A question about Christianity...

[ohnnyj]

I have been brought up in a Christian home but have had and continue to have questions regarding the validity of my religious beliefs. There are many questions that I (nor anyone for that matter) can answer at 100% accuracy. There are countless religions on this earth telling people that one way or another is the only way. Obviously there are many people who are going to end up being wrong.

As far as the original topic goes I do remember reading in Phillipians 2 that Paul indicated that Jesus voluntarily gave up some of his power in order to come to earth in human form and die on the cross for our sins. Now, I suppose as you have done before, that you will argue that the validity of the Bible is in question. And indeed this is one of the many things that push doubts into my analytical mind. But one can say the same thing about all religious works, including the Qur'an that you seem to profess as fact. Again, no one can be 100% sure.

I am not trying to be biased or start an argument, I have serious questions about these sorts of issues and search continually for answers that I feel no one will ever be able to provide.

 

[GreatBarracuda]

Originally posted by: ohnnyj
But one can say the same thing about all religious works, including the Qur'an that you seem to profess as fact.

I have read the Bible and only then have I formed my opinion of it. Have you actually read the Qur'an? I cordially invite you to examine my claim and then form your own opinion.

Here is a starting point.

 

[aplefka]

It seems this thread was solely created for the OP to pass off his beliefs as superior.

It's funny, I can see in his latest post he mentions the Qur'an. Funny how the bible predates the Qur'an by how many hundred years?

 

[GreatBarracuda]

Originally posted by: aplefka
It seems this thread was solely created for the OP to pass off his beliefs as superior.

It's funny, I can see in his latest post he mentions the Qur'an.

I only mentioned Qur'an or Islam when it was first brought up by others.

Originally posted by: aplefka
Funny how the bible predates the Qur'an by how many hundred years?

About 600 years. And this proves what? Has it occurred to you that a lot of distortions could happen to a text in 600 years?

Edit: My study of the Bible is very limited. I am continuing to learn more as time goes on. Can you say the same about the Qur'an? Have you actually considered it with an open mind?

 

[MadPeriot]

Thats like asking "Can God create a rock so heavy even himself cannot lift it?"

 

[Attrox]

I am working so at my workplace I am an employee. But at home I am only a brother and a roomate to my brother and my roomates. At the same time I am also a son to my parents. I encompass these 3 distincts characteristics but yet I am still me, Attrox.

Maybe this illustration can help to grasp a little understanding about the Trinity concept. This is by no means a perfect explanation because it is still limited to our human condition.

 

[TBone48]

Originally posted by: GreatBarracuda

Originally posted by: aplefka
It seems this thread was solely created for the OP to pass off his beliefs as superior.

It's funny, I can see in his latest post he mentions the Qur'an.

I only mentioned Qur'an or Islam when it was first brought up by others.

Originally posted by: aplefka
Funny how the bible predates the Qur'an by how many hundred years?

About 600 years. And this proves what? Has it occurred to you that a lot of distortions could happen to a text in 600 years?

Edit: My study of the Bible is very limited. I am continuing to learn more as time goes on. Can you say the same about the Qur'an? Have you actually considered it with an open mind?

Well I guess there could be plenty of distortions in the Koran as well, since it's been around for a long time too. I don't think this is really a good place for a discussion like this(as I jump into it anyway). YOu seemto me to be pretty set in your beliefs so the only reason to start a thread on this topic without mentioning your religious affiliation from the start would be to engage in some kind of flame baiting. If you want to find out about Christianity, go to a forum on RELIGIONS, not technology!

 

[feralkid]

Originally posted by: Nik





It doesn't take an expert to read the goddamn book.

Wow, just....wow.

 

[JackBurton]

You guys need to lay off Nik. You'd be pissed too if people kept insulting YOUR imaginary friend?

 

[kinev]

Nik was right, in this case at least. This thread was started as flame bait by the OP. He could have said it more tactfully, but Nik's initial impression was dead on.

I am actually rather impressed that it has remained civil, though. GreatBarracuda and I disagre on the topic, but at least we aren't being too overzealous. It just takes a long time to read what he wrote, think about it, and write a response. There are your occasional typical ATOT responses, but all in all, it has been an educational thread for me. Good job, ATOT!

 

[GreatBarracuda]

Originally posted by: kinev
Nik was right, in this case at least. This thread was started as flame bait by the OP. He could have said it more tactfully, but Nik's initial impression was dead on.

I am actually rather impressed that it has remained civil, though. GreatBarracuda and I disagre on the topic, but at least we aren't being too overzealous. It just takes a long time to read what he wrote, think about it, and write a response. There are your occasional typical ATOT responses, but all in all, it has been an educational thread for me. Good job, ATOT!

In case you are forgetting, I am the OP . My intention with this thread was never to disrespect Christianity in any way. I was and still am looking for someone to explain to me how the trinity can be comprehensible to the human mind. So far, many individuals have tried, and I appreciate their efforts, but the end result has been nothing but an attempt to convince me that 1 is actually equal to 3.

One is one ... or three thirds. If it is the latter, it is no longer a whole and the three parts depend on each other to achieve unity. God, however, is alone in His divinity. He needs no partners or helpers and does not depend on anyone.

I thank everyone for their participation and civility. Maybe, next year when Easter comes, you will be reminded of this thread and the issues raised here and come to an informed conclusion of your own.

 

[kinev]

Originally posted by: GreatBarracuda
It is not about my "feelings about God". It is about God's changless realities. His words never change, His laws never change. His call never changes. The same call of monotheism that has been proclaimed by his noble prophets throughout time. It is for this reason, that I reject Jesus' divinity and all parts of the Bible which profess it.

I have never said that I don't believe the entire book. In fact I would not be a Muslim if I did so as it is a strict requirement of Islamic faith to believe in the divine inspiration of the revealed texts of David, Moses and Jesus, i.e. the Psalms, the Torah and the Bible.

Okay. We both agree that God is unchanging. If you believe in the Divine inspiration of the Bible, then you beleive that it is the word of God.

Originally posted by: GreatBarracuda
In addition to my response to BEL6772's comments above, what you are saying is no different. It is not a "different argument". I'm questioning the very authenticity of the Bible, and you are saying it is a "different argument"? There are NO explicit claims of divinity made by Jesus in the Bible. Some of his words, with a lot of effort, can be INTERPRETED as such, but there is nothing that can be taken as irrefutable proof, which is a necessary requirement.

First you claim that Jesus never EXPLICITLY CLAIMED to be God. I showed you, what...7 explicit claims in the Bible (which you see as Divinely inspired). Now you say that it takes interpretation to say that Jesus was claiming to be God?!?! How am I supposed to interpret:
"I and the Father are one.
"Father, just as you are in me and I am in you."
"as we are one: I in them and you in me"
"If you really knew me, you would know my Father as well. From now on, you do know him and have seen him."
"Anyone who has seen me has seen the Father"
"Don't you believe that I am in the Father, and that the Father is in me?"
"Believe me when I say that I am in the Father and the Father is in me"
Nope. You're wrong. There is no interpretation required in these passages. Jesus is claiming to be God. Because we both agree that the Bible is divinely inspired, then Jesus is God.

Originally posted by: GreatBarracuda
Furthermore, his miraculous acts cannot be used to portray his divinity because Jesus himself has said: ?By myself I can do nothing...? (John 5:30)

You love John 5:30 and suggest that this indicates that Jesus is not God. Let's look 11 verses before that to get some context. John 5:19-23 "Jesus gave them this answer: ?I tell you the truth, the Son can do nothing by himself; he can do only what he sees his Father doing, because whatever the Father does the Son also does. For the Father loves the Son and shows him all he does. Yes, to your amazement he will show him even greater things than these. For just as the Father raises the dead and gives them life, even so the Son gives life to whom he is pleased to give it. Moreover, the Father judges no one, but has entrusted all judgment to the Son, that all may honor the Son just as they honor the Father. He who does not honor the Son does not honor the Father, who sent him."
Jesus is once AGAIN stating his deity in the verse you are taking out of context to use to say that Jesus was not divine. Jesus is clearly claiming to be God. No interpretation necessary, although that is probably what you will attribute this to.

Originally posted by: GreatBarracuda
If you do want to argue to this end, I can say by the same token what of the miracles performed by Moses and the other prophets before him? Is it any less miraculous to part the sea at a strike of the staff than it is to raise someone from the dead? Is Moses also divine in this regard?

No, moses was not divine. He never claimed to be. Jesus did. It's funny that you bring him up, though. Since you mention Moses, do you know why Moses never entered the promised land? It was when he cast his staff upon the rock to bring forth water. He was under the impression that he was performing the miracle, not God. For this, God didn't allow Moses into the promised land. Jesus explicitly claims that he himself is performing his miracles. Moses was punished for thinking he was, Jesus was not punished at all because he is God.

Originally posted by: GreatBarracuda
Also, can you honestly say that the verses from the Bible I have quoted do not contradict the Bible of today? I can portary parts of the Bible and Jesus' sayings as truly monotheistic and you can use others to portray Jesus' divinity. On the whole, however, one cannot deny the clear contradictions in the book and the sheer differences in the two messages being preached in the Bible.

I can honestly say that I don't see a contradiction in the Bible. I don't know which verses that you are specifically refering to, though. Let me know which ones and I'll expand upon my thoughts.

Originally posted by: GreatBarracuda
God Almighty Himself. Infact God challenges any human being to disprove the veracity of his words, i.e. the Qur'an, in no less than four different occassions in the Qur'an in 2:23, 17:88, 10:38, 11:13.

For 1400 years no one has been able to meet this challenge and yet it is still open to men and women of intellect today, including you. Many of its claims have been proven scientifically and with each passing day and advances in science, its truth is only strenghtened. It is truly a miracle]!

Well, I have never read the Qur'an, but I have been meaning to. I won't insult either of our intelligence's by linking to the many sites that show the errors and contradictions in the Qur'an. That would be juvenile.

Originally posted by: kinev
Islam (to the best of my knowledge, correct me if I'm wrong) teaches that one must perform the 6 Pillars of Islam and be a good person to be with Allah. There is a heavenly score-card where the tally is kept. Your salvation under Islam is not assured. Do you ever know if you have performed enough or been good enough?

Originally posted by: GreatBarracuda
If you are trying to say that Islam's obligatory rites are a burden, then you couldn't be more wrong. They are so seamlessly integrated into a Muslim's life that they are anything, but an incumbrance.
Let me quote: "The Muslim must seek to remember God at all times. He must be mindful that everything he is, everything he does, everything he knows and understands, is due to the Mercy of God. In acknowledging this, he remembers the fact that death lies in wait and he does not know when he will depart from this worldly life."
This is why prayer is important pillar of Islam. To a believer, it is a blessing, a chance to connect with God, an opportunity to remember Him and a time to offer thanks to Him for His countless favours.

Okay, I get that prayer is important to Muslims. It's important to Christians, too. Am I right about the path of salvation in Islam, though? Is it the pillars plus being a good person?

Originally posted by: kinev
How can I, a imperfect man, ever hope to "earn" my way into heaven with good works? As I said before, God's standard is perfection. If I even miss one prayer time or eat one meal at the wrong time of day during the wrong time of the year, then I am not perfect and I have not lived up to God's standards. This method sounds convoluted and it seems anything but simple.

Originally posted by: GreatBarracuda
Where did you get the idea that God's standard is perfection? God, Himself is perfect. The same cannot be said of His creation. And God knows fully well this fact as He is the one who created us! He knows our weaknesses and shortcomings. As a human being and servant of God, one can only try his best to fulfil the commandments of God and to follow the path of righteousness laid out by his noble messengers.

Well, you said that the central aspect of a religion should "be simple and free from any convoluted philosophy". Your words. Since this is a technical forum, I showed you:
Christianity=Salvation through faith in Jesus and his sacrifice=100% assurance of me in Heaven.
Simple. Easy to understand. Assured.

Islam=Salvation through the 6 pillars(you did not correct me when I said this the first time, so I am assuming this is right)=works/Heavenly score card=insecure=???
Have I been a good enough Muslim? What does my score card look like? Am I good enough to earn my way into Heaven? Why and how can a perfect God possibly accept me if I am not perfect? Not so simple or assured.

Originally posted by: kinev
How do you know that you will spend eternity with God? I am 100% sure I will, are you?

Originally posted by: GreatBarracuda
I know because God tells me in the Qur'an through the prophet Muhammad (p.b.u.h):
?And when My servants ask you concerning Me, then surely I am very near; I answer the prayer of the suppliant when he calls on Me, so they should answer My call and believe in Me that they may walk in the right way. 2:186?
You see, being the creation we have the responsibility to obey God FIRST simply by virtue of the fact that He is God, the only magnificent being worthy of worship, and THEN He most assuredly responds with His infinite mercy and compassion. This is the 100% guarantee you ask for. This is what makes a Muslim work all his life in the hope of the good company of His creator in the hereafter. To a believing Muslim, and by believing I mean a truly believing Muslim, it is by no means a life of anxiety, but a seemingly endless wait to meet his maker.

No, I don't see the 100% guarantee. Have you ever not obyed God? Sure you have. We have all sinned. Well, then you are not perfect. Well what percentage of the time do you have to obey God to get into Heaven? 50%? 75%? I bolded your qoute where you say the hope of the good company of His creator in the hereafter. Hope != 100% assurance. Only Jesus = 100% assurance.

I know, my quoting sucks. Give me a break, I'm new here.
I am also well aware that you were the OP and I stand by what I said.

 

[ohnnyj]

Originally posted by: kinev

Originally posted by: GreatBarracuda
It is not about my "feelings about God". It is about God's changless realities. His words never change, His laws never change. His call never changes. The same call of monotheism that has been proclaimed by his noble prophets throughout time. It is for this reason, that I reject Jesus' divinity and all parts of the Bible which profess it.

I have never said that I don't believe the entire book. In fact I would not be a Muslim if I did so as it is a strict requirement of Islamic faith to believe in the divine inspiration of the revealed texts of David, Moses and Jesus, i.e. the Psalms, the Torah and the Bible.

Okay. We both agree that God is unchanging. If you believe in the Divine inspiration of the Bible, then you beleive that it is the word of God.

Originally posted by: GreatBarracuda
In addition to my response to BEL6772's comments above, what you are saying is no different. It is not a "different argument". I'm questioning the very authenticity of the Bible, and you are saying it is a "different argument"? There are NO explicit claims of divinity made by Jesus in the Bible. Some of his words, with a lot of effort, can be INTERPRETED as such, but there is nothing that can be taken as irrefutable proof, which is a necessary requirement.

First you claim that Jesus never EXPLICITLY CLAIMED to be God. I showed you, what...7 explicit claims in the Bible (which you see as Divinely inspired). Now you say that it takes interpretation to say that Jesus was claiming to be God?!?! How am I supposed to interpret:
"I and the Father are one.
"Father, just as you are in me and I am in you."
"as we are one: I in them and you in me"
"If you really knew me, you would know my Father as well. From now on, you do know him and have seen him."
"Anyone who has seen me has seen the Father"
"Don't you believe that I am in the Father, and that the Father is in me?"
"Believe me when I say that I am in the Father and the Father is in me"
Nope. You're wrong. There is no interpretation required in these passages. Jesus is claiming to be God. Because we both agree that the Bible is divinely inspired, then Jesus is God.

Originally posted by: GreatBarracuda
Furthermore, his miraculous acts cannot be used to portray his divinity because Jesus himself has said: ?By myself I can do nothing...? (John 5:30)

You love John 5:30 and suggest that this indicates that Jesus is not God. Let's look 11 verses before that to get some context. John 5:19-23 "Jesus gave them this answer: ?I tell you the truth, the Son can do nothing by himself; he can do only what he sees his Father doing, because whatever the Father does the Son also does. For the Father loves the Son and shows him all he does. Yes, to your amazement he will show him even greater things than these. For just as the Father raises the dead and gives them life, even so the Son gives life to whom he is pleased to give it. Moreover, the Father judges no one, but has entrusted all judgment to the Son, that all may honor the Son just as they honor the Father. He who does not honor the Son does not honor the Father, who sent him."
Jesus is once AGAIN stating his deity in the verse you are taking out of context to use to say that Jesus was not divine. Jesus is clearly claiming to be God. No interpretation necessary, although that is probably what you will attribute this to.

Originally posted by: GreatBarracuda
If you do want to argue to this end, I can say by the same token what of the miracles performed by Moses and the other prophets before him? Is it any less miraculous to part the sea at a strike of the staff than it is to raise someone from the dead? Is Moses also divine in this regard?

No, moses was not divine. He never claimed to be. Jesus did. It's funny that you bring him up, though. Since you mention Moses, do you know why Moses never entered the promised land? It was when he cast his staff upon the rock to bring forth water. He was under the impression that he was performing the miracle, not God. For this, God didn't allow Moses into the promised land. Jesus explicitly claims that he himself is performing his miracles. Moses was punished for thinking he was, Jesus was not punished at all because he is God.

Originally posted by: GreatBarracuda
Also, can you honestly say that the verses from the Bible I have quoted do not contradict the Bible of today? I can portary parts of the Bible and Jesus' sayings as truly monotheistic and you can use others to portray Jesus' divinity. On the whole, however, one cannot deny the clear contradictions in the book and the sheer differences in the two messages being preached in the Bible.

I can honestly say that I don't see a contradiction in the Bible. I don't know which verses that you are specifically refering to, though. Let me know which ones and I'll expand upon my thoughts.

Originally posted by: GreatBarracuda
God Almighty Himself. Infact God challenges any human being to disprove the veracity of his words, i.e. the Qur'an, in no less than four different occassions in the Qur'an in 2:23, 17:88, 10:38, 11:13.

For 1400 years no one has been able to meet this challenge and yet it is still open to men and women of intellect today, including you. Many of its claims have been proven scientifically and with each passing day and advances in science, its truth is only strenghtened. It is truly a miracle]!

Well, I have never read the Qur'an, but I have been meaning to. I won't insult either of our intelligence's by linking to the many sites that show the errors and contradictions in the Qur'an. That would be juvenile.

Originally posted by: kinev
Islam (to the best of my knowledge, correct me if I'm wrong) teaches that one must perform the 6 Pillars of Islam and be a good person to be with Allah. There is a heavenly score-card where the tally is kept. Your salvation under Islam is not assured. Do you ever know if you have performed enough or been good enough?

Originally posted by: GreatBarracuda
If you are trying to say that Islam's obligatory rites are a burden, then you couldn't be more wrong. They are so seamlessly integrated into a Muslim's life that they are anything, but an incumbrance.
Let me quote: "The Muslim must seek to remember God at all times. He must be mindful that everything he is, everything he does, everything he knows and understands, is due to the Mercy of God. In acknowledging this, he remembers the fact that death lies in wait and he does not know when he will depart from this worldly life."
This is why prayer is important pillar of Islam. To a believer, it is a blessing, a chance to connect with God, an opportunity to remember Him and a time to offer thanks to Him for His countless favours.

Okay, I get that prayer is important to Muslims. It's important to Christians, too. Am I right about the path of salvation in Islam, though? Is it the pillars plus being a good person?

Originally posted by: kinev
How can I, a imperfect man, ever hope to "earn" my way into heaven with good works? As I said before, God's standard is perfection. If I even miss one prayer time or eat one meal at the wrong time of day during the wrong time of the year, then I am not perfect and I have not lived up to God's standards. This method sounds convoluted and it seems anything but simple.

Originally posted by: GreatBarracuda
Where did you get the idea that God's standard is perfection? God, Himself is perfect. The same cannot be said of His creation. And God knows fully well this fact as He is the one who created us! He knows our weaknesses and shortcomings. As a human being and servant of God, one can only try his best to fulfil the commandments of God and to follow the path of righteousness laid out by his noble messengers.

Well, you said that the central aspect of a religion should "be simple and free from any convoluted philosophy". Your words. Since this is a technical forum, I showed you:
Christianity=Salvation through faith in Jesus and his sacrifice=100% assurance of me in Heaven.
Simple. Easy to understand. Assured.

Islam=Salvation through the 6 pillars(you did not correct me when I said this the first time, so I am assuming this is right)=works/Heavenly score card=insecure=???
Have I been a good enough Muslim? What does my score card look like? Am I good enough to earn my way into Heaven? Why and how can a perfect God possibly accept me if I am not perfect? Not so simple or assured.

Originally posted by: kinev
How do you know that you will spend eternity with God? I am 100% sure I will, are you?

Originally posted by: GreatBarracuda
I know because God tells me in the Qur'an through the prophet Muhammad (p.b.u.h):
?And when My servants ask you concerning Me, then surely I am very near; I answer the prayer of the suppliant when he calls on Me, so they should answer My call and believe in Me that they may walk in the right way. 2:186?
You see, being the creation we have the responsibility to obey God FIRST simply by virtue of the fact that He is God, the only magnificent being worthy of worship, and THEN He most assuredly responds with His infinite mercy and compassion. This is the 100% guarantee you ask for. This is what makes a Muslim work all his life in the hope of the good company of His creator in the hereafter. To a believing Muslim, and by believing I mean a truly believing Muslim, it is by no means a life of anxiety, but a seemingly endless wait to meet his maker.

No, I don't see the 100% guarantee. Have you ever not obyed God? Sure you have. We have all sinned. Well, then you are not perfect. Well what percentage of the time do you have to obey God to get into Heaven? 50%? 75%? I bolded your qoute where you say the hope of the good company of His creator in the hereafter. Hope != 100% assurance. Only Jesus = 100% assurance.

I know, my quoting sucks. Give me a break, I'm new here.
I am also well aware that you were the OP and I stand by what I said.

Wow, just,...wow.

Thank you kinev for you very imformative posts and thorough research and share of knowledge.

Thanks guys for this great discussion, I am learning a lot.

 

[kinev]

No problem, ohnnyj. I like this type of discussion. I'm learning from this thread, too. I am happy, and mildly surprised, that it has remained civil. If anybody reads any of these posts and gets something out of them, then the ~hour was worth it....would be quicker if I knew how to properly quote everything, though.

 

[conjur]

Originally posted by: ohnnyj

Originally posted by: kinev

Originally posted by: GreatBarracuda
It is not about my "feelings about God". It is about God's changless realities. His words never change, His laws never change. His call never changes. The same call of monotheism that has been proclaimed by his noble prophets throughout time. It is for this reason, that I reject Jesus' divinity and all parts of the Bible which profess it.

I have never said that I don't believe the entire book. In fact I would not be a Muslim if I did so as it is a strict requirement of Islamic faith to believe in the divine inspiration of the revealed texts of David, Moses and Jesus, i.e. the Psalms, the Torah and the Bible.

Okay. We both agree that God is unchanging. If you believe in the Divine inspiration of the Bible, then you beleive that it is the word of God.

Originally posted by: GreatBarracuda
In addition to my response to BEL6772's comments above, what you are saying is no different. It is not a "different argument". I'm questioning the very authenticity of the Bible, and you are saying it is a "different argument"? There are NO explicit claims of divinity made by Jesus in the Bible. Some of his words, with a lot of effort, can be INTERPRETED as such, but there is nothing that can be taken as irrefutable proof, which is a necessary requirement.

First you claim that Jesus never EXPLICITLY CLAIMED to be God. I showed you, what...7 explicit claims in the Bible (which you see as Divinely inspired). Now you say that it takes interpretation to say that Jesus was claiming to be God?!?! How am I supposed to interpret:
"I and the Father are one.
"Father, just as you are in me and I am in you."
"as we are one: I in them and you in me"
"If you really knew me, you would know my Father as well. From now on, you do know him and have seen him."
"Anyone who has seen me has seen the Father"
"Don't you believe that I am in the Father, and that the Father is in me?"
"Believe me when I say that I am in the Father and the Father is in me"
Nope. You're wrong. There is no interpretation required in these passages. Jesus is claiming to be God. Because we both agree that the Bible is divinely inspired, then Jesus is God.

That's where the problem lies. The term "Father" doesn't mean God. Father is a titular name for a Jewish high priest. Jesus, of the royal line, was not of the priestly line. Jesus was working to break down that barrier and become both king *and* priest. Otherwise, wouldn't he have used the term God or Yahweh?

The Bible may have been divinely inspired but was written by men using language appropriate to their society in their time. Their terminology *must* be taken into account when reading the Bible lest you distort its meaning.

 

[dandruff]

never mind ...

 

[GreatBarracuda]

Originally posted by: conjur
The Bible may have been divinely inspired but was written by men using language appropriate to their society in their time. Their terminology *must* be taken into account when reading the Bible lest you distort its meaning.

Precisely my point. Once you have human beings intervening in the composition of a work, there are bound to be errors and axioms corrupted by personal opinions and inclinations. The Qur'an on the other hand is a compilation of the words of God *uttered* by the prophet Muhammad (p.b.u.h). It was preserved on stone tablets, animal hides, leaves ... whatever was readily available to the prophet's companions, most of whom memorized the entire Qur'an. Hence there was absolutely no chance of error when the various pieces were assembled after the passing of the prophet.

One may not believe in the Qur'an being divinely inspired, but one cannot deny the fact that the Qur'an read today by Muslims is the EXACT same book the prophet left among his companions and that means something. This is not to mention the literary calibre of the book.

To quote a non-muslim historian:

"Among adherents, the unexcelled literary style of Qur'anic Arabic is one of the proofs of its divine origin." - Cherif Bassiouni

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

I bring your attention, again, to my earlier post about *clear* statements of monotheism in the Bible.

Let's not forget that in the Bible itself are clear and definite statements that confirm the oneness of God (i.e. refute the trinity) and show Jesus for what he really was, in my opinion, a humble servant of God.

Here is something that Peter said:

- ?We must obey God rather than men! The God of our fathers raised Jesus...? (Acts 5:29-30).

Again, not to belittle Jesus or disrespect him in anyway, but here's another instance in the Bible that shows that Jesus is not God and that whatever he does, it's because of the power given to him by God, whom he himself worships:

- ?He could not do any miracles there, except lay his hands on a few sick people and heal them.? (Mark 6:5).

If he were God, he shouldn't have had any problems doing what he wanted to do.

In the old testament, God almighty says: ?Before me no god was formed, nor will there be one after me.? (Isaiah 43:10).

How then can anyone attribute a claim of divinity to Jesus when he himself conveyed the above verse to the people! How then can Jesus be the saviour the Jews had been waiting for if he goes on to make claims of divinity that would shame Moses!

When someone asked Jesus:

- "?Of all the commandments, which is the most important?? ?The most important one,? answered Jesus, ?is this: Hear, O Israel, the Lord our God, the Lord is one. Love the Lord your God with all your heart and with all your soul and with all your mind and with all your strength.?? (Mark 12:28-30).

This is a clear example of Jesus' purpose in this world: the confirmer of what came before him, that is the Torah.

Then the man who asked the question earlier confirms the fact of God's monotheism:

- ??Well said, teacher,? the man replied. ?You are right in saying that God is one and there is no other but him.?? (Mark 12:32).

If Jesus were God, he would have pointed it out to him at that point, but he didn't.

Here is something that confirms that Jesus is a mere mortal, created by the One who creates everything, God:

- "I live because of the Father...? (John 6:57).
- ?By myself I can do nothing...? (John 5:30).

In one instance, a woman was healed by coming up behind him and touching his cloak. Jesus, however did not know who it was that touched him:

- ?At once Jesus realized that power had gone out from him. He turned around in the crowd and asked, ?Who touched my clothes??? (Mark 5:30).

- ?Jesus kept looking around to see who had done it.? (Mark 5:32).

In one instance, Jesus is quoted as saying the following:

- ?...you are determined to kill me, a man who has told you the truth that I heard from God.? (John 8:40)

Again, making the distinction between himself and God, crystal clear.

Going back to the point made by whattaguy of Jesus being able to forgive sins and therefore being God, if the text is read fully and in context, it reveals the truth of Jesus being a servant of God and nothing more at that:

- ?Take heart, son; your sins are forgiven.? (Matthew 9:2)

Reading ahead, the gospel writer documents the actions of the people present at the moment, they ?...praised God, who had given such authority to men.? Clearly this shows that Jesus is not the only man to receive such authority from God.

I highly recommend to you the following link on this topic.

The Bible Denies the Divinity of Jesus

 

[conjur]

Thanks for the link. To any sentient person, it's obvious Jesus was not divine. That didn't come about until, I believe, the Council of Nicea.

I'm currently in the middle of a bunch of books on the review of the Old Testament and of the New Testament and how they were written and formed based upon the social/economic/political situations of the men writing the works. I've not gotten into any works of scholarly critiquing of the Qu'ran but I will once I finish these. Although, I'm quite certiain that as much has been found about the writing of the Qu'ran as was about the Old and the New Testaments.

And, btw, monotheism arose from the Egyptians (of which Moses was likely one.)

 

[ohnnyj]

Originally posted by: conjur

Originally posted by: ohnnyj

Originally posted by: kinev

Originally posted by: GreatBarracuda
It is not about my "feelings about God". It is about God's changless realities. His words never change, His laws never change. His call never changes. The same call of monotheism that has been proclaimed by his noble prophets throughout time. It is for this reason, that I reject Jesus' divinity and all parts of the Bible which profess it.

I have never said that I don't believe the entire book. In fact I would not be a Muslim if I did so as it is a strict requirement of Islamic faith to believe in the divine inspiration of the revealed texts of David, Moses and Jesus, i.e. the Psalms, the Torah and the Bible.

Okay. We both agree that God is unchanging. If you believe in the Divine inspiration of the Bible, then you beleive that it is the word of God.

Originally posted by: GreatBarracuda
In addition to my response to BEL6772's comments above, what you are saying is no different. It is not a "different argument". I'm questioning the very authenticity of the Bible, and you are saying it is a "different argument"? There are NO explicit claims of divinity made by Jesus in the Bible. Some of his words, with a lot of effort, can be INTERPRETED as such, but there is nothing that can be taken as irrefutable proof, which is a necessary requirement.

First you claim that Jesus never EXPLICITLY CLAIMED to be God. I showed you, what...7 explicit claims in the Bible (which you see as Divinely inspired). Now you say that it takes interpretation to say that Jesus was claiming to be God?!?! How am I supposed to interpret:
"I and the Father are one.
"Father, just as you are in me and I am in you."
"as we are one: I in them and you in me"
"If you really knew me, you would know my Father as well. From now on, you do know him and have seen him."
"Anyone who has seen me has seen the Father"
"Don't you believe that I am in the Father, and that the Father is in me?"
"Believe me when I say that I am in the Father and the Father is in me"
Nope. You're wrong. There is no interpretation required in these passages. Jesus is claiming to be God. Because we both agree that the Bible is divinely inspired, then Jesus is God.

That's where the problem lies. The term "Father" doesn't mean God. Father is a titular name for a Jewish high priest. Jesus, of the royal line, was not of the priestly line. Jesus was working to break down that barrier and become both king *and* priest. Otherwise, wouldn't he have used the term God or Yahweh?

The Bible may have been divinely inspired but was written by men using language appropriate to their society in their time. Their terminology *must* be taken into account when reading the Bible lest you distort its meaning.

I was my understanding that it was forbidden to explicitly say the name of God, especially Yahweh.

Originally posted by: GreatBarracuda
I highly recommend to you the following link on this topic.

The Bible Denies the Divinity of Jesus

Of couse a site called islam-guide is going to refute the divinity of Jesus.

 

[conjur]

Originally posted by: ohnnyj

Originally posted by: conjur
That's where the problem lies. The term "Father" doesn't mean God. Father is a titular name for a Jewish high priest. Jesus, of the royal line, was not of the priestly line. Jesus was working to break down that barrier and become both king *and* priest. Otherwise, wouldn't he have used the term God or Yahweh?

The Bible may have been divinely inspired but was written by men using language appropriate to their society in their time. Their terminology *must* be taken into account when reading the Bible lest you distort its meaning.

I was my understanding that it was forbidden to explicitly say the name of God, especially Yahweh.

While true that Yahweh (JHWH - the "unpronounceable name of God") wasn't to be spoken, there were other terms for God, such as Elohim (but that was from the other kingdom of Israel and more closely means Lord). That's why you'll see "The Lord" and "God" used in various places and, sometimes, right next to each other in the OT. That's because the Bible was pieced together from various writers (from the northern and from the southern kingdoms)

But, Father and Son were just titular names for high priests in the Judaic religion. The same as the angelic titles of Michael and Gabriel. Angels as pink-cheeked, overweight cherubs came about centuries later. Angels, properly, were just other high priests (for example, Melchizedek derives from Michael the Zadok) It can get confusing as one person might have been known by two or three different names.

 

[GreatBarracuda]

Originally posted by: ohnnyj
Of couse a site called islam-guide is going to refute the divinity of Jesus.

Ok. What about the sayings of Christian scholars regarding the Bible?

1. "What did the authors of the Gospels do? In the congregations, mainly in the cities around the Mediterranean, they found scores of narratives about Jesus, the beloved Founder of the Christian faith. The writers took those narratives and frequently even remolded and refashioned them to bring out the lesson they wanted to teach."

2. Therefore the four Gospels are not really biographies of Jesus. They are "digests of Christian teaching concerning the risen Lord Jesus."

3. "A remarkable fact is that for a long time Christians misunderstood" this truth about the Gospels.

4. The genealogy of Jesus in Matthew?s Gospel chapter 1, verses 1-17, is not an absolutely true genealogy. First, Matthew took it perhaps from the family of Joseph. Second, "the sacred writer refashioned this document to a list of three times fourteen ancestors."

5. "Reading the Gospels, one should distinguish historical facts from theological elaboration."

6. The Gospels often represent Jesus in controversy and conversation. "One may ask: Was Jesus involved in these conversations? Did He answer exactly as related in the Bible? It is not certain."

7. There may be some true events and "controversies which supplied the background materials for the conflict stories of the Gospels. But as these accounts now stand, they are literary forms used by the Gospel writers in their catechisms to bring out what they had to tell the opponents of early Christianity."

8. Matthew tells us that baby Jesus was taken to Egypt. This is not necessarily true. But since Israel had been in Egypt, and since Israel was God?s chosen one, Matthew placed Jesus in Egypt to convince his readers that Jesus was the real Israel. "This is a strange literary device, but the ancient writers loved to work with this kind of figurative speech."

9. "It is difficult to know whether the words or sayings attributed to [Jesus] are written exactly as He spoke them."

10. "True, the Gospels are based on sound historical facts as related by eye-witnesses, but both deeds and words of Jesus are offered to us in the framework or theological interpretation."

11. Did Jesus say the things which the Gospels report? "The Church was so firmly convinced that the risen Lord who is the Jesus of history lived in her, and taught through her, that she expressed her teaching in the form of Jesus? sayings." The words are not Jesus but from the Church.

12. "Can we discover at least some words of Jesus that have escaped such elaboration? Bible scholars point to the very short sayings of Jesus, as for example those put together by Matthew in chapter 5, 1-12"

13. The Sermon on the Mount in Matthew, chapters 5 to 7, was delivered by Jesus while he was on a mount ? or was he? Matthew only represented the matter such in order to show that Jesus was like Moses who received the law on Mount Sinai. Jesus was not really on a mountain. This is only a figurative device used by Matthew.

14. "Walk into a modern library, you will find all the books neatly arranged under fiction and non-fiction. It is not that simple in the library called the Bible. How does one know whether one deals with history or some form of figurative speech?" To begin with you should always be disposed to follow the teaching authority of the Church."

15. "The signature of a bishop in your Bible assures you that opinions, expressed in footnotes and introductions, reflect what is generally accepted as sound doctrine in the Catholic tradition."

16. "Knowing that early Christians mistakenly expected Christ?s second coming during their own lifetime, helps you to understand 1 and 2 Thessalonians." The first of these two books in the Bible is written under the said mistaken expectation.

17. "The Hebrews [who wrote the Bible] were restless searchers for meaning in our human condition. Reading their inspired literature should challenge you to go on with a faithful search for meaning in your own situation."

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

I didn't link that piece for you to look at the URL and turn away. Do yourself a favour and read what it says. Then come back and make some intelligent comments about it. I link in the interest of saving time and effort. Often the links illustrate the point in a far better manner compared to what I can do here.

I assure you, I would not dismiss any references YOU would make in the future.

 

[TBone48]

Man this could go on for, like, ANOTHER 2,000 years!

 

[PCboy]

oh sh!t, I found the answer..

 

[kinev]

Originally posted by: conjur
That's where the problem lies. The term "Father" doesn't mean God. Father is a titular name for a Jewish high priest. Jesus, of the royal line, was not of the priestly line. Jesus was working to break down that barrier and become both king *and* priest. Otherwise, wouldn't he have used the term God or Yahweh?

The Bible may have been divinely inspired but was written by men using language appropriate to their society in their time. Their terminology *must* be taken into account when reading the Bible lest you distort its meaning.

Ummmm, when Jesus is using the term "Father" he means God. There really can't be any denying that. Whether you believe that Jesus was God or if there is a God, it is plainly obvious that the Bible states that Jesus is the Son of God. So, when Jesus says Father, he is referring to God the Father. I can look into the original translation, but that will take some time.

Also, Jesus never had the intention of becoming a king and priest 2000 years ago. Jesus is God. He knew he was going to Earth to live, suffer, and die for us. Jesus won't be recognized as a King on Earth until His new kingdom is set up on Earth.

I agree that studying the time period and circumstances that the Bible was written in helps one to understand some topics more thouroughly. I don't, however, think that an extensive knowledge of Jewish and Roman traditions/languages is required for an average person.

 

[GreatBarracuda]

Originally posted by: conjur
Thanks for the link. To any sentient person, it's obvious Jesus was not divine. That didn't come about until, I believe, the Council of Nicea.

I'm currently in the middle of a bunch of books on the review of the Old Testament and of the New Testament and how they were written and formed based upon the social/economic/political situations of the men writing the works. I've not gotten into any works of scholarly critiquing of the Qu'ran but I will once I finish these. Although, I'm quite certiain that as much has been found about the writing of the Qu'ran as was about the Old and the New Testaments.

And, btw, monotheism arose from the Egyptians (of which Moses was likely one.)

You're welcome. Now that you are actually considering religion with a focus and a serious attitude, I must say that you have to be careful. No doubt the internet is a great source of information, but some of that information is not beneficial and in fact quite detrimental to the purpose at hand. I think you know exactly what that means and what I am trying to say.

There is a lot of misinformation about Islam and the Qur'an out there on the internet. Am I afraid that you will fall into the wrong camp? No. I think you are intelligent enough to discover the truth for yourself. But there is something that is very important for me to say here. There are people out there who truly seek to sow the seeds of hatred about religion (Islam or Christianity) and systematically mislead people and will do anything to achieve their purpose. Case in point: Craig Winn. There are many others as well who wish to do the same, like Dr. Anis Shorrosh, Daniel Pipes etc.

Why would I even mention these names if they can lead you to form the wrong ideas about Islam if you choose to follow up on them? Because if you are searching for the truth with an open mind, God will guide you to it. Truth needs no advocates on its behalf. That is the Islamic belief. But the human being is weak and such hate-filled ideas the above-mentioned individuals propagate do affect the mind. The same can be said of the "Muslim" clerics who instill hatred in the hearts of innocent youngsters against Christianity at madrasahs in some Islamic countries, although the threat has been blown out of proportion in my opinion.

That is why I recommend you start with the traditional works on Islam. Not just Muslim scholars, non-muslims as well. Frankly, this is what I would recommend to Muslims as well if they seek to gain knowledge of Christianity. The classical works are "classical" for a reason. You are most welcome should you need any information regarding this. A few good places to start:


W. Montgomery Watt, Islam and Christianity Today
John L. Esposito, ISLAM, The Straight Path
G.B. Shaw, The Genuine Islam
De Lacy O'Leary, Islam at the Crossroads


Then read the Qur'an along with the biography of the prophet Muhammad (p.b.u.h). The most acclaimed work on this topic in English is Muhammad : His Life Based on the Earliest Sources by Martin Lings. One cannot and I repeat cannot read the Qur'an without keeping the life of the prophet in perspective. You see, the Qur'an is unique in this respect. It was revealed to Muhammad (p.b.u.h) over a period of 23 years. Many passages in the Qur'an are God's responses/clarifications to issues/controversies/genuine questions that were raised in the lifetime of the prophet after he claimed prophethood. In this regard, it is very different from the Torah, for instance, as it was given to Moses (p.b.u.h.) completely and literally "etched in stone". A study of the Qur'an without any background of the life of the prophet is ineffectual.


I leave you with a few quotes from the above-mentioned works.

"I have always held the religion of Muhammad in high estimation because of its wonderful vitality. It is the only religion which appears to me to possess that assimilating capacity to the changing phase of existence which can make itself appeal to every age. I have studied him the wonderful man and in my opinion far from being an Antichrist, he must be called the Saviour of Humanity. I believe that if a man like him were to assume the dictatorship of the modern world, he would succeed in solving its problems in a way that would bring it the much needed peace and happiness: I have prophesied about the faith of Muhammad that it would be acceptable to the Europe of tomorrow as it is beginning to be acceptable to the Europe of today."

G.B. Shaw, The Genuine Islam, Vol. 1, No. 81936.


"History makes it clear however, that the legend of fanatical Muslims sweeping through the world and forcing Islam at the point of the sword upon conquered races is one of the most fantastically absurd myths that historians have ever repeated."

De Lacy O'Leary, Islam at the Crossroads, London, 1923, p.8