Islam

[popsthebuilder]

I did use scripture from both (from the Holy Bible and the false Quran). They do not believe in the Christian God. Islam saves no one and should not be promoted here at all.

There is one God. It is the same one God of creation for everyone.

Are you saying the God of Abraham isn't your God?

Sent from my Z988 using Tapatalk

 

[Lamb]

This is "world religion"

I do not subscribe to Islam nor to any non-Christian religion. There's nothing especially odious about Islam when it is compared to Judaism or any of the heretical sects of "christianity".

Yes, this is the correct forum for discussion but promoting other religions is forbidden on this site No other paths lead to heaven but Christianity which has Jesus the Christ as the Savior who died for our sins.

 

[Lamb]

There is one God. It is the same one God of creation for everyone.

Are you saying the God of Abraham isn't your God?

Sent from my Z988 using Tapatalk

We know from nature that there is a God.

But we can only know the one true God and believe in Him and worship Him because of the mediation of the Christ who died for us. Any other worship is to a belief in a false god and they do not know the true one.

If I tell a Muslim I have a neighbor I know very well who went to Harvard and is a lawyer and the Muslim says he's heard of that neighbor but that the guy went to a state university and is only a bookkeeper then we don't know the same neighbor. Do we? He's perhaps heard of him but it really isn't the same guy.

 

[popsthebuilder]

We know from nature that there is a God.

But we can only know the one true God and believe in Him and worship Him because of the mediation of the Christ who died for us. Any other worship is to a belief in a false god and they do not know the true one.

If I tell a Muslim I have a neighbor I know very well who went to Harvard and is a lawyer and the Muslim says he's heard of that neighbor but that the guy went to a state university and is only a bookkeeper then we don't know the same neighbor. Do we? He's perhaps heard of him but it really isn't the same guy.

Does our sacred scripture state that we must consider the Christ to be the utter fullness of the one creator God in order for salvation, or does it say we must not deny the Christ?

Sent from my Z988 using Tapatalk

 

[MarkFL]

We know from nature that there is a God.

How does nature point to a creator, such that we can consider it knowledge?

 

[Lamb]

How does nature point to a creator, such that we can consider it knowledge?

I'll use a verse from scripture in the Holy Bible since that is my source: Romans 1:20 For since the creation of the world God’s invisible qualities, His eternal power and divine nature, have been clearly seen, being understood from His workmanship, so that men are without excuse.

 

[MarkFL]

I'll use a verse from scripture in the Holy Bible since that is my source: Romans 1:20 For since the creation of the world God’s invisible qualities, His eternal power and divine nature, have been clearly seen, being understood from His workmanship, so that men are without excuse.

You stated that we know there is a creator from nature, not from the Bible. I was just curious how you reason this to be. To me, it is not clearly visible from nature that there is anything supernatural at work. Where do I look to see that which is given to be clearly visible?

 

[MoreCoffee]

I'll use a verse from scripture in the Holy Bible since that is my source: Romans 1:20 For since the creation of the world God’s invisible qualities, His eternal power and divine nature, have been clearly seen, being understood from His workmanship, so that men are without excuse.

I am not convinced that Romans 1:20 is presenting nature as proof of God's eternal power and divine nature. I can see that the passage presents an argument against suppressing the knowledge of God by unrighteous means. The passage reads thus:

Romans 1:18-23 [18] For the wrath of God is revealed from heaven over every impiety and injustice among those men who fend off the truth of God with injustice. [19] For what is known about God is manifest in them. For God has manifested it to them. [20] For unseen things about him have been made conspicuous, since the creation of the world, being understood by the things that were made; likewise his everlasting virtue and divinity, so much so that they have no excuse. [21] For although they had known God, they did not glorify God, nor give thanks. Instead, they became weakened in their thoughts, and their foolish heart was obscured. [22] For, while proclaiming themselves to be wise, they became foolish. [23] And they exchanged the glory of the incorruptible God for the likeness of an image of corruptible man, and of flying things, and of four-legged beasts, and of serpents.​

This presents a line of argument that may be summarised thus:
Unrighteous men (and women) suppress the knowledge of God by means of their injustice (unrighteousness) even though the people doing the injustice know that they thereby suppress the knowledge of God. These men (and women) knew God but chose injustice rather than justice as their way of life. They did not glorify God as they ought. They were educated and wise in their own opinions. But their "wisdom" led them to praise and worship created things rather than God who created. The creation ought to have taught them to do justice and worship God. They exchanged that knowledge for gross sins.

The argument is that for those who know God - having received the knowledge of God from God himself - and yet choose impiety all their alleged wisdom will be shown to be foolishness and their choice against God leaves them open to every sort of perversity including abasing themselves before created things. This is not a proof of God's existence for those who never knew him.

 

[MoreCoffee]

You stated that we know there is a creator from nature, not from the Bible. I was just curious how you reason this to be. To me, it is not clearly visible from nature that there is anything supernatural at work. Where do I look to see that which is given to be clearly visible?

We know God from God revealing himself. That knowledge is somewhat innate and somewhat acquired. The holy scriptures play a role in acquiring the knowledge of God. The core of knowing God comes from God's own self revelation both in the incarnation of the Lord Jesus Christ and in the inner work of the Holy Spirit enlightening the minds and motivations of the faithful.

 

[MarkFL]

We know God from God revealing himself. That knowledge is somewhat innate and somewhat acquired. The holy scriptures play a role in acquiring the knowledge of God. The core of knowing God comes from God's own self revelation both in the incarnation of the Lord Jesus Christ and in the inner work of the Holy Spirit enlightening the minds and motivations of the faithful.

Okay, so in the end it is belief rather than knowledge in the strictest sense. To me, knowledge is the understanding of facts that can be demonstrated to be true due to the preponderance of supporting evidence that does not rely on first having faith.

 

[MoreCoffee]

Okay, so in the end it is belief rather than knowledge in the strictest sense. To me, knowledge is the understanding of facts that can be demonstrated to be true due to the preponderance of supporting evidence that does not rely on first having faith.

Knowledge cannot be restricted to what can be observed and tested in nature. Clearly mathematics is a species of knowledge and it is not tested in nature nor is it observed - though it has strong analogies in nature.

 

[MarkFL]

Well, true statements in mathematics can be proven to be true (Gödel's incompleteness theorems notwithstanding), more rigorously than anything else (that I know of). A sound mathematical proof points inexorably to a truth that cannot be refuted. A mathematical proof, once discovered, clearly exists in nature as it can be proven true using natural means.

When it is said "we know from nature that there is a God"...of course I wouldn't expect a proof in the mathematical sense as everything else falls short of mathematical proof in their rigor, but I would dispute that we can claim knowledge regarding this. Of course we can claim belief, however to claim knowledge we must be able to present a body of evidence to support our statement as fact.

That's the only point I am making is that we can't honestly say, "we know from nature that there is a God."

 

[Stravinsk]

Taken at face value without the hefty (and reaching, imo) apologetic, that is exactly what that verse from the Quran says - no one killed Christ, no one crucified him. So the "likeness" of Christ "was put on another man" that they killed? Meh. If that is to be believed, then these aren't:

Matthew 17:23
Matthew 21:38
Matthew 21:39
Matthew 16:21
John 2:19

If you take it at face value with literal interpretation then I have no doubt you are right.

Whether the text is the Bible, the Quran, or any other text - religious or not - one of the duties of the reader is to discern what ideas are being conveyed and how. Often times it is clear that one or another literary device is being employed, such as parable, allegory, analogy etc. Such is the case with a saying such as "watch out for false prophets, for they come to you in sheep's clothing but inwardly are ferocious wolves". In such a statement, no one expects that false prophets will literally wear sheep's skin.

There are other times when only the context of the whole passage makes it clear that a person's speech is not to be taken at face value. Such an example would be 1Kings 22:15 - where Micaiah is mocking Ahab's "prophets" by saying the same thing they are. The immediate surrounding passages and the whole chapter make it clear that that is exactly what he is doing.

Taking all the passages I can think of - including those I have listed above - it seems very clear to me that the death and resurrection of Yeshua as recorded in Matthew and John (and Luke and Mark which I reject as containing errors - but even in them) - is not a literary device to be interpreted at our whim, but meant to portray a real historical event. This is clear whether or not one actually believes the story - the intent of the authors, the various words of the characters all point to it being a historical event and not simply a literary device.

The verse quoted from the Quran sweeps all this away in one statement. It says Christ was not crucified, not killed and only a likeness put on *another* man. It is simply not possible to hold this as true and also hold true the idea being conveyed given all that is said in the Gospels.

But we know that literal interpretation was looked down upon in both the Old Testament in verses condemning or chastising the Jew, and by the words of the Christ.

Generally, to me, you come off as opened minded and unbiased; can you find, within yourself, the real reason you aren't being your usual self when it comes to this topic?

I won't assume, and am not saying you are wrong.

I'm sorry you found my post to be that of poor apologetics. I assure you my conclusion was come to with an opened mind and an utter lack of preconception.
I can't prove that though, and don't expect any to just believe me.

Peace

Literal interpretation, or allegory, parable, analogy or any other literary device should be judged on a case by case basis. Saying nothing is literal, or everything is literal, (and this applies to a whole range of writings going beyond religious) is to apply a standard without context and without reason.

My open mindedness and bias or lack of it has limits, but thank you for the complement - although I don't think that is the heart of the issue, as described.

Cheers.

 

[popsthebuilder]

Whether the text is the Bible, the Quran, or any other text - religious or not - one of the duties of the reader is to discern what ideas are being conveyed and how. Often times it is clear that one or another literary device is being employed, such as parable, allegory, analogy etc. Such is the case with a saying such as "watch out for false prophets, for they come to you in sheep's clothing but inwardly are ferocious wolves". In such a statement, no one expects that false prophets will literally wear sheep's skin.

There are other times when only the context of the whole passage makes it clear that a person's speech is not to be taken at face value. Such an example would be 1Kings 22:15 - where Micaiah is mocking Ahab's "prophets" by saying the same thing they are. The immediate surrounding passages and the whole chapter make it clear that that is exactly what he is doing.

Taking all the passages I can think of - including those I have listed above - it seems very clear to me that the death and resurrection of Yeshua as recorded in Matthew and John (and Luke and Mark which I reject as containing errors - but even in them) - is not a literary device to be interpreted at our whim, but meant to portray a real historical event. This is clear whether or not one actually believes the story - the intent of the authors, the various words of the characters all point to it being a historical event and not simply a literary device.

The verse quoted from the Quran sweeps all this away in one statement. It says Christ was not crucified, not killed and only a likeness put on *another* man. It is simply not possible to hold this as true and also hold true the idea being conveyed given all that is said in the Gospels.



Literal interpretation, or allegory, parable, analogy or any other literary device should be judged on a case by case basis. Saying nothing is literal, or everything is literal, (and this applies to a whole range of writings going beyond religious) is to apply a standard without context and without reason.

My open mindedness and bias or lack of it has limits, but thank you for the complement - although I don't think that is the heart of the issue, as described.

Cheers.

Do you believe Christ is dead?

Do you think Christ was killed?

To kill a thing is to end it's existence.

Does the Christ not live?

Peace friend

Sent from my Z988 using Tapatalk

 

[Stravinsk]

Do you believe Christ is dead?

Do you think Christ was killed?

To kill a thing is to end it's existence.

Does the Christ not live?

Peace friend

Sent from my Z988 using Tapatalk

Do you believe someone who's heart is not beating and is not breathing alive?

They are clinically dead, and yet - often can be brought back either with electric shock, chest pumping, breathing into their lungs.

Is this a contradiction to you?

The miracle of the Resurrection wouldn't be a miracle if Christ had not died.

So also with Lazarus.

 

[popsthebuilder]

Do you believe someone who's heart is not beating and is not breathing alive?

They are clinically dead, and yet - often can be brought back either with electric shock, chest pumping, breathing into their lungs.

Is this a contradiction to you?

The miracle of the Resurrection wouldn't be a miracle if Christ had not died.

So also with Lazarus.

I understand that.

I believe the verse in the Quran also. That is to say that though the physical body of Jesus was killed, the spirit of the Christ did not perish.

Sent from my Z988 using Tapatalk

 

[Stravinsk]

I understand that.

I believe the verse in the Quran also. That is to say that though the physical body of Jesus was killed, the spirit of the Christ did not perish.

Sent from my Z988 using Tapatalk

If we are still talking about the verse Lam quoted, that is not what it says. One can debate what it means for a spirit to perish, or what it means when the passages say "he gave up his spirit" - but the Quran quote denies the whole scenario. It clearly says Christ wasn't even crucified. One can say "I believe it, and I also believe the Gospel's accounts" - but in reality - it is not possible. It's one of those things one must choose one or the other. Consciously or not, a choice has to be made or cognitive dissonance will result.

 

[popsthebuilder]

If we are still talking about the verse Lam quoted, that is not what it says. One can debate what it means for a spirit to perish, or what it means when the passages say "he gave up his spirit" - but the Quran quote denies the whole scenario. It clearly says Christ wasn't even crucified. One can say "I believe it, and I also believe the Gospel's accounts" - but in reality - it is not possible. It's one of those things one must choose one or the other. Consciously or not, a choice has to be made or cognitive dissonance will result.

Again, for cognitive dissonance to occur one would have to take the verse at literal face value, which I do not.

Admittedly; there is little in either book that I take literally.
Sent from my Z988 using Tapatalk

 

[visionary]

Well, true statements in mathematics can be proven to be true (Gödel's incompleteness theorems notwithstanding), more rigorously than anything else (that I know of). A sound mathematical proof points inexorably to a truth that cannot be refuted. A mathematical proof, once discovered, clearly exists in nature as it can be proven true using natural means.

When it is said "we know from nature that there is a God"...of course I wouldn't expect a proof in the mathematical sense as everything else falls short of mathematical proof in their rigor, but I would dispute that we can claim knowledge regarding this. Of course we can claim belief, however to claim knowledge we must be able to present a body of evidence to support our statement as fact.

That's the only point I am making is that we can't honestly say, "we know from nature that there is a God."

Like God's math is as finite as we understand. We are still just beginning to understand quantum physics and Einstein discovered it apox. 60 years ago and it was considered just a theory in his day. We have a long way to go to understand a lot of things.

Islam is chasing one part of the theology because they want end day to come to pass and their mahdi to come. If they get the world under their control, they prophecy he will come. If he is as cruel as their hunger for world dominance by any means, he is not nice by any means. Wouldn't it be super messed up if he comes claiming to be Jesus?

 

[MoreCoffee]

Well, true statements in mathematics can be proven to be true (Gödel's incompleteness theorems notwithstanding), more rigorously than anything else (that I know of). A sound mathematical proof points inexorably to a truth that cannot be refuted. A mathematical proof, once discovered, clearly exists in nature as it can be proven true using natural means.

When it is said "we know from nature that there is a God"...of course I wouldn't expect a proof in the mathematical sense as everything else falls short of mathematical proof in their rigor, but I would dispute that we can claim knowledge regarding this. Of course we can claim belief, however to claim knowledge we must be able to present a body of evidence to support our statement as fact.

That's the only point I am making is that we can't honestly say, "we know from nature that there is a God."

Many people appear to see/feel very little awe when they observe creation as it is. The faithful feel awe and the stirring of worship when they observe creation. One of the psalms says

Unto the end. A Psalm of David. Psalms 19:1-4
The heavens describe the glory of God, and the firmament announces the work of his hands.
Day proclaims the word to day, and night to night imparts knowledge.
There are no speeches or conversations, where their voices are not being heard.
Their sound has gone forth through all the earth, and their words to the ends of the world.​

There is no proof in these words yet for the faithful the song of joyous worship finds expression in them. It is a matter of the heart as well as of the intellect. Seeing God is as much an act of the heart and will as it is of the intellect.