;

Not quite. Jesus claimed to be God on several occasions, and the Jews tried to stone Him at least twice for it.

>2. Jesus died on the cross
>to wash eternal sins of
>Adam's children through his blood;
>and

Again, look at Peter's sermon in Acts 2, which takes place only 40 days after Jesus' ascension into heaven.

>3. the Law of Torah was
>renounced. He eliminated all regulations
>concerning food and abrogated the
>injunctions of circumcision.

Yikes! Somebody has completely overlooked the entire book of Acts! Again, Peter said it first, after a vision he had in chapter 10, verses 11-15. Paul confirmed this later. Also, nothing in the Bible is "abrogated." It's not even a term Christians use in relation to the Bible.
>
>The real followers of Jesus opposed
>these blatant misrepresentations of the
>message of Jesus.

Who says who is the "real" follower?

Their struggle
>to reject the notion of
>Divinity of Jesus continued for
>about two hundred years. Since
>these alterations were very appealing
>to the Gentiles, the true
>believers were unable to stop
>the misguidance.

Wrong again. For quite a long time, Christianity was thought of as a small, obscure Jewish sect, and was despised even more than Judaism itself. There was nothing at all appealing about it for quite awhile.
>
>In 325 C.E., a council of
>Christian leaders met at Nicaea
>and officiated Paul's beliefs as
>their religion. Roman Empire declared
>Paul's religion as the religion
>of the State and all
>those books which denied these
>beliefs were banned.

Yes. This happened after several centuries of persecution by the Roman Empire, some of it incredibly severe. Believers were tortured in amazingly cruel ways, and Bibles were banned on pain of death. Nevertheless, the church survived.
The beliefs listed in the Nicene creed had already been accepted by the church at large and certainly by all the church fathers.

And didn't Peter have *anything* to say about Christianity? He and Paul recognized each other's writings as inspired, and Peter wrote two books of the New Testament. Why do they keep ignoring him? He and Paul certainly don't contradict anywhere.

JBJ
05-01-2002, 20:27
Hi Tita,

Welcome to IWC.

A couple additions:

>When
>he did join the followers
>of Jesus later on, he
>initiated many alterations in the
>teachings of Jesus in hopes
>of winning over the Gentiles
>(non-Jewish people). He championed the
>following concepts into Christianity:

>1. the concept of Jesus as
>son of God;

Paul didn't start the idea of the Divine Man, nor even Jesus, the prophets did: Musa, Dawud, Joshua, and Isaiah. Two of which the Qur'an confirms.

"We believe in Allah and ... that which was revealed unto ... Moses..." 2.136

"We imparted unto David the Psalms" 4.163

2. Jesus died on the cross
>to wash eternal sins of
>Adam's children through his blood;
>and

Again, not only Paul, not even only Peter, but the David and Isaiah the prophets too. Especially strange because crosses weren't invented at the time.

>3. the Law of Torah was
>renounced. He eliminated all regulations
>concerning food and abrogated the
>injunctions of circumcision.

Yes, Paul ended complete obedience to the Law, and Peter did before him, and Jesus before him, and David prophesied it before him. Paul wasn't making stuff up. If you want to say he wasn't sent by God that's fine, it's your opinion. But the facts are he took most of his thinking from Jesus, Jesus' followers like Peter, and the Jewish Books. As he said,

But now a righteousness from God (grace), apart from Law, has been made known, to which the Law and the Prophets testify.(Letter to the Romans 3.21)

"He (God) does not treat us as our sins deserve,
or repay us according to our iniquities." (Psalms 103.10)

The Law of Moses said "eye for eye, tooth for tooth," but David says God doesn't do this. He must work from some other "righteousness," as Paul labels it. Christians call exemption from the Law "grace."

But did Paul "renounce" the Law? Not that I remember reading. He does say this:

"Do we, then, nullify the Law by this faith (grace)? Not at all! Rather we uphold the Law." (Romans 3.31)

The book of Romans is a very good dealing with the Law and grace, though it dabbles in some complex theology at times.

Grace was put by God "over" the Law, like a new building on an old foundation. The Law still exists, but those who trust in Christ are not bound by it. Paul speaks of some who still try to use the old foundation but fail. Even the Torah speaks of failure under it's own Law:

"Cursed is the man who does not uphold the word of this Law."
(Deuteronomy 57.26)

And who can uphold it? David said:

"All have turned aside,
they have together become corrupt.
There is no one who does good,
not even one."
(Psalms 14.3)

Paul doesn't renouce the Law. In another letter he says it is "inspired by God" or "God-breathed." (Second Timothy 3.16) He says it has meaning for those under grace aswell, "Through the Law we become conscous of sin." (Romans 3.20) Certainly not renounced. As for elimated diet restriction, he didn't do this either.

"If what I eat causes my brother to fall into sin, I will never eat meat again, so that I will not cause him to fall." (First Corinthians 8.13)

This means it's not simple as you "shouldn't eat pork," "you should eat matza" and so on. If what you eat worships God, then eat it. If what you eat doesn't worship God, or causes someone to sin, don't eat it. Paul is teaching that intention determines how to live, not blindly following the Law. Paul is following what Jesus said,

"Love the Lord your God with all your heart, mind, soul, and strength. This is first and greatest commandment. And the second is like it: Love your neighbor as yourself. On these two commandments hang all the Law and the Prophets." (Gospel, Matthew 22.37-40)

Worshipping God (in Christianity) is not through hands but throught the heart. As the Jewish prophet Jeremiah prophesied:

"The time is coming, declares the Lord,
when I will make a new covenant
with the house of Israel
and the house of Judah (Jacob's son)
It will not be like the covenant
I made with their forefathers. . .
This is the covenant I will make with the house of Israel
after that time, declares the Lord.
I will put my law in their minds
and write it on their hearts."
(Jeremiah 31.31-33)

Anyway, sorry for babbling on. But the point is Paul didn't do everything, God worked through many people over hundreds of years. If Paul invented Christianity, we'd see a big bulk in the Bible, with Paul's writings containing all the content. We'd also see differences and contradictions between the writer of one book with another.

Instead we see the books within the Bible complementing each other like the Qur'anic exegises. Even though the writers were seperated by thousands of years, they still spoke in line with each other. Even when the earlier writers didn't understand what they were writing about!

JBJ

servant_of_Allah
05-01-2002, 22:24
" Paul didn't start the idea of the Divine Man, nor even Jesus, the prophets did: Musa, Dawud, Joshua, and Isaiah. Two of which the Qur'an confirms.

"We believe in Allah and ... that which was revealed unto ... Moses..." 2.136

What are you trying to suggest? Are you saying the Qur'an confirms that Jesus was the son of God (Astagfarullah)??!!

Reply very soon.

Bye,
Servant of Allah.

________
og kush (http://trichomes.org/marijuana-strains/og-kush)

Tita
06-01-2002, 01:15
bravo, JBJ!!!! A much better response than any I could have written. :-)

Tayeb
09-01-2002, 15:11
LAST EDITED ON 12-01-02 AT 10:26 PM (GMT)[p]Dear JBJ and Tita:

>A couple additions:
>
>>When
>>he did join the followers
>>of Jesus later on, he
>>initiated many alterations in the
>>teachings of Jesus in hopes
>>of winning over the Gentiles
>>(non-Jewish people). He championed the
>>following concepts into Christianity:
>
>>1. the concept of Jesus as
>>son of God;
>
>Paul didn't start the idea of
>the Divine Man, nor even
>Jesus, the prophets did: Musa,
>Dawud, Joshua, and Isaiah.
>Two of which the Qur'an
>confirms.
>
>"We believe in Allah and ...
>that which was revealed unto
>... Moses..." 2.136
>
>"We imparted unto David the Psalms"
>4.163
>

These are misusages of verses of the Holy Qur'an. It's irreconciliable this fact and I and many others have discussed it with JBJ but may be he thinks that by repeating same thing so many times that it'll become a truth. Jesus isn't a god. None of these prophets have been 'divinised' in no way in the Holy Qur'an.

>2. Jesus died on the cross
>
>>to wash eternal sins of
>>Adam's children through his blood;
>>and
>
>Again, not only Paul, not even
>only Peter, but the David
>and Isaiah the prophets too.
> Especially strange because crosses
>weren't invented at the time.
>
>

Did they for the sins of Adam's children? This is something new I hear from JBJ... I thought this was a purely a Christian concept of original sin.

>>3. the Law of Torah was
>>renounced. He eliminated all regulations
>>concerning food and abrogated the
>>injunctions of circumcision.
>
>Yes, Paul ended complete obedience to
>the Law, and Peter did
>before him, and Jesus before
>him, and David prophesied it
>before him. Paul wasn't
>making stuff up. If
>you want to say he
>wasn't sent by God that's
>fine, it's your opinion.
>But the facts are he
>took most of his thinking
>from Jesus, Jesus' followers like
>Peter, and the Jewish Books.
> As he said,
>
>But now a righteousness from God
>(grace), apart from Law, has
>been made known, to which
>the Law and the Prophets
>testify.(Letter to the Romans 3.21)
>
>
>"He (God) does not treat us
>as our sins deserve,
> or repay us
>according to our iniquities."
>(Psalms 103.10)
>
>The Law of Moses said "eye
>for eye, tooth for tooth,"
>but David says God doesn't
>do this. He must work
>from some other "righteousness," as
>Paul labels it. Christians
>call exemption from the Law
>"grace."
>
>But did Paul "renounce" the Law?
> Not that I remember
>reading. He does say
>this:
>
>"Do we, then, nullify the Law
>by this faith (grace)?
>Not at all! Rather
>we uphold the Law." (Romans
>3.31)
>
>The book of Romans is a
>very good dealing with the
>Law and grace, though it
>dabbles in some complex theology
>at times.
>
>Grace was put by God "over"
>the Law, like a new
>building on an old foundation.
> The Law still exists,
>but those who trust in
>Christ are not bound by
>it. Paul speaks of
>some who still try to
>use the old foundation but
>fail. Even the Torah
>speaks of failure under it's
>own Law:
>
>"Cursed is the man who does
>not uphold the word of
>this Law."
> (Deuteronomy 57.26)
>
>And who can uphold it?
>David said:
>
>"All have turned aside,
> they have together
>become corrupt.
>There is no one who does
>good,
> not even one."
>
>(Psalms 14.3)
>
>Paul doesn't renouce the Law.
>In another letter he says
>it is "inspired by God"
>or "God-breathed." (Second Timothy
>3.16) He says it
>has meaning for those under
>grace aswell, "Through the Law
>we become conscous of sin."
>(Romans 3.20) Certainly not
>renounced. As for elimated
>diet restriction, he didn't do
>this either.
>
>"If what I eat causes my
>brother to fall into sin,
>I will never eat meat
>again, so that I will
>not cause him to fall."
> (First Corinthians 8.13)
>
>This means it's not simple as
>you "shouldn't eat pork," "you
>should eat matza" and so
>on. If what you
>eat worships God, then eat
>it. If what you
>eat doesn't worship God, or
>causes someone to sin, don't
>eat it. Paul is
>teaching that intention determines how
>to live, not blindly following
>the Law. Paul is
>following what Jesus said,
>
>"Love the Lord your God with
>all your heart, mind, soul,
>and strength. This is
>first and greatest commandment.
>And the second is like
>it: Love your neighbor as
>yourself. On these two
>commandments hang all the Law
>and the Prophets." (Gospel, Matthew
>22.37-40)
>
>Worshipping God (in Christianity) is not
>through hands but throught the
>heart. As the Jewish
>prophet Jeremiah prophesied:
>
>"The time is coming, declares the
>Lord,
> when I will
>make a new covenant
>with the house of Israel
> and the house
>of Judah (Jacob's son)
>It will not be like the
>covenant
> I made with
>their forefathers. . .
>This is the covenant I will
>make with the house of
>Israel
> after that time,
>declares the Lord.
>I will put my law in
>their minds
> and write it
>on their hearts."
>(Jeremiah 31.31-33)
>
>Anyway, sorry for babbling on.
>But the point is Paul
>didn't do everything, God worked
>through many people over hundreds
>of years. If Paul
>invented Christianity, we'd see a
>big bulk in the Bible,
>with Paul's writings containing all
>the content. We'd also
>see differences and contradictions between
>the writer of one book
>with another.
>
>Instead we see the books within
>the Bible complementing each other
>like the Qur'anic exegises.
>Even though the writers were
>seperated by thousands of years,
>they still spoke in line
>with each other. Even
>when the earlier writers didn't
>understand what they were writing
>about!
>
>JBJ

Again JBJ you try to justify what's unacceptable in Islam and you compare incorrectly with the Holy Qur'an by stating:

"We'd also see differences and contradictions between the writer of one book with another. Instead we see the books within the Bible complementing each other like the Qur'anic exegises".

Qur'anic exegises? Explain yourself! There's only one Qur'an, no several writers and its guarantee was also made possible in minds of millions of Muslims by memorisation. There are no Qur'anic exegises.

For me as a Muslim and interested in learning about the Christianity, I bleieve that Paul (Saul of Tarsus his original name) was the cause of all the deviations from original teachings of Jesus. His writings are part of actual NT used by Christians and in fact are greatest part of NT.

My opinion is that Paul wasn't even a Jew. He claimed he was a Jew of the tribe of Benjamin, from a long-established Pharisee family in Tarsus. According to Acts he studied in Jerusalem under Gamaliel, the leader of the Pharisees and grandson of Hillel. The interesting thing is that tribe of Benjamin had long ceased to exist, and Pharisee families were otherwise unknown in Tarsus. According to Paul's opponents, the Ebionites, he came from a family of recent converts to Judaism. So here's a possible explanation why he would not uphold the Law? Paul opposed the Jerusalem Church composed of disciples of Jesus, who continued to hope for Jesus' return to complete his Messianic mission.

Tayeb

Tita
09-01-2002, 19:45
I agree, Sure, that the Koran does not teach that Jesus is God. Quite the opposite.

But I thought that Muslims believed the Bible to be true, in so far as it does not contradict the Koran? The part about Paul's heritage is in Philippians 2, definitely a part of the Bible. Paul's being a Pharisee or not has no direct bearing on the Koran, so I would think as a Muslim you would have to believe it.

servant_of_Allah
10-01-2002, 12:05
LAST EDITED ON 10-01-02 AT 11:08 AM (GMT)[p]Muslims do not follow the Bible. We follow the Qur'an.

You thought wrong.

It would be very difficult to know what is the truth and what not in today's Bible.

________
AMC Spirit AMX specifications (http://www.dodge-wiki.com/wiki/AMC_Spirit_AMX)

JBJ
11-01-2002, 00:45
Hi Tayeb! (or Sure?)

I'm sorry, I guess I quoted the Qur'an without explaining the quotes right away; I assume everyone here would know enough to understand, which Tita didn't. The Qur'an affirms David and Moses, and, according to the Bible, support the "divine man" idea. But the Qur'an does not say that this.

I didn't mean to imply that the Qur'an supports the words that the Bible attributes to Moses and David, I only meant to remind us of a common link between Islam and Christianity. But since you bring it up, people have discussed it with me, but no one has ever followed through to the end. No one's explained why "the Torah" of Muhammad's time referenced in the Qur'an is not "the Torah" given to Moses as referenced in the Qur'an. Since the subject keeps coming up, I really hope that someone will explain these and answer the points I've brought up before.

You're absolutely right, Jesus is not a god and the prophets aren't divine. Neither the Qur'an nor the Bible say either of these.

Did they for the sins of Adam's children? This is something new I hear from JBJ... I thought this was a purely a Christian concept of original sin.

Who is "they"? According to the Bible, Jesus is the only one to have died for the eternal salvation of people. All of us are the children of Adam, for he's the ancesterial father of everyone.

What I meant by Qur'anic exegis are the places in the Qur'an where the same event is told more than once. They compliment each other because they don't all contain the same details. For example, the story of Adam, Eve, and the fruit is told at least twice in the Qur'an. What did you think I meant? Occaisionally tafsir is considered exegis, though that's not what I meant here.

I haven't studied Paul's life very much, so I won't write on a subject I haven't researched. However, he definitly was not the cause of every deviation from Jesus' teachings. Many of Paul's ideas are taken from the OT which was around long before he was born. For example, that following the Law exactly would end, as I quoted from Jeremiah, and that the man who is God, as I wrote in the "Trinity in the OT" thread.

Is Sure786 an alias of yours? He's ended his message with "sure" the same way you did. Just wondering.

Salaam!

JBJ

Tayeb
13-01-2002, 00:16
Dear JBJ & Tita:

Firstly I am not 'sure', I'm Tayeb and Admin of IWC. The signature must have appeared from a quote I took which I ended up not using and didn't remove completely the text. We have blocked IP viewing for security reasons. But if they were available (I as Admin can see them also for security reasons) you'd notice that I and 'sure' have different IPs. You have to take my word on that. Recently I posted and signed as Tateb :D

As I've informed in the past messages I was educated in a Catholic school in Mozambique. I learnt much about Christianity and principally about Holy Apostolic Roman Church (i.e. Catholicism). I'm Muslim by birth, and my family has been Muslim for about 400 years at least and before Islam we were Hindus.

I have always tried to learn about Christianity. As a Muslim and a firm believer on Oneness of Allah, the Trinity, the basics of Christian faith keeps us apart.

I objected on the usage of word "exegesis" by you, because of its roots. I may explain more if you want. Some Orientalists have tried to use this word on the Holy Qur'an, as freely at it's used on the Bible.

It's wrong to use "exegesis" on the Holy Qur'an because the Word of Allah has survived in its originality to these days, and though we may read lots of different translations, and hence interpretations, of the Holy Qur'an, the original text is there for everyone as reference in Arabic.

On Paul, I may state I did some research though I'm also no expert and do not claim to be one.

Salaams - Peace,
Tayeb

JBJ
13-01-2002, 04:29
LAST EDITED ON 14-01-02 AT 07:58 PM (GMT)[p]Hi Tayeb!

That all makes sense.

I remembered more recently that Jesus is from the tribe of Judah, which was "lost" along with all the others. Jesus is believed to be of Judah because of the hereditary lines in Matthew and Luke which show Judah's family in his ancestory. If it was common for people to have their family lines, this may be why Paul is said to from Benjamin.

"Paul of Tarsus" may not mean he was taught in Tarsus by Pharisees, it may only mean he was born there and moved somewhere else for schooling.

Paul says he was a son of a Pharisee, but I don't know where any "long family" is mentioned, at least in the Bible. What source did you use to say Pharisees were otherwise unkown in Tarsus? But if he and his father were the only Pharisees in Tarsus, and Paul left the sect, his father would be the only one, and it would be easy to see why there's no evidence of Pharisees in Tarsus.

In the fall reaches of my memory I see to remember that there was a school in Tarsus. If that's true, Paul may have been born and raised elsewhere and went to Tarsus for education. When he left there would be no Pharisees, or he may not have been a Pharisee at the time of his education. Then he would be "of Tarsus" but there'd be no evidence of Pharisees in Tarsus. Of course I'm relying on foggy memory, so I may easily be mistaken.

Anyway, one of the two explanations would seem to satisfy your criticism.

Salaam!

JBJ

Tayeb
14-01-2002, 19:45
LAST EDITED ON 14-01-02 AT 06:47 PM (GMT)[p]Dear JBJ:

> Hi Tayeb!
>
>That all makes sense.
>
>I remembered more recently that Jesus
>is from the tribe of
>Judah, which was "lost" along
>with all the others.
>Jesus is believed to be
>of Judah because of the
>hereditary lines in Matthew and
>Luke which show Judah's family
>in his ancestory. If
>it was common for people
>to have their family lines,
>this may be why Paul
>is said to from Benjamin.
>
>

One matter doesn't invalidade other.

>"Paul of Tarsus" may not mean
>he was taught in Tarsus
>by Pharisees, it may only
>mean he was born there
>and moved somewhere else for
>schooling.
>

According to Acts, Paul studied in Jerusalem under Gamaliel, the leader of the Pharisees and grandson of Hillel.

>Paul says he was a son
>of a Pharisee, but I
>don't know where any "long
>family" is mentioned, at least
>in the Bible. What
>source did you use to
>say Pharisees were otherwise unkown
>in Tarsus? But he
>and his father were the
>only Pharisees in Tarsus, and
>Paul left the sect, his
>father would be the only
>one, and it would be
>easy to see why there's
>no evidence of Pharisees in
>Tarsus.
>
>In the fall reaches of my
>memory I see to remember
>that there was a school
>in Tarsus. If that's
>true, Paul may have been
>born and raised elsewhere and
>went to Tarsus for education.
> When he left there
>would be no Pharisees, or
>he may not have been
>a Pharisee at the time
>of his education. Then
>he would be "of Tarsus"
>but there'd be no evidence
>of Pharisees in Tarsus.
>Of course I'm relying on
>foggy memory, so I may
>easily be mistaken.
>
>Anyway, one of the two explanations
>would seem to satisfy your
>criticism.

I'll dig up more information and more sources to prove what I stated.

Now on your earlier posting:

"You're absolutely right, Jesus is not a god and the prophets aren't divine. Neither the Qur'an nor the Bible say either of these."

I'd say I'm quite relieved. If it isn't mistyping or I'm not misinterpretating you, we are now quite close to each other. Would you now state that Jesus was a Prophet of Allah?

Salaams - Peace,

Tayeb

Tita
15-01-2002, 04:59
How could Jesus be a prophet when He claimed to be God? That would make Him a blatant blasphemer, would it not?

JBJ
15-01-2002, 05:33
LAST EDITED ON 15-01-02 AT 05:14 AM (GMT)[p]Hi Tayeb!

You were implying that Paul couldn't be who the Bible says he is because the tribe of Benjamin was lost, weren't you? That's what I was meaning to invalidate. I was saying that Paul could know he was from Benjamin through keeping family lines, the same way Jesus knew he was from Judah.

Then Paul said, "I am a Jew, born in Tarsus of Cilicia, but brought up in this city. Under Gamaliel I was thoroughly trained in the law." (Acts 22.3)

You were right, according to Acts Paul studied in Jerusalem under Gamaliel. But I don't know why you think Gamaliel was the leader of the Pharisees or Hillel's grandson. Gamaliel (if it's the same person) is mentioned in Acts as "a Pharisee" and if he was the leader I'd think the writer of Acts would mention it, the way he identifies the high priest.

Yes, I think Jesus was a Prophet of Allah. But I think I must have misrepresented myself earlier saying "the prophets aren't divine." It's true the Bible doesn't say this, but it doesn't mean all the prophets aren't divine. Both the OT and NT are clear that there is an exception.

Jesus is definetely not a god. Paul said, "There is only one God." (Romans 3.30)

But yes, Jesus is a Prophet of Allah. In Acts 3 Peter says that Jesus is the prophet which Allah spoke about in the Torah saying, "I will raise up from among your brethren a prophet like Moses." He is a prophet. He is also a miracle worker, and I believe some other things too. But despite the other things, I think we are quite close to each other.

Salaam!

JBJ

JBJ
15-01-2002, 05:41
LAST EDITED ON 15-01-02 AT 04:52 AM (GMT)[p]Tita,

Islam does not say whether or not Jesus ever said he was Allah. Muslims say that he did not say this at all, but I don't see any proof of this from the Qur'an or hadith. The Qur'an and Bible say Jesus was a sinless prophet of Allah, so he would not blaspheme. (If he did say he was Allah, his words would be true and therefore it would not be blasphemy.)

On the Biblical side, Jesus was both a prophet and claimed to be God. And the Bible agrees he was sinless, so he wouldn't blasheme.

Please read up on the subject or simply ask questions before making claims.

Peace,

JBJ

Tita
16-01-2002, 01:59
>LAST EDITED ON 15-01-02
>AT 04:52*AM (GMT)
>
>Tita,
>
>Islam does not say whether or
>not Jesus ever said he
>was Allah. Muslims say
>that he did not say
>this at all, but I
>don't see any proof of
>this from the Qur'an or
>hadith. The Qur'an and
>Bible say Jesus was a
>sinless prophet of Allah, so
>he would not blaspheme. (If
>he did say he was
>Allah, his words would be
>true and therefore it would
>not be blasphemy.)
>
>On the Biblical side, Jesus was
>both a prophet and claimed
>to be God. And
>the Bible agrees he was
>sinless, so he wouldn't blasheme.
>
>
>Please read up on the subject
>or simply ask questions before
>making claims.
>
>Peace,
>
>JBJ

What claim did I make? What are you talking about?

vancouver
19-03-2002, 21:43
Paul wrote his words under inspiration from God as did all the bible writers. He did not believe Jesus died on a cross, it was an upright stake. Xmas has nothing to do with Jesus or the bible, it was a pagan custom. The bible prophesied about a heresy(apostacy)that would come after the apostles death and scatter the true christians. This apostasy was started from the Roman Empire especially with Constantine. Even the title of Pope was taken from Rome(Pontifex Maximus). There is nothing wrong with the writings of any of the bible. The errors came after the first century. True believers have nothing to do with Xmas or its immoral celebrations.