So I was watching a number of videos about Islam on YouTube yesterday, and came across one that pointed out these verses from the New Testament:
"This was John's testimony when the Jewish leaders sent priests and Temple assistants from Jerusalem to ask John, "Who are you?" He came right out and said "I am not the Messiah."
"Well, then, who are you?" they asked. "Are you Elijah?"
"No," he replied.
"Are you the Prophet we are expecting?"
"No."
"Then who are you? We need an answer for those who sent us! What do you have to say about yourself?"
John replied in the words of the propeht Isaiah: "I am a voice shouting in the wilderness, 'Clear the way for the Lord's coming!' "
Then the Pharisees who had been sent asked him "If you aren't the Messiah or Elijah or the Prophet, what right do you have to baptize?"
John 1: 19-25, NIV
So, who is the Prophet? It isn't Jesus in this instance, because His name was already taken off of the list of possibilities. Who else could this be?
Here is another one that I found:
Therefore, I am sending you prophets and wise men and teachers of religious law. But you will kill some by crucifixion, and you will flog others with whips in your synagogues, chasing then from city to city."
Matthew 23:34 NIV
So, there are two questions that arise from this verse:
1- Who are these prophets and wise men and teachers of religious law?
2- If Jesus completely abolished the laws of the Jews, and thereby freed us from all future religious laws and put us strictly under grace, then why would we need to receive teachers of religious law?
Saturday, August 9, 2008
Thursday, May 1, 2008
Eye for eye?
So I was having a debate with someone today regarding "What God would want you to do" in a certain situation. Bascially, someone was doing something to him that, while not wrong in a legal way, was just not nice and was just not good business on his part. The person that I was talking to had devised a system to get around the other person's bad behavior by behaving in a not necessarily wrong, but not quite so honest, not nice bad business kind of way himself. Now, to be honest, I tend to overreact in these situations- I have been taught to "flee all appearance of evil." I also believe in mercy and in being upright at all times, even when those around you are not. So, of course, I told him that I thought he had a very very bad idea, and that I wished that he would be completely upright in this situation, even when the other guy was being a jerk. Then I threw the "What would God want you to do" line at him, and his response was that "Islam teaches that if someone does something bad to you, you do something bad back to them."
Wow.
Me: "Then I don't want to be a Muslim."
Him: "Fine. Islam doesn't beg people to follow it. It doesn't have to."
Me: ~silence~
So after we parted, I, of course, was still rather disturbed by this justification. I mean, all my life, I have been taught that mercy is so important. I have been taught to turn the other cheek. It seems that many people interpret this mercy as a sign of weakness, but I see it as a sign of strength. Yes, I could seek revenge, I could "hit you back," but I have decided not to- not because I cannot, but out of choice. It is a decision to show mercy like Jesus did on the cross, and to let God have the final word, because His comebacks are always so much better than ours ever could be.
I was wondering what, exactly, does Islam really teach about this subject? Is it really "Yeah, have at it! Someone hits you, hit them back! That will teach them to start something!" Does Islam teach mercy, and more importantly does it reward it and promote it as better than the "eye for eye" mentality?
If it abides primarily by the "eye for eye" rule, how exactly does this work? If, for instance, I overcharge you for something (which is not legally wrong, but is not kind and not good business), does that mean that I have a right to try to scam you out of your extra profit by, perhaps, lying about a situation? Or does the "eye for eye rule" only give me the right to overcharge you back (literally "an eye" for "an eye").
All I see when I think about "eye for eye" is bigger and bigger fights. If I hit you, and then you hit me back, my first reaction would be to continue the fight. I would not be prone to stop and say, "Well, I guess we are even...I hit you, you hit me, let's all go home." The first reaction is, "Hey! You hit me harder than I hit you! I'm gonna hit you back, and it is going to be even harder than you hit me!!!"
Mercy dispells wrath. God says to do nice things to your enemies. In the Old Testament, it says to feed your enemies, and that by doing so, you will "heap coals of fire on his head." Revenge by being nice. Revenge by guilt, even? It tends to project this attitude of "Yeah, you are a jerk, but that is OK. I don't need you, and I don't need you to be nice to me. I have my God, and He has got my back. You can't do anything to me that God does not see, and He is the most just Judge of all."
Really, if it literally is "eye for eye" (if you hit me, I can only hit you back as hard as you hit me, but no more), as I think that it probably is (it doesn't say "eye for ear"), then isn't this system actually more difficult than mercy? In that moment of anger, instead of stopping to completely analyze the situation and only retribute what was done to you, isn't it easier and actually more gratifying to say, "You know what? I am better than this. I don't need to justify my personhood by being the same kind of low jerk that you are. I am a good person, and no matter what you do to me, you do not have the power to change that! I don't need to exert power over you to feel good about myself. I just want to honor God with all of my actions, and I will honor him now by showing mercy and restraint to you."
What do you think that God would want you to do?
Wow.
Me: "Then I don't want to be a Muslim."
Him: "Fine. Islam doesn't beg people to follow it. It doesn't have to."
Me: ~silence~
So after we parted, I, of course, was still rather disturbed by this justification. I mean, all my life, I have been taught that mercy is so important. I have been taught to turn the other cheek. It seems that many people interpret this mercy as a sign of weakness, but I see it as a sign of strength. Yes, I could seek revenge, I could "hit you back," but I have decided not to- not because I cannot, but out of choice. It is a decision to show mercy like Jesus did on the cross, and to let God have the final word, because His comebacks are always so much better than ours ever could be.
I was wondering what, exactly, does Islam really teach about this subject? Is it really "Yeah, have at it! Someone hits you, hit them back! That will teach them to start something!" Does Islam teach mercy, and more importantly does it reward it and promote it as better than the "eye for eye" mentality?
If it abides primarily by the "eye for eye" rule, how exactly does this work? If, for instance, I overcharge you for something (which is not legally wrong, but is not kind and not good business), does that mean that I have a right to try to scam you out of your extra profit by, perhaps, lying about a situation? Or does the "eye for eye rule" only give me the right to overcharge you back (literally "an eye" for "an eye").
All I see when I think about "eye for eye" is bigger and bigger fights. If I hit you, and then you hit me back, my first reaction would be to continue the fight. I would not be prone to stop and say, "Well, I guess we are even...I hit you, you hit me, let's all go home." The first reaction is, "Hey! You hit me harder than I hit you! I'm gonna hit you back, and it is going to be even harder than you hit me!!!"
Mercy dispells wrath. God says to do nice things to your enemies. In the Old Testament, it says to feed your enemies, and that by doing so, you will "heap coals of fire on his head." Revenge by being nice. Revenge by guilt, even? It tends to project this attitude of "Yeah, you are a jerk, but that is OK. I don't need you, and I don't need you to be nice to me. I have my God, and He has got my back. You can't do anything to me that God does not see, and He is the most just Judge of all."
Really, if it literally is "eye for eye" (if you hit me, I can only hit you back as hard as you hit me, but no more), as I think that it probably is (it doesn't say "eye for ear"), then isn't this system actually more difficult than mercy? In that moment of anger, instead of stopping to completely analyze the situation and only retribute what was done to you, isn't it easier and actually more gratifying to say, "You know what? I am better than this. I don't need to justify my personhood by being the same kind of low jerk that you are. I am a good person, and no matter what you do to me, you do not have the power to change that! I don't need to exert power over you to feel good about myself. I just want to honor God with all of my actions, and I will honor him now by showing mercy and restraint to you."
What do you think that God would want you to do?
Wednesday, April 23, 2008
Isalm obsession
This whole Islam thing is becoming an obsession! The past week or so I have not been to bed before 1 AM (so I have only been getting 5-6 hours of sleep or so). I think about it all the time...I am always coming up with questions. I'm trying not to drive my husband nuts with all my questions- Hamdullah he is patient and willing to explain everything to me.
I wish this process were easier. I wish I could just know what the right answer is. I feel guilty for even considering Islam-- like by doing so I am dishonoring Jesus. But have I been taught things about Jesus that were not true, thereby making these feeling completely unnecessary? And my mom is always asking me "You are not Muslim, right? You are still a Christian? You would never ever believe in a lie like that? You know the truth, honey! Islam is blashphemy." How would I explain it to her if I do find Islam to be true?
What is truth? Is it relative? There are some verses in the Qu'ran that say that God will reward the good deeds of Christians and Jews.... does this mean it is still OK to be Christian? Are my "bases covered"? Is it OK by Islam to be Christian, but better to be a Muslim?
It is hard for me to believe in a religion where so much of it is hear-say. Like the Hadith. Yes, perhaps the Prophet did say that, but maybe he didn't? How can you prove it? Isn't this kind of similar to the Bible, if you claim that the Bible is corrupted by humans? The Hadith were not recorded until long after the Prophet's death, just like the New Testament and Jesus. What is the difference? And if Muhammad was just a man, then why does what he said on his "free time" matter just as much as what he said when God was speaking directly to him (giving him the Qu'ran)?
This is giving me a headache! :-)
I wish this process were easier. I wish I could just know what the right answer is. I feel guilty for even considering Islam-- like by doing so I am dishonoring Jesus. But have I been taught things about Jesus that were not true, thereby making these feeling completely unnecessary? And my mom is always asking me "You are not Muslim, right? You are still a Christian? You would never ever believe in a lie like that? You know the truth, honey! Islam is blashphemy." How would I explain it to her if I do find Islam to be true?
What is truth? Is it relative? There are some verses in the Qu'ran that say that God will reward the good deeds of Christians and Jews.... does this mean it is still OK to be Christian? Are my "bases covered"? Is it OK by Islam to be Christian, but better to be a Muslim?
It is hard for me to believe in a religion where so much of it is hear-say. Like the Hadith. Yes, perhaps the Prophet did say that, but maybe he didn't? How can you prove it? Isn't this kind of similar to the Bible, if you claim that the Bible is corrupted by humans? The Hadith were not recorded until long after the Prophet's death, just like the New Testament and Jesus. What is the difference? And if Muhammad was just a man, then why does what he said on his "free time" matter just as much as what he said when God was speaking directly to him (giving him the Qu'ran)?
This is giving me a headache! :-)
Tuesday, April 22, 2008
Questions, part 2
Question of the day: Why the ritualistic prayers 5 times a day? Jews didn't have to do this, and neither did Christians, so why the change in prayer strategy? Did God just decide that people forgot about Him too much, and so this was what He had to do to get people to remember Him? Or was this just one of that parts that was "changed" in the Torah and the Bible? The Bible says not to pray with repetitions, and the prayers in Islam are very repetitious. I can understand that the point of these prayers in Islam is not so much to communicate with God as it is to just remind us to focus on Him, but I just don't understand why there was this new command of 5 prayers at specific times each day.
Monday, April 21, 2008
Hijab thoughts
So, even though I am not a Muslim, I wore a hijab (a scarf wrapped around the head, covering the hair and chest) as I went about my shopping today. This isn't the first time I have worn the hijab out... and it has been interesting to study people's reactions to it, which tend to vary based on where I go. A few days ago, I went to the Costco in Reno, and people treated me so much more nicely than when I go there uncovered- it was really quite impressive. Men would open the door for me, women looked at me curiously, but also with a certain respect that I haven't felt from them before. It was also interesting to experience how much differently I felt while wearing hijab compared to when I go out uncovered. I feel quieter while wearing hijab, calmer. I don't care as much about what other men think about me or my looks,, because I am not even looking at them (wouldn't it be weird if some chick in a hijab were staring at you? It just isn't natural!). And, perhaps it is foolish, but I even feel a bit more safe while wearing the hijab. Of course, it is a concern that some people may react in a negative way to my appearace, and so I am watchful for that, but so far, I have recieved no real negative reaction.
The interesting thing was, when I went to Costco in Carson City today, people were more freaked out by the hijab. While in Reno, most people just go about their business and don't give me more than a glance, but in Carson, people stared and stared! It was really quite comical. Nevada is an interesting state!
My motives for wearing the hijab right now? Firstly, I feel that by wearing it, I show honor to my husband. I show everyone that sees me that I am modest and chaste, and I send the signal that I as a person am not to be evaluated purely on the basis of my sexuality. Secondly, it is a social experiment. I just am curious as to how society treats a covered woman. It is interesting to note that the Bible even tells Christian women to cover their heads (a fact forgotten or ignored by people critical of this practice of Islam.). And finally, I just feel like I should. I don't believe that one should give in to every impulse, but if there is no harm done to self or others, then why not? If the Christian God and the Muslim God say that it is good for a woman to cover herself and be modest, then am I not honoring God either way? I believe that God gave us feelings and intuitions for a reason, and so I have decided to just go with it and see what happens. Some day I may decide that this was just a phase, but I believe that I will have been enlightened by the experience anyways. I hate the idea of living life regretting not doing harmless things that I could have done, but didn't do, becuase I thought that it was a "stupid idea."
I know that the ultimate reason to wear a hijab is because "Allah said so." And, if I become a Muslim, then, of course, this will be my main reason. And right now that does play somewhat of a role in my decision to wear it when I go out on adventures in public without my husband. I do not wear it to work. I do not wear it in front of my family (not that I would have to wear it there, anyways, but that is another subject). I don't even wear it every time I go out. Do I feel compelled to wear it more often than I do? Yes, but not by any person (i.e.- my husband, who respects me and my religion, has not asked me even once to wear the hijab, convert, etc. I am learning about Islam for my own benefit.). I believe that God respects me for what I am trying to do. I am doing my best to learn about Him and what He wants from me and my life. If that is Christianity, great. If that is Islam, great. If that is something else that I have not yet discovered, that is OK too. I believe in God, and I would like to hope that God, in turn, believes in me.
Anyways,I decided to do a little hijab reading on the internet tonight. This is a very interesting survey about hijab and people's perceptions about it: http://www.mediacurves.com/Culture/J6652/ReportJ6652.pdf
Another interesting website, www.hijab.com is actually more of a general survey of current Muslim events, rather than just a blog about hijab.
This is an interesting collection of articles about hijab: http://www.jannah.org/sisters/hijab.html
The interesting thing was, when I went to Costco in Carson City today, people were more freaked out by the hijab. While in Reno, most people just go about their business and don't give me more than a glance, but in Carson, people stared and stared! It was really quite comical. Nevada is an interesting state!
My motives for wearing the hijab right now? Firstly, I feel that by wearing it, I show honor to my husband. I show everyone that sees me that I am modest and chaste, and I send the signal that I as a person am not to be evaluated purely on the basis of my sexuality. Secondly, it is a social experiment. I just am curious as to how society treats a covered woman. It is interesting to note that the Bible even tells Christian women to cover their heads (a fact forgotten or ignored by people critical of this practice of Islam.). And finally, I just feel like I should. I don't believe that one should give in to every impulse, but if there is no harm done to self or others, then why not? If the Christian God and the Muslim God say that it is good for a woman to cover herself and be modest, then am I not honoring God either way? I believe that God gave us feelings and intuitions for a reason, and so I have decided to just go with it and see what happens. Some day I may decide that this was just a phase, but I believe that I will have been enlightened by the experience anyways. I hate the idea of living life regretting not doing harmless things that I could have done, but didn't do, becuase I thought that it was a "stupid idea."
I know that the ultimate reason to wear a hijab is because "Allah said so." And, if I become a Muslim, then, of course, this will be my main reason. And right now that does play somewhat of a role in my decision to wear it when I go out on adventures in public without my husband. I do not wear it to work. I do not wear it in front of my family (not that I would have to wear it there, anyways, but that is another subject). I don't even wear it every time I go out. Do I feel compelled to wear it more often than I do? Yes, but not by any person (i.e.- my husband, who respects me and my religion, has not asked me even once to wear the hijab, convert, etc. I am learning about Islam for my own benefit.). I believe that God respects me for what I am trying to do. I am doing my best to learn about Him and what He wants from me and my life. If that is Christianity, great. If that is Islam, great. If that is something else that I have not yet discovered, that is OK too. I believe in God, and I would like to hope that God, in turn, believes in me.
Anyways,I decided to do a little hijab reading on the internet tonight. This is a very interesting survey about hijab and people's perceptions about it: http://www.mediacurves.com/Culture/J6652/ReportJ6652.pdf
Another interesting website, www.hijab.com is actually more of a general survey of current Muslim events, rather than just a blog about hijab.
This is an interesting collection of articles about hijab: http://www.jannah.org/sisters/hijab.html
Saturday, April 19, 2008
Today my research has taken me to http://islamtomorrow.com/bible/bible_closer_look.asp
There are definitely many interesting points the scholar Yusuf Estes makes regarding the Bible in his article "Bible- A Closer Look!"
In chaper 1 of his article, Mr. Estes quotes from the preface of his copy of the Revised Standard Version of the Bible. It was rather disturbing to read about the lack of a single source for the translation to be based on. I guess I have always known that there were many manuscripts of the Bible in circulation, but was of the opinion that they more or less said the same thing. When I googled "original Bible," there was a large number of links that came up (of course... it is google after all!). The first one I visited was from the International Bible Society (http://www.ibs.org/bibles/about/15.php). While admitting that no original manuscripts exist, they do say that over 5,000 copies of the original exist ("copies of the copies"), and these thousands of copies "agree with each other to an amazing extent." It also goes on to say that "no other book from ancient times has this much underlying documentary support. So we are sure we have the original text as it came from the mind of God."
Perhaps I have been visiting too many "Why the Bible is flawed" websites lately, but can we really be absolutely 100% sure that we have "the original text as it came from the mind of God" if the copies only agree with each other to "an amazing extent"? I mean, granted, "amazing" must be pretty good... but it also implies that the texts do not completly agree. Where are the disagreements? This is definitely something that I must investigate further. And while not saying anything about my belief or lack therof in the Qu'ran, I must admit that it is most impressive that they have original manuscripts on display. I must also note that it is interesting how the insistance on Arabic has helped to maintain the integrity of the Qu'ran... so that when you ask a Muslim to recite a certain verse, it will all be the same exact words, whereas if you ask a Christian to recite a verse, it will vary based on the version of the Bible the verse is recited from (even though, hopefully, the meaning is nearly the same), and the language that they speak.
Another topic that this chapter brings to mind (although it is not directly discussed) is the cannon of the Bible, and the fact that it differs depending on your religious tradition. There were many more books besides the remianing 66 that are currently recognized as the Bible... and who gave scholars permission/authority to decide what is "Biblical" and what is not? Shouldn't Christians at least know about the existence of these books, and be taught why they are not included in the cannon? If there were up to 600 books that were recognized at one point or another as authority in church doctrine, and now all we have is 66, perhaps there is a chance that we are missing something. The easy argument is that God is in control and He has chosen these books to be passed down and so that is good enough. I do believe that perhps this is partially true: a just God should only hold people responsible for what they know (or what they know that they could know), and I believe that both the Qu'ran and the Bible provide opportunity to those to whom the direct "Message" has not been taught. But now that I (and you) know about the existance of other so called scriptures, I think that we are now held responsible for at least attempting to find the truth about them. Hey, no one said that religion was easy!
Now, on to chapter 2.
It is my opinion that many of the "contradictory verses" are being too "nit-picky." I mean really, does it matter if there were 2,000 or 3,000 baths (1 Kings 7:26 vs. 2 Choronicles 4:5) or 40,000 or 4,000 stalls (1 Kings 4:26 vs. 2 Chronicles 9:25)? Yes, there should be no contradictions in scripture if it is actually the Word of God. But many of these contradictions are not even relevent to the religion presented in the Bible, but are instead just differing historical facts. I mean, if there were 40,000 or 4,000 stalls, does that change the fact that God is God and was in control of the situation either way?
There were a few of the contradictions that I found to be more relevent as to proving the authenticity of the Bible. And, interestingly enough, these are the more recent events. Here are the ones of note from the article:
Matthew 26:74-75 and Mark 14:72- before the cock crow once or twice?
Matthew 27:5 and Acts 1:18- How did Judas die?
John 5:31 and John 8:14- Was Jesus' record true or not?
The next section was "Verses That Contradict the Trinitarian Doctrine and/or the Divinity of Jesus." It seems like this is a point of contention where people's opinions come into play more frequently than the actual evidence in scripture, which is sad. I do wish to mention that, as was pointed out in some other article that I read, Jesus never mentioned the Trinity specifically, nor is it ever specifically referred to in the Bible. Isn't it odd, that for a topic that is so very fundamental to the Chrisitan religion, that there is little to no evidence of it in scripture, and it is not referred to by the main representative of the religion while He was on the planet as a man?
So, here are the points that I found to be most interesting from this section:
Matthew 24:36, Mark 13:32- Jesus was not all-knowing.
Matthew 26:39- Jesus and God had different wills. (How can God have a different will than God, if Jesus = God?)
Mark 10:17-18, Luke 18:18-19- Jesus denied divinity. (Why would he bother denying divinity if He was indeed divine?)
Mark 16:19 and Luke 22:69- Jesus at the right hand of God. (Can God be beside Himself? Also, does that imply that the Holy Spirit is at the left hand of God, or did He just get left out?)
Luke 23:46- The spirit of Jesus was commended to God.
John 20:17- Jesus had a God (even after He rose from the dead, at which point most Christians have been taught to assume that he was no longer 100% man and 100% God, but just 100% God.)
*interesting point about Jesus praying not mentioned in this chapter: Christians say that Jesus prayed in order to set an example about how we are to pray. But if that is the case, then why are most of His prayers taking place while he is alone (Mark 1:35, 6:46, etc.)? If he wasn't actually praying (because why would God need to pray to God?), wouldn't these prayers have been more effective teaching tools if people actually saw or heard them?
Many interesting things to think about... many questions left to be answered.
There are definitely many interesting points the scholar Yusuf Estes makes regarding the Bible in his article "Bible- A Closer Look!"
In chaper 1 of his article, Mr. Estes quotes from the preface of his copy of the Revised Standard Version of the Bible. It was rather disturbing to read about the lack of a single source for the translation to be based on. I guess I have always known that there were many manuscripts of the Bible in circulation, but was of the opinion that they more or less said the same thing. When I googled "original Bible," there was a large number of links that came up (of course... it is google after all!). The first one I visited was from the International Bible Society (http://www.ibs.org/bibles/about/15.php). While admitting that no original manuscripts exist, they do say that over 5,000 copies of the original exist ("copies of the copies"), and these thousands of copies "agree with each other to an amazing extent." It also goes on to say that "no other book from ancient times has this much underlying documentary support. So we are sure we have the original text as it came from the mind of God."
Perhaps I have been visiting too many "Why the Bible is flawed" websites lately, but can we really be absolutely 100% sure that we have "the original text as it came from the mind of God" if the copies only agree with each other to "an amazing extent"? I mean, granted, "amazing" must be pretty good... but it also implies that the texts do not completly agree. Where are the disagreements? This is definitely something that I must investigate further. And while not saying anything about my belief or lack therof in the Qu'ran, I must admit that it is most impressive that they have original manuscripts on display. I must also note that it is interesting how the insistance on Arabic has helped to maintain the integrity of the Qu'ran... so that when you ask a Muslim to recite a certain verse, it will all be the same exact words, whereas if you ask a Christian to recite a verse, it will vary based on the version of the Bible the verse is recited from (even though, hopefully, the meaning is nearly the same), and the language that they speak.
Another topic that this chapter brings to mind (although it is not directly discussed) is the cannon of the Bible, and the fact that it differs depending on your religious tradition. There were many more books besides the remianing 66 that are currently recognized as the Bible... and who gave scholars permission/authority to decide what is "Biblical" and what is not? Shouldn't Christians at least know about the existence of these books, and be taught why they are not included in the cannon? If there were up to 600 books that were recognized at one point or another as authority in church doctrine, and now all we have is 66, perhaps there is a chance that we are missing something. The easy argument is that God is in control and He has chosen these books to be passed down and so that is good enough. I do believe that perhps this is partially true: a just God should only hold people responsible for what they know (or what they know that they could know), and I believe that both the Qu'ran and the Bible provide opportunity to those to whom the direct "Message" has not been taught. But now that I (and you) know about the existance of other so called scriptures, I think that we are now held responsible for at least attempting to find the truth about them. Hey, no one said that religion was easy!
Now, on to chapter 2.
It is my opinion that many of the "contradictory verses" are being too "nit-picky." I mean really, does it matter if there were 2,000 or 3,000 baths (1 Kings 7:26 vs. 2 Choronicles 4:5) or 40,000 or 4,000 stalls (1 Kings 4:26 vs. 2 Chronicles 9:25)? Yes, there should be no contradictions in scripture if it is actually the Word of God. But many of these contradictions are not even relevent to the religion presented in the Bible, but are instead just differing historical facts. I mean, if there were 40,000 or 4,000 stalls, does that change the fact that God is God and was in control of the situation either way?
There were a few of the contradictions that I found to be more relevent as to proving the authenticity of the Bible. And, interestingly enough, these are the more recent events. Here are the ones of note from the article:
Matthew 26:74-75 and Mark 14:72- before the cock crow once or twice?
Matthew 27:5 and Acts 1:18- How did Judas die?
John 5:31 and John 8:14- Was Jesus' record true or not?
The next section was "Verses That Contradict the Trinitarian Doctrine and/or the Divinity of Jesus." It seems like this is a point of contention where people's opinions come into play more frequently than the actual evidence in scripture, which is sad. I do wish to mention that, as was pointed out in some other article that I read, Jesus never mentioned the Trinity specifically, nor is it ever specifically referred to in the Bible. Isn't it odd, that for a topic that is so very fundamental to the Chrisitan religion, that there is little to no evidence of it in scripture, and it is not referred to by the main representative of the religion while He was on the planet as a man?
So, here are the points that I found to be most interesting from this section:
Matthew 24:36, Mark 13:32- Jesus was not all-knowing.
Matthew 26:39- Jesus and God had different wills. (How can God have a different will than God, if Jesus = God?)
Mark 10:17-18, Luke 18:18-19- Jesus denied divinity. (Why would he bother denying divinity if He was indeed divine?)
Mark 16:19 and Luke 22:69- Jesus at the right hand of God. (Can God be beside Himself? Also, does that imply that the Holy Spirit is at the left hand of God, or did He just get left out?)
Luke 23:46- The spirit of Jesus was commended to God.
John 20:17- Jesus had a God (even after He rose from the dead, at which point most Christians have been taught to assume that he was no longer 100% man and 100% God, but just 100% God.)
*interesting point about Jesus praying not mentioned in this chapter: Christians say that Jesus prayed in order to set an example about how we are to pray. But if that is the case, then why are most of His prayers taking place while he is alone (Mark 1:35, 6:46, etc.)? If he wasn't actually praying (because why would God need to pray to God?), wouldn't these prayers have been more effective teaching tools if people actually saw or heard them?
Many interesting things to think about... many questions left to be answered.
Qu'ran questions, part 1
In my readings of the Qu'ran I have come across many passages that confuse me or bring up questions. This will be the first post in a series designed to enable you to help me understand the intent of the Qu'ran better.
QUESTION 1.
If God/Allah is one (and not a Trinity, as Christianity teaches), then why does He refer to Himself as "We" in the Qu'ran? (see S. 2:34, 2:38, 4:47, 6:9, and many many other places)
~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
ANSWER:
The "We" here is the "Royal We:" it does not indicate the plural, but instead is a mark of the highest respect. The answer is found at http://www.godallah.com/we_and_he.php
QUESTION 1.
If God/Allah is one (and not a Trinity, as Christianity teaches), then why does He refer to Himself as "We" in the Qu'ran? (see S. 2:34, 2:38, 4:47, 6:9, and many many other places)
~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
ANSWER:
The "We" here is the "Royal We:" it does not indicate the plural, but instead is a mark of the highest respect. The answer is found at http://www.godallah.com/we_and_he.php
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)