View Single Post
      08-24-2007, 07:04 PM   #100
Under the radar
Noize's Avatar

Drives: FWD in reverse
Join Date: Jan 2007
Location: In traffic at idle

iTrader: (1)

Originally Posted by hks786 View Post
Aha, good point. Sadly, the Bible is not what we are told to accept. We are told to accept God's previous revelation in the Injeel. The Injeel is what was revealed to Prophet Isa (AS). The Bible we have presently is not that. There are many reasons for that, maybe we could start a new thread - Is the Bible the word of God?
Or we could stay here to keep it concise. That way we'll not to have to thread jump to have a discussion.

This is my very point. Since the Bible is the word of man, how can we trust it's words? I think we would have to really look at the question - Is the Bible the word of God.
Well, I see the Quran as the word of a man (Muhammad), and believe the Bible is the true Word of God. Since Christians see Jesus as God the Son, and His words are printed in four different accounts, I see it quite literally as the Word of God. Its a difference in our perception.

Morever, if we look at MANY parts of the Bible, we can see that it wasnt divinely inspired. Infact, even the compilation ALONE tells us this. Here's just one verse though:

Many have undertaken to draw up an account of the things that have been fulfilled among us, just as they were handed down to us by those who from the first were eyewitnesses and servants of the word. Therefore, since I myself have carefully investigated everything from the beginning, it seemed good also to me to write an orderly account for you, most excellent Theophilus, so that you may know the certainty of the things you have been taught.
Luke (1:1-4)
What you see as "not divinely inspired", I see as History with 3 additional back up accounts.

The one you've chosen to cite above is the account of Luke, who was a Doctor. He wrote two books, Luke and Acts. This was circa A.D. 65. Also, several parts in Acts state "we", as he was a companion to the apostle Paul. Luke was not an eye witness to the life of Christ.

Matthew (Levi) was one of the 12 original apostles. Some believe the book to have been written as early as 50 A.D., while others think it could be around 70 A.D. The apostle Matthew was an eye witness to the life of Christ.

Mark was written by John Mark, a close associate of Peter. It consists of the preachings of Peter, and his direct accounts. Authorship, from what I understand through study, occured somewhere between 50-60 A.D. As far as I know, Mark himself was not an eye witness to the life of Christ, as Peter was.

John was supposedly the same time as Mark or shortly thereafter, and the author was the apostle John, "the disciple who Jesus loved" in the book. Most all evidence supports this, as the author was an eye witness to the life of Christ.

It is only too easy for people to create a new concept and then claim it can never be understood because we are finite and God is infinite. I believe that if we are even going to use the word "trinity" then yes, we must apply simple logic to it. The word trinity suggests that there are 3 parts of God. I'm simply showing that this concept does not work on any ground of logic. We cannot simply say logic cant be used because our minds cant process God because he is infinite.
Infact, you a are a Christian and through all your study of it you still say that we cannot understand God with our physical mind. I feel that it is only too easy to claim that.
Also, you said that I cant put "finite restrictions" on God. I'm not doing that at all. It's clear that God made his own parameters. He is infinite, everything else is infinite. Now, for you to tell me that he would become man in flesh and mix infinite/finite beings (as I explained), I think you would need to prove this. We cannot make this assumption or concept with no proof.
I dont think that is possible. You even admitted that we are finite. Therefore, we are never going to live forever on Earth, our lives will eventually be over. This Earth is finite too. Everything on it is finite.

I feel as though you are being inconsistent in what you are saying. Like on one hand you're asking me to cough up scientific proof of everything I state, and the other hand you agree that God is infinite. Which is it? Not only can our minds not fully understand the Trinity at this time, but they also cannot process physically how God created Heaven, Earth, man. But we both obviously believe this over something like the Big Bang Theory. Can YOU, hks, scientifically prove that God created the world? No! But you believe in faith, and you behold His creation. We can't see the wind either, but we know it is there, because we can feel it. Since we both believe that God created The heavens the earth and all that is in it, it stands to reason that God was here- Genesis 1, and IS still here (from a Christian's point of view in the form of the Holy Spirit). All this to say, our finite "ground of logic" just can't begin to fully process an Infinite God among us.

Moreover, if you say Physical death entered the world because of the first sin, then this hasnt really changed has it? Even believing in Jesus (thus having salvation) doesnt reverse this. You are living proof of it.
I'm not so sure that it is. I have shown that the title "Son of God" can be bestowed on quite a lot of people. Infact, even David in the Bible is called the begotted Son of God. On top of that, I have shown how illogical it is to believe that Jesus is the Son of God. Jesus (AS) even makes it clear that he was sent by God, he ISNT God.
I'm not just talking about physically dying, but separation from God for all eternity. "For God so loved the world that he gave His one and only Son, that whoever believes in Him shall not perish but have eternal life. For God did not send his Son into the world to condemn the world, but to save the world through Him. Whoever believes in Him is not condemned, but whoever does not believe stands condemned already because he has not believed in the name of God's one and only Son." -John 3:16-18

Also, we muslims dont believe in original sin as a curse etc. We believe that Allah created the universe and created us. We also believe that Adam (AS) and Eve (May Allah be pleased with them) were taught an original lesson in Heaven. They were taught that the Devil can trick us into sinning, and yes it did lead to a sin. But it was part of Allah's plan. He designed this Earth for human life (animal/plant life too, which is needed for human life) which I can prove scientifically in a thousand ways. Thus, he intended for us to live on Earth all along.
I don't think there was ever an intention for us not to live on earth. But man was warned not to eat from the tree in the middle of garden, or they (Adam and Eve) would die.

The Bible has a conflicting message about how our sins can be dealt with. A lot of the Bible tells us that God can choose to forgive us. Now, the rest of the Bible tells us that God NEEDED to die for us. Which is it?
There's no inconsistency. Sin demands a sacrifice for forgiveness. Before Christ, it was an animal as a sacrificial offering. After, the blood of Christ.

One other comment I would like to make is that I feel that God would never create us in such a way that we could never understand him and then want us to understand the way he wants us to live. Part of understanding the way he wants is to live, is understanding Allah's beautiful nature etc. Thus, it means we could never have a personal relationship with God if we couldnt understand him.
To a Christian, the Bible is a roadmap on how God wants us to live.

Since you have done most of the pitching and we have done most of the catching, I have a comment I would like to make as well. You say the Bible isn't consistent. Lets talk about the Quran and hadith for a minute. One huge issue to consider are miracles. The hadith contain various stories about Muhammad performing miracles. The Quran say that Muhammad was just a man who did not do miracles and signs that proved he was a prophet of Allah. How do you handle this contradiction of the Quran and hadith? Since the Quran came directly from the mouth of Muhammad, you have to believe that the miracle stories in the hadith were invented by Muhammed's followers.

This is HUGE, and I think the main reason we're having a difficult time understanding each other and why our beliefs are highly conflicting on several levels. You view the Bible the way some Muslim scholars view the hadith, while Christians believe it to be the divine word of God passed through man.

One thing I have seen is that Muslims say the Bible was corrupted. Muhammad actually taught that Christians and Jews corrupted the Bible (which was all written before the Quran, by the way).

Regarding the Jews, the Quran says:
"(The children of Israel) changed the words from their (right) places and have abandoned a good part of the Message that was sent to them." -Surah 5:13

Regarding Christians, the Quran says:
"And from those who call themselves Christians... they have abandoned a good part of the Message that was sent to them." Surah 5:14

Muhammad claimed that if the Scriptures had not been corrupted, they would still contain the prophecies regarding his coming. Did Muhammad explain when or how the Scriptures were corrupted or who exactly supposedly did it? No. Did he offer any proof of these changes by presenting an unchanged copy of the Scriptures? No. How convenient.

Archaelogical findings of the past century refute Muhammad's teaching: Age of oldest physical New Testament manuscripts that still exist today, sheer quantity of manuscripts, and most importantly (and stark contrast to what Muhammad said), CONSISTENCY of these manuscripts. There is a ton of evidence that the New Testament in use during the time of Muhammad and the New Testament used today are faithful copies of the original books. Check out The Case For Christ by Lee Strobel.

There is more, and more, and more I would like to discuss with you, but I need to spend some time with my daughter before she goes to bed. Goodnight.