There are many books that speak of the inerrancy of the Bible (Bibliography available upon request). The Bible also talks about Ishmael the father of the Arab race. God told Hagar to go back from running away from Abraham and Sarah. He said Ishmael was going to be very strong (Donkey of a man) with him against very man and very man against him. That is what I believe we see today - the Arab race against every man and every man against him. That is Biblical prophesy in action today. Jesus comes from the seed of Isaac and Ishmael comes for the seed of Ishmael Jehovah spoke in Isaiah 45:23 and said “I have sworn by myself, the word has gone out of my mouth in righteousness, and shall not return, that unto me every knee shall bow, and every tongue shall swear.” Colossians 2:9 States that in Christ dwells all of The Godhead fully. Every tongue will confess that Jesus Christ is Lord. In Jn. 13:19 Jesus declares himself “ I am” To the Jews he does it again by saying before Abraham was “I am” That is some pretty strong evidence according to the Bible that is inerrant by the hand of the Almighty that Jesus will tear down very imagination that exalts itself against the knowledge of God. For we wrestle not against flesh and blood but against spiritual wickness in high places. This is all said according to Scripture and can be backed up as such.
Woodrow, I appreciate the way in which you share your views. You do it with respect and maturity; I wish I could say that of all the brothers in humanity. I think the underlying difference between to two faiths is that we are believing in different books as being the word of God. In other words, we are dancing to the beat of a different drummer. The only thing it seems that can be accomplished here on this forum is that we learn why we think and believe the way we do. I understand how you see Jesus as just a messenger and nothing more. This view of Jesus is a natural one considering the contents of the Qur'an. We see
Him as more than a prophet. I would, however, like to see a Muslim give us Christians the satisfaction that they can understand how we could believe that Jesus is in the very nature God from a Bibilical perspective. This is what frustrates me. I will explain my last three sentences you didn't understand. This is according to the Bible. We must honor the Son the same as the Father (Allah). For he that honors not the Son honors not the Father who sent Him. The key word here is "the same." In other words, if we don't honor Jesus the same as we honor Allah we are not honoring Allah or the Father.
I do see what you mean. I understand the point, but I maintain the other apostles saw and heard from Jesus(pbuh) himself as witnesses. He was their source, not Paul.
I don't know if you mean apostoles as the 12 disciples, if so then you are assuming that they wrote the books we have now.
And if you just mean other apostoles, that we dont know the identity of who authored the books, then I fail to see how you come to such a conclusion that they were not effected by Paul, what evidence draws you to this?
format_quote Originally Posted by don532
I also think the concept of the trinity causes a big stumbling block here. Let's forget the trinity concept for a moment. I still see the message as Jesus being the ultimate sacrifice in the writings in the gospels and elsewhere in the Bible.
I have read much about the errors in the Bible and the refutations. My understanding and belief is the errors are not things that change the basic message. That's probably the circle I was referring to that could be debated endlessly.
Well, break it down for me, what errors do you see? Maybe we are talking about different errors.
Eesa
The path is long but I hope we meet,
After the grave and the Day, in paradise in bliss upon a reclined seat.
A traveler traveling - travelled from shirk to tawheed,
If I'm remembered for anything - let it be the Mercy I seek.
I had mentioned that in an earlier thread. They don't just stone you for no reason. Jesus said, "Before Abraham was I am"
The Scribes who were very with it when it comes to the Scriptures knew what the implications of Jesus saying that. Muslims say they believe that Jesus is a prophet. If He is that to them, then why aren't we both making the same connection in regards to who Jesus is? The Scriptures say He is coming back in the clouds and every eye shall see Him.
A`udhu Billahi mina Shaytanir Rajeem,
Bismillahir Rahmanir Raheem
Assalamu alaykum wa'rahma-tullahi, wa'barakatahu,
that's right, and when he does come back, he can explain the theory of monotheism to Christians!
Had the non-believer known of all the Mercy which is in the Hands of Allah, he would not lose hope of entering Paradise, and had the believer known of all the punishment which is present with Allah, he would not consider himself safe from the Hell-Fire http://www.muftimenk.co.za/Downloads.html
I don't know if you mean apostoles as the 12 disciples, if so then you are assuming that they wrote the books we have now.
And if you just mean other apostoles, that we dont know the identity of who authored the books, then I fail to see how you come to such a conclusion that they were not effected by Paul, what evidence draws you to this?
I was not clear. My point is some of the other books in the NT were written by people other than Paul. I still see Jesus' message in those books.
Here are the authors of the books of the New Testament according to my understanding:
Matthew = Matthew - 55 A.D.
Mark = John Mark - 50 A.D.
Luke = Luke - 60 A.D.
John = John - 90 A.D.
Acts = Luke - 65 A.D.
Romans, 1 Corinthians, 2 Corinthians, Galatians, Ephesians, Philippians, Colossians, 1 Thessalonians, 2 Thessalonians, 1 Timothy, 2 Timothy, Titus, Philemon = Paul - 50-70 A.D.
Hebrews = unknown, best guesses are Paul, Luke, Barnabas, or Apollos - 65 A.D.
James = James - 45 A.D.
1 Peter, 2 Peter = Peter - 60 A.D.
1 John, 2 John, 3 John = John - 90 A.D.
Jude = Jude - 60 A.D.
Revelation = John - 90 A.D.
I don't see how Paul could have hijacked the message of Jesus all those other people heard and saw, without them reacting. In II Peter 3:15, 16 Peter even describes Paul's writings as scriptures. I'm not trying to change your mind or convince you of anything at this point. I'm just sharing my perspective.
Peace.
Last edited by don532; 04-03-2007 at 01:31 AM.
Reason: quotes were misplaced
I was not clear. My point is some of the other books in the NT were written by people other than Paul. I still see Jesus' message in those books.
Here are the authors of the books of the New Testament according to my understanding:
Matthew = Matthew - 55 A.D.
Mark = John Mark - 50 A.D.
Luke = Luke - 60 A.D.
John = John - 90 A.D.
Acts = Luke - 65 A.D.
Romans, 1 Corinthians, 2 Corinthians, Galatians, Ephesians, Philippians, Colossians, 1 Thessalonians, 2 Thessalonians, 1 Timothy, 2 Timothy, Titus, Philemon = Paul - 50-70 A.D.
Hebrews = unknown, best guesses are Paul, Luke, Barnabas, or Apollos - 65 A.D.
James = James - 45 A.D.
1 Peter, 2 Peter = Peter - 60 A.D.
1 John, 2 John, 3 John = John - 90 A.D.
Jude = Jude - 60 A.D.
Revelation = John - 90 A.D.
I don't see how Paul could have hijacked the message of Jesus all those other people heard and saw, without them reacting. In II Peter 3:15, 16 Peter even describes Paul's writings as scriptures. I'm not trying to change your mind or convince you of anything at this point. I'm just sharing my perspective.
Peace.
What makes you think Paul is off? Paul had a heavenly vision. Just as you believe in the vision Mohammed had, we believe Paul's vision was directed by God as well. His mission was to reaach the gentiles and Peter's was to minister to his own.
What makes you think Paul is off? Paul had a heavenly vision. Just as you believe in the vision Mohammed had, we believe Paul's vision was directed by God as well. His mission was to reaach the gentiles and Peter's was to minister to his own.
What makes you think Paul is off? Paul had a heavenly vision. Just as you believe in the vision Mohammed had, we believe Paul's vision was directed by God as well. His mission was to reaach the gentiles and Peter's was to minister to his own.
I may not get this exactly right, but I believe the Muslim perspective on this is that Paul's writings are the ones where the concepts of the trinity and Jesus being equal to God are mentioned most. Having anyone else equal to God is blasphemy in Islam. Perhaps some Muslim members here can better or further explain this for alapiana. This is most likely also covered in previous posts if you care to do some searching here.
Last edited by don532; 04-03-2007 at 02:39 AM.
Reason: corrected grammar
Christians would also consider themselves to be monotheists, the problem is the word "Trinity", which many Muslims and non-Christians seem to believe points to three separate entities. Christians do not believe these elements to be separate, but parts of a the whole that is God.
"Imagination was given to man to compensate him for what he is not, and a sense of humor was provided to console him for what he is."
I may not get this exactly right, but I believe the Muslim perspective on this is that Paul's writings are the ones where the concepts of the trinity and Jesus being equal to God are mentioned most. Having anyone else equal to God is blasphemy in Islam. Perhaps some Muslim members here can better or further explain this for alapiana. This is most likely also covered in previous posts if you care to do some searching here.
Not just Muslim Members but if we have some Arabic speaking non-Muslims their input would be appreciated. In the Arabic speaking countries I lived in the phrase "Son of God" was considered a very vulgar repulsive term even when said among non-Muslim Arabs. It went beyond blasphemy to being strong profanity in the local connotations.
Getting back to Paul. I have so much doubt about the validity of Paul primarily I can find no other person in the NY mention Pauls name. The validity of a person's authority based on the person's own writings leave much room for Doubt.
Now, it is true there is know indication that any of the apostles wrote anything deragatory about Paul. But, they did not right a single word about Paul. No Apostle has indicated they ever met or even knew anything about Paul.
I am certain Paul existed from historical records. However, I do not believe he had much contact with many Christians and went along and formed his own sect, independent of Christianity and that sect is what people now accept as Christianity. the other churches except for the one founded by Mark and the one founded by Peter. It appears that at one of the Nicene counsels the churches founded by them agreed upon what would be acceptable beliefs and solidified what became modern catholochism.
the other early churches founded by the apostles did not have the support of Rome, Constantinople and Alexandria, so they were basicaly swept under the carpet and never as much as a wimper was heard from them again.
Christians would also consider themselves to be monotheists, the problem is the word "Trinity", which many Muslims and non-Christians seem to believe points to three separate entities. Christians do not believe these elements to be separate, but parts of a the whole that is God.
this seems to only be comprhensible to christians. i must admit, i do not understand it either and long ago gave up trying.
each man thinks of his own fleas as gazelles
question authority
Not just Muslim Members but if we have some Arabic speaking non-Muslims their input would be appreciated. In the Arabic speaking countries I lived in the phrase "Son of God" was considered a very vulgar repulsive term even when said among non-Muslim Arabs. It went beyond blasphemy to being strong profanity in the local connotations.
Getting back to Paul. I have so much doubt about the validity of Paul primarily I can find no other person in the NY mention Pauls name. The validity of a person's authority based on the person's own writings leave much room for Doubt.
Now, it is true there is know indication that any of the apostles wrote anything deragatory about Paul. But, they did not right a single word about Paul. No Apostle has indicated they ever met or even knew anything about Paul.
I am certain Paul existed from historical records. However, I do not believe he had much contact with many Christians and went along and formed his own sect, independent of Christianity and that sect is what people now accept as Christianity. the other churches except for the one founded by Mark and the one founded by Peter. It appears that at one of the Nicene counsels the churches founded by them agreed upon what would be acceptable beliefs and solidified what became modern catholochism.
That theory doesn't really makes sense whe you take into account the level of persecution being inflicted upon the early Christian church. Paul himself was a part of this early persecution. Why would early church leaders, people who were willing to die for their faith, allow an upstart to change the entire doctrine of Christianity? It doesn't even make sense. The Council of Nicaea were forced to create an overall church doctrine because of the various sects sprouting up teaching ideas that were not considered by the majority of early church leaders to be Christian in nature.
"Imagination was given to man to compensate him for what he is not, and a sense of humor was provided to console him for what he is."
the other early churches founded by the apostles did not have the support of Rome, Constantinople and Alexandria, so they were basicaly swept under the carpet and never as much as a wimper was heard from them again.
At the time of the Council of Nicaea, Christianity was not the official religion of Constantinople. The majorty of Byzantine citizens were still pagan, and were very much against conversion.
"Imagination was given to man to compensate him for what he is not, and a sense of humor was provided to console him for what he is."
this seems to only be comprhensible to christians. i must admit, i do not understand it either and long ago gave up trying.
As important and serious as this concept is, I don't understand the supposed "complexity" that should render it incomprehensible. God, the Holy Spirt, and Jesus Christ are elements of how the Almighty God manifested and manifests His will. Unlike in Islam, Christianity does not believe that the Holy Spirit is the Angel Gabriel.
"Imagination was given to man to compensate him for what he is not, and a sense of humor was provided to console him for what he is."
That theory doesn't really makes sense whe you take into account the level of persecution being inflicted upon the early Christian church. Paul himself was a part of this early persecution. Why would early church leaders, people who were willing to die for their faith, allow an upstart to change the entire doctrine of Christianity? It doesn't even make sense. The Council of Nicaea were forced to create an overall church doctrine because of the various sects sprouting up teaching ideas that were not considered by the majority of early church leaders to be Christian in nature.
Why would early church leaders, people who were willing to die for their faith, allow an upstart to change the entire doctrine of Christianity? It doesn't even make sense.
i really believe they would have put up a big squak and would have been very verbal over the errors they saw. However, They could not stand up to the power of Rome and Greece and this is was what happened to them:
The Council of Nicaea were forced to create an overall church doctrine because of the various sects sprouting up teaching ideas that were not considered by the majority of early church leaders to be Christian in nature.
i really believe they would have put up a big squak and would have been very verbal over the errors they saw. However, They could not stand up to the power of Rome and Greece and this is was what happened to them:
So you believe Arianism is the "true" Christianity? You are putting forward a conspiracy theory. That is all it is. Which I thought was against forum rules?
"Imagination was given to man to compensate him for what he is not, and a sense of humor was provided to console him for what he is."
I may not get this exactly right, but I believe the Muslim perspective on this is that Paul's writings are the ones where the concepts of the trinity and Jesus being equal to God are mentioned most. Having anyone else equal to God is blasphemy in Islam. Perhaps some Muslim members here can better or further explain this for alapiana. This is most likely also covered in previous posts if you care to do some searching here.
That question wasn't meant for you about why Paul was off, but thanks for explaining what the Muslim view is of Paul. Nevertheless, I am sure you agree that Paul had a heavenly vision. Just as they believe in the vision Mohammed had, we believe Paul's vision was directed by God as well. His mission was to reach the gentiles and Peter's was to minister to his own (Jews).
As important and serious as this concept is, I don't understand the supposed "complexity" that should render it incomprehensible. God, the Holy Spirt, and Jesus Christ are elements of how the Almighty God manifested and manifests His will. Unlike in Islam, Christianity does not believe that the Holy Spirit is the Angel Gabriel.
you may be right, but i make no sense out of it.
btw, i didn't know islam regards the holy spirit as the angel gabriel. i never really understood the holy spirit either.
each man thinks of his own fleas as gazelles
question authority
Hey there! 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. Sign Up
Quote
Hide
Looks like you're enjoying the discussion, but you're not signed up for an account.
Bookmarks