On Paul and Mohammed

[Flail]

Paul's letters comprise the bulk of the New Testament. The apostle Paul never met Jesus alive, but instead had a 'visitation' from the resurrected Jesus while alone on the road to Damascus and from which he claimed his Holy insights regarding God.

Similarly, Muhammed claims to have gained his Holy insights directly from God the Father (Allah), in a series of 'visitations'.

Paul's words are foundational to Christianity and are cited as evidence for the Christian BibleGod. Mohammed's words are foundational to Islam and are cited as evidence for the Muslim BibleGod. Muslims claim the New Testament corrupts the word of God; Christians claim the Quran corrupts the word of God.

Question(s) for debate: Which man, Paul or Mohammed, has the most credibility when teaching the word of 'God' (Allah) and why?

What are the particulars that cause Christians to adamantly stand upon the words of Paul while renouncing the words of Mohammed and vice-versa?

[Flail]

Paul's letters comprise the bulk of the New Testament. The apostle Paul never met Jesus alive, but instead had a 'visitation' from the resurrected Jesus while alone on the road to Damascus and from which he claimed his Holy insights regarding God.

Similarly, Muhammed claims to have gained his Holy insights directly from God the Father (Allah), in a series of 'visitations'.

Paul's words are foundational to Christianity and are cited as evidence for the Christian BibleGod. Mohammed's words are foundational to Islam and are cited as evidence for the Muslim BibleGod. Muslims claim the New Testament corrupts the word of God; Christians claim the Quran corrupts the word of God.

Question(s) for debate: Which man, Paul or Mohammed, has the most credibility when teaching the word of 'God' (Allah) and why?

What are the particulars that cause Christians to adamantly stand upon the words of Paul while renouncing the words of Mohammed and vice-versa?

It is apparent that if someone is trained to believe the words of Mohammed as if they were from the 'mouth of the BibleGod' they will become Muslims and there is little argument that can be made to persuade them otherwise.

It is likewise apparent that if someone is trained to believe the words of Paul as if they were from the 'mouth of the BibleGod' they will become Christians and there is little argument that can be made to persuade them otherwise.

Is it reasonable for the BibleGod to smite millions of innocent people into an eternity of pain and suffering for no other reason than that they were subjected to the wrong training and ritual practices by virtue of the happenstance of their birth?

How can we determine if Paul's vision was actual or that he interpreted it correctly? How is it more believable than Mohammed's vision?

[Moses Yoder]

Genesis 16:16 Now Sarai, Abram’s wife, had borne him no children. And she had an Egyptian maidservant whose name was Hagar. 2 So Sarai said to Abram, “See now, the Lord has restrained me from bearing children. Please, go in to my maid; perhaps I shall obtain children by her.� And Abram heeded the voice of Sarai. 3 Then Sarai, Abram’s wife, took Hagar her maid, the Egyptian, and gave her to her husband Abram to be his wife, after Abram had dwelt ten years in the land of Canaan. 4 So he went in to Hagar, and she conceived. And when she saw that she had conceived, her mistress became despised in her eyes.

5 Then Sarai said to Abram, “My wrong be upon you! I gave my maid into your embrace; and when she saw that she had conceived, I became despised in her eyes. The Lord judge between you and me.�

6 So Abram said to Sarai, “Indeed your maid is in your hand; do to her as you please.� And when Sarai dealt harshly with her, she fled from her presence.

7 Now the Angel of the Lord found her by a spring of water in the wilderness, by the spring on the way to Shur. 8 And He said, “Hagar, Sarai’s maid, where have you come from, and where are you going?�

She said, “I am fleeing from the presence of my mistress Sarai.�

9 The Angel of the Lord said to her, “Return to your mistress, and submit yourself under her hand.� 10 Then the Angel of the Lord said to her, “I will multiply your descendants exceedingly, so that they shall not be counted for multitude.� 11 And the Angel of the Lord said to her:

“Behold, you are with child,
And you shall bear a son.
You shall call his name Ishmael,
Because the Lord has heard your affliction.
12 He shall be a wild man;
His hand shall be against every man,
And every man’s hand against him.
And he shall dwell in the presence of all his brethren.�

If I remember my years ago teaching correctly, the descendants of Ishmael are the Arabs today, which I believe Mohammad, being an Arabian, would be a descendant of Ishmael. Paul, on the other hand, was a descendant of Isaac. Note in the above passage regarding Ishmael it says "His hand shall be against every man, and every mans hand against him." Which is pretty true of the Arabs today. On the other hand, God promises to bless the Israelites (Jews) and make them a great nation. So it stands to reason revelation would come through His chosen people, and not the people He has chosen to curse.

P.S. I have short interview of a Muslim who converted to Christianity; I could probably email it to you if you want to see it.

[Flail]

Genesis 16:16 Now Sarai, Abram’s wife, had borne him no children. And she had an Egyptian maidservant whose name was Hagar. 2 So Sarai said to Abram, “See now, the Lord has restrained me from bearing children. Please, go in to my maid; perhaps I shall obtain children by her.� And Abram heeded the voice of Sarai. 3 Then Sarai, Abram’s wife, took Hagar her maid, the Egyptian, and gave her to her husband Abram to be his wife, after Abram had dwelt ten years in the land of Canaan. 4 So he went in to Hagar, and she conceived. And when she saw that she had conceived, her mistress became despised in her eyes.

5 Then Sarai said to Abram, “My wrong be upon you! I gave my maid into your embrace; and when she saw that she had conceived, I became despised in her eyes. The Lord judge between you and me.�

6 So Abram said to Sarai, “Indeed your maid is in your hand; do to her as you please.� And when Sarai dealt harshly with her, she fled from her presence.

7 Now the Angel of the Lord found her by a spring of water in the wilderness, by the spring on the way to Shur. 8 And He said, “Hagar, Sarai’s maid, where have you come from, and where are you going?�

She said, “I am fleeing from the presence of my mistress Sarai.�

9 The Angel of the Lord said to her, “Return to your mistress, and submit yourself under her hand.� 10 Then the Angel of the Lord said to her, “I will multiply your descendants exceedingly, so that they shall not be counted for multitude.� 11 And the Angel of the Lord said to her:

“Behold, you are with child,
And you shall bear a son.
You shall call his name Ishmael,
Because the Lord has heard your affliction.
12 He shall be a wild man;
His hand shall be against every man,
And every man’s hand against him.
And he shall dwell in the presence of all his brethren.�

If I remember my years ago teaching correctly, the descendants of Ishmael are the Arabs today, which I believe Mohammad, being an Arabian, would be a descendant of Ishmael. Paul, on the other hand, was a descendant of Isaac. Note in the above passage regarding Ishmael it says "His hand shall be against every man, and every mans hand against him." Which is pretty true of the Arabs today. On the other hand, God promises to bless the Israelites (Jews) and make them a great nation. So it stands to reason revelation would come through His chosen people, and not the people He has chosen to curse.

P.S. I have short interview of a Muslim who converted to Christianity; I could probably email it to you if you want to see it.

It is of course not uncommon for people with religious convictions to switch them to another.

Do you think it reasonable for God to condemn Muslims who, according to your view of the Bible, have essentially inherited their condemnation? And what if the Muslims are correct as to their view of the BibleGod and it is you who have inherited eternal condemnation?

[fredonly]

t

Paul's letters comprise the bulk of the New Testament. The apostle Paul never met Jesus alive, but instead had a 'visitation' from the resurrected Jesus while alone on the road to Damascus and from which he claimed his Holy insights regarding God.


Similarly, Muhammed claims to have gained his Holy insights directly from God the Father (Allah), in a series of 'visitations'.

Paul's words are foundational to Christianity and are cited as evidence for the Christian BibleGod. Mohammed's words are foundational to Islam and are cited as evidence for the Muslim BibleGod. Muslims claim the New Testament corrupts the word of God; Christians claim the Quran corrupts the word of God.

Question(s) for debate: Which man, Paul or Mohammed, has the most credibility when teaching the word of 'God' (Allah) and why?

What are the particulars that cause Christians to adamantly stand upon the words of Paul while renouncing the words of Mohammed and vice-versa?

You are exaggerating the importance of Paul regarding the absolute foundation of Christianity. There is no record of Paul personally claiming to have seen a vision of Jesus on the road to Damascus. His comments about his revelation are much more modest (see 1 Cor 15:3-8 and Galatians 1:11-1:16). Paul may have simply had an intellectual insight, or a vision in a dream. The foundational element of Christianity is the belief in the Resurrection, and it does not appear that Paul originated this idea - since he received this information (see the Corinthians passage). So it's not that Christians trust Paul, it's that they trust the words of the anonymous people who spread the story about the Resurrection (prior to Paul), and they also trust the evangelists who composed the Gospels, as well as the lineage of people over the ages who taught that the New Testament was true, and the word of God.

Regarding Muhammed, at least there is a historical person that Muslims can say they trust. However, the Q'uran was only assembled after his death, so they are also trusting the compilers of the Q'uran, and finally - they are trusting the third Caliph (Uthman ibn Affan) who declared a particular manuscript of the Q'uran to be the correct one.

So I'd say that the question should be rephrased as: which book has the most credibility? The important content of the Bible has unknown provenance, but the Q'uran has a fairly well-established provenance.

Despite these differences, people generally believe what they are taught to believe. There are exceptions, but it appears to me these are based on people choosing to accept that which resonates within themselves. In neither case is it a question of credibility of the authors. The books have equivalent credibility to their respective believers. I expect that Muslims who make the comparison will rationalize their view that the Q'uran is more credible, and the Christians do the same with their Bible.

[earendil]

Paul's letters comprise the bulk of the New Testament. The apostle Paul never met Jesus alive, but instead had a 'visitation' from the resurrected Jesus while alone on the road to Damascus and from which he claimed his Holy insights regarding God.

Similarly, Muhammed claims to have gained his Holy insights directly from God the Father (Allah), in a series of 'visitations'.

Paul's words are foundational to Christianity and are cited as evidence for the Christian BibleGod. Mohammed's words are foundational to Islam and are cited as evidence for the Muslim BibleGod. Muslims claim the New Testament corrupts the word of God; Christians claim the Quran corrupts the word of God.

Question(s) for debate: Which man, Paul or Mohammed, has the most credibility when teaching the word of 'God' (Allah) and why?

What are the particulars that cause Christians to adamantly stand upon the words of Paul while renouncing the words of Mohammed and vice-versa?

Once the disciples asked Jesus how they could distinguish false teachers from true teachers.

He said: You can tell by their fruits.

So what are the fruits.

In the islamic world there is terrorism and endless hatred.

In the christian world, they have established workable and benificial societies. (It is true it was a rocky start historically, but after the reformation, good progress was made.)

With NATO forces now planning to leave Afganistan, do you know how many Afganis are trying to immigrate to Europe?

Why?

Because Europeans are Christian infidels?

No...because in Europe these poor fools have some small hope that they can live a life without the threat of being murdered by fanatical muslims.

So you tell me Flail... which do you prefer?

[Flail]

Paul's letters comprise the bulk of the New Testament. The apostle Paul never met Jesus alive, but instead had a 'visitation' from the resurrected Jesus while alone on the road to Damascus and from which he claimed his Holy insights regarding God.

Similarly, Muhammed claims to have gained his Holy insights directly from God the Father (Allah), in a series of 'visitations'.

Paul's words are foundational to Christianity and are cited as evidence for the Christian BibleGod. Mohammed's words are foundational to Islam and are cited as evidence for the Muslim BibleGod. Muslims claim the New Testament corrupts the word of God; Christians claim the Quran corrupts the word of God.

Question(s) for debate: Which man, Paul or Mohammed, has the most credibility when teaching the word of 'God' (Allah) and why?

What are the particulars that cause Christians to adamantly stand upon the words of Paul while renouncing the words of Mohammed and vice-versa?

Once the disciples asked Jesus how they could distinguish false teachers from true teachers.

He said: You can tell by their fruits.

So what are the fruits.

In the islamic world there is terrorism and endless hatred.

In the christian world, they have established workable and benificial societies. (It is true it was a rocky start historically, but after the reformation, good progress was made.)

With NATO forces now planning to leave Afganistan, do you know how many Afganis are trying to immigrate to Europe?

Why?

Because Europeans are Christian infidels?

No...because in Europe these poor fools have some small hope that they can live a life without the threat of being murdered by fanatical muslims.

So you tell me Flail... which do you prefer?

Since there are currently no wars being fought over atheism or non-beliefs, I prefer to reject religious superstitions of all types.

As for fruits, it seems to me that the scorecard is about even for Islam and Christianity....bad fruit abounds, literally and historically....so if we are going by fruits it's obvious to me that Christianity and Islam are both false. Since you admit Christianity and Islam have produced bad fruit...how can they possibly be 'of God'....the truth of neither superstition can be demonstrated; therefore their beliefs must be indoctrinated.

[Flail]

t

Paul's letters comprise the bulk of the New Testament. The apostle Paul never met Jesus alive, but instead had a 'visitation' from the resurrected Jesus while alone on the road to Damascus and from which he claimed his Holy insights regarding God.


Similarly, Muhammed claims to have gained his Holy insights directly from God the Father (Allah), in a series of 'visitations'.

Paul's words are foundational to Christianity and are cited as evidence for the Christian BibleGod. Mohammed's words are foundational to Islam and are cited as evidence for the Muslim BibleGod. Muslims claim the New Testament corrupts the word of God; Christians claim the Quran corrupts the word of God.

Question(s) for debate: Which man, Paul or Mohammed, has the most credibility when teaching the word of 'God' (Allah) and why?

What are the particulars that cause Christians to adamantly stand upon the words of Paul while renouncing the words of Mohammed and vice-versa?

You are exaggerating the importance of Paul regarding the absolute foundation of Christianity. There is no record of Paul personally claiming to have seen a vision of Jesus on the road to Damascus. His comments about his revelation are much more modest (see 1 Cor 15:3-8 and Galatians 1:11-1:16). Paul may have simply had an intellectual insight, or a vision in a dream. The foundational element of Christianity is the belief in the Resurrection, and it does not appear that Paul originated this idea - since he received this information (see the Corinthians passage). So it's not that Christians trust Paul, it's that they trust the words of the anonymous people who spread the story about the Resurrection (prior to Paul), and they also trust the evangelists who composed the Gospels, as well as the lineage of people over the ages who taught that the New Testament was true, and the word of God.

Regarding Muhammed, at least there is a historical person that Muslims can say they trust. However, the Q'uran was only assembled after his death, so they are also trusting the compilers of the Q'uran, and finally - they are trusting the third Caliph (Uthman ibn Affan) who declared a particular manuscript of the Q'uran to be the correct one.

So I'd say that the question should be rephrased as: which book has the most credibility? The important content of the Bible has unknown provenance, but the Q'uran has a fairly well-established provenance.

Despite these differences, people generally believe what they are taught to believe. There are exceptions, but it appears to me these are based on people choosing to accept that which resonates within themselves. In neither case is it a question of credibility of the authors. The books have equivalent credibility to their respective believers. I expect that Muslims who make the comparison will rationalize their view that the Q'uran is more credible, and the Christians do the same with their Bible.

I agree for the most part. But what is important to any given Christian and that which forms their beliefs depends in large part upon who and what was involved in their training. Since all of Christianity is dogma and since all of it is subject to interpretation and since none of it is 'evidenced', one has to look at the context of the individual indoctrination to determine what it is that any particular Christian believes. Some Christians follow Paul's every word as Gospel; some believe he actually saw the resurrected Christ on the road to Damascus. Why they believe such a tale is by virtue of their indoctrination and the dogma they have been led to believe.

[Moses Yoder]

Do you think it reasonable for God to condemn Muslims who, according to your view of the Bible, have essentially inherited their condemnation? And what if the Muslims are correct as to their view of the BibleGod and it is you who have inherited eternal condemnation?

As you can see in the passage below, I am convinced that all people come to a realization of who God is and what He desires of them.

18 For the wrath of God is revealed from heaven against all ungodliness and unrighteousness of men, who suppress the truth in unrighteousness, 19 because what may be known of God is manifest in them, for God has shown it to them. 20 For since the creation of the world His invisible attributes are clearly seen, being understood by the things that are made, even His eternal power and Godhead, so that they are without excuse, 21 because, although they knew God, they did not glorify Him as God, nor were thankful, but became futile in their thoughts, and their foolish hearts were darkened.

Since as you say I have "inherited" Christianity, I have a head start on the Muslims. Therefore I am expected to have a more fruitful life. A Muslim, while he may eventually become Christian, does not have all the advantages of knowing God that I have had. Of course, I also was raised with some disadvantages, such as being mentally and physically abused as a child.

I believe it is perfectly fair for God to show people the universe and hold them responsible for seeing Him in it. It is perfectly fair for God to hold people responsible for what they have been given.

I thought about the question you asked concerning "What if the Muslim is right and you are wrong" but find myself unable to address it because I know I am right, even though I have no proof. Just one thought; if the Muslim Allah ends up judging me, I am guessing He will say "You did very well with what was given you."

[Flail]

Moses Yoder wrote:

I believe it is perfectly fair for God to show people the universe and hold them responsible for seeing Him in it. It is perfectly fair for God to hold people responsible for what they have been given.

I thought about the question you asked concerning "What if the Muslim is right and you are wrong" but find myself unable to address it because I know I am right, even though I have no proof. Just one thought; if the Muslim Allah ends up judging me, I am guessing He will say "You did very well with what was given you."

As to the idea of verse based scripturalisms quoted, if Paul is right, Muslims are toast; if you are right, we might all be safe....I guess it just depends on which books you've been trained to believe and how certain passages have been spun during your training. It all seems very subjective to me, but without evidence to go on, being 'subjective' is the best one can do.