Interfaith-oriented Muslim

Absolute_Agent

New member
Shalom, fellow believers in God. I am here to dialogue and perhaps debate theology from an Islamic perspective. I believe that interfaith dialogue is a step towards peace about all people, and this is why I am taking this step. I was raised by Christian missionaries of an interdenominational Protestant persuasion of the Baptist strain, and have studied the Bible extensively on personal basis. Although I expect and welcome high-intensity debate in such a forum, it is my goal to maintain an awareness of our brotherhood in humanity and as believers in God.

Sent from my moto e5 play using Tapatalk
 

Stripe

Teenage Adaptive Ninja Turtle
LIFETIME MEMBER
Hall of Fame
Shalom, fellow believers in God. I am here to dialogue and perhaps debate theology from an Islamic perspective. I believe that interfaith dialogue is a step towards peace about all people, and this is why I am taking this step. I was raised by Christian missionaries of an interdenominational Protestant persuasion of the Baptist strain, and have studied the Bible extensively on personal basis. Although I expect and welcome high-intensity debate in such a forum, it is my goal to maintain an awareness of our brotherhood in humanity and as believers in God.

Sent from my moto e5 play using Tapatalk
We're not here to bring peace.
 

Absolute_Agent

New member
The truth is more important.
Yes, it is. Yet, one would have a hard time pursuing the sublime spiritual truths about God in the middle of a war zone, because he'd be too busy trying to survive. Truth is more important than peace, but peace is conducive to truth's attainment. Likewise, the attainment of truth engenders an inner peace that radiates out into the world.

Sent from my moto e5 play using Tapatalk
 

Idolater

"Foundation of the World" Dispensationalist χρ
Shalom, fellow believers in God. I am here to dialogue and perhaps debate theology from an Islamic perspective. I believe that interfaith dialogue is a step towards peace about all people, and this is why I am taking this step. I was raised by Christian missionaries of an interdenominational Protestant persuasion of the Baptist strain, and have studied the Bible extensively on personal basis. Although I expect and welcome high-intensity debate in such a forum, it is my goal to maintain an awareness of our brotherhood in humanity and as believers in God.
Christians are a thing because of the Resurrection of Christ. If that didn't really happen, then our Scripture tells us that this whole thing is a total sham and fraud.
 

Absolute_Agent

New member
Christians are a thing because of the Resurrection of Christ. If that didn't really happen, then our Scripture tells us that this whole thing is a total sham and fraud.
This was St. Paul's view (1 Cor. 15:17). When speaking of Christianity we are really referring to the philosophy of Paul--although prior to Christianity's official standardization and politicization in the Council of Nicea there were a plethora of discordant views about the nature of Christ, the events surrounding his life and death, and his teachings. Theologically speaking, what constitutes Christianity today is only a small slice of the pie compared to the rich variety and diversity that existed in the original movement immediately following Christ's disappearance from the world.

Sent from my moto e5 play using Tapatalk
 

Idolater

"Foundation of the World" Dispensationalist χρ
This was St. Paul's view (1 Cor. 15:17).
That's what I said. "Scripture." 2nd Peter 3:16 KJV
When speaking of Christianity we are really referring to the philosophy of Paul
In as much as Paul was one of the Apostles, and all the Apostles believed and taught the same faith, sure. I don't think that's what you mean though.
--although prior to Christianity's official standardization and politicization in the Council of Nicea there were a plethora of discordant views about the nature of Christ, the events surrounding his life and death, and his teachings.
No there weren't.
Theologically speaking, what constitutes Christianity today is only a small slice of the pie compared to the rich variety and diversity that existed in the original movement
lol.
immediately following Christ's disappearance from the world.
You mean "following Christ's Ascension, which followed His Resurrection."
 

Stripe

Teenage Adaptive Ninja Turtle
LIFETIME MEMBER
Hall of Fame
Yes, it is. Yet, one would have a hard time pursuing the sublime spiritual truths about God in the middle of a war zone, because he'd be too busy trying to survive. Truth is more important than peace, but peace is conducive to truth's attainment. Likewise, the attainment of truth engenders an inner peace that radiates out into the world.

Sent from my moto e5 play using Tapatalk
Unfortunately, people would rather go to war than hear the truth.
 

Absolute_Agent

New member
That's what I said. "Scripture." 2nd Peter 3:16 KJV
In as much as Paul was one of the Apostles, and all the Apostles believed and taught the same faith, sure. I don't think that's what you mean though.
No there weren't.
lol.
You mean "following Christ's Ascension, which followed His Resurrection."
I'm afraid that your idea that Christianity was a uniform set of beliefs and ideas from day one is a myopic fantasy enforced by the political agenda which adopted this movement as a military expedient. No doubt there were core common threads linking the divergent interpretations, but St. Paul's version just happened to be the one that won, and thus gets to claim itself as the singular authentic interpretation without much challenge because the others, well, they were killed off. I did mean to say "ascended" though, you got that right.

Sent from my moto e5 play using Tapatalk
 

JudgeRightly

裁判官が正しく判断する
Staff member
Administrator
Super Moderator
Gold Subscriber
I'm afraid that your idea that Christianity was a uniform set of beliefs and ideas from day one is a myopic fantasy enforced by the political agenda which adopted this movement as a military expedient.

I'm afraid that whoever taught you this is a revisionist historian.



No doubt there were core common threads linking the divergent interpretations, but St. Paul's version just happened to be the one that won, and thus gets to claim itself as the singular authentic interpretation without much challenge because the others, well, they were killed off. I did mean to say "ascended" though, you got that right.

Sorry, but Paul's writings are considered Scripture according to Peter. Peter, the basket case that he was, was chosen by Jesus Christ, the Son of God, who is God.

So by claiming what you claim above, you're not only presenting a false account of history, but you're calling God a liar, or at the very least, saying that God is not the author of scripture.
 

Absolute_Agent

New member
I'm afraid that whoever taught you this is a revisionist historian.





Sorry, but Paul's writings are considered Scripture according to Peter. Peter, the basket case that he was, was chosen by Jesus Christ, the Son of God, who is God.

So by claiming what you claim above, you're not only presenting a false account of history, but you're calling God a liar, or at the very least, saying that God is not the author of scripture.
It seems you misunderstood me to claim Paul's philosophy was incorrect, when I only claimed that his was one among an assortment of interpretations. Can you provide the reference from the Bible that Peter viewed Paul's writings as scripture? If disagreeing with Peter equates to calling God a liar (God cannot lie) then what does calling Peter a basket case equate to? Jesus himself called Peter the devil, who is "the father of lies."

Sent from my moto e5 play using Tapatalk
 

JudgeRightly

裁判官が正しく判断する
Staff member
Administrator
Super Moderator
Gold Subscriber
It seems you misunderstood me to claim Paul's philosophy was incorrect,

Not what I said nor meant.

when I only claimed that his was one among an assortment of interpretations.

Which is what I was addressing.

Can you provide the reference from the Bible that Peter viewed Paul's writings as scripture?

Therefore, beloved, looking forward to these things, be diligent to be found by Him in peace, without spot and blameless;and consider that the longsuffering of our Lord is salvation—as also our beloved brother Paul, according to the wisdom given to him, has written to you,as also in all his epistles, speaking in them of these things, in which are some things hard to understand, which untaught and unstable people twist to their own destruction, as they do also the rest of the Scriptures. - 2 Peter 3:14-16 http://www.biblegateway.com/passage/?search=2Peter3:14-16&version=NIV

If disagreeing with Peter equates to calling God a liar (God cannot lie)

Also not what I said.

I said that by saying Paul's doctrines were just "one of many," you're calling God a liar, because He is the author of the Bible, using men to write it, Peter being one of them, which makes both Peter's writings, and Paul's due to the above passage, authoritative, not just "one of many interpretations."

then what does calling Peter a basket case equate to?

Having a good understanding of scripture.

Jesus himself called Peter the devil, who is "the father of lies."

Jesus was rebuking Peter, again, because Peter was being a basket case.
 

Absolute_Agent

New member
Not what I said nor meant.



Which is what I was addressing.



Therefore, beloved, looking forward to these things, be diligent to be found by Him in peace, without spot and blameless;and consider that the longsuffering of our Lord is salvation—as also our beloved brother Paul, according to the wisdom given to him, has written to you,as also in all his epistles, speaking in them of these things, in which are some things hard to understand, which untaught and unstable people twist to their own destruction, as they do also the rest of the Scriptures. - 2 Peter 3:14-16 http://www.biblegateway.com/passage/?search=2Peter3:14-16&version=NIV



Also not what I said.

I said that by saying Paul's doctrines were just "one of many," you're calling God a liar, because He is the author of the Bible, using men to write it, Peter being one of them, which makes both Peter's writings, and Paul's due to the above passage, authoritative, not just "one of many interpretations."



Having a good understanding of scripture.



Jesus was rebuking Peter, again, because Peter was being a basket case.
Thanks for the reference. Paul himself specifically states repeatedly in his writings he is speaking from his own opinion, not dictating messages of God (1 Cor. 7:12, 1 Cor. 7:25, 2 Cor. 11:17). Which is what I said essentially, and what Peter says (no mention of scripture in the verse you quoted--that's something you interpreted into it of your own initiative). So is Paul calling God a liar too, or contradicting himself? I think not, he is more quick to suggest he himself is a liar (Romans 3:7)--with noble intentions albeit.

Sent from my moto e5 play using Tapatalk
 

JudgeRightly

裁判官が正しく判断する
Staff member
Administrator
Super Moderator
Gold Subscriber
Thanks for the reference. Paul himself specifically states repeatedly in his writings he is speaking from his own opinion, not dictating messages of God (1 Cor. 7:12, 1 Cor. 7:25, 2 Cor. 11:17).

This is called special pleading.

Paul does both, claiming revelation from God AND his own opinion.

Which is what I said essentially, and what Peter says (no mention of scripture in the verse you quoted--that's something you interpreted into it of your own initiative).

In what way was my quote of scripture something that was my own interpretation?

You seem to be denying what the passage clearly says...

"Rest of the scriptures" inherently implies that there's more than what they had (which would have been the Torah and whatever other writings were available). So apart from "the rest of the scriptures," what else is there that Peter is talking about but what he's talking about, which is Paul's epistles?

So is Paul calling God a liar too, or contradicting himself?

Neither. God gave Paul the authority to make such statements.

I think not, he is more quick to suggest he himself is a liar (Romans 3:7)--with noble intentions albeit.

:AMR:
 

Absolute_Agent

New member
This is called special pleading.

Paul does both, claiming revelation from God AND his own opinion.

And where exactly would I find Paul claiming to be revealing original messages from God? How would one distinguish when he's giving revelation vs. personal opinion? Is it clearly documented each time or kind of mishmashed all together?

In what way was my quote of scripture something that was my own interpretation?

By using a very superficial reading of the passage. If in your recognition Paul's writings are a mix of revelation and personal opinion, Peter could not have been referring to the entire body of Paul's writings as scriptures, in fact he found much of it difficult to understand so probably didn't read all or even most of it. He could only with certainty be showing of The specific scriptures he himself was referencing, as also referenced by Paul. In other words, as quoted by them both, not in the sense that he or Paul considered themselves to be revelators of scripture. In any case, Peter is a basket case so it's only prudent to take his statements with a grain of salt.

Neither. God gave Paul the authority to make such statements.

:AMR:

If then Paul is revealing scripture when he admits his entire philosophy is a lie (Romans 3:7), my only logical conclusion is to assume his writings to be false until independently verified--or at the very best, flights of conjecture.

Sent from my moto e5 play using Tapatalk
 

Stripe

Teenage Adaptive Ninja Turtle
LIFETIME MEMBER
Hall of Fame
If then Paul is revealing scripture when he admits his entire philosophy is a lie (Romans 3:7), my only logical conclusion is to assume his writings to be false until independently verified--or at the very best, flights of conjecture.

That's fine. Just don't expect to get very far with your interfaith stuff when you reject the foundational body of work of Christianity.
 

Absolute_Agent

New member
That's fine. Just don't expect to get very far with your interfaith stuff when you reject the foundational body of work of Christianity.
"That's fine" ? Don't you have a theological solution to this conundrum? How can Christians follow Paul knowing he's an admitted liar? My perspective is that his lie is somewhat a well-intended lie of necessity---and also of utility, accomplishing a just goal. Not that I agree with his choice yet I understand it. And it is important also to be aware of it if one is a seeker of truth. Are Christians not seeking truth?

Sent from my moto e5 play using Tapatalk
 

Absolute_Agent

New member
Easy. He wasn't lying.

You don't seem to be very "interfaith" if you're going to call the man who wrote the foundational Christian doctrines a liar. :idunno:
I only quote his own words--you blame me for this?

"For if the truth of God hath more abounded through my lie unto his glory; why yet am I also judged as a sinner?" Romans 3:7

Clearly Paul's philosophy was that white lies are ok if they result in the glorification of God. This is a flawed way of thinking. He also admits this is his own "wisdom," not divine revelation:

"But if our unrighteousness commend the righteousness of God, what shall we say? Is God unrighteous who taketh vengeance? (I speak as a man)" Romans 3:5

Clearly, in his opinion (typical of Pharasaical tradition of which he was a part), lying and sinning could accomplish God's purposes. Someone who thinks this way cannot be trusted, as they are in delusion. Earlier JudgeRightly flatly called St. Peter a "basket case". At least Peter was honest though.

Either Paul was telling the truth about lying or lying about lying. In either case, "Not lying" is not a possible conclusion. You don't seem very interested in the truth, which is what you claimed Christians were supposed to be all about... Either you aren't really a Christian or Christians don't really follow Paul's teachings and aren't really interested in the truth.

Interfaith dialogue doesn't mean pretending to agree on everything. What it does mean is openness, honesty and respect about our beliefs, and this is what I strive for.

Sent from my moto e5 play using Tapatalk
 
Top