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 #21

Post by Murad »

I'll use this post to emphasize & to make brief statements; in my following post i'll dwell into certain topics deeply.

WinePusher wrote:
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.
These are all associated to the divinity of Jesus Christ; which ill emphasize in my following post.

WinePusher wrote:
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.
A very good comparison

WinePusher wrote:
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.
Islam shares that exact belief.
No vision can grasp Him, but His grasp is over all vision: He is above all comprehension, yet is acquainted with all things.(Quran 6:103)
The thing is; the Quran is easy to understand; we dont claim to know all of Gods characteristics & attributes; but we do know the basics.
“And We have indeed made the Qur’an easy to understand and remember, then is there any that will remember or receive admonition? (Qur’an 54:17)
WinePusher wrote: 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.

......
Sure, no one's denying this. The inaccuracies are very minor though, as you have ddemonstrated.
(Proverbs 30:5-6): "Every word of God is flawless"



WinePusher wrote:
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.
Not only Hebrews; the 4 canonical gospels are regarded to be written by 'anonymous' persons; it is only church tradition that asserts 'so & so' wrote this. There is absolutely no evidence; at all; that proves "Person A" wrote this Gospel.


In Jesus: Apocalyptic Prophet, Bart D. Ehrman explains:
All four Gospels are written in Greek, by authors who were reasonably well educated and literate. In comparison with most other persons in the Roman world, all four authors, in fact, evince a high level of education. Something like 90% percent of the general population was completely illiterate — that is, unable to read and write at all.

To be sure, the Gospels are not among the literary masterpieces of antiquity. Their style, for example, is fairly rough overall (Mark is probably the worst, Luke the best). But it’s not easy to write a book, even for well-educated people today, in our highly literate and markedly literary world...

For someone to pull it off in antiquity required a good deal more than the average amount of literary training. And training of that kind required leisure time and money, since the vast majority of people had to work very long days. [...] In the end, it seems unlikely that the uneducated, lower-class, illiterate disciples of Jesus played the decisive role in the literary compositions that have come down through history under their names.
WinePusher wrote: 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.
Isnt that considered a primary source? Not something that was written 35years+ by Oral tradition that was handed down.

WinePusher wrote: 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?
It is considered more reliable; how many illiterate/unschooled people do you know that create new language techniques; or prophecy the future? Or explain scientific miracles?
Modern Science has discovered that in the places where two different seas meet, there is a barrier between them. This barrier divides the two seas so that each sea has its own temperature, salinity, and density.
(Principles of Oceanography - Davis, pp. 92-93)
Now compare that with the Quran that was written 1400years ago:
He has let free the two seas meeting to gather. There is a barrier between them. They do not transgress. (Qur'an 55:19-20)

He is the one who has let free the two bodies of flowing water, one sweet and palatable, and the other salty and bitter. And He has made between them a barrier and a forbidding partition. (Qur'an 25:53)
WinePusher wrote: The Bible was not a book that was dropped down from heaven,
I dont know any abrahamic scripture that was "Dropped down from heaven"(besides the 10 commandments); so is there something you are specifically talking about?
WinePusher wrote: its contents were edited, developed, thought out, and written by more then one person.
Precisely the point i've been trying to make; mans opinion; doctrine; has shrouded the NT.
WinePusher wrote: Islam seems to be a completely different story.
Yes; one author.
WinePusher wrote:
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.
It was Gods mercy to kill a particular entity of himself?
Why didn't he just grant forgiveness; like he granted to the Jews? Why did he suddenly require bloodshed?

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
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.
1. Trinity; God existed in seperate parts
2. The word "begotten" is taken literally(david in the O.T)
3. Divine Sonship is impossible according to Jewish Rabbi's
Here is a quote from wiki:
By contrast, Judaism sees God as a single entity, and views trinitarianism as both incomprehensible and a violation of the Bible's teaching that God is one. It rejects the notion that Jesus or any other object or living being could be 'God', that God could have a literal 'son' in physical form or is divisible in any way, or that God could be made to be joined to the material world in such fashion.
WinePusher wrote: 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.
Incorrect; most(if not all) Jewish rabbi's believe Christianity conflicts with the most important notion of God(his oneness)
WinePusher wrote: 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?
My aim of this debate; is not to prove Christianity right or wrong; its to show you another perspective.
And dispute not with the People of the Book(Christians & Jews), except with means better than mere disputation, unless I be with those of them who inflict wrong and injury, but say to them: "We believe in the revelation which has come down to us and in that which came down to you; Our God and your God is one; and it is to Him that we bow." (Qur'an 29:46)
WinePusher wrote:
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.
I dont intend to generalise "ancient history"; but do agree the Bible isn't authentic as many Christians believe it is?

WinePusher wrote:
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.
"he should be able"; i understand that; but could you explain it? Or is it considered a mystery?


[I will continue in my following post regarding the divinity of christ; which ultimately makes or breaks all the other doctrines.]
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 #22

Post by Murad »

I would like to start with 2 questions that affiliate with logic & rationale.

1) Do you think its 'logically feasible; and rational' for Jesus to be "Fully God & Fully Human" simultaneously. (Without saying: "God should be able to")

2) Can you define "Begotten Son" in your own perspective?
______

The ultimate purpose of this debate; is for you to justify Jesus' divinity; and for me to prove the contrary.

Early Christians saw Jesus as a "Unique agent of God"; this is justified by wiki:
Early Christian views tended to see Jesus as a unique agent of God[41]

Source: Larry Hurtado, Lord Jesus Christ: Devotion to Jesus in Earliest Christianity, (Eerdmans, 2005), page 650.
______

The Gospel of Mark tells us that Jesus was unable to do any powerful work in his hometown except few things: “He could not do any miracles there, except lay his hands on a few sick people and heal them.� (Mark 6:5). Mark also tells us that when Jesus tried to heal a certain blind man, the man was not healed after the first attempt, and Jesus had to try a second time (see Mark 8:22-26).

Therefore; we muslims hold a great deal of love and respect for Jesus, but we know he is not the all-powerful God.

The Gospel of Mark also reveals that Jesus had limitations in his knowledge. In Mark 13:32, Jesus declared that he himself does not know when the last day will occur, but the Father alone knows that. (this is also verified in Matthew 24:36).

Therefore, Jesus could not have been the all-knowing God.

The Gospel of Luke also shares Marks view that Jesus had limited knowledge. Luke says that Jesus increased in wisdom (Luke 2:52). In Hebrews too (Hebrews 5:8) we read that Jesus learned obedience.

But God’s knowledge and wisdom is always perfect & absolute, and God does not learn new things. He knows everything there is to know. So, if Jesus learned something new, that proves that he did not know everything before that, and thus he was not God.
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 #23

Post by WinePusher »

WinePusher wrote: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.
Murad wrote:Not only Hebrews; the 4 canonical gospels are regarded to be written by 'anonymous' persons; it is only church tradition that asserts 'so & so' wrote this. There is absolutely no evidence; at all; that proves "Person A" wrote this Gospel.
Of course there is. We have attestation of the Gospels themselves, where the writers specifically state their identity and purpose for writing their Gospel. That is a good enough reason in and of itself

Using the Principle of Credulity, which states: If there are no good reasons to disbelieve a propostion, it should be taken as truth. There are no good reasons to deny the authorship of the Gospels, so their testimony shuold be taken as truth.

In Jesus: Apocalyptic Prophet, Bart D. Ehrman wrote:All four Gospels are written in Greek, by authors who were reasonably well educated and literate. In comparison with most other persons in the Roman world, all four authors, in fact, evince a high level of education. Something like 90% percent of the general population was completely illiterate — that is, unable to read and write at all.

To be sure, the Gospels are not among the literary masterpieces of antiquity. Their style, for example, is fairly rough overall (Mark is probably the worst, Luke the best). But it’s not easy to write a book, even for well-educated people today, in our highly literate and markedly literary world...

For someone to pull it off in antiquity required a good deal more than the average amount of literary training. And training of that kind required leisure time and money, since the vast majority of people had to work very long days. [...] In the end, it seems unlikely that the uneducated, lower-class, illiterate disciples of Jesus played the decisive role in the literary compositions that have come down through history under their names.
Point 1: If you and Ehrman object to the idea that the Gospel Writers were the Evangelists, who do you actually think wrote them? Also, Ehrman is simply wrong in his last paragraph. The disciples gwould have given up their "long work days" and jobs in order to evangelize. There would have been plenty of time for, lets say, Luke to write his Gospel during his travels with Paul thorughout the Greco-Roman Empire.

Point 2: As a Muslim, you already accept the idea of God inspiring books and documents. Why do you think that the Bible could not have been inspired while the Koran can?
WinePusher wrote: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.
Murad wrote:Isnt that considered a primary source? Not something that was written 35years+ by Oral tradition that was handed down.
The Gospels would qualify as Primary Sources, a primary source is simply a text or source that is the closest to the event or person.
WinePusher wrote: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?
Murad wrote:It is considered more reliable; how many illiterate/unschooled people do you know that create new language techniques; or prophecy the future? Or explain scientific miracles?
Not sure what this means, please list one miracle claim of Islam and verify it scientifically and historically.
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.
If we're trying to determine which notion of God is more correct, shouldn't we go with the more attractive version?
Murad wrote: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.
I think you're confusing these doctrines a bit. According to Christianity, God's mercy led to his sacrifice of Jesus. They go hand in hand.
WinePusher wrote: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.
Murad wrote:Incorrect; most(if not all) Jewish rabbi's believe Christianity conflicts with the most important notion of God(his oneness).
Not true, both are monotheistic. Christianity affirms one single supernatural entity but says that this entity is composed of seperate, distinct parts. Yes, this does conflict with Judaism, but in a different way. Christians and Jews disagree on the composition of God, while Islam tends to conflict more with the nature of God and moral nature of God.
Murad wrote:I dont intend to generalise "ancient history"; but do agree the Bible isn't authentic as many Christians believe it is?
Some parts of literal, some parts are factual. But I would say it is authentic when it comes to the Gospels. Remember, the New Testament (the Christian Scriptures) do not completely or totally invalidate the Old Testament (the Hebrew Scriptures) while the Qu'ran seems to in areas such as Systematic Theology, Atonement, Morality and Ethics.

---Please don't respond yet, I still have to address your other post. Give that a day or two.

WinePusher

Post #24

Post by WinePusher »

Murad wrote:I would like to start with 2 questions that affiliate with logic & rationale.

1) Do you think its 'logically feasible; and rational' for Jesus to be "Fully God & Fully Human" simultaneously. (Without saying: "God should be able to")
Yes, although I will admit I do not completely comphrend it or understand how it works, I believe it is within the bounds of logic. For example, a coin has two sides and the heads side does not cancel out the tails side. But here are my main reasons:

-Is there some reason why God could not become human other then Islamic Dogma?
-You agree Jesus could perform miracles, and that his conception was miraculous, and that he was without sin, so those are all very good indicators that he is divine.
-Jesus claimed to be God during his earthly ministry, why is the claim of the messiah not good enough proof?
-If we both agree that humans are born sinful, and the world is flawed, what other means of atonement are there other then God taking on flesh and dying for our sins?
Murad wrote:2) Can you define "Begotten Son" in your own perspective?
I don't know what this means?

The ultimate purpose of this debate; is for you to justify Jesus' divinity; and for me to prove the contrary.
Murad wrote:Early Christians saw Jesus as a "Unique agent of God"; this is justified by wiki:
Early Christian views tended to see Jesus as a unique agent of God[41]

Source: Larry Hurtado, Lord Jesus Christ: Devotion to Jesus in Earliest Christianity, (Eerdmans, 2005), page 650.
Early Christians saw Jesus as God. Whoever this person is, he does not have a good grasp of Christian Theology. If one does not accept the Divinity of Jesus then they are by the fact not Christian.

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

Post #25

Post by Murad »

WinePusher wrote: Of course there is. We have attestation of the Gospels themselves, where the writers specifically state their identity and purpose for writing their Gospel. That is a good enough reason in and of itself
Wrong; the Gospel "According To"....That is what we call 3rd Person.
Furthermore:
Wiki wrote: Few scholars today question[24] the traditional claim that Luke the Evangelist, an associate of St. Paul who was probably not an eyewitness to Jesus' ministry, wrote the Gospel of Luke and Acts of the Apostles.[23] Scholars are more divided though differential to the traditional claim that Mark the Evangelist, an associate of St. Peter who might have been an eyewitness to Jesus' ministry, wrote the Gospel of Mark.[25] Scholars are more divided over the traditional claim that Matthew the Apostle wrote the Gospel of Matthew[26][27] and that John the Apostle wrote the Gospel of John.[28][29][30]
The authorship of the 4 canonical gospels are assumptions; thus they are regarded as 'anonymous texts' by biblical scholars.
Strictly speaking, each gospel (and Acts) is anonymous.
Source:
Harris, Stephen L., Understanding the Bible. Palo Alto: Mayfield. 1985.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Authors_of ... _Testament
WinePusher wrote: Using the Principle of Credulity, which states: If there are no good reasons to disbelieve a propostion, it should be taken as truth. There are no good reasons to deny the authorship of the Gospels, so their testimony shuold be taken as truth.
In reply to this; i would like to quote directly from you:
WinePusher wrote: its contents were edited, developed, thought out, and written by more then one person.
So here you established a few points:
1) Biblical contents were edited by other anonymous authors
2) Biblical contents were "thought out; developed"; thus its totally logical for me to call the NT a concoction.
3) (The bible has anonymous authors that cannot be identified); and numerous anonymous EDITORS.
These are your words; not mine.

Thus, by using the same logic of Credulity which you presented, which you said: "If there are no good reasons to disbelieve a propostion, it should be taken as truth."

You; not me; have given numerous reasons on why to disbelieve that the Gospels are in their original state. And when something is not in its original state; how on earth are you going to trace it back to its authorship?
Please incite me, not a single Christian has been able to give me an answer.


Furthermore; out of the 24 THOUSAND Greek manuscripts; in which the New Testament is derived from; there is not an identical pair.
Simply by using this as my evidence; i can logically conclude; the bible is not the word of God; even the Bible itself testifies to this fact:
(Proverbs 30:5-6): "Every word of God is flawless"

WinePusher wrote: Point 1: If you and Ehrman object to the idea that the Gospel Writers were the Evangelists, who do you actually think wrote them?
The most logical answer is a historian; the Gospels were written 35-90 years after the disappearance of Jesus; thus its totally logical; that a historian gathered 'oral tradition'; and recorded it down on text.
WinePusher wrote: Also, Ehrman is simply wrong in his last paragraph. The disciples gwould have given up their "long work days" and jobs in order to evangelize. There would have been plenty of time for, lets say, Luke to write his Gospel during his travels with Paul thorughout the Greco-Roman Empire.
Be rational here.
Imagine the Apostles Mark; Matthew; Luke; John, taking literary training that required leisure time and money, since the vast majority of people had to work very long days.
The conclusion by Ehrman is completely logical and rational; he simply says:
In the end, it seems unlikely that the uneducated, lower-class, illiterate disciples of Jesus played the decisive role in the literary compositions that have come down through history under their names.
WinePusher wrote: Point 2: As a Muslim, you already accept the idea of God inspiring books and documents. Why do you think that the Bible could not have been inspired while the Koran can?
The Quran testifies that Jesus Christ received a divine revelation from God called the 'Gospel'; this is what Jesus preached to the people.
For example; Jesus did not walk around carrying a Book that he read from; did he?
(Matt 4:23) Jesus went about all Galilee, teaching in their synagogues, and preaching the gospel of the kingdom."
Thus, the revelation Jesus received; was never the 4 anonymous texts; that we call the canonical Gospels.

You previously said; and i quote:
its contents were edited, developed, thought out
The Quran has a direct reply for this:
Then woe to those who write the Book with their own hands, and then say: 'This is from Allah,' To traffic with it for a miserable price! Woe to them for what their hands do write, and for the gain they make thereby. (Quran, 2:77-79)"
WinePusher wrote: Not sure what this means, please list one miracle claim of Islam and verify it scientifically and historically.
I wont name one; i'll name a few; so you can reject the ones you dont like.
If you want more; or dont believe these are sufficient; ask and ill list some more.
Image
Allah Al-Mighty Said:

"And when the heaven splitteth asunder and becometh ROSY LIKE PAINT" (Quran, 55:37)
What Allah Almighty is Saying here is that when Galaxies explode, they form a rose-shaped explosion.
Modern Science has discovered that in the places where two different seas meet, there is a barrier between them that separates the two seas from every meeting. This barrier divides the two seas so that each sea has its own temperature, salinity and density. For example, Mediterranean seawater is warm, saline and less dense, compared to Atlantic ocean water. When Mediterranean seawater enters the Atlantic ocean over the Gibraltar sill, it moves several hundred kilometers into the Atlantic at a depth of 1000 metres
with its own warm, saline and less dense characteristics.The Mediterranean water stabilizes at this depth.
Compare that with the Quran that was written 1400 years ago:
“He has set free the two seas meeting together. There is a barrier between them that they do not transgress� (55:19-20).
The description of the Big-Bang in the Quran written 1400 years ago:
Do not the Unbelievers see that the heavens and the earth were joined together, before we clove them asunder? We made from water every living thing. Will they not then believe?
(Quran 21:30)
WinePusher wrote: If we're trying to determine which notion of God is more correct, shouldn't we go with the more attractive version?
I believe we should go with the more logical & more attractive version version.
Whats logical; a being thats 100% Divine & 100% Undivine simultaneously?
This is mathematically impossible.

WinePusher wrote: I think you're confusing these doctrines a bit. According to Christianity, God's mercy led to his sacrifice of Jesus. They go hand in hand.
Let me rephrase if you didn't understand.
....and without shedding of blood is no remission (Hebrews 9:22)
The questions are:
1) Why is it a necessity for bloodshed in order to forgive sins?
1a) Why couldn't God forgive out of his mercy; without sacrifice; the same way he previously forgave the Jews?
2) How on earth do you believe unbaptized infants go to hell as a consequence of original sin? [ Link: http://www.religioustolerance.org/limbo2.htm ]

Original Sin; does not exist in Judaism.
It is a complete concoction made to support the doctrine of atonement.

Similar to Judaism; in Islam; Original Sin does not exist; and every baby is born pure and innocent.


WinePusher wrote: Not true, both are monotheistic. Christianity affirms one single supernatural entity but says that this entity is composed of seperate, distinct parts. Yes, this does conflict with Judaism, but in a different way. Christians and Jews disagree on the composition of God, while Islam tends to conflict more with the nature of God and moral nature of God.
Islam & Judaism share almost the same concept of God.
Christianity deviates from the teachings of Moses that there is one God who is without partners.
To be fair; yes, Christians believe they are worshipping one God.

WinePusher wrote: Remember, the New Testament (the Christian Scriptures) do not completely or totally invalidate the Old Testament (the Hebrew Scriptures)
Your own words esablished another fact here:
The New Testament invalidates the Old Testament.
Whether or not it 'totally' invalidates Jewish scripture is irrelevant.
WinePusher wrote: .....while the Qu'ran seems to in areas such as Systematic Theology, Atonement, Morality and Ethics.
I believe you are wrong; and i'll show why.
1) God in Judaism is one undivided entity; so is the God in Islam
2) Original Sin does not exist in Judaism; it also doesn't exist in Islam
3) Lawful food is called Kosher in Judaism and Halal in Islam; while Christianity deviates and considers every food as 'clean'.
4) Judaism doesn't believe the Messiah will be God incarnate; Islam doesn't see Jesus as God incarnate; rather a messenger of God.
And the list can go on.
WinePusher wrote: Yes, although I will admit I do not completely comphrend it or understand how it works,
Dont worry, no one understands how the trinity works; its regarded as a 'Holy Mystery' and dismissed by the Church.
WinePusher wrote: I believe it is within the bounds of logic.
I vigorously disagree; and i'll emphasize why later on.
WinePusher wrote: -Is there some reason why God could not become human other then Islamic Dogma?
Let me establish a few points.
God has the power to become human.
But he simply does not; and will not do this.

Let me ask you a question; does God have the power to lie?
Ofcourse he does!
But; he simply cannot and will not lie:
God did this so that, by two unchangeable things in which it is impossible for God to lie, we who have fled to take hold of the hope offered to us may be greatly encouraged.
(Hebrews 6:18)

A faith and knowledge resting on the hope of eternal life, which God, who does not lie, promised before the beginning of time
(Titus 1:2)
The moment God lies; he ceases to be a God.
The moment God begets a son; he ceases to be a God.
(Surah 112: Al-Ikhlas)

1. Say: He is God, the One and Only;

2. God, the Eternal, Absolute;

3. He does not beget, nor is He begotten;

4. And there is none comparable to Him.
WinePusher wrote: -You agree Jesus could perform miracles, and that his conception was miraculous, and that he was without sin, so those are all very good indicators that he is divine.
1) Jesus performed miracles; other prophets could also perform miracles.
2) Adam was born without conception
3) Every baby is born sinless in Islam; and no, Islam does not believe Moses; Jesus or Muhammad were sinless; every single descendant of Adam will Sin.
Simply because of their human nature.

WinePusher wrote: -Jesus claimed to be God during his earthly ministry, why is the claim of the messiah not good enough proof?
Oh really?
Lets disregard my position that i dont see the NT as authentic.. Please; validate your claim.
Show me a single verse where Jesus says "I am God" or where he says "Worship me"; without wierd interpretations; the sort of interpretations that Christians use to prove the non-existing 'Original Sin' or the 'Trinity'.

Infact; if you do; i will hand this entire debate over to you.
WinePusher wrote: -If we both agree that humans are born sinful, and the world is flawed, what other means of atonement are there other then God taking on flesh and dying for our sins?
WinePusher; you dont seem to grasp the idea; that its human nature to Sin.
God knew his creation would in; and he created us with the purpose that we Sin.
Infact; what makes us so Great is that we have free-will; the sole attribute that allows us to Sin.

Gods aim is that we repent for our sins; and learn that we cannot live without him:
"O my Servants who have transgressed against their souls! Do not despair of Allah's Compassion: for Allah forgives all Sins: for He is Often-Forgiving, Infinitely Merciful." [Qur'an: 53:39]
And for the second part of your statement; how on earth is God dying for our sins logical?
A more logical statement is; God forgiving us for our sins without bloodshed; the same way he forgave the Jews.
Do men think that they will be left alone on saying, "We believe", and that they will not be tested?
(Quran 29:2)
Can you imagine God Al-Mighty being a helpless baby ?


WinePusher wrote: I don't know what this means?

The ultimate purpose of this debate; is for you to justify Jesus' divinity; and for me to prove the contrary.
Its a question out of curiosity; every Christian believes that Jesus is the "Begotten Son" of God; yet they fail miserably in defining what that exactly means/implies ?

Therefore i would appreciate it alot if you defined "Begotten Son".
WinePusher wrote: Early Christians saw Jesus as God. Whoever this person is, he does not have a good grasp of Christian Theology.
Oh really?
I dont want to make an arguement from authority; but i cant help myself:
Larry Hurtado is an internationally respected New Testament scholar and is professor of New Testament Language, Literature and Theology at The University of Edinburgh, Scotland. He is an expert of the Gospels (esp. Gospel of Mark), the Apostle Paul, Early Christology, the Jewish Background of the New Testament, New Testament Textual Criticism.
Source:
http://www.theopedia.com/Larry_Hurtado
WinePusher wrote: If one does not accept the Divinity of Jesus then they are by the fact not Christian.
I wasn't talking about mainstream Pauline Christianity of today. I was referring to Early Christianity.
Arian controversy

The synod of Nicaea, Constantine and the condemnation and burning of Arian books, illustration from a northern Italian compendium of canon law, ca. 825


The Arian controversy was a Christological dispute that began in Alexandria between the followers of Arius (the Arians) and the followers of St. Alexander of Alexandria (now known as Homoousians). Alexander and his followers believed that the Son was of the same substance as the Father, co-eternal with him. The Arians believed that they were different and that the Son, though he may be the most perfect of creations, was only a creation of God the Father. A third group (now known as Homoiousians) later tried to make a compromise position, saying that the Father and the Son were of similar substance.[25]

Source:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/First_Coun ... ontroversy
Early Christians had a wige range of opinions regarding Jesus Christ.

Infact; it was the Council of Nicaea that "Decided" Jesus Christ was one with God; and this is what the Church stuck to till now.


One question for you:
Why, for thousands of years, did none of God's prophets teach his people about the Trinity? At the least, would Jesus not use his ability as the Great Teacher to make the Trinity clear to his followers? Would God inspire hundreds of pages of Scripture and yet not use any of this instruction to teach the Trinity if it were the "central doctrine" of faith?
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 #26

Post by Murad »

My previous quote regarding Bart D. Ehrman was an error; the correct one is:
Bart D. Ehrman is an American New Testament scholar, currently the James A. Gray Distinguished Professor of Religious Studies at the University of North Carolina at Chapel Hill.
Also; i woud appreciate it if you gave a rebuttal to my previous post; i dont want it to go to waste:
The Gospel of Mark tells us that Jesus was unable to do any powerful work in his hometown except few things: “He could not do any miracles there, except lay his hands on a few sick people and heal them.� (Mark 6:5). Mark also tells us that when Jesus tried to heal a certain blind man, the man was not healed after the first attempt, and Jesus had to try a second time (see Mark 8:22-26).

Therefore; we muslims hold a great deal of love and respect for Jesus, but we know he is not the all-powerful God.

The Gospel of Mark also reveals that Jesus had limitations in his knowledge. In Mark 13:32, Jesus declared that he himself does not know when the last day will occur, but the Father alone knows that. (this is also verified in Matthew 24:36).

Therefore, Jesus could not have been the all-knowing God.

The Gospel of Luke also shares Marks view that Jesus had limited knowledge. Luke says that Jesus increased in wisdom (Luke 2:52). In Hebrews too (Hebrews 5:8) we read that Jesus learned obedience.

But God’s knowledge and wisdom is always perfect & absolute, and God does not learn new things. He knows everything there is to know. So, if Jesus learned something new, that proves that he did not know everything before that, and thus he was not God.
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 #27

Post by WinePusher »

Concerning The Authenticity of the Bible
WinePusher wrote:Of course there is. We have attestation of the Gospels themselves, where the writers specifically state their identity and purpose for writing their Gospel. That is a good enough reason in and of itself
Murad wrote:Wrong; the Gospel "According To"....That is what we call 3rd Person.
In John 20:30, the writer clearly states the purpose of his Gospel and the reasons why he wrote it.
Murad wrote:The authorship of the 4 canonical gospels are assumptions; thus they are regarded as 'anonymous texts' by biblical scholars.
Some Biblical Scholars regard them as anonymous texts, others don't. Let's not go down the fallacious road of authoritative appeals.
WinePusher wrote:Using the Principle of Credulity, which states: If there are no good reasons to disbelieve a propostion, it should be taken as truth. There are no good reasons to deny the authorship of the Gospels, so their testimony shuold be taken as truth.
Murad wrote:In reply to this; i would like to quote directly from you:
WinePusher wrote: its contents were edited, developed, thought out, and written by more then one person.
Murad wrote:So here you established a few points:
1) Biblical contents were edited by other anonymous authors
Yes, now present a case as to why you think this is a good reason to doubt the accuracy of the Gospels.
Murad wrote:2) Biblical contents were "thought out; developed"; thus its totally logical for me to call the NT a concoction.


I would regard a text as a "concoction" if it was claimed to have been written by an illiterate author who got his information solely by Divine Revelation. The Bible did pass through many stages, but the original authors did not claim to recieve the content by a divine voice, the events were observed, passed down thorugh oral tradition and written down by humans (some who were eyewitnesses, some who weren't eyewitnesses).

Murad wrote:3) (The bible has anonymous authors that cannot be identified); and numerous anonymous EDITORS. These are your words; not mine.


Actually, this is not mine. I said the Bible was written by more then one person. Some books are considered anonymous, some aren't. Christians have the courage to admit that not every single passage or book in the Bible cannot be positively identified. If we approached the Bible (particularly the Gospels) with a secular method, we would find out it pretty much meets the requires standards:

-The dates by which the Gospels were written can be identified
-The location in which the Gospels were written can be identified
-The content of the Gospels are confirmed by Geogrpahical, Archaeological and Extra-biblical sources

I seriosuly doubt the Qur'an would meet these standards.

WinePusher wrote:Point 1: If you and Ehrman object to the idea that the Gospel Writers were the Evangelists, who do you actually think wrote them?
Murad wrote:The most logical answer is a historian; the Gospels were written 35-90 years after the disappearance of Jesus; thus its totally logical; that a historian gathered 'oral tradition'; and recorded it down on text.


Plutarch is considered to be the biographer of Alexander the Great, and he wrote about 400 after Alexander the Great and no one objects to the accuracy of his text. The objections Non-Christians raise based on the timeline of the Gospels is continually shown to be nothing more then fradulent, and a historical double standard.

WinePusher wrote:Also, Ehrman is simply wrong in his last paragraph. The disciples would have given up their "long work days" and jobs in order to evangelize. There would have been plenty of time for, lets say, Luke to write his Gospel during his travels with Paul thorughout the Greco-Roman Empire.
Murad wrote:Be rational here. Imagine the Apostles Mark; Matthew; Luke; John, taking literary training that required leisure time and money, since the vast majority of people had to work very long days.The conclusion by Ehrman is completely logical and rational.


Read the Acts, a book that follows the actions and history of the Early Church. The Apostles gave up many or most of their posessions, and lived mediocre lives of that ascetics and monastics now model. They would have had the neccesary time to write their books.

Murad wrote:In the end, it seems unlikely that the uneducated, lower-class, illiterate disciples of Jesus played the decisive role in the literary compositions that have come down through history under their names.


Much worse things can be said about the development of the Qur'an. Btw, the Bible (which includes the Jewish and Christian Scriptures) could be considered more correct then the Islamic account, which came into existence much later in human history.

WinePusher wrote:Point 2: As a Muslim, you already accept the idea of God inspiring books and documents. Why do you think that the Bible could not have been inspired while the Koran can?
Murad wrote:The Quran testifies that Jesus Christ received a divine revelation from God called the 'Gospel'; this is what Jesus preached to the people. For example; Jesus did not walk around carrying a Book that he read from; did he?


The Gospels are books that trace Jesus' life and ministry, it is not a revelation that God reveled to Jesus. That would far more conflict with secular biblical scholarship then my claims would.
Last edited by WinePusher on Fri Nov 26, 2010 10:02 pm, edited 1 time in total.

WinePusher

Post #28

Post by WinePusher »

Comparing Islamic and Christian Miracle Claims
WinePusher wrote:Not sure what this means, please list one miracle claim of Islam and verify it scientifically and historically.
Murad wrote:I wont name one; I'll name a few; so you can reject the ones you dont like.
If you want more; or dont believe these are sufficient; ask and ill list some more.
Allah Al-Mighty Said:
"And when the heaven splitteth asunder and becometh ROSY LIKE PAINT" (Quran, 55:37)
Murad wrote:What Allah Almighty is Saying here is that when Galaxies explode, they form a rose-shaped explosion.


I'm sorry, but this is not a valid example of a miracle. The Jews claimed creation ex nihilo, that claim is confirmed by modern cosmology and is not a miracle. The Islamic claim that when galaxies explode, then form a rose-shaped explosion is similar to the Jewish claim of creation.
Murad wrote:The description of the Big-Bang in the Quran written 1400 years ago:
Do not the Unbelievers see that the heavens and the earth were joined together, before we clove them asunder? We made from water every living thing. Will they not then believe?
(Quran 21:30)
Either I don't understand this, or you just issued a huge non-sequitor. Big Bang cosmology does not posit a supernatural heaven joining together with an already existing earth.

I'll add several points for discussion: I have attempted to defend one miracle claim of Christianity, the Resurrection, in secular terms. Can you do the same with a similar Islamic Miracle, namely the Ascenion of the Prophet Muhameed. Can you defend that claim using secular methods of historical reasoning and excluding any appeals to revelation and dogma? I have done so with the Resurrection, and if you fail to do so with the Ascension then that leaves good grounds to consider Christianity more truthful then Islam.

---Please don't respond yet, I have one more post to work on which will take about a day or two.

WinePusher

Post #29

Post by WinePusher »

Concerning the Nature of God and Jesus
WinePusher wrote:If we're trying to determine which notion of God is more correct, shouldn't we go with the more attractive version?
Murad wrote:I believe we should go with the more logical & more attractive version version. Whats logical; a being thats 100% Divine & 100% Undivine simultaneously? This is mathematically impossible.



WinePusher wrote: I think you're confusing these doctrines a bit. According to Christianity, God's mercy led to his sacrifice of Jesus. They go hand in hand.
Let me rephrase if you didn't understand.
....and without shedding of blood is no remission (Hebrews 9:22)
The questions are:
1) Why is it a necessity for bloodshed in order to forgive sins?
1a) Why couldn't God forgive out of his mercy; without sacrifice; the same way he previously forgave the Jews?
2) How on earth do you believe unbaptized infants go to hell as a consequence of original sin? [ Link: http://www.religioustolerance.org/limbo2.htm ]

Original Sin; does not exist in Judaism.
It is a complete concoction made to support the doctrine of atonement.

Similar to Judaism; in Islam; Original Sin does not exist; and every baby is born pure and innocent.


WinePusher wrote: Not true, both are monotheistic. Christianity affirms one single supernatural entity but says that this entity is composed of seperate, distinct parts. Yes, this does conflict with Judaism, but in a different way. Christians and Jews disagree on the composition of God, while Islam tends to conflict more with the nature of God and moral nature of God.
Islam & Judaism share almost the same concept of God.
Christianity deviates from the teachings of Moses that there is one God who is without partners.
To be fair; yes, Christians believe they are worshipping one God.

WinePusher wrote: Remember, the New Testament (the Christian Scriptures) do not completely or totally invalidate the Old Testament (the Hebrew Scriptures)
Your own words esablished another fact here:
The New Testament invalidates the Old Testament.
Whether or not it 'totally' invalidates Jewish scripture is irrelevant.
WinePusher wrote: .....while the Qu'ran seems to in areas such as Systematic Theology, Atonement, Morality and Ethics.
I believe you are wrong; and i'll show why.
1) God in Judaism is one undivided entity; so is the God in Islam
2) Original Sin does not exist in Judaism; it also doesn't exist in Islam
3) Lawful food is called Kosher in Judaism and Halal in Islam; while Christianity deviates and considers every food as 'clean'.
4) Judaism doesn't believe the Messiah will be God incarnate; Islam doesn't see Jesus as God incarnate; rather a messenger of God.
And the list can go on.
WinePusher wrote: Yes, although I will admit I do not completely comphrend it or understand how it works,
Dont worry, no one understands how the trinity works; its regarded as a 'Holy Mystery' and dismissed by the Church.
WinePusher wrote: I believe it is within the bounds of logic.
I vigorously disagree; and i'll emphasize why later on.
WinePusher wrote: -Is there some reason why God could not become human other then Islamic Dogma?
Let me establish a few points.
God has the power to become human.
But he simply does not; and will not do this.

Let me ask you a question; does God have the power to lie?
Ofcourse he does!
But; he simply cannot and will not lie:
God did this so that, by two unchangeable things in which it is impossible for God to lie, we who have fled to take hold of the hope offered to us may be greatly encouraged.
(Hebrews 6:18)

A faith and knowledge resting on the hope of eternal life, which God, who does not lie, promised before the beginning of time
(Titus 1:2)
The moment God lies; he ceases to be a God.
The moment God begets a son; he ceases to be a God.
(Surah 112: Al-Ikhlas)

1. Say: He is God, the One and Only;

2. God, the Eternal, Absolute;

3. He does not beget, nor is He begotten;

4. And there is none comparable to Him.
WinePusher wrote: -You agree Jesus could perform miracles, and that his conception was miraculous, and that he was without sin, so those are all very good indicators that he is divine.
1) Jesus performed miracles; other prophets could also perform miracles.
2) Adam was born without conception
3) Every baby is born sinless in Islam; and no, Islam does not believe Moses; Jesus or Muhammad were sinless; every single descendant of Adam will Sin.
Simply because of their human nature.

WinePusher wrote: -Jesus claimed to be God during his earthly ministry, why is the claim of the messiah not good enough proof?
Oh really?
Lets disregard my position that i dont see the NT as authentic.. Please; validate your claim.
Show me a single verse where Jesus says "I am God" or where he says "Worship me"; without wierd interpretations; the sort of interpretations that Christians use to prove the non-existing 'Original Sin' or the 'Trinity'.

Infact; if you do; i will hand this entire debate over to you.
WinePusher wrote: -If we both agree that humans are born sinful, and the world is flawed, what other means of atonement are there other then God taking on flesh and dying for our sins?
WinePusher; you dont seem to grasp the idea; that its human nature to Sin.
God knew his creation would in; and he created us with the purpose that we Sin.
Infact; what makes us so Great is that we have free-will; the sole attribute that allows us to Sin.

Gods aim is that we repent for our sins; and learn that we cannot live without him:
"O my Servants who have transgressed against their souls! Do not despair of Allah's Compassion: for Allah forgives all Sins: for He is Often-Forgiving, Infinitely Merciful." [Qur'an: 53:39]
And for the second part of your statement; how on earth is God dying for our sins logical?
A more logical statement is; God forgiving us for our sins without bloodshed; the same way he forgave the Jews.
Do men think that they will be left alone on saying, "We believe", and that they will not be tested?
(Quran 29:2)
Can you imagine God Al-Mighty being a helpless baby ?


WinePusher wrote: I don't know what this means?

The ultimate purpose of this debate; is for you to justify Jesus' divinity; and for me to prove the contrary.
Its a question out of curiosity; every Christian believes that Jesus is the "Begotten Son" of God; yet they fail miserably in defining what that exactly means/implies ?

Therefore i would appreciate it alot if you defined "Begotten Son".
WinePusher wrote: Early Christians saw Jesus as God. Whoever this person is, he does not have a good grasp of Christian Theology.
Oh really?
I dont want to make an arguement from authority; but i cant help myself:
Larry Hurtado is an internationally respected New Testament scholar and is professor of New Testament Language, Literature and Theology at The University of Edinburgh, Scotland. He is an expert of the Gospels (esp. Gospel of Mark), the Apostle Paul, Early Christology, the Jewish Background of the New Testament, New Testament Textual Criticism.
Source:
http://www.theopedia.com/Larry_Hurtado
WinePusher wrote: If one does not accept the Divinity of Jesus then they are by the fact not Christian.
I wasn't talking about mainstream Pauline Christianity of today. I was referring to Early Christianity.
Arian controversy

The synod of Nicaea, Constantine and the condemnation and burning of Arian books, illustration from a northern Italian compendium of canon law, ca. 825


The Arian controversy was a Christological dispute that began in Alexandria between the followers of Arius (the Arians) and the followers of St. Alexander of Alexandria (now known as Homoousians). Alexander and his followers believed that the Son was of the same substance as the Father, co-eternal with him. The Arians believed that they were different and that the Son, though he may be the most perfect of creations, was only a creation of God the Father. A third group (now known as Homoiousians) later tried to make a compromise position, saying that the Father and the Son were of similar substance.[25]

Source:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/First_Coun ... ontroversy
Early Christians had a wige range of opinions regarding Jesus Christ.

Infact; it was the Council of Nicaea that "Decided" Jesus Christ was one with God; and this is what the Church stuck to till now.


One question for you:
Why, for thousands of years, did none of God's prophets teach his people about the Trinity? At the least, would Jesus not use his ability as the Great Teacher to make the Trinity clear to his followers? Would God inspire hundreds of pages of Scripture and yet not use any of this instruction to teach the Trinity if it were the "central doctrine" of faith?[/quote]

WinePusher

Post #30

Post by WinePusher »

Concerning the Nature of God and Jesus
WinePusher wrote:If we're trying to determine which notion of God is more correct, shouldn't we go with the more attractive version?
Murad wrote:I believe we should go with the more logical & more attractive version version. Whats logical; a being thats 100% Divine & 100% Undivine simultaneously? This is mathematically impossible.
I would say that mathematics is irrelevant when trying to discern God's nature, remember that the sciences can only discern the natural, so the supernatural (God) would not be comphrehensible in mathematical or scientific terms.
WinePusher wrote:I think you're confusing these doctrines a bit. According to Christianity, God's mercy led to his sacrifice of Jesus. They go hand in hand.
Murad wrote:Let me rephrase if you didn't understand.
....and without shedding of blood is no remission (Hebrews 9:22)The questions are:
1) Why is it a necessity for bloodshed in order to forgive sins?
I obviously cannot tell you exactly why God would require it, but I can place it in context.

First thing is that the Old Testament shows the Israelites sacrificing animals to God so that their sins would be forgiven by that substitutionary process, Jesus is considered the ulitmate sacrifice. Would you agree that God's mercy is not enough for justification, and that there must be some sort of action or event?

Secondly, in Christianity and Judaism, it was not about the susbtance of the sacrifice, but rather the act and performance of it. It showed that the people were willing to make an effort to better themselves, which is why the Bible says God was pleased with Abels offerings,
Murad wrote:1a) Why couldn't God forgive out of his mercy; without sacrifice; the same way he previously forgave the Jews?
Thew Jews also gave sacrifice, that is an exclusive christian idea.
Murad wrote:2) How on earth do you believe unbaptized infants go to hell as a consequence of original sin?
I don't believe this, nor do I claim to defend the notion that unbaptized people go to hell. My views on this lean towards universalism.
Murad wrote:Original Sin; does not exist in Judaism. It is a complete concoction made to support the doctrine of atonement.

Similar to Judaism; in Islam; Original Sin does not exist; and every baby is born pure and innocent.
Do you, a Muslim, believe that World is in a fallen state and that humans were borninto a fallen state, deprived from God's grace?
WinePusher wrote:.....while the Qu'ran seems to in areas such as Systematic Theology, Atonement, Morality and Ethics.
Murad wrote:I believe you are wrong; and i'll show why.
1) God in Judaism is one undivided entity; so is the God in Islam
Ok, I will grant you this one.
Murad wrote:2) Original Sin does not exist in Judaism; it also doesn't exist in Islam.
Answer my question that I asked above.
Murad wrote:3) Lawful food is called Kosher in Judaism and Halal in Islam; while Christianity deviates and considers every food as 'clean'.
The reasons are different. Islamic dietary regulations have much to do with the process of animal slaughtering while Kosher has to do with the animal's features. Christianity would also share this same similarity, as foods which are considered to be luxurious are encouraged to be abstained from during times of prayer.
WinePusher wrote:-Is there some reason why God could not become human other then Islamic Dogma?
Murad wrote:Let me establish a few points.
God has the power to become human. But he simply does not; and will not do this.
Let me ask you a question; does God have the power to lie? Of course he does!But; he simply cannot and will not lie:
So you're appealing to paradoxes. If God has the power to lie, but cannot do it then he is not all powerful. There is nothing that would prevent God from becoming human, and if there was then he would not be omnipotent. You're view of God is self-contradictory.
WinePusher wrote:-Jesus claimed to be God during his earthly ministry, why is the claim of the messiah not good enough proof?
Murad wrote:Oh really? Lets disregard my position that i dont see the NT as authentic.. Please; validate your claim.Show me a single verse where Jesus says "I am God" or where he says "Worship me"; without wierd interpretations; the sort of interpretations that Christians use to prove the non-existing 'Original Sin' or the 'Trinity'.

Infact; if you do; I will hand this entire debate over to you.
John 8:58, Jesus claim is completely in keeping with God's statement to Moses where he described himself as "I am." Jesus never said the exact 3 words "I am God" he also never said "I am a Prophet" or "I am human." Should we also reject his humanity then because he never explicitely states it?
WinePusher wrote:-If we both agree that humans are born sinful, and the world is flawed, what other means of atonement are there other then God taking on flesh and dying for our sins?
Murad wrote:WinePusher; you dont seem to grasp the idea; that its human nature to Sin.
:lol: Wow, so as Christopher Hitchens says, in your mind "God created us sick and orders us to get better on penalty of eternal damnation?"
Murad wrote:God knew his creation would in; and he created us with the purpose that we Sin. Infact; what makes us so Great is that we have free-will; the sole attribute that allows us to Sin.
How absurd, the wages of sin is death, so God created with sin. That doesn't sound like a benevolent God to me, or does Islam not believe God is benevolent. God created us perfect, with free will, and it was by our free will that we sinned. God did not create us with sin or with the intent to committ sin, we brought win into the world by our own actions.
Murad wrote:Gods aim is that we repent for our sins; and learn that we cannot live without him.
So it's all basically a cruel test? This description is similar to a mother getting pregnant, purposefully doing drugs and alcohol with the intent to see if her child can overcome the challenges of mental retardation.
Murad wrote:And for the second part of your statement; how on earth is God dying for our sins logical? A more logical statement is; God forgiving us for our sins without bloodshed; the same way he forgave the Jews.

Can you imagine God Al-Mighty being a helpless baby?
My opinion is that we all have limited foresight and comphrension, and just because you nor I cannot imagine or understand something about God doesn't mean he's not capable of doing it.
Murad wrote:Its a question out of curiosity; every Christian believes that Jesus is the "Begotten Son" of God; yet they fail miserably in defining what that exactly means/implies ?

Therefore i would appreciate it alot if you defined "Begotten Son".
Honestly, I haven't put much thought into the word "Begotten." You can group me with the Christians who have failed miserably to define this word.
WinePusher wrote:Early Christians saw Jesus as God. Whoever this person is, he does not have a good grasp of Christian Theology.
Murad wrote:Oh really? I dont want to make an arguement from authority; but i cant help myself:
Ok, I really don't care what his credentials are. If he says that Early Christians did not believe Jesus was divine he is simply wrong. If Early Christians did not believe that Jesus is divine then they are not Christians.
WinePusher wrote:If one does not accept the Divinity of Jesus then they are by the fact not Christian.
Murad wrote:I wasn't talking about mainstream Pauline Christianity of today. I was referring to Early Christianity.
Why do you think the Early Church was in conflict with the Jews at that time?

Regarding the Arian Contreversy and the disputes over Jesus' Divinity
Murad wrote:Early Christians had a wige range of opinions regarding Jesus Christ.

Infact; it was the Council of Nicaea that "Decided" Jesus Christ was one with God; and this is what the Church stuck to till now.
Now we must distinguish between what is mainstream and what is fringe. Early Christianity is shaped by the Apostolic Fathers such as Clement and Ignatius, and late Christianity is characterized by the Patrisics. The key figures in Christianity, and the key Christian thinkers affirm Jesus' divinity along with his humanity, so citing one contreversy by one man and using it to describe the Early Christian community is not honest.

Arius is echoing the Muslim sentiment that Jesus is not God, he came later then the Evangelists, Paul, Peter, and James so it's not wise to use him as an authority on Christianity when so many other key Christian figures dispute his premise.
Murad wrote:One question for you: Why, for thousands of years, did none of God's prophets teach his people about the Trinity? At the least, would Jesus not use his ability as the Great Teacher to make the Trinity clear to his followers? Would God inspire hundreds of pages of Scripture and yet not use any of this instruction to teach the Trinity if it were the "central doctrine" of faith?
The trinity is clearly expressed in the New Testament, and as I said earlier, the New Testament can be considered the era of the Son and the Spirit. Also, everytime the Old Testament maeks reference to the Spirit of the Lord or the word of God, or a reference to God in the plural form, it is referencing the trinity.

Post Reply