How much Christians know about Bible? What about Muslims?

[Grace Seeker]

This sounds like a Non-Christian is already convicted because he did not hire a good lawyer.

It does, doesn't it.


If God is fair, i.e only just, then we will most certianly be sentenced to hell, not just non-Christians, but Christians too. Jesus calls God to be more than fair as he advocates for us.

Remember, these are metaphors. Even the terms judge, advocate, etc are terms that are metaphors to speak of the process; they are not the same as the process. But they are part of the biblical language, which is why I used them. I think we also must be careful to not transpose our 21st century concepts of the way courtrooms work to a 1st century document. To those to whom the Bible was written, facing a Roman or some other judge in a courtroom was a rather capricious experience. This is not to say that God is capricious, but as they used illustrations which would have been known to them, the addition of an advocate to make an appeal on your behalf would have been an important element in receiving lieniency in that day. For that reason the metaphor may not work on the same level for us today that it would have for them. I don't think that anyone in Jesus' or Paul's day would have questioned the metaphor on the same grounds that you have, such expectations and therefore such questions would have been outside their experience.

 

[Woodrow]

It does, doesn't it.



Remember, these are metaphors. Even the terms judge, advocate, etc are terms that are metaphors to speak of the process; they are not the same as the process. But they are part of the biblical language, which is why I used them.

Sometimes I get the feeling that if we all understood each others metaphors there would be much less confusion in life.

I do appreciate your saying those are metaphors. Gives me a better understanding of where you are speaking from.

Like always your tolerance and willingness to share is appreciated.

 

[Sunnih]

The Bible states that no one has seen God and lived. Look what happened to Moses after seeing just the hind part of God. He aged and died some time shortly after. I don't think it is a condraction because it even says that Jacob wrestled with God and over came but; it was really an angel, but in a sense it was God too. This will not cause me to doubt the Bible. Neverthess, it is a good point. I will look into it for clarification purposes.:thumbs_up

John1: 18 No one has ever seen God, but God the One and Only,[a]who is at the Father's side, has made him known.

1 Timothy 6:16 who alone is immortal and who lives in unapproachable light, whom no one has seen or can see. To him be honor and might forever. Amen.

Again you can choose to believe what you want. I only quote you the verses as I see them. You can agree or disagree of course.:thumbs_up

 

[Sunnih]

Absolutely, in fact He did call Him God! You know I don't say things I can't back up! I have been a truthful witness to you and I have no intention of lying. That would be self defeating. I am so excited because my name is written in God's book of life.

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

 

[Grace Seeker]

John1: 18 No one has ever seen God, but God the One and Only, who is at the Father's side, has made him known.

1 Timothy 6:16 who alone is immortal and who lives in unapproachable light, whom no one has seen or can see. To him be honor and might forever. Amen.

Again you can choose to believe what you want. I only quote you the verses as I see them. You can agree or disagree of course.:thumbs_up

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?

 

[Sunnih]

No he did not mean with God. By the way, the Qur'an misrepresents Biblical Christianity. It bases its assumptions on Catholicism, because no where in the Bible does it state that followers of Christ are to include Mary as deity or part of the trinity. Remember, we do not see God as one in three gods. We see Him as one substance yet three persons, and contrary to the Qur'an Mary is not part of it.

Thank you for affirming that it is not with meaning-God.

As for the representation of christianity by the Qur'an, remember that at the time there where all types of Christians around and no one objected to that. Do not forget that the bible has been transformed a lot in time and for this you can see writings from your own schoolars and also I suggest you read about the apocrypha and matters related to that. Remember that Qur'an mentions the main points of divergence between Islam and Christianity just like the words of Jesus where all comprehending regarding the children of Israel and the attitude that todays Jews might take on his words do not prove that his words missrepresent Jewdaism. This is the point. The universality of the message.

 

[Grace Seeker]

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

Hebrews 1:8 -- "But about the Son he says,
'Your throne, O God, will last for ever and ever,
and righteousness will be the scepter of your kingdom.' "

God is speaking with regard to the Son and God addresses the Son as God, not as Lord, but as God and not as a god but as God. Read it in context and you will find that this point does not change. In fact, it gets stronger, for immediately preceeding this verse that you asked for God says in reference to the Son: "Let all God's angels worship him." (vs. 6).

There are many other things in this passage that are contrary to the teachings of the Qur'an. What does that mean? What we both already knew, one cannot accept both the Qur'an and the Bible as being equal in authority. For they contradict each other far too much to try to make them harmonize. But it also means that when Christians say that this is our faith, that we are not making it up later at someplace like Nicea. These concepts really are in the scriptures and the folks at Nicea just put a label on them is all they did.

 

[Sunnih]

Hebrews 1:8 -- "But about the Son he says,
'Your throne, O God, will last for ever and ever,
and righteousness will be the scepter of your kingdom.' "

God is speaking with regard to the Son and God addresses the Son as God, not as Lord, but as God and not as a god but as God. Read it in context and you will find that this point does not change. In fact, it gets stronger, for immediately preceeding this verse that you asked for God says in reference to the Son: "Let all God's angels worship him." (vs. 6).

There are many other things in this passage that are contrary to the teachings of the Qur'an. What does that mean? What we both already knew, one cannot accept both the Qur'an and the Bible as being equal in authority. For they contradict each other far too much to try to make them harmonize. But it also means that when Christians say that this is our faith, that we are not making it up later at someplace like Nicea. These concepts really are in the scriptures and the folks at Nicea just put a label on them is all they did.

First of all the verse you brought are not the words of God but attributed to Him. Any way I will accept what you say so as not to turn it into a debate at this point. But following that verse also says:

9You have loved righteousness and hated wickedness;
therefore God, your God, has set you above your companions
by anointing you with the oil of joy."

So God is saying to Jesus that was described as God, He says to him Your God.

I am only reading in context as you have advised me.

 

[Sunnih]

The early Church did not have a Bible in a bound book as we have today. Bound books were not yet invented. The word Bible is actually a word meaning library, which is what the early bibles were, collections of scrolls in a library. Thus were added and taken out many different books, some of them were considered canonical -- canon being a word which met "rule" and was also used of that one would use as a standard by which one would measure other things. These books that made up the canon were considered the rule or standard by which one measured the rightness of one's faith. In fairly short order, by the middle of the 2nd century the New Testament canon was pretty much in place, though it would not be codified as such till the council of Nicea in 325 AD. The Old Testament canon was something that the early church did not feel they needed to establish. They just worked off of that which the Jews had used as their scriptures. At that point in time, as most Christians were Greek-speakers and not Hebrew-speakers, they used the a Greek translation of the Hebrew Tanakh that was called the Septuagint. This work contained those books that I previously listed as Deuterocanonical. And thus the entire church accepted them. However, in time, the Jews themselves decided to come up with an official list of books that they considered to be scripture, which they had not previously done. In that listing they did not include those books in their official Hebrew listing of the Tanakh that I have mentioned now repeatedly. When Luther rebelled against the Pope saying that he had led the Church astray from its roots, among the many things that he did was to translate the Bible in German for the common people to have access to it. But he decided to use the Jewish list of books of the Tanakh for the Old Testament rather than those listed in the Septuagint. And Catholics and Protestants have been split over that ever since as one of the fall-outs of the Reformation. Thus this decision effects every Bible translation. One must decide which list of canonical books one is going to accept as correct.

For much more depth on this and from a Catholic view of this issue, go to:

Canon of the Old Testament, Canon of the New Testament, Manuscripts of the Bible, Versions of the Bible, Apocrypha, (I do suggest reading them in the order I listed them in.)

I will read that and if I have questions about it I will let you know. Thank you.

 

[Sunnih]

There are many other things in this passage that are contrary to the teachings of the Qur'an. What does that mean? What we both already knew, one cannot accept both the Qur'an and the Bible as being equal in authority. For they contradict each other far too much to try to make them harmonize. But it also means that when Christians say that this is our faith, that we are not making it up later at someplace like Nicea. These concepts really are in the scriptures and the folks at Nicea just put a label on them is all they did.

Like I have said before. I accept from the Christians their words that: This is what I believe in and that is it.

Likewise Muslims too do not make up beliefs or modify them. So on this matter we both state what we believe based upon our understanding of our scriptures. I am fine with that as you know that I always state: To you your religion and to me mine. Just like I testify that you are indeed a Christian and I ask you to testify that I am a Muslim. In this I know for sure that we agree.

 

[Grace Seeker]

First of all the verse you brought are not the words of God but attributed to Him. Any way I will accept what you say so as not to turn it into a debate at this point. But following that verse also says:

9You have loved righteousness and hated wickedness;
therefore God, your God, has set you above your companions
by anointing you with the oil of joy."

So God is saying to Jesus that was described as God, He says to him Your God.

I am only reading in context as you have advised me.

Then you and I read the context for this verse differently.

Shall we drop it at that, agreeing to disagree? Or do you want me to write some type of expository commentary on the passage (not just the verse)? I will do this if you seriously care to see it, but I have no intention of doing it just to "hear myself talk" -- if you understand what I mean by that phrase. there is far too much of that on these board by all of us; and I have probably already done more than my fair share of that.


edit: You know I take back the part about seeing the context differently. What I should have said was that within the context we understand the relationships between verse 8 and 9 differently.

 

[Sunnih]

Then you and I read the context for this verse differently.

Shall we drop it at that, agreeing to disagree? Or do you want me to write some type of expository commentary on the passage (not just the verse)? I will do this if you seriously care to see it, but I have no intention of doing it just to "hear myself talk" -- if you understand what I mean by that phrase. there is far too much of that on these board by all of us; and I have probably already done more than my fair share of that.


edit: You know I take back the part about seeing the context differently. What I should have said was that within the context we understand the relationships between verse 8 and 9 differently.

If you were to elaborate on that, I too would elaborate on the same and this will not stop so I agree that we disagree just like I agree to leave it at that.:thumbs_up

 

[Muslim Woman]

Salaam/ peace ;

.....is NOT a Muslim/Christian dialogue in what your referred me to. It may have that title, but it is a former Christian, reverted to a Muslim having a conversation with himself.

well , the author claimed that conversation took place when the person was a Christian . Later he embraced Islam.

...... I have never heard Christians say those sorts of things.

what are those things ?


&&&&

verse of the Day :



"Surely God will not forgive the association of partners (shirk) with Him, but He forgives (sins) less then that to whomever He wishes"

(Surah An-Nisa 4:48)

 

[Redeemed]

they claim that they have day of judgement, so if they know if they are saved or not why have a day of judgement?? or vice-versa. lollll

You error not knowing the Scriptures or the power of the word. When we say we know we are saved, it is because we know due to the close relationship we have with God. Yes, it is possible. It sounds like we are boasting that is because we are boasting. Our boasting is in the Lord who is our strength. Why a judgment if we know we're saved you ask? The judgment is not for our sins; it is for our rewards!!!!mg:

 

[Grace Seeker]

they claim that they have day of judgement, so if they know if they are saved or not why have a day of judgement?? or vice-versa. lollll

To add to what alapiana1 said. In truth we are not saved in the present tense, it is as you suspect more like we are awaiting our salvation. We were saved on the cross 2000 years ago. And we will be saved in the future at the final judgment. But the reason we speak of it ins the present tense is because we've cheated and peeked ahead to read the end of the book and we already know what the outcome is.

 

[MustafaMc]

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?

NIV No one has ever seen God, but God the only Son, who is at the Father's side, has made him known. Exactly my point in another post - how can God the only Son, who is at the Father's side, "see" God and both of them at one and the same time be ONE?

 

[MustafaMc]

To add to what alapiana1 said. In truth we are not saved in the present tense, it is as you suspect more like we are awaiting our salvation. We were saved on the cross 2000 years ago. And we will be saved in the future at the final judgment. But the reason we speak of it ins the present tense is because we've cheated and peeked ahead to read the end of the book and we already know what the outcome is.

But the error is that you "know" the Bible is the inerrant Word of God in order for you to "know" that you are saved. Substitute "believe" for "know" and I could agree with you to a point. You believe the book you peeked ahead is the Word of God - perhaps, you strongly believe it, but I contend there is no way for you to KNOW it is the Truth this side of Judgement Day.

 

[Grace Seeker]

But the error is that you "know" the Bible is the inerrant Word of God in order for you to "know" that you are saved. Substitute "believe" for "know" and I could agree with you to a point. You believe the book you peeked ahead is the Word of God - perhaps, you strongly believe it, but I contend there is no way for you to KNOW it is the Truth this side of Judgement Day.

I don't mind you substituting the word "believe" for "know".


I am not aware of how many different languages you may speak, but I find it interesting when using other langauges the various connotations to the word "know":

• to comprehend
• to understand
• to be aware
• to believe
• to catch the point
• to get it
• to be acquainted with
• to be in relationship with
• to be intitmate with
• to have general knowledge of

Perhaps reading one of these other connotations into my post will help you some--
"We have peeked ahead to the end of the book and are already 'aware of'/'acquainted with' what [the Bible says] the outcome is."

 

[Grace Seeker]

NIV No one has ever seen God, but God the only Son, who is at the Father's side, has made him known. Exactly my point in another post - how can God the only Son, who is at the Father's side, "see" God and both of them at one and the same time be ONE?

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.

 

[MustafaMc]

I don't mind you substituting the word "believe" for "know".


I am not aware of how many different languages you may speak, but I find it interesting when using other langauges the various connotations to the word "know":

• to comprehend
• to understand
• to be aware
• to believe
• to catch the point
• to get it
• to be acquainted with
• to be in relationship with
• to be intitmate with
• to have general knowledge of

Perhaps reading one of these other connotations into my post will help you some--
"We have peeked ahead to the end of the book and are already 'aware of'/'acquainted with' what [the Bible says] the outcome is."

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.