× Register Login What's New! Contact us
Problems with christian theology
Page 1 of 2 1 2 Last
Results 1 to 20 of 28
  1. #1
    muslimreviver's Avatar
    Join Date
    Dec 2016
    Gender
    Male
    Religion
    Islam
    Posts
    5
    Threads
    4
    Reputation
    77
    Rep Power
    13
    Likes (Given)
    0
    Likes (Received)
    7

    Problems with christian theology

    Report bad ads?

    http://www.thesimplemuslim.com/chris...ot-make-sense/

    I found this as well when watching debates with christians, they simply do not use logic or anything of that sort.
    1 | Likes noor grant liked this post

  2. Report bad ads?
  3. #2
    noor grant's Avatar
    Join Date
    Sep 2008
    Location
    Canada
    Gender
    Female
    Religion
    Islam
    Posts
    51
    Threads
    14
    Reputation
    108
    Rep Power
    63
    Likes (Given)
    23
    Likes (Received)
    21

    Re: Problems with christian theology

    Quote Originally Posted by muslimreviver View Post
    http://www.thesimplemuslim.com/chris...ot-make-sense/

    I found this as well when watching debates with christians, they simply do not use logic or anything of that sort.
    Of course it the christian doctrine is fundamentally flawed. They have no structured system of academics involved in the maintaining of the gospel like they do in Islam. Thats why Muhammad pbuh had to come and fix all the issues that were wrong with Christianity and Christians.
    I personally believe that a lot of mental confusion and possibly illnesses can be caused by teaching people this flawed doctrine as a recipe for life. I hope to God that one day the media stops publishing the wrong propaganda about Islam and starts to do a fully academic analysis of Islam....
    I can only hope...
    fi sabililillah

  4. #3
    tolpuddle's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jun 2017
    Gender
    Male
    Religion
    Christianity
    Posts
    45
    Threads
    0
    Reputation
    116
    Rep Power
    10
    Likes (Given)
    0
    Likes (Received)
    9

    Re: Problems with christian theology

    Quote Originally Posted by muslimreviver View Post
    http://www.thesimplemuslim.com/chris...ot-make-sense/

    I found this as well when watching debates with christians, they simply do not use logic or anything of that sort.
    Jesus claims to be God in John's Gospel: "Before Abraham was, I AM." He also often describes Himself as the Son of Man, a mysterious supernatural figure in the biblical book of the prophet Daniel (7:13 & 14), who enters into the Presence of the Ancient of Days (God) and is given divine and eternal authority over humanity.

    Clearly, you don't understand Christian doctrines about the Trinity - neither do we, since God is above human understanding. But briefly, God is Mind, Thought and Love; thus "triune" , Three-in-One. Imagine a circle, within which are three distinct (but unseparated) parts.

    Jesus also said: "To have seen me is to have the seen the Father" (i.e. God who is in Heaven). This clearly means they are One in Divinity, not merely in purpose !

    Should Jesus have been more explicit about the Trinity ? Well, nobody will end up in hell because of an intellectual misunderstanding. Moreover, Jesus was - in His human nature - a carpenter, not a trained philosopher or theologian. And thus accepted the sufferings and limitations of His human nature.

    And having two natures, human and divine, was both a circle and a square, to use your imagery.

    An example - Jesus said to His followers: "You are the salt of the earth; but if the salt loses its savour, it will be thrown out and trodden underfoot by men." This seems to be merely the wise advice of a religious teacher to his followers. But then I travel through England and see the ruined abbeys and monasteries destroyed in the 1530's Reformation (or of the 1550's in Scotland); or see France and the abbeys and monasteries destroyed in the French Revolution of the 1790's (or of Russia after the 1917 Revolution). These things happened because clergy and laity had become lukewarm and corrupt; the salt had lost its savour, and was duly thrown out and trodden underfoot. Thus this passage of scripture is also a prophecy, perceived by Jesus in His divinity.

    God is "impassible" - cannot suffer; nor be killed. Jesus suffered and died only in His human nature. Nevertheless, since He was also Divine, those who saw Jesus - whether when He was preaching or in His crucifixion - necessarily saw God.

    Why did God take on human nature and, in that human nature die for us ? - because He is Just. Our terrible sinfulness and separation (from God) cannot be healed by any mere human being, but only by God. And we cannot enter Heaven unless and until it is healed.

    A Muslim (who is otherwise at peace with God, a friend of God) will be saved despite rejecting Christianity - because this is an intellectual error made in good faith. Ergo, it isn't a rejection of Jesus Christ.

  5. #4
    Abz2000's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jan 2011
    Location
    Around the bend from Venus - Just before Mars
    Gender
    Male
    Religion
    Islam
    Posts
    5,051
    Threads
    142
    Reputation
    45029
    Rep Power
    76
    Likes (Given)
    3699
    Likes (Received)
    2775

    Re: Problems with christian theology

    Jesus doesn't claim to be God at all.
    God has spoken directly through the mouths of many Prophets, and you'll find such statements by other Prophets of God scattered throughout the entire old testament. And when the Prophet Muhammad recited God's words, his followers didn't say he was God, nor do we think our leader of prayer is claiming to be God when he recites the words of God, such as "tell my servants that I am indeed the oft forgiving, but also that My punishment is severe" during prayer.
    Interesting how derivations are made and scrambled about for vague statements, but derivations are not made about absorbing God's guidance in Word and Spirit, "like a scroll sweet as honey" (ezekiel 3:3) , and the choice to drink intoxicating liquor as Jesus' blood, and bread as his meat are made without much thought.
    I could think of only two possible thoughts that would go through the minds of the disciples: the betrayer knows that the feast bash is a preparation to sell him out, so he'll know that Jesus knows, and he'll think about it. And the innocent who are unaware of the plot taking place in the background will think about embodying the Word of God.
    But eating flesh and blood of prophets was out of the question - reading into the incident proves that.
    (See: John 6:30> especially focus on john 6:63 to decipher it).

    (See also: Matthew 4:4, Luke 4:4, Deuteronomy 8:3)

    Even literally:
    If you believe in / accept the second tenure, you'd realize that sane and rational people who ponder on the concept of "before Muhammad was, I was and now am" won't take it as a statement of Godhood either, all Muslims for that matter.


    Scroll to 27 minutes if you want to know more:
    (The movie has a few dodgy female interaction parts which are unnecessary but usual from those (generally) who work in drama, but is overall a good opportunity to think).





    Also consider that the Word of God existed before Abraham, and before earth, and that Jesus is A word of God and from God, and that God works His will through people in mysterious ways

    إِذْ قَالَتِ الْمَلآئِكَةُ يَا مَرْيَمُ إِنَّ اللّهَ يُبَشِّرُكِ بِكَلِمَةٍ مِّنْهُ اسْمُهُ الْمَسِيحُ عِيسَى ابْنُ مَرْيَمَ وَجِيهًا فِي الدُّنْيَا وَالآخِرَةِ وَمِنَ الْمُقَرَّبِينَ {45

    When the angels said: O Mary, verily Allah gives you good news with a word from Him, his name is the Messiah, Jesus, son of Mary, worthy of regard in this world and the Hereafter, and of those who are drawn near (to Allah),
    (Quran 3:45)

    يَا أَهْلَ الْكِتَابِ لاَ تَغْلُواْ فِي دِينِكُمْ وَلاَ تَقُولُواْ عَلَى اللّهِ إِلاَّ الْحَقِّ إِنَّمَا الْمَسِيحُ عِيسَى ابْنُ مَرْيَمَ رَسُولُ اللّهِ وَكَلِمَتُهُ أَلْقَاهَا إِلَى مَرْيَمَ وَرُوحٌ مِّنْهُ فَآمِنُواْ بِاللّهِ وَرُسُلِهِ وَلاَ تَقُولُواْ ثَلاَثَةٌ انتَهُواْ خَيْرًا لَّكُمْ إِنَّمَا اللّهُ إِلَـهٌ وَاحِدٌ سُبْحَانَهُ أَن يَكُونَ لَهُ وَلَدٌ لَّهُ مَا فِي السَّمَاوَات وَمَا فِي الأَرْضِ وَكَفَى بِاللّهِ وَكِيلاً {171

    O People of the Scripture! Do not exaggerate in your religion nor utter concerning Allah except the truth. The Messiah, Jesus son of Mary, was only a messenger of Allah, and His word which He conveyed unto Mary, and a spirit from Him. So believe in Allah and His messengers, and say not "Three" - Cease! (it is) better for you! - Allah is not but One god . Far is it removed from His Transcendent Majesty that He should have a son. His is all that is in the heavens and all that is in the earth. And Allah is sufficient as Defender.
    (Quran 4:171)


    فَنَادَتْهُ الْمَلآئِكَةُ وَهُوَ قَائِمٌ يُصَلِّي فِي الْمِحْرَابِ أَنَّ اللّهَ يُبَشِّرُكَ بِيَحْيَـى مُصَدِّقًا بِكَلِمَةٍ مِّنَ اللّهِ وَسَيِّدًا وَحَصُورًا وَنَبِيًّا مِّنَ الصَّالِحِينَ {39

    So the angels called him (Zakariyya) when he was praying in the prayer niche: "GOD gives you good news of Yahya (John); confirming a Word from Allah, honorable, moral, and a prophet from the righteous."
    (Quran 3:39)

    There's a short message here:


    When Aishah was asked about the Prophet , she replied that he was the Quran (Word of God) walking. There is a hadith Qudsi (very strong chain) which states that God becomes the hands, feet, eyes ears and mouth of any servant who draws near to Him. From this, a Muslim derives that God works through such a person.

    On the authority of Abu Hurayrah (may Allah be pleased with him), who said that the Messenger of Allah (ﷺ) said:
    Allah (mighty and sublime be He) said:
    Whosoever shows enmity to someone devoted to Me, I shall be at war with him. My servant draws not near to Me with anything more loved by Me than the compulsory duties I have enjoined upon him, and My servant continues to draw near to Me with optional good works so that I shall love him.
    When I love him I am his hearing with which he hears, his seeing with which he sees, his hand with which he strikes and his foot with which he walks.
    Were he to ask [something] of Me, I would surely give it to him, and were he to ask Me for refuge, I would surely grant him it. I do not hesitate about anything as much as I hesitate about [seizing] the soul of My faithful servant: he hates death and I hate hurting him.
    It was related by al-Bukhari.

    عَنْ أَبِي هُرَيْرَةَ رَضِيَ اللَّهُ عَنْهُ قَالَ: قَالَ رَسُولُ اللَّهِ صَلَّى اللَّهُ عَلَيْهِ وَسَلَّمَ:
    " إِنَّ اللَّهَ عَزَّ وَجَلَّ قَالَ: مَنْ عَادَى لِي وَلِيًّا، فَقَدْ آذَنْتُهُ بِالْحَرْبِ، وَمَا تَقَرَّبَ إِلَيَّ عَبْدِي بِشَيْءٍ أَحَبَّ إِلَيَّ مِمَّا افْتَرَضْتُ عَلَيْهِ، وَمَا يَزَالُ عَبْدِي يَتَقَرَّبُ إِلَيَّ بِالنَّوَافِلِ حَتَّى أُحِبَّهُ، فَإِذَا أَحْبَبْتُهُ، كُنْتُ سَمْعَهُ الَّذِي يَسْمَعُ بِهِ، وَبَصَرَهُ الَّذِي يُبْصِرُ بِهِ، وَيَدَهُ الَّتِي يَبْطِشُ بِهَا، وَرِجْلَهُ الَّتِي يَمْشِي بِهَا، وَإِنْ سَأَلَنِي لَأُعْطِيَنَّهُ، وَلَئِنْ اسْتَعَاذَنِي لَأُعِيذَنَّهُ، وَمَا تَرَدَّدْتُ عَنْ شَيْءٍ أَنَا فَاعِلُهُ تَرَدُّدِي عَنْ نَفْسِ عَبْدِي الْمُؤْمِنِ، يَكْرَهُ الْمَوْتَ وَأَنَا أَكْرَهُ مَسَاءَتَهُ"
    رواه البخاري

    Arabic/English book reference : Hadith 25


    If someone tries to then say that Jesus is God, (and God's son and God's father - rendering the words literally meaningless)
    One could reply according to such logic that "YOU ARE ALL GODS IF YOU EMBODY WHAT GOD LOVES", but then that would render the term God ambiguous and meaningless - hence the need to sift the high from the low and attribute the high to God, and the low to man.
    Last edited by Abz2000; 08-03-2017 at 08:38 PM.
    1 | Likes newconvert22 liked this post
    Problems with christian theology













  6. Report bad ads?
  7. #5
    STN's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jul 2017
    Gender
    Male
    Religion
    Islam
    Posts
    115
    Threads
    7
    Reputation
    589
    Rep Power
    9
    Likes (Given)
    92
    Likes (Received)
    51

    Re: Problems with christian theology

    Quote Originally Posted by tolpuddle View Post
    ..
    Dr Zakir Naik who is an expert on comparative religion answered this far better than i can

    https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=sREemKFBJX8

    https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=u3Z-XFq8F_w
    Last edited by STN; 08-03-2017 at 10:15 PM.

  8. #6
    LaSorcia's Avatar
    Join Date
    Oct 2015
    Gender
    Female
    Religion
    Christianity
    Posts
    487
    Threads
    39
    Reputation
    4558
    Rep Power
    22
    Likes (Given)
    901
    Likes (Received)
    663

    Re: Problems with christian theology

    Well, for one, there are morons in all religions. Just because a person can't provide an answer doesn't make something right or wrong. Thankfully, God has mercy on those who are not articulate as well as those who are.

    For two, I've seen similar articles written from the perspective of Christians criticizing Muslims. I give those about as much credence as I do this article.

    For three, there are errors in the article about what is really Christian doctrine.

    For four, not all Christians are trinitarians. And even the trinitarians would say that there is only one God.

    I'd love to have the time to explain to each point made in the article. If I am able to soon, I will do so. Not so that I can convert anyone, or point out how my imaan is better than yours, but to show how much we really do have in common. A lot of times it is the language and culture that gets in the way of understanding this.

  9. #7
    tolpuddle's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jun 2017
    Gender
    Male
    Religion
    Christianity
    Posts
    45
    Threads
    0
    Reputation
    116
    Rep Power
    10
    Likes (Given)
    0
    Likes (Received)
    9

    Re: Problems with christian theology

    Quote Originally Posted by noor grant View Post
    Of course it the christian doctrine is fundamentally flawed. They have no structured system of academics involved in the maintaining of the gospel like they do in Islam. Thats why Muhammad pbuh had to come and fix all the issues that were wrong with Christianity and Christians.
    I personally believe that a lot of mental confusion and possibly illnesses can be caused by teaching people this flawed doctrine as a recipe for life. I hope to God that one day the media stops publishing the wrong propaganda about Islam and starts to do a fully academic analysis of Islam....
    I can only hope...
    fi sabililillah

    Christians can merely reply that it is Islam that is flawed.

    BTW, all branches of the Christian Church have employed learned academic theologians for many, many centuries.
    1 | Likes czgibson liked this post

  10. #8
    tolpuddle's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jun 2017
    Gender
    Male
    Religion
    Christianity
    Posts
    45
    Threads
    0
    Reputation
    116
    Rep Power
    10
    Likes (Given)
    0
    Likes (Received)
    9

    Re: Problems with christian theology

    Quote Originally Posted by Abz2000 View Post
    Jesus doesn't claim to be God at all.
    God has spoken directly through the mouths of many Prophets, and you'll find such statements by other Prophets of God scattered throughout the entire old testament. And when the Prophet Muhammad recited God's words, his followers didn't say he was God, nor do we think our leader of prayer is claiming to be God when he recites the words of God, such as "tell my servants that I am indeed the oft forgiving, but also that My punishment is severe" during prayer.
    Interesting how derivations are made and scrambled about for vague statements, but derivations are not made about absorbing God's guidance in Word and Spirit, "like a scroll sweet as honey" (ezekiel 3:3) , and the choice to drink intoxicating liquor as Jesus' blood, and bread as his meat are made without much thought.
    I could think of only two possible thoughts that would go through the minds of the disciples: the betrayer knows that the feast bash is a preparation to sell him out, so he'll know that Jesus knows, and he'll think about it. And the innocent who are unaware of the plot taking place in the background will think about embodying the Word of God.
    But eating flesh and blood of prophets was out of the question - reading into the incident proves that.
    (See: John 6:30> especially focus on john 6:63 to decipher it).

    (See also: Matthew 4:4, Luke 4:4, Deuteronomy 8:3)

    Even literally:
    If you believe in / accept the second tenure, you'd realize that sane and rational people who ponder on the concept of "before Muhammad was, I was and now am" won't take it as a statement of Godhood either, all Muslims for that matter.


    Scroll to 27 minutes if you want to know more:
    (The movie has a few dodgy female interaction parts which are unnecessary but usual from those (generally) who work in drama, but is overall a good opportunity to think).





    Also consider that the Word of God existed before Abraham, and before earth, and that Jesus is A word of God and from God, and that God works His will through people in mysterious ways

    إِذْ قَالَتِ الْمَلآئِكَةُ يَا مَرْيَمُ إِنَّ اللّهَ يُبَشِّرُكِ بِكَلِمَةٍ مِّنْهُ اسْمُهُ الْمَسِيحُ عِيسَى ابْنُ مَرْيَمَ وَجِيهًا فِي الدُّنْيَا وَالآخِرَةِ وَمِنَ الْمُقَرَّبِينَ {45

    When the angels said: O Mary, verily Allah gives you good news with a word from Him, his name is the Messiah, Jesus, son of Mary, worthy of regard in this world and the Hereafter, and of those who are drawn near (to Allah),
    (Quran 3:45)

    يَا أَهْلَ الْكِتَابِ لاَ تَغْلُواْ فِي دِينِكُمْ وَلاَ تَقُولُواْ عَلَى اللّهِ إِلاَّ الْحَقِّ إِنَّمَا الْمَسِيحُ عِيسَى ابْنُ مَرْيَمَ رَسُولُ اللّهِ وَكَلِمَتُهُ أَلْقَاهَا إِلَى مَرْيَمَ وَرُوحٌ مِّنْهُ فَآمِنُواْ بِاللّهِ وَرُسُلِهِ وَلاَ تَقُولُواْ ثَلاَثَةٌ انتَهُواْ خَيْرًا لَّكُمْ إِنَّمَا اللّهُ إِلَـهٌ وَاحِدٌ سُبْحَانَهُ أَن يَكُونَ لَهُ وَلَدٌ لَّهُ مَا فِي السَّمَاوَات وَمَا فِي الأَرْضِ وَكَفَى بِاللّهِ وَكِيلاً {171

    O People of the Scripture! Do not exaggerate in your religion nor utter concerning Allah except the truth. The Messiah, Jesus son of Mary, was only a messenger of Allah, and His word which He conveyed unto Mary, and a spirit from Him. So believe in Allah and His messengers, and say not "Three" - Cease! (it is) better for you! - Allah is not but One god . Far is it removed from His Transcendent Majesty that He should have a son. His is all that is in the heavens and all that is in the earth. And Allah is sufficient as Defender.
    (Quran 4:171)


    فَنَادَتْهُ الْمَلآئِكَةُ وَهُوَ قَائِمٌ يُصَلِّي فِي الْمِحْرَابِ أَنَّ اللّهَ يُبَشِّرُكَ بِيَحْيَـى مُصَدِّقًا بِكَلِمَةٍ مِّنَ اللّهِ وَسَيِّدًا وَحَصُورًا وَنَبِيًّا مِّنَ الصَّالِحِينَ {39

    So the angels called him (Zakariyya) when he was praying in the prayer niche: "GOD gives you good news of Yahya (John); confirming a Word from Allah, honorable, moral, and a prophet from the righteous."
    (Quran 3:39)

    There's a short message here:


    When Aishah was asked about the Prophet , she replied that he was the Quran (Word of God) walking. There is a hadith Qudsi (very strong chain) which states that God becomes the hands, feet, eyes ears and mouth of any servant who draws near to Him. From this, a Muslim derives that God works through such a person.

    On the authority of Abu Hurayrah (may Allah be pleased with him), who said that the Messenger of Allah (ﷺ) said:
    Allah (mighty and sublime be He) said:
    Whosoever shows enmity to someone devoted to Me, I shall be at war with him. My servant draws not near to Me with anything more loved by Me than the compulsory duties I have enjoined upon him, and My servant continues to draw near to Me with optional good works so that I shall love him.
    When I love him I am his hearing with which he hears, his seeing with which he sees, his hand with which he strikes and his foot with which he walks.
    Were he to ask [something] of Me, I would surely give it to him, and were he to ask Me for refuge, I would surely grant him it. I do not hesitate about anything as much as I hesitate about [seizing] the soul of My faithful servant: he hates death and I hate hurting him.
    It was related by al-Bukhari.

    عَنْ أَبِي هُرَيْرَةَ رَضِيَ اللَّهُ عَنْهُ قَالَ: قَالَ رَسُولُ اللَّهِ صَلَّى اللَّهُ عَلَيْهِ وَسَلَّمَ:
    " إِنَّ اللَّهَ عَزَّ وَجَلَّ قَالَ: مَنْ عَادَى لِي وَلِيًّا، فَقَدْ آذَنْتُهُ بِالْحَرْبِ، وَمَا تَقَرَّبَ إِلَيَّ عَبْدِي بِشَيْءٍ أَحَبَّ إِلَيَّ مِمَّا افْتَرَضْتُ عَلَيْهِ، وَمَا يَزَالُ عَبْدِي يَتَقَرَّبُ إِلَيَّ بِالنَّوَافِلِ حَتَّى أُحِبَّهُ، فَإِذَا أَحْبَبْتُهُ، كُنْتُ سَمْعَهُ الَّذِي يَسْمَعُ بِهِ، وَبَصَرَهُ الَّذِي يُبْصِرُ بِهِ، وَيَدَهُ الَّتِي يَبْطِشُ بِهَا، وَرِجْلَهُ الَّتِي يَمْشِي بِهَا، وَإِنْ سَأَلَنِي لَأُعْطِيَنَّهُ، وَلَئِنْ اسْتَعَاذَنِي لَأُعِيذَنَّهُ، وَمَا تَرَدَّدْتُ عَنْ شَيْءٍ أَنَا فَاعِلُهُ تَرَدُّدِي عَنْ نَفْسِ عَبْدِي الْمُؤْمِنِ، يَكْرَهُ الْمَوْتَ وَأَنَا أَكْرَهُ مَسَاءَتَهُ"
    رواه البخاري

    Arabic/English book reference : Hadith 25


    If someone tries to then say that Jesus is God, (and God's son and God's father - rendering the words literally meaningless)
    One could reply according to such logic that "YOU ARE ALL GODS IF YOU EMBODY WHAT GOD LOVES", but then that would render the term God ambiguous and meaningless - hence the need to sift the high from the low and attribute the high to God, and the low to man.
    In many places in the Gospel, Jesus makes it quite clear that He considers Himself God: e.g. in John's Gospel when He says to the Apostles "To have seen me is to have seen the Father [i.e. God in Heaven]."

    I AM is the ancient name of God - which is why those of Jesus' fellow-Jews who heard Him claiming that Name, tried to stone Him to death.

    Jesus isn't A word of God - He is THE Word of God, i.e. God, existing from all eternity.

    Consecrated (unleavened) bread and wine are eaten and drunk by Christians in obedience to Jesus' saying in His discourse in the synagogue of Capernaum: "Unless you eat of my flesh and drink of my blood, you will not have [spiritual] life within you." (John 6). Jesus is so much more than a prophet. Jesus 6:63 MAY mean that this feast is merely symbolic (though that is Zwinglian belief, which I and most Christians don't accept) - but ALL Christians believe we must in some way feast upon Jesus' body and blood (and thus His soul and divinity) in order to be Saved from Hell.

    Among those people who do NOT eat and drink this feast, only those who are innocently ignorant or misunderstanding of this saying of Jesus, can escape everlasting damnation.

    "Son of God" is a figure of speech - when referring to Jesus, it means that aspect of God through whom the universe was made.

    Christians are baptised "In the name of the Father and of the Son and of the Holy Spirit." Name is singular, because only One God is being referred to. The three persons of the Trinity are one and the same God; the Father-Creator FROM whom the creation comes, the Word THROUGH whom creation was made, and the Love in whom creation exists. Nevertheless, between these three (undivided) aspects, "persons", of God, there exists an eternal community of Love - God is family.

  11. #9
    Grandad's Avatar
    Join Date
    Feb 2017
    Gender
    Male
    Religion
    Islam
    Posts
    191
    Threads
    1
    Reputation
    1314
    Rep Power
    11
    Likes (Given)
    313
    Likes (Received)
    223

    Re: Problems with christian theology

    Quote Originally Posted by tolpuddle View Post
    ....a
    You write:

    ‘Jesus claims to be God in John's Gospel: "Before Abraham was, I AM." He also often describes Himself as the Son of Man, a mysterious supernatural figure in the biblical book of the prophet Daniel (7:13 & 14), who enters into the Presence of the Ancient of Days (God) and is given divine and eternal authority over humanity’

    Concerning the expression ‘I am’:

    ‘Moses said to Yahweh: “When I come to the Israelites and say to them, ‘The God of your fathers has sent me to you,’ and they ask me, ‘What is His name?’ what shall I say to them?” And Yahweh said to Moses: “Ehyeh- Ašer -Ehyeh.” He continued: “Thus shall you say to the Israelites, ‘Ehyeh sent me to you.’” And Yahweh said further to Moses: “Thus shall you speak to the Israelites: The Lord, the God of your fathers, the God of Abraham, the God of Isaac, and the God of Jacob, has sent me to you.”’ (Exodus 3:13-15).

    The meaning of the Hebrew ‘ehyeh ašer-ehyeh’ is uncertain; and has been variously translated: ‘I Am That I Am’; ‘I Am Who I Am’; ‘I Will Be What I Will Be’; ‘I Am’; or ‘I Will Be’ (see: ‘The Jewish Study Bible: Second Edition’).

    If we say that the correct translation of ‘ehyeh ašer-ehyeh’ is: I Will Be What I Will Be’; then Yahweh might well be referring to what He will become; namely the Protector of the Israelites in their long journey from Egypt to the Promised Land. If we attribute this same translation to the alleged words of Yeshua (radi Allahu ‘anhu) then he is simply acknowledging that as a person he ‘existed’ in the mind of Allāh (Subḥānahu ūta'āla) as the Messiah, who one day will establish the Beloved’s true religion on Earth (Islam). Abraham will indeed rejoice to see that day, as will all of Allāh (Subḥānahu ūta'āla)'s prophets.

    Concerning the expression ‘son of man’:

    Robert Price writes: ‘(There is a) general rule of procedure: when a later gospel offers a more spectacular version of a story from the earlier, source gospel, then the less spectacular, if either, is the historical one. This is because it is always more natural to imagine the story growing in the telling, not shrinking. One might want to beef up a more modest version, but who, already possessing the spectacular version, would prefer a simpler or more mundane one? So the more spectacular is always to be judged inauthentic.' (‘Incredible Shrinking Son of Man: How Reliable Is the Gospel Tradition?’).

    By way of example: The author of ‘Mark’ has Peter say to Yeshua: ‘You are the Christ’ (8:29). The author of ‘Matthew’ (using ‘Mark’ as his source) needs a more muscular Christology. He has Peter say: ‘You are the Christ, the Son of the living God’. Yeshua is no longer simply the ‘Christ - the ‘anointed one’ - now he is the son of the God of Israel.

    What applies to a story in a source gospel applies equally well to a single verse. The term ‘son of man’ is mentioned for the first time in Psalm 8: 5: ‘What is man that you are mindful of him, and a son of man that you care for him?’

    Here the psalmist compares the limitless grandeur of Allāh (Subḥānahu ūta'āla) with the insignificance of human beings. The Exalted called the prophet Ezekiel ‘son of man’ ninety-three times. A ‘son of man’ is nothing but a human being.

    Daniel says: ‘In my vision at night I looked, and there before me was one like a son of man, coming with the clouds of heaven. He approached the Ancient of Days and was led into his presence.’ (7: 13).

    Here the ‘son of man’ is still a human being, but one whose coming will signal the end of history and the time of Allāh (Subḥānahu ūta'āla)’s judgement (8:17).

    By the time the expression ‘son of man’ hits the gospel of ‘John’ it has grown to mean something quite different.

    Robert Price writes: ‘John's gospel features numerous self-declarations of Jesus beginning with the revelation formula "I am...." The Johannine Jesus announces himself as the light of the world, the bread from heaven, the true vine, the good shepherd, the door, the way, the truth, and the life, and so on. If Jesus indeed said such things, why on earth do we hear nothing of the kind in any of the other gospels? Isn't it rather because Jesus never made any such statements, but Christian devotion predicated all these things of him? John's Jesus is a crystallization of Johannine Christian devotion, and it has remained the favorite devotional gospel for that reason. This is an important distinction, ignored by C. S. Lewis and his imitators who like to bully the skeptic by asserting that "Jesus claimed to be God."’ (‘Incredible Shrinking Son of Man: How Reliable Is the Gospel Tradition?’).


    You write: ‘Clearly, you don't understand Christian doctrines about the Trinity - neither do we, since God is above human understanding.’

    Comment:

    The third-century Church Father Tertullian writes: ‘Father and Son and Spirit are three, however, not in status but in rank, not in substance but in form, not in power but in appearance; they are, however, of one substance and of one status and of one power, because God is one, from whom these ranks and forms and appearances are designated in name as Father and Son and Holy Spirit.’ (Adversus Praxean; Chapter 2).

    Let's flesh things out a wee bit:

    The Fourth Lateran Council (1215) declared: ‘We firmly believe and simply confess that there is only one true God, eternal and immeasurable, almighty, unchangeable, incomprehensible and ineffable, Father, Son and Holy Spirit, three persons but one absolutely simple essence, substance or nature.’ (Constitutions: 1. Confession of faith).

    The Council of Basel (1431-45 A.D.) decreed: ‘First, then, the holy Roman church, founded on the words of our Lord and Saviour, firmly believes, professes and preaches one true God, almighty, immutable and eternal, Father, Son and holy Spirit; one in essence, three in persons……………… These three persons are one God not three gods, because there is one substance of the three, one essence, one nature, one Godhead, one immensity, one eternity……. Therefore it condemns, reproves, anathematizes and declares to be outside the body of Christ, which is the church, whoever holds opposing or contrary views. Hence it condemns Sabellius, who confused the persons and altogether removed their real distinction. It condemns the Arians, the Eunomians and the Macedonians who say that only the Father is true God and place the Son and the holy Spirit in the order of creatures. It also condemns any others who make degrees or inequalities in the Trinity.’ (Session 114).

    The Council decreed: ‘Also it holds, professes and teaches that one and the same Son of God and of man, our lord Jesus Christ, is perfect in divinity and perfect in humanity; true God and true man, of a rational soul and a body; consubstantial with the Father as regards his divinity, consubstantial with us as regards his humanity; like us in all respects except for sin; begotten before the ages from the Father, and in the last days the same born according to his humanity for us and our salvation from Mary the virgin mother of God.’ (Session 13).

    The Church teaches that the ‘Second Person of the Trinity’ (the ‘Divine Logos) is united ‘hypostatically’ to Christ, and that this union took place at the moment of his conception. It is also a doctrine of the Church that in the ‘hypostatic union’ each of Yeshua’s two natures (‘divine’ and human) continue untransformed, unimpaired and unmixed with the other; and that this ‘Union’ will never end.

    The Church teaches that Allāh (Subḥānahu ūta'āla) is ‘absolutely immutable’; that in Him there can be no change whatsoever. Not to the slightest degree. This is because He is pure spirit, pure actuality, with no potential for change.

    What needs to be explained is how the 'Second Person of the Trinity ' - pure spirit, pure actuality, with no potential for change (none whatsoever) - can become flesh (which is forever subject to change) without violating the Exalted’s immutability; without a change to His very nature.

    Speaking of the 'hypostatic union’ (some fifteen hundred years ago) Pope Leo the Great said: ‘That both substances unite themselves in one Person no speech can explain if Faith does not hold fast to it.’ (Sermon 29: part I).

    This sermon is a clear admission – an honest and humble admission of a simple truth – that the ‘hypostatic union’ cannot be explained, cannot be proven. The Catholic Church is arguably the most authoritarian religious body in the world. It has produced some of the world’s finest scholars and saints, and I admire it hugely. If the ‘hypostatic union’ could be proven (beyond any possible doubt) the Church would be shouting it from the rooftops.

    I’ve said that the Church presents Yeshua as ‘wholly man and wholly God’; and claims that this condition is ongoing, and permanent.

    There is another way of expressing this teaching: Yeshua is both wholly man and wholly not-man (God, after all, is not a man); and he will always be both wholly man and wholly not-man.

    You are probably familiar with the law of non-contradiction. It states that a thing cannot be ‘A’ and ‘not-A’ at one and the same time. This law tends to be ignored by Trinitarians when discussing the Trinity, or the natures of ‘God’ and Christ; indeed, I’ve known Trinitarians who denied that such a law exists. The Persian philosopher, Avicenna, said: ‘Anyone who denies the law of non-contradiction should be beaten and burned until he admits that to be beaten is not the same as not to be beaten, and to be burned is not the same as not to be burned.’ (Metaphysics, I.8; commenting on Aristotle).

    If we define ‘man’ as a member of the species homo-sapiens, with various physical and mental limitations, then we distinguish ‘man’ from ‘God’. If Yeshua is ‘wholly man’ then he cannot possibly be wholly not-man (‘God’) at one and the same time and in the same relationship to what defines a man. If we insist that he is indeed both ‘man’ and ‘God’ – and if we preserve the integrity of the definitions of these terms – then we make him a logical contradiction.

    The thing about logical contradictions is that they are never true. They are always false, because the real world never satisfies both a statement and its negation at the same time, simply by the meaning of negation. To believe in a logical contradiction is to believe a lie.

    I’m reminded of Orwell’s definition of ‘doublethink’:

    ‘The power of holding two contradictory beliefs in one's mind simultaneously, and accepting both of them. To tell deliberate lies while genuinely believing in them, to forget any fact that has become inconvenient, and then, when it becomes necessary again, to draw it back from oblivion for just as long as it is needed, to deny the existence of objective reality and all the while to take account of the reality which one denies…. and so on indefinitely, with the lie always one leap ahead of the truth.’ (‘Nineteen Eighty-Four; part 2, chapter 9, page 220).

    An accurate description Trinitarian behaviour, don’t you think?
    Last edited by Grandad; 08-09-2017 at 08:16 PM.
    Problems with christian theology

    'Sometimes, silence is the best answer for a fool.' (Alī ibn Abī Tālib‎)

  12. Report bad ads?
  13. #10
    tolpuddle's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jun 2017
    Gender
    Male
    Religion
    Christianity
    Posts
    45
    Threads
    0
    Reputation
    116
    Rep Power
    10
    Likes (Given)
    0
    Likes (Received)
    9

    Re: Problems with christian theology

    Quote Originally Posted by Grandad View Post
    You write:

    ‘Jesus claims to be God in John's Gospel: "Before Abraham was, I AM." He also often describes Himself as the Son of Man, a mysterious supernatural figure in the biblical book of the prophet Daniel (7:13 & 14), who enters into the Presence of the Ancient of Days (God) and is given divine and eternal authority over humanity’

    Concerning the expression ‘I am’:

    ‘Moses said to Yahweh: “When I come to the Israelites and say to them, ‘The God of your fathers has sent me to you,’ and they ask me, ‘What is His name?’ what shall I say to them?” And Yahweh said to Moses: “Ehyeh- Ašer -Ehyeh.” He continued: “Thus shall you say to the Israelites, ‘Ehyeh sent me to you.’” And Yahweh said further to Moses: “Thus shall you speak to the Israelites: The Lord, the God of your fathers, the God of Abraham, the God of Isaac, and the God of Jacob, has sent me to you.”’ (Exodus 3:13-15).

    The meaning of the Hebrew ‘ehyeh ašer-ehyeh’ is uncertain; and has been variously translated: ‘I Am That I Am’; ‘I Am Who I Am’; ‘I Will Be What I Will Be’; ‘I Am’; or ‘I Will Be’ (see: ‘The Jewish Study Bible: Second Edition’).

    If we say that the correct translation of ‘ehyeh ašer-ehyeh’ is: I Will Be What I Will Be’; then Yahweh might well be referring to what He will become; namely the Protector of the Israelites in their long journey from Egypt to the Promised Land. If we attribute this same translation to the alleged words of Yeshua (radi Allahu ‘anhu) then he is simply acknowledging that as a person he ‘existed’ in the mind of Allāh (Subḥānahu ūta'āla) as the Messiah, who one day will establish the Beloved’s true religion on Earth (Islam). Abraham will indeed rejoice to see that day, as will all of Allāh (Subḥānahu ūta'āla)'s prophets.

    Concerning the expression ‘son of man’:

    Robert Price writes: ‘(There is a) general rule of procedure: when a later gospel offers a more spectacular version of a story from the earlier, source gospel, then the less spectacular, if either, is the historical one. This is because it is always more natural to imagine the story growing in the telling, not shrinking. One might want to beef up a more modest version, but who, already possessing the spectacular version, would prefer a simpler or more mundane one? So the more spectacular is always to be judged inauthentic.' (‘Incredible Shrinking Son of Man: How Reliable Is the Gospel Tradition?’).

    By way of example: The author of ‘Mark’ has Peter say to Yeshua: ‘You are the Christ’ (8:29). The author of ‘Matthew’ (using ‘Mark’ as his source) needs a more muscular Christology. He has Peter say: ‘You are the Christ, the Son of the living God’. Yeshua is no longer simply the ‘Christ - the ‘anointed one’ - now he is the son of the God of Israel.

    What applies to a story in a source gospel applies equally well to a single verse. The term ‘son of man’ is mentioned for the first time in Psalm 8: 5: ‘What is man that you are mindful of him, and a son of man that you care for him?’

    Here the psalmist compares the limitless grandeur of Allāh (Subḥānahu ūta'āla) with the insignificance of human beings. The Exalted called the prophet Ezekiel ‘son of man’ ninety-three times. A ‘son of man’ is nothing but a human being.

    Daniel says: ‘In my vision at night I looked, and there before me was one like a son of man, coming with the clouds of heaven. He approached the Ancient of Days and was led into his presence.’ (7: 13).

    Here the ‘son of man’ is still a human being, but one whose coming will signal the end of history and the time of Allāh (Subḥānahu ūta'āla)’s judgement (8:17).

    By the time the expression ‘son of man’ hits the gospel of ‘John’ it has grown to mean something quite different.

    Robert Price writes: ‘John's gospel features numerous self-declarations of Jesus beginning with the revelation formula "I am...." The Johannine Jesus announces himself as the light of the world, the bread from heaven, the true vine, the good shepherd, the door, the way, the truth, and the life, and so on. If Jesus indeed said such things, why on earth do we hear nothing of the kind in any of the other gospels? Isn't it rather because Jesus never made any such statements, but Christian devotion predicated all these things of him? John's Jesus is a crystallization of Johannine Christian devotion, and it has remained the favorite devotional gospel for that reason. This is an important distinction, ignored by C. S. Lewis and his imitators who like to bully the skeptic by asserting that "Jesus claimed to be God."’ (‘Incredible Shrinking Son of Man: How Reliable Is the Gospel Tradition?’).


    You write: ‘Clearly, you don't understand Christian doctrines about the Trinity - neither do we, since God is above human understanding.’

    Comment:

    The third-century Church Father Tertullian writes: ‘Father and Son and Spirit are three, however, not in status but in rank, not in substance but in form, not in power but in appearance; they are, however, of one substance and of one status and of one power, because God is one, from whom these ranks and forms and appearances are designated in name as Father and Son and Holy Spirit.’ (Adversus Praxean; Chapter 2).

    Let's flesh things out a wee bit:

    The Fourth Lateran Council (1215) declared: ‘We firmly believe and simply confess that there is only one true God, eternal and immeasurable, almighty, unchangeable, incomprehensible and ineffable, Father, Son and Holy Spirit, three persons but one absolutely simple essence, substance or nature.’ (Constitutions: 1. Confession of faith).

    The Council of Basel (1431-45 A.D.) decreed: ‘First, then, the holy Roman church, founded on the words of our Lord and Saviour, firmly believes, professes and preaches one true God, almighty, immutable and eternal, Father, Son and holy Spirit; one in essence, three in persons……………… These three persons are one God not three gods, because there is one substance of the three, one essence, one nature, one Godhead, one immensity, one eternity……. Therefore it condemns, reproves, anathematizes and declares to be outside the body of Christ, which is the church, whoever holds opposing or contrary views. Hence it condemns Sabellius, who confused the persons and altogether removed their real distinction. It condemns the Arians, the Eunomians and the Macedonians who say that only the Father is true God and place the Son and the holy Spirit in the order of creatures. It also condemns any others who make degrees or inequalities in the Trinity.’ (Session 114).

    The Council decreed: ‘Also it holds, professes and teaches that one and the same Son of God and of man, our lord Jesus Christ, is perfect in divinity and perfect in humanity; true God and true man, of a rational soul and a body; consubstantial with the Father as regards his divinity, consubstantial with us as regards his humanity; like us in all respects except for sin; begotten before the ages from the Father, and in the last days the same born according to his humanity for us and our salvation from Mary the virgin mother of God.’ (Session 13).

    The Church teaches that the ‘Second Person of the Trinity’ (the ‘Divine Logos) is united ‘hypostatically’ to Christ, and that this union took place at the moment of his conception. It is also a doctrine of the Church that in the ‘hypostatic union’ each of Yeshua’s two natures (‘divine’ and human) continue untransformed, unimpaired and unmixed with the other; and that this ‘Union’ will never end.

    The Church teaches that Allāh (Subḥānahu ūta'āla) is ‘absolutely immutable’; that in Him there can be no change whatsoever. Not to the slightest degree. This is because He is pure spirit, pure actuality, with no potential for change.

    What needs to be explained is how the 'Second Person of the Trinity ' - pure spirit, pure actuality, with no potential for change (none whatsoever) - can become flesh (which is forever subject to change) without violating the Exalted’s immutability; without a change to His very nature.

    Speaking of the 'hypostatic union’ (some fifteen hundred years ago) Pope Leo the Great said: ‘That both substances unite themselves in one Person no speech can explain if Faith does not hold fast to it.’ (Sermon 29: part I).

    This sermon is a clear admission – an honest and humble admission of a simple truth – that the ‘hypostatic union’ cannot be explained, cannot be proven. The Catholic Church is arguably the most authoritarian religious body in the world. It has produced some of the world’s finest scholars and saints, and I admire it hugely. If the ‘hypostatic union’ could be proven (beyond any possible doubt) the Church would be shouting it from the rooftops.

    I’ve said that the Church presents Yeshua as ‘wholly man and wholly God’; and claims that this condition is ongoing, and permanent.

    There is another way of expressing this teaching: Yeshua is both wholly man and wholly not-man (God, after all, is not a man); and he will always be both wholly man and wholly not-man.

    You are probably familiar with the law of non-contradiction. It states that a thing cannot be ‘A’ and ‘not-A’ at one and the same time. This law tends to be ignored by Trinitarians when discussing the Trinity, or the natures of ‘God’ and Christ; indeed, I’ve known Trinitarians who denied that such a law exists. The Persian philosopher, Avicenna, said: ‘Anyone who denies the law of non-contradiction should be beaten and burned until he admits that to be beaten is not the same as not to be beaten, and to be burned is not the same as not to be burned.’ (Metaphysics, I.8; commenting on Aristotle).

    If we define ‘man’ as a member of the species homo-sapiens, with various physical and mental limitations, then we distinguish ‘man’ from ‘God’. If Yeshua is ‘wholly man’ then he cannot possibly be wholly not-man (‘God’) at one and the same time and in the same relationship to what defines a man. If we insist that he is indeed both ‘man’ and ‘God’ – and if we preserve the integrity of the definitions of these terms – then we make him a logical contradiction.

    The thing about logical contradictions is that they are never true. They are always false, because the real world never satisfies both a statement and its negation at the same time, simply by the meaning of negation. To believe in a logical contradiction is to believe a lie.

    I’m reminded of Orwell’s definition of ‘doublethink’:

    ‘The power of holding two contradictory beliefs in one's mind simultaneously, and accepting both of them. To tell deliberate lies while genuinely believing in them, to forget any fact that has become inconvenient, and then, when it becomes necessary again, to draw it back from oblivion for just as long as it is needed, to deny the existence of objective reality and all the while to take account of the reality which one denies…. and so on indefinitely, with the lie always one leap ahead of the truth.’ (‘Nineteen Eighty-Four; part 2, chapter 9, page 220).

    An accurate description Trinitarian behaviour, don’t you think?
    Regarding Jesus saying "I AM" - Those Jews who heard that remark by Jesus, had no doubt that He was claiming to Be God - hence their wish to stone Him. Jesus didn't withdraw or qualify the remark, just as when (after His Resurrection) some of the 11 Apostles fell down and worshipped Him (as God !), He made no objection to their doing so.

    Jesus referred to Himself as THE Son of Man (as in Daniel 7), not merely "a son of man" (human being). And Jesus applied it to Himself in the Present (when He was on Earth 2,000 years ago), not just to Himself at His Second Coming (at the End of the World), when He will come again as Righteous Judge.

    Richard Price was a Unitarian, not a Christian (since Christianity is trinitarian by its very nature). He was perched uncomfortably half-way between Christianity on the one hand and the unitarian religions (Judaism and Islam) on the other. Price's Unitarian Faith (basically, an attempt to have one's cake and eat it) has now almost disappeared - the fate of all false religions. And as misguided as Price's fervent belief in the French Revolution.

    When the Word of God (God as Word, the second person of the Blessed Trinity) became Incarnate (i.e "took on flesh", became a human being) in the person of Jesus of Nazareth, there was no change, no alteration, to God - since the taking-on of a human nature in no way altered the Word of God's Divine nature.

    I.e. God took on, adopted, human nature - but did NOT become human (not even partially) ! Jesus was thus both fully God AND fully human - only in His human nature was He subject to this world's changes; in His Divine nature He wasn't.

    And why not believe ? Being BOTH "A" AND "B" isn't a contradiction. Unless you WANT to believe it is. Two natures are quite different from one (self-contradicting) nature. Or do you deny that the Binary can exist ? Nor can you claim that the Blessed Trinity or the Incarnation is impossible - because "All things are possible to God." So - no logical contradiction.

    The hypostatic union cannot be explained or proven ? Well, NO statement about God can - since God is beyond our understanding, and Church doctrine is merely an attempt to do so, though a necessary one. Indeed, you cannot explain or prove even the very existence of the God of Abraham (Allah, God), as opposed to that of a mere, vague Deist God - the Supreme Being - about whom we know nothing beyond its existence.

    And this isn't a "Catholic thing" - on the Trinity, the Orthodox and Protestants are in 100% agreement with Rome; they are 100% trinitarian. So this isn't a question involving Roman / Catholic Authority.

    Your last paragraph is unworthy of the rest of your post, since it effectively compares Christianity with Marxist-Leninism, especially in its Stalinist form.

    Whatever you may think, Christian theology isn't illogical - and unlike the constantly-changing vagaries of Communist belief, has remained constant and unchanging over many centuries (as your quotes from Catholic theology prove); it doesn't leap - least of all "ahead of the truth" , since it IS the truth. Moreover, it is God's Truth.

    Those resisting the Truth are those who - however excellent and blameless their motives, sincerity and character - refuse to accept Christianity.

    - - - Updated - - -

    Regarding Prophet Mohammed's views on the Trinity, I must state my personal view that:

    1) As the Quran makes clear, he was misled - taught false doctrine - by the heretical Christians of Syria (namely that the Trinity is Father, Son and Virgin Mary).
    2) Was thus led to misunderstand the doctrine of the Trinity as such, understanding "Father" and "Son" in a partly anthropomorphic sense.

    Some of us speculate that those heretical Christians (the Collyridians) brought a curse upon the Land of Syria, one that has been tragically re-activated, now that we are in the End Times. May good for the people of Syria come about, despite the present tragedy.
    Last edited by Muhammad; 08-11-2017 at 05:32 PM.

  14. #11
    Bushwackk's Avatar
    Join Date
    May 2011
    Location
    DAWAH DIGITAL HQ
    Gender
    Male
    Religion
    Islam
    Posts
    7,356
    Threads
    129
    Reputation
    50330
    Rep Power
    79
    Likes (Given)
    8589
    Likes (Received)
    6173

    Re: Problems with christian theology

    Quote Originally Posted by tolpuddle View Post
    The hypostatic union cannot be explained or proven ?
    Can it be believed? Even by a Christian who studies theology in University?

    Find Out!



    Joshua keeps jumping those hoops n hurdles, and boy are there many... meanwhile the Muslim brother, Hamza, keeps things level!

    Scimi
    Problems with christian theology


  15. #12
    STN's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jul 2017
    Gender
    Male
    Religion
    Islam
    Posts
    115
    Threads
    7
    Reputation
    589
    Rep Power
    9
    Likes (Given)
    92
    Likes (Received)
    51

    Re: Problems with christian theology

    Quote Originally Posted by tolpuddle View Post
    ..
    What is your source for these claims ? The Bible ?. The Almighty God (Allah) has been very clear

    And indeed, there is among them a party who alter the Scripture with their tongues so you may think it is from the Scripture, but it is not from the Scripture. And they say, "This is from Allah," but it is not from Allah . And they speak untruth about Allah while they know.
    Surah Ali Imran: verse 78

    Further on, the answer is very clear of what a prophet can and can not do.

    Surah Ali Imran: verse 79-83
    It is not for a human [prophet] that Allah should give him the Scripture and authority and prophethood and then he would say to the people, "Be servants to me rather than Allah," but [instead, he would say], "Be pious scholars of the Lord because of what you have taught of the Scripture and because of what you have studied."
    Nor could he order you to take the angels and prophets as lords. Would he order you to disbelief after you had been Muslims?
    And [recall, O People of the Scripture], when Allah took the covenant of the prophets, [saying], "Whatever I give you of the Scripture and wisdom and then there comes to you a messenger confirming what is with you, you [must] believe in him and support him." [ Allah ] said, "Have you acknowledged and taken upon that My commitment?" They said, "We have acknowledged it." He said, "Then bear witness, and I am with you among the witnesses."
    And whoever turned away after that - they were the defiantly disobedient.
    So is it other than the religion of Allah they desire, while to Him have submitted [all] those within the heavens and earth, willingly or by compulsion, and to Him they will be returned?

    And whoever desires other than Islam as religion - never will it be accepted from him, and he, in the Hereafter, will be among the losers.
    Surah Ali Imran: verse 85


    Heh. If you can find content in your heart to follow a heavily corrupted book then go and do so and condemn yourself to displeasure of the Creator of the Universe Allah (SWT) because Bible is corrupted so much THEY ARE DOING THIS

    http://www.nola.com/religion/index.s..._scholars.html

    I mean just read some of the article

    "Mistakes crept in

    The earliest works — some of Paul’s Epistles — date to about the middle of the first century. Like the Gospels that followed, they were written by hand, and successors were copied by hand. Mistakes occasionally crept in."
    Last edited by STN; 08-11-2017 at 07:58 AM.

  16. #13
    Muhammad's Avatar
    Join Date
    Apr 2005
    Location
    on a Journey...
    Gender
    Male
    Religion
    Islam
    Posts
    8,818
    Threads
    203
    Reputation
    119801
    Rep Power
    151
    Likes (Given)
    427
    Likes (Received)
    3037

    Re: Problems with christian theology

    Hello tolpuddle,

    Quote Originally Posted by tolpuddle View Post
    Regarding Jesus saying "I AM" - Those Jews who heard that remark by Jesus, had no doubt that He was claiming to Be God - hence their wish to stone Him.
    It is interesting that you give credence to what the Jews claimed, when the Bible says they plotted to kill Jesus, made false charges and many bore false witness against him. In John 11 you read:
    47 So the chief priests and the Pharisees gathered the council, and said, “What are we to do? For this man performs many signs. 48 If we let him go on thus, every one will believe in him, and the Romans will come and destroy both our holy place and our nation.” 49 But one of them, Ca′iaphas, who was high priest that year, said to them, “You know nothing at all; 50 you do not understand that it is expedient for you that one man should die for the people, and that the whole nation should not perish.”

    They were already intent to do away with him because he was a perceived danger, so a verdict was passed even before the trial took place.

    In Matthew 27, Pilate questions him, 13..."Do you not hear how many things they testify against you?” 14 But he gave him no answer, not even to a single charge. Despite this, 18 ...he knew that it was out of envy that they had delivered him up.

    In John 10:
    31 The Jews took up stones again to stone him. 32 Jesus answered them, “I have shown you many good works from the Father; for which of these do you stone me?” 33 The Jews answered him, “It is not for a good work that we stone you but for blasphemy; because you, being a man, make yourself God.” 34 Jesus answered them, “Is it not written in your law, ‘I said, you are gods’? 35 If he called them gods to whom the word of God came (and scripture cannot be broken), 36 do you say of him whom the Father consecrated and sent into the world, ‘You are blaspheming,’ because I said, ‘I am the Son of God’?

    Here, the Jews found fault with the term 'Son of God' and picked up stones to stone him. Yet, the Bible says Jesus qualified his remark as not actually deifying himself, thus showing that they understood something that he didn't mean.


    just as when (after His Resurrection) some of the 11 Apostles fell down and worshipped Him (as God !), He made no objection to their doing so.
    Please see:
    http://www.call-to-monotheism.com/bu...ullah_al_kadhi

    Jesus referred to Himself as THE Son of Man (as in Daniel 7), not merely "a son of man" (human being). And Jesus applied it to Himself in the Present (when He was on Earth 2,000 years ago), not just to Himself at His Second Coming (at the End of the World), when He will come again as Righteous Judge.
    I have edited this part of your post. Please do not call Jesus 'Allah' because, as you know, that is disbelief according to Islam.

    As for 'the son of man', the Bible says in Job 25:
    4 How then can man be righteous before God?
    How can he who is born of woman be clean?
    5 Behold, even the moon is not bright
    and the stars are not clean in his sight;
    6 how much less man, who is a maggot,
    and the son of man, who is a worm!”


    Regarding Prophet Mohammed's views on the Trinity, I must state my personal view that:

    1) As the Quran makes clear, he was misled - taught false doctrine - by the heretical Christians of Syria (namely that the Trinity is Father, Son and Virgin Mary).
    The following address this issue:

    Muslims belief about Trinity
    http://www.islamic-awareness.org/Qur.../marytrin.html
    https://islamphobia.wordpress.com/20...nity-in-quran/
    https://discover-the-truth.com/2013/...pped-as-a-god/


    2) Was thus led to misunderstand the doctrine of the Trinity as such, understanding "Father" and "Son" in a partly anthropomorphic sense.
    So when Christians allege Jesus was 'begotten, not made,' that isn't anthropomorphism?
    Problems with christian theology




  17. #14
    Muhammad's Avatar
    Join Date
    Apr 2005
    Location
    on a Journey...
    Gender
    Male
    Religion
    Islam
    Posts
    8,818
    Threads
    203
    Reputation
    119801
    Rep Power
    151
    Likes (Given)
    427
    Likes (Received)
    3037

    Re: Problems with christian theology

    I thought I would respond to this part as well:

    When the Word of God (God as Word, the second person of the Blessed Trinity) became Incarnate (i.e "took on flesh", became a human being) in the person of Jesus of Nazareth, there was no change, no alteration, to God - since the taking-on of a human nature in no way altered the Word of God's Divine nature.

    I.e. God took on, adopted, human nature - but did NOT become human (not even partially) ! Jesus was thus both fully God AND fully human - only in His human nature was He subject to this world's changes; in His Divine nature He wasn't.
    The idea of Jesus having two natures arose because Trinitarians needed to account for the many verses in the Bible that so clearly represent Jesus as a man and disqualify him from being God. You say he became a human being yet there was no alteration to God. That sounds like a very big alteration. For God to adopt human nature - being born of a human, being circumcised, feeling hunger, thirst, temptation, tiredness and so on - how can that be anything but a huge change?

    And why not believe ? Being BOTH "A" AND "B" isn't a contradiction. Unless you WANT to believe it is. Two natures are quite different from one (self-contradicting) nature. Or do you deny that the Binary can exist ? Nor can you claim that the Blessed Trinity or the Incarnation is impossible - because "All things are possible to God." So - no logical contradiction.
    The law of contradiction, as stated above, is that something cannot be ‘A’ and ‘not-A’ at one and the same time. It is not about being both A and B.

    What you are saying is that Jesus is not just a man but was, in fact, both man and God (a God-Man, or a Man-God, whichever you prefer). Yet the nature of God and the nature of man are wholly incompatible and therefore the two cannot coexist as one. Either the deity of Jesus must be diminished by his humanity or his humanity must be elevated by his deity. Still, if he is diminished or elevated, he is no longer fully either. It’s like trying to fill a glass with milk up to the brim and then filling that same glass with an equal amount of water. This is impossible because both substances require the same full volume of the glass. The best one can do is to fill the glass with 50% of each milk and water, but that is not what the doctrine of God-Man requires.

    How can it be that the same mind consequently is both created and uncreated, both finite and infinite, both dependent and independent, both changeable and unchangeable, both mortal and immortal, both susceptible of pain and incapable of it, both able to do all things and not able, both acquainted with all things and not acquainted with them?

    All of this confusion can be avoided if we understand Jesus as a human—a noble Prophet sent by God, granted miracles and revelation. There is nothing complicated about that. On the other hand, your entire faith depends on a man dying for your sins, yet, if the whole Jesus did not really die, then the whole of your sins are not really paid for. Thanks be to God who would not leave us in such a predicament.

    If Jesus had not really assumed human nature, he could not actually redeem humanity, since he seemed to be aloof from it. Yet if he had taken on human nature, did this not threaten his divinity from which salvation would necessarily come forth? But even if both ‘natures’ were maintained, how could they ever be joined to form one being? Would not a savior composed of two ‘natures’ almost resemble a monster, totally unlike a truly divine or truly human being? One can easily imagine that questions like these defied easy answers or simple solutions.

    Hans Schwarz, Christology, (Grand Rapids, MI: Wm. B. Eerdmans Publishing Co., 1998), 138.


    The hypostatic union cannot be explained or proven ? Well, NO statement about God can - since God is beyond our understanding, and Church doctrine is merely an attempt to do so, though a necessary one. Indeed, you cannot explain or prove even the very existence of the God of Abraham (Allah, God), as opposed to that of a mere, vague Deist God - the Supreme Being - about whom we know nothing beyond its existence.
    Typically when the trinity cannot be explained, the Trinitarian brings forth the language of mystery in order to retreat from the imposing threat of logic. Often, it is said, “How can we possibly expect to know the deep mysteries of God, being that we are mere mortals?” The response is that such an inquiry is not into the deep mysteries of who God is and how He works; rather, we are simply trying to determine if the model of the Trinity is contradictory in and of itself. It is not God who insists we think of Him in the terms used in this Trinitarian creed. Besides, is it even possible to genuinely believe in a contradiction? For example, if I honestly believe that I am both fat and thin at the same time and in the same sense, then would I go on a diet or not? The result of believing a contradiction is paralyzing. If I truly believed both that I should diet and that I should not go on a diet, then what is the result? Confusion. Thus, to facilitate faith in God, we would be wise to avoid defining God as a contradiction.

    You ask how we know about Allah. The Prophet Muhammad came with the Final Revelation from God. This Revelation makes clear the pristine and pure creed of monotheism, taught by all the Prophets and Messengers of God. It is logical, simple and appeals to our innate nature of being monotheists. This Revelation still remains intact today, recited without any change whatsoever. On the other hand, there is not a single document from the time of Jesus that exists today. We only have "gospels" from one or two generations later, written by unknown authors. There are many contradictions in them and NONE of them are written in the language that Jesus spoke. It is no wonder that Christians are left with a contradicting, illogical creed that they struggle to explain.
    Last edited by Muhammad; 08-11-2017 at 09:10 PM.
    3 | Likes happymuslim, Grandad, Insaanah liked this post
    Problems with christian theology




  18. Report bad ads?
  19. #15
    Grandad's Avatar
    Join Date
    Feb 2017
    Gender
    Male
    Religion
    Islam
    Posts
    191
    Threads
    1
    Reputation
    1314
    Rep Power
    11
    Likes (Given)
    313
    Likes (Received)
    223

    Re: Problems with christian theology

    Quote Originally Posted by tolpuddle View Post
    .....
    Thank you for your comments.

    You write: ‘Jesus referred to Himself as THE Son of Man (as in Daniel 7), not merely "a son of man" (human being).

    I note how you capitalise certain words: ‘Himself’; ‘Son of Man’, in a vain attempt to add verisimilitude to the notion that Yeshua (radi Allahu ‘anhu) was divine. Unfortunately for you, the Tanakh - the only scripture he knew - was written in Hebrew and Aramaic, neither of which contains the capital letter.

    The Hebrew expression ‘son of man’ (ben-'adam) appears one hundred and seven times in the Tanakh; and on every single occasion is used to denote humankind as fundamentally different from Yahweh; with special reference to our weakness and frailty. It is never used…..never…..to denote the Almighty Himself. And Yeshua, being a Jew, would have known this.

    The expression first appears in Numbers: ‘God is no man ('iysh) that he should lie, no son of Adam (ben-'adam) to draw back. Is it his to say and not to do, to speak and not fulfil? (23:19).

    In the Psalms the expression is used to describe humankind as a whole: ‘I look up at your heavens, made by your fingers, at the moon and stars you set in place - ah, what is man ('enosh) that you should spare a thought for him, the son of man (ben-'adam) that you should care for him? Yet you have made him little less than a god, you have crowned him with glory and splendour.’ (8:3-5).

    Concerning Daniel:

    Adele Berlin and Marc Zvi Brettler write: ‘The different status of Daniel in Judaism and Christianity is thus reflected in the position of the book in the two canons. In the Christian Old Testament Daniel is placed with the major prophets, Isaiah, Jeremiah, and Ezekiel, while in the Jewish Scriptures it is placed with the Kethuvim, or Writings. (Additional factors, including the late date of the book, may have also played a role in the book’s placement in Kethuvim rather than in Prophets.).’ (‘The Jewish Study Bible: Second Edition’).

    The Kethuvim were not included in the prophetic collection either because they did not fit the content or the historical-philosophical framework of that collection; or because they were originally seen as purely human and not divine writings; or simply because they were written too late for inclusion.

    According to the Dominican scholars of the École Biblique de Jerusalem - producers of the Jerusalem Bible: ‘The Book of Daniel is no longer part of the true prophetic tradition. It does not contain the preaching of a prophet commissioned by God with a message for his contemporise, but was composed and committed to writing by an author who concealed his identity under a pseudonym.’ (‘Jerusalem Bible).

    Here is the section of Daniel you refer to: ‘I gazed into the visions of the night. And I saw, coming on the clouds of heaven, one like a man (kibar 'anash). He came to the one of great age and was led into his presence. On him was conferred sovereignty, glory and kingship, and men of all peoples, nations and languages became his servants. His sovereignty is an eternal sovereignty which shall never pass away, nor will his empire ever be destroyed.’ (7:13-14).

    Daniel 7 is written in Biblical Aramaic. Note the expression ‘kibar 'anash’ - ‘one like a man’. In order to portray a ‘son of man’ the expression ‘bar enash’ would have had to be used.

    In order to justify their theology, Christians have corrupted the text to read ‘son of man’, or rather ‘Son of man’! Even so, the scholars École Biblique state that the person referred to in 7:13 is: ‘Not the Davidic Messiah.’ (‘Jerusalem Bible).

    Rabbi Shlomo Yitzhaki (known as Rashi) ranks as one of the most influential Jewish commentators. He stated that the ‘one like a man (kibar 'anash)’ who is coming was the ‘Jewish King Messiah’, and not the (‘divine’) Messiah of the Christians. (cf. Jewish Enclyclopedia).

    There is a consensus among Jewish scholars that the ‘man’ in question is meant to be Israel itself; but there is a difference of opinion as to whether this is a personification of the people, or an actual personality representing Israel, such as the Messiah or Israel's guardian angel; Michael.

    The expression ‘son of man’ does not appear in any of the works attributed to Paul (who was writing before the Gospels existed); but is used eighty-one times in the Gospels themselves. Yeshua spoke Aramaic (the common language throughout Palestine in his day) and could never have designated himself ‘bar enash’ in a divine sense (as a claim to be God), since the expression never implied this meaning. Even if he had used this expression as a substitute for ‘I’m God’ his listeners would have simply taken him to mean ‘I’m a human being’, or even ‘It’s me!’ In the Tanakh the expression ‘son of man’ is used many times in the sense of ‘myself’, or ‘that person’. I am a son of man; and so are you; and so is everyone else!

    The question to be answered is why would ‘the Word made Flesh’ be so poor a communicator as to claim divinity in a manner his audience would not have understood? Why did he not say: ‘I am Alaha (or ʼĔlāhā); meaning, of course: ‘I am God’? Would this really have been too difficult? May we be forgiven for thinking that the reason he did not say these words is because he knew them to be false?

    When Yeshua claims that the ‘son of man’ has no place to rest his head (Matthew 8:20) he is doing nothing more than using the first-person singular nominative case personal pronoun ‘I’. And every one of his listeners would have realised that. Of course, none of them were Christians. None of them were influenced by (corrupted by) the Christology of the Church.

    In verses such as Matthew 12:8 - ‘For the son of man ‘bar enash’ is master of the Sabbath’ the term merely denotes humankind as master over the Sabbath. The same sense is given in the sayings of the Rabbis: ‘The Sabbath is given over to you, but not you to the Sabbath.’ (Mekhilta; Ki Tissa 1).

    Kaufmann Kohler writes: ‘Greek translators coined the phrase, which then led, under the influence of Daniel 7:13 and the Logos gospel, to the theological construction of the title which is basic to the Christology of the Church.’ (Article in the Jewish Enclyclopedia).

    Rabbi Abbahu, who had many disputations with the Christian community in Cæsarea, and well understood their theology said: ‘If a man says “I am God” he lies; if he says “I am the son of man' he will repent; if he says, 'I will ascend to heaven' he will not succeed.’ (Quoted in the Jewish Enclyclopedia).

    - - - Updated - - -

    You write: ‘Regarding Jesus saying "I AM" - Those Jews who heard that remark by Jesus, had no doubt that He was claiming to Be God - hence their wish to stone Him. Jesus didn't withdraw or qualify the remark,

    You’re capitalising again!

    The idea that the Jews attempted to stone Yeshua because he was claiming to be God (John 8:59) is pure nonsense.

    At his ‘trial’ (and there’s a lot wrong with the Gospel accounts of this, as we shall see, in šāʾ Allāh) the High Priest is alleged to have said: ‘Tell us if you are the Christ, the Son of God.’ (Matt. 26:63).

    It must be noted that the word ‘Christ’ would not have been used; since this is a Greek word, and the High Priest would have spoken in Aramaic (I’ve already mentioned that this was the lingua franca of Palestine in the time of Yeshua). His words are more likely to have been closer to: ‘Tell us if you are meshiaḥ Alaha (or ʼĔlāhā)’.

    This, of course, is a reference to Allāh (Subḥānahu ūta'āla)’s anointed one; for the Jews, the name or title of the ideal king of the Messianic age. You must know that the Jews of that time yearned for their promised deliverer; the one who would free them from the hated Romans. The one who would establish a reign of peace and justice in its place.

    The title ‘son of Alaha’ (or ʼĔlāhā); does not imply divinity. According to the Jews it belonged to anyone whose piety placed him in a filial relation to Alaha; a ‘saint’, if you like.

    It is clear, therefore, that no one at this trial is asking Yeshua if he is ‘God’. Had they thought, even for a moment, that he was making such a claim they would certainly have done so. They did believe, on the other hand, that he was claiming to be Alaha’s anointed one. They didn’t believe he was (and they still don’t) that is why they thought him worthy of death.

    - - - Updated - - -

    Concerning your statement that Richard Price is a ‘Unitarian, not a Christian’ (with the implied accusation that, as such, his theology sucks).

    Had to smile at this.

    About fifty years ago I had a Biblical Unitarian colleague. He was older than I, and very well versed in the Bible (I had to keep referring to mine; while his was already in his head).

    We had many conversations about various aspects of biblical theology. I was, of course, much younger then, and rather fiery. One day, in a fit of sheer frustration, I grabbed my bible (KJV) and held it under his nose. ‘This is my book’, I cried. ‘What’s yours?’ With a smile he took the bible from my hands, very gently, and said: ‘This!’

    I was stunned. How could this man read the very same bible; the very same books; the very same chapters, verses and words as I did and not believe what I believed? The truth, of course, is that Biblical Unitarians have studied the same manuscripts and the same bibles - and for just as many centuries - as their Trinitarian opposites.

    And so the question to ask of Dr. Richard M. Price is not: ‘Is he a uni or a trini?’; but rather: ‘Is he a biblical scholar?’

    Well, he does hold two PhDs; one in Systematic Theology and one in New Testament. He was pastor of the First Baptist Church in Montclair, New Jersey; a Professor of Religion at Mount Olive College; Professor of Theology and Scriptural Studies at the Jonnie Coleman Theological Seminary; and Professor of Biblical Criticism for the Centre for Inquiry Institute. I guess that qualifies him for the title ‘biblical scholar’.

    By the way, he is neither a uni nor a trini…. He believes that the Jesus of the Bible is an invented figure. And he does so, largely because the Gospels are such a mess; such a hotchpotch of invention; forgery; historical inaccuracy; and contradiction that the real Jesus is no longer to be seen there.

    One example will do. Let’s return to Yeshua’s reported trial:

    Since the 18th century Jewish scholars have recorded problems with this trial. Haim Cohn, a Justice of the Supreme Court of Israel, and a scholar of Jewish legal history, using information from various scholarly sources concerning the law and procedures (both Jewish and Roman) pertaining at the time, found that even where the Gospel writers agree with each other, on point after point their claims are wrong. (cf. ‘The Trial and Death of Jesus’; page 98; see also pages 112-13).

    Here are some of the violations that make Gospel accounts of this trial a farce: Meeting by night; holding a trial in a private home; conducting a trial in secret; the High Priest acting as interrogator; the High Priest striking the defendant; the failure of witnesses to agree; mocking and beating the prisoner; neglecting the Passover.

    And as for the portrayal of Pilate; well, this is pure Monty Python. All Gospel accounts portray him as some kind of indecisive lightweight, easily swayed by the mob; anxious to free Yeshua - in whom he ‘saw no wrong’ - but too weak and feeble to do so. He pleads; he scuttles back and forth; he allows the mob to push him around. When they threaten to rat him out to Caesar if he refused their demands, he caves in!

    What a wimp!

    The fact is that Pilate, like his master Tiberius, was an arrogant, ruthless despot. Philo of Alexandria described him as ‘naturally inflexible and stubbornly relentless.’ He committed ‘acts of corruption, insults, rapine, outrages on the people, arrogance, repeated murders of innocent victims, and constant and most galling savagery.’ (‘Legatio ad Gaium 301; as cited in Cohn, page 15, note 46).

    Josephus (a far better historian than any of the Gospel writers) describes him as: ‘Extremely offensive, cruel and corrupt.’ (Eerdman’s ‘Dictionary of the Bible’). He had absolutely no problem at all killing Jews, nor would he have lost any sleep over it. Innocent or not, what did it matter to him. They were Jews; and under his command scores of them were massacred - such as recorded in Josephus’ Antiquities: Volume 18.2 - when his soldiers, disguised in local dress and armed with knives, slipped into a crowd of protestors and, on his command, killed everyone they could catch (Josephus says they killed ‘a great number’), protestors as well as innocent bystanders.

    A wimp?

    The notion that Pilate would get it in the neck from Caesar if he did not execute Yeshua is risible; and could not be further from the truth. When Pilate was finally recalled to Rome (36 CE) it was not because of any reluctance on his part to butcher the enemies of Rome, but for his slaughter of a band of Samaritan pilgrims on their way to the sacred Mount Gerizim. (Cohn: page 10 - citing Blinzler: ‘Der Prozess Jesu’; pages 35-36).

    Telling Pilate how to behave was guaranteed to get you killed. Justice Cohn makes this abundantly clear: ‘Any Jew who dared to remind the governor of his duty toward the emperor, or to hint at more fervid patriotism, would not be let live another hour. (Cohn: page 17.)

    According to John (18:31) the Jews bring Yeshua to Pilate for execution on the pretext that was: ‘Not lawful for (them) to put any man to death.’ This is false. As for his ‘pre-trial’ and alleged handing over to the Romans, Cohn writes: ‘There is not a single instance recorded anywhere of the Great or Small Sanhedrin ever acting as a investigatory agent of the Romans.’ (ibid; page 109).

    In yet another mistake, John states that the Jews could not enter Pilate’s Praetorium because they would be defiled (18:28). Cohn reminds us that: ‘Nothing in Jewish law or ritual, however, would support the contention that by entering the king’s – or anybody’s – place or a courtroom a Jew could become unpure.’ (ibid; page 147).

    We are told that the Jews had a custom of freeing a prisoner on Passover. There was no such custom. Nor is there any evidence that the Romans had any such customary pardon either. What is more, the very notion that Pilate would offer to release a convicted murderer and anti-Roman insurrectionist (even if there were such a custom) is risible! There have been many attempts (involving searches of both Roman and Jewish records) to justify the historical truth of the so-called ‘Privilegium Paschale’, but without success. (Paul Winter: ‘On the Trial of Jesus’: page 131).

    (By the way, if the Sanhedrin had truly asked Pilate for the death penalty, it would have been death by stoning, as the Taurat required (Mishnah Sanhedrin 6: 4h and i).

    Anyway, to get back to Price. This is what he writes:

    ‘(There is a) general rule of procedure: when a later gospel offers a more spectacular version of a story from the earlier, source gospel, then the less spectacular, if either, is the historical one. This is because it is always more natural to imagine the story growing in the telling, not shrinking. One might want to beef up a more modest version, but who, already possessing the spectacular version, would prefer a simpler or more mundane one? So the more spectacular is always to be judged inauthentic……………John's gospel features numerous self-declarations of Jesus beginning with the revelation formula "I am...." The Johannine Jesus announces himself as the light of the world, the bread from heaven, the true vine, the good shepherd, the door, the way, the truth, and the life, and so on. If Jesus indeed said such things, why on earth do we hear nothing of the kind in any of the other gospels? Isn't it rather because Jesus never made any such statements, but Christian devotion predicated all these things of him? John's Jesus is a crystallization of Johannine Christian devotion, and it has remained the favorite devotional gospel for that reason. This is an important distinction, ignored by C. S. Lewis and his imitators who like to bully the skeptic by asserting that "Jesus claimed to be God."’ (‘Incredible Shrinking Son of Man: How Reliable Is the Gospel Tradition?’).

    If you don’t know the truth of what he says then you have not studied your Bible well enough.

    - - - Updated - - -

    You write: ‘Being BOTH "A" AND "B" isn't a contradiction. Unless you WANT to believe it is.

    My brother Muhammad has written an admirable response to this statement (see Post 14). Allow me to approach the matter from a different angle. Let’s try a little game (anyone can join in):

    Take your left hand and make a fist….as tight as you can. Let’s call this fist ‘A’.

    Now spread your hand as wide as you can. Let’s call this ‘B’.

    Now close and open; close and open; close and open; then close. Great! ‘A’, then ‘B’, then ‘A’; then ‘B’; then ‘A’.

    Here we have a process, devoid of any logical contradiction. What, you may ask, is the essential ingredient that makes this process possible? Time. ‘A’ and ‘B’ are happening at different times.

    The law of non-contradiction states that nothing (nothing at all) can be both ‘A’ and ‘not-A’ at one and the same time. We could substitute ‘not-A’ for ‘B’, of course, but let’s leave things as they are.

    Okay, you have a clenched fist (‘A’). Now try and achieve both ‘A’ and ‘B’ at one and the same time (in effect, by removing time from the process). You can’t. Nobody can. This is the law of non-contradiction at work.

    Do you ‘WANT to believe’ that your hand is both closed and open? Go ahead.

    Now consider the doctrine of the ‘hypostatic union’:

    You have a clenched fist (‘A’). Imagine that this is Yeshua; and that your open hand (‘B’) is the ‘Second Person of the Trinity’.

    There is nothing illogical in saying that ‘A’ can switch to ‘B’ (or ‘B’ to ‘A’); and back again from one moment in time to another (just like opening and closing your fist). But that is not what the doctrine is saying.

    The doctrine states that ‘A’ is both ‘A’ and ‘B’ at one and the same time. But we have shown that this can’t happen. It is a logical impossibility. The doctrine also says that ‘B’ is both ‘B’ and ‘A’ at one and the same time. Again, a logical impossibility.

    The doctrine is a lie simply because it contains these logical contradictions. Anyone who believes otherwise is a victim of doublethink: ‘The act of simultaneously accepting two mutually contradictory beliefs as correct,’…(nowt to do with ‘Marxist-Leninism’, as you claim. Everything to do with logic).

    By the way, doublethinkers are not trying to deceive. They really do believe that what they are saying is true. But it can’t be true….anymore than taking your clenched fist and spreading it wide…….while at the same time keeping it clenched can be true.

    That’s the law of non-contradiction for you.

    - - - Updated - - -

    You write: ‘All things are possible to God’; and again: ‘Second Person of the Trinity became flesh there was no change’

    To state that ‘all things are possible to God’ is very bad theology. Here’s what one of your own (Matt Slick) has to say:

    ‘God cannot do everything. God is holy, and He cannot sin. The Bible tells us He cannot lie (Hebrews 6:18; Titus 1:2). Also, since God is eternal by nature (Psalm 90:2), He cannot stop being God. He cannot deny Himself (2 Tim. 2:13). God cannot be tempted by evil, nor does He tempt anyone with evil (James 1:13).

    ‘The truth is that God must be consistent with His own nature, and He cannot violate His own nature. Therefore, God cannot lie, cannot stop being God, cannot deny Himself, and cannot be tempted by evil. Why? Because He is God’. (Article in his Forum).

    Slick is correct. But now, take a closer look at this: ‘The truth is that God must be consistent with His own nature, and He cannot violate His own nature’.

    Slick, of course, is still correct.

    Unfortunately, he believes (with you) that when the ‘Second Person of the Trinity became flesh there was no change’.

    Water becomes ice. Change. Youth becomes age. Change. Day becomes night. Change. The ‘Second Person of the Trinity’ becomes flesh. No change. What???

    Let’s see it again: ‘The truth is that God must be consistent with His own nature, and He cannot violate His own nature’.

    The nature of God: He is spirit…………He is immutable…….He is infinite………He is omnipotent…………He is God!

    The nature of man: He is corporeal…..He is mutable…….He is finite……..He is weak……..He is not God!

    Question:

    How could God (pure spirit) and absolutely immutable, become flesh without a change of nature?

    Answer:

    Not possible. It is not ‘consistent with His own nature’, and He ‘cannot violate His own nature.’

    To believe that God can be both spirit and not-spirit at one at the same time makes him a logical contradiction (see above).
    Last edited by Grandad; 08-13-2017 at 04:14 PM.
    Problems with christian theology

    'Sometimes, silence is the best answer for a fool.' (Alī ibn Abī Tālib‎)

  20. #16
    tolpuddle's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jun 2017
    Gender
    Male
    Religion
    Christianity
    Posts
    45
    Threads
    0
    Reputation
    116
    Rep Power
    10
    Likes (Given)
    0
    Likes (Received)
    9

    Re: Problems with christian theology

    Quote Originally Posted by Grandad View Post
    Thank you for your comments.

    You write: ‘Jesus referred to Himself as THE Son of Man (as in Daniel 7), not merely "a son of man" (human being).

    I note how you capitalise certain words: ‘Himself’; ‘Son of Man’, in a vain attempt to add verisimilitude to the notion that Yeshua (radi Allahu ‘anhu) was divine. Unfortunately for you, the Tanakh - the only scripture he knew - was written in Hebrew and Aramaic, neither of which contains the capital letter.

    The Hebrew expression ‘son of man’ (ben-'adam) appears one hundred and seven times in the Tanakh; and on every single occasion is used to denote humankind as fundamentally different from Yahweh; with special reference to our weakness and frailty. It is never used…..never…..to denote the Almighty Himself. And Yeshua, being a Jew, would have known this.

    The expression first appears in Numbers: ‘God is no man ('iysh) that he should lie, no son of Adam (ben-'adam) to draw back. Is it his to say and not to do, to speak and not fulfil? (23:19).

    In the Psalms the expression is used to describe humankind as a whole: ‘I look up at your heavens, made by your fingers, at the moon and stars you set in place - ah, what is man ('enosh) that you should spare a thought for him, the son of man (ben-'adam) that you should care for him? Yet you have made him little less than a god, you have crowned him with glory and splendour.’ (8:3-5).

    Concerning Daniel:

    Adele Berlin and Marc Zvi Brettler write: ‘The different status of Daniel in Judaism and Christianity is thus reflected in the position of the book in the two canons. In the Christian Old Testament Daniel is placed with the major prophets, Isaiah, Jeremiah, and Ezekiel, while in the Jewish Scriptures it is placed with the Kethuvim, or Writings. (Additional factors, including the late date of the book, may have also played a role in the book’s placement in Kethuvim rather than in Prophets.).’ (‘The Jewish Study Bible: Second Edition’).

    The Kethuvim were not included in the prophetic collection either because they did not fit the content or the historical-philosophical framework of that collection; or because they were originally seen as purely human and not divine writings; or simply because they were written too late for inclusion.

    According to the Dominican scholars of the École Biblique de Jerusalem - producers of the Jerusalem Bible: ‘The Book of Daniel is no longer part of the true prophetic tradition. It does not contain the preaching of a prophet commissioned by God with a message for his contemporise, but was composed and committed to writing by an author who concealed his identity under a pseudonym.’ (‘Jerusalem Bible).

    Here is the section of Daniel you refer to: ‘I gazed into the visions of the night. And I saw, coming on the clouds of heaven, one like a man (kibar 'anash). He came to the one of great age and was led into his presence. On him was conferred sovereignty, glory and kingship, and men of all peoples, nations and languages became his servants. His sovereignty is an eternal sovereignty which shall never pass away, nor will his empire ever be destroyed.’ (7:13-14).

    Daniel 7 is written in Biblical Aramaic. Note the expression ‘kibar 'anash’ - ‘one like a man’. In order to portray a ‘son of man’ the expression ‘bar enash’ would have had to be used.

    In order to justify their theology, Christians have corrupted the text to read ‘son of man’, or rather ‘Son of man’! Even so, the scholars École Biblique state that the person referred to in 7:13 is: ‘Not the Davidic Messiah.’ (‘Jerusalem Bible).

    Rabbi Shlomo Yitzhaki (known as Rashi) ranks as one of the most influential Jewish commentators. He stated that the ‘one like a man (kibar 'anash)’ who is coming was the ‘Jewish King Messiah’, and not the (‘divine’) Messiah of the Christians. (cf. Jewish Enclyclopedia).

    There is a consensus among Jewish scholars that the ‘man’ in question is meant to be Israel itself; but there is a difference of opinion as to whether this is a personification of the people, or an actual personality representing Israel, such as the Messiah or Israel's guardian angel; Michael.

    The expression ‘son of man’ does not appear in any of the works attributed to Paul (who was writing before the Gospels existed); but is used eighty-one times in the Gospels themselves. Yeshua spoke Aramaic (the common language throughout Palestine in his day) and could never have designated himself ‘bar enash’ in a divine sense (as a claim to be God), since the expression never implied this meaning. Even if he had used this expression as a substitute for ‘I’m God’ his listeners would have simply taken him to mean ‘I’m a human being’, or even ‘It’s me!’ In the Tanakh the expression ‘son of man’ is used many times in the sense of ‘myself’, or ‘that person’. I am a son of man; and so are you; and so is everyone else!

    The question to be answered is why would ‘the Word made Flesh’ be so poor a communicator as to claim divinity in a manner his audience would not have understood? Why did he not say: ‘I am Alaha (or ʼĔlāhā); meaning, of course: ‘I am God’? Would this really have been too difficult? May we be forgiven for thinking that the reason he did not say these words is because he knew them to be false?

    When Yeshua claims that the ‘son of man’ has no place to rest his head (Matthew 8:20) he is doing nothing more than using the first-person singular nominative case personal pronoun ‘I’. And every one of his listeners would have realised that. Of course, none of them were Christians. None of them were influenced by (corrupted by) the Christology of the Church.

    In verses such as Matthew 12:8 - ‘For the son of man ‘bar enash’ is master of the Sabbath’ the term merely denotes humankind as master over the Sabbath. The same sense is given in the sayings of the Rabbis: ‘The Sabbath is given over to you, but not you to the Sabbath.’ (Mekhilta; Ki Tissa 1).

    Kaufmann Kohler writes: ‘Greek translators coined the phrase, which then led, under the influence of Daniel 7:13 and the Logos gospel, to the theological construction of the title which is basic to the Christology of the Church.’ (Article in the Jewish Enclyclopedia).

    Rabbi Abbahu, who had many disputations with the Christian community in Cæsarea, and well understood their theology said: ‘If a man says “I am God” he lies; if he says “I am the son of man' he will repent; if he says, 'I will ascend to heaven' he will not succeed.’ (Quoted in the Jewish Enclyclopedia).

    - - - Updated - - -

    You write: ‘Regarding Jesus saying "I AM" - Those Jews who heard that remark by Jesus, had no doubt that He was claiming to Be God - hence their wish to stone Him. Jesus didn't withdraw or qualify the remark,

    You’re capitalising again!

    The idea that the Jews attempted to stone Yeshua because he was claiming to be God (John 8:59) is pure nonsense.

    At his ‘trial’ (and there’s a lot wrong with the Gospel accounts of this, as we shall see, in šāʾ Allāh) the High Priest is alleged to have said: ‘Tell us if you are the Christ, the Son of God.’ (Matt. 26:63).

    It must be noted that the word ‘Christ’ would not have been used; since this is a Greek word, and the High Priest would have spoken in Aramaic (I’ve already mentioned that this was the lingua franca of Palestine in the time of Yeshua). His words are more likely to have been closer to: ‘Tell us if you are meshiaḥ Alaha (or ʼĔlāhā)’.

    This, of course, is a reference to Allāh (Subḥānahu ūta'āla)’s anointed one; for the Jews, the name or title of the ideal king of the Messianic age. You must know that the Jews of that time yearned for their promised deliverer; the one who would free them from the hated Romans. The one who would establish a reign of peace and justice in its place.

    The title ‘son of Alaha’ (or ʼĔlāhā); does not imply divinity. According to the Jews it belonged to anyone whose piety placed him in a filial relation to Alaha; a ‘saint’, if you like.

    It is clear, therefore, that no one at this trial is asking Yeshua if he is ‘God’. Had they thought, even for a moment, that he was making such a claim they would certainly have done so. They did believe, on the other hand, that he was claiming to be Alaha’s anointed one. They didn’t believe he was (and they still don’t) that is why they thought him worthy of death.

    - - - Updated - - -

    Concerning your statement that Richard Price is a ‘Unitarian, not a Christian’ (with the implied accusation that, as such, his theology sucks).

    Had to smile at this.

    About fifty years ago I had a Biblical Unitarian colleague. He was older than I, and very well versed in the Bible (I had to keep referring to mine; while his was already in his head).

    We had many conversations about various aspects of biblical theology. I was, of course, much younger then, and rather fiery. One day, in a fit of sheer frustration, I grabbed my bible (KJV) and held it under his nose. ‘This is my book’, I cried. ‘What’s yours?’ With a smile he took the bible from my hands, very gently, and said: ‘This!’

    I was stunned. How could this man read the very same bible; the very same books; the very same chapters, verses and words as I did and not believe what I believed? The truth, of course, is that Biblical Unitarians have studied the same manuscripts and the same bibles - and for just as many centuries - as their Trinitarian opposites.

    And so the question to ask of Dr. Richard M. Price is not: ‘Is he a uni or a trini?’; but rather: ‘Is he a biblical scholar?’

    Well, he does hold two PhDs; one in Systematic Theology and one in New Testament. He was pastor of the First Baptist Church in Montclair, New Jersey; a Professor of Religion at Mount Olive College; Professor of Theology and Scriptural Studies at the Jonnie Coleman Theological Seminary; and Professor of Biblical Criticism for the Centre for Inquiry Institute. I guess that qualifies him for the title ‘biblical scholar’.

    By the way, he is neither a uni nor a trini…. He believes that the Jesus of the Bible is an invented figure. And he does so, largely because the Gospels are such a mess; such a hotchpotch of invention; forgery; historical inaccuracy; and contradiction that the real Jesus is no longer to be seen there.

    One example will do. Let’s return to Yeshua’s reported trial:

    Since the 18th century Jewish scholars have recorded problems with this trial. Haim Cohn, a Justice of the Supreme Court of Israel, and a scholar of Jewish legal history, using information from various scholarly sources concerning the law and procedures (both Jewish and Roman) pertaining at the time, found that even where the Gospel writers agree with each other, on point after point their claims are wrong. (cf. ‘The Trial and Death of Jesus’; page 98; see also pages 112-13).

    Here are some of the violations that make Gospel accounts of this trial a farce: Meeting by night; holding a trial in a private home; conducting a trial in secret; the High Priest acting as interrogator; the High Priest striking the defendant; the failure of witnesses to agree; mocking and beating the prisoner; neglecting the Passover.

    And as for the portrayal of Pilate; well, this is pure Monty Python. All Gospel accounts portray him as some kind of indecisive lightweight, easily swayed by the mob; anxious to free Yeshua - in whom he ‘saw no wrong’ - but too weak and feeble to do so. He pleads; he scuttles back and forth; he allows the mob to push him around. When they threaten to rat him out to Caesar if he refused their demands, he caves in!

    What a wimp!

    The fact is that Pilate, like his master Tiberius, was an arrogant, ruthless despot. Philo of Alexandria described him as ‘naturally inflexible and stubbornly relentless.’ He committed ‘acts of corruption, insults, rapine, outrages on the people, arrogance, repeated murders of innocent victims, and constant and most galling savagery.’ (‘Legatio ad Gaium 301; as cited in Cohn, page 15, note 46).

    Josephus (a far better historian than any of the Gospel writers) describes him as: ‘Extremely offensive, cruel and corrupt.’ (Eerdman’s ‘Dictionary of the Bible’). He had absolutely no problem at all killing Jews, nor would he have lost any sleep over it. Innocent or not, what did it matter to him. They were Jews; and under his command scores of them were massacred - such as recorded in Josephus’ Antiquities: Volume 18.2 - when his soldiers, disguised in local dress and armed with knives, slipped into a crowd of protestors and, on his command, killed everyone they could catch (Josephus says they killed ‘a great number’), protestors as well as innocent bystanders.

    A wimp?

    The notion that Pilate would get it in the neck from Caesar if he did not execute Yeshua is risible; and could not be further from the truth. When Pilate was finally recalled to Rome (36 CE) it was not because of any reluctance on his part to butcher the enemies of Rome, but for his slaughter of a band of Samaritan pilgrims on their way to the sacred Mount Gerizim. (Cohn: page 10 - citing Blinzler: ‘Der Prozess Jesu’; pages 35-36).

    Telling Pilate how to behave was guaranteed to get you killed. Justice Cohn makes this abundantly clear: ‘Any Jew who dared to remind the governor of his duty toward the emperor, or to hint at more fervid patriotism, would not be let live another hour. (Cohn: page 17.)

    According to John (18:31) the Jews bring Yeshua to Pilate for execution on the pretext that was: ‘Not lawful for (them) to put any man to death.’ This is false. As for his ‘pre-trial’ and alleged handing over to the Romans, Cohn writes: ‘There is not a single instance recorded anywhere of the Great or Small Sanhedrin ever acting as a investigatory agent of the Romans.’ (ibid; page 109).

    In yet another mistake, John states that the Jews could not enter Pilate’s Praetorium because they would be defiled (18:28). Cohn reminds us that: ‘Nothing in Jewish law or ritual, however, would support the contention that by entering the king’s – or anybody’s – place or a courtroom a Jew could become unpure.’ (ibid; page 147).

    We are told that the Jews had a custom of freeing a prisoner on Passover. There was no such custom. Nor is there any evidence that the Romans had any such customary pardon either. What is more, the very notion that Pilate would offer to release a convicted murderer and anti-Roman insurrectionist (even if there were such a custom) is risible! There have been many attempts (involving searches of both Roman and Jewish records) to justify the historical truth of the so-called ‘Privilegium Paschale’, but without success. (Paul Winter: ‘On the Trial of Jesus’: page 131).

    (By the way, if the Sanhedrin had truly asked Pilate for the death penalty, it would have been death by stoning, as the Taurat required (Mishnah Sanhedrin 6: 4h and i).

    Anyway, to get back to Price. This is what he writes:

    ‘(There is a) general rule of procedure: when a later gospel offers a more spectacular version of a story from the earlier, source gospel, then the less spectacular, if either, is the historical one. This is because it is always more natural to imagine the story growing in the telling, not shrinking. One might want to beef up a more modest version, but who, already possessing the spectacular version, would prefer a simpler or more mundane one? So the more spectacular is always to be judged inauthentic……………John's gospel features numerous self-declarations of Jesus beginning with the revelation formula "I am...." The Johannine Jesus announces himself as the light of the world, the bread from heaven, the true vine, the good shepherd, the door, the way, the truth, and the life, and so on. If Jesus indeed said such things, why on earth do we hear nothing of the kind in any of the other gospels? Isn't it rather because Jesus never made any such statements, but Christian devotion predicated all these things of him? John's Jesus is a crystallization of Johannine Christian devotion, and it has remained the favorite devotional gospel for that reason. This is an important distinction, ignored by C. S. Lewis and his imitators who like to bully the skeptic by asserting that "Jesus claimed to be God."’ (‘Incredible Shrinking Son of Man: How Reliable Is the Gospel Tradition?’).

    If you don’t know the truth of what he says then you have not studied your Bible well enough.

    - - - Updated - - -

    You write: ‘Being BOTH "A" AND "B" isn't a contradiction. Unless you WANT to believe it is.

    My brother Muhammad has written an admirable response to this statement (see Post 14). Allow me to approach the matter from a different angle. Let’s try a little game (anyone can join in):

    Take your left hand and make a fist….as tight as you can. Let’s call this fist ‘A’.

    Now spread your hand as wide as you can. Let’s call this ‘B’.

    Now close and open; close and open; close and open; then close. Great! ‘A’, then ‘B’, then ‘A’; then ‘B’; then ‘A’.

    Here we have a process, devoid of any logical contradiction. What, you may ask, is the essential ingredient that makes this process possible? Time. ‘A’ and ‘B’ are happening at different times.

    The law of non-contradiction states that nothing (nothing at all) can be both ‘A’ and ‘not-A’ at one and the same time. We could substitute ‘not-A’ for ‘B’, of course, but let’s leave things as they are.

    Okay, you have a clenched fist (‘A’). Now try and achieve both ‘A’ and ‘B’ at one and the same time (in effect, by removing time from the process). You can’t. Nobody can. This is the law of non-contradiction at work.

    Do you ‘WANT to believe’ that your hand is both closed and open? Go ahead.

    Now consider the doctrine of the ‘hypostatic union’:

    You have a clenched fist (‘A’). Imagine that this is Yeshua; and that your open hand (‘B’) is the ‘Second Person of the Trinity’.

    There is nothing illogical in saying that ‘A’ can switch to ‘B’ (or ‘B’ to ‘A’); and back again from one moment in time to another (just like opening and closing your fist). But that is not what the doctrine is saying.

    The doctrine states that ‘A’ is both ‘A’ and ‘B’ at one and the same time. But we have shown that this can’t happen. It is a logical impossibility. The doctrine also says that ‘B’ is both ‘B’ and ‘A’ at one and the same time. Again, a logical impossibility.

    The doctrine is a lie simply because it contains these logical contradictions. Anyone who believes otherwise is a victim of doublethink: ‘The act of simultaneously accepting two mutually contradictory beliefs as correct,’…(nowt to do with ‘Marxist-Leninism’, as you claim. Everything to do with logic).

    By the way, doublethinkers are not trying to deceive. They really do believe that what they are saying is true. But it can’t be true….anymore than taking your clenched fist and spreading it wide…….while at the same time keeping it clenched can be true.

    That’s the law of non-contradiction for you.

    - - - Updated - - -

    You write: ‘All things are possible to God’; and again: ‘Second Person of the Trinity became flesh there was no change’

    To state that ‘all things are possible to God’ is very bad theology. Here’s what one of your own (Matt Slick) has to say:

    ‘God cannot do everything. God is holy, and He cannot sin. The Bible tells us He cannot lie (Hebrews 6:18; Titus 1:2). Also, since God is eternal by nature (Psalm 90:2), He cannot stop being God. He cannot deny Himself (2 Tim. 2:13). God cannot be tempted by evil, nor does He tempt anyone with evil (James 1:13).

    ‘The truth is that God must be consistent with His own nature, and He cannot violate His own nature. Therefore, God cannot lie, cannot stop being God, cannot deny Himself, and cannot be tempted by evil. Why? Because He is God’. (Article in his Forum).

    Slick is correct. But now, take a closer look at this: ‘The truth is that God must be consistent with His own nature, and He cannot violate His own nature’.

    Slick, of course, is still correct.

    Unfortunately, he believes (with you) that when the ‘Second Person of the Trinity became flesh there was no change’.

    Water becomes ice. Change. Youth becomes age. Change. Day becomes night. Change. The ‘Second Person of the Trinity’ becomes flesh. No change. What???

    Let’s see it again: ‘The truth is that God must be consistent with His own nature, and He cannot violate His own nature’.

    The nature of God: He is spirit…………He is immutable…….He is infinite………He is omnipotent…………He is God!

    The nature of man: He is corporeal…..He is mutable…….He is finite……..He is weak……..He is not God!

    Question:

    How could God (pure spirit) and absolutely immutable, become flesh without a change of nature?

    Answer:

    Not possible. It is not ‘consistent with His own nature’, and He ‘cannot violate His own nature.’

    To believe that God can be both spirit and not-spirit at one at the same time makes him a logical contradiction (see above).
    1) Your quotes from non-Christian (i.e. anti-Christian !) sources are irrelevant to me, as are your quotations from biblical transaltions not recognised by the Catholic Church
    2) The book of the Prophet Daniel is (whatever its true author) reagrded by the RCC as Holy Writ; whatever some French Dominicans may say !
    3) When Jesus says that the son of man has "nowhere to lay his head" and "is Lord of the Sabbath" - He is very clearly referring to Himself, and only to Himself.
    4) Like your Unitarian friend, you have been influenced (corrupted) by non-Christian views of Christ.
    5) As Jesus DID ascend to Heaven, a Jewish rabbi's saying He couldn't is beside the point.
    6) Many of those most learned in Scripture have the least claim to expound it. Many of them hate Christianity (and perhaps Jesus Christ Himself) therefore can hardly claim to be unbiased. And of course, many learned people in this field are monsters of arrogance - "Knowledge puffeth up" as St Paul observed. Gurgling enthusiastically about the Original Aramaic is of course the invariable mark of Humbug.
    7) The trial of Jesus was a political one - it is most unlikely to have followed Judge Cohn's theories. Which are merely theories. And as we know - scholars alwys disagree.
    8) Pilate was cruel - but also cowardly and insecure. Afraid of Rome's Jewish stooges in Jerusalem; afraid too of his Roman bosses who sacked him a few years later.
    9) I know my New Testament well, my Catholic doctrine better. There is no reason to believe that John's Gospel is NOT God's Word - unless you WISH to.
    10) Your brother Muhammad's Law of Contradiction drivel is the most worthless (certainly, irrelevant) babble I've ever come across.
    11) God became man only in taking on human natiuure IN ADDITION TO His pre-existing Divine nature, which remained quite unchanged throughout. Surely even you and your brother are not so dim as to be unable to see the difference between: 1) Addition; and 2) Substitution or Replacement. If you build an extension onto your house, your original house can perfectly well remain wholly unchanged.
    12) This taking on of human nature was in no way a contradiction of Jesus' divine nature or a violation of it - since that divine nature remained untouched. Jesus the Christ was both spirit and non-spirit; but the divine nature within Him was not - it remained Spirit, and Spirit only, throughout Jesus' earthly life.

    Unitarianism is, of course, a form of Judaism and began with the influence of Italian Jews on Sozzini and of Aragonese crypto-Jews (forced by the Spanish Crown to pretend to be Christians) on Servetus. I reject Jewish theology, as do you.

    Please don't brandish the opinions of Jewish rabbis against Christians. After all, the rabbis' views on Islam are no less hostile. Especially today, when most Jews have moderated their traditional hostility to Christianity; mainly because they've wisely twigged that attacking Christianity merely increases the likelihood of Islam's global triumph; which might prove uncomfortable for them.
    Last edited by Muhammad; 08-14-2017 at 07:40 PM. Reason: Please do not refer to your Catholic doctrine as the 'Word of Allah'. It isn't
    1 | Likes 'Abd-al Latif liked this post

  21. #17
    Grandad's Avatar
    Join Date
    Feb 2017
    Gender
    Male
    Religion
    Islam
    Posts
    191
    Threads
    1
    Reputation
    1314
    Rep Power
    11
    Likes (Given)
    313
    Likes (Received)
    223

    Re: Problems with christian theology

    Quote Originally Posted by tolpuddle View Post
    1) Your quotes from non-Christian (i.e. anti-Christian !) sources are irrelevant to me, as are your quotations from biblical transaltions not recognised by the Catholic Church
    2) The book of the Prophet Daniel is (whatever its true author) reagrded by the RCC as Holy Writ; whatever some French Dominicans may say !
    3) When Jesus says that the son of man has "nowhere to lay his head" and "is Lord of the Sabbath" - He is very clearly referring to Himself, and only to Himself.
    4) Like your Unitarian friend, you have been influenced (corrupted) by non-Christian views of Christ.
    5) As Jesus DID ascend to Heaven, a Jewish rabbi's saying He couldn't is beside the point.
    6) Many of those most learned in Scripture have the least claim to expound it. Many of them hate Christianity (and perhaps Jesus Christ Himself) therefore can hardly claim to be unbiased. And of course, many learned people in this field are monsters of arrogance - "Knowledge puffeth up" as St Paul observed. Gurgling enthusiastically about the Original Aramaic is of course the invariable mark of Humbug.
    7) The trial of Jesus was a political one - it is most unlikely to have followed Judge Cohn's theories. Which are merely theories. And as we know - scholars alwys disagree.
    8) Pilate was cruel - but also cowardly and insecure. Afraid of Rome's Jewish stooges in Jerusalem; afraid too of his Roman bosses who sacked him a few years later.
    9) I know my New Testament well, my Catholic doctrine (as much the Word of God, of Allah, as the Bible) better. There is no reason to believe that John's Gospel is NOT God's Word - unless you WISH to.
    10) Your brother Muhammad's Law of Contradiction drivel is the most worthless (certainly, irrelevant) babble I've ever come across.
    11) God became man only in taking on human natiuure IN ADDITION TO His pre-existing Divine nature, which remained quite unchanged throughout. Surely even you and your brother are not so dim as to be unable to see the difference between: 1) Addition; and 2) Substitution or Replacement. If you build an extension onto your house, your original house can perfectly well remain wholly unchanged.
    12) This taking on of human nature was in no way a contradiction of Jesus' divine nature or a violation of it - since that divine nature remained untouched. Jesus the Christ was both spirit and non-spirit; but the divine nature within Him was not - it remained Spirit, and Spirit only, throughout Jesus' earthly life.

    Unitarianism is, of course, a form of Judaism and began with the influence of Italian Jews on Sozzini and of Aragonese crypto-Jews (forced by the Spanish Crown to pretend to be Christians) on Servetus. I reject Jewish theology, as do you.

    Please don't brandish the opinions of Jewish rabbis against Christians. After all, the rabbis' views on Islam are no less hostile. Especially today, when most Jews have moderated their traditional hostility to Christianity; mainly because they've wisely twigged that attacking Christianity merely increases the likelihood of Islam's global triumph; which might prove uncomfortable for them.
    Is this the very best you can do?

    By the way, Yeshua (radi Allahu ‘anhu) was a Jewish Rabbi. Of course, we don't have his opinions, only those who - having never met him - decided to place words in his mouth.

    Oh, if you would like to discuss Catholic theology, please feel free. I was both a Catholic and a Thomist for over forty years.
    Last edited by Grandad; 08-14-2017 at 06:01 PM.
    Problems with christian theology

    'Sometimes, silence is the best answer for a fool.' (Alī ibn Abī Tālib‎)

  22. #18
    Eric H's Avatar
    Join Date
    Apr 2005
    Location
    uk
    Gender
    Male
    Religion
    Christianity
    Posts
    3,240
    Threads
    28
    Reputation
    49271
    Rep Power
    111
    Likes (Given)
    3901
    Likes (Received)
    2420

    Re: Problems with christian theology

    Greetings and peace be with you Grandad;

    Oh, if you would like to discuss Catholic theology, please feel free.
    The following statement was issued by the 'PONTIFICAL COUNCIL FOR INTERRELIGIOUS DIALOGUE'



    MESSAGE FOR THE END OF RAMADAN
    E ‘Id al-Fitr 1437 H. / 2017 A.D


    Christians and Muslims:
    Caring for our Common Home


    Dear Muslim Brothers and Sisters,

    We wish to assure you of our prayerful solidarity during this time of fasting in the month of Ramadan and the celebration of ‘Id al–Fitr that concludes it, and we extend to you our heartfelt best wishes for serenity, joy and abundant spiritual gifts.

    This year’s Message is especially timely and significant: fifty years ago, in 1967, only three years after the establishment of this Pontifical Council for Interreligious Dialogue (PCID) by Pope Paul VI on 19 May 1964, the first Message was sent for this occasion.

    In the years that have followed, two Messages have been particularly important: the Message of 1991, during the pontificate of Pope John Paul II, entitled “The Path of Believers is the Way of Peace”, and the Message of 2013, in the first year of Pope Francis’ pontificate, entitled “Promoting Mutual Respect through Education”. Both Messages were signed by the Pontiffs.

    Among the many activities of the PCID for promoting dialogue with Muslims, the most important and longstanding is this yearly Message for Ramadan and for ‘Id al-Fitr addressed to Muslims throughout the world. To share this Message in the widest way possible, the PCID is assisted by local Catholic communities, as well as Papal Representatives present in almost every country.

    The experience of both our religious communities affirms the value of this Message for promoting cordial relations between Christian and Muslim neighbours and friends, by offering insights on current and pressing issues.

    For this year, the PCID offers a theme related to Pope Francis’ Encyclical Letter “Laudato Si’–On Care for Our Common Home”, which was addressed not only to Catholics and Christians, but to the whole of humanity.

    Pope Francis draws attention to the harm our lifestyles and decisions are causing to the environment, to ourselves and to our fellow human beings. There are, for example, certain philosophical, religious, and cultural perspectives that present obstacles which threaten humanity’s relationship with nature. To take up this challenge involves all of us, regardless of whether or not we profess a religious belief.

    The Encyclical’s title itself is expressive: the world is a “common home”, a dwelling for all the members of the human family. Therefore, no one person, nation or people can impose exclusively their understanding of our planet. This is why Pope Francis appeals “for a new dialogue about how we are shaping the future of our planet…, since the environmental challenge we are undergoing, and its human roots, concern and affects us all” (n. 14).

    Pope Francis states that “the ecological crisis is also a summons to profound interior conversion” (no. 217). What is needed is education, spiritual openness and a “global ecological conversion” to adequately address this challenge. As believers, our relationship with God should be increasingly shown in the way we relate to the world around us. Our vocation to be guardians of God’s handiwork is not optional, nor it is tangential to our religious commitment as Christians and Muslims: it is an essential part of it.

    May the religious insights and blessings that flow from fasting, prayer and good works sustain you, with God’s help, on the path of peace and goodness, to care for all the members of the human family and for the whole of creation.

    With these sentiments, we wish you once again serenity, joy and prosperity.

    From the Vatican, 19 May 2017


    Jean-Louis Cardinal Tauran
    President


    In the spirit of searching for a greatest meaning of 'One God'

    Eric
    Last edited by Eric H; 08-14-2017 at 06:21 PM.
    1 | Likes Grandad liked this post
    Problems with christian theology

    You will never look into the eyes of anyone who does not matter to God.

  23. #19
    Grandad's Avatar
    Join Date
    Feb 2017
    Gender
    Male
    Religion
    Islam
    Posts
    191
    Threads
    1
    Reputation
    1314
    Rep Power
    11
    Likes (Given)
    313
    Likes (Received)
    223

    Re: Problems with christian theology

    Quote Originally Posted by Eric H View Post
    Greetings and peace be with you Grandad;



    The following statement was issued by the 'PONTIFICAL COUNCIL FOR INTERRELIGIOUS DIALOGUE'



    MESSAGE FOR THE END OF RAMADAN
    E ‘Id al-Fitr 1437 H. / 2017 A.D


    Christians and Muslims:
    Caring for our Common Home


    Dear Muslim Brothers and Sisters,

    We wish to assure you of our prayerful solidarity during this time of fasting in the month of Ramadan and the celebration of ‘Id al–Fitr that concludes it, and we extend to you our heartfelt best wishes for serenity, joy and abundant spiritual gifts.

    This year’s Message is especially timely and significant: fifty years ago, in 1967, only three years after the establishment of this Pontifical Council for Interreligious Dialogue (PCID) by Pope Paul VI on 19 May 1964, the first Message was sent for this occasion.

    In the years that have followed, two Messages have been particularly important: the Message of 1991, during the pontificate of Pope John Paul II, entitled “The Path of Believers is the Way of Peace”, and the Message of 2013, in the first year of Pope Francis’ pontificate, entitled “Promoting Mutual Respect through Education”. Both Messages were signed by the Pontiffs.

    Among the many activities of the PCID for promoting dialogue with Muslims, the most important and longstanding is this yearly Message for Ramadan and for ‘Id al-Fitr addressed to Muslims throughout the world. To share this Message in the widest way possible, the PCID is assisted by local Catholic communities, as well as Papal Representatives present in almost every country.

    The experience of both our religious communities affirms the value of this Message for promoting cordial relations between Christian and Muslim neighbours and friends, by offering insights on current and pressing issues.

    For this year, the PCID offers a theme related to Pope Francis’ Encyclical Letter “Laudato Si’–On Care for Our Common Home”, which was addressed not only to Catholics and Christians, but to the whole of humanity.

    Pope Francis draws attention to the harm our lifestyles and decisions are causing to the environment, to ourselves and to our fellow human beings. There are, for example, certain philosophical, religious, and cultural perspectives that present obstacles which threaten humanity’s relationship with nature. To take up this challenge involves all of us, regardless of whether or not we profess a religious belief.

    The Encyclical’s title itself is expressive: the world is a “common home”, a dwelling for all the members of the human family. Therefore, no one person, nation or people can impose exclusively their understanding of our planet. This is why Pope Francis appeals “for a new dialogue about how we are shaping the future of our planet…, since the environmental challenge we are undergoing, and its human roots, concern and affects us all” (n. 14).

    Pope Francis states that “the ecological crisis is also a summons to profound interior conversion” (no. 217). What is needed is education, spiritual openness and a “global ecological conversion” to adequately address this challenge. As believers, our relationship with God should be increasingly shown in the way we relate to the world around us. Our vocation to be guardians of God’s handiwork is not optional, nor it is tangential to our religious commitment as Christians and Muslims: it is an essential part of it.

    May the religious insights and blessings that flow from fasting, prayer and good works sustain you, with God’s help, on the path of peace and goodness, to care for all the members of the human family and for the whole of creation.

    With these sentiments, we wish you once again serenity, joy and prosperity.

    From the Vatican, 19 May 2017


    Jean-Louis Cardinal Tauran
    President


    In the spirit of searching for a greatest meaning of 'One God'

    Eric
    Very well said, Eric.

    My paternal grandad - a Welsh Baptist elder - was the finest example of what it is to be a Christian I have ever known. You would have liked him. He would certainly have liked you.

    Very best regards.

    Paul
    Last edited by Grandad; 08-14-2017 at 08:06 PM.
    Problems with christian theology

    'Sometimes, silence is the best answer for a fool.' (Alī ibn Abī Tālib‎)

  24. Report bad ads?
  25. #20
    tolpuddle's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jun 2017
    Gender
    Male
    Religion
    Christianity
    Posts
    45
    Threads
    0
    Reputation
    116
    Rep Power
    10
    Likes (Given)
    0
    Likes (Received)
    9

    Re: Problems with christian theology

    Quote Originally Posted by Scimitar View Post
    Can it be believed? Even by a Christian who studies theology in University?

    Find Out!



    Joshua keeps jumping those hoops n hurdles, and boy are there many... meanwhile the Muslim brother, Hamza, keeps things level!

    Scimi
    But it is believed, by all Christians - even those who study theology !

    - - - Updated - - -

    Quote Originally Posted by Grandad View Post
    Is this the very best you can do?

    By the way, Yeshua (radi Allahu ‘anhu) was a Jewish Rabbi. Of course, we don't have his opinions, only those who - having never met him - decided to place words in his mouth.

    Oh, if you would like to discuss Catholic theology, please feel free. I was both a Catholic and a Thomist for over forty years.
    You are assuming that the Gospels were written by people who had never met Jesus. That is, of course, the merest assumption.

    The only words they "put" in His mouth, were words spoken by Him.

    As you have left Catholic Christianity, I regard your opinions on Catholic theology as wholly beside the point.

  26. Hide
Page 1 of 2 1 2 Last
Hey there! Problems with christian theology Looks like you're enjoying the discussion, but you're not signed up for an account.

When you create an account, we remember exactly what you've read, so you always come right back where you left off. You also get notifications, here and via email, whenever new posts are made. And you can like posts and share your thoughts. Problems with christian theology
Sign Up

Similar Threads

  1. The Purpose of Islamic Theology
    By Jewel in forum General
    Replies: 4
    Last Post: 03-01-2016, 08:18 AM
  2. Islam and the Theology of Power
    By Al-Indunisiy in forum World Affairs
    Replies: 0
    Last Post: 12-25-2009, 07:51 AM
  3. Systematic theology
    By Grace Seeker in forum Discover Islam
    Replies: 4
    Last Post: 09-17-2008, 09:36 AM
  4. Promotion: Students of theology
    By aamirsaab in forum Comparative religion
    Replies: 0
    Last Post: 03-25-2008, 12:15 PM

Posting Permissions

  • You may not post new threads
  • You may not post replies
  • You may not post attachments
  • You may not edit your posts
  •  
create