The strangest thing of all

[bodhitharta]

Everyone here that I know of says they cannot accept the Quran, that they follow the Bible but the strangest thing of all was given to them by People they vehemently oppose which is the Catholic Church many if not most here have nothing nice to say about this Church and yet they trust implicitly how that church who compiled the Bible handled the information. That is the strangest thing of all

[bodhitharta]

[francis]

Quote (bodhitharta @ April 05 2012,12:39)

Everyone here that I know of says they cannot accept the Quran, that they follow the Bible but the strangest thing of all was given to them by People they vehemently oppose which is the Catholic Church  many if not most here have nothing nice to say about this Church and yet they trust implicitly how that church who compiled the Bible handled the information. That is the strangest thing of all

Hello Asana… (Glad to see you are still here)

The way I understand things, the Church which “compiled” the Bible way back then, is not the same as it is today.  It has changed a lot.   So in that sense, it is not strange at all that we can trust the church which “compiled” the Bible and not trust the Catholic church we see today.  They are different.  So there is no hypocracy or contradiction.

The video you show above, only proves how different the Catholic Church is today, than the church which compiled the New Testament.

Secondly… when the church “compiled” the Bible way back then, it listed the very strict guidelines they used to decide what was to be included into the NT… and what was not.   So it is easy for us today, to use those same strict guidelines and see how wise (by the Holy Spirit) they were in what they chose.

Thirdy… the “letters” that were finally “chosen” and which ended up in the New Testament were ALREADY being used by churches all over the world and treated as Holy… so there was no dispute over the vast, vast majority  of  the “letters” as to which ones were thought to be inspired by God and thus should end up in the New Testament.

If my memory serves me correctly, only a couple were even debated over at all.  James was one of them. And Hebrews might have been the other because the Author of that letter was not clear.

Yours in Christ
Francis

[Proclaimer]

I believe that there are other inspired books and writings outside the Bible. I do not consider the Quaran to be one of them. It opposes scriptural truth and that is the problem I have with it.

I also have the same problem with the Mormon Bible, for it too introduces heresy.

[francis]

Quote (t8 @ April 18 2012,21:47)

I believe that there are other inspired books and writings outside the Bible. I do not consider the Quaran to be one of them. It opposes scriptural truth and that is the problem I have with it. I also have the same problem with the Mormon Bible, for it too introduces heresy.

Hello t8…

One could argue that all truth is inspired I guess… so in that sense, wherever you can find truth… whichever book you find truth in… it would be inspired in that strict sense.

But since God is not the author of confusion… then equally as true… that would mean truth will not contradict each other.

Indeed, I cannot conceive of how truth could every contradict itself, and yet still be considered to be truth. Truth by its very nature makes exclusive claims.

Bottom line… to me… since the “compilers” of the New Testament used very, very strict guidelines as to what would be accepted into the Bible… it is possible that some early 1st Century “letters” were not put into the New Testament… even though they might have been inspired.

I think the strict guidelines that were used, showed that the “compilers” erred on the side of caution.

But anything that contradicts the Bible… is not inspired… and cannot be truth.

That is my opinion anyway.

Yours in Christ
Francis

[bodhitharta]

Quote (francis @ April 18 2012,18:02)

Quote (bodhitharta @ April 05 2012,12:39) Everyone here that I know of says they cannot accept the Quran, that they follow the Bible but the strangest thing of all was given to them by People they vehemently oppose which is the Catholic Church  many if not most here have nothing nice to say about this Church and yet they trust implicitly how that church who compiled the Bible handled the information. That is the strangest thing of all Hello Asana… (Glad to see you are still here) The way I understand things, the Church which “compiled” the Bible way back then, is not the same as it is today.  It has changed a lot.   So in that sense, it is not strange at all that we can trust the church which “compiled” the Bible and not trust the Catholic church we see today.  They are different.  So there is no hypocracy or contradiction. The video you show above, only proves how different the Catholic Church is today, than the church which compiled the New Testament. Secondly… when the church “compiled” the Bible way back then, it listed the very strict guidelines they used to decide what was to be included into the NT… and what was not.   So it is easy for us today, to use those same strict guidelines and see how wise (by the Holy Spirit) they were in what they chose. Thirdy… the “letters” that were finally “chosen” and which ended up in the New Testament were ALREADY being used by churches all over the world and treated as Holy… so there was no dispute over the vast, vast majority  of  the “letters” as to which ones were thought to be inspired by God and thus should end up in the New Testament. If my memory serves me correctly, only a couple were even debated over at all.  James was one of them. And Hebrews might have been the other because the Author of that letter was not clear. Yours in Christ Francis

Francis

The trinity was an invention that took the church by storm and so was making Jesus “GOD” There is even old literature that has been found that shows that at the time no one thought Jesus was God and that was my point the main body of Christians believe what the Catholic Church taught and then they reject the Catholic Church these are all the churches daughters over 39,000 denominations

[Spock]

Quote (bodhitharta @ April 05 2012,12:39)

Everyone here that I know of says they cannot accept the Quran, that they follow the Bible but the strangest thing of all was given to them by People they vehemently oppose which is the Catholic Church  many if not most here have nothing nice to say about this Church and yet they trust implicitly how that church who compiled the Bible handled the information. That is the strangest thing of all

You are correct, that is a strange thing. It is also common knowledge in the middle east that the OT were edited and redacted during the Babylonian captivity, yet Westerners gasp as the thought that the Hebrews might have been slightly self important when they wrote their own history.

Colter

[bodhitharta]

Quote (francis @ April 18 2012,23:37)

Quote (t8 @ April 18 2012,21:47) I believe that there are other inspired books and writings outside the Bible. I do not consider the Quaran to be one of them. It opposes scriptural truth and that is the problem I have with it. I also have the same problem with the Mormon Bible, for it too introduces heresy. Hello t8… One could argue that all truth is inspired I guess… so in that sense, wherever you can find truth… whichever book you find truth in… it would be inspired in that strict sense. But since God is not the author of confusion… then equally as true… that would mean truth will not contradict each other. Indeed, I cannot conceive of how truth could every contradict itself, and yet still be considered to be truth.  Truth by its very nature makes exclusive claims. Bottom line… to me… since the “compilers” of the New Testament used very, very strict guidelines as to what would be accepted into the Bible… it is possible that some early 1st Century “letters” were not put into the New Testament… even though they might have been inspired. I think the strict guidelines that were used, showed that the “compilers” erred on the side of caution. But anything that contradicts the Bible… is not inspired… and cannot be truth. That is my opinion anyway. Yours in Christ Francis

That's funny you said that God was not the Author of confusion, right?

Genesis 11:7
Go to, let us go down, and there confound their language, that they may not understand one another's speech.

Genesis 11:9
Therefore is the name of it called Babel; because the LORD did there confound the language of all the earth: and from thence did the LORD scatter them abroad upon the face of all the earth.

You see, how there is this attempt to purge the truth where the truth should be this is in the bible.

Contradictions are how truth is discovered and cannot make exclusive claims only honest claims can be made.

let me explain this to you a little bit more:

contradiction late 14c., from O.Fr. contradiction or directly from L. contradictionem (nom. contradictio) “a reply, objection, counterargument,” noun of action from pp. stem of contradicere, in classical L. contra dicere “to speak against,” from contra “against” (see contra) + dicere “to speak” (see diction).

http://www.etymonline.com/index.php?term=contradiction

You see Jesus was a contradition to what the Jews considered to expect in a Messiah and likewise when you think of the Quran as contradicting some of the bible you miss the point.

The Jews use the same material of theirs to disprove Jesus as Christ. Christians take Jewish text and tell them the chosen ones to spread the message of God are that they are wrong about Christ so there message contradicts the Jews and Judaism. Islam agrees with the Christians that Jesus indeed is Christ but he was saved by God from death on the cross and they agree with Jews that God should be worshiped alone and that any Messiah would of neccessity be indeed human.

Contradictions to stir someone into digging deeper not defaulting with “I'm right” attitudes. Christianity has spread to over 39,000 denominations simply because there are so many contradictions in it.

as the contradictions decrease more clarity is seen. So in Islam it draws attention to the strongest contradictions for final resolution for both Jews and Christians.

Think about it this way countless denominations fight mainly over Christ Jesus and his nature, baptism…etc. But in Islam the Quran goes to the very root and says that Jesus wasn't Killed or Crucified that is the ultimate contradiction of Christianity at the same time it does say that Jesus is exactly who you think he is (Christ) was born of a vigin, did Miracles by the authority of God, was targeted for murder and everything else but God saved him.

Christians have to then argue that Christ MUST be crucified and killed because if he wasn't they have no salvation not realizing by saying this they are calling Jesus “God” over all including The Most High because Salvation is not dependent on Sacrifice it is dependent on Mercy.

So the challenge for the Christian is to actually find GOD after they found Christ. remember Jesus is the door not the destination therefor those who do not get past Jesus will not satisfy him although they do everything in his name.

[francis]

Asana wrote…

Quote

Francis The trinity was an invention that took the church by storm and so was making Jesus “GOD” There is even old literature that has been found that shows that at the time no one thought Jesus was God and that was my point the main body of Christians believe what the Catholic Church taught and then they reject the Catholic Church these are all the churches daughters over 39,000 denominations.

Hello Asana…

Nice to see that you are still in the thick of things defending your faith.  Although we disagree… I've always admired you for your spirit.

1)… Anybody can say anything.  You understand that of course. And I know you are an intelligent person.  So could you do me a favor and back up your assertion that the Trinity was an invention?

2)… since we know that His followers believed that Jesus was God Incarnate… would you mind telling me more about this “old literature” you speak of?  Maybe there is a website or link that explains in detail what this literature is.

3)… And my point was that the church which was responsible for officially cannonizing the New Testament, they listed the incredibly strict criteria they used by which they determined what was inspired and what was not.  So strict was their guidelines… that many intelligent people believe they might very well have left out some “letters” which were inspired… because they would rather err on the side of caution  than not.

Those criteria are available to us today because they listed them at the time they used them.

so then, tell me which “letter” you think did not pass their scritct guidelines and therefore should not have been cannonized into the New Testament?

There was very little debate at all among the compilers.  That is a factual statement.  The only debate really was over James… and I think the other one was Hebrews.

So what difficulty are you having over this?

The point is that we have GOOD LOGICAL AND RATIONAL REASONS to agree with the cannonization of the New Testament in it's present form because we can test it and see for ourselves if the “Letters” in the New Testament should be in there at all.

So tell me Asana… on what logical basis should we reject what was compiled into the New Testament?

Once again… the reason why the main body of Christians accepted the cannonizing process and agree with the present state of the New Testament is because we CAN TEST the process which was used because the compilers told us the critiria they used. Can you see this Asana?

BUT… today, the church (Catholic Church) has CHANGED since the early centuries.  Your video proved it!!!!  So that is why many Christians today(Protestant for example) do not accept some of the Catholic teachings we see being spread.  Again… your video proves it.

Asana… let's put on our thinking caps for a moment.  If the Church in the past is DIFFERENT than the church today… then you can't call them the same and therefore compare them equally.  That violates the Law of Identity in logic.  To compare two different churches… one of them over 2,000 years ago… and the other one in present day… that is like comparing apples and oranges.  You can't logically compare them as if they are the same… when they are NOT the same in the first place.  The Catholic church CHANGED over the years.  That is why the Protestant movement occured… it was a reaction against how the church CHANGED over the years.  

Can't you see this Asana?

That is why it is not strange for Christians today to accept the cannonization process of the New Testament in the past… and not accept some of the teachings of the Catholic Church today.  There is no contradiction or hypocracy.

4)… what does the different 39,000 denominations have to do with anything?

The Muslim faith itself has many different denominations.  The Mormons also have different denominations.  Buddhists also and Hindus.  Atheists themselves can't always agree on what they believe or don't believe.  There are many divisions and difference of opinions among Evolutionists themselves… and among Republicans and Democrats and within any large body of people.

A large body of people who share a common thread of belief… are not monolithic.

So I don't understand your point here.

Take Care Asana.  Good to see you again. I miss you.

Yours in Christ,
Francis

[bodhitharta]

Quote (francis @ April 19 2012,08:56)

Asana wrote… Quote Francis The trinity was an invention that took the church by storm and so was making Jesus “GOD” There is even old literature that has been found that shows that at the time no one thought Jesus was God and that was my point the main body of Christians believe what the Catholic Church taught and then they reject the Catholic Church these are all the churches daughters over 39,000 denominations. Hello Asana… Nice to see that you are still in the thick of things defending your faith.  Although we disagree… I've always admired you for your spirit. 1)… Anybody can say anything.  You understand that of course. And I know you are an intelligent person.  So could you do me a favor and back up your assertion that the Trinity was an invention? 2)… since we know that His followers believed that Jesus was God Incarnate… would you mind telling me more about this “old literature” you speak of?  Maybe there is a website or link that explains in detail what this literature is. 3)… And my point was that the church which was responsible for officially cannonizing the New Testament, they listed the incredibly strict criteria they used by which they determined what was inspired and what was not.  So strict was their guidelines… that many intelligent people believe they might very well have left out some “letters” which were inspired… because they would rather err on the side of caution  than not. Those criteria are available to us today because they listed them at the time they used them. so then, tell me which “letter” you think did not pass their scritct guidelines and therefore should not have been cannonized into the New Testament? There was very little debate at all among the compilers.  That is a factual statement.  The only debate really was over James… and I think the other one was Hebrews. So what difficulty are you having over this? The point is that we have GOOD LOGICAL AND RATIONAL REASONS to agree with the cannonization of the New Testament in it's present form because we can test it and see for ourselves if the “Letters” in the New Testament should be in there at all. So tell me Asana… on what logical basis should we reject what was compiled into the New Testament? Once again… the reason why the main body of Christians accepted the cannonizing process and agree with the present state of the New Testament is because we CAN TEST the process which was used because the compilers told us the critiria they used. Can you see this Asana? BUT… today, the church (Catholic Church) has CHANGED since the early centuries.  Your video proved it!!!!  So that is why many Christians today(Protestant for example) do not accept some of the Catholic teachings we see being spread.  Again… your video proves it. Asana… let's put on our thinking caps for a moment.  If the Church in the past is DIFFERENT than the church today… then you can't call them the same and therefore compare them equally.  That violates the Law of Identity in logic.  To compare two different churches… one of them over 2,000 years ago… and the other one in present day… that is like comparing apples and oranges.  You can't logically compare them as if they are the same… when they are NOT the same in the first place.  The Catholic church CHANGED over the years.  That is why the Protestant movement occured… it was a reaction against how the church CHANGED over the years.   Can't you see this Asana? That is why it is not strange for Christians today to accept the cannonization process of the New Testament in the past… and not accept some of the teachings of the Catholic Church today.  There is no contradiction or hypocracy. 4)… what does the different 39,000 denominations have to do with anything? The Muslim faith itself has many different denominations.  The Mormons also have different denominations.  Buddhists also and Hindus.  Atheists themselves can't always agree on what they believe or don't believe.  There are many divisions and difference of opinions among Evolutionists themselves… and among Republicans and Democrats and within any large body of people. A large body of people who share a common thread of belief… are not monolithic. So I don't understand your point here. Take Care Asana.  Good to see you again. I miss you. Yours in Christ, Francis

Nice to talk to you again too

I wasn't saying that any book shouldn't be in the NT
I said it's strange how they don't accept the Catholic church
the original compilers of the Bible the protestants later removed 7 books deeming them unfit so much for the strictness.

Also I don't know why you say that the early believers considered Jesus God when in as early as acts it is said:

Acts 2:22
Ye men of Israel, hear these words; Jesus of Nazareth, a man approved of God among you by miracles and wonders and signs, which God did by him in the midst of you, as ye yourselves also know:

This statement shows clearly they understood that Jesus was not God. They thought Jesus was Divine but God is not Divine.

Divine means godlike there can't be a divine God because it would be a false God.

[mikeboll64]

Quote (bodhitharta @ April 18 2012,11:10)

Francis The trinity was an invention that took the church by storm and so was making Jesus “GOD” There is even old literature that has been found that shows that at the time no one thought Jesus was God and that was my point the main body of Christians believe what the Catholic Church taught and then they reject the Catholic Church……………

It is unfortunate that PEOPLE started teaching the absurd doctrine that the Son of God is the God he is the Son of.  But there is no book in the Bible that actually teaches this nonsense, Asana, and so I don't think the compilation process, or the people involved with it, are to blame.

[bodhitharta]

Quote (mikeboll64 @ April 19 2012,10:15)

Quote (bodhitharta @ April 18 2012,11:10) Francis The trinity was an invention that took the church by storm and so was making Jesus “GOD” There is even old literature that has been found that shows that at the time no one thought Jesus was God and that was my point the main body of Christians believe what the Catholic Church taught and then they reject the Catholic Church…………… It is unfortunate that PEOPLE started teaching the absurd doctrine that the Son of God is the God he is the Son of.  But there is no book in the Bible that actually teaches this nonsense, Asana, and so I don't think the compilation process, or the people involved with it, are to blame.

But they are because to try to make the invention stick they actually started tampering with the books themselves adding verses and changing meanings.

Examples are John 5:4; Acts 8:37; and 1 John 5:7. Mark 16:9-20

a.John 5:4 NU-Text omits waiting for the moving of the water at the end of verse 3, and all of verse 4.

a.Acts 8:37 NU-Text and M-Text omit this verse. It is found in Western texts, including the Latin tradition.

1 John 5:7

New King James Version (NKJV)

7 For there are three that bear witness in heaven: the Father, the Word, and the Holy Spirit; and these three are one.

This verse was completely added and it is often given as proof of the trinity

a.Mark 16:18 NU-Text reads and in their hands they will.
b.Mark 16:20 Verses 9–20 are bracketed in NU-Text as not original. They are lacking in Codex Sinaiticus and Codex Vaticanus, although nearly all other manuscripts of Mark contain them.

The point is here is that it is proven that the text has been altered in several places most likely by the same group of people that put the project together and by the way something can be corrupted while the actual message stays intact and uncorrupted, that is what is meant by God protecting His Word.

[mikeboll64]

It is true that Trinitarian translators to this very day change the scriptures in an attempt to force them to teach what they want them to teach.  (Compare the 1984 NIV with the latest version of the NIV)

But I guess I just never assumed this practice started with the original counsels that compiled the cannon.  Is there evidence of scripture tampering that early on?

[bodhitharta]

Quote (mikeboll64 @ April 19 2012,12:06)

It is true that Trinitarian translators to this very day change the scriptures in an attempt to force them to teach what they want them to teach.  (Compare the 1984 NIV with the latest version of the NIV) But I guess I just never assumed this practice started with the original counsels that compiled the cannon.  Is there evidence of scripture tampering that early on?

I need to make something clear here while I could dig up all sorts of things I don't believe that is the point I was making and I don't want to poison the well to use as a device and I don't need to.

I was just making the point that a person simply saying the Quran can't be true because they only believe what is wriiten in the Bible is not considering that all they read in the Bible is not exactly in it's original context.

Many things that are said in the Quran about Christians are contradictions against the Christian theology at the time and not the bible. For instance the Quran denouncing the trinity is not denouncing the Bible or the worship of Mary or of believing that Jesus is God all these things counter the teachings in Christianity and not the bible per se in itself. Then there are things in th Quran that contradict the Bible suc as Jesus not being the son of God but in reality the dispute is not about the greatness or unique nature of Jesus it really is about the ubiquitous use of the term “son of God” and even the perversion of the meaning of the term especially at that time where we get claims that Mary is the Mother of God and other such blasphemous things such as saying God actually procreated as humans do which is beneath HIS Station.

And finally the ultimate contradiction and that of course whether Jesus was killed or Crucified.

The biggest question here is should all of Christianity depend on the sacrifice of Jesus or the Mercy of God

[mikeboll64]

Well, if that is your point, I'll bail from this discussion right now. Your Quran teaches that Jesus didn't really die, but faked us all out instead. That right there is enough for me to never bother reading the rest of it.

peace and happy trails,
mike

[francis]

Quote

I wasn't saying that any book shouldn't be in  the NT I said it's strange how they don't accept the Catholic church the original compilers of the Bible the protestants later removed 7 books deeming them unfit so much for the strictness

Hi Asana…

Actually the Protestants only removed those books from the Old Testament.  Not one was removed from the New Testament.  And the whole time I was writing to you… I kept talking about the New Testament, and never the Old Testament.

That was where the strict Criteria was used… in the New Testament.

Also… the Bible accepted by the Protestants, follows more closely the original Jewish Bible.

I”ll respond to the rest of your post a little later.

God Bless
Francis

[francis]

I had originally written to t8 saying that God is not the author of confusion.

Asana wrote back with this:

Quote

That's funny you said that God was not the Author of confusion, right? Genesis 11:7 “Go to, let us go down, and there confound their language, that they may not understand one another's speech.” Genesis 11:9 “Therefore is the name of it called Babel; because the LORD did there confound the language of all the earth: and from thence did the LORD scatter them abroad upon the face of all the earth.l” You see, how there is this attempt to purge the truth where the truth should be this is in the bible.

Asana… if you go back and read what I wrote to t8 on April 18, 2012 at 23:37… you would see that I was talking about Truth… especially in relation to contradiction as it is applied in logic under the fallacy called “The Law of Non-Contradiction”.

When I was saying that God is not the author of confusion… I was talking about contradictions in relation to truth.  In other words… God does not violate the rule of “Non-Contradiction” in logic.  Truth… itself does not contradict itself because that would violate the law of non-contradiction.  So when God speaks the truth… He is not causing confusion by violating the law of contradiction.

The confusion I was talking about is the one in which something doesn't make sense because it is violating logic (law of non-contradiction).

when it comes to Truth, God is not the author of confusion.

Now… put that into the rest of the context of my post to t8… and you'll see that I was talking about truth being found in other places besides the Bible.  In other words… we can find truth in the Quran… in Buddhism… in Mormonism… and in many statments and books authored by atheists.

But that doesn't mean everything in the Quran or Mormonism or atheism, etc is true. Why?  Because they all contradict each other… as well as contradict with the Bible in places.

If the Quran says Jesus did not die on the cross… and yet Christians say He did die on the cross… then they both can't be correct on that point.  If atheists say that there is no God, and yet Muslims and Christians say that there is a God… then they can't all be correct.  Why?  Because it violates the law of non contradiction.

THIS CAUSES CONFUSION.  Violating the law of non-contradiciton causes confusion because it makes no rationals sense.

But God does NOT violate the law of non-contradiction… AND THUS GOD IS NOT THE AUTHOR OF CONFUSION.

That is how I was using the phrase “God is not the author of confusion”

Asana… can you now understand my point now about what I meant about “author of confusion”?

when it comes to Truth, God is not the author of confusion.

Okay… now that we got that squared away… let's look at the verses you brought up from Genesis to see if the apply to what I was saying to t8.

In Genesis 11:7 and 9… God is NOT… NOT… NOT violating the law of non-contradiction.  Therefore, these verses do not demonstrate that God is the author of confusions AS I WAS USING THAT PHRASE WITH T8.

God changed the language of the people so that they couldn't understand each other.  God didn't contradict any truth among the people and he didn't arrange it so that any truth was being contradicted.  

He just made it so that they couldn't understand each other.   In the beginning, they understood each other perfectly… then all of a sudden, they are all speaking different languages.

With translators, they would eventually understand each other… but at the time, they couldn't understand each other.  

That is not an example of violating the law of non contradiction and thus this is not an example of God being the author of confusion.

Remember Asana… I was speaking to t8 about truth in relation to confusion.  Therefore, I ask you,  what truth was being violated or contradicted in these verses you brought up?  Can you see this Asana?  The confusion in those verses HAD NOTHING TO DO WITH ANY violation of truth or logic.

In conclusion… the verses you brought up doesn't demonstrate that God is the author of confusion as I was using that phrase with t8 in relation to truth.

when it comes to Truth, God is not the author of confusion.

Asana then wrote this:

Quote

Contradictions are how truth is discovered and cannot make exclusive claims only honest claims can be made.

I don't think you understood me. Or maybe I just don't understand what you wrote in the above line.  But to make things clear as to what I am meaning…

When I say that TRUTH makes exclusive claims… I mean that it will make claims that contradict other claims… like false claims.  TRUTH contradicts falsity.  TRUTH says something is true… and anything that disagrees with it, is wrong and false.  That is what is meant by TRUTH making exclusive claims.

TRUTH is like a “closed minded” person in a way because TRUTH will not accept anything but TRUTH.  TRUTH rejects anything that is not TRUTH.  TRUTH will not accept anything that is not TRUTH.

TRUTH does not contradict with TRUTH.

Asana wrote this:

Quote

let me explain this to you a little bit more: contradiction late 14c., from O.Fr. contradiction or directly from L. contradictionem (nom. contradictio) “a reply, objection, counterargument,” noun of action from pp. stem of contradicere, in classical L. contra dicere “to speak against,” from contra “against” (see contra) + dicere “to speak” (see diction). http://www.etymonline.com/index.php?term=contradiction You see Jesus was a contradiction to what the Jews considered to expect in a Messiah and likewise when you think of the Quran as contradicting some of the bible you miss the point.

Anyone can contradict anything if we use the above definition in a narrow manner.  For example, I can contradict TRUTH by simply speaking against it… or by replying against TRUTH… or by objecting to TRUTH.

But so what?  That does not mean that my objection to TRUTH… that my reply to TRUTH… that my argument against TRUTH… that my speaking against TRUTH… will make anything I say be rational or TRUE or right or correct or VALID.

What the Jews expected in a Messiah was the result of misunderstanding… or lack of understanding about what the Messiah was supposed to be like.  The Jews… the ones who rejected Jesus as the Messiah… were wrong because they didn't operate with the correct premises and/or information and/or understanding.

Their understanding of the scriptures was faulty.  I mean c'mon, how many times did Jesus have to point to the errors that the most learned Jewish scribes and rabbis were making about their own scriptures?

But my point is th
at TRUTH does not contradict TRUTH… and therefore God is not the author of confusion.  when it comes to Truth, God is not the author of confusion.

Either Jesus was the Messiah… or the Jews were correct in assuming that Jesus was not the Messiah.  YOU CAN'T HAVE IT BOTH WAYS.  That would violate the law of non-contradiction.  And God does not violate the law of non contradiction.

And so now let's go the 2nd part of your statement above…

When I say that the Quran contradicts the Bible about something… I mean that they BOTH CAN'T BE CORRECT AND VALID AND TRUE on that score.  At the point where the conradiction exists between the two… One is correct and the other is correct.  One is true and the other is false.  They can't both be true.

Surely you can see this?  This is just pure logic and common sense.  So I don't think I've missed any point at all.  Where have I?  What logical error have I made?

Asana then wrote this:

Quote

The Jews use the same material of theirs to disprove Jesus as Christ.

Yes… and so?  We go back to what I just said above.  Either the Jews are using the material (Bible) correctly or not.  There were many Jews who believed that Jesus was the Messiah… and there were many Jews who did not.  They both used the same material.  But they both can't be equally true or valid.  One group of Jews misunderstood or misapplied or misused the “material” about what the Messiah was suppossed to look like and whether Jesus was the Messiah… and the other group of Jews did not.

They both used the same material.  They both came to different conclusions.  But they are not both correct.  If they were both correct, this would violate the law of non-contradiction and cause confusion.  God does not violate the law of non contradiction and thus is not the author of confusion (as I was orginally using that phrase with t8 about TRUTH)

Asana then wrote:

Quote

Christians take Jewish text and tell them the chosen ones to spread the message of God are that they are wrong about Christ so there message contradicts the Jews and Judaism.

But does the claim that Jesus was the Messiah TRULY contradict the claims by the Jews (who reject Jesus) and by Judaism?  See?  One group of Jews (the first Christians were Jews and Jesus was a Jew) said that their claim of Jesus being the Messiah does not contradict Judaism… and the other group of Jews (the ones who reject Jesus as the Messiah)… say that claims of Jesus being the Messiah does contradict Judaism.

But both can't be correct.  One group is wrong… and the other group is right.  Truth does not contradict truth.  If Truth somehow contradicted Truth, that would cause confusion… and yet God is not the author of confusion because God does not violate the law of non-contradiction.

BTW… here is a piece of trivia you may not have known.  There are more Jews today who have accepted Jesus as their Messiah than at ANY OTHER TIME IN ALL OF HISTORY except for the early couple of centuries when Christianity began.  The explosion of the numbers Messianic Jews today is so incredible, that many orthodox Jewish Rabbis are frantically trying to combat this.

And guess what?  They are all using the same material.  someone is right.. .and someone is wrong.  Truth does not contradict truth.  Truth makes exclusive claims.  Truth does not violate the law of non contradiction.  when it comes to Truth, God is not the author of confusion.

Asana then wrote:

Quote

Islam agrees with the Christians that Jesus indeed is Christ but he was saved by God from death on the cross and they agree with Jews that God should be worshiped alone and that any Messiah would of neccessity be indeed human.

1)… But both Islam and Christians cannot be equally true and equally valid on the point (which you brought up) where they contradict or disagree as to whether Jesus died on the cross.

Truth does not contradict Truth.  When it comes to Truth, God is not the author of confusion.  Either Islam is correct and true about Jesus not dying on the cross… or it is the Christians who are correct and true about Jesus dying on the cross.

It's an either/or proposition.

Now in the past debates/discussion I have had with you, I've brought up evidence to support my claim that Jesus died on the cross.  And yet, whenever I asked you for evidence to back up your claim that Jesus did not die on the cross… you never once responded with any evidence whatsoever.

Just on that point alone… I have a stronger case for the truthfulness of Christianity than you do for the truthfulness of Islam.

If Jesus did die on the cross… then Islam is not completely true and Mohammed is not a true prophet from God.  This is so obvious to me, that I'm always surprised that you have yet to supply any evidence for your claims about Jesus not dying on the cross.

Asana wrote this:

Quote

Contradictions to stir someone into digging deeper not defaulting with “I'm right” attitudes.

Sure… so why has not the contradiction of whether Jesus died on the cross or not… spured you into digging deeper for the TRUTH and for the evidence to support your claim that Jesus did not die on the cross?

It stired me into digging deeper for the truth… and I supplied you with evidence to show that Jesus did die on the cross.  You have never (in my debates/discusssions with you) supplied any evidence at all.

Asana then wrote:

Quote

Christianity has spread to over 39,000 denominations simply because there are so many contradictions in it.

I've already dealt with this… but you have not responded to it.  At least, I can't find where you responded to it.

I think what you are doing is confusing the term “inherent and/or real contradictions” with “apparent and/or supposed contradictions”.

It doesnt' logically follow (non sequitur) that because there are so many denominations in Christianity (Islam itself also has many different sects/denominations)… then that means there are definately inherent and/or real contradictions within Christianity's theology.

If you believe that it does, then that would mean Islam also has many contradictions in it.  And this then would mean Mohammed didn't hear God properly. Man might be the author of much confusion (because man is prone to making logical fallacies and mistakes) but God is not the author of confusion… that is to say, when it comes to Truth, God is not the author of confusion.

In point of fact… I've gone through over 500 supposed and apparent contradictions that atheists have brought up, and after looking at them carefully and listening to their reasonings and arguments for their claims… I have yet to find any inherent or real contradictions in the Bible.

The clai
ms of contradictions have come down to faulty reasoning… mistranslations… improper use of context… false premises, etc, etc.

The reason for the many denominations is not because there are any real contradictions in the scriptures, but because of faulty reasoning on man's part.

when it comes to Truth, God is not the author of confusion… but man often is.  

Asana wrote:

Quote

as the contradictions decrease more clarity is seen. So in Islam it draws attention to the strongest contradictions for final resolution for both Jews and Christians.

I have no idea what this sentence means.

Asana wrote:

Quote

Think about it this way countless denominations fight mainly over Christ Jesus and his nature, baptism…etc. But in Islam the Quran goes to the very root and says that Jesus wasn't Killed or Crucified that is the ultimate contradiction of Christianity at the same time it does say that Jesus is exactly who you think he is (Christ) was born of a vigin, did Miracles by the authority of God, was targeted for murder and everything else but God saved him.

As I said before, there can often be truth found in all kinds of sources outside of the Bible.  That is not the issue.  The issue is determing what areas are false (if any) in the sources being looked at.

Jesus either died on the cross… or He did not.   It can't be both. Either Mohammed got it right, or he got it wrong.  In our discussions togther, you have never (none that I can find) supplied any evidence to support your claim and belief that Jesus did not die on the cross.

Asana wrote:

Quote

Christians have to then argue that Christ MUST be crucified and killed because if he wasn't they have no salvation not realizing by saying this they are calling Jesus “God” over all including The Most High because Salvation is not dependent on Sacrifice it is dependent on Mercy.

1)… This is a classic strawman.  

The first Christians (Jesus disciples and followers) did NOT WANT Jesus to die.  The only reason that they said Jesus died was because He did die.  Some of His followers witnessed it… the Romans witnessed it… some members of the Sanhedrhin witnessed it.  There was NEVER any dispute among Jesus' enemies or His followers that Jesus died.

The only dispute that arose between His followers and His enemies was whether or not HE ROSE FROM THE DEAD.  That was the dispute.

It wasn't Jesus' followers who orginally said that Jesus must be crucified for there to be salvation… but it was JESUS HIMSELF who claimed it… before He died.

So you've got it backwards.

2)… Jesus called Himself God (that was why the Sanhedrhin passed the death penalty on Him) and accepted worship as God and kept using terms and titles for Himself that reflected His divinity.

3)… In past debates and discussions I have had with you… I clearly showed that sacrifice was necessary.  You had brought up Ninevah… John the Baptist and even Jesus Himself in an attempt to prove that no sacrifice was necessary and that Mercy was sufficient.

I went into a great detail with you to show that you were wrong.  And you never responded except to say that something to the effect that I was to engrained in my theology to see the truth or to be open minded.

How was I to respond to that?  I can just as easily say the same about you.  Now what?

The fact is, in our past discussion on this issue… I went into great detail to show that Mercy alone, was not enough for salvation… and instead of dealing with the evidence I brought to the table… you essentially responded with what could easily pass as an adhominen.

Asana wrote:

Quote

So the challenge for the Christian is to actually find GOD after they found Christ.

There is no such challenge.  There is only one God.  Christ, being part of the Trinity as the Son of God… is God.

When we see Christ… we see God.

If we had never heard of Christ… we would still believe in God because there is only one God.  It was after Jesus came to earth as God Incarnate that we now understand Christ to be part of the Trinity.  But God was always there… even before Christ came to earth as God Incarnate and revealed Himself to us.

so once again, you've got things backwards.

Anyway Asana…

God bless you and I hope one day I will get the opportunity to meet you.

BTW… is that your picture on your posts?

Yours in Christ
Francis

[bodhitharta]

Quote (mikeboll64 @ April 19 2012,13:03)

Well, if that is your point, I'll bail from this discussion right now.  Your Quran teaches that Jesus didn't really die, but faked us all out instead.  That right there is enough for me to never bother reading the rest of it. peace and happy trails, mike

Then you are like the Jews that justthe mere mention that God would be pleased with a Human sacrifice keeps them from accepting Jesus as Messiah

[bodhitharta]

Quote (francis @ April 20 2012,09:31)

I had originally written to t8 saying that God is not the author of confusion. Asana wrote back with this: Quote That's funny you said that God was not the Author of confusion, right? Genesis 11:7 “Go to, let us go down, and there confound their language, that they may not understand one another's speech.” Genesis 11:9 “Therefore is the name of it called Babel; because the LORD did there confound the language of all the earth: and from thence did the LORD scatter them abroad upon the face of all the earth.l” You see, how there is this attempt to purge the truth where the truth should be this is in the bible. Asana… if you go back and read what I wrote to t8 on April 18, 2012 at 23:37… you would see that I was talking about Truth… especially in relation to contradiction as it is applied in logic under the fallacy called “The Law of Non-Contradiction”. When I was saying that God is not the author of confusion… I was talking about contradictions in relation to truth.  In other words… God does not violate the rule of “Non-Contradiction” in logic.  Truth… itself does not contradict itself because that would violate the law of non-contradiction.  So when God speaks the truth… He is not causing confusion by violating the law of contradiction. The confusion I was talking about is the one in which something doesn't make sense because it is violating logic (law of non-contradiction). when it comes to Truth, God is not the author of confusion. Now… put that into the rest of the context of my post to t8… and you'll see that I was talking about truth being found in other places besides the Bible.  In other words… we can find truth in the Quran… in Buddhism… in Mormonism… and in many statments and books authored by atheists. But that doesn't mean everything in the Quran or Mormonism or atheism, etc is true. Why?  Because they all contradict each other… as well as contradict with the Bible in places. If the Quran says Jesus did not die on the cross… and yet Christians say He did die on the cross… then they both can't be correct on that point.  If atheists say that there is no God, and yet Muslims and Christians say that there is a God… then they can't all be correct.  Why?  Because it violates the law of non contradiction. THIS CAUSES CONFUSION.  Violating the law of non-contradiciton causes confusion because it makes no rationals sense. But God does NOT violate the law of non-contradiction… AND THUS GOD IS NOT THE AUTHOR OF CONFUSION. That is how I was using the phrase “God is not the author of confusion” Asana… can you now understand my point now about what I meant about “author of confusion”? when it comes to Truth, God is not the author of confusion. Okay… now that we got that squared away… let's look at the verses you brought up from Genesis to see if the apply to what I was saying to t8. In Genesis 11:7 and 9… God is NOT… NOT… NOT violating the law of non-contradiction.  Therefore, these verses do not demonstrate that God is the author of confusions AS I WAS USING THAT PHRASE WITH T8. God changed the language of the people so that they couldn't understand each other.  God didn't contradict any truth among the people and he didn't arrange it so that any truth was being contradicted.   He just made it so that they couldn't understand each other.   In the beginning, they understood each other perfectly… then all of a sudden, they are all speaking different languages. With translators, they would eventually understand each other… but at the time, they couldn't understand each other.   That is not an example of violating the law of non contradiction and thus this is not an example of God being the author of confusion. Remember Asana… I was speaking to t8 about truth in relation to confusion.  Therefore, I ask you,  what truth was being violated or contradicted in these verses you brought up?  Can you see this Asana?  The confusion in those verses HAD NOTHING TO DO WITH ANY violation of truth or logic. In conclusion… the verses you brought up doesn't demonstrate that God is the author of confusion as I was using that phrase with t8 in relation to truth. when it comes to Truth, God is not the author of confusion. Asana then wrote this: Quote Contradictions are how truth is discovered and cannot make exclusive claims only honest claims can be made. I don't think you understood me. Or maybe I just don't understand what you wrote in the above line.  But to make things clear as to what I am meaning… When I say that TRUTH makes exclusive claims… I mean that it will make claims that contradict other claims… like false claims.  TRUTH contradicts falsity.  TRUTH says something is true… and anything that disagrees with it, is wrong and false.  That is what is meant by TRUTH making exclusive claims. TRUTH is like a “closed minded” person in a way because TRUTH will not accept anything but TRUTH.  TRUTH rejects anything that is not TRUTH.  TRUTH will not accept anything that is not TRUTH. TRUTH does not contradict with TRUTH. Asana wrote this: Quote let me explain this to you a little bit more: contradiction late 14c., from O.Fr. contradiction or directly from L. contradictionem (nom. contradictio) “a reply, objection, counterargument,” noun of action from pp. stem of contradicere, in classical L. contra dicere “to speak against,” from contra “against” (see contra) + dicere “to speak” (see diction). http://www.etymonline.com/index.php?term=contradiction You see Jesus was a contradiction to what the Jews considered to expect in a Messiah and likewise when you think of the Quran as contradicting some of the bible you miss the point. Anyone can contradict anything if we use the above definition in a narrow manner.  For example, I can contradict TRUTH by simply speaking against it… or by replying against TRUTH… or by objecting to TRUTH. But so what?  That does not mean that my objection to TRUTH… that my reply to TRUTH… that my argument against TRUTH… that my speaking against TRUTH… will make anything I say be rational or TRUE or right or correct or VALID. What the Jews expected in a Messiah was the result of misunderstanding… or lack of understanding about what the Messiah was supposed to be like.  The Jews… the ones who rejected Jesus as the Messiah… were wrong because they didn't operate with the correct premises and/or information and/or understanding. Their understanding of the scriptures was faulty.  I mean c'mon, how many times did Jesus have to point to the errors that the most learned Jewish scribes and rabbis were making about their own scriptures? But my point is that TRUTH does not contradict TRUTH… and therefore God is not the author of confusion.  when it comes to Truth, God is not the author of confusion. Either Jesus was the Messiah… or the Jews were correct in assuming that Jesus was not the Messiah.  YOU CAN'T HAVE IT BOTH WAYS.  That would violate the law of non-contradiction.  And God does not violate the law of non contradiction. And so now let's go the 2nd part of your statement above… When I say that the Quran contradicts the Bible about something… I mean that they BOTH CAN'T BE CORRECT AND VALID AND TRUE on that score.  At the point where the conradiction exists between the two… One is correct and the other is correct.  One is true and the other is false.  They can't both be true. Surely you can see this?  This is just pure logic and common sense.  So I don't think I've missed any point at all.  Where have I?  What logical error have I made? Asana then wrote this: Quote The Jews use the same material of theirs to disprove Jesus as Christ. Yes… and so?  We go back to what I just said above.  Either the Jews are using the material (Bible) correctly or not.  There were many Jews who believed that Jesus was the Messiah… and there were many Jews who did not.  They both used the same material.  But they both can't be equally true or valid.  One group of Jews misunderstood or misapplied or misused the “material” about what the Messiah was suppossed to look like and whether Jesus was the Messiah… and the other group of Jews did not. They both used the same material.  They both came to different conclusions.  But they are not both correct.  If they were both correct, this would violate the law of non-contradiction and cause confusion.  God does not violate the law of non contradiction and thus is not the author of confusion (as I was orginally using that phrase with t8 about TRUTH) Asana then wrote: Quote Christians take Jewish text and tell them the chosen ones to spread the message of God are that they are wrong about Christ so there message contradicts the Jews and Judaism. But does the claim that Jesus was the Messiah TRULY contradict the claims by the Jews (who reject Jesus) and by Judaism?  See?  One group of Jews (the first Christians were Jews and Jesus was a Jew) said that their claim of Jesus being the Messiah does not contradict Judaism… and the other group of Jews (the ones who reject Jesus as the Messiah)… say that claims of Jesus being the Messiah does contradict Judaism. But both can't be correct.  One group is wrong… and the other group is right.  Truth does not contradict truth.  If Truth somehow contradicted Truth, that would cause confusion… and yet God is not the author of confusion because God does not violate the law of non-contradiction. BTW… here is a piece of trivia you may not have known.  There are more Jews today who have accepted Jesus as their Messiah than at ANY OTHER TIME IN ALL OF HISTORY except for the early couple of centuries when Christianity began.  The explosion of the numbers Messianic Jews today is so incredible, that many orthodox Jewish Rabbis are frantically trying to combat this. And guess what?  They are all using the same material.  someone is right.. .and someone is wrong.  Truth does not contradict truth.  Truth makes exclusive claims.  Truth does not violate the law of non contradiction.  when it comes to Truth, God is not the author of confusion. Asana then wrote: Quote Islam agrees with the Christians that Jesus indeed is Christ but he was saved by God from death on the cross and they agree with Jews that God should be worshiped alone and that any Messiah would of neccessity be indeed human. 1)… But both Islam and Christians cannot be equally true and equally valid on the point (which you brought up) where they contradict or disagree as to whether Jesus died on the cross. Truth does not contradict Truth.  When it comes to Truth, God is not the author of confusion.  Either Islam is correct and true about Jesus not dying on the cross… or it is the Christians who are correct and true about Jesus dying on the cross. It's an either/or proposition. Now in the past debates/discussion I have had with you, I've brought up evidence to support my claim that Jesus died on the cross.  And yet, whenever I asked you for evidence to back up your claim that Jesus did not die on the cross… you never once responded with any evidence whatsoever. Just on that point alone… I have a stronger case for the truthfulness of Christianity than you do for the truthfulness of Islam. If Jesus did die on the cross… then Islam is not completely true and Mohammed is not a true prophet from God.  This is so obvious to me, that I'm always surprised that you have yet to supply any evidence for your claims about Jesus not dying on the cross. Asana wrote this: Quote Contradictions to stir someone into digging deeper not defaulting with “I'm right” attitudes. Sure… so why has not the contradiction of whether Jesus died on the cross or not… spured you into digging deeper for the TRUTH and for the evidence to support your claim that Jesus did not die on the cross? It stired me into digging deeper for the truth… and I supplied you with evidence to show that Jesus did die on the cross.  You have never (in my debates/discusssions with you) supplied any evidence at all. Asana then wrote: Quote Christianity has spread to over 39,000 denominations simply because there are so many contradictions in it. I've already dealt with this… but you have not responded to it.  At least, I can't find where you responded to it. I think what you are doing is confusing the term “inherent and/or real contradictions” with “apparent and/or supposed contradictions”. It doesnt' logically follow (non sequitur) that because there are so many denominations in Christianity (Islam itself also has many different sects/denominations)… then that means there are definately inherent and/or real contradictions within Christianity's theology. If you believe that it does, then that would mean Islam also has many contradictions in it.  And this then would mean Mohammed didn't hear God properly. Man might be the author of much confusion (because man is prone to making logical fallacies and mistakes) but God is not the author of confusion… that is to say, when it comes to Truth, God is not the author of confusion. In point of fact… I've gone through over 500 supposed and apparent contradictio ns that atheists have brought up, and after looking at them carefully and listening to their reasonings and arguments for their claims… I have yet to find any inherent or real contradictions in the Bible. The claims of contradictions have come down to faulty reasoning… mistranslations… improper use of context… false premises, etc, etc. The reason for the many denominations is not because there are any real contradictions in the scriptures, but because of faulty reasoning on man's part. when it comes to Truth, God is not the author of confusion… but man often is.   Asana wrote: Quote as the contradictions decrease more clarity is seen. So in Islam it draws attention to the strongest contradictions for final resolution for both Jews and Christians. I have no idea what this sentence means. Asana wrote: Quote Think about it this way countless denominations fight mainly over Christ Jesus and his nature, baptism…etc. But in Islam the Quran goes to the very root and says that Jesus wasn't Killed or Crucified that is the ultimate contradiction of Christianity at the same time it does say that Jesus is exactly who you think he is (Christ) was born of a vigin, did Miracles by the authority of God, was targeted for murder and everything else but God saved him. As I said before, there can often be truth found in all kinds of sources outside of the Bible.  That is not the issue.  The issue is determing what areas are false (if any) in the sources being looked at. Jesus either died on the cross… or He did not.   It can't be both. Either Mohammed got it right, or he got it wrong.  In our discussions togther, you have never (none that I can find) supplied any evidence to support your claim and belief that Jesus did not die on the cross. Asana wrote: Quote Christians have to then argue that Christ MUST be crucified and killed because if he wasn't they have no salvation not realizing by saying this they are calling Jesus “God” over all including The Most High because Salvation is not dependent on Sacrifice it is dependent on Mercy. 1)… This is a classic strawman.   The first Christians (Jesus disciples and followers) did NOT WANT Jesus to die.  The only reason that they said Jesus died was because He did die.  Some of His followers witnessed it… the Romans witnessed it… some members of the Sanhedrhin witnessed it.  There was NEVER any dispute among Jesus' enemies or His followers that Jesus died. The only dispute that arose between His followers and His enemies was whether or not HE ROSE FROM THE DEAD.  That was the dispute. It wasn't Jesus' followers who orginally said that Jesus must be crucified for there to be salvation… but it was JESUS HIMSELF who claimed it… before He died. So you've got it backwards. 2)… Jesus called Himself God (that was why the Sanhedrhin passed the death penalty on Him) and accepted worship as God and kept using terms and titles for Himself that reflected His divinity. 3)… In past debates and discussions I have had with you… I clearly showed that sacrifice was necessary.  You had brought up Ninevah… John the Baptist and even Jesus Himself in an attempt to prove that no sacrifice was necessary and that Mercy was sufficient. I went into a great detail with you to show that you were wrong.  And you never responded except to say that something to the effect that I was to engrained in my theology to see the truth or to be open minded. How was I to respond to that?  I can just as easily say the same about you.  Now what? The fact is, in our past discussion on this issue… I went into great detail to show that Mercy alone, was not enough for salvation… and instead of dealing with the evidence I brought to the table… you essentially responded with what could easily pass as an adhominen. Asana wrote: Quote So the challenge for the Christian is to actually find GOD after they found Christ. There is no such challenge.  There is only one God.  Christ, being part of the Trinity as the Son of God… is God. When we see Christ… we see God. If we had never heard of Christ… we would still believe in God because there is only one God.  It was after Jesus came to earth as God Incarnate that we now understand Christ to be part of the Trinity.  But God was always there… even before Christ came to earth as God Incarnate and revealed Himself to us. so once again, you've got things backwards. Anyway Asana… God bless you and I hope one day I will get the opportunity to meet you. BTW… is that your picture on your posts? Yours in Christ Francis

Francis

I only need to respond to the most provocative statement

Christians say Jesus died on the cross the Quran does not disagree with the belief of the Christian it disagrees with
the information itself. There is no debate that Jesus was believed to be killed or Crucified the Quran is saying that I understand your belief but it didn't happen he was not killed or crucified but it appeared to be so.

Didn't Isaiah say seeing they do not see and hearing they do not hear? This is proof of that.

And their saying: Surely we have killed the messiah, Jesus son of Mary, the messenger of Allah; and they did not kill him nor did they crucify him, but it appeared to them so and most surely those who differ therein are only in a doubt about it; they have no knowledge respecting it, but only follow a conjecture, and they killed him not for sure.
( سورة النساء , An-Nisa, Chapter #4, Verse #157)

[francis]

Asana wrote the following…

Quote

Francis   I only need to respond to the most provocative statement Christians say Jesus died on the cross the Quran does not disagree with the belief of the Christian it disagrees with the information itself. There is no debate that Jesus was believed to be killed or Crucified the Quran is saying that I understand your belief but it didn't happen he was not killed or crucified but it appeared to be so. Didn't Isaiah say seeing they do not see and hearing they do not hear? This is proof of that. And their saying: Surely we have killed the messiah, Jesus son of Mary, the messenger of Allah; and they did not kill him nor did they crucify him, but it appeared to them so  and most surely those who differ therein are only in a doubt about it; they have no knowledge respecting it, but only follow a conjecture, and they killed him not for sure.   (  سورة النساء  , An-Nisa, Chapter #4, Verse #157)

Hello Asana…

Quote

I only need to respond to the most provocative statement

If you only wish to respond to the most “provocative” statement, that is your privilege. But I am going to assume that your desire to not respond to anything else I've written, is tantamount to you agreeing with the rest of my prior post.

Quote

Christians say Jesus died on the cross the Quran does not disagree with the belief of the Christian it disagrees with the information itself. There is no debate that Jesus was believed to be killed or Crucified the Quran is saying that I understand your belief but it didn't happen he was not killed or crucified but it appeared to be so.

And yet you won't supply any evidence for even that much.

Asana… how can anyone respond to this kind of reasoning on your part?

How would you prove that you are real if I were to claim that you are not real, but that you only believe that you are real?  Or how about if I claim that this earth is not real, but that people only believe this earth is real?  Or about this forum?

What if I claimed that Mohammed only believed that he heard from God, but that he really didn't hear from God?

I'm sure you would try to drum up some evidence to prove that you are real… that this earth is real… and that this forum is real.  So why not do  the same with your claim that everyone in history only believes that Jesus died, but that he really didn't die on the cross?

You're above belief about Jesus not dying on the cross is conveniently stated in such a manner that it can't be tested or verified by anyone… not even by you.  Nor could it be verified or demonstrated by Mohammed at the time he made such statements about Jesus not dying on the cross.

Since you bring up Isaiah… I will also bring him up.

God himself said: “Come, let us reason together” (Isaiah 1:18).

1 Peter 3:15 (Amp) says: ” Always be ready to give a logical defense to anyone who asks you to account for the hope that is in you, but do it courteously and respectfully.”

This appears to be what separates Christianity from Islam.  Christians want to give a logical defense for our beliefs so that non believers can test Christianity's claims.  Christians want to reason with non-believers so that Christianity can be tested and discussed on a rational basis. God Himself is logic and rationality… and wants to reason with us.

But when it comes to Islam… and when I ask for evidence for your claim that Jesus didn't really die on the cross… you give none.  Your only response appears to make it impossible for any rational person to find out if you claim has any basis in truth or facts.

Quote

Didn't Isaiah say seeing they do not see and hearing they do not hear? This is proof of that.

 So can't I use Isaiah and say the same thing about you and Mohammed?  “Seeing, the Muslims do not see and hearing, the Muslims don't hear”?

Or how about this: “Seeing, Asana does not see and hearing, Asana doesn't hear”?

What is the difference between me saying this about Muslims and you saying this about Christians?

You are not making any rational sense to me.  Isaiah himself reports that God wants to reason with us.  The quote you bring up from Isaiah is talking about people WHO REFUSE TO REASON WITH GOD OR TO REASON AT ALL.

The fact remains, I brought evidence to support my beliefs.. you have not done so for your beliefs.  You've adopted the very same “I say” attitude which you've complained that Christians have done about their beliefs!!!!!

Quote

And their saying: Surely we have killed the messiah, Jesus son of Mary, the messenger of Allah; and they did not kill him nor did they crucify him, but it appeared to them so and most surely those who differ therein are only in a doubt about it; they have no knowledge respecting it, but only follow a conjecture, and they killed him not for sure.   (  سورة النساء  , An-Nisa, Chapter #4, Verse #157)

Can't you see the logical pickle you've put yourself in?  Can't you see the logical corner you've painted yourself in?

You cite a verse from the Quran which is nothing more than a claim or an assertion that Jesus didn't really die on the cross.  You've given no evidence whatsoever to show that this verse is true or valid.

You just ASSERT it to be true.  The Quran is simply ASSERTING it to be true that Jesus didn't really die on the cross.  You point to a verse in the Quran and say… AHAAA!!  This proves that Jesus didn't really die on the cross.  

You are essentially saying that you don't need evidence or need to engage in any rational discussion about what and why you believe that Jesus didn't really die on the cross.

In logic, this is a TAUTOLOGY.  

And if you are using a Quran verse to support the same Quran verse…  that is to say, if you use a Quran verse to support or prove itself… then this is also arguing in circles… it is BEGGING THE QUESTION.

Always Respectfully and your friend…
Francis:)

[Author]

Posts