Christianity in Five Minutes

[khairullah]

Christianity in Five Minutes

Khalid Yasin embraced Islam in 1965 and is currently the Director of the Islamic Teaching Institute in the USA. He specializes in a variety of topics and areas including: Youth, Islamic History, Culture, community development and Dawah work. He has lectured in a variety of places and locations both nationally and internationally and has been the means by which a large number of non-Muslims have reverted to Islam.

Extracts from the lecture:

Mathew, Luke, mark and john who were they?

Mathew who?

Luke who?

John Who?

And mark who?

What were their last names?


When did they write?

Did they know Jesus Christ (PBUH)?

Did they walk with Jesus Christ (PBUH)?

Did they eat with Jesus Christ (PBUH)?

Did they talk to Jesus Christ (PBUH)?

Did they even meet Jesus Christ (PBUH) PBUH)??!

The answer is NO! NO! NO! NO! NO!


Conclusively they wrote those books 40 years after Jesus Christ (PBUH) PBUH) they never met him

The last one they wrote was 80 years after Jesus Christ (PBUH) they never met him

The other thing is all of them seem to have written the gospel (pause) according to
According to according to according to!!!


Now when you write a letter do you sign it according to? (Sigh!)

According to is the third party!

When Jacky, Johnny or bobby told me something and I wrote it I would say according to Joe, Johnny Tommy or bobby.


According to.

But those four people would not write a letter and in front of it say Jacky according to
Jacky.

They not even right their last names.

Because if Jacky right me a check and only write Jacky I couldn't cash it. And if I was a
Policeman and I stop Johnny on the road and he has a license that only say Jacky he is going to jail. (Laugh! from the audience)

Where in the world is a document with only one name of four different writers that didn't
Meet the one whom they writing about where is that accepted in the whole world?

No where except in the Bible.

And the church fathers, historians and the Christian writers. They all agree that perhaps
Those four writers themselves were only pen names.

Because a writer would not write his own only first name ACCORDING TO.

There is a great amount of suspicion that the man called Paul, Saul of Tarsus because he
Wrote all books from acts all the way to the end of the New Testament, How many books is that?

How many?? 15, 16, 17 or 19!!!

All those books of Acts Colossian Corinthians Romans Ephesians Galatians all of those books are written by whom?

PAUL Saul of Tarsus.

Another man who never talked who never walked, never eat, never met, never prayed
Who never knew Jesus Christ (PBUH) (PBUH) isn't that something???!!

Now here we find a four writers and another one between them that wrote all the new
Testament books:

They never talked never walked never eat never met and never prayed the man called
Jesus Christ (PBUH)!

Yet in their words the first mentioning of the Trinity came from where??!

From Jesus Christ (PBUH) or from them?

The first mentioning of Jesus Christ (PBUH) being divine a man god came from whom?!

From them.

The first mentioning that Jesus Christ (PBUH) being son of god came from whom?

From them.

Jesus Christ (PBUH) never said in his words any such words, but that was the man who never met him to claim to have written who didn't know their last names.

And Paul by the way- before he had that vision on the road to Damascus that only he saw and only he heard, Guess what his occupation was??? (Pause)

Do you know?!!

He was a bounty hunter!!!

A hunter! Of Christians!! Hunting them down like animals!! And binding them and bringing them to where?!!

To Rome so that they could be Executed.


Now if Hitler after killing thousands of Jews says to on the road to Berlin he had a vision
That he was named an apostle to the Jews and he wrote 20 books that all the Jews suppose to follow Do you think they would be following that book?

I don't understand how people just don't read history.

This is not what Khalid said so don't get angry with me. This is your own scriptures your Own bibles scholars your own church fathers all of them agree! That Paul never met Jesus Christ (PBUH).
That John, Luke, Mark and Mathew never met Jesus Christ (PBUH).

By the way they were not disciples.

Nor were they talkers and walkers of the disciples, they were just writers and historians.


From the lecture of Former African-American Christian: Sheikh Khalid Yasin

Watch this lecture in youtube: http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=E_gt-3plqf4

Official website of Sheikh Khalid Yasin: http://www.challengeyoursoul.com/

[Keltoi]

Lot of disinformation in there...I would say this former Christian wasn't very knowledgable about the faith he is now attacking.

[Trumble]

Does it really matter?

Surely is what important is what Matthew, Mark, Luke, John - whoever they might actually have been - actually said? That message has had the power to move people across nearly two thousand years, and even as a non-Christian I appreciate it as a good message. If everybody, be they Christian, muslim, Hindu or whatever, followed the teachings of Jesus as set out by those people (as in actually followed them), the world would be a far better, happier and more peaceful place than it is now. From a monotheist perspective, I assume, people would all be doing what God wanted them to do.. the rest (including the trinity/shirk obsession) is all trivial details.

As to Paul's prevous occupation, the comments show Keltoi is probably right. It isn't some dark secret.. it is the whole point.

[snakelegs]

how much of christianity is based on the actual teachings of jesus?

Hey there! Looks like you're enjoying the discussion, but you're not signed up for an account.

When you create an account, you can participate in the discussions and share your thoughts. You also get notifications, here and via email, whenever new posts are made. And you can like posts and make new friends.
Sign Up

[Isambard]

Does it really matter?

Surely is what important is what Matthew, Mark, Luke, John - whoever they might actually have been - actually said? That message has had the power to move people across nearly two thousand years, and even as a non-Christian I appreciate it as a good message. If everybody, be they Christian, muslim, Hindu or whatever, followed the teachings of Jesus as set out by those people (as in actually followed them), the world would be a far better, happier and more peaceful place than it is now. From a monotheist perspective, I assume, people would all be doing what God wanted them to do.. the rest (including the trinity/shirk obsession) is all trivial details.

As to Paul's prevous occupation, the comments show Keltoi is probably right. It isn't some dark secret.. it is the whole point.

You mean the Golden Rule? That has its problems as well....

[Grace Seeker]

Christianity in Five Minutes

Khalid Yasin embraced Islam in 1965 and is currently the Director of the Islamic Teaching Institute in the USA. He specializes in a variety of topics and areas including: Youth, Islamic History, Culture, community development and Dawah work. He has lectured in a variety of places and locations both nationally and internationally and has been the means by which a large number of non-Muslims have reverted to Islam.

Extracts from the lecture:

Mathew, Luke, mark and john who were they?

Mathew who?

Luke who?

John Who?

And mark who?

What were their last names?

Very few people in the first century AD had last names. Note that even Jesus is known as Jesus "of Nazareth", not by a last name. But some people did have surnames, and among those was a fellow named Mark. You see, Mark is his last name. His full name was John Mark.

When did they write?

Did they know Jesus Christ (PBUH)?

Did they walk with Jesus Christ (PBUH)?

Did they eat with Jesus Christ (PBUH)?

Did they talk to Jesus Christ (PBUH)?

Did they even meet Jesus Christ (PBUH) PBUH)??!

The answer is NO! NO! NO! NO! NO!

He errs in that assessment. I believe that John did indeed know, walk with, eat with, and talk with Jesus. I also believe that this is true with regard to Matthew, though not with the same level of confidence that I have for John. I don't believe it is likely that Luke or Mark knew Jesus, however I do not suppose that it was beyond the realm of possibility.

Conclusively they wrote those books 40 years after Jesus Christ (PBUH) PBUH) they never met him

The last one they wrote was 80 years after Jesus Christ (PBUH) they never met him

"Conclusively"?? One who would make such a statement regarding these books simply doesn't know the meaning of the word "conclusively". Given that we have the testimony of John's own disciples (plural) that John wrote the gospel that bears his name, if anything is going to be found to be conclusive it is that John DID write the book that bears his name and that he did know Jesus, not the other way around.

As far as the estimated dating of the other gospels, the estimated time of Jesus death is 29 AD, with Mark, Luke and Matthew being written between 64 and 75 AD (roughly 35-46 years after Jesus' crucifixion) and certainly such close enough in time that they could have known him, for if they were the same age as him (and they could have been younger) they would only be around 70 years of age. Before you object to that being well beyond average lifespan, such averages were shortened because of infant mortality. It was not unusual for folks who survived into adulthood to live well into advance years, including 70 and even older.

The other thing is all of them seem to have written the gospel (pause) according to
According to according to according to!!!


Now when you write a letter do you sign it according to? (Sigh!)

According to is the third party!

This is the most ludicrous of the comments thus far. The phrase, "The Gospel according to _______________" is just a title added to the completed document by the church. It was a way of identifying one gospel account from another. And precisely because when handled by the church they did become third party documents they thus needed to say, this is the gospel according to (whoever was the accepted author of that particular gospel they were referencing).

When Jacky, Johnny or bobby told me something and I wrote it I would say according to Joe, Johnny Tommy or bobby.


According to.

But those four people would not write a letter and in front of it say Jacky according to
Jacky.

They not even right their last names.

Because if Jacky right me a check and only write Jacky I couldn't cash it. And if I was a
Policeman and I stop Johnny on the road and he has a license that only say Jacky he is going to jail. (Laugh! from the audience)

Where in the world is a document with only one name of four different writers that didn't
Meet the one whom they writing about where is that accepted in the whole world?

No where except in the Bible.

This is obvious nonsense with no other comments than what I have noted above being necessary.

And the church fathers, historians and the Christian writers. They all agree that perhaps
Those four writers themselves were only pen names.

This is not even close to true. Please, if you can support this, provide a quote from the church fathers where they agreed these are pen names.

While you are looking, please read this which is the actual statement of Papia, an early church father:

And the Presbyter used to say this, "Mark became Peter's interpreter and wrote accurately all that he remembered, not, indeed, in order, of the things said or done by the Lord. He had not heard the Lord, nor had he followed him, but later on, as I said, followed Peter, who used to give teaching as a necessity demanded but not making, as it were, an arrangement of the Lord's oracles, so that Mark did nothing wrong in thus writing down single points as he remembered them."

The "Presbyter" that Papias refers to is John the Presbyter.

In addition to Papias, another church father, Irenaeus, also identifies Mark as the disciple and interpreter of Peter. (See Irenaeus' Against Heresies, III. i. 2.)

Because a writer would not write his own only first name ACCORDING TO.

There is a great amount of suspicion that the man called Paul, Saul of Tarsus because he
Wrote all books from acts all the way to the end of the New Testament, How many books is that?

How many?? 15, 16, 17 or 19!!!

All those books of Acts Colossian Corinthians Romans Ephesians Galatians all of those books are written by whom?

PAUL Saul of Tarsus.

The comments get more and more outrages.

First, simply reading Acts it is clear that it is not written by Paul. It is written by the same person who addressed the 2nd gospel to Theophilus and this subsequent history of the acts of the apostles to the same Theophilus as his second book. This person is NOT Paul because it speaks of Paul in the third person throughout, and many of the specific incidents of Paul's life that are mentioned in his letters are completely left out of Acts. And the author of Acts differs considerably from Paul in the recollection of the council of Jerusalem. The author of Acts fails to have knowledge of much of what Paul has written in his letters to the churches his visited.

Also, we see that much of the book of Acts is written in the third person. But that suddenly changes to first person in Acts 20 as Paul prepares to leave Greece after several months there. I suggest that this is were Luke joins Paul in his journeys. Whoever it is, it certainly isn't Paul who is doing the writing.

Another man who never talked who never walked, never eat, never met, never prayed
Who never knew Jesus Christ (PBUH) (PBUH) isn't that something???!!

It isn't true the Paul never met Jesus. He had an encounter with Jesus on the road to Damascus.

Now here we find a four writers and another one between them that wrote all the new
Testament books:

They never talked never walked never eat never met and never prayed the man called
Jesus Christ (PBUH)!

Already shown to be baseless, unfounded, and actually false.

Yet in their words the first mentioning of the Trinity came from where??!

The use of the term "Trinity" doesn't come from any of these sources. It is used by Tertullian before the Council of Nicea but long after all books that became part of the New Testament. And Tertullian did it to emphasized that when Christians, who from the beginning had been speaking of Jesus as himself divine, spoke of either Jesus and then later also expressed their understanding of the Holy Spirit as both being themselves God equally with the very Jewish concept (at least in the first century) of God as father, that Christians were NOT referring to three different gods or any tri-theistic concept but were referring to one God in completely unity with himself. But make no mistake, even before the first book of the New Testament was written, in records that predate Paul, in works such as the Didache and others there are baptismal forumlas that were used by the church in which people are initiated into a brand new covenant with God by being baptized "in the name of the Father, the Son, and the Holy Spirit". Such has been the understanding of the Church since even before Paul stopped his persecutions of it and himself became a Christian.

The first mentioning of Jesus Christ (PBUH) being divine a man god came from whom?!

From them.

No. There is no mentioning of Jesus being a divine man god. If this is what you think that is expressed in the Bible or any of Christian literature, then you must be reading the works of gnostics and do not understands the teachings of historic orthodox Christianity at all. For that concept is specifically what the forumlation of the concepts of the Trinity into creedal statements was designed speak against. You will find the whole concept of a man-god being rejected by every book of the Bible in which it is introduced. My guess is that you simply are not understanding the difference between this man-god concept and the truly Biblical concept that Jesus has two natures being both 100% God and 100% man at the same time comingled without any loss of either. And the first mention of it is on the lips of the disciple Thomas, who on meeting Jesus following his resurrection addressed him as "my Lord and my God", as recorded by the Apostle John who was present at the time (John 20:28).

The first mentioning that Jesus Christ (PBUH) being son of god came from whom?

From them.

Jesus Christ (PBUH) never said in his words any such words, but that was the man who never met him to claim to have written who didn't know their last names.

You keep mentioning this bit about the last names of the gospel writers, which only makes you sound like an idiot. I suggest you just drop that foolishness and deal with things more constructive to your argument.

As to the first referrring to Jesus by the title "Son of God", that honor appears to go to John the Baptist who shares this information with the Baptist's own disciples (John 1:35), though certainly a case could be made that it is God the Father who makes this known first as he proclaims at Jesus' baptism "This is my Son." (Matthew 3:17). And of course, even before that, the angel had years earlier announced to Mary that her son "will be called the Son of God" (Luke 1:35). As for being the first to write it in something that would later become scripture it appears to be a toss up between Paul in his letter to the Galatians or Mark in declaring that his gospel is about "Jesus Christ, the Son of God" (Mark 1:1) as both were written about the same time. Though even before that, Christians throughout the Roman world had devised a code by which they would greet one another with the sign of the fish, which in Greek is spell iota, chi, theta, upsilon, sigma an acronym for the Christian slogan "Jesus Christ God's Son Savior". So there you have several choices as to who was the first to mention the Jesus being son of God.

And Paul by the way- before he had that vision on the road to Damascus that only he saw and only he heard, Guess what his occupation was??? (Pause)

Do you know?!!

He was a bounty hunter!!!

A hunter! Of Christians!! Hunting them down like animals!! And binding them and bringing them to where?!!

To Rome so that they could be Executed.

Again, wrong. Here is Paul describing himself: "I am a Jew, born in Tarsus of Cilicia, but brought up in this city. Under Gamaliel I was thoroughly trained in the law of our fathers and was just as zealous for God as any of you are today." (Acts 22:3) He was a pharisee. He was no bounty hunter.

But you are right that he was indeed a persecutor of Christians. Do you know why? Because they were lifting up and talking about this man Jesus as if Jesus were God. Paul, being a good Jew, believed that any such talk was blasphemy. He was not interested in having these Christians taken back to Rome, where at the beginning of the first century there was a great deal of tolerance for the many and various Jewish beliefs and Jewish Christians would not have been in any more danger than any other Jew. No, he wanted them brought before the high priest in Jerusalem, just as had been done with Stephen (see Acts 7). So, you see it is ridiculous to speak of Paul being the originator of the very idea that he was trying to arrest Christians for having already proclaimed themselves.

Now if Hitler after killing thousands of Jews says to on the road to Berlin he had a vision
That he was named an apostle to the Jews and he wrote 20 books that all the Jews suppose to follow Do you think they would be following that book?

I don't understand how people just don't read history.

First, Paul did not write anything immediately. Not until well after he was accepted as a leader in the Christian Church.

Second, if you had bothered to actually read what you so want to debunk, you would have avoided making some of the mistakes you have made. Take a look at the initial action to Paul when he arrives in Damascus. Even though God himself told Ananias to go to Paul, how does Ananias respond: "Lord," Ananias answered, "I have heard many reports about this man and all the harm he has done to your saints in Jerusalem. And he has come here with authority from the chief priests to arrest all who call on your name" (Acts 9:13-14). And when Paul began to preach, "All those who heard him were astonished and asked, 'Isn't he the man who raised havoc in Jerusalem among those who call on this name?' " (Acts 9:21)

So, Paul had to first prove himself. The key is that he did.

This is not what Khalid said so don't get angry with me. This is your own scriptures your Own bibles scholars your own church fathers all of them agree! That Paul never met Jesus Christ (PBUH).
That John, Luke, Mark and Mathew never met Jesus Christ (PBUH).

By the way they were not disciples.

Nor were they talkers and walkers of the disciples, they were just writers and historians.


From the lecture of Former African-American Christian: Sheikh Khalid Yasin

Watch this lecture in youtube: http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=E_gt-3plqf4

Official website of Sheikh Khalid Yasin: http://www.challengeyoursoul.com/

khairullah,

I suggest you find someone more learned than Sheikh Khalid Yasin to teach you about Christianity. He doesn't know what he is talking about, and it is evident on so many levels it is ridiculous. If you wish to be Muslim and reject Christianity, I know that this is what you will do. But, if you are going to attack or debate it, do yourself a favor, and learn about it from those who are not themselves fools so that they don't make you look like one as well. The Ahmadi are better representatives of Islam than this man is of Christianity.

[MustafaMc]

how much of christianity is based on the actual teachings of jesus?

...but you miss the point, the "Gospel" (according to Christianity) is the death, burial and resurrection of Jesus. How could Jesus teach the disciples something that hadn't happened? The central point is not Jesus' message, but rather who he is and what he did.

[snakelegs]

i haven't read the NT. :embarrass

[Grace Seeker]

...but you miss the point, the "Gospel" (according to Christianity) is the death, burial and resurrection of Jesus. How could Jesus teach the disciples something that hadn't happened? The central point is not Jesus' message, but rather who he is and what he did.

Woot!! Woot!!!


Someone actually gets it! I'm impressed.

[Isambard]

i haven't read the NT. :embarrass

Eh, you arnt missing much.:X

[YusufNoor]

Originally posted by Grace Seeker.
I suggest you find someone more learned than Sheikh Khalid Yasin to teach you about Christianity. He doesn't know what he is talking about, and it is evident on so many levels it is ridiculous. If you wish to be Muslim and reject Christianity, I know that this is what you will do. But, if you are going to attack or debate it, do yourself a favor, and learn about it from those who are not themselves fools so that they don't make you look like one as well. The Ahmadi are better representatives of Islam than this man is of Christianity.

:sl:

Peace be upon those who follow the guidance,

Greetings Gene,

that's NOT a very "Christian" response Gene. in fact it's a little confusing. Brother Khalid is NOT claiming to be a "Christian", NOR is he claiming to be a representative of "Christianity". in fact the original poster wrote:

Khalid Yasin embraced Islam in 1965 and is currently the Director of the Islamic Teaching Institute in the USA

WHY would you then compare him to a group of people that "claim" to Muslims but aren't? do we compare you with Mormons? or Jehovahs Witnesses?

secondly, I'M ASTONISHED and ALARMED that you would tell a relatively new member they look like a fool! :-\

i expected you to set a better example...:-[

:w:

[Keltoi]

:sl:

Peace be upon those who follow the guidance,

Greetings Gene,

that's NOT a very "Christian" response Gene. in fact it's a little confusing. Brother Khalid is NOT claiming to be a "Christian", NOR is he claiming to be a representative of "Christianity". in fact the original poster wrote:


WHY would you then compare him to a group of people that "claim" to Muslims but aren't? do we compare you with Mormons? or Jehovahs Witnesses?

secondly, I'M ASTONISHED and ALARMED that you would tell a relatively new member they look like a fool! :-\

i expected you to set a better example...:-[

:w:

The author of that article claimed to be a former Christian, which I expect is meant to lend credence to his assertions about Christianity. However, the things mentioned in the article are either outright falsehoods or twisted understanding of Christian doctrine.

Grace Seeker was pointing that out. It was a good bit of advice too. If you wish to debate about Christianity, at least do your own research or choose an article that is actually written by someone who knows what they are talking about.

[------]

Eh, you arnt missing much.:X

:salamext:

LOL

[Grace Seeker]

:sl:

Peace be upon those who follow the guidance,

Greetings Gene,

that's NOT a very "Christian" response Gene. in fact it's a little confusing. Brother Khalid is NOT claiming to be a "Christian", NOR is he claiming to be a representative of "Christianity". in fact the original poster wrote:


WHY would you then compare him to a group of people that "claim" to Muslims but aren't? do we compare you with Mormons? or Jehovahs Witnesses?

secondly, I'M ASTONISHED and ALARMED that you would tell a relatively new member they look like a fool! :-\

i expected you to set a better example...:-[

:w:

Yusuf, I try to be tolerate of differences. I understand that not all people will agree with me. But, please, you have to admit that some of the things that were put forth as arguments: the lack of last names, "the gospel according to ___________" arguments, these things don't just show lack of knowledge about Christianity, but lack of general knowledge and common sense. If persons are going to become overly critical they should develop critical skills of observation and analysis. If they are going to quote others without being discriminating in selecting those remarks, then they need to be willing to own those remarks for themselves as well. khairullah did none of those things. That does not show very much discernment on his part. Now, he can continue to behave in such a manner, but if he does it will, in fact, make him look foolish, for certainly Khalid Yasin's comments (at least as they were presented here) were extremely foolish and showed a complete lack of insight or understanding. I was in all seriousness cautioning our young friend from relying on such poor scholarship again, as it does reflect on him as well for being gullible enough to accept it without seeing it for the foolishness that it is. You will note that I did not and am not actually calling khairullah a fool. I am warning him Kahlid Yasin sounds like a fool and that if Khairullah wants to avoid looking like one with him, then he will want to avoid indiscriminately copying him or his views. In other words, I'm trying to help Khairullah from making the same mistakes that Yasin has committed. I do not presently consider Khairullah anything other than uninformed. However, should he repeat the same mistakes a second time, copying the words of one who himself evidently knows nothing and presenting it as sound argument, well, that would be a different story wouldn't it?

Brother Khalid is NOT claiming to be a "Christian", NOR is he claiming to be a representative of "Christianity". in fact the original poster wrote:

Khalid Yasin embraced Islam in 1965 and is currently the Director of the Islamic Teaching Institute in the USA.

WHY would you then compare him to a group of people that "claim" to Muslims but aren't? do we compare you with Mormons? or Jehovahs Witnesses?

Well, first, please note the conclusion of what the original poster wrote with respect to Khalid Yasin:

From the lecture of Former African-American Christian: Sheikh Khalid Yasin

Second, I don't recall that you have ever compared me to a Mormon or a Jehovah's Witness, but yes, certainly many Muslims on this board have confused Mormons and Jehovah's Witnesses with orthodox Christianity. Some even go so far as to assert that JW teachings are more in line with what they (mistakenly in my opinion) believe to have been the teachings of Jesus than those of the Catholic Church the Orthodox Church or any mainline protestant church.

Now, why did I make the comaprison to a group of people that "claim" to Muslims but aren't? That's simple. The Ahmadi that I meet claim that they are true Muslims and that they can therefore represent Islam better than other Muslims can. I recognize that this is not true, not if I want to know the Islam of those who are part of the Ummah. Listening to an Ahmadi tells me little to nothing about true Islam, despite what they would claim. Similarly Sheikh Khalid Yasin is presented to us as a former Christian, but his views evidenced in this post show little to no true understanding of Christianity. As such, Khalid Yasin can hardly be said to represent Christianity, not anymore than an Ahmadi represents true Islam.

secondly, I'M ASTONISHED and ALARMED that you would tell a relatively new member they look like a fool! :-\

i expected you to set a better example...:-[

:w:

Well, if you were alarmed it is good that your raised the issue so that I might alay your fears. Hopefully, you are not still so alarmed.

[Jayda]

hola

no offence but i am always confused why i should believe a muslim (or any non christian for that matter) about christianity. this isn't something they approach honesty, it's always from the perspective of tearing christianity down to build up their own religion. and they are looking at issues they have no party to without any expertise. it is like that ridiculous thread in which lay muslims are attempting to revisit hypostatic union... an issue that is completely insular to Church bishops 1800 years ago. it is like the stranger who bumps into a conversation between doctors and begins telling them what they think about all the work issues the doctors were discussing...

and there is the issue of trusting an apostate... these are the same people who several days ago were telling you they know the absolute truth and it is x, but now they are absolutely convinced that they know the absolute truth and it is y.

...riiiight...

i know about christianity... i'm not here to ask questions about christianity. most of the time these questions aren't important, it's just insisted upon us that they are important. like a merchant who shoves their produce in your face at a market and demands that you need what they are selling. and if they are important there are already reasonable answers that once again it is demanded to us are not reasonable answers.

it's different if this were the result of somebody saying 'be a christian!' and then you ask a challenging question that's really on your mind... but with such a thread one could hardly say that is the case.

que Dios te bendiga

[MustafaMc]

no offence but i am always confused why i should believe a muslim (or any non christian for that matter) about christianity. this isn't something they approach honesty, it's always from the perspective of tearing christianity down to build up their own religion. and they are looking at issues they have no party to without any expertise.

I disagree with you. We Muslims believe what the Quran says about Christianity to be true. We don't tear down Christianity in order to build up Islam. We have our beliefs about what the Truth is just as you do and we have a responsibility to dispel falsehood with the Truth of One God with no sons, no daughters, no mother, no father and no equal.

and there is the issue of trusting an apostate... these are the same people who several days ago were telling you they know the absolute truth and it is x, but now they are absolutely convinced that they know the absolute truth and it is y.

...riiiight...

You can have your negative opinion of me as an apostate from Christianity, but I don't really care. I do have an understanding of both Christianity and Islam - and I chose Islam 26 years ago as the proper religion of the One God.

i know about christianity... i'm not here to ask questions about christianity. most of the time these questions aren't important, it's just insisted upon us that they are important. like a merchant who shoves their produce in your face at a market and demands that you need what they are selling. and if they are important there are already reasonable answers that once again it is demanded to us are not reasonable answers.

Christian members should acknowledge that the central tenet of their religion flies directly into the face of Islam and that they will continually be at odds with Muslims until they believe in the One God and that Jesus was as he claimed to be, a prophet and servant of Him.

[Keltoi]

I will agree that Christianity and Islam are at odds, but I will disagree that Christians need to change their beliefs in order to acknowledge the One God. As for what Christ is, we will never agree on that.

[Jayda]

I disagree with you. We Muslims believe what the Quran says about Christianity to be true. We don't tear down Christianity in order to build up Islam. We have our beliefs about what the Truth is just as you do and we have a responsibility to dispel falsehood with the Truth of One God with no sons, no daughters, no mother, no father and no equal.

You can have your negative opinion of me as an apostate from Christianity, but I don't really care. I do have an understanding of both Christianity and Islam - and I chose Islam 26 years ago as the proper religion of the One God.

Christian members should acknowledge that the central tenet of their religion flies directly into the face of Islam and that they will continually be at odds with Muslims until they believe in the One God and that Jesus was as he claimed to be, a prophet and servant of Him.

hola MustafaMc,

i don't want you (or anyone) to misunderstand my tone... i don't want to insult you... although much of this may do that. i'm trying to be brutally honest about this issue of dialoguing with muslims, i don't think it will help, i don't think anything will change, but it's been on my mind. i understand what you are saying... it's not a surprise at all, but it does present a problem for me and for a lot of others in how (or even if) we should talk to muslims.

there was recently a thread asking why Christians come here, who spend so much time talking about Christianity and very little time asking about islam (our usual stated purpose). and i think i mentioned that while there are a lot of people who come to proselytize, many come to ask a few questions about islam but find that christianity is so misportrayed and attacked we feel compelled to at least answer a few things... i recall my attempt to answer '100 questions' that a user gave me, only to find out after painstakingly researching that the user was not reading my answers, did not actually come up with the questions... but rather posted them from somewhere else and didn't really care what i had to say.

the important factor here is that christianity wouldn't have been discussed at all (thus not requiring such a question from that poster at least as it affects non proselytizers) had there not been any literature from islamic sources about christianity that we don't take seriously to begin with. the minute i read 'ahmed deedat' or 'zakir naik' i stop reading, they won't be discussing islam... they'll be discussing christianity, wrongly. so it's a conversation tombstone for no reason...

but it would seem from what you say that this is the natural and fated conclusion of any conversation i attempt to have with a muslim about islam... it will turn into a God commanded lecture about christianity, with little regard for our input since, afterall, you believe that the quran already provided you with answers and with little regard for whether we actually wanted to listen to (as i hestitate to use the word discuss) any of this.

with that in mind... what reason does a christian have to take up a muslims' secular invitation to find out more about islam? that is, afterall, my and others' reason for being here... unfortunately we don't get to discuss islam until i basically agree with you (not you personally, but in the general sense) on everything in christianity that you have decided we will talk about.

so, put yourself in my position. you are just a person interested in asking a few questions about islam, not christianity and furthermore you consider muslims' opinions and points about christianity to be invalid, but the muslims you speak to are insistant that they must speak to you about christianity and their opinions are valid. two parties, talking about two different things, with little or no room for movement. this is an impasse.

how do we talk?

que Dios te bendiga

[Grace Seeker]

I disagree with you. We Muslims believe what the Quran says about Christianity to be true. We don't tear down Christianity in order to build up Islam. We have our beliefs about what the Truth is just as you do and we have a responsibility to dispel falsehood with the Truth of One God with no sons, no daughters, no mother, no father and no equal.

Would that this were true of everyone, Mustafa. But we both can point to many, both Christians and Muslims, who come here not to learn, not even to correct misconceptions, but primarily to proselytize the other. The post that began this thread was intended to, in the best understanding of it, correct Christianity. But it did nothing to even take Christianity seriously. The material presented wasn't from the Qu'ran, as you suggest above. And it wasn't from the Bible either, as it tried to claim for itself. It came out of pure ignorance and I can think of nothing more that it represented, other than it also displayed a desire to ridicule Christianity by the tone with which it presented itself, highlighted, in my opinion, by its baseless and acerbic comments like "They not even right their last names." (Proof check your material enough to at least spell the word "write" right.)

Christian members should acknowledge that the central tenet of their religion flies directly into the face of Islam and that they will continually be at odds with Muslims until they believe in the One God and that Jesus was as he claimed to be, a prophet and servant of Him.

I think that most do. Though, remembering that Christians already believe in the One God and that Jesus was who he claimed to be, another way to no longer be at odds would be if Muslims members believed that Jesus was not only the Christ, but also the son of the living God, just as he is set forth to be in the Bible.

[YusufNoor]

:sl:

Peace be upon those that follow the guidance,

Greetings to Gene and our other Christian guests,

I am going to take it upon myself to defend brothers Khairullah and Khalid Yasin; I’m an acquaintance of Brother Khalid and Brother Khairullah is relatively new here and I will assume that he wasn’t aware of any mistakes in Brother Khalid’s speech. I’m sure that speech follows Brother Khalid’s “the Historical Jesus”. Brother Khalid consistently quoted from a book without giving us the title. Even I recognize some of the mistakes in the lecture, some from the book, some just a brother having a goof. BUT, I’ll also go out on a (relatively safe) limb and assume Brother Khairullah did not intend to offend anyone. I also should thank Brother Khairullah for taking the time to transcribe the video for us!

Hopefully, Insha’ Allah, I won’t resort to name calling BUT I do intend to point out some discrepancies (as well as probably spell some words wrong)!

First off, we should attempt to point out what our beliefs are and NOT misrepresent those as facts! Let’s start here:

Very few people in the first century AD had last names. Note that even Jesus is known as Jesus "of Nazareth", not by a last name.

Actually, the unknown writers of Matthew and Luke took some time to inform us of the identity of the Messiah. In Matthew 1:12-16 we have:

12After the exile to Babylon: Jeconiah was the father of Shealtiel, Shealtiel the father of Zerubbabel, 13Zerubbabel the father of Abiud, Abiud the father of Eliakim, Eliakim the father of Azor, 14Azor the father of Zadok, Zadok the father of Akim, Akim the father of Eliud, 15Eliud the father of Eleazar, Eleazar the father of Matthan, Matthan the father of Jacob, 16and Jacob the father of Joseph, the husband of Mary, of whom was born Jesus, who is called Christ.

While in Luke 3:23 we have:
23Now Jesus himself was about thirty years old when he began his ministry. He was the son, so it was thought, of Joseph,

Hopping back to Matthew in 13:55, we have:

"Isn't this the carpenter's son? Isn't his mother's name Mary, and aren't his brothers James, Joseph, Simon and Judas? Ergo, Joshua ben Joseph!

Thus, according to the Gospels, he would have been known as Joshua ben Joseph [Anglicized of course] as was the Jewish custom for naming someone. So we DO have a full name for “Jesus”, don’t we? Just because Christians PREFER not to use it for obvious reasons, DOES NOT mean it didn’t exist. The Muslim name of Isa ibn Maryam, Alaihe Salaam, is probably the most accurate form that we have of his name so we have a right to ask:

Mathew, Luke, mark and john who were they?

Mathew who?

Luke who?

John Who?

And mark who?

So right now we can score Gene at ZERO and Khalid at ONE!

Next:

But some people did have surnames, and among those was a fellow named Mark. You see, Mark is his last name. His full name was John Mark.

Great, we KNOW John’s last name, but we DON’T KNOW that he wrote any of the gospels!

Of course, we have:

He errs in that assessment. I believe that John did indeed know, walk with, eat with, and talk with Jesus. I also believe that this is true with regard to Matthew, though not with the same level of confidence that I have for John. I don't believe it is likely that Luke or Mark knew Jesus, however I do not suppose that it was beyond the realm of possibility.

BUT do we have ANY TRUTH here: we know: I believe and I also believe though not with the same level of confidence as well as: however I do not suppose that it was beyond the realm of possibility.

FANTASTIC we KNOW WHAT YOU BELIEVE and you haven’t bothered wasting time with ANY TEDIUOS FACTS! Or are we uncertain at the moment of the definition of fact?

Let’s score you DOUBLE ZERO Gene for this bit of misdirection!

we'll try to address authorship of the Gospels in the next post, Insha' Allah.

:w:

[MustafaMc]

i don't want you (or anyone) to misunderstand my tone... i don't want to insult you... although much of this may do that. i'm trying to be brutally honest about this issue of dialoguing with muslims, i don't think it will help, i don't think anything will change, but it's been on my mind. i understand what you are saying... it's not a surprise at all, but it does present a problem for me and for a lot of others in how (or even if) we should talk to muslims.

Not a single word that you wrote in this post offended me. I do believe that honest dialog between the world's 2 great faiths is a good thing.

there was recently a thread asking why Christians come here, who spend so much time talking about Christianity and very little time asking about islam (our usual stated purpose). and i think i mentioned that while there are a lot of people who come to proselytize, many come to ask a few questions about islam but find that christianity is so misportrayed and attacked we feel compelled to at least answer a few things...

I can understand your frustration and the compulsion you feel to defend your faith. I will be glad to try and answer questions that you and other Christians honestly ask about Islam.

i recall my attempt to answer '100 questions' that a user gave me, only to find out after painstakingly researching that the user was not reading my answers, did not actually come up with the questions... but rather posted them from somewhere else and didn't really care what i had to say.

Yes, I can relate as I have felt the same way about some Christian members a while back.

but it would seem from what you say that this is the natural and fated conclusion of any conversation i attempt to have with a muslim about islam... it will turn into a God commanded lecture about christianity, with little regard for our input since, afterall, you believe that the quran already provided you with answers and with little regard for whether we actually wanted to listen to (as i hestitate to use the word discuss) any of this.

No, I don't see it as a foregone conclusion, unless the "conversation" gravitates toward what a Muslim perceives & believes is ascribing partners with God.

with that in mind... what reason does a christian have to take up a muslims' secular invitation to find out more about islam? that is, afterall, my and others' reason for being here... unfortunately we don't get to discuss islam until i basically agree with you (not you personally, but in the general sense) on everything in christianity that you have decided we will talk about.

so, put yourself in my position. you are just a person interested in asking a few questions about islam, not christianity and furthermore you consider muslims' opinions and points about christianity to be invalid, but the muslims you speak to are insistant that they must speak to you about christianity and their opinions are valid. two parties, talking about two different things, with little or no room for movement. this is an impasse.

how do we talk?

Good question. I would be more than happy to discuss my understanding of Islam. We probably would have to agree to "tip-toe" around issues that we know we can't agree upon.

que Dios te bendiga

What does this mean?

[MustafaMc]

Though, remembering that Christians already believe in the One God and that Jesus was who he claimed to be, another way to no longer be at odds would be if Muslims members believed that Jesus was not only the Christ, but also the son of the living God, just as he is set forth to be in the Bible.

This is something that I can never believe and yet remain a Muslim.

Quran 112:1-4 Say: He is Allah the One and Only; Allah is the Self-Sufficient; He begets not, nor is He begotten; And there is none comparable to Him.

[YusufNoor]

:sl:

Peace be upon those that follow the guidance,

Greetings to Gene and our other Christian guests,

But some people did have surnames, and among those was a fellow named Mark. You see, Mark is his last name. His full name was John Mark

OK, here we see it implied that this particular John Mark IS the author of the Gospel According to Mark.

Regarding the authorship of Mark:

From The Interpreters One-Volume Commentary on the Bible Including the Apocrypha with General Articles Copyright 1971 by Abingon Press 15th Printing 199: “According to” Lindsey P. Pherigo in the introduction to the Gospel According to Mark:

Authorship. Tradition has given the author of this gospel the name Mark. From Early times he has been identified as John Mark, kinsman of Barnabas; and many scholars today accept this identification, largely on the basis that a gospel would not be attributed to remote a witness unless he was actually the author. However, if a gospel author named Mark was otherwise unknown, there would be strong tendency to identify him with any known early Christian of that name, even with one so little authority as John Mark.

Careful study of the book itself makes it difficult to believe that the author was John Mark of Jerusalem, because he seems to treat both Palestine and Palestinian Judaism as an outsider. His attitude towards the 12 and his reflection of the Pauline viewpoint…make it probable that he was a prominent member of the Gentile Christian community. His background must have been liberal Hellenistic Judaism rather than that of Jerusalem. The strong Semitic coloring of his writing can be attributed to sources he used rather than his own experience.

There is no reason to doubt much a tradition that the author derived much of his information about Jesus from the sermons of Peter, bit it must be remembered that he presents this information from a Gentile Christian point of view, and he includes much that did not come from apostolic memory at all. In Gentile Christianity a great deal of reliance was placed on learning of Jesus from O(ld) T(estament) statements believed to be about him.

we CAN conclude from this that Christians ARE NOT in agreement is assigning authorship to said John Mark! thus when you or anyone else claim it is a fact or a truth, you're either wrong, unsure or deliberately misleading those that you claim it to. Brother Khalid on the other hand merely claims that we don't know...

conclusion: Brother Khalid IS correct and you ARE wrong! we will now subtract 1 point from your 3 zeros to give you a score of minus 1, while we give Brother an additional point raising his score to a positive 2 points. :thankyou:

next, Insha' Allah, we'll deal with the authorship of John.

:w:

[Grace Seeker]

:sl:

Peace be upon those that follow the guidance,

Greetings to Gene and our other Christian guests,

I am going to take it upon myself to defend brothers Khairullah and Khalid Yasin; I’m an acquaintance of Brother Khalid and Brother Khairullah is relatively new here and I will assume that he wasn’t aware of any mistakes in Brother Khalid’s speech. I’m sure that speech follows Brother Khalid’s “the Historical Jesus”. Brother Khalid consistently quoted from a book without giving us the title. Even I recognize some of the mistakes in the lecture, some from the book, some just a brother having a goof. BUT, I’ll also go out on a (relatively safe) limb and assume Brother Khairullah did not intend to offend anyone. I also should thank Brother Khairullah for taking the time to transcribe the video for us!

Hopefully, Insha’ Allah, I won’t resort to name calling BUT I do intend to point out some discrepancies (as well as probably spell some words wrong)!

First off, we should attempt to point out what our beliefs are and NOT misrepresent those as facts! Let’s start here:



Actually, the unknown writers of Matthew and Luke took some time to inform us of the identity of the Messiah. In Matthew 1:12-16 we have:

12After the exile to Babylon: Jeconiah was the father of Shealtiel, Shealtiel the father of Zerubbabel, 13Zerubbabel the father of Abiud, Abiud the father of Eliakim, Eliakim the father of Azor, 14Azor the father of Zadok, Zadok the father of Akim, Akim the father of Eliud, 15Eliud the father of Eleazar, Eleazar the father of Matthan, Matthan the father of Jacob, 16and Jacob the father of Joseph, the husband of Mary, of whom was born Jesus, who is called Christ.

While in Luke 3:23 we have:
23Now Jesus himself was about thirty years old when he began his ministry. He was the son, so it was thought, of Joseph,

Hopping back to Matthew in 13:55, we have:

"Isn't this the carpenter's son? Isn't his mother's name Mary, and aren't his brothers James, Joseph, Simon and Judas? Ergo, Joshua ben Joseph!

Thus, according to the Gospels, he would have been known as Joshua ben Joseph [Anglicized of course] as was the Jewish custom for naming someone. So we DO have a full name for “Jesus”, don’t we? Just because Christians PREFER not to use it for obvious reasons, DOES NOT mean it didn’t exist. The Muslim name of Isa ibn Maryam, Alaihe Salaam, is probably the most accurate form that we have of his name so we have a right to ask:



So right now we can score Gene at ZERO and Khalid at ONE!

Next:



Great, we KNOW John’s last name, but we DON’T KNOW that he wrote any of the gospels!

Of course, we have:



BUT do we have ANY TRUTH here: we know: I believe and I also believe though not with the same level of confidence as well as: however I do not suppose that it was beyond the realm of possibility.

FANTASTIC we KNOW WHAT YOU BELIEVE and you haven’t bothered wasting time with ANY TEDIUOS FACTS! Or are we uncertain at the moment of the definition of fact?

Let’s score you DOUBLE ZERO Gene for this bit of misdirection!

we'll try to address authorship of the Gospels in the next post, Insha' Allah.

:w:

Sorry, but "ben Joseph" was not Jesus' last name, it like the term "of Nazareth" was just an identifier. If Jesus had had a sister, she would have been known as "bar Joseph". Note the difference in their "last names". There is no surname, no family name, in the sense of "last name" as that is used in modern day English, which is the way I understood it to be used in the post. Even today, a good Jewish boy whose father was name Joseph would be known as "ben Joseph", but "ben Joseph" would not be his last name any more than it was Jesus' last name.

And as for John, he was identified as John, son of Zebedee. And Matthew is identified as Matthew, the tax collector. And Luke is identified as Luke, the physician. But "ben Zebedee", "Taxman", and "Doctor" were not last names at that point in time anymore than Miller or Richardson was, though both would become such in time.

[Grace Seeker]

This is something that I can never believe and yet remain a Muslim.

Quran 112:1-4 Say: He is Allah the One and Only; Allah is the Self-Sufficient; He begets not, nor is He begotten; And there is none comparable to Him.

I am well aware of that. Just as I am sure that I can never accept the following and yet remain a Christian:

Christian members should acknowledge that the central tenet of their religion flies directly into the face of Islam and that they will continually be at odds with Muslims until they believe in the One God and that Jesus was as he claimed to be, a prophet and servant of Him.

He was so much more than just a prophet.

John 20:30-31 Jesus did many other miraculous signs in the presence of his disciples, which are not recorded in this book. But these are written that you may[a] believe that Jesus is the Christ, the Son of God, and that by believing you may have life in his name.

[truemuslim]

hola

no offence but i am always confused why i should believe a muslim (or any non christian for that matter) about christianity. this isn't something they approach honesty, it's always from the perspective of tearing christianity down to build up their own religion. and they are looking at issues they have no party to without any expertise. it is like that ridiculous thread in which lay muslims are attempting to revisit hypostatic union... an issue that is completely insular to Church bishops 1800 years ago. it is like the stranger who bumps into a conversation between doctors and begins telling them what they think about all the work issues the doctors were discussing...

and there is the issue of trusting an apostate... these are the same people who several days ago were telling you they know the absolute truth and it is x, but now they are absolutely convinced that they know the absolute truth and it is y.

...riiiight...

i know about christianity... i'm not here to ask questions about christianity. most of the time these questions aren't important, it's just insisted upon us that they are important. like a merchant who shoves their produce in your face at a market and demands that you need what they are selling. and if they are important there are already reasonable answers that once again it is demanded to us are not reasonable answers.

it's different if this were the result of somebody saying 'be a christian!' and then you ask a challenging question that's really on your mind... but with such a thread one could hardly say that is the case.

que Dios te bendiga

yep, exactly your always confused cuz you aint going in the right path. no offence. and nice thread ppl, but we all know the right way..and again no offence...(dont quote this and make a huuuuge post against it) thanks

[YusufNoor]

Sorry, but "ben Joseph" was not Jesus' last name, it like the term "of Nazareth" was just an identifier. If Jesus had had a sister, she would have been known as "bar Joseph". Note the difference in their "last names". There is no surname, no family name, in the sense of "last name" as that is used in modern day English, which is the way I understood it to be used in the post. Even today, a good Jewish boy whose father was name Joseph would be known as "ben Joseph", but "ben Joseph" would not be his last name any more than it was Jesus' last name.

And as for John, he was identified as John, son of Zebedee. And Matthew is identified as Matthew, the tax collector. And Luke is identified as Luke, the physician. But "ben Zebedee", "Taxman", and "Doctor" were not last names at that point in time anymore than Miller or Richardson was, though both would become such in time.

:sl:

we are asking John who, Mark who? using Jesus, Jesus the son of Joseph helps tell us who! YOU use surname, we want to know who!

we refer to Jesus as Isa ibn Maryam, Alaihe Salaam and the seal of the Prophets as Muhammad ibn Abdullah, Sallahu Alaihe Wa Salaam so it's perfectly normal for us, as it was for the Jews and Israelis or else they wouldn't have bothered to include the info in the NT.

minus half point... :ooh:

:w:

[Grace Seeker]

:sl:

we are asking John who, Mark who? using Jesus, Jesus the son of Joseph helps tell us who! YOU use surname, we want to know who!

we refer to Jesus as Isa ibn Maryam, Alaihe Salaam and the seal of the Prophets as Muhammad ibn Abdullah, Sallahu Alaihe Wa Salaam so it's perfectly normal for us, as it was for the Jews and Israelis or else they wouldn't have bothered to include the info in the NT.

minus half point... :ooh:

:w:

But that doesn't mean that they had last names. And it was that repeated mantra, as if it were proving something, that I found most objectionable of all. It was, I still assert, pure and utter nonsense to ask for last names for virtually anyone of that time period. Even Julius Caesar did not have Caesar for his last name. That was his title.


But do notice that we Christians do also include identifiers when we think that there might be any confusion over the person mentioned. For instance, I refered to John the Baptist and John the Presbyter in my post. Both are different from John the son of Zebedee who is the same as John the disciple and the author of the Gospel of John. But it is the early church, that assigned the titles and they apparently felt no need for such identifiers. Certainly many of us today wish that they had for that would make it easier to determine if the Matthew who wrote the gospel is the same Matthew who was a disciple.


And from now on, when you refer to the Prophet Muhammad (pbuh), shall I expect to see you use the complete name from above, Muhammad ibn Abdullah (pbuh) so that I can distinguish him from other Muhammads. If one always used the form you suggest, I doubt if there would have been trouble in mistaking a teddy bear named after a child in a Sudanese classroom for an attempt to insult the Prophet.

[YusufNoor]

But that doesn't mean that they had last names. And it was that repeated mantra, as if it were proving something, that I found most objectionable of all. It was, I still assert, pure and utter nonsense to ask for last names for virtually anyone of that time period. Even Julius Caesar did not have Caesar for his last name. That was his title.


But do notice that we Christians do also include identifiers when we think that there might be any confusion over the person mentioned. For instance, I refered to John the Baptist and John the Presbyter in my post. Both are different from John the son of Zebedee who is the same as John the disciple and the author of the Gospel of John. But it is the early church, that assigned the titles and they apparently felt no need for such identifiers. Certainly many of us today wish that they had for that would make it easier to determine if the Matthew who wrote the gospel is the same Matthew who was a disciple.


And from now on, when you refer to the Prophet Muhammad (pbuh), shall I expect to see you use the complete name from above, Muhammad ibn Abdullah (pbuh) so that I can distinguish him from other Muhammads. If one always used the form you suggest, I doubt if there would have been trouble in mistaking a teddy bear named after a child in a Sudanese classroom for an attempt to insult the Prophet.

:sl:

you mean you couldn't figure it out when i wrote Sallahu Alaihe Wa Salaam after his name...

and is that a question? :blind:

minus another half point :okay:

:w:

[Qingu]

Very few people in the first century AD had last names.

On the other hand, almost all scholars and historians in the first century signed their names to the texts they wrote, and many cited their sources as well.

The names of the gospel authors do not appear on any of the early texts we have of the gospels. They are the invention of later church fathers. We have no idea who wrote them and many modern scholars doubt the church's traditional authorship.

Given that we have the testimony of John's own disciples (plural) that John wrote the gospel that bears his name, if anything is going to be found to be conclusive it is that John DID write the book that bears his name and that he did know Jesus, not the other way around.

Where is this testimony? do you happen to have an original, signed copy?

As far as the estimated dating of the other gospels, the estimated time of Jesus death is 29 AD, with Mark, Luke and Matthew being written between 64 and 75 AD (roughly 35-46 years after Jesus' crucifixion) and certainly such close enough in time that they could have known him, for if they were the same age as him (and they could have been younger) they would only be around 70 years of age. Before you object to that being well beyond average lifespan, such averages were shortened because of infant mortality. It was not unusual for folks who survived into adulthood to live well into advance years, including 70 and even older.

So why didn't they sign their names? Why are their gospels both highly derivitive of each other (appearing to cut-and-paste from earlier manuscripts) and highly contradictory of each other?

This is not even close to true. Please, if you can support this, provide a quote from the church fathers where they agreed these are pen names.

I agree with you here, what the OP said is nonsense. Muslims really aren't as good at criticizing Christianity as us atheists. :)

While you are looking, please read this which is the actual statement of Papia, an early church father: The "Presbyter" that Papias refers to is John the Presbyter.

In addition to Papias, another church father, Irenaeus, also identifies Mark as the disciple and interpreter of Peter. (See Irenaeus' Against Heresies, III. i. 2.)

They knew a guy who knew a guy who knew a guy who knew Jesus.

Also, we see that much of the book of Acts is written in the third person. But that suddenly changes to first person in Acts 20 as Paul prepares to leave Greece after several months there. I suggest that this is were Luke joins Paul in his journeys. Whoever it is, it certainly isn't Paul who is doing the writing.

Except first-person plural was a stylistic convention in Hellenistic literature when describing sea journeys, which is exactly when it starts in Acts.

It isn't true the Paul never met Jesus. He had an encounter with Jesus on the road to Damascus.

That's quite a stretch. He was blinded by a talking light.

But make no mistake, even before the first book of the New Testament was written, in records that predate Paul, in works such as the Didache and others there are baptismal forumlas that were used by the church

What? The Christian church did not exist before Paul. Baptism obviously predates Christianity, it is similar to the rituals in many Roman mystery religions.

No. There is no mentioning of Jesus being a divine man god.

Now I think you're just arguing semantics. I'd certainly call Jesus (in Christianity) a divine man-god. He's both 100% man and 100% god, what else would you call him?

Again, wrong. Here is Paul describing himself: "I am a Jew, born in Tarsus of Cilicia, but brought up in this city. Under Gamaliel I was thoroughly trained in the law of our fathers and was just as zealous for God as any of you are today." (Acts 22:3) He was a pharisee. He was no bounty hunter.

Agreed, the original post just gets sillier and sillier.

Though Paul certainly does appear to be a demagogue charlatan. :)

khairullah,

I suggest you find someone more learned than Sheikh Khalid Yasin to teach you about Christianity. He doesn't know what he is talking about, and it is evident on so many levels it is ridiculous. If you wish to be Muslim and reject Christianity, I know that this is what you will do. But, if you are going to attack or debate it, do yourself a favor, and learn about it from those who are not themselves fools so that they don't make you look like one as well. The Ahmadi are better representatives of Islam than this man is of Christianity.

I agree with you. If you're going to criticize something, you should at least know what you're talking about and avoid making false claims.

[Qingu]

yep, exactly your always confused cuz you aint going in the right path. no offence. and nice thread ppl, but we all know the right way..and again no offence...(dont quote this and make a huuuuge post against it) thanks

This is silly. Grace is clearly more knowledgeable about Christianity than the Muslims in this thread. I say this as an impartial observer since I am neither a Muslim or a Christian.

Do you seriously think that being a Muslim makes you automatically more correct in debates than non-Muslims?

[Jayda]

yep, exactly your always confused cuz you aint going in the right path. no offence. and nice thread ppl, but we all know the right way..and again no offence...(dont quote this and make a huuuuge post against it) thanks

hola truemuslim,

lol i know you didn't want a long post, but this is really for you and moreso mustafa. my thoughts in response to the conversation/thread rather than any particularly person

...i don't think you understood what my confusion concerns. i'm not confused about faith, islam, God or catholicism, i'm confused why i should believe muslims about christianity. i'm confused why this conversation that is so often pushed on us is something to which i should listen. and so far, muslims have failed to adequately answer those questions... at the expense of my continued... i'm looking for a softer word than irritation, but it is a word in that vein. but perhaps it's as simple as mustafa's response... you believe that the quran says you must say these things. in which case i'm beginning to question what the point of talking to muslims is at all... because if it's a commandment from God you are naturally going to turn away from introspection over the things you say.

and without introspection anything i tell you about the irrationality of the things you seem to believe about Christianity, the lack of authority you have in saying them, and the (objectively) biased slant from which you approach the issue, will simply roll off my tongue onto deaf ears. and i understand that... but it poses a problem for me since it seems to mean i will never get to really discuss islam with you unless i either ignore the things you say (which is difficult) or, which you would prefer, accept them... which completely defeats the point.

it is irrational to say that this stems from not believing in your prophet or book, they are unconnected ideas. unless of course you have some sort of explanation connecting the thoughts that you left unstated... i would be interested to hear it.

there is no reason for me to believe that you really know what you are talking about... most of the things muslims say and believe about christianity seem to defy reason and history, the ignorance is so astounding that it's difficult to take muslims seriously. and there is no reason to believe muslims approach the subject honestly to the contrary, i've read so many 'refutations' of subjects i've never brought up i would say the sole reason most muslims try to talk about Christianity with me is to blast the religion.

added to this is the significant fact these are not conversations on points we disagree that just 'come up' as mustafa suggested, they are usually conversations we (christians) did not invite, and were pushed upon us. take this thread as an example of numerous 'refutation threads' in which an article by some unknown muslim theologian rehashes 'points' which despite their lack of credit on their face are insisted upon us as worthy of consideration and a response is demanded (demands which are often rude or dismissive). we didn't invite this... you insisted upon it. we don't trust or respect the source... if anything it's an irritating distraction from the questions and conversations we came here to have.

and it leaves me with the question why. a question until now i've basically kept to myself and not really discussed with muslims since the number of uninvited terribly ignorant conversations about Christianity has drastically altered the way i view muslims' theological opinions (outside of islam, obviously). but returning to the question, again, i think the answer is, to build up islam. the attacks are necessary to make islam necessary.

and whether it is because the quran tells you or because of internal insecurities (which i also think plays a part) i can see why that would be necessary. there is no foundation for islam in christianity... and the scriptures are very clear that we must follow the message that confirms the messages of God. the quran testifies against the scriptures, calling them corrupt, and against the good news, saying it is a perversion.

as far as i can determine, without attacking Christianity, it would be impossible to establish a need for islam. and without any kind of need for islam, our questions about the religion remain purely esoteric... but for most of us that's all we were interested in to begin with. and for those of us who joined these websites or read books about the religion, it was largely out of a secular invitation from the muslim community at large to get to know islam better in light of present world circumstances. when that turns into an attack on our own religions... one we had not counted on, it feels a bit dishonest.

but my conclusion about islam needing christianity to be torn down is one that i've come to on my own... not so much through conversations with you but on account of them. i always tend to keep my final thoughts to myself since at some point a person simply must make a determination and when it's voiced people feel the need to 'correct it' with their own.

i'm not certain i agree with mustafa that it's possible to 'tip toe' around muslims' thoughts about Christianity, to the contrary it seems on the tips of muslims (collectively) lips before we ever arrive. no matter if it is here, or on CF, the board from which i originally came (i was invited here to ask questions by skillganon) it seems like my islam focused agenda (what do muslims believe about prayer, why do you fast, what is a jinn...etc) is ignored and muslims are more interested in discussing their strange conspiracy beliefs about christianity first... a topic i had no intention of discussing since, i don't think i conceal this, i don't believe i'm receiving an honest conversation most of the time.

que Dios te bendiga

(to answer your question mustafa that means, may God bless you)

[Jayda]

lol and please don't feel like you have to address every last one of my concerns... i kind of jumped you with a lot of 'big picture' questions all at once, that weave between asking your opinion subjectively and objectively. also, in case somebody is afraid this is going off topic maybe we could break away my two big posts and form a new thread "what is the point in talking to you? why should we listen to you?" that way muslims can discuss this khalid yasin who appears to have distilled 2,000 years into five minutes. well done to him, that must have been difficult.

que Dios te bendiga

[NoName55]

you people, the so-called and self-proclaimed experts do come in to your own, when "debating" 12 year old child, but when faced with an adult, start claiming, "ooh ooh I'm being abused"

what a disgusting, shameful fraud of a website!!!

[Jayda]

hola noname,

i'm very confused... are you talking about me or somebody else... (and do you still dislike me?)

que Dios te bendiga

[snakelegs]

jayda,
no one is making you either read or reply to these posts.
if you are here so that you can learn more about islam, i suggest you avoid the "comparative religion" section completely and instead ask the questions that you are curious about in the islam sections.

[Jayda]

jayda,
no one is making you either read or reply to these posts.
if you are here so that you can learn more about islam, i suggest you avoid the "comparative religion" section completely and instead ask the questions that you are curious about in the islam sections.

hola snakelegs,

no offense but that isn't really looking at the situation in its proper context nor is it taking into consideration human emotions and genuine concerns that lies that attack a person or idea, on a grander scale, are a problem. i mean, you are definitely suggesting a good idea... but really one that is more appropriate if we were talking about a few off color remarks from some disjointed people on occasion. but this is really more of a persistent, much more wide scale situation that impedes discussion... it's not limited to just the 'comparative religions' section, though it concentrates here, you can find it all over the forum (eg)... and in other muslim forums(eg), and in Christian forums where there are muslim posters (eg). that's a bigger problem IMO that requires a different approach...

but before an approach can be found it requires some questions to be asked :)

this is like being at a party and you are talking to some guests... but you overheard in a corner somebody saying negative things about you to some other people. at first you ignore it and dismiss it, because either they don't know you very well or dislike you... either way you consider yourself above responding to that sort of thing. but then as time goes by you begin to wonder 'but what if those people they were talking to actually believed all of that...' and to your horror you look over and see that same person now talking to another group and still saying bad things about you.

at what point do you say 'well i really don't like this and i'm going to walk over and say some things in my own defense.'

but before long you realize that this person will not be reasoned with, they have a set against you and will continue to say negative things about you regardless of whether it is necessary... and in fact they will try their best to reach the maximum number of people with their message against you. and before long you are spending so much time walking around trying to explain to the guests this person talked to that you are not a bad person and the negative comments were unwarranted, that you aren't spending any time talking to other guests about other things at the party.

it is the same idea. the first few times i experienced this on CF and then here i really just ignored it... 10, 20, 40 threads later when i see there are hundreds of posts i feel a little nervous and think maybe i should say something. and before long i am answering '100 questions about Christianity' and the like to a deaf audience.

i think that any reasonable person can distinguish between a few off handed dismissable comments and a wider perception or even mission as it seems to me that does require somebody to address it. such judgments are the purview of adults, who pick and choose where to have conversations, and children... who simply react to anything they don't like.

and as i become more distracted i continue to forget what it was i intended to ask initially... actually maybe skillganon might remember. either way my interest becomes greatly diminished, i am tending to see islam as more of an antagonistic religion toward christianity than a cooperative one with similar goals and ideas. it's the difference (in my mind) between a religion that simply wants to spread both its faith and its morals... and one that wants to simultaneously destroy mine even while suggesting we can all be friends.

and i'm certain i'm not the only person frustrated by this entire situation... but if this conversation is more uncomfortable for everyone than i thought it would be, i'll just back out and continue this as an internal monologue. despite my candor, speaking openly, asking your thoughts and opinions when i'm trying to understand something and challenging you to qualify some of the things taken for granted (ie why should we listen to you about christianity?) is how i take people seriously... instead of smiling, thanking you for sharing your opinion but mentally reviewing my grocery list for the day.

que Dios te bendiga

[MustafaMc]

.. at the expense of my continued... i'm looking for a softer word than irritation, but it is a word in that vein. but perhaps it's as simple as mustafa's response... you believe that the quran says you must say these things. in which case i'm beginning to question what the point of talking to muslims is at all... because if it's a commandment from God you are naturally going to turn away from introspection over the things you say.

Perhaps, you misunderstood me, the Quran doesn't tell us to tear down Christianity in order to build up Islam. The Quran tells us that they disbelieve who say Jesus is the Son of God and we don't entertain "introspection" to allow any compromise on the oneness of Allah.

and without introspection anything i tell you about the irrationality of the things you seem to believe about Christianity, the lack of authority you have in saying them, and the (objectively) biased slant from which you approach the issue, will simply roll off my tongue onto deaf ears. and i understand that... but it poses a problem for me since it seems to mean i will never get to really discuss islam with you unless i either ignore the things you say (which is difficult) or, which you would prefer, accept them... which completely defeats the point.

The irrationality that you speak of is rational to us from our perspective of looking through the lens of Islam. Yes, our points of view are clearly biased toward Islam being the Truth.

added to this is the significant fact these are not conversations on points we disagree that just 'come up' as mustafa suggested, they are usually conversations we (christians) did not invite, and were pushed upon us. take this thread as an example of numerous 'refutation threads' in which an article by some unknown muslim theologian rehashes 'points' which despite their lack of credit on their face are insisted upon us as worthy of consideration and a response is demanded (demands which are often rude or dismissive). we didn't invite this... you insisted upon it. we don't trust or respect the source... if anything it's an irritating distraction from the questions and conversations we came here to have.

I guess I would feel the same way if you quoted Pat Robertson, Jimmy Swaggert, or Franklin Graham.

and it leaves me with the question why. a question until now i've basically kept to myself and not really discussed with muslims since the number of uninvited terribly ignorant conversations about Christianity has drastically altered the way i view muslims' theological opinions (outside of islam, obviously). but returning to the question, again, i think the answer is, to build up islam. the attacks are necessary to make islam necessary.

No, this is not true. Islam is necessary as the proper worship of the One God. The initial struggle was against polytheism and idol worship. We see Christianity as polytheistic with the worship of a man as an equal to Allah.

and whether it is because the quran tells you or because of internal insecurities (which i also think plays a part) i can see why that would be necessary. there is no foundation for islam in christianity... and the scriptures are very clear that we must follow the message that confirms the messages of God. the quran testifies against the scriptures, calling them corrupt, and against the good news, saying it is a perversion.

... and what was Jesus' response to the question of the greatest commandment? Yes, the teachings of the Quran are at odds with a lot of the NT.

as far as i can determine, without attacking Christianity, it would be impossible to establish a need for islam. and without any kind of need for islam, our questions about the religion remain purely esoteric... but for most of us that's all we were interested in to begin with. and for those of us who joined these websites or read books about the religion, it was largely out of a secular invitation from the muslim community at large to get to know islam better in light of present world circumstances. when that turns into an attack on our own religions... one we had not counted on, it feels a bit dishonest.

Even if Christianity had never existed, there would still be a need for Islam. To establish proper belief about Allah and our relationship to Him as one of servant to Master.

but my conclusion about islam needing christianity to be torn down is one that i've come to on my own... not so much through conversations with you but on account of them. i always tend to keep my final thoughts to myself since at some point a person simply must make a determination and when it's voiced people feel the need to 'correct it' with their own.

i'm not certain i agree with mustafa that it's possible to 'tip toe' around muslims' thoughts about Christianity, to the contrary it seems on the tips of muslims (collectively) lips before we ever arrive. no matter if it is here, or on CF, the board from which i originally came (i was invited here to ask questions by skillganon) it seems like my islam focused agenda (what do muslims believe about prayer, why do you fast, what is a jinn...etc) is ignored and muslims are more interested in discussing their strange conspiracy beliefs about christianity first... a topic i had no intention of discussing since, i don't think i conceal this, i don't believe i'm receiving an honest conversation most of the time.

What I was referring to tip-toe around was the claims of Jesus being at the same time God and the Son of God - which ALWAYS eventually comes up. If you have started a thread with questions about Islam, point me towards it. As long as you are not attacking my religion, but rather seeking to learn, then I will be glad to answer your questions.

que Dios te bendiga

(to answer your question mustafa that means, may God bless you)

Thank you, and the same to you.

[Keltoi]

Well, I think it is obvious for most unbiased observers that the article posted in this thread was full of misconceptions and falsehoods, so this thread has probably run its course.

Till the next, and the next...:)

[MustafaMc]

I am well aware of that. Just as I am sure that I can never accept the following and yet remain a Christian:

Yes, were are at an impasse.

He was so much more than just a prophet.

John 20:30-31 Jesus did many other miraculous signs in the presence of his disciples, which are not recorded in this book. But these are written that you may[a] believe that Jesus is the Christ, the Son of God, and that by believing you may have life in his name.

Yes, others are quoted in the NT as referring to Jesus as the Son of God, but also as other than that.

Matthew 12:17-18 that it might be fulfilled which was spoken through Isaiah the prophet, saying, Behold, my servant whom I have chosen; My beloved in whom my soul is well pleased: I will put my Spirit upon him, And he shall declare judgment to the Gentiles.

Acts 3:13 The God of Abraham, and of Isaac, and of Jacob, the God of our fathers, hath glorified his Servant Jesus; whom ye delivered up, and denied before the face of Pilate, when he had determined to release him. and 26 Unto you first God, having raised up his Servant, sent him to bless you, in turning away every one of you from your iniquities.

We know from logic and the parable of the Prodigal Son that the servant is not equal to the Son.

Matthew 13:55-57 Is not this the carpenter's son? is not his mother called Mary? and his brethren, James, and Joseph, and Simon, and Judas? And his sisters, are they not all with us? Whence then hath this man all these things? And they were offended in him. But Jesus said unto them, A prophet is not without honor, save in his own country, and in his own house.

Matthew 21:10-11 And when he was come into Jerusalem, all the city was stirred, saying, Who is this? And the multitudes said, This is the prophet, Jesus, from Nazareth of Galilee.

How can God (Jesus in the Wilderness) be tempted by Satan with the world and all it contains when it is already His? Matthew 4:8-10 Again, the devil taketh him unto an exceeding high mountain, and showeth him all the kingdoms of the world, and the glory of them; and he said unto him, All these things will I give thee, if thou wilt fall down and worship me. Then saith Jesus unto him, Get thee hence, Satan: for it is written, Thou shalt worship the Lord thy God, and him only shalt thou serve. How can God possibly worship anyone or anything as being greater than Him? We Muslims strive toward this same goal to worship and to serve the One God as Jesus indicated.

[Grace Seeker]

On the other hand, almost all scholars and historians in the first century signed their names to the texts they wrote, and many cited their sources as well.

Well, I'm going to show my ignorance here. There are many historians and other authors of that age that I only know my one name (or one name and a descripter) -- Philo, Pliny, Julius Caesar, Eusebius, Tacitus, Suetonius, Virgil, Ovid, Cicero to name a few, but that doesn't mean that they only had one name, only that I know them by that. On the other hand while most Romans had two names, Flavius Josephus is the only Jew from the era that I can think of that I know by two names (and he was known to hang out with Romans).

The names of the gospel authors do not appear on any of the early texts we have of the gospels.

I am quite aware of that.

They are the invention of later church fathers. We have no idea who wrote them and many modern scholars doubt the church's traditional authorship.

And many modern scholars support the church's traditional authorship.

Where is this testimony? do you happen to have an original, signed copy?

Yeah, right here in my desk drawer. Come over and I'll show it to you. Ink's a little faded, but you can still make it out if you hold it under good light.

So why didn't they sign their names? Why are their gospels both highly derivitive of each other (appearing to cut-and-paste from earlier manuscripts) and highly contradictory of each other?

You want my theory? To the first question I really have no idea. Maybe because they weren't producing letters, but providing general information. But, personally, yes, I'm a little surprised that we don't see such signatures.

It is only Matthew, Mark and Luke that appear to be so highly derivative. John is clearly an independent work. I think that they appear that way because they were in fact highly derivative of each other, or of some common but lost source. Whether that source was the reputed Q document or oral tradition or some of both I don't know and I don't think anyone can today conclusively say. But most certainly, before the creation of any written document of any form, even a Q document (if such existed), there was at the very least a corpus of stories with regard to Jesus that had accumulated out of the preaching of the apostles. These would have been the common cloth of which Mark, Luke, and Matthew would have each produced their gospel accounts. But each writing in their own way, with their own audience in mind, and with different access to this source material would have produced a slightly different document.

Here is the thing, with regard to Mark and Luke, their documents were certainly early enough that the first generation of the church that would have personally known Jesus and been witness to these events was still alive to have repudiated them if they were presenting false testimony with regard to him.

And if you suppose that these were all later, then you eliminate the book of Acts as having been an early document as well, for it had the same author as Luke. And you eliminate the idea that Paul was a historical figure as well. Why not just have all of the NT created after the church was already in existence and have someone name George, or perhaps George and his friends Harry and Bill be the authrors of everything. Of course, then you have to explain who it is that Harry, George and Bill came to be quoted by people in the early second century who knew them as Matthew, Mark, Luke, John, Paul, Peter, James, and Jude. And you have to explain how some of the things that George and his friends wrote later were found in first century liturgies used by the church. And you have to explain where the church came from, if the ideas it was built on weren't themselves composed until a later time. And you have to explain how it is that forms of the church were spread not just through the Roman empire, but parts of the former Persian empire as well, and that they had these same stories. No, that sort of theory, which is what I hear you basically proposing in saying "They are the invention of later church fathers.", seems even less credible than authorships you choose to reject.

I agree with you here, what the OP said is nonsense. Muslims really aren't as good at criticizing Christianity as us atheists. :)

And I agree with you as well. I think it is because atheists have a less vested interest in the success of failure of Christianity as a religion, and thus can view it dispassionately. It results in a more objective investigation which leads to better critiques. Of course, liberal Christian scholars themselves are some of atheists best friends in critiqueing the origins of Christianity.

They knew a guy who knew a guy who knew a guy who knew Jesus.

Hey, when that's what we got, that's what we got. (Other than that paper I have in my desk drawer, that is.) The New Testament is still better documented and authenticated than the works of Homer, Sophocles, Plato, and Aristotle (btw, know any of their last names?) or even Julius Caesar. Yet no one doubts their existence or authorship. I think it is just because it is religion that people get so excited and antagonistic about it.

Except first-person plural was a stylistic convention in Hellenistic literature when describing sea journeys, which is exactly when it starts in Acts.

Hey, I didn't know that. Learned somethig new today. Thanks!

That's quite a stretch. He was blinded by a talking light.

Which, accepting the account, as you do if you accept that he was really blinded by a talking light, was in fact Jesus talking to him. That's why I say that Paul met Jesus. Being a Christian, I believe not just that God is real, but that there is also a spiritual world beyond our 5 basic sense that is also every bit as real as the one you see, hear, tasts, smell, and touch. And I believe, based on the testimony of this passage that you cited, that Paul had an encounter with Jesus in this other dimension of reality that is normally foreign to us, but which "in Christ" we all have access to. It might be foreign to your way of thinking, but it is perfectly compatible with mine.

What? The Christian church did not exist before Paul.

What? Now you are talking nonsense. Just exactly who/what was Paul persecuting if he wasn't persecuting the church before he became a Christian? What was it that the people who responded to Peter's preaching in Acts 2 joined?

Baptism obviously predates Christianity, it is similar to the rituals in many Roman mystery religions.

Of course. But for instance the Didache, which is a compilation of rules and rituals for use in worship in the church that is dated between 50-100 AD and by some to as early as 40 AD (that would be earlier than the earliers NT writing), it includes baptismal formularies that specifiically mention that those joining the church are to be baptized in the three-fold name of the "Father, Son, and Holy Spirit". I don't think that you will find those words used by any religion other than Christianity. I use it to debunk the idea that Christianity and the worship of Jesus was "invented" by Paul, because these things are present before Paul's first letter, perhaps even before he began his missionary journeys.

Now I think you're just arguing semantics. I'd certainly call Jesus (in Christianity) a divine man-god. He's both 100% man and 100% god, what else would you call him?

Well, theology is often about choosing the appropriate word, because, as you just testified to, it is semantics -- i.e. the study or science of meaning in language. I would call Jesus God incarnate. But God-man sounds like some sort of centaur-like beast or a Hercules-type myth, that is not what we mean to imply, so we stay away from any sort of language that might have those connotations to it.

Though Paul certainly does appear to be a demagogue charlatan. :)

Depending on which defintion of demagogue you use:
1 : a leader who makes use of popular prejudices and false claims and promises in order to gain power
2 : a leader championing the cause of the common people in ancient times
I might agree with the use of the term demagogue. But I don't agree either that Paul was a charlatan or even that he appears as a charlatan. Paul certainly suffered enough that he no apparent gains from switching from a persecuter to a promoter of Christainity. If anything he lost the life he had before. And since he had multiple opportunities to simply walk away from it, I would guess that he was a sincere believer, so how could he be termed a charlatan? Now, if you had said an over-zealous blowhard...I've often thought of Paul as sort of arrogant in this way.

[Grace Seeker]

What I was referring to tip-toe around was the claims of Jesus being at the same time God and the Son of God - which ALWAYS eventually comes up. If you have started a thread with questions about Islam, point me towards it. As long as you are not attacking my religion, but rather seeking to learn, then I will be glad to answer your questions.

Of course, I have done exactly that. And many have come to answer questions in very helpful ways. And some have come, disagreeing with their brother Muslim's comments to debate amongst themselves (I can understand that) or to tell people how to live (I can understand that in other contexts, but not as appropriate within that thread). And yet others have come not to answer questions but to proselytize without regard even to the questions asked. Indeed, I have had to be very careful with the type of questions I ask, for what I thought was the simplest of questions with which to begin the thread continues to illicit controversy and replies months later, often interrupting other things that I am trying to learn about and have people address.

Yes, were are at an impasse.

Mustafa, you and I have been at a theological impasse from the very beginning. I think we both recognize that. I hope you are not saying that we are at a relational impasse, because I don't feel that way at all.

Yes, others are quoted in the NT as referring to Jesus as the Son of God, but also as other than that.

And that is my point in reverse. You will find reference to many things that Jesus is. As you note he is a prophet, a servant of God, also a priest and King (from the Christian persepctive), but if we stop there, then we have missed the whole point of the gospel, for the gospel exist primarily to present Jesus to as Lord God and Savior.

We know from logic and the parable of the Prodigal Son that the servant is not equal to the Son.

I am sorry to say, but I think you are mis-applying that parable and that it does not refute the possibility of Jesus being both God's humble servant and submissive to the Father and at the same time God himself.

How can God (Jesus in the Wilderness) be tempted by Satan with the world and all it contains when it is already His?

To tempt: to entice to do wrong by promise of pleasure or gain. Indeed Satan was offering enticements. Notice, they didn't work. But you are incorrect in saying that everything in the world is already God's. People are also in the world and God has given us free agency to make our own decision as to whether we will be his or not. Is not that the very reason that Islam teaches us to be submissive to God. As a human being, Jesus likewise had to choose to submit his will to that of the Father.

You may not appreciate the metaphor, but this is a continual dance choreographed by the Father, Son, and Holy Spirit to be in mutual submission to one another. Should they cease to do it then the dance is ended. Hence the first descriptions of the nature of God by early Christians, before the invention of the word Trinity, (which by the way was meant to explain God's unitiy, not divide him into three parts) was perichoresis which carried the idea of "dancing around". The idea is that the whole of the one God can only be understood in the relationship or mutuality and to divorce any one person from the whole is only to speak of God's constituent parts and not really be speaking of God at all. But when we understand this act of perichoresis which is a mutual penetration of the Father in the Son who is in the Spirit as the Spirit is in the Son who is in the Father and the Son likewise being in the Father and the Spirit, then and only then are we actually speaking of the one God and not something less than his whole being.

This is why Muslims drive me crazy. You have this wonderful declaration of the importance of worshipping the one God, and yet (from my perspective) you fail to do so, by worshipping only one aspect of him and denying the rest of who he is. I'm not asking you to associate partners with Allah. I'm asking you to recognize that Allah is himself bigger than you understand him to be.

[MustafaMc]

Mustafa, you and I have been at a theological impasse from the very beginning. I think we both recognize that. I hope you are not saying that we are at a relational impasse, because I don't feel that way at all.

No, I was referring to the point that neither of us will budge on the central point about which we differ most. I accept you as an authority on Protestant Christianity and I respect that what you have to say are sincerely held beliefs.

And that is my point in reverse. You will find reference to many things that Jesus is. As you note he is a prophet, a servant of God, also a priest and King (from the Christian persepctive), but if we stop there, then we have missed the whole point of the gospel, for the gospel exist primarily to present Jesus to as Lord God and Savior.

Yes, by default as a Muslim I miss the point of the "gospel" of Jesus being Lord God and Saviour. I reject those portions of the NT that are in direct conflict with the Quran.

I am sorry to say, but I think you are mis-applying that parable and that it does not refute the possibility of Jesus being both God's humble servant and submissive to the Father and at the same time God himself.

The point that I was trying to make is that the prodigal son, upon realizing the terrible mistake that he had made, wanted to return home. He intended to tell his father that he was unworthy to be his son and wanted to return as a servant. This shows that a son has more rank than a servant.

But you are incorrect in saying that everything in the world is already God's. People are also in the world and God has given us free agency to make our own decision as to whether we will be his or not. Is not that the very reason that Islam teaches us to be submissive to God. As a human being, Jesus likewise had to choose to submit his will to that of the Father.

This is according to Christian theology. From my perspective, Allah created the universe and everything within it and that He is free to do with it as He pleases to do so. One can't be tempted with what one already has.

You may not appreciate the metaphor, but this is a continual dance choreographed by the Father, Son, and Holy Spirit to be in mutual submission to one another. Should they cease to do it then the dance is ended. Hence the first descriptions of the nature of God by early Christians, before the invention of the word Trinity, (which by the way was meant to explain God's unitiy, not divide him into three parts) was perichoresis which carried the idea of "dancing around". The idea is that the whole of the one God can only be understood in the relationship or mutuality and to divorce any one person from the whole is only to speak of God's constituent parts and not really be speaking of God at all. But when we understand this act of perichoresis which is a mutual penetration of the Father in the Son who is in the Spirit as the Spirit is in the Son who is in the Father and the Son likewise being in the Father and the Spirit, then and only then are we actually speaking of the one God and not something less than his whole being.

You totally lost me on this one. I thought God was not the author of confusion.

This is why Muslims drive me crazy. You have this wonderful declaration of the importance of worshipping the one God, and yet (from my perspective) you fail to do so, by worshipping only one aspect of him and denying the rest of who he is. I'm not asking you to associate partners with Allah. I'm asking you to recognize that Allah is himself bigger than you understand him to be.

I have no understanding of Allah beyond what He has told me in the Quran. The complexity illustrated even by the 99 Names and Attributes of Allah are beyond my comprehension. The God that I worship is the same Who spoke to Adam in the Garden of Eden, told Noah to build the ark, told Abraham to sacrifice his only son, spoke to Moses through the burning bush and that Jesus prayed to in the Garden of Gethsemane.

[snakelegs]

hola snakelegs,

no offense but that isn't really looking at the situation in its proper context nor is it taking into consideration human emotions and genuine concerns that lies that attack a person or idea, on a grander scale, are a problem. i mean, you are definitely suggesting a good idea... but really one that is more appropriate if we were talking about a few off color remarks from some disjointed people on occasion. but this is really more of a persistent, much more wide scale situation that impedes discussion... it's not limited to just the 'comparative religions' section, though it concentrates here, you can find it all over the forum (eg)... and in other muslim forums(eg), and in Christian forums where there are muslim posters (eg). that's a bigger problem IMO that requires a different approach...

but before an approach can be found it requires some questions to be asked :)

this is like being at a party and you are talking to some guests... but you overheard in a corner somebody saying negative things about you to some other people. at first you ignore it and dismiss it, because either they don't know you very well or dislike you... either way you consider yourself above responding to that sort of thing. but then as time goes by you begin to wonder 'but what if those people they were talking to actually believed all of that...' and to your horror you look over and see that same person now talking to another group and still saying bad things about you.

at what point do you say 'well i really don't like this and i'm going to walk over and say some things in my own defense.'

but before long you realize that this person will not be reasoned with, they have a set against you and will continue to say negative things about you regardless of whether it is necessary... and in fact they will try their best to reach the maximum number of people with their message against you. and before long you are spending so much time walking around trying to explain to the guests this person talked to that you are not a bad person and the negative comments were unwarranted, that you aren't spending any time talking to other guests about other things at the party.

it is the same idea. the first few times i experienced this on CF and then here i really just ignored it... 10, 20, 40 threads later when i see there are hundreds of posts i feel a little nervous and think maybe i should say something. and before long i am answering '100 questions about Christianity' and the like to a deaf audience.

i think that any reasonable person can distinguish between a few off handed dismissable comments and a wider perception or even mission as it seems to me that does require somebody to address it. such judgments are the purview of adults, who pick and choose where to have conversations, and children... who simply react to anything they don't like.

and as i become more distracted i continue to forget what it was i intended to ask initially... actually maybe skillganon might remember. either way my interest becomes greatly diminished, i am tending to see islam as more of an antagonistic religion toward christianity than a cooperative one with similar goals and ideas. it's the difference (in my mind) between a religion that simply wants to spread both its faith and its morals... and one that wants to simultaneously destroy mine even while suggesting we can all be friends.

and i'm certain i'm not the only person frustrated by this entire situation... but if this conversation is more uncomfortable for everyone than i thought it would be, i'll just back out and continue this as an internal monologue. despite my candor, speaking openly, asking your thoughts and opinions when i'm trying to understand something and challenging you to qualify some of the things taken for granted (ie why should we listen to you about christianity?) is how i take people seriously... instead of smiling, thanking you for sharing your opinion but mentally reviewing my grocery list for the day.

que Dios te bendiga

i find this endless debating incompehensible, but maybe it is something that muslims and christians are compelled to do, because both religions proselytize.
to me, you have chosen to come to the party. i think the sensible reaction would be to just go home.
you say you joined this forum to learn about islam - do you ask questions in the islam sections?
you hang out in "comparative religion" and read threads like this one (which seemed so silly, i didn't even read it, but only glanced at it) and then you complain. you say that these people at the party who are saying bad things are forcing you to listen to them, and soon you end up with them instead of chatting with other guests about other things. yet you chose to come, you chose to walk over to these people and engage in pointless dialogue with them and then you complain about having to listen to them. you are not a helpless victim, are you? no one is tying you down and forcing you to read stupid threads like this one, let alone waste your time arguing with it and then complaining that you're wasting your time arguing with it.
wouldn't the rational response be either to hang out in the more interesting sections of the room or to just go home?
again, if you want to learn about islam, you will learn almost nothing in this section.
if you choose to read a thread like this and then argue about it, that's fine but then don't complain about being forced to listen, about things being pushed on you, etc etc. when you are a willing victim.

[Jayda]

i find this endless debating incompehensible, but maybe it is something that muslims and christians are compelled to do, because both religions proselytize.
to me, you have chosen to come to the party. i think the sensible reaction would be to just go home.
you say you joined this forum to learn about islam - do you ask questions in the islam sections?
you hang out in "comparative religion" and read threads like this one (which seemed so silly, i didn't even read it, but only glanced at it) and then you complain. you say that these people at the party who are saying bad things are forcing you to listen to them, and soon you end up with them instead of chatting with other guests about other things. yet you chose to come, you chose to walk over to these people and engage in pointless dialogue with them and then you complain about having to listen to them. you are not a helpless victim, are you? no one is tying you down and forcing you to read stupid threads like this one, let alone waste your time arguing with it and then complaining that you're wasting your time arguing with it.
wouldn't the rational response be either to hang out in the more interesting sections of the room or to just go home?
again, if you want to learn about islam, you will learn almost nothing in this section.
if you choose to read a thread like this and then argue about it, that's fine but then don't complain about being forced to listen, about things being pushed on you, etc etc. when you are a willing victim.

hola snakelegs,

i think you are trying to characterize me as playing the victim rather than reading or considering what i am saying... but i'm not playing the victim, i'm probing. i never claimed anybody forced me to do anything, that's not possible, as you are no doubt aware. but you don't need 'force' to have something pushed on you, anyone who has visited Macy's before is aware of this.

as i demonstrated, it's not something confined to 'comparative religion' it's spread out across the forum and across other forums. my point was that it appears to happen wherever muslims and christians are talking. and, contrary to what you said, i don't spend very much time here at all. i tend to post more in social areas like the general section or advise section... world politics to a certain degree as well.

i also mentioned that i don't remember my questions because i keep getting sucked into a conversation i didn't want to have. but since the conversation manages to intrude itself so often i feel compelled to ask a few questions and find some things out just so that i understand what's driving this.

que Dios te bendiga

[truemuslim]

hola snakelegs,

i think you are trying to characterize me as playing the victim rather than reading or considering what i am saying... but i'm not playing the victim, i'm probing. i never claimed anybody forced me to do anything, that's not possible, as you are no doubt aware. but you don't need 'force' to have something pushed on you, anyone who has visited Macy's before is aware of this.

as i demonstrated, it's not something confined to 'comparative religion' it's spread out across the forum and across other forums. my point was that it appears to happen wherever muslims and christians are talking. and, contrary to what you said, i don't spend very much time here at all. i tend to post more in social areas like the general section or advise section... world politics to a certain degree as well.

i also mentioned that i don't remember my questions because i keep getting sucked into a conversation i didn't want to have. but since the conversation manages to intrude itself so often i feel compelled to ask a few questions and find some things out just so that i understand what's driving this.

que Dios te bendiga

omg i luuuvv macy's...if ur talking bout that cute clothes store in u.s

[Grace Seeker]

You totally lost me on this one. I thought God was not the author of confusion.

Sorry. No, God isn't the author of confusion, but I guess that sometimes I am. The point isn't really central to this thread, so I'll save it for another one. Surely someone will want to talk about the Trinity again. Anyone willing to take that bet?

[Jayda]

omg i luuuvv macy's...if ur talking bout that cute clothes store in u.s

si! it's so pretty this time of year! i love they way they decorate. are you married? i did not even visit some of the glasswear and tablewear sections until i was married but their crystal is a-mazing. i'm beginning to like macy's more for that than their clothes!

the flagship store is relatively near to us when we are in NYC, it's an amazing place... they carry brands there (like prada) that they don't have at many of their otherstores nation or even worldwide. their handbags and shoe selections are absolutely wonderful! and now they are beginning to carry my size more often (US Size 00) which is so incredibly rare, Saks has it too but Gucci is not always reasonable for just mulling around home :)

do you have Saks Fifth Ave. too?

[truemuslim]

si! it's so pretty this time of year! i love they way they decorate. are you married? i did not even visit some of the glasswear and tablewear sections until i was married but their crystal is a-mazing. i'm beginning to like macy's more for that than their clothes!

the flagship store is relatively near to us when we are in NYC, it's an amazing place... they carry brands there (like prada) that they don't have at many of their otherstores nation or even worldwide. their handbags and shoe selections are absolutely wonderful

do you have Saks Fifth Ave. too?

yea u sorta lost me on the last 2 sentences..i dont live in new york...wish i did...and NOWAY IM NOT MARRIED..im only..between14-16... and macy's has cute clothes but expensive...REALLY expensive..like a cute long skirt is for like 50 bucks..ON SALE.lol but yea...i luv my new siggy..

[Jayda]

yea u sorta lost me on the last 2 sentences..i dont live in new york...wish i did...and NOWAY IM NOT MARRIED..im only..between14-16... and macy's has cute clothes but expensive...REALLY expensive..like a cute long skirt is for like 50 bucks..ON SALE.lol but yea...i luv my new siggy..

lol you have a very cute signature :)

it can be expensive but it depends on what designers you are looking at... the other store i mentioned is saks, here is their webpage http://www.saksfifthavenue.com/Entry.jsp it's another major new york store. it's absolutely WONDERFUL except everything is obscenely priced. they have some incredible designers... if i'm not mistaken there is one in mecca that sells hijabs.

[truemuslim]

lol you have a very cute signature :)

it can be expensive but it depends on what designers you are looking at... the other store i mentioned is saks, here is their webpage http://www.saksfifthavenue.com/Entry.jsp it's another major new york store. it's absolutely WONDERFUL except everything is obscenely priced. they have some incredible designers... if i'm not mistaken there is one in mecca that sells hijabs.

oooh cuuuuttee..lol...thanks

[snakelegs]

hola snakelegs,

i think you are trying to characterize me as playing the victim rather than reading or considering what i am saying... but i'm not playing the victim, i'm probing. i never claimed anybody forced me to do anything, that's not possible, as you are no doubt aware. but you don't need 'force' to have something pushed on you, anyone who has visited Macy's before is aware of this.

as i demonstrated, it's not something confined to 'comparative religion' it's spread out across the forum and across other forums. my point was that it appears to happen wherever muslims and christians are talking. and, contrary to what you said, i don't spend very much time here at all. i tend to post more in social areas like the general section or advise section... world politics to a certain degree as well.

i also mentioned that i don't remember my questions because i keep getting sucked into a conversation i didn't want to have. but since the conversation manages to intrude itself so often i feel compelled to ask a few questions and find some things out just so that i understand what's driving this.

que Dios te bendiga

you do not get "sucked into" conversations against your will. there is no giant vacuum cleaner here. when you complain about having to answer this stuff, to me, that is playing the victim, and of course, you disagree. so we'll drop it there.
your relgions have much in common but there are irreconcilable differences. because both of your religions make the claim of being The One True Religion, they both depend on other religions being false. so it is not something just with muslims, the same is true for christians too.
you have chosen to be part of an islamic forum, so i am afraid some of this is just unavoidable. also, i should point out (in case you were unaware) that many of the muslims here are very young and completely inexperienced at dialoguing with people of other religions. i am not trying to excuse them - some are rude, mocking and insulting - undeniably. but it's something you might want to keep in mind.
btw, i've never been to a christian forum (you keep referring to one), but i think it's iteresting that a number of christians here have said that this forum is much more tolerant than their own. :D
anyway, let's leave it at that....

[Qingu]

Well, I'm going to show my ignorance here. There are many historians and other authors of that age that I only know my one name (or one name and a descripter) -- Philo, Pliny, Julius Caesar, Eusebius, Tacitus, Suetonius, Virgil, Ovid, Cicero to name a few, but that doesn't mean that they only had one name, only that I know them by that. On the other hand while most Romans had two names, Flavius Josephus is the only Jew from the era that I can think of that I know by two names (and he was known to hang out with Romans).

Ah, I think you misunderstood me. Whether or not they had a surname doesn't matter at all (the original poster was, as usual, full of nonsense). I was just pointing out a bigger problem with the gospel authors' names—that we don't even know what their names are, since they didn't bother to sign them.

You want my theory? To the first question I really have no idea. Maybe because they weren't producing letters, but providing general information. But, personally, yes, I'm a little surprised that we don't see such signatures.

Even for the standards of the time this is strange. Christians often like to portray the gospels as "historical texts," but this is eroneous for several reasons. First of all, real historical texts have signed names. Secondly, "historical texts" of the time are chock-full of hearsay and nonsensical myths. Josephus, one of the most respected historians of the time, actually reports that there was a floating army in the sky in his War of the Jews. So comparing the gospels to real contemporary histories is not really doing much for the gospels' credibility.

But most certainly, before the creation of any written document of any form, even a Q document (if such existed), there was at the very least a corpus of stories with regard to Jesus that had accumulated out of the preaching of the apostles. These would have been the common cloth of which Mark, Luke, and Matthew would have each produced their gospel accounts. But each writing in their own way, with their own audience in mind, and with different access to this source material would have produced a slightly different document.

But this relegates the gospel authors to editors and redactors living decades after the fact, not eyewitnesses. Of course, I think this is exactly the case, but again it doesn't do much for the gospels' credibilty.

Here is the thing, with regard to Mark and Luke, their documents were certainly early enough that the first generation of the church that would have personally known Jesus and been witness to these events was still alive to have repudiated them if they were presenting false testimony with regard to him.

This is a common argument, but it doesn't hold water when you look at some of the nonsense reported in histories of the time. How come nobody "repudiated" Josephus when he said there was a floating army in the clouds (this was reported much closer to when this event supposedly happened than the gospels)? Or how about Seuteonius' report that Emperor Vespasian magically healed a cripple and a blind person? History is full of unrepudiated miracle claims, especially in religious texts.

And besides—someone did repudiate them. Are you familiar with Tacitus' letter about the Christians? Modern Christians often cite this letter as "extra-Biblical proof" of the gospels' claims—but actually Tacitus refers to the resurrection as a "mischevious superstition"!

And if you suppose that these were all later, then you eliminate the book of Acts as having been an early document as well, for it had the same author as Luke.

But Luke is clearly late, as it's derived from Mark and earlier documents. So Acts must be late too.

And you eliminate the idea that Paul was a historical figure as well.

Wha? Of course he was a historical figure, we have his letters! Acts mythologizes him.

Why not just have all of the NT created after the church was already in existence and have someone name George, or perhaps George and his friends Harry and Bill be the authrors of everything. Of course, then you have to explain who it is that Harry, George and Bill came to be quoted by people in the early second century who knew them as Matthew, Mark, Luke, John, Paul, Peter, James, and Jude. And you have to explain how some of the things that George and his friends wrote later were found in first century liturgies used by the church. And you have to explain where the church came from, if the ideas it was built on weren't themselves composed until a later time. And you have to explain how it is that forms of the church were spread not just through the Roman empire, but parts of the former Persian empire as well, and that they had these same stories.

I'm not sure what exactly there is to explain. The facts seem pretty self-explanatory:
• Jewish guy starts reform cult, gets crucified, cult fractures
• 10 or 20 years later, another Jewish guy deifies previous guy, absorbs elements of his now-fractured cult
• 20 years later, people from various factions start editing together legends about two Jewish guys.
• 30 years after that, faction leaders attribute legends pseudipgraphically to early famous Christians (happened all the time with Jewish writings)
• 220 years later, Roman emperor "converts" to one faction of this cult and outlaws all other factions, and spreads it across the world militarily.

We're left with scriptures from one faction of this cult, along with some scriptures and records from opposing factions (gnostics, docetics) ... it's all quite messy, most religions are, but you certainly don't need to appeal to any magical gods to explain how this happened.

No, that sort of theory, which is what I hear you basically proposing in saying "They are the invention of later church fathers.", seems even less credible than authorships you choose to reject.

I think you underestimate the prevalence of pseudepigraphs during the time period. They didn't have our conceptions of authorship or intellectual honesty. Many Jewish writings at the time were attributed to famous or legendary figures, even people like Adam. Some of Paul's letters are also clear pseudepigraphs.

Hey, when that's what we got, that's what we got. (Other than that paper I have in my desk drawer, that is.) The New Testament is still better documented and authenticated than the works of Homer, Sophocles, Plato, and Aristotle (btw, know any of their last names?) or even Julius Caesar. Yet no one doubts their existence or authorship. I think it is just because it is religion that people get so excited and antagonistic about it.

Well, plenty of people doubt Homer—for that matter, plenty of people doubt Shakespeare's authorship. Also, some people believe Socrates is the invention of Plato. I'm prepared to accept that for a lot of these famous ancient writings we'll never know for sure.

That said, whether or not a text is well-documented has little to do with its truth value. Harry Potter and the Deathly Hallows is better documented than any of the works you mentioned but I wouldn't believe in Voldemort or magic, even if J.K. Rowling had wrote "these events are true and I am inspired from God" in the first page. :)

Which, accepting the account, as you do if you accept that he was really blinded by a talking light, was in fact Jesus talking to him.

Why on earth would anyone accept Paul's account? Do you believe every greedy televangelist who says he saw a light in his bedroom telling him to ask his parishioners for money for his BMW?

What? Now you are talking nonsense. Just exactly who/what was Paul persecuting if he wasn't persecuting the church before he became a Christian? What was it that the people who responded to Peter's preaching in Acts 2 joined?

Rival sects of Christians. Calling them a "church" is a stretch.....well, unless you're using the word as its original meaning of "assembly." So yeah, if that's what you meant, then okay, I'm wrong, you're right.

Of course. But for instance the Didache, which is a compilation of rules and rituals for use in worship in the church that is dated between 50-100 AD and by some to as early as 40 AD (that would be earlier than the earliers NT writing), it includes baptismal formularies that specifiically mention that those joining the church are to be baptized in the three-fold name of the "Father, Son, and Holy Spirit". I don't think that you will find those words used by any religion other than Christianity. I use it to debunk the idea that Christianity and the worship of Jesus was "invented" by Paul, because these things are present before Paul's first letter, perhaps even before he began his missionary journeys.

Well, this is assuming it's as early as you claim. According to Wikipedia, most date it to early second century.

Well, theology is often about choosing the appropriate word, because, as you just testified to, it is semantics -- i.e. the study or science of meaning in language. I would call Jesus God incarnate. But God-man sounds like some sort of centaur-like beast or a Hercules-type myth, that is not what we mean to imply, so we stay away from any sort of language that might have those connotations to it.

Ha, gotcha. I can see how it might be interpreted as pejorative.

Depending on which defintion of demagogue you use:
1 : a leader who makes use of popular prejudices and false claims and promises in order to gain power
2 : a leader championing the cause of the common people in ancient times
I might agree with the use of the term demagogue. But I don't agree either that Paul was a charlatan or even that he appears as a charlatan. Paul certainly suffered enough that he no apparent gains from switching from a persecuter to a promoter of Christainity. If anything he lost the life he had before.

(I went with definition number 1)

I think it's relatively obvious he's a charlatan. He continually threatens his "flock" and promises them imaginary rewards for blindly following him. He opposes—almost violently—rival sects, sarcastically joking in Galatians that the pro-circumcision people should go all the way with their cutting and castrate themselves. He constantly invokes his authority from God, as if he's defensive about it.

Moving from a position of power as a Jewish enforcer (as he supposedly had) to a cult leader with almost unlimited authority over his flock was not necessarily a loss. If anything, I'd call it opportunism. I mean, which position would you rather have?

Sorry if it seems like I'm ranting about Paul, but he's really one of my least favorite historical figures. Right after all those Old Testament genocidal "heroes."

[Grace Seeker]

Sorry if it seems like I'm ranting about Paul, but he's really one of my least favorite historical figures. Right after all those Old Testament genocidal "heroes."

Well, at least you are polite and seem to know what you are talking about. It appears that one some things we have been open to learning from each other. On some things we already agreed. And on some things we are simply going to continue to disagree, maybe for a time, maybe forever. But I don't feel like I am discussing with either an attack dog or a rabid one, so it remains an enjoyable discussion, and sometimes even fruitful.

But this relegates the gospel authors to editors and redactors living decades after the fact, not eyewitnesses. Of course, I think this is exactly the case, but again it doesn't do much for the gospels' credibilty.

Why "but this relegates..."? I don't have a problem with the concept of Mark being a redactor or editor. He certainly wasn't present at the crucifixion or resurrection. Of course he is having to compile material from other sources. Even if he were to have personally interviewed Jesus between his resurrection and ascension, that would still make him a redactor of sorts. Tradition is that Mark was a disciple of Peter. If that is right, I think that still makes him a pretty credible source. Not as good as if Peter himself had written, but I'm going to guess that even the letters of Peter weren't penned by Peter, but just as many of Paul's were done were complete through the use of an amanuensis. Mark might have even been that person for Peter's letters, we'll never know. One of the things that I think is most interesting is that because the gospel of Mark is unsigned, you doubt its authorship. And because the letters of Peter are signed they are doubted by other scholars. What I think is going on is simply that people who wish to doubt are going to doubt either way. And of course, the other is also true, people who are predisposed to believe are going to believe either way. But if that is all there is, then facts appear not to matter, we begin with our apriori assumptions and we just stop there.

And besides—someone did repudiate them. Are you familiar with Tacitus' letter about the Christians? Modern Christians often cite this letter as "extra-Biblical proof" of the gospels' claims—but actually Tacitus refers to the resurrection as a "mischevious superstition"!

I'm not surprised by someone in Tacitus' position label something like the message of Jesus' resurrection as superstition. It means two things:
1) that he heard of the stories
2) that he did not believe them to be true himself

The point isn't that Tacitus proves that a resurrection took place. Indeed, he doesn't use the term "resurrection" at all. So, who knows exactly what he means by the "most mischevious superstition" which began in Judea and spread to Rome. Perhaps he refers to Christ's resurrection as a belief held by Christians that he considered to be mere supersition, perhaps he refers to the whole Christian religion as a superstition given the Christian belief in Jesus as the son of God and even God incarnate? He never actually explains himself further. So that question must be left unanswered.

But what Tacitus proves beyond the shadow of a doubt (unless you accept the Qur'an as the only source of evidence on Jesus' life that could be valid) is that "Christus, from whom the name [of the religion] had its origin, suffered the extreme penalty," i.e. death at the hands of Pontius Pilate. Oh, but wait, since we have something extra-biblical that supports the biblical witness, then it too must have been tampered with. And sure enough, there are those who suggest that Tacitus is forged. The list never ends. It appears that there was more conspiracy behind the creation of the New Testament than in the Kennedy assignation and the 9/11 bombings combined.

But Luke is clearly late, as it's derived from Mark and earlier documents. So Acts must be late too.

Beginning with chapter 11, Acts is basically a narrative of Paul's missionary travels. But it ends with Paul in jail in Rome. It doesn't tell of the author taking leave of Paul. It doesn't tell of Paul's execution, suspected by many as about 64 AD. And it doesn't tell of Paul's release or hoped for trip to Spain. All worthy of being included in the book if they had taken place before it was written. So, it must have been written while Paul was still alive and in prison in Rome. Even if he was kept in prison past 64 AD, the book of Acts must of been written no later than 67 AD as that is the date of the burning of Rome and if Paul had still been present in Rome at that time it surely would have been mentioned. Nor is there any mention of the sacking of Jerusalem in 70 AD. Thus it seems reasonable to me that the complete silence on these major events in that caused such a big influence in the life of the church were after the writing of Acts was completed. It makes the best sense then to me to date Acts sometime between 60 & 67 AD, probably before 64 AD, and thus Luke to have been written before then.

I'm not sure what exactly there is to explain. The facts seem pretty self-explanatory:
• Jewish guy starts reform cult, gets crucified, cult fractures
• 10 or 20 years later, another Jewish guy deifies previous guy, absorbs elements of his now-fractured cult

Then, by your line of reasoning, the whole idea that Paul was originally an oppresser of this cult is pure fabrication?

• 20 years later, people from various factions start editing together legends about two Jewish guys.

Two Jewish guys? Jesus and who else?

• 30 years after that, faction leaders attribute legends pseudipgraphically to early famous Christians (happened all the time with Jewish writings)

Why wait that long? As you said, it happened all the time with Jewish writings. Why not just write those stories and attribute them to them in the beginning, 30 years earlier?

• 220 years later, Roman emperor "converts" to one faction of this cult and outlaws all other factions, and spreads it across the world militarily.

And how did the scriptures of this cult that was spread by the Roman empire in the 4th century end up being used by people living in the Persian influenced regions of the former Greek empire in the 3rd century?

We're left with scriptures from one faction of this cult, along with some scriptures and records from opposing factions (gnostics, docetics) ... it's all quite messy, most religions are, but you certainly don't need to appeal to any magical gods to explain how this happened.

Did I appeal to any magical gods? I believe I explain the process as being spread very much by human beings. Yes, humans who I believe are sensitive to God's leading, but I don't suggest that there is anything magical about it. Nor do I see how that would lend any more credence to the scriptures if there was. On the contrary, appeals to magic would, I think, tend to discredit them.

I think you underestimate the prevalence of pseudepigraphs during the time period. They didn't have our conceptions of authorship or intellectual honesty. Many Jewish writings at the time were attributed to famous or legendary figures, even people like Adam. Some of Paul's letters are also clear pseudepigraphs.

Well, if Paul's letters of pseudepigraphs, then we are back to saying that Paul was either not an historical figure or at most was a much more minor figure than people like to cite him as being. If the letters attribute to him aren't his, then the ideas attribute to Paul because of them aren't his either.

As for the prevalence of pseudipigraphs and the signing of famous people's names to documents produced long after they were dead, I have a great deal of awareness. So did the early church. It was for this reason that the canon of scripture was debated for some time before being settled. The issue most frequently was authorship. Could it be traced back to one of the apostles or someone who was under the direct supervision of an apostle?

It was on such grounds that very commendable works such as the Shepherd of Hermas, the Letters of Barnabas, the Gospel of Peter, and many others, were rejected. Not because they were heretical, but because they were of doubtful authorship. Even the Didache, which was used regular by the early church in worship, did not pass the test of being able to be linked directly to an apostle.

Why on earth would anyone accept Paul's account? Do you believe every greedy televangelist who says he saw a light in his bedroom telling him to ask his parishioners for money for his BMW?

Depends on whether they grant me access to the BMW or not.

Speaking of Paul, I still think he gets a short shift on these forums. I've never been as big of a fan of Paul as I am of John. But, I've had to defend him enough here, that I'm becoming a bigger and bigger fan.

Along those lines, below is another writer who has his own interesting set of ideas with regard to Paul. I've provided a link; you might want to check him out.
Paul's Gospel and Caesar's Empire, by N.T. Wright

I begin with the word "gospel" itself. I have argued at length elsewhere that the word "gospel" carries two sets of resonances for Paul. 4 On the one hand, the gospel Paul preached was the fulfilment of the message of Isaiah 40 and 52, the message of comfort for Israel and of hope for the whole world, because YHWH, the god of Israel, was returning to Zion to judge and redeem. On the other hand, in the context into which Paul was speaking, "gospel" would mean the celebration of the accession, or birth, of a king or emperor. Though no doubt petty kingdoms might use the word for themselves, in Paul's world the main "gospel" was the news of, or the celebration of, Caesar.

It is important to stress, as Paul would do himself were he not so muzzled by his interpreters, that when he referred to "the gospel" he was not talking about a scheme of soteriology. Nor was he offering people a new way of being what we would call "religious". Despite the way Protestantism has used the phrase (making it denote, as it never does in Paul, the doctrine of justification by faith), for Paul "the gospel" is the announcement that the crucified and risen Jesus of Nazareth is Israel's Messiah and the world's Lord. It is, in other words, the thoroughly Jewish, and indeed Isaianic, message which challenges the royal and imperial messages in Paul's world.

It is not difficult to see how this "gospel" functions for Paul. Theologically, it belongs completely with Isaiah's ringing monotheistic affirmations that YHWH and YHWH alone is the true god, the only creator, the only sovereign of the world, and that the gods of the nations are contemptible idols whose devotees are deceived, at best wasting their time and at worst under the sway of demons. Politically, it cannot but have been heard as a summons to allegiance to "another king", which is of course precisely what Luke says Paul was accused of saying (Acts 17.7). Practically, this means that Paul, in announcing the gospel, was more like a royal herald than a religious preacher or theological teacher. The appropriate response to the gospel can be stated in terms of "belief": the announcement included the claim that the true God had raised Jesus from the dead. Or it can be stated in terms of "obedience": it was a direct summons to abandon other allegiances and give total loyalty to this Jesus. Or, as in Romans 1.5 and elsewhere, these two can be combined, as Paul speaks, without feeling the need to cover his back against misinterpretation, of "the obedience of faith".

Rival sects of Christians. Calling them a "church" is a stretch.....well, unless you're using the word as its original meaning of "assembly." So yeah, if that's what you meant, then okay, I'm wrong, you're right.

That is what the term ecclesia means. It is the assembly of those who saw themselves belonging to the body of Christ. Catholics will say that this is an institution created by Christ and established in Peter and administered by all the apostles. I say that it is inclusive of all any and everywhere who see themselves as belonging to Christ or, as Paul would have said, "in Christ".

I think it's relatively obvious he's a charlatan. He continually threatens his "flock" and promises them imaginary rewards for blindly following him. He opposes—almost violently—rival sects, sarcastically joking in Galatians that the pro-circumcision people should go all the way with their cutting and castrate themselves. He constantly invokes his authority from God, as if he's defensive about it.

Moving from a position of power as a Jewish enforcer (as he supposedly had) to a cult leader with almost unlimited authority over his flock was not necessarily a loss. If anything, I'd call it opportunism. I mean, which position would you rather have?

Back to Paul again. Poor guide is like a Timex watch, takes a beating but keeps on ticking. Serious, take a look at the above link. It made me think a bit more about Paul, it might you as well. It certainly presents a new wrinkle to consider.

As to his unlimited authority as a cult leader. That authority was something he exercised with far fewer as a Christian than he had as a Jew. And it set him up to be in much more opposition with the Greek society into which he then ventured and the Roman authorities that would regularly imprison him. If Paul was looking for power, I think he made a bad play. But if he was trying to serve the one who he saw as having the ultimate power, then he took the only road that was available to him (or to any of us, in my opinion).

[khairullah]

Very few people in the first century AD had last names. Note that even Jesus is known as Jesus "of Nazareth", not by a last name. But some people did have surnames, and among those was a fellow named Mark. You see, Mark is his last name. His full name was John Mark.

Some of the author of these present gospels are unknown. There is also a dispute over their author. Like John.

He errs in that assessment. I believe that John did indeed know, walk with, eat with, and talk with Jesus. .

The authorship of the gospel of John has been disputed since at least the second century, with mainstream Christianity believing that the author is John the Apostle, son of Zebedee. Modern experts usually consider the author to be an unknown non-eyewitness

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Gospel_of_John

"Conclusively"?? One who would make such a statement regarding these books simply doesn't know the meaning of the word "conclusively". Given that we have the testimony of John's own disciples (plural) that John wrote the gospel that bears his name, if anything is going to be found to be conclusive it is that John DID write the book that bears his name and that he did know Jesus, not the other way around.

There are many Church Fathers in the remainder of the second century that ascribe the text to John the Evangelist.Martin Hengel and Jorge Frey similarly argue for John the Presbyter as the author of the text.

Is the author John the Apostle,John the Evangelist or a third person?

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Gospel_of_John#_note-17

This is the most ludicrous of the comments thus far. The phrase, "The Gospel according to _______________" is just a title added to the completed document by the church. It was a way of identifying one gospel account from another. And precisely because when handled by the church they did become third party documents they thus needed to say, this is the gospel according to (whoever was the accepted author of that particular gospel they were referencing).

First NT is written by non eyewitness Christians, then those manuscritps pieces came in to the hands of third party-imagine how many changes they had brought.like the First Epistle of John 5:7 is a LIE in the Gospel.

Whoever it is, it certainly isn't Paul who is doing the writing.

Again the author is unknown.

It isn't true the Paul never met Jesus. He had an encounter with Jesus on the road to Damascus.

If Paul who used to kill Christian is inspired, WHY NOT PROPHET MUHAMMAD (PBUH)?

Why you don't believe him?

And Joseph Smith also claimed to be inspired why don't you believe him?

Already shown to be baseless, unfounded, and actually false.

Paul,Mark,Mathew and Luke were non eyewitness diciples of prophet Jesus (PBUH). And the author of the gospel of John is unknown.

http://www.carm.org/questions/gospels_written.htm
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Gospel_of_John#_note-17
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Textual_criticism

The use of the term "Trinity" doesn't come from any of these sources. It is used by Tertullian before the Council of Nicea but long after all books that became part of the New Testament. And Tertullian did it to emphasized that when Christians, who from the beginning had been speaking of Jesus as himself divine, spoke of either Jesus and then later also expressed their understanding of the Holy Spirit as both being themselves God equally with the very Jewish concept (at least in the first century) of God as father, that Christians were NOT referring to three different gods or any tri-theistic concept but were referring to one God in completely unity with himself. But make no mistake, even before the first book of the New Testament was written, in records that predate Paul, in works such as the Didache and others there are baptismal forumlas that were used by the church in which people are initiated into a brand new covenant with God by being baptized "in the name of the Father, the Son, and the Holy Spirit". Such has been the understanding of the Church since even before Paul stopped his persecutions of it and himself became a Christian.

So Tertulliam is the first who invented Trinity. And he denounced Christian doctrines he considered heretical, but later in life adopted views that themselves came to be regarded as heretical.

Tertullian adopted Montanist practices late in his life and was associated with the heretical Montanists. It is probably due to this association that he has never been acknowledged as a saint. Because Montanism is considered to be heresy by Christians.

GOD ALMIGHTY NEVER SAID TRINITY.
PROPHET JESUS (PBUH) NEVER CLAIMED DIVINITY
PROPHET JESUS (PBUH) NEVER SAID TRINITY

Your entire fundamentals of faith are based on non eyewitness Christians and therefore cofusing and are different from each others-FUNDAMENTALS!!!!. Isn't that something you need to think about????

No. There is no mentioning of Jesus being a divine man god. If this is what you think that is expressed in the Bible or any of Christian literature, then you must be reading the works of gnostics and do not understands the teachings of historic orthodox Christianity at all.

Prophet Jesus (PBUH) never claimed divinity at all. That's what the Christians invented centureis after prophet Jesus (PBUH)'s ministry. They have turned their faith in to paganism, because they have the same believe that god came to earth taking human form.

For that concept is specifically what the forumlation of the concepts of the Trinity into creedal statements was designed speak against. You will find the whole concept of a man-god being rejected by every book of the Bible in which it is introduced. My guess is that you simply are not understanding the difference between this man-god concept and the truly Biblical concept that Jesus has two natures being both 100% God and 100% man at the same time comingled without any loss of either.

Who says prophet Jesus (PBUH) is part of god?

Does God Almighty say that or prophet Jesus (PBUH)? NONE!!!!!!!!

And the first mention of it is on the lips of the disciple Thomas, who on meeting Jesus following his resurrection addressed him as "my Lord and my God", as recorded by the Apostle John who was present at the time (John 20:28).

First the author of this gospel (John) is unknown therefore the verse can not be trusted. The Christians changed the words of God in to their own ideas and LIES like the First Epistle of John 5:7 which is a lie and only exists in KJV.

(i) "My Father is greater than I."[The Bible, John 14:28]
(ii) "My Father is greater than all."[The Bible, John 10:29]
(iii) "…I cast out devils by the Spirit of God…."[The Bible, Mathew 12:28]
(iv) "…I with the finger of God cast out devils…." [The Bible, Luke 11:20]

(v) "I can of mine own self do nothing: as I hear, I judge: and my judgement is just; because I seek not my own will, but the will of the Father which hath sent me." [The Bible, John 5:30]

Prophet Jesus (PBUH) rejected the remotest suggestion of divinity.

"And behold, one came and said unto him, ‘Good Master, what good thing shall I do, that I may have eternal life?’
And he said unto him, ‘Why callest thou me good? There is none good but one, that is, God: but if thou wilt enter into life, keep the commandments.’ " [The Bible, Mathew 19:16-17]

All your beliefe cames from those saints who never witnessed prophet Jesus (PBUH) and those books whose authors are unknown and many changes has been added to it.

Again, wrong. Here is Paul describing himself: "I am a Jew, born in Tarsus of Cilicia, but brought up in this city. Under Gamaliel I was thoroughly trained in the law of our fathers and was just as zealous for God as any of you are today." (Acts 22:3) He was a pharisee. He was no bounty hunter.

Read the Bible!

(1 Corinthians 15:9, Galatians 1:13)

He was a bounty hunter-he testifies that.

khairullah,
I suggest you find someone more learned than Sheikh Khalid Yasin to teach you about Christianity.

There is not a single educated Christian who can convince or prove his point within our without the Bible. Because Lie can not be proven at all. As I see Christian missionaries defeated in debates proves that there is not a single person in whole Christiandom to prove their invented beliefe.

[Grace Seeker]

On one hand you assert that there is no validation for anything in the NT to be true, and then you turn back to it to claim that Jesus said certain sets of things you take out of context and that he didn't say certain other things because the exact words you want to see it worded in aren't found.

To change the metaphor -- It's like you are trying to throw out your cake and eat it to?

[Talha777]

I recommend both of you read fabulous book by a credible scholar, historian, and archaeologist - James M. Robinson. His book is entitled The Gospel of Jesus: The Original Good News. Please everyone should read this book. This man is a credible historian and scholar, he personally worked on the Nag Hammadi discoveries. I wouldn't get my information from Christian theologians who are not an unbiased and neutral source. If this dispute between Islam and Christianity can be solved, it is by looking at history unbiasedly and evaluating the claims of the New Testament authors.

It is also important to research the following topics: Quelle source Gospel. Research about the crufiction. You will astonishingly discover many early Christians opposed the "orthodox" doctrine that Jesus was put on the cross. A document was unearthed from the Nag Hammadi library entitled the Apocalypse of Peter. Scholars date this text to about 2nd century CE. What does it say:

http://www.gnosis.org/naghamm/apopet.html

When he had said those things, I saw him seemingly being seized by them. And I said "What do I see, O Lord? That it is you yourself whom they take, and that you are grasping me? Or who is this one, glad and laughing on the tree? And is it another one whose feet and hands they are striking?"
The Savior said to me, "He whom you saw on the tree, glad and laughing, this is the living Jesus. But this one into whose hands and feet they drive the nails is his fleshly part, which is the substitute being put to shame, the one who came into being in his likeness. But look at him and me."
But I, when I had looked, said "Lord, no one is looking at you. Let us flee this place."
But he said to me, "I have told you, 'Leave the blind alone!'. And you, see how they do not know what they are saying. For the son of their glory instead of my servant, they have put to shame."

However, despite some historical proofs that Jesus was never put on cross, but rather someone in his likeness, it is also important to consider Islam only says it appeared that Jesus was cruficied (died on the cross). He may very well have merely been crucificted and there is ample historical evidence that he was resuscitated (not resurrected). Furthermore, it can even be possible Allah only allowed his physical body to be crucified, but saved his soul and raised it to Himself, and thus he will come again in future. All of these are possible theories, but what is known for sure is that Jesus didn't die on the cross. Neither his legs were crushed to cause him to die quickly on the cross. Most likely he fainted. This is also why his disciples were bringing special ointments to his "tomb". This is also why when he regained conciousness he still had his physical wounds, and even to prove he was still the human Jesus and not a supernatural resurrected form he requested his disciples to bring him a fish to eat. Resurrection is the most far flung idea and has absolutely no basis, not even within the corrupted and heavily editted New Testament accounts.

[Grace Seeker]

I'm confused. Which are you suggesting is the more credible history:


1) The Gnostic Apocalypse of Peter's rendition:

He whom you saw on the tree, glad and laughing, this is the living Jesus. But this one into whose hands and feet they drive the nails is his fleshly part, which is the substitute being put to shame, the one who came into being in his likeness.

Which you seem to infer qualifies as "historical proofs that Jesus was never put on cross, but rather someone in his likeness"?

2) Or your statement: "He [meaning Jesus] may very well have merely been crucificted and there is ample historical evidence that he was resuscitated (not resurrected)"?

3) Or your suggestion: "it can even be possible Allah only allowed his physical body to be crucified, but saved his soul and raised it to Himself"?


These three are mutually exclusive of each other. And if you are unsure of which one it is that is true, it is rather hard to allow that "what is known for sure is that Jesus didn't die on the cross", for it is obvious that you thereby claim to know nothing "for sure".

And given that you affirm that "Neither his legs were crushed to cause him to die quickly on the cross.", and "his disciples were bringing special ointments to his 'tomb' ", and "he still had his physical wounds" -- it seems you must be in favor of the resuscitation theory. Which means that it really was Jesus on the cross. And if so, then it really was Jesus into which a Roman soldier stuck a spear which produced the separated parts of blood that occurs only after death of serum (the water) and red corpuscles (the blood) mentioned by Luke. It is hard to regain consciousness after that. But that's right, you don't believe that story, because you accept this Gnostic Apocalypse of Peter, in wher Jesus doesn't even have nails driven into his hands or get laid into a tomb. So, then, why was it that the disciples went to the tomb and how was it that Jesus had physical wounds by which he showed them that he was still the human Jesus?

You see why I am so confused.


But I do agree with you in this regard: Resurrection is the most far flung idea. That's why, when it occurred, it radically changed the disciples perception of who exactly Jesus was, and he went from being uderstood as their Lord and teacher to being their Lord and God.




BTW, as long as we are making reading recommendations, you might want to note this one: wikipedia article on the Gnostic Apocalypse of Peter.

The Gnostic Apocalypse of Peter, not to be confused with the Apocalypse of Peter, is a text found amongst the Nag Hammadi library.

In the actual Apocalypse of Peter translated by M.R. James, we see that Jesus is not only crucified but also called both the "son of God" and also addressed as "my Lord and God Jesus Christ". So, there we have some non-biblical material that I don't suggest proves anything with regard to the historical events (as I don't believe that Peter was the real author, nor that the author was present at the time), but it does show that these really were the beliefs held by Christians at that time.

[Qingu]

However, despite some historical proofs

What historical proofs? You cited a text which refers to a secondary source, written by a sect of 2nd-century Christians. How on earth does this qualify as a "proof," Talha? Do you believe every claim in every religious text? (or every historical text, for that matter?)

that Jesus was never put on cross, but rather someone in his likeness, it is also important to consider Islam only says it appeared that Jesus was cruficied (died on the cross). He may very well have merely been crucificted and there is ample historical evidence that he was resuscitated (not resurrected). Furthermore, it can even be possible Allah only allowed his physical body to be crucified, but saved his soul and raised it to Himself, and thus he will come again in future. All of these are possible theories,

You left out another theory:

Islam simply incorporated the myths of the Docetics and Gnostics who held this particular interpretation of the crucifixion story. While these were relatively popular sects in Christendom, they were no means exclusive and were apparently minority positions from even the start of Christianity.

You need to realize that many religions around the time of early Christianity and Islam held this interpretation of Jesus. There were several varieties of Gnostics, including the Docetics, who believed that Jesus' body on the cross was an illusion or trick, and the Manichaeans, who believed that Jesus was the avatar of the one true spiritual God, who was opposed to the earthly god, or demiurge, of the Old Testament and Quran. These religions were almost completely in opposition to Islamic doctrine and some were actively persecuted by Muslims for heresy.

So it's very interesting that you'd seize upon one particular doctrine of these unIslamic religions and say it constitutes "historical proof" that the crucifiction happened as the Quran said.

Resurrection is the most far flung idea

Really? On what basis? It doesn't sound anymore far-flung than invisible spirits made out of fire, or the story of a man riding up into the sky on the back of a flying horse.

[barney]

I was checking out documents that mentioned Jesus outside of the Bible.
theres not a lot really. One source josephus, alone is the only writer who lived during Jesus's lifetime. he kinda just says "And there was a bloke called jesus who did many good things", He dosnt really talk about feeding 5 thousand or bringing someone back from the dead...or even himself back from the dead.
Josephus does talk in great detail about lots of minor occourences however.
Its like someone writing a history of The USA and missing out Abe Lincon or Washington.

Meh...draw conclusions as ye will!

[Grace Seeker]

Its like someone writing a history of The USA and missing out Abe Lincon or Washington.

Meh...draw conclusions as ye will!

No. It is more like a Mexican historian writing a history of the Mexican fight for Independence from Spain making only a brief mention of Davy Crockett. For the purpose of the book, as the only connection is that Santana lead the revolution of independence and latter had to deal with a bunch of rebels himself, Crockett actually means nothing to him. It would be suprising that Crocket would be mentioned at all. Just one of those many details that such a historian might on the oft chance record. But to go so far as to report on Crockett's time in the US Congress, a Mexican historian might not even know about that. And if he did. What relevance does to the topic of his writings?

Josephus wasn't trying to write a comprehensive history of all Jewish people, even all Jewish leaders. He was writing about their wars for independence. And as he wrote, though he was himself Jewish, he actually happened to be able to do so only because he was living amongst the Romans who were in the midst of utterly vanquishing the Jews.

Christian sects that had become mostly Greek by this time and the people long past who were once associated were hardly of any interest to the major themes of his book.

[barney]

Matthew:51 At that moment the curtain of the temple was torn in two from top to bottom. The earth shook and the rocks split. 52The tombs broke open and the bodies of many holy people who had died were raised to life. 53They came out of the tombs, and after Jesus' resurrection they went into the holy city and appeared to many people.

In reference to earlier post.

[YusufNoor]

On one hand you assert that there is no validation for anything in the NT to be true, and then you turn back to it to claim that Jesus said certain sets of things you take out of context and that he didn't say certain other things because the exact words you want to see it worded in aren't found.

don't you love it when we do that!?? :hmm:

To change the metaphor -- It's like you are trying to throw out your cake and eat it to? looks around for cake...

I believe that John did indeed know, walk with, eat with, and talk with Jesus. I also believe that this is true with regard to Matthew, though not with the same level of confidence that I have for John. I don't believe it is likely that Luke or Mark knew Jesus, however I do not suppose that it was beyond the realm of possibility.

Regarding the alleged authorship of John:
From The Interpreters One-Volume Commentary on the Bible Including the Apocrypha with General Articles Copyright 1971 by Abingon Press 15th Printing 1994:
According to Massey H. Shepard, Jr., in his introduction to the Gospel According to John in the section titled:
Author. The acceptance of the gospel in the NT canon in the late 2nd to early 3rd century was a seal of acceptance of its authorship by John son of Zebedee, one of the 12 apostles of Jesus. Though contested at that time, this official view held the day without serious challenge until recent times; and is still stoutly defended by many able scholars, Catholic and Protestant. Its strongest support is the testimony of Irenaeus, who claimed to have received the tradition firsthand, when a youth, from Polycarp.

The tradition would perhaps be stronger if it did not claim too much, for in addition to the gospel it places under John’s authorship the three letters and Revelation. Distinguished theologians of the ancient church, Bishop Dionysius of Alexandria and Bishop Eusebius of Caesarea were doubtful that the same hand produced both the gospel and Revelation. They were keen enough to note the differences in these writings both of literary style and of doctrinal viewpoint. They resorted thereafter to a 2-John hypothesis: (a) the apostle, who wrote the gospel and the letters; and (b) a “disciple of the Lord,” who composed Revelation. Support for this thesis was found in a book of Oracles of the Lord by Bishop Papias of Hierapolis, a contemporary of Ignatius and Polycarp, who distinguished 2 Johns: (a) an apostle, one of the 12; and (b) a disciple, who lived in his own times. Papias was conversant with all the “Johannine” writings, though he preferred oral to written traditions. But it is not clear from the surviving fragments of his work to what John he ascribed the books under that name. Many modern scholars reverse the judgment of Dionysius and Eusebius by ascribing Revelation to the apostle – as did Justin Martyr, - and the gospel and the letters to the “disciple.”


The gospel itself has an appendix has an appendix (ch. 21), which includes a colophon (vss. 24-25) ascribing the “witness” of the gospel to the unnamed “beloved disciple” who lay close to Jesus’ breast at the Last Supper (c.f 13:23-25; 20:2; 21:20-24). No reader of the gospel who was not familiar with the Synoptics and Acts would identify the “beloved disciple” with John, or with either of the “sons of Zebedee,” who are mentioned only in the appendix (21:2). But the church in Asia made this identification, as is clear not only from the testimony of Irenaeus but more especially from a letter of bishop Polycrates of Ephesus (ca. 190) preserved by Eusebius. In listing the “great luminaries” who have “fallen asleep” in Asia, Polycrates mentions first Philip the apostle, whom he confuses with Philip the evangelist of Acts, and his daughters and then John, “who leaned on the Lord’s breast, who was a priest, wearing the sacerdotal breastplate, both martyr and teacher. It is notable that he does call not John an apostle, as he does Philip!

The colophon (21:24-25) distinguishes 2 stages in the composition of the book: the “disciple” who bears witness, and “we” who attest to the truth of his testimony. This suggests a posthumous publication by disciples, or an editor, of the eyewitness disciple. Indications of editorial revision have often been noted---e.g. 2:21-22; 4:2 seem obvious, not to speak of the appendix itself. There are abrupt transitions both of the geography and of discourse. Chapter 6 would seem to make more sense if it preceded chapter 5.The dangling summons of 14:31 “Rise, let us go hense,”intrudes in the middle of a long discourse; and the logic of argument and exposition in chapters 7; 8; 10 is curious. There is no manuscript evidence to support any transpositions of the text; nor is there evidence that the gospel ever circulated without the appendix. Nonetheless editorial work seems plausible.

There is a growing consensus that the author – whether “disciple” or “witness” had access to good historical traditions stemming from Palestine, no less than the writers of the Synoptic gospels. His facts, as well as his interpretation must be taken seriously. He knew the geography of Palestine and the customs of the Jews better than Mark, and he may have had Judean associations more immediate than those of the Synoptic writers.

He was undoubtedly a Jew, one whose native tongue was the Aramaic spoken by Jesus. He thinks and writes in a Semitic idiom; and the sayings of Jesus he records, however different in style from those of the Synoptics, betray the same Semitic parallelism of structure. Yet he writes a clear and grammatical Greek. Efforts of some scholars to prove that the gospel was translated from Aramaic have not won general acceptance. His Hellenistic culture has perhaps been exaggerated, but it was not negligible. He was more than match for his theological opponents.

to summarize, it MIGHT be John OR ANOTHER John, but AT LEAST it was a Jew. that is, if there was only 1 author...

well, to quote one of our Chritians scholars:

Originally posted by Grace Seeker However, I have to deal with what I understand to be true, not just what I wish was true.

so, in calling Brother Khalid wrong for saying we don't KNOW who wrote John i have to, based upon the commentary as well as YOUR statement, call this one in favor of Brother Khalid! ONE point for Khalid and before subtracting any from you, i'll await your explanation on why you said that something that was FACTUALLY CORRECT was incorrect.


That being said , the Prophet, Peace be upon him, came to perfect good manners and to enjoin good and forbid evil. we should try to follow his example. we should probably avoid talk like "There is not a single educated Christian who can convince or prove his point within our without the Bible." what you are implying is that our brother are Christian because they are uneducated. That IS NOT good manners. If Allah, Subhannahu Wa Ta' Aala wanted them to be Muslims, then they would be Muslim. our job is simply to convey the message, even Musa, Alaihe Salaam, was told, [from Surah Ta Ha] " 43) Go both to Firon, surely he has become inordinate. 44) Then speak to him a gentle word; haply he may mind or fear." if the worst of mankind was to be spoken to "with a gentle word" how much more so should our guests here.

:w:

[Grace Seeker]

so, in calling Brother Khalid wrong for saying we don't KNOW who wrote John i have to, based upon the commentary as well as YOUR statement, call this one in favor of Brother Khalid! ONE point for Khalid and before subtracting any from you, i'll await your explanation on why you said that something that was FACTUALLY CORRECT was incorrect

First, Brother Khalid, as reported by Brother Khairullah, did NOT say, "we don't KNOW who wrote John". What he said was:

John, Luke, Mark and Mathew never met Jesus Christ (PBUH).

By the way they were not disciples.

Nor were they talkers and walkers of the disciples, they were just writers and historians.

That is the same as saying that we DO KNOW that John did NOT write John. By your own analysis, this is the conclusion that is false. As are these:

Did they even meet Jesus Christ (PBUH) PBUH)??!

The answer is NO! NO! NO! NO! NO!

Conclusively they wrote those books 40 years after Jesus Christ (PBUH) PBUH) they never met him

However, my conclusion, that the Gospel of John was written by the disciple John is also not proven conclusively, but it is one I still hold to. Why? Because, I do accept the testimony of Polycarp who was a disciple of John, on the same grounds that you accept the Haditeeths of the Prophet -- I am content to rely on the chain of witnesses. Any negative points that might be applied to this process in my case, I am afraid you are going to have to apply to ALL of your scriptures as well; for every one of them, including the Qur'an, is the result of second-hand testimony such as, "someone told me that so and so said such and such".


And as far as your assertion

you said that something that was FACTUALLY CORRECT was incorrect

I just did a word search of my posts, and cannot find any such expression: "FACTUALLY CORRECT" or even the word "CORRECT" in all my posts. In fact, the word "FACT" is only used once, and that in the form of commentary, not in the presentation of evidence.

I will agree that when you report that there were doubters then or that there are scholars now who doubt things in the Christian tradition that these are true statements. There have always been and always be doubters. There are people who doubt that the earth is round, that Elvis is dead, that Bush won the election over Gore, that Kennedy was NOT killed by a lone gunman. Their doubts don't change the facts. In some cases theories change. In some cases popular myths develop. In some cases people cling to what they wish had been true versus what actually happened. In some cases there is conflicting evidence that gets interpreted different ways based on the agenda of the researchers. But one thing is certain, when a person always gravitates to the position of being a doubter as their default option, then they are not looking for what the evidence points to, they are looking to justify a position already held.

I'll admit I can do this at times. That is probably why I don't question the chain of witnesses that trace the authorship of John. But, in my opinion, sillier than that is to make statements that because someone has some doubts that such a position is conclusively proven. A whole host of people have some rather serious doubts about the origins of the Qur'an, in and of itself, those doubts really prove nothing and I would not say that they do.

[MustafaMc]

Any negative points that might be applied to this process in my case, I am afraid you are going to have to apply to ALL of your scriptures as well; for every one of them, including the Qur'an, is the result of second-hand testimony such as, "someone told me that so and so said such and such".

Surely, you misspoke here. The Qur'an is not a result of second hand testimony unless you consider Jibra'il as first hand communicating with Muhammad (saaws) and then Muhammad (saaws) repeating it to his companions. The Qur'an was transmitted directly from Muhammad to be written on what was available and memorized ver batim only later to be transcribed and compiled into a single volume under the direction of Abu Bakr (ra).

[Grace Seeker]

Surely, you misspoke here. The Qur'an is not a result of second hand testimony unless you consider Jibra'il as first hand communicating with Muhammad (saaws) and then Muhammad (saaws) repeating it to his companions. The Qur'an was transmitted directly from Muhammad to be written on what was available and memorized ver batim only later to be transcribed and compiled into a single volume under the direction of Abu Bakr (ra).

That's exactly what I mean.
Allah --> Jibra'il --> Muhammad --> his companions --> written document


Wheras for the Gospel of John we have
John --> Polycarp --> Iraneus


How do you know that what you read is the words of Allah? You trust the chain.
How do I know that what I read is the words of John? I trust the chain.

[truemuslim]

That's exactly what I mean.
Allah --> Jibra'il --> Muhammad --> his companions --> written document


Wheras for the Gospel of John we have
John --> Polycarp --> Iraneus


How do you know that what you read is the words of Allah? You trust the chain.
How do I know that what I read is the words of John? I trust the chain.

u mean jesus...oh and people go to whichever one sounds more... whats that word?

[Grace Seeker]

u mean jesus...oh and people go to whichever one sounds more... whats that word?

No. I meant John.

We are talking about whether the document known as the Gospel of John is indeed the words of John the Apostle or not.

[truemuslim]

No. I meant John.

We are talking about whether the document known as the Gospel of John is indeed the words of John the Apostle or not.

o...

[YusufNoor]

First, Brother Khalid, as reported by Brother Khairullah, did NOT say, "we don't KNOW who wrote John". What he said was:

That is the same as saying that we DO KNOW that John did NOT write John. By your own analysis, this is the conclusion that is false. As are these:




However, my conclusion, that the Gospel of John was written by the disciple John is also not proven conclusively, but it is one I still hold to. Why? Because, I do accept the testimony of Polycarp who was a disciple of John, on the same grounds that you accept the Haditeeths of the Prophet -- I am content to rely on the chain of witnesses. Any negative points that might be applied to this process in my case, I am afraid you are going to have to apply to ALL of your scriptures as well; for every one of them, including the Qur'an, is the result of second-hand testimony such as, "someone told me that so and so said such and such".

NOT ONE SINGLE AYAT THAT WAS NOT WRITTEN DOWN IN THE PRESCENCE OF THE RASULULLAH, SALALAHU ALAIHE WA SALAAM, WAS USED IN THE QUR'AN; AND BY THAT I MEAN THEY SEARCHED UNTIL THEY FOUND THE ONES ACTUALLY WRITTEN IN HIS PRESCENCE!

And as far as your assertion I just did a word search of my posts, and cannot find any such expression: "FACTUALLY CORRECT" or even the word "CORRECT" in all my posts. In fact, the word "FACT" is only used once, and that in the form of commentary, not in the presentation of evidence.

I will agree that when you report that there were doubters then or that there are scholars now who doubt things in the Christian tradition that these are true statements. There have always been and always be doubters. There are people who doubt that the earth is round, that Elvis is dead, that Bush won the election over Gore, that Kennedy was NOT killed by a lone gunman.

Please don't tell me that you consider the Warren Commision as the complete truth... :raging:

Their doubts don't change the facts. In some cases theories change. In some cases popular myths develop. In some cases people cling to what they wish had been true versus what actually happened. In some cases there is conflicting evidence that gets interpreted different ways based on the agenda of the researchers. But one thing is certain, when a person always gravitates to the position of being a doubter as their default option, then they are not looking for what the evidence points to, they are looking to justify a position already held.

I'll admit I can do this at times. That is probably why I don't question the chain of witnesses that trace the authorship of John. But, in my opinion, sillier than that is to make statements that because someone has some doubts that such a position is conclusively proven. A whole host of people have some rather serious doubts about the origins of the Qur'an, in and of itself, those doubts really prove nothing and I would not say that they do.

:sl:

Peace be upon those who follow the guidance,

Greetings Gene,

sorry, it has taken a bit to get back to this, but i still don't see any cake! :hiding:

in my position as council for the defense, i am answering the slander against my client in the order they were given! go back and read your 1st post and you will plainly see that i have started at the beginning!

YOU began with:

Mathew, Luke, mark and john who were they?
Mathew who?
Luke who?
John Who?
And mark who?
What were their last names?

we have thus determined that Christian scholars either DON'T KNOW or DISAGREE on who wrote the gospels, therefore Brother Khalid has stated something that was "FACTUALLY CORRECT" and YOU called him a fool! and yes, "FACTUALLY CORRECT" was MY term!

thus, when i finish answering IN ORDER, you'll have your answers, Insha' Allah. of course with the caveat that no-one will get credit for misleading the folks here by stating something as fact when in fact, it isn't! :uuh:

i DID want to address this however:

That's exactly what I mean.
Allah --> Jibra'il --> Muhammad --> his companions --> written document


Wheras for the Gospel of John we have
John --> Polycarp --> Iraneus


How do you know that what you read is the words of Allah? You trust the chain.
How do I know that what I read is the words of John? I trust the chain.

that is SIMPLY NOT TRUE in regards to the Gospel of John, PERIOD! it's a THEORY, not even agreed upon by Christian scholars! WHY PERPETRATE A FRAUD!

as i wrote before: "to summarize [the Gospel of John], it MIGHT be John OR ANOTHER John, but AT LEAST it was a Jew. that is, if there was only 1 author..." YOU DON'T EVEN KNOW WHICH JOHN IT MIGHT BE, THE APOSTLE OR THE DISCIPLE! that is IF it were one of them, nor do you know for certain that there is only one author! i guess you are back to:

I believe and I also believe though not with the same level of confidence as well as: however I do not suppose that it was beyond the realm of possibility.

pretty loosey goosey with the facts brother; ESPECIALLY if you are going to use those UNFACTS to call someone else a fool...

i will address this further if Allah, Subhannahu Wa Ta'Aala, so wills and if He, Subhannahu Wa Ta'Aala, gives me life long enough to...

:w:

[Grace Seeker]

Brother Khalid has stated something that was "FACTUALLY CORRECT" and YOU called him a fool!

Indeed, I did refer to Brother Khalid that way. Perhaps that was a little strong to refer to a person that way. But I still think his comments are those that seem filled with foolishness. What exactly are you saying are the "FACTUALLY CORRECT" statements that he made? That we don't know the last names of the gospel writers? Yes, it is factually correct that we don't know the last names of Matthew, Luke, or John. As I already said, your objection not withstanding, it is probable that they didn't even have last names, not as we use that term today. One can make a factually correct statement and still speak foolishness, as Brother Khalid has. The foolish part is to think that just because we don't know their last names that we can't accept their work. But if you want to use the other form by which John my have been given his a last name (though it would not have been a family surname, which is what Brother Khalid seems to have been referring when making his foolish comments) John would like have been addressed as John bar'Zebedee.

that is SIMPLY NOT TRUE in regards to the Gospel of John, PERIOD! it's a THEORY, not even agreed upon by Christian scholars! WHY PERPETRATE A FRAUD!

I'm perpetrating no fraud. I'm reporting history. Not everyone accepts the reports of history. You appear to be one who does not accept the Warren report, even though it is history.

as i wrote before: "to summarize [the Gospel of John], it MIGHT be John OR ANOTHER John, but AT LEAST it was a Jew. that is, if there was only 1 author..." YOU DON'T EVEN KNOW WHICH JOHN IT MIGHT BE, THE APOSTLE OR THE DISCIPLE! that is IF it were one of them, nor do you know for certain that there is only one author! i guess you are back to:

There were many different Johns as this was as common of a name then as it is now. However, if someone references John the Apostle and another references John the Disciple, both are referring to the same person.

[YusufNoor]

Indeed, I did refer to Brother Khalid that way. Perhaps that was a little strong to refer to a person that way. But I still think his comments are those that seem filled with foolishness. What exactly are you saying are the "FACTUALLY CORRECT" statements that he made? That we don't know the last names of the gospel writers? Yes, it is factually correct that we don't know the last names of Matthew, Luke, or John. As I already said, your objection not withstanding, it is probable that they didn't even have last names, not as we use that term today. One can make a factually correct statement and still speak foolishness, as Brother Khalid has. The foolish part is to think that just because we don't know their last names that we can't accept their work. But if you want to use the other form by which John my have been given his a last name (though it would not have been a family surname, which is what Brother Khalid seems to have been referring when making his foolish comments) John would like have been addressed as John bar'Zebedee.

i'm NOT saying that Brother Khalid didn't make any mistakes, i cringe when i hear them BUT that doesn't mean that he is a fool! just got some facts wrong. you have some facts wrong, should we call you names? [erm, not that there aren't some here who wouldn't] but i'll get around to those mistakes, Insha' Allah.


I'm perpetrating no fraud. I'm reporting history. Not everyone accepts the reports of history. You appear to be one who does not accept the Warren report, even though it is history.

it MAY be history, but it ain't right! :exhausted


There were many different Johns as this was as common of a name then as it is now. However, if someone references John the Apostle and another references John the Disciple, both are referring to the same person.

:sl:

Peace be upon those who follow the guidance,

Greetings Gene,

perhaps you missed:

The tradition would perhaps be stronger if it did not claim too much, for in addition to the gospel it places under John’s authorship the three letters and Revelation. Distinguished theologians of the ancient church, Bishop Dionysius of Alexandria and Bishop Eusebius of Caesarea were doubtful that the same hand produced both the gospel and Revelation. They were keen enough to note the differences in these writings both of literary style and of doctrinal viewpoint. They resorted thereafter to a 2-John hypothesis: (a) the apostle, who wrote the gospel and the letters; and (b) a “disciple of the Lord,” who composed Revelation. Support for this thesis was found in a book of Oracles of the Lord by Bishop Papias of Hierapolis, a contemporary of Ignatius and Polycarp, who distinguished 2 Johns: (a) an apostle, one of the 12; and (b) a disciple, who lived in his own times. Papias was conversant with all the “Johannine” writings, though he preferred oral to written traditions. But it is not clear from the surviving fragments of his work to what John he ascribed the books under that name. Many modern scholars reverse the judgment of Dionysius and Eusebius by ascribing Revelation to the apostle – as did Justin Martyr, - and the gospel and the letters to the “disciple.”


The gospel itself has an appendix has an appendix (ch. 21), which includes a colophon (vss. 24-25) ascribing the “witness” of the gospel to the unnamed “beloved disciple” who lay close to Jesus’ breast at the Last Supper (c.f 13:23-25; 20:2; 21:20-24). No reader of the gospel who was not familiar with the Synoptics and Acts would identify the “beloved disciple” with John, or with either of the “sons of Zebedee,” who are mentioned only in the appendix (21:2). But the church in Asia made this identification, as is clear not only from the testimony of Irenaeus but more especially from a letter of bishop Polycrates of Ephesus (ca. 190) preserved by Eusebius. In listing the “great luminaries” who have “fallen asleep” in Asia, Polycrates mentions first Philip the apostle, whom he confuses with Philip the evangelist of Acts, and his daughters and then John, “who leaned on the Lord’s breast, who was a priest, wearing the sacerdotal breastplate, both martyr and teacher. It is notable that he does call not John an apostle, as he does Philip!

of course i would have agreed with you before i read that, BUT that's input in a MAINSTREAM CHRISTIAN BIBLE COMMENTARY! NOT the words of a Muslim...

:w:

[Grace Seeker]

:sl:

Peace be upon those who follow the guidance,

Greetings Gene,

perhaps you missed:
of course i would have agreed with you before i read that, BUT that's input in a MAINSTREAM CHRISTIAN BIBLE COMMENTARY! NOT the words of a Muslim...

:w:

First, I don't always agree with MAINSTREAM CHRISTIAN BIBLE COMMENTARIES. Within "mainstream" Christendom there are many who actually deny the reality of Jesus as an historical person. They are seen as mainstream because they have been hired as professors and lecturers at prestigious universities, and been published and quoted by others. I might say about them as you said about the Warren report: they may be mainstream, "but it ain't right."

Second, I still assert that when in general conversation one says "John, the Disciple" or "John, the Apostle" that these are references to one and the same person. The reason is that we tend to think of "The 12 Disciples", though there were many more than 12, and these folks, minus Judas, and plus Matthias and Paul became known as "The Apostles". Thus the difference between them as a disciple and as an apostle is not in who they are but in whether one is thinking of them in their role as pupil (disciple) or messenger (apostle). In fact, often the terms are today used interchangably as few people are careful to note the differences in function.

Further any Christian who is a follower of Christ can, by virtue of being a follower of Christ, be called a disciple. So, other Johns, and there were many, might have also been termed disciples, just like today I use the term brother to refer to many people to whom I'm not even related. If Eusebius desires to create 2-John hypothesis, that's his business. But I still stick with the story that we have passed on to us from Polycarp, that the John that he was a pupil of and who was a disciple of Jesus, knowing Jesus first hand, is the author of the book we know as the Gospel of John.

[Pygoscelis]

hola

no offence but i am always confused why i should believe a muslim (or any non christian for that matter) about christianity. this isn't something they approach honesty, it's always from the perspective of tearing christianity down to build up their own religion.

There is always bias, from both sides of this. Christians themselves are just as biased, even more so, when it comes to Christianity. They hold to the worldview so they can not view it objectively at all. Anything negative about it will be mentally shielded from them. The only true objective voice would be somebody with no religious view and no anti-religious bent either and that eliminates the vast marjority of us.

so, put yourself in my position. you are just a person interested in asking a few questions about islam, not christianity and furthermore you consider muslims' opinions and points about christianity to be invalid, but the muslims you speak to are insistant that they must speak to you about christianity and their opinions are valid. two parties, talking about two different things, with little or no room for movement. this is an impasse.

This is comparative religion, so you have to expect that all religions and worldviews are going to be talked about. I believe there are other sections on the board that are Islam only (though I never venture into them)

[Pygoscelis]

Sorry. No, God isn't the author of confusion, but I guess that sometimes I am.

If God is the author of the holy books then God is so the author of confusion. Its not like an all powerful God would lack the power to make us all simply know his message (and then be judged on how we deal with it). The very existence of holy books and middle-messenger prophets clearly shows that God either intends us to be confused about his message or he is not all powerful. If he is all powerful then we know exactly what he wishes us to know about him.

That we need to resort to holy books and prophets means that either:

1. God is not all powerful, and can not make us simply know his message.
2. God does not intend us to simply know his message.

If its the first then many would wonder if he's God at all. If its the second then no matter how you dress it up, he does not intend clarity. I have seen arguments on this point that he wishes us to have "free will" so he can't make us know his message, but that seems weak because if he did make us know his message we would still have the "free will" on how to react to it. And most theists I encounter will call me a "rebeller" or "disobedient" or "infidel" anyway and not aknowledge that I simply don't get the message and dont believe there is one.

[Grace Seeker]

If God is the author of the holy books then God is so the author of confusion. Its not like an all powerful God would lack the power to make us all simply know his message (and then be judged on how we deal with it). The very existence of holy books and middle-messenger prophets clearly shows that God either intends us to be confused about his message or he is not all powerful. If he is all powerful then we know exactly what he wishes us to know about him.

That we need to resort to holy books and prophets means that either:

1. God is not all powerful, and can not make us simply know his message.
2. God does not intend us to simply know his message.

If its the first then many would wonder if he's God at all. If its the second then no matter how you dress it up, he does not intend clarity. I have seen arguments on this point that he wishes us to have "free will" so he can't make us know his message, but that seems weak because if he did make us know his message we would still have the "free will" on how to react to it. And most theists I encounter will call me a "rebeller" or "disobedient" or "infidel" anyway and not aknowledge that I simply don't get the message and dont believe there is one.

Well, first, you are the one stating that God is all-powerful, not me. I happen to think that God has indeed limited his power. He does not force people to believe in him. He reveals himself in only limited ways. If you call this confusion, then by your definition I guess God is the author of confusion. But I don't call it confusion when I didn't explain everything I knew about sex to my 3 year old when she first asked where babies come from. Of course, as she go older and able to handle more information, I add it in appropriate amounts as she was interested and able to understand. Now she is a mother of three and I send the grandkids back to her when they ask grandpa these things. Do you think I am an author of confusion, too?

[truemuslim]

i hate it when people quote big quotes then write antoher BIIIG post and then the other person quotes it and writes one even bigger... and so on... those are the ones i never read...lol... kinda like those boring school books i skim through like "My brother Sam is Dead" or like "Where the Red Fern grows"...yeah i still don't get how people stand reading these...hmm...i guess some people actually....ya know....


want to....


SHHHHHHHH

[Pygoscelis]

Well, first, you are the one stating that God is all-powerful, not me.

I have always understood God being all powerful, the alpha and omega, the most high, etc, to be the central claim of the Christian faith. If that isn't so then that changes everything.

But I don't call it confusion when I didn't explain everything I knew about sex to my 3 year old when she first asked where babies come from. Of course, as she go older and able to handle more information, I add it in appropriate amounts as she was interested and able to understand.

You are not all powerful. If god was all powerful (and maybe as you said he isn't, which changes a lot) then he's able to make you able to understand whatever he wishes you to understand. If God does not have human limitations then comparisons of God to yourself as a parent is a false analogy.

[Keltoi]

I have always understood God being all powerful, the alpha and omega, the most high, etc, to be the central claim of the Christian faith. If that isn't so then that changes everything.



You are not all powerful. If god was all powerful (and maybe as you said he isn't, which changes a lot) then he's able to make you able to understand whatever he wishes you to understand. If God does not have human limitations then comparisons of God to yourself as a parent is a false analogy.

If you accept that God is "all-powerful", then it would also make sense that God can exercise that power in any way He sees fit. When Grace Seeker mentioned that God has "limited" His power when it comes to humanity, I happen to agree. God doesn't seem to have any interest in mind control. Free will is a gift, but one that comes with responsibility.

[DAWUD_adnan]

OMG Khalid totally, DESTROYED these dajjals

[YusufNoor]

First, I don't always agree with MAINSTREAM CHRISTIAN BIBLE COMMENTARIES. Within "mainstream" Christendom there are many who actually deny the reality of Jesus as an historical person.

a few weeks back you were telling us that any old Christian could explain the trinity. so i guess you mean that they can explain it, but they don't believe it? ;D

Second, I still assert that when in general conversation one says "John, the Disciple" or "John, the Apostle" that these are references to one and the same person. The reason is that we tend to think of "The 12 Disciples", though there were many more than 12, and these folks, minus Judas, and plus Matthias and Paul became known as "The Apostles". Thus the difference between them as a disciple and as an apostle is not in who they are but in whether one is thinking of them in their role as pupil (disciple) or messenger (apostle). In fact, often the terms are today used interchangably as few people are careful to note the differences in function.

Further any Christian who is a follower of Christ can, by virtue of being a follower of Christ, be called a disciple. So, other Johns, and there were many, might have also been termed disciples, just like today I use the term brother to refer to many people to whom I'm not even related. If Eusebius desires to create 2-John hypothesis, that's his business. But I still stick with the story that we have passed on to us from Polycarp, that the John that he was a pupil of and who was a disciple of Jesus, knowing Jesus first hand, is the author of the book we know as the Gospel of John.

i'll undulge you on this one, what EXACTLY does Polycarp say regarding the authorship of "John" and the identity of "the Johns?"

Originally posted by Grace Seeker
As far as the estimated dating of the other gospels, the estimated time of Jesus death is 29 AD, with Mark, Luke and Matthew being written between 64and 75 AD (roughly 35-46 years after Jesus' crucifixion) and certainly such close enough in time that they could have known him, for if they were the same age as him (and they could have been younger) they would only be around 70 years of age. Before you object to that being well beyond average lifespan, such averages were shortened because of infant mortality. It was not unusual for folks who survived into adulthood to live well into advance years, including 70 and even older.



Quote:
The other thing is all of them seem to have written the gospel (pause) according to
According to according to according to!!!


Now when you write a letter do you sign it according to? (Sigh!)

According to is the third party!

This is the most ludicrous of the comments thus far. The phrase, "The Gospel according to _______________" is just a title added to the completed document by the church. It was a way of identifying one gospel account from another. And precisely because when handled by the church they did become third party documents they thus needed to say, this is the gospel according to (whoever was the accepted author of that particular gospel they were referencing).

Peace be upon those who follow the guidance,

Greetings Gene,

From The Interpreters One-Volume Commentary on the Bible Including the Apocrypha with General Articles Copyright 1971 by Abingon Press 15th Printing 1994: Howard Clarke Kee, in his introduction to the Gospel According to Matthew in the section titled: Authorship. From the 2nd Century down to the present, Christians have believed that the first gospel in the NT was also the first to be written and that the author was Matthew the tax collector, a disciple of Jesus. The source of this persistent belief can be traced back as far as circa A.D. 130, when Papias, a bishop in Hierapolis, a city in Asia Minor, wrote a work titled “Exposition of the Oracles of the Lord.” His writing, which is known only from fragments quoted by later Christian writers, reports that Matthew, the disciple, compiled the sayings of the Lord in Hebrew. Those that have quoted Papias seem to have accepted his statement without question as referring to the First gospel.

There are several difficulties with this assumption, however. (a) The gospel consists of a rather full account of Jesus’ public ministry, not merely a series of sayings. (b) Detailed analysis of Matthew shows that the author used Mark as one of his sources. (c) Mark and therefore Matthew, for which Mark was a source were written in Greek, not Hebrew. In view of these difficulties, it is plausible to assume that Papias was referring, not to Matthew, as we know it, but perhaps to a now lost collection of sayings of Jesus.

If we do not accept Papias’ theory, then we must acknowledge that we have no evidence for the origin of Matthew and no assurance of the author’s name. The gospel itself makes no such claim; indeed all the gospels are anonymous. Later tradition has attached names for convenience, but we should recognize that authority of the writings rested in the power of the message, not in the personal authority of the author

so to summerize, ALL the Gospel were anonymous and the names were given mainly for convenience. Matthew MAY have been the author of "Q", that sounds reasonable however in light of the other information, i'm going to go with Brother Khalid on this one as well!

:w:

[Grace Seeker]

a few weeks back you were telling us that any old Christian could explain the trinity. so i guess you mean that they can explain it, but they don't believe it?

You'll have to refresh me on the context in which I stated what sounds like a paraphrase of my comments. I don't think my 5-year old granddaughter could explain the Trinity as she is young enough not to have seriously reflected on any of these things. And I don't think that I could explain the Trinity, as the nature and character of God is beyond any human explanation, and certainly mine. But, yes in general, I do think that any Christian with a modicum of understanding should be able to both articulate and explain the Trinity in at least some rudimentary form. Are there some persons, accepted as a part of the greater Christian community or self-identifyed as such who might have done enough book study to perhaps even wax eloquently about it yet not themselves actually hold to those beliefs? I have no doubt.

I don't know, but I suspect every religion has such intellectual "believers" who don't really believe with their heart. In Christianity, one place to find such "believers" with relative ease would be the group known as "The Jesus Seminar". (Now, I don't mean to imply that all members of The Jesus Seminar would be of one mind, but the reports I have heard coming out of this group strike me as not being representative of genuine Christian faith nor in concert with the historic teachings of the Church. No doubt they have done some good, even corrective research. But I also think they have missed the boat on quite a few things, and overall their published "finding", in my opinion, present a false gospel.)


I have reported on Polycarp on past threads. In one of the first one of those I actually quoted from Iraneus' letter. It isn't something I have at my fingertips, so you might just want to do a search for "Polycarp" and "John" under my name using the LI search engine.




Now, I will see your The Interpreters One-Volume Commentary on the Bible, and raise you The Interpreters Bible, Volume 7, copyright 1951, Abingdon Press, in the "Introduction to Matthew", by Sherman E. Johnson:

Sometime in the second century the "Gospel" emerged as a fourfold collection, the compostion of which bore the titles "According to Matthew", "According to Mark", "According to Luke", and "According to John". Matthew headed this collection, and one reason among many for this pre-eminence is the fact that nearly every second-century Christian writer quotes the book more frequently than any other Gospel....

Matthew came into its prominent position in the second-century church almost certainly because it had become the first of all the Gospels to be accepted by some great center of Christendom. This center was probably Antioch. Books were not originally called "gospels": there was but one gospel, the good news of salvation through Jesus Christ. This document, the "Gospel" of Matthew, contained the gospel as it was thought Matthew had understood it; it was believed to be "according to" Matthew's teaching or point of view.

And elsewhere, discussing the gospel's authorship, Johnson writes:

According to ecclesiastical tradition, the author was Matthew, one of the twelve, whose name appears eighth in the Matthaean list with the designation "the tax collector", seventh in the lists of Mark and Luke, and eighth in that of Acts.

The tradition rests on Irenaeus (Against Heresies, III, 1.1) who seems to assume that the author was an apostle, and on Origen (in Eusebius, Church History VI, 25.4) Eusebius (Church History III. 24. 5-6), and Jerome. Papias [in the extract you referenced] says nothing of Matthew being one of the twelve, but probably assumed that he was. The kata ("according to") in the title of the Gosepl does not affirm authorship in the strict sense. As Plummer says, it need mean nothing more than "drawn up according to the teaching of," but Papias probably assumed that Matthew was author of an Aramaic book from which our Gospel was translated.

Of course, I can quote you scholar after scholar who will reject Matthew as the author of Matthew. Some will date the book half way through the second century (even though it is already quoted before then). And I can find you scholar after scholar who will insist that it was written by Matthew in Hebrew even before Mark, while others claim that Matthew borrowed from Mark and a "Q" source document. Still others that Matthew himself wrote a collection of the "Sayings of Jesus" in Aramaic that became the "Q" source and that Matthew later actually quotes from himself and Mark in composing his Greek-languaged gospel account. There seem to be no end of theories. What is your point?

Khalid said that we know it was NOT Matthew. We don't know that. If he had said that we don't know that it was Matthew, I might have said that I tend to lean toward it being Matthew, but I would have agreed that he was making a factually correct statement. But to say that WE KNOW WHO THE AUTHOR WAS NOT is, since we are emphasizing this terminology, a FACTUALLY INCORRECT statement.



Btw, here is another scholar's take on that key extract from Papais:

One contributing factor to the debate [over authorship] is the quotation from Papias (c. A.D. 135) recorded by Eusebius (Ecclesiastical History 3.39.16). Several of Papias's expressions are ambiguous: "Matthew synetaxeto (composed? compiled? arranged?) the logia (sayings? Gospel?) in hebraidi dialekto (in the Hebrew (Aramaic?) language?, in the Hebrew (Aramaic?) style?); and everyone hermeneusen (interpreted? translated? transmitted?) them as he was able (contextually, who is 'interpreting' what?)." The early church understood the sentence to mean that the apostle Matthew first wrote his Gospel in Hebrew or Aramaic and then it was translated. But few today accept this. Although Matthew has Semitisms, much evidence suggests that it was first composed in Greek.

D.A. Carson, from his introduction to "Matthew" in The Expositor's Bible Commentary, Vol. 8, Zondervan Publishing, c. 1984

[Pygoscelis]

If you accept that God is "all-powerful", then it would also make sense that God can exercise that power in any way He sees fit.

Certainly so. And if he wishes us to be confused by books that are often interpretted in different ways (which he certainly would have known would be the case) and prophets etc, he certainly has the power to be the author of confusion as Grace Seeker put it. But make no mistake that that would be exactly what he is. To suggest that he has not the power to make us understand him is to limit his power.

And as I mentioned above, free will still exists if we have full knowledge of what's what. In fact I'd suggest that ONLY then do we have true free and informed will and could we be held responsible for our choices. Choices made with confused information (intentionally so) are not on the same level as choices made in full knowledge. That God would purposefully give us clouded and conflicting information and then expect us to act on it in the "proper" way is to invite the nuttiness that we see in the world. Maybe this God indeed does this, for his entertainment or something.

[Grace Seeker]

Certainly so. And if he wishes us to be confused by books that are often interpretted in different ways (which he certainly would have known would be the case) and prophets etc, he certainly has the power to be the author of confusion as Grace Seeker put it. But make no mistake that that would be exactly what he is. To suggest that he has not the power to make us understand him is to limit his power.

And as I mentioned above, free will still exists if we have full knowledge of what's what. In fact I'd suggest that ONLY then do we have true free and informed will and could we be held responsible for our choices. Choices made with confused information (intentionally so) are not on the same level as choices made in full knowledge. That God would purposefully give us clouded and conflicting information and then expect us to act on it in the "proper" way is to invite the nuttiness that we see in the world. Maybe this God indeed does this, for his entertainment or something.

Your argument is basically this:


If God has the power to do whatever he wants, then whatever happens is what God wants, for if he had wanted something different, then he would have chosen that, and if he is all powerful and wants it, then that would be what happened.

By your line of thinking God must not only be all-powerful, but if he is all powerful be all-directing. Thus if there are an infinite list of possibilities, the actual occurance that take place at any one point in time, be it the writing of a beautiful opera, a commercial jingle, a train wreck, nuclear war, a touchdown or a botched play in a ball game would therefore each be the result of God willing that to happen.

The problem with your argument is that it assumes God really would force his will on another, rather than let that other make free choices of their own. Surely God could make us understand him, and I believe that we once did understand him much better than we do now. But God allowed us the freedom to choose to conform to his will or to seek our own. When we choose the latter, we also choose to lose the ability to understand God in the same way that we had prior to making ourselves tantamount to "god" of our own life.

[Pygoscelis]

Your argument is basically this:
If God has the power to do whatever he wants, then whatever happens is what God wants, for if he had wanted something different, then he would have chosen that, and if he is all powerful and wants it, then that would be what happened.

Yes, this much of my post you understand. If God is both all knowing and all powerful then what is MUST be what he intends/intended. Giving us free will doesn't change that. He would have intended to give us that free will and he would have known exactly what we'd do with it as he granted it to us.

By your line of thinking God must not only be all-powerful, but if he is all powerful be all-directing. Thus if there are an infinite list of possibilities, the actual occurance that take place at any one point in time, be it the writing of a beautiful opera, a commercial jingle, a train wreck, nuclear war, a touchdown or a botched play in a ball game would therefore each be the result of God willing that to happen.

No that is not it at all. Having us know something is not taking away our free will. It can be argued that giving us better knowledge to act on actually gives us MORE freedom, not less. If God made us decide a certain way, that would ruin our free will. That is not what I'm talking about.

[MustafaMc]

By your line of thinking God must not only be all-powerful, but if he is all powerful be all-directing. Thus if there are an infinite list of possibilities, the actual occurance that take place at any one point in time, be it the writing of a beautiful opera, a commercial jingle, a train wreck, nuclear war, a touchdown or a botched play in a ball game would therefore each be the result of God willing that to happen.

I am not sure that I follow your line of thought here as I agree with the post by Pygoscelis. In Islam, Allah (swt) is indeed All-Powerful and He is also All-Knowing - past, present and future, the open and the hidden, the deed and the intention. Quran 6:59 He Alone has the keys of the unseen treasures, of which no one knows except Him. He knows whatever is in the land and in the sea; there is not a single leaf that falls without His knowledge, there is neither a grain in the darkness of the earth nor anything fresh or dry which has not been recorded in a Clear Book. Since Allah, is All-Powerful and He is All-knowing, there is nothing that happens, but that it is the Will of Allah to happen. For example, had Allah not willed for the planes to crash into the Twin Towers, do you think for a single moment that He couldn't have prevented them from doing so? This is a fundamental Islamic Article of Faith - Qadar - the Timeless Knowledge of Allah and His power to plan and execute His plans.

[MustafaMc]

GraceSeeker, perhaps, you had in mind matters of faith. Yes, we have free will to either obey or to disobey Allah (swt). Mankind and jinn are the only creatures that have free will within a limited sphere of control. Yes, Shaytan had the opportunity to obey Allah (swt) and to prostrate before Adam (as), but because of his arrogance, he refused and disobeyed Allah's (swt) command. Likewise, Adam yielded to the temptation of Shaytan and disobeyed Allah's (swt) command to not eat of the fruit of the Tree.

Allah (swt) does not force one to become a Muslim, or a Christian, or a Jew for, if He did, we would be no different from other creatures. However, in His infinite Wisdom, He chooses to guide those whom He wills and leaves to stray those whom He wills. While I was free to respond positively or negatively to the guidance of Allah (swt), I did not choose the situation, circumstances or even the inner desire that led to my becoming a Muslim. Allah (swt) knows my final state, but I strive to obey Allah (swt), I hope in His Mercy, and I fear His Wrath.

[YusufNoor]

You'll have to refresh me on the context in which I stated what sounds like a paraphrase of my comments. I don't think my 5-year old granddaughter could explain the Trinity as she is young enough not to have seriously reflected on any of these things. And I don't think that I could explain the Trinity, as the nature and character of God is beyond any human explanation, and certainly mine. But, yes in general, I do think that any Christian with a modicum of understanding should be able to both articulate and explain the Trinity in at least some rudimentary form. Are there some persons, accepted as a part of the greater Christian community or self-identifyed as such who might have done enough book study to perhaps even wax eloquently about it yet not themselves actually hold to those beliefs? I have no doubt.

and yet, when question by another member of the forum regarding said trinity:

Originally Posted by moslima
If you ask an average Christian about trinity, they will tell you that they don't understand it, if you ask them why you do so and so, you will not get a satisfying answer.

now even though the trinity is a riddle wrapped up inside a mystery wrapped up inside an enigma, you replied:

Originally posted by Grace Seeker
Well, tomorrow I will see a number of "average" Christians. I will ask them and see if they tell me that they don't understand. I suspect they understand more than you give them credit for. You just don't like their understanding and don't appreciate the explanations that they give, because you have yet to understand as they do.

just to remind you of what you posted:

I don't think that I could explain the Trinity, as the nature and character of God is beyond any human explanation, and certainly mine

PERHAPS you meant that members of your church could explain it better than you can? or perhaps...well, i'll let you explain...

I have reported on Polycarp on past threads. In one of the first one of those I actually quoted from Iraneus' letter. It isn't something I have at my fingertips, so you might just want to do a search for "Polycarp" and "John" under my name using the LI search engine.

i guess i want your "current" answer! :okay:


Now, I will see your The Interpreters One-Volume Commentary on the Bible, and raise you The Interpreters Bible, Volume 7, copyright 1951, Abingdon Press, in the "Introduction to Matthew", by Sherman E. Johnson:



And elsewhere, discussing the gospel's authorship, Johnson writes:

Of course, I can quote you scholar after scholar who will reject Matthew as the author of Matthew. Some will date the book half way through the second century (even though it is already quoted before then). And I can find you scholar after scholar who will insist that it was written by Matthew in Hebrew even before Mark, while others claim that Matthew borrowed from Mark and a "Q" source document. Still others that Matthew himself wrote a collection of the "Sayings of Jesus" in Aramaic that became the "Q" source and that Matthew later actually quotes from himself and Mark in composing his Greek-languaged gospel account. There seem to be no end of theories. What is your point?

Khalid said that we know it was NOT Matthew. We don't know that. If he had said that we don't know that it was Matthew, I might have said that I tend to lean toward it being Matthew, but I would have agreed that he was making a factually correct statement. But to say that WE KNOW WHO THE AUTHOR WAS NOT is, since we are emphasizing this terminology, a FACTUALLY INCORRECT statement.

i see your point, BUT if NOONE KNOWS who wrote Mark, then you CANNOT DEFINITVELY say that Brother Khalid is wrong because you are doing the same thing that he is!



Btw, here is another scholar's take on that key extract from Papais:
One contributing factor to the debate [over authorship] is the quotation from Papias (c. A.D. 135) recorded by Eusebius (Ecclesiastical History 3.39.16). Several of Papias's expressions are ambiguous: "Matthew synetaxeto (composed? compiled? arranged?) the logia (sayings? Gospel?) in hebraidi dialekto (in the Hebrew (Aramaic?) language?, in the Hebrew (Aramaic?) style?); and everyone hermeneusen (interpreted? translated? transmitted?) them as he was able (contextually, who is 'interpreting' what?)." The early church understood the sentence to mean that the apostle Matthew first wrote his Gospel in Hebrew or Aramaic and then it was translated. But few today accept this. Although Matthew has Semitisms, much evidence suggests that it was first composed in Greek.


D.A. Carson, from his introduction to "Matthew" in The Expositor's Bible Commentary, Vol. 8, Zondervan Publishing, c. 1984

:sl:

Peace be upon those who follow the guidance,

Greeting Gene,

could you be a little more clear regarding the quote by Papias? ^o)

:w:

[Grace Seeker]

I am not sure that I follow your line of thought here as I agree with the post by Pygoscelis. In Islam, Allah (swt) is indeed All-Powerful and He is also All-Knowing - past, present and future, the open and the hidden, the deed and the intention. Quran 6:59 He Alone has the keys of the unseen treasures, of which no one knows except Him. He knows whatever is in the land and in the sea; there is not a single leaf that falls without His knowledge, there is neither a grain in the darkness of the earth nor anything fresh or dry which has not been recorded in a Clear Book. Since Allah, is All-Powerful and He is All-knowing, there is nothing that happens, but that it is the Will of Allah to happen. For example, had Allah not willed for the planes to crash into the Twin Towers, do you think for a single moment that He couldn't have prevented them from doing so? This is a fundamental Islamic Article of Faith - Qadar - the Timeless Knowledge of Allah and His power to plan and execute His plans.

Likewise, he meant for the Crusades and the Inquisition. Allah was the force behind the assassination of Benazir Bhutto, of Hiroshima, of slavery in the USA, of the rampant secularlization that is sweeping across the globe, of a prostitute who solicts a John in Las Vegas and a corrupt senator who accepts a bribe in Congress. It is God who sent the USA into Iraq and who had Israel win the "Seven Days War" in 1967. In fact, everything that has ever happened and ever will happened is in the hands of God. Thank goodness, because I didn't want to be held responsible for speeding home yesterday on the interstate, now I know that this too was God's will. Because, God could have prevented any and every one of those things, so since they happened they must have each been within his will. That means, though speeding is against the law, that I was nonetheless within his will as well, for surely he could have stopped me, and would have if it had been within his will. It wasn't the devil who made me do it, it was Allah.


Unless, of course, you accept my argument for Free Will? God elects to actually let us make choices, free choices, not predetermined choices. While he may know the future he does not determine it, and if we were to choose differently, God would willingly live with that world as well. If God is not willing to live with that choice, then either we are able to force our will on God, and he is not all-powerful, or he eventually forces his will on us and he is also all-directing. Which of those 3 is it?

• God is all-powerful, but not all directing and does give us free-will to exercise without regard to God's power.
• God is not all powerful, and we make choices that may infact run contrary to God's will, but he has no power to prevent it.
• God is all-powerful, and when our will is outside of God's will, he nonetheless forces us to behave in ways in accordance with his will, as if our will did not even exist.

[MustafaMc]

• God is all-powerful, but not all directing and does give us free-will to exercise without regard to God's power.
• God is not all powerful, and we make choices that may infact run contrary to God's will, but he has no power to prevent it.
• God is all-powerful, and when our will is outside of God's will, he nonetheless forces us to behave in ways in accordance with his will, as if our will did not even exist.

My understanding is that #1 is closer to the Truth. Allah (swt) is All-Powerful, but not all-controlling and does give us free-will to excercise without regard to Allah's (swt) Power. However, Allah (swt) is the best of planners and can counteract the best laid plans of Mankind.

[Grace Seeker]

My understanding is that #1 is closer to the Truth. Allah (swt) is All-Powerful, but not all-controlling and does give us free-will to excercise without regard to Allah's (swt) Power. However, Allah (swt) is the best of planners and can counteract the best laid plans of Mankind.

And that is what I thought I had described above, but you said you didn't follow mine line of thought as you agree with the post by Pygoscelis. I see Pygoscelis suggesting that #3 is what he hears Muslims and Christians alike claiming for God.

Someplace we have a disconnect.

[MustafaMc]

And that is what I thought I had described above, but you said you didn't follow mine line of thought as you agree with the post by Pygoscelis. I see Pygoscelis suggesting that #3 is what he hears Muslims and Christians alike claiming for God.

Someplace we have a disconnect.

Perhaps you are right. I understood you to say that we CAN act contrary to the Will of God even though He is All-Powerful. I was saying that we can intend and work towards an act, but if it is contrary to the Will of God, then that act will never take place. We don't know what the Will of God is and we should not assume that something "bad" according to our perspective is not the Will of God. This point of the Islamic faith, Al-Qadar, is a difficult one to grasp. We should not be angry with Allah (swt) when something bad happens even though He surely could have prevented it from happening. We stive to have the spirit of Alhamdulillah (Praise Allah) when good and bad things happen to us. And Allah knows best.

[caroline]

• God is all-powerful, but not all directing and does give us free-will to exercise without regard to God's power.
• God is not all powerful, and we make choices that may infact run contrary to God's will, but he has no power to prevent it.
• God is all-powerful, and when our will is outside of God's will, he nonetheless forces us to behave in ways in accordance with his will, as if our will did not even exist.

Door number 1!!! Door number 1!!! :sunny:

And as for mysteries that can't be understood or explained by humans -- can't those be found in all religions? If not, it wouldn't be a religion, it would be a science.

[Jayda]

but free will is not an absolute... God has interrupted free will... it is not a gift that He has given us with no strings attached. He hardened pharoah's heart (thus choosing for him) just like he did with Herod. sometimes we serve the will of God without making the choice to do so.

there is nothing wrong with this... it is God's will... that is the very definition of good...

[Grace Seeker]

Perhaps you are right. I understood you to say that we CAN act contrary to the Will of God even though He is All-Powerful. I was saying that we can intend and work towards an act, but if it is contrary to the Will of God, then that act will never take place. We don't know what the Will of God is and we should not assume that something "bad" according to our perspective is not the Will of God. This point of the Islamic faith, Al-Qadar, is a difficult one to grasp. We should not be angry with Allah (swt) when something bad happens even though He surely could have prevented it from happening. We stive to have the spirit of Alhamdulillah (Praise Allah) when good and bad things happen to us. And Allah knows best.

To me that sounds like you are choosing Door #3.

[Grace Seeker]

but free will is not an absolute... God has interrupted free will... it is not a gift that He has given us with no strings attached. He hardened pharoah's heart (thus choosing for him) just like he did with Herod. sometimes we serve the will of God without making the choice to do so.

there is nothing wrong with this... it is God's will... that is the very definition of good...

Yes, I agree that we have a few of these instances, but I don't think they are normative. In addition, I would submit to you that the two instances you cite are not cases of God actually directing a person to have a particular will, but hardening a will that was already so freely formed. I don't think I want to take up time in this thread for such a discussion, but even the places where Pharoah first determines to do one thing and then God "hardens his heart" so that he appears to change his mind actually still fit the pattern of God only harden a freely formed will that was set against Moses.

[MustafaMc]

To me that sounds like you are choosing Door #3.

No, my perspective is closer to #1 with qualification.

• God is all-powerful, but not all directing and does give us free-will to exercise without regard to God's power. However, if we intend to perform some deed that is contrary to the Will of God, then that deed will never take place. We have free-will to act within our realm of influence, but we don't have the power to achieve what we strive for. I may intend and make preparations to go on Hajj this year, but if it is not Allah's will for it to happen then I won't complete the Pilgrimage. That is why we say "Insha'Allah" or "Allah willing" after we say that we are going to, or that we plan to do something.
• God is not all powerful, and we make choices that may infact run contrary to God's will, but he has no power to prevent it. Wrong in every sense.
• God is all-powerful, and when our will is outside of God's will, he nonetheless forces us to behave in ways in accordance with his will, as if our will did not even exist. Allah is indeed All-Powerful and He Wills the success or failure of our efforts; however, Allah does not direct our actions, force us to behave a certain way, or control how we respond to what happens to us. We are not puppets whose every movement is controlled by someone else. ....yet Allah guides those to the Straight Path whom He wills to guide and leaves to stray those whom He wills. Honestly, I don't understand the full implications of this, but this is a repeating theme in the Qur'an.

[Grace Seeker]

No, my perspective is closer to #1 with qualification.

• God is all-powerful, but not all directing and does give us free-will to exercise without regard to God's power. However, if we intend to perform some deed that is contrary to the Will of God, then that deed will never take place. We have free-will to act within our realm of influence, but we don't have the power to achieve what we strive for. I may intend and make preparations to go on Hajj this year, but if it is not Allah's will for it to happen then I won't complete the Pilgrimage. That is why we say "Insha'Allah" or "Allah willing" after we say that we are going to, or that we plan to do something.
• God is not all powerful, and we make choices that may infact run contrary to God's will, but he has no power to prevent it. Wrong in every sense.
• God is all-powerful, and when our will is outside of God's will, he nonetheless forces us to behave in ways in accordance with his will, as if our will did not even exist. Allah is indeed All-Powerful and He Wills the success or failure of our efforts; however, Allah does not direct our actions, force us to behave a certain way, or control how we respond to what happens to us. We are not puppets whose every movement is controlled by someone else. ....yet Allah guides those to the Straight Path whom He wills to guide and leaves to stray those whom He wills. Honestly, I don't understand the full implications of this, but this is a repeating theme in the Qur'an.

Mustafa, my intent is not to argue with you and tell you what you are saying, but it this is going to sound a lot like that.


As I read your qualification to Door #1, I don't see how that differes from Door #3. If you desire to go on Hajj this year. You have the resources, the time off, and make the arrangements. So you anticipate that you are going on Hajj, Inshallah. But it just so happens that it is not in Allah's will. So, he throws barricades in your way that prevent you from going: someone gets sick, there is a major natural disaster, war breaks out. It doesn't matter the reason, if those are things that Allah brings about for the express purpose of preventing you from accomplishing your will and for accomplishing his will, "he nevertheless forces us to behave in ways that are in accordance with his will." How is that not Allah making the ultimate determinations in your life? That is the exact description of Door #3. You only feel like you have free will, but in reality you don't.

I am not suggesting that this is so much a difference between Christianity and Islam, because there are plenty of Christians that would hold to that theory as well. But I am suggesting that I don't see how those qualifications fit in Door #1, it is as if you have changed the options so that both Door #1 and Door #3 open to the same room.


My view is that if such things happen that prevent us from accomplishing our will, that we should not automatically assume that they were caused by Allah. Using your original example, I do NOT think that it was the will of Allah to have a bunch of terrorists fly planes into the twin towers of the World Trade Center. That would make Allah himself guilty of those murders. Do I think that God could have prevented it? Sure. He has the power. But long ago he restricted his power to woeing people to do the right thing, rather than compelling them. So, the actions of those men belonged to them alone, and the culpability is on their heads, not God's. Yes, that means that sometimes evil appears to triumph. But not because God is the author of it, or even indifferent to it. But because that is the risk and price associated with allowing people free will. If we don't truly have that free will, and if everything that happens is actually a part of the express will of God, then God himself is willing those things.

Rather, I think that God wills for us to freely choose to follow him. And for that to happen, we must also be able to freely choose not to follow him. As a result evil can, and sometimes does happen. But it is not evil that is in the will of God, it is righteousness and God lets us choose the other because that is the only way in which we are also free to actually choose him rather than be puppets.

[MustafaMc]

My intention has been to provide my understanding of Qadar in Islam. A more knowledgeable Muslim is obligated to correct my errors.

[Grace Seeker]

My intention has been to provide my understanding of Qadar in Islam. A more knowledgeable Muslim is obligated to correct my errors.

But can you better see now why I must disagree with Pygoscelis' assessment?

Originally Posted by Pygoscelis
If God is the author of the holy books then God is so the author of confusion. Its not like an all powerful God would lack the power to make us all simply know his message (and then be judged on how we deal with it). The very existence of holy books and middle-messenger prophets clearly shows that God either intends us to be confused about his message or he is not all powerful. If he is all powerful then we know exactly what he wishes us to know about him.

That we need to resort to holy books and prophets means that either:

1. God is not all powerful, and can not make us simply know his message.
2. God does not intend us to simply know his message.

If its the first then many would wonder if he's God at all. If its the second then no matter how you dress it up, he does not intend clarity. I have seen arguments on this point that he wishes us to have "free will" so he can't make us know his message, but that seems weak because if he did make us know his message we would still have the "free will" on how to react to it. And most theists I encounter will call me a "rebeller" or "disobedient" or "infidel" anyway and not aknowledge that I simply don't get the message and dont believe there is one.

And even his statement that you supported:

Originally Posted by Pygoscelis:
Yes, this much of my post you understand. If God is both all knowing and all powerful then what is MUST be what he intends/intended. Giving us free will doesn't change that. He would have intended to give us that free will and he would have known exactly what we'd do with it as he granted it to us.

Originally posted by Grace Seeker:
By your line of thinking God must not only be all-powerful, but if he is all powerful be all-directing. Thus if there are an infinite list of possibilities, the actual occurance that take place at any one point in time, be it the writing of a beautiful opera, a commercial jingle, a train wreck, nuclear war, a touchdown or a botched play in a ball game would therefore each be the result of God willing that to happen.

No that is not it at all. Having us know something is not taking away our free will. It can be argued that giving us better knowledge to act on actually gives us MORE freedom, not less. If God made us decide a certain way, that would ruin our free will. That is not what I'm talking about.

[KelleyD]

I post this video link not to offend, but to enlighten. It provides another perspective of religion according to history. If you are Christian, you probably won't like the first 40 minutes. It details how the figure of Jesus was a repackaging of the old sun gods. It's almost 2 hours long, but it is worth the time to watch. There are other bits and pieces that are very good. I am not implying that it is the "truth" but it does serve as a sort of "wake up call" that all may not be as we believe both politically and religously. If you do not feel it is appropriate, feel free to delete it. Personally, the jury is still out in my brain on it. I'm not sure what to make of some of it.

http://video.google.com/videoplay?do...81422995115331

[Grace Seeker]

Well, I'm going to admit to NOT watching a 40 minute video, let alone 2 hours. I've seen and read many of these presentations before. But I will allow that there are elements of pagan sun god worship that have been adopted into Christianity in the same way that the existing pagan moon god worship was repackaged into Islam. Of course, Islam isn't really about the worship of the moon god any more than Christianity is about the worship of old sun gods.

[Jayda]

gracias KelleyD,

but you are not the first muslim to give me a youtube homework assignment or egregiously long website rant about 'hidden history.'

i've not heard anything new (and therefore nothing convincing) concerning 'mithra' or the separate religion centered around sol invictus. when you look into the actual history of both religions (imperial cult in the case of SI) you do not see any significant connections... this is as simple as a searching for their respective wikipedia entries.

there is a good deal of misinformation and false history both about Christianity and about these two religions, it seems to mostly come from islamic and other anti Christian sources. on their face i do not consider islamic opinions regarding christianity or christian history valid... they're not genuine intellectual inquests but rather deceptions to convince me of the validity of islam, by attempting to establish invalidity of christianity.

usually they center on elaborate yet formulaic conspiracy theories with evil plots by St. Paul, Constantine, 'the pagans' or 'the Jews' attempting to inject 'paganism' into Christianity... which on it's face it just seems ridiculous, but when i read the quran it made a lot more sense...

the book is filled with constant warnings and manic fears about polytheists... i suppose with such a view of the world it is easy to believe polytheists are secretly responsible for everything from mesothelioma to world wars.

but regardless of why there is this preoccupation with injecting grand conspiracies into Christian history (since i don't really care why), it does greatly diminish the value i attach to muslims' opinions of christianity or christian history. generally when they want to talk about Christianity i groan and try to find something else to discuss...

it is a bit like the man on the bus who wears the tinfoil hat and insists with great tenacity that the government attempts to read his brainwaves, and with equal tenacity insists that you must listen to everything he tells you about this during the entire length of your bus trip.

que Dios te bendiga

[YusufNoor]

:bump1:

so i can cut and paste instead of re-writing!

:w:

[AntiKarateKid]

Christianity in 5 words might make for a better thread, more fun that way too!

Christian: Christ died for our sins!

Muslim: Pay for your own sins!

[Woodrow]

This thread survived 3 years with rather peaceful disagreement. It now took only a week to turn into a war, much of it being in the past 24 hours.

All posts less than 1 year old have been deleted and the thread is now closed for further posting.

:threadclo: