where does the quran say the earth is like a carpet? as usual you will give me one single translation, i will give you the arabic word, the meaning, and 6 other translations that correctly do not call it a carpet.
It doesn't say the earth is like a carpet, it says that the earth is spread out LIKE a carpet (i.e. flat). I discovered AFTER making of this video, that the Quran ISN'T being reformed. The earth is still flat, and, in Quran 4:24, you CAN have sex, I mean, "marriage", with married slave women your "right hand possess".
even better, you agree that all the translations say spread out, just one adds, 'like a carpet.' as i said before,"i will give you the arabic word, the meaning, and 6 other translations that correctly do not call it a carpet. "
most of all you say is based ONLY on a single translation... it is about time that you in the very least read all the translations
most definitely... you see, the implicated verses use a word which means cradle, so you can understand the translation of a bed... implying that the earth is a place of rest for humans. as a verb, it means extended/spread. so by itself, it just means an extended/spread place of rest... however yusuf ali has at times used the word carpet, perhaps because arabs would rest on it, but today it is being used to show that the earth is flat, even though the arabic gives no indication of it.
So, "spread out" means bed? IF the earth isn't flat in the Quran, and, the earth orbits the sun, how come the Quran says the sun "runs to a resting place"? Then, according to the the Hadith, "prostrates under the throne of Allah before asking permission to rise again"? Shouldn't it be the earth that constantly ask permission to keep on rotating?
'spread out' does not mean bed... the arabic word that is used means cradle/bed as a noun, and extended / spread as a verb.
i assume you are talking about surah 37. the arabic "li mustakarrin laha" can mean 'its own orbit' or 'a stable point' , so some translators go for one, others go for the other one. in fact, since your well verses in the hadith, there is one according to which it is ok to recite this differently so that the sun 'does NOT come to a stable point'!
if you choose, "the sun in its orbit", then it makes sense as 36:40 also says that the sun runs in its orbit. if you choose "the stable point", this could mean a number of things, one of them being that it is talking about the sunset that we see. this would also make sense because 36:39 is talking about the moon as we see it, a crescent.
True. The moon orbits the earth, but, it's the earth that orbits the sun. And, being that the earth is rotating, shouldn't it be the earth constantly asking permission of Allah to keep on rotating, rather than the sun asking permission to rise again?
1) the hadith you mentioned is in the muslim and bukhari, read them side by side, and you realize that they are somewhat different, this raises the question of how easy it is for one of those people to have gotten it wrong by adding and substracting even a single phrase that could have changed the meaning entirely
2) actually the sun also rotates and it also orbits other galaxies... so the quran is right when it says that the sun has its own orbit
Oh, it's a fact that the sun rotates, but, rotating and orbitting are two different things. IF "swimming in it's own orbit" means the sun is running to a resting place somewhere in the universe and NOT orbitting the earth like the Quran says the moon is doing around the earth also, well, where is that resting place the sun is running to?
So you asked about the snake,inresponse I asked you 3 points to build my arguement upon,just answer them,You asked why i say God doesnt dwell in the heavens and earth,I responded with a question to build my point upon,just answer it
So just work with me hereanswer the question and you'll find that we are moving along nicely,so can we please get back tothe points?
"(for there is no one who does not sin)"Yeah thats kinda the WHOLE POINT they sin ,then they turn toward the temple and pray and repent,so then what happens,because of this?see verse 50; ALL their transgressions are forgiven because of this act.the whole reason they do it is FOR forgiveness of their sins,so that "(for there is no one who does not sin)"only lends strength to the whole premise of the act
Even if you're right. HOW many times are they to pray toward the Temple? And, IF it's five times a day, EVERY day, like a Muhammadan has to do with the Ka'aba, (or else), WHERE does it say they have their patootis up in prostration LIKE you do in Islam?
this was in the time of solomon,they were dominant in the land they werent in captivity AT ALL and if you are talking about verse 47,then you are still wrong what about verses 27-32?Captivity is not a condition there or in 35-43 so you cannot isolate 47 and say they only did so when in captivity,but cause that is a blatant fallacy and error.
I thought for SURE there was some mention of captivity in the passage you sent. But, even if it's not mentioned, HOW many times a day, or, year, or, whatever were they to face the Temple? DID they have to have their patootis up in the air in prostration five times a day to avoid "the fire", or, what? And, if so, what's with the blood atonement of innocent animals? What's with the brazen snake idol being used as effect snake bite medicine, or the spotless lamb blood on Egyptian doors?
IF you are right, then WHY was there this call for blood sacrifices in the Temple? WHY was a bronze snake image (idol) used successfully as snake bite medicine to those who looked up at it on a stick held up by Moses? WHY was the blood of a SPOT-less lamb used to keep the first born of Israel from being struck down by the angel of death? How much you want to bet that that lamb blood on the doorways of Egyptians would have stopped THEIR first born from dying as well?
dont try to divrt,lets finish here and stay on track with kings and the other verses,then we'll do yours,it not really fair to try to move on from my points when we are still on it,just because you dont want to be proven wrong in it.
3you didnt respond to point 1,and i dont want to move to 2 until that is established
i think the evidence is clear here,i dont know how many times you want me to post it sayin they prayed the the temple...
Before you accept it?I mean if an explicit"when they pray toward the temple" isnt enoughfor you to prove praying toward the temple then I dont know what to tell you,causeyoure just not willing to listen,
Really i have quoted the verses and posted them here,and they are clear,are you now then willing to accept point 1?
Look, I don't blame them for praying toward something that had the "Holy of Holies" in it. But, WHERE are they praying toward it five times a day and having their patootis up in the air like Muhammadans to keep from going to eternal hell fire?
Again, you have sold me on the fact that they prayed toward the Temple. But, did they have to do it five times a day, or, a one time thing? HOW many times? DID they have to have THEIR patootis up in the air like Muhammadans, or, not. And, again, what were blood sacrifices and the idol or a snake AND the Passover spot-less lamb blood all about IF Jesus DIDN'T go to the cross like the Quran says he didn't?
35 When the heavens are shut up and there is no rain because they have sinned against You, when they pray toward this place and confess Your name, and turn from their sin because You afflict them
36 then hear in heaven, and forgive the sin of Your servants, Your people Israel, that You may teach them the good way in which they should walk; and send rain on Your land which You have given to Your people as an inheritance.
37 When there is famine in the land, pestilence or blight or mildew, locusts or grasshoppers; when their enemy besieges them in the land of their cities; whatever plague or whatever sickness there is; 38 whatever prayer, whatever supplication is made by anyone, or by all Your people Israel, when each one knows the plague of his own heart, and spreads out his hands toward this temple:
39 then hear in heaven Your dwelling place, and forgive, and act, and give to everyone according to all his ways, whose heart You know (for You alone know the hearts of all the sons of men),
furthermore 44-50 all support the same point forgiveness as a motive is firmly attached to and associated with this act,so they did in fact do this with the purpose to be forgiven,do you then accept point 2?
"and spreads out his hands toward this temple:" sounds like it COULD be more than a one time event, AND it sounds like it's NOT to keep from having their skin burned off and replaced in eternal hell five like Islam teaches, but, to appease God in their mortal life...IF that's what spreading out "his hands toward this temple" is for.
By the way. IF you are right, and they are trying to avoid hell fire like Muhammadans with patootis in the air as they "face the temple with "his hands toward this temple", WHY, does the Torah (which the Quran says is "both guidance and light" like the Quran), talk of blood sacrifices for atonement? Atonement for what? And WHY a spot-less lamb blood above doorways in Egypt? And WHY an idol used successfully as snake bite medicine? WHY all this IF Christianity is a lie?
IS this passage during a time of captivity where there would be no sacrifices in the Holy of Holies, or, not? IF they were captured, and wanting to be brought to the "land which You gave to their fathers", I can understand why patootis might be up in the air here while facing the Holy of Holies for forgiveness. BUT, are they in captivity at this time? If not, then that means sacrifices were taking place also, and, why? WHY blood atonement sacrifices AND patooti in the air?
It IS NOT just for a time when in captivity,but for whatever,whenever,whoever,and the captivity is only one example among others like
lack of rain on account of sin,famine,pestilence,blight.mildew,locusts,when the enemy is in THEIR land(the other way around from what you are talking about)
or in 38 and 43 anything and evrything
also hre is an interesting connection between that,salah and what you were mentioning about like the 99 names it's a .....
see 39,now you mentioned that memorizing the99 ma,es will get you to heaven,that's true,so will fasting ramadan,sendingp laylatul-qadr in worship,learning the quran and teaching it,BUT
check this out
I'm sure you are familiar with this(The first matter that the slave will be brought to account for on the Day of Judgment is the prayer. If it is sound, then the rest of his deeds will be sound. And if it is bad, then the rest of his deeds will be bad)......TBC...
here is another concerning it("The covenant between us and them is prayer, so if anyone abandons it he has become a disbeliever." (Ahmad, Tirmidhee and Nasaa'ee)
another
("What lies between a man and disbelief is the abandonment of prayer." ( Agreed upon by Muslim, Abu Dawood and Nasaa'ee as sahih authentic)
Pt3 So yesfasting,learning quran,the names,and many other things are deeds that fetch reward,but if one totally abandons salah one may be classified as a disbeliver,which will render those deeds worthless on on judgment they will all be bad,But if one sticks to it, it will bear fruits according to your ways niya and ikhlas,1kings8:38-39 brought that to my mind.
So, since you have to do deeds as well, the 99 names of Allah WON'T get you into Paradise? What about Muhammad saying "one hour of deep contemplation is better than 60 years of worship"? Was he joking?
sure there ARE actions that fetch reward and have great merit BUT one must be a beliver to be eligible for that reward,the deeds of disbelivers arent worth anything,an atheist could learn the 99 names but he isnt going to get anythig for that,as the verse said HIS deeds are worthless,you cant be a disbeliver and back to the statement
"the covenant between us and them" the criterion that separates us is the prayer
So, again, what you are saying is, Muhammad saying learning the 99 names of Allah and having one hour of contemplation being better than 60 years of worship, well, he was joking, huh?
one could say doing such and such is better thsn 60 years of walking through doors,and that may be true but if it something that you MUST me inside to do you still have to go through just because a in better than B doesnt mean B is unnecesary
if I said "for this trip a working engine is better than 60 gallons of gas" that may be true,your engine breaking out in Bunnykill texas is worse and harder to fix than an empty tank so the statement is true but would any logical person....
...would any logical person think they could drive cross-country with no gas?Which is basically what you are saying.
let change the analogy to the car keys
there are things more important to a successful road trip.ggas,engine,food,a map,knowing your destination,but still you are going to need your key,without it,no trip,but the other things are more important becaue even with a key without those you wont get too far
...so i could logically say 1 hour of driving will get you further and is better than 60 years of turning the ignition,absolutely true but you still need to do it dont you?so lets take it back,and give an example
two men one lived to be 115 the other 20
the first guy prayed salah for 100 years,but thats it, the other for just 2 but he also took the time to memorize the names,fasted,contemplated deeply on spiritual things,then died at 20...
On judgment day who will be better off and more blessed?The young man of course!
so they both prayed salah so God says to them
"The deed you present will be judged as good"
thats somehing slah gets them,but the old man,what does he have to present to be judged?nothing really,he didnt do other things he was commanded,didnt stay away from the forbidden,didnt learn or contemplate.the young man,one hour he spend trying to pregress excel and understand is better than...
...is better than 60 years the old man spent doing just the bare minimum,the young man will be more blessed,and have more light,surely.
so what he did was better for him and recived more reward than the old mans years of just salah,but that does not mean either of them was permitted to leave it,one thing being better than another does not mean the other isnt important at all,salah is like the seal of approval for his deeds
so let me give yet another example.Say there's a place you want to go,but you need a car.
Someone gives you money to buy a car
When you go to the lot,you pick a car,before you can drive it off the lot you have to sign some papers,right?a contract,now the car and choosing it is better for you than a contract but one hand to the other,you cant have the car unless you sign it and calling to what the prophet said,salah is that contract and disbelivers are like one who...
walks around all day picking cars 'Oh i want that one,and that one!"but they refuse to ever sign the papers,worthless,they remain car-less
that clear enough?picking cars is deeds,the contract is salah and the car is reward
Ihave explained it in super basic terms,easy to understand.I f you dont get it now,either you are weak of understanding,which isnt my problem,or your are simply not heeding because you dont want to,again your problem,not mine.
If you say "You MUST do A,and you MUST do B" or "You must do A and you should do B"
You are free to say whichever is better than whatever that doesnt change the status of A from obligatory,I'm sure you know islam has pillars for your salah to be good you must have the other 4 and the other ay around for them all and certain things are better than others regardless of their status of obligation,do you know why that is?
it's so that no one can become arrogant and feel too justified is righteousness
so no one can say " I have salah na-na-how 'bout that" it can be said to them "shall I iform you of something even better for you to do as well?" so thateveryone will know that
whatever the do obligatory or not is icing on the cake an though you may GAIN somethong for it you dont truly EARN anything,as the prophet said people enter paradise only by God's mercy
what is in the hearts of faith,BUT a faithful haert is a humble heart,and obdient heart willing to accept any order,but you cannot claim to be willing while refusing to do so
so God may order something or recommend something may be for a number of reasons
to manifest the level of faith to the person,you may be told to have courage,and think what you have is just that,but when ordered to get in the ring with mayweather,your legs buckle and you cant...
showing you that THINKING you have courage and HAVING it are two different things and you need to work on it,same with faith and commandments,it works like a gauge for youanother reason may be to polish and improve the hearts and faith of the believers,for instance,giving in charity will soften the heart,make you more caring,which is a branch of iman,we are told to avoid cursing because it make the heart hard and harsh so if you stick to them it will make your faith to grow
because faith isnt like a light switch,you have it or you dont,it increases and decreasesyou can grow in faith or diminish,and by default it is decreasing,you have to refill it and you cant do so by scrunching up your face and clenching your fists you've got to fill her up and God has given the perfect pump by way of his commands the end result being that you come to God with Qalbin Salim,a sound heart which is what he wants from you whatever he gives you is from his bounty
Yes. Let's move back to the main talk, which is WHY should there be blood atonement? Atonement for what? WHY the first born of Israel should need the blood of a SPOT-less lamb above their doors? WHY should an idol of a snake be used as effective snake bite medicine IF Christianity is false? Yes, let's move back to the main talk, please.
And, it sounds like if you just have doubt the size of an atom, you're SCREWED even IF you have your patooti in the air five times a day, EVERY day, for the rest of your life. Or, is it doubt the size of a "grain of wheat"? Maybe you know? Then again, you think Muhammad was joking about the 99 names of Allah getting you into Paradise, or the "one hour of deep contemplation being better than 60 years of worship", so, maybe it's pointless to ask about doubt sizes.
You can snow with words all you want, but, HOW come Allah would have an IDOL used as effective snake bite medicine IF Christianity is a lie? HOW come Allah would have "sin offerings" in the Temple? WHAT does atonement mean to you? WHY did the blood of a SPOT-less lamb have to be used? WHY the first born of Israel IF it's blood wasn't used above their doorways?
hey man dont act like I just went off,I asked you first if you wanted to hear it and told you it was a bit beside the point,you had ever opportunity to say no,and if it bugs you thats what you should have done
Again, how come you are avoiding the reality of "blood atonement for sin", the spot-less lamb blood over doorways to keep the first born of Israel from dying, and, how come you are avoiding the idol that was used as effective snake bite medicine which makes NO sense if Christianity is as Islam says it is, false? Well, I can see why you are avoiding talking of them.
as i said if you would stop trying to avoid my points,it addressee the fact that sacrifice in the bible just isnt what you are making it oput to be sso if you would stop trying to ignore and answer me as to whether you accepted the second point or not we could continue,you say you want an answer,I JUST told you,my answer is within the poins I'm making now if you really want an answer you will let me make them and stop standing in my way
Well, what WERE sacrifices for? It sounds like you want to believe their was patooti in the air while facing the Temple as much as Muhammadan patooti in the air, and, hardly any sacrifices for atonement. But, what DOES atonement mean to you? Atonement for what? AND, why the idol used effectively as snake bite medicine AND the spot-less lamb blood to keep the first born of Israel alive...IF Christianity is false?
Why are you avoiding talking about "blood atonement for sin", or the bronze idol of a snake used as effective snake bite medicine, or, the first born of Israel dying IF they didn't have the blood of a spot-less lamb above their doors? How come you avoid that and, instead, snow with words? Al taqqiya, huh?
Forget A and B. You aren't even talking about A, really. WHAT does "blood atonement for sin" mean to you? WHY the idol of a snake on a stick used as effective snake bite medicine for those who would look at it held up by Moses? WHY would the FIRST born of Israel die without a SPOT-less lamb blood over their doors IF Christianity is false?
So, whenever they are having problems, they are to pray toward the Holy of Holies. Somehow, that makes sense to me, being that the Holy of Holies seems to have represented God being on the earth.
wrong ,in verse 27, he says that God will NOT dwell on the earth, right there he refutes you and rejects that concept and symbolism by making it clear that GOD does not dwell on earth or in that temple,so there's no way it could have represented that to them seeing as how the FISRT thing solomon does is rule that out as even being a possibility,it even shows that they didnt consider that God literally dwells in the heavens either
It's actually translated as "most Holy place". Look up "Tabernacle". It's where the ark was located. Try Leviticus 16:16 and 14:13. To me "most holy" seems to mean "Holy of Holies".
"Seems to mean" holy of holies,well I'm reading it and it says holy place not holy of holies,so it SEEMS to mean holy place not holy of holies,so I'm sorry but that is unacceptable also it just says 'holy place' not "most holy place' at least in the translation you have me using(theNKJV) just a little correction there
and some of the translations just say "sancurary' and none of them say holy of holies
So what does Holy of holies" mean to mean is a question that doesnt really establish anything.
Now,you never responded and told me if you accepted the points i made about 1kings,about it not being just in captivity,and being applicable to anything,go back and re-read those and respond so that we can continue,if you please.
but you didnt address the fact that solomon said that God dwelling on earth(like the christians claim) is exactly the kind of thing that DOESNT happen
what does a place being called holy have to do with God dwelling on earth?the two things are mutually exclusive God calls people holy are they then God?It means no such thing it is YOU who are trying to turn "holy" from special and blessed into "God ersonally and actually occupies that place,having come down to earth" i mean,what!?
come on now,see verse 27-28 solomon firmly rejects the idea of God dwelling on earth or in the temple so the passages soundly refute you there it is not solomon who is wrong but rather you.I'd say solomon knows exactly what he's talking about what that the place being "holy" does NOT mean God is actually dwelling upon the earth in that place,and for all the mteaphorical rhetiric,it was just that metaphorical
in chapter 9 of kings he says His eyes and heart will dwell there,does that mean....
that a pair of eyeballs and a heart are actually in that place?Of course not
David is called the begotten son of God,But he is not meant to be considered more than human.And in chapter 8solomon takes a moment to make it clear that they do not consider or think that God Himself is in that place that the heavens of the heavens cannot contain him,even less so the temple,so i'd say solomon"s understanding is right and yours is wrong
IF David IS the begotten son of God, seems to me David IS more than human, that he's like Jesus Christ, who, if you read the Bible, was God incarnate. Of course, I can't find it in the Bible where David is the "begotten son of God". In Psalms (written by David), there is mention of the "begotten son of God", but, that, to me, is prophetic of Jesus. The same Psalm seems to be talking about the Millenium rule of Jesus when on earth in the future. By the way, you seem to be avoiding...
the Bible's talk of blood atonement. Atonement for what? You see to be avoiding the idol used as effective snake bite medicine and spot-less lamb blood used to keep the first born of Israel from dying. How come you are avoiding stuff in the Bible the "before scriptures" the Torat and Injil (that the Quran says is "Allah's word") that makes it sound like Christianity ISN'T a lie?
Okay you are greatly misunderstandin sacrifice in the bible,there are a NUMBER of ways,people are forgiven in the bible,which i was going to show in my points,if youd let me make them,there are also places where it shows tha God doesnt care for sacrifice but rather obedience and the heart,so on and so forth,See?the points i was building were these,which is why i told you,if you let me make them your questions will be answered
Okay,let me make this clear,the quran refers ONLY to the originals,it does Not teach that what you have is uncorrupted;see bukhari:Volume 9, Book 92, Number 461
so you CANNOT say that Islam confirms it without reservation.That clear?Do you have a book from which you can read this or should I post it?
IF the Bible is corrupted, like you are trying to say, how come Quran surah 2:106 never kicked in? You know, the one that says, "Whatever a Verse (revelation) do We abrogate or cause to be forgotten, We bring a better one or similar to it. Know you not that Allah is able to do all things?" THIS to me means, Allah COULD have said that the Bible is no longer something to stand FIRM on, no LONGER "both guidance and light". But, those surahs weren't abrogated (substituted), how come?
Also, is seems to me that WITH Quran 2:106, Allah could have abrogated surah 10:94 that tells YOU, as a Muslim, to go to those who have read the "before scriptures" (i.e. Bible) if you are in doubt about the Quran. Allah could have changed it to read, "DON'T go to THEM!! The...the 'before scriptures' are CORRUPTED now! If you ASK them, or FOLLOW them, horrors of HORRORS, you will think WE have a SON creating the WORST of sins!!! NOT rape, genocide, racism, slavery...but....SHIRK!!!"
I just showed Above that 2:106 is in relation to the previous scripture,and as I showed in 5:45,and Of course worshipping others Beside God is the worst sin.
As the Mufasirin said Verse 2:106 is about The Quran Being brought forth,as Better,than the Bible,You remember the hadith I showed you,back when where the prophet said the quran was superior?If you start on verse 105 its clear that the two are connected also see 5:45 where God clearly say "we ordained" then overturns that on the spot and says whoever doesnt follow the new ruling is a wrongdoer
IF the Quran is better than the Bible, WHY does the Quran tell Jews and Christians (people of the book), that they have "no ground to stand on unless they stand firm upon (the Torah and the Injil)? WHY, do YOU, as a Muslim, have to come to me or a Jew for our "reading the before scriptures" IF you are in doubt about the Quran? WHY is the Torah LIKE the Quran when the Quran says nothing can be LIKE it? WHY is the Torah not only LIKE the Quran, but, is "both guidance and light" LIKE THE QURAN?
I'm sorry but you are quite wrong,let look at the facts,the speaker in psalms is david or God by way of david,so lets look in psalm2 he said the "lord said to ME" he hasnt put the deree on anyone else it was said to HIM,this is further supported by psalm89:19-35 27 says DAVID is His firstborn,so David was most certainly called the son of God,with mercy on him,you say psalm2 is about jesus but david is clearly speaking of HIMSELF "the lord has said to ME"
any way you want to say it's a prophecy of jesus,well that just not a workable theory for three reasons
1David is clearly speaking of himself,and not anyone else,in fact He speaks from this position for just about the WHOLE of the psalms"I,me,my"breaking this only to deliver statement direct from God,introducing them with a basic line to the effect of "the lord said" just like in chapter 2
2Pslam89:27 makes it clear that David WAS considered the son of God,even his firstborn
so saying so is accurate and factual,showing AGAIN that it was indeed himself mentioned in chapter 2(as if him placing HIMSELF as the subject,wasnt enough)
3In light of the aforementioned,you have NO evidence to support your claim that psalm2 is a prophesy of jesus,other than that you wish it so,so the claim lacks a back AND the text itself resists the connection
So it's pretty clear,with david putting himself as the subject,that he is talking about himself,I dont see how you can deny that ,do you then accept the point that David was indeed called the son of God,begotten and firstborn?
IF David was talking about himself, how come he wasn't stoned for blasphemy? Isn't it a grave sin to say you are the "only begotten Son of God"? Notice that it's in the 2nd Psalm. That should have been his LAST Psalm for making such a claim, but, it wasn't was it? I'm thinking the Jews knew enough that he HAD to be talking about something else. Christians automatically KNOW who he was saying even IF he wanted to believe he was talking about himself. :)
Because they understood its meaning,of being a chosen one rather a son in the way hercules was the son of zeus,ephraim was called the firstborn of God,no one stoned him,Moses was called God or "as God"in psalms is say "you ARE gods"If that is non-literal and they iunderstood that,how can David saying the same,and calling himself the son of God be blasphemous,for him if it wasnt elsewhere?
and no it wasnt the las such claim he said i agin in psalm 89,and you cant say it not about David,it SAYS "david" and that he was anointed,making it seem, again,like he was the subject of 2,why should it have been his end,they knew it wasnt literal,other wise they would have stoned ephraim and others
when son of God is said it must be one way,or the other,you cant split the difference, either its literal,or it isnt,you cant pick and choose and switch when it suits you,
its ALWAYS literal or ALWAYS metaphorical,if you say jesus is literally the son of God,so is ephraim,and Adam,and Moses really was God,and n psalm82 they Really ARE gods,divine sons of the Almighty,more than human ALL of them.
So which is it ?Is ephraim indeed the son of God?are those of psalm 82 in actuality deities?you cant have it both ways,its one of themthe title isnt back and forthat your say-so,I firmly say its a metaphor for the righteous, so you take your stand,which is it?
no other God execpt Jesus,apparently?if they cant be Gods with him neither can Jesus,you need to be consistent,this is what I'm talking about you are changing the rules of what can and cant be,first God isnt a man or son of man and doesnt change,then God is a man,son of man,Jesus
first one born of a woman(jesus was) CANNOT be pure before God,manis a maggot and the son of man is a worm than you say that Jesus was a pure and holy sacrifice to God
Solomon says God cannot dwell on the earth,then YOU say thats JUST what jesus was,God dwelling on earth,Deut.30 says the law it not hard for man to fulfill,You say it is IMPOSSIBLE,the bible say God is ONE whom there is none besides,you say jesus is at the right hand of the father in a sense of Godhood,an exact OPPOSITE claim,what I'm saying is youve GOT to have some consistency you cant pick and chosse saying"where helps me its literal,but here when it doesnt, it isnt
God cannot? Hey, I'm familiar with what Solomon wrote. Guess what? IF you are right about God not being able to dwell on earth, you need to read further and see that God can't even dwell ANYwhere, not in heaven or even the HIGHest Heaven. Sounds like you believe God can't exist period, huh? Your God is either too limited and can't dwell anywhere, or, God doesn't exist and THAT'S why He can't dwell anywhere. Of course, I'm seeing it meaning you can't box up God and God can be ANYwhere.
No YOU are limiting God you are saying that he cannot exist without a physical place,so he not TOTALLY independent because he NEEDS a place to dwell,he he is dependent upon his creation?Is that WHAT you are saying? LIKE HIS CREATION,God needs a place to dwell to exist?Is that what you are saying?God cannot exist independent of space and time?
To me, there are sons of God (Born Again Christians are considered ADOPTED sons and daughters of God, but, JESUS is the LITERAL Son of God in a major way. To the point where he says, "if you've seen me, you have seen the Father").
But if you are saying psalm2 is about Jesus then he is adopted too,like the adoptionists say
but if Jesus is as such he cannot be an eternal son,if its about David then John(which,as far as i know is the only gospel to make such a claim,which is strange seeing as how the other 3 are older,youd think theyd mention such a thing) is wrong
so if psalm2 is about Jesus then sonship is also a conferred title rather than an eternal attribute,and if its about Daviv,which I maintain,then jesus isnt the only one
I don't see what you're getting at. To me David WAS annointed, to be the one whose seed Jesus would come through to sit on his throne (rule Israel during the Millenium and become that prince with the iron rod you, I betting)
89:1 I will sing of the loving kindness of Yahweh forever. With my mouth, I will make known your faithfulness to all generations. 89:2 I indeed declare, Love stands firm forever. You established the heavens. Your faithfulness is in them.
89:3 I have made a covenant with my chosen one, I have sworn to David, my servant, (servant? or "Son"? Looks like servant, so far)
Right, it says David is annointed. But, "annointed" can mean for different things, can't it? I mean, you can be annointed by a Mufti to strap on a bomb. It doesn't mean you're "the Messiah" in that annointing.
Right. But NONE of those guys is called "...the mighty God, the everlasting Father, the Prince of peace" OR holds all things together both visible and invisible, either.
How does it make it clear? I read it, and, there is no saying "this is David". I think you are now desperately trying to read into things something to try to say it has nothing to do with a prophecy of Jesus. I mean, the Psalms are prophetic in spots like "cut of it off from being a nation, that the name of Israel shall no longer be in remembrance" (Psalm 83). THAT is fulfilled daily in mosques.
Okay by that criterion you cannot say it is a prophesy of jesus,because where is that?you are only trying to read into that way to suit yourself,but there is no context either way,oter than it being a davidic text,you point is weak on a few fronts,let me ask you,david and the psalms were about 500 years after moses,if it's about jesus and not david,what happens to jesus being the ETERNAL son?it says TODAY I have begotten you,are you saying God became triune around 1000b.c.?
I think it IS David who is talking, because David wrote the Psalms. In those passages, I see a connection between David and Jesus when Jesus rules on earth some day after thrashing the raging nations who are against David's seed (the Jews) in Israel. To me David is annointed to help bring about Jesus. Jesus, in a way, is a direct descendant OF David. And, he will rule on the throne of David during the Millenium (in otherwords, rule in Jerusalem. That's what I see those passages as).
All right so it IS david who is speaking,that just my point,HE is talking and he says "It was said to ME;YOU are my son,today i have Begotten YOU" he says ti was siad to HIM that he was God's son ,begotten that day,he isnt speaking of another,but himself
Where does he say, "It was said to ME"? But, hey, I'll take your word, ok? I'll see it as talking to David, but, I'm also seeing it as prophetic when Jesus rules on earth after the Muslims, I mean, NATIONS, are raging against the Jews of Israel.
He says "the lord said to ME" in verse 7 of chapter 2,just so you know,but if you accept it as talking to David,then he was called God's son,Begotten,and firstborn
what then is the Meaning of this?
God seems to be spreading the term around quite a bit,I say the meaning as it relates to jesus is the same as the others,and the reason only john and none of the other earlier writers say such a thing or show jesus saying it,is because it originates with John
It still sounds like it's prophetic and a description of Jesus in the Millenium. But, of COURSE a Muhammadan will not be able to see it that way. And, again, I'm noticing that you are trying to avoid talking about blood atonement of an innocent animal being shed for sin, and the idol that was used as effective snake bite medicine. How come? You don't have to answer, for those who are reading this and are Christians, already know the answer.
You can THINK it is whatever you want to,doesnt make it the case or change the fact that David is the speaker,and said "ME" but of course you wouldnt want to accep that,
also I'm not avoiding anything,I asked you which part of the snake bit you wanted to do first,YOU havent answered yet.
Ok. WHY did God put that passage about an idol used as successful snake bite medicine when those bitten by snakes looked up at it? Explain that please, THEN we will move on to atonement, spot-less lamb blood and motzah bread that is 'striped and pierced" and WITHOUT leven (which I see as Jesus being without sin).
Well, you know something. I'm going to say David WAS saying that. And, I'm going to believe he was saying that as prophecy unfolding in the future when Jesus would be kicking it real on earth later on.
2:12 Give sincere homage to the Son, lest he be angry, and you perish in the way, for his wrath will soon be kindled (kicks butt at the end of the Millenium, it sounds when Satan is loosed).
Blessed are all those who take refuge in him. (Right. You want to be on the side of Jesus during the Millenium, or, else, it sounds).
It sounds like it's future prophecy to me, and, the Millenium, when Jesus thrashes those raging nations (Muhammadan nations?) who fight against Israel at his coming, and, then sets up his Davidic Kingdom with a rod of iron. I COULD be wrong, but, that's what that Psalm sure sounds like to me.
By the way. I notice you really are trying to change the subject to David rather than talking about the idol being used as effective snake bite medicine, or, what "blood atonement" means to you, or, the SPOT-less lamb blood IF Christianity was a lie. Guess what? I'm going to keep on booting you in the up-raised patooti in prostration with these until you answer me of WHY those should be in "Allah's word" IF Christianity is false.
which do you want to cover first the snake,blood atonement,or the lambs,just say the word,i will skip al my points and do it in a vacuum if it will silence you,and do them after,to support my assertions
Start with blood atonement of innocent animals (atonement for who?), then the idol being used as successful snake bite medicine (why should an idol be successful in keeping snakes from killing the Israelites), THEN we'll turn to the Passover and the spot-less lamb blood and striped and piereced bread on Passover.
I'm sorry but you are quite wrong,let look at the facts,the speaker in psalms is david or God by way of david,so lets look in psalm2 he said the "lord said to ME" he hasnt put the deree on anyone else it was said to HIM,this is further supported by psalm89:19-35 27 says DAVID is His firstborn,so David was most certainly called the son of God,with mercy on him,you say psalm2 is about jesus but david is clearly speaking of HIMSELF "the lord has said to ME"
And I can show you scriptures that show that Jesus IS God incarnate. Why would Jesus say, "If you've seen me, you've seen the Father"? Why does John 1:1 say that Jesus is the Word and was with God and WAS God"? Why is JESUS the "author and finisher of your faith" (sounds more than a prophet, if you ask me). WHY is Jesus "before all things" and, "by him to all things consist"? Sounds more than just a prophet. That's the INJIL, something I have to stand FIRM on (see the Quran).
let's do it,by the way which of the 4 gospels are you saying is the injil?there arent 4 injil's,only one which is it?Maybe its one of the Gospels that early christian groups used,that arent in the modern canon because your church fathers didnt like them,maybe the quran is saying unless you stand firm on one of THOSE you have nothing to stand on,which is representative of the Gospel?Answer me if you are truthful,how do you know oneof those you ARENT following,isnt what you SHOULD be following?
There are a busload of writings caled the gospel,but only one of them IS it,who are you to say?maybe its one of the Gnostic gospels,they were pretty big
maybe you shoul be firm on theGospel according to the Hebrews orGospel of Thomas
or the Gospel of the Nazoraeans or;
Gospel of Truth
Gospel of Matthias
gospel of the ebionites
which of these are you firm upon?maybe you should be,maybe because you arent you have nothing to stand upon,ever think of that?
IF they preach that Jesus went to the cross for the sins of the human race, that he died and rose again, that by believing and accepting what Jesus did for your sins will get you into Heaven, then hey, sounds like what you have mentioned is Gospel "Good News" that the Bible talks about...that's IF they do all that. But, DO they? I'll probably be firm upon them IF they preach like the Four Gospels and the writings of Saint Paul who preaches the Grace Age we are living in now.
According to YOU?So you are saying that you dont judge based on its merits but whether or not it agrees with what you ALREADY believe?
so any gospel that said what you already think is a gospel,and any that disaggres isnt?doesnt matter where it came fromwho wrote it?Could have been written by the very hand of an a disciple,if it doesnt say what YOU like,that not a REAL gospel?
Well, it has to be in the canonical Bible for me to really be able to trust it. You know? The one that was gathered up over the centuries and decided on by people who probably weren't even Christians? THAT one. But, again, to me, the Gospel is all about Jesus going to the cross and dying for the sins of the world. IF that's not in there, it's not Gospel or "Good New" as gospel MEANS "good news" in Greek.
There are four "Gospels" books, but, they all preach the "Good News" (i.e. Greek for "The Gospel"), which is that Jesus died on the cross for the sins of the world. That is "The Gospel" in a nut-shell.
No Injil is the proper name of the revelation tha came direct to jesus,anything by anyone other than Jesus is not the Injil,Not matthew,or luke,even though No one knows who wrote then as they were anonymous
Then, why does the Quran to YOU to go to those who have read the "before scriptures"? WHY should I stand firm upon something that no longer exists? HOW come Quran 2:106 hasn't kicked in and changed the Quran to put it in YOUR words like you just said?
1 what do you mean by "kicked in"? it DID the Quran was sent as better, than and superior over the bible.That's the meaning.
2I never said the Gospel doesnt exist,I asked you a question,which I also asked months ago but you never really answered,There are a number ofGospels,a number narratives of Jesus' life,where he preaches nothing of atonement through crucufixion,there are some where he is not cricified,they ae called Gospels an indeed it is very possible that they are....
..MORE accurate narratives of what was said and happened,Perhaps one of THESE is the true Gosple and wht the quran is telling you to be firm upon.Why arent you?why is it that you say "I gotta follow the Gospel" but as soon as there is a Gospel that says,Jesus wasnt crucified,or he was JUST a human messenger,all of a sudden thats not a REAL gospel,though it very well could be the real deal,I just find it strange and wonder why its so
Why? Because any book that says He WASN'T crucified makes a HUGE part of the Old and NEW Testament, a HUGE lie. THAT'S why. The "before scriptures" are a BIG part about the atonement for sin through some suffering innocent for sin culminating in Jesus and what he did on the cross. THAT is the "Injil". And IF that is wrong, HOW come Quran 2:106 didn't kick in with Allah saying, "Due to corruption, the Quran now doesn't confirm or remind CAMEL squat! DONKEY squat, maybe, CAMEL squat...no."
You SAY a Gospel that DOESN'T have Jesus going to the cross is the true Gospel. But, how come EVERY Injil (Gospel) that you come upon in the "before scriptures" (i.e. the Bible), ALWAYS has Jesus going to the cross? IF that's the WRONG Injil, WHAT Injil, then, is it that you are to ask ME about for reading it? The ONLY Injil I'm familiar with is ALL about Jesus, and, Jesus dying for the sins of mankind.
where does the quran say the earth is like a carpet? as usual you will give me one single translation, i will give you the arabic word, the meaning, and 6 other translations that correctly do not call it a carpet.
4:24 i have answered 2 times before
...and that's it? that is the basis for you to make the contention that the quran is being reformed?
peace be with you
pakirockstarz 2 years ago
It doesn't say the earth is like a carpet, it says that the earth is spread out LIKE a carpet (i.e. flat). I discovered AFTER making of this video, that the Quran ISN'T being reformed. The earth is still flat, and, in Quran 4:24, you CAN have sex, I mean, "marriage", with married slave women your "right hand possess".
ItsAmadWorld2 2 years ago
even better, you agree that all the translations say spread out, just one adds, 'like a carpet.' as i said before,"i will give you the arabic word, the meaning, and 6 other translations that correctly do not call it a carpet. "
most of all you say is based ONLY on a single translation... it is about time that you in the very least read all the translations
pakirockstarz 2 years ago
Does it matter if it says "spread out", or, "spread out like a carpet"?
ItsAmadWorld2 2 years ago
most definitely... you see, the implicated verses use a word which means cradle, so you can understand the translation of a bed... implying that the earth is a place of rest for humans. as a verb, it means extended/spread. so by itself, it just means an extended/spread place of rest... however yusuf ali has at times used the word carpet, perhaps because arabs would rest on it, but today it is being used to show that the earth is flat, even though the arabic gives no indication of it.
pakirockstarz 2 years ago
So, "spread out" means bed? IF the earth isn't flat in the Quran, and, the earth orbits the sun, how come the Quran says the sun "runs to a resting place"? Then, according to the the Hadith, "prostrates under the throne of Allah before asking permission to rise again"? Shouldn't it be the earth that constantly ask permission to keep on rotating?
ItsAmadWorld2 2 years ago
'spread out' does not mean bed... the arabic word that is used means cradle/bed as a noun, and extended / spread as a verb.
i assume you are talking about surah 37. the arabic "li mustakarrin laha" can mean 'its own orbit' or 'a stable point' , so some translators go for one, others go for the other one. in fact, since your well verses in the hadith, there is one according to which it is ok to recite this differently so that the sun 'does NOT come to a stable point'!
pakirockstarz 2 years ago
The sun does NOT come to a stable point? So, is the other Hadith wrong about it asking permission to rise?
ItsAmadWorld2 2 years ago
i did not say that, i said that BOTH interpretations make sense AND have support in the immediately following verses
pakirockstarz 2 years ago
But, why should the sun ask permission to rise when it's not ever going down, just the world turning?
ItsAmadWorld2 2 years ago
if you choose, "the sun in its orbit", then it makes sense as 36:40 also says that the sun runs in its orbit. if you choose "the stable point", this could mean a number of things, one of them being that it is talking about the sunset that we see. this would also make sense because 36:39 is talking about the moon as we see it, a crescent.
pakirockstarz 2 years ago
True. The moon orbits the earth, but, it's the earth that orbits the sun. And, being that the earth is rotating, shouldn't it be the earth constantly asking permission of Allah to keep on rotating, rather than the sun asking permission to rise again?
ItsAmadWorld2 2 years ago
two points here:
1) the hadith you mentioned is in the muslim and bukhari, read them side by side, and you realize that they are somewhat different, this raises the question of how easy it is for one of those people to have gotten it wrong by adding and substracting even a single phrase that could have changed the meaning entirely
2) actually the sun also rotates and it also orbits other galaxies... so the quran is right when it says that the sun has its own orbit
pakirockstarz 2 years ago
Oh, it's a fact that the sun rotates, but, rotating and orbitting are two different things. IF "swimming in it's own orbit" means the sun is running to a resting place somewhere in the universe and NOT orbitting the earth like the Quran says the moon is doing around the earth also, well, where is that resting place the sun is running to?
ItsAmadWorld2 2 years ago
but wait we never Got to talk about blod atonement that would been my favorite
jbowens 2 years ago
So you asked about the snake,inresponse I asked you 3 points to build my arguement upon,just answer them,You asked why i say God doesnt dwell in the heavens and earth,I responded with a question to build my point upon,just answer it
So just work with me hereanswer the question and you'll find that we are moving along nicely,so can we please get back tothe points?
jbowens 2 years ago
Ok. I'll say you responded. You know how? By saying that you responded. That's not good enough. I'm sure our readers will SEE that fact. :)
ItsAmadWorld2 2 years ago
"(for there is no one who does not sin)"Yeah thats kinda the WHOLE POINT they sin ,then they turn toward the temple and pray and repent,so then what happens,because of this?see verse 50; ALL their transgressions are forgiven because of this act.the whole reason they do it is FOR forgiveness of their sins,so that "(for there is no one who does not sin)"only lends strength to the whole premise of the act
jbowens 2 years ago
Even if you're right. HOW many times are they to pray toward the Temple? And, IF it's five times a day, EVERY day, like a Muhammadan has to do with the Ka'aba, (or else), WHERE does it say they have their patootis up in prostration LIKE you do in Islam?
ItsAmadWorld2 2 years ago
what are you talking about "in captivity"?
this was in the time of solomon,they were dominant in the land they werent in captivity AT ALL and if you are talking about verse 47,then you are still wrong what about verses 27-32?Captivity is not a condition there or in 35-43 so you cannot isolate 47 and say they only did so when in captivity,but cause that is a blatant fallacy and error.
jbowens 2 years ago
I thought for SURE there was some mention of captivity in the passage you sent. But, even if it's not mentioned, HOW many times a day, or, year, or, whatever were they to face the Temple? DID they have to have their patootis up in the air in prostration five times a day to avoid "the fire", or, what? And, if so, what's with the blood atonement of innocent animals? What's with the brazen snake idol being used as effect snake bite medicine, or the spotless lamb blood on Egyptian doors?
ItsAmadWorld2 2 years ago
IF you are right, then WHY was there this call for blood sacrifices in the Temple? WHY was a bronze snake image (idol) used successfully as snake bite medicine to those who looked up at it on a stick held up by Moses? WHY was the blood of a SPOT-less lamb used to keep the first born of Israel from being struck down by the angel of death? How much you want to bet that that lamb blood on the doorways of Egyptians would have stopped THEIR first born from dying as well?
ItsAmadWorld2 2 years ago
1.I AM right
2.now that your position is looking weak
dont try to divrt,lets finish here and stay on track with kings and the other verses,then we'll do yours,it not really fair to try to move on from my points when we are still on it,just because you dont want to be proven wrong in it.
3you didnt respond to point 1,and i dont want to move to 2 until that is established
i think the evidence is clear here,i dont know how many times you want me to post it sayin they prayed the the temple...
jbowens 2 years ago
Before you accept it?I mean if an explicit"when they pray toward the temple" isnt enoughfor you to prove praying toward the temple then I dont know what to tell you,causeyoure just not willing to listen,
Really i have quoted the verses and posted them here,and they are clear,are you now then willing to accept point 1?
jbowens 2 years ago
Because I'm not going to move on to point 2 unless and until you are.
jbowens 2 years ago
Ok. Then let's stick with this passage in Kings.
ItsAmadWorld2 2 years ago
Look, I don't blame them for praying toward something that had the "Holy of Holies" in it. But, WHERE are they praying toward it five times a day and having their patootis up in the air like Muhammadans to keep from going to eternal hell fire?
ItsAmadWorld2 2 years ago
Again, you have sold me on the fact that they prayed toward the Temple. But, did they have to do it five times a day, or, a one time thing? HOW many times? DID they have to have THEIR patootis up in the air like Muhammadans, or, not. And, again, what were blood sacrifices and the idol or a snake AND the Passover spot-less lamb blood all about IF Jesus DIDN'T go to the cross like the Quran says he didn't?
ItsAmadWorld2 2 years ago
Oh,I didnt see where you said you accepted it,okay then moving on to point 2 which is:did they do it for forgiveness?
then i will go to 3 which is was it a one time thing or not,that okay with you?
okay point 2 supported by;
34 then hear in heaven, and forgive the sin of Your people Israel, and bring them back to the land which You gave to their fathers.
jbowens 2 years ago
35 When the heavens are shut up and there is no rain because they have sinned against You, when they pray toward this place and confess Your name, and turn from their sin because You afflict them
36 then hear in heaven, and forgive the sin of Your servants, Your people Israel, that You may teach them the good way in which they should walk; and send rain on Your land which You have given to Your people as an inheritance.
jbowens 2 years ago
37 When there is famine in the land, pestilence or blight or mildew, locusts or grasshoppers; when their enemy besieges them in the land of their cities; whatever plague or whatever sickness there is; 38 whatever prayer, whatever supplication is made by anyone, or by all Your people Israel, when each one knows the plague of his own heart, and spreads out his hands toward this temple:
jbowens 2 years ago
39 then hear in heaven Your dwelling place, and forgive, and act, and give to everyone according to all his ways, whose heart You know (for You alone know the hearts of all the sons of men),
furthermore 44-50 all support the same point forgiveness as a motive is firmly attached to and associated with this act,so they did in fact do this with the purpose to be forgiven,do you then accept point 2?
jbowens 2 years ago
"and spreads out his hands toward this temple:" sounds like it COULD be more than a one time event, AND it sounds like it's NOT to keep from having their skin burned off and replaced in eternal hell five like Islam teaches, but, to appease God in their mortal life...IF that's what spreading out "his hands toward this temple" is for.
ItsAmadWorld2 2 years ago
By the way. IF you are right, and they are trying to avoid hell fire like Muhammadans with patootis in the air as they "face the temple with "his hands toward this temple", WHY, does the Torah (which the Quran says is "both guidance and light" like the Quran), talk of blood sacrifices for atonement? Atonement for what? And WHY a spot-less lamb blood above doorways in Egypt? And WHY an idol used successfully as snake bite medicine? WHY all this IF Christianity is a lie?
ItsAmadWorld2 2 years ago
IS this passage during a time of captivity where there would be no sacrifices in the Holy of Holies, or, not? IF they were captured, and wanting to be brought to the "land which You gave to their fathers", I can understand why patootis might be up in the air here while facing the Holy of Holies for forgiveness. BUT, are they in captivity at this time? If not, then that means sacrifices were taking place also, and, why? WHY blood atonement sacrifices AND patooti in the air?
ItsAmadWorld2 2 years ago
as I showed with the verses:
28-30
35-40
41-42
It IS NOT just for a time when in captivity,but for whatever,whenever,whoever,and the captivity is only one example among others like
lack of rain on account of sin,famine,pestilence,blight.mildew,locusts,when the enemy is in THEIR land(the other way around from what you are talking about)
or in 38 and 43 anything and evrything
also hre is an interesting connection between that,salah and what you were mentioning about like the 99 names it's a .....
jbowens 2 years ago
....side point ,a bit of a digression but would you like to hear it?
jbowens 2 years ago
Sure. Go ahead. I don't know if I'll believe it (due to the al taqqiya factor), but, go ahead.
ItsAmadWorld2 2 years ago
pt1
see 39,now you mentioned that memorizing the99 ma,es will get you to heaven,that's true,so will fasting ramadan,sendingp laylatul-qadr in worship,learning the quran and teaching it,BUT
check this out
I'm sure you are familiar with this(The first matter that the slave will be brought to account for on the Day of Judgment is the prayer. If it is sound, then the rest of his deeds will be sound. And if it is bad, then the rest of his deeds will be bad)......TBC...
jbowens 2 years ago
pt2
here is another concerning it("The covenant between us and them is prayer, so if anyone abandons it he has become a disbeliever." (Ahmad, Tirmidhee and Nasaa'ee)
another
("What lies between a man and disbelief is the abandonment of prayer." ( Agreed upon by Muslim, Abu Dawood and Nasaa'ee as sahih authentic)
see quran 18:99-106&2:155
are you getting the gist here?...TBC..
jbowens 2 years ago
Pt3 So yesfasting,learning quran,the names,and many other things are deeds that fetch reward,but if one totally abandons salah one may be classified as a disbeliver,which will render those deeds worthless on on judgment they will all be bad,But if one sticks to it, it will bear fruits according to your ways niya and ikhlas,1kings8:38-39 brought that to my mind.
jbowens 2 years ago
Right. So LEARNING those 99 names and HAVING one hour of contemplation being better than 60 years of worship" is a lie, isn't it?
ItsAmadWorld2 2 years ago
So, since you have to do deeds as well, the 99 names of Allah WON'T get you into Paradise? What about Muhammad saying "one hour of deep contemplation is better than 60 years of worship"? Was he joking?
ItsAmadWorld2 2 years ago
What wasnt clear about what I just said?
sure there ARE actions that fetch reward and have great merit BUT one must be a beliver to be eligible for that reward,the deeds of disbelivers arent worth anything,an atheist could learn the 99 names but he isnt going to get anythig for that,as the verse said HIS deeds are worthless,you cant be a disbeliver and back to the statement
"the covenant between us and them" the criterion that separates us is the prayer
I thought that would be easy to get
jbowens 2 years ago
Comment removed
MissKyndrabTV 2 years ago
So, again, what you are saying is, Muhammad saying learning the 99 names of Allah and having one hour of contemplation being better than 60 years of worship, well, he was joking, huh?
ItsAmadWorld2 2 years ago
again if you dont get it you're just deficient in understanding,if you dont get what I'm saying then I dont know how else to put it to you
lets try it this way
Would a disbeliver who did these things get anything?of course not would a beeliver,yes
so the difference is belif,the difference betwween which is prayer,,that clear?
it like a key,or rather,a door,but what good is a door but what good is a door unless inside the room you ACTUALLY do something
jbowens 2 years ago
one could say doing such and such is better thsn 60 years of walking through doors,and that may be true but if it something that you MUST me inside to do you still have to go through just because a in better than B doesnt mean B is unnecesary
if I said "for this trip a working engine is better than 60 gallons of gas" that may be true,your engine breaking out in Bunnykill texas is worse and harder to fix than an empty tank so the statement is true but would any logical person....
jbowens 2 years ago
...would any logical person think they could drive cross-country with no gas?Which is basically what you are saying.
let change the analogy to the car keys
there are things more important to a successful road trip.ggas,engine,food,a map,knowing your destination,but still you are going to need your key,without it,no trip,but the other things are more important becaue even with a key without those you wont get too far
.....
jbowens 2 years ago
...so i could logically say 1 hour of driving will get you further and is better than 60 years of turning the ignition,absolutely true but you still need to do it dont you?so lets take it back,and give an example
two men one lived to be 115 the other 20
the first guy prayed salah for 100 years,but thats it, the other for just 2 but he also took the time to memorize the names,fasted,contemplated deeply on spiritual things,then died at 20...
jbowens 2 years ago
On judgment day who will be better off and more blessed?The young man of course!
so they both prayed salah so God says to them
"The deed you present will be judged as good"
thats somehing slah gets them,but the old man,what does he have to present to be judged?nothing really,he didnt do other things he was commanded,didnt stay away from the forbidden,didnt learn or contemplate.the young man,one hour he spend trying to pregress excel and understand is better than...
jbowens 2 years ago
(progress,sorry,typo)
...is better than 60 years the old man spent doing just the bare minimum,the young man will be more blessed,and have more light,surely.
so what he did was better for him and recived more reward than the old mans years of just salah,but that does not mean either of them was permitted to leave it,one thing being better than another does not mean the other isnt important at all,salah is like the seal of approval for his deeds
jbowens 2 years ago
so let me give yet another example.Say there's a place you want to go,but you need a car.
Someone gives you money to buy a car
When you go to the lot,you pick a car,before you can drive it off the lot you have to sign some papers,right?a contract,now the car and choosing it is better for you than a contract but one hand to the other,you cant have the car unless you sign it and calling to what the prophet said,salah is that contract and disbelivers are like one who...
jbowens 2 years ago
walks around all day picking cars 'Oh i want that one,and that one!"but they refuse to ever sign the papers,worthless,they remain car-less
that clear enough?picking cars is deeds,the contract is salah and the car is reward
Ihave explained it in super basic terms,easy to understand.I f you dont get it now,either you are weak of understanding,which isnt my problem,or your are simply not heeding because you dont want to,again your problem,not mine.
Okay,back to the main points
jbowens 2 years ago
If you say "You MUST do A,and you MUST do B" or "You must do A and you should do B"
You are free to say whichever is better than whatever that doesnt change the status of A from obligatory,I'm sure you know islam has pillars for your salah to be good you must have the other 4 and the other ay around for them all and certain things are better than others regardless of their status of obligation,do you know why that is?
jbowens 2 years ago
it's so that no one can become arrogant and feel too justified is righteousness
so no one can say " I have salah na-na-how 'bout that" it can be said to them "shall I iform you of something even better for you to do as well?" so thateveryone will know that
whatever the do obligatory or not is icing on the cake an though you may GAIN somethong for it you dont truly EARN anything,as the prophet said people enter paradise only by God's mercy
because of whats in the hearts.
jbowens 2 years ago
what is in the hearts of faith,BUT a faithful haert is a humble heart,and obdient heart willing to accept any order,but you cannot claim to be willing while refusing to do so
so God may order something or recommend something may be for a number of reasons
to manifest the level of faith to the person,you may be told to have courage,and think what you have is just that,but when ordered to get in the ring with mayweather,your legs buckle and you cant...
jbowens 2 years ago
showing you that THINKING you have courage and HAVING it are two different things and you need to work on it,same with faith and commandments,it works like a gauge for youanother reason may be to polish and improve the hearts and faith of the believers,for instance,giving in charity will soften the heart,make you more caring,which is a branch of iman,we are told to avoid cursing because it make the heart hard and harsh so if you stick to them it will make your faith to grow
jbowens 2 years ago
because faith isnt like a light switch,you have it or you dont,it increases and decreasesyou can grow in faith or diminish,and by default it is decreasing,you have to refill it and you cant do so by scrunching up your face and clenching your fists you've got to fill her up and God has given the perfect pump by way of his commands the end result being that you come to God with Qalbin Salim,a sound heart which is what he wants from you whatever he gives you is from his bounty
jbowens 2 years ago
so now I have explained it from as many angles as i can think of right now,or care to.
Do you understand,let's move back to the main talk
jbowens 2 years ago
Yes. Let's move back to the main talk, which is WHY should there be blood atonement? Atonement for what? WHY the first born of Israel should need the blood of a SPOT-less lamb above their doors? WHY should an idol of a snake be used as effective snake bite medicine IF Christianity is false? Yes, let's move back to the main talk, please.
ItsAmadWorld2 2 years ago
And, it sounds like if you just have doubt the size of an atom, you're SCREWED even IF you have your patooti in the air five times a day, EVERY day, for the rest of your life. Or, is it doubt the size of a "grain of wheat"? Maybe you know? Then again, you think Muhammad was joking about the 99 names of Allah getting you into Paradise, or the "one hour of deep contemplation being better than 60 years of worship", so, maybe it's pointless to ask about doubt sizes.
ItsAmadWorld2 2 years ago
You can snow with words all you want, but, HOW come Allah would have an IDOL used as effective snake bite medicine IF Christianity is a lie? HOW come Allah would have "sin offerings" in the Temple? WHAT does atonement mean to you? WHY did the blood of a SPOT-less lamb have to be used? WHY the first born of Israel IF it's blood wasn't used above their doorways?
ItsAmadWorld2 2 years ago
hey man dont act like I just went off,I asked you first if you wanted to hear it and told you it was a bit beside the point,you had ever opportunity to say no,and if it bugs you thats what you should have done
jbowens 2 years ago
What are you talking about?
ItsAmadWorld2 2 years ago
Again, how come you are avoiding the reality of "blood atonement for sin", the spot-less lamb blood over doorways to keep the first born of Israel from dying, and, how come you are avoiding the idol that was used as effective snake bite medicine which makes NO sense if Christianity is as Islam says it is, false? Well, I can see why you are avoiding talking of them.
ItsAmadWorld2 2 years ago
as i said if you would stop trying to avoid my points,it addressee the fact that sacrifice in the bible just isnt what you are making it oput to be sso if you would stop trying to ignore and answer me as to whether you accepted the second point or not we could continue,you say you want an answer,I JUST told you,my answer is within the poins I'm making now if you really want an answer you will let me make them and stop standing in my way
jbowens 2 years ago
Well, what WERE sacrifices for? It sounds like you want to believe their was patooti in the air while facing the Temple as much as Muhammadan patooti in the air, and, hardly any sacrifices for atonement. But, what DOES atonement mean to you? Atonement for what? AND, why the idol used effectively as snake bite medicine AND the spot-less lamb blood to keep the first born of Israel alive...IF Christianity is false?
ItsAmadWorld2 2 years ago
Why are you avoiding talking about "blood atonement for sin", or the bronze idol of a snake used as effective snake bite medicine, or, the first born of Israel dying IF they didn't have the blood of a spot-less lamb above their doors? How come you avoid that and, instead, snow with words? Al taqqiya, huh?
ItsAmadWorld2 2 years ago
Forget A and B. You aren't even talking about A, really. WHAT does "blood atonement for sin" mean to you? WHY the idol of a snake on a stick used as effective snake bite medicine for those who would look at it held up by Moses? WHY would the FIRST born of Israel die without a SPOT-less lamb blood over their doors IF Christianity is false?
ItsAmadWorld2 2 years ago
So, whenever they are having problems, they are to pray toward the Holy of Holies. Somehow, that makes sense to me, being that the Holy of Holies seems to have represented God being on the earth.
ItsAmadWorld2 2 years ago
wrong ,in verse 27, he says that God will NOT dwell on the earth, right there he refutes you and rejects that concept and symbolism by making it clear that GOD does not dwell on earth or in that temple,so there's no way it could have represented that to them seeing as how the FISRT thing solomon does is rule that out as even being a possibility,it even shows that they didnt consider that God literally dwells in the heavens either
jbowens 2 years ago
What does "Holy of Holies" mean to you?
ItsAmadWorld2 2 years ago
where in the bible is the term "holy of holies"
in the bible?I'd like to read it in context,I cant think of any off the top of my head,if you could help me out that'd be cool.
jbowens 2 years ago
It's actually translated as "most Holy place". Look up "Tabernacle". It's where the ark was located. Try Leviticus 16:16 and 14:13. To me "most holy" seems to mean "Holy of Holies".
ItsAmadWorld2 2 years ago
"Seems to mean" holy of holies,well I'm reading it and it says holy place not holy of holies,so it SEEMS to mean holy place not holy of holies,so I'm sorry but that is unacceptable also it just says 'holy place' not "most holy place' at least in the translation you have me using(theNKJV) just a little correction there
and some of the translations just say "sancurary' and none of them say holy of holies
jbowens 2 years ago
So what does Holy of holies" mean to mean is a question that doesnt really establish anything.
Now,you never responded and told me if you accepted the points i made about 1kings,about it not being just in captivity,and being applicable to anything,go back and re-read those and respond so that we can continue,if you please.
jbowens 2 years ago
but you didnt address the fact that solomon said that God dwelling on earth(like the christians claim) is exactly the kind of thing that DOESNT happen
jbowens 2 years ago
Where does it say that? IF he did, sounds like he was wrong there, due to the tabernacle being called "the most holy place".
ItsAmadWorld2 2 years ago
what does a place being called holy have to do with God dwelling on earth?the two things are mutually exclusive God calls people holy are they then God?It means no such thing it is YOU who are trying to turn "holy" from special and blessed into "God ersonally and actually occupies that place,having come down to earth" i mean,what!?
jbowens 2 years ago
come on now,see verse 27-28 solomon firmly rejects the idea of God dwelling on earth or in the temple so the passages soundly refute you there it is not solomon who is wrong but rather you.I'd say solomon knows exactly what he's talking about what that the place being "holy" does NOT mean God is actually dwelling upon the earth in that place,and for all the mteaphorical rhetiric,it was just that metaphorical
in chapter 9 of kings he says His eyes and heart will dwell there,does that mean....
jbowens 2 years ago
that a pair of eyeballs and a heart are actually in that place?Of course not
David is called the begotten son of God,But he is not meant to be considered more than human.And in chapter 8solomon takes a moment to make it clear that they do not consider or think that God Himself is in that place that the heavens of the heavens cannot contain him,even less so the temple,so i'd say solomon"s understanding is right and yours is wrong
jbowens 2 years ago
IF David IS the begotten son of God, seems to me David IS more than human, that he's like Jesus Christ, who, if you read the Bible, was God incarnate. Of course, I can't find it in the Bible where David is the "begotten son of God". In Psalms (written by David), there is mention of the "begotten son of God", but, that, to me, is prophetic of Jesus. The same Psalm seems to be talking about the Millenium rule of Jesus when on earth in the future. By the way, you seem to be avoiding...
ItsAmadWorld2 2 years ago
the Bible's talk of blood atonement. Atonement for what? You see to be avoiding the idol used as effective snake bite medicine and spot-less lamb blood used to keep the first born of Israel from dying. How come you are avoiding stuff in the Bible the "before scriptures" the Torat and Injil (that the Quran says is "Allah's word") that makes it sound like Christianity ISN'T a lie?
ItsAmadWorld2 2 years ago
Okay you are greatly misunderstandin sacrifice in the bible,there are a NUMBER of ways,people are forgiven in the bible,which i was going to show in my points,if youd let me make them,there are also places where it shows tha God doesnt care for sacrifice but rather obedience and the heart,so on and so forth,See?the points i was building were these,which is why i told you,if you let me make them your questions will be answered
jbowens 2 years ago
Okay,let me make this clear,the quran refers ONLY to the originals,it does Not teach that what you have is uncorrupted;see bukhari:Volume 9, Book 92, Number 461
so you CANNOT say that Islam confirms it without reservation.That clear?Do you have a book from which you can read this or should I post it?
jbowens 2 years ago
IF the Bible is corrupted, like you are trying to say, how come Quran surah 2:106 never kicked in? You know, the one that says, "Whatever a Verse (revelation) do We abrogate or cause to be forgotten, We bring a better one or similar to it. Know you not that Allah is able to do all things?" THIS to me means, Allah COULD have said that the Bible is no longer something to stand FIRM on, no LONGER "both guidance and light". But, those surahs weren't abrogated (substituted), how come?
ItsAmadWorld2 2 years ago
Also, is seems to me that WITH Quran 2:106, Allah could have abrogated surah 10:94 that tells YOU, as a Muslim, to go to those who have read the "before scriptures" (i.e. Bible) if you are in doubt about the Quran. Allah could have changed it to read, "DON'T go to THEM!! The...the 'before scriptures' are CORRUPTED now! If you ASK them, or FOLLOW them, horrors of HORRORS, you will think WE have a SON creating the WORST of sins!!! NOT rape, genocide, racism, slavery...but....SHIRK!!!"
ItsAmadWorld2 2 years ago
I just showed Above that 2:106 is in relation to the previous scripture,and as I showed in 5:45,and Of course worshipping others Beside God is the worst sin.
jbowens 2 years ago
Where did you show above? I don't remember you even MENTIONING Quran 2:106 until now.
ItsAmadWorld2 2 years ago
As the Mufasirin said Verse 2:106 is about The Quran Being brought forth,as Better,than the Bible,You remember the hadith I showed you,back when where the prophet said the quran was superior?If you start on verse 105 its clear that the two are connected also see 5:45 where God clearly say "we ordained" then overturns that on the spot and says whoever doesnt follow the new ruling is a wrongdoer
jbowens 2 years ago
IF the Quran is better than the Bible, WHY does the Quran tell Jews and Christians (people of the book), that they have "no ground to stand on unless they stand firm upon (the Torah and the Injil)? WHY, do YOU, as a Muslim, have to come to me or a Jew for our "reading the before scriptures" IF you are in doubt about the Quran? WHY is the Torah LIKE the Quran when the Quran says nothing can be LIKE it? WHY is the Torah not only LIKE the Quran, but, is "both guidance and light" LIKE THE QURAN?
ItsAmadWorld2 2 years ago
I'm sorry but you are quite wrong,let look at the facts,the speaker in psalms is david or God by way of david,so lets look in psalm2 he said the "lord said to ME" he hasnt put the deree on anyone else it was said to HIM,this is further supported by psalm89:19-35 27 says DAVID is His firstborn,so David was most certainly called the son of God,with mercy on him,you say psalm2 is about jesus but david is clearly speaking of HIMSELF "the lord has said to ME"
you want to say .....
jbowens 2 years ago
sorry about posting it twice my mistake,
any way you want to say it's a prophecy of jesus,well that just not a workable theory for three reasons
1David is clearly speaking of himself,and not anyone else,in fact He speaks from this position for just about the WHOLE of the psalms"I,me,my"breaking this only to deliver statement direct from God,introducing them with a basic line to the effect of "the lord said" just like in chapter 2
jbowens 2 years ago
2Pslam89:27 makes it clear that David WAS considered the son of God,even his firstborn
so saying so is accurate and factual,showing AGAIN that it was indeed himself mentioned in chapter 2(as if him placing HIMSELF as the subject,wasnt enough)
3In light of the aforementioned,you have NO evidence to support your claim that psalm2 is a prophesy of jesus,other than that you wish it so,so the claim lacks a back AND the text itself resists the connection
jbowens 2 years ago
So it's pretty clear,with david putting himself as the subject,that he is talking about himself,I dont see how you can deny that ,do you then accept the point that David was indeed called the son of God,begotten and firstborn?
jbowens 2 years ago
IF David was talking about himself, how come he wasn't stoned for blasphemy? Isn't it a grave sin to say you are the "only begotten Son of God"? Notice that it's in the 2nd Psalm. That should have been his LAST Psalm for making such a claim, but, it wasn't was it? I'm thinking the Jews knew enough that he HAD to be talking about something else. Christians automatically KNOW who he was saying even IF he wanted to believe he was talking about himself. :)
ItsAmadWorld2 2 years ago
Because they understood its meaning,of being a chosen one rather a son in the way hercules was the son of zeus,ephraim was called the firstborn of God,no one stoned him,Moses was called God or "as God"in psalms is say "you ARE gods"If that is non-literal and they iunderstood that,how can David saying the same,and calling himself the son of God be blasphemous,for him if it wasnt elsewhere?
jbowens 2 years ago
and no it wasnt the las such claim he said i agin in psalm 89,and you cant say it not about David,it SAYS "david" and that he was anointed,making it seem, again,like he was the subject of 2,why should it have been his end,they knew it wasnt literal,other wise they would have stoned ephraim and others
jbowens 2 years ago
when son of God is said it must be one way,or the other,you cant split the difference, either its literal,or it isnt,you cant pick and choose and switch when it suits you,
jbowens 2 years ago
its ALWAYS literal or ALWAYS metaphorical,if you say jesus is literally the son of God,so is ephraim,and Adam,and Moses really was God,and n psalm82 they Really ARE gods,divine sons of the Almighty,more than human ALL of them.
jbowens 2 years ago
So which is it ?Is ephraim indeed the son of God?are those of psalm 82 in actuality deities?you cant have it both ways,its one of themthe title isnt back and forthat your say-so,I firmly say its a metaphor for the righteous, so you take your stand,which is it?
jbowens 2 years ago
Well, they can't be REAL deities, because God says in Isaiah He knows of no other God.
ItsAmadWorld2 2 years ago
no other God execpt Jesus,apparently?if they cant be Gods with him neither can Jesus,you need to be consistent,this is what I'm talking about you are changing the rules of what can and cant be,first God isnt a man or son of man and doesnt change,then God is a man,son of man,Jesus
first one born of a woman(jesus was) CANNOT be pure before God,manis a maggot and the son of man is a worm than you say that Jesus was a pure and holy sacrifice to God
jbowens 2 years ago
Solomon says God cannot dwell on the earth,then YOU say thats JUST what jesus was,God dwelling on earth,Deut.30 says the law it not hard for man to fulfill,You say it is IMPOSSIBLE,the bible say God is ONE whom there is none besides,you say jesus is at the right hand of the father in a sense of Godhood,an exact OPPOSITE claim,what I'm saying is youve GOT to have some consistency you cant pick and chosse saying"where helps me its literal,but here when it doesnt, it isnt
jbowens 2 years ago
God cannot? Hey, I'm familiar with what Solomon wrote. Guess what? IF you are right about God not being able to dwell on earth, you need to read further and see that God can't even dwell ANYwhere, not in heaven or even the HIGHest Heaven. Sounds like you believe God can't exist period, huh? Your God is either too limited and can't dwell anywhere, or, God doesn't exist and THAT'S why He can't dwell anywhere. Of course, I'm seeing it meaning you can't box up God and God can be ANYwhere.
ItsAmadWorld2 2 years ago
No YOU are limiting God you are saying that he cannot exist without a physical place,so he not TOTALLY independent because he NEEDS a place to dwell,he he is dependent upon his creation?Is that WHAT you are saying? LIKE HIS CREATION,God needs a place to dwell to exist?Is that what you are saying?God cannot exist independent of space and time?
jbowens 2 years ago
I know you think God lacks the power to lower himself to the statis of a man, but, Christians feel God can, and, so do I.
ItsAmadWorld2 2 years ago
To me, there are sons of God (Born Again Christians are considered ADOPTED sons and daughters of God, but, JESUS is the LITERAL Son of God in a major way. To the point where he says, "if you've seen me, you have seen the Father").
ItsAmadWorld2 2 years ago
He also says No one has seen God
But if you are saying psalm2 is about Jesus then he is adopted too,like the adoptionists say
but if Jesus is as such he cannot be an eternal son,if its about David then John(which,as far as i know is the only gospel to make such a claim,which is strange seeing as how the other 3 are older,youd think theyd mention such a thing) is wrong
jbowens 2 years ago
so if psalm2 is about Jesus then sonship is also a conferred title rather than an eternal attribute,and if its about Daviv,which I maintain,then jesus isnt the only one
jbowens 2 years ago
I don't see what you're getting at. You need to explain it better.
ItsAmadWorld2 2 years ago
I don't see what you're getting at. To me David WAS annointed, to be the one whose seed Jesus would come through to sit on his throne (rule Israel during the Millenium and become that prince with the iron rod you, I betting)
ItsAmadWorld2 2 years ago
How come I can't pick and choose?
ItsAmadWorld2 2 years ago
It's no good to say "My point is supported by picking and choosing as i like"
there is no merit in that,you must be fair and consistent,with the way you handle it.
jbowens 2 years ago
And you're not picking and choosing? Are you sure?
ItsAmadWorld2 2 years ago
Really? Well, let's check it out:
Psalm 89
A contemplation by Ethan, the Ezrahite.
89:1 I will sing of the loving kindness of Yahweh forever. With my mouth, I will make known your faithfulness to all generations. 89:2 I indeed declare, Love stands firm forever. You established the heavens. Your faithfulness is in them.
89:3 I have made a covenant with my chosen one, I have sworn to David, my servant, (servant? or "Son"? Looks like servant, so far)
89:4 I will establish
ItsAmadWorld2 2 years ago
89:4 I will establish your seed forever (that would be the Jews),
and build up your throne to all generations. (God did and WILL do it sounds)
Selah.
89:5 The heavens will praise your wonders, Yahweh; your faithfulness also in the assembly of the holy ones.
89:6 For who in the skies can be compared to Yahweh? (Right, who can?)
ItsAmadWorld2 2 years ago
I'll skip ahead to the David part:
89:20 I have found David, my servant.
I have anointed him with my holy oil (I bet you think that makes him the "only Begotten Son" true?)
89:21 with whom my hand shall be established (God uses David, it sounds). My arm will also strengthen him.
89:22 No enemy will tax him. (Still doesn't sound like the only begotten Son of God you want him to believe to lessen Jesus's status. Where is it?)
ItsAmadWorld2 2 years ago
Right, it says David is annointed. But, "annointed" can mean for different things, can't it? I mean, you can be annointed by a Mufti to strap on a bomb. It doesn't mean you're "the Messiah" in that annointing.
ItsAmadWorld2 2 years ago
well if you want to get literal it says he was "a messiah" thats what messiah MEANS
jbowens 2 years ago
Right. But NONE of those guys is called "...the mighty God, the everlasting Father, the Prince of peace" OR holds all things together both visible and invisible, either.
ItsAmadWorld2 2 years ago
How does it make it clear? I read it, and, there is no saying "this is David". I think you are now desperately trying to read into things something to try to say it has nothing to do with a prophecy of Jesus. I mean, the Psalms are prophetic in spots like "cut of it off from being a nation, that the name of Israel shall no longer be in remembrance" (Psalm 83). THAT is fulfilled daily in mosques.
ItsAmadWorld2 2 years ago
Okay by that criterion you cannot say it is a prophesy of jesus,because where is that?you are only trying to read into that way to suit yourself,but there is no context either way,oter than it being a davidic text,you point is weak on a few fronts,let me ask you,david and the psalms were about 500 years after moses,if it's about jesus and not david,what happens to jesus being the ETERNAL son?it says TODAY I have begotten you,are you saying God became triune around 1000b.c.?
jbowens 2 years ago
and if you are saying David isnt the speaker the who is?The connection between it and jesus is nothing but an extreme case of postdiction
jbowens 2 years ago
I think it IS David who is talking, because David wrote the Psalms. In those passages, I see a connection between David and Jesus when Jesus rules on earth some day after thrashing the raging nations who are against David's seed (the Jews) in Israel. To me David is annointed to help bring about Jesus. Jesus, in a way, is a direct descendant OF David. And, he will rule on the throne of David during the Millenium (in otherwords, rule in Jerusalem. That's what I see those passages as).
ItsAmadWorld2 2 years ago
All right so it IS david who is speaking,that just my point,HE is talking and he says "It was said to ME;YOU are my son,today i have Begotten YOU" he says ti was siad to HIM that he was God's son ,begotten that day,he isnt speaking of another,but himself
jbowens 2 years ago
Where does he say, "It was said to ME"? But, hey, I'll take your word, ok? I'll see it as talking to David, but, I'm also seeing it as prophetic when Jesus rules on earth after the Muslims, I mean, NATIONS, are raging against the Jews of Israel.
ItsAmadWorld2 2 years ago
He says "the lord said to ME" in verse 7 of chapter 2,just so you know,but if you accept it as talking to David,then he was called God's son,Begotten,and firstborn
what then is the Meaning of this?
God seems to be spreading the term around quite a bit,I say the meaning as it relates to jesus is the same as the others,and the reason only john and none of the other earlier writers say such a thing or show jesus saying it,is because it originates with John
jbowens 2 years ago
It still sounds like it's prophetic and a description of Jesus in the Millenium. But, of COURSE a Muhammadan will not be able to see it that way. And, again, I'm noticing that you are trying to avoid talking about blood atonement of an innocent animal being shed for sin, and the idol that was used as effective snake bite medicine. How come? You don't have to answer, for those who are reading this and are Christians, already know the answer.
ItsAmadWorld2 2 years ago
You can THINK it is whatever you want to,doesnt make it the case or change the fact that David is the speaker,and said "ME" but of course you wouldnt want to accep that,
also I'm not avoiding anything,I asked you which part of the snake bit you wanted to do first,YOU havent answered yet.
jbowens 2 years ago
Ok. WHY did God put that passage about an idol used as successful snake bite medicine when those bitten by snakes looked up at it? Explain that please, THEN we will move on to atonement, spot-less lamb blood and motzah bread that is 'striped and pierced" and WITHOUT leven (which I see as Jesus being without sin).
Islamstudent28 2 years ago
Where does David say "Me" when it sounds like it's talking about the future Jesus with Muslim, I mean, nations raging?
ItsAmadWorld2 2 years ago
Where does he say me?
verse 7 I will declare the decree: The LORD has said to ME You are My Son Today I have begotten You
jbowens 2 years ago
Well, you know something. I'm going to say David WAS saying that. And, I'm going to believe he was saying that as prophecy unfolding in the future when Jesus would be kicking it real on earth later on.
ItsAmadWorld2 2 years ago
Hey, if you want to believe David is equated with Jesus, go ahead. I see that Psalm as prophetic:
Psalm 2
2:1 Why do the nations rage,
and the peoples plot a vain thing? (Muslim plotting the destruction of Israel in the future?)
2:2 The kings of the earth take a stand,
and the rulers take counsel together,
against Yahweh, and against his Anointed (that would be Israel, I'm betting), saying,
2:3 Lets break their bonds apart,
and cast their cords from us.
(Right, no more "oc-
ItsAmadWorld2 2 years ago
(Israeli "occupation")
2:4 He who sits in the heavens will laugh.
(That's Adonai, I bet) The Lord will have them in derision (those who try to destroy the Jews in Israel).
2:5 Then he will speak to them in his anger, and terrify them in his wrath (has God talked to YOU yet, my friend?):
ItsAmadWorld2 2 years ago
2:6 Yet I have set my King on my holy hill of Zion. (Jesus during the Millenium?)
2:7 I will tell of the decree.
Yahweh said to me, You are my son.
Today I have become your father. (could be talking to Israel in the future, Israel viewed as a male)
2:8 Ask of me, and I will give the nations for your inheritance, (in the future, God does, gives the Holy Land to Israel)
the uttermost parts of the earth for your possession (goes to Israel in the future, I believe).
ItsAmadWorld2 2 years ago
2:9 You shall break them with a rod of iron. (Could be Jesus, could be Jews, could be David in the future during the Millenium)
You shall dash them in pieces like a potters vessel. (Israel uses the "Sampson Option"?)
2:10 Now therefore be wise, you kings.
Be instructed, you judges of the earth.
2:11 Serve Yahweh with fear,
and rejoice with trembling. (Sounds like Adonai become Allahish)
2:12 Give sincere homage to the Son (Jesus during the Millenium), lest he be angry,
ItsAmadWorld2 2 years ago
2:12 Give sincere homage to the Son, lest he be angry, and you perish in the way, for his wrath will soon be kindled (kicks butt at the end of the Millenium, it sounds when Satan is loosed).
Blessed are all those who take refuge in him. (Right. You want to be on the side of Jesus during the Millenium, or, else, it sounds).
ItsAmadWorld2 2 years ago
It sounds like it's future prophecy to me, and, the Millenium, when Jesus thrashes those raging nations (Muhammadan nations?) who fight against Israel at his coming, and, then sets up his Davidic Kingdom with a rod of iron. I COULD be wrong, but, that's what that Psalm sure sounds like to me.
ItsAmadWorld2 2 years ago
By the way. I notice you really are trying to change the subject to David rather than talking about the idol being used as effective snake bite medicine, or, what "blood atonement" means to you, or, the SPOT-less lamb blood IF Christianity was a lie. Guess what? I'm going to keep on booting you in the up-raised patooti in prostration with these until you answer me of WHY those should be in "Allah's word" IF Christianity is false.
ItsAmadWorld2 2 years ago
which do you want to cover first the snake,blood atonement,or the lambs,just say the word,i will skip al my points and do it in a vacuum if it will silence you,and do them after,to support my assertions
jbowens 2 years ago
Start with blood atonement of innocent animals (atonement for who?), then the idol being used as successful snake bite medicine (why should an idol be successful in keeping snakes from killing the Israelites), THEN we'll turn to the Passover and the spot-less lamb blood and striped and piereced bread on Passover.
ItsAmadWorld2 2 years ago
This has been flagged as spam show
I'm sorry but you are quite wrong,let look at the facts,the speaker in psalms is david or God by way of david,so lets look in psalm2 he said the "lord said to ME" he hasnt put the deree on anyone else it was said to HIM,this is further supported by psalm89:19-35 27 says DAVID is His firstborn,so David was most certainly called the son of God,with mercy on him,you say psalm2 is about jesus but david is clearly speaking of HIMSELF "the lord has said to ME"
you want to say .....
jbowens 2 years ago
Okay one the bible,does NOT have jesus and God incarnate,,but we'll go over that.
jbowens 2 years ago
And I can show you scriptures that show that Jesus IS God incarnate. Why would Jesus say, "If you've seen me, you've seen the Father"? Why does John 1:1 say that Jesus is the Word and was with God and WAS God"? Why is JESUS the "author and finisher of your faith" (sounds more than a prophet, if you ask me). WHY is Jesus "before all things" and, "by him to all things consist"? Sounds more than just a prophet. That's the INJIL, something I have to stand FIRM on (see the Quran).
ItsAmadWorld2 2 years ago
let's do it,by the way which of the 4 gospels are you saying is the injil?there arent 4 injil's,only one which is it?Maybe its one of the Gospels that early christian groups used,that arent in the modern canon because your church fathers didnt like them,maybe the quran is saying unless you stand firm on one of THOSE you have nothing to stand on,which is representative of the Gospel?Answer me if you are truthful,how do you know oneof those you ARENT following,isnt what you SHOULD be following?
jbowens 2 years ago
There are a busload of writings caled the gospel,but only one of them IS it,who are you to say?maybe its one of the Gnostic gospels,they were pretty big
maybe you shoul be firm on theGospel according to the Hebrews orGospel of Thomas
or the Gospel of the Nazoraeans or;
Gospel of Truth
Gospel of Matthias
gospel of the ebionites
which of these are you firm upon?maybe you should be,maybe because you arent you have nothing to stand upon,ever think of that?
jbowens 2 years ago
IF they preach that Jesus went to the cross for the sins of the human race, that he died and rose again, that by believing and accepting what Jesus did for your sins will get you into Heaven, then hey, sounds like what you have mentioned is Gospel "Good News" that the Bible talks about...that's IF they do all that. But, DO they? I'll probably be firm upon them IF they preach like the Four Gospels and the writings of Saint Paul who preaches the Grace Age we are living in now.
ItsAmadWorld2 2 years ago
So if its a Gospel that doesnt have a crucifixion,you wont take it,so you define for yourself what a Gospel is?
jbowens 2 years ago
True. No crucifixion and resurrection for the sins of the world, tain't the Gospel.
ItsAmadWorld2 2 years ago
According to YOU?So you are saying that you dont judge based on its merits but whether or not it agrees with what you ALREADY believe?
so any gospel that said what you already think is a gospel,and any that disaggres isnt?doesnt matter where it came fromwho wrote it?Could have been written by the very hand of an a disciple,if it doesnt say what YOU like,that not a REAL gospel?
jbowens 2 years ago
Well, it has to be in the canonical Bible for me to really be able to trust it. You know? The one that was gathered up over the centuries and decided on by people who probably weren't even Christians? THAT one. But, again, to me, the Gospel is all about Jesus going to the cross and dying for the sins of the world. IF that's not in there, it's not Gospel or "Good New" as gospel MEANS "good news" in Greek.
Islamstudent28 2 years ago
There are four "Gospels" books, but, they all preach the "Good News" (i.e. Greek for "The Gospel"), which is that Jesus died on the cross for the sins of the world. That is "The Gospel" in a nut-shell.
ItsAmadWorld2 2 years ago
No Injil is the proper name of the revelation tha came direct to jesus,anything by anyone other than Jesus is not the Injil,Not matthew,or luke,even though No one knows who wrote then as they were anonymous
jbowens 2 years ago
Then, why does the Quran to YOU to go to those who have read the "before scriptures"? WHY should I stand firm upon something that no longer exists? HOW come Quran 2:106 hasn't kicked in and changed the Quran to put it in YOUR words like you just said?
ItsAmadWorld2 2 years ago
1 what do you mean by "kicked in"? it DID the Quran was sent as better, than and superior over the bible.That's the meaning.
2I never said the Gospel doesnt exist,I asked you a question,which I also asked months ago but you never really answered,There are a number ofGospels,a number narratives of Jesus' life,where he preaches nothing of atonement through crucufixion,there are some where he is not cricified,they ae called Gospels an indeed it is very possible that they are....
jbowens 2 years ago
..MORE accurate narratives of what was said and happened,Perhaps one of THESE is the true Gosple and wht the quran is telling you to be firm upon.Why arent you?why is it that you say "I gotta follow the Gospel" but as soon as there is a Gospel that says,Jesus wasnt crucified,or he was JUST a human messenger,all of a sudden thats not a REAL gospel,though it very well could be the real deal,I just find it strange and wonder why its so
jbowens 2 years ago
Why? Because any book that says He WASN'T crucified makes a HUGE part of the Old and NEW Testament, a HUGE lie. THAT'S why. The "before scriptures" are a BIG part about the atonement for sin through some suffering innocent for sin culminating in Jesus and what he did on the cross. THAT is the "Injil". And IF that is wrong, HOW come Quran 2:106 didn't kick in with Allah saying, "Due to corruption, the Quran now doesn't confirm or remind CAMEL squat! DONKEY squat, maybe, CAMEL squat...no."
Islamstudent28 2 years ago
after we finish the snake bit we need to talk about atonement
jbowens 2 years ago
And you talked about the symbolic idol of a snake being used for...where?
ItsAmadWorld2 2 years ago
You SAY a Gospel that DOESN'T have Jesus going to the cross is the true Gospel. But, how come EVERY Injil (Gospel) that you come upon in the "before scriptures" (i.e. the Bible), ALWAYS has Jesus going to the cross? IF that's the WRONG Injil, WHAT Injil, then, is it that you are to ask ME about for reading it? The ONLY Injil I'm familiar with is ALL about Jesus, and, Jesus dying for the sins of mankind.
ItsAmadWorld2 2 years ago