Kirb Brimstone – [tagged me in link] We should watch this and talk about it after.
What is God Really Like: Tawhid or Trinity? Dr. Shabir Ally and Dr. Nabeel Qureshi Debate
What is God Really Like: Tawhid or Trinity? Dr. Shabir Ally and Dr. Nabeel Qureshi Debate
Muhammad Rasheed - How about if we just use their questions/topics for our own conversation?
Kirb Brimstone - You say this is all anti-Islamist propaganda. Well here is both sides of the issue with respected Muslim and respected Christian going at it. Why won't you watch it?
Muhammad Rasheed - I didn't say I wouldn't. I just said, instead how about we two just have the discussion ourselves?
Why are you afraid to think for yourself all the time?
Muhammad Rasheed - Don't you have your own understanding of biblical doctrine and scripture? Or is that forbidden?
Kirb Brimstone - I'd be happy to do both. Can we do it over the phone?
Muhammad Rasheed - It's better to type it. Plus I don't have international phone services over here.
Kirb Brimstone - where are you?
Muhammad Rasheed - In Kuwait.
Muhammad Rasheed - Are you really going to keep asking me questions while I'm trying to get to the end of this clip?
Kirb Brimstone - alright when you get back?
Muhammad Rasheed - You are, aren't you?
Kirb Brimstone - yes.
Muhammad Rasheed - lol
Kirb Brimstone - No I gotta run off to work so you have it all top yourself till I get home.
Muhammad Rasheed - I was taking a break from work to do you a favor, while you duck all my questions.
Muhammad Rasheed - I apologize for calling Nabeel a dumbass the other day. He doesn't use a bunch of partisan trickery, and deliberately deceitful nonsense in his work like those other "these guys." At least not on the same over-the-top level. Nabeel is genuinely personable and seems sincere.
His weaknesses are that 1) his level of scholarship stops at the outer fence of the doctrine he's adopted... based on his friend David's example I'm going to assume. 2) His Islamic insight is ridiculously, painfully weak, which I chalk up to the "cultural Muslim" thing, of course.
Kirb Brimstone - No problem Moe. I'd like to think we are friends. Friends who are both concerned about the others destiny and wish to fallow what they both believe to the one true God.
Muhammad Rasheed - Kirb Brimstone wrote: "Friends who are both concerned about the others destiny and wish to fallow what they both believe to the one true God."
There's only One God. Our actual issue is how the messenger[s] are perceived.
Kirb Brimstone - Well, we will just have to agree to disagree because I believe you worship one who is not the God I worship. I worship Yahweh who is the Father, who is the Son, and who is the Holy Spirit. You do not worship that God. So you do not worship my God.
It's not a matter of differing on perceiving how the "messengers" of God are perceived. That's begging the question in favor of Islam.
We as Christians do not think Jesus is a messenger of God. We think he is God speaking on his own authority. To say otherwise is blaspheme to a Christian (And has been since it's inception ).
You say to say so is shirk. Okay.
So we worship completely different Gods. Even if the Qur'an tells you we don't.
Muhammad Rasheed - I worship the same God that created Adam, and gifted him with Eve, the God that instructed Noah to build the ark, the God that called Abraham "friend," who created the Christ Jesus from scratch in his mother's womb. That God. My God and your God are One. The reason the three faiths are referred to as "Abrahamic" in the first place.
Muhammad Rasheed - There is only One God to worship.
Muhammad Rasheed - Kirb Brimstone wrote: "I don't think Jesus is a messenger of God."
The fact that he walked the earth, and interacted with the people in the same role as all the other Hebrew prophet-messengers before him is the biggest clue. He did what all the others in that brotherhood did, which included worshipping and calling out to the One God who made him. It's impossible for me to ignore that, just brush it to the side, especially when the next scripture in the canon confirms the truth represented by those same very obvious clues.
Kirb Brimstone - Again that's where we disagree. We Christians believe that the Logos created Adam. The Logos became flesh in the uncreated only begotten Jesus. So no according to Christianity you don't worship the God that created Adam. You don't Soooo.... not the same being or entity. Not the same God.
Even if the Qur'an forces you to say so.
Honestly as I read the Qur'an I'm convinced whoever wrote it didn't even understand Christianity it tries to Co-Op/Refute.
So that's why you've gotta say something that sounds honestly so ridiculous to me.
Muhammad Rasheed - This: "Even if the Qur'an forces you to say so."
Plus this: "So that's why you've gotta say something that sounds honestly so ridiculous to me."
Kirb, what forces you to say the things you do? What forces you to accept the concept of the trinity, to ignore the fact that Jesus worshipped and called out to the One God?
Muhammad Rasheed - What forces you to utter terms like 'Logos' and 'son,' and 'father,' and 'three-in-one?'
Muhammad Rasheed - Following John 1, the early Christian apologist Justin Martyr (c 150) identified Jesus as the Logos. Like Philo, Justin also identified the Logos with the Angel of the LORD, and used this as a way of arguing for Christianity to Jews:
I shall give you another testimony, my friends, from the Scriptures, that God begot before all creatures a Beginning, [who was] a certain rational power [proceeding] from Himself, who is called by the Holy Spirit, now the Glory of the Lord, now the Son, again Wisdom, again an Angel, then God, and then Lord and Logos;
In his First Apology, Justin used the Stoic concept of the Logos as a way of arguing for Christianity to non-Jews. Since a Greek audience would accept this concept, his argument could concentrate on identifying this Logos with Jesus. However, Justin does not go so far as to articulate a fully consistent doctrine of the Logos.
~Erwin R. Goodenough, The Theology of Justin Martyr (1923)
Kirb Brimstone - There is a parable that Jesus told his disciples. Keep in mind most all Historians agree this is authentic words from Jesus.
Mathew 1-12: Then Jesus started telling them stories. “A man planted a vineyard. He fenced it, dug a winepress, erected a watchtower, turned it over to the farmhands, and went off on a trip. At the time for harvest, he sent a servant back to the farmhands to collect his profits.
3-5 “They grabbed him, beat him up, and sent him off empty-handed. So he sent another servant. That one they tarred and feathered. He sent another and that one they killed. And on and on, many others. Some they beat up, some they killed.
6 “Finally there was only one left: a beloved son. In a last-ditch effort, he sent him, thinking, ‘Surely they will respect my son.’
7-8 “But those farmhands saw their chance. They rubbed their hands together in greed and said, ‘This is the heir! Let’s kill him and have it all for ourselves.’ They grabbed him, killed him, and threw him over the fence.
9-11 “What do you think the owner of the vineyard will do? Right. He’ll come and clean house. Then he’ll assign the care of the vineyard to others. Read it for yourselves in Scripture:
That stone the masons threw out
is now the cornerstone!
This is God’s work;
we rub our eyes—we can hardly believe it!”
12 They wanted to lynch him then and there but, intimidated by public opinion, held back. They knew the story was about them. They got away from there as fast as they could.
Clearly Jesus is ascribing a title to himself that he doesn't ascribe to the other "messengers" Here Jesus is talking about the Jewish religious leader treated prophets of God.
In the story God is the vineyard owner, the religious leaders are the farmhands, and the many prophets are the many servants the owner sends to collect the profits from the vineyard owners,
Notice Jesus doesn't ascribe him self as just one of the servants,. no he is a beloved son.
Understand that in ancient Jewish society like today a Son unlike a servant is co-air with the father. Jesus was separating himself from the prior servants.
This is Mark.
Muhammad Rasheed - Kirb Brimstone wrote: "Keep in mind most all Historians agree this is authentic words from Jesus."
1.) We NEVER agree when you say stuff like that.
2.) What would "most" of these "historians" base such an agreement upon outside of blind faith?
Muhammad Rasheed - Why would I "keep in mind" something that i disagree with completely?
Kirb Brimstone - "Like Philo, Justin also identified the Logos with the Angel of the LORD"
So? Justin was saying to the Jews that the Angel of the Lord that appeared to Joshua was the second person of the Trinity. Many Christians today believe that Jesus, the Logos, and the Angel of the Lord are one in the same.
But again who cares what Justin Martyr said? You can't trust 1st century eyewitness testimony but we can trust 2nd century Justin Martyr?
Confirmation bias much? Even though it doesn't even confirm you're point.
Muhammad Rasheed - btw Deacon likes to say that a lot, too. Because of that, I'm starting to suspect it is a pet phrase used from the pulpit that you two are echoing. Like "Turn to your neighbor and tell him such-n-such," and those other little churchisms.
Muhammad Rasheed - Kirb brimstone wrote: "Even though it doesn't even confirm you're point."
But I didn't say what my point was after I posted it; I was sidetracked by that thing you posted next.
How do you know what I intended it to be as my point? Tell me.
Kirb Brimstone - You can agree or not agree the facts are that it's historical facts despite what Islamic polemics tells you.
I love you quote some radical secular/atheist/agnostic historians who is outside of mainstream scholarship (while calling them Christian) and then dismiss the majority mainstream of scholarship on no basis what-so-ever.
It's confirmation bias Moe. You're not being fair with the evidence. You only accept what has already agrees with your beliefs.
What is your criteria for who you accept and you you don't accept?
Muhammad Rasheed - ^This. You are going off on the deep end, following some thing that you made up.
I never told you the point of why I quoted that.
Muhammad Rasheed - It did say that this Justin Martyr identified Jesus as the "logos," something you just claimed to believe. Why are you distancing yourself from him?
Again, you have no idea why I even posted that since I haven't gone back to it yet.
Muhammad Rasheed - How do you know what I intended it to be as my point? Tell me.
Kirb Brimstone - "How do you know what I intended it to be as my point? Tell me?'
I thought is was implied but I apologize please tell me your point.
"^This. You are going off on the deep end, following some thing that you made up.
I never told you the point of why I quoted that."
The post this quote is responding to was a response to: "Why would I "keep in mind" something that i disagree with completely?"
Read it again in that light.
Muhammad Rasheed - No, I wasn't trying to imply anything with you. Experience has shown that it is VERY easy for us to mis-communicate, so it's better if we are very clear with each other and spell everything out. We think VERY differently.
Muhammad Rasheed - Kirb Brimstone wrote: "The post this quote is responding to was a response to..."
And that is why I quote the exact comment I am responding to, to prevent just such miscommunication. A technique picked up from the HeroTalk message board format. Naturally I suggest you do it yourself, at least when you and I talk.
Muhammad Rasheed - Between you and Deacon, I notice you always ask me the exact same questions and approach the argument the exact same way. It gives the impression that you aren't listening to me; that you never analyze my position to know what strategy to take. It can get exhausting helping you to argue with me so I can get some fun out of these discussions.
To be honest it is a bit disappointing, and actually makes it easy to dismiss you. Deacon actually puts effort into our discussions. I know this is off topic. It's just an observation.
Kirb Brimstone - If you want to see where contemporary scholarship is I must again recommended this video----> Contemporary Scholarship and the Historicity of the Resurrection of Jesus (William Lane Craig)
Because I'm not sure you know. Also this means secular, Jewish atheist skeptical as well as Christian scholarship. This is something Koranic scholarship doesn't have the luxury of boasting about.
So no, you can't wave the wand of "well they are all Christians who base it on faith" NT scholarship is rigorous and filled with non-believers.
Is your understanding of Christianity that flawed Moe? Do you think any westerner or white man who studies the New Testament is a Christian? lol Even if they don't believe God exists and are an agnostic or atheist?
Kirb Brimstone - Muhammad Rasheed wrote: "And that is why I quote the exact comment I am responding to, to prevent just such miscommunication. A technique picked up from the HeroTalk message board format. Naturally I suggest you do it yourself, at least when you and I talk."
Okay I'll try going forward. Even though I hate texting or typing. I prefer talking.
Muhammad Rasheed - I see no value in a verbal debate in which what we say can't be easily referred to in a clear record.
Muhammad Rasheed - I like quoting people precisely, as typed responses allow, and I hate it when people talk over me and think shouting is somehow winning the debate.
Muhammad Rasheed - Kirb Brimstone wrote: “If you want to see where contemporary scholarship is I must again recommended this video----> Because I'm not sure you know.”
Do they still worship the very human messenger Jesus as a divine entity that shares in the Godhead? Then why would it matter? Nothing has changed.
Kirb Brimstone wrote: “Also this means secular, Jewish atheist skeptical as well as Christian scholarship. This is something Koranic scholarship doesn't have the luxury of boasting about. So no, you can't wave the wand of ‘well they are all Christians who base it on faith’ NT scholarship is rigorous and filled with non-believers.”
I told you many, many times before that in my research I am only interested in what the true believer Christian scholars reveal among each other. It holds FAR more weight to me, even though you and Deacon pretend that those guys are somehow not really Christians.
Kirb Brimstone wrote: “Is your understanding of Christianity that flawed Moe? Do you think any westerner or white man who studies the New Testament is a Christian?”
Only the ones that accept the divine sonship of Jesus doctrine of Paul.
Kirb Brimstone wrote: “lol Even if they don't believe God exists and are an agnostic or atheist?”
I literally have zero interest in those folks’ opinions, to the point where you may safely consider this line of questioning a strawman.
Muhammad Rasheed - Anyway, the reason I quoted that thing about Justin Martyr, is because it stood out to me as one of the links in the chain of evolution as that Jesus as logos philosophy was kneaded, molded, shaped over the centuries into the doctrine you believe today. I cannot accept your concepts as true for that reason; it is man-made and false. The historical record of it forming before our eyes is plain as day, as it is passed from one theologian philosopher parent to the next. There is no truth there, only doctrinized opinion based on the foundation of Paul's falsehood. Really, what am I supposed to do with that? I cannot use it.
By contrast, the Pillars of Islam and the Pillars of Faith were solidified by God Himself in the Book. I didn't need 1,500 years of Islamic theologians, kneading a raw concept invented by some jackass that never met Muhammad, for example, until it finally became a doctrine that kinda made sense sorta. God was clear from the beginning, and the kneadings of mere men stand out from it as a treacherous annoyance.
Muhammad Rasheed - Jesus walked the Word of God out in his life, demonstrating to the people around him how God's instructions were supposed to be done. In this it made the Christ the walking Word of God in the flesh. Such was his job on earth, no different than that of the other messengers, who also were tasked by their Lord to walk His Word out on earth, instructing us in scripture and wisdom. In that sense, of course Jesus was the Logos, as were they all. It doesn't go any further than that.
Kirb Brimstone - "Anyway, the reason I quoted that thing about Justin Martyr, is because it stood out to me as one of the links in the chain of evolution as that Jesus as logos philosophy was kneaded, molded, shaped over the centuries into the doctrine you believe today"
Yeah but we have much earlier tradition and writings with a high Christology. Meaning Jesus as God. Justin himself certainly believed in the deity of Christ.
Kirb Brimstone - "Do they still worship the very human messenger Jesus as a divine entity that shares in the Godhead?"
Didn't I answer this? Yeah some. Not all but some... so what?
Kirb Brimstone - " I cannot accept your concepts as true for that reason; it is man-made and false."
That's what we are debating. The question comes down to who did Jesus beelive he was and what evidence do we have to support his claim.
The earliest and best sources say he claimed to be God. He confimed this in his ressurection from the dead.
Kirb Brimstone - "By contrast, the Pillars of Islam and the Pillars of Faith were solidified by God Himself in the Book. I didn't need 1,500 years of Islamic theologians, kneading a raw concept invented by some jackass that never met Muhammad, for example, until it finally became a doctrine that kinda made sense sorta. God was clear from the beginning, and the kneadings of mere men stand out from it as a treacherous annoyance."
Well I assume you mean Paul. But I believe Paul did meet Jesus. But let's leave him aside for now.
The Gospels are written by Disciples and Historian who interviewed eyewitnesses within the lives of those eyewitnesses.
Now the Qur'an on the other hand evolved over the centuries and the Qur'an you have to day is not the same we had right after Muhammad. It stands out as man made also as it quotes 2nd century sources on Jesus.
Did you ever take the time to look into historicity of the Qur'an? It doesn't look good.
Nabeel Qureshi: The Text of the Qur’an - Apologetics to Islam
Muhammad Rasheed - Kirb Brimstone wrote: "The Gospels are written by Disciples and Historian who interviewed eyewitnesses within the lives of those eyewitnesses."
lol You wish.
Muhammad Rasheed - Kirb Brimstone wrote: "But I believe Paul did meet Jesus."
smh
Kirb Brimstone - "lol You wish."
Do I? You sound like Nabeel when David told him the same thing. We'll get there together my friend.
Muhammad Rasheed - Nah. My research into pauline doctrine goes beyond the edge of the fence that Nabeel is content to sit behind. Hellfire has zero appeal to me, Kirb. I suggest you switch up your debate strategy if you really want me to take you seriously. At the moment you only beckon me to the fire of torment.
Kirb Brimstone wrote: "Do I?"
Yes. All you can do is wish that the four gospels really were writ by the men whose names they bear. Your own scholars know otherwise, and you foolishly dismiss them out of hand in preference for your blind faith stance that pretends to be something deeper. You really don't have a single leg to stand on while you court me to hell. Interestingly you never vary your approach as to how you present this stuff to me, all while your slip is showing, and the gaping holes whistle as the air blows through them. You have nothing for me, Kirb.
Perhaps you should try asking me one of the questions that Nabeel asked of the li'l Muslim guy that you thought was particularly potent? I'm game.
Kirb Brimstone - "Anyway, the reason I quoted that thing about Justin Martyr, is because it stood out to me as one of the links in the chain of evolution as that Jesus as logos philosophy was kneaded, molded, shaped over the centuries into the doctrine you believe today"
Yeah but we have much earlier tradition and writings with a high Christology. Meaning Jesus as God. Justin himself certainly believed in the deity of Christ.
Kirb Brimstone - "Do they still worship the very human messenger Jesus as a divine entity that shares in the Godhead?"
Didn't I answer this? Yeah some. Not all but some... so what?
Kirb Brimstone - " I cannot accept your concepts as true for that reason; it is man-made and false."
That's what we are debating. The question comes down to who did Jesus beelive he was and what evidence do we have to support his claim.
The earliest and best sources say he claimed to be God. He confimed this in his ressurection from the dead.
Kirb Brimstone - "By contrast, the Pillars of Islam and the Pillars of Faith were solidified by God Himself in the Book. I didn't need 1,500 years of Islamic theologians, kneading a raw concept invented by some jackass that never met Muhammad, for example, until it finally became a doctrine that kinda made sense sorta. God was clear from the beginning, and the kneadings of mere men stand out from it as a treacherous annoyance."
Well I assume you mean Paul. But I believe Paul did meet Jesus. But let's leave him aside for now.
The Gospels are written by Disciples and Historian who interviewed eyewitnesses within the lives of those eyewitnesses.
Now the Qur'an on the other hand evolved over the centuries and the Qur'an you have to day is not the same we had right after Muhammad. It stands out as man made also as it quotes 2nd century sources on Jesus.
Did you ever take the time to look into historicity of the Qur'an? It doesn't look good.
Nabeel Qureshi: The Text of the Qur’an - Apologetics to Islam
Muhammad Rasheed - Kirb Brimstone wrote: "The Gospels are written by Disciples and Historian who interviewed eyewitnesses within the lives of those eyewitnesses."
lol You wish.
Muhammad Rasheed - Kirb Brimstone wrote: "But I believe Paul did meet Jesus."
smh
Kirb Brimstone - "lol You wish."
Do I? You sound like Nabeel when David told him the same thing. We'll get there together my friend.
Muhammad Rasheed - Nah. My research into pauline doctrine goes beyond the edge of the fence that Nabeel is content to sit behind. Hellfire has zero appeal to me, Kirb. I suggest you switch up your debate strategy if you really want me to take you seriously. At the moment you only beckon me to the fire of torment.
Kirb Brimstone wrote: "Do I?"
Yes. All you can do is wish that the four gospels really were writ by the men whose names they bear. Your own scholars know otherwise, and you foolishly dismiss them out of hand in preference for your blind faith stance that pretends to be something deeper. You really don't have a single leg to stand on while you court me to hell. Interestingly you never vary your approach as to how you present this stuff to me, all while your slip is showing, and the gaping holes whistle as the air blows through them. You have nothing for me, Kirb.
Perhaps you should try asking me one of the questions that Nabeel asked of the li'l Muslim guy that you thought was particularly potent? I'm game.
Muhammad Rasheed - Kirb Brimstone wrote: “Yeah but we have much earlier tradition and writings with a high Christology. Meaning Jesus as God. Justin himself certainly believed in the deity of Christ.”
I was referring specifically to the ‘Logos’ doctrine part. Using it as an example of the whole. There’s enough historical documentation to show the development of the various aspects of the ‘divine Jesus the son’ concepts forming right before our eyes, as the different theologian philosophers through this faith’s history tweak & knead it into its current form. The very fact that we can see it happen like that makes all talk of it being from God laughable. It’s from man. We SEE man developing it slowly through the centuries; we SEE the retconning, and the mind changing, and the internal doctrinal conflicts between the theologian scholars who believe in it. By contrast, the central pillars of Islam were sent by God and were established from the outset. The only kneading & tweaking that Islamic scholars do are nitpicky ancillary items that mean little in the over-all doctrine (like whether Ali should have been the first Caliph), and philosophical items they really have no business focusing on that involve the unseen (like the true nature of God’s person as in the ‘tawhid’ concept controversy).
Muhammad Rasheed - Kirb Brimstone wrote: "Didn't I answer this? Yeah some. Not all but some... so what?"
Okay, and do those others worship Jesus AS God? Then all of it is a falsehood and it doesn’t matter what the contemporary Christians think in regards to their specific walk in Paul’s doctrine. The only thing that truly matters is that you all stop worshipping the Christ Jesus, in whatever form you are performing this in, and bow down solely to the One God that made him. Jesus was only the human messenger of God anointed to teach the children of Israel the Gospel of the Lord. The sooner you recognize this the better it will be for your soul. Do NOT die in your current state.
Muhammad Rasheed - Kirb Brimstone wrote: “The question comes down to who did Jesus beelive he was and what evidence do we have to support his claim.”
In the final revealed scripture in the canon, the Supreme Creator of the universe, who anointed the Christ to his mission, confirmed that he was only His human messenger no different than the other messengers in that brotherhood. In addition to that we have the actual record of those Hebrew prophet-messengers and how they functioned in life as they performed their mission, and we see that Jesus’ mission fit in no different than theirs.
Kirb Brimstone wrote: “The earliest and best sources say he claimed to be God.”
What definitive facts can you provide that prove this claim beyond a shadow of a doubt? Do you recognize that “best sources” coming from a true believer in that doctrine is heavy with the confirmation bias you leveled at me? Throw down your rod, Kirb. Show me your proofs if you are able.
Kirb Brimstone wrote: “He confimed this in his ressurection from the dead.”
Michael Carter, tell me why I should believe that Jesus rose from the dead. Is this a matter of facts supporting a theory beyond a shadow of a doubt, or a mere blind faith claim from a true believer in a doctrine that is inherently problematic for a whole list of items?
1.) The One God Himself said Jesus was never crucified, thus there was no need for a “resurrection.” Since I know for a fact you lack any kind of scientific, verifiable proof to counter God’s confirmation of truth in clearing His messenger’s name from you all’s falsehood, this one is enough for me to dismiss everything you say on this topic.
2.) The entire body of early Christian sects were a notorious hotbed of confusion, with none of them having any certain knowledge of what actually happened to Jesus during the event in question except for the close family members he personally told. This would absolutely NOT include your pet false prophet Paul.
3.) None of the four gospels you hold dear were written by the men whose names they bear, as confirmed by Christian scholar true believers. Only the lay-believer, coach-level scholars, such as yourself, Nabeel, and your beloved William Lane Craig, believe the surface level tenets of the belief system. The real academic scholars know better, while they still believe in the ‘divine son’ thing (oddly).
4.) The fact that learned Christians were expecting the “comforter” prophesized by Jesus to be a flesh and blood human prophet-messenger up until they started having these debates with Muslims, then magically the “comforter” turned into “the holy spirit” in you all’s retconned translations has to be the biggest feat of intellectual dishonesty in all of human history. For real.
5.) The version of Christianity taught by James the Just, hand-picked heir of the Christ Jesus, was little different from Islam itself. The lesson should be clear: Jesus taught Islam, as did the rest of that brotherhood. Uncompromising monotheism, recognizing & bear witnessing that the messenger of revealed scripture was not divine, preaching doing good deeds in the earth to help people, and rejecting evil mischief, is Islam. This was preached by them all, from Adam the patriarch, to Muhammad the seal of the prophethood.
This is the truth from your God. Accept it and reject the falsehoods you’ve been feeding on from these men you admire who surely were far, far astray. This is how you will be saved.
Muhammad Rasheed - Kirb Brimstone wrote: “Now the Qur'an on the other hand evolved over the centuries and the Qur'an you have to day is not the same we had right after Muhammad. It stands out as man made also as it quotes 2nd century sources on Jesus. Did you ever take the time to look into historicity of the Qur'an? It doesn't look good.”
Even though debates about the Qur’an’s historicity do come up from time to time, they have never, ever been serious. This is significant. After 1,500 years, controversy around the origins of the Qur’an’s content have rarely been an issue, and never of any depth. The folk who do go that route, find that they have no choice but to go that route, because they NEED to believe the Qur’an is a false, non-revealed-from-God document in order to hold onto their preferred stance. I’ll admit to being a bit curious as to whatever silliness Nabeel has to say, but if there was anything truly significant in these traditionally flimsy contentions, I would already know about it.
I was referring specifically to the ‘Logos’ doctrine part. Using it as an example of the whole. There’s enough historical documentation to show the development of the various aspects of the ‘divine Jesus the son’ concepts forming right before our eyes, as the different theologian philosophers through this faith’s history tweak & knead it into its current form. The very fact that we can see it happen like that makes all talk of it being from God laughable. It’s from man. We SEE man developing it slowly through the centuries; we SEE the retconning, and the mind changing, and the internal doctrinal conflicts between the theologian scholars who believe in it. By contrast, the central pillars of Islam were sent by God and were established from the outset. The only kneading & tweaking that Islamic scholars do are nitpicky ancillary items that mean little in the over-all doctrine (like whether Ali should have been the first Caliph), and philosophical items they really have no business focusing on that involve the unseen (like the true nature of God’s person as in the ‘tawhid’ concept controversy).
Muhammad Rasheed - Kirb Brimstone wrote: "Didn't I answer this? Yeah some. Not all but some... so what?"
Okay, and do those others worship Jesus AS God? Then all of it is a falsehood and it doesn’t matter what the contemporary Christians think in regards to their specific walk in Paul’s doctrine. The only thing that truly matters is that you all stop worshipping the Christ Jesus, in whatever form you are performing this in, and bow down solely to the One God that made him. Jesus was only the human messenger of God anointed to teach the children of Israel the Gospel of the Lord. The sooner you recognize this the better it will be for your soul. Do NOT die in your current state.
Muhammad Rasheed - Kirb Brimstone wrote: “The question comes down to who did Jesus beelive he was and what evidence do we have to support his claim.”
In the final revealed scripture in the canon, the Supreme Creator of the universe, who anointed the Christ to his mission, confirmed that he was only His human messenger no different than the other messengers in that brotherhood. In addition to that we have the actual record of those Hebrew prophet-messengers and how they functioned in life as they performed their mission, and we see that Jesus’ mission fit in no different than theirs.
Kirb Brimstone wrote: “The earliest and best sources say he claimed to be God.”
What definitive facts can you provide that prove this claim beyond a shadow of a doubt? Do you recognize that “best sources” coming from a true believer in that doctrine is heavy with the confirmation bias you leveled at me? Throw down your rod, Kirb. Show me your proofs if you are able.
Kirb Brimstone wrote: “He confimed this in his ressurection from the dead.”
Michael Carter, tell me why I should believe that Jesus rose from the dead. Is this a matter of facts supporting a theory beyond a shadow of a doubt, or a mere blind faith claim from a true believer in a doctrine that is inherently problematic for a whole list of items?
1.) The One God Himself said Jesus was never crucified, thus there was no need for a “resurrection.” Since I know for a fact you lack any kind of scientific, verifiable proof to counter God’s confirmation of truth in clearing His messenger’s name from you all’s falsehood, this one is enough for me to dismiss everything you say on this topic.
2.) The entire body of early Christian sects were a notorious hotbed of confusion, with none of them having any certain knowledge of what actually happened to Jesus during the event in question except for the close family members he personally told. This would absolutely NOT include your pet false prophet Paul.
3.) None of the four gospels you hold dear were written by the men whose names they bear, as confirmed by Christian scholar true believers. Only the lay-believer, coach-level scholars, such as yourself, Nabeel, and your beloved William Lane Craig, believe the surface level tenets of the belief system. The real academic scholars know better, while they still believe in the ‘divine son’ thing (oddly).
4.) The fact that learned Christians were expecting the “comforter” prophesized by Jesus to be a flesh and blood human prophet-messenger up until they started having these debates with Muslims, then magically the “comforter” turned into “the holy spirit” in you all’s retconned translations has to be the biggest feat of intellectual dishonesty in all of human history. For real.
5.) The version of Christianity taught by James the Just, hand-picked heir of the Christ Jesus, was little different from Islam itself. The lesson should be clear: Jesus taught Islam, as did the rest of that brotherhood. Uncompromising monotheism, recognizing & bear witnessing that the messenger of revealed scripture was not divine, preaching doing good deeds in the earth to help people, and rejecting evil mischief, is Islam. This was preached by them all, from Adam the patriarch, to Muhammad the seal of the prophethood.
This is the truth from your God. Accept it and reject the falsehoods you’ve been feeding on from these men you admire who surely were far, far astray. This is how you will be saved.
Muhammad Rasheed - Kirb Brimstone wrote: “Now the Qur'an on the other hand evolved over the centuries and the Qur'an you have to day is not the same we had right after Muhammad. It stands out as man made also as it quotes 2nd century sources on Jesus. Did you ever take the time to look into historicity of the Qur'an? It doesn't look good.”
Even though debates about the Qur’an’s historicity do come up from time to time, they have never, ever been serious. This is significant. After 1,500 years, controversy around the origins of the Qur’an’s content have rarely been an issue, and never of any depth. The folk who do go that route, find that they have no choice but to go that route, because they NEED to believe the Qur’an is a false, non-revealed-from-God document in order to hold onto their preferred stance. I’ll admit to being a bit curious as to whatever silliness Nabeel has to say, but if there was anything truly significant in these traditionally flimsy contentions, I would already know about it.
No comments:
Post a Comment