Thread: Islam and reliability
01-24-2006, 04:03 PM #1
Islam and reliability
"And behold! Allah will say: O Jesus the son of Mary! Didst thou say unto men, Take me and my mother for two gods beside Allah? He will say: Glory to Thee! Never could I say what I had no right (to say). Had I said such a thing, Thou wouldst indeed have known it. Thou knowest what is in my heart, though I know not what is in Thine. For Thou knowest in full all that is hidden."
Abdul Rahman attempts to side step the issue by claiming
"The above question will be put to Jesus(peace be upon him) on the DAY OF JUDGEMENT. And the purpose of Sura 5 Verse 116 is to answer ALL the Christians THROUGHOUT the entire history of Christianity." The entire history would include the foundation on which christianity stands (the bible). Can anyone show me where the New testament makes this claim. We know the New Testament to be around 99.5 % accurate, from the original manuscripts to the present day.
THe idea "Mary is God" Has always been considered unorthodox by evangelicals (the ones who take the scriptures literally).
Even Abdul Rahman states clearly "While it is true that most Christians TODAY do not worship Mary, but MANY heretical Christians THROUGHOUT HISTORY HAD DONE SO."
BUT wait a minute, if they are "heretical" how can they be Christians. A person is eigther a christian or not a christian.
The correct trinity has always been essential theology.
Only a infinite God can pay (in full) for a infinite evil done against Him. The desciples of Christ eventually came to understand this point fully.
Can I be a true muslim if I add personal beliefs to your scriptures.
Law of Non contradiction (Eigther I am a christian or not)
Not only is Muhammed wrong, so is Abdul Rahman.
01-24-2006, 04:03 PM #2
I am interested in talking about this point.
this was my link to Abdul Rahman
Last edited by boots555; 01-24-2006 at 04:31 PM.
01-24-2006, 05:20 PM #3
I dont get the point? Care to explain further?
01-24-2006, 09:17 PM #4
No problem, Mohammed claims the christian worships two distinct Gods (Jesus and Mary) along with the father. He makes two false propositions. A.Christianity has never claimed pluarism (Quran 5:116)
B. Orthodoxy has never envoked Mary as creator.
then I pointed out, how Abdul Rahman from http://www.answering-christianity.com/worship_mary.htm attempts to explain this problem by side stepping the issue. This is a seemingly week response.
1.(Abdul Rahman claims) "The above question will be put to Jesus(peace be upon him) on the DAY OF JUDGEMENT. And the purpose of Sura 5 Verse 116 is to answer ALL the Christians THROUGHOUT the entire history of Christianity."
(R.)Mohammeds claim in (5:16) should be evident in the foundation of christianity (the bible) in order to claim it as a Christian belief, Can anyone show me where the New testament makes this claim. We know the New Testament to be around 99.5 % accurate, from the original manuscripts to the present day.
2. Abdul Rahman makes a even bigger blunder here, (He says) "While it is true that most Christians TODAY do not worship Mary, but MANY heretical Christians THROUGHOUT HISTORY HAD DONE SO."
It violates the law of excluded middle.
p ∨ ¬ p ≡ T
¬ ( p ∨ ¬ p ) ≡ F
In logic, the law of excluded middle (tertium non datur in Latin) states that for any proposition P, it is true that (P ∨ ¬P).
The symbol '¬', reads 'not', ∨ reads 'or', and ∧ reads 'and'.
For example, if P is
Joe is bald
then the inclusive disjunction
Joe is bald, or Joe is not bald
01-25-2006, 06:32 AM #5
To this day many Catholics pray to Mary, especially in South America.
There is no point calling the modern day trinitarian Christianity as 'true' Christianity and all others as 'false' since the evolution of this doctrine itself is very late. The early Christianity had bizarre beliefs about their doctrine as well as their Scriptures.
Edward Gibbon in his book The History of The Decline & Fall Of The Roman Empire says:
The Christians of the seventh century had insensibly relapsed into a semblance of paganism: their public and private vows were addressed to the relics and images that disgraced the temples of the East: the throne of the Almighty was darkened by the clouds of martyrs, and saints, and angels, the objects of popular veneration; and the Collyridian heretics, who flourished in the fruitful soil of Arabia, invested the Virgin Mary with the name and honours of a goddess.
St. Epiphanius, Bishop of Constantia, in Cyprus, writing in the fourth century against the Collyridians, says:
"After this a heresy appeared, which we have already mentioned slightly by means of the letter written in Arabia about Mary. And this heresy was again made public in Arabia from Thrace and the upper parts of Scythia, and was brought to our ears, which to men of understanding will be found ridiculous and laughable. We will begin to trace it out, and to relate concerning it. It will be judged (to partake of) silliness rather than of sense, as is the case with other like it. For, as formerly, out of insolence towards Mary, those whose opinions were such sowed hurtful ideas in the reflexions of men, so otherwise these, leaning to the other side, fall into the utmost harm...... For the harm is equal in both these heresies, the one belittling the holy Virgin, the other again glorifying her over-much. For who should it be that teach thus but women? for the race of women is slippery, fallible, and humble-minded...... For some women deck out a koutrkon that is to say, a square stool, spreading upon it a linen cloth, on some solemn day of the year, for some days they lay out bread, and offer it in the name of Mary. All the women partake of the bread, as we related in the letter to Arabia, writing partly about that...... Yea, verily, the body of Mary was holy, but was surely not God. Verily, the Virgin was a virgin, and was honoured, but was not given to us to worship; but she worships Him who was born from her according to the flesh, having come from heaven out of the Father's bosom......" This offering and eating of cakes was probably derived from the worship of Artemis.
01-25-2006, 12:22 PM #6
Caus. We can pick up this discussion later on, down the road. I stand by my proposition. THe trinity has not changed. It is not Father, Son, Holy Spirite, and Mary. That is rediculous.
I respect you bro, continue your research, I like see that. We can continue this topic later, be ready, I know I will, I believe you will to.
Users Browsing this Thread
There are currently 1 users browsing this thread. (0 members and 1 guests)