Absolute_Agent
New member
Yes, but why???
Yes you do, and I already know why you mistakenly believe that.
Sent from my moto e5 play using Tapatalk
Interfaith-oriented Muslim
- Thread starter Absolute_Agent
- Start date
Yes, but why???
Yes you do, and I already know why you mistakenly believe that.
Sent from my moto e5 play using Tapatalk
Idolater
"Foundation of the World" Dispensationalist χρ
Asked and answered:
If I am mistaken then please instruct me, so that I may confidently agree with what you're implying, that Islam does generally believe in the inalienable human right to religious liberty, and to the pursuit of happiness.
You won't because you can't because it's false: Islam does not generally believe in the right to religious liberty.
Absolute_Agent
New member
Twice, yes. The first was an argument of necessity: Essentially, "Jesus' death and resurrection is true because we need it to be--we need Christianity to be an irresistible force."
The second was a scripture reference to Paul's argument, which is similar: we need it to be true because otherwise we're a pack of lunatics. He asserts other false claims such as that Christ was the first to rise from the dead, using faulty logic to imply that without this alleged historical event it is impossible to believe in resurrection at all. Apparently he was unaware that Jesus raised Lazarus from the dead during his ministry, or that Elijah raised a youngster from the dead during his, or that Job and other prophets believed in resurrection long before Jesus ever walked the Earth.
All in good time Idolater, all in good time.
Sent from my moto e5 play using Tapatalk
You're dodging the question.
Is what Paul said, regardless of his authority as an apostle, true or false, that if Christ did not rise from the dead, then Christianity is vain?
Also the inverse, that if Christ DID rise from the dead, then all other religions and belief systems are vain (in other words, only Christianity is true)?
Idolater
"Foundation of the World" Dispensationalist χρ
Man, you're a troll.
Absolute_Agent
New member
It's not for me to define Christianity. However, as I understand it, the apostles had believed that Christ had died, since they thought he was a ghost when he appeared in their midst. Thus, after realizing he was in the flesh, in order to be truthful they could only conclude he had resurrected. They must witness to the truth as they understand it. As a Christian you must be faithful to the truth as passed on to you from those who are authorized as witnesses, according to what you know. That said, Paul's teachings on salvation are very different from Christ's--which means something changed significantly in that span of time. Who do Christians follow, Jesus or Paul?
In Islam, we don't believe Christ ever died. Rather it was made to appear that he did. Thus, he never resurrected from the dead. However he was raised bodily to heaven- that's in the Qur'an. If he had died and resurrected (and the Qur'an reflected this) it wouldn't invalidate our faith in the slightest. We have no problem believing God is capable of doing this, and we do believe in the resurrection of all dead at the time of judgement.
Sent from my moto e5 play using Tapatalk
Congratulations. You've figured out that there is a mystery, but unfortunately:
You've decided it isn't worth investigating.
Absolute_Agent
New member
Oh I've already investigated that issue. I'm curious how you all reconcile the conundrum.
Sent from my moto e5 play using Tapatalk
The rules changed.
Absolute_Agent
New member
The rules for salvation. Prior to Paul, men were taught that they had to obey the law to be saved.
Absolute_Agent
New member
Then how could Paul's claim of Apostleship be legitimate, given that he taught a completely different message than Jesus (AS), whom he pretended to represent?
Sent from my moto e5 play using Tapatalk
This whole thinking thing is a bit beyond you, huh?
You're still, STILL, avoiding the issue, Agent.
Let me ask you directly:
IF Christ DID NOT RISE from the dead, is Christianity vain, for the reasons explained in 1 Corinthians?
Spoiler
Which means that Islam and Christianity will NEVER be compatible, because Islam does not teach that foundational truth.
In what way is the evidence for Christ's death, burial, and resurrection insufficient?
Again, in what way is the evidence for Christ's death, burial, and resurrection insufficient?
You try to dismiss that He died, and assert that the alternative would have no effect on your beliefs, yet if you believed Christ rose from the dead, then you wouldn't be Muslim, because the foundational teaching of Islam is that Christ DID NOT DIE.
Agent: do you understand what a "foundational teaching" is when it comes to belief systems?
================
My questions to you are:
1) IF Christ DID NOT RISE from the dead, is Christianity vain, for the reasons explained in 1 Corinthians?
2) In what way is the evidence for Christ's death, burial, and resurrection insufficient?
3) Do you understand what a "foundational teaching" is when it comes to belief systems?
If nothing else, please respond to these three questions.
Last edited:
Absolute_Agent
New member
I've been thinking this whole time and demonstrating that; is the question so difficult you have to resort to questioning my sanity?
Sent from my moto e5 play using Tapatalk
Absolute_Agent
New member
Actually, you are avoiding the answer starting you in the face, but I'll give my opinion.
Answer: Christianity is not vain, despite Christ not having died and resurrected. The apostles were faithful to what they believed to be true. They could not conceive how it would be possible for Christ to survive the ordeal, and are blameless. The essential message of Christianity remains intact, despite the folly of its adherents. Paul is an exception. He did not witness the alleged death or resurrection, and is not a genuine apostle. He was mistaken to hinge the entire religion on the alleged death and resurrection, and can only be, in my estimation, an imposter. That doesn't invalidate Christianity, but only the false philosophy of Paul. God is able to accomplish His purposes desire all the scheming of men.
I disagree, it only means Paul's philosophy is incompatible with Islam. It's demonstrably different from Christ's teachings (for who the religion is named). It's not called "Paulianity" is it? As such it is not a foundational truth, or true at all.
This is like a whole new thread, but in short, no disciples were present at the alleged death of Christ as they had all fled the scene. Ergo their testimony doesn't stand up in court since it's second hand information--assumption. It's thrown out.
If he had died the Qur'an wouldn't have denied it. God cannot lie. But it is not a foundational teaching of Islam, it only seems so because it's been debated so much. And like I said, Islam could be perfectly intact with or without this alleged event.
The foundational teachings of Islam are encapsulated within the five pillars of faith:
1. Shahada (testimony)
2. Ritual prayer (salat)
3. Charity (zakat)
3. Fasting (Ramadan)
4. Hajj (pilgrimage)
Do you see anything about Jesus' alleged death & resurrection there?
[/QUOTE]
Sent from my moto e5 play using Tapatalk
Not at all. You presented yourself as a dude knowledgeable about the Bible, but the two items we've discussed you've had:
1. A ludicrously inane take, and
2. Comprehension of a mystery, but no explanation.
It's like you read the www.ihategod.com Web site instead of the Bible, getting solely ideas that you can use to mock.
How about you stop, have a nice long think through about your approach and try again. :up:
Absolute_Agent
New member
"How could Paul's claim of Apostleship be legitimate, given that he taught a completely different message than Jesus (AS), whom he pretended to represent?"
It's a reasonable question. Isn't Paul a primary candidate for the subject of Revelation 2:2?
"And you have tested those who say they are apostles and are not, and have found them liars."
You made the claim that the philosophy of Paul represents Christianity; it would be logical to defend your claim--unless you are incapable...
Sent from my moto e5 play using Tapatalk
With one tiny change, it's a question that answers itself.
Why would I be compelled to defend my claim against your ludicrous contributions? :idunno: