I didn't finish reading this, but it appears logical and compelling. Any Christians care to directly debunk the claims and conclusions? If there will be a reference to the "triunal" God please provide reference for the same.
Trying to apply "logical and compelling" to Christianity?
Good luck with that.
Thebodyguard seems to have a lot of questions on Christianity for someone that does not actually believe in it. I think maybe he has some deeper searching for truth happening rather than trying to cause problems. I applaud that. So here are some verses to dispute what Islam says about Jesus not being God.
Matthew 1:23 "Behold, the virgin shall be with child, and bear a Son, and they shall call His name Immanuel,â?? which is translated, â??God with us"
John 1:1 In the beginning was the Word, and the Word was with God, and the Word was God... 1:14 - And the Word became flesh and dwelt among us
John 20:28 And Thomas answered and said to Him, â??My Lord and my God"
Isaiah 9:6 For unto us a Child is born, Unto us a Son is given; And the government will be upon His shoulder. And His name will be called Wonderful, Counselor, Mighty God, Everlasting Father, Prince of Peace
There's a start
Every claim in that article can be argued against. (Just like everything in religion, it is all in how you interpret the word.)
Ex. From the Article
Another example for the limited knowledge of Jesus is the fig tree episode in the Gospels. Mark tells us as follows: â??The next day as they were leaving Bethany, Jesus was hungry. Seeing in the distance a fig tree in leaf, he went to find out if it had any fruit. When he reached it, he found nothing but leaves, because it was not the season for figs.â?? (Mark 11:12-13).
What if it isn't a lack of knowledge, but a parable where the fig tree represents Israel. This is the standard rebuttal.
I'm not the most knowledgable in this area, so I can't get in too much of a debate.....
But if you look up all the versers in question you can find the opposite side interpretation.
Really, you know what you can do with your unwarranted off-handed comment "rather than start problems". Also, please do not attempt to characterize my motives. Either participate or don't. I don't believe in Christianity and having once done so and changed my mind, I'm very unlikely to reverse course. But this isn't about me, and it's not about Christianity per se. It's about my wanting to hear principled, thoughtful and referenced debate. As I said, I find the arguments compelling and logical. They have put forth and argument. You can hardly refute that argument without directly addressing the argument. Bringing scripture into play that is not addressed within their argument is misdirection. If their claims are unfounded, address their claims directly.
I'm more interested in rebuttal to those scriptures that they cite. It is pretty clear to me that Jesus appears repeatedly to distinguish between himself and the Father.
Assuming for a moment that you are correct, and that an opposite interpretation is available in EVERY instance - and I do not believe that there is - it still doesn't address other principals of Islam's argument against Jesus' divinity.
I'm not looking for someone to nibble around the edges. Refute it with a reasoned, referenced rebuttal.
I can give examples about why these assertions are not only unfounded but, as is typical to Islam, they are distorted. It is curious that they would even grant that the Bible can be examined and consequently is misinterpreted since in Islam they believe the Jews and Christians are liars and corrupters. Islam brings rigid fundamentalism in every facet of its tradition in distinct contradistinction to Christianity. The original Christians (the Church) never thought of the Bible as being literal or some sort of book that fell out of the sky (as do modern day protestants). By definition that is what it is in Islam, and why they are so simplistic all the while projecting so much of their own baggage that makes little or no sense.
Islam's obvious thievery and assimilation of Jewish and Christian ideas is extremely obvious to anyone who studies history and also has studied Islam. The concept of someone who is fully God and fully man makes no sense to them. This mystery of God is not supposed to be logical. Similarly, because there is not conflict between reason and God (reason just can't explain the boundless, obviously), it does not make us stumble. If you know physics, you know that light is a wave and a particle. It exhibits both properties, which has been a conundrum for as long as it was "understood". This makes NO logical sense. Yet it is the reality. I don't want to get tangential, but do want to help address your questions. Quickly, then I will respond more later:
The most cursory study in Judaism would recognize that "Ego eimi o wn" (I am what I am, or, I am the one that is) or just "I AM" in the Old King James Version is the tetragrammatron, YHWH, the name that should not be spoken.
The problem with Islam is that it tries to understand other things through itself. That prism is not useful, especially since it is unfair and biased, regardless of your opinion of it. One has to see what the Christians say, and if that makes sense, then accept it or reject it. For example, if Jesus Christ is truly human, AS A HUMAN he in fact does have limited knowledge. When he was learning to write, paint, work with wood, construct sandals, whatever, do you think he was a superman wiz kid from an early age? In his humanity he is just like us save for one thing ( he does not sin).
Many of the biblical accounts show his humanity for a reason, and they attack these. In Christianity, human beings cannot be saved unless Jesus Christ heals the relationship that they broke with the one true God (God the Father), a break which disrupted their communion with Him. Think of it: What is the point of Jesus coming if it is NOT to show his humanity (which is complete)? God could just snap his magic fingers, there would be no need for Him. But then why create beings in the first place? Islam can't answer any of these questions and really has no idea what God is doing, or has done, or will do.
A few random questions
How did Jesus see "Satan fall like lightning from Heaven" (Luke 10:18)?
Again cursory knowlege of the Jews, and why the leaders wanted to kill him: Who can forgive sins but God alone? Why would Jesus state this over and over again if he were not God. Both parties were very aware of it.
The reality is that they don't understand the persons of the Trinity. In life we have order (Father/Son) because that is the intrinsic nature of the divine as well as what we see in our created world. They try to always oppose them, which is not necessary.
Yours is a thoughtful reply but you hardly refuted their scriptural arguments. And while you assert that "Islam's obvious thievery and assimilation of Jewish and Christian ideas", are you claiming that the ideas of Judaism and Christianity are historically original? You do know that similar claims have been made against both the foregoing. Just the idea of a "christ" is a well worn story that predates Judaism and Christianity considerably.
I understand this is a BB forum and perhaps the scholarship I'd like to see in point/counterpoint will not occur here. It's just that these threads pop up from time to time and it renewed my interest. This is probably not the best place to explore that interest.
Ain't no thousands of people going to die for testifying just a man died on a cross.
Okay...this doesn't make sense.
The Bible comes from the Catholic Church (so you can argue with the other Christians about this since they hold to Sola Scriptura), so interpretation of the Bible requires using the totality of the Bible, living Tradition of the Church and the analogy of the faith...the Church says Jesus is second person of the Trinity (proved them wrong).
We know this, there is no point of arguing it. Either you agree with it or you don't, it is not up for debate. Now, if the Muslims want to say that Catholic Church has corrupted the faith, then we can go on that. However, to use our Bible (that we wrote) to say that what we believe is wrong is about as dumb as using the Koran to prove what they believe is wrong (you can't use what they believe to prove what they believe is wrong, unless you want to play semantics, which is just that semantics).
You can prove the Koran wrong, you can't prove what Muslims believe is wrong with by using the Koran. There I proved it wrong.
How to interpret the Bible (because you know, you usually ask the people that wrote it and had it handed down to them, how to interpret it): http://www.vatican.va/archive/hist_councils/ii_vatican_council/documents/vat-ii_const_19651118_dei-verbum_en.html
On Jesus being G-d or Divine: Nicene Creed, and about every document that has ever come out of a Church council...: http://www.vatican.va/archive/ccc_css/archive/catechism/p1s2c2.htm
To find a few thousand deluded people cannot possibly be that hard?
This post was flagged by the community and is temporarily hidden.
John 7:16-17 (New International Version, Â©2011)
16 Jesus answered, â??My teaching is not my own. It comes from the one who sent me. 17 Anyone who chooses to do the will of God will find out whether my teaching comes from God or whether I speak on my own.
What do you conclude from this
Sure, and everyone seems to have drawn the right conclusion, which is of course that the Nazis were so extra evil that it could never happen again, anywhere.
Militarism, centralization of power, government intrusion into every aspect of everyday life and one phony war after another were only a problem for Germans in the 30s.
That reasoning is flawed. That the divinity of Jesus was later created is a common criticism. It bears examination. To argue that it is so "because we say so" relies upon a fallacious argument construct. In fact, your reply replies upon a number of fallacious arguments. It would appear that you have faith in the Church, not the scripture. Or, where the scripture is ambiguous or inconsistent, you want to have faith that your Church's interpretation is correct. Sounds to me a lot like faith in man, and not God.
If the charge is that the divinity of Jesus was an invention of man, then it is perfectly reasonable to look to the scripture raised, and to debate the interpretations. As far as I can recall, there was no Catholic Church when the scripture was written. And I am unaware of Islam's rejection of the Bible or Jesus so your argument that they can't look to the scripture is a poor one. Like the Jews (among others), they reject the divinity of Christ.
Can you expand on this and provide a reference?
I believe they would raise the nature of Jesus as both man and God (while on Earth), which is just inconsistent on its face in my opinion. And I am unaware of any scriptural support for such a position. It's quite a thing to say the scriptures were inspired by God and it's quite another self-serving thing to say that we (the Church that did not exist when the scriptures were written) are likewise inspired by God to make doctrine and interpretations. That there were "councils" and such deciding issues of scripture is evidence of corruption in my opinion. God's message to man should speak for itself.
I'll play along.
The almighty wants to deliver his message to his children who are in need of his law. Although there is scriptural evidence for such clarity, such as the ten commandments - thou shalt not kill - can it be any clearer than that - but when it comes time for the message of the divine Jesus, God is suddenly confusing, contradictory and needs man (the Church) to later clarify the confusing, contradictory messages, in order to make a coherent consistent message.
In one place, the doctrine is very clear, and unambiguous. In another, it is not and requires alleged "inspiration" upon the Church to create doctrine.
Do you not find that the least bit curious?
Will the standard response be something along the lines of "God is mysterious, it is not for us to know his ways, only to obey" or some permutation thereof?
God: Thou shalt not kill!
Is it unreasonable to expect that the scriptures concerning the life and times of Jesus be similarly clear?
I might find it curious if I found it to be true.
The life and death message IS that clear. That's why there are over 300 local churches from dozens of traditions all working together in Detroit right now. THE tradition is essentially agreed upon by all though we do hold significant non fatal differences.