Powered by
UI
Techs
Home
>
Forums
>
>
General Discussion
>
The Second Advent of Jesus?
Post Reply
Username
Invalid Username or Password
Password
Format
Andale Mono
Arial
Arial Black
Book Antiqua
Century Gothic
Comic Sans MS
Courier New
Georgia
Impact
Tahoma
Times New Roman
Trebuchet MS
Script MT Bold
Stencil
Verdana
Lucida Console
1
2
3
4
5
6
Message Icon
Message
- Forum Code is ON
- HTML is OFF
Smilies
[quote]This is nice to go through all the comments which have been posted here. I am an intermediary here and I do not--[i]I pretend not to--[/i]take up any standing on this since I have responded to this thread as speaking someone else's point of view--which seemed quite new and novel to me. <BLOCKQUOTE id=quote><font size=1 face="Urdu,Naskh,Asiatype" id=quote>quote:<hr height=1 noshade id=quote> Indeed it is quite an interesting point to say the least. Let me say that I've read the verses of the Bible that puport the Second Coming of Christ and really I think they are implicit and not explicit in nature. What I'm trying to find out now is whether this doctrine of Second Advent was developed at a later date as was the Trinity, God-ship of Jesus etc... This would answer a lot. [/quote]<font face="Urdu,Naskh,Asiatype" size=3 id=quote> Do not prophecies are usually mentioned in implicit terms? Through metaphors and symbolism. <BLOCKQUOTE id=quote><font size=1 face="Urdu,Naskh,Asiatype" id=quote>quote:<hr height=1 noshade id=quote> First, I would appreciate the verses be cited. Regarding why the Qur'an has not rebutted the claims of the Second Coming, I would have to say that I find them a bit hard to buy. We don't know for sure what the beliefs were. [/quote]<font face="Urdu,Naskh,Asiatype" size=3 id=quote> This seems to imply that this belief was later incorporated into the Bible. I however find it a bit difficult to buy into that. After the cononization of the Biblical text well before the advent of the Last Prophet (pbuh), don't you find it a bit strange that chagnes should still be freely incorporated? <BLOCKQUOTE id=quote><font size=1 face="Urdu,Naskh,Asiatype" id=quote>quote:<hr height=1 noshade id=quote> We don't know if this belief had/has any great consequence that the Qur'an would have negated. In other words, is this belief detrimental to the entirety of the Message of God? Was this even a priority to tackle? [/quote]<font face="Urdu,Naskh,Asiatype" size=3 id=quote> If it had anything to do with the Muslims, it would have been on top of the priority list. Prophethood has always been on the top. This is why Rusul were foretold. <BLOCKQUOTE id=quote><font size=1 face="Urdu,Naskh,Asiatype" id=quote>quote:<hr height=1 noshade id=quote> Because the Qur'an does not negate something, does that make the belief valid? [/quote]<font face="Urdu,Naskh,Asiatype" size=3 id=quote> But it does raise a question why the Holy Qur'an has not negated it. Yes, we can only conjecture, you may say that. Someone else may say that we are explaining and not conjecturuing. <BLOCKQUOTE id=quote><font size=1 face="Urdu,Naskh,Asiatype" id=quote>quote:<hr height=1 noshade id=quote> Mr. Hanif writes: [b]This shows that the Holy Qur'an has tacitly endorsed the second advent of Jesus (pbuh). If it were against the divine principles and scheme,the Holy Qur'an would have talked about it.[/b] I respectfully disagree. Because I don't say "no" to something does that mean I approve of it? I think that's a bit of a stretch. If there were such an endorsement, the Qur'an may have inconspicuously alluded to it. Instead it is completely silent regarding the issue. Is that approval? Also, please explain how the return of Jesus would be "against the divine principles and scheme?" [/quote]<font face="Urdu,Naskh,Asiatype" size=3 id=quote> No. It does not prove anything beyond a shadow of doubt. I did not say that. Like I said earlier, it raises a question. A very important question if this belief is proved to have existed at the times of the Holy Prophet (pbuh) without the Holy Qur'an answering it. <BLOCKQUOTE id=quote><font size=1 face="Urdu,Naskh,Asiatype" id=quote>quote:<hr height=1 noshade id=quote> Mr. Hanif writes: [b]He further elightened me that the second advent of Jesus (pbuh) will have nothing to do with the Muslims. It means that the Muslims would not be required to profess faith in him.[/b] If it has nothing to do with Muslims then it has nothing to do with God's message, right? Why is it incumbant upon us to believe in the first Jesus but not his second appearance? If he returns to rectify the corrupted message of Christians then surely he'd be reinforcing the message of Islam to them. How could that have nothing to do with Muslims? How could we not profess faith in such a man who is a Prophet of God? [/quote]<font face="Urdu,Naskh,Asiatype" size=3 id=quote> There is only one Jesus in which the Muslims have already professed faith. He has a special mission to accomplish--which has do with the Christians alone. Reinforcing something does not mean to ask for obedience or anything from those who place credence to this message. Does it? [/quote]
Mode
Prompt
Help
Basic
Check here to be notified by email whenever someone replies to your topic
Show Preview
Share
|
Copyright
Studying-Islam
© 2003-7 |
Privacy Policy
|
Code of Conduct
|
An Affiliate of
Al-Mawrid Institute of Islamic Sciences ®
Top