IslamiCity Forum - Islamic Discussion Forum: 60 Questions for Christians to Answer

Author

Message

buddyman

Senior Member

Joined: 26 June 2007
Online Status: Offline
Posts: 295

Posted: 18 July 2007 at 9:50am

Originally posted by minuteman

buddyman and douggg have tried to explain thieir church beliefs, that Lord means Jesus. According to what they say:God has triunie nature. There is God The father, There is god the son called Lord. There is a spirit of the father (HS). They (gods) have their own roles. They are not equal. Jesus was different to the father. Jesus came from father.

The god has existed since eternity. But nobody knew about it until Jesus arrived. So Abraham and Moses and all the prophets after Moses did not know the triune nature of God and they never told any one or preached that doctrine. Nobody said that there are three gods in one god.

The God of the Muslims needs nobody. But the God of the christians needs a spirit. He also needs a son too. We believe that any one who needs something cannot be a god at all/

It worries me that Jesus may have talked about thefather and the holy spirit and himself. But did Jesusever say that these three things are god or each one of them is a god. I believe that people made up agod from those three things.

Have you ever read the Book of Revelation? Jesus says:

7^(X)BEHOLD, HE IS COMING WITH THE CLOUDS, and ^(Y)every eye will see Him, even those who pierced Him; and all the tribes of the earth will ^(Z)mourn over Him. So it is to be. Amen.

8"I am ^(AA)the Alpha and the Omega," says the ^(AB)Lord God, "^(AC)who is and who was and who is to come, the Almighty."

IP Logged

buddyman

Senior Member

Joined: 26 June 2007
Online Status: Offline
Posts: 295

Posted: 19 July 2007 at 10:16am

Question for Muslims to answer:

Why was my new topic about the Anti-Christ deleted? I never said it was Islam...

IP Logged

Aspiration

Newbie
Newbie

Joined: 09 July 2007
Location: United States
Online Status: Offline
Posts: 8

Posted: 20 July 2007 at 5:22am

Greetings to all, :)

I am not sure if the original poster wrote the questions out himself/herself or if it was a copy and paste of another source. By finishing up the questions it seems the author questionig th bible is true. Is this a fair sumation of these questions?

If so then yes it is. Now I will qualify this in that Christianity is not a faith of the book. Here is an example. What bible did Peter read? Or what version did Paul have or lets go further maybe even Ignatius? You see that Christianity started with Faith in the risen Lord and was not based on a book. I hope this helps your understanding.

IP Logged

islamispeace
Islam
Senior Member
Senior Member

Joined: 01 November 2005
Online Status: Offline
Posts: 1417

Posted: 21 July 2007 at 8:25pm

Originally posted by Aspiration

Greetings to all, :)

In another thread, you said that this "faith" you speak of was passed down in an unbroken chain. Now you also claim that this faith was not based on actual written accounts (i.e. the Bible). Please clarify these statements. How was the story of Jesus, which is the foundation of Christianity, preserved and passed down?

Say: "Truly, my prayer and my service of sacrifice, my life and my death, are (all) for Allah, the Cherisher of the Worlds. (Surat al-Anaam: 162)

IP Logged

Andalus

Moderator Group

Joined: 12 October 2005
Location: United States
Online Status: Offline
Posts: 1187

Posted: 21 July 2007 at 11:32pm

Originally posted by buddyman

God Manifested in Nature

     Though there is nothing in this world that adequately illustrates God, Paul declares the “invisible things of him from the creation of the world” can help us understand “his eternal power and Godhead” (Romans 1:20). The truth that God is a “tri-unity” of two invisible persons (Father and Spirit) and one visible person (Jesus) is evident even in creation.
     The universe is composed of three structures: space, matter, and time. Of these three, only matter is visible. Space requires length, height, and width to constitute space. Each dimension is separate and distinct in itself, yet the three form space—if you remove height, you no longer have space. Time is also a tri-unity of past, present, and future. Two are invisible (past and future), and one visible (present). Each is separate and distinct, as well as essential for time to exist. Man is also a “tri-unity,” having physical, mental, and spiritual components. Again, two are invisible (mental and spiritual) and one visible (physical). Cells compose the fundamental structural unit of all living organisms. All organic life is made up from cells that consist of three primary parts: the outer wall, the cytoplasm, and the nucleus (like the shell, white, and yoke of an egg). If any one is removed, the cell dies.
     In each of these examples, the removal of any one component results in the demise of the whole. In like manner, the Godhead contains three distinct persons: Father, Son, and Holy Spirit. Each is God (Ephesians 4:6; Titus 2:13; Acts 5:3, 4), yet there is one God. The removal of one person destroys the unity of the whole.

Your examples have proven an age old heresy of your church: modalism. There is nothing in nature that actually corresponds to the trinity, which is why your doctors have focused a great deal of effort writing volumes and volumes of work trying to explain why god should be a trinity more than how god actually is a trinity.

PS Modalism is a heresy that goes against the trinity.

Even the gospel story illustrates the interdependency of threes. The sanctuary had three places: the Courtyard, the Holy Place, and the Most Holy Place. There are three stages of salvation: justification, sanctification, and glorification. In Isaiah 6:3, the angels around God’s throne cry “Holy, Holy, Holy” three times—once for the Father, once for the Son, and once for the Holy Spirit.

When you read this you have to get a whole description of God. God tells us who He is through out the entire Bible. That is why I urge you to read it.

I have read the bible, and I have already given you my objections and arguments on at least two of the main prophecy evidences used by your faith, and you have simply brushed these off with, "you need to read the whole bible", or, "you just do not understand".

With all due respect, taking into account the lack of your own "work", and the use of extremely low level sources to make your claims, I have to conclude that you do not know your bible very well, nor do you understand the more complicated theological ideas, if you did, you would be able to discuss your claims on a very different level.

kindest regards

A feeling of discouragement when you slip up is a sure sign that you put your faith in deeds. -Ibn 'Ata'llah
http://www.sunnipath.com
http://www.sunniforum.com/forum/
http://www.pt-go.com/

IP Logged

Aspiration

Newbie
Newbie

Joined: 09 July 2007
Location: United States
Online Status: Offline
Posts: 8

Posted: 22 July 2007 at 5:05am

Peace Islamispeace,

I apologize for my delayed response. I did not realize you replied. You asked me clarify what I meant earlier by the faith not being a religion/faith of the book. Hopefully I can convey what I meant in regards to the question. Not trying to show you how it is correct simply answering the question.

Simply put the faith of the early Christians had no book. The faith was passed down by a chain of believers. What chain you ask. The chain of the Apostolic fathers. The bible as we have it was not compiled to a much later date. Of course my Protestant brothers have the same version but with books not deemed inspired by them. The faith was taught.

The Church is the Pillar and Foundation. Not vice versa. The faith believes from by scripture and tradition for they stem from the same divine well spring. If you refer to some of the scripture references you can see what I mean.

2 Thes 2:15, 2 Tim 2:1-2, 2 pet 1:20-21

Just a few examples. I hope you this answers your question. I didn't respond to this to see who was right or wrong. I am only giving an answer which is the title of this topic 60 questions for Christians. :) I answered the best I could. Islamispeace, Alaykum Salam. Nice writing and learning from you.

In regards to Andalus I would have to agree that Modalism is being described.

The view that the Three members of the Blessed Trinity are differnt modes of God is a heretical belief. No offense to you Buddyman. Only stating what the Modalism statement is. Peace be with you brother.

Aspiration

IP Logged

Andalus

Moderator Group

Joined: 12 October 2005
Location: United States
Online Status: Offline
Posts: 1187

Posted: 22 July 2007 at 10:18am

Originally posted by Aspiration

Peace Islamispeace,

2 Thes 2:15, 2 Tim 2:1-2, 2 pet 1:20-21

In regards to Andalus I would have to agree that Modalism is being described.

Aspiration

Greetings Aspiration.

The latest, and probably the most clever approach to the trinity is entitled "Social Trinitarianism". William L. Craig is a huge proponent of the argument and has brought some strong work into the field. My understanding is that some Christian scholars have objected because the argument moves away from a biblical standpoint and relies too heavily on philosophy.

With that in mind, as far as the trinity being rational or not, I have never used the "rational vs irrational" mode to denounce it. The idea of rejecting the existence of somethingbased upon the rationality of something was best summed up by Nietzsche: "The irrationality of a thing is no argument against its existence, rather a condition of it."

Kindest regards

A feeling of discouragement when you slip up is a sure sign that you put your faith in deeds. -Ibn 'Ata'llah
http://www.sunnipath.com
http://www.sunniforum.com/forum/
http://www.pt-go.com/

IP Logged

Israfil

Senior Member
Senior Member

Joined: 08 September 2003
Online Status: Offline
Posts: 3984

Posted: 22 July 2007 at 11:52am

But in actuality brother Andalus Monarch Modalism is apart of the Christian theology although it remains subtle in its current form now. I remember doing a 20 page paper in my Medieval Philosophy course on Peter Abelard who fused the philosophical thought of Saballianism (i.e. Monarch Modalism) with Aristotlian thought. Like you said brother Andalus the biggest problem was as you said:

explain why god should be a trinity more than how god actually is a trinity.

The problem with Buddyman's position is he is saying "God is in nature" is the wrong approach. That would be Pan-tri-theism" like God is everything in three. That is illogical. Ascribing God as a hylomorphic compound in asymmetrical fashion is a blasphemous attempt to prove trinity.

Edited by Israfil

IP Logged

	Active Topics Memberlist Calendar Search Help
	Register Login Old Forum

Interfaith Dialogue
IslamiCity Forum - Islamic Discussion Forum : Religion - Islam : Interfaith Dialogue

Topic: 60 Questions for Christians to Answer
	<< Prev Page of 6 Next >>

Author	Message
buddyman Senior Member Joined: 26 June 2007 Online Status: Offline Posts: 295	Posted: 18 July 2007 at 9:50am
	*Originally posted by minuteman* buddyman and douggg have tried to explain thieir church beliefs, that Lord means Jesus. According to what they say:God has triunie nature. There is God The father, There is god the son called Lord. There is a spirit of the father (HS). They (gods) have their own roles. They are not equal. Jesus was different to the father. Jesus came from father. The god has existed since eternity. But nobody knew about it until Jesus arrived. So Abraham and Moses and all the prophets after Moses did not know the triune nature of God and they never told any one or preached that doctrine. Nobody said that there are three gods in one god. The God of the Muslims needs nobody. But the God of the christians needs a spirit. He also needs a son too. We believe that any one who needs something cannot be a god at all/ It worries me that Jesus may have talked about thefather and the holy spirit and himself. But did Jesusever say that these three things are god or each one of them is a god. I believe that people made up agod from those three things. Have you ever read the Book of Revelation? Jesus says: 7^(X)BEHOLD, HE IS COMING WITH THE CLOUDS, and ^(Y)every eye will see Him, even those who pierced Him; and all the tribes of the earth will ^(Z)mourn over Him. So it is to be. Amen. 8"I am ^(AA)the Alpha and the Omega," says the ^(AB)Lord God, "^(AC)who is and who was and who is to come, the Almighty."
	IP Logged

buddyman Senior Member Joined: 26 June 2007 Online Status: Offline Posts: 295	Posted: 19 July 2007 at 10:16am
	Question for Muslims to answer: Why was my new topic about the Anti-Christ deleted? I never said it was Islam...
	IP Logged

Aspiration Newbie Joined: 09 July 2007 Location: United States Online Status: Offline Posts: 8	Posted: 20 July 2007 at 5:22am
	Greetings to all, :) I am not sure if the original poster wrote the questions out himself/herself or if it was a copy and paste of another source. By finishing up the questions it seems the author questionig th bible is true. Is this a fair sumation of these questions? If so then yes it is. Now I will qualify this in that Christianity is not a faith of the book. Here is an example. What bible did Peter read? Or what version did Paul have or lets go further maybe even Ignatius? You see that Christianity started with Faith in the risen Lord and was not based on a book. I hope this helps your understanding.
	IP Logged

islamispeace Islam Senior Member Joined: 01 November 2005 Online Status: Offline Posts: 1417	Posted: 21 July 2007 at 8:25pm
	*Originally posted by Aspiration* Greetings to all, :) I am not sure if the original poster wrote the questions out himself/herself or if it was a copy and paste of another source. By finishing up the questions it seems the author questionig th bible is true. Is this a fair sumation of these questions? If so then yes it is. Now I will qualify this in that Christianity is not a faith of the book. Here is an example. What bible did Peter read? Or what version did Paul have or lets go further maybe even Ignatius? You see that Christianity started with Faith in the risen Lord and was not based on a book. I hope this helps your understanding. In another thread, you said that this "faith" you speak of was passed down in an unbroken chain. Now you also claim that this faith was not based on actual written accounts (i.e. the Bible). Please clarify these statements. How was the story of Jesus, which is the foundation of Christianity, preserved and passed down?
	Say: "Truly, my prayer and my service of sacrifice, my life and my death, are (all) for Allah, the Cherisher of the Worlds. (Surat al-Anaam: 162)
	IP Logged

Andalus Moderator Group Joined: 12 October 2005 Location: United States Online Status: Offline Posts: 1187	Posted: 21 July 2007 at 11:32pm
	*Originally posted by buddyman* God Manifested in Nature Though there is nothing in this world that adequately illustrates God, Paul declares the “invisible things of him from the creation of the world” can help us understand “his eternal power and Godhead” (Romans 1:20). The truth that God is a “tri-unity” of two invisible persons (Father and Spirit) and one visible person (Jesus) is evident even in creation. The universe is composed of three structures: space, matter, and time. Of these three, only matter is visible. Space requires length, height, and width to constitute space. Each dimension is separate and distinct in itself, yet the three form space—if you remove height, you no longer have space. Time is also a tri-unity of past, present, and future. Two are invisible (past and future), and one visible (present). Each is separate and distinct, as well as essential for time to exist. Man is also a “tri-unity,” having physical, mental, and spiritual components. Again, two are invisible (mental and spiritual) and one visible (physical). Cells compose the fundamental structural unit of all living organisms. All organic life is made up from cells that consist of three primary parts: the outer wall, the cytoplasm, and the nucleus (like the shell, white, and yoke of an egg). If any one is removed, the cell dies. In each of these examples, the removal of any one component results in the demise of the whole. In like manner, the Godhead contains three distinct persons: Father, Son, and Holy Spirit. Each is God (Ephesians 4:6; Titus 2:13; Acts 5:3, 4), yet there is one God. The removal of one person destroys the unity of the whole. Your examples have proven an age old heresy of your church: modalism. There is nothing in nature that actually corresponds to the trinity, which is why your doctors have focused a great deal of effort writing volumes and volumes of work trying to explain why god should be a trinity more than how god actually is a trinity. PS Modalism is a heresy that goes against the trinity. Even the gospel story illustrates the interdependency of threes. The sanctuary had three places: the Courtyard, the Holy Place, and the Most Holy Place. There are three stages of salvation: justification, sanctification, and glorification. In Isaiah 6:3, the angels around God’s throne cry “Holy, Holy, Holy” three times—once for the Father, once for the Son, and once for the Holy Spirit. When you read this you have to get a whole description of God. God tells us who He is through out the entire Bible. That is why I urge you to read it. I have read the bible, and I have already given you my objections and arguments on at least two of the main prophecy evidences used by your faith, and you have simply brushed these off with, "you need to read the whole bible", or, "you just do not understand". With all due respect, taking into account the lack of your own "work", and the use of extremely low level sources to make your claims, I have to conclude that you do not know your bible very well, nor do you understand the more complicated theological ideas, if you did, you would be able to discuss your claims on a very different level. kindest regards
	A feeling of discouragement when you slip up is a sure sign that you put your faith in deeds. -Ibn 'Ata'llah http://www.sunnipath.com http://www.sunniforum.com/forum/ http://www.pt-go.com/
	IP Logged

Aspiration Newbie Joined: 09 July 2007 Location: United States Online Status: Offline Posts: 8	Posted: 22 July 2007 at 5:05am
	Peace Islamispeace, I apologize for my delayed response. I did not realize you replied. You asked me clarify what I meant earlier by the faith not being a religion/faith of the book. Hopefully I can convey what I meant in regards to the question. Not trying to show you how it is correct simply answering the question. Simply put the faith of the early Christians had no book. The faith was passed down by a chain of believers. What chain you ask. The chain of the Apostolic fathers. The bible as we have it was not compiled to a much later date. Of course my Protestant brothers have the same version but with books not deemed inspired by them. The faith was taught. The Church is the Pillar and Foundation. Not vice versa. The faith believes from by scripture and tradition for they stem from the same divine well spring. If you refer to some of the scripture references you can see what I mean. 2 Thes 2:15, 2 Tim 2:1-2, 2 pet 1:20-21 Just a few examples. I hope you this answers your question. I didn't respond to this to see who was right or wrong. I am only giving an answer which is the title of this topic 60 questions for Christians. :) I answered the best I could. Islamispeace, Alaykum Salam. Nice writing and learning from you. In regards to Andalus I would have to agree that Modalism is being described. The view that the Three members of the Blessed Trinity are differnt modes of God is a heretical belief. No offense to you Buddyman. Only stating what the Modalism statement is. Peace be with you brother. Aspiration
	IP Logged

Andalus Moderator Group Joined: 12 October 2005 Location: United States Online Status: Offline Posts: 1187	Posted: 22 July 2007 at 10:18am
	*Originally posted by Aspiration* Peace Islamispeace, I apologize for my delayed response. I did not realize you replied. You asked me clarify what I meant earlier by the faith not being a religion/faith of the book. Hopefully I can convey what I meant in regards to the question. Not trying to show you how it is correct simply answering the question. Simply put the faith of the early Christians had no book. The faith was passed down by a chain of believers. What chain you ask. The chain of the Apostolic fathers. The bible as we have it was not compiled to a much later date. Of course my Protestant brothers have the same version but with books not deemed inspired by them. The faith was taught. The Church is the Pillar and Foundation. Not vice versa. The faith believes from by scripture and tradition for they stem from the same divine well spring. If you refer to some of the scripture references you can see what I mean. 2 Thes 2:15, 2 Tim 2:1-2, 2 pet 1:20-21 Just a few examples. I hope you this answers your question. I didn't respond to this to see who was right or wrong. I am only giving an answer which is the title of this topic 60 questions for Christians. :) I answered the best I could. Islamispeace, Alaykum Salam. Nice writing and learning from you. In regards to Andalus I would have to agree that Modalism is being described. The view that the Three members of the Blessed Trinity are differnt modes of God is a heretical belief. No offense to you Buddyman. Only stating what the Modalism statement is. Peace be with you brother. Aspiration Greetings Aspiration. The latest, and probably the most clever approach to the trinity is entitled "Social Trinitarianism". William L. Craig is a huge proponent of the argument and has brought some strong work into the field. My understanding is that some Christian scholars have objected because the argument moves away from a biblical standpoint and relies too heavily on philosophy. With that in mind, as far as the trinity being rational or not, I have never used the "rational vs irrational" mode to denounce it. The idea of rejecting the existence of somethingbased upon the rationality of something was best summed up by Nietzsche: "The irrationality of a thing is no argument against its existence, rather a condition of it." Kindest regards
	A feeling of discouragement when you slip up is a sure sign that you put your faith in deeds. -Ibn 'Ata'llah http://www.sunnipath.com http://www.sunniforum.com/forum/ http://www.pt-go.com/
	IP Logged

Israfil Senior Member Joined: 08 September 2003 Online Status: Offline Posts: 3984	Posted: 22 July 2007 at 11:52am
	But in actuality brother Andalus Monarch Modalism is apart of the Christian theology although it remains subtle in its current form now. I remember doing a 20 page paper in my Medieval Philosophy course on Peter Abelard who fused the philosophical thought of Saballianism (i.e. Monarch Modalism) with Aristotlian thought. Like you said brother Andalus the biggest problem was as you said: explain why god should be a trinity more than how god actually is a trinity. The problem with Buddyman's position is he is saying "God is in nature" is the wrong approach. That would be Pan-tri-theism" like God is everything in three. That is illogical. Ascribing God as a hylomorphic compound in asymmetrical fashion is a blasphemous attempt to prove trinity. Edited by Israfil
	IP Logged