Judeo-Christian Context of the Quran?
-
,Peace bro "arnold"
2.You have the rare natural phenomena that is not proven to be possible, only plausible to some extant.
JK- It may not be very solid as yet but weve seen some very interesting experiments and if it's possible in reptiles then although more rare it could even be possible in mammals since they are related through evolution.
If we compate the two, from a scientifical point of view, number 1 has 70-80% more credit then number two. Why do you need more 'signs' jonny? It is so illogical. But to each its own.
JK- The reason why id go for the rare phenomenom is because then the Quran would once again act as a stimulator for scientific research which it would not if we consider it to mean the laready known. Im sure some people tried this with 2130 as well but some people maintained tht it referred to the big bang phenomenom and voila it did. What i say is we have to go with the grammar and context of the Quran. The "from their fathers" argument seemed strong to me but apparently it has been disproven so now again the rare phenomenom starts catching the mind. Moreover the comparison of Jesus to Adam(FIRST evolved humans) makes more sense if they both were born in a UNIQUE way(not that they both didnt have to parents but that they both came about as a result of a mutation), since obviously Jesus came way after the first humans. GOD Bless!
-
Folks! I can't understand your God, so confusing see
6101 To Him is due the primal origin of the heavens and the earth How can He
have a son when He hath no consort? He created all things, and He hath full knowledge of
all things.1672 And Allah has made for you mates (and companions) of your own nature, and
made for you, out of them, sons and daughters and grandchildren, and provided for you
sustenance of the best will they then believe in vain things, and be ungrateful for Allah's
favours?-3021 And among His Signs is this, that He created for you mates from among
yourselves, that ye may dwell in tranquillity with them, and He has put love and mercy
between your (hearts) verily in that are Signs for those who reflect.3511 Allah created you from dust, then from a little fluid, then He made you pairs
(the male and female). No female beareth or bringeth forth save with His knowledge. And
no-one groweth old who groweth old, nor is aught lessened of his life, but it is recorded in
a Book, Lo! that is easy for Allah.4211 (He is) the Creator of the heavens and the earth He has made for you pairs
from among yourselves, and pairs among cattle by this means does He multiply you
there is nothing whatever like unto Him, and He is the One that hears and sees (all things).788 And We created you in pairs.
5345 That He did create in pairs,- male and female.
7539 And of him He made two sexes, male and female.
5149 And of every thing We have created pairs That ye may receive instruction.
Peace all, Hamsa
-
,Peace bro "arnold"
JK- It may not be very solid as yet but weve seen some very interesting experiments and if it's possible in reptiles then although more rare it could even be possible in mammals since they are related through evolution.
JK- The reason why id go for the rare phenomenom is because then the Quran would once again act as a stimulator for scientific research which it would not if we consider it to mean the laready known. Im sure some people tried this with 2130 as well but some people maintained tht it referred to the big bang phenomenom and voila it did. What i say is we have to go with the grammar and context of the Quran. The "from their fathers" argument seemed strong to me but apparently it has been disproven so now again the rare phenomenom starts catching the mind. Moreover the comparison of Jesus to Adam(FIRST evolved humans) makes more sense if they both were born in a UNIQUE way(not that they both didnt have to parents but that they both came about as a result of a mutation), since obviously Jesus came way after the first humans. GOD Bless!
Jonny, the verse talks about Adam in the present tense, Adam thus stands here for Mankind in total, and not the first humans. You hang to pieces of threads instead of the rope of Truth. The Gospel would then also stand as stimulator for truth and every other virginbirth myth. The from their fathers is disproven? And all other arguments you suddenly seem to forget. And the first humans were also all created through male and female genes, the activated genes changed only with every new generation. Please study the science better. Ah mankind is hopeless....I have made my statements in my book, what you choose to believe is up to you.
Peace
-
Peace "Hamsa",
Ofcourse GOD created male and female and these traits are always present to some extent or the other. But we also have ermaphrodites carrying both male and female genitals. So you see there are these "oddities" of nature too. But reg Jesus birth what has this got to do with being male or female. Where does GOD say in the Quran that He always creates us/mammals through a paiur of male and female? If you find such a verse then ofcourse youd be right. GOD Bless! -
Peace bro "arnold",
...And the first humans were also all created through male and female genes, the activated genes changed only with every new generation. Please study the science better. Ah mankind is hopeless....I have made my statements in my book, what you choose to believe is up to you.
Peace
JK- Yes but the graduality doesnt continue infinitely therefore lastly there have to be sudden jumps which lead to radical changes int eh newborns. This is known as punctuated equillibrium where certain changes start to accumulate in the genome and suddenly a radically new form appears and this chain goes on until the final product is completely adjusted to the environment which in our case would be Adam, the first fully humans. The brain also suddenly enlarged and a scientific experiment with a mouse showed this could be achieved in a SINGLE STEP by altering the beta cad gene which allows more of the fluid to be trnaported which deveops the brain cells. And this is exactly what most likely happened witht the last transitional form when it jumped to being human through this trnansition. Maybe through some similar relatively simple genetic mutations a female mammal cld give birth to a male child without having been inseminated. GOD Bless!
-
Peace bro "arnold",
"Adam" referring to all humans and not just the first ones(which were blacks and Adam as you yourself claimed also means black humans) doesnt seem plausible. Then a more appropriate term would be to use the term "insaan" and that even would be followed by the term "ukhta(others)" so as to be "wa isa... mathal INSAANan UKHRA(and jesus... like the OTHER MANKIND)" but that is ofcourse not the case. GOD Bless! -
Peace "Hamsa",
Ofcourse GOD created male and female and these traits are always present to some extent or the other. But we also have ermaphrodites carrying both male and female genitals. So you see there are these "oddities" of nature too. But reg Jesus birth what has this got to do with being male or female. Where does GOD say in the Quran that He always creates us/mammals through a paiur of male and female? If you find such a verse then ofcourse youd be right. GOD Bless!6101 God cannot have a son without a consort but Maryam can have one. &. But there is another thing I have noticed in Quran that the Prayers of some prophets are given in the Quran asking forgiveness both for their parents but Jesus Pray only for his mother hmm. I'll keep searching for truth.
Peace all, Hamsa
-
Peace "rasul",
6101 God cannot have a son without a consort but Maryam can have one. &. But there is another thing I have noticed in Quran that the Prayers of some prophets are given in the Quran asking forgiveness both for their parents but Jesus Pray only for his mother hmm. I'll keep searching for truth.
Peace all, Hamsa
JK- Your taking the mockery phrase literally. We all know tht GOD is neither male nor female so how can He even have a consort? Makes no sense at all if it were not a mockery. This is there who refute those who think GOD is a man/male like many Christians do. As for the latter part thts another strong point which would go in my favor. GOD Bless!
-
Peace "rasul",
JK- Your taking the mockery phrase literally. We all know tht GOD is neither male nor female so how can He even have a consort? Makes no sense at all if it were not a mockery. This is there who refute those who think GOD is a man/male like many Christians do. As for the latter part thts another strong point which would go in my favor. GOD Bless!
Hmm... that is a very good point.
-
salaam,
Angel,
Yes, I have. The Nag Hammadi library is an area of great interest to me, and if push came to shove, I'd have to give myself away as a closet gnostic. Why do you ask?
Peace.
I was just curious.
I?ve not read any of the heretical gospels, but the gospel of Judas is intriguing, I remember watching an interesting documentary about it on Channel 4.
Why does the church reject those heretical gospels? Judas is obvious, but why the rest? confused
peace
-
salaam,
I was just curious.I?ve not read any of the heretical gospels, but the gospel of Judas is intriguing, I remember watching an interesting documentary about it on Channel 4.
Why does the church reject those heretical gospels? Judas is obvious, but why the rest? confused
peace
Well, there are a few pretty good reasons why the church rejected them when they sat down to decide a canon. First, they are not historical. They are written beyond the possibility of containing information from the eyewitness period (with the exception of the Gospel of Thomas). Second, they were not widely dispersed, even when they were being used. The Christian canon was decided in 397, but in the second century, a Christian writer put together a list of books accepted as inspired by most of the Christians he knew. It is called the Muratorian Canon, and it contains all of the books in the New Testament today with the exception of 2 Peter, 2 & 3 John, and Revelation. The books that ended up in the canon were widely accepted everywhere from the get-go. The "heretical gospels" were never that widely read, and there is a good reason for that they were never intended to be. Those books emphasize "secret knowledge" and a secret isn't much of a secret if you are letting everybody read it, right? Third, around the time the canon was decided, there were heresies that arose that challenged basic Christian thinking. Those people claimed to be prophets (people like Mani, Montanus, etc), when really, they were plain off their rocker. But the church's reaction to this was to completely stifle anything remotely prophetic. Before, one of the claims of the early church was that God had abandoned the Jews' religion because they no longer had prophets, and that God proved that the Christians were those in covenant with him because they regularly had people prophesy and work miracles like Jesus did. But now that a few wackos started causing trouble while claiming inspiration, the church decided that prophecy and inspiration was something that the church did not need. They thought they needed a book as a benchmark for all future belief that would remain unchanged. There were many Christians who considered the writing "The Shepherd of Hermas" to be inspired by God, but didn't add it to the canon because it was written within their lifetimes and they knew the brother of the author.
In short, some of the "heretical gospels" contain a record of the possibility of this ongoing revelation among Christians, but whoever wrote them down, did so in the form of a gospel. But there is hardly any general agreement in the meanings of the heretical texts, and each one has to be rviewed on its own. Some of the heretical texts are Sethian - a later gnostic heresy.
I hope that helps, it may be more info than what you were looking for. peace