Is Jesus Christ "God"

One-on-one debates

Moderator: Moderators

Murad
Guru
Posts: 1217
Joined: Wed Jun 02, 2010 3:32 am
Location: Australia - Sydney

Is Jesus Christ "God"

Post #1

Post by Murad »

In this debate we will be discussing the foundations of Christendom.
I will be putting forth arguements against the teachings of Christianity, and WinePusher will be apologetic and provide counter-arguements to my claims.

The main topic is: Is Jesus Christ God

There are also sub-topics we will be discussing that relates to the main topic:
The Doctrine of Trinity
The Doctrine of the Divine Sonship of Jesus
The Crucifiction
The Doctrine of Atonement and Original Sin


The Sources used in this debate:
OT & NT (Bible) [Main source for debate]
From my side the Quran
Any verifable evidence that is presented with a source.
Do the people think that they will be left to say, "We believe" without being put to the test?
We have tested those before them, for GOD must distinguish those who are truthful, and He must expose the liars.

(Quran 29:2-3)

----
Why Jesus is NOT God
---

Murad
Guru
Posts: 1217
Joined: Wed Jun 02, 2010 3:32 am
Location: Australia - Sydney

Post #11

Post by Murad »

WinePusher wrote: What evidence (biblical or extra-biblical) is there to support this claim? The meaning of the word "son" is not a substantive proof to support your case, if you think Jesus is no more than a man then the resurrection needs to be debunked.
I will provide evidence against the divinity of Jesus in my following post.

WinePusher wrote: Ok then, first I would like your Islamic perspective on the resurrection, is it fact or fiction? Secondly, in order to deny the resurrection you will need to provide a better explanation for the two following facts.

1) The Empty Tomb
2) The Disciples Claim To Have Seen Jesus Risen From The Dead.
I wrote a whole post regarding the empty tomb & Jesus appearing to the disciples; what points would you require me to explain in more detail?

WinePusher wrote: It is a historical fact that the tomb was empty. If the Romans and the Jewish Sanhedrin wanted to quell the disciples evangelism and preaching, they could have simply produced the body and shwon to all the people that Jesus neveer resurrected.

But they didn't, and many parts of the Roman Empire converted to Christianity. The Tomb was empty, and resurrection of Jesus best explains this fact unless you can provide a rival explanation.
Thats exactly the point i was emphasizing, it is assumed that Jesus was resurrected because the tomb was empty & he was presumed 'dead' by the roman soldiers & still appeared alive to his disciples.
This phenomenon in Islamic theology is explained very simply, 'he was never killed in the first place'; contrary to the belief of the Jews that they slayed a false prophet.

I would like to re-quote my previous post:
Murad wrote: If Jesus died on the cross, his blood would clot and no blood would gush out of his body when his side was pierced. But the Gospel states that blood and water came out:

(John 19:34) "But one of the soldiers with a spear pierced his side, and forthwith came there out blood and water"


_____
When Pharisees asked Jesus for a sign of his true mission he answered:

(Matthew 12:40) "For as Jonas was three days and three nights in the whales belly, so shall the Son of man be three days and three nights in the heart of the earth.


Disregard now the time factor, which was also not three days and three nights but one day (Saturday) and two nights (Friday and Saturday)........Was Jonas alive in the belly of the whale?

If Jonas was alive, then Jesus was still alive as he prophesied.
WinePusher wrote: Remember when Jesus read from the Isaiah scroll, and it told of what the signs of the Messiah would be: The lame will leap, the deaf will hear, the blind will see, etc. Well, Jesus' miracles demonstrate a fullfillment of this biblical prophecy, thus his miracles were intended to demonstrate his divinity.
So what your basically saying is, because Jesus fulfilled the biblical prophecies, he must be divine? I disagree, that just shows the truth of Gods scripture and how it foretold the future. Nothing more; nothing less.
So if the anti-christ fulfilled the biblical prophecy of having the mark '666' will he too be divine?
You must never forget that Jesus said: "By Myself I can do nothing"
The one who gives the authority is greater, he is God.
WinePusher wrote: But I would like to raise one additional topic. I believe it was you who questioned why the Christian God could "die" and suffer a disgraceful death on earth. Is this act beyond God, in your opinion.
Well WinePusher, i will not state my opinion, but i will state the Islamic view.
He is Allah, the One and Only
Allah, the Eternal, Absolute;
He begetteth not nor is He begotten.
And there is none like unto Him.
[Al-Qur’an 112:1-4]
This verse emphasizes that God is eternal(does not die), he is absolute(perfect), he was not born, nor does he beget, and he is unique.

Now the logical arguement is: "If God is almighty why can't he die, or have a son"

God in Islam acts according to his own laws, for example he does not reward the people that drink alcohol or intoxicants, and punish those that restrain themselves from self harm.
Similarly, God does not reward the wicked & evil, and punish the Good and righteous. He simply does not do this.
And thus the reason God does not die.

The moment God dies, he ceases to be a God.

Dividing God or associating partners with God is strictly forbidden in Islamic theology:
"Allah forgives not
That partners should be set up
With Him; but He forgives
Anything else, to whom
He pleases; to set up
Partners with Allah
Is to devise a sin
Most heinous indeed."
[Al-Qur’an 4:48]

(I will continue your first question regarding evidence against Jesus' divinity in the following post)
Do the people think that they will be left to say, "We believe" without being put to the test?
We have tested those before them, for GOD must distinguish those who are truthful, and He must expose the liars.

(Quran 29:2-3)

----
Why Jesus is NOT God
---

Murad
Guru
Posts: 1217
Joined: Wed Jun 02, 2010 3:32 am
Location: Australia - Sydney

Post #12

Post by Murad »

Evidence against Jesus being God
____________



1. Did nothing on his own authority (John 5:30, 14:31, Matthew 20:23)
2. Spoke not on his own authority (John 14:10, 8:28-29)
3. Said that the Father is greater than him (John 14:28)
4. Was tempted (Matthew 4:1-11) But God cannot be tempted (James 1:13)
5. He denied knowledge of the unseen (Mark 13:32, Matthew 24:36)
6. He was subject to change (Luke 2:21, 52) But God is Immutable
7. Did not accept to be called good and deferred to God (Mark 10:18)
8. Prayed to God (Mark 14:32, Luke 5:16)
9. People called him a prophet (Luke 7:16, 24:19, John 6:14, Hebrews 3:1)
Also referred to as a servant of God (Acts 3:13, 4:27, Matthew 12:18)
10. Made a clear distinction between himself and the Father (Matthew 23:8-10)
11. Referred to himself as Son of man (Matthew 8:20)
In the Book of Acts (2:2), he is described as "a man approved of God." While he is called 'Son of God' nearly 68 times, not once was he called 'God the Son'.


I am tempted to go into detail on each of the 11 points, but i will keep it short as you requested.

What is your rebuttal on each of the 11 points?
Do the people think that they will be left to say, "We believe" without being put to the test?
We have tested those before them, for GOD must distinguish those who are truthful, and He must expose the liars.

(Quran 29:2-3)

----
Why Jesus is NOT God
---

WinePusher

Post #13

Post by WinePusher »

Sorry for the delay, I'll try focusing more time on this debate.

Murad wrote:Thats exactly the point i was emphasizing, it is assumed that Jesus was resurrected because the tomb was empty & he was presumed 'dead' by the roman soldiers & still appeared alive to his disciples.
Yes, it is a logical inference from the facts at hand, and it seems to be the best explanation for the empty tomb unless you can provide a better one.
Murad wrote:This phenomenon in Islamic theology is explained very simply, 'he was never killed in the first place'; contrary to the belief of the Jews that they slayed a false prophet.
Is this an appeal to dogma, or is there any historical evidence to show that Jesus never did die.

Murad wrote:Evidence against Jesus being God
I'll provide brief rebuttals, and we can go into detail on one or two of these points.
Murad wrote:1. Did nothing on his own authority (John 5:30, 14:31, Matthew 20:23)
2. Spoke not on his own authority (John 14:10, 8:28-29)
I don't see how this is evidence aganist Jesus' divinity. It simply shows that Jesus invoked God the Father's name rather then his own.

Murad wrote:3. Said that the Father is greater than him (John 14:28)
Remember that Jesus' goal on earth was to reconcile man and God, primarily the Jews and their God, Yaweh. This was probably out of reverance and respect for the Jewish tradition, you'll also see in many places that Jesus says that he was sent by the father and is his word. Such as Justin Marty's concept of the "logos."
Murad wrote:4. Was tempted (Matthew 4:1-11) But God cannot be tempted (James 1:13)
But in the Christian tradition, Jesus is fully God and fully man.
Murad wrote:5. He denied knowledge of the unseen (Mark 13:32, Matthew 24:36)
Not sure what this means.
Murad wrote:6. He was subject to change (Luke 2:21, 52) But God is Immutable
Again, he is also considered fully human.
Murad wrote:7. Did not accept to be called good and deferred to God (Mark 10:18)
As I said, this was probably out of reverance for the Jewish tradition in Palestine.
Murad wrote:8. Prayed to God (Mark 14:32, Luke 5:16)
This can be explained by the concept of a triune God, the Christian God is made up of three persons. If the Christian God were made up of only one person, then it would seem contradictory that Jesus would pray to God if he, himself, is God.
Murad wrote:9. People called him a prophet (Luke 7:16, 24:19, John 6:14, Hebrews 3:1)
This doesn't debunk is divinity.
Murad wrote:10. Made a clear distinction between himself and the Father (Matthew 23:8-10)
Again, the Christian God is triune, made up of three distinct persons.
Murad wrote:11. Referred to himself as Son of man
Let me do some research on this and I'll get back to you.

Murad
Guru
Posts: 1217
Joined: Wed Jun 02, 2010 3:32 am
Location: Australia - Sydney

Post #14

Post by Murad »

WinePusher wrote: Yes, it is a logical inference from the facts at hand, and it seems to be the best explanation for the empty tomb unless you can provide a better one.
I would consider Jesus not being dead in the first place to be more logical. What part of the biblical evidence that i provided don't you accept?

WinePusher wrote: Is this an appeal to dogma, or is there any historical evidence to show that Jesus never did die.
From a scientific point of view; yes there is, he appeared alive to his disciples thus he could not have been killed in the first place.
Contrary to the belief that he was resurrected; do you have any historical evidence to proove this assumption? Or is this a belief that was passed down by tradition?




WinePusher wrote:
Murad wrote:1. Did nothing on his own authority (John 5:30, 14:31, Matthew 20:23)
2. Spoke not on his own authority (John 14:10, 8:28-29)
I don't see how this is evidence aganist Jesus' divinity. It simply shows that Jesus invoked God the Father's name rather then his own.
That is precisely the logical fallacy; if Jesus is the Father(as proposed in the trinity), why would he need approval from a higher authority if he is the higher authority?
The trinity equates Jesus to the Father because they are both God Al-Mighty.
Mathematically, when you equate something, it usually looks like this: X1=X2
....for the Father is greater than I,'" (John 14:28).
If the Father is greater than Jesus then X1 cannot = X2 and thus Jesus cannot be God.

WinePusher wrote: Remember that Jesus' goal on earth was to reconcile man and God, primarily the Jews and their God, Yaweh. This was probably out of reverance and respect for the Jewish tradition, you'll also see in many places that Jesus says that he was sent by the father and is his word. Such as Justin Marty's concept of the "logos."
Jesus was sent to Bani Israel(Lost tribes of Israel); what biblical evidence can you provide that prooves Jesus was sent to the 'world'?
(I will make a full rebuttal)

Murad wrote:4. Was tempted (Matthew 4:1-11) But God cannot be tempted (James 1:13)
WinePusher wrote: But in the Christian tradition, Jesus is fully God and fully man.
That is another logical fallacy; technically speaking, you cannot be "fully" in 2 or more things. You can be "partial", so if you said Jesus was a DemiGod(Part human Part God); that would be logically possible; but the moment you say he is "Fully human and Fully God" that is an oxymoron.
Also the whole concept of "Fully God, Fully Human" is illogical.
Let me provide you a simple example:
1. Humans are not all-knowing
2. God is all-knowing
3. Therefore, God cannot be Human.

Precisely prooving what Jesus said in Mark 13:32
No one knows about that day or hour, not even the angels in heaven, nor the Son, but only the Father.
So i ask you again, how can you equate Jesus to the Father in the Trinity when Jesus clearly made a crystal clear distinction?

Murad wrote:5. He denied knowledge of the unseen (Mark 13:32, Matthew 24:36)
WinePusher wrote: Not sure what this means.
It means God knows everything
Jesus does not know everything thus logically he cannot be God.
Here i will provide you another example:
(Mark 11:12-13) The next day as they were leaving Bethany, Jesus was hungry.
Seeing in the distance a fig tree in leaf, he went to find out if it had any fruit. When he reached it, he found nothing but leaves, because it was not the season for figs.
As you can clearly see, Jesus did not know the tree had no fruit, and infact he did not know it wasn't the season for figs.
I ask you again, how can you logically equate Jesus to God?

Murad wrote:6. He was subject to change (Luke 2:21, 52) But God is Immutable
WinePusher wrote: Again, he is also considered fully human.
Where did you get the idea he is fully man and fully God? Does your bible make any reference to this or is it just a doctrine man created over the years?


Murad wrote:7. Did not accept to be called good and deferred to God (Mark 10:18)
WinePusher wrote: As I said, this was probably out of reverance for the Jewish tradition in Palestine.
Well WinePusher, you are assuming again, the same way you are assuming the resurrection took place. Mark 10:18 is clear, how you choose to interpret it is another story.

Murad wrote:8. Prayed to God (Mark 14:32, Luke 5:16)
WinePusher wrote: This can be explained by the concept of a triune God, the Christian God is made up of three persons. If the Christian God were made up of only one person, then it would seem contradictory that Jesus would pray to God if he, himself, is God.
Please correct me if im wrong.
Jesus = God
Father = God
Holy Ghost = God

So Jesus basically prayed to himself in another entity? Do you think this is logical for Jesus to do?

What is your opinion on the Islamic perspective, that Jesus is a prophet and that he prayed to God just like the rest of us. Isn't that a more logical approach?

Murad wrote:9. People called him a prophet (Luke 7:16, 24:19, John 6:14, Hebrews 3:1)
WinePusher wrote: This doesn't debunk is divinity.
I agree it doesn't, but it does debunk the claims that people calling him 'lord' prooved his divinity.
Murad wrote:10. Made a clear distinction between himself and the Father (Matthew 23:8-10)
WinePusher wrote: Again, the Christian God is triune, made up of three distinct persons.
I perfectly understand the concept of the trinity, i studied abarahmic divinity in university.
The trinity equates the 3 seperate entities as 1 God. This is a logical error, as Jesus cannot be equated to the Father as stated in Matthew 23:8-10.

Murad wrote:11. Referred to himself as Son of man
WinePusher wrote: Let me do some research on this and I'll get back to you.
Ok thank you, ill wait.
Do the people think that they will be left to say, "We believe" without being put to the test?
We have tested those before them, for GOD must distinguish those who are truthful, and He must expose the liars.

(Quran 29:2-3)

----
Why Jesus is NOT God
---

WinePusher

Post #15

Post by WinePusher »

Ok, sorry for the long delay Murad. I am very disorientated on where we left off so I'll just represent my case. Like I said, my contention is that Jesus Christ is God/Divine.

Firstly, Jesus' divinity can be verified first and foremost by his resurrection. Notice that the Islamic view accepts Jesus' virgin birth but denys the his rising from the dead. This seems like nothing more then selective acceptance of miracles on the part of Muslims because Jesus' resurrection would invalidate many claims of Islam. As a Muslim, I would like to hear good reasons as to why you accept the virgin birth but reject the resurrection.

Secondly, we have many books, texts, and letters attesting to the miraculous nature of Jesus Christ, specificially his resurrection:

1) The Gospel's of Matthew, Mark, Luke and John
2) The Pauline Epistles
3) Early Christian Writings-Letters of St. Ignatius of Antioch, St. Clement,
4) The New Testament Apocrypha

and non-christian sources that insinuate the miraculous nature of Jesus Christ:

1) Jewish Sources-Acts of Pilate, The Talmud, Flavius Josephus
2) Roman Sources-The Annals of Tacitus, The 12 Caesars of Suetonius, and the Letters of Pliny The Younger.

With such overwhelming historical evidence, plus your openess to miracles and divine intervention, how can you reject the resurrection? I would also ask you if such evidence exists to support the claims of Islam and the Qu'ran, such as the return of the 12th Imam.

WinePusher

Post #16

Post by WinePusher »

Murad wrote:I would consider Jesus not being dead in the first place to be more logical. What part of the biblical evidence that i provided don't you accept?
If you believe in an omnipotent God, he would be fully capable of bringing a person back from the dead.
WinePusher wrote:Is this an appeal to dogma, or is there any historical evidence to show that Jesus never did die.
Murad wrote:From a scientific point of view; yes there is, he appeared alive to his disciples thus he could not have been killed in the first place.
Contrary to the belief that he was resurrected; do you have any historical evidence to proove this assumption? Or is this a belief that was passed down by tradition?
To suggest that Jesus never did die flies in the face of all the historical evidence I presented. One of the well accepted facts surrounding the resurrection is that a man named Jesus Christ died by Crucifixtion, this is attested to by multiple sources. Taking into account the trauma he suffered, from stab wounds to asphyxiation to dehydration it would be preposterous to suggest he never did die.

Murad
Guru
Posts: 1217
Joined: Wed Jun 02, 2010 3:32 am
Location: Australia - Sydney

Post #17

Post by Murad »

WinePusher wrote:Ok, sorry for the long delay Murad. I am very disorientated on where we left off so I'll just represent my case. Like I said, my contention is that Jesus Christ is God/Divine.
Hello WinePusher, glad your back.

WinePusher wrote: Firstly, Jesus' divinity can be verified first and foremost by his resurrection.
I disagree; logically; i dont see how being resurrected makes you more divine than any other miracle(done under the authority of God[Father])

WinePusher wrote: Notice that the Islamic view accepts Jesus' virgin birth but denys the his rising from the dead. This seems like nothing more then selective acceptance of miracles on the part of Muslims because Jesus' resurrection would invalidate many claims of Islam.
The Virgin Birth has absolutely no connection to the resurrection; thus i dont see it logical why you try to relate the two seperate topics.
Also...
The Quran does not "select" miracles as you put it; because to "select" something you must take it from a given source. The Quran is not based on the Bible. It is a completely different revelation; with completely different divine law. The Quran has miracles of Jesus that are not found in the Bible. Jesus in the Quran creates life.... as a child he creates a real bird out clay; just imagine; if this verse was in the bible; how it would be used as evidence to prove his divinity.

WinePusher wrote: As a Muslim, I would like to hear good reasons as to why you accept the virgin birth but reject the resurrection.
As i stated earlier; the virgin birth(and the other miracles of Jesus) are not equivalent to the resurrection; as the resurrection creates a doctrine; and symbolizes "Universal Atonement" which has no place in the teachings of Judaism.

The Quran testifies:
* Jesus' Second Comming
* Virgin Birth
* Is the Messiah
* Was raised to heaven
* Was rejected by the Jews
* Is the word of God (Be!)

But in no way; does it support the idea of a "Crucified God" and in no way does it support the idea of attributing numbers to the holy "Oneness & Perfectness" of God.

WinePusher wrote: Secondly, we have many books, texts, and letters attesting to the miraculous nature of Jesus Christ, specificially his resurrection:

1) The Gospel's of Matthew, Mark, Luke and John
2) The Pauline Epistles
3) Early Christian Writings-Letters of St. Ignatius of Antioch, St. Clement,
4) The New Testament Apocrypha

and non-christian sources that insinuate the miraculous nature of Jesus Christ:

1) Jewish Sources-Acts of Pilate, The Talmud, Flavius Josephus
2) Roman Sources-The Annals of Tacitus, The 12 Caesars of Suetonius, and the Letters of Pliny The Younger.
Well WinePusher; most(if not all) evidence regarding Jesus Christ is affected(from perception & ideology) of the 4 canonical gospels.
The authorship of these Gospels cannot be determined; yet Christian Scholars attempt to give a "hypothesis" for each Gospel; but the facts regarding the Gospels are:
* Were written in a foreign language(greek)
* By unknown authors
* In unknown places
* At an unknown time

I would also like to add; unlike Moses & Muhammad; the scripture of Jesus was not written in his life-time; this fact emphasizes; Both Moses & Muhammad wrote down their revelations and experience of life; but the texts of Jesus on the other hand were written decades after his disappearance.

Just take a second to imagine; how do you expect anyone to believe a text; that is so vivid and crystal clear in description & yet miraculously; it was created from Oral Tradition handed down for over thirty five years
This cannot be the "Word of God"; and thus in Islam; God being so loving & merciful to his creations; raised a prophet in the blood-line of Ishmael to restore pure monotheism.
WinePusher wrote: how can you reject the resurrection?
A more honest question is; how can you believe in the resurrection?
1) Did anyone see the resurrection?
2) Beside assumption; is there a way to validate your claims?
3) Would you base your faith on unknown authors?

Christians claim the resurrection fulfills the Jewish scriptures. Any Jew with the most basic knowledge of Judaism will know; no where in the Jewish scriptures does it say, the Messiah will:
* Be Sinless
* Will atone the world for its sins
* Will be God incarnate
* Will directly/indirectly abolish the Mosaic law

Also; the Jewish scriptures contain no mention of:
* The Trinity
* "Divine Sonship"

These are all, mans perception; ideology derived from oral tradition.
Doctrines created to support other doctrines(Trinity & Divine Sonship); and thus it has a circular pattern.

WinePusher wrote: I would also ask you if such evidence exists to support the claims of Islam and the Qu'ran, such as the return of the 12th Imam.
If you accept 'evidence' to be numerous witnesses & independent recording of this specific topic; then yes there is evidence in Islam to support this.

WinePusher; you are referring to the 'Mahdi' (Guided One)
The 12th Imam is a Shia ideology; Shia's believe the 12th Imam will be the awaited 'Mahdi'.
However im not Shia; so i'll explain the Sunni version of the 'Mahdi'

Numerous witnesses(of Muhammad) have recorded down that he prophecied a "Mahdi"(redeemer of Islam) that will appear when Jesus Christ decends down from heaven.
Narrated by Abu Sa`id al-Khudri:

The Messenger of God said: "He is one of us"

The Messenger of God said: "The Mahdi is of my lineage, with a high forehead and a long, thin, curved nose. He will fill the earth with fairness and justice as it was filled with oppression and injustice, and he will rule for seven years.

The Messenger of God said: "At the end of the time of my ummah, the Mahdi will appear. God will grant him rain, the earth will bring forth its fruits, he will give a lot of money, cattle will increase and the ummah will become great. He will rule for seven or eight years
The topic of the Mahdi directly relates to two other topics:
*Dajjal (AntiChrist)
*Return of the Prophet Jesus Christ
It would be impossible to understand the concept of Mahdi without understanding the AntiChrist and the decending of Jesus Christ.
WinePusher wrote: If you believe in an omnipotent God, he would be fully capable of bringing a person back from the dead.
Exactly; the One God of Israel has absolute authority & power; he can indeed bring a person back to life.
If you believe he is omnipotent; do you believe he can die?
Can you honestly compare the ruthless God of the O.T to Jesus Christ who ran away from King Herod?
WinePusher wrote: To suggest that Jesus never did die flies in the face of all the historical evidence I presented.
To suggest the Gospels are authentic texts(to an extent they are Gods word) is blatantly untrue.
Out of the 24000 Greek manuscripts that the NT is derived from, there is not an identical pair.... Yes its hard to believe how you can conclude the bible is the word of God.
How can you call something 'authentic evidence'; when it was written decades later; and when it was most likely indoctrinated by the perceptions of other people?
WinePusher wrote: One of the well accepted facts surrounding the resurrection is that a man named Jesus Christ died by Crucifixtion, this is attested to by multiple sources. Taking into account the trauma he suffered, from stab wounds to asphyxiation to dehydration it would be preposterous to suggest he never did die.
Modern medicine tells us; when a person dies; the blood clots to an extent it becomes "fleshy" & hard; the reason being the platelets in the blood become "sticky".

Now what the Bible tells us:
(John 19:34) Instead, one of the soldiers pierced Jesus' side with a spear, bringing a sudden flow of blood and water.
How can a dead mans body "bring a sudden flow of blood" ?
The unlikeliness of this event is very, very high.

_________________

I have a question; how do you explain Jesus simultaneously being All-Knowing & Not All-knowing (Fully God|Fully Human) ? We then conclude the term "Fully God & Fully Human" is an oxymoron; unless you can provide me a logical, and rationale answer.

Also

Do you honestly believe God was once a helpless baby? Does your rationale & logical thinking mind comprehend such a thought?
This sort of attribution to God is the utmost blasphemy; and i would like to conclude:
It is not befitting to the majesty of God that He should beget a son. Glory be to Him! when He determines a matter, He only says to it, "Be", and it is.
(Quran 19:35)


"Praise be to God, who begets no son, and has no partner in His dominion: Nor needs He any to protect Him from humiliation: yea, magnify Him for His greatness and glory!"
(Quran 17:111)
Do the people think that they will be left to say, "We believe" without being put to the test?
We have tested those before them, for GOD must distinguish those who are truthful, and He must expose the liars.

(Quran 29:2-3)

----
Why Jesus is NOT God
---

WinePusher

Post #18

Post by WinePusher »

WinePusher wrote:Firstly, Jesus' divinity can be verified first and foremost by his resurrection.
Murad wrote:I disagree; logically; I dont see how being resurrected makes you more divine than any other miracle(done under the authority of God[Father]).
Anyone can claim to be the Savior of the World and the son of God. What the resurrection, and the other miracles of Jesus, does is prove that claim. As Paul siad, if Christ did not rise then we would be worshipping in vain, so Jesus' divine nature is directly tied to his resurrection.
WinePusher wrote:Notice that the Islamic view accepts Jesus' virgin birth but denys the his rising from the dead. This seems like nothing more then selective acceptance of miracles on the part of Muslims because Jesus' resurrection would invalidate many claims of Islam.
Murad wrote:The Virgin Birth has absolutely no connection to the resurrection; thus i dont see it logical why you try to relate the two seperate topics.
I never said they are connected. I said that they are both miracles, and if you accept that one miracle (the Virgin Birth) can occur then you should be able to accept that the other miracle (the Resurrection) can also occur.
WinePusher wrote:As a Muslim, I would like to hear good reasons as to why you accept the virgin birth but reject the resurrection.
Murad wrote:As I stated earlier; the virgin birth(and the other miracles of Jesus) are not equivalent to the resurrection; as the resurrection creates a doctrine; and symbolizes "Universal Atonement" which has no place in the teachings of Judaism.
The fact that doctrine and dogma flows from the idea of the resurrection says nothing to its truthfulness as an accurate, historical event. I will take this as a statement to mean that there are no good historical and evidentiary reasons to deny the resurrection. However, there are several ideas that should be touched on:

1) Do Muslims accept that humans are born into a fallen state?
2) If so, do Muslims also recognize the need for atonement?
Murad wrote:The Quran testifies:
* Jesus' Second Comming
* Virgin Birth
* Is the Messiah
* Was raised to heaven
* Was rejected by the Jews
* Is the word of God (Be!)

But in no way; does it support the idea of a "Crucified God" and in no way does it support the idea of attributing numbers to the holy "Oneness & Perfectness" of God.
Basically, you accept many of the Christian claims concerning Jesus Christ. But you do reject the Christian Claim of the Resurrection because it seems to contradict Islamic Theology, so, here's my take on it. If Christian Dogma falls in line with Islamic Dogma, you'll accept it. However, if Christian Dogma deviates from Islamic Dogma you'll reject it.

I assume you are a monotheist? Well, right there you are claiming to know the nature of God. Also, I would like to hear a case as to why the idea of a Crucified God is unsupported and rejected.
WinePusher wrote:Secondly, we have many books, texts, and letters attesting to the miraculous nature of Jesus Christ, specificially his resurrection:

1) The Gospel's of Matthew, Mark, Luke and John
2) The Pauline Epistles
3) Early Christian Writings-Letters of St. Ignatius of Antioch, St. Clement,
4) The New Testament Apocrypha

and non-christian sources that insinuate the miraculous nature of Jesus Christ:

1) Jewish Sources-Acts of Pilate, The Talmud, Flavius Josephus
2) Roman Sources-The Annals of Tacitus, The 12 Caesars of Suetonius, and the Letters of Pliny The Younger.
Murad wrote:Well WinePusher; most(if not all) evidence regarding Jesus Christ is affected(from perception & ideology) of the 4 canonical gospels.
The authorship of these Gospels cannot be determined; yet Christian Scholars attempt to give a "hypothesis" for each Gospel; but the facts regarding the Gospels are:
A Few Preliminary Points: The Bible can be approached in two aspects, as a book of doctrine and dogma, and as a historical book. When it comes to the historical claims of the Bible, they are well supported by archaeology, extrabiblical sources and they do not conflict with mainstream history.

The Qu'ran seems to be another completely different story. It's historical authenticity has been called into question many times, its authorship remains laregely a mystery to skeptical scholars and it also contradicts traditional views of Morality.
Murad wrote:* Were written in a foreign language(greek).
They absolutly were not foreign. Greek was a common language that tied the Roman Empire together, just because the disciples primary language was aramaic does not mean they did not know greek. Also, many of the Gospels were not meant to be confined within the Palestianian region, some were meant for Gentile, Greek and Roman audiences so it's completely plausible to suggest that the disciples dictated the words orally to scribes versed in Greek.
Murad wrote:* By unknown authors
Yes, we are not quite sure of the specifics on the authors of some new testament books. That, however, says nothing to the veracity of the content within the Book.
Murad wrote:* In unknown places
* At an unknown time
Both of these claims aren't true. We have good speculations as to when they were written (Several decades after the events they list) and we also have good knowledge as to where they were written (The Palestinian Region). And the questions as to where they were written is completely irrelevant to the accuracy of the content.
Murad wrote:I would also like to add; unlike Moses & Muhammad; the scripture of Jesus was not written in his life-time; this fact emphasizes; Both Moses & Muhammad wrote down their revelations and experience of life; but the texts of Jesus on the other hand were written decades after his disappearance.
I reject Mosaic Authorship of the Torah, it's unlikely Moses wrote anything. The Torah was probably complied on multiple occasions in the Divided Monarchy of Israel on through the Babylonian Exile. As for Muhammad, the question as to whether he penned anything is heavily contested by Scholars.
Murad wrote:This cannot be the "Word of God"; and thus in Islam; God being so loving & merciful to his creations; raised a prophet in the blood-line of Ishmael to restore pure monotheism.
A God who would come down to earth, take on flesh, walk amoung us, and die an agnonizing death to save us seems much more loving then a God who would not do this because of his perfect nature.
WinePusher wrote:hHw can you reject the resurrection?
Murad wrote:A more honest question is; how can you believe in the resurrection?
1) Did anyone see the resurrection?
Yes, according to the historical evidence many of the disciples did. And their claim to have seen the Risen Lord was vindicated by their subsequent martydom.
Murad wrote:2) Beside assumption; is there a way to validate your claims?
They aren't neccesarily assumptions. We have many historical anomalies regarding the resurrection, so what people do is infer to the best available explanation. And the explanation of Jesus actually rising from the dead accounts for all these anomalies perfectly.
Murad wrote:3) Would you base your faith on unknown authors?
Yes, the identity of the Authors is not as crucial as you suggest. Surely you would not claim you know the identity of the authors of the Qu'ran?
Murad wrote:Christians claim the resurrection fulfills the Jewish scriptures. Any Jew with the most basic knowledge of Judaism will know; no where in the Jewish scriptures does it say, the Messiah will:
* Be Sinless
* Will atone the world for its sins
* Will be God incarnate
* Will directly/indirectly abolish the Mosaic law
Yes, and the Christian attributes to Jesus do not invalidiate the prerequisities set by prior Jewish beleifs.
Murad wrote:Also; the Jewish scriptures contain no mention of:
* The Trinity
* "Divine Sonship"
Yes, I will grant you that. However, that God present in the Hebrew Scriptures is considered by Christians to be God the Father. here's a rough sketch:

Old Testament Era: Presence of God The Father
0-33AD: Presence of God the Son
The Early Church Era: Presense of God the Spirit

So, since the the Jews do not accept the authority of the Early Christian Church and the nature of Jesus Christ, they would reject the idea of a triune God.
WinePusher wrote:If you believe in an omnipotent God, he would be fully capable of bringing a person back from the dead.
Murad wrote:Exactly; the One God of Israel has absolute authority & power; he can indeed bring a person back to life. If you believe he is omnipotent; do you believe he can die?
Yes, but it was God the son that died, not God the father.
WinePusher wrote:To suggest that Jesus never did die flies in the face of all the historical evidence I presented.
Murad wrote:How can you call something 'authentic evidence'; when it was written decades later; and when it was most likely indoctrinated by the perceptions of other people?
If it were written hundreds of years later, it would be appropriate to consdier it unauthentic. However, it is merely written ten to twenty years after, that is a short time period that does not rule out eyewitness authorship. And it clearly wasn't a product of indoctrination, the enviroment at that time was extremely hostile towards Christians.
WinePusher wrote:One of the well accepted facts surrounding the resurrection is that a man named Jesus Christ died by Crucifixtion, this is attested to by multiple sources. Taking into account the trauma he suffered, from stab wounds to asphyxiation to dehydration it would be preposterous to suggest he never did die.
Murad wrote:Modern medicine tells us; when a person dies; the blood clots to an extent it becomes "fleshy" & hard; the reason being the platelets in the blood become "sticky".

Now what the Bible tells us:
John 19:34 wrote: Instead, one of the soldiers pierced Jesus' side with a spear, bringing a sudden flow of blood and water.
Murad wrote:How can a dead mans body "bring a sudden flow of blood" ? The unlikeliness of this event is very, very high.
The piercing of the side of Jesus is said to have happened while he was on the cross. Probably not even an hour after his death, and I don't think blood immediatly clots and thickens at the prouncment of death.
Murad wrote:I have a question; how do you explain Jesus simultaneously being All-Knowing & Not All-knowing (Fully God|Fully Human) ? We then conclude the term "Fully God & Fully Human" is an oxymoron; unless you can provide me a logical, and rationale answer.
Ok, here's your logic:
P) Fully God=Omniscient
A) Fully Human=Not Omniscient
P=/=A

However, when I add one additional premise acceptable by both you and I, it then becomes compatabile.

E) Fully God="Omnipotent
P) Fully God=Omniscient
A) Fully Human=Not Omniscient
Therefore:
P=A by way of E

Murad
Guru
Posts: 1217
Joined: Wed Jun 02, 2010 3:32 am
Location: Australia - Sydney

Post #19

Post by Murad »

WinePusher wrote: I never said they are connected. I said that they are both miracles, and if you accept that one miracle (the Virgin Birth) can occur then you should be able to accept that the other miracle (the Resurrection) can also occur.
If you read back on my posts; not once did i say the resurrection cannot happen; if i said that i would be contradicting the power of God(Father).
WinePusher wrote: I never said they are connected. I said that they are both miracles, and if you accept that one miracle (the Virgin Birth) can occur then you should be able to accept that the other miracle (the Resurrection) can also occur.
I never denied this in the first place :confused2:
What your saying is i think "God being Resurrected"; which is impossible as God cannot die.

WinePusher wrote: The fact that doctrine and dogma flows from the idea of the resurrection says nothing to its truthfulness as an accurate, historical event.
Thats true.
Although it shows how the idea of a "Crucified God" lacked reasoning & rationale; thus man made doctrines were created to give the concept of "Godly Resurrection" a meaning & an ultimate purpose.
Without these man made doctrines; the 'resurrection' is water; it drips with no purpose.

WinePusher wrote: I will take this as a statement to mean that there are no good historical and evidentiary reasons to deny the resurrection. However, there are several ideas that should be touched on:

1) Do Muslims accept that humans are born into a fallen state?
2) If so, do Muslims also recognize the need for atonement?
Let me summarize Islam really fast.
1) Sin is not inherited; logically; Sin is the human state
2) God made us with the intention we will Sin(he made us human)
3) The only way to 'Salvation' is sincere repentance; and following his commandments.
[039:053] Say: "O my Servants who have transgressed against their souls! Despair not of the Mercy of God: for God forgives all sins: for He is Oft-Forgiving, Most Merciful.

[039:054] "Turn ye to our Lord in repentance and bow to His Will, before the Penalty comes on you: after that ye shall not be helped.

[039:055] "And follow the best of the courses revealed to you from your Lord, before the Penalty comes on you - of a sudden while ye perceive not!
WinePusher wrote: I assume you are a monotheist?
Islam is the strictest monotheistic religion. Thats why certain words such as "Father" was not attributed to God in the Quran; as it would create confusion as it had done before.
Islam has something called "Tawhid"; there is no stricter doctrine of God(in any religion) regarding his oneness & wholeness.
WinePusher wrote: Well, right there you are claiming to know the nature of God. Also, I would like to hear a case as to why the idea of a Crucified God is unsupported and rejected.
Simply because Jesus had a God that he prayed to; he worshipped; an all-powerful God that cannot be killed; spat on; mocked; infact it is impossible for God to get killed because he cannot die(nature of god); the same way he cannot lie(Hebrews 6:18).


The nature of God in the Quran is made very easy to comprehend; there is no room left for interpretation:
Quran 112:
1. “He is God, the Unique.�

2. “God, the Self-Sufficient.�

3. “He does not give birth, nor was He born.�

4. “And there is none equal to Him.�
This is the God of Abraham; the God that Abraham & his bloodline worshipped; they did not worship "Jesus in the Trinity"; the concept of "Trinity" does not even exist in Jewish scriptures. Unsurprisingly it is a "Man made Doctrine".

WinePusher wrote: A Few Preliminary Points: The Bible can be approached in two aspects, as a book of doctrine and dogma, and as a historical book. When it comes to the historical claims of the Bible, they are well supported by archaeology, extrabiblical sources and they do not conflict with mainstream history.
I hope i dont read a different bible.

Jeremiah 29:10 Informs us that the Babylonian Exile will last 70 years. And the 2nd Chronicles 36:21 tells us that this came about.
But, the duration of time from the destruction of the temple (which was the beginning of the exile) in precisely 586 B.C., to the return of the Israelites to their promised land after Cyrus overthrew the Babylonian Empire in 538 B.C. was 48 years, and not 70.
A very; very clear historical error.

Also i remember while reading Daniel(5:30-31); it said said that Darius the Median took over the Babylon empire, but it was Cyrus of Persia who overthrew the Babylonian Empire in war. Yes; we know there is a 'Darius the first' in history, there is no mention of a Darius of Median anywhere.

There are undoubtedly other historical inaccuracies found in the Bible.
WinePusher wrote: The Qu'ran seems to be another completely different story. It's historical authenticity has been called into question many times, its authorship remains laregely a mystery to skeptical scholars and it also contradicts traditional views of Morality.
What you have said is plainly subjective thoughts; ofcourse its authorship will remain a mystery to skeptical scholars; God... i even know some christians who think muslims secretly worship a moon God named hubal.

Not only does Muhammad promise his people that the Quran would not be corrupted(Q.15:9); there are also numerous(hundreds) of hadiths(recorded texts) that refer the the Prophet uttering verses of the Quran & there are also numerous verses that document how the 3rd Caliph of Islam compiled the texts of the Quran. (Copies were made from the original texts that were kept by the prophets wife hafsa)



WinePusher wrote: They absolutly were not foreign. Greek was a common language that tied the Roman Empire together, just because the disciples primary language was aramaic does not mean they did not know greek.
I agree; although do you think they knew "greek" so perfectly that they wrote texts which describe the events & life of Jesus Christ in such a structure; and in such detailed wording; one could assume Mark;Luke;Matthew;John took writing classes for the greek language.
WinePusher wrote: Yes, we are not quite sure of the specifics on the authors of some new testament books. That, however, says nothing to the veracity of the content within the Book.
That begs the question; how do you regard the works of "anonymous authors" as 'Authentic & Gods word'; adding to that; basic scholarly tradition teaches that they were also written alteast 35years later; im sure that doesn't help its authenticity either.


Murad wrote:* In unknown places
* At an unknown time
WinePusher wrote: Both of these claims aren't true. We have good speculations as to when they were written (Several decades after the events they list)
Precisely my point; similar to the authorship of the Gospels; the time period in which they were written are also assumed.

WinePusher wrote: As for Muhammad, the question as to whether he penned anything is heavily contested by Scholars.
He didn't write a single word; he was illiterate.
It was his scribes & disciples that helped record his revelations down in text.(In his lifetime)
Hence scholars till this day and age; cannot believe that such an arabic text(Quran) that created new arabic language techniques; could not originate from an unschooled man
This is the glory of Gods words.


WinePusher wrote: A God who would come down to earth, take on flesh, walk amoung us, and die an agnonizing death to save us seems much more loving then a God who would not do this because of his perfect nature.
I completely agree with you;
It does sound more attractive than the Islamic notion of God.

But the logical & rationale problems are very evident.
1) God required sacrifice to forgive; not mercy(direct forgiveness)
Hence: "Only through the death of Jesus Christ can our sins be atoned for" -a very famous christian cliche.
2) He killed himself(a third of the trinity) so that he wont punish you...(i fail to see any logic)
3) He prayed to himself in another entity for no logical reason
4) He was under the authority of the Father; but wait; Jesus & the Father are basically the same God? So he was taking orders from himself in another entity?

Do you see this logical? And thus; doctrine after doctrine has been created by Christian scholars; and no doubt they will continue to be created in the future.

WinePusher wrote: Yes, according to the historical evidence many of the disciples did. And their claim to have seen the Risen Lord was vindicated by their subsequent martydom.
Totally false.
No one saw Jesus being resurrected; they saw Jesus alive after he was allegedly killed.
My question/statement was referring to whether anyone saw Jesus' resurrection. Not how they assumed Jesus was resurrected.

WinePusher wrote:
Murad wrote:3) Would you base your faith on unknown authors?
Yes, the identity of the Authors is not as crucial as you suggest.
I think its the most cruicial of all; well thats my opinion.
WinePusher wrote: Surely you would not claim you know the identity of the authors of the Qu'ran?
I claim the identity of the producer Muhammad & i can claim that his disciples compiled his revelations.
WinePusher wrote:
Murad wrote:Christians claim the resurrection fulfills the Jewish scriptures. Any Jew with the most basic knowledge of Judaism will know; no where in the Jewish scriptures does it say, the Messiah will:
* Be Sinless
* Will atone the world for its sins
* Will be God incarnate
* Will directly/indirectly abolish the Mosaic law
Yes, and the Christian attributes to Jesus do not invalidiate the prerequisities set by prior Jewish beleifs.
I dont think the Tanakh setting prerequisites is the issue here.
Its why the Christian notion of God is ultimately so different from the Jewish teachings. Remember; Jesus was a Jew.
WinePusher wrote:
Murad wrote:Also; the Jewish scriptures contain no mention of:
* The Trinity
* "Divine Sonship"
Yes, I will grant you that. However, that God present in the Hebrew Scriptures is considered by Christians to be God the Father. here's a rough sketch:


Old Testament Era: Presence of God The Father
0-33AD: Presence of God the Son
The Early Church Era: Presense of God the Spirit
Exactly; as you can see as time progressed; his holy oneness was slowly divided.
The time where you consider "God the Father" was revealed; here is what he said:
Exodus 20:1-3 wrote: 1 And God spoke all these words:

2 “I am the LORD your God, who brought you out of Egypt, out of the land of slavery.

3 “You shall have no other gods before me.
Did God purposely want to confuse people? Why wouldn't he clarify the most crucial subject of the religion; 'God'...? Why no mention of the trinity; instead what we gather from the OT is that God saw himself as one, and thought of it as "blasphemy" if someone worshipped "graven images".

We conclude, the notion of God evolved; and went into phases & changes; hence the Christian notion of God as existing in a "Trinity".

WinePusher wrote: So, since the the Jews do not accept the authority of the Early Christian Church and the nature of Jesus Christ, they would reject the idea of a triune God.
Ultimately; the Church is irrelivant here.
The Jews follow their scripture; and im sure the Christian notion of the Messiah being "God Incarnate" & existing in a "Trinity" makes their rejection even stronger.

WinePusher wrote: If it were written hundreds of years later, it would be appropriate to consdier it unauthentic. However, it is merely written ten to twenty years after, that is a short time period that does not rule out eyewitness authorship.
10 to 20 years?
Mark was written about 70 C.C., followed by Matthew and Luke somewhere between 80-90 C.E. John was written around 100C.C, and was the last of the four canonized gospels.

Just imagine recalling an event 5years ago; with such vivid detail; and remembrance of everything that was said word-for-word; now do that for 10 years; then 15; then 20; then 25; then 30; then 35-50-60 years.


WinePusher wrote:
Murad wrote:Modern medicine tells us; when a person dies; the blood clots to an extent it becomes "fleshy" & hard; the reason being the platelets in the blood become "sticky".

Now what the Bible tells us:
John 19:34 wrote: Instead, one of the soldiers pierced Jesus' side with a spear, bringing a sudden flow of blood and water.
Murad wrote:How can a dead mans body "bring a sudden flow of blood" ? The unlikeliness of this event is very, very high.
The piercing of the side of Jesus is said to have happened while he was on the cross. Probably not even an hour after his death, and I don't think blood immediatly clots and thickens at the prouncment of death.
It takes 2-5 minutes for blood to clot; i would say that is "immediate".
This story sounds highly concocted; and any doctor will tell you its "very,very unlikely".

WinePusher wrote:
Murad wrote:I have a question; how do you explain Jesus simultaneously being All-Knowing & Not All-knowing (Fully God|Fully Human) ? We then conclude the term "Fully God & Fully Human" is an oxymoron; unless you can provide me a logical, and rationale answer.
Ok, here's your logic:
P) Fully God=Omniscient
A) Fully Human=Not Omniscient
P=/=A

However, when I add one additional premise acceptable by both you and I, it then becomes compatabile.

E) Fully God="Omnipotent
P) Fully God=Omniscient
A) Fully Human=Not Omniscient
Therefore:
P=A by way of E

That is a weak arguement, i must admit WinePusher.

Just because God is all powerful; it is not a necessity for him to be all-knowing; you are assuming Jesus is all-knowing simply because of the christian notion that he is all-powerful.
What we know for a fact; Jesus was not all-knowing:
"No one knows about that day or hour, not even the angels in heaven, nor the Son, but only the Father.(Matthew 24:36)
So we can conclude Jesus cannot be God; simply because he is not all-knowing.
Jesus prayed to an all-knowing God to guide him; that God didnt pray to Jesus who ran away from King Herod.
I conclude there is only one God; that is the "Father".


The Bible says God cannot change (Numbers 23:19; 1 Samuel 15:29; Psalm 102:26-27; Malachi 3:6; Romans 11:29; Hebrews 6:17-18; James 1:17)
But the NT teaches Jesus(being God) changed.
Is there any logical & rationale answer for this?
Do the people think that they will be left to say, "We believe" without being put to the test?
We have tested those before them, for GOD must distinguish those who are truthful, and He must expose the liars.

(Quran 29:2-3)

----
Why Jesus is NOT God
---

WinePusher

Post #20

Post by WinePusher »

WinePusher wrote:I never said they are connected. I said that they are both miracles, and if you accept that one miracle (the Virgin Birth) can occur then you should be able to accept that the other miracle (the Resurrection) can also occur.
Murad wrote:I never denied this in the first place :confused2:
What your saying is i think "God being Resurrected"; which is impossible as God cannot die.
Let's get right down to it, what good reasons are there to reject the resurrection? You have presented one reason, that being that Jesus Christ did not die in the first place. Well, that claim is completely unsupportable and is rejected by mainstream historical scholars.
WinePusher wrote:The fact that doctrine and dogma flows from the idea of the resurrection says nothing to its truthfulness as an accurate, historical event.
Murad wrote:Thats true. Although it shows how the idea of a "Crucified God" lacked reasoning & rationale; thus man made doctrines were created to give the concept of "Godly Resurrection" a meaning & an ultimate purpose. Without these man made doctrines; the 'resurrection' is water; it drips with no purpose.
Premise 1: Jesus Christ Existed and Claimed To Be God.
Premise 2: Jesus Christ Died.
Premise 3: Jesus Christ Rose From The Dead
Conclusion: Jesus Christ's claim to be God is vindicated by his rising from the dead.

To dismantle this argument, you've been offering very spurious objections, that go aganist mainstream historical thought. Your objections are in blue.

Premise 1: Jesus Christ Existed and Claimed To Be God.
-Jesus never claimed to be God
Premise 2: Jesus Christ Died.
-Jesus never died
Premise 3: Jesus Christ Rose From The Dead.
-Jesus never rose from the dead because there are many theological implications to the resurrection.
Conclusion: Jesus Christ's claim to be God is vindicated by his rising from the dead.
-Even if the resurrection occured, it proves nothing.

By far, most of these are unsupportable assertion with the exception of premise 3.
WinePusher wrote:1) Do Muslims accept that humans are born into a fallen state?
2) If so, do Muslims also recognize the need for atonement?
Murad wrote:Let me summarize Islam really fast.
1) Sin is not inherited; logically; Sin is the human state
2) God made us with the intention we will Sin(he made us human)
3) The only way to 'Salvation' is sincere repentance; and following his commandments.
The major difference here is that Christianity teaches salvation is a gift and cannot be earned while Islam says that salvation can be earned through following commandments, codes, and dietary laws.

So, essentially we have a human problem of sin. Islam says that in order to solve this problem, humans must work and better themselves. Christianity says that human efforts are fruitless and that if this problem is to be solved, the solution must come from the divine. This attests to the truthfulness of Christianity amoung other religions (including Islam) in that salvations is a gift, not something that can be earned.
Murad wrote:The nature of God in the Quran is made very easy to comprehend; there is no room left for interpretation.
Indeed.....note that in many Christian Theologies, God is not comphrehensible. I believe it was St. Augustine who said that if humans have ever fully understood anything, it cannot be God. What's interesting about this is, you can only know of htis through revelation, yet you don't believe that God came to earth and took on flesh, and you believe that the recipient of Allah's revelations was an illiterate prophet.

Christian Dogma is based on
A) The Revelation of God to literate and educated Humans
B) God coming to earth himself

Islamic Dogma is based on only
A) The Revelation of God to illiterate humans
WinePusher wrote:A Few Preliminary Points: The Bible can be approached in two aspects, as a book of doctrine and dogma, and as a historical book. When it comes to the historical claims of the Bible, they are well supported by archaeology, extrabiblical sources and they do not conflict with mainstream history.
Murad wrote:I hope i dont read a different bible.

Jeremiah 29:10 Informs us that the Babylonian Exile will last 70 years. And the 2nd Chronicles 36:21 tells us that this came about. But, the duration of time from the destruction of the temple (which was the beginning of the exile) in precisely 586 B.C., to the return of the Israelites to their promised land after Cyrus overthrew the Babylonian Empire in 538 B.C. was 48 years, and not 70. A very; very clear historical error.
That's a very weak point. The "error" you are pointing out is that the biblical account of the babylonian exile differed by about 22 years.

You are correct in saying that Cyrus' decree marked the end of the babylonian exile, which was on 538. However, you are incorrect in saying that the destruction of the temple marked the beginning of it. The first deportation of exiles was in 597, which marked the beginning of the babylonian exile.

597yrs - 70yrs= would out us at 527BC. That's only 11 years off, hardly a major historical discrepency. If the Bible said that Judah survived and fought off the Babylonians, then you might have a case. But like I said, this is a very weak objection.
Murad wrote:Also I remember while reading Daniel(5:30-31); it said said that Darius the Median took over the Babylon empire, but it was Cyrus of Persia who overthrew the Babylonian Empire in war. Yes; we know there is a 'Darius the first' in history, there is no mention of a Darius of Median anywhere.
The Medes were one in the same as the Persians.
Murad wrote:There are undoubtedly other historical inaccuracies found in the Bible.
Sure, no one's denying this. The inaccuracies are very minor though, as you have ddemonstrated.
WinePusher wrote:They absolutly were not foreign. Greek was a common language that tied the Roman Empire together, just because the disciples primary language was aramaic does not mean they did not know greek.
Murad wrote:I agree; although do you think they knew "greek" so perfectly that they wrote texts which describe the events & life of Jesus Christ in such a structure; and in such detailed wording; one could assume Mark;Luke;Matthew;John took writing classes for the greek language.
Yes, it is entirely plausible to think that those 4 Gospel Writers had advanced Knowledge of Greek. There is no reason to think otherwise.
WinePusher wrote:Yes, we are not quite sure of the specifics on the authors of some new testament books. That, however, says nothing to the veracity of the content within the Book.
Murad wrote:That begs the question; how do you regard the works of "anonymous authors" as 'Authentic & Gods word'; adding to that; basic scholarly tradition teaches that they were also written at least 35years later; im sure that doesn't help its authenticity either.
They are not entirely anonymous, I simply said that some NT books have contreversial authorships, such as Hebrews. But notice that the authorships of the books are attributed to people and characters, they tell us that the author of this Gospel was John and the author of this Gospel is Matthew. If you are going to call into question the authenticity of the authorship, it is your burden to give good reasons to support your position.

Also, let's look at the Caesar's Gallic Wars. We're pretty sure Caesar wrote them, and we're pretty sure that the content is accurate. However, if we did not know that Caesar was the author, it would not impact the accuracy of the content as crucially as you suggest. If you take the identity of the autor out of the equation, it does not seem to affect the content.
WinePusher wrote:Both of these claims aren't true. We have good speculations as to when they were written (Several decades after the events they list).
Murad wrote:Precisely my point; similar to the authorship of the Gospels; the time period in which they were written are also assumed.
Ok, if you want to go down that road, yes. We cannot say with complete certainty that the historical events we claim to know actually happened. You nor I ever actually witnessed history in the making, so all historical events are essentially based on assumptions.
WinePusher wrote:As for Muhammad, the question as to whether he penned anything is heavily contested by Scholars.
Murad wrote:He didn't write a single word; he was illiterate. It was his scribes & disciples that helped record his revelations down in text. (In his lifetime)
Hence scholars till this day and age; cannot believe that such an arabic text(Quran) that created new arabic language techniques; could not originate from an unschooled man.
And like I stated above, if the revelations of Islam came to an illiterate prophet, can Islam really be considered reliable in light of this? The Bible was not a book that was dropped down from heaven, its contents were edited, developed, thought out, and written by more then one person. Islam seems to be a completely different story.
WinePusher wrote:A God who would come down to earth, take on flesh, walk amoung us, and die an agnonizing death to save us seems much more loving then a God who would not do this because of his perfect nature.
Murad wrote:I completely agree with you;
It does sound more attractive than the Islamic notion of God.

But the logical & rationale problems are very evident.
1) God required sacrifice to forgive; not mercy (direct forgiveness)
Hence: "Only through the death of Jesus Christ can our sins be atoned for" -a very famous christian cliche.
The theology behind this is called substitutionary atonement, or vicarious redeemtion. According to Christianity, it was God's mercy that saved us, that's what Chrisitanity teaches.
WinePusher wrote:Yes, according to the historical evidence many of the disciples did. And their claim to have seen the Risen Lord was vindicated by their subsequent martydom.
Murad wrote:Totally false. No one saw Jesus being resurrected; they saw Jesus alive after he was allegedly killed. My question/statement was referring to whether anyone saw Jesus' resurrection. Not how they assumed Jesus was resurrected.
Jesus died, after his death the disciples claimed to see him risen. Again, Jesus did die, that is not a point that can be contested. That is a well accepted fact, not conjecture, not speculation.
Murad wrote:Christians claim the resurrection fulfills the Jewish scriptures. Any Jew with the most basic knowledge of Judaism will know; no where in the Jewish scriptures does it say, the Messiah will:
* Be Sinless
* Will atone the world for its sins
* Will be God incarnate
* Will directly/indirectly abolish the Mosaic law
WinePusher wrote:Yes, and the Christian attributes to Jesus do not invalidiate the prerequisities set by prior Jewish beleifs.
Murad wrote:I dont think the Tanakh setting prerequisites is the issue here.
Its why the Christian notion of God is ultimately so different from the Jewish teachings. Remember; Jesus was a Jew.
You haven't shown how the Christian notion of God is different from Jewish teachings.
Murad wrote:Did God purposely want to confuse people? Why wouldn't he clarify the most crucial subject of the religion; 'God'...? Why no mention of the trinity; instead what we gather from the OT is that God saw himself as one, and thought of it as "blasphemy" if someone worshipped "graven images".

We conclude, the notion of God evolved; and went into phases & changes; hence the Christian notion of God as existing in a "Trinity".
If I remember correctly, trinity is a latin word never mentioned in the Bible. The word "trinity" is used to describe the triune nature of God presented in the Bible. Yes, our concept of God has evolved, before Jesus and before the existence of the Early Church we would not have known about a triune God.

In the three abhrahamic religions, what we see is that one builds off the other.

Judaism to Christianity to Islam. Christianity is primarily based on Judaism with additional teachings and doctrines but does not invalidate core Jewish teachings. Islam comes around, builds off of Christianity and Judaism and invalidites borth of their core doctrines. What gives you guys the authority to say that Christians are wrong on this issue, and Muslims are right?
Murad wrote:Just imagine recalling an event 5 years ago; with such vivid detail; and remembrance of everything that was said word-for-word; now do that for 10 years; then 15; then 20; then 25; then 30; then 35-50-60 years.
If that's the standard you're applying, then go ahead and apply it to other ancient texts. You'll see tat we would have to give up most of what we know about the ancient world. I thinks it's interesting how non-christians apply critical standards to the Bible, yet give up these standards when approaching other texts.
Murad wrote:It takes 2-5 minutes for blood to clot; I would say that is "immediate". This story sounds highly concocted; and any doctor will tell you its "very,very unlikely".
Let me first point out that this is another very weak objection.

1) Would you say that Jesus wasn't even Crucified?
2) Would you say Jesus was crucified, but somehow survived the crucifixion?
3) Is your only piece of evidence to support the claim that Jesus neve rdied that his blood did not clot immediatly? Seriously, there has been alot of medical research done into the crucifixion narratives, and it does not sound concoted to the experts.
WinePusher wrote:Ok, here's your logic:
P) Fully God=Omniscient
A) Fully Human=Not Omniscient
P=/=A

However, when I add one additional premise acceptable by both you and I, it then becomes compatabile.

E) Fully God=Omnipotent
P) Fully God=Omniscient
A) Fully Human=Not Omniscient
Therefore:
P=A by way of E

Murad wrote:That is a weak argument, i must admit WinePusher.

Just because God is all powerful; it is not a necessity for him to be all-knowing; you are assuming Jesus is all-knowing simply because of the christian notion that he is all-powerful.
No, the appeal here is that the incarnation is by in large a mystery. I will concede that, but when you say that just because it's a hard tale to swallow it shouldn't be believed, you are downplaying God's omnipotence. if God is all-powerful in your mind, he should be able to take on flesh and become human while maintiang his Godly nature.

Post Reply