 |
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.
|
| View previous topic :: View next topic |
| Author |
Message |
Sosthenes
Joined: 18 Feb 2008
Posts: 60
|
 Posted: Mon Oct 27, 2008 8:44 pm Post subject: |
 |
|
| 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?
|
|
| Back to top |
|
 |
ummyasmin
Joined: 18 Oct 2008
Posts: 10
Location: Melbourne, Australia
|
| Posted: Thu Oct 30, 2008 7:06 am Post subject: |
|
|
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!(Q3:78)
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.
_________________
~~A man of quality is not threatened by a woman of equality~~ |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
Sosthenes
Joined: 18 Feb 2008
Posts: 60
|
| Posted: Thu Oct 30, 2008 2:06 pm Post subject: |
|
|
| 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. |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
Sosthenes
Joined: 18 Feb 2008
Posts: 60
|
| Posted: Thu Oct 30, 2008 7:08 pm Post subject: |
|
|
| 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 |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
ummyasmin
Joined: 18 Oct 2008
Posts: 10
Location: Melbourne, Australia
|
| Posted: Fri Oct 31, 2008 2:23 am Post subject: |
|
|
| 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?
_________________
~~A man of quality is not threatened by a woman of equality~~ |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
Sosthenes
Joined: 18 Feb 2008
Posts: 60
|
| Posted: Fri Oct 31, 2008 12:43 pm Post subject: |
|
|
| 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. |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
ummyasmin
Joined: 18 Oct 2008
Posts: 10
Location: Melbourne, Australia
|
| Posted: Fri Oct 31, 2008 11:11 pm Post subject: |
|
|
| 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.
_________________
~~A man of quality is not threatened by a woman of equality~~ |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
Sosthenes
Joined: 18 Feb 2008
Posts: 60
|
| Posted: Sun Nov 02, 2008 10:25 pm Post subject: |
|
|
| 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. |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
ummyasmin
Joined: 18 Oct 2008
Posts: 10
Location: Melbourne, Australia
|
| Posted: Sat Nov 08, 2008 2:35 am Post subject: |
|
|
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.
_________________
~~A man of quality is not threatened by a woman of equality~~ |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
Sosthenes
Joined: 18 Feb 2008
Posts: 60
|
| Posted: Sat Nov 08, 2008 1:22 pm Post subject: |
|
|
| 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.
|
|
| Back to top |
|
|
|
|
You cannot post new topics in this forum
You cannot reply to topics in this forum
You cannot edit your posts in this forum
You cannot delete your posts in this forum
You cannot vote in polls in this forum
|
|
FAQ
Search
Memberlist
Usergroups
Join! (free) 
Profile
Log in to check your private messages
Log in
