03-03-2005, 03:30 AM #1
*Geisler:* One out of every five persons on the face of
the earth is a Muslim. _One out of every five!_ In the
United States Islam is growing at an astronomical rate.
There are more Muslims than Methodists in the United States.
These are people who are diametrically opposed to
Christianity's most central belief -- that Jesus Christ died
on the cross and rose from the dead. Historically and
theologically, many Muslims have been committed to the
annihilation of unbelievers -- which includes us.
Muslims believe Christians have committed the
unpardonable sin of attributing "partners" to Allah --
namely, belief in the Trinity. In Saudi Arabia they recently
cut somebody's head off for blaspheming the prophet
Muhammad, which, by definition, my co-author (Abdul Saleeb)
and I do on practically every page of our new book. Islam is
a serious threat to Christianity.
*Newsletter:* _But this book is not written in a hostile
fashion towards Islam, towards the Qur'an, towards Muhammad,
*Geisler:* No, it's not. We take an objective,
dispassionate, scholarly approach in dealing with (1) what
Muslim's believe (and, by the way, we believe a Muslim could
pick this book up and agree with how we've described Islamic
beliefs); (2) a Christian response to Islamic beliefs; and
(3) an apologetic defense of what we believe as Christians.
*Newsletter:* _Muslims are monotheists, right?_
*Geisler:* Yes. Monotheism is the belief that there is
one God. Jews and Christians are monotheistic. But Muslims
are the most rigid monotheists in the world. They believe
there's not only one God but that there's only _one person_
in God (i.e., God doesn't have a son). They confuse unity
and singularity. Any other persons associated with God is
considered blasphemy. It's the great sin. God has no
partners, Muslims say.
*Newsletter:* _So, to say that Jesus Christ was the Son
of God and that He was equal with God would be considered
*Geisler:* You just lost your head in Saudi Arabia!
*Newsletter:* _Muslims say Muhammad was a prophet. And
Muhammad in the Qur'an said Jesus Christ was a prophet.
Assuming that prophets do not speak error, wouldn't this
present a logical problem for Muslims? After all, according
to John 14:6, Jesus said, "I am the way and the truth and
the life. No one comes to the Father except through me." So,
Jesus the "prophet," being one-hundred percent correct,
refutes Muhammad and all of Islam, right?_
*Geisler:* That's correct. And that's a good approach to
use. But you need to keep one thing in mind here. What
Muslims say to that line of reasoning is that while they
believe in the Christian Gospels, which represent Christ,
they've been corrupted down through the centuries. And so
Christians must answer that allegation.
We do this in our book, _Answering Islam,_ by showing
that we have manuscripts of the New Testament that go back
hundreds of years _prior_ to the time of Muhammad. Now, keep
in mind that Muhammad referred to the New Testament Gospels
_of his day_ -- and indicated their reliability. After all,
he said to Christians: "Go and look in your own Gospels."
Well, if the Gospels of his day (A.D. 600) were accurate
-- and we've got manuscripts that go back even before that
-- then they're in a pretty tough dilemma to explain why you
shouldn't follow the logic you suggested above: Jesus is a
prophet; He always teaches the truth; and if He taught He
was the _only way_ to God, then how can Christianity not be
*Newsletter:* _What specifically does the Qur'an teach
about Jesus Christ?_
*Geisler:* It's strange that while Muslims think Jesus
was only a man -- a prophet superseded by Muhammad -- at the
same time the Qur'an teaches that Jesus Christ was the
Messiah, the Word of God, a speaker of truth, a sign unto
men of mercy from God. It teaches that Jesus was virgin
born, sinless, performed supernatural miracles (including
raising people from the dead), and bodily ascended into
heaven. All of this is affirmed of Jesus Christ in the
Qur'an. The crucial thing Muslims _don't_ believe is that
Jesus died on the cross for our sins and rose from the dead.
One must emphasize to the Muslim that the Jesus of the
New Testament claimed to be God, not just a prophet. We have
a whole chapter in our book on the deity of Christ. Jesus
said, "I and the Father are one" (John 10:30). In John 8:58
Jesus said to some Jews, "Before Abraham was, I am," thereby
claiming to be God (cf. Exod. 3:14). He received worship on
many different occasions. One of His disciples bowed before
Him and said, "My Lord and my God" (John 20:28),
acknowledging His full deity. Jesus forgave sins, which only
God can do (Mark 2:5-7). Jesus resurrected people from the
dead, which only God has the power to do (John 11:38-44). So
Jesus in many different ways is shown to be God, not just a
prophet. The Bible and the Qur'an are irreconcilable on
*Newsletter:* _Interestingly enough, the Qur'an does not
claim Muhammad was a miracle worker, does it?_
*Geisler:* You're right! And that's a very important
apologetic point. Nowhere in the Qur'an does it record
Muhammad performing any supernatural feats of nature. In
fact, he disavowed such an ability. When asked, "Why don't
you perform miracles like the other prophets did?" he
responded: "_This_ is my miracle, the Qur'an." The Qur'an is
said to be the _only_ miracle of Muhammad.
*Newsletter:* _Speaking of the Qur'an, this book does
not portray God as a heavenly Father, does it?_
Geisler: No, it doesn't. There are 99 names for God in
Islam. We have them listed in our book. Out of the 99, there
is no mention of "Father." And the reason for that is that
Muslims are rigid monotheists. They believe that being a
Father implies that he has a son, and that is considered
blasphemous. God has no partners.
*Newsletter:* _What is the Islamic concept of God in
terms of human beings relating to him?_
*Geisler:* The Islamic God is very remote, very
transcendent. He is not immanent; he's not personally
involved with his creatures. The main thing in Islam is not
fellowship with God, but service and allegiance to God.
There is no fatherly concept of God at all. It's very
different from the concept of God found in the Christian
Bible. In Christianity, believers are adopted into God's
family (Eph. 1:5) and can personally address God as Father
(Rom. 8:15). It's a relationship of great intimacy. Not so
*Newsletter:* _Islam and Christianity, then, set forth
clearly different views of God and Jesus Christ, among other
things. Both systems cannot be true._
*Geisler:* Right! There's a big difference between the
two systems. The answer to the question of truth is of
eternal importance. If there's a substantial difference
between the two systems -- and if your eternal soul depends
on a correct choice of one system or the other -- then it
behooves everyone to examine seriously all the evidence and
make a truly informed decision.
We can't just say, "Well, I believe it, I was taught it,
I was reared that way." The question is, _Which one is
true?_ If Islam is true, Christianity is false. If
Christianity is true, Islam is false.
Remember what Jesus Christ said: "I am the way, the
truth, and the life, and no one comes to the Father but by
me" (John 14:6). If Islam is right, then _Jesus Christ was
lying_ when He said that. Muslims say Jesus was a prophet,
and prophets can't lie. So they're in a real dilemma here.
*Newsletter:* _Any closing thoughts for Christians who
want to become equipped for the work of apologetics?_
*Geisler:* One of my teachers -- a man who spent some
twenty years in the Middle East, and made a great impression
on my life -- used to say that with regard to education and
preparation for serving Christ, _Get all you can! Can all
you get! And sit on the lid!_ Then you'll have everything
you need to defend the faith as opportunities arise.
Becoming equipped for the work of apologetics is an absolute
necessity for Christians today.
_For a catalogue of Dr. Geisler's tapes you can write
Powerhouse, P.O. Box 859, Clayton, CA 94517. To contact Dr.
Geisler personally you can write him at: Southern
Evangelical Seminary, 5801 Pineville-Matthews Rd.,
Charlotte, NC 28226-3447;_ or phone: (704) 543-9475.
03-03-2005, 08:47 AM #2
03-03-2005, 11:26 AM #3
M. So Abraham who was born in Ur of Chaldees could not have been a Jew. First because Ur of Chaldees was in Mesopotamia, which is now a part of Iraq. He was then more an Arab than a Jew. Secondly the name "Jew" came after the existence of Judah, the great grandson of Abraham (see chart on page 4). Read further, Genesis 12:4 and 5.
No Offense Zoib, but this article is not a very good apologetic for Islam. For instance, it makes no difference where Abraham was born. The Jews were a certain blood line which God set apart from the the rest of humanity.
03-03-2005, 12:36 PM #4Originally Posted by books555
Plus the article and interview is very biased.
All the Prophets from Adam (PBUH), to Jesus (PBUH), and Muhammed (PBUH), are dead, and they should not be worshipped. Only GOD should be worshipped.
Abu Bakr declaring to those who would not believe that Mohammed had passed away, "He who worships Mohammed let him know that Mohammed is dead, but he who worships Allah, let him know that Allah lives and will not die."
Last edited by CAUSASIAN; 03-03-2005 at 12:45 PM.
03-03-2005, 12:38 PM #5
i know that article has some of its authors own bias , but i wanted to use that as a reference to what are the points we object about christianity .......... various islamic authors have various explanations , and no offense taken !
03-03-2005, 12:40 PM #6
Yeah Geisler does have a Bias, but so does everyone else. That should not take away from the arguement he puts forth.
03-03-2005, 12:45 PM #7Originally Posted by books555
03-03-2005, 12:47 PM #8
An Ex-christian Chaplain Now Muslim Says !
Then comes, THE QUESTIONS NOBODY WANTS TO ANSWER - What about the Bible? Who actually wrote it?
* What was the original language of the Bible? (Was it Hebrew? Was it Aramaic? How about Koine Greek?)
NOTE: - The Bible was never in English during the time of Jesus, peace be upon him, or any prophet (not even Muhammad, peace be upon him,) - because English did not exist until after 1066 AD!
* Does the Bible exist in the original form anywhere on earth? (No)
* Why does the Catholic Bible have seven (7) more books than the Protestant Bible?
* Why do these two Bibles have different versions of the same books?
* Why are there so many mistakes and errors in the Bible from the very first verse right up to the very last verse?
* Why do ‘Born Again Christians’ teach concepts that are not from the Bible?
* There is no word “Trinity” in the Bible in any version of any language?
* The oldest forms of Christianity do not support the ‘born again’ beliefs. Why?
* Jesus of the English Bible complains about the ‘crucifixion.’ Why?
(“Eli! Eli! Lama sabachthani? - My God! My God! Why have You forsaken me?”) [Mk 15:34]
* How can Jesus be the ‘Only Begotten Son’ of John 3:16? When in Psalms 2:7 David is God’s ‘Begotten Son?’
* Would a ‘Just God’, a ‘Fair God’, a ‘Loving God’ – punish Jesus for the sins of the people that he called to follow him?
* What happens to people who died before Jesus came?
* What happens to those who never hear this message?
* What about innocent children who die although their parents are not Christian?
* Didn’t God create Adam from dirt? – So, why does he need Mary to make Jesus?
* What about God? How can God create Himself?
* How can a man be a God? How can God be a man? How can God have a son?
The Bible says, “Enos is the son of Seth, and Seth is the son of Adam, and Adam is the son of God.” [Luke 3:36]
* Can’t God just forgive us and not have to kill Jesus?
* What about Jesus? Jesus did not even carry the cross – Simon Cyrene, a passer-by did! [Mk 15:21]
* Jesus of the Bible was NOT on the cross for longer than six (6) hours -- NOT three days -- (from the 3rd to the 9th hour) [Mk 15:25 & 15:33]
* Jesus of the Bible did not spend three days and nights in the tomb -- Friday night - until Sunday before dawn -- is only two nights and one day, not 3 days and nights!
* Jesus DID NOT claim to be God - or even equal to God!
I THINK this is a less more bias since he used to be a christian and he found the deficiencies regarding christianity ! interesting read ........... the original site is www.islamtomorrow.com
03-03-2005, 12:56 PM #9
Why are there 12 Apostles but only 4 gospels? Although there are more than 4 gospels in existence. Many scholar's consider the book of Acts is the "fifth gospel," but the early Christian's didn't consider it as a gospel.
Why do you reject that Book of Enoch, Epistle of Barnabus, The book of Jude, the Gospel According to St. Thomas, and why do Christian scholars consider the Gospel according to Thomas to be "herectical" if he was a apostle?
03-03-2005, 01:00 PM #10Originally Posted by ZOAIB
03-03-2005, 01:01 PM #11
-The languag does not matter. The validity of it does
-No we donot have any of the original forms. This does not matter. Bruce Metzger at Princeton, gives the New Testament a 99.5 percent accuracy.
Ill respond to the rest of this when I have a little more time.
03-03-2005, 01:02 PM #12
I dont believe they are very hard to answer.
03-04-2005, 12:45 AM #13
The hadith claims that Mohammed was a white man? The hadith even talks about his penis being white? Islamic views on this?
03-04-2005, 12:53 AM #14Originally Posted by books555
Prophet Muhammed (PBUH) was a Semitic Arab from the Qurashi tribe of Mecca, his family roots are well traced.
He was a light-skinned Arab.
03-04-2005, 01:12 AM #15Originally Posted by books555
03-04-2005, 01:18 AM #16
Christianity is Monotheistic.
03-04-2005, 01:21 AM #17
This is a radio script. Its not very good. He is trying to express ideas to a very unlearned audience on this subject.
03-12-2005, 06:05 PM #18Originally Posted by books555
03-12-2005, 06:53 PM #19
Yes I can. I will tonight. sometime.
03-12-2005, 09:06 PM #20Originally Posted by books555
03-12-2005, 09:20 PM #21
03-12-2005, 09:52 PM #22
No, that is Bruce Metzger claim. I dont know where Katz got his information from.
Responses to "Islamic Information"
A Critical Analysis of Shabir Ally's Misuse of Bruce M. Metzger's Writings
In some of Shabir Ally's debates one will find him citing Bruce M. Metzger, a world renowned authority on the manuscripts and transmission of the Greek New Testament (NT) text, to support his argument that the NT text has been corrupted. The impression Shabir gives is that Metzger seemingly believes that the variants within the ancient manuscripts of the NT prove that scribes corrupted the text. Hence, Shabir gives his audience the impression that Metzger feels that Christians cannot confidently assert that today's NT is a faithful replica of the original autographs.
In this article we will quote Metzger's views on the variant readings of the NT text and how this effects its preservation. The following quotations are taken from Lee Strobel's book The Case For Christ (Zondervan Publishing House; Grand Rapids, MI 1998 pocket size edition). In chapter two of his book, Strobel personally interviewed Metzger on the reliability and preservation of the NT text. Strobel opens up the interview with Metzger on the issue of alleged "errors" of the NT text:
EXAMINING THE ERRORS
"With the similarities in the way Greek letters are written and with the primitive conditions under which the scribes worked, it would seem inevitable that copying errors would creep into the text,' I said.
"Quite so," Metzger conceded.
"And in fact, aren't there literally tens of thousands of variations among the ancient manuscripts that we have?"
"Doesn't that therefore mean we can't trust them?" I asked, sounding more accusatory than inquisitive.
"No sir, it does not," Metzger replied firmly. "First let me say this: Eyeglasses weren't invented until 1373 in Venice, and I'm sure that astigmatism existed among the ancient scribes. That was compounded by the fact that it was difficult under any circumstances to read faded manuscripts on which some of the ink had flaked away. And there were other hazards - inattentiveness on the part of scribes, for example. So yes, although for the most part scribes were scrupulously careful, errors did creep in.
"But," he was quick to add, "there are factors counteracting that. For example, sometimes the scribe's memory would play tricks on him. Between the time it took for him to look at the text and then to write down the words, the order of words might get shifted. He may write down the right words but in the wrong sequence. This is nothing to be alarmed at, because Greek, unlike English, is an inflected language."
"Meaning...," I prompted him.
"Meaning it makes a whale of a difference in English if you say, 'Dog bites man' or 'Man bites dog' - sequence matters in English. But in Greek it doesn't. One word functions as the subject of the sentence regardless of where it stands in the sequence; consequently, the meaning of the sentence isn't distorted if the words are out of what we consider to be the right order. So yes, some variations among manuscripts exist, but generally they're inconsequential variations like that. Differences in spelling would be another example."
Still, the high number of "variants," or differences among manuscripts, was troubling. I had seen estimates as high as two hundred thousand of them. However, Metzger downplayed the significance of that figure.
"The number sounds big, but it's a bit misleading because of the way variants are counted," he said. He explained that if a single word is misspelled in two thousand manuscripts, that's counted as two thousand variants.
I keyed in on the most important issue. "How many doctrines of the church are in jeopardy because of variants?"
"I don't know of any doctrine that is in jeopardy," he responded confidently.
"None," he repeated. "Now, the Jehovah's Witnesses come to our door and say, 'Your Bible is wrong in the King James Version of 1 John 5:7-8, where it talks about "the Father, the Word, and the Holy Ghost: and these three are one." They'll say, 'That's not in the earliest manuscripts.'
"And that's true enough. I think that these words are found in only about seven or eight copies, all from the fifteenth or sixteenth century. I acknowledge that is not part of what the author of 1 John was inspired to write.
"But that does not dislodge the firmly witnessed testimony of the Bible to the doctrine of the Trinity. At the baptism of Jesus, the Father speaks, his beloved Son is baptized, and the Holy Spirit descends on him. At the ending of 2 Corinthians Paul says, 'May the grace of the Lord Jesus Christ, and the love of God, and the fellowship of the Holy Spirit be with you all.' There are many places where the Trinity is represented."
"So the variations, when they occur, tend to be minor rather than substantive?"
"Yes, yes, that's correct, and scholars work very carefully to try to resolve them by getting back to the original meaning. The more significant variations do not overthrow any doctrine of the church. Any good Bible will have notes that will alert the reader to variant readings of any consequence. But, again, these are rare." (Strobel, pp. 82-85)
THE "UNRIVALED" NEW TESTAMENT
Metzger had been persuasive. No serious doubts lingered concerning whether the New Testament's text had been reliably preserved for us through the centuries. One of Metzger's distinguished predecessors at Princeton Theological Seminary, Benjamin Warfield, who held four doctorates and taught systematic theology, until his death in 1921, put it this way:
If we compare the present state of the New Testament text with that of any other ancient writing, we must... declare it to be marvelously correct. Such has been the care with which the New Testament has been copied- a care which has doubtless grown out of true reverence for its holy words... The New Testament [is] unrivaled among ancient writings in the purity of its text as actually transmitted and kept in use. (Strobel, p. 91)
As we stood, I thanked Dr. Metzger for his time and expertise. He smiled warmly and offered to walk me downstairs. I didn't want to consume any more of his Saturday afternoon, but my curiosity wouldn't let me leave Princeton without satisfying myself about one remaining issue.
"All these decades of scholarship, of study, of writing textbooks, of delving into the minutiae of the New Testament text - what has all this done to your personal faith?" I asked.
"Oh," he said, sounding happy to discuss the topic, 'it has increased the basis of my personal faith to see the firmness with which these materials have come down to us, with a multiplicity of copies, some of which are very, very ancient."
"So," I started to say, "scholarship has not diluted your faith-"
He jumped in before I could finish my sentence. "On the contrary," he stressed, "it has built it. I've asked questions all my life, I've dug into text, I've studied this thoroughly, and today I know with confidence that my trust in Jesus has been well placed."
He paused while his eyes surveyed my face. Then he added, for emphasis, "Very well placed." (Strobel, p. 93)
Hence, the last thing on Metzger's mind is to give the impression that the NT text is corrupt.
In one debate with Jay Smith, Shabir also misused Metzger's book The Text of the New Testament Its Transmission, Corruption, and Restoration (Oxford University Press, second edition 1968). After citing examples Metzger gave on deliberate corruption made by scribes to the NT text, Shabir again gave the misleading impression that Metzger was claiming that the NT had been deliberately tampered with. By giving this impression, Shabir led the audience into thinking that Metzger felt that the scribes were not careful nor interested in accurately transmitting the NT text.
Here is how Metzger concluded the particular section Shabir alluded to throughout his debate with Jay Smith:
"Lest the foregoing examples of alterations should give the impression that scribes were altogether wilful and capricious in transmitting ancient copies of the New Testament, it ought to be noted that other evidence points to the careful and painstaking work on the part of many faithful copyists. There are, for example, instances of difficult readings which have been transmitted with scrupulous fidelity. Thus elthen at Gal. ii. 12 yields no good sense and can scarcely be the form intended by the author. Nevertheless, the scribes of the earliest manuscripts... refrained from correcting it to elthon. Another instance of a manifestly erroneous reading is ei tis splagchna kai oiktirmoi at Phil. ii. 1, which could have arisen when the original amanuensis misunderstood Paul's pronunciation of ei ti splagchna... However the solecism may have originated, the significant point is that all uncials and most minuscules have transmitted it with conscientious exactness.
"Even in incidental details one observes the faithfulness of scribes. For example, the scribe of codex Vaticanus copied quite mechanically the section numbers which run in one series throughout the corpus of the Pauline Epistles, even though this series had been drawn up when the Epistle to the Hebrews stood between Galatians and Ephesians and is therefore not suitable for the present sequence of the Epistles in Vaticanus. These examples of dogged fidelity on the part of the scribes could be multiplied, and serve to counterbalance, to some extent, the impression which this chapter may otherwise make upon the beginner in New Testament textual criticism." (Metzger, p. 206)
The fact is, the early Church Fathers tried their best to preserve the original readings, and spoke contrary to those who uncritically accepted any reading that could not be attested by the NT manuscripts:
"This number  is found in all THE MOST APPROVED AND ANCIENT COPIES [of Revelation]. Furthermore, those men who saw John face to face bear their testimony... I do not know how it is that some have erred following the ordinary mode of speech and have corrupted the middle number in the name... Afterwards, others received this reading WITHOUT EXAMINATION." Irenaeus, 180 A.D. (David W. Bercot, ed., A Dictionary of Early Christian Beliefs [Hendrickson Publishers, Massachusetts, 1998], p. 640)
The second century Church Father Irenaeus is both aware of the most reliable and ancient copies from the ones that are unreliable. Furthermore, he also criticizes individuals for not critically examining manuscripts for authenticity. Since they both had the testimony of John's companions and accurate, ancient copies, they were able to know what the originals said.
"It is incredible to every man of sense that we [i.e., orthodox Christians] would have introduced any corrupt text into the scriptures. FOR WE HAVE EXISTED FROM THE VERY FIRST." Tertullian, 197 A.D. (Ibid)
"Now what is there in our Scriptures that is contrary to us? WHAT OF OUR OWN HAVE WE INTRODUCED? Is there anything that we need to take away again, or else add to it, or alter it - in order to restore to its natural soundness anything that is contrary to it and contained in the Scriptures? What we are ourselves, that also is what the Scriptures are, and have been from the beginning." Tertullian, 197 A.D. (Ibid, p. 600)
The majority of the time it was the heretics, not believers, who were trying to correct the MSS. Yet, they failed to do so since the believers had copies transcribed from the originals and knew what the ancient readings were:
"For this reason, the heretics have boldly laid their hands upon the divine Scriptures, alleging that they have corrected them... And many such copies can be obtained, for their disciples were very zealous in inserting these 'corrections,' AS THEY CALL THEM... Nor can they deny that the crime is theirs, when the copies have been written with their own hands. Nor did they receive such copies of the scriptures from those by whom they were first instructed in the faith. For they cannot produce the originals from which they were transcribed." Eusebius citing Caius, 215 A.D. (Ibid, 641)
In fact, believers warned of adding or taking away from the Word:
"If it is nowhere written, then let him fear the woe that comes on all who add to or take away anything [from the written Word]." Tertullian, 210 A.D. (Ibid, p. 600)
Hence, the early Church Fathers bear out the testimony given by Metzger on the reliability and accurate transmission of the NT text.
In conclusion, we have found that Shabir's consistent habit is to either misquote sources or give a false and misleading impression on what these sources actually are communicating to their readers.
Another example of miscitation of scholarly sources is his article on the Paracletos. The following response to Shabir's article exposes the poor scholarship and misquotation of sources found throughout his paper concerning the Paracletos.
The interesting part about all this is that in his debate with Dr. Robert A. Morey, Shabir's main criticism was that Dr. Morey misquoted sources in his book, the Islamic Invasion. Shabir tried to demonstrate that Dr. Morey was giving his readers a false impression on what the scholarly reference works cited in his book were actually stating. Shabir claimed that Dr. Morey used selective quotations and out of context citations to deceive his readers into believing that scholars were in agreement with Dr. Morey that Allah was indeed the moon-god and that Islam was nothing more than Arab paganism repackaged into a monotheistic context.
Sadly, Shabir is guilty of the very thing he accuses others of. We are reminded of the words of the Lord Jesus Christ, which amazingly were words used by Shabir against Dr. Morey in their debate:
"Do not judge, or you too will be judged. For in the same way you judge others, you will be judged, and with the measure you use, it will be measured to you. Why do you look at the speck of sawdust in your brother's eye and pay no attention to the plank in your own eye? How can you say to your brother, 'Let me take the speck out of your eye,' when all the time there is a plank in your own eye? You hypocrite, first take the plank out of your own eye, and then you will see clearly to remove the speck from your brother's eye." Matthew 7:1-5
03-12-2005, 10:19 PM #23
Premise one: According to Islam, God can do anything.
If this is so, then it necessarily follows that if God can do anything, then he can become a man since that possibility falls under the scope of "God can do anything."
This would mean that God stopped being God.
Since God can do anything, according to the premise above, then God could do this without stopping being God. See part "b." in next objection.
If God, in some way, became a man, it does not necessitate that He stop being divine. He could simple add to Himself human nature.
This would mean that the infinite God became finite.
Not if a "part" of God entered into a human form. The totality of God could still exist, yet a localized "part" could take the form of a man.
Is not the Qur'an the word of Allah? Is not His word a reflection of His character since it proceeds from Him? Is not the infinite word of Allah made to become knowable, readable in a physical form for us to understand? Since this is so, why cannot the Word of God become flesh -- as the Bible says? Why cannot a representation of God (His word) take a physical form (Qur'an) or even a human form (Jesus) -- since God can do anything?
This would mean that the independent became dependent.
It would not necessitate that the totality of God became dependent, per point "b." above: a part of God could become man.
God can choose to become dependent, in part, as a man. He can make that choice, can he not?
This would mean that the eternal became temporal.
Again, by premise one, God could do it since He can do all things.
If God, in some way, became a man by adding human nature to Himself, it would not necessitate that God stop being eternal since His divine nature would be, by nature, eternal as it is retained within the human form.
If God became man, then he could not become God again.
If only a "part" of God became man, then God would never have ceased being God and the objection is moot.
If God can do all things, then a part of Him can become a man and retain His divine nature and never have stopped being God at all.
Why would God need to become a man? Showing He has a need means he is dependent.
It is not a need. It is a choice. God is not compelled to do anything -- except be Himself. If He chose to become a man, it would be by His desire, not by His need.
If God can do anything, then He can choose to share in the dependency of a human and not deny his own nature of being God.
Premise two: God cannot do anything, because He cannot do anything that conflicts with His nature. Becoming a man conflicts with His nature.
To say God's nature does not permit Him, in some way, to become a man requires that the Muslim establish those aspects of God's nature that negate the possibility of an incarnation, otherwise it is only the Muslim's opinion.
God's nature has to do with essential character and essence of His being like holiness, love, compassion, goodness, patience, etc.
There is nothing in holiness, love, compassion, goodness, patience, etc., that would mean God could not become a man.
God's attributes are inherent characteristics like eternality, infinity, invisibility, omniscience, omnipotence, omnipresence, speech, creativity, etc.
None of the above attributes negate the possibility of a part of God becoming man.
The essential nature of something is not changed if a part of it adds humanity.
Premise Three: God's nature can be partially seen in His creation.
As a painter reveals part of himself, his style, what he is, etc., in his painting, so too, God has revealed part of Himself, His style, and what He is in His creation.
The universe is ordered; therefore, God is a God of order.
The universe operates on laws; therefore, God is a God of law.
The universe has a beginning; therefore, God is the creator.
The universe is immense (functionally infinite); therefore, God is infinite.
The universe is comprised of three primary aspects: Space, Time, and Matter.
Space is comprised of height, width, and depth - a trinity - but each aspect is by nature space.
Time is comprised of past, present, and future - a trinity - but each aspect is by nature time.
Matter is comprised of solid, liquid, and gas - a trinity - but each aspect is by nature matter.
Therefore, we can conclude from looking at the universe, and God as its creation, that it is possible for God to have a trinitarian aspect to His nature.
If it is fair to say that God may indeed be trinitarian in some aspect of His nature,
then God could be a plurality and all aspects of this plurality, being of God, would be divine by nature.
Since God is self-aware, has a will, can speak, etc., then it follows that the plural aspects of God would share, in some way, those same qualities.
If this is possible, then why cannot part of God, since God is a plurality, become a man and add human nature to itself?
There is no logical reason to declare the impossibility of God being trinitarian or that He, in some way, could become a man.
The Bible has declared that God is indeed a Trinity and that Jesus is both God and man (John 1:1, 14; Col. 2:9; etc.).
03-13-2005, 01:05 AM #24
books555 can you summarize your articles because most people dont read the whole thing, itgs pointless. And it isnt answering the questions presented.
03-13-2005, 01:07 AM #25Originally Posted by ZOAIB
03-13-2005, 01:08 AM #26
Actually, it is answering the questions asked. You dont have to read the whole thing, others may feel differently.
03-13-2005, 01:10 AM #27
It bothers me when there is a post of 50 questions.
03-13-2005, 01:14 AM #28Originally Posted by books555
and do you belive a person the doesnt accept Jesus (pbuh) as god will go to hell? these are my questions for you.
keep it short please, not articles i dont have a long attention span.
03-13-2005, 01:23 AM #29Originally Posted by CAUSASIAN
I am not trying to be mean, but, the man who created that web page gives uneducated arguements on this subject. It is very obvious.
03-13-2005, 01:35 AM #30Originally Posted by RockSolid
-Those who new God went to heaven. Even gentiles, we see a large conversion of gentiles during the time of Jonah.
-Jesus claim of exclusivity, is very meaningful, and logically correct. We are seperated from God because of our sins. Fellowship has been broken, we are seperated from God. Jesus payed the penalty. All of us are extemely sinful. How can we stand before a holy God, then spend eternity with him in our sinful nature. We cant, so God shows his love for us, by taking the penalty upon himself.
03-13-2005, 01:39 AM #31
then -books- you feel a non-christian has no chance to go to heaven? you really didnt answer the question.
03-13-2005, 01:40 AM #32Originally Posted by ZOAIB
This is silly, these are not hard to answere. I dont want to answere them all at ounce, instead pick a couple at a time, I will answere them.
03-13-2005, 01:40 AM #33Originally Posted by ZOAIB
This is silly, these are not hard to answere. I dont want to answere them all at ounce, instead pick a couple at a time, I will answere them.
03-13-2005, 01:41 AM #34Originally Posted by ZOAIB
This is silly, these are not hard to answere. I dont want to answere them all at ounce, instead pick a couple at a time, I will answere them.
03-13-2005, 01:47 AM #35
03-13-2005, 01:55 AM #36
Yes: "If Allah desire to take a son to Himself, He will surely choose those He pleases from what He has created. Glory be to Him: He is Allah, the One, the Subduer (of all)," (Quran 39:4).
No: "Wonderful Originator of the heavens and the earth! How could He have a son when He has no consort, and He (Himself) created everything, and He is the Knower of all things," (Quran 6:101).
03-13-2005, 01:59 AM #37
Muhammad was a sinner: "The Prophet said, "I say, O Allah! Set me apart from my sins (faults) as the East and West are set apart from each other and clean me from sins as a white garment is cleaned of dirt (after thorough washing). O Allah! Wash off my sins with water, snow and hail," (Hadith Vol. 1, Book 12, #711).
Magic worked on Muhammad. How can that be if he is a prophet? "Magic was worked on the Prophet so that he began to fancy that he was doing a thing which he was not actually doing," (Hadith, Vol. 4, Book 54, #490).
Muhammad was a white man: "While we were sitting with the Prophet in the mosque, a man came riding on a camel. He made his camel kneel down in the mosque, tied its foreleg and then said: "Who amongst you is Muhammad?"...We replied, "This white man reclining on his arm." The an then addressed him, "O Son of 'Abdul Muttalib." (Hadith Vol. 1, book 3, #63)
http://www.usc.edu/dept/MSA/fundamen...i/003.sbt.html. Narrated Anas bin Malik.
Muhammad owned a black slave: "I came and behold, Allah's Apostle was staying on a Mashroba (attic room) and a black slave of Allah's Apostle was at the top if its stairs. I said to him, "(Tell the Prophet) that here is 'Umar bin Al-Khattab (asking for permission to enter)." Then he admitted me," (Hadith, Vol. 9, Book 91, #368).
03-13-2005, 04:18 AM #38
funny debate....no one answers anyones questions, just fire back an other one
03-13-2005, 08:01 AM #39Originally Posted by books555
03-13-2005, 08:14 AM #40Originally Posted by books555
yes magic worked on mUhammed , and that is the reason GOD sent down 2 important SURAHS as a gift to mankind , SURAH FALAK and SURAH NAAS ........ which if read keep magic , demons or anythign of the sort away from the person ................ Muhammed (pbuh) had more powers that any of the prophets , but he never used them to impress his followers , rather he made their faith strong enough through his own patience so they can be one with god in thought and mind !
Muhammed was not white , but a lighter color than the other arabs , the word in arabic means lighter , not whiter ................. this is a mistranslation of the correct arabic word form that hadith ..................
again just PICKING OUT things that excite u but NOT KNOWING what they really mean .............. Muhammed (pbuh) the slave they are talkign about here is BILAL he freed BILAL from the KAFIRS , and after that BILAL stayed with him till his death serving him free willfully ............. again english language is a peice of CRAP in explaning arabic ...............
AND I WOULD APPREACITE FOR THE SAKE OF U , THAT YOUR QUESTIONS ARE SO BASELESS IT SEEMS YOU ARE GOOGLING EVERYTHING OF THE NET , AND JUST THROWING IT IN OUR FACES , I REGRETFULLY HAVE TO SAY YOU DONT KNOW WHAT YOU ARE TALKIGN ABOUT , SORRY BUT SAD N TRUE ............. maxextreme where are u man , this guy is BOGUS , atleast u knew what u talked about !
Last edited by ZOAIB; 03-13-2005 at 10:23 AM.
Users Browsing this Thread
There are currently 1 users browsing this thread. (0 members and 1 guests)