Peace Destino
With due respect the Arabic DOES make exceptions. Until you cannot prove that the Arabic means ALL prophets then we must hold that it means 'prophets' in the general sense.
By asking me useless questions like 'messenger unto the israelites' does you no favours. As then you would also have the task to justify the mission of Mirza Ghulam Ahmad with a similar context. At least when undertaking your discussions ask the questions regarding where we differ not where we are in agreement! Any how Jesus (AS) will never be a messenger unto the Muslims, he will return as the Messiah and undertake his mission. The Christians and Jews will realise him for who he was when he first arrived and the Muslims will become unified.
but why are we required to prove that the word doesn't mean all prophets. It is your own view as well. When God says 'prophets in the general sense' have passed before Jesus, do you not hold that all before him have died? Are there any exceptions? But when the word is used for Prophet Mohammad(saw), you say that all have passed before him but one has not died. The burden of proof is on those who claim that there is one and only one exception to the usual law of human life and death. We know based on a long history of the world that human life is pretty short, usually 70-100 years or shorter with some exceptions but no known evidence of people living beyond even 200 years much less 2000 years. If i were to claim that i know a person who is still alive after lets say 250 years of being born, every sensible human being has the right to not believe me unless i can back up my claim.
[quote]
Peace chacha_Ghalib
Okay this will become a much longer discussion but I have reason to believe that the order of events in the Bible are not entriely correct. Please refer to the Transfiguration and Arrest of Jesus, these are two separate events and in my view are really one in the same. Also, the narraotrs of the Bible did not know what came first, but it is likely that the event of the crucifixion and the ascension was more or else a simultaneous event. Also read from Gospel of Barnabas if not from the New Testament. For me they are both on equal pegging.
[/quote]
i can say i have reason to believe that people live on the moon. Lets see your evidence for believing that the order is not correct. But before you do that, lets establish one thing. You are now trying to prove that the guys who gave the only evidence so far in support of your view, as per your previous posts, got it wrong in narrating what they saw.
Oh and one more thing, after we have clarified this idea that Jesus was raised to the heaven, i'd like to see where this idea of the transfiguration comes from. Just like the ascension to the heaven, this transfiguration idea is entirely thought out by our opponents without a shred of evidence from the Qura'an, the hadith, or even from the bible. But lets focus on the idea of the ascension for now.
[quote]
My purpose was two fold, it was not to show that the ascension was clarified explicitly in the Qur'an. Rather it was to show that to the Christians of the time the Qur'an would identify their true beliefs and their folly and secondly if it DOES NOT contradict the idea of ascension rather supports it. "raised unto Myself" that means ascension. To argue otherwise is a non-argument. Because there is no need to make a case of 'spiritual' or 'alegorical' "raising" because that would be the status of all prophets even the ones who were killed.
[/quote]
but come on! I thought i explicitly asked for evidence for the ascension of Jesus to the heavens and him being alive. 'Raised unto Myself' does not mean in any way to the heavens because God isn't only present in the heavens.
[quote]
In fact if you assert that he was put on the cross and survived it then you are saying that he experienced the shame of the cross, which is hardly an 'allegorical' raising. It must be literal!
AND furthermore the hadith clarify this, so do not limit your argument to the Qur'an only.
[/quote]
any interpretation of hadith which goes against the the word of the Qur'an is not acceptable as i shall prove. But even the hadith you are referring to, don't give any evidence of Jesus being alive or being literally raised to the heaven. They all talk about him coming again and his nazool but don't say that he is alive or was raised to the heaven. But come, we'll talk about all of these matters in length later on. Its been close to a week and a half since i asked for evidence supporting the notion that Jesus is alive and that he was raised to the heavens and so far i have seen no hadith and no ayah from the qura'an. Only an inference from the bible which is not acceptable, not only because it offers no evidence in support of your stance but also because you are establishing a litmus test which is not supported by the Qura'an. You are essentially saying that since the Christians believed in such and such event and the Qura'an doesn't contradict it nor refutes it, therefore it is OK for us to believe in it.
[quote]
Unless you can prove that the statement "kullu nafsin zaaiqatul mawt" infers that people will reach a certain age and that age is defined by your criterion of a human age then I wil accept it. Also if you can accept the birth of Isa (AS) as a special case of the law of God (i.e. not as a miracle) then why cannot you treat a rather long human life as a special case of the law of God. Even today they are doing experiments on how to prolong the lifespan of humans. But you see your explanations are fitting for some things but are ignored for others, why?
[/quote]
the birth of Jesus was not as special a case of the law of God as the birth of Adam in whose case, no human was involved at all (i.e. not only was there no father, there was no mother either) so there is precedent in the case of birth.
when i quoted the words 'kullu nafsin zaaiqatul mout' i also quote another part of the Qura'an in which God says 'and you will not see a change in the sunnah of Allah'. Together these two ayahs clarify the meaning. You believe that there was one and only one special case in terms of longevity of human life and ascension to the heavens. So the burden of proof lies on those who claim an exception not on those who are skeptical of such a notion.
[quote]
You see that is a non-argument again. I have never translated it as ALL prophets. That is your confusion. Please read back and see what is being said. In both cases it states 'prophets' in the general sense. And in the first case it specifically talks about 'people like him', whereas in the second case it gives Muhammad's (SAW) own life as an example. Please read the whole verse not just a few select words to support your argument.
[/quote]
I have answered that to some extent earlier in my reply but that is an aside that was introduced by another guppy. The main discussion between us was whether there was any proof in the Qura'an and hadith for your beliefs. I will be glad to discuss this later on but for the moment i want to avoid getting sidetracked and focus on the topic of our discussion.
[quote]
Bro the proofs will keep coming inshaAllah. And if all you have is a 'threat' then I would rather have your evidence as guidance for me to see the truth that you believe you have.
[/quote]
i don't know when they'll start to come. So far there has been no hadith and no ayahs in support of your beliefs. I will be glad to provide all the evidence i have for the Ahmadiyya beliefs but for that you need to say that you have laid out all the evidence you had in support of the non-Ahmadi beliefs.
[quote]
To summarise what has been obtained so far:
*Parameter >>> Mainstream Belief >>> Ahmadi Belief *
Miracle >>> True >>> Special Law
Isa (AS) >>> Actual will return >>> Someone bearing the Masih status
Jihad >>> All forms relevant >>> Pen form only
Mahdi >>> Precedes Isa(AS) >>> Is one in the same as Isa (AS)
Isa(AS) mission >>> Islam on whole world >>> Gradual process of Islam in world
Crucifixion >>> Not on him >>> That he survived it
Ascension >>> Actual >>> Metaphoric
Descension >>> Actual >>> Denial
Death of Isa(AS) >>> Will happen >>> Has happened in Kashmir
Finality >>> Isa(AS) Ummati >>> Mirza Ghulam Ahmad = Rasul
[/quote]
[/quote]
how did we obtain that? and wot does that have to do with the discussion at hand? The reason i am discussion this with you and not with others who keep piping in with their usual ahmadis are kaafirs and Mirza Ghulam Ahmad (on whom be peace) is a liar (nouzbillah) is because i thought you were a more civilized person to have a discussion with so i would hope that you don't go the same route as ulema usually do when it comes to Ahmadi beliefs. Since the beginning of ahmadiyyat, the opponents have constantly refused to discuss anything of substance. They are always eager to use hot button issues which inflame the ignorant masses who have no clue wot the Qur'an and the hadith have to say about the matter and follow the ulema blindly. I can cite many examples where the ulema have refused to discuss anything based on Qur'an and hadith and have kept harping on about ahmadis being non-muslims.
Even those heroes that AQ so adores, who passed a law against ahmadis, did the same. I don't know why people don't question the step of not publishing the inquiry proceedings. Its strange that ahmadis, who were supposedly proven to be non-muslims, have always asked the government to publish the proceedings in their entirety so that the general public can see the evidence of ahmadis kuffer by their own eyes, but those champions of islam seem more than hesitant.
I saw another thread about dajjal counting opened by none other than you surprisingly. I hope that wasn't an attempt to do wot the ulema have been doing for a long time. I might've missed it, but i don't remember you opening such a thread ever since you joined gupshup so why now when we have another thread talking about ahmadiyyat where the main discussion is going on between you and me and you know that opening such a thread will inevitably attract those who like to name call and bash ahmadis? Or was that the intended purpose?
