@goldPseudo Ah yeah, normally I don't like copy and paste stuff, even for small things. But in this case, it was a bunch of questions asking stuff along the line of is alcohol impure/haram, and the answer was basically the same. Thought it was better than answering once and linking to that answer, since people normally just want a cited resource that says that it's fine.
or i guess in the case of my country, people just want a source that says it's haraam so that they can sell inferior, alcohol free perfumes at the same excessive prices :/
i'm kind of annoyed at how much islam is being marketed to sell low quality, expensive products these days
If I become a partial owner of a company via investment, i.e. I buy 100 shares in a company which gives me 1% ownership. If the company sells non haraam products, i.e. metal, but has a loan on which it is paying interest.
Would I as the 1% owner of the company via my 100 shares be directly or i...
graveworship is not prostration alone visiting a shrine with devotion to the internal object of reverence is akin to visiting a Idol temple where the idol is revered
@Ali As a prophet he said that "noone comes to the Father but through me". He was more than a prophet, he was God incarnate and my trust is in Him. No other prophet raised himself from the dead and no other prophet died to show me grace.
""noone comes to the Father but through me" This is a standard of all prophets of God. Even Moses was the way for Beni Israel. So was Jesus and so is NOW the final messenger Muhammad pbuh @Caleb
@Ali Jesus didn't claim that he had a lord that we should follow, he claimed that HE WAS Lord and that we should follow him. Either he was crazy or lieing or he really was the Lord of heaven and earth in human form. I've looked at the evidence and decided what I believe about that.
@Ali No other prophet in the Torah ever made that claim. They pointed the people TO God but did not claim to BE God.
@Caleb you should know that Islam claims to be true message of Christ's teaching hence you should strive to accept it without any bias. And it has highly convincing and valid reasons too
Ya i may be wrong in my approach , so can you explain me and @Caleb @goldPseudo
@Caleb claims to have read the entire Qur'an cover to cover. what convincing argument do you think that we can put forth that God has not already?
"O People of the Scripture, do not commit excess in your religion or say about Allah except the truth. The Messiah, Jesus, the son of Mary, was but a messenger of Allah and His word which He directed to Mary and a soul from Him. So believe in Allah and His messengers."
" And do not say, "Three"; desist - it is better for you. Indeed, Allah is but one God. Exalted is He above having a son. To Him belongs whatever is in the heavens and whatever is on the earth. And sufficient is Allah as Disposer of affairs."
"Perhaps you would kill yourself with grief that they will not be believers. If We willed, We could send down to them from the sky a sign for which their necks would remain humbled."
2)I believe the Injeel revealed to Jesus is Word of God and modern bibles are mixture of truth and falsehood and Quran is a filter to accept only those verses which match with Quran
3) Christianity is not religion of Jesus it is the religion founded by apostle paul and his contemporaries . Islam is the religion of All prophets.
@Ali I would feel guilty about wasting that organizations finances on something I did not intend to read. I have bookshelves full of books on Islam and I live in an Islamic majority country and have access to folks like professors at the Islamic divinity school here. I honestly don't think you should waste your books on me.
But lets deal with your answers for a second.
1) Before you use quotes from the New Testament (Injeel) you really should read the whole thing. Even if you don't believe it, it will save you making serious mistakes in the way you quote the material.
2) So how would I know if the bits you were quoting me to try to make a point were the bits that were truth and not falsehood? I do believe it -- and more importantly -- understand it. Your taking verses out of context to try to make the opposite point the people being quoted actually made is not a good way to earn my trust or respect.
3) Never-minding what I think of Islam (I am making no comment on that), your charictarization of Christianity does not stand up to history. Was Paul influencial? Sure. Where the later apostles also influencial? Sure. Is that what it's baesd on? Not at all. Do we have enough other sources to know what Jesus himself did and taught to reconstruct a faith on it? Yes we do.
@Ali Not only did you quote out of context, you copy/pasted somebody else who was quoting out of context and aren't even aware you are repeating their mistake.
Jesus and his gospel are exceedingly radical from any human point of view. The apostles and earliest disciples of Jesus therefore remained uncertain about the nature of the gospel and just what Jesus had accomplished in the world. Paul and his associates stepped into the breach created by the uncertainty of the apostles.
They had a great advantage because Paul’s message was precise and certain and he preached it with great conviction. By blending portions of paganism, Judaism, and the unique doctrine of Jesus, Paul created a faith that had a powerful appeal to the gentile world.
Not wanting a fight with the apostles, he shrewdly pitched his mission to the Gentiles, where he claimed apostolic support without admitting indebtedness to them. He was careful to see that his message was recorded for posterity in the writing of his epistles.
@Ali Your statement only hold true up until BEFORE the resurection. After that, the apostles and earliest disciples (the 12) went to their deaths defending with straight-fordward and emphatic declarations of what they believed.
Generations and centuries passed during which the Pauline wing with its powerful appeal to the Roman world gained ascendancy over the apostolic wing. The apostolic wing with its primarily Jewish flavor lost influence and was caught between the dual jaws of history – the Gentile church and the increasing hostile Jewish synagogue. We may possibly see their record in the brief references of early writers to the Ebionites, Jewish Christians who persisted for maybe four hundred years.
@AlUmmat JKK. The question is. What is the difference between receiving rent and receiving interest? I just read something on islamqa which seems to suggest that if i give someone some gold, i can charge them "rent" on that gold. Here is the fatwa link:
@Caleb Paul heavily influenced the resulting church due to the preservation of his writings, especially after the church canonized his epistles. Christianity became a Gentile religion that, following Paul, blended elements of paganism, Judaism, and Jesus. This constituted a vast deception in that the church came to see Jesus as Paul saw him, and it is Paul’s Jesus that has come down to us through the church. The reformers reformed Paulinism, not the faith of Jesus.
@AlUmmat Unless I have misunderstood that link, it seems to say that i can charge rent for loaning gold to someone and receive rent in the form of gold.
@Ali The council in Jerusalem where Paul's evangelism of gentiles was official approved of by the Jewish followers in Palestine was in 50 A.D --- less than 20 years after the ressurection -- hardly generations and centuries!
Jesus of Nazareth therefore is to be carefully distinguished from the Jesus or Christ of Paul. The churchmen, while preserving Jesus of Nazareth in the gospels, have not noticed the distinction because, seeing Jesus through the eyes of Paul, the shadow of Paul’s Jesus lies over the gospels and darkens their hearts and minds when they read. Nevertheless, through the centuries, a few individuals who have known Jesus as he truly is as a prophet of God and not divine Islam just confirmed it @Caleb
i would think the like-for-like principle would still apply; i.e. if you're renting out gold jewelry, the "rent" must be paid in a non-gold currency (e.g. silver).
@Ali I didn't say "representative population". That council was significant in that it gathered all the apostles which you are trying to say had a different message. At that council, they showed that they were in agreement with Paul.
@Al Ummat, @goldPseudo. Yes, that was what I always thought until that fatwa through me off. i.e. renting gold is fine, if you receive GBP,USD for it, but it's considered riba if you receive like for like.
@Ali First, you haven't even read Paul's letters so I'm not sure why you're trying to convince me they are different than the gospel accounts. Second, even if you didn't read them, the historic accounts we have of Jesus from pre-pauline sources conflict with what you are trying to say. There is tons of manuscript evidence un-affected by post-pauline writings that bears witness to Jesus claim to be God.
@Caleb if I am not mistaken, Paul never met Jesus personally, and also (forgive me if I am wrong) the christians and jews used to worship together, but they threw Paul out calling him a babble
@AlUmmat That's roughly correct. Some Jews did not recognize Jesus as the Mesiah, in fact it was rejection of that claim that they conspired to get him killed in the first place. But some Jews did accept that claim -- setting them apart so at first they were seen (particularly from the outside like Roman historians) as a sect of Judaism. And yes, of course the Jews that did not accept Christ thought Paul and all the other disciples were babbling and threw them out of syanogges repeatedly.
@AlUmmat I would start with believing what the other disciples said about him (and supported their statements by being willing to die for), and the fact that they vouched for Paul's authenticity helps some. The fact that Paul isn't saying anything different than the other disciples who did know Jesus personally helps too.
@Ali I'm well aware there are a few people who would discount Paul even today. And some that call themselves Christian. But their stance doesn't stand up to much historic or academic study.
@AlUmmat Yes, all except Judas. James would have been the first to die I believe, and that in 44 AD. Paul started traveling and preaching in the late 30's and had interaction with the apostles in Jerusalem several times before James was killed. The others were around for years and years after he was preaching.
@AlUmmat Both actually. Paul's descriptions are all of a single true God revealed in three persons -- Father, Son and Spirit. Distinct but not separate, one but not confused.
@AlUmmat His word, his miracles, his own resurrection. Mostly his resurrection. Paul's way of putting it was that "if there was no resurrection, then our faith is empty and we are most to be pitied among men."
But whatever verse you meant, my answer is that there is no single verse that the whole idea rests on, but a lot of different verses support it. After all the word "trinity" isn't in the Bible in any language at all, it's just a word we use to describe a concept we see in the Bible that didn't have any easy moniker.
> The sick man answered him, “Sir, I have no one to put me into the pool when the water is stirred up, and while I am going another steps down before me.” Jesus said to him, “Get up, take up your bed, and walk.” (John 5:7-8 ESV)
@AlUmmat It's a bit of an mystery. Lots of Christians will give you ... ya I see you've heard some. Frankly I think those sort of illustrations are mostly nonsense and mostly demonstrate some form of modalism (rejected by Christianity as heresy by the way) rather than actually describing the Trinity as found in the Bible.
@AlUmmat Yes I do. And am willing to say I don't understand it perfectly, but also that it does make some sense. It isn't completely irrational even if it is somewhat out of our normal pattern of thought. But then I couldn't imagine a one true God who was so simple that my mind could perfectly understand and measure him.
Christians thoughout all time have struggled to put the Trinity into words. Frankly I think it's impossible, but one of the best attempts I know of is the Athanasian Creed.
@AlUmmat Nope. That makes them three separate people drinking tea.
@AlUmmat Not exactly, although many pagan beliefs have left their mark on Christianity ... there is always a battle for truth vs man's ideas and at various times beliefs not stemming from God's word have made their way into Christianity. That's why we have thousands of years of debates, conflicts and condemning false teachings. Sure there were people influenced by Roman and Egyptian paganistic beleifs, but those influences did not originally define the Trinity.
Which, can, by the way, also be traced through the Old Testament, although before Christ actually came it was much less obvious what that was all about. What Jesus did was teach from the Torah and show that it was actually all written about him. Either he was a mad-man or it actually was about him, in which case even the Torah talks about God being made up of more than one personage.
@Caleb when Paul decided to make Jesus the son of God, the Greeks, Syrians, Persians, Egyptians and many other nations found it reasonable to believe in, why?
@AlUmmat Paul didn't "make Jesus" anything. Jesus claim to be the Son of God was, to the Jewish leaders of his time, blasphemy and why they conspired to kill him. This was before Paul -- at that time Paul was persecuting Christians. Then when he changed his tune and started proclaiming him, he himself said his message was "folly to Gentiles" -- and they treated him like it was folly. They didn't find it reasonable to believe in at all.
061.006 YUSUFALI: And remember, Jesus, the son of Mary, said: "O Children of Israel! I am the messenger of Allah (sent) to you, confirming the Law (which came) before me, and giving Glad Tidings of a Messenger to come after me, whose name shall be Ahmad." But when he came to them with Clear Signs, they said, "this is evident sorcery!"
@AlUmmat That's actually an interesting question. I think in order to answer it properly I would have to go into a treaties on how there is no appropriate measure of "greater" by which to define that. Both of them were wretched sinners saved by God's grace and used by him for great purposes. Neither of them were great in themselves, only in God's work in them by faith do they have a place in the history of Christianity.
@AlUmmat Not exactly abrogate. Yes, Jesus underwent some aspects of ceremonial Jewish law that were later abolished. However the reason they were abolished is that they were signs that pointed specifically TO HIM. Jesus, not Paul, rendered circumcision no a relevant sign of faith by becoming our circumcision himself on the cross.
@Ali The Jews at the time clearly understood his "I am" statement to mean that he was claiming to be the one Jehovah/God. I think they were in a position to understand him best. Even if that were not the case, Jesus also made statements that are much easier for us to understand without the context of knowing about the "I am" statements of the OT. For example he claimed "I am my Father are one" after just having explained that his Father was God in heaven.
@Caleb The bible says (which is the Torah/old testament and the Injeel/new testament) that Jesus didn't come to abolish the Jewish laws/ or the Torah/Taurat but to fulfill it
@AlUmmat Good question. A lot of it has to do with timing. Paul wasn't the first one traveling around preaching a faith in a resurrected Jesus, showing how the Torah pointed to a Messiah and was completed in the person of Jesus. In fact Paul was late to that scene. By the time his teachings were going around, there was already an established witness from the disciples that Jesus has personally trained.
And when questions arose about Paul, it was taken to those disciples (still living) and they signed off on his teachings.
@AlUmmat History obviously rules out the former. The later takes a little more study to believe but I see no indication that what we have as historical accounts from Jesus own mouth is any different than what the apostles later proclaimed. There is a different emphasis depending on who they were talking to and what problems they faced, but the basic content/message was the same.
@AlUmmat Yes, Christ is my circumcision. Bu no I am not psychically circumcised nor do I see the need to be for purposes of faith (health could be debated).
> Colossians 2:11 In him also you were circumcised with a circumcision made without hands, by putting off the body of the flesh, by the circumcision of Christ,
> Philippians 3:3 For we are the circumcision, who worship by the Spirit of God and glory in Christ Jesus and put no confidence in the flesh
ok but you are now mentioning christian spiritual circumcision, but physical circumcision is also mandatory for christian according to your Bible "Any uncircumcised male who is not circumcised in the flesh of his foreskin shall be cut off from his people; he has broken my covenant.” Genesis 17:14
@Caleb do you agree it is part of your Christian Faith to be circumcised since the above verse form the Bible is the proof?
from what I understand, Jesus came to fulfill not abolish the law, and the law of his time was the Jewish law, hence all he came to do is to fulfill it
@AlUmmat Here we get into covenants ... contractual relationships that God made with his chosen people through time. The covenant that would have been broken by not obeying the command to circumcise was fulfilled/completed in the death of Christ. That's what the verse you mentioned in Matthew 5 is about. Because Christ fulfilled that covenant once and for all, we are not bound by it in quite the same way any more. It's still a valid covenant, but it's been fulfilled.
Circumcision pointed to the future death of Christ and identified people as having set them selves apart belonging to him. Today we do something similar through baptism. The covenant was fulfilled in Christ but we still have a sign that sets us apart.
@AlUmmat the Law came about through the Covenant, but the Covenant wasn't the Law. The Covenant was the promise God made to give the Jews the land of Canaan (i.e. Israel) and to raise kings from Abraham's seed.
@AlUmmat Crucified? That is widely attested to in non-Christian history. Resurrected? You are right nobody saw the moment, but lots of people saw the result. Hundreds and hundreds. And the very weak minded disciples, who after his death were heart broken and confused, were the ones to clearly identify him. 100%. And to live out the rest of their lives defending their identification of Christ as risen to their deaths (for very same belief).
If there was a body, both the Jews and the Romans had a huge incentive to produce it and shut the whole thing up.
When the apostles preached, they appalled to the witnesses still living among the people who could attest to what they were saying was true. Nobody argued back.
@Caleb actually they found the sepulchre empty where Jesus was laid down and made the conclusion that he was resurrected because the disciples and other witnesses saw him alive after the alleged crucifixion. Could it be possible that the Quran is telling the truth and Jesus did not die?
@AlUmmat The Romans knew how to kill. The Jews flogged the guy, then the Romans hung him on the cross. Their own lives were on the line if as soldiers they failed to kill him dead. When the earthquake got them all scared the first thing they did is make sure the criminals were dead.
They broke the legs of the other theives hanged at the same time as a way to make them suffocate to death faster, but they found Jesus dead. The spear in the side producing a flow of blood and water is conclusive medical evidence that the guy was done. Dead as dead.
@AlUmmat They found the tomb empty (in spite of the Roman guard having been setup, again at the cost of their own lives, to guard it). And they concluded that somebody had stolen his body. That was his followers conclusion until he started appearing (and in physical body) to them and showing them that he was really Jesus.
@AlUmmat Professional executioners? Yup. But let's say he didn't. Three days later he drags his sorry carcass out of the tomb, swabs his wounds with some ointment and staggers into the nearest farm house. Do you seriously think the disciples would have been instantly convinced that he was Lord of heaven and earth returned from the grave and proclaimed him as a victor over death? The first thing I would have done (as an EMT myself) is take that guy to the nearest hospital!
@AlUmmat Blood doesn't clot inside the body, it clots when exposed to oxygen (then slowly spreads). By piercing his lung/chest cavity with the spear, the soldiers were able to see that the fluid around his lungs had separated from the blood, something that only happens after death. And I have asked a doctor. Several as a matter of fact.
assuming that he had fully intended to sacrifice himself against his own personal will but rather because of God (the Father's) will, as his actions leading up to the cross suggest, does it actually matter if he died?
just like Abraham's sacrifice of his son was accepted despite it never actually coming to fruition, would not the intention of the sacrifice be enough to fulfill whatever role Jesus' sacrifice was intended for?
@AlUmmat No historian of the ancient world doubted his death. Or the claim of his resurrection. Even the ones that didn't personally have an explanation for it didn't doubt that his disciples were going about claiming he'd risen, and that he died is more certain than just about anything in history.
@goldPseudo Yes, to Christianity is does matter. If he didn't die, the bit about resurrecting is nonsense, and without the resurrection being real, basically our whole hope and focus is wrong.
"I and my father are one" means I and my father are one in purpose\teachings. Its like saying follow me and you would indeed follow Allah. Even Prophet muhammad pbuh said that @Caleb
@goldPseudo Lazarus hadn't been going about the countryside proclaiming himself to be God and telling people that he was going to resurrect. Yes in a sense it just proves that God can give live, but by doing so he also affirms Jesus claims -- accepts his task on the cross as completed -- and confirms that his claims about himself were true.
@Ali Muhammad meant something different than Jesus did. Look at the way the Jewish religious leaders understood his statement. His statements consistently went way beyond just being unified in purpose -- and caused appropriate outrage from a religious community that thought not even a prophet had the right to say such things.
@AlUmmat That was my guess, and yes that is a prayer asking, in a sense, to be delivered from the torture he was about to face. The "cup" is a reference to the Torah and the prophet Isaiah and David, the cup is filled with God's wrath. But look at it carefully. Jesus prayer is not "deliver me" but "if it be your will, deliver me". And he submits himself to God's will.
While being fully God, he was also living a fully human live, which means the dread of the upcoming crucifiction (and much worse, the anger/punishment of God dealt out at the same time) would have been staggering. It was a natural prayer, and certainly heard and answered. But the answer was that he was strengthened to go through with the plan. To die a sinners death after having lived a perfect life.
@Ali The context of that phrase is John 10:22-42. The phrase itself is John 10:30 and the next three verses make it clear that the Jewish listeners were intending to stone Jesus to death for claiming to be God.
@goldPseudo That is important, but no the primary importance was more fundamental than just fulfilling prophecy. Those events had a purpose that predates (and was the purpose for) the prophecies about them.
@goldPseudo Sorry, not trying to take over here. Remember this started with me getting proselytized (fair enough, I'm on your turf) and then answering questions. I'll shut up and leave if anybody is uncomfortable, those that want to talk can do so with me elsewhere.
@El'endiaStarman then those jewish rabbis were WRONG In interpreting what jesus said OR they purposely made a hue and cry to accuse him of blasphemy, i know this happens among fanatic religious persons . fanatics like to declare people as Kafir!!
@Ali That was the excuse that the Jews took to the Romans so that they could wrangle a legal execution: they had to show he'd done something dangerous to the Roman empire to get a death sentence. But that wasn't got them angry at him in the first place. They were angry because he was blaspheming and claiming to be the Messiah.
@AlUmmat This room is a room for Muslims. I don't expect everyone here to alter their speech/terms for the sake of outsiders. If I come across a term I don't understand, I'll ask, and then I'll learn and understand it after that.
I honestly don't know anywhere near as much about Islam as I would like to.
@El'endiaStarman ok, as you like. just to mention it, in Islam we are to have certain manners to (as you say o"outsiders" those who don't understand Islam
@AlUmmat That verse is talking not about his death/resurrection but the Ascension (his being taken up to heaven) which happened 40 days later. He was transitioning his followers from direct interaction with himself in flesh to interaction through the Holy Spirit.
@AlUmmat Do as you see fit, but I know most of the Islamic terms like that so you don't have to worry about that with me, and most are easily looked up. And El's not afraid to ask :)
@Caleb The Quran says that Jesus was not killed on the cross but raised up, in other words ascended. So it would seem that this verse supports the verses in the Quran
> Look at me, an expert, expertly using expert formatting to expertly look expertly.
@Ali True. And Jesus confirmed rather than denied the claim. "It is as you say" was his official response before Pilate when asked about the various things he'd been accused of. And he had lots of other changes with the people to set the record straight. But he didn't go around preaching "hey look you guys read me all wrong, I'm not actually the Messiah just a good normal preacher guy". Naw, he kept right on doing things and saying this in a way that pointed people to that conclusion.
Here in India this Dr Zakir Naik who is a famous preacher of Islam , was Implicated in charges of mocking the Hindu elephant God. And he had to leave the country as there was danger o life
he WAS THE MESSIAH
---jesus indeed was the messiah BUT NOT GOD INCARNATE
@AlUmmat The Quran draws lots of material from previous material. That neither proves the event nor it's own veracity. By contradicting the NT account on the point of his death, it must then recon with not just Christian but all other historical accounts of the time.
It can't work both ways. Just because the Quran mentions an event (the Ascension) that the Bible also confirms doesn't help us at all in deciding about an issue in which their testimony is contrary.
@AlUmmat No, I do not. That whole affair is a not very scholarly rendering of some Greek words trying to make them fit something that just isn't there. "paraklete" I think is the word you could search for to see how Christianity interprets those verses, but I could be wrong. I'd dig up info if you're interested.
Here in India this Dr Zakir Naik who is a famous preacher of Islam , was Implicated in charges of mocking the Hindu elephant God. And he had to leave the country as there was danger to life and he did not mock any hindu deity but only asked question like "I will eat the sacrificial sweet of diety only if you prove me that the idol is god"
@Caleb Isaiah 21:7: “And he saw a chariot with a couple of horsemen, a chariot of asses, and a chariot of camels.” who is the promised rider on a camel?
@AlUmmat Certainly some. But how many hundreds of witnesses do you need and people with vested interest (Romans, Jews) to see the opposite thing do you need before a story starts carrying some weight? And a vision or appearance on the scale like that would mean God was deliberately playing tricks with us, why would he do that when all through history he's been telling us exactly the same story about this cross thing needing to happen?
@AlUmmat Bit of a rhetorical question, but supposing that we're talking about a god who is omnipotent and able to part the Red Sea, wouldn't that same god also be able to actually let Jesus be crucified and then raise him from the dead?
@AlUmmat That passage is talking about the fall of Babylon (both the physical city which fell way before Mohamed and the thing it symbolizes to Christianity, namely any whole system of worldly affairs that opposes God, which is symbolic of all of history and will be concluded at the day of judgement). Who the riders are is not important to the story. Nor do Muslims claim to be the ones that overthrew Babylon, which predates them by a few years.
@Caleb again if you believe Jesus was God, than why does he have to put himself to death and bring himself back. Who was tending/looking after the creation while God was gone if God died on the cross?
@El'endiaStarman a poem by Ibn Qyyim a medieval scholar :O Christ-worshippers! We want an answer to our question [from your wise ones], If the Lord was murdered by some people’s act, what kind of god is this? We wonder! Was He pleased by what they did to Him? If yes, blessed be they, they achieved His pleasure, But if He was discontented, this means their power had subjugated Him!
Was the whole entity left without a Sustainer, so who answered the prayers? Were the heavens vacated, when He laid under the ground somewhere?
@owari currently I am discussing with caleb on two main things, whether the Prophet Muhammad is in the bible, and whether Jesus (Peace be upon Him) died on the Cross
@owari I wouldn't agree to "never" because he did sometimes participate in the Jewish customs, but I would agree that he bucked them and sometimes did things at inappropriate times, like not fasting on the right days or healing on the Sabbath day. But "prayers and fasting" to the Jews were not what they are in Islam today either so don't get the two sets of traditions confused.
perhaps we should all discuss one thing at a time so to not overwhelm @Ali @owari the divinity of Jesus is a good subject, but my point is let us all agree to discuss one subject :)
@Ali This and your earlier similar statement are based on a non-Trinitarian view of God. Christians believe that not only was Yahweh God, but so was Yeshua (Jesus) (and so was/is the Holy Spirit). In that case, there is nothing self-contradictory about God (the Father) raising God (the Son) from the dead.
@Ali I'm actually going to respectfully bow out of that one for now. I'm fine discussing the topic, but not when all your claims are unsubstantiated and you don't engage with mine. I would ask that you stop bombarding me with stuff other people claim on the internet and bring me something you've studied and have questions about. I've already given you my conclusions and heard your position.
@Ali Christian Atheists exist too (though they aren't well-represented on our site). They're just not the majority, and neither are Unitarians or those who deny Paul.
being in minority does not mean they are on falsehood, here is a christian sect which denies paul with outstanding research and arguments voiceofjesus.org/b2tableofcontents.html
infact minority sects in any religion often preserve certain original things lost in the mainstream @El'endiaStarman @Caleb
@Ali There are also people calling themselves Christians that believe that UFO's came to earth and aliens are living among us in machine bodies that look like humans. That doesn't make those things Christian doctrine. Unitarianism is not Christian, nor is anybody claiming Paul a liar. We can talk about sects/cults/mainstream/orthodox/true Christianity another time, but that's another discussion and not particularly relevant to our other topics.
@Caleb If Jesus was God, and he died on the cross, who was maintaining the creation between his death and coming to life again? if God actually died wouldn't creation fall apart? so I am getting at three points, either Jesus was God and creation fell apart? or he wasn't God? or he wasn't even crucified.
@Ali I'm well aware of this. In fact I believe only a small portion of "Christianity" is actually "Christian". But again, this is a red herring argument. You can be right as a minority, but most of the time it just means you are a kook.
If I become a partial owner of a company via investment, i.e. I buy 100 shares in a company which gives me 1% ownership. If the company sells non haraam products, i.e. metal, but has a loan on which it is paying interest.
Would I as the 1% owner of the company via my 100 shares be directly or i...
Jaami'at StackExchange al-Islamyya
Jaami'at StackExchange al-Islamyya