Getting basics wrong...

Submitted by Amin Riaz (United Kingdom), Sep 6, 2011 at 04:28

Often people do not bother to read what or listen to what someone has said - rather jump to pre-pared answers regardless of relevancy. Also your knowldge of Christian seem quite sketch - either for deception or it really is.

Permit me to correct your misconceptions about the Bible. First, you claim that Jesus Christ did not write the Bible. You probably mean the New Testament. This is correct. However, the Gospels and scriptures are the written life and words of Jesus. The Gospels were written by either an Apostle or an Apostle's assistants. The Gospel's of Matthew, Mark and John are Apostle's who spent three years with Jesus. Luke was not an Apostle but an assistant of Paul.

Hence I was right. The Bible is not work of Jesus Christ. Came about 100 years after him. Duh!

What makes the Canon of the New Testament reliable and thus refutes Islam claims that it was corrupted is that the Gospels met three specific criteria.

1. It had to have been written by an Apostle or an Apostle's assistant.

2. It had to have been used as a means of teaching and instructing Christians in Church on the life and teachings of Jesus.

3. It had to speak to the life and teachings of Jesus Christ as communicated by His Apostles.

The mere fact of its history of being canonical makes it unreliable. Unreliable evidence leads to unreliable knowldge. Second - Bibel has history of being changed - books being added and taken away. Who is to say the book that did not make the cut are not the true ones? Long history of Bible is quite fascinating.

Your claim of over 100 years is false.

How? Even common little guide on says it. It is the accepted Christian view.

You make the typical Muslim claim that Christianity was started by Paul. Living in the UK, you undoubtedly have access to the New Testament. If you open it, you will find that the New Testament contains scriptures written by other Apostles other than Paul.

Basically the same - but each version differs. This puts Bible in the equivalent category as Hadith. Possibility of not being true. Definitve evidence only leads to definitive knowledge!

It is not typical Muslim view that Christianty was strated by St Paul. You again do not understand the accusation. I iwll spell it out. According to Chrisitanty:

Jesus came to a tribe of Judaism. He was to all intent and purposes Jewish and hence followed the Jewish Law. The bible even quotes Jesus as saying he is there to uphold the law.

Where as it was later St Paul who permitted deviancy away from the Jewish Law. For exmple - Jesus Christ probably never ate Pig Meat or drank Alchohol and given his position would have been a strict follower of the Law. So on what basis and authority did St Paul have to change this?

If Allah is a beneficent and merciful God, then why did Allah crucify an innocent man in Jesus' place?

Muslim view of this is that Jesus was saved and a person of similar appearances was took. Responsiblity of crime committed is to the committer. I dont think "God" was crucifying anyone. Let me ask you this - so what was your God doing waiting around - whilst his supposed son was being crucified? poor thing even shouted up .... oh my father why have you foresaken me.

The Qur'an denies that Jesus Christ is Divine. Yet, the aya that tells Christians this uses the name of Jesus as Jesus Christ. This is illogical. If a Muslim were to read this to a Christian or a Christian knew arabic and read the aya, they would come to this conclusion because the word "Christ" is not Jesus' last name nor is it Joseph's last name.

Conveniently you did not mention any reference. But I take it you refer to the word "Messiah". Which does not not refer to "divinity" of anything. Your assertion was strange and quite ridiculous and and silly. As no Chrisitan Arab has been known to be that stupid, not to be albe to make the distiction.

VIrtually all religions have concept of "Messiah" - "Anointed". The divinity part is Christian concept only. The original word comes from מָשִׁיחַ Hebrew. The jews never held the Messiah to be divine either.

Christ to a Christian means "The Anointed One, the Son of God." We believe this because Jesus asked His apostles who people say I am. Peter responds, the "Christ, the Son of the living God." Jesus does not rebuke him for making Him equal to God but confirms that this Faith came from Peter's heavenly Father.

Even you agree - the "Christ" to the Christians has aspects of divinity. Not to Muslims.

For your Allah to use the word "Christ" in Jesus' name when he is telling Christians that Jesus Christ is not Divine is like telling a person that "Amir follows the Islamic faith but is not a Muslim." Do you see why this defies reason. If the Qur'an is truly from G-d, then why would G-d say something that is illogical to the intended audience?

As pointed out above - this was a silly assertion to make. And your analogy nonsensical. If this was confusing - the intended audience would have been confused. But historically or at present there is no evidence of this being so. Furthermore Muslim believe in Jesus Christ as the promised Messiah - and believe in his return too.

A good place to start in basics is Wikipedia:

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Anointing

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Messiah

---

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".