Yes we have been through this before, and still you Muslims think you can fool others into believing that Islam is compatible with Christianity. Now only the PC crowd and those whose jobs/ lives/ Twitter account will be attacked still say the "correct" words. You have failed.
Since you don't seem to agree with any of the mainstream Muslims or christians here, in your religious studies you must be getting an F grade.
But seriously now, maybe you need to form your own mystic religion, or would that make you an apostate?
you make these huge assumptions but miss the entire point.
it isn't about my beliefs being compatible with your beliefs.
it's about understanding the deeper aspect of both scriptures we have to understand the whole picture.
So let me break it down for you again...
1) the Quran is a book, but the meaning/interpretation of many parts in that book have never been monopolised. ie islam is diverse on how nt's interpreted. And diversity is not attacked in islam. The prophet SAW could agree with different sides at the same time
'eg you're both right, but in different ways'
why? it depends on the angle...
The problem is in the post-modern post-colonial era, muslims were completely new to the english language and dialogue with christians in a 'fair' format. Now personally im not a big fan of those debates..i prefer open discussions. Someone can talk so much shit in 5 mins that can require hours to respond to, to properly break down, contexualise etc.
So the way those debates went, they favoured the eloquent speakers..
and eloquence does not equal truth. So for example, I LOVED Ahmad Deedat, i thought he put serious ownage on christians who tried to debate him. Problem is, none of them were exemplary christians anyway and were a pile of shit when it came to knowledge of their own book. Ahmad Deedat had the upper hand, but it doesnt mean he was correct on his interpretations.
For example, Ahmad Deedat used to always say the bible is altered, corrupt, even said it was pornographic. He didnt do this to mock, but in response to the attacks christians put against islam/the Quran/our prophet etc. So it became tit for tat..and that is not right..even i can fall into that trap but it's important to at least privately, think independantly and not let emotions distract you from the truth.
So...
When i began to read the Quran/hadith on matters related to the Torah and Gospel. I learnt that the Quran spoke in the 'present' tense in legitimising the bible. Eg 'they have the TRUTH and GUIDANCE.
Similarly, I thought
"if the book was altered, then why would texts like Jeremiah 3 exist? why wouldnt the successive line of prophets condemn the old? instead we never got any example of Jesus saying the book itself was false. Jesus, Jeremiah 3, condemn the scribes for their interpretations.
That changed how I looked at the related verses in the Quran eg
"they wrote the book with their own hands"
Basically when I looked into it properly, I could see that neither Allah or His messenger questioned the authenticity of the core text, it was the interpretation that was called into question.
However that also opened up the same possibility that muslims ALSO are guilty of the same sin, eg misinterpreting the Quran through their personal bias.
There are various examples of this
eg in the old testament context, the word 'adoni' (lord) was used in psalm 110, it is applied to Jesus, it does not mean God but 'lord/master' and this is version Jesus acknowledged via psalm 110, for himself. Yet christians interpret it literally as THE LORD/GOD JESUS. So here. So right away i can write off christians on this one. YET in the Quranic story of Joseph AS, it tells us that when he was tempted by his slave master's wife (forgot her name), she tried to seduce him and he told her something along the lines of "my LORD/MASTER has been good to me"...ie "he's been good to me, i don't want to do this"/context.
However because the word 'lord' is not in the vacbulary of islam for general people ie the word for lord is rabb, and in islamw e only use the word Rabb for Allah, whilst Syed/master is used to men. Yet the verse referred to an old testament story...so the context of a historical hebrew/semitic usage of 'adoni/rabb' was different to the existing muslim context. YET some interpretors didnt 'get this' and didnt take time to explain in footnotes. instead the interprators changed the interpretation so instead when Joseph AS says "my Lord/master has been good to me" it reads like this
So here's the same verse from diff interpretors
Mohsin Khan
23And she, in whose house he was, sought to seduce him (to do an evil act), and she closed the doors and said: "Come on, O you." He said: "I seek refuge in Allah (or Allah forbid)! Truly, he (your husband) is my master! He made my living in a great comfort! (So I will never betray him). Verily, the Zalimun (wrong and evil-doers) will never be successful."
Abdullah Yusuf Ali
23But she in whose house he was, sought to seduce him from his (true) self: she fastened the doors, and said: "Now come, thou (dear one)!" He said: "Allah forbid! truly (thy husband) is my lord! he made my sojourn agreeable! truly to no good come those who do wrong!"
_________________________________________________________________________________________________________________
compared to
Mohammed Habib Shakir
23And she in whose house he was sought to make himself yield (to her), and she made fast the doors and said: Come forward. He said: I seek Allah's refuge, surely my Lord made good my abode: Surely the unjust do not prosper.
Muhammad Pickthall
23And she, in whose house he was, asked of him an evil act. She bolted the doors and said: Come! He said: I seek refuge in Allah! Lo! he is my Lord, who hath treated me honourably. Lo! wrong-doers never prosper.
Totally different meaning
Now in this particular verse, the ultimate difference is not so great, our core theology is not based on this verse, but it is still an important thing to grasp, to witness how interpretors can make errors or even purposely attemptt o cover an actual word for their own reasons ie in this sense, to 'prevent muslims from potentially misusing the word Rabb for men rather than Allah'
that's because of this hadith
(5) Narrated Abu Huraira: The Prophet said, "You should not say, 'Feed your lord (Rabbaka), help your lord in performing ablution, or give water to your lord, but should say, 'my master (e.g. Feed your master instead of lord etc.) (Saiyidi), or my guardian (Maulai), and one should not say, my slave (Abdi), or my girl-slave (Amati), but should say, my lad (Fatai), my lass (Fatati), and 'my boy (Ghulami)." (Book #46, Hadith #728)
Basically by now you should begin to understand that islam has done this to prevent the possibility of shirk/polythiesm..,like what we have seen with christians in matters of core theology. Where the word in psalm 110 was clearly adoni...and was instead misinterpreted for AdonAI/THE LORD.
2)
Now that brings me onto this argument you've made about me trying to make my religion compatible with yours.
As i said previously, it's about understanding the scriptures and their compatibility..their 'angles' and the wisdom behind that.
I've shown you how islam avoids the use of terms like Rabb/lord for man, but only uses it for God as a reaction to how christians misinterpreted it.
So often, it is not even the primary topic islam opposes but it's misuse by christians.
So for example
in my understand, Allah is Trancendent, yet He is Immanent everywhere and within me.
This is the '3' that I BELIEVE/UNDERSTAND what the authentic 'Father/Son/Holy spirit' refers to
The difference between us, is that I have at least looked into the topic of Logos from greek philosophy, from the jewish philosopher Philo who first introduced it to jews, from St Augustine who made it public knowledge in christian minds.
However, in my mind, it is a unity and not a trinity, it is that God is One...only that He is immanent in 2 different ways...and allowing myself to appreciate the Immanence of God is a big deal.
christians, forget that meaning totally, they just say
"the Son means Jesus"
in reality the Son/logos means the universal consciousness/universal spirit/Eternal expression of the Absolute Trancendent unknowable Essence of God
and when i look for proof of my perspective, in the bible itself
what do I find?
"The Father is made known through the Son"
that is exactly how I understand the Essence of God revealing 'itself' via an infinite eternal Consciousness.Yet i do not regard the image/son/logos itself, to be God in the true logical sense, only in the mystical sense..just as i understand that Allah is Trancendent and not 'contained' inside His own creation...I understand that He is Immanent in all things.
the 2 ways of understanding, are logical (left brain) and mystical (right brain) perspectives
and they require a perfect balance.
Hence in John 1:1 both statements are there "the Word was with God" and "the Word IS God"
to only see the latter, without regards to the former...without regards to the wider context which ive just explained, proves to me you have no understanding.
in fact, i have criticised your own doctrine YET when i read up on the actual trinitarian doctrine
here are 2 different christian takes on it
According to Christian theology, the transcendent God, who cannot be approached or seen in essence or being, becomes immanent primarily in the God-man Jesus the Christ, who is the incarnate Second Person of the Trinity. In Byzantine Rite theology the immanence of God is expressed as the hypostases or energies of God, who in his essence is incomprehensible and transcenden
vs
In Catholic theology, Christ and the Holy Spirit immanently reveal themselves; God the Father only reveals himself immanently vicariously through the Son and Spirit, and the Divine Nature, the Godhead is wholly transcendent and unable to be comprehended.
the part in bold, is a big step away from the previous example..
ie to me, it is God who is IMMANENT through the Son and Holy Spirit
yet here it says the Son and Holy spiit are Immanent themselves..
it is in fact your religion that is in contradiction with itself and cannot reason with the 2 different perspectives...whereas islam is perfectly balanced.
However the Quran doesnt negate the actual topic...it contains it throughout via the words BISMILLAH IRRAHMAN IRRAHEEM
Rather, the Quran says
"say not God is three"
this is wholly important, God is not three and no one should say God is three...
to affirm God's unity in 3 different aspects of manifestation, does not mean you should say "god is three" there is a eorld of difference between them
it is proof to me that christians do not know what they are talking about in the most central theme to christianity of all. So basically uou guys are crap at religion and missed the whole point.
I have spent a lot of hours in the past exposing the nonsense you guys come up with, vs what is in the book.
Eg Jesus says "the son can do nothing of his own" "it is the Father who does everything through the Son"
yet you insist the Son is co-equal with the Father in Godhead
yet you also know in John 16 Jesus clearly showed that the Holy spirit has 'nothing' on the Son. likewise..we learn that the 'holy spirit will only speak what he hears' which is rather funny since if he is God why would he need to hear anything to speak anything? and yet when muslims apply these verses as proof of islam/divine inspiration to our prophet SAW you deny it in all kinds of ways. it totally goes over your head.
3) the crucifixion
verse 4:157
historically, people like Ahmad Deedat based their judgement in denying the crucifixion on the interpretation of this verse eg
"he neither died, nor was crucified"
but they ignored the actual wider deeper contexts within the verse
eg "they said in boast, We killed Christ Jesus"
who does it refer to?
answer, Sadducee jews who believed in a literal interpretation of the old testament. who rejected philo's philosophy, the greek logos and thus Jesus Christ and the concept of incarnate Logos. Similarly, they rejected the afterlife/heaven and resurrection.
Hence the Quran really delved onto the crucifixion topic through the poor perspective of the sadducee's..
and why? it's because the jews in Madina who were the ones being addressed by these verses, were deniers of Jesus and very much old testament type jews.
So, it then goes on to tell us "or so he was made to appear to them"
ie that Jesus appeared to die, to the blind...
that he wasnt dead.
Islam teaches us that the physical body is not the true Self, hence the body may die but the soul can only die if it is cut off from the grace of God. Eg if a person is attached to the physical world...on entering barzakh/sheol/the grave...a person is bound to the grave via our carnal attachments that are like 'serpents' that bite/punish us...eg we suffer to the extent of our attachments.
THIS is death.
those who die in the way of Allah, who kill their carnal self, their attachments to the world, in the way of Allah...do not experience such a death. Their souls, are free ie they 'live'.
So whilst this verse appears to deny the crucifixion, it only highlights the poor perspective of sadducee's by telling them "so he was made to appear to you"
YET
christians are missing the whole point
they/you will say "no no you are denying that he died, he died, he def died, he absolutely died and thatr is what i believe"
well, you are also blind then...since the flesh is not the spirit.
in saying this i have then been accused of being a 'gnostic'. I am well aware of what the gnostic texts say on this topic, they go even further than i have..
But i hold the middle ground in that i do believe his physically experienced death, as it says in isaiah 53..yet 'he will see the light of life' and as it says in Acts 2, 'sheol had no hold on him' hence he could not die..
if sheol, which is death itself..had no hold on him, death could not touch him...he conquered death..
and that is what christianity is supposed to be teaching...that 'through Jesus Christ we have/can conquer death'
The fact is christianity as an organised religion is half arsed and i look at it and think 'wtf even is this?' and likewise i think that for islam many times over too...
that doesnt mean i deny the divine scriptures and their message, i just think the people who tend to run rampant and speak the loudest on religion matters usually tend to be baffoons who miss the entire point.
the people who understand, tend to be introverts who dont talk a lot.
anything else you want to say to me?
also, whenever i talk about opics in depth...christians try to dissect my posts individually to just argue over individual topics in order to avoid dealing with the overal topic, the wider context etc..
they always miss the point.
Go back over 2000 years, the dark ages, middle ages, even the modern age
let me go to a council estate in the north/west england and ask a random dude "what is the Son of God"
and they will think
https://armondscavophotography.com/wp-content/uploads/2015/05/Baby-Jesus-in-manger-old-style_292.jpg
instead of
https://2.bp.blogspot.com/-pZKN3eipsnU/WmYct0sN42I/AAAAAAAAQfQ/b-ywnYl2NY4rUM4eQ2BOqNWxqlvPPsjlACLcBGAs/s640/fractal-consciousness.jpg
