Proof for the Bible

[Sister_Amy]

BeeSweet!

You said: The first revelation was in 610, the Hijra was in 612, The battle of Badr was in 624, battle of Uhud was in 625, conquest of Mecca in 630 (obviously I only refer to a solar calendar). I mis spoke when I said battle of Mecca, I meant the earlier battles in the years 624 & 625 which were only a little more than 10 years after the first Qur’an revelations. The point I was making was that Islam came out of the gate fighting.

---

Hijra–the emigration to Medina–that was in 622.

I stand by my point, that the Muslims were persecuted IN MECCA for over a decade. Without lifting a finger to fight.

 

[AgnosTheist]

I see you dont really need my help for this thread to go off-topic.

I stand by my point, that the Muslims were persecuted IN MECCA for over a decade. Without lifting a finger to fight.

Hmmm, honestly if I go to Saudi Arabia and started to insult Islam and get beaten for it, whose fault is it?

 

[Booklover]

I see you dont really need my help for this thread to go off-topic.

Hmmm, honestly if I go to Saudi Arabia and started to insult Islam and get beaten for it, whose fault is it?

Vickie

 

[BeeSweet]

BeeSweet!

You said: The first revelation was in 610, the Hijra was in 612, The battle of Badr was in 624, battle of Uhud was in 625, conquest of Mecca in 630 (obviously I only refer to a solar calendar). I mis spoke when I said battle of Mecca, I meant the earlier battles in the years 624 & 625 which were only a little more than 10 years after the first Qur’an revelations. The point I was making was that Islam came out of the gate fighting.

---

Hijra–the emigration to Medina–that was in 622.

I stand by my point, that the Muslims were persecuted IN MECCA for over a decade. Without lifting a finger to fight.

612 was totally a typo ~ The Hijra was 622. I knew that…

It took at least a decade for Muhammed to get enough support and convert people to the faith. There were not a great many Muslims to be persecuted from 610 thru 622. The persecution couldn’t have been near what the early Christians endured, considering no one crucified Muhammed.

This is all splitting hairs anyway… I’m much more interested in the Qur’an and the Bible and their relationship to each other.

 

[Sister_Amy]

I see you dont really need my help for this thread to go off-topic.

Yeah, I managed to do it all by myself… or mostly. Whoops.

Hmmm, honestly if I go to Saudi Arabia and started to insult Islam and get beaten for it, whose fault is it?

That’s kind of a funny question. Why would you do that? If you knew you were going to be beaten I’d say it’s your fault, silly.

 

[AgnosTheist]

That’s kind of a funny question. Why would you do that? If you knew you were going to be beaten I’d say it’s your fault, silly.

well isnt that exactly what mohammad did? kept insulting the meccan beliefs that it came to a point that the Quraish begged him and offered him wealth & power only if he agreed to leave them alone. if you think about it, you would admire the meccans for putting up with him for some 12+ years. Do that in Saudi Arabia right now and you wouldnt last 12 minutes.

 

[oneGODoneCHURCH]

per this link :

ewtn.com/library/SCRIPTUR/GOSPELS2.TXT

Gospel of ST Mark written between 40 and 50 AD.
As to the OP if you honestly can not see the truth Of the
Bible over the quran. there is nothing anyone on here can say to you.

To me Its as simple as if you Believe In God then you Believe that his
Promise of salvation is with the Hebrews/Jews. That Jesus was the fulfillment of the Prophets as the supreme sacrifice for all so as to bring both Jew and gentile into the Promise of salvation. Case closed No more need to be said or done. So as with the book of morman the quran is another book which is unnecessary and serves only to pull people away form the light of the world The Lord Jesus Christ Son of the living God

 

[Dymphna2008]

This idea of “proof” finds itself redefining what proof really and truly is. If we look for history, we can find it, but remember, also, that the Bible contains story, poetry, Mishnah, all forms of literature. And yes, myth. But myth means a social development of a people’s expression of and shaping of their national and tribal life. So, the Bible is true archaeologically up to a point, but if we look for a literal truth in Adam and Eve, we lose sight of the formation by the authors of those stories; they wrote in a time that could not know about formal science and studies as we know them, so history was expressed in story and Mishnah–a Jewish technique of developing and re-using the basis of a story and its elements in illustrating points (ie. compare Pharoahs slaughter of the innocents with that of Herod)–to express who they are.

If you read closely, you can find the basis of the Genesis Creation story in Gilgamesh (ca. 2500 BCE). And that is true for other elements of the Bible as well. Thinking that the Bible is an original document in these terms, one dismisses or does not know how ancient the true history of man can be. It is a faith document, and in this way, it is true to what was written, as long as one does not question too closely form and substance and editorial development over the centuries. I am Catholic because I can believe in this way, without ejecting without thought, social and scientific evidence that on the surface is contradictory of faith, but underneath only gives us further thought for why we should accept and listen to the still, small voice while at the same time accepting the forms and science that make our culture what it is today.

If we remember that say, 3000 years from now, an archaeologist unearths one of the taller levels of the Empire State Building, without digging any deeper down than say the 80th floor, and begins to question how and who built it; without dump trucks, without earth moving vehicles or cranes to compare, they will draw their own conclusions about who New Yorkers were, and whether or not the building and other excavated parts of the city were built by aliens. We need to remember that we actually know very little about any of these periods, so we cannot just push one theory against another without truly thinking through all that makes us both people of faith and people of reasonable thought.

 

[Sister_Amy]

To me Its as simple as if you Believe In God then you Believe that his Promise of salvation is with the Hebrews/Jews. That Jesus was the fulfillment of the Prophets as the supreme sacrifice for all so as to bring both Jew and gentile into the Promise of salvation. Case closed No more need to be said or done. So as with the book of morman the quran is another book which is unnecessary and serves only to pull people away form the light of the world The Lord Jesus Christ Son of the living God

Hm. Why can’t I believe in God and believe that God has the power to save me without a sacrifice? How come I can’t believe that Jews and Gentiles are equally deserving of salvation and they can equally serve their Lord, and are judged equally, and that God can forgive them both?

Don’t you believe all men are created equally?

 

[agangbern]

In short, Christianity is the living proof for the bible.Without Christianity, there would be no bible to speak of. But because there is Christianity, so there is a bible.

 

[ZuzuBailey]

It seems to me there is more proof in the Bible than the Quran. The Bible is based on many authors who had this common thread. Its hard to say they are all wrong or had an agenda… unlike the quran who was by one man and clearly had an agenda.

 

[oneGODoneCHURCH]

Hm. Why can’t I believe in God and believe that God has the power to save me without a sacrifice? How come I can’t believe that Jews and Gentiles are equally deserving of salvation and they can equally serve their Lord, and are judged equally, and that God can forgive them both?

Don’t you believe all men are created equally?

You’re free to believe whatever you would like. The facts are that the sons of Adam fell from belief in God. God saved one family Noah’s, they repopulate the earth and of all the world God chose Abram to be the father of his chosen people these people are the Hebrew/Jews. As we see from the Bible the price of sin is death. God The sacrifices( of animals) of the old testament were the Price they paid for there sins.God through the Prophets tells us that he wants all of man to be saved from theirs sin and thus death. gave us the Prefect Sacrifice the Lord Jesus so that whoever believe in him shall not parish but have eternal life. You are correct that are both Jew and Gentile can equally share in the grace and salvation of God and the Lord Christ. to answer your Question about God saving us without sacrifice, Yes he could. but he would have to break his own decree that the price of sin is death. To break that God would sin and God can not Sin Therefore the sacrifice must be made.

 

[Sister_Amy]

You are correct that are both Jew and Gentile can equally share in the grace and salvation of God and the Lord Christ. to answer your Question about God saving us without sacrifice, Yes he could. **but he would have to break his own decree that the price of sin is death. **To break that God would sin and God can not Sin Therefore the sacrifice must be made.

This is kind of amusing to me, but would you indulge me for a moment and show me where in the Bible God makes this “decree” that the price of sin is death? Thanks in advance.

 

[Sister_Amy]

It seems to me there is more proof in the Bible than the Quran. The Bible is based on many authors who had this common thread. Its hard to say they are all wrong or had an agenda… unlike the quran who was by one man and clearly had an agenda.

That’s cute. The very obvious differences in the old covenant and the new are so profound to me that I could never believe that Biblical authors had a “common thread” or even had the some motives in their writing. Not to mention the differences between Gospel writers, between the book of James and the letters of Paul… yikes. But anyway…

What was his (i.e., Muhammad’s saws) clear agenda, according to you?

 

[Dymphna2008]

Teaching love and obedience to God is as much an agenda as anything else. It’s more acceptable, but it still has a goal. Simply reading the Bible won’t prove it’s authenticity; it is not a formal book in any modern sense. It was a collection by the Hebrew hierarchy, and later the Christian hierarchies, of what seemed a best expression of Israel’s and Judah’s development as nations under God. Many books were considered scripture, but in the end they worked the collection down to a number and a form that best reflected both Judah and Christianity. They are not books of sweetness and light; many are gory, horrible things to read, especially stories of Joshua, Judges, many others. But they don’t stint on facing the bad with the blessed. It must be so, in order to highlight all that is necessary for God to make himself known.

The Jews don’t see prophecies of Jesus fulfilled, they see a still future messianic hope; and they have no use for the New Testament. Christians see the fulfilment of prophecy because they need or want to, or that they’ve been taught to. Reading the scriptures without placing restrictions or expectations on it, one would not see Jesus in the Suffering Servant of Isaiah; they would, looking at the history of Judah, find Zerubbabel, the leader and prince of the people taken to Babylon between 600BCE and 586BCE, and that is who Isa. 40 - 53 was originally reflecting when it was composed at that time.

But that doesn’t mean we can’t look at scripture for analogy and synonym. Poetic license is taken regularly in scripture, and that makes agendas. The authors of the New Testament looked at the Old and found what they needed, and perhaps what God wanted to make them see. Jesus is one interpretation; it is the interpretation accepted and taught by the Church. And while I explain the differences and the possibilities in scripture, since not everyone is Catholic, or finds Catholic analogy apropos to their own purposes and agendas, I still chose to believe, in faith, what seems almost–note: I say almost–contradictory and baffling. We are human, and humans must find connections between the physical and spiritual, but we also want to be rational, to take why we believe and subject it to tests, which is a good thing, if not always done practically and correctly. But not all things evident can or should be tested, they just ARE, and faith makes sense rationally then.

What it comes down to is the possibility of living as rational men and women while at the same time bowing at the altar in hope of what we know must be redemption. Redemption from sin? Possibly, we have done many horrible things as creatures, redemption from destruction, certainly; we have only a thin veil of morality between us and total chaos.

 

[oneGODoneCHURCH]

This is kind of amusing to me, but would you indulge me for a moment and show me where in the Bible God makes this “decree” that the price of sin is death? Thanks in advance.

Ok let first start with to sin is to disobey God. Now we see In Genesis 2 verses 16-17
16 And he commanded him, saying: Of every tree of paradise thou shalt eat:

17 But of the tree of knowledge of good and evil, thou shalt not eat. for in what day soever thou shalt eat of it, thou shalt die the death.

And In Romans 6:23
23 For the wages of sin is death. But the grace of God, life everlasting, in Christ Jesus our Lord.

 

[Reuben_J]

What was his (i.e., Muhammad’s saws) clear agenda, according to you?

I have some idea on this which I don’t normally say in this forum unless pressed or asked. But since you posed the question …

Mohammad’s glaring agenda was to nullify the effect of the victory of Jesus which he won by his death and ressurection. These were absolute facts which Satan know too well. BY his death Jesus conquered death and sins. In other words, no more humans would be strangled by sins with death (eternal punishment in hell) as the death of Jesus had paid for them all. Thus anyone who believe in Jesus can recieved this salvation.

Satan’s action would always be to the oppposite to God’s and that’s to bring humans to sin and condemnation. Eventhough Jesus had died, Satan being what he is - the Tempter and the Accuser, could still bring humans to condemnation by misleading them by saying that Jesus did not actually die. So that they do not believe in Jesus and his death and him being the Savior. Without believing in Jesus there is no hope for humans and this falls into place with Satan’s purpose.

What this got to do with Mohammad? I can begin with that he was at the right place and the right time to be used by Satan. Mohammad illiteracy, bad childhood experience and personal charisma who lived at a time of disorganized Mecca made him a perfect choice for Satan’s agent.

So the Quranic revelations. The angel was Satan himself. Fed him with revelations and quenched his human weaknesses (in craving for love, attention, acceptance and sexual drive), there you have a ready made scenerio for Satan to implement his agenda and the unwitting compliance of Mohammad to the whole scheme.

Reuben.

 

[Lapell]

Frankly the Quran does not concern me. I don’t know Arabic and Muslims would say the translation is not like the real thing. So that leaves me with not much choice with your holy book. Anyway, I tried to scour through it sometimes but I find it boring so I would rather hear what Muslims say but then I don’t like what I hear.

But then again many Muslim posters who come here say that Jesus did not die on the cross, that he is not the Son of God and that the Bible is corrupt. Amy, can you ever imagine what it means to the Christians when you say that Jesus is not God or did not die on the cross?

It’s blasphemy! It’s gross attack on the core belief of Christianity. So a few souls like us would ask, who say so? And we found out it was the Quran which was revealed by Mohammad who heard it from an angel which heard it from Allah.

And so we want to find out the credibility of the source of the person who brought about these statements because of the great implication they have on our belief. That is where we find out that there is no credibility at all in Mohammad or the Quran to override what are said in the Bible. The identity of the angel was suspect and more so, Allah, since he had not shown himself but it was always the angel.

There was no prophecy about Mohammad in the earlier scriptures which he claimed to believe. The claim that he was prophesized was based on an indirect nuance that it looks like mere speculation. For a person or a book that claim to contradict the Bible that came before it and was written by people who were contemporaries of Jesus, we would like to see some evidence of what basis the claims were made. There were none. So that’s how it is.

As for the proof of the Bible, well, it is the same as for the proof that Mohammad was responsible for the Quran. That being equal, it is a matter whether we believe the Bible or the Quran. And all logic point to the Bible.

Reuben

Good points, Reuben. Did sister Amy or anyone else specifically reply to them? I’d be surprised…

 

[Lapell]

I’m sorry I must have missed this point. You made some really excellent points on this thread which I didn’t address… I’m sorry. Just want you to know though, they were excellent points (in my unauthorized opinion… lol.)
The Qur’an however does stand alone. It is the Bible which requries the support of the Bible. I.e., the NT relying on the OT, right? The Qur’an came to a people–the Arabs–who did not have in their possession ANY written scripture, so it’s rather illogical to claim dependence.

Thank you for your , but I still would prefer that the “excellent points” on this thread which were not addressed by you be… addressed. Can you?
About the Qur’an standing by itself and not depending on anything, it makes the Qur’an look quite baloney!! Because then, Muhammad’s claim to be the prophet announced in the Bible had to depend on what the Bible actually said, had it not? Even though all the surahs were claimed to come down from Allah… If Muhammad’s God is supposed to be the One true God, He should be the same God spoken of in the Bible… especially when Muhammad’s claim as a prophet was said to come directly from the Bible. And what means did Muhammad have to know that such part of the Bible was not corrupted?

 

[Lapell]

If you answer me: “Well! Through Allah’s angel!”, then I will have to make this observation: Satan can disguise as an angel of light. It’s not just said in the NT, but the Catholic Church has some experience in the matter. There have been many messages in her history claiming to come from heaven. Some were recognised as such, but many others, probably a great majority, were found to be false. Among the false “messengers”, many out of their pride still maintained their version, trying to make the Catholic Church look bad… I believe this can also happen outside of Christianity, since it has to do with finite human beings… “Errare humanum est!”