Ibn Taymiya : the Church belief

[Reuben_J]

Eucharisted and Reuben J
We are not talking about the Bible now, but the case is that InJesus was the one who suggested to open that thread to prove that Christians don’t need the Bible since they had already a church before the Bible was written. So she is trying to prove that the tradition is a stand alone source for the church with no need to the Bible.

Certainly not. You misunderstand what inJESUS is trying to say. In any case, the Church has three prongs source for her belief and they compliment each other. They are the Bible, the Magestrium and Sacred Traditions.

I see you as trying to bring the discussion into a direction that you want to. Setting up conditions in discussion is never intellectually honest and I don’t have high opinion on anyone who is trying to do that.

Your questions are based on the premise that you already decided which got nothing to do with the real Christianity. I know we try to do too on you guys sometimes, but frankly it is dishonest.

inJESUS may want to tell you that not everything in our belief may be found explicitly in the Bible but that does not mean we do not need the Bible. Sometimes you have to read between the lines of how people talk but sometimes they may be trapped in answering if you already lead the question.

I suppose the best way would be to have an open discussion. Do not unnecessarily restrict it but at the same time try to keep to the topic.

 

[swariffin]

The extensive (mutawatir) Isnads. This is a great different issue and may be I tell more about it in that thread, but it is not our topic now.

That is not scientific. Isnad is merely personal opinion to something. Has it been verified such as the letter to match the handwriting of the writers for instance? What is the proof that Muhammad get Quran from an angel, anyway. BTW I agree this is off-topic. We can discuss it later on in a more appropriate thread. Make sure you are ready with all of the scientific proof of the existence of your Quran. Especially whether you Quran is from Muhammad or Uthsman.

 

[swariffin]

Eucharisted and Reuben J
We are not talking about the Bible now, but the case is that InJesus was the one who suggested to open that thread to prove that Christians don’t need the Bible since they had already a church before the Bible was written. So she is trying to prove that the tradition is a stand alone source for the church with no need to the Bible.

Nope, you are misunderstanding InJesus. She merely meant that the existence of the Church was earlier than the written bible as a whole. What do you think the meaning of the “Church” anyway?? Is it a physical building??

 

[inJESUS]

Is this what you are going to start with ? A spurious epistle?

no, there are hundreds of links and mine was a random click to understand what you might consider a proof. In other words, if i quote a non-spurious passage by a Church father who was known by other church fathers or contemporary to other church fathers who taught the same, is this enough evidence to you ?
forget about this random click since obviously it doesn’t fit the criteria but you could have answered if this is the evidence you are looking for, though in this case, this passage doesn’t fit the criteria. So i still haven’t understood if this method is what you consider evidence.

Thank you all for explaining what i meant

 

[Ibn_Taymiya]

no, there are hundreds of links and mine was a random click to understand what you might consider a proof. In other words, if i quote a non-spurious passage by a Church father who was known by other church fathers or contemporary to other church fathers who taught the same, is this enough evidence to you ?
forget about this random click since obviously it doesn’t fit the criteria but you could have answered if this is the evidence you are looking for, though in this case, this passage doesn’t fit the criteria. So i still haven’t understood if this method is what you consider evidence.

Thank you all for explaining what i meant

Ok. As for your epistle, of course it doesn’t meet the standards even if it was non-spurious because he is just testifying for himself, for example, if I wrote a message like that to Pope Benedict, it may be understood that I am a disciple of him, but if it reached him, he will reject it and say that he doesn’t know me, this is the same case. Do we have evidence that John met Ignatius or that he was his disciple? not necessary from John himself, but it can be from many other fathers either contemporary or from the next generation (I mean like his disciples not after 200 years for example) who were well known to be disciples of John and they testify that Ignatius really knew John.

Also there must be a proof that the epistle was really proven to be related to the church father by testimonies from other fathers that this epistle really refers to that father, and the evidence that he really recognizes its content.

And of course that no father within that chain is known for a single heresy or an opinion that violates what your belief even if considered small or that he quotes from apocryphas considering them authentic scriptures. For example, I cannot accept a testimony of Tertullian or Origen or Eusebius or Papias or even Iraneaus since he said that Jesus lived till he reached 50 years, which is generally disproved by the church. You may tell me that it happens that some Muslim scholars may also say false opinions based on their understanding of the scriptures. I say that there is a difference since we don’t have a Holy Spirit who guides us to the truth but the Prophet (Peace be upon him) told us that if a judge made an ijtihad (trial to reach the truth) and he was right, he will have 2 rewards, and if he was mistaken, he will have just one, so our case is different than yours.

These are the main outlines, and if there is something that I forgot, I will tell about it later although I think that I covered most conditions.

 

[Ibn_Taymiya]

That is not scientific. Isnad is merely personal opinion to something. Has it been verified such as the letter to match the handwriting of the writers for instance? What is the proof that Muhammad get Quran from an angel, anyway. BTW I agree this is off-topic. We can discuss it later on in a more appropriate thread. Make sure you are ready with all of the scientific proof of the existence of your Quran. Especially whether you Quran is from Muhammad or Uthsman.

You’d better tell me what you know about Isnad and what you mean by saying it’s a personal opinion.

 

[Ibn_Taymiya]

Nope, you are misunderstanding InJesus. She merely meant that the existence of the Church was earlier than the written bible as a whole. What do you think the meaning of the “Church” anyway?? Is it a physical building??

When I ask a question or give a proof that the Bible is corrupted, she tells me that I can attack the Bible as I like but that would do nothing since the church was present before the Bible was written, so her implication is that the church traditions is enough and stand-alone.

I didn’t say the church is a physical building, I understand her concept in the church in the first century she meant and that’s why I am conversating her in this thread

 

[Reuben_J]

When I ask a question or give a proof that the Bible is corrupted, she tells me that I can attack the Bible as I like but that would do nothing since the church was present before the Bible was written, so her implication is that the church traditions is enough and stand-alone.

So I guess this issue is settled then.

The Church is built upon apostolic witnesses. They witnessed the act, life and teachings of Christ and used these as the basis to set up the Church. Thus it is correct to say that the Church was founded by Jesus and the apostles were his representative on earth.

During the time of the immediate apostles there was no necessity for the Bible as everything was known by them. Sure there were records or notes but not the Bible per se. It was when the church began to grow in numbers and the disciples were phasing out through death and infirmities that the necessity of written scripture became apparent. The Bible is actually a compilation of books and epistles of the apostles / disciples that reflected the belief of the church.

Your assumption is not exactly right to say that the traditions stand alone but on the other hand any belief or interpretation that contradict the traditions are not accepted by the Church either. Similarly not all practices and belief of the church are explicitly stated in the Bible but contain in the traditions.

Hope this helps.

 

[inJESUS]

I have to run now but i wanted to comment on “Iraneaus since he said that Jesus lived till he reached 50 years” .

This link my help :

tektonics.org/guest/irey50.html

 

[inJESUS]

Ibn Taymiyah,

before i start investigating the conditions you have put, i’d like to point us that you as a Sunni believe in the concensus of Muhammad’s companions as infallible, and in the science of hadith and its Isnad. However, there are people who are as old as the Sunni and who question your belief, the Shia.

The Shia, if we take the example of Abu Bakr’s teaching that no one inherits Muhammad after his death, say none of such traditions exists in Shia books, and if traditions were coined after Fadak due to political affiliations it means nothing. Ali rejected the tradition outright appearing as a witness for his wife and his verdict on Abu Bakr’s usage of the tradition was that it served as evidence that he was a liar, treacherous sinful and dishonest . Ibn Taymiyah in his book ‘Minhaj’ asserted that the tradition was Muttawatir and received ijma of the Sahaba, but Shia reject any Ijmaa that their imams have not entered upon. Ali and Fatima rejected the Hadeeth, upon hearing it Fatima became upset with Abu Bakr, deeming him to be a liar, his assertion contradicted ten verses of the Quran.

So what Ibn Taymiyya calls a mutawatir hadith, the Shia reject as a total lie.

Now, i do not want to enter a debate on the Shia/Sunni acceptance/rejection of hadith , its science, and all the conflicting and contradictory hadiths of both sides, but i’d like to say that if one does not have trust in people preserving the message of whom they considered to be the prophet, nothing will convince them, not even mutawattir hadiths.

But despite all the difference between Shias and Sunnis resulting from differing hadith despite the science of hadith and isnad, we can still know the general faith of the earliest Muslims .

 

[inJESUS]

Do we have evidence that John met Ignatius or that he was his disciple? not necessary from John himself, but it can be from many other fathers either contemporary or from the next generation (I mean like his disciples not after 200 years for example) who were well known to be disciples of John and they testify that Ignatius really knew John.

Is the testimony of Polycarp, John’s disciple, good enough for you to prove that both men knew eath others and exchanged letters approved upon?

Both you and Ignatius wrote to me, that if any one went [from this] into Syria, he should carry your letter with him; which request I will attend to if I find a fitting opportunity, either personally, or through some other acting for me, that your desire may be fulfilled. The Epistles of Ignatius written by him to us, and all the rest [of his Epistles] which we have by us, we have sent to you, as you requested. They are subjoined to this Epistle, and by them ye may be greatly profited; for they treat of faith and patience, and all things that tend to edification in our Lord. Any more certain information you may have obtained respecting both Ignatius himself, and those that were with him, have the goodness to make known to us.

ccel.org/ccel/schaff/anf01.iv.ii.xiii.html

and no, you cannot reject a witness because he said what you think he shouldn’t have said because the Holy Spirit does not render humans like walking machines programmed to utter the same thing or think in the same way The infallibility is not to individuals and the Church was never depending on one human just like Jesus did not send one human to establish churches nor was the Bible written by one author and it seems in Islam you cannot be sure of the companions’ infalibility since they might be wrong, because you do not believe Allah is guiding them, but their own fallible minds?

can i tell you that i reject any hadith on the authority of Abu Bakr because Ali and Fatima considered him a deceitful liar and thus any single word uttered by him must be totally rejected even if it agrees with the Quran just because of his immoral character according to Ali and Fatima, or at least based on his misrepresentation of the Quranic teachings when he is accused by the shia of having opposed the Quran? do you consider this a healthy objective approach to Abu Bakr’s testimony?

 

[swariffin]

When I ask a question or give a proof that the Bible is corrupted, she tells me that I can attack the Bible as I like but that would do nothing since the church was present before the Bible was written, so her implication is that the church traditions is enough and stand-alone.

I didn’t say the church is a physical building, I understand her concept in the church in the first century she meant and that’s why I am conversating her in this thread

It is the Muslim who believe the bible is corrupted. Why should we must proof it is corrupted. We believe the bible is not corrupted.

 

[swariffin]

You’d better tell me what you know about Isnad and what you mean by saying it’s a personal opinion.

Any scientific analysis in Isnad?

 

[Ibn_Taymiya]

I have to run now but i wanted to comment on “Iraneaus since he said that Jesus lived till he reached 50 years” .

This link my help :

tektonics.org/guest/irey50.html

First of all, I am sorry for being that late, but I was busy with some other works and replying takes me a lot of time, so I am sorry again.

As for that reply for what Ireneaus said, according to what I understood from that link is that he meant it figuaratively that Jesus appeared as an old man to old men and an infant to the infants,…etc. and that doesn’t mean he possessed the age of fifty, but I see this false due to 2 reasons:

1. He didn’t mean it figuratively as he said that this age was what was told to him from those who saw the apostles:

Irenaeus:

Now, that the first stage of early life embraces thirty years,117 and that this extends onwards to the fortieth year, every one will admit; but from the fortieth and fiftieth year a man begins to decline towards old age, which our Lord possessed while He still fulfilled the office of a Teacher, even as the Gospel and all the elders testify; **those who were conversant in Asia with John, the disciple of the Lord, [affirming] that John conveyed to them that information.**118 And he remained among them up to the times of Trajan.119 Some of them, moreover, saw not only John, but the other apostles also, and heard the very same account from them, and bear testimony as to the [validity of] the statement. Whom then should we rather believe? Whether such men as these, or Ptolemaeus, who never saw the apostles, and who never even in his dreams attained to the slightest trace of an apostle?

And he then quoted John 8:57 to prove that this is what the Jews understood from his appearance, he commented saying:

Irenaeus:

Now, such language is fittingly applied to one who has already passed the age of forty, without having as yet reached his fiftieth year, yet is not far from this latter period. But to one who is only thirty years old it would unquestionably be said, “Thou art not yet forty years old.”

1. If he really meant it that way, it wouldn’t have been a proof against the Gnostics as his argument was all a figurative argument which has no place in that context.

 

[Ibn_Taymiya]

Ibn Taymiyah,

before i start investigating the conditions you have put, i’d like to point us that you as a Sunni believe in the concensus of Muhammad’s companions as infallible, and in the science of hadith and its Isnad. However, there are people who are as old as the Sunni and who question your belief, the Shia.

The Shia began to write their books 200 years after the Sunnis, so actually it is not considered as old as the Sunna.

The Shia, if we take the example of Abu Bakr’s teaching that no one inherits Muhammad after his death, say none of such traditions exists in Shia books, and if traditions were coined after Fadak due to political affiliations it means nothing.

This statement contains many faults, first of all this hadith wasn’t said by Abu Bakr only but many other disciples narrated this hadith including Ali himself, so it is not called Abu Bakr’s teaching.

The second thing which is a surprise, is that this hadith is in the Shia books, and not only that but Al Khomini cited it to prove his doctrine of “wilayet al fiqih” I don’t know it’s exact translation, but it’s like " the scholar’s authority", and this is one of the many proofs of the hypocrisy of the Shia. You can see that link as you are an Arab:
dd-sunnah.net/forum/showthread.php?t=46069

And also there are Shii hadiths telling that a woman shall heir nothing from lands, so this is also a clear conradiction in their doctrines.

So if you wanted to prove there is a liar in what happened, it could be no one but the Shia.

Now, i do not want to enter a debate on the Shia/Sunni acceptance/rejection of hadith , its science, and all the conflicting and contradictory hadiths of both sides, but i’d like to say that if one does not have trust in people preserving the message of whom they considered to be the prophet, nothing will convince them, not even mutawattir hadiths.

To be convinced is something and to be refuted is something else, there has been a plenty of evidence that the Shia’s doctrine is false.

 

[Ibn_Taymiya]

Is the testimony of Polycarp, John’s disciple, good enough for you to prove that both men knew eath others and exchanged letters approved upon?

Ok, but we first need to prove that these epistles really referred to them and they are not spurious.

and no, you cannot reject a witness because he said what you think he shouldn’t have said because the Holy Spirit does not render humans like walking machines programmed to utter the same thing or think in the same way The infallibility is not to individuals and the Church was never depending on one human

I didn’t say so, what I said was that the Holy Spirit according to what Jesus said was supposed to guide you and teach you all things, so when a man is about to say a heresy, the Holy Spirit should warn him and tell him that what you are saying is a heresy, do that if he continued on, he has no excuse, and this means that he is saying a heresy and knowing it is a heresy, which means he is a heretic, I don’t take my religion from a heretic. And this has nothing to do with infallibility as there is a difference between a sin and a heresy, a man may do a sin and known he is wrong, and if he was condemned with that sin by others, he admits he is wrong, which is not the case of the heresy, because a man who says a heresy, and knowing it’s a heresy, if he was condemned by others, he will insist on his heresy, and the church fathers should have known whether what they are saying is a heresy or not as the Holy Spirit is supposed to guide them, and actually I see this as one of the main proofs that your Holy Spirit is not the Paraclete as he didn’t perform his job well.

it seems in Islam you cannot be sure of the companions’ infalibility since they might be wrong, because you do not believe Allah is guiding them, but their own fallible minds?

We don’t believe that there is a holy spirit teaching us to the whole truth, but if a judge made an ijtihad and he was true, he has 2 rewards, if he was wrong, he has one reward, so we have no problem if one of the Sahaba or the scholars said something wrong.

 

[Ibn_Taymiya]

It is the Muslim who believe the bible is corrupted. Why should we must proof it is corrupted. We believe the bible is not corrupted.

Well, I see a plenty of evidence that the Bible is corrupted, see the Bible section in my signature.

Any scientific analysis in Isnad?

What do you mean by a scientific analysis? I mean ask your question in a bit more detail.

 

[swariffin]

Well, I see a plenty of evidence that the Bible is corrupted, see the Bible section in my signature.

Because you give your own interpretation that way.

What do you mean by a scientific analysis? I mean ask your question in a bit more detail.

Standard scientific research and experiment, mentioning the method.