-
Quote
However, after years of study it turns out that the DSS give substantial confirmation that our Old Testament has been accurately preserved... And are almost identical with the Masoretic text we have. A comparison study with the Isaiah Scroll written around 100 B.C. found among the Dead Sea documents and the book of Isaiah in the Masoretic text... Where found that the two were practically identical.
So does the OT consist only of Isaiah? What about the other Biblical books? The case is that the DSS didn't give full accounts on other Bible books except for some fragments, so actually these DSS don't give a full account on the OT, even for Isaiah, there is about 400 years gap between the time of DSS and the time of Isaiah, so i am not sure what these scrolls prove true in the OT?
Quote
It shows that contrary to some opinion the Jewish scribes took very seriously the copying of scripture. It's considered valuable evidence that the Old Testament Canon we have in our hands now was the same text Jesus knew and confirmed.
Really? Actually the apocryphal books are more than the biblical ones found in Qumran, in the DSS, you can find the apocryphal Genesis, apocryphal pentateuch, apocryphal Daniel, apocryphal Jeremiah, Ezekiel and Joshua and many other non canonical books as Enoch, words of Moses, Noah, you can browse this website archiving the DSS as an example:
http://www.deadseascrolls.org.il/explore-the-archive
So what canon are you talking about? This actually is a proof that early Jews didn't see the Bible the way you see it. And there may have been other books found which were not declared.
Quote
When talking of heretical sects .. Do you see the Shia's a sect or denomination of Islam? As within Christianity we have say Catholics and Protestants.. What of the Sufis and the Ismailis.. Would you consider these heretical? Or the Wahhabis... Where do they fit within mainstream Islam?
Well, at least all sects agree on the Quran. I am not talking here about Catholics and Protestants, i am talking about your Christianity and the other early Christian sects, actually they believed in different gospels.
Quote
I thought I had addressed issues in this thread in regards to Bible corruption and why I don't believe the case you have is that strong. Certainly not strong enough to dissuade me from my belief in the Bible as the enduring inspired revelation of God.
Well, it's up to you to be convinced or not, that's not mine. :)
Quote
Maybe my faith is stronger than your need for logic. If you build your belief on logic and someone one day comes along and destroys that logic with some scientific discovery or something.. What then? Whereas a belief built on faith cannot be broken.
Well, faith should be really stronger than logic when it is really proven 100% that it is really referring to God. If there is a doubt that historically it refers to God, then actually logic must be used here to check whether it really refers to God or not, if it refers to God, then only at that moment, I believe in it over anything else. You don't have evidence proving that your faith refers to God, that's the main point of discussion.
Quote
Depends what you mean by error. The Holy Spirit does not deal in error.. If you are talking of Gods revelation then there is no error. If you are talking of mans theological deliberations then as they are born from a mans interpretation.. Then as we know no one is perfect. :)
Well, what we are talking about were the errors by men in the Bible when you said (and correct me if I misunderstood):
Christians accept that as the Bible was at some point written by men and no men.. (As in mankind.. Not being sexist.. ;) ) we see textual errors but these do not detract from the core message.. As that comes from God and is divine.. Then it cannot be changed.. Even by the words of men.
Quote
To believe in Jesus one has to believe what He said about Himself and His teachings. I don't see how you can say you believe in Jesus because you don't really know Him. What are Jesus teachings according to the Quran..? To know Jesus is to love Him. I could not love Issa of the Quran there is nothing of substance to know the person. I don't wish that to sound disrespectful, and I truly apologise if it comes across that way. It's just how it appears to me.
Well, the teachings of Jesus in the Quran are the teachings of all other prophets, to worship God alone. There is nothing new in all messages as the truth doesn't change, but prophets come and renew it.
Quote
Not sure what you mean.. Do you believe in the Holy Spirit? I didn't think you did. I don't see any difference in sin. The only sin that counts is a sin against God. Sin isn't decided by a church father... But by God. Do you mean a sin against some religious doctrine? Sorry.. Think I will have to think longer on this last point of yours because the meaning is not clear to me. :) to be honest I would be concerned about a sin against God.. That bits clear to me.. :)
Well, I mean that church fathers adopted some unorthodox faith, Catholics have many differences in faith than Protestants, so what is the Holy Spirit doing? Where is the guidance of the Holy Spirit? These unorthodoxy opinions are supposed to be against pure Christian faith, which is supposed to be against God from your point of view, if the Holy Spirit is supposed to guide you to the whole truth as you believe Jesus told you, then where is his guidance to guide the church fathers to the orthodoxy belief and to solve the dispute between Catholics and Protestants? Either he is not guiding, which is against the Bible, or that he is guiding, but actually Church Fathers who are supposed to be transmitting your history and what Jesus said were actually blasphemers against the Holy Spirit i.e. non trusted, and that all Christian sects except for one are disbelievers and blasphemers against the Holy Spirit.
-
Quote
Originally Posted by
M.Khaled
So does the OT consist only of Isaiah? What about the other Biblical books? The case is that the DSS didn't give full accounts on other Bible books except for some fragments, so actually these DSS don't give a full account on the OT, even for Isaiah, there is about 400 years gap between the time of DSS and the time of Isaiah, so i am not sure what these scrolls prove true in the OT?
Of course not I chose Isaiah as an example.. What about the other books..? However, if they weren't ever part of the Bible canon then they are not strictly biblical are they? Whatever doubts you wish to cast on the value of the DSS in confirming many aspects of the Old Testament does not detract from the fact that it was an extremely important discovery which does more to confirm what we know of the Old Testament rather than what you think is in error.
http://www.centuryone.com/25dssfacts.html
For your perusal... ;)
Quote
Really? Actually the apocryphal books are more than the biblical ones found in Qumran, in the DSS, you can find the apocryphal Genesis, apocryphal pentateuch, apocryphal Daniel, apocryphal Jeremiah, Ezekiel and Joshua and many other non canonical books as Enoch, words of Moses, Noah, you can browse this website archiving the DSS as an example:
http://www.deadseascrolls.org.il/explore-the-archive
So what canon are you talking about? This actually is a proof that early Jews didn't see the Bible the way you see it. And there may have been other books found which were not declared.
The Bible canon we have.. :) let's be clear here.. The DSS are concerned with the what we refer to as the Old Testament. Obviously the Jews don't consider the Gospels or New Testament scripture for obvious reasons. As the Bible canon includes that which we do see as scripture.. The Gospels (New Testament), then I would not expect the Jews would see the Bible as we see it. The New Testament doesn't figure in the DSS at all, Jesus not even mentioned. I've already browsed that site thank you.. In fact I was going to post it for you. :) what's the saying... "Great minds think alike" ;) lol.
Quote
Well, at least all sects agree on the Quran. I am not talking here about Catholics and Protestants, i am talking about your Christianity and the other early Christian sects, actually they believed in different gospels.
do they? That's good. Did you have any particular early Christian sects in mind? And what Gospels did they prefer? Maybe we could elaborate.
Quote
Well, it's up to you to be convinced or not, that's not mine. :)
:) well... You've not convinced me as yet.
Quote
Well, faith should be really stronger than logic when it is really proven 100% that it is really referring to God. If there is a doubt that historically it refers to God, then actually logic must be used here to check whether it really refers to God or not, if it refers to God, then only at that moment, I believe in it over anything else. You don't have evidence proving that your faith refers to God, that's the main point of discussion.
Logic.. I know muslims tend to put great store by it.. Or most seem to. I can't help but think if in order to have belief in God as a higher power and creator of all we are and all we will ever hope to be one has to have evidence that conforms to human logic... Then that is IMHO.. weak faith. You need your evidence.. I have my faith. :)
[QUOTE]Well, what we are talking about were the errors by men in the Bible when you said (and correct me if I misunderstood):
Christians accept that as the Bible was at some point written by men and no men.. (As in mankind.. Not being sexist.. ;) ) we see textual errors but these do not detract from the core message.. As that comes from God and is divine.. Then it cannot be changed.. Even by the words of men.
Quote
Well, the teachings of Jesus in the Quran are the teachings of all other prophets, to worship God alone. There is nothing new in all messages as the truth doesn't change, but prophets come and renew it.
That of course is your opinion.. The Bible gives another message... All the Prophets indeed brought the same message.. Which of course that God is ONE and worship is for God alone.. But that was not all the message. Mohammed did not foretell the whole message. For me it's the part of the message that is missing from the Quran that holds the greatest importance in regards to ones eternal salvation.
Quote
Well, I mean that church fathers adopted some unorthodox faith, Catholics have many differences in faith than Protestants, so what is the Holy Spirit doing? Where is the guidance of the Holy Spirit? These unorthodoxy opinions are supposed to be against pure Christian faith, which is supposed to be against God from your point of view, if the Holy Spirit is supposed to guide you to the whole truth as you believe Jesus told you, then where is his guidance to guide the church fathers to the orthodoxy belief and to solve the dispute between Catholics and Protestants? Either he is not guiding, which is against the Bible, or that he is guiding, but actually Church Fathers who are supposed to be transmitting your history and what Jesus said were actually blasphemers against the Holy Spirit i.e. non trusted, and that all Christian sects except for one are disbelievers and blasphemers against the Holy Spirit.
We don't have that many differences actually. We all believe God is ONE. Jesus is His word and through Jesus and His redeeming work we are saved. That's simplifying things I guess. But that is the core message.. And that's what counts.
Peace.
-
Quote
Originally Posted by
pandora
Of course not I chose Isaiah as an example.. What about the other books..? However, if they weren't ever part of the Bible canon then they are not strictly biblical are they? Whatever doubts you wish to cast on the value of the DSS in confirming many aspects of the Old Testament does not detract from the fact that it was an extremely important discovery which does more to confirm what we know of the Old Testament rather than what you think is in error.
http://www.centuryone.com/25dssfacts.html
For your perusal... ;)
It may have been an important discovery, but I don't see it confirms the OT since it is associated with many other books which you consider out of canon and doesn't show most of the Old Testament. The link you gave is not a rich link that gives an evidence or show the DSS, but rather an apologetic site just tending to show some points of view.
Quote
The Bible canon we have.. :) let's be clear here.. The DSS are concerned with the what we refer to as the Old Testament. Obviously the Jews don't consider the Gospels or New Testament scripture for obvious reasons. As the Bible canon includes that which we do see as scripture.. The Gospels (New Testament), then I would not expect the Jews would see the Bible as we see it. The New Testament doesn't figure in the DSS at all, Jesus not even mentioned. I've already browsed that site thank you.. In fact I was going to post it for you. :) what's the saying... "Great minds think alike" ;) lol.
I am not sure where I mentioned the NT in my reply, I am just talking about the books you consider in the OT and the case that the DSS neither gives a complete set of them and at the same time shows other books which you don't include in your OT books.
Quote
do they? That's good. Did you have any particular early Christian sects in mind? And what Gospels did they prefer? Maybe we could elaborate.
Well, you can see some of these sects and Gospels here:
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Divers...stian_theology
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/New_Testament_apocrypha
Quote
That of course is your opinion.. The Bible gives another message... All the Prophets indeed brought the same message.. Which of course that God is ONE and worship is for God alone.. But that was not all the message. Mohammed did not foretell the whole message. For me it's the part of the message that is missing from the Quran that holds the greatest importance in regards to ones eternal salvation.
Well, actually the Quran tells in details how shall we acquire salvation, not necessary that there is a need that God becomes a man and dies for our sins to be forgiven.
Quote
We don't have that many differences actually. We all believe God is ONE. Jesus is His word and through Jesus and His redeeming work we are saved. That's simplifying things I guess. But that is the core message.. And that's what counts.
Actually you have: immaculate conception, taking statues and images of saints, intercessions of Mary and saints, sola scripture, a different view to church fathers. And actually many Catholics consider Protestants as non Christians and vice versa, so I am not sure how you don't consider these as not many differences, either the Holy Spirit guides you that Protestants are on the right way or it is actually the Catholics, otherwise he is not doing his job or not existing.
-
Quote
Originally Posted by
M.Khaled
Actually you have: immaculate conception, taking statues and images of saints, intercessions of Mary and saints, sola scripture, a different view to church fathers. And actually many Catholics consider Protestants as non Christians and vice versa, so I am not sure how you don't consider these as not many differences, either the Holy Spirit guides you that Protestants are on the right way or it is actually the Catholics, otherwise he is not doing his job or not existing.
The Immaculate conception is a Catholic term that means what Islam and Christianity believe as a whole; It means Jesus was virgin born by Mary who wasn't touché by a man.
The Catholics carry it too far and say Mary was a perpetual virgin and Muslims confuse Catholicism for all of Christianity. Like some group Sunni, Shia and Quranist as all the same. There is a difference as you mentioned. Pandora has said it correctly and perfectly "We all believe God is ONE. Jesus is His word and through Jesus and His redeeming work we are saved. That's simplifying things I guess. But that is the core message.. And that's what counts." That is the message but it does you no good unless you receive it by faith. For we are saved by God's grace through faith. This message has never been corrupted and even the Catholics accept it. Anything else is irrelevant to salvation and eternal life or Paradise. "Jesus said, You will die in your sin unless you believe I am He... and No man comes to God except through me" He didn't say through Muhammad or Islam!
Peace
-
Quote
Originally Posted by
M.Khaled
It may have been an important discovery, but I don't see it confirms the OT since it is associated with many other books which you consider out of canon and doesn't show most of the Old Testament. The link you gave is not a rich link that gives an evidence or show the DSS, but rather an apologetic site just tending to show some points of view.
It seems you are only able to concentrate on what we don't have... Even maybe what never existed. You fail to see the value in what we do have. The link I thought was just some facts and figures.. I wasn't thinking to provide you with evidence as the evidence is out there if you wished to see it, you could I'm sure find it for yourself, but you are more interested in "other" evidence I feel. :)
Quote
I am not sure where I mentioned the NT in my reply, I am just talking about the books you consider in the OT and the case that the DSS neither gives a complete set of them and at the same time shows other books which you don't include in your OT books.
No.. I mentioned it. Just to be clear what in my mind that we were both referring to the Old Testament. :) if it were a complete set, exact in every detail to the Bible we have today.. Would you accept that the Bible was indeed what it claims to be ..the inspired work of God? Would you allow yourself to accept that?
Yes, for sure it does. My question was... Did you have any particular early Christian sects in mind? And what Gospels did they prefer? The only Gospel I accept is the Gospel according to Jesus Christ. Along with the Word of God.. That's to be found in the Bible.
Quote
Well, actually the Quran tells in details how shall we acquire salvation, not necessary that there is a need that God becomes a man and dies for our sins to be forgiven.
The Quran may well tell you in detail how you shall acquire salvation... Yet that does not mean its a done deal.. If you really feel that simply being repentant and relying on the balance of your good deeds over bad will serve you well, then that is fine for you. No one who is not made righteous by God can hope to stand at judgement before a Holy God.. We can never achieve that level of righteousness by our own efforts, to believe we can is supreme arrogance.. Not to say dangerous. I know I can never do enough by my own efforts to justify myself before a Holy God.. So I accept Gods gift of Jesus my redeemer. Jesus is the bridge we need to cross to enable us to reach God.. Because only a sinless perfect being can achieve that on our behalf. I don't see why I should trade in that certainty for the level of uncertainty you have in the Islam.
Quote
Actually you have: immaculate conception, taking statues and images of saints, intercessions of Mary and saints, sola scripture, a different view to church fathers. And actually many Catholics consider Protestants as non Christians and vice versa, so I am not sure how you don't consider these as not many differences, either the Holy Spirit guides you that Protestants are on the right way or it is actually the Catholics, otherwise he is not doing his job or not existing.
Burninglight I see has answered this point ... I don't see there is anything I could add to make it any clearer.
Peace to you.
-
Quote
Originally Posted by
M.Khaled
Well, actually the Quran tells in details how shall we acquire salvation, not necessary that there is a need that God becomes a man and dies for our sins to be forgiven.
I like what Pandora said: "I don't see why I should trade in that certainty for the level of uncertainty you have in the Islam." She put it mildly. Think of it, Abu Bakr who was Muhammad's right hand man said; "I wouldn't trust the makr of Allah if I had one foot in paradise and one on earth" If he wasn't sure, what makes you think you can will receive anything you hope for in Islam? For all I know Allah is making it appear that you have a chance for paradise, but it is a deception like he made it appear that Jesus died to trick unbelievers. Of course, we Christians know that the real deception was to get you to believe He didn't die for our sin; so as to assure that paradise will not be there for you.
We know have been brought with a price the precious blood of Jesus, and we have been filled with the Holy Spirit which is the earnest that we will receive eternal life (Paradise) not because of what we have done, but because of the work of Jesus who was and is the only one who pleased God. It is God through Christ that is transforming us into the image of His son or His word. But as many as received Him to them gave He the power to become the sons of God. Jesus said what He meant, and He meant what He said. You will die in your sin unless you believe I am He... No man comes to God except through me" If Jesus didn't mean what He said, then why didn't He say what He meant? You saying the Bible is corrupted without proof is lame!
I pray you come to the knowledge of truth who is Jesus. Didn't He say I am the truth...? Any other way to paradise is a deception!
Peace on to you from me
-
Quote
Originally Posted by
Burninglight
The Immaculate conception is a Catholic term that means what Islam and Christianity believe as a whole; It means Jesus was virgin born by Mary who wasn't touché by a man.
The Catholics carry it too far and say Mary was a perpetual virgin and Muslims confuse Catholicism for all of Christianity. Like some group Sunni, Shia and Quranist as all the same. There is a difference as you mentioned. Pandora has said it correctly and perfectly "We all believe God is ONE. Jesus is His word and through Jesus and His redeeming work we are saved. That's simplifying things I guess. But that is the core message.. And that's what counts." That is the message but it does you no good unless you receive it by faith. For we are saved by God's grace through faith. This message has never been corrupted and even the Catholics accept it. Anything else is irrelevant to salvation and eternal life or Paradise. "Jesus said, You will die in your sin unless you believe I am He... and No man comes to God except through me" He didn't say through Muhammad or Islam!
Peace
Well, actually the case I see is that it is not that simple, because the Catholics base their beliefs of all these creeds either on the Bible or the traditions, using the traditions as well is a point of conflict. For example when they use statues and images of saints or intercessions, either they are disobeying the second commandment or that they really have some evidence. If they are disbobeying the second commandment then they are actually disobeying Jesus, which means they are real followers of Jesus. If they really have an evidence through the traditions for example, then it's your problem that you are not really following Christian teachings and that you should consider the traditions as they really belong to the disciples of Jesus. Also a third example regarding the Holy Spirit being proceeded from the Father alone as the Eastern Orthodox say citing what the Bible says, or that he proceeds from both the Father and the Son as you and Catholics believe. What I mean is that these differences are not minor ones, because their consequences lead to disobeying Jesus or the scriptures or having a different way from the disciples who are supposed to be the best people who knew and followed Jesus. If the Holy Spirit didn't teach you these issues and guide you to the right way, then he is actually not doing his job. If he actually did teach you and guide you then for sure one of you is not considered a Christian as he blasphemes against the Holy Spirit.
I could have said that Shia and Quranists since they say that there is no God but Allah and Prophet Muhammad is His messenger that it's all done and anything else is minor, which is actually not true, because what they believe actually is against what the Quran says in some positions, so I don't consider these as minor differences.
-
Quote
Originally Posted by
pandora
It seems you are only able to concentrate on what we don't have... Even maybe what never existed. You fail to see the value in what we do have. The link I thought was just some facts and figures.. I wasn't thinking to provide you with evidence as the evidence is out there if you wished to see it, you could I'm sure find it for yourself, but you are more interested in "other" evidence I feel. :)
I see that what you have don't have a great value because when I compare your evidence to the evidence of preservation of the Quran and the Sunna, I find that you really have no evidence compared the evidence of the Quran and the Sunna. In the Quran and Sunna, there are no gaps at all, and if it was actually proven that a narrator transmitted a hadith from a predecessor who haven't seen him even if they were at the same age, the hadith is rejected. When I see the science of Quran and hadith and see at the same time incomplete manuscripts whom we don't know who wrote them and there are hundreds of years of gaps, then you must excuse me.
Quote
if it were a complete set, exact in every detail to the Bible we have today.. Would you accept that the Bible was indeed what it claims to be ..the inspired work of God? Would you allow yourself to accept that?
If it were a complete set with no gap and Jesus confirms every part of it and the same conditions of the references to Jesus.
Quote
Yes, for sure it does. My question was... Did you have any particular early Christian sects in mind? And what Gospels did they prefer? The only Gospel I accept is the Gospel according to Jesus Christ. Along with the Word of God.. That's to be found in the Bible.
Well, that's according to your opinion, what I meant is that there was no consensus on which gospels really refer to Jesus, not necessary I am talking on a particular sect.
Quote
If you really feel that simply being repentant and relying on the balance of your good deeds over bad will serve you well, then that is fine for you. No one who is not made righteous by God can hope to stand at judgement before a Holy God.. We can never achieve that level of righteousness by our own efforts, to believe we can is supreme arrogance.. Not to say dangerous. I know I can never do enough by my own efforts to justify myself before a Holy God.. So I accept Gods gift of Jesus my redeemer.
In Islam, it is neither work alone nor faith alone get man to Paradise. It’s both actually, Allah says in the Quran:
But as for those who believe and do good works, for them are the Gardens of Retreat – a welcome (in reward) for what they used to do.(Sura 32:19)
See, belief is mentioned before good works, because actually good works alone do nothing if they were without belief, and belief without good works is not a serious belief. So actually good works are an indication of belief and that’s why in Islam we are accounted on our good and bad deeds, where bad deeds negate good deeds and the rank of every man in Paradise is dependent on his score of good and bad deeds, so actually good and bad deeds distinguish between believers in Paradise rather than meaning that man shall enter Paradise because of his deeds:
47. And We shall set up balances of justice on the Day of Resurrection, then none will be dealt with unjustly in anything. And if there be the weight of a mustard seed, We will bring it. And Sufficient are We as Reckoners.(Sura 21:47)
Associate this verse with this hadith:
Jabir reported that the Prophet of Islam said: “No good works of yours can ever secure heaven for you, nor can they save you from hell – not even me, without the grace of God.”
God promised us that if we believed and obeyed Him, we shall go to Paradise:
9. Allah has promised those who believe (in the Oneness of Allah – Islamic Monotheism) and do deeds of righteousness, that for them there is forgiveness and a great reward (i.e. Paradise). (Sura 5)
-
Quote
Originally Posted by
Burninglight
I like what Pandora said: "I don't see why I should trade in that certainty for the level of uncertainty you have in the Islam." She put it mildly. Think of it, Abu Bakr who was Muhammad's right hand man said; "I wouldn't trust the makr of Allah if I had one foot in paradise and one on earth" If he wasn't sure, what makes you think you can will receive anything you hope for in Islam?
Actually what Abu Bakr means here is that he is afaid to get astray from the way of God and he dies as a disbeliever, this is the point not that if someone died as a believer he won't go to Paradise, because actually there is a promise from God that he shall go. The point is that we shouldn't feel secure in this world that since we believe in Allah in the right way and obey Him that we shall continue on this way and die on that, because we may turn away from God at any time, and that's what we should fear of not that if we died on the right faith that we are not sure to go to Paradise. Feeling that you have a guarantee that you'll enter Paradise may lead you to arrogance and leads you away from the way of God. That's the point. You may check my couple of articles regarding salvation between Islam and Christianity and Islam guarantee for Heaven.
Quote
Jesus said what He meant, and He meant what He said. You will die in your sin unless you believe I am He... No man comes to God except through me" If Jesus didn't mean what He said, then why didn't He say what He meant? You saying the Bible is corrupted without proof is lame!
This is the case with all prophets, so what? Christians believe in the OT, and believe that Moses, David, Isaiah and others were prophets from God, if someone came and said that he believes in Jesus but believes that Moses or other OT prophets are liars and false prophets, could they come to the Father that way? Surely not, because disbelieving in any of the prophets is disbelieving in OT which was confirmed by Jesus and which you believe it’s the word of God, so saying “I am the way, the truth, and the life: no man cometh unto the Father, but by me.” doesn’t apply on Jesus only but on all prophets.
Actually I think I already give a plenty of evidence that the Bible is corrupted throught this thread, you can see more in detail here.
-
Quote
Originally Posted by
M.Khaled
I see that what you have don't have a great value because when I compare your evidence to the evidence of preservation of the Quran and the Sunna, I find that you really have no evidence compared the evidence of the Quran and the Sunna. In the Quran and Sunna, there are no gaps at all, and if it was actually proven that a narrator transmitted a hadith from a predecessor who haven't seen him even if they were at the same age, the hadith is rejected. When I see the science of Quran and hadith and see at the same time incomplete manuscripts whom we don't know who wrote them and there are hundreds of years of gaps, then you must excuse me.
I feel on this point you will never understand why this need for "evidence" will not hold the same importance for Christians as it does for yourselves. Whatever gaps you see in regards to the Bible "evidence" does not detract at all or change it's core message.. And that is the important factor for Christians. We never make claim that the Bible is the word of God verbatim as you do for the Quran, and accept that errors will be made as no man that ever walked this earth is perfect ... Except for Jesus.. he was perfect...obviously. :) however... These errors we consider to be in the main textual and minor which in no way affect the core message.. Sorry for the repetition here.. But I feel the need to make this point understood. The reason the core message stands steadfast and unchanging is because it is divine and as God is unchanging in His nature this also applies to His message. This cannot be changed as it is fact which both the Bible and the Quran both attest to. None can change Gods words. For a Christian it a gap of blah blah number of years is not seen as an issue because we have faith in God and His supreme ability to protect His message.
Now, you may well persuade the "Christian"who is weak in faith and sow seeds of doubt in their minds on this biblical corruption issue.. But for those of strong faith it's a small thing and their trust in God will always come first.
In regards to the claims of evidence you have for the Quran... And there being no gaps at all..this is all well and good.. But is not in itself proof of the Quran actually being what it claims to be.. That is the word of God verbatim. This can only be taken on faith and belief in Prophet Mohammed. If the Quran is an "updated" version of the previous message, then on at least the core issues it has to agree. It does not. I don't see that it's possible to prove Biblical corruption on such a massive scale that would be necessary to allow for the Quran to be the final message. The basic errors claiming what Christians and Jews believed at the time as coming from God, I don't see as possible.. God is Omniscient, Omnipotent and Omnipresent how is it possible that God would be in error? As for scientific proof.. That is no proof at all, I don't think I've ever been shown scientific proof from the Quran that was in the first place ambiguous or already known to man.
It seems to me that your need for proof... Even for the Quran.. Is greater than your faith and acceptance of Gods abilities. For me personally I have found this detrimental to accepting Islam over Christianity.. I cannot see how I can achieve the same level of spirituality, faith and trust in God than I enjoy now..if everything has to conform to mans need for logic and evidence. I want God to be bigger and greater than that.. And I believe God is just that. :)
Quote
If it were a complete set with no gap and Jesus confirms every part of it and the same conditions of the references to Jesus.
So you will open your mind to any logical evidence that conforms to your human mind.. But close your heart to the greater possibilities. ;)
Quote
Well, that's according to your opinion, what I meant is that there was no consensus on which gospels really refer to Jesus, not necessary I am talking on a particular sect.
I believe there is.. :) I guess we are going to have to agree to disagree on this point. Mind you, I will say I admire your reasoning. In reading through your article you at least use reasoning to come to your conclusions. Ok.. For me I see where that reasoning is faulty when it comes to Bible interpretation, but I can see where you are coming from and I think what you are aiming at. I'm just not sure about your target audience. I find dialogue with you interesting.. You could do with thinking outside the box once in awhile though ;)
Quote
In Islam, it is neither work alone nor faith alone get man to Paradise. It’s both actually, Allah says in the Quran:
Quote
But as for those who believe and do good works, for them are the Gardens of Retreat – a welcome (in reward) for what they used to do.(Sura 32:19)
See, belief is mentioned before good works, because actually good works alone do nothing if they were without belief, and belief without good works is not a serious belief. So actually good works are an indication of belief and that’s why in Islam we are accounted on our good and bad deeds, where bad deeds negate good deeds and the rank of every man in Paradise is dependent on his score of good and bad deeds, so actually good and bad deeds distinguish between believers in Paradise rather than meaning that man shall enter Paradise because of his deeds:
47. And We shall set up balances of justice on the Day of Resurrection, then none will be dealt with unjustly in anything. And if there be the weight of a mustard seed, We will bring it. And Sufficient are We as Reckoners.(Sura 21:47)
Associate this verse with this hadith:
Jabir reported that the Prophet of Islam said: “No good works of yours can ever secure heaven for you, nor can they save you from hell – not even me, without the grace of God.”
God promised us that if we believed and obeyed Him, we shall go to Paradise:
9. Allah has promised those who believe (in the Oneness of Allah – Islamic Monotheism) and do deeds of righteousness, that for them there is forgiveness and a great reward (i.e. Paradise). (Sura 5)
I find this interesting, and am pleased to see that salvation is not simply works based. Although I still find the balance of good deeds over bad deeds and the kind of score card approach unsatisfactory.. Personally speaking. It implies that we are able to save ourselves by our own efforts to some degree. Gods grace being bestowed in a rather arbitrary manner... It does not address how one goes about achieving righteousness before God. The message of the Bible prophets pointed to the Messiah, We see Jesus as that promised Messiah.. Jesus alone.. Out of all the prophets said the words.. He was the way, He was the Truth and He was the Light. That Jesus was the way to God the Father..I don't see why Jesus would have made a claim of this magnitude if He did not mean it and did not have the authority to say it.
Peace and blessings to you.
Thread Information
Users Browsing this Thread
There are currently 1 users browsing this thread. (0 members and 1 guests)
Similar Threads
-
By سعود العتيبي in forum منتديات الحاسب الألى وشبكة الإنترنت
Replies: 0
Last Post: 17-04-2010, 02:00 AM
-
By فريد عبد العليم in forum English Forum
Replies: 0
Last Post: 08-02-2010, 01:00 AM
-
By Abed El Kader in forum English Forum
Replies: 0
Last Post: 11-01-2010, 10:27 PM
-
By عاشقة المسيح in forum الأدب والشعر
Replies: 2
Last Post: 16-04-2008, 02:06 PM
-
By يحيى in forum English Forum
Replies: 1
Last Post: 24-11-2005, 10:45 PM
Tags for this Thread
Posting Permissions
- You may not post new threads
- You may not post replies
- You may not post attachments
- You may not edit your posts
-
Forum Rules
Reply With Quote
Bookmarks