My Answers - part two

Submitted by Debanjan Banerjee (India), Jun 17, 2010 at 01:03

Hi Mr. Tovey,

I can gather from your post that you have come to accept my point that by the time of Nicene council errors have been introduced in the scriptures. But what baffles me is that still the Christian Evangelicals try to accept as correct those errors which were as you said introduced in the Nicene Council . Can you kindly answer why that is the case ? All the references from bible that you quote are actually straight from Nicene council. So if you do not believe those scriptures as authentic then why do you quote them.

As per as your view of Jesus is concerned see what you have is a faith but you are not trying to concile your faith with reason. As the pope Benedict XVI , the head of all the Christians say "Faith without reason is dangerous." Why you do not want to follow the words of your own pope ? What is wrong in trying to determine whether the scriptures are true or not. If they are true then why you fear trying analyzing them ?

You have apparently ignored my question that if the Christian viewpoint of Jesus is true then why Christians also embrace Islam which also causes wrath from evangelists like you. Kindly answer that question then. You cannot deny that Christians in your own country US (which as you said was founded upon biblical Judeo-Christian truths) embrace Islam. So kindly provide me the Answer for that.

Another point as your observation regarding the differences of Jesus Christ meeting between Paul and Prophet Mohammad is concerned , I would like to remind you that the prophet just did not met Jesus Christ in a dream like vision. The prophet was taken to heaven where he met not only Jesus but all the other Jewish prophets. Paul did not view either Moses or Abraham.

I also am not sure what do you mean by the word of Conversion of Paul and Vision of the prophet Mohammad ? What is meant by converting in the sense ? Apparently many early Christians at the time did not consider themselves to be religious Jews then if Paul converted according to you after the meeting then to which religion he was converting to ?

Another point when you say that the prophet did not convert to , can you kindly explain what do you mean by that ? Surely you do not expect the prophet to become a Southern Baptist from the Wassilisa Church , after his meeting with Jesus right ? Do you wanted conversion in that way ? Kindly answer.

More regarding on conversion , this is what you said regarding conversion.

" In every meeting of Biblical persons in the Holy Bible, the encounter with the Almighty God of the universe produces a cathartic type of experience with results that are still the basis of faith in Jesus Christ today."

Remember that none of the Jewish prophets (Noah,Abraham,Moses) alike prophet Mohammad , converted to Christianity of any denomination. Then how do you justify your above statement. As per as your cathartic type of experience is concerned ? Now the prophet did bring us the surah Al-Najm after his return from Heaven , so I believe that satisfies your condition of cathartic type of experience . What do you think ?

On the question of identity of Israel , I can understand from your answer that you did not understand my question , properly. What I said was that , the modern state of Israel was an attempt by Theodor Herzl to replace the Jewishness mentioned in the Torah with a secular Western nation state. My question was that why Evangelist Chrsitians like you support that idea ? It is clear that now days no Christian evangelist can survive in the evangelism industry without giving complete and unconditional support to Israel. So one way or other do not you think that Christians like you are involved in the reconstruction of Jewishness in a secular , western way ?

This is what you said about Persia :

"You mentioned the Jewish population in Persia, and that they were under Cyrus's control…read about that in Isaiah, and understand that Persia today is nothing but a shadow of its former glory."

I would liek to say here that what do you mean "former glory of Persia" ? Even if I accept everything that Isiah had to say about the glory of Persia , the Islamic republic of Iran , exceeds that glory of biblical Persia , in every possible way. Following are some of the examples :

1. Women'd rights : The state of Cyrus did not allow women to go to universities. Women form the majority of university students in the Islamic republic.

2. Wealth : The state of Cyrus did not have highways or the dams or the oil industry like the ones the Islamic republic has. Remember the state of Cyrus even did not possess nuclear industry which is a great achievement of the current Islamic republic.

3. Justice : The state of cyrus was an one-man absoutely monarchy where common poor people were considered as second-class citizens and those people never rreceived any justice. In the Islamic republic people are greatly enjoying equal rights. There is no second-class citizenship in Islamic republic.

So it is clear that the current Islamic republic of Iran is in a much better shape than the biblical "state of Persia". So kindly explain how do you say that Persia has lost it's glory ?

Another point , current evangelicals say that God helps those who help Israel. But then how can you explain that the kind of prosperity Islamic republic of Iran is enjoying even though the Islamic republic is a staunch opponent of Israel ?

---

Note: Opinions expressed in comments are those of the authors alone and not necessarily those of Daniel Pipes. Original writing only, please. Comments are screened and in some cases edited before posting. Reasoned disagreement is welcome but not comments that are scurrilous, off-topic, commercial, disparaging religions, or otherwise inappropriate. For complete regulations, see the "Guidelines for Reader Comments".