11-11-2004, 04:35 PM
Keith,
You will address me directly. Do not throw an arrow without expecting me to launch a thousand back at you!
Watch hopelessly as I tear you down.
There is no contradiction here:
Sura 39:4 ???Had Allah wished to take to Himself A son, He could have Chosen whom He pleased Out of those whom He Doth create: but Glory Be to Him! (He is above Such things.) He is Allah, The One, the Irresistible."
According to this verse, Allah could have take to Himself a son if He willed, for He is able to do all things. Then it says "He is above such things." This is clearly negating the possibility.
100. Yet they make the Jinns equals with Allah, though Allah did create the Jinns; and they falsely, having no knowledge, attribute to Him sons and daughters. Praise and glory be to Him! (for He is) above what they attribute to Him!
Sura 6:101 ???Wonderful Originator of the heavens and the earth; How can He have a son when He has no consort? He created all things, and He hath full knowledge of all things.???
Allah is speaking of those who attribute to Him sons and daughters. Here it is necessary to pose and contemplate on the arguments presented by the Church with regards to their claim that Jesus is the son of Allah. One of the arguments used by the Church is that Jesus, being born of a virgin mother, had no human father. For that they claim that his father is God in heaven.
Allah is making a mockery of such logic. This is an explanation of what He is saying:
'If you believe that everybody must abide by the laws of reproduction that God ordained for human beings (i.e. for anyone to have a son, one must first have a wife, and that every child must have a father and a mother), and you deduce from that that since Jesus had no human father, then his father must be God in heaven, then by the same logic that you use, how could God have a son when he did not have a wife first ?'
It becomes evident that in 6:101, Allah is not addressing the possibility of having a son or not, but actually making a mockery of the poor logic used by those who make Jesus the son of Allah because he did not have a human father, instead of realising that it was a miracle decreed by Allah who is able to do anything He pleases
The first verse is saying if He wanted to, He could have had a son if He chose for He is able to do all things. Then it negates the possibility. 6:100 negates the possibility then goes on to refute the logic of those who claim Jesus is the son of God.
You must have found it convienant to pick at one verse in isolation to the previous verse.
I've addressed this in a previous post.
and Pythagaras was the first to use the Pythagorean theorem.
Genesis 40
19 Within three days Pharaoh will lift off your head and hang you on a tree. [1] And the birds will eat away your flesh."
Oh look at that, Keith! We're on the same boat, aren't we? Now you provide evidence.
"Crucifixion was one of the most cruel and barbarous forms of death known to man. It was practiced, especially in the times of war, by the Phoenicians, Carthaginians, Egyptians, and later by the Romans. So dreaded was it that even in the pre-Christian era, the cares and troubles of the life were often compared to a cross" J. D. Douglas, M. C. Tenny, The New International Dictionary Of The Bible: Pictorial Edition, 1987, Regency Reference Library (USA) & Marshall Pickering (UK), p. 242.
"Crucifixion was in used among the Egyptians, Ge 40:19; the Carthaginians, the Persians, Es 7:10; the Assyrians, Scythains, Indians, Germans, and from the earliest times among the Greeks and Romans. Whether this mode of execution was known to the ancient Jews is a matter of dispute. Probably the Jews borrowed it from the Romans. It was unanimously considered the most horrible form of death" Smith's Bible Dictionary under "Crucifixion".
The most ancient form of crucifixion was on trees:
(Pharaoh) said: "Believe ye in Him before I give you permission? Surely this must be your leader, who has taught you magic! be sure I will cut off your hands and feet on opposite sides, and I will have you crucified on trunks of palm-trees: so shall ye know for certain, which of us can give the more severe and the more lasting punishment!" [Qur'an 20:71]
The Jews (immediately out of Egypt) rarely used the method:
If a man guilty of a capital offense is put to death and his body is hung on a tree, you must not leave his body on the tree overnight. Be sure to bury him that same day, because anyone who is hung on a tree is under God's curse. You must not desecrate the land the LORD your God is giving you as an inheritance. [Deuteronomy 21:22-23]
He hung the king of Ai on a tree and left him there until evening. At sunset, Joshua ordered them to take his body from the tree and throw it down at the entrance of the city gate. And they raised a large pile of rocks over it, which remains to this day. [Joshua 8:29].
According to the Catholic Encyclopedia of Archaeology of the Cross and Crucifix:
The penalty of the cross goes back probably to the arbor infelix, or unhappy tree, spoken of by Cicero (Pro, Rabir., iii sqq.) and by Livy, apropos of the condemnation of Horatius after the murder of his sister. According to H??schke (Die Multa, 190) the magistrates known as duoviri perduellion is pronounced this penalty (cf. Liv., I, 266), styled also infelix lignem (Senec., Ep. ci; Plin., XVI, xxvi; XXIV, ix; Macrob., II, xvi). This primitive form of crucifixion on trees was long in use, as Justus Lipsius notes ("De cruce", I, ii, 5; Tert., "Apol.", VIII, xvi; and "Martyrol. Paphnut." 25 Sept.). Such a tree was known as a cross (crux).
This form of state terror, widespread across the Roman Empire which included Europe, North Africa and Western Asia, originated several centuries before the Common Era continuing into the fourth century CE when the practice was discontinued by Constantine, the emperor of Rome. Hengel, in his monumental work on the subject entitled Crucifixion (1989:22-23) writes that while authors generally regard it???s origin as in Persia due to the writings of Herodotus it???s practice was found among the Indians, Assyrians, Scythians, Taurians, Celts, Greeks, Seleucids, Romans, Britanni, Numidians, Carthagians the latter who may have transferred it???s knowledge to the Romans. While its origins are obscured in antiquity it???s clear that the form of capital punishment lasted for nearly 900 years beginning with Darius???s (550-485 BCE) crucifixion of 3,000 Babylonian captives in 519 BCE (Encyclopaedia Britannica, 1993, Vol.3, p.762) and ending with the Roman emperor Constantine in 337 CE, thus tens if not hundreds of thousands of individual victims were subject to this cruel and humiliating form of punishment" (Crucifixion in <!-- m --><a class="postlink" href="Antiquity-http://www.joezias.com/CrucifixionAntiquity.html">Antiquity-http://www.joezias.com/Crucif ... quity.html</a><!-- m -->)
From this article, we can induce that the art of crucifixion was universal to various nations--some of which were never in contact to each other (i.e. the Assyrians and Celts). But it is clear that we do not know the various forms of crucifixion that existed in antiquity, particularly in Egypt. More research needs to be conducted regarding crucifixion in Egypt.
You will address me directly. Do not throw an arrow without expecting me to launch a thousand back at you!
Quote:One hardly knows how to respond nor where to begin to the charge that there are no contradictions in the Koran. Obviously there are both internal and external contradictions in the Koran, any book written by a man is prone to this. How could it be otherwise? Let me give you a few brief examples, only a few of many contradictions found. My quotes are from ???The Meaning of The Holy Qur???an??? by Abdullah Yusuf Ali (a book I own).
Watch hopelessly as I tear you down.
Quote:Sura 39:4 ???Had Allah wished to take to Himself A son, He could have Chosen whom He pleased Out of those whom He Doth create: but Glory Be to Him! (He is above Such things.) He is Allah, The One, the Irresistible."
Sura 6:101 ???Wonderful Originator of the heavens and the earth; How can He have a son when He has no consort? He created all things, and He hath full knowledge of all things.???
These Suras agree in that they teach that God (Allah) does not have a son however the point is that Sura 39 says that it is possible for God (Allah) ???to take to Himself a son???. In other words, it is possible for God (Allah) to have a son ???had Allah wished???. On the other hand Sura 6 as the rhetorical question ??????How can He have a son when He has no consort???? This question requires the answer ???no??? to the question. Sura 6 asks a good question, however the clear message of the writer of this Sura is that it is impossible for God (Allah) to have a son.
Paul, the point is simple. One Sura says it is impossible for God to have a son (Sura 6) and another says it is possible for God to have a son, if God wished. Don???t let this young man fool you into believing that the issue of these two verses has to do with ???whether or not God has a son???. The issue is one of possibility not reality.
There is no contradiction here:
Sura 39:4 ???Had Allah wished to take to Himself A son, He could have Chosen whom He pleased Out of those whom He Doth create: but Glory Be to Him! (He is above Such things.) He is Allah, The One, the Irresistible."
According to this verse, Allah could have take to Himself a son if He willed, for He is able to do all things. Then it says "He is above such things." This is clearly negating the possibility.
100. Yet they make the Jinns equals with Allah, though Allah did create the Jinns; and they falsely, having no knowledge, attribute to Him sons and daughters. Praise and glory be to Him! (for He is) above what they attribute to Him!
Sura 6:101 ???Wonderful Originator of the heavens and the earth; How can He have a son when He has no consort? He created all things, and He hath full knowledge of all things.???
Allah is speaking of those who attribute to Him sons and daughters. Here it is necessary to pose and contemplate on the arguments presented by the Church with regards to their claim that Jesus is the son of Allah. One of the arguments used by the Church is that Jesus, being born of a virgin mother, had no human father. For that they claim that his father is God in heaven.
Allah is making a mockery of such logic. This is an explanation of what He is saying:
'If you believe that everybody must abide by the laws of reproduction that God ordained for human beings (i.e. for anyone to have a son, one must first have a wife, and that every child must have a father and a mother), and you deduce from that that since Jesus had no human father, then his father must be God in heaven, then by the same logic that you use, how could God have a son when he did not have a wife first ?'
It becomes evident that in 6:101, Allah is not addressing the possibility of having a son or not, but actually making a mockery of the poor logic used by those who make Jesus the son of Allah because he did not have a human father, instead of realising that it was a miracle decreed by Allah who is able to do anything He pleases
The first verse is saying if He wanted to, He could have had a son if He chose for He is able to do all things. Then it negates the possibility. 6:100 negates the possibility then goes on to refute the logic of those who claim Jesus is the son of God.
You must have found it convienant to pick at one verse in isolation to the previous verse.
Quote:Furthermore, a book which purports that the earth is flat is clearly not from God. Sura 18:86 says ???Till, when he [the traveller Zul-qarnain] reached the setting-place of the sun, he found it going down into a muddy spring??? and Sura 18:90 says ???Till, when he reached the rising-place of the sun, he found it rising on a people for whom We had appointed no shelter from it.??? Paul, I can guarantee you that what is written here, as being true, is silly. This traveler never reached a ???muddy spring??? where the sun sets.
I've addressed this in a previous post.
Quote:How???s this one? Sura 12:41 says that the Patriarch Joseph said ???O my two mates of the prison! as for one of you, he shall give his lord to drink wine; and as for the other, he shall be crucified, so that the birds shall eat from his head, the matter is decreed concerning which you inquired.??? Suppose you were the ???mate??? who was to be crucified; wouldn???t you have said ???Hey, Joseph wait just a cotton picking minute, what the heck is a crucifixion???? The Persians were the first to utilize this form of execution not the Egyptians and certainly not during Joseph???s time.
and Pythagaras was the first to use the Pythagorean theorem.
Genesis 40
19 Within three days Pharaoh will lift off your head and hang you on a tree. [1] And the birds will eat away your flesh."
Oh look at that, Keith! We're on the same boat, aren't we? Now you provide evidence.
"Crucifixion was one of the most cruel and barbarous forms of death known to man. It was practiced, especially in the times of war, by the Phoenicians, Carthaginians, Egyptians, and later by the Romans. So dreaded was it that even in the pre-Christian era, the cares and troubles of the life were often compared to a cross" J. D. Douglas, M. C. Tenny, The New International Dictionary Of The Bible: Pictorial Edition, 1987, Regency Reference Library (USA) & Marshall Pickering (UK), p. 242.
"Crucifixion was in used among the Egyptians, Ge 40:19; the Carthaginians, the Persians, Es 7:10; the Assyrians, Scythains, Indians, Germans, and from the earliest times among the Greeks and Romans. Whether this mode of execution was known to the ancient Jews is a matter of dispute. Probably the Jews borrowed it from the Romans. It was unanimously considered the most horrible form of death" Smith's Bible Dictionary under "Crucifixion".
The most ancient form of crucifixion was on trees:
(Pharaoh) said: "Believe ye in Him before I give you permission? Surely this must be your leader, who has taught you magic! be sure I will cut off your hands and feet on opposite sides, and I will have you crucified on trunks of palm-trees: so shall ye know for certain, which of us can give the more severe and the more lasting punishment!" [Qur'an 20:71]
The Jews (immediately out of Egypt) rarely used the method:
If a man guilty of a capital offense is put to death and his body is hung on a tree, you must not leave his body on the tree overnight. Be sure to bury him that same day, because anyone who is hung on a tree is under God's curse. You must not desecrate the land the LORD your God is giving you as an inheritance. [Deuteronomy 21:22-23]
He hung the king of Ai on a tree and left him there until evening. At sunset, Joshua ordered them to take his body from the tree and throw it down at the entrance of the city gate. And they raised a large pile of rocks over it, which remains to this day. [Joshua 8:29].
According to the Catholic Encyclopedia of Archaeology of the Cross and Crucifix:
The penalty of the cross goes back probably to the arbor infelix, or unhappy tree, spoken of by Cicero (Pro, Rabir., iii sqq.) and by Livy, apropos of the condemnation of Horatius after the murder of his sister. According to H??schke (Die Multa, 190) the magistrates known as duoviri perduellion is pronounced this penalty (cf. Liv., I, 266), styled also infelix lignem (Senec., Ep. ci; Plin., XVI, xxvi; XXIV, ix; Macrob., II, xvi). This primitive form of crucifixion on trees was long in use, as Justus Lipsius notes ("De cruce", I, ii, 5; Tert., "Apol.", VIII, xvi; and "Martyrol. Paphnut." 25 Sept.). Such a tree was known as a cross (crux).
This form of state terror, widespread across the Roman Empire which included Europe, North Africa and Western Asia, originated several centuries before the Common Era continuing into the fourth century CE when the practice was discontinued by Constantine, the emperor of Rome. Hengel, in his monumental work on the subject entitled Crucifixion (1989:22-23) writes that while authors generally regard it???s origin as in Persia due to the writings of Herodotus it???s practice was found among the Indians, Assyrians, Scythians, Taurians, Celts, Greeks, Seleucids, Romans, Britanni, Numidians, Carthagians the latter who may have transferred it???s knowledge to the Romans. While its origins are obscured in antiquity it???s clear that the form of capital punishment lasted for nearly 900 years beginning with Darius???s (550-485 BCE) crucifixion of 3,000 Babylonian captives in 519 BCE (Encyclopaedia Britannica, 1993, Vol.3, p.762) and ending with the Roman emperor Constantine in 337 CE, thus tens if not hundreds of thousands of individual victims were subject to this cruel and humiliating form of punishment" (Crucifixion in <!-- m --><a class="postlink" href="Antiquity-http://www.joezias.com/CrucifixionAntiquity.html">Antiquity-http://www.joezias.com/Crucif ... quity.html</a><!-- m -->)
From this article, we can induce that the art of crucifixion was universal to various nations--some of which were never in contact to each other (i.e. the Assyrians and Celts). But it is clear that we do not know the various forms of crucifixion that existed in antiquity, particularly in Egypt. More research needs to be conducted regarding crucifixion in Egypt.
???Do not give up, for that is ignorance and not according to the rules of this art... Like the lover, you cannot hope to achieve success without infinite perseverance.???