View Single Post
      08-25-2007, 10:46 AM   #101
hks786
Major General
United Kingdom
481
Rep
5,352
Posts

 
Drives: *
Join Date: Mar 2006
Location: UK

iTrader: (0)

Firstly, you say that the Luke is history with 3 backup accounts. But I the problem is that History is written by men that claim they are speaking the truth about God’s word. One may ask, “Why shouldn’t we trust them?”, however, many people claim to tell the word of God and they can’t all be right…

I’ll try explain why I find the Bible so hard to trust:

It’s obvious that Constantine has to do something to stop the Roman Empire falling apart, Christianity was the solution. The only problem is that it was different from pagan Roman religions. He therefore Romanised Christianity. A few bishops and a significant amount of people believe Jesus to be human, but there were bishops like Anthanasius believed he was God.

The Council of Nicea then made a decision about Jesus. In total, there were 318 bishops present at the event. Sabina, Bishop of Heracha, himself speaking of the Council of Nicea affirms that “except Constantine and Sabinus, Bishop of Pamphilus, these bishops were a set of illiterate, simple creatures, that understood nothing;” The subject of Jesus’ divinity was then put to a vote. After much pressure from Anthanasius, the pro-divinity group won.

Then, a decision had to be made about which Gospels would be used for argumentation. Around 40 Gospels were submitted. Since they were all so different, it was hard to make a decision. They then resorted to divination, or to be specific “Sortes sanctorum.” This is the holy casting of lots for the purposes of divination. Another eyewitness, Pappas, in his book “The Synodicon” says: “Having promiscuously put all the ‘books that were referred to the Council for determination under a Communion table in a church, they (the bishops) besought the Lord that the inspired writings might get up on the table, while the spurious writings remained underneath, and it happened accordingly’. The next morning, the four Gospels: Matthew, Mark, Luke & John were found on the table.

I’m sure you can see why I find it hard to trust that we have to word of God. Then, in 496 AD the Church issued the Galsian decree banning any Gospels that the Church didn’t agree with. Pope Hormisdas reaffirmed this decree. The list of books banned is far too extensive to sit and list. I’ll continue. Some manuscripts survived church bans but were in such bad condition. For example the Gospel of Barnabas which is a small fragment and the rest was burned. Some people try to say that these Gospels etc were written too late and that’s why they weren’t accepted by the Church, but that’s simply not true. There are many that have been written around the same time as the 4 Gospels but are rejected! Thus, the Church basically chose what fitted in with their beliefs. It doesn’t end there though. Even the Gospels we do have have been subjected to revisions because we find earlier manuscripts which expose fabrications. That’s why there are so many versions of the Bible today.

On this matter, early church father Oregin said: "The differences among the manuscripts have become great, either through the negligence of some copyists through the perverse audacity of others; they either neglect to check over what they have transcribed, or, in the process of checking, they make additions or deletions as they please." I might add that these complaints aren’t from the 9th century onwards as some people think, but rather from the 1st and early 2nd century!

Also: "Some believers, as though from a drinking bout, go so far as to appose themselves and alter the original text of the gospel three four or several times over, and they change it's character to enable them to deny difficulties in face of criticisms." – Celsus

"When my fellow Christians invited me to write letters to them I did so. These the devil's apostles have filled with tares, taking away some things and adding others. For them the woe is reserved. Small wonder then if some have dared to tamper even with the word of the Lord himself, when they have conspired to mutilate my own humble efforts." – Dionysius

Quote:
Originally Posted by Noize
I feel as though you are being inconsistent in what you are saying. Like on one hand you're asking me to cough up scientific proof of everything I state, and the other hand you agree that God is infinite. Which is it? Not only can our minds not fully understand the Trinity at this time, but they also cannot process physically how God created Heaven, Earth, man. But we both obviously believe this over something like the Big Bang Theory. Can YOU, hks, scientifically prove that God created the world? No! But you believe in faith, and you behold His creation. We can't see the wind either, but we know it is there, because we can feel it. Since we both believe that God created The heavens the earth and all that is in it, it stands to reason that God was here- Genesis 1, and IS still here (from a Christian's point of view in the form of the Holy Spirit). All this to say, our finite "ground of logic" just can't begin to fully process an Infinite God among us.
I’m sorry if I came across as inconsistent bro. I was only talking about scientific proof when I was talking about the way the Earth was designed. I don’t feel that we need to use science to explain God’s nature or being. All I was saying is that logically, Jesus (AS) cannot be the Son of God for many reasons. This is not science of any kind. This is simple logic that might use mathematics that people of the lowest intelligence can understand. Apart from that, the logic really just refers to the differences between infinite and finite beings.

Although, sometimes I do try to show how the title “Son of God” can be made to fit a lot of people and how the title has been inserted in the Bible later. This prompted changes to be made in versions such as the NIV. Also, I still feel that we cannot just say that we can’t process God’s infinite being. I have explained the various implications of this too.

Quote:
Originally Posted by Noize
I'm not just talking about physically dying, but separation from God for all eternity. "For God so loved the world that he gave His one and only Son, that whoever believes in Him shall not perish but have eternal life. For God did not send his Son into the world to condemn the world, but to save the world through Him. Whoever believes in Him is not condemned, but whoever does not believe stands condemned already because he has not believed in the name of God's one and only Son." -John 3:16-18
As you probably know, John is not one of the synoptic Gospels. I find that by the time we get to John’s Gospel, it is much harder to trust. Infact, in my next post I’ll explain further.

Quote:
Originally Posted by Noize
I don't think there was ever an intention for us not to live on earth. But man was warned not to eat from the tree in the middle of garden, or they (Adam and Eve) would die.
I’m glad we can agree on that bro.

Quote:
Originally Posted by Noize
There's no inconsistency. Sin demands a sacrifice for forgiveness. Before Christ, it was an animal as a sacrificial offering. After, the blood of Christ.
This is where me and you differ, friend. We Muslims believe that God does not require anything from us for forgiveness whereas you speak of sacrifices. Funnily enough, Jews have explained very well why Jesus wouldn’t be suited for a sacrifice:

http://www.jewsforjudaism.org/web/faq/faq032.html

Also, I still feel there is inconsistency. Many of Jesus' parables taught nothing about sacrifices but instead of a loving God who chooses to forgive those who repent.

Quote:
Originally Posted by Noize
How do you handle this contradiction of the Quran and hadith? Since the Quran came directly from the mouth of Muhammad, you have to believe that the miracle stories in the hadith were invented by Muhammed's followers.
I’m not so sure there is a contradiction. Here is one of the Holy Prophet (SAW)’s miracles in the Quran:

The miracle of the splitting of the moon was demonstrated before a certain gathering who persisted in denial of Muhammad’s Prophethood. As was related by ‘Adbullah ibn Mas‘ud, while they were in Mina’ one night, the Prophet split the moon into two by a gesture of his index finger. The halves of the moon appeared one behind the mountain and the other in front of it. Then, the Prophet turned to us and said: ‘Be witnesses!’ The Qur’an refers to this miracle in the following verses:

The Hour has approached, and the moon split. But whenever they see a sign, they turn away and say, ‘This is evident magic’.
Quran (54:1-2)


Infact the Quran details miracles of many Prophets (AS). Here is the miracle of Prophet Sulaman (AS). He could communicate with animals and hear them speak:

At length, when they came to a (lowly) valley of ants, one of the ants said: "O ye ants, get into your habitations, lest Solomon and his hosts crush you (under foot) without knowing it."
Quran (27:18)


Also, I'm not sure what could be achieved by the Holy Prophet (SAW) claiming miracles for himself. Firstly, it would mean he is a liar (Astagfirullah for even saying) and the could be lying about the Quran being the word of God. If he was such a liar, then wouldnt he make sure the Quran he authored and the Hadiths recorded the same miracles? Also, what can be achieved by claiming more miracles? he never claimed divinity.

Quote:
Originally Posted by Noize
Muhammad claimed that if the Scriptures had not been corrupted, they would still contain the prophecies regarding his coming. Did Muhammad explain when or how the Scriptures were corrupted or who exactly supposedly did it? No. Did he offer any proof of these changes by presenting an unchanged copy of the Scriptures? No. How convenient.
Did the Holy Prophet (SAW) need to prove that they were corrupted? I mean, even Christians who are honest enough admit it. I have shown this extensively above. The corruption of the Bible was even admitted during the 1st century. Did the Holy Prophet (SAW) need to produce an unchanged copy? No. He proved beyond doubt with the revelation Allah gave him, the Quran, that he is indeed the last Prophet (SAW) of Allah. Therefore, what he says can be trusted by us.
__________________

Last edited by hks786; 08-25-2007 at 11:24 AM.