Where Does The Bible Address Muhammad And The Rise Of Islam?

[Matthew S Islam]

Greetings,

I'm curious to know how Christians make sense of the emergence and subsequent dominance of Islam from a Biblical standpoint.

The Islamic tradition was a successful enterprise both on a religious and political level. Muslims proclaim that their religion was completed; their scriptures and exegesis are preserved; and the immediate followers of Muhammad conquered the Persians and Romans.
Islam has survived the test of time and is currently the main opponent to Christian propagation. If one were to compare between the claims objectively, then the least we could say is that Islam poses a threat to the Christian narrative.

1) Does the Bible explicitly foretell the coming of Prophet Muhammad and the Islamic tradition?

I'm aware of Paul's censure of different Gospels and false apostles. What I'm looking for are explicit references to the fore-coming clash between the religions i.e. Clear Prophecies.

2) Considering how our circumstances are ultimately Destined and Willed by God, then would it not be reasonable for us to expect God to adequately address this dilemma? He could have revealed explicit prophecies and guidance concerning it, or He could've weakened the intellectual threat of the opponent.

As of now I feel as though Islam caught Christianity off-guard and I'm not sure how to make sense of that.

Feel free to share your thoughts.

[Matthew S Islam]

1. Trinitarianism

a) Ascribing Divinity to an entity that isn't God Almighty is the greatest sin
b) The Trinity is not consistent with the theology of previous scriptures
c) The New Testament does not suffice in proving the Divinity of Jesus
d) Jesus was a monotheist

The widespread acceptance of polytheism in the Christian world is a sign from God to assist the seekers of truth determine the true religion.

In efforts to keep focused, I'm responding to your first numbered point. I'm not ignoring the response to Pauline Christianity, just placing it in a holding pattern for now.

I agree with (a). Where is your support for (b)?

In efforts to keep focused, I'm responding to your first numbered point. I'm not ignoring the response to Pauline Christianity, just placing it in a holding pattern for now. 

I agree with (a). Where is your support for (b)?

A natural reading of the Old Testament is my support. The central theme of the Hebrew Bible is to affirm the Divinity of the One God and to abstain from taking other Gods before Him.

If the Trinity is supported by the OT, then we should expect its references to be explicit and indisputable. The implications which surround this topic necessitates that God wouldn't beat around the bush. So where are the Jewish Trinitarians to prove this theological consistency?

[John Human]

If the Trinity is supported by the OT, then we should expect its references to be explicit and indisputable. The implications which surround this topic necessitates that God wouldn't beat around the bush. So where are the Jewish Trinitarians to prove this theological consistency?

The evolution of Christianity from its one-God Hebrew roots to the new triune Godhead involved cross-breeding with Greek philosophy as early evangelizers jumped the culture barrier from Hebrew to Greco-Roman thought.

"Cambridge Platonist" Ralph Cudworth has the following to say:

"The trinity had to exist to explain the question of how God is immaterial and also interacts with humans in the material world. There is a natural ordering. The trinity attempts to explain."

[The Tanager]

[Replying to post 41 by Matthew S]

Thanks for your responses and willingness to take things one step at a time. It's really helpful for me. To keep us (or at least me) contextually focused:

1. Trinitarianism

1a. Ascribing Divinity to an entity that isn't God Almighty is the greatest sin

We agree this is true.

1b. The Trinity is not consistent with the theology of previous scriptures

There are two points here that I see from your response. I list both because I am making clear that I don't want to ignore either, but I do want to take them one at a time, so that we can really give each one its due. I will follow your order but, please, don't let me get off the hook of responding to (ii) later.

A natural reading of the Old Testament is my support. The central theme of the Hebrew Bible is to affirm the Divinity of the One God and to abstain from taking other Gods before Him.

(i) If one could prove that the concept of the Trinity contradicts monotheism, then (1b) is true. You have not done that here, however. Trinitarians claim to affirm the Divinity of the One God and to abstain from taking other Gods before Him--the very things you say are the central theme of the Tanakh. Do you have an argument that shows Trinitarians are making a dishonest or illogical claim? If you can't then we can turn to the second point:

If the Trinity is supported by the OT, then we should expect its references to be explicit and indisputable. The implications which surround this topic necessitates that God wouldn't beat around the bush. So where are the Jewish Trinitarians to prove this theological consistency?

(ii) Is the concept of the Trinity completely foreign to the Hebrew Tanakah?

[rikuoamero]

[Replying to post 37 by Matthew S]

The widespread acceptance of polytheism in the Christian world is a sign from God to assist the seekers of truth determine the true religion.

Let me just jump in here real quick and ask you about what you mean by this sentence. To be precise, by what you mean by "sign from God"? If someone tells me "X is a sign from God", I understand that person to be saying "God did X/God caused X".
So do you mean that with regards to the polytheism within Christianity? God did or caused the widespread acceptance of polytheism?

[Matthew S Islam]

Greetings,

Thanks for your responses and willingness to take things one step at a time. It's really helpful for me. To keep us (or at least me) contextually focused:

The reason why I'm covering so much ground in my posts is because I'm attempting to demonstrate the validity of my premise. I don't mind continuing the conversation from where we left off, but I'd like to remind us of my approach in this thread:

1. If Christianity is the true religion, then God should have equipped it with qualities which enables us to distinguish truth from falsehood
2. The Christian religion contains deficiencies in its foundation and is inferior to the Islamic tradition
3. Christianity is either false or the "Christian God" is an unjust tyrant

I can certainly entertain you on all of the claims I've made on this thread, but I don't really think it's necessary for establishing my argument. The mere fact that I can raise these contentions while remaining within the framework of the scholarly discourse proves the inferiority of Christianity.

In other words, if Christianity was true, then there shouldn't be debates over the Trinity; Pauline Christianity; the extinction of Jewish Christianity; Gospels written decades after Jesus; pseudonymous books in the Bible; confusion over the Messiah's role; persecution of the early Christians; and on and on. The mere fact that these debates exist proves that Islam's product is intellectually superior and therefore Christianity should be considered false.

1. Trinitarianism 

1a. Ascribing Divinity to an entity that isn't God Almighty is the greatest sin 

We agree this is true. 

Fixed:

1a. Ascribing full Divinity to an entity other than YHWH; Elohim; The Father; The God of Israel; etc, is the greatest sin--polytheism.

If one could prove that the concept of the Trinity contradicts monotheism, then (1b) is true. You have not done that here, however. Trinitarians claim to affirm the Divinity of the One God and to abstain from taking other Gods before Him--the very things you say are the central theme of the Tanakh.

First of all, the onus of proof is upon the Christians who are claiming that the God of Israel comprises of 3 co-equal and co-eternal Divine Persons. The Jewish Scriptures do not preach the Christian Doctrine of the Trinity, and the presumption within our paradigm must be that the Trinity is false until proven true. This is because the Hebrew Bible precedes the New Testament and it's universally recognized as "Divine" and authoritative. "Jesus" is not the name of God in the Old Testament, so he would require proving before believing, or else we'd be jeopardizing our monotheism.

1. The Trinity ascribes Divinity to entities who are not YHWH and is therefore guilty of contradicting monotheism
2. The theological severity which surrounds this topic necessitates that God would provide indisputable clarity on the matter -- the fact that Christians have and continue to debate the Divinity of Christ proves that Jesus is not God

(ii) Is the concept of the Trinity completely foreign to the Hebrew Tanakah?

Your use of "completely" here appears to have deviant connotations (no offence). Based on my standards and expectations of God, I would say the concept of the Trinity is foreign to the Hebrew Tanakh. If the Trinity was true and God intended to reveal His Divine Essence through progressive theology, then He should not have conveyed the Torah using such radical-monotheistic language. He should have either loosened up on monotheism/polytheism or declared His Triune nature using indisputable language. The God of the OT is supposedly All-Knowing and Wise, so we should expect nothing less than theological coherence and competence from Him.

[Matthew S Islam]

Greetings,

Let me just jump in here real quick and ask you about what you mean by this sentence. To be precise, by what you mean by "sign from God"? If someone tells me "X is a sign from God", I understand that person to be saying "God did X/God caused X".
So do you mean that with regards to the polytheism within Christianity? God did or caused the widespread acceptance of polytheism?

"Let there be no compulsion in religion: Truth stands out clear from Error: whoever rejects evil and believes in Allah hath grasped the most trustworthy hand-hold, that never breaks. And Allah heareth and knoweth all things." [2:256]

I'm asserting that Christianity's 4th century adoption of the Trinity is a sign from God to assist us in discerning truth from falsehood. Just think about it, let's assume that Jesus is not God and Christians have falsely ascribed Divinity to him.

1. What would that make the majority of Christians?
2. Why did God grant victory to the Trinitarian party over the Arians?
3. Can Christianity be true despite failing to identify who is and isn't God?

[Tcg]

I'm asserting that Christianity's 4th century adoption of the Trinity is a sign from God to assist us in discerning truth from falsehood. Just think about it, let's assume that Jesus is not God and Christians have falsely ascribed Divinity to him.

This is the problem with religious claims. They are all based on assumptions. Rather than assuming that God exists, let's assume it doesn't. What does that say about ALL theists? They have falsely assigned divinity to an imaginary being.


There is no reason to highlight the assumptions some Christians make about Jesus when ALL theists start with the assumption that god exists. Neither assumption is based on verifiable evidence. Given that, neither can be judged as better than the other. The most we can say is that they are different.



Tcg

[The Tanager]

The reason why I'm covering so much ground in my posts is because I'm attempting to demonstrate the validity of my premise. I don't mind continuing the conversation from where we left off, but I'd like to remind us of my approach in this thread:

1. If Christianity is the true religion, then God should have equipped it with qualities which enables us to distinguish truth from falsehood
2. The Christian religion contains deficiencies in its foundation and is inferior to the Islamic tradition
3. Christianity is either false or the "Christian God" is an unjust tyrant

I love how much ground you want to cover, I just want to make sure we give every part its full deserved attention.

I can certainly entertain you on all of the claims I've made on this thread, but I don't really think it's necessary for establishing my argument. The mere fact that I can raise these contentions while remaining within the framework of the scholarly discourse proves the inferiority of Christianity.

In other words, if Christianity was true, then there shouldn't be debates over the Trinity; Pauline Christianity; the extinction of Jewish Christianity; Gospels written decades after Jesus; pseudonymous books in the Bible; confusion over the Messiah's role; persecution of the early Christians; and on and on. The mere fact that these debates exist proves that Islam's product is intellectually superior and therefore Christianity should be considered false.

Are you saying there are no debates about the truth of Islamic doctrine? All disagreement tells us is there is disagreement; it says nothing about the truth of the matter, whatever the topic is.

Fixed:

1a. Ascribing full Divinity to an entity other than YHWH; Elohim; The Father; The God of Israel; etc, is the greatest sin--polytheism.

Before agreeing to this change, I need to know what you mean by "The Father" here. The places where God is said to be a father to the fatherless or that we have one Father, such as in Malachi 2:10? I'm fine with that. I just want to make sure we don't equivocate on terms since "The Father" means something different in Trinitarian theology.

First of all, the onus of proof is upon the Christians who are claiming that the God of Israel comprises of 3 co-equal and co-eternal Divine Persons. The Jewish Scriptures do not preach the Christian Doctrine of the Trinity, and the presumption within our paradigm must be that the Trinity is false until proven true. This is because the Hebrew Bible precedes the New Testament and it's universally recognized as "Divine" and authoritative. "Jesus" is not the name of God in the Old Testament, so he would require proving before believing, or else we'd be jeopardizing our monotheism.

I talked about two claims. The first (1.b.i) was that if the concept of the Trinity contradicts monotheism, then (1b) would be true since we both agree that the Tanakh teaches monotheism. It was unclear to me if you were saying the Trinity, by its very definition, contradicts monotheism. If you think it does, then you misunderstand the Trinity. The Trinity is monotheistic, not polytheistic. Now, if you weren't claiming the Trinity contradicts monotheism conceptually, then we are agreed on this point and can move to (1.b.ii) where I do have the onus of proof.

1.b.ii) Is the concept of the Trinity completely foreign to the Hebrew Tanakh?

Your use of "completely" here appears to have deviant connotations (no offence). Based on my standards and expectations of God, I would say the concept of the Trinity is foreign to the Hebrew Tanakh. If the Trinity was true and God intended to reveal His Divine Essence through progressive theology, then He should not have conveyed the Torah using such radical-monotheistic language. He should have either loosened up on monotheism/polytheism or declared His Triune nature using indisputable language. The God of the OT is supposedly All-Knowing and Wise, so we should expect nothing less than theological coherence and competence from Him.

You've got to clarify what you see as the standard and why. Nothing, except perhaps pure mathematics, is 100% certain. Is that your standard? How does Islamic doctrine meet that standard? If that isn't your standard, then what do you mean here? The word "trinity" isn't even in the New Testament, but the concept is, in my opinion, quite clearly there. People can come up with escapes, but they are grasping at straws. That standard is enough for me. I use the same standard for all things, including whether the concept of a multi-personal, monotheistic God is talked about in the Tanakh.

[JehovahsWitness]

1. If Christianity is the true religion, then God should have equipped it with qualities which enables us to distinguish truth from falsehood

This is true and he has indeed done this. God has provided us with the bible and protected it from corruption. He has revealed his name (which is inextricably linked to pure worship ) and protected that name from numerous attempts to wipe it out. And he has provided us with his holy spirit, the strongest force in the universe. When honest hearted people avail themselves of all three of the above they can identify the true religion without the shadow of a doubt.


JW


RELATED POSTS

Who is the TRUE God?
http://debatingchristianity.com/forum/v ... 825#960825

How can one find the truth?
http://debatingchristianity.com/forum/v ... 583#795583

Does God allow both TRUE and FALSE religion to coexist?
http://debatingchristianity.com/forum/v ... 115#959115

Did Jesus intend to start a "new religion"?
http://debatingchristianity.com/forum/v ... 645#792645

Do Jehovah's witnesses accept the concept of "true religion"?
http://debatingchristianity.com/forum/v ... 330#861330

Go to other posts related to...

THE BIBLE , GOD and ... RELIGION,

NOTE All posts I write represent my personal faith based beliefs as one of Jehovah's Witnesses

[William]

[Replying to post 49 by JehovahsWitness]

God has provided us with the bible and protected it from corruption.

How does God protect the bible from the corruption of those who so easily and willfully interpret it falsely, based on what they 'believe', as was done in this thread when the words were written;

"I believe Islam is covered by Jesus warnings against false prophets who would arise to mislead many."

Quote:

MATTHEW 7:22-23

Many will say to me in that day: ‘Lord, Lord, did we not prophesy in your name, and expel demons in your name, and perform many powerful works in your name?’ And then I will declare to them: ‘I never knew* you! Get away from me, you workers of lawlessness!’

And when the deception was pointed out, the 'believer' simply ignored it.

Even the biblical quote given, shows that GOD does not 'protect the bible from corruption' because it shows that GOD allows for people to corrupt things in the name of GOD.