Archive for  Welcome to our forum on cults and false religions. If you are linked to any of these cults, I warn you to leave them and find the truth in Jesus.
 

Donate to our new server appeal.


        Forum Index -> All about Islam
Sosthenes

Invitation to talk about Islam

I want to welcome Yasmin and I wish to give an invitation for Him/Her to talk about Islam at length.  It is my hope that both sides will keep the discussion respectful with just the facts being discussed or debated.  I welcome you here.

Please tell us a little about yourself.  Why are you Muslim, how long have you been Muslim, what was it like growing up, what version of the Qu'ran do you use and is there an online version for us to follow along in English for us to use?  I'm not as an expert in Islam as you are but we have been taught some things and we're very capable and it is unlikely that you will change us here.

A little information about me.  I've been a Christian since about 1980 and I would probably consider myself a fundamental academic Christian as I'm somewhere between Baptist and Calvary Chapel but the two commentaries I would follow are by Dr. Oliver B. Green and by Dr. J. Vernon McGee.  I'm a working parent and I'm hapily married and dealing with different issues takes time so as long as we both have equal time to respond and as long as no one tries to overpower the board, I presume the owner of the board won't have a problem with our discussion.  I use the King James version of the Bible as I prefer that version but I don't limit myself to it.

The statement of faith that I would follow is one of several but I would follow the same one by Through The Bible Radio:

http://www.thruthebible.org/site/...23/k.FFFF/Doctrinal_Statement.htm

If we discuss the Trinity, what I will discuss comes from the author Dr. Robert Bowman (but not limited to) or the Bible:

http://www.apologeticsindex.org/t10.html

Part of what I view about Islam can be found from this section of the statement of faith:

Quote:
We believe that Satan is the originator of sin, and that under the permission of God he through subtlety led our first parents into transgression, thereby accomplishing their moral fall and subjecting them and their posterity to his own power; that he is the enemy of God and the people of God, opposing and exalting himself above all that is called God or that is worshiped and that he who in the beginning said, "I will be like the most High," in his warfare appears as an angel of light, even counterfeiting the works of God by fostering religious movements and systems of doctrine, which systems in every case are characterized by a denial of the efficacy of the blood of Christ and of salvation by grace alone. (Genesis 3:1-19; Romans 5:12-14; 2 Corinthians 4:3-4; 11:13-15; Ephesians 6:10-12; 2 Thessalonians 2:4; 1 Timothy 4:1-3.)
ummyasmin

Peace!

Hi again Sosthenes, thank you for your introduction. Likewise I think a respectful discussion is a worthy goal.

As for me, I was raised in a new religious movement that is an offshoot of Islam, but by the grace of God I found Islam over a decade ago.  I live in Australia, so I have always been part of a religious minority (just swapped minorities hehe).  I don't know if that makes my perspective unusual or not, I guess it's just a fact of life that I tend to side with the underdog as they say.

I pray according to the Maliki school of sacred law, am Sunni (albeit with Zaydi Shi'i and neo-Mu'tazilah leanings I must confess) and am currently learning from a Mevlevi Shaykh although I haven't made baya' yet. (God willing one day). I have a Masters of Islamic Studies and studied Arabic for a little time in Sana'a, Yemen (my heart has been left behind there, and God willing I want to return one day.)

There are a couple of Qur'an translations I like to quote from. Thomas Cleary for style (but it's not online AFAIK); Muhammad Asad for commentaries; and Yusuf Ali or Pickthall's are good too. If they don't express the language correctly I sometimes just translate the passage myself.  The online site I most often go to for Qur'an is Qur'an Search and the Bible site I mostly use is Bible Gateway (I'm relatively familiar with King James but likewise I am sure you are more expert in Christian scripture and knowledge than myself.)

I love learning about religion (even ones that are not my own) and I find people's religiosity absolutely fascinating. I enjoy a good theological or philosophical discussion and am pretty pluralistic.  Having said that, I don't think all religious traditions and movements are equal.  Whilst the great spiritual traditions of the world, Hinduism, Judaism, Buddhism, Confucianism, Taoism, Christianity, and so on have clearly nourished millions of souls, there is a world of difference between the teachings of Jim Jones and Mother Theresa, or Usamah bin Laden and Fethullah Gulen. So, I do think the Muslim world has its cults along with its normative religious traditions.

I am Muslim because of the same reason you are Christian (I suspect).  I believe I have found Truth, by the grace of God.  Everything else is icing on the cake.  I do love the ritual traditions, the intellectual pull, the community (when it is at its best) and the history is rich and fascinating.  Ultimately though, everything boils down to a desire to love God and be loved by Him.

My name "Umm Yasmin" means "Mother of Yasmin" (Yasmin is my daughter, praise be to God). It is a traditional Arabic custom that when a person becomes a parent, they take a title of respect which means "Mother of..." or "Father of...".

So, in the spirit of learning a little more about each other: you mentioned you've been Christian since 1980-ish, what were you before hand? I've read a bit on Wikipedia about the Calvary Chapel (I know a little bit about the Baptists, my brother went to a Baptist school) but I haven't come across the Green and McGee commentaries, are they available online?  I must ask too - are you male or female (your name doesn't give it away, actually - what does Sosthenes mean and why did you choose it?)

With regards
UY
Sosthenes

ummyasmin wrote:
So, in the spirit of learning a little more about each other: you mentioned you've been Christian since 1980-ish, what were you before hand? I've read a bit on Wikipedia about the Calvary Chapel (I know a little bit about the Baptists, my brother went to a Baptist school) but I haven't come across the Green and McGee commentaries, are they available online?  I must ask too - are you male or female (your name doesn't give it away, actually - what does Sosthenes mean and why did you choose it?)

With regards
UY


I was a non-Christian before I became a Christian.

You can listen to the McGee commentaries online or download them for free at ttb.org but the Dr. Oliver. B. Green commentaries are not available online.  You might be able to hear them on shortwave radio if you consult their websites.

Various Calvary Chapels have studies online but this one is not complete:
http://twft.com/?page=C2000

I use blueletterbible.org because I like it better than Biblegateway and you can also click on the meaning of the word there.  I think it has a better search.

I also use different translations like the Kenneth Wuest Translation (KWT).  He was part time professor of Greek at Moody Bible Institute and he was one of the New American Standard Bible translators.  I have his tranlation and his commentaries on his translations.  His four volume set has almost doubled in price since I've been promoting him but I don't know if I had anything to do with it.  It is more likely that a few were sold, and they decided that they were underpriced.

I also started using "Principles of Biblical Hermeneutics" by Edwin Hartill.  Is there a guide on rules to interpret the Qu'ran?

Is there a Quran that has a decent numbering system?  And is there an equivalent to Strong's or Young's concordance for the Quran?  Do you use any dictionaries?  And how do you fit in or see yourself as to the rest of the world that is Muslim?

Who was Sosthenes?  He was a ruler of the Synagogue and persecution came because Paul was speaking in Macadonia.  Sosthenes was beaten and he came to believe probably as a result of it.  I chose the name because people were stalking or harassing me on the internet and I wanted to have a Biblical name.  I witness to people who are hostile to the Christian faith and one athiest has slandered me and other Christians on the internet using my real name through games that he played on us because he wanted to make us look unintelligent.  It was at a time period where the board owner wanted us to use our real names because he had a belief that people were less likely to say things that they wouldn't normally say if we used our real names and it gave someone else an opportunity to slander us.  It is hard to find something not taken on the internet because if you can think it, someone else has thought it.  If you go to boards, people take names like "Centurion", sit on them and never use them.

Acts 18:17 Then all the Greeks took Sosthenes, the chief ruler of the synagogue, and beat [him] before the judgment seat. And Gallio cared for none of those things.

1 Corinthians 1:1 Paul, called [to be] an apostle of Jesus Christ through the will of God, and Sosthenes [our] brother,

I'm a male, a father and happily married.
ummyasmin

Assurance of salvation

Quote:
"O ye who believe! Turn unto Allah in sincere repentance! It may be that your Lord will remit from you your evil deeds and bring you into Gardens underneath which rivers flow, on the day when Allah will not abase the Prophet and those who believe with him. Their light will run before them and on their right hands; they will say: Our Lord! Perfect our light for us, and forgive us! Lo! Thou art Able to do all things," (66:8-9).

Yasmin,
How can you say that Muslims are guaranteed salvation when this verse in the Qu'ran says "may" remit your evil deeds?


Peace!

Actually that ayat summarises the Muslim position pretty well. It says on the Day of Judgment "la yukhzi allahu alnnabiyya waallathina amanu ma`ahu", translated there as "Allah will not abase the Prophet and those who believe with him".

The assurance of salvation for the believer is described in many passages, I've just selected a couple to illustrate:

"Verily, those who have attained to faith and do good works, and are constant in prayer, and dispense charity - they shall have their reward with their Sustainer, and no fear need they have, and neither shall they grieve." (Q2:277)

Yet those who attain to faith and do righteous deeds We shall bring into gardens through which running waters flow, therein to abide beyond the count of time: this is, in truth, God's promise - and whose word could be truer than God's? (Q4:122 my emphasis)

Incidently, this concept of God rewarding those who have both faith and works is described in the Bible in James, where it says faith without works is dead.

"What does it profit, my brethren, if someone says he has faith but does not have works? Can faith save him?... Thus also faith by itself, if it does not have works, is dead. But someone will say, “You have faith, and I have works.” Show me your faith without your works, and I will show you my faith by my works. You believe that there is one God. You do well. Even the demons believe—and tremble! But do you want to know, O foolish man, that faith without works is dead? ... You see then that a man is justified by works, and not by faith only. (James 2:14-24)

That we can constantly repent, seek the forgiveness and mercy of God, and be assured of his forgiveness without the need for an intercessor or substitutionary atonement is a major difference between Christianity and Islam.  The Qur'an says:

"O my servants who have transgressed against their souls! Despair not of the mercy of God: for God forgives all sins: for He is Oft-Forgiving, Most Merciful." (Q39:53)

All one needs to do is repent of the sin, and ask for God's forgiveness. In words that God spoke to our Prophet, peace and blessings be upon him, He said:

God, the Almighty, has said:  O child of Adam, so long as you call upon Me and ask of Me, I shall forgive you for what you have done, and I shall not mind.  O child of Adam, were your sins to reach the clouds of the sky and were you then to ask forgiveness of Me, I would forgive you.  O child of Adam, were you to come to Me with sins as great as the earth, and were you then to face Me ascribing no partners to Me, I would bring you forgiveness nearly as great as it. (Hadith Qudsi)

Now, why then don't Muslims go around saying "I have the assurance of salvation?" if God promises all of this to Muslims. It is because of the position of humility we take before Him, in the knowledge that only He knows the future. I may well think right now I'm a good Muslim (and if it is true that I am, and God knows best, then I have the full assurance of salvation) but I can't guarantee what I will be doing in the years to come from now, I can only live and know the moment. God preserve me from it, but what if I left Islam and became a polytheist. If I did, then God's promise of salvation would not cover me, and He knows best.

But this is exactly the same problem Christians face. How many Bible-believing, church-attending Christians have read Dawkins' books and become atheists? What are we to make of the fate of their souls from a Christian perspective? Surely, the promise of salvation no longer extends to them? If you say it never did in the first place, they were just *deluded* that they were truly saved, then how can any Christian be sure they are not similarly deluded with their assurance of salvation?

According to the Bible, Jesus warned about Christians who would *think* they have salvation, but in fact do not.

“Not everyone who says to Me, ‘Lord, Lord,’ shall enter the kingdom of heaven, but he who does the will of My Father in heaven. Many will say to Me in that day, ‘Lord, Lord, have we not prophesied in Your name, cast out demons in Your name, and done many wonders in Your name?’ And then I will declare to them, ‘I never knew you; depart from Me, you who practice lawlessness!’ (Matthew 7:21-23)

Regards
Umm Yasmin
Sosthenes

Re: Assurance of salvation

ummyasmin wrote:
Quote:
"O ye who believe! Turn unto Allah in sincere repentance! It may be that your Lord will remit from you your evil deeds and bring you into Gardens underneath which rivers flow, on the day when Allah will not abase the Prophet and those who believe with him. Their light will run before them and on their right hands; they will say: Our Lord! Perfect our light for us, and forgive us! Lo! Thou art Able to do all things," (66:8-9).

Yasmin,
How can you say that Muslims are guaranteed salvation when this verse in the Qu'ran says "may" remit your evil deeds?


Peace!

Actually that ayat summarises the Muslim position pretty well. It says on the Day of Judgment "la yukhzi allahu alnnabiyya waallathina amanu ma`ahu", translated there as "Allah will not abase the Prophet and those who believe with him".

The assurance of salvation for the believer is described in many passages, I've just selected a couple to illustrate:

"Verily, those who have attained to faith and do good works, and are constant in prayer, and dispense charity - they shall have their reward with their Sustainer, and no fear need they have, and neither shall they grieve." (Q2:277)


I posted that question on another board.  Thank you for answering but I didn't want to get ahead of myself as I would like this discussion to have a little bit of organization or structure as I don't always want to be all over the place all of the time.

Please make up a list of topics and number them.  Please number the points of tension of disagreements that we can debate between Christianity and Islam.  You can include Judiasm if you want.  I will make up a list but I just have a partial list.

Quote:
"Incidently, this concept of God rewarding those who have both faith and works is described in the Bible in James, where it says faith without works is dead."


I actually cracked this verse.  A lot of people think that James contradicts Paul in Ephesians 2:8-9 and I spent a lot of years being frustrated over it but I spent some nights not sleeping and researching it and I actually contradict people's misunderstanding about James.  The verse is about showing your faith to other men because James 2:18 says "shew (show) me" and the problem is that you can't see faith or the spirit because John 3:8 says, "The wind bloweth where it listeth, and thou hearest the sound thereof, but canst not tell whence it cometh, and whither it goeth: so is every one that is born of the Spirit."  You are trying to measure something with natural eyes or natural understanding and Jesus says that you 'can't tell where it (the spirit) comes and goes from'.  You are trying to with human understanding and human eyes determine whether or not someone has salvation.  The problem is, "What if you get it wrong?"

Jesus knows that many of you will get it wrong so that is why He said:

Matthew 13:30 Let both grow together until the harvest: and in the time of harvest I will say to the reapers, Gather ye together first the tares, and bind them in bundles to burn them: but gather the wheat into my barn.  

But if you try to use James, I hope you are as good as someone who learned from Jesus.  James can get away with saying what he says but can you?

Luke 16:15 And he said unto them, Ye are they which justify yourselves before men; but God knoweth your hearts: for that which is highly esteemed among men is abomination in the sight of God.

Quote:
But this is exactly the same problem Christians face. How many Bible-believing, church-attending Christians have read Dawkins' books and become atheists? What are we to make of the fate of their souls from a Christian perspective? Surely, the promise of salvation no longer extends to them? If you say it never did in the first place, they were just *deluded* that they were truly saved, then how can any Christian be sure they are not similarly deluded with their assurance of salvation?


There are professors of salvation and posessors of salvation.  I follow the descrimination principal that Muslims can hear the word of God (the Christian Bible) but not receive it as the Word of God:

Matthew 13:11 He answered and said unto them, Because it is given unto you to know the mysteries of the kingdom of heaven, but to them it is not given.
 
Jesus gave his word unto his children which were his disciples.  He gave the meaning and interpretation to them which leaves out the world and many Muslims that don't want to hear.

Luke 8:10 And he said, Unto you it is given to know the mysteries of the kingdom of God: but to others in parables; that seeing they might not see, and hearing they might not understand.

The troubling part is that you can hear but not understand.

John 14:17 [Even] the Spirit of truth; whom the world cannot receive, because it seeth him not, neither knoweth him: but ye know him; for he dwelleth with you, and shall be in you.

It is when you believe that Jesus died on the cross for your sins that you can receive the Holy Spirit and not before.  Faith in His blood is required for salvation.

1 Corinthians 2:14 But the natural man receiveth not the things of the Spirit of God: for they are foolishness unto him: neither can he know [them], because they are spiritually discerned.

1 Cor. 2:14 speaks about the unsaved world as many Muslims who are unsaved.

Matthew 13:13 Therefore speak I to them in parables: because they seeing see not; and hearing they hear not, neither do they understand.

Matthew 13:14 And in them is fulfilled the prophecy of Esaias, which saith, By hearing ye shall hear, and shall not understand; and seeing ye shall see, and shall not perceive:

You have to take heed how you hear.  What are your ears for?  Are you going to take time to listen or are you just going to stay indoctrinated in Islam that you don't want to listen?

Matthew 13:15 For this people's heart is waxed gross, and [their] ears are dull of hearing, and their eyes they have closed; lest at any time they should see with [their] eyes, and hear with [their] ears, and should understand with [their] heart, and should be converted, and I should heal them.

Luke 8:18 Take heed therefore how ye hear: for whosoever hath, to him shall be given; and whosoever hath not, from him shall be taken even that which he seemeth to have.

Matthew 13:11 He answered and said unto them, Because it is given unto you to know the mysteries of the kingdom of heaven, but to them it is not given.

Zechariah 8:23 Thus saith the LORD of hosts; In those days [it shall come to pass], that ten men shall take hold out of all languages of the nations, even shall take hold of the skirt of him that is a Jew, saying, We will go with you: for we have heard [that] God [is] with you.  

Should a Muslim believe in the last days, he may have to take the skirt of a Jew to learn God's words and God's ways.  Why?

Jude 1:3 Beloved, when I gave all diligence to write unto you of the common salvation, it was needful for me to write unto you, and exhort [you] that ye should earnestly contend for the faith which was once delivered unto the saints.

We contend for a faith that was "once" and for all given unto the saints of God which is the gospel and the Christian message.  It is given freely to anyone who wants to hear but if everything could have been grasped easily then the natural man would have received the things of the spirit and Jesus wouldn't have had to teach.  That is why learning from someone who is taught by someone who is taught is important though not always correct because someone can learn error and re-teach error.  Take heed how you hear.

Please suggest a good online version with a good numbering system and please tell me why in this modern day and age you still have to translate the Qu'ran.  Is it because someone wants to obscure the meaning that it isn't translated accurately?  I suppose you have the same problems that language and meanings change which is what we face.

But let us each come up with a list.



[/quote]
ummyasmin

Peace!
Quote:
I posted that question on another board.  Thank you for answering but I didn't want to get ahead of myself as I would like this discussion to have a little bit of organization or structure as I don't always want to be all over the place all of the time.


That's fair enough. I posted a reply here, as I didn't want to hijack Christine's thread but I think an organised discussion is a worthy aim.

Quote:
Please make up a list of topics and number them.  Please number the points of tension of disagreements that we can debate between Christianity and Islam.  You can include Judiasm if you want.  I will make up a list but I just have a partial list.


I think this is a good idea, would you like to post your list?  Before my list though, I would start with the question: The Bible versus the Qur'an - which scripture is the Word of God, and how do we decide?

This is the important one, because there isn't much point saying the Qur'an is wrong only because it contradicts the Bible, if a person doesn't accept the Bible to be the word of God in the first place - and vice versa.

For example, you mentioned an interpretation of James different to the one I gave. Here I was simply pointing out there exists a passage in the Bible that confirms quite nicely what the Qur'an has to say about the relationship between faith and works. That there may be other Biblical verses that *contradict* the Qur'anic notion of faith and works doesn't mean a great deal to me, because I don't believe the Bible is the infallible word of God. It may contain (and does contain) many verses that contradict the Qur'an. But just because they contradict the Qur'an doesn't mean I believe that the Bible's version is true. In fact, I believe Paul--who did separate out faith and works-- inserted a lot of his ideas into Christian teachings, which the Qur'an has come to clarify and correct. I was simply pointing out that at least one early Christian author of the Bible had a different understanding than Paul, and one that is much closer to the Qur'anic understanding.

Then I would list:

* God's ability to forgive: can He just forgive the penitent or does He need an intermediary (eg. Jesus' as the substitutionary atonement)?

* Can a person *know* that they personally are saved and will remain saved until they die?

* Why does the idea of Jesus being God, contradict monotheism in how the Jews and Muslims understand it?

* What is the truth about the crucifixion? Is `Isa the same as Jesus? Who died on the cross? Was Jesus resurrected?

Quote:
There are professors of salvation and posessors of salvation.


Ay, there's the rub. How does a person know if they are a professor or a possessor? I'm sure there is many a professor who was absolutely sure they were a possessor until they lost their faith. Why not simply take the humble position that we do, and say "God knows best" and have faith that He is merciful and kind, and promises to reward those who are truly saved.

Quote:
I follow the descrimination principal that Muslims can hear the word of God (the Christian Bible) but not receive it as the Word of God


We have a similar concept as well:
Of them [the idolators] there are some who (pretend to) listen to thee; but We have thrown veils on their hearts, So they understand it not, and deafness in their ears; if they saw every one of the signs, not they will believe in them; in so much that when they come to thee, they (but) dispute with thee; the unbelievers say: "These are nothing but tales of the ancients." (Q6:25)
As to those who reject faith, it is the same to them whether thou warn them or do not warn them; they will not believe. (Q2:6)
And they who give the lie to Our messages are deaf and dumb, in darkness deep. Whomever God wills, He lets go astray; and whomever He wills, He places upon a straight way. (Q6:39)

However, only God knows who is in this state, and the blessed Prophet, peace and blessings be upon him, informed us that God doubly rewards the people of the Book who accept Islam:
Abu Musa Ash'ari relates that the Holy Prophet said: 'There are those who will have a double reward. One, a person of the People of the Book who believes in his Prophet and believes in Muhammad (#1370 collected in Imam Nawawi's Gardens of the Righteous)

Quote:
Please suggest a good online version with a good numbering system and please tell me why in this modern day and age you still have to translate the Qu'ran.  Is it because someone wants to obscure the meaning that it isn't translated accurately?  


LOL, no... no nefarious plan. It's merely that lots of people don't speak Arabic. As you said, we face the same semiotic problems when trying to translate the Word of God into various languages.  I studied Arabic, so I tend to swap between translations or translate a word/passage myself, to try and bring out the nuances as I understand them. For example, Arabic is a gendered language and the masculine plural is used for any group of men and/or any mixed group of men and women.  When translators use "mankind" (which in English once upon a time used to refer to mixed male and female) I prefer to use "humanity" simply so that it is not gender exclusive, and so on.

I am relatively happy to use the Yusuf Ali translation if that makes it easier for you. It is a widely available translation, and largely represents the understandings of the vast majority of Sunni Muslims. It is available here (you can turn off Arabic original, transliterations, audio etc. if you want to just stick to the English.)  

As for how I reference it - in a forum like this I put Q (for Qur'an as a text) then the surah/chapter number: ayah/verse number.  Eg. "Q1:1" refers to the first verse of the first chapter of the Qur'an.

Peace!
UY
Sosthenes

ummyasmin wrote:
I think this is a good idea, would you like to post your list?  Before my list though, I would start with the question: The Bible versus the Qur'an - which scripture is the Word of God, and how do we decide?

This is the important one, because there isn't much point saying the Qur'an is wrong only because it contradicts the Bible, if a person doesn't accept the Bible to be the word of God in the first place - and vice versa.


During the presidential debate, an internet user asked the question to both candidates,"What don't you know and how will you learn it?"  I thought that question was a bold question but very valid.  I suppose you could rephrase the question by asking,"How would you know which religion was true if you never possessed the real thing?"  The problems with answering the question for man is sin, separation from God, being at enmity (hostility or deep seated ill-will, wordnet.princeton.edu) with God.  It is also because Satan's hosts foster religious movements because he is making it a maze for people to find heaven and because he knows that many people say, "no" to salvation so he went to make it a lot harder to find the way "Because strait [is] the gate, and narrow [is] the way, which leadeth unto life, and few there be that find it."-Matthew 7:14  It can be very difficult for the truth of God to be communicated in Muslim countries because there are men who hold the truth of God (down) in unrighteousness (Romans 1:1Cool but you are held without excuse:  "For the invisible things of him from the creation of the world are clearly seen, being understood by the things that are made, [even] his eternal power and Godhead; so that they are without excuse:"-Romans 1:20  Here you are talking to me through the internet and I can give you all that you need to know to be saved and to go to heaven but God judges by what you do with Him and He does that by letting you make the judgment.  There is a possibility that people I thought would never make it into heaven will be there and there are people who I think would have made it into heaven will not make it into heaven.  God knows His sheep and He will separate the sheep from the goats one day.

There were two trees in the garden of Eden.  According to the Biblical account the woman was deceived and ate of the tree of the knowledge of good and evil.  God didn't allow Adam and Eve to eat of the tree of life.  Why?

Genesis 3:22 And the LORD God said, Behold, the man is become as one of us, to know good and evil: and now, lest he put forth his hand, and take also of the tree of life, and eat, and live for ever:

It was an act of grace that the curse came and that our bodies die from natural death and through this life we have to suffer.  If Adam and Eve had taken from the tree of life and ate, they would have lived forever in these bodies contaminated with sin.

Genesis 6:5 And GOD saw that the wickedness of man [was] great in the earth, and [that] every imagination of the thoughts of his heart [was] only evil continually.  

Imagine if the people in Genesis 6:5 lived forever.  Imagine if they were sealed in their bodies, they never died and they roamed the earth.  They would be in continual learning and continually corrupt the earth.

So why doesn't God just give people the tree of life?  You would live forever and you would eventually go from a relatively good life to worse.

1 Corinthians 1:21 For after that in the wisdom of God the world by wisdom knew not God, it pleased God by the foolishness of preaching to save them that believe.  

I think that if it would be possible to do things the wrong way, the wrong people would get into heaven.  I think that if God allowed everyone to eat of the tree of life, you would live forever in a body of sin.

Matthew 13:13 Therefore speak I to them in parables: because they seeing see not; and hearing they hear not, neither do they understand.

Matthew 13:14 And in them is fulfilled the prophecy of Esaias, which saith, By hearing ye shall hear, and shall not understand; and seeing ye shall see, and shall not perceive:

Matthew 13:15 For this people's heart is waxed gross, and [their] ears are dull of hearing, and their eyes they have closed; lest at any time they should see with [their] eyes, and hear with [their] ears, and should understand with [their] heart, and should be converted, and I should heal them.

I think that if people understood, they could have been saved for the wrong reasons.  I think that people could eat of the tree of life and live forever but freedom was what Adam and Eve had.  They were allowed to eat of every tree in the garden except one tree.  They were allowed to live there until they sinned.  Freedom allows people to rebel and freedom is what scholars call a privation or lack of God's righteousness because we are allowed to make decisions apart from the will of God.  One third of the angels fell when Satan rebelled and took them with him in his rebellion.  And man has never really governed himself well.

So here is how you tell whether the word of God is the word of God or not.  I throw the word of God at you and they are like seeds.  You can listen.  Other people can water the seed and help make it grow.  The Holy Spirit comes along and convicts you somehow and for some people it takes a while because I miss throwing the seeds, I throw it in the wrong place or it falls on good ground and you understand what I'm saying.  The seed has all the information it needs to grow.  The Holy Spirit will tug on your heart and you can come and know the truth and if you feel Him tugging on your heart, know it is real.  But if you reject then that is your choice.  You can see all the evidence until then but I think it is faith in the true Jesus that activates your faith to be saved because faith comes from hearing and hearing by the word of God.  What separates possessors from every other professor or religion is justification by grace through faith plus nothing.  Salvation is a free gift but you have to hold out your hands and while it is a free message, it doesn't come cheap.  Because of your sin, God had to send His Son to sweat and to suffer down here and pay an infinite price because "...all have sinned, and come short of the glory of God;"-Romans 3:23

God loves you and has a plan for your life.

Jeremiah 29:11 For I know the thoughts that I think toward you, saith the LORD, thoughts of peace, and not of evil, to give you an expected end.

Jeremiah 29:12 Then shall ye call upon me, and ye shall go and pray unto me, and I will hearken unto you.

Jeremiah 29:13 And ye shall seek me, and find [me], when ye shall search for me with all your heart.

Sorry about the last message of mine.  I didn't mean it to be a rub but I already know there are things in each of our books that each of us would find offensive but any debate will bring these up which will be offensive and we will end up talking about them, Lord willing, if we are going to have a discussion.  It is not my intention to be offensive but each of our messages ultimately is offensive to the other though I take no offense.  It is my responsibility to the other users and to God to teach the truth.

My view is that Islam came way too late and I don't find there to be any rational (from all the arguments and evidence that I am aware of) areas of cohesion between Christianity and Islam or the Bible and the Qur'an and I find that for me to make the jump from the Bible to the Qur'an and to view the Qur'an as just another revelation or another step is not a leap but a milestone leap in the dark.  I feel that Islam is what Paul might call "...a zeal of God, but not according to knowledge."-Romans 10:2 and I'm not saying that you don't have facts.  I'm saying that it isn't knowing or experiential knowledge and even false spirits can give you an experience but it is precise and correct knowledge of the ethical and divine:

1 John 4:1 Beloved, believe not every spirit, but try the spirits whether they are of God: because many false prophets are gone out into the world.
ummyasmin

Quote:
I suppose you could rephrase the question by asking,"How would you know which religion was true if you never possessed the real thing?"  The problems with answering the question for man is sin, separation from God, being at enmity (hostility or deep seated ill-will) with God.


Yes, there is a similar doctrine in Islam, although there is no concept of inherited original sin, and of course in the Qur'an, woman (Eve) is not blamed for tempting Adam. (Phew, is that a relief)

It was part of God's foreknowledge and plan that Man would be sent to earth as His vicegerent (Q2:30), so even though Adam and Eve were (together) fooled by the Satan, when they realised what had happened, they asked for God's forgiveness, and He forgave them. Simple as that - because God can choose to forgive us Smile (Q20:116-124, Q7:19-25 and Q2:35-39)

Quote:
So here is how you tell whether the word of God is the word of God or not.  I throw the word of God at you and they are like seeds.  You can listen.


I believe the holy Qur'an to be the discerner by which I can tell what is true and what is not, from the various books of scriptures--such as the Vedas, the Upanishads, the Bible etc.--extant amongst men. In one of my favourite passages, God says:

To thee We sent the scripture in truth, confirming the scripture that came before it, and guarding it in safety: so judge between them by what Allah hath revealed, and follow not their vain desires, diverging from the truth that hath come to thee. To each among you have we prescribed a law and an open way. If Allah had so willed, He would have made you a single people, but (His plan is) to test you in what He hath given you: so strive as in a race in all virtues. The goal of you all is to Allah. it is He that will show you the truth of the matters in which ye dispute (Q5:4Cool

So, ultimately dear Sosthenes, my brother-in-humanity if not in faith, even if we agree to disagree on this matter or that, it is God that will reveal to us in the fullness of time His will and the meaning of His words.

Quote:
My view is that Islam came way too late


Too late?? This is a curious statement. Of course we believe that all revelations from God from the mists of the dawn of human history through to Muhammad, peace and blessings be upon them all, are *all* part of Islam. So Islam is early as well as late, but I am curious: what is wrong with 610 of the common calendar as opposed to 1 of the common calendar, in the many eons for which human beings have lived?


Quote:
I don't find there to be any rational (from all the arguments and evidence that I am aware of) areas of cohesion between Christianity and Islam or the Bible and the Qur'an


There are certainly some major differences (some of which I have listed above) but there is much in common too.  The Ten Commandments springs to mind; the belief in the omniscience, the timelessness, of the Creator - who will one day call us all to account for our beliefs and our lives at the Day of Judgment; the honourable station of the blessed Virgin Mary; the importance of prayer and fasting... these are all areas common to Muslims and Christians.

Quite a number of the people of the Book wish they could turn you (people) back to infidelity after ye have believed, from selfish envy, after the truth hath become manifest unto them: But forgive and overlook, till Allah accomplish His purpose; for Allah hath power over all things.(Q2:109)
Sosthenes

ummyasmin wrote:
Then I would list:

* God's ability to forgive: can He just forgive the penitent or does He need an intermediary (eg. Jesus' as the substitutionary atonement)?

* Can a person *know* that they personally are saved and will remain saved until they die?

* Why does the idea of Jesus being God, contradict monotheism in how the Jews and Muslims understand it?

* What is the truth about the crucifixion? Is `Isa the same as Jesus? Who died on the cross? Was Jesus resurrected?


1) God forgave in the Old Testament but it was only temporary but it required the shedding of blood.
2) The idea/truth of Jesus being God doesn't contradict monotheism.
3) The truth about crucifixion is that Jesus died on the cross.

Isaiah 53:10 Yet it pleased the LORD to bruise him; he hath put [him] to grief: when thou shalt make his soul an offering for sin, he shall see [his] seed, he shall prolong [his] days, and the pleasure of the LORD shall prosper in his hand.

I have some questions from other sources:

(1) Has the Bible been annulled?
(2) Has the Bible been corrupted?
(3) Does the Bible contradict itself
(4) What do you believe about the gospel of Barnabus?
(5) Do you have any doubtful texts of the Bible?
(6) What does it mean to a Muslim that God is merciful and passionate?  What does it mean to you?
(7) Is it possible for a Muslim to be saved without acknowledging the deity of Jesus?
(Cool Did Jesus really die on the cross?
(9) What does the cross mean to a Muslim?
(10) What does the sacrifice in Genesis 22 mean to a Muslim in your tradition?
(11) What does it mean to you to have faith in and trust in the sacrifice of Jesus on the cross?
(12) Does the Bible contain prophecies of Mohammed?
(13) Does Mohammed meet the Biblical criteria for a prophet?


(1) Islam’s view of God involves a form of agnosticism because we can’t know God’s essence and therefore unable to know God.
(2)  There are problems with Islamic Determinism because God performs contradictory actions as leading astray and being the one who guides.
(3) The moral problem with Islamic Determinism is that man isn’t responsible for his actions because God is responsible and I find it troubling that Islam doesn’t recognise the concept of Original sin.  It has been stated that you would have to change the passage to state something else:  [9:51] Say, "Nothing happens to us, except what GOD has decreed for us. He is our Lord and Master. In GOD the believers shall trust."
(4) 6:35 And if it distress thee that those who deny the truth [24] turn their backs on thee - why, then, if thou art able to go down deep into the earth or to ascend a ladder unto heaven [25] in order to bring them a [yet more convincing] message, [do so;] but [remember that] had God so willed, He would indeed have gathered them all unto [His] guidance. Do not, therefore, allow thyself to ignore [God's ways]. [26]

“If thou art able” implies that Muhammad wasn’t able to do miracles.

(5) The problem with there being no canon for the hadith seems to be troubling to anyone wanting to consider Islam.

I have more questions.
ummyasmin

Wow that's quite a list.  Do you want to take one of your preferred topics and start a thread, and I'll do the same?
Sosthenes

ummyasmin wrote:
Wow that's quite a list.  Do you want to take one of your preferred topics and start a thread, and I'll do the same?


What is your preferred topic?  I suppose the one I may ask you to start on is:

(1) Is the Bible corrupted?  You can give the Qur'anic view and then please give your own view and your own conclusion.  Who corrupted it?  Why did they corrupt it?  What evidence do you have and do you actually have any proof?  And does that mean that someone actually annulled the alleged words of Allah if the Bible was corrupted?  If someone could annul or abrogate the words of Allah, does that mean he is not all powerful and do you have the wrong God since his words were abrogated?
ummyasmin

Peace!
Quote:
Is the Bible corrupted?  You can give the Qur'anic view and then please give your own view and your own conclusion.  Who corrupted it?  Why did they corrupt it?  What evidence do you have and do you actually have any proof?  


That seems like a good place to start.

My impression of the Bible is the same as my impression of the Bhaghavad Gita, the Upanishads, the Vedas, the Pali Canon, the Nag Hammadi texts, the Talmud, the Tao Te Ching, the Gathas, Apache lore, the stories of the (Australian Aboriginal) Dreamtime, and other texts and oral lore used as scriptures by people following various religions.  

These texts and oral lore may all contain remnants of divine teachings given by God to various prophets throughout human history (and thus we should show respect to them, because of that possibility) but they also contain the ordinary interpolations of human being-this is the introduction of unauthentic doctrines and beliefs into the texts and oral lore of the various religions of the world.

So for example, the New Testament texts you call "the Gospels" may well contain some of the teachings of the revelation the Qur'an calls the Injil given to Prophet `Isa, peace be upon him, however "the Gospels" are not the same as "the Injil".


The only way we can confirm what is true of the texts used as scriptures by people around the world, is through the Qur'an and what it confirms as being true.  This is what I understand the Qur'an to mean when it says:

There is among them [the people of the Book] a section who distort the Book with their tongues: (As they read) you would think it is a part of the Book, but it is no part of the Book; and they say, "That is from Allah," but it is not from Allah. It is they who tell a lie against Allah, and (well) they know it!(Q3:7Cool

Can ye (o ye men of faith) entertain the hope that they will believe in you?- Seeing that a party of them heard the word of Allah, and perverted it knowingly after they understood it. ... And there are among them illiterates, who know not the Book, but (see therein their own) desires, and they do nothing but conjecture. Then woe to those who write the Book with their own hands, and then say:"This is from Allah," to traffic with it for miserable price!- Woe to them for what their hands do write, and for the gain they make thereby.(2:75,78-79)

And other similar passages.

Now the question of course, is whether it is possible to trace the authentic teachings of the Injil in at least some of the texts of the New Testament, and I think it is!  A year ago I came across an excellent book Beyond Mere Christianity: C.S. Lewis & the Betrayal of Christianity by a Christian, Brandon Toropov, who has embraced Islam by the will of God. You can download a PDF of that book here, which I encourage you to do.

Toropov, using the research that scholars have done on the Q (Quelle) source, is able to show how the oldest passages of the Gospels are in conformity with what Islam says Prophet `Isa, peace be upon him, taught.  So contained within the texts of the New Testament might just well be the Injil of which the Qur'an speaks. Now, it may well be that some of the Injil is found in other extra-Biblical texts such as the Nag Hammadi texts; certainly the story of how `Isa, peace be upon him, brought the clay bird to life by the will of God, and how he spoke in the cradle, shows there is some of the Injil that did not make it into the New Testament.

We also don't know how much of the Injil was still possessed by the pre-Islamic Arab Christians. It is highly doubtful the texts the pre-Islamic Arab Christians were using are the same as the King James Bible you have on your bookshelf.  To begin with, the Qur'an discusses some beliefs that those Christians held, that aren't currently held by Protestant and Catholic Christians (at least).  This includes the deity of the Virgin Mary, Docetism, and Sabellianism.

Secondly, the canon of the Catholic and Protestant Bibles was not established until well after the advent of Islam. For example, the Codex Sinaiticus includes Tobit, Judith, Wisdom of Solomon, Wisdom of Jesus b. Sirach, I Maccabees and IV Maccabees (which are not included in the Protestant Bibles today) and the Epistle of Barnabas and the Shepherd of Hermas, which are not included in either the Catholic or Protestant Bibles. (Ref)

To give you an example of some of the unauthentic writings that even Christian scholars believe have been medieval inclusions in the Biblical text, see here.

Of course, we Muslims believe that Paul inserted many erroneous doctrines into his letters and teachings to the early Christian community - including the Trinity, the substitutionary atonement of Christ, the salvation by faith-alone doctrine and so on. So much so that what is currently Christianity today, is really the religion founded by Paul.

Why? Why does anyone go astray from the truth? You might view the founders of the Mormon flavour of Christianity as having gone astray, but we similarly view the Pauline flavour of Christianity as having gone astray. To ask why Paul would insert his own doctrines into the religion, is to ask why Joseph Smith would insert his own doctrines into the religion.

[quote]And does that mean that someone actually annulled the alleged words of Allah if the Bible was corrupted?

Well, no human being can annull or change the words of Allah, they have existed from all eternity as his attribute of 'Speech'. What human beings can do is ignore or hide the words of Allah from others, and use other human texts in place of the words of Allah. Texts like the Vedas, the Upanishads, the Bible and so on.

Quote:
If someone could annul or abrogate the words of Allah, does that mean he is not all powerful and do you have the wrong God since his words were abrogated?


Abrogation is a rather complex topic within Islamic sciences of scripture, but actually even Christians have the concept of abrogation (which means to repeal, annul or abolish a law or custom).  The New Testament teachings abrogate the Old Testament. For example, in the Old Testament we find that Christians believe God told the Jews that divorce was permissible:

When a man hath taken a wife, and married her, and it come to pass that she find no favour in his eyes, because he hath found some uncleanness in her: then let him write her a bill of divorcement, and give it in her hand, and send her out of his house. And when she is departed out of his house, she may go and be another man's wife.(Deutronomy 24:1-2).

However, Christians believe that Jesus abrogated this Old Testament law:
It hath been said, Whosoever shall put away his wife, let him give her a writing of divorcement: But I say unto you, That whosoever shall put away his wife, saving for the cause of fornication, causeth her to commit adultery: and whosoever shall marry her that is divorced committeth adultery.(Matthew 5:31-32)

For more information and examples of how Jesus in the New Testament abrogates laws in the Old Testament, and even his own teachings, see here.

Abrogation doesn't mean the words of God have changed, it means that God reveals certain laws and teachings for one group of people living at one time, and then a different set of laws and teachings for another group of people living at another time. However, with the coming of Prophet Muhammad, peace and blessings be upon him, His final set of laws and teachings have been revealed for the whole planet.
Sosthenes

ummyasmin wrote:
Now the question of course, is whether it is possible to trace the authentic teachings of the Injil in at least some of the texts of the New Testament, and I think it is!  A year ago I came across an excellent book Beyond Mere Christianity: C.S. Lewis & the Betrayal of Christianity by a Christian, Brandon Toropov, who has embraced Islam by the will of God. You can download a PDF of that book here, which I encourage you to do.


I have a little time to comment but my deceased grandmother may be old enough to remember C.S. Lewis but many people living today do not.  This may get some people upset in the U.K. because he was popular there and is high regarded and has done a lot for Apologetics and may be regarded as one of the most important apologists for this century but the problem is that he came in a time and filled a void.  I and other scholars don't regard him as completely Orthodox so while I can discuss him, he was notable for his day but I regard this as a strawman issue.  The Christians in the U.K. may get made at me and say "show me proof" because of his value but I'm not rich with resources to go drag up books that exist only in libraries if you are fortunate enough to have them.  I remember reading the Screwtape Letters and had to stop reading it as a young Christian.

My research on C.S. Lewis is in two parts that I've managed to drag up and I'm not finished because this research project is not that important:

C.S. Lewis was a great writer, apologist and many other things but in the forward to Mere Christianity, C.S. Lewis wrote : "In the first place questions which divide Christians from one another often involve points of high Theology or even of ecclesiastical history which ought never to be treated except by real experts. I should have been out of my depth in such waters; more of need myself than to help others." I find that C.S. Lewis is not true to the Bible.

Other than the things I researched from Dr. Norman Geisler's book "A General Introduction to the Bible", I found these quotes online:

CLIVE STAPLES LEWIS (1898-1963), distinguished professor of English literature at England's Cambridge University, went to a priest regularly for confession (C. S. Lewis: A Biography, p. 198). The sacrament of Extreme Unction was administered to Lewis on July 16, 1964 (Ibid., p. 301). He also prayed for the dead: "Of course I pray for the dead" (Letters to Malcomb, p. 107).

Lewis held strongly to an evolutionary animal ancestry of man. "For long centuries God perfected the animal form which was to become the vehicle of humanity and the image of Himself" (The Problem of Pain, p. 177).

He held that the Genesis account came from pagan mythical sources. "I have therefore no difficulty accepting the view of those scholars who tell us that the account of Creation in Genesis is derived from earlier Semitic stories which were pagan and mythical" (Reflections on the Psalms, p. 110).

Dr. Lewis did not believe in a bodily resurrection (C.S. Lewis: A Biography, p. 234). He rejected the doctrine of the total depravity of man. "I disbelieve that doctrine" (The Problem of Pain, p. 66).

His view of Scripture was lamentable. He said the Book of Job is "unhistorical." He also said the Bible contained "error," and asserted the Neo-orthodox concept that the Bible "carries" the Word of God and is "human material" (The Problem of Pain, pp. 110,112).


Taken From the website http://withchrist.org/MJS/(click on polemic/persons, and underneath a list of persons, of which C.S.Lewis is included.)

---

C.S. Lewis was very popular and did a lot of great things. He is remembered in the United States for the books that he wrote and the ideas he gives to apologetics but no one quotes him as an exegetical scholar. He had a lot of success and is quoted by a lot of well known and well respected Apologists like Josh McDowell and Dr. Ravi Zacherias.

I'm not the only one questioning C.S. Lewis:

http://www.equip.org/free/JAL400.htm

Dr. Norman Geisler says a lot of great things about Clive Staples Lewis in the Baker Encyclopedia of Christian Apologetics. I think Lewis' problem starts with his view on Inspiration. Geisler says that Lewis is neither Orthodox or Neo-Orthodox but calls Lewis a Liberal-evangelical and Geisler says that he uses the term as a paradoxical one.

Geisler gives a list of the various views on inspiration:

Extreme Fundamentalism - Verbal dictation through secretaries
Orthodox - Verbal inspiration through prophets
Liberals - Human intuition through natural process
Liberal-Evangelical - Divine elevation of human literature
Neo-Orthodox - Human recording of revelational events
Neo-Evangelicals - Inspiration of only redemptive truths or purpose

"According to Lewis,'the voice of God [is heard] in the cursing Psalms through all the horrible distortions of the human medium." p.176, "A General Introduction to the bible" by Dr. Norman Geisler (C.S. Lewis, Reflections on the Psalms, pp. 111-12, 114-15. In this volume there are extensive quotations of Herman Bavinck. Also see Geisler, Decide for Yourself, pp. 91-102.

If God's word is heard through all of the horrible distortions through the human medium then how do we know that we are getting God's word? Do you see what I'm getting at? People can remain an athiest and think that they are a Christian by believing in nothing.

Lewis writes,"I have therefore no difficulty in accepting, say, the view of those scholars who tell us that the account of Creation in Genesis is derived from earlier Semitic stores which were Pagan and mytical.", p177, "A General Introduction to the bible" by Dr. Norman Geisler (Cited by Clyde A.S. Kilby, The Christian World of C.S. Lewis, p. 153.)

I'll save you a lot of quotes and get to the point ->

In Geisler's summary, ""Lewis believed in a fallible Bible that manifests varying degrees of inspiration. He saw a process of development whereby myth becomes history. God providentially guided the natural and errant literaary productions of the past. Then, at the appropriate moment, God adopted that natural myth and elevated it into the service of the Word of God. He now speaks through it to the edification of believers."-p. 177, "A General Introduction to the Bible" (Contemporary Theories of Revelation and Inspiration).

C.S. Lewis is reported to not hold to an Orthodox position on the Trinity that only a scholar like Dr. Norman Geisler would point out.
Sosthenes

ummyasmin wrote:
Toropov, using the research that scholars have done on the Q (Quelle) source, is able to show how the oldest passages of the Gospels are in conformity with what Islam says Prophet `Isa, peace be upon him, taught.  So contained within the texts of the New Testament might just well be the Injil of which the Qur'an speaks. Now, it may well be that some of the Injil is found in other extra-Biblical texts such as the Nag Hammadi texts; certainly the story of how `Isa, peace be upon him, brought the clay bird to life by the will of God, and how he spoke in the cradle, shows there is some of the Injil that did not make it into the New Testament.


Quote:
Doherty’s Dubious Sources. Added to Doherty’s woeful inadequacy as a textual critic is his wholesale acceptance of a proposed “source document” for the gospels, called Q (after the German Quelle, “source”). Regarding Q, we have no copies of Q, no copies of portions of Q, no references to Q in any of the early Christian writings, no references to Q in any of the early non-Christian writings, no references to Q in any of the gospels or the writings of Paul or the other letters; we have, in fact, no conclusive evidence whatsoever that Q ever existed.[4]


http://www.answers.org/apologetics/appealdenied.html
ummyasmin

Quote:
Regarding Q, we have no copies of Q, no copies of portions of Q, no references to Q in any of the early Christian writings, no references to Q in any of the early non-Christian writings, no references to Q in any of the gospels or the writings of Paul or the other letters; we have, in fact, no conclusive evidence whatsoever that Q ever existed.[4]


Except the Gospels themselves.
"The two-source hypothesis is the most widely accepted solution to the Synoptic Problem, which concerns the literary relationships between and among the first three canonical gospels (the Gospels of Mark, Matthew, and Luke), known as the Synoptic Gospels." (Ref).

But whether or not Christian scholars are divided over the source material for the New Testament Gospels is ultimately a question for Christian scholars.

That the Q material confirms Islamic doctrine is interesting for Muslims, and I think gives us good evidence that at least *some* of the Injil is still read and used by modern day Christians. Nevertheless, even if all Christian scholars were to reject the Q-hypothesis, it still does not detract from the Muslim belief in the Qur'anic statements about `Isa, peace be upon him, and what he taught his followers.

I'm surprised you're not a fan of C.S. Lewis, he is pretty popular in Christian circles here in Australia. Nevertheless Toropov's work is not so much to do with what Lewis believed, as showing how an 'Islamic Jesus' can be redeemed from the New Testament texts. I do encourage you to read it.

So... my turn for a thread?

How do you resolve the illogicity of the following:

Christian doctrine says that humankind with any blemish of sin, may not stand in the presence of God without the substitutionary atonement of Christ. Yet, Christ is God according to Christian belief, and plenty of people stood in his presence, including the worst of sinners?
Sosthenes

ummyasmin wrote:

So... my turn for a thread?

How do you resolve the illogicity of the following:

Christian doctrine says that humankind with any blemish of sin, may not stand in the presence of God without the substitutionary atonement of Christ. Yet, Christ is God according to Christian belief, and plenty of people stood in his presence, including the worst of sinners?


Are you referring to this text?

Isaiah 59:1 Behold, the LORD'S hand is not shortened, that it cannot save; neither his ear heavy, that it cannot hear:

Isaiah 59:2 But your iniquities have separated between you and your God, and your sins have hid [his] face from you, that he will not hear.

It says that his ear is not heavy that it cannot hear so God can hear.  It says He hid his face from us.  If you can give me some better verses and I know people make a summary of these verses to say what you said.

The quick answer is that God is not unable to see sin but God can't condone it without disapproval or without wrath so maybe that is why God hides his face but there are verses which say that God can look upon evil:

Proverbs 15:3 The eyes of the LORD [are] in every place, beholding the evil and the good.

Proverbs 15:11 Hell and destruction [are] before the LORD: how much more then the hearts of the children of men?

Job 11:11 For he knoweth vain men: he seeth wickedness also; will he not then consider [it]?

Psalm 10:14 Thou hast seen [it]; for thou beholdest mischief and spite, to requite [it] with thy hand: the poor committeth himself unto thee; thou art the helper of the fatherless.


The distinction between Habakkuk 1:13 and the other verses is if God looked upon iniquity then He couldn't hold His tongue when the wicked devoureth.

Habakkuk 1:13 [Thou art] of purer eyes than to behold evil, and canst not look on iniquity: wherefore lookest thou upon them that deal treacherously, [and] holdest thy tongue when the wicked devoureth [the man that is] more righteous than he?

How can Jesus be God and have people stand in His presence including the worst of sinners?  You have to understand in the incarnation, God took on an additional nature:

John 1:14 And the Word was made flesh, and dwelt among us, (and we beheld his glory, the glory as of the only begotten of the Father,) full of grace and truth.

Let me back up to John 1:1 so you can understand:

John 1:1 In the beginning was the Word, and the Word was with God, and the Word was God.

"Word" is used for God and this "Word" became "flesh".  It is the same word used for God and used for Jesus.

Yes, God hates sin:

Psalm 66:18 If I regard iniquity in my heart, the Lord will not hear [me]:

Proverb 28:9 He that turneth away his ear from hearing the law, even his prayer [shall be] abomination.

Psalm 7:11 God judgeth the righteous, and God is angry [with the wicked] every day.  

And He is Holy:

Psalm 22:3 But thou [art] holy, [O thou] that inhabitest the praises of Israel.

And when Jesus was on the cross, He bore our sins and God didn't look on Him so that He could look on us:

Matthew 27:46 And about the ninth hour Jesus cried with a loud voice, saying, Eli, Eli, lama sabachthani? that is to say, My God, my God, why hast thou forsaken me?

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.

Our God knows that we were set up but realises that we could have a second, third or fourth chance and be redeemed and look upon us as what we're not:

Romans 4:17 (As it is written, I have made thee a father of many nations,) before him whom he believed, [even] God, who quickeneth the dead, and calleth those things which be not as though they were.

Because Jesus took God's wrath for us, we are:

1 Peter 2:9 But ye [are] a chosen generation, a royal priesthood, an holy nation, a peculiar people; that ye should shew forth the praises of him who hath called you out of darkness into his marvellous light:

Quote:
"So... my turn for a thread?"


That is fine and okay but only if you want me to take a break because I wasn't finished answering you from your previous post.
ummyasmin

Sosthenes wrote:

That is fine and okay but only if you want me to take a break because I wasn't finished answering you from your previous post.


My apologies that was presumptious of me. I'm very interested in continuing with the previous thread, and hearing your more detailed response before starting a new thread.
Sosthenes

ummyasmin wrote:
My impression of the Bible is the same as my impression of the Bhaghavad Gita, the Upanishads, the Vedas, the Pali Canon, the Nag Hammadi texts, the Talmud, the Tao Te Ching, the Gathas, Apache lore, the stories of the (Australian Aboriginal) Dreamtime, and other texts and oral lore used as scriptures by people following various religions.  

These texts and oral lore may all contain remnants of divine teachings given by God to various prophets throughout human history (and thus we should show respect to them, because of that possibility) but they also contain the ordinary interpolations of human being-this is the introduction of unauthentic doctrines and beliefs into the texts and oral lore of the various religions of the world.


Then how do you reconcile Monotheism, Polytheism, Pantheism and Dualism?

Some people say religion its like a blind man that feels an elephant.  One feels a trunk, another feels a tail, etc.  The problem is that the elephant talked and "Jesus saith unto him, I am the way, the truth, and the life: no man cometh unto the Father, but by me." (John 14:6)

Quote:
I'm surprised you're not a fan of C.S. Lewis, he is pretty popular in Christian circles here in Australia. Nevertheless Toropov's work is not so much to do with what Lewis believed, as showing how an 'Islamic Jesus' can be redeemed from the New Testament texts. I do encourage you to read it.


There are many books in the secular bookstore that I wouldn't agree with and the Christian corner is often heretic central because non-Christians wouldn't necessarily buy a Christian book and the Bible says, "But the natural man receiveth not the things of the Spirit of God: for they are foolishness unto him: neither can he know [them], because they are spiritually discerned."-1 Corinthians 2:14

Quote:
That the Q material confirms Islamic doctrine is interesting for Muslims, and I think gives us good evidence that at least *some* of the Injil is still read and used by modern day Christians. Nevertheless, even if all Christian scholars were to reject the Q-hypothesis, it still does not detract from the Muslim belief in the Qur'anic statements about `Isa, peace be upon him, and what he taught his followers.


It is called "Higher Criticism" and if I read some of the complex arguments there would be a lot of people who wouldn't even understand it.  For the most part, it is liberal theologians who don't believe the Word of God who promote it but it is not a concern or shouldn't be a concern to most Christians.  It was the liberal theologians who brought us the Jehovah Witnesses, the Jesus Seminar, the emergent Church movement.  I think that if Islam was a nuisance to the secular world then there would be many athiests who would be opposed to Islam and they would invent stories about Islam.

What is a miracle?  A person says that the Bible can't be true because miracles don't exist since the impossible can't happen or a person says that the Bible is true because what isn't humanly possible happened.

As far as what Books of the Bible were included in the Bible, it is a whole different discussion on the Canon of scripture and the Catholics have taken the debate to extremes only to come out in public a few years ago to say they don't believe in the Bible anymore.

I have debated about the non canonical books and decided that they were added by the Catholic Church because it supported their doctrine.

Jesus chose his twelve disciples and He told them to go into all the world and to preach the Gospel.  Some of them did that but a lot of them were still staying in Jerusalem until Titus destroyed the Temple in 70 A.D. and persecution dispersed the Christians.  What you would have to say is that the disciples that Jesus picked would have had to corrupt the New Testament there and there were eyewitnesses alive that would have said "no" to any changes.  There are four manuscript families of the New Testament and they went into four different geographic regions and no one person or group had control of all the texts.  So if someone added something to the text, you could compare the other three.  What we have today is copying errors and the differences are something nominal like 1.8% or something small.  So, no.  I don't see any attempt to overthrow the scriptures.  Christians died for the text and if they corrupted it, they certainly wouldn't have died for a lie.  What was left over were a lot of "Christians" who wouldn't die for the text and Constantine made Christianity the State religion so those who neither died for Christianity ran Christianity while the faithful were hiding in caves.  It was the heretics and so forth that were left over after a lot of the true Christians were martyred or died.  I have to go as I'm running out of time but it is your turn but I think it is a laugh if you think that an Orthodox Jew and I would agree on the conclusion of the text as if my predecessors and the Jews corroborated on anything and history bares this out as there is archaeological evidence that shows the Bible is accurate.
ummyasmin

My apologies for taking a week to reply, I'm trying to finish off a paper that's overdue. I've had to be disciplined and not post.

I wrote:
Quote:

My impression of the Bible is the same as my impression of the Bhaghavad Gita, the Upanishads [etc] ... These texts and oral lore may all contain remnants of divine teachings given by God to various prophets throughout human history (and thus we should show respect to them, because of that possibility) but they also contain the ordinary interpolations of human being-this is the introduction of unauthentic doctrines and beliefs into the texts and oral lore of the various religions of the world.


Sosthenes replied:
Quote:

Then how do you reconcile Monotheism, Polytheism, Pantheism and Dualism?


Islam teaches that all of the prophets and messengers originally taught monotheism: "Not an apostle did We send before thee without this inspiration sent by Us to him: that there is no god but I; therefore worship and serve Me."(Q21:25) but over time, people fell away from  monotheistic worship.

There is evidence of this when we look at primitive religions, in which the existence of "high gods" demonstrates that monotheism is not a later development as secular science has long presumed. (Rodney Stark, Discovering God: The Origins of the Great Religions and the Evolution of Belief, HarperOne, 2007: 55-56)

So, whilst Prophet `Isa, peace be upon him, taught Islamic monotheism, later Christians introduced manmade doctrines such as the Trinity into their belief.

Quote:
The problem is that the elephant talked and "Jesus saith unto him, I am the way, the truth, and the life: no man cometh unto the Father, but by me." (John 14:6)


Well... that's what John has Jesus claiming.  We believe God said: If anyone desires a religion other than al-islam (submission to God) never will it be accepted of him; and in the hereafter he will be in the ranks of those who have lost (all spiritual good).(Q3:85)

Quote:
I think that if Islam was a nuisance to the secular world then there would be many athiests who would be opposed to Islam and they would invent stories about Islam.


Hehe, they do mate, they do!

Quote:
What is a miracle?  A person says that the Bible can't be true because miracles don't exist since the impossible can't happen or a person says that the Bible is true because what isn't humanly possible happened.


You might be interested to know, that one of our greatest scholars Imam al-Ghazzali, may the mercy of God be upon him, wrote about causation and miracles, and he developed ideas about causation that were not seen in the West until very recently.  

I won't go into a long discussion here, but Imam al-Ghazzali pointed out that we cannot prove causation to be true (the basis of modern science is that we cannot prove something to be true, we can only prove a hypothesis to be false). It is God that is the true causation of every thing, and it is His habit to give us predictable 'causes and effects' otherwise we would go quite mad.  But of course, if God chooses to interrupt what we see as predictable cause and effect (by what we call a 'miracle') that is easy for Him.

Quote:

I have debated about the non canonical books and decided that they were added by the Catholic Church because it supported their doctrine.

But the Codex Sinaiticus was written in the fourth century CE!  Which means that fourth century Christians had a different version of the Bible than the one on your bookshelf.

Let's compare the composition of the Bible and the Qur'an:

How many authors?

BIBLE: Many. Some are even traditionally unknown, such as the authors of Tobit, 3 Maccabees and Hebrews. Most of the traditional list of authors are disputed by modern scholarship.

QUR'AN:One. The Qur'an was given by God to the angel Gabriel, who imparted it only to the Prophet Muhammad, peace be upon him.

Who decided whether a text is Scripture?

BIBLE:Lots of different people who disagreed depending on the sect or denomination. For example, Rabbinic Judaism recognizes the twenty-four books of the Masoretic Text, with canonization (consensus on the canon of the text) probably occurring over four hundred years (!) from 200 BCE to 200 CE. Samaritans only accept a version of the Pentateuch. The earliest Christians did not have a single scriptural text, because the Christian writings developed over time. The Muratorian fragment is a copy of the oldest known scripture list probably composed around 170 CE. It excludes from the canon Hebrews, 1 Peter, 2 Peter, and James. It also considered letters written in Paul's name as unacceptable as well as a number of other differences from today's Bibles. Fourth century Athanasius's canon included Baruch but not Esther. Also in the fourth century, various councils affirmed the current Orthodox and Catholic canons, which include the Apocrypha although there was dispute over inclusion of Revelation. Protestant Christianity (beginning with Luther) rejected the Apocrypha. Asian Orthodox churches today include the Book of Enoch, which Catholic, Orthodox and Protestant Christianity rejects but evidence is that the early church including Ireneaeus, Tertullian and Clement of Alexandria accepted. The Church of Latter-day Saints includes a set of scriptural texts revealed in the nineteenth century including the Book of Mormon, Doctrines and Covenants, and the Pearl of Great Price.

QUR'AN:Whilst God is the one who decided what was Scripture, by revealing it to the Prophet, in terms of authenticating the scriptural text we have, the companions of the Prophet all authenticated every verse. Each verse had to have at least two trustworthy witnesses who swore they had memorised it from the Prophet, peace be upon him. From this testimony, the 'chain of custody' as they say is unbroken. All Muslims have the same Arabic text with all the same verses.

When was the scripture compiled into a text

BIBLE:The Bible was composed by a variety of different authors over many centuries.

QUR'AN:The ayahs of the Qur'an were written down on various media during the life of the Prophet, and memorised (in parts and in total) by vast numbers of his companions, allowing them to authenticate the written collation just twelve years after the passing of the Prophet.

What is the oldest known version of the complete scriptural text?

BIBLE:It depends on which scriptural texts are included in the canon (see above). The Codex Sinaiticus (which does include the Apocrypha, the Epistle of Barnabas and the Shepherd of Hermas, was written in the fourth century (that's four hundred years after Jesus Christ).

QUR'AN:The earliest extant full manuscripts of the Qur'an include a manuscript from the early first century AH (less than one hundred years after the Prophet and his companions made hijrah to Yathrib, and less than ninety years after the Prophet passed away) at the Great Mosque in Yemen; two manuscripts dated at 102 AH and 107 AH housed in the Egyptian National Library. (More information about the oldest manuscripts).

Quote:
Christians died for the text and if they corrupted it, they certainly wouldn't have died for a lie.

But the earliest Christians -- the disciples of Jesus -- didn't have a common scriptural text. Besides, how do you account for the plethora of gnostic and extra-canonical texts such as the Shepherd of Hermes?

Even within the texts of the New Testament, we can see evidence of the massive debate that was being held between the disciples, some of whom were proponents of Jewish monotheism, and others of Pauline Trinitarianism. For example, see Galatians 2:1-15 "But when Peter was come to Antioch, I [Paul] withstood him to the face, because he was to be blamed.  The KJV is a bit opaque here, so this is the New Living Translation of the whole section, which gives a vernacular account: Then fourteen years later I went back to Jerusalem again, this time with Barnabas; and Titus came along, too.

I went there because God revealed to me that I should go. While I was there I talked privately with the leaders of the church. I wanted them to understand what I had been preaching to the Gentiles. I wanted to make sure they did not disagree, or my ministry would have been useless. And they did agree. They did not even demand that my companion Titus be circumcised, though he was a Gentile.

Even that question wouldn't have come up except for some so-called Christians there--false ones, really--who came to spy on us and see our freedom in Christ Jesus. They wanted to force us, like slaves, to follow their Jewish regulations. But we refused to listen to them for a single moment. We wanted to preserve the truth of the Good News for you.

And the leaders of the church who were there had nothing to add to what I was preaching. (By the way, their reputation as great leaders made no difference to me, for God has no favorites.) They saw that God had given me the responsibility of preaching the Good News to the Gentiles, just as he had given Peter the responsibility of preaching to the Jews. For the same God who worked through Peter for the benefit of the Jews worked through me for the benefit of the Gentiles. In fact, James, Peter, and John, who were known as pillars of the church, recognized the gift God had given me, and they accepted Barnabas and me as their co-workers. They encouraged us to keep preaching to the Gentiles, while they continued their work with the Jews. The only thing they suggested was that we remember to help the poor, and I have certainly been eager to do that.

But when Peter came to Antioch, I had to oppose him publicly, speaking strongly against what he was doing, for it was very wrong.

When he first arrived, he ate with the Gentile Christians, who don't bother with circumcision. But afterward, when some Jewish friends of James came, Peter wouldn't eat with the Gentiles anymore because he was afraid of what these legalists would say. Then the other Jewish Christians followed Peter's hypocrisy, and even Barnabas was influenced to join them in their hypocrisy.

When I saw that they were not following the truth of the Good News, I said to Peter in front of all the others, "Since you, a Jew by birth, have discarded the Jewish laws and are living like a Gentile, why are you trying to make these Gentiles obey the Jewish laws you abandoned?

The actual apostles of Jesus clearly thought Paul (who was not an original apostle appointed whilst Jesus was alive) was inferior to them, as Paul writes about it in 2 Corinthians 11. Here in the New Living Translation again: You seem to believe whatever anyone tells you, even if they preach about a different Jesus than the one we preach, or a different Spirit than the one you received, or a different kind of gospel than the one you believed. But I don't think I am inferior to these "super apostles." I may not be a trained speaker, but I know what I am talking about. I think you realize this by now, for we have proved it again and again. ... They say they are Hebrews, do they? So am I. And they say they are Israelites? So am I. And they are descendants of Abraham? So am I. They say they serve Christ? I know I sound like a madman, but I have served him far more! I have worked harder, been put in jail more often, been whipped times without number, and faced death again and again. (2 Cor 11:4-5, 22-23)

Clearly there was a huge stoush going on between various apostles and preachers who were all teaching different sorts of things. Historically, though, Paul won the debate and that's how we have Pauline Christianity.  This is why the Qur'an accuses some of the people of the Book for following man-made interpolations, and not the original message of the Prophet `Isa, peace be upon him.
Sosthenes

ummyasmin wrote:
My apologies for taking a week to reply, I'm trying to finish off a paper that's overdue. I've had to be disciplined and not post.


I totally understand as I am not trying to overwhelm you and I am not going to post every day.
Sosthenes

The Canon of Scripture
(C) by Sothenes
revised 1/23/2005

I recommend two books on the subject

Bruce, F.F., "The Canon of Scripture"
Geisler and Nix, "A General Introduction To The Bible"

There are two additional books that give added help but no matter what I teach you regarding the Canon of Scripture, there are people hell bent on adding to the Canon and they will work very hard at confusing you so that you accept their books.

I think people really need to start from Deuteronomy 18 to help determine the cannon. God said He would raise up a prophet and if people don't listen then God would require it of him (v. 19). It also says if the prophet speaks in the name of other gods (plural) or if the thing doesn't come to pass (v. 22) then the prophet is in a lot of trouble.

You might ask what a prophet has to do with the "Cannon" of Scripture? It all has to do with claims of authority to speak for God since the Church which was "...built upon the foundation of the apostles and prophets, Jesus Christ himself being the chief corner stone;" (Ephesians 2:20).

Then you have a framework to start asking questions like: Who were the apostles and prophets? One clue comes from Jesus and it is important for everyone to know their Bibles. "That the blood of all the prophets, which was shed from the foundation of the world, may be required of this generation; From the blood of Abel unto the blood of Zacharias, which perished between the altar and the temple: verily I say unto you, It shall be required of this generation."-Luke 11:50-51

There you start with a genealogy of the prophets which was from Abel to Zacherias. If you have books before or after these men then you have to have other Biblical support from Jesus or they have to be classified apart from the Prophets.

Another evidence for what was included in the Canon comes from Jesus.  “…that all things must be fulfilled, which were written in the law of Moses, and in the prophets, and in the psalms concerning me.”-Luke 24:44  Jesus gives the division of scripture and it doesn’t include the Apocrypha because the division is "The Law of Moses", "The Prophets" and the "Psalms".

A lot of people think the denial of the Apocrypha is a Protestant invention.  The truth is that the development of the Cannon of Scripture is not an invention of any one person, group, church, denomination or council.  I do feel that the Protestants have recognized what the majority has recognized since the church fathers.

It is a lot of reading and you have to know your Bible. If you don't know your Bible then someone may claim authority that they don't have. If someone claims authority that they shouldn't have them they come between God and that person.  There are also numerous warnings not to add to or subtract from the Word of God.
Sosthenes

ummyasmin wrote:

Sosthenes replied:
Quote:

Then how do you reconcile Monotheism, Polytheism, Pantheism and Dualism?


Islam teaches that all of the prophets and messengers originally taught monotheism: "Not an apostle did We send before thee without this inspiration sent by Us to him: that there is no god but I; therefore worship and serve Me."(Q21:25) but over time, people fell away from  monotheistic worship.

There is evidence of this when we look at primitive religions, in which the existence of "high gods" demonstrates that monotheism is not a later development as secular science has long presumed. (Rodney Stark, Discovering God: The Origins of the Great Religions and the Evolution of Belief, HarperOne, 2007: 55-56)

So, whilst Prophet `Isa, peace be upon him, taught Islamic monotheism, later Christians introduced manmade doctrines such as the Trinity into their belief.


You still need to explain how to reconcile Monotheism, Polytheism, Pantheism and Dualism if we are all blind men looking at the same elephant and the problem is that the elephant talked.

Christianity believes in Monotheism and always has.  I've had an Orthodox Jew question us on this.  

Deuteronomy 6:4 Hear, O Israel: The LORD our God [is] one LORD:

Deuteronomy 6:4 is what Christians believe and we are also Monotheists.

What is the nature of man?  You are body, soul and spirit.  Are you one or three?  Are you a tricotomy or a di-cotomy?  I haven't really probed the depths of that distinction: tricotomist or dicotomist.  I have a head, two arms, two legs, two eyes, two feet, etc.  Am I one or many?

Acts 20:28 Take heed therefore unto yourselves, and to all the flock, over the which the Holy Ghost hath made you overseers, to feed the church of God, which he hath purchased with his own blood.

To me this is a clear statement of deity that God purchased the church with His own blood.

This God is revealed with three persons in the one God and I can see how some would not understand the Trinity because it is hard to understand something that has to be revealed and it is hard to understand something we cannot see.  This does not mean that we think the persons are separate or that we worship three gods.

I had an Amiga computer and it had three co-processors inside it.  Was it three computers or one?  There were some IBM computers that had math co-processors.  Would they be two or one?  They were one unit but inside the Amiga there were three micro processors comprising one computer.

You haven't really offered any claims or evidence to support that the Trinity is a man made doctrine.

I don't really need you to refute these links but this is why we don't believe that we can reconcile Islam and Christianity as having the same God.  But let me just suggest that Mohammad was a politician trying to unite the different tribes and that he needed to borrow our Bible because people weren't going to just follow him.  I'll try to pick up on this a little in my next response as it deals with some of the other issues you posted.

Allah doesn't exist in the Bible

http://www.answer-islam.org/ElahhisntAllah2.html

Allah of Islam, Is He Yahweh God of the Bible?

http://www.answering-islam.org/Responses/Abualrub/allahs_identity.htm
Sosthenes

ummyasmin wrote:

But the Codex Sinaiticus was written in the fourth century CE!  Which means that fourth century Christians had a different version of the Bible than the one on your bookshelf.

Let's compare the composition of the Bible and the Qur'an:

How many authors?

BIBLE: Many. Some are even traditionally unknown, such as the authors of Tobit, 3 Maccabees and Hebrews. Most of the traditional list of authors are disputed by modern scholarship.

QUR'AN:One. The Qur'an was given by God to the angel Gabriel, who imparted it only to the Prophet Muhammad, peace be upon him.

Who decided whether a text is Scripture?\


Deuteronomy 13:1 If there arise among you a prophet, or a dreamer of dreams, and giveth thee a sign or a wonder,

Deuteronomy 13:2 And the sign or the wonder come to pass, whereof he spake unto thee, saying, Let us go after other gods, which thou hast not known, and let us serve them;

Deuteronomy 13:3 Thou shalt not hearken unto the words of that prophet, or that dreamer of dreams: for the LORD your God proveth you, to know whether ye love the LORD your God with all your heart and with all your soul.

How do you know if a prophet is lying?  Anyone can claim to be a prophet but God proveth you.  Suppose a false prophet comes after the true.  How will you know?   "Proveth" means to test or try so I don't know what extent God allowed false prophets to come into the world but He did so to prove to us whether we love Him or not.

Matthew 13:3 And he spake many things unto them in parables, saying, Behold, a sower went forth to sow;

Matthew 13:4 And when he sowed, some [seeds] fell by the way side, and the fowls came and devoured them up:

Matthew 13:19 When any one heareth the word of the kingdom, and understandeth [it] not, then cometh the wicked [one], and catcheth away that which was sown in his heart. This is he which received seed by the way side.

The fowls represent the wicked one who devours the Word of God.

Matthew 13:31 Another parable put he forth unto them, saying, The kingdom of heaven is like to a grain of mustard seed, which a man took, and sowed in his field:

Matthew 13:32 Which indeed is the least of all seeds: but when it is grown, it is the greatest among herbs, and becometh a tree, so that the birds of the air come and lodge in the branches thereof.

At that time, the mustard seed was the least of all seeds which represents the church.  When the Church is full grown, the birds of the air come and lodge in the branches.  The birds in the previous parable represent the Wicked one.  And so it is with Christianity that when it is full grown, the false Christians and the false teachers set up shop and lodge in the branches to devour the word of God.

To answer your question, the approcrapha was appended in the fourth century.  It was never in the canon of Jesus, Josephus and Jerome.  The Protestant canon was the canon of Irigen, Cyril of Jerusalem and Athanasius. (Geisler, Baker Encyclopedia of Apologetics, p. 31-32.)  "No canonical list or council of the Christian church accepted the Apocrypha as inspired for nearly the first four centuries." (Geisler, Baker Encyclopedia of Apologetics, p 33).  And I've read so much on this that the apocrapha was only accepted at the Council of Trent because the Catholics were fighting Martin Luther and needed something to defend their false teaching so that is the only real motivation for the Catholics to canonize the apocrapha.

According to Josh McDowell in "A Ready Defense", there were maybe five principles for determining whether a book was canonical:  Was it authoritative, prophetic, authentic, dynamic and was it received (was it received, collected, read and used - was it accepted by the people of God?  The problems are the Apocrapha fails a lot of these tests so the question is not why did the fourth century Codex Sinaiticus have it appended but the real question is why these books were never fully accepted by part of the church until 1546?  And now we know why.

John 10:16 And other sheep I have, which are not of this fold: them also I must bring, and they shall hear my voice; and there shall be one fold, [and] one shepherd.

John 10:8 All that ever came before me are thieves and robbers: but the sheep did not hear them.

I don't hear the apocrapha because it is not God's voice.  There are a lot of voices that immitate the nature of God but I can tell.  

1 Cor. 1:22 For the Jews require a sign, and the Greeks seek after wisdom:  

There are going to be false signs and one of them is that in the end times, fire is going to come down out of heaven and people are going to use that to prove the false messiahs, false prophets or antichrist has authority.  The problem is they don't know the Biblical exception because they don't concern themselves with reading truth:

Job 1:12 And the LORD said unto Satan, Behold, all that he hath [is] in thy power; only upon himself put not forth thine hand. So Satan went forth from the presence of the LORD.

Job 1:16 While he [was] yet speaking, there came also another, and said, The fire of God is fallen from heaven, and hath burned up the sheep, and the servants, and consumed them; and I only am escaped alone to tell thee.
Sosthenes

ummyasmin wrote:
Quote:
Christians died for the text and if they corrupted it, they certainly wouldn't have died for a lie.

But the earliest Christians -- the disciples of Jesus -- didn't have a common scriptural text. Besides, how do you account for the plethora of gnostic and extra-canonical texts such as the Shepherd of Hermes?


They did have a common scriptural text.  It was the apostles themselves:

Acts 2:42 And they continued stedfastly in the apostles' doctrine and fellowship, and in breaking of bread, and in prayers.

The Church which was "...built upon the foundation of the apostles and prophets, Jesus Christ himself being the chief corner stone;" (Ephesians 2:20).

Despite man being fallible, they were obedient when they wrote down the words of God so that the foundation would last and because God made them remember, it was what God wanted them to say:

John 14:26 But the Comforter, [which is] the Holy Ghost, whom the Father will send in my name, he shall teach you all things, and bring all things to your remembrance, whatsoever I have said unto you.  

Despite their differences, God chose fallable people to proclaim scripture:

2 Peter 1:21 For the prophecy came not in old time by the will of man: but holy men of God spake [as they were] moved by the Holy Ghost.

The early church had the apostles and when the Holy Spirit spoke, the disciples wrote down the scriptures.

I usually get an argument when I quote "All scripture is given (breathed out) by inspiration of God, and is profitable for doctrine, for reproof, for correction, for instruction in righteousness:"-II Timothy 3:16

The argument is that the New Testament cannot possibly be scripture and what Paul is referring to is the Old Testament.  This is a wrong assumption because of I Timothy 5:18:

"For the scripture saith, Thou shalt not muzzle the ox that treadeth out the corn.  And, The labourer is worthy of his reward."-I Timothy 5:18

Paul links scripture with Deuteronomy 25:4 and Luke 10:7 because "...men of God spake [as they were] moved by the Holy Ghost."

You argue that the disciples were wrong because Paul rebuked Peter.  God chose fallible people from the start:

Mark 9:34 But they held their peace: for by the way they had disputed among themselves, who [should be] the greatest.

The nature of man is that we aren't without sin so how could sinful man help in any way at all?  It is a miracle that God used man at all but what you are saying is that God can't superintend fallible people because of the debates and so forth.  God's word corrects people even like Peter because fallible church leaders like Peter are just a 'pillar and support of the truth'. (1 Tim. 3:15)  Scripture is truth in itself because scripture is "God breathed" and God superintended it Himself.
Sosthenes

ummyasmin wrote:


But the Codex Sinaiticus was written in the fourth century CE!  Which means that fourth century Christians had a different version of the Bible than the one on your bookshelf.


One of the things I said before was the Jewish temple in Jerusalem was destroyed in 70 A.D. which caused people to disperse and there was four manuscripts in four different geographic regions and no one person or group had control over all of the manuscripts.  And I wrote that if someone added something, you would think that you could compare the manuscript to the other three.  You offered support for only one of the manuscript families to have the apocrypha amended (added) so since you can't prove the other three had the apocrypha, I have to believe the apocrypha was added and this proof should be evident to everyone unless you have other evidence and I want to go back and research the evidence again so as to not miss anything but I noticed this so I hope you do as well.

        Forum Index -> All about Islam
Page 1 of 1
Create your own free forum | Buy a domain to use with your forum