PDA

View Full Version : Reply to a Muslim



Traditio
July 23rd, 2015, 03:27 PM
I thought that you guys might enjoy this posting I made in response to a Muslim on another board:


Greetings,

You two, as well as your Christian brethren, cannot even agree with each other on the nature of your own God, so there is no need to come and debate with us about what Jesus said and did when you cannot even get the most fundamental issue right.

Admin: are there no disagreements among Muslims? Do no Muslims misunderstand points of Islamic doctrine? If my interlocutor was mistaken, then you must not credit such mistakes to Christianity itself, nor must you think that our (at least apparent) disagreement indicates any real confusion in the doctrines of the orthodoxy (here, I do not refer to the Eastern churches who are not in communion with the Roman Pontiff, but I mean that in the general sense of the term). My [likely Protestant] interlocutor speaks from a position of ignorance. I am giving you the doctrines of the philosophers, of the One Holy, Catholic and Apostolic Church and of the doctors and fathers of the Church. God is one in being/substance/essence, but three in interpersonal relationships (unspeakably mysterious relationships, note, which do not divide the ineffable unity of the One God).

Do you doubt that this is the doctrine of the Church? Then I refer you to the words of the Nicene Creed: "I believe in one God."


Moreover, you lay claim to 'eyewitnesses' and speak of historical credibility. Let us remember that the gospels are not eyewitness accounts.

I wasn't referring to the gospels. I have in mind what St. Augustine says in "Against the Fundamental Epistle of Manichaeus": "I should not believe the Gospel unless the authority of the Catholic Church moved me to do so." I should have no cause to believe in Jesus or in the gospels unless the bishops of the Catholic Church, who can trace their succession in an unbroken lineage back to the apostles of Jesus Himself, had commanded me to believe on the basis of their authority. You may cast doubt on the gospels being eye witness accounts. But the apostles were eye witnesses, and I believe in the doctrines wihch they have handed down to us through their successors. I believe on the basis of their authority, of their account.

You have no basis, not even a probable one, for your beliefs. None. I believe based on a strong probability (i.e., the eye witnesses were credible). Your beliefs are groundless. You believe what you do because a guy said an angel spoke to him. From an outsider's perspective, do you realize how silly that sounds? If I believed everyone who has ever said that an angel spoke to him, do you know all of the ridiculous things that I would have to believe?

Your prophet commands you to believe in matters about which natural reason speaks, and he tells us no more than what we already could have known about on our own (and he commands us to believe many false things besides). It is for this reason that Averroes, a medieval philosopher in your own religious tradition, considered Islam a mere congeries of fables, of convenient lies for the masses, to control and pacify the people (a barbarous people, no less) into living at least halfway decent lives. He considered Aristotle to be a most divine and inspired man. Your prophet? Of him, as far as I know, he said no such thing. Why? Set up the words of the philosophers against the words of your prophet, and there is no contest. None.

The bishops of the Church, however, in the sobriety of their doctrine, command me to believe where reason cannot go. In fact, where reason can go, She encourages me to look and see. Your prophet throws up a veil to hide what reason can tell us. The Church takes away the veil and invites us to look. Look and see, says St. Paul (I paraphrase Romans 2): the words of the Law are written in the hearts of men. Look and see, says St. Paul (I paraphrase Romans 1): the existence and attributes of God are displayed in the works of nature. And when we have finished looking, the Church shows us even more. It is for this reason that, whereas Islam is intrinsically anti-intellectualist and stifles philosophical inquiry, many philosophers throughout the centuries have been watered and received nourishment from the Catholic Faith. For that One, True Faith, I say, points to reason, and reason points past itself to where it cannot go.

Again, why do I believe in the utter falsity of the words of your prophet? Because at mass I have heard, again and again, the words that Jesus spoke, the words that have been repeated for roughly 2000 years, the words that the apostles told us Jesus spoke:

"This is my body. It will be given up for you. This is the chalice of my blood, this is the chalice of the new and everlasting covenent. It will be shed for you and for many for the forgiveness of sins."

And speaking thus, he commanded his apostles, the first bishops of the Catholic Church: "Do this in memory of me." If the mass is roughly 2000 years old, and if we have received it from the apostles, then your prophet is not credible, and his words are not God's words.


You also talk about 'unaltered Bibles'. Have a read of the following quoted by sister Insaanah:

You're basically just agreeing with what I said before. On the one hand, Muslims will quote from the Old and New Testaments when it is convenient for them, but then, in the same breath, will claim that the verses which disagree with them are later interpolations. And, of course, they are perfectly free from being disproven, since the original texts, they claim, the original uninterpolated versions, don't exist. This is not a tactic which is original to Islam. This was a popular tactic of the Manichean sect.

So tell me, as a Muslim, do you command me to believe the Old and New Testaments, or do you ask that I reject them? If you ask that I reject them, then why do you quote them? But if you command me to believe in the Old and New Testaments, even in part, then I'll answer you with the words of St. Augustine (De Utilitate Credendi (On the Usefulness of Belief)): you ask me to believe in the words of the Old and New Testaments, which I have received from the Catholic Church, and which I have believed on their authority, and now that I have received it from them on their authority (in which I have strong probable reasons to believe), you bid me to believe that you understand and explain it better than them based on your authority (in which I have no reason at all to trust)? But that's foolishness in the highest degree.

Had Jesus not been born of a virgin, performed miracles, died on the Cross, risen from the dead and then ascended into heaven (and, what is also amazing, assumed His Most Blessed Mother into heaven at the end of her earthly life), then I should have laughed at the bishops when they commanded me that they understood the Old Testament better than the Jews. "But we saw," so said the Apostles, "this very thing happen, and here is what He told us." And the world trembled at their words and believed. Did your prophet die and rise from the dead? Or does he still lie in the grave? What public miracles did he perform that I should believe in a single word of his testimony?

But I tell you, the history of the Catholic Church has abounded in miracles even after Jesus ascended into heaven. Have you heard of the apparition of the Most Blessed Mother at Fatima? Have you heard of St. Padre Pio? How about St. Francis of Assisi? Perhaps you've heard of Our Lady at Lourdes?

Or perhaps you are familiar with the Saints of the Catholic Church, especially the more recent ones (i.e., modern era)? Their canonizations literally required miracles.

What cause have I to believe in the words of your prophet? He claimed an angel spoke to him? Have you visited an insane asylum? He wrote a book? So did L. Ron Hubbard. He raised an army? So did pretty much every tyrant who ever lived.

Show me, I say, a single piece of evidence which could only have come from God which testifies to the words of your prophet being from God.


Then you throw in the trinity. We have heard this all before:

Here, I quote the words that you quoted:


As soon as the word three has to enter your description of God, that oneness is lost. When Muslims say ONE, we mean ONE. No persons, no essences, nothing. Just One God, Glorified and Exalted be He above all that people associate with Him. The words two, three, four, five, seven, never enter the equation

The law of non-contradiction is that the same thing cannot be and not be in the same respect at the same time. Note the key words "in the same respect." If her assertion is that Christians contradict themselves, then she doesn't understand the rules of logic. If she asserts that Christian do not contradict themselves, but she denies a plurality of relations in God, then what is she doing be restating her own doctrine, without any defense or argument, and rejecting the Christian one? There's nothing compelling in that.


We have had all the analogies: the water, gas-solid-liquid one, the egg, shell-white yolk one, and also the flame-heat-light one. The three persons are distinct yet still one. I have light in my room, does that mean the roof is on fire, or that I have a flame in my room? No. Therefore light exists without any flame. I have heat in my room, does that mean something in my room is on fire? No. Heat exists without any flame. Heat and light exist by themselves separately. In the same way that Jesus (peace be on him) was created by God and was separate to God. Is the heat from a radiator in one room the same as the light from the light bulb? Nobody would walk past and say they were one. Would we say the heat of the flame is the flame? No. In the same way, we cannot and do not say that Jesus is God. Blow on a flame and it goes out. Can the existence of God be likened to such a flame? No, Glorified and Exalted be He above that"

These are all terrible analogies. If these are the only analogies that Muslims have heard in defense of the trinity, then I can understand why they would consider the doctrine ridiculous. They all indicate a real distinction between the being of the things involved, which cannot be admitted in the case of the ineffable unity and simplicity of the Divine being/essence. I agree with Plato Himself: "The One is not many."

However, what Insaanah ascribes to Christians isn't orthodox Christian belief.

I very much appreciated, on the other hand, the quoted words of Ansar Al-'Adl, which I here quote:


When we say that the trinity is illogical, are we trying to comprehend God's nature within our limited scope of comprehension? Is that why we cannot comprehend trinity? Or is it because of something else?

There is a distinct difference between admitting that we cannot comprehend God's nature or appearance, and attributing something to God which defies reality. Allow me to elaborate.

1 is not equal to 3 (provided that the units are consistant). Those three units cannot operate with the same properties as the one unit. If one was equal to three then it wouldn't be one. Is this a matter of attempting to comprehend God? No, it is simply a matter of defining constant values in our universe.

According to trinitarian Christianity, God sent the Son to the world. The sender and the one being sent cannot be the same. Jesus called out to God and prayed to Him. The caller and the one being called upon cannot be the same.

The problem that he's having is that he doesn't understand the difference between signification and supposition (these are terms of medieval logic). Signification is when a term signifies or points out a nature. "Man" signifies human nature. Human nature is what "man" calls to mind and points to. Thus, "deity is humanity" is false. Supposition, however, is when a term "stands for" something, generally an individual. "Bob is running." "Bob" in this case, supposes for, i.e., stands for, the concrete individual, Bob, who is running. Again, consider the sentence: "A man is running." "A man," once again, can suppose for or stand for Bob. I can point at Bob and say: "A man is running," and it will be understood that by "A man," I mean Bob, i.e., the concrete individual who is running.

Thus, when the Christian says that "God sent the Son" or "Jesus called out to God," "God," in each case, must be understood as supposing for God, the Father. And here, the Christian will agree with what the quoted person above says: The Father is not the Son. They differ personally, i.e., in terms of interpersonal relationships (note that in every relationship, there are the two terms of the relationship (i.e., the two "things" which are related) and the relation itself: The Father is the Father of the Son). Such verses are to be understood as illustrating the distinction of divine persons. However, without this doctrine of signification and supposition, I can see how the confusion would arise. It does seem extremely strange to assert that someone calls out to or sends himself. However, this is not what's happening.


So the notion that there are three persons in one God, 3 in 1, is really nothing more than polytheism, because 1 God is 1 person, not three.

Polytheism is the assertion that there are multiple divine beings. The Christian asserts tha there is only a single divine being, but there is a plurality of real relationships "within" the One Divine Being which do not, for all of that, does not divide the essence. If you want analogies, the better analogies are knowledge and love. There are three terms in every relationship of knowledge and love: the lover or knower, the beloved or the known, and the knowledge or love itself. God is subsistent self-love (a self love, let us note, which exceeds the poverty of all created love: He is Subsistent Charity) and subsistent self-knowledge (a self knowledge, let us note, which exceeds the divisions of all created knowledge; He is, indeed, Subsistent Wisdom). The Father is a Lover who loves the Son; the Son is the beloved who is beloved by the Father; the Holy Ghost is the subsistent Love which ineffably unites them. Yet, there are not three lovers, three beloveds or three loves. There is a single God, who in the community of divine, subsistent relationships, loves and delights in His own Supreme Goodness and Majesty (and oh, if we could only see that, we would instantly fall in love with Him; for He is the Good Itself, infinitely delectable and the fountain of all good and all delights and all gifts).


Can the immortal die? A trinitarian will say, "God can do anything" but the correct answer is no, the immortal cannot die because that defies his attribute of immortality. If you die, you aren't immortal! It's not a matter of setting limits on God, its a matter of consistency in describing our universe. Can the All-Mighty be overcome? A trinitarian would say, "God can do anything" but again, this has nothing to do with God's potential.
Death and being overcome, these are not abilites they are inabilities. Death is the inability to live, therefore, the Eternal cannot die. NOT because of any lack in His potential, but because it defies His set attributes.

I agree with this. It is a contradiction to assert that the immortal and deathless is able to die, that the indestructible is able to be destroyed, etc. But once again, we must understand the difference between signification and supposition. Divinity is per se (in and of itself) immortal and deathless (thus do we pray in the Trisagion: "Holy God, Holy Mighty One, Holy Immortal One: have mercy on us, and on the whole world); humanity, however, is not. Jesus was able to die insofar as He was man, not insofar as He was God.

When I say "God died on the Cross," "God" supposes, i.e., stands for, for Jesus, the divine person. We can replace "God" in that sentence with "Jesus." So what we mean is: "Jesus (of whom both human and divine nature are predicated in their entirety) died on the Cross." In which, of course, there is no contradiction. Here, you may say that it's a contradiction to assert that "man is God" is a contradiction, and I'll agree with you, if by that sentence is understood "humanity is divinity." But all that I mean is that both "man" and "God" are predicated of Jesus, i.e., that Jesus is both fully God and fully man (i.e., everything which is true of God and everything which is true of man, insofar as each is each, likewise is true of Jesus). In this, of course, there is no contradiction.


The answer is that those two beliefs are not analogous.

I agree. Contradictions can't be admitted. Saying that God is mysterious and can't be comprehended is just a cop-out used by those who belief silly things.


Trinity is inconceivable.

It's not. The manner in which God is one is different from the way in which God is three. Recall what the law of non-contradiction states.


Such things are not properties of the universe we live in. So the trinity canot be accepted by anyone because it is logically self-contradictory. Furthermore, it finds no support in the Tanakh, the New Testament, or the Qur'an.

No support, of course, in the sections of the Tanakh that Muslims are willing to admit is credible, nor in the sections of the New Testament that Muslims are willing to admit is credible. If we take out all the verses that indicate the trinity or Jesus' divinity, of course, we won't be left with with any verses that indicate the trinity of Jesus' divinity. But that's just a tautology.

bybee
July 23rd, 2015, 03:49 PM
Well done Trad!

chair
July 24th, 2015, 03:17 AM
.From an outsider's perspective, do you realize how silly that sounds?

Take my word for it: From an outsider's perspective, your beliefs sound quite silly as well.

There is no real evidence that your Christian beliefs are true, or that the events reported in the NT are historical. And the fact that Christianity adopted some aspects of Greek philosophy isn't of tremendous value either.

There is no evidence that Jesus rose from the dead. Many religions claim various and sundry "miracles"- there is nothing unique there either.

If you want to believe in your traditions- by all means go ahead and do so. But don't expect outsiders to accept what isn't their tradition.

glassjester
July 24th, 2015, 05:12 AM
If you want to believe in your traditions- by all means go ahead and do so. But don't expect outsiders to accept what isn't their tradition.

Then why did God send Jonah to Nineveh?

chair
July 24th, 2015, 06:28 AM
Then why did God send Jonah to Nineveh?

Did Jonah tell the people of Nineveh to become Jews?

glassjester
July 24th, 2015, 07:28 AM
Did Jonah tell the people of Nineveh to become Jews?

After Jonah spoke to them, the people "believed in God, and proclaimed a fast."

That sounds a bit like outsiders accepting "what isn't their tradition."

chair
July 24th, 2015, 08:31 AM
After Jonah spoke to them, the people "believed in God, and proclaimed a fast."

That sounds a bit like outsiders accepting "what isn't their tradition."

It sounds more like a reader reading his agenda into the Biblical story.

Traditio
July 24th, 2015, 12:53 PM
Take my word for it: From an outsider's perspective, your beliefs sound quite silly as well.

There is no real evidence that your Christian beliefs are true, or that the events reported in the NT are historical. And the fact that Christianity adopted some aspects of Greek philosophy isn't of tremendous value either.

There is no evidence that Jesus rose from the dead. Many religions claim various and sundry "miracles"- there is nothing unique there either.

If you want to believe in your traditions- by all means go ahead and do so. But don't expect outsiders to accept what isn't their tradition.

Let's be clear. I was attacking a specific set of Muslim beliefs, i.e., what their "prophet" says about Jesus. My point is simply this:

If I ask the Muslim why he believes what he does about Jesus, he'll tell me: "A guy, who has never met Jesus, said an angel told him these things."

If the Muslim asks me why I believe what I do about Jesus, I'll tell him: "This is what has been passed down to us, through the unbroken succession of Catholic bishops, from the time of Jesus even to the present day. This tradition, we believe, has been handed on to us by eye witnesses." Again, I'll appeal to the fact that the Catholic mass has been consistently celebrated for roughly the past 2000 years.

Granted that neither is certain evidence, which is more probable? To my mind, the former claim is ridiculous, whereas the latter at least has some degree of probability (though an atheist, of course, will discard it off hand, since any explanation, no matter how unreasonable, is better than one which involves miracles).

If the Muslim further says that the guy wrote a book, I'll tell him that he has no more reason to believe in Mohommad's words than in John Smith's (Mormonism). Note, of course, that I won't appeal to the Bible. "I believe x because a book told me so" is a really stupid reason to believe anything. Protestants have absolutely no grounds to hold their sectarian opinions.

Nick M
July 24th, 2015, 02:44 PM
Did Jonah tell the people of Nineveh to become Jews?

Misdirection.

rexlunae
July 24th, 2015, 11:46 PM
If I ask the Muslim why he believes what he does about Jesus, he'll tell me: "A guy, who has never met Jesus, said an angel told him these things."

If the Muslim asks me why I believe what I do about Jesus, I'll tell him: "This is what has been passed down to us, through the unbroken succession of Catholic bishops, from the time of Jesus even to the present day. This tradition, we believe, has been handed on to us by eye witnesses." Again, I'll appeal to the fact that the Catholic mass has been consistently celebrated for roughly the past 2000 years.

Granted that neither is certain evidence, which is more probable? To my mind, the former claim is ridiculous, whereas the latter at least has some degree of probability (though an atheist, of course, will discard it off hand, since any explanation, no matter how unreasonable, is better than one which involves miracles).

Well, you're half-right. They both sound pretty ludicrous to me. I'm not sure why you seem to think that another explanation would be unreasonable though.


If the Muslim further says that the guy wrote a book, I'll tell him that he has no more reason to believe in Mohommad's words than in John Smith's (Mormonism). Note, of course, that I won't appeal to the Bible. "I believe x because a book told me so" is a really stupid reason to believe anything. Protestants have absolutely no grounds to hold their sectarian opinions.

So, a given doctrine is reliable if it's passed down by an unbroken succession of old men, but not if someone writes something down and just hands down the book? Why? Why is one any more reliable than the other? Why do you think either process is reliable at all?

Traditio
July 26th, 2015, 07:46 PM
More from the debate:


Greetings Traditio,

You’ve raised many issues in your post (and I’m not sure how they’re related to this thread). If this discussion is to continue, it isn’t feasible to discuss so many broad areas together, not in any great detail anyway.

Very good point. A propos of this, I'll divide my replies to the distinct areas into different postings.


I’d suggest we stick to the most relevant topic and maybe discuss others elsewhere.

I will also say at the outset that I’m rather disappointed at the lack of fairness applied when examining Islam. I won’t tolerate disrespectful remarks – they add nothing to the discussion and simply bring your arguments (and you) down.

As I understand it, the topic of the original posting is: "Jesus was a Muslim, insofar as He preached submission to the One God, and this is all that the word 'Muslim' means. He intended to teach no new doctrines on this point." If he intends to say this to Muslims, then he preaches to the choir. If he intends to say this to Christians, on the other hand...then my point about the credibility of the testimonies of the bishops vs. the testimony of your prophet comes into play. I only started talking about the Trinity a propos of your quote above.

At any rate, I do apologize if anything I've said has come off as unfair or disrespectful, and I hope that you'll (correctly) ascribe it to ignorance on my part.


The point is not about a mere disagreement, but the confusion with regards to the most fundamental part of your religion - God Himself. It's interesting you add that it does not indicate 'any real confusion' in Christian doctrine, when that's exactly what it's based on. The Nicene Creed that you quote wasn't formalized until three centuries after the time of Jesus. Numerous creeds preceded it and numerous revisions and debates followed. The earliest creed lacks any Trinitarian reference, whereas the Nicene incorporates ‘Son of God’, ‘God of God’, ‘Begotten, not made’, all of which attests to the ever-changing Christian beliefs regarding Jesus during Christianity’s formative days. How unfortunate that it didn’t stop at "I believe in one God."

Trinitarian belief predates the Council of Nicea, as is evident from the fact that it was called in the first place. Generally, councils of the Church are only called when there are large disagreements or problems that need to be settled, generally because of new heresies that arise and need to be stamped out. The fact that a doctrine is formally expressed in a council, in and of itself, is not an indication that the doctrine wasn't held previously. Consider, e.g., the fact that transubstantiation was only formally defined (I think) in the Council of Trent (1500s AD, I think). Nonetheless, the Council didn't define a new doctrine. It's something that was already part of the deposit of the Faith, vis-a-vis Sacred Tradition (i.e., the tenets of the Catholic Faith handed down to us through the succession of bishops in communion with the Roman Pontiff). It only need to be defined by a Council because large numbers of protestant heretics were denying what Catholics already believed. Likewise, the Council of Nicea was called because a large number of bishops were teaching something new, heretical and contrary to the deposit of the Faith. Arianism, not the belief in the Trinity, was the new [heretical] doctrine.


Trinity

You have written much about the trinity and brought in yet another analogy. However, no matter how many times one keeps repeating it, or in how many ways it is explained, it will forever remain problematic.

I completely agree with this. The Trinity is a mystery of faith. We can't really understand it this side of eternity. Not because, of course, it contradicts reason, but because it exceeds reason. To use Aristotle's image, we are like owls trying to stare at the sun.


In every explanation you offer, I see a contradiction (you can add me to the list of those who apparently ‘don’t understand the rules of logic’). You say you don't believe that God is made up of parts and does not need something to hold him together. Yet you later say He consists of a lover, beloved and a subsistent love that unites these two. You say that there cannot be a ‘real distinction between the being of the things involved’. Yet you go on to say ‘the Father is not the Son. They differ personally.’

A real distinction of relationships doesn't imply a real distinction of parts in the substance of the thing in question. Consider, e.g., that a given man both may be a father and a son. Nonetheless, the plurality of real relationships which hold true of that one man don't correspond to a real ontological plurality (of parts) in that man. The being of a relationship isn't in something, but towards something. Because the man is a father, he is related to something else, i.e., to his son. When I say that the Holy Ghost is subsistent love who "unites" the lover and the beloved, all I mean by that is that the two terms of a relationship are "bound together" by that relationship. E.g., a father really is related to his son through his fathership. So, when I say that the Holy Ghost, as subsistent love, "unites" the lover and the beloved, I don't mean to indicate that the persons of the trinity are really distinct divine beings or "parts" of the Divine Being who have to be "put together." I am only illustrating the triadic nature of every relationship. There are the two relata (i.e., "things related,") and the relationship itself. In this case, what we are talking about is the triune nature of Divine Self-love and Divine Self-Knowledge. What we are talking about is not three Gods, but a single God who knows and loves Himself, and for whom knowledge and love find expression in the persons (as subsistent relationships) of the Trinity.

Of course, even here, the "image" of knowledge and love may seem deficient, but this is only because of the limits of created knowledge and love. Knowledge, ultimately, is simply the cognitional union of knower and known. The known comes to exist in the knower in a cognitional way. Likewise, love is simply the desire (if I might use this term loosely) for union with the beloved.


The bottom line is that the persons of the ‘Father’, ‘Son’ and ‘Holy Ghost’ are each distinct.

According to relation, not according to the Divine Being. This is why the persons of the Trinity are irreducibly distinct, and yet are not distinct divine beings. This is because of the nature of relations or relationships. Necessarily, sonship and fathership, insofar as related to each other, are distinct, and yet, related to or towards each other. Sonship is to be the son of a father. Fathership is to be the father of a son.


When one thinks about one, he is not thinking of the other.

Yes and no. It's the same as when one thinks about a father. Yes, father and son are distinct (at least according to relation), and yet, fatherhood implies sonhood, and the other way around.


Their images cannot be superimposed to create one. It doesn’t matter if you call them essences, persons or relationships, there is a plurality which cannot be justified by saying ‘it’s all within the One Divine Being’, or that the manner of being three is different to that of being one. Consider the following:

Christians will say:

- The Father is truly God.
- The Son is truly God.
- The Holy Spirit is truly God.
- These are not three Gods, but three different persons who share the essence of that one being who is God.

That is as illogical as me saying:

- Ahmed is a human being.
- Khalid is a human being.
- Ayman is a human being.
- These are not three human beings, but three different persons who share ONE essence, which is human.

Obviously no one says that one essence "human" is being shared by seven billion people on Earth today. Rather, we say that there are seven billion human beings on Earth today. Similarly, we can't say that there are three different persons sharing the one essence of God, but that there are three different Gods in light of what the Trinity teaches.

Very clever, Admin. If you'll admit the brief tangent, I must admit, I smiled when I read this last bit about the three human beings. For one thing, it reminds me of when I was reading Avicenna's Metaphysics of the Healing, and he consistently used Arabic names (as opposed to Greek names) for examples. Instead of "Socrates waves his keys," "Zayed waves his keys." For another, I was impressed by the insight of your counterexample.

So, I'll begin by saying that Ahmed, Khalid and Ayman could be a single human being (i.e., one according both to essence and existence), presupposing that "Ahmed," "Khalid" and "Ayman" are names for numerically the same individual. Presumably, however, you intend to say that Ahmed, Khalid and Ayman are three numerically distinct individuals, who nonetheless equally participate in humanity.

As St. Thomas says, two horses agree according to equinity, but differ according to being (differunt secundum esse).

And this is a fair point. It's a contradiction to assert that three distinct individuals are one individual. That's completely ridiculous, and you are right to point it out. When, however, I assert that Father, Son and Holy Ghost are one God, I intend to assert the following. 1. There is only a single divine being. 2. Each person of the Trinity wholly possesses that singular divine being and that singular divine essence. In other words, each is God and, in particular, that one, single, same God. I.e., Father, Son and Holy Ghost do not indicate numerically distinct divine beings in the same way that Ahmed, Khalid and Ayman indicate numerically distinct human beings. They differ, not according to essence, nor according to being, but according to relation.


Here you are simply restating your own doctrine, and there’s nothing compelling (sound familiar?). In actuality, there’s a very clear contradiction and a very convoluted attempt to try and get away from it.

I was simply pointing out that the doctrine, as stated, doesn't meet the criterion of a contradiction. I'm not saying that something both is and is not in the same respect at the same time.


Saying that Jesus has two natures, one of God and the other of man, is a different claim than that of the Trinity, which is that God exists in three persons. This idea arose because Trinitarians needed to account for the many verses that so clearly represent Jesus as a man and disqualify him from being God.

How can it be that the same mind consequently is both created and uncreated, both finite and infinite, both dependent and independent, both changeable and unchangeable, both mortal and immortal, both susceptible of pain and incapable of it, both able to do all things and not able, both acquainted with all things and not acquainted with them?

I completely agree with what you are saying here. That would be a most grevious contradiction, and if Christians believed this, then I would have to side with you wholeheartedly in rejecting their doctrines as abhorrent to reason. [I must ask, at this point: where did you get this notion from? Does your prophet accuse Christians of believing this?]

But we don't believe that. We don't believe that Jesus Christ had a single intellect. This is the view, not of Catholics, but of various heretics. Jesus, as fully God and fully man, possesses two intellects and two wills: an uncreated intellect and will (as Divine Word) and a created intellect and will (as man). I don't think that you are fully appreciating what I mean when I say that Jesus possesses both a human and a divine nature, and, therefore, everything which is true of man as man or God as God is true of Jesus. Jesus, as man, has body and soul (which, in turn, is why He was able to die; death is simply the separation of body and soul). He is endowed with sensation, imagination, etc. He felt pleasure and pain. He possesses a human mind, a human intellect, a human reason. Yet, He is also God, and as such, is Divine Wisdom and Divine Mercy and Divine Charity.

We Catholics do not say that Jesus was God in human costume. We Catholics do not say that Jesus is divinity turned into humanity (as though he stopped being God and started being human). Jesus is God who has assumed, in the unity of His person, humanity. When we say that "the word became flesh," we mean that the Divine Word, remaining eternally as He is, took on a human nature and fully and really became a human being.


Why then do you repeatedly use terms such as ‘unspeakably mysterious relationships’ and ‘the ineffable unity’? Why are you commanded ‘to believe where reason cannot go’?

Because there are some things that we simply cannot know by our own power. There are some things that we simply have to take on faith. Consider, e.g., the stories that your mother tells you about when you were a baby. You accept this purely on her authority. Again, consider what you believe about your prophet. Did an angel talk to him? You can't know that through rational inquiry. You believe it on the [errant, I believe] testimony of others.

In the case of the Trinity, what we are talking about is the inner life of God. You'll accuse me of a cop-out. But I'll ask you to consider the following. What reason do we have to believe in God in the first place? We see, as St. Paul says, the existence of God written in the works of creation (Romans 1). From created things we can reason to the fact that God exists, that He is One, that He is Good, etc. But our mode of procedure is just the same as when we reason from the activities of plants to the fact that the sun exists and is a heat source for them.

We aren't looking at the sun itself. We are looking at plants and reasoning to their cause.

Likewise, in the case of God, we aren't looking at God Himself. We are looking at creation and reasoning to its cause. Created things possess being, unity and goodness, and therefore, their First Cause must be Being Itself, Unity Itself and Goodness Itself. But what does unity, goodness, truth and beauty and being mean when applied to God? We have no idea. We know that God exists. We don't know what God is. Even our term "God" only indicates God's relationship to created things. What is God in Himself? What is the inner life of God like? We have no way of knowing by our own natural powers.

This is where the doctrine of the Trinity comes into play.

And note, of course, that even though the Trinity, insofar as it indicates something about God's inner life, is beyond reason, note that it is not discordant with what we can know. You'll focus on your prophet's insistence that God is One. I agree that God is one: Plato, Plotinus, Iamblichus and Proclus insist on this very point. But I also know that God is The Good Itself, and as the Good is an overflowing, creative, productive fullness. In the words of Plotinus, God is the dunamis panton (the [productive] power of [making] all things). The infinity of His Goodness "overflows," so to speak, with "sheer excess," so to speak. When I hear of the doctrine of the Trinity, I am told by Faith what is consistent with reason: "The inner life of God is not barren and sterile. It's dynamic and expressive."

Traditio
July 26th, 2015, 07:48 PM
Apostolic Succession & The Bible

So essentially you place the word of bishops/the church above all else. This is a problem in itself as it gives authority to Christians to refuse to agree with their own scripture and interpret it according to their personal ideas. In other words, how do you know that you are following the true teachings of Jesus and not the misguidance others may have attributed to him? Notable in this regard is how the scripture warns of false teachings arising even from among church leaders, and that Christians were to compare the teachings of these later church leaders with Scripture. According to the Bible, Jesus is reported to have said, ‘… in vain do they worship me, teaching as doctrines the precepts of men.’ (Matthew 15:9)

Protestants make similar arguments, i.e., that Catholics put "the tradition of men" over the "word of God." A simple overview of the vast plurality of protestant sects, and their vastly different interpretations of the Sacred Scriptures and their corresponding beliefs, however, ultimately shows that what you are suggesting isn't quite right.

It is precisely because my belief in the Sacred Scriptures is grounded in my belief in the authority of the Catholic Bishops, and the Sacred Tradition which they have handed on from the time of Jesus Christ and the apostles themselves, that I am quite sure that I have absolutely no leeway to "refuse to agree with their own scripture and interpret it according to their personal ideas." The sole authoritative interpreter of the Sacred Scriptures is the Church and Her magisterial (teaching) authority, and She cannot change it at whim, but simply hands on to us what She has always held for almost two thousand years.

It is the protestant, not the Catholic, who can be accused of playing fast and loose with scriptural interpretation and changing doctrine at whim. Should a bishop teach heresy, at odds with the received interpretation of the Scriptures, the Church Itself would say (as She has said in many councils): "That is not the tradition that you have received from me. Look and see, for this, and not what you say, is what I have always believed and handed on."


Furthermore, I don’t understand how you can claim apostolic succession is a standard of ‘reasonableness and historical credibility’. There is no record of the names of bishops let alone their biographies. You know practically nothing about the people carrying your creed. Neither is it clear if they can be traced to the apostles.

Can you point to any point in time, from the time of the apostles onwards, in which there have not been bishops who have claimed simply to be handing on a Sacred Tradition which they have received from others? If you wish to deny apostolic succession, then there is a simple way to do so: show me a breach in that succession. Do you wish to deny that the Catholic mass has been celebrated from the time of Jesus Christ all the way to the present day? Then show me a time in between in which the Catholic mass wasn't celebrated.

It is, however, interesting that you want names and biographies. I have such a list just for the bishops of Rome.


Francis A. Sullivan, a Catholic priest and distinguished theologian, believes that apostolic succession is something that is not readily provable in conception, and therefore must be accepted as a matter of faith: ‘Neither the New Testament nor early Christian history offers support for a notion of apostolic succession as “an unbroken line of episcopal ordination from Christ through the apostles down through the centuries to the bishops of today … one must invoke a theological argument based on Christian faith to arrive at the conclusion that bishops are the successors of the apostles “by divine institution”.“ (From Apostles to Bishops: The Development of the Episcopacy in the Early Church)The key words are "by divine institution." It takes an act of faith to believe that the bishops have received the deposit of faith and are handing on that deposit of faith by divine commission. I'm not sure that it takes an act of faith, however, to believe the fact that there is such an unbroken line of bishops, i.e., that there have always been people who have claimed to hold such an office. I mean, you can simply deny that the bishops are conveyers of divinely revealed truth and have a special office instituted by Jesus Christ. That's not the same thing as denying that there have always been bishops since the time of Jesus' apostles.


This is notwithstanding other issues such as the fact that the picture painted by the four gospels of Jesus’ disciples shows several incidences of cowardice and ill fortitude, casting doubt on how successfully they modelled their lives on his, thus undermining Christianity’s first line of teachers.

You are conflating two distinct ideas:

1. The bishops have conveyed divinely revealed truth vis-a-vis Sacred Tradition.
2. The bishops were and are impeccable (sinless).

The affirmation of 1 and the denial of two aren't mutually exclusive. I can assert that St. Peter and the other apostles were sinners, and yet Jesus appointed him and them to positions of teaching authority and entrusted him and them with a deposit of divine revelation

Furthermore, are we talking about prior or posterior to Pentecost and the descent of the Holy Ghost upon the apostles? If you read the Acts of the Apostles, your opinion of the apostles may change.


We also know that characters like Paul who are responsible for much of Christian teaching didn't even meet Jesus.

St. Paul is a strange case. Have you read Acts of the Apostles?

At any rate, even if St. Paul "didn't even meet Jesus" prior to Jesus' passion and death, so what? I don't ground my beliefs solely in the authority of St. Paul. There's also the matter of the eleven apostles (I'm not counting Judas) who did meet Jesus.


Compare all this to the intricate system in Islam of studying each person in the chain of narrators, checking their reliability and memory, checking that the chain is unbroken, cross-examining with other chains, examining the text of the report… to claim you have more credibility in this regard is truly laughable.

The question is who has more credibility to make claims about Jesus. You are telling me that St. Paul didn't meet Jesus. Even if true, however, note the following:

Your prophet definitely didn't meet Jesus.

So I claim, vis-a-vis the Succession of Bishops, to draw my beliefs back to the first hand accounts of at least some eye witnesses.
You draw your beliefs about Jesus back to the first hand accounts of no eye witnesses.

Which one constitutes better evidence? Come on. You can say it.

I mean, just for a moment, let's forget about the fact that we're talking about Jesus and you think that your prophet received infallible truth from God through an angel.

Which one constitutes better evidence? Suppose there's a court case and there's a judge. Each of us has to prove our case. I bring forward the testimony of some eye witnesses. You bring forward the testimony of no eye witnesses. I'm pretty sure that some is more than none, and, as such, constitutes a stronger case.

And note, this is evident prior to any commitment to Catholic or Muslim belief. Just try to look at both sides as an impartial observer, and not as a religious person. These people (the Catholics) purport some eye witnesses. The Muslims purport none. If you didn't already have religious commitments, which would you be inclined to believe solely on the basis of the evidence?

Consider a different case. I believe, on the basis of American historical tradition, what I have learned in school, what people claim to read from prior accounts, etc., that George Washington was the first president of the United States. Suppose someone should come up to me and claim, on the grounds that an angel revealed it to him, that this wasn't true. There is a distinct possibility that I would laugh in his face.


Muslims believe that Jesus was a Prophet of God to whom a revelation was revealed. However, this revelation was not preserved. This does not mean that there is absolutely no truth left in the gospels extant today. The criterion then, for deciding what is true from the Bible and what isn't, is the Qur'an, God's final message to mankind which He promised to protect.

There are a number of reasons why Muslims might quote from the Bible. For example, Muslims believe that the Prophet Muhammad was prophecised in former scriptures. Therefore there is a discussion about such a prophecy in the Bible. Also, since Christians don’t accept the Qur’an as the Word of God, sometimes the Bible is used to discuss with Christians based on their own teachings and in order to stimulate a more unbiased understanding. The Bible is also used to demonstrate to Christians the flaws in their foundation and to challenge them with regards to the claims that they preach to Muslims. Some ex-Christians have even stated that the Bible led them to Islam.

Fair enough. I mean, I ultimately think that your view is erroneous, but I understand the view that you are indicating.

Traditio
July 26th, 2015, 07:49 PM
Islam

You are willing to believe that God can turn into a man, suffer at the hands of His own creation and be killed in a torturous death, yet find it strange that an angel can descend with revelation. Why do you overlook the teaching of your Bible, where we find angels involved in communicating God’s message? See for instance: Acts 7:38, 53; Gal 3:19; Heb 2:2.

Admin, I freely admit, abstractly considered, the possibility. Were I not a Christian, I would admit that it is possible that an angel of God spoke to your prophet (since I am a Christian, I must maintain that it is impossible, since truth cannot contradict truth). I do not fault you, who are not a Christian, for believing in the possibility. Note, however, that "it's possible" is not a good reason to believe something. The Loch Ness Monster and Bigfoot are possible. I don't believe in either.

In order to make a sound transition from believing that something is possible to believing that something is actual, i.e., actually is the case, there has to be some kind of evidence. Abstractly considered, could an angel have spoken to your prophet? Sure. Is it particularly likely? No. Furthermore, given the nature of the claim, the standard of evidence is fairly high. [Note that it takes "more likely than not" to win a civil suit in the United States.] I want to put this in perspective, Admin:

What reason would a Jew have to believe? Tradition holds that God Himself wonderfully led them out of Egypt, worked wonders for them in the desert for 40 years, miraculously obtained victory for them over their enemies, and publically revealed the Law to them at Mt. Sinai. Evidence? The paschal feast and the (Aaronic and Levitical) priests are evidence, for starters. Have you read the books of the Law (the first five books of the Old Testament)?

What reason does a Christian have to believe? Eye witness accounts that somebody, who in turn had raised others from the dead, himself rose from the dead and appeared to them over the course of several weeks, after which He ascended into heaven. Evidence? The Bible, Sacred Tradition and the Catholic Mass.


Please explain how we could know about details regarding Paradise, Hell, the Day of Judgement, the angels and devils, and about the countless details of how we should worship God, all on our own? Which false things?

Well, for starters, the alleged "details regarding Paradise, Hell, the Day of Judgement, the angels and devils, and about the countless details of how we should worship God." Not to mention your prophet's views on marriage, divorce and truthfulness. :P

A propos of Hell: Seriously. What's up with the Zaqqum? Do you really believe that? In the literal sense? How?


I’m not sure where you got this from. Ibn Rushd set out to show that there is no incompatibility between religion and philosophy when both are properly understood. He used Quranic injunctions to reflect upon and to observe Allah’s signs as an injunction to philosophize. I find it difficult to believe he could have such a low opinion of Islam when he was a Maliki Jurist (Qadi). By his own account, he took 20 years to produce Bidayat al-Mujtahid wa Nihayat al-Muqtasid, his primary work of fiqh. Despite his enemies' charges to the contrary, Ibn Rushd did not attempt to subvert religion using philosophy, but rather used analytical methods to better understand the message and tenets of Islam.

Averroes: 1. affirmed the eternity of the world and 2. denied the immortality of the human soul. What does your prophet say?


This can only be said by one so ignorant of Islamic teaching and history.

You cannot be a good Muslim and a good philosopher. My evidence for this is the difference, on the one hand, between Avicenna and Averroes, on the one hand, and Al Ghazali, on the other hand. In the end, either the Muslim must throw away the books of Plato and Aristotle, or else, he must throw away his Quran (note that even Avicenna, though less willing to attack Islamic doctrine, quietly rejects parts of it in his Metaphysics of the Healing: the sufferings of Hell and the joys of paradise, as described by your prophet, he says, actually will happen, but only for non-philosophers, and it will be purely imaginary). You'll tell me that medieval Arabia was an intellectual oasis. I'll grant this freely. St. Thomas Aquinas owed an incredible debt to Averroes and Avicenna, and I consider them both to have contributed greatly to the history of philosophy. But what's happened since then? Islamic philosophy is all but dead. Al Ghazali has basically won. If you take your start from philosophical inquiry, there is absolutely nothing that would lead you to accept Islam. The only way that a Muslim philosopher arises is if he is already a Muslim and then decides to start doing philosophy. Invariably, he is led to deep embarrassments. Historically, this is just true.

Compare this to the fact that Neoplatonists flocked to Christianity. Why? Because they recognized a need of reason that reason itself couldn't solve.

Here, a quote from a metaphysics lecture of mine is worth repeating (and, of course, I hope that you enjoy reading it; I'm rather fond of this bit of my writing):


If only, indeed, it were possible to 'see' the One (which is also the Good and the Beautiful), all of the desires of the heart would be brought to rest. Whatever is desired, we have learned, is desired under the description of 'good.'[1] Finite goods fail to satisfy us completely because we have a natural desire, a natural longing for infinite good. Only God, seen 'face to face,' can satisfy our natural longing for infinite good (because He alone is the infinite and subsistent Good). True and perfect happiness only can be found in the 'face to face vision' of God.[2]
'But how shall we find the way? What method can we devise? How can one see the ‘inconceivable beauty’ which stays within the holy sanctuary and does not come out where the profane may see it?'[3]

Spoken another way, how are we to approach a God 'who…inhabiteth light inaccessible, whom no man hath seen, nor can see'?[4]
Plotinus was too much of an optimist. He thought that we could attain to a vision of God by intense intellectual effort, contemplation and an ascetic life-style. The later Neoplatonists were not nearly as optimistic: they turned to theurgy (literally “working the gods”; pagan “religious” ritual magic involving statues and the like).[5] St. Augustine, I think, accurately describes the sad plight in which the later Neoplatonists found themselves:

'Whom could I find to reconcile me to you [the Lord]? Should I have approached the angels? What kind of prayer? What kind of rites? Many who were striving to return to you and were not able of themselves have, I am told, tried this and have fallen into a longing for curious visions and deserved to be deceived. Being exalted, they sought you in their pride of learning, and they thrust themselves forward rather than beating their breasts. And so by a likeness of heart, they drew to themselves the princes of the air, their conspirators and companions in pride, by whom they were deceived by the power of magic. Thus they sought a mediator by whom they might be cleansed, but there was none.'[6]

Only God, then, seen 'face to face,'[7] can make us truly happy. The creature, however, cannot 'storm heaven,' so to speak, and see God by his own efforts.[8] That utterly lies outside of his own power. God is infinite, and in His subsistent unity and being (esse) ('being' here understood in the Thomistic sense), He utterly transcends all creatures. Only God can make us happy, and we are utterly incapable of 'seeing' Him by our own natural efforts. [Note, of course, that even if human nature were 'perfect,' so to speak, in its own order, it would still be utterly incapable of seeing the infinite God. How much worse is our plight in fact, given the fact that humanity has fallen through original sin, and given that its natural powers have been obscured, disordered and darkened because of the Fall of our first parents, and given that 'all have sinned,' [9] and so deserve, not the sight of God, but everlasting punishment?][10]
The metaphysician, of course, can be sure that it must at least be possible to see God face to face. His innate desire for happiness and his natural desire to know causes attest to that. He also knows, however, that the possibility of such a vision utterly escapes the natural resources of the rational or intellectual creature. He cannot, by his own power, ascend to God. He must echo, then, the cri de coeur (cry of the heart) of the Prophet Isaiah, crying 'out of the depths'[11] to God:

'That thou wouldst rend the heavens, and wouldst come down…'[12]

[1] Common scholastic maxim; St. Thomas Aquinas repeats it.

[2] St. Thomas Aquinas, ST I-II, q. 3, a. 8.

[3] Plotinus, Enneads I.6.8.1-4.

[4] 1 Timothy 6:16.

[5] R.T. Wallis makes a note of this in Neoplatonism.

[6] St. Augustine, Confessions 10.42.67; I am quoting from the Barnes & Nobles edition, translated by Albert C. Outler).

[7] 1 Corinthains 13:12.

[8] St. Thomas Aquinas, ST I, q. 12, a. 4.

[9] Romans 3:23

[10] Romans 6:23; Matthew 25:41.

[11] Psalms 129:1 in the Vulgate and Douay Rheims; Psalms 130:1 in other editions.

[12] Isaiah 64:1.


You boast of a tradition because it is 2000 years old (if it can be proven that this is indeed the teaching of the apostles and actually coming from Jesus ).

Let's suppose for a moment that I can't prove that it's from Jesus. Nonetheless, it must be admitted that the tradition is 2000 years old and comes to us from an unbroken succession of bishops.


Yet the central message of Islam was the faith of the very first man who set foot on this earth.

According to Muslims. In point of fact, you can only really trace your religious beliefs back to your prophet, who lived in 7th century Arabia. There is literally no evidence that his views line up with the actual views of Moses, Noah, Adam, Jesus, or anyone else, except, of course, in the most general sense that Mohommed taught that there is one God and that we should worship that one God. But then, in that sense, even the Neoplatonists were Muslims, at this point, asserting that someone is a Muslim is pretty much trivial and not worth saying.




The Qur’an is the greatest miracle that the Prophet brought, which captivated even the most eloquent of people in the most eloquent of times, challenging them to produce a single chapter than would be comparable to it. Numerous other miracles were performed which are too many to list here. They include the splitting of the moon, various prophecies regarding the future, miracles related to the earth (water flowing from between his fingers, increasing the quantity of food and water, the palm tree yearning for him, stones greeting him), miracles related to animals, miracles related to his Companions and miracles related to the cure of disease, to name but a few.

1. Why don't you believe in the words of John Smith of the Mormon sect?

2. I'm unaware of these miracle accounts. Would you go into more detail about them and the sources from which you are getting your information about them?


Muslims across the globe recite the very Words of God as revealed to His Final Messenger . I find this to be a miracle occurring on a daily basis.

I could make the same claim about the Catholic mass. "Catholics across the globe, on a daily basis, witness a priest recite the very words of the Incarnate God on the night before he died." This is certainly evidence of something, but do you really want to claim that it's a miracle?


If you’ve reviewed the links above then I assume you already have some idea of what the evidences are. We can begin by considering two broad categories: the Prophethood of Muhammad , and the miracle of the Qur’an.

Regarding the first, whichever aspect of the life of the Prophet we study, we see evidence for the truth and credibility of his message. He was from a noble family and one who, from the beginning, demonstrated a virtuous character and was well-respected amongst his people. They called him ‘Al-Amin’ (the trustworthy) and considered his advice. This is a very important sign of the truth of his Prophethood as someone who has never lied to people would not lie regarding the Lord of the Worlds.

1. I'm inclined to deny that your prophet was virtuous, as does St. Thomas Aquinas (Summa Contra Gentiles, book I, chapter 6, paragraph 4). On this point, for example, your prophet's alleged marriages have always been criticized by Christian opponents, and I feel no need to go into more detail, especially since I'm not nearly educated enough on the matter to make conclusive arguments about it. [Though, even at first glance, the Zaynab affair (I mean "affair" in the general, non pejorative/moral sense), even considered by itself, alone would be sufficient, even were I not a Christian, to preclude me from ever entertaining the legitimacy of your prophet.]

2. Even if he was perfectly virtuous (even by my more strenuous Christian standards; Islamic morality has always been considered lax by Christians), this is no proof that he was divinely inspired. Here, I want you to consider the matter from my Christian perspective, and I'll be more "to the point": what evidence can you give me that cannot be explained either by natural explanations, or else, by the intervention of Satan and the devils/fallen angels (consider, e.g., Corinthians 1:20)? Granted that Satan and the fallen angels are not causes of virtue and good works, even naturally good and wise men can be deceived by the fallen angels, who are pure intelligences of much greater power and intellectual prowess than mere human beings. So let us suppose that natural explanations cannot explain what you are ascribing to your prophet (of which I am not convinced). What about Satanic influence? (Note, I am not asserting this positively; I simply am asking what evidence you have to believe otherwise.)

"Put you on the armour of God, that you may be able to stand against the deceits of the devil. [12] For our wrestling is not against flesh and blood; but against principalities and power, against the rulers of the world of this darkness, against the spirits of wickedness in the high places" (Ephesians 6:11-12).


You make an accusation that he was deluded or insane. If examined, this claim does not stand whatsoever. The Prophet displayed no symptom of insanity at any time in his life. No friend, wife, or family member suspected or abandoned him due to insanity. To the contrary, they viewed him as an example to be followed and found from him a solution to their problems. The Prophet preached for a long time and brought a Law unknown in its completeness and sophistication to an ignorant society. If he was insane, it would have become obvious to those around him in the decades of his teaching. When in history did an insane man preach his message to worship One God for ten years, three of which he and his followers spent in exile, and eventually became the ruler of his lands? Which insane man has ever won the hearts and minds of people who met him and earned the respect of his adversaries? Delusion cannot explain the detailed legal codes and rulings that would be followed by millions over centuries, providing guidance in all areas of life including divorce, inheritance, finance, moral character and social justice. Delusion cannot explain 600 pages of revelation to an illiterate man that would be inimitable by the most talented around him, that would be memorised, recited and taught every day. Delusion does not explain the distinct difference that would come over him when he was receiving revelation, as witnessed by his Companions.

Again, why do you not believe in the words of John Smith of the Mormon sect? Your prophet doesn't hold the monopoly on "well respected and apparently virtuous people who claimed to be divinely inspired and produced written texts."


The second category of discussion is the Qur’an. For people who have no knowledge of the Arabic language and the science of Tajweed, it’s easy to make such remarks. Owning a book about the language is a far cry from actually knowing the language to appreciate it. Millions of Muslims are non-Arabs yet the impact the Qur’anic recitation has on them cannot be expressed in words.

We have a whole science in Islam dedicated to the recitation of the Qur’an. The pronunciation of letters, the degrees in tones, nasalization and the different qualities are so well documented in Arabic that the script comes together as a well-defined, well-oiled machine.

Remember that the Qur'an was not revealed to the Prophet as a book, nor was it dispersed or preached primarily in written form - it was through recitation that is was primarily received and dispersed. Even non-Muslims appreciate this point. The following is written by Michael Sells, a Professor of Religion who speaks about the Qur'an to non-Muslim readers:
As the students learn these Suras, they are not simply learning something by rote, but rather interiorizing the inner rhythms, sound patterns, and textual dynamics - taking it to heart in the deepest manner. Gradually the student moves on to other sections of the Qur'an. Yet the pattern set by this early, oral encounter with the text is maintained throughout life. The Qur'anic experience is not the experience of reading a written text from beginning to end. Rather, the themes, stories, hymns, and laws of the Qur'an are woven through the life stages of the individual, the key moments of the community, and the sensual world of the town and village. Life is punctuated by the recitation of the Qur'an by trained reciters who speak from the minarets of mosques, on the radio, and from cassettes played by bus drivers, taxi drivers, and individuals.

Thus, anyone attempting to answer the challenge must produce for us a recitation - not just a written composition. So let us see if these critics can produce for us a recitation that matches the quality of such:

I checked out the other threads on this point, and I think I more fully understand what you are saying. The Quran apparently has a special "style" of composition which is neither poetic nor prose, and yet still conveys meaning, and apparently, nobody has been able to mimic the Quran's style.

That's very interesting, but as an outsider, I feel compelled to ask: "So what?" That's not proof of divine intervention. Apparently, the Quran makes the claim, according to another thread, that even humans and djinn (which, for the record, I have no reason to believe even exist), working together, could not produce something similar. The evidence for this is that all attempts so far have been failed. But let us suppose that no human being can produce something similar. The fact that no human being has succeeded or can succeed (let us suppose) does not prove that a fallen angel couldn't do it. Why shouldn't I think that the Quran was produced by Satan?

If you tell me that the Quran says many true things, then I'll answer you that Satan quoted the Hebrew scriptures to Jesus when He fasted in the desert.

[Note, of course, that I do not say this to cause offense; any person of any religious faith should ask himself such questions: why should I believe this? Why can't this be explained by natural or human causes? Granted that it's supernatural, why shouldn't I think it's a demonic hoax? In the case of Jesus, I answer: I believe on the authority of the testimony of the Catholic bishops. Resurrection from the dead and ascension into heaven cannot be explained by natural or human causes. Even if it could be a demonic hoax, I nonetheless see a need of reason for something like the Incarnation, passion and death of Jesus to happen. I need an intermediary (because God alone can satisfy the desires of the heart, and I can't attain Him on my own; for this, a participation in the inner life of God, able to be effected only by the love of charity, is necessary) and a savior (because of the infinite debt of Justice that I owe to God and my unending merit for punishment and condemnation because of my sins). I am in need of divine grace, both because of the natural limits of human nature, and also because of my woundedness, my fallenness, because of my sins. This is evident from natural reason. Consider, again, the fact that in the relatively early Church, Platonism was considered a kind of "halfway house," so to speak, to Christianity.]

Traditio
July 26th, 2015, 08:29 PM
One final point, Admin, which deals both with the headings "Islam" and "Apostolic Succession."

It is granted, I assume, that the OP is directed to a Christian audience. Alright. Well, here's a further hindrance from me entertaining the words of your prophet. I'm sure that you're aware that, in U.S. criminal law, before a case ever goes to the trial, a judge has to determine whether or not there's even a case to be made. Let us, therefore, step back for a moment and forget about the evidence which is to be presented at the "trial," so to speak, of your prophet.

Is there even a case to be made? What possible purpose could a new revelation, after Jesus, possibly serve, whether be to your prophet or to anyone else? In the Summa Theologiae I-II, q. 98, a. 6, corp., St. Thomas indicates the reason for the Old Law being given when it was given:


For man was proud of two things, viz. of knowledge and of power. He was proud of his knowledge, as though his natural reason could suffice him for salvation: and accordingly, in order that his pride might be overcome in this matter, man was left to the guidance of his reason without the help of a written law: and man was able to learn from experience that his reason was deficient, since about the time of Abraham man had fallen headlong into idolatry and the most shameful vices. Wherefore, after those times, it was necessary for a written law to be given as a remedy for human ignorance: because "by the Law is the knowledge of sin" (Romans 3:20). But, after man had been instructed by the Law, his pride was convinced of his weakness, through his being unable to fulfil what he knew. Hence, as the Apostle concludes (Romans 8:3-4), "what the Law could not do in that it was weak through the flesh, God sent [Vulgate: 'sending'] His own Son . . . that the justification of the Law might be fulfilled in us."

Again, consider St. Thomas Aquinas' arguments (ST I-II, q. 98, a. 3, corp.) for the Old Law fittingly being given through the ministry of the angels:


The Law was given by God through the angels. And besides the general reason given by Dionysius (Coel. Hier. iv), viz. that "the gifts of God should be brought to men by means of the angels," there is a special reason why the Old Law should have been given through them. For it has been stated (1,2) that the Old Law was imperfect, and yet disposed man to that perfect salvation of the human race, which was to come through Christ. Now it is to be observed that wherever there is an order of powers or arts, he that holds the highest place, himself exercises the principal and perfect acts; while those things which dispose to the ultimate perfection are effected by him through his subordinates: thus the ship-builder himself rivets the planks together, but prepares the material by means of the workmen who assist him under his direction. Consequently it was fitting that the perfect law of the New Testament should be given by the incarnate God immediately; but that the Old Law should be given to men by the ministers of God, i.e. by the angels. It is thus that the Apostle at the beginning of his epistle to the Hebrews (1:2) proves the excellence of the New Law over the Old; because in the New Testament "God . . . hath spoken to us by His Son," whereas in the Old Testament "the word was spoken by angels" (Hebrews 2:2).

In brief summation, consider the words of St. John's gospel: "For the law was given by Moses; grace and truth came by Jesus Christ" (John 1:12).

The Jewish revelation met a need: to give us a knowledge of sin and to convict us of our need for a savior. Being proud of our natural knowledge and our natural capacity for virtue, human beings were permitted to rely on their own natural powers...and fail. When they recognized their need for divine help, God gave them the Law through Moses, that they might know sin. Nonetheless, they were still deluded in their own natural capacity for virtue and right living. They thought that they, by their own power, could fulfill the Law.

So God gave them the Law. They were permitted to try to uphold the Law. And they failed.

The grace to fulfill the Law (and the aim of divine law, which is a right ordering to God), which can be effected only by charity/divine love, comes to us through Jesus, the Incarnate Divine Word.

So believed Christians for over 600 years before your prophet ever even saw the light of day, and so preached Catholic bishops throughout the world, at Jesus' commission to "spread the gospel to all nations."

If you tell me that your prophet was needed to preach to a barbarous and faithless people, then I'll answer you that the Church already has commission to preach to all nations.

So before we even consider the evidence, why should I even entertain the possibility that your prophet might have spoken truly? What possible purpose could further revelation serve, given the coming of Jesus Christ? I believe that God has revealed Himself in the person of the Incarnate Word, who is the One High Priest, the One Mediator, the One Sacrifice for sins. What possible need could we have of further public revelation, when we have the Incarnate Word, in whom God the Father has uttered all that He has to say (as the Catholic Catechism puts it), who has promised to be with the Church "for all ages, even until the end of time"?[Note, for your prophet to tell me otherwise, I have to sit down and listen to him in the first place; on our hypothesis, I'm not even there yet. Your prophet presupposes that Jesus has come, in some fashion or other, and that the gospels were once books of uninterpolated revelation; he claims, I assume, that interpolations came later. Yet, when I already have the traditions handed down to me by the Church, what cause have I to listen to your prophet, who wasn't even around until about 600-700 years later? At this point, your claims about your prophet's manner of living and the literary qualities of the Quran simply ring hollow. He assumes that I am a Christian, before he even opens his mouth to speak, and then wishes to persuade me that the beliefs, which I already hold, are wrong. Then where are his proofs? If he brings forth misinterpretations of Christian doctrine and faulty arguments, then I can only treat him with the same contempt and disregard (no offense intended) as I would a Manichaeus, a Nestorius, a Sabellius or an Arius. Will he say that he has for his support the words of an angel? Then I will answer him with the words of St. Paul: "But though we, or an angel from heaven, preach a gospel to you besides that which we have preached to you, let him be anathema" (Galatians 1:8). And in explanation, I'll go on: "And no wonder: for Satan himself transformeth himself into an angel of light" (2 Corinthians 11:14).] And granted that I listen to your prophet, why on earth should I think that your prophet has the last word? Why shouldn't I look for some further revelation elsewhere? You assert that Christianity was obsolete less than 700 years into the game, but your prophet lived roughly 1300-1400 years ago.

Traditio
July 26th, 2015, 09:13 PM
Addendum: the founder of Mormonism apparently is called "Joseph Smith," not John Smith. Mea culpa.

Nick M
July 27th, 2015, 07:07 AM
Protestants make similar arguments, i.e., that Catholics put "the tradition of men" over the "word of God."

Not comparable. You know that islam does not follow the Bible. The child molester made things up just like the Book of Mormon. Whereas your "Pope" and myself and the others are using the exact same book.

aikido7
February 23rd, 2019, 10:06 PM
I have to tell you that after 9/11, I felt it was my patriotic duty to read the Qur’an. It’s a long slog and difficult to read because the Muslim Holy Book is written in a way that presents the longest chapter first and ends up with the shortest chapter.

Historical order is next to impossible to determine.

Reading the Bible is much easier.

You can clearly see that Mark was the first gospel written and then you can follow how both Luke and Matthew changed Mark to suit their own agendas.

Christianity is a developing tradition like any other of the world’s faiths and Bible study reveals to us HOW it developed.

Not so easy with the Qur’an.

But I was surprised and a little bewildered after reading it.

There was nothing about Shari’ah Law, except for one reference [that I could find] regarding the word “Sharia" but it defines it as “path” not law--as in Allah’s reassurance that Muhammed is “on the right path.”

In fact, Muhammed himself said “The most excellent jihad is the one against the Self.”

There is nothing about 72 virgins.
There is nothing about demanding certain dress codes for Muslim women.

If Muhammed was a pedophile, then so was Joseph, Mary’s husband. In the ancient world, women could be married as soon as they reached their menses. Mary could well have been very young as well.

I found that the subject of polygamy was along the lines of "O.K. if you males insist, but it’s better if you don’t.”

And jihad doesn’t mean Holy War. It means striving.
Muhammed himself said “The most excellent jihad is the struggle against the Self.”

Violence is sometimes mandated, but it is no more encouraged than the biblical verses which inform us that Jesus wears blood-soaked robes and slaughters the unfaithful until the resulting blood and gore “reaches the level of a horse’s bridle for a distance of 200 miles.”

What has always struck me in the Bible is that God is described as an old woman giving birth, a potter, an eagle, a mountain, a storm, a wind, etc. while the God of Islam and divine mercy are described in terms of water: springs, pools, lakes and rain.

Just what one would expect of a tribal, desert culture where water literally means life.

Jacob
February 24th, 2019, 06:18 PM
I have to tell you that after 9/11, I felt it was my patriotic duty to read the Qur’an.

I read it for knowledge and because our nation had been attacked and I didn't even know the enemy. Of course I must temper this with that I care about each and every person.

Apple7
February 24th, 2019, 07:20 PM
I have to tell you that after 9/11, I felt it was my patriotic duty to read the Qur’an. It’s a long slog and difficult to read because the Muslim Holy Book is written in a way that presents the longest chapter first and ends up with the shortest chapter.

Historical order is next to impossible to determine.

Reading the Bible is much easier.

You can clearly see that Mark was the first gospel written and then you can follow how both Luke and Matthew changed Mark to suit their own agendas.

Christianity is a developing tradition like any other of the world’s faiths and Bible study reveals to us HOW it developed.

Not so easy with the Qur’an.

But I was surprised and a little bewildered after reading it.

There was nothing about Shari’ah Law, except for one reference [that I could find] regarding the word “Sharia" but it defines it as “path” not law--as in Allah’s reassurance that Muhammed is “on the right path.”

In fact, Muhammed himself said “The most excellent jihad is the one against the Self.”

There is nothing about 72 virgins.
There is nothing about demanding certain dress codes for Muslim women.

If Muhammed was a pedophile, then so was Joseph, Mary’s husband. In the ancient world, women could be married as soon as they reached their menses. Mary could well have been very young as well.

I found that the subject of polygamy was along the lines of "O.K. if you males insist, but it’s better if you don’t.”

And jihad doesn’t mean Holy War. It means striving.
Muhammed himself said “The most excellent jihad is the struggle against the Self.”

Violence is sometimes mandated, but it is no more encouraged than the biblical verses which inform us that Jesus wears blood-soaked robes and slaughters the unfaithful until the resulting blood and gore “reaches the level of a horse’s bridle for a distance of 200 miles.”

What has always struck me in the Bible is that God is described as an old woman giving birth, a potter, an eagle, a mountain, a storm, a wind, etc. while the God of Islam and divine mercy are described in terms of water: springs, pools, lakes and rain.

Just what one would expect of a tribal, desert culture where water literally means life.


I have studied Koranic Arabic for the past quarter century, and the conclusion that I have arrived at is that the authors of the Koran were early Arab Christians that paraphrased the Holy Bible and set it to rhyme in Arabic - thus, original order and context no longer exists, for the most part, which makes it a challenge to decipher...

>75% of the Koran was copied from the Biblical Book of Revelation, alone...

aikido7
February 25th, 2019, 02:48 PM
I have studied Koranic Arabic for the past quarter century, and the conclusion that I have arrived at is that the authors of the Koran were early Arab Christians that paraphrased the Holy Bible and set it to rhyme in Arabic - thus, original order and context no longer exists, for the most part, which makes it a challenge to decipher...

>75% of the Koran was copied from the Biblical Book of Revelation, alone...

Interesting theory. It certainly invites further study.

There is a word called “Syncretism” that is commonly used by historians of religion:

1. The attempted reconciliation or union of different or opposing principles, practices, or parties, as in philosophy or religion.

2. The merging, as by historical change in a language, of two or more categories in a specified environment into one, as, in nonstandard English, the use of was with both singular and plural subjects, while in standard English was is used with singular subjects (except for you in the second person singular) and were with plural subjects.

When two religions meet each separate faith gathers information, dogma and theology from the other religion.

Christian missionaries to Africa have noticed the power of syncretism when the African converts place their newly-taught religion within a wider context of the tribal beliefs they themselves have inherited.

Those who do a focused study of Christian texts have found patterned echoes of other foundational myths of other faiths. There is a strong case to be made of how Luke wrote his gospel and heavilly borrowed the form, the rhythms and the sentence structures of Homer’s Oddessy. Homer’s legendary book was well-known in the ancient world. Luke no doubt borrowed some of its form to make his gospel more memorable.

The structure of the human brain is the same everywhere, so many mythic and legendary stories show up in many forms over and over in human cultures.

Apple7
February 25th, 2019, 07:02 PM
Interesting theory. It certainly invites further study.

There is a word called “Syncretism” that is commonly used by historians of religion:

1. The attempted reconciliation or union of different or opposing principles, practices, or parties, as in philosophy or religion.

2. The merging, as by historical change in a language, of two or more categories in a specified environment into one, as, in nonstandard English, the use of was with both singular and plural subjects, while in standard English was is used with singular subjects (except for you in the second person singular) and were with plural subjects.

When two religions meet each separate faith gathers information, dogma and theology from the other religion.

Christian missionaries to Africa have noticed the power of syncretism when the African converts place their newly-taught religion within a wider context of the tribal beliefs they themselves have inherited.

Those who do a focused study of Christian texts have found patterned echoes of other foundational myths of other faiths. There is a strong case to be made of how Luke wrote his gospel and heavilly borrowed the form, the rhythms and the sentence structures of Homer’s Oddessy. Homer’s legendary book was well-known in the ancient world. Luke no doubt borrowed some of its form to make his gospel more memorable.

The structure of the human brain is the same everywhere, so many mythic and legendary stories show up in many forms over and over in human cultures.


The Koran is different in this respect, as the authors openly admit that they merely copied the previous Holy Bible (alkitab) and converted it piecemeal into Arabic.

aikido7
February 25th, 2019, 10:40 PM
The Koran is different in this respect, as the authors openly admit that they merely copied the previous Holy Bible (alkitab) and converted it piecemeal into Arabic.

Since, like the Bible, the Qur’an is a human product, I doubt that the “authors” could even be identified.
Evidence is lacking as to any admissions made by the original scribes. They are lost to history.

Apple7
February 26th, 2019, 07:51 PM
Since, like the Bible, the Qur’an is a human product, I doubt that the “authors” could even be identified.
Evidence is lacking as to any admissions made by the original scribes. They are lost to history.

The Koran never claims to be divinely inspired, thus, we should not expect that it was.

The Holy Bible, however, does claim to be divinely inspired, thus, we should expect that it is.

aikido7
February 27th, 2019, 02:34 PM
The Koran never claims to be divinely inspired, thus, we should not expect that it was.

The Holy Bible, however, does claim to be divinely inspired, thus, we should expect that it is.

Your post is puzzling to me.

On one hand Islam tells us that Muhammed was a prophet and that Allah dictated his teachings to Muhammed which Muhammed wrote down.

And on the other, you seem to be claiming that the Qu’ran was not divinely inspired.

Muslims believe the Quran was verbally revealed by God to Muhammad through the angel Gabriel.

The world’s faiths do claim many things.
Most of these things are faith statements, theologies or metaphors.
In the case of Christianity, the theology was added much later.

The theology of the crucifixion [blood atonement for remission of human sin] was not in evidence until some 900 years after Jesus’ death by the theologian Anselm of Canterbury.

ok doser
February 27th, 2019, 06:04 PM
Muslims believe the Quran was verbally revealed by God to Muhammad through the angel Gabriel.


:mock: stoopid mooslims

aikido7
February 27th, 2019, 06:39 PM
:mock: stoopid mooslims

You spelled “stupid” wrong.
And you also spelled “Muslims” wrong.

I don’t think it is at all intellligent.
But that is only my opinion.

Apple7
February 27th, 2019, 08:10 PM
Your post is puzzling to me.

On one hand Islam tells us that Muhammed was a prophet and that Allah dictated his teachings to Muhammed which Muhammed wrote down.

And on the other, you seem to be claiming that the Qu’ran was not divinely inspired.

Muslims believe the Quran was verbally revealed by God to Muhammad through the angel Gabriel.

The world’s faiths do claim many things.
Most of these things are faith statements, theologies or metaphors.
In the case of Christianity, the theology was added much later.

The theology of the crucifixion [blood atonement for remission of human sin] was not in evidence until some 900 years after Jesus’ death by the theologian Anselm of Canterbury.

What islam claims, and what the Koran says, are two entirely different things.

No one named 'Muhammad' had anything at all to do with the Koran, according to the Koran.

No angel Gabriel had anything to do with inspiring someone named 'Muhammad' according to the Koran.

Be wary of Islamic myth, lest you fall into its false narrative...

aikido7
February 27th, 2019, 10:51 PM
What islam claims, and what the Koran says, are two entirely different things.
Absolutely. Just like all religions. What Christianity claims and what Jesus actually taught are markedly different.


No one named 'Muhammad' had anything at all to do with the Koran, according to the Koran.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Muhammad_in_the_Quran


No angel Gabriel had anything to do with inspiring someone named 'Muhammad' according to the Koran .

Obviously, not literally. It is a faith claim. It is not history.


Be wary of Islamic myth, lest you fall into its false narrative....

In religion, myth is the closest we can come to absolute truth.

We need stories. Since ancient times, we have turned to stories, tales, and myths in order to articulate our understanding of the cosmos.

Not only do these narratives enable us to describe reality, they portray humanity’s place and purpose in the creation. Stories help us figure out the world, describe norms and ideals, and give us guidelines as to how we are to successfully navigate through life.

As the Native American storyteller once said “I don’t know if the story I am going to tell you really happened. I only know that it is true."

Christian writer C.S. Lewis warns us that "we must not be ashamed of the mythical radiance resting in our theology. For this is the marriage of heaven and earth: Perfect Myth and Perfect Fact: wonder and delight, addressed to the savage, the child, the poet in each one of us no less than the moralist, the scholar, and the philosopher.

bibleverse2
February 28th, 2019, 04:06 AM
Muslims believe the Quran was verbally revealed by God to Muhammad through the angel Gabriel.

That brought to mind:

Galatians 1:8 But though we, or an angel from heaven, preach any other gospel unto you than that which we have preached unto you, let him be accursed.
9 As we said before, so say I now again, If any man preach any other gospel unto you than that ye have received, let him be accursed.

2 Corinthians 11:14 And no marvel; for Satan himself is transformed into an angel of light.

Because Islam falsely claims that the anti-Gospel Koran came through the angel Gabriel, it is one fulfillment of Galatians 1:8-9 (cf. 2 Corinthians 11:14).

Islam is an anti-Gospel religion because, even though it affirms that Jesus is the Christ (Koran 4:157, Koran 5:17,75), it denies that Jesus is the human/divine Son of God (Koran 9:30, Koran 4:171, Koran 5:72), and it denies that He suffered and died on the Cross for our sins (Koran 4:157) and rose physically from the dead on the third day. In order to be saved from hell, people have to believe the Gospel that Jesus is both the Christ and the human/divine Son of God (John 3:16,36; 1 John 2:23), and that He suffered and died on the Cross for our sins and rose physically from the dead on the third day (1 Corinthians 15:1-4, Luke 24:39,46-47, Matthew 20:19, Matthew 26:28).

The reason why it is necessary to believe these things to be saved from hell is because it was only as the human/divine Son of God that Jesus Christ's suffering during His Passion could satisfy God the Father's justice (Isaiah 53:11), which requires an infinite amount of human suffering for sin (Matthew 25:46).

One way to help Muslims understand how Jesus Christ can be God, from everlasting, is to question them about their understanding of the Muslim belief regarding the Koran. For Islam says that there was no time when the Koran did not exist in a spiritual form in heaven, that it has always coexisted with Allah as his word. So Christians can show Muslims that the Bible says that before Jesus' incarnation, there was no time when He did not exist in a spiritual form in heaven. He has always coexisted with God the Father as God the Word (John 1:1,14).

This is not to suggest that the Muslim claim regarding the Koran is true, or that the book itself is true. Indeed, again, because Islam falsely claims that the anti-Gospel Koran came through the angel Gabriel, it is one fulfillment of Galatians 1:8-9 (cf. 2 Corinthians 11:14).

chair
February 28th, 2019, 05:35 AM
...
No one named 'Muhammad' had anything at all to do with the Koran, according to the Koran.

...

Do you have a source for this?

Idolater
February 28th, 2019, 10:30 AM
Absolutely. Just like all religions. What Christianity claims and what Jesus actually taught are markedly different.It's interesting to read Christ's epistle to the Gentile king (recorded for us in Eusebius). He doesn't mention anything theologically, but He does confirm what the Gospels depict, that He had attracted quite a following in Judea during His earthly ministry. Because He confirmed something that we read in the Gospels, we Christians can imo justifiably read the Gospels knowing that Christ Jesus Himself confirms that they are true. This is analogous to how we can read the whole New Testament with the same certainty, because we read in the Gospels how the Lord gave God's own teaching authority to His Apostles, and it is this authority that authorized the New Testament; it is why we even have the New Testament, the anthology has been handed down to us from the Apostles, through the authentic pastorate that the Apostles themselves established, presumably acting on the command of Jesus in so doing.

Obviously, not literally. It is a faith claim. It is not history.But Muslims believe that it is history, just as we Christians believe that Christ's Resurrection is nonfiction historical fact. It happened.

Idolater
February 28th, 2019, 10:45 AM
Islam is an anti-Gospel religion because, even though it affirms that Jesus is the Christ (Koran 4:157, Koran 5:17,75), it denies that Jesus...rose physically from the dead on the third day. In order to be saved from hell, people have to believe the Gospel that Jesus...rose physically from the dead on the third day....'Comports with 1st Corinthians 15:14 KJV. If Christianity is true, Islam /the Quran cannot be true.

One way to help Muslims understand how Jesus Christ can be God....The Church spread like wildfire because of the witnesses (in Greek 'witness' is 'martyr') of Christ's Resurrection first and foremost. That was enough to break pagans out of their paganism, and I believe that it's still enough to break Muslims out of their Islam, Jews out of their Judaism, atheists out their atheism, Hindus and Buddhists out of their Hinduism and Buddhism.

If Christ is really risen, then the rest of the authentic Christian faith is confirmed. Christ is God, yes, along with a whole wonderful bundle of other things, but the leading edge of the Christian weaponry is His Resurrection from the dead on the third day. It pierces hearts.

There's a church built around His empty tomb in Jerusalem (it was outside Jerusalem when He rose, but Jerusalem's boundaries grew to include it now).

TrumpTrainCA
March 2nd, 2019, 03:01 PM
Absolutely. Just like all religions. What Christianity claims and what Jesus actually taught are markedly different.

I doubt if you know either one.

Aimiel
March 2nd, 2019, 06:02 PM
In religion, myth is the closest we can come to absolute truth.Hardly. We have the eyewitness testimony of the evangelists; the strongest of which are: Matthew, Mark, Luke and John. They were closely examined by the world's foremost authority on evidence in jurisprudence: Dr. Simon Greenleaf, a founding law professor at Harvard University's School of Law. He was a staunch atheist who was challenged to study the gospels as evidence and take apart the Christian 'myth' by doing so. He took on that challenge, but he found not only that the gospels were true but also were proof that Jesus lived, died and rose again and in point-of-fact is indeed: God, in The Flesh. He wrote a great book on the subject, "The Testimony of the Evangelists," a brief synopsis is below. You can download the whole book on a free PDF HERE (https://www.gutenberg.org/files/34989/34989-pdf.pdf).

Testimony of the Evangelists by Simon Greenleaf (1783-1853)

Greenleaf, one of the principle founders of the Harvard Law School, originally set out to disprove the biblical testimony concerning the resurrection of Jesus Christ. He was certain that a careful examination of the internal witness of the Gospels would dispel all the myths at the heart of Christianity. But this legal scholar came to the conclusion that the witnesses were reliable, and that the resurrection did in fact happen.

--------------------------------------------------------------------------------

In examining the evidence of the Christian religion, it is essential to the discovery of truth that we bring to the investigation a mind freed, as far as possible, from existing prejudice, and open to conviction. There should be a readiness, on our part, to investigate with candor to follow the truth wherever it may lead us, and to submit, without reserve or objection, to all the teachings of this religion, if it be found to be of divine origin. "There is no other entrance," says Lord Bacon, "to the kingdom of man, which is founded in the sciences, than to the kingdom of heaven, into which no one can enter but in the character of a little child." The docility which true philosophy requires of her disciples is not a spirit of servility, or the surrender of the reason and judgment to whatsoever the teacher may inculcate; but it is a mind free from all pride of opinion, not hostile to the truth sought for, willing to pursue the inquiry, and impartiality to weigh the arguments and evidence, and to acquiesce in the judgment of right reason. The investigation, moreover, should be pursued with the serious earnestness which becomes the greatness of the subject--a subject fraught with such momentous consequences to man. It should be pursued as in the presence of God, and under the solemn sanctions created by a lively sense of his omniscience, and of our accountability to him for the right use of the faculties which he has bestowed.

In requiring this candor and simplicity of mind in those who would investigate the truth of our religion, Christianity demands nothing more than is readily conceded to every branch of human science. All these have their data, and their axioms; and Christianity, too, has her first principles, the admission of which is essential to any real progress in knowledge. "Christianity," says Bishop Wilson, "inscribes on the portal of her dominion 'Whosoever shall not receive the kingdom of God as a little child, shall in nowise enter therein.' Christianity does not profess to convince the perverse and headstrong, to bring irresistible evidence to the daring and profane, to vanquish the proud scorner, and afford evidences from which the careless and perverse cannot possibly escape. This might go to destroy man's responsibility. All that Christianity professes, is to propose such evidences as may satisfy the meek, the tractable, the candid, the serious inquirer."

Read the entire summary: HERE (https://www.famous-trials.com/jesustrial/1051-evangeliststestimony).

TrumpTrainCA
March 2nd, 2019, 06:06 PM
Wow. Thats a post right there

Apple7
March 2nd, 2019, 06:08 PM
Do you have a source for this?

Sure.

Any Arabic lexicon proves this point.

The term 'Muhammad' is a passive participle. i.e. it combines the functions of both adjective and verb. It was NEVER a proper name as used in the Koran.

Its four usages in the Koran all have the Biblical Jesus as the referent.

Apple7
March 2nd, 2019, 06:11 PM
I doubt if you know either one.

Go Trump!!!

:up:

Aimiel
March 2nd, 2019, 07:05 PM
Wow. Thats a post right thereIf anyone who has any sense yet pretends to be atheist would read it: they just might change their mind.

Ktoyou
March 2nd, 2019, 07:19 PM
Hardly. We have the eyewitness testimony of the evangelists; the strongest of which are: Matthew, Mark, Luke and John.

I gave you a neg and here is why. Anyone who uses the forum to leave a several page long blog is abusing the forum. No one is going to read for a half hour your blog when they are here to communicate!

Aimiel
March 2nd, 2019, 07:30 PM
I gave you a neg and here is why. Anyone who uses the forum to leave a several page long blog is abusing the forum. No one is going to read for a half hour your blog when they are here to communicate!Sorry you feel that way. I find Dr. Greenleaf's writing inspired and stimulating. It's unique and un-equaled as far as I'm concerned. The type of thinking and the investigation that he put into seeking Truth is exhilarating and I find that most people won't click on a link but might be inclined to gloss over and maybe even read the synopsis of a near one thousand page book which delved into the evidence we have of the single most important Person in history: Jesus. He said that we have more proof of Jesus' life, death and resurrection than we have of any single person in antiquity, simply from the evidence found in the New Testament. Coming from someone with the authority he has regarding court evidence: that says a lot.

Ktoyou
March 2nd, 2019, 07:47 PM
Then you blog it on your own site or here where one can have a blog and allude people to it. Posting all those pages is a :nono: and you know well enough it is.

chair
March 5th, 2019, 01:54 PM
Sure.

Any Arabic lexicon proves this point.

The term 'Muhammad' is a passive participle. i.e. it combines the functions of both adjective and verb. It was NEVER a proper name as used in the Koran.

Its four usages in the Koran all have the Biblical Jesus as the referent.

Uh huh.

aikido7
March 5th, 2019, 11:49 PM
What islam claims, and what the Koran says, are two entirely different things.
Same as our faith. Christianity claims to follow Jesus but yet the most cursory look reveals believers to describesss war, genocide, capital punishment, as redemptive.


No one named 'Muhammad' had anything at all to do with the Koran, according to the Koran.

Muslims believe that the Quran was orally revealed by God to the final Prophet, Muhammad, through the archangel Gabriel (Jibril), incrementally over a period of about 25 years.


]No angel Gabriel had anything to do with inspiring someone named 'Muhammad' according to the Koran.

Be wary of Islamic myth, lest you fall into its false narrative...

The Christian Bible’s quotes from Jesus never say he thought of himself as God, Son of God, Messiah or virgin-born.

Idolater
March 6th, 2019, 10:29 AM
Same as our faith. Christianity claims to follow Jesus but yet the most cursory look reveals believers to describesss war, genocide, capital punishment, as redemptive.Christianity more than any other thing claims that Jesus of Nazareth is risen from the dead.

Muslims believe that the Quran was orally revealed by God to the final Prophet, Muhammad, through the archangel Gabriel (Jibril), incrementally over a period of about 25 years.Right, and it is this alleged "archangel Gabriel" who said that Christ did not rise from the dead. It's why some Christians believe that the actual "archangel" was somebody else. Like Lucifer.

The Christian Bible’s quotes from Jesus never say he thought of himself as God, Son of God, Messiah or virgin-born.It never quotes Him as saying that He rose from the dead either though, so . . . . :idunno:

Apple7
March 6th, 2019, 12:22 PM
Muslims believe that the Quran was orally revealed by God to the final Prophet, Muhammad, through the archangel Gabriel (Jibril), incrementally over a period of about 25 years.




What they believe is not supported by their koran.

Simple fact.

Apple7
March 6th, 2019, 12:22 PM
The Christian Bible’s quotes from Jesus never say he thought of himself as God, Son of God, Messiah or virgin-born.

Incorrect.

advenureside
March 6th, 2019, 01:23 PM
The only hint or even mentioning whatsoever at all concerning The Trinity Doctrine in Islam - is a description concerning - Mary, Allah and Yahoshua, and it calls these three as "Allah, Allah's wife Mary and their conceived son Yahoshua "

Although the Holy Spirit is mentioned in the Quran - but it is only mentioned in the context of - giving revelation and Holy Books, giving signs and strength - also the breath of life and in the Quran The Holy Spirit is also breathing into Mary’s womb to conceive Yahoshua. The Quran condemns and -
decries and warns against the Christians who believe that these three are considered “ the three “ as partners or calls on the title or phrase of - “ THE THREE “ to say that Christians falsely believe in - “ The Three “ as - = Allah, Mary and their conceived son Yahoshua.
This is the only condemnation and objection to any form or elusion or insinuation or any hint of a Trinity in The Quran. The Holy Spirit is never mentioned in the context of " The Three " that Christians have attributed as partners with Allah.

If we take The Quran upon the intended message and upon the word of what it literally says and explains concerning what Allah and Mohammad are saying, that Christians believe that Mary and Allah are a part of the Trinity Doctrine.

Shaykh al-Islam Ibn Taymiyah ) said: - Mary is mentioned alongside the Messiah, because some Christians took her as another god and worshipped her as they worshipped the Messiah. As for those who do not believe in that, they still ask of her what should be asked of God, to the extent that they say to her: Forgive me, have mercy on me, and so on, based on a belief that she will intercede with her son concerning that.

Sometimes they say: O mother of God, intercede for us with God. And sometimes they ask her for their needs, which should be sought from God, and they do not mention intercession. Others worship her as they worshipped the Messiah. - Al-Jawaab as-Saheeh (4/255-256).

The Holy Spirit is not mentioned in The Quran as a part of “ the three / { trinity } “ but the Quran makes its stand against The Trinity, only by the reasoning - of stating “ that God cannot have a son since he has no wife “

Sura. 72:3 - The truth is that - exalted be the Majesty of our Lord - HE has taken unto Himself neither wife nor son.
Tafsir al-Jalalayn - Disbelievers say, 'God is the third of three', gods, that is, He is one of them, the other two being Jesus and his mother, are - [those] who are fixed upon unbelief, shall suffer a painful chastisement, namely, the Fire.

The entire concept of The Trinity Doctrine involving The Father, Son and Sprit are completely absent and nonexistent in the Quran -

I, myself, personally - do not believe that The Father, Son and Spirit are Three Separate, Individual, Distinct Persons - and I have found that The Trinitarians have altered, changed, added to and removed words from the Original Manuscripts in creating their Trinitarian Translations. - - I simply trully believe what the Original Manuscripts say - that these three are One. And not mentioned or described - as Three Persons.

As it explains in - Php 2:4 Look not every man on his own things, but every man also on the things of others. - :5 For think or regard this in / You / yourselves who { You whom also exist } or ( to ) - You who are - also in Christ Jesus.

6 Who, existed in the form / morph of God, thought it not robbery or seizing, taking (by force) being or eXisting equally God: - :7 But an ineffective / vain / voided / non-effect reputation Himself, taking or receiving the form / morph of a servant was in the likeness of men: = human nature.

Yahoshua admitted that He was not a CO EQUAl " not a CO ETERNAL, INDIVIDUAL " who was a - SEPARATE DISTINCT PERSON - from the Father. Nor a part of a Trinitarian concept, nor one in unity or agreement with the Father. But He was in the form / morph of God, - eXisting equally God: - :
But also at the same time - here on earth, as a man - God took on the MORPH - ONLY - JUST as a vain / voided / non-effect - reputation of Himself - and - MADE INTO - and taking or receiving - the form / morph of a servant, - He, THE FATHER - was MORPHED into the likeness of a man: / human. - Yahoshua defines the terms in His message - by saying that He does nothing of His own self - saying that I can do nothing whatsoever of my own doing. - I do not have any power of miracles, of my own " I do not have a will of my own - I CANNOT DO anything, whatsoever - OF MY OWN ... Saying that it is the father only, that does the miracles and the works.

He was not a distinct separated part of God, nor of a trinity in a partnership as a second PERSON of a triune CO EQUAL GODHEAD with a head and a tail. The word GODHEAD - = does not exist in the Bible. - He was not a separate identity or separate person " separated nor individual PERSON - from the father " His will was not " CO EQUAL " nor the same as " in the same WILL as Gods will. He has no power, no control, no miracles, no knowledge and there is no good, no honor and no REPUTATION in Him. -

Saying - why do you call me " good " ? -- " There is NO ONE good but God alone " - - Every time He spoke of his own will, power, majesty and desire and purpose " I find that He denied the trinity doctrine- Yet at the same time, he and the scriptures declare that He was God Himself - He was from heaven, and He PRE EXISTED / ORIGINATED - in the bosom of the father and EXITED from { out from } the bosom of the father to sit in the RIGHT of God until his enemies are a footstool " And the Trinitarian Translation denies and deletes and removes the words that say that He EXITED from { out from } the bosom of the father. = replacing the word ( OUT FROM ) the right of the Father - to say He only sits " AT " the right hand. I believe that Trinitarians and Muslims both deny and reject and or delete from where He originated, in their scripture and translations.

aikido7
March 6th, 2019, 01:26 PM
No one, anywhere, at any time can cause dead people to emerge from their grave and walk around and talk & eat.
So something else is going on.
The resurrection had nothing to do with Jesus’ body.

It was a metaphoric meme in Jewish culture. There were other terms they used for the same thing: “Taken up,” “Sitting at God’s right hand” or descending to Sheol.

It is flatly impossible to write a coherent story of the crucifixion and resurrection without leaving out a single biblical detail.
There is no description of the resurretion event anywhere in the New Testament.

Only the Gospel of Peter [a non-canonical text] offers a striking description of the resurrection:

"But in the night in which the Lord's day dawned, when the soldiers were safeguarding it two by two in every watch, there was a loud voice in heaven; and they saw that the heavens were opened and that two males who had much radiance had come down from there and come near the sepulcher.

"But that stone which had been thrust against the door, having rolled by itself, went a distance off the side; and the sepulcher opened, and both the young men entered.

"And so those soldiers, having seen, awakened the centurion and the elders (for they too were present, safeguarding). And while they were relating what they had seen, again they see three males who have come out from they sepulcher, with the two supporting the other one, and a cross following them, and the head of the two reaching unto heaven, but that of the one being led out by a hand by them going beyond the heavens.

"And they were hearing a voice from the heavens saying, 'Have you made proclamation to the fallen-asleep?' And an obeisance was heard from the cross, 'Yes.’ "

aikido7
March 6th, 2019, 02:09 PM
Incorrect.

“Why do you call ME good? Only God is good.”

"Friend, who made me a judge over you?”

“Go and learn what this means: [God] desires mercy, NOT sacrifice.”

The Baptizer had Jesus wash in the Jordan River to cleans his sins.

We DO find Jesus calling himself God in the Gospel of John.

Jesus is made to say things like, "Before Abraham was, I am."
"I and the Father are one."
"If you've seen me, you've seen the Father.”

esus’ ability to do miracles: in the Hebrew Bible the prophets Elijah and Elisha did fantastic miracles through the power of God – including healing the sick and raising the dead — and in the New Testament so did the apostles Peter and Paul; but that did not make any of them divine. They were humans.


NOTE: John also asserts that Jesus said “The Father is greater than I."

These are all statements you find only in the Gospel of John, and that's very interesting because we have earlier gospels [and we have the writings of Paul], and in none of them is there any indication that Jesus said such things...

Like most great men of the past, Jesus was said to have performed miracles.
In the Hebrew Bible the prophets Elijah and Elisha did fantastic miracles through the power of God--including healing the sick and raising the dead.
In the New Testament so did the apostles Peter and Paul.

But that did not make any of them divine.
They were humans.

For Mark, Jesus was adopted to be God’s son at his baptism.
Before that, he was a human being.

For Luke & Matthew, Jesus was conceived by God and so was literally God’s son, from the point of his conception.

For John, Jesus was a pre-existent divine being--the Word of God who was both with God and was God at the beginning of all things--who became a human.

Here he is not born of a virgin and he is not adopted by God at the baptism (neither event is narrated in John, which is not surprising given John’s theological agenda.

Matthew also emphasized that Jesus was born to be the King of Jews.
Luke is more explicit, putting this into the mouth of the angels "for to you is born this day in the city of David a Saviour who is Christ the Lord."

Idolater
March 6th, 2019, 02:12 PM
No one, anywhere, at any time can cause dead people to emerge from their grave and walk around and talk & eat.
So something else is going on.
The resurrection had nothing to do with Jesus’ body.

It was a metaphoric meme in Jewish culture. There were other terms they used for the same thing: “Taken up,” “Sitting at God’s right hand” or descending to Sheol.

It is flatly impossible to write a coherent story of the crucifixion and resurrection without leaving out a single biblical detail.
There is no description of the resurretion event anywhere in the New Testament.

Only the Gospel of Peter [a non-canonical text] offers a striking description of the resurrection:

"But in the night in which the Lord's day dawned, when the soldiers were safeguarding it two by two in every watch, there was a loud voice in heaven; and they saw that the heavens were opened and that two males who had much radiance had come down from there and come near the sepulcher.

"But that stone which had been thrust against the door, having rolled by itself, went a distance off the side; and the sepulcher opened, and both the young men entered.

"And so those soldiers, having seen, awakened the centurion and the elders (for they too were present, safeguarding). And while they were relating what they had seen, again they see three males who have come out from they sepulcher, with the two supporting the other one, and a cross following them, and the head of the two reaching unto heaven, but that of the one being led out by a hand by them going beyond the heavens.

"And they were hearing a voice from the heavens saying, 'Have you made proclamation to the fallen-asleep?' And an obeisance was heard from the cross, 'Yes.’ "What is your take on Paul's words then in 1st Corinthians 15:14 KJV? From where I'm setting, it looks as though he's saying that if Christ's Resurrection is fiction, then the whole Christian faith is a fraud.

aikido7
March 6th, 2019, 02:46 PM
There is a valid argument within Christianity: The question is whether the resurrection of Jesus was “physical and bodily” or “spiritual and mystical.”

This distinction is helpful. It makes clear that Christians have understood the meanings of Easter in different ways.

But for more than one reason , I don’t like either option.

The early Christian communities did not believe that faith in a resurrection was necessary for forgiveness. Most of them did not preserve any passion narratives--let alone consider the Easter event necessary.

Any representation of Jesus hanging on a cross [whether in paintings, sculptures or mosaics] until well into the 5th century.

Before his death, Jesus was quoted saying to the woman afflicted by a vaginal discharge: "YOUR [I]FAITH HAS SAVED YOU."

But for more than one reason a divine reality, now “one with God” and “at the right hand of God.”

Let’s meditate on the MEANING of Easter.
What can we say with certainty about the underlying meaning of the resurrection?

What is the meaning of Easter resurrection in the gospels and the New Testament?

It’s significant in two fundamental ways:

Jesus lives and is Lord.

The central meaning of Easter is not about whether something happened to the corpse of Jesus

Its central meanings are that Jesus continues to be known and that he is Lord.
The tomb couldn’t hold him.
He’s loose in the world.
He’s still here.
He’s still recruiting for the kingdom of God.

Apple7
March 6th, 2019, 07:31 PM
The only hint or even mentioning whatsoever at all concerning The Trinity Doctrine in Islam - is a description concerning - Mary, Allah and Yahoshua, and it calls these three as "Allah, Allah's wife Mary and their conceived son Yahoshua "


Incorrect.

Firstly, Islam has nothing at all to do with the Koran.

Islam is a poor attempt at interpreting the Koran.

Secondly, the Koran was wholesale paraphrased from the Holy Bible to begin with, by its authors, and most definitely promotes the Biblical Trinity.

Apple7
March 6th, 2019, 07:37 PM
Although the Holy Spirit is mentioned in the Quran - but it is only mentioned in the context of - giving revelation and Holy Books, giving signs and strength - also the breath of life and in the Quran The Holy Spirit is also breathing into Mary’s womb to conceive Yahoshua. The Quran condemns and -
decries and warns against the Christians who believe that these three are considered “ the three “ as partners or calls on the title or phrase of - “ THE THREE “ to say that Christians falsely believe in - “ The Three “ as - = Allah, Mary and their conceived son Yahoshua.
This is the only condemnation and objection to any form or elusion or insinuation or any hint of a Trinity in The Quran. The Holy Spirit is never mentioned in the context of " The Three " that Christians have attributed as partners with Allah.

Incorrect.

The passage to which you allude is the Koranic ayah (which, ironically Muslims are trained to use all the time for their position) actually plainly states that the Trinity is not “three”, but instead, it is “one”, and then proceeds to list out Father, Son, and Spirit…


يأهل الكتب لا تغلوا في دينكم ولا تقولوا على الله
إلا الحق إنما المسيح عيسى ابن مريم رسول الله
وكلمته ألقيها إلى مريم وروح منه فءامنوا بالله
ورسله ولا تقولوا ثلثة انتهوا خيرا لكم إنما الله
إله وحد سبحنه أن يكون له ولد له ما في
السموت وما في الأرض وكفى بالله وكيلا

Ya ahla alkitabi la taghloo fee deenikum wala taqooloo AAala Allahi illa alhaqqa innama almaseehu AAeesa ibnu maryama rasoolu Allahi wakalimatuhu alqaha ila maryama waroohun minhu faaminoo biAllahi warusulihi wala taqooloo thalathatun intahoo khayran lakum innama Allahu ilahun wahidun subhanahu an yakoona lahu waladun lahu ma fee alssamawati wama fee al-ardi wakafa biAllahi wakeelan

4.171 You The Book's family, certainly do not go beyond the limits in your faith, and they do not say on “allah” except The Truth (is) only the Messiah Jesus, Mary's son, “allah’s” messenger, and his Word, cast forth to her, Mary, and Spirit from him; so believe on account of “allah”, and His messengers, and they do not say: "Three." Refrain (it is) agreeable certainly your only “allah” one god glory be to him, that He has certainly been his Son, truly His what is in the heavens and what is in the earth and He sufficed on account of “allah”, a witness.



Observe that this ayah is directed at ‘The Book’s family’ (ahla alkitabi) – which refers to the followers of the Holy Bible; i.e. Christians.

For the Muslim, it then gives instruction as to what the correct interpretation of the Holy Bible needs to be regarding (among numerous things), the concept of the Trinity.


In this classic Islamic one-hit-wonder we are told not to refer to the one “allah” as “Three”, as even his messengers do not say “Three” - because he is not the result of counted things (thalathatun)….and yet, in the very ayah itself it lists-out directly, Father, Son, & Spirit.

This is a classic Koranic example in which the authors display their understanding of the Biblical concept of the Holy Trinity, and give the example of what it is not by the usage of the word “Three”…and what it is, by the example of “one”.

Apple7
March 6th, 2019, 07:40 PM
If we take The Quran upon the intended message and upon the word of what it literally says and explains concerning what Allah and Mohammad are saying, that Christians believe that Mary and Allah are a part of the Trinity Doctrine.

Incorrect.

Firstly, no one named 'Muhammad' had anything at all to do with the Koran, according to the Koran, itself.

Secondly, the Koran confirms its Biblical stance that Mary is NOT part of The Trinity.

Apple7
March 6th, 2019, 07:44 PM
Shaykh al-Islam Ibn Taymiyah ) said: - Mary is mentioned alongside the Messiah, because some Christians took her as another god and worshipped her as they worshipped the Messiah. As for those who do not believe in that, they still ask of her what should be asked of God, to the extent that they say to her: Forgive me, have mercy on me, and so on, based on a belief that she will intercede with her son concerning that.

Sometimes they say: O mother of God, intercede for us with God. And sometimes they ask her for their needs, which should be sought from God, and they do not mention intercession. Others worship her as they worshipped the Messiah. - Al-Jawaab as-Saheeh (4/255-256).



This could be said of Roman Catholics, who are not considered as true Christians to begin with.

Idolater
March 6th, 2019, 07:47 PM
This could be said of Roman Catholics, who are not considered as true Christians to begin with.:Plain:

Apple7
March 6th, 2019, 07:48 PM
The Holy Spirit is not mentioned in The Quran as a part of “ the three / { trinity } “ but the Quran makes its stand against The Trinity, only by the reasoning - of stating “ that God cannot have a son since he has no wife “

Incorrect on all accounts.

The passage already posted above, 4.171, declares that the Holy Spirit is included in The Trinity.

Further still, this very same passage, 4.171, declares that Jesus is THE SON!

Apple7
March 6th, 2019, 07:51 PM
Sura. 72:3 - The truth is that - exalted be the Majesty of our Lord - HE has taken unto Himself neither wife nor son.


Incorrect.

وأنه تعلى جد ربنا ما اتخذ صحبة ولا ولدا

Waannahu taAAala jaddu rabbina ma ittakhatha sahibatan wala waladan

72.3 And that he, high above all greatness our Lord, that he has not taken (a) companion and nor (a) son.

Here, the demons are relaying to you that someone from them says that the Lord does not have a Son.

You apparently believed what they told you without looking to the very next ayah…





وأنه كان يقول سفيهنا على الله شططا

Waannahu kana yaqoolu safeehuna AAala Allahi shatatan

72.4 “And that he was the foolish individual amongst us, he says on “allah” (a) preposterous thing far from the truth.”



See how 72.4 corrects the foolish demon that deceived you into believe that there is no Son?

This foolish one is called-out for what he told you (and you believed) as being a preposterous thing far from the truth.

Thus, this ayah is in complete agreement with the rest of the Koran in proclaiming that Jesus Christ is the Son.

aikido7
March 6th, 2019, 07:54 PM
Jesus is seen by Islam as a great prophet--the same word that Jesus characterized about himself.

Muhammed is seen as the final prophet.

And the Qu’ran says nothing about Shariah Law, dress codes for women, or 72 virgins.

“The most excellent jihad is the one against the Self."
--Muhammed

Apple7
March 6th, 2019, 07:55 PM
Tafsir al-Jalalayn - Disbelievers say, 'God is the third of three', gods, that is, He is one of them, the other two being Jesus and his mother, are - [those] who are fixed upon unbelief, shall suffer a painful chastisement, namely, the Fire.

The passage to which you refer...

لقد كفر الذين قالوا إن الله هو المسيح ابن مريم وقال المسيح يبني إسرءيل اعبدوا الله ربي وربكم إنه من يشرك بالله فقد حرم الله عليه الجنة ومأويه النار وما للظلمين من أنصار لقد كفر الذين قالوا إن الله ثالث ثلثة وما من إله إلا إله وحد وإن لم ينتهوا عما يقولون ليمسن الذين كفروا منهم عذاب أليم

Laqad kafara allatheena qaloo inna Allaha huwa almaseehu ibnu maryama waqala almaseehu ya banee isra-eela oAAbudoo Allaha rabbee warabbakum innahu man yushrik biAllahi faqad harrama Allahu AAalayhi aljannata wama/wahu alnnaru wama lilththalimeena min ansarin laqad kafara allatheena qaloo inna Allaha thalithu thalathatin wama min ilahin illa ilahun wahidun wa-in lam yantahoo AAamma yaqooloona layamassanna allatheena kafaroo minhum AAathabun aleemun

Certainly they whom disbelieved said: "Truly “allah”, he The Messiah, Mary's son,” and The Messiah said: " My son’s of Israel, you worship “allah”, My Lord and your Lord, truly him, he associates a partner with “allah” so certainly “allah”, he forbade on him the Paradise, and his home is the fire, and no wrongdoers from helpers.” Certainly they whom disbelieved said: "Truly “allah” a third (of) three.” And not from god except one god, and lest they do not refrain from what they say, a painful torture will touch whom they disbelieved from them. (5.72 – 73)


These ayahs tell us about what the disbelievers said.

They believe:


1) That “allah” is The Messiah.


Fact is, “allah” is not The Messiah. He never has been and never will be. Thus, the Koran rightly records this as a false statement.




They believe:

2) That Jesus said for Israel to worship “allah” along with Him.

Fact is, Jesus never once said for Israel to worship “allah”, neither with Him, or without Him. Thus, the Koran also rightly records this as a false statement.




They believe:

3) That Jesus associated a partner with “allah”.

Fact is, Jesus never once associated a partnership with “allah”. Thus, the Koran also rightly records this as a false statement.




They believe:

4) That “allah” is a third of three.


Fact is, “allah” is not a third of three, and neither is the Biblical Holy Trinity. Never has been and never will be. Thus, the Koran also rightly records this as a false statement, as well.

Apple7
March 6th, 2019, 07:56 PM
The entire concept of The Trinity Doctrine involving The Father, Son and Sprit are completely absent and nonexistent in the Quran -

Incorrect, as already detailed.

Apple7
March 6th, 2019, 07:59 PM
I, myself, personally - do not believe that The Father, Son and Spirit are Three Separate, Individual, Distinct Persons - and I have found that The Trinitarians have altered, changed, added to and removed words from the Original Manuscripts in creating their Trinitarian Translations. - - I simply trully believe what the Original Manuscripts say - that these three are One. And not mentioned or described - as Three Persons.




As already demonstrated, your knowledge of the Koran is near-zero, thus, we should predict that your knowledge of the Koran's source, The Holy Bible, to be likewise deficient.

Apple7
March 6th, 2019, 08:01 PM
As it explains in - Php 2:4 Look not every man on his own things, but every man also on the things of others. - :5 For think or regard this in / You / yourselves who { You whom also exist } or ( to ) - You who are - also in Christ Jesus.

6 Who, existed in the form / morph of God, thought it not robbery or seizing, taking (by force) being or eXisting equally God: - :7 But an ineffective / vain / voided / non-effect reputation Himself, taking or receiving the form / morph of a servant was in the likeness of men: = human nature.



This thwarts The Trinity, in what fashion?

Do you even know what The Trinity is?

Apple7
March 6th, 2019, 08:06 PM
Yahoshua admitted that He was not a CO EQUAl " not a CO ETERNAL, INDIVIDUAL " who was a - SEPARATE DISTINCT PERSON - from the Father. Nor a part of a Trinitarian concept, nor one in unity or agreement with the Father. But He was in the form / morph of God, - eXisting equally God: - :
But also at the same time - here on earth, as a man - God took on the MORPH - ONLY - JUST as a vain / voided / non-effect - reputation of Himself - and - MADE INTO - and taking or receiving - the form / morph of a servant, - He, THE FATHER - was MORPHED into the likeness of a man: / human. - Yahoshua defines the terms in His message - by saying that He does nothing of His own self - saying that I can do nothing whatsoever of my own doing. - I do not have any power of miracles, of my own " I do not have a will of my own - I CANNOT DO anything, whatsoever - OF MY OWN ... Saying that it is the father only, that does the miracles and the works.




The Son is NOT The Father in The Trinity to begin with...thus, confirming the straw-man argument that you are attacking.

Secondly, you unwittingly confirmed The Trinity as truth by quoting that Jesus does NOT work alone.

The Son functions as a Triune entity.

Apple7
March 6th, 2019, 08:08 PM
He was not a distinct separated part of God, nor of a trinity in a partnership as a second PERSON of a triune CO EQUAL GODHEAD with a head and a tail. The word GODHEAD - = does not exist in the Bible. - He was not a separate identity or separate person " separated nor individual PERSON - from the father " His will was not " CO EQUAL " nor the same as " in the same WILL as Gods will. He has no power, no control, no miracles, no knowledge and there is no good, no honor and no REPUTATION in Him. -



Said scripture, never.

Apple7
March 6th, 2019, 08:10 PM
Saying - why do you call me " good " ? -- " There is NO ONE good but God alone " - - Every time He spoke of his own will, power, majesty and desire and purpose " I find that He denied the trinity doctrine- Yet at the same time, he and the scriptures declare that He was God Himself - He was from heaven, and He PRE EXISTED / ORIGINATED - [B]in the bosom of the father and EXITED from { out from } the bosom of the father to sit in the RIGHT of God until his enemies are a footstool " And the Trinitarian Translation denies and deletes and removes the words that say that He EXITED from { out from } the bosom of the father. = replacing the word ( OUT FROM ) the right of the Father - to say He only sits " AT " the right hand. I believe that Trinitarians and Muslims both deny and reject and or delete from where He originated, in their scripture and translations.


Incorrect.

Jesus taught The Trinity.

Apple7
March 6th, 2019, 08:13 PM
For John, Jesus was a pre-existent divine being--the Word of God who was both with God and was God at the beginning of all things--who became a human.

Again.

Apple7
March 6th, 2019, 08:16 PM
esus’ ability to do miracles: in the Hebrew Bible the prophets Elijah and Elisha did fantastic miracles through the power of God – including healing the sick and raising the dead — and in the New Testament so did the apostles Peter and Paul; but that did not make any of them divine. They were humans.


The 'Power of God' is The Third Person of The Trinity.

Apple7
March 7th, 2019, 09:12 PM
Bump for advenureside...

glorydaz
March 9th, 2019, 06:42 PM
The Baptizer had Jesus wash in the Jordan River to cleans his sins.




Did you really say that? :shocked:

aikido7
March 9th, 2019, 07:36 PM
Did you really say that? :shocked:

Maybe the text really said that the Baptizer was interested in Jesus leasing a Union gas station in Lander, Wyoming.

:rotfl:

glorydaz
March 9th, 2019, 07:39 PM
Maybe the text really said that the Baptizer was interested in Jesus leasing a Union gas station in Lander, Wyoming.

:rotfl:

You find it humorous to accuse Jesus Christ of sin?

aikido7
March 9th, 2019, 08:13 PM
You find it humorous to accuse Jesus Christ of sin?

No.
I just found it amusing that John the Baptizer would be interested in setting Jesus up in retail gasoline sales.

It sounds like you took it literally.

If Jesus was the Lamb of God does it then mean that Mary had a little lamb?

aikido7
March 9th, 2019, 08:19 PM
Did you really say that? :shocked:

John had a monopoly, but Jesus had a franchise.


John was out there all by himself.
Knock off John and you've knocked off John's influence on the politics of the region. Herod realized this and had John killed.

Jesus, on the other hand, gathered 12 disciples. He wandered around and did not always stay in the same place. Knock off Jesus and you still have 12 disciples and probably some other unnamed, unseen disciples out there. They have infiltrated the tissue of the region.

A pathologist's view of it is like this: In the eyes of the Romans, John was a benign tumor, but Jesus was a cancer.

How much "good tissue" would have to be removed to clear the region of the cancer?


Remember, Jesus instructed the disciples to go out and teach and preach in pairs.
This was his program.
This was Jesus bringing the news of the kingdom to “the House of Israel.”

Jesus went to the people.
The baptizer wanted the people to come to him.

Bladerunner
March 11th, 2019, 11:14 PM
The only hint or even mentioning whatsoever at all concerning The Trinity Doctrine in Islam - is a description concerning - Mary, Allah and Yahoshua, and it calls these three as "Allah, Allah's wife Mary and their conceived son Yahoshua "

Although the Holy Spirit is mentioned in the Quran - but it is only mentioned in the context of - giving revelation and Holy Books, giving signs and strength - also the breath of life and in the Quran The Holy Spirit is also breathing into Mary’s womb to conceive Yahoshua. The Quran condemns and -
decries and warns against the Christians who believe that these three are considered “ the three “ as partners or calls on the title or phrase of - “ THE THREE “ to say that Christians falsely believe in - “ The Three “ as - = Allah, Mary and their conceived son Yahoshua.
This is the only condemnation and objection to any form or elusion or insinuation or any hint of a Trinity in The Quran. The Holy Spirit is never mentioned in the context of " The Three " that Christians have attributed as partners with Allah.

If we take The Quran upon the intended message and upon the word of what it literally says and explains concerning what Allah and Mohammad are saying, that Christians believe that Mary and Allah are a part of the Trinity Doctrine.

Shaykh al-Islam Ibn Taymiyah ) said: - Mary is mentioned alongside the Messiah, because some Christians took her as another god and worshipped her as they worshipped the Messiah. As for those who do not believe in that, they still ask of her what should be asked of God, to the extent that they say to her: Forgive me, have mercy on me, and so on, based on a belief that she will intercede with her son concerning that.

Sometimes they say: O mother of God, intercede for us with God. And sometimes they ask her for their needs, which should be sought from God, and they do not mention intercession. Others worship her as they worshipped the Messiah. - Al-Jawaab as-Saheeh (4/255-256).

The Holy Spirit is not mentioned in The Quran as a part of “ the three / { trinity } “ but the Quran makes its stand against The Trinity, only by the reasoning - of stating “ that God cannot have a son since he has no wife “

Sura. 72:3 - The truth is that - exalted be the Majesty of our Lord - HE has taken unto Himself neither wife nor son.
Tafsir al-Jalalayn - Disbelievers say, 'God is the third of three', gods, that is, He is one of them, the other two being Jesus and his mother, are - [those] who are fixed upon unbelief, shall suffer a painful chastisement, namely, the Fire.

The entire concept of The Trinity Doctrine involving The Father, Son and Sprit are completely absent and nonexistent in the Quran -

I, myself, personally - do not believe that The Father, Son and Spirit are Three Separate, Individual, Distinct Persons - and I have found that The Trinitarians have altered, changed, added to and removed words from the Original Manuscripts in creating their Trinitarian Translations. - - I simply trully believe what the Original Manuscripts say - that these three are One. And not mentioned or described - as Three Persons.

As it explains in - Php 2:4 Look not every man on his own things, but every man also on the things of others. - :5 For think or regard this in / You / yourselves who { You whom also exist } or ( to ) - You who are - also in Christ Jesus.

6 Who, existed in the form / morph of God, thought it not robbery or seizing, taking (by force) being or eXisting equally God: - :7 But an ineffective / vain / voided / non-effect reputation Himself, taking or receiving the form / morph of a servant was in the likeness of men: = human nature.

Yahoshua admitted that He was not a CO EQUAl " not a CO ETERNAL, INDIVIDUAL " who was a - SEPARATE DISTINCT PERSON - from the Father. Nor a part of a Trinitarian concept, nor one in unity or agreement with the Father. But He was in the form / morph of God, - eXisting equally God: - :
But also at the same time - here on earth, as a man - God took on the MORPH - ONLY - JUST as a vain / voided / non-effect - reputation of Himself - and - MADE INTO - and taking or receiving - the form / morph of a servant, - He, THE FATHER - was MORPHED into the likeness of a man: / human. - Yahoshua defines the terms in His message - by saying that He does nothing of His own self - saying that I can do nothing whatsoever of my own doing. - I do not have any power of miracles, of my own " I do not have a will of my own - I CANNOT DO anything, whatsoever - OF MY OWN ... Saying that it is the father only, that does the miracles and the works.

He was not a distinct separated part of God, nor of a trinity in a partnership as a second PERSON of a triune CO EQUAL GODHEAD with a head and a tail. The word GODHEAD - = does not exist in the Bible. - He was not a separate identity or separate person " separated nor individual PERSON - from the father " His will was not " CO EQUAL " nor the same as " in the same WILL as Gods will. He has no power, no control, no miracles, no knowledge and there is no good, no honor and no REPUTATION in Him. -

Saying - why do you call me " good " ? -- " There is NO ONE good but God alone " - - Every time He spoke of his own will, power, majesty and desire and purpose " I find that He denied the trinity doctrine- Yet at the same time, he and the scriptures declare that He was God Himself - He was from heaven, and He PRE EXISTED / ORIGINATED - in the bosom of the father and EXITED from { out from } the bosom of the father to sit in the RIGHT of God until his enemies are a footstool " And the Trinitarian Translation denies and deletes and removes the words that say that He EXITED from { out from } the bosom of the father. = replacing the word ( OUT FROM ) the right of the Father - to say He only sits " AT " the right hand. I believe that Trinitarians and Muslims both deny and reject and or delete from where He originated, in their scripture and translations.



Hello advenureside:

You said: "The word GODHEAD - = does not exist in the Bible."

You will find Godhead is Biblical and is in the following passages:

Acts 17:29 ; Rom 1:20 ; Col 2:9

Have a good day sir:

Blade

aikido7
March 12th, 2019, 07:51 PM
The 'Power of God' is The Third Person of The Trinity.

Muslims believe that God is One God. The Jews gave us the idea that God is all-powerful and singular.

aikido7
March 12th, 2019, 07:53 PM
You find it humorous to accuse Jesus Christ of sin?

:rotfl:

glorydaz
March 12th, 2019, 07:54 PM
:rotfl:

Is that a yes?


Maybe I misunderstood you?


Which one do you choose?

Apple7
March 12th, 2019, 08:02 PM
Muslims believe that God is One God. The Jews gave us the idea that God is all-powerful and singular.

Moses was Trinitarian.

aikido7
March 12th, 2019, 08:06 PM
I found out in 2001 that over 90 percent of Muslims disapproved of the attacks, while only 7 percent approved.
And the 90-plus percent disapproved on religious grounds—that is, because of Islam.

Most of the others approved on political grounds because of things like resentment of colonial powers in their land.

Like Christians, Muslims felt uncomfortable when rocket and machine gun bases were built on the property of churches.

The U.S. knew this early on and Secretary of Defense Rumsfeld ordered the bases near Mecca were to be destroyed. If I remember right, the story was a small article on the last page of the NYT.

George Bush’s order to let Muslims escape from America a day after 9/11. At the time, all U.S. aircraft were forbidden to fly.

Few people I talked to knew about the Gallup survey and the escape plot by our president.

Strange, huh?

That’s about when I decided to read the Qu’ran.
I’m glad I did.
I was waaay ahead of the terror fables mentioned by the news media.

aikido7
March 12th, 2019, 08:08 PM
Is that a yes?


Maybe I misunderstood you?


Which one do you choose?

I am amused by the arrogance and ignorance of your question.

:rotfl:

Apple7
March 12th, 2019, 08:22 PM
I found out in 2001 that over 90 percent of Muslims disapproved of the attacks, while only 7 percent approved.


7% of 1.8 Billion is still 126 million.

No small number...

glorydaz
March 12th, 2019, 08:25 PM
I am amused by the arrogance and ignorance of your question.

:rotfl:

Ah, so it's arrogant and ignorant to ask why you accuse our Lord Jesus Christ of sin.

You're looking to be a bit of a ninny, aren't you?


2 Corinthians 5:21 For he hath made him to be sin for us, who knew no sin; that we might be made the righteousness of God in him.

The baptizer did not wash away Jesus' sin. :alien:

glorydaz
March 12th, 2019, 08:27 PM
Muslims believe that God is One God. The Jews gave us the idea that God is all-powerful and singular.


:rotfl:

aikido7
March 12th, 2019, 09:51 PM
I have to disagree. If there is anything in the Bible from Noah where he says “I am a Trinitarian,” then I have to say I don’t understand what you are trying to do.
It seems to me you are taking a modern concept and then trying to retro-fit it back in an ancient culture.

There are many, many metaphors for God named in the Bible. He is a rock, a fire, a storm, an old woman giving birth, a spring in the desert, an eagle, a potter, a mountain and scores of other terms.

But I must say that Moses was not a theologian. He did not know the word, which was invented by Christian theologians centuries after Moses died.

Moses did not “believe” in God.
He knew God.

Even the Ten Commandments said nothing about a triune God.

aikido7
March 12th, 2019, 09:58 PM
:rotfl:

It would be great if we could go back to high school and NOT fall asleep in history class!

glorydaz
March 12th, 2019, 10:00 PM
It would be great if we could go back to high school and NOT fall asleep in history class!

Well, you can't go back, and you're stuck here being asked a question you can't seem to answer. You shouldn't make claims that can't be proven from the Scripture. Else you are merely sounding brass....which is really quite annoying.

Bladerunner
March 12th, 2019, 10:01 PM
I found out in 2001 that over 90 percent of Muslims disapproved of the attacks, while only 7 percent approved.
And the 90-plus percent disapproved on religious grounds—that is, because of Islam.

Most of the others approved on political grounds because of things like resentment of colonial powers in their land.

Like Christians, Muslims felt uncomfortable when rocket and machine gun bases were built on the property of churches.

The U.S. knew this early on and Secretary of Defense Rumsfeld ordered the bases near Mecca were to be destroyed. If I remember right, the story was a small article on the last page of the NYT.

George Bush’s order to let Muslims escape from America a day after 9/11. At the time, all U.S. aircraft were forbidden to fly.

Few people I talked to knew about the Gallup survey and the escape plot by our president.

Strange, huh?

That’s about when I decided to read the Qu’ran.
I’m glad I did.
I was waaay ahead of the terror fables mentioned by the news media.

Do you realize just what 7% of 2 Billion 140,000,000 people who believe in the bad side of ISLAM (if it has a good side). That is roughly 1/2 the size of the U.S. No good can come to any nation with only a part of that number of variants.(terrorist)

Blade

aikido7
March 12th, 2019, 10:02 PM
7% of 1.8 Billion is still 126 million.

No small number...

Be afraid.

Hitler showed films of Jews as a horde of rats running down the street between movies at the theater.
Japanese soldiers were depicted as buck-tooth, glasses-wearing savages in Army recruitment posters.
Christian militias in Africa that slaughtered innocent Muslim families were well-known during the last decade.

aikido7
March 12th, 2019, 10:10 PM
Do you realize just what 7% of 2 Billion 140,000,000 people who believe in the bad side of ISLAM (if it has a good side). That is roughly 1/2 the size of the U.S. No good can come to any nation with only a part of that number of variants.(terrorist)

Blade

Muslims were the first to help raise money for two Jewish cemeteries that were destroyed by hate crimes in both St. Louis and Philadelphia. Using two online sites, the Muslim raised about $60,000 in a matter of hours.

After 9/11, hundreds of Iranians in Tehran took to the street with lighted candles in support of America.

Of all religions, it is Islam that gives the most to charity.

"When Donald Trump believes a terrorist attack by Muslim extremists has taken place, he rarely hesitates before speaking out about it — often regardless of whether authorities have even begun to investigate what actually took place. But when it comes to anti-Muslim hate crimes, Trump’s reactions are often halfhearted, delayed, or nonexistent."

https://www.vox.com/world/2017/6/6/15740628/trump-muslims-terror-twitter

Follow the leader. He says he’s a “stable genius."

glorydaz
March 12th, 2019, 10:10 PM
But I must say that Moses was not a theologian. He did not know the word, which was invented by Christian theologians centuries after Moses died.



Why are you discussing the Bible if you think it was made up?

aikido7
March 12th, 2019, 10:19 PM
Why are you discussing the Bible if you think it was made up?

“Love your enemies.”

He either said it or he didn’t.
You can’t have it both ways.

“The Father makes his sun to fall on the evil and the good and sends the rain to fall on the righteous and the unrighteous.”

Well, actually Jesus was talking about loving your brother and sister in CHIRST. He was NOT really thinking about Muslims or Islam !!!

Jesus was also very aware of heat and drought from the hot sun and the danger and terror of a heavy rainstorm that could easily turn horrific.

--Brother "Pretzel Who Twists."

chair
March 12th, 2019, 10:24 PM
I have to disagree. If there is anything in the Bible from Noah where he says “I am a Trinitarian,” then I have to say I don’t understand what you are trying to do.
It seems to me you are taking a modern concept and then trying to retro-fit it back in an ancient culture.

There are many, many metaphors for God named in the Bible. He is a rock, a fire, a storm, an old woman giving birth, a spring in the desert, an eagle, a potter, a mountain and scores of other terms.

But I must say that Moses was not a theologian. He did not know the word, which was invented by Christian theologians centuries after Moses died.

Moses did not “believe” in God.
He knew God.

Even the Ten Commandments said nothing about a triune God.

This is a good summary of the situation.

glorydaz
March 12th, 2019, 10:24 PM
“Love your enemies.”

He either said it or he didn’t.
You can’t have it both ways.

“The Father makes his sun to fall on the evil and the good and sends the rain to fall on the righteous and the unrighteous.”

Well, actually Jesus was talking about loving your brother and sister in CHIRST. He was NOT really thinking about Muslims or Islam !!!

Jesus was also very aware of heat and drought from the hot sun and the danger and terror of a heavy rainstorm that could easily turn horrific.

--Brother "Pretzel Who Twists."

I can see you have quite a chip on your shoulder.

Jesus told us to love our enemies, because He wanted us to come to Him with faith.

He knew what you don't, that man can never love until he is filled with the love of God.

Bladerunner
March 12th, 2019, 10:25 PM
Muslims were the first to help raise money for two Jewish cemeteries that were destroyed by hate crimes in both St. Louis and Philadelphia. Using two online sites, the Muslim raised about $60,000 in a matter of hours.

After 9/11, hundreds of Iranians in Tehran took to the street with lighted candles in support of America.

Of all religions, it is Islam that gives the most to charity.

"When Donald Trump believes a terrorist attack by Muslim extremists has taken place, he rarely hesitates before speaking out about it — often regardless of whether authorities have even begun to investigate what actually took place. But when it comes to anti-Muslim hate crimes, Trump’s reactions are often halfhearted, delayed, or nonexistent."

https://www.vox.com/world/2017/6/6/15740628/trump-muslims-terror-twitter

Follow the leader. He says he’s a “stable genius."


I have nothing against the Muslim.. However, the Islam religion is a false religion in my theology and opinion. In Iran, I understand that over 20% of the people are converting to Christianity. Because of the hatred for Americans in that country and other Muslim/Islamic countries, GOD has been very busy.

Again, It is not the people as everyone on earth is related through the children of NOAH. The Islam Religion is the problem.

All our Leader (Trump) has to deal with is The Leaders of IRAN. GOD took action (Judgement) against nations based upon their Leaders action not those of the individual people. While I am not comparing Trump to GOD, He is restricted or forced to act for or against a nation based upon their leaders actions.

When you judge Trump, judge the leader of Iran who wants to kill every infidel. That word includes those of the US who do not believe in the ISLAM religion......

It goes both ways.

Have a good day

Blade

aikido7
March 13th, 2019, 01:54 PM
I can see you have quite a chip on your shoulder.
:rotfl:



Jesus told us to love our enemies, because He wanted us to come to Him with faith.
I’m sure you remember when Jesus said, “Love your enemies, because I want to come to me with faith."


He knew what you don't, that man can never love until he is filled with the love of God.
There are many things that you know that I certainly don’t.

aikido7
March 13th, 2019, 02:11 PM
[COLOR="#0000FF"]I have nothing against the Muslim.. However, the Islam religion is a false religion in my theology and opinion. In Iran, I understand that over 20% of the people are converting to Christianity. Because of the hatred for Americans in that country and other Muslim/Islamic countries, GOD has been very busy.
I have nothing against Christianity, “however...."


Again, It is not the people as everyone on earth is related through the children of NOAH. The Islam Religion is the problem.

Some who know the history of the Crusades,
the innocent families and children murdered by Christian militias in Africa,
the horrific snipers and bombs thoughout the 1970s in Northern Ireland,
the wars that our nation has been blessed by God for starting and participating in, the biblical passages where Jesus wears blood-soaked robes and slaughters the unfaithful until the level of blood and gore reaches the height of a horse’s bridle for a distance of 200 miles disagree.

And, the truth that REAL Christians have to give their assent to a list of improbable beliefs, yet the believer can still be a total jerk.



All our Leader (Trump) has to deal with is The Leaders of IRAN. GOD took action (Judgement) against nations based upon their Leaders action not those of the individual people. While I am not comparing Trump to GOD, He is restricted or forced to act for or against a nation based upon their leaders actions.

When you judge Trump, judge the leader of Iran who wants to kill every infidel. That word includes those of the US who do not believe in the ISLAM religion......

It goes both ways.

Not until Christians are able and willing to look within and do a fearless and moral inventory of themselves FIRST.

“You hypocrite! First, remove the beam out of your own eye, and then you can see clearly to remove the speck out of your brother's eye."
--Matthew 7:45

“The Father makes his sun to shine on the evil and the good and sends the rain to fall on the righteous and the unrighteous alike."
--Matthew 5:45

glorydaz
March 13th, 2019, 02:36 PM
:rotfl:



I’m sure you remember when Jesus said, “Love your enemies, because I want to come to me with faith."


There are many things that you know that I certainly don’t.

That's true, and this is one of them. Our Lord was reading from the Law (schoolmaster), and clarifying the meaning of loving your neighbor.


Matt. 5:43 Ye have heard that it hath been said, Thou shalt love thy neighbour, and hate thine enemy. 44 But I say unto you, Love your enemies, bless them that curse you, do good to them that hate you, and pray for them which despitefully use you, and persecute you;

Matthew 22:37-40 37 Jesus said unto him, Thou shalt love the Lord thy God with all thy heart, and with all thy soul, and with all thy mind. 38 This is the first and great commandment. 39 And the second is like unto it, Thou shalt love thy neighbour as thyself. 40 On these two commandments hang all the law and the prophets.

Our Lord understood what you have failed to, and that's the purpose the law was given. It was NOT given to make us righteous (able to love), so you can rebuke people all you want to, and that won't make them love their neighbors or their enemies. The Law was given to show men their guilt and bring them to Christ.



Galatians 3:24 Wherefore the law was our schoolmaster to bring us unto Christ, that we might be justified by faith.

Galatians 3:25 But after that faith is come, we are no longer under a schoolmaster.

aikido7
March 13th, 2019, 03:32 PM
"The most excellent jihad is the one against the Self.”
--Muhammed

I used to think that Paul’s letters were a good reference to early Christian faith.
For decades I never knew that nearly half of Paul’s canonical letters were forgeries.

I am ignorant about many things and I am transparent enough to admit that.
I was luckily to have grown up in a family that valued honesty, caring, fairness and respect.

Self-deprecating humor and brutal honesty has been a really freeing thing for me.

Apple7
March 13th, 2019, 09:03 PM
I have to disagree. If there is anything in the Bible from Noah where he says “I am a Trinitarian,” then I have to say I don’t understand what you are trying to do.
It seems to me you are taking a modern concept and then trying to retro-fit it back in an ancient culture.



Noah?

I mentioned Moses.

Regardless, Noah was also Trinitarian.


Noah worshiped The Triune God...

Gen 6.9
These are the generations of Noah. Noah, a righteous man, had been perfected among his family. Noah walked with HaElohim(literal.. ‘all the Gods’).

Apple7
March 13th, 2019, 09:06 PM
There are many, many metaphors for God named in the Bible. He is a rock, a fire, a storm, an old woman giving birth, a spring in the desert, an eagle, a potter, a mountain and scores of other terms.

The Triune God has 1,000+ names, titles and epithets.




But I must say that Moses was not a theologian. He did not know the word, which was invented by Christian theologians centuries after Moses died.

Moses did not “believe” in God.
He knew God.



Moses wrote about, and worshiped, The Triune God.

Apple7
March 13th, 2019, 09:07 PM
Even the Ten Commandments said nothing about a triune God.

Incorrect.

The First Person of The Trinity commanded Moses to cut two tablets of stone (Deut 10.1; Exo 34.1 – 4), as spoken to Moses by The Second Person of The Trinity (Deut 4.12 – 13; Deut 5.22; Deut 9.10; Deut 10.4), and written by the Third Person of The Trinity (Exo 31.18; Deut 9.10).

Apple7
March 13th, 2019, 09:09 PM
This is a good summary of the situation.

Incorrect.

chair
March 13th, 2019, 10:19 PM
Incorrect.

The First Person of The Trinity commanded Moses to cut two tablets of stone (Deut 10.1; Exo 34.1 – 4), as spoken to Moses by The Second Person of The Trinity (Deut 4.12 – 13; Deut 5.22; Deut 9.10; Deut 10.4), and written by the Third Person of The Trinity (Exo 31.18; Deut 9.10).

Your horrible misreading of the Bible is understandable. After all, you need to shore up your theology. You aren't the first. Ignorance is also common enough. But you are one of God's special creations: you combine all that with endless arrogance.

k0de
March 14th, 2019, 07:27 AM
Christianity more than any other thing claims that Jesus of Nazareth is risen from the dead.
Right, and it is this alleged "archangel Gabriel" who said that Christ did not rise from the dead. It's why some Christians believe that the actual "archangel" was somebody else. Like Lucifer.
It never quotes Him as saying that He rose from the dead either though, so . . . . :idunno:
Right, and it is this alleged "archangel Gabriel" who said that Christ did not rise from the dead. It's why some Christians believe that the actual "archangel" was somebody else. Like Lucifer.

What Angel other than Lucifer himself would say such things about Jesus. Alleluia...

"Then Nebuchadnezzar said, "Praise be to the God of Shadrach, Meshach and Abednego, who has sent his angel and rescued his servants! They trusted in him and defied the king's command and were willing to give up their lives rather than serve or worship any god except their own God. Therefore I decree that the people of any nation or language who say anything against the God of Shadrach, Meshach and Abednego be cut into pieces and their houses be turned into piles of rubble, for no other god can save in this way."
~ Daniel 3:28-3:29 (NIV).

No need to say anything further considering Islam.

Sent from my Moto E (4) using Tapatalk

Apple7
March 15th, 2019, 09:03 PM
Your horrible misreading of the Bible is understandable. After all, you need to shore up your theology. You aren't the first. Ignorance is also common enough. But you are one of God's special creations: you combine all that with endless arrogance.

Show us in scripture - not in your hatred.

k0de
March 15th, 2019, 09:18 PM
Show us in scripture - not in your hatred.Yes show us in scripture. Waiting......


Sent from my Moto E (4) using Tapatalk

k0de
March 15th, 2019, 09:30 PM
Deuteronomy 18: 15 is not taking about Mohamed the prophet and other claims either. This all talking about the Lord Jesus Christ.

"The Lord your God will raise up for you a prophet like me from among you, from your fellow Israelites. You must listen to him"

Sorry Gabriel you error on this scripture. Lol.

Sent from my Moto E (4) using Tapatalk

k0de
March 15th, 2019, 09:35 PM
Sorry Gabriel you error again.

John 14: 16. And I will ask the Father, and he will give you another advocate to help you and be with you forever— 17. the Spirit of truth. The world cannot accept him, because it neither sees him nor knows him. But you know him, for he lives with you and will be in you.

This not Mohamed but the Holy Spirit. You loose again.

Sent from my Moto E (4) using Tapatalk

k0de
March 15th, 2019, 09:40 PM
Sorry Gabriel you error again.

John 14: 16. And I will ask the Father, and he will give you another advocate to help you and be with you forever— 17. the Spirit of truth. The world cannot accept him, because it neither sees him nor knows him. But you know him, for he lives with you and will be in you.

This not Mohamed but the Holy Spirit. You loose again.

Sent from my Moto E (4) using TapatalkPersonally all respect to Muslims. But I think that Gabriel is a fallen Angel like Lucifer. How about you what do you say?

Sent from my Moto E (4) using Tapatalk

Idolater
March 15th, 2019, 10:04 PM
Personally all respect to Muslims. But I think that Gabriel is a fallen Angel like Lucifer. How about you what do you say?

SrmyM 4uiTpakLBLBBLBLBBBBBB

Focus on Christ's Resurrection. It's the central truth of Christianity. It won't hurt Muslims to know that Islam positively denies the central truth of Christianity.

k0de
March 15th, 2019, 10:36 PM
LBLBBLBLBBBBBB

Focus on Christ's Resurrection. It's the central truth of Christianity. It won't hurt Muslims to know that Islam positively denies the central truth of Christianity.I guess you are right. I just get a little Carry away when I hear and study false prophets. Done will do.

Sent from my Moto E (4) using Tapatalk

Idolater
March 15th, 2019, 11:41 PM
I guess you are right. I just get a little Carry away when I hear and study false prophets. Done will do.That Christ's Resurrection was prophesied ahead of time ought to amaze people. The Resurrection itself was a miracle, but that the Resurrection was also prophesied ahead of time is a miracle itself, miracle upon miracle.

chair
March 16th, 2019, 01:27 PM
Show us in scripture - not in your hatred.

I don't hate you. More pity you. I won't argue scripture with you, as you have your own unique "understanding" of the verses, and consider yourself an expert on Biblical Hebrew- though you don't actually know the language. Likewise for your 'expertise' in the Koran- despite your not actually knowing Arabic. Arguing with you would be a nice parallel to arguing with a flat-earther. A flat-earther Knows he is right and everybody else is wrong. which is fine- except that he is dead wrong.

k0de
March 16th, 2019, 01:27 PM
That Christ's Resurrection was prophesied ahead of time ought to amaze people. The Resurrection itself was a miracle, but that the Resurrection was also prophesied ahead of time is a miracle itself, miracle upon miracle.Yes and I believe some of the miracles are because His resurrection that we are justify before God. The Lord, defeated death we the believers are united with him. Proof the gospel is true. The out pouring of the Holy Spirit. And we will be raised like Him.

And so many more.

Sent from my Moto E (4) using Tapatalk

Apple7
March 16th, 2019, 01:42 PM
I don't hate you. More pity you. I won't argue scripture with you, as you have your own unique "understanding" of the verses, and consider yourself an expert on Biblical Hebrew- though you don't actually know the language. Likewise for your 'expertise' in the Koran- despite your not actually knowing Arabic. Arguing with you would be a nice parallel to arguing with a flat-earther. A flat-earther Knows he is right and everybody else is wrong. which is fine- except that he is dead wrong.

Your anti-Semitic hatred is well noted.

You claim to be a Hebrew, and yet, you are too afraid to actually defend your scripture, in ANY language.

The best you can do is continue to pet that rather large chip on your shoulder...

chair
March 16th, 2019, 04:03 PM
Your anti-Semitic hatred is well noted.

You claim to be a Hebrew, and yet, you are too afraid to actually defend your scripture, in ANY language.

The best you can do is continue to pet that rather large chip on your shoulder...

אתה בטח קורא את זה בעזרת תרגום של גוגל
אין לי זמן לבזבז על אנשים כמוך
בטחון עצמי אדיר- וגם חוסר ידע מדהים
ולמה לקרוא לי אנטישמי? כנראה אתה חושב שכך תצליח לגרור אותי לויכוח

כסא
(שבט לוי)

Apple7
March 16th, 2019, 08:03 PM
אתה בטח קורא את זה בעזרת תרגום של גוגל
אין לי זמן לבזבז על אנשים כמוך
בטחון עצמי אדיר- וגם חוסר ידע מדהים
ולמה לקרוא לי אנטישמי? כנראה אתה חושב שכך תצליח לגרור אותי לויכוח

כסא
(שבט לוי)


We don't need google to debate you, Levi...

הפעיל