A Letter to Islam - Your Critique, please!

[Light of the East]

I think I will go one by one with the questions so we can start from somewhere!
Do you believe bible you have now is word of God?

Adding to what Fr. Matt said, Jesus never even instructed the Apostles to produce a Bible and call it the "Word of God." As Fr. Matt said, Apostle John, who was a mystical writer, refers to Christ as "the Word" who was with the Father from the beginning. (John 1)

We have a book which gives us a written account of parts of the life of Jesus which are important to know. As John said, if everything that Jesus ever did or said was written down, there would not be enough books in the world to contain it all. You surely don't think that everything that Christ Jesus taught the Apostle is only in the Bible???

In the book of Acts, after Christ resurrected, it says that He spent 40 days with them, teaching them, yet we have absolutely no record at all of what Christ taught them. What you are doing, sir, and I mean no offense by saying this, is acting like one of the Protestant sects we constantly have to deal with. They refuse to believe anything except that which is in the Bible, and their own interpretation to boot. This ignores the fact that there were at least 3,000 days and nights of ministry in which Christ lived with, spoke with, and taught his Apostles and disciples and only a very small fraction of it has been recorded.

In addition, of the many letters which were written up until the Bible was completed at the Council of Carthage in the fourth century, many of them were discarded as spurious reports. Only that which could be verified as the continuing teaching of the Apostles, i.e. that which was taught from the beginning, was eventually allowed in.

Fr. Matt is correct. Jesus is the living Word of God.

 

[Godistruth1]

I would say that the problem with this contention is that you believe that the way God transmitted his truth is that every message has to be word for word. Kind of like a secretary taking dictation. That's not how communication from God works.

For instance, when in the list of 101 contradictions in the Bible it gives two different numbers

2. In that count how many fighting men were found in Israel?

• Eight hundred thousand (2 Samuel 24:9)
• One million, one hundred thousand (I Chronicles 21:5)

this is a historical report of an event which took place. Do you actually think that God said "Write down the number 800,000?" Not all of the Scriptures are a direct word from God, such as the 10 Commandments. You have to be able to look at the Bible and discern who is speaking, what the nature of the issue is, and whether it is a man simply reporting a fact, such as David's adultery with Bathsheeba, or if God is speaking directly, as in the prophecies of Daniel.

Your response is a rather common tactic among those who wish to discredit the Bible for one reason or another, yet there is no proof that the Biblical message was ever distorted, except that you say it is. That, sir, is not proof. You need to be able to give the original texts, which have long since disappeared, and then show that what is written now is different.

But more than that, to say such a thing infers that the men who died to defend and protect these truths were dishonorable men who did not protect the message that Jesus gave to them. It is a serious slander on their character, as well as the character of the whole Church. You see, it was the leadership of the Christian faith which presented the Gospel to the pagan masses of people. For there to be a change in the very message would mean that there was a collusion across the board with all the Apostles, with St. Paul, and with those who followed them.

Now if St. Paul had deviated from the message that the Apostles had received from Jesus, there would have been no small contention over this. We see that whenever there was a strange teaching that someone tried to introduce, the Church leadership called a council to discuss and either accept or reject what was being taught. If St. Paul was changing the message, then surely there would be a historical record of this argument between he and the Apostles, yet none exists!

Furthermore, men do not die, sometimes in most horrible and gruesome ways, to defend that which they know is a lie, or that which they have colluded to make up.

"What.....why are you heating up that oil in big pot?"

"You are going be boiled alive for preaching that Jesus is God."

"What??? No, no Jesus! I don't know what you are talking about. It was all a big joke. We are just kidding!!! We'll stop. I'll be good, I promise!!"

You have to prove that the Apostles changed the message entrusted to them. You can't. You have to prove that St. Paul - as members of Islam state - changed the message of the Apostles and preached a false Gospel. You can't. And if Paul didn't and was willing to die for that message, then you know tat his disciples learned the same truth for which they were willing to die.

So your objection is an entirely made up objection with no basis.

Are you saying bible you have now isn't all inspired or not at all inspired? If only part of bible is then which part & how sure are you?

 

[Godistruth1]

fair enough.

no, the Word of God is His Son, the Lord Jesus Christ. the Bible never calls itself the Word of God and only calls Christ the Word.

Adding to what Fr. Matt said, Jesus never even instructed the Apostles to produce a Bible and call it the "Word of God." As Fr. Matt said, Apostle John, who was a mystical writer, refers to Christ as "the Word" who was with the Father from the beginning. (John 1)

We have a book which gives us a written account of parts of the life of Jesus which are important to know. As John said, if everything that Jesus ever did or said was written down, there would not be enough books in the world to contain it all. You surely don't think that everything that Christ Jesus taught the Apostle is only in the Bible???

In the book of Acts, after Christ resurrected, it says that He spent 40 days with them, teaching them, yet we have absolutely no record at all of what Christ taught them. What you are doing, sir, and I mean no offense by saying this, is acting like one of the Protestant sects we constantly have to deal with. They refuse to believe anything except that which is in the Bible, and their own interpretation to boot. This ignores the fact that there were at least 3,000 days and nights of ministry in which Christ lived with, spoke with, and taught his Apostles and disciples and only a very small fraction of it has been recorded.

In addition, of the many letters which were written up until the Bible was completed at the Council of Carthage in the fourth century, many of them were discarded as spurious reports. Only that which could be verified as the continuing teaching of the Apostles, i.e. that which was taught from the beginning, was eventually allowed in.

Fr. Matt is correct. Jesus is the living Word of God.

How do you know about the son if not from bible?

 

[Light of the East]

Are you saying bible you have now isn't all inspired or not at all inspired? If only part of bible is then which part & how sure are you?

That is not what I said at all. I was responding to the idea that the Bible was dictated word for word by God, which appears to be what you believe regarding how God transmits His truth. Is that how you believe God has spoken? I think I read somewhere that in Islam, it is believed that every word came directly from the mouth of God to the Prophet. Is that correct?

 

[Light of the East]

How do you know about the son if not from bible?

The testimony of the witness, who, as I said, would not lie about something if it meant that they would be subject to persecution and death in the most heinous ways imaginable.

There was no collected and approved canon of Scripture called "the Bible" for 400 years, and for the first 20 or 30 years after the death of Christ there was no writing about Him. In other words, it was the verbal transmission of truth from the Apostles to the next generation.

I would be interested in knowing why you think they would make up something and teach it. Of what benefit would this be to them?

 

[Godistruth1]

The testimony of the witness, who, as I said, would not lie about something if it meant that they would be subject to persecution and death in the most heinous ways imaginable.

There was no collected and approved canon of Scripture called "the Bible" for 400 years, and for the first 20 or 30 years after the death of Christ there was no writing about Him. In other words, it was the verbal transmission of truth from the Apostles to the next generation.

I would be interested in knowing why you think they would make up something and teach it. Of what benefit would this be to them?

And where is the witness documented? You see that's what happens to saints or holy men in every religion. Satan deceives them in worshipping them when its only our God who has to be worshiped

 

[dzheremi]

Alright, how many Islamic talking points are going to clutter the notification system for this thread? Enough already. Asking questions is fine, but baldly asserting the Islamic religion's theology isn't doing that.

 

[Light of the East]

And where is the witness documented? You see that's what happens to saints or holy men in every religion. Satan deceives them in worshipping them when its only our God who has to be worshiped

Really? So if I was in an accident and witnesses were brought forward to testify what they saw, you are saying they would have to be documented? Even if they were proven to be there? At what point in time are you willing to accept the testimony of those who saw Christ?

There are secular witnesses to Christ in the first century such as Pliney the Elder. These are men who were not Christians and had no interest in the Christian faith, yet they reported facts about Christ and His followers (who were called "The Way") as disinterested observers.

If I understand correctly, there are also textual proofs in archeological finds which prove the veracity and existence of the Original Autographs.

 

[Godistruth1]

Really? So if I was in an accident and witnesses were brought forward to testify what they saw, you are saying they would have to be documented? Even if they were proven to be there? At what point in time are you willing to accept the testimony of those who saw Christ?

There are secular witnesses to Christ in the first century such as Pliney the Elder. These are men who were not Christians and had no interest in the Christian faith, yet they reported facts about Christ and His followers (who were called "The Way") as disinterested observers.

If I understand correctly, there are also textual proofs in archeological finds which prove the veracity and existence of the Original Autographs.

Believe me, we have saints here few hundred years ago who are claimed to part the river and fly and all claim to have witnesses!

 

[ArmyMatt]

How do you know about the son if not from bible?

the Liturgy, lives of the saints, patristics, hymns, icons, sacraments, prayers, canons, synodal statements of local and ecumenical councils, etc. plus, first and foremost the Son is a Person Who can be known directly as He is. we don't read our Bibles simply to know about the Son, we can know He is the Word from Christ Himself.

 

[Godistruth1]

the Liturgy, lives of the saints, patristics, hymns, icons, sacraments, prayers, canons, synodal statements of local and ecumenical councils, etc. plus, first and foremost the Son is a Person Who can be known directly as He is. we don't read our Bibles simply to know about the Son, we can know He is the Word from Christ Himself.

I believe often holy men down the line are made up as such that supernatural and divinity is associated with them! No religion is free from it!

 

[dzheremi]

By the rationale given by the Muslim guest in this thread, nobody should believe anything any Muslim has to say about anything, as Hafs (who is responsible for the reading of the Qur'an that is used in over 90% of the Islamic world) was not one of the companions of Muhammad (he was not even born until almost a century after the hijra), so he cannot have possibly transmitted anything correctly.

 

[Lukaris]

I strongly urge any inquirer into Christianity to look closely at the commandments of the Lord to love God & neighbor. I am not saying this for a kumbaya session. The Lord says these words are the law & Prophets ( Matthew 22:36-40 etc. ) and He says that to treat others as we would want to be treated is the source of the law & prophets ( Matthew 7:12).

The Lord affirms what was written of Him in the Old Testament ( Luke 24:44-49 ). This is the Gospel of God; you can either believe it or not. I also posted earlier that the Lord said the prophets ended with St. John the Baptist.

This has been the primary message since the Gospel was preached centuries before some “prophet” from Arabia said other things.

 

[ArmyMatt]

I believe often holy men down the line are made up as such that supernatural and divinity is associated with them! No religion is free from it!

of course that's what you claim as a Muslim. that's not the issue, the issue is can you show evidence from that time that it actually happened?

 

[Godistruth1]

By the rationale given by the Muslim guest in this thread, nobody should believe anything any Muslim has to say about anything, as Hafs (who is responsible for the reading of the Qur'an that is used in over 90% of the Islamic world) was not one of the companions of Muhammad (he was not even born until almost a century after the hijra), so he cannot have possibly transmitted anything correctly.

Hafs and warsh are not different versions of the Qur'an. The written Qur'an in Arabic is one and unchanged. The words, letters, meanings, etc. are the same and unchanged(without vowels).
Vowels added later help in recitation for non Arabs and for Arabs according to their dialect!
when reading it, the recitation are different styles of pronunciation. Both are reading the exact same book.

Think of it as some one speaking in an American vs. British accent. Both can read the exact same book and having different reading styles (emphasis, enunciations, etc.) of the same text.

 

[Godistruth1]

of course that's what you claim as a Muslim. that's not the issue, the issue is can you show evidence from that time that it actually happened?

Quran is enough evidence for us since we believe its from God. It correct Christian belief of Jesus being God/son of God. He is only a prophet for us

 

[ArmyMatt]

Quran is enough evidence for us since we believe its from God. It correct Christian belief of Jesus being God/son of God. He is only a prophet for us

yes, but you are making a historical claim. you are saying that Christian distorted the revelation. so you have to show from before the Quran was given, that Christians actually did this. you cannot just say Islam says so, because that is circular reasoning. so show the historical evidence from before Mohammad that Christians did what you are saying they did.

 

[RobNJ]

Satan deceives them in worshipping them when its only our God who has to be worshiped

"Satan deceives them" Well, that explains Islam.

 

[Godistruth1]

"Satan deceives them" Well, that explains Islam.

Islam claims only God needs to be worshiped. We don't add 2 more gods in any way!

 

[ArmyMatt]

Islam claims only God needs to be worshiped. We don't add 2 more gods in any way!

neither do we. there has only ever been one God.