Messages

151

General Discussions / Re: Hello from a Monotheist outside of Islam

« on: January 30, 2014, 07:58:50 PM »

Jesus who was born as a miracle, healed people, forgiving sins, preached against the tradition of men practiced by the Jews, reforming the wrongs in society, his sermon in the mount, his saying that he didn't came to abolish the law, knowing that he will be killed but still submitting to the will of God, got crucified, resurrected after three days...telling his disciples to preach to the 'nations', baptizing people in the name of Father, Son, and Holy Spirit... being called 'Lord', 'Son of God', and.. Messiah.

Hi, Ah yes... but as you know....
a) "son of God" was hardly ever used and meant something totally different in the Hebrew world 500 years before Muhammad....It was referencing to God's agent and representative .... and Adam and many others were referred to as this...In fact more generic still, you are referred to as the son of God (ie. His agent of goodness)...That is simply the way Hebrew language was used, different to Muhammad's time (Rom 9:26)..
b) "Lord".... In the Bible "Lord" (Kurios) does not represent deity, but a level of authority. All sorts of people are referred to as lord (kurios). If each time it is translated as deity consistently, the Bible would not make sense.
c) Baptised in the name of the "Father, Son and Holy Spirit..... One by one.... i) son.. we have discussed above.... ii) Father..... The Hebrews refused to verbalise the word God (Yahweh) because of a tradition of fear of using His Name inappropriately. Therefore they used various alternatives.... (which is where Allah comes from the singular of Elohim).. Jesus used term "Father", as to indicate God presence close to mankind. iii) Holy Spirit... So to avoid misunderstanding, Holy spirit was used when God revealed his power / presence.
d) Baptism in these 3 names..... Firstly Jesus said he never baptised  (John 4:2), and there is no case in the whole Bible of any disciple baptizing in the name of Father, Son, Holy Spirit; nor is it heard of. There is no other such instruction in the entire Bible except for the last words of Matthew. In early church history, this sentence is missing in earliest manuscripts, as well as there is not trace of it in the Hebrew Bible. The gospel according to Mark (the earliest Greek Gospel account) has no such instruction..This is one of those verses which has a very strong basis for viewing as an addition to suit later tradition.

The baptism of jesus and the Hawariyuun was explained by Muhammad in Surah 2:138. The culture of the Hebrews was not for another to baptize, but for self-baptism. ( If you have watched the Jesus Film, he baptized himself)  And so this was the background to the following Surah in the Qur’an....2 different translations to emphasize a point:

Receive the baptism (Arabic: Sibgha) of God, and who is better than God in baptising? and Him do we serve.

We take our colour from God, and who is better than God at colouring. We are His worshippers.    (QS 2:138)

In the culture of exclusiveness, the distinctive at the birth of islam (submission) is the “Sibgha of God”. Sibgha means "dye" or "colour".  The Arab Christians at the time of Muhammad used to mix a dye or colour in the baptizing water to signify that the baptized person got a new colour in life. For Muslims, Baptism was the direct work of God Himself. Islam is being immersed into the character from God, reflecting his character.

Wasalam
Daniel

152

General Discussions / Re: The danger of the "Qur'an only" Approach

« on: January 30, 2014, 03:25:01 PM »

Hello Br. Joseph,

Thank you so much for your kind words. You mentioned about interest in our network. Basically it is study groups of like minded people, mostly interacting with authors such as Hans Kung, James Dunn, James McGrath, who are re-looking at the Injil writers with a Hebrew mindset. However as they remain "in the system" in their asking of questions, they avoid being labeling themselves as "Non-trinitarian." In fact we have had study groups directly with a couple of these authors.

Over the years this has naturally caused a closer affinity with a number of open-minded Muslim thinkers, where increasingly there are not much theologically that we would differ on. I would say the same for the articles on your site. IN fact we are starting to go through your articles systematically at the moment.

BTW, I responded to another lady on the topic "Monotheism outside of Islam", would love to get your thoughts..

Wasalam
Daniel

153

General Discussions / Re: Hello from a Monotheist outside of Islam

« on: January 30, 2014, 03:07:47 PM »

To Daniel,

How do you reconcile the church doctrine about Isa and his death in the light of Quran? I have been thinking about a verse in Quran: Isa similitude is of Adam. That verse to me bears a deeper meaning than just being created by miracle (Isa and Adam). And I have stumbled on a theory, the Adam Christology, proposing that Isa is the last Adam, his resurrection was the first to be done, and it is done so that we can be resurrected after him. Does this view have any place in the continuation of Torah?

I also found an opinion that the NT, the gospels, should actually be put under the Torah (just like Talmud, etc), not as substitute.

Thank you

I think firstly to begin with the actual crucifixion of Jesus I have presented 3 interpretations of the Qur'an to synchronise with the Bible I think it was p5 of this topic. Also I believe the Qur'an views the Bible as reliable, but issues with the twisting of meaning.

When we come to the application and meaning of the Injil universally, meaning what does it supposed to mean for a Muslim as a part of their pillar of faith, that is where we need to "go slow" and put emotions aside. A couple of key starting points are:

- There is only ONE truth, ONE "Ummah" / people of God. The words "Old Testament / New Testament" are not inspired words, but support the mindset of "Replacement Theology", that the Christian church has replace Hebrew; that the NT replaces the OT etc. etc. This is the same midset that Islam with its post Qur'an traditions often has of itself. That Islam is the final and true religion replacing the old, the Qur'an replaces the Injil etc.  In this aspect, Islam is not different to Catholic replacement theology.

The truth of what Paul presents is of the "New" (Gentiles) being grafted into the "old" (Hebrew). The message of the Injil from Jesus is to the Jews "Do not hope that you are a part of the "Ummah" simply because you are ethnically descended from Abraham." The Injil, including from Paul, is all about ONE.  One Ummah, Semitic and non-semitic.

- In regards to the meaning of the crucifixion, I think we need to understand that the Injil is about the 2 types of people in the Injil, those following the Torah (Hebrews), and those not (Gentiles). The Torah is 613 instructions for living, for the Roman Empire Gentiles it was summarised simply as "Love your neighbour". Paul wrote his inspired writings to Gentiles. Despite what Muslims have heard of his writings, 95% of it they would embrace as great truth. However his "articulating" of the one true message was for the Gentile mind. (ie. He himself said in 1 Cor 9 this was his principle... all things to all men.)

It is clear that the heritage of Islam is from the Jerusalem "Ummah". You can synchronize the message of Muhammad with that of Jesus brother, James, who was the head of the Jerusalem believers. "Faith without works is dead." As far as synchronizing the Qur'an to the Jesus of the Bible, the more important question is to which people? ..... those of Jerusalem or those of Rome? As Jesus was to James and the "Hawariyuun" in Jerusalem, Jesus was to Muhammad. In other words, if you took away all the writings of Paul to Roman Empire Gentiles, what does the Jesus you are left with look like? This is the challenge for Islam.

Wasalam
Daniel

154

General Discussions / Re: The danger of the "Qur'an only" Approach

« on: January 28, 2014, 08:14:01 PM »

Thank you Br. Joseph for your reply. I am a part of a growing network of Tauhid Christians that have grown to have quite a positive view of Muhammad. I personally am further along, where I have absolutely no problem with the Shahadat. I must say, it makes things somewhat awkward in responding to non-Muslims with genuine questions in regards to Muhammad, in explaining that most of their issues concerning Muhammad that they have grown up with are from "unreliable historical sources." At the same time 99% (I am guessing with that figure) of the Islamic world says "These ARE reliable sources."

It seems whether Christianity or Islam, we are at the beginning of an age of major reform, in particular with all sorts of traditions being shaken. It is quite clear both Islam and Christianity has lots of "baggage" in its orthodox dogma.  How much is the content of this website opposed by segments of Islam? Are some of the articles considered "off limits" at this stage to be spoken of in a too public manner (eg. Friday message at a mosque), and only kept in cyberspace and only open-minded friends? I am trying to compare with the sensitivity of bringing up the Trinity in Christian circles, where there is need to be care in how things are articulated in a public setting so not be perceived by orthodoxy as a "betrayer of Isa".

My opinion is when the "tree of tradition" is shaken hard enough, we all end up back as one "Ummah", with different identifying labels to represent different expressions. For me this is in fact the message of the Bible, a unified yet diversified Semitic and non Semitic People / East and West.... as a single ummah.......

I am beginning to go through your articles with a number of my Islamic friends, who are quite scholarly.

Wasalam
Daniel

155

General Discussions / The danger of the "Qur'an only" Approach

« on: January 27, 2014, 10:52:37 PM »

Hello all,

I know the purposes of this site, and the content is fantastic. However to me the approach "We only use what is in the Quran" approach is quite dangerous.

I am a strong believer of Hermenuetics, that is in understanding verses in context. In creating the historical context of verse, this is what brings the Qur'an alive. For example, Surah 2:79.. "So woe to those who write the "scripture" with their own hands, then say, "This is from Allah ," in order to exchange it for a small price. Woe to them for what their hands have written and woe to them for what they earn."  When learning context, of Arabized Jews not knowing Hebrew, coming across Aramaic  paraphrases of the Torah (Targums) re-written in Arabic being presented as scripture, it brings  meaning to the text. The more the framework for the verse is understood, the more meaningful the text becomes.

On the other hand, someone passionately religious who picks up the Qur'an without recognising historical context risks being a Jihadist!!

Does this forum encourage understanding the historical context? I am not talking about being tied into the Asbab Al-Nuzul. It would seem that being only tied into the Hadith does not necessarily provide context.

Wasalam
Daniel

156

Discussions / Re: Apostle Paul

« on: January 27, 2014, 06:42:41 PM »

Hello,

This is good to be answered by people who specialize in the field of Torah commands. The academic work of Wild Branch Ministry is quite good in this regards. Although I definitely DO NOT agree with all that they say on the person of Jesus and some other points, however in general they are quite close to Islamic thinking in many ways.

To answer some of your questions on the interpretations of Torah: www.wildbranch.org/teachings/lessons/lesson161.html (5 pts)
Also contrasting Hebrew and Greek thinking is good: www.wildbranch.org/teachings/hebrew-greek-mind/

Answering these questions sometimes needs Hebrew and Hebrew cultural understanding. Actually the practices on this site you will find many similarities to the Quran. Remember, this is the roots of Islam, the Hebrew community of the Hawariyuun.

That is why when we question the Torah, we question Nabi Isa, we question the Hebrew followers of Isa..... in the end questioning the Torah questions the Quran..... it all comes back to bite!! The Quran cannot stand alone, the Quran is a continuation of a continuing truth.

Hope it helps
Daniel

157

Prophets and Messengers / Re: The Meaning of Messiah

« on: January 27, 2014, 03:37:42 PM »

Salamun Alaikum.

Thanks to brother Daniel, Abbsrayray and Duster for taking up my question. I feel I need to elaborate a bit on my take from Al Qur'an 7:157-158.

Now, the most likely portion from Torah that relates to this statement is the one below:

The LORD said to me: What they say is good. I will raise up for them a prophet like you from among their brothers; I will put my words in his mouth, and he will tell them everything I command him". Deuteronomy 18.17-18

Interestingly our present day Christians also strongly claim Deuteronomy 18.17-18 to be referring to Jesus the Christ - but in spite of the statement clearly mentioning a Prophet (and not a Son of God / God himself) - they continue to be confused.

May Allah guide us all to the straight route.

Best regards,
Arman

Thanks for the response. In regards to Deut 18:17-18, I think it is not so much a claim of Christians today...... It is a central theme of the Injil that repeatedly presents Jesus as the fulfillment of of Deut 18. Acts 3:22; John 1; Acts 7...It was left in no doubt that the "Hawariyuun" viewed Jesus as the Prophet of Deut 18. In applying this to Muhammad creates a  number of problems with the previous revelation. As I said, I don't know how it is possible to interpret Muhammad as a part of the 12 tribes of Israel, when God speaking to the twelve tribes of Israel through Moses says "God will raise a Prophet among you".

As stated, I am not dogmatic as far as who 157 refers to; but one thing I am sure of is that Deut 18 does not refer to Muhammad. That would make contradictory all the Holy Books. Islam is the continuation of truth that already existed, it does not contradict itself.

Wasalam
Daniel

158

General Discussions / Re: Help me explain to Christians the "difficult issues" concerning Muhammad

« on: January 27, 2014, 01:14:25 PM »

Salaam Daniel,

Here is an article about that subjects.

http://quransmessage.com/articles/ayesha%20age%20FM3.htm

What still shocks me is Muslims believing what is in the Hadith about their prophet. I myself at a very young age, never believed such stories because it did not make sense someone in contact with God and given his revaluations would be anything but with high morals and character marrying a child.

As for multiple wives, I have not seen anything in the Quran that indicates he had multiple wives, Hadith is all fabrication so I never quote that and only an insane person, whether Muslim or not would use that as a religion source or any believes to it.

http://quransmessage.com/articles/prophet's%20wives%20FM3.htm

The verse 4:34 in the Quran Al Nisa talks about polygamy, but that verse by many is so misunderstood and people think that Polygamy is accepted by God. Only in circumstances.

http://quransmessage.com/articles/four%20wives%20FM3.htm

http://quransmessage.com/forum/forum.htm

I see it this way, If there is no mention in the Quran, there is no way anyone is going to know. People can assume and say many things, Muslim or nonmuslim, it does not mean it is true unless they fully read and understand the Quran, being that it is in the Quran.

- Cases of raids and murder.. Etc.
 
quransmessage.com/pdfs/Overlap%20Hadith%20and%20History.pdf

Hope this helps....

I feel that a response basically "If it is not in the Qur'an, then it is not true" will not help in giving a reasoned response to inquirers, in seeking a greater acceptance of Muhammad by non-Muslims. This response may be a valid response to people treating extra-quranic accounts as divine revelation , however we are dealing with history, not divine revelation.  If that logic was used, we could deny all sorts of historical factual details concerning both Islam and Christianity.

To deny the occurring of these issues when orthodoxy says otherwise, there needs to be a good historical reason for it to be brought into question.

Wasalam
Daniel

PS Adam. I read the article, it seems quite negative concerning the Abbasid period, when in fact it was the most stable and prosperous period for the Arab world. I have no doubt that Islam evolved dramatically after the Caliphs, however there still needs to be a stronger basis for response concerning the actions of Muhammad, particularly that he did not practice polygamy. Personally Polygamy for that era in Arabia is not one of the major issues. It is clearly practiced in the Torah in certain periods.

159

General Discussions / Help me explain to Christians the "difficult issues" concerning Muhammad

« on: January 27, 2014, 10:18:31 AM »

As you would be aware, there are a few stumbling blocks in Christians embracing a more positive view of Muhammad. I genuinely ask these questions so to seek an adequate answer. Responses that could help could be such things as a) Providing evidence that the particular action was not considered a sinful act in that era b) Evidence that the basis for that information is highly doubtful. c) This action was a sinful act, and Muhammad repented afterwards. (This is a valid response based on the Torah actions of Prophets)   . I noted on the article on Aisha that as it is not in the Quran, it is not something responded to. I understand the Quran focus, however this would be considered bypassing the real issue by most.

The stumbling blocks could include:

- Sexual morality: In particular the apparent marriage to Aisha at an age unacceptably young (8 yrs old?) age. Other issues with excessive number of wives.
- Cases of raids and murder.. Etc.

What are the biggest issues you can think of, and how do you respond? Again, I am asking this to give a valid response, not to be negative. If this is not a valid discussion, I am happy for it to be deleted....

Wasalam
Daniel

160

Prophets and Messengers / Re: The Meaning of Messiah

« on: January 27, 2014, 10:00:25 AM »

Hello Abbsrayray,

You potentially could be right, however if 7:157-158 is referring to Muhammad, at best the required reference in the Torah and Injil concerning the Prophet Muhammad would be extremely vague, something like a character trait common to many etc. Even the sometimes used "I will raise up a prophet among you" from Exodus requires the Prophet being referred to here as a Jew, which Muhammad was not.

I would be interested how Br. Joseph interprets this?

Wasalam
Daniel

161

Prophets and Messengers / Re: The Meaning of Messiah

« on: January 26, 2014, 11:50:29 AM »

Salamun Alaikum.

Dear brothers. I have gone through the articles by brother Joseph regarding Prophet Jesus and find them mostly aligned with my understanding. I would like to raise one more related point for your attention - I am not sure if this has been discussed before - from my reading I uderstand Al Qur'an 7:157 talks about Prophet Jesus and 7:158 talks about Prophet Muhammad - although traditionally it is believed both ayats talk about Prophet Muhammad. Allah SWT has not named the messenger(s) in either ayat. I believe He intends that we use our intellect over this. Appreciate your views on this.

May Allah guide us all to straight route.

Best regards,
Arman

That is a very good question, which I don't think I have a strong answer. However my thoughts are:
- In both v157 and v158 having the same key word , Ummiya, which based upon the research on this site and others, seems to have been incorrectly "unlettered", I would be quite sure that both 157 and 158 are referring to the same person.
- The reference of this Messenger being in the Torah and Injil makes it difficult for that person to be Muhammad in my opinion. In this sense Isa being this Messenger is more likely. However I am not sure of how Isa can be referred to as "Ummiya". Clearly there was astonishment among Jewish religious leaders that someone who was seen to have no religious education and from not an educated town could  expound spiritual truth in Jerusalem.
- I think generally there is a tendency in traditional interpretations to read the Prophet Muhammad into text when it is not there, coming from a Muhammad / Quran centrism. However I believe we should read the mission of the Prophet Muhammad as continually pointing to a pre-existing message , pre-existing prophets, the God of the Hebrews. This is not in any way to demean the Prophet and the Quran, however their functions were to confirm and point to what already existed. These are the Pillars of the Islamic Faith, all pre-existing beliefs.

Wasalam
Daniel

162

General Discussions / Re: Hello from a Monotheist outside of Islam

« on: January 18, 2014, 09:41:19 PM »

Dear Daniel and Good Logic,


Around this point Christianity was a Jewish sect. The early Christians visited the synagogue, pray three times a day, fast two days a week: they were Jewish.

There was a war in 70 CE, but it didn't separate Christians from Judaism.

Up until the year 132-135 CE, a false messiah conducted a revolt against the Romans, his name was Bar Kochba. The followers of Jesus who were Jewish, did not want to accept Bar Kochba as a messiah and there was a conflict. Ultimately, the Romans overcame the revolt, and the Jews today consider Bar Kochba as a failed messiah.

"Cochba [bar Kochba] ... tortured and killed the Christians who refused to aid him against the Roman army." - p. 42, Greek Apologists of the Second Century, Robert M. Grant, The Westminster Press, 1988

.

The complete schism/separation of Christianity from Judaism happened after that.

Correct me if I got it wrong,
Peace for all

Hello all, Great to interact with you all! Just on the above, we need to be careful we are not confusing 3-4 different groups... The Tauhid community who followed the Hawariyuun labelled the Nazarenes, and were expelled from Jerusalem in 135AD, were never known as Christians. (From the historian Epiphanus). The Christians, accepted by the Hawariyuun, didn't associate much with the Nazarenes because the CHristians saw them as heretical, following basically a Halal diet and the law. The Hebrew followers of Jesus numbered in the 10's of thousands. Their journey is important, because they are basically the links from Mecca back to Jerusalem. . When expelled from Jerusalem, the Nazarenes were disowned by their Hebrew brothers. This is also important, because the Nazarenes became a separate entity from the Jews, and had communities in and around Mecca, with a Nazarene leader, Waraqa, officiating the wedding of before Muhammad. (According to Islamic historians Qutaybah, Al-Yaqubi and others). It is very clear that the heritage of Islam is from the Jerusalem followers of Jesus, which is from the Qur'an. "Nazarene" was a label, therefore "Islam" was natural to be adopted by this community.

Outside of the Nazarenes, was the Christian church centred in Rome. They have their early history grounded in the teaching of Jesus, accepted by the Hawariyuun in about 45AD, pioneered partly by Paul. However it is increasingly acknowledged that their history after its beginnings is not exactly reality. The Hawariyuun history has been sidelined, so that Peter transfers authority to the Gentile Christian Popes as head of the "Umaah". This is clearly untrue, with the family of Jesus in Jerusalem, starting with James and then Simeon,  being the true leaders. All of this is important, as Muslims have not been told their heritage. A lot of details are unknown with historical records being destroyed, however roughly the above is the Muslim heritage.

Just briefly, one large other groups, which are actually multiple streams, are in between the 2 groups above of the Hawariyuun and Christians... that is the Christian church of the East. This is the primary church Muhammad had contact with, their history is from the direct ministry of the Hawariyuun (not Paul) to the scattered Helenised (Greek speaking) circumcised. As Christians, they sholat, and have a very similar culture to Muslims. They were thrown out of the Catholic Church 150 years before Muhammad because their belief in Jesus was actually similar to the Quran, that the spirit of God was in Jesus as a separate entity to the human Jesus. The Church in the East thrived for 500 years in the Middle East and were the key to the Golden Age of the Arab world.

This is long......but I think it is important for Muslims and Christians to know their heritage. There is a lot of academic study in these areas these days, including this is a part of my study.

Wasalam.. Daniel

163

General Discussions / Re: Do I need to 'Convert' or Can I Follow the Previous Scriptures?

« on: January 18, 2014, 12:39:28 PM »

Hello sister!!

The Qur'an and the Torah, Zabur and Injil are unified in its message.....or else one of the pillars of Islam is contradicting itself. Anyone who says you are going to hell because of your religious identity, whether Islam or Christian, contradicts both the Qur'an and the Former Books, where 1 Cor 7:17 commands 5 X for those of the circumcision (ie. Islam)  not to leave the circumcision, and those not of the circumcision are to be considered as a part of "The Ummah". The Bible says that is not important, living the life of submission (islam with small "i" )to God is what is important (1 Cor 7).

We need to separate Islam in name, and islam in essence. Christianity is grounded in the belief that "there is no god but God". If your religious identity is now Muslim, stay there.... and embrace the pillars of faith...... With that I have the Bible and Qur'an I read regularly. The Qur'an brings correction to those in Arabia who were practicing things contrary to the Bible, restoring the Shema which is the foundational belief of Abraham and Moses and Jesus.

Wasalam
Daniel

164

General Discussions / Re: Hello from a Monotheist outside of Islam

« on: January 18, 2014, 09:52:15 AM »

Salaam Daniel,

I have a question about what Christians believe about Paul. My friend who is a Christian, said Paul was Jewish and wrote many lies about Jesus, and most of his writings where boasting about himself. She said Paul was the one who planned for Jesus to get killed. (I believe It was God who put him to death and raised him, they just had a body) .She than said Paul became blind some time after Jesus departure, than Jesus appeared before him and killed him. I am just curious about this Paul.

Salaam

Wow. It sounds like a Christian who has thrown out their Holy Books! As the Prophet Muhammad is greatest misunderstood figure for Christians, so Paul is the most misunderstood figure for Muslims. All the above would be the opposite of Paul. The 2 most important things to remember according to the Bible is: Paul was not a Trinitarian, he embraced the "Shahadah" / Shema... there is no god but God (1 Cor 8:4). The community of faith in Jerusalem misunderstood him in believing that he was asking the people under Gods law to leave Gods law, and the believers tried to kill him. However with the Hawariyuun, he took a vow to declare he had never done such a thing (ACTS 21). It was only for non-Jews that Pauls message was for them that they were not required circumcision based upon the decision of the Hawariyuun. The core root of the issue was the jealousy of the Jews that non-circumcised were considered a part of the "Ummah".

The view of Paul you presented would be very difficult to be supported by the Prophet Muhammad, in fact I would think you would have to say it contradicted Muhammad, considering the Qur'ans inclusiveness of the Gentiles, and recognizing the "People of the Book."

HOWEVER: Even the hawariyuun said that Paul's writings are easily misinterpreted (1 Peter). (If not understanding context). He also was not perfect,  as he aggressively fulfilled his calling of bringing Gods message to the Roman Empire. As far as boasting, Paul was the opposite..... "All of my achievements I count as rubbish, I in myself can do nothing." (Galatians)

Hope this helps...

Wasalam...

165

General Discussions / Re: Hello from a Monotheist outside of Islam

« on: January 18, 2014, 09:24:18 AM »

Jesus himself refused to be called son of God on a number of occasions. In the following verse he rebukes the ones who called him son of God, preferring the title of 'Messiah':

On numerous occasions Jesus speaks of himself as a prophet:

"A prophet is not without honour except in his home town and his own house" #16 (Mathew 13:57) (Mark 6:4) and (Luke 4:24)

Jesus also spoke of himself as the messenger of God:

'Atonement' & 'Original sin'

The Atonement doctrine contradicts the Old and New Testaments:

Old Testament:

"Also to you O Lord, belong mercy; for you render to each one according to his work." #87 (Psalms 62:12)
"And will he not render to each man according to his deeds?" #88 (Proverbs 24:12)
"The righteousness of the righteous shall be upon himself, and the wickedness of the wicked shall be upon himself." #89 (Ezekiel 18:20)

New Testament:

"Each of us shall give an account of himself to God." #90 (Romans 14:12)
"Each one will receive his own reward according to his own labour." #91 (1 Corinthians 3:

GOD bless you.

Peace.

Hello Good Logic,

I thought I would briefly respond to the couple of points you made. In regards to the son of God, I believe there was no problem with this phrase at the time of Jesus in that it did not contradict complete monotheism. Son of God and Messiah were interchangeable, indicating God's representative on earth. In some ways the equivalent could be "Caliphate", although that is more of a political word.  It was used throughout history for "The religion of Abraham." Jesus avoided both Messiah and son of God in public, not because it indicated deity, but that it implied kingship, and would have had all sorts of political issues with Roman forces.

The issue is the change of meaning with "son of God" from 2nd century until 6th century. By the time of Prophet Muhammad, the meaning of the word had changed to mean deity, and therefore was rejected. As far as I know, many open-,minded Muslim scholars would agree with the above.

Re atonement, this is a topic for another day possibly. However a couple of verses above need to be read in context, of not judging your brother, especially when much of the New Testament world lives in a context of atonement. The Hebrew sacrifice system  had been practiced and commanded for over 1000 years, of which Idul Adha is a remembrance. Two things were about to happen in the 1st century...... a) a massive inclusion of those considered God's people throughout the nations b) The 3 essentials with the sacrifice system, a priest, sacrifice and temple were about to cease to exist with the destruction of Jerusalem in 70AD. There needed to be a better, simpler way (ie. Hebrews in the N.T.). Again, disentangling traditions from what "atonement" was  intended to mean for the "Hawariyuun". Anyway, that is a topic for another day......