How much Christians know about Bible? What about Muslims?

[Grace Seeker]

I understand what you are saying, but to me to "know" something is to remove any possibility of a different outcome. This is quite different from believing and/or hoping something will turn out in a certain favorable way.

And in reading the end of the book and believing the book itself to be true in what it reports, I have removed any doubt in my own mind as to the outcome. See, I am acquainted with the author of the book and know him personally. I trust him to be telling me the truth. So, when he tells me that in the end he is going to save all those who belong to Christ Jesus, and I am aware that I have given my life over to Jesus, my belief comes without any doubts. That's why I originally used the term "to know", but I can respect that for you, you doubt the very facts that I have presented -- that I can know the author of the book, that the book is telling the truth, perhaps even that it's possible to have belief without doubts -- so, if instead of the word "to know" you want to call it "believing", well, I will not argue with you over it.

 

[Grace Seeker]

I understand what you are saying, but to me to "know" something is to remove any possibility of a different outcome. This is quite different from believing and/or hoping something will turn out in a certain favorable way.

If I may add a postscript -- I like the way Nicole Mullen says "I know that I know that I know that I know..." in this music video: "Redeemer" by Nicole Mullen.


(Beware, it includes haraam instrumentation, and images that some may find offensive.)

 

[MustafaMc]

Again, the problem of human language used to describe God and things associated with God. We forget that even our simplest langauge is filled with metaphor.

Not only how can one see God, but how can God himself see anything? If God is spirit, how can he be seen? If God is spirit and has no eyes, how can he do any seeing?

How about other problems that arise from our anthropomorphizing attributes to God? The idea that we should "hide" things from an omniscient God. That we could have an effect on the emotions of an omnipotent God. The idea that God makes any decision based on us oe reacts to us at all. Yet these paradoxes are present in both Christianity and Islam (and most other religions that have a personal God. And that they are a paradox does not mean they do not speak the truth, it just means that we have no way of adequately expressing the truth that does not leave us with a paradox.

Yes, I agree with the limitations of language, but this also points to our extremely limited understanding God. Funny, but that is what we disagree about so much - the nature of the Supreme Being and our relationship to Him.

 

[MustafaMc]

If I may add a postscript -- I like the way Nicole Mullen says "I know that I know that I know that I know..." in this music video: "Redeemer" by Nicole Mullen.


(Beware, it includes haraam instrumentation, and images that some may find offensive.)

That was a nice video. It reminded me of emotions I experienced when I was a Christian. However, as I get older, I learn there is less that I really know than I thought I did when I was younger.

 

[Redeemed]

Can you please show me one verse in the bible where God said toward Jesus: God?

Not Lord as this can be claimed also by other than Jesus but God? By the way, not god but God as this is yet another "distinction" in the bible.

In no way I accuse you of lying about what you believe, I think that in this point you are confused, but not not lying.:thumbs_up

I am not confused about these things. And I can and will back up my statement Look at Heb 1:8 But unto the Son he saith, "Thy throne, Oh God, is for ever and ever...." I do believe that is a capital G, but this will not convince you of anything because you believe the Bible is corrupt. You are only trying to use it against me. Nevertheless, I can appreciate the question.

you are loved:thumbs_up

 

[Woodrow]

I am not confused about these things. And I can and will back up my statement Look at Heb 1:8 But unto the Son he saith, "Thy throne, Oh God, is for ever and ever...." I do believe that is a capital G, but this will not convince you of anything because you believe the Bible is corrupt. You are only trying to use it against me. Nevertheless, I can appreciate the question.

you are loved:thumbs_up

Heb 1.8 is quite interesting. Heb 1 itself is interesting. In fact the entire book of Hebrews is interesting.

Who wrote it?

Who decided it should be part of the NT?


Just my opinion it bears a very strong resemblance to the Book of Psalms in the OT. I personaly believe that it is made up of quotes from the Book of Psalms that have been taken out of context and paraphrased to support modern Christian believes I do not find any evidence that either Jesus(as) or any of His apostles ever saw the Book of Hebrews. I have never heard a logical explanation as to how and when it became part of the NT.

 

[Woodrow]

Just to go further into depth here is the Hebrews 1 as written in todays KJV.

Hebrews 1 (King James Version)
King James Version (KJV)

Public Domain
[A Public Domain Bible] [KJV at Zondervan] [Zondervan]

Hebrews 1

1God, who at sundry times and in divers manners spake in time past unto the fathers by the prophets,

2Hath in these last days spoken unto us by his Son, whom he hath appointed heir of all things, by whom also he made the worlds;

3Who being the brightness of his glory, and the express image of his person, and upholding all things by the word of his power, when he had by himself purged our sins, sat down on the right hand of the Majesty on high:

4Being made so much better than the angels, as he hath by inheritance obtained a more excellent name than they.

5For unto which of the angels said he at any time, Thou art my Son, this day have I begotten thee? And again, I will be to him a Father, and he shall be to me a Son?

6And again, when he bringeth in the firstbegotten into the world, he saith, And let all the angels of God worship him.

7And of the angels he saith, Who maketh his angels spirits, and his ministers a flame of fire.

8 But unto the Son he saith, Thy throne, O God, is for ever and ever: a sceptre of righteousness is the sceptre of thy kingdom.

9Thou hast loved righteousness, and hated iniquity; therefore God, even thy God, hath anointed thee with the oil of gladness above thy fellows.

10And, Thou, Lord, in the beginning hast laid the foundation of the earth; and the heavens are the works of thine hands:

11They shall perish; but thou remainest; and they all shall wax old as doth a garment;

12And as a vesture shalt thou fold them up, and they shall be changed: but thou art the same, and thy years shall not fail.

13But to which of the angels said he at any time, Sit on my right hand, until I make thine enemies thy footstool?

14Are they not all ministering spirits, sent forth to minister for them who shall be heirs of salvation?

Source: http://www.biblegateway.com/passage/?book_id=65&chapter=1&version=9

Now reading through it, it appears to be very much in the style of the Pslams and like the Psalms is basicaly metaphorical.

It appears that all of the verses are actually related to the Prophets(PBUT) and not just to Isa(as) It is only by taken it our of context and removing it from Psalms that makes it seem to be directed about Isa(as)

Now let's look at Psalm 45

Psalm 45 (King James Version)
King James Version (KJV)

Public Domain
[A Public Domain Bible] [KJV at Zondervan] [Zondervan]

Psalm 45

1My heart is inditing a good matter: I speak of the things which I have made touching the king: my tongue is the pen of a ready writer.

2Thou art fairer than the children of men: grace is poured into thy lips: therefore God hath blessed thee for ever.

3Gird thy sword upon thy thigh, O most mighty, with thy glory and thy majesty.

4And in thy majesty ride prosperously because of truth and meekness and righteousness; and thy right hand shall teach thee terrible things.

5Thine arrows are sharp in the heart of the king's enemies; whereby the people fall under thee.

6Thy throne, O God, is for ever and ever: the sceptre of thy kingdom is a right sceptre.

7Thou lovest righteousness, and hatest wickedness: therefore God, thy God, hath anointed thee with the oil of gladness above thy fellows.

8All thy garments smell of myrrh, and aloes, and cassia, out of the ivory palaces, whereby they have made thee glad.

9Kings' daughters were among thy honourable women: upon thy right hand did stand the queen in gold of Ophir.

10Hearken, O daughter, and consider, and incline thine ear; forget also thine own people, and thy father's house;

11So shall the king greatly desire thy beauty: for he is thy Lord; and worship thou him.

12And the daughter of Tyre shall be there with a gift; even the rich among the people shall intreat thy favour.

13The king's daughter is all glorious within: her clothing is of wrought gold.

14She shall be brought unto the king in raiment of needlework: the virgins her companions that follow her shall be brought unto thee.

15With gladness and rejoicing shall they be brought: they shall enter into the king's palace.

16Instead of thy fathers shall be thy children, whom thou mayest make princes in all the earth.

17I will make thy name to be remembered in all generations: therefore shall the people praise thee for ever and ever.

Source: http://www.biblegateway.com/passage/?book_id=23&chapter=45&version=9

Sort of looks like Psalm 45 was specificaly a song of Praise to God(as) and that particular line was plagarized and rewritten into the Book of Hebrews.


Looks to me that the Book of Hebrews was a rewritten version of the Psalms Paraphrased in a manner to support the Form of Christianity Paul spread.

 

[Sunnih]

Jesus was not conceived in Mary by some divine messenger, Jesus was conceived by God's power -- a view considerably different than that held by Muslims.

It seems that you might have a wrong perception of how muslims see this matter. Can you please explain more clearly what you mean by these words? Thanks.

 

[Sunnih]

Neither the Old Testament nor the New Testament coined the word Trinity. The OT and NT does speak of God, the Son, and the Holy Spirit. The OT and NT does state that these entities come from God. Knowing that these entities are from and part of God, the word Trinity was coined to describe the nature of God and His interaction with mankind. Christians understand that the word Trinity isn't found in the Bible or the NT. It isn't the word that is important but the concept.

I appreciate the honesty of your answer. However, if the concept of trinity was to be foung in OT, how comes the Jews do not recognize it and instead call the Christians polytheists?!

 

[Sunnih]

Good verses.

Could you please explain to me what John met by the portion I have highlighted? Who was it that was at the Father's side? Does he really mean to say that God was at the Father's side? How does that work?

Well, acording to trinity concept this would be quite ok. However in the eyes of muslims and Jews, this is wrong and one of those verses that we believe that the pen of the lying scribes has altered. No doubt your question is a good one as it shows that at least the son and the father are two different entities. Thank you for pointing that out.

 

[Grace Seeker]

It seems that you might have a wrong perception of how muslims see this matter. Can you please explain more clearly what you mean by these words? Thanks.

I misspoke. For a moment I was thinking that you (or someone, I haven't gone back to re-read) was talking about Gabriel "causing" not just announcing that Mary(am) would get pregnant with Jesus.

 

[Sunnih]

I misspoke. For a moment I was thinking that you (or someone, I haven't gone back to re-read) was talking about Gabriel "causing" not just announcing that Mary(am) would get pregnant with Jesus.

Thank you for the clarification. No muslim would believe anything but: Isa (Jesus) was born miraculously without a father and he was a word from God, be! and he was. And as you mentioned, Gabriel only anounced.

 

[Grace Seeker]

Well, acording to trinity concept this would be quite ok. However in the eyes of muslims and Jews, this is wrong and one of those verses that we believe that the pen of the lying scribes has altered. No doubt your question is a good one as it shows that at least the son and the father are two different entities. Thank you for pointing that out.

hahahah

Turn about is fair play, I should give you rep points for that. (well, I did, but I gave them for the wrong post, and now can't given them for the right one. Sorry.)


Of course, you are now accepting that God the father has a side. Not exactly a Islamic concept with regard to God. Perhaps the allusion was metaphorical. Then we are no longer working with separate entities, but once again one being who is one in essence, yet has separate personas.

 

[Grace Seeker]

Just to go further into depth here is the Hebrews 1 as written in todays KJV.




Source: http://www.biblegateway.com/passage/?book_id=65&chapter=1&version=9

Now reading through it, it appears to be very much in the style of the Pslams and like the Psalms is basicaly metaphorical.

It appears that all of the verses are actually related to the Prophets(PBUT) and not just to Isa(as) It is only by taken it our of context and removing it from Psalms that makes it seem to be directed about Isa(as)

Now let's look at Psalm 45

Psalm 45 (King James Version)
King James Version (KJV)

Public Domain
[A Public Domain Bible] [KJV at Zondervan] [Zondervan]

Psalm 45

1My heart is inditing a good matter: I speak of the things which I have made touching the king: my tongue is the pen of a ready writer.

2Thou art fairer than the children of men: grace is poured into thy lips: therefore God hath blessed thee for ever.

3Gird thy sword upon thy thigh, O most mighty, with thy glory and thy majesty.

4And in thy majesty ride prosperously because of truth and meekness and righteousness; and thy right hand shall teach thee terrible things.

5Thine arrows are sharp in the heart of the king's enemies; whereby the people fall under thee.

6Thy throne, O God, is for ever and ever: the sceptre of thy kingdom is a right sceptre.

7Thou lovest righteousness, and hatest wickedness: therefore God, thy God, hath anointed thee with the oil of gladness above thy fellows.

8All thy garments smell of myrrh, and aloes, and cassia, out of the ivory palaces, whereby they have made thee glad.

9Kings' daughters were among thy honourable women: upon thy right hand did stand the queen in gold of Ophir.

10Hearken, O daughter, and consider, and incline thine ear; forget also thine own people, and thy father's house;

11So shall the king greatly desire thy beauty: for he is thy Lord; and worship thou him.

12And the daughter of Tyre shall be there with a gift; even the rich among the people shall intreat thy favour.

13The king's daughter is all glorious within: her clothing is of wrought gold.

14She shall be brought unto the king in raiment of needlework: the virgins her companions that follow her shall be brought unto thee.

15With gladness and rejoicing shall they be brought: they shall enter into the king's palace.

16Instead of thy fathers shall be thy children, whom thou mayest make princes in all the earth.

17I will make thy name to be remembered in all generations: therefore shall the people praise thee for ever and ever.

Source: http://www.biblegateway.com/passage/?book_id=23&chapter=45&version=9

Sort of looks like Psalm 45 was specificaly a song of Praise to God(as) and that particular line was plagarized and rewritten into the Book of Hebrews.


Looks to me that the Book of Hebrews was a rewritten version of the Psalms Paraphrased in a manner to support the Form of Christianity Paul spread.

Indeed, much of Hebrews quotes from the Old Testament. But it isn't just a rewrite. What the unknown author does is to interpret the Psalms you referenced in light of Christ. He is saying that these passages, while perhaps originally written for some other purpose, can now be understood to apply to Christ. Thus, if this book is accepted as inspired so would the author's reinterpretation of Pslams be inspired, and they are still valid for the points that they have been used for in this discussion.

 

[Sunnih]

hahahah

Turn about is fair play, I should give you rep points for that. (well, I did, but I gave them for the wrong post, and now can't given them for the right one. Sorry.)


Of course, you are now accepting that God the father has a side. Not exactly a Islamic concept with regard to God. Perhaps the allusion was metaphorical. Then we are no longer working with separate entities, but once again one being who is one in essence, yet has separate personas.

Thank you for your rep points, although I do know that even if you did not give them to me, you do appreciate a good discussion and likewise.

As for the "side" in the text: I am only talking in the context of the verse we mentioned.

 

[Grace Seeker]

Thank you for your rep points, although I do know that even if you did not give them to me, you do appreciate a good discussion and likewise.

Yes, I do. And I hate a meaningless debate. Thank-you even more for not being one of those.

As for the "side" in the text: I am only talking in the context of the verse we mentioned.

Right. I understood that. What I am saying that in the context of the verse the word "side" is used metaphorically. So, therefore one cannot infer from the passage that it is saying that there are two separate entities, for if one does, then it requires one to no longer take it metaphorically, and thus then one is saying that God literally has a side.

It's one of those verses that won't quite let us have our cake and eat it too.

 

[Woodrow]

Indeed, much of Hebrews quotes from the Old Testament. But it isn't just a rewrite. What the unknown author does is to interpret the Psalms you referenced in light of Christ. He is saying that these passages, while perhaps originally written for some other purpose, can now be understood to apply to Christ. Thus, if this book is accepted as inspired so would the author's reinterpretation of Pslams be inspired, and they are still valid for the points that they have been used for in this discussion.

Peace and many thanks for the answer. It is an area of Christianity I always had a problem with and never could understand how people could reconcile it. I still don't agree, but I can at least see that you believe you have a valid reason not to doubt it.

 

[Sunnih]

What I am saying that in the context of the verse the word "side" is used metaphorically. So, therefore one cannot infer from the passage that it is saying that there are two separate entities, for if one does, then it requires one to no longer take it metaphorically, and thus then one is saying that God literally has a side.

It's one of those verses that won't quite let us have our cake and eat it too.

To say that God has a side and to say by the side of God, is not the same thing. Even if christians were to take this verse literally this does in no way say that they are side by side as it is common in the language to say to someone wanting to go south: keep going while keeping the sun on your left. In this regard, and in relation to the names and attributes and indeed verses that seem to be in the same position as this verse, I would honestly recommend to you to read comments from muslim schoolars and see their explanation as it would indeed take away the confusion that might arise from such verses. (I do not mean the verses that justify or are against your beliefs in trinity as I do not mean it as a debate. I mean those general verses that might be missunderstood or the point about the literal and metaforical and so on). I am sure that even christians can benefit from such. One such book would be the book of Muhamed Ibn Salih al-Uthaymeen titled: "Exemplary foundations concerning the beautiful Names and Attributes of Allah", translated and published by T.R.O.I.D publications. ISBN: 0-9689058-6-2

Of course I mean by this book, those points that we both agree.

 

[Grace Seeker]

Let me change the verse reference:

Acts 5
55But Stephen, full of the Holy Spirit, looked up to heaven and saw the glory of God, and Jesus standing at the right hand of God. 56"Look," he said, "I see heaven open and the Son of Man standing at the right hand of God."

Now after this verse you could have said, just as you said before,

it shows that at least the son and the father are two different entities. Thank you for pointing that out.

But what I am saying, is how does it show the (in this case) the Son of Man and God are two different entities? It does it by saying that they are visible. Problem: God is Spirit and therefore is not visible. So in order to make the connection that it proves two entities, one must also accept that one can visibily see God. Unless one can visibly see God, one cannot use this verse to prove two entities because it is on the basis of a visual clue that one makes the observation.

So also, in the passage we are discussing,"No one has ever seen God, but God the One and Only, who is at the Father's side, has made him known." (John 1:18), to say that this proves two entities, requires that we see a distinction between the Father and God. How is this achieved if not by saying that because he is literally at the side of the Father he cannot also be the Father. Whereas if this is understood metaphorically, we could still have a distinction of persons without having to have a distinction of beings?

 

[MustafaMc]

hahahah

Turn about is fair play, I should give you rep points for that. (well, I did, but I gave them for the wrong post, and now can't given them for the right one. Sorry.)


Of course, you are now accepting that God the father has a side. Not exactly a Islamic concept with regard to God. Perhaps the allusion was metaphorical. Then we are no longer working with separate entities, but once again one being who is one in essence, yet has separate personas.

I believe I am correct in saying that we Muslims don't accept that Allah has a "side", a "front", or a "back" for someone to sit beside. Our concept is that Jesus (pbuh) is one of those extraordinary humans who will be "brought near to Allah".