Christianity in Five Minutes

format_quote Originally Posted by YusufNoor

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

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

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


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




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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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



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

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

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

format_quote Originally Posted by Keltoi

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

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

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

format_quote Originally Posted by Grace Seeker

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

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

format_quote Originally Posted by Grace Seeker

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

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

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

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

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

just to remind you of what you posted:

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

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

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

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


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



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

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

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

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



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


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

Peace be upon those who follow the guidance,

Greeting Gene,

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

format_quote Originally Posted by MustafaMc

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

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


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

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

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

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

format_quote Originally Posted by MustafaMc

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

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

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


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

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


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

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