|
|
Post by questionmark on Sept 2, 2013 1:21:36 GMT -6
Something I never understood about Islam is that it appears to be defined largely as an atheism toward Christianity. A Muslim can believe a lot of different things, but what makes a Muslim different from a Christian is that a Muslim cannot believe in the death and resurrection of Jesus as God.
This was not a development of Christian theology, it is Christian theology since anyone was being called Christian. Paul's letters were written in the 60s AD, a historical fact. His teaching was spread so fast and so far by the highest degree of zealous evangelism that it would be impossible for anyone to catch up to him and rewrite his gospel on the tablet of history.
But, Paul was not a rogue Christian, he was in agreement with the disciples of Jesus who were still alive. They were all willing to die in affirmation of this claim: Jesus, uncreated Son of God, dead and then alive.
Enter the Muslim, he says the Scriptures were corrupted. When? Where? By whom? To what end?
The Scriptures are historical record too early to be fabricated, and consistent with what had been written for over a thousand years. The LORD walked with Adam and Eve, Abraham, and Moses. Why all of a sudden is he not allowed to walk with Peter James and John?
Where were the Scriptures corrupted? There were copies in Babylon, Jerusalem and throughout the world. The Jews had spread far and wide, their Scriptures copied, translated, commented on. Did someone go around and change all of them and destroy the bad copies in the whole world? And what about the people who memorized and made those copies?
Who did this great work of seeking out and finding every copy of Scripture and rewriting it in such a way that God will save His people from their sins personally? Is anyone even capable of that?
And why would they do it? What leader or rich man (because it would take great riches and power) changed the Scriptures to point to Jesus, the sacrificial system, the divine Messiah? How could they possibly benefit?
All of Islam hinges on this idea: Mohammed came to correct an error, Allah had sent prophets (a million of them?) to people all over the place, which was written down and then systemically corrupted so that all of the stories everywhere matched. Islam is an atheism toward Christianity, an attempted replacement. So I must ask, what is wrong with God taking up flesh? Is God not permitted to do what He wants?
What is the great injustice of Him living among His people, dispensing justice and loving? Is it that He takes a form? No name can define him, no space can contain him, yet He condescends to send prophets to speak of him. Why say "Allah" and profane God as if He is something common to be spoken about? Because he has commanded. God commands that we speak about Him, and hear with our ears.
So Allah is pleased that we have an idea of him in our minds, an imperfect idea. Allah is pleased that we believe certain things about him, but always believe imperfectly, after all whose thoughts are perfectly without error? It takes a Muslim decades to have a firm grasp of what the Quran is saying, but no one would say he has a perfect idea of what the Quran is saying. Yet Allah commands that people hear and know about Him.
Let's take a step back. Allah permits that all people everywhere have a WRONG view about Him and that's OK. Yet, Allah does NOT want to take up flesh, because then people would have a wrong view of Him? However, interestingly, Allah came to Mary in the Spirit as a perfect man.
That's not the only time Allah appeared as a man. Allah appears as a man and physically touches Mohammed in a Hadith.
Which means that apparently a lot of Muslims also believe that God can take physical form, starting to sound a lot like a break from strict monotheism. When God takes physical form are there two gods?
|
|
|
|
Post by Woodrow LI on Sept 2, 2013 12:38:47 GMT -6
A lot for one sitting. I'll try to discuss one topic at a time and begin with:
To begin with only 4 books are scripture
1. Tauret (Torah)-- even most Jews will acknowledge that because of Hebrew language changes it contains words that the meanings of are not known. That even reading it in the earliest copies for some words it is guess work as to the meanings, Also since the Torah was originally transmitted orally they is no way to know how well the written Torah complied with the original revelation..
2, Zaboor (Book of Psalms) -- this was sent to correct the errors that fell into the Torah. But as Hebrew changed the meaning's of many words became lost.
A lot of this becomes quite evident if you compare the interpretations of both books by Jews and Christians. Christians will find the words to mean things that seem to foretell the coming of Jesus(as) a Jew will see a much different interpretation.
3. Injil (Gospel of Jesus) Which for all purposes no longer exists. However some evidence will be found in the quotes of Jesus found in the Gospels of Mark, Matthew, John and Luke. Here the differences between the 4 indicate we do not know what the original would have been.
5. Qur'an--The only book of Scripture that remains in the original words it was revealed in.
|
|
|
|
Post by Woodrow LI on Sept 2, 2013 16:59:11 GMT -6
This comment is interesting.
That is a Hadith I am not aware of. Do you have a source for it?
|
|
|
|
Post by questionmark on Sept 2, 2013 19:40:21 GMT -6
www.alim.org/library/hadith/TIR/237Allah's Messenger (peace be upon him) said: I saw my Lord, the Exalted and Glorious in the most beautiful form. He said: What do the Angels in the presence of Allah contend about? I said: Thou art the most aware of it. He then placed his palm between my shoulders and I felt its coldness in my chest and I came to know what was in the Heavens and the Earth. He recited: `Thus did we show Ibrahim the kingdom of the Heavens and the Earth and it was so that he might have certainty.' (6:75) Darimi reported it in a mursal form and Tirmidhi also reported. Woodrow Li, I understand Muslim thinking about the books. I'm saying Muslim thinking is wrong, so it doesn't help me to restate Muslim thinking. You're saying the books were corrupted. But you'd have to show when and where they were corrupted. Not only that you have a bigger problem... You have to show that they were corrupted so badly that Jesus could not use them and that there was never supposed to be a divine Messiah etc. You have to undo the whole system. You know how big a problem that is... ?
|
|
|
|
Post by Woodrow LI on Sept 2, 2013 21:00:46 GMT -6
www.alim.org/library/hadith/TIR/237Allah's Messenger (peace be upon him) said: I saw my Lord, the Exalted and Glorious in the most beautiful form. He said: What do the Angels in the presence of Allah contend about? I said: Thou art the most aware of it. He then placed his palm between my shoulders and I felt its coldness in my chest and I came to know what was in the Heavens and the Earth. He recited: `Thus did we show Ibrahim the kingdom of the Heavens and the Earth and it was so that he might have certainty.' (6:75) Darimi reported it in a mursal form and Tirmidhi also reported. Thank You, I pretty much stay with the Ahadith collections by Sahih Bukhari and Sahih Muslim It is not as big of a problem as it looks on first glance. Not much different in a Christian knowing the Jews are following a corrupted interpretation of the Jewish Scriptures. To be a Christian you must be aware the Jewish scriptures are incomplete, and give an erroneous or misunderstood message of the Messiah. (They are corrupted) If you were to believe the Jewish scriptures in they same way the Jews interpret them, You would not be able to be a Christian.The Jewish version does not support Jesus(as) being the Messiah. In order to be Christian you have to "correct" the Jewish Scriptures and remove the corruption. |
|
|
|
Post by questionmark on Sept 2, 2013 22:03:06 GMT -6
So when you say corrupted you mean misunderstood? Not that the text has been changed.
|
|
|
|
Post by Woodrow LI on Sept 3, 2013 0:46:07 GMT -6
So when you say corrupted you mean misunderstood? Not that the text has been changed. Just my opinion but that is the way I see it. although there are what I see as errors that are in the earliest writings but probably were not in the original oral versions such as which son Abraham was going to sacrifice and some of the stories about the Prophets I do not believe were in the original Oral renditions but with even limited knowledge of ancient and contemporary Hebrew, words can be found that we do not know what they originally meant and Jews and Christians translate them differently. |
|
|
|
Post by questionmark on Sept 3, 2013 1:25:08 GMT -6
Woodrow,
When did this misunderstanding occur?
|
|
|
|
Post by Woodrow LI on Sept 3, 2013 7:25:23 GMT -6
Woodrow, When did this misunderstanding occur? In speaking to my Jewish friends it seems that it is pretty well acknowledged the meanings of some of the Hebrew was being lost by the time of the book of Isaiah as that was when the common language was changing to Aramaic and Hebrew had ceased to be a common spoken language. From the Muslim view The Zaboor was revealed to correct the misunderstandings in the Tauret. When that was getting confused the Injil (Gospel of Jesus) was revealed. |
|
|
|
Post by questionmark on Sept 4, 2013 6:50:30 GMT -6
Cool. So bear with me.
You think that Jesus came and revealed the teachings of Mohammed, but he was such a spectacular failure that he ended up inspiring a whole nation of people to love God and care for man but do it wrong.
Furthermore you believe that his seeing himself as a divine Messiah, with John as the forerunner like Elijah was entirely fabricated by someone but not taught by Jesus.
You think Jesus didn't actually die on the cross, but someone made that up, possibly the same someones who were persecuted for believing that it happened.
You must also reject pentecost after the resurrection, and reject all the Apostles as liars, even while they preached against liars, and said that liars would go to hell.
You must also reject all the connections between the Old Testament and Jesus as coincidences or fabrications after the fact, even though we have copies of the Scriptures that predate the death of Jesus, and the Jews had taken the text and translated it into Greek 100 years before Jesus was born.
Basically, you have to reject all of Jewish and Christian history as a fabrication.
But the question becomes... why would anyone fabricate history so consistently to teach about the grace and truth of God?
Mormons speak about an inheritance of planets.
Jehovah's Witnesses speak about the exclusive resurrection of those who evangelize most.
Muslims get virgins.
Christians get Christ. He is our inheritance, we get faith, hope, and love, everlasting peace... as we forgive others we realize forgiveness, as we love others we realize love, as we live in truth we gain truth.
What motivation does anyone have to make this up, and how did they lie so expertly?
|
|
|
|
Post by Woodrow LI on Sept 4, 2013 8:46:47 GMT -6
Cool. So bear with me. You think that Jesus came and revealed the teachings of Mohammed, but he was such a spectacular failure that he ended up inspiring a whole nation of people to love God and care for man but do it wrong. Furthermore you believe that his seeing himself as a divine Messiah, with John as the forerunner like Elijah was entirely fabricated by someone but not taught by Jesus. You think Jesus didn't actually die on the cross, but someone made that up, possibly the same someones who were persecuted for believing that it happened. You must also reject pentecost after the resurrection, and reject all the Apostles as liars, even while they preached against liars, and said that liars would go to hell. You must also reject all the connections between the Old Testament and Jesus as coincidences or fabrications after the fact, even though we have copies of the Scriptures that predate the death of Jesus, and the Jews had taken the text and translated it into Greek 100 years before Jesus was born. Basically, you have to reject all of Jewish and Christian history as a fabrication. But the question becomes... why would anyone fabricate history so consistently to teach about the grace and truth of God? Mormons speak about an inheritance of planets. Jehovah's Witnesses speak about the exclusive resurrection of those who evangelize most. Muslims get virgins. Christians get Christ. He is our inheritance, we get faith, hope, and love, everlasting peace... as we forgive others we realize forgiveness, as we love others we realize love, as we live in truth we gain truth. What motivation does anyone have to make this up, and how did they lie so expertly? The Muslim concept of heaven is far from being centered on getting virgins. The rewards of Heaven are beyond human conception. Now to attempt to answer your question For a start the NT is Greek scripture, not the teachings of Jesus. We do not even know who the authors were except for Paul. About the only thing we know about most of the NT authors is that they wrote in Koin Greek. The NT replaced the teachings of Jesus(as) with the worship of Jesus. The teachings of Jesus(as) were ignored and replaced with an updated version of Greek Mythology. A temporary revival of the "Glory of Greece" but adapted far better by the Romans and setting the foundation for the "Holy Roman Empire" For the motivation one need only look at the Growth of the Roman empire that resulted. At one point Christianity under Rome was the largest, richest and most powerful organization the world had ever seen. That was the motivation. The primary motivation today is business. Christianity as a world business is still a very wealthy organization, but has become greatly divided. Today it is more of a competitive group of individual businesses selling the same product. While I believe that describes the majority of the largest denominations, there are those who actually are doing their best to serve the Lord and are sincere in their attempts to worship God(swt). I see them as sincere but mistaken and perhaps one day they will return to following the teachings of Jesus(as) instead of worshiping him. |
|
|
|
Post by questionmark on Sept 4, 2013 9:58:30 GMT -6
Woodrow,
Just to recap, you're saying that Luke the Physician and Paul the Apostle did not actually write the books Luke, Acts and Paul's Epistles?
That they were changed sometime between the second and fourth century in order to benefit the Roman Empire?
|
|
|
|
Post by nabilbb on Sept 4, 2013 10:39:11 GMT -6
is the Tauret (Torah) what is called OT?
|
|
|
|
Post by Woodrow LI on Sept 4, 2013 10:51:36 GMT -6
Woodrow, Just to recap, you're saying that Luke the Physician and Paul the Apostle did not actually write the books Luke, Acts and Paul's Epistles? That they were changed sometime between the second and fourth century in order to benefit the Roman Empire? That is not my thoughts nor just the thoughts of Muslims. From a non-Muslim site: SOURCE While it is certain Paul did write some of the works attributed to him, some Christian Theologians seem certain he did not write all of them. It seems there were at least 4 different authors using the name Paul It seems certain Paul did not write Acts. 1 & 2 Timothy nor Titus SOURCE |
|
|
|
Post by Woodrow LI on Sept 4, 2013 10:55:55 GMT -6
is the Tauret (Torah) what is called OT? The Torah is actually the Scrolls revealed to Moses. Christians believe the first 5 books of the OT are the Torah. Jews disagree and believe they are an interpretation. Like we Believe the Qur'an can only be in Arabic, the Jews Believe the Torah can only be in Hebrew. |
|
|
|
Post by Woodrow LI on Sept 4, 2013 11:06:13 GMT -6
Woodrow, Just to recap, you're saying that Luke the Physician and Paul the Apostle did not actually write the books Luke, Acts and Paul's Epistles? That they were changed sometime between the second and fourth century in order to benefit the Roman Empire? To clarify, They were not changed. They were never part of scripture until put in by the Council of Nicea. Yes they did exist earlier and in basically the same way. But they were not written by followers of Jesus(as). |
|
|
|
Post by nabilbb on Sept 4, 2013 11:13:30 GMT -6
just a silly question if you don't mind, who is Mark, Luke, John, and Paul? can you give a short write up about them?
|
|
|
|
Post by Woodrow LI on Sept 4, 2013 11:38:34 GMT -6
just a silly question if you don't mind, who is Mark, Luke, John, and Paul? can you give a short write up about them? Keep in mind Christians will disagree with me. The names Mark, Matthew, John and Luke are the names Christians give to the authors of the 4 Gospels in the NT. The authors names were not given to the Authors of the Gospels until at least 300 years after they were written. There is probably very little known about the Authors except they wrote in Greek. Paul is alleged to have written 13 or 14 books of the NT. However, it is doubtful he wrote more than 7. Historically quite a bit seems to be known about Paul. But, there is doubt he was as he claimed to be. To Christians he is one of the most important writers in Shaping Christianity. Non-Christians have another view of him. Many Muslims believe he was responsible for causing Christians to worship Jesus(as) |
|
|
|
Post by nabilbb on Sept 4, 2013 14:44:11 GMT -6
and What Paul claims to be?
|
|
|
|
Post by Woodrow LI on Sept 4, 2013 15:56:13 GMT -6
and What Paul claims to be? To begin it is only fair to point out that of the 13 (some say 14) books attributed to him only 7 at the most were actually written by him. Some of the things Paul or someone believed to be Paul claimed to be: He claimed to be a Jewish Scholar SOURCEHe claimed to be an Apostle SOURCEThere are probably more things, but those are what I remember |
|
