I'm not using Sale's translation, I'm using M.H. Shakir's edition.
Is "generous" used in place of "love" in all the verses I gave in Sale's translation?
While no translation is considered authoritative, Islamic theology wouldn't allow the translation of "love" if they didn't teach such a thing. It would be like a Christian translating the story of Mary becoming pregnant and speaking in such a way that suggests that the Holy Spirit "impregnated" her. A Muslim might say that, but a Christian wouldn't.
Ok, I'm not defending the Quran. It is a man-made book (rather poorly at that), and submission to its teachings leads one only to the just sentence of Hell. Furthermore, the love Allah is said to have for people is, as was previously mentioned, extraordinarily conditional. I am not comparing Christ's love to Allah's love. Jesus wins every time, hands down.
But when somebody says "the Quran does not say x" even though it does, that needs to be responded to. When it comes to reasons why Christianity is superior to Islam, we have an abundance of riches. We do not need to invent false reasons.
If someone says "that love isn't the same as the love of God in the Bible", I agree wholeheartedly. But the commenter Jesus Loves Me didn't say "The love of Allah is not like the love of God". He said "Allah never once in the Koran says he loves anyone." That is not true.
I understand what you are saying. However, a commenter said this: "Allah never once in the Koran says he loves anyone. And he doesn't." We Christians need to be concerned with truth, and with accurately representing those whom we disagree with. This person did not accurately represent Muslim belief before criticizing it, and that needed to be responded to.
Many, if not most, Muslims believe that Christians believe in the Trinity, which consists of God, Jesus, and Mary. They haven't read the Bible. All they've heard they get from other Muslims. We rightly condemn that sort of shallow thinking. If we hate it when Muslims quote what the Bible does or doesn't say when they have never even read it, should we not also show them equal respect? Paul did not assume Athenian theology in Acts 17, he went out and FOUND an altar to an unknown god.
Yeah, I read an article about this back in 2007. They said we'd have it in 50 years, so I guess we only have to wait 42 years in order for a man's love for his phone to be legitimized. Because phones deserve human rights. We should probably go ahead and move to the "right side of history" right now.
John Yurich USA wrote: Well all religions that don't worship Jesus as God are satanic. That is why it is a false statement for anybody to make that the Catholic Church is satanic because the Catholic Church has always worshiped Jesus as God and therefore is not satanic.
Hold on, John. You‚Äôve got a problem with your logic. Here‚Äôs what you are basically saying:
Religions that don‚Äôt believe in Christ‚Äôs deity are Satanic. Catholicism believes in Christ‚Äôs deity. Therefore, Catholicism is not Satanic.
If we boil it down, you are saying:
[Referent] that does not [condition] is [result] [Narrowed referent] does [condition] [Narrowed referent] is not [result]
That would be like saying:
Spiders that do not have fangs are harmless. Goliath Birdeater Tarantulas have fangs. Therefore, G. B. Tarantulas are not harmless.
However, those spiders are in fact harmless.
As to the Catholicism issue, I‚Äôll just say this:
Any Jesus that waits on my faithfulness in order to dole out grace is not the Jesus I worship. Any Jesus that, at time of baptism, only forgives the sins I‚Äôve committed up to that point is not the Jesus I worship.
One of these Jesuses is a false god, and the other is the True and Living God of the Bible.
is it finally being published? I have been waiting for years now to get a look at this manuscript! I do hope it is genuinely first century.
This would be just great if it is true. I know there are a lot of KJV-onlyists on this site, but even for people who wouldn't dare give it consideration as to what the text says, the most ardent KJVO should be thrilled about this.
If this is true, then when atheists spout off that the gospels couldn't have been written by the traditional namesakes, and that well over a hundred years separated the "Jesus of history" from the "Christ of faith", we can say "no, no, no. We have in our own possession a part of Mark's gospel written within 50-60 years of the original! This gospel was written during the lifetime of eyewitnesses!"
"Of course Democrats lie because the Democratic Party is the party of Satan whereas the Republican Party is the party of Jesus."
Absolutely wrong. Not everyone in the Republican Party is saved. Jesus came to institute a Church, not a political party. Be VERY careful here, this is the line of thought that led to the corruption of the Roman Catholic Church. I believe you are you the one who claims Christ and is still in the RCC, no? Surely you will admit that the RCC, at the very least, has put its hand in the world's affairs where it simply doesn't belong.
Republicans are wicked, just like Democrats are wicked. God has simply restrained the Republicans a little more. That is a far cry from them being "the party of Jesus".