Bible Bashers

[Huthaifah]

Asalamu Alaikum,

Today, I have recieved quite a few emails from users as regards to a specific user who has abused Islam and the Sahabiyah, therefore I will let you know what we have decided after I have eaten some donner and kebab :p, lol.

But just wish to share something with my fellow Chrisitian Bible Bashers:



Khadijah 'Sue' Watson - Former pastor, missionary, professor. Master's degree in Divinity "What happened to you !" .....

(i finally realized).... why Muslims are the hardest people in the world to convert to Christianity.

Why?

Because there is nothing to offer them!! (In Islam) There is a relationship with Allah, forgiveness of sins, salvation and promise of Eternal Life. Naturally, my first question centered on the deity of Allah. Who is this Allah that the Muslims worship? We had been taught as Christians that this is another god, a false god.

When in fact He is the Omniscient-All Knowing, Omnipotent-All Powerful, and Omnipresent-All Present God. The One and Only without co-partners or co-equal.

It is interesting to note that there were bishops during the first three hundred years of the Church that were teaching as the Muslim believes that Jesus (pbuh) was a prophet and teacher!! It was only after the conversion of Emperor Constantine that he was the one to call and introduce the doctrine of the Trinity.


Walaykum Salaam

[Yahya]

Form the New Catholic Dictionary;
http://www.catholic-forum.com/saints/ncd00761.htm

Arianism

The heresy propagated by Arius denying the Divinity of Jesus Christ. Following views which Gnostics had popularized, he regarded the Son of God as standing midway between God and creatures; not like God without a beginning, but possessing all other Divine perfections, not of one essence, nature, substance with the Father and therefore not like him in Divinity; an attribute of the Divine nature, the Logos, or Word, Reason. The heresy for a time threatened to rend asunder the Catholic Church, especially when favored by the emperors of the East. It was the root source of many heresies. Its antagonist Athanasius (296-373) contended for half a century for the term consubstantial (Greek: Homoousion, one and the same, as against Homoiousion, like only) to express the identity of the Son in essence, nature, substance with the Father, which was adopted at the Council of Nicaea, 325. This decision established the doctrine of the Divinity of Christ, and although it did not end the struggle of the Arians for ascendancy, it defeated their efforts to anticipate Mohammed and to introduce Unitarianism as Catholic belief.

For more info;
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Arianism

It's worth noting that at the time of the Muslim conquest of Spain, the ruling Vandals were Arians, not Catholics.

[veritas]

Asalamu Alaikum,

Today, I have recieved quite a few emails from users as regards to a specific user who has abused Islam and the Sahabiyah, therefore I will let you know what we have decided after I have eaten some donner and kebab :p, lol.

But just wish to share something with my fellow Chrisitian Bible Bashers:



Walaykum Salaam

1st century AD accounts would disagree with those statements. Most of the New Testament dates to before 100AD. One thing that Muslims don't have is surety that they are going to heaven.

[Yahya]

1st century AD accounts would disagree with those statements. Most of the New Testament dates to before 100AD. One thing that Muslims don't have is surety that they are going to heaven.

Yet the existance of multiple definitions of the meaning of the Trinity, and widespread support for them prior to the Council of Nicea suggests that a dogmatic prescription of the trinity was not a feature of the early church.

Even now Copts and Nestorians differ with Catholic, Protestant and Orthodox Churches about the nature of the trinity.

[veritas]

Yet the existance of multiple definitions of the meaning of the Trinity, and widespread support for them prior to the Council of Nicea suggests that a dogmatic prescription of the trinity was not a feature of the early church.

Even now Copts and Jacobeans differ with Catholic, Protestant and Orthodox Churches about the nature of the trinity.

So are you telling me what I believe is wrong ? Bear in mind the following Sura when you reply ? I like this one , it took me a while to figure it out though. I find it odd in a way though because I think there is another ayat that says Islam is the same faith as Abraham and yet the Jews reject Islam.

1. Say : O ye that reject Faith!

2. I worship not that which ye worship,

3. Nor will ye worship that which I worship.

4. And I will not worship that which ye have been wont to worship,

5. Nor will ye worship that which I worship.

6. To you be your Way, and to me mine.

[Yahya]

What you believe is your affair. But the history of the early Christian church is a matter of fact, not faith.

My contention is simply that Arius's docterine was not his innovation, which is also the opinion of early church scholars, who deduce the doctorine was widespread in the Eastern church.

I would also contend that there was in the early church more debate about the nature of the trinity and that current doctrinal positions were not yet fixed. Again this is not a controversial issue.

Lastly I would point out that Coptic and Nestorean Christians still dispute the nature of the trinity. The Copts believe that Jesus (s) is entrely devine and has no human aspect and Nestorians believe that his physical and devine natures are entirely separate. Further, Unitarians have revived the Arian docterine, as have the Jehova's witnesses. So the dispute within Christainity is ongoing.

Therefore I would contend that the Islamic position that Jesus (s) was a prophet, created by God, but not of the same essence as God, is also one of the positions held by Christians in the early church. A position which was actively supressed by the state when the Catholic/Orthodox position became the state creed. Do you deny this?

[Mrs Rumi]

Brother Yahya, an excellent post! veritas, your faith is a wonderful thing, but there are many people on this site who are aware that Christainity is far more complex than you like to make out. I don't see whats wrong with this Veritas. You may have found the 'truth', but it is yours and yours alone. You cannot project this 'truth' on 2000 years of history simply because it makes you uncomfortable. However I don't see that the complexity of Christian belief, or islamic belief for that matter, in anyway detracts from the validity of person experience, or your truth! Or mine.

For myself, as a christain revert to Islam, it is precisely in the complexity of belief both historically and personally that I find the greatest truthes. As the ayat you quoted so eloquently tell us;

Say : O ye that reject Faith!

2. I worship not that which ye worship,

3. Nor will ye worship that which I worship.

4. And I will not worship that which ye have been wont to worship,

5. Nor will ye worship that which I worship.

6. To you be your Way, and to me mine. Amin.

And in this we find the truth.

[veritas]

What you believe is your affair. But the history of the early Christian church is a matter of fact, not faith.

My contention is simply that Arius's docterine was not his innovation, which is also the opinion of early church scholars, who deduce the doctorine was widespread in the Eastern church.

I would also contend that there was in the early church more debate about the nature of the trinity and that current doctrinal positions were not yet fixed. Again this is not a controversial issue.

Lastly I would point out that Coptic and Nestorean Christians still dispute the nature of the trinity. The Copts believe that Jesus (s) is entrely devine and has no human aspect and Nestorians believe that his physical and devine natures are entirely separate. Further, Unitarians have revived the Arian docterine, as have the Jehova's witnesses. So the dispute within Christainity is ongoing.

Therefore I would contend that the Islamic position that Jesus (s) was a prophet, created by God, but not of the same essence as God, is also one of the positions held by Christians in the early church. A position which was actively supressed by the state when the Catholic/Orthodox position became the state creed. Do you deny this?

Paul was an early church father. His letters are dated at pre 100AD , they cannot be later than 130 AD as one of the earliest canons includes them. The canon put together by Marcion included 10 of Pauls letters many of which speak of the deity of Jesus. The apostles preached about the deity of Jesus, if the apostles preached about the deity of Jesus then this was the doctrine of the earliest church, the church started by the twelve Jesus chose. Later he chose Paul , who was on the way to imprison and kill Christians when Jesus appeared to him.

[Yahya]

Paul was an early church father. His letters are dated at pre 100AD , they cannot be later than 130 AD as one of the earliest canons includes them. The canon put together by Marcion included 10 of Pauls letters many of which speak of the deity of Jesus. The apostles preached about the deity of Jesus, if the apostles preached about the deity of Jesus then this was the doctrine of the earliest church, the church started by the twelve Jesus chose. Later he chose Paul , who was on the way to imprison and kill Christians when Jesus appeared to him.

There are two issues here.

One is the question of Paul's legitimacy. I have been reading his letters to try and find the referenes you refer to. Paul seems to speak quite a lot on behalf of God and Jesus and even commands obedience on the basis of their authority. Paul is not a prophet of Islam and as such we must question his authority to do this. His claim that he was visited by Jesus after his death is obviously not something we can embrace and as such we must question the legitimacy of his opinions. But there is little benefit in disputing such matters. They are questions of faith and as such beyond rational discussion.

However, what is clear from them is that even at that stage the church was devided and factionalised, and Paul in particular was being attacked by those who actually followed Jesus in his lifetime, as well as others. 1 Corinthians 1:10-17, 3, 9, 2 Corinthians 10, 11, Galatians 2. Some of these devisions seem to have been resolved others not. Thus I would question whether Paul represented all Christians of the time, or simply one successful faction of the church which eventually displaced the others. I believe the phrase people would use now is "controvertial figure", which is not to imply a value judgement on my part.

Nevertheless, two points are clear from the texts we currently have. Paul's message was not so different from the disciples that reconciliation was impossible and that in the period of Arian and Lucian, two and a half centuries later, Paul's authority was accepted. Despite this both of them rejected the trinity despite their high positions in the church.

I myself could not find any quote which either confirmed the existance of the trinity or even the devinity of Jesus, perhaps you could help?

[veritas]

I myself could not find any quote which either confirmed the existance of the trinity or even the devinity of Jesus, perhaps you could help?

Ex.3:14-15 reads, "And Elohim said unto Moses, I AM THAT I AM: and He said, Thus shalt thou say unto the children of Israel, I AM hath sent me unto you. And Elohim said moreover unto Moses, Thus shalt thou say unto the children of Israel, Yahweh, Elohim of your fathers, Elohim of Abraham, Elohim of Isaac, and Elohim of Jacob, hath sent me unto you: this is my name forever, and this is my memorial unto all generations."

In John 8:58, Jesus says, "Before Abraham was I am." The people then fell back and were going to stone Jesus

Loads of other places, will get a full list , I think there is one one of my posts somewhere.