What's Allah's part in our salvation?

[Slamdunk]

Peace Slamdunk,

However, that which is repeated as being the words of the Apostles does not seem to be accurate. It came after the deaths of the apostles and seems to be flavored strongly with Roman influence.

Yet there is no documentation that shows what the Apostles said was false. I try hard to find such documentation, but I have not come across any inspite of all the claims that there is.

It is most likely that the Apostles did travel and established churches in other parts of the world. Such as Mark went to Alexandria and was the beginning of the Coptic church. We know that the message Mark gave was different than what Rome was spreading, until after strong influence from Rome.

What was Rome spreading that was different then what Mark said? Who should we believe? Mark or Rome?

Just one example, the Coptics did not accept the trinity, nor the alleged divinity of Jesus(as) until some time after or during the Nicene Council.

The scriptures were available long before Nicene. Could none of them read what they clearly said? It's hard to figure where such passages as John 10:33, Col. 2:9, Heb. 1:8 and 2 Pet. 1:1, which record the deity of Jesus, that these people did not understand them.

But I'm particularly concerned about what Allah allowed to happen. Why would he change a man's appearance to look like Jesus, let him be crucified and then allow sincere men to spread the message that it was Jesus who was crucified? In my view, that would be way out of character for God.

Peace

 

[Woodrow]

Yet there is no documentation that shows what the Apostles said was false. I try hard to find such documentation, but I have not come across any inspite of all the claims that there is.

Here the problem is there is no way to prove a negative. I am quite certain that no Apostle ever said that "Pontius Pilate drove a pink 1957 Cadillac." I will never find any documentation to prove they did not say that. the burden of prove is for some one to present acceptable proof that the words we have today are the true words of the Apostles.

What was Rome spreading that was different then what Mark said? Who should we believe? Mark or Rome?

One bit of evidence was the early refusal of the Coptics to accept the concept of the Trinity. This was not accepted by them until after the Nicene council.

The scriptures were available long before Nicene. Could none of them read what they clearly said? It's hard to figure where such passages as John 10:33, Col. 2:9, Heb. 1:8 and 2 Pet. 1:1, which record the deity of Jesus, that these people did not understand them.

But, where those the actual words used by them?

But I'm particularly concerned about what Allah allowed to happen. Why would he change a man's appearance to look like Jesus, let him be crucified and then allow sincere men to spread the message that it was Jesus who was crucified? In my view, that would be way out of character for God.

Looking at it from a Human perspective and in terms of todays conditions, I doubt if we are capable of fully understanding. We were not there and we do not know the full story.

Peace

Peace

 

[Slamdunk]

Here the problem is there is no way to prove a negative. I am quite certain that no Apostle ever said that "Pontius Pilate drove a pink 1957 Cadillac."

Hello Woodrow. Until we have reasons to suspect that what we have in the Bible today is not true, it stands as written and acceptable.

I will never find any documentation to prove they did not say that. the burden of prove is for some one to present acceptable proof that the words we have today are the true words of the Apostles.

The best proof iwe have is the "thousands" of greek manuscripts that have been found and which support what the Bible says today.

One bit of evidence was the early refusal of the Coptics to accept the concept of the Trinity. This was not accepted by them until after the Nicene council.

The Coptics have been shown to be wrong. They were not the final arbiters of the canon.

Looking at it from a Human perspective and in terms of todays conditions, I doubt if we are capable of fully understanding. We were not there and we do not know the full story.

If there were inconsistencies and contradictions among all these manuscripts, there would be a reason to doubt what we have today is flawed.

Peace

 

[Slamdunk]

Here the problem is there is no way to prove a

Looking at it from a Human perspective and in terms of todays conditions, I doubt if we are capable of fully understanding. We were not there and we do not know the full story.

Greetings again, Woodrow Based on what you know about Allah, do you think it would be acceptable to him to change the appearance of a man to look like Jesus and then watch sincere men spread a message he knew was wrong?

As you can see, I'm having a problem believing that God would allow such a thing to happen. It doesn't seem, to me, that he would ever do such a thing.
Since the Quran doesn't say that Allah changed the appearance of a man to look like Jesus, then perhaps an alternative theory should be considered.

Peace

 

[Woodrow]

Hello Woodrow.

Hello and Peace Slamdunk. one of the most difficult task a person can face is to discuss Religion and to remain civil. You have been doing a good job at remaining civil. Thank you. In debating our beliefs we will face considerable differences. Debate is good as long as we can all remember to agree to disagree with respect. If I slip and you view any of my replies as disrespectful I apologize in advance, as that is not my intent.

Until we have reasons to suspect that what we have in the Bible today is not true, it stands as written and acceptable.

This is in an area in which I firmly believe there is much reason to suspect. Two immediate reasons come to mind. It often contradicts what Allah(swt) has revealed in the Qur'an and the other is that the oldest known versions of the NT are written in classical Greek, although with the exception of Paul the Apostles most likly spoke Aramaic.

The best proof iwe have is the "thousands" of greek manuscripts that have been found and which support what the Bible says today.

That is something that causes me to doubt the NT. What were the original Aramaic words an why were they not preserved?

The Coptics have been shown to be wrong. They were not the final arbiters of the canon.

True, but why were the Romans and Greeks the final arbiters?

If there were inconsistencies and contradictions among all these manuscripts, there would be a reason to doubt what we have today is flawed.

Here we will probably differ over what is considered as inconsistencies and contradictions. What I see as consistencies you may see as simply variations in translation. A very hard area for either of us to validate to the others satisfaction.

Peace

Peace

 

[Slamdunk]

Hello and Peace Slamdunk. one of the most difficult task a person can face is to discuss Religion and to remain civil. You have been doing a good job at remaining civil. Thank you. In debating our beliefs we will face considerable differences. Debate is good as long as we can all remember to agree to disagree with respect. If I slip and you view any of my replies as disrespectful I apologize in advance, as that is not my intent.

Good morning,Woodrow. I appreciate your civility and gentlemanly manner. You are right. We do disagree, but we have disagreed with good manners. And you're right. Discussions of religion can and do become emotional, and downright hostile.

This is in an area in which I firmly believe there is much reason to suspect. Two immediate reasons come to mind. It often contradicts what Allah(swt) has revealed in the Qur'an

Yes, and the major differences are the Sonship, Deity, crucifixion and resurrection of Jesus. And it is these four things where there is the sharpest disagreement. Both religions are steadfast in their doctrines.

and the other is that the oldest known versions of the NT are written in classical Greek, although with the exception of Paul the Apostles most likely spoke Aramaic.

That could very well be, but I don't think we can conclude that these reasons are sufficient to establish grounds of corrupted manuscripts.

That is something that causes me to doubt the NT. What were the original Aramaic words and why were they not preserved?

Since the originals are long gone, it is impossible to compare what we have today along side them. I have to believe that if they could ever be compared, we would see that there really are no consequential differences. But as noted before, we do have thousands of NT manuscripts which are all in agreement and from which the canon was formed.

True, but why were the Romans and Greeks the final arbiters?

Christians believe that God involves himself in the affairs of men. I assume muslims also believe that. Being involved, we believe that God was able to influence certain men to record and others assemble into we call the Bible. I don't think "who" the final arbiters were is what's important, rather "what" they recorded and assembled under the inspiration of God. Paul and Peter address this in the following verses:

2 TIM. 3:16
All Scripture is God-breathed and is useful for teaching, rebuking, correcting and training in righteousness,

2 PETER 1:20,21
Above all, you must understand that no prophecy of Scripture came about by the prophet's own interpretation. 21 For prophecy never had its origin in the will of man, but men spoke from God as they were carried along by the Holy Spirit.

I realize muslims believe that somewhere along the line some of these men "goofed." Or they believe that other men did not accurately record what the inspired authors recorded. I think we would agree that God does not make mistakes, and he would have made a big mistake if he allowed the men he chose to record scripture inaccurately, and the other men to interpret and transcribe them likewise. Having said that, I realize there are some inconsequential transcription errors that can't be explained. But I don't think such errors influence the major doctrines over which our religions disagree. Are such minor errors to be perceived as legitimate grounds to make all other scriptures suspect? I don't think so.

Here we will probably differ over what is considered as inconsistencies and contradictions. What I see as consistencies you may see as simply variations in translation. A very hard area for either of us to validate to the others satisfaction.

With such, I cannot disagree. I am still interested, if you are inclined, to continue with this matter of Allah allegedly changing the appearance of a man to look like Jesus on the cross. If it makes sense that Allah did this and knew that sincere men would spread a false message, then would it be unreasonable to question why Allah would allow that to happen?

In an attempt to prompt muslims to consider that Jesus really was crucified, I think it's important to consider all angles in this matter. Like I said before, faith moves mountains and God only has to say something once for it to be truth. From muslim's perspective, the entire matter of the crucifixion of Jesus hangs on one verse in the Quran where there are scores of verses that affirm it in the NT. This is buttressed by key prophecies in the OT which point to the cross. Then there are the statements of secular historians and the Jewish Talmud. Finally, history records many martyrs who were willing to die for what they believed to be true. Nobody was more familiar with what happened than the Apostles who recorded it and gave their lives for it. I think when you put all these things together, they build an air tight case for the crucifixion of Jesus. So the big question is, does the single statement in the Quran disqualify all this? Can there be "two" inspired accounts of what happened? It would be hard to say so.

Peace

 

[Woodrow]

Good morning,Woodrow. I appreciate your civility and gentlemanly manner. You are right. We do disagree, but we have disagreed with good manners. And you're right. Discussions of religion can and do become emotional, and downright hostile.

Thank You. Again I will just hit on some of your points and try to come back to the others later. Keep in mind that I am writting from my own impressions and experiences. I do not speak for all Muslims. Although I do my best to keep things consistent with the teachings of Islam I am subject to error and my own biased opinions. Astagfirullah(May Allah(swt) forgive me if I am in error)

With such, I cannot disagree. I am still interested, if you are inclined, to continue with this matter of Allah allegedly changing the appearance of a man to look like Jesus on the cross. If it makes sense that Allah did this and knew that sincere men would spread a false message, then would it be unreasonable to question why Allah would allow that to happen?

I can understand why it would look like that. I do not know fully as to how or what was done. i tend to doubt that sincere knowing men would have been led to spread a deception, so my conclusion is they didn't and we do not have the actual words of what they did preach.

In an attempt to prompt muslims to consider that Jesus really was crucified, I think it's important to consider all angles in this matter. Like I said before, faith moves mountains and God only has to say something once for it to be truth. From muslim's perspective, the entire matter of the crucifixion of Jesus hangs on one verse in the Quran where there are scores of verses that affirm it in the NT.

True, but were those the actual words of the apostles? In my opinion the Qur'an is the word of Allah(swt) and the words in the NT were not the actual words spoken, but writings that came after their deaths.

This is buttressed by key prophecies in the OT which point to the cross. Then there are the statements of secular historians and the Jewish Talmud. Finally, history records many martyrs who were willing to die for what they believed to be true.

Here we have the problem of Hebrew translated to Greek, then to Latin then to English. I doubt you will find a Jew that can read Hebrew, that would agree anything in the Torah or Talmud actually prophecises the cross. History is full of maryers that died for what they believed to be true. The Kamakaze pilots of WWll gladly gave their lives for Hirohito who they believed to be the Son of God.

Nobody was more familiar with what happened than the Apostles who recorded it and gave their lives for it. I think when you put all these things together, they build an air tight case for the crucifixion of Jesus. So the big question is, does the single statement in the Quran disqualify all this? Can there be "two" inspired accounts of what happened? It would be hard to say so.

I strongly doubt, the existing words were the true words of the apostles. Particulary the words of Mark, John, Luke and Matthew. Reading and rereading them, I do not see them as the type of things that would be said by a Mideasterner. The writing style is more in line with translations from Classical Greek and the events correspond very closely with Greek mythology. I suspect a very strong Paulistic influence and in my opinion Christianity had been replaced with Paulism.

Peace

Peace also to you

 

[barney]

The angel (gabriel) diddnt appear to mohammed as depicted in other "visions" of other religions.
He "Pressed hard" on mohammed causing him to be frightened. It was when he got home that his Uncle said that the event must have been Gabriel.

Assuming that Judo-Christianity is based in actual supernatural phenomena and Gabriel is a reoccuring and immortal being, he is relating Gods word because he says so, and personally, i wouldnt argue with a angel. (especially one that attacked me).

The strange thing is, Gabriel is incredibly inconsistant in his messages. it's almost as if "His word" is being used for socio-political-religeious ends by each person who sees him.

 

[Slamdunk]

I can understand why it would look like that. I do not know fully as to how or what was done. i tend to doubt that sincere knowing men would have been led to spread a deception, so my conclusion is they didn't and we do not have the actual words of what they did preach.

Hello Woodrow. But wouldn't it have been a deception if Allah changed someone whom the Apostles believed was Jesus and wasn't, and then they went around telling people it was Jesus on the cross? Surely the Apostles believed it was him and John is recorded to have been at calvary when it happened.

True, but were those the actual words of the apostles? In my opinion the Qur'an is the word of Allah(swt) and the words in the NT were not the actual words spoken, but writings that came after their deaths.

I do understand that muslims believe the Quran corrects whatever doesn't agree with scripture.

Here we have the problem of Hebrew translated to Greek, then to Latin then to English. I doubt you will find a Jew that can read Hebrew, that would agree anything in the Torah or Talmud actually prophecises the cross.

The Talmud is not about prophecy, rather an interpretation of the Torah. It simple records that Jesus was crucified. Here is what it says:

"On the eve of Passover they hanged Yeshu (of Nazareth) and the herald went before him for forty days saying (Yeshu of Nazareth) is going to be stoned in that he hath practiced sorcery and beguiled and led astray Israel. Let everyone knowing aught in his defense come and plead for him. But they found naught in his defense and hanged him on the eve of Passover." (Sandhedrin 43a)

History is full of martyrs that died for what they believed to be true. The Kamakaze pilots of WWll gladly gave their lives for Hirohito who they believed to be the Son of God.

Yes, it is true that many have died as martyrs for the cause of what they died for. I only included that along with the other evidences for the crucifixion of Jesus.

I suspect a very strong Paulistic influence and in my opinion Christianity had been replaced with Paulism.

Can you think where Paul disagreed with Jesus on anything?

Peace

 

[Woodrow]

Hello Woodrow. But wouldn't it have been a deception if Allah changed someone whom the Apostles believed was Jesus and wasn't, and then they went around telling people it was Jesus on the cross? Surely the Apostles believed it was him and John is recorded to have been at calvary when it happened.

It is true John is recorded in the Gospel attributed to him, to have been at Calvary. But, is that the truth? Was he really there?

I do understand that muslims believe the Quran corrects whatever doesn't agree with scripture.

True

The Talmud is not about prophecy, rather an interpretation of the Torah. It simple records that Jesus was crucified. Here is what it says:

"On the eve of Passover they hanged Yeshu (of Nazareth) and the herald went before him for forty days saying (Yeshu of Nazareth) is going to be stoned in that he hath practiced sorcery and beguiled and led astray Israel. Let everyone knowing aught in his defense come and plead for him. But they found naught in his defense and hanged him on the eve of Passover." (Sandhedrin 43a)

Slip of the tongue on my part. although I am not versed in the Talmud, I should not have made that error. It is separate from the Tauret. I am not familar enough with the Talmud to agree or disagree as to that.

But a google search found this:

Passage #4: Execution

Talmud Sanhedrin 43a

It is taught: On the eve of Passover they hung Yeshu and the crier went forth for forty days beforehand declaring that "[Yeshu] is going to be stoned for practicing witchcraft, for enticing and leading Israel astray. Anyone who knows something to clear him should come forth and exonerate him." But no one had anything exonerating for him and they hung him on the eve of Passover.

Ulla said: Would one think that we should look for exonerating evidence for him? He was an enticer and G-d said (Deuteronomy 13:9) "Show him no pity or compassion, and do not shield him."

Yeshu was different because he was close to the government.

Summary
Here we have the story of the execution of Yeshu. Like Ben Stada, he was also executed on the eve of Passover. Before executing him, the court searched for any witnesses who could clear his name, as was normally done before any execution. Ulla, however, questioned this practice. An enticer, due to the biblical mandate not to be merciful, should not be afforded this normal consideration. The Talmud answers that Yeshu was different. Because of his government connections, the court tried to search for any reason not to execute him and upset the government.

Proof
Again we see Yeshu. All of the proofs from above connecting Yeshu to Jesus apply here as well. Additionally, the execution on the eve of Passover is another connection to Jesus as above with Ben Stada.

Problems
1. As mentioned above with Ben Stada, the Synoptic Gospels have Jesus being executed on Passover itself and not the eve of Passover.
2. As above, Yeshu lived a century before Jesus.
3. Yeshu was executed by a Jewish court and not by the Romans. During Yeshu's time, the reign of Alexander Janneus, the Jewish courts had the power to execute but had to be careful because the courts were ruled by the Pharisees while the king was a Sadducee. It seems clear why the courts would not want to unneccesarily upset the monarch by executing a friend of his. During the Roman occupation of Jesus' time, there is no indication that the Jewish courts had the right to execute criminals.
3. There is no indication from the New Testament that Jesus had friends in the government.

Passage #5: Disciples

Talmud Sanhedrin 43a

It is taught: Yeshu had five disciples - Matai, Nekai, Netzer, Buni, and Todah.

They brought Matai [before the judges]. He said to them: Will Matai be killed? It is written (Psalm 42:2) "When [=Matai] shall (I) come and appear before G-d."
They said to him: Yes, Matai will be killed as it is written (Psalm 41:5) "When [=Matai] shall (he) die and his name perish."

They brought Nekai. He said to them: Will Nekai be killed? It is written (Exodus 23:7) "The innocent [=Naki] and the righteous you shall not slay."
They said to him: Yes, Nekai will be killed as it is written (Psalm 10:8) "In secret places he slay the innocent [=Naki]."

They brought Netzer. He said to them: Will Netzer be killed? It is written (Isaiah 11:1) "A branch [=Netzer] shall spring up from his roots."
They said to him: Yes, Netzer will be killed as it is written (Isaiah 14:19) "You are cast forth out of your grave like an abominable branch [=Netzer]."

They brought Buni. He said to them: Will Buni be killed? It is written (Exodus 4:22) "My son [=Beni], my firstborn, Israel."
They said to him: Yes, Buni will be killed as it is written (Exodus 4:23) "Behold, I slay your son [=Bincha] your firstborn."

They brought Todah. He said to them: Will Todah be killed? It is written (Psalm 100:1) "A Psalm for thanksgiving [=Todah]."
They said to him: Yes, Todah will be killed as it is written (Psalm 50:23) "Whoever sacrifices thanksgiving [=Todah] honors me."

Summary
Five of Yeshu's disciples were brought before a court, tried for the crime against G-d and society of idolatry, and executed according to biblical law. This passages presents each disciple cleverly bringing a biblical verse in an attempt to exonerate himself and the court responding likewise.

Proof
The name Yeshu is used as above. The additional proof this passage provides is that Matai is the Hebrew equivalent of Matthew, one of Jesus' disciples.

Problems
1. The same problems above connecting Yeshu to Jesus apply here.
2. Of the five disciples, only one is recognized. What of the other four?
3. The name Matai seems like a nickname or Aramaic equivalent of Matityahu, which was a known Jewish name in that time period. It was probably a common name, considering the high esteem in which the patriarch of the Hasmonean dynasty, Matityahu, was held by the common people. Some manuscripts have the name of R. Yehoshua Ben Perachiah's famous colleague as Matai from Arbel [cf. R. Shimon Ben Tzemach Duran, Magen Avot, ed. Zeini (Jerusalem:2000) p. 31].

Source: http://www.angelfire.com/mt/talmud/jesusnarr.html

Yes, it is true that many have died as martyrs for the cause of what they died for. I only included that along with the other evidences for the crucifixion of Jesus.

Understandable

Can you think where Paul disagreed with Jesus on anything?

We have no basis other than the words of Paul as to what he says Jesus(as) said.

The scenario I see is the original words of Jesus(as) were true. However, at about the time of Paul, Christianity was rewritten and all reformed to verify the beliefs or disbeliefs of Paul. Some say He did a deliberate deception. I tend to think it was an error of judgment and misunderstanding. I can accept Paul was sincere and was under the belief he was spreading the truth, but that is just my opinion. In either case somewhere along the line the Aramaic words were either changed or misunderstood. I can see that happening very easily. Aramaic is very similar to Arabic and for most words there are no equivalent translations except possibly into Arabic or Hebrew. The semitic languages are very difficult until one fully comprehends that the words are written without vowels and the only true way to understand them is to hear them as they were actually spoken. Among the Semitic languages, oral memory and recitation is a vital part to keep the true meaning. Without hearing somebody speaking the original words it is difficult to understand what was written. Unless the Greek translators had oral recitations to verify the writings they may have had, I believe it would have been impossible to get even a close approximation of a translation. My round about way of saying is that the Gospels were written to agree with the conclusions of Paul.

Peace

Peace

 

[Slamdunk]

It is true John is recorded in the Gospel attributed to him, to have been at Calvary. But, is that the truth? Was he really there?

Source: http://www.angelfire.com/mt/talmud/jesusnarr.html

Hello Woodrow. This site obviously casts doubt on the version of Sanhedrin 43a I submitted, but by no means the crucifixion of Jesus as prophesied in Isa. 53, recorded by secular historians, the four gospels and the testimony of billions over the centuries. I don't think just by the wave of a hand muslims can summarily dismiss it by claiming the Quran corrects the Bible with just one verse. That is an argument supported only be faith, which I can understand. After the dust settles, the truth will be known. We still have the matter of the Shroud where the jury is still out, but the most remarkable thing about it is that image on the cloth. How did it get there? It appears its origin is supernatural.

The scenario I see is the original words of Jesus(as) were true.

Other than saying the Quran corrects the Bible, can you site some documentation or other evidence that shows what Jesus said in the originals is any different than what is recorded today?

However, at about the time of Paul, Christianity was rewritten and all reformed to verify the beliefs or disbeliefs of Paul.

How did Paul change anything about the Christianity that existed before him?

Some say He did a deliberate deception. I tend to think it was an error of judgment and misunderstanding.

Can you site just one thing where Paul misunderstood anything?

I can accept Paul was sincere and was under the belief he was spreading the truth, but that is just my opinion. In either case somewhere along the line the Aramaic words were either changed or misunderstood.

I'm open to anything you can site as factual.

I can see that happening very easily.

Yes, many say they can see it happening easily. But what did they actually see?

Aramaic is very similar to Arabic and for most words there are no equivalent translations except possibly into Arabic or Hebrew. The semitic languages are very difficult until one fully comprehends that the words are written without vowels and the only true way to understand them is to hear them as they were actually spoken. Among the Semitic languages, oral memory and recitation is a vital part to keep the true meaning. Without hearing somebody speaking the original words it is difficult to understand what was written.

Again, I ask for even one passage recorded in today's Bible that is different or inconsistent with the originals? How could anyone possibly know they are different since we don't have the originals against which to compare them? Let me ask you this. Don't you believe that God oversaw the inspiration and formation of the Quran? Yes, I know you do. But why won't you grant the same thing to God overseeing the inspiration and formation of the canon? (I know where this will lead

Unless the Greek translators had oral recitations to verify the writings they may have had, I believe it would have been impossible to get even a close approximation of a translation.

How do you know they didn't?

My round about way of saying is that the Gospels were written to agree with the conclusions of Paul.

You have made several speculations about which you think may have happened and I have asked you several times to support your claims with some kind of evidence. I will accept your belief that QCB (Quran Corrects Bible) and I think that is the best argument for muslims, albeit a faith argument.

Peace

 

[Woodrow]

It is true John is recorded in the Gospel attributed to him, to have been at Calvary. But, is that the truth? Was he really there?

Source: http://www.angelfire.com/mt/talmud/jesusnarr.html

Hello Woodrow. This site obviously casts doubt on the version of Sanhedrin 43a I submitted, but by no means the crucifixion of Jesus as prophesied in Isa. 53, recorded by secular historians, the four gospels and the testimony of billions over the centuries. I don't think just by the wave of a hand muslims can summarily dismiss it by claiming the Quran corrects the Bible with just one verse. That is an argument supported only be faith, which I can understand. After the dust settles, the truth will be known. We still have the matter of the Shroud where the jury is still out, but the most remarkable thing about it is that image on the cloth. How did it get there? It appears its origin is supernatural.



Other than saying the Quran corrects the Bible, can you site some documentation or other evidence that shows what Jesus said in the originals is any different than what is recorded today?



How did Paul change anything about the Christianity that existed before him?



Can you site just one thing where Paul misunderstood anything?



I'm open to anything you can site as factual.



Yes, many say they can see it happening easily. But what did they actually see?



Again, I ask for even one passage recorded in today's Bible that is different or inconsistent with the originals? How could anyone possibly know they are different since we don't have the originals against which to compare them? Let me ask you this. Don't you believe that God oversaw the inspiration and formation of the Quran? Yes, I know you do. But why won't you grant the same thing to God overseeing the inspiration and formation of the canon? (I know where this will lead



How do you know they didn't?



You have made several speculations about which you think may have happened and I have asked you several times to support your claims with some kind of evidence. I will accept your belief that QCB (Quran Corrects Bible) and I think that is the best argument for muslims, albeit a faith argument.

Peace

Greetings Slamdunk,

It is quite obvious we are getting into a cycler argument.

I say "XYZ" is true because it tells me so in the Qur'an.

You say "ABC" is correct because it tells you so in the Bible.

I say "ABC" is false because XYZ" is true. You say "XYZ" is false because "ABC" is true.

ad infinteum, ad nauseum

We quite simply are both working from what the other does not accept as a valid source of proof.

My only conclusion is:

Our best choice is to accept the others right to disagree. I believe the Qur'an is the Truth, You believe the Bible is the Truth. Neither supports the other.

Your last paragraph is an excellent summation.

You have made several speculations about which you think may have happened and I have asked you several times to support your claims with some kind of evidence. I will accept your belief that QCB (Quran Corrects Bible) and I think that is the best argument for muslims, albeit a faith argument.

True.

To me the word of the Qur'an makes the speculations self evident. To you the word of the Bible makes counterclaims self evident.

What I see as fact, you see as speculation and vice versa what you see as fact i see as speculation.

We do not see the same things as the source of proof. Oddly we both will immediately agree that only God(swt) is the source of the Truth. We can not agree upon which is his word.

It is all a matter of faith.

Peace

 

[Slamdunk]

We do not see the same things as the source of proof. Oddly we both will immediately agree that only God(swt) is the source of the Truth. We can not agree upon which is his word.

It is all a matter of faith.

Hello Woodrow. All that you said above is true. We disagree and hold fast to our respective books. But I'm grateful that we haven't allowed our discussions to get disrespectful.

I want to share one thing that you might want to consider because it respects the credibility of the Bible. It says the time is coming, and I don't think it's far off, when billions of people all around the world will vanish from the face of the earth in a split second (1 Cor. 15:51). You've probably heard about it and it's called the catching away of saints, or the "rapture." Here are the verses that speak ot it:

JOHN 14:1-3 (Jesus speaking)
Do not let your hearts be troubled. Trust in God; trust also in me. 2 In my Father's house are many rooms; if it were not so, I would have told you. I am going there to prepare a place for you. 3 And if I go and prepare a place for you, I will come back and take you to be with me that you also may be where I am."

1 Thes. 4:16-18
For the Lord (Jesus) himself will come down from heaven, with a loud command, with the voice of the archangel and with the trumpet call of God, and the dead in Christ will rise first. 17 After that, we who are still alive and are left will be caught up together with them in the clouds to meet the Lord in the air. And so we will be with the Lord forever. 18 Therefore encourage each other with these words.

1 COR. 15:51-53
Listen, I tell you a mystery: We will not all sleep, but we will all be changed— 52in a flash, in the twinkling of an eye, at the last trumpet. For the trumpet will sound, the dead will be raised imperishable, and we will be changed. 53For the perishable must clothe itself with the imperishable, and the mortal with immortality.

Phil. 3:20,21 (This is my favorite)
But our citizenship is in heaven. And we eagerly await a Savior from there, the Lord Jesus Christ, 21 who, by the power that enables him to bring everything under his control, will transform our lowly bodies so that they will be like his glorious body.

The Bible says that flesh and blood cannot inherit the kingdom of heaven. Here's the idea. When a person is born again (John 3:3), his body is prepared to be changed into a body that can enter heaven. That's what Paul ment when he said our lowly bodies "will be transformed" in the above verse.

I know this probably sounds like "beam me up Scotty" science fiction, but at least you know where to go in the Bible if the rapture should happen in our lifetime. You may choose to believe a different scenario to explain this massive global disappearance. Personally, I think this event will turn many to the Bible because friends and relatives of Christians have been told about it in advance and when they no longer see them around, they will remember what they were told. How do you explain the instant disappearance of that many people?

Peace

 

[Woodrow]

Peace slamdunk,

To be honest my concept of the Christian belief of the "Rapture" is still very much influenced by what I was taught as a Catholic.

Origins of the Rapture

The Rapture seems to have been invented by a British religious figure named John Nelson Darby (1800-1882). He was ordained in the Church of Ireland and worked there to convert Catholics away from their folly. He was extremely pessimistic about what he saw as the state of the world and the state of the Church. He eventually left it, joining a dissident group called the Plymouth Brethren of which he soon became a prominent leader.

About 1830, he began teaching that Jesus’ coming at the end of time would be preceded by a “rapture of the saints.” Some members of his own Brethren community objected that this was not biblically founded, but Darby dismissed any criticism. It had, he claimed, been revealed to him by God.

Source: http://www.americancatholic.org/Newsletters/CU/ac1005.asp

 

[Slamdunk]

Peace slamdunk,

To be honest my concept of the Christian belief of the "Rapture" is still very much influenced by what I was taught as a Catholic.



Source: http://www.americancatholic.org/Newsletters/CU/ac1005.asp

Hello Woodrow. I think the idea is to read these verses and let them speak to you as to what they mean. What Darby says doesn't matter. But if he is right and this event happens, then it ought to be something people should know about. I realize the Catholic Church doesn't teach the "rapture," but it would be interesting to learn how they interpret these scriptures.

Peace

 

[Woodrow]

Hello Woodrow. I think the idea is to read these verses and let them speak to you as to what they mean. What Darby says doesn't matter. But if he is right and this event happens, then it ought to be something people should know about. I realize the Catholic Church doesn't teach the "rapture," but it would be interesting to learn how they interpret these scriptures.

Peace

For me it is a moot point as I had Catholicism many years ago. However, like with most people, every event in and every experience I have had was one of the stepping stones on the path that lead me to today.

With that said I am in full agreement with this:

I realize the Catholic Church doesn't teach the "rapture," but it would be interesting to learn how they interpret these scriptures.

To be honest, I have no real concern about the mechanics of the last days. It is sufficient for me to only know that they will come. I strongly suspect that my own personal "Last days" will occur before the final days for the population at large. None of us know if we will live to the absolute final days, but we all can be certain we will each face out own last days. For each of us that begins the moment we are born.