P
- Status
E
estesbob
Guest
A
AnubistheJackal
Guest
No!
The Bible and Qur’an cannot logically be simultaneously completely true.
They both can be, and are, simultaneously partially true and partially false.
The Bible and Qur’an cannot logically be simultaneously completely true.
They both can be, and are, simultaneously partially true and partially false.
V
Verisimilitude
Guest
You assume the publiser and editor of the papers are the same. They clearly are not.
J
Jack_Koerner
Guest
Well, God is indeed “One”. A person can describe Him as “just”, “good”, “merciful” and “loving”. Yet all these are intrinsic to His nature. These are not qualities He possesses seperately but rather they are unified aspects of His One Truth. That is the Unity and Holy Simplicity of God. The Bible does not contradict itself as all Scripture is inspired by God. Whatever contradicts the Word of God cannot be of God, and God is not the Father of Confusion. That title is reserved for Satan who “is the father of lies and a murderer from the beginning.”This is a fantastic point. The problem is, the truth is one, God is one but the faith through which you see this truth is not the truth itself. If you acknowledge the existence of God, that truth is not relative. Relativism creeps in when you confuse the faith for the truth.
You can read parts of the Bible and easily come to different conclusions. I can read the Gospel of Mark and say that the inspired writer didn’t think that Jesus was divine. When I read John, I have to conclude that the writer wanted us to believe that Jesus is God. Arius was adept at using scripture to argue his points. Arianism was a widely held view at one time. It took a Church council to “lay down the law” on what constituted the proper view of the “truth.”
It is like the three blind men and the elephant. One has the tail, the other the nose and another say the ear. Each concludes differently what type of animal the elephant really is. The elephant is still an elephant. To say that we perceive things differently is not to acknowledge relativism.
God is God, I find nothing inconsistent with God’s omnipotence or omnibenevolence to say that he sent different messengers (who translated the messages) to different peoples. If fact, given the beauty and massive diversity of creation, I would expect it. Anything less might imply a lack of creativity, effort or compassion.
The world is indeed huge and diverse as all creation is a reflection of God’s glory. However, as Christ is the only sure road to salvation, diversity in belief is treading upon dangerous ground.
Dangerous heresies do exist. Paul’s epistles had, as its focus, the correction of various heresies throughout the early church and to combat “false teachers”. The New Testament was written by various apostles and disciples within a few decades of Christ, but they do not contradict themselves even if each book was written with a different purpose. The Bible isn’t the only source of Truth as Paul states that Christianity was meant to be preached, and the Bible freely admits that it does not record everything that Christ did and taught. That is why the church’s oral tradition compliments the written text, and is why Paul described the Church as the Pillar of Truth.
As a Catholic, I will never accept any point of view which contradicts that Jesus is the Son of God, one of the Holy and Indivisable Trinity; that Jesus and the Father are One. But I do accept that different beliefs have different degrees of Truth. As the Word of God says, “Those who know the truth and err will received many lashings. But those who err and did not know the truth will receive fewer lashings.” So, yeah, there is such a thing as different degrees of Truth, and that one can have an error in belief and still get to heaven. However, again, that’s still pointing to the existance of One Unchanging and Eternal Truth, but it does acknowledge that people can misinterpret that Truth. And what is the Truth? Well, that’s an easy question for a Christian. I follow Christ because he is the Way, the Truth and the Life. All else is smoke.
As God is merciful and loving and salvation is a gift that no one can merit, I’m sure there may be Muslims in heaven by some act of Grace on God’s part. However, I will never accept that the Koran is the fullness of the Truth because, to do so, would mean that I would have to say that Christ is not the Son of God. And if Muslims and relativists out there despise me for maintaining the Truth that Christ is God, then that is a serious matter between them and my God, the Eternal Word revealed in Scripture.
“He that hears you hears me; and he that despises you despises me; and he that despises me despises Him that sent me.” – Luke 10: 16,
M
MHalsey
Guest
Because it’s like someone tossing the National Enquirer on my doorstep. And the delivery boy is claiming it’s written by the same author of the Chronicle when it isn’t.
Y
yannick
Guest
You are linking the truth of a Holy to its original language not to sure it can be done . At least not it what concern christianity.Allah uhakbar is just has true has God is great. The language is not the issue as far as I can see. Just didnot leave any writng behind because he is the word incarnate.Differently than what a lot of muslim thnk our religon (christianity) is not a religion of the book it is THE RELIGION OF THE WORD INCARNATE and we are not the people of the book we are the Church of Christ his bride, we are the people of God. As opposed to the 2 other great montheist religions, in Catholic Christianity (the only true Christianity one may say), the profession of faith, is not a simple gaze in the sky, Hear o Israel the Lord is God the Lord alone or There is no God but God and … In catholic christianity we witness of what we have seen. Thus we (catholics) can truly say every night before bed during the 7th prayer of the day “My eyes I have seen the glory which you have prepared in the sight of every people a light to reveal you to the nations…” We are talking of things we have seen as the apostles says: What we have seen, what we have touch what we have held in our arms i.e the Eucharist . Once the Word is incarnate mere words though important do not suffice. Christ in the Eucharist is the very utterance of God made Flesh it is God dwelling with us, forget the original language of I dont know what, something far greater than solomon is here now and we have seen HIM (GOD that is) at this point human luage fails, grammar is irrelevant… as to the original OT or NT he himself is the Alpha, the beginning, the Ancient of days, the ancient one. Is this original enough for us?
B
Booklover
Guest
The Quran is the word of Muhammad! It is a book that preaches hate against anyone who does not accept him and his alter ego Allah!
God does not send conflicting messages! You can’t even prove that the Quran is the word of God except for “Muhammad said so”
Are you claiming that the God that told us to love our neighbor as ourselves would say this:
Slay the unbelievers wherever you catch them. (2:191)
Fight them until there is no more dissent and religion is that of Allah (2:193)
The vilest of animals in Allah’s sight are those who disbelieve.(8:55)
The unbelievers are unclean. (9:28)
Those who disbelieve, among the the People of the Scripture and idolaters will abide in fire of hell. They are the worst of created beings. (98.6)
Most definitely not the same author!
Vickie
E
exoflare
Guest
There is nothing wrong with the idea of sending different messages, but when two of the alleged “messages” directly contradict each other then there is absolutely NO way that both of them are correct.This is a fantastic point. The problem is, the truth is one, God is one but the faith through which you see this truth is not the truth itself. If you acknowledge the existence of God, that truth is not relative. Relativism creeps in when you confuse the faith for the truth.
You can read parts of the Bible and easily come to different conclusions. I can read the Gospel of Mark and say that the inspired writer didn’t think that Jesus was divine. When I read John, I have to conclude that the writer wanted us to believe that Jesus is God. Arius was adept at using scripture to argue his points. Arianism was a widely held view at one time. It took a Church council to “lay down the law” on what constituted the proper view of the “truth.”
It is like the three blind men and the elephant. One has the tail, the other the nose and another say the ear. Each concludes differently what type of animal the elephant really is. The elephant is still an elephant. To say that we perceive things differently is not to acknowledge relativism.
God is God, I find nothing inconsistent with God’s omnipotence or omnibenevolence to say that he sent different messengers (who translated the messages) to different peoples. If fact, given the beauty and massive diversity of creation, I would expect it. Anything less might imply a lack of creativity, effort or compassion.
E
exoflare
Guest
E
exoflare
Guest
Of course, maybe the delivery boy claims to be a “prophet”… then you HAVE to believe him.
B
Booklover
Guest
E
exoflare
Guest
ThanksVery good post, Exoflare!
Vickie
P
Peregrino
Guest
I totally agree. However, most people here seem to make it issue a binary proposition, namely, one of them is right. How about both of them are wrong?
We could re-title this thread “Bible and Quran, can both be wrong?”
As I (and another-sorry I don’t remember your screen name) pointed out, both texts are wrong and right. In my mind, assuming that we have “the Church to interpret scripture” and solve the issue for us like having a fourth blind man passing judgement on the perceptions of the other three blind men touching different parts of the elephant. There is no clear answer other than to pull a “power trip” and claim authority.
I have read the Quran and the Bible. I wouldn’t agree that they completely contradictory. They are reflections of the cultures, contexts and times in which they were written. Sure there is the divinity issue. If you cut out the Gospel of John, you would have a much more difficult time arguing Jesus’ divinity. Most historical Jesus researchers believe that Jesus himself never claimed to be divine. Even the phrase “son of God” is not thought to be a reference to the divinity of Jesus by many historical Jesus researchers. What about this phrase “the son of Man?” Squaring these things is difficult. Jesus’ divinity is an article of faith as are many of the things we believe as Catholics and Christians. Ostracizing, alienating, name calling and gasp killing people in the name of faith, our Christian faith, is a travesty.
I am not going to please Catholics, Christians, Muslims or anyone else who want to say that they are the only ones with a 20/20 view of the truth. In my opinion, every religion is somewhat myopic. For every horrible qoute, sura, event or custom you can dig out of the Quran or Islam, something equally horrible can probably be pulled out of the history and texts of Christianity. Give it a rest.
Sadly, tolerance as a value seems to be much despised around here.
B
birdsong
Guest
this, of course, is a logical fallacy … who said or proved that the Quoran is God’s last revelation? … lemme see … Muhhamad? … and … where is it writen that muhhamad was the seal of prophets? … lemme see … BINGO! the Quoran ! … 
T
Tantum_ergo
Guest
Tolerance is a value. As such, it is relative. Your tolerance might be tantamount to demanding someone’s ‘full acceptance’ of something completely antithetical to his or her belief in the name of ‘equality’ and ‘live and let live’. That isn’t tolerance, it’s coercion. It’s forcing me to deny an absolute truth lest I offend someone who doesn’t believe it. What of my offense in being denied my truth?
When it comes to truth or falsity, good or evil–we cannot ‘tolerate it’. We must either pledge ourselves to one or the other.
A little bit evil–falls short of the absolute ‘good’. A little bit good --is still evil.
When it comes to truth or falsity, good or evil–we cannot ‘tolerate it’. We must either pledge ourselves to one or the other.
A little bit evil–falls short of the absolute ‘good’. A little bit good --is still evil.
P
Peregrino
Guest
Lets use your “logic”.
*“Good is a value. As such, it is relative”.
*All values are relative?
Your good might be tantamount to demanding someone’s “full acceptance” of something completely antithetical to his or her belief….
Using your “logic”, democracy is always an evil. You must be a true relativist. In theory, forty nine percent of the population is required to “live in coercion”.
Tolerance is what makes a democracy work. You consent to tolerate the majority will even when it does not correspond to yours. This consensus approach to government is obviously never perfect, yet I think the alternatives (fascism, theocracy etc.) pale in comparison…
Perhaps you disagree.
P
paarsurrey
Guest
Hi
I agree with the contents of your above passage from your post.
Thanks
Since Jesus left no written Word of GodAllahYHWH revealed on him, or authenticated by him when he last departed from Galilee; hence my Catholic friends believe many creeds created by the Catholic Clergy not originated by Jesus himself in person.
V
Verisimilitude
Guest
Sure, both could be wrong. Atheists could be right. It’s a bold claim to say any book has the full truth, but it might not be so bold to say at least one contains the fullness of truth.
I think that is a bad analogy. If the 3 blind men are the Synoptic authors, you are assuming both blindness and not even the possibility of one if not all 3 were touching the entire elephant. The 4th blind man has never been alone though some have tried to be.
What was wrong with how the human Church formed? The first 300 years are the foundation to the 3 year public ministry of Christ. Scripture was put into practice, not interpreted per se’ as I see it. We are fortunate to have such a written record.
The almost 2000 year old institution is still vibrant though challenged. It’s more than interesting how/why the Church came to dominate the political in addition to the religious in the Middle Ages, and a worldwide influence from the Gregorian date to the basis of many modern nations laws and constitutions. Despite the humanity of the Church body, I believe the Holy Spirit protects the integrity of the Body that permeates the ideology. Traumatic events like schisms and scandals to include Luther are to see how the integrity has been challenged, and the challenges eventually overcome.
I would. I think any similarity is superficial, and teh rest is just plain wrong.
It is much more than that. One claims to be the literal word of god from a spirit, the other claims to describe when God became man, and what He said and did, and the formation of the believing community.
I like John too much to cut it out, but to focus only on the Synoptic Gospels I’d still disagree.
I’d like to know who the researchers were, and from what you are drawing that conclusion from to comment, but in short understanding the concept at least of God becoming man might help square it.
It has been almost a thousand years since Catholics unified to fight Moslems. It’s been an hour or so since a Moslem group blew up someone for something somewhere for a variety of reasons to include but not limited to being a non-Moslem, wrong Moslem ideology, or perceived wounded Moslem righteousness.
Some things are important to refute; like a dangerous 1400 year old ideology.
Being a door mat is not a commandment or even a suggestion. Proper etiquette, respect for their humanity, along with the forum rules should be maintained, but tolerance is subjective.
M
MelanieAnne
Guest
With all due respect, democracy is a human invention. I don’t know that anyone has consulted God about it, except to ask for His blessing on their human endeavor.
Democracy is a good, working method of governance in most human situations.
I hope you do not presume to impose democracy on God?
- Status