Catholicism 101

[Lisa]

First half is correct, second half is your belief.

Naw..that’s actually in the Bible...John 20

Just like Jesus.

No, its not just like Jesus. She died and stayed dead.

No, you do hate Mary and continue to ridicule her as a nobody that God impregnated for no reason. I don't know how much more disrespectful you could possibly get towards Mary.

No, I don’t hate her..I think she did a great job agreeing to let God impregnate her, knowing that her reputation was at stake and her impending marriage as well. I think she is blessed that God chose her and she agreed to what God wanted to do in her life...but beyond that its just wrong.

You can't find the Trinity either.

So, you agree that you can’t find in the Bible what tradition says about Mary..that’s a start.

 

[Wigi]

en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Gnosticism

So what? It doesn't undermine my point about the passages in the ot that supports trinity.

Evidence in reality for the trinity and evidence in reality to back up the idea that a man can be "God".

What is reality ? Only Scientifically proven qualify as reality ?
According to the Bible, a man can't be God but God can become man.
As for the Trinity, it's not more harder to accept for me than the idea that a mind, a body and a soul makes one human being.

But you don't mean it, you speak these words without true conviction

I mean it. Mathematical ratios such as the golden ratio that exist in both nature and the Bible plus the heptadic structure and my own experience convince me of that.

Well yes, that's obvious because you, like other Christians, promote the idea that biographies are scripture. Do I really need to emphasize how absurd that is?

No it's much more simple than that. If I don't believe your premise about the Qu'ran I can't say it is from God.

Prophets propagate and lead as Prophets propagate and lead

But God came to save and heal the sick in the Gospel.

These books are not Revelations, they are biographies (none of them are eyewitnesses either).

You take few verses and jump to the conclusion that the whole book is biography? Okay strange but for you a biography qualify as human tradition? If God explains what He did in the past, is it a biography ?
Also in what way John 1 is human biography?
Also yes, there was eyewitnesses according to Luke 1 you putted here.

No he isn't.

Yes He is and it's blatant:
And as they went to tell His disciples, behold, Jesus met them, saying, “Rejoice!” So they came and held Him by the feet and worshiped Him.
Matthew 28:9
Jesus heard that they had cast him out; and when He had found him, He said to him, “Do you believe in the Son of God?” He answered and said, “Who is He, Lord, that I may believe in Him?” And Jesus said to him, “You have both seen Him and it is He who is talking with you.” Then he said, “Lord, I believe!” And he worshiped Him
John 9:35‭-‬38

You're not subtle at all. I don't mock anything either, I'm pointing out the flaws in your worldview (and namely the implications of your view of Mary). The Old Testament is not the word of God, neither is the New Testament

So in fact you don't believe in the prophets?
Because when you say the OT isn't the word of God thus you reject everything that is written in it including what it is said about Moses.
Yet I hear a lot of Muslims using the OT to claim Allah spoke through it about Muhammad and that contradicts what you just said.

Btw my view of Mary is coherent with the Bible: she is not worshipped.

Jesus prayed and worshiped God too. You do not have a convincing argument.

Jesus gave us an example yes.
But you know, we see verses in Exodus where the Lord comes as an Angel then give the praise to God while Himself He is God. It's a mystery and i'm fine with that because I don't have this need to reason God to decide for Him what He should or shouldn't do but it seems like you have this need.

 

[Infinityloop]

Naw..that’s actually in the Bible...John 20

Everyone knows what the Bible says, you're not providing discussion here.

No, its not just like Jesus. She died and stayed dead.

Unless you have evidence for the contrary, then Jesus died just like Mary.

No, I don’t hate her..I think she did a great job agreeing to let God impregnate her

Say, what?

So, you agree that you can’t find in the Bible what tradition says about Mary..that’s a start.

Your logic is:

Your premise is that everything is in the Bible, which itself is not in the Bible. You have a nonsensical closed-off system which negates itself.

 

[Lisa]

Everyone knows what the Bible says, you're not providing discussion here.



Unless you have evidence for the contrary, then Jesus died just like Mary.



Say, what?



Your logic is:


Your premise is that everything is in the Bible, which itself is not in the Bible. You have a nonsensical closed-off system which negates itself.

I don’t think I have a system that negates itself..but builds up the Bible to be the plumb line for truth. How can I not though? The Bible is God’s inspired word..it is the plumb line for truth.

What you say about Mary needs to line up with what the Bible tells us about her or its not true.

If everyone knows what the Bible says and the Bible tells us that Jesus died, but He rose on the third day, was seen by many people and ascended to heaven..than why are your arguing with me?

 

[Infinityloop]

So what? It doesn't undermine my point about the passages in the ot that supports trinity.

No, you're just taking poor misinterpretations of Neoplatonic terms. Look into Philo of Alexandria and his work on "the logos" (aka "the word"), mentioned in John 1:1.

According to the Bible, a man can't be God but God can become man.

How is this not blatant sophistry?

God becoming man is Atheism, it's a complete denial of both the concept of God and of Monotheism itself (which again, is the main theme of the Old Testament).

As for the Trinity, it's not more harder to accept for me than the idea that a mind, a body and a soul makes one human being.

It is strange that you use psychological metaphors.

The mind is not us, nor is the body. Only the soul is us but not even the soul is eternal, only the spirit is eternal. Mind, body and soul are all temporal forms and therefore are lesser-than-us. The mind dies, the body dies and the soul dies.

No, I am not a materialist, but you probably don't know much about the metaphysics of religion. The spirit is the only part of "us" that is eternal, the Bible and Qur'an both say this, so do other religions. Mind, body and soul are all false and finite forms that all die.

I mean it. Mathematical ratios such as the golden ratio that exist in both nature and the Bible plus the heptadic structure and my own experience convince me of that.

What does this have to do with your aforementioned claim of the Bible being both 'inspired by God' and 'word of God'.

No it's much more simple than that. If I don't believe your premise about the Qu'ran I can't say it is from God.

Of course, but this is because you take the concept of Prophets as a joke.

You take few verses and jump to the conclusion that the whole book is biography? Okay strange but for you a biography qualify as human tradition? If God explains what He did in the past, is it a biography ?
Also in what way John 1 is human biography?
Also yes, there was eyewitnesses according to Luke 1 you putted here.

Yes, it is biography. It's not a matter of 'jumping to conclusions'. Matthew, Mark, Luke and John are all categorically, indisputably biographical books. Their level of actual historical accuracy however, is suspicious, problematic, untrustworthy and only taken "seriously" by Christians.

John 1 is a theological tractate as a preface, it is a summary of some basic Neoplatonic doctrines to elevate the story of Jesus within the context of the Gnostic community it came out of.

Yes He is and it's blatant:
And as they went to tell His disciples, behold, Jesus met them, saying, “Rejoice!” So they came and held Him by the feet and worshiped Him.
Matthew 28:9
Jesus heard that they had cast him out; and when He had found him, He said to him, “Do you believe in the Son of God?” He answered and said, “Who is He, Lord, that I may believe in Him?” And Jesus said to him, “You have both seen Him and it is He who is talking with you.” Then he said, “Lord, I believe!” And he worshiped Him
John 9:35‭-‬38

The word "Prosekynesan" does not mean 'worship as deity'. If you know anything about eastern customs, this is common place both past and present. It is an act of reverence, not 'worship as deity'. The same word is used in the New Testament to refer to other things.

So in fact you don't believe in the prophets?

As I've said, I take the concept of Prophets with true seriousness (unlike you). I don't believe the Prophets where book characters, so I categorically deny the Bible as having any authority in this matter.

Because when you say the OT isn't the word of God thus you reject everything that is written in it including what it is said about Moses.
Yet I hear a lot of Muslims using the OT to claim Allah spoke through it about Muhammad and that contradicts what you just said.

You don't know my argument and that's better for another time. The Bible is a product of it's time, it is a culmination of many strands, it is not a direct revelation from God anywhere. It has dilapidated remains of this at portions though, yes.

If you want to know God's perspective on the Torah though, here:

And they do not assign to God the attributes due to Him when they say: "God has not revealed anything to a mortal."
Say: Who revealed the Book which Musa brought, a light and a guidance to men, which you make into scattered writings which you show while you conceal much? And you were taught what you did not know, (neither) you nor your fathers.
Say: "God has sent it", then leave them sporting in their vain discourses. - Qur'an 6:91

And We sent after them in their footsteps Jesus, son of Mary, verifying what was before him of the Taurat (Torah) and We gave him the Injeel (Gospel) in which was guidance and light - Qur'an 5:46


It is not speaking about the Bible, but nice try

Also:

And if they had kept up the Taurat (Torah) and the Injeel (Gospel) and that which was revealed to them from their Lord, they would certainly have eaten from above them and from beneath their feet there is a party of them keeping to the moderate course, and (as for) most of them, evil is that which they do
O Apostle! (Muhammad) deliver what has been revealed to you from your Lord; and if you do it not, then you have not delivered His message, and God will protect you from the people; surely God will not guide the unbelieving people. - Qur'an 5:66-67

A lot of ifs and woulds there, for a reason.

Jesus gave us an example yes.
But you know, we see verses in Exodus where the Lord presents Himself as an Angel then give the praise to God while He is God. It's a mystery and i'm fine with that because I don't have this need to reason God to decide for Him what He should or shouldn't do but it seems like you have this need.

This leads me to further issues with the Trinity because God supposedly theophanizes in many many forms throughout the Old Testament, yet none of them are considered part of the Trinity.

 

[Wigi]

God becoming man is Atheism, it's a complete denial of both the concept of God and of Monotheism itself (which again, is the main theme of the Old Testament).

God isn't a concept, He is a being with a living Spirit and He took an human form according to scriptures through His Word that He sent as presented in Psalms 107 then explained in John 1.
It's still the same God therefore there is no conflict with monotheism. Atheism is basically the idea that there is no God.

The spirit is the only part of "us" that is eternal, the Bible and Qur'an both say this, so do other religions. Mind, body and soul are all false and finite forms that all die.

Apparently it's not that simple :
"Now may the God of peace Himself sanctify you completely; and may your whole spirit, soul, and body be preserved blameless at the coming of our Lord Jesus Christ."
1 Thessalonians 5:23
"And do not fear those who kill the body but cannot kill the soul. But rather fear Him who is able to destroy both soul and body in hell."
Matthew 10:28
"When He opened the fifth seal, I saw under the altar the souls of those who had been slain for the word of God and for the testimony which they held."
Revelation 6:9

Souls aren't temporary according to scriptures because they can be redeemed.

It is not speaking about the Bible, but nice try

But where is the Torah and the Gospel?

And if they had kept up the Taurat (Torah) and the Injeel (Gospel)

Obviously God allowed us to lose the Torah and the Gospel. That's a classic
Also when I say the OT, I'm also talking about others prophets which are neither the torah or the gospel so it means muslims can't use these texts to claim anything right? Yet I see many who actually do that.

because God supposedly theophanizes in many many forms throughout the Old Testament, yet none of them are considered part of the Trinity.

God simply presents Himself, the trinity is implicit.

It is an act of reverence, not 'worship as deity'. The same word is used in the New Testament to refer to other things

Yet He is worshipped as deity when the man says 'Lord I believe' to Jesus once He knew He was Son of God.

But we can't even find an act of reverence toward Mary.

I don't believe the Prophets where book characters, so I categorically deny the Bible as having any authority in this matter.

But why you ask for evidence outside of the texts and can't just take it at face value since you don't think they are just book characters?

Their level of actual historical accuracy however, is suspicious, problematic, untrustworthy and only taken "seriously" by Christians.

Anyone can have a stance like that and a secular bias against any book when you simply don't believe its content. It won't profoundly change what Christians should believe in and my point is to know if the content is coherent with the worship of Mary and it's not.

 

[Infinityloop]

God isn't a concept, He is a being with a living Spirit and He took an human form according to scriptures through His Word that He sent as presented in Psalms 107 then explained in John 1.
It's still the same God therefore there is no conflict with monotheism. Atheism is basically the idea that there is no God.

The very proposed conceptualization of God is denied in your assertions. Whether God exists or not is not concerned with your Trinity idea.
I never said God was just a concept, this is also another reason why I reject the Bible - because God is a reality, not a concept or an idea.
You rely on the fallible concept of the Trinity to validate polytheistic ideas.

Believing a man as God is in fact = Atheism. It is the complete denial and mockery of God.

Apparently it's not that simple :
"Now may the God of peace Himself sanctify you completely; and may your whole spirit, soul, and body be preserved blameless at the coming of our Lord Jesus Christ."
1 Thessalonians 5:23
"And do not fear those who kill the body but cannot kill the soul. But rather fear Him who is able to destroy both soul and body in hell."
Matthew 10:28
"When He opened the fifth seal, I saw under the altar the souls of those who had been slain for the word of God and for the testimony which they held."
Revelation 6:9

Souls aren't temporary according to scriptures because they can be redeemed.

You might want to read those verses again.
1 Thessalonians just mentions the soul, not in relation to what we're saying.
Matthew 10 tells us to fear God not Man, because God can destroy the soul, not man. It states that man can only destroy the physical body, which is correct.
Revelation 6 is unrelated and once again, just mentions the word 'souls', which doesn't make it automatically relevant to your claim.

But where is the Torah and the Gospel?

In the 'heavenly book' or 'mother book' (which is a metaphysical concept), which is the source of the Qur'an. And alongside this, the Qur'an is a summary of the original torah and gospel (to an extent) in the sense of correction of falsehood, and reaffirming the universal truth of the Abrahamic religion (such as that God is one, we are all from Adam, everything will be destroyed in the end). Et al.

Obviously God allowed us to lose the Torah and the Gospel. That's a classic

This is what the Bible itself teaches, it's the very process of perversion from revelation to systematization to propagation to dispersion and invention. Why was there a need for any Prophets after Adam or Noah? do you ever ask that. Even just in the context of what your own Bible says it is direct inference of many many things.

And no, it's all by design, God makes a lesson of all of history.

Also when I say the OT, I'm also talking about others prophets which are neither the torah or the gospel so it means muslims can't use these texts to claim anything right? Yet I see many who actually do that.

Not at all. It's you who have nothing else to refer to. We have an entire Revelation and Prophet direct from God. You have the dead writings of ancient fallible men.
We can easily say "look at your books", and you will find massive plotholes. We have a book that affirms the legitimacy and true reality of flesh-and-blood Prophets AND corrects your books on the lies and slander it contains against different Prophets.
The Bible on it's own is no better than any ancient book of myths. This is just the reality of the matter, no matter how hard I want to give your Bible the benefit of the doubt, it's just not feasible.
The only things you can lean on are things that possibly debunk your own book, such as the ancient Mesopotamian, Sumerian, Babylonian pagan religions which it shares some thematic motifs with.
You might want to look at this post: https://vigilantcitizenforums.com/threads/exchistians-who-converted-to-hinduism.6415/post-238236

God simply presents Himself, the trinity is implicit.

The opposite is the case and as for those who actually have experiences of God.

Yet He is worshipped as deity when the man says 'Lord I believe' to Jesus once He knew He was Son of God.

Do you know the etymology of the word "Lord"? I don't think you do.
"Lord" does not mean god or deity, it means 'ruler', 'king', 'leader' etc. It's a word that denotes power and authority. It's used to refer to literal kings in the Old Testament too btw.

But why you ask for evidence outside of the texts and can't just take it at face value since you don't think they are just book characters?

They have to have a reality outside of the Bible canon. If they don't then you've got big problems. Doesn't help if you actually take sola scriptura seriously

Anyone can have a stance like that and a secular bias against any book when you simply don't believe its content. It won't profoundly change what Christians should believe in and my point is to know if the content is coherent with the worship of Mary and it's not.

No, it's that the documentation of Jesus frankly is very poor and the contents of the New Testament are not reliable. The only texts which directly relate to historical events are the Epistles (Paul, James etc) but they are politically motivated.
The documentation of Jesus in these biographies (Matthew Mark Luke and John) are not written by wise people, they are written by fools who couldn't even attribute chains of transmission for these oral records of Jesus' supposed life. Saying "at some point we had eyewitnesses" does not make a book claiming to be literal history an authentic text.

And no, Christians believe what Christians believe and those that realize these problems end up as Ex-Christians.

And on your last question there, you come back to the problems of the source and the instigators of the Christian Bible canon - being the Catholic Church. However even that you haven't stayed true to. ("Lol, the Bible is the word of God but lets remove 7 books cause YOLO!")
If you take the Bible as trustworthy (in your view), then there is no shame in becoming Catholic. All that it would do is justify a bigger and wider context for having the beliefs you hold.

 

[Artful Revealer]

You have no evidence of this.

What evidence are you looking for? You want scientific proof of divine mystery?

 

[Artful Revealer]

This is where the Qur'an completely blows the Bible out of the water. The Qur'an is not the word of Muhammad and it doesn't claim to comply with anything prior, except for bringing back the authentic religion of Abraham. The Qur'an is God speaking directly, no alteration, purely God speaking. Divine word in the literal sense, sonorous recitation of the revelation given by the intermediary of the Angel Gabriel. Nothing compares.
The Bible is just a book of supposed history books. You're getting us off track here.

How can you lower yourself to the same standards you accuse Christians of? Where's your evidence that the Quran is the Word of God rather than the word of Muhammad? You require the exact same circular reasoning to come to that conclusion.

Same problem "Quran cause Quran cause Quran cause Quran....."

 

[Artful Revealer]

It is strange that you use psychological metaphors.

The mind is not us, nor is the body. Only the soul is us but not even the soul is eternal, only the spirit is eternal. Mind, body and soul are all temporal forms and therefore are lesser-than-us. The mind dies, the body dies and the soul dies.

No, I am not a materialist, but you probably don't know much about the metaphysics of religion. The spirit is the only part of "us" that is eternal, the Bible and Qur'an both say this, so do other religions. Mind, body and soul are all false and finite forms that all die.

Your rebuttal is theological, not conceptual and it's weird that even the more sophisticated muslim as yourself is incapable of grasping this, as if it's an illness inflicted by the Quran. Whether mind, body and soul are mortal, this has no relevance to Wigi's analogy. You're able to acknowledge a human being exists of a body, a mind and a soul. These three "parts" of a human being does not signify separation of identity. The body, the mind and the soul form one human being, just as the Word, the Spirit, the Father form one God. An even better analogy is that your Word (which is the only thing we can perceive of you here on this forum) is your Spirit manifested. Your spirit / mind is born from your self. None of this implies separation of your Word, your Spirit and your Self. Distinction, yes. Separation, no.

 

[Artful Revealer]

Do you know the etymology of the word "Lord"? I don't think you do.
"Lord" does not mean god or deity, it means 'ruler', 'king', 'leader' etc. It's a word that denotes power and authority. It's used to refer to literal kings in the Old Testament too btw.

But this carpenter of Nazareth wasn't a literal King or Ruler in the political sense. Why then was He called Lord?

 

[Artful Revealer]

The very proposed conceptualization of God is denied in your assertions. Whether God exists or not is not concerned with your Trinity idea.
I never said God was just a concept, this is also another reason why I reject the Bible - because God is a reality, not a concept or an idea.
You rely on the fallible concept of the Trinity to validate polytheistic ideas.

Believing a man as God is in fact = Atheism. It is the complete denial and mockery of God.

Christians do not believe man is God, Infinity. There was a man who happened to be God among us. That God made us in His image and came to us in ours, as an equal, is not a mockery of God. It shows us that He is a humble, personal and caring god. That's what makes Christianity unique and different from other religions. While other beliefs have people reach out their hands to God, in Christianity God reached out His hand to us.

 

[Infinityloop]

What evidence are you looking for? You want scientific proof of divine mystery?

Experience of God, from discipline and practice. Otherwise you fall into fallible beliefs and what are essentially merely ideas, such as the Trinity.
However some people (you and I presumably) base our beliefs on experience, not belief in belief.

Otherwise you, in the Christian camp, only have "I believe this really incoherent, ridiculous thing that makes no sense, that my book doesn't even teach, but it's a mystery that we're not supposed to understand, we're supposed to just except it because YOLO!"

Divine mystery is not the Trinity, the true divine mystery is the nature of spirit to matter, the puzzling mystery of the incarnation of Soul (Genesis 2:7, Qur'an 15:29, both of which relate to this).

How can you lower yourself to the same standards you accuse Christians of? Where's your evidence that the Quran is the Word of God rather than the word of Muhammad? You require the exact same circular reasoning to come to that conclusion.

I arrive at Islam from an ontological perspective. My argument comes from the necessity of God revealing itself through Prophets. The only great Prophet we even have any proper historical evidence of, is Muhammad, not Jesus and not Moses. The Old and New Testaments are not the products of the Prophets they claim to speak of, this in itself is very problematic.
Through the revelation of Islam we have correction and scolding of previous perversions, as well as restoration towards the affirmation of God's Unity. As far as 'word of God', in reference to the Qur'an. Only the Qur'an actually lives up to this claim (as in the contents of the Qur'an display themselves to be the literal word of God), the Bible (or it's contents) wasn't revealed by God and is not God speaking (sure you can have tiny insertions of stuff but on the whole it is clearly 'something different'), the Bible is made up (largely) of biographical narratives, with some letters and books of mystical visions (like Ezekiel and St John of Patmos' Apocalypse).

The only other answer (outside of the Qur'an), is the God doesn't send Prophets. Which is another idea I do explore but do not find it making much sense given the scope of history and continuity of metaphysical motifs throughout history.

Your rebuttal is theological, not conceptual and it's weird that...

The stuff about the Soul is another topic and no, it has nothing to do with my religious affiliations. It has to do with the historical meanings and views, which do differ from mainstream religious views. Why? because Judaism, Christianity and Islam, strangely enough, did jump onto the Platonist ship in their theology for quite a considerable part. Because Platonist thought made it easier to rationalize Theology, but in the course of this also required a changing of meanings to suit the view of an individuality that is independent of the body.

But this carpenter of Nazareth wasn't a literal King or Ruler in the political sense. Why then was He called Lord?

Because of the authority he had. At the same time it is riffing off the expectations Jews have for a literal king in the line of David.

Christians do not believe man is God, Infinity.

I am not giving you your version, I am giving you the conclusions of your version. That is in fact the conclusion.

 

[Artful Revealer]

Experience of God, from discipline and practice. Otherwise you fall into fallible beliefs and what are essentially merely ideas, such as the Trinity.
However some people (you and I presumably) base our beliefs on experience, not belief in belief.

Otherwise you, in the Christian camp, only have "I believe this really incoherent, ridiculous thing that makes no sense, that my book doesn't even teach, but it's a mystery that we're not supposed to understand, we're supposed to just except it because YOLO!"

Divine mystery is not the Trinity, the true divine mystery is the nature of spirit to matter, the puzzling mystery of the incarnation of Soul (Genesis 2:7, Qur'an 15:29, both of which relate to this).

Sure, spirit-to-matter metaphysics are just as mysterious. Doesn't take away the mystery of God's nature. The Trinity seeks to explain out of necessity, and I'm not looking to endorse any specific trinitarian formula, how the Father, the Son and the Holy Spirit are all God, which is a simple inference from scripture. The Holy Spirit is not something independent from God, and neither is the Son. They are not separate entities, so the early Christians had been saddled with quite the conundrum. And we can't just ignore it because it's difficult. The simplicity of truth is a struggle. It's not something that's given freely. Even less so when it concerns divine mystery. Simplifications will probably never do it justice, but I feel we can be able to somewhat understand what we're dealing with.

The world wide web is dependent upon the intervention of a higher reality (ie. us) in order for anything to be known about that higher reality. For example, anyone surfing the internet can't know anything about you unless you've interfered in this virtual dimension and uploaded information about your reality. Our reality is no different. We could try to figure out higher metaphysical truths on our own, and so we do through philosophy or meditation, but to know the truth we require an intervention of someone / something from that higher reality to reveal it to us.

However you look at it, contemplating how this type of interdimensional manifestation works requires you to go through some form of trinitarian concept. If we, people on the internet, want to perceive the truth from this higher reality of you, you (your self) needs a mind (thoughts) or no words would be produced. You can make your thoughts known to us on the internet by making them perceptible to us. That which we perceive of you (the letters that appear on our screen) is your word turned flesh (in this analogy your word would be whatever it is manifested by, eg. your avatar). This means that, from the perspective of people online, your avatar (your word's "body") is you. The thoughts / spirit your avatars shares with us is you. The man your avatar represents is you. People who object to a trinitarian explanation as being incoherent or illogical are the equivalent of those saying "how can an avatar be a man?" It can't, but no one is saying Jesus' body is God either. Jesus' body is the vehicle, the avatar, that lets us know the mind of God and who He is. God's Word is incarnate in Jesus, just as your words are incarnate in your avatar. Infinityloop is 100% your avatar, but it's also 100% you (the man), as in, not someone else.

Some may find my analogy repetitive, but I'll use it as long as there's no logical refutation.

The only great Prophet we even have any proper historical evidence of, is Muhammad, not Jesus and not Moses.

The scientific world would completely disagree here. There is no academic controversy regarding the historicity of Jesus, but there's much debate about the historicity of Muhammad, many claiming he ("probably") never existed to some saying he was a mythological figure. I don't have a strong opinion on this one either way, but even Bart Ehrman would ridicule anyone who claims Jesus never existed. The historicity of Muhammad is a more serious debate, not to mention that Jesus was crucified six centuries earlier.

The Old and New Testaments are not the products of the Prophets they claim to speak of, this in itself is very problematic. Through the revelation of Islam we have correction and scolding of previous perversions, as well as restoration towards the affirmation of God's Unity. As far as 'word of God', in reference to the Qur'an. Only the Qur'an actually lives up to this claim (as in the contents of the Qur'an display themselves to be the literal word of God), the Bible (or it's contents) wasn't revealed by God and is not God speaking (sure you can have tiny insertions of stuff but on the whole it is clearly 'something different'), the Bible is made up (largely) of biographical narratives, with some letters and books of mystical visions (like Ezekiel and St John of Patmos' Apocalypse).

The very reason you invoke to discard the reliability of the biblical scriptures can be applied to the Quran in the exact same way. The Gospels have historical accounts including what, according to Christians, God said. Some writings were written by direct recipients of the Word of God, others by recipients of recipients twice or thrice removed. Sometimes it's unknown.

In Islam, and according to its development from an Islamic perspective, God didn't write the Word. The angel who dictated the Word of Allah to Muhammad didn't write the Word. Muhammad didn't write the Word of Allah. Followers of Muhammad, possibly including Zayd bin Thabit (we're already thrice removed here), wrote down the words on whatever they could find and later compiled the existing writings in book format.

In Islamic tradition Muhammad was the recipient of the word of God, given to him by Gabriel. Gabriel was given the Word by Allah. Muhammad did not write anything down.

In Christian tradition, Paul of Tarsus directly received the Word of God. Paul wrote many letters.

If anything, there is a shorter chain between the writings of the Gospel and God's Word than in the case of the Quran.

The classification of all scripture, whether Torah, Gospel or Quran, as the Word of God, is a claim made by their respective authors. If we then have to go by the authors' proximity, whether temporal or relational, the Quran has an advantage over the Torah, yes, but not the Gospels.

Because Platonist thought made it easier to rationalize Theology, but in the course of this also required a changing of meanings to suit the view of an individuality that is independent of the body.

Platonic thought was the fertile soil for Christianity to grow. Christian theology was rationalized among the Greeks because the Gospels spoke their language. With that I don't just mean the Greek language, but also concepts that were known to the world of Greek philosophy. The Greeks, Platonists especially, could not be bothered with biblical cosmogony, since the Greeks had their own myths and their own philosophical ideas on the subject. But when John 1 wrote of "in the beginning there was Logos", the Greeks could relate.

But, essentially, it wasn't the Greek philosophers who converted the Christians. It's the Christians who converted the Greeks.

Because of the authority he had. At the same time it is riffing off the expectations Jews have for a literal king in the line of David.

I think your second point is valid. But what authority do you mean in the first?

I am not giving you your version, I am giving you the conclusions of your version. That is in fact the conclusion.

Your conclusion was that the idea of God becoming man is basically atheism. I can't see how one can come to that conclusion.

 

[Infinityloop]

Sure, spirit-to-matter metaphysics are just as mysterious. Doesn't take away the mystery of God's nature. The Trinity seeks to explain out of necessity, and I'm not looking to endorse any specific trinitarian formula, how the Father, the Son and the Holy Spirit are all God, which is a simple inference from scripture. The Holy Spirit is not something independent from God, and neither is the Son. They are not separate entities, so the early Christians had been saddled with quite the conundrum. And we can't just ignore it because it's difficult. The simplicity of truth is a struggle. It's not something that's given freely. Even less so when it concerns divine mystery. Simplifications will probably never do it justice, but I feel we can be able to somewhat understand what we're dealing with.

No, it's that even within the Bible, Christians fail to understand the first two chapters of Genesis and what it teaches, let alone the rest of the Bible.

The world wide web is dependent upon the intervention of a higher reality (ie. us) in order for anything to be known about that higher reality. For example, anyone surfing the internet can't know anything about you unless you've interfered in this virtual dimension and uploaded information about your reality. Our reality is no different. We could try to figure out higher metaphysical truths on our own, and so we do through philosophy or meditation, but to know the truth we require an intervention of someone / something from that higher reality to reveal it to us.

And more and more we learn the problems of having an intermediary (since if the Qur'an doesn't meet the criteria, then we will have to concede that nothing meets the criteria of revelation from God - same applies on the unspecific scale related to God and man). If we don't base our beliefs of experience, then we're only stuck with ideas in our own heads. This is the big lesson I'm learning from the Christians here.

I don't believe in God because of Islam, nor of the 1st cause argument.

However you look at it, contemplating how this type of interdimensional manifestation works requires you to go through some form of trinitarian concept. If we, people on the internet, want to perceive the truth from this higher reality of you, you (your self) needs a mind (thoughts) or no words would be produced. You can make your thoughts known to us on the internet by making them perceptible to us. That which we perceive of you (the letters that appear on our screen) is your word turned flesh (in this analogy your word would be whatever it is manifested by, eg. your avatar). This means that, from the perspective of people online, your avatar (your word's "body") is you. The thoughts / spirit your avatars shares with us is you. The man your avatar represents is you. People who object to a trinitarian explanation as being incoherent or illogical are the equivalent of those saying "how can an avatar be a man?" It can't, but no one is saying Jesus' body is God either. Jesus' body is the vehicle, the avatar, that lets us know the mind of God and who He is. God's Word is incarnate in Jesus, just as your words are incarnate in your avatar. Infinityloop is 100% your avatar, but it's also 100% you (the man), as in, not someone else.

No, I am not my avatar and I am not my profile name, this is you fundamentally failing to grasp at your own analogy.

The Ego dies, there is no way around this.

The scientific world would completely disagree here. There is no academic controversy regarding the historicity of Jesus, but there's much debate about the historicity of Muhammad, many claiming he ("probably") never existed to some saying he was a mythological figure. I don't have a strong opinion on this one either way, but even Bart Ehrman would ridicule anyone who claims Jesus never existed. The historicity of Muhammad is a more serious debate, not to mention that Jesus was crucified six centuries earlier.

This is merely conjecture, no serious historian believes this about Muhammad. As for Jesus however, it is purely circular reasoning.

1. No first century secular evidence whatsoever exists to support the actuality of Yeshua ben Yosef.
2. The earliest New Testament writers seem ignorant of the details of Jesus’ life, which become more crystalized in later texts.
3. Even the New Testament stories don’t claim to be first-hand accounts.
4. The gospels, our only accounts of a "historical" Jesus, contradict each other.
5. Modern scholars who claim to have uncovered the real historical Jesus depict wildly different persons.

The very reason you invoke to discard the reliability of the biblical scriptures can be applied to the Quran in the exact same way. The Gospels have historical accounts including what, according to Christians, God said. Some writings were written by direct recipients of the Word of God, others by recipients of recipients twice or thrice removed. Sometimes it's unknown.

You apply standards to me which you let yourself off with a pat on the back. Islam has a massive vast literature of chain transmissions of it's history when is verifiable critically, there is no equivalent in Christianity (of which is simply "you either accept it or you don't"). In fact the only thing you have to go on is the cognitive dissonance of both LOVING the Catholic church when it comes to what is "canon" and hating it when it comes to everything else.

In Islam, and according to its development from an Islamic perspective, God didn't write the Word. The angel who dictated the Word of Allah to Muhammad didn't write the Word. Muhammad didn't write the Word of Allah. Followers of Muhammad, possibly including Zayd bin Thabit (we're already thrice removed here), wrote down the words on whatever they could find and later compiled the existing writings in book format.

In Islamic tradition Muhammad was the recipient of the word of God, given to him by Gabriel. Gabriel was given the Word by Allah. Muhammad did not write anything down.

This is the exact same thing with all the other Prophets, Muhammad is no different. The whole role of Angels is revelation, not standing around doing nothing.
You seem to exclude him from your own requirement because it does not conform to your basic set of assumptions about your own texts. Pretending that you are exempt, when these things apply to you MORE than they apply to me.

And again, no, the Bible is not the word of God. And neither Moses, nor Jesus, neither wrote anything down - so your attempted point is null. However unlike both of them (in your worldview), Muhammad's life is not contained in the book revealed to him. The book revealed to him mentions his name directly several times but is never him speaking and tells barely anything about his life, only alludes to various situations, and to companions, groups and communities etc. This is the mark of an actual scripture, not a book telling different stories from a removed degree with no directness of relation to such events.

In Christian tradition, Paul of Tarsus directly received the Word of God. Paul wrote many letters.

If Paul received the "word of God" then where is it? it's definitely not in his letters. His letters are simply that, letters of him expressing his very angry opinions to different churches.

The classification of all scripture, whether Torah, Gospel or Quran, as the Word of God, is a claim made by their respective authors. If we then have to go by the authors' proximity, whether temporal or relational, the Quran has an advantage over the Torah, yes, but not the Gospels.

Expand on this.

Your conclusion was that the idea of God becoming man is basically atheism. I can't see how one can come to that conclusion.

Yes because it reduces God to an Ego, to a personality and fundamentally cancels out God's eternity. No Trinity concept can change this. Either God is God, or there is no God and Jesus is to be worshiped. Until I see evidence otherwise, I see Christianity as Atheism.

 

[Artful Revealer]

No, it's that even within the Bible, Christians fail to understand the first two chapters of Genesis and what it teaches, let alone the rest of the Bible.

You seriously have to let go of that Americanized Christian stereotype. Traditional Christianity sees Genesis as allegory of the relationship between God, man and creation.

If we don't base our beliefs of experience, then we're only stuck with ideas in our own heads. This is the big lesson I'm learning from the Christians here.

I don't believe in God because of Islam, nor of the 1st cause argument.

You're drawing the wrong conclusions. Logos is the order of the universe according to the mind of God. If there's an order to creation, there's a rationality behind it. If there's a rationality behind it, we are capable of reasoning our way to truth, and even the existence of the creation's creator, which is what people like Aristotle, Aquinas or Al-Ghazali did.

The existence of a creator can be logically reasoned. Who this creator is, is dependent upon revelation from above.

No, I am not my avatar and I am not my profile name, this is you fundamentally failing to grasp at your own analogy.

The Ego dies, there is no way around this.

Again, and I anticipated this in my previous comment, the medium through which God's Word manifests is the vehicle. God is not Jesus' body, just as your are not your avatar. It's your Word that is you, and your Word didn't come into existence when you typed it on a keypad. It already existed before it was revealed on this forum. You Word was with You (the man) before its "creation" in this virtual realm.

This is merely conjecture, no serious historian believes this about Muhammad. As for Jesus however, it is purely circular reasoning.

I'm not going to argue this point, but we could do so in another thread. There's global consensus that Jesus' died by crucifixion and therefore existed. I personally believe both existed. But Jesus' case is just a more certain fact in the academic world.

You apply standards to me which you let yourself off with a pat on the back. Islam has a massive vast literature of chain transmissions of it's history when is verifiable critically, there is no equivalent in Christianity (of which is simply "you either accept it or you don't"). In fact the only thing you have to go on is the cognitive dissonance of both LOVING the Catholic church when it comes to what is "canon" and hating it when it comes to everything else.

The isnad cover a span of more than 200 years. The first Pauline Epistles were written within 10 years after Christ's crucifixion. I don't see muslims' benefit in using this telephone game argument as a weapon against early Christian writings. The NT canon was entirely written within two generations, not four to five in the case of Muhammad's biographies, or seven to eight in the case of the hadeeth.

It wasn't I who brought up this argument. You did. You said biblical scripture isn't the product of its prophets, which is problematic. If that's a problem according to you, Islam has the same problem, because the Quran as a direct product of the prophet is a claim by its authors just the same.

This is the exact same thing with all the other Prophets, Muhammad is no different.

Yes, that was exactly my point.

And again, no, the Bible is not the word of God.

I didn't make this claim.

And neither Moses, nor Jesus, neither wrote anything down

Also didn't make this claim.

- so your attempted point is null.

I didn't attempt to prove otherwise. I attempted to show that your contention was null, which you now seem to have conceded.

However unlike both of them (in your worldview), Muhammad's life is not contained in the book revealed to him.

Not directly, but indirectly yes. God doesn't abrogate for the convenience of His prophet.

The book revealed to him mentions his name directly several times but is never him speaking and tells barely anything about his life, only alludes to various situations, and to companions, groups and communities etc. This is the mark of an actual scripture, not a book telling different stories from a removed degree with no directness of relation to such events.

The Quran was written down post-mortem and canonized selectively under Uthman just the same, with entire surah's not making the final cut. That's what I meant with this:

"The classification of all scripture, whether Torah, Gospel or Quran, as the Word of God, is a claim made by their respective authors. If we then have to go by the authors' proximity, whether temporal or relational, the Quran has an advantage over the Torah, yes, but not the Gospels."​

​

Scripture is defined by its authors, nothing more. And I claim this about all scripture.

If Paul received the "word of God" then where is it? it's definitely not in his letters.

Yes it is. You simply regard the Word of God as something that has to be directly uttered from the mouth of God. The word of God can be uttered by even you and me, it doesn't mean we are the Word of God incarnate. Paul spoke from his own accord as well as the Lord's, which is something he admits by announcing whose words he is speaking. Example:

1 Cor 7
12 For to the rest I speak, not the Lord. If any brother hath a wife that believeth not, and she consent to dwell with him, let him not put her away.

Yes because it reduces God to an Ego, to a personality and fundamentally cancels out God's eternity.

Why?

 

[Lisa]

@Artful Revealer @Infinityloop...the blind trying to school the blind.

 

[Infinityloop]

You seriously have to let go of that Americanized Christian stereotype. Traditional Christianity sees Genesis as allegory of the relationship between God, man and creation.

Same applies to Jesus. Maybe you'll get what I meant by mentioning Genesis, no I'm not speaking of creationism (that's not even on topic). Why the hell would God even create man in the beginning?
You don't seem to understand the limits of your own thought here and it's shocking.

You're drawing the wrong conclusions. Logos is the order of the universe according to the mind of God. If there's an order to creation, there's a rationality behind it. If there's a rationality behind it, we are capable of reasoning our way to truth, and even the existence of the creation's creator, which is what people like Aristotle, Aquinas or Al-Ghazali did.

Yes and the Trinity is not what any person with true knowledge actually concludes.
This is aside from the complete irrelevance of the Trinity to do with all spiritual matters and matters relating to God.

The existence of a creator can be logically reasoned. Who this creator is, is dependent upon revelation from above.

Once you make it a 'who', you instantaneously deny God.

Again, and I anticipated this in my previous comment, the medium through which God's Word manifests is the vehicle. God is not Jesus' body, just as your are not your avatar. It's your Word that is you, and your Word didn't come into existence when you typed it on a keypad. It already existed before it was revealed on this forum. You Word was with You (the man) before its "creation" in this virtual realm.

Exactly as I said about the first two Chapters of Genesis.

There's global consensus that Jesus' died by crucifixion and therefore existed.

No there isn't. The only sources which talk about it are bing bing.....the New Testament. There are no texts outside of the Bible that actually give any evidence of an existence of Jesus, only that around Paul's time there was a gradually growing religious movement that borrowed a few ideas from Judaism.

But Jesus' case is just a more certain fact in the academic world.

Not true, the academic world does not take the New Testament as historical fact.

The isnad cover a span of more than 200 years.

You don't get how prolific the recording of Hadith are. It's not that they merely where written down later, they were recorded during the Prophet's lifetime, it is that big, comprehensive compilations where compiled (as in, books of 10,000 hadiths vs a single saying etc - as well as the amount of copies of compilations etc) from prior compilations at later dates, their oral nature matches up well with their time period and their contents form a very comprehensive picture not dependent on an author. It's that the survival of the earliest Hadith compilations didn't have as strong of a survival rate because most of the effort at first was to preserve the revelation itself, with the life of the Prophet as secondary.

Difference between you and me, is that you have fully-composed stories by single authors, whereas we have endless volumes of really mundane details covering everything from thousands of individual sources, none of which are treated with the same rose-tinted-glasses as you do. We're not afraid to admit things, whereas you are and also unlike you, critical methodology is at the heart of our historiography.

The first Pauline Epistles were written within 10 years after Christ's crucifixion.

Incorrect, it's over 20 years at the earliest. Other epistles and Mark, are later.

I don't see muslims' benefit in using this telephone game argument as a weapon against early Christian writings.

You don't even have a telephone, you'd just got a composed theological propaganda. You don't have any chains of transmission and you don't have any recordings of the supposed incarnation of god aside from the New Testament.

It wasn't I who brought up this argument. You did. You said biblical scripture isn't the product of its prophets, which is problematic. If that's a problem according to you, Islam has the same problem, because the Quran as a direct product of the prophet is a claim by its authors just the same.

No serious secular scholar doubts the time period the Qur'an emerged, there is no doubt about this. Hadiths record there being a lot of Qur'an's during the time of the Prophet. The Prophet's son-in-law even had his own personally notated version. It's that it got formalized under Uthman.

And no, the biblical 'scripture' is not the product of it's Prophets, not even indirectly. Jesus didn't write matthew mark luke and john. And Moses did not write the Pentateuch. In both cases, Moses and Jesus are the subject of these texts, not the sources and not the propagators of them.

The Quran was written down post-mortem and canonized selectively under Uthman just the same, with entire surah's not making the final cut.

Nobody, whether secular or Muslim, believes this crap.

Scripture is defined by its authors, nothing more. And I claim this about all scripture.

That's a rather relativist stance, wouldn't you say?

Your stance is basically that the back of a cereal box can be considered "scripture" if you decide to interpret it that way.

There IS a reason why the Seerah is not considered "scripture" by any means, in Islam. And the Seerah is no different from the contents of the four 'gospels'.

Yes it is. You simply regard the Word of God as something that has to be directly uttered from the mouth of God.

Basically your idea is that, no, the concept of "scripture" is not really divine writ, it is just things people write down as the feel like it. Your idea is that the concept of "revelation" (God revealing something) is completely irrelevant. Well if this is the case, than just as I said above, the back of a cereal box is also scripture.
My posts are scripture, so are yours.

Paul spoke from his own accord

That is all you needed to say. Paul just gave his opinions. He was revealed nothing by God. He was promoting his own sect in the late 1st century.

Why?

Because God is not an ego and God is not finite. The very concept of God incarnating is antithetical to the nature of God and the nature of Creation. Creation exists for a reason, God incarnating contradicts that reason. It's wishful thinking, emotional bondage and irrational ideas that make belief in God both incoherent and unimportant, it does a disservice to God and trivializes God in such a way that it completely denies the existence of God entirely.

 

[Wigi]

@Infinityloop

Yes and the Trinity is not what any person with true knowledge actually concludes

That's why it needed to be revealed because it doesn’t come to mind unless God reveals Himself like that.

No there isn't. The only sources which talk about it are bing bing.....the New Testament. There are no texts outside of the Bible that actually give any evidence of an existence of Jesus, only that around Paul's time there was a gradually growing religious movement that borrowed a few ideas from Judaism.

I don't know why you repeat this ad nauseam while it is false.

Ancient Evidence for Jesus from Non-Christian Sources

Do any other ancient documents help to confirm the trustworthiness of the New Testament?

www.bethinking.org

Not true, the academic world does not take the New Testament as historical fact

Jesus crucifixion is taken as an historical fact. Even Dawkins who's an avowed atheist admitted Jesus existence and the reliability of His teachings then said 'Jesus today would have been an atheist'

Professor Dawkins thinks that Jesus today would have been an atheist. But would Dawkins have paid any attention to Him? | Catholic Herald

Atheists like Dawkins have strange ideas about what we believe…

catholicherald.co.uk

No serious secular scholar doubts the time period the Qur'an emerged, there is no doubt about this

And they don't doubt when the Council of Nicaea took place.

Hadiths record there being a lot of Qur'an's during the time of the Prophet

Because Allah gave a lot of Qur'an's isn't it? Why ?

The very concept of God incarnating is antithetical to the nature of God and the nature of Creation. Creation exists for a reason, God incarnating contradicts that reason

This sounds like a false dilemma. In what way God interfering in this creation contradicts the reason of its existence?

 

[Infinityloop]

@Infinityloop

That's why it needed to be revealed because it doesn’t come to mind unless God reveals Himself like that.

It wasn't revealed and no, you didn't read what I said. Nobody who actually has knowledge of God believes in the trinity. Trinity is an idea in your head, not reality. You cannot hold it as a truth about God until you can demonstrate it, either logically or experientially, however both logic and experience prove Monotheism, not the trinity.
You hold a 'mystery' that can't be understood, which contradicts the religion of Abraham and Moses. If you are not able to coherently explain or understand it, yet still hold it as an objective truth, then do not act shocked that people will reject it for being unrelated to spiritual, metaphysical or religious truth.

I don't know why you repeat this ad nauseam while it is false.

Ancient Evidence for Jesus from Non-Christian Sources

Do any other ancient documents help to confirm the trustworthiness of the New Testament?

www.bethinking.org

It's true, that's why I said it. I know very well already all of the secular sources which Christians claim to support the historicity of Jesus, but all of these quotes only support there being an emerging sect (pre-christian) who held beliefs, none speak of Jesus himself, it's null. You have nothing except for anecdotal speculation based off the assumptions of the worldview you already hold.
If you actually read these sources too, they are saying "I heard that over at so and so is a group that believe so and so". The Josephus account is very intriguing in this regard because he didn't know what to make of it and the rites that he had heard of about the pre-Christians. Josephus knew nothing about a Jesus, he heard about a messianic group who done strange rituals.

Jesus crucifixion is taken as an historical fact.

ROTFL!

And they don't doubt when the Council of Nicaea took place.

Of course, the early formation of Catholicism and it's doctrines in 325CE. This has no relationship to the alleged historicity of Jesus.

Because Allah gave a lot of Qur'an's isn't it? Why ?

What I said was that people had a lot of copies of it prior to Muhammad's death. And please be respectful and use the word "God". I don't use 'theos' to talk about your deity (notice how I called your deity a deity and didn't refer to it as God, because it's not, it's a man), even though your texts say this.
As for your texts, God objectively didn't give you yours, men did. So your position will continue to be moot.

This sounds like a false dilemma. In what way God interfering in this creation contradicts the reason of its existence?

You mean incarnating.

It denies everything about God, everything the word "God" means. It reduces God to a nonsensical triviality and denies the possibility of Monotheism. It is either Polytheism (if you still try to apply the word "god" to it, no different from the Pharaohs being incarnations of their deities) or it is Atheism (because it makes an absurdity and uselessness for the concept of God,).