Christianity in Five Minutes

[Grace Seeker]

Its like someone writing a history of The USA and missing out Abe Lincon or Washington.

Meh...draw conclusions as ye will!

No. It is more like a Mexican historian writing a history of the Mexican fight for Independence from Spain making only a brief mention of Davy Crockett. For the purpose of the book, as the only connection is that Santana lead the revolution of independence and latter had to deal with a bunch of rebels himself, Crockett actually means nothing to him. It would be suprising that Crocket would be mentioned at all. Just one of those many details that such a historian might on the oft chance record. But to go so far as to report on Crockett's time in the US Congress, a Mexican historian might not even know about that. And if he did. What relevance does to the topic of his writings?

Josephus wasn't trying to write a comprehensive history of all Jewish people, even all Jewish leaders. He was writing about their wars for independence. And as he wrote, though he was himself Jewish, he actually happened to be able to do so only because he was living amongst the Romans who were in the midst of utterly vanquishing the Jews.

Christian sects that had become mostly Greek by this time and the people long past who were once associated were hardly of any interest to the major themes of his book.

 

[barney]

Matthew:51 At that moment the curtain of the temple was torn in two from top to bottom. The earth shook and the rocks split. 52The tombs broke open and the bodies of many holy people who had died were raised to life. 53They came out of the tombs, and after Jesus' resurrection they went into the holy city and appeared to many people.

In reference to earlier post.

 

[YusufNoor]

On one hand you assert that there is no validation for anything in the NT to be true, and then you turn back to it to claim that Jesus said certain sets of things you take out of context and that he didn't say certain other things because the exact words you want to see it worded in aren't found.

don't you love it when we do that!?? :hmm:

To change the metaphor -- It's like you are trying to throw out your cake and eat it to? looks around for cake...

I believe that John did indeed know, walk with, eat with, and talk with Jesus. I also believe that this is true with regard to Matthew, though not with the same level of confidence that I have for John. I don't believe it is likely that Luke or Mark knew Jesus, however I do not suppose that it was beyond the realm of possibility.

Regarding the alleged authorship of John:
From The Interpreters One-Volume Commentary on the Bible Including the Apocrypha with General Articles Copyright 1971 by Abingon Press 15th Printing 1994:
According to Massey H. Shepard, Jr., in his introduction to the Gospel According to John in the section titled:
Author. The acceptance of the gospel in the NT canon in the late 2nd to early 3rd century was a seal of acceptance of its authorship by John son of Zebedee, one of the 12 apostles of Jesus. Though contested at that time, this official view held the day without serious challenge until recent times; and is still stoutly defended by many able scholars, Catholic and Protestant. Its strongest support is the testimony of Irenaeus, who claimed to have received the tradition firsthand, when a youth, from Polycarp.

The tradition would perhaps be stronger if it did not claim too much, for in addition to the gospel it places under John’s authorship the three letters and Revelation. Distinguished theologians of the ancient church, Bishop Dionysius of Alexandria and Bishop Eusebius of Caesarea were doubtful that the same hand produced both the gospel and Revelation. They were keen enough to note the differences in these writings both of literary style and of doctrinal viewpoint. They resorted thereafter to a 2-John hypothesis: (a) the apostle, who wrote the gospel and the letters; and (b) a “disciple of the Lord,” who composed Revelation. Support for this thesis was found in a book of Oracles of the Lord by Bishop Papias of Hierapolis, a contemporary of Ignatius and Polycarp, who distinguished 2 Johns: (a) an apostle, one of the 12; and (b) a disciple, who lived in his own times. Papias was conversant with all the “Johannine” writings, though he preferred oral to written traditions. But it is not clear from the surviving fragments of his work to what John he ascribed the books under that name. Many modern scholars reverse the judgment of Dionysius and Eusebius by ascribing Revelation to the apostle – as did Justin Martyr, - and the gospel and the letters to the “disciple.”


The gospel itself has an appendix has an appendix (ch. 21), which includes a colophon (vss. 24-25) ascribing the “witness” of the gospel to the unnamed “beloved disciple” who lay close to Jesus’ breast at the Last Supper (c.f 13:23-25; 20:2; 21:20-24). No reader of the gospel who was not familiar with the Synoptics and Acts would identify the “beloved disciple” with John, or with either of the “sons of Zebedee,” who are mentioned only in the appendix (21:2). But the church in Asia made this identification, as is clear not only from the testimony of Irenaeus but more especially from a letter of bishop Polycrates of Ephesus (ca. 190) preserved by Eusebius. In listing the “great luminaries” who have “fallen asleep” in Asia, Polycrates mentions first Philip the apostle, whom he confuses with Philip the evangelist of Acts, and his daughters and then John, “who leaned on the Lord’s breast, who was a priest, wearing the sacerdotal breastplate, both martyr and teacher. It is notable that he does call not John an apostle, as he does Philip!

The colophon (21:24-25) distinguishes 2 stages in the composition of the book: the “disciple” who bears witness, and “we” who attest to the truth of his testimony. This suggests a posthumous publication by disciples, or an editor, of the eyewitness disciple. Indications of editorial revision have often been noted---e.g. 2:21-22; 4:2 seem obvious, not to speak of the appendix itself. There are abrupt transitions both of the geography and of discourse. Chapter 6 would seem to make more sense if it preceded chapter 5.The dangling summons of 14:31 “Rise, let us go hense,”intrudes in the middle of a long discourse; and the logic of argument and exposition in chapters 7; 8; 10 is curious. There is no manuscript evidence to support any transpositions of the text; nor is there evidence that the gospel ever circulated without the appendix. Nonetheless editorial work seems plausible.

There is a growing consensus that the author – whether “disciple” or “witness” had access to good historical traditions stemming from Palestine, no less than the writers of the Synoptic gospels. His facts, as well as his interpretation must be taken seriously. He knew the geography of Palestine and the customs of the Jews better than Mark, and he may have had Judean associations more immediate than those of the Synoptic writers.

He was undoubtedly a Jew, one whose native tongue was the Aramaic spoken by Jesus. He thinks and writes in a Semitic idiom; and the sayings of Jesus he records, however different in style from those of the Synoptics, betray the same Semitic parallelism of structure. Yet he writes a clear and grammatical Greek. Efforts of some scholars to prove that the gospel was translated from Aramaic have not won general acceptance. His Hellenistic culture has perhaps been exaggerated, but it was not negligible. He was more than match for his theological opponents.

to summarize, it MIGHT be John OR ANOTHER John, but AT LEAST it was a Jew. that is, if there was only 1 author...

well, to quote one of our Chritians scholars:

Originally posted by Grace Seeker However, I have to deal with what I understand to be true, not just what I wish was true.

so, in calling Brother Khalid wrong for saying we don't KNOW who wrote John i have to, based upon the commentary as well as YOUR statement, call this one in favor of Brother Khalid! ONE point for Khalid and before subtracting any from you, i'll await your explanation on why you said that something that was FACTUALLY CORRECT was incorrect.


That being said , the Prophet, Peace be upon him, came to perfect good manners and to enjoin good and forbid evil. we should try to follow his example. we should probably avoid talk like "There is not a single educated Christian who can convince or prove his point within our without the Bible." what you are implying is that our brother are Christian because they are uneducated. That IS NOT good manners. If Allah, Subhannahu Wa Ta' Aala wanted them to be Muslims, then they would be Muslim. our job is simply to convey the message, even Musa, Alaihe Salaam, was told, [from Surah Ta Ha] " 43) Go both to Firon, surely he has become inordinate. 44) Then speak to him a gentle word; haply he may mind or fear." if the worst of mankind was to be spoken to "with a gentle word" how much more so should our guests here.

 

[Grace Seeker]

so, in calling Brother Khalid wrong for saying we don't KNOW who wrote John i have to, based upon the commentary as well as YOUR statement, call this one in favor of Brother Khalid! ONE point for Khalid and before subtracting any from you, i'll await your explanation on why you said that something that was FACTUALLY CORRECT was incorrect

First, Brother Khalid, as reported by Brother Khairullah, did NOT say, "we don't KNOW who wrote John". What he said was:

John, Luke, Mark and Mathew never met Jesus Christ (PBUH).

By the way they were not disciples.

Nor were they talkers and walkers of the disciples, they were just writers and historians.

That is the same as saying that we DO KNOW that John did NOT write John. By your own analysis, this is the conclusion that is false. As are these:

Did they even meet Jesus Christ (PBUH) PBUH)??!

The answer is NO! NO! NO! NO! NO!

Conclusively they wrote those books 40 years after Jesus Christ (PBUH) PBUH) they never met him

However, my conclusion, that the Gospel of John was written by the disciple John is also not proven conclusively, but it is one I still hold to. Why? Because, I do accept the testimony of Polycarp who was a disciple of John, on the same grounds that you accept the Haditeeths of the Prophet -- I am content to rely on the chain of witnesses. Any negative points that might be applied to this process in my case, I am afraid you are going to have to apply to ALL of your scriptures as well; for every one of them, including the Qur'an, is the result of second-hand testimony such as, "someone told me that so and so said such and such".


And as far as your assertion

you said that something that was FACTUALLY CORRECT was incorrect

I just did a word search of my posts, and cannot find any such expression: "FACTUALLY CORRECT" or even the word "CORRECT" in all my posts. In fact, the word "FACT" is only used once, and that in the form of commentary, not in the presentation of evidence.

I will agree that when you report that there were doubters then or that there are scholars now who doubt things in the Christian tradition that these are true statements. There have always been and always be doubters. There are people who doubt that the earth is round, that Elvis is dead, that Bush won the election over Gore, that Kennedy was NOT killed by a lone gunman. Their doubts don't change the facts. In some cases theories change. In some cases popular myths develop. In some cases people cling to what they wish had been true versus what actually happened. In some cases there is conflicting evidence that gets interpreted different ways based on the agenda of the researchers. But one thing is certain, when a person always gravitates to the position of being a doubter as their default option, then they are not looking for what the evidence points to, they are looking to justify a position already held.

I'll admit I can do this at times. That is probably why I don't question the chain of witnesses that trace the authorship of John. But, in my opinion, sillier than that is to make statements that because someone has some doubts that such a position is conclusively proven. A whole host of people have some rather serious doubts about the origins of the Qur'an, in and of itself, those doubts really prove nothing and I would not say that they do.

 

[MustafaMc]

Any negative points that might be applied to this process in my case, I am afraid you are going to have to apply to ALL of your scriptures as well; for every one of them, including the Qur'an, is the result of second-hand testimony such as, "someone told me that so and so said such and such".

Surely, you misspoke here. The Qur'an is not a result of second hand testimony unless you consider Jibra'il as first hand communicating with Muhammad (saaws) and then Muhammad (saaws) repeating it to his companions. The Qur'an was transmitted directly from Muhammad to be written on what was available and memorized ver batim only later to be transcribed and compiled into a single volume under the direction of Abu Bakr (ra).

 

[Grace Seeker]

Surely, you misspoke here. The Qur'an is not a result of second hand testimony unless you consider Jibra'il as first hand communicating with Muhammad (saaws) and then Muhammad (saaws) repeating it to his companions. The Qur'an was transmitted directly from Muhammad to be written on what was available and memorized ver batim only later to be transcribed and compiled into a single volume under the direction of Abu Bakr (ra).

That's exactly what I mean.
Allah --> Jibra'il --> Muhammad --> his companions --> written document


Wheras for the Gospel of John we have
John --> Polycarp --> Iraneus


How do you know that what you read is the words of Allah? You trust the chain.
How do I know that what I read is the words of John? I trust the chain.

 

[truemuslim]

That's exactly what I mean.
Allah --> Jibra'il --> Muhammad --> his companions --> written document


Wheras for the Gospel of John we have
John --> Polycarp --> Iraneus


How do you know that what you read is the words of Allah? You trust the chain.
How do I know that what I read is the words of John? I trust the chain.

u mean jesus...oh and people go to whichever one sounds more... whats that word?

 

[Grace Seeker]

u mean jesus...oh and people go to whichever one sounds more... whats that word?

No. I meant John.

We are talking about whether the document known as the Gospel of John is indeed the words of John the Apostle or not.

 

[truemuslim]

No. I meant John.

We are talking about whether the document known as the Gospel of John is indeed the words of John the Apostle or not.

o...

 

[YusufNoor]

First, Brother Khalid, as reported by Brother Khairullah, did NOT say, "we don't KNOW who wrote John". What he said was:

That is the same as saying that we DO KNOW that John did NOT write John. By your own analysis, this is the conclusion that is false. As are these:




However, my conclusion, that the Gospel of John was written by the disciple John is also not proven conclusively, but it is one I still hold to. Why? Because, I do accept the testimony of Polycarp who was a disciple of John, on the same grounds that you accept the Haditeeths of the Prophet -- I am content to rely on the chain of witnesses. Any negative points that might be applied to this process in my case, I am afraid you are going to have to apply to ALL of your scriptures as well; for every one of them, including the Qur'an, is the result of second-hand testimony such as, "someone told me that so and so said such and such".

NOT ONE SINGLE AYAT THAT WAS NOT WRITTEN DOWN IN THE PRESCENCE OF THE RASULULLAH, SALALAHU ALAIHE WA SALAAM, WAS USED IN THE QUR'AN; AND BY THAT I MEAN THEY SEARCHED UNTIL THEY FOUND THE ONES ACTUALLY WRITTEN IN HIS PRESCENCE!

And as far as your assertion I just did a word search of my posts, and cannot find any such expression: "FACTUALLY CORRECT" or even the word "CORRECT" in all my posts. In fact, the word "FACT" is only used once, and that in the form of commentary, not in the presentation of evidence.

I will agree that when you report that there were doubters then or that there are scholars now who doubt things in the Christian tradition that these are true statements. There have always been and always be doubters. There are people who doubt that the earth is round, that Elvis is dead, that Bush won the election over Gore, that Kennedy was NOT killed by a lone gunman.

Please don't tell me that you consider the Warren Commision as the complete truth... :raging:

Their doubts don't change the facts. In some cases theories change. In some cases popular myths develop. In some cases people cling to what they wish had been true versus what actually happened. In some cases there is conflicting evidence that gets interpreted different ways based on the agenda of the researchers. But one thing is certain, when a person always gravitates to the position of being a doubter as their default option, then they are not looking for what the evidence points to, they are looking to justify a position already held.

I'll admit I can do this at times. That is probably why I don't question the chain of witnesses that trace the authorship of John. But, in my opinion, sillier than that is to make statements that because someone has some doubts that such a position is conclusively proven. A whole host of people have some rather serious doubts about the origins of the Qur'an, in and of itself, those doubts really prove nothing and I would not say that they do.

Peace be upon those who follow the guidance,

Greetings Gene,

sorry, it has taken a bit to get back to this, but i still don't see any cake! :hiding:

in my position as council for the defense, i am answering the slander against my client in the order they were given! go back and read your 1st post and you will plainly see that i have started at the beginning!

YOU began with:

Mathew, Luke, mark and john who were they?
Mathew who?
Luke who?
John Who?
And mark who?
What were their last names?

we have thus determined that Christian scholars either DON'T KNOW or DISAGREE on who wrote the gospels, therefore Brother Khalid has stated something that was "FACTUALLY CORRECT" and YOU called him a fool! and yes, "FACTUALLY CORRECT" was MY term!

thus, when i finish answering IN ORDER, you'll have your answers, Insha' Allah. of course with the caveat that no-one will get credit for misleading the folks here by stating something as fact when in fact, it isn't! :uuh:

i DID want to address this however:

That's exactly what I mean.
Allah --> Jibra'il --> Muhammad --> his companions --> written document


Wheras for the Gospel of John we have
John --> Polycarp --> Iraneus


How do you know that what you read is the words of Allah? You trust the chain.
How do I know that what I read is the words of John? I trust the chain.

that is SIMPLY NOT TRUE in regards to the Gospel of John, PERIOD! it's a THEORY, not even agreed upon by Christian scholars! WHY PERPETRATE A FRAUD!

as i wrote before: "to summarize [the Gospel of John], it MIGHT be John OR ANOTHER John, but AT LEAST it was a Jew. that is, if there was only 1 author..." YOU DON'T EVEN KNOW WHICH JOHN IT MIGHT BE, THE APOSTLE OR THE DISCIPLE! that is IF it were one of them, nor do you know for certain that there is only one author! i guess you are back to:

I believe and I also believe though not with the same level of confidence as well as: however I do not suppose that it was beyond the realm of possibility.

pretty loosey goosey with the facts brother; ESPECIALLY if you are going to use those UNFACTS to call someone else a fool...

i will address this further if Allah, Subhannahu Wa Ta'Aala, so wills and if He, Subhannahu Wa Ta'Aala, gives me life long enough to...

 

[Grace Seeker]

Brother Khalid has stated something that was "FACTUALLY CORRECT" and YOU called him a fool!

Indeed, I did refer to Brother Khalid that way. Perhaps that was a little strong to refer to a person that way. But I still think his comments are those that seem filled with foolishness. What exactly are you saying are the "FACTUALLY CORRECT" statements that he made? That we don't know the last names of the gospel writers? Yes, it is factually correct that we don't know the last names of Matthew, Luke, or John. As I already said, your objection not withstanding, it is probable that they didn't even have last names, not as we use that term today. One can make a factually correct statement and still speak foolishness, as Brother Khalid has. The foolish part is to think that just because we don't know their last names that we can't accept their work. But if you want to use the other form by which John my have been given his a last name (though it would not have been a family surname, which is what Brother Khalid seems to have been referring when making his foolish comments) John would like have been addressed as John bar'Zebedee.

that is SIMPLY NOT TRUE in regards to the Gospel of John, PERIOD! it's a THEORY, not even agreed upon by Christian scholars! WHY PERPETRATE A FRAUD!

I'm perpetrating no fraud. I'm reporting history. Not everyone accepts the reports of history. You appear to be one who does not accept the Warren report, even though it is history.

as i wrote before: "to summarize [the Gospel of John], it MIGHT be John OR ANOTHER John, but AT LEAST it was a Jew. that is, if there was only 1 author..." YOU DON'T EVEN KNOW WHICH JOHN IT MIGHT BE, THE APOSTLE OR THE DISCIPLE! that is IF it were one of them, nor do you know for certain that there is only one author! i guess you are back to:

There were many different Johns as this was as common of a name then as it is now. However, if someone references John the Apostle and another references John the Disciple, both are referring to the same person.

 

[YusufNoor]

Indeed, I did refer to Brother Khalid that way. Perhaps that was a little strong to refer to a person that way. But I still think his comments are those that seem filled with foolishness. What exactly are you saying are the "FACTUALLY CORRECT" statements that he made? That we don't know the last names of the gospel writers? Yes, it is factually correct that we don't know the last names of Matthew, Luke, or John. As I already said, your objection not withstanding, it is probable that they didn't even have last names, not as we use that term today. One can make a factually correct statement and still speak foolishness, as Brother Khalid has. The foolish part is to think that just because we don't know their last names that we can't accept their work. But if you want to use the other form by which John my have been given his a last name (though it would not have been a family surname, which is what Brother Khalid seems to have been referring when making his foolish comments) John would like have been addressed as John bar'Zebedee.

i'm NOT saying that Brother Khalid didn't make any mistakes, i cringe when i hear them BUT that doesn't mean that he is a fool! just got some facts wrong. you have some facts wrong, should we call you names? [erm, not that there aren't some here who wouldn't] but i'll get around to those mistakes, Insha' Allah.


I'm perpetrating no fraud. I'm reporting history. Not everyone accepts the reports of history. You appear to be one who does not accept the Warren report, even though it is history.

it MAY be history, but it ain't right! :exhausted


There were many different Johns as this was as common of a name then as it is now. However, if someone references John the Apostle and another references John the Disciple, both are referring to the same person.

Peace be upon those who follow the guidance,

Greetings Gene,

perhaps you missed:

The tradition would perhaps be stronger if it did not claim too much, for in addition to the gospel it places under John’s authorship the three letters and Revelation. Distinguished theologians of the ancient church, Bishop Dionysius of Alexandria and Bishop Eusebius of Caesarea were doubtful that the same hand produced both the gospel and Revelation. They were keen enough to note the differences in these writings both of literary style and of doctrinal viewpoint. They resorted thereafter to a 2-John hypothesis: (a) the apostle, who wrote the gospel and the letters; and (b) a “disciple of the Lord,” who composed Revelation. Support for this thesis was found in a book of Oracles of the Lord by Bishop Papias of Hierapolis, a contemporary of Ignatius and Polycarp, who distinguished 2 Johns: (a) an apostle, one of the 12; and (b) a disciple, who lived in his own times. Papias was conversant with all the “Johannine” writings, though he preferred oral to written traditions. But it is not clear from the surviving fragments of his work to what John he ascribed the books under that name. Many modern scholars reverse the judgment of Dionysius and Eusebius by ascribing Revelation to the apostle – as did Justin Martyr, - and the gospel and the letters to the “disciple.”


The gospel itself has an appendix has an appendix (ch. 21), which includes a colophon (vss. 24-25) ascribing the “witness” of the gospel to the unnamed “beloved disciple” who lay close to Jesus’ breast at the Last Supper (c.f 13:23-25; 20:2; 21:20-24). No reader of the gospel who was not familiar with the Synoptics and Acts would identify the “beloved disciple” with John, or with either of the “sons of Zebedee,” who are mentioned only in the appendix (21:2). But the church in Asia made this identification, as is clear not only from the testimony of Irenaeus but more especially from a letter of bishop Polycrates of Ephesus (ca. 190) preserved by Eusebius. In listing the “great luminaries” who have “fallen asleep” in Asia, Polycrates mentions first Philip the apostle, whom he confuses with Philip the evangelist of Acts, and his daughters and then John, “who leaned on the Lord’s breast, who was a priest, wearing the sacerdotal breastplate, both martyr and teacher. It is notable that he does call not John an apostle, as he does Philip!

of course i would have agreed with you before i read that, BUT that's input in a MAINSTREAM CHRISTIAN BIBLE COMMENTARY! NOT the words of a Muslim...

 

[Grace Seeker]

Peace be upon those who follow the guidance,

Greetings Gene,

perhaps you missed:
of course i would have agreed with you before i read that, BUT that's input in a MAINSTREAM CHRISTIAN BIBLE COMMENTARY! NOT the words of a Muslim...

First, I don't always agree with MAINSTREAM CHRISTIAN BIBLE COMMENTARIES. Within "mainstream" Christendom there are many who actually deny the reality of Jesus as an historical person. They are seen as mainstream because they have been hired as professors and lecturers at prestigious universities, and been published and quoted by others. I might say about them as you said about the Warren report: they may be mainstream, "but it ain't right."

Second, I still assert that when in general conversation one says "John, the Disciple" or "John, the Apostle" that these are references to one and the same person. The reason is that we tend to think of "The 12 Disciples", though there were many more than 12, and these folks, minus Judas, and plus Matthias and Paul became known as "The Apostles". Thus the difference between them as a disciple and as an apostle is not in who they are but in whether one is thinking of them in their role as pupil (disciple) or messenger (apostle). In fact, often the terms are today used interchangably as few people are careful to note the differences in function.

Further any Christian who is a follower of Christ can, by virtue of being a follower of Christ, be called a disciple. So, other Johns, and there were many, might have also been termed disciples, just like today I use the term brother to refer to many people to whom I'm not even related. If Eusebius desires to create 2-John hypothesis, that's his business. But I still stick with the story that we have passed on to us from Polycarp, that the John that he was a pupil of and who was a disciple of Jesus, knowing Jesus first hand, is the author of the book we know as the Gospel of John.

 

[Pygoscelis]

hola

no offence but i am always confused why i should believe a muslim (or any non christian for that matter) about christianity. this isn't something they approach honesty, it's always from the perspective of tearing christianity down to build up their own religion.

There is always bias, from both sides of this. Christians themselves are just as biased, even more so, when it comes to Christianity. They hold to the worldview so they can not view it objectively at all. Anything negative about it will be mentally shielded from them. The only true objective voice would be somebody with no religious view and no anti-religious bent either and that eliminates the vast marjority of us.

so, put yourself in my position. you are just a person interested in asking a few questions about islam, not christianity and furthermore you consider muslims' opinions and points about christianity to be invalid, but the muslims you speak to are insistant that they must speak to you about christianity and their opinions are valid. two parties, talking about two different things, with little or no room for movement. this is an impasse.

This is comparative religion, so you have to expect that all religions and worldviews are going to be talked about. I believe there are other sections on the board that are Islam only (though I never venture into them)

 

[Pygoscelis]

Sorry. No, God isn't the author of confusion, but I guess that sometimes I am.

If God is the author of the holy books then God is so the author of confusion. Its not like an all powerful God would lack the power to make us all simply know his message (and then be judged on how we deal with it). The very existence of holy books and middle-messenger prophets clearly shows that God either intends us to be confused about his message or he is not all powerful. If he is all powerful then we know exactly what he wishes us to know about him.

That we need to resort to holy books and prophets means that either:

1. God is not all powerful, and can not make us simply know his message.
2. God does not intend us to simply know his message.

If its the first then many would wonder if he's God at all. If its the second then no matter how you dress it up, he does not intend clarity. I have seen arguments on this point that he wishes us to have "free will" so he can't make us know his message, but that seems weak because if he did make us know his message we would still have the "free will" on how to react to it. And most theists I encounter will call me a "rebeller" or "disobedient" or "infidel" anyway and not aknowledge that I simply don't get the message and dont believe there is one.

 

[Grace Seeker]

If God is the author of the holy books then God is so the author of confusion. Its not like an all powerful God would lack the power to make us all simply know his message (and then be judged on how we deal with it). The very existence of holy books and middle-messenger prophets clearly shows that God either intends us to be confused about his message or he is not all powerful. If he is all powerful then we know exactly what he wishes us to know about him.

That we need to resort to holy books and prophets means that either:

1. God is not all powerful, and can not make us simply know his message.
2. God does not intend us to simply know his message.

If its the first then many would wonder if he's God at all. If its the second then no matter how you dress it up, he does not intend clarity. I have seen arguments on this point that he wishes us to have "free will" so he can't make us know his message, but that seems weak because if he did make us know his message we would still have the "free will" on how to react to it. And most theists I encounter will call me a "rebeller" or "disobedient" or "infidel" anyway and not aknowledge that I simply don't get the message and dont believe there is one.

Well, first, you are the one stating that God is all-powerful, not me. I happen to think that God has indeed limited his power. He does not force people to believe in him. He reveals himself in only limited ways. If you call this confusion, then by your definition I guess God is the author of confusion. But I don't call it confusion when I didn't explain everything I knew about sex to my 3 year old when she first asked where babies come from. Of course, as she go older and able to handle more information, I add it in appropriate amounts as she was interested and able to understand. Now she is a mother of three and I send the grandkids back to her when they ask grandpa these things. Do you think I am an author of confusion, too?

 

[truemuslim]

i hate it when people quote big quotes then write antoher BIIIG post and then the other person quotes it and writes one even bigger... and so on... those are the ones i never read...lol... kinda like those boring school books i skim through like "My brother Sam is Dead" or like "Where the Red Fern grows"...yeah i still don't get how people stand reading these...hmm...i guess some people actually....ya know....


want to....


SHHHHHHHH

 

[Pygoscelis]

Well, first, you are the one stating that God is all-powerful, not me.

I have always understood God being all powerful, the alpha and omega, the most high, etc, to be the central claim of the Christian faith. If that isn't so then that changes everything.

But I don't call it confusion when I didn't explain everything I knew about sex to my 3 year old when she first asked where babies come from. Of course, as she go older and able to handle more information, I add it in appropriate amounts as she was interested and able to understand.

You are not all powerful. If god was all powerful (and maybe as you said he isn't, which changes a lot) then he's able to make you able to understand whatever he wishes you to understand. If God does not have human limitations then comparisons of God to yourself as a parent is a false analogy.

 

[Keltoi]

I have always understood God being all powerful, the alpha and omega, the most high, etc, to be the central claim of the Christian faith. If that isn't so then that changes everything.



You are not all powerful. If god was all powerful (and maybe as you said he isn't, which changes a lot) then he's able to make you able to understand whatever he wishes you to understand. If God does not have human limitations then comparisons of God to yourself as a parent is a false analogy.

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. When Grace Seeker mentioned that God has "limited" His power when it comes to humanity, I happen to agree. God doesn't seem to have any interest in mind control. Free will is a gift, but one that comes with responsibility.

 

[DAWUD_adnan]

OMG Khalid totally, DESTROYED these dajjals