VISITOR NO
ski Counter
SEARCH ARCHIVES
SHOUTBOX!
|
 |
Tuesday, December 26, 2006
SIAPAKAH PENULISNYA?
Semasa melayari internet, saya telah pergi ke blog Al-Isra' untuk membaca posting terbaru kumpulan tersebut.Saya membaca satu artikel menarik yang ditulis oleh sahabat saya yang juga merupakan salah seorang penulis di AFI. Artikel itu bertajuk, "Mari Baca Quran". Artikel itu menerangkan "siapakah" Al-Quran, apakah fungsinya dan siapa yang menulisnya. Al-Quran adalah petunjuk bagi orang-orang yang bertaqwa [2:2], merupakan nur cahaya yang akan menerangi manusia menelusuri jalan-jalan kehidupan [10:57].
Namun yang paling penting adalah, siapakah yang menulis Al-Quran? Ini merupakan kritiria yang paling penting sekali. Jika sesebuah buku yang ditulis tidak mempunyai penulis atau diragui siapakah penulisnya, maka masalah plagiarisme (cetak rompak penulisan) mudah untuk berlaku. Lebih-lebih lagi jika buku itu adalah buku yang menjadi panduan hidup manusia. Al-Quran berkali-kali
memberitahu bahawa Allah S.W.T yang menurunkan Al-Quran kepada manusia:
"Wahai manusia! Sesungguhnya telah sampai kepada kamu bukti kebenaran daripada Tuhanmu (Muhammad), dan telah Kami turunkan cahaya yang terang benderang (Al-Quran)" [4:174]
Sebagai seorang Islam saya percaya dengan yakin bahawa Al-Quran diturunkan oleh Allah S.W.T dan keyakinan ini bertambah dengan wujudnya fakta-fakta sains di dalam Al-Quran. Namun bagi seorang yang mempelajari Bible (dengan tujuan perbincangan), hingga hari ini saya tertanya-tanya siapakah penulis Bible yang sebenar. Inilah yang akan dibincangkan hari ini, tentang siapakah penulis Bible yang sebenar?
Bible datang daripada perkataan Greek "BIBLOS" yang bermaksud himpunan buku-buku. Bible merupakan satu set buku-buku yang dijilid (compile) bersama. Oleh yang demikian adalah salah jika ada pihak mengatakan bahawa Bible adalah Injil yang diturunkan kepada Nabi Isa (Jesus Christ) A.S.Bible BUKAN Injil!
Untuk pengetahuan ramai, Bible ditulis oleh penulis manusia yang diinspirasikan (inspired) oleh Holy Spirit (salah satu tuhan di dalam Trinity). Holy Spirit akan
memberitahu kepada penulis apa yang patut ditulis (isi kandungan) manakala penulis akan menulisnya menggunakan perkataan sendiri. Penulis-penulis yang diinspirasikan Holy Spiriti inilah yang menulis Bible.
Persoalan yang timbul sekarang, bagaimana kita dapat mengetahui bahawa penulis-penulis ini tidak menyeleweng daripada tulisan mereka? Bagaimana pula jika buku-buku di dalam Bible seperti Matthew, Mark, Luke dan John bukan ditulis oleh Matthew, Mark, Luke dan John? Bart D. Ehrman seorang pensyarah Bahagian Pengajian Keagamaan di University North Carolina berkata:
"It (Bible) was written by different human authors at different times and in different places to address different needs. Many of this authors no doubt felt they we inspired by God to say what they did, but they had their own perspectives, their on beliefs, theirs own views, theirs own needs, theirs own desire, their own understandings, their own theologies; and these perspectives, beliefs, views, needs, desire, understandings, and theologies informed everything they said. In all these ways they differed from one another. Among other things, this meant that Mark did not say the same thing that Luke said because he didn't mean the same thing as Luke. John is different from Matthew - not the same. Paul is different from Acts. And James is different from Paul. Each author is a human author and needs to be read for what he (assuming they were all men) has to say, not assuming that what he says is the same, or comfortable to, or consistent with what every other authors has to say. The Bible, at the end of the day, is a very human book." [Bart D.Ehrman, Misquoting Jesus:The Story Behind Who Changed The Bible & Why, ms 12]
Sebenarnya hingga ke hari ini, dunia Christian masih tidak dapat memberitahu siapakah penulis-penulis Bible.Ini ditambah dimana Bible "mengaku" bahawa kandungannya telah mengalami pengubahsuaian dan telah bercampur dengan undang-undang buatan manusia.
"How can you say, 'We are wise, and the law of the Lord is with us'? But, behold, the false pen of the scribes has made it (i.e. The Bible) into a lie." [Jeremiah 8:8, RSV]
Seterusnya, jika penulisnya sendiri tidak dapat dipastikan, bagaimana kita hendak mengakui Bible datang daripada Tuhan? Untuk berlaku adil, saya akan menggunakan sumber-sumber Christian bagi menyokong artikel ini.Berikut adalah penilaian artikel kali ini:
GOSPEL OF MARK
"Although there is no direct internal evidence of authorship, it was the unanimous testimony of the early church that this Gospel was written by John Mark (Mark). (NIV Bible Commentary, page 1488)"
*Perkataan Mark di dalam kurungan ditambah oleh penulis.
Secara realiti kita tidak tahu siapakah yang menulis Gospel Of Mark. Memandangkan Gospel Of Mark ditulis sekitar 150-300 AC, bagaimana kita dapat mengetahui bahawa Gospel Of Mark tidak ditulis oleh penyokong-penyokong Mark? Lihat gambar dibawah:
Ayat di atas dibaca: "The most reliable early manuscript and other ancient witnesses do not have Mark 16:9-20" Apakah yang dimaksudkan dengan "early manuscript"? Jika ayat Mark 18:9-20 tiada di dalam manuskrip awal (Christian tidak mempunyai salinan asal Bible.Mereka hanya mempunyai manuskrip awal), dari mana datang ayat tersebut? Apakah yang dimaksud dengan "ancient witnesses"? Bagaimana kita hendak percaya bahawa saksi-saksi ini tidak memutar-belitkan fakta?
Komentar seterusnya tentang ayat Mark 16:9-20:
"Serious doubts exists as to whether these verses belong to the Gospel of Mark. They are absent from important early manuscripts and display certain peculiarities of vocabulary, style and theological content that are unlike the rest of Mark. His Gospel probably ended at 16:8, or its original ending has been lost. (NIV Bible Foot Notes, page 1528)"
Kita menanti penerangan yang munasabah dari orang Christian dan bukannya bangkangan penuh emosi serta tidak logik.
THE BOOK OF ACTS
"Although the author does not name himself, evidence outside the Scriptures and inferences from the book itself lead to the conclusion that the author was Luke. (From the NIV Bible Commentary, page 1643)"
THE GOSPEL OF LUKE
Terdapat satu ayat di dalam Gospel Of Luke yang agak menarik (menarik kerana menunjukkan kelemahan buku ini)
"Therefore, since I myself have carefully investigated everything from the beginning, it seemed good also to me to write an orderly account for you, most excellent Theophilus." [Luke 1:3]
ANALISIS PERTAMA:
Penulis ini tidak diispirasi dan dia tahu dia tidak diinspirasi oleh Holy Spirit untuk menulis buku ini kerana dia langsung tidak menyebutnya, malah dia menyebut; "...since I myself have carefully investigated everything from the beginning..." Dimana kita melihat inspirasi Tuhan di dalam ayat ini?
ANALISIS KEDUA:
Penulis menulis bertujuan untuk orang atasannya - "his most excellent Theophilus." Sejak bila penulis buku ini mendokumenkan kata-kata Tuhan dengan tujuan untuk diberi kepada orang atasan dan bukannya untuk disebarkan manusia? Bagai hendak mendapatkan tender!
"The author's name does not appear in the book, but much unmistakable evidence points to Luke. (NIV Bible Commentary, page 1529)"
Bagaimana jika tersilap?
THE BOOK OF HEBREWS
"The writer of this letter does not identify himself, but he was obviously well known to the original recipients. (NIV Bible Commentary, page 1856)"
Adakah hanya kerana penulisnya dikenali ramai maka penulisannya merupakan kata-kata Tuhan?
THE GOSPEL OF JOHN
"The author is the apostle John, 'the disciple whom Jesus loved' (13:23; 19:26; 20:2; 21:7, 20,24). He was prominent in the early church but is not mentioned by name in this Gospel--which would be natural if he wrote it, but hard to explain otherwise. (NIV Bible Commentary, page 1588)"
Saya akan menulis satu artikel khas tentang Gospel Of John kerana terdapat banyak keraguan di dalam Gospel of John, insyaAllah.
1 EPISTLE JOHN
"....Unlike most New Testament letters, 1 John does not tell us who its author is. The earliest identification of him comes from the church fathers...(NIV Bible Commentary, page 1904)"
Saya berasa pelik, jika Christian tidak mengetahui siapa penulisnya, kenapa mengatakan John yang menulisnya?
"The letter is difficult to date with precision....(NIV Bible Commentary, page 1905)"
THE BOOK OF ROMANS
"The writer of this letter was the apostle Paul (see 1:1). No voice from the early church was ever raised against his authorship. (NIV Bible Commentary, page 1705)"
Lihat bagaimana buku ini memberitahu siapa penulisnya dan tiada keraguan yang timbul daripada Christian. Tidak seperti buku-buku lain yang hanya diandaikan penulisnya. Tetapi kenapa mesti kita ambil perbualan Paul (banyak perbualan yang ditulis oleh Paul di dalam bukunya) dengan orang lain sebagai kata-kata Tuhan? Paul bertengkar dengan St.Peter dan mengatakan St.Peter salah [2:11-12] dan Paul berhujah panjang dengan St.Barnabas [Acts 15:36-39]. Adakah Tuhan melebihkan Paul daripada Barnabas dan Peter (kedua-dua mereka merupakan pengikut Jesus Christ) dan menginspirasikan Paul dengan kata-kata Tuhan semasa bertengkar dengan mereka? Penulis rasa tidak! Paul sendiri mengaku bahawa dia tidak diinspirasi sepenuh masa oleh Tuhan [1 Corinthians 7:25-30]
THE BOOK OF PHILIPPIANS
"The early church was unanimous in its testimony that Philippians was written by the apostle Paul (see 1:1). Internally the letter reveals the stamp of genuineness. The many personal references of the author fit what we know of Paul from other NT books. (NIV Bible Commentary, page 1803)"
Sekali lagi Christian tidak pasti siapakah yang menulis buku ini.
THE BOOK OF REVELATION
"Four times the author identifies himself as John (1:1,4,9; 22:8).....In the third century, however, an African bishop named Dionysius compared the language, style and thought of the Apocalypse (Revelation) with that of the other writings of John and decided that the book could not been written by the apostle of John. He suggested that the author was a certain John the Presbyter, whose name appears elsewhere in ancient writings. Although many today follow Dionysius in his view of authorship, the external evidence seems overwhelmingly supportive of the traditional view. (NIV Bible Commentary, page 1922)"
THE BOOK OF 1 & 2 THESSALONIANS
"Paul's authorship of 2 Thessalonians has been questioned more often than that of 1 Thessalonians, in spite of the fact that it has more support from early Christian writers. (NIV Bible Commentary, page 1829)"
Secara dasarnya kita tidak tahu siapa yang menulis kedua-dua buku ini. Jika Paul yang menulis sekalipun tidak membuatkan kedua-dua buku ini menjadi kata-kata Tuhan memandangkan Paul tidak diinspirasi sepenuh masa. Mungkin Paul menulis semasa tidak diinspirasi?
THE BOOK OF GENESIS
"Historically, Jews and Christians alike have held that Moses was the author/compiler of the first five books of the OT. These books, known also as the Pentateuch (meaning "five-volumed book"), were referred to in Jewish tradition as the five fifths of the law (of Moses). The Bible itself suggests Mosaic authorship of Genesis, since Ac 15:1 refers to circumcision as "the custom taught by Moses," an allusion of Ge 17. However, a certain amount of later editorial updating does appear to be indicated (see, e.g notes on 14:14; 36:31; 47:11). (NIV Bible Commentary, page 2)"
THE BOOK OF NUMBERS
"It is not necessary, however, to claim that Numbers came from Moses' hand complete and in final form. Portions of the book were probably added by scribes or editors from later periods of Israel's history. For example, the protestation of the humility of Moses (12:3) would hardly be convincing if it came from his own mouth. (NIV Bible Commentary, page 183)"
Saya rasa kenyataan ini cukup jelas bahawa ada orang yang menambah "kata-kata Tuhan" ini. Adakah patut kita menerimanya?
THE BOOK OF DEUTRONOMY
"The book itself testifies that, for the most part, Moses wrote it (1:5; 31:9,22,24), and other OT books agree (1Ki 2:3, 8:53; 2ki 14:6; 18:12)--though the preamble (1:1-5) may have been written by someone else, and the report of Moses' death (ch.34) was almost certainly written by someone else. (NIV Bible Commentary, page 240)"
Tanpa keraguan lagi Moses (Musa) bukanlah satu-satunya penulis buku ini. Tidak mungkin dia menulis tentang kematiannya sendiri di dalam buku ini. Sebuah lagi buku yang dicemari tangan-tangan manusia. Bagaimana orang Christian menegaskan bahawa Deutronomy sememangnya adalah buku yang diinspirasikan oleh Tuhan sepenuhnya?
THE BOOK OF JOSHUA
"It seems safe to conclude that the book, at least in its early form, dates from the beginning of the monarchy. Some think that Samuel may have had a hand in shaping or compiling the materials of the book, but in fact we are unsure who the final author or editor was. (NIV Bible Commentary, page 286)"
THE BOOK OF JUDGES
"Although, according to tradition, Samuel wrote the book, authorship is actually uncertain." "The date of the composition is also unknown, but it was undoubtedly during the monarchy." (Bible Commentary, page 322).
THE BOOK OF RUTH
"The author is unknown. Jewish tradition points to Samuel, but it is unlikely that he is the author because the mention of David (4:17,22) implies a later date. (NIV Bible Commentary, page 360)"
THE BOOKS OF 1 & 2 SAMUEL
"Many questions have arisen pertaining to the literary character, authorship and date of 1,2 Samuel." "Who the author was cannot be known with certainty since the book itself gives no indication of his identity." (NIV Bible Commentary, page 368).
Sejak bila kita mengambil cerita buatan manusia sebagai kata-kata Tuhan? Jika penulisnya sendiri tidak dapat dipastikan bagaimana kita hendak memastikan buku ini adalah "kata-kata Tuhan"?
THE BOOKS 1 & 2 KINGS
"There is little conclusive evidence as to the identity of the author of 1,2 Kings." "Whoever the author was, it is clear that he was familiar with the book of Deuteronomy." (NIV Bible Commentary, page 459).
Lihat ayat yang dimerahkan. "Whoever the author was..." ? Apakah respon yang patut kita ambil?
THE BOOKS OF 1 & 2 CHRONICLES
"According to ancient Jewish tradition, Ezra wrote Chronicles, Ezra and Nehemiah (see Introduction to Ezra: Literary Form and Authorship), but this cannot be established with certainty. (NIV Bible Commentary, page 569)"
Penuh dengan keraguan!
THE BOOK OF ESTHER
"Although we do not know who wrote the book of Esther, from internal evidence it is possible to make some inferences about the author and the date of composition. (NIV Bible Commentary, page 707)"
THE BOOK OF JOB
"Although most of the book consists of the words of Job and his counselors, Job himself was not the author." "The unknown author probably had access to oral and/or written sources...."(NIV Bible commentary, page 722).
Saya meminta maaf terlebih dahulu kerana amat melucukan buku ini bertajuk "The Book Of Job" tetapi bukan Job yang menulisnya. Penulis rasa mana-mana orang yang memahami bahasa Inggeris dapat mengetahui jika buku ini bertajuk "The Book Of Job" semestinya tanpa keraguan Joblah yang menulisnya. Namun tiada seorang pun di dunia ini dapat memastikan siapakah penulis buku ini. Yang menyedihkan buku ini diterima sebagai "kata-kata Tuhan".
THE BOOK OF PSALM
"Regarding authorship, opinions are even more divided. The notations themselves are ambiguous since the Hebrew phraseology used, meaning in general "belonging to", an also be taken in the sense of "concerning" or "for the use of" or "dedicated to". The name may refer to the title of a collection of Psalms that had been gathered under a certain name. (NIV Bible Commentary, page 773)"
"The Psalms consist of one hundred fifty poems of Israel written at different times by different authors, though mainly by David, around 1000 B.C...Because of the vast range of human feelings expressed in the Psalms, this book remains one of the best loved and most used books of the Bible. (King James Version Bible Commentary, page 801)"
NIV & KJV Bibles' Commentaries jelas menerangkan bahawa buku ini ditulis oleh sejumlah penulis. Bagaimana hendak dipastikan kesemua penulis ini adalah nabi-nabi yang diutuskan dan lebih penting lagi bagaimana hendak dipastikan penulis ini diispirasi oleh Holy Spirit? Tangan-tangan manusia bercampur merosakkan "kata-kata Tuhan" entah kali yang keberapa.
THE BOOK OF PROVERBS
"Although the book begins with a title ascribing the proverbs to Solomon, it is clear from later chapters that he was not the only author of the book. (From the NIV Bible Commentary, page 935)"
Boleh sesiapa memberitahu siapakah seorang lagi penulis (mungkin lebih daripada seorang) buku ini? Adakah Tuhan memastikan penulis ini diinspirasi? Ini adalah soalan yang adil kepada dunia Christian.
THE BOOK OF ECCLESIASTES
"No time period or writer's name is mentioned in the book, but several passages strongly suggest that King Solomon is the authors. On the other hand, the writer's title, his unique style of Hebrew and his attitude toward rulers may point to another person and a later period. (NIV Bible Commentary, page 988)"
Adakah Solomon menulisnya atau tidak? Jika benar Solomon yang menulisnya, buktikan! Lagi satu persoalan yang timbul, adakah ini benar-benar "kata-kata Tuhan" kepada Solomon? Atau sekadar tulisan peribadinya?
THE BOOK OF SONG OF SONGS/SONG OF SOLOMON
"Verse 1 appears to ascribe authorship to Solomon. Solomon is referred to seven times, and several verses speak of the 'king', but whether he was the author remains an open question. (NIV Bible Commentary, page 997)"
"Two lovers, Solomon and a Shulamite girl, express their feelings for one another, with occasional comments made by friends. (King James Version Commentary, page 945)"
Saya tidak mahu membuat apa-apa komen. Namun penulis mencadangkan pembaca yang berumur 18 tahun dan ke atas untuk membaca buku ini. Adakah tulisan di dalam buku ini boleh diterima sebagai "kata-kata Tuhan"? Song Of Songs boleh dibaca disini.
THE BOOK OF LAMENTATIONS
"Although Lamentations is anonymous and we cannot be certain who wrote it, ancient Jewish and Christian tradition ascribes it to Jeremiah. (NIV Bible Commentary, page 1207)"
KESIMPULAN
Saya melontarkan dua cabaran kepada dunia Christian iaitu:
- Buktikan buku-buku di dalam Bible adalah kata-kata Tuhan yang sahih.
- Buktikan penulis sebenar buku-buku di dalam Bible dan tulisannya tidak diubah.
Terus terang saya katakan cabaran ini agak sukar hendak dibuktikan. Oleh yang demikian, biarlah penulis membantu menjawab sebahagian daripada soalan kedua (soalan satu hendaklah dijawab orang Christian kerana penulis tidak beriman dengan Bible) yang dilontarkan dengan menggunakan CATHOLIC ENCYCLOPEDIA:
TRANSMISSION OF THE TEXT
No book of ancient times has come down to us exactly as it left the hands of its author--all have been in some way altered. The material conditions under which a book was spread before the invention of printing (1440), the little care of the copyists, correctors, and glossators for the text, so different from the desire of accuracy exhibited to-day, explain sufficiently the divergences we find between various manuscripts of the same work. To these causes may be added, in regard to the Scriptures, exegetical difficulties and dogmatical controversies. To exempt the scared writings from ordinary conditions a very special providence would have been necessary, and it has not been the will of God to exercise this providence. More than 150,000 different readings have been found in the older witnesses to the text of the New Testament--which in itself is a proof that Scriptures are not the only, nor the principal, means of revelation. In the concrete order of the present economy God had only to prevent any such alteration of the sacred texts as would put the Church in the moral necessity of announcing with certainty as the word of God what in reality was only a human utterance. Let us say, however, from the start, that the substantial tenor of the sacred text has not been altered, not withstanding the uncertainty which hangs over some more or less long and more or less important historical or dogmatical passages. Moreover--and this is very important--these alterations are not irremediable; we can at least very often, by studying the variants of the texts, eliminate the defective readings and thus re-establish the primitive text. This is the object of textual criticism
Kesimpulan artikel ini? Buatlah kesimpulan anda sendiri :-)
Posted at 07:08 pm by Theophilus
 | | | dianne
February 4, 2008 02:31 PM PST
jazakallah khair brother,nice meeting u,ha im juz busy with my baking,so im abit late to reply,i guess.fooh! by the way im enjoying to read the post on ur web.i do have one,but it still under progress.heehe its juz a spare time for dawah,baking is still.ok talk to u later,wassalamualaikum | |
| | | AUTHOR
February 4, 2008 12:39 AM PST
Waalaikumussalam Wbt sister.
Are u talking about IFS = International Forgiver Of Sin? Coz i know a muslim brother who was an IFS before he embrassed islam.
Ok now i got your point.yup if this what u're saying about holy spirit, yes i'm agree;). But for your information sister, this is only one understanding of Holy Spirit and how is Trinity also u got different understanding, aite?aiya..why dont u just explain this earlier..no need to panjang2 discuss..huhuhu. As u already know (i believe) when u ask two Christians about Trinity and what is holy spirit, i believe u will get two diffent answers.aite? nevermind let them answer how their theology and trinity works.islam is simple, i agree;).owh..yeah,we're moving to new website, as we got our own domain.and we want to make a team of writers for this new website.maybe we u also can contribute;).keep track for the update.when the website is ready, we will inform it here. thanks..wassalam wbt;)
| |
| | | dianne
February 4, 2008 12:09 AM PST
Catholics - tradition starts speaking of the Spirit by saying that the Holy Spirit is God, based on the Bible.
The Spirit has the attributes of God :
* eternal, having neither beginning nor end (Hebrews 9:14),
* omni-potent, having all power (Luke 1:35);
* omni-present, being everywhere at the same time (Psalm 139:7); and
* omni-scient, understanding all matters ( 1 Corinthians 2:10,11).
BUT protestant said Not only is the Holy Spirit is God, the Spirit is a full person of the Trinity. The Spirit can be addressed as 'you' by other 'I's (such as you and me), and can respond as an 'I'. The Spirit is an 'I', able to take action and cause action. The Spirit is able to be a 'we' with other 'I's.
Scripture shows that the Holy Spirit is a person and is God :
1. the fact that the Spirit's work in the Old Testament is closely identified with the Word of YHWH spoken by the prophets (this was affirmed by the early church in 2 Peter 1:21);
2. the close ties between Jesus' mission and the work of the Spirit (see the work of the Spirit);
3. the close ties between the mission of the apostles and the work of the Spirit; esp. see 1 Peter 1:12;
4. The episode with Hananiah (Ananias) in Acts 5, where first, Peter says that Hananiah lied to the Holy Spirit, then later says that he lied not to men but to God;
5. The trinitarian baptismal formula found in Scripture ( Matt 28:19): "in the name of the Father and of the Son, and of the Holy Spirit". It dates to the church's earliest days;
6. Jesus made a habit of confronting traditions with "box-breaking" actions. He ate with tax collectors and other scorned people, He turned over the tables of the money changers in the temple, He talked to the woman at the well, He healed the occupier-centurion's daughter. The Holy Spirit does the same kind of thing in Acts, and ever since.
| |
| | | dianne
February 3, 2008 11:25 PM PST
walaykum salam warahmatullah brother,
i did not judge of what my family beliefs in their tradition.i also did not say that youre right or wrong nor me are right or wrong,but we have a bit clash about catholics & protestant.yes theyre a bit confusions about catholics & protestant bcoz of their beliefs in salvations of Jesus christ.the fact that ive told u that,catholics born-again christian claim that holy spirit is God itself not other God,he is one of the scholars IFS.lol we no need to argue about the stuff,bcoz u know what? this God itself doesnt appeared in our imaginations even we perform solat.as what they both claimed,u see Islam is very simple that any other religion.lol i guess that this stuff really funny to me,bcoz all of the fact is funny actions by their own beliefs.lol
ok brother,now i dont care no more.whatever they said just ok,for sure Islam is the Best! thanks for spare your time with me.wassalamualaikum. | |
| | | AUTHOR
February 3, 2008 06:26 PM PST
Waalaikumussalam Dianne
A little bit hard to discuss here.If u have Yahoo! Messenger kindly add me mohdrahmat at yahoo dot com.So we can discuss better, live;). But in brief from my friend who was a Catholic and now a Muslim daie..
Catholic:
1)Believes in Trinity (Holy Spirit is one of three in a Trinity)
2)There're more ritual than the Protestant.For example Eucarist where they really believe that is flesh and blood of Jesus Christ.
And from my 3 Protestant friends whom were christian missionaries before this and alhamdulillah become Muslim daie, they told me and i personally continue researching,
Protestant:
1) Also believe in Trinity
2) They read Bible (even some not reading)
From their experience and my research, the result is not the same with your understanding.For me by living the with a Catholic family doesnt mean you will get the whole idea of their religion.Dont jugde a religion by its follower but rather from their scripture and their scholar.You know right that the Protestant relationship Catholic is not good?. I've spent thousand of ringgit buying their religion books so that I will not misjudge their religion.Dont tell me all these author (Catholic & Protestant) are wrong about their religion just because your understanding by living with your family is different? For me there is no Christian and Catholic. But Prostestant and Catholic, yes...Trinitarian and Unitarian, yes. Your comment is not a fact but rather the told stories by "Christian n Catholic" and by the observation. If u have fact show me what support your point. By saying "this is fact" but not showing the proof? Wallahuallam. Maybe u're right, i'm wrong.Maybe i'm right, u're wrong. May Allah guide us to the truth;) Wassalam
| |
| | | dianne
February 3, 2008 05:06 PM PST
(Untuk pengetahuan ramai, Bible ditulis oleh penulis manusia yang diinspirasikan (inspired) oleh Holy Spirit (salah satu tuhan di dalam Trinity). Holy Spirit akan
memberitahu kepada penulis apa yang patut ditulis (isi kandungan) manakala penulis akan menulisnya menggunakan perkataan sendiri. Penulis-penulis yang diinspirasikan Holy Spiriti inilah yang menulis Bible) - this is what u wrote.in Christianity - Holy Spirit is not one of their trinity God,actually it was God itself,ok? U got it? The answer that i wrote u is based on what Catholics & Christians told us.brother u need to accept the fact,Catholics are catholics & christians are christians,theyre not same! they wear cross with Jesus statue - that is Catholics,but christians only wear a cross without statue.+OK?
wassalamualaikum
| |
| | | dianne
February 3, 2008 05:02 PM PST
Salam brother,
Its very hard to find the false things to our community i guess,cant point the wrong things what they had done,i did not want to win nor to lose,im here explain based on the fact,i live with the Catholics,my parents in law are Catholics live in Oregon,USA< & understands their tradition of beliefs,they read the bible everytime they had a chance,its totally differents of Christians,they dont read bible even they said theyre believe Jesus.Catholics beliefs in Jesus as salvation,messenger of God & holy spirits,but Christians NO.bcoz u said christians belief in trinity & holy spirit. | |
| | | AUTHOR
February 3, 2008 02:19 AM PST
Waalaikumussalam
I still can't understand what your purpose and what point u trying to arise here..is it relate to the article? your understanding of christianity is so different from my understanding.And you said my understanding is wrong by saying this and that and this.just show me what support your statement.no need to make the discussion long.if truth u want to find, then show your proof and fact.u you just want to win the arguement then you win, i'm lose ;)
Wassalam wbt | |
| | | dianne
February 3, 2008 12:13 AM PST
Catholics are catholics,christians are christians,theyre not same.
Catholics believe in salvation by works, not faith.
That Catholics worship Mary and the Saints.
| |
| | | Penmerah_penbiru
February 2, 2008 06:32 PM PST
Christian and Catholics are different? Are you actually wanted to diffrenciate the Protestant and the Catholics? If you can speak in Malay please do so, i'm hardly understand what your points are:) Pardon me.
peace. | |
| | | dianne
February 2, 2008 01:07 PM PST
Assalamualaikum,
Im muslim & im active with dawah for all nations,u still need to understands about christians & catholics.theyre many doubts about trinity in christianity,its only catholics beliefs in trinity that is God itself.this is what catholics tell to us.
in other christianity they dont beliefs in trinity at all,coz u said trinity is believes other God in trinity,that is not true.
christians dont read the bible of what catholics do.this is the traditions beliefs.
wassalamualaikum | |
| | | AUTHOR
February 2, 2008 01:58 AM PST
Dear Dianne,
I have several questions for you..
1)Are u christians?
2)What is the point that u trying to tell me?
3)Which part of the article that u dont agree?
Because i dont got any point from your comment that is related to this posting about the author.The only i got from your comment is doubt about you.
Regards,
AUTHOR | |
| | | dianne
February 2, 2008 01:10 AM PST
Catholics aka Roman,more traditions follow by what Jesus pbuh.
below is some of the christians question.
"what is the difference between Catholics and Christians?"
I had to scratch my head for a few moments because it never occurred to me that some people didn't think Catholics are Christian. I explained to him that that is kind of like saying "what is the difference between Americans and U.S. citizens?" The name Christian predates the Evangelical community by over a millennium, as do the words Bible, and Trinity.
I think it is good that Evangelicals and Catholics have lively and animated discussions on the interpretation of Scripture. That's the spice of life. Evangelicals do that with each other all the time. That's why there are so many different denominations. However, I have a big problem with any organization that says "Catholics are not Christians," because they are ignoring the history of Christianity. Some who advance this theory, spend a lot of effort pulling Vatican statements out of context. By saying we are not Christian they think they can get around Jesus' call to Christian unity (Jn 13:34). I got an email that said:
"I am wondering if you are truly Christian then why do you call yourselves Catholic? Believers were called Christian in Acts 11 & no other denomination or religion."
I could ask the same question, "why do Baptists, Pentecostals, United, Methodist, or even nondenominational communities use those words and not simply say Christian?" The word Catholic was used before the end of the first century to distinguish the Church of the Apostles from heretical teachings. St. Ignatius of Antioch, apostolic Father and bishop, was a disciple of St. John, along with St. Polycarp. The Church historian Theodoret says Ignatius was consecrated bishop by St. Peter, who was the first bishop of Antioch before going to Rome. Ignatius was martyred in Rome under Emperor Trajan's rule. It was during the journey to Rome that he wrote his famous letters that contain invaluable information about the early Church. He was the first to use the term "Catholic" to describe the Church. It means universal.
In 325 A.D. the Catholic Church discerned the Holy Spirit's voice when it formed the doctrine of the Trinity (Father, Son and Holy Ghost, three person's in one). Yup, the "Trinity" is a Catholic doctrine that predates the Evangelical community by 1200 years. That word isn't even in the Bible. The Catholic Church protected Christianity from the Arian heresy that almost gutted Christianity in the 4th century when many began to believe Jesus wasn't "fully God" and "fully human."
The Catholic Church protected the Bible
The Catholic Church protected the Bible across the ages until the Gutenberg press was invented. Century after century, Monks in Monasteries faithfully copied Scripture. It would take each monk a lifetime to copy one Bible and thousands of faithful Catholics dedicated their lives to this work. Catholics protected the Bible over the centuries of wars, famines, plaques, the fall of Rome, fires, and threats from all sides. This was long before any other denomination existed. And the Catholic Church chose which books to include in the Bible in the Synod's of Hippo (393 AD) and confirmed it at Carthage (397 AD). The non-Catholic scholar Peter Flint, who translated the Dead Sea Scrolls, tells us that there was no Bible until 397's when the Catholic Church infallibly decided on what books belong there. Before that there were hundreds of letters and the Septuagint.
Even the word Bible is not in the Bible. It was coined by Catholics. It means books from the Greek word âõâëïò-byblos meaning "papyrus", from the ancient Phoenician city of Byblos which exported papyrus, the "paper" of the day. We love the Bible. Honest!
Some Evangelicals claim they have a direct connection to the early Church of the first centuries that bypasses Catholicism. If that is so, I would think the beliefs of modern Evangelicals would reflect the beliefs of the early Church. However, any time spent studying the Church Fathers will make it abundantly clear that early Christian beliefs were Catholic. The Church Fathers believed in the real presence of Jesus in the Eucharist, honoured Mary, had elaborate ceremonies, believed in Purgatory, respected the Church hierarchy, baptized babies, recognized Peter as the Rock, built the Church upon him with successors and followed a rich tradition of Christianity. That was the Christianity of the early days, and is the Catholic Church of today. A timeline of the Catholic Church from 1-500 A.D. is here. Beginning with the apostles, century after century, Catholics died so that Christ's message would reach the nations. Yes, we are Christians.
Whether or not someone agrees with Catholic doctrine is their prerogative. But all who look at history will admit that Catholics are clearly Christian. "No one can say that Jesus is Lord except by the Holy Spirit" (1 Cor 12:3)
Jesus has called Christians to unity "that they may all be one, as you Father, are in me and I am in you." (Jn 17:21) I hope we can love one another as He has loved us. (Jn 13:34).
| |
| | | Dayang
February 2, 2008 12:44 AM PST
you no need to asks those Christians,they dont even care of what their religion believe in.what priest said,that is what they follow,theyre being stupid of that priest has told them to do,they dont even open the book of bible itself,how can u can ask or refer to them? u need to search by urself of what is trinity is.
in the bible theres written do not worshipped statue of what Jesus pbuh has told them not to.but they worshipped statue.if u asks priest why u let the statue in the church which is Jesus pbuh himself said that not to worships statue,u know what priest will reply u? he will said that christians are stupid,they dont even read the bible,what we say,they juz follow it! | |
| | | dianne
February 2, 2008 12:35 AM PST
The following is a list of those versions that do not contain the disputed phrase in the text of 1 John 5:7-8:
1- New American Bible [the official English version of the Roman Catholic Church]
2- New International Version
3- New American Standard Bible
4- Amplified Bible
5- New Living Translation
6- English Standard Version
7- Contemporary English Version
8- New King James Version
9- New Century Version
10- American Standard Version
11- Darby Translation
12- Holman Christian Standard Bible
13- New International Version - UK
14- Today's New International Version
15- Ferrar Fenton Bible
That means that all these editors of the above versions admitted that the phrase "in heaven, the Father, the Word, and the Holy Ghost: and these three are one. And there are three that bear witness in earth" was a forgery. | |
| | | dianne
February 2, 2008 12:27 AM PST
The born again revival started in the US in the late 60's and early 70's. It was part of the moral majority agenda. The born againers ( my word) targeted youths as a response to the hippie momements. They had cafe's and youth services using contemporary language. Many of the born againers rejected the doxology of the traditional churches i.e. communion. They are varied in range of belief. They do have a very heavy evangecial message. They will attack you in the stores and public places by asking if you have been saved or have you found Jesus. There is limited intellect. They will not listen to anyone. They are quite ignorant about church history from the Anglican or Catholic perspective. I am sure many are unaware of Martin Luther.
They will persist and not leave you be. As you can tell over the years I have had many interactions and actually spent time talking to many for hours. Some are practicing in the traditional churches. They believe in tithing. They believe in waiting for marriage before sex, many have rituals where the girl and boy are allowed to see each other before marriage under strict guidance. They do not drink nor do they take drugs. They are against homosexuality.
The women are very modest in dress and many girls are not allowed to wear make-up. The children are very polite. Many home school their children as they do not wish for their children to be polluted by the thoughts of others.
They are hard working people who do not believe in public assistance all the time. They attend church between 3 to 7 days a week.
Oliver North was a born again Christian. There is quite an ornate ritual for the 'batismal' ceremony. | |
| | | dianne
February 2, 2008 12:22 AM PST
Muslims believe that the Holy Spirit is a title given to the Angel Gabriel [pronounced in Arabic as Jibreel]. So, we believe that the Angel Gabriel and the Holy Spirit are one and the same. We certainly do not believe that the Holy Spirit is divine, nor part of the 'Trinity' Christians believe in.
The “Holy Spirit” (Rooh al-Qudus) is Jibreel (peace be upon him). Shaykh al-Shanqeeti said: “The words of Allaah (interpretation of the meaning), ‘and [We] supported him with Rooh al-Qudus’ [al-Baqarah 2:87] refer to Jibreel according to the most sound view. This is indicated by the words (interpretation of the meaning): ‘Which the trustworthy Rooh has brought down’ [al-Shu’ara’ 26:193] and ‘then We sent to her our Rooh’ [Maryam 19:17].”
Ibn Abi Haatim narrated from Ahmad ibn Sinaan… Abu’l-Za’raa’ told us: ‘Abd-Allaah said: Rooh al-Qudus (“the Holy Spirit”) is Jibreel, then he said: something similar was narrated from Muhammad ibn Ka’b al-Qurazi, Qutaadah, ‘Atiyah al-‘Awfi, al-Saddi and al-Rabee’ ibn Anas.
This view is supported by the above and by the report narrated by the two Shaykhs [al-Bukhaari and Muslim] with their isnaads from Abu Salamah ibn ‘Abd al-Rahmaan ibn ‘Awf, that he heard Hassaan ibn Thaabit al-Ansaari asking Abu Hurayrah to bear witness, “I ask you by Allaah, did you hear the Messenger of Allaah (peace and blessings of Allaah be upon him) say, ‘O Hassaan, respond on behalf of the Messenger of Allaah. O Allaah, support him with Rooh al-Qudus’?” Abu Hurayrah said, “Yes.”
(al-Tafseer al-Masboor by Dr. Hikmat Basheer, 1/192-193)
Shaykh al-Islam Ibn Taymiyah said: the majority of scholars said that this refers to Jibreel (peace be upon him), and that Allaah called him al-Rooh al-Ameen, Rooh al-Qudus and Jibreel.”
(Daqaa’iq al-Tafseer, part 1, p. 310)
He wrote an entire chapter on that and said:
Chapter on the meaning of Rooh al-Qudus:
Allaah said (interpretation of the meaning):
“O ‘Eesa (Jesus), son of Maryam (Mary)! Remember My Favour to you and to your mother when I supported you with Rooh ul Qudus [Jibreel (Gabriel)]…”
[al-Maa’idah 5:110]
Allaah supported the Messiah (peace be upon him) with Rooh al-Qudus as He mentions in this aayah. In al-Baqarah Allaah says (interpretation of the meaning):
“And We gave ‘Eesa (Jesus), the son of Maryam (Mary), clear signs and supported him with Rooh-ul-Qudus [Jibreel (Gabriel)]
[al-Baqarah 2:87]
“Those Messengers! We preferred some of them to others; to some of them Allâh spoke (directly); others He raised to degrees (of honour); and to ‘Eesa (Jesus), the son of Maryam (Mary), We gave clear proofs and evidences, and supported him with Rooh ul Qudus [Jibreel (Gabriel)]”
[al-Baqarah 2:253]
This is not limited only to the Messiah; others were also supported in this way. (The scholars) mentioned that Dawood said, “Do not stop supporting me with Rooh al-Qudus.” And our Prophet (peace and blessings of Allaah be upon him) said to Hassaan ibn Thaabit, “O Allaah, support him with Rooh al-Qudus.” According to another report: “Rooh al-Qudus will be with you so long as you are defending His Prophet.” Both versions are narrated in al-Saheeh.
According to the Christians, the “Holy Spirit” dwelt in the Disciples, and according to them the “Holy Spirit” is something experienced by all of the Prophets. But Allaah says in al-Nahl (interpretation of the meaning):
“Say (O Muhammad) Rooh ul Qudus [Jibreel (Gabriel)] has brought it (the Qur’aan) down from your Lord with truth, that it may make firm and strengthen (the Faith of) those who believe, and as a guidance and glad tidings to those who have submitted (to Allaah as Muslims)”
[al-Nahl 16:102]
“Which the trustworthy Rooh [Jibreel (Gabriel)] has brought down
Upon your heart (O Muhammad)”
[al-Shu’ara’ 26:193]
“Whoever is an enemy to Jibreel (Gabriel) (let him die in his fury), for indeed he has brought it (this Qur’aan) down to your heart”
[al-Baqarah 2:97]
So it is clear that Rooh al-Qudus here refers to Jibreel… No one suggests that Rooh al-Qudus means the life of Allaah; nor is this indicated by the wording and this phrase is never used in that sense.
Daqaa’iq al-Tafseer, part 2, p. 92
| |
| | | dianne
February 2, 2008 12:13 AM PST
Born again Christians,they believes get filled with the holy spirit or God's spirit with the ability of speaking in tongues. Speaking in tongues is a special language that you can pray in and only you and God understands. and can be blessed with different abilities to help further spread the message of God. and some of these abilities i.e intercessory prayer- thats when Catholics knew when to pray when something bad
is going to happen and pray so satan or demonies will stop what theyre doing and etc.
Catholics believes humans can interact with God in 3 different ways giving the meaning of (trinity) which is a vocab word that is not in the bible. of course everyone thinks of God as being in heaven, They call this experience God ( the father),also believe God being everywhere , or Gods presence( holy spirit), than God coming to earth as a human (Jesus Christ). an example of interacting with the holy spirit Catholics often give example of Moses and the burning bush. so its like a person you can talk 2 them on the phone and not see them, see them on tv and see them in person, but its the same person.
Some1 filled with the holy spirit,pray in tongues when being sad basically. and people dancing and speaking in tongue or speaking in tongues all the time etc, everyone doesnt do that, its more of personal preference.
Only Catholics believe the bread and wine literally turn to that of a human, for most everyone else (protestants denominations) we believe its symbolic but reminds you of the death of christ and it shows God you care.
The difference between christianity and islam we dont have to consult a scholar and different school of thought because a regular person is able 2 become knowledgable, the main difference between scholars they might speak aramaic, greek, hebrew, been to the holy sites and understand the religion from historical point of view and mostly knowledable of the biography of some individuals in the bible
christians measure everything they do against the bible, its not requirement to be baptised in the holy spirit with evidence of speaking in tongues, but its an ability you can choose 2 develop and it discusses in the new testament
there is no difference between saying "God is in me" and "I'm God" because you will still consider whatever you do as a "Godly" thing
this means that they should be united in agreement with one another as he (Jesus) is always united in agreement with God
if you take the whole scripture and not just cut it in half, you see theyre talking about the agreement of the same message
this is a prayer from Jesus and he is saying
I pray not only for these,
but also for those who believe in Me
through their message.
21 May they all be one, (A) <--- church unified in their message
as You, Father, are in Me and I am in You. (B) <---- Jesus saying him and the father are one, he's in God and God is in him
May they also be one [a] in Us, <----- that believers are agreence with with God(trinity)
so the world may believe You sent Me.
22 I have given them the glory (C) You have given Me.
May they be one as We are one.
to die in our reality means soul is no longer present in body and will not ceast to exist. God will never cease to exist. but when man dies his human body, will decompose, but his soul passes to the next realm. if God comes to earth as Jesus and dies his physical body dies not his soul. but in this case chrisitian tradition Jesus was resurrected meaning his soul passed to the realm ( its not hell but we'll call it hell) and than 3 days later he came back to earth claimed his body and returned to heaven whole with his body, so this prinicple is not violated
well here is the religious tradition of Purim as practiced by the Jews, not what someone who is not Jewish says Jews do.
The ritual observance of Purim begins with Ta'anit Esther (The Fast of Esther). This minor fast day is held on one of the days preceding Purim, usually 13 Adar. (If the 13th falls on a Friday or Saturday, it is held on the preceding Thursday, in honor of the Sabbath.) It actually commemorates the fasting of the Jewish warriors before their battle on 13 Adar, but it is named for Esther, who also fasted before her important task. {8}
On Purim, all Jews are required to fulfill the four Purim mitzvot:
Two readings of the Megillah (Scroll of Esther) (Mikrah Megillah)
Festive meal (Seudah Purim)
Gifts of food to friends (Mishloach Manot)
Charity to the poor (Matanot l'Evyonim)
charity must be given to at least two poor people on Purim, in an amount at least equal to the value of one inexpensive meal. Each Jew's donation need not be given to the poor directly, but it must be distributed on Purim. Most notably, Purim charity must be given without regard to the merit, desert, or even need of the recipient. On all other days, Jews are required to ensure their donations are used properly, but not on Purim
well i suggest some of you guys maybe check out your neighborhood synagouges and ask Jews what they do for various religious observations and not just watch conspiracy videos about Israel, the west and whatever else. find out from people who is certain religions what they actually dohere are the scriptures from the bible
gift of tongues predicted by Jesus
And these signs shall follow them that believe; In my name they shall cast
out devils; they shall speak with new tongues” (Mark 16:17)
display of believers speaking in tongues
Acts 2:24
All of them were filled with the Holy Spirit, and they began to speak in other languages as the Spirit enabled them.
It is a mistake to assume that speaking in tongues is an evidence of being filled with the Spirit. All believers are commanded to “be filled with (controlled by) the Spirit” (Ephesians 5:18), but nowhere in Scripture are believers commanded to speak in tongues. A Christian can be under the influence and control of the Holy Spirit and not speak in tongues.
| |
| | | Penmerah_penbiru
February 1, 2008 04:12 PM PST
A: Catholics believe in Holy Spirits
B: Christians does not believe in Holy Spirit
Conclusion: Catholics and Christians have different believe on Holy Spirit.
So Catholics is not Christian? Just confuse a bit, pardon me :) | |
| | | AUTHOR
February 1, 2008 04:07 PM PST
Dear Dianne
I've met many Christians, even many priest and pastor of Christian.This is the first time I got to know that Holy Spirit is not in the Trinity, but another God itself.My understanding of Trinity is not my own.The concept of Trinity that I've studied is from Christian perspective, either Protestant or Catholic.
But when you said that only Catholic believe in Holy Spirit not Christians, what do you mean by that? Is the Catholic not Christian? Or Christian (except Catholic) do not believe in Holy Spirit? If you can show me the fact of your claim, I willingly to remove this posting from this blog. Otherwise my posting still stands. Regards,
AUTHOR | |
| | | dianne
January 30, 2008 11:05 PM PST
Holy Spirit is not another God in trinity,it was a God itself. God's spirit with the ability of speaking in tongues. Speaking in tongues is a special language that you can pray in and only you and God understands.
Muslims also believes in Holy Spirit! but in different meanings!
This is what you should know. | |
| | | dianne
January 30, 2008 10:57 PM PST
Its only Catholics believe in Holy Spirits! not Christians.u got a wrong conclusion about the faith of christianity. | |
|
